ML19341B672
| ML19341B672 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1981 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102030605 | |
| Download: ML19341B672 (58) | |
Text
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
)
)
4 IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
g 5
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY,
)
Docket Nos.
50 461 R
SOYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE, INC. )
50 462 3
6 and *iESTERN ILLINOIS POWER
)
E COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
6 7
)
5 Operating License for Clinton
)
g 8
Power Station, Units 1 and 2.
)
d
)
9
)
?
F to j
Urbana Civic Center 5
108 East Water Street j
Urbana, Illinois 12 E
Thursday, January 29, 1981.
13 i
The above-entitled matter came on for prehearing E
1-4 y
conference pursuant to notice at 9: 00 o' clock A.M.
g is 333g33,
a
?
16 j
ADMINISTRATIVE JUCGE HUGH K.
CLARK, CHAIRMAN ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE GEORGE A.
FE RGUSON e
j7 d
ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE OSCAR H.
PARRISH.
E 18
=
APPEARANCES:
b 19 4
On behalf of the NRC Staff:
20 RICHARD J. GODDARD 21 MYRON KARMAN.
On behalf of the Appiteant, Illinois Powe r 22 l Company, et al.,
23 PE TE R V. FAZIO, JR. and 24 i WILLIAM G. SOUTHARD, 233 South Wacker Drive 25 Chicago, Illinois I
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
T/020$M O G
2 1
LEONARD KOCH.
2 On behalf of the State of Illinois:
3
, REED W. NEUMAN.
4 On behalf of the Prairie Alliance, Inc.:
5 ALLEN SAMELSON, Spokesman 8
CRAIO EHRLICH j
6l CAROLINE MUELLER R
JEAN FOY.
7 3
3 a
e d
9 10 E
j 11 a
'J 12 3
4 g
13 m
l 14
=
2 15 j
16
- n l
17 l
M is l
5 l
19 5
20 21 i
22 23 i
i 24 1 I
25l t
1 I
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
3 1!
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
The conference will now come to 2' order.
3 We are pleased to have you here at this 4
conference.
This meeting is called as a special prehearing 5
j conference.
It's part of a proceedings concerned with the n
3 6l application for operating license for Clinton Power Station,
R I
7' e
Units 1 and 2, which are designed to produce electric S
j 8
power by means of boiling water nuclear reactors.
d f.
9 Unit 1 is known by the Illinois Power Company, 10 Soyland Power Cooperative and Wester Illinois Powe r II l Cooperative.
Unit 2 is wholly-owned by the Illinois Powe r d
12 E
Company.
These three owners will be referred to as the 9
h' applicants.
E 14 I d
j Constructive permits for the building of i
Er 15 g
these power units were issued February the 24th, 1976.
It's 7
16 y
anticipated that Unit 1 will be completed by \\pril 1, 1982 y
17 and Unit 2 during 1991.
a x
5 18 g
Before operating licenses will be issued, i
19 l
there must be first a completion of a favorable safety 20 evaluation by the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
21 who we will, hereafter, call the Commission.
22 Two, a completion of an environmental 23 ' review by the Commission Staff.
24 !
Three, a report on the application for 25 i
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4 I
operating license by the Environment Committee on Reactor 2
Safeguards; and fourth, a finding by the Commission that 3
the application complies with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended and with the Commission.!s regulations published in 10 Code Federal n
3 6l Regulations, Chapter 1.
Morecever, by notice in the a
tederal Register, dated the September 29th, 1980, persons I
n 8
8 whose interests may be affected by the proceedings were d
9 i
invited to petition for a leave to intervene and request 10 g
a hearing before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board within I
11 l j
the time specified Prairie Alliance and some of its d
12 members; namely, Stanley Elsasser, Rebecca Elsasser, E
13 5
Joanne Schwart, Jean Foy, Caroline Mueller and Allen Sametso a, E
l-4 aoso by the Bloomington-Normal Chapter of Prairie Alliance.
15 y
To file such petitions, the State of Illinois 16 also requested permission to petition -- to participate in d
17 y
a hearing.
This petition was filed pursuant to 10 Code 5
18 E
Federal Regulations, Pa: dgraph 2.715 (c ).
The State of h
19,
M i Illinois has a right to participate in a hearing if one 20 l
! is held.
21 An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was 22 appointed to rule on the petitions to intervene in; the request for a hearing.
If a hearing is orde red, the same i
Board will preside over the hearing or the proceedings.
25,
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
5 I
The Board consists of three members.
A 2
lawyer as Chairman, myself Hugh K.
Clark, a nuclear engineer 3
Judge George A.
Ferguson on my left; and an environmental 4
scientist, Judge Oscar H.
Parrish on my right.
It's a 5
3 privi.ege to serve on a board with these distinguished n
3 6
=
! individuals, each of whom brings to this proceeding a n
8 7
wealth of ability and experience.
n 8
8 a
I shall now request Counsel for representative s d
d 9
g of the parties to rise and give their names.
When a o
10 z
party is represented here today by more than one individual, 5
11 j
a spokesman for the group will first introduce himself and d[
12 then introduce his colleagues.
d 13 5
First, I will call on Counsel for the Applican b.
E 14 y
MR. FAZIO:
Thank you, Judge Clark.
My name is 2
15 E
Peter V. Fazio.
I'm a lawyer with the firm of Schiff, 16 jx Hardin & Waite, 233 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, p
I'7 y
60611.
I represent the Applicants, Illinois Power Company, l
M 18 5
Soyland Power Cooperative and Western Illinois Powe r 19 l
M Cooperative.
t 20 l
With me today is my associate, William j
21 Southard of the same firm, and there is also here today 22 a representative of Illinois Power Company including Mr.
23,
l l Leonard Koch who is on my right, who is the Vice President 24 of Illinois Power Company.
25 l i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
t
6 I
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Thank you, Mr. Fazio.
2l Counsel for the Commission Staff?
3 MR. GODDARD:
Thank you, Judge Clark.
I'm Richard J.
Goddard representing technical staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and with me on n
3 6' my left a re Mr. Myro n Ka rman.
We are from the Office of 3"
the Executive Legal Director.
n 8
8 a
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Counsel for the State of Illinois ?
dd 9
g MR. NEUMAN:
Thank you, Judge Clark.
I'm Reed E
10 E
W.
Neuman, Assistant Attorney General of Environment in 5
11 i
Springfield.
d 12
~
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Thank yo u, Mr. Ne uman.
=
13 S
Spokesman for Prairie Alliance and individual E
144 interveners, Mr. Samelson?
C 15 MR. SAMELSON:
Thank you, Judge Clark.
My name 16 g
A is Allen Samelson, a member representative of Prairie 6
17 j j
Alliance.
On my left is Craig Ehrlich, member and t
M 18 g
representative Prairie Alliance.
On my right, Caroline g
Mueller, member and representative of Prairie Alliance l
e 20 and on her right, Jean Foy, member and representative of 21 Prairie Alliance.
22 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Thank you, sir.
23,
Now, the purpose of this special prehearing i
i conference is first to identify the key issues in the 25,
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
7 I
proceedings.
Second, to take any steps necessary for 2
further identification of the issues; third, to consider 3
all intervention petitions to allow the Board to allow so 4
much preliminary and to file determinations as to the 5
parties of the proceedings as may be appropriate; and fourth nf6 to establish a schedule for further activities in this proceedings.
E 8
Before going further, I will pause for a a
dd 9
g moment and give the photographers a chance to take pictures E
lo E
if they so desire.
Is the press here ?
Do they desire to 5
11 j
take pictures?
d 12 j
PRESSMAN ONE :
I already got mine.
The rest of d
13 E
them are back there.
E 14 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
I believe the press has b'een E
15 s
notified that during the hearing they may take' pictures
?
16 providing they use the light which is already here, ambient j
I'7 y
light as it's called, but they may not use spotlights 18 5
during the hearing.
However, during a recess period they E
19 N
may also take such pictures as they so desire with 20 spotlight.
21 The petitioners for intervention, Prairie 22 Alliance, et al. have filed a supplement to their petition 23 setting forth 41 proposed contentions, all of which were 24l l
! opposed by the applicants.
We will now consider these l
25l ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY. INC.
8 I
contentions one by one.
Mr. Samelson will read aloud each 2
contention and add any comments which he desires.
Then 3
Uounsel for the Applicants and Counsel for the Staff and 4
Members of the Board in that order will be given opportunity 5
j to question Mr. Samelson on the contention whi.ch he has f6 just read.
