ML20055A658
| ML20055A658 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8207190293 | |
| Download: ML20055A658 (200) | |
Text
s NCCI. EAR REGUT ATORY CO."!"~SSICN O
P D71 6
L AL A
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY,AMD LICENSING BOARD In the.va m d:
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-322-OL (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station)
CATE: July 15, 1982 PAggs:
6824 - 7014 AT:
Riverhead, New York b #4t
% h g.
TR-oI
@ W4W
$~
C NM, 7??&3 W d g/y 939 ALDERSOX ' *t REPORT 1XG o
400 Virginia Ave., S.W. Washing :n, D. C. 20024 Q
Telephc=c: (202) 554-2345 uN7 l'702 73 00071"'
i' f)P ADOCW 0500030' FDN
6824 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD O
4
x i
5 In the Matter of a
6 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY a
Docket No. 50-322-OL 7
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) s 8
- - - - - - - - - - - - -x 9
10 Riverhead County Complex 11 Legislative Hearing Room 12 Riverhead, New York 11901 13 Thursday, July 15, 1982
()
14 The hearing in the above-entitled matter 15 convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:04 a.m.
16 BEFORE:
17 LAWRENCE BRENNER, Chairman 18 Administrative Judge 19 PETER A.
MORRIS, Member 20 Administrative Judge 21 JAMES H. CARPEMTER, Member 22 Administrative Judge 23 WALTER H. JORDAN, Assistant to the Board i
24 Administrative Judge 25 O
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, i
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6825 1
Q 1
APPEARANCES:
i 2
3 On behalf of Applicants O
5 ANTHONY F. EARLEY, Esq.
1 6
T.S. ELLIS III, Esq.
I 7
Hunton C Williams 8
707 Esst Main Street 9
Richmond, Va.
23212 r
10 11 On behalf of the Regulatory Staff s 12 13 EDWIN REIS, Esq.
14 RICHARD RAWSON, Esq.
15 Washington, D.C.
16 17 On behalf of Intervenor Suffolk County s 18 19 LAWRENCE COE LANPHER, Esq.
20 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, 21 Christopher C Phillips 22 1900 M Street, N.W.
23 Washington, D.C.
20036 O
24 25 O
1 ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
~
6825-A
()
1 E E E E E E E E.
x 2
WITNESSES:
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS BOARD 3
9 Themis P.
- Speis, 4 Walter P. Haass, Marvin W.
- Hodges, S
C. E. Rossi, James H. Conran, Sr.,
and 6 Robert Kirkwood (Resumed)
By Mr. Lanpher 6831 7
6886 By Judge Jordan u
a By Judge Morris 6897 By Judge Brenner 6904 9
By Judge Carpenter 6910.
By Mr. Lanpher 6915 10 (Af ternoon Session..page 6926) g Themis P.
Speis,-
12 Walter P. Haass, 13 Marvin W.
- Hodges,
/7 C. E.
- Rossi,
(._)
14 James H.
Conran, Sr., and Robert Kirkwood (Resumed) 15 By Mr. Lanpher 6929 16 17
{
l 18 ElglBllS l
19 BOUND IN l
NUMBER IDENTIFIED _ RECEIVE 9 TRANSCRIPT 20 Suffolk County No. 32 6999 7009 21 22 I
i 23 SNPS-1 FSAR, Chapter 3, pages 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 7010 l
n i (,)
24 v
RECESSES:
Morning - 6883, Noon - 6925, Afternoon - 6985 25 l
l l
O
' U ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i 6826 1
l
{}
2EOC3IpIEgE 2
(9:00 a.m.)
3 JUDGE BRENNER:
Good morning.
I have been 4
writing down my list of pending motions to strike, and 5
in addition to the three LILCO motions on which we will N
6 be receiving a written response from the county today, 7
and as of now we will plan to argue them tomorrow, but 8
we will see where it goes and we indicated we wculd be 9
flexible but if it is not going to take too long, we 10 really would like to get them out of the way tomorrow 11 because we are going to have a lot stacked up next wee 5..
g 12 In addition to those three, there are two 13 motions to strike related to safety relief valves that
)
14 have been filed.
One was Suffolk County's ?.otion to 15 Strike Portions of LILCO's Testimony on Contention 16 Suffolk County 28(a)(vi), and LILCO has filed a motion 17 to strike some of the county's testimony on Suffolk l
18 County Contention 22.
c l
19 I would like the parties to get together and l
20 work out a schedule for written responses, if the 21 par ties seek to file them, and then a date to handle the 22 argument on them.
I would sugg e st that it should be 23 done in the next two weeks, and perhaps the week after
(}
24 next in terms of the argument at least would be better 25 than next week, in view of everything else we have next fO ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6827 1
week and in view of my perception of what would still be v
2 a timely ruling on it.
3 But if the parties think it has to ba argued 4
next week, then they can let us know.
But I think 5
getting a written response in by the end of next week or 6
perhaps early Monda y morning of the following week, 7
which would be July 26th, would be helpful so that the 6
Board will have the written response before we head into 9
the argument.
But you can work it out and let us know, 10 and obviously, we should handle them all in the same 11 timeframe since they are on related subjects.
12 That is all we have.
The staff indicated that 13 it has some preliminary matter this morning.
14 MR. RAWSON:
Yes, Judge.
Very briefly.
15 JUDGE BRENNER4 Let me also indicate, as you 16 have observed, that Judge Carpenter is back, and we had 17 to tell him th a t we had not finished the case in his 18 two-day absence.
19 (Laughter.)
20 So we are back to a full Board.
21 MR'. RAWSON:
Judge Brenner, I received some 22 information yesterday afternoon which I was asked to 23 convey to the Board and the parties in relation to an
(
24 announced inspection which will be taking place at the 25 Shoreham plant in the first two weeks in August.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6828
()
1 A letter will be going out to the parties 2
early next week on this matter, but I have been asked to 3
convey this brief oral notice to everyone at this (g
4 point.
Region I will be conducting a special inspection 5
of welds at the plant.
6 JUDGE BRENNER:
I am sorry, a special 7
inspection of -- ?
8 MR. RAWSON:
Of welds.
This will be a 9
non-destructive examination, utilizing the region's 10 non-destructive examination van.
Approxima tely 30 welds 11 have apparently been selected for inspection, using 12 non-destructive techniques.
13 This is an announced inspection.
14 JUDGE BRENNER Obviously.
15 (Laughter.)
16 MR. RAWSON:
LILCO was informed as a 17 preliminary matter last week.
The plans were finalized 18 this week, and a letter will be going out early next l
19 week with greater detail than I am able to give you this f
20 morning, but we simply wanted to put everyone on notice.
21 JUDGE BRENNER:
I don't know if these things
[
22 are related, but as you know, the Board issued an order 23 as a follow-up to one of the IE bulletins regarding
()
24 welds, and X-ray problems by a subcontractor at other 25 plants who also did work for Shoreham.
And some day, we O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6829 I
{)
will get a report in response to our order.
2 I just mention that.
I don 't kno w if there is 3
any relationship between the two things.
4 MR. RAWSONa As f ar as we know, Judge, this is 5
not related.
It is part of an ongoing program of 6
inspections, but the letter will have more detail on 7
this.
8 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, hopefully, whoever is 4
9 going out there to do this regular program knows about 10 the other problem, because as long as they are out there 11 testing welds, they might want to apply that information 12 in terms of what welds they select to look at.
It seems 13 like there might be some connection, even if it is not 14 related to the litigation.
15 We are ready to continue with matters related 16 to the contention.
Judge Jordan has a preliminary 17 matter and then we will go to the county for its cross 18 examination on non-PRA rela ted matters of the staff's 19 panel, which is the same panel except for the absence of 20 Mr. Thadani, as was discussed yesterday.
21 JUDGE JORDAN:
This relates to my question 22 concerning classification of the emergency feed wa te r 23 system at TMI-1.
It is not a matter of re-litigating
()
24 THI-1, but rather a matter that I will be asking 25 questions on concerning the way the staff decides on O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6830 1
what is safety grade and what is not.
0; 2
And if you remember, I did raise the question 3
of where the emergency feedwater system at TMI-1 was 4
saf ety grade.
And I do want to refer you to the initial 5
decision on TMI-1, which is the Nuclear Regulatory
]
6 Commission issuances, Volume 14, Number 6, at page j
7 1369.
And the footnote on that page reads, "The EFW 1
8 system was not safety grade and was not relied upon to 9
p ro tect the core; that task fell to the HPI system which 10 was safety grade."
And the reference is to testimony by 11 the licensee's witness, Capo Donno, et al, which appears 12 at transcript page 5642.
13 That is all I have.
()
14 JUDGE BRENNER:
Mr. Lanpher, do you want to 15 orient me in terms of how you would proceed in the cross 16 plan?
17 MR. LANPHER:
Yes, Judge Brenner, because of 18 Mr. Goldsmith and some other things he needs to be 19 doing, we tra going to address pages 28 through 31 of 20 the pre-filed testimony; pages 34 and 35 of my cross 21 plan, that portion having to do with the water level 22 instrumentation system.
And then I intend to resume i
23 what might be a normal order after that, but Mr.
(}
24 Goldsmith has some other meetings he has to attend.
25 JUDGE BRENNER.
Fine.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
n a
I 6831 1
Whereupon, 2
THEMIS P. SPEIS, 3
WALTER P. HAASS, 4
MARVIN W. H0DGES 5
C.E. ROSSI, 8-JAMES H. CONRAN, SR., and 7
ROBERT KIRKWOOD, 8
the witnesses ca the stand at the time of recess, 9
resumed the stand, and, having been previously duly 10 sworn, were examined and testified further as follows:
11 CROSS EXAMINATION -- Resumed 12 BY MR. LANPHER:
13 0
Mr. Hodges and Mr. Rossi, you gentlemen a re
()
14 the primary authors of this section of the testimony.
15 Is that correct?
16 A
(WITNESS HODGES) Yes.
17 0
Was one of you responsible for preparing the 18 first draft?
19 A
(WITNESS HODGES) I prepared the first draft i
20 and was really the principal author for this with some 21 assistance by Mr. Rossi.
22 0
Then I will address my questions to you, Mr.
23 Hodges, and to you, Dt. Rossi, and if any other panel 24 members want to join in, that is fine.
(}
25 Mr. Hodges, what has your involvement been f
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6832 1
with the Shoreham project, other than the preparation of
[}
2 this testimony?.
3 A
(WITNESS HODGES) A ppro xima tely two yea rs ago, 7-\\-)
4 with the reorganization within the NRC I was transferred 5
from the Analysis Branch to the Reactor Systems Branch.
6 At that time, I was assigned as one of my 7
responsibilities to complete the review of the Shoreham 8
l'S A R.
I parsonally did that for a period of a couple of 9
months, and then a less senior engineer joined the staff 10 and he was assigned to work on the Shoreham review under 11 my direct.on.
i 12 That continued for approximately a year, at 13 which time I was promoted to a section leader position.
()
14 And the Shoreham review was completed under my 15 supervision.
16 JUDGE BRENNER :
Mr. Lanpher, does that 17 question and answer sound familiar to you?
18 MR. LANPHER:
I couldn't recall whether it had i
19 been asked before by Ms. Letsche on the water hammer.
20 JUDGE BRENNER:
It was.
l 21 MR. LANPHER:
I am not planning to spend a 22 long time.
I am just trying to get my orientation.
23 JUDGE BRENNER:
Mr. Hodges wanted to 24 supplement one thing and I cut him off.
J l
25 WITNESS HODGES:
That was the reactor systems O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6833
()
1 aspects of the review, not the total review, of course.
2 BY MR. LANPHER (Resreing):
3 0
So your first work began in approximately 1980 Cs 4
4 on the Shoreham project?
5 A
(WITNESS HODGES) From the reactor systems 6
viewpoint.
I was also a reviewer for Sh reham in the 7
Analysis Branch several years prior to that looking at 8
the thermal hydraulics review in Section 4.4 of that SAR.
9 0
What has your involvement been, if any, with 10 respect to review of the water level instrumentation 11 system at Shoreham?
12 A
(WITNESS HODGES) At Shoreham specifically, it 13 has been primarily in relation to the flashing 14 cha racte ris tics.
I did a review of the wat er level 15 measurement system for.all of the boilers as a member of 16 the bulletins and crders task force.
This was a task 17 force that was set up immediately following the THI-2 18 accident.
We were concerned with temperature effects of 19
-- drywell temperature effects on the water level 20 instrumentation and we looked at it in some detail at 21 that time.
But it was a generic review and not Shoreham 22 specific.
The Shoteham-specific had been more recent.
23 0
In that generic review, you did look at the C) 24 so-called flashing problem similar to the three kinds of
(
25 problems which are described in answer 29 on page 28 of O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-D45
6834 1
Your testimony?
2 A
(WITNESS H0DGES) The first one was not 3
considered at that time.
The steam line break was a 4
primary one that was e asidered number 2 in that list.
5 It was difficult to imagine vars in which the drywell 6
would be hotter than the reactor, and therefore, we did 7
not consider the first one at all.
In that task force, 8
ve were looking primarily a t -- well, I can 't say th a t.
9 We were looking at drywell temperature effects but not 10 with the reactor depressurized.
11 0
In other words, you weren't looking at the 12 flashing problem, but the particular mechanism.
What 13 you have described as the Pilgrim problem, I guess, was
()
14 not analyzed in that effort of the task force?
15 A
(WITNESS HODGES) Well for the conditions we 16 were looking at, you would not have had flashing; you 17 would have only had a decalibration due to temperature 18 effects because the reactor would have been at pressure.
19 0
Dr. Rossi, what has your involvement been with 20 respect to the Shoreham water level indication system?
21 A
(WITNESS ROSSI) With respect specifically to 22 Shoreham, my involvement is related only to the 23 preparation of the testimony here, and discussions that 24 I had with Mr. Hodges and some other members in my
(}
25 section on this subject, and I also have had some t
l ()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE _, S.W.. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6835 1
discussions with the LILCO applicant to verify
{}
2 essentially the accuracy of what is said in this U
testimony for Shoreham specifically.
That is pretty O
4 auch the extent of my involvement.
5 Q
Have you been involved in review cr 6
consideration of water level instrumentation systems for 7
other boiling water reactors?
8 A
(WITNESS ROSSI) Yes, I have.
In my capacity 9
of supervising the review of the Perry plan t and the to Clinton plant, I have been somewhat involved in the 11 review of water level instrumentation for boiling water 12 reactors.
Around the time that Mr. Michelson's group 13 was looking into this problem, I also had some
(
14 involvement and discussions about what sort of criteria 15 had been used in past reviews on water level 16 instrumentation with respect to breaks of reference legs 17 and tha t type of thing.
18 And I had some discussions that resulted at l
19 least in verbal transmission of some information over to 20 the people within the Division of Licensing who were 21 p rima rily responsible for involvement in the problems l
l 22 that Mr. Michelson had suggested might occur.
23 0
Had that involvement begun prior to the time
()
24 tha t wha t we call the Michelson Memorandum in this 25 hearing first was made available, I guess in draft form i
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C.20024 (202) 554-2345
6836
/~'T 1
last fall?
U 2
A (WITNESS ROSSI) I can't remember specifically 3
when my involvement was, but I do remember that it was O
4 one of the things I got involved in fairly soon after I 5
became a section leader.
So that would pin it down 6
certainly to the fall, I believe, of last year.
7 Q
Gentlemen, looking at the title of this 8
section of your testimony, Demonstration of the Adequacy 9
of the Classification, and then it continues, is there 10 any issue with respect to the classification of the 11 water level system so far as you are concerned?
12 A
(WITNESS ROSSI) I know of no issue with 13 respect to the classification of the water level
()
14 system.
We worded the section this way primarily in 15 response to the fact that we believe that part of the 16 contention had to do with the possible classification of 17 the system.
So we did want to clear up what the 18 classification of the system was.
19 '
Q It is classified as safety-related, correct?
20 A
(WITNESS ROSSI) The portions of this system 21 that are used for tripping the reactor were initiating; 22 engineered safeguards equipment is, indeed, safety grade.
23 Q
What portions of the system are not safty
(
24 grade?
25 A
(WITNESS ROSSI) There is a level signal that O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6837 1
goes to the feedwa ter control system that would not be
(~ }
2 safety grade.
3 0
That is the only aspect of this system, n'
4 insofar as you are aware, that is not fully safety grade?
5 A
(WITNESS ROSSI) Portions of the level 8 logic 6
a re not fully safety grade.
I would not be able to give 7
you a list of other thin,gs that might not be safety 8
grade, but in general, the portions that are used for 9
protection are safety grade; those used for control are 10 non-safety g ra d e, and the level 8, of course, as we have 11 indicated in our testimony, as portions that are not 12 safety grade.
13 0
The signal 2, the level 8 trip, is that safety 14 g ra de ?
15 A
(WITNESS ROSSI) I do not know the details of 16 exactly where that boundary is between what is and what 17 is not safety grade there.
18 0
But it is your understanding that the signal 19 to the feedwater rontrol system is not safety grade?
20 A
(WITNESS ROSSI) I beg your pardon?
The level 21 signal to control feedwater would not be safety grade.
22 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
23 Q
Gentlemen, would you agree that questions 29
()
24
-- and the answers -- questions 29 through 3u of your 25 testimony on the water level indicators deal with the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6838
()
1 flashing problem, particularly as highlighted by the 2
Pilgrim Board notification which was attached to th e 3
Suffolk County testimony?
fgU 4
A (WITNESS HODGES) It was written in response to 5
tha t, yes.
6 0
And is question.35 and the answer written to 7
address Suffolk Co un ty Exhibit 1,
which we refer to as 8
the Michelson Memorandum?
9 A
(WITNESS HODGES) Yes.
10 0
Focusing first of all on the Pilgrim problem, 11 the flashing problem, would you agree that tha t 12 represents an adverse systems interaction problem?
13 A
( WITNESS HODGES) Yes.
14 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
15 0
And, Mr. Hodges, that interaction involves the 16 non-safety grade or non-safety related drywell coolers 17 and water level system.
Is that correct?
18 A
(WITNESS HODGES) That is correct.
19 0
Had that interaction been -- are you finished?
20 A
(WITNESS HODGES) Yes.
21 0
I don't mean to cut you off.
Was that 22 interaction reviewed by the NBC staff in its review of 23 the Shoreham FSAR, the Shoreham design?
()
24 A
(WITNESS HODGES) You are talking about the 25 Pilgrim type event?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6839 1
0 Yes, I am, Mr. Hodges.
()
2 A
(WITNESS HODGES) That interaction was not 3
reviewed as part of the normal FSAR review; it was
)
4 reviewed after the Pilgrim event.
5 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
6 0
Is it f air to sta te, then, that the first 7
staff review of this matter occurred af ter the Pilgrim 8
event?
9 A
(WITNESS HODGES) If by "this matter" you mean 10 the specific situation where you had the high drywell 11 temperature combined with the low reactor pressure 12 following operation, then yes, f ollo wing th e Pilgrim 13 event was the first time the staff reviewed it.
()
14 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
15 0
Mr. Hodges, are you aware of whether General 16 Electric sent out letters to its customers concerning 17 the high drywell temperature interaction with water 18 level indicators during 1979 and 1980?
19 A
(WITNESS HODGES) There was a service 20 information letter which is commonly referred to as a 21 SIL.
SIL number 299 was issued in July of 1979, which
(
22 dealt with the effects of high drywell temperature on 23 the calibration of the level instruments.
Supplement 1
/}
24 to that SIL, which was issued either in the fall of 79 25 or 80, I don't remember the exact time, did address a
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6840 1
flashing problem.
And we within the NBC staff were also
(}
2 aware of that flashing problem.
3 In my opinion, though, it did not go as far as O
4 to discuss the type of flashing problem that occurred at 5
Pilgrim.
6 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
7 Q
Mr. Hodges, I believe you agreed earlier to my 8
question that the flashing problem, the Pilgrim kind of 9
problem, represents an adverse systems interaction.
Do 10 you believe that this can be a potential source of 11 confusion for the operators?
12 A
(WITNESS HODGES) It is a potential source.
13 0
On page 30 of your testimony in answer to 14 question 33 you state that -- well, answer 33, again, is 15 in the Pilgrim context, correct?
That flashing problem?
16 A
(WITNESS HODGES) It is written for Shoreham 17 but in relation to the Pilgrim type of event.
18 0
Thank you.
What do you mean by " safety 19 significance" in that answer?
20 A
(WITNESS HODGES) What I mean there is that 21 there is no threat to the f uel integrity.
The core 22 remains adequately covered.
I would stop at that point.
23 Q
You are assuming in that answer that the
()
24 operator does not become confused and make any errors, 25 is that correct?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6841 1
A (WITNESS HODGES) I am assuming that even if he
(}
2 misread the water level, that the maximum error that he 3
would have would be 9 feet, and he would be attempting O
4 to control the water level in the normal control range, 5
which is 16 feet above the' top of the fuel.
So even if 6
he made the error of misinterpreting his instrumentation 7
and the maximum possible error existed, due to the 8
flashing and the decalibration following 9
depressurization, the fuel would still remain covered 10 and so there would be no threat to the fuel integrity.
11 0
You are assuming no erro rs, th e n, beyond the 12 operator just relying on what he read from the 13 indicators, or incorrectly relying on it?
You
()
14 insinuate, at least, in that answer.
15 A
(WITNESS HODGES) He is reading his indicators 16 to be correct.
He assumes his instrumentation is 17 correct, and controls water level in the normal control I
18 range.
That would then. produce a water level still 19 several feet above the top of the fuel.
20 0
But you are not assuming any -- you are 21 assuming tha t he reads the indicators correctly, even 22 though the indicators are indicating something other l
23 than the true water level, correct?
()
24 A
(WITNESS HODGES) I am assuming that he is 25 taking the indicator readings a t f ace value, although he O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
.. _, _..~.._.
6842
()
1 has abundant indication that there are problems with the 2
indicators, and most likely, would be aware that the 3
indicators are incorrect.
In that particular answer I O
4 an assuming that he is taking the indicator readings at 5
face value.
6 JUDGE BRENNER:
I think more particularly, Mr.
7 Hodges, as I read the written answer, it is not that --
8 according to the answer as I read it -- tha t he is 9
taking all the' instrument readings at f ace value, but 10 rather, you are assuming he is following the instrument 11 reading with the maximum error.
12 WITNESS HODGES:
That is correct.
13 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
14 BY MR. LAMPHER (Resuming):
15 0
Mr. Hodges, at Pilgrim is it not the case that 16 all the instruments read -- the water level instruments 17 read incorrectly?
18 A
(WITNESS HODGES) Not all of the water level 19 indicators e xhibited the flashing.
There would have 20 been a temperature effect on the reading and so all of 21 the indicators would have been reading somewhat 1
22 inrorrectly because of the high temperature.
But it is 23,not apparent that all of the indicators flashing, the
()
24 Yarway instruments which have a heated reference leg, 25 flashed.
I don't think it has been determined that the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6843 (J~)
1 cold reference leg instruments did flash for that 2
situation.
3 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferred.)
S 4
0 Mr. Hodges, I would like to turn your 5
attention to question 31 on page 29 In that answer you 6
state that if the water level cannot be determined by 7
the operator, the operator is instructed to depressurize 8
and flood the vessel with the low pressure systems.
9 That leads to exercise of the safety systems, correct?
10 A
(WITNESS H0DGES) The answer is correct.
But 11 le me also state that that is an extreme case.
If the 12 operator decides because of the flashing problem he 13 canno t detarmine wha t the water level is, then he would f')1
(.
14 depressurize and flood the vessel.
You have several 15 level instruments.
It is not obvious that you would 16 have the problem with all the instruments, so just 17 because there is flashing, there is no assurance that he 18 will have to depressurize.
But if he decides he cannot 19 trust his level instrumentation, so he does not knov 20 where his level is, these are the steps he would follow.
21 0
Such safety system actuation or challenges are 22 undesirable, correct?
23 A
(WITNESS HODGES) That is deba table.
(s 24 r
s N.]
25 f'/
T s.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 1
6844
/~S 1
Q Well, does the Staff encourage the use of the
(/
2 ECCS systems on a routine basis?
3 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
Gen e rall y, the NRC Staff has e
4 tried to discourage challenges to the safety systems.
5 There are other industries who think that is the wrong 6
philosophy.
But the NRC has traditionally taken that 7
position.
8 0
Well, then the Staff position is that it is 9
undesirable; correct?
10 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
That's correct.
11 Q
In answer to an earlier question you stated 12 that if the operator cannot know the precise water level 13
-- or maybe no t precise, but the water level, he is (3
(,)
14 confused about that -- he is to take the steps described 15 in Answer 31.
What steps are involved in carryina out 16 the flood of the core or the flood of the vessel?
17 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
Let me correct your 18 sta temen t a little bit.
You said he would be confused.
19 I think I would say he could be confused, and then if he 20 were confused, then this is wha t he would have to go 21 through.
So tha t again, the chance is very good that he 22 would understand what was going on and where his water 23 level was.
I ')
24 But if he determined he had to depressurize,
\\_/
25 that is what he would do.
The steps he would go through O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i I
6845 i
l l
1 1
are culled out in the Shorehas emergency procedures.
(}
2 Q
Let me stop you there.
Does he have to refer 3
to one procedure in order to carry this out, or more O
4 than one or what?
5 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
It is more than one 6
procedure.
But the procedures are set up in such a 7
fashion tha t he is directed in a logical fashion through 8
the various procedures.
He is also, through his 9
training, quite familiar with the procedures, and so the 10 steps that he has to take are not strange to him.
11 0
Mr. Hodges, is it your responsibility with the 12 NRC Staff to review the procedures that operators will 13 utilize in the event that the steps required under
)
14 Answer 31 are to be taken?
15 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
I do not review the specific 16 procedures that are implemented at the plant.
I have 17 had the responsibility -f or the last 2 years of reviewing 18 the technical bases for the emergency procedure 19 guidelines which are the basis for the Shoreham 20 emergency procedures.
I have looked at the Shoreham 21 procedures to assure myself that they are consistent 22 with these emergency procedure guidelines.
23 So although I do not do the Staff review in
()
24 the sense that I write the safety evaluation for the 25 Shoreham procedures, I have reviewed them for O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6846 1
{~ )
consistency with the emergency procedure guidelines 2
which I do review for technical adequacy.
3 Q
What are the steps then that the operator 4
would have to take in order to carry out the actions 5
described in Answer 31?
6 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
Would you like me to 7
describe it in general terms or refer you to the 8
procedures?
9 0
Well, I do not want a terribly detailed 10 a ns we r, but I would like to know which procedures, if 'it 11 is more than one, what procedures theyhave to refer to.
12 JUDGE BRENNER:
Mr. Hodges, and I guess Mr.
13 Lanpher also, we have had testimony in this proceeding,
()
14 and I believe, Mr. Hodges, you are cognizant of that 15 testimony from LILCO witnesses, as to the new approach 16 to procedures that evolved out of the BWR Owners Group 17 towards symptomatic recognition of problems and 18 procedures being designed to respond to that and work 19 going on so that the Shoreham-specific procedures follow 20 that line.
21 Are these going to be that never approach?
I 22 am concerned tha t we will waste time on testimony with 23 the old procedures only to find out later that those are
(
24 not the same procedures that are actually going to be 25 used in material ways.
I an not worried about minor O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6847
{
1 changes.
.}
2 WITNESS HODGES:
These procedures, these emergency procedures that Shor'eham has now, are based 3
O 4
upon the emergency procedure guidelines developed by the 5
BWR Owners Group which are the symptomatic procedures 6
tha t you are discussing rather than event-specific 7
procedures.
8 Ihe version of the procedures or the version 9
of the guidelines that is the basis for the Shoreham to procedures was one that was approved for trial 11 im'plementation I believe it was last fall.
