ML20083A115
| ML20083A115 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/1983 |
| From: | PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8312200171 | |
| Download: ML20083A115 (15) | |
Text
.
ORIGINAL Q
hy UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 50-352 Docket No. 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2) k v
Location: Philadelphia, Pa. Pages: 5794 - 5915 Date: Friday, December 16, 1983
, b4L ,4 OLn hbW , & AS '
[ ~
54 , @{#v v L >
- I O I
\
b.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES Court Reporters 1625 i Street, N.W. Suite 1004 Washington, D.C. 20006 8312200171 831216 (202) 293-3950 PDR ADOCK 05000352 T PDR
.. .. - . - - ~ . . . - . - - _ . . . . -.
5794
,i ,
! -MELTZER I UNITED STATES.0F AMERICA
[ h 'mm1 s/. 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
, 4
+
___ _ __ ___ _ __ __ _ _ _ x
- . 5
I n th e ma t t e r o f :., :.
6 .
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY : Docket Nos. 50-352 7 : 50-353 (Limerick Generating S ta tion, :
- 8
Units 1 and 2) 9 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
x-10 Commonwealthof Pennsylvania:
-Courtroom No. 5 11 Old Federal' Courthouse Ninth and Market Streets 12 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 13 f Friday, 16 December 1983 14
. 15 The hearing in the above-entitled matter was 16 convened at~9:00 a.m., pursuant to notice, j- 17 BEFORE:
l '
18 LAWRENCE BRENNER, ESQ.
( Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensing. Board 19 l RICHARD F.' COLE,
'E Member, Atomic Safety & Licensing Board PETER A. MORRIS, Member, Atomic Safety & Licensing Board
' 23 i (T ,
\m / ,
i i.
4 y,,, , . - _ , , -
.-__.m. . . - . . . ,. .. .. _..... .. _ _. . . . , . . . _ . . . _ . . , . . . . _ . . _ _ _ , . _ , _ . . , . . . . , . __ .
sy _.. _ _ __
5795 1
f-- mm2 APPEARANCES:
( )
On Behalf of. Philadelphia Electric _ Company:
3 MARK J. W ETT ERH Ali N , ESQ.
4 TROY B. CONNER, JR., ESQ.
NILS N. NIC110LS, ESQ.
5 Conner & Wetterhahn, P.C.
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 6 Suite 1050-Washington, D.C. 20006 7
8 Pro se and on Behalf of Friends of the Earth in the Delaware Valley:
9 ROBERT ANTHONY 10 llo x 186 Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 11 12 On Behalf of Air and Water Pollution Patrol:
("3 13 FRANK ROMANO
(_/ 61 Forest Avenue 14 Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 15 On Behalf o f the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 16 Governor's Energy Council:
17 ZORI FERKIN, ESQ.
Governor's Energy Council 18 P.O. Box 8010 1625 N. Front Street 19 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 1
20 On Behalf of the NRC Staff:
21 BENJAMIN H. V0GLER, ESQ.
22 ANN HODGDON, ESQ.
Office of the Executive Legal Director g U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
~
_s 24 w_ / - 25 i
~ - -_ . - . ..
5796 mm3 I- I NDE X 2 WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS BOAR )
8
.BEVIER HASBROUCK (Resumed) 4 By Applicanti (Continued) . 5846
.3 . .. --
7 '--
8 9
10 i
11~
12 ,
G '14 '
' 15 16 17-
^
'18 19 20
- 21 : .
22 - .
I:
t 24 0 .
.l
5797 libl I
/
PEEEEEElEEE
, 2 Qi ' -
JUDGE 3RENNER: Good morning.
3 We have several prelimina'ry matters, as we discussed 4
the other day. We will take the subjects relating,to Mr.
5
' Romano of interest first,.so that he will be free to go 6
elsewhere,-if-he so chooses - -
7 Mr. Romano, we did not complete FOE 's contention th is 8 week, let alone start on your contention, as you know. We 9
are going to come back in January. The date'that we have 10 selected is to' resume the hearings the afternoon of January 11 - 9.
However, we would not be starting with your contention 12 that day.
We will still have remaining work on FOE's 13 con tentions ,
^
so you would not have to appear personally on 14 January 9.
~ 15 The system seems to-be working, with you keeping 16 in touch.
I understand the Staff has been kind enough to 17 stay in touch with you and we appreciate that. I hope you do, 18 too.
19 So you will have to check with them the evening 20 of January 9th, as to whether you need to be here January 21 10th, or whether you can delay yet another day, and so on.
22 MR. ROMANO: Where do I check with them?
23 JUDGE'BRSMNER: Make arrangements with them. They 24 will be here, in Philadelphia, on January 9th. And they will 25 call you, or you will call them. That's up to you. Or you
lib 2 5798 1
can do your checking with someome else, but we have
) : ~ confidence in the Staff 's ability to give you the right J
3 information. If you do, that's acceptable to us.
4 If we do not complete the hearing the week of
- 5 January 9th -- I. am not predicting that, jus t stating"if --- ,
am ..then. we- voiild. continue the fcyMowing' week':
But we're' going ~ '
7 to come back January 9th and we will be here in session 8
Monday afternoon through Friday, week after week, until we 9 finish these issues.
10 Mr. Vogler?
11 MR. VOGLER: You just answered it. Thank you.
12 JUDGE BRENNER: Any questions about that schedule,
/-,.s 13 Mr. Romano?
( )
14 MR. ROMANO: Than it is not-even certain then that 15 I would be on on the next day, right?
16 JUDGE BRENNER: That's correct. But you have 17 to be prepared, in the event that we do get to you. Prepared' 18 in the sense of checking the evening of the 9th, because we 19 certainly don't want you to have to sit here for no good 20 purpose.
21 MR. AMTHO*1Y: Judge Brenner, may I ask a question?
22 JUDGE BRENNER: No, let me deal with Mr. Romano's 23 interests first. Is it linked to the schedule?
24 MR. ANTHONY: Yes. You may be covering this, as
.(~'%
( ,) 25 to what the schedule of findings will be.
5799 11b3 1 JUDGE BRENNER: We won't set that schedule until
(/^)
s_/
2 af ter we complete the hearing on your contentions, as well 3 as Mr. Romano's contentions.
4 MR. ANTHONY: I see. So the past schedule is 5 defunct. ,
3 l . JUDG3, BPETL"R t. Defunct i.n the' sense of the.
7 precise dates, but it's precisely the same space of time that 8 will apply. So the period you can well predict when your g findings will be due now. That is, if you assume we will y} complete the hearing on the week of January 9th -- that is, 11 January 13th -- you would simply provide the same spaces 12 of time af ter that. " hat is when your findings will be due.
Since you mention that, I want to point out that
()
r'%
13 14 if there are any questions about the order we issued on 15 the format of proposed findings, we will be happy to take ul t hose questions either today or when we come back. Since 17 you raised the subject of findings,-Mr. Anthony, let me 18 suggest the litigating parties do not have to wait until 19 the very last day of the hearing to begin preparing the 20 proposed findings. If I were you, I would be starting to 21 prepare my proposed findings during this gap between now 22 and our return on January 9 th.
23 Obviously a lot is still yet to come. But 24 nevertheless, a lot can still be dcne in outlining proposed A
k_sb 25 findings, reading the transcripts in the Public Document Room,
5800 11b4 1
preparing the citations, and so on.
/~^ 2 MR. ANTHONY:
ku Picture as holed up in the public 3 library.
4 JUDGE BDENNER: On that same subject, we are going 5 to propose a page limitation.
We will propose it n'ow, and"
& whens we, come back the week of January"9th,' we will h' ear 7
from the parties, if they disagree with that page limitation.
8 For FOE'q contentions V-3a and V-3b, we would propose a page 9 1 unit of 35 pages. That's double spaced.
And as we said to in the order, we only want them on one side of the page.
11 Now Mr. Anthony, you have read our order where it 12 said double spaced, correct?
, 13 MR. ANTHONY: I think so.
-/
14 JUDGE BR9NNER:
You have seen that a few times in 15 this case, correct?
You've heard me say it again now', correct?
16 So you will not, in the future, ever again file something that 17 is single spaced, correct?
18 MR. ANTHONY: I will remember that, Judge Brenner.
19 JUDGE RRENNER: And also, you will not file any 20 more handwritten postcards, correct?
21 MR. A NTHONY: If I remember that, certainly.
Et JUDGE BRENNER: If we do receive somethf9q like 23 that again, it will be justification for considering oc.
24 considering it.
w
) N MR. ANTHONY: I wouldn't blame you. I apologize
5801 1155 1
for those oostcards. It's just --
2 JUDGE BRENNER: You don't have to apologize. Ne 3
will look ahead to the future.
4 f tR. AMT!!ONY : All right. Fine.
C '
JUDGE ERDiMER: Mr. Romano? -
O' f1R . ROMAMO: I don't really understand proposed 7
findings. I've never had to deal with it.
8 JUDP,P BRENNER: Let me suggeat this, Mr. Romano.
8 Since we haven't even started your contention yet, you~have 10 time to think about it. And rather than discuss it now, 11 read the order we issued. It will not surprise me if you 12 will still have questions af ter reading that order. I'm 13 merely suggesting that as a starting point. Look at the 14 decision we issued previously in this case.
15 However, bear in mind that we have radically 16 changed the format. I would suggest that if you look at 17 the findings portion of the decision we issued -- that would 18 be the portion that is closest to the way the findings would 19 b e issued.
20 In addition, talk with the other parties, particularly 21 the Staff. I am sure they would be happy to attempt to answer 22 any questions you have, perhaps even show you some previous 23 Board decisions or previous proposed findings, excerpts from 24 them, which fall in line with the format we're talking about.
O 2, Findings are written as if the Board is writing. If we like
5802 11b6 1 your findings, we'll use a lot of them, and we indicate that 2 in our ord, also.
3 tie also indicated what we would like in findings 4 and what we don' t like, and that's in the order, too.
5 The main object, in a nutshell, is to be,able to ,
d~ ' ' argue with particular citations to the record? That is,'che-7 transcript, the exhibits, or the written testimony, the 8 evidence in the case, why we should find the facts in your 9 favor.
10 Now that is a lot different Orom a legal filing, 11 which is rhetoric or argument. This is findings on the merits 12 and should be based on facts in the record.
() 13 14 Moreover, the findings should be balanced.
if you only have a context, make citations to evidence which That is, 15 supports your point and totally ignore -- without explaining 16 Nay -- other evidence in the record, then your findings 17 will be perceived not to be balanced and are unlikely to be 18 very persuasive. So you have to reference the evidence that 19 helps you. And if there is other evidence, by way of testimony so by other parties or cross examination of you, which seems to 21 cut the other way, you should use your findings to explain 22 why the facts should be found in .your favor anyway.
cnd tl 23 24
_ ,r-
'ss' 25
5803 ki 2:1 1 MS. PERKIN: Mr. Chairman, while we're on the
(T 2 subject of Proposed Findings, on what schedule would you V
3 like Commonwealth to file its findings?
4 JUDGE BRENNER: I'm glad you raised that. I meant 5 to raise it on my>own. On the same schedule as the T "
, 6. .Intervenor' % findings # Ms believe- it would be- aopropriate', '
7 i That's what's been involved in other cases with resoect to a .715(c) participants.
9 MR. WETTERHAHN: Judge Brenner, I be31 eve the to Applicant has the opportunity to file reply findings. I 11 would ask the Board to consider page limitation on those, 12 and let us know its decision sometime in the week of 13 January 9th.
O 14 JUDGE BRENNER: We will come back and listen to 15 your suggestion. Obviously, it would be much less than 35 pages.
16 We will think about it, but just off the top of my 17 head, sometiring in the neighborhood of 10 pages sounds about is fair.
19 MR. WETTERHAHN: How about 20?
20 JUDGE BRENNER: Okay. We will also consider that.
21 Pick a number between 10 and 15.
22 (Laughter.)
.n I didn't indicate it in this order. In orders in 24 either other cases or earlier-in this case -- I don't
( 26 remember -- we have pointed out that reply findings are just
(
5804 ki 2:2 1
that, to be used as a reply, and not to be used as an excuse
,a 2
( ) to include findings which should have been included initially.
3 Given that, I would think 10 pages would be 4
reasonable, but we will hear from you if you want some slight 5 ~
adiustment to that, and we'll hear from everybody else if ' '
O-
"they want to brgue fof some slighE' adjustment in the 35 pages.
7 It is our expectation that some parties at least 8
will be working on their Proposed Findings during this break, 8
and will have some experience base to come back and tell us 10 why our s'ugges' tion would not be satisfactory. But right now 11 we think that would be appropriate.
12 MR. ANTHONY: That, I take it, is a maximum, not rm 13 a minimum.
! }
s/
14 JUDGE BRENNER: Correct. Most of our maximums 15
. turn out to be minimums though. That truly is a maximum.
16 In fact, I think it could be done in less than 35, but maybe 17 not much less.
18 Mr. Romano, I also want to discuss the discovery 19 schedule on your Contention VI-1. We issued an order on 20 December 2nd, I believe, 1983 adiusting that schedule. There 21 was some confusion on our part. I may say confusion would 22 not have occurred if the parties had filed the report they 23 were supposed to file by November 1st.
24 Be that as it may, the Applicant was correct and O
\s ,/ 26 apparently you were operating on that same supposition; that
_ _ _ _ _ _ l
5805 ki 2:3 1 is, that the discovery -- the last day for discovery requests p)
(_, 2 would be on or about December 19th.
3 However, we took several things into account, did 4 not choose to list them in the order, but we did consider 5 everything before us, including your filing,r the hitial-6' " confusion ~, and"so' 'on, and' extended' the ' discovery schedule for 7 you until January 16th as the last date for you to make 8 reauests.
9 Now, I have also -- those are requests, all types 10 of requests, including interrogatories, requests for 11 depositions, and so on.
12 I want to point out that that may not be the end 13 of discovery. As you know, there may still be a period of
(~')N L
14 time for up to 20 days by which the parties are still answerin<T 15 your discovery requests. It occurred to us that we might as 16 well set particular dates now, so that everyone would realize 17 what the situation was.
18 The reason for that is, we want to coint out to vou 19 that in our view, Mr.. Romano, you would still have the right 20 to examine the documents made available by the Applicant up 21 until the actual close of discovery, which will be approximately 22 20 days after your last discovery reauest. That is, you could 23 go into the document room, or whatever arrangements you have 24 made with the Applicant, and look at these inspection reports, in 25 audit reports, and so on, up until, we would propose,
5806
[ kl 2:4 1 February 6th.
(~s i
) 2 You can't make new requests of them in the form 3
of asking new questions by which they have to give answers 4
and that type of thing, after January 16th. That's the last 5 date for that. But we see no prejudice to any party,ano:
S<- I reason"not- to allow you some* additional' time '1T ydu' want it, 7
to go in and look at some more documents, and so on, un 8 until February 6th.
9 Of course, if you're doing the job right, 10 Mr. Romano, you should, in essence, be using that iust as a 11 last period to double check certain d6 tails and certain 12 documents. That is, you should have substantially completed 13
/^'s all your document reading, or at least document-gathering U 14 before then.
15 Beyond that, we have given you yet another month 16 from February 6th in which to file that specification which 17 occurrences of welding problems you would rely on in suonort 18 of your contention.
19 MR. ROMANO: Is that after February 6th, you say?
20 JUDGE BRENNER: Yes. And we thought we might as 21 well set up a particular date for that, which we would set M as March 6th.
2 Now, we will make that a receipt date so you will 24 have to get it to the participants -- interested parties.
s/ 25 That would be the Staff and the Applicant and the Board, by
1 5807 I
- 1 March'6th, in the hands of the Board and those parties.
() 2 With respect to the remainder of the service list, 3 you have to serve'them, but you can iust out it in the mail 4 on that date.
5 MR. ROMANO: Could I state','I seemsto.be having-S - difficulty getting answers to the' interrogatories' whi'ch' I 7 have already made. It seems to me that I am netting 8 interrogatories that is asking for information which I 9
cannot supply because I did not get the answers to my 10 interrogatories. I cannot, for instance, say where certain 11 welds are at the site and where the drawings are, and who 12 were the welders, and questions like that.