S}
After Mr. Samelson has answered all such E
8 5
questions, Counsel for the Applicant and then Counsel for dd 9
j the Staff will have a chance to speak in opposition or in 0
10 5
favor of the proposed contention.
Mr. Samelson will be
=
E 11 j
given an opportunity to reply to any questions as to this d
12 y
procedure, d
13 s
MR. SAMELSON:
Mr. Chairman,can any other members E
14 y
at the Counsel Table for Prairie Alliance desire to speak 15 y
or respond to any questions raised by the Staff as well?
?
16 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
That will be permitted.
p 17 y
Before we begin this discussion, does Counsel M
18 for the State of Illinois wish to make any statement at
{
19 a
this time?
20 MR. NEUMAN:
No, Judge Clark, we do not.
21 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Thank you.
Mr. Samelson, will 22
! you please read us your first proposed contention?
23!
MR. S AMELSON :
Contention Number 1:
Pe t it ione rs 24 contend that the Applicant and Regulatory Staff have not 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
9 I
adequately assessed the impact of the numerous unresolved 2
safety issues, in reviewing the Clinton Units 1 and 2, 3l in conjunction with the operating license application.
The 4i Clinton systems, structures and components were not 5
l-backfitted to meet current regulatory requirements for n
j 6
adequate compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 50.109 R
7 Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate for me to n
E 8
5 comment on it?
d d
9
. CHAIRMAN CLARK:
You =ay comment if you desire.
j E
10 i
MR. S AMELSON :
The basis that we're trying to
=
5 11 j
bring cut in this contention is that essentially the un-d 12 resolved issues cannot be adequately assessed in regards E
13 g
to, one, a list of generic light water safety items that E
1-4 have been developed by the Advisory Committee on safeguard; 15 ;
Ey
' and two, the list of unresolved water safety reactors T
16 issues -- they are discussed in the general electric G
17 t
5 nuclear reactor safety study known as the Reed Re po rt.
1 c
i a
18 l
5 There is a problem at this point in pointing t
19 A
! to some specific items that are unresolved since the 20 '
Regulatory Staff has not yet issued Safety Evaluation l
21 i I Re po rt for Clinton Unit 1, but we do wish to point out f
22 !
' that all of Category A issues that have been labled in the 23 '
test action plan by the Staff do have serious impact on the 24 i
4 safety assessments of Clinton because those Category A 25 '
- issues are defined as those issues which provide significant ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
10 I
increase in the assurance of health and safety for the
)
2 public.
The priority of these items is of the first j
3 priority, and especially for those items that effect the 4
primary system of the plan.
5 g
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Have you finished your statement
?
n 0
MR. SAMELSON:
Yes.
R R
7 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Questions by Counsel for the n
8 8
Applicant?
a dn 9
g MR. FAZIO:
Well, I guess my questions, Mr.
0 10 i
Samelson, would be to the need or specifics.
As we stated
=3 11 g
in our iriginal response to your supplement you raised as d
12 y
contentions, we can't understand what it is we're being d
13 5
l asked to respond to based on the way the contention was E
14 y
worded.
You've added a -- two new concepts in your 2
15 i
y comments here this morning.
You've made a reference to T
16 certain generic issues raised by the Advisory Committee U
17 l g
on reactor safeguards, you add a reference to the so-called i
18 E
Reed Report relating to general electric reactors.
l 19 n
Those two new things were not in the original l
20 contention, and I would like to have a better understanding l
21 of what these references are supposed to raise in the way i
22 of specific contentions.
23,
l What we are concerned about is that any 24 contentions which will ultimately be admitted in this l
25 proceeding are so framed as they are things that can be i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
ll, I
responded to; and based upon what we 've been given so far, 2
we find it impossible to respond to them and this is one 3
case of that.
We wouldn't know what to c ome back with.
4 What is it exactly that you are concerned 5
j about and has to do with our particular plan?
That's what 3
6 we're trying to find out.
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Samelson?
S 8
MR. SAMELSON:
Well, it's my understanding that tho a
dd 9
g Commission's procedure that as the procedure will continue S
10 and the story unfold that there is a process of narrowing
=
5 11 j
one 's contentions through discovery process up until the d
12 y
date of the first regular prehearing conference.
We think E
13 5
that that could be one means by which we further specify E
14 y
the basis of the contention, but to try to give you the 2
15 g
basic idea, we've focused here on the lack of assessment 16 of the impact of-the unresolved safety issue with regard N
17 l s
to Clinton.
18 g
For instance, a technical and economic risk I9 g
associated with these generic issues haven't been l
n 20 quantified.
We think it's important for the applicant and 21 the Regulatory Staff to quantify these risks or attempt 22
! to some how incorporate them to make sure that there l
23 !
. will be no risk beyond that called for in the Commission.'s 24l
! re gula t ion s.
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
12 t
I CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Any further questioas?
2 MR. FAZIO:
I just want to make some short comment 3
anyway, Judge Clark, and that is it's the problem that we 4
have.
Mr. Samelson, when you talk about risks without j
5 j
identifying specific risks and you're identifying your
=
3 6
contention as it's writtin to unresolved safety. issues, 3
7 you're not identi ying certain issues.
It's still impossible n
8 8
for us to respond, and I think that for an orderly process a
dd 9
we have.to-have some idea of exactly what types of j
O 10 j
contentions you're really concerned about.-
It's incumbant
=5 11 g
in order to be able to finish a proceeding like this if we d
12 y
start with the specific intention and then we know we can E
13 i
narrow our focus on it as the proceeding goes on, but we E
I4 y
have a wide open fishing expedition; and in effect, in 5
15 j
discovery, we 're putting off the proceeding for several 7
16 months until we finish discovery, and it's not our G
17 l
g understanding of how this process is supposed to work.
i 18
=
MR. SAKELSON:
Mr. Chairman, if we make one f it r 'o h e :
f 19 a
point?
I realize we don 't want to go into a long discussion 20 l
of every contention, but I do think this is a major con-21 tention of ours and I'd like to make one further point.
That 22 is, that we are dealing with the scope of issues that have 23l already been outlined, specifically outlined, by the NRC's 24l Regulatory Staff in the testing plan.
We are raising all of t
25,
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
13 I! those issues.
All issues that apply to water reactors of 2
that type at Clinton, and second of all, it's hard for me 3
to specifically name the issues when, for instance, the 4
Reed Report has not yet been disclosed to the public and 3
l we think if we were to put into view with that, we would
?
6 be able to specifically name the issues.
So, we ' re raising 3y all the generic unresolved issues, which is a tiny set E
8 M
at this pont to my understanding; and all those specifically d
d 9
j apply to Clinton.
So, I think that we are clarifying that.
10 g
CHAIRMAN. CLARK:
I think we have purported from 5
11 j
the schedule a little bit, but we're going to have d
12 y
questions and then applicant is going to have a chance to 5
13 s
argue about this mission o:' this contention; and you can E
I4 y
answer that, and the applicant has already made his 15 y
argument and you've made your answer and that's all right.
j 16 e
In the.' future, the questions will be intended to discuss i
17 g
questions which would clari.'y the issues rather than debate 18 5
the issue.
l 19 Docs the Staff wish to ask any questions on 20 Contention 17 l
21 MR. GODDARD:
The Staff has no questions for Mr.
22 i
Samelson, however, I'd like to make a statement with regard 23,
i to Contention 1.
24 I
In the course of the operating license review 25,
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
la 1
which is the technical staff, the technical staff will 2
conduct each of the test action plans and be considered; 3
and the applicant will be required to conform to all l
4i current Regulatory requirements or adequately justify 5
l, exceptions.
They will present, in other worde, a solution 9
1 6
satisfactory to the Staff as to each of the unresolved R
\\
- E 7
issues before getting an operating license issued.
A 8
MR. SAMELSON:
May I suggest that we re s e rve the J
9 right to raise that contention if the Board does not seem E
10 j
fit to admit it at this time?
We would like to reserve the
=hI' right to re-assert that contention after the Staff has d
12 E
made its evaluation.
4 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Well, now Mr. Samelson, I E
14 d
believe you are aware th'at you must have one contention e
9 15 g
which is admissible before you can be admitted to inter-7 16
[
vening status; and if there is no further discussion on--
d l'7: Do you wish to make any further remarks on this first xx 5
18 proposal, Mr. Fazio ?
19 MR. FAZIO:
Not at this time, Your Honor.
Th an k 20 tyou.
21 l
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
And you've completed your remarks 22 with regard to this contention ?