There have 12 been updates to the guidelines since that time.
One of 13 the members of the BWR Owner subgroup that works on
()
14 these procedures -- or works on these guidelines --
15 excuse me -- I think is from LILCO.
And so some of the 16 updates have been included in the proced ures as they now 17 exist.
18 I wculd expect that eventually they will have 19 to revise their procedures to take the'more recent 20 changes also.
But they follow -- snd particularly in' 21 the depressurization and flooding aspects -- the 22 procedures as they now exist follow very closely to the 23 guidelines that exist from the Owners Group.
()
24 JUDGE BRENNER:
Okay.
Thank you.
25 JUDGE JORDAN:
I believe some of the early O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6848
()
1 procedures, in response to the TMI-2 accident, we re 2
considered deficient by the Staff in that they did not 3
take into account multiple failures.
Now, do these G
4 procedures, has the Staff determined that these 5
procedures have overcome that defect?
6 WITNESS HODGES.
These procedures or the 7
guidelines that the Shoreham procedures are developed 8
from specifically from the beginning were intended to 9
include these multiple failures.
10 The history of the development of these 11 guidelines for the BWRs is a little different than it is 12 for the PWRs.
And in fact, the BWR Owners Group came to 13 the NRC Staff not longer after the Three Mile Island p
(_ I 14 accident while we still had the Bulletin and Orders Task 15 Force in effect, and proposed adopting the 16 symptom-baseds procedures.
17 The consideration at that time wa s tha t the 18 multiple failures would be included, and in fact, the 19 BWR Owners Group effort to do this started several 20 months prior to the NRC requirement to do such.
And so 21 from the very beginning, these have been included, and, 22 yes, indeed, it is many, many multiple f ailures have 23 been considered in these guidelines.
r-( )/
24 JUDGE JORDAN s Thank you.
s_
25 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Jordan, for the Board's ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6849 1
(}
information, I am not intending to spend a great deal of 2
time on procedures here.
I know we have that coming up 3
on, I guess, SC 19.
You looked worried.
4 JUDGE DRENNERt I was not worried.
We were 5
discussing the fact th a t, well, you stated the point 6
very concisely.
7 BY HR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 8 0
Mr. Hodges,*do you recall the question?
9 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
I think you wanted me to go 10 through the steps that are required by the operator to 11 depressurize and flood the vessel; is that correct?
12 0
Let me be more precise.
I would like you to 13 describe what procedures, in the course of your answer,
()
14 describe what procedures the operator would also have to 15 utilize in ultimately reaching the step of flooding the 16 vessel.
17 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
I can only address the 18 emergency procedures which direct the operator to take 19 certain actions.
There are additional procedures for 20 the operation of various systems -- for example, the 21 operation of a HPCI system or the operation of a PCIC 22 system -- that are operating type of procedures that I 23 am not familiar with.
(}
24 And in general, the emergency procedures would 25 only direct the operator to use the systems he was j
C)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6850 1
(}
expected to be familiar with or to go to the procedures 2
for those systems as he starts them up.
3 So I can answer your question in the extent to i
(2) 4 what the emergency procedures tell him to do.
I cannot 5
go into the details of these operating procedures.
6 0
Fine.
Please describe what you do know.
7 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
The first procedure, f
8 emergency procedure, the operator goes to would be the i
9 level control procedure, which is Shoreham Procedure 10 Number 29.023.01.
In step 3.4 of that procedure it i
11 states that if the water -- if the reactor pressure 12 vessel water level cannot be maintained above the top of 1
l 10 the fuel or cannot be determined, then proceed to
()
14 Shoreham Procedure 29.023.04, level restoration.
15 The level control procedure is normally the 16 first procedure that the operator would enter following 17 any abnormal situation.
The conditions are water level 18 vessel less than 12 inches or drywall pressure greater 19 than 1.69 p.s.i.g.
or an isolation condition which 20 exists which requires or initiates reactor scram.
21 So in any emergency, and for many 22 non-emergency situations, he would be first in this 23 level control procedure.
()
24 In Shoreham Procedure Number 29.02.04 in step l
25 3.3 it says if at any time the reactor pressure level ba ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l 6851 1
water level cannot be determined, then proceed as
(}
2 follows, and it gives a series of steps which involve 3
starting up low pressure systems to inject to the 4
vessel.
5 Then it says proceed to Shoreham Procedure 6
29.023.05, rapid RPV depressurization.
In steps 3.1 and 7
3.4 of that procedure, 3.1 says open all ADS valves.
8 That would depressurize the vessel.
Then there are 9
other steps to go through if he cannot get all of the 10 ADS valves open.
11 This gets into Judge Jordan's questions about 12 the multiple failures.
13 In step 3.4 that basically says if water level
()
14 cannot be determined, proceed to Shoreham Procedure 15 29.023.09, reactor pressure vessel flooding.
In step 16 3.2 of that procedure it says if reactor pressure water 17 level cannot be determined, then commence injection into 18 the RPV with all of the following systems until at least 19 three SRVs are open.
And it then lists systems in which 20 to inject.
21 The idea behind the number of SRVs which are 22 open would be to assure that the vessel is full of water 23 and tha t you have water pouring out of the relief
(
24 valves.
25 Q
So in order, Mr. Hodges, to carry out the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
o 6852 1
actions described in Answer 31 on page 29 of your
(}
2 testimony, the operator would have to go through four 3
emergency procedures, and then there may be some O
4 operating procedures also that he would have to make 5
reference to; correct?
6 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
He would go through the 7
three or four, however many it was I just read out.
But 8
ad you can tell, the amount of detail he has to be 9
concerned with in each one of those is minimal.
10 0
Now, Mr. Hodges, in going through those, you 11 did not describe each step.
For instance, you went to 12 step 3.4, and I assume that he would have to be 13 concerned about the other steps leading up to those A
\\_/
14 steps; correct?
15 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
Not in those particular 16 procedures.
He would scan those very quickly to get 17 down to the point where the symptoms he has exist, one 18 of which you needed to flood the vessel -- or, excuse 19 me, the water level cannot be determined.
That is the 20 symptom.
21 (Counsel for Suf folk County conferred. )
22 0
Gentlemen, I would like to turn your attention 23 now to Question and Ansver 35 on page 31 of your
()
24 testimony.
25 Er. Hodges, did you draft the initial response i
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
N 6853 s.
()
1 to this answer?
2 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
Yes.
S 0
After this testimony was filed, you amended 3
4 the answer, I would characterize it as fairly 5
extensively.
What was the'resson for this change?
6 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
The time period in which we 7
had to try to write a response to the Contention was 8
very short initially.
The response'was written Sased
'N, 9
upon my preliminary understanding of the way the system 10 existed.
11 After writing this response, but prior to 12 coming to these proceedings, I did review the diagrams 13 in great detail.
And at that time, I determined that 14 there should be some changes'to that answer.
15 Q
So this was not something that was just left s
16 out, this was an addition to make the answer more 17 complete on subsequent review?
18 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
I felt that the answer as it 5
19 existed was misleading-and I neaded to improve it.
20 0
When you prepared the answer initially, did 21 you have the Michelson memorandum available to you?
l i
22 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
Yer, I did.
23 0
Now, the Michelson memorandum, Suffolk County 1
(
24 Exhibit 1,
has that undergone a review within the NRC 25 Staff?
O f
ALDE ASoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
s 400 VIRGIN! A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6854 1
A (WITNESS HODGES)
Well, first of f, it was
(}
2 written by a portion of the NRC Staff, but it has been 3
reviewed within the Of fice of NRR also, to some extent.
O 4
Q When I refer to the Michelson memorandum, Mr.
5 Hodges, just so it is clear, I include the report which 6
is the bulk of Suffolk County Exhibit 1,
the report 7
entitled " Safety Concern Associated with the Reactor 8
Vessel Level Instrumentation in Boiling-Water 9
Reactors."
Did you understand my question that way?
l.
10 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
Yes, I did.
11 Q
In fact, is it not true that this report 12 became available last f all and tha t it was considered 13 f airly widely by the NBC Staff and that the final report I) 14 did not come out until early this year?
15 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
Well, the report is dated 16 January of
'82, so it came out this year.
I was
' 17 familiar with the report.
I forget whether it was late 18 November or some time in December I did see the report 19 and read through it.
Beyond that, I am not sure how 20 widely it was circulateds I just don 't know.
21 0
Dr. Rossi, do you have any awareness on 22 whether the -- strike that.
23 Do you have any familiarity with the exte-t of
(}
24 the review of this report within the NRC Staff?
25 A
( W IT N ESS BOSSI)
I can only speak from the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
6855 1
fact that I had the discussions that I previously
(}
2 described with members of the Division of Licensing 3
concerning the interpretation of IEEE 279 with respect O
4 to primarily the breaking of the reference leg.
Based 5
upon that, it did have review within the Staff, yes.
6 How extensive that review wa s, I couldn't say with 7
certainty.
8 Q
Are any other members of the panel familiar 9
with the extent of the review within the Staff of this 10 document?
11 A
(WITNESS SPEIS)
The only personal knowledge I 12 have is thst Faust Rosa, who is the branch chief of the 13 Istrumentation and Controls Branch, who works under me,
()
14 provided some comments which were included in the 15 subsequent -- or I guess not subsequent -- the October le 30, 1981, memo from Denton to Michelson providing 17 comments on the draft Michelson report before it became I
18 final in January of
'82.
19 0
Gentlemen, would you agree that the Michelson 20 memorandum identifies a safety concern regardino an 21 interaction between plant control systems and protection 22 systems?
23 A
(WITNESS H0DGES)
Yes.
()
24 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
Yes.
25 0
Io your knowledge, was the Staff aware of this
(
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVC., S W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 23,45
6856 1
potential safety concern when it reviewed the Shoreham
[}
2 FSAR in preparation of the Staff's SER?
3 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
We do not know.
O 4
0 So your review process did not pick up this 5
problem?
6 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
We do not know whether it 7
picked up this problem.
8 Q
Is this problem, to your knowledge, addressed 9
in the Shoreham SER?
10 A
(WITNESS ROSSI')
I don't believe the breaking 11 of the reference leg is.
12 Q
Well, if the Staff had been aware of this 13 problem, do you believe that this is the kind of thing
()
14 that would have been included in the Staff's SEB 15 discussion?
16 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
Not necessarily.
If the 17 Staff had reviewed this on Shoreham and concluded that 18 what was being done on Shoreham was consistent with what 19 had been accepted on other similar boiling-water 20 reactors, it could very well be that it would not be 21 discussed in the SER.
22 Q
Well, when the Staff identifies -- well, what 23 is your understanding of what is meant by a " safety
(}
24 concern," Mr. Hodges or Dr. Rossi?
25 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
A safety concern to me would O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6857
(}
be any type of an issue that might require further 1
2 exploration and discussion by the Staff to determine if 3
some additional actions have to be taken.
It would be O
4 it would cover a wide variety of kinds of things.
5 A
(WITNESS SPEIS)
May I address this also?
6 Q
Ce ra tinly.
7 A
(WITNESS SPEIS)
Safety concern is a kind of a 8
generic statement that has to be looked at carefully 9
before one decides what it really means.
And let me be 10 more specific.
11 When an event takes place in an operating 12 reactor, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation takes 13 a look at it from a variety of standpoints.
The first
()
14 thing that we do is to ask ourselves what h appened.
The 15 next question we have to ask ourselves is why it 16 happened.
The next question that we have to address is 17 what are the implications of that event in that reactor 18 generically to all reactors.
19 A specific question that we can address, that 20 we have addressed, for example, from the Pilgrim 21 flashing event, which I describe in one of the memos 22 tha t was used in your exhibits, is, for example, 23 determine acceptability of what happened at Pilgrim in
()
24 regards to safety-related instruments.
25 Normally, before we can complete our review, O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASH NGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6858 I
we notify boards that -- to make sure that the issue, it
{)
2 is brought to the a ttention of the boards.
Subsequent 3
to that, of course, we proceed with the work to assess O,
4 its importsnce.
5 And that process goes on until we finally come 6
up to the conclusion what does it mean in terms of our 7
practices or our criteria, does it affect safety does it impact the 8
systems, is it in any way 9
actuation of the protection system or the engineered to safety features and things of that sort.
11 A
(WITNESS CONRAN)
I would like to add to the 12 previous comments that safety concerns are raised all 13 the time by various members of the Staff.
They result
(
14 from operatino experience or just people what-iffing, 15 thinking about what could happen.
16 Another final step, if the concern is serious 17 enough, if in the part of the process where a safety 18 concern that has been raised is mulled over by the Staff 19 and studied by the Staff, if the concern, particularly 20 on the part of the person who has raised it, is serious 21 enough that someone in a responsible position is still 22 not satisfied with the answer.
23 Or if the generic implications seem to be
(
24 seriouc enough, it may even be decla red an unresolved 25 safety issue.
Systems interaction A-17 was raised in O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
~
6859 1
this fashion.
And in fact, many specific examples of 2
the pressurt' zed thermal shock, A-47, the control systems 3
question.
O 4
So the fact that something is raised or that a 5
question is raised, a safety concern is raised by a 8
member of the Staff, even one whose opinion is as widely 7
respected as Mr. Michelson, does not mean that an action 8
must be taken.
9 The process of resolving it certainly may be 10 very long, and the f act that a problem is postulated 11 does not mean that something has to be done about it 12 insediately in terms of changing regulations or making 13 modifications to the reactor.
O V
14 I think what is going on in this context may 15 very well be like the issue that I an involved in.
We 16 are in the process of still trying to resolve it.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6860 1
0 Mr. Conran, you used -- at the tallend of your 2
answer you used the term " postulated", an. event may be 3
postulated.
This instance goes somewhat beyond just O
4 postulated events, does it not?
Would Mr. Michelson or 5
the staff base this review on actual operating events 6
where there have been problems with the water level 7
system, correct?
8 A
(WITNESS HODGLS) Jim, can I answer that?
9 A
(WITNESS CONRAN) I could address it first.
10 0
I would like to have Mr. Conran maybe first, 11 and then Mr. Hodges, please.
12 A
(WITNESS CONRAN) Well, of course, earlier in 13 my remarks I indicated that these kind of concerns
()
14 sometimes result from actual operating expe riences, but 15 I think the concern that is involved here is postulating 16 what a thing -- if something would happen beyond what 17 has already happned.
The occurrence that has already 18 happened I think was determined to not have significant 19 safety effects as it occurred.
The concern iss what if 20 something beyond wha t has actually occurred happens.
21 And that is what I meant by postulating.
22 A
(WITNESS HODGES) I don't have a lot of add to 23 what he just said, other than that the events that 24 occurred were nowhere near as severe as what has been
{}
25 postulated with the break and an additional failure.
s/
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6861' 1
But the fact that there have been some problems with
{)
2 leakage and valve fittings and such on the instrument 3
lines led to the thinking that there was a potential for 4
aore serious problems, and this was postulated.
5 (Counsel for Suffolk County conf erring.)
6 0
Mr. Hodges, or Mr. Conran, would you, in the 7
context of your previous answers, consider this to be a 8
precursor of possible other events we have talked 9
about?
That precursor report from Oak Ridge, the 10 Michelson Memorandum, goes the next step.
Would rau 11 call this a kind of precursor event that the staff needs 12 to look at?
13 MR. ELLIS:
May I have a clarification of what
()
14 is the event that he is talking about?
Because he have 15 had testimony that there was "what iffing" in the 16 Michelson memorandum and not the actual operating 17 experience.
18 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, I think he is talking 19 about the Pilgrim event, but I will let him say it.
20 MR. LANPHER:
No, I was not talking about that.
21 JUDGE BRENNER:
Then I guess I do need a 22 clarification.
23 JUDGE JORDAN This is the Hatch event?
24 JUDGE BRENNER:
Let him say it.
We just
{
25 proved Mr. Ellis's point.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6862
()
1 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
2 0
The events that I as talking about as 3
precursors a re the 18 or so events which are attached to O
4 the end.
And the concern is in terms of "what iffing" 5
is the additional single failure, which is the Michelson 8
memorandum talks about.
And so my question ist Do you 7
believe that these 18 events as discussed b y -- or 18 8
may be the wrong number, but whatever the num'ber of 9
events in Appendix A to the Michelson memorandum --
10 constitute preccesors of the kind that the staff needs 11 to look at because they can lead to more serious 12 accidents?
13 A
(WITNESS ROSSI) They certainly represent
(
14 postulated events, an actual initial event, that 15 requires additional consideration by the staff, yes.
16 A
(WITNESS SPEIS) I would like to add that I 17 agree with D r. Rossi here.
Such an event is looked at 18 very carefully, and I agree with you that it belongs to 19 the precursor program.
What is done is that the 20 additional failures that are postulated are looked at 21 from the viewpoint of probability to see what is the 22 ultimate as far as the unreliability of tha t system and 23 how important a precursor is; is it big enough or small
()
24 enough to be considered further.
25 A
(WITNESS CONRAN) I certainly wouldn't quarrel O
~~~
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6863
()
1 with the characterization of those events as precursor 2
events.
I would like to point out that Mr. Michelson's 3
office is an office that was put in place after the TMI O
4 experience and it is regarded generally within the staff 5
as an improvement in the process of recognizing and 6
looking at precursor events.
7 0
Has the -- subsequent to issuance of the 8
Michelson memorandum, has the staff performed any 9
Shoreham-specific reviews to determine the applicability 10 of this problem to the Shoreham facility?
11 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
12 A
(WITNESS HODGES) Yes.
13 0
Can you describe those reviews, Mr. Hodges?
m 14 First of all, are they described in your testimony?
15 A
(WITNESS HODGES) Not in any detail.
16 0
Are they documented in writing anywhere?
17 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
18 A
(WITNESS H0DGES) Answer A-35 summarizes the 19 results.
We have not written a separate evaluation for 20 this.
21 Q
I am sorry, Mr. Hodges, I missed the last part 22 of your answer.
You have not written -- ?
23 A
(WITNESS HODGES) We have not written a
()
24 specific evaluation of this event for Shoreham.
25 Q
What was the nature of your analyses for O
~
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6864
)
Shoreham?
1 2
A (WITNESS HODGES) It was a matter of looking at 3
the PCIDs, evaluating breaks in one instrument leg and O
4 combinations of failures in the other train of level 5
instrumentation.
6 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
7 0
Did you seek any additional information from 8
LILCO or GE concerning their system?
9 A
(WITNESS HODGES) Yes, we did.
Both.
10 0
And what information did you seek?
11 A
(WITNESS HCDGES) We sought some information on 12 which single failures would be potential problems.
We 13 had discussions with both LILCO -- well, the discussions 14 I believe were with LILCO, and some input was provided 15 by GE on the single failures that could be problems.
16 0
Was there a f ormal request in writing that was 17 put out, Mr. Hodges, if you recall?
18 A
(WITNESS HODGES) Not on Shoreham, no.
19 0
When were these analyses conducted?
20 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
21 A
(WITNESS ROSSI) Wh'n this issue was e
l 22 specifically raised on Shoreham in preparation for 23 replying to it, in our testimony we have had discussions
(
24 with LILCO to try to verify to what extent General 25 Electric and LILCO had looked at this problem l
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6865
([]
1 specifically for Shoreham.
And at lesst in my opinion, 2
ve based a moderate amount of our conclusions on those 3
discussions.
9 4
Q Did the staff perform any separate analysis 5
itself ?
6 A
(WITNESS ROSSI) I have not performed a 7
separate analysis myself, other than to review some 8
Clagrams within Chapter 7 of the FSAR to convince myself 9
that indeed, if I had a break in one reference line and 10 another single failure, that indeed, I would not 11 depending upon the single failure -- get automatic 12 initiation of emergency core cooling systems.
I have 13 also looked at those diagrams to verify tha t I believe
(-
(_)
14 that we would, indeed, get automatic reactor trip.
15 A
(WITNESS HODGES) I performed a similar 16 analysis.
17 0
I don't believe I got an answer -- or maybe I 18 didn't ask this question; I thought I did.
When were 19 these anlalyses performed?
The last week, the last 20 month?
21 A
(WITNESS HODGES) My analyses were performed I 22 believe it must have been in June.
It was after writing 23 the initial testimony, but prior to the start of LILCO's 24 testimony.
25 0
Why had these analyses not been performed
(^
\\_/
I ALDERSON REPORTir-G COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6866
(~ }
earlier when the.Michelson memorandum first was 1
2 published in January of 1982?
3 A
(WITNESS BOSSI) For Shoreham?
4 Q
yes.
5 A
(WITNESS ROSSI) Or in general.
6 0
For Shoreham.
I 7
(Panel of witnesses conferring.)
8 A
(WITNESS ROSSI) I believe the answer to your 9
question is that this was not considered to be a problem 10 that was unique to Shoreham; that it was dealt with in 11 the context of discussions on the problem that Mr.
12 Michelson found in a more generic way because it was 13 ' believed that a similar situation existed with a large
()
14 number of boiling water reactors.
And there wasn't 15 anything unique and specific to Shoreham that would have 16 drawn our attention to ask for a specific analysis of 17 Shoreham.
18 A
(WITNESS HODGES) I think it also involved an 19 evaluation of the significance of the event.
We don't 20 consider this from a safety standpoint to be extremely 21 significant.
22 Q
What is the basis for that, Mr. Hodges?
23 A
(WITNESS HODGES) The basis is that you get
(
24 reactor t ri p, you have a fair amount of time for the j
25 operator to tak.e sction if need be without uncovering O
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
6867 1
the fuel.
So that we don't consider it to be a severe
{'}
2 challenge.
This is even after single failures.
3 Q
Let me zake sure I understand tha t.
That is O
4 af ter an additional failure?
You have a failure first 1
5 on one side and then you postulate the additional 6
failure in the other instrument lines or reference legs?
7 A
(WITNESS HODGES) This is assuming a break in 8
an instrument line on one side and a single failure in 9
the electrical portion on the other side.
There also is 10 the fact that for this to be a problem the break has to 11 occur -- it either has to occur outside the containment 12 or, rather than be a break, be an extremely slow leak so 13 that you don't get a containment pressurization.
14 0
You stated that you, in the second falure, for 15 wont of a better word, you postulated a failure in the 16 electrical system.
17 A
(WITNESS HODGES) We did not postulate a break 18 in the second pipe.
19 Q
Why not?
20 A
( WITNESS HODGES) We did not consider that very 21 credible.
22 O
What analyses did you perform to reach that 23 conclusion?
()
24 A
(WITNESS ROSSI) I believe that assumption is 25 consistent with what we normally do when we look at an O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
6868
()
1 initiating event and another single f ailure combined 2
with it.
A large part of the reason that we are 3
concerned about single failures within protection 4
equipment is that a large part of the protection 5
equipment is what I would consider to be standby 6
equipment that sits there between periodic tests by the 7
maintenance people and does nothing.
8 For example, protection system.by stables I 9
would put in that category.
So by stable would be 10 tested on a periodicity which is specified in the tech 11 specs, and between test intervals it could fail, like 12 over a period of a month.
So that anytime during that 13 month it might have' failed and then when the time comes 14 that you need it -- it might have f ailed over a long 15 period of time and not be available.
16 To hypothesize two pipe breaks such as we are 17 talking about here, in my opinion, would be to 18 hypothesize that I have one reference leg break, and 19 then before that reference leg break is discovered by 20 the operator, I somehow get another reference leg b reak l
l 21 that takes out my emergency core cooling system.
And 22 because of the fact that we feel tha t the first one of 23 those breaks would be recognized during the normal
()
24 operation of the plant on a fairly short timescale, we 25 don't feel that it makes sense to assume both of these
()
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6869 1
in that short time period.
()
2 0
We are talking about the same pipes on 3
opposite sides of the pressure vessel, correct?
O 4
A (WITNESS ROSSI) Similar pipes on opposite 5
sides, right.
6 Q
Would it be fair to utate that the previous 7
answer you gave about why you have not postula ted a 8
failure in the reference leg on the second side is based 9
upon your engineering judgment?
10 A
(WITNESS ROSSI) It is based on engineering 11 judgment, that is correct.
12 Q
There is no probabilistic analysis that was 13 performed?
(
14 A
(WITNESS ROSSI) To my knowledge, no 15 probabilistic analysis was performed to justif y tha t 16 engineering judgment.
17 0
Mr. Hodges, I believe you earlier stated that 18 you or the staff did not perceive this to be a 19 significant problem.
I don 't know if those were the 20 exact words.
21 A
(WITNESS HODGES) That is close.
22 Q
Were you postulating any operator errors in l
23 connection with this matter?
()
24 A
(WITNESS HODGES) No.
25 Q
I would like to turn your attention to page 11 l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. NC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 i
6870 1
of the Michelson memorandum, or the report which is
[}
2 attached to the Michelson memorandum, and the center 3
paragraph on that page starting, "In either case..."
If 4
you gentlemen could review that paragraph.
5 (Pause.)
6 Have you had an opportunity to review that?
7 A
(WITNESS HODGES) We have.
8 0
I would like to draw your attention 9
particularly to the third sentence which, in the context to of the paragraph says, "All of these conflicting 11 indications and automatic actions could hamper timely 12 and correct operator response to such an event."
Do you 13 agree with that statement?
()
14 A
(WITNESS HODGES) Let me talk about the context 15 in which this paragraph was written.
I have discussed 18 this particular paragraph with Frank Ash who is one of 17 the authors of the report.
The timef rame that the 18 authors of this report had in mind when they wrote that 19 paragraph was a very short timeframe, up until you got 20 reactor trip, which occurs very early in the event, like 21 in the first three minutes or so.
They were not 22 thinking, in their writing of this paragraph, beyond 23 that point.
24 Within that short time period, I would agree 25 that there could be some confusion on the part of the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6871
(}
1 operator as to what is going on.
But the timeframe that 2
the operator has in which to take action is longer than 3
that.
O 4
(Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
5 A
(WITNESS HODGES) Just as an example, his next 6
sentence which says that " Automatic plant response must 7
be relied upon to terminate and control the transient."
8 refers only to the reactor trip.
He is saying that for 9
this event, you get an automatic trip.
That is all he 10 meant by' tha t.
And then he stopped his evaluation at 11 the time of the reactor trip.
12 0
Mr. Hodges, why did you not put that 13 clarification in your testimony?
14 A
(WITNESS HODGES) For one thing, I didn 't 15 discuss this with Mr. Ash until after this testimony was 16 filed.
And in the second place, there are many things 17 we could put in but chose not to because we were trying 18 to respond to the particula r contention as it was stated.
19 0
Mr. Hodges, you did amend your answer 35.
Why 20 was this not included in the amendment?
21 MR. REIS:
Mr. Chairman, I object.
I don't 22 see where this is relevant to a determination of the 23 issues in this proceeding.
It gets rather far afield.
()
24 JUDGE BRENNER I am inclined to agree as far 25 as the follow-up, Mr. Lanpher.
Do you want to respond?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6872 1
MR. LANPHER:
Yes, I would like to.
I am
(}
2 hearing a lot of new testimony today of things that were 3
done subsequent to the filing of the original pre-filed 4
testimony, and other things that were not included in a 5
fairly significant amendmen t to the testimony, and I 6
think I have a right to probe that and find out why it 7
wasn't done.
8 JUDGE BRENNER:
Unless it relates to the 9
substance of what he is giving you, it is not very to productive.
And you a re in the realm of arguing with 11 the witness, more or less, on the last question.
He 12 gave you the earlier answer, to which there was no 13 objection, and I am going to sustain the objection on
(
14 this last one.
15 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
16 JUDGE BRENNER:
I could add that the direct 17 way is to probe the importance in the witness's view of 18 what you consider to be additional information that you 19 are hearing rather than, Wh y didn't you put in there, l
20 and so on.
