ML20032A998
| ML20032A998 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant  |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1981 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8111040253 | |
| Download: ML20032A998 (143) | |
Text
.
C$b
^),
NUCLZAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN p,
C
/
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD C
In the Mattar of:
OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEMS DOCKET NO. STN-50-437 CP (Manufacturing License for Floating Nuclear Power Plant)
DATI:
November 2, 1981
? AGES:
7473 - 7515
,g :
Bethesda, Maryland g
y\\s " a_iy Gh 9
h S
A 6
~
u y
vb
%e8
// gig.
C r_'(REPORTUG ALDERhoX 400 Virginia Ave., S.W.
Wasning.==, D.
C.
20024 Talachena: (202) 554-2245 8111040253 811102 PDR ADOCK 05000437 PDR
7473 4
(])
1 UNITED STETES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
[
4____
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ x In The Matter Of 5
g OFFSHORE POWER SYSTEMS a
Docket No. STN-50-u37 CP 6
(Manufacturing License 7 for Floating Nuclear Power Plant) s 8--------------x 9
PREHEARING CONFERENCE 10 Fifth Floor Hearing Room East-West Towers 4
11 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Ma ryland 12 Monday, November 2, 1981 13
()
Hea ing in the above-entitled matter convened at 10:03 a.m.,
pursuant to notica, 15 BEFORE:
16 SHELDON J. WOLFE, Chairman I
17 DAVID R. SCHINK, Member GLENN 0. BRIGHT, Member 18 FOR THE STAFFS 19 STEVEN SOHINKI, Esq.
20 Office of the Executivo Legal Director Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 Washington, D.C.
22 FOR THE APPLICANTS 23 BARTON Z. COWAN, Esq.
ANN STRICKLAND, Esq.
()
24 Sckert, Seaman, Cherin C Mellott 500 Grant Street, 42nd Floor 25 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
-. - -. ~. - - -.
,i j
7474 O
atso 'arst"r-1 2
MICHAEL "ALLORi Nuclear Regulatory Commission D. AABYE i
4 Offshore Power Systems 1
5 D.H. WALKER Offshore Power Systems 6
l 7
i 8
J
)
9 l
10 11 12 13
- O 14 i
l i
15 l
16 i
l 17 18 l
I 19 20 21 22 i
23 O
u 25 O
ALDERSON REPORONG COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346
- -.. - ~., _...,.... _. - _... _...
7475 O
cansssnInst 2
JUDGE WOLFE:
Good morning.
3 Pursuant to the order of October 2, 1981, this 4 prehearing conference is being held to discuss the Sestablishment of a schedule in order to conclude the 60ffshore Power Systems proceeding, Docket No. STN-50-437.
7 Beginning to my left, would counsel identify 8 themselves for the record?
9 MR. SOHINKI:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and to members of the Board.
I am Steven Sohinki of the Office of 11 the Executive Legal Director, NRC, and I represent the 12 Commission 's legal staf f.
With me is Mr. Michael Hallory, 13 eho has recently replaced Mr. Birkel as the licensing II4 project manager for this application.
15 MR. COWANa Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members 16of the Board.
I am Barton Cowan with the Pittsburgh, 17 Pennsylvania law firm of Eckert, Seaman, Cherin and 18 Mellott.
On my far left is my associate, Ann Strickland.
19 Immedia tely to my lef t is Dr. D.
Walker, and immediately to 20 my right is Mr. David Aabye from Offshore Power Systems.
21 Ms. Strickland and I represent the Applicant, 22 0ff shore Power Systems, in this proceeding.
23 JUDGE WOLFE And you said the person sitting to
()
24 your right?
25 MR. C3WAN:
Mr. David Aabye.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE.. S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7476
()
1 JUDGE WOLFEs All right.
I have not heard from 2 the other parties.
In our order we had set October 23rd as 3 being the due date for the various parties other than 4 Applicant and staf f to notif y the Board if they would attend 5 the prehearing conference today, as well as to notify us if 6 they would participate in f urther proceedings.
4 7
I have not heard from anyone other than the State 8 of New Jersey, which on October 16 of this year moved to 9 dismiss itself as a party.
10
.iave you, Mr. Echinki, or have you, Mr. Cowan, 11 heard anything from, for example, ACCCE or the Atlantic 12 County Board of Chosen Freeholders?
13 MR. COWANs No, sir, we have not.
O 14 MR. SOHINKIs We have not.
15 JUDGE WOLFE:
I see.
All right.
16 Now, as far as I am aware, the Atlantic County 17 Board of Chosen Freeholders and ACCCE are the only extant 18 pa rties, so to speak, the city of Brigantine having 19 withdrawn on June 24, 1977.
And as I hat'e indicatec', the 23 Sta te of New Jersey has moved to dismiss.
So that would 211 eave the -- well, and further, Natural Resources Defense 22 Council actually no longer a party since the Board denied 23 their mo tion for summary disposition and granted Applicant's
()
24 motion and staf f's motion for cross-summary disposition.
25 So I take it, then, the only two as I see extant O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7477
(])
1 parties are the Atlantic County Board of Chosen Freeholders 2 and ACCCE.
Am I correct there, gentlemen?
3 NR. SOHINKIa I'm not cortain tha t there-ever was 4 a Board order dismissing the Natural Resources Defense 5 Council as e party in terms of a written communication f rom 6 t,h e Board.
In any case, we have not heard from them that 7 they expressed any interest in participating further.
8 JUDGE WOLFE:
Yes.
Well, I do ha ve a 9 communication f rom NRDC, a letter of June 11, 1979 10 indicating that they would no longer participate in the way 11 of submitting Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 12 Law, and indicating that if perchance the Board granted the 13 manuf acturing license, at that time they would then proceed OV 14 to appeal to the Appeal Board from our denial of their 4
15 motion f or summary disposition and the gran tine - of 16 Applican t's and staff 's motions for summary disrcsition.
17 MR. COWAN:
Mr. Chairman, I think the NBDC, as you l
18 point out, did indicate that they no longer plan to pursue 19 or indeed they never even originally planned to pursue any 20 other contentions except for the one that was disposed of by 21 the summary disposition procedure.
They are, of course, 22 receiving copies of all of the various pleadings and Board 23 orders.
They are still on the service list.
I don't know
()
24 if technically they are still a party.
Certainly for 25 purposes of having the right to appeal from the summary O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7478
(]}
1 disposition motion, they would be a party.
2 JUDGE WOLFEs All right.
3 Just so that we can focus now on whatever Os 4 discussion we are going to have toda y, let me set out the 5 events since TMI-2 in Mnrch of 1979.
On June 1,
- 1979, 6 Applicant filed Proposed Partial Findings of Fact.
On 7 August 24 staff filed its Proposed Partial Findings of 8 Fact.
On September 14, 1979, Applicant filed its response 9 to staff 's Proposed Partial Findings of Fact.
