ML20072J111
| ML20072J111 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1982 |
| From: | Dunn B BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-07, TASK-7, TASK-GB NUDOCS 8306290936 | |
| Download: ML20072J111 (104) | |
Text
i J/1 969
)Ihf j
j dI\\j Qj
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i==
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________x GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORPORATION, 3
JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY and PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, a
Plaintiffs,
-against-80 Civil 1683 (R.O.)
THE BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY and J.
RAY McDERMOTT &
CO.,
INC.,
Defendants. :
_______________________________________x f' 'N Conti*nued deposition of THE BABCOK &
\\.
WILCOX COMPANY by BERT MERRIT DUNN, taken by the Plaintiffs pursuant to adjournment, at the offices of Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays & Handler, Esqs., 425 Park Avenue, New York,'New York, on Wednesday, September 15, 1982 at 10:00 o' clock in the forenoon, before Catherine Cook, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York.
8306290936 820915 PDR ADOCK 05000289 T
PDR DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
CERTIFIED STENOTYPE REPORTERS 369 LE xiN GTO N AVENUE WALTER SH APIRO. C.S.R.
NEw YORK. N.Y.
10017 CHARLES SHAPIRO, C.S.R.
TELEPHONE 212 067 822o
I 1
970 4
t\\
2 APP e a ranc e s:
3 KAYE, SCHOLER, FIERMAN, HAYS & HANDLER, ESQS.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 4
425 Park Avenue New York, New York
(
5 BY:
RICHARD C.
SELTZER, ESQ.,
6 of Counsel 7
8 DAVIS, POLK e WARDWELL, ESQS.
Attorneys for Defendants 9
One Chase Manhattan Plaza New York, New York 10 BY:
ROBERT B.
FISKE, ESQ.
11 and RODMAN W.
BENEDICT, ESQ.,
12 of Counsel 13 14 ALSO PRESENT:
15 DAVID TAYLOR 16 17 oOo 18 19 20 21 22 1
23 I
25
\\
1 971
['T 2
B.E R T ME RR I T D UNN, having been-3 previously sworn, resumed and testified further 4
as follows:
(
5 EXAMINATION (Continued) 6 BY MR. SELTZER:
7 Q
Since the last session of your deposition, 8
has your position at B&W changed any?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
What positions have you held, in 11 chronological sequence, since the last session of your 12 deposition in this case?
13 A
The last position I held was that of unit t
14
. manager of ECCS analysis, and I presently hold a position 15 of unit manager of fluid and transient analysis.
16 Q
Were there any intermediate positions?
17 A
No.
18 Q
Is there still an ECCS analysis unit?
19 A
No.
20 Q
What units or unit have taken over the 4
21 responsibilities that were previously handled by Ehe ECCS 22 analysis unit?
23 A
The responsibilities of the ECCS analysis 24 unit as they existed during the last deposition have been 25 wholly taken over by the fluid transient analysis unit.
1 Dunn 972 imV) i 2
Q Did most of the personnel who had been assigned to the ECCS analysis unit get assigned to the fluid and transient analysis unit?
4 A
All f the personnel that had been assigned
(
5 to the ECCS analysis unit were assigned to the fluid and 6
transient analysis unit, that's correct.
7 8
Q Does the new unit have responsibilities that extend beyond the scope of the former ECCS analysis unit?
g A
Yes.
10 gy Q
What are the additional responsibilities?
12 A
The unit is responsible for all accident v
13 analysis performed in support of nuclear power plant licensing,and for performing analyses not in support of 34 15 licensing but which would require the techniques emb died in licensing type of analysis.
16 g
Q Are there any other responsibilities that are 18 handled by your new unit?
If so, what are they?
A The remaining responsibilities are on the gg order of administrative responsibilities, documentation responsibilities.
21 22 Q
In what areas?
A In the areas associated within which we 23 24 perform analyses.
25 Q
Danny LaBelle used to -head a unit called
1 Dunn 973 (mN ')
2 safety analysis.
What unit today embraces the 3
responsibilities that used'to be handled by the safety 4
analysis unit?
5 A
There are two units that embrace those 6
responsibilities.
They are.the fluid and transient 7
analysis unit,and a unit headed by Dr. Joe Cudlin and 8
for which I can't recall the current name.
9 Q
What is its area?
e 10 A
Its primary area of responsibility is the 11 creation and modification of computer codes for use by 12
'other units within B&W.
/~
(s,N) 13 Q
Does that mean that if the craft code was 14 going to be modified by transient analyses, it would be 15 done by Cudlin's unit?
16 A
In part.
17 Q
What part?
18 A
The formulation of the alteration of the 19 code and the first checking of the alteration for 20 performance would be performed by Dr. Cudlin's unit.
21 Q
What section is your fluid and transient L
22 analysis in?
23 A
The fluid and transient analysis unit is in (9
24 the performance analysis section.
%J 25 Q
Who is the head of performance analysis?
i 1
Dunn 974
(~S, 2
A Mr. Jim Mallay.
3 Q
What other units are in the performance 4
analysis section?
1 5
A Operational analysis and Dr. cudlin's unit.
{j 6
Q What does operational analysis do?
7 A
Operational analysis performs evaluations 8
of control systems for power plants and the results of 9
ev.pected transients which would not be termed accidents.
10 Q
What are accidents of expected transients 11 which are not considered accidents?
12 A
One example would be a controlled shutdown.
(~)N
\\_.
13 Another example would be a turbine trip, an upset in 14 the f eedwater chain that would be less severe than a loss 15 of feedwater but a change in flow.
16 Q
If it were a complete loss of feedwater, is 17 that analysis something that would be done in your unit?
18 A
The complete loss of feedwater could be done 19 in either unit.
The variation would depend on manpower 20 availability.
21 Q
Is there no longer a plant design section?
(_
22 A
There is no longer a plant design section as 23 it existed at the time of the previous deposition.
24 I io not believe there is a section entitled plant 25 design any longer, either.
Dunn 975 el
['}
~
Q What, if you know, are Dr. Womack's
'v 2
responsibilities?
3 A
Dr. Womack is a business segment manager in i
4 charge of the customer service area and special products
{}
5 and training, and those are the. parts I know.
There may 6
~
be some additional areas of responsibility.
7 Q
Does the Lynchburg training department 8
ultimately report to Allen Womack?
9 A
That is my understanding.
10 Q
Is Norm Elliott still in charge of training?
11 A
To the last of my knowledge, yes.
12
(~N MR. SELTZER:
Instead of pressing this on
\\,
13 much further, we will send you whatever the latest 14 organization chart is that we have for the 15 organization people at Three Mile Island.
16 MR. BENEDICT:
Why don't you include GPU 17 Nuclear and -- basically the people who we have had 18 as witnesses in your depositions and were there.
19 l
MR. SELTZER:
Parsippany people.
And you
' 20 will send us yours.
21
(,
Q Where is Don Roy?
l 22 A
Don Roy is a business segment manager in 23 charge of the engineering department, the backlog project
{"N 24 management department and the service project management x
25 i
1 Dunn 976 O
V Product department.
2
~
Q Who is the head of the engineering 3
4 department?
A Mr. Greg Glie.
5
.)
6 Q
Where is Bruce Karrasch?
A Bruce Karrasch is in charge of the operating 7
8 plant project managers.
MR. SELTZER:
I would like to mark for 9
10 identification as'GPU Exhibit 61 a stack of 11 documents produced from B&W's files with the tab 12 205 Fuel Assembly Small Break 32-7743-0.
. f' s 13 (Stack of documents with tab reading 205 74 Fuel Assembly Small Break 32-7743-0 marked GPU 15 Exhibit 611 for identification, as of this date.)
16 Q
Take a look at GPU 611 and after you have had 17 a chance to look at it, could you identify what it is, 1g please.
19 A.
This exhibit is a calculational file d cumenting calculations performed in support of B&W 20 21 205 plant.
22 Q
D the calculations in this file relate to 23 any particular area of analysis in support of 205 plant 24 licensing, such as small break loss of coolant accident?
25 A
Yes.
The calculations performed are the
___..._m.
1 Dunn 977 m
2 results of small break situations.
3 Q
small break means a small loss of coolant 4
accident?
(
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
Would you turn to the fourth page of the 7
exhib it s, numbered 301 in the lower right-hand corner.
8 There is a date in the upper right-hand corner, a 9
handwritten date at the top third of the page, May 5,
10 1980.
Do you see that?
e 11 A
Yes.
12 Q
That is a date when this calculation file of h
- ss/
13 documents was assembled, is that right?
14 -
A No.
~
15 Q
What does that refer to?
16 A
That is the date that Mr. Bob Jones signed 17 this page.
18 Q
It is correct, isn't it, that'the materials 19 that are contained in this file were prepared over a 20 Period of more than a year prior to May 19807 21 A
I do not know the period over which the C
22 materials for this file were prepared.
23 Q
Take a look at sheet 6 on page 306.
Do you 24 see the heading on that page 205 FA small break analysis 25 run category prior'to TMI-2 incident on 3/28/797 i
i
1 Dunn 978 eyU 2
A Yes.
3 Q
D yu see on the next succeeding page there 4
is a Hehru Shah calculation sheet dated February 1,
- 1978, 5
Page 3077
{
6 A
No.
7 Q
Whose initials are NHS at the bottom 8
left-hand side cf the page?
I MR. BENEDICT:
It is obliterated on this g
10 copy.
11 Q
I show you this copy.
12 A
Yes, I see the initials NHS.
h i
ss/
13 Q
Is that Nehru Shah, to the best of your 14 knowledge?
15 A
Yes.
l 16 Q
That would indicate that the calculation work 17 set forth on that page was done on or about February 1,
on or before February 1,
1978?
18 1978 19 A
Yes.
20 Q
What, as you understand it as the former 21 head of the ECC analysis unit,was the purpose of C
22 assembling a calculations file such as GPU 6117 23 A
B&W requires that documentation be provided
)
24 of all work performed to determine the design of one of J
I 25 its products or to determine the performance of its I
I
1-Dunn 979
('
k 2
Products for the purposes of licensing.
The files, 3
calculation filos, are a primary way of recording that 4
documentation.
5 Q
Does your present unit keep within its area
{
6 calculation files.that would include thi's particular 7
calculation file?
8 A
The unit has the practice of keeping its g
calculational files, yes.
10 Q
Do you and other engineers,in the unit from 11 time to time refer to the prior calc files?
12 A
Yes.
f 13 Q
At the time that the ECCS analysis unit was e
14 working on the problem of secondary sidewater level i
15 in the 205 plant steam generators,you were familiar with 16 that work, weren't you?
17 A
To a degree.
I 18 Q
That analysis is part of what is documented l
19 in the calculation file that you have in front of you, 20 right?
21 If yuw uld like to refresh your L
22 recollection, I call your attention to page 306.
l l
23 A
This calculational file is part of the work l
rh 24 performed to determine the -- or rather a secondary
)
25 sidewater level for the Babcock 205 plant.
l
1 Dunn 980
~
2 Q
Prior to the work that went into this 3
calculation file, B&W had filed a topical report covering 4
small break loss of coolant accidents for its 205 plants, 5
.isn't that so?
(
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
You worked on that topical report, right?
8 A
I would need to look at the topical report to 9
determine that.
o 10 MR. BENEDICT:
I don't see how the topical 11 report is relevant to the calc files which we have 12 agreed to go.over.
The topical report may or may 13 not be relevant but it is not part of the calc 14 files and that is what we are here to talk about.
15 MR. SELTZER:
Would you show the witness 16 GPU 473.
17 Q
473 is referred to on page 2 of the calc file 18 and I believe it is the starting point for the 19 re-evaluations that are covered in this cale file.
20 MR. BENEDICT:
To the extent that you are 21 going to ask Mr. Dunn about the calc file, I don't 22 disagree. BAW 10047-A is something you had.
23 MR. SELTZER:
The cale file talks about a 24 problem that was discovered with the loss of 25 coolant accident analysis contained in the earli'er
1 Dunn 981 topical report.
I want to get into today what
-2 those problems were, how the calculations 3-were done, analyze those problems and how that 4
that problem was resolved.
(
5 I don't think you can talk about what the 6
problem is until you know what the vehicle of the 7
g problem is.
MR. BENEDICT:
I am not objecting to a 9
10 question, yet, Mr. Seltzer.
If I see you are not it going beyond the calculation file, then we both i-12 will be happy.
MR. SELTZER:
I certainly want to make sure 13 that you are happy.
14 i
15 Q
Was GPU Exhibit 473 the B&W topical report 16 relating to loss of coolant accidents in 205 plants?
A Yes.
17 18 Q
You were a principal author of it?
i A
I was a co-author.
19 Q
That topical report was submitted in support
-20 f li ensing of B&W's 205 fuel assembly plants, correct?
21
?E A
It was submitted in support of the 22 construction permit stage of licensing.
23 Q
For the 205 plants?
24 A
Yes.
25
1 Dunn 982
/~T
~
2 Q
That topical report, GPU Exhibit 473, was based on a 40-foot level for secondary sidewater in 3
the steam generators, correct?
4 u
5 A
Yes.
(
6 Q
B&W I take it had done transient analyses 7
to verify with the steam generator filled to a 40-foot 8
level, if there were small break loss of coolant accident 9
there would be effective core cooling within the criteria 10 of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K, righ t?,.
11 A
That's correct.
12 Q
In early 1978, and I au getting now to what 13 becomes the subject of the calculation files materials, 14 B&W determined that there were s'omething they called 15 cverfill problems if a 40-foot level was maintained in 16 the steam generator, isn't that right?
17 A
I don't know.
18 Q
You do know, don't you, that after March or 19 April 1978, your unit began to do calculations to 20 determine whether a 6-foot level in the steam generators 21 could effectively cool the core to the standards i
22 prescribed by the NRC, right?
