ML20003F125
| ML20003F125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1981 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8104200251 | |
| Download: ML20003F125 (83) | |
Text
I j
1 l
ALDERSON/isI UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I
2' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COlo!ISSION l
t 3i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
4h------_---------__x l
b I
5 In the Matter of:
g H
6l KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY g
AND KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT CO.
- DOCKET NO. 50-482 M
7;i
~
!, (WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, g
8 UNIT NO. 1)
I 9, - _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -x 5
10 l Rocms 71-72, Travelledge Motel, Emporia, Kansas 11
.e B
Wednesday, April 15, 1981 d
12 I
z E
The above entitled matter came en for prs-hearing E
13 i
I'
=
conference at 11:00 a.m.
M 14 BEFORE:
E 15 l w=
JAMES P. GLEASON, ESQ., CHAIRMAN
_~
16 i j
DR. GEORGE C. ANDERSON, ME*4BER d
y 17 s
i DR. J. VEEN LEEDS, MEMBER 18 i
(
I l
9 j APPEARANCES:
l C
19 !
x 4
i
~
5 JAY E.
SILBERG, ESQ.
20l Shaw, Pittman, Potts'& Trowbridge 1800 M St.,
N.W.
21 !
Washington, D.C.
20036 (Appearing for Kansas Gas and Electric Company and l
22 Kansas City Power & Light Co.)
l 23 MYRON KARMAN, ESQ.
Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel 24 otfice of the Executive Legal Director, i
U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 l Washington, D.C.,
20555 j
l (Representing the staff of the NRC) g ggg 2 {[
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i i
I
2 1
]
APPEARANCES:
(Continued) 2; WANDA CHRISTY, E.10 515 N.
1st Street i
3, Burlington, Kansas 66839 (A petitioner) i 4i MS. MARY ELLEN SALAVA e
5 Route #1, Box 56 3
Burlington, Kansas 66839 3
6 (A petitioner) e R
R_
7 MS. JALENE M. GRABILL e
P.O.
BOX 3192 3
8' WICHITA, KANSAS 67201
- 4 (Representing Kansans for Sensible Energy, a 9
petitioner)
Y E
10 FRANCIS BLAUFUSS, ESO, 3
Westphalia, Kansas 5
11 (A cetitioner)
[
<3 g
'i 12 KENT W.
RAGSCALE, ESQ.
z i
3 General Counsel for the Missouri Public s
13 Service commission, l
5 P.O.
Box 360 I
[
14 Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 E
2 15 t C. EDWARD PETERSON, ESQ.
f Assistant General Counsel 16 '
Kansas Corporation Commission j
e State office Building g
17 Topeka, Kansas 66612 2
=
5 18 DAVID M. McBRAYER, ESQ.
E Public Information. Representative t
19 1330 Baltimore X
j 5
Kansas City, Missouri 64141 20 I (Representing Kansas City Power & Light Co.)
21,
GENE P.
RATHBUN, ESQ.
Licensing Engineer 22 t Nuclear Development Department Kansas Gas and Electric Co.
23 Box 208 Wichita, Kansas 67201 24 l
l l
25 i
3 i
ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY. INC.
i
i l
k f
RICHARD D.
TERRILL, ESQ.
I 1
i P.O. Box 208 I
2 Wichita, Kansas 67201 (Representing Kansas Gas and Electric Co.)
I 3l CeLISSA h. RIDGWA'l i
4' Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
g 5
Washington, D.C.
I n.
3 6'
1 RALPH FOSTER, ESQ.
3 7,
Vice President and General Counsel
~
Kansas Gas & Electric Company 3
8 N
9' MS. ANNA BROWNING g
Madison, Kansas 6
10 (A petitioner) n=
2 11 c3
(
12 3,
m E
i E
13 5
5 14 w
D 2
15 a=
?
16 Mz H
17 0=
5 18 i
=5 E
19 5
n 20!
^
l 21 '
l 22 23 24 25 l a
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i
(,.
e l
j A
I I
C_ O _N T_ _E N _T S_
2-l STATE 2 EDIT OF:
pAgg i
3 l' Ms. Jalene M. Grabill, 43 P.O.
Box 3192, 4i Wichita, Kansas 67201 1
Representing Kansans for e
5i g
l Sensible Energy, 2SE M
3 6
e Kent M.
Ragsdale, Esq.,
58 E
i General Counsel, n
7 Missouri Public Service Commission, P.O. Box 360, 8
=n Jefferson City, Missouri 65102; 9
on behalf of 9
j Treva J. Hearne, Esq.,
j 10 Deputy General Counsel
)
z i
3 Mr. Francis 31aufuss, 70 e
11 f
g Westphalia, Kansas 66093 p*
5 Ms. Wanda Christy, 74 3
515 N. First Street, 13 g
Burlington, Kansas 66839.
A 14
_u 2
15 l u
?
=
~
16 :
1*
i F
17 a
d i
C l
2 18 !
l E.
19.'
a 20l i
f 22 I 23 24 i i
1 t
25 '
4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
4 f
I EEEEEEEEEEE 2:
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
This is a special pre-hearing 3; conference authorized by the rules and regulations of the Nuclear l
4 Regulatory Commission in connection with the application of the g
5i Kansas Gas and Electric Company, the Kansas City Power & Light n.
3 6! Company, and the Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., for R
7! an operating license to operate a pressurized water nuclear reactor I
j 8
known as the Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1, at a site 40 9: in Coffey County, Kansas.
z, 0
10 This Board, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, was E
j 11 established on January 23 of this year to consider and rule on j
B j
12 petitions for leave to intervene and/or requests for a hearing on
)
=
j g
13 this application and to preside over the proceedings in the event J
=
i 5
14 that a hearing is ordered.
2 15 ;
The Board is composed of Dr. George C.
Anderson, Dr.
a=
1 g
16 :Veen Leeds, and myself, James P. Gleason.
Dr. Anderson is a s
U 17 'Professor of Oceanography, affiliated with the Department of 6
E 18 Oceanography at the University of Washington in Seattle, and Dr.
?
19 ; Leeds is a professor of Electrical Engineering with Rice University 5
20 lin Texas.
I am an attorney designated as Chairman of the Board.
21 This conference which was ordered by the Board is an t
22 informal proceeding.
It is designed to facilitate the identifi-23 cation of issues to be litigated in any hearing that is held to i
24 consider further any actions that may prove necessary on petitions i
25 lwith respect to the proper parties in such a proceeding and finally l i
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1 1
5 l
to establish a schedule for future actions.
{
1 2
It would seem therefore that this conference would divide!
4
(
3! itself into three parts:
First a discussion on intervention and l
i 4! other petitions, second a discussion on issues or contentions, and i
5 l finally a discussion on the future schedule and subsequent e
n 6
activities.
I believe that it would be helpful at this point if e
3g 7l we could have everyone involved to identify themselves for the record.
We could start with the applicant and then the staff,
^
8' 5n I
and then individuals as they wish to appear and identify them-9 I
E 10 selves.
E 5
Mr. Chairman, my name is Jay Silberg, and l
-4 12 I am an attorney with the Washington law firm of Shaw, Pittman, E
l 13 ] Potts & Trowbridge.
With me here today representing :he Kansr_s Cityj
=
i t
j 14 ' Power & Light Company.is Mr. Ralph Foster, who is Vice President l
t D!
15 and General Counsel of the Kansas Gas & Electric Company, and Mr.
x=
16 Richard D. Terrill, an attorney with Kansas Gas & Electric Company.
3 A
p 17 DR. LEEDS:
I didn't follcw them. Are they in order?
a
\\
=
18 MR. SILBERG:
This is Miss Ridgway, Mr. Foster and Mr.
E 19 i Terrill.
l A
i l
20 ;
DR. LEEDS:
Thank you.
l 21!
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
The staff, please.
~
22 '
MR. KARMAN:
My name is Myron Karman.
I am an attorney l
23 in the Office of the Executive Legal Director of the United States 24 ! Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I am counsel for the NRC staff and ;
i 5
25 ! my office address is Washington, D.C.
20555.
l l
i i
l 1
j i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
t
i j
6 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Is Wanda Christy here?
Would you y) 2, identify yourself?
I 3i MS. CHRISTY:
I am Wanda Christy and I have filed a 4' petition to intervene based on ---
5' CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Excuse me, we will have a hard time e
M i
N
~.
i 6
hearing, so speak up as loud as you can and give your name and e
g 7, address.
s i
a MS. CHRISTY:
I am Wanda Christy, and I live at Burlington, n
'J j
i t
9 Kansas.
2-1 i
E 10,
CHAIP3!AN GLEASON:
That is all I need at this point.
i 5
11 Mary Ellen Salava.
B 3
12 MS. SALAVA:
I am Mary Ellen Salava and I reside north z
I 5
i d
13 of Burlington, Kansas.
E A
14 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right, could we have an individuali
+
b i
2 15 who would be a lead individual for the Kansans for Sensible 5_
16 ' Energy (KSE) organization?
3
-A y
17 MS. GRABILL:
My name is Jalene M. Grabill, a resident x
=:
18 of Wichita, Kansas, representing Kansans for Sensible Energy.
Alsot I
I C
19,' here are Mary Abbott Mills from Washington and Anna Browning from a
?
n 20 l Madison County.
\\
21 i CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
How about Mr. Blaufuss?
i 22 '
MR. BLAUFUSS:
My name is Francis Blaufuss, Westphalia, 23 Kansas.
I 24 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Those are the individuals who have j
i l
l l
25 i petitioned and sent requests to the Board and is there scmeone i
I I
i I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i i
i 7
j else that would like to be heard from at this point?
2 MR. RAGSDALE:
My name is Kent W.
Ragsdale, General 3
Counsel for the Missouri Public Service Commission, and we have 4 j filed an intervention in this matter.
5' CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I should have called upon you, Mr.
e 9
e 6
Ragsdale.
e Rg 7;
Is there anyone else?
8 MR. PETERSON :
My namo is Edward Peterson, attorney with
?4 N
9 the Kansas Corporation Commission, and we plan to participate under!
Y E
10 Rule 2.751(c).
E 11 CHAIRMAN GLEASCN:
Sorry, I didn't get who you are i,
5
\\
d 12 af filiated with?
z q
i
=
t s
13 <
MR. PETERSON:
I am an attorney with the Kansas Corp-5 A
14 oration Commission.
+c!
15 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Is that a state agency?
a=
16,
MR. PETERSON:
We are charged with the responsibility 3a p
17 for regulating the electric utilities involved.
a l
=
18 '
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Well, I don' t know how.
How does j
=
l
,1 C
19, that.line up with your responsibilities?
=
5 20 MR. RAGSDALE:
We are in a different state.
~
21 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
They have the same responsibility?
22 l SLR. RAGSDALE:
They may have some different respon-23 sibilities.
l i
24j CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Do you regulate rates in the state?
i l
25 MR. PETERSON:
Yes.
i 1
1 i
ALOERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
I
1 4
8 I
j CHAIRMAN GLEASCN:
How come we haven't heard from you up 2; to this point?
l 3'
MR. PETERSON:
I am not sure we have been aware of the 4
proceedings scheduled for today, and I don' t know that we have 5j been receiving the notices, but I am not sure about that.
I er
(
H 6' can' t speak to dhat issue.
e R
?,
7' CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
You are very late.
g 3
MR. PETERSON:
I am aware of that.
n N
9 CHAIRMAN GLEASCN:
We will call on you in a few Y
E 10 minutes.
Is there anyone else that wants to identify himself for E_
I 11 the record requesting intervention?
a I
d 12 All right, there being no answer, by a prior memorandum l
z
=
\\
theBoardapprovedrequestsforahearingl E
13 and order dated March 13, 5
i j
14 ' on petitions to interve.ne of Wanda Christy, Mary Ellen Salava.
t 15 Admissions of those individuals as parties to a hearing, although w
l z
16 l not stated in the order, of course is contingent upon a filing 3
A H
17 supplement which lists the contentions on issues, their contentions 0
h 18 ' on issues that they wish to have litigated in this proceeding.
The
=
i w
I 19 basis for such contentions should be expressed with a reasonable X
n 20 l degree of specificity.
We will discuss those contentions as I l
21j indicated subsequently.
i 22 '
mhe Board in the same order denied the petition of the 23 organization called Kansans for Sensible Energy, which we will 24 hereafter refer to I guess as KSE, and that organization has now 25 l by letter of March 30 amended its petition.
The staff has h
I I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i 9
l i jrecommended its admission on the basis that its amended petition 2, provides a requisite standing and we haven't heard from the appli-l 3l cant.
Does the applicant want to respond at that point on that 4
issue?
e 5,
MR. SILBERG:
Yes.
The amended petition does identify Rn s
6! a number of individuals and several of them reside in Wichita, e
nf 7l which we believe is too fsr from the plant site to qualify for i
f8 standing.
However, one individual, Anna Browning, is idea.tified l
i
_I 9
as living near and owning property near Madison, Kansas, which is I
E.
i E
10 about as I understand it 40 miles from the plant.
We did have a i
i 11 question earlier because Ms. Browning did not sign the petition f'
<3
'i 12 ' herself to authorize KSE to represent her interest but since she z=
l 0
13 jis here today we would assume that she has so authorized KSE.
5 i
-j 14 We would have therefore no objection to her standing b
i 15, based upon her residence in Madison, Kansas.
x=
16 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Ms. Grabill, could you tell us where 3
A i
17 Mr. Thompson's land is located?
d E
18 MS. GRABILL:
Yes, it is located directly by Coyville, E
19 Kansas.
5 n
20 l CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
How far is that from the site?
21 l MS. GRABILL:
It is approximately 80 miles from the site.
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Eighty miles?
22 23 MS. GRABILL:
Yes.
24 4 CEAIRMAN GLEASON:
And how about Sm. Browning?
She J
1 i
25 can speak for herself.
l
}
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
<0>
o
' $k>$>
hs('~"A 4# Y[#
//,p/'
4f
'1 /
F 44
? te Y
Q/
x
\\\\\\\\
IMAGE EVALUATION N
TEST TARGET (MT-3) l.0 lf a !!B f[y ll!!M b in !!12.0 1.1 e.
lM
!!I l.25 l
1.4 1.6 lil i
6" 4t$, llc&
//pl4
+i sp%)p(f5
- ?8Vb,,,,
g,,,/s
q>
6' 9 ) f/
llll b*4?ge p'
- k
- ?Q>h*
%fW[
e j
XV -
l MAGE EVALUATION N
TEST TARGET (MT-3) l.0 gmen y @ IEi!
l.l
["4 He 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 s.,
\\
w$?%,
/!b A
+ a4 7
<p u
,s }jjjj/
~ o
I I
i 10 1
3 MS. BROWNING:
Yes, sir, my land is located approximately 2, 40 miles east of the plant site or I mean that is west of the i
3l plant site.
4 CHAIW1AN GLEASCN:
Forty miles?
i 5'
MS. BROWNING:
Yes.
er i
H 6
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Does staff want to have any comments
~
e te M
- 7. or make any comments other than your response?
e.
