ML20055A592
| ML20055A592 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry, Harris  |
| Issue date: | 07/13/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8207190222 | |
| Download: ML20055A592 (214) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ - _ - __ _ -
NCCI. EAR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSICN O
'W"l Tl ELL @h a ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I:1 the Matter ef: :
SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER : DOCKET NOS. 50-400 OL PLANTS, UNITS 1 AND 2 : 50-401 OL O CA'"I: Julv 13, 1982 PAGZS: 1 - 213 A'" : Raleigh, North Carolina
]&W ~ TR -o /
a.
gnala 2& 9'
[&& C /YW bbh, N 1 ^"" "
O
""FN 400 Vize nia Ave.,
S.W. Wash .g en, C. C. 20024 O: s TchphOne: (202} 334-2243
'ab'7190222 G20713
, ADOCh 0 E 00 0 4 0,,
P DF<
x _
'l ' ,
s v 1 UNITED STATES'.OF AMERICA -
D V
- s. ..
s .
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
3 ATOMIC'NAFETY AND LICENSIEG BOARD
q ;
4 _______________x, ,
ie 5 In the matter of: C:
g- ..
~~
Docket Nos'. 50-400 CL h 6 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR PdWER 50-401 OL
[
3 R PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 e .
8- 7 %
- s N'
s __ _ -_ __ _
-x -
m g
t'4 g
v gx
- c3 c
, Ns- .- .-
s y 9 . . . - _. , 3
.~ . , , - -
.j '._ m. .s 1
.m o . ,
y :.
c m 10 G Tuesday, July 13, 1982 -
/
Dobbs' Government Build'ing <. \
$ 11 ,
^'
Room 217 ^:._< . .,,,, _.
is Raleigh, North Cdrolina 27602 +
6 12 ~-' e -
z .- %
s +
g 13 Prohearing conference in the above-entitled matter m :s m
fg 14 convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 o' clock a.m.
- t e
2 15 + '.
5
- ~ . _
j d
- I6 BEFORE: ' i
! " ~% -
- b. 17 JAMES L. KELLEY, Chairman ' ' '
Administrative Judge ' "
l
!B 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
=
g -
9 19 GLENN O. ERIGHT, Member n Administrative Judge ,
, 20 Atomic Safety and' Licensing Board ,
1 21 JAMES CARPENTER, Mem5e'r ..
Administrative JudgeL ~-
22 Atomic Safety and Licensing . Board "
s:.y 23 , ~; ..
~
l -
0 24 _
25 ' -
~
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
~,
t 2-3 3
, N' I APPEARANCES:
O 2 On behalf of the Licensee:
, v THOMAS A. BAXTER, Esq.
J(ik ' 4 JOHN H. O'NEILL, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge s . 1800 M Street, N.W.
- a. 5- Washington, D.C. 20036
_ g,'
3 6 SAMANTHA FRANCIS FLYNN, Esq.
^
h -
RICHARD E. JONES, Esq.
8 7i '
Carolina Power & Light Company
_ ! s P. O. Box 1551 ,
g Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 0
- i - 9
'd N
$ .. 10 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
_iG II N CHARLES A. BARTH, Esq.
3 s MYRON FARMAN, Esq.
E, I2 Office of the Executive Legal Director y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission pd g 13 Washington, D.C. 20555 m s E 14 w
$ On behalf of intervenors:
" 2 15 .
m
- WELLS EDDLEMAN
.'j 16 TRAVIS PAYNE C DANIEL READ
~ g _17 -
RICHARD WILSON
, g 9 ,
PATRICIA NEWMAN M 18~ i % SLATER NEWMAN
~
PHYLLIS LOTCHIN h
- 19 g,
w 20 i \
., 21
!, O 22 23
'l 4
s 10- 24 25 41 r" ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l x. -
4
.P. R Q g & E D_,I E p,_ E 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
(]) 3 Our mike here seems to be dead. We will try to speak up and 4 ask you to do likewise and perhaps later en today we can get e 5 this operational. But let's go ahead for now.
N
$ 6 My name is James Kelley. I am a lawyer, and I am j 7 chairman of this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. On my M
j 8 right is Judge Glenn Bright. Judge Bright is a long-time d
c; 9 member of the panel. His background is in nuclear engineering.
$ 10 He did sit as a member of the panel in the construction permit
@ 11 proceeding before Shearon Harris, so that gives us the k
6 12 advantage of a certain institutional memory on the board that I~)
! will be helpful.
N 13 E
h 14 On my left is Judge James Carpenter. Judge 2 15 Carpenter is a recent member of the panel. He is an oceanographer with a degree in oceanography from Johns hopkins. He taught many
$. ." 16 W
g 17 years at the University of Miami and joined us last summer, and n my far right is David Lewis, who is our law clerk, recent 18 E
g 19 graduate from the University of Virginia.
n 20 I have an opening statement which I will read.
21 This is the first prehearing conference in the Nuclear
(~h 22 Regulatory Commission proceeding to determine whether
%)
23 operating licenses should be authorized for Units 1 and 2 of
{} 24 the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. The applicants for 25 the licenses are the owners of the plant, Carolina Power and I
, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
5 1 Light Company, and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency. Permits for the construction of these nuclear 2l 3l facilities were authorized in 1978 following a contested O 4I heering. Construction of the g1 ant is in gregress on e rure1 g 5 site in Eke and Chatham Counties, North Carolina, about twenty Ei j
6l miles southwest of Paleigh.
R I 7j This proceeding was initiated by a January, 1982, e.
$ 8 notice in the Federal Pegister describing the application for 0
$ 9 operating licenses and stating that interested persons or
$ 10 organizations could seek intervention in a hearing. In N
j 11 response to that notice, the Commission received numerous B l j 12 petitions for intervention. Thereafter each petitioner was Oj13 required to file contentions setting. forth the safety ,
$ 14 environmental, and other types of issues that they wished to D
j 15 raise. Over 250 contentions have been proposed to date.
g 16 The petitioning individuals and a spokesperson.for each us 6 17 , petitioning group will introduce themselves for the record.in N
E 18 a few moments along with counsel for the applicants and the E
g 19 l NFC staff.
n 20 Our primary purposes in this first prehearing 21 conference will be to determine whether each netitioner is 22 , encitled to intervene as a party and to discuss the 23 ' acceptability of the proposed contentions. Speaking very O 24 l generally .- and this is meant as much for a public audience l
25 that didn't show up as anybody else -- but I will go ahead with
- ..____-s. ____.___._...,,s.-
0
\
1 -it. Speaking very generally, petitioner is entitled to party O 2 status if it can show that it may be directly affected by 3 facility operation. That's standing in quotes in legal O 4i i
parlance, and if it advances at least one acceptable contention, s 5 Again, speakingverygenerally,thecontentbbnisastatement-9
@ 6 cast in reasonably specific terms that some feature of the R*
" 7 applicant's facility does not comply with applicable safety N
y 8 requirements or will unnecessarily damage the environment.
~
d 9
9 z Now, it's common for many proposed contentions to e
g 10 be ruled out of the operating license proceedings for one reason 11 5
is or another. Some are excluded, for example, because they y 12 lack sufficient specificity or because they are only n5 v 13 appropriately considered at the earlier construction permit j 14 proceeding. Other contentions may be excluded because they 15
[-
~
are in fact an attack on an NRG rule. For example, an NRC j 16 rule provides that the emergency planning zone around a a
{:: 17 i l
reactor shall be "about ten miles" in radius. A contention M 18
_ claiming that the zone for Shearon Harris ought to be thirty P
19 h
n miles would be excludable as an attack on a rule. We are 20 concerned now only with'their proper statement -- not with 21 their proof. Evidence in support of admitted contentions will L 22 be presented later at an evidentiary hearing.
23 ! Interested members of the public will have P
d 24 opportunity at later dates to present to the board information 25 1 reviews about the Shearon Harris facility. The exact times t
7 1 and places for such public sessions will be announced through O 2 the media well in advance.
3 In these limited appearance sessions, oral statements (N /D 4 are limited to about five minutes. In addition, however, e 5 written statements about Shearon Harris of any length are also 8
4 6 welcome and may be submitted at any time. Such statement should e
7 be mailed te the U. S. Nuclear; Regulatory Commission, Shearon Harris Proceeding, Washington, D. C. , 20555, lE 8 d
d 9 Let me stop at this point, and I'd like to go 1cft to
-i h 10 right and have introduced for the record each petitioner to E
begin with, and we will work across the middle and across the
{a 11 p' 12 right or a spokesperson if it's an organization. A 5
- 13 spokesperson for that petitioner. We will begin with you,
~)
p 34 sir.
w 2 15 E
j
. 16 e
p 17 s 1 M 18 19 g
n 20 21 22 23 24
, (~)
(/ 25 l
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
F
~
\ ? 8 l e l
2cl l
I MR. EDDLEMAN: I'm Wells Eddleman. I'm a school 2
teacher and energy consultant from Durham, North Carolina.
3 MR. RUNKLE: John Runkle, executive coordinator 4
of the conservation council of North Carolina.
g 5 MR. PAYNE: I'm Travis Payne, an attorney with the 5 0 firm of Eddlestein and Payne, and I represent Kudzu alliance R
S 7 in this preceeding.
n 9 8 M MR. READ: I'm Daniel Read. I'm a student of the d
c 9 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and I represent o
h the Chapel Hill antinuclear group effort and the environmental
=
law project.
d 12 Z MR. NENMAN: I'm Slater Newman. I'm a co-coordinator
) 13 g of citizens against nuclear nower, and our substantive E 14 d representative, John Cowgell, was not able to get off from e
9 15 j work either today or tomorrow and would like an opportunity T 16 g to meet wi;ch the relevant persons either this evening or g 17 ! tomorrow x
. evening, if possible.
x
$ 18
- JUDGE KELLEY: Perhaps we could discuss that a C
9 19 n little later off the record and see what we could work out.
r 20 DR. READ: My name is Richard Read. I'm a family 21 physician in Apex, North Carolina.
)
/ 22 l JUDGE KELLEY: Among the petitioners Mrs. Lotchin 23 '
is not here yet, but I believe that then covers everybody else; 24 i j is that correct, as far as we all know?
25
+ '
,,---y,. _ ______. - - ,.- , , , , , , -
l 9 I
I 2c2 i 1
l MR. PAYNE: Yes.
'd 2I i MR. BAXTER : Appearing on behalf of the applicants,
. Carolina Power and Light Company, and the North Carolina ss 4 Eastern Municipal Power Agency, I am Thomas A. Baxter. To r- e 5 g my right is John H. O'Neill, Jr. To my left is Richard E.
3 6
_ ; Jones. And to Mr. O'Neill's right, Samantha Frances Flynn.