23 A
Yes.
' 24 Q
To refresh your recollection that it was an 25 overfill problem that led to the calculations associated i
i 1
Dunn 983 N
2 with the 6-foot level, I would like to mark for identification as GPU Exhibit 612 a memo from your 3
4 right-hand man Bob Jones to S.
J.
Engel, with a copy to 5
your subject, auxiliary feedwater steam generator or
(
6 overfill problem.
It is dated March 14, 1977.
7 (Memo dated March 14, 1977, from Bob Jones to 8
S.
J.
Engel, marked GPU Exhibit 612 for d
g identification, as of this date.)
10 Q
Does GPU 612 refresh your recollection that 11 the catalyst for doing calculations of a 6-foot level in 12 the steam generstors was concern over an overfill 13 problem if a 40-foot level were aintained in the steam 14 generators?
15 A
Not enough.
16 Q
You said that you were aware that 17 calculations were done to analyze a 6-foot level in the 18 205 plant steam generators.
I take it those calculations 19 were done to determine whe ther with a 6-f oot level in 20
.the steam generators, there would be effective core 21 cooling, right?
22 A
That's correct.
23 Q
I take it those additional calculations 24 needed to be done because as of early 1978 there was no 25 existing set of calculations within B&W that could
1 Dunn 984 f'i
\\-
2 demonstrate that a 6-foot level control was acceptable 3
for mitigating small break loss of coolant accidents, 4
right?
(
5 MR. FISKE:
You are talking about 205 plants 6
in all these questions?
7 MR. SELTZER:
Yes, that is my understanding.
8 Q
You were aware that by 1978 B&W had already 9
shipped steam generators for certain 205 plants, right?
10 A
I was not aware one way orithe other.
11 Let me rephrase that.
I don't know whether 12 I was aware.
A 13 Q
Today you don't recall being aware, is that
+
14 correct?
15 A
Right.
16 Q
Nehru Shah was in your unit in 1978, right?
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
He was in Bob Jones' group?
l 19 A
I don't know.
20 Q
Do you recall that Shah was the one who 1
21 performed a lot of the calculations to determine whether I
[
l A-22 there could be effective handling of the consequences of 23 a small break loss of coolant accident if there were a
(
24 6-foot level in the steam generators?
25 A
No, I don't recall.
l
1 Dunn 985
(
\\
(_)
2 Q
Let me show you a memorandum from Shah to R y with a copy to you, dated March 30, 1978; subject, 3
status of 205 fuel assembly small break LOCA analysis.
4 5
~MR.
SELTZER:
We will mark that GPU Exhibit
((
6 613.
7 (Memorandum dated March 30, 1978, from Mr.
g Shah to Dr. Roy, marked GPU Exhibit 613 for 9
identification, as of this date.)
10 Q
I would also like to call your attention in 11 the calculation file which is in fronc of you to pages 12 109 through 116.
)
13 MR. BENEDICT:
You are now switching over to 14 the actual pages in the calc files as opposed to 15 the microfilm numbers.
You used them before.
16 Q
It is correct, isn't it, that it was Nehru i
17 Shah who did the calculations to determine whether i
18 there could be effective core cooling with a 6-foot level gg in the steam generator?
A I don't know.
20 21 Q
From your familiarity with B&W's files, L
22 how they keep cale files, how people indicate their 23 authorship of sections of the calculation files, from
(~}
24 Shah's memo to you dated March 30, is it your
\\m/
25 understanding that Shah was directly involved in that
1-Dunn 986 t
2 analysis?
3 MR. BENEDICT:
What.are you asking him to
)
4 do other than read the initials at the bottom of 5
the page?
6 MR. SELTZER:
If that is sufficient for him 7
to answer the question, fine.
1<
8 MR. BENEDICT:
The document says what it 9
says.
I am trying to differentiate between your, j-10' asking him something we can all pead and where tiie 11' witness has some special knowledge.
s s
12 MR. CELTZER:
That he can say that Nehr'u '
w 13 Shah'did'these calculations. He doesn't have t o' 17 s
14 have a vivid memory about looking at documents N.
s
'15 which confirm it.
\\-
16 MR. BENEDICT:
If this refreshes his i
17 recollection, that is Nine.
s%
1 N.,.
18 Nm.,SE$TZEn:
This is fine, and if'you want l
19' to'do it'again, you can do it again.
I think it 20 creates an unsavory image to see you trying to
"'s 3
21 dire.ct'or instruct witnesses that they.shouldn't 4
22 say ihmething that I think is fairly obvious.
i s
23 There are initials on the bottom that Mr. Dunn X N O
24 Probably recognizes are Shah's initials.*.There--
j.
\\_/
4 25 are dates that show it.
There are comples-
' x w es *
\\
(
~ !
s N
+
s s
i
~
,.,n,w.,-
,,jy
.-w.,,,
1 Dunn 987 a
2 calculations here that he may be able to identify 3
or calculations to a 6-foot level that I could 4
identify.
I don't think it is so obvious and --
(
5 MR. BENEDICT:
You just said it is obvious.
6 MR. SELTZER:
I think it is particularly 7
within his ken to say yes, from this it certainly 8
appears Shah did the work.
9 MR. BENEDICT:
I think what you are talking 10 about is whether Mr. Dunn remembers, with his 11 recollection refreshed,. that Mr. Shah did these 12 calculations, or are you asking him to say that it 13 is a logical conclusion from reading these 14 documents that Mr. Shah did it.
We can all draw 15 the logical conclusion.
I think the only fair 16 question is what he remembers himself.
I don't 17 think it is a life or death issue.
18 MR. SELTZER:
I. appreciate th'a t, too.
I 19 think to ask him to draw the logical conclusion 20 is also not wholly inappropriate, since he is the 21 one who lives with these files day in and day out.
.m 22 BY MR. SELTZER:
23 Q
Can you tell from looking at these whether
(
)
24 Nehru Shah was somebody who was directly involved in
,v 25 determining whether there could be effective mitigation
Dunn 988 1
1
+
of small break accidents with a 6-foot level in the steam 2
generators?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
What is the answer?
A Yes.
6 Q
Yes, he was?
7 A
Directly involved.
8 Q
The analyses that were done of the 6-foot 9
level demonstrated that for certain size loss of coolant 10 accidents, there would be uncovery of the core, right?
11 MR. GENEDICT:
Is that what you remember, 12
(~()
Mr. Dunn?
j A
Yes.
14 Q
In fact, the uncovery was so substantial and 15 so sustained that your unit concluded that B&W could not 16 satisfy the NRC criteria for effective core-cooling with l
17 l
a 6-foot level in the steam generators, isn't that so?
l 18 MR. FISKE:
You mean for those sizes?
19 A
I don't know.
20 MR. SELTZER:
I would like to mark as GPU 21 614 a memo from Bob Jones to your subject, March 22 activities report, d'ated March 30, 1978.
23 (Memo from Bob Jones to Mr. Dunn, dated
~
G' March 30, 1978, marked GPU Exhibit 614 for 25
Dunn 989 y
A t
i
\\_,/
identification, as of this date.)
2 Q
Is GPU 614 a copy of a monthly status report 3
that Bob Jones sent to you at or about the end of March 4
1978?
A Yes.
6 Q
Do you see under Section 1.1 his description 7
of work analyzing the 6-foot level in the 205 plant steanj generators?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
I take it it is your understanding that this 11 is the same problem and the same analysis that Nehru Shah A(,)
worked on and that is documented in the calculation file that is in front of you?
MR. BENEDICT:
Can I hear that again, please?
You are asking him to read this today and interpret it and look at the cale file?
17 Let's take a break.
18 l
(Recess taken.)
19 A
I can't base that on recollection.
20 l
Q Looking at the monthly report which you got 21 from Bob Jones, which refers to an analysis out to time l
22 T equals approximately 2600 seconds and the calc file at 23
-("g pages 115 and 116, don't those pages show you that what
(,/
24 Nehru Shah has calculated there, showing uncovery down l
Dunn 990
{
r3b to 6-foot level at 2600 seconds, corresponds to the 2
material that Jones is describing on the first page of 3
GPU 614?
4 MR. FISKE:
If you are asking Mr. Dunn
(
whether the calculation that he is now looking at did show that the 6-foot level was inadequate to 7
keep the core covered, I have no objection to that.
g Q
Do you understand what Mr. Fiske just said?
9 o
A Yes.
,0 4
Q 6-foot level doesn't keep t'he core covered, does it?
A A 6-foot mixture level does not keep the core covered.
The "Yes" I reiterated a few moments ago was in reference to understanding Mr. Fiske.
It was not in answer to your question.
Q You knew as a result of Nehru Shah's analysis 1,4 showing uncovery down to a 6-foot level in the core, that for certain small break loss of coolant accidents, I
a 6-foot steam generator level would produce unacceptably high peak clad temperatures, right?
21 A
No.
22 Q
You knew that one of the five criteria for effective core cooling in 10 CFR 50.46 was the pl Q,
maintenance of peak clad temperatures below 2200 degrees 20
Dunn 991 1
s s
)
x./
Fahrenheit, right?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
You knew as a result of the Nehru Shah 4
analyses of the 6-foot level in the steam generator
(
5 that there were certain small break loss of coolant G
accidents for which peak clad temperature would exceed 7
2200 degrees, isn't that right?
MR. BENEDICT:
Are you asking if he knew it 9
then and remembers knowing it th,en?
MR. SELTZER:
Sure.
He can read in JoDEs' 11 report right here that that is what it says.
()
MR. BENEDICT:
That is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about what Mr.
14 i
Dunn remembers.
15 So what you remember, Mr. Dunn, is what you remember, not what you read in the memo.
A I don't know whether I knew that or not.
18
)
Q And looking at Jones' memo withdrawn.
Jones says to you in the second paragraph, 20 "It is improbable that the peak cladding temperature 21 would be less than 2200 Fahrenheit."
Do you see that?
22 A
Yes.
23 Q
Are you saying that does not refresh your 24 x_
recollection that the Shah analysis showed peak clad
~_-
. =
Dunn 992
,b j
\\_/
temperatures going above 2200 degrees Fahrenheit?
2 A
That's correct.
3 Q
Take a look at page 6 of GPU Exhibit 613, 4
that is Shah's memo to Roy, copy to Dunn.
Do you see the
('
5 i
section headed Recommendation?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
The first sentence there states, "The present I
results for a discharge breaker not acceptable in f
9 couparison to the EAW-10074A small break analysis results 10 or by 10 CFR 50.46."
Do you recall that there came a point in time in or about the spring of 1978 when you knev that the 13 results of analyzing a 6-foot level in the steam generator were not acceptable in comparison with the standard set by 10 CFR 50.467 A
No, I don't recall that.
i i
17 =
i
[
Q HDo you recall that in the spring of 1978 or 18 any time in 1978, your unit embarked on a program to 19 resolve the question of what is an acceptable secondary 20 sidewater level in the steam generators?
3 21 MR. BENEDICT:
This is for the 205 plants we 22 are talking about?
23 MR. SELTZER:
Right.
O 24 A
I can recall the program.
25
1 Dunn 993 (O')
2 Q
You made a presentation to higher management 3
on that subject, right?
4 A
I don't know.
(
5 MR. SELTZER:
Let me mark as GPU 615 Bert 6
Dunn's March activities report to' Don Roy, 7
April 3,
1978.
8 (March activities report of Bert Dunn to 9
Don Roy, dated April 3,
1978, marked GPU Exhibit 10 615 for identification, as of this date.)
11 Q
Is GPU 615 a copy of a report that you sent I
12 to Don Roy on or about April 3,
19787
/\\)
13 A
Yes.
9 14 Q
Do you see on the second page of the report 15 where you discuss the work that had been going on in your 16 section to analyze the 6-foot auxiliary feedwater level 17 in the steam generators of the 205 planta?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
It was your stated conclusion that 6 feet was 20 inadequate to control the consequences of small break 21 transients; do you see that?
22 A
Yes.
23 Q
Does inadequate, as you used that word and n
(
)
24 underlined it there, mean at the 6-foot level your
\\._/
25 calculations showed that you were not achieving
1 Dunn 994 OV 2
effective core cooling?
3 MR. BENEDICT:
If you remember.
4 When you say effective core cooling, are you
(
5 referring to any specific criterion; are you using 6
that as a term of art as it is used in 50.46 or 7
in reference to 50.46?
8 MR. SELTZER:
I think that is probably the 9
sen e in which Bert Dunn uses it, but if he ncant 10 something else when he said that there was 11 inadequate --
12 MR BENEDICT:
It doesn't say al.ything about O
(_
13 inadequate core cooling.
'inat I am asking, you 14 used a term of art in your question, I am simply 15 asking what you meant by it.
16 Q
I will refer to the 50.46 standards.
When 17 you say the 6-foot level is inadequate to control the 18 consequences of a small break transient, isn't it a fact 19 that you were telling Roy that the 6-foot level could 20 not cool the core to the NRC established standards?
21 Isn't that what you meant?
22 A
I don't know.
23 Q
What do you understand inadequate to control p)
(
24 the consequences of small break transients to mean?
25 MR. BENEDICT: What did it mean when he wrote
1 Dunn 995
(~
~
V 2
that?
3 MR.-SELTZER:
What he remembers now.
4 MR. BENEDICT:
Don't answer that question.
(
5 If you remember what you were writing about, tell 6
Mr. Seltzer.
7 THE WITNESS:
Could I have the question i
8 I
again?
9 i G
What did you nean when rou said the 6-foot 10 level was inadequate to contrcl the cor. sequences of 11~
small break transients?
12 A
I don't reen11 it so what I meant, I guess I p
fA-13 i don't know.
