ML20054G420
| ML20054G420 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206210540 | |
| Download: ML20054G420 (202) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
NUC'.IAR P.IGUI.ATORY COMMISSICN D '.Y I ,(
J u .J O\
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
(
In the Mattar ef: :
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY : DOCKET NO.' 50-322-OL.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) :
k
. 4520 - 4656 DATI: June 17, 1982 PAGgs: 4748 - 4775 .
AT: Hauppauge, New York C
W '.
parAep
.U3ERSON /'
/~. (, REPORMG 400 vi_ginia Ave., S.W. Washing ===, D. C. 20024 Talaphc=a: (202) 554-2345
- J N !asac a
- ;on1,
[I'#' /1I UC W 0 5 0.[,(1]p on p
. 4520 m
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA J 1 2 NUCLEAR BEGULATORY COMMISSION
^ 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 5 In the Matter of a ,
6 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY : Docket No. 50-322-OL 7 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) s 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 9
10 Third Floor, B Building 11 Court of Claims 12 State of New York State Office Building
( 13 14 Hauppauge, N ew. York 15 Thursday, June 17, 1982 i 16 The hearing in the above-entitled matter 17 convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:03 a.m.
18 BEFORE:
19 LAWRENCE BRENNER, Chairman i
20 Administrative Judge 21 22 JAMES CARPENTER, Member 23 Ad.91nistrative Judge 24 25 PETER A. MORRIS, Member
' Administrative Judge
]
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
4521
] 1 APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of Applicants 3 ANTHONY F. EARLEY, Esq.
4 W. TAYLOR REVERLEY III, Esq.
5 T.S. ELLIS III, Esq.
6 DONALD P. IRWIN, Esq.
7 Hunton & Williams 8 707 East Main Street 9 Richmond, Va. 23212 10 On behalf of the Regulatory Staff:
11 DAVID A. EEPKA, Esq.
12 RICHARD RAWSON, Esq.
13 Washington, D.C.
14 On behalf of Intervenor, 15 Shoreham Opponents Coalitions 16 STEVEN LATHAM, Esq.
17 Twomey, Latham E Shea 18 33 West Second Street 19 Riverhesd , N .Y. 11901 20 21 22 23 L 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4522 g 1 APPEARANCES: (Continued) 2 3 On behalf of Suffolk County:
D 4 LAWRENCE COE LANPHER, Esq.
5 HERBERT W. BROWN, Esq.
8 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, 7 Christopher & Phillips 8 1900 M Street, N.W.
9 Washington, D.C. 20036 10 11 On behalf of General Electric Company 4 12 EDWARD A. FIRESTONE, Esq.
13 General Electric Company 14 175 Curtner Avenue - M/C 823 15 San Jose, California 95125 16 37 18 19 20 21 22 23 l 24 25 D
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
14523 1 E q E T, E E T E 2 WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS William J. Roths, 4 George F.
Dawe,(Resumed)
George Garabedian, (Resumed) 5 Pio W. Ianni, (Resumed)
Robert M. Kascsak, (Resumed) 6 Paul J. McGuire, (Resumed)
Paul W. Riegelhaupt (Resumed) &
7* David J. Robare (Resumed)
By Mr. Lanpher 4576 8
g (Afternoon Session... page 4657) 10 George F. Dawe, George Garabedian, 11 Pio W. Ianni, Robert M. Kascsak, 12 Paul J. McGuire, 13 Paul W.*Riegelhaupt and
. David J. Robare (Resumed) '
sy Mr. Lanpher 14 4750 15 EXHIBITS 16 NUMBER IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE 7
18 LILCO Exhibit Nos. 11 and 12 4560 4560 19 Staff Exhibit Nos. 2A, 2B and 2C 4560 4560 Suffolk County Exhibit No. 17 4648 20 NRC Staff Motion to Strike Portions of the Testimony of 21 Gregory C. Minor on SOC Contention 9................... page 4530 22 List of License Application and Staff Review Documents 23 Admitted into Evidence by Stipulation.................. page 4558
'24 Motion of Long Island Lighting Company to add William J. Roths as Witness on SC/ SOC Contention 7B and SOC 25 Co n t e n t i o n 19 ( b ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 4563 D
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4523-A 1 E E E 1 E E 1 S. (Cont'd) 2 The October 31st, 1980 Protective Order............. page 4572 D 4 RECESSES:
5 Morning - 4375 6 Noon - 4656 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I
25 9
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4524
) 1 P_P O C E E D I N__G S 2 JUDGE BRENNER Good morning.
3 We have a number of miscellaneous matters, 4 which we will try to handle as quickly as possible, and 5 then we vill resume the cross-examination of the 6 witnesses by Suffolk County on contention 7(b).
7 As a minor matter, yesterday I passed out an 8 order which was issued some time ago in another 9 proceeding, in the Three Mile Island restart 10 proceeding. The sole reason for handing that cut was to 11 make sure we had uniform citing conventions in the 12 findings. And Roman numeral II of that order is the 13 pertinent portion.
14 The only addition I would add is that, since 15 we have bound in many exhibits, where citing an exhibit, 16 in addition to the exhibit number include the notation, 17 f ollo win g the transcript page, wherever it is, as much 18 as we do with bound-in testimony.
19 I believe those conventions are useful. If 20 the parties jointly want to propose changes, that is 21 okay also. The main point is to get them uniform.
22 In terms of more substantive advice from the 23 Board on the format for proposed findings of fact and I 24 conclusions of law, we will not be prepared to discuss 25 that with tne parties until the week after the break at 9
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4525 I the earliest. We are still discussing that among the
])
2 Board. You will not be wasting your effort if you 3 p re pa re them for now in much the same forma t as has been 4 traditional.
5 We are going to point out some changes. What 6 the changes are likely to be, a requirement for an 7 additional section as opposed to doing the basic section 8 differently. So there is no need not to be working on 9 the proposed findings now. In fact, my experience has 10 been, if you're not working on them by no's you're going 11 to be in trouble in terms of time schedule.
12 I see Mr. Latham is here this morning. We 13 want to handle the response to the Staff motion to 14 strike SOC contention 9. Can we do that this morning?
15 MR. LATHAM: Yes.
16 JUDGE BRENNERa Mr. Latham, while I 'm 17 addressing you, I'm a little concerned as to SOC's 18 remaining plugged into the procedural mechanicms of the 19 proceeding. Once you're in the middle of an evidentiary 20 proceeding, there is much less flexibility for parties 21 who are out of step procedurally in the prehearing 22 stage. And I sa id that yesterday when we did not have a 23 record and I wanted you to have the benefit of my saying 24 that when you were present.
l 25 It is a minor matter, but I hope it doesn't O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINl A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4526
) 1 become symptomatic. I got the definite impression that 2 if I had not asked where SOC's cross-examination plan 3 was en contention 9 that you were prepared to file it a 4 day late without asking for the day. The day would have 5 been freely granted in tha t instance, but the point is 6 when something is due we expect to hear, if it is not 7 coming in, a request for an extension.
8 Maybe I'm wrong, but it didn't come in until 9 the end of the day after we asked about its status. Ar.d 10 in addition, when it finally came in we only received 11 one copy. We had to ask for three copies, and then we 12 later amended that to a minimum of four copies for the 13 Board.
14 As I say, it is minor and it is in hopes that 15 it doesn't become more symptomatic of more serious 16 procedural problems.
17 MR. LATHAMs No, Judge Brenner. With regard 18 to the one copy, I apologire for that. You should 19 receive the four. With regard to the timing of it, we 20 have some problems with the messenger service, and it 21 was only pure coincidence, that somebody showed up while 22 Mr. Minor was on the phone with me, that we were able to 23 get it there.
24 JUDGE BRENNER: That explains it. Thank you.
25 Can we schedule response by Suffolk County to I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 i
4527
) 1 LILCO's motion to strike portions of the County's 2- testimony on 28(a)(iv), on the subject of safety
~g 3 parameters of the display system?
J 4 MR. LANPHER: Yes, Judge Brenner, we could do 5 it tomorrow or on Tuesday. I would prefer to do it 6 Tuesday, but if the Board wants to take it up this week 7 we can. Because of the rush of things this week, I 8 would prefer Tuesday.
9 JUDGE BRENNER: We would like to do it this to week. It is on our mind and we find that if we delay 11 thees little things they will start to pile up.
12 MR. LANPHER: Then tomorrow morning we will be 13 prepared.
'- 14 JUDGE BRENNER: Fine. Unless you insist on a 15 written response, and in that case we vill give you 18 until next week.
17 MR. LANPHER: No, we will do it o rally.
18 HR. IRWIN: Judge Brenner, could we return to 19 SOC 9 for a moment? We have in preparation, and I 20 expect it would be ready for filing later this mor7ing, 21 a motion that supports the Staf f 's motion to strike 22 portions of SOC 9 and also moves for summary disposition 23 of a portion of that motion. The fact that it wasn't 24 filed on Tuesday was just simply a matter of getting 25 this to a typewriter.
- q Y
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
' 400 VIRGlNIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4528
) 1 I would like to try to consolidate the 2 disposition of those motions.
3 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, Mr. Latham is here 4 partly because I think I have insisted that we try to do 5 it sooner ra ther than la ter, and I would like to handle 6 the motion to strike now'. We broadcast our view that we 7 wan ted to do it. I'm not sure you will get a ruling on 8 the summary disposition portion as quickly, of course, 9 depending on what it is. We won 't know until we see 10 it.
11 Mr. Latham?
12 MR. LATHAMs Yes. Can I ask IILCO whether or 13 not its pleading goes beyond the scope of what Staff has 14 addressed?
15 MR. IRWIN: It relates to the applicability of 18 Reg Guide 1.47 to the remote shutdown panel.
17 JUDGE BRENNERs I'm inclined to think that 18 LILCO's motion is late in terms of an additional 19 motion. The dates for these types of things have been 20 the time for filing the cross-examination plan. That 21 wouldn't apply to a response in support of the Staf f 's 22 motion, but anything in addition would be new.
23 I want to take up the Staf f's motion this
/
24 morning, and then we will decide what to do with LILCO's 25 motion when we see it.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4529
~)
a 1 MR. IRWIN: Fine. I know your ruling applied 2 to motions to strike. I was not aware that motions for
-s 3 summary disposition were covered as well.
m 4 JUDGE BRENNER: It was not explicitly. I 5 would submit that, if anything, motions for summary 6 disposition would be earlier rather than later than 7 motions to strike. The object has been all along, the 8 way we have set procedures, not to come up against it, 9 so to speak. We will deal with it.
10 I'm not ruling that it is late and we won't 11 consider it, but we will see it and give Mr. Latham a 12 chance to see it and to see when we can schedule a 13 response. It is true to a large extent that it is SOC's ss) 14 responsibility to be here, but it makes no sense to 15 require them to be here every moment. And we will try 16 to reach a happy medium through the courtesy of Suffolk 17 County of where we can give some advance warning of the 18 fact that we want to take up something related to SOC in 19 the next day or co.
20 Of course, I emphasize SOC independent -- and 21 comething may come up independently. But I think the 22 Board should understand the accommodation we're trying 23 to reach, and I think it was in that spirit that I made 24 my earlier comments to Mr. Latham. So I hope it is l 25 better plugged in, and his answer satisfied me.
,t l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, I
l 400 VIAGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4530 h 1 Well, before we talk about the scheduling of 2 emergency planning issues, let's hear the response to 3 the Staff's motion to strike SOC 9.
4 MR. LATHAM Judge Brenner, the response will 5 be brief. We discussed it with Staff and we agreed that 6 that question and answer can be stricken. We had been 7 -- there was something that we were attempting to 8 suggest to the question and answer concerning an 9 ambiguity in the LILCD table. But in discussing it with 10 Staff and with Mr. Minor, there is another way in which 11 that ambiguity has been taken off the table.
12 The table does reveal that, so we have no 13 problem with striking that question and answer. That 9 14 should not, however, be taken to mean that we don't 15 think those issues are im9ortant. We only chose to 16 address those issues that were in the contention 17 itself.
18 JUDGE BRENNER I think we talked more time 19 about the scheduling of tha t motion than the substance 20 of the motion itself.
21 All right. What I would like to do, we will 22 bind a copy of the motion in at this point, if Staff 23 counsel can provide a copy to the reporter.
24 (The document referred to, a copy of Staff's 25 motion to strike SOC Contention 9, followsa)
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASH!NGioN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
IL 06/14/82 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(0L)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) -
f3RC STAFF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF ,
THE TES;' ADNY OF GREGORY C. MINOR ON S0C CONTENTION 9 On May 25, 1982, Shoreham Opponent's Coalition (SOC) filed the direct testimony of Gregory C. Minor on S0C Contention 9 - notification g of disabled safety systems. 50C Contention 9 was admitted by the Board as follows (emphasis added):
As evidenced by the accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2, accident conditions can be aggravated by the operation of the plant while one or more safety systems are inoperable. At Three Mile Island, two auxiliary feedwater system valves were closed when they should have been open. As specified below, 50C contends that Shoreham does not contain an adequate system to infonn the reactor operator when a safety system has been deliberately disabled because the plant does not meet the specifications of Regulatory Guide 1.47 or its equivalent.
Therefore, it does not adequately protect the public health and safety and does not comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criteria 20, 21 and 22.
Specifically, the plant does not meet Regulatory Guide 1.47 in the following respects:
(a) the system inoperative alarms for the O screenwell pumphouse vent system relay, the emergency switch-gear room exhaust air system, the battery room vont system, the RBSWS chiller equipment room vent system and the diesel rooms
I emergency vent system cannot be manually activated in the control room; l
(b) the portion of the compressed air system servicing the SRV's does not have a unique system inoperative alann; and
~
(c) There is inadequate indication of the status (including bypass conditions) of systems and power sources on the Remote Shutdown Par,el.
SOC Contention 9 states that the Shoreham plant does not meet Regulatory Guide 1.47, or its equivalent, in three specific respects.
The bulk of Mr. Minor's testimony is addressed to the third respect, part (c) of the contention, alleging that there is no evidence of bypass indication at the remote shutdown panel. However, the narrow focus of the testimony is altered in the final 0 & A on page 4:
Q. Are there other areas in which LILC0's application of h Reg. Guide 1.47 is insufficient?
A. Yes. The FSAR Table 7.1.1-2 shows several examples where a safety system or their supporting systems (per definition on Attachment 3, page A3-1) do not show Reg. Guide 1.47 as applicable.
This testimony would expand the contention to include all systems for which FSAR Table 7.1.1-2 does not show Regulatory Guide 1.47 to be applicable.
This would include many systems not related to the remote shutdown panel and not specified in either part (a) or (b) of the contention. Therefore, through this testimony, Mr. Minor is attempting to expand the scope of the litigation far beyond the three specific aspects listed in the contention. For this reason the NRC Staff moves to strike the above language from the testimony of Mr. Minor.
Throughout the course of this proceeding one of the difficulties faced by the Staff has been testimony and subsequent cross-examination h
h which exceeds the scope of the written contentions. The purpose of a ,
contention is to put all parties on notice of the subject matters to be litigated so that appropriate witnesses may be selected and that the issues may be adequately addressed in the prefiled testimony. Where one party unilaterially seeks to broaden the issues through its prefiled testimony, an inherently unequal situation is created for the hearing.
For this reason the Commission's regulations provide that testimony beyond the scope of the contention is properly the subject of a motion to strike. See 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix A, V(d)(7). The Commission has also encouraged adjudicatory boards to select the "most fruitful" manage-ment devices for lirt.iting unnecessary testimony and cross-examination and 3 i to ens'ure fair and expeditious hearings. See Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 457 (1981).
In sum, the testimony of Mr. Minor on S0C Contention 9 would place into issue the applicability of Regulatory Guide 1.47 to many safety systems which were not specified in the contention. In the interest of fair and meaningful litigation, the above stated portion of that testimony should be struck.
f
' Respectfully submitted, Lj 3aAL A. ku David A. Repka i
Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 14th day of June, 1982.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD e In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (0L)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE TESTIMONY OF GREGORY C. MINOR ON S3C CONTENTION 9" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 14th day of June, 1982:
3 Lawrence Brenner, Esq.* Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
J Administrative Judge Cammer and Shapiro Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 9 East 40th Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission New York, NY 10016 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. James L. Carpenter
- Administrative Judge Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 217 Newbridge Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hicksville, NY 11801 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Peter A. Morris
- W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.
Administrative Judge Hunton & Williams Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 1535
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richmond, VA 23212 l Washington, DC 20555 Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.
i Staff Counsel l New York Public Service Comission H 3 Rockefeller Plaza p l Albany, NY 12223 l
l
'~
I Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
~
John F. Shea, III, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Attorneys at Law Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
P.O. Box 398 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, 33 West Second Street Christopher & Phillips '
Riverhead, NY 11901 1900 M Street, N.W.
8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Docketing and Service Section*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
%Le%LDavid A. Repka \
Counsel for NRC Staff l
__ . ,o . _ .
COURTESY COPY LIST Edward M. Barrett, Esq. Mr. Jeff Smith General Counse! Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Long Island Lighting Company P.O. Bcx 618 250 Old County Road North Country Road Mineola, NY 11501 Wading River, NY 11792 Mr. Brian McCaff rey MHB Technical Associates Long Island Lighting Company 1723 Hamilton Avenue 175 East Old Country Road Suite K Hicksville, New York 11801 San Jose, CA 95125 Marc W. Goldsmith Hon. Peter Cohalan Energy Research Group, Inc. Suffolk County Executive 400-1 Totten Pond Road County Executive / Legislative Bldg Waltham, MA 02154 Veteran's Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 David H. Gilmartin, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney Mr. Jay Dunkleberger County Executive / Legislative Bldg. New York State Energy Office Veteran's Memorial Highway Agency Building 2 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223
4531-4532
) 1 JUDGE BRENNER: And by agreement of SOC, the 2 question and answer specified on page 4 of SOC's 3 testimony on its contention 9 is stricken.
4 Mr. Latham, at the time we hear that evidence 5 please make sure that the copy provided to the reporter 6 of the testimony has a deletion to strike through it, 7 physically handwritten, and perhaps a notation that it 8 was struck today. '
9 MR. REPKA Judge Brenner, just to clarify one 10 thing that goes along with that. We're not sure that, 11 given SOC's agreement to strike what we requested be 12 stricken, that the attachment 1 to the testimony has any 13 further function.
14 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, I don't have it in front 15 of me now and that wasn't part of your motion 16 MR. REPKA: I'm aware of that. This is just 17 something --
18 JUDGE BRENNER: Why d on 't you discuss it with 19 them and we will deal with that at the time the 20 testimony is put in.
21 MR. REFKA: Okay. That's fine.
22 JUDGE BRENNER: We had wanted to set the 23 schedule for the completion of discovery on emergency 24 planning issues related to LILCO's emergency plan and 25 also filing of testimony, and we asked the parties to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4533 lh 1 attempt to suggest a schedule, as has been indicated in 2 prior prehearing conferences and prior orders.
3 Discovery was to go ahead on documents. In addition ,
4 the parties were to meet together in informal 5 discovery.
6 And I emphasized yesterday when we were off 7 the record that we expected intensive discussions, 8 including experts as well as the attorneys, to take 9 place on both security issues and emergency planning 10 issues, since there was a better time frame for that to 11 take place than had been the case on some of the other 12 issues that have been litiga$ed so far in this 13 proceeding, wi th the object of narrowing the issues or
)
14 perhaps even reaching agreement on some parts of the 15 issues.
16 The conten tions are due to be filed with the 17 Board on LILCO's emergency plan on June 22nd, as set 18 forth in our prior order. It was to be handled among 19 the parties such that the contentions were fully 20 disclosed to all cognizant parties sufficiently in 21 advance so that we can get the parties' positions on the 22 same day the contentions were filed and not have to 23 sta rt a new round of filings.
24 Can somebody give me a status on that aspect?
25 MR. BROWN: J udge Brenner, that in fact has m
s ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4534
) 1 taken place, and the draft contentions of the County 2 have been submitted to all of the other parties, and the 3 contentions of the North Shore Committee were attached 4 to the County's contentions and they were also submitted 5 to the other parties.
6 JUDGE BRENNER: Was an attempt made between 7 the Intervenors to combine on given contentions that 8 were in the same subject area, to combine in the sense 9 that where a contention was essentially the same subject 10 but perhaps worded somewha t dif feren tly, that the 11 wording could be conformed and all parties could sponsor 12 the same contentions?
13 MR. BROWN: Well, the contentions of the 14 County are much more comprehensive than those of the 15 other parties, and therefore I think the other parties 16 have stated tentatively but not with finality that many 17 of the County's contentions they will adopt or join in.
18 The North Shore Committee's contentions were worded so 19 differently from the County's, and they just came to us 20 two days ago, we felt that we didn't have the time and 21 it wasn't prudent to try to have the words conform. So 22 we simply set out copies of their contentions along with 23 ours.
I 24 JUDGE BRENNER: Obviously you can't speak for 25 the North Shore Coalition, but I just don't understand 9
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4535 lll 1 why that 's the case. They've had nothing else to focus 2 on in this proceeding so far. Many weeks have gone by,
'm 3 and the contention coordinating process among 3
n) 4 Intervenors should certainly have reached a more 5 finalized stage as f ar as the Intervenors vis a vis each 6 other were concerned.
7 ' dell, I hope that the Intervenors between now 8 and June 22nd are all involved either directly or 9 through some sort of representational process in 10 achieving at least agreement on the wording of 11 contentions to avoid redundancy among themselves and 12 with LILCO and the Staff, and to the fullest extent 13 possible agreement on admissibility.
,3 2 14 Mr. Latham, how has SOC been involved?
15 MR. LATHAM: Judge Brenner, my partner John 16 Shea, who could not be here this morning, has been 17 spending a good deal of time with Mr. McMurray and Mr.
18 Brown, as well as Mr. Shapiro, in terms of going over 19 both of those contentions. And as far as Suffolk l
20 County's contentions are concerned, as far as they go, 21 ve are going to be joining in those contentions.
22 I think LILCO and Staff have indicated that, 23 so our concerns are taken care of there. In terms of 24 the wording and so forth, we are reviewing Mr. Shapiro's 25 contentions, and tha t there will probably be just one en
%)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE.. S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4536 lll 1 rea and one contention that we think needs to be 2 added. So we have been working with both parties in 3 order to make sure that we try to have just a single set 4 submitted.
5 JUDGE BRENNER: Have you supplied this 6 additional contention yet to LILCO and the Staff also?
7 MR. LATHAM We will try to get that to them 8 later today. Mr. Shea is in the process of writing that 9 up.
10 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, your comments would 11 agree with the Board's expectation of the procedural 12 substance, at least, that we would have one last 13 contention numbered sequentially A-1 through whatever, 14 and an indication of which of the intervening parties 15 are advancing each of those contentions.
16 Mr. Reveley, did you have anything?
17 MR. REVELEY: Judge, we got roughly 40 pages 18 of contentions last night from the County, including the 19 North Shore Committee's. It would be very helpful if 20 there were a consolidated setup here. We're beginning 21 to focus on them, nonetheless, unconsolidated. But if 22 the various Intervenors could in f act get together and 23 produce one set, whoever sponsors each piece, it would 24 be quite useful.
l 25 JUDGE BRENNERs I had the impression from Mr.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4537
(') 1 Brown - perhaps 't was my faulty perception -- that 2 there was just a small add-on by the North Shore eg 3 Coalition to a large set of the County's. That is not w;
4 the case, Mr. Brown?
5 MR. BROWN: Well, the North Shora Committee 8 has a large package, but the number of contentions are 7 not as sweeping as the number of contentions of the 8 County.
9 JUDGE BRENNER: So we are requiring a 10 coordinated set, and I would hope that that would be 11 supplied very promptly. I'm just surprised that it 12 hasn't reached a more final point. And Mr. Shapiro 13 isn ' t here. I don 't know where the breakdown was among d 14 the Intervenors.
15 You know, we felt parties had experienced 16 counsel and there was no need to hold everybody's hand 17 by setting subsidiary due dates, that is, the date by l 18 which they would have to be provided to the other 19 parties, and then the final date. We set the final date 20 of June 22nd and the parties know that the time has to 21 be permitted.
