ML20055B060
| ML20055B060 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8207200306 | |
| Download: ML20055B060 (178) | |
Text
.
NC" E REGULATORY CC E SSICN [] .
)
Q 6 Ll0%
g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Mat: tar of:
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY )
) DOCKET NO. 50-322-OL (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) )
O DATE: Julv 16, 1982 PAGES: 7015 thru 7168 AT: Riverhead, New York
- ) JQ - 0 I Q&0 gra&/vc hm, G W Y 9 REPORT 1XG e .HDERSOX ' 't 400 Vi_visia Ave., 5.W. Washin s on, D. C. 20024 g Talaphc==
- (202) 554-2345 u.:o'c00306 82071a epG ADOCK O S000 X??
PDN kI D
7015 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
/
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEF3RE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD O 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 5 In the Matter'of a 6 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY a Docket No. 50-322-OL 7 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) :
8 -----------------x 9
10 Riverhead County Complex .
11 Legislative Hearing Room 12 Riverhead, New York 11901 13 Friday, July 16, 1982 14 The hearing in the above-entitled matter 15 convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m.
16 BEFORE 17 LAURENCE BRENNER, Chairman Administrative Judge 18 JAMES CARPENTER, Member I8 Administrative Judge 20 PETER A. MORRIS ~, Member 21 Administrative Judge 22 WALTER JORDAN, Assistant to the Board Administrative Judge 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7016 O ^ert^a^" cts.
2 3 On behalf of Applicants -
O 4 ANTHONY F. EARLEY, Esq.
5 T.S. ELLIS III, Esq.
6 W. TAYLOR REVELEY III, Esq.
,7 Hunton E Williams 8 707 East Main Street 9 Richmond, Vs. 23212 10 11 On behalf of the Regulatory Staffa 12 EDWIN REIS, Esq.
13 RICHARD RAWSON, Esq.
14 Washington, D.C.
15 16 On behalf of Intervenor Suffolk County:
17 LAWRENCE COE LANPHER, Esq.
18 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, 19 Christopher & Phillips 20 1900 M Street, N.W.
21 Wa shington, D.C. 20036 ,
22 23 i
O 24 25 O .
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (?"$ 554 2345 2
7016A 1 CONTENTS 2 WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS.
3 Themis P. Spels, Walter P. Haass,
- Marvin W. Hodges, 5 C.E. Rossi,
- James H. Conran, Sr., and 6 Robert Kirkwood By Mr. Lanpher-resumed 7055 7
(Afternoon Session P. 7111) g Themis P. Speis, Walter P. Haass -
10 Marvin W. Hodges, C.E. Rossi, 11 James H. Conran, Sr. , and Robert Kirkwood 12 By Mr. Lanpher-resumed 7113 13 14 15 to LILCO's motion to strike portions of Suffolk County's testimony on contention 21 and Suffolk 17 County's response thereto .............................Page 7018
'8 LILCO's motion to strike dated June 29, 1982...........Page 7028 19 20 RECESSES: Morning .Page 7054 21 Noon - Page 7111 22 End - Page 7168 23 V
24 i
25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 I - - - - - - . . - - -
7017 1 P ROCEEDINGS 2 JUDGE BRENNER: Good morning.
3 We are going to be handling the arguments 4 first on LILCO's motion to strike portions of Suffolk 5 County's testimony on bqntention 21, and immediately 6 thereafter the arguments on LILCO's motion to strike 7 portions of Suffolk County's testimony on contention 8 27. I hope the arguments won't take long, but we won't 9 be more thsn just a few minutes, and if the witnesses 10 are comfortable relaxing somewhere else, th ey don ' t. hav e 11 to stay seated at the table. Whatever they desire.
12 Two other matters. Judge Carpenter will not 13 be here this morning when we go into the testimony and 14 we will be proceeding as a quorum of Judge Morris and 15 myself, with Judge Jordan here as our 'echnical .
16 assistant on the regulations. He will be here, as you 17 can see, for the srguments on the motion to strike, and 18 long enough to see if we are going to rule immediately 19 or whether we have to consider them further.
20 With regard to Suffolk County contention 21, 21 which in shorthand has been labeled Mark II containment, 22 the argument comes down to whether or not the testir.ony l 23 which LILCO seeks to strike is pertinent to subpart E of
() 24 the contention. And perhaps it would be convenient if 25 we bound the motion to strike in at this portion of the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, j 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) F 4-2345 1
7018 1 transcript.
2 I guess we could bind the entire response of 3 Suffolk County in at this point. The response covers 4 more than just the one contention we are considering and 5 the portion of the response related to Suffolk County 6 contention 3 is now moot. But we will bind the document 7 in for purposes of having the argument of the County on 8 contentions 21 and 27. So we will hind those two 9 documents in at this point.
to (The documents referred to, LILCO 's motion to 11 strike portions of Suffolk County's testimony on 12 contention 21 and Suffolk County's response thereto, 13 fo11 ova)
O ,4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 .
22 23 24 25 0 .
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
c .
e-i,*
. ~ .
LILCO,'Juna 29, 1982-t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O , Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
, In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PARTS OF THE TESTIMONY OF DALE G. BRIDENBAUGH ON SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 21 --MARK II On May 25, 1982, Suffolk County filed testimony on its Contention 21. SC 21 reads in pertinent part:
() LILCO and the NRC Staff have not adequately demonstrated that Shoreham's primary'contain-ment, reactor pressure vessel supporting structure and attached and associated safety-related equipment meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, GDC 4, 16, 50, 51 and 52.
The specific concerns are as follows:
(a) Forces generated during the suppression pool LOCA dynamics have not been completely and adequately determined and taken into account. Of the numerous Mark II Containment loads assessed on a generic and on a plant unique basis under the Mark II reassessment program underway for the past six years, several LOCA forces have not yet been shown to have been suitably handled in the design of the structures, systems and components important to plant safety.
Included in this category are the forces due to Steam Condensation Downcomer Lateral
() Loads. (Loads I.B.I.a & b in Table 6-1, NUREG-0420, Supp. No. 1), Steam Condensation Oscillation Loads (Loads I.B.2.a in Table a
~
- 6-1, NUREG 0420, Supp. No. 1), and Steam Condensation Chugging Loads (Loads I.B.2.c in Table 6-1, NUREG-0420, Supp. No. 1).
p . . . .
'%)
(d) Adequacy of the design to insure, with suf-ficient margin, that the primary containment and associated safety-related structure can accommodate the simultaneously applied loads of transient and LOCA events has not been demonstrated.
The other provisions of Contention 21 are not germane to this motion, since Suffolk Ccunty's reply to a series of LILCO interrogatories has revealed that the County no longer wishes to raise questions regarding provision (b), and provisions (c) and (e) relate to leakage rate testing and quality assurance, r.
respectively.
C]
~J .
Mr. Bridenbaugh's testimony on SC 21 states on page (i) that:
LILCO, being in a quasi-lead plant position, has selected a combination of acceptance criteria for the Shoreham evaluation. Has this complex design and evaluation program introduced weaknesses into the Shoreham design and/or review process?
This concern is repeated in point (b) on page 5, and is included in paragraph 12(b) on page 13 and paragraphs 10 [ sic]
(b) and (d) on pages 13-14. In addition, the concern is detai-led in Section III.C. which appears on pages 9-11 of Mr.
Bridenbaugh's testimony. For the reasons stated below, this testimony is unrelated to the contention. Under NRC's rules of e
, practice, testimony must be relevant to issues in contention, 10 CFR $ 2.743(c), and irrelevant testimony is the proper sub-ject of a motion to strike. Accordingly, LILCO moves to strike O the aforementioned portions of Mr. Bridenbaugh's testimony on SC 21.
Sections (a) and (d) of SC Contention 21 are quite explicit about the issues they raise. Section (a) questions whether the suppression pool hydrodynamic loads created by a LOCA have been completely and adequately determined. The sec-tion specifically refers to several loads which have been the subject of extensive investigation over the past six years.
Section (d) questions whether hydrodynamic loads associated s with a LOCA have been adequately reflected in the design of the
() primary containment and associated safety,related structures.
The testimony in question addresses neither of these issues. Rather, Mr. Bridenbaugh recites that "[A] total of 35 criteria positions are stated in [DAR) Appendix A, some of which are based on the lead plant program (NUREG-0487), some of which are based on the long term program and some of which are unique to Shoreham." He does not link this concern with I Contention 21(a) by suggesting that any of these criteria have
! been incompletely defined, or with Contention 21(d), by arguing that they were not properly employed to assess the design of the primary containment structure. Mr. Bridenbaugh merely makes the point that the various sources of load definitions
4-
_ may have affected the quality of the review. Had the County wished to raise this issue, it could easily have done so in SC 21. It did not. Thus, section III.C. on page 9-11 along O with cprresponding material of pages i, 5, 13 and 14 should be struck.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY la $w Taylo I K~
e idI ey, III '
. l Lee B. Zeugin Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535
- , Richmond, VA 23212 h Dated
- June 29, 1982 i
I O
~~
[ _ (p W f
.r . ,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket-No. 50-322 0.L.
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) ~)
)
SUFFOLK. COUNTY RESPONSE TO LILCO MOTIONS TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF TESTIMONY ON SC CONTENTIONS 3, 21, and 27 4
In accordance with this Board's oral' request, Suffolk County sets forth on separate pages its position with respect
() to LILCO's motions to strike portions of the Suffolk County testimony on SC Contentions 3, 21 and 27. The following responses will be supplemented during oral presentation on July 16, 1982, if requested by the Board.
4 O O
e SC CONTENTION 3 -
LILCO moves to strike those portions of pages 13 and 14 of the County testimony which deal with GDC 24 and 35. The basis
(}
for LILCO's position is that the Contention does not explicitly allege violations of~these GDC and that this testimony thus
" materially" expands the issues without notice to other parties.
Suffolk County opposes the motion.
- 1. The citation of additional regulations which may be violated does not " materially" expand the Contention. The same facts which demonstrate the inadequacy of the present instrumentation and which allegedly constitute violations of GDC 13 and 10 C.F.R. S 50.55a(h) are alleged to constitute the violation of GDC 24 and 35. Thus there is no expansion of the O basic subject matter presented. 'Rather, as we presume the Board would desire, the witnesses have brought to the Board's attention their professional opinion that still additional regulations may not be satisfied by LILCO's' water level system.
- 2. The citation of GDC 24 can hardly constitute a material expansion of the Contention since the Michelson Memorandum (SC Ex. 1) is already in evidence and itself makes the point that GDC 24 may be violated. This exhibit (which directly re-lates to water level indicators) was provided to the parties during the first week of testimony in early May, 1982. The fact that LILCO witnesses do not cite it in their SC 3 testimony makes the subject matter no less relevant to this issue. Certainly,
~
no surprise can reasonably be claimed.
- 3. As LILCO notes in~its motion, the Board itself has expressed in its questioning concern for the adequacy of'the LILCO water' level system, particularly as relates to SC Ex. 1 and the possible violation of GDC 24. The Board has- indicated
'{}
that it intends to pursue this exaraination when SC Contention 3 is heard. LILCO seems to argue, however, that only oral testi-mony in response to that concern is proper. Thus, LILCO would strike the County's written testimony but presumably would not
~
object to Board questions' covering the same basis subject matter. The County submits that it is far more beneficial to have the-testimony prefiled as_the' County has done herein.
O O
i 1
l l
' ' ~
SC CONTENTION 21 s LILCO has moved to strike the following portions of
- /
Mr. Bridenbaugh's testimony concerning SC Contention 2 :
gss --
Point (b) of paragraph 5 on page 5 Section III.C. (paragraph 10 on pages 9-11)
Point (b) of paragraph 12 on page 13 Points (b) and (d) of paragraph "10" (a typo- i graphical error which should read "13"), on pages 13-14 The stated basis for LILCO's moticn is that the referenced testimony is irrelevant because it does not address issues raised in subparts (a) or (d) of SC Contention 21. Suffolk County opposes the motion.
The testimony which LILCO seeks to strike clearly is relevant to SC Contention 21. In the referenced portions of
( )i
\- '
his testimony Mr. Bridenbaugh directly addrerses,the adequacy and quality of the containment design review performed at Shoreham. Whether or not the testimony at issue is directly related to subparts (a) or (d) of the Contention Us of no consequence. The testimony is unquestionably pertinent to subpart (e) of SC Co ntention 21.
The County does not understand LILCO's assertion, at page~ ,
2 of its motion, that subpart (e) of SC Contention 21 is "not germane" to its motion because that subpart relates to " quality fs assurance." Regardless of LILCO's characterization'of the s ,
~*/ LILCO's motion also makes reference to a portion of Mr. Briden-baugh's summary outline of his testimony. (See LILCO's Motion at pp. 2 and 4, where reference is made to page (i) of Mr. Bridenbaugh's testimony.) Since, as the Board has ruled, a witness' summary does not rise to the level of testimony, LILCO's motion to strike portions of the summary is inappro-priate.
_4_
focus of subpart (e), the fact remains that the concerns expressed in that subpart have been admitted by this Board as part of the Contention to be litigated in this proceeding.
It is apparent that the testimony which LILCO seeks to. strike,
(}
s which discusses acceptance criteria, design review, and the quality of Shoreham's design verification, is relevant testimony to support the concerns expressed in subpart (e) of SC Contention 21.
The only apparent basis for LILCO's motion is its wholly
?>
unjustified exclusion of the concerns expressed in subpart (e) from its definition of " relevance" for purposes of its motion.
Any fair reading of SC Contention 21 in its entirety reveals the relevance of the testimony at issue. Suffolk County submits that the motion to strike should be denied.
-s t
6 1 4 N
~
SC CONTENTION 27 LILCO has moved to strike portions of the Suffolk County testimony on Contention 27. The basis for the motion is that j the Contention is limited to 11 specific deficiencies with respect to Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2, and accordingly, any discussion of issues beyond those 11 specified items is not relevant to the Contention. Suffolk County opposes the motion.
LILCO's view of the scope of Contention 27 is unduly limited.
The overall thrust of the Contention is that there has been no demonstration by LILCO that it will comply with Regulatory Guide 1.97 vithin the ti=0 frame specified by that Guide. It is relevant in support of the Contention to show the status of 7
- LILCO's overall implementation of the Regulatory Guide. If that
( '!
'~
overall implementation is seriously delayed, then this is evi-dence supporting the testimony that LILCO will not comply with the Regulatory Guide for the 11 items enumerated in the Contention.
By presenting testimony on LILCO's overall compliance with Regulatory. Guide 1.97, the County is not attempting to litigate LILCO's compliance with any items beyond the 11 specified in the Contention. Rather, the County is merely setting forth the status of compliance with that Regulatory Guide (as specified
! by LILCO in its own papers) so that the overall compliance may
,f~"\
kJ be judged. The County submits that this is relevant to Contention
! 27 as stated.
l l
.(.
Even if the Contentionkere not viewed so broa'dly, certain of the materials which LILCO seeks to have stricken should not be deleted as requested by LILCO. For example, LILCO seeks to have portions of answer 10, pages 13 and 14, deleted because
/ they allegedly address overall status of LILCO's compliance wi th Regulatory Guide 1.97, rather than the status of the 11 items which are (in LILCO's view) the sole subject of the Con-tention. However, this discussion does deal also with these 11 items. For example, of the 12 issues waiting for the BWR Owners' Group resolution, five from the specified list in this Contention are in that category. Accordingly, this discussion is relevant to the Contention even as narrowly construed by LILCO.
Finally, LILCO objects to the answer to question 15 where reference is made to Shoreham's emergency planning. The County
,- does not believe that this is outside the scope of the Contention Lj or that it raises emergency planning issues. The Regulatory Guide i tems do pertain to emergency planning and thus to the overall licensing of the shoreham plant. This does not add additional facts in controversy but brings to the Board and other parties' attention that these matters may not bc viewed solely in isolation, but rather that these items have importance beyond the narrow focus that LILCO would suggest.
l
\ ,,
V i
I Respectfully submitted DAVID J. GILMARTIN Suffolk County Attorney PATRICIA A. DEMPSEY .
{V g
Assistant Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
/ .i b _
c7k ~
Herbert H. Br4wW Lawrence Coe'Lanpher Karla J. Letsche KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 452-7000 Attorneys for Suffolk County O
O 9
-g-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- NUCLEAP REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
g' LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) .
) Docket No. 50-322 (0.L.)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this of July, 1982, c'opies of Suffolk County Response to LILCO Motions to Strike Portions of Testimony on SC Contention 3, 21 and 27 were mailed, first class, postage prepaid to the parties listed below and hand-delivered to those indicated by an asterisk:
Lawrence Brenner, Esq.* Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Administrative Judge Cammer and Shapiro Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 9 East 40th Street O U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, New York 10016 Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Dr. James L. Carpenter
- 217 Newbridge Road Administrative Judge Hicksville, New York 11801 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.*
Washington, D.C. 20555 Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main St.
Mr. Peter A. Morris
- Richmond, Virginia 23212 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Washington, D.C. 20555 New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Edward M. Barrett, Esq. Empire State Plaza General Counsel Albany, New York 12223 Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501
()
v Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Mr. Brian McCaffrey Attorneys at Law Long Island Lighting Company P.O. Box 398 175 East-Old Country Foad 33 West Second Street Hicksville, New Yelk 11601 Riverhead, New York 11901
' Marc W. Goldsmith Mr. Jeff Smith Energy Research Group, Inc. Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 400-1 Totten Pond Road P.O. Box 618 Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 North Country Road Wading River, New York 11792 Joel Blau, Esq. MHB Technical Associates New lork Public Service Commission 1723 Hamilton Avenue gk The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Suite K -
Building San Jose, California 95125 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Hon. Peter Cohalan Suffolk County Executive David H. Gilmartin, Esq. County Executive / Legislative Suffolk County Attorney Building County Executive / Legislative Bldg. Veterans Memorial Highway Veterans Memorial Highway Haurnauge, New York 11788 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State Department of Washington, D.C. 20555 Law 2 World Trade Center Docketing and Service Section New York, New York 10047 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
() Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.*
David A. Repka, Esq.
Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.
Staff Counsel, New York Stuart Diamond State Public Service Comm.
Environment / Energy Writer 3 Rockefeller Plaza NEWSDAY Albany, New York 12223 Long Island, New York 11747 Cherif Sedky, Esq.
Kirkpatrick,.Lockhart, Johnson & Hutchison 1500 Oliver Building Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 L -e_4 '
L8 /'-
, Karla J. Le t s'c h e O- fy{ KIRKPATRICKj / LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS DATE: July /}/l_{,1982 1900 M Street, N.W., 8th Flobr Washington, D.C. 20036
- - = - _ _ - - _ - ._ - . . _ - _-_ . - - - -
7019
() 1 JUDGE BRENNER: LILCO in its motion argued 2 thst the tastimony, portions of the testimony which it 3 seeks to strike, are not pertinent to the issues raised 4 in subparts A or D. Believing that those were the only 5 parts that could be pertinent to the motion, it 6 dismisses the other parts of, or other subparts of, the 7 contention for various reasons.
8 The County in response asserts that the 9 testimony is unquestionably partinant to subpart E of 10 contention 21. Without much argument, and we will 11 entertain that argument now, as to why the County 12 believes it is pertinent to subpart E. And it appears 13 to the Board that the dispute comes down to the 14 followings 15 Subpart E deais with the experimental testing, 16 design verification program. The portions of the 17 testimony which LILCO seeks to strike arguably, at least 18 by its label in the testimony, deals with the Shoreham 19 acceptance criteria. And the point is made that there 20 is a concern that the review say not be accurate and 21 thorough of the meeting of the acceptance criteria, 22 because it is complicated to see what the acceptance 23 criteria is, since in the view of the witness it is in 24 various and sundry places, as set forth in the l
25 testimony.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7020 1 So we need to know why in the County's view
(]) I 2 the acceptsnce criteria problem comes within the design 3 verification test program required by Appendix B, which 4 is the asserted subject in subpart E of the contention.
5 MR. LANPHER: Judge Brenner,'I think a short j 6 answer is to direct the Board's attention to the last 7 sentence of subpart E of the contention, which for some 8 reason was not cited in our response, and I apologize
{ 9 f or tha t. The last sentence concludes thats 10 "Therefore, lack of assurance that the acceptance 11 criteria used by LILCO in evaluating the Shoreham design 12 contain suitable conservatisms."
13 Our view is that the basic motion goes to part 14 3(c) of Mr. Bridenbaugh's testimony, pages 9 to 11.
15 Tha t is where he introduces the acceptance criteria to issue. And he goes on at part 3(d) to address specific 17 examples. 3(c) in our view is sort of an overview of 18 the issue, while the detailed examples relating to the 19 design verification and QA problems and acceptance 20 criteria set forth more in 3(d).
21 Frankly, I was surprised that they didn 't move 22 to strike 3(d) also, if that was their view. But in 23 short, our position is that subpart E of the contention,
() 24 contention 21, clearly contemplates addressing the 25 adequacy of the acceptance criteria for the Mark II ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7021 1 program, and that that is what this portion of the
(}
2 testimony does address.
3 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, what about this as a 4 possible responce? And I would solicit your comment to 5 it af ter. When you're talking about conservatism of 6 acceptance criteria, you're talking about the gap 7 between what the structure is, the gap between what the 8 loads will actually be and the criteria that the 9 structure has been designed to meet. And the design 10 verification program being conducted is to verify what 11 the loads of these phenomena vill be and take a look'at 12 the behavior, if you will, of the structures under those 13 test conditions.
14 And that of course goes -- is the first, 15 arguably the first part of subpart E, and also goes to 16 the question of whether or not there is adequate 17 conservatism, as asserted in the last sentence of that 18 subpart which you read.
19 However, the other end of the question, that 20 is whether the acceptance criteria are arrived at 21 properly or whether people conducting the analysis know 22 wha t the acceptance criteria are, while it may also 23 affect the conservatism, that is the difference between 24 the two things, is really a different thing, and the
(}
25 test verification program is not going towards arriving O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7022
() I at the acceptance criteria.
2 MR. LANPHER4 Well, the contention also, Judge 3 Brenner -- subpart E again, I guess *it is in the first 4 sentence, raises the issue whether the program is an 5 adequate and properly controlled program. I think that 6 also goes to the testimony in subpart 3(c) where Mr.
7 B ride nb a ug h is concerned about the controls or lack, his 8 perception of the lack of controls.
9 I don't think that his view of the contention 10 is focused only to -- I don 't want to misrepresent what 11 you just said -- the actual, well, is this the right 12 load or whatever his concern in subpart E of the 13 contention, and in this portion of the testimony is that O 14 the program has a lack of control and that that lack of 15 control raises his concern about the conservatism of the 16 entire program and the controls that are imposed on the 17 entire program.
18 JUDGE BRENNER: We would be interested in the 19 response of LILCO at this point, and I would also like l
20 included why, if this is the case in LILCO's view, now
- 21 that the County has focused LILCO on subpart B, why the 22 concern about acceptance criteria is not inclu fed in the 23 design verification experimental test program, which is j
l
() 24 the subject of subpart E.
25 REVELEY: Judge, this County is the product of
}
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 4C~. /lRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7023 I a long process of negotiation and pa rticula riza tion tha t
(])
2 vent over the course of months, if not years. The 3 effort was always to make concrete what the remaining 4 concerns were. Indeed, that effort continued even after 5 the contention was particularized and accepted when, in 6 response to our interrogatories, the County indicated 7 tha t subpart B no longer concerned it.
8 In short, a great effort was made to be clear 9 in this contention as to precisely what it was ye were 10 to litigate, given the massive number of issues that 11 might have been litigated. That is first.
12 Second, our understanding of the last sentence 13 in E is tha t is the last sentence to the entire O' 14 contention and that the meaning of it, the particularity 15 of it, is given by the specifics of the contention 16 preceding it, not that it is the last sentence to E.
