ML19340B128

Transcript of Nj Dept of Energy,Board of Public Utils 801008 Hearing in Newark,Nj Re Approval of Increase in Rates for Electrical Svc & Amend to Levelized Energy Adjustment Clause & Factor for Such Svc.Pp 1,549-1,618

ML19340B128
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	10/09/1980
From:	Marshall S NEW JERSEY, STATE OF
To:
Shared Package
ML19340B126	List: ML19340B125 ML19340B128
References
NUDOCS 8010210471
Download: ML19340B128 (70)

Text

.

n .

H DOR

@]D % y D i  :

E WM -

aJL)];k 3 [

y-1549 -?

L

.}+

1 -- VOLUME 14 i . ("N V 2 UEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY-BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES' i

'3 NEWARK, NEW JERSEY THURSDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1980

.4 'I:

1- -5

'In the Matter of the Petition of )

6 Jersey Contral Power and Light ) OAL CCCKET.NO.

. Company for Approval of an Increaso ) PUC 3518-80 7 in Rates for Electrical Service and' ) t

! for Amendment to the Levelized Energy) 3PU DOCKET NO.

l 8 Adjustment Clauce and Factor for such' 004-295 l

service. ) 807-488

_9 - _ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _)

EzrORE: HON. STEPnEli G. MARSHALL l~ in .

' ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

~

11-i- 12 A P P E A R A N C E 3:

, ~.-

e j( $ 13 For the Petitioner, Jersey Central Power

' g. e and Light Company, appear:

! 14 g KIRSTEN, FRIEDMAN.& CHERIN, ESQS.,

'$ 15

. DOLORES DELABAR, ESQ."' ,

i 16 17 Academy Street Newark, New Jersey 17 and 18 WILLIAM F. HYLAND, ESQ., of Counsel' JAMES D. LIBEP3IAN, ESO., of Counsel 9

20 i J. H.~SUEHRER & ASSOCIATES 21

[ 24 Connerce Street j Ucuark, New Jersey 22 l

(201) 623-1974 I 23 24' 25-p u

'80102iO Y7/-

p.._

i- '

1550 1 A P.P Z A R A N C E S: (continued) 3 (J:

'2 For the Department cf Public Advocate, Division of Rate Counsel, appears:

3 ALFRED L. NARDELLI,.ESQ.,

4 Ccputy Dir ctor 10 Commerce Csurt 5 :iewark, new Jersey 6 For the Eoard of'Public Utilitics Staff, appears:

7 I. PAUL SLEVIN, l 8 Supervising Rate Analyst 9 For the Board of Chor;n Frcenolders~of Ocean County, appears:

i 10 l  : BERRY, SUIS 1ERILL, PISCAL, KAGAN &

PRIVETERA, ESGS'. ,

[ -13

! 34 Washington Street 12 Tons River,:!ew Jersey

=

j :{a_,a 3 13 I 14 D*"O "

0 T Y [j '

)

• • o .1 Al/Va

= 15 1

L 16 17.

18 19 l

20

-21 22 -

23 24

(~)

-- . ,5

~

1551~

I' JUDGE MARSHALL: Good afternoon, gentle-

-r t

2 men.- This'is the continced hearing in-the mat-3 ter of the Petition of Jersey Central Power t

4 and~ Light Company, CAL Docket No. PUC 3513-80 5 with Stephen Liarshall presiding.

6 Before no go' on with the cross-c::amina-7 tion of the Company's.witnessos, Mr. Nardalli 8 wishes to make a statenant for the record.

9  ;,m. NARDELLI: Thank you, Judge Marshall.

10 On Thursday, October 2, Mr. Zirsten put in 11 the record boginning at Page 1153 tha Company's 12 account of its d2aling uith a Ms. Eva Bird,

=

(j,s ,je j 13 B-i-r-d. I thought I would like to put into a

14 'the record at this time Ms. Dird's response to d 15 thct. She does disagree with nuch of what was i2- '

16- said on the becord last Thursday.

' 17 18 D " ]D 9]D 'll A e e j\\ e ju J0t1 o

- 19 20

-21 22 4

23 24,

[-3:

-25 1 t- -

w -r- m -

1552 I PJt. NARDELLI: (Continuing) She repre-

-(~)

\._.t 2 seats that she in fact has had no electricity 3 since -April of 1980. She also represents that l

'4 JCP&L never agreed to any deferred payment 5 schedule which is reason why she was not making

{'

6 payments under any such schedula. She.does sug-7 gest that perhaps some of the confusion, if that 8 is what it is, may ariso from the fact that 9 there was a family upstairs from her and their 10 meter, the family upstairs, was also removed i ..

j 11 under the allegation of charges of motor tamper-

• l 12 ing. Both her meter and the meter of the fsmily i

(q~s j

s y

13 -upst, airs were removed in September of this

! 14 year.

5 15 She adds that she has a son home sick

She is willing to

16 now with a heart murmur.

17 come horc cn May 20th at our next hearing data to state under oath everything that I have 18 19 just. stated on her behalf and to clarify it if 1

necessary.

20 MR KIRSTE7: You mean October 20th as 21-ur next hearing date.

22 MR. NARDELLI: Did I say May? I don't!

. 23 know why. .I'm sorry, you are right, en Octo-24 ,

'r^g i l'

25

~

ber 20th. Finally, she does say that the im j

f 1553 p, I portant_ thing is.getting her electricity turned

!' 2 back on. She represents that she is willing;to

.3 .

pay $300.now as a good faith payment'to get it turned back on-and she remains willing to at- ,

J 4.

5 . tsupt to ' work something out with the Company.

I would'like this matter to be pursued 6

in some form. The woman tells a rather moving 7

8 story about.her difficultics and health as well 9

as financial, and I think maybe something can be worked out here.

10 JUDGE MARSHALL: Let's go off the record l 33 a E

a moment.

12

+

(~'\ 13 (Wherecpon, there was an off the record u8 discussion.)

I. 14 i

d 15 i.

E 16 17 18 19 20 21

- 22

'23 24 O>< _ 25

155(

Cl-

' I

'l >

I JUD'GE tikRSEALL: Back on the record.

-Q ,

f-

.Let me stata for the record-that:Ms. Bird.is 3 welcons to come down hera on the 20th and ue 4 at that timeLcould see what sort of arrangement, 5 if.any, could be worked out. The Company.has 6 also indicated'they will have a witness here 7 with the reccrds at.that time.

8 Arc there any other matters the parties i 9~ vish to bring up beforc we put Mr. Finfrock back 10 on the stand?

- 11 (Uo response.)

12' JUDGE MARSIIALL: Okay, in that case, y

. eg,  ;-

'wl

+ J3 Mr. Finfrock, could you please take the stand? ,

i 14 I will note for the record that Mr. Finfrock-d .15 has been previously sworn.

16

.MR. KIRSTEN:- We are considering the 17 LEAC as part of this proceeding?

.18 JUDGE MARSHALL: Off the record.

19 (Uhereupon, thore-was an off the record 20 discussion.)

i JUDGE 11ARSHALL: Back on the record.

21

22. We'll swear the kitness in this manner.

~

23 sworn on behalf IVAN R.A Y 'F I N F-'R O C K, . J R.,

1

. ^- 24

() 25 of Petitioner.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KIRSTEN:

-l

-e - N-, r t

C2 Fin' frock - direct .1555 I 12 Mr.'Finfrock,Lwill you please state for the s

( \

(/; o

~

record ynur position with Jersey Central Power and Light Com-3 pany?

4 A Yes, I'm a Vice-President of' Jersey Central-5 Power and Light Company.

6 And what is the area of vour responsibility?

Q 7 A I'm responsible for the operation and mainten-8 ance of our Cyster Creek liuclear Station.

9- Q Mr. Finfrock, there has been some questions 10 raised concerning the level of O&M expenses for the Oyster g 11 Creek plant . . Are you familiar with that aren?

e

. 12 A yes, I am, a.

(} j 13 -Q JIas there been an increase in the level of '

v 14 O&M expenses for the Oyster Creek plant in the year 19807 d 15 A Yes, there has.

-i

• 16 Q Uculd you tell us generally the reason for

.17 that increase in the level of expenses and, in general terms, 18 what the nature of the increases expenses were?

19 A Yes, I will. There:were a number of reasons 20 for the increases. First of all, we had to nake rather ex-

'21 tensive temporary repairs to the core spray spargers in the 22 reactor vessel. He ' enperienced --- that by the way was not 23 anticipated --- we experienced more than anticipated work in:the areas of what we call an in-service inspection program 24

("%

.in order to meet additional 11RC requiraments and in . order to A_) 25.

~

1556 )

,3 Finfrock --direct.

i.

1. -complene the'first ten year' cycle of that program. We have 2 .' spent a good bit of coney'as a result of' increasing the radiation protection' program and.along with that tha house-

~

3 4

~

4 'kceping'in thc station. 'ie inctituted a program subsequent 4,

5 to scr.e URC inspections that 'did not turn cut very favorable .-}

]

• i:

• 6- .that greatly enhances.the rcdiation protection program and .:

I.

P-

7. halsekeeping that gcac alonrJ with that. .

8 9

l ~10 i~

i 11 E' ll i .,

12 "

s

>' e g*; .

3 13 .

'I 14 i

t

's -15 i

I 16 i

! 17

! 18 19 F

f 20

! 21 22 _

23

. 24 25 _

j.

al Finfrock - direct- 1557

~

1 g -(Continuing) We-also found that as a result G

'- 2 of. the extended outage we create d more waste material, lower 3 level. contaminated waste material that had to be disposed of 4 and, of course, we were seeing increases in the cost of1that 5 disposal at the various burial sites.

6 There were in addition to that the 7 necessity co process the chromated waters in the Torus to

8 remove chlorides that had accumulated in it, and to some

? extent the Three Mile Island lessons learned activities in-10 creased more than we had originally anticipated.

[

~

11 ! Q Is the level of O&M expenses which you have e

12 experienced for 1930 to centinua into the future at that

/"g 13 level, a greater level or lesser level in your opinion?

