ML20138J150
| ML20138J150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1985 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#485-535 OLA-1, NUDOCS 8512170444 | |
| Download: ML20138J150 (161) | |
Text
f I
l UNHED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
l l
=
\\
l DOCKET NO: 50-250 OLA-1
=
50-251 OLA-1 f
IN THE MATTER OF:
l FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY f
(Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4)
- Plant, EVIDENTIARY HEARING ORG N AL e
O PAGES: 441 - 602 MIAMI, FLORIDA LOCATION:
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1985 DATE:
,/p D \\
\\
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporters O
444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 h30 85 GS 1217 0444 AD PDR NATIONWIDE COVERAGE yDR
UNITED STATES C)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 50-250 OLA-1 50-251 OLA-1 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4) h EVIDENTIARY HEARING O
LOCATION:
MIAMI, FLORIDA PAGES: 441 - 602 DATE:
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1985
,pD I O I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
O
- Orime, 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 pgA248aM 8?h8Qgo
<202 n 3 m T
NATIONWIDE COVERAGE L
1
~
441 Joo Walch
'j ')
y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
\\b7 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
BEFORE THE ATONIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- 3 4
5
I 6
In the matter of:
7 TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR GENERATING
- Docket-Nos. 50-250-OLA-1 PLANT,-UNITS 3 and 4 50-251-OLA-1 8
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT 9
COMPANY 10
'---------------------------------I 11 lted States District
~
Courthouse 12 2nd Floor Courtroom hj(r }
Old Building 13 300 NE First Avenue i
Miami, Florida j
14 ll l.
Wednesday, Daccmber ll, 1985 15 16 l
Hearing in the above-entitled matter was convened:
17 "
at 9:32 a.m.,
ROBERT M.
LAZO, presiding.
18i lBEFORE:
19 ROBERT M. LAZO, Chairman 20 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing' Board g
RICHARD F.
COLE,. Member g
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 23
(~)
[k2P' EMMETH A. LUEBKE, Member 24 Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Ace Fetter.il lhyotters, loc.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 25 l
Jco Wnich 442
)
)
APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of Applicant, Florida Power and Light Company:
3 NORMAN A.
COLL, Esq.
Steel Hector & Davis 4
4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131-2398 5
MICHAEL A.
BAUSER, Esq.
6 Newman & Holtzinger, P.
C.
1615 L St.,
N. W.,
Suite 1000 7
Washington, D.
C.,
20036 8
On behalf of Interveners 9
MARTIN H.
HODDER, Esq.
1131 N.
E.
86th Street 10 Miami, Florida 33138 11 On behalf of NRC Staff
/I 12 MITZI A. YOUNG, Esq.
.j' l
and 13j MARY C.
WAGN ER, Esq.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 14 Washington, D.
C.
15 16 ;
I 17 j li 18 ',
19 20 l 21 22
[~N 21
,j
'2 34 Aar Fei;ral Reportces, Inc.
25 i
y:
443 1
CONTENTS 2
VOIR 3
WITNESSES
. DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS BOARD QlRE 4
G.
EDWARDS 5
BY MR. HODDER 446 6
BY MR. COLL 504 BY MR. HODDER 539 7
BY MR. COLL 561 8
9 LAY-IN DOCUMENTS 10 (NONE) 11' 12 13 EXH I B I TS 6
14
.(NONE) 15 16 RECESSES:
.17 10:12 A.M.
TO 10:37 A.M.........................
475 18 11:10 A.M.
TO 2:01 P.M..........................
499 3:21 P.M. TO 3: 42 P.M...........................
552 I?
20 21 22 23 24 25
%)
444
.(
PROCEED INGS j
JUDGE LAZO:
Will the hearing come to order, 2
please.
3 Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
4 Just for the record, I need to note that as we 5
were coming into the court this morning, Dr. Edwards handed 6
the Licensing Board copies of a reprint of an article 7
offered by him and printed in the Canadian Business Review 8
in the sprns of 1982. It is entitled " Cost Disadvantages of 9
Expanding the Nuclear Power Industry."
10 i
Dr. Edwards stated that he had additional copies available for any of the other parties that wished 12
()
13 to have one.
But I did want you to note that it has been m
Co)/
received by the Licensing Board and will be put into the 34 docket of this case.
So it will be a public document.
15 MR. HODDER:
Mr. Chairman?
16 JUDGE LAZO:
Mr. Hodder.
i7 MR. HODDER: I would like the record to reflect 18 that we have provided copies of the document to both the 39 staff and the utility company.
20 JUDGE LAZO:
Oh, fine. Thank you.
21 MR. COLL:
Judge Lazo, is this being admitted 22 into evidence in this proceeding?
23 JUDGE LAZO: No. I have no idea of what use may 24 be made of it at this point.
25 I
449 i
MR. HOODER:
I would like to address that.
2 MR. COLL:
Well, I would move that it be 3
stricken from the record of this proceeding.
4 JUDGE LAZO:
It is at this point not part of 5
the record upon which we may base any decision.
MR. COLL:
Thank you, sir.
6 7
JUDGE LAZO:
It is of the nature of a limited 8
appearance paper.
It is not sworn to or anything else.
9 MS. YOUNG:
That would be the staff's to interpretation.
JUDGE LAZO:
Surely.
12 MR. HODDER:
We would abide by that interpretation of the Board.
13 d
JUDGE LAZO:
Mr. Hodder, are you ready to ja proceed with your direct case?
15 MR. HODDER:
Yes. We are going to present Dr.
16 p
Gordon Edwards.
So I would ask him to take the stand.
is JUDGE LAZO:
Very well, i9 Dr. Edwards, you have been previously sworn.
20 THE WITNESS:
21 Whereupon, 22 GORDON D.
J.
EDWARDS was recalled to the stand on behalf of the intervenors and, 23 24 having been previously duly sworn, was further examined and testified as follows:
25
446
(
DIRECT EXAMINATION 3
BY MR. HODDER:
2 0
Dr. Edwards, the Board has identified three 3
questions of their creation which they derived from a
Contention D.
Do you have testimony to offer on that 5
contention and those Board questions here this morning?
6 A
Yes, I do.
7 0
Well, would you then proceed, sir, taking them 8
in sequence beginning with Question 1 as posed by the 9
Board.
I would ask you to read the question, if you have 10 y;
it, and then provide your response and explanation.
A Thank you.
12 sR. Cott:
Your soner, I am going to object gg,
')
to this procedure.
The Commission's Rules of Practice ja pr vide for the preparation of prepared written testimony.
15 It appears that now this witness is going to 16 extemporaneously launch into some testimony that has not
- 7 been provided to the Board and the parties in accordance 18 with the rules.
j9 There is a very stringent reason for that 20 rule.
The other parties have complied with it and provided 21 such testimony, and I would object to this witness now 22 suddenly extemporaneously providing verbal testimony that 23 none of the parties have had an opportunity to review or 24 prep re cross-enamination on or have thc1r own exports 25 s
q<
v
447 y
review.
2 MS. YOUNG:
Judge Lazo, I would join in that 3
objection.
In this proceeding we had a Board order dated I 4
believe September 18th that directed the profiling of 5
written ~ testimony.
And under the Commission's Rules of 6
Practice, 10 CFR 2.7438 I believe, all parties are to 7
profile written testimony for a proceeding.
This serves a dual purpose of not only 8
9 expediting a proceeidng, but preventing the potential for 10 unfair' surprise on the other parties.
This is particularly 11 important for this proceeding due to the recent 12 identification of Dr. Edwards as a witness for this 13 hearing I think by. letter of Mr. Hodder dated November l
14 12 which substantially precluded full discovery of intervenors' case.
15 So for those reasons I join in the obJaction 16 17 by Mr. Coll and would object to the receipt of any 18 testimony other than the profiled testimony which was entitled " Outline of Testimony of Dr. Edwards."
l 39 JUDGE LAZO:
Mr. Hodder, the objections of Mr.
20 Coll and Ms. Young appear to be well taken.
We had assumed 21 22 when we-received the profiled statement by Dr. Edwards that even though it was captioned " Outline of Testimony," that 23 24 it in fact was the direct written testimony that was being i
2i filed.
448 (p
MR. HODDER:
I would like to respond, Mr.
3 Chairman.
2 JUDGE LAZO:
Please, sir.
3 MR. HODDER:
First of all, perhaps through 4
oversight I didn't immediately reference in my introduction 5
of the witness the " Outline of Testimony."
We will present 6
that testimony to be bound into the record as other 7
testimony of the other witness has been done previously in 8
this hearing.
9 But, as you can see, the testimony is an 10 outline and we wish to convey to the Board that this n
outline is not the complete, or is the fullest rendition of 12 the testimeny, not as full as we would wish it.
[)
13 L.-
' J.)
Mr. Coll's objection, in my view, is wrong for j,
15 One is that as long as this witness stays I6 within the scope of the Board questions, I don't feel tha 37 there is any surprise or improper aspect to his addressing 18 those three Board questions.
I feel that he should have an 19 opportunity to go down the list of Board questions, give a 20 succinct response, yes or no, to each question and then 21 offer some explanation of that answer.
22 I don't feel that that would be unduly long or 23 constitute surprise.
I feel it is appropriate here. Mr.
24 Coll is unable to cite any precedent that would restrict 25 O
3<
r 449 i
the witness to prefiled testimony.
_j 2
Yes, indeed, we obtained and prefiled an 3
outline of testimony prepared by Dr. Edwards.
I couldn't 4
have known that what Dr. Edwards would provide me because, 5
as you recall, there was a very rushed schedule near the 6
end of these things, what his testimony would consist of 7
until I received it.
It was only revealed to me what it consisted 8
9 of when I actually received it.
It wasn't in the depth I jo would have wished. But the fact that it wasn't in the depth ti doesn't mean that it'is not in compliance with previous 12 experience of mine before Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards.
13 t
L?
14 For example, in 1974 when I was representing 15 the intervenors in the St. Lucie nuclear plant case in which Mr. Coll was their counsel and in which testimony was 16 17 taken from K.
Z. Morgan, that is Karl Z. Morgan, the father 18 of health physics in the U.S.,
we had a situation arise j9 where Dr. Morgan wrote, hand wrote testimony on the 20 airplane coming down here.
It was not perfiled.
21 We introduced the testimony and the Board allowed it.
The-Boa r d a lso a llowed Dr. Morgan to expand on 22 that testimony.
At that time Mr. Coll and Mr. Reese who 23 24 were representing the utility company claimed surprise and the Board overruled them.
25
450 l
i So I say that case at least establishes j
precedent for the view that a witness shouldn't be limited 2
to what he profiles and prewrites.
Of course we will offer 3
the " Outline of Testimony." But we feel this witness should 4
5 have some opportunity to give his direct answer to each of the Board's questions and some kind of explanation as to 6
the basis for that answer.
We are asking the Board to 7
permit that this morning and overrule the objections of 8
9 the staff and the utility company.
And there is one other point I would like 10 jj to make, if I may.
MR. COLL:
Judge Zazo 12 MR. HOODER: Excuse me, Your Honor. I also note
()N j3
\\
a is/
that the staff raised the issue of the fact that it was 9
only recently divulged that Dr. Edwards was our witness.
15 Well, that is true and that isn't true.
g It is true that just recently on request from j7 18 the utility company's counsel, Mr. Reese, I sent a letter, Previous to that I had indicated to the parties, and I j9 believe it was even in a telephone conference call that Dr.
20 Edwards would be our witness.
21 I would like to point out that early in this 22 proceeding when summary disposition motions were filed by 23 the utility company it was Dr. Edwards who provided 24 extensive affidavits in response to those motions for 25
451 i
summary disposition and it was well known at that time what 3
2 his testimony, who he was, where he was and there was not 3
disadvantage to any party in this proceeding because we a
used Dr. Edwards early on and they knew it.
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 r--
La
,4 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bo
2-1-JacW31 452
^
l JUDGE LAZO:
It is obvious that the other parties fdidhave at least some opportunity to utilize discovery 2
3:
procedures regarding Dr. Edwards.
4 There was ample time to depose him if they wished l
5 to do that, but that doesn't answer the 6!
MR. COLL:
Let me update the Board on that.
We 7 l served expert witness interrogatories in August of 1984 asking i
h 8l who 1
d the expert witnesses were, what the subject matter of their ilJ 91 opinions were, what facts they relied upon, and what the
'I I
a i
10 9 substance of their testimony was going to be.
I m
11 '
JUDGE LAZO:
But didn't they say that they did not 12 I know at that time?
-m i
13 MR. COLL:
Correct.
We then reminded them of,their i
14 duty under the rules to update that testimony, and all we got l
15 was a one page letter, signed by Joette Lorion for Martin 16 Ilodder, saying we intend to use Dr. Edwards as a witness.
87 That letter is dated November 12, 1985; as Ms.
18 Young says it does not comply with the Commission's discovery rules, which require them to update their answers to interrogatorics 20 and give us yhat this witness' testimony was, i
21j!
So, they failed in that regard.
They held it back.
j 221 Then they gave us only an outline of testimony which was 23 L profiled.
They held that back.
Now, they want the witness
/m l
I
\\'-
24hto take the stand and testify about matters which we have never l
u.4.t.e cnerim. ine ][ he a rd be f o re 25 and we object to that.
l l
1 d
453 2-2-Jc Wal 1
I have an additional objection, and that is there 2 i has been no showing that this witness is qualified in any way, 3 !
shape, or form to testify about any matter of expertise that i
ll. he may launch into.
l 5 :.
There has been no attempt to qualify this witness 6i as an expert, on the stand as an expert witness.
It has i
7 basically been Dr. Edwards, go ahead and give your testimony.
8[That is improper.
I i
e 9'
If he intends to testify as an expert witness, then I
10 I I would ask that counsel qualify him.
That we have an opportunity 11 to voir dire him, and that based upon what it is he intends 12 to testify about, which we don't know if the Board is going to l
x-13 allow him to go into areas which are not within the outline of 14 his testimony, that we should have an opportunity to move to i
l 15 strike that testimony.
j 16 The sole procedure is wrong, and that is why the 17 Commission's rules are right.
That is why prefiled testimony 18 is required, and I can cite a case, and that would be Philadelphia Electric Company, the Limerick decision, in which
,I 20 the Court in October of 1985, the Atomic Safety and Licensing
{
21 f Board, denied the filing, or the admission of late filed l
22 testimony.
23.
And that is all this is.
This is late filed testimony.
24 I They haven't complied with the discovery rules provided to us.
%2 Fesna Henntees. Inc. l l
25 ! They haven't complied with the Board's order to provide it to t
I 1
J
~4 2-3-JecWo1
/~T I
us in prefiled form, and we would object to it at this time.
.V 2
JUDGE LAZO:
Well, Mr. Coll, Mr. Hodder states that-3 Dr. Edwards will stay within the outline, and that he would 3
stay within the bounds or the scope of the contention that 5
has been at issue.
6 Does that still give you trouble?
7 MR. COLL:
It certainly does, Your Honor.
8 MS. YOUNG:
Judge L' azo, may I be heard on this once 9
again.
JUDGE LAZO:
Have you completed your statement, Mr.
10 j l.
11 j Coll?
{'
12 !
MR. COLL:
For the same reasons, unless his outline O.
a 13 of testimony goes in and that is it, and we are entitled to 14 voir dire him on his qualifications, to even give that, and to 15 croJs-examine him on that assuming that he is so qualified.
l 16 But to say that he is going to stay within some l
l 17 outline, this gives him an awful lot of latitude.
l 1
18 MR. HODDER:
I would like to respond --
l
'O MR. COLL:
If you have to object and decide whether 20' he is witnin or without this outline every time he says something, 21 I think is improper.
g 1
22 MR. HODDER:
We have no objection to Mr. Coll having F
23 ll voir dire of this witness at this time.
We previously indicated 24
.the witness' professional qualifications, which are an exhibit kafeter:0 Aeporters, Inc.
25 attached to the testimony, which was prefiled, and in which all i
2-4-J ecWol '.
456 1
the parties presumchly have.
2 This was also referenced in the earlier voir dire 3
of the witness when he was being considered as qualified as i
a technical interrogator.
5 JUDGE LAZO:
I don't think that is going to be a 6
problem.
But Ms. Young, you indicated you wish to speak.
7 MS. YOUNG:
Yes.
Judge Lazo, I think the parties 8
in this proceeding have been very patient with Interveners.
9 On numberous occasions we have given them extension 10 of time.
We have been more than' lenient in accommodating and i
11 i helping them with their difficulties due to their long distance 12 I potential witness.
13 h In August
'84, interrogatories to Interveners, which 14 were never formally answered until November of 1985.
You had 15 informal indications that Dr. Edwards may be the witness, which t
.16 was as early as a conference call, I believe, in'either 17. September or October to the Board, but was never followed up i
18 until later -- almost two months later.
The Board Order in
'O September 18, 1985, ordering the interveners to submit prefiled 20 - writ ten cestimony.
1 21 [
They are ignoring that order, and trying to circumvent.
l 22 ( that Order ~ by today -- expounding and expanding their testimony l
23 l for basically no good cause.
(:)
24 If Mr. Hodder is going to argue that the Staff and the l
re+menamanus,w.
25 Licensee should have known that Dr. Edwards was going to be a
+,--,,m e.--
e,,m,-----.--g
.,-r.,~-,-we-v,--ew
---er,-
v em m e w e r
~-e vv~
=>m--=- * - = - - - ' ' = " ~ -
2-5-JacWal 457 I
witness, then Mr. Hodder should have known that he was going to 2
have to have Dr. Edwards prepare his testimony to the fullest i
I 3
extent possible.
3 He can't argue hardship on both points.
He can't say 5
that he is surprised that Dr. Edwards came up with the testimony 6
he did.
He has an obligation as an attorney representing his 7
client to instruct his witness as to the proper scope of this 8
testimony.
I 9
If that communication fell down, if the result of i
10 that discussion is an outline of testimony and if the Board l
11 ' has ordered interveners to file profiled testimony, as it did 12 the other parties, and the other parties comply, intervener i
13 has not offered any good cause for why something apart from j
l 14 the prefiled written outline of Dr. Edwards should be received l
i 15 into evidence.
I 16 He is ignoring the Board's the order.
He is 17 offering to follow a procedure which is contrary to NRC rules i
18 of practice, and I am not convinced that he has offered really any good cause for that.
I 20 MR. HODDER:
May I respond, Mr. Chairman?
i 21 '
JUDGE LAZO:
Yes, Mr. Hodder.
i i
22 MR. HODDER:
First of all, I am not going to harp l
23 ll about the disparity of wealth between my client and intervener
']
b 24 is imp e.c u n io u s, and the United States Government and a very l
wa rmens &wmeet ue j 25 i wealthy utility company other than to identify the existence i
i l
2-6-JcOWal 458
(~T l
of that disparity.
V 2
l We have, in good faith, made the best possible 3
effort with our limited resources, to provide and to present i
a compelling and correct case before this licensing board.
5 We respect the Board, and we respect the agency 6
procedures and rules.of practice, and we don't feel a bit 7
ashamed of our effort -- in fact, we are proud of it.
8 I would like to point out to this Board, though, 9
that I am sole practitioner, and that although I have had 10 ;ithe help of counsel of a couple -- well, one law professor, t
11 ;
that everything we have done is in the Federal Courts all the l
12, way up to the United States Supreme Court in representing this
,s IU) 13, client on this issue, and its ramifications, has been very 14 taxing to me and my resources personal.
I 15 I have handled so much work for this client that i
i 16 would keep a small law firm busy, and in good faith throughout 17 that effort for example, I am going to argue before the i
l 18 United States Court of Appeals in Washington the 16th of l
50 December on the total picture of this Company's denial, whether !
l 20, or not the Company, but the Government's denial to my client i
21 of a full hearing on the problems of embrittlement at Turkey 22 [ Point.
23 With all those other considerations, we have prepared
(?/)
i 21 and advised the parties of our position.
The parties have always AwFMerd Reporten. ire.
25 known that Edwards was our witness, because he has filed at least
2-7-JocWol.
459 l
previously two affidavits opposing summary disposition.
This 2 ! is no surprise to any of the parties in this proceeding.
3 These affidavits previously filed are at some c
i length', and they address the issues, and all the parties have 5
access to this testimony of my witness.
6 I would be the first to say in all candor that I' 7
was disappointed that Dr. Edwards' testimony wasn't broadere 8
in scope when he gave it to us, but I had no way of knowing 3 9
that until I actually received it.
10 L It does address the questions raised by the Board, 11 u and I have explained to the Board previously how there exists 12 ; precedence in licensing board practice to allow a witness to O
13 e address the question.
It can take many formats, as long as 14 he stays within the scope of the Board's questions.
The 15 Board may have questions for the witness.
Certainly I would i
16 hope they do, and the utility company or the staff may want 17 to cross-examine the witness.
18 We, of course, are willing to submit to be bound
'O into the record the outline of testimony and the professional 20, qualifications accompanying that outline.
2I h Rut we would like the witness to be permitted to 3
22 h go down the list of Board questions, giving succinct answers 1
23 to those questions,'and then explanations.
The Board may O
24 determine the length of brevity of those answers, but we feel Assfedetti Aeporters, Inc.
25 that at a minimum this witness should be permitted to do this,
2-8-JooWo1 460 1
and we are asking the Board to so rule.
2 I
End 2.
3, SueW fois.
ll 1l, I
6 7
8l 9!
i 10 )
i 11 O
13 -
14 IS 16 i
l 17 I
I 18 l
l to l
I 20 21' li 72 !
t ia 23 ll 24 Aca Faf: val Resm>rters, Inc f i
25 '
i l
r k
l
461
- ]gg-SueW I
MR. COLL:
Judge Lazo --
l 2
WITNESS:
Judge Lazo, I would like to say some-3 thing if it wouldn' t be --
4 JUDGE LAZO:
I have a question for Mr. Hodder.
5 I would like to ask when did you get the outline for --
6 what you call the Outline of Profiled Testimony from Mr.
7 Dzonis -- excuse me, Dr. Edwards?
I'm still on yesterday.
8 MR. HODDER:
You are speaking of the most 9
recently filed Edwards' testimony, the outline?
10 JUDGE LAZO:
Yes.
When did you get it?
11 MR. HODDER:
I will answer that.
That was re-i i
i 12 cevied on or about the 26th of November.
And I received 13 it from Ms. Lorion who handled obtaining it.
14 i
In other words, Dr. Edwards mailed it to her, 15 and my best recollection -- and tnis is extemporaneous --
l l
16 '
is that Ms. Lorion mailed that stuff on the 25th and I l
17 received it on the 26th.
And what's interesting is, l
18..
shortly after I received it Mr. Coll called me.
And I h
19 I had just read it.
L 20 [
And I said:
Norman, in all candor, I've just 21 gotten this.
And Norman said:
It's very brief.
And I 22 said:
I agree.
He says:
Can your witness do that?
And 23l I said:
Yes.
And he said:
I'll think about that.
4 24 And he hung uo.
As Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. COLL:
That's incorrect.
I l
E
462 jgg2-SueW 1
MR. HODDER:
That's my best recollection of when 2
I received the testimony and how I received it.
3 JUDGE LAZO:
Having completed that statement, 41 Mr. Hodder, in other experiences we've had it is not un-5 common -- we are now on December lith -- for the parties to 6
even hand the Board when we get on the airplane expanded 7
testimony and also hand it to the Staff counsel and'the 8
Licensee.
In other words, I had the same impression.
It 9
was brief.
And you have that impression.
Everybody has 10 that impression.
II,
But there has been time, and I want to point that l
12 out to you, to prepare an expanded version and get it to us 13 before we get on the airplane.
And believe me, we read 14 l
[
this stuff on the airplane.