14 Q
You mean you are willing.to testify today 15 under oath, swear to God you don't know what you meant by 16 the phrase inadequate to control the consequences of 17 small break transients?
i 18 MR. BENEDICT:
That is right.
He said he 19 doesn't recall what he meant.
20 A
Yes.
21 MR. BENEDICT:
I may interrupt to make an 22 observation in light of --
s 23 MR. SELTZER:
You don't have to make any f
24 observation.
Ns 25 MR. BENEDICT:
The nature of your question
f 1
Dunn 996
' f'%
V 2
and the looks on your face 3
MR. SELTZER:
You don't have to try to put 4
my looks on the record.
It is not necessary for
(
5 you to put speeches on the record.
We are asking 6-questions.
7 MR. BENEDICT:
I am prepared to pay half the 8
cost of the transcripts so I am entitled to put on h
9 speeches like you are, 10 We are here to ask Mr. Dunn about his l
l recollection.
We are not here to ask him to 11 12 interpret documents that he doesn't recall writing.
A-13 The issue is what he recalls and that is what he is 14 here to testify to.
15 If he doesn't remember writing this document 16 and doesn't remember what he meant by the word 17 inadequate, those are the facts that we are dealing 18 with.
19 We are not dealing with what he may interpret 1
20 today, or you might.
That is something the court ni can do.
l 23 MR. SELTZER:
That sounds like poppycock and 23 you know it is.
I think the author of a document is in a far better position to tell anybody else jy 25 what he believes he meant when he used words in 1
1 Dunn 997
(~%
'v) 2 phrases and you know that.
3 MR. BENEDICT:
I can find 600 objections 4
from you and lawyers representing your client on
(
5 this exact subject.
If you would care to disagree 6
with me, we can go to the record books and look and 7
maybe we will have to take everybody's deposition 8
over again.
9 MP. SELTZER:
That is not a position I have i
I 10 espoused.
p 11 MR. BENEDICT:
I disagree with that.
12 MR. SELTTERs If you will show me a place
- P L3 where I have done that. --
14 MR. BENEDICT:
And your associates.
15 MR. SELTZER:
I asked you to show me where 16 I have done it.
17 MR. BENEDICT:
If I have to, I will.
I don't.
i l-18 think the fact that you choose not to do so is l
19 terribly relevant either, just so long as you and i
20 your partners l
21 BY MR. SELTZER:
l l
22 Q
Do you see in the second paragraph where you l
23 have the sentence, "It is improbable that the peak l
r'N
.( j 21 cladding temperature would be less than 2200 Fahrenheit"?
i
'25 A
Yes.
t
1-Dunn 998 1%
2 Q
That meant that under the analyses that had been done for the 6-foot level, you understood there were certain transients for which the peak clad 4
(
5 emperature would probably exceed 2200 degrees 6
Fahrenheit, right?
A That meant that it was our impression that 7
g the peak cladding temperature would probably exceed 1
2200 degrees Fahrenheit.
9 I
10 Q
It would exceed it for certain scall break loss of coolant accidents if the steam generator level 17 12 wsre maintained at 6 feet, right?
4 e
l A
Using the word " impression" and "probably,"
13 1
I we are talking about small breaks and it would be y
certain small breaks.
15 16 Q
Those were breaks within the spectrum of the breaks that had to be analyzed in order t.o demonstrate 17 gg the plant was able to meet the NRC's criteria for effective core cooling, right?
19 A
20 Q
Specifically it was within the spectrum that q
had to be analyzed under 10 CRF 50.46, right?
22 i
A
- Correct, 23 f~')
24 Q
For a break size within the specutrum that w/
had to be analyzed under 50.46, you could not assure 25
1-Dunn 999 O
i i
\\'#
2 y urselves'the peak clad temperature remained under 2200' 3
degrees Fahrenheit.
It meant that there was not effective 4
core cooling for that break size, right?
(
5 MR. BENEDICT:
Could I hear that again, 6
please?
7 IRecord read.)
8 MR. SELTZER:
I will withdraw that.
9 Q
Isn't it P.
fact that unless you can J
19 deuon trate <ith assurance under approved codes that the 1
1 11 h peak clad temperature will remain under 220C degrees 12 l Tahrenheit, then B&W could not state that there is
' ' [7 l
(_)
effective mitigation of the consequences cf a loss of 13 1
j4 coolant accident?
15 MR. BENEDICT:
I will object to the question 16 as asked and answered in Mr. Dunn's prior i
i 17 deposition.
I 18 If he understands the question and he can
)
19 answer it, he is welcome to.
I think you are 20 basically asking him to do what we have already 31 done, which is to interpret 50.46.
L i
22 G
ahead, if you understand Mr. Seltzer's l
23 question, you can answer.
24 THE WITNESS:
I understand the question.
I 25 A
The answer is no.
4
4 1
Dunn 1000 p)
(-
2 Q
Why?
A Because we could effectively mitigate an 3
4 accident whose temperature was 2250.
5 l
Q Since one of the five criteria for effective 6
core cooling is maintenance of peak clad temperature 7
under 2200 degrees Fahrenheit, how could you demonstrate g
effective core cooling of peak clad temperature in excess 4
9 -
t of 2200 degrees?
10 A
Sy performing an -snalysis phowing that ths 11 peak clad temperature was limited to 2200 degrees 12 Falarenh eit and a cooling medium was ir olace and rNk) 13 temperature returned to lower values at sone tine.
14 Q
You said by demonstrating that the peak clad 15 temperature was no higher than 2200, is that right?
16 A
No.
17 Q
Did you hear her read back?
ig A
Yes.
I would like to amend that to 2250, t
l 19 Q
Is it your understanding that when the i
NRC says 2200, they allow for some latitude above 22007 20 21 Do you round off to the nearest hundred, is that how it 22 works?
23 A
No, the NRC means 2200.
[^N 24 Q
How could you get away with 22507 Could you N) 25 file a topical report showing peak clad temperatures for i
i
,.-e--
g
,----a
.--,-,-,-,-.,,,n,,
e,.,m
,,.---,_.rp y
w.r,---7
-,,.---w
,,.w--
-my
.w-y-
.c.-,- - -
wm-w
-n--g wg, w
1 Dunn 1001
(~')\\
(,
2 a break within the spectrum of anticipated loss of c
lant a idents having a peak clad temperature of 2250 3
and have the plant be licensable?
4 2
A No.
{
5 6
Q So when you gained the impression that you 7
had on April 3,
1978 that peak clad temperatures would g ;
exceed 2200 degrees Fahrenheit if the steam generator i.
3 g
level were maintained at 6 feet, you knew that more work l
i 10 [
had to be done to deal with effective mitigation of small 11 breaks, right?
l 12 A
Yes.
(
13 Q
That is why you and your unit filed a 14 preliminary report of safety concern regarding the water 15 level in the 205 steam generators in April 1978, right?
16 A
I do not know.
17 Q
Do you remember that you did file a PSC on 18 that subject?
19 A
No.
MR. SELTZER:
Let me mark for identification 20 as GPU 616,PSC signed by Bert Dunn on April 4,
21 22 1978.
23 (PSC dated April 4,
1978, signed by Bert 24 Dunn, marked GPU Exhibit 616 for identification,
(. /
25 as of this date.)
Dunn 1002 y
(~5 t,)
Q Do you recognize the penmanship in the lower right-hand corner as being your name?
A Yes.
4 Q
I take it you signed this preliminary report of safety concerns on April 4, 1978?
A Yes.
7 Q
Thiu is a report which you signed of a safety l
concern regarding the sacondary sidewater level in tha 9
t steam generacors fer type 205 plants, right?
10 j
A This preliminary safety concern indicates 11 I
that with the use of a E-Ioct level c or.tr ol for the
' (,)-
[
auxiliary feedwater in Babcock 205 plants, the peak 13 cladding temperature during a small break loss of coolant accident may violate the criteria of 10 CFR 50.46.
Q You say "may violate the criteria."
Do you see the box number 2 in the upper left?
A Yes.
8 Q
It says there it was found that the results of a certain small break LOCA do not conform to 20 requirements of 10 CFR 50.46.
Do you see that?
(,
A Yes.
Q You didn't take issue with that when you signed this PSC, did you?
A I don't know.
25
.~.. - -.
-+
1 Dunn 1003
(^)h s.
2 Q
You don't have any recollection of thinking that was wrong when you signed this PSC, do you?
3 4
A No.
'{,
5 Q
Do you see boxes 3 and 47 6
A Yes.
7 Q
Box 3' asks the question, "To your knowledge, 3
is customer aware?"
What is the answer that was 9 f checked cff?
10 A
I don't think I can be pos,itiva # rom reading 11 this.
It looks like "No."
h in
(
Q The question that appesrs in box 4, "To your 13 knowledge, is NRC aware?", what box was checked off?
t 14 A
"No."
15 Q.
You don't have any recollection today that is either of those answers is wrong, do you?
17 A
I do not.
18 (Recess taken.)
19 BY MR. SELTZER:
20 -
Q Prior to the Three Mile Island accident, had 21 you as manager of the ECCS analysis unit initiated a lot 22 of PSC reports of preliminary safety 23 MR. FISKE:
That question is clearly beyond
(
'24 the scope of this limited deposition.
(
25 MR. SELTZER:
I will tell you why I am asking n
,~~
n
...n
,m,
,,-,,.-.c
.n._,.._-
. - + - -
1 Dunn 1004 it.
I really want it as a background to this 2
PSC report to find out whether this is a very 4
' unusual event, like the only PSC that Bert Dunn initiated relates t this particular calculation
{y 5
that we are talking about,or is this just one of a 6
myriad of PSC's.
That is all.
7 g
MR. FISKE:
I understand why you want to ask p
it.
That doesn't change our objection.
The g
n gg subject of our PSC's was sectething that Vas gone i
into it. great detail with Mr. Dunn the first t irt e,
31 j
i 12 The mere fact that thia happens to be a PSC which 13 may result in part from a calculation in the calculation files does not in our judgment open up g4 the whole subject of PSC and what the criteria is 15 16 f r them and under what circumstances he files 37 them, and what doesn't.
gg MR. S E L T Z E R.:
If you want to direct him not gg to answer that question, yes.
I think you are doubly telling me, Benedict has an objection, 20 y u have got an objection.
21 If this stuff horrifies you that much, I am 22 i
thrilled.
It encourages me that we must be on a 23 hot subject.
24 I
~
MR. FISKE:
There is no need to make a lot 25
1.
Dunn 1005 i
)
2 of speeches.
g 1
3 MR. SELTZER:
You are the one who is j
4 speechifying.
g 5
MR. FISKE:
This would be an appropriate J) 6 inquiry were it not for the fact that we had 7
eight days of depositions and we expressly agreed 8
that the scope of this deposition was not going to l
9 i
inclede 10 g MR. SELTZER:
All right.
,I understand you.
y
{
11 MR. FI?KE:
I will incorporate that ocjection I
12 later witho9t repeating it if other tnin7s come up, l
[ ')
13 to save time.
V 14 BY MR. SELTZER:
15 Q
Was this PSC on the steam generator level 16 the only PSC you ever initiated before the Three Mile 17 Island accident?
18 MR. FISKE:
I object to that on the same 19 grounds.
20 MR. SELTZER:
I press the question.
i f
21 MR. FISKE:
I press the objection.
I am 22 not going to let him answer it.
Mr. Dunn will be 23 at trial.
You can ask him that question again.
9; This is a discovery deposition limited to what is l
25 in the cale files.
l
Dunn 1006 g
/~'T
(_,/
Q It is a fact, isn't it, that B&W was never 2
able to demonstrate that a 6-foot level could meet the core cooling criteria of 10 CFR 50.467 4
A We did t demonstrate that a 6-foot level
(
5 f r auxiliary feedwater control within a Babcock 205
- 6 pl t would result in small break loss of coolant 7
accident temperature conditions for the spectrum which 3
would meet the criteria of 10 CFR 50.46, at least g
p rti ns of it.
10 i.
Q You tried to demonstrate that and failed, i gy right?
12 A
I don't know.
ss 13 Q
Let me show you a June 9,
1978 memo that you la.
, which sent to Cudlin, subjact:
CRAFT 2 Model Changes, we will mark as GPU Exhibit 617.
16 (Memo dated June 9, 1978, from Bert M.
Dunn l.a t
to J.
J.
Cudlin, marked GPU Exhibit 617 for gg i
identification, as of this date.)
gg MR. FISKE:
I will let Mr. Dunn identify this memo but that is as far as this is going to l
C.
t 9
22 Q
GPU 617 is a memo that you sent to Cudlin 23 i
l on or about June 9,
1978 in the regular course of m-business, right?
g I
l
.r.,
c
_ ~ ~ _,,., _ _
m m.
. ~.. _
1 Dunn 1007 f'\\
(s_ /
2 A
Yes, although I don't recall doing it.
3 Q
As of two months after you had initiated a 4
preliminary safety concern with respect to the steam 5
generator water level, the evaluations and analyses that
{
g had been done by Shah and others still showed unacceptabl e 7
results for small breaks with a 6-foot level, isn't thAt 3
right?
9 MR. PISKE:
I an going to object to this on t
+
l 10 the grounds that you are now going way beyond what 11 the cale files contain.
lI i
MR. SELTZER:
I don't think I am going 13 i
i r^g 4
(
)
13 beyond what the cale files contain.
The calc files N,
/
14 which are in front of him are the proof that the 15 work done under his direction by Nehru Shah and 16 others amply supports the conclusion that I was 17 driving for with my leading question.
18 I think in fact the statement that Mr. Dunn 19 made to Mr. Cudlin on June 9 is based explicitly 20 on these calculations ar.d on nothing else.
This 21 isn't drawn out of his head.