17 Third, we don't think E has anything at all to 18 do with the proposition in those portions of the 19 testimony that we are moving to strike that Shoreham is 20 relying on a combination of criteria, that this 21 combination introduces complexity into the review, and 22 that therefore the review may be flawed. That is a 23 relatively straightforward proposition that could have l
() 24 been advanced if the County wanted to advance it. They 25 didn't and so what we have got here is a very l CE)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,IAC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7024
() 1 particularized contention, the product of a long process 2 of discussion and negotiation among the parties.
3 Ihat does not include the notion that because 4 Shoreham uses a combination of criteria, therefore the 5 review may be flawed. Indeed, we though t this was a 6 relatively simple motion to strike, that all you had to 7 do was juxtapose the text of the contentions or the text 8 of the contention with the material that we referenced 9 in Mr. Bridenbaugh's testimony, and the issue would be 10 resolved under s kind of plain meaning rule.
11 We don't think he has anything at all to do 12 with the testimony in question.
13 JUDGE BRENNER: Is it one of the purposes of 14 the design verification test program required by 15 sections Roman III and Roman XI of Appendix B to arrive 18 at the acceptance criteria, or is it the purpose to test 17 the structures, or is it the purpose to test what the 18 loads will be from these phenomena, or some combination 19 of those three things?
20 MR. REVELEY: The short answer is I don't 21 know. But whatever it is, that still in our opinion 22 constitutes a different issue than if you got a variety 23 of criteria, does that fact alone introduce such l
24 complexity as to raise questions as to the nature of the 25 result.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
7025 1 That proposition can be stated
[])
2 straightforwardly in English snd could have been put in 3 these contentions if the County had wanted to raise it.
4 And you will find tha t there is no response to it except 5 implicitly, I suppose, in our testimony because we 6 didn't think that issue existed.
7 I don't think we have to get very complex or 8 Byzantine in figuring this one out. If the Board is 9 interested in the question, we will answer it. But that 10 is a different proposition than whether or not it is in 11 the contention.
12 JgogE BRENNER: All right. Give us a momnt to 13 decide, if we can decide this morning or to see if we 14 need deliberations beyond the discussions the Board has 15 already had on this.
16 (Bosrd conferring.)
17 JUDGE BRENNER: We are going to grant the 18 action to strike. We were disposed tha t wa y prior to 19 hearing the argument and we attempted to solicit further 20 the possible arguments against granting the motion from 21 the County. And nothing we have. heard has changed our 22 view.
23 The question about whether the acceptance 24 criteria are complicated in a variety of sources and
(
25 hard to put together or things of that nature simply O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7026
() 1 does not go to the adequacy of the test program under 2 Appendix B, sections III and XI, as alleged in the 3 contention.Section III deals with things other than
/-
U} 4 the test program, but the portion dealing with a design 5 verification test program talks about including suitable 6 qualification testing and having design control measures 7 apply to the items being tested.
8 Similarly and not surprisingly, section XI, 9 entitled test control, has the broad criteria of what 10 test procedures shall include, and all of this going of 11 course to the validity of the test program being 12 conducted. In addition, although not the primary reason 13 for granting the notion to strike, even if we believe 14 that, whether or not the acceptance criteria were 15 correct had been part of the contention, the portions of 16 the testimony have extremely low probative value towards 17 tha t point, almost none. It is just a very broad 18 assertion without any particulars in the testimony, that 19 you have to go to many documents and the Staff's review 20 has been langthy and complex, and those kind of broad 21 sweeping generalities are of very little probative value 22 in arriving at particulars of whether or not acceptance 23 criteria for Mark II containment loads have been
(} 24 25 properly arrived at.
The particula r portions, then, that will be O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l 1
7027
(} 1 2
stricken are -- I guess out of an abundance of caution LILCO included a portion of the summary outline, and 3 that is not in the testimony anyway. But to the extent 4 they wanted to make sure it would not continue to 5 receive our attention, that portion will not -- that is, 6 the portion of page I, the second bullet beginning with 7 "LILCO being in a quasi-lead plant position" and ending 8 with the word " process," those five lines are stricken.
9 Page 5, paragraph (b) is stricken. Section 10 3(c), entitled "Shoreham Acceptance Criteria" of the c 11 testimony, which section begins midway on page 9 and 12 runs through the entire page 10 and continues until 13 midway on page 11, is stricken.
I 14 On page 13, paragraph 12(b) is stricken. The 15 last pa ragra ph (b) on the page, which should be 16 paragraph 13(b), is stricken. Page 14, paragraph (d) is 17 stricken.
18 Incidentally, I should point out that we went 19 through each of these to assure ourselves that striking 20 all of these portions would be consistent with the 21 ruling of striking the basic portion on 9 to 11. And we 22 agreed that it is.
23 We should add our observation that if there 24 was any doubt as to whether arriving at the right
(
25 acceptance criteria was somehow tied to the design l
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i l
7028 O verir1= t1>a or=or reautrea av the =1 tea portioa= or 2 Appendix B, that could have been clearly stated and is 3 not even unclearly stated in the ' contention. And we V
4 believe, as argued by LILCO, that we cannot read the 5 last sentence in the abstract and in a vacuum. It 6 serely is the conclusion of the rest of that subpart and 7 aust be defined by the parameters of that subpart or 8 else there would be little point in attempting to arrive 9 at contentions th a t are reasonably specific.
10 All right. We will turn now to LILCO's motion 11 to strike portions of the County's testimony on Suffolk 12 County contention 27, which deals with Reg Guide 1.97 13 and post-accident monitoring. And I think it would be O 14 good to bind in LILCO's action to strike da ted June 29, 15 198 2, at this point in the transcript.
16 (The document referred to, LILCO's motion to 17 strike dated June 29, 1982, followss) 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
9 [
,p* - i() LILCO, Juna 29, 1982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,)
Unit 1) )
LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE TESTIMONY OF RICHARD B. HUBBARD AND GREGORY C. MINOR ON SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 27 AND SOC CONTENTION 3
'h C# I.
On May 25, 1982, Suffolk County filed testimony on Suffolk County Contentien 27 and SOC Contention 3. The contentions are identical. SC 27 reads as follows:
The recent Revision 2 of Reg. Guide 1.97,
" Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant Environs Conditions During and Following an Accident" details needed devices and qualifications of instruments. Shoreham is deficient in the following areas:
(a) Radiation Exposure Rate Monitoring (Item 18, Table 1; Items 20 and 41, Table 2);*
I j
~
(b) Radioactivity Concentration or Radiation Level in Circulating Primary Coolant (Item 11, Table 1; Item 14, Table 2);
(c) Continuous On-Line Monitoring of Halogen in Effluent (Item 39, Table 1: Item 43,
Table 2);
(d) Secondary Containment Area Radiation Monitor (Item 36, Table 1; Item 17,
/l Table 2);
(e) Reactor Coolant System Soluble Boron Concentration (Item 3, Table 1; Item 4, Table 2);
(f) Analysis of Primary Coolant (Gamma Spectrum) (Item 12, Table 1; Item 15, Table 2);
(g) Drywell Spray Flow and Suppression Chamber Spray Flow (Items 21 and 24, Table 1; Items 23 and 23A, Table 2);
(h) Standby Liquid Control System Flow (Item 28, Table 1; Item 37, Table 2);
(i) Plant and Environment Radiation Monitoring (Item 40, Table 1; Item 45, Table 2);
A
- '; (j) Post-Accident Sampling Capability
(' _ (Item 42, Table 1; Item 47, Table 2); and (k) BWR Core Thermocouples (Item 5, Table 1,;
Item 13, Table 2).
- The item and table numbers used in this contention refer to the information provided in the Affidavit of Brian R. McCaffrey submitted in support of LILCO's - " -
Motion for Summary Disposition of SCC Contention 3, dated July 13, 1981.
As will be explained below, much of the Suffolk County testimony on SC 27/ SOC 3 is unrelated to the issues raised in them. Under the NRC's rules of practice, testimony must be relevant to issues in contention. 10 CFR 5 2.742(c). And ir-relevant testimony is the proper subject of a motion to strike.
( .
'> See 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix A, V(d)(7). Accordingly, LILCO moves to strike the parts of Messrs. Hubbard's and Minor's
~
! testimony specified below.
l
II.
SC Contention 27/ SOC Contention 3 deals with LILCO's compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2,
/4f
" Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant Environs Conditions During and Following an Accident." In particular the contention alleges that Shoreham is deficient in 11 specified areas.1/ Suffolk County has failed to limit its testimony to those 11 specified areas.
The wording of this contention has a long history in this proceeding. It was first admitted as SOC Contention 3 by the Board in an order dated March 5, 1981, as follows:
The recent Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.97, t " Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power
( .
Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions During L/ and Following an Accident" details the needed devices and qualifications of instruments, many of which are not presently a part of the Shoreham design.
In an effort to resolve or narrow SCC 3, LILCO filed a motion for summary disposition on July 13, 1981. Subsequent to the filing of this motion, SOC, LILCO and the NRC Staff conducted informal discovery and discussions on SOC 3 leading to a joint request on August 6, 1981, asking that the time allowed for SOC's response to LILCO's motion be extended. The Board approved the request on August 10. Negotiations on this I
) 1/ Only 10 of the areas now remain. SC 27(c)/ SOC 3(c) have been withdrawn by the County and SOC pursuant to a " Resolution of SC Contention 28(a)(iii)/ SOC Contention 7A(3) and SC Contention 27(c)/ SOC Contention 3(c)," dated June 11, 1982.
4 and other SOC contentions continued throughout the fall of 1981 and culminated in a " Motion for Acceptance of a
"'r i\ Stipulation Regarding SOC Contentions 3, 6(a)(i), 7(a)(ii), 8, 9, 12 (Part 3), 15, 16, 17 and 19" dated December 2, 1981. The stipulation contained the current wording of SOC 3. When Suffolk County filed its final list of contentions on February 15, 1982, it included SC 27 which was identical to SOC 3.
Thus, significant effort has gone into narrowing the scope of SC 27/ SOC 3.2/
The testimony filed by Suffolk County goes beyond the scope of the contentions in several respects.
g A.
() Suffolk County has failed to limit its testimony to the 11 categories of instruments listed in the contentions.
Instead, the County addresses all of the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2, and thus is overly broad.
Those parts of the testimony that go beyond the 11 items are as follows:
2/ During discovery, SC and SOC have been provided with re-vised status tables concerning LILCO's compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.97. The first, dated March 3, 1982, was provided to all parties as part of LILCO's March 17, 1982, re-sponses to SOC interrogatories. These answers to SOC were also referenced in LILCO's March 26, 1982, answers to SC interroga-t} tories. On April 30, 1982, SC and SOC were provided with a W status table dated April 6, 1982, which made minor revisions to the March 3 version. If, after reviewing these status tables, the County and/or SOC felt the need to revise SC 27/ SOC 3, they should have done so well before the filing of this testimony on May 25, 1982.
l 1
~
~
~
(1) Table 1 on pages 7-12 submitted in response to question 8 of the testimony addresses all of the
/Sh instruments included in Regulatory Guide 1.97.
The table should be deleted except for those
. entries relating to instrumentation that is the subject of the contention. In particular the only items in SC's table 3/ that should remain are: 3 (RCS Boron Concentration (e)); 5 (BWR Thermocouples (k)); 11 (Radioactivity Concentration Primary Coolant (b)); 12 (Primary Coolant Analysis (f)); 18 (Radiation Exposure a
Rate (a)); 21 (Suppression Chamber Spray Flow
() (g)); 24 (Drywell Spray Flow (g)); 28 (LPCI and V.)
SLCS Systems Flow 4/ (h)); 36 (Secondary Containment Area Radiation (d)); 39 (Effluent Radioactivity, Halogens and Particulates (c))S/ ;
40 (Plant and Environc Radiaticn (i)); and 42 (Post Accident Sampling (j)).
3/ The numbering in SC's table follows the numbering used in Table 1 of Brian R. McCaffrey's Affidavit of July 13, 1981. SC Testimony at 7. Since the contention references the McCaffrey numbering, the only items in SC's table that are within the
,rx scope of the contention are those corresponding to the Table 1 (j items listed in the contention.
4/ Limited to SLCS flow.
5/ This entry is relevant to the contention but, as already noted, the issue has been resolved.
Y
~
(2) The answer to question 10 discusses SC's views on the overall status of LILCO's compliance with
- Regulatory Guide 1.97 rather than the status of the 11 items that are the subject of the conten-tion. Consequently, this answer should be deleted.
(3) In the answer to question 11, the reference to drywell sump level uhould be deleted. It is not one of the types of instruments included in the contention. .
(4) In the answer to question 12, the reference to neutron flux should be deleted. It is not one of (3 the types of instruments included in the conten-eJ tion.
(5) The answer to question 13 summarizes the County's -
views on the overall status of Shoreham's compli-ance with all of Regulatory Guide 1.97.
Consequently, it is beyond the scope c f the con-tention and should be deleted.
B.
Suffolk County also goes beyond the scope of the con-tention by attempting to raise emergency planning issues. In response to question 15, the County discusses the relationship of the asserted deficiencies in Regulatory Guide 1.97 compli-ance to the NRC's Emergency Planning Criteria. First, to the
I -
extent that the discussion is not limited to the 11 items of the contentions, the testimony is not relevant to the stated j issues. And second, this profiled written testimony is the first. indication that SC wants to litigate emergency planning requirements in conjunction with this contention. There is of course, a relationship between some of the post accident instrumentation discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.97 and the llRC's emergency planning requirements. But that relationship was not raised as part of the contentions. The County should not be able to redefine the scope of its contentions at this lat.c date. Thus, the response to question 15 should be deleted.
O III.
For the reasons stated, the portionc of Suffolk County's testimony on SC Contention 27 and SOC Contention 3 discussed above should not be admitted.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTI!JG COMPANY 91, hut .
.- a vs . '
W. Taylor R [e le y ,'sI I I' Anthony F. ..a rle y , Jr.
Hunton & Williams P. o. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: June 29, 1982 i
l
7029 O (e ==e-)
2 JUDGE BRENNER: The essence of the motion is 3 that the contantion contains 1 list of 11 quite specific 4 areas in which it was alleged that the post-accident 5 monitoring will be deficient. Those 11 areas have now 6 been reduced to 10 due to the agreement of the parties 7 with respect to subpart C being moved'over to emergency 8 planning.
9 The motion to strike asserts that the portions 10 of the testimony which are the subject of the motion go 11 beyond those specific areas and either generally talk 12 about overall compliance with the reg guide or include 13 items not within those 10 areas, or some combination of I
14 the two, and in addition as to one portion that it j
15 discusses emergency planning ma tters not part of the 16 contention.
17 The County's response does not appear to argue 18 that itams beyond the ten items should be the subject of l
19 the contention, and I may be reading the response wrong, 20 but rather appears to argue that some of those portions l 21 which are the subject of LILCO's motion and in fact deal 22 with those ten items or at least include those ten items j 23 within their ambit -- the response does not necessarily 24 go to all of the parts which are the subject of the l 25 motion to strike.
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7030 l
1 Let me start off by saying that the Board
)
2 preliminarily agrees that any parts of the testimony 3 that go beyond those ten specific areas, or at least 4 testimony was draf ted while part C was still in 5 controversy, and perhaps for immediate purposes of the 6 motion to strike and some simplicity we should state, 7 any parts that go beyond the 11 areas originally 8 asserted should be stricken.
9 Does the County agree with that proposition?
10 And if so, we could go down each part for which the 11 motion applies and see if it goes beyond those 11 12 enumera ted area.
13 MR. LANPHER: No, Judge Brenner, the County 14 doesn't, and I thought we had expressed that view in our 15 response. Let me summarize briefly our position on 16 that. It is our view that in demonstrating or in 17 t es tif ying to the witnesses ' belief that for these 11 18 items, that LILCO has not demonstrated that it will 19 comply with them within the time f rames required, that 20 it is relevant to that demonstration to look at LILCO's 21 overall program for compliance with Regulatory Guide 22 1.97, and that in discussing their overall compliance 23 with the regulatory guide that does not mean, and it was 24 not our intention to litigate each and every item with
(
25 respect --
each and every item that is covered by the O
G i
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7031 1 regulatory guide.
2 I guess it is 47 items or something like 3 that. He are focusing on the 11 or 10 items. But their 4 overall program to respond to the regulatory guide 5 requirements, that is seriously deficient. I think that 8 is evidence which goes to whether, as to whether those 7 10 or 11 items which are the specific focus of the 8 contention will be met and the requirements will be 9 met. And we attempted to set that forth in our 10 response.
11 And in terms of, should we say, the global 12 notion to strike, as to whether you can mention anything 13 beyond the 11 items, that is our position. So yes, we 14 think we can mention things beyond those 11 items. And 15 in that general sense, I would agree with you that if 16 the Board disagrees with that position of the County 17 that the motion to strike is considerably too broad as 18 to particular areas.
19 JUDGE BRENNER You think talking about the 20 overall status is pertinent because it shows a busy-ness 21 or workload effect on the status of the items in 22 controversy, is that your point?
23 MR. LAMPRER I'might have put it somewhat 24 differently, but yes, basically that is the point. It 25 shows the extremely large amount of work that is O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7032
() 1 required to be done. Just exsetly how probative that 2 is, of course, the Board would have to weigh in the 3 end. But we think it is some evidence going to our 4 belief that it is highly unlikely that LIlCO will be 5 able to comply with Regulatory Guide 1.97. And tha t was 6 the purpose that the witnesses were using those examples 7 for, or the reason that they really compiled the table, 8 which I think is the main portion of the testimony as to 9 which that goes.
10 (Board conferring.)
11 JUDGE MORRIS. Mr. Lanpher, are you arguing 12 only timeliness of complying with 1 97 or are you also 13 arguing that because of time pressures full compliance 14 sight not be achieved?
15 MR. LANPHERs- Judge Morris, I'm not sure I 16 understand the distinction you are drawing in that 17 question. I think you asked, are we arguing only l
18 timeliness, or because of the time pressures it may not i 19 be achieved, and I don't understand the distinction 1 20 between those two precisely. I want to be responsive to 21 you. I want to make sure I understand.
22 JUDGE MORRIS: Well, let me try to be 23 clearer. On the one hand are you arguing that they
() 24 simply will not complete the work necessary to comply with 1.97 at the time they would like to be licensed?
25 O
AI.DERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1
- ,' . i
,, 7033
() 1 Or, on the other hand, are you arguing that in order to 2 get their license they will cut corners in attempted 3 compliance with 1.977 4 MR. LANPHER: Well, the testimony obviously 5 speaks for itself, and I believe that we are arguing or s
6 alleging that LILCO is cutting corners, to use your 7 terms there. I mean, we disagree substantively with 1 i
8 some of their positions where they are going to ask 'for ,
9 an example or something like that. '
But I wouldn't ' ' '
10 classif y that as cutting corners. I think they are 11 above-board in what they are doing.
12 JUDGE MORRIS: Well, I guess some of the >
13 compliance is permitted after issuance of the initial O 14' license anyway.
1 15 MR. LANPHER: I'm sorry?
16 JUDGE MORRIS: I guess some of the compliance 17 with 1.97 is permitted after the issuance of the initial -
18 license, anyway. i 19 MR. LANPHER: Well, I think that is correct, ,
20 Judge Morris, but it is our position that this Board 21 needs to make a finding as to whether there is 22 reasonable assurance that within the time period, let's 23 say you were to issue a license in early 1983 or
() 24 authorize issuance, and you've got a date of requirement 25 for June '83. We think you need to make a finding as to O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024(202) 554-2345
7034 whether there is a reasonable assurance that those dates
(]) 1 1
2 would be met.
3 JUDGE MORRISa Okay, I understand.
4 MR. lAMPHER I think we have a somewhat 5 different view, and we think there are some implications 6 in the emergency planning area which I was going to 7 leave asida until later in the argument with respect to 8 how treat might be relevant to your licensing decision, 9 aside from the data requirements of 1 97.
10 JUDGE BRENNER: Why don't you cover that 11 briefly now, too, and then we will go to LILCO.
12 MR. LANPHER: I guess it is question 15 and 13 answer 15, concerning emergency, planning and LILCO.
- 14 Well, the reference is the emergency planing 15 requirements of the Commission's regulations in 0654 16 That portion is inserted in the testimony to show to --
17 well, to demonstrate the witnesses' belief that the 18 monitoring requirements, post-accident monitoring 19 requirements of 1.97, arguably have a relevance beyond 20 simply the 1.97 framework.
21 There are other regulations. 1.97 isn't a 22 regulation. I guess it was one of the action plan 23 items. But post-accident monitoring is a requirement
() 24 under other regulations that this Board is going to be We thought it was, or 25 required to make findings under.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
' 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7035
() 1 the witnesses thought it was, relevant to bring tha t to 2 the Boa rd's attention there, and whether the Board is 3 going to take the view in the context of emergency 4 planning contentions, where there are monitoring )
5 contentions which are going to be discussed I guess next 6 week, that . *me of these monitoring activities would 7 have to be accomplished or in place before a license was 8 issued, is something that the Board will have to 9 decide.
10 And that is what I was alluding to ea rlie r 11 when I responded to you, Judge Morris. That is, I think 12 those are raised in the emergency planning contentions.
13 I don't have the exact number and I'm sure it will come O 14 up next week.
15 JUDGE BRENNER: That is what I was going to 16 a sk . To the extent that you believe that they are 17 pertinent to emergency planning, you've raised them.
18 Whether or not we agree partially or totally with you, 19 we will decide when we rule on the admissibility of i 20 con ten tions. But you've got that anyway in that 21 context, and the portion of the testimony in there is --
22 the purpose you've indicated for it was as well served 23 by your statement just now as the testimony. And it
. N l 24 would be appropriate for findings, too, if they are
}
25 admitted in emergency planning.
O j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l
)
7036 l
1 That is your argument that, regardless of what
(])
2 time frames might otherwise be allowed for certain e 3 matters under the reg guide for other purposes, your 4 view of the emergency planning regulations is they need
~
5 be in place prior to any a u thoriza tion s .
6 MR. LANPHER: I think the testimony obviously 7 speaks for itself. But the purpose was to make sure 8 that the context of post-accident monitoring issues was 9 understood and to just sort of highlight that there are 10 other areas that these pertain to. And you are right, 11 they will be litigated or we expect they will he 12 litigated or resolved or whatever in the emergency 13 planning context.
14 And we disagree with the statement in the 15 action to strike that by alluding to those things here 16 that means that we are raising emergency planning 17 issues. I mean, I think often witnesses in this l 18 proceeding have cited things or made notations of things l
i 19 to try to place issues in context, and I think that was 20 the sense that answer 15, question and answer 15, should 21 be viewed in, and not raising a whole host of emergency 22 planning issues that are to be litigated in the health 23 and safety proceeding.
() 24 JUDGE BRENNER: As to question and answer 15, 25 there's also the argument by LILCO somewhere to the
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l 7037
() 1 overall motion.to strike that, in addition to the 2 emergency planning point that they raise, these items ,
l 3 listed from the emergency planning criteria are not 4 limited to the items which are enumerated in contention 5 27.
6 So, depending upon how we ruled on the 7 emergency planning part and the other part, we might 8 have to parse it a little further. We will see. We 9 will hear LILCO's response, I guess particularly on the 10 first part, to the point'that the County doesn't seek to 11 litigate other items, they are only mentioning the 12 status of these other items as it would affect the 13 status of compliance of the items enumerated in O 14 contention 27.
15 MR. EARLEY: Judge, the first argument echoes 16 the ststement that M r. Reveley made in response to some 17 of the County's arguments on the previous motion, that 18 is that the County chooses to ignore much of the history 19 that went into negotiating the language of these 20 contentions. As originally drafted, this contention may 21 have been construed to go towards the overall 22 implementation of the regulatory guide. As a result of 23 much discussion, one motion for summary disposition that
() 24 was submitted by LILCO -- as a result of that motion 25 there was further extensive negotiations between the l
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
l -
7038
() 1 parties, and out of that negotiation came this, what we 2 thought was a narrowly focused contention that dealt 3 with 11 spacific items in regulatory guide 1.97.