U A I believe in the future the level of expendi-f: 14

$ 15 tures will at least be as much as we experienced in 1980.

3 i 16 The-very much enhanced radiation protection programs, house-17 keeping programs, the continual need to comply with somewhat is escalating Federal regulations makes it such that I certainly 19 do not foresec a reduction in what we have observed-this -

! 20 year.

.21 0 In testimony which you gave during the LEAC 22 F"oceedings in this matter,.you referred to the age of the 23 Oyster Creek facility as a factor in terms of at that time 24 apacity. Does the age of the plant have any impact on the w

()( 25 level of O&M expenses which you perceive for the future?

Finfrock - direct 1558 1 .A Yec, IL think it'does.- A nuclear. power plant

. \'/~)~ '

2 is not considerably different than. any other piece of. machinery.

3 In general, as it get oldcr it requires more maintenance.

4 So, I think-the age of tha plant is important. 'Che plant has 5 been operating now nearly 11 years. I don't meat to imply 6 wo-do not continue to do maintenance on it, but as it does 7 get older, we wculd anticipato more and perhaps even larger 8 piccas of machinery to be repaired than we have seen in the 9 past.

10 0 There was also some question raised in this

$ 11 . proceeding in respect to the outage in the early part of

. 12 1930. As I understand it, there was a scheduled outage for 4 13 January of 1980 which has become extended, is that correct,

(^)1

(_ e

! 14 Mr. Finfrock?

i 15 A That's correct.

f 3 ,

i 16 Q And.to seno extent was that extension of the 17 outage due to the problem that was discovered in respect to 18 the sparger?

19 A Yes, that is correct.

20 0 can you tell us, if you kncu, to what extent 21 the extension of the outage was due to that problem?

A Approniuately two months of the extension I 92 y3 would contribute to the repair verk that was raquired for the core spray sparger.

24 2

.I know this has been the subject of your tecti-(_)N . 25. O ii;  ;

r <- g , , , -

r - . - . , - -

e

. 33 ' Finfrock - direct- 1559 I mony before, but just for the purposes of keeping the record 2

i complete, will you describe in general terms what the sparger i 3 . problem was and~what'its status is now?

4 A All right. During the refueling outage that we

' 5 j, : ~1n 1978 as part of our in-service inspection program, i

6 we. Inspected the spargers. Now, perhaps I should explain t

7 these are circular pipes that go around the periphery of the i 8 reactor vessel on the incide just about a foot above'the

i 9 top of the reactor core.

i '10 2

g 11 e

a i

S 12

!- m -a 77 -

13 i

QI j 14

$ 15 4  :

I 16 17 18 19 l J

20  ;

e l 21 22 ~

23 w r -- p w w y w ,, w- w, --- - -e--w,

r l

I Finfrock - direct 1560 E1 e s. I A '(Continuing) So, they need to be inspected br .-]

I i

~

2 remotely using television cameras that are extended on long 3 poles, ropes, because frcm the working level on the reactor 4 operating floor down to' the spargers, it's approximately 50 ,

5 feet all of which is'under water. 'During the inspection; t

We, 6 in.1978, we discovered a crack in one of the spargers.

l 7 of course, reported that to all of the necessary agencies, iz i.

8 particular the Nuclear Regulatory agency. We employed out-9 sido consultants to. help us get an understanding of why the 10 crack was there and we determined that it would appear that

~

11 thare had been stressas built up in the pipe, possibly but 8

12 not for sure, possibly from the installation of it that had been subsequently relieved by the crack' formation. And, the 13

[a) _

14 repair that was employed at that time was to clamp :he one 3 15 sparger pipe in the vicinity of the crack in order to mechan-a

1. 16 ically. restrain it.

17 That analysis and the repair, the pro-18 posed repair was all reviewed and approved by the Nuclear 19 . Regulatory Commissica. And, it was our conclusion at that 20 time based on everything we knew then, that that would be the end of the problem.

21 However, we were required as a result 22 l

23 of that repair to reinspect the spargers at the next time

~4 that we shut down to refuel the~ reactor which would.have e i (n

s/

'\

been in the . winter of 1980. When ue performed the inspection 25 1

, l l

1

E2 Finfrock~- direct , 1561-t 1 'in 1980, we used a somewhat improved TV camera, a-very much

()

s_,

2 ~ improved method of mounting the camera sc.we could get

'3~ higher' revolution picturas and in addition, we used some

-4 rather newlyfdevelopad ultrasonic testing techniques.

~

5 The cutcomi of that inspection then was 6 .that we found a number of additional cracks which also had 7 to be repaired. .Before we did that, of coursa, we had to go 8 'back and re: nalysa with an endeavor to figura out uhy we saw 9 additional cracks. Our consultants tall us that the stresses 10 in these pipes arc very low -- .

) 11 MR. KIRSTUN: I'm sorry, I didn't hear 12 that last couple of words.

8

[4') 13 A --- the strasses in the pipes are low and,

14 therefora, one would not e

:pect to find chloride stress 5 15 corrosion cracking. However, the consultants all tell us I

i 16 that the cracks looked like that but no one to my knowledge 17 r cally knows why they are .there. Ue then proposed an exten-18 sion of the 1978 mechanical restraints and that repair was i 19- accepted ay the Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission. And as a result we had to install nine additional clamps. Again, all i 20 -

21 o f the clamping work is - done renotely, it's all underwater.

. In the process of manufacturing the 22 23 clamps:a template is made to try to match up the exact con-1 figuration'of the piping on which the clang is going to be 24

.w ~

(_) installed. But when the clenps arrive at the plant, they 25

<, .g

p . .

1562 E3- Finfrock -' direct = ,;

""' -1 then;savo'to be. hand fitted again remotely with additional l .V 2 ' tools'to hold the clanpa, plus all of the lighting and the

'3. TV cameras. .That actitity simply takes a lot of time. In

?

4 fact, I~sometimes. wonder why it didn't take longer due to 5' the-difficult-nature =of.the work. We had, I might' add, a 6 very responsive work force, the hast kind of productivity l-7 one could expect in that kind of situation.

-8 .Now that machine is new operating and 9 it has the clangs in place, but vu are required by.the Nuclear 10 Regulatory CcInission to replace the spargers at the next.

i

~

refueling outage which will be"at the end of 1931 and will 11 l

12 extend substantially into 1992.

!O m .;

s 13 14 5 15

-16 l

l 17 18 19 l

i 20

'21 22 23 24-r"y av: -

g5

,s 1L Finfrock - direct ~

~

1563-t 1 A- (Continuing) Our present plan is to remotely 7- '

I

't )

~

2 remove the existing spargers. We are doing that for two rea-3 sons.- There is a concern that the clamps might come loose, 4 that the pipes might continue to crack and-therefore create

( 5 what is known as loose parts inside the reactor vessel. And, 6 that would be a rather unfortunate event. We are also going 7 to cut out or at-least have to cut the existing spargers so 8 ~we have access to the pipes that bring water into the spar-9 gers becauso we intend to use those pipes to connect a new 10 sparger system which will be an overhead grid system on top 11 of the reactor that can be hopefully set all in one piece and a

connected to the existing inlat pipes for the sparger.

$ 12

' 8 13 That new system is now being designed.

, (m'_s) .

He antici-l

.j 14 It needs to be tested. We need to got it licensed.

.~

d 15 pate that can be accomplished in time for the late 1981-82 16 outage.

17 Q A sparger is a devico which is designed to dis-ig tribute emergency cooling water into the reactor vessel?

19 A Yes, that is correct.

20 0 Is it charged with water all the time?

A No,.it is not. It does not get charged with 9I i water until the large or small break event occurs that re-22 quires emergency water. And then the pumps 1hich are called.

23 the core spray pumps automatically ccme on and pump water

]

24

(%

( ,) int the spargers and in turn have a showering effect, ifyolu 25 i i

l l

.. -= - -

i-,

s --

,2 Finfrock - direct 15641 i

will, over the' top of.the reactor core.

'/ Have these spargers in Oyster Creek ever been 2 O 3 in peration?

(

4 A Only on one occasion and that was during the 2

5 start-up and testing program. Before-the plant was really 6 started, that system was tested. Since that time there has 7

.been no water pumped through the sparger although the pumps 8 themselves.are tested every other week.

9 Q Now, another area of concern was the reference that'was made by you during the LEAC proceedings to an appli-10 cation to the NRC for delay'in the schedule for the implementa-tion of the schedule B, Lassons Learned Modifications to the 12

() 13 Oyster Creek plant. At the time I believe you testAried that s uch an application was going to be filed the end of August.

g

} Would you tell us what has happened with respect to that, s.

- 15 i since?

16

]

A. All right. We did not quice make our end of 4 August date. I forgot the exact date in very early September dhe NRC issued what was entitled a letter about the TMI-2

. 19 Lessons Learned. It was.an extremely lengthy letter but the 20 to 21 bottom line of that letter was/ indicate to licensees of reac-tor plants that.=7me of the items which had previously been 22

~

designated and were required to be completed by January 1,

. 23 4 1 1981'could be daferred. 1 24 l

• C) '- -25 4 l

. - . . . . .-. - - - -. -. . .l

-Finfrock - direct 1565 1

A ' (Continuing) I don't' recall all of the dates.

U

-) 1 Some of dae. deferral dates are due April, some to June, some 2

3 ~a little later.- So, then we had to redue our letter and as 4

a result of the relief, I will call it, to some extent we 5 t ien ended up the necessity to ask- for a deferral of about 6 three items'that still remained in the January 1, 1981 com-7 P lation category. ,

We submitted that letter on September 8

9 26th. Hour su' emission as far as we know from our almost daily 10 verbal conversations with the NRC staff people has 'been ac-

~

71 cepted and they are in the proccss of reviewing it. I have l

12 nothing off1cial at this time to indicate that we will obtain the relief that we are asking for, although I am at this

()~ 13 time at least not discouraged in that they are reviewing the

! 14 I 15 letter and it will probably be I think coveral weeks'before 3

! 16 we vill get an answer from the NRC.

