ML20003G453
| ML20003G453 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1981 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104290482 | |
| Download: ML20003G453 (56) | |
Text
t
---.m
.s 1'C-TNb{$g 1
NccI.EAa P2ccI.ATORY Cce.:ss:CN El) ?
(
APR 2 81981 m iG o.s g;gmusse 2
f REVISED
's g
i Co SV l
\\
l In the Ma N cf:
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY.
)
SOYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
l and WESTERN ILLINOIS POWER'
)
COOPERATIVE, INC.
)
)
DOCKET NOS. 5t-461 Operating License for Clinton
)
50-462 Power Station, Units 1 and 2
)
CATE: Januarv 29. 1981 PAGES: 1 thru 54 AT:
Urban a, Illinois Add: ELD - A cys T@l K a ivn=~<= - scys 0< 4 m r3 0*h A:h l '
REPORTING
, ;r :.i Y
_HDEIL%Y m, f Q l
4C0 Virp d a Ave.,
S.W.. Washing en,
- 0. C.
20024 s
, ~ Talaphena:,
- (20;}l-5 54-2345 j
s
-M
i l
UEITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
)
2
)
IN THE MATTER 07:
)
3
)
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY,
)
4 SOYLAND POWER CCOPERATIVE, INC.
)
Docket Nos. 50-461 and WESTERN ILLINOIS. POWER
)
50-462 5 COOPERATIVE, INC.'
)
)
6 Operating License for Clinton
)
Power Station, Units 1 and 2
)
7
)
)
8 Urbana Civic Center 9
108 East Water Street Urbana, Illinois to Th ursd a y, January 29, 1981.
11 The above-entitled matter came on for prehearing 12 conference pursuant to notice at 9s00 o' clock A.5.
13 BEFORE:
14 ADEINISTRATIVE JUDGE HUGH K. CLARK, CHAIRMAN ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE GEORGE A. FERGUSON 15 ADMINISTR ATIVE JUDGE OSCAR H. P ARIS.
16 APPEARANCES:
17 On behalf of the NRC Staff:
18 RICHARD J. GODDARD MYRON KARMAN.
19 On behalf of the Applicant, Illinois PCver 20 Company, et al.,
21 PETER V. FAZIO, JR. and.
WILLIA! G.
SOUTHARD 22 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 23 24 25 P00ROR0lE ALDER $oN REPORTING CCMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVL S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2 1
LEONARD MCCH.
2 On behalf of the State of Illinoisa 3
REED W. NEU!AN.
4 On behalf of the Prairie Alliance, Inc.a 5
ALLEN SAMELSON, Spokesman CRAIG EHBLICH 6
CAROLINE HUELLER JEAN FOY.
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l
l Al.DERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 400 VIRGINtA AVE., S.W., WASHihCTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346 l
3 1
CHAIRMAN C1 ARK The conference will now come to 2
order.
3 We are pleased to have you here at this 4 conference.
This meeting is called as a special ; rehearing 5 conference.
It's part of a proceedings concerned with the 6"a3555 cation f or operating licenses for Clinton Power 7 Station, Units 1 and 2, which are designed to produce 8 electric power by means of boiling water nuclear reactors.
9 Unit 1 is owned by the Illinois Power Company, 19 Soyland Power Cooperative and Western Illinois Power 11 Cooperative.
Unit 1 is wholly-owned by the Illinois Power 12 Company.
These three owners will be referred to as the 13 applicants.
14 Construction permits for the building of these 15 power units were issued February the 24ths 1976.
It's to anticipated that Unit 1 will be completed by April 1, 1982 17 and Unit 2 during 1991.
18 Before opernting licenses will be issued, there 19 sust be, first, a completion of a f avorable safety l
20 evaluation by the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 who we will, hereafter, call the Commission.
(
22 Two, a completion of the an environmental review 23 by the Commission Staff.
t 24 Three, a report on the application for operating 25 license by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; and l
l l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, i
' ~~
'~
"~
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
4 1
fourth, a finding by the Commission that the application 2 complies with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 3 1954 as amended and with the Commission's regulations 4
published in 10 Code of Federal Regulations.
5 Noreover, by notice in the Federal Register, dated 6
September the 29th, 1980, persons whose interests may be 7 affected by the proceedings were invited to petition for 8 leave to intervene and request a hearing before an A tomic 9 Safety and Licensing Board.
Within the time specified, to Prairie Alliance and some of its members, camely, Stanley 11 Elsasser, R ebecca E1sasser, Joanne S*.evart, Jean Foy, 12 Caroline Nueller and Allen Samelson; and also, by the 13 Bloorinaton-Normal Chapter of the Prairie Alliance filed 14 such petitions.
15 The State of Illinois also requested permission to 16 petition -- to participate in a hearing.
This petition was 17 filed pursuant to 10 Code of Federal Regula tions, Paragraph 18 2.715 (c).
The State of Illinois has a right to participate i
19 in a hearing if one is held.
20 An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was appointed 21 to rule on the petitions to intervene and the request for a 22 hearing.
If a hearing is ordered, the same Board will 23 preside over the hearing or the proceedings.
24 The Board consists of three members.
A lawyer as 25 Chairman, myself, Hugh K. Clark ; a nuclear engineer, Judge ALDER $od REPoRflNG COMPANY,INC.
l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
. ~ -..
5 1
George A. Ferguson on ny left; and an environmental 2
scientist, Judge Oscar H.
Paris on my right.
It's a 3
privilege to serve on a board with these distinguished 4 individuals, each of whom brings to this proceeding a wealth 5 of ability and experience.
6 I shall now request Counsel or representative of 7 the parties to rise and give their names.
When a party is 8 represented here today by more than one individual, a 9 spokesman for the group will first introduce himself and 10 then introduce his colleagues.
11 First, I will call on Counsel for the Applicant.
12 ER. FAZIO Thank you, Judge Clark.
Ey name is 13 Peter V.
Fazio.
I'm a lawyer with the firm of Schiff, 14 Hardin & Waite, 233 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, 15 60611.
I represect the Applicants, Illinois Power Company, 16 Soyland Power Cooperative and Western Illinois Power 17 Cooperative.
18 With me today is my associate, William Southard of 19 the same firm, and there is also here today representatives 20 of Illinois Power Company, inclu. ding Mr. Leonard Koch who is 21 on my right, who is the Vice President of Illinois Power l
22 Company.
23 CHAIRMAN C1 ARK:
Thank you, Mr. Fazio.
24 Counsel for the Commission Staff?
25 XR. GODDARD:
Thank you, Judge Clark.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
6 1
I'm Richa rd J.
Godda rd representing th e technical 2 staff of the. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and with me on 3
sy lef t is 3r. Myron Karman.
We are both from the Office of 4
the Executive Legal Director.
2 5
CHAIRMAN CLARKs Counsel for the State of Illinois?
8 HR. NEUHAN:
Thank you, Judge Clark.
I'm Reed W.
7 Neuman, Assistant Attorney General of Environmental Control 8 Division in Springield.
9 CHAIRMAN CLAPK Thank you, Mr. Neuman.
10 Spokesman for Prairie Alliance and individual 11 interveners, Mr. Samelson?
12 3R. SA3ELSON:
Thank you, Judge Clark.
My name is 13 Allen Samelson, a member representative of Prairie 14 Alliance.
On my left is Craig Ehrlich, member and 15 representative Prairie Alliance.
On my right, Caroline 16 Hueller, member and representative of Prairie Alliance and 17 on her right, Jean Foy, member and representative of Prairie 18 Alliance.
19 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Thank you, sir.
20 Now, the purpose of this special prehearing 21 conferernce is first to identify the key issues in the 22 proceedings.
Second, to take any steps necessary for 23 further identification of the issues; third to consider all 24 intervention petitions, to allow the Board to make such 25 preliminary and final determinations as to the parties to the proceedings as say ALDERSoN REPORTING CoWPANY. INC.
4 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
..___.__,s.
... -. - -, -.. _ _. ~., - _., _
7 1 be appropriate; and fourth, to establish a schedule for 2 f urther activities in this proceeding.
3 Before going further, I will pause for a moment 4 and give the photographers a chance to take pictures if they 5 so desire.
Is the press here?
Do they desire to take 6 pictures?
7 PRISSMAN ONE:
I already got mine.
The rest of 8 them are back there.
~
9 CHAIRMAN CLARKs I believe the press has been 10 notified that during the hearing they may take pictures 11 providing they use the light which is already here, aabient 12 licht as it's called, but they may not use spotlights during 13 the hearing.