23 MR. GODDARD:
Yes, Judge Clark, except for the 24l
! fact that I think the intervener should be aware that decisior 25 l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
15 I
iof the Atomic Safety and Testing Guild Board, Rive r Bend 2
in North Indiana, have set forth the principle that all 3
ge ne ric items will not be examined within the scope of 4
ope rating proce dure.
5
]
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Goddard, while we were 2
i 6
{
talking about these matters, would you be in e position at E";
this time to predict when the Safety Evaluation Report by E
8 the Staff will be available and the report on the a
d 9
g completion of the Environmental Review by the Staff?
E 10 g
MR. GODDARD:
Yes, sir, I would.
The staff at 5
11 g
this time expects to issue the Safety Evaluation Report d
12 for Clinton Station Units 1 and 2 in October 1982.
5 13 5
Excuse me.
That is Clinton Station Unit 1 only 16 1982.
E 14 That's okay.
As to the final envircemental statement, N
15 it's predicted that 1:suance date of March '82 is probable.
T 16 l
CHAIRMAN CL: E C:
Does this mean that you will i
l 17 l
g postpone these documents with regard to Unit 2 until it 18 3
more nearly reaches the completion stage?
{
19 M
MR. GODDARD:
As to the Safety Evaluation Report, 20 yes, the environmental statement will likely cover both 21 units.
22 !
I CHAIRMAN CLARK:
I see.
Then we 're being asked l
23 '
- to rule on operating licenses when the plant will not be 24 l l completed until about 1991 and that is approximate as we l
l l
l ALDERSON Et. PORTING COMPANY. INC.
26 I
see it here today.
q we 2
MR. GODDARD:
That is approximately the date.
3 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
And it will be nearly that time 4
when the Safety Evaluation Board has made on Unit 2?
5 MR. GODDARD:
I have no date to that.
I would n
f6 L assume there would be.
E" CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Much closer to that date than K
8 8
i the current date?
a d
d 9'
j MR. GODDARD:
I would anticipate that it would s
10 not be substantially later than tha date of che Safety E
11 j
Evaluation Report for Unit 1 cr in the event there are "i
12 differences in the units which are a factor af ter having 13 l E
the completion of Unit 1,
then this really is covered in E
14 the Safety Evaluation Report for Unit 2.
15 y
As I say, we do not have a time frame for j
16 3
the issuance of the Unit 2 Safety Evaluation Report.
g 17 y
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
That raises another question in E
18 g
my mind.
{
19 s
Is Unit 2 designed to be exactly like Unit 20 1 or are there differences between the two units?
Do you 21 know the answer to that?
22 MR. GODDARD:
Judge Clark, I don't think I can l
23 the question with any certainty.
The answer that 24 l applicant might be able to.
25l 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
17 I
CHAIRM.AN CLARK:
Mr. Fazio, do you know the 2' answer to that?
l 3
MR. FAZIO:
Yes, sir.
The current design are 4
virtually available.
5 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Thank you.
I think it's very n
3 6
j helpful to know that fact.
e n
8 7
Judge Parrish, do you have any questions n
8 8
a at this time?
d d
9 g
MR. PARRISH:
No.
5 10 E
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Judge Ferguson?
=
h MR. FERGUSON :
Not at this time.
d 12 g
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Then if there are no more question s
E 13 s
l or no more arguments with regard to Contention 1,
we'll E
14 y
proceed with Contention 2.
15 y
MR. S AMELSON:
Petitioners contend that the T
16 applicant and Regulatory Staff have not adequately demon-g 17 l g
' strated that the transport of fuel and radioactive wastes M
18 g
to and from the Clinton site will comply with 10 C.F.R. 19 Part 71.
20 There are essentially two items that we wish 21 to explain, two items that I'd like to make and that's 22 Contention 2.
First, we'd like to raise that given the 23,
e
- Commission's interim policy on Class 9 accidents as published 24 on June 13th andiFebruary 1980, we think that it's important 25 ;
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 18 I-that in consideration of Class 9 be made with regard to 2
access to the spent fuel pool.
This contention does raise 1
3 ! questions of fuel transport to and from the plant in which 4 tyou have to get the fuel out of the plant in order to take 5
,e it away.
Given the changes in storage of spent fuel and-j 6 ; the fact the re is no reprocessing being done, I think it's R
7 important that since it will be increased - storage of spent n
S 8
5 fuel in the plant that the question of increased risks 0
9
~
mandated by the new NRC policy be considered.
5 10 i
The second point has to do with the healthy
=
5 11 g
facts of long-lived isotopes for the full detoxication period a
12 y
of those isotopes.
Basically, we think that the applicant E
13 5
i has.not adequately considered those effects.
E 14 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Fazio, any questions as to z
2 15 g
the Contention 2 ?
16 MR. FAZIO:
Mr. Samelson, I don't understand the y
l'7 g
connection between the two pointo you just raised and the j
5 18
=
basic issue of transportation under Part 71 of the Code C
19 R
Federal Regulations as listed in your written contention.
20 What do the two points exist raised have l
21 l
to do with transportation of the fuel?
l 22 l
MR. SAMELSON:
Well, like I said, in order to l
23!
l transport the fuel, you have to get it out of the containment j
24 l area.
So, the first point I raise has to do with the 25.
1 l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
19 1
increased risks due to the storage in the containment area.
2 The second point has to do with the effect 3
of transporting fuel and in consideration of the health 4
effects with regard to the long-lived isotopes from the g
5 fuel and transporting fuel.
E t
l 6
MR. FAZIO:
I don't have any other questions, n
7 Judge Clark.
A g
8
_RRAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Goddard?
d y
9 MR. GODDARD:
No questions with regard to the h
IO contention, sir.
=
5 II CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Fazio, do you now wish to kI make comments either for or against this contention?
S 13 j
MR. FAZIO:
Yes, sir.
I think that just to save
=
5 I4 time, I would like to ask the Board to consider that all of M
C 15 h
the points that I've raised in my written submission will x
6 be considered raised without having to repeat them again d
17 in order to save some time; and then I guess I would have a
l x
l 5
18
=
to'say that in response to what I would consider to be 19 j
two new items raised orally this morning, possibly there 20 l
1s a connection between the transportation contention 21 as I understood it and the written items and these two 22 new points; and with respect to that,I would make two new 23 !
arguments.
One, that hasn't been properly stated again 24 l with the necessary specificity; and two, it hasn't been 25 l t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~,.
ao I
raised at the prope r time.
2 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
You want to answer that, Mr.
l 3
Samelson?
l MR. S AMELSON :
No.
With regard to reasonable 3
specificity, we think that the centention has ridden and n
its mention of items in the Environmental Report does E
7 pro vide the reasonable specificity required plus to g
8 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Goddard?
d d
9 g
MR. GODDARD:
Judge Clark, the Staff position is C
10 g
that not only is this too vague to permit a suitable 5
11 j
treatment in litigation but also that this is a purely 6
12 5
generic Class 9 act to all reactors or well and water h
13 E
reactors which should be considered in a proceeding other E
14 y
than the Clinton operating licensing proceeding.
2 15 g
Table S4 10 C.F.R. Part 51 covers the
~
16 impacts of transfer of water in spent fuel.
G 17 g
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Thank you.
Do you wish to reply 5
18 g
to that, Mr. Samelson?
19 MR. SAMELSON:
No.
20 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
All right.
Do you have any 21 questions?
22 MR. PARRISH:
No.
23 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Judge Ferguson, do you have any 24 que stions ?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
21 Il MR. FERGUSON :
Yes, I have a question, Mr.
2 Samelson.
3 Just to clarify it in my mind, the last point that you just raised as regards to transport of fuel, are you at this time, concerned abcut moving the fuel from 2
I e
6I the plant to some other location or within the plant S
7 boundary?
S 8
MR. S AMELSCN :
Both, Mr. Ferguson.
dd 9
g MR. FERGUSON:
Are you aware of the document that 10 z
Mr. Goddard just referred to?
E 11 j
MR. S AMELSON :
In Part 51, 10 C.F.R.?
d 12 MR:;. FERGUSON :
Yes.
d 13 '
S MR. SAMELSON:
Yes.
E 14 l
MR. FERGUSON:
Table S4 specifically?
2 15 s
MR'.. S A MEISO N':
No, I'm not.
T 16 MR. FERGUSON :
You're not familiar with Table S4?
y 17 g
All right.
Thank you.
M 18 g
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
If there is no further disecssion 19 on Contention 2, Mr. Samelson, will you proceed with 20 Contention 3?