17 I believe there are a number of other ig reactor operator licensees that are making similar requests and I am not aware at this point in time of whether or.not 19 the Commission has established a policy as to how they're 20 g ing to handle these matters.

21

-Q Is this a copy of the letter from the NRC to which you referred?-

23_

A 'Yes, it is.

, rug 24 ,

\~ l MR. KIRSTEN: This is dated September 5',

j

'25' 1

t L

/2- Finfrock - direct. 1566 t-r 1 1980, Your Honor. I have a problem with dupli-i ./3 i^

l k ). o cating only because of its size. I have made ,

t 3 copies available to the parties and I don't 4 know whether it is appropriate to have-it marked 5 for identification, just one copy in the record 6 or whether we should continue with the process 7 that we had in having copics available to any-l.

8 one who wantt to see it.

l l

9 JUDGE MARSHALL: Does anyone feel that

[

f 10 it ought to be included in the record in the 2

11 form of an e::hibit?

12 MR. NARDELLI: I would not insist on

- e

! . (, /

13 that. I would suggest though that when the 14 NRC responds to the Company's request as ex-i f 15 Pressed in Mr. Finfrock's letter of. September i  :

1

! 16 26th,-1980 that that respenso be made part of 17 the record.

l I

MR. KIRSTEN: I am not at that point, j gg l

! 19

. yet, Mr. Nardelli, if you will bear with me a 20 mcment.

So, I just want to know for the record 21 l

that we do have that available, the September 22 5,.1980 letter. I think it's important because 23 it refers to the next exhibit which~ve have 24 7s

" '- distributed.

2a-e

r

! I3 'Finfrock - direct 1567

1 BY MR. KIRSTEN

I ~T

-(Q Q Mr. Finfrock, I show you a letter dated Septem--

2 3 ber 26, 1980 directed to Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director, 4

Division of Licensing, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,.

l Do you recognize that?

5 6 A Yes, I do.

7 Q Is that the letter that the Company sent to the l

8 NRC in respect to the application for delay?

l 9 A Yes, it is.

10 MR. KIRSTEN: May we have that marked as JC-7007 73 l

l 12 JUDGE FiddIIUdd': Okay. If there is no objection, it shall be so marked JC-700.

( f; 13 i (Letter dated September 26, 1980 from I

t I4 JCP&L to Mr. Darroll G. Eisenhut, Director,  !

h 15 l l l Division of Licensing, U. S. Nuclear Rogulatory l 16 l t

Co= mission, marked JC-700 for identification.)

37 MR. KIRSTEN: I would like to also repre-18 sent for the record in response to Mr. Nardel-39 t

li's r qu st that when we do receive any re -

0 sponse to. that letter, we will incorporate it in the record and I would suggest that it be 22 designated as JC-700A as a response to that re-quest. If that is satisfactory, uc can reserve i

'4 that number for that purpose.

25 l

., . - _. - - -I

. Finfrock - direct 1568 1 WDGE MARSHALL: If there is no objec-2 tion, that number JC-700A will be so reserved.

3 (Exhibit 'No. JC-700A reserved for Re-4 sponse from NRC to JCP&L's letter of September 5 26, 1980.)

6 MR. KIRSTEN: I have no further questions I

7 of Mr. Finfrock.

8 CROSS EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. NARDELLI:

, Q Mr. Finfrock, I believe you characterized your a

11 f outlook upon the request you and the Company had made in your j letter of September 26th that you are not discouraged about s .

g1 s -

13

& getting'some kind of deferral from the NRC7 14 l A That's correct.

15 l Q Am I correct in understanding your testimony

16 so far today as being that in its letter of September 5, 1980 17 the NRC in effect has already exceeded to the deferrcl of 18 some of the ; items that we have been discussing?

19 A That is correct.

20 Are there many items left?

Q 21 A The letter of September 26th refers to three 22 items that we are asking to defer until the Spring of 1981.

23 Q' Are those the only three items left?

24 A Those are~the only three items that we are l' (~

j 25 asking to have deferred. All the items are still there but i

.- i F5 Finfrock -- cross 1569 I at later datos.

(- '

2 Q Okay, but it's the three items mentioned in 3 your September 26th latter that would cause the plant to shut 4

4 down by December lat if the NRC does not agree to a deferral?

5 A That is correct. '

6 0 Do you have the names of some~ of the other 7 utilities.that have filed similar requests?

8 A No, I don't.

9 Q Do you know the names of the reactors involved?

10 A N, I don't. I just have not read that infor-11 mation recently.

E -

12 Q Is there any chance that there could be a defer-

'm  !*

ral beyond April of 19817 Is your request to the NRC posed (s-)  ;

13 j 34 in such a way that that could be a possible response?

I f A No. He would intend to have the cutage hope-

! fully not too long a one in April for a number of reasons.

16 First of all, the amount of reactivity that is leaded in the 37 r a tor core wi.~.1 not permit it to run at full power from 18 19 now until the end of Hovember of.1981, which means that wo ,

w id be in a mode of coasting down, as we call it,'in the 0

power level, possibly more chan we would care to. ~ ,

z2 ,

23 24

/2

(_$/ l 25 ,

- l'

1570 2F 1 Finfrock - croza 1 A (Continuing) So, an outage in April I would O 2 say.would save that reactivity for use in the summertime.

3 Furthermore, we have made some rather 4 extensive reorganizations in the way we are going to do main- .

5 tenance work and we would like to use a short'onhage in the 6 Spring to make'sure we have all of be kinks worked out of 7 l that organization before we get-to-the major outage for tho 8 sparger replacement and refueling in the winter of 1981.

9 Q How long of an outage do you project for April 10 of 19817 3

11 A Well, we have not ccmpleted all theNdetails of that planning yet. In the order I will say though of three 12 I

' 13 to four weeks.

[)~

a If the NRC does not defer the three items men-l 14 Q 15 tioned in your letter of September 26th, am I correct in 16 thinking that you would shut down by December 1st because I

17 of some environmental limitation upon shut downs between l

1:3 September 1 and April 1 is it?

l l

19 A Yes. l 20 Q You are currently projecting a refueling out- j l

21 age for Oyster Creek'in the winter of '81 '827 A That's correct.

i 22 Q How'long would that outage be projected for?

l 23 _

We anticipate that outage to begin, again I

A 24 h

k/' 25 because of the environmental restrictions, November the 30th i

I

2f 2 Finfrack - cross 1571 f

I or thereabouts. That outage is not yet planned in very much

, 2 detail but it will extensive in that we will need to com-3 plately unload the reactor core and obvicusly reload it back 4 again, and of course, we would have to cut out the spargers, ,

5 we will have to install the new spargers assembly and let me 6 give you a ballpark number, if I might, in the order of five 7 to six months.

8 Q Now, if you do have to shut down in 1980 for 9 three to four weeks, would that have any impact on the refuel .

10 ing outage?

Would that have any impact upon this l gi 12 refueling schedule that you have just told us about?

13 ! A No, I don't think it would. I can't foresee

[Vh - i that. We need the 1980, end of '81 '82 outage as late as l g4 a i  !

i we can make it in order to allow the time required to design' id 15

! and manufactura and test the new sparger assembly.

16 Q Even if it did not affect the beginning date 17 f the refueling outage of November 30, 1981, would an outacie 18 this year have any effect upon the duration of the winter 19

'81 '82 refueling outage?

20 A No. The five, six, remember that I gave you, g

will be critical path work'rolated to the si.arger.

Q Whah was oyster Creek's actual operating rate 23[

during September of this year ~r m l O ^ I aida'e oox at *t"* ""=ber "ta r- ' *^iax 25 l i \

i x

1 - ..

1572 j Finfrock - cross s I around 80-85 percent.

v. 2 And from where you sit today, how does it look Q

3 for this month? Higher? -

e 4 A Higher, higher. This morning it was at 95.6 ,

5 ;l percent full capacity.

'i 6 Q October has started very well in other words?

7- A Yes.

8 Q Do you have an expectation that it will continue 9 to go well?

I A Yes.

10 .

i  !

11 j Q Now, in discussin'g Oyster Creek expenditures 12 '

I with Mr. Kirsten, am I correct in thinking that you were talk-s, i

' '() y 13 l ing about O&M expenses?

i t.

14 ! A Yes.

.i l d

15 l 0 Were you making any distinction when you were I

I 16 l discussing Oyster Creek expenditures between O&M expenses 17 { and capital expenses? '

l A Yes. I addressed O&M expenses in answer to 18 l 19 Mr. Kirsten's question. I did not address the capital.

20 Q Thank you. I thought as much but I thought 21 I would make sure.

Well, let's begin by discussing O&M 22 23 expenses. I gather from your discussion with.Mr. Kirsten 24 that those expenses were more than had originally been antici-h  :

25 l; . pated.when, for example, the 1980 budget was made up.

4 1

4 Finfrock - cross 1573

(- 1 A That's correct.

V}

2 Q Do you know what was budgeted for Oyster Creek 3 O&M7 What number is in the budget for O&M expenses?

4 A I an not sure I recall. I don't . ke to guess, 5 About something in the order of 18 million dollars, I think.

6 Q And do you know what the latest best estimate 7 is for Oyster Creek O&M in 19807 8 A In the order of $30 million. -

9 Q Could you tell us in a little more detail about 10 howthat$18millionbecame$30millionintermsofcategoriels

[ 11 and amounts? Do you have that kind of backup available?

E i

, 12 { A Yes, I have some. Perhaps I could mention somo j

'a3

- (m) ; 13 ofthemajorincreasesratherthangetintoallofthelittlel j 14 l parts and pieces here.

. i i 15 l Q Yes, certainly.

3 I 16- A One of the items was the necessity as a result 17 of the in-service inspection program to perform more work 18 around the reactor vessel and we lumped a lot of the reactor 19 vessel work like the refueling work and reblading work into 20 that category, and that is about a million and a half, $1.6 21 million.

22 l Q When you say $1.6 million, is that an incremen~

l i

23 , tal amount between the budget and actual for 19807 f

o4 l A That's correct.