And then whatever argument you want to make l
21 later, given the substance of what was developed, might 22 or might not be pertinent.
23 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
()
24 Q
Mr. Hod 7es, would you agree that -- well, you 25 ref erenced in your earlier answer the need to rely upon ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,1NC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6873 t
()
1 automatic actions up to the time of trip.
Do you recall 2
that?
3 A
(WITNESS HODGES) Yes.
O 4
0 Would you agree that the conflicting 5
indications resulting f rom this interaction could lead 6'the operators to take incorrect actions, in fact?
7 A
(WITNESS HODGES) There are a couple of levels 8.
of actions that would be taken, depending upon what the 9
operator perceived.
If the operator perceived correctly 10 that what he had was a malfunction in one leg of' his 11 instrument system, he would proceed to start up his RCIC 12 system, for example, his high pressure make-up system 13 such as a RCIC, and ma'intain the water level with the l
14 reactor shut down.
15 If he did not perceive this problem with the 16 one leg of the level instrumentation, then he would have 17 conflicting information about the reactor level which 18 would make it dif ficult for him to de> ermine what his 19 water level was.
And his procedure says if you do not 20 or if you cannot determine what the water level is, then 21 You go through the procedures that I read to you a 22 little earlier.
In either event, there would be no 23 damage to the fuel.
()
24 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
25 0
Gentlemen, could you turn your attention to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6874
()
1 page 12 of the Michelson document.
The last sentence on 2
that page reads as follows, "The BWR level 3
instrumentation system single failure in a sensing line O
4 that causes control system action does not leave intact 5
a system satisfying all reliability, redundancy and 6
independenza requirements for the low vessel level 7
protection function."
Do you agree with that statement?
8 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
9 A
(WITNESS ROSSI) Basically, I agree with that 10 statement.
11 JUDGE MORRIS:
Excuse me, Mr. lan pher.
Dr.
12 Rossi, in your answer, what did you have in mind as the 13 ceaning of the word " system"?
14 WITNESS ROSSI:
I guess the reason that I ' --
15 JUDGE MORRIS:
In " leave intact the system,"
16 what system did you have in mind there?
17 WITNESS ROSSI:
When I answered the question I 18 had in mind an overall protection system that would 19 still have redundsncy from the standpoint of initiating 20 emergency core cooling systems.
21 In other words, the situation on Shoreham is 22 that the break in the sensing line would eliminate the 23 redundancy.
There wouldn't be any redundancy for some
(-
24 types of failures for the automatic actuation of the 25 eme rgency core cooling system; not the reactor O
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6875
()
1 protection.
They are not the trip system.
2 JUDGE MORRIS:
What would the net result be on 3
the functionability of the overall system?
4 WITNESS ROSSI:
Without an additional single 5
failure, you would still get automatic initiation of a 6
sufficient emergency core cooling to -- automatic 7
initiation to keep the core cooled.
8 JUDGE HORRISs Thank you.
9 WITNESS ROSSI:
The reason that I gave the 10 answer the way I did and said basically I agreed with it 11 is that I am not absolutely sure of what the words "all 12 reliability, redundancy and independence requirements" 13 mean.
And one would have to be very precise in sta ting 14 what that means before I could answer the question that 15 I was asked more precisely.
16 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
17 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Brenner, this would be a 18 good time for the morning break.
I am going to go into 19 another topic now.
20 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right, we will take a 21 break.
When we come back I would like the parties' 22 advice as to whether we should divide up the testimony 23 in terms of questions on areas or just proceed through.
)
24 I would rather do as we did on others and have the cross
(
25 examination proceed through, with the possible exception
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6876
()
1 of Board questions.
Mr. Ellis is nodding yes.
Maybe I 2
can get a quick answer to my inquiry.
3 MR. ELLIS:
Yes, sir.
I think it would be O
4 better and more orderly if we went all the way through 5
and then did further cross.
6 MR. REIS:
The staff agrees.
7 MR. LANPHER:
That was my assumption; that we 8
had done the PRA the special way just because of the 9
special problems.
10 JUDGE BRENNERs Let's stay on the record for a 11 moment.
One reason I asked the question, -- and I 12 probably went through the exercise a while ago and I am 13 sure staff counsel went through it -- I looked through 14 the sheet and this is in terms of Mr. Reis's comment the 15 other day that even if the panel has to come back, it 16 may be that not all witnesses have to come back.
I 17 looked through the listing for the one that is not bound 18 in which I find more helpful, giving the question 19 numbers and then which witnesses appear on which, wi th 20 an idea that things could be done in such a way so that 21 people such as Mr. Haass and Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. Hodges 22 might not have to come back.
And you may achieve it as 23 to some of these people.
()
24 But when you look at the involvements, it 25 sta rts to get very crossed and very difficult and to the DO ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6877 1
point that I couldn't see an easy way of doing that on
(}
2 my own in the context of the testimony and the cross 3
examination plan.
O 4
MR. REIS:
M r. Chairman, the staff's only 5
thought would be Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. Haass, possibly.
6 And I think it is much too early'to tell.
7 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, those are two of the 8
three people I had in mind, as I have just indicated, 9
and the problem is there are a broad range of subjects 10 for those people between sections -- well, for Mr. Haass 11 anyway -- between sections 3, 4 and S.
Mr. Kirkwood we 12 should be able to achieve it with.
13 Why ' don't you give it some though t?
Mr.
-(
14 Hodges, it would be more difficult.
Well, what I am 15 saying is if your request could be accommodated, try to 16 work it out, but it is not going to be easy.
17 MR. REIS:
I realize that, and that is why I 18 am not being exact now.
It is very tentative now, and I 19 don't think we have to discuss it further.
We just 20 don't know enough.
21 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
22 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Brenner, if I could make 23 an inquiry.
Mr. Goldsmith is going to have to leave
()
24 this morning.
If the Board is going to have questions 25 in this area he will stay a f ter the break, but O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHlNGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 ::345
6878
()
1 otherwise, he has to leave.
2 JUDGE BRENNER:
Yes, there will be some 3
questions in this area.
I tell you, this isn't the time O
4 to argue the motion to strike on the inadequate core 5
cooling contention and the reference to GDC 24, but we 6
held off with questions last time that we think were 7
pertinent, thinking we would ask them then.
And I don't 8
care which of the two piegeonholes you decide it is 9
going to belong in.
We are going to ask the questions.
10 And I don't know whether to change our approach and ask 11 all of the questions now, and then have to get LILCO's 12 witnesses back now in the context of 7(b) and ask all of 13 those GDC-24 questions.
Or if we should wait until the 14 contention.
15 But even if we agreed, and there is a big 16 emphasis on the "if",
that it was beyond the contention 17 as stated on inadequate core cooling -- tha t is, Suffolk 18 County Contention 3 -- we held off because we thought it 19 would be more convenient then.
So it is not so much a 20 matter of construing the contention as a convenience as 21 to when the probing would proceed in depth.
And there 22 was also the problem that the witnesses wan ted to think 23 about one question we left then with.
And so it is not
()
24 just a matter of legally, what is within the contentions 25 it was a matter of convenience to LILCO.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6879 O
1 so, it rou tett us tt is more convenient to de 2
it now than when we get it all done, we are not troubled 3
about not including it in the other contention.
If you 4
see what I mean.
5 MR. EARLYa Judge, I think the thrust of our 6
action to strike goes to the county's right to submit 7
direct testimony on that pa rticular issue.
8 JUDGE BRENNER:
If it is pertinent to this 9
contention as opposed to the other contention -- and 10 they have certainly been entitled to participate in the 11 issue, so the question is where would their 12 participation bes here in this contention or there in 13, the other contention.
O-14 Incidentally, the portion that you seek to 15 strike -- your point would be a lot more valid if you 16 were talking about many pages of direct testimony going 17 to describing the event, but it is a mere a ssertion tha t 18 it violates the GDC.
That is the only thing in the 19 testimony.
20 21 22 23 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6880
(~x
(_)
1 ME. EARLEY:
If we want to argue the motion on 2
the motion to strike now, I think that there is the 3
point we are trying to make, the County could have 4
submitted -- raised a contention on GDC 24 in the 5
context of inadequate core cooling.
They could have 6
submitted direct testimony on that particular issue in 7
the context of Suffolk County-SOC 7(b).
6 What we are saying, if they do not have the 9
right, given the wording of the inadequate-core-cooliing 10 contention to submit any direct testimony on that 11 particular issue.
12 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, the reason I raised it 13 now is I do not want to come up to the
!,,' _))
(
14 inadequate-core-cooling contention and then find out 15 that the parties thought it would have been more 16 convenient to pursue it now.
I am telling you that it 17 is not a black-and-white legal ruling; it is going to be 18 pursued.
And the question is when is it going to be 19 more convenient to pursue it, because it is pertinent to 20 the classification contention, even if you are right 21 about the inadequate-core-cooling contention.
22 You see, I have not asserted that your 23 argument is incorrect as to the inadequate-core-cooling 24 contention.
What I am asserting is that it is certainly 25 pertinent to this contention, and then you are asking me
()'N ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,.lNC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6881
()
1 further to say, well, they put the testimony in the 2
vrong place and therefore we sh'ould not hea r it.
3 HR. EARLEY:
We certainly understand that you 4
are going to be pursuing this issue.
And I think we 5
und ersta nd, and I will have to confer with Mr. Irwin, 6
who is the principal on insdequate core cooling right 7
now.
But I think it may be more appropriate to pursue 8
it in detail in the inadequate-core-coolinc area.
But 9
that does not change and moot the motion to strike.
I 10 think if we talk about it during the break --
11 JUDGE BRENNERs Well, the reason I raised it 12 now as opposed to waiting f or the motion is that it 13 might affect the depth with which the Board or other 14 parties pursue it now, much in thesame_ fashion as it 15 affected the depth in which we did not pursue it when s
16 LILCO's witnesses were on.
17 And all the parties should consider whether 18 they are going to have the right people here when the 19 inadequate-core-cooling contention comes up to pursue 20 it, because we are flexibie and we will do it in either 21 pigeon hole.
i 22 HR. LANPHER:
Judge Brenner, with out arguing 23 the motion to strike, I would liNe -- one thing that has
()
~
24 not been brought up, The,way I understand what was just 25 said is they just want to~ keep out our testimony, they l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
6882 i
(])
1 do not mind the Board addressing this issue but they do 2
not want Mr. Goldsmith's views on it.
3 We are going to have to file a motion for O
4 rebuttal on 7(b) or whatever.
I think it is valuable to 5
just get the information in.
I have purposely held off, 6
somewhat mindful of what you had said several weeks ago, 7
that the Board's preliminary view was that it was better 8
to get into this stuff in detail on Suffolk County 3.
9 JUDGE BRENNER:
Speaking of preliminary views, 10 I will give you a preliminary view that you have no 11 factual testimony on it in the inadequate-core-cooling 12 testimony anyway, and whatever factual you had to say 13 about it is already in your 7(b) testimony.
And the 14 only thing you have there is an assertion of'a violation 15 of a GDC.
And if I recall, some reference back to the 16 7(b) testimony no, that recollection, that is other 17 testimony.
18 But that affects our judgment also.
We are 19 not talking about pages and pages of factual testimony 20 that should have earlier been put into 7(b).
It is just i
l 21 the assertion of the violation of the GDC.
i l
22 Well, help us out when we come back after the 23 break so we know how f ar to pursue it and whether we
()
24 should pursue it with LILCO's witnesses again while we 25 are still on 7(b).
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
I i
p i
6883 j
1 ifh f
1 We will be back in 15 minutes, at 10:55.
I r
2 (Brief recess was taken.)
.=
i 4
i i
i 5-i
}
?
)l 6
i 1
7 f
i 8
i I
I i
s 10 l
11 i
12 i
l 13 l
14 a
i 15 l
'i i
16 I
I i
i 17 i
i r
I 18 k
19
[
20 l
21 j
[
22 23 24
)
4 25 i
?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, I
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 I
.m_
j 6884 O
avoce sar""ta=
8 cx oa the recora-2 Is this a good time to get any preliminary 3
advice on my question of before?
4 MR. REIS:
The Staff is prepared right now to 5
respond to GDC 24.
6 JUDGE BRENNER:
I am sorry, I did not hear 7
you.
8 MR. REIS4 The Staff is prepared to respond to i
9 questions on GDC 24 right now if the Board wishes.
We 10 are informed that LILCO does not really have any I
11 problems with that, although their witnesses are not 12 here.
13 14 L
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
' 23 O
24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINlA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 w.
6885 O
1 JUDGE BRENNER:
Can you remind me who the
(_/
2 staff witnesses will be on inadequate core cooling and 3
whether they are the same as Mr. Hodges, is it not?
4 MR. REIS:
I believe it is.
I do not remember 5
there is anyone else.
6 WITNESS HODGES I think Mr. Phillips is the 7
primary one who is sponsoring the testimony.
There have 8
been discussions that I would probably accompany him to 9
talk about the level instrumentation aspects.
10 MR. LANPHERs Judge Brenner, we have got the 11 staff testimony on Suffolk County 3.
Mr. Sun.
12 WITNESS HODGES:
Yes.
Mr. Sun works for Mr.
13 Phillips, and I was not sure which one of them would be 14 here.
15 MR. REIS:
That is on 3 and 8, Suffolk County 16 3 and SOC 8.
So it is Mr. Sun, and we were thinking of 17 having Mr. Hodges come up to deal with the 18 instrumentation questions.
19 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
Incidentally 20 and I did not mean to get into this -- we have talked 21 about as much advance notice as possible from now on 22 when the witnesses are being added, and presumably LILCO 23 did it in a very fine fashion in the Board's view.
That
(
24 is, we got one -- after we caught up in time we got one 25 organized, consolidated discussion, and we were able to O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6886
()
I handle it all at once with respect to comments by other 2
parties.
And in other words, we are past the point, 3
rapidly approaching the point if not past it as to when U(~T 4
short notice will not work any more.
5 We recognize there was a catchup phase, and I 6
am not saying it has to be all in one motion by any 7
means.
I am just pointing out that that was a nice way 8
to handle it.
9 LILCO, should we just -- maybe the best thing to to do is for Judge Jordan to proceed without prejudice 11 to the fact that he might have additional questions when 12 we get to the other area.
13 MR. EALLEY Yes, Judge.
I think that is 14 appropriate.
15 JUDGE BRENNER:
In that case we will have some 16 questions by Judge Jordan at this point, and without 17 prejudice to the fact that there might be other
\\
18 questions of particular witnesses related to this area 19 also, partly because some questions were not asked of 20 LILCO's. witnesses; but as far as the staff goes, we will 21 attempt to pursue it as far as we can, again without i
22 prejudice.
23 BOARD EXAMINATION
()
24 BY JUDGE JORDAN:
25 Q
Well, part of my questions certainly do O
r I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,.NC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHING TON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6887 1
involve whether GDC 24 is -- well, whether the system as
(}
2 designed conforms with GDC 24, and I would note two 3
things in regard to this, and I am going to ask for kind O
4 of an exposition f rom, as staff counsel said, in a few 5
minutes, but I would note two things.
6 First of all, that when the LILCO witn e sse s 7
were on the stand, they said that they believed that 8
they did meet the requirements of GDC 24 by virtue of 9
the last sentence of the GDC 24.
And I did not go into 10 that, to their basis for reasoning and so on at that 11 time as to whether I agreed or not, but I'did want to 12 get the staff's feeling from this panel, since they are 13 here, as to whether in your opinion the LILCO statement
()
14 was correct that it meets the requirements of GDC 24 15 because of the last sentence.
16 I also, however, would call to your attention 17 a thing that Judge Morris called to my attention this 18 morning, th a t the LILCO Exhibit 13, which is the memo 19 from Denton to Michelson, dated October 30, 1981, under 20 NRC comments does say that instrument sensing lines are 21 clearly outside'the scope of IEEE 279.
Separate and 22 more appropriate criteria a re needed.
Possibly the 23 recent standard developed by the Instrument Society of
()
24 America.
25 And I wanted to get the staff's feeling or l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 i
6888
()
I that.
Does that mean tha t they feel that it is not that 2
the entire system -- that there is no criteria in fact 3
g-that does apply properly to the entire system?
Is that O) 4 What the meaning of that statement vas?
5 So would you mind starting off then with a 6
little discussion as to the staff's position as.to 7
whether the system as designed and with the defect -- I 8
am calling it that -- that the loss of the ref erence leg 9
does interact both with the control and the safety 10 sim ulta neously, and is that what is meant by what GDC 24 11 was designed to prevent.
12 So whoever would like to start on this.
13 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
Let me speak to your 14 questions, Judge Jordan.
15 At the time that NRR was commenting on the 16 problem th a t Mr. Michelson pointed out, myself and my 17 branch chief, Mr. Rosa, a previous branch chief in the 18 Instrumentation and Control Systems branch, Mr.
19 Ippileto, a previoun section leader in the 20 Instrumentation and Control Systems branch, had a l
21 discussion on how sensor lines had been treated in past l
22 reviews by the Instrumentation and Control Systems-23 branch.
()
24 At that meeting it was concluded, and F
25 primarily on the basis of how past people within the O
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6889
()
1 Instrumentation and Control Systems branch stated that 2
they had done their review, that they had not applied 3
the review to the instrument sensing lines.
4 Also, we have had many discussions with the 5
IEEE or I have had many discussions with the IEEE during 6
my involvement in standards committee work, and the IEEE 7
position quite clearly is that IEEE 279 does not apply 8
to piping; it applies after, from the sensor on.
9 In addition, as a result of the preparation 10 tha t we had for this particular contention, myself, Dr.
11 Speis, I believe Mr. Hodges, met with Dr. Mattson, the 12 director of the Division of Systems Integration, to 13 discuss the staff philosophy with respect to GDC 24.
14 And what we can state is with respect to GDC 24 and the l
15 protection system being separated from control systems, i
16 to the extent that a failure of any single control 17 system component or channel or failure or removal from 18 service of any protection system component or channel 19 which is. common to control and protection system leaves 20 intact a system satisfying all reliability redundancy, 21 independence and requirements of the protection system.
22 Reading that part of GDC 24, the staff 23 practice has not been to preclude a failure in a sensing
(
24 line from leaving a system which had not further 25 redundancy.
That is what we have done.
We have not O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6890
()
1 required that after you assume a sensing line failure 2
that the remaining portion of the protection system 3
still meet the single failure criteria in terms of a 4
failure of a sensing line.
We have accepted designs 5
where that leaves a system that is no longer redundant, 6
and we have done that on the BWRs.
There are also 7
places where we have done that on pressurized water 8
reactors.
9 0
I see.
So this is a special situation then?
10 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
Well, I do not know whether I 11 would call it a special situation.
That is the way that 12 we have applied GDC 24.
However, we have looked at the 13 results of breaks in sensing lines with respect to that 14 last sentence in GDC 24, and let me kind of summarize 15 what we have Cone there and what our general approach is.
16 With any event such as the breaking of this 17 sensing line which could lead to a possible safety 18 problem without some sort of action being taken we have 19 to first determine whether the action that has to be l
l 20 taken can be manual or whether it must be automatic.
21 That is a decision that has to be made for many l
22 ini tia ting events.
23 In general, we tend to make that judgment as
/~T 24 follows.
If the time required for operator action is
(,j 25 less than ten minutes, in general we would not accept O
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, i
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6891
()
1 operator action as the means by which to accomplish that 2
action.
And again, this is in general.
In general, if 3
there is more than 30 minutes available for operator
(^}
V 4
action, we would probably accept it with little 5
argument.
If it is between 10 minutes and 30 minutes, 6
ve tend to exercise ca reful judgment.
We look hard at 7
what is involved, what the procedures say, how clear the 8
actions are and so forth.
9 What has been done in this particular case of 10 the sensing line is that we believe that the break of 11 the sensing line leaves intact the system; that without 12 another single failure you still get the automatic 13 action.
Even with the single failure, however, there is 14 ten minutes or so available for operator action, and you 15 will still-keep the core covered.
16 So we have also looked carefully at what is 17 involved here in terms of indications to the operator.
18 Mr. Hodges has gone through some of the instructions 19 that are in the operating procedures, and in our 20 judgment -- and it is a judgment -- we have concluded 21 tha t this is satisf actory from the standpoint of saf ety.
22 Q
All right.
I hear and understand, I believe, 23 what you have said, but does the staff believe that just
()
24 because it is a pipe break rather than an electrical l
25 failure tha t the GDC 24 should not apply?
This, I ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6892 1
/}
guess, surprises, and particularly coming from a control 2
man, and since that is my background, too, I am a little 3
shocked that you make a special case out of that, that O
4 why that failure is different than any other failure.
5 So although you say GDC 24 therefore is -- does not 6
exactly apply, should not GDC 24 apply no matter where 7
the failure is?
It seems to me that GDC 24 is an 8
importa nt criteria, that safety and controls should be 9
separate, and no matter what the reason; and I guess I 10 do not understand if you say that that is not the case 11 how you arrive at a different conclusion.
12 A
(WITNESS ROSSI),
Well, it has been the staff 13 practice to exclude the sensing lines.
Part of the C
\\
14 basis for that is that the sensing line failures are 15 somewhat less likely and are more easily detectable than 16 some of the electrical failures.
And I went into some 17 of that this morning in terms of bi-stables that may sit 18 there for lengthy periods of time and not do anything 19 and then they are called upon to act, and to try to 20 compare that with a break in the sensing line where on a 21 relatively short time scale it is self-annunciating.
22 0
I see.
Now, would you address -- I am not 23 sure that I have finished with that, but would you
()
24 address then the statement th a t separate and more 25 appropriata criteria are needed, that is, among the NRR l
l CE)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i 6893 i
()
1 omments do you agree that since this is a special case 2
which does not seem to be covered exactly by the 3
regulations, GDC 24 or any other design criteria, that f-O 4
something should be done which specifically says that 5
sensing lines are not included if the sensing lines are 6
hydraulic, but if they are electrical then they have got 7
to be included?
8 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
Certainly.
Well, we are not 9
saying that we exclude from all review the sensing 10 lines, and in this case here in particular we have 11 looked at this break and concluded that regardless of 12 what kind of criteria that does and does not apply to 13 it, we made the judgment that there is enough time _for 14 operator action, tha t the plant is indeed safe.
15 I am not sure how to address your question on 16 whether additional criteria is required.
I do know tha t 17 there is another industry standard, and I do not know --
18 I think it is from the Instrument Society of America, I 19 believe, does hava -- there is -- and I think that is but there is an industry 20 the name of the society 21 standards committee that is and has developed a standard 22 which is directed at sensing lines.
And I also know 23 that there is consideration within the NRC staff of
()
24 developing a regulatory guide based on that particular 25 standard; that, however, work has not been completed as ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6894
()
1 yet.
2 I also might address you'r general comments on 3
interaction between protection and control.
As you may
,4 know, we do not on the staf f require comple te separation 5
between control and protection.
We do allow signals to 6
go from the protection system for use in control wi th 7
what are relatively rigid applied rules.
These rules, 8
to kind of quickly summarize them, are that if you have 9
credible failures in the nonsafety-related or control 10 portion of the circuitry -- that would be things like 11 short circuits, credible voltages, breaks in lines and 12 that kind of thing -- that the control system is 13 isola ted f rom the protection system sufficiently that t
s-14 those fallares in the nonsaf ety-rela ted portion will not 15 feed back in to the protection system and cause failures 16 there.
17 Now, with respect to failures in the 18 protection portion of the circuitry, that is common both 19 to protection and control.
In general, we apply the 20 IEEE 279 criteria which says that if you have a failure 21 that causes th rough the control system a transient that 22 the remaining portion of the protection system must have 23 sufficient redundancy to continue to withstand the
()
24 single failure criteria.
But even there you have to 25 come back to the original thing that I discussed, and O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (2G2) 554-2345
6895
()
1 that is that early on or maybe not early on but that at 2
some point during an analysis or consideration of these 3
things we have to make the decision whether we are going O
4 4
to require automatic action or manual action, and that 5
is based on the consideration that I previously 6
discussed.
7 O
As written, do you believe that the system 8
tha t we are discussing meets the criteria of GDC.24?
9 (panel of witnesses conferring.)
10 0
LILCO said that in their opinion it did not 11 meet it excepting for by virtue of the last sentence, 12 and I guess I remain somewhat skeptical that the last 13 sentence saves it.
14 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
I am not sure I can answer 15 your question because it depends on an interpretation of 16 what that last sen tence means.
I think the only thing 17 that I am going to be able to do is to leave you with 18 how we have interpreted it and how we have applied it in 19 the past, and based upon how we have interpreted it and i
20 how we have applied it in the past, LILCO meets it based j
21 on our staff practice.
22 0
Based on previous practice, yes.
23 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
Right.
(
24 0
In which the sensing line is excluded.
25 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
Well, even with the sensing O
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6896
()
1 line included in the last sentence the interconnection 2
of the protection and control systems shall be limited 3
so as to assure that safety is not significantly 4
impaired.
The design on Shoreham meets that also 5
because of the fact that there is enough time for manual 6
o perator action.
7 I think my real problem in giving you a direct 8
answer to your question is the relationship of the last 9
sen tence to the first part of GDC 24, and I also have 10 personally some problem with the words "a system 11 satisfying all reliability, redundancy and independence 12 requirements of the protection system," because those 13 have to be put in the context of particular events and 14 so forth.
15 0
All right.
I also felt that my reading of the 16 last sentence did not mean tha t the previous parts of 17 the system could be forgotten about.
On the other hand, 18 I understand the basis on which you say that a break in 19 the sensing line is a rather rare event; that it is a 20 rather easily detectable event, and therefore, you do 21 not believe that it compromises the sa f e ty?
22 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
Again, given the time 23 available for operator action, I think if we had found
()
24 tha t there was 30 seconds before the core uncovered, was 25 uncovered for this particular event here that we would O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6897
()
1 not find tha t acceptable.
2 0
rine.
I understand that.
Now, this then is, 3
I gather, a case of judgment, and in part the judgment, 7-)
V 4
I think, one of you did mention that the probability 5
I belies e it was Mr. Spels who mentioned the probability 6
must be taken into account.
And does that mean that you 7
have done an analysis of the probability of the event 8
and have therefore decided tha t it is a permissible 9
departure from a strict interpretation of GDC 24 by 10 virtue of an analysis of the probability?
11 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
We have not done a 12 calculation of the probability.
When we are speaking of 13 probability here is it in the context of engineering
(
14 judgment only.
15 JUDGE JORDAN 4 All right.
That, I think, does 16 clear up the questions that I had, particularly on GDC 17 24, and I am going to ask Judge Morris to go ahead with 18 his questions, and I may have some other questions for 19 the panel; but whether I should ask them now or not, we 20 will wait and see.
l 21 BY JUDGE EORRIS:
l 22 0
Dr. Speis, I had thought that we had had some 23 previous testimony, and my memory fails me as to from
()
24 whom, that there had been a calculation of the 25 reliability of the system or at least a judgment that i
f l
(/
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6898 7
()
I the inferred reliability of the system had been judged 2
wrong.
And I had asked a followup question as to g-whether anyone knew what the result of that calculation 3
v]
4 was, and the answer was no.
And then I asked whether a 5
judgment could be made as to whether it affected the 6
overall probability of core melt, and the answer was 7
that if so, caly slightly.
8 Does that refresh your memory any?
9 A
(WITNESS SPEIS)
I do not think the staff, 10 Judge Morris, made such statements.
Possibly the LILCO 11 witnesses could have.
But our judgment is based on 12 engineering type of considerations.
13 JUDGE MORRIS:
Did you want to comment, Mr.
