ML20062K097

Transcript of 801111 Restart Hearing in Harrisburg,Pa. Pp 5111-5287

ML20062K097
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	11/11/1980
From:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
NUDOCS 8011240449
Download: ML20062K097 (176)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_ _______ p ' w vu ov w ~m.ogv ce..-ww.ey Li w =c w .=ub A = w i 0; b-- A 9 ' : =e Ma= cf: METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) ) DOCKET NO. 50-289 (Three Mile Island Unit 1) ) ( Re s tar t) l l i OACI: m.,n-wo. 7, , o a_ n PAGIS: 5111 - 5287 t* A7; Marrichura, Pennsv1vania 7 h, i e,6 Q Y c_ r ---, { ; f .L [ 4 7 i* xlgo j m c. n;., r' ,>c m t,0 g a ~4 l i Q i G' 3 i ca i I 1, i I, l .uDERSOX REPORTIXG ) /~. t 4cc vist 2 2 Ave., s.w. was ".g==, c. c. 200:4 i i l

O re" *==== (2

) 54-2245 1

l l 0 01,12'10 -{ e

l l 5111 1 UNITED CTA T?S CF Af EFIC A 2 NUCLEAR EEGULATOEY C07.5ESION 3- -X ' O ) l 4 In the matter of: 5 METEOPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY Docket No. 50-259 (Eertart) 6 (Three Mile Isisnd Unit 1) I 7 8 75 Nerth Court Etreet,- ( 9 Harrisbur, Fennsylvania 10 Tuceday, Fovember 11, 1980 11 Evidentiary hearing in the above-entitled 12 ma tter was resumed, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:09 a.m. 13 BEFORE: 14 IV A'! 7. %ITH, Esq., Chairman, Atomi: Safety sr.d Licensing Scard 15

05. 7ALTIE H.

JCEDAN, dember 16 DE. LINDA W. LITTLE, 7 ember 17 Also present on behalf of the Ecard: 18 LAWRE"Cs BRENNER, Es~., 19 Erecial Councel to the Board 20

1. 2* K EIS 'MEEN' Clerk to the coerd 21 22 23 O

24 25 0 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 L-

4 I 5112 2 1 APPEARANCES: ). 2-On behalf of the Licencee, Metropolitan Edison Company 3 GEDPGE F. TROWERIDGE, Esq. 4 THOMAS A. BAXTE9., Esq. j DELICSA A. RIDGWAY, Ecq. 5 Shaw, Pittman, Fotts and Trowbridae, 1800 ' Street, J.M., 6 Washington, D. C. s 7 Un behalf of the Commonwealth of Tennsylvania: I 8 ROBER" ADLER, Esq. Assistant Attorney General, 9 505 Executive Ec use, l Harrisburg, Pennsylvania I 10 !!ILLI A; DL?SSIFE, l Nuclear Encineer 11 On hehalf of Union of Concerned Scientists: 12 ELLY:; WEISS, Fsq., i 13 90EEPT D. POLLARD i Earcond & Weics, () 14 1725 I Street, N.W. j asshincton, D. C. l 15 On behalf of the E s q ul-1 to r y Staff: 16 JAMES TOU?TELLOTTE, Esq. 17 JAMEC .t. CUTCHI?., IV, Esq. j Cffice of Executive Legal Director, 18 United States Nuclear Fegulatcry Commission, Wachincton, D. 19 retitioners fo r lea ve to intervene pro _gga 20 21 ST EV E!! C.

SHOLLY,

?04 Ecuth Market Strast, 22 Mechanicsville, Pennsylvania 23 i 24 25 I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 - l .-r-

l I A~ 1 t C O _ :1_ T r N T i O 2 I WITNESSrS DIEECT C3 CSS RFDIFECT 9ECPOSS 3 Thomas G. Broughton 4 Robert C. Jones By Mr. Pollard 5126 5 Afternoon Session p. 5156 By cs. Ueiss 5159 6 By Mr. Pollard 5155 By Mr. R. Adler 5196 7 By P.r. Baxter 5207 By Ms. Weiss 5209 l I 8 BY Ms. Weiss 5213 By M. r. Follird 522u i g By Ms. Weiss $233 By Mr. Pollard 5242 10 BY Ms. Wei n 52u3 i By Mr. Pollard 526C j-11 By v s. Weiss 5265 12 l 13 O u i 15 i 16 4 1 17 I 18 19 I 20 21 22 23 i O 25

O 1

l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

l

~

5113 D F 0Cf7 D ING S 1 k 2 CHAIRXAN Fr.ITH: 3 cod morning. 3 Befora we begin with the witnasses we have several O 4 prelimina ry matters. The Toard has circulated to the 5 persons present a draft of our memorandu.7 and order revising 6 emergency planning Contantions. There are sone typos in it, 7 but it is substantively correct except for one one reference. 8 D9. LITTLES On page '; o. 8, the reference to York 9 13 should raad, "This Contention was withdrawn. Newberry 10 agreed with the staff's objection that it was repetitive of 11 Newberry Can tention, York 3" rather than-13. The second 12 ref erence is to York 3. 13 CHAIFY.AN SMITH: And the rest is substantively 14 accurate. 15 This will be served in corrected form Wednesday. 16 When we return to the office en Friday, Ms. Weiss, 17 we will issue a memorandun and crder denyinn the mction on 18 your Contention 17. 39 The T.amorandum and crder en emergency planning Contentions is the final ruling of the Board on the 20 21 Contentions involved up until now. That cleans it all up. 'J e had indicated that we would issue a list of the 22 23 surviving Conten tions and re nu nb er ther and submit those in () 24 a form which would be useful to the partias. It seams that 25 we a re going to be delayed considerably in doina that, and OV ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5114 () 1 it occurred to us that Yr. Zahler seems to be splendidly 2 organized on this subject matter, and we wonder if he could 3-be prevailed upon to take th a t task over for us, or somebody s 4 in your office, Mr. Baxter. He always seems to be ahead of 5 us in what Cont +ntions are in and out, and it seems that 6 perhaps he has already done this. 'iho k nows. 7 MD. bAXT"3 I will commit on his behalf. 8 CHAIEMA" EMITH: Thank you. 9 Now, it is not just a question of numbering them. 10 Some of the Contentions in their subcontentions require some 11 judgment which the sponco ring Intervenor should be consulted 12 on. Eut he will be aware of that I'm sure. 13 Any other preliminary businers? 14 ME. CUTCHIN: Mr. Chairman, on Friday the staff 15 mentioned that it had observed tha t th'e Eoard had some 16 concerns in connection with the staff'r not having the 17 appr opriate witness available to address concerns which had 18 appeared to the staff to be somewhat broader than the scope 39of Contention 1 with respect to the Three Mile Island 2 20 scen ario and the coolability of that core. 21 The staff has available or can make available two 22 witn esses, one of which is cor.ing from ?. tla n ta, and one of 23 which would come fron Bathesda. The testimony of these () 24 witnesses would to a great decree be in response to what the 25 staf f perceived to b& the Ecard's concerns. It may well n x- ] 3 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,- i 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5115 4 ,,e g 1somewhat be in the nature of rebuttal to some of the things '%) 2 that came up in other witnesses' testimony, but for purposes 3 of planning, does the Board have 4 present feeling as to 4 when it may like to hear those witnesses? 5 CHAIFMAN FMITH. Well, have you given any more 6 thought about whether you can provide a written version of 7 their testinony in advance? 8 R. CUTCt!!Na That would take a longer time, Mr. gChairman, and I think without going through the transcripts 10 and trying to ferret out the particular Board questions ands 11 prepare a response to them, we would then te perha ps into 12 other issue areas. 13 We were thinking in terms of trying to make these () 14 people available tomorrow, but we'need to get the one in 15 Atlanta particularly notified, and it would seem that many 16 of these concerns would actually be relatable to the subject 17 1ssue that is presently beinc considered, since indeed Three i 18 Mile 2 was a srall break LCCA tyce scenario. 1 But we could do it either way. We would prefer to 19 20 pu t them on livc. Then we would just have to see what 21 happens. If other parties felt that they needed an 22 oppo rtunity to pre pa re to examine those witn esses, we would hava to face that, and the Board would have to rule on that 23 () 24 on a care by case basis. CHAIR?AN SMITH: Ve anticipate, Ms. Weiss hac 25 ('M O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5116 em 1 already indicated she would expect to have some notice. I (J R 2 suppose the risk would be upon the witnesses if their 3 testimony was such it was nocessary to call them back. 13 \\ / 4 'd 3. CUTCHIN. Well, a lot of these questions, of 5 course, were raised by "s. Veiss and seemed to amble 6 somewhat upon the ambit, and normally she would be under a 7 duty to respond. We just have to play it hy ear and see if 8 she is able to look at what is said or listen to what is 9said and then ask ahatever questions she has, or hsve to 10 have them come back. I think we would have tc face that 11 af ter we hear what they have to say. 12 CHAIE.AN SM ITi!:

s. 7eiss, what is ycur feeling?

13 MS. WEISS: I don't know. Mr. Cutchin first () 't/ 14 assumed a duty that we a re under. I am not awarc that we 15 would be under any duty to be prepared to cross examine a 16 witness who has not presented his direct testimony in 17 writinc, and I really think as if wo should insist upon 18 seeing it in writing. It is not a question of rebuttal. 19 There wasn ' t any direct testimony to rebut. And we just 20 think it is cienificant enouch. "e are going te sea for the 21 first time, because it doesn't appear anywhere else, in any 22 o f the staff's testimony, their analysis of how the accident 23 sequence baa rs on UCS Contentien 1 ano 2, which is of course ("]N 24 grounded in the a ccid en t soquence. It is not accurate to w 25 imply as if these questins were coming out of left field.

f3 l

s s ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 1 400 VIRGINIA AVE.. S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l

i i 5117 i 1 There was a great deal of discovery in what we were 'M 2 interested in. I think we made clear what up were 3 interested in, and we would really insist on our richt to () 4 have -- since we are going to see that for the first 'tir e, 5 to.see t in writing. 6 And I am not looking f or a lot of notice, but I j 7 think that Ecur or five days is necessary, particularly 8 since we are engaged now in preparing feverishly for the gnext day. 10

32. CUTCHINs Mr. Chairman, I think she uses the 1

11 word right. I don't think anyone has a right to see written 12 testimony. That is within the discretion of the 2 card 13 undser the rules ac to whether to require written in all (} 14 respects. Such of this cane up as a matter of Eoard 15 quections and in response to statements made by licensee's 16 witnesses. 17 Cf course, the staff, as always, will make an 18 atterpt to accctconate whatGver the ?oard decides it wants, 19 but we would profer to bring these witnesses on as soon as 20 we can and brine them on live. 21 CHAIPAN SMITH: Well, you are correct in a 22 11mited e xten t. There is ne abrolute right en the cart of a 23 Party to have anvanced notice of tectimony in exactly the form that v s. 9eits has requested it, that is, written 24 O 25 fort. ? w?ver, thare is an overall due procesr richt of the O b ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5118 1 opportunity to confront the testinony, and if it is of such 2 a na ture that sene advance a c tice of it is recuired, well, 3 that would be subsumed in the due process richt. 4 CHA!E*A:i E!ITli: Cur problem is it is difficult to 5 cake a judgment because we don't know what to expect. 6 Perhaps you want them tomorrcw, so even a 7 compromise sould not be much help. I was thinkinc of the 8 possibility of -- I reccgnize the problems you have a~out n 9 the need to prepare written testimony in detail, and the 10 time and complsxity of going over the transcript, but 11 perha ps an outline of what they have in mind might be a 12 reasonable compromise. But even that could not be 13 accomplished in time to have these witnesces here tomorrow, () 14 which returns us to where we were, and that is if they were 15 to a ppear tomorrow and testify live, then wo would have to 16 en tertain mo tions from anytody to either mak e th em stay 17 around or rnturn at a later date until the t ranscript can be 18 examined and a true confrontation afforded after opportunity 19 to ronsider. 20 "M. CUTC"I; We sould be willinc te run what 21 s e e m s to be a very high risk because I think in th? lonc run 22 it :ay be more citicien t to do it that way, becauco even if 23 we put in live t9stimony -- I mea n written t estimony, it may () 24 well be that the Board e r the ptrties raise f urther 25 concerns, and we keep iteratinc on this process, or it may l l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5119 ~ t be well just to bring them on live and have all the 2 questions come up and then play it from there. 3 CHAIEVAN SMITHS Richt. O(/ 4 4 Let's hear from the Commonwealth. Do you have any .5 feelinos on it, Mr. Adle r ? 6 0 FOBERT ADLERs No. 1 7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Mr. Baxter? l 8 MR. BAXTFE: Mr. Chairman, I do believe that the 9 additional testimony the staff is discussing would be best 10 addressed while we are still in these first three agenda 11 1tems, and I think it is scrt of a circumstance where we 12 should seek some accommodation or expect sore f rom UCS in 13 order to keep the record somewhat cohesive. 14 .t y view of the first two issues was whether we can 15 rely on natural circulation or we need forced circulation. 16 The staff's tectimony addressed that. UCS is dissatisfied 17 because they didn't explore that in the context of the first 18 16 hours of the TMI 2 accidant, and I think the staff would 19 he justifiel in resting en the testimony, but they are coing to come forth and allow UCS to explore that issue, which 20 i l 21 th ey didn't do witn their own testimony. 1 M3. '4 EI S S Let me make it abcolutely clear. I am 22 23 absolutely dis -- ! am not dissatisfied. I am willing to 1"T 24 stan d on the record the way it is. (J Di. JOEDAN: Now, I aI the one, I think, that 25 1 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

4 5120 J 1 perhaps raised the problem, and my problem particularly 0-2 concerned -- and I have warned the staff that I wanted their 3 analysis particularly on the testimeny of the witnesses that ( i 4 are here today, and particularly their replies to the Eoard 5 questions, that part of UCS E which consists of a nunber of j 6 replies as to how the licensee plans to deal with the 1 7 recommendations in the various reports, and I worked to make 8 sure that tne staff has seen these replies, how they plan to gmeet tha recommendations, nome of which they will cay they

E 10 do not plan to meet for restart, and so that is where my 11 chlaf problem will lie, and I will be wanting answers, and I 12 would like to see them come in coon, af ter t he Licensee 's 13 witnesses have lef t the stand.

O) g_ 34

1 R. CUTCHIN:

I was speaking primarily, sir, about 15 concerns tha t the 9 card may have had about the de tails of 16 the Three Yile 2 accident scenario and the coolatility of 17 that core as they relate both to the natural circulation 18 concern of yestariay and to the issues of today, which are 19 in general small treak 1GCA analyses. 20 !i o v, we could bring them on if the Eoard chooses, i 21 and then the Board could allot UCS whatever amount of time it felt was nececsaary, the Board felt was necossary for 22 them to prepare, and UCS could tell us then whether they i 23 () 24 wanted the witnesses back for cross examination. CHAIR *AN SMITH: Our concern is that it be worked 25 O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, s 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5121 () 1 out with all of UCE's rights preserved. It is a question.of 2 ef fic.4 : ac y. I think th e re is a great deal to be said about 3 having the staff's overview of the issue before us early, 4 and you have recognized yourself that it seems te be a 5 rather great risk that they will have to make two 6 appearances. 7 So actually, what we will be having will be oral 8 testimony which will be reduced to writing by virtue of the gtranscript, you will be expected to do a workman like job of 10 cross examination based upon what you can do at the time, 11 but upon a reasonable showing that the issues were too 12 complex, or simply that you simply forgot something, I am .13 su re that ycu represent it accurately, then we will have to ,G \\# 14 entertain a motion to call these people back. l 15 Eut cive the Board a moment to censider it because 16 I would assume that you want to know ar early as possible. 17 Somebody has to come in from Atlanta. 18 NR. CUTCFI.N : That is the main reason we need to 19 know early, so we can get him on notice to start makinc 20 travel plans to be here tomorrow. 21 CHAIEMAN SMITH:

i e l l, if we can just take a few 22 minu tes break, and then we will come back.

23 Is there anything further you want to say, Ms. ()

• dels s ?

s_- 24 25 EE* A'EIEE8 50* O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 t

5122 (]) 1 (A brief recess was taken.) 2 Cl! AIR.!AN E."ITH.

r. Cutchin, the Ecard will 3 invite you to present your witnesses tomorrow.

I think -- I O 4 obse rved during the b rea k that you were already advising UCS 5as to who these peopla were, and that I think would be a 6 good procedure to follow, if ycu would state as much as 7 possible what you know about the people and about what they 8 are goinc to tell us. g tE. CUTCu1F: Yes, sir. 10 The two 7entlanen that we will brino tomorrow, one 11 is Eob hartin. He it with the Atlanta Office of Inspection 12 an d Enforcement. Fe was intimately involved in the 13 investiga tion in the afterrath of the Three Mile 2 accident, () 14 and war a supervising editor, preparer, what have you of the 15 document, 'i 3 P E G-0 5 0 0, the larga, thick orance document that 16 was put out by Inspection and Enforcement. 17 The other gentleain is Eill Johnston, -t-o-n. He 18 is out of the 2ethecda cffice. He is the eranch Chief of 19 Core Ferformancs Dranch. His background ic core thermal 20 hydraulics, phyrics and the like, and be will testify on the 21 core coolability. He was, I brlieve, involved in the Rocovin investication, and in doing hic work there had to 22 23 acquire some knowledge of the T"I 2 accident scenario. () And these two ge nt leme n have a broader knowledge 24 25 of IMI 2 and core coolability related to that than did the () ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5123 1 witness we had on yesterday. i fgV 2 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Will they appear as a panel? 3 ME. CUTCHIN: Yec, sir. We would propese to offer 4 them at the sama time as a panel. 5 CHAIF"AN FFITH: Okay. 6 I assume then that much of what we will hear 7 tomorrow har already been published in 0600. 8 YE. CUTCHIN: I would presume that that is true, 9 but I cannot state that to be a fact. 10 'J e will also make an attempt to go throuch the 11 transcript of Friday and try to propose some of the f 12 questions that the Board raised to sort of set the stage. CHAIEhAN ShITH: Okay. 13 '( ('f 14 Anything further, Mr. Baxter? 15 dR. BAXTEE: Do I understand the plan will be that 16 we will becin with these witnesses firrt thing in the 17 morning and interrupt these? 18 CH AIE AN SMITH: I don't think that has heen 19 addressed. 20 ME. CUTCHIN: I didn 't hea r th e question. 21 MR. cAXTEF: Is the proposal to begin with these i 22 staf f witnesses at 9:00 o' clock tomorrow morning and 1 23 interrupt this ranel? 24 I have no particular objection. I just we nt to 25 make sure we understand what the sequence would be. n%./ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 -. ~

i 5124 r% 1 hK. C'JTCPIN: They will be available, I t i %d 2 understand, first thine in tha Iorninc at th e 2 card's J 3 pleasure. N CRAIRMAN EMITH: Another option could be, if it 4 5 works in better for travel plans, to hepin a t 1:00 o' clock. 6 There might be a better chance to complete this panel. 7 But we don't care. Work it out. i 8 'l R. CUTCHI!!: They will be here tonight is my 1-9 understanding, so de can put them on, and Mr. Ma rtin has to 4 10 go, I understand, to Michigan on Thursday. So we would 11 like, if at all possible, to get them off the stand by the 12 end of the day tomorrow. 13 CHAIE/AN SMITH: I don't think it makes any 14 difference to us. i 15 Anything further? I 16 M3. BAXTER: Yes, sir. I would like to make an 17 inquiry about the Ecard's plans for hearing schedule during 18 the Thanksgiving week. It is my understandinc that the 19 Board had determined to have a hearing beginninc at 10:00 20 o ' clock o n t e n d ay the 24th and a full day on Tuesday the 21 25th, but had not decided on '**ed ne sd a y the 2fth, or have you 22 made your travel plans by now? CHAIE7AN S?.ITE : fcc. Wednesday will te a typical 23 b, 24 final day. We will adjourn at about noon. Yer, we vill %.s 25 adjourn about ncon, yes. 2 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

4 5125 i A 1 MR. EAXTER: Thank you. U 2 CHAIRMAN SMITH Any other ma^tters? 3 Mr. Cutchin? 4 dE. CUTC!iIhs Ne mor7 from the staff. 5 CHAI3"AN SMITH: Okny. 6 I believe now we a re ready fcr your cross 9 7 examination, Ms. Weiss? i I 8 MS. WZISSs 'ie are going to start with questions a 9 based on the witnesses' presentation en Friday. Through a 1 t 10 mix-up we did not get the transcript of Friday's session, j 11 but we prepared some questions anyway, and I think it will 12 probably be all right, althouah when we get a chance to { 13 scrutinize the transcript i ( 14 CfiAIPMAN SMITH: Yoc have the transcript now? 15 MS. WEISS: Wa have it now. 16 CHAIEMAN S ITH: All right. 17 >! S. 'J EISS s And hr. Follard is goinc to ask those 18 questions. i 19 CHAIFIAN EMITH: Did you get a copy of the 20 transcript of Friday? 21 ME. POEEET ADLEF: Yes. i 22 Whereupon, 23 THOMAS GA?Y EFCUGHTON and ROEEET C.

JONFF, 24 called as witnesses by counsel f or Licensee,.Eetropolitan i

25 Edison Company, having been duly sworn by th a Chairman, k ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5126 () 1 resumed the stand, were further examined and testified as 2 follows

• 3 CEOSS EXAMINATION O

4 BY ME. POLLAFOs 5 0

r. Jones, I will be asking some questionc on v

6 statements in the transcript. 7 Do you have a copy? 8 A (4ITNESS JONES) I do now. g Q If you could turn firct, please, to page 5059. 10 DR. JOEDANs Can you wait just a mom ent ? 11 Mr. Follard, if you have a few extra documents 12 there, if you could raise your microphone, it might help. 13 B Y M F.. POLLAPDs (Resuming) J 14 Q On the botten of page.5059, the next to the last 15 sentence where you are talking about in this analysis we 16 have accu =ed loss of offsite power, reactor trip, but we 17 have assumed an operator action in the ana3ysis, did I 18 misunderctand you? I thought you had said an operator error 13 in the analysis rather than operator action. 20 A (WITNESS JCPES) 'ie had assumed an operator action 21 to be per formed in doing tha t analysis. 22 Q Can you tell me what the opera tor action was? A (WITNESS JONES) The operator action is described 23 () 24 on page 5060, ctartino on line 20 and continuina on onto the 25 next cage, that paragraph, and basically it ic the -- th e j i j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, i 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 556-2345

5127 1 operator action assumed was a manual action to open up some {) 2 valves in the high pressure injection line such that one 3 high pressure injection pump could feed to all four O 4 injection nozzlas. 5 Co. JOEDE.N: This action was described in your 6 direct testimony, was it not, in the wri,tten testimony? 7 'JITNESS JONE3: Yes, it ic. It is also described 8 on page 3. 9 EY '< E. FOLLARD: (Resumina) 10 0 In your discussion on Friday in general through 11 all of the analyses and all of the tables in your direct i 12 testimony, were those analyses based upon the specific, the 13 performance of the specific conponents in Th ree Mile Island h) ( 34 Unit 1 such as the high pressure injection pumps, or ware 15 they performed on a generic basis? 4 16 A ('J IT N ES S JONES) The analyses which were performed 17 were performed on a generic basis, and they generally 18 speaking will deliver or assumed less flow to be injected 19 than the actual T:1! system as modified will provide. 20 Q If I could direct ycur attention now to the 21 paragraph tnat began on page 5059 and continuing on 5060 of 22 the transcript, you sta t e that subsequent in ves tiga tion 23 af ter that concern was raissd determinad indeed that we'had (~)T 24 no t done a sufficient 'ob in examining all break locations. 25 Can you explain to me, please, which subsequent ALDERSoH REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIHGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 _~

I 5128 (~T 1 investications you are referrina te? .O 2 A (WITNESS JONFS) Well, to go over the history a 3 little bit, in the early '700 we performed a set of small fs ( ) %s 4 hreak analyces for the TT.I -- vell, the generic 177 plant, 5 which was soplicable to TMI 1. Af ter that analyses, as time 6 evolved, model modifications were made over that time 7 period, and other analyses were done for other ECW type 8 reacters. An internal concern wac raised at PEW which -- g ba sically the concern wcs that the analyses done for the 10 other plants was showing that the pump discharge break was 11 the worst case while the older analyses for TMI 1 had 12 indicated th a t the suction break was the worst location. 13 This internal concern was evaluated and analysis was O xs 14 perf ormed, and that analysic determined that indeed the punp 15 dicchar;e break was the worst location, and the whole 16 analysis was performed on that basis, of locking at the pump 17 discharge break, and that subsaquent investication phrases 18 specifically relating to the initial evaluation of the 19 concern, which vac a single cace study which indeed showed 20 that there may he a problem, and then we went on to continue 21 the analysis. 22 C This determination that ycu had not done a 23 sufficient job cf examining all break loca ti ons, and that in () fact the worst break was on the pump discharge, that 24 determination was made af ter Three hile Island Unit 1 was 25 i \\ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5129 r' i first licensed, is that correct? U' 2 A (WITNESS JONES) Yes. 4 3 C Ca n you describe, please, the substantial model 4 changes that were m.ade ever the life of the plant? 5 A (WITNESS JCNES) "here were various refinements in 6 the noding scheme utilized in the model, and p ro b a bl y th e 4 7 most significant change that was made was a new model and 8 technique was employed for examining level, swell and bubble 9 rise within the system. 10 C And were there other substantial model changes? 11 A (4ITNESS JONES) There may have been other changes i 12 made. I just don't remember what I would consider biggest 13 model changes made, but I can't to my mind, no. No other 14 pops up immadiately. 15 0 Vhen you say now that these were ?.edel 16 refinements, do you use that phrase to mean t" same thing 17 a s a substantial nodel change? 18 A (WITNESS JCNES) Well, the tern substantial model 19 change basically was relative to its impact en the analysis, 20 while model modifications or refinements.ay or may not lead 21 to changes in the results, or significant changes in the i 22 results. 23 0 Did the two model refinements that you mentioned, () did those lead to a substantial impact on the results? 24 I 25 A (WITNFSS JONFE) I am not sure the noting change %) ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5130 1 really had iny bi; effect. I said the treatment of the 2 level, swell and bubble rise in the system probably had the 3 biag est impact. O. 4 0 Being sensi tiv e to the Board's concern that the 5 record be clear, could you cive us a general explanation of 6 what you mean by a node in a model? 7 A (WITNESS JJNES) Well, a node or volume is simply 8 that. It is bacically a region which is defined for the 9 computer code which is a model of a salect portion of the 10 system. It models the volume of that particular region. It 11 models the relative elevations for the inlet flow and exit 12 flow from that moael. It rodels the initial pressures, 13 items such as that, the physical location of a siece or a ('j 14 part of the primary system. For example, one nede might be l 15 used to represent the hot leg cf the system. That node 16 would incorporate the height of the hot leg and the proper 17 volume, total volume of the hot leg. 18 0 Would it also be within one node that you would 19 calculate the average temperature of all the water within l 20 that node? 21 A (WITNESS J0t:ES) Yes. 22 0 During your discussion of Table 2 in your direct 23 testimony, you nada retarence to Exhibit 9, and I am sorry, () 24 perhaps you can help me remember which figure in Exhibit 9. 25 Perhaps I have fcund it faster. [) N-l l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5131 ('/) 1 I would like to direct your attention to Figure 2 2 in licensee Exnibit No. 9. 3 An I correct that when you performed this analysis ,f'i t A' 4 you assured oparation of two safety valves for at least a 5 portion of the time? Is that correct? 6 A (WITNESS JONES) That is correct. 7 C Can you give me your opinion of what Figure 2, how 1 8 Figure 2 would be changed if in f'act only one saf ety valve ( g opened? 10 A (WITNESS JCNES) Lasically between roughly 1800 11 seconds and 2300 seconds, roughly, the system pressure would '12 increase. I have no idea as to where it would go. 13 Q Dif you perform an analysis, perhaps in another () 14 document, where you did assume only one safety valve would 15 open ? 16 A (WITNESS JONES) No, we did not. 17 0 In analyses performed in accordance with 10 CFE i 18 50.46 and Appendix ' <, isn't it required that you acsume a 19 single f ailure? I 20 A (WITNESS JCNES) Yes, but this analycis was not 3 1 21 dsone for 50.46 compliance. '!either was -- let me just 22 clea r tha t up. I did net state it Friday, but all the 23 analyses discussed from Table 2 on to the last table of my 24 testimony was not performed for 50.46 compliance. Cnly the t first table is the analysis for E0.46 compliance. 25 (~)h i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5132 1 0 If ycu wer e doing the analysis depictad in Exhibit 2 9 for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with Appendix 3 K, would you then assume or would you be required to assume \\- 4 that one safety valve did not operate? 5 MP. BAXTEF: Excuse me. Just a point of 6 clarification. Are w e still talking about Table 2 where 7 there ic no small break LOCA? 8 MB. POLLA3D: Excuse ne. I am referring to Figure i 9 2 in Licensee Exhibit No. 9 which was referenced in Mr. } 10 Jones' testimony, dealing with Table 2 in his direct 1 11 testimony on UCS Contention 8 and ECNF Contention 1E. 12 MR. SAXTER Thank ycu. 13 '4ITNESS JONES: I am not sure that I would ever () 14 have to do this analysis in the first place to show 15 compliance with 50.46 in that I believe -- it is my 16 understanding that no cingle failure will wipe out the 17 emergency f eedwa ter syrtem, but even if I take that 18 assumption and do it, if I take the f ailure of the cafety 19 valve, then I would have to high prescure injection systems, 20 both pumps operating, and that would rasult in a significant i 21 change in the reuuired capacity, relief capacity for the 22 syst en. BY MR. POLLARD: (Fecuminc) 23 24 0 One more question on Figure of Exhibit 9. Ov 25 Without changing any other of the sequence of 1 ~.) ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5133 1 events or your assumptions that you have given in your 2 testimony, as I understand what you just testified this 3 morning, that if one safety valve failed to open, the 4 pressures shown in Figure 2 would go higher, but ycu don't 5 know by how much. 8 A (WITNESS JONES) It would go higher, but only 7 between that specific timeframe, the roughly 1800 to 2300 8 second - period, and I have no -- I have not done a ny gcalrulations, nor what its final' pressure state would be. 10 But once that 2300 second timeframe passed, it would come 11 down to basically the same prersure. 12 Q May ask you another question? 13 Assuminc~again all or your original assumptions () 14 and one saf aty valve failing to open, but with the 15 additional chance of using 1.2 times the ANS decay heat 16 va lu e, would the pressure go even higher between those times? 17 A (WITNESS JONES) Can I have the question read 18 back? I think I missed something and I want to answer the 19 question properly. 20 (The reporter read the pending question.) 21 WITNESS JCNES: Yes. Eetween that specific time 22 pressure would go higher than the case of 1.2 ANS. l 23 DR. JOEDAN: ?.a y I ask this for further (~)h 24 understanding ? s_ Tho pressure shown on Exhibit 9 that we have been 25 4 CE) ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