13 It's an impossible situation when you consider the 14 amount of material that I might have to look for. You know, 15 the schedule, even though it was something December 19th, and 16 then advanced to January 6th --
17 JUDGE BREMNER: January 16th now.
18 MR. ROMANO: Yes, 16th.
19 I did not know at the time this originally was 20 scheduled for December at the Phoenixville meeting exactly 21 how much material would be involved, and so I did not make 22 any kind of an argument or discussion at that time, but in 23 view of the fact that now we are sort of swimming with one 24 arm, so to say,without an attorney and guidance, and with b
\~- a not sufficient help, I don't see how the record can be complete
5808 ki 2:6 1
or how we can have information which is absolutely necessary
(
( 2 in this kind of a thing where the public safety is involved, 3
because of what we have already discovered in the fact that 4
there can be some really serious defects in welding. And I 5
think to have me, just me sort of, uoon which perhaps the' '
S- safety of the publi'c depends 7"on an issue such'as this, I 7
think that some other kind of help must come in.
8 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Romano, let me stoo you because 9 I understand your argument.
10 We did have your written filing before us, which 11 made essentially the same argument. You are free to get all 12 ' the' help you want. It's the Air & Water Pollution Patrol.
. ('S 13 Your intervening is approved. You can get helo from the d 14 other Intevenors conducting discovery if you want. It's a 15 lot of information and documentation, 'I am sure.
16 However, the discovery schedule was ouite length 17 in recognition of that, and we have extended it now, partially la in recognition of that, although that wasn't the only reason.
19 The confusion which we feel we contributed to was also part 20 of the reason for the extension.
21 Even after all this discovery, you have got yet H
another month until March 6th to file your specifications, 23 so if you gather the documents, you still have time to read 24
_ , _ them and reread them. If you are doing it alone, I just don't
\I _/b 25 understand why. You are free to solicit all the help you can
5809 ki 2:7 1 get.
x_) 2 MR. ROMANO: I have tried. I've tried to get 3 people that understand welding and welding inspection, and 4 l things like that. It seems like they don't want to get 5 involved with something that is -- you know, a wel' ding in-6 spector or someone in welding doesn't want to get_ involved 7 because then it will reflect later if they become a public 8 figure in a thing like this. They fear that their societies 9 will not look at it properly, or they may not get a iob 10 somewhere else'.
11 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Romano, let me interrupt you.
12 That's two different things. You're talking about difficulty
) 13 in getting experts and witnesses and so on, that I'm sure
[~^/
\_
14 might be a problem. But in terms of the discovery schedule,
. 15 what you need, ue have given you great access to all the documents.
16 You've got carte blanche to go in there and view 17 those documents.
18 You may recall we had a dialogue at the hearing in 19 Phoenixville, the orehearing, where I said I don't think you 2 realized what this Board has given you.
21 MR. ROMANO: I think it was good.
22 JUDGE BRENNER: You didn't think so at the time ,
23 but we have given you iust unbelievable access to all of the
- 24 documents. It is a fairly broad contention, or at least it
[)
\- 25 could be. It is specific now, and it has to be specified as
5810 ki 2:8 1 a result of your look for the documents, but you see, on the s ,/ 2 one hand we give you all this access, in effect, anything 3 you could possibly ask for in terms of discovery, then you 4 turn around and say it's too much to handle.
5 ~' You have to balance out the fact that we have d^ ilven vod' broad ~acces's without recuiring all the specification 7 at the beginning. If we had done that, you wouldn't have the 8
discovery problem and not having a lot of work, but you 9 wouldn't have the opportunity to get in there. You have 10 intervened as a group. We've admitted the Air & Water Pollution 11 Patrol.
12 If it truly is a group and you've got something
(x
's.
13 worth pursuing, I find it hard to believe that you cannot 14 convince others in your group or in other groups to assist 15 you in discovery. And it is that simple.
16 MR. ROMANO: I have one engineer who had been an 17 Intervenor. I can say it -- Mr. Lewis -- and I thought I 18 could depend on him. He is too, busy, and I understand that 19 he could be too busy. So that I don't understand the signifi-20 cance of various documents which are available to me, so I 21 can read right on through these things and not even see or M
understand sufficiently to be able to then follow it up.
23 And so I know I have had time, but the time is goinc t 24
,_s to be unimportant if I can't -- I've been in some science and b 25 understand some terms and so forth, but to get average citizen n
5811 ki 2:9 1-like some that belong to our group -- I've had other people 2
s, try to help, but they don't understand it.
3 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Romano, the time schedule is 4
not your problem. The problem is as you stated it. We can't 5
go out on the street and draft people and tell them-that they 6-have'to sit down and help you in discovery.
You have to do that. And I'll just leave it at that.
8 We have given you a lot of time. You know, we 8
could have turned it around and said, "That's right. You 10 don't understand everything in the documents, and therefore II you haven't shown a basis, and therefore we shouldn't even 12 litigate the issue." The Applicant argued that point
() 13 I4 strenuously, and we found in your favor.
End 2 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 -
24 i sJ =
___ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ l
31b1 5812 1 MR.-ROMANO: If the public safety is involved, 2 there 's a public safety to be denied, because someone can 3 present a fact or a situation properly?
4 JUDGE BRSNNER: Mr. Romano, let me assure you that 5 if" you c'ome in the facts 'that the public safety is being ~
6 protected,' you will' win. ' Blit~ we have to have the
- facts 7 before us. We are an adjudicating board. '.
8 Let me also point out a line of defense of the 9 public safety does not depend on Mr. Frank Romano of the 10 Air and Water Pollution Patrol. I'd be quite worried if it 11 did. You are an intervening party in the case, with the 12 right to come in and argue vigorously with the facts that 13 the Nuclear' Regulatory Commission" Staff is not doing its
(/
14 job in terms of inspection and enforcement. Many of the 15 documents involved are the NRC Staf f inspection reports and 16 the responses by the utility, in response to the violations 17 and discrepancies and other things that the NRC Staff has 18 found.
19 They are the body of performing their role of M protecting the public health and safety in the first instance, 21 on behalf of the public and the federal government. You have 22 a right to come in and show us particularly where you think 23 they're not doing that right. But the public health and 24 safety is not depending on you.
,r sg k) 26 If you don't look at the documents, nobody is
5813 31b' I checking up on the Applicant. You know that that's not the 2 case.
3 MR. ROMANO: I have been spending a lot of time on 4
the documents and having trouble now with this --
5 I want to get to o'th~er things -
~ ~
JUDGE 3REMMER:
~
4- ,todaye !?e have set- that discovery schedule; I t "s a very 7
liberal discovery schedule, both in terms of time and the 8
almost unprecedented good access we've given you to these 9 documents.
10 MR. ROMANO: .Can I+say one more thing? The 11 Applicant seems to be asking me questions on information 12 that I've asked them.
'w. 13 JUDGE BRENNER: I wanted to get back to that.
14 You added a lot of other things af ter you made that point.
15 Thank you for reminding me. You have been answering the 16 discovery questions honestly, fully, and to the best of your 17 knowledge and ability, just as you would expect the other 18 pwrties to answer your questions ini the same fashion.
19 Now if you don't know the answers, or if you 20 don't have the information, that is your true answer and you 21 simply give that as your answer. That is a proper answer on 22 discovery. Now it may be later used against you in significanc'e ,
23 the significance being that on discovery you did not know 24 these things so how could you be competent to talk about tha t.
O
\s , 25 But that's another matter.
31b3 5814 1
You don 't have to go out and perform research to 2
(G~) answer the questions. If you don't know the answer, tha t 3 would be your answer. But you should state a little bit as 4 to why.
5 And, as Judge Cole reminds me, if'you later- ~ ~
ob tain. the. information9 you're under~an otr11cyation co promptly 7 supplement your previous answer.
8 MR. ROMANO: I could never find out where a 9 certain weld is, that is defective.
10 JUDGE BRENNER: Then that would be your answer, 11 and you should explain why that is your answer. But you 12 have to file the answers. Remember our previous orders, that
(
~s
\
13 if you just default by not answering at all, then you have 14 committed a default. So answer whatever that answer is 15 honestly and truthfully.
16 Mr. Wetterhahn?
17 MR. WST""RIIAHN : Let me put this discovery process 18 in perspective. It will take about two minutes. With regard 19 to this issue, the Applicant has gone out of its way to be 20 cooperative, realizing Mr. Romano was I:ot represented by 21 counsel. "Af ter the pre-hearing conferer.ce, on November 1st, 22 I wrote Mr. Romano a letter: a, making available all the 23 material the Board requested, and making additional material 24 available in the form of logs, indices of the records, types (m,) 25 of records which are available which might be of a ssistance.
_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t
5815
'31b4 I
On page 3 of tha t letter I specifically stated p
2 to Mr. Romano that at an appropriate time, when he is ready, 3
we will-meet with him, help hin to understand what records 4
mean, and to help him just to move along in the process. We 5
didn't promise to do extensive research or organize the r"e cords , but we said we would meet with him.
7 We have made that of fer and, to this point in time, 8
we have not met. Now I think part of the problem is that--
8 I hate to use the term fishing expedition, but the types of 10 interrogatories that he is asking are not going to help him.
11 If he says -- and this is one we're going to answer very soon 12 '
-- how many radiographs were there? There were 90,000. The 13
[ next interrogatory is, provide them all. -
V I4 Well, we will make them available, okay? But the 15 only proviso we will put is it will do no one any good to 16 -
have Mr. Romano look at them because he's not qualified. And 17 t he Applicant is not going to go through the process of g etting 90,000 interrogatores out for Mr. Romano to look. If I'
.he has a qualified representative, who is qualified to review 20 them -- and that's the only proviso we put. Given reasonable 21 notice we will trot out the ones, all or part of the ones, that he wants, to the extent that they are identifiable.
23 And his interrogatories are replete with such types of request, such as prove the qualifications of every V 26 welder who did every weld. That's not going to help anybody.
5816 31b5
~
1 We can continue answering questions like that
[u} 2 longer than he can keep asking,' but to be honest it's not 3
going to help Mr. Romano, and this Board, on February 6th, 4 to come to a specific answer.
5 7UDGE BRE'1NER: I'm 'not going to get involved 6
in-the nitty-gritty of- discovery at' this poi ~nts or that type 7 of detail. I think it is normal that meetings assist discovery .
8 We have encouraged meetings of all kinds, for all kinds of 9 purposes, as the parties know.
10 Mr. Romano, if you haven't met yet on this discovery 11 matter, I strongly advise you to do so promptly, with the 12 Applicant -- perhaps even with the Staff. The meeting, at a I
rx \ 13 minimum, will help you understand how the records are O 14 organized. You will be able to understand the Staff's document s 15 relating to this subject. You will be able to understand 16 t he Applicant's documents relating to this subject.
17 If you keep asking interrogatories like the ones 18 Mr. Wetterhahn just related, you're unlikely to help yourself 19 discover useful information. We had the documents made ava'ilable 2
promptly with the thought that you would begin by going througt 21 the documents. You1had particular allegations before us.
22 Ne thought they would be your beginning point.
23 Also, just to simply ask about the whole universe 24 of all . welding work done at the plant, is probably not going p/
\~, 25 to help you. You can do it, but I think that may be your
l 5817 31b6 1 problem. Youbbetter give greater thought to the types of s ,)
m 2 questions you are asking, and so forth.
3 MR. ROMANO: As I said, in a recent letter to the 4 Board, I did not ask for all welds. I asked for all safety 5 related welds, radiographs of all safety related infractions 8" 'where inff actions were invoI'ved' And alI"ths material" 7 were supplied even before I asked in an interrogatory. And 8 their logs have to do with every kind of thing that happened 9 at the site, not just -- and I want specific infraction --
10 information on welding infractions.
11 I've got logs of purchases and all that kind of 12 thing.
13 JUDGE BRENNER: I'm not criticizing the questions
[V}
14 in the sense that I'm telling you you can't ask them. I'm 15 just pointing out why they're not going to help you. Beyond 16 that, if you can obtain yourself new useful information from 17 reading radiographs, then that's up to you. I don't know 18 whether it's true or not.
18 MR. ROMANO: I'm not an expert.
20 JUDGE BR3NNER: Don't ask for 90,000 radiographs.
21 MR. ROMANO: I didn't ask for them all. Just 22 safety related infraction welds, where infractions in welding 23 'is concerned.
24 r~s JUDGE BRENNER: The Applicant's point is why
\
25 should they go through the effort of sif ting through them if,
31b7 5818 1
when they come up with what you've asked for, you can't m
- 2 read them anyway. You can ask for them if you want. But 3
you just think ahead as to what use you will be making of 4 this material.
5 Let me ask one question. ' Typically, the reports 6-include the audi e reports conducted ~by' the utilfEy 'itself, 7
or it's prime contractor or construction within the different 8 organizations. And our order included those. Those are 9
reports that are not typically in the correspondence between 10 t he Staff and Applicant and it can be significant. I take 11 it those reports have been made available also? Bechtel's 12 audit reports of the subcontract and PECo's audit reports 13 of Bechtel? And the subcontractors, and so on.
14 I can assure you our order includes that.
15 MR. WETTE RHAHN: I'm just looking at my -- I believ e 16 so. I'm not sure of the exact meaning of one of the items.
17 I believe these logs have been made available. If not, I 18 will report it to the Board. +
yndt3 19 so l
21 22 f 23 l~
24 r~s l ss 25 i
l-L - --
5819 ki 4:1 1 JUDGE BRENNER: The logs or the reports?
I' 2 MR. WETTERHAHN: The logs have been made available.
3 JUDGE BRENNER: What can you tell from the logs?
4 MR. WETTERHAHN: It briefly describes what the 5 incident is.
4, .
JUDGE MORRISo Mr. Webterhahn, -let me-suggest -
7 that the Appendix B to Part 50, the Quality Assurance 8 Recuirements, specifically require audits.
9 MR. WETTERHAHN: I'm sorry --
10 JUDGE MORRIS: And those must be documented. So 11 I think that's what Judge Brenner has in mind as an examole 12 of the kinds of documents which would be much more useful to
-g 13 Mr. Romano than looking at a welder's record of his welds.
14 MR. NETTERHAHN: My associate, Mr. Nicols, points 15 out I missed an item. One of the items immediately made 16 available on November 1st was Philadelphia Electric Company l
17 and Bechtel Power Corporation quality assurance audits related 18 to welding, sa they are available.
19 MR. ROMANO: I think if you.look at --
20 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Romano, I'll tell you why we 21 just had this discussion. It's a tip to you to fertile 22 field of documents that you might want to look at it perhaps, 23 in looking at the logs first.
24 Let me also point out that one value of having an
('M
\u,) 25 ongoing dialogue with all the parties, including the Staff
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ \
5620 ki 4:2 1
and the Applicant, is if you find something in the audit
,r '
( . 2 reports which the Staff does not always look at, they audit 3
with them sometimes -- that is, they audit the audit reports, 4
but they may not have looked at the ones you're looking at --
5 if you find something there that looks odd to you, in light 6
'of' Staff inspection report which may exist on the same subject, 7
or in light of the fact that there is no inspection report 8
by the Staff on the same subject, if Iwere you I would then 8
point that out to the Staff and talk to them about it, and to that's the way the discovery process works.
11 Who knows? You may find something the Staff over-12 looked, or the Staff may be able to explain to you what
["
s 13 something means. And that's the way informal discovery works, 14 along with the formal discovery process.
15 So get going.
16 MR. POMANO: All those boxes of material, this is 17 December 7 interrogatory from PECo to me, it's a real example 18 of the impossibility of me knowing -- state the non-19 destructive tests conducted on a weld in question.
8 Now, where am I going to get that? Identify an 1
21 individual involved in faulty welding and inspection. How 22 j am I ever going to find that?
l D
JUDGE BRENNER: You are speaking very rapidly.
i N
l f-s It's hard for me to hear, let alone for the reporter to get L 25
- down.
l l
t
5321 ki 4:3 1
Don't get excited. Did youtecall my' advice on
/T Q 2 answering the questions? You answer them to the best of your 3
ability, fully, and honestly. If you don't know the answer, 4
you say that and yoy say why.
5
'MR. ROMANO: The rough part of it is that they 8-
' don't an'sw'er my questions so that I might have a better chance 7
to comment on these.
8 JUDGE BRENNER: You have to answer the question 8
you have as best as you can at the time, and if you say --
10 and then you would add, I cannot answer more fully because 11 I have asked for this from you. After I get that answer, I 12 will be able to update my answer.
13 MR. ROMANO: One last point. I have cooperated 14 with Mr. Wetterhahn in that I have telephone him on certain 15 things. I don't want to leave the impression I'm just not 16 #
trying.
17 JUDGE BRENNER: I don't think he accused you of 18 non-cooperation. In any event, I think I infer that. I 19 think his point, or at least my point, is that you should 8
approach it perhaps a little more intelligently in terms of 21 how you proceed. That's much different than non-cooperation.