{s/')
14 Lanpher?
15 MR. LANPHER:
My recollection is that that was 16 asked of Mr. Burns, and that he said tha t it had not 17 been included originally in the PRA, but they were doing 18 analyses now, is that not correct?
19 MR. ELLIS:
I think that is right, yes.
I am i
20 almost sure that it was Dr. Burns who was a sked, and I l
21 think that he indicated that he had also done and was 22 d oi ng work on that particular issue.
23 MR. LANPHER:
And that he could not recall
()
24 what his calculations were when he was here.
He said 25 they were ongoing by SAI, I think.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6899
()
1 JUDGE MORRIS:
If anyone learns what the 2
results of those are, that would be interesting.
3 (Board conferring.)
U(~S 4
BY JUDGE MORRIS:
( Re suming )
5 Q
Staying with Exhibit 13 of LILCO, the last 6
paragraph, paragraph 9 on page 2, the comment is made 7
that the report is correct that IEEE 279 as written and 8
as currently applied by the staff does not include the 9
instrument sensing lines.
10 If one wants to start applying the principles 11 of IEEE 279 to these lines, consideration should be 12 given to the cost of extensive reanalysis and 13 b=ckfitting modifications, to the concept of passive 14 versus active f ailures, and to the possibility of 15 excessive vessel penetrations.
16 Does the panel know whether any studies along 17 these li~nes have been initiated by the staff?
~
18 A
(WITNESS SPEIS)
To the best of our knowledge, 19 none.
20 0
Do you have any knowledge of whether there 21 will be any studies along those lines?
22 A
(WITNESS SPEIS)
No, sir.
23 Q
Do you have an opinion as to whether such l (
24 studies are desirable?
25 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
[
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i 6900
(')
1 A
(WITNESS SPEIS)
I think, Judge Morris, it is 2
probably a matter of priorities.
As Dr. Rossi and Mr.
3 Hodges indicated, we have reached our findings and 4
conclusions on the engineering judgment about the 5
simultaneous failure of both sensing lines and the other 6
ability of the operators to act, the available time for 7
the operators to take such action as needed in order not 8
to uncover the core.
As far as doing additional work, 9
we will either assess it probabilistically, 10 numerically.
I guess it is a matter of priorities, and 11 we just have not done it, and we have not thought about
~
12 it yet.
13 Maybe Dr. Rossi might want to say something 14 about the Instrument Society of America who is doing 15 something about this.
16 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
Yes.
I see that the 17 Instrument Society of America is discussed in 3 as doing 18 this work, and it is my understanding th a t there is a 19 regulatory guide under consideration which would be 20 intended to endorse that Instrument Society of America 21 standard.
22 Now, it has been some time since I have 23 personally looked at the standard, so I am not 24 absolutely certain that it covers this; but it is 25 something that when it comes around for review again we OO ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6901
()
1 will make sure that there is consideration given to what 2
should be done with respect to sensing lines here.
3 Now, as you know, when regulatory guides are 4
issued there is a lot of thought given to when they 5
become applicable, and the cost-benefit of the extent to 6
which they should be backfitted; and so that regulatory 7
quide effort should at least in pa rt consid er this.
8 0
Is this particular standard an approved 9
standard, do you know?
10 A
(WIINESS ROSSI)
I am uncertain.
11 0
Do you have any idea of the content?
12 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
I am afraid I would be a
13 speculating if I tried to answer your question.
I think b
(/
14 I know, but I am not sure enough to make any statements.
15 (Board conferring.)
16 0
Judge Brenner points out that when I said 17
" approved" I heant approved by the society and not the 18 NRC.
l 19 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
I understood that to b2 your 20 question.
I 21 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
Judge Horris, I believe I l
22 have some information on tha t standa rd.
I was the NRR 23 staff member who appeared before the ACRS subcommittee l ()
24 when we were discussing that standard with respect to 25 the pressure boundary component.
The reg guide is out l
t ALDERSON REPOHTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6902 1
for comment right now, and we will be proposing
{^}
2 additional requirements over and above the guidance 3
provided in the standard.
O 4
0 Does that draft reg guide have a number?
5 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
Yes, sir, but I do not 6
recall it offhand.
I can supply it later.
7 0
Fine.
8 (Board conferring.)
9 0
Mr. Kirkwood, would the reg guide to which you 10 have just referred, would that apply to the instrument 11 lines that we have been discussing?
12 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
It would apply to the 13 pressure boundary components up to the instrument.
()
l 14 0
Including the sensor lines?
15 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
I am trying to distinguish 16 in my mind not the electrical portion.
17 0
Right.
18 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
Yes.
19 O
Can you characterize whether or not any 20 changes would be required in the future designs if that 21 NUREG were approved as currently drafted?
22 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
On ail GE plants that I am 23 aware of -- and this applies also to Shoreham -- as a
()
24 matter of fact, the pressure boundary components for 25 instrument lines are, if you refer to Table 3.2.1-1, O
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6903
()
1 Note 8, they discuss the instrument lines which are 2
connected to the reactor pressure boundary, and they are 3
stated there:
Quality Group B and ASME Section 3,
4 Classification 2.
And that would extend from the 5
process line to the instrument.
6 The problem with the ISA's, the Instrument 7
Society of America 's standard, they had it Section 3, 8
Class 2, as I recall, up the root valve.
Beyond the 9
root valve they were using B - 31.1, power piping 10 standard.
We believe that if the line is used to 11 actuate a safety system, it should be the same 12 classification from the process line all the way to the 13 instrument.
In other words, if it was connected to the 14 reactor coolant pressure boundary, we would insist that 15 it was Section 3, Class 2.
16 Other instrument lines which are connected to 17 safety systems would be the same classification from the 18 process line to the instrument as the system to which it 19 is attached.
And the major -- and I am generalizing nov the major difference was that the Instrument Society 20 l
21 of America's standard stopped the safety grade 22 clsssification at the root valve, which we do not agree 23 with.
So that proposed regulatory guide would impose
()
24 that additional requirement.
25 0
Would the reg guide address the matter of
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6904 i
i
' ()
1 separation or just the quality of the lines?
2 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
I really cannot recall, 3
Judge Morris.
I was particularly interested in the O
4 pressure boundary portion of it, so I concentrated on S
that area.
But I did read the whole thing, but I just 6
do not recall the details.
7 Q
Compartmentalization seems to be a generic 8
problem.
9 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
Yes.
10 JUDGE MORRIS:
I will have questions about 11 other parts of the te stimon y, but that is the only part 12 I wanted to get into right now.
13 Br JUDGE BRENNER:
14 Q
Dr. Rossi, I have some questions that I am 15 sure are obvious or probably obvious to every technical 16 person in the room, but they were nor originally obvious 17 to me, and I want to make sure that it is expressed in 18 the record for that reason.
19 Relating back to your answers to questions of 20 Judge Jordan and the interpretation by the staff of GDC 21 24, you said the itsff has not applied that to 22 instrument sensing systems.
I believe --
23 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
The piping portion of the
[)
24 sensing system.
w 25 Q
I guess that is part of my question.
Any time (1)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6905
()
1 you used the term " instrument sensing systems" in that 2
context you meant piping as distinguished from 3
electrical?
4 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
That is correct.
At the 5
sensor IEEE 279 applies, and I believe the scope of IEEE 6
279, which I have here, says very clearly that it 7
applies from sensors to actuation device input terminals.
8 0
Is tha t a generally understood usage of the 9
phrase " instrument sensing line," that whenever a 10 technical person would see that phrase they would say 11 that is piping rather than electrical?
12 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
I am not sure of that.
I 13 refer to them as sensing lines, impulse lines, hydraulic 14 lines.
I do not even have a common terminology that I 15 use myself, so I cannot speak for others.
16 0
I do not know if this is a fair question or 17 not.
Do you know if the person writing the NRR comments 18 in LIlCO Exhibit 13 meant to use the term " instrument 19 sensing lines" so as to exclude electrical lines?
20 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
With respect to 9, based on l
21 discussions that I had with people that had input into 22 this memo, " instrument sensing lines" there was meant to 23 mean the piping, reference leg in the piping.
(
24 0
Okay.
Other than piping, other than sensing 25 lines, which as you use the term you mean piping, is
()
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
6906
()
I there any other piping to which GDC 24 either arguably 2
could spply?
In other words, I am wondering if the 3
staff 's approach as you have described it, that GDC 24 4
does not apply to instrumen t sen sing lines, 5
distinguishes those sort of piping lines from other 6
piping lines or whether tha t is true with respect to all 7
piping lines, or perhaps the situation is there are no 8
other piping lines to which it could apply.
9 I just do not know.
Can you enlighten me?
10 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
11 A
(WITNESS CONRAN)
Judge Brenner, I have 12 worried about a rela ted question, I guess, and it may be 13 my observations have some relevance to the question you
( _,I 14 just asked.
15 0
It would help me if I could get the direct 16 answer first from Dr. Rossi, and then I would give you 17 an immediate opportunity to respond.
18 A
(WIINESS CONRAN)
I am sorry.
Yes, sure.
19 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
20 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
It is our belief that GDC 24 21 has not been applied to piping systems that might carry 22 fluid.
23 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
(~)h 24 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
I think we have had enough
(
25 discussion to only be able to say that we are unsure, Ov ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C 20024 (202) 554-2345
6907
()
1 and I could not answer your question with any degree of 2
accuracy.
3 0
Mr. Conran, did you want to add a comment also?
4 A
(WITNESS CONRAN)
In running down the answer 5
to'the question, as I have tried to do at some time in 6
the past, what'ic safety grade, people would like a 7
nicer and a neater answer to what is safety grade than 8
is available right now.
What are the characteristics of 9
something that are safety grade?
Is there something 10 that you can say about all things safety grade?
Do ther 11 all have something in common't 12 The only property or characteristic that I wa s 13 eventually able to decide on that was common to 14 everything safety grade was seismic category 1.
In all 15 other areas, depending upon whether it was a mechanical 16 or an electrical system, you could not say that there 17 vere safety grade features such as single failure 18 criterion a pplied to all of them.
Specifically for 19 reactor coolant pressure boundary components, the main 20 coolant piping, there is nothing about that piping that 21 you could say is redundant or diverse in the sense that 22 if the pressure boundary fails, there is something to 23 back it up.
And to compensate, to sort of compensate
(
24 for that, I have concluded that they are just made 25 awfully good, the quality level is just very good, O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6908
(])
1 partially in recognition of the fact that they are not 2
backed up in the same way that electrical systems that 3
are redundant and diverse are.
In that sense, the r~(_)s 4
standards applied to the sensing lines are no different 5
than those applied to the reactor coolant piping whose 6
failure I think everyone would agree is very likely to 7
have much more severe effects.
8 0
That also relates to your answer the other day 9
on the variability even within safety grades when we 10 were discussing important to safety.
Well, I appreciate 11 your answer that you could not be sure, Dr. Rossi.
The 12 reason I asked the question in part was that Judge 13 Jordan asked or I guess termed this a special case, and
/~h
's_/
14 you differ, as you explain, from calling it a special 15 case; and I thought it might arguably be pertinent to 16 evaluating how special the case was to discover whether 17 the staff distinguishes all piping systems from j
18 electrical systems in applying GDC 24 or whether it was 1
19 only a subset of piping systems that were distinguished 20 and known as instrument sensing lines; and that is l
21 basically why I asked the question.
22 Incidentally, your problems in knowing how to 23 construe the last line with the rest of the criterion
()
24 introduced you to the wonderful world of statutory 25 construction that lawyers have to face as to whether the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6909
()
1 last sentence explains the previous portion of the GDC 2
or is a separa ted -- or is an independent additional 3
requirement.
s O
s 4
A (WITNESS SPEIr3 Judge Brenner, ve will check 5
with other members of the staff and see if we can get 6
the answer to the question that was raised by Judge 7
Jordan tomorrow maybe or next week.
8 0
Again, it is not pertinent as an end in 9
itself, so we are not after a full explanation of 1
10 everything that might flow from it in terms of the 11 safety review.
It,is to the extent it illuminates how 12 special instrument sensing lines might be treated solely 13 in the context of GDC 24.
14 A
(WIT. NESS HODGES)
Let me make just a comment, 15 too.
One reason.st least I was having some difficulty 16 coming up with a definite answer is, for example, let us 17 say you have got a steam line that you have got 18 instrumentation on to try to detect a pressure signal.
19 Now, if you break tha t steam'line or have a 20 problem with the steam line, that is one single line, 21 and are you carrying that over into t$e discussions with 22 the instrument lines, and it gets kind of cloudy.
23 0
I am nodding,'and I should' indicate for the
()
24 record tha t I see that difficulty. also in the terms of 25 explaining how GDC 24 might fit.
O w
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6910 O
(ao ra co recc1== >
2 BY JUDGE CARPENTER:
3 C
Dr. Rossi, I would like to ask just one or two O
4 quest. ions f rom a common sense perspective without in any 5
var denying the laportance of bureaucratic regulatory 8
perspective, so do not be offended if I take the posture 7
of soite common sense questions.
8 (Laughter.)
J 9
1 I read the GDC 2f4 from a layman's point of to view itn in a very simplistic way the last sentence is in 11 a cert.ain sense a loophole in terms of the previous 12 part, in my mind, in that it says you will do de 13 following except f or special reasons.
And I guess last 14 week I asked whether in considering something like the 15 water level sensing system whether there was any notion 16 of having a " super safety grade," and Mr. Conran's 17 comments I thought were very helpful with respect to i
18 that.
And I believe I heard you say in some way you do 19 come up with a probability estimate, whether it is in l
20 your head or on the back of an envelope or however you 21 get there; you do have some judgment as to what the 22 probability is.
23 What I wanted to ask is did the staff look for 24 any degree of overdesign or any degree of particula r Q A 25 to be sure that that very low probability will in fact v
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
.__..,_m.
6911 A) 1 occur f or something that is really in this area that
(,
2 does not meet the general first part of GDC 247 I guess 3
it is not so much the last sentence, but it just does 4
not in a straightforward way meet the statement in the 5
first sentence of GDC 24, whether there is any special 6
consideration given or whether you think there should be.
7 A
(WITNESS BOSSI)
I do not think any special 8
quality assurance has been given over and above that 9
normally applied for safety-related components to the 10 sensing lines.
I believe that it would be fair to say, 11 however, that special consideration has been given in 12 the emergency operating procedures to the importance of 13 water level'in general in the reactor pressure vessel.
i 14 So from the standpoint of the operating s
15 procedures and the stressing of the importance of 16, keeping the core covered with water, I think there are 17 special things there that have been through the 18 procedures.
But as far as special quality assurance to 19 that piping system, I do not believe anything over and 20 above what is normally done for safety-rela ted has been 21 done; but I also think that perhaps there are two other 22 members on the panel that ought to at least be given an 23 opportunity to either agree or disagree with what I just
(
24 said or expand on it, and that is Mr. Haass and Mr.
25 Kirkwood.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1 6912
()
1 Q
Before you stop, do you think it might have 2
any merit to consider doing that?
And I an asking as a 3
layman, you see.
And as Judge Brenner said, perhsps to 4
all of the technical people in the room this is obvious 5
that such special consideration is really not necessary, 6
and I just want to get a yes or no answer.
7 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
It migh t be worth perhaps 8
additional inspections of that line or something of that 9
sort.
That might be a possibility, but I am not sure I 10 can give you a clearcut yes or no even in my own mind.
11 I think it is worth consideration perhaps.
12 0
Thank you.
13 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Judge Carpenter, as far as OA 14 requirements are concerned, we believe the Appendix B OA 15 program identifies all of the controls that could 16 possibly be applied to an item.
It is a top grade 17 listing of items.
18 Now, of course a lot of it is a function of 19 what the applicant applies, but those kind of' lines 20 would come undet Appendix B and therefore be subject to 21 the strict controls of that program.
Sometimes we do l
22 apply higher quality standa rds, and perhaps Mr. Kirkwood 23 could address that point.
(
24 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
Judge Carpenter, with i
25 respect to th'e instrument sensing lines at the Shoreham r\\
(_)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
6913 4
()
1 plant, these lines are the same quality group 2
classification as the system to which they are attached 3
except for the reactor coolant pressure boundary.
4 Because of the line size they are typically Quality 5
Group B, that is, Section 3, Class 2, of the ASME Boiler 6
Pressure Yessel code.
These lines are way 7
overdesignad.
hey usually use Schedule 8B piping.
The 8
lines are also typically orificed such that a break in 9
the line would restrict the loss of fluid.
And I am 10 speaking now from the process line to the instrument.
11 They receive the same nondestructive 12 examination that would be required of the system to 13 which they are attached.
In other words, if it was a 14 Section 3, Class 2 piping, the welds, were they to 15 receive surface or volumetric examination, depending
~
16 upon the line size they would be subject to all of the 17 pertinent requirements of Appendix B.
They are also 18 seismically qualified.
19 Q
So I take it, Mr. Kirkwood, you are telling me 20 that you,really do not see much more that could be done 21 in terms of quality assurance?
l 22 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
There is nothing more that 23 could be done.
l ()
24 JUDGE CARPENTER:
Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE BRENNER:
That is all we have from the i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6914
(}
1 Board.
2 Now, if the staff at this time on GDC 24 -- it 3
is not that we are holding back.
We have pursued it to C
4 the fullest extent we intend to other than perhaps 5
getting the informa tion tha t' the staff indicated it 6
would.
I just do not want to preclude the possibility 7
that some questions might come up when we get to 8
inadequate core cooling, but we did try to take 9
Edvantage of those witnesses that were here now, and 10 that is why we asked the questions we did.
11 Now we will go back to the County at this time.
12 MR. LANPHERs Judge Brenner, not surprisingly 13 your exchange provoked some followup which I would
(
14 propose to go ahead and do now.
I 15 JUDGE BRENNER:
Yes.
We would prefer it that 16 way.
I think in another context I indicated that when I 17 had expected that to occur throughout, and that is one 18 reason we interject so that when we go to that last 19 round, the followup is more limited to just immediate l
20 questions asked before it on the theory tha t if we had 21 had no last round, we would not have gone to anybody for 22 followup, and therefore, you should not be relating back 23 to now.
?
24 Yes, so for all of those reasons, go ahead.
25 FURIHER CROSS EXAMINATION BY SUFFOLK COUNTY O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6915
()
1 BY MR. LANPHER:
2 Q
Dr. Rossi, in responding to one of the Board 3
questions you described a less than 10 minute, 10 to 30 FO 4
minute, and beyond 30 minutes sort of demarcation.
And 5
as I understand, the 10 to 30 minute is an area of 6
judgment where sometimes manual actuation is 7
appropriata; sometimes the staff believes it should be 8
automatic, is that correct?
9 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
Yes.
10 0
You stated that with respect to the water 11 level instrumentation problem that we have been 12 discussing in the context of the Michelson memorandum, I 13 believe I quote you correctly that there is 10 minutes 14 or more available for operator action.
15 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
Yes.
16 0
Now, when you smended your testimony, you said 17 that -- this is a quote, I believe -- manual actuation 18 within 10 minutes following reactor trip would maintain 19 the water level in the core above the top of the active 20 fuel, which that statement led me to think that it was 21 your judgment that action had to be taken in less than l
l 22 10 minutes.
23 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
Let me give you the -- Mr.
()
24 Hodges is going to answer that question because he wrote 25 the specific answer there, so let me let him answer it.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6916 O
o riae-1 dec e coat==ea-2 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
The 10 minutes is there O
because this has been a loosely applied rule.
The
(,-
4 actual calculated times -- and we have got calculations 5
both from General Electric and from our consultants at 6
Brookhaven that show that you have approximately 15 7
minutes before you start to uncover fuel.
You would 8
have before you reach high temperature on the order of 9
2200, you would have another roughly a half an hour.
10 0
You referred to the calculations from General 11 Electric.
Were you here when the LILCO panel provided a 12 four or five-page document relating to the analyses that 13 GE had performed?
O U
14 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
Yes, I was.
15 0
Is that the calculation from GE that you are 16 referring to?
17 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
That is one of the 18 calculations from GE.
I have seen other calculations 19 from GE as well.
There is a General Electric report, 20 NEDO 27048, which I think was also referenced in some of 21 LILCO's testimony, which goes into a number of events 22 which include stuck-open relief valves; it looks at 23 water level pressure, a number of parameters.
And from 24 those analyses as well you can draw the same 25 conclusions.
We have also done similar calculations or ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6917
()
1 our consultants at Brookhaven have done some similar 2
calculations to try to verify the analyses in NEDO 3
27048, and we have reached the same conclusions.
O~
4 0
These calculations from you consultants at 5
Brookhaven, are these recent calculations?
8 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
Yes, they are.
7 0
Were these calculations performed in the 8
context of the review that has been performed in the 9
last month and a half or two months?
10 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
These were calculations that 11 were contracted roughly a year ago, and the results are 12 just now becoming available; but they were contracted 13 for the purposes of verifying analyses in NEDO 27048, O
l/
14 not specifically for this concern, but the analyses do 15 apply to this concern.
16 0
Where are the Brookhaven results documented?
17 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
They are only in draf t at 18 this time.
They have shown us some preliminary draft 19 results.
There is no documentation other than these 20 preliminary results yet.
21 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
22 0
Mr. Kirkwood, you stated in your opinion tha t j
23 the sensing lines are "way overdesigned."
Do you recall
()
24 that statement?
25 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
Yes.
)
l ALDET' SON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6918 1
0 It is true, is it not, that there have been
()
2 leaks experienced in the sensing lines a t some 3
facilities as documented in the appendix to the gs b
4 Michelson memorandum?
5 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
That is correct.
6 Q
Does that surprise you?
7 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
Not particularly.
The 8
problem with small piping in a practical sense, in the 9
construction of a plant people will climb over piping.
10 It is sometimes in instrument lines of this type, if.
11 care is not taken you could damage the line during 12 con struc tio n.
But any pipe will leak at times at 13 joints, weld joints.
That should not be restricted to 14 instrument lines.
15 Q
Well, then your statement that it was way 16 overdesigned was not meant to imply that leaks have not 17 occurred or that they may not occur in the future?
18 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
Oh, no, of course not.
19 0
In one of your previous answers, Mr. Kirkwood, 20 you mentioned a problem of maintenance workers using 21 these convenient lines to step on and that kind of thing.
22 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
Yes.
23 0
Is that a problem?
()
24 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
It should not be.
25 0
Well, you brought it up.
Do you believe it is O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6919
()
1 a problem?
2 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
I know from personal 3
experience in plants I have been connected with that r
4 small lines have been damaged during the construction 5
phase.
6 0
Is this.an area where the quality assurance 7
program could impose additional controls and perhaps 8
improve the results?
9 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
That is correct.
10 0
So your statement that thera is nothing and 11 your rather emphatic nothing more that can be done in 12 the way of Q A really is not true, is it?
13 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
I was speaking from the
(
l 14 standpoint of Section 3 of the code.
In other words, 15 the line itself has very little stresses.
16 Q
You meant in terms of the actual manufacture 17 of that piping?
18 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
Yes.
And as it is 19 installed in the plant.
QA could be applied.
That 20 would be operational QA.
21 Q
And in fact it is applied to such matters to 22 ensure that maintenance activities do not cause harm or 23 damage to safety-related or important to safety
()
24 equipment, correct?
25
.A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
That is correct.
When I O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WfSHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
~, - - - -. _..
6920
()
1 was thinking in terms of the type of situations that I 2
have encountered in the past, it was prior to my service 3
with the Commission; and I have been with the Commission (w
4 over 14 years, so I am thinking in the time frame of the 5
early '60s.
And I do believe there have been 6
significant changes from that time.
7 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
8 Q
Dr. Rossi, I believe it was your statement 9
originally in response to a question of mine and then I 10 think again responding to Judge Jordan regarding your 11 judgment that f ailures of the sensing lines are rare 12 events -- is that a fair characterization -- or lov 13 probability?
14 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
I think that my statement was 15 made a little bit differently.
I think I was giving an 16 answer as to the reason that I thought that the sensing 17 lines had not been covered here, and a general statement 18 tha t I believed it to be the staff's judgment that they 19 were less likely than electrical failures.
20 0
Have you reviewed the failures which are 21 described in the appendix to the Michelson memorandum?
22 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
I have not reviewed them in 23 detail.
I have read the Michelson memorandum on several
()
24 occasions, yes.
25 0
The appendix does describe 18 or so failures O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6921
()
1 which in f act led to the Michelson concern.
I assume 2
that is the reason that they pursued this matter, the 3
fact th a t there have been these failures.
4 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
That is correct.
5 0
Is it still your opinion that these are --
6 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
May I comment on that?
7 0
Certainly, Mr. Hodges.
8 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
These were failures in the 9
sense that you had leaks in fittings and maybe cracks in 10 manifold systems.
These were not failures in the piping 11 in the sense tha t ha s be'en postula ted in the Michelson 12 report.
13 0
Well, Mr. Hodges, could you turn to page 25 of L
14 the Michelson memorandum?
It is really part of the 15 appendix.
The Cooper January 1976 event.
And in that 16 event is it not true that it was determined that a crack 17 in the two-inch instrument sensing line on the vessel 18 penetration had developed and was discovered during 19 maintenance?
20 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
Yes.
21 0
Well, is that not the kind of failure that was 22 being discussed in the Michelson memorandum?
I do not 23 understand your previous answer.
24 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
It is one of the bases for 25 the concern in the Michelson memorandum.
This was not a
}
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6922 i O tae are x oo===1> tea ta ta nichet===
2 mesorandum.
And if this had existed for some period of 3
time, it obviously had not affected the level indication g)
(_
4 at that plant, so I cannot put that in the same category 5
as a break or a large enough crack to drain the 6
reference leg.
7 A
(WITNESS CONRAN)
May I add a comment,to that, 8
Mr. Lanpher?
9 0
Sure.
10 A
(WITNESS CONRAN)
The inspection is also 11 referred to in the Michelson memorandum.
12 Q
The what?
13 A
(WITNESS CONRAN)
The inspection in which this O
U 14 leak was -picked up was also the kind of thing tha t we 15 were identifying in response to Judge' Carpenter's 16 question.
It is one of the controls that is put on that 17 kind of piping.
It is not like you weld them and then 18 go away forever.
You periodically examine them, and if 19 this sort of condition arises, why, that sort of 20 inspection is intended to catch it.
21 (Counsel for Suffolk County conterring.)
22 0
Looking again at the Cooper event, that was 23 almost a happenstance picking it up, was it not?
I mean 24 it does not reflect in the Michelson memorandum that an 25 inspection was going on.
They spotted some rust, is O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6923
()
I that not correct?
2 A
(WITNESS CONRAN)
Under the code, Section 3 of 3
the code, however, there are in-service inspection f-NJ 4
requirements.
That is the general -- that is the sort 5
of activity that I was referring to.
6 MR. LANPHERs I think I as through now, Judge 7
Brenner, as to this line of questioning.
I do not know 8
if you want to take a break for lunch now.
9 Oh, just one second.
I may have one more.
10 JUDGE BRENNER:
In addition, I was thinking if 11 we could run a little bit longer, say about another ten 12 minutes or so.
13 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
14 MR. ELLIS:
Judge Brenner, just for the 15 record, I am sure everyone understands, but the document 16 Suffolk County No.
1, the appendix speaks for itself, 17 and in terms of characterizations of it as 18 incidents 18 of line break or something else, each of those incidents 19 is described.
And just a cursory review of mine 20 indicates that a number of them are not breaks at all, 21 and one of them I just looked at says no safety hazard 22 at all was created.
23 So I understand the context of his questions,
()
24 but it seems to me that so that the record is clear, the 25 document speaks for itself as to the nature of those ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6924 1
incidents.
{}
2 JUDGE BRENNER:
Okay.
So in other words, in 3
the place of individual objections that you might have 4
as to mischaracterizations, you have made you statement 5
to do that more efficiently.