10 There was a hearing on November 2, 1979 to hear 11 staff 's testimony in response to this Board's questions 12 posed in a letter of March 29, 1979 regarding FES Part III 13 and regarding the staff's liquid pathway generic study, 14 NUREG-0440.
Then Supplement 3 to the SER was issued in 15 February of 1980 regarding the core ladle, and thereafter 16 Supplement 4 to the SER was issued September 30, 1981 17 rega rding, among other things, TMI-2 requirements, the 18 emergency core cooling system and generic unresolved safety 191ssues.
20 Now, with those events set out I have a couple of 21 preliminary questions.
I would think that there is a 22 necessit y f or Applicant's and staff's Proposed Partial 23 Findings of Fact to be supplemented because of, for example,
()
24 the November 2, 1979 testimony, and I would also think that 25 these Proposed Partial Findings of Fact sould also have to
()
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7479
()
1 be supplemented to update the statement and description of 2 the record.
I 3
I am just throwing the suggestions out.
The Board 4 has reviewed the Applicant's and staff 's partial proposed 5 findings and we have concluded that some of them require 6 redoing and suggest that it be done., For example, we were 7 dissatisfied since some of these proposed partial findings 8 are very summary and someone reading them would have 9 dif ficulty and would have no idea of the basis for the 10 factual findings and conclusions.
11 For example, 7 would suggest that, looking at 12 pages 152 through 153 of Applicant's Proposed Findings on 13 Contention XII and also looking at pages 156 through 157 on 14 Contention XIV -- I am looking at Contention XIV, which 15 relates to the food chain, and.the proposed findings, to the 16 Board 's mind, aue inadequate.
17 The reader is merely referred to sections of the 18 Environmental Report in the final Environmental Statenent, 19 to transcript pages and then to the proposed conclusion to 20 be made by the Board.
At least in those two instances the 1
21 Board concludes that those proposed findings are 1
22 in a d equ a te.
23 Yes, Mr. Cowan.
, ()
24 MR. COWAN4 We can certainly supplement those 25 proposed findings in the supplemental proposed findings, and (v~h ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7480
()
I those two in particular.
Those were conten tions where the 2 gist of the contention was that the Applicant had not given
{}
3 adequate consideration to something, and in each case the 4 only testimony was that of the Applicant and the staff, and 5 our thinking in preparing those two particular proposed 6 findings was that-by citing the extensive numbers of pages 7 where the consideration was given to each of those subjects, 8 tha t tha t would be adequate.
9 However, we can certainly supplement these 10 proposed contentions and give more descriptive saterial as 11 to the nature of the consideration tha t was given, in the 12 one case on the effects to biota and in the other case in 13 the food chain, and we will review the contentions with tha t O
141n mind.
15 JUDGE WOLFE4 All rig h t.
16 Before we get into further discussion or any 17 discussion with the pa rties, I want to check with staff.
18 Does staff intend to issue any other supplements to the FES 19 and/or to the Safety Evaluation Report?
20 HR. SOHINKI No, sir.
Our present intention is 21 not to prepare f urther supplements.
There are a couple of 22 matters tha t need to be upda ted, but since a further hearing 23 session will be required, we thought we would do that by
()
24 affidavit since the matters to be supplemented do not appear I
25 to be that substantial.
. /')
V ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
. - ~
7481
()
1 JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
We will keep it in 2 reserve, then, your statement that staff has some other 3 matters that it wishes t0 conclude by affidavit or whatever.
4 (Pause.)
5 All right.
Now, since no intervening party 6 pursuant to our order of September 3, 1981 has filed by 7 0ctober 26 a motion to amend or expand contentions directly 8 bearing on new matters discussed in Supplement 4 to the SER, 9 their time for moving for leave to amend or expand 10 contentions has expired.
Is that not so?
11 hR. SOHINKIs I think that is true, Mr. Chairman.
12 I believe the Board's order was 20 days from the publication 13 date of this supplement and that has since expired.
O 14 JUDGE WOLFEs I think it was 20 days from the date 15 of receipt.
16 MR. SOHINKI That's true.
17 JUDGE WOLFE4 And you did issue or send out and 18 serve Supplement 4 on September 30, 1981.
19 MR. SOHINKIa Tha t is correct.
20 JUDGE WOLFE:
So giving five days for service and 21 the 20 days, I would think by October 26 their time for 07 filing such a motion has expired.
Well, we will proceed on 23 t h a t basis, anyvsy.
()
24 All right.
I throw it out now for discussion, I 25 guess basically to you, Mr. Cowan, since it was at your Ov ALDERSoN AEPonTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 55d 2345
7482
()
1 request that we have scheduled this prehearing con f er en ce.
2 How'say you?
3 MR. COWAN:
Mr. Chairman, we would like to propose 41n a few moments a schedule, of course subject to the 5 Board's availability, for those events that are necessary to 6 conclude this proceeding, to close the record and to file 7 the supplements to the proposed findings and to file 8 conclusions of law.
9 It might help bef ore I do + hat, however, if we 10 were to briefly mention the items that we think remain open 11 and that would need to be completed or taken care of at the 12 next and what we hope to be final hearing session.
13 Based on our review of the record, we think that O
14 there needs to be admitted into evidence in the hearing the 15 SER Supplement No. 3 and SER Supplement No. 4 that has nov 16 been issued by the sta ff.
We believe there needs to be 17 supplemental testimony in the way of affidavits introduced 18 on the record with respect to the turbine generator matter.
19 There have been some developments since the 20 turbine generator testimony was taken by the " nard several 21 years ago, and we believe that there is a necessity to 22 formally place on the record those developments se as to Z3 u pd a te a nd in some measure correct the turbine generator
()
24 testimony.
25 JUDGE WOLFE:
Now, what is that?
What is O
\\_/
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7483
(])
1 unresolved?
That had to do with the possibility of turbine 2 missiles, disc f ailure and the question about what
)
3 occasioned the Yankee Rowe turbine failure.
Thoce are the 4 three sub-items under that.
5 MR. COWAN Yes.
The updated material in the form 6 of an af fidavit, which is how we would propose to put it 71nto the record, involves some cracks that have been 8 observed in low pressure discs in a number of operating 9 nuclear turbines.
That would be item 1.
It involves some 10 tests that were conducted at EPRI and by Westinghouse in 11 which simulated discs at high speed i'apacted on metal 12 barriers and the results of those tes r, and it involves the 13 disc f ailure in the low pressure unit of Yankee Rove.
O 14 JUDGE WOLFE We received an affidavit from the 15 Applicant, Mr. Haga 's af fida vit, I guess, just on Friday.
16 MR. COWAN:
I believe the affidavit was mailed in 17 to the Board on Friday.
We think that has to be placed into 18 the record before the record can be closed.
19 JUDGE WOLFE All rig h t.
20 MR. COWAN:
To continue on, we note that there 21 have been some amendments to the plant design report which 22 have not formally been entered into the record.