2 7,m sure you want to cooperate.
4 23 MR. ROMANO: Intelligence is going to need 24 knowledge and experienced people that I can direct and organiz- a 26 what I might need to find this, but if I can't get it, you
5822 ki 4:4 1
know, I don't have big money to go pay experts. And this is 2 the fault of our system. We are bucking money, power, and 3 politics, and a poor individual American -- it has to come 4 out of his own pocket. And I don't think this is proper, 5 also affected by time.
6 ' JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Ronano, my experience is that 7
if you find important information bearing on the safety of 8
this plant, people will be beating a track to your door to 8 assist you, including the NRC Staff. And I infer from the 10 fact that you are the only person who is doing this work, 11 that you have for one reason or another been unable to ignite 12 the interest of others who share your view with respect to a
,m 13
( nuclear power plant.
14 Now, why that is the case, you have to think about 15 for yourself, and I will just. leave it at that.
16 MR. ROMANO: American people are not really up 17 on what's going on in the entire world and the problems we 18 have, let alone a nuclear plant.
19 JUDGE BRENNER: All right, I think we have complete
13 MS. HODGDON: Yes.
14 JUDGF BRENNER: And you think it's responsive?
15 MS. TIODGDON : Yes. And it states the status of 16 those matters at the time the document was written, which 17 was several weeks ago. In certain cases, that is not the 18 end of the matter. And we will get to that in a minute.
19 JUDGE BRENN3R: Okay.
20 MS. HODGDON: I was on hydrogen recombiner isolation 21 valve exemptions. I think we were asked whether that was 22 handled as an exemption. It was handled as an exemption. And 23 the basis for that exemption will be presented in a document 24 tha t is being prepared. I don't have any indication as to
l 5830 t 51b3 1
don't have a date on that.
I g 2 JUDGE BRENNER: I thought you said it's being 3
covered in the SSER. Now you tell me there's a separate 4
document dealing with the exemption on that same matter?
5 MS. HODGDON: No. I'm'sayingtheexemptionitself',l t
6 is i separate document and that the way the Staff is handling 7
it, as an exemption, is addressed in the SSER.
8 JUDGE BRENNER: Let's do this. One way or the 8
o ther, by January 16th, we would expect the full answer to 10 our questions on that matter. That is, both the basis for 11 the exemption -- if one is granted -- and whatever else the 12
.g.:aff thinks appropriate in our question. If that takes both 13 the SSER contents and the exemption, we would expect both by 14 January 16th.
15 One reason for setting the schedules, is if the 16 Board has questions that we think need to be brought within 17 the confines of this proceeding, it would be in everybody's 18 interest to do it sooner rather than later.
19 MS. HODGDON: I'm aware of that. I believe that you are aware that I was talking about two different things, 21 as you are talking about two different things, the indication 22 of what kind of a schedule the exemption will be done on, and 23 the exemption itself.
24
,q JUDGE BRENNER: I'm surprised that they're two
^Y separate things. But as far as we're concerned, it's the same
51b4 1 subject matter, what is the story on the hydrogen recombiners, p
d 2 in light of the general design criteria? If you have them 3 in two separate places, that's fine.
4 In addition to that, obviously you'll have to file 5 a report befoi'e us at least : telling us to read pages srand: e 8" "so of'the SSER; Yotr can 't' expect' just'a- filing' of' che" 7 entire SSER to alert us, and I'm sure you didn't intend that.
8 MS. HODGDON: No, we did not. And as a matter of 9 fact, I have not seen the letter covering the SSER supplement.
10 I believe it's intended that those things should be pointed 11 out, where they are to be found in:that document, all these 12 required reports.
13 Next is the limited appearance. The question that
%J 14 was raised during a limited appearance regarding the certain 15 companies, Hayward-Tyler, Tubeline, and Ray Miller Products --
16 JUDGE BRENNER: Ms. Hodgdon, we're going to pick 17 up the pace.
18 MS. HODGDON: I'm almost through. These matters 19 The I&E no tices, or bulletins, are also addressed in the SSER.
- regarding these matters gave certain responce dates. Some of 21 them have past just recently and I am not aware of whether 22 Philadelphia Electric's responses are in or not. When they 23
- are, they will be addressed. The S'taff merely states, in the 24
,q SSER, what they are doing about these matters -- these three t
k s) 25 matters.
5832
-51h5 1
JUDGE BRSNNER: All right. When we see it, we
<~
( ,N) 2 will see if it answers the question.
3 This is the same SSER that is imminent? ,
4 MS. HODGDON: *his is the SSER 1, which is 5
apparently due to be out by the end of the seek'. JI think it O 6- - is: the* end of the week."-So that" may be today. '
7 I am about to get to the bottom line. Because those 8
dates are later, those response times for those replies --
9 responses -- from the Applicant on.the products of those 10 companies -- regarding whether they have them and so forth --
11 because those are 120 day response times. Apparently, the 12 Staff is making some effort to have that done on an earlier
()
. 'J 13 schedule. I don't have a present indication of exactly what 14 that is, though. They would have to talk to the Applicant 15 about whether they can get their reports in faster so that 16 the s'taff can review them earlier than indicated generally 17 in those notices and bulletins.
18 The other action -- two other reports required by 18 the Board, a letter two -- concerning the Phoenixville water 20 supple and the Staff indicates that it has not yet done this 21 and expects to do it at the end of January.
22 JUDGE BRENNER: Ms. Hodgdon, I wonder ifvyou 23 could refresh my recollection. I recall that we said that, 24 although we wanted a copy of that, we expected the governmenta:
N-g 25 agencies to deal with each other. That is, for the Staff
5833 51b6 1
to communicate directly with the Borough of Phoenixville.
2 MS. HODGDON:
[Vh That is true. My notes indicate that 3 letter here. The Board asked the Staff to write a letter to 4 t he government entity and send it a copy.of the letter.
5 That's correct. It would he la' letter..-- ;
O +
JUDGE BRENNER r"- We suggested
- you" get" together
7 in some fashion and eventually confirm it in writing, 8
whether'it's personal meetingswwith the government of 9 Phoenixville by the Staff, or a letter or both. You have H) a governmental body there that had a concern, and we 11 '
expected the Staff would talk with them about it in whatever 12 mode of communications seemed appropriate to the governmental gS 13 par ties.
b 14 -
MS. HODGOON: Yes, I'm aware of that. Another 15 letter was to be written to a woman who made a limited appearar ice 16 regarding water pumped from the Schuylkill and possible the 17 Delaware River. And that will be done, apparently, in the 18 same time frame of the end of January.
19 JUDGE BRENNER: Fine. But I'll tell you, tha t '
M should~have been done long ago. It was information that 21 should have been available ~ for a long time, and you had a 22 limited appearer with a legitimate question and I don't under-
'M stand why it has taken this ling. But all right, you're 24
,r"N going to respond by the end of January?
)
\~ s' M MS. HODGDON: Yes. My other information regards
51b? 5834 I
the supplement to the DES, which slipped by some weeks. It iID 2
.V was originally scheduled to be out November the 15th, I 3 believe.
4 JUDGE BRENNER: That wasn't the original date. It 5 has slipped by months. -
6- ,.
MS. HODGDON: It wasn
- t~ original-lr.' The"last date 7
that we had was November 15th and we didn't have a different 8
firm date. In any case, it is going out today.
9 JUDGE BRENNER: You forgot my advice already.
10 (Laughter. )
11 MS. HODGDON: Apparently the copies went to the it EPA yesterday and there was some mechanical problem of printing,
{~} 13 which I said -- with regardsito the SSER -- I think there
\/
14 may have been a priority, since they had a lot of printing 15 to do.
. In any case, those copies I am sure that they are out 16 today.
17 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. Fine. If you haven't 18 already done so, I.'m sure you realize the importance of 19 communicating quickly with LEA and other interested government 20 agencies primarily on the subject of the city of Philadephia.
21 MS. HODGDON: I indicated to the project manager 22 yesterday that they should get expedited copies.
23 JUDGS BRENNER: All right. The parties have things 24 to do,
/,_T as a result of that and we will await further word from
- 25 the parties.
Sib 8
-l 5835 1 MS. HODGDON: They are aware of that. So I think
't that finishes our report, regarding all those documents.
3 Is there anything else?
end t5. 4 5 . -
'E ' i'
. gx. * . , -
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0 2.
1 5836 ki 6:1 1
JUDGE BRENNER: The offsite emergency planning n
( ,) 2 questions were raised. We don't have to go through each 3
one. But we said the Staff should respond, as well as 4
Commonwealth and the Applicant. So I assume we're going to 5
be -hearing from the Staf f perhaps with the FEMA assisting- - '-
& ~'
"the Staff,-but we'look'to~the~ Staff'as'the party for.us to '
7 respond to those.
8 Now, the offsite emergency plans have been filed 8
with FEMA. We would expect that we could hear on that in 10 the note-too-distant future.
11 MS. HODGDON: Yes.
12 JUDGE BRENNER: Let me ask the Commonwealth if
(}
'v 13 they can propose a schedule on that same subject for their 14 responses.
15 MS. FERKIN: PEMA Staff has indicated to me that 16 our responses to those questions can be ready January 31st.
17 Can I just ask for a point of clarification?
18 JUDGE BRENNER: Are you asking for a joint report 18 of the governmental agencies?
8 JUDGE BRENNER: No. I want to hear the different 21 views of the different parties. We askel for joint reports 22 on simpler matters, at least natters we thought were simpler; 23 it turned out to be complicated also.
24 MS. FERKIN: The Commonwealth expects to file its 25 report by January 31st.
Ki 6:2 5837 n
1 JUDGE BRENNER: Staff and Commonwealth might not (s/ i 2 agree. We don't know. That would be fine. That's a good 3 time frame, because that's in the same time frame that we 4 will be considering the proposed offsite emergency planning t
5- contentions, given'the schedule as we now understand'iti ~
6 MR. VOGLER: Just a point.
7 Staff's response to offsite emergency plans was 8 to be not necessarily coordinated, but in conjunction with 9 PEMA?
10 JUDGE BRENNER: FEMA. s 11 MR. VOGLER: That's what I thought you said, and 12 - FEMA is not going to have too much response until the end 13 of February.
14 I was wondering if I could have some guidance from 15 the Board as to how you want the Staff to work that. Our 16 reponse will be late.
17 JUDGE BRENNER: I understand from what you just said 18 that FEMA will not finish its review by the end of January.
19 But we are not asking for a whole review; we're asking for 20 particular questions to be addressed. We're going to be ruling 21 on the admissibility of contentions in that time frame, and 22 I can't help the fact that FEMA's schedule is not compatible 23 with our schedule.
24 g-sg We can do our best to adjust where possible, and O 25 I see no reason why the Staff and FEMA cannot show this Board
5838 ki 6:3 1 the same courtesy and adjust and answer the questions proposed
[)
%s 2 by dhe end of January.
3 MR. VOGLER: We will ' raise' that next week, 4 then, in talks to FEMA. I, frankly, was unaware of 5:.; coordinating with FEMA. '
3w v JUDGE BRENNERr -Thank'yor. We* appreciate'that.
7 Yo u know, FEMA is not formally an authority before us.
8 That's all right with us, unless and until FEMA g or anybody else tries to assert that that different status 10 changes the power and authority of this Board with respect 11 to offsite emergency planning matters -- so this isn't a 12 request of FEMA that they can ignore or perform as they see
/~N 13 fit, as far as we're concerned.
( \
\_/
14 MR. VOGLER: Fine.
15 JUDGE BRENNER: But directly, we're charging the 16 Staff with the responsibility, since that seems to make the 17 Staff and FEMA happy. They are a necessary party to the 18 proceeding. It's that simple.
19 We will certainly not treat them by that label 20 if they don't want to be treated by that label, but any time 21 anything comes up substantively and procedurally, that's the zt way we consider it.
Z3 MR. VOGLER: Fine.
24 MS. HODGDON: Judge Brenner, I wanted to say one n/
's- 25 more thing, and that is that the project manager, I understand ,
5839 ki 6:4 1
Robert Marti:1, who was introduced earlier -- he returned to O 2 g
Bethesda to assure that these documents went out today, and N
3 we have assisting us here Mary Jo Canpagnone who is the 4 assistant project manager.
5 JUDGE BRENNER: I think'that covers everpthing. I Let me mention, Yiven" thE" Eclieddl'e' of' r the 7
Supplemental DES and the further activities that have been 8
taking place with respect to proposed contentions dealing 9
with that subject, that is, the subject of the environmental 10 analyses in severe accidents, bear in mind our hearing 11 schedule in January. And it might turn out that whatever 12 actions and schedules the parties proposed could be done so es 13 as to accommodate the schedule.
v 14 That is, I'm fairly confident that the evidentiary 15 hearing will take all that week of January 9th, but we have 16 the courtroom here reserved here for the week after. And 17 perhaps a prehearing conference could be arranged somewhere 18 in that time frame.
19 And if we get proposals in early enough in writing, 20 we can consider them and then discuss them at the beginning 21 of the week of January 9th in terms of adjusting as to parties 22 to be creative in terms of our schedule and their schedule.
23 Maybe it won't work, for reasons that we don't know,- but'we will 24 rN consider it anyway.
s- 25 Applicant, you were going to give us dates.
5840 ;
ki 6:S i 1 MR. WETTERHAN: The question, as my recollection, (v ) 2 Intervenors had about 30 days from receipt of what I will 3 call SARA contentions. That would put their contentions 4 due about January 16th.
ri# JUDGE BRENNER: To be very honest with you, I? "
d- don't^have a' recollection as-to-thef time frame
- right now.
7 You may be correct, but maybe the parties can 8 talk with each other and adjust. I don't know.
9 MR. WETTERHAHN: With regard to the report on 10 management control of welding, it will be received by the 11 Board by Friday, January 6th. It is well on its way to 12 completion.
r)
GI 13 There have been some diversions in attempt to try 14 to respond to Mr. Romano.
15 JUDGE BRENNER: Again, we're not asking for a pass; 16 . we just want to set particular dates now.
17 Given that date, Ms. Hodgdon, of January 6th,does 18 the Staff want two weeks after that, or can we keep it the 19 16th so that everything is coming in by the same date?
2 MS. HODGDON: I might be able to make the 16th, 21 because it's being done in the Region. I will be up here, 22 we will be able to work with them. I hope to have it by the ZI 16th, at least during that week.
24 JUDGE BRENNER: All right, we will set that date.
! )
'Y 25 MS. HODGDON: Thank you.
5841 ki 6:6 JUDGE BRENNER:
g Now, we gave the Applicant the
() 2 opportunity, if it wished to respond to some of those offsite 3 emergency planning questions also. I don't know if you plan 4 to do that, Mr. Wetterhahn.
5 MR. - NETTERHAHN : If we do, it would be withim-au - a week > af ter; we receive the- reporte of them partiess I.think- -
7 we reserved the right to submit something shortly after the 8 other parties responded. That is my recollection.
9 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. So that would be, if 10 they file -- they will file by January 31st. I think that's 11 the receipt date. It turns out that's a Tuesday, so we'll 12 hear from the Applicant by February 7th.
13 MR. WETTERHAHN: I would ask, please give me until v I 14 the 10th, which is that Friday.
15 JUDGE BRENNER: All right.
16 MS. FERKIN: Mr. Chairman, is it absolutely necessary 17 that January 31st be a receipt date?
18 JUDGE BRENNER: I was only thinking of the 19 Applicant's response time. Do you want to make it service 20 date?
21 MS. FERKIN: May we?
22 JUDGE BRENNER: Yes, w 23 MS. FERKIN: Thank you.
24 JUDGE BRENNER: Why don't you take February 13th, O
m-I 25 Mr. Wetterhahn, as a service date for you, then?
t-5842 "ki 6:7 1 We set receipt dates, I just discovered, when 2 parties have'to take other actions based on days. It avoids 3 a lot of unnecessary dialogue as to when parties actually
'4 receive things, whether there were mail delays, and that's 5 the reason', so as not to be"avburden on the parties'.' 19eFalso 6 'do it when there's actions that have to be taken after pre-7 hearing sessions or hearings and so on.
8 -I think that covers all the preliminary matters 9 on my list.
10 Seeing no differing opinion, we can proceed, 11 finally, with the evidentiary hearing.
12 'We might as well take our mid-morning break, come 13 back, and get rolling right away.