4 So that as a result of that we eliminated the 5 general contention snd focused on the specifics. We 6 don 't understand the argument that the County doesn't 7 vant to litigate the 11 specific items. If they don't 8 vant to litigate the 11 specific items, we don't think 9 that the other items that are mentioned in their 10 testimony are relevant and nead to be considered by the 11 Board.
12 As far as the argument that the overall status 13 is relevant to determining whether the workload would 14 preclude the company from meeting the requirements for 15 those 11 specific items, that is a completely different 16 issue. Throughout the period of negotiations on this 17 contention, the question of whether the company would be 18 overloaded to the extent that they couldn't comply with 19 the 11 issues was never raised. The focus of the 20 discussion was, are you going to meet Reg Guide 1.97 for 21 those 11 items. That is what our testimony focused on 22 and we think that should have been the focus of the 23 County's testimony. ,
( 24 I think that that is our principal argument 25 heres we have focused the contention, and that the
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7039
() 1 testimony ought to deal with that focused contention.
2 Now, as f ar as the County's argument on the 3 relevance of emergency planning, again, first of all, we 4 are concerned that question and answer 15, I believe it 5 is, doesn't focus on the 11 specific items. There is no 6 attempt'to argue which of the 11 items have relevance to 7 emargency planning requirements.
8 As the Board noted, there are some contentions 9 raised in the group of emergency planning contentions 10 that do deal with instrumentation. I used to pride 11 myself in being able to quote chapter and verse of all 12 of the contentions. But I am af raid I cannot do that 13 with emergency planning contentions.
O 14 JUDGE BRENNER: If you occupy your mind with
! 15 that, you will find, as I have found, that you start l
16 forgetting important things.
17 (Laughter.) ,
18 MR. EARLEY: I am sure the County is raising, 19 and the company will argue that they should raise with 20 particularity, any instrumentation questions that go to 21 emergency planning. And we think it is inappropriate at 22 this time to inject the arguments that might be 23 associated with that in this particular con tention.
() 24 Furthermore, if they had emergency planning i 25 concerns about the instrumentation in Reg Guide 1.97,
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7040 O taer coute a aeea rit e* aea tai =e teatiea -
2 negotiated. We also think there is a difference with 3 mrguing about compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.97, 4 which has many technical details associated with it, and 5 arguing that, given compliance or noncompliance with 6 Regulatory Guide 1.97, are the emergency planning 7 requirements met.
8 And I think it would be unfortunate to try and 9 argue the second point in the context of this 10 contention, rather than in the context of the emergency 11 planning contentions. We ought to stick to whether or 12 not, for these 11 items, LILCO meets Regula tory Guide 13 1.97. ~
O 14 (Board conferring.)
15 JUDGE BRENNERa All right, I think we 16 understand the arguments. And unless Mr. Lanpher wants 17 to add anything --
18 MR. LANPHER Just one thing. I'm not going 19 to respond, except Er. Earley, I think, said that, or 20 implied that, the County doesn't vsnt to litiga te the 11 21 specific items. At some point he made that statement.
22 That is not true, and the Board has seen our cross l
j 23 plan.
24 JUDGE BRENNERa I guess I didn't hear that 25 statement.
l O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINtA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
70 f41 1
MB. LANPHER: Okay. Maybe I misunderstood.
2 But that is not true.
3 MR. EARLEY: The Coun ty says that in their 4 response to the motion to strike, the first page of the 5 response to Suffolk County contention 27. I guess it is 6 page 6. In the bottom paragraph it says: "The County 7 is not attempting to litiga te LILCO's compliance with 8 any items beyond the 11 specified in the contention."
9 MR. LANPHER: I understood Mr. Ea rley to say 10 that we weren',t interested in litigating those 11 11 items. And if I misunderstood you, fine.
12 JUDGE BRENNER: He can respond, but that is 13 what I said the first time. I didn't hear him say O 14 that.
15 MR. LANPHER: Okay, fine. Then I 16 misunderstood and I apologize.
17 JUDGE BRENNER: And if he said that and I 18 missed it, I'm getting worried about my powers to pay 19 attention. You didn't say that, did you, Mr. Earley?
20 MR. EARLEYa If I did, I meant to say tha t 21 they indicate they are only interested in litigating the 22 11 items.
23 JUDGE BRENNER: That is the way I understood 24 it, again, regardless of how you said it.
25 (Board conferring.)
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7042
() 1 JUDGE BRENNER: We agree with the thrust of 2 the motion to strike. I have not said we agree that 3 every portion should be stricken, because, given that 4 ruling, I dant to go through each portion with the 5 parties and make sure they all fit that, and we think 6 they fit two categories.
7 One category is where it's focused on a 8 particular item that is not among the 11 items, and I 9 will stay.with 11 items for now. We will discuss what 10 . to do with C at the end. The other category is where 11 the summary is overly broad , tha t is encompasses, not by 12 particularization but by discussion of the status that, 13 particularly on pages 13 and 14, for example, that eight O 14 items or so-and-so of the remaining items, without any 15 tying .th e te stimony, at least, as to which if any of the 16 11 items fall within those characterizations in the 17 County's view.
18 We recognize, as pointed out by the County's l 19 response to the motion to strike, that some of those l
, 20 items would fall, in the County view, within those 1
21 characterizations. The problem is, the testimony is too 22 broad to ascertain that from just those portions of the i
j 23 testimony.
) 24 We are disagreeing with the County's argument, 25 obviously, that discussion of the status of the other O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7043
() 1 items is sufficiently pertinent and probative of the 2 status of the particular items as to include that in the 3 testimony. It is simply too remote.
4 I understand your argument as to how it is 5 tied and we are not asserting that there can be 6 absolutely no connection, but it is just too remote, 7 inefficient, and therefore insufficiently probative to 8 get at it f rom that point of view. That is literally 9 the tail, and only a little part of the tail, wagging 10 the whole dog to get at*it that way.
11 To the extent that the County wants to argue 12 that the Boa rd must make a finding of reasonable 13 assurance of compliance with certain dates, if those O 14 dates are beyond possible licensing -- and we recognize 15 that is a bit of a fallback position; the County's main 16 position is that there should be compliance prior to
^
17 licensing, for a number of reasons -- you can get at 18 that.
19 We are not going to preclude inquiry into the
- 20. status of those particular items, and if you want to 21 Lest the witnesses' views of the status of those items 22 by pointing out the work that has been done on those 23 items up until this point and what remains to be done, 24 we vill permit that. But we will not go very deeply, if 25 at all, into status of the other items as a way of O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7044
(} 1 getting at that.
2 As to the emergency planning argument, we 3 agree that it is just too complicated and unnecessary to 4 keep that portion in the context of this contention. We 5 have heard the argument. When we look at the emergency 6 planning items, we can evaluate compliance in the 7 context of what is needed for the emergency planning 8 rule and when these things are needed in the witnesses' 9 views and/or the legal argument views -- there will be 10 an overlap -- and decide it th e n .
11 fo the extent there is some record on some of 12 these items as a result of the litigation of this 13 contention, we can build on that record or have f
14 testimony that applies that record. To the extent that 15 the County wanted to do what both including it in the 16 testimony and what Mr. Lanpher's comment accomplished, 17 that is put a place mark in here to remind us that some 18 aspect of this may be pertinent later, that has been 19 achieved and in fact is valuable to us to have that 20 reminder.
l 21 Going through the portions of the County's 22 testimony -- and I am working from my annotations on the 23 testimony rather than directly from the motion, so if I
() 24 make an error I will welcome correction. The first item 25 we come to which is the subject of the motion to strike O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7045
() 1 would be table 1, which is found on pages 7 through 12 2 of the testimony. Am I correct that that is the first 3 point that we encounter the subject of the r.otion to 4 strike?
5 MR. EARLEY4 Yes, Your Honor.
6 -
JUDGE BRENNER: As to that table, everything 7 would be stricken other than the particular 11 items in 8 the contention and as pointed out by the motion to 9 strike, because tne references in the contention, at 10 least where that reference is to Table 1 as 11 distinguished f rom Table 2, relate back to Mr.
12 McCaffrey's provision of information to the parties, I 13 believe, and you can use the same numbering system.
14 I don't want to go through it now on the 15 record. Well, I guess I could note that in the County 16 -- in LILCO's view, the only particular items which 17 would be within the contention are items 3, 5, 11, 12, 18 18, 21, 24, 28 in part as to the standby liquid control 19 systea, 35 -- well, 39, except it relates to the portion 20 that was withdrawn, 40, and 42.
21 I haven't made -- the Board hasn' t made its 22 own checks, so to speak. And we're not talking about 23 judgment; we're talking about the simple match-up of the
( 24 numbered references in the contention to the table. So 25 I would ask th e parties to make sure they agree that O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
l
7046
() I that is accurate prior to the time that we hear this 2 testimony, and to have the appropriate portions of the 3 table stricken within the guidelines of this ruling and 4 if there is a change to what was asserted in the motion 5 to strike to inform us of that.
6 We would strike question 10 and answer 10, 7 beginning on page, partway on page 13 and continuing 8 over to almost the end of page 14, including the two 9 footnotes.
10 MR. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, can I be heard on 11 that?
12 JUDGE BRENNER: Yes.
13 MR. LANPHER: Wel,1, I have, I guess, a 14 suggestion on how we may be able to save some hearing 15 time in view of what you've ruled today. We disagree 16 tha t all of this needs to be stricken in light of your 17 ruling. My suggestion would be for us to take that 18 answer, as well as the discussion on pages 17 and 18, 19 and without -- well, we will have to change some words, l 20 but tie it back into the 11 items, tie those statements 21 back into the specific 11 items.
22 I think I can do that to some extent now, but 23 it would probably be a lot better if I could consult 24 with the authors and get those particular things and 1 25 submit them on Tuesday.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7047
() 1 JUDGE BRENNER We thought of tha t. We 2 thought of suggesting that. And I guess, just given 3 that f a ct, it is not totally unreasonable. It is not 4 the typical response to a motion to strike, in the sense 5 that you've drafted th e testimony in the first instance 6 in such a way that it is not possible as written to 7 separate out that which should be stricken and that 8 which shouldn ' t.
9 You are suggesting some sort of reformation.
10 I don 't know if it can be easily done with just a few 11 words, and one of our points, rather than suggesting 12 that approach, was that you should get at it by asking 13 on cross-examination -- and those witnesses will be on O 14 ahead of your witnesses -- as to the status.
15 We wouldn 't be opposed to this procedure, but 16 I would entertain the views of the parties. We are 17 going to get the status of those items on the record, 18 there is no doubt about that, of those particular 10 19 items. To some extent it is already in the other 20 testimony.
21 MR. EARLEY: Judge, it is my opinion that the 22 table speaks for itself, and to go ahead and reword 23 these contantions is both unnecessary -- reword the 24 que.stions and > answers -- is unnecessary. The 25 inf orma tion is there. And we just thought to strike O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
70 f4 8 C 1 them now because they are overly broad and aren't 2 related to the 11 items.
p 3 MR. LANPHER Judge Brenner, my point is that u 4 while it is in the table, it would be helpf ul, it would 5 help the testimon,, to pull those items that the 6 witnesses think is important from the testimony. I'm 7 not talking about surprising anyone with anything. I 8 thought that woUld be helpful to make it clear.
9 (Bosed conferring.)
30 JUDGE BRENNER: We vill leave it this way. We 11 are going to let you make an attempt at it, Mr.
12 Lanpher. After we see what you propose, we will decide 13 whether it is as strictly limited as at least we now (d/ 14 envision and we believe you envision in terms of 15 relating what is in there. And it is not -- we don't 16 vant to supplement, that it has to be read in j 17 conjunction with this portion. We 're going to strike 18 this portion in its entirety and it will be stricken.
19 We will give you the opportunity to submit a 20 replacement which will incorporate the references within 21 those categories as characterized now by the County and 22 as to which of the ten particular items fall within 23 those categories.
1 o 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, v)0 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7049 j 1 MR. LANPHER: That is what I attempted to sa y ,
(])
2 Judge Brenner, that I was going to limit it to those ten 3 or eleven items in the context of these pages. If it 4 can 't be done, well, then, I will inform the Board on
. 1 5 Tuesday.
6 JUDGE BRENNERs We think it might be more 7 difficult as to certain portions of this, but we are 8 going to strike it for now. We will give you the 9 opportunity to submit it, and in fact -- and we will to allow the parties ah opportunity to discuss it before 11 they bring it bm k to our attention.
12 MR. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, with respect to 13 Page 14, I undetstand your ruling with respect to the 14 top of the page, in the first sentence of, I guess, the 15 full paragraph starting, " Based on." Looking at Page 16 14, it is our view that --
17 JUDGE BRENNER: " Based on the sketchy 18 information?"
19 MR. LANPHER: Yes, but in the next sentence, 20 our view is that even under the ruling that you have 71 made here, that the remainder of that answer ought to 22 remain in, with the understanding that the items that 23 are referred to are the ten items or eleven items.
24 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, as it is cast now, we
(
25 think it suffers the same defect as encompassed in our O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7050
() 1 ruling. It is just too broad. It talks about an 2 sverage of all of the items, not just the ten items, and 3 then a ttem pts to draw conclusions. I understand what 4 you are saying. The conclusion, you believ e, would be 5 applicable to the ten items, and therefore you wouldn't 6 cull out any of them, but it suffers that defect of just 7 talking about an sverage overall completion time, and 8 therefore that other items may be subject to delay 9 without any attempt to tie it to what particular items 10 you are talking about, and so on.
11 MR. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, it seems to me 12 this ruling is getting into the weight of the evidence.
13 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, we have ruled, and while l
14 there may be a fine line at some extremes in this case, 15 the probative value is zero, and that is why there would 16 be the motion to strike. I understand your argument as 17 to the relevance connection, and perhaps the argument is 18 sufficient to show that it is not totally irrelevant in l
19 the broadest use of the term " relevant", but I tell you, j 20 any good lawyer can make an argument that somehow the 21 knee bone is connected to the ankle bone. Somewhere l
22 there is some tenuous tie of relevance. But in this 23 case it is so remote as to be insufficiently material and insufficiently probative to permit it, and to the
( 24 25 extent there are matters that will go directly to those O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7051
() 1 items, focused on those items, there will be that 2 opportunity in the litigation. The fact that the 3 testimony could have been cast that way but was not does 4 not help you at this point.
5 So, we vill strike Question 10 and Answer 10 6 starting on Page 13 and continuing over through portions 7 of Page 14, and all notes that are pertinent in 8 addition, and the County can submit the restated version 9 within the guidelines we discussed, and we will let the 10 parties look at it and advise the Board as to whether 11 there is agreement.
12 On Page 15, LILCO seeks to strike the i
13 reference to the dry well sump level. Is there any l
14 argument that it is one of the eleven items? We don't 15 believe it is. I an asking the County.
16 MR. LANPHER: No, it is not one of the eleven 17 items.
18 JUDGE BRENNERa So we will strike that. I 19 guess for grammar, when you clean it up, you will have 20 to add an "and" before " radiation exposure rate" and put 21 the period at that point.
22 MR. EARLEY - Judge, I also think there are 23 some references to five, which would be four now.
( 24 JUDGE BRENNER: I am sorry, I didn't hear you.
25 MR. EARLEY: There are some references O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7052
() 1 throughout to the five cases mentioned above, and that 2 would become four.
3 JUDGE BRENNER: I will let the parties worry O- 4 about that. All right. On Page 16, within Answer 12, 5 the fifth line of that answer, " neutron flux" would be 6 stricken. Question 13 and Answer 13, beginning near the 7 bottom of Page 16, continuing through all of 17 and 8 ending at the top of 18, that would be the first six 9 lines of 19, will be stricken, subject to the same 10 opportunity on the part of the County to at least 11 propose the revision along the lines previously 12 discussed.
13 Question 15 and Answer 15, beginning on Page 14 18, and continuing through to some point on Page 19, the 15 first eight lines at Page 19, will be struck.
16 MR. EARLEY: Judge, I was just going to l
17 men tion Attachment 1.
i 18 JUDGE BRENNER: Attachment 1 relates solely in 19 support of the Question and Answer 15 that we have 20 struck, as I read it. Is that correct, Mr. Lanpher?
21 MR. LANPHER4 Tha t is . correct.
l 22 JUDGE BRENNER: So in that case, that would be 23 struck also for that reason. And correct copies at the 24 time we litigate this should be bound in with the 25 changes, marked in hand. We will see what the form of O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7053
() 1 your proposed partial revisions are, and depending upon 2 our ruling, perhaps figure out some way to incorporate I 3 that. I will let the parties work out the logistics of 4 tha t, if there is agreement as to whether that can be 5 included.
6 Implicit in our view that we would allow the 7 County that opportunity are two things. Firstly, that 8 we agree that some summary explanation of the table is 9 helpful. Certainly it could wait for findings, but it 10 is helpful to have it at this point, even though the raw 11 data may speak for itself in the table as to each item.
12 If we had agreed tha t the table was as good or the equal 13 of that summary, then we would not have permitted it.
14 All right. These arguments and rulings, as 15 they always seem to, took a little longer than we 16 anticipated. We have nothing else other than to proceed 17 with the examination of these witnesses. Do any of the 18 parties have any other preliminary matters?
19 (No response.)
20 .4 R . LANPHER: Judge Brenner, I would just j 21 inquire whether it might make sense to take a break now, 1
l 22 rather than start for whatever few minutes it is and 23 then go. I would just leave it up to you. I am ready
( 24 to start. There is a pending question. It migh t be -
25 useful to take that break also because I have got the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7054 O au tioa aere- we a ve the tr ==cr19t- aa c a 2 provide it to the witnesses.
3 JUDGE BRENNER: Fine. That is a good I
O 4 suggestion. Let's break until 10:25.
- i. .
! 5 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
i 6
I I
i 8 l
! 9 10 j 11 f 12 13 14 15 ,
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
7055 JUDGE BRENNER: All right, we are ready to
(]) 1 2 con tinue the cross examination of the staff 's witnesses 3 on Contention 7B, which again is the same panel, snd 4 again, Mr. Thadani is not part of the panel today, and 5 we had a pending question from yesterday. We will pick 6 up at that point.
7 Whereupon, 8 THEMIS P. SPEIS, 9 WALTER P. HAASS 10 MARVIN W. HODGES, 11 C. E. ROSSI, 12 JAMES H. CONR AN, SR. ,
13 and ROBERT KIRKWOOD, 14 the witnesses on the stand at the time of recess, 15 resumed the stand, and having been previously duly 16 sworn, were examined and testified further as follows:
17 CONTINUED CROSS EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. LANPHER:
19 0 Gentleman, yesterday we left a pending 20 question, and it is reported in yesterday's transcript 21 at Page 7006," Lines 7 to 14. I think I will read it 22 into the record so that when we are reviewing this 23 later, it will be easier.
() 24 Ihe question was, "My question, Mr. Haass, is, there was earlier testimony tha t you believe that you 25 I
l
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7056 I had a commitment from LILCO, an adequate commitment from f])
2 LILCO with respect to an operations CA program. I am 3 asking you where that commitment was documented or is 4 documented." And I drew your attention to this FSAR 5 section, and I believe we were referring to 3.1 at that 6 time, "whi:h I providad bef ora as the possible place, 7 and maybe it is somewhere else in the FSAR."
8 A (WITNESS HAASS) Mr. Lanpher, I would like to 9 begin by first indicating that my understanding of the 10 question is that it was asked in the context of the 11 prior diseassion which related to the QA commitment for 12 items in the plant important to safety, but not safety 13 related.
r (w
1 14 0 I think that is a fair characterization. Why 15 don 't you go ahead ar.d answer it with that 16 understanding, and if'we need to follow up, we will.
17 A (WITNESS HAASS) The general design criterion 18 1, as repeated in 3.1.2.1 of the FSAR, describes 19 requirements for items important to safety, and in 20 particular in response to this question, the last two 21 sentences, the staff has interpreted to refer to 22 requirements during the operations phase.
23 0 Excuse me, Mr. Haass. The last two sentences 24 of what?
25 A (WITNESS HAASS) Of general design criterion O
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6 7057 rm 1
() 1.
2 0 Ihe criterion itself?
3 A (WITNESS HAASS) The criterion itself.
(-]
N/
4 0 Fine.
5 A (WITNESS HAASS) Now, the staff read LILCO's 6' response to general design criterion 1, in particular 7 the last paragraph. It is a one-line paragraph. To 8 indicate that LILCO intended to comply with GDC 1 as 9 interpreted by the staff during the operational phase 10 for items important to safety but not safety related.
11 It is in the FSAR, so we assumed, or we rig htf ully -- we 12 believe rightfully interpreted as referring to the 13 operational phase.
I e
l N 14 However, we now know during the hearing that, 15 snd based upon prefiled testimony, that LILCO equated 16 important to safety with safety related, which was not 17 our understanding originally. Therefore, we now find a 18 need to obtain a further commitment from LILCO to apply 19 a quality assurance program to items important to 20 safety, but not safety related per the Denton memorandum 21 during the operational phase.
22 0 Mr. Haass, then your previous understanding 23 regarding the commitment by LILCO concerning operating 24 QA was based upon the staff's review of the discussion 25 immediately following GDC 1 in the FSAR at Page 3.1-2 of l CE)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7058
() 1 the FSAR?
2 A (WITNESS HAASS) Yes. The general design 3 criteria can be divided into two parts, the first part 4 talking about design itself , and the latter part, 5 specifically the last two sentences, talking about the 6 operational phase in the same way one can look at the 7 response to, LILCO's response to GDC 1 as one for one 8 correspondence. The first three paragraphs talk about 9 design, and we read the last paragraph to refer to the 10 operational phase.
11 0 So the record is clear, the last paragraph you 12 are referring to is the following sentence, "The 13 detailed QA program, developed by Long Island Lighting l O 14 con tractors sa tisfies the requirement of Criterion 1?"
15 A (WITNESS HAASS) Yes.
16 Q Is it your understanding that the operations 17 QA program is implemented by contractors of Long Island 18 Lighting Company or Long Island Lighting Company 19 itself?
20 A ( W ITN ESS HAASS) Well, that is a legitimate l
21 question , that the contractors -- you are f ocusing on 22 the word " contractors." For all we knew was Long 23 Island, Lighting used contractors to develop that program 24 developed by those contractors. That is immaterial to 25 us, how it is prepared or developed. That is how we
> )
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7059
() 1 read that.
2 0 Do you know, Mr. Haass, whether the operations 3 QA program was developed by contractors, or whether it 4 was developed by the lighting company itself?
5 A (WITNESS HAASS) I don 't know tha t.
6 (Whereupon, counsel for Suffolk County i 1
7 conferred.)
8 0 3r. Haass, going back to design and 9 construction QA for just a moment, LILCO's program for 10 design and construction Q A is described in Chapter 17.1 11 of the FSAR. Is that correct?
12 A (WITNESS HAASS) Section 17.1 of the FSAR is a 13 rather brief description of the QA program for design 14 and constraction. Tha staff does not require that 15 program to be described again in the FSAR since it was 16 already looked at in the context of the PSAR during the 17 FSAR review. We are now focusing our attention on the 18 operational phase, the future activities.
19 Q So in the staff's SER, its quality assurance 20 discussion pertains only to operations OA, and does not 21 review an applicant's or LILCO's in this ca se design or 22 construction QA program.
23 A (WITNESS HAASS) The SEE for the operation
() 24 phase talks about the QA program for operations, not for 25 design and construction.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7060 l
1 Have you had an opportunity, Mr. Haass, to
(]) Q 2 review LILCO's FSAR description of the operations phase 3 QA program which is set forth in Chapter 17.2 of the V 4 FSAR?
5 A (WITNESS HAASS) I don't recall looking at it 6 specifically myself. It was assigned to one of my 7 branch members, and I think I described yesterday what 8 the extent of my overview vas. Again , I don 't recall 9 looking at it specifically myself.