They have 23 been sent to all the parties.
The plant design report I
()
24 think now has 28 amendments, and I am not quite sure of the 25 number, but the last f our or five amendments we believe have O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7484
()
1not yet been entered formally into the record.
2 JUDGE WOLFEa And the last one is Amendment 28, is 3 that correct?
4 MR. COWANs Yes.
The plant design report has 5 Amendments 1 through 28.
6 JUDGE WOLFEa All.5.ght.
7 HR. COWAN:
And finally, the application is in the 8 process of being updated to provide currete,information with 9 regard, for example, to the organization Of Offshore Power 10 Systems and the financial qualifications of Off shore Power 11 Systems.
The last updating of the application in this 12 technical regard was some five years ago, and there have 13 been a f ew developments since then, and we would propose to O
14 put in the application amendment at the hearing.
15 I believe the staff would also be filing something 16 with regard to the application amendment, and in particular 17 with regard to the financial qualifications of the 18 applicant.
Those would be the items that we have on our 1911s t that need to be updated tha t remain open on the record 20and would have to be put into evidence befo re the re co rd 21 cocid be closed.
22 JUDGE WOLFE:
Mr. Schinki?
23 MR. SOHINKIs That list comports with mine.
I am
(
24 not sure Mr. Cowan specifically mentioned it, but we will 25 also be filing an affidavit with regard to the turbine O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7485
(])
1 missile matters since it was the testimony of our witness 2 that raised the concern following the staf f 's testimony on 3 tha t issue.
{)
4 JUDGE WOLFEa You have no amendments to 5 Applicant's Environmental Report that need be nomitted into 6 evidence, Mr. Cowan?
7 MR. COWAN That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
8 JUDGE WOLFEa None.
9 HR. COWANs None.
10 JUDGE WOLFEs Mr. Sohinki, does the Board have in 11 evidenc6-all ACRS letters?
4 12 MR. SOHINKIs I think you have them all with the 13 exception of the one that I placed on the podium just this 14 morning, which we have just received recently from the ACES.
15 JUDGE WOLFE All right.
16 That, then, is one additional bit of evidence, is 17 1t not?
18 MR. SOHINKIs Yes, si r, that will have to be 19 placed in the record.
20 I might also request that if the Board has any 21 questions with regard to the staff document that was just 221ssued in Supplement 4, and, for that matter, Sr pplement 3 23 to the SER, we would appreciate knowing about that in time
()
24 so that we could address that at the upcoming hearings.
25 JUDGE WOLFEs Le t's set that aside for the O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7486
()
1aoment.
We will get into a discussion on that, but I am 2 just figuring.out -- getting input f rom staff on what they 3 think they will have to do before the record is closed.
4 MR. SOHINKIs The only other thing I can think of T tha t I have to check on for sure is whether FES, Part III 8was introduced into evidence.
I think it was but I am not 7 positive.
But in any case, we will take care of that if 8 need be.
9 JUDGE WOLFE All right.
10 In light of intervening developments since the 11 submission of Applicant and staff's partial proposed 12 findings, I throw this out for discussion.
Is there not a 13 necessity for supplementa ry testimony on certain 0
14 con tentions, such as, for example, Contention XVI, which 15celates to 12 pact on resort econimics and, for example, 18 supplementary testimony necessary on, for example c 17 Contention XVIII on cost-benefit balance?
18 My recollection of the testimony, for example, on 19 Contention XVI, impact on resort economics, was that 20 A pplican t and/or staff -- and I am not certain -- presented 21 evidence tha t there was no adverse impact on resort 22 ectsnomics as exemplified by absence of adverse impact at i
23 Harshey, Pennsylvania, which is proximate to TMI-2.
()
24 I would like some discussion on that. It would 25 appear that there vould ha ve to be some supplementation of O
Ad)ERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
-~
7487
()
1 that type of testimony so that we are brought up to date, 2 whether or not Hershey, Pennsylvania or whatever was 3 involved in earlier testimony has been adversely impacted.
4 Further, it would seem tha t in light of the over 5 two-year suspension period, that perhaps the cost-benefit 6 balance testimony needs to be supplemented.
These are just 7 examples. I am just throwing this out.
You people, you 8 attorneys are the one to tell the Board initially, at least, 9 what you think should be done in the way of supplementation, 10 MR. C3WAN:
Mr. Chairman, the Applicant did look 11 at each of the contentions, and it was our judgment that 12 none of them needed to have supplemental testimony 13 presented.
With respect to the impact on resort economics O
14 contention, I believe the references to Three Mile Island 15 were contained in the staf f study of resort economics and 16 tha t they investigated a number of plants, ten or so plants 17 of which TMI-1 and 2 locations were but one.
18 But in looking at the conclusions that were drawn 19 and the various methodologies that were used, we concluded 20 tha t no supplement was needed with regard to that unless the 21 Board feels it wishes to be updated with regard to it.
It 22 certainly wouldn 't be needed from the Applicant's 23 testimon y.
We did not rely on Three Mile Island nor the
()
24 a pproach of studying it in quite the same way staff studied 2 Sit, but we don't think it is needed from the staff's O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7688
()
1 standpoint either.
2 Our review of tne overall cost-benefit we thought
{}
3 also indicated to us that no supplement was needed to that 4 unless-the Board specifically desires us to relook at it end 5 make a statement to that effect or to whatever particular 61ssue the Board would like us to look at.
7 JUDGE WOLFE:
Mr. Sohinki?
8 MR. SOHINKIa Mr. Chairman, as I recall that 9 example of Hershey, Pennsylvania, again, as Mr. Cowan 10 pointed out, was one of many that the staff looked at.
I 11 quite frankly will have to go back to the people who 12 developed the methodology and determine from them whether 13 they think that anything further is necessary. I just cannot s
14 give you aa answer until I get an opinion f rom them.
15 Wi th regard to co st-b en efi t, I had revived that 16 testimony and I did not think in my judgment that there was 17 a supplement needed.
I had not focused on the Hershey, 18 Pennsylvania example from the resort economics study, so I 19 will look at that again.
20 JUDGE WOLFEs Mr. Schinki, do you have before you 21 your letter of October 11, 1979?
22 MR. SOHINKIa No, sir, not before me.
23 JUDGE WOLFE Mr. Sohinki, I hand you the Board's
}
24 copy of this October 11, 1979 letter.
Do you have a copy, 25 Mr. Cowan?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7489
\\
(])
1 MR. COWANs Yes, Mr. Chairman.
2 JUDGE WOLFE Would you look to the attachment to 3 that letter, Mr. Sohinki?
I will take those one by one and 4let's see if there is anything outstanding.
5 The first item, core ladle design evaluation.
6That is covered in SER Supplement 4, correct?
