ML20054F141
| ML20054F141 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206150253 | |
| Download: ML20054F141 (22) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
NUC*IAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSICN 19 ) @h
% MJuWdLL BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOP.RD
'n de Ma ~ ~ cf: .
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY : DOCKET NO. 50-322-OL (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) :
DATE: June 11, 1982 PAM: 4299 - 4321 A;. Hauppauge, New York
/
\
.unetsox /^ azroamo f_ q 400 Vi_T nda Ave., S.W. W2*P# 5.g :=, D. C. 20024 Talaphc:a : (202) 354-2345
4299 O i oN1rEo STATES Or AnER1CA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING-BOARD 4 -----------------x 5 In the fatter oI:
6 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY a Docket No. 50-322-OL 7 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 8 ----- - -- ---------
9 Third Floor, B Building 10 Court of Claims 11 State of New York 12 State Office Building 13 Hauppauge, New York 14 Friday, June 11, 1982 15 The hetring in the above-entitled matter i
16 convened, pursuant to notice, at 9 04 a.m.
17 BEFORE:
18 LAWRENCE BRENNER, Chairman 19 Administrative Judge 20 21 JAMES H. CARPENTER, Member 22 Administrative Judge 23 24 PETER A. MORRIS, Member 25 Adminictrative Judge O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4300 1
() 1 APPEARANCESs 2 On behalf of Applicants I
3 W. TAYLOR REVELEY, III, Esq.
)
i 4 DONALD P. IPWIN, Esq.
5 ANTHONY F. EARLY, Esq.
6 Hunton & Williams 7 707 East Main Street 8 Richmond, Virginia 23212 9 On behalf of the NRC Regulatory Staff:
10 BERNARD BORDENICK: Esq.
11 Washington, D.C. 20555 12 On behalf of Suffolk Countys 13 LAURENCE COE LANPHER, Esq.
O 14 CHRISTOPHER M. McMURRAY, Esq.
15 Kirkpatrick,, Lockhart, Hill, 16 Christopher & Philiips 17 1900 M Street, N.W.
18 Washington, D.C. 20036 19 On behalf of Intervenor, 20 Shoreham Opponents Coalition:
21 ROBERT SHEA, Esq.
22 Twomey, Latham & Shea 23 33 West Second Street 24 Riverhead, N. Y. 11901 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4300-A 1
q q E T E E T_ E 2 ~
g I_ T_ g g S_ S. g S_
O -none-4 5 E X_ H I B_ I T'S_
6 .None-7 8
l 9
l 10 11 The 'Settleinent Agreement Concerning SOC '16 -- Clad ~
Swelling and Flow Blockage, dated June 10, 1982.....,page 4305 13 O 14 i
1r 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4301 0 1 2nocesorscs 2 (9:04 a.m.)
Good morning.
3 JUDGE BRENNERs 4 We did get the message last evening through 5 the courtesy of Mr. Bordenick that an agreement was 6 reached on iodine monitoring and that the implementation 7 in w ri ting was to be worked on this mornin g. So as we 8 understand it, we have no evidence to hear today, 9 The order of business, as we understand it, is 10 to discuss briefly what we believe is the agreement on 11 SOC 16, Clad Swell and Flow Blockage, and then hear from 12 the parties on iodine monitoring.
13 And af ter we adjourn for the day, we will be O 14 available for a discussion among counse) in chambers on 15 another matter.
16 Let us tske the clad swelling and flow 17 blockage agreement. The caption is " Settlement 18 Agreement Concerning SOC 16 -- Clad Swelling and Flow 19 Blockage," dated June 10, 1982, and signed by counsel 20 for the cognizant parties.
21 We reviewed the unsigned version last evening 22 and understand that there are no changes other than a 23 typographical error correction. Is that the case?
24 MR. IRWIN: Ihat is correct, Judge Brenner.
25 JUDGE BRENNER: Hell, we approve the agreement O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4302
() 1 with pleasure, in fact. It obviously show s the bases.
2 It is not a final agreement in the sense that this is )
l
(~T 3 necessarily the end of it. It contemplates the further l
\-)
4 analyses.
5 And we can readily understand and agree with 6 the parties' views that from the standpoint of both the 7 Intervenors and LILCO and the S ta f f , it is lik ely to be l 8 more productive than simple cross examination which we 9 suspect would have proceeded along similar lines. That 10 is, what if you varied this parameter, what if you 11 va ried tha t parameter. And we approve of the 12 agreement.