. 10 0 Has any member of the panel reviewed Section 11 or Chapter 17.2 of the FSAR concerning operations QA?
12 A (WITNESS SPEIS) No, sir, no member of the 13 panel.
14 A (WITNESS HAASS) Could I clarify a moment?
15 When we talk about -- there are two major aspects of the l 16 review of our QA program. One is the program 17 description itself, and the second is the listing of 18 items to which the program applies. Now, I did devote 19 considerable attention to the listing of items to which 20 the program applied.
21 Q What do yo u mean , Mr. Has ss, by the listing of 22 items?
23 A (WITNESS HAASS) The Q A list , the list of
() 24 safety relsted structures, systems, and components.
25 (Whereupon, the witnesses conferred.)
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHJNGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 t - - . _ - _ - - -
7061 1 A (WITNES5 HAASS) Further , let me' explain that
- 1 .,
2 we understand tha t there is a further conte'ntionfthat
- 3 vill focus on the 0A program itself, and that is not, O 4 s.n d we will have an expert QA witness forithat
, \
3>s -
5 discussion. , s
(
6 JUDGE I.RENNER: I as sorry. O missed the end 7 of your answer,!!r. Haass. You said , , we vould -- well, 8 could you give met the last part ofs khat? \
!, .i 9 WITNEST HAASS: There wil1~be dvailable an 10
)<
expert 2A revi*ewsic who participated'in; that review, t o, ,
11 respond to that contention. '
( '
[ ,
~i J 12 BY MR. LANPHERa (Resuming)k. '
i
, t.ss , , ,,f 13 0 Did you review the prefil'ed testimony of the O 14 stsff regstding those QA contentions? That testimony 15 was sponsored by, among others, Mr. Gilray, who I 16 believe is from the Quality As'surance Branch.
.,,I 17 A (WITNESS HAASS) Yes, I recs 11 reviewing those O ,'
18 words. 4 .
>v g . I 19 0 You mean reviewing the testimony? ,, t 20 A (WITNESS HAASS) Yes, the prefiled'te'st$aony.
i s x ;, '
', f 21 0 In light of the discussion that yo'u have' heard i s 22 regarding the Denton memorandum anf tne use of words, is
~s Tr , ,
23 it your belief that that te stin,ony s is' going to have to 24 be revised insofst s s , the a pplicknt* k commitments to a 25 quality assurance program are concerned? %
O ,
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, s
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 5'4-2345
7062
() 1 MR. ELLIS: May I have that question read 2 back?
3 MR. LANPHER: Let me try to repeat it.
7-s 4 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming) 5 0 Understanding you may not have that testimony 6 right in front of you, or you may not recall it --
let 7 me know if that is the case -- you have now heard the 8 testi'nony regarding LILCO's terminology with respect to
? quality assurance programs or regarding classification to important to safety and so forth. Is it your impression 11 that the staff will need to review and perhaps revise 12 its testimony rela ting to LILCO's quality assurance 13 commitments, in light of the testimony you have heard on O
(> 14 7B?
15 MR. ELLIS: I object to the question. He is 16 asking him sbout extensive QA testimony which was filed 17 long after our prefiled testimony was filed on 7B.
l' 18 JUDGE BRENNER: I am going to overrule the l
19 objection, because it is limited to the context of the t
l 20 commitments we are talking about in this contention, and 1
,l 21 if the answer is, he doesn't know because of the extent, l 22' that would be a fair answer.
23 WITNESS HAASS: As I recall that prefiled 24 testimony, it was focusing on the Appendix B QA program 25 as described in Section 17-2 of the FSAR. I don't ii O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 800 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7063 1 recall it addressing the 0A requirements emanating from
( )I 2 general design criterion 1. We would obviously review T 3 it and determine whether anything needed to be done.
('J s.
4 (Resuming)
BY MR. LANPHER:
5 C Is it your belief . Mr. Haa ss, that the QA 6 program described in 17.2 should apply only to Appendix 7 B or also to general design criterion 1?
8 A (WITNESS HAASS) The Q A program described in 9 Section 17.2 of the FSAR is required to respond to .
10 Appendix B.
11- Q Well, where is the applicant required to 12 describe its program for responding to the requirements 13 of general design criteria 1?
o
- 14 A (WITNESS HAASS) There is no requirement for 15 that, as we discussed yesterday, and as is stated in our 16 prefiled t9stimony.
17 (Whereupon, counsel for Suffolk County 18 conferred.)
19 0 Well, there is a requirement under the 20 regulations to have such a program, but it is your 21 testimony that you, as in terms of staff practice, do l 22 not require the details of that prog ra m to be documented l 23 in the FSAR?
24 (WITNESS HAASS) That is correct.
l A 25 (Whereupon, counsel for Suffolk. County l
l
(~'\
v ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7064 1
conferrad.)
2 0 Mr. Haass, you earlier said that the 3 description of the design and construction QA program in O 4 the FSAR is very brief, and I may have misled you, 5 because I gave you a very brief extract from Chapter 6 17.1 yestarday. In fset, I can provide you a copy.
7 17.1 goes on for many pages. I did not provide you the 8 whole of it. Did you think I had provided you all of 9 it?
10 A (WITNESS HAASS) I wasn't certain, but the 11 point still remains as described in our standard review 12 plan. The staff does not review that program 13 description unles,s specifically requested by the 14 applicant. We do not review it. We are looking at the 15 QA program for operations during the OL review.
l 16 (Whereupon, counsel for Suffolk County 17 conferred.)
18 0 Mr. Haass, and Judge Brenner, I am going back 19 to Page 11 of my ross plan, or I will be going to 20 there. I've got a couple of questions first.
21 Mr. Hsass, has the staff required at other i
22 facilities other than Shoreham that the applicant or the Zi licensee compile a list of items important to safety but
() 24 not safety related?
25 A (WITNESS HAASS) No.
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7065
() 1 Q In the con text of the THI proceeding 2 subsequent to TMI 1 restart, and whether it was within 3 the licensing process or not, but did the staff require 4 the licensee there to develop a list of items important 5 to safety?
6 MR. REISa Mr. Chairman,. I object to the 7 question unless he sets a foundation of whether the 8 witness knows.
9 JUDGE BRENNER: I don't think that is 10 necessary, because we can have that foundation question 11 for every question stated that broadly. I don't think a 12 foundation is necessary in this instance, because the 13 witness can say if he doesn't know, and that always 14 applies. He could have asked it that way, but I don't 15 think it is essentisl.
16 WITNESS CONRAN: Could we ask for a 17 clarification of the question? Is the question asked, 18 in full view of our statement yesterday that Reg. Guide 19 1.70 offers the option either providing a detailed 20 listing, an explicit listing of items important to 21 safety, or otherwise clearly identif ying them in the 22 FSAR?
l 23 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming)
() 24 0 I as asking it in terms of listing, Mr.
25 Conran, and Mr. Haass, if you are not the right person O
I ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7066
() I to answer it, obviously, feel free to pass it on.
2 A (WITNESS HAASS) Would you repeat the question 3 again?
- 4 0 I as asking whether the licensee of TMI Unit 1 5 has been requested by the staff to prepare what I would 6 call a detailed listing of items important to safety but 7 not safety related.
8 A (WITNESS HAASS) The answer to that is yes.
9 0 And why was that required?
. 10 MR. REISs Mr. Chairman, I really don't think 11 tha t is relevant to this proceeding, and I am going to 12 object. We are not litigating the TMI proceeding, and 13 it is a special proceeding. It isn't a regular O 14 licensing proceeding.
15 JUDGE BRENNER Wait a minute. I don't want 16 to put words in the witness's mouth by your objection.
17 I am going to overrule it because it is relevant. It is 18 not correct that iny time another proceeding is l
19 mentioned, that we are automatically litigating another 20 proceeding. We are not. The question is perfectly 21 relevant to testing a number of things pertinent to this 22 issue in this proceeding dealing with the testimony and 23 what the practice is and so forth.
24 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 25 0 Do you recall the question, Mr. Haass?
l O
l
- l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 t
7067
() 1 A (WITNESS HAASS) Please repeat it.
2 O To put it in context, I believe you stated 3 affirmatively that the TMI licensee, the TMI Unit 1 4 licensee had been requested by the staff to prepare a 5 list of itams important to safety but not safety 6 related. My next question was why the staff had made 7 that request.
8 A (WITNESS HAASS) In the context of the restart 9 review for TH1 1, we in the quality assurance branch 10 felt that consilarable additional review would be 11 appropriate for that unit. We looked extensively again 12 at their quality assurance program, had extensive 13 discussions with them, asked them a lot of questions, 14 and arrived at a much improved quality assurance program.
l 15 As part of that review, we initiated our work, 1
16 as is evident by the history of memoranda and other 17 papers during the last three years of staff activity.
18 We initiated out activity with regard to identifying a 19 listing of items important to safety but not safety 20 related. TMI Unit 1 was the first unit to be requested
. 21 to provide that information.
22 0 Why have you not requested that information 23 from LILCO?
l
() 24 A (WITNESS HAASS) As I mentioned, the -- we 25 were initiating our procedures, and feeling our way as
! )
1 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
1 7068 f
.e O 1 to how this should be done. It is not a licensing ,
2 requirement. We are groping. We are developing 3 requirements, developing procedures, and it was one step 4 in moving down tha t trail.
5 0 Do you believe it is beneficial to have that 6 listing?
7 A (WITNESS HAASS) Speaking personally, I do.
8 9
10 11 12 i
! 13
!O l
15 16 17 ,
18 19 20 21 22 23 0 24 25 l O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
^'
6 7069
() 1 0 3entlemen, turning your attention to page 6 of 2 the prefiled testimony --
3 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Lanpher, I guess I thought 4 you would ask another question that I would like to 5 ask. \
6 Do you want to explain, Mr. Haass, why you 7 believe -- in what sense you meant you believe it would 8 be beneficial?
9 MR. REIS: M r. Chairman, you previously .
10 instructed the Staff the Staff can object to Board
- 11 que'stions. I don't think -- I let the one question go 12 by, but " beneficial" doesn ' t deal with whether someone 13 meets the licensing requirements. A lot of things are 14 beneficial. You can have a triple containment that's 15 beneficial, to give an example. But the question is 16 what's necessary.
17 JUDGE BRENNER Well, as to the first part of 18 your point, that is exactly the reason I asked the l 19 question, because I don 't know what " beneficial" means l
20 in the abstract either. And I agree that a lot of 21 things would be beneficial, and I can judge the weight 22 as to how : lose it should be required under the 23 regulations and so forth once I understand better-what 24 Mr. Haass in his professional opinion means by 25 " beneficial."
O\
V ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7070
() 1 WITNESS SPEIS: J udge Brenner, I have a 2 personal opinion.
3 JUDGE BRENNER4 Okay. We will give you the 4 opportunity. But I want Mr. Haass to explain his
! 5 answer.
6 WITNESS HAASSa Let me preface my response by 7 saying that it is not -- I want to emphasize, it is not 8 s regulstory requirement. It is being studied 9 extensively at the Staff level. We are developing 10 information which will be used for g uidance, hopef ully, 11 to implement such a requirement. But no final decisions 12 -- no preliminary decisions have even been made along 13 those lines. These are my personal views.
f 14 And the reason I made the response was because 15 I personally feel that the requirement under general 16 design criterion one is somewhat vague. I think there 17 is a need to further sharpen what it is specifically we 18 are talking about. And one of those things is 19 identifying the listing of items.
20 And to go further, the work we are doing is 21 aimed at categorizing those items. There are many items 22 in that grouping that are basically no never-minds.
23 There are some that are a little more important, but 24 clearly none of them are as important as the grouping of 25 safety-relsted items to which the Appendix B program O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7071
() 1 applies.
2 That is the bulwark of the systems, structures 3 and components that we rely on to prevent and mitigate 4 the effects of an accident, and they are designed to 5 very stringent design requirements and very stringent 6 quality assurance requirements are required. But we
! 7 know, based on the Three Mile Island accident, other 8 systems can be useful in aitigating the effects of an 9 accident. They are not required, but if they are 10 available it helps and they should be used.
11 And QA requirements ought to be appropriate 12 for them, but basically they need to be categorized, 13 because we would not expect to apply full QA or very 14 stringent QA requirements to all of the items. I just 15 basically feel there is a need to further define, to 16 identify what it is we're talking about under GDC-1.
17 JUDGE BRENNER: I infer from your answer --
18 well, I should ask yous If you got further along in 19 being able to categorize these other items, the listing i
20 you might then seek would not be a listing of all items 21 in all categories, but you might prioritize the further 22 categories for which you would want the items listed; is 23 that correct?
That is s possibility.
( 24 WITNESS HAASS:
25 JUDGE BRENNER4 But so far you are not sure as O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINf A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7072 I
(]) to what form this will take?
2 WITNESS HAASS: No. We have two specific 3 contracts working right nce that are aimed to develop 4 this inf or1a tion , and I would not speculate at this 5 moment where they would lead us. We are developing 6 information that will assist us in determining where we 7 should go in the future.
8 And I will again hasten to add that there is 9 no Staff commitment to proceed in this way. We are i
. 10 developing information and we don't know where it's 11 going to go yet.
12 JUDGE BRENNER: Dr. Speis, let me give you the 13 opportunity before we get too far removed from where you 14 wanted to aske year -- or what you wanted to add.
15 WITNESS SPEIS: I guess Walt Haass expressed 16 his personal views that such an explicit list involving
! 17 items important to safety should be provided. And as he 18 further elaborated, there is a program under way at the 19 NRC to come to come conclusion and Staff position.
20 It is my personal belief that such a list, 21 explicit list, is not necessary, and the reasons for 22 that are tha t the Staff -- the resources that are poured 23 into the review see limited, and you will basically
() 24 dilute the Staff's effort. At present the Staff's 25 efforts are concentrated on the items that are the.most O
i ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7073 1 1
J 1
() I critical ones. They are used to perform the most 2 critical f unctions, the so-called safety-related.
r' 3 In addition, the flexibility exists within the V) 4 Staff to take things from the category of important to 5 safety and upgrade them, quality assurance, et cetera, 6 either put them into the narrow, the more narrow list of 7 safety-related or somewhere in between. And that has 8 been done and that is being done 9 And again, that is my personal views.
10 (Board conferring.)
11 WITNESS CONRAN May I add a comment, Judge 12 Brenner?
13 JUDGE BRENNER: Yes. Just one moment.
A t' ,)
14 (Board conferring.)
15 JUDGE BRENNER: Go ahead, Mr. Conran.
16 WITNESS CONRAN: I would like to add a 17 personal viewpoint of my own, since the Staff position 18 in this area is not clearly defined yet. Dr. Speis made 19 reference to a focus of Staff attention on items that 20 are associated with -- that are called, that are
. 21 sometimes referrel to a s of critical safety, of critical 22 safety importance, safety-related things, basically.
23 There is a large body of opinion, as reflected 24 in the regulations, however, among other members of the 25 Staff that things that are not safety-related, but still l
ALDERSON REPoPTING COMPANY, INC, l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l _ - _ _ _ -
7074 O c 11ea ricatr=111 1 ==rt t to retr, re verr 2 important from the overall public safety viewpoint. And 3 we have gone to same length in this hearing to make that 4 point and I wanted to reinforce it and associate myself ,
5 sy personal opinion, with that body of thinking as well, 6 and to add further that this dichotomy, which is more -
7 important, where should we put more resources, let's 8 don't focus just an safety-related, but there a re other 9 things important to safety, is a dialogue that has been 10 going on for some time, and it is one of the origins of 11 the difficulty with the term "iaportant to safety" 12 versus safety-related."
13 To some people they are the same thing, 14 because that is where the intense focus of their 15 interest is, on the high consequence accident-related 16 events. That is a definite factor. That is an origin 17 and a f actor in the perpetua tion of the difficulty with
( 18 the language.
19 Not that I would make a final judgment on 20 either view, but I only offer these comments to balance 21 the record, that there is a spectrum of opinion.
22 WITNESS HAASS: Judge Brenner, let me add a 23 comment. I think the discussion here reflects the early 24 stage of development of this issue, and again it shows 25 that there are different views that have to be taken ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
6 7075 1
into account. And we're not there, and it will take a 2 while.
3 JITNESS SPEIS: I would like to add a 4 postscript to what Mr. Conran said. I want to make sure 5 that -- I didn't mean in any way to deniorate the 6 importance of the important to safety items. I was 7 telking about, where do you put your resources when they 8 are limited.
9 The other point I would like to make is that .
10 the items that are in the category of safety-related,
- 11 they are not used exclusively for the big accidents, for 12 the accidents with the big consequences. The items that 13 are in the category of safety-related are the ones also 14 that are used for the prevention of accidents. You are 15 still talking about Part 21 and Part 50, in addition to 16 Part 100.
17 JUDGE BRENNER: Do you have something else?
18 WITNESS CONRANs Just one last comment, just 19 to make clear that I was not trying to leave that sort 20 of an implication about Dr. Speis' viewpoints. The 21 origins of the language difficulties that I talked about 22 are in days when the Staff's resources were even more 23 limited, a very small Staff, and it was quite natural in 24 the early days of the program to focus on what was 25 considered the critically important things.
O
, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7076 1 This language problem is a holdover from not
(])
2 just -- we have gone into the second decade of it now.
3 MR. REIS: M r. Chairman, I think it nay be 4 5ppropriate to interjert it this point. Dr. Speis 5 mentioned Part 21. I wonder whether he was really 6 focusing on Part 21 or Part 20, and I would like to ask 7 him.
8 WITNESS SPEIS: I meant Part 20. Thank you.
9 JUDGE BRENNER: You are right. He said Part 10 21 and I heard Part 21, but what flashed through my mind 11 as he said it were in fact the requirements of Part 20.
12 So apparently we are on the same wavelength, even though 13 I heard the,other number.
l 14 dR. REIS: It is easier now than on redirect.
15 JUDGE BRENNER: Continue.
16 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 17 0 M r. Haass, you started off, I believe, your 18 initial answer to Judge Brenner's question regarding 19 beneficial, that you emphasized that a list of items is 20 not a regulatory requirement. However, it is true that 21 a OA program for items important to saf ety is a 22 regulatory requirement?
23 A (WITNESS HAASS) Yes.
() 24 0 Dr. Spets, as I understand your responses, 25 your concern or one of your concerns is that the Staff O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l 7077 !
() 1 doesn't have adegaate resources to review this whole 2 ca t e-gor y , and it would dilute the review that you 3 presently presently give to the safety-rela ted or the 4 critical systems, correct?
5 A (WITNESS SPEIS) Well, I said tha t in a 6 general sense, in the context that the Staff's review, 7 the review efforts are basically one of an audit type, 8 where we don 't go in to the details of every system or 9 every aspect of the design. We just pick and choose, 10 basically. Then for the remaining we rely on the 11 Applicant's commitments.
12 0 Would it not make it easier for the Staff to
.13 review, get a sense for the adequacy of the Applicant's
(~h k/ 14 commitments, if you were provided a listing of items l
! 15 important to safety to which the QA program of GDC-1 16 applies.
17 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to object l
18 to that question. I hate to have this many objections l
19 this morning, but there are two grounds: A, we are 20 starting to litigate would it be easier for the Staff to 21 do it. The procedural things of what is ea sier for the 22 Staff I don't think is pa rticula rly relevan t.
23 Further, we are dealing with again -- the l 24 question started out with what is beneficial, and we are h
25 going on and we are getting quite far removed from l
l (Z)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7078
() 1 dealing with the contention and what we are litigating 2 here, as to whether there was adequate Staff review for 3 the plant to be licensed, among other things, in the
- 4 context of this particular contention.
5 JUDGE BRENNER: I'm going to overrule the 6 objection because it isn't -- the question isn't easier 7 in the abstract. The question is not as abtract as you 8 have characterized it, beca use it is going to the 9 comments of the Staff's assurance as to the commitment
. 10 and wha t they use that overall commitment for. And that 11 in turn is an important element of the Staff's testimony 12 as to what they are doing.
13 And this is part of the context of the Denton l 14 memorandum and sufficiently related to all of that. If 15 the question had been as you characterized it, you would 16 have been right that it would have been too far 17 removed. But it did not fit that description in our 18 view, so we will allow the question.
19 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
20 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) l 21 0 Dr. Speis, while I asked the question of you, 22 I know my question is in the context of Staff QA review, 23 so I was following up on one of your comments. If other
( 24 sesbers of the panel involved in the QA review want to i
25 comment also, that's fine.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7079
() 1 A (WITNESS CONBAN) Again, since earlier I 2 expressed my personal views, since this ef f ort is still '
3 under way snd it is being discussed extensively at NRC, 4 et cetera, there is no final position yet. But again, 5 my position is that, even though it could serve some 6 useful purpose, there is an implicit assumption that by 7 having explicitly identified such a list one is forced 8 to review it and to read it and review it. And again, 9 it dilutes the Staff's efforts and it takes away from 10 the items that we consider important in focusing that.
11 Now, the other thing I would like to add, 12 there is an academic -- it is academic to some extent, 13 because the particular sections of the SAR that deal 14 with all of the items -- not only the important to 15 safety, but the safety-related -- they are there, they 16 are listed there. And the criteria they have to meet, 17 they are listed there, and the people in the dif ferent 18 branches of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations 19 vill review those things. They know what they are.
20 They are there for them to see.
~
. 21 Q Does the FSAR, sir, specify in their 22 discussion? For instance, control systems; does that 23 specify what quality assurance program is applied to 24 those items??
25 A (WITNESS ROSSI) It does not address the A
V ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7080
() 1 quality assurance program that should be applied. It 2 sdiresses the design criteria and that type of thing, 3 rather than the gus11ty assurance program.
4 0 In fact, it doesn 't address GDC-1 in terms of 5 that. It addresses other of the general design 6 cri te ria ; is that correct?
7 A (WITNESS ROSSI) That is correct.
8 A (WITNESS HAASS) Well, let me cla rif y. It 9 does address GDC-1 with regard to quality sta nd a rd s.
10 0 For items important to safety as opposed to 11 safety-related?
12 A (WITNESS HAASS) Yes, quality standards.
13 Those are design requirements and codes.
l 14 A (WITNESS ROSSI) There is a general commitment 1
15 to GDC-1. So in that context, if there is a commitment 16 to GDC-1, it does indeed mean there is a commitment on 17 the part of the Applicsot to recognize that, just 18 because something is not safety-related, that it does 19 have an importance to saf ety and has to be dealt with 20 commensurate with its importance to safety. It puts a 21 responsibility on the Applicant to recognize that and 22 give thought to these systems, and also to have a 23 quality assurance program for them just through this 24 commitment to GDC-1.
25 0 You're referring again to the commitment that O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7081
() I we addressed before in chapter -- in section 3.1.2.17 2 A (WITNESS ROSSI) That is primarily what I am 3 sdiressing, but I believe that -- and I would have to 4 check this -- that other chapters of the FSAR also refer 5 back to GDC-1.
6 0 Well, chapter 7 is the one that -- that is the 7 instrumentation and control chapter, correct, Dr.
8 Rossi?
9 A (WITNESS ROSSI) Chapter 7 is the .
10 instrumentation and control section. Also at this 11 point, I think I would like to have chapter 7.1 here to 12 refer to if I could.
13 (Document handed to witness.)
14 (Witness reviewing document.)?
15 A (WITNESS ROSSI) Why don' t you proceed with 16 your questions. I will see if any of this is of use in 17 answering them.
18 0 Could you turn to Figure 7.1.1-2 of chapter 7, 19 and I will supply everyone with copies of that figure.
20 (Discussion off the record.)
21 WITNESS ROSSIs I have that.
22 BY MR. LANPHERs (Resuming) 23 0 For the record, this figure is entitled " Codes
( 24 and Standards Applicability Eatrix," and it is Figure 25 7.1.1-2, Revision -- and it comes from Revision 26,
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7082
() 1 April 1982. And if the Board would like this marked, we 2 can. It's never going to get bound in. It 's too big.