E I n 7-
- Mr. O'Neill and I are from the law firm of Shaw, n
8 8
Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge in Washington, D. C., Mr. Jones d
6 9l z- is vice-president and senior counsel of Carolina Power and C
H 10 E Light, and Mrs. Flynn is associate general counsel of the E 11 y company.
e 12 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank.you, b 13
@ MR. BARTH : Mr. Chairman, I am Charles A. Barth.
E 14 y
To my inmediate right is Mr. Karman. We are attorneys C 15 j employed in the office of the executive legal director T 16
$ of Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., and (g
I 17 i j together we represent the staff of the Commission in this 5 18 g proceeding.
19 !
$ JUDGE KELLEY: And your other gentlemen this morning?
20 MR. BARTH: He 's no t a lawye r .
21 l JUDGE KELLEY: That's okay.
~}
' 22 l l MR. BARTH: He's a technical member who we assign >
l 23 ' i.
all tough questions as to right or wrong to.
' 24 l
! JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. And your name would be?
l 25 , !
- MR. LICITRA
- Emanuel Licitra. ,
N
10 l
2c3 !
I JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you.
O RJ 1 We solicited suggestions for an agenda. The only 3
suggestion that I got was from the applicants. I'm not sure, O
' 'f 4 did anybody else send something in maat just didn' t get to e 5 me?
n 4
g 6 Okay. In any event, I had done an agenda and when R
S 7 I got yours yesterday I think about everything that you A
S 8 a suggested is in the one we've got one way or another, so d"
9
~.
z I think that pretty much covers that waterfront.
o H 10 g I think I'd like to distribute copies of the agenda
=
II
$ n o w .~ Everybody can take a couple of minutes to look it over k
I to see where we think we'd like to go, and then we can b 13 g take comments and suggestions for a few minutes and then m
hI m
9
' move on from there, but let's do that next.
15 m Why am I talking .into this thing?
m d Ib Dave, do you have any left? Did you use them all?
A 6
17 MR. LEWIS: I gave them all out. I have one more.
x
$ 18
- JUDGE KELLEY: Can you give Jim one?
C 19 8
i MR. LEWIS: Sure.
I 20 i JUDGE KELLEY:
- j I think we're wired for sound at this "1
. point. All right.
' 2 While you're looking at that paper I'd like to 23l acknowledge receipt this morning of four documents, I believe,
() 24 three from the applicants each of which are brief responses 25 to various papers that have been filed in the past couple l
, ---s. - - - - - . , - - , , - , , , . , . . . -
I 11 l
j- ! of weeks. The fourth document is one filed by -- is it 2 CHANGE ELP? Is just CHANGE; is that sufficient?
}
3 MR. READ: That'll be sufficient.
l CHANGE is simplest, if that's okay
(} 4 JUDGE KELLEY:
e 5l with you. It's a motion filed by CHANGE and captioned renewal E l n ,
d e
6j and reformation by CHANGE ELP, E-L-P.
7 We have just seen this morning, and I don't think any C4 8 of us have really had a chance to read it -- let me suggest d
d 9 to the applicants and staf f that they read this over today or W
E e 10 this evening and we will do the same, and could you let us 3
5
< 11 know tomorrow morning whether and approach it that way.
b J
12 MR. BAXTER: Okay.
3=
('g j 13 JUDGE KELLEY: I hope this agenda is more or less V=
s a 14 self-explanatory. We could add, for example, if the 2 15 applicants and staff want to speak to this last motion s
- 16 from CHANGE we could add that and talk about it tomorrow B
A 6 17 under other motions.
E 18l Judge Carpenter wanted to say something toward the 5
E x
19 end of the day about he filed a memo with the parties about a n
20 month or so ago about some work he had done in the past for I
21 l the applicants, and he had some further things to say i b
(~) 22 about that, but we'll get to that probably this af ternoon.
As 23 Let me take it from left to right, any
(^/
1 24 [ questions, comments, additions, modifications starting s_ y 25j h '
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
12 2c5 I
with Mr. Eddleman.
2 '
MR. EDDLEMAN: The only question I have is when will 3
be the appropriate time to discuss 2.75 8, the petitions for-
] 4 waivers? -
$ JUDGE KELLEY: Well, the board will have some 9
3 e 6 general things to say about that very shortly. When you say R
S 7 that you're asking about discussions of particular requests, E
h 0 is that what you mean?
d 9
}". MR. EDDLEMAN: No. The general matter. You o -
6 10 g remember I asked you in the conference call was lt a party
=
II 5
3 because it says any party may file one, so my understanding d 12 3 of it is I can' t file any of these things until I'm a party.
/~N i
i=" 3
_5 On the other hand, I don't want to waste the board's time E 14 x and have them rule.
b 9 15 2 JUDGE KELLEY: We should clarify those kinds of
- , m T 16 g things and we can have some discussion among yourself and
' g 17 w the staff and the applicants and the board on general
=
$ 18
- points applicable to things like that. We ' ll ge t to that 19
] i I think later this morning.
MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. Thank you.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: All right.
22 j
MR. RUNKLE: And can the petitioners change the 23 '
l order of discussion here this afternoon and tomorrow and I
l l
24l!that kind of thing?
25 JUDGE KELLEY. Yes. When I put it down there for i !
N
! a
, ----s - - - - _ _ . . - - - . . - , , . , , , .
b.
l 13' '
2c6 1I j lack of a better approach I took it in alphabetical order.
( 2 I think that there probably is a better way and I meant to --
3 when we reference- in here that we need to establish a batting
() 4 order what we meant was let's say you can't come tomorrow 5
g and that kind of thing and work it out, and maybe'one way 9
6
{' that would make it quicker. If we come to coffee break if n
8 u
7l you can chat among yourselves about what your preferences x 8 n are that would be helpful.
O d 9 j MR. RUNKLE: All right. Thank you.
O 10 j JUDGE KELLEY: All right.
=
E 11 g MR. PAYNE: I have no question.
d 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Comments?
()3$ 13 MR. READ: Nothing.
E 14 g MR. NEWMAN: Nothing other than what we said before.
5 15 G
=
JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Baxter?
~
16 y MR. BAXTER: We have no comments.
p 17 w JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Barth?
=
M 18
= MR. BARTH: It seems all right to us, Your Honor, s
E 19 g -
JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Let me make a comment 20 about camera coverage. Excuse me, sir. Is this television 21 I l
, coverage or what?
(/ 22 CAMERAMAN: Yes, Channel 28.
23 '
' JUDGE KELLEY: The Commission has a rule with regard l
("T rs) 24 l to camera coverage in cases like this, and it's basically 25 picture taking is okay by natural light, that by artificial s
Yi *
..-----s, --,---,s.- - - , , . , , ,,,.s.._
l
l 14 2c7 i 1I light it's not okay.
j Now, if you want to take a couple of 2
shots that don't go more than half a minute with your extra 3
lights on, okay, but beyond that it is distracting. We O 4 know that from experience and we wouldn't want an extended 5
y distraction to occur; okay?
n i s
- 6 ;l In the realm of rules we also hase a no smoking rule E
7
'jv in the hearing room when we're in hearing.
8 8 a Nell, the first item we had was discussion of d
9
} petitioners' standing and having read the papers it's our o
i 10 impression that this may not have to be a terribly extended I
'5 s
discussion. We're u'nder the impression that standing of d 12 3 petitioners is by and large conceded. Now, that's just not
$ 13 g meant to bind you to anything, but let me -- why don' t I E 14 d move directly to the applicants.
u O 15 g Do the applicants object on standing ground to
~16 g? any of these petitioners?
l 6 a 17 l b
w 18
- i I 19 i' s
n 20 21 0 22 23
() 24 ;
l t
25
-_,n _., ,. . . . _ .__
15 1
I
[
~3rl 1 MR. BAXTER: The only outstanding obj ection we have 2
~
on paper to the standing of the petitioners was with respect 3 to Doctor Lotchin. Since our response, she has filed
() 4 additional papers about her interest, and we agree with her g 5 standing as a person -- not-as a representative of the 0
j 6 organization -- so we have no outstanding objections.
R
- $ 7 JUDGE KELLEY
- She is not here. Maybe we should M
8 8 wait for her to come. She will be along shortly.
d C 9 Let me pass to the staff then.
z, o
G 10 MR. BARTH: We have no objection to any of the j 11 standing of the six petitioners to intervene except for f a
p 12 Mrs. Lotchin, and she remedied that with her last filing,
,Q5
\' g 13 Your Honor.
=
$ 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me be clear on whether it's six
{x 15 or seven. I sort of thought we had seven.
j 16 MR. BARTH: You are correct.
4 W 1
y 17 JUDGE KELLEY: And when I say seven, I am assuming h 18 a consolidation of change in ELP.
e 19 s MR. READ: I filed one as an individual and also n
20 put it in a motion. Consolidate that.
4 21 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. But for the record, we should 22 get that clear. I recall you had an individual petition.
23 i MR. READ: Yes, sir.
() 24 JUDGE KELLEY: But for the purpose of this morning 25 in moving forward, there will be as one party change ELP, and i
16 Gr2 1 your interest as it were merged into that organization?-
2
(~/')
~ MR. READ: That's correct.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: That gives us a total of seven, and 4
[]) each one of you six gentlemen represents yourself or an 5
g organization, and Mrs. Lotchin will make number seven.
p
@ 6 G
You are saying that the staff has no problem about
$ 7 standing of any of the seven except Mrs. Lotchin M you view 8
Q O
as an individual and not as an organization?
Q 9 i MR. BARTH: Correct, Mr. Kelley, and we feel she is o
$ 10 correct -- correct, E and we think she has corrected any possible 11 a objections we had with her last filings. We had no obj ection y 12 5 to any of the seven people who are petitioning to intervene.
13
(~s]
sa $ JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
@ 14 MR. BARTH: On the standing.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: On the standing. When Mrs. Lotchin j 16 w gets here, I will get straight about herself and against the
{
e 17 organization and whether she is pursuing organizational standing,
{ 18 so that is one leg of the argument so to speak with regard to E
g 19 party status.
l l
- If you have standing, then you have the hurdle l 20
- of having one admitted contention, and that makes you a party.
21 This might be as good a place as any to comment on r3 22
%.) how we intend to proceed today with regard to rulings.
23 We, of course, have read your papers and discussed 24 them to some extent. There are a lot of debatable, difficult l 25 O questions before the house, and we are going to be hearing about ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
27 r3 1 -- about those questions and hearing your cornents and asking 2 you questions, and you are not going to get from us today and 3 tomorrow definitive rulings on a lot of questions. There will
-O 4I be some ways down the time probah1, rather extensive memoranda I
5 or orders from the board which is a postprehearing conference y
e
@ 6 order which will incorporate all of bur rulings.
R
$ 7 Having said that though, I expect as time goes on B
l 8 if something comes up and we are perfectly clear in our mind d
c; 9 with what we think about it , we will j ust rule, but we will then z
h 10 later on also incorporate rulings of that kind -- at_least we 11 would intend to incorporate rulings of that kind from the' bench a
y 12 in our formal written order that would be coming maybe in a 5
-ga 13 couple of months, so we may with some contentions make a ruling, m
5 14 but we will also rule on them later and most contentions I j= 15 expect we won't make a ruling. We will listen and then have f
16 I
i to decide what we think about it.