,5 3
MR. KARMAN:
The response we submitted en April 9 had
.e
.a i
2 9
figured in this residence or cwnership of property by Arthur
?.
I E
10 Thcmpson as within the geographical limits as indicated by KSE, I
4::
3 11 but I don't believe 30 miles would be within wha: we new consider I
3 f
12 te be the gecgraphical limits.
Ecwever Ms. Browning indicated 3
13 ' she lives within 40 and it has been held in other cases tha 40
=
t
[
14 miles is within the geographical limits, or cone of interest.
b 15,
Do you mind if I remain seated when I address the i
l x=
i 16 l Board?
E i
- ri N
17 CEAIRMAN GLEASON:
No.
E E
18 The Board deferred a ruling due to a late filing of
=
i-E 19., Mr. 31aufuss' request to participate in this proceeding.
We do
=
a 20 1 desire and in fact it is required that we have scme justification t
I for this lateness, and in two subsequent letters, Mr. Blaufuss 21 1
22 ) gave no reasons for his late filing other than I think an alle-I 23 gation that there was no notice or date regarding this matter 24 l published in his hcme county of Anderson.
i 1
I sir. Blaufuss indicates he lives within 10 miles of the 25 l i
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
11 4
I land.
Mr. Blaufuss, do you want to elaborate any more on your 2; reasons for lateness?
I 3!
MR. BLAUFUSS:
I apologize for not writing to you 4l. sooner.
I understand it was in the library at Anderson County but i
5 g
I didn't know at the time until someone finally called and wanted i
nf0 ! to know if I wanted to intervene and I said I would.
I wrote you n
h l and I guess it was a little late but I apologize for that.
But
'~
n i
8 n
really I didn' t intend to be that late but I am sorry.
c 4'
d 9'
MR. SILBERG:
Well, there are no daily newspapers as I j
s 10 '
j
- understand it in Anderson County, and of course the Federal Register 11
e g
notice as a matter of law is adequate notice to everyone of the l
12 ] dates required.
2 Advertisements advising pecple of the necessity j
i 13 E
to file by the date set forth were published in a number of news-I l
3 14 3
. papers that have fairly wide circulation in Anderson County, e
r 15 g
- including the Burlington Daily Republican, the Kansas City Star, and i
I T
16 i R
I believe the Topeka Capital. So I think there was adequate cover-A F
17 d
age in those newspapers which do widely circulate in Anderson
=
i 5
18
! County and of course there is the Federal Government notice.
+
19 j
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
M.r. Karman, do you have any comment?
20
MR. KARMAN:
I would have to raise certain issues at i
21 i this particular time with respect to the petition of Mr. Blaufuss.
22 : In addition to the fact as Mr. Silberg indicated legally the 23 Federal Register notice is all that is required, but to the best i
24 I l
J of my knowledge and information there were notices placed in 25 I i
! newspapers within a geographical area which must have encompassed i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i 12 l
1. the area where Ir. Blaufuss lived.
However in addition to that, i
2i the rules are rather specific about late interventions, and whetherI l
3l or not you received notices is not the primary, factor.
4!
The primary factor is that if a petition is filed late, i
5; it would have to comply with the rather detailed list of require-e;;
I N
8 6: ments under Section 2.714 of the Commission rules, which deal e
Ng 7-with the good cause for filing a late petition.
To this moment, M
1 8
g' Mr. 31aufuss has not cc:: lied with any one of the requisites of n
4 2
9 that secticn.
I 10 CHAIM1AN GLEASON :
Mr. 31aufuss, could I ask if you
{
3 5
11 could articulate and express what your interest :.s in eis pr -
!!r
- l 12 ceeding and what is your concern in the proceeding?
- j 13 MR. BLAUFUSS:
I live 10 miles from the plant as the A
14 crow files and I have an organic farm.
And I have a lot of bees,
+C l
15 for pollinating the clover and I am very concerned as I wrote
- s::
16 you about the stack emissions from the Wolf Creek plant.
That is at l
l i
17 : what I would like to testify On.
That is my main concern, is Bi E
18 ; the emissions from the plant.
=
e E
19 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Does the applicant believe or the x
i m
20 l staff have any comment about whether Mr. Blaufuss ' interest, his i,
interest he has expressed would be covered by any other parties 21 i I
22 or their allegations or contentions?
l I
I 23 MR. SILBERG:
The interest would be covered but I don't i
i i
24 kncu, the plant has no stack, per se, and it is not clear to me i
25 i exactly what issue he is raising.
That is scmething that I think i
a i
1 l
4 t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
13 I
l would be then discussed under contentions, but certainly in I
2l terms of interest, there are two local residents in Burlington who 3! have that same type of interest as Mr. Blaufuss, and not necessarily i
4! the same contentions, but I don' t think that that is the point l
g 5
you are addressing.
n n
j 6,
CHAIP24AN GLEASON:
I am talking about the interest right R
R 7' now.
s 3
8 MR. KAPOIAN :
At the moment I don't know what contention n
d d
9 has been submitted on behalf of Mr. 31aufuss.
5 10 i CHAIP24AN GLEASON:
I think you can assume it is the 3_
2 11. kind of
=atter and that is the interest he equates to his r
<n j
12 : contention in that sense, and that is the way he is going to pro-j i
j 13 - bably phrase it.
So even though we are not discussing contentions l
=
i z
g 14 : right at the moment, one of the factors as you know is as to whe-i:
15 ; ther we can exercise our discretion, as to whether his interest 2
- a*
f 16 : is going to be protected by some other party in the proceeding.
s d
17 That is why I wanted to get your comments on it.
5 4
E 18 The Board has previously approved a request for a limi-i r.
19 l ted appearance from the Missouri-Kansas Section of the American n
20 !
Nuclear Society and that limited appearance statement can be given 21 ! at any time.
It would be better if limited appearance statements 4
22 ; are given at the time of the hearing because that will be after v
23 jall of the reports are available.
It would be more helpful to the 24 - Board's considerations.
25 The Board has also approved the participation of the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i f
i j
14 I
1 Missouri Public Service Commission as a state representative under 2' Part 2 of the rules and regulations, and it now has a request fromj I
1 3 lthe Kansas Corporation Commission.
l 4
MR. KARMAN:
May I ask at this time, was I not correct I
5; in understanding that the Kansas Corporation Commission is interes-er i
H 3
6 i ted in entering this proceeding under Section 2.15?
e R
vf' 2
yl MR. PETERSON:
That is right.
As I understand it we h/.
I, n
8 are allowed to participate without intervening.
That is our intent u
- i a
! at this time.
2 9
i i
5 10 i
- 02. LEEDS:
What do you expect to do?
l z
5 11 MR. 7:T 220N:
Frankly : day was here primarily as
?
J 12. an observer and to tr; to preserve the right Oc participate on that, z
E 13 : level in the proceedings on this case E
i 5
14 DR. LEEDS:
You mean sitting in the audience as an
=
i 2
15 observer, and you can do this as a citizen?
I don't understand a=
J 16 l what you mean?
p 17 MR. PETERSON:
Today we have no case prepared and we have 5
E 18 Eno plan to participate directly today.
It is simply to preserve
=W 19 the right to participate in that level in future proceedings in X
l M
20 l this case.
21 !
DR. LEEDS:
I You did have notice, though, did you not?
22 I MR. PETERSON:
I cannot answer that question.
I don't v
23. know.
I assume we at least had legal notice as published in i
i 24 $ the Federal Register and state papers.
It wasn' t brought to the l
i 1
25 ; cetention of the legal staf f.
"i i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
L
i l
15 i
a j
DR. LEEDS:
But officially you had notice?
2 MR. PETERSON:
Yes, I am not contesting that.
3l CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Does the applicant have any comments?
4 MR. SILBERG:
We would not object on the ground of cime-e 5
liness to the Kansas Corporation Commission participating under R
N
~ ~
s 6
2.75(c).
c.
[
7, MR. KARMAN:
The staff would not object, Mr. Chairman.
~
3 3
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I understand.
i N
That concludes the first part of our discussions with 9
E 10 respect to parties.
We will new to go the issue of contentions.
i E
11 The purpose of requiring contentions to be stated and the basis l
0 i
i 12 for them with a reasonable degree of specificity, is related to thej z
3 4
t d
13, reasons for having a hearing on this application if there should l
E i
A 14 be a hearing held.
Pursuanc to the Commission's regulations therej
+o I
15 is no need basically to have a hearing at all since there was i
5 16, one before construction of the plant started, unless there are 3
?
A g
17 issues connected with the operation of the plant that should be z=
18 litigated.
r
=
t 19 :
Those issues which are termed " contentions" are gen-x g
20 ' erally required to be submitted prior to this conference and at t
21l least one issue has to be accepted before a petitioner will be perd 22 ; mitted to participate in any hearing as a party.
Even those 23 ' representatives of states, although it is not a sine qua non or 24 absolute essential requirement, it is very helpful if they put 25 l forward what specific aspects of the hearing they are concerned i,
I l
j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1
r 16 ll i
1 with and want to participate in.
We will take them in.the same order 2
of contentions that we-took up the parties and first would be those 3l involving Wanda Christy.
I I
4' MS. CHRISTY:
I am sorry, I can't hear you.
5, CHAIP2!AN GLEASON:
I say we will now take up your con-nn j
6: tentions. We don't have to go over what your letters have already g
7 said, and I will just summarize, and if I am not summarizing I
-nj 8' correctly you stop me and change it.
'd v
2 9
You listed in your correspondence four contentions, which
?,
5 10 really I think result in two contentions and I want to paraphrase 3_
i j
11 those.
l 3
f 12 The first contention is that there is no workable l
13 evacuation emergency plans for Coffey Ccunty, and the second J
=
f j
14 contention is that Coff~ey County does not have the funds to carry b
15 out its responsibilities under the emergency plan and agreement, j
=
g 16 and an agreement should be made as to who will fund this respon-A
(
17, sibility.
e 3
18 Does that express your two contentions?
r 6-l9 MS. CHRISTY:
Yes.
g 3
M 20 !
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I don't believe that the applicant 21 responded, although it is not required that he respond or 22 ' respond to those conteh.s, we did, I think, hear from the 23 staff.
1 24 j
.m.
KAPlWI:
We did respond.
i e
25)!
CHAI?lWI GLEASCN:
Yes, that is right and so would you l
i I
J l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i 1
17 I
j like to say scmething at this time. Mr. Silberg, on that con-2l tention or those two contentions?
i 3l MR. SILBERG:
As to the first contention which is that 4f there is no workable evacuation emergency plan, it is my belief i
e 5, that that is not adequately specific and that no adequate basis a
n 8
6, has been shcwn as required by the Commission's regulations.
We e
R g
7l have last week hand delivered to Ms. Christy and Mrs. Sullivan, t
-f8 copes of the Wolf Creek emergency response plan, which has just l
.1 2
9, been revised as of last week.
Y E
10,
Because of their interest in this issue I asked the ccm-i_
s 11 pany to hand deliver this to them las: week.
Included in that plan
<a i
12 is a supplement which provides in detail the evacuation time esti-E i
5 13 + mates for the 10 mile zone for evacuations, within the 10 mile E
A 14 ; zone.
Having presented that information to them it seems to me
-c 2
15 ; that as far as Contention 1 is concerned, we are entitled to E
l i
16 ! a little more specificity and particularity as to exactly what 3
A i
17 ; part of the. evacuation plan or evacuation system is not workable.
E E
18 We have laid out the assumptions and we have laid out the road i
g
- network and we have laid out the methodology.
It seems to me given!
i C
19,
20l that that we are entitled to know exactly. tat it is we are 21l being asked to litigate.
l That is what parts of the plan are not workable.
22 v
23 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Could I stop you just a moment there.
24 Could we have Ms. Christy come up a little bit in the front and
{
25 exchange places just temporarily with somebody who is not involvedf.
i a
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 18 i
i 1; at this point, and then we can switch back and forth, i
2, DR. LEEDS:
You may be having difficulty hearing back 3
there and there is no point in having that happen.
i 4
MR. SILSERG:
I think there is one other comment.
As you 5l phrased the issue it was in terms of a workable evacuation and e
R
\\
n 3
I think given the way Ms. Christy has phrased e
R R.
7 i, it, it is really limited to the evacuation plan aspects.
I think s
8: her contents go to the evacuation plan.
n O
d 9
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I am not sure I understand you.
l l
The emergency plan is a very broad and i
i
.l eneral 20pic.
Evacuation within it assumed ---
11 g
l E
'd 12 DR. LEEDS:
I think her second contention goes to the l
5 13 j iccal responsibilities under the emergency plan, and the lack of
=
A.
14 funding for them.
15
.%LR. SILBERG:
I read it more as going to the costs, when 5
l 7
16 they said there must be agreements made as 'to who pays the cost of 3i p
17 the evacuation, and cost of response and personal equipment.
I a=
18 think having talked to Ms. Christy prior that her concerns are i
E 19 with the evacuation aspects.
A i
20 l MS. CHRISTY:
I have two concerns that I phrased some i
21 l time ago.
I am concerned abm2t there being a detailed workable 22 plan.
You know there is a general plan at this time but it needs
~
i I
v 23 ' to be much more detailed, not only what will be done but who is l
i 24 i going to do it and how it is going to be done.
j t'
But in terms of the evacuation, the i
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
\\
i 19 1 ; distinction I was making.
2 MS. CHRISTY:
Evacuation only, you mean?
I think that 3 i this would include training and administration and that sort of 4
thing.
These things are all included.
5' MR. SILBERG:
Dealing with the evacuation plan, that is e
~
i N
N
- 6. right, e
R g
7; MS. CHRISTY:
Yes.
A E
3 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Well, I guess the question has to be I
n o
t 9
asked of you, Ms. Christy, are you concerned or does your conten-Y E
10 ; tion cover more than just the evacuation aspects of the emergency E
5 11. clan?
i 3
I i
4 12 MS. CHRISTY:
It covers the planning and the training l
z i
5 13 that is necessary, the equipment that would be necessary to effec E
s 14 tively carry out the evacuation, and che effective evacuation, andj
=k i
15, it covers all of them.
x=
T 16 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Mr. Silberg is right, it does relate 3
A i
17 to the evacuation aspects of the plan.
E E
18 MS. CHRISTY:
That is right.
C 19 '
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Why wouldn' t it be appropriate, you 5
n 20 l indicated as I recall it that you didn' t think that that was
~
a viable contention?
21 i I
22 MR. SILBERG:
I thought it should be somewhat more 23 specific considering the fact that we have provided a copy of j
i 24 1 our evacuation plan.
l 25 !
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
That has been done in the last week o
! so.
4 i
1 i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
t
I.
I 20 i
DR. LEEDS:
When did she get it?
j i
2, CHAIR:17N GLEASON:
We don't have a copy.
I 3j
}E. CHRISTY:
It was last Tuesday.