However, during a recess period they may also 14 take such pictures as they so desire with spotlight.
15 The petitioners for intervention, Prairie 16 Alliance, et al. have filed a supplement to their petition 17 setting forth 41 proposed contentions, all of which were 18 opposed by the applicants.
We will now consider these 19 contentions one by one.
Hr. Samelson will read aloud each 20 contention and add any comments which he desires.
Then 21 Counsel for the Applicants and Counsel for the Staff and 22 Members of the Board in that order will be given opportunity 23 to question Mr. Samelson on the contention which he has just 24 read.
25 A f ter Mr. Sanelson has answered all such ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
8 I
questions, Counsel for the Applicant and then counsel for 2 the Staff will have a chance to speak in opposition to or in 3
favor of the proposed contention.
Mr. Samelson will be 4
given an opportunity to reply.
Are there any questions as 5 to this procedure?
6 MR. SAMELSON:
Mr. Chairman, can any other me'abers 7 at the Counsel Table for Prairie Alliance spe k or respond 8 to any questions raised by the Staff or the Applicants as 9 vell?
10 CHAIRMAN CLARKs That will be permitted.
11 Before we begin this discussion, does Counsel for 12 the State of Illinois wish to make any statement at this 13 time?
14 MR. NEUHANs No, Judge Clark, we do not.
15 CHAIRMAN CLARK Thank you.
Mr. Samelson, will 16 you please read us your first proposed contention ?
17 HR. SANELSON:
Contention Number 1:
Petitioners 18 contend that the Applicant and Regulatory Staff have not 19 adequately assessed the impact of the numerou,s unresolved 20 safety issues, in reviewing the Clinton Units 1 and 2, in 21 conjunction with the operating license application.
The 22 Clinton systems, structures and components were not 23 backfitted to meet current regulatory requirements for 24 adequate compliance with 10 C.F.R. Part 50.109.
25 Mr. Chairman, is it appropriate for me to comment ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY.INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
9 I on it?
2 CHAIRHAN CLARK You may comment if yCu desire.
3 MR. SAMELSON:
The basis that we're trying to 4
bring out in this contention is that essentially th e 5 unresolved issues cannot be adequately assessed in regards 6 to, one, a list of generic light water safety items that 7 have been developed by the Advisory Comsittee on Reactor 8 Safeguards; and two, the list of unresolved boiling water 9 reactors safety issues. They are discussed in the General to Electric Nuclear Reactor Safet7 Study known as the Reed 11 Report.
12 There is a problem at this point in pointing to 13 some specific items that are unresolved since the Regulatory 14 Staff has not yet issued Safety Evaluation Report for 15 Clinton Unit 1, but we do wish to point out that all of 16 Category A issues that have been labeled in the test action 17 plan by the Staff do have serious impact on the safety 18 assessments of Clinton because those Category A issues are 19 defined as those issues which provide significant increase l
20 in the assurance of health and safety for the public.
The 21 priority of these items is of the first priority, ani.
22 especially for those items that affect the primary system of 23 the plan.
24 CHAIRMAN CLARKs Have you finished your statement?
25 M?. SAMELSON:
Yes.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, i
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W. WASH.NGToN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
10 1
CH AIREAN CLARKs Cuestions by Counsel for the 2 Applicant?
3 ER. FAZIO4 Well, I guess my questions, Mr.
i 4 Samelson, would be to the need for specifics.
As we stated 5 in our original response to your supplement 'where you raised i
6 these as contentions, we can't understand what it is we're 7 being asked to respond to based on the way the contention 8 was worded.
9 You've added a -- two new concepts in your 10 comments here this morning.
You've made a reference to 11 certain generic issues raised by the Advisory Committee on 12 Reactor Safeguards; you add a reference to the so-called 13 Reed Report relating to General Electric reactors.
14 Those two new things were not in the original 15 contention, and I would like to have a better understanding 16 of what these references are supposed to raise in the way of 17 specific contentions.
18 What we are concerned about is that any 19 contentions which will ultimately be admitted in this 20 proceeding are so f ramed that they are things that can be 21 ;esponded to; and based upon what we've been given so f ar, 22 we find it impossible to respond to them and this is one 23 case of that.
We wouldn't know what to come back with.
24 What is it exactly that you are concerned about 25 that has to do with'our particular plant?
That's what we're
)
ALDERSoN REFf)RTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346
~.. _... _,.. _.. _.. _. _. _.. _ _ _... _.. _ _ _,.., _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _., _ _ _ _, _.., -, _
11 1
trying to find cut.
2 CHAIRMAN CLARKs Xr. Samelson?
3 3R. SA3ELSON:
Well, it's my understanding that 4 the Commission's procedure, that as the procedure will 5 continue and the story unfold tha t there is a process of 6 narrowing one's contentions through discovery process up 7 until the date of the first regular prehearing conference.
8 We think that that cou d be one means by which we further 9 specify the basis of the contention, but to try to give you 10 the basic ides, we've focused here on the lack of assessment 11 of the impact of the unresolved safety issue with regard to 12 Clinton.
/
13 For instance, the technical and economic risks 14 associated with these generic issues haven' t been 15 quantified.
We think it's important for the applicant and 16 the Regulatory Staff to quantify these risks or attempt to 17 somehow incorporate them to make sure that there will be no 18 risk beyond that called for in the Commission's regulations.
19 CHAIR 3AN CLARKs
,Any f urther questions?
20 MR. FAZIO:
I just want to make a short comment, 21 Judge Clark; and that is, it's the problem that we have, Mr.
22 Samelson, when you talk about the risks without identifying 23 specific risks and you're identifying your contention as 24 it's written as " unresolved saf ety issues."
25 You're not identifying certain issues.
It's still ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRG:NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2,341
12 1
impossible for us to respond, and I think that for an 2
orderly process we have to have come idea of exactly what 3
types of contentions you're really concerned about.
It's 4 incumbent in order to be able to finish a proceeding like 1
5 this that we start with a specific contention and then we 6 know we can narrow our focus on it as the proceeding goes 7
on, but we have a wide open fishing expedition; and in 8 effect, in discovery, we're putting off the proceeding for 9 several months until ve finish discovery, and it's not our to uraderstanding of how this process is supposed to work.
11 MR. SAMELSONs Mr. Chairman, may we make one 12 further point?
I realize we don't want to go into a long 13 discussion of every contention, but I do think this is a 14 major contention of ours and I'd like to make one further 15 point.
That is, that we are dealing with the scope of 16 issues that have already been outlined, specifically 17 outlined, by the NRC's Regulatory Staff in the test action i
18 plan.
We are raising all of those issues.
All issues that i
19 apply to boiling water reactors of the type at Clinton, and 20 second of all, it's hard 'for ma to specifically name the f
21 issues when, for instance, the Reed Report has not yet been 22 disclosed to the pub'11c; and we think if we were permitted 23 to view that, we would be able to specifically name the 24 issues, which is a fine eye set at this point to my 25 understanding; and all those specifically a pply to Clinton.
l ALDERSoN REPoR3NG COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGIMA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 CO2) 554 2345
13 l
1 So I think that we are elsrifying that.
O CHAIE!AN CLAEK:
I think we have departed from the 3 schedule a little bit, but we're going to have questions and 4 answers, and then applicant is going to have a chance to 5 argue about this issue of this contentions and you can 6 answer that, and the applicant has already made his argument l
7 and you've made your answers and that's all right.
In the 8 future, the questions will be intended to ask questions 9 which would clarify the issues rather than debate the issue.
to Does the Staff wish to ask any questions on 11 Contention 17 12 HR. GODDARDs The Staf f has no questions for Mr.
13 Samelson.
However, I'd like to make a statement with regard 14 to Contention 1.
15 In the cour se of the operating license review 16 which the technical staff vill conduct, each of the test 17 action plans vill be considered; and the applicant will be 18 required to conform to all current Regulatory requirements 19 or adequately justify exceptions.
They will present, in 20 other words, a solution satisfactory to the Staff as to each 21 of the unresolved issues before getting an operating license j
22 issued.
23 MB. SAMELSON:
227 I suggest that we reserve the l
24 right to raise that contention if the Board does not see fit 25 to admit it at this time?
'd e would like to reserve the ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
i 14 s
I right to re-assert tha t contention af ter the Staf f has made 2 its evslua tion.
3 CHAIRMAN CLARKs Well, now, Mr. Samelson, I believe you are aware that you must have one contention 4
5 which is admissible before you can be admitted to 6 intervening statuss and if there is no further discussion on 7
Do you wish to make any further remarks on this first 8 proposed, Mr. Fazio?