17 In fact, we thought it would be helpful as a matter
,U
=
{ 18 of background to get from the applicants and the staff certain i':
19 information about where things stand on construction and so g
n 20 forth. Those matters listed in Items 4 and 5. I hope we 21 haven't pulled any surprises on the applicant or the staff, 22 and we would appreciate it if they would -- first the 23 applicants could move to their points and tell us what they can
. O 24l !
about those 1tems.
I 25 , MR. BAXTER: The first on your list is the present 3
il. .,-.=_,m.-._..-_.,._, , - -
id f4 I status of construction. Unit 1 is approximately sixty percent O 2 complete at this point. Unit 2, approximately four percent 3 completed in its construction. Iten B, the expected dates for C 4 completion.
I have the estimated fuel load dates which is e 5 December 1, 1984, for Unit 1 and June of 1988 for Unit 2.
6
@ Item C, the status of offsite emergency planned R
Q 7 development. Of course, that is a subj ect that is in the n
8 8 purview of local and state government. I can only -- and I d
9 A;
don't think there are any representatives here this morning,
[; 10 and I haven't contacted any in the last week, but it's our E
a 11 best understanding that the goal is to produce. drafts of y 12 applicable state and county plans sometime in 1983, and that 5
13 is about as good as I can do.
-l 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Can I ask you a couple of questions 15
-- and appreciating the fact that you don't have those people j 16 here and I realize that it's their plan and not yours -- and as 6 17 without being bound in any way, for this particular facility
{ 18 I gather there is a North Carolina state plan that is P
19 g
n applicable to certain aspects of emergency planning.
20 Now, in addition, there would be county plans for 21 counties within the ten-mile zone.
p) u.
22 MR. BAXTER: That's as I understand it. It's my 23 impression that there is a general state plan which has q 24 attached to it annexes for each nuclear plant to which it L) 25 applies, and that there will be plans for the counties within ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
2 r5 I the EPZ, and in this particular state there is a hecvy state
() 2 role in the assistat.ce to the counties in preparing those 3 plans.
4
(]) JUDGE KELLEY: Do these plans become in effect a 5 part of the state plan?
g 2
g 6 MR. BAXTER: That is my impression, sir. Yes.
R
$ 7 JUDGE KELLEY: But bureauocratically does it mean s
8 8 that when Wake County comes up with a plan, does it mean they a
@ 9 have to get state approval before they can call it an official
$ 10 plan?
11 MR. BAXTER: We can get close to the edge of my k
j 12 available information. I really don't know how that is.
5 13 JUDGE KELLEY: And are there separate plans for
(])
l$ 14 municipalities of any size, assuming there are any in that le 15 area?
j 16 (Pause) w 17 (e MR. BAXTER: I am advised that there are not
{ 18 separate plans for the incoroorated towns within the counties.
E g 19 That is not the usual course. Of course, we are not very far n
20 down the road in terms of development of this plan.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: I have one experience in California, 22 and I know if you have a town of some size -- twenty , thirty
{])
23 thousand people -- they have a separate plan, but what little 24 -- two or three hundred places I don' t think would. The
(~)
25 county would take care of it.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. Ik'C.
20
'r6 1 When you say that you expect draft plans, why draft?
/^
( )% 2 Why not final?
3 MR. BAXTER: My experience, I don't know in this r~
(_) 4 particular case. My experience in others is that there are 5
g usually a draft prepared first, especially when you have n
6 j multiagency participation at both state and county levels R
$ 7 openly circulated amongst the different egencies whether it's g 8 Bureau of Health, Radiological Health, whether the county d
d 9 officials and others and it evolves toward a final.
g 10 JUDGE KELLEY: But at what point in this process 5
11 a
would you envision that intervenors concerned about emergency 12 g plans ought to start concerning themselves? Is there any
(~% 3 13
(/ 5m point in reading a draft that is going to be changed anyway?
l 14 MR. BAXTER: Yes, sir. I think there is a lot of g 15 e
merit to doing that. It's my impression that these plans are g 16 evolutionary documents. I think they are changed in some minor w
17 respects after the emergency drills take place _and as experience 18 is gained during the operational life of the plan and the E
19 g
n finalization of the plant in terms of its actual blessing by 20 FEMA and the state and local may not be compatible at all times 21 with what we are doing here and just like the draft environmental
() 22 statement which triggers intervenors' obligation to review it, 23 a draft emergency plan should also. I know I have given you
() 24 vague answers, and we can during the course of this day attempt 25 to do better in making some contacts and see if I can get you ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
21 Br7 I some better information on this.
2 ~
JUDGE KELLEY: I ' wan t- to get a little better handle 3 - on it because I think most of the intervenors have emergency O 4 g1enning contentions of one kind or enether. 1 think 5
.g Frs. Lotchin is. virtually _all emergency planning,'and if those n
3 6 contentions are -- as I think some of you argue -- premature R
b 7 at this point, I am trying to'get a handle on when they are M
j 8 going to be mature for consideration.
d ci 9
, MR. BAXTER: We have a different position on o
l= 10 '
Doctor Lotchin's petition, but we are going to do whatever we II 5 can to encourage the production of. draft plans early, but I is la 12 do feel contentions ought to be formulated on the basis of Qf 13 draft plans and whatever concerns the intervenors have should
@.14 become a part of those.
15 MR. EDDLEMAN: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question 16 i[
v5 about that?
17 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. Go ahead.
{ 18 MR. EDDLEMAN :
What I want to know is how the drafts E
l9 g might become available to the petitioners or intervenors. In c:
20 other words, if they are being circulated among agencies -- I 21 don't know they exist. I have had this problem with the O 22 -
pos11c accomeme ,,,m. 1 sex, 1, m,csimg cs c ,,,, 1c ex1,es, 23 , and I don't know it exists. I think from what Mr. Baxter has 24 O ,,1, .
1,c me ,,, s1m ,1,ecc1y. tec., ,,y csex, come, , ,1me, 25
- Mr. Baxter, when you have draft plans for some or all of the f
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
22 l political subdivisions. Would you serve copies on the
{
2 intervenors ?
f 3 MR. BAXTER: Yes. We have every interest in
\
4 getting started.
e 5 JUDGE FELLEY: I think that you would from what you 9
8 6 sa id .
c e7 g 7 MR. BAXTER: Yes, sir.
E k 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We just wanted your estimate d
A[ 9 for a hearing, and it may be a little speculative at this G 10 po in t . Let me ask you first. I tend to assume that a 3
ls 11 hearing starts X months after an SER is available, and is that d 12 your formula? If so, fine. If not, when do you think it E
() m 13 might go to hearing?
E 14 MR. BAXTER: That is roughly my formula, and I have to preempt two dates from the staff's announcements. It's k 15
_. 16 my understanding that the final environmental statement is c
w 17 scheduled for March, 1983, and the safety evaluation for July, 18 1983, and we propose if there are a significant number of E issues that fall in both broad categories of NEPA environmental 19 8
n 20 issues, Atomic Energy Act, and healtn and safety issues, that 21 we have at least two phases of the hearing and that the hearing
, 22 on the environmental matters would start sixty days roughly after 23 ; the final environmental statement or May of 1983 and looking
. 24 toward a hearing on safety issues sometime the t fall, early winter.
l
( 25 . JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. All I'm getting is a 6
' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~
- 23 l' ball park feel for when the applicants feel they might be ready.
2 Okay. Obviously the intervenors will have views on when q- 3 .this ought to happen, and they will be heard from.
4l Let me move to the staff then, and as you --
e 5 gentlemen, if you could speak to those points, it would be .
- j 6 very helpful.
R l 1 8 7I FR. BARTH: If I may start backwards with Question C, s
Q. 8 with the date for commencement of the hearing, the chairman
- .5 -
9 of the commission has written to Congressman Bevill and
~
ti 10 suggested a schedule of how the agency 's actions will be 11 completed in this procedure, and I would point out that the
[c is y 12 chairman has reported to Congressman Bevill that he expects 13 a date for commencement of the hearing to be 6-84.
l$
14 That is the staff position. Certainly not intending 15 to change what the chairman has told the people from Congress.
y 16 I would also suggest that the chairman reported to Congressman as j N 17 Bevill that the draft environmental statement would be completed-5
{p 18 10-82 and the final statement would be completed 3-83 and the I 19 safety evaluation report- by the staff would be completed 7-83.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: The Bevill reference. Could you 21 tell us what that is?
4 22 MR. BARTH: A letter dated June 30, 1982, to 23 Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy 24 and Water Development, Committee on Appropriations, United
, p i G
, 25 States House of Representatives; and the letter is signed by i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
24
(~N 1 the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mr. Palladino .
\_)
2 This is a report that the commission makes on a g- 3 routine basis. This advises the Congress as to what the
%)
4 schedule for the agency's actions are.
e 5 JUDGE KELLEY: This is a monthly report?
$ 6 FR. BARTH: Yes, C
$ 7 , JUDGE KELLEY: And it reflects as I understand it s
j 8 the chairman's and staff's best understanding of how the world d
d 9 looks as of the time that letter is written, and if the g 10 documents are available, some appropriate period in advance 3
i la 11 of that date, that prediction may turn out to be accurate; and p 12 if they are not, i~t won't. But -- okay.
() =
13 MR. BARTH: Going back to your other questions, l 14 Your Honor, the present status of the staff review, we have g 15 just completed sending to Carolina Power and Light some 530 m
j
. 16 questions regarding the environmental report and the FSAR m
6 17 submitted to the staff. We have not received answers to all 5
18
{ these questions. Our review is just beginning. It is in a E
g 19 very embryonic form, and we have done -- we have progressed M
' 20 nowhere beyond the initial task of questions to provide 21 information to us to commence our review in depth, so the 22 present status or review is just beginning. I have discussed 23 with our inspection people the construction of the plant, and a
24 they confirmed the applicant's statement that Unit 1 is some O 25 ' two-thirds completed and Unit 2 is some four-tenths of the way ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
25 r~ 1 toward completion.
V}
2 You asked about the Federal Energy Management review 3 of offsite plans. Insofar as they may -- insofar as FEMA 4 review is concerned, Your Honor, it's my understanding of how g 5 they work, they will obtain draft plans from the counties and 0
3 6 review the plans and make comments. It will be an exercise R
& 7 and the comments on the exercise will be put together in s
8 8 comments by FEMA to make changes to the plans, which will then d
& 9 be submitted for alteration and modification, and then the plans
$ 10 will be submitted to the reviewing and approving authority of 6
11 the state.
a g 12 I think that it's b'een my experience that hearings
() 13 can commence and contentions can be written after the completion
@ 14 of the draft plans. These are -- I would have to see these g 15 draft plans, of course, but in other cases these draft plans x
y 16 are comprehensive and covered NUREG 0654 which is the basic a
6 17 document which says what to put in an agency plan. It seems E
{ 18 to me at that point that it would be fruitful for the board to O
g 19 consider limiting the amount of time available to submit n
20 contentions regarding those draft plans. Of course, if the-21 final plan contains substantial and different procedures than 22 the draft plans, there is always an opportunity for the 23l submission of new contentions based on the criteria of 24 10 CFR 2.714 regarding new information which might affect the n/
s_
25 j outcome of procedures, so there are no loss of rights by the
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
26 1 intervenors.