13 I have two relatively minor questions about
( 14 it. As we understand it, due to the absence of any l
l 15 reference in the agreement, there is no effect of the 16 entering into agreement by itself on the Staff 's view 17 that it will impose the license condition for the 18 reanalyses for the subsequent fuel cycle. Am I correct 19 in tha t ?
i 20 MR. IRWINa That is correct, Judge Brenner.
I 21 JUDGE BEENNER: Obviously, if there is a 22 settlement, there may well be a condition in the license l 23 by agreement rather than by imposition of the Board 24 pursuant to a litigation. And that is fine with us.
25 MR. IRWIN: It is also possible, in our view, l
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4303 O ' twet 1r cae st er review = the rurtaer ea 11ee we a we 2 performed, they may revise their review as to the 3 desirability 'of that license commitment. But we just do 4 not want to try to commit the parties to any positions 5 on that at this time.
6 JUDGE BRENNERs You anticipated my next 7 comment. And that appeared to be the case.
8 I take it Staff agrees with those 9 observations?
10 MR. BORDENICKa Yes, we do.
11 JUDGE BRENNERs There is a very minor thing.
12 The interplay between paragraphs 4 and 5 are not 13 perfectly clear on timing of the presentation to the O 14 Board. But it is fine with us. Obviously, the 15 resolution would be that you will let us know when the 16 analysis is available and perhaps give us a copy in the 17 same time frame that SOC is looking at it. And then 18 subsequently, within the time frame comtemplated, we 19 vill hear again as to whether there are any further 20 disagreements.
21 The agreemet is not quite written like that, 22 but obviously that is, I believe, what was intended.
23 MR. IRWIN: That s correct, Judge Brenner. We 24 had contemplated the parties would hold discussions 25 among themselves to determine wehether the analyses were O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4304
() 1 satisfactory to SOC before. presenting them to the Board 2 formally.
3 But we certainly would have no objection to 4 the Board's receiving them during the interim period of 5 analysis if that is the Board's with.
8 JDDGE BRENNER: I think it would help us. We 7 will not take any action on it, but we can start reading 8 things as we get them, unless presumably you will have 9 some preliminary discussions, and if you have an 10 indication tha t there are major things that might 11 change, you would let us know, too.
12 MR. IRWINs Yes. Our hope, and I think I can 13 speak for Mr. Shea on this too, is that the techinical O 14 people seem to understand each other quite clearly on 15 this, and I think there is a quite : mall likelihood that 18 there will be substantial disagreement on the outcome of 17 the analyses.
18 JUDGE BRENNERs Well, actually, I think the 19 scope was fully laid out. Unless I am missing ,
20 something, it was pretty clear to me even in terms of 21 what is going to be done. I did not mean that the 22 analyses necessarily were clear to ma.
23 Mr. Shea, did you have anything to add?
24 MR. SHEAs If the Board wants that early 25 version of the analysis, of course, we would have no O .
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRG'NIA AVE., S.W., WACHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4305
() 1 objection to it. We will be looking at it p'ossibly for 2 as such as a week before we advise LILCO of any 3 objections. It just depends on how much paper you can
[
4 cope with.
5 JUDGE BRENNER: I think we weald like it early 6 so long as -- obviously, the parties are coing to be in 7 communication over this, as contemplated by the 1 .
8 agreement and your general approach. If the thing is j 9 greatly up in the air, do not give it to us. If it is 10 subject only to your finetuned review, then we will take 11 it.
12 MR. SHEA: Fine.
13 JUDGE BRENNER: When you get an opportunity --
14 presumably this will be formally filed in the proceeding I
15 --
it might be a good idea to bind it into the i
16 transcript at this point in addition and then when the
- 17 final analysis is discussed, we can refer back to it l 18 he re, if that is acceptable.
f j 19 MR. IRWIN: We have copies for the reporter.
- 20 And that would be a good idea if we could bind it into i
21 the transcript at this point.
22 JUDGE BPENNER: All right, let us do it.
23 [The " Set tlemen t Agreemen t Concerning SOC 16 24 -- Clad Swelling and Flow Blockage," dated June 10, 25 1982, follows: 1 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4//
O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
( .
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGilTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322(01.)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CONCERNING SOC 16 -- CLAD SWELLING AND FLOW BLOCKAGE This agreement, by and among LONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY (LILCO), the SIIOREllAf1 OPPONENTS COALITION (SOC),
the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGULATORY STAFF (NRC Staf f) and SUFFOLK COUNTY (SC) (hereinafter collectively, the Parties), dated as of June 10, 1982.