4f MR. SILBERG:
The appendix Ebat deals with evacuation i
5 time estimates is this thick.
(Indicating) e s
3 6
DR. LEEDS:
Let me start over.
How many pages are e
N 2
7l in the plan, and let us start over with that so I can get the
~
s 8; whole facts.
I e
N 91 3El. SIL3 ERG:
I don't know.
I think it is approximately I
E 10 ! 200 pages.
t i
=
2 11,
DR. LEEDS:
Both sides or two sides.
<3
~i 12 '
MR. SILBERG:
That is total.
l E_
i h
13,
DR. LEEDS:
We are talking about number of pages and E
A 14, not sheets, is that right?
t 15 MR. SILBERG:
That is right.
x=
16 MS. CHRISTY:
If I might interrupt, I was not talking 3
A d
17 : abcut KGE's plan, I am talking about the Coffey County plan.
E 18 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I understand.
j i
E 19 MS. CHRISTY:
I understand it has to be completely 3
M 20 ; revised and will be done in detail and I would like an opportunity 21 to follow that and be assured that all of these things that i
3 22 ' need to be in a plan are there in black and white.
Who is going 23 *l to pay for the training and who is going to pay for the equipment 24 and who is going to pay for the damages and the cost of evacuation?
25 j Who is going to be responsible for each area and not only who is l
1 1
.i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
21 I
j going to be responsible but I think details need to be there so i
2i that anyone who happens to come in would know.
3j We have a turnover in our service department, a tremendous 4
turnover, and who is going to be completely in charge, the one that e
5 is going to be mainly in charge?
I think we need to worry about Rn 1
having the pecple there, how they are going to be trained and I e
7 think details have got to be th2re.
It has to be a more detailed K
I 8
plan than what I have seen in the past, and I think it needs to
."i l
5 9
be down in black and white so if we do have a turnover the infor-i I
E 10 mation is there and it can be carried out effectively.
I I
11 MR. SIL3E2G:
I would note that the Cof fey County plan
<3 d
12 dces exist.
It is dated as of August 1979.
I would coint out z
i
=
1 d
13 that Ms. Christy was Acting Coordinator of Emergency Planning for I
A 14 Burlington several years ago, and she is familiar, obviously, l
I 0u 2
15 with the prior plan.
a=
l I
16 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
As you also point out, you just sup-M a
d 17 plied her with additional information.
a=
18.
MR. SILBERG:
With the company's plan, that is correct.
r l
E 19 i CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
It seems to me, I am not trying to dic'-
x l
n i
20 l tate your moves, obviously, Mr. Silberg, but it does seem to me i
~
21 l that you could move for the contentions to be permitted.
We have just talked about one of them actually.
You could move for l
i 22
~
j(s 23 summary disposition within a certain period of time when it is 24 required.
l j
My main point now is the contention, if l
i i
i I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l l
1 22 i
j it is to be admitted, to define it so that we know from some of i
2 ;our prior discussions is what it is we are talking about.
Is it i
3; the evacuation plan and training and responsibilities for that evac-i
! uation plan?
4 5,
CHAIRf!AN GLEASON:
Do you want to go on?
e nN 3
6:
MR. SILBERG:
The second contention deals with whether e
E l
R 7 i Coffee County does or does not have funds to carry out its respon-i s
I 5
8 sibilities under emergency plans.
Cbviously the county thinks that n
9 it has adequate funds and I think the country clerk who is here E
10 i and the Chairman of the Community Commissioners who are here today i
i 5
11, would be happy to testify as to that f act, but this obvicusly l
a
'i 12 is not the place for such testimony.
I dink the more important i
z
=
5 13 point is that the question of funding is really not a matter E
A 14 ' within NRC's jurisdiction.
There are no requirements in the
+=!
15 l Commission regulations and Congressional statutes or in the Com-5 i
i 16 ; mission guidance that is provided in 654, Division 1, as to the 3*
I j
17 source of the funds.
- s=
18 I think the question of **hether funds comes from the E
19 county or goes to the county from the state or to the country from
=
M t
20 ! utilities or from some other source is really not a relevant I
21. discussion.
It is obviously an important poltical question that l
22 the county must face but who pays is not a matter within NRC's 1._,
23 j urisdiction.
24 CHAIP*!AN GLEASON:
But couldn't we at least make a gen-l l
25 eral observation that if it is not certain who pays, then there ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i l
23 l
1: may be some deficiency with respect to that aspect of the plan?
2.
If there were properly supported allega-3, tions, sufficiently specific and with basis.
i 4
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Her allegations are that the county e
5 does not have the funds to carry out the plan.
i nM 3
6 MR. SILBERG:
I don't think tha that is an appropriate e
^
3 i
2 7; issue'.
I think the issue is whether the county can carry out n
E 8
the plan. That is whether they have enough personnel.
i n
- J
=
9 CHAI.T&d' GLEASON:
You may not agree with the conclucion !
Y E
10 l but it is a question of whetaer it is a viable issue.
l E
i
_=z 11 tR. : m.sG:
y e s_.
i
-4 12 CHAI2:Cd: GLEASON:
And that is important.
z T
4 s
13 MR. S II.B r.:RG :
I think fi. scal matters, and matters
+
=
1 A.
14 af f ecting the treasury of the county ought not to be things wh:ch E
i 15, NRC gets involved in.
I think that these are poli.id:al ques-5 i
)
16 ' tions, and what NRC has to determine is whether thi county has a x
F 17 plan and whether it can carrv that plan out.
.a 5
E 18 DR. LEEDS:
But if it doesn't have the money how can it
=*
19 ' carry out a plan with no money?
Isn't that sort of a necessary 5
n 20 part of it?
I suspect the power company could not carry out their 21l evacuation plan if they had no money or had no determination.
22 j Isn't that a necessary part of a plan?
Maybe I am missing your
(~.
i 23
- oint.
j 1, ~
Ycu have to go one step earlier.
It is t'
i l
^
25 the resources which are the necessary part of the plan and not i
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
r i
f 24 i
l 1
who supplies the money to purchase those resources.
2, DR. ANDERSON:
You are simply separating money from i
3! resources.
l l
4l MR. SILBERG:
Yes, because I don't think it is appro-5l priate for NRC to dictate who shall pay, and from which scurce of e
M n
i 6, funds county budget items should be provided.
The county has a a
R g
7j fairly substantial tax base of which the Wolf Creek station is a 4
n E
8' large part.
The county funds many programs, including emergency l
N d
d 9
plans, and currently has budget items for emergency planning.
I E
10, Under state law the state as I understand it provides matching i
N l
s 11 funds to the county in emergency planning.
The county also has l
B 5
12 budget iters allocated for emergency actions as necessa::y; plus 5
t E
13 discretionary funds, plus of course future budget items when money '
E A
14 need actually be expended.
l 0
I e
i 2
15 ;
What we are talking about here is whether money will be 5
i 16 available in the future.
3 m
p 17 DR. LEEDS:
Just to make it clear, all you said is argu-l z
$r 18. ment and one of it is evidence in this hearing?
~
=
+
i E
19 i MR. SILBERG:
That is correct.
x R
20 !
DR. LEEDS:
I want to make sure people in the audience 21 : understand that statement.
t 22 i MR. SILBERG:
I am trying to set the stage for why NRC N
23 ought not to examine the fiscal conditions of other jurisdictions. !
24 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
If my understanding is correct, this l
1 25 matter has been before the Commission and there has been some l
l J
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
1 l
25 l
i I l discussion of it and similar guides, and it has.not been covered 2
in any of the regulations, and neither has it been covered in i
3 i FEMA's responsibility.
So therefore ir. tends to become a question 4' as to whether an emergency plan without funds is an emergency i
5 g
plan.
It is a question of whether that is a viable contention.
H
-g 6
Mr. Kar=an, I see you chaffing at the bit there.
R b
74 MR. KARMAN:
Well, Your Honor, I have to agree with
-n!
8 Mr. Silberg only to the extent of stating that we don't dictate
-J l
e 9
where funds are coming from or who is gcing to be responsible for z
10 >those funds.
However in my resconse to Ms. Christy's amended z
=
l II petition, it was our position, the staff,csi: ion, and I worded 3
i 12 E
it as best I could, that the inability c: the c; _ntv to rescend ::
=
s i
,3 tan incident at the plant, I relt that was reasonably specific at I
i E:
1 e
I4 this stage of the hearing for the intervenor to come in and shcw
_cj 15 us why she feels that either the county, the county or whoever comes
=
j 16 ' or has or has not the ability to respond to an incident at the s
17 N
plant.
t j
18 As you had indicated before, we felt that sr.vuld that not
- s I9 g-be done at some stage of the proceeding, that it would be subject n
20I to a motion for summarf disposition under the Commission's rules.
i 2Il CHAIRMAN GII.ASON:
Well, let us conclude that.
22 '
DR. LEEDS:
What is the state plan?
23)
MR. RAGSDALE:
I am from Missouri.
I 24 i
{
DR. LEEDS:
You are talking about Kansas.
You have no 25 part of that?
t J
ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY. INC.
I
i f
i l
26 I
l I
1 I'2.
RAGSDALE:
No.
2 DR. LEEDS:
How about Kansas?
3 MR. PETERSCN:
I guess I would like to give the opinion I
4' that the issue as it has been stated already by staff is really 5l whether or not the county can respond, and therefore I think it e:
i H
3 6
goes, or at least it is germane. to the question of whether or e
R R
7l not it is an evacation plan and whether it should be considered s
I 8
further in this proceeding.
e.
- i 9
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Ms. Christy, is there anything you 5
10 ; want to add about your concern?
E 5
11
.\\$. CHRISTY:
I was under the impression we didn't have to 3
1 d
12 present anything today.
l z
4 i
E 1
I s
13 ?
CHAIRMAN GLEASCN:
That is correct.
E A
14 MS. CHRISTY:
I would be glad to get in whenever you i
+
i
_c E
15 say.
5_
T 16 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
You are required to give some kind of B*
l H
17 basis.
a l
a=
18 MS. CHRISTY:
What is that?
=
u E
19 ;
CEAIREsN GLEASON:
You are asked to give some kind of 20 ! reasonable basis for it. If you want to stay on your statement 21 I as made, that is fine.
~
22 l MS. CHRISTY:
Are you asking for specifics at this point?
23 '
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I am asking if you want to say anything i
4 i
t 24 i further at this point?
I a
~
25 !
MS. CHRISTY:
I dhink not.
I will stand on that.
l i
l i
- 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 27 1
i i
There is one other point to clarifv i
I 4
2j where we are.
The question of resources, that is as the staff j
2 1
3] has formulated, to carry out evacuation, I think 's ra'rly l
4 4
encompassed within your first contention, is there a workable j
5l plan.
Obviously if all there is is a piece of paper, you could g
M I
1 N
i lE 6
fairly say that that is not werkable.
.c ji.
7, MR. KApV.AN :. The staff indicated that it thought this i
e J
dag j
^
8 !was all ene contention, and in cur respense we sc stated.
+
n c
1 9
CF:~0"N GLIASCN:
I don': want this Soard to ge:
z i
10 into the business of writihg contentions, as a couple of other i
z_
=e 11
=c,-23 u,n=-
,o
.yc._.
-.......,. c.,..,.. _...,-
s s
i 2
12, tentiens please?
3 1
E_ 13 ]
i MS. CHRISTY:
All rigne.
=
j
- 5..
14 ;
'!y firs: contention was tha nc nuclear plant shculd e
=
1
_9 15 be licensed to operate until such time as there is a workable i
x_
j 16 evacuation plan, and until such time as the governing bcdies in the!
3 at i-~
17 evacuation areas are sufficiently staffed and equipped to success-a_
E 18 fully carry cut the evacuation plans.
I think this includes i
C l
I 19 the money angle.
There has to be money there before they are cap- !
5 n
20 ! able of carrying out an evacuation plan.
t
~
21 '
CHAIpv.AN GLEASON:
So are all of your contentions t
I j
22
- expressed in that?
J i
j 23 ;
MS. CHRIS"'Y :
I think the others would just support it, I
1 24lyes.
t
.-a
., c i-
..4.,
-3
,,4---
G. _n, o w-...
~"-.,..,e.
25 v u-e w.. s.
-r - - -
-u err-. a ur I
i ALDERSON REFORTING COMP ANY, INC.
i 28 j
to get together with her and iron this contention out, but to my 2, mind there are two contentions there, Mr. Karman.
How does appli-cant feel?
3, i
8 0
4 MR. SILBERG:
I would agree with Ms. Christy that in the e
5 way she has stated it, which I think takes into account my objec-i r
i H
3 6
tion, she talks about sufficiently staffed and equipped rather than e
f7 I where the money comes from.
I think that does fairly encompass n
- I i
8 those sets of issues to the extent that the Commission ought to j
i N
he looking at the county, or the ability of other jurisdictions I
9 i
10 to carry out requirements.
E!
11 MS. CHRISTY:
I still contend that a plan is not werk-
<3 i
12 able unless the money is there to make it work.
I think this z=
5 13 should be assumed.
5 5
14 DR. LEEDS:
If your contention says " Government b c d i e s,
x 15 and the next say "Coffe7 County," do you mean to include E_
16 other governing bodies?
3 A
E.
17 MS. CHRISTY:
There are cities in the area.
One of the x=
18 other contentions that I did list says that I do not feel that
=w t
19 Coffey County has the funds to provide sufficient manpower and
=
i 5
~
I 20 l equipment necessary to respond to an accident at the plant.
~
21 centend that Coffey County does not have funds to cover costs of i
22 a response to an incident at the plant and therefore contend that 23 there must be agreements made as to who pays the cost of evacuation, l
i 241 the cost of response personnel and equipment and costs of any l
i i
25 ! damages caused by an accident at the plan
- 7 contend that I
I i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i i
28-A l
1 these agreements should be made prior to licensing for oper-2 ation.
J r
i 3
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Are there any suggestions as to how 4 !to work out of this dile=ma?
e 5
MR. SILBERG:
My suggestion would be if the contention is Mn
" ~
3 6
to be adopted to us the language in the first paragraph that Ms.
e R
R.
7l Christy read, we could then argue later on as to whether or not
-n 8
8 we can look at funds.
Ms. Christy thinks that that is encompassed.
i o
t 9
within her language in the first paragraph.
Y E
10 CHAIRMAN GLEASCN:
The first paragraph of her letter, i
1 2
11 you mean?
<3 i
12 MR. SILBERG:
I would tend to substitute Coffey County e
i 5
13 jbecause there will not be separate emergency plans for other cities;
=
i
- l l
~
A 14 ' and ecwns in tne area. What we are basically talking abou-4-
0s E
15. this jurisdiction is a county p.i.an and a state plan.
x
=
1 J
16 l MS. CHRISTY:
But the governing body such as Burlington z
i 17 City will be using their staff also fo policaman, their firemen, 5_
18 and these will be involved in the county plan.
