ML19270G362

Transcript of 790521 Meeting in Cincinnati,Oh.Pp 121-214

ML19270G362
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	05/21/1979
From:	Bechhoefer C, Bright G, Hooper F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
FOIA-81-91 NUDOCS 7906060217
Download: ML19270G362 (93)

Text

NRC I'UIErc COCU?.ZiT ROOH NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE lAATTER OF:

CINCINNATI GAS AND ELECTRIC CCIGANY, ET AL.

(William H. Zimer Nuclear Pc%er Plant, Unit No. 1)

P1 ace - Cincinnati, Chio Date -

21 May 1979 Pages 121 - 214 2276 175 TM.;: hen.:

(202)347-3700 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.

OffiaalReponers 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE DAILY 7 906 0 6 0217. J,.

e loom /eb 121 4770 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

In the matter of:

5 CINCINNATI GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al. : Docket No.50-358 6

(William H.

Zimmer Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1)

I 8

Courtroom Number 2, 9

U.

S.

Court of Appeals, i

U.

S.

Post Office and 10 Courthouse, Fifth and Walnut Streets, II Cincinnati, Ohio 45202.

12 Monday, May 21, 1979.

13 g

The prehearing conference in the above-entitled 14 matter was convened, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m.

15 BEFORE:

16 CHARLES BECHHOEFER, Esq., Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

I 17 DR. FRANK F.

HOOPER, Member.

l 1B I

MR. GLENN O.

B RIGHT, Member.

19 i

APPEARANCES:

20 on behalf of the Applicants:

21 TROY B. CONNER, Jr., Esq. and MARK J. WETTERHAHN, Esq.,

22 Conner, Moore and Corber, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.

C. 20006.

i 23 I

WILLIAM J. MORAN, Esq. and DANIEL W.

KEMP, Esq.,

24 Cincinnati Gas & Electric Ccupany, P.

O.

Bcx 960, eral Reporters, Inc.

Cincinnati, Ohio 45201.

25 2276 176

e 122 eb I

On behalf of the NRC Regulatory Staff:

h 2

CHARLES A. BARTH, Esq. and LAWRENCE BRENNER, Esq.,

Office of the Executive Legal Director, U.

S.

3 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.

20555.

4 On behalf of Intervener David Fankhauser and Clermont 5

CountyCommunity Council:

6 JOHN D. WOLIVER, Esq., Box 181, Batavia, Ohio 45103.

7 On behalf of the City of Cincinnati:

W. PETER HEILE, Esq., THOMAS A. LEUBBERS, Esq. and 9

DONALD B.

LEWIS, Esq., Room 214, City Hall, Cincinnati, Ohio 45220.

10 i

i On behalf of Intervenor Miami Valley Power Project:

LEAH S. KOSIK, Esq., JAMES FELDMAN, Esq. and STEVEN!

12 SHANE, Esq., 3454 Cornell Place, Cincinnati, Ohio' 45220.

13 14 2276 177 i3 l

16 l

l l

17 18 19 I

I 20 I

21 ll l

22 i

23 24 eral Reporters, Inc.

25 f

?

123 bl 1

_P _R _O _C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S p

2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:

I guess we're ready to begin.

3 This is a prehearing conference in the matter of 4

the application for an operating license of the Cincinnati S

Gas and Electric Company.

This conference was noticed some 6

time ago in the Federal Register.

I believe all parties are 7

represented today.

8 I would like to introduce the Board first.

On 9

my left is Dr. Frank Hooper.

He's an aquatic ecologist with 10 the Ecology Fisheries and Wildlife Program of the School of 11 Natural Resources of the University of Michigan.

12 On my right is Mr. Glenn Bright, a nuclear engineer

)

with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

14 My name is Charles Bechhoefer.

I'm an attorney and 15 a full-time member of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 16 Panel of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission also.

17 I would like the representatives of the parties to i

18 introduce themselves for the Reporter.

We'll start from left 19 to right.

20 Mr. Woliver, j

21 l

MR. WOLIVER:

I'm John Woliver, and I'm Counsel for l 22 l

David Fankhauser.

j

}

23 j

CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:

The Applicant?

i 24 ers Reporters. Inc.

MR. CONNER:

If the Board please, on behalf of the 1

25 Applicant, my name is Troy B.

Conner, Jr.[f j[g

e 124 2 I Appearing with me is Mark J. Wetterhahn, of our l 2 firm of Conner, Moore and Corber. 3 Also appearing on behalf of the Applicants is Mr. William J. Moran, General Counsel, and Daniel W.

Kemp, 5

attorney for Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company. 6 Our addresses are in the record. 7 MR. HEILE: Mr. Chairman, may it please the Board, 8 on behalf of the City of Cincinnati, Mr. W. Peter Heile, 9 Assistant City Solicitor. 10 I would also like to enter the appearance of II Thomas A. Leubbers, City Solicitor, and of Mr. Donald B.

Lewis, 12 who is with us today in these proceedings and who will act as 13 co-Counsel in the future.

Our addresses are noted in the I4 filings. 15 Thank you. 0 MR. BARTH: Mr. Chairman, I am Charles A. Barth. 17 I'm employed by the Office of the Executive Legal Director of 18 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 19 I have with me today Mr. Lawrence Brenner of the 20 same office. Our office is located in Bethesda, Maryland. I 21 Together we jointly represent the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22 Staff in this proceeding. I 2f MS. KOSIK: Mr. Chairman, my name is Leah Kosik. I 24 I am representing Miami Valley Power Project. j eral Reporurs, lm. 25 With me as co-Counsel is Mr. Jim Feldman and i i 2276 179 l

e 125 b3 1 Mr. Steven Shane. 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: As we know, several days ago 3 the Board ruled on the various motions before us to delay the 4 evidentiary hearing. The Board denied the motions insofar as 5 they dealt with certain issues which the Board felt would not 6 be affected by anything arising out of the Three Mile Island 7 incide:tt. 8 The basis of the motions had been that Three Mile 9 Island rcquired a delay of the proceeding. In responding to 10 both this motion and the Applicants' motion for summary 11 disposition, the NRC Staff indicated that there may be further 12 Commission action, particularly in certain areas such as 13 evacuation and monitoring which are the subject of a number of Id the admitted contentions in this proceeding. 15 The Board would like to hear from the Staff insofar i 16 as it knows what the progress of either the Staff or the Com-j l 17 mission is on either coming out with new standards or deciding I 18 not to. What is the status? 19 MR. BARTH: Mr. Chairman, the Commission has ap-l 20 pointed a Special Task. Force to assess the consequences of Three' 21 Mile Island and its implications upon existing operating reactors l 22 and proposed reactors. As of this time, the Commission has not l l 23 made a final assessment of what has happened at Three Mile 24 Island. eral Reporters, Inc. i 25 The Staff, in lieu of this, looked at the contentions 2276 180 l

? 126 { b4 I submitted by the various parties and came to the conclusion tha't 2 the only possible impacts would be in the area of monitoring 3 and evacuation emergency plans. 4 This is why we took the position that it would be 5 precipitous at this time to go ahead. The Commission has taken 6 no action in those two areas, either in its Special Task Force 7 or the Commission itself has not given my indication that it 8 will make any changes. WeofcoursehaveaproposedamendmenttoAppendix! 9 i 10 E which is the emergency plan section, but that will not be II impacted by Three Mile Island. I2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That's in effect right now. 13 MR. BARTH: That's right. g Id So we took a look at the contentions, and we felt 15 strongly we should single out the radiological monitoring and 3 16 the emergency plans which are the only contentions that we felt 17 could be impacted by Three Mile Island. l l I8 Again, this does not represent the Commission's j 19 position; it is only the Staff's position at the present time. 20 Such contentions such as need for the facility or whether or 21 not the control rods are properly manufactured we do not feel i 22 can possibly be impacted by Three Mile Island. We felt we 23 should go ahead on all the issues which we can go ahead on, and - 24 defer for the moment consideration of those issues which may 4,re n pon m,inc. 25 be impacted by Three Mile Island. 2276 181

e 127 I b5 CRAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Do you have any idea when i 2 the Commission is likely to come out with either a preliminary assessment or a final assessment? MR. BARTH: No, sir. l 5 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I mean in the two areas that 6 you mentioned. 7 MR. BARTH: No, sir. The Commission's Special 8 Task Force has not yet completed a detailed chronology of events that took place at Three Mile Island. Until this is 10 done, of course the Commission won't go forward with its 11 assessment. But I do not have any kind of date for you as to 12 when the Commission expects to, or the Commission Staff expects 13 g to have a preliminary assessment made. I# CRAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Is it possible to come up 15 with any sort of a time-- What I'm trying to find out is when 16 i we could perhaps plan to go to hearing on those issues. l l 17 MR. BARTH: I understand what you're asking, I i 18 Mr. Chairman, and I'm embarrassed to say that I have no firmer ! l 19 answer than what we do have. Part of this of course you realize 20 i will be impacted by the hearings before the various Congressional i 21 committees, and I'm certain the Commission will not take a 22 final position until the Congressional hearings are fully done, 23 completed. 24 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: One question I would like to eral Reporters, Inc. ask the Applicant and the Staff as well, if they have any other 2276 182 o

e 128 b6 1 knowledge, is what is the current status of construction? What 2 date, at this stage, are you aiming at for fuel loading? 3 MR. CONNER: The answer to the first question is 4 92.6 and the answer to the second is early December by the 5 present planning. 6 MR. BARTH: Mr. Chairman, we were not prepared to 7 answer this question. I would like the opportunity to consult 8 with our Chicago Inspection and Enforcement people who inspect 9 the plant as to the state of construction and to respond in 10 writing if I may as to when fuel load and operation will become Il practical for the plant. I2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: These dates do have an impact 13 on how long a delay-- Certainly to make early December, there 14 can be some delay in the hearing date that we set for the I3 issues that you want reserved. What I'm trying to do is find 16 if there is a date when we could-- It doesn't have to be a 17 precise date as of now, but if we set a hearing we would like 18 to set it at sufficient time so that we could come out with a I 19 decision in time for proposed fuel loading. 20 Mr. Barth, I do havyone more question on the 21 timeliness of new proposals. This is completely unofficial but 22 one of The Washington Post articles yesterday in the paper 23 said that the Staff was going to the Commission this week on 24 certain proposals. Do you have any idea-- Wirhout identifying f eral Reporters, Iric. 25 what they were,-- I don't know how reliable the particular i 2276 183

e 129 eb7 I Washington Post article was, or is. j 2 MR. BARTH: We're familiar with the article, 3 Mr. Chairman, but the substance behind it we're not familiar 4 with. As you know, there has been a continuing dialogue be-5 tween the five Commissioners and the Staff, almost on a weekly / 6 daily basis. 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: At this stage there are a 8 number of motions outstanding dealing with discovery. It is 9 the Board's position that when one party moves for a protective 10 order and the other party doesn't respond, the protective order 11 ought to be granted because basically discovery is a matter 12 between the parties involved, and the Board will step in when 13 g it is asked to do so. But if the party against whom the pro-Id tective order is sought doesn't respond, the Board is inclined 15 to just grant the protective order. We did this on a couple of i l 16 motions in the past. I I7 The motions that I have before me, there's an { t 18 April 9th motion of Miami Valley, objecting to certain of the l Applicants' third set of interrogatories. The Staff supported 20 that one. So far as I can see, the Applicants did not respond 21 to that one, so we would be inclined to grant that motion of } l 22 Miami Valley. 23 There's an Applicants' motion dated April 6th which i 24 l objected to certain of Miami Valley's second set of interroga- ,, g,,,, g 25 I tories. I don't think there has been any response to that l 2276 184

e 130 Eb 8 1 motion, so we would grant the Applicants' motion in that re-2 gard. 3 On April 16th, Miami Valley sought to extend the 4 discovery on its Contention 13, based on new requirements moti-5 vated by Three Mile Island. We think we should await a ruling 6 on that until we see whether the Commission has any new require-7 ments that could have a substantial financial impact. If there i 0 are, then we would take action on that at that time. l 9 The Board would like to hear the various parties' l 10 positions on the next motion which we have on our list which l 11 is Miami Valley's request to inspect certain portions of the l 12 plant. The Applicants have objected to that and made some pro-13 g posals with regard thereto. Id We would-like to hear first Miami Valley's explana-15 tion of what the inspection would be designed to reveal, and 16 whether it could be confined in any way from the fairly board l I 17 request which was in your motion. 18 I would like to hear from the Applicant on that j 19 after you've had a chance on that. t i 20 The Staff also. We would like the Staff views on i 21 that, if they have some. l '2 MS. KOSIK: Miami Valley has requested to inpsect f 23 the cable trays, particularly the welds on the vertical fittings, 24 the control rods and the seals on the control rods. Now these l eral Reporters, Inc. 25 three items are the subject of three of our contentions and we 2276 185

e 131 eb9 I have evidence from individuals who have worked on these various, 4 2 items and they have given us evidence from their own observa-3 tions that the manufacturing has not been properly done. 4 The Applicant has responded to our discovery by I 5 saying that these items are properly manufactured, and we felt 6 that the best way to determine the truth of that matter would 7 be to have an inspection and to look at these parts and see 8 exactly how they were manufactured. 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Do you expect that a visual 10 inspection could reveal whether they were properly manufactured II or not? 12 MS. KOSIK We would be bringing with us experts I 13 to do that observation, who hopefully could tell something l 1 14 from the observation. 15 I Now on the control rods and the seals, our conten-l I0 tion is that the control rod blades do not meet the size l 17 specifications and it seems that a measurement of those, the i 18 blades, would reveal whether or not they do meet the specifica-l 19 tions. t 20 On the seals, we're contending that they are too s" \\ 21 rough to meet specifications. And again it seems that an in-22 spection would reveal whether or not they meet the specifica-23 tions. 24 Admittedly it may be difficult at this point to era! Fleporters, Inc. 'S determine how well the welds that are in question have been 2276 186