22 All right, I'm going to order that a 23 coordinated set be provided Monday morning to LILCO and 24 the Staff -- the Board does not need it -- to make sure 25 there are no redundancies among contentions, and as I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4538
) 1 indicated, a sequential set; and that SOC's contentions 2 should also be included in that set. In addition, if 3 you have your separate contention ready today -- and it 4 certainly should be ready by today -- provide that to 5 the Staff and LILCO also.
6 MR. LATHAM: Judge Brenner, just so the record 7 is clear, I don't think the problem about the nature of 8 the consolidated document is as severe as you might 9 think. I think there is very little in the way of 10 overlap between the two documents, and if in fact you 11 staple them together you could come very close to a 12 consolidated statement.
13 But I think the parties do still have to I
14 decide among themselves, the Intervenors do have to 15 decide among themselves, to what extent they are going 16 to be joining in all or part of those contentions.
17 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, that may or may not be 18 the case. But we made our ruling, if for nothing else, 19 we want to be able to address them sequentially and 20 meaningfully. I am concerned that North Shore 21 Coalition's contentions, which are apparently more 22 extensive than I first'realizad, have only been provided 23 to the County two days ago, and the Intervenors should 24 take a close look to see if the wording can be made 25 consistent where the subject areas are the same.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4539 lh 1 If it turns out that your observation is 2 correct, then you will have an easier job. But we are 3 not going to go through the contentions wordsmithing 4 them, so to speak, and we don't want a situation that 5 now obtains with some of the saf ety conter . ions, and I 6 don't know how that occurred. That is, we have two 7 contentions, they are essentially the same, but there is 8 a word or two difference here and there.
9 Let's turn to the schedule.
10 MR. LATHAHa Judge Brenner, I just have one 11 final minor matter on that. Since you want this 12 provided to Staff and LILCO on Monday morning, will they 13 be up here on the Island? And if they're not going to k
14 be, the reason I want to do it on the record is that 15 there may be some difficulties in getting it to 16 Washington on Monday morning.
17 JUDGE BRENNER Well, if they are in 18 Washington it should be in their hands in Washington.
19 Suf folk County's law firm is in Washington, and 20 hopefully this can be worked out among the parties. I 21 don 't think the parties have had' problems with that in 22 the past. The Staff and LILCO have representatives up 23 here and it can be done that way.
24 I am just very surprised that, given the 25 amount of time when separate counsel concentrate on ID ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D C. 20024 (202) $54 2345
i 4540
) 1 emergency planning issues, we find that less than a week 2 before the final due date that things are still in 3 3 somewhat a sta te of procedural disarray.
d All right. With respect to the schedule, the 4
5 first question is, why will the onsite exercise not take 6 place until the middle to end of July. Mr. Repka or Mr.
7 Reveley, either one?
8 MR. REVELEY: It's my understanding, Judge, 9 that the Staff is prepared to go forward at any time 10 that Mr. Sea rs and his people could come and conduct the 11 appraisal, if the company were prepared itself to go 12 forward. Unfortunately, the company is not prepared to 13 go forward until the 19th, for this reasons q
14 It has 220 people engaged in a program of 15 course work and drills. That program is now scheduled 18 to end on July the 9th. At that point the company will 17 attempt to correct whatever problems have arisen during 18 the drills, to ensure that when tne Staff does come for 19 its appraisal that the company passes the appraisal.
20 I had extensive discussions yesterday with a 21 cast of thousands, including the vice president in 22 charge of nuclear affairs, the principal emergency 23 planner for the company, to see if that schedule could 24 be advanced. And the conclusion at the end of the day 25 was that, while it could be advanced some, the company D
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4541
) 1 didn't believe it prudent to do so, lest it not have its 2 act together by the time the appraisal began.
('}
v 3 The company has been proceeding on the 4 assumption that the appraisal would begin on the 19th 5 and has planned its training and drills on tha t 6 schedule, and they just think it is too late to change 7 course. Accordingly, the problem is not the Staff's in 8 this instance; it is the company's. But it is not a 9 problem that we can deal with.
10 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, I appreciate your 11 can do r, and partly for that reason won't dwell on it.
12 But I would like to make this observation: This is yet
,_ 13 another instance where the position of the company in
'~' terms of their readiness is quite inconsistent with the 14 15 strong arguments as to the posture of when this hearing 18 would be completed and the plant would be ready, and so 17 on and so forth, ready in the sense that the 18 prerequisites would be completed.
19 MR. REVELEY: It is inconsistent. That is why 20 we had extensive discussions yesterday.
21 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. We cannot schedule 22 testimony until the Staff's report of that exercise is 23 issued, which obviously will be some time after the 24 19th.
25 MR. REPKA: I'm told the onsite appraisal ALDERSON REPORTING COMPAt4Y,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4542 1 itself will take two weeks. After that, the Staff is O'v r 2 promising a report in a two-week time f rame following h 3 the completion. So from the 19th we're talking about a G
4 report four weeks following that.
. 5 i
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1
17 18 19 20 I 21 22 I 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINCTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4543
) 1 (Pause.)
2 JUDGE BRENNER: So you are talking about 3 August 16th?
)
4 MR. REPKA That sounds correct.
5 JUDGE BRENNER: if ell, I am open to suggestions 6 on when testimony should be filed, assuming that the 7 staff's report is received on the 16th.
8 MR. REVELEY: Judge, it is our view that in 9 the interim we should make a great deal of progress in 10 either resolving by providing additional information or 11 perhaps making certain changes in the company's plan, in 12 resolving most of the contentions that we think are, in 13 fact, going to Le accepted by the Board af ter they are 14 filed on the 22nd.
15 For those contentions that cannot be resolved 16 by a process of settlement, we would think the testimony 17 preparation c,uld be well underway before the appraisal 18 report is received, and the dra f t testimony could be 19 fine-tuned in ligh t of the appraisal report. In some 20 instances, we do not expect much fine-tuning to be 21 required.
22 Accordingly, we don't think there'needs to be 23 a significant lag between the time at which the
! 24 appraisal report is produced and the date on which 25 testimony is filed, though obviously, if something comes ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4544
) 1 up in the appraisal report that militates against filing 2 testimony quickly thereaf ter, that could be taken into
N 3 account at that time. But ye don't think that once the u) 4 contentions are filed, everyone need sit on their hands 5 until the appraisal report appears. And we do not plan 6 to sit on our hands in the interim.
7 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, I agree with that, and I 8 don't think any party would disagree. But the question 9 is -- I guess a lot depends on what the appraisal report 10 says, and in addition, there is just the mechanical 11 process, if the testimony is extensive, of going back to .
12 it and updating it and filling in the results and so
,_ 13 on. And I don 't think a week or two would be adequate 14 for that, and I sense that is what you are thinking, by 15 your comments.
16 HR. REVELEYs What about three weeks?
17 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Brown, do you have a 18 position?
19 MR. BROWN: Well, I would suggest 30 days 20 would be an appropriate time after the submission of the 21 staff's report.
22 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Repka?
23 MR. REPKA: Twenty-five days seems to fit 24 right in the middle between 21 and 30.
25 JUDGE.BRENNER: This is a serious enterprise ALDERSON REPo.1 TING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4545 m
,_) 1 here, as far as I am concerned, and I do not consider 2 that' comment serious, Mr. Repka. I am sorry, I have to 3 point that out. Do you think 30 days is reasonable, or 4 do you think a meaningful lesser time is reasonable, or 5 were you seriously suggesting there that there is a 6 material difference between 25 and 30 days?
7 MR. REPKA: Well, I am a little cautious here 8 because what the report reads is the bottom line here.
9 If everything is fine in the report, then three weeks-10 vill be adequate, I suppose. But if there is going to 11 be problems raised by the report, then more time may bc 12 required. I think we are in a situation where we are 13 talking fairly hypothetical.
)
14 MR. REVELEY: Again, Judge, it does seem to me 15 that the two crucial variables are first, how much 16 progress can be made in the interim, and second, what 17 vill the appraisal say. The first variable is within 19 the control of the parties, and I think under the 19 Boa rd 's express direction that we get on with settling 20 things that can be settled without formal litigation, we 21 should be able to make a lot of progress.
22 As to the second variable, we do not know what 23 the results will be. But if, obviously, th e appraisal 24 ls grimly negative, that will have a material impact 25 upon many aspects of this proceeding. We do not expect
[)
\._/
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4546
) 1 it to be, and that is one reason we are not speeding up 2 the preparation of -- the company 's prepara tion for it.
3 JUDGE BRENNER: I will understand why the 4 hearing schedule should not be the sole driving force, 5 and tha t the company certainly is entitled to make its 6 decision that it needs that time to be ready with the 7 undoubtedly correct thought that it had better be right 8 the first time, rather than rush into it and then have 9 to redo it to a material extent.
10 However, you are asking me to shave a week off 11 what the county suggested, when had the company been 12 ready, the exercise could have taken place tomorrow, as 13 far as the proceeding is c. acerned or the intervenors 14 are concerned, and you would have saved a month.
15 HR. REVELEY: Let me say two things about 16 tha t, if I may.
17 JUDGE BRENNER: There is a quid pro quo, if 18 you will.
19 MR. REVELEY: I understand that. I also 20 understand our position in this instance is not the 21 strongest imaginable. I suggested two weeks, which is 22 materially different than a month. Two weeks did not 23 seem to find immediate favor, first.
I 24 Second, the company had been planning to do a 25 great deal with emergency planning in the spring, and in ALDERSON REroRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4547
) 1 June that all was derailed. In March, when it became 2 clear that there were fundamental disagreements as to 3 the off-site aspect of emergency planning, at that point 4 the company slipped some of the program it had for all 5 aspects of emergency training.
6 That may not have been a prudent decision, but 7 it was made in response to developments- earlier in the 8 spring, and we are now living with its consequences. I 9 do not anticipate that the on-site aspects of emergency 10 planning as opposed to the off-site aspects are going to 11 prove to be a cause celebre, notwithstanding 40 pages of 12 contentions at the moment. We are certainly going to 13 make every effort to resolve them, as I indicated before 0 14 the appraisal award.
15 But, our preference is two weeks, f or the 16 reasons that I am stating.
17 JUDGE BRENNER Let me give Mr. Latham a 18 chance, and then the Board will confer.
19 MR. LATHAM: Judge Brenner, I think I would 20 concur with Mr. Brown that the 30 days should be granted 21 for the filing of testimony. I think one reason why 22 thet would be necessary is the fact that the contentions 23 at the present time are, in fact, voluminous. We do 24 believe that a number of them can be resolved through 25 the informal process, but that, in fact, does take time.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIAGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4548
) 1 And on that basis, it cannot be assumed that 2 advancing the preparation of testimony on those issues 3 that might still be in dispute can be as far along as we 4 might otherwise expect. I think that we are going to 5 need 30 days, and so I would support the county on that.
6 I would also point out that as Mr. Reveley 7 said, the fact that LILCO has decided to slow down the 8 pracess of dealing with on-site emergency planning 9 because of what it f elt the circumstances were in March 10 is entirely irrelevant to the issue we are discussing 11 now.
12 JUDGE BBENNER It is somewhat not directly to 13 the point, but Mr. Reveley's observations, whether they 14 a rts relevant or irrelevant, I think he was responding to 15 my musing on LILCO's schedule. Give us a moment.
16 -I think we have heard enough on this unless 17 you have something further, Mr. Repka.
18 MR. REPKAa I would like to further explain 19 the staff's position. Our testimony is going to 20 basically be a paraphrase of ther report, and that is 21 why we are not too concerned about the exact number of 22 days for filing testimony. We can be ready at any point.
23 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, you assume a lot in that I 24 statement, and 7 will not hold you to it and I hope you 25 do not hold yourself to it. And the reason for that is D
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVC., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4549
[) 1 it depends on the contentions, and your normal report 2 may not well address the contentions. So decide that 3 after you see what the contentions will be.
4 (Board conferring.)
5 JUDGE BRENNER: We are going to set some 6 precise dates with some trepidation. I might be better 7 to set dates keyed to the date of the report, but I want 8 to have the dates more firmly in mind.
9 Also, I want the strong impression to be left 10 by setting exact dates that we are depending upon the 11 exercise beginning when we were told we would begin and 12 ending when we were told it would end. And absent, of
,_s 13 course, particular substantive problems that would
\
'~
14 justify, or inquiry being made and so on.
15 Whenever we insist upo'n a firm schedule, it is 16 never to be in derogation of the substance, but we do 17 not want any procedural relaxation, if you will, to 18 affect it. And we are depending upon the report to be 19 issued by August 16th, and that is a Monday, received on 20 that day or certainly by the day after that, by the 21 Board and all parties.
22 31ven those assumptions, we will permit 23 approximately a month for the filing of testimony, for
) 24 the receipt of testimony. And we will set that, as has 25 been our custom, for Tuesday, to permit the mechanisms q
G ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4550 lh 1 of delivery over the Monday, which will be Tuesda y, 2 August 17th. There will be a break in the hearing in
~3 3 that period so you will have the week before, and that s/
4 should assist matters also.
5 MR. BROWN: Pardon me, did you mean, Judge 6 Brenner, September 17th?
7 JUDGE BRENNER: Yes, forgive me. Now, I have 8 to find a Tuesday again. September 14th. And strike 9 what I said about breaking in.
10 Now, we are setting that date with the 11 following additional dates. It has become unfortunately 12 clear to us this morning that setting of dates is 13 necessary to keep things flowing, which the-parties p 14 cannot do on their own. Contentions are going to be 15 filed on June 22nd, and everything we discussed 16 previously will take place prior to June 22nd.
l 17 We will then require a report on the record l
18 that can be in writing or oral or both on the status of 19 negotiations after we return from the July 4th break.
20 It will be that first morning upon our return, which 21 right now will be July 6th, unless we indicate -- it is 22 possible we will have an adjustment of the date, 23 although as of now it is July 6th.
f 24 In addition, let me make sure I have my dates 25 right. Yes. On August 31st which will be subsequent to H
)
w./
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. lNC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 5F4-2345 1
4551
) 1 the issuance of the re po r t , we are requiring a further 2 status report on set tlement negotiations, narrowing and
3 so forth. We will give you 1eeway as to whether that w_-}
4 should be orally or in writing o r bo th .
5 I would suggest that it would be more 6 beneficial to have it at least outlined in writing and 7 then to hsve discussion upon it. That must be received 8 by the forwarding pa rties August 31st. We are looking 9 for a joint report, and we may take it up that very day 10 if we are ready. If there is a writing received -- in 11 fact, why don't I just require that we get a written 12 outline. It does not have to have every detail, but 13 sufficient to allow the Board to prepare for the oral
discussion.
14 15 All right. Is that clear? We will have two 16 reporting dates. One prior to the staf f's report and 17 one after the staff's report. I do not know how quickly 18 we will be able to rule upon the admissibility of 19 con tentions af ter the 22nd, but I expect we will wait 20 until after the report of July 6th.
21 In terms of discovery, we think discovery, 22 except for new matters raised in the staff's report, can 23 be concluded by the end of July. Discovery should have 24 extensively taken placed. These meetings should have 25 the dual purpose of informal discovery in addition to i
V ALDERSON REPORTING CoMPANf, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
14552 h 1 narrowing issues, and we request that the parties 2 jointly propose a schedule that concludes on July 31st; 3 that is, so many days' request must be filed by 4 such-and-such a date, objections received by a date 5 certain, and then responses by a date certain. And if 6 there is new matter in the report, we will certainly 7 permit the intervenors any necessary formal discovery on 8 those new matters.
9 But again, we hope the informal discovery 10 process will work to the benefit of all parties. And 11 depositions, if parties wish to take any, should be 12 concluded by that end date for that first discovery 13 phase, which we might as well make July 30th.
And then 14 we vill look for the parties' suggestions as to the 15 dates keyed within that.
16 I would like to suggest on the record, as I 17 suggested yesterday off the record, that given the 18 schedule for litigation of LILCO's emergency plan, which 19 is somewhat longer than we would have been willing to 20 set had LILCO been ready, this could well become a 21 pacing item in the case. Had the schedule and issues 22 were are litigating now had proceeded along our 23 expectations, which were that things would proceed 24 somewhat more rapidly than they have been, it almost 25 definitely would have been a pacing item.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4553 1 As I said off the record yesterday, the 2 parties should not assume that there is a necessary 3 linear progression of completing the safety issues and 4 then security issues and then on-site emergency planning 5 issues. The Board may decide to vary the order, 6 depending upon where the schedule is.
7 We also have every expectation that a subject 8 like security issues is susceptible of great narrowing, 9 both before and after the testimony is filed, in the 10 spirit that we have seen before on related issues. And 11 perhaps litigation on that will not be very likely. We 12 do not know, but that is a possibility.
13 Are there any questions on emergency planning, 14 the schedule on emergency planning?
15 (No response.)
16 All right. The other day, we were told that 17 par ties had agreed to stipulate the basic documents into 18 the record, and we can do that at this time with LILCO 19 going first.
20 MR. BROWNa Judge Brenner, pardon me, I do not 21 know if this is the appropriate time or not, but I 22 thought you were going to ask if there was anything 23 further on security. There is a procedural matter I, 24 would like to raise at this time, if the Board would 25 like to hear it, or in writing, anyway you would like to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
DS54 l 1 proceed.
2 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, tell me if it is brief, 3 and tell me if we can do it in open session.
g 4 MR. BROWN We can to it in open session and I 5 think it is brief.
6 JUDGE BRENNER: Okay.
7 MR. EROWN LILCO has a substantial revision 8 of its emergency plan -- I am sorry -- its security 9 plan. We saw a draf t of it for the first time last 10 night. It affects some of our contentions. Some of the 11 changes are cignificant. It may cause us to make 12 significant changes. It may elimina te some concerns.
13 The plan will not be --
I 14 JUDGE BRENNER4 And maybe add some concerns, I 15 take it.
16 MR. BROWN 4 I am not sure, frankly. The 17 immedia te impact was that it has the potential to 18 eliminate certain concerns, and that plan I do not think 19 will be approved within the company's procedures for a 20 week or two. I have forgotten precisely, but once it is 21 approved the staff also apparently has the document 22 which was in part the cause for some of the changes or 23 rela ted to it. We have not seen tha t yet a t all, either.
24 We are getting started really in the formative 25 process of preparing testimony and to submit it by the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
0555 l 1 20th of July. When the new plan is adopted and becomes 2 the central issue in this proceeding, what we are 3 working on now will be passed over. l I I 4 So I would just like to put before the Board 5 that issue, and how the parties should treat what I 6 be'leve is Revision 5 of the LILCO plan and what are 7 some significant changes.
8 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, it does not sound to me 9 like a big procedural problem, and if anything, it 10 sounds like it may narrow some of your issues. I sense, 11 although you did not state it expressly, that you are 12 understandably not eager to perform work which may 13 become moot.
14 I suggest you discuss it more intensively wi th i
15 the other parties and find out what the sta tus of 16 adoption of that new plan is. And if it appears as if 17 it is highly likely to be adopted, treat that as the 18 base document. If we were a week away from the filing 19 of testimony you would have a much bigger problem than 20 you do right now.
21 We do not lan upon extending that testimony 22 date unless there 3s a last minute problem. Otherwise, 23 there is very likely to be a gap in the progress of
- 24 things. I am not precluding that possibility, but that 25 would have to be s very strong showing. And let us see h
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4556 l 1 where we are as things get closer. If this is still a 2 problem, bring it back to our attention in a week or so, 3 and we will deal with it then if we have to.
4 Incidentally, since you mentioned security 5 issues, I did see a document involving a discovery type 6 document request for admissions on security issues. We 7 had contemplated that discovery would not be in writing 8 for a number of reasons.
9 Although we did not address the admissions per 10 se, the Board had no objections on its own, other than 11 we pointed out that the primary means of discovery would 12 be informal meetings and so on. So we therefore hoped 13 that the requests for admissions were meant to be 14 confirmatory matters discussed at these informal 15 meetings as opposed to new matters brought up for the 16 first time in that format.
17 Can anybody enlighten me on in which category 18 this request falls?
19 MR. BROWNS Well, certainly all of the 20 requests for admissions of the staff were matters 21 discussed at some length a t more than one meeting. I do 22 not recall precisely the admissions to LILCO. But I 23 also seem to recall that in the transcript, and when we 24 reviewed that --
and I believe it was explicit and I do 25 not believe I am misspeaking -- that admissions in ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4557 l 1 writing would be permitted.
2 Now, I do not believe that was addressed in 3 the written order, though, and we saw that as a matter 4 of confusion and just stuck with the words that we saw 5 in the t ra ns crip t .
6 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, I do not recall what the 7 t';a nscrip t says precisely myself. But my definite 8 recollection of the sense of it was that it would be a 9 follow-up to confirm matters that were ascertained in 10 discussion rather than being items raised for the first 11 time in written requests for admissions. I just raised 12 the point, and I hope you do not misunderstand the 13 approach of discovery. And from what you said, at least 14 about the request for the staff, we will be proceeding l
15 along the lines we expected.
16 Let's turn to the exhibits at this time.
17 MR. EARLEY: Judge Brenner, on Tuesday we 18 handed out the list of documents that the applicant and 19 the staff would like to have stipulated into evidence in 20 this proceading. We have talked to the parties and they 21 have agreed to stipulate these documents in.
22 Mr. Latham was not here when we passed out th e
- 23 document. We had talked the previous week with Mr.
24 Shea. The documents that the applicant would like to p
l 25 stipulated into evidence are the Applicant's Final l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
4558 h 1 Safety Analysis Report --
2 JUDGE BRENNER: I am sorry, does the reporter 3 have a copy of thin sheet, also?
4 MR. EARLEla He had one on Tuesday. I will 5 supply him with another one.
6 JUDGE BRENNER: In order to save some time, we 7 could just perhaps bind the document in at this point, 8 and you can perhaps summarily indicate which documents 9 they are.
10 (The list of documents proposed for 11 stipulation by Applicant and Staff follows:)
12 13 D 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I, 24 25 h
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
]C El June 15, 1982 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station k Case No. 50-322 List of License Application Documents Admitted into Evidence by Stipulation
- 1. LILCO, Applicant's Final Safety Analysis Report, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Volumes 1 to 16, through Revision 26, dated April, 1982.
- 2. LILCO, Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Stage, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Volumes 1 to 6, through Revision 4, dated September, 1979.
List of Staff Review Documents Admitted into Evidence by Stipulation
- 3. U.S. NRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1, NUREG-0420, dated April, 1981.
- 4. Supplement No. 1 to NUREG-0420, dated September, 1981.
- 5. Supplement No. 2 to NUREG-0420, dated February, 1982.
l l
l 4559 l l
lh 1 MR. EARLEY: The documents ares the Final 2 Safety Analysis Report through Revision 26, dated April 3 '982, and, the Applicant's Environmental Report through 4 Revision 4 da ted September 1979.
5 The staff documents include the Fafety 6 Evaluation Report dated April 1981, the first Supplement 7 to that report dated September '.981, and the second 8 Supplement to that report dated February 1982.
9 JUDGE BRENNER4 So we will bind this list into 10 the transcript. Is the stipulation agreeable to all 11 parties?
12 (No response.)
13 Hearing no objection, the exhibits numbers I 14 believe voald be LILCO Exhibit 11 for the Final Safety 15 Analysis Report as identified by Mr. Earley, and LILCO 16 Exhibit 12 or the Environmental Report, Operating 17 License Stage, as identified by Mr. Earley. With 18 respect to the staff's documents, I believe that would 19 be Staff Exhibit 2.
20 Let's do it this way. Why don't we assion the l
l 21 basic SER the Exhibit Number 2A, Supplement 1 Exhibit l
22 No. 2B and Supplement 2 the Exhibit Number of 2C. And l
l l 23 then for future supplements which we an tici pa te, we can 24 continue that sequence. Is that acceptable to the staff?
25 MR. REPKA: There is no objection to that.
J ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
4560 l 1 JUDGE BRENNER: All right, as I identified and 2 marked, and pursuant to the stipulation, those documents 3 are admitted into evidence.