15 Thank you.
16 MS. YOUNG:
Judge Lazo, I might also add, the 17 Staff received no notice that Mr. Hodder was going to follow 18 this procedure today.
You know, if he was unhappy with the i
19 !
testimony he had to profile I think he was under an obligation i
20 to inform the parties that he intended to expand that.
21 And the Staff did not receive any notification 1
22 from him that that was his intent to follow a procedure like I
23 i, this today.
We were here even yesterday, and he made no 24 overtures of following such a procedure.
A.Jen i n.po,i... w.
j 25 MR. COLL:
Judge Lazo, I want to bring to the l
l
463
- 3 SueWalshi Board's attention the case that I recently cited, which is 2
in the matter of Philadelphia Electric Company.
It's an 3
Appeal Board decision; I might have misspoken and said it 4!
was a Licensing Board.
It's ALAB 819.
It's dated October 5
22, 1985.
6 And the facts are remarkably similar to this caso, 7
in that the Intervenor in that caso simply submitted the 8
name of the witness they intended to use without submitting 9
any profiled testimony or without submitting any qualifica-10 tions or whatever.
The Board ruled in that case that the 11 !
witness would not be entitled to testify at all.
12 The Intervonor attempted on the morning of the i
13 J hearing to profilo some testircony and have the witness sponsor 14 it.
The Intervonor made the argument that they were busy, 15 they woro indigent, they woro without resources.
l 16 And let me just road to you what the Board said.
t 17 The Appeal Board says, "The Licensing Board was entirely l
18 justified in rejecting the Intervonor's testimony on the 19 grounds of lateness.
Intervenor had ample notico of the 20 filing requirements for this particular testimony.
- Moreover, I
21 !
by this time the Intervonor had been a participant in the l
22 l proccoding for several years and had reason to be knowledgeable h
23 q about the Commission's general requirements for profiling 24 testimony.
It's excuse that it is
'a citizen's group l
As Federal Reporteri, Inc.
25 without any attorney and the resources of the Applicant' is i
n
464
- ]ggpsueW thus particularly unavailing."
1 2
And they reference the statement of policy on the 3
conduct of licensing proceedings at 13NRC452 quoting, "The 4
fact that a party may have personal or other obligations or 5
possess fewer resources than others to devote to the pro-6 ceeding does not relieve that party of its hearing obliga-7 tions."
8 As the Licensing Board stressed, these are complex 9
proceedings that demand an orderly process.
Requiring parties 10 to produce their direct testimony in advance of the oral 11 hearing is not a mere technicality but an essential ingredient 12 of such process.
O 13 And that is the precedent upon which we rely, not 14 some precedent involving K. 3. Morgan.
And I daresay that 15 the decision by a Board todry involving such testimony by 16 :
such witness would be decidedly different than it was in 17 0 1974.
This is the latest authority by an Appeal Board on f
18,
the point.
\\
19 l' And I join with Ms. Young.
If this witness is to 20 be permitted to testify at all, it must be solely this outline 21 of testimony and nothing more, and we have the opportunity 22 to voir dire and cross-examine on that.
23 MR. !! ODDER:
Mr. Chairman, may I respond once O
I 24 more, please?
ne rm=w c
,wei, one.
25 JUDGE LAZO:
Very well.
i
465
- 3 ^ SueW I
MR. IlODDER:
Mr. Coll describes a case that's 2
not the same as the one that's before this Board this morning.
3 We have filed testimony.
We havo -- or, we are about to 4,.
present professional qualifications which have been previously 5
examined yesterday.
Wo have previously filed at least one, 6
and I believe two -- I have to go through my own records --
7 Affidavits that dealt at length with the questions that 8
the Daard in considering in response to motions for summary 9
disposition.
10 I think the presumption can be mado that this II witness incorporates by roforence in his mind at least that 17 prior filed testimony.
I think that that testimony addresnes n
(
)
'~
13 '
the Board's questions and it does not constituto any surprise h
Id I whatsoever to either the Staf f or the utilit.y company.
15 I'm looking at one of the documents here that l
16 Dr. Edwards previously filed in which ho prepared -- or, 17 at least wan filed around !!ovember 5th,1985.
Yos, it's 19 dated t!ovember 5th, 1985.
It'a extonnivo.
It addronnes l
the Daard'n quantions.
20 The prosumption can be readily mado that Dr.
l 21 Edwards han indood provided thin Daard and tho partion with l
22 the broad neapo of hin tantimony as they addrons the Board'n 23 quantionn.
g3 p
74 !
I am not rolying primarily on an/ impocuniousnoco l
A.a..in.oo,,,,,,inc.l 25 or lack of resourcon that I an an individual lawyer hava.
I i
{
466 1
- g sueWalsh point that out to the Board to just kind of save my own face, 2
i and to indicate to this Board that we respect the Board's 3
procedures and we are trying to work within those pro-4 cedures.
We feel that the matter can be readily resolved, 5
because we do have the professional qualifications of the 6
witness to offer.
And we are willing to have him voir dired.
7 We also feel that his outline of testimony taken 8
with his previous Affidavits constitutes adequate notice 9
to the parties as to the scopo and depth and breadth of this 10 q testimony.
And we feel that he should be allowed to testify i
11 I in the manner prescibed, and that if the Board were to limit m
12 his testimony in any way it would have to be beyond that i
j 13 h which he has previously filed, tha,t he exceeds it.
14 But we also believe that the caso Mr. Coll has 15 cited is just not in point with the case before this Board i
16 this morning.
There, he told us that they just learned the l
l 17 namo of the witness just at the time, or before the time, l
i 18 just hofore the timo of hearing.
That's not the caso hero.
l 19 This man has boon known for some timo, and ha 20 has submitted extensive Affidavits and testimony.
l 21 l JUDGE LUEBKE:
Mr. Hoddor, you referenced a 22 l document on November 5th.
Would you identify items on there li 23 [
that are materially different or in addition to the testimony
')
L 24 of -- the profiled testimony that we are looking at this 25 morning?
l
!i
.._s..-.
467
)3]lgsueWalsH MR. HODDER:
Mr. Luebke, as I take the objection 2
of the utility company, it goes to the depth of the outline 3
of the testimony.
In other words, they are saying that's 4
very brief.
5 JUDGE LUEBKE:
You say you have more there?-
6
.MR. HODDER:
And I'm saying that they've received 7
a rather indepth treatment of the questions, or certain 8
aspects of the questions, in previous filed Affidavits.
And 9
to point that up, I'm offering the November 5th, 1985 Affidavit 10 as in evidence of the indepth treatment that Dr. Edwards has 11,
indeed given to the issues before the Board in response to 12 the utility company's motion for summary disposition.
-)
(J JUDGE 'UEBKE:
My reccilection is that there is 13 L
14 l
great similarity between these documents.
Can you identify 15 [
some important differences?
n 16 j!
MR. HODDER:
Well, that's why we have the witness.
i.
17 !
I must beg off as to my technical expertise to ---
i i
18 i
JUDGE LUEBKE:
Well, you are claiming that this 19 November 5th document fulfills the requirement.
20 MR. HODDER:
It opens by saying the purpose of 21 the document is to address the contention.
That certainly' 22 points us in the right direction.
23 The document addresses the 1.17 standard which 24 the amendments impose upon'the OFA fuel and indicates that waswd c oonen, inc.
25 those limits do not compensate for the three uncertainties l
K 468 c8 eWalsh 'l outlined by the Staff in its December 23rd, 1983 safety 2
evaluation report.
3 That's the type of thing that we would wish the 4l
. Board to take note of through the testimony of our witness.
-5 And they are contained in these Affidavits.
6 And we feel that it's not a surprise to the Staff 7
or the utility company that Dr. Edwards might say such 8
things.
And, therefore, because he said them previously and 9
they acknowledge, or presumably have, receipt of these i
10 documents they are not being surprised, not within the ambit 11,
of the questions posed by the Board.
I 12 :
If the witness should stray beyond those questions, 13 I would expect Mr. Coll to object as being beyond the scope 14 i. of this proceeding.-
15 l JUDGE LUEBKE:
I just want to clarify, you don't j
b 16 claim that that represents prefiled testimony?
I just want h
l 17 F to clear that up.
Or, do you?
i 18 MR. HODDER:
Obviously, there has never been a 19 statement made emanating from our side that this constitutes 120
-prefiled testimony.
But because the purpose of this Licensing i
21 Board is to get at the truth, because the conclusion er 22 presumption can be logically drawn that this is part of what l-23 Dr. Edwards is telling the public and the Board, then this l
(
24 linkage here, that although not specifically stated, exists Ase-rees,si nepo,wes inc.
25 and the Board should recognize.
_ ~ _
469 4
- 3gggpueWalsH In other words, suppose Edwards in his outline of 2
testimony had said:
And I hereby incorporate by reference 3'
my prior Affidavits?
Well, then the test would have been 1
4 met.
The fact that he didn't say that, perhaps due to his
'5 lack of experience before this Board -- he has never been
.6 before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board before --
7 shouldn't be held as an impediment to his giving the testimony, 8
because in law we also have the concept of equity.
9 You know, sometimes you don't dot your l's and 10 cross your t's,'but the Chancellor sitting in' equity still 11 has to search out the fair outcome.
And in this case, it 12 would be fair to let Dr. Edwards address the Board's questions 13 as.he has done-in his previous Affidavits.
And to allow any 14 other outcome would'be inequitable and against the establishe'd 15 concepts of English common law.
16 MR. COLL:
Judge Lazo, all we are asking'is that l
17!!
the parties play by the rules.
In that way, fairness is 18 assured.
i 19 If Mr. Hodder had wanted to have this witness l
20 incorporate by reference every other Affidavit that he had 21 ever filed, he should.have said so.
And then we have been 22 prepared differently from the way we are prepared today to i
23 proceed, when all he has filed is this outline of testimony.
( )'
24
-And that is unfair.
It's decidedly unfair.
l ma nenwan. Inc.
l 25 And the rulec are determined to prevent unfairness.
l t
i'
470 3-jggpueWalshi And counsel says this case does not apply.
It clearly does 2
apply.
~In that case, the witness hadn't provided any testimony 3
at all.
They had only provided his name.
That's exactly 4
what was done here in the Answers to Interrogatories.
Later 5
this prefiled testimony was filed, this outline.
6 In that case, the Board didn't let the witness 7
testify at all.
8 JUDGE LAZO:
Mr. Coll --
9 MR. COLL:
Here, all we are saying is, limit him 10 to his prefiled testimony.
11 JUDGE LAZO:
Mr. Coll, Dr. Edwards' previous 12 Affidavits that have been filed in this case are a part of s-13 the record of this proceeding, are they not?
14 MR. COLL:
No, sir.
15 MS. YOUNG:
Judge Lazo, I disagree with that.
16 MR. COLL:
No, sir, not unless they are offered 17 into evidence at this proceeding as part of his testimony.
18 i
Those were Affidavits interposed in opposition to a motion 19 for summary judgment.
They don't become a part of the 20 evidentiary hearing record of this proceeding unless, in fact, 21 they are offered into evidence.
22 The Board can't go back and make findings from 23 them unless this witness sponsors them here.
END 24 b-Federal Reportees, Inc.
Mary flws 25 l
471 MS. YOUNG: And the parties are entitled to the e
i 2
right to confrontation of the views in those affidavits.
MR. HODDER:
That is correct.
3 MS. YOUNG: Motions leading up to a hearing are 4
not Aart of the evidentiary record for the hearing.
No 5
par;y can re1y on their findings on documents extraneous to 6
thi hearing record.
7 So 11 Mr. Hodder on the day that he received 8
the prefiled testimony of Dr. Edwards had wanted to in turn 9
to replace that testimony a day later with the affidav1t 10 filed on summary disposition, he could have done that on ij November 25th or 26th.
Why should he wait until the day of 12 the hearing to bring this up to the Board and to the other 13 7b parties.
y MR. COLL:
We even have this article, Your 15 Honor, and I don't know where this is going to go or what 16 1s going to happen to it.
But the witness has attempted to j7 deliver it to the Board and then lamely it is delivered to jg the parties.
Is it going to be incorporated into his 39 testimony now?
Is there an attempt going to be made?
20 THE WITNESS:
Judge Lazo, could I say 21 something?
22 MR. HODDER:
I would 1.ike to answer this.
23 JUDGE LAZO: Pardon me, just one moment. I just 24 wanted to make i.t perfectly clear that Dr. Edwards' 25
472
.r8 previous affidavits, although they are sworn, are not'part y
f the evidentiary record.
2 MR. COLL:
That is correct.
3 JUDGE LAZO:
Therefore, the intervenors will 4
not be able to. base proposed findings upon statements in those affidavits.
MR. COLL:
That is correct.
7 JUDGE LAZO: So what you are asking us to do is 8
limit the intervenors' direct case to what is already been 9
10 MR. COLL:
To what they have indicated they jj intend to put on by their prefiled testimony, that is g
correct.
13-
/r P
JUDGE LAZO:
That is the document which is captioned " Outline of Testimony."
MR. COLL:
That.is correct, and we want an opportunity to voir dire the witness before g
JUDGE LAZO:
Yes, we understand.
g MS. YOUNG:
And, Judge Lazo, Mr. Hodder may be 9
correct.
Sure we have affidavits and sure we had g
indications of what Mr. Edwards' views were before we got to the hearing, although we did not formally know that he was going to testify.
Yes, that goes to surprise, but that g
does not go_to why he did not comply with the Board's order 25
/"'S
473 proceeding.
1
.a I have not heard any plausible explanation for 2
what, if he was unhappy with the testimony or if there was 3
a lack of communication between he and his witness, why he 4
didn't on November 25th, 26th, 27th, all the days leading 5
up this hearing decide to notify the Board and the parties 6
that he wanted to submit another document that was already 7
in the hands of tne parties in this proceeding as the 6
testimony instead.
9 MR. HODDER:
May I respond?
10 JUDGE LAZO:
Yes. I think we are getting close gj to the end of oral argument, but you may have the last 12 rd.
13
~ i MR. HODDER: The staff makes a cogent argument, s
y4 but the answer to that is it was my expectation that this 15 Board in its wisdom, as they did in the Karl Z.
Morgan 16 testimony at St. Lucie, would all the witness to address
- 7 the Board's questions.
18 I certainly didn't consider that anything that y9 consisted.o'f a prior affidavit previously submitted months 20 ago by my witness would constitute surprise to any party in 21 this room.
22 If they came in thinking to gun us down 23 because of a perceived deficiency in our presentation, then 24 they may have made a tactical error.
But the fact is that 25
474
.fl
}j
'they know what our witness is going to say, and as soon as j
we resume this hearing I am going to offer two affidavits 2
previ usly filed in this proceeding as supplements to the 3
witness' testimony.
And then I am going to give him the affidavits and the Outline of Testimony and his 5
professional qualifications, and I am going to ask this Board.to'take all of that for its truth, and I am going to 7
ask the Board to allow voir dire of the witness to proceed.
8 That.is our position.
I hope that you 9
C*"
10 claim surprise.
Disappointment, yes, but not surprise, y,
The fact is that I can cite precedent where g
rw such procedures have been allowed.
I regret that this
.{j 13 8
argument has come up, and I may even be remiss in my g
failure to perceive its depth here this morning, p
And I want to answer the other question of the 16 staff counsel, Ms. Young,-and that is that until I received g
that testimony I had no idea, no idea that it would be jg brief, and it was within minutes of Mr. Coll's phone call g
to me when I received it and his observation was similar, 20 which we all agree about.
But just because.I have the disadvantage to have a witness that doesn't properly comply with the request due-to-ignorance and lack of experience doesn't g
mean that I should be penali:ed and that this case'should 25 0
475
' b e _p e'n a l i z e d.
' _....a y
(Board conferring.)
2-JUDGE LAZO:
The Board wishes to take a short 3
recess, and we will try and keep it short.
I would think 4
maybe 10 minutes, 15 at the most.
5 THE WITNESS:
. Judge Lazo, could I make a brief 6
statement?
7 DGE LAZO:
Certainly.
8 THE VITNESS: I would just like to apologize to 9
the Board and to th.e licensee for this lapse on my. part 10 because I have never previously been in a situation where ij testimony was limited to prefiled testimony.
So I would 12 just like the Board to know that on my part there was no 13 k.
intention of frustrating any rules or so on and I y,
8 15 JUDGE LAZO:
We appreciate that,-sir.
3, (Recess taken from 10:12 a.m.
to 10:38 a.m.)
37 (Discussion off the record.)
18 JUDGE LAZO:
Wi11 the hearing come to order, j9 please.
20 We have carefully reviewed and considered-the 21 arguments we have heard this morning regarding this issue, 22 and'it is the Board's ruling that we will sustain the 23 bjections of the licensee and the staff.
24 The only written direct testimony of the 25 lL
476
.r"S b.., )
intervenors presently in this proceeding is the Outline of 1
Testimony which as submitted by letter dated November 25.
2 The Board is bound by the Rules of Practice 3
which require in the section under Evidence, 2.733, that
~
4
.the parties shall submit written direct testimony of 3
witnesses in written form unless otherwise ordered by the 6
Preiding Officer.1 7
We feel that there is a great possibility of 8
delay in this proceeding if we were to permit Dr. Edwards 9
to supplement his testimony orally this morning.
The other arguments advanced by licensee and 33 staff counsel are persuasive on the issue of fairness.
g MS. YOUNG:
Judge Lazo, were you referring to
.. ]fm 13 q
2.7437 JUDGE LAZO:
2.743, correct. Thank you, I misspoke.
Mr. Hodder.
g MR. HOODER:
May I note my exception, Mr.
18 Chairman, to the Board's ruling.
9 And once again, the issue before the Board was 20 rather broad.
It included consideration of whether or not we could incorporate by reference previously filed affidavits.
Apparently the Board has determined that is inappropriate.
v 25 O
477 of it.
The ruling was that at this point the only written 1
w testimony in the record is the prefiled Outline of 2
Testimony.
That is that page and a half or page and a 3
quarter document which was submitted on November 25, 1985.
4 If you wish to attempt to put-in the 5
affidavits into the evidentiary record, you are perfectly 6
frea to do so.
7 MR. HODDER* I appreciate that clarification by 8
the Board, and I would continue to note my exception to the 9
Board's present ruling ---
10 JUDGE LAZO:
It is so noted.
11 MR. HODDER:
--- because admittedly the 12 testimony is an outline and is brief, and we feel that at a 13 bd minimum, the intervenors feel that at a minimum there ja should be an opportunity afforded to the witness to 15 directly respond at leart in a very brief fashion ---
y JUDGE LAZO:
Wel1, Mr. Hodder, I am sorry. We j7 have heard your argument, we have carefully considered it 18 and we have ruled.
j9 MR. HOODER:
I was only offering my exception.
20 JUDGE LAZO:
It is noted 1or the record. Thank 21 y
u, sir.
22 MS. YOUNG:
Judge Lazo, let me clarify for a 23 m ment. You are saying that the only written testimony that 24 may be ffered into evidence?
25
478 imy)
JUDGE LAZO:
The on1y written testimony that 3
may be offered into evidence. At this point we would expect 2
Mr. Hodder to qualify his witness and make him available 3
for voir dire examination.
4 A
r g am a ng er 5
presently on voir dire aspects of this proceeding the Outline of Testimony by Dr. Gordon Edwards, which has been 7
Prefiled, which is, accompanied by an Exhibit A,
the 8
Professional Qualifications and Experience of Gordon D.
J.
9 Edwards. That testimony was filed on November 25th, 1985 by g
the intervenors and, as I said, the Outline of Testimony by
.jy Gordon Edwards before the Board on December 10th, 1985.
g I also at this time would like to motion due c
V}
13
. -(
to the brevity of the Outline of Testimony that the Board allow into the record for its truth two affidavits previously filed in response to motions for summary disposition originating with-the licensee, one which is g
dated November 5th, 1985 and is entitled " Affidavit of 18 Gordan Edwards Regarding Contention D,"
and which is in 39 response to the licensee's. motion and staff supporting motion for summary disposition of intervenors' Contention D,
and which accompanied the intervenors' response to that g
motion for summary disposition filed by intervenors before the Board on November 7th, 1985.
I als w uld offer into the record of this 25 l
479 proceeding for its truth an earlier affidavit submitted by j
Dr. Edwards entitled " Affidavit of Gordon -- excuse me.
I 2
am having a little trouble locating it.
3 JUDGE LAZO:
Take your time.
4 (Pause.)
5 The earlier affidavit was entitled " Affidavit 6
of Gordon D.
J.
Edwards" and is dated August 30th, 1984. It 7
was filed in that time frame in this proceeding.
I offer 8
this earlier affidavit of Dr. Edwards to the extent 9
portions of it address Contention D.
I believe there are 10 portions of the affidavit that do not address Contention D, 33 and of course those aspects are not offered for their truth 12 here.
j3 L.il I believe that that affidavit of Dr. Edwards, j,
the second and earlier one, was filed September 4th, 1984 15 in supp rt of intervenors' response to licensee's motion 16 for summary disposition of intervenor's Contentions 8 and g7 U*
18 JUDGE LAZO:
Very well. Then just so that the j9 record is clear, you have offered into evidence Dr.
20 Edwards' Outline of Testimony, which was received under 21 covering letter of November 25, and you have offered into 22 evidence two previously filed affidavits, one dated 23 November 5,
1985 relating to Contention D and an affidavit 24 filed September 4,
1984, which related to. Contentions B adn 25
-480
-f"\\_
](y)
D.
These three documen.t have been offered into evidence.
3 MR. HODDER:
Yes.
2 JUDGE LAZO:
Is there any objection?
3 MR. COLL:
Your Honor, it may seem overly 4
techical, but the witness, first of all, hasn't indicated 5
that he prepared the Outline of Testimony or that it is his testimony'in this proceeding, that he sponsors it, et 8
There has been nothing but an attempt by 9
counsel here to move.some documents into evidence..That g
aside, we had the same objection to suddenly changing the 33 scope of this witness' testimony from a-one-and-a-half page document to an additional six-page affidavit, to an 4
1J 13 A,
additional nine-page affidavit, all of which we are
(,
.c suddenly told about this morning.
I did call Mr. Hodder and said to him on the telephone when I received the outline of the testimony is g
this all the witness is going to sponsor?
He said I don't 18 i
know.
I just got it myself. In fact, I haven't even read 9
20 f
But there was never any effort on the part of counsel since that time to indicate to us that he had g
doubts about his witness' test imony,' that he was going to expand his witness' testimony or that he was going to have.
him attempt to testify about everything he has ever O
481 testified about in this case.
L.J I
The issues before the Board today have been 2
narrowed by the Board on two occasions based upon two 3
motions for summary judgment that Florida Power and Light 4
has filed. And to clutter up the racord by just throwing in 5
a bunch of affidafvits in the hopes that maybe that will 6
let the witness have more to say does not do what the rule 7
is designed to have an expert witness do, and that is to 8
develop a sound record for this Board to make findings 9
I'0**
10 It is alsc
's n f a i r to the parties who have gj complied with the rules and who have filed extensive 12 prehearing testimony and who have not had an opportunity to 33 L.J be advised that they must now be required to cross-examine g
n 15 additional pages of technical testimony which they 15 did not know until this moment.
16 So again for the same reasons and based on the y7 same decision, which I have previously cited, and based 18 upon the Commission's regulations, on which I previously j9 relied, I would object to the introduction of this 20 additional testimony, move that it be stricken and request 21 that the witness' direct testimony be limited to the 22 Outline of Testimony which he filed and which counsel 23 indicated would be his testimony in this proceeding.
24 JUDGE LAZO:
Thank you, counselor.
25
482
,r x
.1)
Ms. Young, 1
v MS. YOUNG:
The staff joins in those 2
bjections, although I am a little confused.