7 MR. SOHINKIs Yes, sir.
8 JUDGE WOLFEs Now item 2, the ACRS core ladle 9 design review.
10 MR. 50HINKIs I believe that is also in the 11 supplement.
12 JUDGE WOLFE That is in Supplement 3.
13 MR. SOHINKIs I believe so.
i ()
14 JUDGE WOLFE:
Excuse me, I'm sorry.
The core 15 ladle design is in the Supplement 3.
The ACRS letter with 16 regard thereto is an a ttachment to Supplement 3?
f 17 MR. SOHINKI:
I believe that is correct but I have f
18 Supplement 3 before me and I will check it.
19 JUDGE WOLFE All right.
20 MR. COWAN Mr. Chairman, I believe the ACRS 211etter you are ref erring to is the letter of April 16, 1980, 22 and I do not believe it wss in Supplement 3. I think it was 23 attached to Supplement 4.
()
24 MR. SOHINKI:
Yes, sir, that's right.
It is in 255upplement 4.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 354-2345
7490 Q
1 MR. COWAN:
It is in Appendix A to Supplement u 2 beginning on page A-1.
3 JUDGE WOLFE All right. Iten 3 is generic 4 matters.
Those generic matters, I take it, are encompassed 5 in Supplement 4.to the SER, is that correct?
6 MR. SOHINKI:
That's correct.
The same pertains 7 to the next item on the list.
8 JUDGE WOLFEs ECCS.
That is also in Supplement 4 9 of the SER.
10 Now number 5, turbine missile reassessment. I 11 understand that that is subject to additional testimony, i
12 however based, either on affidavit or oral written direct 13 testimony; is that correct?
O 14 MR. COWANs That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
15 JUDGE WOLFEs All right.
16 Now number 6, tornado missile reassessment.
That 171s not encompassed, as far as I know, in Mr. Haga's proposed 18 affidavit nor in any other past testimony nor in any other 19 document in the record or proposed to be incorporated into
~
20 the record.
Isn't that correct?
21 MR. COWAN:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
22 However, we are in the process of updating the PDR, and when 23 we put in the last amendment to the PDF, that will include a O
241etter deced -- wo1d on one second, nr. Cheirmen.
23 (Pause.)
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 403 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7491
(])
1 I'm sorry.
When the amendments to the PDR which 2 are not yet in evidence are rdm'.tted into evidence at the 3 forthcoming hearing session, they will include an amendment 4 that shows that the exterior wall of the control room on the 5 floating nuclear plant, which was originally 3/4 inch thick 6 steel plate, has been changed to 1-1/8 inch steel plate.
7 And that change in the thickness of the exterior wall takes 8 care of the tornado missile nroblem.
9 JUDGE WOLFE The exterior wall of what, now?
10 MR. COWAN:
Of the control room.
That takes care 11 of the problem that was encompassed within the saying 12 " tornado missile reassessment."
13 JUDGE WOLFE Wall now, that will necessarily mean O
14 that there will be an Amendment 29 to-the PDR; is that 15 correct ?
16 MR. COWAN:
I believe it is already in one of the 17 amendmen ts tha t has been prepared but is not yet in evidence.
18 JUDGE WOLFE All right.
19 MR. COWAN:
I should note that this change in the 20 thickness of the steel plate f or the control room was noted 21 1n a letter dated November 18, 19'io from Thomas Daugherty, 22 who is one of the counsel for Offshore Power Systems, to the 23 Board, and is referred to in f ootnote 25 a t page 57 of the
()
24 June 1,
1979 Applicant's Proposed Partial Findings.
25 JUDGE WOLFE Now, with regard to that amendment O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPAflY,INC,
7492 t( )
I to the PDR which speaks to the thickening of the exterior 2 vall of the control room, in what document, Mr. Schinki, or 3 in what way will staff respond to that change in desion?
4
-MR. SOHINKI4 I expect that we will respond to it 5 through an affidavit, Mr. Chairman, as to whether that 6 change is adequate as f ar as we are concerned to resolve the 7 concern.
8 MR. COWANs Mr. Chairman, let me correct one thing 9 that I said.
It doesn't change the substance.
But the 10 November 18, 1976 letter from Er. Daugherty to which I 11 ref erred, I don't believe referred, now that I look back at 12 my notes, to the change in the thickness of the steel plate 13 f rom 3/4 inch to 1-1/8 inch.
I believe it referred to the O
14 results of some tests in penetration with regard to the 3/4 151nch pla te, but it did not refer to the change in the 16 thickness that occurred subsequent to November of
'76.
17 JUDGE WOLFE All right.
18 I don't know what Item 7 rela tes to, but perhaps 19 you can fill the Board in on that and whether this is an 20 outstanding matter that the Board need hear evidence upon.
21 MR. SOHINKI:
I believe at the time we were 22 con sidering whether it was necessary to provide additional Z3 information on the impact of accidents in the vicinity of
()
24 the plant on the plant J.tself, and we determined in the 25 interim it was not necessary and tha t Supplement 2 O
i l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7493 1
1 represents the staff's conclusion with regard to that issue.
2 JUDGE WOLFEs And Item 8 on acceptability of 3 saf ety design to accommodate environmentally assessed Class 4 9 accident.
5 HR. SOHINKI:
Ihat would have been reviewed in 6 Supplement 3 as part of the design of the core ladle.
7 JUDGE WOLFE I always make notes to myself and a 8 couple of hours later I don 't know why I did it.
9 (Laughter.)
10 I have a note here and I will throw it out for 11 what it 's worth.
I don't know why T put it down, but to be 12 on the safe side, the question I haves Does this Item 8 13 also involve assessment of containment shell buckling and 14 thermohydraulic desion?
]
15 MR. SOHINKIs It doesn 't ring a bell in terms of 16 wha t was evaluated in Supplement 3.
There was a discussion 171n Supplement 3 on the impact of the core ladle and other 18 structures in the plant, but I don't know whether that is 19 what you are referring to.
There was also, as I look down 20 the list of matters covered in Supplement 3, discussion of 21 the relationship of the core ladle to containment pressure 22 respon se, and tha t could also be part of what you are 23 inquiring about but I don 't know what your specific que.? tion O
241s.
25 JUDGE WOLFE:
Well, all I conclude is that since I
~h (Y
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7494
()
1made a note with regard to Item 8,
tha t it must necessarily 2 -- containment shell buckling and thermohydraulic design 1 3 thought at the time should have been dealt with.
4 Well, Mr. Cowan, do you have anything to add here?
5 3R. COWAN Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Perhaps you are 6 referring to and the item was partially referring to the 7 question that was open at the time of the October 11, 1979 8 letter to which we were r7 ferring, of whether the core ladle 9 and the inclusion of the core ladle would increase the 10 probability of containment failure.
That was an open 11 question at the time this attachment was prepared and had 12 not then been resolved.
I believe it is now resolved and 13 covered in FES III -- I'm sorry, SER 3.