4 (The documents referred 5 to were marked LILCO 6 Exhibit Nos. 11 and 12 7 for identification, and 8 were received in 9 evidence.)
10 (The documents referred 11 to were marked Staff 12 Exhibit Nos. 2A, 2B and 13 2C, respectively, for I identificatioa, and were 14 15 received in evidence.)
16 JUDGE BRENNER: The Board appreciates the 17 parties working this out, and it seems to be a common 18 sense approach to do it, in light of the way we are 19 identifying particular portions where they are pertinent
, 20 to contested issues.
21 We can return now to the main order of 22 business, which would be the 7B testimony. Related to 23 that, we noted off the record yesterdsy that an i
24 additional paragraph on page 175, or a portion of a 25 paragraph on page 175, should be struck, consistent with h
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4561 I 1 the approach of LILCO agreeing that certain portions 2 should be struck, in response to the motion.
3 Beginning with the sacond sentence of the g
4 second full paragraph on page 175, the remainder of that 5 paragraph should be struck, and it begins, "This PRA has 6 thus far..." and continues down to the end of that 7 paragraph, ending, ...with the WASH-1400 study."
8 It is too late to physically do it in the 9 t ra nscrip t, of course, but that section is stricken.
10 MR. LANPHER: Judge, with respect to the 7B 11 testimony, let me tell you where I am going, pursuant to 12 conversations we have had with counsel. I am going to 13 turn attention to the beginning part of the beginning 14 part of the testimony beginning at page 8, General 15 Electric design and operating experience.
16 I would note that I had not finished my 17 examination of Mr. McGuire, but this is to try to 18 accommodate some schedules. I note there is a motion 19 from Long Island Lighting to have Mr. William Roths. I 20 am not sure whether you want to address that at this 21 time before se get started in the substantive matters.
22 JUDGE BRENNER: Fine, le t's do th at. I was 23 going to wait until we got to the Reed Report. Are we 24 st the Beed Report now?
25 MR. LANPHER: I am going to try to keep out of D
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4562 h 1 that as mu:h as I can. I am going to go through the 2 testimony with respect to GE operating ex pe rience 3 without reference to the Reed Report initially, and then g
4 we will, once I have gone through that as much as I can 5 without it, we will be turning to the Reed Report.
6 I can state that last night I met with Mr.
7 Firestone who has entered his appearance specially 8 before.
9 JUDGE BRENNERs Welcome back, Mr. Firestone.
10 MR. LANPHERa I met with Mr. Firestone last 11 night to discuss, pursuant to your off-the-record 12 request, what can be done to avoid the use of thi s. And 13 I do not want to put words in Mr. Firestone 's mouth , but 14 anything -- I think literally anything taken from the 15 Reed Report they consider proprietary, even if the Reed 16 Report is not mentioned in the context of a question.
17 And so, I do not know how we can avoid an in 18 camera session if the Board agrees with that.
19 JUDGE BRENNERa All right. Let's do things in 20 this order. I take it it would assist matters if we 1
21 could put the additional witness on the panel now. Is 22 that correct?
l 23 MR. EARLEY: Yes, Judge, it would .
24 JUDGE BRENNER: And I also take it that there 25 is no objection to the motion, in fact, th a t it is a t i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4563 l
J 1 the behest of the county that they wish to get into this 2 area, that the witness would be here.
3 MR LANPHER: It is my understanding he is the 4 witness who would be competent to answer these 5 questions, as opposed to Mr. Ianni and Mr. Robare, who 6 sponsored this portion of the testimony.
7 JUDGE BRENNER: Does the staf f ha ve any 8 objection to the motion to add William J. Roths?
9 MR. RAWSON: The staff has no objection.
10 JUDGE BRENNER: I suggest it might be useful 11 to bind the motion into the transcript at this point, 12 along with the qualifications of Mr. Roths.
13 (The written motion to include Mr. Roths on 14 the panel of witnesses, and the qualifications of Mr.
15 Roths, follows) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 j 24 25 D
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
T3 LILCO, Junn 17, 1982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'N Before the Atomic Sa_fety end Licensing Board V
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
MOTION OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY TO ADD WILLIAM T. ROTHS AS WITNESS ON SC/ SOC CONTENTION 7B AND SOC CONTENTION 19 (b)
The Long Island Lighting Company respectfully requests permission to add William J. Roths as a supplemental witness
, on SC/ SOC Contention 7B and SOC Contention 19 (b) . A copy of sJ his professional qualifications is attached.
FW. Roths is currently Program Manager, Emergency Response Information Systems for the General Electric Company.
Prior to assuming this position, he spent a number of years as Program Manager for programs carried out in response to General Electric's Nuclear Reactor Study (Reed Report) .
Although LILCO did not rely explicitly or implicitly on the Reed Report in its direct testimony on these contentions, Suf folk County requested that General Electric produce the report for use in cross-examination. General Electric has "N
treated this report as proprietary information but agreed to d allow access to it under specified conditions (see attached
" Agreement hegarding Disclosure of Confidential Commercial l
Information"). In return for being given access to the Reed Report, Suffolk County agreed to inform General Electric if
,z it intended to use the report or c'oss-examination.
Furthermore, if the County did decide to use the report, it l would not object to supplementing LILCO's panel on these contentions with a witness familiar with the Reed Report.
The County has informed General Electric that it intends to use the heed Report on cross-examination. Accord-ing ly, LILCO requests that Mr. Roths be added to the witness panel for SC/ SOC Contention 7B and SOC Contention .1.9 (b) .
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISIAND LIGHTING COMPANY
-l ,I l
) -
76 'w t. y s:-f (7, _ i/2tri j g/ f T. S. Ellis,,yII Anthony F. Est ley, Jr.
/
Ilunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virg inia 23212 DATED: June 17, 1982 i
_q J
l .
Professional Qualifications
/
WILLIAM J. ROTHS h
Program Manager - ERIS General Electric Company Mr. Roths is an Engineering Manager, employed by the Nuclear Power Systems Division of the General Electric Company in San Jose, California. He is currently Program Manager, Emergency Response Information System.
From 1975 through 1980, Mr. Roths' duties included the responsibility of serving as Program Manager for programs being carried out in response to the findings and recommendations contained in General Electric's Reed Report. This responsibility consisted of assuring that programs responsive to the Report were defined, presenting these programs to higher management for approval, monitoring progress of the programs, and organizing periodic review meetings conducted by the Reed Review Team. During this time he was also Manager, Reliability Engineering Operation where his responsibilities included reliability analyses, design reviews and engineering quality assurance.
Mr. Roths has been employed by General Electric '
since 1951. From 1951 to 1956 he participated in Advanced Il
%/
Engineering training programs conducted by GE as student and then as instructor. From 1956 to 1970 he worked as
. ~ . . - - - _ - . - .. . . . - . .-. .- .
i 1
i l
I
-i System Engineer and Manager of System' Engineering in the J
i l Company's Aerospace business. From 1970 to 1972 he served as Project Manager for a project.in the GE Computer l business. From 1972 until 1975 he worked in the Nuclear Energy business with assignments in Planning and Engineering l Consulting.
} Mr. Roths received a B.S. in Electrical Engineering i
j from Kansas State University in 1951.
i i
I .
lO t
d O
s 2-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
)
AGREEMENT REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INFORMATION A. _
(hereinaf ter "Signator")
is Counsel [ Consultant] to , a party to the above-captioned proceeding.
B.
The Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) has engaged General Electric Company (GE), a non-party in this proceeding, to supply the nuclear steam supply system for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1.
C.
has requested that its counsel { consultant) be permitted to inspect the following GE documents:
The Reed Report and the related Sub-Task Force Reports.
These documents are claimed by GE to contain confidential information and to be customarily held in confidence.
D.
GE will make the documents available to Signator at facilities designated by Long Island Lighting Company for inspection
cnd the sole purpose of making verbatim extractions of those documents which are relevant to SC/ SOC contention 7B and SOC contenti (hareinafter "information") provided that the information will be
[])treatedinaconfidentialmannerasprovidedbelow.
E.
In consideration of the disclosure of the information by GE, the Signator agrees as follows:
(1)
Signator will inspect the documents, and take any notes in strict confidence and secrecy.
(2) Signator will use the information only for cross-examination purposes in connection with the existing contentions SC/ SOC 7B and SOC 19(b) in the above-captioned proceeding. The information, if used in whole or in part for any of the above purposes, shall be subject to paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) below and shall be presente
'^1 only during in camera sessions before the Board that provide protection
%)
against non-disclosure equivalent to that provided under this Agree-ment.
(3) Signator will not photocopy, transcribe, reproduce, or disclose the documents nor use the documents for any purpose other than that provided in paragraph D above.
(4) Signator will not photocopy, transcribe, reproduce or disclose the information to any other person or entity who has not executed this Agreement.
(5) Signator will safeguard and hold in strict confidence
,m the information and documents.
h
_ .-_ _ _ _ _mm,mmu,rmame,~ - _ -- . _ . mm _ ____.__. _
l
. 1 (6)
Restrictions on disclosure contained herein chall not
_ cpply to any information or material:
a.
which can be shown to have been known or used by Signator prior to the date of disclosure to Signator by GE, or
- b. which either before or after the date of disclosure to Signator by GE is lawfully disclosed to Signator by an independent third party without restriction on disclosure on behalf of GE, or c.
which either before or after the date of the disclosure to Signator by GE becomes available
] to the public through no fault of Signator.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as permitting Signator to unf airly obtain the right to use information that becomes publicly known through an improper act or omission on their part.
(7) Signator may not assign this Agreement.
(6) Signator makes no admission as to whether the information or documents disclosed by GE are, in fact, confidential commercial infor-mation, but Signator will treat the information and documents on a confi-dential basis. In the event any NRC regulation, rule, or ASLB order , other administrative order, or judicial ruling requires the disclosure of the information without providing the equivalent protection accorded under this Agreement, GE will have the right to immediately withdraw
s thw information from Signator upon request, and Signator will promptly abide by that request.
n V (9) Signator will return to GE all of the information at the conclusion of his use, but in no event later than the termination of his employment by Intervenor, or the conclusion of the above-captioned proceeding, whichever occurs first.
Date Signator CONSENTED TO GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY BY I
i l
g
4564 ll 1 JUDGE BRENNERs Can we find another chair for l 2 Mr. Roths?
3 MR. LANPHER: At this point, I am not going to 4 be directing any questions respecting the Stone C 5 Webster operating experience of LILCO, so I am not sure 8 tat the Stone C Webster personnel or Mr. McGuire and Mr.
7 Kascsak need to be up there right now.
8 JUDGE BRENNER Why don't we give Mr. McGuire 9 a rest, since it is my perception he is the one most 10 unlikely to be affected. And we will allow Mr. Boths to 11 take his spot, and we will reserve your seat for you, 12 Mr. McGuire, for later.
13 At this time, I would like to get a statement 14 of counsel and, I presume, M r. Firestone, as to just 15 what the proprietary status of the Reed Report is in 18 terms of my recollection that the Commission ruled that
, 17 it was not proprietary. Or to put it more accurately, 18 the Commission ruled that it would not be withheld for 19 disclosure, for the precise reasons tha t were -- not 20 necessarily that it was not proprietary at one time.
21 MR. FIRESTONEa Just Brenner, it might be l
l 22 helpful if I gave you a brief actual review of what has 23 been taking place in the Reed Report. It might also be 24 helpf ul, just as a matter of background, to refresh 25 people's recollection and then make some suggestions on D
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
4565
) I how we might handle the matter.
2 As you may be aware, the Reed Report was 3 discussed in the Black Fox proceeding a number of years 4 ago. It is an analysis of General Electric's product 5 line from a purely stra tegic standpoint. It was 6 produced in an effort to enhance General Electric's 7 competitive position *in the marketplace.
8 It, in the eyes of General Electric, remains 9 proprietary and has been held and continues to be held 10 in confidence and it is deemed by the General Electric 11 Company to be a viable report because we do believe it 12 has an anti-competitive position.
13 As a matter of history, --
14 JUDGE BRENNER: Excuse me. At this time, 15 could you recall for me when the report was issued? It 16 was quite sometime ago.
17 MR. FIRESTONE: Yes. The report is dated --
18 JUDGE BRENNER: Was it in the 1972-73 19 timeframe?
20 MR. FIRESTONE: It is 1975, July 1st. The 21 nature of the litigation of the re po rt is a s f ollows. ,
22 It was handled in camera. Some one or one and a half 23 days of proceedings took place on Black Fox. The Board h 24 obtained copies and verbatim extractions as did the 25 intervenors at the time, and all parties. Verbatim I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l l
l 4566 )
l l
) 1 extractions.
2 The Board itself retained a copy of the full 3 Reed Report, which I think -- for purposes of clarity 4 let me just define when we talk about the Reed Report 5 wha t that means.
8 The Reed Report itself consists of a 21-page 7 executive summary, a main report of some 140 pages, and 8 th a t was endorsed by all members of what we call the 9 Reed Task Force. In the course of preparing the Reed 10 Report, --
11 JUDGE BRENNERs Excuse me, Mr. Firestone, I 12 hope I do not throw you off, but was the en tire task 13 force composed of GE employees?
l 14 MR. FIRESTONE: Yes. I think there were one 15 or two consultants that were non-GE, retained by General 16 Electric Com pany. Yes, that is correct, and if you have 17 other questions, I can verify this with Mr. Roths.
18 In the course of preparing the Reed Report, 19 each member of the task force chaired a sub-task review 20 which resulted in the preparation of a sub-task report.
21 There were 10 such reports, and they compromised about 22 700 pages and were input documents for consideration by 23 the Reed Task Force in preparing this 21-page executive I 24 summary and main report of 140 pages.
25 So, just so you have an understanding, there I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4567 l 1 is this whole document we a re going to call the Reed 2 Report for the purposes of simplicity here, but it is 3 made up of what is the Reed Report, the 140-page main g
4 report, which was agreed to by all members of the task 5 force, plus this some 700 pages of documentation which 6 not all members of the full task force agreed to, but 7 vere sub-reports that were produced by the sub-task 8 force groups.
9 As a matter of background, the Suffolk County 10 and-the SOC have examined the whole report and have made 11 some excerpts from it. And what I mean by the whole 12 report, it is the sub-task force reports and this 13 140-page main report.
14 What has taken place procedurally is in 15 September of 1979, the Prairie Alliance filed a Freedom 16 of Information Act request for the Reed Report and its 17 related sub-task force reports with the Nuclear 18 Regulatory Commission. The NRC had the full body of 19 reports because the ASLB in Black Fox had received it.
20 . The request by the Prairie Alliance was denied 21 by the NRC, and appeal of this denial was filed by the 22 Prairie Alliance in November of 1979. Nothing tock 23 place until July 1, 1980, a t which time the Prairie 24 Alliance filed suit against the NRC under the Freedom of 25 Information Act.
D l
I i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4568 l
lll 1 JUDGE BRENNER4 The request was denied at the 2 staff level and then the appeal you spoke of in November )
3 3 was to the full Commission?
r/
4 MR. FIRESTONE: That is correct, but at that 5 time, nothing took place until July 1, 1980 when the 6 Prairie Alliance filed suit against the NRC under the 7 Freedom of Information Act in the Central District of 8 Illinois.
9 On October 9, 1980, the Commissioners ordered 10 the release of the Reed Report and that is what you were 11 referring to earlier. General Electric filed suit 12 against the NRC in October of that same year, October 13 1980, requesting non-disclosure of the report. On 14 October 31st, -- incidentally, we filed tha t suit in the 15 District Court for the District of Columbia.
16 On October 31st, 1980, that suit, General 17 Electric versus Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was l
l 18 t ra n sf e rre d by Judge Robinson to the Central District of 19 Illinois in consolidation with the existing suit by the i
l 20 Prairie Alliance against the NRC. In that order by 21 Judge 3cbinson, he also ordered that the NRC not release 22 the Reed Report pending disposition of this whole issue 23 by the District Court for the Central District of h 24 Illinois.
l l 25 At the present time, there are some summary i
s ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l 4569 1
{} 1 judgment motions pending and some discovery motions 2 pending, but nothing has transpired in the case at this 3 time regarding a final decision on the Reed Report. And c3 J 4 that is the f actusl background of where we stand today.
5 JUDGE BRENNEP Judge Robinson transferred it 6 when?
7 MR. FIRESTONE: O ctober 31, 1980.
8 JUDGE BRENNER: And in that interim between 9 October 9th and October 31st, I take it the report had 10 not been disseminated by the Commission ?
11 MR. FIRESTONE: That is correct.
12 JUDGE BRENNER: Was the Commission's October 13 9th order a published order?
O wJ 14 MR. FIRESTONE: I believe it was, and I can 15 obtain that if you would like to see it.
16 JUDGE BRENNER: I think we can find it if we 17 need to see it. The same with respect to Judge 18 Robinson's order of non-disclosure as part of the 19 transfer?
20 MR. FIRESIONE: That I have with me if you 21 would like to see it.
22 JUDGE BRENNER: I would like to see that. I 23 imagine that would not have been published; it would 24 have been just a memorandum ?
)
25 MR. FIRESTONE: I think it was pu blished. I O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
f457 0 1 will provide it to you right now.
2 JUDGE BRENNER: All right, fine.
3 (Pause.)
4 Well, I think we can get it over the lunch 5 break or the mid-morning break unless you have it now.
6 MR. FIRESTONE. I do.
7 (Counsel handing document to Board.)
8 (Pause.)
9 JUDGE BRENNER: As I understand the procedural 10 posture, --
and one resson I asked for the status was to 11 understand for myself whether we were permitting an in 12 camera session as a temporary convenience to which all 13 parties agreed in order to keep the proceeding moving, 14 or whether I should first make a ruling on whether the 15 document was proprietary or not.
16 And I believe as has now been confirmed in 17 light of the court ruling, we need make no independent 18 ruling. We explictly need make no independent ruling as 19 to whether the Reed Report is proprietary. We will have 20 an in camera session in observance of the District of 21 Columbia District Court order by Judge Robinson, filed 22 on October 31st, 1980, which Mr. Firestone referred to 23 and which he has now provided a copy of to the Board.
24 MR. FIRESTONE: As a matter of clarification, 25 Judge Brenner, we have signed protective agreements from O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4571 ll 1 Suffolk County and 50C on this matter, and it is General 2 Electric's request that at the time any cross 3 examination takes place of Mr. Boths on the issues in 4 the Reed Report, tha t individuals who remain in the 5 hearing room sign protective agreements. 7.n d I have 6 copies with me for that purpose.
7 JUDGE BRENNER4 I take ic that is agreeable to 8 the county? Well, I do not know that we need your 9 agreement. It would be the better way to proceed. Let 10 me ask the question.
11 MR. LANPHER: Judge, I signed an affidavit 12 last week I guess in a form that was acceptable to me 13 and certainly to Mr. Minor. My understanding is that 14 Mr. Firestone wants a new affidavit which explicitly 15 covers the hearing process, and I do not object to 16 that. I have consulted -- he has a draft protective 17 order that I think he nnts the Board to consider 18 entering, and I have consulted with him on that. I gave 19 him some comments.
20 I have not had an opportunity to review the l 21 final version of that, so I am not prepared to say that
! 22 I am in accord with all of its words, but the basic l 23 principles, he would, of course, prefer this all to be 24 in the open but we are not going to take tne position on h
25 whether it should be or not.
D ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4572
) 1 JUDGE BRENNER4 Well, I have not seen the 2 protective orders I have seen a copy of the affidavit of 3 non-disclosure, snd I will consider it (ecessary. But 4 frankly, we have enough paper in this case, and since 5 whst we are doing is in deference solely to the court 6 order, I see no reason for an independent protective 7 order. But if you want to insist to the contrary, Mr.
8 Firestone, we will consider it if and when you do that.
9 For now, my ever-alert Board members properly 10 suggest thst we bind in the October 31st, 1980 order at 11 this point in the transcript, if you could provide a 12 copy to the reporter, and we will bind it in here.
13 (The October 31st, 1980 protective order 14 follows )
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
/
. I 'I ;.k
/
?
UNITED STATES DIGTRICT COURT FOR Ti1E DISTRICT OF COMUMBIA l JUN 151982 CENE11Als ELECTRTC COMPANY )
CA rmt0f 0NE I[
fm 175 Curtner Avenuo )
] San Jose, CA 95125 ) ,
) I Plaintiff, ) }
} - t .
- v. )' CIVIL ACTION MO. 3
) NO. 80-2659 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR )
REGULATORY COMMIGGTON, )
et al. ) .
1717 !! Sttoct, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555
)
)
F I I- E D ',
2
)
Defendant. j
) OCT 311980
)
JAMES E. DA'/EY, ClerN !
ORDER This action is transferred under Titic 28, United States Code, Section 1404 (a) , to the United Staten District Court fcr the Cant.rst Diastrict of Illinois. The General Electric Nuclear Reactor Study (the " Reed Report") or its contents are not to be released by defendant pending disposition of ,
that isson by the Unitmt states District Court for Central District of Illinoic.
- j ,' .
So ordered: -
f/ h//
NITED
~.rY *w(.-
TATES DISTRICT JUDGE
.g. i-6.</ (..' ..'
b . & k .. $ {./fli O
4573
) 1 MR. RAWSON4 Judge Brenner, it was not clear 2 to se f rom Mr. Firestone's comments earlier whether his 3 comments were also directed at staff or staff counsel, 4 which is, of course, subject to Judge Robinson's order, 5 as is the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
6 MR. FIRESTONE4 In the past, -- a nd I spoke 7 with Mr. Shoemacher in the NRC Office of Legal Director 8 about this and he had no objection to following with the 9 staff signing a copy of the protective agreement.
10 In adsition, Judge Brenner, what I suggest is 11 I can submit to you, ss it is being typed right now, a 12 proposed protective order with supporting affidavit from 13 Mr. Boths, just for your background and understanding so 14 that you can make your own decision. And I will leave 15 it up to you what to do af ter you see it.
16 JUDGE BRENNER: There are two reasons why I am P
17 reluctant to do anything with it. Number one, we have 18 enough paper in this case, and number two, I am not 19 making any independent finding, and you have got the 20 court order. As far as the staff concerned, you could 21 work it out with the staff, and I do not recall whether 22 the precisa langusge in the affidavit would prevent the 23 staff from disclosing it to other members of the staff.
) 24 But if it does, I suggest there is no need for the staff 25 to sign it. The order has been disclosed to the staff
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4570 l 1 and it is normal for the staff not to sign this for 2 litigation.
3 MR. FIRESTONE: We have tried to be very 4 careful with this particular report because of its 5 competitive value, and that is the only rea son tha t we 6 have, in the past, followed this procedure.
7 JUDOE BRENNERs Well, work it out with the 8 sts f f . In the first insta nce , they are going to want to 9 be free to have other people in the course of this 10 hesring and in reviewing the record and writing findings 11 and so on. And I am sure they will want to consider 12 whether the language of the affidavit should stand on 13 thst.
14 Also, you want to be careful, since I vaguely 15 recall the Commission's order and its grounds for 16 releasing it was thst well, it seems to have been 17 released anyway.
18 With all of this, we should have let the panel 19 relax until this time, and I apologize, gentlemen. I 20 did not realize it would take this long. The break is 21 almost upon us, bat I hate to break early and then have 22 a long second half of the morning.
23 MR. LANPHER: I was going to suggest that we h 24 do that. I would sort of hate to start for 10 minutes ,
i l
25 or 20 minutes and then take a break right in the middle l
D l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 1
f4575 l 1 of somethino.
2 JUDGE BRENNER: I was going to ask if you had 3 a neat line that sould take 15 minutes.
4 MR. LANPHER: I do not make those predictions.
5 JUDGE BRENNER: All right, let's break until 6 10:30.
7 (A short recess was taken at 10:20 a.m., to 8 reconvene at 10:30 a.m.)
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ,
25 B
A-eso~ e.o.1,~e cc.. A~,. ,~c.
l 400 VI.GINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
i 1
4576 k
I 1 JUDGE BRENNER: Let's go back on the record.