l [ 1 5134 t l 1 discussing, that-pressure is the pressure which the safety-2 valves have released, is that right? 3 WITNESS JONES: Yes. i \\- 4 code works, it is not even a full one pump. 5 0 I'm sorry, I didn't understand. 6 A (WITNESS JONES) The way the code works, it is not 7 even a full ono pump. The flow rate is modulated to 8 main tain level in the code, and we have input a value which gwould be more or less representative of one pump, but in 10 fact we are not even using the f ull capacity of one pump. 11 0 Not even the full capacity of one motor driven 12 pump as opposed to one turbine driven pump? 13 A (WITNESS JONES) On the average, that is correct, () 14 YeS-15 Q I'm sorry, I didn't understand the phrase "on the 16 average. 17 A (2ITCESS JONES) Tnere may be a period of time in 18 the analysis where we may be using a larger capacity than, i 19 sa y, one motor driven pump could produce for a short time 20 period, which is the period where we just start to 1 21 re-establish the boiler condenser mode, possibly. For that, 22 what I am saying, en an avetace basis, over a tineframe in there, we would be using roughly, say, 300 GPM or 100 GPM at 23 (} 24 a very specific instant in time. We may be using more over, 25 sa y, a 5 or 10 second time period. O ~ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTOfi, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5146 1 0 In the analyses that you are discussing in this ( 2 answer here on page 5095, what assumptions were made in the 3 computer analycis about what level the steam generator was 4 filled to, and how fast did the steam generator water level 5get to that pump? 6 A (WITNESS JCNES) Well, the analysis is based on a 7 50 percent level. I have to look up the time. 8 Q Fifty percent of which? 4 9 A (MITNESS JONES) On the operating range. 10 (Pauce) 11 WITNESS JONES: I don't have the information with 12 me to be able to tell you that. I can say, though, in 13 general what happens ic in fact the system basically comes () 14 down and cettles out at 50 percent of the operate range 15 rather than fills to 50 percent of the opera te ra nca. 16 P.Y MP. PDLLASDs (Resumina) 17 C So that normal level in the steam generators is 18 normally about 50 percent in the operating range, regardless 19 of power level of the plan t? 20 A (WITFESS JONES) At full power, yec. 21 Q At full power. What about at 25 percent power, 22 what is the stean generator level? 23 A (WI! NESS JONES) I don't know. I expect it is 24 less than 50 percent of the operate range. 25 C If we go now to your testimony on Table 7 from ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5147 1 your direct testimony, where you referenced -- excuse me. 2 We may not need the exhibits. We can just refer to page 3 5101 of the transcript. 4 A (MITNESS JONES) Excuse me. Which page? 5 0 5101. 6 What we are discussing here is the small break 7 1oss of coolant accident with a delayed reactor coolant. pump 8 trip, is tha t correct? 9 A (WITNESS JOFES) That is correct. 10 Q At the bottom of page 5101, the last paragraph, 11 you explained that at this point you hcVe to refill the i 12 reactor coolant system, and specifically the reactor vessel 13 1n the core, and try to recover the core. And then you (ms,) 14 testified "but these are high pressure transients, and you 15 do not have a pump which is capable of refilling the system 4 16 rapidly as you do at low pressures for large breaks." 17 Zy question is, is that because of the limited 18 capa city of the high pressure injection punps? A (WIT.i?SS JCdES) Yes, that is correct, 19 20 0 I en correct here that in this analysis you had 1 21 assumed that both high pressure injection pumps -- excuse 22 me, the two high pressure injection pumps were running, is that correct? 23 A (WITNESS JONES) Tha majority of the analyses {} 24 25 performed did utilize two high cressure injection pumps for O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

= i l l 5148 (} 1this scenario, where the pumps ran, the system went to a 2 high void f ra ction, and then the pumps trip out, the reactor 3 coolant pumps. O 4 C Can you please refer to licensee Exhibit 10, 5 Figure 2.5. 6 I think it is Figure'2.5, but looking at the page 7 it lookc like it might he 2-5. 8 A (k'ITNESS JONES) Is that on paca 28, I believe? 9 Q 23, pace 2E. 10 Cin you give m.e your views on how that figure 11 would change if you had only one high pressure injection 12 pump available? 13 Do. JCRDAN: Before you do, review for mo the 14 situation that we are referring *o at this figure. l 15 WITNESS JONES : Okay. This is an analysis of the 16 seven breaks in tha bottom of the collate pump discharge 17 pipinc, with the reacter coolsnt pumps remaininc operative, 18 a n d two HPI punps-on. 19 Now, as f7r as how the syster. pressures were 20 ch an ge d for these cases, you would see probably very little 21 impact for the.2 square f oo t break. The.075 square foot 22 break would tand to just basically just fles t new out around l 1100 psi for a longer period of time, and the other cases 23 () 24 would tend to be somewhat hither in pressure. I am not sure how much, but they would tand to be slightly hicher in 25 ib v i ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 ) i ,.,s

i 5149 1 system pressure. 2 And to Jive you an idea as to what it is worth, 3 Figure 2-6 on page 31 shows a comparison of the system 4 pressuro trace f or the.05 square foot Dreak with one or two 5 HPIs, and there may be a hundred psi differential between 6 the two at 3000 reconds. 7 BY MR. POLLARD: (Resuming) 8 0 Then do I understand your testimony correctly that g the reason you are tripping th e reactor coolant pumps is 10 because vou do not have an emergency core cooling system 11 pump that is capable of rapidly refilling th e system to 12 cover the core, and that if you did have such a pump, it 13 would not be necessary to trip the reactor coolant pumps. () 14 A ( W I T.'i ES S JONES) I am not so sure I would want to 15 characterize it in that fashion. Rather, for this specific 18 scenario, the high pressure injection systens have not been 17 designed to handle, but even if you have larger high 18 pressure injection pumps and could somehow tolerate this-19 high system void fraction evolution, there have been various 20 concerns raised about the integrity of the reacter coolant 21 pump tc operate in high system voids, and that it still may 22 no t be prudant to continue operation of the reactor coolant 23 pumps through a transient ac it may induce secondary LOCAs, f () 24 additional LOC A s or vibrations or wha tever, where the 25 integrity of the pumo could lead to other problems. (~') %) ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l

l 5150 1 0 An I correct that the analysis you performed } 2 showed that for a crectrum of small breaks between.025 3 sugare feet and.2 square feet, that it was necessary to O 4 trip the reactor coolant pumps in order to assure that you 4 5 had adequate core cooling? 6 A (WITNESS J014ES) It was necessary to trip the 7 reactor coolant pumps in order that if you want to postulate 8 the scenario of the loss of the pumps at any time, that you 9 would not have adequate core cooling, that we could not 10 demonstrate adacuate ccre coolino. 11 If, hcwever, if we could keep the reactor coolant 12 pumps running, we would have sain tained adeq ua te core 13 coolinc. It was only this delayed pung trip scenario that () 14 caused the problem, not whether the pump is or or the pump 15 is off initially being the problem. It is the delayed 16 scenario which caused the specific problem. 17 0 Well, durino an accident such as you a re analyzing 18 hero, where do the reactor coolant pumps receive their 19 electrical power f rom ? Could I ask the question first of this witness? 20 21 A (4ITNESS JONES) My understanding is they get it from offsite source. I thought that perhaps Mr. Broughton 22 23 could talk specifically f or T.t! 1. 24 Q Have you done an analysis of the of fsite power () 25 syst em for Three Mile Island Unit 1? 1 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 1 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 2002A (202) 554-2345 i

5151 () 1 A (WIT 5ESS JONES) I have not personally. 2 0 Then you don't have any opinion as to whether or i 3 not it is likely or unlikely that offsite power could be f-(_e 4 lost at any time during an accident. 5 A (WITNESS JONES) As I stated, I have not done such 6an analysis and I do not know. 7 DE. JORDAN: Let's make the record clear. Would 8 the other witness respond as to where the power comes from 9 to operate the reactor coolant pumps? 10 WITNESS PROUGHTON: The power for reactor coolant 11 pumps at TMI 1 does come from offsite power sources. 12 DR. JORDAN: Thank you. 13 BY ME. POLLAED. (Recuming) 14 0 Are you aware of any recommendations that the 15 Advisory Committee en Reactor Safeguards has made over the 16 years with resrect to the capacity of emergency core cooling 17 system pumps? 18 DR. JORDAN: And you are referring to the high 19 pressure injection pumps now? MR. POLLAED: I arked the question generally, 20 21 first with respect to any emergency cora cooling punps. DR. JORDAN: Fine. 22 WITNESS JONES: I just can't remember off the top 23 ) 24 of my head any recommendations specifically dealinc with increasing or decressino the size of the energency core 25 r( ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5152 1 cooling system pumps. Right now I just cannot recall it. 2 DY MR. POLLARD: (Resuming) 3 0 You don't recall anything, whether high pressure O 4 pumps or low pressure pumps. You just don't recall any 5 recommendations. 6 A (WITNESS JONES) No, I just really cannot remember 7 any at this time. There may have been some, but I just 8 don't remember. 9 0 Thank you. 10 'J e will turn now to your testimeny on Table 6 of 11 your direct testimony, and on Friday you referenced Licensee 12 Exhibit 13, Ficure 1. 13 If it is oo ssi bl e, I would like you to also have 14 in front of you Licensee Exhibit 5, Figu re 6. 2-6 0, and also 15 Licensee Exhibit 8, Ficure 1. 'l 16 CHAIRPAN SMITH: Mr. Follard, I th in k we should 17 change our procedure. 4 18 'd e ll, that's fine. Every time you relax, you come 19 back with a new chart in a aew exhibit. I think when you co 20 on to a course of exanination, I think we should take a 21 moment and you just read out the papers we will need, and 22 then we will cather them. What you did this time, in due 23 course, the transcript will not reflect -- well, never mind. 24 We will stop at the beginning of each section and 25 we will identif y at once all the papers we need. ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

=. 5153 1 What was the chart in Exhibit 6? {} 2 MR. POLLAPD: No Exhibit 6. We are looking at 3 Licensee Exhibit 13, Ficure 1. O 4 CHAIR. MAN EhTTH: Oct that one. 5 MR. POLLARD: Licensee Exhibit 5, Figure 6.2-60. 6 CHAIEMAN SMITH: Got thst one. 7 MR. POLLARD: And Licensee Exhibit 8, Ficure 1. 8 BY MF. POLLARD: (Resuming) i 9 0 Perhaps, Mr. Jones, if you could refresh our to memory as to which analysis each of these figures are 11 depicting first. 12 A (WITNESS JONES) Okay. The one from Exhibit 13, 13 Figure 1 is a small break LCCA, specifically a.01 square () 14 foot cold leg break in the pump discharge piping with no 15 feedwater, both main or auxiliary, with two EPIs actuated at 16 20 minutes, and also assuming that the PCEV is either open 17 or sticks open at 20 minutes. 18 Figure 6.2-60 of Zxhibit Sc. 5 relates to Table 19 No. 3. It is a.01 scuare foot break in the pump discharge 20 piping without any feedwater, and two high pressure 21 injection pumps actuated, manually actuated at 1200 seconds 22 by the operator. 23 Figure 1.of Fxhibit No. 8 also is utilized in the () 24 developnent of Table 3 of my testimeny. It is the same 25 analyses as in Figure 6.2-60 except instead of the operator O l ALDERSON REPoRUNG COMPANY. INC. ' 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5154 1 actuating two high Pressure injection pumps, he actuates the {~} 2 emergency feedwater system, which then depressurizes the 3 primary system and leads to an automatic actuation of the O-4 HPI pumps. 5 0 ?.ecalling Dr. Little's question to you about the 6 number of significant figures shown on the pressure scale, 7 can you off er an explanation as to why the peak pressures in 8 these three figures are different? 9 A (WITNESS JONES) The peak pressures I do not 10 believe are different between Figure 1 of Exhibit Nc. 13 or 11 Figure 6.2-50 of Exhibit 5. The Figure No. 1 of Fxhibit No. 12 8 is slightly higher, and the tsuse of that difference is 13 basically the auxiliary feedwater injection was () 14 re-e sta blished a t 1250 seconds while the other analysis 15 assumed the operator action at 1200 seconds. Se there is a 16 slightly longer period of time of repressurization before 17 any action was takan. 18 ES. %EISS: Mr. Pollard has finished with the 19 questioning on tho testimony from Friday. I don't know 20 whether there is any more. A'o ul d you like us to go right 1nto the questioning on the prefiled written direct? 21 DE. JOPDAU: The what? 22 MS. WEISS: We are finished with the questioning 23 () 24 on Friday, so we can either go into the questionina on the 25 prefiled written direct testimony of these witnesses, or if ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5155 1 anybody has any other questions on what happened Friday. I'~i (_/ 2 ME. EAXTER: We are really talking, in my view, 3 Mr. Chairman, about both. We have been rela tino these to 4 the direct testimony. t 5 DR. JOEDAN: I, of course, asked t he questions on 6 Frida y that I wanted to kow where the testimony went, so I 7 will have no further questions on Friday 's testimony. 8 Let's find out if either the staff or the state ghas any questions. I think if they de have questions on 10 Friday's testimony, now is probably the best time. 11 MR. CUTCHIN: I have none on Friday's, Mr. Chairmn. 12 ME. EOBEFT ADLEE4 We have none on Friday's. 13 DR. JORDAN: All right. Then I guess that does () 14 complete Friday's testimony and we can then move into your 15 cross examination on the written testimony. 16 MS. WFISS: If we are going to go straight ahead, 17 I would like a chart break. 18 CHAIEVAN EMITH: Let's take five minutes. 19 Sefore we leave the hearing, why don't we just 20 take the noon break now, and we will reconvene at 1: 00 21 o ' clock. 22 (Whereupon, at 11: 47 o' clock a.m., the hearing in 23 the above-entitled z.a tter recessed, to reconvene at 1:00 } 24 o' clock p.m. the same day.) Ns/ 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

.1 5156 3 1 AFTEFNOON SEFSIOV ~) 2 (1:00 p.m.) 3 MS. WEISS Ihere are three things I wanted to 4 brino up before we got into the cross examination for this 5 af ternoon. The first was cross examination plans, Iter 4 on 6 the schedule. You had originally directed that those be 7 submitted by tonorrow. It now appears as if we won't get to 8 those this week. 9 I have written the cross examination plans. My 10 office is closed today because it is a federal holiday, my 11 secretaries have those days off. They are now t y pin g, or 12 they will be, as of tomorrow, typing part of it. We could 13 have the cross examination plan on the licen see 's witnesses () 14 in then by Friday, or by T hu rsa ay. Those are sent Federal 15 Express. But have only written drafts of the cross 16 examination plan for the staff witnesses on Item 4. 17 CHAIRMAN EZITH: '.i s. Weiss, I don't think that we 18 have to put you to the effort te get the first phase on 19 Licensee's panel by Federal Express. Why don't you suggest 20 a date that you bring the entir? package. 21 MS. WEISS: We can bring it over the first day 22 next week, Iuesday of next week. 23 CHAIRMAN EMITH: Are there any objections to that? MR. BAXTER: I have no objecticn. I didn't (G^) 24 25 consider it impossible that we would get to that issue by O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5157' 1 the end of the week. I was hoping we would, but I have no 2 objection. 3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Do you really think we will get 4 to that? 5 Well, if that is the case, if it looks like th a t 6 1s going to happen, why don't you just submit your dsraft, 7 sincew it is not goina to go in the record anyway, if that 8 will be acc? pta ble. 9 MS. WEISS: Well, they have in my office the 10 written draf t because they are typing for the licensees, but 11 I have my written draft for the staff which I could give 12 you, but that would mean they woulls have to rederal 13 Express, but that's fine. 14 CHAIR?.A5 SMITH: How about the funny phone? We j 15 could send it ur on the 16 MS. WFISS The telex? I have no access to telex 17 facilities. 18 CHAIPMAN SMITH: Federal Express is not reliable. 19 It is just lucky that wG ;ot the last batch because the 20 hotel said they would not accept it, but comebcdy at the 21 desk did in fact accept it. 22 Well, why don't we worry about it when the time 23 co m e s, and then in the meantime you are going to proceed 24 producing it and see what happens. 25 MS. SEISS: The second issue, was the transcript ) AU ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

i 5158 1 for Friday. Does the Board have.one copy of the ( }. 2 Intervenors' t ra nscrip t? 3 CHAIRMAN SMITH: We received, I believe, four this 4 morninc. Wa provided one for sonebody. We provided one -- 5 'R. F0EERT ADLER: 'ir have one copy. 6 MS. WEISS: Okay, fine. 7 And the third subject was for the witnesses ctomorrow, the staff witnesses who will be on the first thing ~ 9 in the morning, we would like to request that if they are 10 no t failiar with that NSAC sequence, which is USC Exhibit 1, 11 that we used to question the Licensee witnesses, that they 12 bring with them whatever accident sequences that th ey are 13 familiar with so they can be questioned on whatever they 14 prefer to be questioned on. 15 MR. CUTCHIN: The staff will brino with them what 16 they prefer to be questioned on. 17 CHAIRMAN S?.ITH: That seems very accommodating. 18 MF. WEISS Can you tell me what that is? 19 MR. CUTCHINs My guecs it is in the NUPEG-0600 and 20 in the Fogovin report. 21 CHAISt.AN SMITH: ro you have that here with you, 22 Ms. Weiss? MS. WEISSs No. 23 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Well, during the break I will () 24 25 1oan you my copy. i o ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 d

5159 1 Whereupon, 2 ROBERT C. JONES and THOMAS GARY ERCUGHTON, 3 called as witnasses by counsel for Licensee, Metropolitan ('(T/ 4 Edison Company, having been duly sworn by the Chairran, were 5 further examined and testified as follows: 6 CROSS EXAKINATION -- Resumed 7 BY MS-WEISS 8 8 0 Mr. Jones, on page 3 cf your testimony you are 9 discussing the analyses which were performed prior to the 10 TMI 2 accident in order to show compliance with 10 CFR Part 11 50, Appendix K for Unit 1, is that correct? 4 12 A (WITNESS JONES) Yes, that is correct. 13 C Can you tell me when that medel was approved? l () 14 A (WITNESS JONES) Soughly September of 1978. 15 Q That is precise enouch. 16 Have any changes been made in the model since 17 September of '78? 18 A ('iIT2ESS JChES) For the purposes of demonstrating 19 compliance to 5 0.46, no. 20 0 I taka it from the way you rhrased your answer 21 that there were come cha nges cade. i 22 Were those ande in connection with a submittal 23 that.you made to the NPC after the accident? 3 24 A (WITNESS JONES) There were certain noding changes (%) 25 used in some of the analyses submitted after the accident. o 5s/ ALDERSON P,EPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5160 1 0 Noding changes. 1,nd when were these analyses {} 2 submitted ? 3 A (WITSESS JONES) The largest package was the May O 4 7, 1979 report and then the e the r. I am net sure which 5 model was used in the other supplements, in the other 6 exhibits that we submitted. 7 0 I just want to make sure the record shows which 8 supplements you are referring tc. 9 Are those supplements represented by any of the 10 Licensee exhibits? 11 4 (WITaESS JCSES) !! ell, as I said, I am not sure. 12 They ara represented by the Licensee's exhiits, but I am not 13 suro whether the analyses used to ravise noding schemes, but () 14 those would have been basically all the exhibits from 6 to 15 13, with the exception of 12, which are the guidelines. 16 0 Okay. But the only one that you are sure contains 17 the changes in noding would be Kay 7, '79, is that correct? 18 A (WITFECS JGUES) That is the only one I am 19 absolutely sure of at this time, and it was not all of those 20 analyses. It was some of the analyses that arE in that 21 report utilized a revised noding scheme. 22 0 can you tell me which utill ed the revised scheme? A (WITNESS COEES) These are basically the analyses 23 () 24 that are referenced as Table 6 in my testinony. 25 0 Okay. Those are the analyses of a very small LOCA C:) ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346

5161 (w 1 with loss of main feedwater, is that correct? %N 2 A ('4ITNESS J0NES) That is correct. 3 0 And was the change in nodina for the purpose of-o'- 4 modeling greater detail? 5 If there is comething wrong in the way I have 6 asked tha t question, maybe just should have asked you what 7 7 was the effect of the change in noding? 8 A (k'ITi;ESS JGh ES ) i' ell, I am having an equally 9 difficult time with exactly that question. 10 The reason that we made the model change, or 11 specifically what the model change war was the addition of a 12 node to represent the 180 degree bend in the top of the hot 13 leg, and the node itself wac more than just the bend. It /^ (,)T 14 included-down into the upper plenum of the steam generator. 15 The purpose of that node was tc predict the interruption in 16 natural circulation that would occur once voids had, a 17 significant amount of voids had developeds during the 18 accident, and that was the main purpose of the additional 19 no d e. 20 Q !s it true, then, that before the accident the hot 21 1eg, the entire hot leg had been presented by ono node? 22 A ('JITNESS JONES) For each locp, yes, that is 23 co rr ect. t) 24 0 And your testimony in that you changed that so V that the hot lec was divided into two nodes, is that correct? 25 O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5162 b'N 1 A (WIT 3ZSS JONES) ell, as I raid, the additional n 2 node war more than fuct the hot leg. It included the upper 3 plenum of the stear generator. O 4 It is basically the down side from the elbow in 5 the hot leg, down to the upper tube sheet in the steam 6 generator. l 7 0 And the effect of this change was to predict the 8 crea tion of sycten voids which had not been predicted by the 9 model in its previous forms, is that correct? 10 A (WITNESS JONES) No, that is not correct.. The 11 purpose of the node was to -- basically the purpose of the 12 node was to isolate the heat removal from the steam 13 gene ra tor f rom tha t region in the system which it would not () 14 be ablo to affect, and for these very small LOCAs which 15 would utilize the steam generator for a substantial amount 16 of heat removal, it was necessary to isolate that region in 17 tha system in a separate node in ordar to show the potential 18 for an interruption in natural circulation, while at the 19 same time not havino the boiler condenser mode established. 20 0 Then is wha t you are saying wi th the old model, 21 You did not predict an.intorruptionbfnaturalcirculation I 22 but that the chance in noding resulted in predicting an 23 interruption in natural circulation? '(~) 24 A (WITNESS JOSES) Well, we didn 't specifically run %/ 25 the case with the old noding. Just bared on the way the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5163 I 1 codes operate, before we ever even started the analysis for 2 these smaller breakc, we add ed the node. It was our 3 jud; ment thit that node would be necessary to properly 4 predict the transient response. 5 0 It is true, isn't it, that none of your old model 6 results for any casas predicted an interruption in natural 7 circula tion. 8 A (WITNESS JONES) All the old results predic ted g interruptions to na tural circulation in that we predicted 10 voiding would occur in the system. 11 Q Let te tell you what is giving me a problem in 12 understancing your answer. 13 Do you by any chance have NUPEG-0565 with you? () 14 A (WIT??SS JONES) Yes, I'do. ~ i ^ 15 0 Could you turn, pleace, tc page 4-4 16 (?auco) 17 CRAIPMAN SMITH: Okay, Zs. Weiss, we can' follow. 18 BY Mr. WEISS: (Rusuring) gg Q Let me direct you to the bo t tom paracraph on page 4-4 Now, that paracraph is discussing reference 62, which 20 21 1s that May 7, '79 ? CW analy sis that we have been discussing. 22 1I: that corract? A (',4ITNESS J0 bES) That is correct. 23 _24 O And the last full sentence on that page sa y s,' "I t } 25 was also found that for the small break transients involvine O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 ) i