He didn't make up the 22 statement that the valuation showed unacceptable 23 results.
This is based on what Nehru Shah did in v'N 24 his calculations.
\\_
25 MR. FISKE:
I am not disputing the fact that
1 Duna 1008
,em k/
2 the subject matter of the memo relates to what he 3
did in the calculations.
The scope of this 4
deposition is to determine what the results of the 1
({
5 calculations were.
l 6
MR. SELTZER:
Precisely.
That is all I.am j
l 7
.asking him.
)
8 BY MA. SELTZER:
l il 9 !
Q Isn't it a fact as of June, as far as you I
10 i
knew, the results of these calculation;s were,for a 11 6-foct level they were unaccept.able consequences for j
12 small break accidents?
I 13 MR. FISKE:
I will let him answer that.
14 MR. BENEDICT:
The question is does this 15 refresh your recollection, Mr. Dunn's recollection, 16 because you are asking him the same question that 17 you asked him before.
It is either asked and 18 answered or that it refreshes his recollection.
19 MR. SELTZER:
What are you doing, conducting 20 a class for law students?
21 MR. BENEDICT:
If you need one, I will.
22 MR. SELTZER:
Don't be snide with me.
23 MR. BENEDICT: I am not being snide, I am
[~
24 just trying to clarify it.
Q}J 25 MR. FISKE:
Read it back.
I
f 1
Dunn 1009 2
(Record read.)
A I d n't know.
i 3
4 Q
And seeing your sentence, The evaluation of i
4 5
the.6-foot auxiliary feedwater level control for the 205
. g{
6 Plants has shown unacceptable small break consequences" 7 l doesn't refresh your recollection?
l l-8 I A
No, it doesn't.
l i
l 9
Q When you wrote that sentence to Mr. Cudlin, i
I l
you were attempting to be honest and truthful, right?
10 i.s 11 M P.. BENEDICTS If you are askir,g him what he I
q 12 remembers.
He told you he didn't remember this 13 memo.
14 MR. SELTZER:
I am asking him now whether he a
15 believes'what he was saying to Mr. Cudlin in this 16 memo was accurate.
17 Q
Were you intending to be accurate wher you 18 wrote to Cudlin; that is the question.
Plain and simple.
1 19 A
To the middle question, the answer is yes.
l 20 Q
What about the final question?
r A
I don't know.
I don't remember this.
4 21 22 -
Q What was the middle question?
23 A
It was in the present tense.
I have no 24 reason to doubt or to question that I was attempting to 25 be honest, straightforward and aboveboard, or however
,_r..
.,_y.-
,,-_r..,_
y...,o,,
,,_,,,_,._n,,,
...,.__,._..m,
..,,_,_m.,.mm_,,.,,,,,_,m.,,_-.-,,._.m r-
1 Dunn 1010 C
f~h
' i V
2 you want to put it.
3 Q
Do you remember that after the initial 4
calculations produced unacceptable results, attempts 5
were made to change the model to see if that would (i
6 improve the calculation results?
7 A
No, I do not remember.
d Q
Take o loo'. at the first sentence of ycur r
9 second paragraph to Cudlin.
You said there. "In order 10 l
to make a maximum attempt ac showing that high auxiliary 11 feedvater. levels are unnecessary you are requested to 12 combine the 177 model changes with tl.e level dependent
(~
3m.)/
13 steam generator model in a special CRAFT version."
e 14 Does that refresh your recollection that you 15 directed that there be changes made in the model to get 16 acceptable results for 205 steam generator plant level?
17 A
Does it refresh my. recollection?
No.
18 Q
Do you remember that there came a point in 19 time when you couldn't get suf ficient allocation of funds-20 to continue the calculations that were being done on 21 effective core cooling?
I am going to object to that 23 question.
That has nothing to do with the
(~}
24
. calculations, I consider that beyond the scope.
%./
25 MR. SELTZER:
There is a break in the
Dunn 1011 1
O'M calculati n file where work seems to fall off and 2
I am trying t find ut fr m Mr.
unn whether, 3
isn't it a fact that the reason the issue does not 4
Proceed quickly to resolution in the calculations
_{
5 that are done.because you couldn't get funding?
6 MR. FISKE:
I am going to object to that and 7
instruct him not to answer.
Again, I made it clear S
you can ask these questiorts of Mr. Dunn at trial.
9 HR. SELTZER:
I am going to mark for 10 u.
4 identification as GPU Exhibit 618 Mr. Lunn's 77 July Activities Report dated July 31, 1978.
12 (B.
M.
Dunn July Activities Report, dated 13 July 31, 1978, marked GPU Exhibit 618 for 14 identificati n, as of this date.)
15 Q
When you were out of the office, such as on 16 vacation, did Bob Jones sometimes substitute for you j
g7 i
18
~in performing the administrative duties of head of the unit?
19 A
es.
20 Q
That would include signing a monthly 21 activities report?
22 A
Yes.
23 Q
Is GPU 618 the monthly activities report 24 f r y ur unit as issued on or about July 31, 19787 25 I
l
~.
}
4 1
Dunn 1012 A
' Yes.
2 Q
There came a point in time, didn't there, 3
i when you retracted the preliminary safety concern report 4
that you had initiated with respect to the steam
{
5 6
generator level problem?
MR. FISKE:
I am going to object to that 7
g question; also beyond the scope of this 1
deposition.
g i 10 MR. SELTZER:
It is our position that this
,g question Of steam generator level is one that is 4
12 very difficult to fathom, if that is not a bad pun,
()
13 and until we had access to the calculation files 14 which explained what was going on and where the 15 problems lay, we were not prepared to ask the 3
16 questions on this subject.
37 So having had the calculation files and using 18 them to understand the subject matter, we are now gg proceeding.
Our subject is intentionally grounded n
e alculations.
20 MR. FISKE:
Mr. Seltzer, I don't accept g
that.
I understand what you are saying.
I think 22 the documents that you have already presented to 23 Mr. Dunn other than the calculations files, all 24
~
of which were documents produced earlier in this i
1 Dunn 1013 t
~/
2 case, certainly disclose very clearly exactly what 3
the situation was.
4 The only thing you were missing was the 5
detailed basis upon which that conclusion had been 6
reached, and I don't think you needed to' await 7
those detailed calculations to ask the kind of 8
questions you are ssxing noa.
9 The question is nct whether the calculations were right or wrong, everyone is assuming they are 10 g right.
The question is what happened afterwards.
11 l
l 12 I don't see the calculations are that 13 significant other than your using them as a 14 vehicle for going into this broad area.
15 I think our position is made clear without 16 spending any more time on it.
17 MR. SELTZyR:
I disagree.
I don't think 18 we ever told you or were asked by you to limit our 19 questions just to what is within the four corners 20 of calculation files.
I think we told you a number 21 of ECCS analysis subjects are raised in the 22 calculation files and we then told you that on i
23 those subjects we wanted to proceed, and we said i
24 specifically one of the areas was steam generator
' heat removals for small break loss of coolant 25
't
\\
l Dunn 1014
'.r\\
(_)
accidents.
That is in David Ylingberg's letter 3
to Robert Fiske.
4 MR.s FISKE:
I am not' suggesting you are 5
reading that letter incorrectly. M'y understanding
()
6 of that by subject, what was being refsrred to was 7
the calculations that produced a certain result' 8
and the question would be what were those 9
calculations, how were they presared, how were they 10 done, what did they show, what ware the results of 11 the calculations.
That I have no quarrel with.
12 To the extent that the results of the s
.-~s
(_)
13 calculations have long since been reflected'in 14 other documents, I don't think the mere fact that 15 something happened to be in the calculation files s
16 CPens up the subject altogether.
That is the 17 understanding we are proceeding on and one we are 18 going to stick to.
l
=
l 19 MR. SELTZER:
What are you relying on for l
20 that?
Is that something you.diccussed'with 21 somebody from this office.cther than me?,(
22 MR. FISKE:
I had a series of conversations
(
23 with Mr. Klingsberg at some of which I believe t
(~h 24 you were present, following that letter that was
\\_)
l 25 written, and I believe that letter was written in
's 4
i t
t
f 1
Dunn 1015
(' h N/
2 early May.
I think we discussed this subject of 3
Mr. Dunn's deposition at least two or three times 4
after that, and there were, as I remember, three
({
5 r four different items in hat letter Mr.
6 Klingsberg wrote, and we reached an agreement, 7
I believe in June or early July, in which we agreed 8
we would call Mr. Dunn as a witness at the trial 9
so he would be available to answer any appropriate 10 questions at that point.
p it Then at issue we would make him available 12 for exa ndnation on documents in the cale files
[)J 13 that had been produced after his initial s-14 deposition, 15 As you well know, we resisted for a long time 16 producing Mr. Dunn at all, again on any subject.
17 We finally did agree to make him available for 18 questioning on those cale files.
But my 19 understanding of our agreement is exactly as I 20 stated.
21 MR. SELTZER:
You are saying my reliance 22 just on what Dave Klingsberg wrote to you on s
23 May 14th is misplaced, that there are oral n
5 24 understandings that you reached that are 25 inconsistent with what Dave Klingsberg wrote to
Dunn 1
1016 2
Y" A" "id~"*Y' MR. FISKE:
I am not going to say whether they are consistent or inconsistent with that 4
1etter.
I am te111ng you what they were.
MR. SELTZER:
You are saying they go beyond 6
what the letter describes?
7 i
g MR. FISKE:
Yes.
C1early what happened, there were at least maybe two or three g
Conversations.
When we met in May or June, j
always the subject of Mr. Dunn's deposition came g
12 up.
For a long time we said we didn't think you had any right to call Mr. Daunn at a11.
13 l
MR. SELTZER:
I know that.
We are going over g
the same ground, g
- Y "9 16 i
question you asked me.
g7 MR. SELTZER:
I thought K11ngsberg's letter gg l
at 1 east 'memoria11 zed the subjects we were l
gg
- E" "9'
9*
20 I
examination at all, and there was a lot of k
continuous discussion on that subject.
Maybe continual is the correct word.
g I never saw anything else that more O
1 precise 1y defined or narrowed the scope of the i
,5.
l
1 Dunn 1017 g
Bert Dunn deposition than what was set forth in Dave Klingsberg's letter to you.
MR. FISKE:
I am quite sure there was nothing further writen by either side, but I am telling you what my understanding was of the final meeting we had at which this was discussed, where we agreed to do two things.
One was to produce Mr. Dunn at trial, and secondly, to make him available for examination on the calculation files which we had 10 e.
produced since he had been deposed before.
Certainly it was never my understanding g
that 3 imply because a subject matter was covered in a calculation file, that that somehow opened up that whole subject matter.
If we have a difference of recollection on that., I am sorry, but that is my -- that is our understanding and it is on that basis that we prepared Mr. Dunn for g
this deposition.
MR. SELTZER:
I can certa, inly appreciate that since you didn't prepare Mr. Dunn on some subjects,you are not happy to have him examined on those subjects.
MR. FISKE:
As I say, Mr. Seltzer, when 24 Mr. Dunn is at trial, you can ask any question 25
1 Dunn 1018
/' T
%)
2 you want which the judge considers proper.
So 3
there is no effort to prevent you from getting 4
the appropriate information at the appropriate 5
time.
(
6 BY MR., SELTZER:
7 Q
Let me try to pull together what we can 8
without rubbing the cat's fur the wrong way.
9 We have already established that the steam 10 generator level issue arose because th.e 40-foot level 11 was for some reason not acceptable.
A 6-foot level was 12 then analyzed.
That was found to be unacceptable.
(_/
13 You initiated a preliminary safety concern 14 because the issue was unresolved.
Did B&W ever calculate 15 what was a safe level for the secondary sidewater in the 16 205 steam plant generators?
17 MR. BENEDICT:
I want to object to the 18 characterization that forms the preamble to your 19 question.
I don't have an objection to the last 20 question, whether or not an acceptable level was 21 calculated.
22 MR. FISKE:
Do you want to read the last 23 part of the question back, please.
(~N 24 (Record read.)
()
25 Q
When was that done?
l 1
Dunn 1019
/
2 A
I do not recall.
-3 Q
After the Three Mile Island accident, right?
4 A
I don't recall.
{
5 Q
What, as you recall, was the resolution?
6 A
As I recall, the resolution for the steam 7
generator level control on the 205 plant, it is that the 8
level will be raised to approximately 36 feet during 9
small break loss of coolant accident.
10 MR. SELTZER:
To fix a date when that result 11 was reached, I would like to mark as GPU Exhibit 12 619 a monthly activities report from Mr. Dunn, 13 dated April 29, 1980.
14 (April Activities Report from B.
M.
- Dunn, 15 dated April 29, 1980, marked GPU Exhibit 619 for 16 identification, as of this date.)
17 Q
Is GPU 619 a copy of a monthly report for 18 your section issued on or about April 29, 1980?
19 A
It is a copy of a monthly report issued for 20 the unit.
21 Q
On page 3,
item G at the top is headed 22 "205-FA Small Break Program."
Do you see that?
23 A
Yes.
24 Q
Do you see the reference in there to the 25 36-foot level keeping the core covered?
1 Dunn 1020 1,)
2 A
Yen.
Q Does this refresh your recollection that it 3
was in or about the spring of 1980 when the resolution 4
f the generator level small break problem was changed?
5
(
6 A
No.
7 Q
Do you have any recollection that is g
inconsistent with it being in the spring of 1980 that the issue was resolved?
9 10 A
No.
11 Q
At or about the time that the level issue 12 was being analyzed for the 205 plants, was your unit 13 also doing work on a dual level set point for one or more 177 steam generators?
14 15 MR. FISKE:
I am going to object to that 16 unless that is part of the calculation files.