14 We will come back at 10:25 --
15 MR. WETTERHAHN: Before we break, a procedural
~
16 .. matter. We have three copies of the two NTSB reports.for 17 - the reporter, and I would like to give one set exactly as 18 given to the reporter to the Board. The only problem is one 19 that photographs.are hard to reproduce, and one of those 20 photographs, I think, is going to be critical, so we may have 21 ' to make other-arrangements to perhaps get another original 22 of that photograph into the record.
23 JUDGE BRENNER: If that becomes critical, we will, 24 of course, have to have the legible copy before us at the time 26 .it'is used in the hearing, and we will make it a separate
l 5843 ki 6:8 1 exhibit.
A e
a-
\m / In addition, Mr. Anthony, have you provided FOE o Exhibit 4 to the reporter?
4 MR. ANTHONY: I have it right here, yes.
5 We went to some trouble to make up for our neglect- r' 6 5'f the textbooks yesterday, and I have these copies of pages.
7 What is the distribution of those?
8 JUDGE BRENNER: To the parties participating in 9 the hearing and to the Board. The reporter doesn't need 10 that.
11 (Recess.)
End 6 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 D .
24 f-k_) a 1
71bl 5844 1
JUDGE BRENNER: We're back on the record. ,
/O (m,) 2 Ms. Fodgdon, I'm sorry. I neglected to ask you 3
what the schedule would be for the Staf f Final Environmental 4 S tatemen t. As I recall, that had been scheduled for March, 5
1984, at a time when a supplemental DES was-expected out-in' ~
3*!' inid-Oc tober. '
~
And so the obvious question arises. What will I
7 that schedule be now?
8 MS. HODGDON: The Staf f believes that the five 8
day comment period will expire February 6th. That's what they 10 gave me. And with a great deal of effort, they will be 11 able to get the DES out by the end of March.
12 JUDGE BRENNER: By the end of March?
/ \
13 (J. ) MS. HODGDON: Yes. They will make every effort 14 to meet that schedule. They have not set the date, even 15
. though the DES supplement is late.
16 JUDGE BRENNER: If that date changes, we would 17 expect to be advised as soon as the Staff knows. And by that, 18 I mean we shouldn't hear March 29th that it's not going to 19 be out for three months. We would expect the Staf f would know 20 something like that further in advance.
21 MS. HODGDON: The Board will be informed if and when 22 that date changes, whenever that event occurs.
23 JUDGE BRENNER: Okay. Thank you. That may turn 24 fg out to be a very critical date in this proceeding. We don't
'b 25 know yet, but it might. Thank you.
5845
- 71b2 1
~
We are prepared now to continue with the 2
(3v) Applicant's cross examination of Mr. Hasbrouck, testifying 3
on behalf of FOE.
4 Whereupon, 5
BEVIER HASBROUCK O
resumed the " stand ~an'd, ~ having 'be'en previously duly sworn, 7
was examined and testified further as follows:
8 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Wetterhahn?
8 MR. ANTHONY: Judge Brenner, I'm'a'little 10 confused again.
Have we finished with Mr. Hasbrouck's 11 qualifications?
12 JUDGE BRENNER: No. We are resuming the Applicant' s 13 cross examination.
'q )
14 MR. ANTHONY: On the qualifications, do I have 15 a chance to respond after he finishes?
16 JUDGE BRENNER: No. We haven't set a separate 17 voir dire examination period. You can ask all your redirect 18 questions at the completion of all of the other parties' 19 cross examination.
20 MR. AMTHONY: So I don't have any chance to get in 21 now until it's all finished?
22 JUDGE BRENNER: Not now. You will have a full 23 opportunity after that. It is exactly the reverse of what 24 p occurred when you were cross examining the Applicant's witnesse s.
\- 25 They had to wait until you were finished.
1 I
5846 71b3 1 MR. NETTERHAHN: Mr. Chairman, in light of the n
k ,) 2 fact that we have not seen full professional qualifications 3 prior to this time, will the Board at some time entertain 4 a motion to strike, based upon lack of qualifications?
5 JUDGE BRENNER: You can make the motion and I have' 6 'already inferred what part of your reasoning would be. That 7 is, you could make the arguments fully in the motion to strike 8 MR. WETTERH AHN : Let me plead my -- in my examination 9 by way of voir dire.
10 CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 11 BY MR. WETTE RHAHN :
12 O Mr. Hasbrouck, we were discussing your use of 2
13 standard text in meteorology prior to preparation of your
(
N~s
}
14 testimony yesterday. Do you recall that?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Did you consult any other standard text in the 17
-subject matter of this contention, prior to the filing of your 118 tes timony? That is, Hasbrou,ck 1 and Hasbrouck 2, other
. 19 than lose listed in the text and other than the exhibits M which you have provided?
21 A Not in meteorology.
22 O What subject did you examine the text, the standard 23 text in the subject matter of content, ion?
24 A
,s I considered that the gas coming out of the pipeline s \
L'J 25 was a physics problem first, and wanted to know what its
5847 71b4 1 temperature behavior was.
p Q 2 O Could you respond to my question, as to the text --
3 standard text -- that you looked at other than, I believe, 4
the one reference is Sears Physics text, as far as the 5
various -- as far as the subject matter? - -
d' A Okay. That was the only one I found what I wanted 7
in the first one.
8 Q When did you first examine Regulatory Guide 1,91 8
Rev 0 or Rev l?
10 A I didn't have a copy of it until sometime af ter 11 I wrote Hasbrouck 2 and I was arguing from the sparse informa-12 tion that was in Walsh's thing.
13 Q So you used the same methodology as Mr. Walsh did.
G 14 In fact, you copied the same methodology, once you determined 15 how much gasoline, in one case, and how much natural gas vapor 16
- w a ,s 'n i flammable limits, as determined by you? Is that
~ 17 how you did it?
18 A On Hasbrouck, I think I explicitly -- in number 17 19 I credited Walsh and said that I had had more stuff, more
- fuel to add. And I've gotton enough out of this thing that 21 you took the cube root of a quantity of fuel and that's how 22 I got to a factor of 1.65 times as bad.
23 Q On page 4 of Hasbrouck Number 1, the second line, 24 you state that NRC Reg Guide 1 -- I guess that should be
'- 25 1.91 and it's Rev. number 1, are hard to understand.
5848 71b5 1 A Yes. I'm still having trouble with it.
[J) 2 Q So either you have used the methodology by rote, 3 but do not understand the basis for the methodology contained 4 therein -- is that a good approximation?
5 A That particular paragraph, about the 240 per'c'Ent.
S. for hydrocarbona," that's a' verrdi'fficult" paragrapht- I'think" 7 the scrivening was bad in that one.
8 0 You don' t understand what that paragraph means.
9 Is that correct, at this point in time?
10 A I wonder who does.
11 0 would you answer my question? Do you understand 12 what it means?
13 A I still do not understand how that factor, 240 14 percent, is cranked in.
15 0 The Lovins' text, did you yourself have, in your 16 possession, the entire Lovins' textbook itself?
17 A Yes, I nid.
i 18 Q So you examined all parts of it? Not only the table 19 that you referencect l 20 A I have to Lovins' texts. I think " Brittle Power" 21 I did not have in my possession.
22 Q Mhat part of that book, tha t reference that you 23 utilized, did you have in your possession when you wrote the 24 } testimony?
\_/ 25 A Pretty much that table and that page.
71h6' 5849 1
liR. ANTHO'iY : May I make an objection, please?
10 Q 2 JUDGE BRENNER: Yes.
3 MR. ANTHONY: I thought the court ruled that Lovins' 4
was not acceptable.
5~^
JUDGE BRENNER: You wanted-to put some of one page "~
8"
" 'from' that te'kt'into evid~e nce, as' I recall, and we rejected - it.
7 MR. ANTHONY : That's what I thought.
8 JUDGE BRENNER: Yes.
end t7 9 10 '
' 11 12 r]. 13 V
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~
24 26
1 81bl 5850 1
It was FOE Exhibit 1 for identification and we ID 2
- 5. ,) rejected it.
3 MR.. ANTHONY: Yes.
4 JUDGE BRENNER: I'll let Mr. Wetterhahn speak for 5 himself.
~
6* ' '
M R'. ANTEONYi ' It wa's rejected --
7 JUDGE BRENNER: Wait. We understand your objection.
8 Mr. Wetterhahn?
8 MR. WETTSRHAHN: I am probing as to his expertise 10 and what expertise he might have with regard to overpressure 11 of buildings, effects of , overpressure, and whether he is 12 qualified -- based upon the information he had -- to give
/"')
%/
13 testimony as to that aspect, not for the truth of the facts 14 contained in the Lovins' text.
15 JUDGE BRENNER: Yes. That's the distinction, Mr.
16 Anthony. It probably sounds complicated to you. Maybe I can 17 say it more simply.
18 Page 4 of Hasbrouck number 1, there is still present 19 in the testimony admitted into evidence, the reference to 20 $
Lovins, and among other things, the cross examiner is entitled 21 to probe what Mr. Hasbrouck might have relied upon.
22 In addition, Mr. Hasbrouck -- as you know -- is 8
being questioned in the area of his qualifications so where it 24 7_y appears, from his testimony, that he may have relied on some I i
'/
- 25 other things, the examiner -- in order to have a full record
81b2 5851 1
of his qualifications -- 'should fairly ask what else he relied 2
on. And it is for tha t purpose -- not for the truth of the 3
matter of what might be in the Lovins' text directly.
4 MR. ANTHONY: Well Mr. Wetterhahn is not trying 5"
E to establi'sh that the Lovins' figures are ones that he-
~
6"
accen tr. ' Is ' tnat iti? ^" '
7 JUDGE BRENNER: He's trying to establish what 8
Mr. Hasbrouck's knowledge and understanding is. And to that 8
ex ten t, it is pertinent to understand what use Mr. Hasbrouck 10 mado of the reference that is referenced in the testimony, and 11 what Mr. Hasbrouck's understanding might be.
12 1.t may also be appropriate, by way of impeachment 13 fr} of credentials, to show why the understanding by Mr. Hasbrouck NJ 14 might be incorrect.
Thdtt's a further matter. Whether or 15 not we ever get to that, I don't know.
16 MR. ANTHONY: I'm glad Mr. Wetterhahn is recognizing 17 Lovins'.
18 JUDGE BRENNER: No, he's not.
18 Go ahead, Mr. Wetterhahn.
MR. WETTSRHAHN: I forgot the question.
i 21
!. JUDGE BRENNER: There was a question and an answer.
22 My recollection is there was no pending question. The 23 L
objection came af ter the answer. .
M The reason we entertained it, I figored it was an
- 'd' 25 objection to the line of questioning and he wanted a further I
5852 81b3 1 explanation.
tO Q 2 BY MR. WETTERHAHN:
3 0 If I recall your answer correctly, you had 4
before you when you prepared your testimony only tha t part 5
of FOE Exhibit l' labeled Table 2, including the notes" and -
8"- ' the* sotrreeW Is - that correct?- '
7 A We had one copy of the book and I read for some time 8
in that book and saw that that was an appropriate information 9
to give some meaning to what 12 psi meant for a similar --
10 not identical but a similar nuclear power plant.
11 Q Did you examine the listed source of that table, 12 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Chester & Ches ter, 1976?
13 A po,
\.)
14 Q So you don't know how the overpressures were 15 calculated in that -- which went into this table?
16 A No.
17 MR. A NTHONY: Objection. Isn't this still going 18 beyond using " Brittle Power"? If we're not using " Brittle 19 power" how can he refer to the source of it?
20 JUDGE BRENNER: The same explanation I gave before 21 still applies, Mr. Anthony.
22 BY MR. WETTE RHAHN :
23 Q Then you don' t know what the qualitative terms 24 mean in the column " expected effects of blast alone on a (3
s
\--) 25 typical large pressurized water reactor" or how these qualitati ve
. . - - _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - l
81b4 5853 1
terms were determined by the authors?
2 J A When it says that you will have a meltdown in some 3
period of hours, I think that's fairly general. How precise 4
do you have to be to know that that's a disaster?
5
<r But you don'i know what the authors -- what 6 - .
thought processes 7 what*dnalysis 'they did, or what the basis 7
was for their conclusions? Is that correct?
8 A No. I was trying to show what somebody else had 9
said about the meaning of 12 pounds per square inch. That 10 was an aside.
11 Q You were here when there as testimony as to the 12 fact that safety.related structures, at this facility, could fs 13 withstand an average peak -- average reflected overpressure
(' ') 14 of 12 psi. Is that not correct?
15 A Correct. ~
16 Q
So a conclusion that could be drawn from those 17 s ta temen ts , if true, would be for this facility a meltdown wou:.d 18 not occ . c for 12 psi overpressure. Isn't that correct?
19 A Yes.
But I was taking that it didn't go much 20 higher than that.
I didn' t know how much higher, how much 21 more the building could take and that there was this informatic in 22 from Lovins' which anybody could look at to form their own 23 conclusions.
And that was an aid to the ' reader, to say go 24 look at Lovins' and see what this means.
.-p)
(s, 25 Q But for this particular facility --
-- -- l
81b5 ,
1 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Wetterhahn, I think we have
' \,
O) 2 kind of exhausted this one little sub , sub , sub-subject of 3 the subject, unless you see nuggets that are still lef t to 4 be covered.
5 MR. NETTERHAHN: Just one follow up question.
8 --
BY" MR'. WETTERHAHN :
7 Q This appears to be, as to the blast affect, a 8 typical large cressurized water reactor. Is that correct?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Lim'erick is a boiling water reactor?
11 A yes.
12 O no you have sufficient expertise,or do you claim
/~') 13 sufficient expertise, in order to do --
YV 14 A No. i wouldn' t know the difference --
15
, JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Hasbrouck, you have to let him 16 finish the question.
17 BY MR. WETTERHAHN:
18 Q Are you sufficiently expert in order to do.
18 a design comparison, in order to tell whether this -- these 20 overpressures would cause the same effects in a boiling water 21 reactor?
E A Mo. I would not know the difference :as to which 23 were stronger.
24 Q These over -- these blast overpressures are due
(~~s
\-
\
25 to a nuclear explosion. Isn't that correct, as stated in the
81b6~ 5855 f
) I table?
(' ') ,. 8 A As I remember
" Brittle Power", he was talking 8
pretty much about nuclear bombs hitting close to Limerick 4
or any other place.
5 Q Do you have sufficient expertise'in order-to-6
. compare-thes blast' effects ~of' a nuclear weapon of the same, 7
or what is called the equivalent TNT tonnage, to that of 8
conventional TNT or conventional explosives?
8 MR. ANTHONY: bjection. Isn't this going far 10 afield?
.11 JUDGE BRENNER: I think so, but it is within the 12 realm of relevance to his credentials so we will allow it.
- ' , m.s 13 t But I don't want to get too bogged down.
\ 'I 14 That was a good objection,?ir. Anthony. We will 15 allow it, but not too much further.
16 Mr. Hasbrouck?
17 TFE WITNESS: If the enemy can hit a very hardened 18 missile silo accurately enough to stop a Minuteman missile, 19 I imagine they could hit Limerick power plant sufficiently 20 to reach any kind of containment wall.
21 BY MR. WETTERHAMN :
22 O Let me go back.
I don't think you understood my '
23 question.
My question is for a given nuclear explosion of 24 certain TNT equivalence, do you have sufficient expertise
()
s-25 to compare it to an ordinary explosive or TNT equivalent on the
l 5856 81b7 1 same facility?
() 2 A What I know is in Regulatory 1.91.
3 O So you are stating you compare the effects of a 4 nuclear blast of a given -- or you can equate a nuclear blast 6 with the same TNT equivalent, and it would cause the same -
6 byerpressure?
7 MR. ANTHONY: I'm sorry. I still would like 8 to object further to this.
1 JUDGE BRENNER: It's the same question, Mr.
10 Anthony. I said I wouldn't allow it to go much further, but 11 I'/would allow at least that question. I agree with Mr.
12 Wetterhahn that Mr. Fasbrouck did not answer the question, 13 so we will allow him to put it to the witness again.
14 BY MR. WETTERHAHN:
15 0 Did you understand my question the last time?
10 A Say it again.
17 O Do you have sufficient expertise in order to 18 equate a nuclear explosion, of a given TNT equivalent, to that 19 same explosion, assuming that it were not nucler but conventional 30 explosive?
21 A They have been equating TNT and nuclear explosions 22 since. Hiroshima.
23 Q Let me go on.
24 You have relied on two specific NTSB studies?
O 25 A Yes.
_. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ l
P168 5857 1 0 You have read a number of others, I understand,
() 2 in preparation for your testimony here. Isn't that correct?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Have you always found NTSB reports to be authorita-5 tive?
d- A They'are what's availabl~e. What else can I 7 call up in a short time?
8 Q You have no quarrel with the method that they 9
have used to analyze accidents in the ones that you have 10 read?
11 A In the pipeline accident reports?
12 O Yes.
13 A I haven't tried to criticize them, tried to think 14 of an't better way to do it. It seems sort of pointless.
15 MR. METTORHAHN: I am through with the general 16 q ues tions , as to his testimony, and at this time would like 17 to move to strike the testimony based upon lack of expertise.
18 To make it quite short, the commission regulations i 19 require an expert witness who is going to give expert opinion 20 i n various subjects, be qualified by education, training, 21 or experience. I think the dialogue and the examination from 22 the last'few minutes and yesterday proves conclusively, M and without question, that this witness has not met minimal 24 standards to give expert testimony.
25 He admits freely that he doesn't understand key
5858 81b9 1 key elements of his testimony. And while he copies the r N.
i 2 methodology of Applicant's witness in certain areas, that 3 doesn't make him an expert.
end t8 4 5
g.. _
7 8
9 10 -
11 12
('s)
\
13
%/
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 r N, s, 25
5859 l 1
ki 9:1 1
And inasmuch as we have previously not had a
(
sm ,/ 2 copy of his qualifications, this motion could not have been 3 adequately made.
4 I might comment, I was somewhat surprised in my 5
examination that this is still~not~'a complete statement of I i
l 6' his qualifications in the usual sense. I It stopped as far 7
as 1963, but by his own admission, he does not have sufficient 8 expertise.
9 JUDGE BRENNER: Give us a moment before we can 10 decide responses to your motion.
11 (Board conferring.)
12 JUDGE BRENNER: We are not going to strike the cJ 1 13 testimony, 14 When we denied -- let me start over. We certainly 15 agree with the Applicant's right tD make a motion again at this 16 time for the reasons indicated, that if we had the written 17 Motions to Strike before us, due to FOE's failure to file 18 the information we required, the Applicant did not have a 18 full statement of full qualifications.
20 l However, when we ruled on the Motion to Strike, 21 the written Motion to Strike, which in part was based on M
qualifications, we assumod no more due to FOE's failure to 23 file qualification than the fact that Mr. .IIasbrouck had an
,3 24 undergraduate, had his bachelor's degree in physics, many, many (x.s) 8 years ago, in the late '40s, and had done no related work
5860
! ki 9:2 1 since then. That was our assumption.
( 2 Even with that assumption, we did not strike the 3 testimony, and will not do so now. His qualifications appear 4 very, very minimal to give this testimony -- very minimal.
5 However, the nature of the exanination of qualifications 6^ ' is E geaeral" overview, ot" necessity. Its the right way to 7 proceed. I'm not criticizing the questions.
8 But it may be that in a particular context of 9 what Mr. Hasbrouck has done, just elementary knowledge of 10 physics is sufficient for some or all of his testimony. We 11 don't know that precisely yet.
12 I can tell you we have a good guess that you need
~^
/ s 13 to know a lot more than basic college elementary physics for Lj 14 some of what is in his testimony, but at this point we will 15 give FOE the benefit of the doubt.
16 If, af ter the examination of sr. IIasbrouck is comolet e, 17 and we look at the Proposed Findings and so on, and we put 18 together what he knew and did not know in the context of 19 what he has done, combined with our finding, that the only 20 qualifications he has whatsoever is that basic education in 21 physics, we may in our decision decide to give his testimony 22 no weight.
M On the other hand, if we believe that he does have
_s 24 the expertise to testify to some of the calculations he has
( )
2 made and so on, we are convinced that the elementary knowledge
5861 ki 9:3 1
of physics is sufficient, then we will give the testimony 2
the weight it deserves.
3 I will leave it at that.
4 That's our ruling.
5 BY MR. NETTERHAHN:
S' Q Mr. Hasbrouck, would you please turn to your 7
testimony, Hasbrouck No. 1, please.
A nit, on the second 8
line, page 2, does that say 36 percent or 3.6?
9 A 3.6 percent by volume.
10 Q Okay. Let me go over the arithmetic. You are 11 putting 10,500 gallons into an explosive mixture, and you 12 assumed 42,000 gallons of gasoline sprayed from the pipe.
13 Isn't that correct?
14 A Yes, sir.
15 Q Isn't that 25 percent?
16 A
We assumed that 42,000 gallons of gasoline sprays 17 from the pipe. We assumed 21,000 gallons, half of it, will 18 stay liquid and drench the soil, and overflow onto the 19 creek surface, but the other 21,000 will evaporate. Half of 20 this will go into vapor mixtures which are too rich and too 21 lean. The remaining half goes into explosive mixtures.
22 And for these calculations, I just said it's not 23 a range of dilutions, but just halfway between too rich and 24 too lean.
25 Q Oh, I understand.
5862 ki 94 1 The 3.6 is the midpoint of the range of flammable
~
[U ) 2 explosive concentration.
3 A Correct.
4 Q That's all it's meant to be?
5 A Yes, s .
O_ It., has no relationship to' whae percentage ~of the 7 original material is within those explosive limits?
+
8 A That's right.
9 O That percentage of the original spill which is in 10 explosive limits is 25 percent?
11 A Yes.
12 O In the third paragraph, that same paragraph, you 73 13 assume that the ARCO pipeline breaks with a short split, U 14 okay? Do you see that?
15 A Third paragraph. Walsh assumes?
16 Q Page 1, beginning of the third paragraph.
17 A Yes.
18 Q Have you quantitatively defined the length of the is short split which is described in your testimony?
20 A I think I was thinking of the Hearne thing, which 21 was a six-inch long split.
22 Q Did you assume a six-inch long split?
23 A I assumed that stuff sprayed out. I did not 24 calculate what the flow was through some kind of a split.
p)
(,, 26 Pipeline accidents occur, and they spray things.
5863 ki 9:5 1 Q You assumed a generalized split?
r~s
) 2 A Yes.
3 Q You have no specific length-width opening in 4 mind?
5 A If I don't put down some kind df a number, farer.
4+ yce--- for- instance,"in my-liLwature-search, I fourrd~there~ ' ' '
7 were ductile fractures which went on for 1,000 feet. I wasn't 8 talking about those.
9 I was talking about some rather small thing like 10 six inches. -
11 O But you have no exact numerical length in mind?
12 A' No.
13 0 You have done no calculations regarding the
())
L.
14 quantity that could be discharged from a specific size opening I
15 in the pipe. Is that correct?
16 A Pipelines have accidents and stuff spills out of 17 them. I read about these in the NTSB' reports. I'm trying to 18 make a scenario. I'm not trying to calculate what a better 19 or worse spray distribution, how the pipe should be manufactur ed.
20 Q You haven't answered my question.
21 Have you done any specific numerical calculations M
to determine how much of the product, assumed product, would 23 be lost through a specific size opening in the pipe?
24 A No, I didn't.
,_ , I did know about the Hearne incident.
\-- 25 where an experiment was made, where it was an undesired
5864 ki 9:6 1 experiment, but let's take advantage of it.
2 Q Let's talk about calculations.
3 Using elementary physics that you know, could you 4
do such a calculation with regard to calculating how nuch 5' could be lost through an actual split, longitudinal split 6- of- a* given size? " "'
7 A I would have to go back to the library and figure 8 this thing out. I have not done such, and I don't see the 9 purpose. All we wanted to know is how much stuff got spilled 10 on the ground and would evaporate.
11 Q You surely couldn't do it solely on the basis of 12 the Sears Physics Text, isn't that correct?
13 A Correct.
14 0 So what we really have is your intuition based 15 upon the Hearne report.
16 A Yes.
17 Q The Hearne accident.
18 Do you have that Hearne report, Exhibit 2 of the 19 Friends of the Earth in front of you?
End 9 20 21 22 23 24 n
i 5865 ki 10:1 1 yes, A
A Q 2 Q Looking at the third line of the same paragraph 3
in your testimony, the only citation there to Exhibit D 4
which -- let me go back.
5 Exhibit D in your testimony is the same reference 6
..to 'the' Friends'~ of"tlid Earth Exhibit 2. Isn't that correct?
7 yes, 3
8 Q The only reference is to, quote, photographs, 8
unquote.
10 Do you see that in your testimony?
11 A Yes.
12 Q So I assume that you rely on only certain photo-13 graphs contained therein. Isn't that correct?
14 A I read the whole report and got the general sub-15 stance of it. But for the purposes of this thing, what I 16 wanted the Commission to see was the photographs.
17 Q Okay, fine.
18 Now, let's identify, please, by figure number, 18 those photographs on which you are relying.
" A Figure 2 shows a split --
21 Q Let's just name them. Let's identify them for 22 now, and we will go through them substantively a little later 23 on.
24 A Figure 6.
(3 -
25 Q Figure 2 -- I'm sor.y -- 6.
j 5866 ki 10:2 1 A And Figure 3 for the extent of the damage.
2 Q I see.
3 And that's what you relied upon? That is..the 4 extent, correct?
5 A That's what I thought was necessary to refer to; 6 that the Board should look at.
7 Q Okay. I know the exhibit will speak for itself, 8 but let's look at Figure 2 for a moment.
9 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Wetterhahn, we're at the point to where, if these photographs are critical, these copies are 11 not good enough to use as exhibits or for us to follow the 12 examination. That's not your fault; it's FOE's fault. I
() 13 recognize that.
14 Do you want to defer this portion of the examina-15 tion until after the break in the hearing, or do you have 16 photographs that you want to put into evidence? Maybe I'm 17 not guessing correctly where you're about to go.
18 MR. WETTERHAHN: I'll tell you. Tt's no secret.
19 We are going to compare what is in these figures to find out 20 whether they serve the basis for his testimony.
21 JUDGE BRENNER: We'll need to have clear copies 22 of the figures to do that.
23 MR. ANTHONY: Judge Brenner, we have an original 24 copy of the book, if that would be a help for you to see.
25 MR. WETTERHAHN: The witness is going to have to
5867 ki 10:3 1 have a copy.
/%
( ,) 2 JUDGE BRENNER: That's the problem, Mr. Anthony.
3 The witness needs it. We need copies to follow it. It would 4 be helpful for you to have it.
5 We're going'to have to have them for thelrecord.
6' It gets" complicated; I' know; but- it's' very"important to' ~
7 preserve your rights as well as the record.
8 MR. ANTHONY: As far as I --
9 JUDGE BRENNER: Wait. The Applicant has proposed 10 to have -- I don't know -- an original, extra copies of 11 the. original report -- how are you going to do it?
12 MR. WETTERHAHN: I don't promise to do that.
/~ JUDGE BRENNER: Didn't you say something about b}
13 14 having better photographs available?
15 MR. WETTERHAHN: We begged, borrowed, or stole 16 one original.
17 JUDGE BRENNER: I hoped your borrowed it or begged 18 it, rather than stole it.
19 (Laughter.)
20 MR. WETTERRAHN: I'm not sure we'll be able to get 21 another one in. That's my problem.
22 We will try.
23 JUDGE BRENNER: This Xerox machine is a bad Xerox
_, 24 machine. That's the problem. Strike Xerox.
25 If you have a very good machine by any vendor, you
5868 ki 10;4 1 will probably be able to get legible copies. It's been
,s
( \
q ,/ 2 my experience in hearings that you can get quite legible 3 copies of photographs when they are copies of photographs 4 printed in a publication, as distinguished from glossy, 5 so maybe we should wait until we come back in January and 6 ' find a good machine somewhere and get good copies.
7 We've only got another two hours to go today, and 8 I'd like to go.
9 MR. NETTERHAHN: I think that the copies of this 10 figure that we're proffered, the only figure that is going to 11 be critical. The ones proffered by Mr. Anthony are adequate 12 for purposes of the examination.
13 JUDGE BRENNER: I was looking at the copy
[v) of the 14 ones given to the reporter. The problem is, those are the 15
. ones in the record.
16 MR. WETTERHAHN: We will provide -- we will attempt 17 to either provide one or make a physical exhibit of one.
18 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. I've got the ones 19 proffered by Mr. Anthony now. They ere a lot clearer.
1 20 MR. WETTERHAHN: Let me identify them, since they 21 don't have the figure number.
M JUDGE BRENNER: They do.
23 MR. WETTERHAHN: Mine don't. The pipeline showing 24 some liquid coming out is Figure 2, and Figure 3 is aerial g--]g L 25 view of accident site. And Figure 6 is identified as such.
I 5869 ki 10:5 1 BY MR. WETTERHAHN:
x 2 Q Do you have Figure 2 in front of you?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Do you recall the width of tPe pipeline -- the 5 diameter of the pipeline involved in this' incident?
o- -
A
- Was"it"-- let's see;' This irarr~eightainch 7 pipeline. Hearne is an eight-inch pipeline. I think ARCO is 8 12.
9 Q Let's stick with Hearne. Eight inches?
10 A Uh-huh.
11 Q Now, could you describe what appears to be coming 12 forth from the top of the pipeline?
l [~'
N.
13 A The picture I see looks more like a gurgle than I 14 a great spray, but I notice that the photograph was taken 15 during repair operations. I don't imagine they had any 16 500 pounds per square inch behind that.
17 0 Now, for whatever conditions were at the time, can 18 you estimate perpendicular to the direction of the pipe, 19 where that stream is hitting the ground, how many inches from 20 the pipe?
l 21 A The pipe is eight inches. It looks as though it i
L 22 might reach out 20 inches on each side, not very much.
23 Q So of the photographs you rely on, the only thing
! 24 that you can say at the time, whatever conditions were occurri ng N- 25 at that time, the spilling crude oil reached to about 20 inches ,
Il 5970 ki 10r6 1 two feet from the pipeline?
( ) S2 bu 2 A Yes.
3 But this photograph was taken during repair 4 operations. I have no knowledge of what the pressure was in 5 that pipe.
S. <
0 Then from-examining these' figures ~and- this- figure, '
7 you are unable to determine whether there was any extensive 8 spray or any fountain with regard to the oil that emanated 9 from this split. Isn't that correct?
10 A I don't imagine that they put full 500 pounds 11 pressure that was sufficient to burst the pipe in the first 12 place on this thing during repair operations. I think they r~~ 13 wanted to show where the -- the form in which the oil came
\.
14 out, and they didn't need full pressure f or that. I assumed 15 that.
16 JUDGE BRENNER: Let me jump in. This is getting 17 convoluted.
18 Mr. Hasbrouck, the question is really a lot simpler 19 than you're taking it.
X) If you look at page 1 of Hasbrouck No. 1, that 21 third paragraph. I quote: "The ARCO pipeline breaks with 22 a short split which sprays a patch of rough brambles, tall 23 grass, 40 foot trees, for a radius of 185 feet (see Exhibit 24 D of a certain date photographs)."
p s 25 As one reading that sentence might be lead to L._
5871 '
ki 10:7 1 believe, that if they looked at those photographs, they
.g
(_,) 2 would see a spray as described in that sentence.
3 Do you agree or disagree?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes.
5 JUDGE BRENNER: Now, you did not intend that to 6' be your meaning, did you?
7 THE WITNESS: No. I was also referring to the 8 extent on the map or the aerial photograph from the rupture 9 site, the existing house, the house where the explosion was, 10 which was 600 feet away, and there was a statement written 11 in the abstract which says -- I thought it said it sprayed 12 in a large area.
['N
's 13 JUDGE BRENNER: I can't hear you, sir.
14 JUDGE COLE: Line 4, it says " showered a large 15 area."
16 JUDGE BRENNER: That's in a synopsis.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, sprayed a large area.
18 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Hasbrouck, where in this report 19 would I look to see that --
20 THE WITNESS: The 185 feet came out of my head.
21 It did not come out of this report, other than a large area.
H JUDGE BRENNER: All right.
23 Mr. Wetterhahn.
24 BY MR. NETTERHAHN:
.g 25 Q Just for completeness, the term "large area" is
5872 ki 10:8 1 never defined in FOE Exhibit 2, is it?
) 2 A FOE Exhibit 2, Itasbrouck No. 2?
3 Q FOE Exhibit 2, the document we are presently 4 looking at.
5 A Okay. No, it isn't.
6 ^' g- 011r you makeany effore to contact"anyone, either-7 associated with this incident, either from the pipeline company 8 or the National Transportation Safety Board or DOT or other 9 regulatory a~ -~ies who might have investigated it to 10 determine what "large area" meant?