8 MR. FAZI0s Not at this time, Your Honor.
Thank to you.
11 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
And you've completed your, remarks 12 with regard to this contention?
13 3R. GODDARD:
Yes, Judge Clark, except for the 14 fact that I think the intervenor should be aware that 15 decisions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, River 16 Bend in North Indiana, have set forth the principle that all 17 generic items will not be examined within the scope of the 18 o pe ra ting procedure.
19 CHAIRMAN CLARKs Mr. Goddard, while we are talking 20 about these matters, would you be in a position at this time 21 to predict when the Safety Evaluation Report by the Staff 22 will be available and the report on the completion of the 23 Environmental Review by the Staff ?
24 BR. GODDARD:
Yes, sir, I would.
The Staff at 25 this time expects to issue the Safety Evaluation Peport for ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
15 1 Clinton Sta tion Units 1 and 2 in October, 1982.
Excuse me.
2 That is Clinton Station Unit 1 only in 1982.
That's okay.
3 As to the final environmental statement, it's predicted that 4 issuance date of March '82 is probable.
5 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Does this mean that you will 6
postpone thest documents with regard to Unit 2 until it more 7 nearly reaches the completion stage?
8 MR. GODDARD As to the Safety Evaluation Report, 9
the environmental statement will likely cover both
- yes, to units.
11 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
I see.
Then we're being asked to 12 rule on operating licenses when the plant will not be 13 completed until about 1991 and that is approximately as we 14 see it here today.
15 MR. GODDARD:
That is approximately.the date.
16 CHAIRMAN ClARKa And it will be nearly that time 17 when the Safety Evaluation Report has been made on Unit 27 18 MR. GODDARD I have no date on that.
I would 19 assume there would be.
20 CHAIRMA4 CLARK:
Much closer to that date than the 21 current date?
22 MR. GODDARDa I would. anticipate that it would not 23 be substantially later than the date of the Safety 24 Evaluation Report for Unit 1.
In the event there are 25 di#ferences in the units which are a factor after the ALDERSoN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 9
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
16 1
completion of Unit 1,
then this really will be covered in 2
the Safety Evsluation Report for Unit 2.
3 As I say, we do not have a time f rame f or the 4 issuance of the Unit 2 Safety Evaluation Report.
5 CHAIRHAN CLARK:
That raises another question in 6
sy mind.
7 Is Unit 2 designed to be exactly like Unit 1 or 8 are there di*ferences between the two units?
Do you knov 9 the answer to that?
10 MR. GODDARD:
Judge Clark, I don't think I can 11 answer that -- the question with any certainty.
The 12 applicant might be able to.
13 CHAIRMAN CLARKs Mr. Fazio, do you know the answer 14 to that?
15 MR. ;' AZIO:
Yes, sir.
The current designs are 16 virtually identical.
17 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Thank you.
I think it's very 18 helpful to know that fact.
19 Judge Paris, do you have any questions at this 20 time?
21 DR. PARIS:
No.
22 CHAIRMAN CLARKs Judge Ferguson?
l 23 DR. FERGUSON:
Not at this time.
24 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Than if there are no more 25 questions or no more arguments with regard to Contention 1,
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
17 1
we'll pecceed with Contention 2.
2 MR. SAMELSON:
Petitioners contend tha t the 3 applicant and Pegulatory Staff have not adequately 4 demonstrated that the transport of fuel and radioactive 5 wastes to and from the Clinton site will cowply with 10 6
C.F.H. Part 71.
7 There are essentially two items that we wish to 8 explain, two items that I'd like to make as Contention 2.
9 First, we'd like to raise that given the Commission 's 10 interim policy on Class 9 accidents as published on June 11,13th and February 1980, we think that it's important that 12 consideration of Class 9 be made with regard to access to 13 the spent fuel pool.
14 This contention does raise questions of fuel 15 transport to and from the plant.
You have to get the fuel 16 out of the plant in order to take it away.
Given the 17 changes in storage of spent fuel and the fact that there is 18 no reprocessing being done, I think it's important that 19 since it will be increased - storage of spent fuel in the 20 plant - that the question of increased risks mandated by the 21 new NRC policy be considered.
22 The second point has to do with the health effects 23 of long-lived isotopes for the full detoxification period of 24 those isotopes.
Basically, we think that the applicant has 25 not adequately considered those effects.
ALCERSoM REPORTING CCMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTCN, 0.0. 20024 (202) 554-2345
18 1
CHAIRMAN CLAEX4 Mr. Fazio, any question s as. to 2 the Contention 27 3
MP. FAZIO Mr. Samelson, I don't understand the 4
connection between the two points you just raised and the 5 basic issue of transportation under Part 71 of the Code of 6 Federal Sequlations as listed in your written contention.
7 What do the two points just raised have to do with 8 the transportation of the fuel?
9 MR. SAMELSON:
Well, like I said, in order to 10 transport the fuel, you have to get it out of the 11 containment area.
So the first point I raise has to do with 12 the increased risks due to the storage in the containment 13 area.
14 The second point has to do with the effect of 15 transporting fuel and consideration of the health effects 16 with regard to the long-lived isotopes from the fuel and 17 transporting fuel.
18 MR. FAZIO:
I don't have any other questions, 19 Judge Clark.
20 CHAIEMAN C1 ARK:
Mr. Goddard?
21 MR. GODDARD:
No questions with regard to the 22 contention, sir.
23 CHAIRMAN C1 ARK:
Mr. Fazio, do you now wish to 24 make comments either for or against tais contention?
25 YR. FAZIO:
Yes, sir.
I think :-h a t just to save ALCERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIAGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
19 1
time, I would like to ask the Eoard to consider that all of 2
the points that I've raised in my written submission will be 3 considered raised without having to repeat them again in 4 order to save some time; and then I guess I would have to
)
5 that in response to what I would consider to be two new say 6 items raised orally this morning, possibly there is a 7 connection between thw transportation contention as I 8 understood it and the written items and these two nev 9 points; and with respect to tha t, I would make two new 10 arguments.
One, that it hasn't been properly sta ted with 11 the necessary specificity; and two, it hasn't been raised at 12 the proper time.
13 CHAIREAN C1 ARK:
You want to answer that, Mr.
14 Samelson?
15 MR. SAMELSON:
No.
With regard to reasonable 16 specificity, we think that the contention as written and in 17 its mention of items in the Environment Report does provide 18 the reasonable specificity required plus to --
19 CHAIRMAN C1 ARK.
Mr. Godd.ard?
20 MR. GODDARD:
Judge Clark, the Staff position is 21 that not only is this too vague to permit a suitable 22 treatment in litigation but also that this is a purely 23 generic Class 9 issue, crplicable to all reactors, or well, 24 boiling water reactors which should be considered in a 25 proceeding other'than the Clinton operating license ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
20 1
proceeding.
2 Table S4 10 C.F.E. Part 51 covers the impact of 3
transfer of water in spent fuel.
4 CHAIRMAN CLAEK Thank you.
Do you wish to reply 5
to that, Mr. Samelson?
6 5B. SA!ELSON:
No.
7 CHAIB5AN CLA3Ks All right.
Do you have any 8 questions?
9 DR. PAEBISH:
No.
10 CHAIRMAN CLARKs Judge Ferguson, do you have any 11 questions?
12 D3. FERGUSON:
Yes, I have a question, Mr.
13 Samelson.
14 Just to clarify it in my sind, the last point that 15 just raised as regards to transport of fuel, are you at you 16 this time concerned about moving the fuel from the plant to 17 some other location or within the plant boundary?
18 3R. SAMELSOEs Both, Mr. Ferguson.
19 DR. FERGUSONs Are you aware of the document that 20 3r. Goddard just referred to?
21 ER. SAMELSON:
In Part 51, 10 C.F.3.?
22 DR. FERGUSON:
Yes.
23 MR. SAMELSONs Yes.
24 DH. FERGUSON:
Table S4 specifically?
25 3R. SAEELSONs 30, I'm not.
ALDEA$oN REPORTING CCMPANY,INC.
400 v:AGWIA AVE. S.W. WASHWGTCN, D.C. 20024 (2l22) 554-2346
21 1
DR. FEROUSONa You're not f amiliar with Table Su?