N 5164 (' 1 that circ ula tion, thet the development of a steam bubble in 2 the upper 180 degree bend of the hot leo leadinc into the 3 steam cenera tor, (candy cane) could not be adequately i 4 described because of the core 'c noding detail for the pipe 5 and steam generator primary side in the existing nodal 6 representation." 7 And I guass I would like to ask if that describes 8 thew chance and the purpose for the change that you have 9 been discussing. 10 A ('4ITNESS JONES) For the specific very small 11 breaks that are talked about in Table 6 of my testimony, the 12 05 and the.01 square foot break, th e sen tence is generally 13 speakina accurate. You could not get the detail and predict 14 that interruption as well with the coarse noding type. As a 15 matter of f sct, I don't believe you will predict it at all. 16 Q And other than the change in noding, were there 17 a n y other enanges in the model after September of '78? 18 ('JITNESS JONES) 5ct to my knowledce. 19 0 His the code been arplied to different accident 20 scenarios than it was beform the Three Mile Island 2 21 accident ? A ('JITNESS JONES) Yes. It has been applied to 22 different scenarios than would normally be considered for 23 O 5 "6 c "a t " 24 25 Q Could you describe to me what those are? A- - Q ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5165 1 A (WITNESS JONES) These are basically all of the 2 analyses that are described in Tables 2 through 8 of my 3 testimony, and the biggest -- well, tha two major items are 4 that we have looked at cases with the assumption th a t for 5 some reason all the main and auxiliary feedwater is lost, 6 and we have looked at smaller sized breaks than would 7 norm ally be considered, and we have looked at the effect of 8 delayed reactor coolant pump trips. 9 0 Eefore we go on -- I'.T sorry, I would like to 10 refer you back just for a minute acain to page 4-4 of 11 NURPG-0565 and read the sentence above the one I read 12 before, "In performing tha TMI 2 transient comparison, B&W 13 found that a fcur node cresrurizer model was needed in place 14 of a single nodo model to properly compute the effects on 15 PORY flow of incoming cooler water during the initial 16 primary coolant swelling phase of a loss of feedwater 17 accident. " 18 Is that another example of a noding change which 19 you made af ter the accident? 20 A (WITNESS JWNES) That was a noding chanese which 21 was incorpora ted into our analysis of the T I 2 event 22 specifically. It is not a noding change that we have used 23 1n, as far as I can remember, any of the other analyses. It 24 was just used its basic effect is only fcr the first 25 roughly six minutes of the TMI accident, until the time that O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5166 f]) 1 the primary system saturated. Up until that point in time 2 you need essentially a nonaquilibrium pressurizer to look at 3 that repressurization phase that occurs in the initial f-4 system response. 5 0 Was that noding enange, a four node pressurizer 6 model, incorpora ted into any or the analyses which you have 7 presented in your testimony? 8 A (WIT.iESS JONEE) Not that I can remember. 9 0 Bick to page 3 of your testimony again, where you 10 are discussing the analyses performed prior to the TMI 2 11 accident, you testified tha t they assumed the use of only 12 safety grade equipment for accident mitigation and assumed 13 no mitigating operator actions within ten minutes of the 14 initiating event, except as follows, and then you then give 4 15 two exceptions. The first exception is that emercency 16 feelwa ter was assumed to be available. 17 Now, giv?n that energency feedwater is a 18 non-Rpf et y g rade system, how did you justify assuming its 19 availability in your Appendix K analysis? 20 A (WITfYSS JCi;ES) 3asically we just used emergency 21 feedwater in tha analyses. I don't remember any, off th e 22 top of my head, remember any specific justification that was 23 especially done for that. /~T But as far as I know, Appendix K does not make a 24 V 25 statemen t about the use of non-safety grade equipment. i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,IN;, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

l l l 5167 1 Q You are not aware that the -- that one is required i O l 2 to assume the feilure of all non-safety grade equipment in I 3 analyzing the consequences of accidents? 4 A (WITNESS JONES) On plants of'this vintage, of the 5 earlier plants that came into operation in the early '70s, 6 as f ar as I know, I do not know of an y specific. dictate tha t 7 says that you shall only use safety grade equipment for 8 those plants. 9 Q Okay. So you think that is a requirement that has I 10 changed over time but did not apply at the time that TMI 1 l 11was licenced. 12 MR. EA%72Rs I object. I don't believe that we 13 have had a foundation that there has been any requirement O ' 4 e = '" t="ed-15 MS. WEISS: The witness said on plants of this 16 vintage he was not aware of that, and I was exploring that. 17 MR. BAXTER: But he hasn't testified there.is a 18 requirement now. It is assumed in your question. 19 CHAIRMAN SMITH: I think the objection, without-20 further explanation on your part, Ms. 'Jei ss, should be 21 sust ain ed. 22 BY MS. WEISS: (Resuming) 23 Q You do accident analyses for plants that are l 24 cu rrently being - licensed, don't you? 25 A (WITNESS JONES) Yes, I do. O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5168 1 Q And don't you regularly assume the failure of all O 2 non-safety grade equipment in making those analyses? 3 A (WITNESS JONES) In performing those analyses, I 4 don't remember doinq a detailed review of f a iling non-safety 5 grade equipment, but we have ralled on the current plan for 6 plants under construction, we have relied ba sically on only 7 safety grade equipment. 8 0 With respect to the second exception that you 9 give, that is, operator action to cross connect the HPI 10 syst em, was that an operator action which your analysis 11 assumed to be ccmpleted within ten minutes of the initiating 12 even t? 13 A (JITNESS JONSS) Yes. () 14 0 What is the significance cf the ten minutes? 15 A (MITUESS JONES) Easically what the analyses 16 showed was that that action had to be taken within ten 17 minutes to assure saf e consnquences a s defined by 50.46 for 18 snall break LOCAS in the pump discharge pipe, but I would 19 like to note that action no longer exists. 20 C All right, that is an action which -- well, let me 21 strike th a t before we cet onto that. 22 I am just asking with reference to the two 23 exceptions which _ you set out, you say that your analyses 24 prio r to the TMI 2 accident assumed no mitigating operator 25 actions within ten minutes, with that one exception. I l 1 OV ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5169 1 I am wondering what is the significance of the ten 2 minu tes. Does that have some regulatory moaninc? Why is it 3 ten minutes instead of five minutes, twenty minutes? 4 A (WITNESS JONES) Well, there were other operator 5 actions as we described the other day, such as the 6 switchover to the energency sump. Generally speaking, a 7 rule of thumb, if you wish, that is kicked around is, say, 8 twenty minutes f or operator action, but I know of'nothing g that says it is a regulation. It has basically been a rule 10 of thunb. 11 0 A rule of thumb. You mean it is not generally 12 considered a good idea on a plant desien to require operator 13 actions to be performed to assure safety within ten minutes? () 14 A (7ITNESS JONES) Ey rule of thumb, what I mean is 15 the NBC generally requires that you do not take credit for 16 operator action within the first twenty minutes, generally 17 speakinc. ~ 18 0 Okay. 19 A.nd the testimony goes on to say that NBC required 20 you to change that even before the accident. 21 I' that correct? 22 A (WITNESS JONES) Specifically what do you mean? 23 0 Didn't NEC require you to modify the design so 24 that no operator action would be required to make that cross {} s_ 25 connect within ten minutes? I mean, they required you to do O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C.20024 (202) 554 2345

5170 1 that before the accident? O 4 2 A (WITNESS JONES) It is my understanding that they 3 required -- 4 DR. JCEDANs Would you repeat? I missed the 5 question in part. 6 WITNESS JONES. --the elinination of the cperator 7 action at ten minutes to cross connect the EPI. It ir ny 8 understanding that that reques't var made to the License?s to 9 modify their systems. That is my understanding. 10 BY MS. WEISS: (Resuming) 11 0 Isn't that the effect of your t estimony, Mr. 12 Broughton, in the middle of page 4? Isn't that what you are 13 talkina about? 14 A (WITF:SS EPOUCHTGN) The testimony that discussed 15 kthe high pressure injaction lines havino been modified does 16 pertain to the elimination of operator action. 17 0 And was that required by NEC prior to the TMI 2 18 accident? 19 A (WITNESS ?FOUGHTOS) Yes. This whole issue came 20 u p before the accident. Ihe changer were designed, as I 21 recall. We had scheduled to install them. All of those 22 actions were scheduled before the TMI 2 accident. 23 0 Do you have a copy of Fiogure 302-661 in Section 9 24 of the Restart Report before you? p) u We have a Volume II. It is section -- 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 V;RGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5171 1 A (WIThESS BROUGHT 03) I don't. I'll try to get one. 2 (Fause) 3 0 I am going to ask you, if you are going to have'to 4 break and get a copy, I am going to ask you to show us with 5particular te.ference to numbers, so the record will be 6 clea r, where the flow limiting devices will be installed. 7 (A brief recess was taken.) 8 ME. BAXTEEs We are ready. 9 BY MS. WEISS (Resuming) 10 0 Could you tell me, please, with reference to the 11 valv e num bers, where the flow limiting devices are goina to 12 be installed? 13 A (WITNESS BROUGHTON) Yes. On the figure in the 14 Restart Report, I'll give you an example on one of the four 15 injection lines, and it is a similar installation for all .I 16 lines. 17 In Section A-3 is thr. injection line fer loop A. 18 It is labeled "to Pump A" and in Sectin A-3 is a check valve labeled MUV 107A. The flow limiting device would be 19 installed between that check valve and the next check valve 20 21 towa rd the coolant system, which is labeled MUV 95. There 22 would be a similar flow limitino device on each of the four i 23 injection lines installed between those two check valves. There is more to the modification than just.the C) 24 V 25 flow limiting device, and that consists of a cross connect O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,

40. ~1RGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5172 1 line which, in the example of Injection Line A, would run -- 2 it would be another piece of pipe which would run from the 3 injection line A, be tween check valve 107A and the flow 4 limiting device over to the injection line for Pump C, which 5 is in Zone 3-D cn this diagran. 6 So th9 cross connect would te upstream of the flow 7 limiting device in the two injection lines that it cross 8 connects. 9

78. LITTLE:

Is there a sinilar cross connection 10 between B and D? 11 WITNESS PROUGHTON: Yes, there is also a cross 12 connection between injection lines E and D, and it fits into 13 the system in the same relative position, that is, 14 downstream of the check valve and upstream of th e flow 15 limitino device. 16 DR. LITTLT: Okay. 17 Is tho other diagram that you gave a sort of an 18 enlarged dia gram of this particular -- 19 WITNESS E SCUGHTON: Yes. The other figure 20 contains all of the information relative to the flow 21 11miting devices and the cross connect lines, and it is 22 simpler to use. It does not contain all of the de tail that 23 is on the 1srger diagram. fJ HR. FAXTER: Excuse me, Dr. Little. 24 4 ~ 25 For the record at this point, Mr. Eroughton, could O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WiSHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

~ 9 A Iti!SPONSI: TO Sill'I'ID!!!NT 1, l'AllT I, gllliSTION 36t> R.D. MU V222 i} bl W E.S. MU-V219 FE1 H.B. M FE-384 t': N x N-r eumn a m ^ E S. M U-V 16 A ) (FE2 385 u [! %MX ( IMF Pump B r, MU V168 A {_Q MU-V217 JL E.S. MU-V220 > M --D4 MU-V 17 MU V18 F.C. f. sg sk C 1 1r A HCP Sealinjection y _a v s k E.S. F3 FE-386 >4 F4 [f! hj ; M Pump C n >L J' A MU-V 16C ) ( FE4 E.S. FE-387 4 N X IN-+ eumn D r MU V16D ,b b MU-P1 A MU P18 MU-PIC ~

5173 1 you read the title to that ficure that you just referred to, (q / 2 and Dr. Little did ? 3 WITNESS BROUGHTCN: This figure is entitled Figure 4 1, and it also has a label on it "Respon se to Supplement 1, 5 Part 1, Question 36B," and that is fron the ;; start Report 8 also. 7 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Would it be helpful if -e were to 8 place Figure 1 into the transcript at this point in the 9 testimony? i 10 MS. '4 EIS S : That's fine. i 11 ?. R. CUTCHIN: Mr. Chairman, it might also help to 1 i l 12 no te that that is a ficure that appeared in f.mendment 9, on 13 the copy I hava. O 44 c"^'tr^s se't": ^=e"a=e=t $2 ' ' ' - e trv-15 MP. CUTCHIN: The figure that was handed out also i 16 had the notation Amendnent 9 down in the ccrner, so that it 17 1s clear which amendment it came from. 18 CHAIENAN SMITH: Yes. 19 Do you have an extra copy for the Feporter. 20 Would you please bind it inte the transcript at i 21 this point? 22 . (The document, Figure 1, Pesconse to Supplement 1, i I Part 1, Question 36B, follows:) 23 ! O 25 i O 1 i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 I

5174 f3 1 DH. LITTLE: Mr. Eroughton, I have one question. V 2 What does the designation FE mean? It is an 3 abbreviation f or comething. Os 4 WITNESS BROUGHTON: T': e abbreviaticn FE? That 5 pertains to ficw element. It is a nethod of designatinc 6 what the component is. 7 BY MS. WEISSs (Resuming) 8 C Bafore we nove off of tha diagrams, the figure 9 that we asked you about, ?i o. 302-661 from Section 9 of the 10 Restart Report is labeled Povision 18 at the bottom. 11 So the effect of these changes which we have just 12 discussed is to removed the need for operator action within 13 ten minutes, that's correct? () 14 A (WIThESS 3FGUGHTON) That's correct. 15 0 In the analyses which you discussed this morning, 16 at leact some of those' analyses required operator action to 17 trip th e reactor coolant purcps within ten minutes. !s that 18 correct ? 19 A (iiIT:iESS JONES ) That is correct. 20 0 And they also require othar operator actions that 21 perhaps go beyond ten minutes, in particular, manually 22 increasing steam generator water level, is that correct? A (WITNESS JONES) The operator guidelines do call 23 () 24 for such actions, yes. 25 0 B= fore the acciden t E CW was able to demonstrate i %s ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,6.'C. l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (.'02) 554-2345

5175 1 compliance with 10 CFR Section 60.46 and Appendix K, on the 2 assumptions that, one, the oepra tor did what he wac supposed 3 to do, and two. tne operator did not do what he was not O k/ 4 supposed to do, and three, with the exception of a single 5 failure, all equipment functioned as designed. 6 Is that correct? 7 A (WITNESS JONES) That is correct. 8 Q And that is also an accurate description of the 9 assumptions of your post-accident computer analyses, is that 10 correct? 11 A (WITNESS JONES) That is correct also. 12 CHAIRMAN SMITH: What was the answer? 13 WITNESS JONES: Yes. O 44-ar "s "z'ss-(re8"=1av> 15 C Nould you agree with me, then, that the accident 16 showed that denenstrating compliance with 10 CFF 50.46, by 17 computer analysas, is not enouch in itrelf to assure safety, 18 but that operater actions are required as well, ap :ropriate 19 operator actions? 20 A (WITMESS JCNES) That is correct. 21 0 The sentence beginning on Just about the Middle of 22 page 5 of your testimony is "From these analyses, it was 23 concluded tha t multiple failures must occur before.T0CR 1 (%)~') 24 scenario can result in a challenge to 10 CFR 50.46 limits." Would you define multiple failures in the context 25 O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5176 (} 1 of that centence? 2 A (WITNESS JONES) More than one failure. 3 C And within that definition, multiple failures did b' 4 occur during the TMI 2 accid ent, is that correct? 5 A (WIT:iESS JONES) Yes. 6 0 The sequences,which you begin to discuss on page 5 7 and which you also discuss in your tables, for the first 8 sequence, a loss of all feedwater without a small break 9 LOCA, why doesn't high pressure injection automatically 10 initiate? 11 A (WITNrSS JONES) A typical loss of feedvater 12 transient would not result in the depressurization of the t 13 primary system to the emergency safecuards system actuation 14 s et point with a loss of all feedwater, that is, the 15 auxiliary feedwater not working, you would nct expect this 16 system to depressurize any further than that also, so you de 17 no t get HPI actuatien. 18 0 So that is one of the examples where operator 19 action is required to initiate high pressura injection and 20 assure cooling, is that correct? 21 A (WITNESS JONES) Yes. 22 0 In your seccnd sequence a s. Tall break LOCA with r 23 loss of all feedwater, you state that FCCS may not be 4 () 24 automatically actuated. This is probably on the record in 25 several other places, but for my benefit, would you tell me O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5177 1 under what cicrcunstances ECCS would not automatically O 2 initiate under that scenario? 3 A (WITFEES JC3ES) For a small LCCA with all ( 4 feedwater being lost, with a break size less than 5 approximately.01 squar e f eet. 6 0 So this is the second example of a scenario 7 requiring operator action to initiate high pressure 8 injection to acsure adequate core coolinc. g A (WITNESS JONES) Yes. 10 0 It is your sixth sequence that appears on the 11 second half of page 7, am I correct that tha t is an example i i 12 of a scenario where operator action is required to trip the 13 reactor coolan t pumps? ' (} .14 A (WITNESS JONES) The cequence, the first sequence, 15 the full sequence starting on page 7, that is where -- that 16 1s analysis performed which says that the operator should 17 trip the reactor coclant pumps following a LOCA. 18 Q And the last sequence, on page 8 of your 19 testimony, a very small LCCA with loss of all feedwater, am 20 I correct that that is an example of a scenario where 21 operator action is required with 20 minutes to actuate 22 either high precsure injection or energency feedwater in 23 order to accure siequate core cooling? 24 A (WITNESS JONES) Yes. ,/~%) \\- 25 0 Let me just go back for a moment to your first ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5178 1 sequence which is discussed in greater detail on Table 2, g-)S _ 2 page 13 of your testimony. If you assume this scenario and 3 make one change, and th a t is you assume no loss of offcite 4 power and the reacter coolant pumps therefere continue to 5 run, would that add heat to the system? 6 A (WITNESS JONES) Yes. 7 0 Do you know if it would add approximately 20 8 mega watts of hea t? 9 A (WITNESS JONES) When it is passing pure liquid, 10 it would add roughly that nuch is my understanding. 11 0 Would that case require the operator to act sooner 12 than 20 minutes to initiate emergency feedwater? I 13 A (WITNESS JONES) No. () 14 Q I'm sorry, to initiate hich pressure injection. 15 A (WITNESS J0FES) Probably not. 16 0 Is that becauce you don't think that 20 megawatts 17 w uld be a significant addition of heat? 18 A (WITNESS JONES) The analysic which was performed 19 did not go and look at the exact latest time the operator 20 could tak e th e action. There wa s something en the order of 21 1000 cubic feet or so of water left in the primary system, 22 an d I just don't believe that it would change the time 23 significantly at all. 24 0 You have assumed in the scenario on Table 2, core i () i 25 deca y hea t rate 1.0 times the A.NS scenario, whereas in all l O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

f 5179 1 other soquences yoi have assuned the -- 2 CHAIE:.A3 SMIT": No. 3 BY MS. WEISS: (Ecsuming) 4 Q Whereas in nany of the other sequences you have \\ 5 assumed a standard value 1.2 times, why did you choose to i 1 l 6 use a lower value for core decay heat in this scenario? ) j 7 A (WITNCSS JOSES) Well, the main thing we used -- I' 8 well, first of al1, the objective of tho analysis was to 9 develop analytical bases to support operator cuideline 10 development. This case which was perforned assumed a fairly 11 subs tantial number of failtres in the system. It includes 12 the failure of all the feedwater, and it also includ es an 13 additional f ailure occurrin: in the high pressure injection () 14 system, and under that situa tion, we assumed 1.0 times the 15 ANS because that is a more roalistic value of core decay 16 heat to utilise. 17 Q Do you know how sensitive the analysis is to that 18 assumption? 19 That is, if you assuned the 1.2 times the A '! S 20 standard value, would that require operator action to 21 initiate high pressure injection within 20 minutes or less than 20 ninutes? 22 A (WITNFSS JONES) I don't know. It probably would 23 jg 24 require it to be actuated earlier, but I am not -- I just 25 don't know what the consequences would exactly be. \\ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5180 fs 1 0 And insofar as you are aware, BEW has not run this V 2 scenario with the assumption of a decay heat rate at 1.2 3 times the ANS standard value. /m k- 'A (WITNEES JONES) I believe we had looked at a 1.2 4 5 times the AVS value for these other assumptions with this 6 transient, and that an actua tion at 20 minutes would not 7 was not demonstrated to provide adequate core cooling, but 8 we did not continue that analysis in any great detail. The gobjective was to keep the core covered, and that analysis to did not result in complate coverage of the core. 11 CHAIEMAN SMITHa M r. Jones, is tha t when you 12 decided to go back to 1.0 times, when you saw that it would 13 run -- that it wouldn 't work at 1.2? I') WITNEES JONES: I don't rememb'er the exact time 14 v 15 that analysis was performed. Thare was an analysis 16 performed many years ago which looked at a scenario very 17 similar to this which showed 1.2 would not work, and we went 18 to 1.0 based on that analysis. When we did this, I do not 19 know whether we looked a t -- I cannot remember whether we 1 oked at a 1.2 or not. 20 21 CHAIEr.AN SMITE: It was because of the 1.2 22 analysis that you ran it at 1.0. '4ITNESS JONES : Yes. 23 24 BY MS. WEISS: (Bosuming) 'v) 25 0 If you compared the number of f ailures assumed in L-ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 =-

.- ~_-. - i i i i 5181 0 1riste 2 vita tee mo=d r or <>11c=es teet cccu=ree 4u=122 the 4 1-2 TMI 2 accident, vould ycu sly that Table 2 e scures 3 significantly ore failures than occurred during the TMI 2 4 4 accident ? 5 A (VITT(SS J03ES) voald say they are similar 6 nanters. 7 0 Okay, Mr. Brouchton, I just have a couple of 8 questiens Of you. 9 You iiscucsed the TMI 1 procedures on page 10 of j 10 this tectimony. In particular, you say that the procedures L 11 requ ire that uccn automatic initiation of hich pressure I 12 injection, flev shall not be reduced until a nd unless, and I J 13 w o n ' t read these conditions, but you then give the J 14 conditions. 15 Are you saying that for all-Icss of coclant 16 accidents, HPI chould not be reduced except under those 4 J l 17 conditions as crecified in ycur testinony? 18 A (WITNFSS EECUGHTON) Yes. 19 C Do these conditions apply regardless cf. Whether 20 the systen is actuated, the high precsure injection system-21 is. actuated canually or automatically? A ('4IT5 7.SS E F CUCHTOS ) Cn page 10, the listing of 22 23 items specifierily applied to autamatic actuation ~of the 24 system. On the top of-page 11 I - discucc requirements which i s 1 25 must be met to reduce high pressure injection flov if the 1 i f l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY ;NC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 - ,~_m. ~- ....c

1 4.;. j ' 5182 (} 1 system isiinitistai manually. 1 2 0 Can just ask you what accounts for the 3 diff erence? ') 4 A (WITNESS BROUGHTON) In the manual case, the 5 requirenent to be above 1600 pounds is there because should 6 there he a further reduction below 1600 pounds, the system 7 would automatically. actua te, so the intention is not to 8 secure the system in a manual nede telow 1600 pounds. i ' g C But if it had been autonatically initiated, and by 10 it I mean high rrecsure injecticn, and the pressure dropped 11 below 1500 psi, it wculd be appropriate for the operator to 12 thro ttle high pressure injection, assuming the other 13 cond itions dere pr esent. j ) 14 A (WIISIES EPCUGHTGS) 'i e could throttle if he met 1 15 the condsitionr specified on the previ us page. i 1 16 0 We have a problen understanding the answer. Let 17 me explain why. 18 Suppose that the operator sees pressure dropping,- 19 approaching the automatic set point for a high pressure 20 injection, and he manually initiates it before it' reaches 21 that set point, why should the conditions'for te r min a tin g 22 high pressure injection be any different in that case than 1f he-had waiteds for it to actuate sutomatically? i 23 24 A (W!TNFSS ERCUGHTOS). Well, th* basic condition for i 25 terninating in all cases -- and. it is specifically called 1 .O 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5183 m) icut in terminatin; it for manual initittica -- is : 50 w 2 degree rubcooling argin ?xiats, but it can be maintained. .ubcooling /~s 3 If it is gescible to naintsir the SC degree e ( ) m,' 4 margin with lesc than full fic+ and the system has been 5 manually initiatei, that is per:icsible. A goal of the 50 6 degree subcooling.argin is maintained aven thcu;h the flow 7 is reduced. If the 50 degree rubcooling margin carnot be 8 maintained, then it ic required to increase flow acain to 9 full flow if required to maintain subcooling. 10 BY ME. FOLLA?D: (Eesumin;) 11 Q I'll just try one more question, and then we will 12 1 eave this. 13 I ar focusing on your sentence en page 11 where .\\ , 34 you make a iistinction between the instructions to the 15 operator if the hi7h grecsure injection ryctem had been 16 initiated

r. a n u a l l y, and what I an having difficulty 17 understanding is that if the conditions under which you 18 would be allcwed to throttle flew had the system been 39 initia ted au toma tica lly, it those condition: are ratisfied, 20 which is wha t you cay in tha t centence, why docs it make any 21 difference whether th e greocure is above or bolow 1600 22 pounds ?

A (WITNZSS EECUCHTCN) I think in ter.T.s of ensuring 23 (s) that there is adequate subecoling, it nakes no difference at 24 25 all. I think the difference har to do with the condition j'~h v ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

~.. ~. ~ w, I 51E4 1 that the cla n t winir up in. In the care where you manually 2 initiate it, ycu are now back to both at 1600 psig set 3 poin t, which is the autenatic initiation set point. 4 MS. WEISS: Thosa are all the questions that I 1 5 have on the licensee's testimony in response tc UCE 6 Cont ention 9 an* ECNP Centention 1E. It is ny perronal 7 belief the record would be clearer if we complete this 8 before we oc on to the Licencee's responses to the Board + 9 questions on 8, but I will, cf course, defer to the decision 10 of the Chair. Thst is a sepa rate piece of written testimony. 11 D?. LITTLE: ': r. J o n es, there are two cases in 12 which the value of 1.0 times the ANS standard value were 13 used, were there shown in Table 2 and 5, and I wonder if you f3 14 have a copy of the comparable analyses if you assuned a 1.2 15 times ANS value. I don't nocessarily mean right with you, 16 but de these exist? i 17 'J I T N ES S JONES: As I stated, I am not sure about-18 for Table 2 except it is an older analysis that was done in i 19 the 1975 vintage. There may be such an analysis around, 20 there may not, that I could have put ny hands cn very easily. 21 As far as Table 5 is concorned, there is a direct 22 analysis which has been perf erted which is-Licenree's Exhibit Nc. 5. 23 ) 24 DR. lITTLE: All'richt, rc you dcn'.t think -- you 25 don't know whether you have one, a rimila r one f e r Table 2 I f. 1 i l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTcN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

1A 5185 1 at 1.2 timer. i J i 2 WITtFSS JOFFS: ~i o, I do not. I 1 3 DR. LITTLE: How lon; does it take to do one, to 4-j 4 run an an aly cie when you just have one nuabar to change? a 5 WITSESS JONES: With typical LCCA nodelino, it { swould take about 20 computer hcurs. So as far ar, you know, 1 i 7 other than tryin; to get on c computer and getting it off i i 8 and on during the day when people do work, it is not a ij l 9 difficult analysis to do. I } 10 DR. LITTLE: Actually, thcugh, you could come up 11 with a written description rimilar to this table with 2 1 j 12 similar resultc here based cn your knowledge, you could core } i - 13 up with a similar summary of results assuning you used 1.2 I ^) I 14 times, couldn't you? i 15 WITNESS JONES: Well, yes, and I could do that t-i 16 now. Easically, as far as the Conclusion No. 1, the i ,1 17 operator action within 20 minutes to initiate exercency

I 18 feedvater, that would still ha shcwn to te acceptable for i

i 19 1.2 ANS. As far as the operator action wi th in 20 ninutes to { ) 20 just actuate an HPI pump, I am not sure that that would be { 21 shown to be acceptable, certainly not -- well, I said' I j believe what we hal found cut in the part was that that 20 i 22 a f 23 minu tes was just tco late, and I an not sure how much of an () impact an - extra five or ten T.inutes earlier in actuatinc 24 that systen would make on the overall analyris, whether it 25 i 4.O i I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC,. I j 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

.... -.. -. ~.... -... -. - i f 5186 1-( 1 would show a cca r.ta b l e results. It is a fairly substantial j 2 breskdown of your systems, your normal system functions. i 3 That is, you have lost all feeduater, and then you have lost 4 on top of that even the other EFI pump, and that is a fairly 5 substantial set of circumstances tc deel with, and I at not 4 6 so ture that one '4PI would show adequate ccre cooling with a 7 1.2 ANS. 8 DR. LITTlE I have one other question before we i 9 leave this whole topic. 4 i~ jo licensee's Exhibit 14, and many other instances l 11 which we have discussed in the last several hearing days, i 12 showed that part of the water which could be used in cooling 13 would bc that recircula ted f rom the reac. tor building sump, t 1 14 and 1 questioned the -- whoever can answer -- the i 15 cha racte ristics of the pumps that would be used to do this 16 pumping. Are-those pungs deci;ned to pump water that may 17 have particulates or other characteristics.other than nice 5 18 clea n wa ter which pumps easily? 19 Are the-pumps capable of handling contaminated I 20 water with taybe even large particulate material present? i 21 li1INOSS JONES: I ac reasonably -- what I have j 22 been told. I do not design these specific pumps. I set a f. 23 criteria for the pumps. Whr.t I hava been told is that the i[. r) 24 pumps are capable of. handling particulate matter, at least ( 25 the low pressure injection rungs very easily beca use /th e y 1 I i ALDERSoN REPCRTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 . - ~.

5187 I~D 1 have got very large clearances within the pumps themselves. %) 2 High pressure injection pumps have very tight clearances, (J~g 3 acd there 's alwa yc, the particle sires are adequately 4 screenec out or conehow kept down te a ninimal size, on the 5 order of a quarter of an inch or less, the pung would be 6 able to pacs that naterial; the wear rinos or some 7 mechanical part of the pump would indeed be danaged, but not 8 in a way that wculd reduce the capability of the pump to 9 continue its f unction. It would be apt to degrade the head 10 of the pump, its pumping head, by about 5 or 10 percent of 11 the numbers I have been told. 12 DF. IIITLE: Under a quarter. inch size? It will 13 accommoda te u p to a qua rter inch sire ? 14 WITNESS JONES: At least up

• o that size is I know 15 what they have looked at because that was a survey of the 16 screen sires of the cunp protecting the discharge lines.

17 The screen sizes were quarter inch and less. 18 DR.-LITTLE: Se the reason there is for screening l 19 out large r chunk.s of caterial. 20 K'ITN EFS JON ES : That is ny understanding, but that 21 is very plant c;ecific in design, but that is at least my 22 understanding - cf what her have looked at. 23 DS. LITTLE: Do you agree with that, Mr. s 24 Broughton, or do you have additional information? 25 WITNESS 3 ROUGHTON: Yes. I cannet add anything O a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345.