14 JUDGE BRIGHTS SER Supplement 37 15 MR. COWANs Yes.
16 MR. SOHINKI:
I might also note there has been a 17 change in the design pressure for the containment that is 18 reflected in the staff's review in Supplement 4 It is nov 19 25 pound per square inch design pressure, and I'm not sure 20 how that reflects on any possible concern that you have.
21 JUDGE WOLFEs The Board will review Supplement 3 22 o f the SER and look into that.
I have 9, the ACRS comment 231etter on liquid pathway generic study.
I take it cha t was
()
24 -- and I 'm not certain -- that probably is now part of FES 25III. I am not certain.
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,if4C, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7495
(])
1 What do you have to say, Mr. Schinki?
2 MR. SOHINKIa The la st word at the ACRS with 3 regard to the Class 9 issue was reflected in the letter 4 con tained in Supplement 4 to the SER.
5 JUDGE WOLFEs Supplement 47 6
That is when they in 7 essence wrote off on the entire Class 9 issue based on the 8 design of the core ladle.
9 MR. COWAN Mr. Chairman, the ACRS comment letter 10 on the liquid pathway generic study was dated July 25, 1979 11 and is included as Appendix D to SER Supplement 3.
And the j
12 ACRS sign-of f on that, as Mr. Sohinki indicated, is the 13 April 16,1980 ACRS letter, which is included as Appendix A O
14 to Supplement No. 4 to the SER.
15 JUDGE WOLFEa All right.
Item 10, fuel rod 16 bowing.
17 MR. SOHINKIa Items 10 and 11, fuel rod bowing and 18 upper plenum pressure gradient were matters related to the 19 ECCS analysis, and while they were not specifically called 20out in the latest evaluation of the ECCS evaluation in 21 Susplement 4, the staff 's conclusions with regard to that 22 are in Supplement 4 so those concerns were taken into 23 account.
()
24 JUDGE WOLFEs All righ t.
Item 12, subcompartment 25 -- Item 12, bolted connections.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 5%2345
7496
()
1 MR. SOHINKIs This is one we are going to have to
~
2 check on, Er. Chairman.
Neither the project manager nor I
(}
3 recall whether snd to what extent that ICE bulletin is now 4 applicable to the floating nuclear plant.
5 JUDGE WOLFE Item 13, subcompartment pressure 6 analysis.
7 MR. SOHINKI4 Tha t is covered in Supplement 4.. I 8believe that is in Section 15 of Supplement 4.
9 JUDGE WOLFEa Item 14, Regulatory Requirements to Review Committee matters referenced in October 12, 1978 11 letter.
12 HR. SOHINKIs This is a matter which I don't 13 believe has been specifically called out in the SER O
14 supplements which were published subsequent to that letter, 15 but I recall that letter now.
I will have to check 16 specifically but I believe that each of those matters was 17 covered in the subsequent SER supplements.
18 JUDGE WOLFEa Item 15, design envelope table.
t 19 MR. SOHINKI That was done in the latest SER 20 supplement. I understand there is a minor modification which 21 has yet to be submitted which will be covered in subsequent 22 a f fidavi ts, but basically there is an update of the entire i
23 design envelop table in the latest supplement.
(
24 JUDGE WOLFE4 Item 16, PDR review, Amendments 24~
25 through 27.
Applicant advises that it is coing to offer LO l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,lNC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.O. 20024 (202) 564 2345 E
7497
()
1into evidence all outstanding amendments.
I think you had 2 occasion to say what staff would do with regard to testimony 3 affidavits or offering of documents which would show tha t 4 staff has spproved the amendments to the PDR.
5 MR. SOHINKIs Our review of that is reflected in 6 Supplement 4,
Mr. Chairman, pretty much in their entirety.
7 The latest supplement was the THI supplement, which I 8 believe is ho. 28, and oar review of those matters is 9 covered in the 5ER supplements.
10 JUDGE WOLFE All right.
Well, that concludes 11 that list.
12 All right.
With this background as to possible 13 outstanding matters and supplementation of testimony and O
14 w ha t have you, what is now the suggestion of the parties on 15 how and when to proceed?
16 MR. COWAN Mr. Chairman, with very incomplete 1/ knowledge of the schedule of the Boa rd, we suggest that 18 there be an order issued calling for a hearing on either 19 Monday, November 23rd or Tuesday, November 24th, which is 20 about chree weeks away -- which is three weeks a way, at 21 which hearing the various pieces of evidence that still have 22 to be introduced would be offered and wha te ver additional 23 testimony would be needed could come in at that time.
()
24 We then suggest that that hearing would result in 25 th e record being closed and that December 11 be established O
ALDt:RSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
e 7498
(])
1 as the date for the Applicant ta file supplemental proposed 2 findings of fact and conclusions of law; that December 21 be 3 established as the date for the intervenors to file any 4 proposed or supplemental proposed findings of fact and 5 conclusions of law; and that December 31 be established as 6 the date for the regulatory staff to make their proposed 7 findings of f act and conclusions of law.
8 JUDGE WOLFEa December 31, you say?
9 MR. COWANs Yes, sir.
We understand that the 10 Chairman has another hearing the week of November --
11 JUDGE WOLFE:
26th through the 30th, isn't it?
12 MR. COWAN:
The week of November 16.
13 JUDGE WOLFEa November 16 through the 20th.
O 14 MR. COWANs Otherwise we would.have proposed a 15 h ea ring that week.
But in light of at least that much 16 knowledge of the Board members' schedules, we looked at the 17 calendar, and the 23rd or 24th of November appears to us 18 then to be the ear.'.lest date on which we could hol the 19 hea ring.
I 20 MR. SOHINKI:
Mr. Chairman, I was just going to 21 comment tha t I think that schedule may be a little tight in 22 terms of the filing date if we were going to file affidavits 23 or further testimony.
That would have to make the filing l ()
24 date next week, I believe, to comply with the 15-day l
l 25 requirement in the rules, and I think that is a little tight l
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
7499
()
1 given the f act we have several things we have to check on to 2 determine whether we have to update.
3 HR. COWAN:
I think the requirement for a filing 4 date is subject to the Board establishing a different date, 5 Mr. Chairman, and although we would undertake to check with 6 the two remaining parties of record, intervenors of record, 7 it would seem to us that a filing date of perhaps only a 8 week ahead of time might be adequate.
9 JUDGE WOLFE:
Well, the Board has been discussing 10 thic.
It would be convenient to proceed to hearing on 11 November 23rd.
12 We will have a ten-minute recess.
13 (Recess.)
14 JUDGE WOLFE:
I would like to advise the parties 15 what we are discussing.
As you know, applications for 16 opera ting licenc~a have priorities.
Judge Bright is on a 17 case, an operating license case that fairly well precludes 18 him -- well, it does preclude him from being here on the 19 proposed hearing date of November 23.