17 MR. SELTZER:
That is what I am trying to 18 find out.
19 MR. BENEDICT:
I am not sure how it is the answer to that question is going to find out if 20 it is part of the calculation file.
21 22 MR. SELTZER:
If the work is being done, 23 I will find out whether it was being done in the
/~N 24 same manner that these calculations were done, N-]
does he believe that there are calculation files 25 l
l
__...__.m_
1 Dunn 1o21 2
for them, and we will bring those calculation 3
files.
i 4
MR. BENEDICT:
Do you have the calculation
(
5 files that you are looking for?
6 MR. SELTZER:
That is what we will find out.
7 MR. FISKE:
He can answer.
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
Which plant did that affect, or plants?
i 10 A
What I recall is Davis-Besse.
11 (Luncheon recess:
12:30 p.m.)
]
12 ooo
.13 14 15 16 l
17 1
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 m"**-
1r -r r****-
*--*--t
w ew-m~-++--v*--
- - * - - ~ * ' - - " - - - ' -
v+ w e=
--e,--m+--e t-w=rree'
-=+-e-r=-
- ---=*
- 'e
t 1022
\\
2 3
1s55 p.m.
4 5
- DUNN, having been
{
6 Previously sworn, resumed and testi.fied further as follows:
7 EXAMINATION (Continued) 8 BY MR. SELTZER:
9 e
10 Q
In GPU 611, the calc file,in front of you, gg would you turn to sheet 6, please.
12 Do you see in this list of analyses that
()
were run bef re the accident, down at the bottom PMP 01?
13 A
Yes.
g4 15 Q
Do you remember that at some point prior to the Three Mile Island accident your unit did some 16 calculations for what would happen to small break 17 18 mitigation if the reactor coolant pumps were left on gg during the transient?
A Yes.
20 21 Q
Pri r t d ing that analysis, you had 22 always made the assumption through licensing analysis that there was a loss of off site power coincident with 23 the transient, right?
y i
A Pri r to that analysis, we had done or 25 4
6
1 Dunn 1023
~ 0 considered the worst case for the small break evaluation
\\j 3
to be with the reactor coolant pumps not running.
3 4
Q In other words, for loss of coolant accident 5
analyses, you assumed that the reactor coolant pumps
{,
6 would be off, right?
7 A
For the small breaks.
8 Q
For small break loss of coolant accident 9
analyses, you assumed the reactor coolant pumps were not i
10 functioning, right?
11 A
Right.
12 Q
In a period prior to the Three Mile Island 13 accident, your unit did some study to see whether the 14 results would be better or worse with the reactor coolant 15 pumps left on during a small break loss of coolant 16 accident, right?
17 A
Yes.
'8 Q
Those are the calculations which are the PMP 01 calculations?
19 20 A
It is my understanding PMP 01 is part of 4
21 those.
22 Q
Am I correct that the cal'culations were 23 done because somebody had suggested that perhaps pumps 24 on was not a more conservative case than the pumps off?
25 MR. SELTZER:
Let me not use that word
l u
1 Dunn 1024 k_/
2 conservative.
I think like any political label,
)
3 it is subject to abuse.
4 Q
Am I correct that the pumps running case
(
5 or pumps on during small break loss of coolant accidents 6
was studied becauss someone suggested that it might 7
produce worse results than pumps shut off?
8 A
No.
9 Q
What did you understand was the reason why 10 in or about December 1978, B&W began t,o do analysis on 11 a pumps running case.for small break LocA mitigation?
12 A
Because we could not recover a computer O'( )
13 evaluation or a detailed evaluation of a pumps on e
14 situation.
We did not have evidence in support of 15 our' decision to do the analyses with the pumps off.
16 Q
What?
17 MR. BENQpICT:
Let's hear the answer again.
18 (Record read.)
19 Q
Before December
'78, you knew you analyzed 20 what the effect on the system was of having reactor 21 coolant pumps off while treating a small break loss of C
22 coolant accident, right?
23 MR. FISKE:
Right before Mr. Dunn responds,
(~N 94 I think we did the pumps running, on, off, in
(_)
25 between, intermittent, whatever, in great depth
_~
1 Dunn 1025
(~D s/
2 in Mr. Dunn's original deposition.
To the extent 3
that there is information in the calculation files.
4 MR. SELTZER:
That is what we are getting
(
5 to.
6 MR. FISKE:
I guess my point is, why don't 7
we get to it.
The rest of this,we have all been 8
over it many times before.
9 MR. SELTZER:
Let me try to do it in five 10 minutes and if I can't cover what I think is 11 important background to the calculations that were 12 done in five minutes, I will quit, because I agree N
s_)
13 it is not worth belaboring.
14 MR. FISKE:
You have the background already 15 from Mr. Dunn and others.
16 MR. SELTZER:
I have got GPU 330, which was 17 not an exhibit that we marked at Bert Dunn's 18 earlier dep,osition even though he got a copy of 19 it.
I think it is something that we either 20 received or understood only after we had initially 21 deposed him.
22 MR. FISKE-That is exactly my point.
That 23 is not what this deposition is for.
.{%)}
24 MR. SELTZER:
I had thought that it was to 25 cover things that grow out of the calculation
. ~. -
1 Dunn 1026
(~~.
k-2 files and grow out of materials that we had not 3
been able to examine Mr. Dunn on earlier.
This is 4
something that is integrally related to the pumps
((
5 running analysis, which is in the calculation files 6
I assure you it is no big deal.
I am just 7
trying to understand why these PMP 01 calculations 8
were done and why.we have both computer runs and 9
hand calculations for them in December '78 and 10 January
'79.
11 MR. FISKE:
Why. don't you ask Mr. Dunn that 12 question?
13 MR. SELTZER:
That is what I am trying to do.
14 BY MR. SELTZER:.
15 Q
Before December 1978, you had done analyses 16 of small break loss of coolant accidents with the 17 reactor coolant pumps off, right?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
You were not aware of any calculations that 20 had been done for the same small break loss of coolant 21 accidents with the pumps turned on, right?
22 I think you used the words it wasn't evident 23 that -- I am trying to clarify that you -- you meant in
(~N 24 1978 you weren't aware of any calculations that evaluated
\\_]
25 what the mitigation of the loss of coolant accident would
i Dunn 1027
-f}
(/
2' be if the reactor coolant pumps were left on instead of being shut off.
3 4
MR. BENEDICT:
He also said that they
(,
5 couldn't recover computer evaluations on that issue 6
I don't think your characterization of the answer 7
is g
MR. SELTZER:
All it is is a question, not g
a characterization.
10 A
I think I should state this myself.
We were not aware of detailed calculations or computerized 11 12 calculations, nor could we recover from our history
/~~')
(
13 detailed calculations or computerized calculations of 14 pumps on ir. small break situations.
15 Q
Isn't it also a fact that when you were 16 deciding whether to analyze a pumps on situation, there 17 vere people in your unit who advised you that they l
18 thought it was possible that having the pumps on could 19 be a worse situation than having the pumps off?
20 A
I d n't know.
21 Q
Do you remember that the op. inion was expressed in your unit that it is not obviously clear 22,
23 that leaving the reactor coolant pumps running results 94 in an enhanced ECCS situation?
/m) e
%d 25 MR. FISKE:
Is that quoting from some
--m.
1 Dunn 1028
')
2 document, Mr. Seltzer?
3 MR. SELTZER:
Bob Jones wrote it on 4
December 11, 1978; subject, small break analyses
(
5 with RC pumps powered.
6 MR. FISKE:
Maybe it would help if Mr. Dunn 7
saw the documents.
8 MR. SELTZER:
I am not asking him yet whether 9
the document refreshes his recollection.
e 10 Do you want to see the document?
The 11 document is GPU 330.
12 Q
Do you see the statement I just read?
O)
\\~
13 A
I am looking for it.
14 Q
Four lines from the bottom of the first 15 page.
16 A
No, I do not recall this.
17 Q
The next sentence says, "Thus, ECCS 18 recommends an analysis be performed to examine this 19 case."
20 You do recall that there was a recommendation 21 made within ECCS that a pumps on situation be analyzed 22 for small break loss of coolant accidents?
23 A
No, I do not.
24 Q
You know that it was analyzed, though?
25 A
Yes.
,,... _ _ _. _. _ - _.. _. _..,. _..., _ _ _. _. _.,,,........ _... _., _. - _ _ _.. ~.-
Dunn 1029 1
(h V
Q Y u don't have any recollection today why it 2
4
- ""*17**d?
3 MR. SELTZER:
I withdraw that.
4 (Recora read.)
{
3 MR. BENEDICT:
Mr. Dunn wants to revise an 6
answer.
7 MR. SELTZER:
We are all in favor of 8
a curate transcripts.
9 o
THE WITNESS:
I do recall ECCS recommending 10 that the analysis for the pumps on situation be gg made.
12 13 Q
But you don't remember that part of the reason for recommending that pumps on be studied was 14 because it wasn't obvious that leaving the pumps on 15 resulted in a better or an enhanced emergency core
, 16 cooling system situation, is that right?
17 A
That's correct.
gg Q
You don't have a recollection that that was g
not one of the reasons for studying it, do you?
Your mind doesn't rebel against the notion that that was part g
f the reason for studying pumps on, does it?
22 MR. BENEDICT:
Do you understand the g
question?
24 a
THE WITNESS.
Yes.
25
1 Dunn 1030 N_/
2 MR. FISKE:
He is simply rsking you, do you s
3 have a recollection today that that was not any 4
Part of the reason?
5 MR. SELTZER:
I think that is the way I
{.
6 phrased it the first time.
7 A
I have no recollection today that the 8
possibility of the pumps on situation producing a worse 9
result than the pumps off situation was not part of the 10 reason for recommending an evaluation,of the pumps on 11 situation.
I have no recollection that it was part of 12 the reason.
k_3)
/-
13 Q
Did you give anyone the assignment to study 14 the pumps on or pumps running situation?
15 A
An assignment was given.
16 Q
Who was assigned to work on it?
17 A
Nehru Shah.
18 Q
It is a fact, isn't it, that Nehru Shah 19 proceeded to do that analysis in December '78 or i
l 20 January '79 or thereabouts?
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
Would you turn to page 188 of GPU 611 Are 23 you able to recognize this page as being a page of the l
f"$)
24 calculation file that refers to the PMP 01 pumps on
\\~/
l 25 analysis?
\\_
(
~
1 Dunn 1031 b(3 A
It seems to.
-2 Q
It is true, isn't it, that the pumps on 3
analysis was done by Nehru Shah for the smallest break 4
size that was covered by the previous B&W topical
(,
5 reports for the 205 plant?
6 Let me ask a background question first.
7 withdraw that.
8 The previous B&W topical reports were small 9
i break loss of coolant accidents for 205 plants, went 10 down as small as a.05 square foot break?
gg A
I would want to check the topical report.
13 rs Q'.
13 I believe that is correct.
Q The smallest break for 177 plants'before the 14 Three Mile Island accident is a.04 square foot break, 15 16 right?
A I am not sure on the 177 plants and I need 17 18 to rescind my earlier answer.
MR. BENEDICT:
By the earlier answer you gg said you thought that.05 was the smallest for the 205 plant.
21 THE WITNESS: That is correct.
22
-MR.
BENEDICT:
You don't know whether that is 23 right either?
O 24
? V MR. SELTZER:
If you want, you can take a 25
1 Dunn 1032
(_/
2 look at GPU Exhibit 474, which you are one of the 3
main authors of, which is the small break analysis 4
for the 205 plant, and you can check in there to
(
5 see what the smallest break size was that was 6
analyzed.
7 A
Within that document, the smallest break 8
size analyzed is
.05.
9 Q
Isn't it a fact that within the comparable 10 document for the 177 plant, the smalle,st break size 11 analyzed was a.04 square foot break?
12 A
With the comparable document BAW 10052, the
/~
t
\\
13 answer would be yes.
14 Q
From page 6, which is a table of contents 15 kind of page, and from page 188, is it correct that the 16 PMP 01 analysis for pumps on was done for a.05 square 17 foot break?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
one of the things that was calculated was 20 what the void fraction would be at various times during 21 the transient, is that right?
22 A
Yes.
23 Q
Void fraction refers to what percentage of (c'
24 the reactor coolant system is gaseous phase and what
%/
25 percent is liquid water?
1 Dunn 1033 d
A Yes.
2 Q
A 93.6 percent void fraction would mean that 3
93.6 percent of the volume within the reactor coolant 4
system.as steam and 6.4 percent was liquid water 2 s
A In the definition of the void fraction was 6
the void fraction of the reactor coolant system, yes.
7 g
Q Is the particular break that was being studied in PMP 01 a break in the. pump discharge line?
g A
Iw uld have to review mor,e details in this 10 calculation to determine that.
77 12 Q
Take a look at page 6 and tell me if it is v
13 y,ur understanding that the reference to.05 square feet PD means that this is a pump discharge line break?
A The expression.05 foot square PD is typicall:r 15 used within BW ECCS analysis to indicate a pump 16 discharge break.
g 18 Q
S y u w uld understand the PMP.01 calculation of a tsentieth of a square foot break in 1g I.
the pump discharge line?
20 A
- Yes, g
j Q
Pump discharge refers-to the discharge side 22 f the reactor coolant pump?
i 23
[
A Yes.
p) 23 25 Q
S this is a postulated break in the pipe l.
- - - ~
i y
Dunn 1034 f"'T
()
that conducts water away from the reactor coolant pumps, 2
right?
3 4
A Yes.
5 Q
Shah has shown the progression of the
(
6 accident in seconds, in the left-hand column; do you see 7
that?
g A
Yes.
9 Q
So the line that begins with the number 600 10 would be a line that shows system condition at ten minutes 11 after the pump discharge line has sprung a leak of a 12 twentieth of a square foot?
w 13 A
That's correct.