=
i H
C 19 MR. SILBERG:
But that will be all within the county 5
n 20 l plan. So if we were to change " governing bcdies" to " county," or 21, to "Coffey County," the other entities would be taken into account,
?
22 because the county is there and that first paragraph would fairly
(/
l 23
. sate the issue.
l I
t 24]
CEAIRMAN GLEASON:
The prcblem with that first sentence,j 25 if I understand it correctly, is that even though it is implied, a,
ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 29 1
there is no cuestion of funding stated there.
Certainly funding i
j i
2 is an aspect of her centention.
I don't think that you can delete!
3
- g s.
i 4
DR. LEEDS:
I have another probles.
It says there is not' e
5 a workable plan and the first one says that you shouldn't operate nn 6
until you have one.
Isn't that a prcblem?
You should not oper-j e
E.
7: ate until there is one, but there =ay be one.
n i
a MS. CER'STI:
There is not at this time.
E 9
DR. LEEDS:
But I as saying if you read the first one by '.
i z
i 10 itself, er the second one, you are contending nct only that you i
r z
i
~
11 have to have one but there isn': One.
That is what you are 4
3
'i 12 arcuing, is that right?
z=
1
~
13,,4 Ca.... - _.. :
_,g at is r:.gn:.
4
.c o. :
p
.w.
1
_=
s i
Ca..,._,... va. c,.:
.et =e parase sc=ernang anc see :.:._
e 14 a-c.v_.
x
?
15,
tn:.s e. cresses your centent'. en and see 1:._ ~he applicant and the star:.
i M_
i
~
have any cc==ent on it.
The centention wculd read, "I contend 16 l
z 6
17 that Coffey County does not have a workable evacuation plan, and
_x!
18, I contend that no nuclear plant should be licensed to operate i
C 1
b 19 until such " e as there is a werkable evacuation plan and until 5n such t ~e as the governing bcdies in the evacuation areas are i
20 21 sufficiently staffed, equipped and funded to successfully carry I
22 out evacaution plans."
('
I s
23,
Dces that express it?
I V
24 l MS. CHRISTY:
Yes, that is right.
i
?
25.
I would have two ec==ents on -han. First, 1
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 30 1i in your reference to "no nuclear plant," I think we are obviously 9
2; not here to make general rules, and I would substitute, " Wolf 4
3: Creek" for that.
4 DR. LEEDS:
As you know we have no jurisdiction over e
5 other nuclear power plants.
3a 6
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I accept your amendment.
e Mg 7'
MR. SILBERG:
Thank you.
i 8
The second comment is on "the governing bodies," and I n
N think the contention ought to be limited to Cof fey County, and the 9
i 10 : discussion we have had indicates thatthat is what we are talking E_
i 11 :2hout.
<B i
i 12,
CHAIR 5!AN GLEASON:
Mr. Silberg, her rational, if I can l
E 4
5 13 phrase it for her, is that these cities are very much a part of E
[
14 9.e county's plan, even though in your documents you only reflect C
i 15, the county plan if you have a strict reading of that.
The county a
16 : would just have to have its fundings and so forth, and that doesn't 3
A y
17 necessarily produce what is her concern, that all of these cities u
18, that are a pa: (of coming to play some sort of a role, have to con,
c l
I 19, tribute something and have to help their people.
3 n
But since that is all a part of the county 21, plan ---
22
- CHAIM!AN GLEASON:
There is no problem of leaving it or 23 adding that, because she is talking about governing bodies in the 24 l county.
l 25 MR. SILBERG:
If it were phrased like that ---
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
31 4
l MR. KARMAN:
The problem there is "within Coffey j
f, lan."
County o
2<
l I
3 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Is that all right?
4 MS.
CHRISTY:
Ye,s.
5 CHAIM.AN GLEASON:
Thank you, Ms. Christy.
s s
6, Ncw if we could have Mary Ellen Salava ecce up, please.
e 7,
Salava, by letters of January 13, February 16 and Ms.
fg March 21, she stated that her residence is within 5 miles of the n
l
- 9) plant, dat she is concerned abcut there not being an adequate i
z.
k.
10 : emergency plan, and she was concerned about the loss of crops and z
i 11 the farmland if accidental releases of radiation cccur. There was c
3 i
j2 no answer and does that ccrrectly give your concerns, Ms. Salava?
i j
z
=
i
)I don't want 2
13 put word in your =cuth.
I am trying to get at I
5 14 the heart Of what your letters said.
x b
i 15 MS. SALAVA:
Yes, that was basically it, the emergency n
planning and the farm situation.
16 l E
t j,i 17 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
And the release of radiati7n, acci-d E
18 ) dentdl release of radiation.
t 19 '
MS. SALAVA:
Yes.
5 20 1 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
We haven't a response from applicant.
21 i Could we hear from the applicant?
22 '
MR. SILBERG:
I think there are two letters we have to C
23 look at.
One is Ms. Salava's letter of February 16 which I read 24 )as being directed towards her interest.
That was I think written l
i t
25 lin response to filings by the NRC staff counsel and myself.
The u
i J
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
7
i O
32 i
l 1
1 ; second letter which I think is the appropriate one to be looking atl i
2; in terms of contentions is the one that was written af ter the i
l I
3i Licensing Board's order and that is a letter dated March 21, 1931. !
i 4
I think if one looks at the second letter which I g
5; think is meant to state Ms. Salava's contention ---
n i
n j
6; CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
The letter of March 21?
R b.
7 MR. SILBERG:
Yes.
i t
i n
k 8
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right.
u r
I think we are talking about basically z
i O
I y
10 the same issues that we have been discussing with Ms. Christy.
E i
3 II I think again it goes to workable evacuation plans, the last 3
12 i
sentence in your letter, Ms. Salava, and it says that the Wolf
=
13 '
=
Creek nuclear plant should not be licensed to operate without a i
.j 14 ^ workable evacuation plan.
My proposal would be to adopt the sane
-j 15
. contention that we were just discussing for Ms. Christy, for g
16. Ms. Salava that would reach her issues and it would avoid somewhat l s
I
(
I7 different overlapping perhaps inconsistently drafted contentions.
I I
}
18 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Do you understand what he is sugges-19 <
g ting?
n 20 l
MS. SALAVA:
I believe so.
~
2I CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Do you want to respond?
t 4
22 '
MS. SALAVA:
Yes, he is saying that my contentions v
should be just about the same as Ms. Christy, is that correct?
f 23 I
i 24j CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
That is what he said and the issue i
i 25 as he expressed it, does he accurately express your concern or 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
--.e
-w
-.-m r.
1 I
33 1
do you have other contentions?
i 24 MS. SALAVA:
Well, I think ar. operating license for the l
3 ' *iolf Creek generating station must be contingent on development 4
of a workable plan for all of the resident in a 30 mile zone frcm s
5 the reacter. Workable means effective plans and not just merely
_s 6
on paper.
The current plan relies on volunteers who may not be e
-n
.9 7, performing in an actual emergency, and civil defense radiation
-n i
a
=cnitors are outdated.
n
=
9 CHAI?l'AN GLEASCN:
- iell, no, I don' want to go into i
b 10 that. There are *i es for making statements at hearings, and the j
i i
1 11 i time new is to be used and should be used to get exactly cut in j
a i
12 !:he record as to what your contentions are.
This scard will ge z
=
E 13 { back, af ter this pra-hearing conference, and 100% a: the rec:rd
=
.A 14 'and will decide these contentions, so it is very importan ha:
15 you use that term new.
The question is, has he expressed your i
E 4
J 16 contention that you want litigated in this hearing?
t d
17 '
MR. SIL3 ERG. It is basically you and Ms. Christy have x=
E 18 the same issue on workability of an evacuation plan.
l i
O 19 MS. SALAVA:
That is right, and the notification of thesei 5
=
20 plans that are made, people be made aware of their roles.
21 CHAIRMAN GLEASCN:
That relates to the evacuation plan?
22j MS. SALAVA:
Yes.
~
~
i
(-
1 23j CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Mr. Karman?
l l
24 'i MR. KARMAN:
As indicated in our response, we thought i
25 ; that Ms. Salava's contention did not have the specificity which f
1 4
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
1 34 i
l j
the rule required, but the staff would go along with a consol-2,, idation of her effort and Ms. Christy's on the contention which f
3l was just stated, that that is a reasonable specificity that she i
4 ! wishes to put forth at this time and the staff would h ave no e
5 objection.
A n
8 6
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
No objection to what?
e R
2 7j MR. KARMAN:
To her being a consolidated intervenor s
8 8-with Ms. Christy.
n N
CHARDIAN GLEASON :
That request has not been made at 9
Y E
10 this point.
5 l
E 11 MR. KA029.N :
Well, it is basically the same contentien, S
i 12 and we have to move from there to the next step.
z i
E s
13 CHAI:t:AN GLIA 3ON:
She may not want to be ccnsclidated l
E 4
A 14 with someone else, and she is trying to be heard on that and
+c!
15 I want to make sure that that completely expresses her contention.
.ax 16 MR. KARMAN:
I understand.
3
- ri p
17 MR. SILBERG:
I don't think we need to reach the question:
5 E
18 l of consolidation. That is a different issue.
1 E
19 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
That is a different thing.
The 5
M 20 l Board is mindful that people are not versed in legal proceedings 21 i and do not have access to legal resources at times and frequently 22 they can suffer a confusion with respect to requirements in legal
(_-
23 processes.
l Also it is my feeling that there are certain procedures j
24 4
l l
25 l or requirements and time requirements that have to be met in thesel t,
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l m
.-i w
i l!
35 l
i 1l proceedings to be fair to all parties. What we are attempting at l
l 2
the present time is to make certain that your contentions that l
l l
3l you want litigated in this proceeding are expressed so that we l
4 can go back and evaluate whether they are viable contentions or 5l not.
e A
te 3
6 Now we have already discussed the emergency plan, evac-e R
i R
7, uation plan, so there is no further discussion that needs to be e.
8' taken with respect to that contention.
?4 0
'brch 21^.n 9,
In your letter or prior letter, not the one of March 31 l
10 but the one of February 16 ---
l Z
5 11 PS. SALAVA:
I didn' t bring it up wi th me.
I hais it 2:
I l
d 12 back at =v seat.
z E
i Ma t24 13 CHAITOIAN GLEASCN:
Your letter of March 31 indicates I
r 6
[ 14 - what your contention was.
Your letter of February 16 expressed s
=
i 2
15 a concern which generally would go to the question of whether you x=
J 16 ' have standing or not -in an interest.
Sometimes there are concerns us y
17 which get transferred and appraised in ar contentions.
What I a=
1' 5
18 have reference to here is ycur reference to the pessibility of
=
1 M
C 19 ' an accidental emission.
5e i
20.
MS. SALAVA:
Yes.
i 21l CHAIRMAN GLZASON:
Now, the question that we have to ask, 1
22 is that a contention that you want litigated?
L.
i 23 MR. SALAVA:
You mean that my family is involved in 24 agriculture and that I am concerned aJout the contention?
i 25 CHAIRMAN GLEASCN:
That fou are concerned about the loss '
4 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i l
36 i
1 i
to your crops, your pastures and your farmland.
t 2l MS. SALAVA:
Yes.
i 3!
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Through accidental release of radia-4' tion.
That has nothing to do with the emergency.
It has to do a
5 in terms of contentions with respect to your first contention.
It N
3 6
is a different aspect.
The question is, is that a contention that e
R R.
7 you have?
-n i
8 MS. SALAVA:
Well, yes.
n 9
CEAIRMAN GLEASON:
And you want it litigated?
E 10 MS. SALAVA:
Yes, I would say yes.
E_
E 11 CHAIRMAN GLEASCN:
I would like to hear from applicant.
<3 d
12 MR. 9N.G:
I am at a loss what the issue is.
It is 5
t s
13 phrased so generally in terms of what type of accident are we E
A 14 talking abcut, and w"s*
'-a
'"a scurces of radiation, and what types E
l'
+
E 15 of radiation?
I guess I read it as you did, that Ms. Salava was 5
i j
16 ' describing her interest, why she is interested in Wolf Creek,
-s p
17 and she is concerned' that this may happen, which is as you know a=
18 very different from wanting to litigate how a nuclear plant oper-E 19 ates, and which valve should be turned in which position and 5n 20 l how many curies and how much radiation might be emitted under 21 certain conditions.
22 !
I wouldn' t know how to address this kind of a contention
- u..
23 because it is so general, and so unspecific.
24 4 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
If the contention was phrased, that
,i t
25 l she is concerned that there will be an accidental accident at I
i t
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
37 1,
1 i
1 ithe plant that caused radiation releases which will harm her i
2; crops and her pasture and land, what is your comment on that?
I 3l MR. SILBERG:
That sounds to me like a contention which 4] goes to everything in the final safety analysis report.
The entire e
5 plant design is intended to assure that those kinds of releases N
3 6
don' t occur, and that if they occur th are are numerous back-up e
- g 7; systems which go into effect.
Other than litigating the entire E
8 design of the plant, all of those calculations and all of the 5
9-meteorolog ~
onditions and all of the up-take factors, I wouldn't i
z 10 have the togglest idea how to approach a contention like that.
l E
I 11 I think if that kinc or contention is acmitted, we have
<s 4
12 ;,really done away with the recuirement for specificity, and of l
z i
5 1
13 ' course we hate done away with the basis, and thera is no basis t
-=
t A
14 for that kind of an issue which has been presented here.
That issue.
+-
l
=
4 2
15 the way you frame it, is just I think much too broad to be admittedj E
i, 7
16 j in a proceeding such as this.
3 m
l H
17 DR. LEEDS:
let me try to understand yo' r point.
I am u
1 2
I i
=
18. not sure I follow you completely.
Do you mean due_-if a contention '
l
=_
I 19 l can be admitted or rejected on the basis of one, whether or not x
i t
e l
20 i there is a contention stated at all, it would seem to be admitted 8
21l as a contention, yen would have to at least state a contention?
I l
22 ; That is dhe first thing.
k l
23 MR. SILBERG:
Yes.
I 24 DR. LEEDS:
The second thing, it seems like, is whether ii 25 it ccmes in or not is whether or not the person has stated an i
l i
l y
t 1'
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I 38 1 < adequate basis for Ebat contention.
I thought the Chairman 2; was asking whether or not that was a statement of a contention i
3; rather than whether or not a basis for that had been expressed i
4 lwhich is a second step in the process?
5!
MR. SILBERG:
I was looking at the documents before me, e
E I
N 3
6 ;- because of course the Commission rules require that within the e
R A
7; time periods, 15 days before the pre-hearing you have to present l
A l
5 3' both the contention and its basis.
There are a number of issues. !
To have an admissible contention obviously scmeone has to be l
5 9
I l
10 : presenting an issue of what they want litigated.
I thought our E
5 11 earlier discussion was that the issues she wanted to litigate i
l B
i 12. were evacuacion plans.