There is a 20 possibility that he could be available on Saturday, December 215, which, as I indicate, is a Saturday. It appears that 22 there is going to be such a conflict in his schedule and 23 what you propose f or November 23rd, which is impossible, and
()
24 the possibility that he might not be able to make it on 25 December 5.
ALDERSoN DEPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
7500
()
1 The Board will recess now in an effort to contact 2 the Chief Administrative Judge and see what arrangements can 3 be made to possibly have another administrative judge
{}
4 assigned to the case in place of Judge Bright.
I don't know 5 whether this will be necessary or not, but in light of what 6 dates you would like to proceed, that may well be necessary.
7 MR. SOHINKI Mr. Chairman, can I add something?
8 In any event, regardless of Judge Bright's availability on 9 November 23rd, I would still like to represent that I 10 believe, given the matters which the staff has yet to 11 review, that November 23rd would be a bit premature to hold 12 tha t final hearing.
13 JUDGE WOLFEs Yes, approximately three weeks.
O' 14 HR. SOHINKI I say that for a couple of reasons.
15 First of all, we ha fe yet to prepare the turbine missile 16 af fidavit.
Secondly, the staff will be meeting this 17 af ternoon to determine what needs to be done in terms of the 18 financial update, and I am not sure u1til I talk to the 19 financial analyst as to what kind of turnaround time they 20 might have on a review.
So it is kind of difficult for me 21 at this point to commit to a date that soon.
22 JUDGE WOLFE:
How does December 5 sound?
23 MR. SOHINKI:
I think we could cocplete our review
(
241n time to go to hearing on that date.
We would obviously, 25 of course, like to make the next hearing date the last, and
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INO, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7501
()
1 thst is why I am a little reluctant to commit to a date as 2 soon as three weeks.
3 JUDGE WOLFE:
And how does Saturday, December 5 4 suit you, Mr. Cowan?
5 MR. COWAN:
We could make that date, Mr. Chairman.
6 JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
7 Have Applicant and staff been discussing in.the 8 recess other times that they might agree on other than 9 November 23rd?
Have any datas cropped up?
10 MR. SOHINhI:
Well, I know that a t least you, Mr.
11 Chairman, and I, as well, have a conflict f or the week of 12 December 7th --
13 JUDGE WOLFE:
Tha t is true.
O' 14 MR. SOHINKI:
-- in another proceeding.
15 MR. C3WAN:
We did talk about-the week that begins 16 with November 30 and runs, I guess, through the Saturday, 17 December 5 as being a possible alternat'ive week, and I think 18 any time that week is acceptable to us and, as I understand 191 t, to the staff.
20 JUDGE WOLFE Well, we had suggested December 5.
21 I take it December 4 is equally acceptable?
22 MR. COWAN Yes, Mr. Chairman.
23 JUDGE WOLFEs For you, Mr. Sohinki?
()
24 MR. SOHINKI:
I don't see that one day will make 25 that much difference.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7502
(])
1 JUDGE WOLFE All right.
-We will recess until 2 noon, and in the meantime we will check with the Chief 3 Administrative Judge and see what we can come up with.
4 All right.
We will stand in recess until 12 noon.
5 (Recess.)
6 JUDGE WOLFE All right.
We have checked with the 7 Chief Administrative Judge, and the Board will have to be 8 reconstituted.
Another administrative judge will be 9 assigned to take Judge Bright's place.
We the Board and the 10new administrative judge will be able to attend a hearing on 11 December 4, which is a Friday.
12 Now, how many days prior to that time are the 13 parties agreed tha t the y should submit their affidavits O
14 and/or written direct testimony?
15 MR. SOHINKI I would propose one week, Mr.
16 Chairman.
17 JUDGE WOLFE:
And that takes it back to what, Mr.
18 Sohinki?
November 27?
19 MR. SOHINKI Yes, but I notice that is the day 20 af ter Thanksgiving and that may create problems for some 21 people.
22 JUDGE WOLFE:
Well, we settled on December 4 23 MR. COWAN:
We can meet whatever schedule the
()
24 staff wa nts.
We can meet November 27, or if Mr. Schinki is 25 suggesting that it be the 25th, we can meet that date, or O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGYON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7503' l
()
1whatever date is agreeable with Mr. Sohinki and the staff, 2 we are agreeable with.
3 MR. SOHINKI:
My suggestion would be to leave it 4 the 27th, and those people who have problems with the 27th 5 on the staff, we will endeavor to get that material in by i
6 the 25th, so that we would get it in no later than the 27th.
7 MR. COWANs That is fine, Mr. Chairman.
8 JUDGE WOLFE:
Now I want this to be clear, that 9 the Board is willing to have tendered to it on or before 10 November 27th testimony in the form of affidavits instead of 11 prefiled written direct testimony.
However, we expect and 12 require tha t whoever the deponent or affiant will be present 13 on December 4th for examination by the Board and possible O
14 examination by Applicant and or by staff.
15 Now, if I don't say that again, it is clear f rom 16 what I am saying now that that will be a requirement by the 17 Boa rd.
18 MR. SOHINKIs Yes, sir.
19 JUDGE WOLFEs All right.
20 Now, with this new hearing date of December 4th 21 and with -- what dates can the parties agree on?
Well, as 22 to Applicant, when would you now propose to submit your 23 Supplementary Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 24 Law ?
25 MR. COWAN:
One moment, Mr. Chairman.
O i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
,.~,.
-~
7504
()
1 JUDGE WOLFE Yes.
2 (Pause.)
3 MR. COWAN M r. Chairman, we would be prepared to 4 file the Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 5 Law on F rid a y, December 11.
What we would propose to do 6 would be to order an expedited transcript so that we would 7 have the transcript of the December 4 hearing by Monday, 8 December 7.
Of course, most of our preparatian for t'.o 9 supplemental findings would be done in advance of the next 10 hearing session, and therefore we would suggest that our 11 filing data remain December 11.
12 JUDGE WOLFE All right.
13 What do you propose as to the due date for the O
14 filing of -- I guess this would be -- well, no intervenor 15 filed initially partial proposed findings of f act.
16 MR. COWANs That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
17 However, we believe that it is necessary to af ord 181ntervenors that opportunity?
19 JUDGE WOLFEa Wha t opportunity shall they now be 20 given and on what date?
21 MR, COWAN On the regulations in 10 CFR Part 2 22 they normally have a ten-day period after the Applicant's 23 filing, so we would propose December 21, which is a Monday,
()
24 for the intervenor filing.
25 JUDGE WOLFE And that is the filing of what, l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRG!NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
I
7505
()
1 Supplementary Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law?
Or 21s this --
3 MR. COWAN:
Well, we believe that all they are (3
%)
4 entitled to is Supplementary Finding of Fact and Conclusions 5of Law.
If one of them requested to file full findings, I 6 think we would have to deal with that at that time.