2 All right.
Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN CLARK If there is no further discussion i
4 on Contention 2, 3r. Samelsen, will you proceed with 5 Contention 37 6
MR. SAMELSON:
Contention 3:
Petitioners contend 7 that the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the 8 Clinton Beactor Containment System meets the requirements of 9 10 C.F.R. Pa rt 50, Appendix A, Criteria 4,
16, 50, 51 and 10 52.
For example, the Final Safety Analysis Report does not 11 adequately consider the unresolved issues of LOCA hydrogen 12 generation, in qusntities demonstrated at TMI Unit 2.
13 CHAIRMAN CLARKs Do you have any further 14 discussion on that point at this time?
15 MR. SAMELSON:
No, I don't.
16 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Fazio?
17 MR. FAZIO:
Mr. Samelson, the reactor a t THI 2 is 18 quite different from the reactor that's designed for this 19 station.
So, we find 'it hard to understand exactly what 20 issue you're trying to raise by reference to a different 21 kind of reactor.
22 Would you be more specific?
23 MR. SAMEL50N:
The irsue that we're raising here 24 is that the experience of Three-Mile Island accident shows 25 that the amount of hydrogen generated from the reactor under ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346
22 1
abnormal conditionc was greater than previously expected; 2
and we simply want to raise consideration of that for the 3
Clinton reactor as well.
We don't think the consideration 4
has been adequate.
5 MR. FAZIO4 Are you raising an issue which has not 6
already been raised by the Staff in these terms or are'you 7 familiar with what position the Staff has taken with respect 8 to this general issue of hydrogen generation?
9 ER. SAMELSON:
No, I'm not.
10 MR. FAZIO:
No other questions.
11 CHAIRMAN CLARKs Mr. Goddard?
12 MR. GODDARD Judge Clark, I have no questions of 13 the -- from the Staff.
The Staff, again, opposes this 14 contention as being impermissibly vague.
15 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Do you have any comments with 16 regard to this contention, not trying to understand it but 17 as to itself?
18 MR. FAZIO4 We'll stand on our statement and 19 written answer.
20 CHAIENAN CLARKs Very well.
Mr. Samelson, do you 21 have any further comments?
22 3R. SAMELSON:
I believe Caroline Mueller would 23 lik e to respond.
24 MS. MUELLER:
I'd just like to make the point that 25 we feel that the hydrogen geteration is not a vague issue.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, W ASHI!4GTON. D.C. 20024 (2C2) 554-2345
23 1
It's a very specific thing, of course, in every plant where 2 there is the radiation of water and we feel that the 3
prevention of containment pressure is definitely an issue 4 which should be raised at this point given that the hydrogen 5 is very combustible and could easily explode.
8 CHAIBHAN CLARX:
Judge Paris, do you have any 7
questions?
8 D3. PARIS:
No.
9 CHAIRMAN CLARKs Than you very much.
We will to con tinue with the next contention.
11 MB. SAMELSON:
Contention 4:
Petitioners contend 12 that the applicant has not developed adequate experimental 13 data and performed sufficient testing to verify the 14 containment design in accordance with requirements of 10 CFR 15 Part 50, Appendix 2, Criteria 3 and 11.
18 Specifically, this contention raises the 17 functioning of the Emergency Core Cooling System under all 18 contention and accident conditions.
We would -- It's not 19 been adequately considered or verified by the applicant.
20 Secondly, I think that the NRC interim policy on 21 Class.9 accidents has not been complied with with regard to 22 the containment system.
23 DH. PARIS:
Excuse me, Mr. Samelson.
You just 24 mentioned the Emergency Core Cooling System which is 25 mentioned in Contention 5.
Are we talking about u or 57 ALCERSoh AEPCRTWG COMPANY. INC.
400 MAGINIA AVE, S.W., W ASHINGToN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
~ _ -. -
24 1
Are we talking about the same thing?
2 MB. SAMELSON:
Pardon me.
I' misstated it.
That 3 was a misstatement.
4 A VOICES The statemer : -- Is it possible to 5
interject?
I'd like to'ask whether the statement of the 6 attorney in the center, the applicant, their suggestion that 7 their written documents be entered without their statement 8
at this meeting.
Was that -- I don't recall whether that 9 was resolved.
10 CHAIRMAN CLARK Mr. Fazio, I think at this point 11 for the benefit of the audience, you might well read the 12 opening ~part of your objections as to this group of 13 contentions in order that the general public may be advised 14 of what you mean when you say that your comments apply to 16 all these contentions.
Would you do that, please?
16 MH. FAZI0s Yes, sir, I'd be happy to do that.
17 The general comments of our written answer read as 18 follows:
On November 10, 1980, Illinois Power filed its 19 answer to the Prairie Alliance petition to intervene, and 20 from now on, we'll refer to Prairie Alliance and individual 21 members as petitioner.
22 In that answer, Illinois Power stated they do not 23 oppose intervention by parties who have a legitimate 24 interest in and will make a valuable contribution to these 25 p ro ceeding s.
However, Illinois Power expressed a concern ALCERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
25 1 that intervention by the Prairie Alliance vculd not serve 2 these goalr lecause the Prairie Alliance petition involved 3 nuserous issues falling outside the ambit of the present 4 operating license proceeding, which were fully examined and 5 resolved in the construction permit hearing.
6 After reviewing the 41 contentions contained in 7 the Prairie Alliance supplement, filed on January 14, 1981, 8 which will be referred to hereafter as supplement, i
9 Applicants find that Illinois Power's previously expressed to concerns were well-founded.
Contrary to the express 11 requirements of 10 Code Federal Regulation, Section 2.714 12 (b), the Prairie Alliance contentions are entirely devoid of 13 the specific factual basis necessary to understand and 14 evaluate the alleged issue.
15 Representations of this type do nothing to further 18 the licensing process and have historically been rejected.
17 At this poin t in time, we refer to the Off Shore Power 18 Systems case involving a manufacturing and nuclear power 19 plant, a decision which appears '.n 6 NEC 249 fron which we 20 quote the followings 21 "To be admissible, contentions must be specific 22 and f actually supported.
Contentions which are conclusional 23 or barren or unfocused are of no assistance in the l
24 resolution of the issues to be decided and are 25 inadmissible."
That's the end of the quote.
ALDERSoN REPORTING CoWPANY. INC, 400 VtRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20C24 (202) 554-2345
26 1
Iven conceding that a pro se petitiCn that is 2 filed without benefit of counsel is not -- I'm quoting again 3
" Held to those standards of clarity to which a lawyer 4 sight reasonably be expected to adhere" -- end quote; and we 5 referred to a number of cases where that type of language 6 was cited in opinions.
7 Petitioners
- supplements still fail to meet even 8 the minimal standards of factual specificity required tu 9 state an intelligible contention.
The contentions further 10 reflect petitioners continued their f ailure to reccanize 11 issues decided at the construction permit stage.
A 12 significant number of Prairie Alliance contentions serely 13 restate the design issues exhaustively considered and 14 resolved in that proceeding.
15 Re-examination of these iss' Os in the operating 18 license proceeding would not only be inconsistent with the 17 commission's practice, again referring to a case and this is 18 a quote from that case.
"Beview 17 opera ting license 19 proceedings should not be utilized to rehash issues already 20 ventilated and resolved at the construction permit stcge r 21 but would vaste time and resources."
22 Finally, petition raises several contentions which 23 pertain to nuclear facilities that are designed radically 24 different from the Clinton design or which merely restate 25 other contentions presented in the supplement.
Then we go ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W. WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
27 1
.)n, Judge Clark, to respond to the cententions that were 2 raised in the supplement.
3 CHAIRMAN CLARKs And in most of those contentions 4 you're merely repeating the argument in your opening 5
~
statement; is that correct?
6 ER. FAZIO:
Yes, sir, that is correct.
7 CHAIRHAN CLARKs Does that answer your question, 8 sir?
9 5R. HUTHE Yes, and could I ask a question now?
10 CHAIRMAN CLARK Will you please identify yourself 11 for the Secord, please?
12 5R. MUTHE I'm Pa ul Huthe, M-U-T-H-E.
I would 13 ask a question relating to Contention 3.
I'm sorry to 14 interject like this.
15 CHAIRMAN CIAEKs Grdinarily the audience is not 16 permitted to participate in this discussion, but we'll make 17 an exception in your case.
18
- 53. MUTHEs Judge Ferguson, I was wondering 19 whether the 5 ARK III Reactor that's to be built in Clinton 20 has fuel rods that are zirconium clad?
Do you know that l
21 detail because that's very pertinent because it's not just 22 radicalysis and water that generates hydrogen.