Once you get by that hurdle, you then z
E I
s 13, have to have a contention which is within the scope of the pro-5 A
14 ceeding, is it within the Commission's jurisdiction here, and is E
2 15 there some statute or regulation which would bar litigation of E
i 16 that contention?
ms is ends y 17 '
I don't think we have that here.
srs-fo3 E
18 r
E, 19,.
l 20 !
l 21 !
t l
22 '
i s.
23 24 l
i +
t 25 i
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
39 1
DE. LEEDSs I nicht interchange those two.
2 ER. SILBERG Once you get beyond that, you have 3 to see whether the contention has been ex;ressed with 4 sufficient specificity, and once you get over that hurdle, S you have to see whether the contention has an adequate basis.
6 I as still a little hung up on the first 7 question:
Does she really intend that to be her contention, 8 or is her contention evacuation plans?
Even if one were to 9 get by that, I get hung up on the specificity.
Ihat is an to issue which is so general that I don't know how to approach 11 it.
I an advising my client what type of testinony to 12 prepare other than saying ve vill introduce the entire final 13 saf ety analysis rapo rt and the entire environmental re; ort, 14 and I don't know how to cut it down nuch finer than that.
15 CHAI?!AN GLEASON:
You could do that throu;h the 16 discovery process, too.
17
- 53. SIL3 ERG:
I would suspect -- and, 18 u nf or tuna tely, I have seen it in other cases -- that the 19 discovery process is very inefficient to try to define a l
l 20 contention.
We have tried in other proceedings to dispose f
21 of contentions as they were narrowed.
22 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
It depends upon how you define l
23 the word " define".
i 24 MR. SILBERG:
We have run into contentions and m
25 licensing boards have refused to go along with th a t.
I t
AL ERSoN AEPcRT;hG OcMP ANY, NC, j
400 VtAG;NIA AVE., S.N., WASMNGTON. 0.0. 20024 (2ll2) $$4 2345 l
L
40 1 don't think discovery is the proper place to provide 2 specificity.
- he regulations require that up front.
3 CHAIEMAN GLEASON:
'4e understand.
4 M3. KARMAN The staff has great difficulty in 5 pulling this together and, again, I question the very basics 6 of the concern or contention question itself.
It still 7 sounds like a concern, because Ms. Salava, at this stage of 8 the game, I don't think, really intends -- and I shculdn't 9 put words in her mouth intends to come in and litigate to this matter to show where, in her opinion, this, this and 11 this will happen, to cause whatever problem you think is 12 going to happen.
13 But under any circumetances I do not feel tha t the 14 wording of this concern /contentic' comes here meeting the 15 reasonable specificity requirements of section 2.7.
I have 16 to agree with Mr. Silberg, from the staff point of view as 17 well as the applicant, it would be extremely difficult to 18 marshal the forces to try to defend against a contention 19 like this, because we really wouldn't know where to start.
20 CHAIRMAN G1EASON:
I won't comment on that.
21 Ms. Salava, as, I guess, a kind of final comment 22 in this area, would you care to express what the basis of 23 this concern or this contention -- and I will get away from 24 this word " concern" -- the basis of this contention might be l
25 of the accidental emission?
I ALCERSCN REPCRT;NG CCMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE.,3.W., WASHINGTCN. O.C. 20C:4 (202) 554 2345
41 1
MS. SALAVA:
' dell, it very nearly happened a 2 couple of times at other nuclear plants; if there should be 3 a core meltdown there would be an enormous radiation 4 release, and if it should get out onto the crops, that the 5 radiation would pollute with radioactivity the crops and 6 livestock and land and maybe the land wouldn]t be usable for 7 years and years.
8 There was an accient in ?ussia in the Urals in 9 1968, and I understand tha t there are acres and hundreds of 10 square miles of land that is just barren, I guess.
Ihere 11 was really not too much publicired on the situation, but 12 couldn't that happen at any nuclear plant?
13 CHA!RMAN GLEASON:
Mr. Silberg, with reference to 14 other accidents at other plants, does that provide a basis 15 f or this contention?
18 MR. SIL3 ERGS I as afraid, having ended that 17 description with what I think is a reference to the accident 18 -- and I won't even try to pronounce the Russian name of it 19 -- in the late 1950s, which, of course, was not a nuclear 20 plant accident and it was not a reactor, to the extent that 21 anyone knows about it, what kind of accidents are we talking 22 about?
Are we talking about EBR-2, or are we talking about l
23 wind scale or --
24 CHAIEMAN GLEASON:
She referred to a core l
25 meltdown, and she referred to other accidents in the United ALOERSCN REPCRTING CCMP ANY. NC.
ACC VfRGIN*A AVE., Sf#
'N ASHINGToN, O C. 20C24 (202) f14 234S
42 1 Ststes as well as in Russia.
Do you want more specificity?
2
- 15. SALAVA:
Brown's Ferry was nearly a meltdown 3 and so was Three Mile Island.
In fact, Three Mile Island is 4 still in the process of an emergency.
5 What would happen to the area around Three Mile 6 Island, to the farmers, to the agricultural prcducts?
7 CHAIBMAM GLEASON:
You have to be concern.ad about 8 this area and not Three Mile Island.
9 MS. SALAVA:
But it could happen here, snd it to could be a like situation.
11 MR. SILBERG:
Are we being asked to litigste 12 systems' designs or accident probabilities, er are we being 13 asked to litigate depositions on croplands, or are we being 14 asked to litigate possible economic losses?
15 Again, I think what we are talking about here is 16 about something which is a news discussion and the kind of 17 things that newspaper and magazine articles are written i
18 about; but it is such a broad, wide-ranging issue that I am 19 very troubled tha t this would be admitted as a contention.
i l
20 MR. KARMAN:
We feel, Mr. Chairman, that this l
l
' 21 further delineation of concern and some of these conjectural l
l 22 hypotheticals certainly do not add any degree of specificity i
23 to this " contention" and it was there before.
We still have 24 the same position.
25 CHAIRMAN GLEASCN:
All right.
I think tha t will ALCERSCN REPCRT;NG CCMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AbE S.W., WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20C24 (202) 554-2345
43 1 conclude our discussion.
2 Thank you, Ms. Salava.
3 Could we go now to the Kansas for a Sensible 4 Energy Cause, and Ms. Grabill, will she come up, please.
5 6
ST ATENENT OF NS. J ALENE 3. GRASILL, P.O. BOX 3192, 7
WICHITA, KANSAS 67201, REPRESENTING 8
KANSANS FOR SENSISLE ENERGY, KSE 9
ES. GRABILLs Thank you.
10 CHAIRMAN GLEASON.
By letter dated March 30th, the 11 Kansans for Sensible Energy organization, as I indicated 12 before, amended their petition and I do not believe that as 13 I read the letter their contentions were explicit.
I 14 suggested prior to the hearing to Ms. Grabill that probably 15 she would be helpful during this conference b,y setting forth 16 those contentions with a higher degree of specificity.
So, 17 I would ask her if she would like to comment now.
18 MS. GRABILLs Thank you.
The main issue that we l
19 as members of Kansans for Sensible Energy, KSE, vich to have 20 litigated in this hearing is the financial ability of the 21 utilities involved in this plant to operate and decommission 22 the Wolf Creek Plant.
23 We intend to present evidence regarding the j
24 ability of those companies to operate the plant and 25 specifically as to the necessity of the companies to ALCEASCN REPORTING CCMP ANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTCN. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
44 1 establish a front-end deposit to cover decommissioning costs 2 before the plant becomes operational; that is both for 3 projected decommissioning after the life of the plant and in 4 the event of a premature accident which could cause 5 disability to the plant, such as the disaster that happened 6 at Three Mile Island.
7 We believe that this kind of cost analysis for 8 decommissioning must be done in a plant-specific context, 9 related to Wolf Creek in particular, rather than of a 10 general nature.
11 I recognire it is difficult to come up vith those 12 estimates, because we hava never decommissioned a commercial 13 reactor in this country; but we would tend to believe tha t 14 this kind of fund for decommissioning is the only way to 15 guarantee the potential burdens of the taxpayers, and the 16 ratepayers will be protected.
17 We also expressed in our petition other issues 18 related to cost factors that we would like to have 19 considered.
Examples of these are the costs of verk 20 stoppages and construction problems and costs of regula tory
~
21 changes relating from Three Mile Island.
22 CHAIENAN GLEASON:
These all go into your 23 contention?
(_.
24 MS. G3A3ILL:
This is financial opera tion ability,
1 25 I would assume.
That is cost and feasibility of permanent l
ALCERSCN REPCRTING CCMPANY. !NC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W, WASNNGTCN. 3.C. 20024 c2) 554 2345
45 1 waste storage and potential delays and excess costs due to 2 potential water storage problems, because of the 3 near-drought conditions of the state if the continue, and 4 damage from air and water emissions from the plan t.
Those 5 would be under the financial operation aspects, and the 6 specific front-end deposit for decosmissioning would be 7 under the aspect of. financial ability of the plant to 8 decommission the pla nt.
9 Staff, as you kncv, responded to our amended to petition and sta ted their belief that we satisfy the 11 standino requirements of the proceeding, and in the same 12 document they restated our centention as contesting the 13 viability of the applicant to finance the operation and i
14 decommiccioning of the whole of the generating station.
15 The staff then concluded it is a sufficient 16 contention for litigation in this proceeding and recommended 17 that we should be admitted as an intervenor.
18 We as KSE respectfully request the ? card to allow 19 us to present our evidence as recommended.
20 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Could we hear from the 21 applicant?
22 MR. SILBE3Gs There are a number of different 23 issues which have different arguments that ha te to be rade
(_j 24 w_th respect to the first one, on decommissioning, in terms
(
25 of the cost of decommissioning.
That is an issue which is s
I l
ALCERSCN REPCRTING COMP ANY, lNC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S/# WASHINGTCN. O C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 L
45 1
gener' ty considered in tha environ = ental impact statements.
2 The Commission regulations require that at the 3 o ra ra tin g license stage the environmental impact statements 4 need only include that information which is new and 5 different.
We have gone through an environment impact 6 process with Wolf Creek and had a very long hearing at the 7 construction permit stage.
8 One of the issues liti;ated at that stage was the 9 cost of decommissioning.
We presented at that time the to plant's specific analysis on how much it would cost to 11 decommission Wolf Cree'<.
Therefore, unless some new 12 information is presented under existing Ccamission rules, 13 part 51, the environmental review f or the o pera ting license 14 stage would not have to consider decommissiong costs again.
15 In terms of the financial qualifica tions issue, 16 the other side of the decommissioning, the Commission has 17 underway a process to develop regulations on financial 18 decommissioning.
They have recently published a draft 19 generic environmental impact statement, in January of 1981, 20 on decommissioning nuclea r f acilities, entitled, " Nuclear l
21 Regulation 0.586."
In that document they talk about the 22 various financial alternatives for f unding decommissioning.
They have announced in that document that they 23
(_/
24 vill be developing resultions based on those recommendations.
25 With that background, it seems perhaps ALOERSCN REPORT;NG COMPANY,INO, 400 VIAGiNIA AVE S.N W ASc 6hGTCN. D.C. 20C24 CO2) 554-2345
47 1 inappropriate for this Licensing Board to be in e position 2 of litigating that w hich the Cessirsion and staff have said 3 they are going to undertake.
4 As you know, several years ago the Appeals Board 5 in the Douglas Point decision said that a matter which is, 6 or is about to become, subject to rule-making is not 7 appropriate for litigation in individual proceedings.
I 8 would think that that would be an appropriate rule of law to 9 apply in this case.
10 D3. LEEDE:
'4 h a t were the facts in the Couglas 11 Point case?
12
- 53. SIL3E2G:
That particuir decisicn desit with 13 Table S-3 and its progeny, or predecessors.
In that case, 14 the Commission had, after the Licensing Board had acted, 15 issued Table S-3.
The regulation adopting that said that 16 Table S-3 was not to be applied in environmental reports and 17 environmental sta temen ts issued prior to that time.
18 The issue was whether the Appeals Board or the 19 staff and the Consission, given that regulation, should 20 apply Table S-3 to that particular review.
The Appeals
~ 21 Board decided tha t it should; but in reaching tha t decision 22 they said that something which is in the process of 23 rule-making or about to be in the process of rule-making
()
24 should not be raised in individual plant licensing 25 con ditions; therefore, the intervenor in that case was not
~j ALCERSCN AEPCRTING CCMPANY,.NC, 400 VIRGlNIA AVE SJN. W ASMNGTCN, D.C. 20C24 (202) 554-2345
. ~
i 40 1 allowed to challenge the specifics of Table S-3 in the 2 individual case, since that was something tha t was involved 3 in rule-making.
4 The Douglas Point decision is based on a line of 5 cases involving the Ve rmon t Yankee plant and prior Appeals 6 Board cases.
I think that this is a reasonably 7 well-established Appeals Board doctrine.
8 If you want to discuss the decommission, we can do 9 that, or I can try to address these Other cost items which 10 Es. Grabill has identified.
11 CHAI3EAN GLEASON:
! thoucht you had discussed 12 decossissioning.
13 3R. SILEEECs I have, but I am assine whether you 14 vant me to discuss the other cost fac ors nov, or whe the r-15 you would want to continu s.
16 CHAIREAN GLEASON:
You can say whatever you want 17 to say.
18 MR. SILEERG I took down five separate cost 19 factos aside from decommissioning.
Two of them seem to be 20 directed to the question of construction, cost of work 21 stoppages, and cost of regulatory changes from TMI.
22 It is not apparent to me that those are 23 appropriate issues for the operating licensing stage.
24 In terms of the cost and feasibility of permanent 25 waste disposal, the feasib.'.11ty of permanent vaste disposal ALOERSCN AEPCAT.NG COMP ANY, :NC.
400 v:AG;NIA r.E 3.W NASHfNGTON.10. 2:0:4 (20;) 554 2045 i
^
09 1 is not an issue appropriate for this Board, and the 2 Commission has made that very clear.
In issuing Table S-3 3 for rule-making and in the current rule-making which we call 4 the Waste Conference rule-making proceeding, which is 5 designed to deterane exactly that question, when will the 6 waste disposal be available, and if it is not available 7 prior to the expiration of certain other operating license, 8 whether there will be safe onsite storage or safe storage of 9 spent fuel until such time as it is available.
10 So, between Table S-3 and the Waste Ccnference 11 rule-makine, the feasibility of permanent vaste dis;osal is 12 clearly outside the' scope of this proceeding, as would be 13 the environmental effects from vaste disposal.
14 As far as the cost of permanent vaste disposal, 15 again, we are getting back to issues that were discussed at 16 the construction permit stage, and unless there is some 17 change or new information which is presented, we ought not 18 to look at it.
Even if that were the case, I think we are 19 dealing with an issue which certainly has no basis attached 20 to it.
21 The question of potential water storage is another 22 issue that was debated extensively at t.he construction 23 permit stage.
The decision was issued in January of 1977,
(-
24 and the very first contention and it decision, which goes on 25 for many pages, is on the question of water storage.