3 JUDGE BRENNER: Right, it is too big. And the 4 only reason we had --
let's see how far it goes. We 5 might mark it and not bind it in. We had marked some 6 sections of the FSAR before and that was for 7 convenience, but I think it was also before we had an 8 exhibit number for it, so there is probably no need to 9 mark it. But let's see where it goes.
10 BY MR. LANPHEBs (Resuming) .
11 Q Dr. Rossi or anyone else on the panel, this is 12 -- this figure purports, does it not, to specify the 13 codes and standards applicable to instrumentation and O 14 control systems? .
15 A (WITNESS ROSSI) Yes, it does. .
16 Q Does this indicate whether one of the codes or 17 standards applicable to instrumentation and control 18 systems is GDC-1?
19 A (WIINESS ROSSI) GDC-1 is not listed in this 20 table. However, I would like to point out that the 21 GDC-1 is a very general design criteria that is 22 applicable to essentially the entire plant. So I'm not 23 sure of the relevance of specifically listing it here,
( 24 as this particular table appears to deal mostly with 25 GDC's that are more specifically applicable to the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7083
() 1 instrumentation and control systems.
2 Well, GDC-1 would be applicable to Q
3 instrumentation and contedl systems, at least insofar as 4 quality assurance is concerned, correct?
5 A (WITNESS ROSSI) GDC-1 would, and we would 6 interpret the Applicant's commitment to GDC-1 to include 7 all systems in the plant that are important to safety, 8 instrumentation and control and other systems as well.
9 Tha t is a general commitment.
10 C That consitzent in chapter 3 that we've been 11 talking about?
12 A (WITNESS ROSSI) That is correct.
13 NR. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, that 's as f ar as l 14 I was going to go with this item.
15 ( Pause. )
16 BY ER. LANPHER: (Resuming) 17 Q Gentleman, turning your attention to the l
l 18 bottom of page 6 of your prefiled testimony, the 1
19 paragraph starting "A basic premise." What do you mean l 20 in that sentence by "the stringency of design criteria,"
21 focusing on the word " stringency"? .
22 A (WITNESS ROSSI) Yes, let me perhaps address 23 tha t. Well, the kind of thing we mean is that there is 24 a certain relative inflexibility of what we do with the l (
25 safety-related systems, in that they in general have to O .
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
O 7084 I be designed to withstand a seismic occurrence. There
(})
2 are requirements that they be looked at from the 3 standpoint of protection against floods, protection
(~3 L) 4 against missiles. In general, the safety-related 5 systems in total tre required to be redundant, so that 8 they can withstand the single fa'ilure criteria 7 specifically in the instrumentation and control systems 8 area.
9 There are rigid , relatively rigid requirements 10 concerning the separation of the redundant portions of 11 the instrumentation and control systems. If you refer 12 to section, I believe it is, 3.12 of the FSAR, you will 13 see that for Shoreham there is a discussion in section
\
I 14 3.12 of things like identification of those portions of 15 the instrumentation and control systems that are 18 safety-related. And again, that includes discuss'ons of 17 separation criteria that is applied to them.
18 There has to be isolation in the 19 instrumentation and control systems area, where signals 20 go from safety-related systems out to non-safety-related 21 systems. There is a requirement for isolation devices.
22 I believe that it is probably covered in section 3 or 23 chapter 3 also, but it is specifically a requirement of 24 IEEE-279.
25 So those are the kinds of things -- and I O
l _ son ee.o-e co_. ,Nc.
400 VIRGINI A AVE.. S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7085
() 1 think I probably have only given a brief summary of the 2 kinds of things that we mean by stringency of 3 requirements. And I think I left out one of the ones 4 that should be the most obvious as a result of our 5 previous discussion, and that is Appendix B applies to 6 the saf e ty- rela ted portions of systems.
7 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
8 0 In your answer, Dr. Rossi, I think one of the 9 things you referenced was GDC-2, is that correct, the 10 design basis for protection against natural phenomen'on?
11 A (WITNESS ROSSI) I didn't directly reference
, 12 it. I probably referred to a subject that may be 13 covered in that.
\- 14 0 Well, all of the first five criteria of the 15 general design criteria apply across the board to items
! 16 im po rta n t to safety, isn't that correct?
17 A (WITNESS ROSSI) That is correct. I believe 18 the word "important to safety" is used.
i 19 0 Mr. Kirkwood, do you have something you want 20 to add?
21 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) As I understand your 22 comment, Mr. Lanpher, I think you are asking if all i
l 23 natural phenomena apply to all items that are 24 safety-related.
25 Q Well, my question was more general than that.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
I 1
7086
() 1 It was that, is it true that the first five GDC apply to 2 items important to safety.
g~ 3 A (WITNESS ROSSI) The words "important to V
4 safety" occur in the first. I haven't read all five of 5 them here, but I have read the words "important to 6 safety." I can verify that they do indeed appear in at 7 least 2, 3, 4, and I would guess 5 also. Yes, the words 8 appear there.
9 Q Mr. Kirkwood, did you have a comment?
10 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Well, I'm thinking in 11 terms of all natural phenomena. Phenomena are not 12 applied to each individual item important to safety.
13 -Q How do you determine what items to apply --
14 well, you are referring there, then, to general design l
l 15 criterion 2, correct?
16 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Yes. ,
17 0 fou must make judgments, then, as to the 18 degree to which that criterion applies to a particular 19 item, correct?
i 20 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) That is correct. For 21 example, you may have a component designed to seismic .
22 category 1 requirements. It iay not be necessary to 23 design that same component for tornado protection.
24 There may be some other component which would perform 25 the same function that you would protect against l')
(J l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7087
() I tornadoes.
2 0 So within the important to safety category you 3 draw distinctions co to the stringency of the design gS V 4 requirements necessa ry in order to meet GDC-2?
5 A (WIINESS KIRKW33D) That is correct.
6 0 And you found, Mr. Kirkwood, in your 7 experience in the Staff that it is possible to draw 8 those distinctions and reach those judgments of rated 9 design crite ria?
10 A ( W IT N ESS KIRKWOOD) Yes. It is reflected in 11 the various SRP's.
12 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
13 MR. LANPHER: If you will just give me a l
O k/ 14 moment, Judge Brenner, a lot of the items that I was i
i 15 going to cover I think have in fact been covered -
16 sufficiently.
17 (Pause.)
18 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming)
! 19 Q 3entlemen, I would like to turn your attention 20 now to page 9 of your prefiled testimony, under Roman 21 numeral IV. Question 6, Mr. Rossi and Mr. Conran, you
( 22 prepared that answer or were the primary authors of that 23 answer; is that correct?
24 A (WITNESS CONRAN) Yes.
25 Q The question is: " Based on the Staff 's review ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7088
{} 1 of the Shoreham plant design, has a systematic 2 methodology been used?" Were either of you involved in 3 that Staff review?
s 4 A (WITNESS CONRAN) I have testified that I was 5 not responsible for any portions of that review. But 6 the review is documented in the Staff's SER.
7 0 Ihen your testimony is based upon your review 8 of the Staff's SER review?
9 A (WITNESS CONRAN) That's right.
10 0 3r the documentation of the Staff's review?
11 A (WITNESS CONRAN) Yes.
12 0 Dr. Rossi?
13 A .(WIINESS ROSSI) I did not personally do the
- 14 review in preparation of the SER's. I believe when you 15 asked the question earlier this week on my involvement 16 in Shoreham that I did indicate that I had done a 17 limited reading of the SER sections of the FSAR in 18 discussions with other Staff members within my section 19 and other Staff members to come to a judgment that I 20 believe Shorehan has been reviewed essentially the same 21 way as other plants that are currently being licensed.
22 0 3entlemen, how does the Staff's review of 23 design reveal whether an Applicant has utilized a l
24 systematic methodology for classification of systems, 25 structures or components as either safety-related or
('h L)
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
'I 706T
, ( -
1 important to safety?
(]) ,
37 2 A (WITNESS ROSSI) There are several -- 3
,] t 3 (Panel of witnesses conferting.) ' ' '
g~s O 4 A (WITNESS ROSSI) Your question-- let me <
. t 5 repeat back the question so I am sure. Well, why d od,' t 6 you repeat it again.
7 Q How does the Staf f's review of the Shoreham 8 design reveal whether a systematic methodology hast been 9 utilized to determine which structures, systems and 10 components should be safety-related and which should,be 11 impo r tan t to safety? That wasn't exactly the same, but 12 f airly close. ;
13 A (WITNESS ROSSI) Well, the Staff reviews 14 chepter 15. It looks at what systems are required to do 15 the. items that are listed in the answer to question 16 number 6 here. And one can review chapter 15 and tell 17 what those systems are. One can then go to other (
18 sections of the FSAR and determine what the design basis 19 for those systems are. s
.f 20 In the case of the instrumentation and control l 21 systems, one can ieck at the design documentations and l
22 drawings and 'Oct at these design documents and drawings 23 to determars . n.saar the portions of the instrumentation 24 and control systems that are required to do the 25 functions that are taken credit for in chapter 15 are or V(")
f ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, MC, p
, 4o0 vlRGINTA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20Cid (202) 354-23E1
' \
l .
+ 7090 d
" 1 are not sa f e ty-rela ted . And in the case of the
(]l) 2 instr <2 mentation and control systems, that portion that 3 is system-related, it is isolated from the portion that 4 is not safety-related.
5 So in doing that kind of a review, it has to 6 be systematic. Otherwise you couldn 't have any kind of 7 a clear delineation of what is and what isn't 8 safety-related.
9 In the particular case of Shoreham, again I to believe it is section 3.12 of the FSAR, there is a 11 discussion of separation criteria for mechanical 12 equipment snd instrumentation and control equipment, 13 which provides a reasonably good summary, I believe, of pJ x- 14 those systems that are taken credit for in chapter 15 15 and are therefore safety-related, and therefore the 16 criterion in section 3.12 applies to them.
17 Maybe I ought to have section 3.12 in front of
- 18 me, since I have now brought it up, please.
19 (Document handed to witness.)
20 (Witness reviewing document.)
71 (Discussion off the record.)
22 JUDOE BRENNER: Let's go back on the re co rd .
23 WITNESS ROSSI I might draw your attention to 24 some sections of this particular section. Again, I 25 would like to emphasize that I have not done a detailed b
%d ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
- 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7091
() 1 review of Shoreham, as I have tried to make clear on 2 several occasions. The kind of review I have done is 3 the kind of thing that I'm describing to you now, that 7S U
4 if I go to section 3.12.2 it discusses separation 5 criteria for safety-related mechanical and electrical 8 equipment.
7 Section 3.12.2.1 has affected systems and 8 equipment, and then it gives some listings of the types 9 of systems that are covered by this. There is the low 10 pressure coolant injection, the core spray, high 11 pressure coolant injection system, automatic 12 depressurization system.
13 Section 3.12.1.2 goes down through other
(
(~)
k/ 14 systems. There is a list of some ten systems there. I 15 go to th z electrical systems, section 3.12.1, and I find 16 reactor protection system, emergency core cooling 17 system, nuclear steam supply shutoff system, primary l
j 18 con tain m en t atmosphere control system, reactor building 19 standby ventilation system.
20 It goes on. There is a list of 21 systems in l
21 the instrumentation and control systems. I go on 22 through section 3.12 and I come to a conclusion that the l
23 only way tha t section could have been written was based l
24 upon a systematic, what I would consider a systematic, l
25 approach to identifying the systems, structures and O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7092
() 1 components that are safety-related.
2 BY HR. LANPHER: (Resuming)
,r') 3 O So the Staff reviewed, as I understand the V 4 documents, whether a systema tic methodology has been 5 utilized to identify or classify the safety-related 6 systems, correct?
7 A (WITNESS ROSSI) That is correct.
8 0 But your answer on page 9 says that the Staff 9 review also leads to a determina tion whethe r a 10 systematic methodology has been used to determine which 11 structures are important to safety. And in your 12 previous answer you didn't mention those, Dr. Ro ssi .
13 A (WIINESS SPEIS) Which page?
l k-) 14 0 I am referring back to question 6 on page 9 of 15 your prefiled testimony.
16 JUDGE BRENNER: Actually, I think you're 17 referring to a portion of what appears on the first full 18 paragraph on page 10.
19 WITNESS ROSSI: That is correct.
20 Let me go now to section 7.1 of the FSAR.
21 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
22 MR. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, so it's on the 23 record, I was referring back to the question up front I
24 and the initial answer of yes.
25 JUDGE BRENNER: I'm sorry, you are right. But l /~N O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 L
7093 1 I wanted to point out -- I didn't want the witness
(])
2 misled in that portion of his answer. In fact, the 3 pottion that begins to talk about important to safety 4 but not safety-rela ted is on the middle of page 10, 5 since you were driving his attention to a particular 6 page. That is all I meant and nothing more than that.
7 WITNESS ROSSI4 As I understand your question, 8 you question relates to the answer yes given to question 9 5 as it relates to important to safety, and the degree 10 to which that has been done with a systematic 11 methodology.
12 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) l 13 0 How the Staff review of design of the Shoreham
(-- 14 plan documented or led you to determine that a l
15 systematic methodology had been utilized to determine 16 those or identify those systems, structures and 17 components which are important to safety. And you had 18 already covered the safety-related.
19 A (WIINE55 ROSSI) First of all, let me make a 20 point that we place greater emphasis on the 21 safety-related. The methodology used for the 22 safety-related is indeed more systematic than it is for 23 im po rtan t to safety. However, for the important to
! 24 safety they are addressed through our standard review 25 plan, and they are discussed in the FSAR, and I was rm l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7094
() 1 going to draw your attention to chapter -- section 7.1 2 of the finsi safety analysis report, where LILCO has gs 3 gone through a number of systems here and they give what O 4 they call a safety design basis and a non-safety design 5 basis.
6 In genarsi, the safety design basis here 7 applies to that function that would be considered as 8 part of safety-related, and as I understand this section 9 the non-safety design basis applies to what I would call 10 important to safety but non-safety-related.
11 0 Dr. Rossi, I don't want to stop you from 12 completing your answer, but if you're referring to a 13 specific page in the FSAR could you make that clear so 14 we can follow along?
l 15 A (WITNESS ROSSI) Yes. I had up 'til now only 16 referred to section 7.1 because I was looking for the 17 page, or some pages. I think there are several here.
l 18 But if I go to page 7.1-17, there is a system here, l
19 which is the rod block monitor subsystem, and there is l 20 only a non-safety design basis of . en for that system.
21 Ihe following system, on page 7.1-18, is the 22 traversing in-core probe subsystem. There is only a 23 non-safety design basis given for that system. If I go 24 to the bottom of 7.1-18, there is a reactor manual 25 control system. There is only a non-safety design basis
(
\ >\
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE . S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7095
() 1 given for that system.
2 If I go to page 7.1-20, section 7.1.2.9, there 3 is a feedwater control system listed there. There's 4 only a non-safety design basis. If I go to the next 5 page -- well, let me not go any further.
6 My point is that our standati review plan 7 talks about systems that have to be covered in here. In 8 my again somewhat limited review of the Shoreham chapter 9 7, I have come to the conclusion that they have indeed
. 10 used wha t would appear to me to be a relatively 11 systematic methodology for identifying the important to 12 safety equipment, recognizing the fact that we do not 13 have as systematic a methodology for important to safety 14 systems as what we have for the safety-related systems l
15 and that there is more flexibility in whatever is done l
16 for the important to safety that are not l
17 safety-related.
18 19 1
20 21 22 23 25 (3
s/
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WACHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7096
() 1 (WITNESS CONRAN) I think my basic answer to 2 your question would have been much simpler. I don 't 3 review any specific section of the FSAR as an 4 assignment. But I would answer the question this waya 5 If one has bothered to read the Standard Review Plan, 6 one realizes that the Standard Review Plan says how the 7 Staff's review should be documented in the SER.
8 And because I know that, I look for what are 9 called " boiler plate statements." The Staff does a 10 review a certain*way against standards and criteria set 11 facth in the Standard Review Plan. And the Standard 12 Review Plan suggests -- goes so far as to suagest exact 13 words that should be included in the SER if all the 14 appropriate standards and criteria have been met.
15 Harking back to some of Dr. Speis' words 16 yesterday, I think it was, he indicated tha t every 17 aspect of the Staff's review is not documented in,the i 18 SER, but the clue that it has been done properly is that l
19 the reviewer who provides that section of the SER 20 includes in the SER the suggested wording, the format t
l 21 suggested by the SRP.
1 l 22 That is basically how one knows that it has been 23 done properly. Just reading the SER.
l 24 0 I will give you a chance, Dr. Rossi, in just a 25 second to comment. But you are referring to how you O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
l
7097
() 1 know that the Staff review has been done systematically; 2 is that correct?
3 A (WITNESS CONRAN) That is correct.
4 0 Not the Applicant's review.
l 5 A (WITNESS CONRAN) The Applicant's review?
6 0 3r the Applicant's classification. Yo'ur 7 answer is in terms o f the Staff 's review ?
8 A (WITNESS CONRAN) But the Staff's review of 9 the Applican t's submittal is intended -- the purpose of 10 the Staff's review is intended to verify that the 11 Applicant has done the job properly. And it does.
12 And so uben the words appear in the SER as 13 suggested by the 3RP format, one reading of the SER and 14 not questioning exact details as to how the conclusion 15 was reached is assured that the Applicant did his job 16 right, that the Staff reviewer did his job right, and 17 that the conclusions of all of those efforts are 18 documented in an expected format.
19 0 Dr. Rossi, did you have something to add? I 20 think I cut you off bfora, and I apologize.
21 A (WITNESS ROSSI) I don't think I need to add 22 anything -- well, let me say or e more thing . I don't l 23 vant to leave people with the impression that I believe 24 that any kind of systematic methodology for the systems 25 that are important to safety but n on -sa f ety -r ela ted ,
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGlh.A AVE .' ' . WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7098
() I that tha t methodology has been developed to the rigor 2 that we have for the methodology that is used for g- 3 safety-related. That, I do not want to leave that v
4 impression.
5 The methodology for the systems that are 6* safety-related is relatively inflexible. It is 7 relatively well developed. And it is relatively 8 rigorous. The methodology used for the systems that are 9 important to safety is more flexible, less rigorous, and 10 We are still looking at additional things that might be 11 appropriate in terms of methodology for better listing 12 or identifying and treating those systems. And Mr.
13 Haass has testified to that this morning that we are 14 looking further.
15 A (WITNESS CONRAN) While I would concede the 18 accuracy of Dr. Rossi's statements with respect to the 17 review of instrumentation and control systems from the 18 layman's point of view, I don't think I could concede 19 the point as to stringency of methodology or criteria.
20- If one, for example, reads the process set 21 forth in the SRP for the review of high-energy line 22 breaks, many of which are non-safety systems, there is a 23 very extensive methodology, a very sophisticated 24 sethodology, required to do tha t analysis, and a very 25 extensive review process set forth in the SRP. That is s
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7099 just one area that comes to mind. I think there are
(]) 1 2 others.
3 0 What do you mean by " layman's point of view"?
(q x_/
4 Do you mean someone who has not actually done the 5 review?
6 A (WITNESS CONRAN) I mean someone who is not 7 expert in doing that review but can read the process se t 8 forth and make informed inferences as to the amount of 9 effort involved and the degree of sophistication 10 involved.
11 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferred.)
12 0 Now, gentlemen, on page 10 of your prefiled 13 testimony, that midd,le paragraph, I think you have l
a k-) 14 covered your view of the Standard Review Plan, that it 15 assures that systems, structuree, and components in the 16 important-to-safety category are addressed.
17 What is the Staff process for ensuring that 18 not only they are properly addressed in the FSAR but 19 that what is set forth in the FSAR, in fact, is 20 implemented by the Applicant, that those commitments 21 with respect to important-to-safety are carried out?
22 A (WITNESS ROSSI) Well, the Staff considers the l
l 23 FSAR to be a commitment on the part of the Applicant to 24 implement what is in the FSAR. And we would consider 25 things that are in the FSAR to be open to an audit by O
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7100
() 1 the ICE inspectors at any point in time for any reason 2 to see if it is indeed there. And if it is not there, I g~g 3 believe we have appropriate actions that can be taken, k ,)
4 and if it appears that he has not met a commitment that 5 he has made to us.
6 0 So the way that this would be tested, the 7 implementation or whether the commitment has been 8 carried out, would be the ICE program?
9 A (WITNESS BOSSI) I would state it a little bit 10 differently. I would state that the commitment made in 11 the FSAR we believe is not made lightly, and anyone tha t 12 would try to make that kind of a commitment lightly 13 would surely recognize the fact that they are open to
/
k-)/
i 14 audits for essentially the lifetime of the plant by ICE 15 inspectors.
16 MR. I.ANPHER: I think, Judge Brenner, rather 17 than pursue that f urther with this panel, as they 18 pointed out before, we have a OA panel where we have ICE 19 members on it, and I think their testimony goes to that, 20 in fact. And so I will not pursue it further in the l
21 context of this panel.
l 22 (Counsel f or Suff olk County conf e rred.)
i 23 WITNESS SPEIS: I would like to add one .
24 comments that we don't completely exclude the items 25 that are important to safety from our review. As I said ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7101 1 earlier, there are branches in NRR that on a selected
[}
2 basis, on a smallar scale than items safety-related, 3 some of those things are reviewed.
O; 4 And I hsve an example in front of me, which is 5 Chapter 10 of the FSAR dealing with the steam and power 6 conversion system. And if one were to turn to page 7 10.1-3, you will see that for this particular system the 8 design and performance characteristics of that system 9 are explicitly id en ti fied . And the branch and the 10 people who review this section were familiar with its 11 importance to safety and know what to do with this.
12 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 13 0 So it is reviewed by certain of the technical p) s 14 branches, not including the Quality Assurance Branch, 15 however?
16 A (WITNESS SPEIS) That is true.
17 MR. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, I am going to 18 page 19 of my cross plan.
19 BY MR. LANPHERs (Resuming) 20 0 Mr. Kirkwood, I would like to turn your 21 attention to page 12 of the prefiled testimony -- excuse 22 me, page 12. And I guess it starts at the bottom of 23 page 11, Question 8 and Answer 8. You were the primary 24 author of that?
25 A (WITNESS KIR KWOO D ) That is correct.
t i
I I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7102
() 1 0 Ihe answer starts, "The LILCO quality 2 assurance program that is in conformance with 10 CFR 50 3 Appendix 3," what review of the LILCO quality assurance 4 program have you performed?
5 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) As part of my raview I 6 h elped identif y the components, the mechanical 7 components, that should be on the so-called Q list for 8 certain branches in our review process.
9 0 So you helpad to de:ide to what the quality 10 assurance program should apply; correct?
11 A (WITNESS KIBKWOOD) That is correct.
12 0 You do not, however, make a determination 13 whether, in fact, LILCO has conformed to Appendix B for 1 ( ') 14 each of those items in all of the Appendix B respects, 15 the various 18 criteria?
16 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) That is correct. I 17 identify the items.
l 18 0 So you are not -- in this testimony I had got 19 the implication at the top of page 12 that you 20 personally had made a decision that the LILCO Q A program 21 complies with Appendix B. Is that corrects you had 22 not? You made that assumption; correct?
23 A (WITNESS KIRKWOCD) Yes. I identify the 24 items.
25 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferred.)
O l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7103 O
(,) 1 0 Now, Mr. Kirkwood, further into that answer --
2 and we have covered this before in a different context, s 3 I believe -- but you make the statement that LILCO is
( ~J 4 committed to apply quality assurance requirements to 5 other systems, structures, and components that are not 6 within the scope of Reg Guide 1.29 in accordance with 7 the requirements of GDC-1.
8 Do you agree with the previous answers that, 9 in fact, given the testimony of LILCO's witnesses that 10 they have not, in fact -- that their commitment in 11 sec tion 3.1.2.1 does not meet the full requirements of 12 GDC-1 because of the important-to-safety dichotomy that 13 we have been talking about?