' '( l Is that the kind of expense that you would have i

25 ' Q

i I.

t

,5 Finfrock - cross 1574 1 in 1981 too?- Is that an ongoing expense?

2 A I think it certainly will because the inspec-3 tion requirements that we have now have been substantially 4 increased and I would not expect 1981 to-be any less than 5 1980.

6 Another item that --- do you want me to 7 go on?

8 Q Yes.

9 A Another item that involved about $800,000 was 10 increased turbine inspection work that was not anticipated 11 as a result of suggestions or requests from the turbine manu-t 12 facturer to inspect things that we had not previously planned i

I-.g-o) 13 : to inspect when the outage was originally planned.

m

}

a i j Q Is that the ~ kind of inspection that you would

14l i d 15 anticipate having to do in 19817 E

i 16 A Yes. In fact, in the area of the turbine it-17 Self t I GXPect to be substantially more increased than in i

18 1980.

19 Q I might add Mr. Finfrock that this is the kind l l I 20 of analysis which is exactly what I am looking for, so please 21 e ntinue.

JUDGE MARSHALL: Excuse me,-before you 22 continue, for the record, who is the manu-23 [i facturer of the turbinc?

24 [

(<_A)- l THE WITNESS: General Electric Company.

25 ;

I l

e6 Finfrock .croca 1575 l R

1 JUDGE MARSHALL: Okay.

C 2 A (Continuing) Now, I mentioned that we have i l 3 really tightened up on our radiation protection program. l 1

4 We have decreased allowable contam nation levels, decreused j 1

, i 5 allowable exposure levels. That incree. sed program accounts , j 6 for --- I have got to add a few numbers together here --- )

i j 7 about $1.3 million, and I fully ~ expect that to be an ongoing l j

8 endeavor. i 9 Now, I mentioned the sparger repair.

] SS 10 The manufacturing /the clamps and their installation is not I provided for and that's a little over a million dollars, j 31

! ( i 12 Q Now that's something you would not have in i

/" ) 13 1981, correct?

h]s a *:

A Well, I hope not but I don't know what there 3 l: 14 5 will be to take its place. I ctpect there will be.

15 l I l 16 17 18 19 1

20 21 22 23 ll ll .

O 25

i i

G1 , Finfrock - cross 1576

}

I Q Well, when you say, what would be to take its

(~T V

2 place, are you referring to the fact that you will need a 3 new system?

4

.4 A No, no. What I meant is, probably that's a 5 poor choice of words, there will be I fully expect, at least J

6 I would plan for the contingency not to have any more cracks, 7

anymorecrackedspargers,buttohaveamajorpieceofequipl-I 8 nent somewhere else in the plant that will need significant 9 repair.

10 0 But that kind of thing is what you have in your gg budget, correct?

E 12 A That allowance will be in the budget for 1981

'/(/') !

4 13 l i

and '82.

e g4 Q Where are you now, by the way, in the 1981 bud-f l

I 15 get process?

! A Hot as far as I would like to have been. We 16 l 37 hope to have the first review of the O&M budget completed

)g by the end of this month.

0 How is the timing of the O&M budget compared 19 to the timing of the capital budget?

20 A Well, there has been a lot of work done on 21

_the capital budget ahead of the O&M budget. It's further alng,Iwuldsah,thantheO&Mbudgetisatthispoint 23 Ln time.

2A

f~

\ While wT arc discussing capital versus O&M,

,,a. O I.

t.

G2 Finfrock.- cross 1577 .

1 1 it would appear on first analysis that something like the 7s d 'sparger repair might be more of a capital expense than an 2

3 O&M expense in that it's a one-time non-recurring item which 4 is being used to improve the plant. -

5 A I'm going to have to answer that by saying 1

6 that I'm an engineer. We repaired the sparger as you re-7 pair many other things. And, I think repairs are generally 8 capital items. When we replace the sparger, I suspect that 9 will be another matter.

10 Q Well, you're saying when you replace the spar-33 ger that would clearly be a capi ~tal expense?

E 12 A I think sc, but I do not want you to think

() '

13 that I am an expert ir, these areas.

!. O All right. You have so far accounted for ap- -

14 ;

5 pr ximately 4.7 million of the increment of 12 million in 15 3

i 16 the Oyster Creek O&M. I gather you have some.other items.

A Yes, I do. Part of the in-service inspection 37 program of which we kept'a separate accounting and in which 18 we grossly underestimated comes to about $800,000. This 39-was the 10th year of our in-service inspection program and 20 after the badget was made additional requirements were added 21 to that 10 year program completion.

s this increment of the nature that you antic -

23h ;

! pate it continuing in 1981?

et 24 l

_,a A Yes. Another item is the fuel oil expense  !

i 1

G3 Finfrock.- cross 1578 j 1 overrun of about $700,000 which I believe principally occur-2 red because we had the plant shut down during a much longer 3 time in the winter months than we had anticipated. When the 4 plant is shut dowg. it doesn't make any of its own heat for 5 the workers.

6 Q Now that strikes me as an expense that is a nor-7 recurring expense and you would not anticipate it to happen 8 next year. Is that correct?

9 A No, that is not correct. We are going to have 4

10 an outage next winter. I expect it will be cold again and 11 we will need to heat the plant.~

i 12 Q But I mean you are budgeting for such items,

. 13 aren't you?

, g 14 A Not always in the wintertime to the e:: tent d 15 that we are this year.

3 I 16 Q The outage you had this past winter was a plan-

! 17 ned outage, was it not? I mean the one beginning January 4

18 5th?

19 A Yes, but not to t!'e extent that 1,5 went on to.

20 Q Well, the outage lasted longer than you antici-21- pated, correct?

22 l A. Yes. l 23 Q But it was a planned outage for the first two g months of the outage which happened to coincide with the winter fr m January 5th to I! arch 15th, correct?

25 _

l 3

l

. Finfrock - croco 1579 I A Yes, but the longer the outage goes on, the 2 more wastewater is created and fuel oil is also used to pro-3 vide steam to run the evaporators that process the waste 4 part of it.

5 Q When you do your O&M budget, are you in the 6 process of doing --- you will take into account the fact that 7 you do have a planned outage for the winter of 1981-82, will 8 you not?

9 A Yes, we will.

10 Q All right, go ahead with the next item, if you

$ 11 will?

. 12 A The extended outage in and of itself with a lot of men working creates a lot of icw level waste. Mainly,.

h 13

l. 14 the protective clothing that the men wear which has to be

$ 5 packaged and shipped and buried. That amounts to about 1.3

! 16 million.

17 Q When you say the extended outage, you mean the 18 fact that the budget ws; anticipating an outage from January 19 to March of 1980 and it wound up being from January to Febru-20 ary of 1980 --- January to July of 1980, I'm sorry, f A Y"8' 21 22 O Have you given me an amount for that yet, Mr.

23 Finfrock?

A Y'"*

24 Q Is it 1.3 million?

25

Finfrock - cross 1580 I A Yes, it is.

i (^)

, \_/

2 Q Now, surely that is a non-recurring incremental 3 expense in ter=s of, you would not anticipate it in 1981, 4 correct?

l

_5 A I am anticipating another extended outage dur-6 ing the end of 1981 into 1982 with a lot of workers and with 7 a very highly radiation exposure job cutting out the old 8 spargers. So, there will be much contaminated waste that 9 will have to be disposed of. I would not in the forthcoming l 10 outage, expect to have that decreased. And again, because of i .

l

• 11 our tightening up of all the radiation control procedures,

12 that in itself creates nore unste.

13 Q All right, go to the nent one.

f: 14 A Again, as a result of the extended outage we

$ 15 had more corrective maintenance work than we would have

And, r 16 otherwise done in the area of preventive maintenance.

17 that amounted to about a half a million dollars, l

i 18 Q Is that likely to reoccur in 1981?

! 19 A Yes. We are instituting a much expanded pre-I 210 ventive maintanance program in the early part of 1981.

~ Q Why have you instituted such an expanded pro-21 22 9f""7 _

23 A DY?

0 YO8'

/- 24

' f' ' '

J-25 A We;probably shculd have always had the program

l a6 Finfrock - cross 1581 i I but now that the plant is getting older, it's becoming abund-(]) l 2 antly clear that we have to do more day to day preventive i i  !'

l 3 maintenance work in order to endeavor to maintain the relia-4 bility that the plant has enjoyed for the last 10 years.

5 JUDGE f1ARSHALL: Excuse me, Mr. Finfrock. ,

6 does the Company take care of the job of the 7 disposal of low level waste or does it contract l

8 that job out to some other organization?

l 9 THE WITUESS: The Company packages it

, 10 and then uses a contractor to ship it and then l $

11 we have, in addition to that a contract with

, 12 the burial sites where tha shipper takes it.

'[V^T b 4 13 JUDGE MARSUALL: Who is the contract 14 with, the Federal Government or private organiza-i f 15 tions?

I  :*

l l

i 16 THE WITNESS: No, no, they are private l 17 organizations licenced by the Federal Govern-l l 18 ment to do what they do.

l l

l 19 JUDGE MARSHALL: Are they in New Jersey 1

20 or are they out of state?

l THE WITNESS: The disposal sites are all 93

~

ut of state. Wo. don't use the scpe contractors 22 f r ev rything. A couple of them, I think, are 23 r- New Jersey firms though, yes.

' 94

^

k_))

25 3 coo 3 n^^Sn^LL: ok v< th*"x 2 "-

29 1 Finfrock - cross 1582 I Q Go ahead to the next one.

7-C)' 2 A The licensing, the nuclear safety and licensing 3 endeavor associated with the analysis of the sparger and 4 perhaps a couple of other unanticipated things came to about 5 900,000.

, 6 Q Is that likely to reoccur in 190l?

7 A Yes, I think so.

8 Are you ready for ano"her one?

9 0 Yes.