ALOERSCN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA A'd., S.W WASHINGTCN O.o. 20C24 (202) 554 2345 b
50 1
The applicants in this cane have a centract with 2 the State of Kansas for water.
That centract was a;;reved 3 by the state legislature.
All those cccurred pric: to the 4 issuance of the construction permit and vere all tensidered 5 at the construction permit hearing.
6 We are not dealing with a situation which is 7 unanalyred.
In doing the analyzing which was in the 3 original decision in 1977, tha licensing 3 card clearly 9 indicates that the redeling en the in;act ecsts was d: e to based on the d:cught of reccrd in the e=rly 1950s.
We are 11 vell vithin the envele;e cf that drough: Of record.
This 12
%..as e.
4_
c..., 4 3.,
....,... s.
, 4y
.,.a s.,...4 s
..a 13 the period of time that has already been evaluated and 1.s a-a-
.te.
s-y
.w.
74c....
..a.
a r.-
...a--
15 in terns of the ecs: facter of ;0tential danage 16 from air and watger emissions, again, here ! fust don't knov 17 what the isspe is.
Certainly there is a lack cf specificity 18 on that, and also a lack of bases.
19 CHA!35AN GLIASCNs Oc you want tc res; cad, c do 20 you want to hear from the staff first?
21 ES. GET3!L1:
Tes.
22
- 53. KARMAN 3r. Chairman, the staff cannet agree 23 with 3r. Silberg's interpretation of what Nuclear 3egulation 24 0.056 says, which is a general impact statement with regard 25 to decosnissioning of nuclear facilities, that it nay be a ALOEASCN 2E:tR*.NG OOv8 A.W. NC.
4CC 42G.M A 4.s, 3.N.
- AS* NGTON. : t 00C24 20;1554-345
51 1 suhdect of rule-making at sone time in the future.
2 We de not feel that that is a bar to the 3 contention with respect to the financial ability of the 4 utility to operate in decommissioning a plant, as indicated 5 in my response to the case amended petition; but we do have 6 some probless now as a result of the enunciation by the case 7 representative with respect to these other items which were B in the January letter case but which was not repeated again 9 in their supplemental petition.
10 We, too, have difficulties in determining the 11 permanen t. waste disposal, and with m atters tha t have been 12 adequately discussed and ruled upon in the construction 13 permit hearing without some indication as to how ccnditions 14 have changed since that-time.
15 MS. GRA3ILL:
I would like to point out that in 16 the amenderd petition, on page 5, we did list all of the 17 additional concerna or contentions tha t I have delineated 18 again here today.
19 On page 5 of the amnended petir. ion it also states 20 that a lot of those concerns come out of the 21 Cresap-McCormack & Padet ceports.
This was a report done 22 for the Kansas Corporatiot Commission at th eir request and 23 paid for by the utilities ca the cost analysis of the Wolf
(,
24 Creek facility.
25 Anyway, I wanted ycn to know it was in th e amended l
ALOCASCM AEPCATING COMPANY. NC.
4o0 v AG:NIA AVE SJN. NASHINGTCN. O C. 20024(202) 154 2345
52 1
1 petition.
2
- fR. KARMAN:
If you don't mind,
'r.
Chairman, my 3 crosscomm en t directly to Es. Grabill, my response was based 4
on the fact that the cost problem was your problem 5 basically.
That did not mean that there might not be some 6 items contained within this list which we would find 7 ob j ectio na bl e.
8
.15. GEA5 Ills Then just generally I am coing to 9 respond as much as I can from memory, in regard to the 10 environmental im;act statement and discussion of 11 decommissionin and some of there other issues in that, that 12 was done in January of 1977 13 Although ! have read sese of that in the ;;blic 14 library in ~41chita -- and I don't have' continued access to 15 all of that material -- I would sug;est that there is 16 nothing more new and different in the area of 17 decommissioning than that which the problem at Three hile 18 Island poses to us.
I would sense that that kind of 19 information that we get from the costs surrounding that 20 accident, and the potential carly decommissior.g of that 21 reactor are as new and different as any of us would care to 22 see.
23 Also, I would agree, as you pointed out
(
24 CHAIEMAN G1EASONs Excuse me.
Could you help me 25 clarif y my mind a little bit, Mr. Silberg, or Mr. Korman.
At. ERSCN 2E? CAT:NG OOMP ANY..NC, 400 AftG;MA AVE,3f#, WASH;NGION, O 0, ;,C24 i:02) 554 2345
53 1 Doesn't the decommissioning get into cost factors, and 2 doesn't that cone up on the environmental side of things, 3 and not the safety question?
4 MR. KARMAN:
As a matter of f act, the costs would 5 come in under the safety evaluation, which the staf f would 6 define.
The financial' qualifications come in under the 7 safety review.
8 M3. SILBERG:
There are two aspects of cost.
9 There are costs of decommissioning which are routinely 10 included in the overall cost / benefit of a nuclear powerplant 11 which is done as part of the NEPA report.
There are also 12 requirements for financial qualifications.
13 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Gn that first aspect., even 14 though that matter has been looked at, isn't that subject to.
15 ree valua tion in an operating license proceeding?
16 MR. SILBE3G:
I am sorry, you mean the NEPA, the 17 decommissioning cost?
18 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Yes.
To the extent that there is new 20 information.
~
21 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Well, does it have to be nev l
22 information?
23 NB'. SILBERG:
Yes.
i 24 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Mr. Karman, do you have q_
25 anything on that?
ALDERSCN PEPoRTING COMP ANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S/N., WASHINGTON O.C. 20C24 (202) 554 2345
53 1
YR. K A E 'l A N :
I a: not sure about that.
2 DR. LEEDE:
Is there anything tha t has happend 3 since then?
4 MR. SILBERG:
These numbers are right on target.
5 In the latest NRC study on decommissioning, I guess subject 6 to this document, the NRC staff released a study performed 7 by Battelle National labora tory on the costs of 8 decc=missioning of a pressurized water reactor.
Ihose costs 3 are somewhat lover, in fact, than the costs which our plant, to specifically for Wolf Creek, which was done by Dr. Albert 11 Weinstein of the Storer Corporation, had concluded.
12 03, leg;S:
Has the applicant looked at 13 decommissioning costs since 1977?
14 M3. SIL3 ERG I don't think any further detailed 15 studies have been made for Wolf Creek.
I have looked at 16 them quite a lot in general terms and for other proceedings, 17 and, in fact, we are using the same analytical techniques 18 that we used in Wolf Creek, by the sane consultants, in 19 other proceedings.
20 I have seen nothing that would change the analysis 21 that we did at that time.
22 I think the staff analysis that was presented --
23 and, in fact, if there was staff testimony today, the staff l
24 would testify to lower decommissioning cost estimates for t,
1 j
25 Wolf Creek than they testified at that time, because when
[
l ALCERSCN AEPCRT;NG CCMP ANY. INC, 400 VIRG NA AVE, S.W., WASNNG7oN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 i
L
55 1
they testified they did not have available the generic vital 2 decommissioning study.
3 But there is specific language in the regulations 4 that says, in section 51.21, an environmental report should 5 discuss the same matters described in section 51.20, which 6 describes what has to go into a construction permit report, 7 but only to the extent that they differ from those 8 discussions or reflect new information in addition to that 9 discussed in the final enviromental statement prepared by 10 the Commission in connection with the construction permit.
11 I think the regulations -- and there is equivalent 12 tracking procedure through the staff's draft environmental 13 statement -- that the Commission 's regula tions are f airly 14 explicit that one need not look at things which were looked 15 at at the construction permit stage unless there is some 16 change.
17 CHAIPF.AN GLEASON:
Well, I will check that out.
18 MS. GBASILL:
Could I comment on that?
19 I think if we were allowed to present our defense, 20 that we would come up with accounting testimony that would 21 differ from that of the NEC staff or the applicant en the 22 basis even of the Battelle study.
23 As we cited in our petition, that is one 24 sta temen t.
Another one is, I think, the same issue of (j
25 decommissiontsc, if I am correct, that is under litigation ALDE95CN REPCRTING CCMPANY. INC.
400 VIAGINIA AVE S.W WASMNGTCN, D.C. 20C24 (202) 554 2345
56 1 in another operating licencing h e a ring in Cincinnati, or in 2
one of the Ohio hearings.
3 Then, just in general, I would say although there 4 has not been any actual experience in the country with the 5 decommissioning of a commercial reactor, surely in the last 6 three years we have looked at that issue much harder than 7 before.
We can come up with information and ! vould submit 8 that we would intend to present testimony on the cCsts of 9 decommissioning that might differ from that available in to 1977, 11 CHAIRMAN GlEASCN Isn't decommissiCaing a 12 contention in the Susquehana case?
13
14 3R. KA33AN: LI:-is'under contention, as Ms.
15 Grabill mentioned, in the Zimmer case in Cincinnati.
16 MR. SILPERG:
In the Susquehana case the 17 construction permit stage was issued in 1973 prior to any of 18 these reports and documents coning out.
I would point out 19 that in the 1977 initial decision, the stafi allowing a 20 20 percent contingency, total cost was estimated to be 548 21 million if there were prompt dismantlement.
The staff says 22 that without having performed a detailed analysis, places 23 the estimate of 582 million on the cost.
(j 24 If one looks at cases on petition where the 25 document that they rely on, which is the same as the ALOERSCN REPCRilNG CCMPANY,;NC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W. WASHINGTCN,3.C. 200:412C01554-2345
57 1 Battelle study that we were talking about, talks aboJt in 2 1978 dollars a cost of $42 million.
Fere on the statement 3 it shows that the costs she is talking about are, in fact, 4 lower than the costs which we already established as the 5 baseline at the construction permit proceeding.
6 MS. GRABILLa Except we looked at that in 1978 7 dollars.
I am not an accountant, but when you adjust for 8 inflation, that would probably be a poinnt of contention in 9 the testimon7, and on those other scaling factors I don't 10 know whether we could come out with the same figures.
11 DR. LEEDS:
In your quote from the previous 12 decision, it was $77 million?
13 MR. SILBERG4 The testimeny, I believe, was in 14 1970.
I don't think it is reflected in here.
Cur numbers 15 were 1975 dolla rs, pu6 million, which, of course, would be 16 significantly higher than $u2 million in 1978 dolla rs, and 17 tha NRC numbers were in 1973 dollars, $83 million in 1973.
18 MS. GRABILL:
Can I respond again?
19 If I had know we were going to have to talk 20 d olla rs, I would t
21 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
You don't have to talk anything.
22 NS. GRABILL:
I am not an accountant, and we are 23 just concerned about this issue and it is our contention 24 that the company doesn't have the financial ability to g.
25 decommission the plant.
ALCERSCN AEPCATING COMP ANY. INC.
400 VIRG!N3A AVE., S W. W ASMNGTCN O C. OCC24 (202) 554-2345
58 1
We vould like to be given an opportunity to 2 present evidence, and I think we could present credible 3 evidence.
We don't have a list of witnesses now, but we can 4 submit that when necessary, and that is all I have to say.
5 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Well, I think that is adequate 6 discussion of that point.
7 MS. BROWNING:
I am a party to this application 8 and I think that our contention is that we have nev 9 inf orna tion and tha t it is twof old, not only that the costs 10 of deconmissioning have possibily escalated but also that 11 the utility's financial ability to pay those costs nas 12 changed, and so there a re two a spects here, and I think we 13 have both of those.
14 CHA!35AN GLEASON:
Thank you for clearing that up.
15 Thank you, Ms. Grabill.
16 Do any of the other parties want to talk about 17 contentions?
16 STATE 5ENT CF KENT M. RAGSDALE, ESC., GENERAL CCUNSEL, 19 MISSOURI PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, P.C. BOX 360, 20 JEFFEFSON CITY, NISSCURI 65102; ON BEHALF OF 21 TREVA J. HEARNE, ESO., DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL 22 ER. RAGSDALE:
I am substuting for Treva Hearne, Il who 'is under medical ad vice not to trael here today, and I 24 believe she sent to you a letter last week duscussing what i
25 aspect we wished to raise in this proceeding.
ALOERSCN AEPCRTING CCMPANY,INC, 400 VIAG!NIA AVE., S.W., WASHNGTON, D.C. 20C24 (202) 554-2345
59 1
CHA!? MAN G1EASON:
!*have received tha t letter.
2 (The letter follovss) 3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACEDSCN 3E*0dTNG COM8 ANY. NC.
A00 viAGiNiA Avt $ N. NAs-wGics : C.
GC:4. 2155A *,345
o a ? C.S (M i) 61l CB $&Hl1H566fCH
- f.,@.....,,Dr
=/
i f&t5 il C-
. '.' :v:.
- s 7: - vqr.-
7.
C.I
./. h ~i-Q
".O..
A,eo Code 314
.. S.. n..T 751 3234
- # *. CV?FtV4@-R :E a.
G *., $$'g /p P o Box 36c
%,o_*g.
- M : O,.....**...*d.-
.4 1 9,
1o81 JEFFERSCN CITY f
MisscuRt 651c:
p Mr. James P.
Gleason, Esc.
CHARLES L FR 4A$
Ad inistrative Jud e 9
cw Atc=ic Safetv & Licensing Board 4H SR0t'K WC4RTNEY United States Nuclear Regulatory Cc==issicn uRRy t o.>am I513 Gil= cure Drtve TEPH ANE 4. BR) L%.
I i MVer 5pd'.g, Ma~. Gar.d
?% 01 was e gnretEicH 1,
D. \\t1CH AEL HF.ad5T l
& Electric Cc=pany, Kansas City Power & Light Cc= anv.
_m.,,
I and Kansas Electric Pcwer Cecperative, Inc. (Welf Creek).
6 (E.%T \\1 R 463D ALE 1
Dear Mr. Gleasen:
c,,,,,; c,,,
I Cn January 16, 1981, the Missouri Public Service Ccur.ission intervened as the representative of the State of Missouri pursuant to' Title 10, Section 2. 715 (c) of the Code of Federal
- Regulations.
That petition to intervene was granted en March 13,
!1981bytheArc=icSafety& Licensing Board which will preside
' cver the Wolf Creek licensing and of which you are Chairman.
The Missouri Public Service *Cemmission wishes to raise the fcilowing issues in the above-captioned matter:
The Public Service Commission of Misscuri requests that all safety requirements necessary as a result of the Three Mile Island incident and all other de. sign changes specifically re-quired by the NRC be expressly identified and the map:itude of these design changes be enpressly identified.
Since the financial impact of such design changes are the primary interest of the Public Service Ccmmission, the 1
Public Service Commission further requests that l
i if the NRC requires a design change that an adequate cost / benefit analysis accc=pany each proposed design change and that that cost / benefit m
analysis be available for scrutiny by all parties.
Finally, the Public Service Cc==ission l
requests that the NRC assess the impact of each design change on the scheduled cc=pletion date of the unit and =ake that available to the parties at the earliest opportunity.
i e
i e
P Mr. Jar.es P. Gleason, Esq.