14 Q
Looking at the void fraction in the reactor 15 coolant system outside of the pressurizer, this 16 calculation file shows that there would be a 93.6 percent 17 v id fraction there, right?
18 A
Subject to the quality of the Xerox that I 19 have got in front of me, yes.
l 20 Q
S that means after ten minutes of reactor i
l lant escaping through the pump discharge line break, 21 22 the composition of the remaining fluid in the reactor 23 e olant system would be 6.4 percent liquid water and L
/"'
24 3.6 percent steam?
A The composition of the reactor coolant system, 25 t
i
1 Dunn 1035
~
2 without consideration of a pressurizer, would be at that Y id f#"Cti ^*
3 4
Q You concluded from this analysis of pumps 5
running in the PMP 01 calculation that there would be
.{,
6, effective core cooling with the pumps running, right?
7 MR. SELTZER:
Let me withdraw that.
8 Q
You concluded from these results of the 9
PMP 01 calculation that for the.05 square foot pump 10 discharge line break that was being studied, there would i
11 be effective core cooling within the NRC standards; 12 isn't that right?
(\\_/
13 A
The conclusion was based on the specific 14 results and the interpretation of the results.
15 Q
Before I get to what it was based on, am I F
16 correct that your conclusion was, as I stated, that 17 there would be effective core cooling for a twentieth 18 of a square foot break in the pump discharge line with 19 the reactor coolant pumps on?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
You knew, didn't you, that with the reactor 22 coolant' pumps on, there would be a much more rapid loss 23 of water from the reactor coolant system than if the 2
24 reactor coolant pumps were off?
25 MR. BENEDICT:
I don't know what."much more
Dunn 1036 rapid" means, but if you can, answer.
A No.
3 Q
Why did you say that to Allen Womack'in your January 31, 1979 report to him?
MR. BENEDICT:
Why don't you show it to him if you are going to tell him that that in what it supposedly says?
MR. SELTZER:
It is not what it supposedly sayssthat is what it says.
MR. BENEDICT:
We don't know that yet.
Q Is GPU 117 a copy of your January monthly
['T report that you sent to Allen Womack?
U 13 MR. FISKE:
Could I ask you, was GPU 117 marked during Mr. Dunn's deposition?
la, MR. SELTZER:
Yes.
16 Q
Do you recognize this as being one of your monthly reports?
MR: FISKE:
Hasn't he already said that?
MR. SELTZER:
Right, but he didn't remember something that was in here so I want to refresh k
his recollection that this is his regular monthly report and we will go to what he meant to be relating accurately and to the best of his knowledge to Allen Womack on page 3.
25
Dunn 1037 C
Why do we have to get into a harangue on this?
MR. FISKE:
I think if you are interested 3
in finding out wha t Mr. Dunn was thinking at that time, if you would show him this document first, instead of asking him three years later for his recollection without the benefit of the document 7
you would get it a lot quicker.
If what you arc 8
really interested in is finding out what the facts are.
MR. SELTZER:
If you want tio agree that henceforth you will never examine any GPU witness O
about something that is in a douement -- that is,
\\j 13 not without showing him the document first I
will be willing to go along.
I don't think that has been your practice.
MR. FISKE:
I think it has been, but anyway, go ahead.
i BY MR. SELTZER:
19 Q
Is this one of your regular monthly reports?
A Yes.
21 l
k Q
Do you see the reference on page 3 to the pumps running analysis that had been done in the PMP 01 calculations?
Q i
l A
Yes.
25
1 Dunn 1038 s
2 Q
Do you see where you told Dr. Womack, without 3
qualification, "Results show a much r. ore rapid loss of 4
reactor coolant inventory relative to a case with
(
5 tripped reactor coolant pumps"- do you see that?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
Isn't it a fact that reaching a 93 or 94 8
percent void fraction in ten minutes is a much more rapid 9
loss of reactor coolant inventory than you would get with 10 the pumps shut off throughcut the transient?
11 MR. BENEDICT:
I am lost again.
You dipped i
12 momentarily into this document and now you have
[
simply used it as a lever to get back into a
\\
13 14 document that you admit you talked to Mr. Dunn 15 about a year and a half ago.
I don't see how this 16 relates to the calculation files.
17 MR. FISKE:
Putting it another way 18 MR. SELTZER:
I don't need two of you 19 putting it differently.
I understand you don't 20 want me to examine Mr. Dunn on a lot of things.
21 MR. BENEDICT:
You are going to get a chance r
w 22 to examine Mr. Dunn at trial on anything that is 23 relevant.
This deposition wasn't scheduled for h
24 that purpose.
Q 25 MR. SELTZER:
Figure out between the two of
Dunn 1039
[)
(
y u who wants to make this particular objection.
2 MR. BENEDICT:
I defer to Mr. Fiske.
3 MR. FISKE:
It is the same objection.
4 MR. SELTZER:
I know it is.
Why do I have s
5 6
to hear two people voice.it?
I am looking at the 7
93.6 percent void fraction in Nehru Shah's 8
calculation and I had at first asked Mr. Dunn didn't that mean to you that there was a much more 9
e 10 rapid loss of reactor coolant system inventory gg with pumps on than there was with pumps off.
12 I am allowed even under the narrow tm 13 c nstruction that Mr. Fiske wants to put on his 14 agreement with us to try to show the witness other 15 d cuments that will refresh his recollection of 16 what he understood that void fraction meant.
g7 MR. FISKE:
To put it simply,
understand so I
~
18 it 19 MR. SELTZER:
I thought Mr. Benedict was handling this question.
20 21 MR. FISKE:
are you asking whether Mr.
22 Dunn had an understanding at the time this analysis was made that in ten minutes, with the pumpo off, 23 24 he would have a void fraction of something less than 93.6?
Is that what you are getting at?
25
1 Dunn 1040 C.
.2 MR. SELTZER:
That is certainly implicit in 3
the question.
It can't be a much more rapid loss--
4 MR. FISKE:
I won't object to that, if that 5
is the question.
(,
l 6
BY MR. SELTZER:
7 Q
The question, Mr. Dunn, is isn't it a fact 8
that you understood by the end of January 1979 that 9
there was a much more rapid loss of fluid during a 4
10 situation where the pumps were on versus same small l
11 break LOCA with the pumps off for the case being studied 12 by Shah?
13 If you want to say today you can't recall, l
14 I don't care.
I have got what you already told Womack.
I 15 MR. FISKE:
That is exactly my point, Mr.
i
.l 16 Seltzer.
It is right here in the memo.
17 MR. SELTZER:
Fine.
He s a id ru), he didn't 18 think that was true when I asked him without r
l i
19 showing the memo.
Now I am showing him the memo l
20 and I get objections from you and Mr. Benedict to i
.21.
showing him the memo because you don't think that C
22 is in the calculation file.
(
23 Let's not play games with one another.
This i
24 is a simple point.
I don't think he was 25 misrepresenting the facts to Womack when he l
l l
-,.----.-.-..-,,,.--,-.---..,,-,...c._
1 Dunn 1041
\\_)
2 reported this to Womack.
I think this probably 3
does refresh his recollection that there was a 4
much more rapid loss.
5 I don't think your objections really are
(
6 doing anything except making Mr. Dunn very nervous 7
that maybe he shouldn't give away some big point 8
to us.
9 MR. FISKE:
That seems to be one of your 10 favorite comments.
Why don't yo,u let Mr. Dunn 11 answer the question?
12 MR. SELTZER:
If the shoe fits 13 MR. FISKE:
I will let Mr. Dunn answer 14 the question if by looking at this, it refreshes 15 his recollection whether --
16 MR. SELTZER:
Stop talking, will you.
THE WITNESS:
I don't know whose question I 17 18 am answering.
19 A
Looking at the progress report of January 20 1979 does not refresh my recollection.
21 Q
Is it your belief now, based on the results 22 of the PMP 01 calculat' ion, that there is not a much more 23 rapid l'oss of fluid if the reactor coolant pumps are
/]
24 on?
U 25 A
No.
n
_,-4
\\
Dunn 1042 1
a s
i s_/
2 Q
In other words, it is your belief that 3
1 king at the PMP 01 results,that there is a'much more 4
rapid loss of fluid?
s t
(
5 A
No.
6 Q
How can you say no to both questions?
7 A
The nature of the loss of fluid is time-8 dependent of the concept.
It could be either morecrapid 9
or less rapid.
10 Q
Why did you tell Allen Womack that it was 11 much more rapid with pumps on?
12 A
I don't know.
13 Q
Do you today believe that you mislead Mr.
14 Womack when you said that to him?
15 MR. FISKE:
I object to that, Mr. Seltzer.
l l
16 That is a very improper question.
You mean i
17 intentionally misled?
18 MR. SELTZER:
No, not intentionally.
l 19' Q
Unintentionally or intentionally misled 20 Mr. Womack.
s 21 MR. FISKE:
I object to the form of that.
(_
~
l 22 He already told you he doesn't remember writing, l
23 why he wrote that sentence.
He has told;you,-Me
(^}
34 has given his best answer.
l- 'N J 25 MR. SELTZER:
He didn't say he do es n ' t _ kn.ov.
'l
i
's 1
Dunn 1043 N'
2 why.
He said it doesn't refresh his recollection that the matter stated is true.
3 4
MR. BENEDICT:
Is there a pending question?
5 MR. SELTOER:
Yes.
({,
6 Q
Is it your belief that you were misleading 7
Mr. Womack, either intentionally or not, when you told 8
him there was a much more rapid loss of fluid?
9 MR. FISKE:
I am going to tell him not to 10 answer that question.
It goes beyond the limited 11 scope of this deposition; and secondly, I don't 12 like the way it is phrased.
/x
\\_)
13 MR. SELTZER:
How would you prefer to have 14
.it phrased?
15 MR. FISKE:
Without the word " misleading."
16 Q
Is it your belief that you told Mr. Womack i
17 something wrong when you told him in your January report, l
~
18 based on results you just received, that there is a much 19 more rapid lose of fluid for pumps running rather than 20 pumps off?
gi MR. BENEDICT:
Are you talking about what
(_
g3 does he believe or are you talking about what does 23 he remember what he was talking about in this
['
24 memo?
He told you this memo has not refreshed l \\/
O 25 his recollection.
l 1
l'
Dunn 1044 Q
Is what you said to Allen Womack wrong?
A I don't believe so.
3 Q
You believe it is correct that there is a P
much more rapid loss of reactor coolant inventory with pumps on in contrast to pumps off?
6 A
No.
The level of communication contained in 7
the progress report and the information provided there g
is correct.
9 Q
In other words, the result,s show a much more rapid loss, is that what you are saying?
A No.
I Q
How do you rationalize the statement that you made to Allen Womack in the report with the qualifications that you are testifying to today?
A That I probably -- excuse me that the communication to Allen would have been on the large time frame for the accident, not on the small time frame at g
which time may be important to the loss of fluid.
And g
that he had not a need to understand the fine structure 20 but the gross structure, for example, out to ten minutes.
b-Q Out at ten minutes, there certainly is a much i
greater loss of fluid with pumps on than there would have been for the same accident at ten minutes with pumps off, 24
[]
t
's
/
right?
25 l
1 Dunn 1045 13
()
2 A
For the conditions of PMP 01, yes.
Q Is it your recollection that at some earlier 3
4 Point in the transient', before ten minutes, there may be 5
greater fluid loss with pumps off than with pumps on?
[}
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
So the statement that you made to Allen g
Womack is correct, by the time you have a transient that has run ten minutes,but at some time short of ten g
10 minutes it would not be true?
11 MR. BENEDICT:
Not a transient; the specific 12 transient in PMP 01, f) 13 MR. SELTZER:
Right.
v e
14 A
For the specific transient in PMP 01, that's 15 correct.
16 Q
What, if anything, is your recollection as 17 to where the crossover point occurs between numps on 18 creating greater fluid loss than pumps off?
19 A
The crossover point would be the point at 20 which water traps are formed within the primary system such that the break sees predominantly steam flow.
21 22 Q
Do you know when in point of time that occurs-23 for this particular break size?
~
24 A
No, I do not.
C#
25 Q
You concluded from these calculations of
~
1 Dunn 1046 f%(,)
2 liquid steam remaining in the reactor coolant system with 3
the pumps on that there would continue to be effective 4
core cooling, and you so testified already this 5
afternoon, I believe.
(
6 I would like to show you some B&W calculation 7
sheets which Mr. Benedict was kind enough to supply to 8
us.
9 MR. BENEDICT:
But not, however, performed by 10 MR. SELTZER:
I think anyo,ne could take 11 judicial notice that'you didn't perform these 12 calculations.
[)
13 Let's mark these as GPU Exhibit 620.
v 14 (Document containing Babcock & Wilcox 15 General Calculations marked GPU Exhibit 620 for 16 identification, as of this date.)
17 Q
Tell me if these are calculations with which 18 you are familiar.
19 A
I have examined these.
20 Q
Do you recognize those as being calculation 21 sheets that you referred to in determining that for the 22 Pumps running case that was studied in January 1979, 23 there would continue to be effective core cooling?
("%
24 MR. FISKE:
Calculation sheets that he 25 referred to back in
'79, is that what you mean?
1 Dunn 1047 2
MR. SELTZER:
I had asked, just so you know, 3
Bob Wise to send us the calculations that 4
demonstrated a~dequate core cooling due to force 5
flow steam cooling situations as referred to on
{
6 page 3 of GPU Exhibit 117.
7 The gentleman to your immediate right sent me 8
a letter on July 18, 1982 saying responsive material 9
is enclosed, and I have just handed Mr. Dunn 10 that material.