I think 7 they are past by some two years or some yea r r.nd a half the 8 time when they should have filed Proposed Findings of Fact 9 or Partial Proposed Findings of Fact, so we think the only 10 appropriate area for them to file on would be on matters 11 that are new since the last filings occurred on Proposed 12 Findings of Fact which were in midsummer of 1979.
13 Under 10 CFR Part 2.754(b), failure to file O
14 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or briefs 15 when directed to do so may be deemed a def ault and an order 16 or initial decision may be entered accordingly.
The Board 17 had an order directing proposed findings of fact with 18 respect to all outstanding issues be filed in June 1979.
19 Such findings were not filed by any of the intervenors.
20 Therefore I think it is appropriate at this point with 21 regard to the supplemental proposed findings only to allow 22 filing by the intervenors of supplemental proposed findings 23 with respect to those issues that are now up before the 24 Boa rd.
25 JUDGE WOLFE Do you happen to have, Mr. Cowan, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2245
7506
(])
1 the date of our order ruling that partial proposed findings 2 shall be filed by such and such a date in the past?
I think 3 it was May 2, 1979.
Is that cot; rect?
4 MR. COWAN:
My memory says tha t but that is a 5while ago so I am trying to check that here.
6 JUDGE WOLFE Okay.
7 MR. COWANs I don't seem to have that order with 8 me, Mr. Chairman, so I can 't verif y from what I have here 9 the date of that order.
10 JUDGE WOLFE Would you like to see my copy?
11 HR. COWAN:
This is the order I was thinking of 12 dated May 2, 1979, which establishes e schedule for filing 13 of Partial Proposed Findings of Fact for all matters which O-14 a t that time had been previously addressed in the 15 evidentiary sessions.
The order required the Applicant to 16 file partial proposed findings of fact on J une 1,
1979 and 17 the staff to file partial proposed findings of f act on July 18 11, 1979.
The order granted permission to the other parties 19 to file on July 2, 1979.
20 JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
Let 's retrace our steps.
21 The Board will have to issue an order, but we wish to be as 22 explicit and specific as possible.
The hearing is to be Z3 held on December uth and will be devoted to what?
To
()
24 hearing precisely what?
Any suggestions by the parties on 25 the wording of the order?
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., W/.SHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) $54 2345
7507
()
1 I will just leave it to receive evidence on any 2 outstanding matters.
We have discussed tha t during the
(}
3 course of this prehearing conference.
I don't think anyone 41s doubtful of what they have to determine as to the matters
. Sthey will have to submit v-itten direct testimony on or 6 affidavits.
I don't think there is any doubt in anybody's 7 mind there.
8 MR. COWANs I believe the general language which 9 you have just suggested, Mr. Chairman, would be appropriate 10 language. I think if we tried to cover the specific points 11 such as admission of the SER, Supplement 3 and 4,
that that 12 would be superfitious.
13 JUDGE WOLFEs Yes. All right.
O 14 dR. SOHINKI:
I think if we just left the language 15 to be similar to matters discussed at the prehearing 16 conference which were in need of update or other matters 17 which the parties f eel need updating, that way people could 18 ref er to the prehearing conference transcript and hen 19 discover for themselves exactly what matters were discussed.
20 MP-C3WAN:
Mr. Chairman, it nigh t be useful for 21 the other parties to also be aware if it is indeed the 22 Board's intention that following the conclusion of that 23 hea ring, that the record would be closed or at least that
()
24 t h e Board proposes to close t..e
.ec rd following the 23 conclusion of that hearing if indeed that is the Board's O
V ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7508
()
lintention.
2 JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
The first portion of the
()
3 c rder then will read that the hearing is scheduled for 4 December 4th to receive evidence on outstanding matters 5which were discussed at the prehearing conference on 8 November 2, 1981, and that in substance the record will be 7 closed at the conclusion of that session.
8 All righ t.
The second part of the order or the 9 second iten in the order will be written testimony or 10 affidavits to be submitted on November 27, 1981 -- submitted' 11 by November 27, with the sponsors therof to appear for 12 cross-examination and for Board questioning.
13 The third item in the order will be that A pplican t 14 shall file by December 11th Supplementary Proposed Findings 15 of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
now here is where there 18 The fourth item will be 171s a problem.
They have not in the past, as we know, filed 18 partial p roposed findings.
Our order will read, then, that 19 thry shall file by December 21st Supplementary Proposed 20 Findings of Fact.
I don't know whether that would be clear 21 to them or how we can put any cut-off date on the subject 22 matter of their proposed findings.
23 MR. SOHINKI:
If I could suggest something, Mr.
(}
24 Chairman, I believe an order which permitted them to file 25 findings starting with the hearing session which next O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 i
7509
(])
1followed the filing of the partial proposed findings and 2 going forward would be an appropriate da te.
In other words, 3 the partial proposed findings covered hearings that were 4 held prior to the session of November 2, 1979, so that if 5 the intervenors were given an opportunity to file anything 6 which started from the record on that date and moved 7 f orward, including TMI issues c anything that came after 8 that, I think that would protect their rights.
9 MR. COWANs I think that is correct.
The Board 10 might wish to word the order that the intervenors can file 11 proposed findings in response to supplemental proposed 12 findings filed by the Applicant or with respect to any other 13 matters which have been considered by the Board since -- and c O 14 I believe the date would be June 1,
1979.
15 (Board conferring.)
16 JUDGE SCHINKs I have a letter in my hand from 17 John Kenrick to the Board dated April 7, 1979 wherein 18 apparently he had made inquiry as to the probability of f
19 receiving proposed findings from various intervenors and 20 reported that the counsel for ACCCE advises that it does not l
l 211ntend to file Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 22 La w.
Counsel for Atlantic County advises at the time the l
l l
23 hearing record is closed it will seek authorization from the A) t 24 Boa rd of Chosen Freeholders to submit Proposed Findings of 25 Fact and Conclusions of Law.
O
{
l I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7510
()
1 It is not obvious to me-that we had precluded 2 their filing these proposed findings when we authorized the 3 partial proposed findings to be written by staff and 4 Applicant.
I think there is a high probability that this 5whole issue is moot, but it might be useful for another 6 informal inquiry to determine whether they still plan to 7 file something.
8 MR. COWAN:
We can make that inquiry, Dr. Schink, 9 and we can report back to the Board by Wednesday morning on 10 the results of that inquiry.
We have been in communication 11 f rom time to time with counsel for Atlantic County, and he 12 has indicated as f ar as he knows the County has no further 13 interest in the proceeding but that of course if any order O
14 comes down, he would take it up with the County, so that we 15 will check with him either this af ternoon or tomorrow and 16 report back to the Board on that.
17 In light of that concern, perhaps the order ought 18 to read tha t they have the right to file Proposed Findings 19 of Fact and Conclusions of Law with respect to this 20 proceeding generally.
I agree it is probably a moot 21 question.