10 A The modification work that we are doing on j 11 the Torus structure which is part of the containment for 12 the plant ---

4 , 8

()

)

13 0 What kind of structuro?

f: 14 A Containment. That required the removal of 5 15 about a half a million gallons of chromated water from the r 16 Torus. And while we had it removed we also processed that 17 water to reduce the level of the chlorido content of the 18 water. I'll uso some :round numbers, about a half a million

,19 dollars for that.

20 Q You don'.t.anticipato this expense in 1981, do 21 you?

l A Y u bet. You have to take the water out again 22 23 because we are gothing ready-to go back in to work on it.

~ The work ithat we did in 1980 is only about half ccmpleted, 24 fx

(" 25 Q. All.right,_ go ahead.

y v - - . - - .

l l

2g 2 Finfrock - crocs 1583 i 1

A Some of the support activities like quality as- ,

2 surance, quality control, security --- we lumped those toget-3 her to come to about a half a million ' dollars.

4 Why did they increase?

Q 5 A Mainly because of increasing regulatory require-6 ments.

7 Q Aren't some of those expenses a one time thing 8 in that once you do them, you don't have to do them again?

9 A Well, those are people expenses. I can't get l 10 rid of the people.

5 11 Q Most of that 500,000 ic a payroll expense?

, 12 A Yes, at least half of it is payroll expense.

d j 13 We use some contractors for quality assurance work. Now, l

14 I think we are getting down to some smaller items. We antici- I I

3 15 pate !some of the activities of an O&M natura related to the i

16 Three Mile Island lessons learned projects and then, there 17 were some added to that after we originally planned the budget 18 so that's about another 120,000 worth.

19 Q Most of the TMI Jessons learned expenses were 20 capitalized, I assume? I mean the ones other than these?

21 A You said most, and I am not -- I think that's 22 correct, yes.

23 Q Well, the figure you gave for the O&M TMI les-04 sons learned was about 100,000. Is that correct?

O 25 A A hundred thousand above whatever the original

~

l l

i l 1584  !

l Jtg 3 Finire:k - cross I

i 1 number eas.

2 Q You're right. It's the increment. Would_you 1

3 happen to have the,_on this TMI lessons learned, would you

~4 happen to have what was budgeted for 1980 and what the actual L

5 was as far as O&M expenses go?'

l' I don't have that with me.

4 6 i i 7 Q Is that the kind of information that Mr. Balda-1 8' ssari would have?

4 9 A I don't know.

4 JUDGE MARSHALL: Off the record.

10 (Whereupon, there was an off the record

) 11 i .

12 discussion.)

13 JUDGE MARSHALL: Back on the record.

!: I4 MR. NARDELLI: Mr. Kirsten has told us off the record that he would endeavor to get h

15

! 16

.that information for us.

1 Q Well, you are now up to about 10 million of a

17 18 the 12 million.incrementals. Are there any other items of more than one or 200,000?

19

! i A No, I' don't think so. ,

, - 20 increment, Q Of the remaining two million of'the/incrementti 21 O&M. expenses twat we have not discussed, are any of those

~

4 expenditures likely_to be non-recurring in 19817 23 .

- .A' No, I think not. There are things here like l l

administrative expenses for overseeing contractors and their 25 -

L l

[

l l

l zg 4 Finfrock - cross 1585 timesheets, Et~., is training expenses, environmental activity 2

expenses, none of which I think are going to go away or be-  ;

3 come red- , , il 4-Q Do you know what th'e Company is budgeting for 5

Oyster Creek's OEM in 19817 A That budget is not completed yet but it would 7

appear tha",it will be at least in the order of 30 million.

MR. NARDELLI: Can we go off the record?

JUDGE FARSHALL: Surely.

10 (Whereupon, there was an off the record h.

II discussion.)

, . 12 .

(:/)

13 i

! 14 d 15

16 17 18 .

19

'20 21 i

23 24 (VS 25 l

l

)

1586 1 , Finfrock - cross 1

I (After the recess.)

.( }

JUDGE MARSHALL: All right, back on the 2

3 record.

4 FURTHER CROSS EXA1;TNATION-5 3Y I'L MARDELLI:

6 O Mr. Finfrock, I know that you were giving rough 7

numbers but on one of then I happen to have a backup paper 8

on it, on the sparger repairs. Would you accept subject to J

9 check that a more exact number for that is $1,014,0007 A Yes, subject to check.

=

11 Q Now, I do have some backup material and I think f

lo~

you might have it before you now which does analyze the Oyster

'( ) i a

13 Creek O&M expenses for the eight months.to date in 1980 ver-i a

i 14 sus the budget. One item that is of interest to me is the g

'15 item for the outside contractors, and I note that the actual 16 through August 31, 1980 is about $11,070,000 while the budget was $5,090,000.

I8 Could you give me some idea what kind 19 of outside contractors the Company was hiring and what they 90 did, and while you are at it, what accounted fo,r that over 21 $5 million difference over just eight months?

22 A Firrt of all, in that period there was a rather 23 substantial work force at the site, about twice as long as

() 24 ' we had origina'lly anticipated they would be there. Now thej 1-25 ~ work force did a lot of the reactor vessel work connected wdth

1587 H2 Finfrock - cross I the sparg'er. They retubed some heat exchangers that we had 2 not planned on doing. They did a great deal of plant cleanup 3 work. And, also in that number ---

4 Q You are talking about the outside contractors?

5 A You bet, laborers to mechanics.

6 Q Go ahead.

7 A Also in that number, although I do not know the 8 exact extent of it, would be a substantial amount of money  ;;

i i 9 for many contract radiation technician kind of people that 10 were required simply because of the extent of the outage and t i  :

_ i the expanded program.

11 j 12 O now staying with this difference between the

. yu,s =

13 budget and actual for the first eight months of 1980 on out-i

! 14 side contractors, we are talking about more than $5 million.

15 Do you have any idea as to the number of people involved and i whether the difference, in over $5 million was an increase in 16 17 the number of people or an increase in the t1.ne spent by the 18 same numbe' of people or some combination of both?

19 A I don't have that break down but I think it is 20 predominantly driven by having the people there longer than 2] was originally planned and possibly also somewhat driven by a larger number of people than we had planned. The number 22 23 of workerc during the course of an outage, of course, chnges and builds up to a peak during the central part of it, and

'S 24

.b this outage at Oyster Creek that was in the order of 1500 l 25 l i

42 , Finfrock - cross 1588

- l l (J l people. ,

2 Q Now you mentioned a figure of 1500 people.

3 ~ Exactly what does that number represent? The number of out-4 side contractors?

5 A That's where the number of outside contractors 1 6 of all kinac' peaked, or close to that number.

7 Q So would you say that the actual expense of 4

8 over $11 million for the first eighu months of 1980 that-9 was run up by soma 1500 employees as a maximum, --- I :said 10 employees, there was a maximum of 1300 outside contractors i  ; 11 that ---

,a ,

12 A Approximately.

km !

13 Q Do you know how many outside contractors are i-f

14 involved in Oyster Creek today, approximately?

5 15 A I would say 100 or so. There's about 50 labor-1 16 era that are there now and about 50 contract radiation tech-i 17 nicians. I am sure there is scme miscellaneous ones but

. .18 it's substantially reduced when the plant is running.

19 Q Is that figure of ?.00 that you just gave me, 20 would that be-the low point for.1980? You have said the-21 high point was about 1500.

A That may be the low point in terms of contrac-22 tors but not in terms of people.

- 23 0 okay. Lot's stay with outside contractors 24 ust for the time being anyway.

25

. Finfrock - cross 1589 1

A Okay.

(3) 7 0 Do you see this figure of 100 today as continu-3 ing for the rest of the year?

A Yes, either as contractors or being replaced 4

-5 'by Jersey Central employees.

6 Q D y u see this figure of 100 continuing into 1981, at least the first few months?

7 A Yes, I do. In fact, I see the total number of 8

9 cmployees increasing as we implement new programs.

Q I am still .just focusing on the outside con-O E tractors. I don't really understand your answer. I'm asking

. 11 s

i f this level of 100 outside contractors, and you have said.

. 12 em a it will continue for the reJt of 1980 approximately, and then

_) } ,

i I asked you whether this level of 100 outside contractors 14

]- will continue into 1981, and I believe your answer is yes, 15

it will.

16 A Yes, and I wanted to clarify that in that the bodies are required but as we can replace them with trained Jersey Central employeec, we will eliminate them. But, the payroll, the work force will continue to be at least what 20 it is today and I fully expect it will increase over the 21 next six months or so.

22 _

~

Q But I would assume that one reason you would 23 replace outside contractors with Jersey Central employees

/~' 24

-( I' lis that there would be some savings involved to the company.

25 .

l

Finfrock - cross 1590 s

s 1 A. I would hope so, either in terms of payroll or

. _)

g 2 the productivity.

3 Q Now, you spoke of the outside contractors build-4 ing up to 1500 at the peak of the 1930 Oyster Creek outage.

5 May I assume that at no point in 1981 would the outside con-l 6 tractors build up to a peak of 15007 l

7 A It could do that toward the end of December in 1 8 1931 en you get into the extended outage. I do not antici-9 'pate that large a number for what we now hope will be an April 10 outage.

! We have discussed,' Mr. Finfrock, this differ-

. 11 Q 12 ence of $5,170,000 betueen the Oyster Creek budget for out-

'(3) !j 13 side contra ctors in 1980 and the actual for that period.

f 14 I said for 1930, I meant the budget through August 31, 1980 F.

i 15 and the actual through August 31, 1980.

! 16 Given what you have .said about the peak 17 of 1500 and the current level of 100 which you anticipate 18 to continue for the rest of the year, would it be fair to 19 say that for the rest of the year the actual O&M for outside contractors should run close to the budget?  ;

20 I A No,_I think not, because we have a good number l 21 f contractors in the radiation protection area and in the 22 '

23 housekeeping area, and those programs to'the extent to which we are now conducting them were not anticipated when the f=)

(_<

2(

25 1980 budget was' originally put together. But, those same

i I;

I 1591 l H6 Finfrock - cross l

() I programs vill indeed continue, I would expect, forever.