e 132 ebl0 I done because, as I understand, they've been galvanized. But l 2 part of our contention that weighs very heavily on that matter 3 is how much cable has been loaded into those cable trays and 4 visual inspection would also give us some idea as to whether 5 or not there is too much cable in there for what it is designed 6 to hold. 7 Again, we have made some discovery on these ques-8 tions but the answers have not really given us very clear 9 answers. 10 So for these reasons we would like to go in and II have a visual inspection of those items. 12 DR. HOOPER: As a result of these inspections, is 13 g it possible that you would withdraw your contention on these i 14 matters? Would that be one of your objectives? 15 MS. KOSIK: If everything were done properly, we 16 would have no reason to raise the contention. 17 But as I pointed out, we have evidence from workers l 18 that these items do not meet the specifications. Now if we see j 19 they do mee* the specifications, then some mistakes have been l 20 made and we would withdraw. i 21 DR. HOOPER: You would have technical expertise 22 there which could make some judgments as to whether the workers'; i 23 statements were correct or were incorrect? Is that right? t 24 MS. KOSIK: Yes, if our motion to inspecr is granted, erai Reporters. inc. 25 we will obtain expertise to accompany us to do the examinations. 2276 187 i

e 133 I bil CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Conner, do you want to 2 address that subject? 3 MR. CONNER: Yes, sir. 4 If your Honor please, we of course filed a response 5 to th~t motion dated, if I can find it, dated May 3rd, 1979, a 6 which sets forth our basic position. But in the first place, 7 we think the motion is truly burdensome in that we believe that 8 these Intervenors have no idea of what they are talking about 9 in terms of examining control rods which are already in place, 10 for example. 11 They I do not believe have any idea that they're 12 talking about literally hundreds of feet of cable trays. I I3 don.' t think they appreciate the fact that the cable trays them-14 selves are not even Class 1 equipment. I am sure they do not 15 appreciate the fact that all of these components, as well as 16 every other component in the plant, must meet the specifications, 17 which are applicable to them, whether they be ASME or IEEE or 18 what-have-you, and that the NRC's Division of Inspection must 19 be satisf ad with the adequacy of this equipment. 20 I am sure they do not understand that these must I 21 i meet our own QA/QC program which must assure that every compo-l 22 nent in there meets specifications. 23 b What they want to do would require I don't know how i 24 many man-years of work which would be undone and have to be re-erst Reporters, Inc. 25 done for something that they have shown no need to do. I i 2276 188 i

e 134 1 Secondly, they have said technical expertise would 2 be available to examine it. However, I somewhat doubt that 3 they have technical expertise available or they would appre-4 ciate the magnitude of their request and the fact that the de-5 sign of the cable trays is quite different than they seem to 6 believe. 7 For these reasons and the other things that we have 8 stated in our motion, we think that it clearly should be denied.' 9 It is also rather late in the game to do the kind 10 l of -- oh, discovery, visual or otherwise, that they're talking l 11 about doing here. 12 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Does the Staff have any 1 13 l comment? 14 MR. CONNER: I would like to add one point. I 15 If this were allowed, we would strongly urge that 16 it not be done without them posting bond under the protective 7 order we have talked about in this because there would be an 18 immense cost added to the plant which the ratepayers and the 19 people in this crea will ultimately have to pay, so we don't 20 think that this type of mischief should be allowed except at 21 their own expense. CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Would the visual type of 23 inspection that they're talking about alone involve this ex-24 pense? .m n.oorms. Inc. 25 MR. CONNER: Sir, the type of visual inspection of 1 i i 2276 189

? 135 313 I control rods -- I don' t have any idea what they mean there, 2 nor do we. Obviously some cable trays are more visible than 3 others and are more accessible than others. We don't know what 4 they want. This is an open-ended request. There is no parti-5 cular specificity to it. 6 They are aware presumably if they read the material 7 we furnished of the strength tests that were performed by the 8 Commission on those cable trays, so I'm not really sure what 9 else they're looking for. 10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Ms. Kosik, is your request 11 limited by any chance to those components of the type men-12 tioned which could be visually observed without deconstructing I 13 or,,,, 14 Ms. KOSIK: Obviously I don't have detailed infor-15 mation on the whole setup, but my understanding is that not j 16 i all the control rods would have been already put into place. j 17 And if so, I would guess that they could be removed without that 18 much difficulty since part of the operation of the plant does 19 involve removing the control rods and putting them back and l 20 forth. 21 We're talking about measuring these rods, the i 22 blades on the rods, to see whether or not they meet the size 23 specifications. That doesn't seem like it would require de-24 constructing the plant. woi nwon.a. inc. 25 The seals which are part of the control rods are l 2276 i90

136 14 1 supposed to be a certain smoothness and it seems that a visual 2 examination or touching it and comparing it with a sample of 3 how smooth it's supposed to be, which is how the workers did 4 their examination in the first place, would be available to us 5 just as easily once these rods were simply made available. 6 Again, on the cable trays, we don't propose to rip 7 apart the welds right now. We would cor.tand that that would 8 be necessary in light of the evidence that we received. But 9 we would at least want to visually inspect the cable trays and 10 see how much cable is loaoed into those trays because if those II welds are even questionably improperly performed, overlo'ading 12 of any nature would cause it to be an even greater safety 13 problem. 14 Now Mr. Conner has stated that the NRC inspectors 15 have to be assured of compliance before they allow a piece of 16 equipment to be installed and also that the Applicant is re-l 17)quiredtomeetqualityassurance. We would contend that this 18 is a circular argument. It is obvious that the Applicants are { l 19 going to say everything is properly done. There would be no purpose for Intervenors if Applicants were going to come forth 20 21 with the problems that exist. 22 l Regarding the burdensomeness of our request, we 23 feel that if our contentions are correct there's a great deal 24 of the safety of the citizens in the area involved and therefore, eral Reporters, Inc. 25 the burden to these citizens certainly is as great as the 2276 191 1

e 137 sbl5 I burden to the Applicants in terms of meeting our request. 2 Again because of the burden to the safety of the 3 citizens that live in this area, we feel that no bond should 4 be required. Again, we're not looking to deconstruct the plant. 5 We don't anticipate any great expenses to the Applicants, 6 other than just going in there with some experts, measuring the 7 control rods, inspecting the seals, and inspecting the cable 8 trays and the loads in the cable trays. 9 MR. CONNER: I would ask the Board, in view of Ms. Kosik's statement, to take official notice of the fact that ' 11 visual inspection would not be able to detect variations in 12 tolerances of thousandths of an inch or less, and that the same 13 would be true for 'the welds on cable trays which, by the way, I# are largely bolted as well as a few welds here and there. 15 I would also note that if the Intervenors wanted 16 to get into this type of thing, inspect it at the last minute, 1 17 they could have done so earlier. They've been in this case 18 i now for well over three years, and tnis is kind of late to get 19 l into things, which, by the way, are all installed in terms of { 20 the control rod drives. 21 l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: My understanding of that is i 22 i that they were only informed of what they consider potential l 23 defects -- I think it was in March that they were informed by 24 workmen. They are new contentions. .r., neponm. inc. Does the Staff have any comment on the inspection 2276 192

e 138 I bl6 request? 2 MR. BARTH: Mr. Chairman, I prefer to let the 3 Applicant and the Miami Valley fight this one out. We take no position. 5 I would make an observation that we had people at 6 the plant on September 18th to the 22nd, and 28th and 29th. 7 These are three inspectors who are qualified in this kind of 8 thing. They spend 143 inspection hours on cable trays alone. 9 And I wonder whether the site visit which is normally held 10 approximately this time before a hearing is a proper place to 11 start going and trying to make this kind of an inspection. 12 This is a very complicated matter. It's the advan-13 tage we have, and the technical expert on the Board will under-14 stand it is not just a matter of going and looking at the plant. i It's a very, very difficult matter. We have a great many in-16 spection hours, and 143 hours in September are only part of t 17 I our inspaction effort on the cable trays. 18 l Whether this is an inconvenience or a burden on 19 I the Applicant, I think I had best leave to the Board to deter-I 20 i mine. 21 I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Ms. Kosik, do you have any { 22 I reason or can you give us some reason why you think your ex-l 23 perts, in a fairly limited type of inspection, could find out i 24 more than the Staff's 143 hours, or whatever it was? .re pepomn. inc. 25 MS. KOSIK: Just that it would be an impartial 2276 193 l

? 139 l ebl7 I inspection that would take place, and from an outside and im-l 2 partial party which is an Intervenor. 3 Additionally, to respond to some of Mr. Conner's 4 remarks, we're not talking about just looking at it and seeing 5 ';hether, you know, it's within a thousandth of an inch. Ob-l viously some measuring devices would be used to do this testing!. I 7 What we're saying is we're not going to take 8 everything apart. 9 I MR. BRIGHT: Mr. Conner, are all the trays fully l l 10 loaded now? I don't mean 100 percent but let's say 95 percent,! 11 98 percent, 12 MR. CONNER: Yes. 3 MR. BRIGHT: -- something like that? Have any of l 14 them shown any evidence of any kind of failure during this 15 l loading process? i 16 i MR. CONNER: No, sir. In fact, after these earlier; i 17 charges that Ms. Kosik referred to were made, the Staff came 18 in and did destructive tests and we provided-- 1 19 MR. BRIGHT: You say did destructive tests? MR. CONNER: Yes. And we attached that report to 21 one of our filings, if I can find it here.... l 22 Yes, we attached information from two tests. The i 23 one we're finding right here is on the insulation material. 24 There are references to the destructive tests in the filing. were nemnm, w. e5 ( If you'll give us a minute I'll give you that reference. I 2276 194

= 140 1 This is attached to our response to MVPP's third bl8 2 set of interrogatories dated May 14th, 1979. Attached to this 3 we have placed an Inspection Report by Region 3 of the NRC's 4 Office of Inspection and Enforcement on -- several dates. The 5 latest one is 12/21/78, which provides the type of inspection 6 and destructive testing which was performed on these cable 7 trays after they were originally charged by Mr. Hofstadter, I 8 think. And I think this answer is fully despositive, and if 9 we had time, we would make a motion for summary disposition 10 based solely on this report. Il Does that answer your question? 12 MR. BRIGHT: Yes. Thank you. 13 Turning to the rods and the seals, now are all the 14 rods installed -- 15 MR. CONNER: Yes, sir. 16 MR. BRIGHT: -- in the reactor? 17 MR. CONNER: Yes, sir. 18 MR. BRIGHT : I have to fault myself. When I l l 19 saw the request to inspect the seals, in my experience the seal' I 20 is usually not a part of the moving object, and now I find l 21 something that I probably should have thought of some time ago,I i 22 that the seal is on the rod itself. It's a part of the rod. l i 23 It's a polished section of the rod? 24 MR. CONNER: That's my understanding, sir. It's ere1 Reporters,1% 25 part of the mechanism, not the blade, I've just been informed. l 2276 I95

e 141 I 9 MR. BRIGHT: Part of the mechanism and not the 2 blade. 3 MR. CONNER: May we have just a minute? 4 (Pause.) I'm not sure I can explain that. It's at the base-- 6 Wait a minute. 7 (Pause.) 0 Its at the base of the control rod. It serves as 9 a back seat, I am informed, and protects the maintenance people 3 10 It has no safety significance. 11 MR. BRIGHT: Well, let's see. If you remove a rod, you would have to take the whole mechanism out to inspect the 13 seal? 14 MR. CONNER: If I may have a moment? 15 (Pause.) 16 You would have to take the whole rod out. This includes the actuating mechanism? { I'7 MR. BRIGHT: 18 I MR. CONNER: No. - i 19 MR. BRIGHT: Not the actuating mechanism, just the l 20 rod itself? 21 MR. CONNER: Yes. 22 I MR. BRIGHT: One other question: Do you have any 23 spare rods? 24 MR. CONNER: Yes, sir. eral R morurs,lm. i 'S ^ MR. BRIGHT: Well, what is the condition of the 2276 196 i

142 20 I primary system? Does it have fluid in it? 2 MR. CONNER: Yes. l 3 MR. BRIGHT: It is water full? 4 MR. CONNER: Yes. 5 MR. BRIGHT: Thank you. 0 MS. KOSIK: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to 7

couple of statements by the Applicant.

8 First of all, in regard to the destructive tests 9 that thc. Applicant performed or had performed, they never -- '3 none of those tests included vertical fittings, and our con-11 tention specifically relates to the vertical fittings of the 12 cable trays. Those welds are much more significant and those j l 13 are the welds that we are claiming were performed by uncertified' I4 veldcrc. 15 Those welds, to our knowledge, have never been tested 16 by destructive tests. 17 Additionally, referring to the report that Appli-18 cant attacPad to their answe s to Miami Valley's third set of 19 interroga tories, there are a few paragraphs in there that, by l 20 my reading, indicate that the welders were in fact not fully 21 certified to do the welds. 22 Now the basis of our contenti'on is that these welds 1 23 cannot at this point be visually inspected as many welds can 24 be often, .r.: 9.comri. Inc. and we're not talking abou" destructive tests, but l 25 ~ we're taking it a step back and saying that if the welders were 2276 197 I

e I 143 b21 I unable to perform welds with fusion, we can therefore logically 2 assume that many or most of those welds are not welds with 3 fusion; therefore, they don't meet the specifications and they 4 can't be counted on to hold up under the pressure that they'll 5 be given. 6 MR. BRIGHT: Well, Ms. Kosik, I'm a little con-7 fused. You said you can't really do a very good visual in-8 spection because the things are galvani::ed or something like 9 that. If you can't do that, how are you going to tell whether l 10 a weld has good fusion? MS. KOSIK: What we hope to determine by visually 12 inspecting the cable trays is the degree of loading of cables. I 13 We have information that customarily cable trays are not Id loaded more than about two-thirds full, yet these cable trays l 15 have been observed to be overloaded. If the sides come like 16 that, then the cables go like that (demons tra ting), overloadingI 17 it. The s what we propose to see by visual inspection. 18 And again just speaking logics 11y, the more weight i U there is, the stronger the welds have to be and the more im-i 20 portant it is that those welds are properly performed. I 21 MR. BRIGHT: Well, let me ask you this: If you put 22 the cables in in nice, straight, level strings, very carefully, ! 23 say up to 70 percent or whatever the figure you quoted was, 24 and then on the other hand you kind of piled them in there, eral Reporters, Inc. 25 which I understand some people are doing these days just to get 2276 198