WIIEREAS , SOC, an Intervenor in the above-captioned proceeding, has filed SOC Contention 16, alleging that because of clad swelling and flow blockage, the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) designed for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station may not nieet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, in respects set forth in detail in the full contention, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit I hereto; and
_2-Wif EREAS , the' Partles holieve that resoltition of
-the substantive issues-raised by SOC Contention
(} 16 on mutually acceptable terms is preferable-to litigation thereof and have met in'an attempt to resolve SOC's substantive concerns with respect to SOC Contention 16; and-WHEREAS, on the basis of.these discussions, SOC is willing to withdraw contention 16 in return for the performance of.an analysis by IILCO.on the.
terms and conditions contained herein; and-WilEREAS , the Staff and SC do not oppose the resolution
, of SOC 16 on the terms agreed to by SOC and LILCO; Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual'repre-sentations and promisen contained herein,- the Parties agrec as follows:
- 1. LILCO will perform, within 14 days from the signing hereof, an analysis of a " worst case" design basis accident, described below, which analyzes the performance of the shoreham ECCS using Shoreham's actual plant parameters. Such analysis shall une actual values for the Shoreham reactor including actual values with respect to the following parameters:
() (1) veasel size and internals; (2) fuel design (prepressurized 8x8R);
-(3) ECCS configuration; (4) reflood time; (5) BWR-4 design features relevant to
(~?g J
design basis aceident. analyses not otheiwise speci fied; and (6) worst-case _ fuel operating history.
- 2. The analysis will duplicate the shoreham speci-fic analysis provided in the FSAR. No assumptions or parameter values will be used that differ from those used in the FSAR for the initial core bundles with the following exceptions:
(1) The adjusted GE/NRC rupture stress versus temperature curve (approved by-O- NRC in-letter, dated May 11,-1982, from 11a rold Bernatd (NRC) to Dr. G. G. Sherwood (GE), " Supplementary Acceptance Licensing-Topical Report NEDE-20566A-(P)") will be used in place of the former GE curve.
(2) Prepressurized 8x8R fuel will be analyzed since that will be the fuel actually loaded into the Shoreham reactor.
This She cham specific analysis will incorporate the parameters referenced by SOC in its request
(} for settlement and referred to in paragraph 1
- above. The analysis shall include:
i i
e I
h i
I
-4 .
r (1) a description of the coden-'and l
processes used in'the analysis;
(} (2) a list-of signi'ficant input parameters used for the Shoreham specific analysis;
-(3) a list of the results of'the analysis and an explanation of them; and (4) a comparison of these analysis results with previous Shoreham results.
- 3. Upon completion of such analysis, and in any event not later than June 25, 1982, except as O may be extended by consent of SOC, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, LILCO will provide ,
copies of the analysis to all the Parties hereto.
- 4. Except as provided in paragraph 5 below, LILCO and SOC shall present the analysis to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) on the next available hearing day, and SOC shall at that time reque s t- the ASLB, by motion, to accept the analy-sis into the record of the proceeding in resolution.
of the issues raised by SOC Contention 16.
() S. Wi thin one week af ter receipt of such analysis, except ac may be extended by consent of LILCO, which j
!?
_5 shall not be unreasonably withheld, SOC shall pro-vide to LII,CO any objections it has to the results s) or methodology used.therein, such objections
%.)
shall'be limitad to specific contentions that LILCO has not performed the analysis in the manner stated in paragraph 2 above, and any such contention shall (a) identify the items J
in the analysis alleged to be inconsistent with paragraph 2, and (b) state SOC's belief of what should have been done along with SOC's basis for that belief. LlLCO agrees to cooperate with SOC in resolving any questions or objections SOC may have to the analysis. If, at the end of i f\_w) one week following receipt of the analysis by 4
o.
SOC, no objections to its results have been received by LILCO or, if after LILCO's trans-i mission of the results of the initial analysis to SOC, LILCO and SOC shall have reached a mutually acceptable resolution of any questions-or objections raised by SOC, the Parties shall present the analysis promptly'to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) in the manner described in paragraph 4 above.
{} 6. In the event that LILCO, for any reasons not acceptable to SOC, does not perform the analysis
contemplated hereby in a~ timely fashion, or if the Parties are unable to agree upon an appro-priate resolution of questions or objections O raised by SOC pursuant to paragraph-5 to the analysis as performed by LILCO, then SOC or LILCO shall promptly at any time following the' deadline for performance of such action or consummation of such agreement, requent the Licensing Board to reschedule the SOC Contention 16 in the heari.ng for cross-examination.