2 To correct an earlier statement, Unit 2 is four 3 percent rather than four-tenths of one percent. Four percent 4 completed. A slightly different matter.
e 5 I think I have covered your questions; but if I have h
j 6 not, please inquire further E .
@, 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me make sure I am clear, and.I n
] 8 ask the same question of Mr. Baxter. When you distinguish a d
c; 9 draft and a final -- suppose there could be three stages.
$ 10 There could be the effort of some -- let's say county working E
j 11 - group that produces a draft. .There could be a plan approved is g 12 by the county boar'd of supervisors, and there could be a plan O li3 incorgereced inte the stete g1en end mede gere of en ennex.
l$ 14 At those levels of progression where do you think we can g 15 proceed?
a:
g 16 MR. BARTH: I think that when the local planners -
as t' 17 for Wake County and Chatham County have completed what they 5
5 18 consider to be a draft plan like this is the time for the E
g 19 intervenors to look very carefully to prepare to frame their n
20 contentions, and I think a cutoff time should be established to 21 do so.
22 JUDGE KELLEY: But is that a point which has been 23 . approved by the county or still a draft to be submitted at 24 state agencies?
25 MR. BARTH: Other states and other, counties in this ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
27 I state, the plan has not been approved by the county. Just 2 written by the county emergency planners.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: I think I~know what you mean.
4 MR. BARTH: But we would have to see the plan we are e 5 circulating for the future, and we are not suggesting that 6
@ 6 anything except a reasonably final document be presented for G
$ 7 comment by the intervenors, and again should that document s
$ 8 change substantially to anybody's prejudice, they have another d
d 9 chance to present contentions, Your Honor.
g 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I believe all or most of you
$ 11 have had some discussions about contentions-for the last couple k
y 12 of days. Mr. Baxter, do you wish to comment on that?
() 13 MR. BAXTER: I want to make a comment on the-staff's l$ 14 report.
2 15 MR. KELLEY: Sure.
E y 16 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, the Bevill committee w
i 17 information provided by the chairman of the NRC is-developed E
{ 18 I guess on the basis of their best estimate of what they think E
g 19 is going to happen. I don't think Chairman Palladino or n
20 Congressman Bevill would object if we started earlier if the 21 issues were ripe for hearing.
. 22 I would like to say from our standpoint we review 23 that as an outer estimate of when it would'be prudent to start.
24 Your question about negotiations, we have in our motion back in O 25 March to set up a prehearing schedule, we recognized that it ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
28 p I would be worthwhile to attempt as much as possible to work with v
2 interested members of the public on organizing the hearing and 3 procedures for its conduct and having a dialog early about what 4 the issues would be and given'the fact that we received the g 5 number of contentions we did -- and I'm very glad we undertook n
@ 6 that effort early.
R I
$ 7' We have met with the -- Mr. Eddleman, the conservation M
B counsel, Kudzo alliance, on June 30th, along with the NRC staff rJ d 9 to discuss what we might do to reach agreement on contentions --
t; 10 proposed contentions to which the applicant and staff had 11 objected, and we met yesterday with that group all day plus is j 12 Doctor Lotchin. Doctor Wilson declined the invitation to O li3 attend both sessions. We found the eetitude end the die 1og l 14 good among the petitioners and the staff and the applicant, 15 and I think it was constructive from both sides, and I think j 16 that we came close, but I'm afraid to report that we have us d 17 nothing -- nothing in the way of a stipulation or change in 5
5 18 position formally to report to the board today about any of the P
19 objections on the proposed contentions.
h n
20 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me ask the intervenors for their 21 prospective on the process.
p 22 MR. PAYNE: The basic chronology that Mr. Baxter V
23 laid out is correct. Intervenors I believe at one of our 24 meetings -- we actually had six -- but we have met on our own O on several occasions too. The discussions both on the 30th 25 f
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
6 29 1 and yesterday were on the whole I think cooperative. It's just (v~T 2 bottom line late yesterday afternoon would couldn't get 3 together. I think we did come real close.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me get clear what you came real e 5 close to. Was it agreement on all matters or --
h 3 6 MR. PAYNE: No. I don't.know how much of this I can G
$ 7 lay out,. Tom. There was an attempt to reach among the s
l 8 intervenors and with the applicants some stipulations d
d 9 regarding what would be some joint contentions and a problem
$ 10 that developed was how extensive the trade-off was going to be
$ 11 with respect to those joint contentions regarding other a
( ,12 individual contentions among the intervenors.
(~T E
\/ 13 That was one of the main problems that developed
!U 14 yesterday. A misunderstanding between the parties and it 2 15 colored the remaining negotiations and mainly it was the E
.'j 16 ultimate hurdle.
e d 17 JUDGE KELLEY: Does the staff have a comment?
E
$ 18 MR. BARTH: I think Mr. Payne accurately described E
19 what happened, Your Honor. Staff did not have to have much of g
n 20 an input because no result was reached, and the best we can say 21 is that we met twice and failed to reach an agreement, Your 22 Honor.
{)
23 ; JUDGE KELLEY: Well, in any event, if you get 24 together and work on something like that, even if you don't get 25 to where you think you might go, you understand your positions ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
, , y .~,
e ve I s
( ,
30 y;
_ 7... ,
- m 4 ..
I better, and there is virtue in that, and moreovsr,. don't feel j 2 that that process has to' stop. We are going to argue herc ~
j . ,
(% x -
4 3 today about contentions, and there %ill'b$ contentions Ta(sin - '
4
~
! and some kept out, and you'might -
be able to stipulate thing. : ,
1-
{
s s .-
) g 5 further down the road, and maybe you builtfome sort of a~basd m
$- 6 for that thelastcoupleoftimes)sothatis{worthdoing. N .
l x f
k7 g
MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman,wearehillingandohenAt
~
x -
s
]
~
8 any point throughout the subsequent course of this proceeding d .
d 9 to attempt as much as possible outside' the confines:.of. the -
7,. s
- t I h 10 formal process to work with the intervenors and the staff and
! z
$ 11 the scheduling and the organization and any other matters that a
i l ( 12 we can reach agreement on to sttsainline the proceeding, and we i g '
4 Q g m
13 are open to that at any time. ~
s l
14 MR. EDDLEMAN: Mr. Chairman, I think I have d- -
j D s a
[
a:
15 responded positively to every formal and informal feeler from l .j 16 the applicants and the staff, anU I have not given up on i
d '
i d
- s 17 talking about the contentions, but we just\couldn't get* it f18 done yesterday.
F' g 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, the board appreciates n
20 the effort. I really do think that the effort is worthwhile.
. s 21 It may eventually bear fruit, an'd I think the chance to go [
3 22 head to head on some of these things 1is beneficial even if it
.O
- 23 doesn't produce a stipulation, so thank you very much for the
. 24 try.
- O q 25 j Going over the contentions and discussions then
^
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
~r , . . . - - - _ . - - _,.- -_ .,. -...- m. - ~ ~ , _ - - , _, ,. . ..l--_. .-..-.,-____.-.._.-_m. m.
37 among the board members and our law clerk, there were a number Q 1 3
2 of generic issues that seemed to come up, and this is true I I 3 suppose in most cases, but it. showed here and we thought that we 4 would like to say a few things of a very general sort about a 5 contentions before we get on into the work talking about h '
3 6 individual contentions.
f7 Some of this is pretty elementary. Some of our a
$ 8 petitioners are new to the process. Others of you are (J
c 9 veterans and know this already, but on the chance that we i g ~10 might say a few things and add a little light and shorten a 11 .little bit our discussions today and tomorrow, I would like to 1 a p 12 make a few general statements that will apply to a lot of 13 contentions, so let me try that.
l$ 14 Just looking down our lineup of four or five points, 15 I don't know that I can define a contention so that -- I know j
. 16 it when I see it, but it's sort of hard to define. It's not us g 17 legal argument. That's one of the things that it's not.
x f18 Apart from that, we do have a very strong preference for E
, 19 contentions of twenty-five words or less. Pe think that it's l 20 almost always possible -- even in a pretty technical contention s
21 too -- to say it on a page double-spaced let's say, and I think i
22 that one of the problems with a lot of contentions -- we have 23 some pleading of evidence at some considerable length here, x
24 and that tends to make it not just longer than it needs to be 25 - but tends to obscure the main point, and we are interested in.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
32 0 1 -- as we go through contentions -- possibly some postcontentions 2 will be modified or changed. We are interested very ruch in 3 getting toward fairly simple, straightforward factual 4 allegations that there is some defect in this proposed facility
.e 5 or that it has some unnecessarily harmful environmental result.
6 l 6 This question of specificity and available information we 7 specified first by mentioning it in the phone call and sending j j 8 out a copy of a Catawba board decision.
0 l 9 9 The Catawba board had this situation. It had a z
h 10 lot of contentions that were really quite vague, and one would 11 have to say too vague to be allowed in, but then the problem is l
p 12 was that the petitioner would say that is the best I could do I j
! O!5 m 13 because I hadn't seen the emergency plan or I hadn't seen the l 14 security plan or whatever. He would reference them some E
15 document that didn't yet exist. We were -- we -- I say it j 16 that way because I am on this board. The argument was made vi g 17 that you have to file all of your contentions up front before
- 18 the first prehearing conference, and even if they are vague, O
g 19 go ahead and file them, and then they will get tossed out if a
20 they are too vague, and if you file a contention later on that 21 -- let's say is on an emergency plan, you are then confronted 22 Q with the various criteria in the rule about late contentions.
23 ; It's deemed to be a late contention even though you got it in
! 24 promptly after let's say the emergency plan was made available,
! 25 and that Catawba board was troubled by that argument, and that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
33 Q 1 board rejected that argument, but there was a lot of spirited 2 discussion and the staff and applicant -- one of the issues th b ard a week O 3 certified t appea r tw ag -- they did 4 certify that question; and thinking it might have some interest, e 5 I mailed out that paper to petitioners , and that's where it b
lR 6 sits. I don't know when that is going to get decided.