.~ . -. - =. -. _.. -.. _ _... -. - -.. -.... i I 1 5188 e i 1 I 1 mor? to the detail, but thote are corcerns.vhich vere 1 1 i 2 considered in the design ot those systers. ) 3 DE. LITTLE: Okay. 4 CHAIESAS S:iITF: Pr. Jordan feels that "s. 'deiss' 1 5 suggestion is a gcod one, to finish up the testinony here 1 j 6 before ve go to the testimony on'the Ecard's questions. i 7 D3 you have any romment, I::. Paxter? 6

32. BAXTEE:

Jo. In this case,.:r. Chairman, I 1 4 9 think they are severable. Ihey will be later exanined, but l 10 I think the Board questions really are interceshed, and we I 11 would prefer to see them together, but in this case I think 4 12 it is fine. I 13 C H A I E A li S ITH: r. Cutchin? i ) 14

! P. CUTCHI3:

I have only a couple of cuestions, 15 Mr. Chairman, but if you are asking if I have any objection i 4 ] 16 to this, the answer is no. i 17 CH AIEHAN SMITH: "r. A d le r? 18 MR. ROBERT APLER: "e have no objection. .+ 19 CH AIR M A \\' EP.ITH: fr. Cutchin? 20 BY M3. CUTCHIN: 23 .C r. Jones, in your tectimony in response to UCS 22 Contention S a rl ECN F 1 E a t page 7, ands again at tage-S, f I' 23 you.are iden tif yin; the need to trip reactor coolant pumps 4- [ to avoid inadequate core-coolinc. 24 il I i 25 Can you ;ive me an idea of how rapidly one assumes l k' ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5189 O 1 those coo 1 et re=re e=e =tered so1:owia2 the accieent 2 initiation? 3 A ( ',. IT:iE SS JGNES) Well, the analysis itself is 4 given an exnibit nunter 11 -- 5 Can y n cive te just the nunber, or a range? A (WITNESS JONES) It is a ran;e cf trip times, the 6 7 ea rliest time being on the order of three minutes to trip 8 the reactor coolant pumps, and to the best of my knowledge i 9 or experience, at plants which have reached the signal, such 10 as Crystal Elver 3, the action was taken in something on the l 11 order of 30 seconds to trip the reactor coolant pungs. 3 12 O And what is the consecuence of not tripping th a t 13 ra pidly f or 'the scena rios where tripping has been found to 1 14 he important in terms of peak clad temperatura numbers or 1 I 15 other requirements? 16 A (WITNESS JCNES) 'J e ll, assuning that the pump ^ 17 trips in the vindow which has been identified as pump trips 18 could lead to possible core cooling using Appendix K -which 19 show peak cladding temreratures possibly in excess of the a J' 20 criteria. Howevere under realistic examinatien where you 1 I 21 assume that the safety systems function normally, you use'a j' 22 realistic core decay hect and ure a typical power profile 23 within the core, the peak cladding tenperatures on the worst \\ 24 case van less than.2000 degrees. 25 0 Thank you. E' O l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., W'ASHINGioN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 _ ~. _ _, . -... -. - = . =. -.... -

i l 5190 d 1 Mr. Eroughton, I have one questien for.you. On i 2 page 10 of that'same testimony -- and it runs over to page 3 11 -- you cite what the precedures require in order to s 4 reduce HPI injection flow. That startc on page 10.. Over on i; 5 page 11, one of the requiranents is to avoid e::ce ssiv e 6 reactor vessel pressures down from temperature litits. 7 Can you explain what that concern is? l I 8 A (9ITNESS 3E00GHTCn) Yes. The concern would be l 9 that for the cold injection water in to the vessel, too high 10 a pressure in the systes could violate limits established to 11 prevent damage ' to the vessel due to high pressures under low I 12 temperatures. 13 0 And in tha t circumstance, the concern for core 14 danage would be greater than the concern for subcooling or ] 15 main taining the SC decroe subcooling? 16 A (4ITNESS BPCUGHTO?l) Yes. In addi tion, at TMI 1, I because of ths. age of the vessel, it is likely that both of 17 j 18 those concerns can be met, in other words, that the 50 2 gg degree subcooling margin can still be met while reducing the ' 20 pressur < low enough to prevent this concern of cverpressure 21 a t low tamp?titure. .i : i 22 MR. CUTCMIN: Thank you. No further questions. 23 . CHAIRMAN EM.!TH: Mr. Adler? i BY XE. R;?E3I ADLEPs 24 25 0 Thank yoc. we just have a faw cuestions. 4 J. /"Y V 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, j i 4 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 i -l

t 1 5191 i i 1 I would.like to-go back for the reason for the i 2 reliance on manual actuatic". of HPI. Just to cummarize i 3briefly your t utinony, you ctated that under certain i 4 scenarios, the pressure would not re d uce to the 1600 pei set 5 point and therafere the HFI would not be autoT atically a 6 actuated, is that correct? 7 A ('4ITNISS JC NES ) That is correct. 8 0 Is that the only reason for reliance on manual g actuation? to A ('AITKFSS JONES) I don't really quite understand 11 your question. It has to be manually actuated because you 1 '12 have:not reached tne apolicable set point, the lower 13 pressure set point, and that is the rearon we relied.on 4 s 14' opera tor action. i j 15 In addition, there is sufficient time for the' l 16 operator to take that action, and then it is 20 minutes j ] I j-17 af ter we have lect feedvater. All the ccena rios that f 18 require the operater' action within 20 minutes to either 4 j 19 establish the eTergency feedwater or actuate the HFI are all 4 1 2b cases in which you have an event in which both the main and i 21 the emergency feedwater systems are loct. f O ry question is really this. Have you censidered 22 23 the porsibility of usin;. sore other signal besides pressure - 3 ) 24 to sutomatically actuate the HEI? E (MIT3FSS JONES)

• o

?. y knowledge, it has not'been j 25 f i g .f' ) i s.,- a G ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHING TON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 p, x,,.. ,c.-. v--,, w.-- ,_._,,,y ..-_,.-.7,.- ,.y

i l 5192 [,/T 1 considered, no. s,_ 2 0 You h3 vin't done iny studies to determine whether (] 3 some other signal cc ulti te used either to replace rressure V 4 or to supple:en t it for those cases where th e presrure did 5 not go down belo. 1600? i 1 6 A (WIT;,ESS J C:iF 7 ) Ac far as ! know, no sucn studies, --l 7 have been done. 8 0 In your opinien, might it te peccible to use the 9 subcoolin g targin, again either to rupplenent presrure or to 10 replace pressure ir a signal? 11 A It may Le rocsible to use the saturation meter to 12 actuate the HEI, at least as a suppletontal. Whether it is 13 nece ssa ry or not, I don't know. . y own feelino ic with 20 0) 14 minu ter to take such an action, that is more than cufficient 15 time to just actuats the punps fror the centrcl. 16 Q Put didn't you state to "c. Keisc that you felt 17 that automatic actuation wts preferable to manual actuation? 18 A (W!TNFSS JONFS) I don't renerber whether I stated gg that or net. 20 0 Wall, do you? 1 A (WITNESS JCNES) !!a vin g automatic actuation of the 21 22 entire syster ;enerally speaking would be preferable. 23 Whether it was required or not or whether there were any l n 24 other problans in rhoosing tha t set point would have to be 25 examined further before I could ray right away yes, gc do Ch k.) ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $54-2345

1 5193 (a) 1 it, but it is ; referable in ny mind to rely on a u tom a tic 2 actuation. Whether it is necercary cr not, acain, is (~)i 3 questicna bl=. v 4 0 'inen did it first becone apparent to you that 5 delayed reacter coolant p u r.c trip can lead to unaccaptable 6 consequencec? 7 A (WIT':ESS JONES) In rauchly th e July tiieframe of 8 '79-g C After 27.I 2. 10 A (WII51S3 JONEE) ?#F-11 0 Why, in your opinion, was that not discovered 12 previously? 13 A ('JITs2SS JONES) The typical Appendix M analyses (.,s') V 14 require utilization or assu,e a loss of offrite pcwer. 15 Generally speakinc, you either.scure a loss of offrite 16 powe r as part of the initiatin; event, such as on a reactor 17 trip where you havn 1 cst the station and pccsibly perturbed 18 the crid, or ycu arrumed the pumps remained runnin; 19 continuously. Why axactly this scenario was not analyzed 20 pr ev iously, I don't really have an answer except for whet I 21 just stated.

• 'at is the way that the analyrce were 22 perf orced in that timefreno provicuc to the TI accident.

23 C Since the accident, have you parformed any ,mL) 24 sensitivity studiec or scopine studies to determine whether 25 other non-sa f e ty cycters or corpononts may continue to /~N \\ i x.._/ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5194 ) 1 operate and the.t t.. e y will l e a :i to unacceptatle concecuences? 2 A (WITSEES 2 0 ?:EE ) T pocronally have not done such a A 3 study. I er not curc wheth?r :~ ch studies have been done or 0 i V 4 not. 5 O It it co n c e iv:: bic to you that there are other 6 Systems that should be rtudied? 7 A (4ITN E55 JONES ) te I stated, I am not rure 8 whether those cther cysters have been atudied or not. It is 9 beyond my typic?1 scoce of recconcibilities. I just de not 10 know whether such work hac been done or not, sc I really 11 cannot ansver your question. 12 C As I understand ycur testimony, Tables 2 through 7 13 do not meet Appendix ". Is that correct, er do not O i*/ 14 necassarily meet Acpendix K. 15 -2 (WIT:;E SS J0 FEE) ell, Tables 2 thrcuch 7 were not 16 done to demonctrate compliance with Appendix K or 50.c6. 17 They were done te develop Operator guidelines. 18 ') I understand that. 39 A (WITiESS JC:;ES) I de believe they meet Appendix 20 K, however, all the accu ptions -- 21 0 That you used in the scena rio s nae t Appendix '<? A {NII"E33 JOhES) CcF' of the CCenariOS that w9 22 have analynad beyond the bounds of, say, what I would 23 ( ) 24 consider an Aprendix K analysis. If I made appropriate 25 nodifica tions t o :ta k e it meet Eppendix T, then the specific n ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASH!NGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

I i i 5195 1 events would n-et Appendix K. 2 For a quick example, Table 2, lecc of all 3 f eed wa tar withcut small b r.- s k LOCA, it har tCth a failure of 4 the emergency foedwater sycten, a single failure in the HPI, 5 and the cera dscay heat is 1.0 times the A! F standard. If I 6 take my single failure to be the 1000 of energency 7 feedwater, then I would havn tuc H. I pumpc. If I b a ?. two 8 HPI pumps, I could meet a ccre decay heat of 1.? tines the gANS standard value. 10 Similarly, the other analyser run the este wa y. 11 Specifically, no, some of the tables Will not meet 12 Appendix : becausa they ara bey:nd the /prendix Y 13 assumptions on failures, fer exs ple. O 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 s ,) l l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5196 ( l 1

c. v.

v..o.. p.. a r. t. >

r. v.. s..

( c..e...,.4.,c. ) .o c 2 0 Let 'e ask you inic. Are thore sny 10CA's that (O' 3 should no t hav? to eet th a re quire ments of Appendix K, ^' 4 notwith: tan 11n; the fact that you didn't perforn these 5 studier f or that purpose? 6 A ("lTSESS JONEC) I an having trouble answering 7 questions when you say meet Appendix K. Ycu mean 10 CFD 8 50.u6, the rpecific criteria? tecause Appendix X, the g requir onent features of a model and analyzed in a LOCA, that 10 ic one i t e r., and then there are the specific design 11 crit eria, to I a.: 'Eving trcuble directly snowering ycur 12 ques tion. 13 C Okay. Ycu uced .u6. /~ss 14 A (4ITNE55 JCNES) In ny opinion, the LCCA's by law 15 a r e recuired to nest 10 CFF 50.u 6 urin; an evaluation medel 16 which is in compliance with Appendix K, and I believe that 17 is the circumstance for TMI 1. 18 C 50 none of the analyres that you have performed 19 here should fall without the A;pendix " bounce. A (WITa"SS JCNTS) Vell, sore of the taalyses would 20 21 nevar neet Appandix Y. I think I -- then directly. Table 2 22 would never be done for an Fppendix X analycis -- it is 23 beyond tho d e si.:n basic -- recause cf the multiplc failure fr (_) 24 scen a ric. Iatle 3, you could rtste, vould he within the 25 Appendix r tounde, and has indeed been shown to reet 50.u6. O us/ i l 1 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AYE., S.W., WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5197 ,m ( ) 1 Tabic 4 ir within Appendix K. That neetr 54.46. xj 2 Table 5 a;ain is beyond the Appendi: failure criteria. 3 Table 6 maet An;endix K ar. sum;tions in all respects, and ('"s;/ u 4 meets 50.46.

i t i c.

7 ir nat really a S0.46 analysic, except 5 vhat it de?onstratas in -- :t is a specific scenario. Uhat 6 it fenonctrater ic that if the crerator terminutes the 7 reactor coolan t pumpn upon reccipt of the appropriate 8 sign al, then th= Apcendix analyses remain valid, and Table 99 again, Table ? would be covered by the 1.ppendix 10 assu mp tions, ani nests 50.46 11 Q tr. Jones, what I don't underste.nd is this. It 12 see: 7 that whent.ver you say an analysis is outside the scope 13 o f 50.46, you than odify one of your assumptiens. For 7.~ 'Y 14 exa m ple, in Table i, you use a 1.0 ANSI instead cf a 1.2. I 15 am trying to underrtand why wh9never you perforn the LOCA 16 analysis you dcn't automatically ure the assumptions that 17 wo uld be required by 50.u6 in Appendix / in light of your 18 sta t amen t tnat no LOCA should te outside of the teunds of 19 50.46. 20 A ( '.i !T N E S S J C N E S ) I said no LOCA analyzed within 21 the Appendix s' guideliner should be outside of the bounds of 22 50.46, and to ;o and discust -- vell, first eff, as I 23 st a t ed, the specific reasons for doing Tablec 2 through 8 (,)b 24 ultimately were to develop c;reator guideliner. They were (_ 25 not done for SC.46 compliance. Those are listed on Ta ble 1. ex I I %J' ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

l l 5198 () 1

c w, is isr as Tt.le 4 1.~

renrerned, Appendix K cin:le tailure, and in fact, Appendix K 2 requires you take 2 l 3 is quitt specific in w h m. t that singlo f a i l u r e. is. It is a i ( 4 failure of one cf the stfety systerc, ut then that becomes 5 the only fatlur-702 have tn cOncider. 6

ow, if I take that an a failure, then I have my 7 feedwater systen a va ila ble to ro, my emergency feedwater 8 syst em, at least ona punp, und with that, I can take a P OP 'I 9 failure with 1.02 : *#,

energency feedwater available and a 4 10 single failure and a hich pressure injection system and end 11 up with results that Teet tre 50.45 corpliance. 12 Now, when I said these other cases also ret 13 APEGUdiX E -- 0 14 Q Erfore y;u get to that cace -- excuse ma -- 15 doesn't thdt assume that energency feedwat=r is completely 16 saf ety grade? 17 A ( a' I ? F F 5 3 JONES) It ir ny understanding tha t the 18 emergency feedwiter systen is safety grade for a 1CCA. 19 C Ckay. F,0 on. A (WITNES5 JCNES) \\' o w, as far as tha Other analyses 20 o.1 that I was referencing, what I did wac, I rade one miner i 22 11ttle twist of the ;ppeniix M assumption, which was, ) instead of taking a single tailure specifically linted in 23 24 Appendix K, which is in the emergency core coclinc system, I 25 am jurt changing that or ha' in answering that cuestion just ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

j 5199 4 l 1 changed that to the very Joneral design philosophy which was ' ~ 2 a single f ailure. i 3 New, if I do that, then, while I don 't know of any 4 single f ailuret that completely eliminste the onercency i o 5 feedwater systen perconally, I hav> aceuted that

e. single 6 f ailura exists whirh wires out the emergency feedwater l

7 system. Given that, a LOCA 2 HPI is available,.l.2 ANS, I 8 can meet the 13 CF2 50.46 limits, and I believe that meets 9the intent of ;cpandix K, at f ar a s the single f ailure i 10 requirement. 11 l:?. ECEEFT ADLEE: 'de have no more questions. 12 CHAIE;iAN SEITH: Dr. Jordan has a few cuestions t i 13 that appropriately belong before your redirect. 14 D9. JOFDAN - Mostly clarifying questions. First 15 o f all, vita recpect to small break LOCA's, no catter what 16 size, with no other failures, can you neet the 50.36 17 criteria without any operator actions? 18 'JI T N FSS JONES: In the short term,.yet. There is 19 a long-tern manual action of raising the steam generator 20 level and alco the sump switchever. 21 D3. JOEDAN: What wac the first one? 22 'iI T N FCS JONES: 2aising the steam generato r level. 23 DE. JGEDAS: I see. That is a.leng-term action? i 24

• JIINESS JONES:

That ir correct. All of the 25 analyses done to deconstrate compliance witn 50.46 and all l.O 2 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

1 S200 i t these other valuations which have teen perferred which you 2 feel are based on the normally controlled rubpart and the rx 3 steam generator, 50 percent on the operating range ' '\\d 4 ER. JGEDAX: You are saying that even if he f ails sto ever go to the 95 percent, he will.still meet the a 6 temperature criteria? ! rea lly don 't understand quite. 7 WITNESS JONES: In the long ters. It is break 8 sire dependent, again, like many of the small break. In the 9 long term, the breaks which require the steam generator or 4 10 were to utilize the steam cenerator for heat rejection, then 11 I belle.ve it is at least prudent to raise the level to 95 j 12 percent or thereabouts. I an not sure of whether it is i J 13 absolutely necassary or when tha t time has to occur, but it 14 would te on the order of, say, an hcur after the accident, 15 and it would be a very long-tern acticn, not a short-term 16 action. 17 DR. JORDAN: Now, these caser, other than the 18 Table 1, were all assuming 3 failure beyond a single 19 failure. Is that right? Tell, it was a failure -- Table.1 20 was the f ailure being a break. The otner tables were a 21 break plus another f ailure or a failure of a major systen I 22 such as the emergency f eedwa ter system. Is that right? 4 1 WIT 3ESS JONES: No, I wish the tablas grouped up 23 ( \\ 24 and ' simplified that easily. Generally-speaking, that is 25 correct, but Table 1 is not all the treak, but includes a i s l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINtA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C; 20024 (202) 554-2345

_ c._

2. 1 \\ i i 5201 ( 1 single f ailure.hich specifically is a -- for the analysis, I 2 which it loses its MFI punt. 3 D;. JCRDAN: Yec, but not a failure of any systen. 4 WITNESE JONES: That is correct. As far as the 5 tables tha t fellow, there are -- the rcenarios, which are a i 6 loss of all feedwater type scenarios with the small break 7 LOCA or without are indeed beyond the design basis type 8 failures. 9

02. JURDAN:

I see. 10 WITNESS JONES: But there are cases, for example 11 -- Table 6 specifically, which is basically a typical small 12 break LOCA scenario, except that we have just analyzed 13 smaller sized breaks. That is all Tatie 6 represents. They '~ 14 a re the typical normal small break LOCA assumptions ripht 15 there in Table 6. 16 DR. JOEDAN: Why wasn't Tabl 6 included in Table l? 17 WITNESS JONES: They were not in clud ed in Table 1 18 from the cense that Table 1 was first to present only the j 39 pre-TMI 2 LOCA evaluations. I 20 DE. JOEDAN: I see. Table 1 goes down to 0. i WITNFES JONES: .03 ,1 4 22 DR. JOEDAN: .04 And Table 6 gces to

s. Taller l

23 breaks. !s that the main difference? () UITEETS JCTEE: That is correct. Table 1 is not -24 25 only -- it is not just the pre-TMI LOCA evaluations. They

o ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.

2 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 -.~.

5202 ) 1are also the 50.46 s p c c t r u.- analysis. 2 DR. 309 0 ' :: : I se. Deen 50.u6 ca y you Cnly have /' 3 to oc to.04? ( 4 WITNFFS 30?.ES: ': r, EC.46 and Appendix :( coupled 5 up say you must descnstrate th;t all snall break 10CAs which 6 are defined as breakr greater than that which can be handled 7 directly by th' nik+-up syste can be controlled within the 8 liIitC Or miti7c.tet within the limits of 30.u6, but the 9 typical desicn analyses aro only performed -- are performed 10 on a rufficient spectrum to demonstrate compliance and 11 provida the retranable assuranca. That is what Table 1 12 re prese nt c. 13 Basically, all that Table 6 d0ec is confirm that ,s s 14 judg ran t. 15 D3. JOEDAN: I sea. Table 5 then requires no more 16 oper ator actions tnan you had in Table 1, which var zero, 17 exca pting fer, ac you cay, the lonc-ter reactione of sump 18 a n d stean generator height. 19 'J IT N ES S GMIE: That is correct except for, as I 20 s t a t ed in the testimony, whon ve did Tatie 1, we had assumed 21 an operator action which has since been -- 22 0?. JO?. DAN: That has been obviatni? '?ITNESE JCSEE: T ". a t has teen obviated by the 23 x _) 24 design chan;es to the :J F I ryst-T. '; c v, there is, of course 25 -- we have added One. OU ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

m s 5203 1 1 DR. JOEDAN: There is what? 2 4ITNFSS'JO3FS: "e have now, of course, added an i 3 operator action, vnich is the prompt tripping of the reactor 4 coolant pumps ucon receipt of an ESFAS cicnal. And that is 5 by analyses which are discussed in Table 7. t 4 l 6 DE. JC. ? D A N : Did you not get an ESFAS signal in 7 Table 6? 8 WITNESS JON ES: You do get an ESFAS signal for 9 Table f. 10 DE. JO E D A '.i You do get it. l 11 WI! NESS J0FES: Yes. Which means that the l l 12 operator today, by today's procedures, would be required to l 13 trip the reactor cocient pumps for those breaks. 14 DR. JORDANS All richt. Then, is this not a case r 15 where an additional operator action is required, excepting, i 16 as you say, if he doesn't do it, it is conceivable as the 17 pumps continun to run you would be all right? j-18 'lI T N r SS JCNES: '4 e 11, I wouldn't want to call that j 19 the only care that fits that circumstance. Ea cicall y, all 20 the ca ses ha.a assumed, wi th the exception cf the analysis 21 in Table 7, I would assume the reactor coolant pumps were 1ost. Now, all of the analyses done between Table 1 through 22 Table 6 were done without the knowledg? of this delayed 23 24 reactor.ccolant pump trip are.a pctential probles. And then what Table 7, the analyses on the reactor -25 i I l s l 1 1 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. I 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

m 1 i P T 5204 i i icoolant pump trip did was to nake the preceduro such that 4 2 you would have the rump trip as assur.ed in the evaluations i l q%/ 3 for all cas?s now. 4 D?. J?SDU: Well, you can gsther ny concern is i i 5 with the requirament for operator action, particularly 6 short-tern opera tor action, and the signals that the 7 operator gets to trigger hin to take the pro per action. But 4 8 first, ~ I want to make sure that we ha ve considered all of 9 those cases whare a single failure requires operator action. 10 Now, then, is pump trip then the only shcrt-term i 11 action th a t - ?.ust be taken by the operator? i 12 WITNESS JONEF: Yes. 13 DR. JOFDAN: All right. Now, hew strongly is the a 14 operator triggered? i.'h a t ic the basis? Uhat instruments is 15 he lookinc st?.What warning cianals is he ge tting?. How i 16 sure is he that he knows what operator action should be 17 required and would he take the right actiCn? 18 WITNESS JONES: Let a discuss that first fror the 19 guidelines, and how we developed the action. Cn ce we found this problem and looked at the short-tern nature cf the 20 i 21 short-term time frame required f or the action, we decided that we needed to have = n alarmed signal in the control 22 23 room. It was also felt that the operator shculd net be O 24 =eae1=ee te a1=e=o=e the ec=1eemt. Th>t is, 11 he hes e 1ow l 25 pressur a ESFAS =ctuation, he just goes and does it no matter. i 4 ALDERSON REPORT:NG COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5205 ( s) 1what the accident ir. u 2 Thara hava then raen several evaluatient which 3 have been perfermed to demonstrate that for other k_) 4 transien te, not LOC 3 rel a ted, and tha t action does not 5 result in unsafe censequencos, cnd so what we did when we 6 developed it was sinply cay, E 5 F E. S, trip it, and as a ratter 7 of fact, in tha guidelines, they stato that that is his 8 first pricrity, basically. 9 DE. JCEDAN: I see. And there is no quection that 10 when there-ic in ESF;S cignal, the operator knows it. Is 11 this right? 12 WITNESS JONES: That is ?.y understandinc. There 13 are in the control room. ,,,i ~ 14 DE. J; ?.D A N : Can you supplement that answer? 15 WITNEES SECUCHTON: Yec. If an energency safety 16 feature actuation signal were genera ted in addition to the 17 enunciators, the lighted windows abcVe the control panels, 18 there is a specific enunciator that would indicate that the 19 signal had degenerated. In addition to that, there is a 20 complete ctatus panel which indicates the conditions of all 21 o f the competence in the safeguard cycten, and when the 22 saf eguard s ci nal ic cenerated, those compenente begin to 23 n o v e from their standby condition into their functioning (n_) 24 coniition. 25 So, there are many indicatorc that wculd indicate ,- \\ k _/ i x ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5206 s 7 t i that indent there was an EFFAS signal which would tell the eG 2 operater to t a.s s this .repared action. /~N 3 DE. JJFTA": "r. Faxter, we will be getting into \\~/' 4 the nature of the instrunants available to the operator at a 5 la te r time. Icn't this correct? 6 v3. E.: X T E ? : "e have a contention, several 7 contentions on tha centrol rcon configuration and th e

o. d th3 hunan facter is 8 instrunentation available, yes, c greviewed.

10 DR. JORDAN: All right. Then I think I won't ask 11 about that at this time. 12 Now, we did discuss the case where high pressure 13 injection was initiated either by operator a ction or G 14 automatic acti0n, and you centioned conditi0ns for 15 terminating hi;h prassura injection. '. m o n a the.m was tho 50 16 degree cubcooling margin. Was that correct? WITNESS JOSES That is correct. 17 18 DE. J U P.D A N : icw, I know we do cet into this 19 later, but is there a meter which says what the subcooling 20 marcin is ? "ITNEES JON75: That is my understanding. There 21 22 will be ruch a meter in there. DF. JORDAN: "r. u rouchten? 23 tm(,) 24 UITFZES 3:.CUCETC": fes, at the time of rectart of TMT 1, ther? will ie an indication in degrees Fahrenheit of 25 6 ( ' us' I i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, t 400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5207 - (v) 1 subcoolinr. 1 2 Do. JCFDAN: ree. And I gather it is the 3 licensee's position that that is adequate. Ycu do not have (v) 4 to h ave a

• ter which indicater level of the cocling er 5 invantcry.

6 'JITN EFS 9 F OUGPTGS : That is correct. The current 7 guiJ elines which vara developed to deal with the small break 8 LOCA can be inclemented usin; instrumentation that will be 9available at TMI at the time of restart. They did not rely 10 a t the time on any level indicators within it. 11 DE. JCRDAN: Level indicator.s what? 12 ~J I T.N ESE EFGUGHTON: ';1 t h in the reacter vessel or 13 the priTary coolant system. f~h 14 DR. JCEDAN: All richt. That is 'ahat I am 15 intorested in. Just cive me a moment to loch through this. 16 Ga use. ) 17 DR. JOEDAN: I believe that is all the questions I 18 have for these witnesses. 19 CH AIE A N S Y.ITH : M r. E sxter? I thought we might 20 take our afternoon break a little bit later today, because 21 we a re coina to be running late, but if you would ; refer to 22 have that now -- Y. 3. EAXTEE: No, thic is fine. 23 en t -g ---.m..-, y,s ' T..,.. i v.' V 24 ., ^.. -,' s, r 25

• L

=h rm (v) ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2J45

1 5208 4 1 C Mr. Jonas, there were several questions about your ( 2 use in two instances of a core decay heat value of 1.0 times 3 the standard ANE value as oppcsed to tne use in other cases . (.. 4 of 1.2 times the standard ANS value. Can you tell me if you 5 are farillar at all witn the crecess cf celecting the ANS i i 6 standard value, whether indeed that itself is a realistic 7 value or whe that there are conce rva tisns built into that 8 value, and if se, what they are. g A ( W ITN.:SS JONFE) 'd e l l, the ANS standard value that to I a3 quoting in th? testimony is the -- I guecs, the 1971 1 11 propcsed standard that is referenced in Appendix Y, and in 12 App =ndix K and in that standard there was an uncertainty 13 11sted on the decay heat of plus or ninus 20 percent in the 14 first 1,000 seconds after shutdown. 15 There have been a substantial number of 16 1nves,tigations over the last few years iceking at the decay 17 heat curve, and performing core decay heat experiments, and 18 those ctudies have lenonstra ted that the original ANS 19 standa rd, the 1971 version, is somewhat conservative, and best estir.ates in the long-tern for core decay heat based 20 21 o n, you'know, fcr a realistic determination, and that a factor of 1.0 is afsquate to properly define the core decay 22 heat with time. 23 () "P. 3AXTEF. I have no other questions. 24 Cli AIT: AN EZIT:i: Anythin; further of this witness 25 p. l l t -l ALDERSON REPcRTING COMPANY,INC, i-400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTcN D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5209 O 1over this = =1<-c? =arth1=, 1==tae= on thic test 1=o=r? 2 l' 7. HI591 Yes. 3 EECEDEE E. I E M I N A T I O \\' l 4 FY J. : - E'IES: 5 0 It 13 t r u r, sc far as you know, r. Jcncr, that v 6 Appendix M ctill stipulater urn of the ;NS standard value 7 for core decay heat? 8 A ( '4 IT.; EFS J 0;;EC ) 2 ell, Appendix F st i cula.tes the guse of 1.2 times the 1971 1.1 E ctandard, yes, along with a 10 whole hos t of other assumptienc. 11 0 Dr. Little acked you questions, dr. Trouchton, I 12 think,, Lout the capability of the low and hich proscure i i 13 injection pu.mpc to handle particulate matter, and I believe O 14 you sali taat the  ? I pumpt can handle a n y th i n e under a 15 quarter of an inch. Is that correct? 16 A ( L' I T '; E S S SPCUGHTON) "r. Joner is the one who 17 provided those. 18 O OkaY-19 A (WIT \\'TSS JCS.TE) Yes, that ir what I stated, that that ic the size that I havo s c T. e knowledge abcut the 20 21 a bility of the nusp te handle. It does net necessarily mean 22 it : uld not '.andle core. I jurt don't know. C Fave there been any testr run on this? 23 O A <aITNrss JoNzs) I res117 den t hnow. het I 24 25 answ erad Er. little with was what I had read in i n t e r r.a 1 ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

1 5210 g.(v) 1 :enoranda, not from ny own firsthand exanina tione and 2 calculations. (m 3 C it. Frou;hton, dc you know if any tectr have been + \\w) 4 run en this? 5 A ( 'iI T N E S S ??OUGHTC':) No, I do not. 6 0 With respect to the memos that you raw, '.r.