11 I am just asking Mr. Dunn now, can he verify 12 that these calculations are what demonstrated to O-()
13 him the fact that he has stated to Allen Womack; 14 namely, that there is effective core cooling for 15 the pumps running case.
16 MR. BENEDICT:
The underlying question is, 17 did Dunn see these-- you are talking about him 18 personally in that time period?
19 MR. SELTZER:
Yes.
This has the 670 degrees 20 Fahrenheit in the memo to Allen Womack.
-21 A
The question is, do I recognize these 22 calculations as being the calculations referred to or 23 supporting statements made in the January ECCS activity fT 24 report, Section 1.2?
The answer is no.
NJ
~
25 Q
Can you identify those calculations at all?
L 1
Dunn 1048
/"
k.
2 A
In fashion, calculations were given to me 3
by legal representative yesterday.
4 Q
When you said to Allen Womack, "The 5
calculations have been performed which shows that..."
(
6 et cetera, had somebody reported to you that such 7
calculations had been performed or had you actually seen 8
the calculations?
9 A
I don't know.
10 Q
It would be one or the o t h.e r, right?
4 11 A
Yes.
12 Q
Today you just can't recall how you came to
(~~\\
(,)
13 know that calculations had been performed?
14 A
I know that I was told calculations had been 15 performed.
I know I was told something about their 16 results.
17 I did not know whether I saw the calculations 18 MR. SELTZER:
Let's see how much cooperation 19 we will get from counsel for B&W, I don't want to 20 make more of an engima out of this than needs to 21 be.
I would like to find out whether these 22 calculations which Rod Benedict produced for us
~
23 this summer are calculations which, to the best of 24 B&W's knowledge, were in existence prior to a
25 January 31 and are they ones that you believed 4
y c-
, -, -..,, _. _,, _., _ - _. ~
-,.-m,.
i Dunn 1049 O) when you gathered them and sent them to me were
(
2 al ulations that were available to Mr. Dunn.
3 4
MR. BENEDICT:
What I say in my letter ab ut them is what I ascertained about them.
5 6
MR. SELTZER:
You are being more enigmatic 7
than helpful.
8 MR. FISKE:
I think we can tell you that thes e in fact were in existence at the time Exhibit 117 g
10 was prepared.
I don't think we are prepared to it represent one way or the other whether Mr. Dunn 12 himself saw them or just heard about them.
I think
[~)h 13 he has answered that for you.
14 MR. SELTZER:
All right, but just so that it 15 is clear, you are stipulating that these records 16 which we are going to mark as GPU Exhibit 620 were l
17 in B&W's file prior to January 31, 19797 t
18 MR. BENEDICT:
That is my understanding.
I 19 won't I can't be sure that it is January 31, l
20 1979 as much as it is somewhere in that time 21 period, prior to the Three Mile Island accident,
(-
and I think the best thing for me to do, Richard, 22 l
23 is doublecheck this and if I have any different 94 response I will tell you, to the best we can find 1
25 out.
1 Dunn 1050
[\\~/
2 You can see as well as I can that there is 3
no date on this document.
4 BY MR. SELTZER:
1 5
Q You don't know of any other hand calculations 6
that were performed to show that there was effective core 7
cooling with the pumps running other than GPU 620, do 8
you?
I mean done prior to January 31, 1979.
9 A
At this time, no, I don't know.
10 MR. SELTZER:
Let's* mark the computer run 11 for the PMP 01 calculation as GPU Exhibit 621.
12 (Series of sheets, top sheet of which is
(~'s
(_)
13 captioned File 8525, T36698-T37949 marked 14 GPU Exhibit 621 for identification, as of this 15 date.)
16 Q
Are you familiar with ECCS analysis data 17 that comes out in the form that GPU 621 is?
18 A
To some extent.
~
19 Q
You have reviewed transient analyses that 20 have data printed out in this form?
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
Would you turn to page 738, please.
It is 23 machine-stamped in the corner, the lower right-hand f~}
24 corner.
The date in the upper right-hand corner on that ts 25 page is January 11, 1979.
Do you see that?
1 Dunn 1051 O.
%)
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
Is that the date that this was run on the 4
computer?
5 A
I believe so.
6 Q
Do you recognize this as a computer modeling 7
of the PMP 01 pumps on case?
8 A
This run is entitled PMP014T.
9 Q
If you look at the first page, just after 10 the page that has the exhibit mark on,i t, it perhaps 11 helpfully records under PMP105T,.050 square foot pump 12,
discharge break.
()
13 MR. BENEDICT:
1980 date.
14 MR. SELTZER: If it helps you, Mr. Dunn, 15 Rodman W.
Benedict told us on July 8th that this 16 PMP01 run that he supplied was the source for 17 Table 188 -- the table on page 188 of the cale 18 file.
19 Am I right, Mr. Benedict?
20 MR. BENEDICT:
If that is what my letter 21 says, yes.
I don't know how that is going to help 22 Mr. Dunn.
Either he recognizes it or he doesn't.
23 MR. SELTZER:
That is fair enough.
I am not
(~N 24 really asking him cold for an identification.
V 25 You have apparently consulted people in the
[
Dunn 1052 m
company to determine that this is the computer run that supports Nehru Shah's table on page 188.
MR. BENEDICT:
Why are we pursuing it?
MR. SELTZER:
Okay.
MR. BENEDICT:
Why don't you ask Mr. Dunn if he has ever seen this computer run before, or
,i Seen it prior to the Three Mile Island accident, if that is what interests you.
We have been sitting here for five minutes and Mr. Dunn has been paging over this to the best of his ability, but we haven't gotten an answer.
MR. SELTZER:
It is a very long document and
%)
he may be trying to be very certain that this is what it generally appears to be.
la, MR. FISKE:
Without belaboring the record, we are prepared to tell you that this was in existence in January of
'79.
Isn't that good enough, so that Mr. Dunn doesn't have to spend the rest of the afternoon reading it?
MR. SELTZER:
Are you also willing to
(
stipulate that this is the computer run which is the source for the table of figures which Nehru Shah has on page 188 of the calculation file which we
(
have previously marked as GPU Exhibit 611?
25
1 Dunn 1053
,O
(_/
3 MR. BENEDICT:
I guess the question is whether Mr. Dunn could get you down that road.
3 4
He is the wrong witness.
You are asking the wrong 5
questions.
6 MR. SELTZER:
I am trying to reach an f
7 amicable agreement with Mr. Fiske.
Maybe I dor ;
8 need Mr. Dunn's testimony.
9 MR. FISKE:
I cannot answer that question 10 yes.or no, and if we can find ou,t, we will.
11 MR. BENEDICT:
I think this would have best 12 been taken care of by calling on the phone and b
(,,i 13 asking me what I meant, if you didn't understand 14 the contents of my letter.
15 MR. SELTZER:
I understand it.
16 MR. BENEDICT:
What is the problem?
17 MR. SELTZER:
You are saying you want to l
l 18 get back to me.
~
19 '
MR. BENEDICT:
You asked me a question, was i
20 this in existence by a particular day --
[
MR. SELTZER:
I didn't ask that.
21 22 MR. BENEDICT:
You said was it in existence 23 by January 31, 1979.
24 MR. SELTZER:
We are finished with that, s_-
25
1 Dunn 1054
/~\\
2 MR. BENEDICT:
That is the only thing I said 3
about getting back to you about.
This is not the 4
right forum to deal with this.
I think we can 5
amicably work this out.
You haven't asked him if 6
he hasn't seen this before.
7 MR. FISKE:
Let's deal with this independent 8
of Mr. Dunn.
9 BY MR. SELTZER:
10 Q
Mr. Dunn, I would like you to assume for 11 Purposes of the succeeding questions that GPU Exhibit 12 621 is the source material for the Nehru Shah chart on O( f 13 page 188 of GPU 611.
14 Would you take a look at page 738, please.
15 The left-hand column lists nodes.
Do you see that?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
What are nodes as they are used here?
18 A
A node is a mathematical entity within the 19 C RAFT code simulation which refers to a space region 20 with'in which the thermodynamic properties of fluid are 21 to be calculated.
Typically it represents a zone 22 of the reactor coolant system.
23 Q
would I be correct if I said that one of
/"
24 these nodes is the core region?
t(
25 A
I would need to review the run in more
g.
Dunn 1055 fh
(_)
2 detail but one of these nodes is all or part of the core 3
region or more.
4 Q
In GPU 611, could you take a look at the 5
CRAFT nodes diagram which is page 27.
6 A
okay.
7 Q
Is that description of nodes what you were 8
referring to as the nodes within the CRAFT computer l
9 e de?
10 A
Yes, assuming there hasn't been any 11 deviation within the cale file for this particular run 12 Q
Is node 2 the lower plenum?
[~
13 A
Yes.
Am.
14 Q
Is node 3 the core region?
15 A
. Node 3 would contain the core region.
16 Q
Would it contain anything else?
17 A
I would have to review the details of the 18 model to tell you whether it contained anything else or 19 not.
20 Q
The last column on page 738 in Exhibit 621 21 shows the liquid volume in the different regions of the 22 reactor coolant system, right?
23 A
Yes.
24 Q
In Region 2, which was the lower plenum or 25 lower head, what is the liquid volume, 890 cubic feet?
1 Dunn 1056 f*
l\\-
2 A
On page 738, 893.
3 Q
893 cub'ic feet?
f 4
A Yes.
(
5 Q
The volume of water in the core region, is 6
that 1164 cubic feet?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
Those are liquid volumes at time zero in 9
the transient, right?
10 A
Yes.
Page 738 is time zero.
11 Q
That is a picture of the conditions in the 12 system at the last milli ~second before the break occurs,
)
x_/
13 is that correct?
14 A
Right.
15 Q
There is no steam in the reactor coolant 16 system outside the pressurizer, right, looking at the 17 column steam mass and bubble mass?
18 A
That's correct.
19 Q
Would you turn to page 362 of Exhibit 621.
20 Page 362 shows the condition of the system at ten 21 minutes into the transient, right?
22 A
Correct.
23 Q
By that time the lower head has 322.5 cubic
./f'T 24 feet of liquid water, right?
U 25 MR. BENEDICT:
The lower head you established
1 Dunn 1057
\\ '\\
i 2
was node 2,
is that right?
3 MR. SELTZER:
Right.
4 A
Yes.
l 5
Q The core region has 133.6 cubic feet of 6
liquid water, right?
1 7
A Correct.
8 Q
Am I also correct that prior to the Three 9
Mile Island accident, you know of no other analysis that 10 was done with this degree of completeness for a pumps 11 running case with a small break loss of coolant accident i'
- 12 in progress?
I)
(_
13 MR. BENEDICT:
Could I hear that again?
14 (Record read.)
15 A
That is true.
16 Q
The liquid water volume for the lower head l
17 and core region is 456.1 cubic feet, right?
18 A
That is true.
19 MR. BENEDICT:
That is a matter of adding 20 those two numbers we talked about up; is that 21 all you have done, Mr. Seltzer?
22 MR. SELTZER:
That is all I did.
I don't 23 know what Mr. Dunn did to arrive at that.
~}
24 Q
With the reactor coolant pumps on, the
~~s 25 liquid water and the steam remains in a homogeneous
+'
1 Dunn 1058
(-.
k 2
mixture, right?
3 I will withdraw that, because I see you are i
4 puzzling over it.
(
5 Your understanding before the Three Mile 6
~
Island accident was if you left the reactor coolant 7
pumps running while there was steam and water in the 8
reactor coolant system outside the pressurizer, the 9
steam and water would remain in a homogeneous mixutre, 10 is that right?
11 A
On the microscopic scale, yes.
12 Q
You mean there might be small microscopic A)
(_
13 places where the mixture was not homogeneous?
e 14 A
If one goes to the extreme microscopic and 15 looks at the droplets of water, it certainly is not 16 homogeneous, Q
Can I simplify it?
If one could take a i
17 18 sample of a cubic foot of volume from anywhere in the 1
(
19 reactor coolant system outside the pressurizer, would 1
20 there be a homogeneous mixture of steam and water if the 21 reactor p' imps remained on?
([
22 A
Mostly.
23 Q
Liquid water is substantially more dense 24 than steam, right?
25 MR. BENEDICT:
We have been through all of L
1 Dunn 1059 2
this, Mr. Seltzer.
3 Go ahead and answer.
4 A
Yes.
(
5 Q
If the reactor coolant pumps are turned off, 6
you knew that the liquid water volume would fall to the 7
bottom of the reactor vessel and the steam would rise to 8
the top?
9 MR. BENEDICT:
I object.
This has nothing 10 to do with these calculations, you are simply 11 going over information that we covered completely 12 in Mr. Dunn's deposition a year and a half ago.
s_-
13 This computer run you are talking about is a 14 homogeneous model.
There is no discussion here 15 about phase separation.
So let's just move on.
16 MR. SELTZER:
It is called the phase 17 separation model on page 6.
18 MR. BENEDICT:
If I am wrong on that, then 19 I am not wrong on the fact we have gone through 20 all these phase separations in Mr. Dunn's prior 21 testimony,so you don't have to answer that 22 question.
23 Q
From the calculation which showed the liquid 24 water volume in the lower head and core would be 456 25 cubic feet at ten minutes into the transient, you knew,
Dunn 1060 g
)
did you not, that if the pumps were shut off at ten minutes, there would be 456 cubic feet of water that would come to rest in the bottom of the core region?
4 MR. BENEDICT:
I object.
You don't have to answer.
You are asking him to make a calculation now.
You are asking him to interpret a document as to 3
what he thinks now.
He is not here to testify as g
a
"" **E*#
Y"""
10 document means.
MR. SELTZER:
That is what I am asking.
g MR. BENEDICT:
That. question doesn't ask 13 we that.