144 b22 I a little more circulation through and therefore, reduce the 2 chance of overheating the cables, it would appear to me that 3 with the same weight you would have a higher bunch of cables. 4 MS. KOSIK: It seems there would be a greater weight 5 if there are more cables. 6 MR. BRIGHT: I didn't say more. If they are piled 7 all over one another instead of being laid out in nice, neat, 8 orderly strings, then there is a possibility that the same 9 amount of weight could extend up above the top of the trays. 10 MS. KOSIK: In terms of how they're piled in there? 11 Is that what you're saying? I2 MR. BRIGHT: What I'm trying to do is get to the 13 bottom of what is the real value of the visual inspection with I# some knowledge of how difficult it is. l 15 MS. KOSIK: Well, a visual inspection would also 16 thow us whether or not they are neatly in there, or just neatly I in there but still overloaded. I think it would show us just I 18 how much cable is in there, and therefore, how much weight i I there is on these welds. l 20 MR. BRIGHT: Thank you. 21 MR. CONNER: I hate to keep prolonging this, adding ! 22 on, but Ms. Kosik makes the point that she wants to talk about 23 the vertical cable trays. The vertical cable trays and the 24 other cable trays are all the same. One is put this way and c.i n ooners. anc. 25 one is put that way (demonstrating), and they are still the;same 2276 199

145 I 23 cable trays. And these were the ones-- The test results would 2 be equally applicable to trays, whether they're vertical or 3 horizontal, except obviously the vertical trays would not have d any weight-bearing capacity. 5 On the overload point, they all have to meet the 6 spec of 40 pounds per square foot limit, and that would be 7 the governing factor to determine how many would be in there, 8 and that has been met and that is reflected here in our answers 9 to their interrogatories. 10 I want to go back to the point of certifying welders.. 11 You don't have to certify welders because this is not Class 1 12 equipment. It is just not applicable. The requirements of 13 ASME for safety grade equipment is simply not applicable to 1 14 cable trays. i 15 l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Conner, would there be 16 I much burden on the Applicant for the technical inspection l I7 Ms. Kosik just described to look at the cable trays and see how 18 they're loaded? Maybe not 100 percent of them but a representa l 19 l tive number? t t 0 MR. CONNER: As the Board will see tomorrow, 21 presumably, there are hu:.idreds of feet of cable trays in here, 22 and they're installed and they are in rooms and places and not l 23 exactly easily accessible places. And for someone to do what 24 the Intervenors say they want to do, inspect all of these, would, .r. necon m.inc. 25 be quite a burden. It would be very disruptive to the job and 2276 200

146 24 I would cost everybody a great deal of time and money and cer-2 tainly impair getting it done without any advantage to safety. 3 Perhaps tomorrow, when I assume one of their I ~ Counsel will go to the site visit with the Board, they might 5 realize what's involved here. But I would come back to the point that Ms. Kosik 7 did not respond to my point on anybody having any real techni-8 cal expertise to tell anything if we look at those trays. I 9 mean Ms. Kosik may be more of a technical expert than I am, l i 10 I but if I went out there and looked at those trays, I wouldn't 11 be able to tell you much about them. CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: One further question, 13 Mr. Conner. Does this Board have authority to impose a bond? 14 MR. CONNER: Yes, sir. I think receiving this l 15 I late request or the request given at the time it has been giveni 16 certainly allows -- would be an exercise of discretion to grant i 17 it, and if the Board were going to grant it, I think it has a duty to protect the people of the service area involved here 19 for the Applicants, and this would be a reasonable condition 20 of allowing such an examination to take place. 21 I don't know that you have authority to unilaterally 22 order the imposition of a bond, but I think you certainly have 23 the authority to impose it as a condition of a request that 24 somebcdy has made. eral Reporters, Inc. CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I'd like to hear both Miami 2276 201

147 b25 I Valley and the Staff on our authority,on the point relating to 2 our authority on this to impose a bond. 3 MS. KOSIK: Mr. Chairman, we're not at this moment 4 sure whether or not the Board would have authority to grant 5 this bond. We will look into that matter. 6 However, I would like to point out that granting 7 such a bond would be very burdensome to our group, which is a 8 citizens' group, without very many resources. And in light of 9 the type of inspection we're talking about, it doesn't seem 10 that there is really any need for it. It seems pretty clear that we would be guided to the various items that we want to 12 examine by the Applicants' agents and so forth, and it appears 13 to us that it would be burdensome and unnecessary. Ud CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Barth or Mr. Brenner, as 15 the case may be? 16 i MR. BARTH: Mr. Chairman, the rules and regulations l l I7 do not provide for bond to cover expenses of discovery. Ithink! l 5 18 the normal course of experience in the agency has been that I9 those who are discovered against have to carry the reasonable i 20 costs of discovery. If you discover against my agency, the l 21 papers, the xerox, we understand the inspection reports, these 22 things cost money. i i 23 Whether the Board can impose a bond for costs in 2d excess of normal discovery costs, normal inspection costs, I eres Reporters, Inc. 25 just do not know. I would prefer to request time to submit a 2276 202

148 6 position by the Staff at a later date. 2 I do think there's no question you have the 3 authority explicit to control the conduct of the proceeding, and 4 should you determine that excessive costs are being incurred 5 in discovery, it seems to me you certainly have the authority 6 to protect the party by a protective order, an order which would 7 say discovery may be had if costs are paid. I would not think 8 you could order that costs be paid but you could prohibit 9 discovery in the absence of costs to the protective party. This 10 goes to any party. 11 But again, before we would take a definite position 12 on the bond I would certainly like to have permission to submit a position in writing. 14 CRAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The Board is not going to 15 rule on this particular motion this afternoon. We would like 16 to proceed. 17 I think the next document we have before us-- I l 18 ~ think Miami Valley inquired as to the form of the contention i 19 we had admitted, and we had intended to admit the contention in its revised form. I guess we didn't make it clear in our 21 order admitting it. We admitted it after we received your 22 revision and it was intended that that form be the one admitted.l, 23 MR. CONNER: I'm sorry, we couldn't hear you, 24 Mr. Chairman. ero a. porters, inc. 25 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I'm sorry. It was the Board's i 2276 203

? 149 eb27 I intention that the form of-- Miami Valley inquired I think as { 2 to the form of their -- I think it was Contention 17. Am I 3 right? 4 MS. KOSIK: Contention 14. We have pending a pro-5 posed contention 17, but that's a different issue. 14 is the 6 one you're referring to. 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I just didn' t remember the 8 number. 9 Contention 14, the form in which it was admitted, 10 was the form as in their revised -- the document which submitted II the support for their contention. It revised the form of that 12 contention, and Ms. Kosik had inquired, had written a letter to 13 the Board inquiring which form had been intended to be admitted, 14 and it was the revised form of that contention. lb 15 2276 204 16 17 18 19 l 20 21 l 22 I i 23 24 er.i secon.n. inc. 25

150 J mphl 1 Now we have two other discovery motions, if my 2 count is correct. On May 9, Miami Valley objected to I think 3 two of the Staff interrogatories. And I wanted to inquire t 4 whether the Staff planned to respond to that. l l 5 MR. BARTH: We do, Your Honor. We have until -- l l 6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I realize -- 7 MR. BARTH: This would be an opportune time, at the i 1 8 hearing. We have everybody here. We thought we would address l 9 the motion of Miami Valley of May 9 at this hearing. l 10 ' CEAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: You're welcome to do that. 11 Maybe Miami Valley would like to -- maybe, Ms. Kosik, youwouldliketoreiterateontherecordwhatyourobjectionsf 12 i are to the Staff's interrogatory, the document you filel May 9.l 13 I L5 14 MS. KOSIK: Mr. Chairman, my file seems to be miss-15 ing on that objection we had filed. 16 CHAIRMAN BECRHOEFER: It's very short. I might say 17 it seems to be based on the fact that the responses would have 18 required you to summarize your expert testimony early. 19 MS. KOSIK: Yes. We really don't have anything 20 further to add. It's our understanding that June 8 is the dead s / 21 line for submitting the direct testimony before the Board. 22l And we are simply objecting because to be required to summarize 23 l all the testimony at this time would be giving the Intervenor 24 an earlier deadline on that requirement. usiaanm.inc.! 25 l CHAIRMAN SECHHOEFER: Mr. Barth? i I p 2276 205 .a.

151 l l l mpb2 1 MR. BARTH: Mr. Chairman, in our discovery we asked i 2 for the names of the experts of the Intervenors, and they say l 3 -- Ms. Kosik states that such a requirement has the effect of ! l 4 moving the deadline ahead. l 5 May I point out that 10 CFR Section 740 (e) (1) j f 6 specifically provides for the disclosure of the names of expert I t 7 witnesses and a summary of their testimony. l 8 I would further point out that Rule 26 (b) (4) (a) (1) l 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that there l 10 ! is an interrogatory requirement of the party to identify each 11 person whom the other party expects to call as a witness, and ! 12 to state the substantive facts and opinions. l 13 We might say this is an administrative proceeding. ! i 14 This is not a federal court. And therefore the Federal Rules i 15 of Civil Procedure do not govern. I will point out that in 16 Allied General Nuclear Services, Barnwell Fuel Receiving, 17 which is a licensing board decision, 5 NRC 489, 1977, the 18 licensing board specifically considered this matter-.. 19 CEAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Off the record for a minute.i 20 MR. BARTH: -_ and stated that the appeal board 21 has recognized that 10 CFR Section 2.740 is patterned after and 22 parallel to the 26th Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 23 cites cases in support thereof from the appeal board. l 24 A long standing position of the appeal board is eral Fleporters, Inc l 25 l that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide guidance i i i 2276 206

152 mpb3 1 insofar as they are parallel to the agency's rules. The 2 agency's rules in this regard are discovery and those discovery ? 3 rules do parallel the federal rules. The federal rules l l 4l explicitly provide for the disclosure of the names of l 5 experts and a summary of their testimony. 6 This is also specifically referenced in 10 CFR l 7 2.74 0 (e) (11, and we feel that it's appropriate that the Miami l l 8 Valley Power Project comply with the agency's rules and provide i 9 the Staff with the names of the experts it: expects to call 10 1 and a summary of their testimony. I 11 I would further point out, Your Honor, that the l 12 opposition to the Staff's discovery refers to Interrogatories i 13 14, 25, and 42, Omitted from that argument is the objection 14 in the text also to questions 15, 26, and 43. l 15 At this time since we are covering their response 16 to our interrogatories, most of these answers provided are no 17 answers at all. And we would move that the Board require la responsive discovery to the Staff's interrogatories. 19 We further move that insofar as the manufacturing 20 of the control rods is deemed to be inadequate, that the Boardi l 21 strike that portion of the contention. The response to 22 q Interrogatory 18 was to identify and describe what aspects of Il 23 the manufacturing process was inadequate. The response was 24 that it's unknown. 10 CFR Section 2.714 requires that the -ret a conm. inc., 25 ! contentions have a basis. And if there is no basis for the l i [ 2276 207

153 I i mpb4 1 contention, the contention cannot stand. 2 There is no basis for the contention as provided i 3 i in our answers to interrogatories. And that part of the l 4 contention should be stricken. l l' 5 I would point out, Your Honor, that specifically 6 with regard to our Interrogatories 24, 25, and 26, there are 7 simply no answers which re meaningful to the Staff. There 8 are good reasons for discovery. 9 I would point out that United States Supreme Court; l 10 ' considered this matter in US vs. Procter and Gamble, which is 11 356 US 677. They pointed out that the basic point.of discovery 12 is to make trial less a game of blind man's buff and more a 13 game of contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed i 14 to the fullest practical extent. 15 The purpose of our discovery is a very serious i 16 purpose. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is charged by 17 Congress with the licensing of nuclear power facilities. 18 granted we find reasonable assurance for: the public health 19 and safety, 20 If Miami Valley or anybody pase has evidence that 21 the Applicant, the power company, has failed to construct 4 22l this plant correctly, or that General Electric has produced 23 l I control rods which are improperly manufactured, or that welds 24, have been improperly made, or that seals were impropgrly eral Reporters, Inc. 25 : installed at the ends of the control rods, we asked what the l l 2276 208

154 seals were, we got their answer, my agency is entitled to knowl mpb5 1 i i l 2' so that we can perform our function to provide adequate safety ' I l 3 to the public health. j l 4 It's a very serious matter. We have an inspection l t 1 5 program and we welcome public comment.If something is wrong, i l 6 we will send investigators to find out. But we're also l l 7 entitled to some specificity as to what is wrong. And we have' I i 8 not received that in response to our interrogatories. l 9 Therefore I would ask that the Board order the i 10 ! Miami Valley Power Project at the Board's earliest possible i 11 convenience to disclose the names of its experts, summaries of' 12 their testimony, and that they provide meaningful responses' i 13 to our interrogatories regarding contentions 14, 15, and 16. i 14 Thank you. 15 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Ms. Kosik, I noticed that 16 answers to certain interrogatories said your experts were 17 unknown at whatever that. time was. At some point you're going-18 to have to find out who your experts are. Presumably they' re 19 1 going to have to start preparing testimony and that kind of l 20 l thing. I 21 I was wondering at what point do you envisage 22l that perhaps you could respond to the Staff. 23 l MS. KOSIK: Well, sir -- I 24 I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: A summary of testimony does rsi Recorters. Inc., 25 l not have to be a verbatim description. 6 209

155 l mpb6 1 MS. KOSIK: Can I consult with another member of l 'l 2 our group on this in terms of our time schedule? We have I 3 other members who are seeking experts. We have a number that i 4 we have been consulting, but we haven't selected our experts l l 5 yet. l 6 In response to Mr. Barth, we recognize that we are 7 obligated to update our responses whenever we have the ability f 8 to do so, and we intend to do so. So if I might consult, I I l 9 can give you a deadline on when we'll have our experts. 10 ' CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Why don't we take a ten 11 minute break. 12 Will that give you enough time to talk to people? i i 13 MS. KOSIK: Yes. Thank you. l 14 (Recess.) 15 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Back on the record. 16 The first thing, I've been informed that there's i 17 a court crder for these floors prohibiting the taking of 18 pictures. So if anybody is around who' wants to take any more 19 pictures, I'm told it is not allowed. I 20 l I don't see anyone here, but.... I 21 Ms. Kosik, have you found out anything more about 22 l when your experts will be identified? l 23 l MS. KOSIK: Mr. Chairman, we have targeted June 1st 24 as the date when we will have selected the experts and will be r i s.ooners. inc. i 25 submitting a summarization of the testimony af ter that date. i [ 2276 210