Jones, 7 do fou recall !.o w long the punpr were assumed to cre ra t e ?

8 A (WIT.EEE J0F"E) The analysis that I can remember 9 did not hava a specific tira in it. What it did war looked 10 a t the effect cf the circulaticn of the particulate matter, 11 wha t it would de mechanically, which was to wear down scne 12 o f the cicarance range of some port in the pump. The 13 wearings, I believe, were called. They were called. And ) 14 the eff?ct of that 40uld be to decrease the ability of the 15 pump to produce head romewhat, and other than that, that is 16 all I know about the analycis. I do act know any

c. ore than 17 that.

18 0 Ycu dircussed with "r. Adler the fact that typical 19 Appendix K analysec assume a loss of cff-site power. Did 20 that a pp ea r a ny wherc-in Appendix K? 21 A (WITNESS JOSEE) I believe it does. 22 0 Decc it specify at what time off-sito power is lost? 23 !o) A (41TSE55 JONES) I do not believe it scecifies v 24 the time. 25 l NY ALDERSON REPORT NG COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D C, 20024 (202) 554 2345

.=. .. _._~ i i 5211 2 1 C You tcstifi?d that the port-accident enalyses were 2 done to prepare operator guidelines rather that to 3 demonstra te 5 0.u6. Ihat is generally correct, irn't it? -) 4 A (WITSESS JONES) That is correct. j 5 0 Are those cperator guidelines for operater 6 scenaries tha t you de not consi<!er in demonrtre. ting 7 compliance 41th 50.L6 and Appendix K? 8 A (2ITNESS JOEES) These are indeed scenarios which l 9are not normally considered in demonstrating conr11ance to 4 j 10 50.u6. 11 ?. S. WEIES: Thank you, gentlemen. I have no 2 i 12_ further questions on this piece of testimony. 13 CHAI3XAN FXITH: Anything further? + 1 14 DE. JURDAN: I gues.e one thino further on that i i 15 last question. Is this then -- these scenarios, are they i l 16 nade to a nswer one of the lessons learned requirements? 17 WITNESS JONES: I don't really know the exact 18 source. I do know that following the accident there were a 39seven neetin;s with EEW and NEC alone with the licensees, 20 and' tha t the staff wanted cperator guidelines developed by 21 the venders, a n ?. to perforn additional analyses, and picked 5 22 some of the specific ccenarios. DR. JCEDAN: I see. All right. 23 X. EAXTEE: Dr. Jordan, I believe the Ecard could 24 take notice that this requirement is embodied in orders by 25 . b) 1 i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 - - _ ~ _.

I 1 1 5212 t the Co r.T. i r si o n to sach of the C & ;! opera tor licenset s. (%.]' 2 D?. J00 DAN: Thi.; is one cf the cricinal orders.

• • =' " ~4 ' '

~ (J~'t 4 D P.. J C S D A *. : ^kay. 5

' ". C " T C F !.': :

"r. Chai rne n ? 6 C S A I F': M: St.ITH: !s that inccrporated in IEE 7 Bulletin 7905, CEOCC, and by referenca incorporated into the 8 notice of hearing of this case? 9 (Pausc.) 10 .M 3. BAXTEF: ': r. C h a i r :r.a n, I was juct reading Item 11 D of the short-term actions complete for the potentials for 12 small breaks and d e v elo pin r; and inplementing crerating 13 instructions te define opera tor action. f~kh/ CHAIEMAN S P. IT H : Then you will have three on IEE 34 15 Sulletin : umbers 7905C and 7906C requiring snalyser and then 16 guid aliner f or eper ster action. 17 D JCFDAN: Ehat I had in mind was wh e the r this 18 was aimed at Iten 2.1.5 of 'iUPEG-0578, namely, the analysis 19 o f design and ef f -nc rnal transients and accidente. But I don't need an answer fron these witnesses with rocard to 20 21 that question. CHAI?"AN SMITE: 2 hall we proceed, than, with the 22 23 next ite. of testimony? im Ist's taks our afternoon break. 'd e will return at ( ) 24 3:20. 25 O ALDERSON REPcRTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINTA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

J 4 5213 1 (Whereupon, a brief recess wts taken.) 1' 2 CFAIEMAN SMITE:

r. Baxter, are you ready to

' 3 proreed? The testimony is already in. I had everlooked 1 J. 4 that. Ms..;e iss ? i 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 EY MS. WEISS: i 7 0 Gentlemen, the questions I will be asking you now C. Jones, Jr., and 8 ref er to lirensoe 's testimony of Robert t 9 T. Gary Eroughton in response to the Board question on UCS j 10 Contention 2. That testimony ic dsted October 28th, 1990. 11 Let me refer you first to Fage 3, which discusses 12 Recommendation 2.1.2.A of 'UREG-0565. That recommandation i 13 is that you provide a systen which will assure that the i, l 14 block valve prctects against a stuck cren 70EY. Your answer t 1 i 15 states that the need for such a system has not been 16 determined by appropriate analysis whichis called for by 17 Ite: 2.K.3.7 of FUREG-0660. What is the publication date-of i i 18 NUREG-06 6 0? l i 19 A ( ITNESS 3EOUGHTON) I don't know. 20-Q Do you have a copy of it in front of you? I would I 21 like you to locate Section 2.E.3.7 in that document. A (WITNESS BROUGHTON) That may be a confusing 22 - . 23 re f e rence, beca use - the items in 066C were no t_ specifically i 24 enumerated, and this particular reference 2.X.3.7-is one f 25 which was attached to an 0660 item by a clarificatica letter-- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, i 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

=. 1 1 5214 () I which was proviced, I believe, in September. I think it 2 would help if I explain what I have referred tc here. i 3 C Just one second, before you cet to that. It is ^ O i 4 true, isn 't it, thst thera is no Item 2.K.3.7 in NUEEG-0660? 4 5 A (%ITNESS 2?OUGHTLi?) There is nothing there that 4 6 has that specific label on it. The way that itees have been f 7 referenced in C660 is through a systen which ;oes through 8 th e recormenda tions of other documents and has assigned them gnumbers. I believa the ficct place that that was published to was in a cla rification lettar on itemc which were in 0660. 11 Q You =re speaking of th e clarification letter dated 1 i 12 Septemher 5th, 1960? l 13 A (WITNESS PEOUGETCN) That would be the letter from t 14 Mr. Eisenhut, I believe. It is the Septe=ber E1'senhut 15 letter that I was referring to. 16 C Now, let no refer you to the sectio., of 0F65, and 17 I ask you to read, if you vill, to yourself the section ~ 18 en ti tled, 2.1, Expected Frequency of Small Freak less of 19 Coolants Accident, 2.1.1, Conclusicns, and 2.1.2, 20 Peconnendations. These appear on Fager 2-1 and 2-2 of I 21 NUFEG-0565. A (VI"4TES EECUGHT03) Yes, I have read that section.- 22 23 0 Isn't it true that.th9 purpore of recommendation . () 2.1. 2. A i c to nitigate occasions when a PO?V may stick open? 24 25 A-('AITNESS ;ECUGHTCU) That'would be tna purpose of nU. . ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345-

I 5215 'l 1having a block valve which tutomatically shut. l 2 0 And in fact the ctsff considered doing this by 3 permanen tly closing the block valve but rejected that 4 precicely becauce that would increase cha11anges to the 5 safety valve. Is that correct? 4 6 A (WITNECS 3EOUGHION) Yes. 7 O And instead of permanently closing the block i i - 8 valver, they recommended an automatic FOPV block valve 9 closure system. Is that correct? i i to A (WIThESS 320UGHTCS) Yes. tt 0 Then this recommendation takes account of your 12 stated concern of not increasing challenges to the safety l 13 valv es. Icn't tt.t correct? } 14 A (WITNESS BROUGHTON) It would take care of that i 15 concern with recard to the first time in a scenario that the a 16 power operated relief valve would be cc111enged.

McVever, j

17 if there were a subsequent challence to the primary system 18 cressure boandary 'sith a closed block valve on the PORV, 4 i jg then that might in turn challenge the esfety valve. 1 20 0 Isi't it true that there is 'a separate ccncern in 21 0565 to reduce the challenges to the POPV and that that 22 concern resulted in Recommendation 2.1.29. That is, that 23 you provide analyses shovina tha t the F0EV vill open in less b than 5 percent of.311 anticipated overpressure transients. 24 v 25 A ('s!TNESS FEOUGHTGN) Yes. The atte=pt there is to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 _.., _. ~,,

i 5216 1 rel?ase cha11anges to the P0EV. 4 i 2 Q So in this section of 0565, there are two concerns 2, I 3 expressed. Ihr first, to reduce challenges to the F03V. l 4 The u cond, to mitigate the concequencas of a FORV, a n ('. i j } 5 P.eco rnen d stion 2.1. 2 A goes t o th e la tter. Is that correct? I l i 6 A (WITNESS EROUGHICN) Yes. } i \\ i 7 C And isn't it true that the clarification to which' l-8 you ref er in Esction 2.K.3.7 of -the sta f f 's September 5th 'gletter goes to the former? In other words, that is what the I l 10 analyses are for. l-i 11 A (ZITNESS BROUGHTCN) Yes, I believe .7 does adopt 12 Recommendation ; frca 0565. i 4 5 13 0 And for purposes of clarity, the licensee has not 1 1 j 14 provided us an autenatic block valve closure systen for T!!I t 15 1* i l 16 A (WITNESS BROUGHT 35) That is correct. 17 0 o uldn ' t you say, then, that your testimony on a 18 Page 3 is really addressing Fecommenda tion 2.1.23 and not I gg 2.1. 2 A ? 20 A ( W I T.S E S S F20UGHTON) " ell, I don't believe so, I 21 because the work dona to identify the frequency of 22 challences to the valve would identify scenarios in which 23 the valve was chillan;ad and allow us to look at how those l l ,,) - 24 challences might be altered by an auto.atic-bleck valve, a .25 syrtem-tha t we.migh t. instal. D') f i l-1; ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 1 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 .. - ~.. ~.

,.w_. i 5217. 1 0 Do you know of =. n y arcidents.that have been 2 id en tifie d and 4nalyzed where the pressure would co twice to 3 the FORY set point? I 4 A (MITNESS PECUGHICU) Well, we have locked at 5 scenarios which would cause cycling of-the PORY. 's a 6 matt er of f act, the extended loss of feedwater case that was j 7 presented in the locs of coolant accident te stino n y was such 8a scenario. i 9 C Are you referring to bleed and feed? 10 A (WITNESS ?30UGHTOM) I an reterring to an item t 31which was-listed in one of the tables of the last testimony, 12 which looked at the plant response following an extended 13 loss of main and energency feedwater, which would have then. 14 used feed and bleed after a period of some minutes. 1 15 0 So you would in fact -- this would be a bleed and 16 feed. scenario? A (WITNESS BEOUGHTOF) It would be a bleed and feed E 17 18 scenario or a scenerio which could be terminated by 19 restoring main or energency feedwater. f 20 0 Isn't it true that for bleed and feed scenarios, i 21 your analysis relies on the saf ety valves?

1..

22 A (WITNYIS 2EOUGHTON) The feed and bleed could be i 23 accomplished either by.safoty valves or by power operated ! ~ 24 : relief valv es.. 4 25 C Eut ;cwet operated relief valve is not safety J T ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5218 I 1 grad e. Is that correct? I 2 A ('4IT".ESS F F.GU GHTOh ) It is not safety grade, but 3 if it functionad, it would be used in pla ce of the safety k. I 4 valv es. 1 5 0 l understand that,.but in those circ stances, the 6 concern of reducin; challenges to the safety valves hardly i 7 seems a valid ene. 8 A ('iITNESS PROUGHTON) I don't agree. For example, 9 in that scenario, if the power operated relief valve is. 10 being used, and emergency feedvater can be restored, then by l l 11 having used the posar operated relirf valve, should it fail l l 12 to shut, the block valve wculd allow,that flow path to be 13 isolated..If instead the safety valve had been in l 14 operation, there is no isolaticn path f or the saf ety valve, 15 so it is desirable to use the power operated relief valve 1 l 16 when it is available. 37 0 Is it your understanding, before we go on to the 18 next item, that Eecommendation 2.1.2A referring to the 19 automatic block valve closure systet calls for some further 20 analyses to justify installation of that system? 21 A (VIINE33 -EROUGETON) Yes. 1 22 DF. JCRDAN. Isn't it.even further than that? If l 23 you read the September 5th latter of Fisenhut, on Fage 7, l () refers to automatic POEV icolation.and calls for 24 J 25 completion of; design by 7/1/81. j ~ i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC,- 400 VIRGINIA A/E., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 ... -.. =. -,_,.._.--.,,2..

.. =..... L t a -5219 1 [- 2 1 Now, doesn't that resn the design rust be started )' >2 by now? 3 l 'JITN ESS BECUGEIO'N : I believe we initiated work on j 4 the desien, and I don't kncv the status of that work, but 1 1 5 certainly one of the inputs tc the design wculd te this 6 review cf other evc-nts, and the methed in which a design 7 migh t challance s'a f ety valvec inst'ead of reduce challenges 8 to those valves; i g E! ". S. 'a' E I S S : 2 10 Q Your testimony is, '* r. B rough ton, that en Page 3, i 11 that desig and installarion of an au ctatic FO?V block valve 12 closure system is not boing pursued at this tine. !s that t 13 co rrect? 14 A (~4IT HES ??CUGHTON) That'is correct.. I believe 1. 15 ve -initia ted the design work very sh o'r tl y -- ! don ' t kno w 5 16 the time frame ve initiated the work, but the work is not 17 actively pursuinc now. 18 DE. JOEDASs Well, I think it probably won't help 19 to pursue this question at this ncIent. McVever, this is 20 something that we.'ill be seking the staff about. So, be 1 21 prepared. 5. 'i r I S S. (Eesuting) { 22 EY 23 C .Your testinony on Face 4 with respect'te j-24 eco mmendation 2.1. 2. E - ef I'U ? EG - 0 5 6 5, this is the 25 recomcendation that the clarificatien in the Septer.ber 5th' 4 / w ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,!NC,- - 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C 20024 (202) 554-2345 . _, l

s.m t i 5220 l. 1 letter refers to. Is that correct? o 2 A (WITNESS FROUGHTGP) Yes, that is correct. O.. 3 0 It ic not citar to me from the testimony whether iV 4 you are - saying that there are or are not events which will 5cauce the F3?V to open. Could you clarify that for me? i 6 A ( 'a'I T E SS JCNES) There are events that would cause 7 the POEV to open. I l 8 Q These include loss of feedwater, lose of external i gelectrical load, turbine trip, uncontrolled -- control rod a 10 withdrawal f rom st2rtup conditions, insdvertent closure of I 11 main steam isolation va l ve s, and inadvertent moderator boron i 12 solu tion. Is that correct? 1 13 A (WITNESS JOSES) That are not correct. Ihose are 34 anticipa ted t ra nsien ts. The recommendation states that you 15 demonstrate that you will not open the PORY in no more than 1 16 5 percent cf all of those transients. Some of those 1 17 transients will opsn the PORV. Not all of ther. 4 i 18 0 Okay, which? gg A (;'ITNESS JONES) A s was stated.in the testimony on 20 Page 5, the inadvertent control rod withdrawal can possibly J 21 result in PCEV crening. And tha t is the only one. 22 Q That is the only event? (IT:iESS JONES) That is the only a n tici;ca te d ~A 23 transient that.is lirted tr.a t would possibly cause an 24 i 25 opening of tha LORV with the revised set points in'the !O 1 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345- ,e._

ru 4 c_: S 21 [; 1 an ticips tory trip functionc. v 2 0 Ar? there otbar transients which are not listed on (m 3 Page a which micht result in opening of the FCE7? a 'uJ 4 A (WITNrSS JONES) Jell, there are total loss of 5 foedvater scenarios, of course, that can result in the PORY 6 being c;en. A f eed.a ter lin e b reak. .E rod wi thd ra wa l from 7 power could persibly cause it to occur. A rod ejection 8 accident. Those are sone of them. Eut mest of these 9 transients are not anticiptted transients. A feedvater line 10 break, for example, is a design basis transient. 11 0 Right. So in the le tter you have included teth 12 an ticipa ted transients and accidents? 13 A (WITNESS JONES) In th a t expanded list, the ,n' ') i 14 majority of then were accidents. 15 C This recommendation calls for the li ce n see to 16 document that the F0FV vill open in lecs than 5 percent of 17 all anticipa ted overpressurc transients, et cetera. Has 16 that documentation been presented to NFC7 19 E (SIISE33 UONESI 50t t0 C7 kUOW19d9e* 20 C Do you know when it will be? 21 A ("ITSISS JONES) "o, I do not. 22 O D you know if it is teing prepared? A (WIT.'EES JCNF9) I -lo not believe that such a 23 n(_) 24 docunant is being prepared at this t ir =. 25 C With regard to Feconnendation 2.2.2.A on ? age 9 of p L/ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, s. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

f 5222 i 1 m (J) 1 your testimony, and Fecernenda:icn 2.2.2.3 -- they are 2 present0d together -- they first state that the analysis (~} 3 method used for r?.all break LOCA analysis by E E's should be v 4 revised, dorumentad, and submitted to 59C for approval. The i 1 5 second r ecor n ends or calls tor plant specific calculations 6 using the N?C apuroved model fer small breaks to be 7 su bT. it ted by all licensees to show cc:pliance with 10 CFP 8 50.46. 9 Is it your testinony that NU EG-0565 does not 10 s t a t e tha t approved E Ei small break evaluation is deficient 11 for demonstrating co:cliancs of T:!! l with respect to 1 CFE 12 50.46 and Appendix ': ? 13 A ( *J IT N ESS JONES) That is correct. 7 t 14 0 And in making that answer, did you consider the 15 sentence on Page 2-3 of NUEEG-0565 that has been read 16 earlier into the record, a n.1 I ;ucts, "The analysic methods 17 must be revised and verified before they can be considered 18 for NEC approval under 10 CFE 50.46?" 19 .g (gm. mere 3 .T o u re )

v. n ~, :

w .2_...e. ~ 20 0 Let te refer you to Chapter a of ': U E IG -0 5 6 5. 21 DF. JOED;S: 'a' h e r e is this, s. ':e is ? 22

35. N7ISS:

Chaptar 4 Of "U??G-056E. Basically, 23 Page u-1, 4-2, and 4-3. f3 tu,) 24 BY Mc. 3 :- I S S : (Resuming) 25 0 id you censider.makin; that statement the ei;ht t'% i 1 l %I l l l l t i ALDERSON REPORT lNG COMPANY, INC. l l ll. 400 VIRGINIA ANE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5223 -s (J) 1 listed concerns on tager L -1 through 4-3? w 2 A ( h'IT N ESE JONES) Yes, I had. (3 3 0 Would you acree t." i t for Iter Number 1, 3 \\_) 4 experiren tal dats for the varification of methods for 5 two-phase natural circulation are currently not available? 6 A (WIT';rSS J0"EE) Not at this time I wculdn't. 7 0 You wculd not agree with it? 8 A ('JI!h SS J0!;ES) '0, I would not. 9 0 '/h e re is that data? 10 A (- W I'. N ESS J O N E S ) That data has been obtained from 11 th e recent LOFT experiaents. 12 0 '4 h i c h tests are you referring tc? 13 A (WITSESS JONES) It is cy understandina that L35 (% s 14 e xhibited periods of two-phased natural circulation. 15 0 Do you know approximately when LCTT Test L35 was 16 perf ormed ? 17 A (WITNESS JOSES) It is a relatively recent test. 18 It is in the last month or twc, but I do not retember the 19 ex a c t date. 20 0 Can you describe

t. hat test?

21 A (WITNrSS JONES) The experiment is roughly a 22 simulated .1 cauare foot b r o a >. in the intact loop Of the LOFT facility. They tripped the reacter coolant pumps. 23 (_x) 24 Thehsysten underwent a deprassuriestion trancient. I 25 believe they had no ECCE model in that transient. And after /,~\\ I cv ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5224 (7 / 1some pericd of tin l a t e r o r., they isola ted the rrcak, and I / 2 forget when they turred on the i!I. It was soma tire prior ('] 3 to the icola tion of the br+ak. And it was expected that w/ 4 there was reflu:< boiling or toiler ccndencar type Operation 5 occurring durina the exper3 ment, or would cccur. The exact 6 date of report has not baan released On that exreriment yet. 7 C Did ECW predict results for that experiment befora 8 it was conducted? 9 A (WITNESS 30.vES) So. 10 C So you have nc bacis of co m pa ring the experiaental 11 data with model predictions for tais pa r ticula r test? 12 A ('JIT:. E3 JON ES ) ct as a pre-test prediction, 13 n o. It ir cessible we may do some post-tests, but I do not ,s I \\ 14 know wh9ther ws will or will-net. 15 0 Do you know whether natural circulation was lost 16 a t all durina the test? A (WIT.17ES JONES) i' ell, licuid n a tu ral circulation 17 18 would hn ve t eer lost. I expect they lest twc phased natural 19 circulation sirc at come period of time, and then later on 20 in the transient, after thei irclated the treak, they did a 21 simulation of the plant depressurination by deprescurizing 22 the secondary syste of the plant. ~ hat was the counterpart L35A exterinent. l e3 4 1 T i 4j 4 ( EUEE*) (. 24 QV 4;

• D ",? T ^' r t 25 tm

?(,'4 ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY, INC, j 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5225 (mv) 1 0 '; : v, if I c o u l.1 d. i r e r t four at'tentien to the third 2 i t e ~- beginning on 4-1 and continuing over to

t. - 2, which is 3 discussing the prercuricar Todel f or analy ?s of small (q) 4 brea%s, and it statos that these modaling differences mey be 5 significant for various ;ostul:ted breaks.

So ycu acree 6 with that cancern expressed in Ite 3? 7 4. (VI!!?S3 J0FTS) No, I do not. 8 O Have you submitted further analyses to the ?!?C 9 since the document vac publist.ed on this iten? 10 1. ( W I "'N E S 3, O!!ES ) Xo, we have not. 11 (Paure.) 12 0 On Item c on %ge 4-7, it sta tes that, "The 13 calculation of core level 2nd core heat trancfer are r3 1 lv 34 important features of the small break odel. lirited 15 ex terinen tal data is curren tly available to justify these 16 models. Although the current capacitis.s have teen 17 sa tisf actory, the experineats are not challenging to the 18 co.i e s. Mor? exterimental data must be obtained for code 19 ve rifica tion. " 20 Do you agree With that concern? A (III';E53 JONES) 'I 0 t tot 1117* 21 22 C Have you subr.ittei any further analyres to address this conceca sinre this data was publiched? 23 s sj 24 ( 3 2. . :23 c m, - - ) we have net. sa .. c, 25 C Iter 5 on Pace 4-2 diccusser a concern ate ut the n (v) ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5226 m (v) 1 number of nodos use to r?prerant the priIary systen and d 2 concludes by statinc th a t thus the icdeling de tail could O 3 have a significant effect on the calculated timos for V 4 various evente ruch as ECCE actuation. 5 D3 YOU 5pree with that concern? 6 A (i'l T N E S S TONES) 'o, ve do not. 7 0 Have ycu submitted any further analyses to the NF.C 8 address this concern since thic document was publiched? (.. ... m: _ u m.,.., c ) ,g. c. . o. 9 e. y 2 1.. 10 Dr. JCPD2N:

' r. Follard, I lost that item.

Where 11 was it? 12 M FOLLARC: That was Iter 5 en Page 4-2 of 13 N U F.E G-0 E 6 5. G 14 DE. J 2 3 D A.A* Thank you. I have it now. 15 ?Y ME. P3LLARD: (Escuminc) 16 0 Ite: F on Faye 4-2 states, "Purin: the recovery 17 period f ren a c:all treak LOCA, the ther:odynanic 18 equilibri ua assumed and four control volumes could be 39 presumed in error i-the predicted ryster pressure. This 20 could in turn introd uce errcrs in both the b reak diccharge 21 and saf ot y injecti:n flow. The rate at which the water is 1 22 refilling the syster can affect speed conden ra tie n. If the { 23 con ienra tion efficiency is lesc than 100 percent, system p) 24 preccure would te higher than credicte?." sm-Do you scree witn that concern? 25 O,v) ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE.. S.W., WASHINGTON O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5227 /~N (..I..r.e.d v c.. r., e ) y e c_, 1 ao. ,n.-- - 2 ( ) 1 3 s-2 Q Rsve you submitted any analysis to eldress this (~T 3 concern to the EC since this 10cumsnt was issued? V 4 A (41TSEE3 JONES) No-5 C What are your plans fer addressing this concern? 6 A ( 'J I T " E S S JONES) At this time, E E '4 has proposed 7 some work to varicus of our licensees, and wo will be 8 examining and developin; a progran to respond to this 9 docunent in total. .I s far is this sperific item is 10 concern d, this is an analyris iten or this is an item 11 talking about the later stages cf the rysten refill and the 12 analyses do not po that far. The analyses are performed to 13 the tine that long-term cooling has been established. O i s e i ~- All this iten addresses is, how fast can you 14 15 recover t he s ystem, that is, refill i t, not whether you have 16 inadequate -- whether you are ce tting adequato ccre cooling 17 during this period. Here you are refilling the syrtem 18 following the scall break LCCA, and se will prchably not 19 address this at all. 20 C 't i t h r?spr :t to the licensee in this case, have 21 you mcde this properal to Tatropolitan Edison? A (WITNESS JCNES) Yes. 22 23 0 '!a ve t h ny cesponaed? (m (,) 24 A (MITLESE J: NEE) They have participated in some of the plannin7 and discussion of the concerne listed in this 25 (% ( ! v ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5228 (~') 1 document, not just this itar crecifically. Ar f ar as their ss 2 response to the Cor: 1ssicn or whether they are going to (~') 3 participate in the lonc-tern progran that may cccur with \\a 4 this docu ent, I do not knew of any responre at this time. 5 0 When vac that proposal originally prcrented to the 6 licensee? 7 A (WIT:,ESS JOSES) ell, let ne try to put a little 8 bit of history on this. Thic document has been cut since gJanuary, well, so > time -- 'eally, the end of Fe b rua ry was 10 the first time this document va: officially published,- it irrespective of the date on the cover. And whcr the 12 document -- th' Cou.ission did not apply the docunent to 13 anybody. The first tine the t positionc were acked that I f.s e i \\ / 14 know of on the docuaent were via the Septenber 5th or 15 thereabouts, the Septenter Eisenhut letter, the 16 clarifica tion letter. 17 At that point in time, ECW had sono reetings with 18 the owners of our riants tc discuss the varicus concerns and how to rerpond. That is ctill as Of tne last date that I 19 have been involved in, it was still prcgressing to develop a 20 21 response to the NEC officially and as f ar as I know, I was 22 not untfl juct the end of October that the Conrission -- tha Commissioners finally approved the clarifica tion letter f rc r 23 (_) Mr. Eisenhut, and I believe that the response en this iten I 24 i is due to the Cennission sore time around ni d -!. o v e n b e r, but 25 1 [ \\ i 'wd \\ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

..~ ~ ~+ ~..... -... J 5229 i i 1 I a ?. not exactly sure on tha t, a s f ar. ic developnen t of a 2 plan to rsspond to this docunent. s i 3 0 Novetter of which year? 4 A (WITNES3 JONES) I believe this year. November 5 15tn. 6 0 So you personally are not involved in developing 7 the respons?. Is that correct? 8 A (VITFESS JONE2) Act since I have started coming + 9 to the nearinc. 10 0 We can nove to Item 7, which tegins on Page 4 11 and continues on Page 4-3. It states that "The dircharge j 12 rate of two-phased fluid through the FORY and safety valves 13 is an important consideration for some transients. These O l 14 include postulated stuck open PCRV or safety valves and I j 15 primary system depressurization f or very small or zero break 16 LOC A 's by opening the PORY if all f eedwater is lost. There 4 1^ is a lack of discharge rate data for two-phase fluid at high l 17 18 pressure. 1 i "Most experimantal data is for steam at low jg 20 pressure. If the actual valve flow is lower than assumed in l i 21 the calrulations, crimary systoc depressurization to the 22 high pressure indection set point might not occur within the 23 calculated tines." Do you agree with that concern? 24 A (i?ITNFSS JCFES) Not really. 25 v i i ALDERSON REPORTihG COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345- . ~.. -,.