21 l
MR. SAMELSON:
Contention 3:
Petitioners contend 22 l that the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that 23 !
the Clinton Reactor Containment System meets the requirements A Pendix A, Criteria 4, 16, 50, 51 and
! of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, P
25,
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
22 I! 52.
For example, the Final Safety Analysis Report does 2
not adequately consider the unresolved issues of LOCA 3
l hydrogen generation quantities demonstr6
.d at TMI Unit 2.
4 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Do you have any further discussion 5
3 on that point at this time ?
n+
l
{
l MR. S AMELSON :
No, I don't.
n R
7 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Fazio ?
n 8
8 MR. FAZIO :
Mr. Samelson, the reactor at TMI 2 is a
c l
6 9
g quite different from the reactor that's designed for this 10 g
station.
So, we find it har1 to understand exactly what I
11 j
issue you're trying to raise by reference to a different d
12 kind of reactor.
E 13 5
Would you be more specific?
E 14 y
MR. SAMELSON:
The issue that we 're raising here is 2
15 y
that the experience of Three-Mile Island accident shows T
16 that the non-hydrogen generated from the reactor under d
l'7 y
abnormal conditions was greater than previously expected; 5
18 5
and we simply want to raise consideration of that for the 19 a
Clinton reactor as well.
We don't think the consideration 20 has been adequate.
I 21 MR. FAZIO:
Are you raising an issue which is not 22
! already been raised by the Staff in terms or are you 23 '
familiar with what position the Staff has taken with l
24 ;
l respect to this general issue of hydrogen generation ?
25 ;
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l l
23 1
MR. S AMELSON :
No, I'm not.
2 MR. FAZIO:
No other questions.
3 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Goddard?
4 MR. GODDARD:
Judge Clark, I have no questions of 5
y the -- from the Staff.
Zhe Staff, again, opposes this
-n j
6 contention of being permissibly vague.
R
^
7 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Do you have any comments with s
E 8
n regard to this contention not trying to understand it but J
9
~.
as to itself?
3 10 y
MR. FAZIO:
We'll stand on oure statement and
=
5 11 g
written answer.
'i 12 E
CHAIRMANI CLARK:
Very well.
Mr. Samelson, do you 13 i
have any further comments ?
E 14 d
MP. S AMELSON :
I believe Caroline Mueller would e
9 15 <
j like to respond.
~
16 j
MS. MUELLER:
I'd just like to make the point 6
17 i
that we feel the hydrogen generatior. is nc' of an issue.
c i
a 18 3
It 's a ve ry specific thing, of course, in every plant where t
19 l
A there is the radiology of water and that we feel that the 20 prevention of contained pressure is definitely an issue 4
21 which should be raised at this point given that the 22 hydrogen is ve ry combustible and could easi:/ explode.
23 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Judge Parrish, do you have any 24
! que stions ?
15 ;
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
24 I
MR. PARRISH:
No.
2 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Thank you very much.
We will 3I continue with the next contention.
4 MR. S AMELSON :
Contention 4:
Petitioners contend e
5 that the applicant has not developed adequate experimental nf6 data and performed sufficient testir.g to verify the contain-E ment design in accordance with requirements of 10 C.F.R.
s2 8
n Part 50, Appendix B, Criteria 3 and 11.
J
=
9 j
Specifically, this contention raises the 5
10 i
functioning of the Emergency Core Cooling System under all
=
5 11 j
contention and accident conditions.
We would--
It's not d
12 y
been adequately considered or verified by the applicant.
5 13 Secondly, I think that the NRC interim E
14 policy on Class 9 accidents has not been complied with
=
2 15 g
with regard to the containment system.
T 16 MR. PARRISH:
Excuse me, Mr. Samelson.
You just i
d l'7{
g mentioned the Emergency Oore Oooling System which is 5
18 l
g mentioned in Contention 5 Are we talking about 4 or 5?
E 19 A
Are we talking about 3he same thing?
20 MR. SAMELSON:
Pardon me.
I misstated it.
- hat 21 was a misstatement.
22 A VOICE :
The statement--
I'd like to ask whether' l
23l l
the statement of the attorney in the center, the applicant, l
24 they're suggesting that their-written documents be entered 25 4
l i
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
25 I
without their statement at this meeting.
Was that--
I 2
don't recall whether that was resolved.
3 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Fazio, I think at this 4
point for the benefit of the audience, you might well 5
j read the opening part of your objections as to this group n
3 6l of contentions in order that the general public may be R
7 advised of what ye-mean when you say that your comments A
S P'
n apply to all these contentions.
Would you do that, d
k please ?
!H 10 3
MR. FAZIO:
Yes, sir, I'd be happy to do that.
The general comments of our written answer d
12 g
reads as follows:
On November 10, 1980, Illinois Power E
13 i
filed it ' s answer to the Prairie Alliance petition to E
14 y
intervene, and from now on, we'll refer to Prairie Alliance 5
15 g
and individual members as petitioner.
T 16 In that answer, Illinois Power stated they i
1:7 g
do not oppose intervention by parties who have a legitimate 5
18 g
interest in and will make a valuable contribution to these 19 proceedings.
However, Illinois Power expressed a concern 20 that intervention by the Prairie Alliance would not serve 21 these goals because the Prairie Alliance petition involved 22 numerous issues falling outside the ambient of the present 23!
operating license proceeding, which were fully employed and 24 resolved in the construction permit herein.
25,
i l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
26 1
Af ter reviewing 9he 41 contentions contained 2l in the Prairie Alliance supplement, now January 14, 1981, we 3
referred to hereaf ter as supplement.
Applicants find that 4-Illinois Power has previously expressed concerns and were e
5 well-founded.
Contrary to the expressed requirements of n
j 6
10 Code Federal Regulation, Section 2.7014 (3), the Prairie 7
Alliance contentions are entirely devoid and of this j
8 specific factual basis necessary to understand and d
evaluate the alleged issue.
10 j
Representations of this type do nothing to
=
further the licensing process and have historically been d
12 3
rejected.
At this point intime, we refer to the Of f Shore 4
g Power. Systems case involving a manufacturing and nuclear E
1-4 y
power plant and a decision in which appears to be 6 NRC 249
=
2 15 g
in which we quoted the following:
16 "To be admissible, contentions must be g
17 y
specific and factually supportive.
Contentions which are M
18
=
conclusional or barren or unfocused are of no assistance V
19 2
in the resolution of the issues to be decided and are 20 inadmissible." That 's the end of the quote.
21 Even conceding that a pro se petition that 22 will remain one and held without benefit of counsel is not--
23,
- I'm quoting again -
" Held for those standards of clarity 24 '
and decision to which a lawyer might reasonably be expected 25,
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.-INC.
2~
l to adhe re,l'
-- end quote ; and we referred to a number of 2{ cases where that type of language was cited in opinions.
3N ?etitioner supplements still fails to meet even the minimal 4 ' standards of factual specificities required to stage an 5
j intelligible contention.
The contention is further reflected f6 in the contention cited at the constructed permit stage.
E" A significant member of Prairie Alliance n
8 8
contentions merely restate the design issues exhaustively a
0 6
9 j
considered and resolved in that proceeding.
Re -e xamina t ion E
10 g
of these issues in the operating license proceeding would
=
E 11 g
not only be inconsistent with the current practice, again d
12 g
referring to case and this is a quote from that case; and 13 i
" Review and operating license proceedings should not be E
I4 y
utilized to rehash issues already resolved at this stage 9
15 3
but also reserve time and resources."
16 Finally, petitioner finally raises contentions G
17 y
to nuclear facilities that are -- wh;ch are diff e re nt from 18 5
the Clinton design or which merely rescate other contentions I
19 1
A
! presented in the supplement.
Then we go on, Judge, Clark, 20 to respond to the contentions of ones that were raised in the supplement.
22 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
And in most of those contentions 23 ~
you say you're merely repeating the argument in your opening 24 i l
l statement; is that correct?
l 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
28 1
MR. FAZIO:
Yes, sir; that is correct.
2 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Does that answer your question, 3
3177 4
A VOICE:
Yes, and could I ask a question now?
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Will you please identify yourself n!
0 for the Record, please ?
E 7
g A VOICE:
I'm Paul Muthe, M u t he.
I would k
ask a question relating to Contention 3 I'm sorry to d6 9
g interject like this.
0 10 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Ordinarily the audience is not E
11 j
permitted to participate in this discussion, but we'll make d
12 g
an exception in your case.
d 13 i
MR. MUTHE :
Judge Ferguson, I was wondering E
14 y
whether the Mark III Reactor that's to be built in Clinton 2
15
. rods that are zirconian clad?