156 mpb7 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Is that satisfactory to the l 2 Staff? 3 That's rushing it a little bit, but.... 4 MR. BARTH: Mr. Chairman, we did file discovery 5 within the time limit provided. I would point out that any 6 kind of liberality of contentions carries with it concommitent 7 responsibilities to provide the details of discovery which we j 8 need. 9 June 1st is 18 days before the hearing; allowing 4 10 i for mail, that's June 4 we would receive it. And I'm told 11 now that they will reply thereaf ter. l 12 We have a hearing scheduled for the 19th. We're i 13 entitled to some kindEof timely information. One of the argu ' i 14 ment: this morning was they would like to go out to this power! 15 plant tomorrow morning with their technical experts and look 16 at this stuff on con'entions 14, 15, and 16. So they must have 17 their experts already selected, because we only have a few more 18 hours to go. 19 So the experts must be known at the present time. 20 Otherwise it would really be misrepresenting that they would 21 take experts along to look at the plant. l 22 l I can't tell the Board what to do, but I think 23 this is undue delay, Your Honor. 24 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Could you identify any of al Reoorters, Inc, ) 25 your experts earlier? The Staff does have to prepare, and the e da H 2276 211

157 l l I mpb8 1 Applicants have to prepare their case. I think the testimony 2 is due on the 8th. That doesn't give very much time. i I 3 ! MS. KOSIK: Mr. Chairman, the 28th of May would be! I I I 4i probably the earliest we could supply those answers to the l 5 interrogatories, i l 6 In regard to what Mr. Barth has just said about l 7 already having our experts lined up, because of the site tour, 8 we were informed that the site tour is not an inspection tour,l 9 and therefore we are not intending to bring experts on the site i 10 tour. 11 As I say, we have consulted with experts; but we l 12 . have not selected them yet for various reasons, including l i 13 limited resources and how and where to use those resources. I 14 But we could provide it by the 28th. l 15 CEAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: In other words, a week from, 16 today they will be mailed to the Staff? 17 MS. KOSIK: Yes. 18 CEAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The Board would urge Miami 19 l Valley to identify its experts as soon as it can. If it has to 20 be as late as the 28th -- if you haven't ascertained your 1 21 experts before that, I suppose you can't answer the question. 22

u': please make every effort to do so, and to give a summary 23 l

- Jenst of what their testimony will be. I 24 l MR. BARTH: Mr. Chairman, may I request that if rol Reporters, Inc. 25 ] you're going to so order, that if you could somehow say that i k Q 2276 212

158 mpb9 1 the names and the summaries prepared by the 28th be available j l 2 here in Cincinnati, I'll try to make some arrangements to havel I 3 them picked up so that we can get them rather than going I l 4 through the mail circumstances. l l 5 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Right. l l 6 Could you arrange that, so that somebody from the l 7 Staff could pick them up here? l 8 MR. KOSIK: If the Staff has somebody here to pick l t 9 them up, yes. i 10 I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think you and Mr. Barth i 11 can confer on that and make some arrangements. I think that 12 would be desirable. I 13 I can't recall: Has Miami Valley not answered l 14 some of yours for the same reason? 15 MR. WETTERHAHN : Yes, sir. There were two 16 interrogatories in the same package under the title of Miami 17 Valley Power Project's Objections to Certain of Applicant's 18 Fifth Set of Interrogatories and Motion for a Protective 19 Order. 20 There were two interrogat.ories which the Miami I f* 21 Valley Power Project did not answer, number 17 and number 23. 22 l If you'd like to hear argument on those two, I'd be pleased 23,I to proceed. ll 24 j CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes. We would like to hear ral Reoorters, Inc. ; 25 l on those also. t k 2276 213 n

159 I mpbl0 1 MR. WETTERHAHN: With regard to interrogatory 17, i i 2 the claim is made that this interrogatory is irrelevant. The i 3l interrogatory reads -- asks for the basis for the assertion i 4 that one of the workers at tha site and two others were -- quote l 5 " laid-off" -- unquote. These words " laid-off" came from i 6 the supporting documentation from the Miami Valley Power { i 7 Project. And I believe that the Applicant is entitled to know' I 8 the basis of the assertion that two people, two or three people 1 9 were -- quote - " laid-off" -- unquote -- for expressing 10 ' concern about lack of compliance with the specifications. 11 This Board should not allow these claims with no 12 basis to stand. I i 13 With regard to 23, which asks for a description in! 14 detail of the number and location of all seals which the 15 Project alleges not to meet specifications, Ms. Kosik, in her 16 objections, seemingly has already answered this. On that 17 objection she states Miami Valley Power Project has no 18 knowledge of the numbers or present locations of the seals 19 1 which are claimed to be defective. 20 We would like a response under oath as required 21 by the NRC rules. 22 l CEAIRMAN BECRHOEFER: Ms. Kosik, do you want to 23 ll ll. respond? 24 l MS. KOSIK: In regard to interrogatory 17, we 3eral Reporters. Inc. l 25 would simply reiterate that the laying-off of these workers j 2276 214

160 l i I mpbil 1 is irrelevant to the contentions which state that certain I 2 items were improperly manufactured, and therefore irrelevant I i 3' to the issues at hand. I l 4> In regard to -- l 5 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Couldn't it be relevant to i I 6 the validity of the material that you used? 7 MS. KOSIK: We would state that it's irrelevant. 8 But if the Board rules that the question is required to be f I i 9 answered, we will provide an answer. 10 ' In regard to Question 23, we have stated that it i 11 is burdensome. Our evidence in regard to the seals came from 12 a millwright who worked on the seals, particularly testing the i i 13 smoothness and working on improving that to meet specifications. ~ i 14 Mr. Conner has stated that the control rods which j 15 the seals are part of have already been installed. It seems 16 obvious that we would have no way of knowing the exact loca-17 tion or even the number of those seals, since they have been 18 removed from where they were at the time that we got our evi-19 1 dence from the millwright. 20 And the Applicant would have the information, but i 21 we wouldn't have that information. l 22j (The Board conferring.) I 23 MR. BRIGHT: Ms. Kosik, on this seal thing, now I 24 lI understand; your argument that you have absolutely no way of l rei neoorms. inc. ] 25 knowing where those seals are physicully. But it would appear ]4 2276 215

161 l 1 mpbl2 1 to me that you could make some kind of an answer in terms of 2 how many seals are alleged to be improper: all of them, one 3 out of 100, whatever, that kind of information. You could do ! l I l 4 that? l 5 MS. KOSIK: Yes, we could give the information j l 6 as to how many seals the millwright who had been giving us our I 7 evidence did himself inspect. It wasn't an inspection; he was 8 working on them. He was told to check the sisals to see if they l 9 met certain requirements. 10 I We could find out from him how many seals he 11 investigated and provide that information. l 12 MR. BRIGHT: Mr. Wetterhahn? l 13 MR. WETTERHAHN : Well, perhaps we could solve 14 something.ight now. l 15 Is this millwright going to appea.r as a witness -- 16 Maybe we can find that out -- on behalf of the Coalition -- 17 MS. KOSIK: Yes. 18 MR. WETTERHAH17 : -- I'm sorry, the Miami Valley 19 Power Project? 20 MS. KOSIK: Yes, he will appear as a witness. 21 MR. WETTERHAHN: We would like the discovery as 22l outlined by Mr. Bright. 23 hl CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think the Board thinks it i 24 l would be useful for an answer along the lines you and Mr. eral Recorrers. Inc., 25 l Bright were just discussing. That would be useful. l [ 2276 216

162 mpbl3 1 I also think the answer to the first one would j 2 l also be useful, number 17. I do see some relevance there. I 3i I think Miami Valley should answer those two. I i 4 MS. KOSIK: Miami Valley will provide those answers. I 5 CEAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Do you have any time that --l l 6 Could we fige e a time for that? 7 MS. KOSIK: In three days. j 8 CEAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Okay. That seems satisfactory. 9 MR. WETTERHAHN : If we could have the answer on 10 ' Wednesday that would be appreciated, since we'll be here any-11 how. l 12 CEAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Is that possible? i 13 MS. KOSIK: We will definitely attempt to do that.! 14 If it is impossible we will provide it in three days. We should 15 be able to do that. 16 Mr. Chairman, if I may respond also to some state-! 17 ments made by Mr. Barth, he had included into his remarks a 18 motion to require more responsive answers. I'm not sure if the 19 Board intends to rule on this now, but I would like to recpond 20 1 to that. I 21 Miami Valley provided the best answers it could 22 l based on the direct observable evidence that we received from i 23 l l the wo,rkers. In order to supplement that evidence to support i 24 our contention, we also have been carrying on discovery against eral Reoorters, Inc. l 25 l the Applicants. At the time that we answered the Staff's l O 2276 217

163 interrogatorieswedidnothavetheanswersfromtheApplicant.l mpbl4 1 l 2 So, as I say, our answers were as responsive as they could be l 3 based on the evidence that we had. l l i But better answers would be based on the discovery! 4 i 5 that we have received from the Applicant. So we would move tol, t 6 oppose that motion. I l 7 CHAIRMAJ BECHHOEFER: Would the new information l l 8 that you got be in the form of updating material that you are 9 to be providing in any event? 10 I MS. KOSIK: It may. A lot of the answers to our i 11 questions were we would consider rather unresponsive. To the ; 12 degree that we could supplement and update our answers, we l l 13 will do so. But many of the answers to the questions were l i 14 reasonably unresponsive. We did not really get all the 15 information we were seeking. 16 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I have in my notes here that-17 the Applicant also objected to certain of Miami Valley's 18 third set of interrogatories. I wondered whether Miami Valley 19 1 would have "omments ready at this time on that. They were only 20 filed May 2.. 21 Do you wish to make any further statement in 22l support of your own interrogatories? 23 MS. KOSIK: Mr. Chairman, we at this time will not 24 present a response to their objections. al Reoorters, Inc. 25 i CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Very well. i j 2276 218

164 mpbl5 1 Well, then, to that extent, we will grant their l 2 request for a protective order on those. 3 Thu Board now would like to hear argument from alll 1 l 4l the parties on Miami Valley's last contention. I guess it's l 1 5 number 17, if I'v2 got my numbers straight. There seems to be: l 6 some dispute over what form of insulation is actually going I 7 to be used. And I would like to hear first from Miami Valley ; 8 and then from the Applicant and the Staff. f l' 9 All of you I realize have filed papers. What I 10 I would like to see is if there is some agreement as to what is 11 actually going to be used in the plant and whether there is 12 any issue with respect to the type of material that is actually i 13 going to be used, if that has been determined -- assuming that; 14 has been determined. l 15 This is the type of information that I think the 16 Board would like to hear. 17 First, Miami, in support of your motion, the latest 18 contention. 19 MS. KOSIK: Our contention is based on information, 20 that came out of the analysis of reports that have been f 21 submitted, I believe revision 12. And we had a couple of 22 'l people go over that report. And they determined that the i 23 ' test was not in fact favorable to the use of the material l l! 24 ! that was proposed to be used. ei neoorters, ine. l 25 ! There are two problems that we have with that. l 4 ] 2276 219

165 I I i mpbl6 1 The first is how the test was performed, specifically the 2 conditions that will be existing if the Zimmer Power Plant i r I 3i were not adequately simulated in the test. I i 4 It appears by going over that test report that l 5 one cable tray with a few cables in it was wrapped in the 6 insulation material and then the fire test was performed. 7 In fact, there will be three levels of cable trays on top of l 8 each other in the plant. And there is much more cable in eachl l 9 tray than there was in the cable trays when the tests were l 10 t performed. 11 There is going to be additional heat generated 12 from those additional cables. And therefore it would affect i 13 the performance of the insulation material. l l 14 Additionally -- So we object to how the test was : 15 performed. 16 Additionally we have a copy of the test that had 17 been performed by Sandia Laboratories on this fire insulation 18 material. And from our reading of this test, the test results, 19 I it appears that the fire insulation material simply failed 1 20 i the test entirely. 1 I 21 l The material caught on fire. There was thermal 22 damage to the cables. Essentially it just was not of any 23 pl real value. Yet to the best of my knowledge, the Applicants I I 24 N are going to go ahead and use this material. Tral Reporters, Inc. f 25 ' Now, in some of the papers that have come to us i 0 2276 220 e

166 l I mpbl7 1 responding to our motion to admit the additional contention, i 2 there is mention of the use of a fire barrier. And Miami 1 i 3 I Valley would like to know a few more details about that i I I l 4-fire barrier because there could be some problem with that, l 5 Probably ventilation and so forth. i 6 What we're contending is, first of all, the fire 7 insulation material that is being used is inadequate and did 8 not pass the proper tests. And secondly, we want to know if l l 9 something is being substituted in part or entirely for this i 10 ' fire insulation material, exactly how that's going to fun-11 ction. And we want to know the details of that. l 12 MR. BRIGHT: When you say "this material", Ms. j i f 13 Kosik, is that the Kaowool? 14 MS, KOSIK: Yes. 15 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Conner, would you like 16 to respond? ~ Also, I really would like to find out: is this 17 material in fact what's going to be used? This was somewhat 18 unclear to me, particularly from the Staff's response, but 19 from yours also, i 20 MR. CONNER: Okay. I 21 Keeping in mind that there's an awful lot of 22 cable trays in the plant, and keep also in mind if you will 23 that the primary criterion is the separation requirements 24 l as far as fire protection goes and the quality of the cables re neoorms inc. ! 25 { themselves, in instances where the separation criteria of l j 2276 221

167 I l l mpbl8 1 five feet vertical and three feet lateral cannot be met, then j i 2 the Kaowool would be used under certain conditions to provide ! I i 3i fire protection for the 60 minutes that would be involved where I 4 the need for 60 minutes exists. 5 In a couple of places the Staff and the Applicant 6 have conferred about where the physical barrier may be placed l 7 at some point where there's a forklift involved. And in that I I 8 case the barrier would be used. Presumably there might be a I 9 couple of others where there might be a barrier. 10 l So the generalized statements that are made in i 11 MVPP motions do not present the total picture,'because there 12 are several pictures. It also does not understand the concept' l 13 of how these cables are arranged in their own series and in i 14 their own divisions which provides a further degree of protec-: 15 tion, where the redundancy criteria may be required. 16 In any event, it will meet all the appropriate 17 criteria provided for by the ASTM B-119 or UL standards where 18 the Kaowool is used, as we point out in our response. So I i 19 I think our answer shows that what we will do at the plant fully: 20 l meets applicable criteria. 21' Now our objection is based as much on the -- and l 22 l we have styl'ed our answer of May 9 based upon the failure of 23 l i the Intervenors to justify the filing of this as lately as 24 i they did. Their own documentation shows that they were aware re neooners. anc. l 25 l of our test, revision 12 test, when it was filed on March 1st. I !y 2276 222