5230 ,m ( ) 1 Q Ic it that you dicagree with every ringle sentence v 2 in the concern, or is it only a portion of it that you (^3 3 d i s t. g r ee with? L.) 4 A (iTTNESS JONES) 1% 11, that is tho problen with 5 all of these. There may be a feature here and there which 6 is r ha ra c te rize ? co r re c tly, but as a whole, I disacree with 7 the iten. 8 0 Lat ne just take the last sentence, then. If that gsentence is t r '2 s., would you a:ree that there might then be 10 some additional accident scenaricc which would require 11 nanual initiation of hi;h :rescure injection? 12 A (WITNEES JONES) Nell, it depends on your concept 13 of lower. In ny opinion -- no. I do not totally acree with ,/ y t' ') 14 that thinc. I tnink that a trsak in a stuck open PCR7 or 15 sa f e ty valve, becauce of its direct intact, because it is a 16 stean space leak, which is what the valves have been 17 qualified f o r, would depressurice the primary system down to 18 th e high pressure injection subpoint in very rapid fashion, 19 a n d in fact the TMI 2 incident proves openinc a PDFV will 20 depressurize you tc the high pressure injection subpoint, 21 a n d the safety valve is a heck of a lot bigger than a FORV. 22 C Uss there not a ca se in your testir.cny en UCS Contention 2 and ECf.P Contcntion IE where you discusred a 23 n. ! _) 24 tr an sitio n flow frac, steam threugh the FCEV an than a 25 two-phased fluid and then pure liquid and back again? ('N v ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINfA AVE., S.W., NASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

m.. 5231 1 6 1 A (WIT'ESS JCNFE) That was a respense to a total f 2 loss of foedwater ccenario, anc that was the safety valve I f 3 was talking about. Put if you had the FOEV then ycu would you would see the sane ccnditions. 4 actuate it 5 0 And that is,'of cource, what this iten is 6addrescing, rero break 10CA's, which means no break? 4 7 A ('?ITN ESS JOFES) That is right, and this item is, l -8 in my opinion -- well, if you go b a c:t and look at the 9 clarifica tion f or this item, which is later in the document, 10 it is basically an item for the Davis Fesse plant which does 1 11 not have the high head, the high head MFI pumps, that is, 12 HPI pumps capable of pressurizing the systen at the 2700 psi. 13 And for them, if they could not restore feedwcter, O j 14 you would have to open the PCE7 and wait for a systen i 15 depressurication to allow their HPI's to function belovs 16 their shutoff head, which is about 1900 psi. It is a 17 generic item for all other plan ts such a s 5,'estinghouse and i l, 18 combustion engineering plants which generally do not have 19 such high head pumps es the BEX high pressure injection i 20 system is. 21. Q Your last co ment moves me to draw your attention l to-the first sentence on Page u-1, where it appears that to 22 23 m e, at least, f 02 the first sentence, that this section is 24 being written with respect to BCW. And now-you are telling 3 25 me that hers v9 have an ites that nay acply to cne ECW plant L l r I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

l f J 5232 l -s ( ) 1 but it is primarily being acdrecsed to hertirchouse plants. v 2 Did I understand you? <^N 3 A ( ' I T N E S 3 JONEE) ': c l l, this is not thc only (a) 4 bull etin kno un as -- this is not the only generic evaluation 5 of small broak lor of coolant accidents arcund. There are 6 three others, ter 3", l'estinghouse, combustien Fncineering 7 plants that are very similar to this, and in fact rest of athese concerns are interwoven between each of the documents, 9 and in f act in the clarifica tion letter I understand that we 10 were to address the recc;?mndations of every dccunent, 11 because they weren't sure th ey got them all intertwined 12 P rop erlY ' 13 So, it is addressed tc -- sone of there items may o) i\\-> 14 be much m.o r e appropriate to a 'J c s tin g h c u se plant than they 15 a r e for s EU plant, and this is one of thcm, with the 16 exception of, acain, the Davis Pesse plant. 17 C If we could P. ova on, please, to Iter 2 on Page 18 4-3, I won't read the whole I t e.e 5. It says, he; inning 19 about the f:urth sentence, "The anount of stean present at 20 the injection locatien is the predominant facter which 21 deternines the core ficod tsni naster lift. The results of 22 an analysic will be influenced by the todel and the modeling 23 assu=ptions used to calculate the ccre fleed tank flow. n Additional studies will be requirad to obtsin the n9cessary () 24 infornatica to rerforn an Appendix analysis." 25 ,n i 'u/ ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

l 5233 p) 5 1

• ad then it geer on to note, " A ddi tio n a l work to mi 2 do this is under way."

("N. 3 Po you acree with any part of the concern t v 4 expressed in Iten 9? 5 1. (7IT'TES JONEF) lell, I agree with it in the 6 sence -- with the aquilibrium models that currently exist 7 throughout slnort all reactor venders in the country and 8 throughout most of the country using equilibriu nodels in 9the sense that the cold core flood tank water could 10 introduce a rapid depressurization of the system due to the 11 instantaneous ccndensation of stes as would be calculated 12 by the code. 13 My specific position relative to this ite: is (~)' 14 addressed on Page 11 of this testinony. 15 (F1230-) 16 3Y Xc. '4 FI S S : (?esuming) 17 C Are all of the concerns listed, the eight concerns 18 listed on Pages 4-1 through 4-3 of N UE EC.-05 5 5 rela ted to 19 perf ornance of the nodels with the Cornission's reculations 20 and Appendix K, 50.46? 21 A ( i' IT.4 E S S JONEF) I rissed your question. Could 22 you please repest it? C Now, we have ~ade a distinction sone time in the 23 O(/ 24 course of t.i e testimony hetween analyses that were perforned 25 under Appendix - to show confornity w i t." 50.u6 and analyses /^% \\-) ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5234 <m (v) 1 which were done in order to provide Operator puideliner. I 2 just wanted to rake it clear at this peint that all the ,e~S 3 concerne listed in Chapter a of NUPEG-0565 that we have tv! 4 discusced relate to conforrance of the 207nodels fer 5 Appendix K ind 50.46 purposes. 6 A ( N IT 'i ES S JONFI)

ell, le+ ne try to characterize 7 it this way.

First off, the specific document, 0555, 8 rela tes -- ir a review of and relates to the analyces gperformed to develep operator guidelines. They are not a 10 comprehensive review of the 10 C F E 50.4f analyces and 11 Appandix M analyses. 12 '4 h a t the staff has listed that we have just been 13 discussing is haced on sone of there anslyses and what they , 'N. ( k have seen, if they now have come questions, and they just 14 15 w a n t furthec juctification. 16 To the best of my knowledpe, the staff hac not 17 said that our nedels are not in confort.ance wi th Appendix K 18 to date, and they are not valid for demonstrating 19 conf ormance to EG.u6, but they do want to addrecs some of 20 thase -- they want sene of these cpecific roncerns addressed 21 over the next year or co. 22 O At least they haven't said that anywhere cutside the centcxt o# ':C F EG-C 5 6 5. 23 (m) M?. EAX??.: I as corry. I don't understand the 24 25 ques tion. If the witnecs underrtands it, he can ancwer it. rN !v$ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20G24 (202) 554 2345

5235 V; 1 C H A I F v.1 '; EhlTH: I ri i d n ' t understand it eithar. I 2 But that is har!17 determinativa. (~ 3 Coulc you clarify it? G) t 4 MS. WEIS3: I am not sure it is necersary. 5 9Y MS. WFISS: (Eesuming) 6 0 Ia cther.; o r d s, beyond this cocune.nt that we have 7 been discussing, '; U P.E G - 0 5 6 5, ycu have not received any 8 direction from NRC to tell you that you were not in 9 compliance with 50.36. 10 A (WITNESS JONES) Well, in fact, I don't believe 11 the Comnission has stated to date that we ere not in 12 compliance with 50.46, even in thic document as =cdified by 13 the clarificatien letter. It is ny understanding that an (n) 14 acce ptable rerscnse to this document would be to provide 15 additional infornstion to the staff that demonntrates that 16 the old model, the presently approved odel is in compliance 17 with Appendix Y, sad that th ese iter s are no t si g nif ica n t 18 actors for demonstrating adequate core coolinc as defined by 19 th e reculations. 20 C Do you see anywhere in this document where it is 21 sta t ed that there are not cignificant concerns, are not 22 significant efforts in ter-c of 50.46? A (i!!TN 53 J O.': E S ) 30, I do not. Eut ly the sano 23 fh token, there wu a letter out which clarifies -- The way I () 24 25 understand it, it is a clarification of this document. O G ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 vlRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 2002J (202) 554 2345 J

5236 (mv) 1 C You think the September Eth letter clarifies 2 NUSEG-0565? e~N 3 A ( W I T'i TS S JCNEE) It tells you cr provides you some f i 'r j 4 guidance on how you could respond to this document if you 5 wish. 6 C "?ll, ve may have to talk te staff sc e core about 7 what they

v. e a n t.

They aay be the appropriate recple to 8 discuss that. 9 Let's go to Fage 11 of your tastimony, 10 Reconnendation 2.2.2.C, which states, "The effects of core 13 flood tank injection on small Lreak LOCA's shculd be further 12 investi;atal to ds* ermine the aroun t of condensation 13 realistically expected and to determine its effect on heatup <s i ) 14 a n d core uncovering. The Condensation model and modeling N/ 15 pr oced ures, i.?., injection location uced in computer 16 analyses, require further investications to accure that the 17 ef f ects of CFT injaction are birssed in a conservative canner. 18 "Eemi-scale and LCFT test data should te used to 19 verif y the models." 20 So, is it accurate that that recommendaticn calls 21 fo r a compa rison of your model results er yCur model 22 predictions ith semi-scale and LOFT test data? 3 (MIT;'SS JON.E) It appears to call for such a 23 ,~( ) 24 comparison, yes.

m.,

C An1 ycur testimony does nCt diccusc any sucn i 25 l {m / I \\ \\._/ l ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5227 ( 1 comparison. It Juct reiterc.tes the acdel re sult s. Is that j v 2 correct? r 3, 3 A ( 'i IT:, F F S JCNET) That ir ccrrect. 's / 'now whether scme LO FT d a ta indicates less 4 0 Do you 5 preccurinaticn than trerlicted by E E. / nodel? 6 A ('J I T 3 F SS JCNES) Well, one of the large hreak 7 experiments indirates that effect, that the models will tend 8 to underpredict the sycten preccure after ccre flood tank 9 injection. The spall break data such as L31, the recent 10 LCFT e x p e ri r, a n t, does not s+en to indicate that the models 11 will tend to grossly everpredict the system de p r e ssu riza ti o n 12 following core flood tank injection. 13 0 I have stated the quection wronc, hut you answered \\ i 14 it correctly. The LOFT data indicates less deprecsurization 15 than predicted, rather than less pressurination. Correct? 16 A (XITNESS JO'!ES) Yes. It should be less 17 depressurization. 18 C Do you have any experimen tal da ta from remi-scale 19 or 10FT to chow that the E fd 7cdel is conservative in this 20 resp ect? A (iiIT"ESS JOSES) '.' e l l, the analyrer that are 21 22 gene rally dene for comparison to both the LOFT and 23 semi-ccale axp+rir.ents are Jen= rally what you vculd call I ) best estirate analycos. Ihey are not analysec performed to 24 demo nstra te margins of ccacervatist in ycur rodel, but 25 ,^3 t i \\, / ALDERSON REPCRTING CCMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

\\ 523S n( ) 1 rather to damonstrate waethe r your.odel can rearonably v 2 pre 'ict the actual nhenonent. i' h e r e are problems in /3 3 peforning such analysic in the fact that these mcdels are V 4 not designed to ha totally test estinates, but we have 5 perf ormed analyrer of the seni-scale experiment SC7103. 6 The radal wa s conserva tive-in that it actually 7 predicted a clover depressurization and a total core 8 unco very, which is -- the total core uncovery was a direct 9 result of how w treat heat addition in the cods, and we do 10 that in a very conservative ranner, a n r1 it caused us to 11 grossly undarpredirt or to grossly overpredict the amount of 12 core uncovering. 13 As far as the LOFT 131 experiment, we have (~sn 14 perf erned an analycis of that. The experimental comparison 15 wa s in reasonable acreement with the actual data, as best we 16 could de termine. 17 t: 5. Fr:ES: Could we have just a coment? 18 (Pauro.) C 9 M E * ?. N S IIH: Oc you need nere tire, s. "eiss? 19 S. XFISS: No, we can go. Thank you. 20 ?Y

f. S. '/ E I S S :

(Eesuaing) 21 22 C Can I refer you to your testinony en Eec : endation 2.3.A cf NURIG-GE65, and related conclusions 23 / t j 24 from 0623 witn regard to trippinc of reactor coolant pumps? s_- The reconnendationc appear en taces 12 s n d 13, and the 25 (n\\, w/ ALDERSON REPORTING COVPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WA3HINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

I-5239 g 1 testinony appearc on Face 12. 2 I en particularly concerned with the lancuage of 3 NUEEG-056 5 itself, and you have quoted it. " Tripping of the 4 RCE's in tha event of a LOCA is not an ideal colution. The f 5 licensees should concider other solutions to the s. mall break 6 problen.. For example, an increase in F?! flow rate. In the 7 interim, until a better solution is found, the ECP should be 8 tripped automatically in the case of the small break LOCA." 9 Now, before I get into that, does that jcq your l 10 memory a t all or refresn your memory at all with respect to 11 the questions r. Follard wa s asking you aarlier about ACES v ~ 12 recommendations, with particular respect to HPI? i 13 ?. 4 SAXTEE: This is on HPI punp capacity' f 14 .". S. W"IS?s Flow rate. Yes. 15 'a'ITNESS JON ES : I still can't remember whether the 16 NRC -- I mean, whether the 3.C?S has indeed made this 17 recommend ation or net. It is possible thut they have. But 18 as I said, I just don't recenber. 39 P! "S. WEISS: (Resuming) 20 0 f.n increase in HFI flow rate in particular is what 21 I am referrin; to. A (NITNESS JClIS) Well, this recorrendation itself 22 from 0565 makes_ sone statercnt to that effect, but again,.as 23 f' I juct-don't rececber one. far ar an ACPS specific pociticn, \\ 24 0 Okay. "hy isn't tripping of the reactor coolant 25 i \\ i i ' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRG!NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 ~ L_.

l 5240 (J) 1 pumps in the evcnt of a LOCA not an ideal solution? u 2 O. U.XTEF: You are assuming tnat the witnesc r"N 3 agrees wi th thic ctatement. %) 4 BY "S. WEIES: (Focuning) 5 0 Yer, if you agrae with it. 6 A ("IT1 ESC JCNES) lell, I ar not co sure that I 7 agree with this statenent. Th e general concerns raised or 8 the -- the very general c a r.n e n t c alone this vein are grelative to forced circulation cooling, not the coclinc 10 procent itsnif, but the better coupling tr the stea: 11 generator for finer clant contrcl. 12 I nean, as far as the core cooling, as far as core 13 cooling is conc 2rn+d, I dcn't believe it matters. I think r~%, t a \\' 14 tripping the pumps is a fino solution. 15' O Is it accurate tha t tripping of the reactor 16 coolan t pumps can agg ra va te non-LOCA transients? 17 A (XITNrSS JONES) It can make them -- well, I don't 18 know what you ?,ean by acgravate, but in a very general sense 19 o f, acain, plant contrcl, yet. 20 C Well, th?re ic a statement on this came page from 21 Conclusion 6.O ( E ). NUEEG-0623 statas that "For Ef." plants, 22 tripping of the reactor coolant pumps furing revere 23 overcooling ev=nts i n cr o ir e s the potential f or in terruption rs () 24 of the natural circulation due to ctear formation in the 25 coolant icons." em 1.v\\ a I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5241 n 1 sev, do you a gr e-vith that? {} 2 A ( '4 I T.s F 3 5 JCNES) Tell, if you have th e reactor /3 3 coolant pu?ps, you do not have to worry about an !v! 4 interruption cf natural circulation. Certainly, tripping 5 the purps during a,evere overcoolina : vent which could pull 6 or result in a s t e a r. void in the reactor coolant loops could 7 POSSiblY interrupt natural circulation. 8 However, we have perferned analyses of overcooling 9 accidents, including a failure, a dcuble-ended failure of 10 the stean liner which resultc in a very substantial 11 overcooling trancient on the primary cysten, and natural 12 circulation var maintained in a t least One loop throughout 13 the tranciant. (m< 14 0 '4 n a t did that assume with respect to the operation 15 of the rsactor coolant pump? 16 A (VI T ES JGSEF) That they were tripped at the lov 17 p r?s sur9 EEFAS si;rel. 18 O The reco.nendation speaks of a better sclution. 39 It states, "In tha interim, until a better solution is 20 found, the RCP should be tripped auncmaticclly." Eas E E '.1 21 devised a better sclution? ( M IT E55 JCNEE) 2e hava not been activaly J 22 23 pursuing a bettar sclution to the probl+m. One cf the j i n (-) 24 reconnend ations or what Of 23 'recocnizer is that the analysis 25 models with the 23ctor coolant purps running need further ,O< i \\ / N' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $54-2345

i 1 i 5242 m( ) 1analytictl bares or exrerinental haces, excuse me, and hac v 2 recommended t h e. t a pre-tart prediction of LCFT test L36 be /~'s 3 perf ormed in order te tcncniark the analytical rethods with e 4 j 4 the pu.ps running in c '.ighly voidec primary syster during a 5 small treak LCCA. 6 Following that a na lysi s, we p ossib ly nay pursue 7 lookinc at alternate solutions. It may be fcund cut that 8 the analysis methods are indeed highly conservative, and 9 that in fact the pun; trip is not required, but there are 10 still mechanical prcilers relative to the pump cperating at 11 high void actions and rotential damage to th e reactor 12 coolant pu.mpt which would still have to be resclved, and I 13 a m not so sure that we will actively purcue development of ( ) b' 14 alt e rnat e schemes or other ways Of keeping the re actor 15 coolant pumps on indefinitely throu;h t LOCA. 16 (Pauce.) 17 Bf O. PDLLA!!D: (Fesuain;) 18 0 If you did pursue the option of providing a nuch 19 high er cap =. cit y high pressure injection pur", would not such 20 a higher capacity pur; also reduce the severity of the 21 problen you talked etout of having reactor scolant pumps run 22 with a la rg a number of voids in the system? That ir, if we have a high enough capacity pump, 23 O) 24 w o n ' t the magnituda of that protle also be reduced? v A (WITrrSS JCSEF) Oh, it would ba reduced somewhat, 25 n / k t / xs ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5243 1 1 but we have pcrfor ad :tudier with one and two HFI pumps, %_./ 2 f o r e xa.t ple, and the chance in the nanagement syrten void n 3 f raction on a rpecific cace, on the order of 5 ;ercent. 4 i L) 4 Eo, if I added, cay, two nor, high prussure 5 injection pumps and could cuar?ntee that they would run, et 6 cete ra, whirh might colv= this prob 1?, because you vill l 7 have excers refill capacity at that tine, it night recover 8 the core fest enou;h. You still may run to 95 percent void 4 9 fractions in the primary systen. 10 So, 'ehile they have reduced the ss ve rity somewhat, 11 it still co '11 d he a problea. 12 ?Y JS. wiles: (t esuring) 13 0 What is the basic fer assurance that the reactor (n' N/ 34 coolant p um,'s vill be trippcd wi thin three tinutes cf the 15 onse t of a LCCA* 16 A (WILESS 230CCFTM ) Fell, we have icplemented 17 proredures which rsquire tha t, and we h ave trained operator 18 to thosa procedurss. The tvolution is simple. It can be 19 perf orrad from the control roon, and there s ra several different indications in t h :- centrol room that would 20 21 indicate that this action was required. 22 3I IE

• 20IEE3' IE*30313 }

o3-0 'J h e n ycu vere answering a questien, I believe, (o) from the Foard =t:11er, before the break, as I understcod 24 25 your testimony, you .3 aid that the training piven to the j (3 i ) ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINtA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

i. I 1 1 5244 1 reactor operators is that any time that there is an 1 2 enginected safety f eature actuat. ion system signal, that they 3 should trip the pumps. 'id I understand you correctly? I 4 A ( W I T': ES S HOUGHION) That is correct. t 5 C. I thoucht that he would only trip the pumps if 4 6 high pressure injection had been actuated ty low reacter 1 7 coolant systen pressure. Put that he would not trip the 8 pumps if high pressure infection had been actuated, for gexample, by hich reactor building pressure. I jo A ( 'J I T.N E S S B E G U GI'"L; ) You were correct. I.was not 11 explicit enough when I made the remark earlier. The 12 requirement fer tripping the pumps, the requirecent for j i 13 tripping the reactor coolant pumps is when high pressure 14 injection has been initiated.- 15 0 Initiated automatically by crecifically low I 16 reactor coolant system pressure? 1 a 37 A (%IT!!ESS E EOUGHTGi') The 1600 pound low reactor 18 cool ant systen tressure. gg C And fcr no other aut0 atic initiation of high 20 pressure injection? ,t 21 A (WITNISS EECUGHTC':) That is correct. i l 22 .G Now, again, q:ing t s c >. to your earlier answer to h 23 u s, what indiciation'10 available tc the operater, I [ 24 understo0d you to refer to ? status panel for emergency core i 25 cooling system components. No ul d n '. t that status panel-loot 1 -1 i f e ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRG!NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON,3.C. 20024 (2C2) 554 2345 .. ~

5245 ouldn ' t it lock excetly the same 1 exartly -- excure no. 2 whether high pressure injection was actuata1 by low pressure 3 or by high building pressure? 4 A (2ITNF,SS FECUGHION) That status panel would -- 5 0 Co he cannot rely upon that as an indication of f 6 whether or not he should trip the reactor coolant pumps? ( *'ITHSS EECUGHTGS ) I should retract what I said 7 A 8 just a minute ago. There are several indica tions on tha t 9 status panel, and I believe from the status panel that he 10 ca n tell exactly what.cignal har cauced the engineered 11 saf eguards feature to actuate. I am not familiar enough 12 with that panel to ray certainly that is the case. 13 0 ist me ask the direct question that I thought the 14 Board has asked you originally, but before I ask that, let 15 me just clarify it one nore time. 16 It is your tertimony that the operators are 17 instructed to trip the reacter coolant purps only when the 18 high pressure injection system has been automatically 19 initiated by low reactor coolant syctEn pressure. 20 A (WITNESS EEOUGHTON) Yes. 21 G 1 hat: indication er inctrumentation does the 22 operator have te make tn e decision or the de te rnina tion that high pressure injection has teen initiated automatically by 23 r(,). low reactor coolant system prorsure? 24 A (WITNESS E30UGHTCN) I am aware of.seven. 25 h ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 L

u_ u. to . I 1. 1 4 i Ij 5246 ] }' 1 indications that he has. I ac not cure that I kncv exactly j 2 whirh one he uses to distinguish high precsure injection !p 3 initiation f ror low cystem pressura free some other reason. v-4 for initiating high pressure injection. 5 0 Perhaps se can turn to something else. Let's 6 assume there is some instrunent in the control coom which 7 directly indicates either reactor coolant systen pressure or i i 8 directly indicates the cause of initiation of hich pressure 9 injection. 10 You feel fairly certein thers must be some kind of i 11 instrumen t like that, do you not ? 12 A (WITNESS EROUGHTON) Y?s. 1 13 C Is it not true that that instrument would also j-. 14 indicate low pressure in the reactor cooling system if tne 1 i ) 15 even t was not e LOCA but perhaps an overcooling event on the 16 secondary side? 4 1 37 A (XITNFSS PEOUGHTCS) Yes, that is true. 4 18 0 So that given your present instructions to the 39 operator -- by present instructions, I mean at the time of i TMI 1 restart -- the operator will trip the pumps without 20 21 trying to datermine whether.it is a LCCA or, for example, 22 any other kind of acrident like an overrocling event? i A Ci1TiESS 2PCUGHTCF ) That is correct. He would 23 () 24 trip the putps and then try to diagnose the. event. He would 25 not try to take the diacnosis h+ fore trippingL the pumps. i ~J s- . ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, - 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 L

E-Ii-5237 .b 1 Q Then in your testimony, on Face 13, do-I v l 2 understand it correctly that eventually when you install the 3 prcposed reactor coolant pump trip system, that system will p(./ i 4 have the ability-or hopef ully will have the ability to i 5 distinguish between LOCA's versus overcooling-transients, 6 and it would not trip the pump, would not trip the reactor 7 coolant pumps for secondary accidents? 8 A (iIT5ESS BROUGHTCJ) There are still some gsecondary overccoling events which would-cause both a lov 10 reactor coolsn t system pressure and a low subcoolino 11 margin. In those cases, the reactor coolant pumps would be 12 tripped automatically by th9 automatic syster. 13 G Let me ask it a diffe' rent way. (- 14 After the installation of the autonatic pump trip 15 circuit, are there some accident scenarios for.which.the 16 automatic circuit would not trip th e reactor coolant pumps,. 17 but that before this is installed the reactor operator would 18 trip the reactor coolant putps?' 19 A (4TTNESS 3 ROUGHTON) Yes. 20 0 Assur.a that we have an accident,'a sr.all break 21 LOCA, if.you. vill, which is causing the reactor coolant 22 system pressure to decreasa. The operator observes this 23 pressure decrease, and-determines that it Will eventually ~1 24 g e t low enough to tutomatically start the~high pressure 25 injection system. But he decides te help cut and raanually n v-ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 .~_, _ - _, ~. -...

5248 (.,) 1 initiater hi,h c r esr u re ir.j e ct ie.n. %J 2 Under those circunstances, where the high pressure r^s 3 injection vis manually initiated, what are your inctructions e i LJ 4 to the crcrstor with roepect to nanually tripping th e 5 reactor coolent p d ?. p s ? 6 A ( 7 T r:. E 5 5 cc0UGHTUS) I would nave to 1cok at the 7 specific proceiure to indicate what thoce requireren ts are. 8 My recollection is, he would still be tripping coolant 9 pumps, but I am net sure if he would trip them because he 10 star ted hic 7 presrure injectioner on some other ci;nal, and 11 I would have to look at precedures to te cure. 12 2 Do you have those procedures here with you now? 13 A ("ITNESS EFOUGFTCN) I do not. \\ -) 14 C 'J n i c h procedures a re they? 15 A (4ITTESS BROUGHTON) I believe it would he the 16 sm al l br e a'<, which does not cause an autor.atic 17 depreccuriration. 18 C let ne back up scain. ! thoucht before ve cot to 19 this question, your testimony vss unequivocal, that your I 20 instructions to the operator vore to enly trip the reactor 21 cool an t pumpc if we had autor.atic initiation of high 22 pr essure infection only on low reactor coolant systaa 23 prec sure. (m) 24 Are ycu nov caying that you are not cure that

t. hat 1s correct?