P3 7 In reading the papers from the applicants and the M
j 8 staff, I sense that we don't have the same problem, and I'll 0
d 9 ask both of you to just state what your position is, but my .
x h 10 basic understanding -- and let me see if I am wrong -- is that
@ 11 you say that people don't have to file contentions right now is y 12 with respect to information not now available, and let's go O s 5 13 with the emergency plan example, but that rather it will be m -
@ 14 okay if contentions are filed some reasonably short time after E
15 they are available, and that at that juncture the fact that they j
- 16 are based on new information will be sufficient justification w
d 17 for letting them in, and the petitioner will not have to face E
{ 18 the four criteria in 2.714A. It's sort of a pro se rule that E
, 19 you are giving me. If it's new information, it's pro se.
M 20 Okay. And you don't have to go through the various tests.
21 Is that correct, Mr. Baxter?
22 MR. BAXTER: Not quite, 23 ,i JUDGE KELLEY: I was afraid not. Go ahead.
24 MR. BAXTER: What we have said, Mr. Chairman, and 25 we outlined our position on the basis and specificity and our 0
$ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
34 1
reaction to the Catawba board's rulings in the beginning of our 2 response to Mr. Eddleman's petition and then trade reference to 3 it in response to all others. What we said was that we think 4 -- we recognize the production of documents and discussions in e 5 the normal course of this licensing proceeding that are going E
$ 6 to take place in the future, and we don't think it is reasonable S
tt 7 that intervenors should be subject to the bases with reasonable 7.
2 8 specificity on information that is going to be new and included 0 .
c 9
, in the documents we all anticipate are coming forward.
10 What we said was that application of the criteria Il for late contentions, the fact that the new information -- that 5
is j 12 it is new information -- is going to overwhelm the other three O li3 -- other four er however meny there are. 1t s not thet we
@ 14 think they can be disregarded. It's just not going to amount 15 to a difficult decision to balance those. Several of them are l
as 16 the extent to which interests are going to be protected by other 17
(
a:
parties. That is not going to be a real difficult test when M 18 you are talking about emergency plans that just became available.
E 19 g The extent that we are just going to broaden the n
20 issues in the proceeding. Well, as far as the FEMA and the 21 NRC review, it's just beginning at that same point, so I don't 22 think that argument would be persuasive. I am not waiving 23 the rule. I j us t don ' t think it's going to be difficult for 24 the petitioners to overcome it.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I'd have to read your papers ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
35 C 1 again -- and I am sure I didn't read them carefully enough.
2 So you are saying that you are sitting here today and you are 3 saying I predict that when that happens they will win on a 4 balancing?
o 5 MR. BAXTER: We have even as far as a bunch of 6
j 6 documents, we have stipulated that -- and I have listed them G
E 7 in the response -- and it includes amendments to the ER on n
[ 8 conforming our cost benefit balancing to the new commission 0
=; 9 rule on need for power. The staff's discussion of Class 9 10
$ accidents in the draft environmental statement. Their 11 treatment of unresolved safety situations in the SER.
is y 12 We have essentially -- we have stipulated now that G
V 5
13 the new information factor will overcome the others in the l 14 late filing criteria.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: What is the difference in saying that j 16 and you won't raise the point if it's that kind of a contention as y 17 that is in? Why not stipulate to that?
a:
5 18 (Pause)
E 19 MR. BAXTER: Well, as it applies to the timeliness 20 of it, it amounts to practically the same thing. Of course, 21 the contention has to meet all the other requirements of the 22 commission's rules.
Q-23 JUDGE KELLEY: I am not focussing on that. I am 24 not saying that.
25 (Pause) i 4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
36 Q 1 MR. BAXTER: It's hard for me --
2 JUDGE KELLEY: It bothers me to get at our present 3 posture. What are we saying to an intervenor? Just for the 4 sake-of argument, accepting your position, are we saying this e 5 morning that emergency plans aren't done yet, but don't worry b
$ 6 about it because you will be able to file contentions, and I'll R
E 7 --
and you are going to get in for sure, but there will be a M
g 8 balancing, but don't worry about it. I am not sure.
O d 9 MR. BAXTER: I am saying if it's new information
~i h 10 in those documents , we are not going to object on timeliness E
j 11 grounds. We will not ask for the other criteria to be addressed is y 12 by the. petitioners. I mean there could be argument about O 5 g 13 whether it's new information. That is what I meant. Can't a
$ 14 waive as to an entire document necessarily.
M 2 15 JUDGE KELLEY: But if it's new information, you E
g 16 won't raise the timeliness objection?
e 6 17 MR. BAXTER: That's right. As to the documents at E
7
- 18 least that I have identified and we attempted to be responsive E
19 in each case to the proposed contentions that we have so far.
g n
20 JUDGE KELLEY: When you say that you don't object, 21 what is the board supposed to do? Balance anyway?
g 22 MR. BAXTER: I think the board will have to take 23 , into consideration whatever the staff's view is.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: Sure.
i 25 PR. BAXTER: From my standpoint, no.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
37 O 1 aucce xtt'ev: From your =taadeoiatt 2 MR. BAXTER: No.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: What is the problem? Supposing 4 somebody comes in with a vague contention now and we say well, 5 we will let it in conditionally like they did in Catawba
$ 6 subject to the arrival of the emergency plan, and at some later R
6, 7 point and subject to your making it more specific at that s
l 8 time, d
d 9 MR. BAXTER: The difference is discovery. That's
- d o
G 10 all.
B h 11 JUDGE KELLEY: That's all? That's what I thought.
is y 12 Let me ask the staff. I think we all know what we O 5 3 13 are concerned with here. Rather convoluted problem, but we as l$ 14 know what we are talking about. Where is the staff on this g 15 now?
a:
- [ 16 MR. BARTH
- Your Honor, in regard to emergency us tiw 17 plans, the staff will stipulate that it will raise no objections f18 as they are set forth in 10 CFR 2.714 to contentions submitted e 19 g going to the material contained in emergency plans when it n
20 becomes available on the basis that they are late filed.
21 I would have to discuss the other matters Q 22 individually rather than generalized. You have brought up what 23 ; the Catawba board did in regard to contentions conditionally 24 admitted. The staff's response dated 4-20-82 in the Catawba 25 proceeding to the applicant's motion for certification, we ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
38 1 abide '*h. We feel that correctly represents our position and
~
2 has not changed. We do not feel that the regulations provide 3 for conditional admittance of contentions for purposes of O 4 discovery. We would object to any kind of conditional g 5 admission for two reasons. One, the applicant has already n
@ 6 stated discovery is a result and second, as the applicant has 7 pointed out in Calbert Cliffs in 4 AEC 243, the licensing a
j 8 boards have no authority to change the regulations. There a
c 9 is no regulation which provides for a conditional admittance
$ 10 or a contention subject only to discovery.
$ 11 There is a change in regulations, and we don't feel is 12 this is authorized. I point out that in this very proceeding
/
O lis14 in 11 naC et 517 in Caroline rower end ti8ht. sheaton narrie.
@ the commission itself reviewed two decisions, one by a 15 licensing board, one by the appeal board, in which various 16 conditions were imposed for future actions and future hearings, 3l us
{x 17 , a matter not provided for in the regulation. The commission
{ 18 struck this down.
O g 19 We feel from the point of view of the structure of n
20 the regulations that the commission has established, a 21 contention should be admitted or denied or you have the third 22 possibility of deferring the ruling. We also feel that in O 23 regard to emergency plans we are willing to stipulate the 24 contentions submitted when those plans are formulated will not O 25 receive an objection from the staff that they are late filed.
b ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
39 Q
t 1 To discuss other matters, I prefer not to be general but to 2 have Your Honor ask me specific questions.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Sure. We will have this case by 4 case anyway, but before we get into the individual cases,
- 3 5 it would be helpful to find out -- I mean after all, you are
@ 6 the ones that have the contentions before the board -- a lot of G
$ 7 them -- and a lot of then have been objected to on grounds that j 8 are common one to the other, and it would be.hc1pful to get some U
q 9 idea of where the staff and where we are before we get into the l3 10 individual discussions, but we are not talking right now about 11 any rulings on this problem. We want to know what you think is y 12 the problem is.
O 5 g
en 13 MR. BARTH: May we make a further comment -- because l 14 it has come up. Security plans are not now presently 15 available to petitioners to intervene, and the staff's view j 16 the licensing board in Catawba correctly handled this kind of us 17 an issue, and there the licensing board basically adopted the
{ 18 commission's position in Diablo. In our response to the E
19 various petitions to intervene we included the papers that the g
n 20 Catawba board did with the suggestion that the intervenor give 21 this consideration that this is the correct approach to resolve 22
{ whether or not we will have a contention formulated or accepted 23 ! on security planning.
24 O 25 I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4cl 40 i
I JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Let me pass on to this notion of attacks on rules and relate it to that, the notion of 3
- whatever is ruled -- we do have as a general doctrine in the i NRC that the commission establishes specific rules. That's i 5 g it for that particular thing, but all you can argue about is
- e.3 4 E f0 whether a particular proposal complies with it. Back in the t old days before there was an ECS rule, for example, you n ,
8 a 8 could argue about cooling systems. Now you can't. If it d
d 9 j complies with the ECS rule, that's it, and it comes up in C
H 10
@ a lot of contentions. It comes up not that much in
=
E 11 g emergency planning because there isn't that much in the d 12 3 rule that is specific, but the~re is the one feature, the o
(')
v @
13 ten-mile feature, that I mentioned in my opening statement.
, E 14 5 The concept I think is fairly straightforward. It's e
9 15 g
sometimes kind of hard to apply because it's not always T 16 M
m obvious that a contention is in attack. Let's take it G 17 e for a moment that you've got an attack on the rules, then
$ 18
=
+
what? And this is a problem that comes up in some o f.. you r E 19 g filings and I just want to refer to it generally now. If 20
, you look at 2.758 of the rules -- I don't know if I have 21 to read it. Speaking of reading, the Wake County Library O 22 U worked out reasonably well for most of you, or do you have --
2 23 l MR. EDDLEMAN: It gets complicated, Judge. I
() remember you saying it wasn't an undue hardship. With all 25 l due respect, I think it's a due hardship to try to get back i
1 0
3 ALDERSON 14EPORTING COMPANY, INC.
e 4c2 l 41 I
and forth over there,. and I think I have made the LPDR 2
branch up in D.C. pretty long suffering with things we can't 3
! find because a lot of times it's identified and you don' t O 4 get the eccession u se entu enr+ere from thirty der to
' 5
$ eight weeks after the document was allegedly filed and you n
3 6 3 don't even know it exists until then and you've got all E
" 7 ~
kinds of things.
N 8 8 n JUDGE KELLEY: Don't you have a -- there is a ;
O i
ci 9 j j
. separate room now in Chapel !!ill; is that correct? l O
[- 10 i
]
MR. RUNKLE: It's a bookcase.
8 E 11 h
, g MR. EDDLEI1AN: It doesn't have all those documents.
[
d 12 E JUDGE KELLEY: What's it got? '
C
..[
, Oi' E MR. EDDtEuan: ^11 it's eot is en rR end ER and a 14 1
- g copy of the rules.