At least that is the way I 6
understand your statement and accept it in that context, 7
in the name of efficiency.
8 MR. ELLIS:
Thank you, Judge.
That is a 9
charitable way of looking at it.
10 WITNESS CONRANs May I clarif y or make a 11 clarification on a comment that I just added?
I think I 12 misspoke.
I was referring to the in-service inspection 13 requirements under Section 11 of the ASME code as
)
14 specified in Section 5055 of the regulations.
The point 15 was that that kind of activity is given enough 16 importance that it is actually embodied as a requirement 17 in the regulations themselves and not just a regulatory 18 guide or a standard but in the regulations themselves.
19 MR. LANPHER Judge Brenner, for your 20 information, I am going to go to page 3 of my cross 21 examination plan.
22 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
Maybe we should 23 break if you are starting a whole new subject.
We are
()
24 close enough to when we normally break anyway.
25 MR. LANPHER:
Whatever you prefer.
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6925 1
JUDGE BRENNER:
Up until this moment I was not 2
sure that you did not have one more question.
Well, wh y 3
do we not break until 1:25?
I assume counsel have been O
4 and will be informed that during the mid-af ternoon break 5
we are going to meet with counsel on security subjects.
6 MR. LANPHER I was goin.g to do that right 7
now.
I will tell them.
8 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, let me state on the 9
record that where we left it yesterday there was what I 10 consider to be a relatively minor procedural dispute 11 that we will resolve if we have to, but I hope counsel 12 have an opportunity to discuss it again to see if they 13 can resolva it.
14 (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m.,
the hearing was 15' recessed for lunch, to be reconvened at 1:25 p.m.,
the 16 same day.)
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
' O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
s
'e.. \\
~.
6926 l
ifTERNogN_ggggIgN
(}
2 (1:25 p.m.)
3 JUDGE BRENNER:
We are ready to proceed with O
4 the Coun ty 's cross-examina tion.
5 MR. ELLIS:
Judge Brenner, if I may, just one 6
moment.
The Board had asked abcut the te stimon y 7
concerning the water level probability, and I found that 8
it begins roughly 6170 and goes to 6176 or so.
And I 9
guess the gist is that there is a generic study done by 10 the BWR Owners Group as to which there were preliminary 11 results.
12 And then Dr. Burns said we have, in fact -- I 13 am summarizing, I am reading from 6175 -
"We have, in
(")T
\\_
14 fact, done one complete analysis on the generic basis of 15 of that basis and determined it not to be a 16 contributor.
We have also done a very preliminary and 17 wha t I would term bounding analysis for Shoreham and 18 determined that in terms of a bounding analysis it may 19 show up in the sequence that we have labeled as 20 contributing.
Summing up, to contribute to risk.
But 21 it has to date, and all the information that I have, 22 does not indicate that it is what we have called here an
[
23 outlyer way beyond the other accident sequences."
[ ()
24 Questions "I see.
It would not make a 25 significant increase then?"
l
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
6927 1
Answer:
"No, sir."
(}
2 I think tht is the testimony that the Board 3
had in mind.
4 JUDGE BRENNER:
Judges Morris and Jordan are 5
nodding yes.
6 (Laughter.)
7 JUDGE BRENNER:
While we were off the record 8
at one point this morning Mr. Lanpher gave me an 9
estimate then of when he might be finished.
And it to occurred to me after -- I certainly did not mind doing 11 it of f the record -- but it occurred to me that other 12 counsel were not in the room.
And I do not know if you 13 vant to give an estimate.
14 MR. LANPHER:
I think I passed it on to Mr.
15 Ellis at least.
I had not built in an hour and a half 16 of Board questions this morning.
I am hoping to be done 17 tomorrow.
The estimate I had given to you, Judge 18 Brenner, was tomorrow by noon.
That may be.
I will 19 have a much better idea later today.
i l
20 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
Originally, you
(
l 21 told me tomorrow morning.
And certainly by noon is 22 accurate.
But for some reason, when I heard the phrase 23 "by morning," I was thinking earlier than noon.
But let l
24 us proceed.
25 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Brenner, I put the
(
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINlA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6928 1
{}
County 's response to the motions to strike in your box 2
o ve r th e re, five copies, and delivered it to the 3
parties.
I want to let you know also that mi colleagues 4
had an opportunity to review the Staff objections to the 5
emergency planning contentions.
And we will not be 6
filing a separate piece of paper concerning those.
7 The Staf f had provided us with a draf t of 8
their objections last week, and we basically responded 9
to those.
While there have been some changes, it is 10 more in the nature of some objections that were in the 11 draft that were not in the final.
And so you may see, 12 or you will see, in our papers us responding to certain 13 ' Staff arguments that you will not find anywhere.
But we 14 can correct that orally.
15 JUDGE BRENNER:
Fine.
16 Whereupon, 17 18 THEMIS P. SPEIS, 19 WALTER P.
- HAASS, 20 MARVIN W. HODGES, j
21 C. E. ROSSI, 22 JAMES H. CONRAN, SR. and 23 ROBERT KIRKWOOD,
()
24 the witnesses on the stand at the time of recess, 25 resumed the stand and, having been previously duly N_'Y
/s ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
6929
{}
sworn, were examined and testified further as follows:
1 2
CROSS EXAMINATION (Contiued) 3 BY HR. LANPHER:
i 4
0 Er. Haass, I would like to ask a few questions 5
regarding your sta tement of professional 6
qualifications.
And for the Board's information, I will 7
be on page 3 of my cross plan.
8 You state that you joined the Atomic Energy 9
Commission in 1968, and you were involved in the 10 development of guidance f or the review of quality 11 assurance program descriptions.
12 Based on the QA criteria given at Appendix B, 13 can you tell me in a little more detail what your 14 involvement was during that time period?
15 A
(WITNESS HAASS)-
At that time the A ppendix B 16 QA criteria were under development, and I held a 17 position as project manager.
A task force was 18 formulated to develop more specific checklist-type 19 quidance for reviewers in the project management area to 20 determine the conformance of QA programs described in 21 SARs relative to the new Appendix B criteria.
22 So over a period of, as I recall, several 23 months, we developed checklist-type guidance.
And
()
24 subsequent to th a t, one person was assigned in each of 25 the project manager's branches to conduct the reviews of O
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6930 1
QA programs.
I was assigned that responsibility in the
\\
2 branch that I was in.
3 0
Now, did you start this QA work in 19687 0
4 Appendix B did not come in until 1970, but I guess it 5
was a draft before then?
8 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Yes, there were drafts, as I 7
recall, available prior t'o its formal issuance in, I 8
believe it was, July of 1970.
9 0
So were you doing this QA work during the 10 entire tima period from 1968 into the early 1970s?
11 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
No, not the entire period.
I 12 would say it began in probably late '69 through early 13
'70.
A
(_)
14 0
From tha t time in early 1970 when you no 15 longer were performing those QA functions until you took 16 your present position of chief of the Quality Assurance 17 Branch, were you involved in QA matters?
18 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Well, as I say, I was 19 involved in reviewing 0A programs until the time --
20 while I was in tite project manager's branch, which 21 roughly goes up to the time in 1972 when I became 22 technical assistant for boiling-water reactors.
23 0
So then would it be more accurate to say that
()
24 from 1972 until 1978 you were not directly involved in 25 QA activities?
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6931
("}
1 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Yes.
2 O
What were your duties or f unctions as 3
technical assistant for boiling-water reactors?
4 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
I reported to the assistant 5
director for boiling-water reactors, and I was assigned 6
various review functions.
I wa s mostly -- I would say, 7
mostly a coordinator of performing certain ad hoc 8
reviews in relative to boiling-water reactors, called 9
upon assistance of various personnel and technical as 10 well as project management personnel to conduct those 11 reviews.
12 0
Did you personally conduct any reviews of the 13 classification of systems, structures, and components 14 for boiling-water reactors?
15 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
I don't recall.
16 0
Have you in any of your positions?
Can you 17 recall if for any of the positions you have held?
18 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
When you say " conducted 19 reviews of classification," I assume you mean to assign 20 a structure, system, or component to a specific 21 classification.
And I would say no.
22 0
Well, the NRC does not assign it for an 23 Applicant, does it?
The NRC Staff reviews the
()
24 assignment which an Applicant has made; correct?
25 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
That's true.
l ([)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6932 1
0 So that is why I was using the word " review."
{}
2 Now, have you in any of your duties with the NRC been an 3
official reviewer of all or part of an FSAR 4
classification table such as the Table 3.2.1-1 that we 5
have been addressing?
6 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
That goes back a t least 10 7
years when I was a project manager.
And at that point, 8
project managers were assigned a significant portion of 9
the review of an SAR.
And I might have been involved in 10 that kind of review.
I really cannot recall.
11 0
Have you had an opportunity to review the 12 Shoreham classification table?
Or have you reviewed 13 it?
14 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
I have looked at the Shoreham 15 table with regard to my present assignment as chief of 16 the Quality Assurance Branch.
The Shoreham application 17 review is assigned to one of my branch members.
And it 18 was his responsibility to coordinate the review of that 19 table with the technical review branches involved and to 20 develop a question that would be passed on to LILCO, t
21 indicating where we thought changes had to be made to 22 the table.
23 So I oversaw that review and made appropriate
)
24 comments prior to completing the review in the form of 25 the issuance of the question.
Once responses were
(')
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6933 1
received, I also oversaw the review activity of my
{~}
2 branch member to assure it was adequately completed.
3 0
When you say you reviewed this table, does O
4 your branch review -- and I am looking at the 5
classification table -- the LILCO quality assurance 6
category classification?
Is that what your branch would 7
look at?
8 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
As I mentioned before, we 9
coordinate that review.
The review process is set up to 10 require th a t the various technical review branches that 11 contain the technical reviewers in the various areas of 12 the plant design to look at those portions of the table 13 for which they have review responsibility to determine 8
14 whether that table is complete and correct with regard 15 to the items that would fall under Appendix B.
16 So we issue a memo to all of tF: technical 17 reviewers, indicating or requesting that a review be 18 conducted of tha t table in order to identify 19 safety-related items.
And we provide the definition for 20 Appendix B and guidance per Reg Guide 1.29 And then we 21 obtain responses from each of the branches, which we l
22 coordinate and transmit to the utility for their 23 response.
()
24 So our review in QAB does not determina 25 whether an item belongs on the list or not.
That review t
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6934 l
1 is performed by the knowledgable technical reviewers who 2
know better what the function of a particular structure, 3
system, or component is with regard to safety.
4 0
So does the Quality Assurance Branch more or 5
less coordinate that review which is, conducted by the 6
various technical branches?
7 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
That is our primary 8
function.
Now, the people in my branch are primarily 9
quality-assurance experts.
I have some systems 10 background by virtue of my background as a project 11 manager, and working as a technical assistant, so I can 12 offer some guidance in that regard.
13 So, often we have gone back to re viewe rs when 14 we questioned why they put something on a list or why 15 they did not put something on a list.
But generally 16 speaking, our role is one primarily of coordination.
17 18 l
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6935
(}
1 0
And did I also understand correctly that this 2
monc which -- or letter, whatever, that you sent out to 3
the various technical branches is to direct them to 4
determine what items should be placed on the safety 5
related list and what items -- or to review what items 6
have been put on it, and those that have not been, and 7
make sure that the right ones are on the safety-related 8
list?
9 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Yes.
Generally speaking, we 10 are asking the reviewers to. review the list in their 11 area of review responsibility to determine whether the 12 items so listed are correct and complete.
13 Q
I don't want to be sneaky, but does that 14 review, do you ask the people also to determine whether 15 there are items important to safety but not safety 16 related that should be on the list or not?
17 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
No, we are looking for a list 18 of safety related items.
19 Q
So that is what that review function is?
20 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Correct.
21 Q
Now, in your work as technical assistant for 22 BWR's, which I guess was from 1972 through some time in 23
'74, did you have any involvement in systems interaction
()
24 analyses or work?
25 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
I can't say specifically.
I O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6936 1
[}
would intgine that many reviews + hat we have done, that 2
many tect nical reviewers do in some way of ten involve 3
system unteraction, but at that point I don 't recall 4
tha t terminology being used.
The reviews weren' t as 5
structured as we had planned to do them.
In that 6
context, I would say that, yes, I did some system 7
interaction reviews, but I couldn' t specifically 8
identify any.
9 0
Mr. Haass, I maybe didn't even have to ask 10 that question.
I should have asked, you have not 11 sponsored any of the testimony of the ste.ff panel with 12 respect to systems interaction?
13 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
That is correct.
14 JUDGE BRENNER:
Mr. Haass, I may have missed 15 part of your answer before the last answer.
You said 16 something to the effect that the reviews then were not 17 as structured from the standpoint of systems 18 interactions as either you are doing them now or plan to 19 do them, and I may be repeating what you said 20 incorrectly.
Is that essentially what you said, and if 21 so, can you fill it out a little bit?
22 WITNESS HAASS:
Well, I am really a layman in 23 that area.
That is my understanding of it, and I would
(
24 really prefer not to add any more.
Many problem areas 25 that one looks at one can say are systems interactions.
_.O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINfA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202' 554-2345
r.
6937
(~)
1 So to that extent I am certain that I have looked at
%)
2 some back in that period, but I could not identif y which 3
ones, and as I say, the terminology at that point was
~
f-V 4
not specifically stated as systems interactions, as I 5
recall.
6 J'UDGE BRENNER:
We]l, I think that'will come 7
up as that area gets asked about with other witnesses.
8 MR. LANPHER:
'I am sorry.
I realized after I 9
asked the first question, and I did not think he had 10 sponsored any of that testimony.
11
'BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 12 0
Can you describe briefly, Mr. Haass, the work 13 you performed between 1974 and 1978, I guess, in the 14 position of special assistant for standardization?
15 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
The NRC had embarked on a 16 standardiza tion prog ram which was in tended to assist in 17 the licensing process to expedite reviews of plants, and 18 the theory was that by using same or identical or j
1 19 virtually identical designs, that one could -- the NRC 20 could say that, well, for this next plant, it is 21 something we hav'e reviewed before, we have given l
22 approval to it, and therefore expedite the review of~
l 23 thut, of the ex-plant.
()
24 My function was to develop the va rio ds 25 policies and procedures that would govern the handling (2)
ALDERSON RCPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGIP4tA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6938 1
of standardized plants at NRC.
Generally speaking, that
(}
2 was the main function.
3 Q
Mr. Haass, turning your attention to your 7-(]/
4 present position as chief of the Quality Assurance 5
Branch, you earlier used the wor'd " coordinate" with 6
respect to one of you other positions.
Would you 7
characterize your present position as one of 8
coordinating the activities of the QA Branch?
9 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
No.
The word I used was 10
" oversee" the review and evaluation of quality assurance 11 programs which, of course, involves the listing of 12 structures, systems, and components to which the program 13 applies, but that particular aspect is more of a 14 coo rdina tion, but the review of OA programs is a 15 supervisory oversight.
In other words, my functions 16 involve discussing the program with my reviewer, making 17 the assignments, reviewing questions that develop, 18 participating in meetings.with the applicant, generally 19 assuring th a t the quality assurance program description 20 review is completed to our satisfaction, that is, that 21 it neats the requirements of Appendix B, Pa rt 50.
22 Q
You referred to the quality assurance A
Jr
,1ption, and the review of that description is that A
24 description contained in the final safety analysis
(,j 25 report?
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6939 1
A (WITNESS HAASS)
Generally it is, yes.
(}
2 Sometimes it is contained in the topical reports which 3
are then referenced by an SAR, but generally it is in 4
the Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 17.
5 Q
The topical reports would apply if the NSSS 6
vendors' QA program were the architect engineers?
7 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Yes.
B Q
With respect to the Shoreham review, the 9
description that would be reviewed is that contained in 10 Chapter 17 of the FSAR?
Is that correct?
11 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Yes.
12 (Whereupon, counsel for Suffolk County 13 conferred.)
14 0
M r. Haass, is it'your personal opinion that 15 the QA function performed by your branch and by the NRC 16 constitutes an important part of the regulatory process 17 that the NRC performs?
18 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Yes.
19 0
The reason I asked that question is, at the 20 end of the first paragraph of your resume, you talked 21 about promoting the protection of public health and 22 safety.
Can you explain briefly how you believe the QA 23 program which you administer promotes the public health
()
24 and safety?
25 MR. REIS:
Mr. Chairman, I am going to object ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6940 1
to the question.
Relevance, again, to the contention.
2 I don't see where it goes, getting an answer to that 3
type of question in this proceeding, and I am going to 4
obj+ct to the question.
5 JUDG5 BRENNER:
Just give me a moment to 6
reread the sentence that the question was asked from.
7 (Pause.)
8 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, Mr. Lancher, it seems 9
quite broad and remote.
I mean, you know, is Q A to important?
Yes.
Does it help promote the public health 11 and safety?
Yes.
Can you tell me where you are going 12 with that?
13 XR. LANPHER:
I want to get this witness's t
14 views on just how important the QA function is.
I think 15 it is pretty clear from the county's point of view we 16 think it is quite important, and I would like him to 17 confirm that.
18 JUDGE BRENNER:
That is not in controversy.
I l
19 will grant the objection.
It is just too remote and not 20 efficient.
21 MR. LANPHER:
It is right in his resume, Judge 22 Brenner.
23 JUDGE BRENNER:
That doesn't affect the fact 24 that it is remote and not efficient and isn't going to 25 help us resolve either his qualifications as a voir dire O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6941 l
1
{}
aspect or the merits of the contention.
1 2
BY MR. LANPHER4 (Resuming) 3 Q
Have you been involved in the direction, 4
supervision, or coordination of the Commission's quality 5
assurance activities for Shoreham with respect to 6
Shoreham design?
7 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
I would say no.
8 0
The same question with respect to Shoreham 9
construction.
10 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Also no.
11 Q
With respect to Shoreham or projected Shoreham 12 o pe ra tion ?
13 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Yes.
14 0
What documents relating to the Shoreham --
15 well, by operation you mean the operational QA program?
16 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Yes.
17 0
What documents with respect to the Shoreham 18 operational QA program have you reviewed or read?
19 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
As I described before, my 20 function as chief of the quality assurance branch l
l 21 involved the oversight of the review of the QA program 22 for operations for Shoreham.
As such, I reviewed the 23 questions that were raised by my branch that went to the t
24 applicant.
I' reviewed the safety evaluation report that 25 was finally issued.
I oversaw the work on the OA list i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6942 1
review.
I might have looked at the chapter 17 itself.
{}
2 I am not certain I can say that definitely.
3 0
Do you mean Chapter 17 of the FSAR?
O 4
A (WITNESS HAASS)
Yes.
On occasion, I will 5
look at programs in more detail, just to verify that 6
reviews were done properly, just to assure myself that 7
things were being done correctly.
I can't recall 8
specifically whether I did that on Shoreham or not.
J 9
0 Do you recall whether you have reviewed the 10 Shoreham operational QA manual?
11 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
I have not.
12 0
When you said you had reviewed or read the 13 staff's SER concerning Shoreham, were you referring to 14 Chapter 17 or Section 17 of the staf f 's SER ?
15 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Yes.
I think it is Chapter 16 17.
I don't recall the numbers.
But whatever the 17 chapter is of the SER, I have reviewed.
18 0
Have you conducted any visits to the Shoreham 19 plant for the purpose of reviewing their QA program?
20 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
I have not.
l 21 Q
Have you ever visited the plant?
22 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
I have not been there.
23 0
Have you ever conducted a quality assurance
()
24 sudit yourself?
Or participated in one?
25 JUDGE BRENNER:
For Shoreman?
l O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6943 1
MR. LAMPHER:
No, for any plant.
He said he
[}
2 hadn't been to Shoreham, so this is for any plant.
3 WITNESS HAASS:
I personally have not, but 4
members of my branch have been assigned to perform those 5
duties.
6 (Whereupon, counsel for Suffolk County 7
conferred.)
8 ER. LANPHER:
Judge Brenner, I am moving to 9
Page 11 of my cross plan outline.
to BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming) 11 0
Dr. Speis, I will add ress this question to you 12 as sort of the spokesperson for the panel.
13 A
(WITNESS SPEIS)
Page 12?
O.
14 0
No, that was Page 11 of my cross plan.
Would 15 rou agree that the staff's function in reviewing an 16 application for an operating license is to ensure that 17 the licensee or the applicant has satisfied all 18 regulatory requirements?
19 A
(WITNESS SPEIS)
Yes, sir.
20 0
Thus, woul' you also agree that the depth of 21 staff review is that depth that is necessary to reach 22 the staff's conclusion or a staff conclusion that 23 regulatory compliance has in f act been demonstrated?
l ()
'24 A
(WITNESS SPEIS)
Well, the staff's review is 25 an audit f unction.
It doesn't review everything.
And O
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6944 f
1 to a substantial degree we rely on the applicant's word
{}
2 or commitments, and what we read,in his SER, so we don't 3
review every system or every component or every part of O
4 the SAR.
We don't have the resources, but our functions 5
are one of an audit type.
We select systems and 6
components and structures on an audit basis.
Some of 7
them we go to more extensive review.
Some of them we B
rely on what the spplicant has told us.
Really, it is a 9
criteria type.
It is not a component type of level to review.
11 0
What do you mean, criteria type?
12 A
(WITNESS SPEIS)
Well, we read his SAR, and 13 out audit review is to make sure that the applicant has
(
14 his design, has -- is consistent or adheres to the 15 Commission 's criteria.
We don't go -- for example, we 16 talked this morning about the level indicator.
There is 17 nowhere in the FSAR drawing that shows exactly what the 18 dimensions are of the level monitoring system.
It is 19 something that we don't review, but when an issue comes 20 up that affects or could affect the plant in any way 21 involving this particular thing that we didn't review, 22 then we would go back and take a more close look.
23 0
Dr. Speis, you used the term " audit review",
()
24 and Mr. Conran, at Page 6 of your rebuttal testimony, 25 you also use that term, " audit re vie w".
Can you tell me O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 i
i 6945 1
what you maan by sn audit review?
Either of you?
Do 2
you see where that is, Mr. Conran, in your testimony?
3 A
(WITNESS CONRAN)
Yas, I do.
I don't know s
~
4 tha t I could add any comments to-what Dr. Speis said.
5 In the context that I used it here, I refer directly 6
back to the concepts that Dr. Spels was talking about, 7
however, and more specifically, to what I think of as a 8
kind of an equation, where the staff -- well, a finding 9
of reasonable assurance that a facility can be operated 10 with no un'ne risk to the public health and safety must 11 be made to license the plant.
12 That is under 50.35, I believe it is, Section 13 50.35 of the regulations.
So, our whole review process A)
(_
14 is set up on the basis of the equation that audit review 15 plus -- well, audit review for a given section, selected 16 sections of the SAR, and demonstration of compliance, 17 the verification of compliance for those sections 18 audited, plus reliance on the applicant's affidavit for 19 those sections not specifically reviewed equals 20 reasonable assurance, and that is the context in which I.
21 was thinking of it in trying to make the point that I am 22 addressing here.
23 In that context, incidentally, that is why the
(
24 point was so important that we must understand each 25 other, we must use the same language, so that the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6946 1
affidavit that we receive, that the applicant assures us 2
tha t even in the sections tha't we haven't reviewed, he 3
has met all of our regulations.
That is why it is so 4
very important that there must be a meeting of the minds 5
on the language of the regulations, the meaning of the 6
language of the regulations, so that there can be a 7
reliance.
A reliance in that sense means acceptance 8
without further question or review.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 /lRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6947 1
A (WITNESS RCSSI)
Could I add some words on 2
audit reviews as they apply to the instrumentation and 3
control systems branch?
Let me describe a little bit O
4 about how we do our review.
We start, of course, by 5
reading the material in Chapter 7.
We develop a list of 6
questions that in some cases are designed to provide 7
greater inf orma tion than that that we find in Chapter -7, 8
and in some cases they are designed to get specific 9
commitments from the applicant as to particular design 10 features in the plant.
In other cases, they are 11 designed to just find additional information so that we 12 can understand the basic design and how tha t particular 13 applicant and architect engineer has implemented the
()
14 design criteria.
15 Now, by audit review, what we attempt to do in 16 the instrumentation and control systems branch is to 17 concentrate our review in the areas where we think it 18 would be most difficult for the applicant and the l
19 architect engineer to meet the design crite ria.
We like l
20 to concentrate in the areas where -- that have been 21 highlighted by recent issues that have come about within 22 the NRC, and we tend to concentrate on areas that may be j
l 23 new in that particular plant design, and so it is not a
()
24 random kind of an audit.
It is what we would say is a 25 selected audit where we try to get some thought as to O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6948 1
the areas that it is most fruitful to concentrate on
(}
2 rather than just some kind of random vandering around, 3
looking at various aspects of the design.
4 0
Is it true, then, that if in addition they 5
perform a review or it comes to your attention that 6
there may be an area where there is a question as to 7
whether the applicant has met your requirements or met 8
your interpretation of the Commission's requirements, 9
that would be an area where you would perhaps focus your 10 audit. efforts also?
11 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
We would normally concentrate 12 our efforts in those areas, but that is not to say that 13 we would even cover those 100 percent.
We would try to 14 concentrate in those areas.
15 (Whereupon, counsel for Suffolk County 16 conferred.)
17 0
This question may not be capable of being 18 answered, and if so, please tell me.
Is there a 19 compilation by the staff of what portions of the 20 Shoreham FSAR have not been reviewed?
21 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
We do not do a detailed 22 compilation of what has not been reviewed.
We do in our 23 SER discuss the areas that we by judgment feel are the
()
24 most important in our review and have raised issues that 25 ve feel should be documented.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
,-._w i
y-.w
-.,-,4
6949
()
1 Q
But it would not be fair to, for instance, go 2
through the SER, and if the SER doesn't match up wi th a 3
particular area of the FSAR, it wouldn't be fair to O
4 conclude from that that you didn 't review it?
I mean, 5
there may be things you don't mention in the SER that 6
are not mentioned in the FSAR.
That doesn't mean that 7
you haven't reviewed it.
Is that correct?
8 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
That is correct.
9 (Whereupon, the witnesses conferred.)
10 0
Gentlemen, I asked if there was a compilation 11 of what you have reviewed and what you have not 12 reviewed, and you may have interpreted that in some 13 formal sense as a listing. Is there any informal sort of O'~
14 compilation?
Is that somewhere in your records?
That 15 is, documented what you have reviewed and what you have 16 not?
17 (Whereupon, the witnesses conf erred.)
18 A
(WITNESS SPEIS)
Basically, our findings are 19 discussed in the SAR, but throughout the review process 20 you can go back to the 0-1's or 0-2's, and a number, a 21 large number of questions and a large number are not 22 documented in the FSAR but they exist in the docket, so 23 in that sense the safety evaluation report, it is a
()
24 smaller indication of what we review and the process 25 itself that we go through, a number of questions and O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6950 1
answers.
2 Another thing, another indication of the 3
review that we do is shown in the meeting summaries that 4
we have with the licensees and those meeting summaries 5
are also part of the docket.
6 0
Nr. Conran, I believe you stated the other day 7
tha t you had basically drafted the so-called Denton 8
memo, or you were intimately involved in its 9
preparation, correct?
10 A
(WITNESS CONRAN)
Yes, that's right.
11 Q
Were any other members of the panel involved 12 in th a t e f f o rt?
13 A
(WITNESS CONRAN)
Do you mean in drafting the 14 memo?
Not in drafting the-memo, but I believe that I 15 probably consulted with every one of them at some stage 16 of preparing that memo, but I don't believe that any of 17 them wrote any of the specific language.
18 0
I didn't mean to limit it to actually writing.