11 A No, I did 60t. I imagine it would have been quite 12 difficult to find that information, but I didn't try.
13
(}End10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
\' 25 ~
5873 Llbl 1 Q Looking at Figure 3, is it your recollection that p
- (m,) 2 the crude oil emanated from the rupture site and flowed down 3 this dammed up stream until it was confined at the botton, at 4 location stated on Figure 3 as dam at stockpond?
5 A Yes. That's what the liquid did. There were some '
d' ' vapors, too, that got into a house.
7 Q Well, couldn't -- there was some level of petroleum 8 product on top of the water, at least the entire length of 9 the thread of this little stream, up to this dirt, the dam 10 at the pond. isn't that correct?
11 A I suppose so, yes.
12 Q Wouldn' t one ' logical explanation be that the
() 13 14 vapors arose from this crude oil or constituents of the crude oil which was floating on top of the pond and stream as it 15 entered into this pond?
16 A At 5 a.m. vapors from crude oil, which continued 17 to leak from the rupture, entered a small frame house 600 18 feet away and was somehow ignited.
19 JUDGE BRENMER: Mr. Hasbrouck, what are you reading?
20 THE WITNESS: A synopsis. The gasoline vapors 21 are dense. The gasoline that is already in the stream bed is 22 low. It's rather difficult for these dense vapors to bome 23 up and get into this house, which I presume -- I don' t know 24 what it's elevation is, but it can' t be too close -- they
\- 25 didn ' t build it with their cellar wet. So I presume that the
5874 lilb2 1
vapors came from the sprayed area.
2 BY MR. WSTTERH AHN :
3 0 Let's go back to my question. Do you have any 4
reason, based upon your study of this text, to conclude that 5
the vapors did not arise in much the manner postula~ted by 4
Mr. Walshr from the floatinct petroleuer product"orr'the stream 7 bed in the pond?
8 A Nell, Walsh has shown that vapors, which are j
{ 9 dangerous for explosion, are 94 percent kept down in the 10 valley and don' t get up away from the liquid 's surface. This 11 is the difference between whether gasoline is spilled on a 12 hillside, where the vapors can keep draining off and be
! 13 replaced by new vapors, or whether. it has reached the bottom
\
14 of the run and the vapors, which come off the. molecules of 15 gasoline that come off tend to be reolaced by -- from the 16 very rich vapors above them.
17 So that the net flow of evaporation is very low 18 and it has to come up from the bottom. But on a steeply 19 sloping hill, where the vapors can drain by gravity away, 20 you keep getting clear air above the gasoline and liquid and 21 you continue to evaporate at a much higher rate effectively.
22 Q I direct your attention to Figure 3 again, about 23 in the center, right above the road that runs from lef t to 24 right is an X marked expldsion origin.
25 A Yes, sir.
lilb3 5875 1 0 Doesn't that appear to be quite near the bed of O 2 the stream?
3 A Yes. I would say it was within 40 or 50 feet.
4 O And looking at the dotted line that describes the 5 area in this photograph called burned area, do you see that 6- . dotted LineL 7 A Yes.
8 0 Would you not describe that as almnst -- this line 9 can be characterized as parallel to the stream bed and 10 surrounding the dam at the stock pond?
11 A I would also characterize it as a contour line of 12 the ground. And when gasoline vapor is up on the hill a bit, gs 13 it tends to spread out in the level thing, so that the volume V
14 -- the entire volume of the valley below the break gets filled 15 with the vapor, whereas a break at the very bottom only puts 16 -- only fills up a very small layer at the bottom.
17 But the position of the break, relative to the 18 stream bed, is very important. The higher it is, the more 19 vapors you are going to get and the more vapors are what 5 are going to cause a serious accident.
21 Q Assume now there was some spraying at the rupture 22 site. Wouldn't this burned area be then indicative of the 23 vapors going down a shallow valley and in effect stopping at 24 the stockpond? Wouldn't the movement of the vapors and its
/~%
- k_sb 25 ignition cause the damage or burned are indicated in the drawing?
5876 lilb4 1
A I think what happened was that the vapors largely i )
x _j 2 got stopped by the road, or the railroad with a tunnel 3
undernea th . And maybe some vapors got underneath, but also 4
a lot of the liquid went under the railroad and got down 5 into the stockpond. So I think the lower area may have had 6' -a lot of trouble from liquid gasoline coming upwards, as 7 Walsh has described.
8 But I see that the house trouble was probably ,
8 from vapors caused by the spray.
10 Now getting back to the X marking explosive origin.
Q 11 There's also an arrow pointing to a destroyed house, correct?
12 Yes, sir.
A 13 l j O And only -- if you can try to get a sense of the v
14 scale by the size of the houses, et cetera -- isn' t there 15 an arrow marking an existing house just a few feet away?
16 or perhaps 50 to 100 feet away from the destroyed house?
17 A Yes.
18 Q So that this -- whatever this particular 19 petroleum product was, that the blast effect appeared to be 20 confined very closely to this narrow stream valley. Isn't 21 that correct?
22 A Yes. I think the contour lines and the stream lines 23 are going to be roughly parallel.
24
'. 0 In addition to relying on Figure 2 and 3 you i /
'~' " relied on Figure 6. May I characterize your reliance as
5877 111h5 1
only showing that some sort of a break could exist?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Let's turn back to your testimony --
4 JUDGE BRENNER: Let's go off the record for a 5 minute.
6- -
(Discussion off'the record.)'
7 JUDGE BRENNER: Back on the record.
8 Ne have agreed that the Applicant will supply the 9
court reporter with more legible copies of Figures 2 and 3 10 of FOE Exhibit 2, very early next week, so that they can 11 be substituted for the figures currently in the three copies 12 of the of ficial exhibit, since those photographs in the 13 three copies of the offLeial exhibit are not very legible.
14 That lack of legibility in the official exhibit 15 did not impede the examination here, because the witness had 16 a good cooy of those photographs. The Board had a good 17 copy of those photographs and the cuestioner had a good copy 18 of those photographs.
19 You can proceed now.
20 BY MR. WETTE RHAIBI:
21 Q Let's turn back to the text of the testimony, 22 IIasbrouck number 1. Same paragraph. "For clarification in 23 other materials applied by FOE, I believe you had assumed 24 aviation gasoline. Is that <your assumption here?
25 A No. Regular gasoline. Aviation, as we understand,
5878 lllb6 1 has less heavy stuff, less light stuff, and more middle 2
stuff and it's actually the light fractions that are dangerous.
3 Q But at the time you assisted Mr. Anthony in 4
composing this motion for summary disposition, you didn't know 5 that regular gasoline had more volitiles than aviation 4 gasoline. Isn't' tha t correct? '
7 A I forgot just when I learned this. But I did 8 learn that.
9 0 Didn't you use, in your answer to the motion 10 for summary disposition, aviation gasoline as the product that 11 you were looking at?
12 A Was that Hasbrouck, 1, 2, or 3?
13 0 It's not in this testimony. Do you recall that?
14 A FOE has talked about aviation gas under the 15 erroneous belief that it was more dangerous.
end til 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 O 25
5879 121bl 1
JUDG3 BRENN".R: Let me see if I understand
) 2 this. What is your nresent belief, Mr. Hasbrouck?
3 THE WITNESS: Aviation gas is less dangerous than 4 regular gas.
5 JUDGE BRENNER: From the point of view of 8- ca'lculating explosions 7
7 THS WITNESS: It's vapor pressure -- 9 8
JUDGE BRYNNER: Mr. Hasbrouck, you have to let 9
the question _er finish. From the point of view of the 10 hazards from an explosion or burning, is that correct?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
s 12 BY MR. WETTERII AHN :
,r"N 13 Q Let's follow up on the nakare of this gasoline 14 that you utilize. You heard the testimony of Mr. Walsh, with 15 regard to the blending of gasoline for summer uses versus 16 winter uses. Were you in the courtroom at that time?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Do you have any dispute with his testix.ony that 19 gasoline is blended differently in warmer weather than it is 20 in colder weather?
21 A Yes, I agree.
22 Q Therefore, no matter whether it is warm outside
'M or cold outside, the vapor pressure will be approximately the 24
,_s same?
/ 't
\w / 25 JUDGF SPSNNER: Did you say the vapor pressure?
5880 121b2 1
MR. WSTTERHAHN : Vapor pressure, yes. Excuse me,
() 2 the resulting vapor pressure of the blended gasoline would 3 approximately be the same.
4 BY MR. WETTE D.HAHM :
5 Q Isn't that correct?
6 A. Yes. 'They-do blend gasolines that way.
7 Q So then your testimony, on page 2, begining on 8
the first sentence of the first full paragraph, is incorrect, 9 is it not?
10 A Well, you can have some -- a field can'be much 11 warmer than the temperature that they blended for sunmer 12 gasoline. After all, it can get cool in the summer nights 7sg 13 and you want to have enough -- you want cars to start.
's' ')
14 So on the other hand, a sun haking down on a 15 field can get quite warm. Therefore, the gasoline sprayed 16 from the pipe could hit a particularly warm field, 17 Q What temperature field are you talking about, 18 90, 100 degrees?
l 19 Yes.
A Also, very close to the soil the temperature 20 can go up very high. I mean, down one centimeter off the 21 soil the microclimate can get -- I think I have seen something 22 like 140 deo+;ees.
And conversely, fall to almost freezing 23 in summer nights.
24 G
So the microclimate, very close to the ground where k,,) 25 the gasoline would be, is very variable.
5881 12 lb3 1 0 Let's go back to summer nights. If the summer 2 night, the soil is quite cold, the evaporation rate will 3 be much less than you assumed. Isn't that right?
4 A Yes. The worst cas e would be ARCO on a warm day, 5 on a sunny day.
8 0 Do' you understand, from Mr. Walsh s' testimony or 7 otherwise, that the meteorological assumptions used of 8 f and 1 could only occur at night?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Let's gat back to page 1. You state -- the last 11 paragraph on page 1 -- that 42,000 gallons sprayed trom the 12 pipe? That's a given?
13 A Yes.
14 0 You assume that half stays liquid and the other 15 half evaporates? .
16 A Yes.
17 O That's an evaporation rate of 50 percent?
18 A Yes. Because it's on the hillside.
19 Q From looking at your Sears textbook, is there any 20 physical phenomenon, explained therein, which would 21 account for the fact that 50 percent would evaporate?
22 A If Walsh says one centimeter evaporates per hour, 23 and he is quoting MacKay I believe, so that if it was less than 24 two centimeters. deep -- the sorayed hillside -- half would 25 evaporate. If it is liquid and if it runs, it will thin cut
5882 121h4 1
to a bigger area.
2 Q Did you have any contacts with Mr. MacKay?
3 A No.
4 0 Were you privy to any conversations or noter of 5
conversations that Mr. Walsh had with Mr. MacKay?
8 A No. IIe had hi's hotes that he mentioned -- his 7 handwritten notes, we got a xeroxed copy of.
8 Did you examine those?
O 9 A Yes.
10 0 Perhaps 'tr. MacKay may have put some limitations 11 on that evaporation rate, depending on the depth of the 12 gasoline spilled. Isn't that correct?
13 A I don't see anything on there. I don.' t know 14 what MacKay wrote to Malsh other than what Walsh said in his 15 notes.
16 O Did you rely on MacKay when you first prepared your 17 tes timony?
18 A I relied on Walsh 's' handwritten no tes, that we 19 were given a copy of.
20 Q You didn't rely on Sears Principles of Physics?
21 A No.
22 O Any other textbook?
23 A There is another -- I was aware that gasoline 24 evaporates slowly because it usually has a saturated layer 25 of gas vapor over it, and most molecules are going back into I
5883 121b5 1 the liquid. And the net effect is very low.
(%
( ,) 2 Q So that contradicts your testimony that it would 3 be 50 percent evaporating, if it returns?
4 A If you have air currents keeping, blowing away --
5 Walsh's was assuming that dam in the bottom of the valley, 8- there was no air ~ and' it was just molecular diffusi~ on coming L 7 up from the bottom.
8 Q Didn't you hear Mr. Walsh testify, if there were S any assumed air currents at all, it would dilute all of 10 the material t'o less than the explosive or flammable range 11 very quickly?
12 A Eventually, that's true, yes. Eventually you
} 13 will evaporate . all the gasoline and then there won' t be any
- [v 14 trouble with it. If you put a fan on the pool of liquid 15 gasoline, with common sense you are creating a bubble of 16 gasoline vanor which is very dangerous.
17 Q If the fan were blowing a wind -- if we have a pan 18 of gasoline, and the fan -- there was a large fan there, 19 blowing a strean of air 15 miles an hour past the pan, would 20 you expect the dilution would be extremely great and the 21 percentage of gasoline vapor in the air would be minimal?
22 A Yes, you can get a big enough fan that you can get the gasoline away and dilute and safe .somewhat quickly. But M
. - with a smaller fan you can get -- instead of having 94 percent
- u. /
' ' ' 25 of it too rich to burn, you can almost any quantity. You
__ _ _ _ - - - - - _ - - . - _ - . - - - - - . - - - . -- )
3864 121b6 1
could have 50 percent of it in the explosive flammable range O
Q 2 because you have kept diluting the too rich .thinc;s to make 8
a larger volume of just right.
4 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Hasbrouck, I don't think you 5
answered the question. I don't know what the questioner think s.
8-
- You* have- ttr listen to the tI uestion and" attempt t'o answer it, 7
preferably in the first instance. It's a difficult process.
8 You gave a general answer. Your answers have been 9
rather broad, although some of the questions have been broad to too. The questioner, on this last one however, asked you 11 to assume a wind at 15 miles an hour. Instead of answering 12 that question, you said generally well, if it's a fast wind it fN - 13 h will be one thing. If it's a slow wind it will be another 14 thing. That doesn't help. We're given pages and pages here 15 that are not going to serve much purpose on a transcript.
16 Now that I have .said that, I will limit it to 17 the question. I will ask the questioner, as to whether he 18 still wants the question answered.
19 BY MR. WETTERHAHN :
- Q Can you answer that question specifically, with 21 regard to the 15 mile an hour winds?
22 A It seems reasonable and plausible to me, that this 23 would dilute it to safe levels rather quickly.
24 Q Would you agree it would take an expert in diffusion V 26 and metoerology to determine what is actually happening, if
___ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - I
5885 121b7 1 there were any wind at all, in addition to the diffusion 2 up from the surface?
3 A I think not. I would not agree. I don't think 4
that you would need a PhD in meteorology to know the conditions 5 under which gasoline evaporates faster or slower. I would think 6 maybe a firemarr would> know' that.
7 Q But certainly you don' t.
8 A I may, yes. I'm a physicist.
9 Q And you have knowledge -- sufficient knowledge as 10 to the intricacies of atmospheric diffusion to allow you 11 to do a specific calculation to determine what effect a 12 specific wind would have with regard to the concentration of 13 the gasoline in the air?
14 A We are'in Possum Hollow Run. There is no wind.
15 It's a very -- pretty steep area. Although the general 16 wind may be one meter per second, it can be a very still 17 area because it is such a sharp gulley. It is protected' 18 from the sides by whatever breezes the meteorologists found 19 out --
20 JUDGE BRENMER: Mr. Hasbrouck, once again you 21 didn' t answer the question. The questioner, unless the 22 question is objectionable, is entitled to get an answer.
23 Just as Friends of the Earth explored all types of dif ferent 24 scenarios with Mr. Walsh, the questimer is entitled to employ 25 different scenarios with you.
U' 5886 121b8 1
Let me remind you of some fundamental principles O) w/
2 here. Try to answer the question at the outset is good
- 3. advice for all witnesses, as concisely as possible. Then 4 if you have a further explanation, you can give it. Make 5 sure the explanation is to the question also. We've allowed 6 your testimony in here. We've~ already stated, in fact, that 7 it was a very close call. We have given FOE every opportunity ,
a through your testimony and answers to the questions for us 9 to see what it is you have to tell us.
10 But if you are not going to answer the questions, 11 then the purpuse in letting you go ahead and do that is not served.
12 I certainly don' t mean to imply that you are purposely 13 not answering the questions. I don't believe that for a D
14 moment, but try harder.
15 Mr. Wetterhahn, by the same token, I think if you 16 sharpen up and tighten up your questions, I think we'll go 17 a lot faster and get a more useful record.
end tl2 18 19 20 21 22 as 24
/3 k
s.- 25
5887 ki 13:1 1 THE WITNESS: Did I answer that question or not?
(O j 2 JUDGE BRENNER: No, you didn't.