9 15 2 JUDGE KELLEY: All right.
? 16 B
us
!!R . EDDLEMA!!: It doesn't have whatever the
[i w
17 applicants file, say, for example, they make reference in
=
M 18
- their response here to something they would file on July
- n
- 19 g ! the 2nd and say, "I didn't cover it in my 6-28 amendments" and,
, you know, I don't know when the -- you know, if they 21 hadn't told me they put that in I don't know when I would 4
2 i O ,,,, ,,,,, ,,,1, ,x1,,,,.
23 l- JUDGE KELLEY: Litigation by mail is often O 'lgaiafu1.
25 I 2 L
ll I
$ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
-- - - . . . - - . _ = - _ . - - . -.
4c3 42 I
What I'm looking at is 10C of 2.758 and I hope 2
at least that is in the PDR's. And let me just read part i
3 B: a party to an adjudicatory proceeding involving initial
() 4 licensing subject to subordinate petition that the 5
y applicants of a specified commission rule or regulation v
j 6 or any provision thereof be waived or an exception be made G
E 7 for the particular proceeding. The sole ground for a
E 8
- M petition for waiver exception shall be that special d
. circumstances with respect to the subject matter of the-y ,
F 10 particular proceeding are such that application of the eh Il
$ rule or regulation or provision thereof would not serve B
I f I2 the purposes for which the rule or regulation was adopted.
() cf13 Now, the petition shall be accompanied by an E
14 g' affadavit that is the specific aspect or aspects of the O
15 h subject matter of the proceeding as to which application g 16 of the rule or regulation would not serve their purposes v.
I7 h
=
for which the rule or regulation was adopted and shall M 18
_ set forth with particularity the special circumstances t- #
8 alleged to justify the waiver or exception requested. Any n
20 other party may file a response thereto by counter-affadavit 21 or otherwise.
() Just stopping there for a minute, what you get 23 l into in a request for waiver is, in effect, a sort of
() 24 minitrial of your position before the licensing board. It 25 isn't enough to say in a pleading, and if you don't let this 1 h k
i !i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
e 43 4c4 I contention in, please waive the rule. You' ve got to file
() 2 the provisions of this rule. You have to file, this says, 3
- an affadavit. You can file three af fadavits as far as I'm
() 4 concerned, but you've got to come in and advise the board 4
j a
5 that you are right, that this really is a different situation, g 6, the rules should not apply here and ought to be waived. Now, G
" 7 ~
when vou come in with that kind of a submission then the n
8 8 l n applicant and the staff can file something against you as O
9
}". they probably would, and the board then has to decido e
F 10 j whether in its judgement you have made I believe the magic i 5 B
II word is a prima facie case. You know, if' on the basis d 12 z of the petition, affadavit and any response thereto the 9
- ( ) f3 13 presiding officer' determines that the petitioning party has 14
& not made a prima.facio showing that the rule should be
=
{
=
15 waived no evidence may be received on that matter and no
~
I 16 g discovery cross-examination. In other words, it's dead.
F 17 d Nou, on the other hand in part D if on the basis i
=
E 18
+
of the petition af f adavit and any response provided, presiding
- officer determines that such a prima facie showing has been 20 made the presiding officer shall be for ruling thereon
! certified directly to the Commission for determination
() _the matter of whether the application of the Commission I
23 'I regulation to a particular aspect and so on and so on should l
( ). be waived. We can't even decide that question. What 25 l we're supposed to do is read over these papers and if wo 1 L 1 1 j i~ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4c5 44 I
can you've'got a pretty good case, we send it up to the
( 2 Commission and they decide it, but it's got to be a fairly --
- 3 a very tiny point. Maybe doesn' t have to be a . huge
() 4 showing maybe, but still it's proof, and it's much more 5
g than a request. It's a real separate filing that you have 9
5 0 to make. And just as a general matter I think you will
. E 't
$ E 7 find you have your work cut out in getting those waivers a
e@ 8 without reference to any particular rule, and it's going to i 0 9
}"'. take quite a show to get that; and again not from us, fr om c
F 10 y the Commission. So insofar as we've got some requests
=
II 5 in various of the filings for waivers, we can't do it. We B
f c
I2 don' t have the appropriate showing before us at this point.
() z One final point and then we'll got on into particular contentions, then we'll take a coffee break 3 15 4 h af ter that and then pass on to the contentions, and that .
=
j 16 v.
is the question of consolidation, particularly in a case h
where you've got seven different intervening -- petitioning
@ 18 intervening parties, you're likely to have consolidation 4
19 8
n on some issues. I cited the applicable rule in the agenda 20 that you'll be keeping. Take a look at'that. Basically 21 t
it empowers the board to consolidate in a case where -- Oh,
() let's say four interveners have basically the same issue. If
, 23 I we did nothing we might then get four sets of interrogatories
() !
and the whole thing all the way through, four different 25 '
! cases put on. It doesn't make very much sense. What we can
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i
, 45 L
4c6 I I do more than one thing. One thing is just consolidate
, () 2 all those contentions into one and say to one intervener 3
"You're the leading intervener on that one. You handle it
() 4 and the others can help you out," but you're going to make e 5 the case and as designed speed things up and concentrate 9
0 5 resources. And as I say it's done.
R
- = l 7
y l Another thing that you can do as a modification i u
g 8 of that approach but allows for a little more individual 0
9
~
participation, let's say you've got a multiple part a
E 10 y
contention, rather broad contention with parts A through F.
II 5 The board can say "Okay. Six people backing that contention.
B d
'- 12 E Each of you take one piece, but split it up, you know, in c
() z 13 accordance with your interest and, you know, what you want I4
$ to -- with what you would . prefer to present, but do it
_C 9 15 g that way." Once again, you don't get overlapping discovery,
=
T 16 M
m you don't get six cases where all you need is one, and there 17
.f y is a lot to be said for that. -
E 18 u
We will be getting -- I'll give you an example.
19 8 We will be talking later on today about the management n
20 capability issue which has been raised by a lot of you.
- 21 All right. It seems to me that if we're going to have such
() a contention -- I'm not saying we are -- it's opposed by-23 l the applicants and largely by the staff. Let's assume
(]) we've got one that's a sort of a thing I think that cries 25 ;
l ;
! :i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1
- ~ . , - . - - - - ~ -
, - , n . - - ., . . --
46 4c7 I out for some sort of consolidation, so we will be bearing that 2
in mind as we talk about these individual contentions and 3 ' as we try ourselves to decide how to handle them. Now,
() 4 one could go on in this vein for a long time, but I think 5
g I should stop at this point.
c!
! 0 We're here to talk about contentions. We might e7 C
'd 7 '
take a ten-minute break. I wonder if -- the next order R
[ 8 of business is to get into contentions intervener by intervener.
0 9
~. I don' t know. You haven't had any chance yet, but could z
O 10 h you take a couple of minutes over the cof fee break to --
=
II 5 Mrs. Lotchin, I know you came in late, but we will come to B
g 12 your group. Could you give your name and address for the 13 record, and you represent yourself; is that correct?
I4 MRS. LOTCHIN: Yes, that's right. Phyllis Lotchin
=
9 15 E 108 Bridle Run, Chapel Hill.
e 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. If you could just'see if h
=
you can't work out an order, and you don't have to work out M 18
- all of it. You might have some oppositions, but perhaps n
i 19 i a have some helpful guidance for the board in sequence when we I
' 20 come back. Let's say ten minutes.
!' 21 (Recess)
JUDGE KELLEY: Back on the record.
l i We le f t on the note that the petitioners would i
I
() l see if they couldn't work out a proposed sequence of 25 appearances, and they have done so. Appreciate that.
l i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
47 I
(]} And it roads this way: with the C -- these are in some cases 2 abbrevia tions, but I think we know them now. CANP, tha t 's 3 Citizens against Nuclear Power, followed by Kudzu Alliance.
()
4 4 Am I pronouncing that correctly; Kudzu?
o 5 MR. PAYNE: Kudzu.
N E
e 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Followed by Dr. Lotchin, followed by Dr.
f7 Wilson, followed by Conservation Council, followed by CHANGE, o 8 and the batting cleanup would be Mr. Eddleman.
d d 9 We've just taken a quick look, and counsel among
$ 10 ourselves this is fine with us with one exception. We B
5 11 got the CANP pleading last, and altough we've had it for a g 12 week or ten days that's one pleading that we as a board are
() g m
13 not quite ready to go on, and I wonder if it would be lb 14 possibic for the CANP people to come back tomorrow.
k 15 MR. NEWMAN: Well, what my statement was going E
..- 16 to be was the one that I made initially, and that is that s
M our representative, John Cowgell, who works both today and
{ 17 18 tomorrow could not get off from work and would like the b 19 opportunity to meet with all appropriate persons either 8
n 20 this evening or tomorrow evening, possibly Thursday 21 morning he might be able to get of f, but he's not sure.
22 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you know, would you have to talk O
V 23 to him more? When you say this evening, what time this 1
24 ' evening do you mean?
O 25 ; MR. NEWMAN: He said seven d' clock or later.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
48 4c9 1
JUDGE KELLEY: Off the record for a minute.
O 2 (Discussion off the record) 3 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let me ask, Mr. Slater, the gentleman 4
l' you're referring to, his name is?
$ MR. NEWMAN: John Cowgell, and he is listed as 3 6
- our official intervener.
. E y JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. But what can he address?
N 8
a 8
What can he speak to that you couldn' t speak. to yourself?
d c 9 x
MR. NEWMAN: I think he can speak to the original o
y 10 z contention which he was responsible for drafting, that is
=
. the original one of the seven which we proposed. The e 12
% other six are in support of our position proposed by Mr.
^
b 13
'k-) @ Eddleman.
E 14 g JUDGE KELLEY: I see. Now, did you envision --
2 15 g some of your contentions I noted -- well, except for the 16 l
y.? original contention you referred to, some were among the d 17 w lead twenty that Mr. Eddleman specified and some were not, e
M 18
= and we may get -- well, we'll get through the twenty and 19
- l I don' t know how far past tha t. We'll just see how things 20 work.
i Did you envision speaking separately to those
\ contentions or were you going to ally yourself with 23 Mr. Eddleman?
) 24 C( / MR. NEWMAN: We haven' t discussed that yet. We 25 hadn't seen the response until this morning by applicants ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
49 4cl0 I
and hadn't considered what course we would like to follow, .
O) k- 2 nor have I spoken with him since, so since he's the person
' 3 who is essentially representing us I think we would have to check with him as to what to do.
]9 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm just trying to work out 3
e 6 something feasible.
R E 7 MR. NEWMAN: Right.
M 8
a 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Could he come by here? What time d
d 9
) .j is he through work; do you know?
c 4
P 10
@ I'm sorry. Just leave this off the record.