2 Q But those programs you have' just mentioned, 3 they were part of the 100 people that we were talking about, 4 are they not? We are talking about 100 people, outside con-5 tractors, from now until the end of the year?

6 A Yes.

7 Q And are you saying that the budget contained 8 no outside contractors from now until the end of the year?

9 A I am not surc I can answer that. ThOre were 10 probably some outside contractors budgeted.

~

But a number substantially less than 100? .

11 Q 12 A I would think so.

• s 13 Q.

Mr. Finfrock, on those work sheets there is a

!: 14 breakdown of the total non-outage costs for Oyster Creek O&M 5 15 cr production expenses. That figure happens to be $7,864,000.

a

But, there is a further breakdown where $962,000 --- well, r 16 17 Gither $962,000 or $952,000 of those costs are referred to 18 as non-recurring costs. Do you have that backup in front of 19 you?

20 A Yes.

21 Q Do you have any explanation of that $952,000 r $962,000 of non-recurring costs? Do you know what it is?

22 A No,-I don't.  ;

23 i f0 Is that socething that you could provide for j 24 us not necessarily in person but perhaps give the information.

25 I

l

i H7 Finfrock - cross 1592 I to a witness that will be here on another day? l' I,

C)' i 2 JUDGE MARSl!ALL: Off the record.  !

3 (Whereugen, there was an off the record I:

f' 4 discussion.) l:

5 JUDGE MARSHALL: Back on the record..

6 E. UNEI I understand the. Company 7

will make some effort to get a breakdown on g that figure of $962,000 for non-recurring costs.

g BY MR. NARDELLI:

Q Mr. Finfrock, do you know anything about the 10

i. 11 outside services in connection kith THI-1?

A No, sir.

12 I

• (_,)  ! 13- .

Q Now for these O&21 expenses, there is a break-2 down between outage and non-outage. I assume the outage is l g i

g the sparger outage.

- 15 16 A I assume --- you mean the outage when we workei on the sparger?

18 A Yas.

Q There is an explanation of the expenses and they are divided between outage expenses and non-outage ex-penses and that outage refers to the sparger outage in the

. 22 '

first part of 1900?

23 A Yes.

'24

/".)%

N

-25

Finfrock - cross 1593 I1 1 0 Now, I'm interested in more explanation on the 2 non-outage expenditures that are listed there. Why don't we 3 start with outside contractors, 2,830,000. I should note that 4

that's a breakdown of the difference between the badget and 5 the actual for those first eight months of 1980. Do you con-6 sider yourself as having described that sufficiently so far?

7 Do you have anything more to say on that? What would be the 8 non-outage related expenses for outside . contractors?

9 A I'm not familiar with how the category of non-10 outage was established.

f ig 0 Do you know if the're is anyone in the room who

~

I 12 is familiar with that breakdown?

h!

s/ a.

13 MR. KIRSTEN: I'm not so sure he under-stands. I think Mr. Finfrock's response was l 34 i

f he wasn't familiar how you defined this, not 15

! that he wasn't familiar with the items. He 16 juct wasn't familiar with the category as you 37 18 described it blit he's familiar with the items.

MR. NARDELLI: I understood that Ict I 39 was asking if there was anyone in the rocm who g could tell us how it was determined whether something was an outage expense or a non-outage 22 .

expense.

JUDGD MARS 11ALL: Off the record.

24 (Whereupon, there was an off the record 25

I A2 Finfrock - cross 1594

(] I discussion.) ,

V -t 2 JUDGE MARSHALL: Back on the record.  !

I I

i 3 Q For the catagory of Material, Labor and Supply l 4

only 437,000 of the difference was termed outage while some 5 2,343,000 was terned non-outago. Can you add anything to l 6 clarify that 2.3 million of expenses on Oystor Craek.for non-7 m1tage?

8 A I think I need to say again I'm not sure how 9 the category was developed. The 2.3 million you referred to is certainly included into all of the numbers I gave you 10

that ma'<c up the $12 million. <

33 l i l Q There is a category here of, other, for Oyster

. 12 Creek and it shows that it was budgeted for the first eight 13 ,

months of 1980 at 695,000 and tha actual through August of I  ! 14

! i f g 1980 was 2,507,000, a difference of more than 1.8 million.

a.

l Do you know what that other category is and what accounts for the difference between actual and budget?

37 A Well, there are a lot of items that appear to l 18 ,

I

! make that up. I guess I can say that if it isn't payroll, 39

! M&S r contract,:it's other. I don't have the details to 20 break down all of those others into smaller pieces for you, l

t

though, i 22

~

0 .Now,' there is a number for-total Oyster Creek 23 I

budget-for the eight months through August of 1980 of V 15,540,000. Does that compare'to the 18 million that you

l l

13 Finfrock - cross 1595

(()

~

estimated for the total of 19807 A Yes, I believe it does.

3 And the actual for the first eight months total Q

4 Oyster Creek O&M is 27,678,000 Am I correct in saying 5 though that your best estimate for the entire 1980 period 6

would be about 30 million? .

I A That's right.

l O That was not a trick question, but have you Q

9 seen JC-301B, page 1 of 2 where it shows the actual projected 10 for Oyster Creek as 31 million 78 thousand? Will you accept i: 11 that figure as being the Company's best estimate?

12 A It's pretty close to my 30. ,

j 13 Q It certainly is. I did not mean to imply other- )

I i

14 wise.

5 15 MR. HARDELLI: Could we go off the record,

• 16 Judge Marshall?

f l 17 JUDGE MARSHALL: Certainly.

l 18 (Whereupon, there was an off ths record 19 discussion.)

20 JUDGE MARSEALL: Back on the record.

21 Q Mr. Finfrock, do you see the line for Oyster l

22 Creek's construction expenditurcs? - -

\

23 Mr. Finfrock, we are talking about two l 1

different things here, aren't we? When you gave a figure of

'*i 24

(%.J

25 30'million for your O&M, that's someching different than this 1

I4 Finfrock - crocs 1596 31 million on JC-301B, isn't.it?,

O -A- Yes.

MR. KIRSTEN: That's exactly why I ques-tion if that's the exhibit you want to look at.

Q But I still would like to discuss JC-301B. Do you see the figure budgeted for August? I shouldn't say budgeted, projected for August of 2,527,0007 A Yes.

Q Now will you accept subject to check --- excuse me---willyouacceptsubjecttocheckthattheactualfigur!e 10

! was $1,023,0007 -

l 11 E

A Yes.

12 Q Will you accept subject to check that JC-301B

) was prepared in late July or at least July of 19807

14 1

A I don't know, but I'll accept that.

I 15 j Q So apparently there was a substantial reduction.

16 l

l in August in what was projected to be spent on Oyster Creek's 17 j

constructionandwhatwasactuallyspentonsuchconstructionl? l 18 Do you know how that came about?

19 A- Probably not in its entirety but as a result 20.

- of the comitment of manpower to the extended outage' including 21

.. a lot.of.our engineering manpower we did net get a lot of 22 -

projects engineered and sent to the field for construction 23 a_s, .

as early/we thought we would. I don't know the details of l 24

'C 25 that number. It could also reflect not obtaining, therefore, l

![

I5 Finfrock - cross ,

1597 1 not paying for new equipment that was. purchased.

2. Q ~Is there a possibility.that this phenomenon

, 3 will continue or did continue, excuse me, into September of 4 1980 where some 2,350,000 was budgeted for oyster Creek?

5 Would you anticipate that the actual for September might also 6 be in the vicinity of ona million?

7 A No, I don't know that. I haven't looked at 8 September separately. I anticipate that the total for the

! 9 year is going to'be very close to what we said it was.

! l 10 Q- Which is 31 mi'11cn 1 79 thoucand?

~

f it A Yes.

! l

12- 0 Do you recall what was budgeted for construc-

, a j

.13 tion on Oyster Creek? ,

l 14 A For'1980?

i d 15 0 ~YG8*

• i i 16 A I don't think I have those details with me.

I certainly don't recall. There are a large number of items 17 18 that comprise this 30 million dollar figuro. j 19 HR. KIRSTEN: $31 million.

5 THE WITNESS: $31 million.

20 Some f them are related to items that 2i are regulatory required, some are categorized

~

as other entrironmental matters, other items are 23 categori::ed in the area of performance or in-f ' -

Proving-performance. There are a number of-25 4

4 v e- y .- , , ,,,&- -w,-

t I6 Finfrock - cross .

1598 1

I items that are regulatory required from the

}

l 2 standpoint of a nuclear regulatory commission. N 3 There are a large number of items here.

l 4 BY MR. NARDELLI:

'5 Q Do you recall --- I'm not asking for an exact l 6 number, but do you recall whether the number budgeted for 7 Oyster Creek construction was less than the 31 million that 8 is now projected for Oyster Creek in 19807 9 A I think it was.

)

l io Q Would you care to make an estimate as to how l  :

11 much lower than 31 million it w'as? l I \

I

! 12 A I think a few million.

13 Q Do you know what accounted for the increase between the construction budget and the 31 million that the f

14 i 1

I

$ 15 Company is now projecting?

E i A I think a number of those items would fall 16 37 into the category of the Lessons Learned activities that were i

l l 18 added since the capital budget was originally prepared. Some l l other items go into the category of improving some of our 39 .

pro essing systems.

-2'O Q Turning to page 2 of 2 of JC-301B, is that the 21 Oyster Creek capital budget for 1981, the 26,320,000 that is

( l 23 A= It was, when this information was prepared,

()- 25 yes. I'm quite confident the final number is going to be

- e - - - _ - , ,-

I7 Finfrock - cross 15.e5 1 higher.

2 Q Is that connected with Lessons Learned, also?

3 A Part of it.

4 Q Mr. Finfrock, how many employees, and I am 5

saying employces not, not outside contractors, were budgeted 6 for Oyster Creek in 19807 7

8 9 >

10 Oi _ 12 13 l 14 5

15 !

3

~

16 17 18 19 20 21 -

22 ;

O 23 24 i

25 I l

._ r

l

. Finfrock - cross 1600

{ l A Initially about 350.