2 Whereupon, 3 WILLIAM J. ROTHS 4 was called as a witness by counsel for Applicant and, 5 after being first duly sworn, was examined and testified 8 as follows:
7 Whereupon, 8 GEORGE F. DAWE, 9 GEORUE GARABEDIAN, 10 PIO W. IANNI, 11 ROBERT M. KASCSAK, 12 PAUL J. McGUIRE, 13 PAUL W. RIEGELHAUPI and 14 DAVID J. ROBARE, 15 the witnesses on the stand at the time of recess, 18 resumed the stand, and, having been previously duly 17 sworn, were examined and testified further as follows:
18 MR. LANPHER: Mr. Robare and Mr. Ianni, I am 19 going to be directing you to your testimony beginning at 20 page 8. And, Mr. Boths, if you have anything to add, 21 please, of course, consult with your colleagues.
22 CROSS EXAMINATION (Pesumed) 23 BY MR. LANPHER:
24 0 Who wrote this portion of the testimony, or ,
25 the initial draft?
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
0577 l 1 A (WIINESS IANNI) I wrote the initial draft.
2 0 Mr. Ianni, is it fair to state that Shoreham, 3 from GE's point of view, was primarily designed during 4 the time period prior to issuance of the construction 5 period?
6 A (WITNESS IANNI) I do not like the te rm 7 "primarily designed" because, in effect, it was a 8 referer.ce plant. But as I indicated yesterday, the 9 Shoreham design in a sense is still going on. There is to sbout 15 items still on the scheduling list to be done.
11 So the design is a continuous process, a constant 12 relook, a constant re-evaluation because of what has 13 happened. So I do not want to characterize it as saying 14 it was designed in any specific time.
15 0 That is why I used the word "primarily." I 16 understand that it is a continuing effort. Was the 17 greatest design activity prior to issuance of the 18 construction permit?
19 A (WITNESS IANNI) I do not think that is a fair 20 characterization. I do not know when the greatest 21 design activity took place. I would have to look back, 22 but I think that the Shoreham effort was really intense, 23 for example, in the early seventies and even the middle 24 seventies. I would have to go b,ack and look at 25 information on that specific point.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
0S78
) 1 0 Turning your attention to page 10, four lines 2 f rom the bo ttom, sir, you stated tha t, -- and you are 3 not talking about Shoreham specifically, but in general 4 terms, "In the early months following the receipt of an 5 order, the design specifications..." et cetera, ...are 6 developed for design engineers." Is that correct?
7 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir. Top level documents 8 as distinguished from detail documents. They come later.
9 0 Are the detail documents then developed from 10 these top level documents?
11 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir, and a great deal of 12 detail design consists of taking top level documents, 13 applying them to the details of the design and do 14 specific plans where there are minor differences, and 15 then all of those documents -- that would pass back cnd 16 forth between ourselves and the AEs. They are at a very 17 detail level and not all at the top level, although they 18 hit those, too.
19 0 When was the order for Shoreham received by 20 General Electric?
21 A (WITNESS IANNI) About 1967.
22 0 So the top level documents would have been 23 issued approximately at that time, and then the more h 24 detailed documents would have begun to be developed in 25 the late sixties?
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4579 l 1 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir. And into the 2 seventies. Especially as changes took place, we had to 3 go back and modify all of the documents. ,
4 A (WITNESS ROBARE) I would like to supplement 5 that. The initial issue of those documents would have 6 been in the sixties. They were constantly revised all 7 the way up through the seventies, and even into the 8 eighties.
9 Q Turning to page 9 of your testimony, that to section is entitled " Disciplined Design." Can you 11 define what you mean by disciplined design?
12 A (WITNESS IANNI) A discipline as applied to 13 design applies to obtaining uniformity in communication 14 between groups and between ourselves and our vendors, 15 and between ourselves and the architect engineers. It 16 applies to only passing that information which is 17 necessary and sufficient to the other party. In other 18 words, you can over-communicate and pass on too much 19 n oi se .
20 For example, if I specify a pump or a flow 21 rate, say, for the core cooling systems, I do not alst 22 tell Stone C Webster that I want a certain pipe size.
23 Tha t is their prerogative, of how they want to size the h 24 piping. So d,isciplined communication then means that 25 you pass on the necessary and sufficient information and D
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4500 l 1 you do i! in w ri ting , you do it according to written 2 p- 'edures so that everyone follows the same procedures.
3 Because engineers tend to be pretty creative 4 and everyone has his own way of doing things, and one 5 has to be very careful as a manager that everyone does 0 it in the same manner -- you communicate through certain 7 and you all folllow the same rules and standards, 8 classification, design, et cetera, so that we all go to 9 the same book, for example, to find out we do a certain 10 thing.
11 An engineer is not free on his own to simply 12 cite how he wants to do something; he has to go by 13 written procedures.
14 0 So by disciplined design you are really 15 talking about the comprehensive communications network 16 within GE and in GE's interfaces?
'7
, A (WITNESS IANNI) And in GE's interfaces as 18 well. Those are also very carefully controlled. Like 19 all comunications take place to the project manager in 20 our plant, in the same way Stone C Webster's do. So he 21 is aware of everything that is going back and forth.
22 Because if you do not do that, then any individual can 23 communicate with snother individual, and confusions can lh 24 arise, so that would not be good design discipline. So 25 therefore, all communications take place through one
)
At.DERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4581 l 1 channel, on both parties.
2 0 Is one of the purposes of this disciplined 3 design activity to identify and resolve problems or l 4 potential problems or issues as early as possible in the 5 design process?
6 A (WIINESS IANNI) That takes place naturally as 7 you pass the information back and forth, both within the 8 organization and external to the organization. You do 9 discover issues that need to be resolved, and changes 10 take place back and forth and meetings take place, et 11 cetera.
12 0 Is an effort made at General Electric to 13 identify those problems as early in a project as I
14 possible?
15 A (WITNESS IANNI) That is always the case. We 16 always try to do that as f ar as it is possible to do so.
17 0 Do you attempt to identify those before 18 construction actually begins?
19 A (WITNESS IANNI) It is always advantageous for 20 everyone concerned to find problems as early as you can 21 in any givan project.
22 0 Mr. Ianni or Mr. Robare, are you familiar with 23 the so-called Prowns Ferry fire of 1975?
k 24 A (WITNESS IANNI) I am generally familiar with 25 it, yes, sir.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4582 ll 1 Q Browns Ferry is a General Electric BWR, 2 correct, Unit 17 3 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir.
4 0 Well, all of the units, in fact. Correct?
5 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir.
6 JUDGE BRENNER: What was that?
7 MR. LANPHER All the units at Browns Ferry 8 are General Electric BWRs.
9 JUDGE BRENNERa I thought you specified which 10 generation, but you did not? I am not sure that they 11 are all the same generation. That was my problem, but 12 go ahead.
13 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
14 0 Is it correct that the fire at Browns Ferry 15 sta rted in safety-related cables in or around the cable 16 spreading room?
17 A (WITNESS IANNI) A fire did start somewhere in 18 the cable room, yes, in the cable area.
19 Q And that fire did not just affect one train of 20 cabless it affected safety-related cables affecting vide 21 areas of the plant. Is that correct?
22 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, the fire was greater than 23 had been taken into account. Yes, sir.
I, 24 0 The design process, up to that point in time, 25 hsd not precluded that kind of an event from occurring, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W , WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4583 I 1 correct?
2 A (WITNESS IANNI) That is not entirely correct.
g 3 I think the fsir thing to say about it is that the fire 4 was larger than anyone had imagined, for purposes of 5 design, and had exceeded what all of us thought was a 6 reasonable basis for it. And indeed, in the def ensive 7 concept situation that we have, that pulled us through.
8 Q At page 18 of your testimony, the top 9 paragraph, you discussed th e testing, four large, 10 full-scale segment tests of the MARK I, II and III type 11 containments. Didn't the HARK III design containment 12 process for severs 1 new phenomena and systems 13 interactions discovered such as steam chugging and the D 14 pool swell phenomena?
15 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, except it is unfair to 16 cha racte rize it as just on MAEK III. Some of these 17 phenomena were found overseas on their plant designs.
18 The nature of the technology was such at the time that 19 these phenomena were not known by anyone and were being 20 found more or less in the same time ers in given 21 laboratories in the world.
22 O Mr. Ianni, in tha t answer you said "their 23 plant designs" that someone else.
24 A (WITNESS IANNI) In European plant designs ther 25 had found similar phenomena, and so everything was I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
4584 I 1 taking place in sort of the same timeframe as MARK III 2 was being tested.
g 3 0 Can you explain what steam chugging is?
4 A (WITNESS IANNI) Steam chugging is a phenomenon 5 tha t takes place at certain mass flow rates; an event 6 which is submerged in water, and the condensation 7 process becomes unstable. And in the process of 8 collapsing the steam bubble into the vent, pressure l
9 waves are generated inside the water, which are 10 reflected off the various structures and that is called 11 chugging as a general name.
12 0 Is the concern with chugging that the wave j 13 action or the hydrodynamic impact loads might affect I
14 those other structures? Is that the concern?
15 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir, it is a loading 16 concern, which one has to understand and run tests in 17 order to obtain the loads.
18 0 And this was a concern that was identified in 19 connection with the European reactors and with the 20 development of the MARK III containment?
21 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir, the technology was 22 growing rapidly it that time, and it came about that way 23 roughly.
24 0 Can you define what pool swell is?
l 25 A (WIINESS IANNI) In the pressure suppression ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4585 I 1 system, when a postulated break occurs, air is swept 2 from the drywell volume into the vetwell volume through I g 3 the vents which are submerged under water, and this 4 takes place in about a second or so. So this air which 5 is suddenly released under the water causes the pool to 6 rise up inside the wetwell, and that phenomenon is 7 referred to as pool swell.
8 I have described the general phenomenon of 9 pool swell.
10 0 And what is the safety concern with pool swell?
11 A (WITNESS IANNI) One has to know what the pool 12 swell velocity is to impinge on the structures that are 13 related, and this is the te st that I referred to, the I
14 exhaustive tests, full-scale, et cetera, in all three 15 types that I mentioned. One of the largest test 16 programs we have ever undertaken, and we resolved all of 17 the loads for all three containment types with 18 full-scale tests.
19 And I might add very conservative loads were 20 given to the architect engineers to design the plants 21 to. And it was documented, et cetera. Those programs 22 are completed, and Shoreham benefited from all this 23 testing that wen t on , because it was not the first MARK 24 II. So that the owners of the MARK IIs and the MARK Is 25 and MARK IIIs all received their loads and the architect ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE.. S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4586 1 engineers are out there applying them to the plants and 2 finishing the designs.
3 0 Were these -- these were both the loading kind g
4 of problem, correct?
5 MR. FLLIS: Might I interpose an objection? I 6 do not believe pool swells were mentioned in either the 7 direct or cross examination in any of this testimony, 8 and we objact on the ground of relevancy.
9 MR. LANPHER: I am trying to find out what the 10 testing program was for the MARK I, II and III, which is 11 identified at the top of page 18, and I think my line of 12 questions, which I am going to follow up on right now, 13 will demonstrate the relevance. And I would just as 9 14 soon -- I would the Board's indulgence. I really do not 15 vant to telegraph exactly where I am goina, but if the 16 Boa rd needs it, I will.
17 JUDGE BRENNER: That was occurring to me as 18 you were asking the questions. I would ask you, you had 19 better tell me where you are going.
20 ER. LANPHER: Fine. Where I am going is a 21 disciplined design program, in our opinion, should 22 identify these problems before substantial construction 23 is underway. And it is my understanding that these 24 problems were identified in the mid-seventies, well l 25 after the primary design phase for Shoreham.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
14587 1 JUDGE BRENNER tiell, I do not think it was 2 any secret as to where you were going on that point, at 3 least. I inferred that. The problem raised in the 4 objection is that this was not one of the examples l
5 previously raised either in the county's testimony or in 6 the testimony here. Could you respond to that part of 7 the objection?
8 MR. LANPHER Well, the example it seems to me 9 is squarely raised by the GE witnesses in their 10 testimony on page 18 where they talk about the most 11 early test, and my understanding is that the MARK Is, 12 IIs and IIIs were tested for, among other reasons, pool 13 swell and steam chugging.
I 14 I have a right to examine the witness on the 15 tests that they referenced. I mean, they do not detail 16 what the tests are here, but they have squarely raised 17 the issue, so I do not think I am restricted to the 18 exampls that my witnesses put forth in their 7B 19 testimony.
20 JUDGE BRENNER4 Does the staff have a position ?
21 MR. RAWSON: No, sir.
22 (Board conferring.)
23 JUDGE BRENNER: We are going to overrule the 24 objection and allow the questioning to proceed, so long 25 as it is related to the point outlined by Mr. Lanpher.
k ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4588 I 1 MR. LANPHER: The point is relevant, and I do 2 not think that was the subject of the objection. It was g
3 not one of the exsmples mentioned in the county 4 testimony. However, Mr. Ianni makes some rather broad 5 statements here on pages 17 and 18, and we believe it 6 will be helpful to us, among other reasons, to find out 7 why some of these examples, which obviously are 8 prominent -- certainly, we know about them and all of 9 the parties know about them.
10 And if we are going to decide yes, indeed, 11 there is in sum and substance a totality of methodology 12 that accounts for these things, it would be important to 13 us to know why arguable exceptions to that rule 14 occurred. So we will allow it to proceed.
15 MR. LANPHER4 Thank you, Judge Brenner. I 16 should point out also on line 4, page 18, they talk 17 about design loads.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 B
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4589
) 1 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 2 Q Mr. Ianni, let rephrase the questions where I 3 was and let's see if we can get through the point even 4 quicker.
5 JUDGE BRENNER: Why don't you focus him in on 6 the particular ones you want and then ask him how he 7 missed them, in a series of questions directed at the 8 point, given your needs for building blocks of 9 information.
10 MR. LANPHER: Tha t is my next question, Judge 11 Brenner. It 's righ t here. I can read it if you want.
12 JUDGE BRENNER: I didn't know that, because it 13 wasn't in your cross plan.
14 MR. LANPHER: I don't put every question in 15 there.
16 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 17 0 Mr. Ianni, these potential loading problems 18 that we've been talking about, were they discovered or 19 analyzed or corrected during the Mark I design process?
20 A (WITNESS IANNI) I have difficulty with your 21 question because there are some Mark I's that are just 22 being designed now, and I could answer it yes or -- we 23 did take into account what we knew about the technology 24 at the time we designed the Mark I 's , just as a 1920 25 doctor would take into account the state of the art of ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VI AGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l '
4590
) 1 medicine at that time, and then if it is 1982 I am sure 2 that doctor would have a different view of some 3 diseases.
}
4 And sC the technology worldwide was changing 5 and evolving, and when we first designed tne Mark I's we 6 took into account everything we knew at that time, put 7 in ma rgin, a nd designed them. Now, in addition to that, 8 back in the early sixties the design basis accidents 9 were not as clearly defined as they are to,'ay. This to idea that, thou shalt break a pipe instantaneously, was 11 more or less used as an energy source, and back in the 12 early days we weren 't thinking in terms of the totally 13 deterministic follow-through of that event postulation.
B 14 We were still trying to define a loss of 15 coolant accident at that time, back in the very early 18 days. So in addition to the technology change, there 17 was a regulatory sttitude change, if you want to call it 18 that. As time went on, we were more cr less in unison 19 saying, okay, we're going to be very deterministic about 20 it, and that gave rise to jets and missiles and loads 21 and so forth.
22 So we were caught i t. that evolutionary, 23 technological - lutionary and regulatory process also.
I It is not just a case of not being clairvoyant enough, 24 25 of not having known that there were going to be loads of 9
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WAShlNGToN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4591 l 1 this type.
2 And incidentally, I should add that that was 3 also true of our overseas licensees as well. They g
4 weren't any smarter than we were.
5 0 At the time that you first were desianing Mark 6 I containments, then, you used the knowledge that you 7 had, and subsequently it was determined necessary to 8 reanalyze the designs of those containments?
9 A (WITNESS IANNI) Indeed. By that time we had 10 not only found that if we bresk a pipe instantaneously 11 and deterministically find out what those are that there 12 were loads, and in addition to that the regulatory 13 process was such that it stated, you must be 14 deterministic. And at that point in time we went back 15 and indeed reexamined all the Mark I's, reevaluated them 16 with all of the architect-engineers and an owners 17 group. And we went th ro ugh a very comprehensive 18 program.
19 0 Is it fair to say that the same type of 20 experience took place with respect to the Mark II's?
21 A (WITNESS IANNI) To some extent, except that 22 it wa s less in tensive, since there weren't that many 23 operating plants and it was earlier in the design.
24 Let's put it this way It was less painful to go 25 through that process, but indeed we did go through that h
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
0592 I 1 process. And I think Stone C Webster can testify to the 2 amount of work that they have done in this area. They g 3 were part of the group that workek on the containment 4 program for Mark II.
5 0 You say it was less painful because 6 construction of plants like Shoreham wasn't as far along 7 as for many of the Mark I plants?
8 A (WITNESS IANNI) Well, if you have to go in 9 and make changes on an operating plant, it is much more 10 painful than it is on a plant tha t is still under 11 construc tion , even though that is also painful perhaps.
12 0 This Mark I, II and III containment 13 reanalysis, for want of a better word -- and I would 14 change my characterization if you want -- that took 15 place in the mid-seventies?
16 A (WITNESS IANNI) Your question is so broad .
17 that I would have to say that it was a continuous thing 18 that went on from about the mid-seventies. And for 19 example, the architect-engineers are working on the Mark 20 III today. I don't know what the last plant is, but 21 they are probably planning the loads now for their 22 plant. So it is a continuous thing.
23 Your question was so broad that I couldn't 24 answer it.
25 0 Did it start in the mid-seventies?
D l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4593 I 1 A (WITNESS IANNI) Approximately the 2 mid-seventies, about 1975 or thereabouts.
3 I would also like to add something else, that g
4 not only was the containment reanalyzed, but the entire 5 nuclear steam supply safety systems were also 6 resnalyzed. These loads and other loads which are 7 t ra nsmit ted to the structures, piping, equipment, et 8 cetera, inside the containment, including the reactor, 9 some of these loads are passed through to the 10 equipment.
11 And not only was the containment reanalyzed, 12 but the entire program was set in motion in which all 13 the safety equipment was totally reanalyzed in great I
14 detail, updating all the equipment to current sta nd a rd s ,
15 to current load combinations which had evolved through 16 the evolutionary licensing process, including Shoreham.
17 Plant reanalyses were done in every component in the 18 con tainm en t th a t was safety-related and the whole plant 19 was updated.
20 A (WITNESS ROBARE) I would like to add 21 something if I could. Throughout all of these 22 reanalyses for both the containment and for the nuclear 23 steam supply system, there was no need to change the 24 classification of any equipment.
25 0 Does the GE design program attempt to complete ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE , S W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4594 h 1 all necessary analyses before the design is released for 2 construction?
g 3 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, we would like to do 4 that.
5 0 This wasn't possible with respect to the 6 containment design?
7 A (WIThESS IANNI) I explained what happened.
8 You know, what are you going to do? I think we did the 9 very best thing we could do. We went out there, we 10 tested the hell out of everything full-scale. We 11 tested. We had tests going on in Germany, we had tests 12 going on in Japan, we had tests going on in the United 13 States. They were testing, we were testing.
14 We specified loads which were subsequently 15 found to be grossly conservative. The same loads are 16 not being utilized by our overseas people because they 17 are too conservative. And we laid these on the 18 architect-engineers and said, go build them, and they 19 suffered through it and redesigned where they had to.
20 It's like taking a 707 and pa r tially 21 rebuilding it.
22 0 We will be coming to a different area of your j
23 testimony later concerning the potential systems 24 in terac tions concerns relating to the water level l
25 indicators, and I would hope to be covering that before l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGIN!A AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4595 i
l 1 coming to this area of the testimony. But th a t is a 2 potential systems interactions situation, isn't that g 3 correct?
4 A (WITNESS ROBARE) Yes, it is.
5 Q Was that potential systems interaction 6 analyzed for Shoreham prior to Shoreham's construction?
7 A (WITNESS ROBARE) What do you mean, prior to 8 Shorehim's construction?
9 0 Well, prior to installing the water level 10 indicators at Shoreham.
11 A (WITNES3 ROBARE) I want to be very clear on 12 this point. You're speaking of what water level 13 concern?
I 14 Q Let's just take the so-called Pilgrim water 15 level concerned, which is described in a Board 16 notification which was attached to the Coun ty 's and 17 SOC's 7(b) cestimony. We'll just take that narrow one.
18 Was that analyzed for Shoreham prior to installation of 19 the water level indica tors at Shoreham?
20 A (WITNESS ROBARE) It was considered in the 21 design, yes.
22 O It was considered in the design, you say. Wa s 23 a solution, a design solution, proposed?
24 A (WITNESS ROBARE) There was no design solution 25 required ahen it was considered and there is still not a ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4596 1 design solution or change required.
2 0 You said " required." First of all, when did 3 you consider this problem?
)
4 A (WITNESS ROBARE) It was considered many, many 5 yea rs ago, and it was deemed that the situation was --
6 the design was adequate without any modification. It 7 has been reconfirmed by more in-depth analysis f airly 8 recently.
9 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Lanpher, it might help if 10 we assure ourselves at this point that what the witness 11 has in mind as to the water level systems problem that 12 you 're focusing on is the same one that I have in mind 13 and the same one that you have in mind, since it was an 14 attachment that we had some time ago.
15 WITNESS ROBARE: It is my understanding you're 16 speaking of the phenomenon of flashing and bolloff in 17 the reference leg of the water level instrumentation 18 system, as occurred at Pilgrim.
19 MR. LANPHER: Tha t is correct, of the type 20 which is reflected in that Board notification concerning 21 the Pilgrim event?
22 WITNESS ROEARE: Yes.
23 BY MR. LANPHERs (Resuming) 24 0 Did GE consider that? Not that specific 25 problem at Pilgrim, obviously, but that general ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4597 I 1 phenomenon, many years ago, and determine not to do 2 inything to eliminate that problem from a design point g 3 of view?
4 A (WITNESS E0 BARE) That is my understanding in 5 speakina to the design engineers.
6 JUDGE JORDAN Could I ask, you considered not 7 only Pilgrim, Shoreham, but all plants; you decided 8 there was no change necessary?
9 WITNESS ROBARE: That's right.
10 JUDGE JORDAN 4 All right.
11 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 12 0 On page 19 of your testimony you state, the 13 last two lines: "The elements of adverse systems B 14 interactions pertaining to safety have received 15 consideration and have been largely precluded in the 16 design of nuclear power plants, including Shoreham."
17 Now, does the design of Shoreham preclude this 18 particularly systems interactions problem?
19 A (WITNESS ROBARE) It does not preclude any 20 syctems interaction in the scenarios of concern. But 21 ne design has been analyzed to be adequa te f or that 22 system interaction possibilit3 23 0 Well, your testimony which I just quoted from 24 pages 19 and 20 ssys that the design largely precludes 25 the system interaction. Now, isn't that an D
l ALDERSoN REPof TING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4598 h 1 o ve rs ta teme n t , sir?
2 A (WITNESS ROBARE) Perhaps better words would g 3 have been precludes or.are designed to accept the 4 consequences of.
5 Q Is it your testimony that GE consciously 6 allows adverse systems interactions in events where it 7 thinks that the consequences will not be too severe?
8 A (WITNESS ROBARE) I would not call them 9 adverse system interactions. They are real life 10 environmental interactions.
11 0 You don't consider the water level indicator 12 problem which we are talking about an adverse systems 13 interaction?
14 A (WITNESS ROBARE) No, I do not. As our 15 testimony shows, we feel the design is perfectly 16 acceptable the way it is currently installed.
17 0 Well, do you think that the potential 18 inaccuracy of the water level indicator is a good 19 thing?
20 A (WITNESS ROBARE) I would not say it was a 21 good thing, but I do feel that the design at Shoreham is 22 perfectly adequate.
23 0 But this is an adverse interaction, isn't it?