=
(Discussion of f the record)
. o 12 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Back on the record.
o Just a word or two about format before we get E 14 g into the actual presen.tation. We've read the contentions 2 15
, z and we've read the responses to the contentions and you e
16 g can assume at least general familiarity with the documents, 6 17 z but it's a lot of material and obviously we are, although e
$ 18
= familiar with it, not totally on top of everything that's 19 y said. We didn't come down, nor did any of you, just to 20 make speeches and say set pieces. The real objective here 21 is to give us a chance to ask questions and find out more
() about what your position is or why you're opposed to a 23 '
contention or whatever and give you a chance to supplement
() what you said in the past, give you a chance to respond to 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
50 4cll I
something you may not have responded to. Also, from the O' 2 standpoint of opportunity, we've had the interveners make 3
contentions, the staf f and the applicant file responses, 4
but the interveners have not filed replies to the responses y 5 nor have they been asked for, nor are they contemplated 1 9 5
3 6 g necessarily ic the rules, but on the other hand I could
, E 7 1
- see where you may want to have something to say. Some of N
8 8 c
you raised a question a while back about whether you'd be O
d 9 g able to file responses and we said in one of our orders, and o
well, let's have the prehearing and we'll all say what we want to say and we'll see whether you still want to raise d 12 3 a written response. 'Let's raise that again at the end S
O g- 13 of the proceedings. This will be a point where the E 14 g interveners could make some responses on the record to 2 15 w papers they haven't responded to thus far. So with that in
=
16 g: mind, we thought we would like to try a format whereby the 6 17 w intervener would simply state very briefly "this is my
=
! M 18 contention" twenty-five words or less sort of a thing, and P
19 l the applicant and staff would have a chance then to say again
. 20 rather briefly if they object, why they object. If you 21 make five arguments you might state two and leave the ss/ other three in the papers.
23 Then we would go back to the interveners and you
< 24 would then have a chance to speak to the points that the 25 I staff and the applicants have made.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
. 51 4cl2 I
Anywhere in these proceedings we may interrupt any O)
'- 2 of you uith questions and we may let this process run and
- 3 speak to you at the end. This may not work very well. It
> O 4 may be too time consuming, but let's try it this way and we'll ;
5
$ see hov it works and we'll feel free to experiment and c!
3 6 -
- approach it with a view toward getting the most out of the .
E I
'd 7 I time we have.
R 8 8 ei So that then brings Kudzu to the fore. And let d
o 9
.,. me get your papers out. Just a moment. We'll reach in o
our file.
= .
~ j f MR. PAYNE: While you're doing that, there is a d 12 z document I would like to pass out. I'm hopeful that this
() g 13 may expedite the proceeding. This is in fact a document E 14 W that resulted from the several days of meetings both C 15
$ amongst ourselves and with the other parties. It's r
? 16 g framed here as joint contentions, and maybe if we could d
w 17 discuss these. I don't think any of these will be a e
$ 18
= surprise to any of the other parties. These are not just s '
E 19 g from Kudzu as you can see. They pertain to contentions of three other parties. The contentions that they would 21 replace are listed at the end of the document. I believe O 22 it covers a substantial number of the contentions that i 23 have been filed. Again, we propose this as a way to maybe 24 C- expedite the proceedings. It is the result of fruits at it 25 1
ALDEPSON oroOoTING COYot NY. f NC,
52 4c13 I
were from the standpoint of the interveners of coming h~' 2 together around the discussions and trying to settle some 3
of the matters before the hearing.
() 4 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me interject. Feel free to 5
% take off coats, if you wish. It's rather stuffy in here.
M 6 g Okay. I think I basically understand what this E
document is. Let me ask for comments from the applicant e
8 n 8 and the staff as to this method of procedure. Let me first d
d 9 j perhaps ask, this covers most of Kudzu's contentions?
o 10
.h MR. PAYNE: In fact, in terms of the contentions
=
fII that the objections were a basis and specificity all of d 12 3 Kudzu's contentions where those objections were raised
() b g
13 by the staff and the applicants are within this document.
5 14 And the other contentions I believe the responses were C 15 b either deferred or a challenge to regulations and on.the e
16
{ whole in discussing those I'm not sure I have much in the 6 17 w way of objection to their responses. I think these would
=
$ 18
= be both of Kudzu's contentions that we have to discuss.
19 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, are you waiving the others or 20 or . . .?
21 MR. PAYNE: No. No, I'm not waiving the others, O 22 particularly the one with regard to the security plan. That 23 is a contention that Kudzu wishes to go' forward with and we can enter into a discussion about the conditions of that.
25 g ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. - _. . . _ _ = - . . . -
d 53 4c14 I
The other ones regarding emergency plans which the staff 2
and the applicants suggested should be deferred, that's 3
j acceptable with us until the emergency-plans are available.
4 I believe the other major area had to do with the issue of ,.
5 g need for power, cost benefit kinds of things, which was e.'
$ 0 suggested as a challenge. I believe that either Kudzu e7
=
" 7 or other petitioners will attempt to meet the requirement 6
8 n
8 to -- or meet the affadavits for a waiver and at an d
9
{". appropriate time we'd probably join in that, so we're not c
10
! really withdrawing those contentions, but I don ' t ' think
- c II E there is much to discuss with regard to those.
B d 12 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me be sure too, having envisioned c
() 3 different petitioners discussing their different contentions, m
, h this incorporates CCNC 21, and is it agreeable with CCNC that k
c 15 2 it be discussed?
e T 16
- g MR. EDDLEMAN
- Yes, sir.
g 17 w
JUDGE KELLEY: In this context and some of the E 18
- rather long lists of numbers of CHANGE ELP contentions.
j j9 Is this an agreeable approach?
20 MR. PAYNE: Yes, Your Honor. I believe if you look at the back we did sign that.
() JUDGE KELLEY: Nell, I just want tu be clear.
23 MR. PAYNE: Actually, I have an original that l
() all t he parties signed. This was done late last night 25 4
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4c15 54 1 i and copied early this morning, so I'm not sure that the :
I
() 2 signatures exist on your copy. We do have a document 3
! that will be filed where all the signatures exist on it.
JUDGE KELLEY: And this is agreeable with you, Mr.
$ Eddleman?
r.'
- MR. EDDLElmN
- As a method of the presentation E
of the ones listed?
E 8 8 m JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.
d 6 9 7
MR. EDDLEMAN: I found out by phone about that
$ 10
@ aspect of it.I guess about 10:00 o' clock last night, and
=
! II subject to my, you know, getting a chance to review these, d 12
% I think so, but I'm going to be at the end and I think these 13 O @3 are all covered. I asked Travis to take out the ones that I think shouldn' t be subsumed.
e C 15 D JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Let me go back then whether e
~
.- 16 g the applicants have comment on this procedure? ,
d 17 x MR. BAXTER: Well, I think as a general rule, Mr.
e
) G 18
= Chairman, that it's extraordinary. The rules of practice C
- 19 g contemplate filing contentions fif teen days before this 20 conference and in this case the board ordered them filed 21 on May 14th and that was to give us some chance to respond, 22
! CJ but before I raise all sorts of procedural hurdles I'd like 23 to say that we really need the opportunity to sit down and O 24 read these proposed contentions and see u:lether or not we'd 25 ALDERSON REPOPTING COMPANY, INC.
55 4 4cl6 I be prepared to address them at this conference.
() 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me ask, now, the contentions 3 in this document, are they verbatim contentions from 4
(_)s various of the other documents or are these all newly g 5 draf ted contentions?
9 0
3 MR. PAYNE: They are not. Portions of them R
C S 7 are verbatim.
M l 8 JUDGE KELLEY: But some of it's new wording?
d N 9 MR. PAYNE: A substantial portion of it is new z
o 10 wording.
h What we have attempted to do is combine. I mean,
=
II
$ you see the large numbers of contentions listed there, and a
fa I2 obviously we just couldn't do a verbatim thing. In some of 13
(}f these I believe we have attempted to follow at least l$ 14 initially the twenty-five words or less statement. I g 15 believe almost without exception everyone has an e
d I0 introductory paragraph which I would consider is the W
I7
. contention and the follow-up several paragraphs is sort of
=
5 18
_ the basis for that contention.
r 19
- 8 In terms of the status of these, I don't deem i
i 4 20 these to be a substantive amendment to any of the contentions 21 that have been filed. If anything I would sort of view i (} 22 them as an administrative amendment for the convenience of 23 the parties and to expedite the proceedings. In other
() 24 words, this would combine discussion of numerous contentions 25 4
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
- 56 4cl7 I
regarding for the interveners into one hopefully tightly 2
knit package that we could get out of the way one way or 3
the other. You know, if there are areas that look to be 1 As new substantive areas that weren't raised in the individual contentions we'll consider that. That was not the intent.
3 '6 g JUDGE KELLEY: Let me ask the staff for comment.
e
$ MR. BARTH: Your Honor, I think th'at to consider n
8
" 8 this paper now would.do nothing more than bring disorder 0 i-a 9
[- and confusion out of. an infinite abyss of chaos. At i o l h 10:54 we received an alleged summary of contentions of f
= i E 11 g eight pages. The original contentions filed by these !
6 12 E petitioners were considered by four lawyers at the staff S
O g-13 for more or less full time for over three weeks, and our E 14
$ technical staff, and to make a five-second judgement on this e
9 15 4
g piece of paper just is not going to be productive in our view.
16 j_ We are not prepared to address this. We are prepared to 6 17 C address the contentions as filed, Your Honor, as suggested 4 $ 18
= by your agenda. !
I 5 -
39 l JUDGE KELLEY: Off the record for a moment.
20 (Discussion of f the record) 21 JUDGE KELLEY: Back on the record.
O 22 I think we are still exploring this a little bit.
23 I It appears that Mr. Payne indicated some of this is pretty
.G' 24 V much verbatim. The management piece, for example, seems 25 l
! l i l-
! 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. t.
e 4cl8 57 I
to be revised in some significant degree.
/^\
(/ 2 I'm asking the applicant and the staff about 3
their view as to their ability to speak to this new 4
([]) document either after lunch or tommorrow morning. What 5
- y do you think, Mr. Baxter?
3 6 g MR. BAXTER: If it starts early.
E JUDGE KELLEY: What?
n 8
n 8
MR. BAXTER: If lunch starts early, yes, d
9 JUDGE KELLEY: And continues late? ,
O ,
10 h MR. BAXTER: Right.
E f
II A JUDGE KELLEY: Well, what do you think, Mr. Barth? I B
MR. BARTH: I just do not think, Your Honor, that c
() it will be productive to at this stage of the game pick 5 14
@ up new contentions which summarize other contentions and 2
2 15 '
g try to address them. I think that is the purpose of the 16
- g. agency's rules and regulations which provide that contentions 17 3"
be filed fifteen days prior to the prehearing conference.
M 18
= This is no time to start from scratch. We are just not H
e- -
j9 j prepared to address this thing. This is a matter of 20 seriousness. We spent a lot of time on these contentions.