3 THE WITNESS: What was the question?
4 JUDGE BRENNER: He wants to know if you know how to 5 figure out .< hat the net result would be on the gasoline 8' vapors'available for burning or ' explosion' if' ~ you -factor in
'7 an increased wind over and above a relatively still wind 8 condition, for example, Pasquill f and 1 meter.
9 THE WITNESS: As a hypothetical question, what 10 happens out in'the middle of an infinite plane, no.
11 BY MR. WETTERHAHN:
12 Q That's not the question.
(s
\.
13 The question is, given Pasquill f and 1 meter 14 per second wind along the Possum Hollow Run, can you tell me 15 what the effect, or what concentration of gasoline vapor 16 would be in'the air above Possum Hollow Run on a quantitative 17 basis?
18 A No.
19 Q Are you familiar with the geography of Possum 20 Hollow Run?
21 A I have seen it from the maps, contour maps, and Z2 I have been there, too.
23 0 You saw one portion of it?
24 A Yes.
O)
Y' M Q Did you walk the bed of the stream at any point in
5888
,k'i 13:2 1 time or dcwn to the bed of the stream?
m k ,) 2 A Yes. We got down to the bed of the stream, just 3 about where the ARCO pipeline crosses.
4 Q And looking tcwards the Schuylkill River, could 5 you characterize the bed of the stream as sloping fairly--
6 ' sharply towards' the Schn~ylkiIl'~ River?
7 A Yes. There was not much water there. Yes.
8 I imagine when there was water, it would flow pretty fast.
9 Q And is my characterization of the walls of the 10 valley quite steep in most spots?
11 A One spot is particularly steep. The other side, 12 yes, pretty steep.
j} 13 Q The particularly steep side, is that the side M/
14 towards.the plant?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Wouldn't these conditions encourage any vapor 17 that formed to flow by gravity immediately down the streambed 18 and into the Schuylkill River?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Then it would do that very quickly?
21 A There is brush there to sort of slow it down, but 22 yes, I imagine -- there would be drainage of gasoline vapor 23-out of Possum Ho'. low Run.
24 Q Have you done any calculations which would allow fg
~' 25 you to calculate how much of the vapor would be lost or would
5889 ki 13:3 1 exit from Possum Hollow Run into the Schuylkill Valley over 2 a period of time? .
3 A No. There is that bridge there, the railroad 4 bridge that constricts things, so there's a constraint there 5 and there are trees to sort of slow it down.
6' Q Wouldn't the effect of the screen of the trees 7
down at the bottom be to enhance dilution due to turbulence 8 caused by the trees?
9 A Turbulence doesn't always cause dilution. For 10 example, cigarette smoke can start out laminar, go into a 11 turbulent motion, go up to the ceiling, and form a very thin 12 cloud. I've also got a book on buoyance effects in fluids, 13 showing the same -- the inverse thing, of a salt solution 14 coming down, and it is dense, and it is falling through 15 water, building up a very thin layer on the bottom, despite 16 the fact that it is turbulent in the middle.
17 So the turbulence does not necessarily mean dis-18 persion.
19 Q Wouldn't turbulence cause increased entrainment of M air within the walls of the valley?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And that would enhance its passage down to the 23 Schuylkill Valley, Schuylkill River Valley?
24 A As you entrain more air, it isn't as dense, and 25 therefore it moves slower, so there's some kind of a tradeoff,
ki 13:4 5890 1 but, yes, it does.
p)
(, 2 O Did you account for this drainage phenomenon of 3 vapors in your calculations?
4 A No. I thought that there would be -- we were 5 examining a worst case thing, of where a bubble would not 8'
sit there f' rever o and ~i't would'draiin off,~ but there was going 7
to be some maximum time there.
8 Q Wouldn't there be continuous drainage from the 8 very beginning, and doesn't that have to be taken into account 10 in determining how much vapor is present?
11 A That is a good thing to do. But on the other hand, 12 if you had enough liquid to start with, if the pumps were
{~')'
13 still on on the pipe, that could overcome that to some degree.
v 14 There would still be drainage of vapors, yes. It would reach 15 an equilibrium quantity or height or amount.
16 Q Do you have sufficient expertise in meteorology 17 atmospheric diffusion to calculate the amount of vapor which 18 would be lost by its exit from Possum Hollow Run to the
'18 Schuylkill River Valley for a given period of time?
20 MR. ANTHONY: Objection. I thinkshe is repeating 21 the question.
22 JUDGE BRENNER: I don't know if I heard the precise 23 question before, but I sure heard questions very, very similar ,
24
/D .Mr. Wetterhahn.. Do you think this establishes something that
\- / 25 we don't already have in the question?
5891 ki 13:5 1
'MR. WETTERHAHN: I'll withdraw the question.
.b 5 2
9 JUDGE BRENNER: As long as we interrupted, we're 3.
. going to take one more break, since we are running until 4 1:00 today.
5 ~
Would.this be a good time? ~
6' MR. WETTERHAHN: We might as well take it now.
. 7 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. Let's come back at 8 12:15.
9 (Recess.)
End 13 10 11 12 I
13 i
I
( 14 15 16 i
17 l
18 19 l 20 21 22 24 (V ns
..--..,ev--- , . , , , , - , , , .--,,,mm ,,,,,m.e, _ _ , , , , , , , , , ,,,,,,.._.,,_.w,. . , , , - - - , , . ,
.,%,y,-- w,..--w,-rm ~ ,.-.. g - - - - -,4--
5892 ki 14:1 1 JUDGE BRENNER: We're back on the record. You may 2 continue, Mr. Wetterhahn.
3 BY MR. WETTERHAHN:
4 Q Just for purposes of limiting the examination to 5 the ARCO pipeline now, am I correct that Hasbrouck No. 2 and 8- Hasbrouck-Not 3 only relate ro"the-Columbia' Gas-Transmission 7 pipeline?
8 A Yes, in that they come down the same Possum 9 Hollo'1 Run. The only connection is geographical.
10 Q Okay. I'll try to keep that in mind.
11 Did you, in the course of preparing the testimony, i
12 contact ARCO Pipelines with regard to the operation of their 13 pumping station or other operations associated with the pipeline?
14 A Not personally.
15 Q Did you rely on any information regarding the 16 operation of ARCO pipeline in preparing your testimony?
17 A From Bob Anthony.
18 Q And what aspect of the operation of the ARCO 19 pipeline did you rely on from Mr. Anthony?
20 A That it could continue pumping due to malfunction 21 and also in the Hearne thing, that was a closed-down pipe that 22 was not pumping at all, and you still had that leakage. So D even a closed-down pipe can be dangerous.
24 Q Did you compare -- did you take a look at the 25 geography in the area surrounding the Hearne accident to
5893 ki 14 2*
). 1 determine whether there was gravity flow or siphoning or O
'( ,/ 2 anything like that?
3 A No. I compared only on that report, FOE 2, 4 Exhibit 2.
5 Q Turn,for a second, if you would, to the. FOE
- ' Exhibit *2;'the~Hearne' pipeline'.
7 A Yes.
8 O Would you look at Figure 1 for just a second/
9 A Yes.
10 Q Do you see the marking on that chart marked 11 Rupture Point 1230?
12 A Yes.
13 And do you see that there was some lower sustained f'"% Q
(
14 pressure for a number of hours thereafter?
15 A yes, 16 Q Do you know whether that was due to pumping or not?
17 A I would doubt it, since they said right in the 18 beginning that it was a closed-in pipe.
19 Q Can you explain why the pressure was greater than 20 zero for a number of hours?
21 A .I imagine that was gravity drainage.
H Q Do you know where this pressure was measured?
M A No.
- 24 Q Your scenario is that whatever vapors are formed
\
' \ >) 25 drain down or come down into Possum Hollow Run?
5894 ki 14:3 1 A Yes.
/
(%) 2 Q These vapors would be denser than the air at the 3 bottom and therefore displace the air at the bottom of 4 Possum Hollow Run?
5 A Yes.
6, Q.- And.you testified-that the-wall.of the~run-toward 7 the station was quite steep?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Wouldn't any blast or any assumed detonation be to shielded almost entirely from 'affecting the station due to 11 those walls?
12 A There is -- I think Walsh covered this pretty
/"'}
V 13 well. I do not differ from Walsh in this. There is directly 14 east of the reactor building, the walls are quite steep, but 15 a little bit to the south, why there is a place where the is vapors could go, where there is much more gradual approach 17 up to the reactor building.
18 Q You just --
19 A We're not different from Walsh's in the placement 20 of the gasoline vapor and the point of explosion.
21 Q You just testified that the gasoline vapor was 22 denser than the air at the bottom and displaced the air.
23 A Yes.
24 Q Your next assumption, then, is that it rises at
\' 25 the point?
5895 ki 14:4 1
A No, that was methane. There's a difference (n) u 2 between gasoline -- my scenarios are quite different from 3 gasoline.
4 0 I'm sorry. Let's go back. I hated to interrupt 5
'you, but we're talking only about the gasoline pipeline.
- 6. A. Yes.
7 Q The gasoline vapors, I lef t you where the gasoline 8
vapors were at the bottom of Possum Hollow Run near a point 9
about 800 feet -- is it 800 feet from the station where this 10 more gradual slope occurs?
11 I'm just setting the background.
12 A It was southeast of the station.
13 Q At about a point 800 feet frc.m the station, correct ?
V 14 A Yes.
15 Q What is the mechanism for postulating, for having 16 this heavier-than-air gasoline vapor rise such that -- or are 17 you not assuming that it's rising from the valley,the 18 Pcssum Hollow Valley?
19 A That's still in Possum Hollow Run.
Q So in reality, even though there was a short sectic a 21 of more shallow slopes, most of the valley would be shielded 22 by slopes frem the station. Isn't that right?
23 A We agree with Walsh's things. That his calculations 24 A are conservative.in that factor only, that there is shielding, 25 topographical shielding at the station for a lot of Possum
i 5896 ki 14:5 I
Hollow Run. We're not differing from that.
p 2 Q Wouldn't the effect of the shielding, looking at 3
the area which is not shielded versus the entire run, which 4
we assume is covered by vapors, that fact cause a reduction 5
of at least a factor of 10 or an order of magnitude of the 6
bl'ast effects on' the ' station in reality, in actuality?
7 A I think at that point, I guess we go back to that 8
map, if I can find it. There is a point --
8 Q I don't think you need my map to answer the 10 question.
11 JUDGE BRENNER: If the witness thinks he needs it, 12 that's fine.
13 MR. WETTERHAHN: That's fine.
'y ,)
I' (Document handed to witness.)
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 BY MR. WETTERHAHN:
Q Let me direct your attention to the point marked 18 800 feet from the station where rir. Walsh assumed and you, I
too -- let me direct you to the point you assumed where the walls of the valley, Possum Hollow Run, was shallower.
21 Have you found that point? <
A Yes. Southeast from the reactor.
23 Q For what length of the run does that condition 24 ry exist -- 100 feet?
s u -) 25 A I guess 700 feet, I would say. There's a broad
. . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a
5897 ki 14:6 1 area there, 700 feet along Possum Hollow Run.
[}
v 2 Q Now, what is the length of the vapor that you '
3 assume in your calculation along the bed of the stream?
4 A We assumed it would spill off the hillside. I 5
think it was -200 feet from -- 200' feet north of the 'cro'ssing :
- 6. of. Atlantic Pipeline and-Longview-Road.-
7 So coming down the contour, the gradient of the 8
contour lines, would dump it just about into that broad area.
9 Q So you are assuming that all the vapor is concen-10 trated in'the 700 feet. Is that correct?
11 A Yes, 12 Q Considering even the fact that-these walls are
-s g
13 not as deep as the others, wouldn't there be significant
\~) 14 shielding in that area, if you assumed that the. vapors 15 remained at the bottom of the run?
16 A i I would think so.
17 On the blast effects, I am following Walsh. I'm 18 just seying that we can get more vapor into the area.
19 Q I'm asking your opinion.
20 You would agree --
21 A Yes. I think Walsh was conservative at this point.
22 Q Would you believe that conservatism to be about a 23 factor of 5 in actuality as compared to the conservative way 24 he did it?
A
_ (,) 25 A I'm not really competent on how blasts affect over
t 5898
-ki 14:7 1 things.
2 Q But it would be significant?
8 A .I would certainly agree to a factor of 2.
4 Q And very probably a factor of 5?
, 5 A- Maybe.
- 6. g. Very- probably a factor-of-4?"
7 A t I don't know. I'm not competent.
End 14 8 9
10 11 12 '
13
-14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 b
v 25 1
151bl 5899 1
Q I understood you, this morning, to state that O) g v
2 you didn't understand the factor that Mr. Walsh explained 3
as a conservatism in his calculations.
4 A Yes. I didn't understand it.
5 Q You didn ' t understand' it, either by readin'g that in 6.
the-Regulatory-Guide ^or- listening to the" explanation of Mr.
7
.Walsh as a witness?
8 A Yes.
9 Q You understood neither?
10 A Correct.
11 Q If you reduce the explosive -- assuming that his 12 explanation is correct -- that this factor would reduce the
/~'s 13 mmount of the gasoline vanor available for explosion by a Q,b 14 factor of 2.4, what effect would that have on the calculated 15 overpressure? Can you give us an opinion on that?
16 A It would be the cube root of 2.4. That is, 17 the W to 1/3 power. It decreases W, I assume, in that 18 S
formula and I guess that's a factor of 1.4 and N and I 19
.would have to look up on that. Figure 1, a t 1. 9.1, for 20 what effect is on blast pressure.
21 Q Can you do that for us? Do you have the Reg 22 Guide with you?
23 (Pause.)
24
, A Now this is a very non-linear curve in Figure 1,
'/ 26 particularly when you consider that it's logarithmic scales.
151b2 5900 1
It's log / log paper so I have to say where are we starting?
2 Q Let's look at your testimony, Hasbrouck number 1, 3 page 3, under detonation.
4 A Uh-huh.
5 0 You get 6.1 times 10 pounds of TNT. ~
6 yeg, A.
7 Q Do you have a calculator with you, or a slide 8
rule?
8 A No. I've been carrying it every day, but I don ' t 10 have it now.
11 MR. WETTERHAHN: I'11 let the Board retain this 12 calculator to do its independent calculations.
13 (Calculator handed to witness.)
%J 14 JUDGE BRENNER: We have redundant calculators up 15
'he re .
16 MR. NETTERHAHN : One uses reverse polish and 17 the other doesn't.
18 BYM. WETTERHAHN:
19 Q If that -6.1 times 10 TNT is reduced by a factor
- of 4, okay? Could you just go through that calculation using 21 the same methodology as you used, and give me the resulting 22 peak overpressure?
23 A The cube root of 4 is 1.59.
24 0 One m.oment please. I'm sorry. You have reduced 25 k/ 6.1 times 105 by a factor of 2.4 and you are calculating the
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ ----- - . - - - 1
151b3 5901 1
resultant overpressure and obtaining that for Regulatory 2 Guide 1.91.
b(~N 3
JUDGE BRENNER: Which revision? Revision 0?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes.
5 MR. tETTERHAHN: The one he used ? originally for-' '
6 these., detonation-equa tion s. -
7-JUDGE BRENNER: I know. I just wanted to get it 8
in the record. We've gone back and forth between revisions.
9 Eventually, I'm sure the Staff will explain the diff erence 10 between the two versions and which one is applicable.
11 THE WITNESS: Where I had said 1.4 before, it's 12 1.34. For the cube root of 2.4. That reduces --
13 BY MR. WETTERHAHN:
'('# )
~
14 Q Rather than taking up the time, since we're going 15 to come back anyhow, let me withdraw the question. And in 16 order to save time, I will set up the parameters with 17 Mr. HasbrouckLthrough Mr. Anthony. And I think that would 18 be more efficient.
19 JUDGE BRENNER: Or you can set up the parameters 20 on the record now, without waiting for the answer. But if 21 you need time to prepare the parameters --
22 MR. WETTERHAHN : I think I would feel better if 23 I could consult 'with my expert a little bit more, because 24 I didn't fully understand it before I set the parameters.
(A) 25 JUDGE BRENNER: Okay. Fine. We'll do that. That's
-151b4 0 5902 1 a good suggestion, to do it.
(s 2 MR. WETTE RHAHN : I guess I join with Mr. Hasbrouck.
b 3
I don't fully understand the Regulatory Guide 1.91 either.
4 (Laughter.)