24 A (WITNESS ROBARE) There is a certain degree of l
25 inaccuracy in the indication of wa ter level, yes. But l
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4599 1
ll) 1 it is not sdverse in the sense that it is an .
2 unacceptable design for plant operation and safety.
'N 3 MR. LANPHER: Judge B renne r, I'm going to come J
4 back to this matter later. I just wanted to bring it up 5 briefly here.
6 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 7 0 Is Drasian Unit 2 a BWR?
8 A (WIINESS IANNI) Yes, sir.
9 Q When did it go into operation, approximately?
10 A (WITNESS IANNI) The very early seventies.
11' O And wa s it designed to the high standards 12 which you speak.of in this portion of your testimony?
13 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, the design functions
)
/ 14 tha t are described have always existed in the design of 15 a power plant. They have always been there, even when 16 we were very small, and as we grew they were still 17 there. So they were designed to pretty much the same 18 standards that we are talking about, but that was one of 19 the first Of a kind designs, an early design compared to 20 . the later designs.
21 Q Fou, in 197C-did Dresden Unit 2 experience a 22 vessel overfill event?
23 A (WITNESS lANNI) Yes, it had an event of that i
24 type.
25 0 Was-the eventual result a blowdown into the
~,)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRG!NIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l 4600 T con ta inmen t?
) 1 ,
~s 1
2 A (WITNESS IANNI) It was a safety relief valve 3 discharge into the containment.
4 0 And that is what caused the blowdown, sir?
5 A (WITNESS IANNI) No, that in itself discharges 6 steam into the containment. And I think it is what you 7 are calling a blowdown.
8 0 Did this event also include a stuck-open 9 safety relief valve?
10 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir.
11 0 Do you know what caused the valve to stick 12 open?
7 13 A (WITNESS IANNI) I believe it was the
14 impingement of the steam on a neighboring valve or 15 something along that line.
16 0 Had this event been analyzed by General 17 Electric before it occurred?
18 A (WITNESS IANNI) In the GE BWR, when we 19 analyze for accidents, small breaks, big breaks and 20 little breaks, because of the nature of the BWR, which 21 is a two-phase saturated system, it doesn't matter 22 whether a valve sticks open, gives you a steam break, or 23 it is a postulated break in one of its steam lines, a m
.) 24 small hole in one of the steam lines.
25 And yes, indeed, from a safety standpoint ve q
]
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4601 )
() 1 had analyzed that BWR from a small steam break !
2 standpoint which is equivalent to a safety relief valve 3 sticking open, or two or three, because we did a 4 complete spectrum analysis. So that from a safety 5 standpoint the pisnt had been analyzed for blowdowns of 6 that size.
7 0 Were the consequences of the Dresden blowdown 8 greater than had been anticipated in your analysis?
9 A (WITNESS IANNI) No, sir. I would say that 10 they were less than. It was a relatively minor event 11 from a safety standpoint.
12 Q This event resulted in failures of cables 13 within the containment, correct?
14 A (WITNESS IANNI) It was the overtemperature 15 effect on cables inside the containment, and also it 16 wetted the motors and things of this sort. As a result 17 of tha t , the lesson learned, we pipe the cafety relief 18 valves into the pool of the containments, so that now 19 when they discharge they go directly to the pool and 20 bypass the wetwell -- or, excuse me, bypass the 21 drywell.
22 And a good example of what I mean by operating 23 plant experience, where you can't think of everything as O a designer, you never know whether you've thought of
\) 24 25 everything that could possibly happen. And when you ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l 4602 I
l
)
V 1 operate a plant, especially the first of a kind, as I l
2 indicated yesterday, these are the lessons that you
(')
O 3 learn, that you feed back into the design like we did in 4 that case, where we piped the safet? relief valves into 5 the pool for all plants sfter that.
6 And it is these lessons learned, this is 7 exactly what I had in mind when I pointed out operating 8 plant experience in my testimony. You know, engineers 9 aren't superhuman, and you do the best you humanly can 10 to think of everything, system interactions and so forth.
11 But engineering is an art, and you see 12 examples of this kind, where you build something the 13 best way you know how, you run it very carefully, if it
'~ 14 is a first of a kind especially, and then a first year 15 or so experience shows that you learn something. What 16 do you learn? You learn the things you pointed out.
17 And you feed these back into the design.
18 Ihen the next lesson that you learn generally 19 is less severe than the previous ones. Experience is 20 showing us that. So that as the design of any 21 particular product matures, even though you do find 22 pro blem s in tha first of a kind, they are usually less 23 severe.
24 It is the so-called Duane plot that I 25 mentioned yesterday. It applies to electronic O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i
)
l 4603 l
i i
It seems to apply to components like
() 1 components.
2 motors, it applies to, we think, to entire systems, as
, 3 long as you feed back what you learn in operation to the
(
4 design. And this we do to the best that we can. And 5 his examples are an example of that process.
6 (Pause.)
7 A (WITNESS IANNI) I'm reminded by my members 8 here that defense in depth generally proves that it 9 works, because in th ose instances that we have missed we i 10 have sufficient in-depth protaction that no one ever i
11 gets hurt, and that has been shown over and over again.
12 So it is sort of, from a safety point of view, it is an 13 illustration that the def ense in depth principle works, 14 and we were very wise in applying that to this 15 industry.
16 0 Mr. Ianni, as I understand the Dresden
! 17 blowdown, the consequences or the unwanted consequences 18 are when the steam discharged into the drywell and hurt 19 some of the cable and some of the other equipment in the 20 drywell, correct?
21 A (WIINESS IANNI) Yes, sir.
22 I
23
) 24 25 l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, d
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4604
)
J 1 BY MR. L AN Pl!ER (Resuming):
2 0 Mr. Ianni, as I understand the Dresden rN 3 blo wdown , the consequences or the unwanted consequences 4 are when the steas discharged into the drywell and hurt 5 some of tha cable and some of the other equipment in the 6 drywell; correct?
7 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir.
8 C Why was that so hird to anticipate? Wasn't 9 that a pretty foreseeable event in the event of safety 10 relief valve actuation, sir?
11 A (WITNESS IANNI) The problem with predicting 12 thst is that you have to know where the discharge is 13 going and what it is impinging upon and things of this O
x./ 14 sort, and we do calculate the temperature of the 15 containment for blowdowns, and those were specified; but 16 steam has an interesting characteristic. If it en es 17 out, the cone of the discharge is hotter than the 18 saturated equilibrium conditions, and what probably 19 happened there is that some of the steam impinged on the 20 equipment and the local temperatures resulted which were 21 higher than what we had designed.
22 I mean I don 't know the de tails of the 23 electrical problems that they ran into since I wasn ' t
) 24 involved in that. I was involved in the calculations 25 and so forth. So I can't tell you exactly why the cable "S
~,]
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4605 1 suffered and would they have worked and this kind of
})
2 thing. I just don't know.
/~T 3 0 Now, gentlemen, your testimony on pages 8
/
4 through 20 talks about two basic issues of that GE S design approach, discipline design and other subheadings 6 that you tsik about, and also the GE operating 7 experience and particularly the feedback of that 8 operating experience. You cover a long time period in 9 this testimony , at least with respect to operating 10 experience.
11 Can you tell me how this has evolved? Is this 12 the way it is today? Is this the way it was in 19757 13 Is this the way it was in 1970? Do you understand my
~\
-Y 14 question? It is broad but you don't have a time 15 reference frame in here.
16 A (WITNES3 IANNI) Well, it is difficult to give 17 you a time reference frame because all of the functions 18 that you do were there in 1955, '56 when we started the 19 business, and they are there today. The only difference 20 is that as an organization grows -- well, let me give 21 you an example. We designed the superheat reactor with 22 about 20 people in one room. Clearly the communications 23 and the design discipline, et cetera is pretty easy.
) 24 There was one boss and we were all in one room. We 25 communicated freely, we wrote things down, but all of
")j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4606
() 1 the functions were there. You could have found all of ;
2 + hose same f unctions I described in my testimony. They l
f 3 were there.
4 Now, as an organization grows and as you have J 5 more projects and more different kinds of projects and 6 more people are involved, it is how you administer those 7 functions, and in the organization we have 100 people.
8 It is a lot different than when you have 20 people. So 9 as a result of that, as we grew we organized to organize 10 functions in a manageable manner, but those functions 11 were there from the first plant we designed and they are 12 there today. Even though what I described is 13 fundamentally the organization that we have today, I can 14 find all of those functions way back when we first 15 started.
16 0 Well, is it your testimony, then, that in the 17 time frame relevant to Shoreham since 1967 or 1968 on, 18 there were each of these elements; there was discipline 19 design, there was design interf ace control, there was 20 feedback of operating experience; the various elements 21 you identify in this portion of your testimony did exist 22 at GE during the entire Shoreham time frame?
23 A (WITNESS IANNI) Those functions existed. The
) 24 only thing that might be different today is the 25 formality with which they are carried out and the fact D
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4607
/~T 1 that they are more f ormalized, more visible, but the V
2 functions were there then just as they are today.
3 0 How about the effectiveness with which the se 4 functions were carried out? Discipline design. Was 5 that carried out as effectively in 1970 as it is in 1982?
8 A (WITNESS IANNI) Well, it depends upon where 7 you are in the organiza tion and so forth. My general 8 feeling is that in some ways it was probably almost 9 better then because there were fewer plants than there 10 are today and fewer regulations to worry about. On the 11 other hand, today things are more written down. A new 12 man can come into the organization and he can read 13 everything he has to do. So I would say that maybe they q
'w/ 14 are probably better today in the sense that everybody 15 can look at them, everybody knows where they are. There 16 is less lore that you have to carry in your head. So I 17 think I would say, if I had to vote, that things are 18 probably somewhat better today than they were then.
19 In other words, we have improved. As time has 20 gone on, there is just no mistaking that. We have made 21 things more visible, we have written things down, we
. 22 have written instructions. We have got more formalized
(
23 vays of doing things, like design verification and H),
24 design reviews and so on. They are very formalized l
25 compared to the earlier days when they were more ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRG'NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
3 4608 I
1 informal.
2 Now, I think the thing I ought to point out is 1
3 that as we go through this evolution like in 4 organizational changes, like we installed bleed systems 5 engineers in 1973 or '74 or so, what we did is se vent 6 back and reviewed all the old plants, the ones that were 7 undergoing design at that time. For example, the lead 8 systems engineer on core spray systenis, his job is to 9 worry about all core spray systems for old plants and 10 new plants and'ones under design.
11 At the time we installed these lead systems 12 engineers they went back and looked at the old systems 13 from a standardization point of view, from an adequacy ,
14 point of view, including the equipment classifications 15 and all of the other things that they worry about and 16 made sure that if there was anyone that wasn't meeting 17 the current requirements, that got on a list and was 18 scheduled into our worklist to be disposed of.
19 So that because of this constant review matrix 20 process that we have, just because the organization 21 changes, you don't change the basic work of the design. .
22 You probably make it easier and more formalized and 23 perhaps more disciplined, but it is there. So Shoreham h 24 picked upon this review process as an individual plant.
25 I mentioned earlier that in 1979 we had a complete D
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4609 lh 1 review of the system, the equipment classification of 2 Shoreham specifically for Shoreham, and I think we have 3 dwelt on that the other day, so that from an engineering 4 point of view, the fact that things change with tims it 5 usually means that the work doesn't change in itself.
6 It changes perhaps with how you do it a little bit and 7 it becomes more formalized and more traceable. You have 8 better records and things of this sort. The basic work 9 is there. And if there is a basic change in our design 10 organization that states you must now do certain thinos 11 to a design, we go back and have to go back and look at 12 the old designs. So that you are sort of upgrading 13 everybody all along, is what it amounts to, to the 14 extent possible.
15 0 You stated, Mr. Ianni, that there was a 16 complete reclassification or reanalysis of the Shoreham 17 equipment classifica tion in 1979; is that correct?
18 A (EITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir, I testified the 19 other day that there was a review of all the equipment 20 classification in 1979 to the best of my recollection, 21 and I think Mr. Robare expa nded on that ye s te rd a y , or 22 excuse me, last Monday. ;
I' 23 0 Who conducted this review, Mr. Robare?
l h 24 A (WITNESS ROBARE) This was an engineering 25 review.
D ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4610 h 1 0 Why was it conducted?
2 A (WITNESS ROBARE) To provide assurance that g 3 systems and components have been properly classified and 4 purchased and installed.
5 0 Did you have any reason to believe that they 6 had not been?
7 A (dITNESS ROBASE) This is part of our routine 8 design process to assure the adequacy of the design.
9 0 You do this on all plants?
10 A (WIINESS ROBARE) We did at that time, yes.
11 0 Well, what did this review entail?
12 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
13 JUDGE BRENNER: You asked them who did this D 14 review, and you apparently considered their response 15 inadequa te, but I am not sure if I recall from the other 18 day's testimony if I remember who conducted the review.
17 Why don't we get that clarified? Let's get the other 18 answer first to your immediate question and then go back.
19 WITNESS IANNI Is the question what did the 20 engineering review consist of?
21 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming)s 22 0 This is a review. Peview can mean a lot of l
23 different things. Could you give me a better sense of 24 the details? Obviously you don ' t ha ve all the papers in 25 front of you, but included in your answer, is this one D
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINfA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
A, g * -
/* > -
.3 ,
, d9 . ,
3 ;,. .
~
M ,! , , ,
.. . 7 ' " ,. .
"m ;. .l '. j'y *, .
E o -
.- .4 * -
~:. . !.t *
. , e
).4 ;3 t , -
- - ?-
, _Q ; ' , ' ,
+ 1. ' ' . - ' A ,
<Q. '.',l
, ., y .
"w .- -
._ l ') . .
< :.. s.c_.y ;; ,
- y. .. r :.- , e
- '" g. ,,g s ,
up-
,e.
. . , - x n ~ -
.3 , e . ,
^j%g_ >r .
a .y
.g-
^
+ ,.
z.y
.hL~
~
li.Q. . ,,
<.. &_ y
~ w ' ,
~
Ti f . *& ' _.-
c
+ .
.,*1<i A , ..- t .. ..
% z e
...., [' . ,
t
.:[ gp . ,
. -S ,
v..
. +, F
,. ? g ,
~ -
-- J - *
.N 7,,, t e s. ' 1.s *I
- s r.' ,
. )
?
m)y% '
. '$ 3 ,
. i n . .- ?a.
,-=s q
,3_'jvc m . =,
s, -
-; I. c. ..+ , - - - h y =,A -. ,, .-. . n
.'~.m..,'
g ,g 9
+ . . ,, yi .
-e . .w- g g e. < .
g . . , ,. . ,. r. . ,, ,. , ,, .
N )h
'[ h y . k , ai'o , bD l
~
p_ .s (+ y. s. e ,% - -
1.,C. i n 1; y'#f Q; f , Y . d7'.
- ,.i. ..
- .g gp g s. ,1 , . , fr p [l i ?
3}. y. - ..
S
.- 9 g
h.k i . , - 3*$[ a -
e n, [ 'M ~ .I...3 g .:- . s Spa p ,s o h[p'd.a.:twiw 4 Ag
. .y . - , 3s.- - . 3 x,, t w
~- , . . . . . , ,,
- d. , . .
s.
o, t
,. nn 4
+ g %; .-
4.,
- , - 3+% y
., 4 . g s.
Ag,o 7,
.c,f ;
e
,,x,
..r .
sT 4
a3,. v .
n,!*t. j '.
. . . . vs ,.
~e
- i . =,
_<j < y, s-
,1,.
, ;s '
- s .
s .,-A
.,.... , +
>, , . yf: ,
y;i,~
e i gg L
. e g: *gs * *: -
Q, wr: \' 4% . . : - w y;
r
- s y g; ;
y--... 4 -' . . . ,;,
7.e n y mr i 4 5 - _
Ay1 '
=%e ,l , r -
,+s, , g g
-e zy u-- .,, . f. -
s w .
<t .,
+
- y ;.
ty .. . . ,. 4
- t. , c 5 -? ,'
- v. .
4 . "-9 r % n:-
- ew y .
.- 's , . ,
? y;% ' .
4' N ' 1.- .,
x ,
y
-' , " . . . , -.. s
- s. :
. u%, , ;.,x w = x. -
n . :V~, ; . s
~~.a.-a
- ~ ,'
wp _ -
u w , ,. .= , .
t . .- ,
m, -
- r.
, , ,- u vg
.'_2 .
, .A .~ ' -
.. f
.e - , X.:, f; . .. . - . . .. . v .
y..
~. . s. . - ,
u.,m. . g .., ,
I n. .,v .,
+ 1 a , . + . . . , ,
,- +- ,
% .[h g y - u a p.
_n.,.F ..
m %.. r,. ,4 vg, -
y n
,. , a .
r p g: ~, . .
- - v. -
- . .c 1, 7
_.m m. . . .. - . .
m-. +- , ,
=
< ,e y1 . ~ ' . .
~ - ,' l - - --
,1
.s ..
. .- r . .. - < _
r , . , ,= . ~
- g. .N M+ ,. ', .y' ".4
-. p g
-- 5 ,' .
a 'J r.. .-
s 9
- 5> ..
d.
g'> .
. -e 4 .
4 -3 I +(i. s. / ,
.4 .
.e +
.( : ;,= , ..
g , ,.
. . . r..
_k. y
- k
, 7;..-
,- .., r- ,
+ , . . u - -
_-sq_
.~
- j ',;,, .' , .'
s *' '
- y} + ^%
a y ;
. lO,.Y . - - ' ' ' ~
+ - . g "
e-m __ y . .
L ' ', ,
g". }- ' . , , '#
,.,., .: ' , ,'3
..'.~
4
,h& .~
- m. .
', , v . .
w.
3 -
4
?
a.-t r
' * ' Y ., ' e
> ,, y .;. 1 .g , s ~. .
j ( * :. ..y
.'%f?l
- e
., . =,.e'. .- -
hN {+4 4-
/N' : ~ *
. ,', .' . . .,' . ., s -
s - -
,g(. -7
. 6't3 >.
. c,
,-' : , ,~ .
- r # ' '
y y,,
+ *
-l Q s
.f _'
'd g
, .. - . . k .
Oy ~, ' \
. , . . . .- ! y : 9e ,.?
i t ,, ,
-r,, ,>: '
g , - . . n..-, , y g . 3
..~, g.
J.- s. , - -,. .
~ -
9
,z
- .O
+
s/ =
. . s.y
.c._
a s =. _ . .
- e. '
s.
~ ;, O. g
-a. .* - -
g.. -
-;di I., [ _ - .
+. &. '
4 "
y
-^ 3, 3
,,e. 4 +. $ , w.
n______--_-._-__ --._
, ., a * .'.- 4 4 -
4612
() 1 WITNESS IANNIa Yes. But we reviewed our own 2 equipment, in other words our scope, at that time. In 3 other words, we don 't review Stone and Webster's 4 equipment, they review their own, and they do their own S work, and we reviewed our end of the part, our 6 documents. Now, if any documents were such that they 7 would have affected Stone and Webster and had to be 8 modified, then they would have known that we had a 9 change and they would be aware of it. That would have 10 been processed through change control to Stone and 11 Webster.
12 JUDGE BRENNER: How about the other way 13 around? How would your review have taken into account O 14 whether anything in the Stone and Webster area should 15 have led GE to reclassify something within GE's scope of 16 supply?
17 WITNESS IANNI: We ge t d ocuments from Stone 18 and Webster, detailed documents of their systems and how 19 they interface our systems. There are just piles of 20 drawings coming in from Stone and Webster and 21 specifications, and the engineers are familiar with the 22 Stone and Webster portion that impact upon th e n , and so 23 just from the knowledge that the engineer has of the f-(_g) 24 interfacing Stone and Webster systems and how they 25 interact with ours, you will be aware of something that O
ALDERSON REPORT!NG COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l 4613 lll 1 was taking place forward or backwards.
2 JUDGE BRENNER: Maybe this was answered, but 3 if so, I missed it. Did GE decide on its own initiative 4 to conduct this, or was the request from LILCO to do it, 5 or how did it cosa about?
6 WITNESS IANNIa No, we undertook this pretty 7 much on our own. As I think Mr. Robare stated, it was 8 just part of our review process. I guess I just haven' t 9 made clear enough for everyone that we had this 10 continuous review thing. It is almost like a 11 merry-go-round. You know, yCu see the thing going by 12 several times over five or six years, and the review 13 takes place whenever any significant changes happen, but 14 it is almost a ' continuous process.
15 And it so happened in 1979 we reviewed 16 equipment classifiestion. We have two othe r reviews.
17 We have so-called engineering completeness reviews that 18 go on all the time on a specific job, and then we have 19 the project completeness review which goes on on all the 20 job s, and these are all scheduled in, and as these 21 things take place, you see them going by as you are 22 affected. And we had this continuous review process.
23 JUDGE BRENNEF: Well, let me tell you in case 24 this af fects your other answers, you have made 25 abundantly clear to me in many of your answers your view ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINI A AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4614 en y,) 1 as to the continuous nature of the review, so I have 2 hea rd that message from you. However, I sense that this r"3 3 particular review was something that you particularly
)
4 culled out as distinguished from the ongoing continuing 5 process, and that is why I'm asking you about it.
6 Am I wrong on that inference?
7 WITNESS IANNI The reason I mentioned it 8 specifically is that equipment classification was a key 9 issue here and I wanted to point out that in 1979 we did 10 review specifically on equipment classification. It so 11 happened that review happened to be on equipment 12 classification specifically for this plant, and
, 13 therefore it was significant from that point of view.
'~'
)
14 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. And that kind of 15 review isn't the kind of thing that takes place 16 continuously? There a re pa rticular points when you 17 would perhaps undertake such a review but it isn't part 18 of any continuous process, is it? If it was, why would 19 there be such a thing as the 1979 rereview, if you 20 will? I don't want to dwell on it too much, but I just 21 reacted to your comment, Mr. Ianni.
22 WITNESS IANNI Are you bothered, Judge 23 Brenner, by the fact that maybe there were not a
) 24 continuous review equipment classification every year, 25 for example? I singled that out because I thought that m
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4615
() 1 was pertinent. Now, at certain points in time certain 2 things receive emphasis. Maybe that is wha t it is.
rw 3 JUDGE BRENNERs I think I understand.
b 4 WITNESS IANNIs In that particula r time it was 5 equipment classification. Now today, you might find 8 sonething else.
7 'iITNESS ROBARE: May I clarify my comment on 8 the engineering review? The reason I nade tha t comment, 9 Mr. Ianni is in our engineering department and I am in 10 the licensing operation, and I wanted to make it clear i
11 that as part of that 1979 review, we did not audit the 12 FSAR, pa rticula rly Table 3. 2.1-1. It was strictly a 13 design engineering review.
U 14 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
15 0 Mr. Robare, this review, as I understand it, 18 would go through the PEIDs, the basic documents, to 17 ensure that the design had been carried out in 18 conformance with the specifications. Is that a fair 19 summary?
20 A (WITNESS ROBARE) The specifications, yes.
21 0 Did this review include a reanalysis of 22 whether the specifications themselves were correct in 23 calling, for instance, for a particular classification
) 24 level or a particular degree of quality?
25 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, we did that.
D ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASH!NGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4616 lh 1 O Well, I'm a little confused because I thought 2 you didn't go back and review the FSAR table which 3 specifies th'e classification levels.
4 A (WITNESS ROBARE) As we have stated it a few 5 times, the FSAB tsble is not a design control document 6 for our engineering department. It is a summary of the 7 classification of the equipment on the plant that is 8 encoded in the FSAR for NRC information, and it is not a 9 controlling design document.
10 0 What was your process for analyzing or 11 reanalyzing the correctness of the original 12 specification requirements or classification 13 requirements?
14 A (WITNESS IANNI) What we simply did was to 15 look at our controlling documents and our private safety 16 standards and internal engineering procedures and 17 regulatory guides which are passed down to us from 18 licensing, look at the latest revisions and make sure we 19 had the latest revisions and then the engineers compared 20 those to those and made sure that they were complying.
21 0 So this process would be, for instance, to 22 take Reg Guide 1.26 or Reg Guide 1.29 and see whether 23 your specifica tions in your view were consistent with lh 24 the updated versions of these regulatory guides?