Do you know that g
has fuel
~
16 detail because that 's very pertinent.
It's not just G
17 g
radioalysis.
It's also this unexplained process of the 5
18 5
zirconian interacting with the water with the reactors.
19 MR. FERGUSON:
Mr. Muthe, I'll anewer your 20 question.
Yes, I know the answer to that but you might 21 address it to the applicant.
They are the people who are 22 building the reactor.
23 MR. MUTHE :
You're the nuclear engineer.
These 24 are the lawye rs. _ They know how to talk like lawyers.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
29 I
MR. FAZIO:
'4e '11 be happy to answer the question.
2 The answer is, yes, and we have with us now a 3
Just for the benefit, if I may touch on this for just a moment, Mr. Muthe?
For your y
benefit, it's irregular, to say the least, for judges to 8
6!
l be questioned as regards facts in the case.
E" MR. MUTHE : -
Doctor Ferguson?
n j
8 MR. FERGUSON :
That isn't the point.
The point dd 9
g is simply you should address your question to the people or h
10 the parties in the case; not to the judge.
Is that clear?
=
5 11 j
MR. MUTHE :
Excuse me then.
I'm ve ry sorry.
I d
12 i
E MR. FERGUSON:
If you want information, just ask I
3 13 S
the people who have that information who are parties in the E
14 y
case and not the judge; is that clear?
2 15 s
MR. MUTHE :
Thank you.
g' 16 w
MR. FERGUSON:
That's the point I'm trying to l
g 17 y
make.
18 g
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Can Mr. Fazio answer your 19 g
question?
n 20 MR. MUTHE :
Zirconian clad on the fuel rods?
21 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
T
's right.
That's what he 22 said.
23 '
Now, before we were interrupted, I believt 24 that in Contention 4, and you've made some comments this 25 '
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
30 1 : perhaps named Contention 5 I
2!
Do you wish to again comment on Contention 4?
3 MR. S AMELSON :
Caroline Mueller would like to i
4 comment on Contention 4 5
MS. MUELLER :
Just with regard to the comment in
]
6l reference to testing is that we feel that it hasn't been 7
brought out sufficiently, clearly by general electric whether a
8 8
or not the--
All of the suppression pool, loss of coolant, d
q 9
accidents, dynamics can be considered in testing.
I don't a
h 10 know if the applicant could sufficiently clarify that now 5 II or if that's a question.
m g
12 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Do you wish to ask a question with S
g 13 regard to '--
14 MR. FAZIO:
I have to ask Miss Mueller that we s
15 still don't understand what you mean by suppression pool 16 dynamics.
We don't understand Miss Mueller.
What do hI you mean by suppression pool dynamics under loss of coolant x
M 18
=
and accident co: Jitions?
There is some particular event 19
)
that you can recall will happen in suppression pools that 20 has not been properly tested'for?
21 MS. MUELLER :
Well, yes, there are a number of 22 them.
This is not a limited list.
It's a pool swelling, 23 l
- for instance.
The pool swelled and clearing lateral vent 24 loads, seizmic spaeh.
25 i
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
31 I
j CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Fazio, do you have futher 2
que s t ions ?
3 MR. FAZIO:
We have no further questions, Judge 3
4 Clark.
3 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Goddard?
n j
6j MR. GODDARD:
The Staff has no questions with R
regard to tnis contention, Judg6 Clark.
S 8
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Judge Parrish?
a d
=
9 g
MR. PARRISH:
No questions.
c h
10 E
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Judge Ferguson?
=
E 11 j
MR. FERGUSON :
Nothing further.
d 12 i
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
I take it the applicant does wish 3
13 E
to present any further sta.tements as he's already indicated E
14 y
that his general statement will apply to all of the 2
15 y
contentions.
j 16 e
Do you have any further statements you care i
17 y
to make, Mr. Goddard, with regard to this contention?
5 18 MR. GODDARD:
The Staff would oppose this g
19 n
contention as being vague with regard to the first 20 paragraph thcreof.
With regard to the second paragraph, 21 dealing with the loss of coolant and accidentally hydrogen 22 generation at Three-Mile Island, Unit 2, we do not feel that 23 the petitioners have demonstrat1d an excess between that I accident incident and the proceeding at issue.
25 l l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
32 1
MS. MUELLER:
Are we on Contention 4?
I'm sorry.
j 2
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
I think we're on 4 3
MS, MUELLER :
The point raised was for Contention 4
3, I believe --
5 j
MR. GODDARD:
I have not responded to 3 at this 6l time.
I will proceed to respond to Contention 4 9";
The testing of the containment design and M
3 8
the opinion of the Staff would be premature at this time.
a d
9 g
The petitioners here have used the language inadequately ch 10 g
without specifying the inadequacies which they seek to explore
=
E 11 j
here and of the opinion of the Staff this Contention is d
12 E
likewise too vague to permit presentation of evidence on 13 5
the contention as drafted, even with the supporting E
14 y
statements which were offered by petitioners orally here.
2 15 g
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Do you have anything you wish 7
16 3
- to say with regard to 4 before we pass on to 5?
6 I:7 g
MR. SAMELSON:
No.
18 g
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Samelson, would you read 19 M
Numbe r 5 now, please?
I 20 l
MR. SAMELSON:
Petitioners contend that the 21 applicant and Regulatory Staff have not adequately i
22 demonstrated that the Emergency Core Cooling System for 23,
Clinton meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50.46 and i
24 l l
i 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix K.
25 ;
1 l
l l
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
Lb 1
There is one point we'd like to point out 2
and that has to do with the geotechnical site of the 3
testing operation for the cooling system.
The review of 4
the Final Safety Analysis Report demonstrates that no g
5 borings were done for that part of the site supporting the 9
3 6 Emergency Core Cooling System.
Instead, I simply used the R
h7 borings that were located near the main plant.
We think j
8 this is insufficient.
df9 The second point of specificity regards the adequ&cy of the capabilities of the core spash adequately h"
cooled the core.
We realize that this has been raised by 6
12 3
the Staff and the test action plan has genericrissue but b
13 5
if I may make a short statement as with regards to these E
14 generic issues, it's our reasoning on the case that the z
2 15 g
burden is on the applicant to show why this plant can go on 7
16 line without a resolution of all those unresolved issues; G
17 g
and instead of requiring the intervener who has less access M
18 g
to information.
I think the burden is on the applicant to 19 show how each of the issues is being resolved for the 20 Clinton Unit 1 and 2.
21 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Fazio?
22 MR. FAZIO:
I don't have any questions, Judge 23,
Clark.
At some appropriate time, I'd like to make a short 24 i i statement.
25,
i l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
34 1l CHAIRMAN CLARK:
I understand.
2 Mr. Goddard?
3 MR. GODDARD:
I have no questions.
I also would 4
like to make a statement, Judge. Clark.
5 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Judge Parrish?
f 6:
MR. PARRISH:
No questions.
7 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Judge Ferguson?
MR. FERGUSON:
Nothing.
d h
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Fazio, you may now make a S
10 statement.
I 11 j
MR. FAZIO:
Judge Clark, I just want to make sure d
12 g
that everybody understands, including the Prairie Alliance d
13 members who are here, that irrespective of whether there E
14 y
are any intervention petitions allowed and irrespective of 9
15 j
whether there are any contentions allowed at the hearing i
16 proceeding, the Illinois Power Company will be required to 17 g
and will satisfy all of the Staff's concerns and all of the M
18 regulations; and in the affirmative manner involved many, 19 many man years of work before the Staff will be in a 20 position to recommend issuance of the operating license; and 21 I just wanted everyone to understand that this kind of 22 proceeding can go forward even without a hearing.
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Goddard?
24 MR. GODDARD:
Thank you, Judge Clark.
With 25,
l I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
35 1
regard to the reference in Contention 5, and I will point 2
cut the similar references that exist in Contention 6, 7 3
and 10 to the Regulatory Staff.
4 The Regulatory Staff, as we indicated, has 5
y not yet issued its Safety Evaluation Report for each of n
6 these units but it does so.
It will evaluate each of these systems or conditions against the applicable regulations
+
j 8
and discussian will be presented in the SER, d
)
As to the contention itself, the Staff is in a position that the inadequacy alleged by the petitioners h"
has not been demonstrated with the requisites specificity.
d 11 E
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Thank you.
Do you have any 9
13 i
response to this or are you ready to proceed to the next E
14 s
contention, Mr. Samelson?
z 9
15 j
MR. SAMELSON:
Ready to proceed.