Page Two April 9, 1981 These issues will be of critical importance to the ratepayers of Kansas City Power and Light Company in the State of Missouri.
Sincerely,
/4w-M" Treva J. Hearne Deputy General Counsel TJH:pdw e
e O
%e* #
i
60 1
- 33. SIL3 ERGS We have not received it.
2
- 33. 3AGspALg4
- think if ycu recall, we had some 3 pr'obles in the Caldwell proceeding, that we did not have a 4 list of addresses, so I have brought suf ficient copies.
5 MR. SILBERG:
All right.
~ '
6 ER. RAGSDALE4 She sent a similar letter in the 7 Callaway proceeding and served it on the Commission, and tht 8 caused some problems.
That is the rearon she has asked me 9 to hand these out today.
10 Our basic pcsition is that it is not a position to 11 have litigated, but e are interested in having access to 12 information reaating to certain design changes that may be 13 mandated by the NRC, so tha t when we make a decision as to 14 evaluation of that plant we vill be able to tra ck what 15 changes may hve transpired from the original estinates to 16 the final costs and so we know where the blame may lie for 17 any discrepancies between the initial estimates and the 18 final costs.
19 DR. LEEDS:
You have lost me.
You sa y, "I wish to 20 bring the following issues" and then you say they are ;not
. 21 contentions.
22
- 33. RAGSDAlE:
We had come discussons in the 23 Callaway proceeding last month an this, and we are not 24 trying to see if the NRC should make changes because of q
25 Three Mile Island.
What we are interested in is havang ALOERSoN AEPCRTING CCMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W W ASHNGTCN. 3 C. 2CC24 GO2) $$4 2345
61 1 access to inf; mation so we can estisate the magnitude of 2 those changes, so when we make an evaluation in a future 3 rate case as to the value of Wolf Creek, that ought to be 4 placed in the Kansas Power rate case, we will have 5 information so we can track those origional chenges, and 6 where the. final cost dame f rom, so we can say, "Well, $10 7 million was estimated because of NPC mandated changes fros 8 Three Mile Island and other changes."
So we know where to 9 shift the blame, so to speak.
10 DR. LEEDS:
You t re an attorney and if I don't
. 11 have it before se as an issue, I want to ask how anything is 12 going to happen, and if I co't have anything, is anything 13 you are going --
14
- 53. RAGSDAlEs I am trying to make a distinction 15 that this is not something we vant to litigate.
What we are 16 tying to do is advise the parties and the Commission of what 17 our interst is in participa ting in the proceedino.
18 DR. LEEDS:
Why don't you call them on the 19 telephone?
I don't understand the point.
i
(
20
- 53. RAGSDALE:
As an intervenor, we might be able 21 to make a little sore noise, if for some reason we are 22 having difficulty in getting information.
23 5R. SILBERGa I think we all recognize the ability 24 of this Commission and other commissions to m ake noises and i
l 25 get the information that they believe necessary to carry out l
l I
I l
ALCERSCN AEPoATING CCMP ANY. 'NC.
l 400 VIRG4NI A AVE.,3/N., WASMNGTCN. D C. 20024 e'.02) 554 2345 1
62 1
their responsibilities.
! don't see that the cc:pany would 2 have any objection to giving the Co: mission whatever 3 inforation it thinks is necessary.
4 But I agree with you, this does not seem 5 approprate for discussion in this hearing and particularly 6 some of these issues go to construction permit-type issues, 7 such as when is the plant scheduled to be compited and not 8 that is not necessarily relevant here.
9 Your vasic point it that this is an information 10 matter that ought to be handled, it seems to me, directly 11 the Commission and the utilities, rather than circuitously 12 through this Licensing 3 card.
13 CHAIE3AN GLIAsc5:
speakin; as a fermer gevernment 14 official, I am saying that these people are not private 15 officials; they are a public body, a nd as a public bcdy they 16 like to have something shown in a public record.
So private 17 kinds of communications don't necessarily suffice.
18 I as also involved in the Callaway case, and let 19 se just try to reiterate the context I think this is coming 20 from.
They have asked, or we are required and we have 21 suggested, that all representatives of governmental bodies 22 express what their interest is in a particular p';oceeding.
23 They are not required and there is no necessity for them te
~
(_,
24 have contentions.
They have expressed an interst in getting 25 ansvers to certain questions.
ALCERSCN REPCRTING CCMPANY. :NC.
400 VIRGINIA AVL S.W. W ASWNGICN. 3 C. 20C24 (2C2) 554 2345
63 1
It is up to us, whether you want to answer those 2 questions or not.
They prefer to have them on the record.
3 3R. EAGSDALE I think that is a fiar summary.
4 DR. LEEDS:
Since I am not a public official, I 5 don't understand all of this.
6 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Count your blessings.
7 DR. LEEDS:
I didn't count them last nigh t.
8 Anyway, do you all regulate the rates that they 9 can charge?
10-M.R. RAGSDALE:
Yes.
11 DR. LEED S:
If you have a ra te us ring, do you have 12 power of subpcena to get information cut of the applicant?
13 MR. BAGSDALE:
Yes, we do.
14 DR. LEEDS:
Then I ;uess other than an interst and 15 concern that you have, I am not sure I understand whs.t 16 information you expect to be forthcoming in this proceeding, 17 if a proceeding isheld, that you would not get in the next 18 rate hearing or the one that might be going on now.
19 3R. RAGSDALE:
Well, the problem migh t be when 20 this plant gfoes into the rate base, that is several years 21 hence from today, and the information we may need in years 22 to come will be made available in this proceeding.
If we 23 seek to get information relting to these changes three or
(_
24 four years from now, we may be in some difficulty in 25 tracking that information down.
ALOEASCN AEPCRTING CCMPANY..NC.
(
400 V6AGih.A NvE 3 # NASHiNGTCN, 0.0. 20024 GC2) 554-2345 l
64 1
We have change and turnover of personnel and I am 2 sure that the Regulatory Commission dces also.
We are 3 trying toaake a timely request and the information is going 4 to be made available soon, and it will be current 5 information, and we don 't want to sit and wait until the 6 last minute.
We have an 11-month period in which to gather 7 information and make a decision when the company requests to 8 place Wolf Creek in the rate base.
9 We may be stretching the limits at that time, to 10 begin our discovery proceedings and try to determine what 11 information is available, a nd in tracing the costs back to 12 when changes were made in the consttuction period.
13 DR. IEEOS:
But when y:n come in this hearing, are 14 you saying you are going to ask for this information that is
~
15 to be presented as a matter of the record in this 16 proceeding?
If you don't ask for it, I haven't heard 17 anytrhing that would produce it.
Do you see what my point i
18 is?
19
- 53. EAGSDALE4 I don't think that I do.
I 20 DR. LEEDS:
let me try it again.
If it is net a 21 contention, why would any information on this topic come 22 in?
Why woulld a discovery request produce it.
There is no 23 contention to address; isn't th a t the way the thing works?
24 As I off base?
25 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
7Ju are on base, but it doesn't ALCEPSCN AEPCRTING COMP ANY, lNC.
400 v1RGiNaA AVE. S.W. NA3HINGTCN. D.C. 2cA24 (2C2) 554-2345
65 1
prohibit the applicant fron providing additional 2 information, even if it doe sn ' t relate to a centention.
3
- 13. RAGSDALE:
If we make a cont'ention and we want 4 something to be litigated on th e reco rd, we hope that sn't 5 necessary, and va don't want to strin; out the proceeding 6 any more than necessary; and we understand if we vent into a 7 lengthy process of litigating each particular design change 8 for Three 311e Island in a proceeding, that would hinder 9 this Board in issuing a tinely pernit for operating, 10 We are not intersted in delaying the proceeding a t 11 all.
12
-DE. 1EEDS:
Your cencern is if this record cleses 13 in six :onths to a year fron now, then your infornation is 14 going to be tha old?
15
- 53. EAGSDALE:
It may be much nere difficult to go 16 back three years from now fo find out how such it costs to 17 make a specific design change for Three Mile Island and tvc 18 or three years from now tring to go back and coument what 19 changes were actually necessita ted b y tha t change and how 20 such these changes cost.
I think it would be easier to get
~ 21 tha t inf orma tion on a timely basis than three or four yars I
22 fron now.
23 DH. LEEDS I have seen in something else I have
\\,
24 been involed in where a power company was putting a small 25 transmission lne and they charged off every nut and belt l
i l
AL:ERSCN REco A* NG COMPANY, ;NC, 400 YtAGiNIA A'vE, S.W. W ASMNGTCN. O A 2CC24 (2C2) a54.;343
,--y w
66 1 down to three cente, and the filed it so it would be a part 2 of the rate base, and doesn 't that information come in to 3 rou?
4 MR. RAGSDALE:
I think a lot of the information is S recorded in the Uniform System of Accounts, and it is an 6 account number.
7 DR. LEEDS:
That is why they are uniform, so you 8 can understand, isn't it?
9 YR. RAGSDALE:
W=ll, sometimes a lot of 10 information is just lumped together and you have to go 11 through and trace back through work orders.
We have an 12 11-month period of time in which to make our decision when
~
13 this company makes a request; and to begin the discovery 14 process at that time, we may not have a sufficient amount of 15 time to track everything.
16 DH. LEEDS:
What you want here is a design change 17 now, to be that specific, and you want.that informtion to be 18 presented now?
19 HN. HAGSDALEt We vold like to have an opportunity 20 to obtain tha t 1".f orma tloa.
21 DH. LEEDS:
Through this proceeding?
1 l
22 MR. HAGSDALE:
If necessary, yes.
23 DH. LEEDS:
You said "if necessary" --
(_,
24
- 33. RAGSDALE:
I think we are anticipating that 25 there vill be cooperation from the applicant and tha t the ALCERSCN REPCRTING CCMPANY, INC, 400 VipGiNIA AVE S.W WASHINGTCN. 0.C. 20024 GC2) 554-2345 l
L
67 1
inf orma tion that when we request it we will have no 2 difficulty obtaining it.
If we ask fer information in the 3 course of a particular investigation or a docket, then I 4 think it is a request that they will take perhaps a little 5 acres eriously in responding fully; and understanding if the 8 information is incomplete there may be some penalties 7 flowing from that.
8 DR. LEEDS:
3ut you are also rfequesting the NEC 9 to do certain things.
Do you expect this Scard to order the 10 NRC staff to do certain things?
11 MR. RAGSDALE:
We haven't really determine to what 12 extrent we are tha t interested in that.
13 DR. LEEDS:
You realire that finally the 14 Cosmission requests that the NRC assess each design change 15 and make tht availabyle to the partis at the earliest 18 opportunity?
17 MR. RAGSDALE:
Wa would like to think if the NRC 18 is mandating changes in the Wolf Creek plant that they are 19 making some assessment of what that is going to do to the 20 construction schedule; and if they are making that 21 assessment, we would like to have tht information available j
22 to us.
l 23 DR. LEEDS:
Okay.
I think I understand your 24 point.
Thank you very much.
25 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I gather that all you are doing l
ALCERSCN REPCRTING CCMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20024 GC2) 554 2345
68 1 is questioning the relevance of the inforamtion that he is 2 asking for?
3 DR. LEEDS:
And the efficiency of getting it.
I 4 as trying to figure out whether he is in here helping this 5 Board, and, secondly, what is he asking this Bord to do, and 6 is it within the framework of what will happen.
I guess !
7 as naive to think unless I have a contention in an operating 8 license dase that this Bord doesn't have power t0 c der 9 something like that.
10 I may be wrng on that, but ! as ;cing by the seat 11 of my pants in rethinking.
Perhaps Mr. Karman can help me.
12 MR. KARMAN:
I think Mr. Karman is going to take 13 this under advisement at this time. We will get back to the 14 representative.
15 M3. SIl3 ERG:
The Cesaission dces routinely 16 publish its estimate of completion date, both in a 17 aulticolored book -- gray, blue, brown -- and also in 18 repcrts that they furnish to the Congress on a monthly basis.
19 DR. LEEDS:
Those are public documents and 20 available in the Public Docu=ent Ecom, and for a fee, fram 21 the Government Printing Office or someplace?
22 MR. SIl3 ERG:
Mr, Karman will make sure that they 23 are provided a t minimum cost.
(.
24 Mr. ANDERSON:
Could we backtrack for just a 25 soment?
When you were citing things from the initial ALCEASCN AEPCATING CCMPANY. ;NC.
400 V'PG!NIA AVE S.W WASMNGTCN. 3.C. 20024 CO2) 554-2345
59 1 decision and construction permit hearings, and since that 2 time there has been another utility added to the 3 application, is that correct?
That is correct.
5 Mr. ANDERSON:
And that is the Kansas Electric O Power Cooperative, Incorpora ted ?
7 y.3. SILBERG:
Yes.
8 Mr. 3YDERSON:
Is there somehing new that should 9 be taken into account in assessing the viability of the 10 applicant to finance the operation in decommissioning Wolf 11 Creek?
12 V.R. SILBERG:
I dCn't think so.
Certainly, 13 financing by KEPCO, which is done through the P. ural 14 Electrification Administration, is alscst a governmental 15 matter rather than than a matter of a private entity going 16 out in the capital markets, so I can't see that as changing 17 adversely the financial qualifications in any way.
18 KEPCO's application was discussed at the 19 construction permit hea ring.
At that time the matter was 20 in negotition, but it was certainly referenced in our need 21 for power discussions as well as other discussions.
Sc I l
22 don't see that that would change any of the issues we have 23 been talking about here today.
24 CHAIPMAN GLEASON:
All right, we would like to 25 have now some discussion from Mr. Elaufuss about his l
l ALDERSCN AEPCRTING COMP ANY. INC.
400 VIAGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (2C2) 554 2345
{
I
70 1 contentions.
2 We have to give attention to the late filinc, but 3 on the assumption that you'vocid he admitted, what are the 4 contentions that you would like to have litipated ?
5 STATEMENT OF M3. FRANCIS BLAUFUSS, 6
Wgs;pgAL:A, KANSAS 66093 7
MR. 31AUFUSS:
What I would like to do -- !
3 understand there won 't be a stack, and esissions will come 9 out at the lower level; hcVever, that is what concern :e, 10 the emissions, that all nuclear pcVerplants in operation are 11 allowed to e:it daily, including scridents, of course.
12 3eing within ten miles of this ;lant en an organi:
13 farn, I feel that I ch0uld 5.a t e a ch an ce to tectify at the 14 hearing.
15 CHAIEMAN GlEASCS:
You understand, Mr. 31aufuss, 16 that there are several ways you can participate in a 17 proceeding.
One is as a full party, which is what you 18 requested up to this point; and the other is as a limited 19 participant who makes a limited appearance, which means a 20 statement on the record which isn't evidenciary in nature i
21 but allows you to say anything you want to cay at one 22 particular point.
I a presuming up to this point that you i
i 23 vant to particpate as a f ull party?
f
(_/
24 MR. BlAUFUSS:
I would like to.