It's also 23 this unexplained process of the zirconian interacting with 24 the water that's within the reactors.
25 DE. FIRGUSON:
Mr. Muthe, I'll answer your ALDER $oN REPORTING CoWPANY, LNC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 564-2345
28 1
que s tion.
Yes, I know the answer to that but you might 2 address it to the applicant.
They are the people who are 3
building the reactor.
4 MR. MUTHE You're the nuclear engineer.
These 5
are the lawyers.
They know how to talk like lawyers.
6 MR. FAZIO:
Ee'll be happy to answer the 7
question.
The answer is yes, and we have with us now a --
8' DR. FERGUSON:
Just for your benefit, if I may 9 continue this for a moment.
Mr. Muthe, for your benefit, 10 it's irregular, to say the least, for judges to be 11 questioned as regards facts in the case.
12 MR. MUTHEa Doctor Ferguson?
13 DR. FERGUSON:
That isn't the point.
The point is 14 simply you should address your question to the people or the 15 parties in the case, not to the judge.
Is that clear?
16 MR. MUTHEa Excuse me then.
I'm sorry.
17 DR. FERGUSON:
If you want information, just ask 18 the people who have that information who are parties in the 19 cae and not the judge; is that clear?
20 MR. MUTHEs Thank you.
21 DR. FERGUSON:
That's the point I'm trying to make.
22 CHAIRMAN CLARK Can Mr. Fazio answer your 23 question?
24 MR. MUTHEa Zirconian cladding on the fuel rods.
25 CHAIRMAN CLARKs That's right.
That's what ne ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
29 1
said.
2 Now, before we were interrupted, I believe.we read 3 Contention 4, and you've made some comments which were 4
perhaps aimed at Contention 5.
5 Do you wish to again comment on Contention 47 6
3R. SAHELSON:
Caroline Hueller would like to 7 comment on Contention 4 8
- 33. HUELLER:
Just with regard to the comment in 9 reference to testing is that we feel that it hasn't been 10 brought out sufficiently, clearly by General Electric 11 whether or not the -- All of the suppression pool, loss of 12 coolant, accidents, dynamics can be considered in testing.
13 I don't know if the applicant could sufficiently clarify 14 that now or if that's a question.
i 15 CHAIENAN CLARKs Do you wish to ask a question 16 with regard to --
17 HE. FAZIC:
I have to tell Miss Mueller that we 18 still don't understand what you mean by suppression pool 19 dynamics.
We don't understand, Miss Mueller What do you 20 mean by suppression pool dynamics under loss of coolant and 21 accident conditions?
Is there some particular event that l
you think vill happen in suppression pools that has not been 22 23 properly tested for?
24 5S. MUELLEE:
Well, yes, there are a number of 25 them.
Ihis is an unlinited list.
For instance, a pool 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
~
30 1
swelling.
The pool swelled and clearing la teral vent loads, 2 seismic splash.
3 CHAIRMAN CLARK Mr. Fazio, do you have further 4
questions?
5 MR. FAZIO:
We have no further questions, Judge 8 Clark.
7 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Goddard?
8 MR. GODDARDs The Staff has no questions with 9 regard to this contention, Judge Clark.
10 CHAIRMAN CLARKs Judge Paris?
11 DR. PARISa No questions.
12 CHAIRMAN CLARK Judge Ferguson?
13 DR. FERGUSON:
Nothing further.
14 CHAIPMAN CLARK I take it the applicant doesn't 15 wish to present any further statements as he's already 18 indicated that his general statement will apply to all of 17 the contentions.
18 Do you have any further statements you care to 19 make, Mr. Goddard, with regard to this contention?
20 MR. GODDARD:
The Staff would oppose this 21 contention as being vague with regard to the first para gra ph 22 thereof.
With regard to the second paragraph, dealing with 23 the loss of coolant and accident hydrogen generation at the 24 Three-Mile Island, Unit 2, we do not feel that the 25 petitioners h' ave demonstrated a connaction between that ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 V!AGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTCN D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 i
1
31 1
incident and the proceeding at issue.
cceident 2
MS. hDELLER:
Are we on Contention 4?
I'm sorry.
3 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
I think we are on 4 4
ES. MUELLER:
The point raised was for Contention 5
3, I believe --
6 MR. GODDARD:
I hae not responded to 3 at this
(
7 time.
I will proceed to respond to Contention 4 8
The~ testing of the containment design and th e 9 opinion of the Staff would be premature at this time.
The to petitioners here have used the language inadequately without 11 specifying the inadequacies which they seek to explore here 12 and the opinion ofthe Staff is this contention is likewise 13 too vague to permit presentation of evidence on the 14 contention as drafted, even with the supporting statements 15 which were offered by petitioners orally here.
16 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Do you have anything you wish to 17 say with regard to 4 before we pass on to 5?
l 18 3R. SA3ELSON:
No.
19 CHAIR 5AN CLARK Mr. Samelson, would you read 20 Number 5 now, please?
21 MR. SAMELSON:
Petitioners contend tha t the 22 a pplicant and Regulatory Staff have not adequately 23 demonstrated that the Emergency Core Cooling System for 24 Clinton meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50.46 and 25 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix K.
ALDERSCN AEPCRTING COMPANY.1NC.
400 VIRGINtA AVE. S.W WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
32 1
There is one point we'd like to point cut, and 2 that has to do with the oeotechnical cite investigation for 3
the cooling systen.
The review of the F nal Safety Analysis 4 Report demonstrates that no borings were' done for that part 5 of the site supporting the Emergency Core Cooling System.
(
6 Instead, they simply used the borings thht were located near
(
7 the main plant.
We think this is insufficient.
8 The second point of specificity regards the i
l 8
sdequacy of the capabilities of the core splash to 10 adequately cool the core.
We realize that this has been 11 raised by the Staff and the test action plan is a generic 12 issue, but if I may make a short statement with regards to 13 these generic issues, it's our reasoning on the case that 14 the burden is en the applicant to show why this plant can go 15 on line without a resolution of all those unresolved issues; l
16 and instead of requiring the intervenor who has less access l
17 to information, I think that the burden is,on the applicant 18 to show how each of the issues is being resolved for the 19 Clinton Uni.t 1 and 2.
20 CHAIRMAN CLARK Mr. Fazio?
21 MR. FAZIO I don ' t have any questions, Judge 22 Clark.
At some appropriate time, I'd like to make a short l
23 statement.
l l
24 CHAIREAN CLASKs I understend.
25 Mr. Goddard?
]
1 l
ALDERSoN REACRTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
. ~... -.
33 1
MR. GODDARD:
I have no questions.
I also would 2 like to make a statenent, Judge Clark.
3 CHAIRMAN CLARKs Judge Paris?
4 DR. PARIS:
No questions.
5 CHAIRMAN CLARKs Judge Ferguson?
6 DR. FERGUSON:
No thin g.
7 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Mr. Fazio, you may now make a 8 statement.
9 MR. FAZIO:
Judge Clark, I just want to make sure to that everybody understands, including the Prairie Alliance 11 members who are here, that irrespective of whether there are 12 any intervention petitions allowed and irrespective of 13 whether there are any contentions allowed at the hearing 14 proceeding, the Illinois Power Company will be required to 15 and will satisfy all of the Staff's concerns and all of the 16 regulations; and in an affirmative manner, involving many, 17 many man-years of work, before the Staff will be in a 18 position to recommend issuance of the operating license; and 19 I just wanted everyone to understand that this kind of 20 proceeding can go forward even without a hearing.
21 CHAIRMAN CLARK Mr. Goddard?
22 MR. GODDARD:
Thank you, Judge Clark.
'41th regard 23 to the reference in Contention 5, and I will point out the 24 similar references that exist in Contention 6, 7 and 10 of 25 the Regulatory Staff.
i ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY.INC.
400 VIRGINtA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
34 1
The Regulatory Staff, as we indicated, has not yet 2 issued its Safety Evaluation Report for each of these units 3 but it will do so.
It will evaluate each of these systems 4
or conditions against the applicable regulations and 5 discussion vill be presented in the SER.
6 As to the contention itself, the Staff is of the 7 opinion that the inadequacy alleged by the petitioners has 8 not been demonstrated with the required specificity.
9 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Thank you.
Do you have any 10 response to this or are you ready to proceed to the next 11 contention, Mr. Samelson?
12 MR. SA5ELSON:
Ready to proceed.-
13 CHAIRHAN CLARKs Well, read the next contention, 14 Contention 6, I expect?
15 MR. SAME1 SON:
Petitioners contend that the 16 applicant and Regulatory Staff have not demonstrated that 17 the result of human error has been examined as required by 18 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, Criterions 19, 20, 22 and 29.