25 O RJ s t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W.. W ASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

l r ~ 5249 I I (.,,.. D,. .Ol... .) .t w o u lc. a i r e 'r c t u. e t ha w:. - r u.m. v 3 l 1 e. 2 would tri; for snother scenarie that deerr 't include those 3 indications that mentione p r e v i o u c l ~r. O 4

2 TOLLA:0:

Coulc ve have the an wsr r:3d back, 5 plE3 0e? It waC tCo CCNt. 6 ('4hereu; n, tna Fepertar rea bacr. tho previous d 7 answ er. ) 8 S. %~ISe: We think it inportant at this peint in gthe pr:ceeding : Pat we know exactly what the ;rocedure calls 10 for. We don't hav? a copy of it. I wonder if you all have 11 a copy that is relativel'1 accessible. 12 PC. F A X T "" : 'i e do. I juct wonder if it is worth 13 br e a kin r: -- O 14 0-

• ar1 :8 "e

c a r. do t the next t re te. 15 gent lemen a re on the ctand or we can dr it t o ?.c r r o w morning. 16 ME. " AXTit : 'i e will a ttei.p t to re trieve it now 17 while you are continuinc. 18 (raure.) 39 C H A I E A :i E!:ITH : I thought you were ceing to 20 p rocee d. 21 MS. i' F I S E : It in taking us a minute to regroup. C H A ! ' '. 5 ? :'. IT H : .=11, in the meantire, "r. ?.ittle 22 has sone qua-etons. 23 O m 1::tr. ': = - ' r= c c a t=, -== r>:e 1, or voc= 24 25 test imon y, the lact c..tence reade, "The SEC rtaff hac O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

l 5250 O 1 e= cert-e tat: e===o'=* ee 4+r==1 ee 1= "es=c-ouo e,e 2 ref ers to :-21e," trd on readina that, it statRs, "'Je agree 3 in principle that the proposed nethod for purp trip in the 4 eVEn t of an ESTAS meets the intended long tern requirement 5 of ICI, Bullatin 79-05C," and it 7oer on to state that 6 "Further revie v is coing to be required of the proposed 7 designc prior to installati>:n," and so on. 8 'io w, what in the correct status cf s rc e r ta nce by 9 the ctaff of this s;proach? 10 'JI T N E 73 ??CUGHT0rs '4 hen wo develop a specific 11 design to impipasnt this trip, we would than cubnit that 12 design to the >EC for additional review. 13 D?. 1:TTLE: So the a pproach is accepted in O 14 principle, but there ic a long way from that.to acceptance 15 o f Yet Fd 's pror osed way of desline with it, the actual 16 implementa* ion. 17 '4I T N E SS nE00GHTON: The actual implemenation would 18 involve things likt how many concors were ucef. to dctect the 19 va rious con ditions that were rart of the trip, what would 20 the logic be within the darten to cause the coClant pump 21 breakers to O p e. n, and these are additional thinge which we j 22 have not yet ben able to define. j 1 hen there ar? defined, that would te pr=cented to 23 24 the staff for thair review of how wc actually inglenented I 25 the apptccch. O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 354 2345

_ _ _. _ _ _ _.. _ _ _. _ _. _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _. ~. _ _ _ i I I J 5251 0 1 .rt:t:- r ec's= the: 1=> to=,-te== i 2 require.ent. In you kncv right o f f h a n e'. Whcn tha cchedule 3 for that is? "he schedule tc have final decianc in? ' ncu when the final ) '!! T '; E E C U.0UOHIGN: I de not i 4 J 5 desicn ir cchel.ulad, no. 6 33-A~EISE: IF t32t it? + nith is lon ing something up. l 7 Dr. L:TTLF Tr. e i 8 He has a furtner question o r. it. 1 1 g ( Pauc e. ) I I i 4 i 10 CHAI?"AN 9xITH: It seems that 79-05C is a i 11 shor t -te r.t raquirement in the order. 'do w d o e r i t happen to 12 slip into long-ter: in the SE?? If as correct. Let ne 13 revie w it to s e r> if I ac correct. i O 14 It in tha short-tert action. Item !? u '. b r-r 2 i 15 prov ides f or 'FC review and approval, no I can ree the basis I t 16 upon which the ctsif micht conclude that it is lon:-tetn in l i i 17 their view. i 18 f5. CUTC*i1N: Are yo u referring nev to tha crder I i i 39 itrelf? l 20 CH AIE' AN TVITH: ! as referring to the order and 21 notice of h e a rir.g. Short-Ter Ite hunber 2 states that 22 "Licenc'er chill provii+ for DC reviv and spproval of all 23 applicable actions specifi+1 in IEE Sullstins 79-0E'., 24 79-053, and 79050." And 79-05c being the One which is 25 referr=d to then as a 1 c n g -t c r e. action, apparently, in he O l l t l ALCEASON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VtRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5252 1 SEE* 2 W n e r. ! t?gan the question, ! was not rensitive to 3 the use of the terms "revicw and approval" rather than k 4 "implemen ta tion," which I tnink could be an explanation. 5 'O. CUTC!!IE: ! don't hav4 a ready explanation at 6 my fingertips. 'ihen we get our turn en the s t >. n d, I as sure 7 we can try to clear that up. 8 CHAIR"AN SMITH: 'l e r y good. Thank ycu. g (Paunn.) 10 CH AI? ' AS S?.ITE: Ckay. I an surrounded by people 11 pointinc out th + error of my says here. 79-05C in itself is 12 divided into short-t o r-and Icag-tern actions, too, and is 13 ref erred to else.here, too, ro disregard it. 14 5?. J0 F C A '; : In looking at the staff's table on 15 your lenc-ter '. t e.T Number 1, the 20 trip, they say the 16 licensee has complied. 17 ME. CUTCPIN: You aro locking at which table, now, 18 in the restart, SEF, N U F EG -; 6 e C ? D?. JC ?.D A N : Yes, en Page F-7 gg 20 (pac 3*') c.,. - -.,^, w L - a u.. : We are not seer.inc an answer "u 21 22 no w. Irocea vita the ovatinaticn. DR. LIT!1Et We will prehably get t0 this in 23 24 quertioning poople later on, but id you look at Page 2-3 in NUREG-0530, thout two-third.cof the wrf down the page, at the 25 (~' ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRdlN!A AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5253 () 1 para araph just hofere conclusicns, it asys in the rolunn, 2 Comply Fefarence. "Cerply" ne=ns that the licensae is in 3 full cc:pliance with that cert of tha crder, and t5st is the ) 4 designa tion that is given for the autcratic PCF trip. 5 MP. CUTCHIN: I can :nly say, Dr. Little, that I 6 did not chcore 'hese categorizations, and if the Feard is 7 interested in Peering an explanation, wo will get the right 8 body on the stand to explain it. 2ut I personally cannot 9 explain that. 10 DE. LITTLE: Y?s, because right no w, the further 11 w e g o, the more confuted we cet as to the current statuc ot 12 it. %e have got about threa documents that say different 13 things up h?re. 14

v. R. CUTC"IN:

I a. not at all surpriced, and we 15 will assume a duty to try to clarify that for you. 16 'J e are chootin; at canctantly noving tar;ets, 17 un f o rtuna tel y, and the dates seem to keer changing. I jg suspect whan this '*U ? EG -07 ?7 that we referred to ac 19 superseding the September 5th C.i s e n h u t letter comer abcut, 20 that has, as I inficat?1 the other d2y, been subritted to 21 the printer, some tore of these dates will change. 22 Hopafully, we will have the lact word when we get that. 23 () EI I* YEIES8 (2 C271h?) 24 25 0 With respset to your testimony c.- Tage 14, en O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

f 5254 ({} 1 Reconnendatien 2.3.2.P of ';'J F E G- 0 5 6 5, firrt -- *i e l l, the 2 recommendation ~tstec that "The P C.' cnall Presk LOCA 3 analycec rely on eg'lipment whicn hac not prsvirusly bean 4 characterizad as part of tne reactor protecticn ryctem or 5 part of the engine red cafety f2aturas, the equipratt used 6 to rrovide the necessary ICF trip, pressurizer FCEV and PORV 7 block valve end a;cipment used to actuite the F03V and POEY 8 block valve fall into thin cateocry." g

c I understand your testinony, you dicagree with 10 that.

Is that correct? Or are you tal.<ing about diffarent 11 analyses? 12 A (WIT"ESS JCSEF) Well, I think the tactinony 13 statec ny position, that, yru know, as far as sore of the ( 14 specific itema nentioned th?re, e have not relied upon 15 them, and the only itsce that we have used are the enernency 16 feed wa ter systen a n -! the equip?en t used to provide the 17 reactor ecolant pu:p trip are the only itens we have 18 utilized in tho analyses. 19 C-Eut 3recifically, you state that you have not 20 relied on the power operated relief valve and the FC37 block 21 va lves. Ic that correct? l A ( V I T i' r.3 3 JONZe) That is correct. 22 C ' mat ebout the concern with lini tinc ch allenges to 23 () 24 the safety valve that r. Froughton tal%ed about parlier? ) (WITVT55 JCFES) i'e h a ve not relied upon these 25 . () ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5255 s ( ) 1 within the ICC3 analyres. lhile the F EV sy serve the s-2 function to linit challenger to the safety v e. 2 v e r, as far as r~~s. 3 demonstra tin g that the ccre can te kept cool, we do not rely O 4 on the FCEV or the F0EV block valve. 5 0 I am tenpted to talk nona cre arout the operator 6 procedurer, but I think that ir all en the reccrd. I won't 7 belabor it at this point. 8 A ( 'iI T F TS E JO"IS) Well, again, the reconmendation 9 is s pecific te the 10CA analyses, and that ir how it has 10 been addrecsed. 11 0 0S17-12 DF. J u h D A.': : Excure ne. < hen you ray th9 13 equipment used to Irovide reactor coolant pump trip, are you /,\\ 14 ref e rring now to automatic pump trip cr what equipment? ~ 15 'a'!T NEES J O N E3 : Easically, I wa s referring to the 16 precent equiptent in the plant, the breakers, et cetera, 17 whatever aquipment is necessary to trip the puces. You have 18 to press a button which does scrething, an they say, 19 some thing else, and which d0er something else, and it may be 20 trips the pump. I don't know the actual nechanicc. DC. J0EDAS: I see. Ckay. I didn't know what you 21 22 mean t by equipment, whether it was eeauipment that the 23 ope ra tor relied en or whether it war equip.ett required to (s) 24 actually trip the puap _tcelf. Okay. I understand. t s-i at: j ..,. S S : (resuning) u? ',,. c. 25 ,-w, 4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASH;NGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5256 r 1 0 Your *.estinony on Fape 15 covorc Feconmendation (,) 1 2 2. 6. ^. A ci :i C erg-0 5 5 5. And that recoerendation ic, "The 3 various neler of two-phase natural circulation which a re J("' 4 expected to play a significent role in plant -ecronse 5 following a small break 1CC theuld be d emon st ra ted 6 experir c ntally. In addition, the etaff requirer that the 7 licensee provido verification of their analysis r-odels to 8 predict two phase natural circulation by comparison of the 9 analytical nodel recult te apprcpriate integral systa.ms 10 test r. 11 Ine recorrendation calls for exp2rinental 12 demonstration of multiple and two phase natural circulation, 13 but your testimony does not n e r.t io n an - experiments. Do you '\\ 14 pl a n to do any? 15 A (ZITN~S5 JO:*ES) ~4 e l l, the testinony says that 16 further worr. ray be done in this area. At the present time, 17 we h ave not leve10;ed any formal plans to examine the 18 various roles of two phased natural c;rculation and the 19 abiliti' of the codec tc predict then, at least not 20 formally. Such work may occur, however. 21 C

• r.

?reuchton, de you intend to do any tests on Three Sile Islar.d Unit i to demonstrat? that two phased 22 23 na tu ral circulation will work? l em t 2 - g g. e: -.<. ) (..,i. 4..e. c .o y .s n o w., e d g e, we w i.,L 1 not i v p,3

~

m e be doin any such t=sts. 25 AV ALDERSON REPOATING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5257 () r0fer you to ' ace 19 cf your tectinony, 1 0 Lot 'UFFn-Of6f, which states 2 Page 18, S e co n :. ; n d a t i o n 2.A.2.2 of 1 3 that "Aeprocri?.t? .oanc, including additions. 4 instrunentation, if necesrary, cheuld te previde in the 5 control roc? to fucilitate checkin: whether natural 6 circulat ion h ar tenn e s t a b l i c h a '.. " 7 It it true tha t your testincr.) asserte that 8 verifica tior. of naturel circulation is derived fro-9 instrumentation rhowinc, one, cons ta n t dif f e rer.t ial between 10 cyct en hot and coli le; temperaturec, and two, the cold leg 11 terperaturse approichin? s"condary cysten sa turation ? 12 A (%ITrrSS :EOUCHTCN) Yes, that would allow you to 13 deternine that rubcooled natural circulation was taking O 14 plac e. 15 0

a. n i it ir your teJtimony that if thore conditions l

16 a re present, natural circulstion has tcen actatliched? 17 A (WIT"rSS F E CUC-HTON ) That ic correct. 18 C 03 E 3 'l 9 1 "' ~~ 19 DF. JCFD75: This is one, by the way, that I have 20 particularly marked for the staff's consideratier.. 21 ?Y "E. WEISS: (Resuming) 22 C E109 19' E9COI *ndation 2.6.2.C, cells for licensees to provida ar.alysis which sh vs th e clant response 23 () 24 to a c:all break which ic iriclate d and FCPV fails te open 25 upon repressurination of the reactor ccolant system at the 1 O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024(202) 554 2345

525E (,) 1 P C ? 'i set point. V 2 In it you t e c t im o n y hare that under there 3 circu: ctancec, sdequate cor' cooling would be achieved b(m 4 through l'lePi 3N9 iced? Is th2t What this sayr? 5 A ( a'I!: "FI. C:iEI ) ~ believe it wenic te previded by 6 either hieed and feed or via the artiblirPtent of -- cr with 7 use of the cteam generator, and to rem >- energy :. r the ECCS 8 to provide the fluid to keep the core covered, irregardless 9of the ccenario that you vould ce dealing with, I believe. 10 It Oculd te handled in either way. 11 0 Aren't you deccribing on Page 19 and 20 -- you say 12 " Ade qua te cor e cooline would be continuously maintained for 13 thic transiant by the fluid provided by EFT." Are you /~N k-describine bleed and f:md there? 14 (...,,e, U s i' c t ) ,. a.- r e a.,., y not trying to ,,..., - ~ A l o t - 15 ^ 16 describe tier. and feed at all. And in fact, I am 17 describing this acre like a transient in which the steen 18 generator is centinuously available, except what I have 19 accu red in that you have a very cnill break 1CCA. Ycu get 20 to in in terruption in ci rcula tien. Ther you isolate the 21 break. Now you h a. v e lect noth the break as a heat cync and 22 the stear generater as a heat cync becsure tha natural 23 circula tion ;sth has been interrupted. r~b The cyster repraccurizes as a recult of the ij 24 ss 25 contin ued enerey addition. The FCRY cpenc. That will O, /',s ( ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTO*J D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5259 (-) 1 result in liquif inventory less and tha probatic ss 2 re-3stablich c nt of toiler conlansar in the steam cenerator, ("g 3 and that is your '. cat rencvsl mechanicn frc9 the fluid in V 4 the prie,ary sycten, but the act;al heat renovel from the 5 core is provided by maittaining sufficient inventory via the 6 HFI purps. 7 C Eut if the P0FV ic stuck Open and the block valve 8 also remains open, icn't it the case that you are losing gfluid throu;h that breah? ( I T N "E S JONES) 05, cartainly. It is just that 10 A a 11 when I have been talking feed and blaed in the past, talking 12 abou t it without the steam generator cooling haing 13 a vailable, that is why I did not characterize it that way. O' A-But yes, you wculd have fluid bainq lect continucusly 34 15 th ro ugh the F02V. 16 0 F.acor ren d a tion 2.i. 2.0 of Of55, ycur testimony 17 appears en ? ages 21 and 22. That calls for the licensees to an analysis which rhows the riant respOnce to a 18 provide 19 small break in the trescuricer cpray line with the failure 20 o f t h e spray icolation valve to clore. 21 Have you don? that analysis? A (WITSTES JL5EE)

c, I have net.

22 23 Q So your t etincny on Faces 21 and 22 is with p) 24 ref e rence to recults of F U4 pre-sceident 10CJ analysis. Is q_ that correct? 25 [) v ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

c 2 A. 0 rs() 1 A (VITNF35 JCSES) The testinony ir a coneral 2 description of the clant b.havior and what would be expected 3 3 to occur during.quch a trarcient. 4 0 D yce intend to provide the analysis called for 5 by the recontendation? 6 I (JIT"rSE JONES) At this tims, acain, we have no 7 formal plans to perform this analysis. 8 G In it your tertimony that ne hign pressure ginjectica water will escap? through the treak in the 10 pressurizer spray line without firct entering the vessel? (..I.i.Sa-

C y,t., --)

.f e s. 11 A a r 12 0 Do you have Drawing 302-650 of the restart 13 report ? Thst appears in Volune 2, Section 9. I an going to d 14 ge t you wita these drawings when you are r= a l-ti red and can 15 barely read them. 16 CHAIEyAN SMITH: iculd you give us that citation 17 a g ai n, please? 18 '! S. WEISS: That is drawing 302-650, Volume 2, 19 Section 9 Of the restart report. (Fausc.) 20 BY "?. P ~s i L A R ' t '( F eru nin g ) e 21 22 C Ey the way, this figure is also noted as Eevision 18* 23 C) Lct e understand your testinony. Ycu are talking 5, 24 i first stout the analys?c frr T'f! Unit 1 which show that less 25 f ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l

5261 I )i 1 than 70 percent cf the high preccure injection war 2 calculat ed to ar.tcr tha corc due to the direct bypass of the rx 3 injected fluid at the treak, which war accused to be located I a \\_/ 4 in the totton Of the cold leg pump discharge piping between 5 th* FFI nor:le and the reactor vessel. 6 Just icr illectration purpcses, would that break, 7 for exenple, be located -- If you look on Zone F-3, we have 8 reac tor ccolant pump 13, and we show a pipe running from 9 reactor coolant put; l-A, entering the reactor vesrel at 10 Zone D-u, 11 So, ir that correct, that you are assuming a break 12 som e where alon: that line? 13 E ( I I I* E S S JGFES) So, I was crecifically assuming f% \\J 34 the break to be located -- This is not a very good drawing 15 to point it out, but -- 16 C 'etrorolitan Fdison provided it. A (WITNE55 JONES) Thir is a rchematic. And it 17 18 would ic between the notation two and a half inch connecting 19 u p to e maksue rump in Zone F-3, F-c, right at that 20 boundary. It was acruced tc te located in the path from 21 that point to th e vercel. 22 0 And Icoking at thic figura, : can visualine how 23 va te r entering from the akeup runps in that two and a half ,-(\\) inch r. occ ie an on its say flowing to the vessel might to 24 s-25 out the treak. 'A h a t I do .c t underctana is your next > }< f (/ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRG.NIA AVE. S W., W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

l 5262 /m (Ji

sentence, which says, "For a array line break, no high

~ 2 pressuro injection # 1 u i.d would typass out the break." /~N 3 ':o w, ac I understand fror this diagram, the stray lO 4 lina is shown travaling from the disch?rga cf reactor 5 coolant pum; l-1 in Tone F 3, it goes up, st raigh t up the 6 disaran throuch Zones F-3, ?-3, and C-3, ari then enters the 7 top of the pressuricer. 8 Ir thtt the spray linc? 9 A (VITNE55 JONES) Y ec, it is. 10 0 Can you please explain, using this diagrar, how a 11 break on that spray line, that water antering from the high 12 pressure injection pumps would first go throuch the reactor 13 vessel without going out tna break? \\l A ( X IT ': E S S JCNEE) .: ell, first off, ycu have to 14 15 understand the process that cccurs during the rnall break 16 LCCA during the transient. Number One, you have a relief 17 pa tn fron the veccel to the trea k, frcr stean Leinc 18 gen era ted in tha vascel via the vent valves, so that what 39 actually occurs during the analysis is, the vent valves V the stear. te rass above the water surface while the 20 all: 21 water runc into the vessel. That stear telecity is very Icw and it is 22 23 1nsufficient to entrain any watcr, and that ic the basic r,( ) .o4 re a c o n f o r t he staterent that n e r. e of the PPI wa ter would be s-25 expected to 70 d.irectly out the b r e a '<- without reeir.c the n I t / v ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5263 (xs) 1 res tor vecsel. 2

• nd prior to that -- let

.e .iust -- I forcot to (3 3 nention one other paint. Ericr to that point in tine, where 4%s/ 4 the valve -- the vont v a lv c-s are open and passinc steam, you 5 would have circulation thrcach the loops, you wculd have a 6 nixino cap such that the HF! flow wouli teni te be 7 pref erentially swept into the veccel. 8 0 'm I to understand tha t what you a re sayin; is 9 that the reactor coolant pungs are either running or they 10 are still coacting d own ? 11 A ( tilTN ESS JOTES) So, no. Initially, when the 12 syst en retains in a subc oo le d rta te, you would still have a 13 circulation path arcund the systen, and this is even after rm f i \\/ 14 th e reactor coolant punps are running. I ::c an, have tripped 15 an d coarted down. 16 Now, I sn not sure the exact tining for e two and 17 a half inch break, whether or not it wculd cccur. What I an 18 sa yinc is, as 1cnc as the systen is subcooled and you have 19 na tu ral circulat io n flo w, you wculi have a circulation into 20 the vesrel throuch that path. 21 With the f orra tion cf s t a r.n in the vessel and the 22 openinc of the vent valves, then what you would get '.s a 23 counterru rren t flow of stear. back towari th? break, with the n(,) 24 water preferentially draining into th e vessel. 25 C ~.J h e n fou did this in conputer analysis, did ycu ALDERSoN REPORTING Co*APANY. INC. l 400 V!RGINIA AVE., S W., W ASHINGToN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 L

5264 cm f T 1 nodal thic pipin; tyctc.*. frr Three '<ile Irland Unit 1, or G 2 did ycu do a ;aneric analysis? /~ 3 A (WITNESS JCT.E) Well, as I r ated, this is not a ()N 4 computer analysis that is in t ". e tertirony. It ic based on 5 the analyres which have been porforaed for the plant. It is 6a description :f the expected plant behavior and what would ybe expected to Occur. It is not a specific cc:puter 8 analysic. 9 C If you haven't done a computer analysis, what is 10 your basis Sor expectinc that in the event cf a break in the 11 spra y line, none of the high pressure injection water would 12 go o u t the break without first ceing through the vessel? 13 A (WITNESS JONEF) It is based on juct the ohneral ( w/ \\ \\- 14 comments I have juct made, which are the results of analyses 15 o f Other enill braak 1CCA'c. That is the rpeciric 16 phenonenon that occurc in that region of the cyctes during a 17 typical small break in the cold leg. 18 C Let me just ask you one final question. If I di rec t your a ttentien to Zcne F-3 and u, or perhaps it is 19 2nonly F-3, can you tell m,e th e distance between whnre the v 21 s p ra y line coter off reacter coolant pump 1-A diccharge and 22 where the nakese pump injection line enters the diccharce 23 piping cf react 0c coolant pung 1-A, the phycical distance A i i between thore two pointc? ss 24 ( WIT';ESS JC!!ES ) I don't re: ember it. I just .i 25 (h \\v) ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

I 5265 O i co= t xc x-i 2 0 Thent you. 3 SY IB. WIISS: (?+ruainc) O I i 4 Pace T5 Of your testirony deals wi t h ) l 5 Recrn.Tendatien ?.C.2.7 of HJ P E G- 0 5 6 5. It calls fcr licensee j 6 to provide an 8nlyric cf the p0csibility of inpact director 7 coolant pump anal damage and leakag? due to lcsc of seal 8 cooling cn loca of off-rite power. If danage can t be i gprecluded, licenseac are called upon to provide an analysis 10 of t he limiting naall traak !.C C P with cubcacuent reactor 11 coolan t pump real : allure. 12 Hsve you rcviewed pact occurrences of rump seal i 13 failure? 4 14 A ( a.. I :,. o e : aw;niv. ) i have not personally done --....-ns t I 15 that, but I bolieve that is co athina that was done in l l I 16 preparing the snalysis, thdt responce to this. l l 17 0 50 tbo analycis that you dircuss in ycur testimony 1 18 wa s no t pcroonally perferned by you? A ( M I T N'r S S 9BOUGHTON) No, -hat is correct. gg I 20 0 Did you supervise its perforranco? 1 ( ~+. v.. e.)

r\\ ruy g L:r. ma.,' )

S er, 7 a 4 a. not. g3 r . ~ .. v -r I I have reviewed tha results ci it. 22 23 0 You rinply reviewod the r+ cults of it? O ^ (::::"s:s + >.c : antes )

xeve==viewee se = esc 1t=

24 25 of the analysir, yes. ! O 1 l { ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, f ________2345_ _ _, _. _. _ _ _ 400 VIRGINIA AVE 3.W WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554

5266 O i e = <ex=='="'=~=i='=vc1

he r==

c=c=

ce

2 of pump s m. t inilure, vnat the causc w e. c of the '* c. a g e to 3 the real? 4 A ("1T"'55 " F "U G HITI ) F0r t h i r' rarticular avent, 5where we aro 1:r.in i at the 1ccc of cooline, it is expected s 6 that tha nerhanica.i c ul d be da.ageu tc i rubber real in the 7 pur;. 8 Q P-question referred to hictorical inctances of gpump seal f=ilure and the caustc of danage to the real in 10 past inctances. 33 A ( :i!"": SS 'F CUcrO. ) I an not aware of all causes 12 of seal failur-in the past. 13 0 Aro you awarc of hou long seal water had been lost O 14 before damage to the p u t. p s cccurred? 15 A (WIT,ESS hECCOUTU:.) If you are speaking about 16 pa rt icula r e ven ts Other thun irss of cooling water, I an not 17 aware of those eventc. 18 0 Where door the real wa ter core fron? g,a. 3. c g e ca gn-..nc) he se u water ir i n ; e c te,, car v. 19 is 20 frcn the hi;h pressure injectica s y s t + *.. 21 C And thos? are the same pumps an used fCr energency 22 COE* COCli37 C7Ct=37 (WIT"ESS D: C f'CETC: ) fes, they are. 23 24 0 If encinanred s foguards ara actuate, ir the ceal 25 water autona tically c.h u t 0 #t' O ALCERSON REPORTING COVPANY. INC. i 400 VIRGINI A AVE. S.W., WASH!NGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 t 1 1

5267 (9 1 A (7IT"FES ??CUSETCS) I don't recall. a 2 C If you tecute thst lens of seal water cccurs on rm 3 actuation of e r.u in e e r e d safeguards, with that less of U 4 of f-tita power, so that the reactor ccolant punes continue 5 to run, would n 't is age to the reactor coolant put; seals be 6 escen tially inctantanecur? 7 A ( W I T'E E S F E OUGHTM ) The analysir icne shows that 8 it would probably te several minutes before the real began 9to heat up and that it would take several minutes beyond 10 that beforo tha seal was danaced enough to increarc the 11 leakage. 12 C What analysis are you talkin; about? Aro you 13 talking about the analysis contained in !! r. Feed's letter, f3 14 which.ycu discucs in your tastimony? (..II);yc - _ d,.,.. .. ) s*G A 2"- 15 ^ r 'e n C i 16 C

c. y several ninutar, do you mean less than five 17 minu tes, less than ten cinutos?

(...... e.*1**' 3 .. p',..,,.. - ~.,' ) .r s;e, i e ve ts.e a na y s.43 showed 4 5-"un.v A 18 ^ that within fcur to five minutes, the temperaturos in the 19 20 ca vity around the seal would Lecin to increase, and it is 21 n o t un til ta 9 tnpsreture b+ gins the increase that then 22 there ic any pcssibility of danage. Se at last that four to five minute seriod before any daraq7 cculd te inflicted. 23 D. 20??AN: While ycu are waitin:, : would like a ~J 24 little clarification there. Are you sayinc that you have 25 m I 1 V ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W.. WASHINGTON, O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5268 O i aot c "s14e=ea ' = s11 tree

• tec; <tica t= 1,1 t t e t
• d7 the 2 loss of a se a l f r o :r. the reactor ecolant cu

? !s this 3 outside of the d= sign rasis? O 4 ( k'I""; # S S JC HF ) J'11, specific =.nalyric of a 8 a run; seal fnilure ha s not been directly co.9sidered. 5 se al, 6 Generally s p e s 't i n g, thSy have fairly low leakage rates that 7 can te handled by -- that would keer the syste in rolid 8 condition Continuously upon activation of the HPI. 9 10 11 4 12 13 O 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 O u 25 O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

l l l l 5269 1 DE. JOEDA": So fcu have no reason to Felieve that s 2 such a leak would 1 sad to lors cf inventory or corething of T 3 that n r_ t u r e ? Faven't you nald assentially that the systers \\ ~J 4 that have t e c r. provided will handle ruch a leak? 5 k'ITNSES JC t: E5 : Yes, I believe it vould. I don't 6 believe the core would ever become uncovered. It would be 7 much less savere than any of the LOCA'= we have analyzed 8 specifica '1 v-Ar.d in fact, I do not believe that the syster 9 will over ever betone saturated. 10 DR. Ju h D 2. N : I see. !s this essentially what was 11 said in the letter? 12 W I~ 3 ESE JONES: I have not read tnat letter. 13 WITNESS PEOUGHTO5: Yes, the analyris goes on to /T \\- indicate that it is estimated that at the end of 60 minutes 14 15 the 1cakage out of the s?al nigh t be as much as 10 gallons 16 per ninu t e, out it is not axpected to te any creater than 17 that. 18 D3. JOE 3AN: Eut 2 Van if it vere greater than 19 that, Wouldn't it still be within the capabilities of the 20 syst en to handlo it? 21 WIT':ESS PR0"GMTCS: Yes. The 1C ;allon per minute 22 leakage would be well withir the capabilities cf the normal 23 :a k a up systan to handle. DR. J O R O <t N : I sea.