168 mpbl9 1 And of course, Mr. Hofstadter's information as to the test or 2 his association with Husky, he had to go back some distance. I i i I i 3 There seems to be some confusion about, at least l 4 in the motion-that MVPP filed,as to what underwriters lab I 5 tests they might have been talking about. So we do not feel 6' that they have shown a 2.714 justification for this conten-7 tion, particularly since it is late. i 8 We feel that they have not made a proper showing l l 9 for filing this when they did, two months af ter they were i 10 aware of it, when we are so close to a hearing. 11 We don't believe they have met the criterion of l 12 suggesting that their public interest would not be represented! I i 13 by the Staff in this area because, as our motion lays out, the! 14 Staff is following this very carefully and on a sophisticated I 15 and knowledgeable basis. 16 Thirdly, we do not believe they have met the 17 criterion of 2.714 in that they have not shown how they have 18 any expertise that would assist the Board in developing the 19 record. Apparently Mr. Hofstadter, who is a welder, is their 20 witness, although there may be someone else, I don't know. In 21 any event, they have certainly not shown that they have any 22l expertise in evaluating the fire protection in general or I 23! Kaowool in particular, in fact any insulating material in l 24 particular.

ral Reporters. Inc.,

25 So we think that their motion fails completeif. 4 kl 2276 223

169 I l i i mpb20 1 I will not go into the matter again of their misunderstanding i I 2 about vertical and horizontal sections of the cable trays, 3 but it's clear that adding this issue at this time would l 4 broaden the issues by adding a new one, and it would delay l 5 on the basis the Intervenors have stated because they say i l 6 once it is admitted they will begin discovery. And we feel l 7 on this basis the contention should be denied. l 8 CHAIRMAN BECEHO."?ER: If it proves necessary, and ! 9 it appears it will, to have at least an additional hearing I 10 ' session af ter the one that begins on the 19th to handle the i 11 various Three Mile Island related issues, could this one be l 12 handled along with those? 13 MR. CONNER: If you forced me to choose, I would 14 say that this would probably be much better the subject of 15 summary disposition because I truly don't believe they have 16 shown any facts that are involved here. We would propose to 17 take the depositions of their people and I think we can show 18 that they don't know really what's involved here. 19 So I don't think they have a genuine issue of 20 l fact. Certainly you can't tell it from the contention. 21 But if that alternative that I hope does not ccme 22 I to pass does, we would have time to take such other action i I 23 j between, say, the end of the presently scheduled June 24 hearings and, say, the resumed hearings in July I would hope eral Rooorters, Inc. 25 : at the latest. But there would be several ways to control h ll 2276 224

170 mpb21 1 this issue. 2 CEAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: And I take it that if we I i 3 I should admit this issue you would want us to provide a chance l 1 i for summary disposition motions with respect to it? 4 l 5 MR. CONNER: I would propose simply to -- This hasl 6 taken so long now to date, and I think the quickest way to l 7 resolve it is to simply bring some witnesses in to testify to I i 8 the facts and wipe it out of the hearing rather than crawl l l 9 through the discovery process.7hich really isn't working in i 10 ! terms of finding out what the issues are or what evidence we're 11 supposed to meet. 12 I mean, if they would -- they're hiding their l l 13 witnesses, if they have them. They won't tell us exactly l I 14 whac they have in mind. If we knew that then summary l 15 disposition would be the ideal way to go. But I think it 16 might be well to simply put this on as an evidentiary issue 17 on June 19 and litigate it. 18 MR. WOLIVER: May I address the Board? 19 l I think the issue -- I may misunderstand it, but 20 1 I assume it's whether or not this contention should be i 21 addressed or should be admitted at this point. 22l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That's correct. 23 hl MR. WOLIVER: So would think at this point that l 24 li Mr. Co,nner's statements or proposals as to how the -Tontention ge neoor m s,ane. 25, should be dealt with are really irrelevant right now, i l,1 2276 225 i

171 mpb22 1 We're also concerned with the question of the 2 Sandia tests. Approximately a year ago we asked the Board l 3 for a temporary halt in the construction, pending further I 4 study as a result of the Sandia tests. So in the very least l 5 we would ask that -- We feel also and we would jod n with the l l 6 Miami Valley Power Project that this contention be admitted, j 7 And if necessary that it be heard at the later hearings sc that i 8 adequate discovery, be it depositions or interrogatories, could 9 be had. 10 ' I don't think that there could be sufficient i 11 discovery on both sides and on our part within the next four 1C 12 weeks. I I 13 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Barth, any comment? { i 14 MR. BARTH:

12. Chairman, I think we are really l

15 I very far afield of what has transpired. The Miami Valley i 16 Power Project filed a request to admit a contention based 17 upon revision 12, the fire protection evaluation report. We 18 filed a piece of paper including a letter of John Stoltz in 19 1 which we rejected these tests, revision 12, in toto, whether i l i 20 l good, bad, or indifferent. Mr. Stoltz's letter so says, i 21 Revision 12 was a test for Kaowool for those areas, 22l that is the wires themselves with internally generated heat. 23ll They tried to qualify Kaowool through a 60 minute test in l 24 those areas and we rejected the tests. We required another i -rw neoonm. inc., 25 l

measure, k

2276 226 sjj

172 l i l .pb23 1 Now if the Board admits the contention they're i 2l going to put us to the trouble of bringing John Stoltz out l here to say "I reject the tests." and then go back home. 3 I 4 4 That's all that's going to happen, because revision 12 has f 5 nothing to do with the way the plant is going to be built. 6 It's totally apart from it. 7 Now the Sandia test is not included or encompassedi t 8 by Revision 12, the fire protection. Sandia is another word l l 9 brought out of nowhere which has nothing to do with the 10 ! proceeding anyway. Babcock and Wilcox originally conducted i 11 tests on Kaowool to qualify it for 60 minutes fire barrier l 12 protection. It was not challenged by the Intervenors or l 13 anybody else. And if the Board does admit this contention, thd 14 only thing we can do is bring out John Stoltz, who represents l 15 NRR, who would come on the stand, be sworn, and say, "I reject 16 revision 12," and walk off. And that ends the contention. 1/ And it seems to me that this is an opportune time 18 to have this contention admitted, which can be solved in such 19 1 a manner. 20 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: What's the alternative? 21 What if revision 12 is rejected; what's left? l 22 l Ms. CONNER: If Your Honor please, could I maybe iil 4 23 i say something? i 24 ! MR. BARTH: Let me address the Chairman's question. rol Reconen, Inc, ! 25 l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: What I really mean is Q 2276 227

173 t I mpb24 1 this test tended to show that Kaowool would not provide the I l 2 protection that it was being held out to provide. What should' 3 be relied on for determining what the adequacy of the insula-I i 4 tion is? l l 5 MR. BARTH: This test was only for a very limited l l 6 purpose, not for the entire cable trays and not for the fire 7 protection throughout the plant, Your Honor. It was only veryj l 8 limited. j l 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: But if you confine it to -- f 10 I MR. BARTH: The purpose of the contention is to 11 raise a defect in issue, and this is not an issue, so that 12 there is nothing. To answer your question, there is nothing 13 left. j 14 Now if the Board independently wishes to raise a 15 l substantial question as to how will fire protection be provid, 16 ed in areas where there is a passage problem, and the Board I l'7 wishes to exercise its jurisdiction to frame such an issue, 18 please do so and we will address it. Bear in mind that my 19 ) own people have no probic.a with the passage problem and with 20 the barriers, and we will get the company to agree to a fire 1 21 protection system which is satisfactory to the director of NRR. l 22 l The Board does have some jurisdiction for some 23 hl special conditions to raise inquiries. I see no reason why 24 : this would be a real problem. ral Reporters, Inc. l 25 l Coming back to your earlier i I t h s u 2276 228

e 174 I i mpb25 1 question, Mr. Barth, what would be left if we reject the 2 contention, I point out that the Applicant, as I previously l stated,hasnowcommittedtoprovidethestructuralbarrier--l 3 j 4 ', CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: If you reject the tes t -- l l 5 we said what would be left if we reject the contention. i 6 MR. BARTH: You asked the question what will be 7 left if we reject the contention, now? i l 8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: No, I meant if we rejected l 9 the test. i 10 ! MR. BARTH: We've already rejected the test. The i 11 director of NRR rejected the test. j 12 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I'm asking you what -- l l 13 MR. BARTH: The company has committed to provide i i 14 a structural barrier made out of steel and concrete in those 15 areas which were covered by the attempted qualification of 16 Kaowool under revision 12; that is in those areas where they 17 have a passage problem they will provide a steel and concrete 18 structural barrier to separate the wiring. 19 I That final design has not been submitted, but the 1 20 i final design will be submitted to the director of NRR as is 21 any other matter which they have to submit. 22 l (The Board conferring.) 23 l l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Ms. Kosik, do you have 24 ! anything to add? eral Reconers, Inc. 25 i MS. KOSIK: Well, first of all, there's been mention i ) 2276 229

175 l l mpb26 1 of the Babcock and Wilcox test. Again, I'd like to reiterate 2 that the conditions that will exist at Zimmer with the piggy-l 3 backed, the three piggy-backed cable trays with the trays 4 loaded, let's say well loaded, there will be more than a few l 5 cables in there at any rate, does not even come close to i 6 simulating those conditions. 7 The Babcock and Wilcox test did not simulate the l l 8 real conditions that are going to exist. And if there's I 9 going to be a passage problem, those trays are going to have 10 ' to be fully loaded when the test is performed. 11 Now an additional problem, though, that we have 12 with the Babcock and Wilcox test is that it was the manuf actur-l 13 er's test. And I think admittedly there would be some prob-i 14 lems with the manuf acturer providing the test of its own 15 product. 16 That's why we would like the Board to take 17 recognition of the Sandia tests and recognize the fact that 18 the Kaowool in that test did not pass the test. 19 There are statements in here that the Kaowool 20 caught fire when they were testing it, and that there was 21 thermal damage to the cable. So there is a valid test that 22 was performed that shows that the material is not adequate l 23 [d for the purpose. 24 And, again, we don't understand how this a neoornes. inc. 25 structural barrier is going to function in keeping fire off g !I ie ] 2276 230

176 l mpb27 1 of the cables. We want to have some more information on that.' l 2 And if the Applicants propose a new design for their fire I insulation, we would like to have the opportunity to evaluate ! 3 l I I 4 that and decide whether it appears to be adequate. 5 One last statement: The person that we will be 6 using if this contention is admitted, as an expert, was 7 formerly the project engineer in the fire protection i i 3 department at Underwriters Laboratories. So we do have i' 9 someone who is expert in this area who can provide us with l I 10 ' the information required. 11 MR. CONNER: Is that Mr. Hofstadter's son? 12 MS. KOSIK: Yes. 13 CEAIRMAN BECRHOEFER: At this point I would like i 14 to turn to Miami Valley's very recent motion to allow some 15 of its non-attorney members to appear and participate in the 16 licensing hearing. 17 MR. CONNER: Could I interrupt? 18 On the last topic I started a comment. I was wait-19 ing my turn. I wanted to clarify something that might help i 20. the Board. I 21 What Mr. Barth said about revision 12, of course, 22 l is correct and we will not be relying on it for that particular 23 l purpose for which it was run. And that is true. But I want 24 l p to make clear that my remarks are addressed to Ms. Kosik's ra6 Reporters, Inc. 25 [ much broader challenge to fire insulation material, which is I 1 Q 2276 231 e

177 mpb28 1 also part of the proposed contention 17. I just wanted to 2 get that in the record. l 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, I wanted to turn to 4 Miami Valley's motion to allow its non-attorney members to i 5 represent it. 6 Ms. Kosik, am I correct in saying that you will l 7 only have one -- you will only put forth one representative 8 at a time on a particular issue? 9 MS. KOSIK: Yes, that's correct. We did not l 10 ! raise this motion to confuse anything or to cause any kind 1 II of delays. It's purely'an empirical problem we have, which 12 is that everyone is working on a voluntary basis. Schedcles 13 obviously may conflict. We don't know at this time how many i 14 days the hearingss will take and what times those hearings ~ 15 will be scheduled for. 16 And therefore it may turn out to be impossible 17 that any one of the three attorneys now sitting here could 18 be there at all times. As I stated in the motion, the members 19 of the Committee which we presented the names of in our motion ' 20 are all familiar with the issues and would not delay the 21 proceeding. 22 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I was assuming you would 1 23 l only have one of them at a time. 24 ;I l MS. KOSIK: That's correct. wal Reporuts, Inc., 25 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Do the Applicant and the h Q 2276 232

178 mpb29 1 Staff have any objection? 2, MR. CONNER: We certainly do, Your Honor. It's 3l clearly contrary to the regulations. I 4l In our view the right to participate, if somebody i l 5 decides, public interest or whatever they may choose to i l 6 characterize their efforts, they have the responsibility of 7 parties in a proceeding. And 2.713 (a) in particular makes it i 8 very clear that a person should appear by counsel. The 9 decision in ALAB-428, I think it is, also discusses that even 10 further, and in effect says that where counsel appears laymen 11 are not to appear also except in the peculiar situation where ! 12 they are qualified as an expert interrogator under 2.733. I 13 It's ALAB-474, excuse me. i 14 I don't propose -- we will respond to this further, 15 l time permitting, if the Board wants a formal answer filed. 16 But certainly it is contrary to the rules to allow a parade 17 of people to come in and do whatever. The concept of the 18 rules, as pointed out by the appeal board in this ALAB-747, 19 and in here it refers to the single exception I jusu mentioned! 20 of the expert interrogator, footnote 4 on page 748 of that 21 decision says: 22 "The single exception is that the party 23 l may request the licensing board to permit 24 i examination and cross-examination of expert

rai Aeoomrs, Inc.,

25 l witnesses by a " qualified individual with 4 2276 233 n

179 l .pb30 1 scientific or technical training and i 2 experience". It should be noted that j i 3 i the party employing the technical interro-i i I 4 gator and his attorney nonetheless are j 5 responsible for the manner in which the 6 examination or cross-examination is conduct-7 ed." l 8 And then in the text following that it points out 9 that this is because it is expected that counsel would be 10 ' present and would participate. It says: 11 "Although Section 2.713 (b) does not in 12 its terms apply to non-lawyer representa-i l 13 tives of a party, the likely reason is l 14 the rules do not appear to contemplate l 15 the appearance in a representative capa-16 city of other than lawyers." 17 Now we feel that in a case where an Intervenor has la three lawye'rs whom we understand are hired by the Legal Aid 19 Society of Claremont County or someplace that certainly that 20 is no excuse to allow a number of people who are identified i 21 by the motion as non-attorneys to come into the proceeding and, 22l to participate in some' undefined way. l 23 I don't really understand that at all and I think 24hl it is clearly outside the rules. ral Reporters, Inc., 25 l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: One of the provisions of the la i k'l 2276 234