19 Specifically, a review of the Final Safety 20 Analysis Report shows that on top of decrease in reacting 21 coolant temperature, and the subtopic contained there, I 22 sean on the effect of single failures and operators' errors, 23 ve consider the discussion in that section inadequate and 24 that it only discusses single failures for each type of 25 possible related accident, and that we've experienced --
ALOERSoN REPCRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
i 35 i
1 Since Three-Eile Island has shown that on multiple sequence 2
accidents, the failure should be accounted for.
3 CHAIRMAN CLARKs Any questions, Mr. Fazio?
4 3R. FAZI0a Er. Samelson, I was of the opinion l
5 that the kinds of failures you just specifically referred to 8 vere not human errors, and Contention 6 was intended to deal 7 with human errors; was I wrong in my assumption?
8 MB. SANELSON:
'J ell, i t has to do with human 9 errors insof ar as the discussion tha t I cited in the SER, to and it states that the effect of single failures and 11 operators' errors are only discussed with regard to single I
12 f ailures ; and what we're saying is that a combination of 13 human error plus single failures plus multiple sequence
-14 accidents should be considered.
15 HR. FAZIO:
I have no further questions.
16 CHAIRMAN CLARKs Mr. Goddard?
17 ER. GODDARD:
I have no questions, Judge Clark.
l 18 CHAIBHAN CLARKs Do you wish to make further 19 coaments, Mr. Fazio?
20 ER. FAZIO:
No, sir, we'll stand on our written 21 s ta temen t.
22 CHAIREAN CLARKs Mr. Goddard?
l 23 HR. GODDARD:
Again, the Staff would oppose this i
24 contention as being excessively vague for litigation.
25 CHAIRMAN C1 ARK:
Do you wish to ask any questions, i
l l
l ALOERSON REPORT;NG COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE. S.W, WASHINGTON. D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 i
l J
36 1
Judge Paris?
2 DR. PARISa Yes.-
3 3r. Samelson, are you sayinc that human error 4
during multiple sequence accidents should be accounted for?
5 HR. SAMELSON:
Yes.
8 DR. PARISa Okay.
7 CHAIRHAN CLARK Judge Ferguson?
8 DR. FERGUSON:
Are you aware, Mr. Samelson, of any 9 effort to, in fact, do that?
10 3R. SAMELSON:
Not at this time, no.
IT DR. FERGUSON:
All right.
Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN CLARKs Next contention, please.
~
13 MR. SAMELSON:
Contention 7 Petitioners contend 14 that the applicant and Regulatory Staff have not adequately 15 demonstrated that the Clinton nuclear system meets the 18 requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, General 17 Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants.
18 Specifically, we'd like to call attention to 19 Criterion 19.
I believe that the FSAR is conclusory and 20 incomplete on this point.
That would -- That has to do with 21 the requirement that the equipment outside the control room 22 shall be designed for the potential of the reactor, and 23 subsequent control shutdown.
24 Secondly, I call attention additionally to 25 Criterion 61 which requires fuel storage handlino systems to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINtA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-1346
l 37 1
he designed to insure adequate safety.
I believe that the l
l 2 Clinton fuel storsge facilities are inadequate and that they j
3 were originally designed for short-t' era service.
4 Since the spent fuel pool is now being stored 5 indefinitely in on-site storage pools, the appropriate l
6 inspection schedules and other considerations should be l
7 identified.
8 CHAIREAN CLARKs Er. Fazio?
9 MR. FAZI0s Mr. Samelson, in respect of Criteria to 19 in your orni cosaents, you made a statement that the 11 FSA2, the Final Safety Analysis Report, was conclusory and 12 incomplete.
13 Would you refer us to specific portions of the 14 document which you feel are lacking?
15 NR. SAMELSON:
I don't have those with se at this 18 time.
It's quite cumbersome to bring the 19 volume report 17 and we don't even have our own copy of it.
I'm sure your 18 engineers will know where the Criterion 19 was discussed in 18 the FSAR.
20 MR. FAZIOs With respect to the fuel storage i
21 facility point, are you aware that there was an amendment to 22 the construction permit to account for a change in design of 23 the fuel storage pooli 24
- 53. SAMELSONs No, I'm not a wa re of t1a t.
25
- R. FAZIO:
We have no other questions.
ALOER$oN REPCRTING COMP ANY. INC.
400 YlRGINIA AVE. S.W., w ASWNGTCN. DC 20C24 (202) 554-2345
38 l
i i
CHAIRMAN CLAEK Mr. Goddard?
2 HR. GODDARD:
The Staff has no questions, Judge 3
Clark.
4 CHAIBHAN CLARK:
Judge Paris?
5 DR. PARISs No.
6 CHAIRHAN CLARK Mr. Ferguson ?
7 DR. FERGUSON:
Just very briefly, Mr. Samelson.
I 8 think that it should be made very clear that what the Board 9 would like to do is really understand the things that you to are concerned most about and to try to, in our minds, t
11 determine just what those points are.
f 12 You nentioned just a noment ago about your concern 13 for an inspection schedule of the spent fuel storage pools.
14 By expressing your concern that way, are you, suggesting that l
15 there is no such schedule or are you unhappy with the l
16 schedule if one does exist?
l l
17 Are you unhappy with that schedule?
The latter.
19 DR. FERGUSON:
Could you very briefly tell us what 1
l 20 it is that you're unhappy about?
l 21 MR. SAMELSON
' Jell, although I have not seen the 22 amendment to the storage pool design, we believe that the --
23 given a change in storage of fuel on the site would require l
l 24 more frequent and more -- some substantial changes with 25 regard to the way inspections are done.
I can't spell it ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 403 VIRGINTA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
39 1
out at this time, but I think that gives adequate basis for 2
the applicant to know the kinds of errors we're concerned 3
with and against which they'll have to defend at a hearing.
4 DR. FERGUSON:
So, to try to suaaarize at least 5 what I understand you have said on that point, you feel that 6 there has been some change in the fuel loading?
You feel 7 there has been some' change in the storage pool design?
You 8 feel there has been some chance in the inspection schedule 9 of that storage pool?
You don't know what it is but you'd 10 like to investigate it; is that correct?
11 NR. SAMELSON:
Yes.
[
12 DR. FERGUSON:
Thank you.
13 CHAIRMAN CLARKs Any further comment, Mr. Fazio?
14 MR. FAZIO:
We would raise the same objections 15 that are stated in our answer to what we perceive as new 16 specific contentions raised orally here today, and we would 17 make a further comment that we think those are caised too 18 late.
19 CHAIRMAN C1 ARKS Mr. Goddard?
20 MR. GODDARD Again, the Staff would oppose the l
l 21 contention, as drafted, on vagueness.
To the extent that 22 the fuel storage issues have been raised orally by the 23 petitioners, perhaps this contention could be reformed into 24 a conten tion in acceptable form.
However, we do not feel 25 that the contention as presented here even with the oral ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
40 1
sta teme n t made by 3r. Samelson, meets the requirements of 2 the Commission's regulations.
3 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Thank you.
Any further comment, 4
Er. Samelson, on this contention?
5 l
HR. SAMELSON:
No, thank you.
l 6
CHAIRMA N CLABKs
' Jill you take the next 7 contention, please?
8 HS. MUELLER:
Petitioners contend that th e 9
applicant has not demonstrated that the Clinton reactor 10 containment and supporting structure of the pressure vessel 11 meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, 12 Cri teria '4, 16, 30 and.51.
13 Just as further clarification on this petition, we 14 are calling into question here the ability of the applicant l
15 to assure us that the reactor containment system meets the 16 requirements of thse pertions in 10 C.F.R. and the ability 17 of the dry well-wet well nenbrane to withstand the loss of 18 coolant and induced transient load it may experience and the 19 ability to contain pressure of reactors that might be 20 produced -- I'm starting over.
l 1
21 That Clinton containment systems meets the 22 requirements that are cited in this contention, and the 23 ability of the containment of the dry well-wet well membrane 24 to withstand the loss of coolant accident, induced transient 25 load it may experience and the ability of the containment l
l l
i ALDER $CN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRG;NIA AVE., S.W, WASHfMGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
I l
I 41 l
r pressure boundary to prevent fractures that may be induced 1
2 by pressure or impact loads f rom transient dynamics or 3 missiles, and the capability to test the leakage rate of the 4 dry well-wet well membrane and other critical parts.
l 5
CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Yes, sir.