22 JUDGE SCHINK:
So insofar as Applicant and staff 23 are concerned, the order will -- well, insof ar as Applicant O
(_/
241s concerned, the order would read that Applican? by 25 December 11 shall file Supplementary Findings of Fact --
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) S$4-2345
_ _, ~
7511
([)
1 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of La w.
2 With respect to the fourth item of the order and 3 insof ar as intervenors are concerned, it will provide that 4 by December 21st intervenors may file Proposed Findings of 5 Fact and Conclusions of Law.
And that should indicate to 6 them that if they wish, they may file proposed findings that j
7 relate to matters that were tried two and three years ago; 8 correct?
9 MR. COWANs Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chairman.
10 JUDGE WOLFE:
Do you think this order should be 11 any more explicit than that, or once again ' hall be just s
12 assume that people will read the transcript of thin 13 prehearing conference?
I must say that under the rules, the O
14 Commission obviously will have to issue an order summarizing 15 what was discussed at this prehearing conference, but I am 16 not going into much detail, if at all, as to what was 17 discussed.
It is much too lengthy and I am just going to 18 treat that in a summary manner in another order.
19 If you suggest that the Board be more specific as l
20 to what interverits may file, please let me know at this i
21 time.
22 MR. SOHINKI:
I think that since all the 231ntervenors are represented by counsel, they should 1 ()
24 understand what the Board means by filing proposed findings.
l j
25 JUDGE WOLFE.
All right.
( ).
1 ALDEH3oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, i
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7512
()
1 MR. COWANs We will endeavor to contact counsel 2 for each of the intervenors who remain in the case and 3 advise them of the results of this prehearing conference.
{)
4 We will also offer if they wish to make available to then 5 directly a copy of the tCanscript of the prehearing 6 conference so they will have a copy if they desite it in 7 their possession.
8 JUDGE W01FE:
All right.
9 Now -rus to the fif th item, when shall staff -- by 10 wha t date will they file their Supplementary Proposed 11 Findings of Fact?
12 MR. SOHINKI:
I should think that since we are i
13 f ollowing pretty much the original schedule f or filing O
14 proposed by the Applicant, that we could still file on 15 December 31, I believe it is.
18 JUDGE WOLFEs All right. I will try this out for 17 sir e.
6 18 With respect to the intervenors the order will 19 tead that by December 21 they may file Proposed Findings'of 20 Fact and Conclusions of Law with respect to all ma tters 21 which have been tried.
I think that serves to alert them 22 tha t they are not going to be limited to matters that have 23 been add uced since November 2, 1979.
_otisfactory?
()
24 MR. SOHINKI Yes, sir.
25 MR. COWANs Yes, Mr. Chairman.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7513
(])
1 JUDGE WOLFEs All right.
2 MR. COWANs Mr. Chairman, I believe we would have S
3 a right to file a response to any filing of either the C~J 4intervenor or the staff.
With respect to the intervenor 5 filings, we sould be prepared to respond by December 31 to 6 any proposed findings that they may file.
With respect to 7 the staff, we frankly doubt whether there will be a 8 necessity for filing any response, so we think that can be 9 lef t out.
If there is, we might ask the Board at that time 10 to establish a very quick date fer a crsoonse.
11 JUDGE WOLFEa All rich t.
12 HR. SOHINKIs Mr. Chairman, if I might suggest, 13 the 2.754 provides that the Applicant should have five days O
14 af ter the filing of proposed findings by all parties to 15 reply, and I believe if the Board were tr. provide a five-day 16 period after December 31, the Applicant can make the 17 determination as to whether they t: ant to reply to anyone's 18 findings, ours or the intervenor 's, and that would follow 19 tha t rule.
20 MR. COWANs That would be fine, Mr. Chairman.
21 JUDGE WOLFEa So we change the 22 JUDGE SCHINK:
That gives you one working day.
23 MR. COWANs That is correct, assuming one doesn't
()
24 count Jar.uary 1 as a working day.
25 JUDGE WOLFEa Now, wha t do I understand, that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRG;NIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2045
7514 O
' ^== tic a e ~111 111e it= re= =o==e to iaterveaor= dr oece der 2 26th, is tha t right, and then tack on five days?
3 MR. C3WAN:
I believe the way the rule is now 4 worded, Mr. Chairman, the Applicant would have five days 5 f rom the date that the staff has to file its proposed
-6 findings in which to file responses not only to the staff 7 but to anyone else.
So that if we take the bO: ember 31 8 date, the Applicant would have until January 5, I guess.
9 JUDGE WOLFE:
Oh, all right.
Is that all right?
10 MR. COWAN:
That is fine with us.
11 JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
12 So the final order of the order would read that 13 Applicant shall respond to staff's Supplementary Proposed O
14 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and to intervenor's 15 Findings and Conclusions of Law by January 5, 1982; is that 16 correct?
17 MR. COWAN:
Correct, Mr. Chairman.
18 JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
19 Now, we have reduced the time for the Proposed 20 Findings and Conclusions of Law, and we have also reduced 21 the time limits f or the filing of written direct testimony 22 and/or affidavits.
We do so there having been good cause 23 shown.
Na m ely, to the Board's mind this is an overaged case O
24 and we have to proceed now in an expeditious manner, there 25 ha ving been more than two years of suspension.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
7515 O
sec ae1r the oooa c==e for rea=ciaa the ti -
211mits has been the f act that intervenors were not present 3 at this prehearing conference and further did not indicate 4or notify the Ecard, as they were requested to do, to S indica te whether or not they would continue to participate 61n f 2rther proceedings.
7 All right.
Any other matters to discuss?
8 MR. COWANs No, Mr. Chairman.
9 MR. SOHINKIs No, sir.
10 JUDGE WOLFEs All right.
The Board will issue an 11 order setting out these items, and per your suggestion, Mr.
12 Cowan, you should call the intervenors to alert them to this 13 f orthcoming hearing and alert them about the meaning of the.
O 14 particular item in our order that they may file Proposed 15 Findings and Conclusions of Law on all outstanding matters 16 or all matters.
17 We will now recess until 10 a.m.
on December 4.
i 18 (Whereupon, at 12: 40 p.m.
the prehearing l
l 19 conference was adjourned.).
20 21 22 l
l 23 24 25 O
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
NUCJ.AR REGULATORT COMMISSICN (0This is to certif*/ Chat the attached pr Cceedings 'Oefore the
)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 13 the satter of:.
Offshore Power Systems (Manufacturing License for Float-ing Nuclear Power Plant)
Date of F: oceeding:
November 2, 1981 Dccket Mumber:
STN-50-437-CP
? lace of Proceeding:
Bethesda, Maryland were held as herein appears, and. that this is the criginal. transe:-f.pt thereof for the-file c' the Cccmissicrz.,
Ann Riley Official E'eportar (Typed)
~10
$s>J Of ficiaI Reporter (31gnatu:-e)
O 3
0 3
-