180 mpb31 1 rules -- I understand that the rules do permit a party to 2 I represent itself. It's my understanding that the Commission l 3 has routinely allowed a group to be represented by a member. i 4 MR. CONNER: When there's no attorney present. l i 5 CRAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, I think that has been 6 -- I don't know whether that has been applied on' a day by day 7 basis or on a proceeding by proceeding basis. l l 8 MR. CONNER: I admit there is a confused opinion l 9 in Catawba on that subject which I'm sure you're familiar l 10 I with. ALB-37328. But that was a special case, as shown by Il the facts themselves. 12 There is also a special case in North Anna in an i 13 order dated October 12, '76, where it was held that that could; 14 not be done. And we pulled out another one so f ar. This is 15 alsc from Catawba. 16 But I believe the better view has always been 17 with boards that 2.713 is intended to be mutually exclusive. 18 Where some organization comes in without counsel and makes a 19 1 showing that it cannot get counsel, however much the board l 20 l 1 urges them to get proper representation, then they will let a I 21 layperson appear on behalf of the organization. The boards 22l have shown a great deal of lenience, patience, and the need to. i 23 l guide such persons in such cases. I 2d ! But I think the better rule is that it's clearly erai neoorters, ine. ! 25 intended to be mutually exclusive. Certainly I think this l I n's b 2276 235

181 mpb32 1 case is justfitable on its facts, that where you have three 1 2 attorneys sitting there at counsel table saying that they wantl l 3 I to have eight or nine-odd people appear instead of them, it I i 4 is grounds alone for denying the motion. Certainly it would l l 5 lead to chaos in appearing if you had twelve people rotating I 6 trying to keep up with what may be going on and having to l l 7 interrupt proceedings to find out what happened that morning j i 8 and so forth. 9 So where you have three lawyers I don't think 10 ! there's any need to entertain that motion. We would like, if 11 the Board wishes, to submit a formal response to it because of i 12 course we just got it Friday, f 13 CHAIRMAN BECHEOEFER: I recognize that. We just i 14 got it also. l 15 MR. WOLIVER: Your Honor, I would like to respond 16 to that too on several points. 17 First of all, I would make the same... oral motion 18 on behalf of Dr. Fankhauser. It will be necessary for Dr. 19 ! Fankhauser and his credentials are a matter of record in this 20 : proceeding to represent himself. I think a couple of facts i 21 have been mischaracterized here, and the law. i 22 l I don't think that 2.713 (a) suggests that non-23 attorneys can't participate just because there is an attorney 24 l in the case. That would put a person, an intervenor such as eral A ecorters, Inc, l 25 [ Dr. Fankhauser in the precarious position where he would have i l li 0 2276 236 a

182 mpb33 1 to choose to do totally without an attorney or at least have ,a some guidance and some representation by an attorney who may l l i 3i not be able to participate throughout the entire hearing on a ; I 4 daily basis. I I 5 I'm sure Your Honor is more familiar with the 6 extent and the length of the hearings than I am. 7 Another point that was brought out which is 8 totally untrue, as a member of the CClermont County Legal Aid ! l 9 Society, I can assure you that none of the counsel for Miami i 10 i Valley Power Project are employed by our Legal Aid Society. 11 I'd be very happy if they were, but they just aren't. I i 12 As a member of the Legal Aid Society of Clermont l i i 13 County we would not have the resources to continue to provide i. 14 representation at all points during the hearing. So we would l 15 make the same motion for ourselves and ask that the motion 16 for Miami Valley Power Project be granted at this time. 17 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Conner? 18 MR. CONNER: I'm quite willing to accept the 19 clarification. I don't know by which Legal Aid Society 20 learned coun-91 are employed, if any. I accept the amend-I 21 ment that they are not from Clermont County. But perhaps 22 [ they're from Hamilton County, I don't know. But that should i i 23 l be clarified, perhaps. i a 24 So if I inadvertently said they were from Clermont' ral Reporters, Inc. 25, County, I apologize. I, 'I h k 2276 237

183 .pb34 1 While I'm at it, I would like to speak to Mr. 2 Woliver's contention. Since we have the new motion he just l 3 made, I assumed everybody has read 2.713 (a), which says : I i 4 "A person may appear in an adjudication l 5 on his own behalf or by an attorney at 6 law in good-standing, admitted to practice..." 7 Et cetera. It doesn't say "and/or", it says "or".! t i 8 And that's a clear reading of that language, which I believe l l 9: is dispositive, absent some peculiar showing of facts. l 10 I I think a peculiar showing of f acts is jus t the 11 opposite. Mr. Woliver has been Mr. Fankhauser's for three-12 odd years, perhaps more. And it's kind of unusual to ask *his l 13 Boardtorelievehimofhisprofessionalresponsibilitiesjustj i 14 before the hearing. l 15 MS. KOSIK: Mr. Chairman, may I also respond to 16 Mr. Conner's remarks? 17 First of all, none of the three attorneys here 18 are associated with any legal aid society of any kind any-19 where. We are all here as individual attorneys and as 20 volunteer attorneys. We are not receiving any remuneration 21 for the work that we're doing. And that's the basis of the 22 j reason we made the motion, because we also have to go out and l l 23 work during the day. And there are times -- we foresee that .1 24 y there may be times when none of the three of us can be present. ral Reporters, Inc. 25 j That's why we made the motion before the hearing began, so that i 0 2276 238

184 mpb35 1 we would not be faced with an emergency situation where at 2 one time none of the three of us could be here and we would I i i 3 I need someone else who is a non-attorney but has been involved I i 4 in the intervention proceedings all along. l l 5 In regard to Mr. Conner's interpretation of l 6 2.713, he originally stated that 2.713 (a) says that inter-7 venors should appear by counsel. I don't find any reading i 8 of "should" in there at all. I don't think it says that one l t 9 should or should not. 10 ! 7t does have -- it is an either/or situation, that's 11 true. But our interpretation of that would. be that the reason 12 it allows an intervenor to represent him or herself is in l l 13 case of minimal resources, in case the organization or i 14 individual cannot retain an attorney. l 15 Now Miami Valley has been able to retain volunteer-16 attorneys, and therefore we would feel the need to make use 17 of the part of 2.713 which does allow an intervenor to repre-18 sent itself by a non-attorney in certain instances. 19 Now when it's at all possible that one or more of 20 the three of the attorneys sitting here can be available, i 21 they certainly will.be. But we're simply trying to foresee 22 l an emergency situation and deal with it before the hearings 23l proceed. l t I 24 j CEAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The City of Cincinnati? tal Reporters, Inc. 25 l MR. HEILE: I would like to indicate the City has l'a !o 2276 239

185 mpb36 1 no objections if the Miami Power Project or Dr. Fankhauser j l 2 represent themselves at the hearing and to the extent that thel 3, attorneys may be unable to be present. i 4 We recognize they may have problems in that regard. 5 I would only advance this is an administrative tribunal. I 6 think the authority lies with the Board to make any determina-i 7 tion as to whether they will allow this to occur. And I think; 8 at least we established that the parties are capable of sub-i 9 mitting valid contentions to the proceedings that will assist 10 ' in developing a sound record. i 11 We think it would be proper for the Board to allow' 12 various members one at a time as the Board indicated before, i 13 to carry on the proceedings on behalf of the various 14 Intervenors. 15 We have no objections to it. We are not concerned i 16 with delay of the hearing. 17 CHAIRMAN BECHOEFER: Mr. Bar th. 18 MR. BARTH: The Staff does object to the motion, 19 Your Honor, on several grounds. l 20 l We feel that 10 CFR 2.713 (a) is dispositive. Miami i 21 Valley Power Project has elected to be represented by counsel. 22l We didn't elect that, they elected it. It was done by their 23 l l election. 24 ll t Secondly, we are well mindful that Intervenor al Reporters, Inc., 25 l associations have problems with scheduling of attorneys. At lj 2276 240 c

186 i l 4 I mpb37 1 the same time, we have problems with a billion dollar power l l 2 plant and cannot accomodate every kind of problem that comes i 3 up by the Intervenors. f I 4 To the extent that special expertise is needed i 1 5 to examine or cross-examine one of their own witnesses or a l i 6 witness for the Staff or a witness for the Applicant, 10 CFR l 7 Section 2.733 provides upon proper qualification that they j 8 may have an expert so examine or cross-examine. l 9 We have no objection to that kind of situatimn. 10 ' But once they have elected an attorney,in this case they Il elected three attorneys, we would really have administrative 12 chaos to have seven laymen who are unmindful of the rules i 13 come in and try to conduct the proceeding on their behalf. 14 I think it would be chaos when we find attorneys l 15 who refuse to disclose the names of experts because they 16 don't feel they should, and the rules provide it, think how 17 much worse it would be for laymen to inject themselves in this 18 proceeding and legal machinations. We are opposed to it. We 19 1 do not think it is advantageous. The contentions of the -- l 20 CHAIRMAN BECHOEFER: Are not laymen involved in 21 the group? Isn't this fairly routine? 22 l MR. BARTH: I've been with the Commission seven 23 years; I've never seen it, Your Honor, when an association 24 ! has elected to be represented by counsel. _ral Reoorters, Inc. l 25 l CHAIRMAN BECHOEFER: That's not the ques tion I'm t i D d 2276 241

187 l \\ l l mpb38 1 asking. l i 2 Aren't groups fairly routinely represented by l 3, lay-members when they choose to do so? l 4 MR. BARTH: The answer is yes, Your Honor, in l 5 many cases they have been. 6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Do the results that you 7 are picturing now necessarily apply? l I 8 MR. BARTH: I think they do. I think I can recall! l 9, a recent example: When a coalition decided it would be l 10 ' represented by itself and decided the Federal Water Pollution 11 Control Act amendments of 1971 controlled radioactive releases 12 under 401 discharge permits, which they do not, whichalawyer! r 13 would have known and would have aided these people in coming to 14 a little better conclusion. 15 I think also -- the point is they have three 16 lawyers, Your Honor. And they would like to be represented 17 by these three attorneys. I have no question as to the 18 competency of the attorneys, 19 1 Now I think that they can't have it both ways. l 40 ! I think they have elected to be represented by,pounsel and 21 I think they should stick by this. Plus I think the rules 22 I so provide. 23 l l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Now if it turns out that I 24 p none of the three of them could appear on a day, would you rg! AfDOffert, inC. ' 25 prefer that we grant a continuance as to that date? c'i il k 2276 242

188 i l spb39 1 MR. BARTH: I think, Your Honor, these people i 2 are obligated, if they have such a situation, to inform you l 3 when they can and cannot. We've already scheduled the hear-l l 4 ing to commence on June 19th, and I think between the three i l 5 of them they can come up with when they cannot be present. l 6 And we can probably arrange for those contentions to be heard l i 7 on days when they can be present. l 8 But this is a very serious matter. This is not a ! i I 9 matter of -- We're not here to play games. It's an important l 10 ' matter for the Staff. 11 Now if there is good and absolute convincing i 12 reasons that these three people cannot be present when their i 13 contentions are being heard, I think we should take that up 14 at the time. If they know now that they cannot be here on i 15 June 20th, all three of them, I think they should so inform 16 the Board, and we can perhaps try to schedule their contentions 17 l to accomodate them. 18 I think it really goes back to the old English 19 words: They are stopped by their own actions. They said 20 they'd be represented by counsel. They're responsible for 21 their actions, I

• m. r.c, t.

22l MR. WOLIVER: Your Honor, I'd like to respond to 23 ll that because I think this is a very serious matter, not only Il 24 hl here but in the way the NRC perceives its task and the amount al Reporters. Inc. l 25 ! of input, meaningful input it will lend or permit citizens to i 0 2276 243

189 I mpb40 1 have in the NRC processes, j 2 I think this is a very serious problem. We'renotl I l 38 talking about chaos. I think the example that was brought up l 1 I l 4' here shows very simply that if an irrelevant matter is brought l t i 5 up the NRC can respond to that and handle that situation. But! I 6 when we're talking about provisions where citizen groups can l l 7 meaningfully p.=.rticipate in this procedure which is highly 8 technical, special provisions have to be made. And I believe 1 9 that they are made by your own regulations. 10 ! But to simply say once you have decided to have 11 an attorney, that is how you must proceed when there is no 12 provision for remuneration of attorneys' fees or provisions 13 for providing intervenors with expenses to carry on in this 14 proceeding creates a tremendous burden for any public member 15 of any income status to continue on. 16 The NRC is aware of the highly technical aspects 1 17 that are required to be brought before this Board. Therefore 18 I think that this motion is very serious and it must be granted. 19 1 MR. CONNER: If the Board please, I would like to l 20 i respond to that. I 21 I think this comes down to an even more fundamental l 22 q point. This is a matter of professional responsibility we're 23ll dealing with. I a.. really shocked that counsel for the 1 24 ! Intervenors would expect the NRC in general and this Board re s.oorms, inc. ] 25 l in particular to treat them any different as counsel than a !i 4 2276 244 u

190 .pb41 1 court would treat them. They know perfectly well that if they i 2 are counsel for clients in.a court, no judge in the world i would let them wander in and out as they might pick and choose.l 3 I 4l And I think it's an insult to the Commission to suggest that j 5 the procedures before the NRC should be otherwise. 6 And I think this goes beyond accomodating an 7 organization. I think this goes to the heart of the matter, I 8 responsibility of counsel. I think we do want to file a I 9 formal response to this with citations of authority. For 10 ! example, I remember in the McGuire case counsel wanted to 11 leave -- intervenors' counsel wanted to leave after some days ; 12 of the hearing, and he was ordered not to. He was not allowed 13 to depart from his professional responsibilities and leave i 14 just because he decided it was time, and have a layman take l 15 over for him, by the way. The board denied that in the i 16 McGuire case, and I think that is good and ample precedent. 17 As I say, we just got this motion and I haven't had time to do 18 any thorough research on it. 19 2276 245 20, 11 22 l l 23 24 i al Reporters, Inc. 25 I i J m

a 191 l -bl I MS. KOSIK: Mr. Chairman, if I may respond, first 2 of all there have occurred situations in the judicial proceed-70 3 ing where an individual who was represented by Counsel and 4 aided in that representation by participating in the proceed-5 ings. 6 Secondly, this is not a judicial proceeding. It's 7 an administrative proceeding, and the rules are different in 8 an administrative proceeding regarding Counsel. The regula-9 tions allow for an individual to represent himself. 10 The Counsel for Miami Valley Power Project are not II in any way trying to get out of their professional responsi-12 bilities. We will be representing the Project throughout the 13 proceeding. We are simply talking about a possibility that 14 none of the three Counsel could be here at one particular time. 15 Now no one at this time even knows how long the proceedings are I0 going to last. We can't say whether we're going to be here on k 17 June 26th or not because we don' t know if the hearings are i i 18 going to be happening on June 26th. We know when they're going i I9 to start; we don't know when they're going to finish. So it is !;- 20 impossibletosayexactlywhenwecanbehereandwhenwecan't.! l 21 If there are small periods of time when Counsel { 22 cannot be here in person, we will still be doing our best to i 23 advise the Project and members of the Project, who are as well '4 jera! Reporters, Inc. informed about our contentions as we are, will be doing an 25 adequate job of questioning, cross-examining and so forth. 2276 246