You are asking what if this would happen, what if that would happen, and it is not in these files; and to the extent it is, you are simply asking him to read something that is there.
Q D-id you know in January 1981.if 456 cubic 18 I
feet would be sufficient to cover the core?
g MR. BENEDICT:
Did you mean 19817 MR. SELTZER:
'79.
21 Q
Did you know in January 1979 whether 456 I
22 cubic feet of liquid water would be sufficient to cover the core?
i 24 I
.MR.
BENEDICT:
Again, it is beyond j
25 1
,, - - - -.. +,
Dunn 1061
(^T
(,/
discussing these calc files.
MR. SELTZER:
It is directly related to the calc file.
MR. BENEDICT:
We have gone through with C
you for eight days Mr. Dunn's knowledge about 6
various components in this plant.
We have not --
we are not going over that again today.
g MR. SELTZER:
I don't intend to.
I now 9
,.Y u provided it
- 8 10 in July 1982, the calculations which showed exactly what the water volume was they knew would g
( )/
exist and which they had calculated wculd exist on 13 s-January 20, 1979.
MR. BENEDICT:
Mr. Seltzer --
MR. SELTZER:
Let me finish.
. 16 MR. BENEDICT:
That document was given to you L
a year before.
Absolutely true.
7g MR. SELTZER:
I don't know when it was g
available.
We didn't get it until July 1982 and we have been writing letters, finding out what 21 the basis for the pumps running analysis was for a 22 long time before that.
MR. BENEDICT:
If you don't know what to ask f
for since you are given access to our central i
i l - -.... -
...,.....-.--..---,-----,,..----,,-,--~,-~~---,,-~-----------------~v~-
Dunn 1062 1
h V
files, I can't be responsible.
You have had 2
access to PMP01 for years.
That is what you are asking; questions from.
4 8
d "'
- *" Y "
(
5 had access to it.
I know when we got it.
We got 6
it this summer.
It is a calculation.
We are 7
entitled to ask Mr. Dunn about calculations in the g
calc files.
i g
I am asking him directly from a page of this 10 calculation file and you haven't i$thibited our gg examination based on these numbers up until now.
12 i
I an nly assume that your reluctance to let him 13 testify now is not related to the source of my 14 question but to where I am going with it, and you 15 1
are bviously afraid that he is going to spill the 16 beans that he knew there would be core uncovery 17 with only 456 cubic feet of water.
18 MR. BENEDICT:
Let's stop that kind of gg s M ness.
20 MR. SELTZER:
You are being silly, and you g
know it.
22 MR. BENEDICT:
Are you going to contend that g
l every time a lawyer objects to a question, that l
q k
~
he is trying to cover up something?
If that is 25
_.. ~
1 Dunn 1063 f
2 the case, I can't wait to have the judge see what 3
y ur operators and your lawyers representing 4
your operators say.
Talk about coverup; you are
(
5 the one who is always getting personal.
6 The reason I did not object to your 7
questions yet, because you asked him what does this 8
question mean.
It means there are so many feet 9
at that node.
It means that there are so many 10 feet at that node, that is fine.,
11 What Mr. Dunn knew in January 1979 or 12 January of 1981 is not relevant -- strike that --
[')N
'\\-
13 it is not relevant to this limited deposition.
14 You may ask him thatat trial.
He will be there.
15 You can ask him.
~
16 You had eight days to ask him a year and a 17 half ago and it is just not the purpose of this 18 deposition as I understood it, and I have got to go l
19 with what I understand.
l 20 MR. SELTZER:
We didn't have when we deposed 21 Mr. Dunn the last time, the black and white 22 evidence as to what was known in January 1979 would 23 be the water volume in the core if the pumps were
~h
[d 24 left on, causing a small break loss of coolant 25 accident.
1 Dunn 1064 f~%
(
)
2 MR. BENEDICT:
The fact that you chose to 3
depose Mr. Dunn early in your deposition schedule 4
while you know document production was still 5
continuing is a risk you took.
Mr. Dunn will b'e
(
6 at trial and I am not interfering with any proper-7 examinatio., on any subject.
8 We came here and prepared Mr. Dunn at this 9
late date --
10 MR. SELTZER:
I know what you are saying.
11 I don't think the position you are taking, where' 12 I am examining directly from the face of a i
s_/
13 calculation document, and in fact a document that 14 I was examining from with no interruption when 15 he was here, I don't think he is going to block 16 my examination on this tomorrow morning.
I don't 17 know what to say.
18 MR. BENEDICT:
I can't guarantee anything 19 will be resumed tomorrow.
20 MR. SELTZER:
There is no other question 21 in my mind that otherwise we could finish today.
22 With you standing in my way of examining him 23 precisely from a document that I only got from
("T 24 you this summer, which is a calculation document, q) 25 I prefer to ask it with senior trial counsel
1 Dunn 1065 2
here instead of you.
3 MR. BENEDICT:
I am telling you that Mr.
4 Fiske agrees with me.
You have terminated your
(.
5 deposition.
6 MR. SELTZER:
I am not saying I am finished.
7 MR. BENEDICT:
You finish now or I can't 8
guarantee that Mr. Dunn will be back.
That is all 9
I am telling you.
10 BY MR. SELTZER:
1 11 Q
You knew in January 1979 that 205 plants 12 were raised loop plants?
\\_.-
13 MR. BENEDICT:
I am going to object to the 14 question, but let him answer.
It is a question 15 you have asked him before, but I will let him 16 answer to move along.
17 A
Yes.
18 Q
You knew the 177 plants, except for Davis-19 Besse, were lowered loop plants?
20 A
Yes.
21 Q
You knew if the pumps were shut off in the 22 middle of a transient for the 205 plants, water would 23 drain down through the loops into the core region?
e
(~N 24 MR. BENEDICT:
Asked and answered eighteen N,
25 months ago.
I am not going into it again.
It is
y Dunn 1066
(~v k-2 beyond the scope of this limited deposition.
3 Y u can ask Mr. Dunn at trial.
4 Q
You knew for the 177 plants that there would 5
be water that would get trapped in the loops?
(,
6 MR. BENEDICT:
Same objection.
7 Q
Didn't you?
g MR. BENEDICT:, Don't answer.
9 Q
Did you learn before the Three Mile Island 10 accident that all or any parh of your February 1978 11 prescription for the management of high pressure 12 injection was being incorporated in procedures that a
\\s,/
13 were being drafted for any B&W plants?
14 MR. BENEDICT:
Beyond the scope of this 15 deposition.
You can ask that question at trial.
16 MR. SELTZER:
That is explicitly part of 17 the May letter.
I I
Ig MR. BENEDICT:
I am not sure I understand.
19 The May letter is inoperative,to use one of l
I President Nixon's favorite phrases, or one of his 20 21 press people.
(_
22 MR. SELTZER:
You are putting yourself in 23 go d company.
24 MR. BENEDICT:
Mr. Fiske just told you there s_/
25 were several conversations which neither of us were l
l
1 Dunn 1067
/^\\
k_
2 privy to.
I can only tell that that the cale files 3
are the limitation of this deposition.
Anything 4
else can be gone into at trial.
Mr. Fiske has told
(,
5 you that we have agreed to bring Mr. Dunn to the 6
trial.
7 MR. SELTZER:
I think the incorporation of 8
Mr. Dunn's recommendations into the emergency 9
operating specifications is something that was 10 not beyond the scope of this deposition, and I 5
11 think 12 MR. BENEDICT:
If that is the only question--
13 MR. SELTZER:
Why do you keep interrupting?
14 MR. BENEDICT: I am sorry.
You are 15 absolutely right.
Excuse me.
Go ahead.
16 MR. SELTZER:
Let's resume tomorrow morning 17 at 9:30.
j I
18 MR. BENEDICT:
If that is the only question I
19 you have, I can assure you that Mr. Fiske is 20 going to agree with me it is not.
I strongly
[
21 recommend that you continue with the remaining L
22 questions on the calc files because I don't l
23 guarantee that Mr. Dunn will be here tomorrow.
l i
('
24 MR. SELTZER:
Since I was proceeding with N. -
25 questions on the cale file and you see fit to l
Dunn 1068 1
block the examination, I am not' going to proceed any further with you.
3 MR. BENEDICT:
I told you go ahead and I 4
will make my objections and then we will have a
(
5 record of it to deal with it.
6 MR. SELTZER:
I will see you tomorrow.
7 MR. BENEDICT:
Perhaps.
8 MR. SELTZER:
Let me schedule it for 10:30.
9 I don't have very much more.
10 (Time noted:
3:45 p.m.)
11 j
12 g)
\\_
13 BERT MERRIT DUNN 14 Subscribed and sworn to before me 15 t.his 7 day of W.
1982.
16 1,
(^^-
18 ww nry a bdD. 6PM 19 20 21 22 23 i
25
1069 1
h
' k-CERTIFICATE 4
2 STATE OF NEW YORK
)
3
- ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
)
4 1(
I, CATHERINE Cook
, a Notary Public of the State of New York, do hereby certify that the continued deposition of 7
BERT MERRIT DUNN Was taken before 8
me on Wednesday, September 15, 1982 consisting 9
of pages 969 through 1068 I further certify that the witness had been previously sworn and that the within
(_)
transcript is a true record of said testimony; That I am not connected by blood or 14 marriage with any_of the said parties nor interested directly or indirectly in the matter in controversy, nor am I in the employ of any of the counsel.
~
18 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 19 brr)dayof brklWr-
,hN hand this 20 f
21 on p
i 23
$A111 O_,
Wb CATHERINE Cook
,j
(
)
24 25
__m..._-
_ _ _ _ _ _.-_ _ _ _.-- -.... _ _ _.-_ _ _ _ _=__ ___ _ _ _ _
)
{
1070' s
3 x c i
s
\\
4 1
INDEX
{
J j
WITNESS PAGE j
Bert~Merrit Dunn 971
[
i
?
3 E X H 'I B IT S 1
i GPU FOR IDENTIFICATION
,}k 611 Stack of documents with tab
~
reading 205 Fuel Assembly
,3 3
l Small Break 32-7743-0 976-i
^
j j
612 Memo dated March 14, 1977, from Bob Jones to S.
J.
Engel 983 1
613 Memorandum dated March 30, 1978, from Mr. Shah to Dr.
Roy 985 l
614 Memo from Bob Jones to Mr.
l Dunn, dated March 30, 1978 988 i
615 March activities report of Bert Dunn to Don Roy, dated April 3,
1978 993 I
616 PSC dated April 4,
- 1978, signed by Bert Dunn 1001 617 Memo dated June 9,
- 1978, from Bert M.
Dunn to J.
J.
Cudlin 1006 618 B.
M.
Dunn July Activities Report, dated July 31, 1978 1011 O
~
\\.
k 3
(
sde -
v m,ki4 d5Lkt.. l -
C Y8 4 =5%+
45' h44 $3%
1071 INDEX OF EXHIBIT (Continued) 3 GPU FOR IDENTIFICATION PAGE 1
619 April Activities Report from 3
B.
M.
Dunn, dated April 29, 1980 1019 620 Document containing Babcock &
Wilcox General Calculations 1046 621 Series of sheets, top sheet of which is captioned File 8525, T36698-T37949 1050 oOo 1
- s-i s
O e
4 s
l ~
l s
n O
w+a c.- M * -'
es YN>h we-,Y
=
At % 9 64 0
U*
- N
. _.... _,. _ ~ ',. ' ' _. _ '. ',, '.......,
r =m-W--.-
a m - c,aica-t'LfLf cha a,r.r.<p ft/~ 90 T73 - Bfut
- e. Loc,*s,'por-f f '
. --.- - 9f2,$uajn (+offd,$r<$; i 3 v/7r, gees Y A.Scs/coS
-_'_ l f */, dicMCr c)cdc. v fa NRc Mll.
A t-M i' A L fcf,oru 64 911-Da c tr
'lwsl
$1T - MK 'l N.
)) cs/so o>. $
fit-Yb-. O & a.s Q'
- d
& W cesW<
/oc4r,s/^/'ss
, jf.
~
d' 4.L sf p.$rvs+eJ ds < T Q' cow 910 -
s ed, /
'f l's6 D 4 n af-xco 9f/-f2 - obsco on '/
N'
' h A7>
s oa n -
. 9fa - 81,c
,Alca/4 $
'2 $ N
&n p J...& e rn,G.,Q ff3-G/C/Gt
. hseleEh'a l' k l. 1-A 7b t.>#dardacs w np&*.u-10.4f&*ff Pf4 -D</d zew r wo-cat:n, a$& qdl*lh & NA.lf
'f%A s 4, s.
5 teo/ -
uw
><<v fJ8LOCis 68)Cf6 - Psc x,.
- sCland
/*o2-MC & & k 2us0l'/eclaSesl 14 % i '
e s fi, pi-a.su fa e,1.:
~.r _ 't 9 er d. M nec q &
en cn.
4 io.2
^
,,a-efcd uQL =4K Xff' sSA-LJ J Q
,ysncesias<//Q'Af.v.es ilet-or: Ddk fc,Jes,d ~cf f e n/ -,f saoca,JZ l' &
/o//-t! ' DM Qa S cr f.a o a l w u, o ar u rs 1 J nZi<4/A m 11st<<<Awel7S M' % cuou
M O
<~+>
L
- - -ava1 + a y e a p -
_ nu Ja& + nu 4
yax -
,.& w AJ.L/dyrpm
~. A J.s (w,-gm&, sqv4 as 9 se w
._-. jar-da~. A l LL sf LA6 e
y~
a
~
x
.u+ s,. /,,.
-ep.~ p,L 93 2 +, s. n,a
.d~ J oar-e2y,afA<L W, '" b
,.n-va4 ava y a n,, wg n.r m
.i~.x f
/
- +
,n M
.