I thought the 3
Board ruled that we~wouldn't have any addit ional documents received as written testimony. So are these documents being 5
as exhibits?
Is that your purpose?
MR. HODDER:
These documents are being offered 7
- ~~~
8 MS. YOUNG:
.Okay. I,f they are going to be 9
ffered as exhibits ---
10 MR. HODDER:
--- as comprising part of the jj witness' testimony.
g MS. YOUNG:
--- you are going to need an Q) original and two copies to submit JUDGE LAZO:
Well, wait a minute. I guess then we are confused, too.
I thought that Mr. Hodder was offering these affidavits into evidence.
.g MR. HODDER:
That is true.
jg MR. COLL:
Judge, you can't offer affidavits j9 into evidence.
The affidavits are proper in prehearing
_ procedures, but if the witness is here, you can't offer affidavits into evidence.
JUDGE LAZO:
He would offer them as written direct. testimony.
9 "9
~
25 7%
k
?C) i-
483 I object on the grounds previously stated.
j JUDGE LAZO:
And that was your belief that he 2
was attempting to do that when you gave us your recent 3
objection?
4 5:
MR. COLL:
Correct.
MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, it was my inetention 6
to do just that.
7 MS. YOUNG:
I am still confused. Exhibits may 8
be received in evidence under 2.743F.
So I don't think it 9
matters so much whether it is testimony or exhibits.
But I 10 join in the objections of Mr. Coll and would emphasize that ij since at least one of these affidavits has to do with~two g
e ntentions, that is incumbent upon the intervenors to go 13 through and cull out the remarks that pertain to the j,
c nt'ention that is still in issue in.this proceeding.
15 Otherwise, you are going to, as Mr. Coll has already g
stated, unduly clutter the record with unncessary or p
irrelevant material.
18 MR. HODDER:
.May I respond.
39 JUDGE LAZO: Ms. Young, would you have the asme 20 b'jection to the affidavits
? ming into the record as 21 exhibits?
22 N
.That is the point.I am addressing.
23 Yes, I join the objection of Mr. Coll and also object to 24 them being received as exhibits.
25
(
-A.
I 484
.-s
./
)
JUDGE LAZO:
Mr. Hodder.
\\s/
1 MR. HODDER:
To assist the Board, I would like to clarify my motion.
-3 First of all,'I would like to motion that the 4
a av s_c me to this proceeding for tneir truth as 5
comprising part of.this witness' written testimony here today.
Alternatively, I would like to motion that the 8
Board allow these to come in for their truth as evidence to 9
be considered in making their decision based on this g
proceeding here today.
jj I would like to respond to the objections by g
f-the licensee and the staff by noting for the Board's
~4 13
\\; )
information that while the first affidavit of September 1984 addressed the broader spectrum of issues, the second 15 affidavit of November 5th, 1985 was directed entirely to the Board's questions on Contention D, and that therefore g
no culling is necesary with respect to the November 5th, yg 1985 affidavit because it does address in its entirety the y9 issues that the Board identified for this proceeding today.
g 21 22 23 24 25 O
j5-14JooWal~
485 1
We recognize and have qualified our motion that 2 iaspects of the earlier affidavit of September 4th are not 3
offered beyond the extent they address Contention (d).
MS. YOUNG:
Judge Lazo, excuse'me.
I 5
JUDGE LAZO:
Yes', 'M s. Young.
6 MS. YOUNG:
It would appear from the statements 7
of Mr. Hodder that the first affidavit is totally unnecessary, 8
since the second affidavit addresses the scope of.this 9
proceeding which was specifically three questions which the 10 Board stated in its order partially granting summary 11 t disposition, so I am having trouble understanding the relevance 12 j of the August 30, 1984 affidavit for this proceeding.
p 13 q In terms of the November 5, 1985 affidavit, which 14 l simply addresses the questions, the Staff's objection does 15 ' go to the receipt of that in evidence-as causing surprise on 16 the Staff in terms of its preparation for this hearing today.
17 In other words, being able to cross-examine on the i
18 scope of that document, since the statements in the documents
'O are going to be offered for the truth.
l' 20 MR. HODDER:
I have one last suggestion, Mr. Chairm~an, 21 ' if I may make it.
To the extent the parties claim surprise from 22 [ these documents previously available to them and previously-9 i'
23 l. filed, I could make the suggestion that we take the witnesses d
.O-24 0 in order originally established, and since everybody is presumed hFc:letal Reporters, Inc.
25 to.be ready, the Staff must be ready to present their witness
+
5-2-JocWol 486
[~N j
adw.
(_)
2 We could now take the Staff witness and allow the i
3 Staff and the Licensee this evening to prepare to cross-4 examine on this issue which they previously addressed and 5
should be' prepared to address today, which they claim surprise.
6 I think that would be an equitable outcome, since 7
'the Board originally ordained'that we would present our 8
witness.last.
9 If we reverted to that schedule, then the Staff and 10 the Licensee would have an opportunity to prepare.
I wish to 11 point out again that I.would be willing to make the concession 12 of offering the November 5th affidavit of Edwards on Contention O
13 (d) as part of his testimony, withdraw that request as to the 14 earlier affidavit, and merely submit those pertinent portions 15 of the earlier affidavit as a tender of evidence in the 16.
proceeding, and not as comprising part of the testimony.
17 That might make the task that the utility company 18 and staff has in preparing to cross the witness easier.
10 JUDGE LAZO:
Mr. Hodder, isn't it a fact that the 20 earlier affidavit in effect has;been superseded by the
~21' November 5 affidavit ~that was filed after the licensing board l
22 had reduced the scope of the contention.
23 Is there any need for you to rely on the earlier 24 affidavit?
' Am-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. HODDER:
My answer to that question comes to me
487
~5-3-JosWa1.
T 1
' (d.
with some difficulty.
I am.not certain.
I want to review L
2 those in some depth.
3 To the extent the earlier affidavit addresses 4
Contention (d) I feel that it is appropriate, and I am asking 5
the Bocrd to' receive'it as evidence, not as comprising part 6
of the witness!- testimony.
I have modified my request in 7
this fashion.
8 I think it would be appropriate for the Board to 9
receive it as an exhibit in evidence, and what I am asking the 10 Board to do now is take the November 5th affidavit as comprising 11 part of the testimony, and the earlier affidavit as an exhibit 12 in evidence.
-[
v 13 I am asking the Board to alter the schedule into the 14 time f rame originally e.stablished.
Let the Staff and Licensee 15 prepare to cross the witness on the basis of the November 5 16 affidavit,'and now go ahead with our case by examining the i
.lh Staff witness.
- 18 JUDGE LAZO:
Well, as has already been pointed out, l'
it-would be unusual for us to accept an exhibit which is an 20 affidavit of a witness who is present in the hearing room, and 21 available for cross-examination.
22 The problem is that there still is an element of i
1 23 surprise, particularly as to the earlier affidavit..It is old O
24 and stale, and no one has been thinking about it among the Ace-Feder3 Reporters, Inc.
25 other parties.
488 5-4-JosWal gs 1
On the other hand, the November 5 affidavit, 2
November 5, 1985, both the Staff and the Licensee have had 3
reasonable opportunity to examine that, and the Board has 4
examined it.
5 MR. HODDER:
May I confer.with my client?
6 JUDGE LAZO:
Surely.
7 MR. HODDER:
We are willing, Mr. Chairman, to 8
withdraw our request that the Board entertain the earlier 9
10 MS. YOUNG:
Judge Lazo, now that we are only talking 11 about'one affidavit, and apparently that affidavit is being 12 offered to supplement the-testimony -- or the outline of V
13 testimony by Dr. Edwards, isn't this basically a skillful attempt-14
.on the part of Mr. Hodder-to seek a reconsideration of the 15 Board's earlier ruling that-the prefiled testimony should not 16 be expanded?
17 JUDGE LAZO:
We said it should'not be expanded by 18' way of oral testimony.
We thought that was unfair.
If it is
'19 to be expanded tur way of written testimony, which as Judge 20 Luebke said might have just been handed to us as we left town, 21 then our only concern is that the parties have had -- the 22 other parties -- have had a reasonable opportunity to examine 23 it.
/^%
i 5-)
24 That seems to be the case here.
So we certainly l Ace Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 are leaning in that direction, that November 5 affidavit could
5-5-JocWal I
come in as evidence, even though it would supplement the J
2 written direct testimony.
3 MS. YOUNG:
Excuse me for interrupting, but I 4 ' would repeat my earlier remarks, that if Mr. Hodder intended 5
to offer this tus testimony for this proceeding, on November 26 6
leading up to the December lith, today, he could have informed 7
the Board, he could have informed the parties that that was 8
his intent.
9 I do not understand the reason for the delay.
I 10 would think there is an element of bad faith involved, and 11 this whole excursion today, the arguing of procedural points, 12 could have been avoided by a little bit of j udgment on the
,- x i
\\
e/
13 part of Mr. Hodder.
14 MR. H0DDER:
I would like to respond.
15 JUDGE LAZO:
Well, we see no element of bad faith.
I 16l I think -- let's just disregard that comment.
Mr. Coll, do I
l l
17 you have anything in addition you wish to add?
18 MR.~ COLL:
Judge, I fail to see the distinction between Mr. Hodder's offer to put this in as testimony of the 20 witness, and his offer to put it in as an exhibit.
21 Either one is equally prejudicial to my client.
i 22 If it goes in as either one, it becomes evidence in the case 23 whether it is testimony or an exhibit.
And either way, I
('~'
24 l
'~'
have not had an opportunity to adequately prepare to cross-Am-FMad Reizners. Inc.
l 25 examine this witness, all of which, going back to your statement!
'5-6-JooWcl 490
(~g 1
about bad faith I fully believe is by design of this party.
U 2
There clearly is a track record in this proceeding 3
of this kind-of conduct.
Motions to file late.
Things filed 4'
out of turn.
And this is just another example of that, and 5
we 'are.here, we are ready to proceed.
It is now 11:00 p.m.
(sic).
6 We started this morning at 9:30, and we still don't have
'7 testimony from this witness.
8 All of this could have been avoided if, in fact, this 9
Party had-complied with the rules, and when they got to the 10 hearing today stayed in compliance with those rules,- and 11 we object to-this.
12 Your Honor believes that we have seen this 13 affidavit before, so somehow we*are not prejudiced.
This 14 affidavit was interposed in opposition to a motion for summary 15
' disposition'.
Nothing more was done with it.
16 The witness wasn't cross-examined about it.
The 17 matter then resided with the Board.on'the pleadings and the 18 affidavits.
19 So, yes, I have seen it before.
I acknowledge that.
20 But'I-certainly didn't intend to cross-examine this witness
- 21 today on all the matters in that affidavit, or any other I
1 22
. document he intends to come up with today.
His prefiled i
23 testimony'before the Board is the only proper testimony that O
24 should be admitted in-this proceeding, and I would object to the
'Am Fend noorws. ix.
25 affidavit, or any affidavit, coming in as evidence or testimony.l 1
5-7-JooWal' 491 1
JUDGE LAZO:. Well, we have another problem.
The 2
issue before us right now relates to these two documents; 3
the outline of testimony and the November 5, 1985 affidavit.
i 4
But we still have not addressed the question of qualifications 5
af the witness.
6 MR. COLL:
. Correct, n
7 JUDGE LAZO:
We are only talking about these two 8
documents.
9 MR. COLL:
That is correct.
4 10 JUDGE LAZO:
And they have been offered into
)
]
11 evidence.
We, of course, have heard the agument regarding l
}
1.
the advisability of admitting the affidavit,'but why don't we 1 _ (l'.)
l 13 proceed to ask Mr. Hodder to qualify his witness, determine 14 if there is any voir dire examination, and get over that 15 hurdle, if we can.
j 16 It might moot the question of --
17 MR._ COLL:
My voir dire intends to show that this i
j 18 witness is not qualified to make the statements in the prefiled 19 testimony that he has filed.
20 JUDGE LAZO:
Well, if he is not qualified to make 21 those statements, he certainly is not qualified to make the j
22 ones in the earlier filed affidavit, which are much~more 23 detailed.
24 MR. COLL:
I would expand my voir dire if the Board Ae-Fased neoswi, Inc.
I 25 is going to, in fact, allow the affidavit into evidence to i
5-8-Jc Wal 492
)
include matters in that affidavit.
/
2 Otherwise, I would be giving up substantial rights 3
on behalf of my client to limit my inquiry at this point.
4 This lack of preparation does not automatically 5
become my emergency.
We shouldn't turn this hearing end-over-6 end, switch witnesses around, require peopoe to work at night 7
to cross-examine his witnesses.
8 We have done our work.
We are prepared.
We are 9
here, we are ready to go.
10 MS. YOUNG:
I might add, Judge Lazo, I have to 11 reiterate over and over again, that Mr. Hodder was under a 12 Board order directing the prefiling of written testimony.
LJ 13 This attempt today to supplement the testimony now 14 through a written presentation virtually is an attempt to 15 circumvent the Board's order.
I I
16 The Board's orders, I don't think, are to be treated l 17 frivolously.
If he had any indication that he could not i
18 comply with the filing deadline imposed by the Board in its 19 order, he had an obligation to timely notify the parties of 20 that event, and not to wait until the day of the hearing to 21 try to supplement oral testimony -- excuse me -- supplement 1
22 written testimony -- written prefiled testimony by a l
l 23 supplemental written filing that could have been introduced 24 to the parties and the Board in a timely fashion.
Ace-Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 He is under obligation of the Board's order.
He
493 5-9-Jc;Wal 1
filed written testimony, and now he is trying to late file 2
written testimony the day of the hearing, and that practice 3
I can't sanction.
4 MR. HODDER:
May I respond?
5 JUDGE LAZO:
Yes.
6 MR. HODDER:
I am not going to dwell at length 7
on suggestions of bad faith or anything like that.
I refute 8
those suggestions.
9 I have addressed this in the best fashion I am 10 capable of, and it is honorable.
II It is true that it came as a surprise to me that 12 this Board indicated they were reluctant to allow this witness
~s 13 to expand in any way his outline of testimony.
14 It was always my expectation that the Board would 15 allow the witness to provide a yes or no answer to the Board's i
i 16 questions, and then allow him to offer appropriate explanation 17 ! f or having reached the conclusions.
i 18 '
JUDGE LAZO:
There has been no indication that we were not prepared to do that.
20 MR. H0DDER:
And this is all we are asking.
2I JUDGE LAZO:
And regarding the expansion of the I
22 testimony, we had ruled that it was inappropriate and against l
f 23 the rules of the Commission to do it orally.
m 24 MR. H0DDER:
I understand that.
And yet my conceptio um-F e n a c um ners ine.
25 of what the witness says might be different than the fears l
l f
5-10-JacWal 494 1
expressed by the Staff and Licensee, because what I tried to 2
show is that by previous filings the position of the witness l
6 3
are well known to the parties, and there is no surprise.
l l
4 Their claim of surprise is a red herring, in my 5
opinion.
I think there is tactical disappointment here, but 6
he that as it may, this Board has a responsibility to get l
l 7
at the truth, and get at it while playing by the rules.
8 I think that my perception of the rules when it 9
allowed this witness to provide the answers to the Board's 10 questions, the fact that counsel for the Licensee has cited 11 case law which I consider not in point, finding or otherwise, 12 doesn't in any way modify my understanding of the rules.
ws 13 The questions were well known.
The answers are 14 expected.
A brief explanation is appropriate.
That the 15 Licensee counsel and Staff counsel haven't prepared themselves l
16 to conduct cross on those i ss u e s, then they failed their client.
17 They can't properly claim surprise on those narrow l
l 18 l questions established by this Board.
And the fact that I had 19 the hardship of a witness that didn't fully perceive the exact 20 type of testimony that this Board was requiring or expecting, j
21 shouldn't create an inequitable situation here this afternoon.
i 22 I think that the Board should make a ruling that i
23 will allow this witness in some wy to specifically address the 24 questions.
AmFMerd Reporters, lm i
25 i
i
5-ll-JooWal 495
(~}
1 The Board may look at.the scope of that answer, to V
2 a brief response.
But the witness is here, and he is ready, 3
too.
We are ready, and we are highly competent, and we want 4 'to go forward.
5 I admit that my offering of the' November 5th 1985 6
Edwards Affidavit is an attempt to repair a deficiency that 7
18 Perceived by the Board.
I didn't intend to do that until 8
I got here this morning, until I learned of the ooj ec tions.
-9 But I feel that it would be wholly appropriate for 10 the Board to take the November 5th affidavit in for its truth, 11 comprising'part of this witness' testimony, and I don't think 12 there is any disadvantage to the other parties in requiring 13 them to do cross on all of that.
14 That is the end of my statement.
15 MS. YOUNG:
Judge Lazo, excuse me one second.
Mr.
16 Hodder seems concerned that Dr. Edwards is not going to be able 17 to address the three questions in the Board's order.
The Staff 18 in its objections did not intend to include Board questioning 19 on that point.
The point of the Staff's objection is that there 20 should not be a supplemental written filing received as testimony.
21 If the Board wants to pursue those issues themselves 22 in their cross-examination of the witness, the Staff cannot 23 limit the scope of that inquiry.
But it is the attempt to l
/~T I
r\\~~'i 24 circumvent the rules, to circumvent the Board's direct instructions i
kn FMuel Rworters, tM.
l 25 as.to the deadline for filing testimony, but now today, the day
5-12-JoOWL1 496
/
1 of the hearing, trying to supplement a written filing through t
2 another written affidavit, which was received in response to 3
motions for summary dispositions.
4 That is objectionable.
5 JUDGE LAZO:
Well, as far as the rules are concerned, 6
Ma. Young, I think the rule on evidence, which is 2.743-while l
7 it does provide that direct written testimony shall be filed 8
within fifteen days prior to the commencement of the hearing, 9
it also goes on to state that additional written testimony may 10 be admitted with the consent of all the parties, or if the Board 11 so rules and the parties have had a reasonable opportunity to 12 examine it, and in this case they have.
13 We are going to rule that there will be n'o oral,
14 direct testimony supplemented here, but that the outline of 15 testimony submitted by Dr. Edwards, and the November 5, 1985 16 affidavit, will be received in evidence, provided they stand l
17 up to the qualification of the witness, and any voir dire i
18 examination, and a motion to strike.
19 MR. H0DDER:
Thanky you, Judge Lazo.
20 MS. YOUNG:
Judge Lazo, in light of that ruling, 21 the Staff would need a short adjournment today to be able to I
l 22 expand the scope of its voir dire questions and its cross-23 examination questions to include the exhibit that will be l
p_
4 24 offered into evidence.
l NSFMn:2 Rnmners, Inc.
25 JUDGE LAZO:
How much time do you require, Ms. Young?l
97 5-13-JooWal
()
1 MS. YOUNG:
Judge Lazo, I would request an adjourn-2 ment until three o' clock this afternoon.
That is basically 3
to expand the cross-examination questions, an to tailor the 4
scope of voir dire to include analyzing the statements made 5
in the supplemental filing.
6 JUDGE LAZO:
Mr. Coll or Mr. Bauser, any comments?
7.
MR. COLL:
-Your Honor, I would agree that-there is 8
not before the Board any evidence from which the Board can make 9
a finding that the parties have had a reasonable opportunity 10 to examine these new -- this affidavit, with the thought of Il cross-examining on it.
I2
{]; _
So, I would join in Ms. Young's request that there w.
13 he a short adjournment so that we could have an opportunity to 14
~
prepare to examine this witness both on voir dire and 15 substantively on this new late filed testimony.
16 I think that we could do that if we had an adjournment 17 of two hours.
18 JUDGE LAZO:
Well, would two hours plus a reasonable N
time for lunch mean we should adjourn until three p.m.,-this 20 afternoon?
2I MR. COLL:
I think what I am suggesting is perhaps i
22 come back at two p.m.
I would like to try to move the we 23 S
proceeding along once we get this out of the way.
A/
24~
MS. YOUNG :
Judge Lazo, I don't think an hour is Am-Federd Reporters, Inc.
I-25 going to make a considerable amount of difference.
It looks
~
5-14-JoaWal 498 3
1 from the standpoint of the progression of avents today that we 2
will be here at least some time tomorrow, and unless the partiest 3
have a longer estimate of how long it wi]l take to complete 4 'this proceeding.
5 You know, if we are going to impact the schedule 6
in terms of the allotment of time for hearings in this room i
7 this week.
8 MR. H0DDER:
I have no objection to any suggestion.
9 1 will comply with any.
I will be in Washington Monday 10 on a case before the U.
S.
Court of Appeals.
All this week, 11 I am ready.
12 JUDGE LAZO:
We hope we will be in Washington, too.
13 (Laughter.)
14 MS. YOUNG:
I might also suggest, Judge Lazo, that 15 if the Licensee has great difficulty with reconvening at l
16 3:00, that perhaps we could proceed at 2:00, but with the l
17 ' understanding that Staff would not have to begin its cross l
1 i
18 of Dr. Edwards until tomorrow.
That would be an alternative.
M MR. COLL:
It just seems to me if we get started I
20 at three, your Honor, pretty soon it is four-thirty, and the 21 day is shot.
l 22 JUDGE LAZO:
All right.
Why don't we adjourn until f
i 23 two p.m.,
and we will take your request under advisement.
^
24 MS, YOUNG:
For the later adjournment?
Acm-Federal Reporters, Inc.
I 25 JUDGE LAZO:
Yes.
l i
l i
. - ~ -...-
.1 15-JooWai
'499 4
1
'l MS. YOUNG:
Thank you.
2 (Whereupon, a recess was taken at 11:10 a.m...to XX INDEI 3
reconvene at 2:01 p.m.)
' En'd-5.
4 SuaWal fois.
s
-6 i
i 7
-8 9
4 10 i
11 O
13 14 I'
15 l
16 17 s
l 18 I
I 19 20 1
21 I
22 l
l 23 O'.
24 h Feders Reporters, Inc.
25 i
(.
L
500
- 6gSueWalshi A F T,E,R_ N O_ O_ N_
S E_ S,S_ I_ O_ N_
2 I
(2:01 p.m.)
l 3
JUDGE LAZO:
Would the hearing come to order, 4
please?
Do any of the parties request additional time, or 5
are we ready to proceed?
6 MR. COLL:
We are ready, Your Honor.
7 MR. HODDER:
Intervenors are ready, Your Honor.
8 MS. YOUNG:
Judge Lazo, we would renew our re-9 quest to proceed with cross-examination tomorrow, cross-i 10 ;
examination on the part of the Staff.
You said you would Il t'ake that under consideration.
12 It may be in terms of the progression of events s
V 13 today that we won' t even get to the Staff's cross.
- But, 14 in terms of voir dire, we are ready to proceed.
15 JUDGE LAZO:
In terms of voir dire?
16 MS. YOUNG:
Yes.
17 JUDGE LAZO:
Well, again why don't we await l
18 events and see how long the Licensee will require for cross-examination and how much time the qualification of the wit-20 h ness and the voir dire examination will take?
f 21 Mr. Coll, are you going to proceed?
22 MR. COLL:
Yes, sir.
Your Honor, just so that I U
li 23 [
understand is it correct that the outline of testimony and
(
\\
l 24 the Affidavit have been admitted and are to be bound in the Ace-Feder:3 Reporters, Inc.
25 transcript as though read, and this is now voir dire?
This l
1
501 D6qgfueWalshi is voir dire and that still remains to be determined?
2 i
JUDGE LAZO:
We said that the two documents would 3
be received in evidence and should be -
'I didn't say it, 4
.but we should say that these should be incorporated into the 5
transcript as if read.
6 MR. COLL:
Subject to voir dire and motions to 4
7 strike testimony?