{
t %
,./ 4 Counsel for Long Island O. Lighting Company founselforShoreham Opponents Coalition L'%t& ta yM (Vtf$iN i l' Counsel for NRC Regulatory S ta f f W ~
w$
Counsel for SuffolE County DATED: June 10, 1982 0
1
--~ -
1 Exhibit 1 ,
(page 1 of 2) !
.. +
-zo-1.,
a) the system inoperative alarms fo the screenwell pumpheuse vent sys .... re l a y ,
thm emergency switchgear ro . exhaust air s y s te.. the battery rcom ent system, the
(~3 x/ RBSUS ch er equipme room vent system and the dies room- emergency vent sys-tem cannot be m 111y activated in the ,
control room; (b) the por on of the compress _ air system servi the SRV's does not hav unique sv' em inoperative alarm; and there is inadequate indication of the status (including bypass conditions) of systems and power sources on the Remote Rhutanup Panel.
SOC 16: CLAD SWELLING AND l' LOW BLOCKAGE The ECCS at Shoreham may not meet the requirements of 10 CFR SOC's Part 50 because of clad swelling and flow blockage. In view, 1 ,. new test results obtained by the NRC Staff and re-
) ported in NUREG-0630 flow blockage is inadequate. show that modeling of clad swelling and MURZG-0630, the NRC Staff Subsequent to the publication of reviewed information submitted by LILCO and General Electric and concluded that operation of Shoreham during the first cycle will be acceptable.
agrees and contends that: SOC dis-(a) There is inadequate assurance that the ECCS system at Shoreham is acceptable because of clad swelling and flow block-age problems in that:
(i) there is no margin in the calculated LOCA peak clad temperature (PCT);
(11) the LOCA analysis used assumed unpressurized fuel but Shoreham will use pressurized fuel; (iii) the PCT increases due to enhanced pq fission gas release are only esti-J nates and the analysis is incomplete; (iv) the calculated net increase in PCT (increase caused by deficiencies in the fission gas model less decrease
Exhibit 1
- (page 2 Of 2)
A.
due to improved thermal-hydraulic models) is the difference between two large, approximate numbers and there-fore may have a large degree of
(~)
V uncertainty; (v) the decreases in PCT- assumed as a result of using new thermal-hydraulic models are only estimates:
(vi) the burst-strain sensitivity study neglected the effects of Zircaloy oxidation heat; and (vii) in the burst-strain sensitivity study, the base case flow blockage was not used in .some of the cases analyzed.
(b) There is inadequate assurance that the reanalysis requested by the NRC Staff for Shoreham's second fuel cycle and beyond will show that the ECCS system meets 10 r35 CFR $ 50.46 and Part 50, Appendix K with respect to clad swelling and flow block-V age.
H -GOG .u MZ : 0:' 10. Tr L :JuCZ n , I;. TC '?U.MP Y """c d
tfatt operatajorplantscontributing were not factor in the required by TMI-2 the NRCaccide S was
( Staff) to be f
( t.e., Regulatory compliance with current regulato practices 4 des, Branch Technical Pos' ons, and Standard Review Plans The TM1-2 accident aat the current regulat practicec, so demonstrated t
hose being applied by the ctices similar to ff in 5
.1r safety evaluation of horeham, were in a number of u so not suitably 1jc properly protect the health conservative ojdrogen generation, radiat safety of the public (i.e.,
shiet 'ng, source terms, and bngle failure criterion 30C contends that NRC Staff has not requi
- orporato measu" LILCO to in-atancards or to assure that Shoreham confo with the m
latory '
- s.
als of safety criteria contained in 1
(_/q Shorer As a result, the Staff has not require ent hat regu -
qu}dc. by structuree, 10 CFR 6 50.55a,syetems, and components be backfit a e-CF- S 50.57, and S 50.109 with regar
- 4306
() 1 (Board conferring.)
2 JUDGE BRE3NER: All right, we know less about r 3 the resolution of the iodine monitoring pair of 4 contentions other than the. message I referred to, and we 5 would like to hear from the parties on that.
6 MR. EARLY: Judge Brenner, we have an 7 agreement that has been typed up. Other than making 8 sure that the wording reflects the substantive agreement 9 th a t we reached in the settlement negotiations, that to agreement thould be signed this morning.
11 JUDGE BRENNER: All right, we are not going to 12 stay in session just to receive the agreement. You can 13 give it to us when it is available, next week perhaps or 14 whenever it is convenient. Do you want to tell us a 15 little bit ebout it?
16 MR. EARLEY The settlement agreement involves 17 LILCO producing three pieces of information. First, we 18 are providing Suffolk County with detailed information 19 about the design of the iodine monitoring system.