25 A (WITNESS ROBARE) I wouldn't say the updated B
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4617 ll 1 versions. The versions that are appropriate for 2 Shoreham, the Shoreham commitm en t.
3 0 In other words, it would be to reconfirm that 4 the reg guide -- that you had followed the reg guide as 5 you had originally intended?
6 A (WITNESS ROBARE) Yes.
7 A (WITNESS IANNI) I guess the problem here is 8 the latest revision applicable to that plant -- in other 9 words, what comes down to us from engineering is when a 10 plant is sold or whenever they modify it or whatever, 11 they will tell us we want you to design to the reg 12 guide, revision X, Y, Z, and we make sure, or we made 13 sure that we applied the latest revision appicable to 14 that plant, and it may have been Revision Z. Some other 15 plant may have Revision Y. So we make sure that we are 16 consistent with the proper regulatory guide that should 17 have been applied to Shoreham.
18 0 And in terms of your review of the adequacy of 19 the specifications themselves, that is what it consisted 20 of, coing back to the regulatory guides and other 21 regulatory guides in this document from the NRC?
22 A -(WITNESS IANNI) Yes, basically that, and also 23 the product safety standards, our own product safety
~
h 24 sta ndards.
25 0 What are your product safety standards? Can D
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4618 O i rou dezine taet term ror ==, *r- eod re?
2 A (WITNESS ROBARE) Product safety standards is 3 the title of a document, a generic GE document that 4 explains to our design engineers our requirements for 5 meeting regulstory guidas, regulations aad inctustry 6 standards. Now, that document is a generic document 7 that is supplemented on a specific project by the 8 plant's unique requirenents, supplemented and modified 9 by the plant's unique requirements, which would be the 10 licensing commitments and the contractual commitments.
11 12 13 O 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 O 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, j 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4619 ll 1 (Pause.)
2 0 Is this a massive document for Shoreham?
3 A (WITNESS ROBARE) In itself it is not a 4 massive document, but with its references it is a 5 ma ssive document.
6 0 Well, is it in fact a document that lists the 7 applicable regulatory guides or codes which are to be 8 applied?
9 A (WITNESS B0 BARE) It references another 10 specification called the regulatory guide implementation 11 specification, which is perhaps five inches thick, on 12 the application of regulatory guides to BWR 's.
13 (Pause.)
14 0 Gentlemen, I would like to turn your attention 15 to the bottom of page 9 of your testimony. You make 16 reference to the GE quality assurance organization. Are 17 any of you gentlemen members of that organization?
18 A (WITNESS ROBARE) No.
19 A (WITNESS IANNI) No, sir, I'm not either.
20 0 Mr. Boths?
21 A (WITNESS ROTHS) Not currently. I think in my 22 resume, prior to 1990 for three years the quality 23 assurance organization was under my jurisdiction.
lh 24 0 So during the time period '77 to 1980 you were 25 involved in the QA program?
D
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1 l
l 4620 l l
ll 1 A (WITNESS ROTHS) Yes, that would be about the 2 right time frame.
3 0 Mr . Roths, did you contribute to the writing 4 of this portion of the testimony?
5 A (WITHESS ROTHS) No, I did not.
6 MR. ELLIS May we have the question? We 7 missed it.
8 MR. LANPHER: The question was whether Mr.
9 Roths contributed to the writing of this portion of the to testimony, and the answer was no.
11 MR. ELLIS: Thank you.
12 (Pause.)
13 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 14 Q Gentleman, turning to the top of page 12, the l 15 third line you make a reference to general standard 16 design specifications. Are these the same 17 specifications which we referenced earlier in the 18 Shoreham-specific context that would be as the top-level 19 specifications, o r a re these something different?
20 A (WITNESS ROBARE) Yes, they are.
21 0 So these would be the initial specifications, 22 which then would be used for more detailed work?
23 A (WITNESS ROBARE) Right. Typically there h 24 would be one of these for each system.
25 Q Just so the record is clear, the general l
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4621 lll 1 standard design specifications are the same as the top 2 level specifications which we have referenced earlier?
3 A (WITNESS ROBARE) That is what I thought you 4 said before.
5 0 How, how are these general design 6 specifications, general standard design specifications, 7 tailored far the Shoreham project? -Whit is the process B tha t goes on?
9 A (WITNESS ROBARE) They would be tailored to 10 incorporate specific regulatory requirements for 11 Shoreham that the standard plant may not have or would 12 be applied to a degree consistent with the Shoreham 13 commitments, would be one unique factor of the Shoreham 14 design.
15 The other unique factor would be the interface 16 with the plant specific parameters, Stone & Webster 17 interface, which may result in some Shoreham-unique 18 features.
19 A (WITNESS IANNI) I would like to add tha t when 20 that happens, this departure from our reference or 21 standard plant design, then those changes go under 22 change control and we have to precess those as changes 23 to the documents, the engineering documents.
24 0 Is it fair to say that you start with a basic 25 plant design, for instance for Shoreham, and you attempt l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4622
() 1 to build to that basic design?
2 ,A (WITNESS IANNI) That is correct. As much as 3 possible, that is what we prefer.
4 0 And was that basic design for Shoreham set as 5 of 1968 or that time frame?
6 A (WITNESS IANNI) Well, the basic design, the 7 BWR, the fuel, the core cooling system, that work, the 8 basic design was set, but the detail had no t all 9 completely been executed, a s I indicated earlier.
10 A (WITNESS ROBARE) The other factor there is 11 that Shoreham was perhaps the sixth or seventh plant of 12 its type, so that that process had been going on for a 13 number of years before Shoreham for this particular O 14 product line.
15 0 Are you referring to BWR-4?
16 A (WITNESS ROBARE) Yes.
17 0 That was the first Mark II containment, was it 18 not?
19 A (WITNESS ROBARE) It is not the first Mark 20 II. The first Mark II containment is in Italy. The j 21 first Mark II containment in this country is in 22 Commonwealth Edison in Illinois.
23 0 Which plant is that?
() 24 A (WITNESS ROBARE) LaSalle. I am speaking nov 25 of plants in operation and their priorities. As far as O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4623
/
ll 1 the design sequence, Shoreham would have been number one 2 at that time.
3 0 In terms of the Mark II containment?
4 A (WITNESS B0 BARE) Originally, yes, 5 domestically.
6 0 Gentlemen, I want to jump back to one line of 7 questions which I should have asked at that time, and it 8 goes to you, Mr. Dawe. And tha t is, we heard that 9 testimony regarding the equipment reverification program 10 in GE during the 1979 time period. Did Stone & Wetster 11 perform the same kind of review program for your scope 12 of supply??
13 A (WITNESS DAWE) I am not aware of the GE '79 14 review pro] ram or the purposes for which it was 15 conducted. To the best of my knowledge, Stone E Webster 16 was not involved in that review.
17 0 You misunderstood my question, Mr. Dave. Did 18 Stone & Webster, with respect to its scope of supply, 19 conduct a review of the cla ssifications for equipment at 20 Shoreham, either in 1979 or at any time after those 21 classifications were determined ?
22 A (WIINESS DAWE) I think there are differences i
23 in our organization which lead to differences in the way
) 24 we would do the kind of things that Mr. Ianni was 25 referring to. Our organiza tion is a project ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4624 lh 1 orcaniza tion where all disciplines on the project and 2 all individuals working directly on the production of N 3 the project are part of your project team sittino O
4 together in one area.
5 We do that type of review on a continuous 6 basis, in that each time a component is being specified 7 for purchase or installation at the plant those 8 determinations are made. But we are not working on a 9 product line basis; we are working on a project basis.
10 So I think that our organization leads to different 11 procedural requirements.
12 In direct response, if I have not responded, 13 yes, we do review cla ssifica tio n s. But I a m not aware q
/
of a single late stage review of all classifications 14 15 such as Mr. Ianni mentioned. But they are reviewed 16 continuously for the purposes of the work that needs to 17 be done.
18 0 I understood everything until the last, Mr.
19 Dave. I had understood before you said that the 20 cla ssifications are initially specified, then they are 21 reviewed at the time that the component is purchased.
22 Now you added at the end of your answer that it is 23 reviewed continuously as the work needs to be done. I H
._) 24 am confused between the two?
25 A (WITNESS DAWE) I think what I am trying to r
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l 4625 lll 1 describe is that each time engineering is being -
2 per fo rm ed , the engineer performing it must be aware of
, 3 what he is doing ani what he is working on, and he will s
4 be working from engineerine documents. 'And the 5 classification part of the engineering documents, the 6 classification is important in' determining, how his work 7 is going to proceed.
8 And to that extent the classification is used 9 and reviewed. -
10 0 But in that sense,- the review every time an 11 engineer uses a document, say, related to some 12 safety-related piping within the Stone & Webster scope 13 of supply, he wouldn't go back and review all documents 14 related to that piping to ensure that, not only that it 15 was classified right, but that all the calculations 16 relating to that piping were done right?
17 MR. ELLIS: I'm not sure if I understand what 18 he means by " calculations," because there hasn't been 19 any reference in the testimony yet to calculations.
20 WITNESS DAWE: Could you repeat the question, 21 Mr. Lanpher? I'm not sure I understand exactly what 22 you're asking.
23 JUDGE BRENNER: Why don't you rephrase it. He
) 24 means calculations --
just it was part of his list of 25 whatever might be involved in the analyses, is the way I ALDEASoN RE?ORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., SW., W.*SHiNGToN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1 4626 l 1 took it. But perhaps you could rephrase that aspect, 2 too, Mr. Lanphor.
3 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 4 0 Gentlemen, as I understood your testimony, it 5 is that there is a certain amount of review that goes on 6 continually in the sense that when engineers work on a 7 safety-related piece of equipment er component they will 3 use drawings or specifications or whatever related to 9 t h a t' , and thus necessarily a certain amount of review of 10 ti.ose i tems takes place. Is that a fair
.1 ctu ract eriz a tion ?
I (WITNESS DAWE) That is a characterization of 12 A 13 what I stated. I am not sure that, hearing it 14 cha racterized that way, it is responsive to your 15 question of reviewing classification as opposed to using 16 it. The time for review of a classification would be
, 17 when, if we became a wa re of some new requirement, for 18 example, against which we had to measure a particular 19 component of the system.
20 0 Well, I think wha t you just said clarifies to 21 me. You were really talking in terms of using the 22 classifications on a more or less continuous basic, as 23 onposed to a comprehensive review of a classification on l
24 La continual basis?
25 A (WITNESS DAWE) Review of classification would l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
y '. _ ? 9 _. { . l___l- } f .'*A d m v __ % ~[
l? . I$, > .
1_.
- s. .
?.; [ _
e n -
4627 1
S,,
- +
T - 1 occur l' there were. a need to review a classification.
4 ,
2 Phat would occur if there were some judgment that a new - L'~
~
3 celuirement were being pisce2 on 2 portion of a plant. +
4 C Stone C Webster does not have a policy er a 5 proceduto whereby at some stage in the development of a 6 plant in four scope of supply you comprehensively review fa.
^
7 all of tho clarsificationr. in particular? .
8 A (WITNESS DAWE) I'm not awara of such a policy 9 or program, nor am I i. w a r e tnat such a policy or program " -'
h - -
'., 10 would 5e neeied w i th the do s; g n process that we use. -*
r 1.
11 0 l' t . Pobara, do I understand your testimony r
12 correc+ 1 y that GF does conduct complete reviews of the '.
3 1 p,
-9 13 :lasr.ification of GE scope of supply after the initial 14 classification but prior to completion of the project? A
~
.4
~
.. 15 A (WITNESS R O B A ? ;: ) I would not cha ra c te rize '
16 that as a routine matter. We did do it one time for all
} 17 of our plants in 1979. That is the only broad review -
4.
18 thit I am sware of for that particular subject, + -
/
19 Classification. We do periodic reviews of all kinds of ~
. 20 nat1res in the design process. - -
+,..
1 2 '. C N ;w , this 1979 reviav that you just referred ,.
22 to, is tht* a review beyond equipmen t classification or l\., '-
23 is this tha equ prent classification review that "r. .
3 Q-.
J 24 l a n .il referred to?
/ 25 A (WITNESS PCEA?E) I'm speaking of the ssme .
1 f
=s , , .
ALDERSON AtPOATING COMP ANY. lNC. *'3 U
J' 400 /' AGN A M E SA W ASH NGTON O C 20024 '202: 554-2345 3- .. ., .
, . y
[ '.
. . ?
g +
- ~
4628
) 1 review that Mr. Isnni was describing.
2 0 And that was equipment cla ssifica tion, 3 correct?
)
4 A (WITNESS ROBARE) Yes.
5 0 And thst was classification of safety-related 6 equipment?
7 A (WITNESS ROBARE) Yes.
8 Q Did you review, in this 1979 review, 9 non-safety-related equipment, equipment classified as 10 non-safety-related, to determine whether it was properly 11 classified?
12 A (WITNESS IANNI) My recollection is we covered 13 the whole plant in GE's scope.
14 0 So the turbine bypass valves are part of the 15 GE scope, correct?
16 A (WITNESS IANNI) Not in this case, but 17 anything in our scope we reviewed, even if it was not a 18 safety-relsted equipment.
19 Q Now what was the purpose of the review of the 20 non-safety-related equipment?
21 A (WITNESS IANNI) Just to make sure that across 22 the board we were consistent and that we met the 23 requirements, we met the requirements that we imposed on I 24 ourselves.
25 0 Ihe requirements that you imposed on h
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
0629
) 1 yourselves, where are those documented?
2 A (WITNESS IANNI) In the engineering design 3 documents. In other words, it van sort of a cleanup 4 review. We just checked everything as part of the 5 review, and we reviewed also, it is my recollection, we 6 reviewed the non-safety systems as well.
7 Q Did this review include any analysis -- and I 8 use " analysis" loosely -- to determine whether those 9 requirements which you had imposed upon yourself with 10 respect to the non-saf ety-grade equipment were correct?
11 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
12 A (WITNESS IANNI) My recollection is we did not 13 do any analyses because they weren't needed to establish 14 that.
15 0 So you reviewed your documentation to ensure 16 that what had actually been manufactured or delivered by 17 GE met those design requirements which you had 18 established?
19 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
20 A (WITNESS IANNI) I think I said earlier we 21 reviewed all the documents against the documents of 22 record that told us what we had to design to. So it 23 wasn't necessary to do any resnalysis. And we may have llk 24 reviewed analyses that we had done in the past to make 25 sure tha t indeed we were classif ying things properly as ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4630 h 1 part of the review process, but I can't say that we did 2 or we didn't.
3 We certainly might have. It wouldn't surprise 4 me. It was a methodical review. We said we were going 5 to design this plant to these requiremente as written 6 down, both the safety systems and the non-safety 7 systems. And we reviewed the whole bag.
8 9
10 11 12 13 D 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1
23 24 25 l
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l l
4631 l 1 JUDGE CARPF,NTER: Mr. Lanpher, are you through 2 with the 1979 review? I just have one quick question.
3 MR. LANPHER: I think I am through, though it 4 keeps cropping up now and then; but please go ahead, 5 Judge Carpenter.
6 JUDGE CARPENTER: I could like to ask as a 7 result of the 1979 review that you have been talking 8 about how many cases of changes in equipment 9 classification occurred?
10 WITNESS IANNIs My memory serves me that I 11 think it was sne change that we made that was reflected 12 in one of the tsbles. We did find one itea, on 13 Shoreham, that is, one item.
14 JUDGE BRENNER: What item was that, Mr. Ianni?
15 WITNESS IANNI I could find out during the 16 break. It escapes me right now.
17 JUDGE BRENNER: Maybe I misunderstood you 18 before, Mr. Robare. Did you volunteer before with some 19 emphasis -- and I guess I am ascribing the emphasis to 20 your tone of voice -- that there were no changes in 21 classification as a result of that review? I thought I 22 heard you say that this morning.
23 WITNESS ROBARE: I don't recall saying that.
I 24 JUDGE BRENNER: I am possibly incorrect in 25 that.
k ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4632 ll 1 WITNESS ROBARE Oh, I said that in the 2 context of the MARK-II test program, that there were no 3 changes in classification. I'm sorry.
4 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 5 0 Oentlemen, turnino your attention to page 11 8 of your prefiled testimony, line 5 of that first full 7 pa ra g ra ph , you state that " Systems designs are subject 8 to independent design verification within engineering."
9 Wha t do you mean by " independent?"
10 A (WITNESS IANNI) Our design verification 11 process requires that the engineer doing the design must 12 have it reviewed or his calculation or his specification 13 or whatever else he is putting out. The requirements l
14 are that he must have that reviewed by a peer who is not 15 working in that area specifically. He cannot have been 16 part of gene ra ting that particular piece of 17 information. He has got to be independent of that so 18 that he is not tied up into the details of the design, 19 f amiliar with but not working on that part.
20 0 It would be someone within the GE 21 o rg a niza tio n , though?
22 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir. A knowledgeable ,
l 23 persor that could really review what he is doing, and he lh 24 has to sign it. And if anything comes across my desk 25 which is not verified and signed, why, there are D
l l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGlNIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4633 lh 1 penalties to pay for. It's a very serious offense.
2 0 Now, you say that the designs are subject to 3 independent design verification, but you start off with 4 a ~eneral standard design specification, correct?
5 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir.
0 0 Now, are those general design specifications 7 subject to this design verification program?
8 A (WITNESS IANNI) They would have been designed 9 and verified over and over several times when you 10 arrived at the standard that was caused to be evolved, 11 so they would have been designed, verified and all.
12 They go through the same process as any changes that you 13 make, so they would have already been verified.
14 0 Prior to the startup, for instance, of the 15 Shoreham project?
16 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir. They would have 17 been verified, in other words. The standard plant is 18 verified, in other words.
19 0 And with respect to the Shoreham project, the 20 verification would go to any changes that were made to 21 the ctandard design?
22 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes. To any changes that 23 were made to the standard design and any new input that h 24 one receives during the design. In other words, well, 25 let's say a new issue comes up in an operating plant or I
D l
ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4634
$ 1 a design review uncovers a problem that no one had found 2 before. Then they have to go back, lead systems 3 engineers go back and see how that issue applies to 4 them; and then they decide on the basis of their reviews 5 whether that must be implemented. If they decide th20 6 it does not need to be implemented -- and these reviews, 7 incidentally, are formal -- then he does not implement 8 it. If he implements it it is a change, and then it 9 goes through change control procedures.
10 0 Mr. Ianni, on page 10 it states that design 11 documents not only stay at GE, but they also go to LILCO 12 or LILCO's agent, which would be Stone and Webster in 13 this case, correct?
14 A (WITNESS IANNI) Certain documents go to Stone 15 and Webster and our vendor. The interfacing documents 16 go to them, yes, sir.
17 Q Now, in connection with the 1979 review, what 18 documents dent to Stone and Webster or to LILCO?
19 A (W.ITNESS IANNI) The review was a review of 20 our work, and as I indicated earlier, if any changes had 21 to take place as a result of our review, then Stone and 22 Webster would receive the proper document that 23 interfaces with us in that specific area to a new 24 revision, and then they would receive that document.
25 O th erwise, they would have the documents at that period ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4635 lh 1 in time for that particular design.
2 0 Well, did your 1979 review include a review of 3 the equipment intarfaces between GE and the balance of 4 the plant?
5 A (WITNESS IANNI) No. That specific review was 6 for equipment qualifica tion and not the specific 7 interfaces itself. The classification -- that is, the 8 equipment classification.
9 0 Gentlemen, turning to the top of page 13, the 10 team design review, the first line used the word 11 " independent." Is it fair to state that your previous 12 definition of "ind e pe nd e n t" is the same as would apply 13 here, persons not otherwise involved in this work but 14 knowledgeable?
15 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir.
16 0 The designs which are reviewed are those 17 selected by engineering management, I understand. What 18 criteria are applied in selecting those designs for 19 review?
20 A (WITNESS IANNI) Well, generally the criteria 21 are generally written down, but in general it is if they 22 are significant changes. If they are of such a nature 23 thtt they have 1 high impact on the plant, either the 24 reliability or safety, and if they involved a large 25 number of document changes, if they involved a large l
D l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4636 l 1 number of interfaces, like I might make a very small 2 change, but if it affects every person in the place, 3 that had better be design reviewed. And so it is the 4 manager tha t is involved and the engineer that is 5 responsible, and they decide if it is to be design 6 reviewed.
7 0 What areas for Shoreham were selected by 8 engineering management for team design review?
9 A (WITNESS IANNI) There is a great deal just 10 from speaking from memory here. First of all, I recall 11 that Shoreham is or has a reference plant that is 12 referred to. Now, any changes that have taken place in 13 that reference plant would have been design reviewed.
D 14 For exarple --
15 0 Mr. Ianni, I do not mean to cut you off. I 16 want you to finish, but you keep using the term " design 17 review," and I am focusing on team design review here, 18 okay? And I just want to make sure you understand my :
1 19 question.
20 A (WITNESS IANNI) Thank you. It helps. I 21 should go back then and say I used the word " team design, )
22 review" here for lack of a better name. We have many 23 different orders of design reviews. We have design 1
h 24 reviews which are decided upon by the independent l 25 quality assurance organization, and they pick whatever i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4637 j 1 they wish depending upon what they think needs to be 2 design reviewed, and they do it independently of r~] 3 enaineering, and they simply say they wish to design
\~J 4 review maybe the design loads on a particular piece of 5 equipment or whatever, or a system. That is one set of 6 design reviews.
7 Then there is another set of design reviews 8 which the angineering quality assurance organization can 9 decide to review strictly on their own. They may simply 10 wan t to design review a particular set of systems. Then 11 there are the engineering design, engineering 12 organizations design reviews, which is what we have been 13 really talking about, where the engineering manager sits
'~
14 down and says now we have reached this point in our 15 designs do we wish to have a design review at this point 16 in time.
17 There is those different layers and to lump 18 them all together I called them team design reviews 19 because they are very broad. But there are those 20 distinctions in the kind of design review that we have.
21 0 Which cae? All of those are team design 22 reviews?
23 A (WITNESS IANNI) I lumped them that way in my h 24 testimony just for simplicity's sake. And Shoreham now, 25 you see, received all of thosa design reviews in one way O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
l 4633 k 1 or another depending upon which systems you were looking 2 st and so forth. And just specifically, fo r example , we 3 talked this morning about containment loads, and I was g
4 involved in that recently on my last assignment. So 5 there we design reviewed, for example, every load before 6 we issued it.
7 Ch ug gin g loads you mentioned this morning. We 8 had a big design on chugging loads. We issued -- w e 9 design reviewed the tests that we ran. Before we would 10 run a test we design reviewed the test: Is this a 11 proper test to runs is it measuring the right variables; 12 are the conditions proper; will the results come out in 13 a way that will be conservative or not?
Y 14 We design reviewed the entire loads report 15 that went out, for example. And I guess what it amounts 16 to is if you diverge from the reference and if you 17 change the significance, it gets design reviewed. If 18 its impact is large it gets design reviewed. It is a 19 lot of common sense. If it is something new that has 20 been placed upon it by some requirement and we have not 21 got much experience with it, even though it may be 22 sim ple , we design review it. When in doubt you design 23 review it is about the rule that we follow at the 24 engineering level; tha t is, within the design 25 engineering organization.
D .
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
I l
4639 l
l lh 1 Now, these other organizations outside of us 2 they have i broader view, and they look at the overall 3 situation and decide what they wish to' design review.
4 Now, for example, I guess there is a design review going 5 on at all times. I think there is a piece of paper that 6 comes across my desk on some design review or another 7 once a week, perhsps twice a week, in aress that I am 8 somewhat related to.
9 0 Gentlemen, just turning to page 15, you 10 discuss GE design and operating experience. You start 11 with the Hanford experience in 1946.
12 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Lanpher, axcuse me.
13 Before you ask your next line of questions, I was hoping 14 it would conveniently work out that we could go into the 15 in camera session right after lunch, but I understand 16 that you have a logical progression that you have to go 17 through also.