8 JUDGE LAZO:
Correct.
9 MS. WAGNER:
Doesn't the voir-dire generally pre-10 cede the decision on admissoin?
11 JUDGE LAZO:' Yes, generally it does.
We have the a
()
problem here that until we were able to determine which 12 3 13 (
documents we were talking about that it was difficult to 14 l go ahead with the qualification and the voir dire examination.
15 I think that if there are any problems they can 16 be handled by a motion to strike.
17 MR. HODDER:. On the part of Intervenors, we would 18 point out that this witness has previously experienced voir I
19 /
dire although it was for his expertise as a technical interro-D o
20 1 gator.
It included the same set of qualifications that we 21 submit in support of his testimony.
22 MS. WAGNER:
He has not been voir dired on the 23 Affidavit which he has now moved to have admitted in evidence.
24 And the Staff would like the opportunity to voir i
Am Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 dire him on his qualifications to make those statements before l
4 w
r
.y.-
,m
502
'# f *-SueWal l it would be admitted in evidence.
I think we also -- if b
2 it is admitted into evidence we also would have motions to 3
strike on other grounds.
4' JUDGE LAZO:
On other grounds?
I 5
t MS. WAGNER:
On other grounds, other than 6
qualifications.
7 JUDGE LAZO:
I see.
8 MS. WAGNER:
Moreover, I might just point out 9
that this witness has not attested to the truth of the 10 statements in either the Affidavit or the outline.
11 JUDGE LAZO:
All right, then.
Perhaps we are 12 getting ahead of ourselves.
Why don't we simply say that i
13 both documents have been identified and have been offered 14 into evidence, and we will reserve any admission until 15 the next steps have been completed?
16 All right.
Dr. Edwards?
I s
I 17 WITNESS:
Yes.
I would like to make one cor-l
\\
18 rection, if I may.
The statement of professional qualifica-I*
tions and experience contains an outmoded address on.the 20ll first line.
That's my address as of the time of the filing
{
I I
21 (
of the first Affidavit.
But it's not my current address as 22 h of now.
23 I(
It says:
My name is Gordon G. J. Edwards.
My 24 home address is 1300 Rainbault, Ville St. Laurent, Quebec, Am Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 Canada H4L4R9.
l I
i 503 36-fueWalsN
.That is not presently my address.
Can I make a 2
I change and put in my correct address?
3 JUDGE LAZO:
I haven't found that statement yet.
4L WITNESS:
This is under Exhibit A to professional 5
qualifications and experience.
6 JUDGE LAZO:
I see.
You said first Affidavit.and 7
that mislead me.
8 WITNESS:
Sorry.
9 JUDGE LAZO:
This is in Exhibit A.
And your 10 current address is?
h 11 h WITNESS:
My correct address is 53 Dufferin. Road,
~
l.
12 [ Hampstead, Quebec.
O G
^
13 h JUDGE LAZO:
Could you spell that, sir?
h 14 "
WITNESS:
Yes.
D-u-f-f-e-r-i-n.
Hampstead, 15 " which is H-a-m-p-s-t-e-a-d, Quebec, Canada H3X2X8.
16 JUDGE LAZO:.Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hodder, why don't 17 you ask your witness whether there are any other corrections?
18 MR. HODDER:
Yes.
p.
19 /
JUDGE LAZO:
And whether he adopts this as his i
20 testimony'in this proceeding.
21 Whereupon, 22 GORDAN G. J. EDWARDS 23 resumed the witness stand by and on behalf of the Intervenors 24 and, having previously.been duly sworn, was examined and
%Festerd Reporters, Inc.
25 testified as follows:
l l
504
- 7-1-SueWalsh DIRECT EXAMINATION
.U Ind;xxx 2
BY MR. HODDER:
3 Q
Dr. Edwards, regarding the Outline of Testimony a!
submitted November 25th, 1985, and its Attachment A, your 5
professional qualifications, and also the Affidavit which 6
you prepared, dated November 5th, 1985, are these documents 7
documents that you completed and prepared yourself; and, are 8
they true?
9 A
Yes, they are.
10 Q
Do you have any other corrections you wish to 11 5 make to the statements contained in any of these documents?
a 12 A
No, I do not.
rN i
(l j
13 l, Q
You would then submit them to this Board as your i
14 0 testimony and your professional qualifications for the pur-15 poses of giving testimony here today?
16 A
Yes, I do.
17 MR. HODDER:
Thank you.
We are ready to offer l
18 the witness for voir dire, Mr. Chairman.
O l
19.
JUDGE LAZO:
Very well.
t-20 VOIR DIRE INDEXX 21 BY MR. COLL:
22 Q
Ihr. Edwards, you have previously testified in this 23 proceeding that you consider yourself to be an expert in 24 mathematics; is that correct?
AsmJederd Reporters, Inc.
l 25 A
- Yes, I
505 l
- 6 SueWalshi Q
You previously stated that you had taught college 7
2 level mathematics' courses; is that correct?
3 A
Yes.
4, Q
Are you teaching college level mathematics' 5
courses at the present time?
6 A
Yes.
7 0
What types of courses are you teaching?
8 A
Advanced calculus, linear algebra at the precent 9
time.
10 Q
Have you taught any other courses during the 11 j year 1985 other than advanced calculus and linear algebra?
12 '
A Mathematic courses?
-s
)
v 13 [
Q Correct.
n 14 "
A Well, there are more than one linear algebra 15 '
course.
I taught a different linear algebra course in the 16 '
early part of 1985, that is last term.
17 Q
All right.
But other than those two courses or I
18 three courses, have you taught any other college level i
mathematics' courses in the year 1985?
19 20 A
No, I have not.
21 Q
You previously testified that you do not consider 22 yourself to be an expert in the areas of heat transfer, 23 DNBR testing, CHF correlation, determination of reactor n
('-)
24 core operational limits or the evaluation of DNBR; is that Aa Feder3 Reporters, Inc.
25 correct?
l
l 506
)6gueWalshi A
That's correct.
2 Q
And.you've also testified that you do not consider 3
yourself to be an expert in. thermal dynamics, fluid mechanics, 4'
or thermal-hydraulic analysis; isn't that correct?
-5 A
That's correct.
6A Q
You have also testified 'that you are not personally 7
involved in, or you have not personally participated in, 8
conducting.DNB tests or the development of a DNB correlation; 9
isn't that correct?
10 A
That's correct.
II Q
You've never participated-in the thermal-hydraulic t
i 12 design of the core of a pressurized water reactor, have you?
I mJ 13 A
no, 14 '
O Whether it was a mixed core or a homogeneous core 15 or any type of a core for a pressurized water reactor?
i 16 A
No, I have not.
17 Q
And you have never designed or used computer
~
I models to do thermal-hydraulic analysis of heat transfer l
18 19 and fluid flow aspects of a pressurized water reactor, have 20 you?
2I, j
A No, I have not.
li 22 i; Q
And you've never calculated DNBR acceptance limits 23 [
for a pressurized water reactor, have you?
24 I
A No.
Ace Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 Q
You haven't read the Turkey Point Final Safety l
507
- ggg-SueWalsh Analysis Report?
2 i
A No, I have not.
3 0
You haven'.t read the Turkey Point technical speci-4 fications?
5 !!
A I've read selections of the technical specifications, i
6l those ones which were put forward for amendments only.
i 7
O Can you call them out to me?
Do you know what they >
8 were?
9j A
I have them in my binder here.
10 j Q
You are not familiar with the instrumentation at l
i 11 Turkey Point Plant, are you?
12 A
No, 7s i,
<a 13 Q
Have you read any of the underlying submittals l
14 by Florida Power and Light Company for the license amendments i
15 in this case?
l 16 A
Yes.
You are referring to the submittals to the t
17 Board?
i 18 Q
No.
The-submittals by the Florida Power and W
Light Company to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself?
20 A
Under the signature of Mr. Uhrig, yes, I have.
i 21 0
You are not familiar with the mathematical equa-22 3 tions or the computer models used to evaluate and analyze l
23 the DNB and DNBR in this case, are you?
(~T N~J 24 [
A No.
I Am FMwd Reporters, In. ;
25 'l Q
Have you seen any financial documents showing o
508 36 fueWalsN economic or financial figures for Florida Power and Light 2
i Company?
3 A
No.
4' Q
Have you seen any financial figures for the I
I5i Operation of the Turkey Point Plants?
6 A
No.
7 Q
When were you first engaged as a consultant in.
8 this proceeding?
9 A
In this proceeding?
10 Q
Correct.
11 A
I'm sorry.
I can't answer that.
Would you l
12 like me to --
13 Q
Can you give me a year?
14 A
Yes, it was this year.
15 Q
Not until the year 19857 16 A
No, I'm sorry.
It was late last year.
Late in l
l I;
1984.
I I
I 13 Q
November or December?
M A
I'm sorry.
I don't recall the date.
I don't i
20 have it with me.
21 Q
By whom were you engaged?
22 d A
By Joette Lorion.
l Q
And what information were you furnished when you 23
(~/I 24 were first engaged?
4en Federd Coporters, Inc.
25 A
The information that I was furnished when I was l
l
[
509
- 6-
-SueWalsh first engaged was information related to the amendment that 2
I was being requested by Florida Power and Light, together 3
with the contentions of Joette Lorion, and various -- I'm 4
not sure of exactly what was in the first package.
5i I've received many packages of information.
The I,
6 I information which I received on the first instance was I
7 information related to the amendments and to contentions 8
regarding those amendments.
And I believe that that package 9f also included the NRC Safety Evaluation Report.
10 ]
Q Do you recall the date of that report?
t 11 A
Not offhand, no.
i 12 Q
What were you asked to do when you were initially
(__';
i 13 engaged?
f l
14 A
Initially, I was asked to read the material and 15 to consider whether it would be possible for me to prepare 16 an Affidavit supporting the contention of the Intervenor.
t 17 Q
So, you were told in effect what conclusions 18 you were to reach; that is, you were to reach conclusions
'l supporting the contention?
l, 20 Is that correct?
I 21 ;"l A
I don't think --
l 22 '
MR. HODDER:
I object to that question.
He hasn't l l
23 in any way indicated that he was told what conclusions to l
o 24 j reach.
I think the witness has indicated completely the
- w.,,a c.porier, inc. ;
25 !
opposite, that he was given information and asked to evaluate !
I i
l l
i
510
)6-[^7 ueWalsh it.
I think it's improper of counsel to phrase the. question S
V 2
i as implying that the witness was told what conclusion to 3;
come to.
I 1
4 JUDGE LAZO:
Well, I think the witness under-5 l.
stands the question.
6I-MR. HODDER:
All right.
7 l WITNESS:
I was certainly not told what conclusions -
8 to come to.
9 BY MR. COLL:
(Continuing) 10 [
Q You were asked whether you could provide an 11
' Affidavit-which would support the Intervenors' contentions; i
12-is that correct?
([)
1 13 A
I was asked if I could provide an Affidavit la relevant to the issues raised in the contentions.
15 Q
But in support of.those contentions?
i 16 A
That was not specifically the request.
l c~
Q And what did you do?
l l
19 A
I read the material.
I consulted with colleagues 6
10 of mine in Canada who are knowledgeable in the field of I
20,
reactors.
And I proceeded.to prepare an Affidavit.
21 l Q
How long did it take you to read the material?
L
'I t
22 3 A
I really can't answer how long it took me to I
t 23 !:
read the material.
I read the material several times ~and f'T
\\/
24 5 over a period of time.
W Federd Reporters. Inc.
25 l Q
Can you tell me how long that took?
I
511
)6 ?'wSueWalsh A
I can't tell you how long that took, no.
.k_)
2 i
-Q More than a day?
3-A Oh, certainly.
4 Q
More than.two days?
.y 5
i A
Yes.
6 Q
More than a week?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
More than two weeks?
-9 A
More than two weeks.
10 l Q
Are you telling me that it took you more than 11 two weeks to read the material --
12 A
I'm saying --
13 Q
-- or you. studied it for two weeks?
14 A
I'm saying I studied it.
15 Q
How long did it take you to read it?
i 16 A
I don't'really know.
17 Q
How long did you study it before you prepared 13 your Affidavit?
I i
M A
I studied it -- I don't -- I studied it to the 20 point of understanding what was contained in it.
And that i
21 '
meant going over it many times.
L 22 h Q
What are the names of the colleagues that you o
23 [ consulted with?
Os 24 A
One of them is Ralph Torrey, who is a colleague MFedoed Reporters, Inc. l 25 that I've worked with previously.
He is a physicist.
I
512
'#f'3-SueWaIJ Q
What is his address?
'v 1
i 2-i A
I don't have his address with me.
He lives in 3l Ottowa.
l
~
4 Q
How many times did you consult with him?
5 A
Twice.
6l Q
How long did you spend with him on each occasion?
c i
7 I
A It was by telephone.
8 0
What did you consult with him about?
9 A
I consulted with him about certain features of 10 reactors.
11 Q
What features of reactors?
12 A
Well, particularly related to such concepts as l
(3 f
_)
13 departure from nucleate boiling.
14 Q
Was that a concept that was familiar to you 15 before you were engaged in this case?
16 A
It was a concept which was familiar to me in 17 general terms but not in that specific phrasing.
la Q
.By whom is Ralph Torrey employed?
f M
A Ralph Torrey is employed by a group called the 20 Energy Research Group.
o 21 Q
What do they do?
22 h MR. HODDER:
Wait.
I'm objecting to this line of 23 ;,
questioning.
It has no bearing on the competence of this O
24f witness to testify.- It's discovery on Mr. Coll's part, and Am Feder:2 Reporters, Inc.
25 it's inappropriate here.
l
513
- qgg4-SueWaB He hasn't established any relevance or a proper 2
i basis for asking the question.
I object to the question l
3 I and make a motion that it not be allowed.
4 MR. COLL:
Your Honor, I contend that the testimony 5b presented by this witness is not his testimony.
It's not 6h*
based on his expertise or knowledge.
7 And I intend to demonstrate to the Board that that 8
is so, and I intend to pursue this line of questioninn to 9
demonstrate that he, in fact, doesn't have the knowledge 10j himself, does not have the expertise or qualifications him-l l
11 self.
12 And it's purely based upon his reading something
<x i
13 or his talking to somebody.
And I'm entitled to show what l
l u
he has read and who he has talked to and what he has talkud l
15 to them about.
l C
MR. HODDER:The fact is that the witness hasn't U
claimed expertise in any other field than higher mathematics, 18 and interpreting probability analyses and that sort of thing.
i 20 He has indicated in earlier testimony right here l
21,.
that i/
' :sn't specifically claim expert %a in thermal-22 dynanuos or nuclear design of nuclear power plants.
What 23 he is doing.here is to interpret the probabilistic analyses
(
24 performed by the Westinghouse and Staff experts.
I c
Am-FWerd Resmrters, ire, j 25 1 And he's fully qualified to do that interpretation,i i
i I
...._.m.
~
~_
514
- g-SueWall because what we are dealing with is an assessment of probability 2
i as a likelihood of certain occurrences.
He hasn't claimed
'3 otherwise.
1 4'
It appears that the line of questioning Mr. Coll 5
is pursuing doesn't address mathematical ability but rather 6
some aspect of nuclear engineering or thermal-hydraulic study.
7 And the witness hasn't claimed expertise in that field.
8 And the fact that he hasn't claimed it makes this 9
line of questioning unnecessary.
The fact is that the 10 witness'has taken the mathematical data prepared by the 4
II Staff and the Licensee, and he has performed interpretations 12 which is appropriate to his expertise and his background as 13 a scientist.
IJ JUDGE LAZO:
But, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Coll's questions l
15 are relevant to statements which do appear in the outline 16 of testimony and in the Affidavit.
l i7 You may proceed, Mr. Coll.
i 19 MR. COLL:
I think I can find my place.
BY MR.. COLL:
(Continuing) 1 20 Q
What is the business of the Energy Research Group?
o I
21 A
It is concerned with developing countries and 22 !!
energy resources in developing countries.
b 23 h Q
What else did you consult with Mr. Torrey about?
O 4
24 h You said you talked to him about two things, or you had two has Federd Reporters, Inc.
25 telephone conversations.
-,l.----
...m._,--.-.--m---.-.
.._---------r, r-,
c-.------
515
'6-SueWall A
The telephone conversations were to ensure that I had a correct understanding of all the definitions that 2
3 ll were involved and the terms that were utilized in the docu-i 4
ments that I had received.
5lI And I also consulted in the same fashion --
6 l consultation perhaps is too strong a word.
I consulted 7
with the Director of Licensing for the Atomic Energy Control
-8 Board, Mr. Zigman Domiraski (phonetic), for the same purpose.
9 Q
And the subject matter of these conversations, 10 as I understand it, involved the features of reactors such as 11 DNB; is that correct?
l I
i
(~)
12 A
Many features.
In fact, I wanted to find out j
x_/
l 13 more information about pressurized thermal shock.
I wanted I
14 to find out about pressure vessel embrittlement.
I wanted 15 to find out about a number of things which had not been --
16 well, which have not been features of the Canadian nuclear 17 scene which I had read about but I wanted to ensure that my 18 understanding was correct on these matters.
W Q
How much time did you spend consulting with these 20 two gentlemen?
l g
l l
21i A
Not a great deal of time.
I b
22 l O
Can you quantify it for me?
23 h A
Two telephone calls to Mr. Torrey.
One telephone
(
)
.i 24 call to Mr. Domiraski (phonetic).
Ace-FederJ f.eporters, Inc.
25 0
And what were the duration of the calls?
L
- p....- - -... -. - -. - - -.. -.... -
-. - ~.
516
-#I 7-SueWall A
Half an hour.
x_/
2 i
Q Each?
l I
3 ll A
Yes, roughly.
!I i
-Q Did you consult with anyone else?
5" A
No.
6Y Q
Did you perform any independent analysis or 7
tests or calculations prior to preparing your testimony in 8!
this proceeding?
p 9
A No.
10,]
Q Did you obtain any other additional information li other than the information you referred to which was sent l
l 12 to you by Joette Lorion?
13 A
No.
It Q
Did you request that any additional information 15 be provided to you in order for you to prepare this testimony,,
16 which information was not previded to you?
A I requested of Mrs. Lorion that she send me all i
H pertinent information as it became available, which she did.
I i
Q How long did it take you to prepare the Affidavit I
i i
20 of November-57 21 l A
I'm sorry.
I really can' t answer that.
It
?2 would have taken a couple of days at the minimum.
23 And I'm only guessing.
I don't have a record of 24 r how long I took preparing it.
I use the word " process" and i
n Forterd Reporters, Irw. j i
251 again it's a question of going back to it, going over it, and l
-a.
t 517 A
.#6 g -SueWals!
l redoing it until I feel comfortable with the result.
END #6 2 !
, Mnry flws l
3 1
I I
5 I
6 !;
it 7!
8h li li 9,I i
10 I
I i
13 l
j I
l l
.3
}5 l
13 I
l l
l l
i I
21 j 22 i f
23 i
24 !!
I
,1 Am Federal Reporters, Inc. ;;
l' l
25 ;'
II c
g.
r:--
513 l\\
h/
Q And just so I understand you correctly, your y
testimony ~in your affidavit of November 5.a n d in your 2
Outline of Testimony is not based upon any independent
-3 tests or studies or calculations that you have, performed?
4
^
5 Q
Do you have any changes to make in any of your 6
testimony based upon your reading of the prefiled testimony 7
of Florida Power and Light Company or the Nuclear g
Regulatory Commission's staff in this proceeding?
9 A
No, I' don't believe I do.
Certainly the whole 10 process has been a learning process, and I certainly have g
learned more since I arrived here at the hearing.
But I g
.wouldn't change what I have said.
If I were.to say it again, I would probably say it somewhat differently.
g Q
Based upon the testimony of Mr. Dzenis 15 yesterday, including his direct testimony and testimony on cross-examination, do you have any changes to make in your g7 es im ny, et her in vour affidavit or in your Out1_ine of 18 Testimony?
,9
^
20 Q
Would it be fair to say that your testimony g
e nstitutes a generalized criticism of Florida Power and 22 Light Company's submittal and the Nuclear Regulatory g
Commission's review of the documents upon which this g
25 e-
519 A
I am sorry.
I don't think I understand the j
2 question.
Say that again.
Q What don't you understand?
3 A
I don't understand what you are asking. I thnk 4
5 my statements stand on their own.
I don't think they need 6
any summary.
They are their own summary.
Q Well, sir, as I read your testimony,-you 7
simply generally criticize Florida Power and Light-Company 8
and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's approach. You don't 9
provide any conterveiling tests or studies or calculations 10 or data or' figures, do you?
jj A
Well, you are asking two questions there.
I 12 think that'my testimony is directed to the contentions and 13 to the questions that the Board has-identified in relation ja to those contentions.
I don't believe they are generalized 15 criticisms.
16 And what was the second question?
y7 Q
You don't provide any counterveiling tests or 18 calculttions or studies or figures to those presented by y9 Florida Power and Light Company or the Nuclear Regulatory 20 Commission.
21 A
Well, I think the counterveiling studies or 22 what the amendments.have to do with are changes in the 23 existing status quo vis-a-vis technical specifications for 24 Florida Power and Light and Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.
25 I
1
-n-
,--s-..
n
.~, - w e.w.a, p-
---a
520 4
- [
What my contetions, what my submissions have
.g 1
to-do with are reasons why if the Nuclear Regulatory 2
-Commission is to follow its own guidelines, those 6
3
' amendments should not be granted.
4.
4 Q
Sir, my question is very simple. Have 'you read 5
the testimony, the profiled testimony of Florida Power and 6
Light Company in this proceeding?
7 8
Q Have you read the profiled testimony by the 9
Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff?
j A
Yes.
g 4
Q There are certain calculations that are g
I described there and there are certain results that are described there and there are certain figures that are J-g given in each of those' sets of' testimony, are there not?
15 i
A Yes.
Q You have done no independent tests or studies y7
- "' ~
18 calculations which contradict those numbers, do you?
9 A
I was not asked to, and I have not done so.
4 Q
You have not done so.
g MR.' COLL:
I don't have any further questions, g
Mr. Chairman.
I have a motion, however.
g JUDGE LAZO:
Please proceed.
3 MR. COLL: Perhaps the staff has some voir dire
521 and then we could entertain the motions.
~J MS. WAGNER:
The staff does have some voir 2
dire, if this is the appropriate time to proceed.
3 JUDGE LAZO:
Yes, Ms. Wagner, I think it is.
4 VOIR DIRE 5
BY MS. WAGNER:
6 Q
Again, Dr. Edwards, I will try not to be 7
repetitious of what Mr. Coll has asked you, but I may 8
inadvertently repeat one or two questions.
I will try not 9
to.
10 You said on page 4 of your affidavit, your ij November 5th affidavit that as a mathematician you would 12 not expect the behav1or of a mixed core of LOPAR and OFA
-h 33 b
fuel to be simply a linear combination of the ja characteristics of two homogeneous ones.
15 A
Yes.
y, Q
Assume for a moment that your expectation is j7 indeed correct.
What mathematics classes have you taken 18 that discuss reactor core thermal hydraulics?
y9 A
I have not taken such classes.
20 Q
But you maintain that your expectation of 21 behavior is based on the fact that you are a mathematician?
22 A
Yes.
I worked for the Science Council of 23 Canada in 1974 and '75 as the Assistant Director of a 24 nationwide study of mathematical sciences in Canada, and we 25
522
(
[y received over.300 briefs from practicing mathematical y
w I
scientists in many different fields as well as eight 2
seminars which I organized and participated in and edited 3
the proceedings for.
Those seminars and those briefs all had to do 5
with the problem of using mathematical modeling in various aspects of government, business, industry and science, and 7
8 my employment at the Science Council of Canada.