14 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) I concur in the previous 15 statements by the Staff in this.
16 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferred.)
17 0 Gentlemen, I would like to turn your c*' ntion 18 to page 17 and the definition of single failure which is 19 set forth in the middle of that page. I guess these 20 questions go to Mr. Rossi and Mr. Haass or Mr. Hodges, 21 primarily.
22 Do yoa agree that the single-failure criterion l
l 23 constitutes a minimum requirement of the regulations?
24 MR. REISs Mr. Chairman, I object to the 25 question in tha t , A, it is a legal question as to what l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7104
(') 1 the regulations require, although in some sense 2 reviewers can be asked that. But I do not understand
. 3 also the word " minimum" in that context. And I would 4 like it better defined.
5 MR. LANPHER: Let me rephrase the question. I 6 think probably to an extent the objection was proper.
7 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming) 8 0 "entlemen, from your technical point of view, 9 and not from a legal point of view, do you understand .
10 that the single-fsilure criterion as set forth in 10 CFR 11- Part 50 Appendix A, the introduction or the definition 12 section, con stitutes a minimum requirement that l 13 Applicants must meet, the minimum design requirements?
l (~'
l \~'b 14 (The panel of witnesses conferred.)
l 15 A (WITNESS ROSSI) The answer is yes.
16 Q That it does constitute a minimum design 17 requirement?
18 A (WITNESS ROSSI) We believe it constitutes a l
19 minimum design requirement.
20 (Pause.)
21 0 Gentlemen, you left out a portion of the 22 single-failure definition. It is really the footnote 23 from that definition, the footnote which concerns single 24 failures of passive components and electrical systems 25 and fluid systems; correct?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7105 (VITNESS ROSSI) That was not included in our
(])
1 A
2 answer. Oct Answer 15 was the bare definition of 3 single-f ailure without explana tions.
4 Q Focusing your attention on the footnote which 5 amplifies the passive-failure situation, do you have a 6 copy of the General Design Criteria available which 7 includes that footnote?
8 A (WITNESS ROSSI) We ha ve a copy.
9 0 What is the current Staf f practice with to respect to consideration of single failures of passive 11 component in a fluid system?
12 (The panel of witnesses conferred.)
13 A (WITNESS HODGES) As you can notice in that 0
\/ 14 f oo tno te , it says that conciderations of passive 15 component -- let me start, "The conditions under which a 16 single failure of a passive component in a fluid system 17 should be considered in designing the system against a
( 18 single failure are under development."
19 0 Yes, Mr. Hodges, and that is why I was asking 20 what the current Staff practice was.
21 A (WITNESS HODGES) And that specific criteria 22 have not been developed, and we have not, in general, 23 been applying a passive failures in fluid systems during 24 the short term.
25 Q You say during the short term? What do you O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 1
7106
() 1 mean by that, Mr. Hodges?
2 (The panel of witnesses conferred.)
3 A (WIINES3 HODGES) That is an example for 4 long-term cooling considera tions f ollowing a 5 loss-of-coolant accident. We do consider leakage of 6 packing and valve stems or pump seals which would be 7 passive failures in these mechanical parts of a fluid 8 system. We don't necessarily consider those 9 simultaneous with a single active f ailure, though, 10 during the near-term portion of a loss-of-coolant 11 accident, just as an example.
12 0 So that is what you meant by "short term"?
13 . A (WITNESS HODGES) That is what I meant, yes.
14 0 And has that been -- well, the General Design 15 Criteria have been in effect for, I guess, about 12 16 years now. Is it your testimony that no progress has 17 been made in further defining where -- how passive 18 failures in fluid systems will be considered beyond what 19 you just descibed, the long-term cooling mode?
20 A (WIINESS HODGES) That is my understanding.
21 0 Is there a program for considering this 22 matter?
23 A (WIINESS HODGES) I don't know.
24 MR. REIS: Mr. Chairman, I object. It is not 25 material whether there is a program. The fact that they (m
b ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l 7107
() 1 do not do it may be material. Whether there is a 2 program for the future is not material to the 3 Contention. *
(sS
'%) 4 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, we have had -- this is 5 now a famous footnote in this proceeding, Mr. Reis. I 6 do not know if you are aware of that. " Famous," I was 7 being somewhat jocular. But there has been a lot on 8 this, and it ties in with some of the earlier matters.
9 In addition, the Staff's practice under the
. 10 GDC would be pertinent if you assume that the particular 11 GDC being askad about is pertinent, and this particular 12 GDC-1 certainly is in terms of classification. So the 13 question is allowed.
O Y- 14 3R. ELLIS: Judge Brenner, this is not, if I
, 15 may say for the record, this'is not GDC-1.
16 JUDGE BRENNER: I am sorry. The introduction 17 leading in. Thank you.
18 WITNESS CONRAN: Mr. Lanpher --
19 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 20 Q I think my question is whether there is a 21 program under way by the Staff to address really the 22 last three words of that footnote, and I did not add 23 this to the question before a re under development. So 24 that was the context that the question is in.
25 A (WITNESS CONR AN) Yes. I understood the O]
L l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7108
(~s 1 context. With regard specifically to that narrow aspect
.)
s 2 of the single-failure criterion, I can't offer any 3 information.
g
{G 4 But if you will notice in the memo that has 5 been referred to frequently, a specific objective of the 6 systems interaction program is to review generally to 7 get a new perception generally of the efficacy of the 8 single-failure criterion.
9 C You are talking about the memorandum that you 10 authored which is attached to the testimony?
11 A (WITNESS CONRAN) That's right. And I think 12 the results of our efforts will have a bearing on the 13 resolution of this specific question. So in that sense, G
l
- 14 there is a program under way to examine at least an 15 aspect of the question that you are asking, an important 16 aspect.
17 0 Except for the systems interaction program 18 which was described generally in the memorandum attached 19 to the testimony, is the panel a wa re of any other i 20 program which may be addressing this matter?
21 (The panel of witnesses conferred.)
22 A (WITNESS HODGES) The simple answer is just, I l 23 think, no, we don't know of any programs to develop 24 criteria along those lines. We are obviously lookit:q at i 25 things like emergency procedure guidelines which would i
On O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7109
(} 1 get into the handling of multiple f ailures and various 2 combinations. But a criterion to be used in the design, 3 no.
O 4 A (WITNESS SPEIS) I would like to add that Mr.
5 Hodces' comments on the multiple failures in the 6 framework of the emergency procedures is outside the 7 design basis. He was referring to 8 outside-the-design-basis events.
9 A (WITNESS HODGES) As soon as you start into 10 the multiple failures, you are immediately outside the 11 design basis.
12 0 What do you mean you are "outside the design 13 basis"?
l 14 A (WITNESS HODGES) For transients and accidents 15 and --
16 Q Let me rephrase the question. By " design 17 basis," do you mean you are g,oing beyond th e single 18 failure?
19 A (WITNESS HODGES) Yes.
20 0 And you have testifiei that that is a minimum 21 criteria ; correct?
22 A (WITNESS HODGES) That is correct.
23 MR. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, in terms of my 24 questioning, this is as good a time as any to break for 25 lunch.
r^
(_)g i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l 7110
() 1 JUDGE BRENNEBs All righ t, we will break for 2 an hour.
3 Mr. Ellis, did you want to say something?
fs b 4 MR. ELLIS: Yes, sir, if I may. I guess we 5 have just an hour and a half, and I would like to know 6 whether he intends, Mr. Lanpher intends, to use the hour 7 and a half after lunch. The prospect of being handed 8 the panel with 30 minutes to go is something I at least 9 vant to know about. .
10 MB. LANPHER: I am going to spend the 11 lunchtime trying to focus things. I am hopeful of 12 completing this afternoon. I do not know iust when.. I 13 think things are noving fairly rapidly now. A lot of 14 the matters that are in the cross plan have been 15 covered, so it is hard to estimate.
16 JUDGE BRENNER: 3r. Ellis, I guarantee you he 17 is not going to leave you a lot of time. And your point 18 is that you might prefer not to have to go forward 19 rather than start with just a little bit left. And 20 unless Mr. Lanpher surprises me by a great amount of i
21 time, I will give you that option.
22 3R. ELLISs Ihank you, Judge Brenner.
23 JUDGE BRENNER: That is, we would break a 24 little early if that happened. I do hope Mr. Lanpher 25 finishes in that time. I am not anticipating finishing 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 I
7111 1 greatly in advance of that time, but at least within 2 thst time.
3 MR. LANPHER: Well, I will do my best.
O 4 JUDGE BRENNER: Spoken like a good lawyer.
5 (Laughter.)
8 JUDGE BRENNER: Let us be back' a t 1400 7 o' clock.
8 (Whereupon, at 12:00 noon, the hearing in the 9 above-entitled matter was recessed, to reconvene at 1:00 10 p.m., this same dsy.)
11 12 13 O
L/ 14 15 16 17 18 l 19
{
20 21
, 22 23 24 25 i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
i 7112
() 1 AFTERh00N SESSION 2 (1400 p.m.)
- 3 JUDGE BRENNER: Let's go back on the record.
4 We are ready to continue with the cross-examination.
5 And thinking ahead to the proposed plans for next week, 6 I think that if the County doesn 't finish its cross of 7 this panel today there is a great deal of doubt in my 8 mind that the testimony will be completed on Wednesday 9 in order to go on to the settlement discussions and 10 aatters on Thursday. So I hope you can finish today.
11 let me miso note we discussed the possible 12 recalling of Mr. Thadani. That was prior to the time 13 . that we knew there would be a gap in his appearances, in
-) 14 any event, and I assume the parties are taking that into 15 account in their discussions of further procedures, 16 presumably.
17 I guess what I'm suggesting is -- and we will 18 hear more on it next Tuesday or Wednesday, but what I'm 19 suggesting is the County should be able to prepare their
- 20 further questions based on his earlier oral testimony 21 and be able to ask them of Mr. Thadani when he is 22 present next week.
23 But for now let's proceed with this panel.
24 3R. LANPHER: I've already talked to Mr. Reis 25 about that.
I ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 I
7113
() 1 JUDGE BRENNER: All right.
2 MR. LANPHER4 I told him we thought that would 3 probably be feasible and we were going to review the
- g l (\ / 4 transcript this weekend in that regard.
5 JUDGE BRENNER: Very good. Thank you.
6 Whereupon, 7 THEMIS P. SPEIS, 8 WALTER P. HAASS 9 MARVIN W. HODGES, 10 C. E. ROSSI, 11 JAMES H. CONRAN, SR.,
12 and ROBERT KIRKWOOD, 13 the witnesses on the stand at the time of recess,
( 14 resumed th e sta nd , and having been previously duly 15 sworn, were examined and testified further as follows:
16 CONTINUED CROSS EXAMINATION 17 BY MR. LANPHER:
18 0 Dr. Rossi, I would like to go bs k to one 19 thing that you brought up this morning. If you recall, 20 earlier today you referred to the physical independence 21 or sepsration requirements of section 3.12 of the 22 Shoreham FSAR.
23 A (WITNESS ROSSI) Yes.
24 Q Are these independence requirements, for 25 electrical equipmen t primarily, defined in the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7114
() 1 regulations and general design criteria 3, 17 and 21?
2 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
3 A (WIINESS ROSSI) I believe it is, 21 is the 4 one that is most directly applicable to wha t I recall 5 looking at in section 3.12. The fire review is c'arried 6 out in a little bit different manner.
7 0 Okay. Focusing on 17 -- let's see, 17 is 8 entitled "Electri: Power Systems." That has an 9 independence requirement also, correct?
10
- MR. ELLIS: What is the reference to 17, 11 please?
13 WITNESS ROSSIs Yes, it does, on onsite 14 electrical power supplies. The last portion of that 15 does -- well, that's not the last portion. I read one 16 specific pa ragraph: "The onsite electric power 17 supplies, including batteries, and the onsite electric 18 distribution system shall have sufficient independence, 19 redundancy, and testability to perform their safety 20 functions, assuming a single failure."
21 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming) 22 Q And in the first part of GDC-17, it refers to i 23 items important to safety, structures, systems and 24 components important to safety, correct?
l 25 MR. ELLIS: We object to questions on GDC-17 V)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7115
() 1 because it is not in the contention.
2 JUDGE BRENNER: Why don't you briefly tell us 3 how it relates?
4 MR. LANPHER Well, this is a lead-in to, 5 going back to section 3.12 and the dichotomy again 6 between safety-related and non-safety-related, I think 7 his testimony this morning talking about independence 8 requirements does involve at least 17 and 21, and 9 perhaps also 3. The fact that the contention doesn't 10 specifically mention it doesn't mean that we cannot 11 inq uire when a witness, at least by inference, brings it 12 up.
13 JUDGE BRENNER: Well, we vill allow it as long (d) t ' 14 as it stays in.the context of probing the S taf t 's 15 approach and its methodology of systems classification.
16 And given the fact that s lot of the Staff's testimony 17 goes to tha t, to the differences and, well, comparisons 18 of safety-related and important to safety but not 19 safety-related, it would be probative on that point.
20 The mere absence of a reference to a GDC in the l 21 contention doesn't mean it cannot be pertinent where it 22 ties in, as I have indicated. But we are not going 23 towards a whole line on whether or not GDC-17 is met, 24 and I took Mr. Lanpher's comment to mean that.
25 MR. LANPHER I don't have a long line on l
1
}
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7116
() I this.
2 BY ME. LANPHER: (Resuming) 3 0 Dr. Rossi, do you still have the FSAR section
,.)
4 3.12 handy? I would like to turn your attention to page 5 3.12-1 at the baginning of that section. And the
~
6 introduction states: "This section defines separation 7 criteria for safety-related mechanical and electrical 8 equipment."
9 A (WITNESS ROSSI) Yes, it does. .
10 Q And it goes on, and I don't have a copy. Just
- 11 so other people know the contexta " Safety-related 12 equipment to which the criteria apply are those 13 necessary to mitigate the consequence of abnormal I n
-J 14 operational transients of accidents. The objective of i
15 the criteria is to delineate the separation requirements 16 ne:essary to achieve true independence of safety-related 17 functions compatible with the redundant equipment 18 provided."
l 19 Now, do you construe this to be a commitment 20 to apply the independence or separation requirements 21 only to safety-related equipment? Is that the Staff's 22 understanding?
23 A (WITNESS ROSSI) That particular statement 24 there would state that. Let me look at some other 25 sections of 3.12. There is a statement on page 3.12-5 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i 7117 4
( )j 1 ths t sa ys: "The resulting installationc satisff the 2 criteria of IEEE-279, 1971, general design criteria 3,
- 3 17 and 21, as further clarified and limiter! h elo w . "
7 C 4 I would interpret that to be a commitment to 5 meet all of IEEE-279. You asked me about 3, 17 and 21.
6 There is clearly a commitment to meet 3, 17 and 21 there 7 also.
8 But going on to your original question on 9 whether it was a commitment only on separation of 10 safety-related equipment, let me just take a look a t 11 279. The :ommitment to IEEE 279 I would interpret ~ as 12 also stating that they meet section 4-7 of the control l 13 and protecti,on system interaction in here, which does
(' ') 14 contain sone general reauirements on transmission or 15 signals from protection systems to control systems and 16 what failures in control systams can do and that sort of j 17 thing.
1 18 So in just looking quickly at this and not 19 having read everything here in context, I would take 1
20 tha t to mean that, also tha t kind of a comoitment also.
, 21 Q Dr. Rossi, in Staff practica do you require 22 that the separation criteria be applied for all items 23 important to safety or only for safety-rela ted items?
24 A (WITNESS ROSSI) Separation criteria in the 25 instrumentation and control systems applies to the ALDERSoN REdoHTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (232) 554 2345
7118
() 1 ssfety-related portions, the redundant portions, and 2, there are also separation criteria that apply, or J3 independen:a critaris it lesst, that spply to the b(~x 4 independence between control systems and protection 5 systems, such as the failures on the non-safety-related 6 side do not feed back into the safety-related side.
7 So it is a little more than just on 8 safety-re.ated.
9 0 So you interpret GDC-17, where it uses the 10 terminology "important to safety," to relate only to 11 safety-related?
12 A (WITNESS ROSSI) GDC-17 -- and again, I have 13 not rend all of SDC-17 right now, but I have read down l
D) t 14 into the second sentence, which -- let me read at least 15 the first two sentencess 16 "An on-site electric power system and an 17 offsite electric power system shall be provided to 18 permit functioning of structures, systems and components 19 important to safety. The safety function for each 1
20 system, assuming the other system is not functioning, 21 shall be to provide sufficient capacity and capability 22 to assure that specified acceptable fuel design limits i
23 and design conditions of the reactor coolant pressure 24 boundary are not exceeded as a result of the anticipated l 25 operational occurrences and the core is cooled and l
l O V
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7119
() I containment integrity and other vital functions are 2 maintained in the event of postulated accidents."
3 I would interpret criteria 17 to place some
- v 4 requirements that are mostly directed to the 5 safety-related equipment through that second sentence 6 there.
7 JUDGE BRENNER: Do you mean the sentence that 8 starts, "The safety function"?
9 WITNESS ROSSI: Right.
to Let me add some more on how I would see 11 several of these :riteria that we have talked about in 12 this immediate question and some of your earlier ones as
, 13 being applied. When you look at a system, I think one l N,
' 14 of the first things you have to do is decide what is the 15 function of that system.
16 Now, if it's an emergency core cooling system 17 that's required to cool the core in an accident, that's 18 the basic function of that system. The next thing you 19 have to look at the system for is to make a 20 determination under what conditions that system may have l
21 to operate.
22 Now, for certain of the safety-related 23 systems, they have to be able to operate even during a 24 seismic occurrence, and also you have to ensure tha t you l 25 have sufficient safety-related equipment to operate i
l l
(Q1 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7120 (j'
m 1 following an accident, even taking into account the 2 accident environment.
3 So when you talk cbout a system that is 4 important to safety, one of the first things you want to 5 do is define the safety f unction of tha t system and 6 under what conditions it has to operate. And basically 7 what we have done is we have said that the 8 safety-related systems perform very critical safety 9 functions and those systems have to perform their 10 actionb with seismic occurrences, if you have a seismic 11 occurrence, and under the environment that they may be 12 expected to see during the accident that they are 13 supposed to protect against.
\d 14 WITNESS CONRANs May I add a comment to that, 15 that when the terminology question was discussed at the t
16 TMI hearin7, a point that seemed to be similar to the 17 one that you are inquiring after came up. I think Dr.
1 18 Rossi indicated that with regard to the area that he 19 reviews that GDC-17 applies principally to the 20 saf e ty-rela ted systems.
l 1 .
21 But it has been some time since I reviewed it, l 22 but chapter 8 of the SRP relating to power systems also 23 refers to GDC-17, I believe, and there are requirements l
24 which have to be zet, stated in the SRP which have to be 25 met for the non-sa f e ty-rela ted parts of the electric O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7121
() 2 1 power syctams in the pisnt. So in a number of places where the term "important to safety" appears it is not 3 slways clear that the way it should be read is -- to the g-(e 4 extent that a system important to safety has a safety 5 function here it is explici t, but in other places it 6 appears it isn't.
7 But this GDC-17 applies f airly broadly to 8 offsite and onsite power systems that are reviewed by 9 another branch, as well as Dr. Rossi's.
10 (Counsel for Suffolk County conferring.)
11 BY ER. LANPHER: (Rasuming) 12 0 Sentlemen, given the fact that at least in 13 this heariaq you have now for the first time identified 14 a difference in terminology, at least, between 15 yourselves and LILCO in what we have been discussing, 16 important to safety.and safety-related, is this an area 17 that the Staff is going .to need to review again in light
! 18 of the terminology which LILCO has used in its FSAR as 19 they define it?
20 A (WITNESS ROSSI) I have seen nothing up to l 21 this point in time that would make me think that we have 22 to re-review anything. We certainly always keep tha t 23 possibility in mind, however. But I have seen nothing l
24 to this point in time that would make me think that we 25 do.
L) l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
f 1
7122
() 1 0 You're talking in the instrumentation and 2 control area?
s 3 A (WIINESS ROSSI) I'm talking in the U 4 instrumentation and control area, and perhaps others can 5 address other areas.
6 A (WITNESS CONRAN) This may be the point to 7 reinforce the point that was made in very brief comment 8 to Judge Brenner yesterday, that because important to 9 safety is also mentioned in GDC-17 as well as others, ,
10 sithough s re-review may not be required, a commitment
- 11 to endorse or accept or use the definitions the way that 12 the Staf f sees them would tie up the last loose end with 13 respect to assuring that in the future what they have
('s
\)
~ 14 already done with regard to our systems important to 15 safety but not ssfety-related vill continue to be done 16 in the future.
17 0 Mr. Hodges?
18 A (WIINESS RODGES) Within the resctor systems 19 area, I can say that none of the systems we have 20 reviewed that are important to safety but not 21 safety-related would need to be re-reviewed. We have 22 reviewed them against what we felt were needed and I 23 don't think that those differences in definitions played 24 a part, because we were not reviewing as a 25 "sa f e ty-rela ted" versus just strictly important to O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7123
() 1 safety system, but we were reviewing against the 2 f unction tha t the system was performing and the 3 requirements for that function.
4 A (WITNESS HAASS) In the quality assurance 5 seas, I believe we have already adequstely discussed the 6 situation and the conclusions we draw are that we would 7 need to reconfirm our commitment on the applicability of 8 QA requirements for items important to safety but not 9 safety-related. Other than that, there is -- and of 10 coarse, thst would have to be reviewed --
there would be 11 no other impact. That applies to the operational 12 phase.
13 A ,
(WIINESS ROSSI) Could I sdd?
'- 14 JUDGE BRENNER: It's up to you.
15 I think Mr. Kirkwood wanted to respond to your 16 earlier question. Am I correct? You reached for the 17 microphone.
18 WITNESS KIRKWOOD: Yes. With respect to the 19 mechanical fluids systems, I know of no re-review which 20 is required with respect to the mechanical system l
l 21 components, regardless of the terminology used.
22 23 24 25 p
(_)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7124
() 1 A (WITNESS ROSSI) Could I add?
2 JUDGE BRENNERs It is up to you. I think Mr.
gmg 3 Kirkwood vsnted to respond to your earlier question. Am V
4 I correct? You reached for the microphone.
5 WITNESS KIRKWOODs Yes. With respect to the 6 mechanical fluid systems, I know of no rereview which is 7 required with respect to the mechanical system 8 components regardless of the terminology used.
9 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 10 0 Mr. Haass, let me go back to your comment.
11 You limited that comment to operational QA. Does the 12 same potential terminology problem that we have been
. 13 talking about also not exist in design and 14 construction?
15 A (WITNESS HAASS) As we have said previously, 16 we were satisfied with whst LILCO has described in their 17 prefiled testimony on pages 41 through 49 as being an 18 acceptable Q A program for non-safety-related items. So 19 we feel that area is adequately covered.
20 A (WITNESS ROSSI) I wonder if I could add a 21 comment.
22 0 Sure. So ahead.
23 A (WITNESS ROSSI) I wanted to add a further 24 comment with respect to Criterion 17, which I have 25 read. I still haven't read the whole thing, but I have ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7125 ;
l 1
() 1 read down into it to note that it sees discuss the 2 electric power transmission network to the on-site gs 3 electric distribution system. *
(
4 And I wanted to point out the fact that the 5 electric power distribution coming from outside the 6 plant would not meet the normal requirement that we 7 would apply to a safety-related piece of equipment, 8 because it is clesrly not going to be designed to 9 withstand c seismic event, because that would require 10 seismic design of other plants within the LILCO system.
11 And so Criterion 17 has requirements that go 12 beyond just the saf ety-related portion of the electric 13 power systems into this important-to-safety one. And
- 14 they are pretty specific on what the power from outside, 15 the distribution network has to meet.