16 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Well, read the next contention, i
d 17 g
Contention 6, I expect ?
M 18 MR SAKELSON:
Petitioners contend that the g
i 19 applicant and Regulatory Staff have not demonstrated that
'A the result of human error has been examined as required 21 by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, Criterions 19, 20, 22 and l
22 l
29
(
23,
i Specifically, a review of the Final Safety 24I l Analysis Report shows that on top of decrease in reacting l
25l l
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
36 I; coolant temperature, and the subtopic contained there I
1 2
mean on an effect of single failures and ope rators errors,
3 we consider the discussion in that section inadequate and 4, that it only discusses single failures for each type of 5
g possible related accident, and that we 've experienced n
j 6
since Three-Mile Island has shown that on multiple 3
I sequence accidents, the f ailure should be accounted for.
E 8
n CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Any questions, Mr. Fazio?
d n
9 g
MR. FAZIO:
Mr. Samelson, I was of the opinion tha b 10 5
the kinds of failures you.just specifically referred 0) were
=
E 11 j
not human errors, and Contention 6 was intended to deal d
12 i
with human errors; and was I wrong in my assumption?
E 13 5
MR. SAMELSON:
Well, it has to do with human E
14 errors insofar as of the discussion that I cited in the
=
9 15 j
SER and it states that the effect of single failures in i
16 operators errors are only discussed with regard to single d
17 y
f,ailure s ; and what we're saying is that a combination of M
18 3
human error plus single failures plus multiple sequence
}
19 a
accidents should be considered.
20 MR. FAZIO:
I have no further questions.
21 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Goddard?
22 MR. GODDARD:
I have no questions, Judge Clark.
23 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Do you wish to make further
! comments, Mr. Fazio?
25,
I l
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
37 1
MR. FAZIO:
No, sir.
We'll stand on our written 2l statement.
3 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Goddard?
4 MR. GODDARD:
Again, the Staff would oppose this 5
g contention of being excessively vague for litigation.
9 6
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Do you wish to ask any questions, R
7 Judge Parrish?
A j
8 MR. PARRISH:
- Yes, df9 Mr. Samelson, are you saying that human error 10 during multiple sequence accidents should be accounted for?
fII MR. S AME LSON :
Yes.
NI MR. PARRISH:
Okay.
cd 13 g
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Judge Ferguson?
E las d
MR. FERGUSON:
Are you aware, Mr. Samelson, of e
9 15 j
any effort to, in fact, do that?
~
16 l
MR. S AME LSON :
Not at this time, no.
d 17 g
MR. FERGUSON:
All right.
Thank you.
18
=
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Next contention, please.
19 l
MR. S AME LSON :
Cont'ention 7:
Petitirners contend 20 that the applicant and Regulatory Staff have not" adequately 21 demonstrated that the Clinton nuclear system meets the 22 I requirements of 10 C.F.Ri Part 50, Appendix A, General 23 l De sign Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants.
24 i l
Specifically, we'd like to call attentiontto 25 '
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
36 l
1 Criteria 19 I believe that the FSAR is conclusury
~
2 incomplete on this point that would -- has to do with the 3
equipment outside the control room shall have the design 4l capability of the potential of the reactor, and subsequent j5 control shutdown.
f6 Secondly, I call attention additionally to n
h Criteria 61 which requires fuel storage handling systems N
8 n
to be designed to insure adequate safety.
I believe that the dh' Clinton fuel storage facilities are inadequate and that 2
10 they were originally designed for short-term se rvice.
Since then, spent fuel pool now is being designed indefinitely d
12 g
with on-site storage pools.
It would be appropriate 3!
inspection schedules and other identification should be E
14 g
identified.
9 15 j
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Fazio?
?
16 MR. FAZIO:
Mr. Samelson, in respect of Criteria G
17 g
19 in your oral comments, you made a statement that the M
18
=
FSAR, the ?
1a1 Safety Analysis Report, was conclusury and 19 incomplete.
20 Would you refer us to specific portions of 21 the document which you feel are lacking?
22 MR. SAMELSON:
I don't have those with me at this 23,
l time.
It's quite cumbersome to bring the 19 volume report 24 and we don't even have our own copy of it.
I'm sure your 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY INC.
39 I
engineers will know where the Criteria 19 was discussed 2
in the FSAR.
3 MR. FAZIO:
With respect to the fuel storage f facility point, aro you aware that there was an amendment l
to the construction permit to account for a. change in 8
6 1
! design of the fuel storage pool?
n R
7 MR. SAMELSON:
No, I'm not aware of that.
8 8
MR. FAZIO:
We have no other questions.
Od 9
i CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Goddard?
h 10 z
MR. GODDARD:
The Staff has no questions, Judge 5
11 Clark.
d 12 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Judge Parrish?
E 13 5
MR. PARRISH:
No.
E las y
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Ferguson?
l 2
15 l
N MR. FERGUSON:
Just very briefly, Mr. Samelson, j
16 I think that it should be made very clear that what the d
17 y
Board would like to do is to really' understand the things M
18
{
19 that you are concerned most about and to try to, in our g
minds, determine just what those points are.
a 20 You mentioned just a moment ago about your 21 concern for an inspection schedule of the spent fuel i
22 storage pools.
By expressing your concern that way, are 23,
i you suggesting that there is no such schedule or are you 24 l
! unhappy with the schedule if one does exist?
Are you 25,
t l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
40 I
unhappy with that schedule?
2 MR. S AMELSON :
The latter.
3 MR. FERGUSON:
Could you very briefly tell us 4
what it is that you're unhappy about?
5 j
MR. SAMELSON:
Well, although I have not seen the j
6' amendment to the storage pool design, we believe that the n
given a change in storage of fuel on the site would require E
8 some substance of changes with a
more frequent and more d6 9
g regard to the waiting inspections done.
I can't spell it 5
10 out at this time, but I think that gives adequate basis for
=
E 11 j
the applicant to know the kinds of errors we 're concerned d
12 i
with and of which they'll have to fend against at a hearing.
3 13 S
MR. FERGUSON :
So, to try to summarize at least E
14 what I understand you to have said on that point, you 15 y
feel that there has been some change in the fuel loading?
16 You feel there has been some change in the storage pool 6
17 g
design?
You feel there has been some change in the i
M 18 g
inspection schedule of that storage pool?
You don't know 19 what it is but you'd like to investigate it; is that 20 correct?
21 MR. S AMELSON :
- Yes, i
22 l
MR. FERGUSON:
Thank you.
i 23 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Any furtherscomment, Mr. Fazio?
24 l 25 "MR. FAZIO:
We would raise the same objections ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
41 1
that are stated in our answer to what we perceive as to new 2
specific intentions raised orally here today, and we would 3
make a further comment that we think those are raised too 1 ate.
g 5
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Goddard?
8 j
6l MR. GODDARD:
Again, the Staff would oppose the 3yI contention as drafted on vagueness.
To the extent that the E
8 M
fuel storage issues have been raised orally by the petitioners d
]"-
perhaps this contention could be reformed into a contention 9
0 10 i
in acceptable form.
However, we do not feel that the
=
f" contention as presented here even with the oral statement d
12 g
made by Mr. Samelson, meets the requirements of the Commissior E
13 R
regulations.
E 1,4 g
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Thank you.
Any further comment, 2
15 g
Mr. Samelson, on this contention?
?
16 MR SAMELSON:
No, thank you, d
17 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Will you take the next g
18
=
contention, please ?
19 k
MS. MUELLER :
Petitioners contend that the 20 applicant has not demonstrated that the Clinton reactor 21 containment and supporting structure of the pressure vessel 22 meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, 23,
l Criteria 4, 16, 30 and 51.
24 Just as further clarification on this 25l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
42 I
petition, we are calling into question here the ability of 2i the applicant to assure us that the reactor containment 3
system meets the requirements of these questions in the 4
10 C.F.R. and the ability of the dry weli-wet well membrane 5
g to understand the loss of coolant to produce transient load n
2' 6
at the experience and the ability of containment pressure 3";
of reactors that might be reduced.
I'm starting over.
n 8
8 That Clinton containment systems meets the a
J d
9 j
requirements that are cited in this contention and the Ej ' 10 inability of the containment of the dry well-wet well I
11 l j
membrane to withstand the loss of coolant and the accident d
12 j
induced to transient load it may experience and the ability
,=
13 5
of the containment pressure boundary to prevent fractures E
I.4 y
that may be induced by pressure or impact loads from 2
15 g
transient dynamics or missiles and the capability to test T
16 the leakage rate of the dry well-wet well membrane and other d
17 g
critical parts.