9 l
Q Was any of this information that you received g
in that capacity related to ONBR7 A
No, no, none of it was related to DNBR.
g Q
Was it related to ---
l (',_\\-
A It was all related to mathematical modeling in y,
i practical situations.
l l
Q Involving reactor safety?
A A very small portion was involving reactor y7 safety.
Of the eight seminars I mentioned, one of them was 18 called Mathematics Technology and Science, and.that
,9 particular session had some contribution from nuclear g
scientists.
I must add that I myself was involved only as g
l l
a study director and I was simply collecting the g
impressions of professional mathematicians who were working with mathematical modeling in different areas.
523 The purpose of the study was to identify j
problem areas in the use of mathematical sciences in 2
Canadian society.
3 Q
And did you say that scientists were also 4
involved in this study or just mathematicians?
5 A
They were all mathematical scientists.
6 Q
Oo you consider yourself to be a methamatical 7
'CI'"
i*
8 A
Yes.
9 Q
On what basis do you consider yourself to be a 10 mathematical scientist?
jj A
Well, because that has been my involvement ail 12 along.
I graduated originally in mathematics, physics and g
d chemistry from the University of Toronto, and my g
inv lvement from that time to the present has been involved 15 primarily with applied mathematics of one sort or another.
g For example, I published a paper in the 37 Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
I 18 co-authored a paper dealing with the economics of ocean j9 fisheries, and there we are dealing with a similar 20 situation.
I am not an economist and I am not a biologist, 21 but I am a mathematical scientist, and as such I can offer 22 a contribution when it comes to problems of modeling 23 information that has been collected by other scientists 24 related to the economics of ocean fisheries.
25 o
S24 n
f, Q
And to do modeling in the areas where 1
inf rmation has been collected by scientists you have to 2
understand the phenomena with which you are dealing, don't 3
you?
4 A
That is correct, and you have to understand 5
the concepts, the terms and you have to understand what teh relationships are as specified.
7 Q
And that would hold true for DNBR modeling as 8
well?
9
^
8 10 Q
You also state on page 4 of your affidavit j,
that "The instrumentation at Turkey Point may be inadequate g
to convey. an unambiguous message as to what is really going pg IU)
. rs on in the core of the reactor."
- I think that is at the top g
of'the page.
A
- Yes, Q
Can you tell me what instrumentation is p
available at Turkey Point for monitoring core thermal 18 hydraulic and power conditions?
y9 A
I do Stt know the detailed instrumentation at 20 Turkey Point, but I am very familiar with the instrumentation at certain Canadian nuclear reactors and I g
know that it is an ongoing problem in the nuclear field.
Fr example, the Three Mile Island incident 24
"" "* #3
- 8*
"8 "" ""**
89 ""
25
.O~
929 i
interpretatin of what the instruments are saying.
I 0
Can you name any of the instrumentation 2
available for monitoring these conditions?
3 A
I would only be working by analogy with other 4
nuclear power plants that I know.
5 0
Which are mostly Canadian plants?
6 A
They are mostly Canadian plants. I have some 7
knowledge of, for example, the Three Mile Island plant only 8
because of the accident and because of the fact that I was 9
involved in a follow-up hearing in Canada that was a 10 spinoff of that.
jy 0
But you are telling me you would not care to 12 9*
13 b
A No, that would be foolish on my part to do j,
15 0
It is true, isn't it, sir, that the TMI study 16 was related to severe accidents and not to normal g7 peration?
18 A
The TMI study?
Which study?
y9 0
Didn't you just refer to a TMI study that you 20 were involved in?
21 A
No.
I was referring to the TMI reactor.
22 JUDGE COLE:
I thought, sir, you said you were 23 inv lved in a study in Canada that reviewed what happened 24 at TMI for purposes in Canada.
25
526.
. {f)
\\d THE. WITNESS:
I see. I am sorry. What I was y
r.eferring to was the Select Committee on Ontario Hydro 2
Affairs, which was a committee of the Ontario Legislature 3
established to look into Ontario Hydro's Affairs, and after the Three Mile Island. accident they undertook an extensive 5
13-week investigation of reactor safety in the Canadian 6
7
. preceding from the accident at Three Mile Island as setting a departure point.
8 Even though it is a different type of reactor, 9
the question that they were asking is might similar 10 problems exist in Canada somewhat analogous to the problems y,
that occurred at Three Mile Island.
So that the investigation began with a consideration of what Three Mile
- b[~
. Island'was like and what kind of instrumentation it had, what.went wrong, et cetera, et cetera.
JUDGE COLE:
Thank you..
BY MS.~ WAGNER:
37 Q
In ther words then, you were examining a 18 situation involving severe accidentsi is that not correct, j9 20 A
Not really.
What we were studying in that g
particular instance were safety criteria, operational g
procedures such as offsite emergency plans and equipment, safety related equipment. And what we were studying was the 25
527 the reliability of it and in my particular case the g
mathematical soundness of the models that were being used 2
to estimate how well this equipment would function under 3
emergency situations.
4 S
in a sense yes, it was related towards 5
accidents, but as we know, even a minor accident can 6
develop into a serious accident.
It is really hard to sort 7
f draw a firm line.
8 Q
Welli what I was referring to when I was 9
asking you the question on instrumentation available at 10 Turkey Point referred to instrumentation to monitor normal jy peration of the plant. I want you to understand that.
Are 12 Y " *
~~~
13 A
Well, for example, I will just give you one u
34 thing that sticks in my mind.
I remember that one of the 15 problems at Three Mile Island was that they did not have j,
adequate incore heat sensors.
So that the temperature of
- 7 the core was something which was not readily available to 18 the operators in the control room.
That was a complicating 39 factor in their understanding of what was going on inside 20 the reactor.
21 Q
If I were to tell you that the overtemperature 22 Delta T trip is one of the instrumentations available at 23 Turkey Point for monitoring core thermal hydraulic power 24 c nd1tions, would you be able to tell me what major core 25
528
.., ~
- i parameters go into the overtemperature Delta trip which is 1
used to provide protection-against DNB in the Turkey Point 2
reactor?
3 A
No.
I would have to study the relevant 4
documentation, as I have done in this case, in order to 5
understand what parameters go into that.
Q But you still contend that the instr.umentation 7
is not adequatei is that Correct, sir?
A Well, my statement was such instrumentation 9
may be inadequate to convey an unambiguous message as to g
what is really going on in the core of the reactor, and I y;
think that that 1s a very safe statement to make in the g
nuclear field.
I don't think anybody would seriously p
[y.)
w question that that is the fact of all nuclear reactors.that g
I have every heard of.
Q So then you are not saying that.there is anything particular at Turkey Point that distinguishes it g
18 A
I am sorry.
Perhaps my term of. phrase is such g
that~you concluded that I was speaking about Turkey Point.
If you look at the entire sentence, it says " Secondly, the
-operator of a nuclear power plant," and not Turkey Point, g
but any nuclear power plant, "is dependent on instruments
'and sensors rather than.his eye sight to. communicate the actual condition of the fuel in the core of the reactor,
929 and such instrumentation generically may be inadequate to y
2 convey an unambiguous message as to what is really going on in the core of a reactor."
3 So I am not singlin9 out Turkey Point as being 4
particularly susceptible to this problem.
I am saying this 5
is a generic fact about nuclear reactors.
6 Q
And even in not singling out Turkey Point, you 7
are not saying that the instrumentation necessarily is 8
inadequate, but-only that it may be inadeauate?
9 A
Indeed.
I have no -- as I have indicated, I 10 have no specific knowledge of what instrumentation there 11 i3' 12 Q
Then you are really specu.lating, are you not, y3 sir?
j, A
I don't think I am speculating.
You may 15 perhaps ask the people on the NRC staff whether this is a 16 speculation or a fact. It is my strong feeling that this.is j7 a fact based upon every scrap of information that I have 18 seen in the nuclear field.
39 Q
N w, sir, you have testified that you have not 20 performed any calculations of DNBR acceptance limits for a 21 p e r s s u r i ::e d water reactori is that correct?
22 A
That is correct.
23 Q
Have you performed any experiements or 3
c nducted any s t u ri i e s concerning the DNBR limits for a 25 o
--.-.~.w, u
030 n
i>]y )
pressurized water. reactor?
_y A
No.
2 Q
But you have performed other calculations or 3
experiments in the area _of reactor safety involving the combining of a number of penalties, haven't you?
3 A
I am not sure what you are referring to.
Q Well -- just a moment.
7 8
I will try to repeat the question more slowly 9
and see if that helps ---
g A
Fine.
g Q-
--- rather than try to explain where I am trying_to go.
\\
Even though you haven't performed calculations ms g
or done experiments of DBNR acceptance limits for pressurized water reactors, have you performed other calculations or experiments or conducted studies in the g
area f reactor safety that involve the comnining of a 18 number of penalties?
39 A
Well, not really.
I mean I wouldn't call them g
calculations.
If you are referring to my criticism of g
. adding percentages, that was simply an observation of a g
very general nature.
It is a fact, for instance, that 20 percent plus 20 percent is not 40 percent.
Twenty g
percent plus 20 percent is 44 percent, and anybody who is O
o
531
.I mathematically knowledgeable knows that.
1
.y I made the observation that if that is what 2
3 you are referring to on page 5, that the appropriate way to combine percentages, assuming independences would be 4
through multiplication and not through addition.
5 0
I was actually going to something right.below 6
that, which is not the multiplication point you made.
You 7
make the statement that it is a reasonale assumptics that 8
the three penalties are not independent, and I was 9
inquiring as to whether you had made any calculations in 10 the area of reactor safety that involves the combining of ij penalities?
12 A
es, ave n
e ms eactor safety 13 7b generally in a Canadian setting.
j, Y*"
15 A
Well, these are probability calculations.
You 16 see, when you talk about percentages you are really j7 talking about probabilities, and probabilities combine 18 according to very well defined mathematical laws.
j9 Under very stringent circumstances 20 probabilities can be multiplied, but that is only if the g
events are completely independent of each other.
In other 22 w rds, if you have two events which are independent of one 23 anotheri then you can get the combined probability of both 3
events occurring by multiplying the probabilities, which is 25
532
/~T
'{ 7) multiplyins the appropriate percentages.
y Sut this is not the appropriate calculation to 2
make if there is interaction between the events,-if the two 3
events are not independent, and that is the basis for my
.rema ere.
5 The basis for the remark is that the staff and the licensee seem to be assuming without any proof that 7
2 these penalties are independent of each other and there is no interaction between them.
9 i
10 i
II 12 i
/~T i3 i:
15 16
-17 18 19 2.
20 21 22 4
23 24 25
(~
O;)
1
.,.m,--.
,,n..
8-1-JocWel 533 1
Q I was really going towards your assumption that p.
1-2 the three penalties are dependent, or do interact.
3 A
Well, I think scientifically speaking, it would be 4
more sensible to start from the assumption that they may, indeed, 5
interact, and then to prove that they don't rather than to 6
start with the assumption that they do not interact.
7 Q
You say scientifically speaking you should proceed 8
from that assumption?
9 A
Yes.
Scientifically speaking, right.
The essence 10 of science is to adopt a skeptical attitude.
You don't 11 assume something simply because it is convenient; you open 12 yourself to the possibility that things may not be as nice as
.()
13 you would like, and then you perform scientific analyses,
~
14 mathematical analyses,.or.exper1 mental tests which would 15 eliminate unpleasant possibilities, such as interaction between i
16 these.three phenomenon.
17 Q
Have you finished explaining the calculations that 18 you did perform?
10 A
Yes.
20 Q
Okay.
In all of these cases, did the penalties, 21 indeed,-interact with each other?
i i
22 A
I don't know.
Because the necessary studies have 23 not been done, and that was really the point I was trying-to
- er t Reporters, Inc.
24 make.
That the studies have not been done.
I Aa.
25 Q
Do you know of an instance?
4 e
e r
-.3
._.-.___,_y.
534 8-2-JosWal 1
A It seems to be an assumption rather than a conclusion Nl 2
on the part of the licensee and the NRC Staff.
3 q
Well, I am talking about your assumption, not the 4
Staff's assumption right now.
You make the statement that it 5
is a reasonable assumption that the three penalties are not 6
independent.
7 A
An assumption is a starting place.
8 Q
Wait a minute.
I don't have a questio,n.
9 A
Okay.
10 Q
Let me finish my question.
You make that statement, 11 and I am asking you whether you perform calculations where 12 penalties involved the combining of a number of penalties, and G-
'g_j 13 you said yes, you did.
I am asking you whether the penalties 14 interacted with each other, and you said studies haven't been 15 done yet.
16 A
In this particular context right, they have not 17
~been done.
18
.Q Y am.asking you in the context in which you performed M
the calculations.
I am talking about the calculations that.you 20 said you performed, and I waat to make sure I understand your 21 answer.
}
22 You said that studies have not been done yet that 23 would allow you to determine whether the penalties interact with
(~)
24 each other.
Am-e ckW Reporters, Is
'25 A
I see.
We are talking at cross-purposes.
When I l
r
-.., _.... ~ - - _.., -.
....... ~...-. -.
535 8-3-JocWol I
said the studies had not been done to determine-whether the 2
penalties interact with each other, I was referring specifically 3
to these penalties that are discussed in connectio, with DNBR.
4 Q
Right.
I was following on my prior question which 5
was:
Which calculations have you performed which involved 6
numerous penalties?
And you told me which calculations you 7
performed.
8 And my. question was intended to follow up on that 9
and ask you in all of those cases that you have just told me 10 about, did the penalties interact with each other?
11 A
Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't.
12 Q
Okay.
Thank you.
It is fair to'say that the 13 interdependence or not of the three penalties for DNBR is an 14 engineering judgment, isn't it?
15 AL Say that again?
16 Q
It is fair to.say that the interdependence, or 17 independence of the three penalties for DNBR is an engineering 18 judgment?
10 A
I have difficulty with that, because an engineer 20
.may indeed make a judgment as to whether it is or is not the l
21 case.
t 22 That j u'djment may also be correct or incorrect.
23 Sometimes engineering judgments are made, and turn out to be i
9
'24 incorrect.
Ace-oderal Reporters, Inc.
25 So, I have difficulty answering the question, because t
i
536 8a4-JosW.a1 j
to me the independence of the penalties is a fact independent
(^/3 2
f the judgment of somebody looking at the fact.
~.
3 It may be that someone could make an engineering' 14 judgment and say they are-independent,-but on what basis is 5
that judgment made?
That is really the question.
6 Q
But you do agree that it is an engineering judgment.
7 Whether it might be right or wrong, it is an engineering 8
judgment that must be'made?
9 A
Yes.
.10 Q
And not a statistical j udgment; not solely a 11 statistical judgment.
12 A
No, it is not solely a statis tical j udgment.
1 13 Q
Doesn't such judgment 14 A
Pardon me, but if sufficient statistics were 15 collected, then it would be a statistical judgment, yes.
Once 16 the statistics have been collect'ed, once the studies have been 1
17 done, then it is a statistical judgment.
18 The problem is that the studies'have not been done.
You have no basis for making a judgment.
20 Q
For making a statistical judgment?
21 A.
That is right.
Or even an engineering j udgment l
22 that is based upon fact.
23
- erW Reponen, Inc.
24 Q
Doesn't a judgment on the independence or inter-Ace.
25 dependence of the three penalties rely on the observed behavior
(
537 8-5-JeaWal 1
of the CEF phenomenon than DNBR in t h.e f uel bundle?
4
(/
2 A
No, it doesn't seem to.
What we are talking about 3
here, in terms of these penalties, we are talking about plant 4 ' specific safety analysis.
5 We are talking about penalties which are specific 6
'to the plant design, in this case Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.
7 And the real question is a question of whether the
.8 physical phenomena for example of rod bowing a'nd hydraulic 9
resistance, variability in hydraulic resistance in mixed core, 10 whether those are independent or not.
Whether there is any 1
11 interaction, so I would not say that that,'in itself, the 12 independence of those factors, does not really depend upon-(
s_/
13 measurements of critical heat flux and so on.
That comes later 14 when you apply those penalties to DNBR.
15 MS. WAGNER:
Could I have a moment please?
16 JUDGE LAZO:
Certainly.
17 BY MS. WAGNER:
(Continuing) 18 Q
When we are talking about the CHF phenomenon in 10 DNER, we are talking about phenomenon -- physical phenomena?
t 20 A
Correct.
21 Q
Which cannot be observed solely through statistics, i
22 is that not true?
23 A
That is correct.
()
24 Q
Have you observed the behavior of the CHF phenomenon i Ace +G;rd Reporters, tric.
25 and DNBR in the fuel bundle?
I i
8-6-JosWal 538 1
A
.Have I observed it?
p
\\-
2 Q-Yes.
Have you observed the behavior of the CHR --
3 CHF phenomenon?
4 A
No, I have not observed it.
5 q
Eave you observed behavior of DNBR in the fuel 6
bundle?
7 A
No.
I don't imagine many people have.
8 Q
You have already acknowledged that you have no 9
knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in the 10 field of engineering, haven't you?
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
Then your assertion that it is reasonable to, assume 13 interaction of the three pena'lties is nothing more than 14 speculation on your part, isn't it?
15 Mr. H0DDER:
I object to that question.
It is 16 Putting words in the witness' mouth that he hasn't even uttered, 17 and I think it is an improper mode of questioning, and I~ object 18 to that question.
19 JUDGE LAZO:
Well, I think the witness can handle 20 the question.
21 WITNESS:
Perhaps the use of the word, ' assumption' 22 is--- requires some explanation.
In mathematical analysis, 23 an assumption is what we start with.
And I think it is much g
24 more reasonable to start with an assumption that there may be Am.rwaal Reporters Inc.
}
25 interaction, and that is what I am saying in my report here.
l
- = _ -.
8-7-JoeWal
-539 4-
.It is such more. reasonable to start with the assumption; j
2
.that there may be interaction, because in order to determine f
what that interaction is, you have to do studies.
You have 3
to do testa, you have to collect statistics.
4 5
Once-y u have collected the data, you may find that the data tells you that there is no interaction, but I am saying 6
^
it is more reasonable to begin with the assumptions that there 7
may be interaction, than to begin with the assumption, based 8
9 upon no evidence, that there is no interaction.
S that is really the point that I was trying to 10 11 make in this particular statement.
It doesn't mean that if you start with the zesumption of interaction that you will end up 12
()
with the conclusion that there is significant interaction.
13 ja It is simply -- it simply leaves room for doing the a
15 necessary studies and determining what the truth is.
16 MS. WAGNER:
I have no fur'ther questions on voir dire.
37 JUDGE LAZO:
Mr. Hodder?
MR. HODDER:
I have'some redirect of this witness.
18 19 Very brief.
XXX INDEX 20 FURTHER DIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. HODDER:
3 l
22 Q
Dr. Edwards, do you feel capable by education and l
23 Experience to interpret probability assessments relating to
"}
24 thermo-dynamics, fluid mechanics, and CHF corelations at Turkey l Aa+dw3 Roorters, ine.
j 25 Point?
j i
4 5
8-8-JocWal 540 1
MR. COLL:
Excuse me.
Let me object unless counsel
,,)
t
2 specifies exactly what it is he means in that question.
I am --
3 that question was so generalized and non-specific that I don't 4
. understand it.
5 MMR. HODDER:
Well, then, for Mr. Colls sake I will 6
try to interpret the question.
7 BY MR. HODDER:
(Continuing) 8 Q
Let's qualify the question by indicating that my 9
reference to thermo-dynamics, fluid mechanics, and CHF 10 corelations, should reference those assessments and calculations
'll performed by the Staff and the Licensee in support of the 12 license amendment.
/"N
(_)
13 And the question is:
Do you, by your education and 14 expertise, feel that you are capable to interpret those 15 assessments relating to those items in the context of issuing 16 a license amendment at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant?
17 ]
MR. COLL:
Excuse me.
Same objection, and whether 18 he feels capable or not is irrelevant and immaterial to this 19 stage of the proceeding.
20 The witness has testified that, in fact, whether 21 or not he is capable he didn't do that.
He didn't perform i
22 any independent test ~ studies or calculations.
So, whether he 23 feels capable of doing it and interpreting it is irrelevant.
h 24 It does not add to his qualifications to testify l Ace Federst Reporters, Inc.
25 here today.
L
8-9-JoaWel-541 1
'MR.
HODDER:
Mr. Coll ia mischaracterizi.ng my 2
question.
My question was whether or not this witness by 3
his-expertise, training, and experience is capable of 4
analyzing and interpreting those probability assessments 5
that I referenced.
6 1 am asking the witness if he possesses experience 7
and training that will allow him to bring sufficient under-8 standing to those disciplines to perform the mathematical 9
exercise probability assessment that he has indicated that 10 he indeed does possess specific training and expertise in order 11 to perform.
12 In other words, the-line of discussion on voir dire
)
13 here is established that some basic or rudamentary understanding 14 is required to know how to perform a probability assessment 15 by a mathematician in interpreting this DNBR behavior in a 16 nuclear plant.
17 I am asking him, even though he has acknowledged that 18 he hasn't specifically studied this in a nuclear engineering 19 program, whether or not he has investigated in sufficient 20 depth the phenomena, the characteristics.of the phenomena to 21 allow him to then in turn perform those mathematical analyses 22 that he claims the expertise to be able to perform.
23 MR. COLL; Or that you didn't perform.
For which' h
24 he didn't perform.
Ae+ederzl Reporters, Inc.
25 JUDGE LAZO; I think that is understood, Mr. Coll.
542
~8-10-JodWal 1
MR. COLL:
Same objection.
(~l
'T k-2 JUDGE LAZO:
We will overrule the objection.
It is 3
a very. lengthy question, but Dr. Edwards, can you answer it?
4 WITNESS:
I actually have great difficulty answering 5
it, Mr. Chairman, for some of the reasons that has been 6
" mentioned.
7 It is a very general question, and I don't think I 8
can give a simple answer to it.
A professional person of any 9
stripe is constrained by what their professional competence 10 allows them to do.
l 11 And in my case, given time, given enough.information, 12 I no doubt could get into different levels of involvement with
)
13 the mathematical analyis at hand.
14 With the involvement that I have had to date, which 15.
has been limited to reading the documentation that is available, 16 my ability to assess or to interpret or to recalcuate any of 17 these things is extremely limited.
18 What I do believe that I can do, based upon 19 documentation that I have read, is identify certain weaknesses, 20 certain oversights, certain gaps, in the analysis which.seen 21 to be clear even on a fairly superficial acquaintance.
I 22 JUDGE LAZO:
And in view of those limitations, you 23 do not feel that any of your statements are an overstatement?
'g' 24 WITNESS:
No, I don't believe they are.
I don't Ace Pvderd Reporters, Inc.
25 believe they are.
8-11-JoaWel'
.543 1
JUDGE LAZO:
Continue.
13
\\/
2 BY~MR. HODDER:
(Continuing) 3 Q
Dr. Edwards, do you possess an indepth understanding 4
haaed on your training and experience of computer modeling 5
as a science?
6 A
Limited.
Again, I must say that a great deal of 7
27 knowledge about the problems that arise in computer modeling 8
is based upon my work at the Science Council of Canada, where 9
there was a great deal of input from many people in many 10 disciplines who use elaborate computer models, and they identified j
11 and brought to my attention a variety of difficulties that 4
12 arose in practice, which I would otherwise be totally unaware L
13
'o f.
14 For' example there was -- well, I-don't know if you 15 want' any examples, so I won't give any.
16 Q
Dr. Edwards, although you indicate you have not 17 Performed any original work in compute r modeling for DNBR, 18 do you, by your training in mathematics, possess' substantial i
19 expertise to perform probability assessments or interpret 20 mathematical corelations as they pertain to DNBR at Turkey 21 Point?