5 BY MR. WETTERHAIEI:
6 .O. Just ona~ more calculation. - I'think-you'can do" ~
7 it in your head. If hypothetically, your P sub R at 8
800 feet were of 28 psi, were reduced by about a factor of 9
4 -- it's a. hypothetical, I'm not saying that it is -- would 10 that result insa pressure of approximately 7 psi? 28 11 divided by 4, that is 7, correct?
12 A No. It's that cube root business.
13 Q No, I'm asking you --
'- 14 JUDGE BRENNER: We'll take judicial notice. Move 15 on.
16 MR. 9ETTE RHAHN : Fine, if you want to do that.
17 JUDGE BRENNER: The witness obviously got fairly 18 confused. Even you and I could calculat e that one, Mr.
19 Wetterhahn.
20 THE WITNESS: But it's not linear.
21 JUDGE COLE: That wasn' t the question.
22 MR. WETTERHAFN: I am now going to turn to the 23 other set of pipelines. Let's make sure we understand that.
24 BY MR. WETTERHAHN:
(,,) 25 Q Your calculations refer to the rupture of the 9- -w n-- .p- +g,-r y7 - ,- m .~ --,---.m. ---q g. 3 -- - w -
-y - r-- .-
151b5 5903 1
larger of the two Columbia Transmission pipelines?
(A 2 A Correct.
3 Q Now known as pipeline 10110?
4 A Correct.
5 O In your calculations, in your testimony, at 6.
Hasbroucle ' number-2 page"?,' paragraph 7, you use the' pressure 7 1200 psig. Is that correct?
8 A Yes.
8 Q Were you present in the courtroom when there was 10 testimony to the effect -- from Mr. Brown, I believe -- that 11 the actual pressure at the closest approach of that pipeline 12 to Limerick was approximately 1050 psig?
13 A
. Yes, I was present at that time.
'a 14 Q So in reality, the correct pressure to start from 15 inside the pipeline is approximately 10 psig?
16 A What are the ground rules for the worst credible 17 case? Do we take the maximum or what the average operating 18 pressure is?
19 Q What did you choose 1200 psig to be?
- A That's 1200, which came -- I think -- from Walsh's 21 figure as a maximun. And I added 15 pounds for atmosphere.
' 22 Presumably this psig, or counds per square inch guage, and 23 I presume that was just above the atmosphere.
24 Q You recognize, though, that while there may be
() 25 some very improbable conditions that would allow the pressure
151b6 5904 I to get to the psig? Normal pressure, at that closest
) 2 point of approach is approximately 1050?
3 A Yes, sir.
4 O And that pressur would occur there during flow, 5
99 plus. percent of the time. Is that ' your understanding?
6- A' Yes.- BQt' of ' course ', whenit~br'eaks maybe it 7
broke because of an overpressure.
8 0 When you made that statement, were you aware of 8
the fact that this pipeline is equipped with overpressure 10 devices?
11 A I presume they were set' at 1200.
12 end tl5
'h 13
[% /
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24
%.) gg .
f
5905 ki 16:1 1 Q Still in the same paragraph, you used an equation 2 of the expansion of an ideal gas.
3 A Yes, sir.
4 Q Can you define " ideal gas"?
5 A PV equals nRT, pressure times volume equals moles C
times. the. temperature- times- somebody's- constant.-
7 Q Did you examine whether, within the pressure 8
limitations, 1,200 to atmospheric, the particular gas being 9 transmitted along this pipeline could be considered an ideal 10 gas?
11 A I checked that the boiling point of liquid methane 12 was below the answer that I got. So that's a crude first 13 check, that it's an ideal gas. But this applies to this 9 14 process, this expansion.
15 Q Did you look at the chemical analysis of typical 16 gas which could go through this pipeline to determine the 17 amount of water entrainment that was permitted, the amount 18 of particulates or other contaminants?
19 A No.
M Q All of these factors would affect the behavior of 21 gases, wouldn't they?
22 A That's true. For this calculation I assumed it 23 was pure -- 100 percent pure methane, no contaminants.
24 O So the fact that there could be contaminants or M
water vapor or other things which you're unaware of could
5906 ki 16:2 1
affect the results of your calculation -- could affect your 2
characterization of it as an ideal gas and effective behavior.
3 Isn't that correct?
4 A Yes.
5 But there's 95 percent methane. Maybe-it's higher 8- ~than that, when r did phone up'UGI in Reading, Pennsylvania.
7 Q Could you tell me what UGI stands for?
8 A It stands for the name of a corporation, but it 9
used to be called United Gas Improvement, and it was here in 10 Philadelphia. I think they ran our gas works.
11 O Would this corporation have any direct knowledge 12 of the materialgoing through the Columbia Gas Transmission 13 pipeline?
14 A They sell gas in the neighborhood. I assumed that 15 their gas was similar to Columbia Gas Transmission's gas.
16 I don't think there's much difference.
17 Q What was the permitted water content, water vapor 18 content through UGI's --
19 A I didn't ask the question.
20 Q So you really can't tell whether the amount of 21 contaminants in the water vapor,or anything else present may 22 affect the use of this formula which are only applicable to 23 ideal gases. Isn't that true?
24 A They did tell me that this was 95 to 98 percent 25 methane. So that there's not too much room for contaminants I
5907 ki 16:3 1
and -- I'm trying to remember what the better definition of p) v 2 an ideal gas is.
3 Q You didn't have any definition in mind when you 4
used this -- when you stated it was an ideal gas, did you?
5~ A I think that the definition -- the physicist's definition of an- ideal gas--is that there" is no attraction 7
between the molecules, that they are just little billiard 8
balls hitting each other, that the energy is completely --
8 the internal energy of the gas is completely described by 10 its temperature and nothing else.
11
'That's the physicist's definition of an ideal gas.
12 O You are reaching back to the period 1946 - 1948 13 when you took the course to recall that, aren't you?
)
(S 14 A No -- well, it made it easier when I read it a 15 few weeks ago, the fact that I'had read it.
16 Q Can I characterize our discussion by saying you 17 took no accounting of the fact that it may not be an ideal 18 gas because of water vapor and the contaminants contained 18 therein?
20 A An ideal gas can-be a mixture of other gases.
21 Q Of other ideal gases, isn't that correct?
22 A It has to do with whether they are about to liquify ,
23 To the extent that you are close to a liquification point, the 24 ideal gas model breaks down.
O
\- 25 Q Were you in the courtroom when Pir. Brown was
5908 ki 16:4 1 A Yes.
2 UN Q Did you read his credentials to testify as an 3 expert in this proceeding?
4 A No.
i.- Q Were you aware of the" fact that he ha'd'been ~in 6
the gas transmission business for.a number of yearry had' 7
an undergraduate degree in engineering, had worked in all --
8 many aspects of pipeline design and construction?
9 A I agree that he does, yes. i 10 Q And he could speak -- from what you heard - pretty 11 authoritatively on the operation and engineering of gas 12 pipelines, particularly the one at Columbia Gas Pipeline.
13 Isn't that true?
\ -) 14 A Operating people sometimes don't know what the 15 extreme conditions are at the moment of breakdowns and 16 things like this, that a physicist may know more about.
17 Q But he had a lot of practical experience in more 18 than the operation, in the design and construction of 19 pipelines, didn't he?
20 A He had a lot of practical experience, yes.
21 Q
And he was responsible for overseeing the engineering 22 of all pipelines in the Columbia Gas Transmission System, 23 isn't that your understanding?
24 A Okay, I'll agree to that.
() 25 Q You were here in the courtroom, were you not --
5'6 gq )-fd >4 @*. IMAGE EVALUATION res11AaGer cut-a)
////
<. f8'4f g.
+ .
l.0 'd 2 Bu
!' @ Es I,i [m NE l.8 i.25 i.4 i.6 4 150mm >
< 6" >
- $;fA
,, /4ijh
/////
&///77 st)f<p+4 x
$ ^& o t k# IMAGE EVALUATION
////
IF#4, 4)% g restrAaGercut-a) p
+ <,
l.0 9 LA E -
l5 9 EE 11.1 b - EE 1.8 l
l.25 1.4 i.6
< 150mm
- 4 6" >
% +
d *'% /#
$ D ///' '
$3b*[4
5909 ki 16:5 1
JUDGE BRENNER: Wait a minute.
2 Mr. Hasbrouck, I'm confused. How do you agree 3
to those things, if you' started out by saying you didn't 4
know what his qualifications were?
i 5
MR. WETTERHAHN:
I think he said he didn't read i
6 '
his qualifications._~
7 JUDGE BRENNER: All right.
En d 15 g 4 9
10 11 12 13 j
\
14 15 16 -
17 j.
18 l
19 20 21 22 24 26 s
171bl 5910 1
THE WITNESS: I don't remember reading his gw- 2 qualifications.
3 JUDGE BRENNER: I mean you were agreeing to 4
several questions with the proposition stated by Mr. Wetterhahn ,
5 as to Mr. Brown's qualifications.
chow.. dm you know, ,one way-6 or the other?
7 THE WITNESS: He may be very qualified in operation s-8 JUDGE BRENNER: You didn't answer my question.
9 It's just a basic question. How do you know what his 10 qualifications are?
11 THE WITNESS: All right. I'll say I don't have 12 knowledge of that.
'13 JUDGE BRENNER: So how were you able to agree with
) 14 what Mr. Wetterhahn was suggesting, one way or the other?
15 THE WITNESS: I'm saying nolo contendre is 16 what I was saying.
17 JUDGE BRENNER: Thht's what I thought. That's 18 why I jumped in.
I don't know what you're getting, through 19 this witness, to go back over Mr. Brown's qualification.
20 MR. WETTERHAHN: I'm comparing his testimony to 21 that of Mr. Brown.
El JUDGE BRENNER: I understand that. I think you 23 can more directly do that.
He said he didn ' t know what his 24 qualifications were, so the next series of questions didn't
[* 25 do any good.
%. Whatever his qualifications are, on the record,
_, ---r , w--~ '
5911 171b2 1
we'll see them.
/'LJ} 2 THE WITNESS: I'll admit he has good qualifications .
3 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. We've got it.
4 MR. FETTERHAHN: I'll stipulate to that.
5 BY MR. NETTE RHAHN : '
6 O Nere- you in~ the -courtroom ^ when-he- testified" as-7 to the factor which he utilized in the design of pipelines 8
that for every 100 degree psi drop there was a 7 degree 9
change in temperature, Fahrenheit degree change in temperature?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And on cross examination,'by Mr. Anthony I believe, 12 you said that this relationship was valid for the operating 13 r,
pressures of Columbia Gas pipeline?
k
' 'l 14 A Yes. I'm aware of that.
15 A little more, he said that this told him how 16 much heat they had to add when they expanded the gas from a 17 high pressure line to a lesser pressure line. If they didn ' t 18 add heat, why they would have a lot of frost later on, in i
19 the low pressure line.
And this told them how much heat they I
20
'had to add to do it.
21 Q Excuse me. Was that his testimony? On the stand here?
M A I'm not sure- that was his testimony, no. I 23 t
1 think that was out in the hall.
24
. Q Okay. We're not going to get anywhere from
171b3 5912 1 A All right.
/"' 2 C
\ ,)3 From his testimony --
3 A You were correct on the testimony.
4 Q And,you recognize that if he is correct, based 5
upon his experience, that -- let's take 1200 psig. Thit-6
.would go to zero psig.guage.atmn=phere . That is- a multiplica- '
7 tion of 12 times 100 degree pressure droppings?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And if we utilized his formula, it would be a total 10 drop from whate,ver temperature it was in the pipe of 11 approximately 84 degrees?
12 A That was his testimony, yes.
13 t',N Q Now if you utilize those values -- I'm asking you 14 to assume those values -- throughout your testimony, if you 15 recalculated mixing af terwards and what the density was 16 compared to the air, you would find that in each and every 17 case, the resultant mixture was buoyant, wouldn't you?
18 A- Yes. I agree that would shoot my case down, so 19 that I don 't agree that he is correct. I follow the physics.
I 20 Q You follow a theoretical physics text which may or 21 may not apply to this situation here -- even though he stated 22 l
he based his experience on actual practice in the industry, 23 and practice for his company? Is that your testimony?
24 A Yes. On theoretical and also on something which 3
) (t"%_)
i I
tried to distribute, which was transactions of the ASME i
1
171b4 5913 1
Journal of Resources Technology, Volume 101, March '79, r
(m) v 2
page 26, by G.G. King of Williams Brothers in Calgary, Canada, 8
The decompression of gas rioelines during longitudinal ductile 4
fractures. And in that they talk about pipe temperatures 5
going down to as low as 150 degrees below zero, centigrade,- -
6 which I- think is minus- 238- Fahrenheit. It's very cold.
7 He also characterized it as cryogenic temperatures 8
so that here is a cited source in the literature that says 8
that it disagrees with the testimony of this operating man.
10 Q Were you present when Mr. Brown testified as to 11 periodic blowdowns in the line, in order to perform maintenance 12 functions?
13 r 3 bu s2 A Yes.
14 Q He stated that if the temperatures were extremely 15 cold, as you would probably calculate, that he would expect 16 to see condensation or a condensation cloud, vapor, et cetera, 17 f or that case?
18 A I don' t remember that.
19 Q Well, let me ask you that question more directly.
Would you expect to see, because of the very cold temperatures 21 .
that you are predicting, large vapor clouds?
22 A Oh, yes. Where the gas was mixing with the air, l 23 t hen the moisture I guess -- mostly in the air -- would form 24 frost and this is a well known thing on propane. But it would l
(y) r 25 also be true in methane.
t
5914 17165 1
Q Let's go back to methane a little bit --
2 JUDGE BRENNER: Mr. Wetterhahn, we have less then 3 five minutes. Why don ' t you. come to a convenient stopping 4 point.
5 MR. WET *ERHAHN : I will stop here and I will 6 continues along the. same. lines. It 's going-- to -be' a rather '
7 extensive examination. Another half hour to 45 minutes on 8 t his type of point.
9 JUDGE BRENNER: How much more do you have all 10 together of this witness?
11 fir. WETTERHAHN : An hour and a half.
12 JUDGE BRENNER: When you gave us the three hour 13 e s tima te , I guess you've used --
14 MR. METTERHAHN: About an hour and a half.
15 JUDGE BRENNER: All right.
16 fir. ETTERBAHN : And I didn't count on interruption 3
-17 by the Board.
- 18 JUDGE BRENNER
- You just did. If I give you the 19 hour2.199074e-4 days <br />0.00528 hours <br />3.141534e-5 weeks <br />7.2295e-6 months <br /> and a half, it's counted.
20 (Laughter. )
21 Ue will adjourn at this time. I don't believe 22 there are any matters that need to be discussed further on the 23 l
record, other than to say we will be back at 1: 30 p.m. , in l 24 this courtroom, on January 9. And for everybody to have a 25 happy holiday season and a har.py new year.
aura 71b6 1
Mr. Anthony, do you want to discuss something on 2
the record?
(d']
3 MR. ANTHONY: Judge Brenner, this may be not a 4
procer thing-to ask, but I happen to know the courts on this 5
floor have a copying machine. I wondered whether, when we 6
come back, and there's an- emergency for copying ~, whe ther~ any 7
arrangement could be made ahead of time to use the machines.
8 JUDGE BRENNER: No. I would be happy to tell you 8
why not on the record. We are here as guests of the courts.
10 When we travel around bhe country, we borrow different courts.
11 It's very difficult for us to get court space sometimes and 12 one reason for that difficulty is the courts, whose courtrooms 13 7_ we use,
$ 4 do not like being imposed upon unnecessarily. And
\ 14 we try to restrict what we call upon them to 'do to the absolute 15 minimu.
16 I hope you understand. It's solely for that reason ,
17 We don't want to lose the privilege of using these rooms. That 18 has happened in the past -- not here, but in other parts of 18 i
t he country. So I hope you understand, 20 l All right. We are adjourned.
) 21 (Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to 22 reconvene at 1:30 p.m. on Monday, January 9th, 1984.)
j 23 24
[}
w.,
25 i
i
, . CERTIFICATE OF PRCCEEDI.':GS
,( 2 3
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the
, NRC COtG1ISSION 3 In the matter of: PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Units 1 and 2)
, Date of Proceeding: 16 December 1983 7
Place of Proceeding: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
, were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 9
transC d pt M de M e d de Q M US M .
10
,, Mimie Meltzer Official Reporter - Typed 12 J
w h _
Of ficiad Reporterd- Signature 15 16 17 18 19 20 ,
21 22 23 24 k
/ 25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS NORFOLK. VIRGINIA
. . . _ . - _ _ , . _