2 Q And what level have you been running at? j 3 A I would think that now we are around 400. I 4 would anticipate by the end of the year that number will be  ;

5 closer to 500.

6 Q Now, you have put on the record today some rea-7 son for this increase. Do you have anything else to add for 8 the reason for the increase in the budget of 350 employees 9 for Oyster Creek as to what you anticipate might be a year-10 end level of 500 employees? .

11 A There is at least one item I think that I neg-y .

12 lected to mention. We are going to be embarking --- at least j 13 ue plan-to embark on an extensive training program that in

! 14 itsel2 providas two areas of increased personnel. One is

~

$ 13 in the trainers, if you will, teachers, and then the other E 16 one is increasing the numbars of people en the operating 17 shifts or perhaps increasing the numbers of shifts so that ig we have men available to be trained while the plant is run-19 ning, while the others are running the plant.

0 To some c:: tent, this increase from 350 to 20 21 500 employees at Oyster Creek, did it consist of a replace-

-22 ment of outside contractors?

A Yes. That number would replace all of the 23 laborers, all of the radiation technicians which is a sub-24

'd stantial frack. ion of the current outside contractors.

25

J2- Finfrock - cross- 1601 1

O Sotosomedegreethentheincreaseinemployeels i

-() at Oyster Creek might actually result in a reduction of ex-2 3

penses in connection with Oyster Creek to the extent that 4

the employee expenses are less than the outside contractors 5 expenses?

6 A. I think there will be cases when our outside 7

contractors replaced by a Jersey Central employee, the cost g per hour may go down. I think there are cases where it 9 will certainly go up.

Q Now, do you have a sense of where the employee 10 I g level is going for Oyster Creek'in 19817 I gather that in the beginning of '81 ---

} 12 A That the number will ---

13 Q Let me add something else and then you can

{ g g elaborate at will. I gather at the beginning of 1981 you

- 15

-j 16 are anticipating an employee level of perhaps 500 for Oyster Creek.

A Yes.

t Q Now, I interrupted you. If you have anything 9

to add about 1981, please do so. U A If we can find them fast enough, I think we

21 )

will get to 500. I might regard that somewhat as an optimis-  !

22 -

y j tic nusber. I believe the number, if-you add everybody you i

[- 23 s l l wanted operating Oyster Creek by the end of 1981 would

() 24 25 then only go to around 520, but I should clarify that number

!~

I l

l' a Finfrock - cross 1602 I l:

1 for you. In the process of forming our GPU nuclear group as pd  !:

2 it stands today, there will be a substantial number of support l

3 people at the site that are not counted F mv 520 number and l l,

4 that additional suppcrt increment is currently in the order l:

!i 5 of'200 more.

6 Q Are those people in the 1981 budget for Oyster 7 Creuk?

4 8 'A They will be when we get finished with it. ,

9 MR. KIRSTEN: This might be a convenient time to respond. You,ere w trying to nail down

10

what the 1980 Oyster Creek capital requirements 33

! l were in the original budget. The figure that I 12 i , g have just been advised is $22,559,000.

13 l l: 34 O To pick up on that just for a second, Mr. Fin-f f rock, how much of the increase between 22 million dollars

=

j in the 1980 budget, the capital budget for Oyster Creek, and 16 the_$31 million that'is the Company's best estimate now, how 37 mu h is accounted for by the lessons learned from TMI, that i 18 i

- 19

$9 milli n increment?

20 Q Would you care tc make a percentage estimate?

Do you-think it's more than 50 percent, less than 50 percent'?

22 dollaz A - We.are going from 26 million/to $30 million?

O From $22 million to $31 million.

A From $22 million to $31.million. I would say 25

1 J4' Finfr:ck - craco 1603

/s i the lessons learned item is about three to $4 million.

(~)

2 Q Associated with TMI-l lessons learned?

3 A Yes.

4 Q But of the increase in the O&M budget from 5 $18 million to the $30 million actual that is now projected, f i-6 only some $100,000 was connected with TMI-1 lessons learned? ,

7 A I think so, yes. That's $100,000 of the over-8 run.

9 0 Yes.

Now, are you familiar with Jersey Cen-10 tral's transmission system around Oyster Creek?

f 33 A Ia familiar with the two 230 KV lines that 12 I

,(,) 13 leave the plant and go to Larrabee.

j- 34 Q And is that system adequate?

5 f A. I am not sur3 I know hoW to answer that.

j 16 Q I the transmission system in existence now j

with Oyster Creek sufficient to moet the needs?

18 MR. MARDELLI: The present needs let's 39 ,

• 9 "

• 20 MR. KIRSTEN: Of Oyster Creek?

MR. HARDELLI: Yes.

22

~

THE WITNESS: Yes, to the extent that one applies to-Oyster Creek the electrical

(/-)

A-25 supply criteria that existed in 1965 or '66.

1

l J5 Finfrock_- cross 1604 1- To the extent one would apply that criteria

/^T 2 to --- apply the system to the 1980's criteria, 3

perhaps not.

4 Q You are inferring that the criteria has changed?

5 A Oh, yes, mainly in the area of separate backup 6 power supplies to get power into the plant. The transmission 7

lines that exist now are adequate to get all of the power 8 out of the plant and have been for some time.

9 Q So the transmission into the plant is very ade-qua e --- excuse me, is it the other way? The transmission 10

! 7g out of the plant is very adequate but you can envision a

> need to improve the transmission into the plant?

12

- i A That might be necessary some day. It may be-13

come a Federal requirement, but we do not know that yet.

{ 34

)

- 15 I should perhaps comment a little bit on the differences in j the criteria.

Q That's fine.

A Oyster Creek is more dependent on diesel gene-rators for backup power supplies for emergency systems than 19 ,

other plants would be. In other words, a more modern new plant would have perhaps another transmission line coming from some place else.

22 ~

O Into the plant?

A Into the plant. It could be used both ways, 24 m

L/ 25 if you wanted it in for so::ie emergency in the event that one i

1

! J6 Finfrock - cross 1605 t

1 of the transmission lines was damaged by an airplane or somem i

O 2 thing and you could get power into the . plant on another lineiI l

t 3 or maybe even out if the plant was still running. ,

4 5

!. 6 3 7 a

4 i 8 i

! 9 i

4 1 10 i .

7 i -

!  : 11 i

l ,,

12 4

lO; is 1  :.

14

?

i i, d 15 l 1 16 1 I j '17 1

18 i

f j 19 , -1 l

l oo i 21 22 i _

4

23 1

24

~

4 25

\

l l

i

1606 2j 1 Finfrock - croca 1 Q. Now what form would this other line be? Would 2 it be another 230 line?

A I am not a transmission engineer, I'm sorry.

3 MR. KIRSTEN: I didn't mean to interrupt 4

1 your questioning. I think you and Mr. Finfrock 5

6 are talking about two different things. You meant adequacy and he meant adequacy as far 7

g as backup supply of power for the plant. I think you were relating it to adequacy as far 9

as customer needs. I think you were talking 10

about two different things.

, 33

>  : Well, following up on Mr. Kirsten's point, what 12 Q

about adequacy for customer needs? Well, oka f, I think I 13

! j 34 know your answer.

=

g ^ " "" Y ' *E

• Y' 15

You are interested in generating it.

f Q A That's correct.

37

1. Y 18 nuclear project?

39 .

A I know where it is.

O O It's right next door, as a matter of fact, 21 isn't.it?

22

~

' A Yes.

23 Are you familiar with some of the equipment.

Q

j. 24 kl there?

25

2j 2 -Finfrock - cross 1607 1

A I have seen the equipment that is storad there.

2 Q Do you think there might be a market for it 3 some place if the Company decided to sell it?

4 A I don't know.

5 MR. NARDELLI: I have no further ques-6 tions for Mr. Finfrock. .

7. JUDGE MARSHALL: Okay. Mr. Sahradnik, 8 do you have any questions?

9 MR. SAHRADNIK Yes, I do.

10 JUDGE MARSHALL: Would you want a few i

j 11 moments to prepare that?

12 MR. SAHRADNIK No, I think we can go 13 anced.

i 14

CROSS EXAMINATION d

15 BY MR SAERADNIK: ,

l i:

16 Q Mr. Finfrock, when we were talking about the 17 O&M expenses or when you were talking about the OEM expenses 18 with Mr. Nardelli, you made reference to the fact that you 19 are-in the budgetary process for 1981 in determining what the 20-projected O&M expenses for Oyster Creek will be. When do you 21 expect the budget to be in its final form?

22 A I believe we are targetod for the end of this 23 month. I am not sure that will be its final form, but we soon hope to begin the review process.

25 0 -Is there any revision later than the $30 milliori

1608 J3 Finfrock -'crono 1 figure.that you are aware of?

2 'A For 19817 3 Q For 1931.

MR. MARDELLI: For clarification, can I 1 4 l 5

ask, are we talking about the $30 million O&M l l

6 budget number or the $31 million capital number?

MR. SAIIRADMIK I was talking about the 7

l' 8 OEM budget.

i THE WITNESS: I believe I testified pre-9 10 viously I anticipate it would be in the order i

i, gg of $30 million or more.

0 Is that testimony based on a draft of something

. 12

, , s

) 13 that you have seen? -

A No. It'is based on my verbal discussions with

!: I4 15 PC ple that are working on the budget.

i 0 Have you sat down and calculated any figures 16 on a piece of paper which led you to come up with this $30 77 milli n figure?

18 A That much has been done.

19

! 0 Is there anything available that the parties 20 can

/in this proceeding review concerning how that figure was 21 arrived at?

22 a am aware a s time.

23 O When will that be available?

'4

-( A Well, if the review process goes as scheduled, 25 I i

, i

2j 4 Finfrock.- cross 1609 I perhaps by the end of the month. But, I am perhaps not the

(-)

%)

2 one to answer that.