22 A
Yes, I do possess the basic requirements to do that, 23 and I have done probability calculations related to matters of
(~)
24 nuclear safety in Canada.
Aa4 Gor:.8 Reporters, Inc.
25 Again, it is limited by my knowledge of the detailed
544
^8-12-JosWs1 1
specifications, the detailed data base that is available, but
.O
\\#
2 I do have the necessary expertise to understand, to assess, 3
to judge.the techniques that are being used.
4 I am familiar with the techniques that I have 5
deacribed in the various reports.
6 Q
Dr. Edwards, isn't it true.that at least some of 7
-the Staff and Licensee's view your assessments as mathematical 8
exercises, susceptible to checking or other evaluation by other 9 ' mathematicians such as yourself?
10 A
To a large extent, that is true.
There is a great Lil deal of mathematical involvement.
For example, when you do the 12 thermal hydraulic analysis, it is,primarily mathematical computer l) 13 model, which has been tested against realistic physical 14 assumptions, but which is nevertheless a mathematical model..
15 A mathematical simulation of reality.
16 MR. HODDER:
Thank you, Dr. Edwards.
I have no 17 other questions.
18 MR. -COLL:
Your Honor, I move to strike Dr. Edwards' 19 testimony in its entirety on the. grounds that the witness has 20 clearly demonstrated that he is not an expert in the underlying 21 disciplines which are required for these types o'f analysis, l.
22 specifically, heat transfer, DNBR testing, CHF correlation, 23 DNBR thermo-dynamics, fluid mechanics, thermo-hydraulic 24 analysis.
Aa-d R gorwes.Inc.
I 25 He has never been personally involved or participated
8-13-JooWel 545 1
in any of the types of analysis that are being presented here 2
to the Board.
3.
-He has never been involved as an. expert consultant 4
or an expert witness on any of these matters.
5 He has admitted that he has never designed or used 6
computer models to do thermal hydraulic analysis of this type.
7 He has admitted that he is not familiar with the
'I 8
mathematical equations and the computer models used to evaluate 9
and analyze these phenomenon by the NRC and Florida Power and 10 Light Company in connection with these submittals.
11 He has indicated that he is wholly unfamiliar with 12 the Turkey Point Plant specific parameters', including the
()
13 instrumentation at the plant, the FSAR, and matters of that 14 nature.
15 He has admitted here on redirect that he has only 16 a limited ability to calculate or recalculate these types of 17 equations, and in fact he has admitted he has done no calcu-18 1ations whatsoever, and he says he has a limited expertise in 19 the area of computer modeling,-and again, he has done no 20 computer modeling or analysis of the computer modeling that 21 was done in this case.
j 22 He has done no checking, He has provided no 23 independent figures whatsoever and his conclusions and judgments eerd Reporters,Inc.
24 really amount to no more than a generalized criticism of the Aa-
-25 submittal for the amendment and the NRC's review of it.
8-14-JosWal 546 1
His assumptions are not hased upon any expertise that
^")
I 2
he has.
His testimony is littered with phrases.of
'might be,'
3 o r,- 'may he,'
or 'likely or not,'-or whatever, and he has no 4 ' basis whatsoever to make those statements.
5 I am prepared to go through and identify particular 6
areas of the testimony, particularly the affidavit, in that I
7 regard but I have satisfied myself that by the time I am 8
finished, I am merely asking the Board to strike all of this 9
witness' testimony, and consequently based upon this witness' 10 sworn testimony on voir dire, I don't think a sufficient basis 11 has been -- a predicate has been laid by the Interveners to i
12 permit this witness to testify as an expert as he proposes
(~x
' !,_)
13 to do on'this testimony.
14 JUDGE LAZO:
Ms. Wagner?
15 MS. WAGNER:
The Staff as well objects to the 16 admission of this testimony in evidence.
17 JUDGE LAZO:
All of it?
18 MS. WAGNER:
I think there may be one paragraph, 19 possibly more.
I would like a minute to confer with my client.
20 I think-perhaps the discussions concerning statistics and 21 statistical analysis may be an area that we would not oppose 2?
the admission in evidence of, but the rest of it I think 23 Mr. Coll has really gone through the reasons.
24 By the witness' own admission, we don't believe that Aa.
erst Reporters, Inc.
25 he is competent to testify generally as to matters and issues
.~
8-15-JoeWal 547 1
in this proceeding, and I won't repeat th.e reasons that Mr.
2 Coll has already given.
P 3-
-Could I have that moment now?
4 JUDGE LAZO:
You surely can, yes.
5
-(Staff, attorneys confer.)
' End 8, 6
SueW fols.
7 8
s...
9 10 l
11 12 13 14 r.
A 15 16 4
17 18 1
19
- 20 21 4
22 23
~
24
- Aa feders Reporters. Inc.
- s 25 f
e
~.. _ _ - _,,, - _. _,., _.
_.,. - -. -, _.,,. - - - - - - - ~. - -.
548
- 9-1-SueWalsN MS. WAGNER:
Judge Lazo, we are ready-to proceed.
U 2
i JUDGE LAZO:
All-right, Ms. Wagner.
Do you wish 3
.to proceed?
4' MS. WAGNER:
Yes, please.
Taking the Affidavit 5
first, the Staff would oppose the admission of the Affidavit 6
in evidence with the exception of Paragraph 7 of the Affidavit
~
7 and'the first sentence of Paragraph 8 of the Affidavit.
i 5
8 The rest of the Affidavit we oppose for the reasons b
9 we'have just stated previously.
10 JUDGE LAZO:.Very well.
11 MR. HODDER:
I would like to understand that.
12 You say it's all right for 7 and.the first sentence of 8
-13 and nothing else?
i e
MS. WAGNER:
That's our position.
We do not 15 oppose the admission of the testimony contained in Paragraph 7 16 and the first sentence of Paragraph 8, because these seem i
17 to lm statements limited to mathematics and the witness states
~..
1E he is. making these statements as a mathematician.
i Turning to the Outline of Testimony, the Staff i
20 would not oppose certain portions of that.
The first 21 paragraph we would not oppose the admission into evidence.
(
i:
??,
That's the unnumbered -- it is an unnumbered paragraph.
V
' 23 !
The paragraph that is numbered Number 2, we would
()
2i not. oppose.
And a portion of Paragraph 3 we would not oppose, i Am. Federal Reporters, Inc. p 25 [. That ~ is. the first part of Paragraph 3 down to four lines from L'
)
p
549 the bottom beginning "Moreover."
- 9-2-SueWalsh g.
(
2 We w uld oppose the admission of Paragraph Number 4 n the Outline of Testimony on the grounds that.it is repeti-3 tious of certain things in the Affidavit that we are not 4,
PPosing the admission in evidence of.
The first sentence 5
f Paragraph 4 is virtually identical in language to the 6
first sentence in Paragraph 8 of the Affidavit.
And I 7
~~
8 JUDGE LAZO:
Which you have not opposed?
9 MS. WAGNER:
Which we have not opposed, but we 10 i
don't think it should appear in two separate documents.
The j
j) statement is virtually identical, and I think to -- it's 12 ust repetitious evidence and it really is not appropriately - ;
13 should not appropriately be in.
It also possibly could be confusing.
33 JUDGE LAZO:- All right.
16 I
MS. WAGNER:
The second and third sentences in 37 Paragraph 4, we think should not come in for similar reasons.
IE p
That is, those sentences are similar to parts of Paragraph 7 l
f the Affidavit that we are not. opposing.
20 And, again it's repetitious and possibly confusing.
21.
H It has virtually identical statements appearing in two 77 1
P aces.
It doesn't really contribute anything in addition.
l 23 24 The portions of this Outline of Testimony that we
- er:;l Reporters, Inc.,l, Ace-25 l are not opposing are sections dealing with basically either i
.i;!
l i
-,m..
550 i
b.49-3-SueWalsh statement of the contention of the Intervenor or discussions i()
of mathematical --
2 JUDGE LAZO:
Well, Ms. Wagner, what is in Paragraph 3
Number 4 of the Outline that you are not opposing?
4 MS. WAGNER:
Well, Paragraph 4 of the Outline we 5
Oppose in its totality because the same information appears 6
in two different paragraphs of the Affidavit.
7 JUDGE LAZO:
Oh, oh.
That wasn't clear.
But it's 8
opposed in its entirety?
9 MS. WAGNER:
That's correct.
10 jj JUDGE LAZO:
And mostly because it's repetitious in your view?
12 e
(
13 [
MS. WAGNER:
That's correct, because the contents i
- g are the same as something else that we are not opposing.
15 It doesn't make any difference to us whether it comes in 16 ;
here or in the Affidavit, but we don't think it should come t
j7{
in twice.
JUDGE LAZO:
Is that all, Ms. Wagner?
18 39 MS. WAGNER:
Well, we also -- not on grounds of 20 {
qualifications, but.on grounds of relevance and probative.
value, we would move to strike Paragraph 6 of the Affidavit.
21 22 I don't know whether -- are you ready to hear t
from us now on that?
23
+
24 JUDGE LAZO:
Surely.
f As-d Reporters, Inc.
25 l
MS. WAGNER:
Paragraph 6 is something that we don't
)
i t
551 i
- 9-4-SueWalsh i
.believe has any relevance to the issues in this proceeding and has no probative value and should not be admitted.
2 i
-3n JUDGE LAZO:
Even though we wrote it?
I!
4 MS. WAGNER:
It was appropriate where you wrote 5 1 it.
6; (Laughter.)
I l
7!
But we think the point that is trying to be made here is not appropriate.
And it's repetitious.
E i
9 (Laughter.)
10 MR. HODDER:
Members of the Board, I'm having j
problems here.
We didn't bring enough spare Affidavits for-i l
me to follow.
And I'm not able to even be in on the joke.
()
R MS. YOUNG:
Mr. Hodder, excuse me, but I might f
add that for the Reporters 700 are required, for anything i
I received in evidence, *Q tcc ide three copies.
So, you had better be sure to do that before we leave here today.
MR. HODDER:
I grant you that.
But I asked someone I J.
else to do it who didn't, while I was paying my home mortgage.
So, you will just have to forgive me that.
JUDGE LAZO:
Well, okay.
Let me just say that if 21 these documents should come in as exhibits, the three-copy I
t rule would apply.
i D
If they came in as testimony bound into the f'
mis)seni nnenen. n.c. -24 ;
transcript,..then I would think that the Reporters could make i
25 copies so that each transcript would have a copy in it.
552
.I 4
- 9-5-SueWalsh Do you have a question or a comment, Mr. Hodder?
k.
-2 MR. HODDER:
Yes.
I'm trying to inove this along.
3 t I would almost like to talk to my witness for a moment.
l!.
1 JUDGE LAZO:
Do you wish to have time to do that?
5)
MR. HODDER:
I would like to have that time, if 6i I may.
I haven't been able to stay with it as it is, and I p
7' would appreciate a couple of minutes if I may.
C!
JUDGE LAZO:
Well, shall we take our mid-9 afternoon recess?
When did we start, at 2 o' clock?
10 Why don't we take a fifteen minute recess?
MR. HODDER:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
t l
(Whereupon, a recess is taken at 3:21 p.m.,
to
(~)
l i inlea 12 reconvene at 3:42 p.m. this same date.)
l JUDGE LAZO:
Will the hearing come to order, please?
h Mr. Hodder, have you had sufficient time to confer I 4
l with your witness?
l li MR. HODDER:
I will never had had that, sir.
l (Laughter.)
i But I am ready.
l 21 JUDGE LAZO: 'You are ready?
Fine.
s MR. HODDER:
As I understand them, the objections B
of the Licensee and the Staff to the testimony and qualifica-I' I) 2J tions of the witness, Dr. Gordon Edwards, are based on a n... n_,m.,,m 25 claim that his training in mathematics which he has presented i
553
- 9-6-SueWalsh here today isn't a sufficient basis to allow him to make s
2 the judgments.
Well, I would say, just as Mr. Dzenis, the 3 l; Licensee's witness, admitted he knew little about nuclear i
4 reactors and told us rather candidly that most of his 5
knowledge of nuclear engineering and reactors came about as 6
a result of experience rather than formal training, and this t
t 7'
Board took that testimony.
So, we are asking the Board to I
E' consider here that, in fact, we have a gold medalist in 9i mathematics from the University of Toronto, in the form of l
10 Dr. Gordon Edwards.
'I We have a man whose discipline and expertise is i
in that science that is kind of rare, bec,ause b'y training-s i
)
I2 and experience he-is an applied mathematician.
And that's l
s-a special kind of mathematician who interprets scientific data.
For example, in his Outline of Testimony, the first i
thing he begins'to do -- and this is Paragraph 1 of the Out-line which the Staff has asked to come out and which, of h
I course, the Licensee would see denied -- considers geometry of a mixed core.
And that geometrical component is of primary 1
M importance to an applied mathematician.
I think to do justice to this witness is to under-stand what being an applied mathematician means, because if i
')
, 4,(+ #,o nemncet om.youtrackdownthroughhisoutlineofTestimony,whichisveryl 24
~
i I
g' r, important to our case, although it's brief, but everyone of l
554
- 9-7-SueWalsh those, Paragraph 1 addresses geometry, 2 is probability, and
(
~2 3 is modeling; and then, of course, testing of those mathe-i 3F matical models in Paragraph 4.
Everything that he has done 4
is properly an exercise in the science of applied mathematics.
5 And I just wish to address first the suggestions 6
of the Staff that portions of this testimony should come 7
out.
I don't feel that the reasons they have given are E
reasonable ones.
In fact, the suggestion because he summed 9
.up, repeated himself in Paragraph 4, was repetitive is kind 10 of a frivolous and ridiculous objection in my view and it i
shouldn't be given any credence.
i
~
The Staff has also asked us to delete the last sentence appearing in Paragraph 3 of the Outline of Testimony by Dr. Edwards.
And I just don't see any legitimate purpose in seeking to delete that given scientific fact which is a given, or a fact basically that is acknowledged all around in mathematical modeling.
The fa ct that running the fuel hotter might result i
in a release of a fraction of iodine is also another thing that is commonly known and probably isn't going to affect i
- 'l the outcome of this hearing whether the Board allows the statement or not.
But the fact is that these are scientific 23 givens that are known facts and conceded by all the parties.
l~
And why it should come out of Dr. Edwards' testimony!
()
24
.wShinal Hemrim, lx.
j 25 here, it's'just not a relevant or important consideration.
It's i
555 i
- 9-8-SueWalsh part of his testimony.
It's a given.
2 So, asffar as that goes, pertaining to the Outline l
3p of, Testimony, with the understanding that this man is an 4
4 applied mathematician all the objections of the Staff and 5
Licensee should fail.
In reiterating that, I ask the Board 6'
to once again just very briefly reconsider their own questions, 7
because their questions -- the three questions that the Board l
c, propounded here were questions dealing with uncertainties i
9 and probabilities and whether or not mathematically assessed i
10 margins of safety, or reductions of those margins, were
- i significant.
I
!?
All of those considerations call into -- call
()
mathematical skills into play to perform.
And I think that i
this Board here has a unique opportunity in having.a gold medalist in applied mathematics available to them to testify.
And I think to assail him because that's his area of expertise is just totally improper.
He hasn't deceived the Board.
He has candidly and tacitly admitted that he I
hasn't had formal studies in, for example, thermal hydraulics and nuclear engineering.
i l
4 71 But he has explained to the Board that he has l
t inquired into matters with sufficient depth to allow him to 23 make the judgments that are required in his discipline which i
24
(~}
again is applied mathematics.
j
,i Ams #.ai nciwim. t.c 25 I think, therefore, that the motions by the Staff f
i 556 I
49-9-SueWalsh and-the Licensee should be denied in their entirety.
I recognize that in addressing this I haven't gone into greath
~
2 i
l depth as to the Affidavit which has been sought to be dis-i 3p E.
4 allowed, but in my cursory examination in the limited time 5
available to~me I found the Affidavit to contain the same t
i 6
type of mathematical analysis that Dr.~ Edwards is qualified 7 !
to. perform.
E I Point out that even tlun Staff agreed that 9
portions of that Affidavit could come in.
And that some of l.
10 1their objection was based merely on repetitiousness rather-
{
than any deficiency on the part of the witness.
i 12 That's the end of my statement.
l f)
- 3 JUDGE LAZO
Thank you, sir.
(The Board members are conferring.)
' JUDGE LAZO:
Well, in view of the limited scope and the qualified language of the proposed testimony, and based
-upon Dr. Edwards' demonstration of expertise during the technical interrogation of Mr. Dzenis, we find Dr. Edwards qualified as an expert and will admit the Outline of Testimony
^
.and the November 5 Affidavit into' evidence.
71 Therefore, we will deny the motion of Licensee and l
Staff.
I think, in short, we will say that we do not believe 23 that Dr. Edwards has overstepped the bounds of his expertise
{~)
24 in the testimony that has been proposed.
i
, A n wni.,s a n on m n c JudgeLazo--Ididn'tmeantointerrupt.f 25 MR. COLL:
4
,, + -..
em =- -.-
---,e-,-n--
-.--,,----,,---w,--,-
557
- 9-10-SueW 1 1
I thought you were finished.
A)
\\'-
2 JUDGE LAZO:
Go ahead.
l 3n MR. COLL:
Recognizing that the Board has ruled, i
4 our motion was to strike the testimony in its entirety.
For 5'
the record, I would like to outline those portions then that 61 we would-move to strike if the testimony is not going to be i
i I
7 !
striken in its entirety, those specific portions.
I E
MR. HODDER:
Mr. Chairman, wouldn't it be more 9
appropriate for them to file a motion to strike after these 10 proceedings since the testimony has been ruled admissible?
i That is, a written motion I mean.
M JUDGE LAZO:
Well, Mr. Coll, what do you want to
()
U do?.
Go through paragraph by paragraph and --
MR. COLL:
Yes, sir.
I think for the record --
JUDGE LAZO:
-- and reargue --
MR. COLL:
No, sir.
I don't intend to provide i
any additional argument.
I can go through here and tell you i
which portions of this testimony we move to strike and state briefly the grounds, therefore, without argument so that the record will be protected for the Appeal Board.
?1 MR. HODDER:
Mr. Chairman, I think they can just as well protect the record in a less confusing fashion by M
submitting a written motion to strike, submitting whatever
.*(mnai twnnwn. nu.
designated testimony and supporting argument they wish.
It's
')
24 20 inappropriate to' retard this proceeding further by reciting it l
i m
- ~.
558
- 9-ll-SueW' 1 l
in this manner.
It's a hardship on us, because we don't have as ready access.to transcripts of this hearing as the 2
i L
3 other parties do.
. ll 4
And we feel that if they want to make such a 5 l.
motion, the appropriate way to do it and fair way to do it i
i 1
6!
would be'in a written motion that is separate from.the t
l 7'
proceedings this afternoon.
a.
i
.F E!
JUDGE LAZO-Well, but if we are going to have a l
9; motion to strike and consider it, we certainly don't want l
i 10 to continue the hearing and wait for that.
MR. HODDER:
That's,~of course, up to the Board,.
l Mr. Chairman.
It's giving them c second bite at the apple
]
()
which I feel is inappropriate at this point and time.
l The Board has ruled, and the Board should proceed.
i s.
If they want to find error or suggest exception to the:
I Board's ruling, then they have that prerogative.
But they l.
shouldn't be allowed now, once the Board has ruled and heard 18 their argument,.to come back now and renew the argument for l
the Board's reconsideration.-
i I think that's an attack that is inappropriate 4
?1 at'this junctsre.
j i
JUDGE LAZO:
Mr. Hodder, it may be appropriate,
'3 because it's a different motion.
Mr. Coll is quite correct.
e
~
24 ro(s_}.mi anxuim, im <
He did move to strike in its entirety.
And we 3
25 have denied that motion.
He now wishes to protect his appellate i
l t
~
559
- 9-12-SueWI rights and I think we can give him that opportunity.
It I
(N /
should not take overly long, should it, Mr. Coll?
2 l
3 MR._ COLL:
No, sir.
4 JUDGE LAZO:
Please proceed.
5+
MR. COLL:
Turning to the Affidavit of November 5, 6{
Page 2, we would move to strike the last sentence contained i
7 in Paragraph 4 on.the grounds that again the witness has t
demonstrated no expertise to make.this statement, he has 9
performed no analysis to justify the statement.
i i
10 We would move to strike Paragraph 5 in its entirety i on the same grounds.
i We would move to strike the portion of Paragraph 6
()
beginning with the sentence, the third sentence which begins i
with the word,." Firstly, the cautious driver has no particular incentive..." et cetera on Page 3.
id MR. HODDER:
I'm sorry.
I don't see the word
" Firstly," Mr. Coll.
Do you see the " Behavior of prudent i
driver?"
That's what I see.
END #9 Mary flws i
4 21
?3
{'}
o,...,. 24 '
. ~,.,
25 i
i i
560 r%
j MR. COLL: Keep reading, the second sentence in 2
the paragraph below the quote which beg 1ns with the word 3
" Firstly."
JUDGE COLE: Is that where you wish to begin 4
5
.your motion to strike, Mr. Coll?
I see " Firstly."
MR. COLL: I wish to move to strike the rest of 6
that paragraph commencing there to the end of the paragraph 7
on.the grounds aga1n that the witness has indicated that he 8
9 has no qualifications or expertise to make these judgments, and in particular is not familiar with any of the financial 10 n
data or information concerning thw Turkey Point reactor or 12 the instrumsntation of the' Turkey Point reactor, et cetera.
We would also move to strike paragraph 7 in 13 its entirety and paragraphs 8 and 9 in their entirety on
\\m-34 the same grounds.
15 Turning to the Outline of Testimony, we would g
j7 move to strike paragraph one in its entirety.
We would move to strike the last sentence in 18 paragraph 2.
j9 JUDGE COLE:
Both of these are on page 27 20 MR. COLL:
This is the Outline of Testimony, 21 22 and 1t is u'nnumbered.
This is the one that was prefiled.
JUDGE COLE:
Thank you.
23 MR. COLL:
And we would move to strike in 24 paragraph 3 the third sentence in that paragraph beginning 25 O
I L
562 f\\
5*
1 q}
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
The first full sentence after the 4
quotes, would you read that ~f or me beginning with the words 5
"The licensee."
A~
This is on page 2?
6 0
Correct.
7 A
At the top?
8 Q.
Correct.
9 A
"The licensee has indicated that in'its 10 j) opinion the antwcr to the first question 1s no, but the 12 answer to the other two questions is yes."
Q Can you demonstrate for me where the licensee 13 O) has-indicated that?
\\_,
ja A
Give me time and.I will find it.
Would you 15 like me to give you the chapter and verse?
g j7 Q
Did you understand my question?
18 A
Yes, I understand your question.
Q Could you please provide for me where the 39 licensee has indicated 'that the answer to the first 20 question is no, but that the answers to the other two 21 questions is yes?
22 A
Yes.
.One moment, please.
23 (Pause.)
24 I have here a document entitled " Licensee's 25 O
561 v9 1
with the word "Therefore, there is every indication" down j(_j/-
2 to the end of the paragraph.
3 And we would move to strike paragraph 4 in its 4
entirety again for the reasons expressed in our motion to 5
strike all of the testimony, and in particular on the 6
grounds.that the witness has not demonstrated proper 7
expertise or qualifications to make these statements, nor 8
has he done any studies or tests to support the statements 9
that are made in this testimony that we seek to strike.
to JUDGE LAZO:
Well, the Board will deny your 11 motion. Dr. Edwards may be only minimally qualified in some 12 of these relevant areas, but we believe that he has not 13 presented statements which overstep the bounds of his pq
(_)
ja expertise.