19 A
(WITNESS SPEIS)
Jim, for clarification, you 20 didn't consult with me.
21 (General laughter.)
22 A
(WITNESS SPEIS)
Or with Wayne Hodges, to my 23 knowledge.
24 A
(WITNESS CONRAN)
The overall process that I 25 was talking about includes the period of preparation for O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6951 1
the THI testimony, and I may be wrong, but my
(~ }
2 recollection is that during that tim e f rame, that I did 3
talk to Dr. Speis.
I am not 100 percent sure about O
4 Mayne Hodges.
But the total preparation period goes 5
back nearly two years now.
6 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, Hr. Lanpher, I think you 7
vant it tha other way around.
It is not so much who Mr.
8 Conran recalls was 1-olved, whether he is right or 9
wrong.
It is the present recollection of the other 10 panel members that you want to get at.
And maybe we 11 should just ask just which panel members, and perhaps we 12 would have to go one by one for this one question, which 13 panel members were involved, and what the involvement
)
14 was.
15 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) why don't we start 16 0
If we could start maybe 17 at the far end.
Mr. Hodges?
Without limiting it to 18 writing the memorandum, did you have any input or 19 involvement in the development of the standard 20 definitions which the NRC staff embodied in the Denton 21 memorandum which was attached to the Suffolk County 22 testimony?
23 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
No, I did not.
()
24 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
I don't recall having a 25 specific conversation with Mr. Conran on that memo, but O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6952 1
I have had over the last, well, since I first came to
{}
2 the NRC, discussions on control systems, discussions on 3
the IEEE effort that we talked some about yesterday, O
4 which I would imagine would have provided some basis for 5
input into that memo, but it wouldn' t have been in the 6
context as direct input to the memo.
7 0
Well, Dr. Rossi, I don't want you to 8
misunderstand my question.
I don't want you to take my 9
question too narrowly, even if it wasn't a direct input to into the memorandum.
I included also into the standard 11 definitions which are embodied in that memorandum, 12 whether you had involvement in development of those 13 definitions in meetings,' discussions about important to
(
14 safety versus safety related versus not important to i
15 safety.
Do you understand my question?
16 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
Yes, but I think that was 1'7 pretty much the context tha t I indicata ^ that I had had 18 such conversations with Mr. Conran, but not with the 19 recognition that they were directly going into that memo.
20 0
Dr. Speis?
21 A
(WITNESS SPEIS)
I don't recall having any 22 discussions with Jim.
I knew the memo was in 23 preparation from staff meetings that I attanded at the
()
24 division director's level, but trying to recollect right 25 now, I don't recall having any input to the memo.
O l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6953 1
0 Mr. Haass?
{}
2 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
I can recall discussions that 3
I think Jim is approximately correct a bo ut, two years p
4 prior to editions of the memo. There were many meetings, 5
and I think I wrote some memos and had lots of 6
discussions with Mr. Conran himself, so I was involved 7
quite extensively.
8 A
( W IT N ESS KIRKWOOD)
I did not participate in 9
any of the preparation of the memo.
However, I recall a 10 few years ago I reviewed a draft of Mr. Conran's 11 testimony for Three Mile Island, and I made comments 12 which I forwarded to Mr. Rubenstein, as I recall.
13 0
Mr. Conran?
(
14 A
(WITNESS CONRAN)
May I add, just to give a 15 final perspective for me on it, it may very well be that 16 when I spoke with these individuals, that I didn't come 17 up and say, hey, in the context of important to safety 18 versus safety related, la di da, but in trying to sort 19 out the meaning of these terms and a very important part 20 of that process was to find out how they are applied by 21 people who work currently in the technical review 22 process, I would choose specific examples of current 23 problems of the moment, for example, some of the issues
()
24 in the TMI hearing, and talk to various people and find 25 out how they thought about these things, how they l
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6954 1
treated them, whether the specific component in question
(}
2 was required for safety function or not required, and in 3
that sense it may very well be that some of the 4
converations that I had-are not recalled in the 5
particular context that you asked about them.
6 0
Mr. Conran, did you alone prepare the rebuttal 7
testimony which has been admitted into evidence, or are 8
there other members of the panel who are also sponsors 9
of that testimony or participated in them?
10 A
(WITNESS CONRAN)
It was a kind of hectic 11 process, under pressure, but my recollection is tha t I 12 wrote it and was responsible f or it.
It certainly 13 underwent review and there were suggestions about how it N
14 might be improved, but I wrote it and am responsible for 15 it.
16 0
This is in the context that we have got a 17 summary up front about who is the primary author and 18 reviewed other portions of the testimony, and I am 19 wondering who else on this panel is prepared to address 20 this testimony also.
21 A
(WITNESS CONR AN )
It is definitely not the 22 same situation as existed for Questions 38, 37, 38, I 23 guess.
They were the PRA questions.
There it was quite
()
24 a different situation.
I ended up accepting the 25 responsibility and adopting testimony that was put O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6955 I
together by a bunch of people because the original plan
)
2 was not to have a PRA witness, and I am a part of the 3
PRA branch, so it kind of fell to me to coordinate and O
4 adopt and take the responsibility as a lead for that 5
testimony, assuming that no PRA witness was going to be 6
here.
If I had known Dr. Thadani was going to be here, 7
why, it would have worked out differently.
8 0
I understand that, Mr. Conran.
Did other 9
members of this panel review the rebuttal testimony 10 before it was submitted?
11 A
(WITNESS SPEIS)
I did review it.
12 0
Mr. Haass?
13 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Yes, I reviewed it.
()
14 0
M r. Kirkwood?
15 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
I do not recall reviewing 16 it.
17 A
(WITNESS ROSSI)
I reviewed it.
18 A
(WITNESS HODGES)
I reviewed it.
19 0
On Page 3 of th e rebuttal testimony, Mr.
20 Conran, you referred t o, you start a discussion of the j
21 overall effort leading up to the issuance of the Denton 22 memorandum.
I think you state in there that it took 23 more than a year, maybe -- that is, well over a year to
()
24 develop it.
Why did it take so long to issue standard 25 definitions?
Was there controversy involved?
ALDERSON REPORDNG COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGfNIA AVE., S.W., WASHIN^iTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6956 1
A (WITNESS CONRAN)
I think it was a combination 2
of a couple of problems.
One was that there is -- I 3
think we have been candid about it -- a great deal of 4
inconsistency among the staff on the everyday ucage, the 5
casual usage of these terms.
The bald fact of the 6
matter is that most engineers on the staff don't 7
regulate from the regulations.
8 They do what they do with the regulatory guide or 9
reg. report in hand, and then if they have a job of 10 review to do on a control or protection system, they 11 don 't sit there with the GDC 24 in f ront of them and 12 say, this is all I have to do.
They sit there with IEEE 13 279 and SRP Section 7 and Reg. Guide 175, whatever, and
()
14 so in doing the review job that the staff does, 15 engineers don't use the regulations, so it is not 16 surprising that they are not intimately familiar with 17 the definitions of legal terms in the regulations.
18 In the same way that the testimony by 19 applicant's witnesses, I think, has helped establish 20 that even in the absence or even with the inconsistent 21 usage of terms, th a t the substantive part of the job can 22 be done, the same situation exists with regard to the 23 staff.
So, with a good deal of inconsistency against
! (
24 which to work, there was some problem sorting out the 25 true meaning of these terms and getting everyone to l
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6957 1
agree with it on a working level guide basis.
(~g V
2 Another part of the problem was whether or not 3
it was a high priority ef f ort.
My primary assignment is 4
not to study the language of the regulations.
It is 5
systems interaction, and that keeps me busy enough 6
without having to work out language problems.
If I 7
thought that it should have been done on a quicker 8
basis, I sometimes ran up against management priorities 9
that other jobs be done, and this let go for a while.
I 10 think it was not regarded as a high priority, urgent 11 task, and so it is something that we whacked away at, 12 because to me, af ter the TMI hearing, it was clear that 13 something should be done, snd so I did it as time was 7
14 available.
15 Also, I don't mean to minimize the fact that 16 it was a complicated process.
A part of the process, 17 for example, was getting ACRS to agree or at least 18 acquiesce to these definitions, and that takes some 19 amount of preparation, something like a hearing, in 20 fact.
21 And so, it is a combination of those f actors 22 that took as long as it did.
23 0
Is it your view, Mr. Conran, th a t the
()
24 definitions embodied in the Denton memorandum constitute 25 the staff position of what th e regulations in. fact mean?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6958 1
A (WIINESS CONRAN)
Yes.
2 O
I would like to turn your attention to the top 3
of page 2 of your rebuttal testimony.
That first 4
sentence, you say, "There appears to be close agreement 5
between most important aspect of the respective 6
positions, conclusions of staff and applicant regarding 7
adequacy of safety classifications and Shoreham plan 8
features, particularly as to the substantive safety 9
classification considerations at issue.,"
Could you to please tell us what you mean by "the substantive 11 technical safety classification considerations?"
12 A
(WITNESS CONRAN)
Yes.
I remember exactly 13 what I had in mind when I wrote that.
If you divide
()
14 this language problem up into substance and incidentals, 15 the substance of the issue involved is, how did the 16 people who were doing the job of design or review 17 understand what has to be done in terms of protection of 18 public health and safety?
Is there a common perception 19 generally of what systems are most important in that 20 regard, what systems are associated with the highest 21 potential exposures, all the way down to, is there 22 agreement on the fact that the public needs protection 23 even from very low levels of exposure on a routine
)
24 basis?
Given that view of safety importance, what is 25 the perception of what quality standards are required?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 t
6959
(])
1 We had a little bit of a discussion about that 2
this morning.
The highest quality standards are applied 3
to the components by the primary coolant.
So,.what is 4
the relative safety importance in view of the function 5
to be performed and in view of the perception of 6
consequences if a component fails?
In view of that 7
assessment, what are the appropriate quality standards 8
that must be applied and what are the appropriate 9
quality assurance measures that would be applied to make 10 sure that quality standards decided upon are applied in 11 the construction and operation, that is, the technical 12 substantive issues involved.
13 The incidental is, after you have figured all 14 of that out, what appellation do you tack onto it, and 15 that is what I referred to as the language problem.
I 16 think there is -- we heard an awful lot of testimony, 17 and I think the thrust of it is that we agree on the 18 substantiva issues involved.
19 20 21 22 23
()
24 25 l
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
]
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i 6960 1
Q Is the basis for your statement in this answer
}
2 that we are talking about the testimony you heard from 3
LILCO in this hearing?
Is that the basis?
O 4
A (WITNESS CONRAN) With respect to.the 5
applicants' a t ti tud e s, yes.
6 0
With respect to this.
You reach a conclusion 7
in this answer.
8 A
(WITNESS CONRAN) 9 Q
And I am trying to probe the basis for that 10 conclusion.
I know you were here, I think, through most 11 if not all of LILCO's testimony.
12 A
(WITNESS CONRAN) That is why I was here.
13 Q
And is this conclusion based upon what you
()
14 hea rd in that testimony?
15 A
(WITNESS CONRAN) Heard and read.
That takes 16 are of the applicant part of the statement, and what I 17 understand of the staff's understanding and practice --
18 and practice is the key word there -- with regard to 19 safety classification, how safety classification is done.
'20 0
You said p ra c tice is the key word there?
21 A
(WITNESS CONRAN) I was tying the word practice 22 to the substantive part of the issue.
One aspect of the 23 applicant's testimony that bothered me greatly was the
()
24 statement that our definitions are inconsistent with 25 historical practice.
And that, to me, mean t how we do
- ()
i t
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
6961 1
the substantive part of the job.
{ud}
2 After hearing e xten si ve testimony by 3
applicants' witnesses, my mind is considerably relieved O
4 in th a t regard, and my perception at this point is that 5
with regard to practice, the. substantive classification 6
issues involved, what is the practice on the part of the 7
applicant and the staff, despite differences in 8
language.
That was the basis for making this statement.
9 Q
So with respect to what the applicant does, 10 the basis for your conclusion here was what you heard 11 and read in this hearing?
Their pre-filed testimony and 12 also, their oral testimony on the stand?
13 A
(WITNESS CONRAN) Yes.
()
14 (Counsel f or Suf f olk County confe rred. )
15 0
Mr. Conran, I take it from this testimony that 16 it is your belief that at least from a terminolog'y point 17 of view, LILCO has not used terminology in its FSAR, or 18 in its testimony, for that matter, which is consistent 19 with the regulatory definitions?
20 A
(WITNESS CONRAN) As I understand applican t's
[
i 21 testimony, that is true.
And I listened to a lot of 22 testimony, trying to -- listening for them, to clarify 23 that position so that it would not be true.
But yes, I
()
24 think it is true.
As I understand it, a very direct 25 statement by I think Mr. Dawe, when we made the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6962 1
commitment that said important to safety, we meant 2
safety rela ted the way you guys understanding it --
3 meaning the staff.
I think it was that clear, rm O
4 That, incidentally, I mentioned in my 5
testimony, was the first time that that ever happened to 6
me.
I have discussed these matters with staff people 7
and applicants for almost a couple of years now, and I 8
have never been involved in a discussion like that.
9 Sometimes it takes a day or two to come to the point 10 where the person that I have been arguing with or 11 discussing the definitions with says -- oh, yes, okay, I 12 understand what you mean now.
And yes, there is 13 agreement.
And that is the way I have always done my
()
14 job.
15 The thing that was disturbing about the 16 testimony the way it was written in the pre-filed 17 testimony was that -- and then amplified later I think 18 by M r. Dave 's comments was -- there was no backing away 19 from the statement; they thought " safety related "when 20 they read "important to safety" and they acted that way.
21 Q
You have reviewed the staff's safety 22 evaluation report, correct?
For Shoreham.
23 A
(WITNESS CONRAN) Not the entire thing.
(}
24 Q
Have you reviewed those portions that relate 1
25 to classification of systems, structures and components I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6963 1
in compliance with the general design criteria?
2 A
(WITNESS CONRAN) Those sections --
3 0
I think those are sections 3.1 and 3.2.
O 4
A (WITNESS CONRAN) 3.2, yes.
5 0
You have read those?
6 A
(WITNESS CONRAN) Yes.
I have read them.
7 0
In the staff review as embodied in the safety 8
evaluation report, is this concern for LILCO's failure 9
to utilize the correct definitions document anyway?
10 A
(WITNESS CONRAN) I am sorry, I lost track of 11 the ques tion.
12 Q
Has the staff documented in the SER that the 13 LILCO terminology is incorrect and needs to be changed?
14 A
(WITNESS CONRAN) We didn't know about it.
I 15 didn't.
One reason that the testimony on the subject 16 has come about so a wkwardly, I guess, out of the 17 sequence that it normally would was I was not aware of 18 this discrepancy until I read a pplicant's testimony, and 19 that was after we had filed our pre-filed testimony.
20 0
Have you inquired of your colleagues at the 21 NRC staff why there is a difference of opinion regarding 22 why the meaning of the terms that are in the Denton 23 memorandum was not identified earlier in the staff O
24 revie 2 25 MR. REIS:
M r. Chairman, I am going to have to O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6964 1
object to that on the grounds of relevancy.
I don't see
)
2 how that is related to the contention as such.
I think 3
we have stated -- well, that is my objection.
O 4
JUDGE BRENNERs Be brief, Mr. Lanpher, you 5
don 't have to be extensive.
6 HR. LANPHER:
Well, if I don't have to say 7
anything, I won't.
8 JUDGE BRENNER:
It is overruled.
That is the 9
only subject the staff 's examina tion covered -- wha t to this Denton memorandum is all about, and the question of 11 whether you just have a semantic problem or a 12 substantiva problem and so on.
13 HR. LANPHER:
There is also a great deal of
()
14 testimony by the staff about the thoroughness of their 15 methodology.
16 JUDGE BRENNER4 It is not necessary, Mr.
17 Lanpher, -- and you are one of the worst offenders -- to 18 add coments after the ruling.
Unless it is a request 19 for reconsideration, to_which I would give some leeway 20 if you think we are in error because we didn't 21 understand the argument or missed part of the argument 22 or something like that.
23 But if it is not in that context, the comments
()
24 are gratuitous.
25 MR. LANPHER4 Do you want me to respond to O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6965
(
I thst?
g,)
8 2
JUDGE BRENNER:
No.
3 (Laughtar.)
i 4
WITNESS CONRAN I think I understand the gist 5
of your question now snd the answer is -- wha t threw me 6
was, have I discussed with my colleagues on the' staff.
7 My colleagues on the panel, I have certainly had a good 8
deal of discussion here.
I can't recall that I, have 9
discussed it with other people back in Bethesda yet.
10 But using these as representatives of the staff, yes.
11 And, in fact, I had thought about it a goed deal 12 before the question ever came up here.
How is it that 13 misunderstandings like this can go on for literally 14 years?
15 And I s11uded to one of the reasons I think 16 that is true, and that is that engineers on the staff, 17 like in the industry, don't do their job necessarily 18 with the regulations and the language of the regulations l
19 in their hands; they operate from industry standard s and 20 regulatory guidance documents that adopt frequently i
I 21 those industry standards.
22 I can believe, after following this problem 23 myself for a couple'of years, that a technical reviewer
()
24 on the staff might, in fact, on occasions in the past 25 while he was reviewing one plant or another,and had
()
I l
I l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W-, WASHWGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
l
6966 1
encountered this problem and wondered about it, then
.(}
2 realized that as the applicants have been trying to make 3
the point, probably in the final analysis it really O
4 didn't make any difference anyway.
Because we review 5
what the applicant does against our regula tory guidance 6
documents to try to assure that they meet the 7
requirements.
8 I think that is -- and when you start to 9
grapple with this problem and then reslize all of its to implications and how pervasive it is, it would not be 11 unimaginable that somebody would give up on it if he 12 didn't have an assignment to do it, as long as he was 13 reasonably assured himself that the job was being done
()
14 anyway.
15 With regard to the other question, the 16 question that I posed befores what are tha origins of l
17 this problem and why has it gone on for so long, I think 18 tha t is the primary reason.
That is, that irrespective 19 of the language difference, there is a very considerable 20 backstop.
We have the regulations and the regulatory l
21 guidance requirements and criteria that we judge l
22 applicants' submittals against.
I will let it go at 23 that for now.
()
24 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming)s 25 0
Mr. Contsn, under the standard or the Denton i
i ALDERSON' REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 i
l
6967
()
1 definitions, it is the staff position that a quality 2
sssurance progrsa is required for all systems, 3
structures and components which are important to safety, 4
correct?
5 A
(WITNESS CONRAN) Yes, that is true.
6 Q
It is my understanding f rom other portions of 7
the pre-filed testimony that the staff does not review 8
quality assurance programs except those pertaining to 9
safety-related or safety grade items, is that correct?
10 Or, Hr. Haass, maybe I should address that to you.
11 A
(WITNESS HAASS) That is correct.
12 Q
You rely on the applicant's commitment in that 13 regard?
Is that correct?
(~)/
(WITNESS HAAdS) Yes.
s_
14 A
15 0
And is that what has been done in this case, 16 sir?
17 A
(WITNESS HAASS) Yes.
18 0
Where is that commitment documented?
19 A
(WITNESS H AASS) It is generally documented in 20 Section 3.1 of the response to general design criterion 21 1.
22 0
Is that where it is documented wi th respect to 23 Shoreham?
()
24 A
(WITNESS HAASS) Yes.
25 MR. LANPHER :
Judge Brenner, I have got copies O
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6968 1
of Section 3.1 here.
I don't think it needs to be
(}
2 marked as an exhibit.
3 JUDGE BRENNER It was given to us at one 4
points what seems like a long time ago in this hearing, 5
snd I don't recall if it wa s marked but it was certainly l
6 used in at least one question because I recall it.
7 MR. LANPHERs I think we stipulated that the 8
FSAR is going to be in evidence.
I was going to give 9
Mr. Haass and Mr. Conran copies and I can make copies 10 available to the Board if you want it marked.
I will 11 leave it up to you.
12 JUDGE BRENNER:
Give me a moment to even see 13 if we have previously had it marked, or if I still have
(
14 my copy here.
Let's go off the record.
l 15 (Discussion off the record.)
16 JUDGE BRENNER M r. Brown, who has a much 17 better remory than me, reminds.that staf f handed out 18 copies for convenience only and used i't in some of their 19 questions.
But according to our records, they did not 20 mark it.
Is that correct?
21 MR. RAWSON:
That is correct, Judge, yes.
22 JUDGE BRENNEP4 We will just continue like 23 this.
I don't know if we bound it in at the time.
()
24 MR. RAWSON:
I think not.
25 JUDGE BRENNER:
Let's just proceed with it and O
t l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6969
()
1 see how extensive' it gets.
2 MR. LANPHER:
I don't think it is going to be 3
that extensive, Judge Brenner.
4 Fo r t h e r e c,o r d, wh at I have provided is not 5
all of Section 3.13 it goes on for a lot of pages.
6 Section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, or a portion of that, just the 7
first two pages of that chapter.
8 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
9 Q
Mr. Haass, turning your attention to the 10 second page of the FSAR extract which I provided to you, 11 the portion under the title Design Conformance, and that 12 is from page 3.1-2 of the FSAR, is this where the LILCO 13 commitment to a qual'ity assurance program for all 14 systems, structuras and components important to safety 15 is documented?
Is this the commitment you were 16. referring to, sir?
17 A
(WITNESS HAASS) Yes.
18 Q
And can you point to me the sentence that you 19 are relying upon?
Or the portion.
I don 't mean to 20 limit you.
21 A
(WITNESS HAASS) Could you restate the 22 question, please?
23 0
I believe your earlier testimony, Mr. Haass,
()
24 has sta ted that you believed that LILCO's commitment to 25 a quality assurance program for all systems, structures O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGirHA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
}
6970 I[ }
1 snd components important to safety was documented in the 2
FSAR in Section 3.1.
I didn't give you all of Section 3
3.1 and if you need more of it, I will get it for you.
4 But I did provide you with the section relating to 5
GDC-1, their response to GDC-1.
6 Now my question is:
Is this where the 7
commitment is documented that you were referring to?
8 And if so, can you point -- and I balieve you said yes, 9
and I would want you to point to the specific portions.
10 A
(WITNESS HAASS) I think generally, the 11 discussion in -- and I am looking now on page 3.1-2 12 under Design Conformance.
I would say the first 13 paragraph as well as the last paragraph.
(^I
(_)
14 0
The first sentence of that paragraph, Mr.
15 Haass, states that " Systems, structures and components 16 important to safety are listed in Table 3.2.1-1."
What 17 is your understanding of how LILCO uses the term 18 "important to safety" when they are used in the FSAR?
19 A
(WITNESS HAASS) As we have learned through the 20 hearing, LILCO has defined "important to safety" to be 21 the same as " safety related."
And that is what these 22 paragra phs are generally saying.
23 0
rhen doesn't this constitute a commitment to j
24 have a quality assurance program for safety-related 25 systems, structures and components?
("N ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINlA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6971
()
1 A
(WITNESS HAASS) Correct.
2 Q
That does not constitute a commitment, 3
therefore, for a quality assurance program for items 4
important to safety but not safety related.
5 A
(WITNESS HAASS) That is correct.
6 A
(WITNESS ROSSI) I wonder if we could have all 7
Chapter 3 here at the table.
I am not sure to what 8
extent it will be useful, but I would feel more 9
comfortable having it all here.
10 0
I have no problem at all.
11 JUDGE BRENNER:
Let's provide it now.
12 WITNESS ROSSI:
Chapter 3, by the way, may be 13 in 'several o f those volumes there.
14 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Brenner, I can give them 15 an opportunity if they would like to look at this over 16 the break, and I guess we are taking a longer break this 17 afternoon.
I wasn't meaning to not provide them 18 everything they might think was necessary.
I know 19 Chapter 3 is pretty long.
20 JUDGE BRENNER:
I understood what Dr. Rossi 21 meant.
He didn't say he wanted to sit down and read it 22 page by page.
I think we are doing what he literally 23 asked.
He feels more comfortable with it next to him.
l ()
24 If he makes any further request f or time to look at 25 something, we will consider that.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i 6972 l
()
1 WITNESS ROSSI:
I just thought it would be 2
useful to have it here for reference because of the 3
general nature of the questions.
And I may also want O
4 parts of Chapter 7 later on, but I don't need them right 5
now.
6 JUDGE BRENNER:
The witnesses should not 7
hesitate to make any request similar to Dr. Rossi's 8
anytime they feel they need something.
9 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
10 0
For the Board's information, I am returning to 11 page 11 of my cross plan.
12 Gentlemen, turning your attention to page 5 of 13 your prepared direct testimony, the first sentence on 14 that page on page 5 says, "A nuclear power plant is 15 comprised of many structures, systems and components 16 which have varying degrees of importance with respect to 17 public health and safety."
And then you sa y, "These 18 structures, systems and components are designated as 19 items important to safety."
And it goes on.
What does 20 "these" refer to here?
21 A
(WITNESS CONRAN) I think the word "these" is 22 used th e re very similar to the way "those" is used in 23 the preamble to the general design criteria.
It was
()
24 meant to convey the notion that important to safety is l
25 the term applied to all of those structures, systems and ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6973
-()
1 components that are necessary to provide adequate 2
assurance.
I am sorry -- reasonable assurance of no 3
undue risk.
O 4
0 Is it correct that the staff has not compiled 5
a list for Shoreham which identifies all systems, 6
structures and components which are important to safety?
7 A
(WITNESS.CONRAN) There is not in existence 8
that I know of an approved or generally agreed-upon list 9
of structures, systems and components important to 10 safety, as I understand the term.
But I think the point 11 has been made before that as long as the FS AR, for 12 example, includes the sections required by Reg Guide 13 1.70, that although there is not an explicit list, a 14 separate listing, that things important to safety are 15 otherwise clea rly identified in the FSAR.
And that is 18 the requirement in Reg Guide 1.70.
17 It is really more clearly identified than just 18 sticking it on the list.
If you have a system 19 description and discussion of the system, w hy, that is a 20 pretty clear identification.
21 0
They are identified but their classification 22 is not explicitly identified?
Is that correct?
I mean, 23 by identified you meant they were mentioned and, in many l ()
24 cases, discussed?
25 A
(WITNESS CONRAN) That is right, that is O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., 'NASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6974
(')
1 correct.
And they are presented in the FSAR as though 2
they were important to safety.
That is why they are 3
there.
It is implicit perhaps.
In fact, for all I
,-b) 4 know, in some sections they may actually be called
-5 importan t to safety,,but I don' t think that would be 6
actually required to meet the requirement of Reg Guide 7
1.70.
8 Q
If they are called important to safety in the 9
FSAR, as I understand it, LILCO, in fact, means safety 10 related.
Is that your understanding?
Your last answer 11 was with reference to the FSAR.
12 A
(WITNESS CONRAN) That is right.
But that is 13 the sort of backstop f eature that I was talking about.
14 Even though LILCO did not understand the term as we 15 meant it, by putting an FSAR together and addressing the 16 systems that we require in our regulations or regulatory 17 guidance in the SAR, they have identified them.
18 Everything that is talked about in the SAR is important 19 to safety; that is why it is there.
Otherwise, it 20 wouldn't be there.
21 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
22 WITNESS HAAS:
Mr. Lanpher, let me answer 23 you.
Our review process has verified that plant it ems
()
24 that are defined as important to safety per the Denton 25 memorandum meet the requirements that we outlined, the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6975
()
1 acceptance criteria ve outlined, in our sta ndard review 2
plan sections.
The reviews were conducted by our 3
(V-}
technical reviewers and they were satisfied that those 4
items met those quality standards.
5 The problem that remains is what kind of 6
quality assurance commitment was f allowed by the 7
spplicant.