5 18 g
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Yes, sir.
Any questions, Mr.
19 Fazio?
20 i MR. FAZIO:
To our way of thinking, that 21 gcontention is -- goes to the design of the plant and if you 22 I l mean it to raise an issue which relates to something other 23 '
than the design of the plant which was already approved in 24 i the construction permit hearing, we don't understand and 25,
l I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 43 Il we'd like some clarification.
2 MR. SAMELSON :
Do we have to respond or is that 3
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
No.
You can respond.
You have 4
the permission to respond.
e 5
j MR. SAMELSON:
I would like to say that my review 6
of the FSAR I found that, well, these issues where we g
R 7
j rehashed that in the FSAR in the Final Safety Analysis 3
8
]
Re port and these issues have toi_be covered again in some d
9 i
way that they're not just a design problem but they're 10 g
also a safety-problem and that they weren't dealt with 5
11 specifically.
y 12 5
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Is what you're saying 1.s that j
13 l
something which has been decided in the construction permit g
14 must again be reviewed, and if so, what is the justification 2
15 5
for reviewing something which has once been settled?
j 16 9
MR. S AMELSON:
No, I'm not saying that the b
17 5
construction permit was -- needs to be reviewed.
I'm just M
18 E
questioning the content of the standards dealing with 19 g
these safety problems.
l 20 i
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Well, what is the difference l
21 between that and what I said?
MR. S A MELSON :
I'm sorry.
I might have mis-I understood you.
1 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
I don't understand your position.
l I
25 ;
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l l
l
as 1
MR. SAMELSON:
I feel that this is a reasonable 2 lissue to raise at this point.
3 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Goddard?
4 MR. GODDARD:
Judge Clark, we have no questions 5
on this contention, j
6 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Judge Parrish?
R
- E 7
MR..PARRISH:
Miss Mueller, I wonder if you would 8
a look at Contention 3 and Contention 8 and briefly tell me J
=
9' j
how they differ?
They both refer to the reactor containment.
H 10 i
MS. MUE LLER :
They are very similar.
The Contention
=5 11 g
8 also says the supporting structure of the pressure vessel.
d 12 j
It's supposed to be broader systems that they're referring
,=
13 i
to, and Contention 3 was not meant to include this E
14 supporting structure of the pressure vessels.
Contention 3 z
2 15 g
was supposed to be a smaller issue.
16
)
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Any other questions?
H 17 0
MR. PARRISH:
That's enough.
=
18 g
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Judge Ferguson?
0 19 A
MR. FERGUSON:
No.
20 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Do you wish to make any further 21 comment on this contention, Mr. Fazio ?
No, sir.
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Goddard?
24 i l
MR. GODDARD:
Judge Clark, the Staff would oppose 25,
a t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
45 I
this contention, first, as being vague; and second, as being 2
either repetitive of or incorporated in Contention Number 3 3
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Do you have any response that 1
4 i you wish to make at this time, Mr. Samelson ?
g 5
MR. S AMELSON :
No, thank you.
E i
l f
6I CHAIRMAN CLARK:
At this point, we'll take a I
10 minuterrecess.
8 (WHE REUPON, a short recess in d
the above-entitle d cause was P
10 i
had and the following proceedings
=
f were had, to-wit:)
d 12 y
I should like to say to you that this Board 5
13 5
is much more interested in substance than we are in form.
l 14 We recognize that the regulations require that things be l
g l
2 15 l
g done in a certain matter, and we also recognize that the
~
16 interveners are not represented by legal counsel.
C' 17 g
We particularly are impressed with the fact 18 g
that Mr. Goddard's position concerning the contentions that 19 M
we have so far discussed tend to be in the direction that 20 i
they're too vague and they do not adequately meet the 21 regulations applying thereto.
22 Mr. Goddard, have you any suggestions how l
23,
l this situation may be rendered?
24 MR. GODDARD:
Judge Clark, in other cases with 25 '
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l l
46 1
which Mr. Karman and I have been connected in the past, one 2i approach that has been taken has been to meet with the 3l petitioner and explain what we consider to be the 4
deficiencies in their proposed contention; attempt to 2
5 ascertain the nature of their concerns with greater E
6 specificity obviously than has been set forth in their R
7 proposed contentions; and then to attempt to demonstrate a K
j 8
means by which they could reduce these concerns to writing d
q 9
with such specificity and basis stated in the contention i
10 as required by 10 C.F.R. of 7.14 that they will be II susceptible to the development of evidence by the Staff and a
g 12 the applicant and the State upon those contentions.
s j
13 I don't mean to imply that the Staff would draft the contentions for the petitioners nor to go so far I
to provide your direct assistance in drafting the contentiona 16 g
but rather attempting to resolve the different views that i
17 a
the Staff and the petitioners have as to what constitutes
=
M 18
=
a suitable contention,to know that.
s" 19 l
Naturally, the applicant in any such case 20 would be invited or certainly welcome to participate in 21 any such discussions.
Of course, it would be up to the 22 applicant and their counsel.
I'm not suggesting that that 23 ;
- be done here but this might be one way to resolve the 24 i l issues.
25!
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
47 1
Another way to resolve the issue would be 2
simply to state in a summary fashion the position of each 3
party on the contentions as they are drafted.
Those 4! contentions are before the Board, and let the board make 5
j a decision as to each of the contentions given the views n
3 6
of each party.
5 I
Have I answered your question, Judge Clark?
k CHAIBMAN CLARK:
Thank you.
If the Board is to 0
d 9
j reject these contentions because of the ine xpe rie nc e 0
10 i
represented in the int e rve ne r s, I feel that-perhaps we have
=
h" not yet reached the ideal solution to the problem, and d
12 E
therefore, I would like to ask Mr. Samelson would he be ad 13 5
agreeable to sitting down with the Staff with the idea in E
14 mind of revising his contentions with their advice but not x
9 15 j
with their participation perhaps so as it's presented in i
16 contentions, which more truly meet the requirements of the i
17 g
regulations and also meet your requirements as to the 18 5
contentions that you.wish to pursue.
19 MR. S AME LSON :
We would welcome such an opportunit y
20 to meet with the Staff and to imply the standards that are 21 set down.
We appreciate the fact that the Board and the 22 Staff recognize the limitations under which we 're working 23 l
' and understand that this proposed process is not a precedent 24 to the initial proceedings, and in the alte rnative, we would 25 ;
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
48 1
also welcome additional time or procedure to make our 2
contention more specific through a written process as well 3
but we would definitely take you up on that offer.
4 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Thank you, Mr. Samelson.
5 Mr. Fazio, would you look with favor on such n
\\
f 6l a program and would you like to participate in it?
S 7
MR. FAZIO:
' Judge Clark, we would certainly look k
in favor on such a program if it can be accomplished today, d
d 9
j We would pose any suggestion that proceedings be lengthened 5
10 beyond times that are set by the Board of the first instance
=
E 11 j
to accomplish this.
d 12 i
We would encourage a meeting today with the E
13 understanding that the parties contending meeting would E
14 y
attempt to come back when this hearing would be reconvened l
2 15 y
this afternoon with something to offer to the Board which
~
16 might come out of their meeting.
I think that we would not i
17 l
g participate in the meeting.
18
=
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
I see.
Mr. Goddard, I have some f
19 l
M question in my mind as to whether a meeting between you 20 and Mr. SameIson would be able to meet your objectives if 21 it were held between now and the afternoon session, and it's 22 l
not at all unprecedented for more time for this kind of l
23,
l
. thing.to be done, and the second special prehearing conference l
24 l t to be held thereafter.
If you were to participate in such 25l l
\\
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
49 I
intervener's re pre senta t ive, what janendeavorwiththe 2
kind of time schedule would you propose ?
3 MR. GODDARD:
Judge Clark, first I might say that 4
the schedule proposed by Mr. Fazio the Staff finds utterly 5
j unacceptable.
There is no way that we can attempt to meet a
0
{
and come back this afternoon based on my experience in E
7 c,ther cases.
With the view to ths dates for the Staff E
8 issuance of documents during 1982 and the time frame of a
dd 9
g this proceeding as we would expect it to unfold at this I
10 stage, I see no reason why we 'd have to complete any 5
11 j
meetings or discussions today.
I'm not ready to set a d
12 E
fixed time frame but I'm sure we can come back within the 13 5
next four to six weeks with a supplemental that is, the E
14 y
petitioners could probably come back within four to six 2
15 g
weeks with a second supplemental petition, and at that 16 j
e point, we can attempt to schedule a second special d
17 s
conference if it was in accordance with the views of the 18 g
Licensing Board.