15 MR. COLL:
Yes, sir. We are prepared to 16 cross-examine Dr. Edwards.
17 JUDGE LAIO:
Please proceed, sir.
18 CROSS-EXAMINATION 19 BY MR. COLL:
20 Q
D r'.
Edwards, turn to page 21 THE WITNESS:
One moment, please.
I 22 (Pause.)
23 Yes, sir.
24 BY MR. COLL:
25 Q
Turn to page 2 of your affidavit of November o
563 i
Statement of Material Facts As To.Which There Is No. Genuine ~
2 Issue To Be Heard-With Respect To Intervenors' Contention 3
D."
It is dated September 20th, 1985, respectfully 4
submitetd by Harold F.
Reese, Michael A.
Bausner and 5
Stephen P.
Kranz.
-6 There are three major sections to the document 7
labeled A, B and C, and those sections refer to each one of 8
the three questions. In Part.A it says as to, and it quotes 9
the.first question, and the answer is "No."
to Part B says as to, and there is the second 11
.- q u e s t i o n that the Board raised, and the answer is "Yes."
12 And Part C, as to the third question, the 13 standa/d is as discussed above in fact being satisfied.
So 14 the answer is yes there, too.
15 Q
Turning to the th1rd question, would you read 16 that for me?
17 A
Oh, I see.
Excuse me, you are quite right.
18 Q
What is quite right?
19 A
I misinterpreted. The question actually states 20 or demands a negntive answer, whether if that standard
. 21.
is not being satisfied, the reduction in the margin of 22 safety has been significant.
Basically what the licensee 23 has answered is that the standard is being satisfied.
24 Q
That is correct.
They didn't answer it yes or 25 no, did they?
D
564 p h j
A No, they did not.
J 2
Q So your testimony is incorrect on page 2 of 3
your affidaviti is it not?
A That is an inaccuracy indeed.
4 5
Q Going to paragraph 4 on that same page, would 6
you read the last sentence of that paragraph for me?
A On paragraph 4?
7 Q
Correct.
8 9
A "On the face of it, therefore, the applicability of the DNBR of 1.17 to the OFA fuel in 10 11 the transitional m1xed core 1: highly que:tionsbic based as 12 it is on a hypothetical extrapolation of results obtained from a consideration of homogeneous cores only."
j3 f'T Q
What do you mean by "On the face of it"?
xj ja A
Based upon the documentation which has been 15 provided by the licensee and by the NRC.
16 j7 Q
Please tell me what that is?
18 A
Well, there is a lot of it.
(Pause.)
jg 20 May I refer to Mr. Dzenis' testimony of yesterday?
I believe that that is probably the quickest 21 22 response because Mr. Dzenis I think testified on this point and made it quite clear that 23 Q
Sir, what is the date of this affidavit?
24 A
This affidavit is dated November 5th. I was 25
065 I
i 1
Just looking at an affidavit of Edward Drenis dated the 8th 2
of August 1984, and the difficult is that I would have to 3
take time to go through it and see if that particular 4
affidavit of Mr. D:enis contains that information. I am not 5
sure if it does or not.
6 But where I got this information was from 7
various affidavits and various documents from FDL and 8
various documents from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
9 Q
But you can't identify those documents for me 10 now with any particularityi is that correct?
11 A
I could point to Mr. D:enis' testimcny of 12 yesterday as the most clear indication.
0 Well, sir, you didn't have Mr. D:enis' j3
[j L,!
14 testimony of yesterday in front of you when you prepared 15 this affidavit of November 5.
16 A
That is correct.
If you would like me to go 17 back in t1me and retrace my steps and find out what 18 ev1dence I was using at that time, I will do so, but I will 19 require time to do it.
20 0
How much time would you require to do it?
21 A
How much time does the Board allow for this?
22 I will be glad to go through the ---
23 Q
Well, siri we will ask that question next, but 24 my question to you is how much time would it require you to 25 do that?
s
566 i
(Pause.)
2 A
It may require about 10 minutes.
Would you 3
- 1ike me to do that?
4 Q
I would like to know what it is that it is on 5
the face of that you can make this determination that you make and this characterization that you make in the last 6
7 sentence of your testimony where you conclude that the applicability of the DNBR 1.17 to the OFA fuel in the 8
9 transitonal mixed core is highly questionable._ On the face 10 of what?
ij A
At this point in time if we are talking about 12 substance, I would refer.to Mr. Hsii's prefiled testimony and Mr. Dzenis' prefiled testimony.
13
(~\\
\\)
j, Q
On the basis of those two documents ---
A If we are talking about the substance of that 15 statement, I would say on the basis of those documents.
On g
17 the face of those documents, this is certainly the case.
18 Q
Weren't those documents filed.long after you 39 prepared this affidavit?
A Yes, they were.
20
-Q What d1d you have, sir, when you prepared his 21 22 affidavit and this testimony that entitled you to make that statement?
23 A
I had numerous documents from the NRC, _from 24 FPL, numerous documents from the Board having to do with 25 O
567 pq 1
Contention D.
2 Q
Can you point to any such document at this 3
time, sir, for the benefit of the Board as to what it was 4
that you were referring to in that sentence?
5 A
At this particular point in time I cannot.
6 Q
Thank you.
7 Q
Is it correct, sir, that you did no 8
independent tetts or Calculations or analyses to determine 9
whether or not the applicability of the DNBR of 1.17 to the 10 OFA fuel in the transitional m1xed core was highly 11 questionable?
12 A
The statement was based upon the fact that the studies which were done on the homogeneous core were 13 14 mathematical studies which were unsupported by experimental 15 tests.
In other words, the extrapolation of the results 16 form homogeneous cores to non-homogeneous cores was 17 unsupported by detailed measurements.
18 0
That was your conclusion?
i9 A
That is right.
20 Q
My question is did you do any independent 21 tests or studies or calculations to cupport this statement?
22 A
Let me make it clear that the tests and 23 studies that I drew upon in making these statements were 24 the tests and studies which FPL has done and which NRC has 25 done.
p b
568 m
Q My question, sir, is did you do any tests or
,(V}
2 studies or calculations?
A No, I did not.:
Others did.
3 Q
You state in the same sentence that the-4 5
applicability of the DNBR of 1.17 to the OFA fuel is based 6
on a hypothetical extrapolation of results from a consideration of homogeneous cores only; is that correct?
7 A
That is correct.
8 1
9 Q
And where did you obtain that information?
A Again, if we are referring to substance, I 10 gj would refer you to Mr. Hsii's prefiled testimony and Mr.
Drenis' prefiled testimony.
1 12 0
W'II' Si
isn't it correct that there was no 13
('N
'\\_)
hypothetical extrapolation done, but in fact caculations ja were done?
15 A
There were some calculations done.
Those j
- 16 calculations did not proceed from the assumption of a 37 18 non-homogeneous core.
Q You are aware, however, that the effect of j9 a mixed core was analyzed using detailed thermal hydraulic 20 analyses of differing hydraulic resistances as described by 21 Mr. Dzenis yesterday?
22 A
That is correct.
l 23 Q
And you are aware that there were calculations 24 that were made to envelope all of the mixed core 25 w
569 1
configurations of the effect of the change in flow 2
resistance on flow distribution?
3 A
I think Mr. Dzenis indicated that he did not 4
envelope all of the core configurations. He looked at some, 3
three, and the indications were that the penalty which he 6
came up with enveloped the three that he looked at.
7 0
Is that your interpretation of his testimony?
8 A
The interpretation of the testimony is that 9
this was considered an engineering judgment of Mr. Dzenis 10 to be a representative sample of possible core 1:
configurotio'ns which would give a bounding value.
12 Q
Well, let me just find his testimony, sir.
13 (Pause.)
- i 14 I am reading now from page 7 of his prefiled 15 testimony, the first full paragraph on that page which 16 states:
" Exact reactor core loading patterns cannot be 17 de11ned in advance for all reactors for every fuel loading 18 because of their dependence on specific plant operating 19 schedules and the specific design requirements of 20 particular refueling cycles.
Therefore, these mixed core 21 analyses included various combinations of ' checkerboard' 22 configurations that could be loaded into actual cores.
23 These configurations were selected to envelope the expected 24 configurations included in reload licensing submittals."
25 You have no reason to dispute that testimony,
570 f'
(\\x_-)
do you, sir?
i 2
A No.
3 Q
And isn't it true that there was in fact a calculation made of a three percent DNBR penalty reduction 4
for the OFA fuel which was sufficient to bound all of the 5
calculational effects of the transition core geometry?
6 A
That was the intent of Mr. Dzenis' study.
7 Under testimony he indicated that he looked at three 8
9 core configurations.
10 Q
Do you have any reason to believe that those 13 three core configurations, sir, do not envelope all the 12 configurations for the reload submittals?
A I think the question is rather the other way.
33 f'N
(_)
ja As a mathematician ---
0 31
just answer my question and then we will 15 set to your question.
Do you have any reason to believe 16
- 7 that the those three configurations don't envelope all of 18 the configurations for the reload submittals as stated in his direct testimony?
j9 A
He didn't state that.
He stated they were 20 expected to envelope.
That 15 not the same thing as saying 21 that they do enevelope. His testimony was not that they did 22
'DV'IOP
but that they were expected to envelope.
23 Q
No, sir.
It said that these configurations 24 were selected to envelope.
25 O
571
~
)
A Were selected to envelope.
2 Q
The expected configurations included in reload 3
licensing submittals.
4 A
Okay.
5 Q
You just said you had no reason to dispute 6
that test 1 mony.
7 A
No, I have no reason to dispute that 8
testimony.
9 Q
Isn't it correct then that a three percent to DNBR penalty reduction for the OFA fuel was calculated it which wa: sufficient to bound all the calculational effects 12 of the transition core geometry?
13 A
No, that is where I have difficulty.
F 'i ja Q
But you didn't perform any independent 15 calculations to show otherwise, did you?
Did you, sir?
16 MR. HODDER: Don't badger the witness. I object 17 to the mood of questioning here and the semantic game that 18 is being played.
On the last questions when he rereads 1g testimony of a witness, which shouldn't even be a proper 20 question because the issue is not here what Mr. D:enis 21 said.
The issue is what th1s witness said. And to ask this 22 witness to interpret and character 12e D:enis' statements is 23 improper and the badgering is improper.
24 And another thing that is improper is his use 25 of semantics because D:enis said it was designed to
_i I
572
.hN envelop.
That means in the hope perha'ps vain that it would j
k.
2 envelop.
It doesn't imply certainty.
I think that Mr. Coll's line of questioning 3
here is far afield of cross-examination of this witness' 4
5 testimony and is objectionable for that reason.
MR. COLL:
Your Honor, the counsel is 6
mischaracterizing the testimony.
It is not designed to 7
envelope.
It is not semantics. It said it was selected to 8
9 envelope.
JUDGE LAZO:
Well, let's try and move on, 10 it please.
MR. COLL:
Do you have an anseser to my 12
-question, sir?
13
)
THE WITNESS:
Would you repeat the question?
j, MR. COLL:
Could you read you back, please, 15 16 (The pending question was read by the 17 18 reporter.)
THE WITNESS:
No.
39 BY MR. COLL:
20 Q
So in fact there was not a hypothetical 21 extrapolation as you state in your testimony, but in fact 22 23
.there was a mixed core analysis, there were calculations to envelope the mixed core configurations and there was a 24 calculation of a three percent penalty to bound the 25
573
~
1 calculation effects of the transitional core geometry, all V
2 of which you have done no studies or calculations to 3
disputei isn't that correct, sir?
4 A
It is correct that these studies were carried 5
out.
It is likewise correct that these_ studies were 6
mathematical in nature and that these studies were 7
unconfirmed by physical measurement, ano that is why I 8
call them hypothetical.
9 Mathematical calculations of this order, which 10 are unsupported by phys 1 cal measurements, have to be 11 classified, in my opinion as a professional applied 12 mathematician as hypothetical.
They must be tested against 13 experimental reality.
(eq
()
ja Q
Well, the thermal hydraulic analyses that were j3 done to analy:e the mixed core were based upon experimental 16 data, were they not?
17 A
They were based upon experimental data for 18 homogeneous cores, yes.
39 Q
Correct. That was actual physical data, was it 20 not?
21 A
For. homogeneous cores, yes.
Not for mixed 22 cores.
23 Q
There were also hydraulic experiments which 24 produced data from two fuel assemblies side by side of 25 different types, were there not?
el b
\\
s,'
. -. ~. - -
.. ~. -
t 574
< b^'
A That is correct, not large-scale tests and 2
lar.ge-scale measurements, not. full-lattice or' full-core 3
measurements.
Q Full-size fuel assembles, correct?
4 A
Full-size fuel assembles.
5 6
7 8
9 10 1
(.
11 12 13
,..O-i, 15 e 6
16
.17 18 19 20
.21 l
22 1
1 1
23 24 25 O
L y
=1m,,=-
_w-w e -t-e ew c w. s -w,
+,,e,-
.r-,
m-y em e, ew ww., n --
.11-12 csWal' 575 1
Q Tull size fuel' assemblies, correct?
(3 V
2 A
full size fuel assemblies.
3 Q-Of the same type that are used in the core, too?
-4 A
.Yes, correct.
5 q
Turning to paragraph 5 of your affidavit on Page 2, 6
you refer in the first sentence to, quote:
All the complicatiort 7
and difficulties that that assumption entails, end quote.
8 By that, I assume you are referring to the 9
assumption of~a mixed core, is that correct?
10 A
Yes, that is correct.
11 Q
What complications and difficulties are you 12 referring to?
(_M I'
)
13 A
I lun ref erring to the problem of verifying that 14 a mathematical model corresponds to reality.
When you make 15 substantial changes to an existing mathematical model, it is 16 then necessary to verify that the alterations that have been 17 made conform to physical reality.
c i
18 When you have non-uniform cores, particularly with 19 not just two types of bundles.but three, that is we also have 20 the anuler poison rods, it complicates the geometry of the 21 core.
Consequently, it complicates the hydrodynamics of the j
22 core, and consequently i requires further experimental 23 verification to see if that mathematical model is going to i
{~}
24 correspond to physical reality.
Aws-dat Reporters, loc.
-25 Q
What mathematical model are you referring to?
I,
11-. 2-JooWo1 576 1
A I am.re, ferring to the THINC computer code, which is
('-
2 basically a computerized mathematical model.
A. thermal
~
3 hydraulic.model[
4 Q
And what problems of verifying that mathematical 5
model -- what problems are you envisioning in determining whether 6
or not that mathematical model conforms to reality?
What are 7
you talking about?
8 Are'you questioning the validity of the THINC 9
computer code which has been accepted by the NRC Staff?
,10 MR. HODDER:
Could we admonish counsel to present
- c %
1 11 one question at a time?
i.
12 JUDGE LAZO:
Very well.
h3 WITNESS:
Let me answer by quoting the U.
S.
Nuclear
'14 Regulatory Commissi~on's Standard Review Plan, NUREG 080800, 15 Section 4.4, Thermal Hydraulie Design.
l 16 On page 4.4.3, Item No. 2 on that page, it says:
17 Problems affecting DNBR, or CPR limits, such as. fuel t
i
'18 densification or rod bowing, are accounted for by an appropriate design penalty whi.ch is determinedexperimentallyoranalyticallf.
'O 20 Subchannel hydraulic analysis codes, such as those described in 21 References 8 and 9 -- and by the way, Reference 9 is the THINC 22 code
- shou 1ldbe used to calculate local fluid conditions 23 with.infuelpasemblies for use in PWR DNB correlations.
- er:A Reporters.'inc.
24 The. acceptability of such codes must be demonstrated Ace-25 by measurements made in large lattice experiments, or power
' 3-Jc0Wo1 577 1
. reactor cores.
l
)
2 The effects of radio pressure gradings in the core 3
flow distribution should be evaluated,'et cetera.
~
4 This is what I am referr'inE to.
I am refe'rring to' 5
a requirement by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that one code s
6 such as the THINC Code is used, the accepta'bility must be 7
demonstrated by measurements made not by.two bundles side by 8
side, but in large lattice experiments or power reactor cores, 9
and that is where the difficulty lies.
10 Q
Do you know whether or not the THINC code acceptability I
11 has been made, demonstrated by measurements made in large lattice 12 experiments or power reactor cores?
( )...
13 A
Not in mixed cores.
14 Q
How do you know that?
15 A
I know that only by the fact that the Licensee found 16 it necessary to do the computer calculations for homogeneous
~
17 cores, because those were the conditions for which the THINC 18 Code was qualified and certified for use_, and only subsequently 10 to do additional calculations based on assumptions of a mixed 20 core as a way of correcting the original analysis based on j.
21 homogeneous cores.
22 If this kind of data had existed for large mixed 23 cores, then they would have done that, I think, straight off.
('}
'24 Q
That is an assumption or conclusion on your part, A e._ as. Rem nen,lnc.
l 25 is that correct, sir?
I
1144-JccWal 578 1
A That is an' inference on my part.
.("
K/
2 MS. YOUNG:
Excuse me counsel for interrupting.
3 Does the Board need extra copies of this document?
4 JUDGE =LAZO:
We have one that we can deal with 5
right now, thanks.
You are going to introduce --
6 MS. YOUNG:
No.
7 JUDGE LAZO:
Maybe if.you have extra copies we 8 might as well have them rather than sharing.
We appreciate t
9 that.
10 WITNESS:
I might also, while we are on the subject, 11 Item 4 on the same page of the Standard Review Plan, points out 12 that methods for calculating single. phase and two phase fluid
()
13 flow in the reactor vessel, another component should include 14 classical fluid mechanics relationships and appropriate 15 empirical correlations for components of unusual geometry, 16 such as the bowing.
These relationships should be confirmed 17 empirically, using representative data bases from approved 18 reports of the type listed below, and then they single out t
M reactor essel, jet pump, and core flow distribution.
20 I think that again, we are dealing with a situation 21 of where with a mixed core -- with three types of rods in it, j
22 you are getting into this problem of verification of the 23 calculations.
- eral Reporters, Inc.
24 How do you know that the calculations being done Ae 25 by think correspond to physical reality.
'S
11-5-JocWal.
579 1
Q But you have done nothing to determine whether that
~
k_)s 2
is correct or not?
3 A
No one apparently has done anything to determine whett es 4
that is correct or not.
5 Q
Dr. Edwards, my question is you have not 6
A I have done nothing to determine whether that is 7
correct.
8 Q
As I understand your testimony, you have no problem 9
in determining whether the mathematical model, the THINC, 10 conforms to reality when it is used to -- for homogeneous 11 core calculations?
12 A.
I presume that in the operating license process I
13 for Turkey Point,.that all of these requirements were, 14 originally imposed on the THINC Code before it wonld be allowed 15 by the NRC to use the Turkey Point.
16 That is what the Standard Review Plan says should be 17 done.
18 So, I.am assuming that that has been done for 10 ' homogeneous cores.
I don't know for a fact that it has been 20 done, but I presume it has been done.
21 Based upon the testimony of Mr. Hsii, the prefiled.
22 testimony of Mr. Dzenis, this is not the case for mixed cores.
23 q
But in the mixed core analysis, in fact, the THINC
{T}
24 iCode was used to separately analyze the homogeneous cores, was Ace.,% net Reporters, Inc.
25 it-not?
I a,J a.
b 11-24cJooWol 580 1
A That is correct.
\\~/
2 Q
So it was used in a way that it has been accepted?
-3 A
That is correct, and if the results were used only 4
for that purpose, then it would be perfectly acceptable.
5 Q
Right.
Going to page 3, still in paragraph 5 of 6
your testiomony, halfway down the page, you refer to:
The 7
same status of reliability as the WRB-1 correlations which have 8
been painstakingly derived for homogeneous cores.
9 To what are you referring to there, sir?
10 A
I am referring to the detailed tests that were done 11 on fuel assemblies of different types in order to establish 12 the WRB-1 correlation under a variety of parameter inputs;
)
13 fluid flow conditions, and so on, to see whether the predicted 14 critical heat flux corresponds to the measured critical heat 15 flux, and it is precisely the interaction here between the 16 prediction, mathematically by the correlation, and the measure-17 ment physically that establishes confidence, and in fact, not 18 only confidence, but quantifiable confidence, a 95/95 confidence
'O that the WRB-1 correlation works.
20
-Q You are satisfied with that?
21 A
I -- this is the way in which the experiements were 4
22 supposedly carried out.
It has been described in the literature.
23 I have no reason to question it.
4er) Reporters, Inc.
74 Judging by the accounts that have~been made, they Aa 25 have done a correct job.
They have got a very large population I
6
ll-7-JocWcl 581 1
of results.
They have studied that population of results,
(~)N
(_
2 and they have picked a value that is a 95/95 value for that 3
' Population.
4 That is absolutely admirable applied mathematics.
5
=Q So you do not dispute then the fact that the WRB-1 6
correlation accurately predicts the critical heat flux for the 7
amendment sought in this proceeding with a 95 percent 8
Probability, and 95 percent accuracy?
9 A
Well, if you leave out the amendments in this 10 proceeding, and talk about the WRB-1 correlation and its 11 ability to predict critical heat flux in the various fuel 12 assemblies for which it was tested, yes.
(~s q_)
13 The fact is, the WRB-1 correlation, judging from 14 the accounts that I have read, does give a high degree of 15 confidence, which is quantifiable, 95/95 confidence, that 16 the predicted critical heat flux given by that correlation 17 will be accurate, and will be below the actual measured 18 critical heat flux.
10 There is'always a slight probability that it could 20 be wrong.
That is why we have to resort to statistical 21 analysis.
j i
22 There is a finite, but very small probability, that 23 the predicted critical heat flux could, in fact, exceed the
.weeraf Reporters, Inc.
24
-measured critical heat flux.
We don't want that to happen, 25 and hopefully that will not. happen in application.
i
11-8-JooWal -
582 1
Q Are you saying -- have you done any independent O
(_/
2 studies or tests or analyses to determine whether the WRB-1 3
correlation accurately predicts critical heat flux for the 4
amendments which are under consideration?
'5 A
The only amendments which are under consideration, 6
the difficulty that is faced is a starvation, if I might use 7
that phrase, of coolant to the OFA fuel, which makes it 8
difficult and questionable to apply the WRB-1 criterion to 9
0FA fuel in a mixed core configuration.
10 The nice thing about a homogeneous core is that 11 you can divide the total fluid flow by basically the number 12 of fuel bundles, and you can be quite sure that that is the
()
13 flow going through each fuel bundle.
14 When you have a mixed core, it is more complicated, 15 and it makes it more questionable as to whether you can 16 accurately apply this.WRB-1 criterion in a mixed core 17 configuration.
18 Q
Just so I understand, though.
Am I correct that
'O you have no difficulty in the ability of the WRB-1 correlation 20 to predict critical heat flux for 15 by 15 0FA fuel in a 21 homogeneous core?
l
)
22 A
In a homogeneous core, that seems to be quite well 23 established.
/~'T 24 Q
With 95/95 probability of confidence?
d~,jrJ" Reporters, Inc.
25 A
That is correct.
ll-9-JoGWol 583 1
Once again, I have to reiterate, this is not because 2
I have done myself the checking, but because I am confident 3
the checking has been done by competent authorities, as reported 4
in the various documents that have been made available.
5
~q So, your only criticism then is the applicability 6
of the DNBR obtained using the WRB-1 correlation to the mixed y
core of 0FA and LOPAR fuel?
8 A
Yes.
This is based again on the acceptance 9
criteria of the standard review plan on page 4.4.2 of the 10 Section. entitled, Acceptance Criteria at the bottom of the 11 page.