Generally, that is given in response to 8
general design criterion 1,
but we know there is a 9
terminology problem because the applicant has defined 10 "important to safety" to be equivalent to " safety 11 related."
12 Instead, we are relying on the applicant's 13 pre-filed testimony, which we believe adequately defines 14 or describes the 0A requirements that they have applied 15 to the category of non-safety related items, per the 16 LILCO definition and as supplemented by the oral 17 testimony.
18 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
r 19 0
So the basis for the staff 's conclusion that 20 with respect to quality assurance and compliance with 21 the quality assurance requirements of GDC-1, as it 22 pertains to non-safety related but important to safety 23 items, that staff conclusion is based on the LILCO
( ))
l
24 testimony, both pre-filed and oral?
l l
l 25 A
(WITNESS HAASS) Yes.
( )~k l
i 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 i
l
6976
()
1 0
It is not based on any staff review?
2 A
(WITNESS HAASS) The staff normally does not 3
review that area.
As we stated in our pre-filed 4
testimony, we do not have a listing of suCh items.
We 5
do not ask an applicant to describe his specific QA 6
program for those items, nor do we have criteria to be 7
used in preparing a QA progran for those items.
8 That is a staff judgment tha t is based on --
9 basically, it goes back to the audit review and the fact 10 that responsibility is placed on the applicant to 11 design, construct and operate a safe plant.
We have 12 decided in that framework to identify the safety-related 13 items and require that a QA program description be 14 provided for those items.
15 And for the other items which are of lesser 16 importance to safety, we have not requested that a 17 listing or a program description be provided.
18 A
(WITNESS CONRAN) May I just add, Mr. lanpher, I mentioned that all of 19 that the QA area is the one 20 the staf f members who are here who have been listening 21 carefully to the applicant's testimony with this 22 background in our minds, -- that the only ares that we 23 have been able to identify so far in which there did not
()
24 exist this backstop that I referred to before, so that 25 even though there was a misunderstanding of the O
ALDERSoN REPORTING CCVPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 I
6977
()
1 language, there was in place a regulatory guidance 2
document that a staff man could follow to see that they 3
set our intent anyway.
4 QA for non-safety ralated components is the 5
one area that we have been able to identify in which 6
that kind of backstop did not exist, and that is why we 7
have been so very interested in applicant's detailed 8
testimony on that subject in this hearing.
9 In effect, it constitutes -- it gives us 10 assurance that the intent of GDC-1 as we understand it 11 with regard to QA is met.
In fact, probably better than l
12 if there had been some brief description of the program 13 in the S AR, and assuming that they understood "important 14 to safety" as we do, and they had put a brief 15 description of their non-safety related QA program in 16 the SAR.
17 What we have heard here I think is much more 18 extensive than that would have been.
So the discussions 19 that we have had here have satisfied our minds on that 20 subject with one remaining exception.
And that is 21 thiss With regard to what applicant has done up until i
22 now in the design and construction process.
Although 23 they didn't read our regulations the way that we do, and
()
24 although up until now they would not have admitted to a 25 requirement for a non-safety related QA program, they i
ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6978
()
1 have done it.
2 The one remaining small problem -- and I think 3
it is small -- is that if one contemplates the future, 4
the operation of Shoreham, we still seek assurance that 5
applicant now, understanding the way that we use the 6
words, commits to maintaining the program that he has in 7
place, because clearly, if he adheres to the old 8
definition and we have only his commitment in the SAR 9
and only his testimony on the record so far, one might 10 postulate the set of conditions in the future where, for 11 economic or other reasons, he wanted to cut back or even 12 eliminate his non-safety related QA program and legally, i
13 as we see it right now, there would be no recourse.
14 Hell, there would be, of course, but what we are saying 15 for the purposes of this hearing, one remaining loose 16 end is a commitment that what applicant already has in 17 place by way of a non-safety related QA program will i
18 remain there.
/
19 JUDGE BRENNER:
Mr. lanpher, I wonder if I 20 could jump in for a moment, and I hope for not too long.
21 Mr. Conran, one thing that is troubling me, I 22 sense the importance that you, on behalf of the staff, 23 place on this meeting of the minds on the language with
()
24 respect to the commitment.
And you have given the 25 reason why, as to the commitment, the appropriate QA l
O 1
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 i
i 6979
()
1 would be applied to this class tha t the staff calls 2
important to safety, yet outside of the subset of 3
safety-related.
4 What troubles me or what puzzles me is if you 5
hmd an applicant -- say, LILCO -- that used the ters 6
"important to safety" exactly the way the staff intended 7
it to be used, bssed upon the definition in the Denton 8
memo, and given the description of what the staff 9
reviews in terms of QA; that is, as I understand it, for 10 those that are in the area of important to safety but 11 outside of the safety-related subset.
It is merely that 12 commitment that is being relied on in the staff's 13 concept of the audit type review -- that you could have.
14 that commitment and their agreement that they are using 15 your definition.
And yet, the staff still doesn 't have 16 the slightest idea as to what level of 0A is being 17 applied for different components.
It is still the same 18 old ad hoc approach.
19 And if you get into a disagreement later as to 20 what QA was to apply, you are not going to have any help 21 by the fact tha t they agreed with your definition, 22 because within that definition there are all of these 23 gradations as depending upon the importance of the
(
24 structure, system or component.
So what is the big 25 hullabaloo all about?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6980
()
1 (General laughter.)
2 WITNESS HAASS:
Judge Brenner, I think you 3
have characterized it correctly.
(~;
's_)
4 JUDGE BRENNER:
I am sorry to hear that.
5 (General laughter.)
6 WITNESS HAASS:
We see a need at the staff 7
level to provide a more structured approach in this 8
a rea, and we have two programs under way now that are 9
directed toward achieving that goal.
It will be a while 10 before we are there, but we likewise felt that there are 11 gradations in the importance to safety of items, and 12 looking at it from the QA point of view, there ought to 13 be, as the regulations say, there ought to be gradations 14 in 0A requirements that are appropriate for those items.
15 Now, if you look at nothing more than the task 16 that faces our inspectors when they go in the field to 17 determine whether an applicant is implementing the right 18 program, it is a horrendous task, because there is no 19 guidance, and so we feel some is clearly needed, so we 20 are developing that.
But at the moment, we don't have 21 it, and up until now it has been the staff policy to, 22 because of our audit review, and as I mentioned before, 23 that the burden is on the applicant to design, A
!. J 24 construct, and operate a safe plant.
He is required to 25 identify the safety characteristics of an item, what is (m
\\s ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
6981
()
1 its functions, the engineering people in conjunction 2
with the quality assurance people.
3 Then the engineering people identif y wha t the 4
safety function is.
The QA people decide what kind of 5
QA controls are appropriate for that item, and for many 6
items it may be nothing more than simple commercial 7
practice, and as LILCO says in their Category 2, there 8
is a note on Table 3.2.1-1, they established a QA 9
requirement in the purchase specifications, and that 10 supplemented by their prefiled testimony and the oral 11 testimony here at the hearing, I think, has convinced us 12 that they are aware of the need for appropriate QA 13 requirements for those items, and they say they have 14 implemented those requirements, and that satisfies our 15 need, short of having a more structured approach, which 16 we are aiming towards.
17 JUDGE BRENNER.
All right, and you are relying 18 upon their judgment of what is appropriate subject to 19 possible pa rticular cases where inspectors may find 20 things, where they may think whatever is being applied 21 is not appropriate given the use of the item.
Is that 22 right?
23 WITNESS HAASS:
Yes, that is correct.
But as
()
24 I say, we feel we need a more structured approach to 25 provide better guidance in that area, so we can avoid ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6982 1
the squabbling, the hassling at the construction level,
{}
2 at the construction phase, between inspectors and the 3
applicant as to what is appropriate.
4 JUDGE BRENNERa So the adoption of the 5
definition would only help in the extreme case where a 6
utility is saying, go away, we don't want to apply any 7
Q A whatsoever to a particular item.
8 WITNESS HAASS4 Yes, that is true, and as Mr.
9 Conran points out, we clearly see a need for a 10 commitment in the operational phase to apply QA to items 11 that are, in accordance with the Denton memorandum, are 12 defined as important to safety, non-safety related.
We 13 must have a commitment for that, to assure that that
()
14 type of program continues.
15 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
And so in the 16 context of this contention, as to whether stuctures, 17 systems, and components are classified correctly, the 18 staff's knowledge would go only to that, the staff's 19 direct knowledge would go only to those structures, 20 systems, or components which the staff reviewed in the 21 audit a pproach type review, and that review is against 22 the standard review plan, and is in that context rather 23 than the OA context, so we should not look to the 0A at
(}
24 this point to decide how the item is classified, rather, 25 to decide whether the item is classified correctly.
O l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6983
()
1 Rather, we should look to the staff's testimony on what 2
they reviewed in terms of the functions, and you hope 3
that the judgments are gradated the same in terms of the 4
Q A they are going tc apply in the f uture, but that is in 5
large part a subject for the inspection program.
6 WITNESS HAASS:
Yes.
As I mentioned before, 7
the quality standards, that is, the codes, the criteria 8
tha t are applied to a specific structure, system, or 9
component that is important to safety, not safety to related, are included in the FSAR and our reviewers have 11 reviewed those agsinst the acceptance criteria given in 12 our standard review plan, and we are happy with that.
13 They have met our requirements.
The only loophole is 14 the QA, and that is for the future.
They have already 15 committed, LILCO has already committed that they have 16 applied appropriate QA during the design and 17 construction phase.
18 Jt1DGE BRENNER:
I am not going to pursue it 19 any further right now.
Mr. Conran, did you want to add 20 to that?
21 WITNESS CONRAN:
Yes, I did.
I said it 22 myself, and I think I led Mr. Haast into it.
We have 23 been saying the one loose end that is left.
There are
()
24 actually three loose ends left, according to the 25 prefiled testimony, but what I meant was, the one area i
l 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
6984
()
1 in which we didn't see a backstop, that we are now tying 2
up loose ends in is the QA area.
3 JUDGE BRENNER:
You reminded me of loose O-4 ends.
There is the Part 21 loose end that you were 5
worried about.
6
. ITNESS CONRANs It is Part 21, but also in a W
7 more general sense under Item 1.
8 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 9 0
Item 1 of what?
10 A
(WITNESS CONRAN)
I am sorry, Page 6.
It is 11 Question 9.A.1.
In a more general sense, the kind of --
12 the situation that could arise with regard to the 13 commitment to meet certain -- well, whether or not we 14 can rely on the commitment to meet certain quality 15 standards in the future that we already are sure that 16 they are meeting for systems important
- or structures, 17 systems, and components important to safety.
18 The problem is in one sense more general, 19 because it is not just GDC 1 that talks about components 20 important to safety, and so to tie up the last legal 21 loose end, one suggested course would be for applicant 22 to do something like stipulate to the definitions put 23 forth in Mr. Denton's memorandum, and for all other
()
24 areas, all other GDC and important to safety issues, 25 why, we think that that would suffice.
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6985 O
aooGe ase**ta-rai we=1a de ecoa ti e-2 far as the Bosrd is concerned, to take the break.
3 MR. LANPHER:
That is fine.
I would like to 4
introduce for the record, since you have said in the 5
past when attorneys who haven't been here before --
6 JUDGE BRENNER:
He has been here before.
7 MR. LAMPHER:
But Mr. Miller is here from our 8
law firm.
9 JUDGE BRENNER:
He is ensconced safely in the 10 back.
Maybe he prefers to be there.
Maybe he is 11 smarter than the rest of us.
12 (General laughter.)
13 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, let's go off the record 14 for a minute.
15 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the 16 record.)
17 JUDGE BRENNER:
Back on the record.
(
18 Let's try to reconvene at 3: 40.
19 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
20 21 22 23 1
24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1 6986
()
1 JUDGE BRENNER:
We are back on the record.
2 Our off-the-record meetings took longer than we 3
anticipated, but covered a range of subjects which the V(-)
4 Board thinks were productive, and hope the parties agree.
5 We discussed procedural matters relating to e
the filing of security testimony, and they were resolved 7
by agreement of the parties, so there is no need for a 8
ruling.
We also discussed -- and I will do this very 9
briefly now and we will talk about it in more detail on 10 Tuesday depending on what has happened by then -- but 11 there will be the meeting of counsel on the record on 12 Tuesdays actually, arguments and discussion on various 13 subjects as we have indicated previously.
14 Then on Wednesday, we will have testimony of 15 staff witnesses on aspects of Contention 7(b).
It 16 depends upon how much is finished this week.
But in any 17 event, there is at least one aspect that we know we will 18 have to deal with on Wednesday involving PRA with Mr.
19 Thadani and any related witnesses.
20 Ihereafter, if the staff's testimony on 21 Contention 7(b) is completed before the end of the week, 22 by unanimous agreement and, I might say, urging of the 23 parties -- and I commented then; I wish it had been on
()
24 the record to show that the parties do work productively 25 together on things and do reach unanimous agreement on O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
5987 1
some things.
[}
2 In any event, the parties would not want to 1
3 con tinue the hearing that week with another contention, O
4 so that the parties believe they are very close to 5
either a full settlement or at least meaningful 6
narrowing of the next f our contentions coming up after 7
7(b).
And these are -- I will just give the Suffolk 8
County number even where there is a related SOC number 9
-- Suffolk County 28(a)(1), ECCS cutoff, Suffolk County 10 31, electrical separation, Suffolk County 24, materials 11 cracking, and Suf folk County 26, occupational ALARA.
12 And they would want to use the ret. of the time if there 13 is time remaining to pursue settlement.
They involve
(
14 discussions plus visits to the plant, and the parties 15 also asked that the Board be available for possible 16 conferences or dialogue with the parties or other matter 17 related to the ongoing negotiations.
18 And we will be available.
We would plan to be 19 available on Thursday, and we will see the necessity of 20 our being available on Friday up here anyway.
It is 21 possible that we may not be here Friday, but we will 22 see.
And also, all of this depends upon when the 23 litigation on Contentin 7(b) is completed, and we will
()
24 discuss more of this as we get closer in time.
25 It occurs to us that if we are going to stay i
I ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6988
()
1 available for some sort of possible settlement 2
conferences, that we had better maintain flexibility to 3
have on-the-record discussions also in terms of the 4
reporter, and we will do.that, also.
5 I think that summarizes that.
I don't know if 6
anything else need be said on it.
We will see what 7
transpires as we get closer to it.
And we, again, 8
appreciate the continuing work of the pa rties and 9
efforts to resolve or narrow issues.
10 HR. LANPHER I understand that to mean that 11 the Board accepted our, so to speak, scheduline proposal 12 when 7(b) is over?
13 JUDGE BRENNER:
Yes, I guess I must have been D
\\-
14 very eliptical.
15 MR. LANPHER:
Yes.
Fine, I am ready to 16 proceed.
17 JUDGE BRENNER' All right.
18 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming):
1 19 0
Mr. Haass, in response to I guess Judge 20' Brenner, you stated that you perceived a need in the l
21 area of items important to safety but not safety I
22 related, to provide a more structured approach to 23 quality assurance or more guidance, correct?
()
24 A
(WITNESS HAASS) Yes.
25 0
That is not a new discovery by the staff, is O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6989 1
it?
2 A
(WIINESS HAASS) No.
3 Q
In fact, for several years, -- or maybe more 4
than several year, but for a number of years -- the 5
staff has been pursuing the possibility of providing 6
this additional guidance, correct?
7 A
(WITNESS HAASS) Yes.
8 HR. LANPHER:
Judge Brenner, I would like to 9
have marked a Suffolk County Exhibit -- I think we are 10 up to 32, is that correct?
11 JUDGE MORRIS:
That is correct.
12 MR. LANPHER Suffolk County 32 a July 24, 13 1979 memorandum from Walter P. Haass to W.M. Morrison.
14 It consists of four pages.
15 JUDGE BRENNER:
I was just going to say I 16 don 't have it, but obviously, while I was away f rom the 17 bench somebody left it for me.
So this is the first 18 time I have been made aware of this.
I don't know how 19 far you are going to pursue it, but I don't know what's 20 in it.
But go ahead for now.
21 (The document referred to 22 was marked Suffolk County 23 Exhibit No. 32 for
()
24 identification.)
25 MR. LANPHER:
I think it was made available at O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 1
6990
()
1 the end of the bresk.
2 BY MR. LANPHER (R esuming) 3 0
Mr. Haass, did you prepare this memorandum?
4 A
(WITNESS HAASS) Yes, I did.
5 0
I would'like to turn your attention to page 2, 6
starting at the fourth line, the sentence, I am going to 7
read it, "In discussions we have had with QA 8
representatives of utilities, AE firms and reactor 9
vendors on the subject..." -- and the subject is the 10 proposed regulatory guide -
"... it is our 11 understanding that presently, very little QA is proposed 12 on items derived from Appendix A but not on the 0 13 list."
Was that your understanding in 1979?
14 A
(UITNESS HAASS) That was an understanding 15' derived from discussions with several utilities, and we 16 invited utilities and AEs and vendors in for discussions 17 on their QA programs, either in the context of topical 18 report reviews or licensing actions.
There weren't many 19 at that point, as I recall.
It was just a little after 20 Three Mile Island.
21 We made it a point to query them on just what 22 they were doing 0A-vise on items that we define as 23 important to safety but not shown on the 0 list.
So we
()
24 got responses that varied, as indicated in my memo 25 here.
But it was a small sample.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6991
()
1 Q
But you had the indication, based upon these 2
inquiries or conversations, that not all utilities were 3
applying QA on a uniform and consistent basis to items O
4 that were important to safety but not safety rela ted, is 5
that correct?
6 A
(WITNESS HAASS) That is our belief.
7 Q
Based upon that understanding, however, you 8
did not commence an audit program, or did you commence 9
an audit program, to find out whether applicants and 10 licensees were, in fact, applying QA in 3 manner that 11 you thought was consistent with general design criterion 12 17 13 A
(WITNESS HAASS) No, we didn't take tha t 14 approach.
First of all, we didn't have any criteria for 15 assessing whether a utility was applying the proper QA 18 to those items.
This was sort of the beginning of the 17 program tha t we are still embarked on that I briefly 18 described before, to rectif y that problem.
That has not 19 been completed yet.
20 We have been engaged several times to do this 21 in the form of Three Mile Island Commission reports and 22 Sandia reports prior to that.
So we were embarking upon 23 a program to resolve that problem.
()
24 Q
You perceived this to be a problem but you 25 continued, is it not true, to rely on applicant t
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6992 I'
commitments in the FSARs that they were going to
()
i 2
institute 0A programs, in accordance -- well, OA program 3
for items important to safety but not safety related?
O 4
A (WITNESS HAASS) Yes.
5 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
6 0
Nr. Haass, you referenced a Sandia study or 7
report.
When was that?
8 A
(WITNESS HAASS) That was a report prepared by 9
Sandia in, I believe, 1977, where the OA function of NRC 10 was reviewed.
And one of the comments they made was 11 that
- and I am paraphrasing here that we should be 12
-- they were recommending that we should be expanding 13 the coverage of the Appendix B OA program to include all 14 items important to safety.
15 0
Are you a ware of any similar s,tudies prior to 18 the Sandia study?
Is that the earliest one that focused 17 this issue for you?
18 A
(WITNESS HAASS) I am not aware of any earlier 19 studies on that subject.
20 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
21 Let me add to that a little bit.
I am 22 reminded tha t there was an effort underway that preceded 23 r7 coming to the QA branch, to develop a regulatory
()
24 quide that identified items important to safety.
That 25 was really, I would guess you could say that was the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
.l
6993 i
g r
,i
+ ;,
.e er deseed'-
O tatti tor >< tat aete ctivitr-t = ort
,1 t
2 down until we reactivated,it again.
,7'
>r
/
3 3
0 Is'that draft hydlatory Guidej,1.XXX, which is 7
,. > /,.
v
-a i j si e
4 referenced in Suffolk County Exhibit 32 for
.e 5
identification?
l/
/ /
6 A
(WITNESS HAASS) No, it is a different O
Is 7
regulatory duide.
v' r,-
.: ?
Ihis was an earlier,Ine?
8 0
.4
- t. 1 j
j 9
A (WITNESS HAASS) Yes.
'I think ib is,1.IYZ, if 10 I recollect.
t 1
11 Q
And'that was prior t 19777 That is your
,)
12 understanding?
r 13 A
(WITNESS HAASS) I wo'uld sa y it wa s a round, tha t 4 ',~' /
O 14 time; maybe prior.
, /f 15 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
16 0
Mr. Haass, in an earlier answer you stated o'
17 that you don't have criteria for judging the adequacy of s
(
18 the QA programs outside of the Appendix B context, jf
.a 19 correct?
20 A
(WITNESS HAASS).:That is correct.
~
l 4
21 0
.Even in the AppendixiB context, I believe l
l 22 there was tdstimony ea r1E'er that QA is not just one 23 thing; it is QA asappliedukder Appendix B commensttrate the importance of an iteI to its perceived safety
~
24 with l
25 function.' forrect?
j
/
O z
r ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, i
l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554;1345 ! j l
6994
()
1 A
(WITNESS HAASS) That is correct.
2 0
Then why would not the same approach be 3
feasible for items important to safety but not safety 4
related?
That is, examine the QA which is applied by an j
5 applicant or a licensee commensurate with the importance 6
of an item to safety?
,g
)
7 MR. REIS:
Mr. Chairman, might I have the 8
question reread or rephrase?
I do not understand it.
t 9
JUDGE BRENNER:
Could you rephrase it or 10 repeat it, Mr. Lanpher?
,j, 11 MR. LANPHER Sure.
It will be quicker to try
^
12 to repeat it.
It might come out a little different.
13 BY MR. LANPHER (Besuming):
14 0
In the context of what I was talking about, 15 that under Appendix B you have QA programs commensurate 16
-- the QA that is applied is commensurate with an item's 17 safety function, and th a t thus, it may vary.
Why cannot
/
18 the same approach be taken to items that are not safety 19 related but are important to safety?
In other words, J
20 examine the QA which is appliad to determine whether, in
/
21 the judgment of the staff, it is commensurate with its e
22 safety function?
23 MR. REIS:
Mr. Chairman, I am going to object
- e
()
24 on relevance to the way the question is phrased.
Why 25 could you not?
It is very broad and much too broad to
- (
- )
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 N'
t
6995
()
1 be meaningful in the context of the proceeding.
It 2
doesn't lead to a determination of the issues.
You 3
know, is it possible.
Why could you not is a question.
V(~)
4 Is it possible?
5 (Board conferring.)
6 JUDCE BRENNER We are coing to overrule th'e 7
objection.
We don't believe it falls in the catecory of 8
why isn't possible type thing, when the rest of the 9
question is not pertinent or relevant.
In this instance 10 it is contrasting an approach testified to by the staff 11 with another area that is pertinent to classifica tion, 12 and we think it would be probative to find out whether 13 or not there is any difference between the two things 14 being compared, in the staff's view.
Or if that is 15 their answer, or if their answer is different, then 16 that, too, would be pertinent.
So we will allow the 17 question.
18 WITNESS HAASS:
In your question, Mr. Lanpher, 19 you are coming at it from a slightly different approach, 20 which as I understand it, you are saying wh y not have 21 the applicant describe the QA program that would be 22 pertinent to items important to safety.
23 It still remains that the staff does not have O
j
(_j 24 the specific guidance other than Appendix B to make a 25 judgment as to whether it is acceptable or not.
And in O
ALDERSoN REPORTING CCMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6996
()
1 fact, this exhibit 32 in one of the points made here 2
under I believe it is under the alternative approach, 3
page 3, recommends that we develop another umbrella of 4
QA requirements that would be the starting point for 5
items important to safety, not safety related; important 6
to safety, but not safety related, from which one could 7
again grade, depending upon the importance to safety.
8 In other words, it would be analogous to 9
Appendix B for safety related, except you are talking 10 about a grouping of items which are less important to 11 safety and, therefore, could start at some lower level.
12 It would set up two stages; Appendix B for safety 13 related and another umbrella for those that are not 14 safety related.
15 And in fact, our approach that we are 16 developing right now is tailored along those lines, 17 except we are talking in terms of three categories 18 instead of two.
19 20 l
21 22 23
()
24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
L.
6997
(}
1 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 2 0
I appreciate your answer, Mr. Haass.
I think 3
my question must have been confusing.
It was not O
4 exactly wha t I was going at.
5 Hy understanding -- and correct me if I am 6
wrong -- Appendix B, as we have talked about, is itself 7
in effect s graded approach to QA, correct?
8 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Appendix B describes, I would 9
say, a complete QA program that has inherent in it, 10 specifically in criterion 2, the permission to grade 11 that program consistent with an item 's importance to 12 safety.
So what it means, even for safety-related 13 items, items that are on the QA list now, it does not 14 nean that full Appendix'B has to be applied to all of 15 those items.
It can be graded.
16 0
Fine.
Why does not Appendix B provide the 17 staff or does Appendix B provide the staff with adequate 18 criteria to judge the QA programs which are applied to 19 items important to safety but not safety grade?
20 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
I think it could be used for 21 that purpose, but what I am saying is that you have got I am not sure I can put it in proper words -- you 22 23 have got a grouping of items that are clearly the top l ( )-
24 grade items in the plant, and you start with -- and 25 those are the safety-related, and you start with full l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 654 2345 l
6998
(])
1 Appendix B, and you are permitted to grade, though I 2
think the grading would be rather minimal because all 3
the items we have in that grouping are very, very 4
important.
5 0
But judgments are made even for those items, 6
correct?
7 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Yes.
That is permitted to be 8
made, yes.
9 0
And are made.
10 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
I presume they are, yes.
11 Now you go to the next grouping of items that 12 are not safety-related but still important to safety.
13 It just seems like it would provide greater guidance to -
14 the user it we are able to start at some other level of 15 QA, and I am not even sure that can be done.
We have 16 got a program to try to do th a t, but I am not sure how 17 well we will come out on it.
So it is an attempt to 18 provide better guidance to the user regarding where he 19 should start from in applying QA to the grouping of 20 items that come under that particular umbrella, 21 recognizing again he can grade.
When he gets down to 22 the next group, the third group, there will be another 23 umbrella.
There will be a grouping in there, and again,
()
24 he wouli start from that point.
L 25 0
Mr. Haass, in response to questions from the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6999
()
1 Board I believe you stated you believe that in the 2
operational QA program there should be a commitment by 3
LILCO to a QA, an operational QA program that met in 4
full the terminology that the Denton memorandum says 5
there is no ambiguity as to what is being covered.
6 Is that a fair summary of what yo u said?
7 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Yes.
I would say generally 8
tha t is what we said.
9 0
Have you received that commitment?
10 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Not yet.
11 0
Have you asked for it?
12 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Not yet.
13 0
Do you plan to ask for it?
14 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Yes.
15 0
When?
16 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
I think it would be as part 17 of this hearing or it could be separately.
I do not j
18 think that has been resolved yet, how it is going to be l
19 done.
20 0
Whose responsibility is that to make that l
l 21 request and to resolve that issue?
And it may be 1
22 separate people.
Is that your responsibility, Mr.
23 Conran?
()
24 MR. REIS:
Mr. Chairman, I object to the l
25 question.
Tha t is a legal question that is being looked
(
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7000
()
1 at by the staff as to who has that responsibility, and 2
to give it to an individual witness -- it really is a 3
question of law.
4 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, not nect.ssa rily, but I 5
will concede, Mr. Reis, that the way the question was 6
asked it comes out poorly.
7 Mr. Haass, why do you not put aside whether or 8
not you have'got a legally binding commitment.
Do not 9
worry about that.
Whose responsibility is it to say I 10 from a technical point of view vant the commitment 11 regardless of who else it might be who will tell you how 12 to go about doing that?