S 192 2 1 Again, it's a question of resources. Miami Valley 2 cannot afford to hire a ir-firm like CG&E can. And because 3 we have to have other obligations so that we can support our-selves, there may be times when none of the three of us can be 5 here bec.ause we're volunteers. We're simply trying to foresee 6 a contingency and deal with it before it comes up. 7 We can deal with it at the time it comes up if the 8 Board so requires, but it will cause delay of the proceeding. 9 We would rather have this matter ruled upon at this time than 10 to have to make motions each time there is difficulty with 11 scheduling. 12 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We cannot take statements at { this time from others in the room. 14 VOICE: I believe I can solve the whole 15 controversy and bantering back and forth with a couple of i 16 i i statements. 17 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, I think it's between 18 I the parties here. And I think we had better limit it to that. 19 VOICE: Very easily this question can be i 20 solved and only by me. j 21 .I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Please try to keep it short, I 22 l will you, please? i i 23 I VOICE: Thank you very much. 24 I'm not sure I heard the names correctly, some thing ,,g,,,, ,y, 25 about a Mr. Bart and Mr. Conner. And I don't know the young 1 2276 247

193 I >3 lady's name. 2 Mr. Bart referred to going by the rules because 3 this is a very serious situation. No one knows tha better 4 than I do, that it's a very serious situation. Not to allow 5 certain people to come in that aren't attorneys and that aren't 6 scheduled will create chaos. 7 I believe that when the utilities steal people's 8 property with a judge sitting on the bench and a law firm 25 9 years representing CG&E's partner and one of the attorneys is 10 his brother-in-law on the case, that was chaos and a total 11 disregard and a destruction to a person's constitutional rights. { 12 Now if they can do that, you can change the rules 13 about the witnesses. It's that simple. When the utilities 14 destroy people's rights, it can be changed now. 15 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I don't think this is in l 16 l order. i 17 l I do think we will permit the parties to file briefs 18 i on this matter. Briefs can be filed either in support of or in; \\ 19 opposition to the motion. I think we will wait until we re-20, ceive those to rule on this. I guess there is no necessity for ! 21 I us to rule before the commencement of the hearings themselves. l 1 22 The Board would like to go through the various con i l tentions for which motions for surpary disposition have been 24 filed, and we have some questions. we n.mn.n, inc. 25 I might add we may have to continue this discussion i 2276 248

194 b4 I on Wednesday because I don't know if the building formally 2 closes but most of the people leave fairly soon, and I think 3 we could go on for a little period of time further, but there 4 may be a time when we'll have to cut it off and continue on 5 Wednesday. I don't know whether we'll get through all of the 6 contentions. 7 I would like to consider two of these together, 1 8 and 6, the ones that deal with Appendix I. 9 I have a few questions, I guess of Mr. Woliver. I 10 wanted to find out what really was the basis for your conten-i II tion concerni.ng first the spent fuel pool and then the Appendix 12 I, the effect of radiation at the school. 13 You said in your response to the motion for sum-Id mary disposition merely that it's a lack of offsite storage. { 15 Well, it is my impression that the license to be granted or 16 being requested only authorizes the storage of a certain amount I7 of fuel and when that storage is filled up, that's it. The 18 fuel pool exists and is a certain size, and I guess there could i I9 be a little bit more fuel in the reactor itself beyond that. I! 20 would think the Applicants would have to ask for an amendment { 21 to their license to store more fuel. 22 Therefore, I wanted to inquire what exactly your i 23 contention was driving at. That was the major point your res-24 'conse seemed to make. esal Reporters, Inc. 25 MR. WOLIVER: I think you've characterized it 2276 249

195 I 5 correctly. We would be concerned with that if the Applicant 2 has to go back later and ask for an amendment so thatit can 3 store additional spent fuel at the site. This would be a very i 4 large concern that we would have. 5 We would think before proceeding -- 6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That's actually the case that 7 many, many utilities have requested such an expansion. There 8 are a good many proceedings involving such requests. 9 MR. WOLIVER: We would think at this point it would 10 be more appropriate to address the issues, since we're talking 11 about a potential operating life of the plant for some 30-odd 12 years, that we should address what is going to happen in eight 13 or eleven years. 14 If the spent fuel pool at that point is at what 15 i now is stated capacity, the only logical thing, which is what j 16 l we're asking, is that plans be developed and explained just l I7 how -- what will be dcne with the excess spent fuel. It seems i 18 folly to continue or proceed with licensing now when we don't 19 know or there are no plans by the Applicant -- and I'm not 20 talking about the generic plans, whichever the NRC may develop, ! i 21 which isn't in issue here. l i 22 But there are no other plans, as I unders and it, 23 to ship fuel anywhere offsite. So logically right now, as we 24 start the proceeding, there has to be a violation of the regula-eral Reporters, Inc. 25 tions, maybe not now and maybe not for several years, but this i 2276 250

196 6 I should be addressed now. 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The alternative of course is: 3 that the plant shuts down. It wouldn't be allowed to operate 4 if it didn't have a place to store its fuel. That's my im-5 pression and I think maybe the Applicant could confirm this 6' for me. 7 Am I not correct that if your fuel pool gets filled 8 up, that if you haven't made plans by that time to expand the 9 storage and if there's no place to ship fuel offsite, you would I 10 be forced to stop operation? l II MR. CONNER: Unless somebody comes up with some 12 other alternative by that time, -- I3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Right. 14 MR. CONNER: -- you're obviously right that if the 15 spent fuel pool is filled, as presently contemplated, there is 16 nothing else to do, unless you go offsite. 17 So you know, we can dit here and speculate for years i 18 -about what would happen, but it hasn't happened. You're exactly I9 right that in the event there were a need to seek some enlarge-20 ment of the spent fuel pool, as has been done in 20 or 30-odd 2I facilities, it has to be the subject of a license amendment, 22 and it is something that would be handled like any technical l 23 problems. f 24 MR. WOLIVER: If this is the case that the plant deral Reporters, Inc. 25 potentially would shut down, this is a very serious cuestion 2276 251

197 b7 I which should be addressed now. We're talking-- I think this 2 also deals with the financial ability contentions because 3 there would be a tremendous burden on all of the ratepayers 4 of the three Applicants, and we would hope that the NRC and 5 the Applicants would have more foresight to deal with this 6 issue now before talking about something a mere ten years down 7 the line. 8 This is very relevant now. It could'be very rele-9 vant to the school, the Moscow Elementary School if in the 10 future there is going to be an expansion of the spen _t fuel i II repositories. Again,weaskthatthisshouldbeaddressednowj 12 It would be folly just to assume that something will happen ten 13 years down the line when we know that these spent fuel reposi-Id tories will be or presumably will be filled long before the 15 life of the plant terminates. 6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Now, on this same contention,i l 17 I have some questions to ask the Applicants about their motion ! 18 for summary disposition. i l There's a statement here that it is a fact as to 20 which there is no genuine issue to be heard. Well, it is stated 21 that it is conservative to assume that the fuel pool is full i 22 and that approximately one-fourth of the elements are added t 23 I on an annual basis. 24 In the FSAP., in Section 9.1.3.2, the way I read it ce sepomri. Inc. 25 it seems to say that every year 25 percent to 29 percent of a 2276 252

198 I eb8 full core will be added, so I'm asking why 25 percent is con-2 servative. 3 MR. WETTERHAHN: 25 percent is an approximation 4 for an equilibrium off-load. Whether it be 25 or 29, if you 5 look at the unrebutted calculations, it shows it is insignifi-6 cant with relationship to Appendix I. So whether it's 25 or 7 29 wouldn't change the answer an iota. O CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, then I turn farther on 9 and it says -- Section 9.1.3.3 apparently contemplates that when 10 reactor fuel is removed from the reactor for inspection pur-11 j poses, a considerably greater amount might be put in the pool. 12 Couldn't that be 50 percent, or 75, or 100 percent of the pool? 13 What is conservative? 14 I mean the motion before us states 25 percent is 15 conservative and I'm just trying to test that. 16 MR. WETTERHAHN: What was shown was the normal l 17 i situation where you off-load approximately one-quarter of a i 18 Mostofthedoseofcourseisduetothelastgroupoff-! core. t 19 i loaded. If you were to take a whole core and off-load it, it 20 I probably would not stay in there for a full year and therefore,! 21 the dose would be much less. But in any event, if the pool was full with fuel off i 23 loaded from the reactor, the reactor wouldn't be in operation 24 and you would come nowhere near Appendix I, so it's conservative eraf Reporters, Inc. from both directior,s. If it is in the pool it's not in the 2276 253 i i e

199

b9 I

reactor and there are no effluents from the reactor. Therefore, i 2 it is a conservative calculation. I 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Now concerning Contention 6, 4 which is the one concerning the dose at the school, there is 5 the statement that the motion relies on methodology, Regulatory 6 Guide 1.109. As I read that Guide there should be separate 7 calculations for not the maximum individual but the maximum 8 individual at four different age groups, and I would think that 9 the age group at the school would be pretty relevant to this 10 contention. II The very first page of Regulatory Guide 1.109 says 12 the population is considered to be made up of infants, children 13 from one to eleven, teen-agers and adults, and I wondered why I I4 we don't get a calculation of a dose to a maximum exposed school 15 child rather than an individual. 16 MR. WETTERHAHN: I believe I can explain that. For I7 certain dose assessments, particularly ingestion of iodine 18 through the cow-milk cycle, yes, it does make a difference i I9 whether the individual is a child or an infant. We're not dis-i 20 puting that. I 21 But the dose which was calculated was the dose due 22 to the individuals being at the school. His milk consumption i 23 and where he lives does not impact upon the length of time that 24 he's at the school. Yes, he'll get an iodine dose due to where anc n oonus, im. 25 he lives or what kind of milk he drinks but I don't believe that 2276 254 i

200 10 I the different age categories is relevant to the type of dose l 2 calculation that was done here. 100 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Whan you made those calcula-4 tions did you use an age group at all, or which of the four did 5 you use? 6 MR. WETTERHAHN: I don't believe I have the details I 7 of the calculations. I don't believe that they considered an 8 age group. I can check that in a minute, or I can supply that 9 on Wednesday if you would like. 10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: It will be satisfactory if Il you let us know by Wednesday. 12 MR. WETTERHAHN: Fine. We'll supply that informa-I3 tion. Id CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Okay. 15 I was also interested in-- There's an assumption M as to the number of hours that the school children will be in 17 school, and I wondered whether that included any consideration j 18 for summer school, play ground activities, or whether such things i I9 occur at the particular school. l 20 You rounded it off at 25 percent I think. j i MR. WETTERHAHN: That's correct. It's rough. I 22 believe considering the amount of time the children are at home 23 and are sleeping, and even if you included any reasonable 24 margin for summer school or even playing in the play ground, ..m. -.,..... 25 it is still conservative. 2276 255 i

201 11 1 I may note that this is not the critical indivi-2 dual. There's another individual in another sector, whether 3 it be a child or an adult I don't think makes a difference as 4 far as the type of radiation which has a higher dose, and the 5 dose to school children doesn' t even approach that dose. 6 So even if you changed the assumptions slightly, 7 assuming half time, I don't think it would make a difference 8 to the critical individual so far as this offsite does is con-9 cerned. 10 MR. WOLIVER: I'm not clear on that statement, your i II ~ Honor. 12 What do you mean, there's another individual or 13 another critical area? Id MR. ETTERHAHN: As far as calculation of Appendix I 15 doses, those school children are not the critical individual 16 as contemplated by the methodology of Appendix I. That's all 17 I'm saying. l i 18 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Does the Staff have any l t 19 i comments on the summary disposition motion on these two matters,j i 20 the Appsndix I matters? These are ones which would not be i l 21 affected by Three Mile Island, so that I wondered whether the i 22 Staff had any particular views on motions before us there'. l 23 MR. BARTH: Mr. Chairman, the Staff has had con-24 sicerable rethinking since we filed our document. We concur et Resmners Inc. { 25 with your remark that Appendix I and Contention Number 1 and 2276 256

202 12 I Number 6 of Mr. Fankhauser would not be impacted by Three Mile 2 Island. 1 3 Having filed no document either in support or oppo-l 4 sition to the Applicants, all you have before you are the re-5 marks of Counsel which are of no evidentiary value. I think 6 we would have to say we have no position on these and would 7 suggest that they be put down for hearing in the Board Notice 8 of Hearing commencing on June 19th. 9 I will point out for Mr. Woliver's benefit Section 10 5.4 of the FES, which is not in evidence, reaches the same con-II clusions as does the Applicant, the critical dose is not at the 12 school but elsewhere, and the methodologies are described, which 13 is the methodology suggested by NUREG 1.109. But again, these I# are Counsel comments and are of no evidentiary value. 15 l I believe it would be appropriate to set these two 16 contentions down for hearing commencing the 19th. I7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Are you telling me that we 18 should not grant summary disposition? 19 MR. BARTH: We have no position on the motion for 20 summary disposition, as a factual matter. As a legal matter 21 we point out Duquesne Light Company, Beaver Valley, ALAB-109, l 22 e which states that the Board must be satisfied with respect to l 23 each contention which the Petitioner seeks to litigate where 24 a genuine issue of fact exists. As a legal matter, I'm not l erst Reporters, Inc. 25 certain that there is a real issue presently before the Board. l 2276 257