12 It points out that not only does the 95/95 confidence
'(f 13 level -- not ~ only should that apply to the_ question'of DNBR, 14 but moreover the uncertainties in the values of process 15 parameters, core design parameters, and calculati'on of methods l
16 used in the assessment of thermal margin should.be treated with 17 at least a 95 probability and a 95 percent confidence level.
18 So, you see,.the standard review plan extends the 20 95/95 criterion.beyond just the WRB-1 correlation, to all.those 20 penalties that have been described in earlier testimony.
21 But that same 95/95 criterion has to be applied i
22 across the board to the penalties as well.
23 Q
. Let me just have a-moment here.
24
-(Pause.)
erst Reporters, Inc.
25 Do you have any independent studies or analysis or l
584
'll-10-JooWc1 1
calculation to indicate that'the THINC analytical computer code
'2 is inappropriate for the calculation of the transitional core 3
of 15 by 15 0FA and LOPAR fuel?
4 A
I can only reiterate what.was said before.
That 5
in the absence of physical measurements, it is conjectural 6
whether it is appropriate or not.
7 One has to test that computer model for a non-8 homogeneous core against physical measurements to see whether, 9
in fact, it does conform to the physical measurements.
Whether i
10 it does predict the physical measurements, as WRB-1 correlation 11 predicts the physical critical heat flux.
12
-Q Are you suggesting that the THINC analytical i
()
13 methodology assumes equal flow to all fuel assemblies?
14 A
Not necessarily, but the THINC program does have 15 t o. lut qualified as indicated in the standard review plan, for 16 the type of geometry and the type of physical setting in.which 17 it is going to be applied.
~
18 Q
Do you know what qualifications the THINC computer 10 code has undergone?
20 A
I do not know in detail.
21 Q
So this is just speculation on your part?
22 A
No.
It is-based upon the DNB -- it is based upon 23 the standard review plan criterion which' is laid down in this
.('
24 document.
Miw-)ato Rgeners, Inc.
f I
25 Q
You mentioned the word, ' conjecture.'
How do you i
11-11-JooWal 585 g
distinguish conjecture from speculation?
, ~.'(,j 2
A I beg your pardon?
3 Q
You mentioned previously that this was a matter of 4
conjecture.
Isn't that the same as speculation?
5 A
It is a matter of speculation as to whether a given 6
computerized model of a physical situation is going to conform to the physically measured variables in the absence of physical 7
8 measurements.
9 Q
All right.
Paragraph 6 of your testimony, you 6
10 mention, quote:
An obvious financial incentive on the part 11 of FP&L to operate Units 3 and 4 hotter rather than cooler.
12 Is that correct?
("'i 13 A
Yes.
\\)
14 Q
What information do you have upon which you base 15 that statement, sir?
16 A
Well, for example there is a pressurized thermal i
17 shock report produced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
18 In Appendix I, this d'ocument is dated 11/13/82, -- and in ic Appendix I, Page I-10 -- pardon me, page I.13, there-is a 20 heading:
Turkey Point 3 and 4.
And I quote:
The required 21 flux reduction factor is 4.5 from the present fuel loading 22 mode.
Since these plants are identical with respect to core 23 arrangement, size, dimensions, material, and neutron source 24 distribution with H.
B.
Robinson 2 we have used the results ud Reporters, Inc.
I 25 of the Robinson study.
Removal of.the three' assemblies of the i
- _. ~..
11-12-JooWo1 586
?
I flats with careful fuel management will reduce flux by the
(-
~(/
2 required amount.- It is unlikely that D-rating will be
~
3.
required.
4 Then,.when -- on the same page, the heading under 5
R.
B.
Robinson 2 --
6 Q
Dr. Edwards, I am not talking about H.
B.
Robinson 2, 7
I am talking'--
I 8
A I am sorry.
They were referring to Turkey Point 3 9
and 4.
~
10 Q
So I am asking you what basis you have to make that 11 there is an obvious financial incentive on the part of FP&L to operate Units 3 and 4 hotter rather than cooler?
()
13 A
There are three alternatives given in this document 14 for vessel flux reduction.
15 Q
What document are you referring to?
~I 16 A
I am referring to the documents that I had previously!
17 mentioned.
The pressurized thermal shock report.
And those i
18 three alternatives are contained on that page which I specified, 10 page I.13.
20 And the three alternatives are:
A.
If the plant 21 is decay heat or stored energy limited, relaxation of the' t
22
/.ppendix K requirements would allow an increase of up to 20' b
23 percent'.
That does not apply to Turkey Point.
I 11, 24 l
4e.
rM Reporws, Inc.
f SusW f ois.- 25 I'
587
- 12-1-SueW1 B.
If the Plant is limited by MDNBR -- that means,
.g 2
minimum departure from nucleate boiling ratio, this does apply l
3p to Turkey Point -- a reduction of the criteria -- and this 4
1 means the DNBR criterion -- by ten percent would allow i
S-increasing the linear power by about twenty percent.
Linear 6
Power means heat.
7
.And, C, the third alternative is, derating by fif-c; teen percent.
{
9 Q
And that's the information that you used to make i
10 the statement that there is an obvious financial incent'ive on the part of FP&L to operate Units 3 and 4 hotter rather
'than cooler?
i i
()
A Yhat is one of several pieces of information.
The most obvious piece of information is common sense.
I happen i
to know how nuclear reactors' operate.
I know that electricity output depends upon the power distribution in the core as well as the density of the core.
i i:
O Are you speaking of -- when you say hotter rather than cooler, are you speaking of the average core temperature?
A No, I'm not.
21 O
What are you speaking of?
(Pause.)
23-Well, let me ask you this.
You heard Mr. Dzenis
(~}
testify yesterday that there was no change-in the average core l 21 4d(s.ui sm n..s. uc j
l 25 temperature as a result of these amendments, didn't you?
I i
588 l
l
- 12-2-SueWalb A
Average core temperature, yes.
Let me refer --
i g
\\s 2
Q Do you agree with that?
I i
3 li A
Let me refer you to the --
0 4
Q Sir, do.you agree with that?
5 !
A Well, I'm trying to answer your previous. question.
i 6i I haven't had a chance to --
f 7
Q Do you agree that there will be no increase in-i i
E average core temperature as a result of these amendments?
r i
9 A
Let me answer your previous question.
10 Q
Sir --
WITNESS:
Can I answer the previous question?'
JUDGE LAZO:
Well, can you answer the last
(
question?
WITNESS:
Can we come back to the previous ques-tion?
BY MR. COLL:
(Continuing) e Q
Do you agree that there will be no increase in i
If average core temperature as a result'of these amendments?
A I can't agree, because I am not sure.
I do know that there will be an increase in the peak linear heat 21 generation rate.
l Q
Did you hear Mr. Dzenis testify yesterday that j
23 there would be no increase in average core temperature as N
a result of these amendments?
l f'}
4*_ arm acnonen, uc 25 A
Average core temperature?
Did Mr. Dzenis talk about
589
.#12-3-SueWall the peak linear heat generation rates?-
h\\
2 I
Q 1Did you hear Mr. Dzenis testify, sir, and you I
i 3 ll either did or you didn't,-that there would'be no average-
- jl 4
' core temperature increase as a result of these amendments?
Si
'A I cannot recollect for sure.
I J
6 Q
Did you do any independent studies or calculations, 7
or do you find anywhere in the licensing submittals by any i
l C
of the parties here any indication that there would be any l
2 9
increase in average core temperature as a result of these j
l 10 '
amendments?
j 11 A
In the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Safety
\\
t l '.
Evaluation, the SER, December 23rd --
a
()
13 Q
Mr. Edwards --
A
-- co-authored by Mr. Shii --
15 Q
Excuse me, sir.
Can you answer that question?
i 16 Sir, excuse me, and I don't mean to be rude, but for the record, can you answer that question yes or no, and then
'I6
. explain your answer?
A And then I can explain my answer?
i Q
Yes, sir.
.s 21 A
All right.
The answer is, I dbn't know about I
i averages because I'm not -- that's not my primary concern.
f
?3 '
here.
24 Q
Thank you, sir.
i
~
).
l Am _wai nnenm. tnc.
I am concerned about the heat -- the product of the!
25 A
i
i i
590 l
- 12-4-SueW1 average heat generation rate and the peaking factor, FQ, 2
yield a peak linear heat generation rate of 12.9 kilowatts l
30 per foot.
This peak linear heat rate is being increased lii
.I from 12.8 kilowatts per foot in the previous cycle.
That's S i from the NRC Staff SER of December 23rd.
6l And it goes on to say:
Since the critical heat I
7:
flux is dependent upon the fuel and flow conditions, the i
E increase in F Delta H will result in lower critical CHF as l
i 9
well as lower DNBR.
10 So, it is clearly indicated in the Staff's SER that these amendments correspond to an increase in the peak linear heat generation rate.
I
(~Y s_/
'S O
'All right, sir. When you are talking about hotter I
rather than cooler, you are referring then to the peak linear heat generation rate?
A Yes.
~
Q And'only that?
li A
Yes.
O A31 right, sir.
We've already covered the fact that you have never been to the Turkey Point Plant site; 21 isn't that correct?
i t
A Yes.
I've never been there.
2:5 0
And continuing on in Paragraph 6 of your testimony,i
{~}
24 the reference to. instrumentation there is a generic reference j
an -sm ai serwwu. ire.
25 and-non-specific to Turkey Point; isn't that correct?
l
+
591
- 12-5-SueWall A
That's correct.
,~
21 Q
And where you state:
Such instrumentation may be i
i 3 li inadequate, at the top of Page 4, you are not referring to 0
4 Turkey Point specifically, are you?
5!
A The top of Page 47 i
6 O
Correct.
Second line.
7 A
Oh, excuse me.
I'm on the wrong one.
Excuse me.
8 I lost my place.
i:
9 All right.
Page 4, second line.
Yes, that's 10 '
correct.
That is a generic reference.
l 4
11 Q
All right, sir.
Down to the middle of that page, i
-12 you refer to uncertainties in the applicability of the i
I (g)-
13 analysis due to omissions, oversights, incomplete analysis, or inappropriate assumptions.
Can you identify for me any omissions that were 4
made in the analysis for Turkey Point which forms the basis for these license amendments?
IS A
Well, one of the omissions, for example,-is not including other core configurations than those that were i
included.
It was admitted'that, for reasons which I don't
?l quite understand, the Licensee doesn't know in advance what i
l
?
the core configuration is going to be and yet chose not to j
h i
23i study all the core configurations that might possibly arise.
I i
(~}
Q Well, let me just stop you, Dr. Edwards.
24 urs,ami nenone... ix.
25 A
There is an omission.
l l'
592
- 12-6-SueWalb Q
Let me just stop you, Dr. Edwards.
Isn't it f)
L'#
2 I
correct -- and we've just gone through that -- that the l
3 i
configurations which were selected were to envelope all of
- I 4
the ones that could be included in a submittal?
5 Now, we don't need to go back over that, do 6 I we?
A That I consider an omission.
I also --
7 l
8 0
You consider the enveloping an omission?
l 9 l A
I consider the enveloping an omission when-you d
10 ll don't do physical measurements to back up, yes.
l 1
11 i O
What other omissions are you talking about?
?
12 '
A Those are the two main ones.
The lack of j
()
13 physical measurements I think is the most important.
O Lack of physical measurements of what?
15 A
The lack of physical' measurements to confirm 16 that the predictions made by the THINC code as applied to I
i 17~
a non-homogeneous core reflect physical reality accurately.
l 18 The 95/95 confidence and all that.
I i
Q You think no such measurements were made, or 20 you think insufficient. measurements were made?
i il i
21 g A
It appears that no such measurements were made.
n 22 I have seen no reference to any such measurements.
l' 23 O
All right.
What oversights are you referring to I,
Getal' Reportees, Inc. h2d [
in that sentence?
Aa 25 '
A Well, oversight -- an example of an oversight i
e t
i
593 1
((12-7-SueWals, would be not taking into consideration the possibility of
)
- '~'
2 ;-
interaction between, for example, rod bow and thermal-F 3i hydraulic resistance.
1 4
I' understand from Mr.. Dzenis' testimony yesterday 5
that it was his strongly felt opinion that there would be 6
no interaction but that, in fact, it wasn't based upon any 7
studies; it was more of an assumption based on engineering judgment.
9 Once again, you see, it's very difficult to arrive 10 at 95/95 confidence when you proceed from assumptions which 1
may or may not be true.
Namely, that there is no inter-action.
s_-
If you proceed from that assumption, then you can't have 95/95 confidence in your answer.
Q You have no basis upon which to challenge the way in which the analysis was made of the interaction between n:
these matters, though, do you?
A There was no analysis of the interaction.
O The conclusion that they are not related, you have no basis to challenge that by any independent test or 71 study or~ calculation, do you, sir?
A It was not a conclusion; it was an assumption.
i
?.t O
You have no basis to challenge that, sir,
)
N on the basis of any independent test or calculation or
.,a, s. a em.ae.1 oc assumption that you've made --
594 SueWalls
'A No.
2 :
0
-- or anything in the literature that you've 3t referred'to?
1 A
No, I do not.
It's an assumption which goes 5
unchallenged.
6-Q What incomplete analysis are you referring to l
7 in that sentence, sir?
E A
The incomplete analysis includes the 95/95 criterion.
9 I think that if you are to take seriously the NRC Standard IC Review Plan, then you have to realize that the same kind of careful statistical analysis of a population of results is needed to arrive at a figure with 95/95 confidence.
/
12 And it seems to me that when we talk about the penalties, this has not been done.
The only possible exception, and even there it has not been done, but the closest one comes to achieving 95/95 confidence in terms of the three penalties is the 15 by 15 fuel array penalty, because even though there
~
still are no critical heat flux test data on 15 by 15 OFA fuel assemblies, nevertheless there were some quite careful studies done of very similar fuel assemblies.
?l So, there we come closest to achieving the 95/95 criterion.
j i
c3
.In the case of the wdxed core penalty and in the (n).
case of the rod bow penalty, I think the evidence that has N
,.s e
.o. ui ne m ii n n.c 25 been submitted does not indicate that 95/95 confidence has L
t l
b 595 1
- 12-9'-SueWalsh been established.
In fact, there has not even been any 4
O
~2 attempt that I've seen in the documentation to establish E
i 3 1 95/95 confidence.
4 O
Weren't both of those penalty values calculated-5-
as bounding values?
6i A
- Well, I. don't think they were, no.
The 13.9 1
7l percent original rod bow penalty, for example, was reduced l.
}1 i
C ~
to 5.5 percent because of the cut-off at 33,000 burnup rate.
j t-9' I'm not sure that'that was -- that's certainly i
'10 not presented as a bounding --
j M
Q Do you have any reason ~to dispute the 33,000 i
burnup-rate cut-off point?
l D
A I;have not seen any attempt to give a statistical i-analysis that this satisfies a 95/95 confidence criterion.
-Q Have you asked for such information?
A I have not.
I assumed that it would be supplied and demanded by NRC Staff whose job it is.to see that the 1
Standard Evaluation Plan is being carried out.
i If the NRC Staff has neither demanded nor commented on the 95/95 confidence level with regard to these penalties, a
i-21,
I must assume that it has not been a matter of discussion.
1 i
i 0
0 So this incomplete analysis that you are referring
~
M'
-to with respect to the calculation-and application of these 24
-penalties, and whether or not that represents a 95/95 criterion,i
~
s i m...a n n<.n m. w.
25
-isLa question --
I.
r
+
i
596 I
- ,.12-10-SueWaR A
Yes, a very important question.
i
'~)
t 2
0
-- by you as opposed to any affirmative testimony 3f that:.it --
4 A
Oh, yes.
S' O
-- does not comply?
61 A
Oh, yes, definitely, it's a question.
i 7
Q What ir :ppropriate assumptions are you referring i
i C
to in the sentence on Page 4 of your Affidavit that we have i
9 been referring to?
i 10 A
I think the most -- to my mind, the most central inappropriate assumption is that the WRB-1 correlation for 15 by 15 OFA fuel can be applied t'o a mixed core.
(e s/
Q Any others?
A There are others, yes.
Q What are they?-
A Well,.I think the assumption that there are no
~
interactions between the penalties is an example that has already been mentioned.
And I would go furth'er --
Q What else?
21 A
I would go further and say that the assumption 0
that you can model a homogeneous core and then adequately i
3 compensate for the difference between homogeneous core and i
. ()
24 non-homogeneous core by assigning a numerical penalty as
.u.?m,.
i irr..w.. i.e 25 opposed to doing studies which proceed at the outset with a 4
i l
597 1
- 12-ll-SueWl homogeneous core, I would'say that's an inappropriate O
2,
- assumption.
3 :!
Q Anything else?
itr 4
A That's it.
5 0
All right, Paragraph 7 on Page 4 of your Affidavit, 6
first sentence, you indicate what you as a mathematician 7
would not expect the behavior of a transitional mixed core 0
to be.
9 It is clear, is it not, sir, that you have no IC expertise in the area of the behavior of any type of core, whether it's mixed or not?
~
A I have some fairly substantial courses in s) hydrodynamics at the University of Toronto.
Q.
Hydrodynamics?
A Hydrodynamics, which is the study of fluid flow.
And'when you get into nen-homogeneous situations involving
~
fluid flow with various hydraulic resistances, I know enough II about hydrodynamics'to know that the modeling can become very complicated.
And once again I point out that it's not -- in 21 Mr. Dzenis' prefiled testimony and in his testimony yesterday,!
I not once did he mention, for example, the WABA rods, the wet l,
'3 absorbable burner rods, which further complicates.the flow.
()
24 Q
Have you done any studies or tests or calculations ~--
a m imanom,.i.c 25 A
No, I have not.
598 i
- 12-12-SueWall Q'
-- to determine whether it would further complicate
-r
\\
2 or even enhance the flow, one or the other?
l-1 3[
A Well, I think Mr. Dzenis has clearly indicated 1-that it does not enhance the flow towards the OFA fuel.
5' Q
Sir, have you done any studies to determine what 6
it would do?
.7 I A
No, I have not.
I don't think that -- this is the t
C'
~ Problem, that the studies.have not been done.
f 9J Q
All right'.
When you are talking ~about a linear r
10 combination of the characteristics of two hypothetical homo-l IF geneous. cores, what are you referring to?
i 17 A
It's a little bit, I admit, a little bit glib or-
- c facetious, if you like.
But a linear combination is the simplest possible way of combining two numbers.
l
.Let's suppose you want to take the~ average of two numbers and you just-says Well, we just add them to-1 i
gether and divide by two.
That's a simple linear combination.
'~
I was really using the language here in a more i
suggestive-way, that you can't'just study two homogeneous
~
cores consisting of two different types of fuel and then
?1 expect to be able to piece together an accurate picture of
'?
what happens with a mixed core.
23i O
Well, sir, are you assuming that the analysis of t
I nb(-s)ne neemm. sw the -- of each separate core was linear?
f 24 t
25 A
No, no, no.
I'm not saying --
599-
- 12-13-SueWaR Q
Those analyses involve calculations and equations
[
')
\\~/
2 which are non-linear, do they not?
i I
3s A
Yes, they do.
4 Q
And those are two separate non-linear analyses 5
for each core, isn't that correct?
6:
A You can still take a linear combination of non-
~7 linear things.
c, O
Are you saying that the thermal-hydraulic model j
9, in the THINC code is linear or non-linear?
i 10 A
I'm not saying anything about the details of the THINC code.
I'm talking more about the results of the analysis.
12 No, matter how difficult it is to calculate.some-y thing, once you've got it calculated it is then possible to take the linear combination of the results.
But I wouldn't want to put too much emphasis on the linear combination.
~
As I say, I was using it in a figurative sensr..
What I meant to say is that you cannot simply study two l
homogeneous cores, a priori.
It is not a good operating procedure-for an applied mathematician to think that you l
l can study a complicated situation with two types of fuel
?)
with different hydraulic resistances -- in fact, three if you include the annular burnable rods -- and simply put j
i l
'.'.1 together two homogeneous studies in order to get a i
l i
28 realistic picture of what's going to happen in a mixed core
! = r-).:,i ace.,w.s i,~
(
25 situation.
i h
I L
l 600 1
2-14-SueW
'And it's really referring back to the same 2
question.
You've got to test by physical measurement to 7
il 3i see if the predictions you are coming up with are~ realistic.
d O
You agree then there was no linear combination 5
of the characteristics of two hypothetical. homogeneous 6
cores?
I 7'
A That's correct.
That's why the word " linear C
combination" appears in quotation marks.
9 Q
So that was not done here?
You don't mean to 10 suggest that was done?
i A
I don't mean to suggest that was done.
I mean U
to suggest that something somewhat analogous to that was n
done.
O You will agree that the evaluation of the mixed core used the same non-linear methodology to calculate the penalties for the transition code as described by Mr.
Dzenis?
A Yes.
O So, the only linear aspect then here is the application of the penalty to the calculated safety analysis
?I DNBR?
A Yes.
I D
Q That's what you are talking about?
l
)
24 A
No, that's not what I'm talking about.
But that 25
~ is a fact.
j l
t
601
! SueWaib JUDGE LAZO:
Mr. Coll, it's getting close on to l-2[
5 o' clock.
Perhaps you could indicate for us an estimate b
3 of the time you would expect to complete this cross-1 examination.
i 5
MR. COLL:
That's always hard for me to do, 6
because I don't -- I never know when I'm done.
I would 7
say approximately thirty to forty-five minutes.
C JUDGE LAZO:
Well, then perhaps we should recess
?
until morning.
10 MR. COLL:
I have no problem with that, Your i
Honor.
Could I suggest perhaps that we could start at 9 a.m. in the morning in the hopes that we might be able to (n
\\
finish this' proceeding tomorrow?
MS. YOUNG:
Staff has no objection to that.
MR. COLL:
I have a witness, my expert witness, who has another commitment and frankly must leave by tomorrow evening.
~If necessary, I would like to try to honor that.
IB I mean, he is obviously going to do whatever is necessary.
JUDGE LAZO:
Now, have we seen proposed prefiled 21 testimony from your witness?
MR. COLL:
No.. This person sitting next to me, i
M Mr. Dzenis, who must remain so that I can remain.
(Laughter.)
. -,, w m e ww.,im n 25 But I say that just to advise the Board.
I mean, i
i
602
.I
- 12-16-SueWall j
we will obviously go until we are finished.
But I would 2 :
like to try to finish tomorrow if we could do that.
I t
b 3
thought maybe if we started promptly at 9 we might have a 4
chance of doing that.
5 JUDGE LAZO:
Mr. Hodder, Ms. Lorion, is 9 o' clock a problem?
l 6 !
F i
i 7'
MR. HODDER:
No problem.-
0 JUDGE LAZO:
No problem?
Then, nobody has a 9
problem.
We will recess then until 9 o' clock tomorrow 10 morning.
Thank you.
I MR. COLL:
Thank you, sir.
(Whereupon, the hearing is adjourned at 4:57 p.m.,
l T
Wednesday, December 11, 1985, to reconvene at 9 a.m.,
Thursday, December 12, 1985.)
.Gndddd-0 j
71 1
n.
i W
l
- .,O.s neme t..e. ua.
I
~sc 2.#*
i l
i
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matt.er of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
FLORIDA POWER AND' LIGHT, COMPANY (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating i
Plant, Units 3 and 4)
)
S i
e i
DOCKET NO.:
50-250 OLA-1; 50-251 OLA-1 1
PLACE:
MIAMI, FLORIDA i
b DATE:
WEDNESDAY, DECEh3ER 11, 1985 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt). EvM i
(TYPED) GARRET J.
WALSH, JR.
Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation
- k. [//db/h (sigt)Iln# 77, MhRhLEH.
FALSH u
(TYPED),f(M/
(sigt Al
[
MARY C.
SIMONS
_