Any questions, Mr.
6 Fazio?
7 NR. FAZIO:
To our way of thinking, that 1
8 contention is -- goes to the design of the plant, and if you 9 meen it to raise an issue which relates to something other 10 than the design of the plant which was already approved in 11 l
the construction permit hearing, we don 't understand and 12 v,.d like some clarification.
l l
13 MS. MUELLER:
Do we have to respond or is that --
14 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
No.
You can respond.
You have 15 permission to respond.
16 MS. MUELLER:
I would like to say that in my 17 review of the FSAR, I found that, well, these issues where 18 ve rehashed that in the FSAR, in the Final Safety Analaysis 19 Report, these issues have to be covered again in some way; 20 that they're not just a design problem, but they're also a i
21 safety problem and that they weren't dealt with specifically.
22 CHAIREAN CLARKs Is what you 're saying that 23 something which has been decided in the construction permit 24 proceedings must again be reviewed; and if so, what is the 25 justification for reviewine something which has once been ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
. _. _ _ ~. _
42 1 settled?
2 33, 3ggttgg, yo, 7.m not saying -tha t the 3
construction permit was -- needs to be reviewed.
I'm just 4
questioning the content of the FSAR dealing with these.
5 safety problems.
6 CHAIRHAN CLARKs Well, what is the difference 7 between that and what I said?
8
- 55. MUELLER I'm sorry.
I might have 9 misunderstood you.
10 CHAIR 5AN CLARKa I don't understand your position.
11 MS. 5UELLER:
I feel that this is a reasonable 12 issue to raise at this point.
13 CHAIRMAS CLARK:
3r. Goddard?
14 MR. GODDARD:
Judge Clark, we have no questions on 15 th.is contention.
18 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Judge Paris?
i 17 DR. PARIS:
Miss Mueller, I wonder if you would 18 look at Contention 3 and Contention 8 and briefly tell me 19 how they dif fer?
They both refer to the reactor containment.
20 MS. MUELLERs They are very similar.
The 21 Contention 8 also says, "The supporting structure of the 22 pressure vessel."
It's supposed to be broader systems that 23 they're referring to, and Contention 3 was not meant to 24 include this supporting structure of the pressure vessels.
25 Contention 3 was supposed to be a smaller issue.
I ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
43 1
CHAIRMAN CLARK Any other questions?
2 DR. PARIS:
That's enough.
3 CHAIRMAN CLARK Judge Ferguson 4
DR. FERGUSON:
No.
5 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Do you wish to make any further 6 comment on this contention, Mr. Fazio?
7 3R. FAZIO:
No, sir.
8 CHAIRMAN CLARX:
Mr. Goddard?
9 3R. GODDARD:
Judge Clark, the Staff would oppose to this contention, first as being vague; and second, as being 11 either repetitive of or incorporated in Contention Number 3.
'2 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Do you have any response that you 13 wish to make at this time, Nr. Samelson?
14 MR. SAMELSON:
No, thank you.
15 CHAIRMAN CLARKs At this point, we'll take a 16 10-alnute recess.
17 (WHEREUPON, a short recess in 18 the above-entitled case was l
l 3
19 had and the following proceed-20 ings were had, to-vits) 21 I should like to say to you that this Board is 22 auch more interested in substance than we are in form.
We l
l 23 recognize that the regulations require that things be done 24 in a certain matter, and we also recognize that the f
25 intervenors are not represented by legal counsel.
l ALCER5oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 vlRGINIA AVE, S.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
un 1
'Je particula rly are impressed with the f act that 2 Er. Goddard's position concerning the contentions that we 3
have so far discussed tends to be in the direction that 4
they're too vague and they do not adequately meet the 5
regulations applying thereto.
6 Er. Goddard, have you any suggestions how this 7 situation may be remedied?
8 MR. GODDARD Judge Clark, in other cases with 9 which 3r. Karman and I have been connected in the past, one 10 approach that has been taken has been to meet with the 11 petitioners and explain what we consider to be the 12 deficiencies in the proposed contention; attempt to 13 ascertain the nature of their concerns with greater 14 specificity obviousit than has been set forth in their 15 proposed contentions; and then to attempt to demonstrate a 16 seans by which they could reduce these concerns to writing 17~ with such specificity and basis stated in the contention as 18 required by 10 C.F.R. of 2.713 that they will be susceptible 19 to the developmenkt of evidence by the Staff and the 20 applicant and the State upon those contentions.
21 I don't mean to imply that the Staff would draft 22 the contentions for the petitioners nor to go so f ar as to 23 provide our direct assistance in draf ting the contentions l
24 but rather attempting to resolve the different views that t
25 the Staff and the petitioners have as to what constitutes a t
I ALOERSoM REPcRTING COndPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W. WASHINGTON. DA lMX)24 (20D 7lFv)45
45 1 suitable contention, to know that.
2 Naturally, the applicant in any such case would be 2 invited or.certainly welcome to participate in any such 4 discussions.
Of course, it would be up to the applicant and 5 their counsel.
I'a not suggesting that that be done but 6 this mightlbe one way to resolve the issues.
1 7
Another way to resolve the issue would be simply 8 to state in a summary fashion the position of each party on 9 the contentions as they are drafted.
Those contentions are 10 before the' Board, and let the Board make a decision as to 11 each of the contentions given the views of each party.
12 Have I answered your question, Judge Clark?
13 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Thank you.
If the Board is to 14 reject these contentions because of the inexperience l
15 represented in the intervenors, I feel that perhaps we have 16 not yet reached the ideal solution to the problem, and 17 therefore, I would like to ask Mr. Samelson, would he be 18 agreeable to sitting down with the Staff with the idea in l
l 19 mind of re' vising his contentions with their advice but not i
20 with their participation, perhaps, so it's presented in 21 contentions, which more truly meet the requirements of the 22 regulations and also meet your requirements as to the 1
l 23 contentions that you wish to pursue?
l 24 MR. SAMELSON:
We would welcome such an l
25 opportunity to meet with the staff and to comply with the l
l l
ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
46 1 standards that are set down.
We appreciate the fact that 2 the Board and the Staff recognize the limitations under 3 which we're working and understand that this proposed 4
process is not a precedent to the initial proceedings.
5 In the alternative, we would also veicose 6 additional time or proceedings to make our contentions more 7 specific through a written process as well. But we would l
8 definitely take you up on that offer.
9 CHAIRMAN CLARK.
Thank you, Mr. Samelson.
10 Mr. Fa=io, would you look with favor on such a 11 program and would you like to participate in it?
12 MB. FAZIO:
Judge Clark, we would certainly look 13 with f avor upon st:ch a program if it can be accomplished 14 today.
We would oppose ary suggestions tha t proceedings be 13 l
lengthened beyond times that are set by the Board in the l
16 first instance to accomplish this.
17 We would encourage a mee ting toda y with the 18 understanding that both parties meeting would attempt to 19 come back when this hearing would be reconvened this 20 afternoon with something to offer the Board which might come 21 out of their meeting.
I think that we would not participate 22 in the neeting.
l 23 CHAIRMAN CLARKs I see.
Mr. Goddard, I have some 24 question in my mind as to whether a meeting between you and l
25 Mr. Samelson would be able to meet your objectives if it l
{
i F
ALDER $oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 vtRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
47 l
1 were held between now and the af ternoon session.
It's not 2
all unpreJedented for more time to be given for this kind at 3
of thing to be dones and the second special prehearing 4 conference to be held thereafter.
5 If you were to participate in such an endeavor l
6 with the intervenor's representative, what kind of time 7 schedule.vould you propose?
8 ER. GODDARD:
Judge Clark, first I might say that 9 the schedule proposed by Mr. Fazio the Staff finds utterly to unacceptable.
There is no way that we can attempt to meet 11 and come back this afternoon based on my experience in other 12 cases.
13 With a view to the dates for the Staff issuance of 14 documents during 1982 and the time f rame of this proceeding 15 as we would expect it to unfold at this stage, I see no 16 reason why we'd have to complete any meetings or iscussions 17 tcday.
l 18 I'm not ready to set a fixed time frame but I's 19 sure we can come back within the next four to six weeks with 20 a supplemental -- that is the petitioners could probably 21 come back within four to six weeks with a second 22 supplemental petition, and at that point we can attempt to 23 schedule a second special conference if it was in accordance l
I f
24 with the views of'the Licensing Board.