Pank you.

24 BY '< S. s' E I S E : ( esuring) 25 r\\ () ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 6,

( l l 5270 1 C Is it rocsible for a single failure tc interrupt 2 seal water fine te the reactor coclant pump? For example, p 3 f ailure of the real water control v.ti v e b 4 A (WIT'IFES " F.C U G HT OP )

do not know.

5 Q ! want to refar ycu to a dia:ran we locked at this 6 morninc, 202-561 in volune 7, chapter o of the restart 7 report. 8 A (7ITNE35 ? ROUGHTON) Would ycu repeat the number 9 of the ficure again? 10 Q It 1: 302-661. 11 I would like you to review thet diagra., please, 12 to yourself, and rae if you can, after looking at it, answer 13 tha question of wnother it is possible for a single failure 14 to interrupt the s' al water flow to the reactor coolant e 15 pu mc. 16 (sitntsc inspects the document.) 17 A ( WIT NESS E E CUGHTC'.: ) Frca this diagran, if '*UV-20 18 were shut it would prevent real water to the purps. 19 0 lat te refer now t o F econmend a tion 2.6.2.C of 20 NUPEG-0565, which eepears on pace 25 of your t e s t i.T.o n y. And 21 you have also included soce material from NUEEG-0623. These 22 require the licanraes to require t h r :. e test p r e iic ti o n t-of LOFT test with rearter coolent punps runnin; and 23 Od 24 verifica tica Of small treak Todels wi th pu.pc runnin; 25 acainst interval t.ystens e :< p e r im e n t a l tasts, in particular g d ALCERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5271 i O i th-t '7: te=t-4 2 EL= n=Y Of thi? Pee 9 d==9? 3 A ( M I T N F.5 9 P r. 0 U ? H 0 ': ) The LOFT tect L25 has not yet 4 teen run. 5 0 i' a s n ' t t h., LCFT t.:st originally scheduled for 6 Harch of 1920, the LCF? test referred to? j 7 A (WITM SS F FOUc.!!TC::) I ' t. not sure if it was L36, 8 scheduled for hrch 19E0. g 0 '!a l l, you say -- you quoted frca 0523, and the 10 last line indicatos that thtt tset var scheduled to be 11 perf orred in .h r c h of 1920. You have ne reston to 12 disbelieve that, do fou? 13 A (W!TNESS ERCUGHTOF) There are reveral LOFT tests 14 in the reriss, and I don't know which crecific test had i 15 oriainelly been scheduled for.'Mrch 1900. 16 C Well, in arly cace, thcy haven't taken pisce yet. 17 Do you hav? any idea when they have been ccheduled for? 1 18 7. ( %IT: i ES E F. CU GHT O'; ) I believe LOFT 3-6 is in j i 19 December. I bclieve ICTT 3-6 vill be in Decenter, but I l 4 I don't fcilaw th-schsdule of those tests closely enough to 20 21 know fOr Cur 6. 22 C D e c e.': e r 19c0? I ( *' I T !, 35 F ?. 0 L' E Q ) December 19EC. 23 O 24 o ".=e 'he= v111 r== c==vice roc = te=t :=eesctic=e? A (MITTFSS FFOUGHIO4) I d o r. ' t know what schedule 25 e i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5272 m[J \\ 1 there are on. Thoce are beine done for us by EE9, as I 2 indicat-d. (g 3 O Do you (now, "r. 'ener? \\ us/ 4 A (:IIT F FS 5 JGFEE) Yer. The ICFT tect is ccheduled. 5to he run som. ti:9 around the middle of Decert e r. Tho 6 blind prediction will be previded around, I expect, the end 7 of January. 8 50w, t0 underctand what that means, because it gdoesn't sound like a protect prediction, whnt it is is the 10 models are to to creat+d prior to the actual LOFT test. 11 That is, the computer sinulation model and tne tire zero 12 edit of the model is to be provided te the staff roughly a 13 week to two weaks ahetd cf the test. 7 14 ISP test will then be run. Engineers at EGCG in 15 Idaho will review the teste, will accure that the test 16 specifica tions civen to aach cf th e vendors were 17 a p p r o p r i a. t e, that no a b n o r.m s l occurrenres occurred during 18 the te st or, if such did, like a syrter failure cr 19 something, they would tell es atout it. Th9y wculd cive us 20 the actual initial conditions cf the experiment. We would 21 modif y the model, submit it to the staff as appre;riate, 22 basad on thic inferration, chewing where the devia tions a re, the why's and.herefere's, run it, and then provide then 23 (~\\ \\,) 24 with thA prs?iction. s co it ic basically 1 blind -- it is essentially a 25 AU ALDER $0N REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

5273 f) 1 protect pratiction except far cetting the actual w 2 experirental ccn'itions. ,r'3 3 0 So you would make no chan cs in th e model except U 4 to accontcdite any unexpected condi; ions durin; that test 5 i?Self? 6 A (1:TSFSS J 0:3 S ) Unexpected conditions or the 7 actual temperatures, et cetera, around the loc; that they 8 will get, that they vill have d urinc the ext.eri en'. 9 Because we ;et a vi e range that wc are arked to eet then d 10 all u p for. 11 Q We b?.ve s o.m c coniq; ion aboat Zr. Brcuchton's 12 answer that he was not cure that the LLFT tests previously 13 schrduled f or a r et, 19EC, and particularly referred to in v O \\- ja0623, in the language that fcu qucte en page 25, ic the same 15 L0rT test -- that is, test 1-36 -- which is centioned in 16 0565, and which is also c e n ti o n :- d in your tertinony. 17 And our question is. Didn't you, tn prepa ring the 18 answ er, h avs te determine whethsr tbece were all the sare 19 tects? And thic would be to r. Broughton, becauca he 20 pr ep ared the an:ver. Didn't you in fact -- didn't you have 21 to deter. tine whether they were talking atcut the same test in order to mak= tha question -- the ansver responrive to 22 the ques t ion ? 23 O) (, 24 A GiITPFSS ??CUCHTON) Yes, but the answer is 25 primarily directed toward LO FT 3-C. ,rmr ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 V!HGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

527t4 n T 1 0 'ne answer is directed entirely tcward LCFT L 3-6; (V 2 is tha t correct? 3 A ( :: I" " T S S 2?.CUGHTCS) Yan. v 4 Q And it 10 still y ';r testir.cty that you are net 5 sure whither the tectc referred to in tne uote esetion of 6 0623 in LC7? L 3-5? (.. I i n n

r. C,J fa,... u,,,. )

ao, ,.n no. 7 n a 8 C on pace 27, reco rend =.tien 2.6.2.5, on paga 27 of 9your t ac t ir. : n y, direct licencear to provide certain 10 information with regard to the effects of noncendensible 11 gases during a small treak 10CA. And you describe -- in the 12 last contence on ca:e 27, you say: "Whila further 13 examination of the effect cf noncondencibles on the n. 14 cond ensing heat transfer process within the stear, cenerator 15 m a y be perforced, provisionr are available at TMI-1 to 16 asru re adegaste core coolinq." 17 Is this ancther -- well, what provisions are you 18 talking about? Fro you referring to bleed and feed? A ( W IT:!E S E JCSE.9) Yes, acrutinc, ar they stated 19 20 above en that page, that the noncendencible gaces comehow 21 magically grew to a cine which would totally prchibit 22 cond encinq heat transfar. 23 0 And you have not crovided the in f o rr.a tion called (n) 24 for specifically in the recorcendation at items 1 end 2 of 25 recomenda tion 2.F.2.9? ,m ( l A._/ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE.. S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

i I 5275 (,,) 1 A ( X IT:: EE E.'CNES)

o, we have not.

We have not v 2 provided infer.ation to the ststf on those two, the SEC, on (T. 3 those two items. QY 4 "I. '/ E ! S 5 : T h a n '<, ycu, gentlemen. These are all 5 the quections we have for you at this t i ?. e. 6 VF. E AXT EF. :

. Erouahton, do you have an answer 7 to t he oreviourly rosed cuestion about precedures perhaps 8 requiring tripping the reacter coolan t pumps?

9 WITNEES EFCUG"TCN: Yes, I do. We were discussing 10 the conditions under which a n cperator would trip reactor 11 coolant punrs, and by some inconcirtent use of terninology 12 on r y part : Confused what the operators had been told to do 13 through their training snd their precedures. g Vi g I havo reviewed the three particular procedures 15 which apply to cnall treak I.CCA's that are large enough to 16 caure autonitic ca f ecuard cysten actuation at if GO pounds, 17 ones which are too cnall to enuce autor.atic actuation at 18 1600 pcunds, *nd a more general procedure which covers 19 oper ater Ections followin; i trip of th e reactor, in which 20 it would not be expceted to have prescure p: below 1600 21 poun ds, but which ir possible. And in those procedur=s the instructione to the 22 23 oper ators are that shen reactor coolant syst+r precsure m( ) 4 reaches the 1500 pound set point for high pressure i.njection 4g th a t he is to 7anuilly t ri p ' +.h n reacter coelant p u.m p. So, 25 (I p \\v/ J / p i ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20C24 (202) 554-2345

l l 5276 /m ( ) -1 barad on that instruction, if the preccure drops to 160,0 v 2 pounds a nd autonstically ;tarte hier pressure injection, he (N 3 would mnually' t rip reactor coolant pump or, if he har I >rs 4 already rectarted high pressure injection but the cystem ~ 5 pressure co.tinuer to drop an.1 poes below 1600 pounds, he 6 would alec.anually tric reactor ccolant purpc. 7 EY MF. WEIES: (EOSUniD7) procedures,yo'u 8 C Can you tell us the numbers of the 9are lock.in; at, and slco the ravision nuabar? 10 A (MITESS n.E CUCHTGN ) Yes. "'h e procedure which 11 dealt with actoratic initiation of high pressure infection 12 is 1202-6(b), :^vicion u. Tha procedure which deals with a 13 l e a k. in the reactor coolant synter which does not result in s r~N, 4 'v' 14 automatic high pressura injection initiation is 1202-6(a), 15 Revision 4 And the procedure which applies follcwing 16 reactor trip is 1202-4, Ravisicn 17. 17 0 Are there all erergenc} prccedurec? Are they all 18 pt efixed "EP"? t 19 A (AIII'EEF J M'I 2' ) IheY ICE all "N9E963CY 20 proced urec, wi t- "IF." 21

15. yEISSs h wo;1d like tc take a look-at those, 22 either now or overnicht.

' ' e-have'5(b), but I don't think we hav= eithar of the oth=r twe. 23 s (m) 24 r CHAIFO F:i T T H : hy don't you de it overnight, 25 a n d we ca:- proceM, thcn, u th the e x e t.in a ti e n. f)/ iv-ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554;2345

4 5277 1 r. Cutchin, do yc u have any quettions? J 2 "E. CU T C '4 I N : I h:1ve no questions, nir. c,7-~ c om r.- r ',2-9 -a t: 3 I r..A <- -a-n. 3 4 1E. i,EE?2 ALLEE: .' c questionc. 5 C9AIFYAN E M IT l; ; Jr. Jordan has only a very few 6 ques tionc. Je coul? possibly wind up tonight if you could 7 look at those p re ced ures and then Mr. Ercuchton could be 8 eXCCCed, a3 Can "r-JOEeS-g

5. WEISS:

! also forcot sc.r e t h i n g. I em very 10 s o r r y. 'J e aant to mov9 0565 into evidence. It ic T y 11 underrtandinc that nobody else intands to de cc, an? we 12 w o u l d. like to p't it on the record at thic peint. I think 13 it is probahiy a matter of sufficient notice, bot I would 14 like to get -it in at this point. s-15 ME* 3 2' X T E P : I don't think it is a matter of 16 suf ficien t notice. We don't have a sponsorinc wi tn oss. And 17 amon c other things, I would like to review the docunent with 18 the potential offer in Sind. I ar not preparad to offer 19 objection at this point as to its relevancy. CHAIE?AN T';'TP: fr. Cutchin? 20 "?. CUTCEIN: I'- nct even sure that the staff 21 22 wa nt s to put it in evidence. r. Ch a ir.m a n, ! helieve if there are problems che can ark it as an exhitit for 23 24 purposos of exa?,inati0n. ^" dca't e v e n '. a v e a cronscring s 25 witnecs hcre to support that incument as representative of s 2 I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 400 V!RGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 i

l 5278 ) O ' e"rt'1"" et th* = t-2 C H A II D' T/. I! H : Jell, I at convinced that one way 3 o r t h e o t h e r .s. %eic: can :: e t at least appropriate parts of 4 it into evidenr3. . nd ths ;uestion nay be hcw hard it is 5 going to he for her to cc that. 6 XE. '4 E IS S : '.. e l l, the Eoard did ack specific 7 ques tions or it, and all the testiacny that we went over 8 today was specifically referenced to the references in 9 0565. I cannot laagine a circumstance where it could te 10 successf ully argued that the document is irrelevant. 11 '4 e ' v e had

• r.

Jencen on, who statec that he was 12 on e of the authors of the document. If they want to get a 13 principal au thor here, tha t's fine. 14 CHAI?:AN Et.:TH: There's going to have to be an 15 accommoda tion to the Union of Concerned Scientists on it, 16 and it can be reasonally o pe r ate d. C565 30 perve des the 17 issue, pervades tne te stim on y and is relied upon, er 18 distinguichad, chall we sty, cc frequcntly; and then the 19 Board question I believe rpecifically referenced the document. 20 21 However, thore ir a croblem with just receiving it into evidance withcut in th ? first place limiting it to the 22 23 port ions upon which ycu want to rely, and, recond, giving O the ticc"cee 1= =>=ticu1==

=>v =tec1=7 t

4ee=e=s ta-24 i 25 reconmenda tionr, the merits of the reco.tentaticas, which O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., vVASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

1 i 5279 i 1 YOu have tr2 tty *uch dOnO ary ay. 2

15. '.'ZIES:

That was the testiTeny. i >i 3 - u.g T p o ;.; evT-c. -'h'+- woe *he

• b uct

^# 'ha 0 u 1 4 tectimenv. Mcwaver -- 4 5 ': F.. BAXTZo: r. 'hairyan, cur testi..cny does not 6 rely on the document at all. L'e have addrcreed it in 1 7 recponse to the Easrd question because we were asked to. 4 5 8 But there are crepters in ther? which dircucc taces for some 1 1 9 of the recom endations. hic. I cannot attect have or haven't i 10 been addrocsad, and the 1.t p li ca t i o n c of citing there in .1 1 11 propoced findincs in t,h e ab.-tract I'm juct not prepared to 1 i 12 address today. l 13 Cli AIP AN EMITP: / ben : say they have had an 14 opportunity to.ddress it, the'l hav? had an opportunity to 15 address it. Accepting the rescrt ar it is, which we nay not j 16 wish to de, if it's going te be offerad into evidence -- l 17 well, let's concidor tnat proble-overnicht, and maybe 18 tomorrow so? e thin g vill occur te us that will catisfy your i i j 19 need s. J i '.19. T.'I CF 7 N : dr. Chairnan, aybe I can help. I'm 20 ] 21 no t suro whethor it will h-lp or hinder. lut if v v. 'n' e i s s l 22 wishes to put th. iccument in for the curscce of avidencing j the truth cf the racet tend sticrc .a d e by the staff, I have 23 24 no problem. Fu if it is for scrething more, ! would have 1 25 to hear for wha

• purpcan she'c offerine it befcre I know O

s r 1 4 1 ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, j .i 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 i

5280 , ~1 1 wh ether I vauli hav+ an objsetion.

RJ 2

Clearly there are ctaff reccrrendaticns. Our rx 3 witnesset tomorrow w4 'idrers the s t a f f 's int =rpretation ) xs 4 of those recor:endations ana give its rosition as to the 5 acce ptability of the Licenrce's cc,rentc on those 6 recommen dations. But I am nct sure for what purpose she 7 wiches to move it into evidence. 8 ME. WEISE: I am not sure I understand the nature 9 of -- 10 CHAIEMAN 5XITH: Well, I think that is pretty 11 clea r. If you're coing to cffer it sclely as evidence that 12 th e steff has made such recennendatio,nc, you'll hevo nc 13 prob len. But if you're going to try to attach to the (^) s 14 recommendations 3 prasunptive qualit; that'those 15 reconnendations have nerit, which I think is the whole idea 16 o f your testicony, then you're going to have come problems. 17 MS, WEISS: W+11, you kncv, the reccamendations 18 have been intervoven throughout the testimony, throughout 39 the questionin th a t we've had et these twc witnecces, and 20 indeed with Mr. Jensen, and the document wac specifically 21 the subject for the 2 card questions. And we are interested 22 in, as our quertions indicated, not only what are the 23 recommendations, but ic ths purpeco behind then and what is (m x j the basis for *he:. v 24 25 .N o w, I can understand a problem with parties being /~) n, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGlNIA AVE., S.W.. WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

52S1 () 1 af raid that we 7.re ;oin~ te cite at cene later date portions 2 of the document which we havo nct pone over. It is not our ('s 3 intention to ic that. / v 4 C H l. I. ' A :i F::!TE: That is a separate r r c hl e.t. 5

95. WEI35:

Ycs, that is a separate prctlen. But 6 we de intend t: rely On it 2s a cuhstantive .e tte r, and I 7 think that -- 8 CE AIRM A:: S 3 I T': : nd you will prcbahly be filing gproposed findin;s that, to the extent that the Licensee 10 fails to cotply with those re co n ?.en d a tio nc, senehow it is 11 not doing What it shoula do. !.n d this is 3Xactly what Mr. 12 Baxter's point is, ci n d he has a full cpportunity to, not 13 only to, as Licensee has done, address the reconnendations rx\\-) r 14 in this manner, but even addrest it that it is gcing to be 15 of f o red f or that purcese, the ba sis f or the recommendation 16 in the first instance. 17 ME. IZISS: Kell, he can. Ihey've got a heck of a 18 better opportunity te address it than we de, throuch the 19 direct witnsssEc. And I thought that was the purpose of 20 this testinony. We di not questice en any secticas of this 21 that were not directly within the scope of the direct 22 testinony today. 50 I don't know whether he is anticipating 23 O(-) 24 rebu ttal or what the problen is. I don't think we " ave 25 expa nded the sccpe at all with the referenc?s that we've r% / i iv/ ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY, !NC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

5282 1 nad? to C565 thus far. 2 CHAI?"O ST!!E:

• ell, you have the essontial 3 problem.

Jell,

..r. Faxter, you offer your objections to g 4 it. I don't want to -- n;ybe I'* statinc ctjections you 5 don't really hava. 6 '! E. ;AXIEF: " ell, we have teen arked quections, 7 to address recermondaticns .ad e in th e document. 'Ie h a v e 8 t a't e n th o se we though t applied to licensee and we have given 9a ctatur repot:, if you will, on the way they stand. 10 T r. e dccument is a trcad one. It's got a lengthy 11 ch ac te r, I think chapter u, of 60-scne pages which discuss a 12 lot of experience at hither loor plante of PEU, at sone CE 13 pla n ts. I just don't think, unless we have some further 14 elucida tion of shat the purpose of the offer is, that I 15 could agree to put that in. 16 If I wera going to cay that I was going to have to 17 cone back and rchut, I ' m. not sure what I'd have to rebut at 18 this poin t. 19 i' 3 * 'lrIE S : 'i c ll, I enderetend hir to have stated 20 the objection that se duct discussed, that he is afraid that 21 ve a r e going to cite parts lurking in here that we haven't .nd we de nct i t. t e n d to so do. 22 asked c u e s ti o n.' a 'o 0 u t. M0 EAXTE?: " ell, the recer:=ndaticns are quoted 23 1 24 in the isstincny. i I CHAI?"AN EMITH: "sc there been a peint of 25 x ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

C9Q' suvJ () 1 discusrion of the Twin rescon that the document will be 2 cited by the Union ci Concerned Scienticts, and that is that 3 there is i cr?sumption that the staff reccarendations are g J / 4 necassary within the scope cf this prccoading, cnd any 5 failure to cearly with ther hac to le et by a preponderance 6 of the evidenca by the licenspa? hat would te the effect 7 of i t, and the way she's tryinc to offer it, she's trying to 8 of f er it, as I understand it, that whatever the staff is grecommendin; in the document is entitled te a presumption 10 that those s ctions a re necescary for the restart of the 11 unit, which would Chan;? tho burden to the Licenser to 12 esta blish either that th ey have a;ree and cc: plied or they 13 have dicagreed.

• E.

EAXTEEs And I don't think wo have had any 14 15 witnest that testified that thoce recctnendations have that 16 ctat us. 17 C H A I ?. E A.'l EMITH: That is exactly ri;ht. 18

29. E !.X T E F :

In fact, sone of ther may have been 19 abandoned by tna staff. r t ^* * ; < ^= 'r evT9U. 75 3+ e S E: 7ht* 20 - ' - ~ * -, e n > =.3-3 "y queStlOn -- - was t>oe Cne 1 Ta gj v ?.. .n 22 responsible for ;=ttin: this in hore. And the presumptien 23 was indee d that this was a ctaff documant. '.nd my questien () therefere not only 4=nt to the licencee, but to thf staff. 24 s-And I will be ictin-the staff particularly now, havinc 1 25 O s-ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345

4 5284 (m l 1 hoard the Licencee's te s ti:c n y, having hea rd tha t in some s_/ 2 caser the Lict-nsee d ces not plan to meet the requirenents, 3 dons the staff really believe the requiremets are necessary $s 4 requirenents, c they rian to enforce then, and if so when? i 6 5 And so I believe, therefo-e, since I started it, 6 th a t was th? reason for it. 7 CHAIR.MAJ EhITH: 1.fter that the problen will o 8 away ar far as the exhibit is concerned. 9 Y.O.. CUTCHIN: We understand that to Fo Dr. 10 Jorlan's concern, and it is our intent tomorrcw to have 11 som eone on the stand.ho can adtress particularly each of 12 the N U'd EG-0 5 6 5 r.2rontendations related sotehow tc either a 13 NURIG-C660 or a recommendation, and then an Of60 m ^' 14 implementation requirenent or,UEEG-0737, which as I said 15 before is the official version Of the F.isenhut September 16 15th letter. 17 If and only if there is some ingletentation 18 requirement laii on the Licensen by one of these rechanisms, 19 you will see, deer the staff Consider it corething that is 20 r e q u i r e.1, and then it may te pre-restart, it may be 21 post -rest art, that the implementation is required. And we 22 vill te prepared to address that item 17 iten tercrrow. CH AIE AS C F. I T F :

ell, the problen still remains 23

() 24 abou t Yrs. Teirr' request that it te ?. a r k e d fcr identification. I think th".t you can do w h a t e. v a r you wish, 25 D) ,v ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

i i 5285 4 4 1 ma rk it and offer it and we can rule. 3ut wculdn'+ it be 2 better for you to rc e tac % to thic document after the staff J i i 3 has add ressed the issues in there, and then ar7ua that ) 4 you ' ve had your f ounda tion icr it? a, j 5 .T. Wr!5?: Ihat's fine. I ctill understand "r. 1 4 l 6 Cutchin to say that they'll raite tha esse orjaction. But 4 1 7 we 'll argue it in that context. There's no rearon to ;et 8 1nto it today irrte;d of tonorr0w. 3 9 I have a quection about what he just caid. What i l 10 piece of direct tertirony iu it that you were referrinc to } 11 that goes to each of these recca.Tandsticnr one by one? If I 12 m a y direct that quertion. 13 'G. C U T C H I '.i : I'll be handing cut a chart 4 () 14 tomorrow. I'd be happy to hant it cut to the pa rties 15 tonicht so they can study it in advance. But that is a 16 docunent that we n ave put together since we had the discussion last Friday, for the purcoca of putting on a live 17 18 witness who can walk the E o:2rd and the parties through that ) 39 docunent and kcy it te varicuc r e co r r.e n d a t io ns hetween 0565, i { 20 0660, C737, and whitcver ic appropriato. Eut it is a key, if icu v:11. I'd be happy to 21 22 pa ss it out tonigh* and we car facide toncrrow what we label i it SU* 1 23 i O?. JOE 21. DCn't YCu hP.V9 a key in SC50 of the 74 l, j 25 docu nnts you rubmitted lart w e +: k ? l } i i } i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 4 I 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 i

i

7A4 1

' ?.. C"! CHI..: We have, in rerpense tc :otrd 'elieve it ic 0694 2 O u e s t i c r. 2, a key between C56C and I r 3 documents. "ow, ws alco have another character, and that is 4 0737, which ic the Lisenhut letter transferred. It nete 5.?.o r e confusing at we go alcng. 6 CHA! AS SMIIH: Well, I think you had better 7 provide t.. e key tc the parties. n -CU~T- '-- h a d-

• • o u *- ' o r' i "* b -

2"d wa'll 8 ~'s 9 c'. e c i d e what we ic wath it tomorrow, or how we label it and 10 s o o n. 11 !?. 'a IS?: Ic that it for tbo surprice witnecses 12 or to you hive anything else u your sleeve? 13 CH A IF ': A N 5'.'ITP: Anything further? i' o w, we were 14 considerinc the possiiility of finiehing with there 15 witn esca c. .' a v e you had an opportunity to review the 16 opera ting rroceduras? 17 If i+ is not realistic to conclude with thece 18 wi tn esces, I:t's not try. It's after 6:0C, but Dr. Jordan 19 doesn't have much tc go. o one elce nas exa..ination. "nd 20 yo u h a vf-a vague, r.3rrow arai on ths-s e opera tin g precedures. '! 3. HIES: If you give us about five minutes to 21 l 22 lock this over. ..w,, ., c r .4 - w o. T..- up c u...:. T. e u s. :;.. T v. L '. e T..a. .w,.. f s s... o.. 3 u o us. a w y to you. Io you.snt to trf to +xruse tne watnesu s this 24 25 *V *U i'" ? O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 400 VIRGINtA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024(202) 554-2345

i 1 I 5287 4, j 1 'E. rii!?': .J e l l, f r i r. k l y, they'd lie.e to be, but O 2 they'll toth bc nere r0nor:0w. i j 3 C H A I P ' 7. ' 7"ITF: 2nyway? That.cu ld really be 4 helpful if they can. i 5 'o. E;XTEO: ~: we could, thcugh, I would like to l { 6 prcceed and firjsn with the =. t 9:0C o ' ci c c >. instead of our i l 7 previour arran;: cat, c a c a u.z e it looks like we're within i 8 close r a n er e, a r c! it keeps tnc reccrd tocether. i 9 CH AIT N SMITH: All right, tha t 's good. 4 J to Is there a r. y t h i n g further, then? Ill right, we 11 vill adjourn and meet tomorrow at 9: 00 a. :'. 12 let the reccrd chew that the chart referred to by 13 Yr. Cutchin har t??n d is t:ib uted to tha E03rd, =t least, and O ' 4 '" e r*=tte" :

e

= e-a i 15 3. C'iTC F I N And I u r. d e r s t a n d, Mr. Chairman, that i 16 it is substantively correct. There may be a couple of ninct 17 modifica tion e ir tho torning, in which care we will hand out j 18. h e ar-ccrrectei copy for ure. 39 (h er e u po n, at 6 : '. 4 p.m., the hearine was 20 a d j o u rnd, to roconvene =. t ? : 0.^,

a.. m. on Tuesday, rovember 21 12' 19EC*)

22 I 23 4 I O 25 0 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRG;NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTCN O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345

1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION This is to certify : hat the attached proceedings before the s in the matter of: METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY (TMI UNIT 1) Date of ?roceeding: November 11, 1980 Docket flumb er : 50-289 ? lace of ?roceeding: narrisburo, Pa. were held as herein appeers, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission. Alfred H. Ward Official Reporter (Typed) O' 24 V ~ Official Reporter (Signature) l 1 O, nQ) --. _.}}