20 Secondly, we are providing Suffolk County and SOC with 21 information involving the radiation levels that will be 22 expected at the iodine monitors. And third, we are 23 providing information about the accuracy of each element 24 of the iodine monitoring process. The sample collection 25 probe, the sample itself, and the counting equipment.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4307
( 1 And then we will calculate inaccuracies associated with 2 each piece of th e iodine monitoring system and provide
(} 3 that information to Suffolk County and SOC.
4 In return, the County has agreed to withdraw 5 its contention, Suffolk County 28.A.iii. And SOC will 6 withdraw 7.A.3. Also, those parties will withdraw 7 Suffolk County Contention 27.C and SOC 3.C, which also 8 involve iodine monitoring equipment.
9 The contentions are very similar. The County 10 has expressly reserved a right to argue in the emergency 11 planning phase of the case that the overall accuracy of 12 the iodine monitoring system is not acceptable for 13 emergency planning purposes, but the parties do not O 14 in tend to go back and litigate the actual design of the 15 iodine monitoring system.
16 Judge Brenner, I have just been informed the 17 language has been agreed to, and as soon as we make the 18 change, we can have it signed and delivered shortly.
19 MR. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, the agreement, 20 when you see it, there is one thing that the Board 21 should be aware of in terms of a potential emergency 22 planning contention in this area. We do not know 23 whether the degree of accuracy which they calculate will 24 be achieved is going to give us cause for concern or 25 not. And so the agreement states that we will submit O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4308 <
() 1 such a contention if we do have a concern either on June )
2 22 or within 14 days after receiving the information l 3 from LILCO.
[}
l 4 Now, in fact, the target date for receiving 5 LILCO's information is, I believe, July 15. So this is 6 one area that the emergency planning contention will 7 need to be preserved, and we just want you to realize 8 that.
9 JUDGE BRENNERa That sounds fins, given the t )
l 10 nature of the agreement and the pending receipt of the 11 additional informa tion.
12 Mr. Bordenick.
13 MR. BORDENICX: I have several observations on O 14 the agreement from the Staff's point of view. Although 15 what I am going to indicate is not expressly stated in l 16 the agreement, it is probably implicitly in the 17 agreement, but I do want to state it explicitly on the 18 re co rd .
19 The Staff has approved the agreement.
20 However, in our view, the agreements undertaken by the 21 Applicant go beyond the requirements of the NRC Staff 22 and our involvement in the negotiation or negotiating 23 process was principally with a view to determining that (O
,) 24 nothing that the Applicant agreed to was inconsistent 25 with our requirements which we have found is the case.
O 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4309
() 1 And additionally, it does not affect any other 2 commitments or requirements that the Applicant has made 3 to the Staff in the context of the Staff's review. I 4 think that is understood by all the parties.
5 Finally, the agreement does not provide for 6 the Applicant to submit a copy of the information that 7 they are going to give to the Intervenors, and I have 8 not spoken to the Applicant regarding the matter, and I 9 do not think it is necessary to go back to retype the 10 agreement. But the Staff would like a copy, a courtesy 11 copy more or less, on that indicating that we will not 12 be making reviews on it. But the request was made to me l 13 by the cognizant Staff member that we do receive a 14 courtesy copy.
15 MR. EARLEY4 We will provide that information 16 to the Staff.
17 JUDGE BRENNER: All right, it sounds fine to
( 18 me personally. Af ter we see the written agreement, the 19 en tire Boa rd will look at it and get back with you 20 promptly, probably at the beginning of next week. And 21 by that time, it will be executed and filed. And we 22 can, if you like, bind it into the transcript whan we 23 come back to discuss it at the very beginning of next 24 week.
25 I think I see the quid pro quo in it, O
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRG:NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4310
() 1 notwithstanding the ruling on the motion to strike by 2 the Board. The County is getting some of the 3 information it would have sought within that context on 4 the accuracy of the equipment from LILCO. LILCO, in 5 turn, is avoiding time and energy spent in litigating 6 the issue. And it sounds like a reasonable settlement 7 from that point of view.
j 8 I certainly understand the reservation with 9 respect to emergency planning. I had not contemplated 10 the effect, although it should have been clear to me j
11 from the subject matter, on Suffolk County 27.C and SOC 12 3.C. My skeleton list of contentions here does not 13 differentiate subparts of Suffolk County 27 or SOC 3.
() 14 There are other parts still remaining, I tcke it. -
15 MR. EARLEY: Yes, Judge, there are.
16 JUDGE BRENNERs Presumably, at least A and B.
i 17 I do not remember how many parts there are.