16 And the on-site power distribution system is 17 designed to be saf ety-related with enough redundancy i 18 just within itself to be able to handle accidents. But 19 there are these additional requirements even on what I 20 would consider to be an important-to-safety system, 21 which is the distribution coming into the plant from 1
22 outside.
23 Q Gentlemen, I would like to turn your attention l
24 to pages 18 through 21 of your prefiled testimony where 25 you discuss the defense-in-depth approach. In this O
l ALDERSON REPC,RTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7126
(') 1 discussion you discuss the use of equipment that is 2 non-safety-related and endorse its use in emergency p 3 operating procedures in various aspects of plant N- 4 operation; correct?
5 A (WIINE55 ROSSI) That is correct.'
6 Q Would you agree that all of the equipment that 7 is referenced in this testimony regarding the 8 defense-in-depth approach, and especially equipment 9 utilized in emergency operating procedures, would be 10 classified as important to safety under your 11 terminology?
12 (The panel of witnesses conf erred .)
13 A (WITNESS ROSSI) It would be important to
(- l
\- 14 safety where we mean by "important to safety" to also 15 include safety related.
16 0 Right. Now, gentlemen, at page 20 you refer 17 to emergency operating procedures. Have any of you 18 reviewed the emergency operating procedures for 19 Shoreham?
20 A (WITNESS HODGES) Yes, I have.
I 21 O Which ones did you review, Mr. Hodges?
22 A (WITNESS HODGES) I reviewed ~ the level 23 control, the depressurization, the flooding.
24 0 The four that we discussed?
25 A (WITNESS HODGES) Well, more than just the C's V
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, l 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
'127
() i four. The complete set of emergency procedures that 2 were developed from the Owners Group guidelines.
3 0 What was the purpose of that review? And I 4 use the word " review" cenerally.
5 (The panel of witnesses conferred.)
e A (WITNESS HOD'GES) I reviewed the procedures 7 primarily for consistency with the BWP emergency 8 procedures guidelines. Tha t is, I think as I stated, I 9 did not review from the sense of writing the safety 10 evaluation for those procedures. That is the 11 responsibility of snother branch.
12 But I do have the technical review i
13 cesponsibility for the emergency procedures guidelines, 14 and, as such, I provided an SER to the Procedures and l
15 Test Review Branch on the technical bases for the 16 emergency procedures guidelines, and I was reviewing the 17 Shoreham emergency procedures for consistency with what 18 ve have been developing ander the guidelines.
19 (The panel of witnesses conferred.)
20 0 Gentlemen, I want to turn your attention to 21 the bottom of page 23 and the top of page 24 And for 22 the Board's information, I am on page 29 of the cross 23 plan.
24 At the top of page 24 you refer to the high
! 25 reliability of rertain equipment, and this is equipment i
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7128 j l
() 1 that is used in the mitigation, I guess, of anticipated 2 operational occurrences, but does not f ully mee t the 3 safety-grade requirements. Just so the context is
(),
~
4 clear, what do you mean by "high reliability," as used 5 at the top of paga 247 6 A (WITNESS HODGES) It is a combination of 7 thi ng s. For the turbine bypass system it is the fact 8 that we have a lot of operational experience with that 9 type of system on other plants and that it does seem.to 10 be a very reliable system. Plus the fact that in the
- 11 technical specifcations we have required the periodic 12 surveillance on that system to guarantee or at least to 13 assure us that it remains reliable, that there will be O 14 conditions in the tech specs,for them they will have to 15 go to if that system is found to be inoperable on the 16 level 8 system for the feedwater trip.
17 I have reviewed the P EIDs for tha t system, the 18 logic for that system. I know it to be generally 19 redundant. There may be a single relay involved in the 20 trip that would prevent it from being totally 21 red undan t. But to a large extent, it is designed to te 22 same dagraa of refundancy as you would see in a safety 23 system. So based upon a review of PEIDs for that 24 particular system, I am satisfied that it is a highly i 25 reliable system and a lot of design consideration has n
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
i
7129
() 1 been put into it.
2 0 Do you have the same view with respect to the es 3 RCIC system, sir?
4 A (WITNESS HODGES) Yes, I do. I have also 5 reviewed the PEIDs for the RCIC. And, in fact, the RCIC' 6 is mostly a safety-related system. Those parts of the 7 RCIC that are required for injecting the fluid are 8 safety-related. So I have a good assurance that that is 9 s high-quality system.
10 0 Have you performed any comparison or reviewed 11 any comparisons on the reliability of the RCIC system 12 compared to other emergency core-coolino systems?
! 13 MR. ELLIS I object to the question because I
('h l
\/ 14 think it equates RCIC with emergency core-cooling l
15 Systems whe he used the word "other."
16 MR. LANPHER: Well, let us clarify that.
17 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 18 0 Understand that is used as a back up emergency l 19 core-cooling system, it is relied upon in certain l
l 20 circumstances; is that not correct, Mr. Hodges?
21 A (WITNESS HODGES) It is relied upon as a 22 backup high-pressure injection system. I wouldn't l
23 necessarily call it a backup emergency core-cooling
~
24 system.
25 0 Well, the high-pressure injection system is an l p)
(-
l ALDERSON REroRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7130
{} 1 2
emergency core-cooling system?
A (WITNESS HODGES) It is part of the emergency 3 core-cooling system, but the major backup function, 4 backup role that the RCIC plays, I believe, is in the 5 mitigation of rod-injection transient as opposed to a 6 loss-of-coolan t accident, so that it is there to back up 7 the HPCI for a different type of event.
8 0 Have you performed any analyses or reviewed 9 any analyses or comparisons of the RCIC reliability 10 compared to the reliability of components of the 11 emergency core-coolant system?
12 A (WIINESS HODGES) I am svare of the problems
. 13 that have been associated with the RCIC system, the
( 14 reliability numbers associa ted with that as compared to 15 the ECC systems, yes.
16 Q And do those comparisons not indicate tha t the 17 RCIC systen is less relisble than those?
18 A (WITNESS HODGES) It is less reliable than 19 some of them.
20 A (WITNESS SPEIS) I would like to point out 21 tha t in the loss-of-coolant analysis that is performed 22 by the Applicant and audited by the Staff, no credit is 23 taken f or the RCIC system in arriving at the ECCS 24 criteria. No credit is taken for the RCIC system.
25 A (WITNESS KIRKWOOD) Mr. Lanpher, I would like O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7131 I
(') to make a comment. If we are includino the mechanical 2 aspects of the RCIC system, this system is constructed
~g 3 to the sais quality standards as the ECCS system; that b 4 is, it is s Qualiity Group B system. It is constructed 5 to Section 3 Class 2 of the ASME boiling pressure vessel 6 code. It is designed to Seismic Category 1 7 requirements. And it is within the scope of the 8 Appendix B program.
9 JUDGE JORDANS Co uld I ask, please, one 10 question? You say no credit was taken for the RCIC 11 system except for a backup. Put if it were not there, 12 then would not the HPCI system itself have to be fully 13 reundant?
(>,
\- The HPCI system is the 14 WITNESS HODGES.
15 high-pressure system that is relied upon in the ECCS 16 analyses. There is no credit given for the RCIC system 17 itself.
18 In the ECCS analyses, if the high-pressure 19 coolant injection system fails and you have a small 20 break so that the break itself is not depressurizing the 21 system, than the ADS system is used to depressurize the 22 system, so that the low-pressure systems ar e redundant 23 to the high-pressure systems.
24 JUDGE JORDAN: So the lack of redunancy in the 25 high-pressure system is excused, so to speak, or given s
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7132
() I credit for being a safety grade because of the ADS 2 system and not the RCIC?
gs 3 WITNESS HOD 3ES: The ADS system coupled with
\_)
4 low-pressure systems provide the red undancy to the 5 HPCI.
8 JUDGE J3RDAN: All right.
7 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 8 0 3entlemen, starting at the bottom of page 24 9 and continuing on to the top of page 25 you make the 10 statement that the standby liquid control system is not 11 required to be totally redundant since it is used only 12 as a backup means for bringing the reactor to a 13 subcritical condition.
('h
-/ 14 Are you relying upon, when you use the word 15 " required," are you relying upon a Staff practice or are 16 you referencing a regulation or what? What is the basis 17 for this statement?
18 A (WITNESS HODGES) Would you expand on your 19 question a little bit? I am not completely sure what 20 you mean.
21 0 Well, I am trying to find out what you mean in 22 your testimony, Mr. Hodges. You state that the system 23 is not required to be totally redundant because it is a 24 backup. When you use the word " required," that implied 25 to me that perhaps you were relying upon a regulation, O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7133 1 maybe you were using the word " required" in the centext 2 of Staff practice not to require it to be totally 3 redundant. And I am trying to understand what you meant O 4 by that word " require."
5 A (WITNESS HODGES) The reactor protection 6 system is redundsat. The standby liquid control system 7 is a diverse means of shutting down the reactor. The 8 redundancy that is required comes within the reactor 9 protection system.
10 0 Then, Mr. Hodges, are you relying upon a 11 regulatory provision for your position that it is not 12 required to be a totally redundant system?
13 A (WITNESS HODGES) I am saying that the reactor m-
) 14 protection system which is used to scram the reactor is 15 redundant.
s 16 0 Well, why is the standby liquid control system 17 not required to be. redundant?
18 A (WITNESS HODGES) It merely provides a diverse 19 seans of shutting down the reactor.
20 (The panel of witnesses conferred.)
21 0 Do you want to amplify, Mr. Hodges?
22 A (WITNESS HODGES) Just to say that this has 23 been the Staff position that that is all that is 24 required.
25 0 That is what I was going to asks whether your ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7134 1 previous answers as to what was required is reflective w
('J m
T 2 of Staff position as opposed to some specific regulatory 3 requirement?
O 4 A (WITNESS HODGES) Yes.
5 JUDGE MORRIS Mr. Hodges, you do agree, I
- 6 understand, that the fact that it is not required to be 7 safety-relsted is completely consistent with the 8 requirements for the rest of the ECCS or the protection 9 system? .
10 (The panel of witnesses conferred.)
- 11 WITNESS HODGES: I have had several 12 suggestions whisparad in my ear, so I am not sure I 13 totally remember your question. If you could repeat b(/ 14 it?
15 JUDGE MORRIS: Well, I believe that your 16 response to Mr. Lanpher said that it is the Staff 17 position that the standby liquid control system need not 18 be safety-related?
19 WITNESS HODGES: If I said "ssfety related," I 20 meant redundant. If I said " safety related," that was a 21 slip of the tongue.
22 JUDGE MORRIS: But in any event, yo'ir point is 23 it need not be redundant?
24 WITNESS HODGES: Yes, it need not be 25 reiundant. If I said "ss f e ty rela ted ," it was a slip of O
v ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
.. . j
7135
() 1 the tongue and I misspoke.
2 JUDGE MORRIS: Well, I may have also. But 3 that position, in your opinion, is completely consistent 4 with your redundancy requirements for the reactor 5 protection system?
6 WITNESS HODGES The reactor protection system 7 itself is redundant. And this is an additional diverse 8 system.
9 JUDGE MORRISa Thank you.
10 JUDGE JORDAN But it seems to be a little 11 inconsistent. A minute ago you said the high-pressure 12 saf ety injection system was safety grade but it was also 13 backed up by another system and you also required the (3
k/ 14 backup system to be redundant in that case.
15 WITNESS HODGESs The backup?
16 JUDGE JORDAN: The backup being the ADS 17 system.
I 18 WITNESS HODGES: I am still not sure what you
! 19 are asking.
20 JUDGE JORDAN: Well, you said just now that 21 you did not require the backup system for the protection 22 system to be redundant, it did not have to be safety 23 grade. But a minute ago when we talked about the 24 high-pressure systems, the cooling systems, we had the 25 saf ety-grade HPCI system , and then it was backed up by (m
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7136 1 another system, and that system, you say, has to be 2 safety grade, had to be redundant.
3 WITNESS HODGES: The reactor protection system O 4 is itself a redundant system. It is more than one train 5 of logic, for example. And I am getting in to M r.
6 Rossi's area, so maybe he should explain that a little 7 further.
8 Insofar as the HPCI system, that is a 9 single-train system. For redundancy you have to have 10 another means of Jetting water to the vessel. The ADS 11 itself will depressurize the vessel but will not add 12 water. So you have to have another system which is a
, 13 low-pressure system to inject water. It turns out that
() 14 these low-pressure systems themselves are redundant 15 because they have to sa tisf y red undancy requirements for 16 other reasons, the other reasons being if you had, for 17 example, a large-break LOCA, then you would be at too 18 low a pressure for the HPCI to inject and so the 19 low-pressure ECC systems themselves have to satisfy 20 refundancy.
21 22 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7137
() 1 JUDGE J3RDANs Okay. That's all right for 2 now.
r- 3 BY MR. LANPHERs (Resuming) -
D) 4 Gentlemen, or Mr. Conran, could you turn to 0
5 page 34 of your prefiled testimony.
6 "r. Conran, with respect to unresolved safety 7 issue A-17, what is your present involvement with that 8 issue? I mean, aside from presenting this testimony, 9 but in your job at the NRC.
10 A (WITNESS CONRAN) In support of the overall 11 systems interactions program that is under way now, 12 there are two main activities that are currently 13 ongoing. One is the Indian Point 3 Shoreham 14 interactions study and the second is the development of 15 the generic systems interactions program.
16 Indian Point, of course, is an operating 17 facility, and the generic program involves the 18 development of methodology which we had planned to 19 implement in several what we call pilot plants, which 20 are near-term operating license plants. They are not 21 yet operating.
22 So I am chiefly responsible for all activities 23 and efforts, decisions, associated with the Indian Point 24 3 program. That is my principal duty. As a support or 25 backup or interacting with other members of the section, O .
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7138
() 1 I of course sa susre of what's going on in the generic 2 program area.
,, 3 Q Now, the Indian Point 3 program just got b) 4 started. It actually started in April of this year; is 5 that correct?
6 A (WITNESS CONRAN) The performance of the 7 program at the facility sta rted in April of this year, 8 yes.
9 0 And how long is that program anticipated to ,
10
- t s k e ?
11 A (WITNESS CONRAN) The, what I call the 12 in-plant part of it, that is where the systems are 13 analyzed, walked down, the analysis part of the effort, 14 is scheduled to be completed by December of this year, 15 perhaps estly next year, some time in that time frame.
16 0 So it's too early to have any definitive 17 results from that program as of now?
18 A (WITNESS CONRAN) Any definitive results, 19 yes.
20 0 Now, you also referenced the development of a 21 generic systems interactions prograt.. Is that a part of 22 the interim quidance program that you reference in this 23 section of your testimony?
24 A (WITNESS CONRAN) The interim guidance is the 25 methodology that has been developed for application in O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7139
(')ss 1 the pilot studies, yes. It is a documentation of the 2 sethodology that we hsve identified as a promising 3 candidate and we are going to try it out in several
()
4 pilot programs.
5 0 You've not tried it out yet?
6 A (WITNESS CONRAN) No.
7 Q And I think you used the words, the 8 development of the generic program. So the ceneric 9 program has not been adopted yet by the Staff or by the 10 Commission?
11 A (WITNESS CONRAN) There has not yet been 12 approved -- the application of the interim guidance in 13 specific f acilities has not yet been approved. We have t'
14 made recommendations in that regard and those 15 recommendations are being considered by the management.
16 But we have not yet received approval for that.
17 Mr. Th3dani addressed generally this area.
18 There is some thought, considerable thought, being given 19 currently to applying the interim guidance or various 20 candidate methodologies in the context of NBEP plant" 21 studies, rather than a separate systems interactions 22 program in what we call the pilot plants.
23 Q You say some thought or considerable thought 24 is being given in that, but no decision has been made 25 yet?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
71 f4 0 P
d 1
A (WITNESS CONRAN) I haven't heard a final 2 decision. I have seen recommendations in that regard, 3 but again, they have not been approved at the 4 appropriate level.
5 0 Who needs to approve those recommendations?
6 A (WITNESS CONRAN) I think they would have to 7 be approved at lesst at the office director level.
8 0 Now, Mr. Conran, turning to the bottom of page 9 35 and the top of page 36 -- and I don't want to' repeat 10 stuff that we covered earlier this week in the PRA
- 11 context, but you make the statement "There currently 12 exists no well-defined documented methodology for 13 systematic analysis of plant designs or systems 14 interactions." Nov --
15 MR. ELLISs What page again, Mr. Lanpher?
16 MR. LANPHER: The bottom of 36 -- the bottom 17 of 35 and the top of 36.
18 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 19 0 Now, I understand that sentence to state that 20 there is no single methodology for identifying systems 21 interactions. Is that the way you meant the sentence?
22 A (WITNESS CONRAN) It is. And further, that it 23 would have been tried and proven and approved and put in 24 the final form of a regulatory guide, for example. We 25 do have fstrly wall documented what is called the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7141
() 1 2
interim quidance, which I understand you just received a copy of under FOIA. Thst is fairly well documented, but 3 it is not proven by any means. It is a candidate gs
() 4 methodology at this point.
5 (Panel of witnesses conferring.)
6 A (WITNESS CONRAN) Let me clarify, in case 7 there was a misunderstanding. This is -- what I was 8 referring to was the methodology for how we refer as a 9 dedicated separate systems interactions program. There 10 are, of course, in the existing regulations various 11 sections which specify, which give requirements and 12 criteria for systems interactions type activities. But 13 it,is on -- at present it is on a piecemeal basis. It 14 is not coordina te d and integrated in one program. That 15 is the objective of the systems interactions program 16 that I am talking about.
17 0 In fact, it is to create a coordinated overall 18 program that A-17 was established, to move away from 19 what you call the piecemeal approach ?
20 A (WITNESS CONRAN) To move beyond the piecemeal 21 approach, which we consider adequate, certainly, for 22 licensing plants. The objective of our program is to 23 determine, first of all, whether or not there must be, 24 whether or not there must be improvements. Our studies 25 -- we hold open the possibility that the studies would O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7142
() 1 2
not produce positive results and wouldn't produce cost-beneficial return type information.
3 That is why, incidentally, we are O 4 contemplating something called the pilot program, where 5 candidate methodologies are tried out on a very limited 6 basis, ratner than jumping in and requiring all 7 licensees and applicants to do something beyond the 8 existing regulations.
9 Q Mr. Contan, isn't it true th a t there are a 10 number -- and I don't want to repeat, because we went 11 through them, I think on Tuesday -- a number of well 12 defined and documented methodologies like walkdowns and
. 13 FMEA's and reviews of operating experience for analysis
,m
- 14 of plant designs for systems interactions?
15 A (WITNESS CONRAN) In that sense, yes. But 16 understand that the full scope systems interactions 17 program that we had in mind, as indicated in the 18 attachment to the memo that we've discussed quite 19 extensively, wo uld include analysis of interconnected 20 systems, walkdown studies of nonconnected systems, 21 review of operating experience, simulation experiments.
22 It would be a very much larger, comprehensive, 23 integrated program.
24 ACRS , incidentally, suggested tha t we apply 25 these, what they consider to be proven and acceptable O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7143
) 1 valkdown methods, for seismic initiator, 2 seismic-initiated systems interactions, such as was done p 3 at Diablo Canyon. Our judoment was that a judgment had A 4 to be made whethat the return from that sort of program 5 would be valuable enough to divert attention and 6 resources, because if you make a requirement to do that 7 sort of additional effort it implies that you must 8 review what is done, and that takes considerable 9 additional resources.
10 So the judgment was that since we already had 11 adequate, a perfectly adequa te regulatory basis, that we 12 wouldn't be diverted that way for right now and that is 13 what Mr. Dircks' letter is all about.
14 0 You mentioned the Diablo Canyon 15 seisnic-initiated interaction study, and it's also 16 mentioned in your testimony. Are you familiar with tha t 17 study?
18 A (WITNESS CONRAN) I have some f amiliarity with 19 that study. I was not involved directly in it, but I 20 know of it.
21 0 And that used the walkdown methodology, 22 correct?
23 A (WITNESS CONRAN) It did. And this is perhaps 24 the rig ht spot to mention the term. There are walkdowns 25 and then there are walkdowns. The sort of walkdowns ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7144 tha t I believe were referred to in earlier Applicant's
(])
1 2 testimony in connection with their PEA's I believe Dr.
3 Burns himself even characterized as familiarization 4 e f f or ts.
5 The walkdowns' conducted in the context of the 6 Diablo study were --
the process could be briefly i
7 described this ways Interdisciplinary teams of people 8 f amiliar with the plant or with the design of the plant 9 literally walked down, almost hand over hand, systems ,
10 tha t were examined, considering the system that was 11 being walked down as a target and looking f or, as they 12 vent down the line, sources that might be jarred loose 13 in an earthquake, aight be broken loose in an earthquake i 14 and impact the system that they were walking down and 1
15 possibly impair the safety functions.
16 It was s very extensive, intensive, in-plant 17 effort, not what I would term a familiarization effort l
18 at all, but something quite beyond that.
19 MR. ELLISs I want to move to strike his 20 portion of his answer where he characterizes Dr. Burns' 21 description of the walkdowns as familiarization tours.
22 I think that is inaccurate.
23 MR. REISa Mr. Chairman, I think th e record 24 will speak for itself. That is appropriate for 25 findings, if there is a difference.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7105
() 1 JUDGE BRENNER: All richt, we vill leave it 2 that way, and it is an soproptiste subject for your 3 examination, Mr. Ellis. It is a close point. Your 4 problem is that --
it wasn't Mr. Contsn's 5 characterization of the testimony he heard; it is that 6 he said Dr. Burns said. And I don't know offhand if 7 that is accurate or not. You have flagged it and to the 8 extent of that limited accuracy that is easily 9 verifiable, either at'the findings or earlier in your 10 examination.
11 More broadly and I think more importantly, as 12 to whether or not that description, whether.or not Dr.
13 Burns uttered it first or it is Mr. Conran's own view, i n x 14 that certainly is a matter for what the record , ,
I 15 discloses, which we will have to judge. I understand .,
/, '
16 your problem. I am not going to solve,'it by striking, {
a . . -
17 even if you ar.e correct partially, because if I don't "
., i
, , '\
18 know if you are correct at this point,." Il s T
i .* ,-
19 MR. ELLIS: Also, if we're going to>have -
20 comments made about the PRA after hav'ing been told *that '
,' s 21 they need three to six months to review it., it seems a. -
! /j,
22 bit like having it both ways. - < jJ I ,
23 JUDGE BRENNEas Well, I thiIk you went just a V 24 11tste too far now, because I think r. Conran was very ,'+
25 careful about explaining the basis'for his comment, and' 'i,
'i, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, '
400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
_ _ _ __ _t_.
r 7146 i
1 he in no way implied that it was a review of the PRA.
{}
2 He was basing it on the testimony he thought he heard 3 here and/or his view of the testimony.
g-U 4 So let's go on with the questioning.
5 WITNESS CONRAN: May I add a comment relative 6 to that ~ point?
7 3Y MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 8 -
0- To which point?
9' A (WITNESS CONRAN) To the last point that Mr.
10 Ellis' raised.
11 0 You had better ask the Board.
12 JUDGE BRENNER: Do you think it will clarify 13 your answer to Mr. Lanpher's question?
14 WITNESS CONRAN: Yes, sir. I think it may 15 even remove the objectionable feature of it. 1 should
'16 have been more seasitive, perhaps, to the way that I
/17 . characterized the walkdowns that were done in connection
,8( with the Shoreham PRA. I thought that I was using Dr.
19 Burns' words, and I didn't mean to indicate that it was 20 a cursory examinstion at all in the Shoreham PBA l
l 21 effort.
22 I could perhaps mention relative man-hours, 1
l 24 that sort Of information, to compare again. Dr. Burns l 24 figures, I believe, for total effort in preparing for 25 and conducting the walkdowns in connection with the A
L) ,
l' ,
, J r
.s
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
/, /
"' [ " 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
,~ ! /
5 f
7147 (m),
1 Shoreham PRA was 65 man-days. Now, the walkdown portion 2 of the Diablo effort was of course not the entire 3 effort, but the entire -- the Diablo seismic-initiated 4 systems interactions study in its entirety comprised 5 some 50 to 55 man-years of effort.