S 203 bl3 I If I might point out, your Honor, in 6 NRC 471 the l 2 Appeal Board considered these matters-- I beg your pardon. 3 I have the wrong citation. It's 6 NRC 753, the River Bend i i 4 decision. At page 750 the Appeal Board considered motions for 5 summary disposition. It made it very clear that they must be supportedbymattersraisedtoadegreeofevidencewhich,underl 6 7 the Administrative Procedures Act, is reliable, substantial 8 and probative. 9 I think that the affidavits supplied by the Applicant 10 provide with them credentials which would lead to the conclu-l 11 sion that the people making those affidavits are qualified 12 experts and that their evidence is substantial and probative. 13 This, under the agency's rule, 10 CFR 7.9, must be met and Id countered in such a way as to show that there is indeed a fact 15 00 in issue. i 16 ~ I think at the present state of the record that I7 there is no showing of a factual dispute in issue in opposition 8 to the Applicants' motion. As a matter of law, I think it is 19 well taken. 20 May I correct my citation to the Perry Nuclear, l 21 which commences at 6 NRC 741 at page 753. This was not River l 22 Bend. I apologi::e for the mis-citation. l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:

Okay, i

24 230 Contention 2, insofar as it raises the question of jeral Reporters, tric. 2'5 monitoring at the Moscow Elementary School, this is one rhat 2276 258

I 204 ebl4 I would seem to me and the Board to be susceptible of settlement. 2 i What I wanted to inquire of was that the Applicant seemed to l 3 have no objection to putting one at the school. Dr. Fankhauser i i 4 is advocating one, a monitoring device, at the school. 5 Is there not some way that at least the Applicants 6 and Dr. Fankhauser could not try jointly to get the School 7 Board to modify its, at least two years ago, opposition? 8 MR. WETTERHAHN: Mr. Chairman, as you correctly 9 stated, some two years ago the company requested the School 10 Board to put instrumentation on the school property. They 11 denied it at that time. And subsequently, a monitoring station 12 was established near the school. We believe that's perfectly l l 13 adequate, but we have expressed our willingness, if the School 14 Board gives us permission, to place the monitoring equipment on the School Board property. I 15 l 16 So we would agree there is no issue of fact to be 17 heard here. All that is needed is the School Board's permission ' i 18 which Dr. Fankhauser and his attorney are seeking, I would 19 So if that permission is granted, we would gladly assume. l 20 move the equipment onto the school site. I 21 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Woliver, would that remove 22 this as an issue to be heard? The Commission favors settlement i 23 where that can be reached. 24 MR. WOLIVER: I would hope so. I might say a a.i necon.n. inc. 25 couple of things about the School Board. i 2276 259

205 I bl5 I I personally knew that the School Board's makeup I 2 has changed since 1976. It has a new Superintendent. It's 3 possible that the School Board's position would change from 4 early 1976. 5 I want to make clear that we're talking about the j 6 same thing. Not only do we want a device on the school or at 7 the school location, but we want a device set up so that the 8 school could be warned by that device and not have to have the 9 device read out at the operator's or the Applicants' plant. j 10 We want the school with the device to be immediately able to II know if there is some threat to the health and safety of the I 12 school children, and be able to act without any.further delay; 13 that is, without the Applicant or any of its employees having Id to then advise the school of the particular emergency that may 15 arise. i 16 l So as long as we understand that, I agree. I think t I7 approaching the School Board would be the proper matter at this ! 18 point. i I9 MR. WETTERHAHN: Mr. Chairman, I believe we are l 20 straying from your statement of the contention. I believe you l 21 were speaking about the normal operation of the plant, and the l 1 22 normal environmental monitoring program, and the particular 23 station which is now located near the school. I 24 The only thing we're talking about, as I understand .<.i n.oonm inc. 25 it, is moving that particular station as discussed in the FSAR 2276 260 n

206 1 I bl6 onto the School Board property. I don't think we are going to 2 address emergency planning issues right now. 3 CHAIPMAN BECHHOEFER: That's correct. This monitor-4 ing here is for routine releases, not in the event of an acci-5 dent. That's part of another contention. 6 MR. WOLIVER: I'm not clear on that. Are you saying there's another contention relating to monitoring at the school? CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I thought that was under 9 Contention 4, really 4-B. MR. WOLIVER: It's very possible that it could be 11 interpreted to encompass that, but apparently we're not talking 12' about the same thing then. Merely placing a monitor device on 13 the school would not in itself give the school children any 14 added protection if there's a need to react -- or presumably may! 15 not if there's a need to act quickly, even with low level re-16 leases. I 17 t MR. WETTERHAHN: If I can respond, this contention i 18 has been in this case for three years. It was talking about i 19 i a particular set of monitoring devices at a particular location.; 1 20 I think that's how the Board admitted it over three years ago, l 21 l and now we're trying to raise a new contention, to fit it into 1 22 a contention where it otherwise does not fit. 23 I believe our motion for summary disposition was 24 clear and we are entitled to summary disposition because there's: ,,, g,,,,, % 25 no question of fact which relates to that particular monitoring i 2276 261

207 7 I station. 2 MR. WOLIVER: Mr. Chairman, on this point I think 3 the Applicant may have misinterpreted our position, but in 4 response to what the Applicant has stated, we'd have diffi-5 culty at this time understanding why, if the Applicant is will-6 ing to put a monitoring device on the school, that it would not 7 be willing to share that information with the school authori-8 ties as an added safety protection for the school children. 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I'd like to find out from 10 the Applicant, Mr. Wetterhahn, what kind of readout does this Il monitoring device have? 12 MR. WETTERHAHN: Let me make it clear that these 13 are not real time monitors. They're not reading out some place. 14 They're monitors which are collected on a periodic basis and I* read for the content, the radioactive content, the various i 16 isotopes. l 17 The information with regard to the results of the i 18 monitoring program is sent to the NRC and it's made available l I9 publicly, both,here and at the local Public Document Room in 20 Washington. We're not trying to hide it. It's just that this l 21 is not the type of monitoring station that we're talking about. 22 We're talking about monitoring samples. This type of monitoring' 23 is necessary to record and correctly evaluate the very low 24 levels of radiation coming from the site. r i nemnen, ine. 25 1 CEAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Are there other types of 2276 262

208 I ebl8 monitoring systems available, or is it possible to have a real 2 time monitor that would read, say, Part 20 levels? 3 MR. WETTERHAHN: As I indicated before, we were 4 talking about compliance with the "as low as reasonably 5 achievable" standard of the NRC, and it's indicated in a motion 6 for summary disposition that there are no monitors capable of 7 reading accurately the very low levels. We are not talking 8 about Part 20 levels which are considerably higher. We're talk-9 ing about "as low as reasonably achievable" levels which are 10 guidelines for this Applicant to meet as far as its routine 11 releases. 12 CHAIRRAN BECHHOEFER: Would there be any utility 13 in using a monitoring device that recorded Part 20 levels? 14 MR. WETTERHAHN: There is adequate instrumentation { 15 for monitoring releases from the facility itself. This proba-16 I bly would give you more accurate information. These various l 17 l monitoring devices, as part of the radiological monitoring i 18 i program, are confirmatory. They give you more definite infor-19 mation and that's the reason why they exist at various locations 20 around the site. i 21 But the primary means of detecting releases from nn the facility is from the plant instrumentation prior to its 23 i release. ~ 24 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, is it possible that ,,,g,,, % Intervenors are more worried abou* how much radiation exists 2276 263

209 bl9 I at a given location than about how much is released from the 2 plant? The release measures may be perfectly adequate but it 3 seems, not only from Dr. Fankhauser's contention but one of 4 the City of Cincinnati's contentions also, they are more 5 worried not about releases but about how much radioactivity 6 exists at a given location. 7 MR. WETTERHAHN: As I tried to explain, the Appli-8 cant is also interested in the amount of deposition, the amount 9 of radioactivity at various locations, and that is the purpose 10 of it s comprehensive monitoring program which monitors milk, II watsr samples, soil samples, a number of different things, 12 leafy vegetables perhaps, and grass in another location. And I3 this is all adequately described in both the FSAR and the i I4 Environmental Report. And the conduct of this program will be 15 part of the technical specifications for the facility. 16 Yas, the Applicant is very interested in confirming j I7 the releases from the station, and the monitoring program he i 18 has proposed, which the Staff I believe has accepted, is more j 19 than adequate to do that, to confirm what is known about the l l 20 releases from the facility. I 21 f That's the reason why, in particular, the location 22 I near the elementary school was chosen, and it is merely con-23 firmatory. 24 l I want to make sure that we stay on MR. WOLIVER: us neponus, tnc. I 25 the same point. Maybe in the interests of settlement we would 2276 264

210 20 I suggest that maybe it's more important or would be more impor-2 tant, since the school is only approximately 800 yards from 3 the reactor site, possibly it would be more relevant to have 4 a readout of what's being monitored at the site, continuously 5 monitored at the site, have a readout at the school so the 6 school would have direct access to this information. 7 Granted if there are any problems at the reactor 8 site, the children at the school are going to have a very short 9 time to act and put themselves in a position of safety and i i 10 thr.re fore, to cut down on the time between a potential has:ardous ! Il release occurring at the plant and the time the school is 12 notified, we would ask that there be access, direct access to 13 this information on a continuous basis at the school site. Id MR. WETTERHAHN: Mr. Chairman, let me try for I I 15 believe the third time to explain my coint. On one hand we're l 16 speaking about releases from low-level radiation. Mr. Woliver 17 keeps straying to the area of emergency plans and notification. i 18 We believe our emergency plans are adequate, but we'll get into l9 that at another point in time. I 20 My point is that with regard to the routine re-4 21 leases, the system and the environmental monitoring program I 22 and the instrumentation at the plant proposed by the Applicant 23 is adequate. We have, in our morion for summary disposition, 24 some 108 different factual assertions, and as far as I read, al Reporters, Inc. 25 none are rebutted specifically by Dr. Fankhauser and by 2276 265

211 21 1 Mr. Woliver here. And I believe that under the rules, the Applicant } 2 3 is entitled to summary disposition, both on 1 and 6, in that 4 the dose rates, the doses calculated using NRC criteria have 5 not been rebutted. And again, there is no factual issue with 6 regard to' moving a particular monitoring station for low-level 7 releases onsite. 8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I'd like to ask you, would 9 you make a statement that certain devices be part of the pre-10 operational environmental monitoring program, it will be con-Il tinued throughout the operating life of the station? By that 12 comment or commitment, do you intend co disavow the statements .470 13 that are I know in the FSAR which says that, depending on ex-Id perience, certain parts of the monitoring program will be cut 15 back? Whan you make those statements specifically with res-16 per*. to certain monitorings, do you mean you won't cut those 17 back? 18 MR. WETTERHAHN: Yes, with regard to this monitoring I9 station at the school, the Applicant has committed to continue I l 20 this throughout the lifetime of the station, no matter what the 1 21 results of the monitoring program are, even though they show 22 very little, and if they don't show any detectible dose, the 23 Applicant is committed to continue this particular monitoring 24 station. eral Reporters, Inc. 25 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: And wi d regard to the raw 2276 266

212 I water intake station, I assume that's the case? 2 MR. WETTERHAHN: That's correct. 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: It's getting to be 5:30, and 4 I'm not sure we should stay too late in the building. I think 5 the Board will adjourn for the afternoon. We have a few more 6 of these summary disposition issues. We also are going to 7 inquire of the various parties as to what their intentions are 8 for evidentiary presentations. I guess we have to assume for 9 that purpose, if we didn't grant summary disposition, we would 10 want to find out from the parties what their plans are for 11 what type of cases they would plan to put on. l i 12 l We will carry that over until Wednesday. Although I 13 we had made available most of Wednesday for limited appearances, 14 we will devote such time Wednesday as is necessary to finish I 15 these matters, and any other matters the parties believe should 16 be brought up and discussed. 17 I I might say there are three or four people who have ! 18 requested to make limited appearance statements early on 19 Wednesday, about nine o' clock. I would assume that we would 20 take their statements, and I think there are only three, A ybe j 21 i four, and then begin on the continuation of this, and then we'll! 22 go into limited appearances after we finish the rest of these 23 contentions. I 24 So for the afternoon, we are now adjourned. serei a. con rs. inc. MR. CONNER: Mr. Chairman, on the site visit, do we 2276 267 l i

213 b23 I understand correctly that you will arrive at the gate tomorrow 2 at about ten o' clock where the guide will meet you? 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: You understand correctly if 4 you get me on the right road. 5 MR. CONNER: All right, I'll show you how to get 0 there, but I want to make sure, because of the question of 7 security and so forth. 8 MR. WOLIVER: We intend to be there, too. I 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes. We expect that all i 10 parties will be there 11 MR. CONNER: Sir, we wanted to get some idea. 12 Counsel for each party of course normally can attend. I don't 13 know if any of the Intervenors plan to bring or think they can 14 bring more people because if it's an unreasonable number it I 15 can't be done. So I assume that at the moment only Counsel will 16 attend. I've not heard anything to the contrary. I7 MS. KOSIK: Mr. Chairman, our group would like to i 18 have three additional people. i 19 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Would that pose a problem? l 20 MR. CONNER: You mean a total of four people? l i 2I MS. KOSIK: That's correct. I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: What about Dr. Fankhauser? 23 MR. WOLIVER: Dr. Fankhauser will be there with me, 24 i so there will be at least two in this group. eral Reporters, Inc. i MR. HEILE: And the City, Mr. Chairman, would bring 2276 268

214 b24 I three. I have already discussed this with the company myself, 2 and perhaps Mr. Fuller or Mr. Neimeyer who is associated with 3 giving advice on the City's contentions. And Mr. Lewis. 4 MR. BARTH: The Staff will have three, Mr. Chairman. MR. CONNER: That's too big for one group, I've 6 just been advised. Obviously we would rather have it all in 7 one. I for one don't plan to go. I'll cut it down by at least 8 one, therefore. 9 It's a total then of 16 people. Will it be just 10 the three Board members? 11 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: fes. I2 - MR. CONNER: We'll get the names. If you will give 13 Mr. Wetterhahn the names, except for the Board, obvio,usly, Id we'll get them on the register and so forth. Obviously, every-15 body would have to wear hard hats and observe security regula-I0 tions. I7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That's correct. \\ 18 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We're adjourned. i l' (Whereupon, at 5:35 p.m., the hearing in the 20 9 above-entitled matter was recessed to reconvene the 21 following day.) i 22 2276 269 l 23 24 ere neoomes, ine. 25 l -. _ _}}