18 Do you think we could work tha t out?
19 MR. LANPHER: I think if I could go to about 20 12:30 -- that is what I was hoping to do also. I think 21 if I could go till about then it should work out pretty 22 vell. I do not know if that is okay for the witnesses.
23 JUDGE BRENNER: It is a little lengthy since
) 24 the last break. Let us try it, but I do not want to I 25 start drifting much past 12:30, and if the witnesses l l
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4640
) 1 need a break, let us know and we will change our ruling.
2 BY P.R. LANPHER: (Resuming) 3 0 entlemen, you list starting with Hanford, and 4 then you go through the aircraft nuclear propulsion, 5 Navy reactors test facilities, overseas licensees, and 6 then you state on page 19 sort of a conclusion on line 6 7 that all of this design and operating experience has 8 bean brought to bear on Shoreham.
9 How, for instance, is the Hanford -- well, the to Hanf ord experience was weapons grade plutonium 11 production or bomb production, was it?
12 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir, I believe so.
13 0 How was that experiance brought to bear on 14 Shoreham?
15 A (WITNESS IANNI) The managers that are present 16 now that worked at Hanford did heat transfer, and fluid 17 flow, and physics, and excursions, and mechanical 18 design, and that has not changed. Heat transfer is heat 19 transfer, and fluid flow is fluid flow, and reactors are 20 reactors. Even though they are different there are 21 comnonalities of disciplines. And that experience that 22 these people brough t with them is part of our 23 engineering organization savvy, if you want to call it
) 24 that experience. And I am saying you will find a 25 sprinkling of all these people in our organization f rom D
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4641 h 1 511 over the country.
2 0 Do you know whether ar.y of the people that 3 worked at Hanford worked on the Shoreham project?
4 A (WITNESS IANNI) I have no idea right now. I 5 would not be at all surprised. I am saying that maybe 6 those people are rather old now, they are probably in 7 management positions. But what I am trying to say is 8 that the company has a tradition that goes way back, Td 9 we learned from that. The older fellows told me things 10 that happened at Hanford, and that is part of my 11 background. That is part of my engineering experience 12 and my engineering maturity.
13 0 Turning to the top of page 17, th e third and 14 fourth lines, you state that the emergency cooling 15 systems have gone well beyond regulatory requircments.
16 Wha t do you mean by that?
17 A (WITNESS IANNI) Well, when the regulatory 18 requirements on the emergency core cooling were 19 developing, they had not been -- it was during -- excuse 20 me -- i t was during the mid '60s, and they were still 21 evolving. General Electric sat down aad on their own 22 decided what sh0uld be the core cooling network for our 23 products. And at that time we decided and did
) 24 reliability studies and probability studies and things 25 of this sort and tried to figure out what the best way 1
1 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1 4642
/
) 1 to cool the core would be, and we arrived at the 2 conclusion that to really kill this thing dead, if you 3 should ever have an accident of this kind, we wanted to
)
4 do it with redundancy and with certain reliablity goals, 5 et cetera, but also with what we called two phenomena.
6 And tha t is that it was not sufficient just to have 7 redundant systems. We wanted to be able to cool the 8 core from the top and cool it from the bottom. We were 9 not too smart in those days as to all of the detailed 10 phenomena of core cooling. The technology had not 11 evolved that far. And so we decided the best way to 12 make sure we would cool it would be to cool it with two 13 phenomena. There is nothing in the requirement that 14 says you must use two phenomena to cool the core, and 15 yet in spite of - you know, when the regulatory 16 requirements finally did come out they did not call for 17 two requirements, and yet we have two requirements and 18 have insisted on that throughout all of our product 19 lines..
20 0 When you say from the top and bottom you are 21 referring to core sp ra y essentially froa the top and the 22 load pressure injection flooding capability from the 23 bottom?
k 24 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir. That is exactly 25 what I am referring to. And also we had insisted, for I
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, I l
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 i
4643 lh 1 example, that we have a way of getting the pressure down 2 in the reactor because we recognized early in time when 3 we looked at these spectrum calculations in terms of 4 break sizes -- and we were amongst the first to do this 5 -- we recognized that small breaks could be pretty mean, 8 and that not only did you have to have high pressurs 7 systems, we also thought it Was very dise to have a way 8 of getting that pressure down fast. When all else fails 9 you blow it down and you fill the pot full of water as to soon as you blow it down, which in our system is not a 11 big problem, you see, because it is a saturated system.
12 And so when you blow down a saturated system it is very 13 orderly. You do not go through any phase changes and 14 things of this sort.
15 So we concluded that the blowdown was a very 18 important piece of the system that we should have, 17 because that makes available all kinds of low pressure 18 pumps that are lying around the plan t. Like one of the 19 operators testified recently they used whatever they 20 have got available at the time when they have a 21 situation. And by having a blowdown system, that gets 22 the pressure down ra pidly to a low pressure; and if 23 worse comes to worse you can use a firewater system to 24 dump wa ter into the core. So that it makes available a l
25 whole spectrum of pumps. Maybe there are 15 or 20 pumps ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4644 lll 1 that might be available and can be interconnected and 2 tha t can dum p wa ter on the core. So that is one of the 3 features.
4 The other one js that in the BWR we insisted 5 on power lavels; that is to say, the power density of 6 the core. We restricted that to a sufficiently low 7 vslue that it can be easily flooded from the bottom and 8 the top. If you put too much power in too small a 9 volume you have difficulty getting water in there. And 10 one of the basic inherent restrictions that we have is 11 the basic power of the core. That is one reason why 12 BWRs are large in diameter. One reason is the boiling, 13 but that is the other reason which relates to the core 14 cooling systems. But that is f undamentally it.
15 0 To get down to low pressure to use the 16 blowdown you use the safety relief valves, correct?
17 A (WITNESS IANNI) If the condenser is not 18 a vailable that is one way, yes, sir. If the condenser 19 is not available, the first choice usually for the 20 operator is to go to the condenser. But.if you have a 21 bad situation where you have lost of f site power and you 22 do not have condenser cooling or you are isolated, then 23 you go to the safety relief valves.
) 24 0 If you go to the condenser you are talking 25 about going through the turbine bypass system?
ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
I 4645 l l
lh 1 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir.
2 0 Is it your testimony that you can discharge 3 enough steam through the turbine bypass system so that 4 you do not have to lift the sa f e ty relief valves?
5 A (WITNESS IANNI) Well, I am sorry. I am 8 talking here -- you are talking about core cooling 7 systems. Core cooling systems come into play given that 8 you have got a loss of coolant accident. At that point 9 in time the reactors scram, the power is down, and all 10 you are talking about is stored heat and getting rid of 11 the stored h ea t in the water, the energy that is in the 12 water, the stored heat in the core and in the pressure 13 vessel steel. And all I am talking about here then is 14 getting til of that heat and getting the pressure down.
15 The discussion the other day had to do with 16 operation at full power and then isola ting it, a totally 17 different situation.
18 0 Okay. I just wanted to be clear because it 19 sounded as if we had a conflict from that. Assuming 20 tha t you cannot go to the turbine bypass, you would be 21 usino the safety relief valves through the automatic 22 depressurization system, correct?
23 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir. Or manual.
f lh 24 0 What has been the history of the reliability 25 of the safety relief valve on GE plants?
D i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, i 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4646 lll 1 A (WITNESS IANNI) Well, based upon our 2 operating plant experience we learned early in time that 3 they were not too good at first in that the y would stick 4 open after the discharge. There were too many instances 5 of that kind. And so the feedback we got rather quickly 6 was we have got to do something about it, and so we 7 worked with the vendor to such an extent that he has 8 modified designs -- for example, the target rock design 9 has been modified -- and we undertook an extensive 10 program to redesign that component with the vendor that 11 supplies it to us. You see, we do not build tha t piece 12 of equipment; we buy it. It does not mean that vendors 13 do not supply equipment. They can do it. It just means D 14 that if for a particular condition their product is not 15 good enough, you must work with them and take the 16 responsibility of seeing to it that they deliver a 17 product tha t is suf ficiently reliable, and this we did.
18 And if one plots on a Duane plot the results, you see it 19 going up during the early years, that it turns around 20 about a year af ter the program is in place, and then the 21 slope goes down negatively in a downward slope, a 22 perfect example of a run and fix it type of thing, and 23 where now we are getting much better results from our 24 valves.
25 A (WITNESS ROTHS) I am not sure if your ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
c647 lll 1 question was questioning the reliability of the valve to 2 open. I think if you look at that alone, the history 3 shows that we hava always had a very good record.
4 0 I should have been more specific. I was 5 addressing particularly the problem of sticking open 6 after they have been actuated, and I think that is the 7 way that you understood the question, Mr. Ianni.
8 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir. That is the way.
9 0 Is it your testimony also that the recent to e xp e rience has been sa tisf actory?
11 A (WITNESS IANNI) All I can say about that is 12 the frequency of stuck open valves has decreased sharply 13 in the last few years. I do not get any phone calls on D 14 stuck open valves hardly ever, so the evidence is that 15 our program is working, and hopef ully it will continue 16 to improve.
17 Q Mr. Robare.
18 A (WITNESS ROBARE) I just wanted to add that 19 the stuck open relief valve is a transient that is 20 analyzed in Chapter 15 of the FSAR and its consequences 21 are acceptable in terms of the regulation.
22 O It is something you try to avoid though, right?
23 A (WITNESS ROBARE) Cartainly.
) 24 0 Gentlemen, are you familiar with the Nuclear 25 Safety Analysis Center?
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4648
) 1 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes.
2 0 Are you familiar with their publication which 3 screens and evaluates licensee event reports?
)
4 A (EITNESS ROTHS) I have some familiarity, but 5 could we see one of those?
6 0 Sure.
7 MP. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, I am going to 8 mark as Suffolk County --
9 JUDGE MORRIS: That would be Exhibit 17.
10 MR. LANPHER: Thank you, Judge Morris.
11 (The documen t ref erred to 12 was marked Suffolk County 13 Exhibit No. 17 for 14 identification.)
15 MR. LANPHER: The cover page and first inside 16 page from it is from an NSAC report entitled, " Screening 17 and Evaluation of 1979 Licensee Event Reports." And I 18 have the entire document. What I have included in this 19 exhibit are pages 4-6 through 4-10.
20 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 21 Q I would like to direct the witnesses' 22 a ttention to those pages which a re entitled, halfway 23 down page 4-6, " Inadvertent opening or sticking of h 24 relief and safety valvos."
25 JUDGE BRENNER: We will mark it for ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4649 lh 1 identification only at this point.
2 MR. LANPHER: For the record, Judge Brenner, I 3 have marked in the lef t margin those plants which I ggg 4 understand to be GE BWRs. I did it really to hopefully 5 assist. It should not be considered obviously part of 6 the original exhibit.
7 (Pause.)
8 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 9 Q Gentlemen, have you had an opportunity to 10 review this?
11 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes.
12 Q And with respect to safety relief valves this s
13 covers inadvertent openings and sticking or sticking of
)
14 relief valves during the period 1978 and 1979, correct?
15 MR. ELLIS4 I object to that question. The 16 document speaks f or itself. I do not think they can 17 confirm that the document is accurate or no t. The most 18 they can confirm is that the document says what it says.
19 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, that was a foundation 20 question, and I certainly took it in the sense that you 21 just expressed.
22 MB. lANPHER: I am just trying to put it in
! 23 context for them.
~/ 24 JUDGE BRENNER: I think your comment has nov 25 made explicit th a t limitation. The witnesses can answer l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4650 lh 1 the question if they recall the question.
2 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 3 0 Do you want me to repeat the question, Mr.
ggg 4 Ianni?
5 A (WITNESS IANNI) I am sorry. Yes.
6 O No problem. The relief valve events which are 7 set forth here are brief descriptions from the period 8 1978 and 1979, correct?
9 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, sir. That is what it 10 says.
11 0 And from my accounting this document also 12 indicates that out of the total of 36 events es 13 approximately 23 are from GE BWR plants, correct?
~) 14 A (WITNESS IANNI) Tha t is a pproximately correct.
15 0 And most of these events as described indicate to the relief valves failing to open or failing to reseat 17 or that kind of event, correct?
18 A (WITNESS IANNI) I believe most of them are 19 failure to reseat.
20 0 Do you believe that this failure history for 21 that period is acceptable?
i 22 A (WITNESS IANNI) I do not like that f ailure I
23 history, but I would like to point out that a true
/~) measure of how well you are doing is not simply a list
's' 24 25 of failures but looking at total plant years of O
~
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4651
) 1 operation a t any specific time and looking at the 2 failures relative to those plant years of operation.
(} 3 And what you have to do is get the total da ta there is 4 and plot that agr 'nst the plant years, and that tells 5 you whethat you are getting better or not, and the 6 evidence is we are getting better.
7 As I pointed out this morning, it does not 8 mean you will not get some due to reseat, and those 9 instances will still happen. But in terms of the number 10 of plant years, the situation is getting better with 11 time.
12 0 Did you finish your answer, sir?
13 A (WIINE55 IANNI) Yes, I did.
14 0 I believe you started that answer, however, 15 with the statement that you are not satisfied with this 18 history yet, is that correct?
17 A (WITNESS IANNI) I guess as an engineer I am 18 never satisfied. I am never sa tisfied until I get 90 19 percent availability in our plants or 95 percent. I 20 mean of coarse we are never sstisfied with anything that 21 happens that is not good for the plant. However, I 22 think you should understand tha t for a EWR opening the 23 safety relief valve is a very minor transient. It is 24 equivalent to a break of .01 square feet, and it is a 25 very minor transient. It is not in the same category as O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4652 1 if a primary system safety relief valve were to lift on 2 the other kind of plant. It is totally different than l~i
~J 3 the other kind of plant. It is a big, big problem, a 4 serious problem. In our case it is not.
5 So from a safety point of view the fact thht 6 the safety relief valve does not lift is not good, but 7 most of these -- in fact, I would say all of them almost 8 -- are such that they do not reseat, and that seems to 9 me to be in the na ture of the problem that we are 10 having, and that is not a serious concern because we 11 have a big pool of water and can absorb the energy.
12 There is no big transient placed on a plant control s 13 system. There is no danger of uncovering the core. It
~. ]
14 is a reliability nuisance more than it is a safety 15 issue. And no, I do not like failures of any kind..
16 0 These are safety-related relief valves, 17 correct?
18 A (WITNESS IANNI) Yes, but they also perform a 19 nonsafety function. They trim the pressure during 20 transients.
21 0 They form part of -- Mr. Robare, do you have 22 something?
23 A (WITNESS ROBARE) Yes. I would like to add q
I 24 that the valves at Shoreham, the target relief valves, 25 have been completely modified, specifically for the L
l.)
l i
ALDERSoN REPoATING COMPANY,INC, l
l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
F 4653 h 1 purpose of reducing t'his possibility of these types'of '
2 failures. That design change has already been gg 3 incorporated at the plant.
4 0 The relief valves Elso form part of the 5 reactor coolant pressure boundary, correct?
6 A (WITNESS ROBAPE) That is correct.
7 0 And so when one fails to reseat,'that does 9
8 constitut-e a break in that boundary, albeit a'small 9 break?
10 A (WITNESS ROBARE) There is an, equivalency 11 there. I do not think of it as a LOCA.
12 A (WITNESS TANNI) Well, it is not a LOCA. That 13 is like saying that the primary boundary is reached when D 14 you are running steam to the turbine. In'this case it 15 is going to the pool through a- method that you designed 16 it to do, namely through a highly designed and carefully 17 designed piping system into a carefully designed and 18 tested quencher into a pool of water that is designed to 19 handle that situation many times over. So that it is 20 not fair to compare that really to an accident-type 21 situation. It is not a breach of the primary boundary.
22 I do not really see it that way.
I 23 JUDGE BRENNER: H r. La npher, maybe this is a 24 product of my wandering mind as we are pushing the lunch 25 hour2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br /> later. Can you remind me as to how the,se last few ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l 1
4654 1 questions relate to the contention of the inadequate j 2 safety classification, or not taking account of systems I x 3 in t e rac tio n and the other elements within the J
4 contention? Because if you are going to a point right 5 now within that, you have lost me.
8 3R. LANPHER: We are not contesting that 7 classification of these valves. We are contesting the 8 degree of excellence, frankly, of the GE design program 9 which has been put in controversy by their testimony in 10 this first section.
11 JUDCE BRENNER: Well, I think that statement 12 and wnat you think is in controversy is much broader
-s 13 thrin my view of this contention. That is not to say
\
J 14' tha t elements of the quality of their program are not 15 very relevant to matters in this contention, and we have 18 certainly had'a lot of questions along those lines from 17 many witnesses. But heretofore I have always seen the 18 context; that.is, their abilities to correctly and 10 systematically and whatever terms you want to use do 20 what they claim they are doing or were directed towards,
! 21 the classification interactions and so on. And I all of 22 a sudden had a sense of deja vu here that I was
~
j 23 listening to the other contention which we tried g .
~d 24 relating to valves and failures.
- 25 MR. LANPHERs No. And I do not think we are, l
u-~3
.d ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
u 4655
()j 1 'a ni I am not going to go into the target rock j 2 modifications because I think we have got that one 3 coming up. s j
[}
l 4 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, we have got it coming 5 up, plus we heard it in the context of the other one.
6 Consider where you are going with this line. I think I 7 asked you the question at the time you were finished. I 8 also want to interject and ask you if we can get to a 3 point, without prejudice to your coming back to 10 questions that you have.not asked, of course, where we 11 can break and then come back with the in camera session 12 without prejudice to the foundation you needed to lay 13 for the in cameri session.
If it is not possible, we O 14 vill break for the in camera session at a different
! 15 time, but it would just be convenient to do it now.
16 ER. LANPHER: I think we can break now, Judge 17 Breaner, and go to the in camera session right af ter 18 lunch. I have not had a chance to review my cross plan 19 on this, so there migh t be a couple of items I would 20 like to clean up before the in camera session, but I 21 think that they would be very minor, and that could 22 probably be done after also.
23 JUDGE BRENNER: Let us do it after then. Just 24 a mechanical point. I do not want to let people in and 25 then have to send them out.
O j
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4656 1 MR. LANPHER Fine. That is acceptable with 2 the County to go to the in camera session after lunch.
3 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. Then let us break
,]
4 for an hour and come back at 1:30 p.m.
5 (Whereupon, at 12s30 p.m., the hearing was 6 recessed for lunch, to be resumed at 1:30 p.m., the same 7 day, in in camera session. )
8 9
10 11 12 13
, 14 i
- 15 i
16 j 17 18 0
- 19 20 i
1 l 21 22
]
4 23 i 24 25 10 i
l J
I j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, i 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4748 1 [At 4: 20 p.m. the open session of the hearing 2 resumed.]
3 JUDGE BRENNER: We are back on the public
}
4 record. As we announced before, the earlier portion of 5 the transcript immediately preceding this is an in 6 :smera portion and the last public session was up until 7 the lunch break. The purpose of the in camera session 8 was to have cross examination of General Electric 9 witnesses on the General Electric proprietary reports 10 collectively known as the Reed Report, and that in fact 11 did take place.
12 And once again, the Board made no independent 13 ruling as to the proprietary nature of the report. We 14 were merely respecting the decision of Judge Robinson of 15 the Federal District Court that the document not be 16 released at this time. If and when the Federal courts 17 allow the release of the document, that rortion of the 18 transcript, to the extent consistent with any further 19 order of the Court, will also be released.
20 We are back now with seven-ninths of the LILCO 21 panel on Contention 7B. That is all the previously 22 identified witnesses except for the two witnesses who 23 will deal with the PRA matters, Drs. Burns and 24 Joksimovich, and we can continue with the cross 25 examination of Suffolk County.
D ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINf A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4749 q
1-) 1 Whereupon, 2 GEORGE F. DAWE,
[l 3 GEORGE GARABEDIAN, a
4 PIO W. IANNI, 5 ROBERT M. KASCSAK, 6 PAUL J. McGUIRE, 7 PAUL W. RIEGELHAUPT and 8 DAVID J. ROBARE, 9 the witnesses on the stand at the time of recess, 10 resumed the stand and were examined and testified 11 further as follows:
12 MR. LANPHEPs Judge Brenner, I am going to go es g 13 back to where I was on Iuesday afternoon with Mr.
%)
14 McGuire and his testimony, which starts on page 129 of 15 the testimony. I am going to attempt to finish up that 16 portion this afternoon if I can.
17 JUDGE CARPENTER: Does the outline have any 18 pertinence? I am looking at page 13. Should I be 19 looking there?
20 MR. LANPHER: Page 13? Isn't that on page 14 21 on the outline, or do I have an updated one? I think 22 DaGe 14 23 JUDGE BRENNER Well, you have a different O 24 version. You are on emergency operating procedures; 25 correct?
'O
~~)
ALDERSON REFORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4750
-S m) 1 MR. LANPHERs Yes.
2 JUDGE BRENNER You have a different version
N 3 than we have. At the end of the day or tomorrow morning s) 4 if you have an updated one. At one time you mentioned 5 the possibility of giving us an update, and we never 6 received it, so I assumed that it was never formally 7 prepared. I certainly understand you have a lot of-8 notes and so on. Don't produce it at this time merely 9 to make work. If a retyped version does exist, though, 10 you might want to give it to us tororrow morning. Let's 11 proceed for now.
12 CROSS EXAMINATION -- Resumed 13 BY MR. LANPHER f-)
V 14 0 Mr. McGuire, on Tuesday I believe you e5 testified that you did not know whether there was a 16 post-TMI requirement for new emergency operating 17 procedures.
18 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) I think I said I did not 19 know which regulation it was contained in mandating the 20 change. There is a document, 0737, which addresses the 21 EPGs and slso the development of the emergency operating 22 procedures as to implementation, trial basis, things 23 like th a t.
24 0 Ihat is, in fact, NUREG-0737, Item 1.C.1? Is 25 that correct?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4751 I 1 A (WITNESS MC CUIRE) I don't know the exact 2 number but I know it is contained in the document.
g 3 Could I see that?
4 0 Sure.
S (Counsel handing document to witness.}
6 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) That is the section I am 7 familiar with.
8 Q Thank you, Mr. Mc Gui re .
9 Was the BWR Owners Group work, which is 10 referenced in your testimony, was that undertaken 11 pursuant to implementation of this 0737 requirement?
12 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) The development work
-s 13 started before that requirement. I think that
)
~'
14 requirement came out after the fact, after they started 15 working on it. The biggest thing behind those is that 16 the PWRs did have a little bit of a difficulty in going 17 to a symptom base procedure specifically because of 18 stronger system interactions that existed in that 19 plant. So these were written, more or less, to say 20 let's take the implementation phase slowly.
21 What has been done in these is that the 22 engineering has analyzed the procedures to be utilized l
23 based on the codes. They have been checked out on s.
_/ 24 simulators. In fact, the assurance specific ones were 25 checked out, I think it was, May or April of last year q
~)
l l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
\
4752 I 1 by the plant staff at the Limerick simulator. And 2 following that in November, they presented a g
3 presentation to the NRC at the Limerick simulator 4 showing the performance of these procedures. Subsequent 5 to that, the NRC came to the Shoreham plant and actually 6 walked the emergency operating procedures through the 7 control room and, I understand, throughout the plant.
8 0 What is the source of that information that 9 you just related, sir?
10 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) This was given to me by 11 the operations engineer at the plant.
12 0 You were not involved in any of that?
13 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) That is carrect.
14 0 You have got to let me finish.
15 You were not involved in any of those 16 activities?
17 A (WITNESS HC GUIRE) That is correct.
18 0 On page 130 of your testimony, sir, you note 19 that the work that you were involved in for the Owners 20 Group included reviewing the capability of the PWR 21 systems under multiple failure events; correct?
22 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) Yes, sir.
l 23 0 0737 directed that the procedure review 24 include multiple failure events; correct?
25 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) That is correct.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4753 h 1 0 Which multiple failure events were analyzed by 2 the BWR Owners Group?