19 5
I don't feel, based on the time schedule of 20 this case, that we 're under any extreme pressures.
21 i
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Well, we will have a short recess 22 while the Board discusses this matter among themselves and 23 l l
we will return very shortly with our views asuto what 24 s.
I the next step should be.
25l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY INC.
t
50 1
(*4HE RE UPON, a short recess in 2
the above-entitled cause was s
3' had and the following pro-4 ceedings were had to-wit:)
3 The conference is reconvened.
a i
3 6!
Do I understand that the proposed date for a
R 7
the Safety Evaluation Report by the Staff is October of f8 this year?
O d
9 g
MR. GODDARD:
No, sir.
The proposed date for the 10 E
issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report, Clinton Station
=5 11 j
Unit 1 is October 1982.
d 12 CHA~iRMAN CLARK:
October 1982?
E 13 MR. GODDARD:
The projected date for the final E
14 environmental statement for the Clinton Station Unit 1 which g
2 15 s
although is not indicated on your document, would likely i
16 cover Clinton Unit 2 as well as March 1982.
l g
17 y
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Thank you.
Before a hearing l
E 18 l
g can be heard on contentions if petitioners is to intervene 19 l
g i
o or allowed to intervene these two reports, have to be 20 filed by the Staff.
This means that according to the 21 persons schedule, it will be at least October 1982 before 22 the hearing could be held even if we finished these 23 preliminary matters in advance.
24 !
In view of'the fact it's the opinion of the 25 '
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
51 I
Board that although we deplore any unnecessary delays, we 2
feel that a delay of not to exceed six weeks -- that during 3
which time the Staff will meet for the representatives of 4l l the petitioners to intervene is a justifiable delay since 5
j I do not believe the Staff or the Board does not be lie ve nf6 that it will lengthen the period before an operating license I
could be granted in any event; and the point in concern as I said earlier, that the interveners be given an opportunity d
d 9
g to present the items which they wish to be contested, any 0
10 y
form such that the substance can be addressed and therefore 5
11 g
our ruling is that this conference will be adjourned for a d
12 to exceed six weeks and that notice of a second g
period not d
13 5
special prehearing conference will be issued by the Board E
14 y
upon receipt of advice by the Staff that they have performed 2
15 g
this discussion and assistance to the interveners.
I 16 3
We would also like a report from the Staff l
17 y
not later than six weeks from today as to what progress they 18 g
have made in this regard.
19 MR. GODDARD:
Yes, Judge Clark.
If I may ask you l
20 for a clarification you referred to the adjournment of this 21 proceeding for a period not to exceed six weeks.
Am I to 22 j inte rpre t that as to adjourn this proceeding during which not 23,
I to exceed six weeks will elapse before the next supplemental 24 l I petition of the petitioners is filed?
25 '
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
52 1
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Well, I've used the wo rd 2 ' adjournment in this proceeding.
Perhaps not explaining 3 what I meant, but we have only covered less than half of 4 the proposed contentions but we have heard enough of them 5
j po that it's very clear to this Board that the objections 6lat
{
least in parting to form rather than substance and therefor E
I
}
ve feel that it would be a waste of everyone's time to go 8
through the rest of these contentions today.
Jf' With that understanding, we wit 1 propose to 5
10 i
close this special prehearing conference today and institute a second special prehearing conference when we have the d
12 g
report from the Staff that they have conferred with the 3
13 i
representatives of the interveners, and we would expect the E
14 y
representative of the interveners to file a second 15 y
supplement to their petition to intervene giving us the
?
16 l
results of the revisions that they have made.
Y l'7 g
Now, before setting the second special 5
18 g
prehearing conference, the applicants should have an l
19 A
opportunity to study that second supplement; and so, the 20 1
date for the second special prehearing conference will be 21 set with that in mind so that the applicant does not have 22 to come in and just read the second supplement the day of 23 ;
I the hearing.
24 In that connection, af ter the close of the 25; l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
L
53 I
hearing, Mr. Samelson, or perhaps we can do it on the 2
Record, your filings have not been in-accordance with the 3
accepted procedurs.
I'm sure you have received filin6s 4
from the applicant, have you not?
5 MR. S AMELSON:
Yes, we have.
nf6 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
And have you noticed the proof I
of service which is attached to their filings ?
MR. S AMELSON :
Yes.
d d
9 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
And you will note who gets copies j
$j 10 of it and you will note that the Members of the Board also should receive copies of the filings, and thus far, the d
12 i
Board has not received yours with any degree of speed.
E 13 3
As a matter of fact, I saw your last filings just day E
14 y
before yesterday.
E 15 g
MR. SAMELSON:
I apologize for my misreading of 16 the Commission.
y 17 g
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
We understand, but I'm just 18 g
calling it to your attention so that your next filing will l
19 k
be in accordance with the normal procedure.
20 MR. SAMELSON:
It certainly will.
21 i
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Fazio, do you have any 22 comment to make before we close this conference ?
23 ;
i MR. FAZIO:
Just--
Judge Clark, I just want to 24 make one comment; that is, there is an on-going disagreement ALDERSOl4 REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
54 I
between the Staff and the applicant as to how quickly the 2l plans will be constructed.
My present understanding is that 3
the applicants feel it will be constructed six months i
4i earlier than the Staff and that certain Members of the j5 Staff may -- given the applicants some assurance that if j
6 i the construction moves along faster than they will E
7 anticipate, they will move along the licensing procedures
[
k" a little bit faster to accommodate the faster pace.
So, dn 9
j I'd like it understood that the applicants still feel the og 10 z
time is very much of the essence and we still feel that
=
2 11 j
we're going to be able to construct a schedQ1e that is d.
12 i
faster than the Staff currently believes.
We'd like to 13 E
have the freedom to move up the licensing process if we E
14 y
are, in fact, able to move up the construction process.
2 15 s
To that end, we would volunteer to within 16 10 days and after service on us of the second supplement 6
17 s
to be in a position to respond so we would not need any 5
18 g
large amount of time in between to respond.
We'll do 19 a
that quite promptly toward the end of the next prehearing 20 conference so it can be scheduled at the earliest possible 21 time.
22 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Well, bear that in mind.
Mr.
23 '
Goddard, do you have any further comments to make at this 24 l l
l time.?:
25 ;
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1
55 1
MR. 00DDARD:
No, I do not, Judge Clark.
Than i
2 lyou.
3 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Samelson ?
4 MR. S AMELSON:
We have one further request; that 5
j is, we would like a copy of the Final Safety Analysis Report f6
! so that we may read it and have access to it and for our R
7 convenience of the applicant, we understrAd they have k
I various members come to their office to view it; and only d
during certain hours and since we are not pro fe s sional P
10 j
consultants and it's difficult for us to go over to the
=
E 11 g
attorneys officas
- J 12 E
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
This le the one that the b
13 applicants filed?
E 14 d
MR. S A MELSON :
That's right.
=
9 15 j
MR. FAZIO:
Judge Clark, we will agree to give T
16 the Prairie Alliance interveners a copy of the Final Safety i
17 g
Analysis Report.
We'll be able to get one in their hands 18
=
sometime next week.
19 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Thank you very much, Mr. Fazio.
20 We appreciate that.
21 MR. SAMELSON:
Thank you.
22 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Does that finish?
MR, S AMELSON :
Yes, sir, it does.
l CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Has any participant representing 25 ;
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
56 I
parties in this special prehearing conference have anything 2
else to say be fore we terminate the conference ?
O (Chorus of nayes.)
4 This conference stands adjourned.
5 l
j (The hearing in the above_
]
6 entitled cause was thereupon b
I adjourned.)
2 2
8 a
d 9
- i h
10 s
I 11 g
12 Sg 13 m
l 14 s
2 15 j
16 A
N 17 18 19 l
k i
j 2o 21 22 23 24 25j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I T/
This'is te certify that the attached pecceedings before the Po,*c sn cotr nn1 Lt-enn4nc Bonno in tne matter of:
Illinois Power? Company, et al.
Cate of Proceecing:
Januarr 29, 1981 Docket Number:
- en_4g,
- 0 h62 Place of Proceeding
- tirbana Civic Center-were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the C0=cission.
Rose Marie Martini, C.S.R.
Official Reporter (Typed)
/ !
I
~,.
.y, d
vt L/z_
r l
/
Official Reperter (Signature) l l
s
.