25 I don't feel, based on the tine schedule of this l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 r
y y
- _,, _ ~,
-3 m,, - -,,
48 1
case, that we're under any extreme pressures.
2 CHAIRMAN CLARK.
tiell, we will have a short recess 3 while the Board discusses this matter among themselves and 4 we will return very shortly with our views as to what the 5
next step should be.
6 (WHERZUPON, a short recess in 7
the above-entitled case was 8
has and the following pro-9 ceedings were had to-witz) 10 The conference is reconvened.
11 Do I understand that the propoed date for the 12 Safety Evaluation Report by the Staff is October of this 13 year?
14 HR. GODDARD 4 No, sir.
The proposed date for the 15 issuance of the Safety Evaluation Report, Clinton Station 16 Unit 1 is October 1982.
17 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
October 19827 18 MR. GODDARD:
The projected date for the final 19 environmental statement for the Clinton Station Unit 1,
20 which although it is not indicated on your document, would 21 likely cover Clinton Unit 2 as well, is March 1982.
22 CHAIBMAN C1 ARK Thank you.
Before a hearing can 23 be held on the contentions of petitioners, if petitioners 24 intervene are allowed to intervene, these two reports have 25 to be filed by the Staff.
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
ug 1
This means that according to the present schedule, 2 it will be at least Cetober 1982 before the hearing could 3 be held even if we finished these preliminary matters in 4 advance.
5 In view of that fact it's the opinion of the Board 6 that although we deplore any unnecessary delays, we feel 7
tha t a delay of not to exceed six weeks -- during which time 8 the Staff vill meet with the representatives of the 9
petitioners to intervene, is a justifiable delay since I do to not believe the Staff or the Board believes that it will 11 lengthen the period before an operating license could be 12 granted in any event; and the point of concern, as I said 13 earlier, is that the intervenors be given an opportunity to 14 present the items which they wish to be contested, in a form 15 such that the substance can be addressed and theref ere our 16 ruling is that this conference will be adjourned for a 17 period not to exceed six weeks and that notice of a second 18 special prehearing conference will be issued by the Board 19 upon receipt of advice by the Staff that they have performed 20 this discussion and given assistance to the intervenors.
21 j
We would also like a report from the Staff not 22 later than six weeks from today as to what progress ther 23 have made in this regard.
24 5R. GODDARDs Yer, Judge Clark.
If I may ask you 25 for a clarifica tion, you referred to the adjournment of this ALDERSoN REPORTING CoWPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINLA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
50 1
proceeding for a period not to exceed six weeks.
An I to 2 interpret that as to adjourn this proceed 1:s during which 3
not to exceed six weeks will elapse before the next 4
supplemental petition of the petitioners is filed?
5 CHAIRMAN C1 ARKS Well, I've used the word 6 adjourn'aent of this proceeding.
Perhaps not explaining what 7 I neant.
But we have only covered less than half of the 8 proposed contentions.
But we have heard enough of them so 9 tha t it's very clear to this Board tha t the objections at 10 least in part go to form rather than substance and 11 therefore, we feel that it would be a vaste of everyone 's 12 time to go through the rest of these contentions today.
13 With that understanding, we vill propose to close 14 this special prehearing conference today and institute a 15 second special prehearing conference when we have the report 16 from the Staff that they have converred with the 17 representatives of the intervenors, and we would expect the 18 representative of the intervenors to file a second 19 supplement to their petition to intervene giving us the i
20 results of the revisions that they have made.
21 Now, before setting the second special prehearing 22 conference, the applicancs should have an opportunity to l
23 study that second supplement; and so, the date for the l
24 se cond special prehearing conference vill be set with that 25 in sind so that the applicant does not have to cone in and j
ALCERSoN REPoRDNQ COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W. WASHINGTON DA 20024 (202) 554 2345
51 1
jact read the second supplement the day vf the hearing.
2 In that connection, after the close of the 3
- hearing, "r.
Samelson, or perhaps we can do it on the 4
Record, your filings have not been in accordance with the 5
accepted procedure.
I'm sure you have received filings from 6 the applicant, have you not?
7 MR. EAMELSON:
Yes, we have.
8 CHAIENAN CLARK:
Anc have you noticed the proof of 9 service which is attached to their filings?
10 MR. SAMELSONs Yes.
11 CHAIRMAN CLARKs And you will note who gets copies 12 of it and you will note that the Members of the Board also 13 should receive copies of the filings, and thus far, the 14 Board has not received yours with any degree of speed.
As a 15 matter of fact, I saw your last filings just day before 18 yesterday.
l 17 MR. SAMELSON:
I apologize for my misreading of i
18 the Commission.
19 CHAIRMAN CLAFKs We understand, b ut I'm just 20 calling it to your attention so that your next filing will 21 be in accordance with the normal procedure.
22 MB. SAMELSON:
It certainly will.
23 CHAIEMAN CLARKs Mr. Fario, do you have any 24 comment to make before we close this conference?
25 MR. FAZIO:
Just -- Judge Clark, I just want to l'
l ALDEPSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W. WASHINGioN. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
52 1
make one comment; that is, there is an ongoing disagreement 2 between the Staff and the applicant as to how quickly the 3
plant will be constructed.
My present understanding is that l
the applicants feel it will be constructed six months 4
5 earlier than the Staff and that certain members of jthe 6 Staff may have given the applicants some assurance that if 7 the construction moves along faster than they anticipate, 8
they will moe along the licensing procedures a little bit 9 f aster to accommodate the f aster pace.
10 go I.d like it understood that the applicants 11 still feel that time is very much of the essence and we 12 still feel that we 're going to be able to construct a 13 schedule that is f aster than the Staff currently believes.
14 We'd like to have the freedom to move up the licensing 15 process if we are, in fact, able to move up the contruction 16 process.
17 To that end, we would volunteer to within 10 days 18 after service on us of the second supplement, be in a 13 position to respond so we would not need any large amount of 20 time in between to respond.
We'll'do that quite promptly 21 toward the end that the next prehearing conference can be 22 scheduled at the earliest possible time.
23 CHAISBAN CLARKs We will bear that in mind.
Mr.
l 24 Goddard, do you have any further comments to make at this l
25 time?
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
_.,., - - - ~ _. _.
53 1
MR. GODD*.RC:
No, I do not, Judge Clark.
Thank 2
you.
3 CHAIRMAN CLARKs Mr. Sanelson?
4 MR. SAMELSON We have one further request; that 5 is, we would like a copy of the Final Safety Analysis Report 6 so that we may read it and have access to it and for jthe 7 convenience of te applicant.
~4e understand they have 8 various members come to their of fice to view its and only 9 during certain hours.
Since we are not professional 10 consultants, it's difficult for us to go over to the 11 attorney's offices --
12 CHAIRMAN CLARKs This is the one that the 13 applicants filed?
l 14 MR. SAMELSON4 That 's righ t.
15 MR. FAZIO:
Judge Cla::k, we vill agree to give the 16 Prairie Alliance intervenors a copy of the Final Safety 17 Analysis Report.
We'll be able to get one in their hands l
18 sometime next week.
19 CHAIRMAN CLARK:
Thank you very much, Mr. Fazio.
20 He appreciate that.
21 MR. SAMELSON:
Thank you.
22 CHAIRMAN CLARK Does that finish?
23 MR. SAMELSON:
Yes, sir, it does.
24 CHAIRMAN CLARK Does any participant representing 25 parties in this special prehearing conference have anything l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W. WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
54 1
else to say before we terminate the conference?
2 (Chorus of nayes.)
i 3
This conference stands adjourned.
l 4
(The hearing in the absve-5 entitled case was thereupon 6
adjourned.)
l 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 l
14 15 16 17 l,
18 l
19 l
m l
21 l
l n
23 24 j
25 ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
i t
ll l
~ is is :: certify tha: :he attached ;receecings ':ef:re :..e l
i l
1 n~*~
en*.~~
..a r_ < -.,, < r me,,s ic ::e ::a::er of:
Illinois Power Company, et al.
- Da:a of Proceeding:
Januan 2c. ic81 Decket Number:
=c _ u,
=c.. u o l
=
Place cf Proceeding: U bana Civte cent =~
l, were held as herein appears, and tha: this is the criginal :. asse.-1;-
l
- hereof for :he file of :he Ccamission.
Rose Ma:Le MartLnt, C.S.S.
Official Reper:er (Typec) l
(..
[
m m
s,f N V
s Official Reper:er (Sig=acu.e) l I
e
- d
, _ _ _ _, -. _ _. - - - ~ _., - _ _.,,
.-