6 That included, of course, the development of 7 the methodology. But a very substantial portion was 8 also involved in these very detailed, intricate, 9 intensive walkdowns of the plant with the specific 10 purpose in mind, with the target source methodology 11 being applied.
12 BY MR. LANPHER (Resuming) 13 0 Do you know whether the Diablo Canyon study t
\ ') 14 identified this intensive walkdown, or whatever you want 15 to characterize it as, did it identify potential adverse 16 systems interactions that needed to be corrected?
17 A (WITNESS CONRAN) Yes, it did. As I recall, 18 it was something like 1300 potential adverse 19 interactionss were identified. About a third of those 20 on further analysis were found to need no correction.
1 21 About a third upon analysis were determined to need some 22 attention. And the remainder were, the last I heard, 23 not considered so important tha t something would have to 24 be done about them, but there was a good deal of
( 25 additional evaluation effort required and it is still in G
V ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7148
() 1 process.
2 The Diablo study, incidentally, we have not 3 received a final report on yet. The ACRS endorsement or 4 acceptance or enthusiasm that I indicated was for the 5 methodology. The understanding, of course, was that we 6 had not yet received a complete report. But we are 7 giving then a status report.
8 0 Turning your attention, Mr. Conran, to the 9 bottom portion of page 36 of the testimony, you sta te 10 that: "A program has been initiated to address these 11 questions and has progressed significantly over the past 12 few years."
. 13 I take it that is the A-17 program you're 14 referring to?
15 A ('4ITN ESS CONR AN ) It would include phase one 16 of the A-17 program. In the aftermath of TMI-2, two 17 things happened that were significant in the systems 18 interactions area. One was the systems interactions 19 branch was formed to conduct an augmented systems 20 interactions program that included --
that incorporated
[
l 21 A-17 generic effort, slong with these other l
! 22 plant-specific studies such as Diablo Canyon, Indian
! 23 Point 3, which were already planned, committed to 24 separately.
l 25 The program that was planned and described in
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
71t49 O the te=x = tion pisn A-17 that was issued in 1978, that 2 program was terminated after phase one because of what 3 was generally perceived, I believe, as insufficient or n
V 4 inadequate results. Phase one had involved a fault 5 tree, a limited fault tree treatment of the Watts Bar 6 plant, Wa-t-t-s B-a-r, Watts Bar plant.
7 -
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l
17 l
18 l 19 l
l 20 21 22 l 23 24 25 0 .
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $54 2345
7150
{} 1 2
0 The Phase II aspect of Task Action Plan A17 is going to be pursued under the TMI Action Plan, Item 3 II.3.C., Roman two 3 C. Is that correct?
O 4 A (WIINESS CONRAN) No. Really, th e generic 5 programs that are under way, if one could break up the 6 present program, I think it would be characterized as 7 saying that the generic programs which involved a state 8 of the art search f or candidate methodologies, 9 development of interim guidance based on what were ,
10 judged to be the most promising candidate methodologies, 11 and actual application in either pilot plants or in the 12 context of the NREP program. That activity was really 13 the replacement for Phase II, and it involves different 14 contractors.
15 0 Okay. Maybe I used the wrong terms. As a 16 replacement for the existing progras, and that is 17 proceeding under the TMI action plan system, correct?
18 A (WITNESS CONRAN) Yes, Item II.3.C.
19 0 Is it not true that under the action plan, 20 tha t it has been indicated that there has been serious 21 slippage from the progress of action ander Item II.3.C?
22 A (WITNESS CONRAN) Yes, there has. We have 23 commented on that and been disa ppointed in tha t
/) 24 ourselves.
V 25 0 By serious slippage, I mean by more than a O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
- 7151
() 1 year from the schedule that I guess the staff had 2 originally proposed.
3 A (WITNESS CONRAN) Yes. I might be a little 4 more specific about that. A portion of the slippage of 5 the total II.3.C program that is going forward had to do 6 with delays in the Indian Point 3 systems interaction 7 study, which resulted directly from, among other things, 8 the full scope PRA study that was going on at Indian 9 Point, as well as some operating problems that were 10 encountered there and caused -- diverted at ten tion to 11 higher priority efforts of the technical staff. Those 12 are a couple of the main factors involved in the 13 slippage there.
(~)
k> 14 With regard to the generic program, there has 15 been some delay, some considerable delay in getting the 16 either pilot plant or NREP plant study started. The i 17 serging of two programs as complex as the separate l
l 18 systems interaction program and the original NREP 19 program is, of course, the sort of thing that involves 20 the sort of coordinsting sni readjustment of resources 1
21 that it is not unexpected, I suppose, that there has 22 been a delay in that decision, but that has been a l 23 considerable factor.
24 0 Mr. Conran, I would like to turn your 25 attention to Page 41, the parsgraph starting ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7152
() 1 "Therefore." Well, it speaks for itself. I want to ask 2 you about several of the words in this sentence. Let me 3 read the sentence so people who are reviewing the record l
4 don 't have to go back to the testimony.
5 " Studies to date indicate that current review 6 procedures and criteria supplemented by the application 7 of post-TMI findings and risk studies provide reasonable 8 assurance that the effects of potential systems 9 interaction on plant safety will be within.the effects 10 on plant safety previously evaluated."
11 Now, going back to the start of what I just 12 quoted, what studies are you referring to?
13 A (WITNESS CONRAN) I guess if I had to choose
. (/)
l 14 that word again, I might say another word. Studies l
l 15 there is meant to be more -- to include more than the 16 contractor studies, for example, that are going on.
17 Studies includes everything that we have learned to date 18 while we have been trying to do the systems interaction 19 program, the early phases of the systems interaction 20 program, which included considerable review of operating 21 experience, ea rly development ef forts on methdology, 22 comparative methodology studies, activities which in our 23 branch or in our section that might have identified a 24 reason to hurry along or to require the additional l 25 requirements, imposing additional requirements.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, j 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 w
7153
() 1 Nothing like that has come to the surface, and so 2 it is our view that the regulatory requirements, the 3 .egulatory structure that is in place is still fcg V 4 adequate. There has been no indication from any sector 5 that the requirements that existed prior to th'e TMI 6 accident supplemented by some changes that have been 7 mandated by the studies that came out of the TMI 8 accident review. Nothing beyond tha t is required.
9 0 I am a little confused by that, Mr. Conran.
10 In your previous testimony, you had indicated that a 11 fairly large number of seismically induced potential 12 systems interaction were identified, for instance, at 13 Diablo Canyon by these very detailed walkdowns. These (b
N' 14 interactions, I assume, had not been discovered under 15 the normal design methods utill:ed, correct?
16 A (WITNESS CONRAN) That is true, yes.
17 Q Well, then, doesn't that study, for instance, 18 indicate the benefit of undertaking detailed systems 19 interaction analyses to supplement the existing 20 deterministic procedures and requirements?
21 A (WITNESS CONRAN) Not necessarily. The 22 applicant or -- I am sorry, the licensee at Diablo 23 Canyon in the discussions with the ACES, when that 24 program was reviewed, seemed enthusiastic about the 25 results, and thought that it was worth the 55 man years I
()
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7154
(^3 1 tha t had been spent. I think that judgment may not be V
2 universal. They are certainly entitled to that
- 3 judgment, since they spent the money and identified the NJ 4 steas in which they would like to improve, but I should 5 make clear here that the improvements that they decided 6 to make were as a result of imposing criteria that go 7 beyond current criteria.
8 The criteria that they established, for 9 example, for hanging non-safety related piping was to 10 make it, the non-safety piping mounted or hung the same 11 way that safety related piping was. That is not a part 12 of our existing requirements, and we would not have o 13 imposed that upon them. But they thought that it was
, 14 worthwhile. It was a way of resolving concerns or 15 questions which are an identification of areas in which 16 they wished to im9 rove their own facility.
17 Q Were these criteria chosen to ensure that 18 thosa non-safety related or that non-safety related 19 piping did not in the event of a seismic incident 20 impinge on the safety related piping, if you know?
21 (Whereupon, the witnesses conferred.)
i 22 A (WITNESS CONR AN) Maybe you could repeat your i
23 question again.
{
24 0 Wasn't it true at Diablo Canyon that one of l 25 the reasons for increasing the design criteria, the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7155
() 1 seismic design criteria for non-safety related piping 2 was to ensure that it did not, if it failed, well, to 3 prevent failures of non-safety related pipi ng from 7g
\_)
4 occurring which migh t damage safety related piping?
5 A (WITNESS CONRAN) It was, if I understand your 6 question correctly, but again I say, they were 7 self-imposed, more stringent criteria, similar to the 8 more stringent -- what we have referred to as threshold 9 search crite ria that is being applied in the Indian 10 Point f acility.
11 In the case of the Indian Point study, 12 however, that threshold, that more stringent criterion 13 or criteria is expressly not going to be applied as a p~%
1 kJ 14 decision criteria for making improvements or -
I 15 aodifications to the plant. In the case of the Indian 16 Point study, it was agreed in advance that we would 17 adopt criterion for looking for systems interaction or 1
18 potential systems interactions, potential adverse 19 systems interactions that is more stringent than 20 existing criteria, but it was for study purposes, and 21 unless agreed upon, expressly agreed upon later, would 22 not be imposed on PASNY as a fixed criterion, that in 23 the case of the Diablo Canyon study the criterion that t
24 were developed were really developed by PASNY -- I am 25 sorry, by the licensee that operates that facility.
l l ("h
\/
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7156
{} 2 1
O You said that the criteria went beyond -- the Diablo criteria went beyond the requirements. Is this 3 staff requirement you are referring to here?
-(
4 A (WITNESS CONRAN) I am talking about 5 requirements of the regulations'.
6 0 Which ones?
7 A (WITNESS CONRAN) Specifically, the single 8 failure criterion. The search criterion for the Indian 9 Point study that we have agreed on is that we will call, 10 ve will idantify ss a potential -- potentially adverse 11 systems interaction any condition that -- such that a 12 single failure in the non-safety part of the plant would 13 degrade, would defeat one train of a multi-train safety
) 14 system. That is more stringent than existing criteria, 15 existing application of the single failure criterion, I 16 think perhaps with the exception that in the application 17 of single failure criterion in protection systems, I 18 believe it may not be more stringent, but in all other 19 respects it is more stringent.
20 MR. ELLISs Judge Brenner, just for 21 clarification purposes so that we can think about the 22 answer without having to think about clarifying it, I 23 think Mr. Conran, when he used the word " safety",
24 intended " safety related." Is that correct?
25 WITNESS CONRANs Yes, I used those terms O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
l l
7157 l
synonymously in that context.
(])
1 2 BY HR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 3 0 Mr. Conran, going back to the sentence that we O 4 were focusing on on Page 41, my initial question 5 concerned studies and the definition of that. In your 6 testimony, you have listed a number of studies or 7 events. The ones that I list are the Watts Bar study, 8 which you referenced, Diablo Canyon, a similar one at 9 San Onofre, seismically induced, then in January, 1981, 10 the staff conclusion that no single system interaction 11 methodology was enough to identify everything. Then the 12 interim guidance was issued, at least in draf t form, the 13 Indian Point Unit 3 program, the pilot program, and O
k- 14 finally, the staff was considering requiring Indian 15 Point type studies a t other reactors. Those are the 16 items that were identified, I believe, in your testimony.
17 ,Now, there are studies in addition to those 18 that you are meaning to bring to the Board's attention 19 when you use the word " studies" here, and I recognize 20 you are quoting here?
21 (Whereupon, the witnesses conferred.)
22 JUDGE BRENNER: In fact, while they are 23 conferring, we should indicate for the record, since you 24 read the quote, to make it easier for the record, that 25 it is an excerpt from the SER at Page B-11. I forget O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7158 l
1 whe ther tha t is the basic SER or the first supplement, 2 but one of those two, in the context of the staff's 3 views in the SER as opposed to as to why the unresolved O 4 safety criteria are met or are not met with respect to 5 this particular task.
6 WITNESS CONRAN The answer is yes. That is 7 the way they used the word. Yes, it includes more than 8 the activities that you men tion ed. I didn't mention 9 explicitly thek,ER reviews, because that,is not tied up 10 into a sort of a neat package somewhere. There was a 11 continuing activity that was more intansive in the early 12 days of our program because we had eight or nine people 13 instead of one or two. We don't do much LER review any 14 more.
15 BY HR. L A M U!!ER 4 (Retsuming) 16 0 Who is we?
17 A The systems interaction branch doesn't --
we 18 depend upon other elements of the staff, and have that 19 responsibility by direct assignment, and the LER review 20 is not being neglected, but we are not able to do as 21 auch of it as we would like to at this point. We are 22 concentrating upon methodology development rather than 23 retrospective operating experience review.
24 0 Several lines below the word " studies", which 25 I understand to be systems interaction studies, is that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7159
() I correct?
2 A (WITNESS CONRAN) That is what I meant when I 3 used the word, yes.
4 You have got down below that two lines, " risk 0
5 studies." What risk studies are you referring to?
6 A (WITNESS CONRAN) I don't know. I didn't 7 write that set of words. You will notice that they are 8 quoted. I based this testimony --
I used the SER A17 9 writeup as a springboard for this testimony. Mr.
10 Thadani, I am sure, could provide much addi tional 11 information with regard to risk studies.
12 0 Was it your understanding that Mr. Thadani 13 wrote this portion of the SER?
( 14 A (WITNESS CONRAN) No. I believe this portion 15 of the testimony was written by a combination of Mr.
16 Coffman, who is my section chief, and Mr. Norian, whose 17 name appears on the status documents that you provided 18 us. He is a member of the generic studies branch.
19 0 You said this portion of the testimony was
( 20 vritten by them. Did you mean this portion of the SER?
l 21 A (WITNESS CONRAN) The passage quoted.
22 0 Was the A17 discussion in the staff's 7B 23 testimony dritten by you, sir?
24 A (WITNESS CONRAN) The testimony for this 25 hearing was written by me, and the comments. My
(~)
\m/
l I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7160 l ll
( 1 contribution was to supplement what was provided in the 2 SER on the understanding that something beyond the SER i l
3 was asked for in responding to this contention. '
/^%
(_) 4 Q And beyond the SER, the items which you have
~
5 referenred in your testimony, and not just studies, but 6 things that have taken place by the staff or decisions 7 that the staff has made are the items of supplementation 8 that give you, the stsff, confidence that Shoreham can 9 be operated pending a full resolution of A177 to A (WITNESS CONRAN) The combination of 11 considerations mentioned in A17 writeup in the SER plus 12 my additional testimony are those things that give us 13 this assurance, I believe.
h')
- 14 Q Now, the pilot program which is mentioned in 15 your testimony, tha t has not been started or approved, 16 correct?
17 A (WITNESS CONRAN) I am sorry? What are you l 18 referring to?
l 19 0 You referenced the pilot program. It is on 20 Page 40, the middle paragraph, sir.
21 A (WIINESS CONRAN) Yes.
22 Q That pilot program that has not yet been 23 approved or initiated yet by the staff, correct?
24 A (WITNESS CONRAN) I believe I testified to 25 that, yes.
l O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2343
7161 1
Q And while you are considering requiring Indian 2 point type studies at other plants, that has not yet 3 been required or requested, correct?
- p O 4 A (WITNESS CONRAN) That is correct.
5 Incidentally, consideration is being given not just to 6 doing Indian Point type studies at our facilities, at 7 other f acilities, but other candidate methodologies as 8 well, as Mr. Thadsni, I think, indicated in his remarks 9 earlier.
10 0 But those have not been required yet?
11 A (WITNESS CONRAN) No, they have not been 12 required.
13 0 Dr. Possi, I would like to direct some 3
(d 14 questions -- I believe they should be directed to you --
15 with respect to A47.
16 A (WITNESS ROSSI) Yes, they should be directed 17 to me.
18 0 When was A47 first identified as an unresolved 19 generic safety issue?
20 A (WITNESS ROSSI) Well, it was December, 1980, 21 but let me point out that I am giving you that date from 22 the ma terial that you gave to me. I do believe it to be 23 correct anyway, but that is my reference.
24 0 Why don't you identify what you were referring 25 to for the Board's information? I have supplied some O .
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7162 (J'S documents ahead of time. If I don't need to mark them 1
2 as exhibits, I wasn't going to. Could you go ahead, Dr.
3 Rossi?
n 4 A (WITNESS ROSSI) Yes. This is apparently a 5 Page 41 from a document calle'd NURES-0606, Volume 4, 6 Number 2, dated May 21st, 1982, entitled Unresolved 7 Safety Issue Summary, and you provided me with that 8 do:ument. I read you the date from it. I believe the 9 date to be correct. ,
- 10 0 This document is a locument that is 11 periodically issued by the staff, is it not, to track in 12 summary fashion, at least, progress on unresolved safety 13 issues?
bNs 14 A (WITNESS ROSSI) I don't have a great 15 familiarity with the document. Let me leave it at that.
16 JUDGE BRENNER: Let me note for the record 17 since we got the NUREG number in that it is the 18 so-called Aqua Book, and people reading the record might 19 know it by that name.
20 WITNESS ROSSIs It is indeed a status on 21 unresolved safety issues.
22 BY MR. LANPHER: (Resuming) 23 0 Dr. Possi, what is a task action plan?
24 A (WIINES3 ROSSI) Task action plan is a plan 25 that is prepared within the staff to describe the O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7163
() 2 1 approach in solving an unresolved safety issue. It also gives as clear a definition as possible of what the 3 unresolved safety issue is. It would provide a plan for
,-)
G 4 its resolution, and I believe it also provides at least 5 some rough schedule, and the amount of resources also 6 are providad.
7 0 Is there an approved task action plan for A47?
8 A (WITNESS ROSSI) I did not believe that there 9 is. Dr. Speis is more certain that there isn't than 10 even I am.
11 Q Ihat there is or is not?
12 A (WITNESS ROSSI) Is not an approved task 13 action plan at this point in ti m e .
() 14 Q Approval for task action plans has to come 15 from whom, sir?
t 16 A (WITNESS ROSSI) The office director finally 17 approves it, with -- there is concurrence prior to that 18 from division directors.
19 0 When yoa say office director, which office?
20 A (WITNESS ROSSI) The NRR office director.
21 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Lanpher, is this going to l
22 be the last subject of your cross examination, the A47 23 subject?
24 MR. LANPHER: Yes, it is.
JUDGE BRENNER:
25 How much do you have?
l i
(
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE , S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
716I4 1 MR. LANPHERa I have a while more. I was 2 hoping I was going to make it. I will probably have 3 about a half an hour, so I guess I am not going to quite 7
t O 4 make it today.
5 JUDGE BRENNER: Judge Morris says that is an 6 hour6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.
7 (General laughter.)
8 MR. LANPHERa Well, I honestly tried to finish 9 up. .
10 JUDGE BRENNERa Sometimes when you get close 11 to the end of the estimate it gets more accurate, not 12 less. But we are not going to make it.
13 MR. LANPHER: Fine. I just did start this, so O>
b 14 maybe I can make it quicker on Wednesday morning, if I 15 can pull some things together.
16 JUDGE BRENNER: All righ t. When we continue 17 on Wednesday, we are coming back to finish your cross.
18 That will be the first thing. And tha t is with the 19 expectation of your estimate, and tha t this is the last 20 subject of the cross in any event, a n.1 then, I suppose, 21 since we will be going to questions from LILCO, LILCO 22 would be free to work in Mr. Thadani up front, or after, 23 or whatever. I am sure the parties will discuss it.
24 Ihe Board is amenable to whatever order you want to do 25 it in. If it is all done in one day anyway it won't O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i 7165
() 1 matter.
2 So, I will let you discuss it. I am sure this
~g 3 is unfair, but do you have any idea of how long LILCO's u] 4 examination will be in its entirety, the combination of 5 PPA matters and non-PRA matters? I won 't ' hold you to 6 anything this early. I know you have been co un ting on 7 the break to put it together.
8 MR. ELLIS: Yes. I think -- I do not 9 anticipate within the bounds of uncertainty that it will 10 ex:eed a day, but the uncertainty bands we all recognize 11 are great.
12 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. Well, Wednesday 13 will be a full day. We will start at 9:00. And of 14 course -- but it :ould well be the full day, and you are 15 nodding yes. c. Earley is nodding yes emphatically.
16 Then there would be the staff's redirect. Does the l
17 staff have any idea now?
l 18 MR . R EIS: Of course, we haven't heard Mr.
l 19 Ellis's cross, but right now I would say about an hour.
1 20 JUDGE BRENNER: I believe the Boa rd has 21 questions, and I am not going to give you a time 22 estimate.
23 (General laughter.)
24 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. We had this little 25 dialogue for the purpose of when you can start the
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
l 7166 l
{) 2 1 settlement meetings and so on. Well, maybe we could run a little longer. We will talk sbout it next week.
- 3 3R. LANPHER: Judge Brenner, in terms of the
%) 4 settlement meetings, a lot of what we had asked for 5 before was so that witnesses would not have to be 6 preparing to give testimony next week. I think having 7 the schedule defined as you hsve done it will help them 8 anyway. I know we are trying to arrange some schedules 9 so that they can be devoting time to that anyway.
10 JUDGE BRENNER: Good. I am glad to hear 11 that, We also wanted to free them up, too.
12 MR. LANPHERs Well, if I even have one full 13 day next week, I mean, it sounds as if we will be done
(~x k) m 14 on Thursday, right? And that means Friday is available 15 for talk, and that is a lot more time than we have had 16 recently.
17 JUDGE BRENNER: I will be very candid with 18 you, and I am willing to do it on the record. I don't 19 know if the Board -- the Board would like very much not 20 to have to be here on Friday. We are not precluding 21 that, but the thought was that the Board might be 22 available for some of the settlement reports or 23 discussions. We thought maybe we could do that on 24 Thursday. Maybe we could do it Thursday afternoon.
25 ER. LANPHER: My personal view, 1 think I O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7167
( 1 disagree somewhat from Mr. Reveley. I think that the 2 parties can probably arrive at these resolutions by 3 ourselves. Frankly, we have done pretty well so far 4 when we have had a chance to sit down and talk. So I 5 wouldn't think the Board would have to stay around. We i
6 can certainly give you a telephonic report if necessary 7 some time on Friday.
8 JUDGE BRENNER: We will discuss it. We are 9 not precluding thst. I don't want to get into it too 10 far, but it is not just a matter of being able to arrive 11 at a resolution. It is in what time frame. And 12 sometimes when you have a deadline, that helps. All 13 right. We will discuss that in terms of the security G
C/ 14 contentions also, and we will talk about that on Tuesday.
15 MR. LANPHER: Do we start at 10:30 Tuesday?
16 JUDGE BRENNER: We can start at 10:00. I 17 don 't know if that will help. That is the day of the 18 argument, not the day of te stim ony . Let's go off the 19 record.
20 (Whereupon, a discussion was held off the 21 record.)
22 JUDGE BRENNER: Let's go back on the record.
23 We will plan to start at 10:00. If there is a last 24 minute problem with counsel not being able to get here 25 until 10:33, we will understand.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________ -___________________________________ A
i 7168 l
l O (here=aoa. t 2 3s ...., tne neer1., .es
- 2 adjourned, to recanvene the followin, Tuesday, July 20, 3 1982.)
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 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
l NU N AR REGUI.ATORY CO W.ISSICN
- This is to cer:Lfy that the attached proceedings before :he 9 .,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD in the ::atter cf:. Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power
$tation)
- Da.te o f Proceeding : July 16, 1982 i -
Docket s flu:::bar: 50-322 OL Place of Proceeding: Riverhead, New York were held as herein appears, and. that this is. the original transe:-ipt thereof for the file of the Ccc:::ission., ,
Ray Heer Official Eeporter (Typed)
'OfficiaM eporter (Signature) s O
O
.y