18 MR. EARLEY: I think it goes to J or K.
I 19 JUDGE BRENNER: That is right. I remember i
20 that one now.
i 21 (Board conferring.)
i 22 JUDGE BRENNER: All right, subject to our 23 looking at the written agreement, the approach sounds 24 very reasonable to us -- to me. We will discuss it.
i 25 That is all we have for today.
l
()
I i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4311
() 1 MR. R EV EL EY a Judge, let me raise one other 2 point. Perhaps we can reach an agreement on how to get 3 the FS AR and SER and its supplements into the reco rd.
[}
4 I have talked briefly this morning with Mr.
5 Lanpher and Mr. Bordenick, and while I am not sure that 6 we have agreed on an approach, let me suggest one and 7 see if we can agree.
8 JUDGE BRENNER: let me -- I am not going to 9 stop you if you want to pursue it. But is it not better 10 to reach the understanding among the parties and then 11 come back to us?
12 MR. REVELEY: I may be proceeding from an 13 erroneous assumption, but I think we are so close to O 14 agreement, if I state it perhaps everyone will agree.
15 And if I am wrong, it will not take more than 3 or 4 16 minutes.
17 JUDGE BRENNER: All righ t.
18 MR. REVELEY: What I would propose, against 19 the background of the practice that we are now following 20 of identifying any portions of the FSAR or SER on which 21 the Applicant or Staff plan to rely for the truth of the 22 facts asserted, against that background I would propose 23 that we simply stipulate into the record those documents 24 as they now exist.. Should those documents be omitted in 25 the future as to the FSAR or supplemented as to the SER, O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4312
() I those amendments or supplements would have to come in 2 separately at the time that they arise.
3 I believe Er. Lanpher is amenable to that
{~/}
~
4 approach. If not, he can say so.
5 JUDGE BRENNER: Let me add what I think is 6 implicit. If any of the supplements or amendments 7 relate to parts that were particularly identified in 8 connection with contentions or will be particularly 9 identified in connection with contentions yet to be 10 litigated, that will be specified as part of the notice 11 that there is an update.
12 HR. REVELEY: Yes, that is right. And that 13 would fall under our current practice of identifying any 14 portions of those documents on which we plan to rely for 15 evidentiary purposes.
i 16 JUDGE BRENNERs Right. Or had relied in the 17 past.
18 MR. REVELEY Or had relied in the past.
19 MR. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, that approach is 20 generally acceptable to Suffolk County. I want to point 21 out one aren where we have already, I think, got a 22 problem, a bit of a problem. I am not sure if we are 23 going to be meeting on it later this morning.
24 That has to do with the electrical separation l 25 issue. A recent amendment to the FSAR, received after I
C:)
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i,
[ U\
\ 4313 y.
s
() 1 ve filed our testimony on thst issue, vsry materially 2 changes a number of FSAR sections that were relied upon 3 directly in the Suffolk County testimony. We may need 4 to file some supplementary or amended testimony with 5 respect to that, given a moving target, so to speak, of 6 the FSAR.
7 We have not had the opportunity to focus 8 precisely on what we want to do on that. But given the 9 fact that the FSAR is a moving target, as we -- if we 10 ge t amendments tha t specifically affect contentions, we 11 want to reserve that opportunity. Otherwise,sthe record s m ,
12 may be really i.bly confused. s 13 JUDuc BRENNER: Well, you do 'not have to 14 c: serve it. The proper approach is if there is 15 scmething new that materially changes anything in your 16 prefiled testimony or even in something,,that we have ,
17 already litigated, you would point to vbat, in your 18 view, is the change and, you know, haveIa'1brief outline 19 of what you think the change is and so-on~ .
20 Do you want to tell us what amendment number 21 that is and so on, because I have not read it.if it is 22 something that just came in?
23 MR. LANPHER: I do not recall the amendment 24 number. It came in toward the end of May. It is a big 25 amendment. It is about an inch and a half thick. And O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
to 4314
,< f
./
() _1 in there it changes the electrical separation table, f.
2 which is appended as one of the exhibits to the Suffolk i ~,'
3 ,C unty testimony about the separation criteria. It 4 ch anges tnat ra ther ma terially.
5 .' JUDGE BRENNERs All right. I can focus on it 6 from what you have just told me.