25 CHAIEMAN GlEASON:
n order to pa rticpa te as a f
l AL.OE9 SON DEPCRNG COMP ANY, NC, 4CC AAGNA A'vE. SJh. A ASANGTON.11 :CC24. C2) 554-2345
79 1 party, it is necessary for you to have an issue contention 2 that the Boa rd acrepts as a contention that is litigatable, 3 that is a matter of controversy between you and the granting 4 of the license.
5 It is that statement of the issue which we are 6 after right now.
7
- 33. B LA UFUSS:
There are several other things that 8 I could bring up as far as atomic power is concerned.
9 I would like to have the opportunity to testify on 10 the various emissions from the atomic plants, and I happen 11 to know a lot about this; therefore, being this close and 12 everything, I would like to testify on this certain thing 13 emissions from the stomic power;1 ant.
14 CHAIndAN GLIASON:
Emission from this plant?
15
- 53. BLAUFUSS:
That will come from the water that 16 is evaporated in the cooling lake and in emissions that come 17 out of the reactor building.
18 There vill be about four different types of 19 emissions, and that is what I am interested in.
I will 20 assure you, if I get to tes tif y, I will have the data to 21 back up what I say.
22 ER. SILBERG I guess I as in the same position 23 that I was in discussing 3s. Salava's contention.
In ks 24 addition, there is Mr. Blaufuss' statement that he is l
25 concerned about the emissions that all nuclear plants are l
l ALl:ERSoN REPoATING COMPANY,lNC, 400 vtAG;NIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTCN. C.C. 20024 #202) 554-2345
72 1 allowed to emit daily, which sounds to me very much like a 2 dissatisfaction with the ability of nuclear plants to emit 3 radioactivity in general.
That is an issue which, of 4
course, is governed by Commission regulations in Part 20, 5 which specify allowable release limits.
6 So, I think what we may be dealing with here is a 7 concern that any releases of radioactivity are bad'and i
8 therefore I think that is a challenge to the regulations.
9 The regulations do allow releases of radioactivity within 10 certan very low limits.
Again, even if one gets beyond tha t 11 point, I think we are into an issue of which releases are we 12 talking about?
13 CHAIEMAN GLIASON:
Ec you want to cc: ment?
14 MR. BlAUFUSS4 I am very concerned about the 15 release of strontiun 90, for one.
Cows grare and they eat 16 g ra ss a nd th ey turn this into milk, and milk is what 17 contains the strontium 90.
It will be fed to children and 18 grownups and tha t is a cause of cancer of the bone marrow.
19 Then there is your cathode 85, which occasionally 20 gets out of an atomic powerplant, whether 'they want it to or 21 not.
In fact, there are 200 different elements created in a 22 nuclear powerplant, and whenever a utility tells me that 23 they can control these 200 elements 100 percent, I say there
(
24 is something wrong in their head.
There are about 40 that 25 are highly radioactive and the rest are what we call noble ALOEASCN AEPoAnNG COMP ANY, tNC, 400 'vi AG.> A AVE., 3. h. W AstaiNGTCN, 0.0, 20C241202) 554-2345
73 1 gasses, and therefore I am very concerned about these.
2 Now, like I stated, if I get to testify, I will 3 rome up with the necessary data and I can also get somebody 4 to back up my statements.
5 ER. SILBERG4 The other point I would ncte is that 6 ve did litigate the health effects of radiation at the 7 constructin permit hea ring.
Th t is page 330 of Volume V, o
8 NRC Reports, and we had a number of eminent vitnesses 9 testify, and intervenors presented vitnesses.
10 Since that time, of cocrse, there ave been further 11 studies such as the Seers III report of the National Acadery 12 of Sciences Commission on the Biological Effects of Ioniring 13 Radiation.
14 The Commission, in th e recen t Black Fox situation, 15 said tha t we are allowed to rely on the earlier Beers report 16 as a basis for deciding these questions.
17 Again, here is a matter which we vent through once 18 in great detail and I am not sure that there is anything 19 differen t that we have to talk about.
20 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Did you testify in the 21 construction permit phase, Mr. 31aufuss?
22 ER. BLAUFUSS:
Yes, I did, just on my own, but 23 they wouldn't pay no attention to me; they all thought tha t
(..
24 I was crazy, and I probably knew more than anybody there.
25 MR. KARMAN:
We have nothing to add, Mr. Gleason, ALOERSCN REPC@NG COMPANY, INC.
400 vtRG;NIA AVE., S.W., W ASHNGTON. 0.0. 20C24 (202) 5"A 2345
74 1 other than to say on the basis of what we have before us, 2 and the fact that this was an untinely petition, I don' t 3 believe 3r. 31aufuss had sufficient reason for the Board to 4 aske a discretionary grant of intervention.
5 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
We are talking about 6 con ten tion s.
7
- 33. KA33AN:
We have to agree with the applicant,-
8 that there is no contention.
9 CHAI3HAN GLIASON:
Thank you, Yr. Slaufuss.
10 MS. CHRISTY:
May I respond to what he said about 11 the in volvem en t in the fina ncial ability ?
12 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Certainly, you can respond to 13 anythin; you want to.
14 STATEMENT OF MS. WANDA CHRISTY, 515'N. FIRST ST3EET, 15 3U3LINGTON, KANSAS 65539 16 MS. CHRISTY:
I think we would content that the 17 participation of KEPCO in the ownership of Wolf Creek is an 18 indication of the change id a the financial ability of KGCE 19 and KCPL, not so much that it wasn't planned, but because it 20 may have been planned for a number of years, but I think the r
l 21 ownership by XEPCO has been pursued with all deliberata 22 speed by both the utilities.
(
23 Also, there is potential sale of some of the plant (a
24 to some of the municipals in the state, because of their own l
25 company's financial status.
Their bond ratings have gone i
t ALOERSCN PEPCRTING CCMP ANY. lNC, ACC VIAG!NIA AVE., S.W W ASmNGTCN, O C. 20024 GC2) $$4-2345
l 75 i
1 down and things of that nature.
2 I think when you look at that and you leck at the 3 fact that the NRC made a ruling on KEPCO's ownership of the 4 plant, and in response to that ruling which the utility did 5 not feel satisfied with, and KEPCO did not, and forces were 6 marshaled to develop legislation in the state legislature 7 this year on that issue, and I think all of those factors 8 need to be looked at, because I do think that there has been 9 a change in the caseload.
There has been a change in the 10 financial status of the companies that would indicate a 11 difference in their financial ablity to operate and 12 deconmission a plant.
13 CHAIRMAN G1EASONs Thank you.
14 That concludes the discussion on contentions.
15 And, finally, we go to the last one, which should 16 not take a very long period of time.
17 Does the applicant have a tentative schedule that 18 he wants to follow, or suggests we follow?
19
- 53. SILBERG:
Yes, I would propose one.
20 CHAIRMAN G1EASON:
Before you start proposing, 21 could we get some te n t e. ' i ve date from you?
What about the 22 draf ting of the Eavironments1 Statement?
23
- 59. KAR5AN:
May I do that?
At the present time 24 it is contemplatred that the Staff Saf ety Ivaluation Report t_
25 vill be issued in April, 1982.
It is anticipated that a ALOERSCN REPCRTING CCMPANY. INC.
4CC VIRGiNLA AVE.,3/N. WASH:NGTCN. 0.0. 20C24 (202) 554 2345
76 1 letter will be received from the Advisory Committae on 2 Reactor Safeguards in 5ay of 1982, and that the staff's 3 Supplemental Safety Evaluation 3eport will be issue also in 4 May of 1982.
5 The staff anticipates issuing a Draft 6 Environmental Statement in January of 1992 and the Final 7 Environmental Statement in June of 1982.
8 Those dates, of course, Mr. Chairman, are subject 9 to change, and if such change is necessitated, I will advise 10 the board immediately.
11 CHAIRMAN GLEASONs
" ell, Mr. Karnan, I think it is 12 kind of general knowledge now that or what is the 13 operating date for the plant 0: completion Of the plant?
14 MR. SILBEEG:
The curent date is April, 1983.
15 DR. LEEDS:
Row recent a date is that?
16 MR. SILBERG It is current.
17 DR. LEEDS:
Do you mean this month?
18 MR. SILBERG:
That date was announced in October 19 of last year.
20 CHAIREAN GLEASON:
Mr. Karman, I think we are all 21 aware of some interest in having some of these events 22 accelerated.
23 ER. KARMAN:
I believe these are accelerated.
24 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
That is fine.
_j 25
- 33. KARMANs These are the latest dates, and I ALCEASCN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIAGiNIA AVE., S W, WASHINGTCN. O C. 200:4 (202) 554-2345 m
77 1 believe the accelera tion f actor is in there.
2 CHAIEMAN GLEASON:
All right.
Did everyone get 3 those dates?
4 Mr. Silberg, could we talk about the schedule now?
5 3R. SII3ERGa What we would propose is that 6 discovery requests be scheduled or be filed within u5 days 7 after the issuance of the report, and ansvers to follow 45 8 days thereafter.
9 CHAIRHAN GLEASON:
Is that the discovery request, to a5 days after this Ecsrd's order?
11
- 33. SIL3EEG:
Ier, te file interrogatcries en 12 other parties.
I believe that was the date that was 13 discussed in Callaway, as well.
14 CHAIEMAN GLEASCN:
I thought disovery started with 15 the date of the order?
I am talking about "not 17 later than".
18 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
That is the last date, you mean?
19 HR. SIL2E3G Yes.
20 CHAI3 MAN GLEASON:
So discovery requests will be 21 in not later than 45 days as a result of this conference?
22 MR. SILBERGa That is correct.
23 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Will you go ahead.
.()
24
- 53. SIL3 ERGS I think those are really the only 25 dates that I would compose.
Other dates, such as suarary i
ALOERSCN AE.DCATING CCMP ANY NC.
400 VIAGiNEA ave 3.N. WASHNGTCN 3 C. 20024 (202) 554-345
78 1 disposition schedules, I think, as intended in the 2 regulations, are adequate for present purposes, and I don't 3 think we can do much in terms of scheduling, obviously, 4 scheduling hearing dates at this time.
5 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right.
6 ER. KARaAN:
We would have no objection to that 7 schedule, Mr. Cha irman.
8 CHAIREAN GLEASON:
All right.
What will happen at 9 this point, just so everyone knows, as I indica ted befo re,
10 the Board, when it gets the transcript of this hearing 11 today, the prehearing conference, after it reviews the 12 comments made, will then hsve a session itself, at which it 13 will decide on a me:crandu: and an order which vill finalire 14 the parties for the pecceedings, and finalize whether there 15 is a hearing or not, and it appears there will be, and 16 finally issue the contentions for that hearings, and also 17 the schedule that will be followed.
18 That will then be issued to all of the parties.
19 I did want to make one comment, i-hich I wanted to l
20 make before, that I forget which of the documents it was, 21 but one of the petitioners filed, I think, a very important 22 document and filed it just with the Commission and with the i
23 applicant.
!. /
24 Service should be made on all of the parties, so 25 you had better have the list, because there are time periods ALCERSCN REPORTING CCMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20C24 (202) 554-2345
79 1 running.
2 ER. SILEERG I was going to ask tha t that point 3 be made, too, because to date I don't think any of the 4 papers that have been filed by Ms. Christy or Ms. Salava or 5 Mr. Blaufuss have been filed on the applicants.
We have 6 only gotten them through the NRC, and that, of course, means 7 considerable delay.
8 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
So everybody understands you 9 have to file them wi th all of the parties and, of course, 10 the Board and the parties?
- 55. CHRISTY:
Do you address the Commission or the 11 12 NRC, other than the Washington NRC?
13 MR. KARMAN:
If you address any mail to me, just 14 say "Washinagton, D.C.
20005."
15
- 55. CHRISTY:
I was trying to express mail to the 16 a*RC and it wasn't on the list.
i 17 CHAIRMAN GLEASCN:
If you are talking about the 18 Docket Room, that is 1515 H Street, Northwest.
j 19 ER. KARMAN:
That is all of the mail, but the
(
20 fastest way to get it to our office is just " Washington, l
21 D.C. 20005."
22 DR. LEEDS:
That zip code is only for the NRC, so i
23 it is a specific zip code that gets you to the NRC rather (j
s 24 than a generalized rip code in Washington, D.C.
l l
23 MR. SILBERG:
After that order is issued, perhaps l
l ALOERSoN AESCRTING COMP ANY, :NC, 400 VIAG.NIA AVE,3JW. WASHNGioN. D.C. 20C:4 (202) 554 2345
SC 1 the staff would put out a master service list for the 2 benefit of all of the parties.
3 MR. KA35ANs At my last pleading, which only went 4 out last week, we used what we consider the up-to-date 5 service list, and it was served on every person who was here.
6
- 33. SIL3 ERG:
That includes some people who,. for 7 instance, the American Nuclear Society, who was elininated 8 and need not be on tha t list.
9 MR. KARMAN:
I will volunteer to do that.
10 CHA!E!AN GlEAS08:
Will you do that?
11
- 53. KAE!AN:
Yes, I will.
12 CHA:RMAN GlEASGN:
Prof essor leed s vould like to 13 =ake a statament?
14 DR. LEEDS:
I would like to say to members of th e 15 public, the potential parties and the parties who are in the 16 poten tial hearing, a.n d the press, I personally want to 17 apologire for being late this morning and causinc you, no 18 doubt, some inconvenience.
And I have sat and waited in 19 hearings myself and I surely understand the difficulties and 20 the anguish that you have gone through, and I just want to 21 express my apologies to you for that.
~
22 Mr. ANDEESON:
I would like the same, because I 23 was in the same boat myself.
s-24 CHAIEMAN GLEASON:
We thank you all for showing up 25 at this hearing.
ALOEASCN AEPCAT;NG CCMPANY. 'NC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE. SJN, WASHINGioN, D.C. 20C24 (202) 554 2345
81 1
(Whereupon, at 1: 25 p.:.,
the prehearing 2 conference was concluded.)
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALOE:SCN DEDC ATNG OCMP ANY. !NC.
400 VIAG.NA Cd., 3fN. N ASM!NGTO*d, 0.0. 20004,000; $54-2345
m Q
nucI.zAn aract.Arcar cordMIssIcx This is Oc certify tha: the attached pecceedings before the
. ~.
Before the Atomic Safety & Licensing Roard
'4 in the matter of: Kansas. Gas & Elec. Co.,
and Kansas City Power & Light Co.,
(Wolf Creek Generating Station Unit No. 1)
Ca:e of Proceeding:
Acril 15, 1981 Docket !!umb er:
STN-50-482-OL
? lace of Proceeding:
emneria, v3rsas were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcrip:
e r..,..><.,. c~
.s.,.
- e. - _
_a s _a,..
. n
. n,-
.n 2
Harold 3.
Alderson Cfficial Reportar (Typed)
. n.
.y..,
e, WL.l V1 0 L. :..'.L a-r. --~
Official Reporter (Signature) 4
=
, S l
i.
.. _.... _.