3 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) What the BWR Owners Group g
4 proceeded to do was to take a look at those systems 5 available, looking at the availability of each, that is, 6 the safety-related systems and nonsafety-related, 7 postulating a failure as you attempted to use each 8 system. In addition, the NRC supplied 33 questions to 9 be addressed. Most of those had to do with the to questions such as what is the system classified as, 11 safety-related, nonsafety-related, what power supplies 12 are available to those systems, what is the main source
. 13 of water, tre there alternate sources of water, what are 14 the alternste sources of power supply.
15 So these were asked to both the pressurized 16 water reactor owners groups as well as to the boiling 17 water reactor owners groups. And as a result of that, 18 no changes in system classifications occurred on the 19 boiler, whereas the pressurized water reactors had to 20 upgrade their emergency bus supply to the pressurizer 21 heaters. That is the same type of review that was 22 performed.
23 0 Mr. McGuire, I'm not sure you answered my 24 previous question. Your testimony on page 130, line 8, ,
25 says that one focus of the subgroup was to assess ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4754 h 1 whether the set of safety-related systems was a 2 sufficient set of safety systems to prevent core damage, 3 assuming certain failures in the systems. And I have g
4 made the assumption, and tell me if I am right, when you 5 are saying certain failures, that includes certain 6 multiple failures; correct?
7 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) Well, I will explain 8 exactly the methodology we used. That might make it 9 easier. Basically we assumed we had an incident where 10 the water level was decreasing. The operator attempted 11 to run the high pressure coolant injection system, which 12 failed. The operator in turn tried to run the RCIC 13 system and it failed. The operator in turn started 14 water in one of the low pressure systems to make sure 15 tha t systen was available for pump water. Then he blev 16 the reactor down to drop the pressure to a low enough 17 point where we could inject water by the one low 18 pressure system.
19 We assumed that low pressure system that was 20 operating failed. The operator started another low 21 pressure system. We assumed that system failed. The l
22 operator started the other backup low pressure system.
23 We assumed he had nothing left except safety relief 24 valves, at which point, as I recall back in the group it 1
25 was calculated that the reactor, the operator action D
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4755 I 1 then would be the open safety relief valves with no 2 water going in to t:ie reactor, which would provide steam g 3 cooling to the fuel, which would give the operator 4 another 30 minutes of time whereby to get another one of 5 those systems back into service. So that is the 6 sequence that we looked at.
7 0 How did you choose that sequence?
8 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) Well, the answer to the 9 question is the NRC proposed to us, it was assuming you 10 lost, for example, all AC power, and to do tha t, we 11 decided to do it in a logical manner in which the 12 operator would normally address a situation like that.
13 That is the reason we headed in that direction.
D 14 0 So this is essentially what the sequence was 15 pursuant to this questionnaire or series of questions 16 that you had received from the NRC Staff?
17 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) That was part of it. That 18 is how we addressed the issue in that way.
19 0 Then you refined it after that?
20 A (WITNESS HC GUIRE) For instance, we looked a t 21 Shoreham specifically, to take a look at their systems 22 and apply the same questions, and one of the questions 23 was what are the classification of those systems. We 24 were told which ones were safety-related, which ones 25 weren't. The buses were addressed, the electrical D
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WAST 4lNGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4756 lll 1 buses, and that is how we applied those questions to 2 that plant specifically, and it came out just as the 3 other boiling water reactors came out, with no change in g
4 system classification as a result of that review.
5 0 Mr. McGaire, on Tuesday I believe you stated 6 tha t for a plant of 100 percent power, the usual means 7 of releasing reactor pressure after a worst case 8 generator load reaction is by means of the safety relief 9 valves.
10 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) That is correct. That is 11 a loss of offsite power incident.
12 0 Could it also be a loss of generator load 13 accident?
14 A (VITNESS MC GUIRE) The exact reference to a 15 load rejection basically is the fact that the generator 16 is producing power and there is no place to put it, and 17 that is usually coincidental with a loss of power maybe 18 due to a hurricane or a snowstorm or something like 19 that. That is the terminology usually used by operators.
20 0 My question is would you necessarily have a 21 loss of offsite power in that situation?
22 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) In what situation?
23 0 Where you have a load rejection.
O
(_) 24 A ( WITNESS HC GUIRE) Not in all cases, but the 25 cases I am familiar with, the answer is yes. You could n
N,s,l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4757
) 1 have a breaker problem but those are very rare.
2 0 If you maintained offsite power, the turbine 3 bypass valves would also be available for use; correct?
}
4 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) 'That is correct.
5 Q Was it your testimony that they, however, are 6 virtually ineffective if you have a load rejection at 7 100 percent power?
8 A (WITNESS 3C GUIRE) Basically what I tried to 9 indicate by my testimony en Tuesday was tha t if you 10 have, let's say, a turbine trip with the bypass valves 11 from 100 percent power, that the safety relief va,1ve s 12 will open, you will get flow through the safety relief 13 valves, not all of them because they are sequenced, but D 14 you will get flow through those safety relief valves.
15 Now, the flow will not be as long as if you 18 have bypass valves. The valves will open to relieve the 17 pressure. Once the pressure is relieved, the valve will 18 close in a matter of, I think it is, probably 3 or 4 19 seconds, where if you don't have bypass valves, the 20 safety relief valves will stay open to keep relieving 21 the p re ssu re .
22 The implication on Tuesday was that the valves 23 would not open and that the bypass valves would prevent 24 safety relief , valve ef f ectua tion , and that is not true.
25 0 In fact, your testimony now is that while the O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4758
) 1 valves still, the safety valves may still open, it might 2 be cycled fewer times if the bypass valve is operating?
3 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) That is correct, and that
)
4 to me sometimes presents a problem because the safety 5 relief valve functions much better if it has a good 6 blowdown. It is when you have a short blowdown that 7 there is a potential of getting loose corrosion products 8 under the seat and having the valve stick open.
9 0 So it is your testimony that if you are going 10 to actua te it, you should actuate it a couple of times?
11 A Well, le t's put it this way. Operators at 12 Pilgrim were trained if they have a pressure rise in the 13 reactor, when they cycle the valve to at least open it D 14 for about 20 seconds and keep it open, not to cycle it 15 back and forth. That is to reduce the pressure to a lov 16 enough level so that it will give a good, clean blow 17 through the valve and there will.be a better chance of 18 the valve reseating.
19 A (WITNESS DAWE) Mr. Lanpher, I would like to 20 correct one misconception that you indicated before, and 21 that was that the bypass valves would not be available 22 following a loss of offsite power. The bypass valves at 23 Shoreham are powered by an uninterruptible power supply, 24 and 1oss of AC offsite, they will be battery powered.
25 0 Ihank you, Mr. Dave. So they would be O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4759 I 1 available even in that situation where you lost offsite 2 power?
g 3 A (WITNESS DAWE) Yes, sir, they would be.
4 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) That is a feature that 5 most plants don't have, by the way.
6 0 Are you aware, Mr. McGuire, that in the 7 Shoreham FSAR in the transient analyses credit is taken 8 for operation of the bypass valves for initial pressure 9 release where there is a load to rejection scenario, 10 turbine generator load to rejection?
11 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) I think that is correct 12 from what I saw, yes.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4760
() 1 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
2 0 And in the Shoreham operating procedures, 3 particularly the emergency shutdown procedure, aren't 4 the operators directed to use the bypass system to 5 relieve pressure if at all possible without exercising 6 the relief valves?
7 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) If the normal heat sink is 8 available, that would be a prudent way to handle the 9 situation, yes.
10 0 In fact, it also would be prudent to attempt 11 wherever possible not to challenge the safety relief 12 valves, correct?
13 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) I would assum e that would 14 be correct. If you did not have to do it, then an 15 operator would not do it. That is correct. But he 16 would not be sfraid to use those if he had to use them.
17 If the conditions required it, he would use them. It is 18 a necessity thing.
19 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
20 0 I would like to turn your attention to page 21 135 of your testimony, sir. In this discussion you 22 sta te that the main turbine and its associated valves 23 directs the operator to trip and verify the trip 24 condition of the turbine components. I am sorry. Yes, 25 this is on page 135.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4761 1 You do not mention use of the turbine bypass 2 valves in this grouping of components. Is that also 3 prt of the use in this procedure?
4 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) The turbine components 5 include the turbine bypass valves.
6 Q So the use of the bypass valves would be 7 called for in this procedure, correct?
8 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
9 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) Could you repeat the 10 question, please?
11 0 In this feedwater controller transient, which 12 is the one that is being discussed here, the emergency 13 procedure directs the opera tor to utilize the turbina 14 bypass valves, correct, as one step as the transient 15 proceeds?
16 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) I would like a copy of the 17 procedures, because I do not think a use of tiiose would 18 be necessary. If the reactor scrams first, the turbine 19 usually comes down on a load by itself. It is enough of 20 a draw that the bypass valves very infrequently would 21 open.
22 JUDGE JORDAN: I did not hear the last 23 statement. The bypass valves what?
24 WITNESS MC GUIRE: If the reactor scrams first 25 in the transient, the turbine is still on line. The ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4762 1 turbine is still drawing steam f rom the reactor, and 2 that actually acts as a pressure suppression system.
3 And in many cases the bypass valves will not even open gg 4 while the turbine is bringing the pressure down, and 5 there is no need for them to be opened, and the reactor 6 will then trip. I mean the turbine would trip then.
7 So I would have to see the procedure itself, 8 to take a look at it.
9 JUDGE JORDANS One other question since I am 10 exactly at tha t sentence. When you say direct the 11 o pe ra tor to trip the turbine components, is that 12 different from tripping the turbin.e?
13 WITNESS MC GUIRE: Well, it trips the turbine,
-s) 14 the stop valves, the intercept valves, all the valves 15 associated with the turbine.
16 JUDGE JORDAN: The operator has to 17 individually --
18 WITNESS MC GUIRE: No. There is one button to 19 push, and that accomplishes the whole set.
20 JUDGE JORDAN: All right.
21 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 22 C The procedure tha t you wanted, Mr. McGuire, is 23 the emergency shutdown procedure?
24 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) I would like the one that 25 ve are discussing right now.
H
~)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4763 1 Q Well, tha t is the emergency shutdown procedure 2 according to your testimony.
3 (Counsel handing document to witness.)
g 4 JUDGE M3RRIS: The one referenced in the 5 tes timon y is S B.29.010.01. Is that what you are 6 referring to?
7 WITNESS MC GUIRE: That is a copy of what I 8 received. Thank you.
9 (Pause.)
10 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 11 0 The specific section in this emergency 12 shutdown procedure is Section 4.6 that I am referring to 13 which addresses the operator. It says, " Assure that the 14 main turbine has been properly tripped by verifying the 15 following: ')
determine that the stop valve is stuck; 16 2) the turbine control valve is shut; 3) combine 17 intermediate stop valves shut; 4) extraction of the line 18 isolation valve shut; 5) excited fuel breaker open; 6) 19 both genera tor output brea kers are open."
20 As I continue reading on the next page, 21 Section 4.7 states, "If MSIVS are open, maintain reactor 22 pressure at less than 1005 psic with the bypass valve."
23 So that would be the next action, correct?
24 A (WITNESS MC GUIRC) If it was necessary, but I 25 would like to say from my experience this scenario here D
ALDERSON REPORTING CoNPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4764 lh I where you just tripped the reactor first, you would not 2 have to worry about that. There is enough of a steam 3 draw because you have your feed pumps still in g
4 operation, you have your steam generator still in 5 operation, and the bypass valves would not have to be 6 used to keep the pressure below 1005.
7 0 If pressure goes above 1005 and the bypass 8 valves were not utilized, then you micht exercise the 9 safety relief valves, correct?
10 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) That is correct. Or that 11 also addresses the use of HPCI in this procedure, that 12 if you run HPCI, HPCI uses about the same steam capacity 13 as a relief valve, so that would also be an additional k
14 steam draw on the reactor itself.
15 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
16 0 Mr. McGuire, I believe you said earlier that 17 you in this transient session, that you pro bably have 18 the feedwater pumps still operating, correct?
19 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) That is correct.
20 0 Now, the discussion that this is in the 21 context of, a f eedva ter-level control system f ailure, 22 isn 't it likely that in tha t si t ua tion the feedvater 23 pumps would be misoperating?
I 24 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) No, sir. If the level 25 control fails totally, the feed pumps lock into the I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE , S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4765 lhk 1 position that they are operating in at that point as 2 part of the design. You asked if the system failed, the 3 controller failed, and that is what would happens it ggg 4 would lock in position.
5 0 So the f eedvater would continue now, correct?
6 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) Yes, sir.
7 0 Now, going back to Section 4.7 of the 8 procedure, which das the one that I read after you had 9 finished reading it, sir, the use of the bypass valves 10 where pressure goes above 1005 psig, that use would 11 prevent a challenge to a safety system, nam ely a 12 challenge to the safety relief valves, correct?
13 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) In my experience to date 0 14 the only time you really challenge the relief valves if 15 if you have a turbine trip. Any time the reactor scrams 16 and you do not isolate, the turbine itself actually 17 brings the load of the reactor down so that pressure is 18 not a problem as far as rising up or back and forth.
19 There are many other things -- the steam 20 generator reject -- which you can do to the condenser 21 that it would condensate after you have gone through 22 that. Also, the exhaust from the feed pumps goes to the 23 condenser, and that is exactly where a lot of that steam 24 would go.
25 Now, if those systems themselves could net O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
0766
) 1 handle the amount of heat being produced by the reactor, 2 then the bypass valves could be utilized to prevent 3 challenging the relief valve. But in my experience I
}
4 have not seen that to be the norm. In fact, I have 5 never seen it.
6 Q In fact, isn't the purpose of the bypass 7 valves to allow relief of the primary system pressure 8 just do that you do not have to exercise the safety 9 relief valves?
10 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) If you were to ask me the 11 purpose of the bypass valves, as an operator I would say 12 that is used during the startup of the plan t. These 13 machines are very large, and you have to get them 14 turning. It is a large mass of metal. Therefore, you 15 nead enough steam to use that. The bypass valves allow 16 you to get 25 percent steam flow and then roll the 17 machine because you will have enough steam to roll the 18 machine then. You cannot just decide you are going to 19 put the machine on without having a volume of steam 20 Tvailable to get the momentum started.
21 So the bypass valves primarily as an operator 22 are used to help start the plant. I am not staying that 23 their function -- they work off the pressure regulator, 24 and they are used many times when you perform tests on 25 the startup test program. But to get steam, enough D
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4767 I 1 steam flowing so that if you want to run HPCI as part of 2 the test program you will have steam to do that. But as 3 far as a transient goes, they work automatically off the g
4 pressure regulator. The operator has to do very little 5 action, so if they are available and the pressure does 6 go up, they will open.
7 But it is just my -- in this particular item 8 ve are talking about where the reactor scrams first and 9 the turbine is still on the line, that it requires the 10 operator to go over and trip that turbine, that there 11 will be enough steam to run that turbine so that you 12 will not hsve a pressure problem.
13 Now, if the reverse happened where the turbine 14 tripped first, then you will get a pressure spike, but 15 this is not the particular case in this issue here.
16 0 Well, this procedure that is referenced in 17 your testimony on page 135 on the sentence that we were 18 reading before does call for this bypass valve use under 19 the conditions specified in the procedure.
20 A (WlTNESS MC GUIRE) If the pressure rose for 21 come reason, something else could happen. You might 22 have a feelvater system trip or the steam generator
- 23 reject, you micht have loss of condencer vacuum, so you 24 could not use that system. But if for some other reason
- 25 the pressure is going up -- I am just telling you my l
D i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, i 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4768
) 1 experience -- that is not the case.
2 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Lanpher, let me give you 3 the observation -- it is too late now -- but that last 4 question was asked and answered within the last ten 5 minutes, and I think you ha ve been all around that step 6 of the procedure.
7 WITNESS MC GUIRE: I guess the point I would 8 like to maka, Judge Brenner --
9 JUDGE BRENNER: Unless it is in response to 10 thst question --
11 WITNESS MC GUIRE: It basically is, and the 12 whole series of questions that have been asked.
13 JUDGE BRENNER: Wait a minute. We have had 14 soie problems where answor: have been way beyond the 15 questions, and I want to try to get + hem back to 16 question and answer. Is it reasonably directly rela ted ?
17 WITNESS MC GUIRE: Yes, it is.
18 JUDGE BRENNER: All right.
19 WITNESS MC GUIRE: All I was going to say is 20 the bypass valves could be used, but they do not have to 21 be.
22 JUDGE BRENNER: That was directly related, and 23 it was short.
24 (Laughter.)
25 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
D ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4769 l 1 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 2 0 Looking higher up on that page, on page 135, 3 sir, you state that, "The nonsafety system is not 4 essential to mitigating the event." And this is in the 5 context of the procedure. None of these nonsafety 6 systems are essential to mitigating the event. That is 7 the context of your statement. "Ih'e bypass valve may 8 prevent, however, challenges to the system." And is 9 that not a safety function, preventing challenges to a 10 safety system?
11 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) Boiler water reactors are 12 designed with suppression as one of its features.
13 Could you repeat that question?
D 14 0 I am just trying to tie this line up. The use 15 of the bypass valve can prevent a challenge to a safety 16 system, correct?
17 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) That is correct.
18 0 And is not avoiding or preventing challenges 19 to safety systems a safety function in your opinion?
20 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) No, it is not.
21 0 Why is it not?
22 A (W IT N ES S MC GUIRE) The systems are designed 23 to -- the reason we do not want to challenge safety 24 systems is because it gives us another line of defense.
l 25 If you have a nonsaf ety-related system that can perform l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4770 I 1 a function, the operator should utilize it, because all 2 that does is it improves reliability in what he has 3 behind him.
g 4 Ihere is no reason -- I would open a safety 5 relief valve with no hesitation if I had to open that 6 safety relief valve. It is not a question of we just do 7 not like to challenge them, because why not have a 8 second line of defense behind you? And it just makes 9 more sense.
10 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
11 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Lanpher, while you are 12 pausing, whenever it is convenient we are going to 13 break. Staff wsnted to bring up whst I hope is a very D 14 brief ma tter at the end of the day, so I wanted to allow 15 a little blt of time for that.
16 HR. RAWSON: Judge Brenner, I am told the 17 Staff no longer wants to bring up that brief ma tter.
18 JUDGE BRENNER: Good. And the next time I 19 think the Staff should follow the approach of discussing 20 it with the parties to make sure they do not have to 21 even bring up the possibility of having to bring up a i 22 matter.
23 MR. RAWSON: We will bear that in mind, sir.
l 24 JUDGE BRENNER: It has been the standard 25 procedure in this proceeding, and there is no reason for i
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
\
4771
() 1 the staff to be out of step with that. All right. In 2 any event, whenever it is convenient for you, Mr.
LT s 3 Lsnpher, in the next ten minutes or so we will break.
v 4 BY EB. LANPHER: (Resuming) 5 0 Iurning your attention, sir, to page 132 of 6 your testimony, at the bottom of the page, the third 7 line from the bottom you make a statement that -- you 8 attribute to the Intervenors that, "The mere mention of 9 a nonsafety-related system in an EOP means that its 10 classification should be upgraded."
11 Is that your understanding of what the 12 Intervenors' testimony suggested or alleged?
13 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) That is correct.
7_
V 14 0 Do you believe that where a system is called 15 upon in an emergency procedure to prevent a challenge to f
16 a safety system its reliability and quality status 17 should at least be carefully considered?
18 A (WITNESS MC GUIRE) I believe it is.
19 0 You believe it should be then also?
20 A (WIINESS MC GUIRE) No. I believe I have 21 worked on enough of these plants. The equipment you are 22 talking about is that equipment that is used for the 23 reliable generation of electricity. Ihese plants are 24 base loaded operations, and in order to be economically 25 feasible they have to remain on the line and have at l
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, I 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4772
) 1 least a decent availability record.
2 And the reason I feel that the other systems 3 which are safety-related even receive the Appendix B
)
4 quality assurance aspect is because quality assurance -
5 Appendix B is programmatic. The systems are not 6 operating all the time. They are sitting there on 7 standby. And their quality assurance program requires 8 testing on those systems. I feel the other systems"that 9 are not saf ety-related and are operating on a daily 10 basis prove that they are operable.
11 MR. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, this would be a 12 convenient place to stop. I think I only have a few 13 more questions tomorrow morning for Mr. McGuire, and D 14 then we can move along.
15 JUDGE BRENNER: You do not think you can 16 finish this area on emergency procedures with Mr.
17 McGuire in the next few minutes?
18 MR. LANPHER: Well, I am going to have to pull 19 out a couple of other documents and just review them and 20 see whether I need to use them.
21 JUDGE BRENNERs All right. We will take a 22 break except for any questions Judge Jordan has.
23 JUDGE JORDAN: Since we have a few minutes or 24 a minute or two, I need this little bit of ed uca tion.
25 As I mentioned, I have been away from the boiling water O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4773 o
h 1 syrtems for some time. In the event you were speaking, 2 I believe, of what happens following a turbine trip, is f] 3 tha t _ correct?
J 4 WITNESS MC GUIRE: Judge Jordan, we have been s
5 talking about many events this afternoon. We could 6 address that one specifically.
7 JUDGE JORDAN: But this is one of them? This 8 is one that could lead to a challenge to the safety 9 relief valve?
10 WITNESS MC GUIRE: Yes, sir.
11 JUDGE JORDAN Now, I want you to explain to 12 me just why this is. In the event of a turbine trip
_ 13 what happens?
/
~'
14 WITNESS MC GUIRE: Ihe stop valves are 15 extremely fast.
16 JUDGE JORDAN: They do go closed?
17 WITNESS MC GUIRE: Yes, they do.
18 JUDGE JORDAN: I thought it was my 19 understanding that if the stop valve goes closed, the 20 reactors scram. That was wrong?
21 WITNESS MC GUIRE That is correct. The 22 reactor does scram.
23 JUDGE JORDAN: But I thought I neard you say
_) 24 that if the reactor scrammed then there would not be a 25 trip.
i r
m A l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
4774 WITNESS MC OUIREs What I said, the sequence I
) 1 2 said was that 'if the reactor scrammed first and then the 3 turbine was tripped -- the sequence you gave me to was 4 the reserve where the turbines tripped first --
then 5 that causes the reactors to scram.
6 JUDGE JORDAN Yes. And in the sequence that 7 I described would there be a challenge to the relief 8 valve?
9 WITNESS MC GUIRE: If the turbine trips it 10 will scram the reactor, but it will also cause the 11 relief valves to lift. That is correct.
12 JUDGE JORDAN: I see. And that is even in 13 spite of the fact that the bypass valve opens?
) 14 WITNESS MC GUIRE: Yes, sir.
15 JUDGE JORDAN: Why is that? Because the 18 amount of power now with the reactor scrammed is way 17 below the capacity of the bypass valve?
18 WITNESS MC GUIRE: Yes, sir. But the speed at 19 which the stop valves close is on the order of 20 two-tenths of a second. The bypass valves can in no way 21 --
the controller cannot even react th a t fast. The back 22 pressure generated by that in itself will cause the 23 relief valve to open.
) 24 JUDGE JORDAN: Yes, I see. Okay. And that 25 does cause a collapse of the bubbles, does it not?
)
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
4775 l 1 iiITNESS .MC GUIBEs The increase in pressure 2 will csusa thst by itself?
3 JUDGE J3RDAN s Yes. All right. Okay. I 4 think I do understand now.
5 JUDGE BRENNER I guess since everybody wants 6 to stop now we will stop now snd resume at 9:00 in the 7 morning.
8 (Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., the hearing was 9 recessed, to be reconvened at 9:00 a.m., the following 10 day, Fridsy, June 18, 1982.)
11 12 13 D 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 D
ALDER 00N REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
NUCLEAR REGULATORT COMMISSICN This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the m Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 0 --
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power in the satter of:.
dtation)
- Da.te of Proceeding: June 17, 1992
. Occket lluz:bar: 50-322-OL
, Place of Proceeding: Haucoauce, New York wore held as herein appears, and. that this is the original. transc:-tpt thereof for the file of the Cec:=1ssion., ,
Ray Heer Officia! Reporter (Typed)
D .
A a e Officia M eporter (Signature) i l
l I
l t
i l
l}
9
.. _. - .-