13 Is it your branch's responsibility to make 14 sure that you have got the commitment, not necessarily 15 worrying about whether it is wrapped up properly from a 16 legal point of view?
17 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
18 WITNESS HAASS:
0AB would recommend it to our 19 licensing people, and I presume they would follow 20 through on it.
21 JUDGE BRENNER:
That is the exact answer I 22 just heard cigh t here.
23 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) l ()
24 0
Do you consider that kind of a commitment and 25 documentation of that commitment to be important?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7001
()
1 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Yes.
2 0
Let me make it clear the commitment to apply 3
O A for opera tions not only to safety-related but to O
4 items important to safety but not saf ety-rela ted.
5 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Yes, I do.
6 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
7 A
(WITNESS CONRAN)
I was just going to comment 8
that we obviously do think it is important, and because 9
we recognized it in the context of these proceedings, we 10 thought that we had it, but because of the language 11 problem, we did not have the commitment.
And so we 12 obviously think it is important, and that is why we 13 pursued it this way.
It was not anybody else's idea.
14 We wrote the testimony that brought about this 15 discussion in the hearing, and we obviously think it is 16 important, and that is why we have raised the issue.
17 I did not want to lose track of that point'.
18 It is not because we were disinterested in the first 19 place.
We thought we had the commitment.
Whether or 20 not we knew exactly what all of the details of that 21 commitment meant, we though t we had the commitment.
And 22 it turned out that because of the language difficulty we 23 did not.
()
24 A
(WITNESS KIRKWOOD)
If I may make a comment, 25 there may be some practical impediments to verifying ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7002
'(])
1 sni I am thinking now in terms of mechanical components 2
-- that indeed what has been done is there on a 3
verifiable basis.
For example, Section 3 has O
4 requirements in it to provide documentation and retain 5
x-rays and all sorts of things, so that is built into 6
the code, whereas B-31.1, the power piping code, when 7
you do radiography, for example, there is nothing in 8
that code which states that you should retain the 9
documents for the life of the plant.
And I believe this 10 would apply to other similar type component codes.
11 Therefore, while someone may perform these tasks 12 initially, they may have not retained the records, so 13 therefore, someone who came along later in the game and
(
\\
14 tried to verify that fact, it may not be possible.
So I 15 am only stating that there may be some practical 16 limitations.
17 Now, this could be resolved, obviously, by NRC 18 regulatory guides or documents which would impose these 19 things on these other codes as appropriato.
i l
20 (Counsel f or Suf folk County conferring. )
l 21 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
22 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Let me add a few words to 23 what Mr. Kirkwood has said.
()
24 The Q A program that LILCO has implemented for 25 items important to safety but not safety-related has l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7003
()
I been graded relative to the importance to safety of the 2
item.
LILCO has told us that.
And that includes many 3
aspects, including the retention of records.
O 4
What we are talking about primarily with 5
regard to a commitment, future commitment to a QA 6
program for items important to safety but 7
nonsafety-related is in the context of future activities 8
in connection with those items.
We are talking about 9
maintenance, repair, replacement, testing.
Whatever 10 activities are conducted on those items, we are saying 11 that appropriate 2 A requirements ought to be relied 12 consistent with those items important to safety as 13 sta ted by GDC 1.
14 0
Mr. Conran, you stated in an earlier answer 15 that it was your belief that with respect to the 16 operating QA program until this hearing I assume that 17 you had a commitment, a proper commitment or the way you 18 view as proper for operating QA, correct?
19 A
(WITNESS CONRAN)
I think the way the staff 20 would view it is proper, yes.
21 Q
And based on the testimony that you have heard 22 I guess that is on your list of things hanging out or 23 one of the loose ends, correct?
()
24 A
(WITNESS CONRAN)
Obtaining the commitment, 25 yes.
What I meant to imply was we are involved in a O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7004
()
legal transaction in the licensing of the plant.
I 1
2 think the discussions that we have heard, I am not the 3
expert who would say so, but the discussions we have O
4 heard would seem to indicate to me that what is being 5
done in the area of QA for nonsafety-related things is 6
a cce p ta b le.
And I say that is my general impression 7
only because the details of that program are not 8
normally dascribed at all, and because we have heard and 9
because they are normally not reviewed at all, so we 10 have something better in this context than we would have 11 had otherwise. 'So the loose end that was left was a 12 loose end from a legal viewpoint.
13 JUDGE BRENNER:
Just for clarification, Mr.
14 Con ra n, when you said you have something better, you 15 meant fuller information rather than better meeting 16 rather than higher quality, rather than higher quality 17 structures or components?
18 WITNESS CONRAN:
Yes.
19 BY MR. LANPHER:
(Resuming) 20 0
Earlier we were talking about Section 3.1.2.1 21 of the FSAR which Mr. Haass identified as the place l
22 where the QA commitment was previously documented.
- Now, l
23 I understand that commitment to be the commitment for
()
24 design at least.
Is that the same place that you 25 believed it was documented or committed to earlier for O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7005
()
1 operations or for an operational 0A, or is there a 2
dif ferent place in the FSAR that you believed LILCO had 3
made a proper commitment prior to this hearing?
O,.
4 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
Section 3.1.2.1 appears to 5
address design.
6 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
7 JUDGE BRENNER:
Maybe I missed something in 8
the question or the answer.
Which section are you 9
focusing on in the context of do you think it seems to 10 concern design, Mr. Haass?
11 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Brenner, I believe the 12 witness was referring to the FSAR handout which I 13 provided earlier from Chapter 3.
14 JUDGE BRENNER:
Right.
I knew that much.
But 15 I am wondering which section.
16 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
17 JUDGE BRENNER:
Was there a particular section 18 number in your question?
19 MR. LANPHER:
Yes.
It was Section 3.1.2.1, 20 and the first part of that, of course, is a quotation of 21 GDC 1.
22 MR. ELLIS:
May I have the question read back, 23 please?
()
24 MR. LANPHER:
Let me restate it when the l
25 witnesses are ready.
l I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D,C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7006 1
(Panel of witnesses conferring.)
2 JUDGE BRENNER:
Mr. Haass, Mr. La nphe r is 3
going to restate the question, not because you 4
necessarily need it restated but because it might 5
assist, the restatement might assist you also.
6 BY HR. LANPHER4 (Resuming) 7 Q
My question, Mr. Haass, is there was earlier 8
testimony that you believed you had a commitment from 9
LILCO, an adequate commitment from LILCO with respect to 10 an operations OA program.
I am asking you where that 11 commitment was documented or is~ documented.
And I drew 12 your attention to this FSAR section which I provided 13 before as a possible place, and maybe it is somewhere 14 else in the FSAR.
15 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
16 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7007
()
1 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferred.)
2 A
(WITNESS HAASS)
I would have to review this 3
in more detail and respond tomorrow.
4 0
Fine.
5 MR. LANPHER:
Can I inquire of the Board how 6
long you want to go this afternoon?
7 JUDGE BRENNER:
Pretty close to the normal 8
5:00 o' clock stopping time.
I should add that that 9
decision, in large part, is based upon discussions as to 10 length of examination we had off the record, and the 11 Board's own perception of the cross-examination plan 12 that this panel, we will be lucky to finish your 13 cross-examination by the end of the week.
i)
\\-
14 And certainly, there is no chance of finishing 15 the other questions from the parties.
Maybe I should well, the Staff does not have possession of the 16 a sk 17 cross-examination plan, so I guess it unfair to ask.
18 But tha t is the reason.
19 If it made a difference, we could push it, 20 although it would begin to affect what we want to do on 21 the motions to strike and so on.
So any time it is 22 convenient from this point on.
23 MR. LANPHER:
Well, I guess since we sort of 24 have a pending question, this would be as convenient a l
i 25 time as any.
I think what I will do is hand out a
()
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 T202) 554-2345
~
1 7008 l
[}
couple of documents tonight to give you to look at 1
2 overnight.
3 JUDGE BRENNER:
That is good, because I needed O
4 more things to read tonight.
5 (Laughter.)
6 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right, I would like to get 7
the question so it can be reread tomorrow.
And if you 8
could arrange for that with the reporter, Mr. Lanpher, 9
and then we will start out tomorrow with that question.
10 I will tell the witnesses that since it is 11 pretty clear you are going to be back, I guess 12 unfortunately from your point of view, Mr. Haass, if you 13 need more time, in other words, if you would rather hold
(
14 it over until you come back next week, we can discuss 15 that also, in case overnight is not enough time for 16 you.
17 All right, we will adjourn.
18 MR. EARLEY:
Judge Brenner, I have one thing 19 to do before we sijourn.
20 JUDGE BRENNER:
I will give you that chance in 21 a moment.
Give me one moment now.
22 (The Board conferred.)
23 JUDGE BRENNER:
Let us go off th e record.
()
24 (Discussion off the record.)
25 JUDGE BRENNER:
At this point, for convenience O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
i..
)
7009 4
- O 111 at d 1 ate tae tr scriot surro1k co otr 32 tor 2
identification.
3 (The document referred to, Suffolk County 32, 4
follovss) j 5
h j
6
)
7 8
1 g
to 11 12 13 i O 15 i
16 4
17 18 i
19 20 21 22 l
23 24 25 l
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, 0.0.20024 (202) 554 2345
....s,.
/ d '3 - A f Q
[3
' ' " '. *~
SC Ex Tt JUL 2 4 E73
\\,_/
I I
I.
!!EMORKlCU;1 FOR:
H. M. !!arrison, f.ssistant Diract:r for Generc.1 Engineering Standards, Division of Engineering Standards, SD FROM:
Walter P. Haass, Chief, Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Project (*ancgement l
x SUiklECT:
QAB CGiMEtiTS 03 PROPOSED REGULATORY GUIDE 1.XXX (SS-7 l
At the meeting of the Interoffice QA Task Fcrce in my office en June 6,1979, you provided copies of the subject proposed regulatory guide for task force review.
This guide is intended to resolve the dichotomy that his develcped since promulgation of Appendix B to 10 C R 50 regarding th2 applicability of I
I the QA criteria in Appendix B to all the structures, syste.s, and components I
addressed in the GDC of Appendix A.
The QAS has reviewed the guide and offers, the following ccrmnents:
1.
The guide attempts to establish equivalency betueen the definitions of "irportant to safety" (see second sentence of first paragraph of the Introduction to /ppendix A) and " safety-related" (see third, fourth, and fifth sentences of the first paragraph of the Introduction to Appcodix B) as applied to structures, systems, and ccaponents of in-terest to NRC that are included in nuclear power plants.
While it may not have been the intent of the writers of these regulations to establish a difference in the meanir.g of there terms, users of these regulations, namely fiRR reviewers and industry personnel, have per-ceived a difference and have based many decisions regarding the need and extent of QA requirements for specific items in a nuclear power plant on this difference.
One major result of this perception is the establistment of a list of specific SSC's (i.e., the (-list) to which the provisions of Appendix B are cpplicable.
At this point in time, we find it extremely difficult to see hcw !!P.C, through the techanism of a regulatory guide with its inherently Ic.ler statur2, can obviate thsse perceived differences in definitions without a corresponding change in the regulaticns.
The proposed regulatory guide does not I
merely provide guidance on how to implement the regulations, which is (V
its normal functica, but rather attempts to modify the meaning of the 3
l l
regulations to be different than they have been perceived to be for several years.
i t
t
..........................l.......................
I i
. ~.. -
4 T
m.*
w
?-
U. 1;. Ilarrison f^3 the Apocndb. A/.".; pendix B problem in the The 4procch proposed Or r:sciv n:
V 2.
subject regulatory cuide is viewed by the QAB to be excessively simplistic
~
and, consequently, of little usc to QAC reviewers and, we think also, to IE In disces:"s r2 5:ve had with QA representatives of utilities, inspectors.
i A-E firms, and recctor t ::.. rs on t! is subject, it is cur understanding that presently very little OA is imposed on items derived from Appendix A but not on the Q-list.
Their responses to our questions on how much QA is applied generally are like, "We don' t kncu," "Very little," or " Commercial practice" Lalthough the staff would generally agree that, at a minimum, the require-ments of GCC #1 (Appendix A) are applicable]. As an example, v. hen we asked a foraal question on the QA requiranents imposed on the Offsite Power System (i.e., the electrical switchyard located onsite but outside plant buildings) on a particular project, we were far from satisfied with the formal response.
Therefore. QAB is concerned that, absent more specific guidance on the QA requirements for non-0-list items, utilities could, under the proposed regulatory guide, simply add the new items to the Q-list and justify no further QA requirements by citing cpplication of the graded approach (see Conversely, some lines 117 and 118 of the proposed regulatory guide).
utilities would escalate the QA requirements to the point where all Appendix B requirements would be imo: sed (as you state in lines 45 through 47 of the What we really believe to be necessary is a QA program with A
subjectguide).
i_)
requirements somewhere betucen these extremes and we believe the quickest and surest way to achieve this is by establishing clear guidance that defines Othentise, the utilities and their the level of QA requirements necessary.
contractors would establish a wide range of QA requirenents for a specific itta that only after years of jawboning in meetings, discussions, and inspec-tions would converge to the level we believe is appropriate.
The proposed regulatory guide gives no guidance regarding the determination 3.
We have no specific of what additional SSC's should be included on the Q-list.
suggestions to offer at this time, but we believe a set of criteria defining "the SSC's that provide reasonable assurance that the facility can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public" needs to be developed and included in the guide.
The general, non:pecific nature of the wording in
- Further, the GDC's of Appendix A establishes a clear need for such guidance.
the items to be added to the Q-list are not always simply SSC's; we strongly believe that pertinent design data (e.g., " ology" measurements derived during site investigations), consumables, and other such items should be included.
This is recognized to some extent in lines ill through 115 of the proposed cuide.
( )
~
Ne believe the criteria for determining those "SSC's that prevent or mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents that cculd cause undue risk to the j
health and safety of the public" are fairly nell in hand (Regulatory Guide 1.29), although seme m:y discarce.
The criteria presented in proposed Regulat:ry Guido 1./.YZ are more definitive, aowever.
t
- = * -
l e n==
- i i
un t-,.................;.................................:............
. (,
y.-
~.
- !. :.. ::r;h..,.
i
- .r.r >u;ticas that come to uind and appear to require investigation when i-i.
" safety-rel cud" and "important to safety" are equated are:
Is the scope of the reporting of defects and nonccmpliances under a.
Part El affected?
j i
Is the scope of the deficiencies reporting rule under 10 CFR 50.55(e) b.
l l
affected?
l Are the SRP, standcrd format guide, and other regulatory guides affected?
i c.
Other comments of a more minor nature have not been identified in this memo.
t' 5.
They uill be providad when the issues we consider to be more significant, as. described above, are resolved.
Alterr. ate Accroach In lieu cf the approach to resolving the Appendix A/ Appendix B problem presented l
in the subject regulatory guide, we recorr.end that an alternate approach be can-sidered that retains the existing definitions for "important to safety" and " safety-l' O rei tee" e"e provides a cieer deftaitioa or the o^ re9uire> eats we 8eiseve ere 4
The i
cppropriate for non-Q-listed Appendix A SSC's to be added to the program.
i latter definition would serve as a QA programatic " umbrella" for the Appendix A SSC's from which the requirements for a specific SSC could depart, as appropriate, i
l
'i using the graded approach in a manner analogous to the current use of the Appendix I
This approach would provide a more defini-B " umbrella" for safety-related SSC's.
tive target for utilities in establishing QA requirements for these kinds of SSC's l
l cnd would also assist our IE inspectors in determining whether NRC requirements l
ecre being specified and met.
The new SSC's fraa Appendix A could be included j
l uithin the Appendix B program but subject to the QA programatic requirements i
j defined by the new "umbmila."
I In the past year or so QAB has developed considerable background and experience i
I in developing graded QA programs for various activities and items for which HRC Primary examples are QA for radioactive material transportation is 'respor.sible.
In each of these containers (for !!!3S) and QA for research programs (for PES).
cases, we nave utilized the acceptance criteria given in SRP Sections 17.1 and i
d characteristics of c 17.2 as a starting point and, based on the object ves an the activity / item under consideration, made judgment decisions mgarding the l
- ,r We believe a similar i
need for each acceptance criterion in the QA program.
!O approach couid be avaiied to deveioning a cA umoreita program for "important i
to safety" SSC's and, with the agreement of the Interoffice QA Task Force and This QA i
other H3R management, are prepared to undertake such a develppment.
"u brella" or checklist cculd be part of a ne.t regulatory guide that would The new guide would also include criteria for i
2rovide guidance to indu:try.th2 SSC's th t should be subject to the requirecents of the ch
'"
- T.i li ~'
list c: noted in cccr.ent 3 above.
[
f
" " * " " * * ~ * * * " "
~me"....
...................".m U*'N
- I
..............- ~ ~ ~
. - ~ ~ " -.. ~....
j m asue >
~ " ~ ~ ~ " " " " " * "
- " " " " * ~ " " " " "
~
~
-. am
.w p
l
.. e s
O
!.'. !!. :orrison O V
!!e are available for additional discussion on our com.cnts. 1-!c suggest an early l
eeting of the Interoffice QA Task Force for this purpose.
i-1 i
i; I
l
=
8 I
Originst signed by i
8 WaFat P. Hasss 3
Walter P. llaass, Chief i
l Quality Assurance Branch i-Division of Project Managemnt-l' l
cc:
D. Skovholt J. Heltemes I
lI. Reinmuth H..Perani ch b) i S. Richardson
!s J. Gilray i
!!. Belke l
J. Conway F. Liederbach J. Spraul l
l l
l 1 I.
DISTRI8tITI0t(:
Central File QAB Projects l l MihB Chron. File J
NRR Reading File l
WHaass,QAB
- '.Oc l
h i.
.,.. E...l AB DIyQ@
.....$......../.
....'.b5..d....s.,...,.......
.J...G..i..l..r.'a..y..:. g. t.....
n m.,
,n
..../.././.../. 7 9......
..... 7/.E.3/ 79 i
7
.,, 3
- - - ~
mm mo cm
o.
7010 1
JUDGE BRENNER And in addition, even though 2
the entire FSAR has been r.arked as an exhibit in 3
e vidence, f or convenience we will bind in the two pages O
4 that have been used so f ar in cross-examination today.
5 And those are pages 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 of the FSAR.
6 There is no indication of a date on either, 7
nor revision on either of those two pages.
So we will 8
bind them at this poin t.
9 (The document referred to, pages 3.1-1 and l
10 3.1-2 of the FSAR, follows4) 11 12 13 lO 15 l
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
-:M-m -
.x SNPS-1 FST.R CHAPTER 3 DESIGN OF STRUCTURES, COMPONENTS, EQUIPMENT, AND SYSTEMS 3.1 CONFORMANCE 'IO NRC GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA O'N O
3.1.1 Summary Description This section contains an evaluation of the design bases of Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 as measured against the NRC General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, Appendix A of 10CFR50 effective May 21, 1971, and subsequently amended July 7, 1971.
The General Design Criteria which are divided into six groups and total 55 in number are intended to establish minimum requirements for the design of nuclear power plants.
It should be noted that the General Design Criteria were not written specifically for the boiling water reactor (BWR) ; rather, they were intended to guide the design of all water-cooled nuclear power plants.
As a result, the criteria are generic in nature and subject to a variety of interpretations.
For this reason, there are some cases where conformance to a
particular cr;terion is not directly measurable.
In these cases, the Conformance of plant design to the interpretation of the criterion is discussed.
For each of the 55 criteria, a specific assessment of the plant design is made and references are included to identif y where detailed design information pertinent f~.,
(
to each criterion is treated in.the FSAR.
m Based on the content
- herein, Long Island Lighting Company concludes that the nuclear power plant known as Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 fully satisfies and is in compliance with the General Design Criteria.
3.1.2 Criterion Conformance 3.1.2.1 Quality Standards and Records (Criterion 1)
Criterion Structures, systems, and components important to safety shall be designed, fabricated, erected, and tested to quality standards commensurate with the importance of the safety functions to be performed.
Where generally recognized codes and standards are us ed,
they shall be identified and evaluated to determine their applicability,
- adequacy, and sufficiency and shall be supplemented or modified as necessary to assure a quality product
,q in keeping with the required safety function.
A quality
( )
assurance program shall be established and implemented in order to provide adequate assurance that these structures, systems, and components will satisfactorily perf orm their saf ety f unctions.
Appropriate records of the
- design, fabrication,
- erection, and testing of s tru ctures,
- systems, and components important to 3.1-1
I SNPS-1 FSAR chfety shall be maintained by or under the control of the nuclear power unit licensee throughout the life of the unit.
D3 sign Conformance
^/3
(") Structures,
- systems, and components important to safety are listed in Table 3.2.1-1.
The total quality assurance (QA) program is described in Chapter 17 and is applied to the items contained in this table.
The QA program assures that all phases of design and construction conform to regulatory requirements and dasign bases described in the license application.
In
- addition, the program assures adherence to specified standards of workmanship and implementation of recognized codes and standards in f abrication and construction.
It also includes the observance of proper preoperational and operational testing and maintenance procedures as well as the documentation of the foregoing cctivities by keeping appropriate records.
The total QA program of Long Island Lighting and it principal contractors satisfies the requirements of 10CFR50, Appendix B.
Stru ctures,
- systems, and components are first classified in Chapter 3 with respect to their location and service and their relationship to the safety function to be performed.
Recognized codes and standards are applied to the equipment in these classif ications as necessary to assure a
quality product in In cases where codes
[)keepingwiththerequiredsafetyfunction.
are not available or the existing code must be modified, an explanation is provided in the application section.
Documents are maintained which demonstrate that the requirements of the QA program are being satisfied.
This documentation shows that appropriate
- codes, standards, and regulatory requirements are observed, specified materials are
- used, correct procedures cre
- utilized, qualified personnel are provided, and that the finished parts and components meet the applicable specifications.
These records are available so that any desired items of information are retrievable for reference.
These records will be maintained during the life of the operating licenses.
The detailed QA program developed by Long Island Lighting contractors satisfies the requirements of Criterion 1.
3.1.2.2 Design Basis for Protection Aaainst Natural Phenomena (Criterion 2)
Criterion (m) Structures,
systems, and components important to safety shall be
~' designed to withstand the ef f ects of natural phenomena such as earthqu akes,
tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, tsunami, and seiches without loss of capability to perform their safety functions.
The design bases f or these structures, systems, and components shall reflect:
(1) appropriate consideration of the most severe of the natural phenomena that have been historically reported for 3.1-2
7011
()
1 JUDGE BRENNER:
We will stay on the record, I 2
guess, just briefly for Mr. Earley.
3 Did you have anything else, Mr. Lanpher, 4
pertinent to 7(b)?
5 MR. LANPHER:
No, sir.
,6 JUDGE BRENNER:
Mr. Earley?
i I
7 HR. EARLEY:
Judge Brenner, we have considered 8
the c~omments that were made earlier in the day regarding 9
LILCO's motion to strike on Suffolk County 3 and SOC 8, 10 and your comments on the weight of the evidence and the 11 Board 's intention.
12 And although we think that our motion has some 13 legal merit, we do not think it would serve any purpose 14 to argue the motion tomorrow.
So we would withdraw it.
I 15 JUDGE BRENNER:
All right.
I want to l
l 16 indicate, although it is probably not necessary, since i
17 you are withdrawing, that none of my comments went to 18 the merit of your legal argument as to whether the 19 portions which you sought to move to strike were within 20 or outside that particular Contention as worded.
l 21 We do not have to rule on it, but let me say 22 that there was certainly a substantial argument in favor 23 of that proposition.
And the problem you had was the (s_h
/
24 involvement of the same subject with the other 25 Contentions.
O 1
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7012
()
1 MR. EARLEY:
We understand the discussion and 2
decided to withdraw it.
3 JUDGE BRENNER:
I wanted to make that s/
4 statement because I did not wa n t there to be any 5
implication that we considered it a frivelous motion.
6 We did not.
It was the matter of the interconnection 7
with the Contention, other Contentions, that raised the 8
problem.
9 Judge Morris suggests I repeat the numbers.
10 We are talking about the withdrawal of only one of the 11 motions to strike, and that is the one covering the 12 subject of detection of inadequate core cooling, which 13 is Suffolk County Contention 3 and SOC Contention 8, 14 tha t pair of Contentions.
15 MR. EARLEYa That is correct.
And that leaves 16 standing motions to strike on Suffolk County 27, SOC 3, 17 and Suffolk County Contention 21, that we have set for 18 argument, I guess, tomorrow.
I 19 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Brenner, with respect to 20 argument tomorrow, I would just like to express my 21 personal preference for having argement on Tuesday, i
22 frankly, just for personal preparation time.
Obviously, 23 to argue it will take some preparation, notwithstanding
()
24 that we have put together a written response.
And I I
25 would rathar devote my attention to trying to complete ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7013
()
1 sy examination as quickly as possible.
2 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, I tell you, we would 3
prefer to do it tomorrow fairly strongly.
And the 4
reason is we want to get it behind us.
As you pile 5
these things up, it gets very difficult.
We are going 6
to have a busy day next Tuesday, and, in fact, a fairly 7
busy week.
8 There is substantial material affected by one 9
of the motions, in particular.
And depending on our 10 ruling, it could sffect the preparation, which might 11 suddenly have to be accelerated next week, depending 12 upon the resolution of the other issues.
13 Now, if you tell me that it would really O2 14 greatly affect your ability to do the substantive 15 arguments, I will consider it.
16 MR. LANPHER:
Well, Judge Brenner, if you are 17 going to have argument, I am going to prepare, l
18 obviously.
19 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, we are going to start at
/
20 9:00 and not 8:30, partly for the reason of our being 21 able to prepare ourselves for the motion to strike.
And 22 I say that in the event tha t that might help you by some 23 little bit.
And we are also adjourning at an early hour
()
24 today.
And it was our hope that the combination of 25 those two things would help everybody also.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASilNGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7014
()
1 MR. LANPHERs Certainly, they will help.
A 2
personal preferenre.
But if you feel strongly, we will 3
be ready to argue.
I am not sure how much work will be 4
done over the weekend.
Let us say that whether you 5
strike or not on either of them, I do not know whether 6
the attentions devoted to those two Contentions between 7
now and Tuesday afternoon is going to be material.
8 I know there is a big filing that is due 9
Tuesday that some of us are going to be involved in for 10 sure.
11 JUDGE BRENNER:
Well, here is one other 12 problem.
Although we try to rule promptly on these 13 motions to strike, there is a possibility that af ter O
14 hearing the arguments, we may need time to deliberate on 15 them, and we would want to be able to do that as a Board 16 on Monday so we could promptly give a ruling on 17 Tuesday.
And that is another reason.
18 So let us have the argument tomorrow.
And we 19 will try to give you a quid pro quo some other tine on 20 another one.
21 All right, we will resume at 9:00 o' clock 22 tomorrow morning.
23 (Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m.,
the hearing in the
(
24 above-entitled matter was adjourned, to reconvene at 25 9:00'a.m. on Friday, July 16, 1982.)
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1 i
(
b ITUC. EAR REGUT.ATOE CO!?8.ISSICIT TQ
/-
This is to certify that the attached prcceedings before the BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD j
!(
in the satter of:.
Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear-Power station)
/
- Date o f Proceeding :,
July 15, _1992
~
~
i Decket 'llu:::ber:
50-322 ou s.
,PlaaechProceeding:
Riverhead, New York
.ab.s~Ls the original transcri-t were held as herein appears, and that thereof for the file of the Cc==1ssior:.
b~
p-4 s
/
I 9
e
_,_{ Ray Reer-
)< C ficial Eepcrtar (k*yped)
A f
w w
4 W
n,L z.
< no
',0fficiaM eportez- (Signature) s 4
9 y
e 1
4
- a
/
~
w o-1 J
Y
>