3 Q Now at the present time then, there is no cerinite figure with respect to what the O&M expenses will be then of

~

4 5 Oyster Creck for 1981. '

6 A That's correct.

7 Q Now, Mr. Finfrock, with respect to the sparger 8 outage, is there any possibility of pursuing warranty plans 9 or insurance recoveries to offset any of these expenditurce?

10 A I do not know.

• 11 Q Who would know something about that? Are you i

j 12 aware of 'whether the Ccmpany has discussed either insurance

( 13 or the possibility of insurance reimbursement or warranty a i j  ! 14 claims?

d 15 A I an not aware of that.

!I 16 na. KIRSTEN: I am not sure I understood 17 the question.

18 MR. SAHRADUIK: I was wondering whether i

^

19 there was any possibility of pursuing any. type 20 of. warranty claim or if there was any insur-1 21 ance covering ---

22 .MR. KIRSTEN: Covering what?

23 MR. SAERADNIK: The prolonged outage 24 due to the sparger outr.ge?

A

(l 25 HR. KInSTEN: The answer is that as of v

2jf5 Finfrock - cros8 1610 1 the moment there is no claims contemplated, 2 that the plant is 11 years old and we know of 3- no warranties, at least expressed warranties, 4 that would be involved.

5 0 1-ir. Finfrock, with respect to the employee levels 6 you made reference to the fact that you expect a number of 7 outside contractors to be placed with Jersey Central person-8 nel?

9 A That is correct.

10 5

. 11

, 12

() .

13 I 14' 5 15 16 17 ,

18 19 20  :

1 21 22  !

23 94-

)

25

• -, . - . - . - ,, - - ~ ~ ,,-...--n. - ,

x1 Finfrock - crors 1611 I Q Now, you also stated that in some instances O 2-:his would result in a decrease of costs or expenses, correct?

3 A Yes, it could, in some instances.

4 0 And in other instances you said you thought 5 that there may be an increase in costs or expenses?

6 A yes.

7 Q Now, can you just explain to me why you would 8 ceplace an outside contractor if it wasn't at a cost savings 9 to the Company? ,

l 10 A I was addressing myself to the labor rate If one of our employees does cost more, I would antici-

~

aspect.

l 11 ]

12 pate our productivity of him would :e higher and offset any

, 8

13 change.

l. 14 Q But in general then, any replacement would be 5 15 ViGWed as achieving maximum cost savings to the Company?

3 5 16 A Yes, indeed. In some areas where we have high 17 level technical people under contract, they are far more ex-18 pensive than our own people would be and that savings will 19 more than offset perhaps the few cases where ---

20 Q I'm sorry, I can't hear your answer over Mr.

21- Kirsten's discussion. Can you back up a little bit? We were talking about replacement of outside contractors by Company 22 23 personnel, and my question was, why would you replace an out-side contractor if it would not generate a cost savings to the 24

Company?

25 O

L 42 'Finfrock . cross 1612

~T- 1 A I cxpect that the net effect to the Company (L.) l 2 will be a savings. A good number of people being replaced -

1 3 are rather highly paid technicians that are in great demand ,

4 tcday. That's why they are highly paid. The few cases L 5 where we may . replace the labor force may be, for instance, 6 a mechanic or some other perscn in a labor force, it would 7 be a little higher there, the payment would be a little higher' I think

. 8 there than the craft individual. However,/our productivity 9 would offset . that as well as the high priced labor that we 10 are going to replace.

$ 11 So, the net effect to the Company will i

12 be a savings.

2

'['N 3 MR. SAHRADNIK:

(_) . 13 That's all I have.

$ 14 JUDGE MARSHALL: Does the Board's Staff I

$ 15 have any questions?

! 16 MR. SLEVIN: kloquestions.

17 JUDGE MARSHALL: Mr. Kirsten, do you 18 have any redirect?

19 MR. KIRSTEN: May I have a few minutes?

20 JUDGE MARSHALL: Certainly. We'll take a five minute recess.

21 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)

22 JUDGE MARSHALL: Back on the record.

23 94 Mr. Kirsten, do you have any redirect?

(~')' MR. KIRSTEU: Yes, I just have one or two i

25 I

Finfrock - cross

'1613 K3 4

(( l questions.

2 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 3 BY MR. KIRSTEN 4

Q First of all, just to clarify the record, I be- ,

5 lieve I heard you say that in respect to your characteriza-6 tion of some of the OEM expenses, you first said that replace a 7

ment of a piece of equipment you would consider capital and 8

then at another point you said, repair of a piece of equip-9 '

ment you would consider capital. Could you clarify that for 10

Vs?

. 11 A If I said that, I made a mistake. Repair I-E

. 12 k l 'would consider to be O&M.

4 13 l Q An expense?

5 14

A An expense, yes.

5 15 Q And replacement?

16 A Replacement, a capital expense.

17 Q Now Mr. Sahradnik asked you about, would there 18 ever be a case where you would replace contract pirsonnel 19 with permanent Company personnel where there wasn?t s cost 20 f.nstances where you might re-savings involved. Are there 21 place Company personnel where costs were not a consideration?

2 You mean replace contract personnel with Company A

23 personnel?

I

() 25 Q Right.

We A Oh sure,'there are a lot of other reasons.

a e-

l K4 Finfrock ~ redirect- 1514 1 have much better control over our own personnel. It certainly l

2 increases the morale of the people who work there .then they l 3 are all employees of the Company. It alleviates difficulties ,

l 4 with our . internal union because they don't like contractors i l

! 5 around, and we could get a nuch better employee when we 6 have an opportunity to train him and the opportunity to keep 7 him.

8 Some of these contractor people, when 9 they are trained they go away. And, we have lost the benefit

]

of all of that when they do. So yes, there are reasons like

( 10

~

f 13 that.

12 I

IT

%./

~$

i 13 a

i 14 i

d 15 j 16 17 18 19 20 21 l l

1 22 i i 1

! 23 l 24

~

25 l

l I

4 i

2k 1- Finfrock - redirect 1615 n 1- Q Now, I think there was a question posed by Mr.

U 2 Nardelli o as far as non-outage related expenses and at the 3 time you were unable to.give us a breakdown. Have you since .

l 4 been able to get any-information which would provide a batter 5 answer to that~ question?

6 A Yes, I believe he asked me about the composition 7 of the $962,000 that was noted as non-recurring.

8 Q That's correct.

9 A And, I have some numbers in that regard that I 10 can now give you. The one item was $472,000 for processing f 33 the Torus water. I believe I referred to that in earlier 12 testimony as removing the chlorides from the chromated water..

< 3 Ol 13 Another item is $56,000 for the review of the new health pnysics program. And, another item is $434,000 for miscel-

! 14 i

$ laneous employee expenses.

15

! Q I have one other question, Mr. Finfrock. In 16 respect to some of the codifications of the plant and some 37 f the changes.and procedures, you refer to a term, Lessons 18 19 Learned. Would you tell us if you can to what extent are 20 these Lessons Learned items related to the TMI-2 unit acci-dent of last year?

21 A Unfortunately, I guess it was the Nuclear Regula-tory Commission that created the buts words, TMI Lessons 23 Learned. And, that is in good regard .perhaps a misnomer.

~

25 When something happens, whether it's at Three Mile. Island i

R

f 1616 Tinfrock - rcdirect 1 or at some other- plant which enables us to see . ways to im-

,0 2 prove the system, to modify it, to enhance its safety, we do 3 that. And I wouldn't want you to think that it's only Three

. 4 Mile Island that's brought to light modifications because if 5 r3 nad found out by any other mechanism, they would have 6 surely been made. We have, for example, a major expenditure 7 in an increased fire protection system because of another plant's 8 fire where it became apparent the cable trays in the plant 9 had to be protected far more than they were in the original 10 design.

11 We arc designing a modification now in 4

12 - which it became apparent one of our systems has an inadequacy

! in it because of another plant's --- not an accident but

() ; 13 So, all of thesa things are done to 14 because of a failure.

f.

15 change the plant so that what we had perceived to have hap-

! 16 pened, doesn't happen again.

17 Q In referring to the plant that had the fire, Is 13 you said because of, and yor:;just said now, perceived.

19 the fire the cause of the changes or is the fire creating 20 the perception of the danger which made such changes in-21 portant?

A The fire causes more awareness cnr perception 22 23 of the danger-that' exists if you don't do something.

Q W uld that be analgous to the Lessons Learned 24 25 wl.th respect to TMI-27 4

L l 2k 3- Finfrocx - reciract 1617 1

i l fg 1 A Yes. l

(_) Those are all the questions 2 MR. KIRSTEN 3 I have of Mr. Finfrock. ,

i l 4- ULGE MARSHALL: Mr. Hardelli, do you i

! 5 have any further questions?

6 MR. NARDELLI: No.

7 JUDGE MARSHALL: Does any other party l 8 have any questions of this witness?

t l

9 (No response.)

10 JUDGE MARSHALL: In that case, I'd like it to thank you very much for testifying, Mr.

12 Finfrock. You may step down.

3

() 13 Off the record.

! 14 (Whereupon, there was an off the record i

5 15 discussion.)

i i 16 JUDGE MARSHALL: Back on the record.

17 The parties have no more questions today so we will adjourn until.the morning of October 18 19 20th back here at nine o' clock as is the set 20 OAL policy. Thank you'for attending.

i L (ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1980, 21 9 : 00 A.M. , NEWARK, NET JERSEY. )

g 23 24 h 25

1618 EXHIBITS 1

Number Identification Page 2

JC-700 Letter dated September 26, 1980 from 3 JCP&L- to lir. D. G. Eisenhut, Director, -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cortnission, 4 Division of Licensing. 1567 5 JC-700A Beserved for Response from NRC to JCP&L's letter of Septecher 26, 1980. 1568 7

8 9

10 l INDEX TO WITNESSES

. 11 a

NAME DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT 12

! IVAN RAY FINFROCK, JR. I j 13 l

i BY: MR. KIRSTEN 1554 1613 14 BY MR. NARDELLI 1568 d 15

~

! BY: MR. SAURADNIK 1607

16 17 18 19 20 l

21 i

22 23 24 O ' 25 L