7 MR. LANPHERs When I get back to the office, I 8 can get you the exact number.
9 JUDGE BRENNER: I can find it. I will 10 reference it back from the table in your testimony.
11 MR. LANPHER: Okay.
12 JUDGE CARPENTER: Mr. Lanpher, you do not 13 think the new information will provide a basis for 14 negotiation?
15 MR. LANPHER: As I said this morning, Judge 16 Carpenter, as soon as we adjourn this morning, we plan a 17 preliminary meeting amonc the electrical separation 18 people to find out what is going on, so to speak. And I 19 cannot answer your question yes or no. We are pursuing 20 , discussions on all issues pursuant to your request.
21 MR. REVELEY: Judge Carpenter, we do very much 22 - ' think- the new information may provide a basis for 23 discussions that will be fruitful. We will see this 24 morning.
25 What I would propose to do then is put O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINtA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4315 1 together i list of the documents, FSAR documents, SEE 2 documents, as they now exist, that would be the subject
(} 3 of the stipulation and present it to the Board and 4 parties next week.
5 JUDGE BRENNER: That is fine. And I think it 6 is consistent with one of our passing observations that 7 it did not make a lot of sense to bring a live witness 8 down when the witness was not going to be cross examined 9 on the substance of it in any event.
10 I might add it seemed to me -- maybe I am 11 reaching the wrong inference -- that our desire that the 12 particular points relied on in these basic documents be 13 specified has caused some surprise.
14 It is incomprehensible to me how documents 15 th a t la rg e , the parties and the Board could be expected 16 1 ster for the first time to see that this section over 17 there relates very much to the testimony that was 18 given. And I just do not know how we could proceed in a 19 proceeding like this with this bulk of material in any 20 other fashion.
21 MR. REVELEY: I think your spproach is 22 perfectly rational against the background of prior 23 experience with the AEC and NRC proceedings. It has not 24 always been customary to do that, but I think the 25 approach that we are now following is certainly fair.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4316 1 And we do not have any problem with it at all.
2 JUDGE BRENNERa Well, I wanted to be very
() 3 candid on the record. For myself, I do not intend to 4 raad the antire FSAR. Normally, I try to be diligent
. 5 about reading everything in the record. We are putting 6 the FSAR in the record, but as we all have recognized, 7 in a rather different category, and I am not going to 8 read the entire thing. I do want to read everything I 9 should read in it, put into the issues tha t we have to If) decide. And that was the reason.
11 (Board conferring.)
12 ER. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, I have one other l 13 ma tter I just wanted to report to the Board about. I O 14 mentioned earlier this week that we were going to review 15 the GE Reid Report. And that has arrived, and we are 16 planning to do that todsy.
I 17 We are not sure whether we will use it or want 18 to use it or not. Suffolk County consultants are 19 signing, well, confidentiality agreements, in the event 20 that we do wish to use it.
21 We have agreed with LILCO and wi th the GE 22 attorney -- in fact, Mr. Firestone, who entered a 23 special appearance on an earlier matter -- that there is 24 a particular GE employee who has personal knowledge 25 about it. He is not listed on the LILCO 7.B panel, but O
~
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4317
() 1 he would be made available in the event that we need to 2 direct questions on that matter.
3 JUDGE BRENNER: Do you want to tell me, if you 4 can without revealing your strategy, what portion of 7.B 5 you think you are going to use the Reid Report for?
6 (Pause.)
7 JUDGE BRENNER: Because I told you, just 8 speaking for myself, I have heard of the Reid Report.
9 That is the extent of my knowlege of its substance.
10 MR. LANPHER: Again, given the fact that I 11 have not seen it and I could not talk about it until I 12 just signed this affidavit -- this nondisclosure 13 agreement --
this is my impressions the main portion of O 14 the testimony to which it would relate rea,11y is part 15 2.A of the 7.B testimony, General Electric design and 16 operating experience, psges 8 to 20 of the prefiled 17 testimony. But that is without prejudice to other 18 things. I just have not reviewed it.
19 JUDGE BRENNER: No. I asked solely to help 20 me, not to pin you down.
21 BR. LANPHER: But GE does consider this to be 22 highly proprietary information. In the event that we 23 believe that we need to pursue it, it probably would 24 necessita te an in camera session. And we would propose 25 that if that needs to take place, it take place at an O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, o.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4318
() 1 appropriate time next Thursday.
2 JUDGE BRENNERs Well, you alread y know we do 3 not like in camera sessions, and if we can avoid it, we 4 vant to avoid them. If we have to have it, it should be 5 very short and sweet, so to speak, and not have it 6 intermingled with other matters so th a t we cannot 7 separate it out.
8 MR. LANPPER: That is our intention, to 9 proceed that way, mindful of -- I do not think anyone 10 particularly likes in camera sessions.
11 JUDGE BRENNERs Incid en tally , the matter you 12 just raised reminds me of two other minor ma tters. One 13 is presumably we will hear when and if the proprietary 14 Stone & Webster matter is finally resolved.
15 When last we heard, it was based only on a 16 copy of the letter you provided, Mr. Lanpher, from Mr.
17 Edgar to Ms. Letsche. Everybody contemplates 18 resolution, but is far as we know, it has not been quite 19 nailed down yet. Presumably, you will let us know as 20 soon as it is.
l 21 MR. L ANPH ER : I will.
22 JUDGE BRENNER: Another minor ma tter. On 7.B l
23 ve had asked for a listinc of the portions of LILCO's 24 testimony which LILCO agreed should be deleted, and we 25 wanted it by Monday morning, although Mr. Ellis -- we ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4319
() 1 received it. I am sorry. Judge Morris has his copy.
2 If I have one, I lost it or I never saw it.
3 MR. EARLEY: Judge, I handed it to you earlier
(' }
4 this morning, but I can get you another copy if it is 5 not there.
6 JULGE BRENNER: I will get a copy from Judge 7 Morris, unless you have one handy after we break. I am 8 sorry, I did not f ocus on it when you handed it to me, 9 and I do not know what I did with it, if anything.
10 MR. LANPHERa Judge Brenner, if I could, you 11 have jogged my me mo ry on one other thing that I meant to 12 raise this morning with respe'ct to 7.B, particularly.
13 The LILCO testimony is extensive, and in our O 14 prepara tion , we may desire to use more than one attorney 15 to pursue that cross examination, not overlapping as to 16 substantive areas, though.
17 JUDGE BRENNERa No problem.
18 HR. LANPHER: Thank you.
19 JUDGE BRENNERs In addition, we had mentioned 20 that space limitations alone might require some sort of 21 division of the panel at the table. So if you and LILCO 22 understand the order in which you will take the 23 different sub-subjects, tha t migh t assist the logistics 24 of it so we do not waste any time on it on Tuesday with 25 that kind of matter. That is, all the witnesses would O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4320
) I be here, but some would be at the table and some would 2 be in the audience.
(N, 3 Also, on 7.B, Mr. Lanpher, we are not going to V
4 be able to rule today on the motion to strike. And I 5 think that is consistent tith the view we expresred.
6 You should assume that motion would be denied in your 7 preparation.
8 We have had prelimina ry discussions, and we 9 are not ready for a ruling. But if we had been very, to very close to striking significant portions of it, we 11 would have tried to give you that indication to assist 12 your preparation. But ycu have cotten the indication as
,- 13 of now that I just gave you.
k!
x/ 14 ER. IRWIN: Jud;e Brenner, I have what I hope 15 is just simply a minor ad'ition to the Welter paper.
16 There is a reference to an Exhibit 1 in the testimony on 17 clad swelling and flow blockage. It was inadvertently 18 not attached. I will distribute copies to the Board, 19 the copies of the report a t this time.
20 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. Le t us go off the 21 record.
22 (Discussion off the record.)
23 JUDGE BRENNER All right, I think we can 24 adjourn for the day. Let us do that. Fe will reconvene 25 at 10:30 a .m. on Tuesday in this room.
I)
V ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (207) 554 2345
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ - _ _ . _ , _ _ _ _ _ . -- _ _ . .___ ._. ______ . __.-_ - - . . _ . ~
l s
4321. !
l
}
4 i
! 1 (Thereupon, at 9:32 a.m.,.the hearing was 2 adjourned, to reconvene at 10430 a.m. on T ue sda y , June 3 15, 1982.)
4 r 5
f 6
I t 8 l 9
34 l 10 11
( 12 r
13 14 15 t
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 F
23 24 25 G
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (702) 554
_______.-.______________________,____.______._.____.__._.,_________-2345_ _ . _ _ _ _ , . , _ . _
)
1 l0 ,
NUC:2AR IEGtLL*CRT COMMISSIC*T This is to. certify that the attached proceedings before the
- )
1 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the matter of: LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station)
Date of Proceeding: June 11, 1982
- Docket Number
- 50-322-OL
, Place c'f Proceeding: Hauccauge, New' York l were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript i
chereof for the file of the Commission.
1 t
I, David'S. Parker i
! Official Reporter (Typed) 1
^
,0__ t A - ./
l (SIGEL".TRE 07 REPCRTER)
- O Q../
C . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . - . . , _ - -
- _ ____ _ _ - . - - , - . - _ . _ _ _ - . - - - . - - - - . - -