21 This has been filed and we have met twice to try to come to
() some kind of an agreement and we have failed, and we are 23 i prepared to address the contentions as proffered by these
() people with a numbering system that has been going on. It 25 l-d i d !
F ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
58 4c19 s
s i; I .
is a monstrous job just to figure out.
What contentions 2
are in', which are summarized, which are not summarized. '
3 You are talking about a mathematical problem which ,.
4 administratively is not child's play. . It is not easy. d 5
j If you take a look at the bo ttom of page . eight, '9au, are - '
n 3
' 6 '
\ '
talking about hundreds and hundreds of pages'o'f contentions,
{E y7 e.
and to try and sit down in five or ten minutes and' go through' 8 8 e+
U these things to figure which is summarized, which is tiot, ,
ci 9 7
did he summarize all this, did he not sammarize'all this, ,
e ' -
is this accurate, was there a change in meaning, was there
II a change in wording, this is an exercise - in madne_ss which -
1 d 12 z I really do not think we could engage in'nt this stage.
c
] f13 MR. PAYNE: If in fact I 'cobld. address that for a E 14 ~
moment, you will find I believe that some,of the contentions E 15 w
e that are listed are not actually summarized or incorporated
~
16 i g froa this document. The intent was' on behalf of the f 17 w
e interveners to focus in on what we considered and to get I
$ 18
- to the kernel of those issues. And she contentions listed
- # ;9 8 if they are not summarized in this document are basically i
20 deemed to be replaced, dropped, whatever you want to call it
, on behalf of the interveners. , s i
O 22
,,,,s sssssx, ,,11,,1,,1,,,,g,,,,1,1,,,,1,.
have been good to have it more -in advance, and I do think
-s that the interveners are attempting to do what they say they 25l' . .
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4
' ~
4c20 I are doing, that is to say to focus on the ones they think
() 2 are most important.
~3 I must say that as to management capability, would
() 4 this management capability contention subsume, Mr. Eddleman --
S 5 would it subsume your management capability contentions?
Q .
6 MR. EDDLEMAN:
@ I'm not certain because I hadn't had R
$ 7 a chance to go over it, but I think mostly it would. In other n
l '8 words, I'm not trying to -- to be any more' confused than I d
' O 9
. am; okay? But I think it pretty much does, and I think that, z
o
- g 10 you knou, pretty much the radiation contention takes care E
11 of 37D as listed. We've got a breakdown here.
@ I don't
. a fa 12 know if this has been provided, the summary of combined 13
({} con te ntions , that tells which ones of mine and the other
[ 14 party's go into each one of these radiological monitoring,
{a 15 on steam generators or management capability and on health g 16 effects. And let's say I'll have to review this a little v.
s f
=
17 more. I can do that tonight probably or at lunch if necessary,
{
18 but I think pretty much they all go if these -- in other i U
g I9 words they would all be replaced by the ones presented here n
20 by Mr. Payne.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
()
22 JUDGE CARPENTER: I was just about to ask whether 23 , you had such a list responsive to staff's comments, not
() 24 being able to tell by the material provided on page eight 25 s -
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. i
- . , , _ __ i
60 4c21 I
as to which'is which. When would you be prepared to 2
submit this to the board? .
MR. PAYNE: I need a xerox machine. I only have O 4
(_) one or two copies of that. That was a working document.
JUDGE CARPENTER: Mr. Eddleman's point about wanting some time to look at it, do you think you'd be E'
[ before this is -- this time?
N 8
a 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, I'm reasonably comfortable with 0
d 9
_j it. All I'm saying is there may be one or two minor items o
10 t.) I think, you know, not incorporated which I think are
=
important enough to take out, but, you know, it's not --
d 12 z and it's a maybe. It's not a there is. It's simply a
13
@ that I didn't understand that Mr. Payne was going to do E 14 g it this way until ten o' clock last night and I think 3 15 g you can pretty much assume that practically everything
~
16
@- that's on that list is going to be subsumed by the things
@ 17' w that have been submitted.
e M 18
= JUDGE KELLEY: Do these numbers vary from the H
E 19 l g numbers on page eight?
20
. MR. PAYNE: No. They are the same numbers that 21 were intended to be there. Perhaps late last night ft s/
22 bdeaqr-eyed typing it up I might have made an error there.
i 23 '
j MR. EDDLEMAN: It simply tells which ones go where.
! ( JUDGE KELLEY: Oh, I' ve go t you .
25l MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, can I ask what the J ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
61 4c22 I board is talking about, the document?
2 MR. PAYNE:
, I have one extra copy I'll be happy.
3 to provide to you. This is a working document I made up.
O 4 MR. EDDtEMAN: And I 3ust gave 1e to the 3udge when g 5 he asked for it.
?
6
@ MR. BAXTER: 'Okay. Thanks.
Et b 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Of f the record.
8 8 (Discussion off the record) !
d !
c[ 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Back on.
$F 10 p, Okay. We'll see if we can' t get that xeroxed. That II a gives you a subject matter breakdown of contentions from each f
c I2 pe ti tioner.
O i is We11, our reaction is ehee 1e wou1d be usefu1 m
I4 E and promises to advance the cause if we can' work from this 5
15 h
a:
document because it does consolidate quite a bit of-g 16 ma terial, but we have sympathy with the desire of s taf f -
us f
.~
I7 and applicants to have enough time to satisfy themselves b I0 that they know what they are looking at.
i~
g 19 n What about tommorrow morning? You will have 20 overnight to read it, decide what your position is on it.
MR. BAXTER: That's more than adequate for our standpoint.
JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Barth?
24 MR. BARTH: I just would not be able to speculate, 25 l Your Honor. I mean, we will do whatever the board d
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4c23. 62 1
tells us to in this regard and we will certainly take a O
k 'n look at it, but whether we will be able to make a 3
coherent response I do not know. For instance, I would I'/
(_
4 like to point out to you that the staff have .found that e 5 g contention 3A of Mr. Eddleman management was not a bad 9
3 a 6 contention. We felt it was all right. There he had b 7
- taken the specific management organization proposed for n
8
" 8 Shearon Harris which listed people by name and by degree d
d 9 z- and by position and made certain allegations that -were not c
H 10
$ correct, they were not adequate to operate the plant. None E 11 jj of that is in this document here. Does that mean he's d 12 y waived that or not? It is not an easy matter to sort 13 O' @5 through this mess. It just isn't. You are talking E 14 y about trying to find out where in here there are subtle
=
9 15 changes of words.
16
- y. JUDGE KELLEY: Hell, but you're assuming it's a h' 17 l mess and maybe we can assume it's an improvement.
Might 5 18 y not be so hard.
E 19 R Well, I think we'd like to go that way,-that is 20 to say we'll -- Mr. Payne, can you simply put over until 21 tommorrow morning your discussion of the paper?
22 l
(">T
- MR. PAYNE: Sure. I would think it might be
- 23 appropriate. Like I said, this document incorporates 24 probably half, I guess, of Kudzu's contentions.
I would 25
, o ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
63 4c24 I
assume that it would be appropriate to have whatever 2
minimal u.ignt be required on the rest of the contentions 3
at this time.
JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. Let's do that. Let's finish 5
$ your contentions other than those of this document and then n
3 e-6
. the same will be true as we get to other people if we do E
d this morning or af ternoon who have contentions in this 04 E 8 e'
joint document, and then we will anticipate picking up with 0
6 9 x- you tommorrow morning when we 've all had a better chance c
F 10
@ to absorb the paper; okay?
=
E 11 g MR. PAYNE : That's fine ,
d 12 Z JUDGE KELLEY: Now, let me again get your papers c
- 13
\ pulled. Jus t a moment.
E 14 MR. PAYNE : Okay.
C 15
, E JUDGE KELLEY: We're now going to speak to the e
7 16
@ Kudzu, Alliance contentions other than those in the joint d 17 g contentions we've just been given.
$ 18
= Okay. Mr. Payne, then you would be beginning 4 19 l with two and three; correct?
20 MR. PAYNE: Yes, that's correct.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Or two, the first one?
i (3
w/
22 MR. PAYNE: Yes.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead.
) MR. PAYNE: My understanding of the responses to numbers two and three is that they -- both of my contentions t
I
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4c25 64 I
deal with the effects of the class nine accident. The
() 2 responses indicated that that would be dealt with in the 3
staff's environmental report and suggested that those
() 4 contentions' should be deferred until that report is available.
That's acceptable to the Kudzu Alliance to those two 3
e 6 contentions.
E
} $
s JUDGE KELLEY: Would you then envision possibly
' S 8 s revising your contentions in the light of the report?
d 9
}. MR. PAYNE: Yes. Again particularly the applicant
, o h I believe has stipulated that when that report comes out if
=
fII 'there is new information and since no one has addressed
-d 12 l' 3 a class nine accident in any of the documents I'm aware of 1 C f I'm assuming it will be new information, that at that point there is -- you know, a new contention would be timely.
5 15 '
g JUDGE KELLEY: Fine. Applicant?
? 16 m
MR. BAXTER: Well, looking at contention number two h' 17
, O there really are two dif ferent elements to it. One is
. =
t M 18
= whether applicants and the staff have done an adequate
+
j 19 safety analysis of class nine accidents and as to that 20 our response is that there is no basis with specificity i 21 l provided as to what particular beyond design basis accident needs to be analyzed for this plant and thati as .a : general 23 matter that's a challenge to the Commission's general l
()* 24 design criteria. Mr. Payne l'.as accu rately described our 25 l
i
! u ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
_ - _ , - ~ . - . - _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ - - _ _-
65 4c26~
1 reaction to that aspect of the contention that 'is
() 2 environmental, that is we can wait for the staf f's 3
environmental statement and their treatment for class O
4 nine accidents there for new contentions.
g JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Payne, do you see this just N
3 6 m
, as an environmental contention?
f MR. PAYNE: Let me reread it for a moment, if you n
8 N
8 would.
O c 9 g I would say that the heart of these two contentions o
H 10
+
E-- are in fact environmental contentions that deal with l E 11 g the effects on the environment of such an accident. The i 6 12 '
E safety aspect obviously enters ~ into!.that. sortt of a -
c a
!j secondary way. If the plant isn' t safe perhaps the E 14
= likelihood of a class nine accident increases substantially, ;
15 '
E m but that is not the meat of this contention.
? 16 y JUDGE KELLEY: If you are acceding to the notion f
@ 17 i g that you can revise this in light of the impact statement ,
M 18
= it seems to me th'at that does become then essentially an -
n "
19 l environmental contention.
20 Staff? I, MR. BARTH: Your Honor, I think that the staff h'i 22 intends to ask the applicant for information regarding '
23 l 1 the conseduences of a class nine environmental accident f () 24 and therefore there will be information available at this l j
, 25 !
i i g
i i
d ALDEPSON PEoOPTING COVD ANY. !NC. -
4c27 66 1
time to form a contention. I am not certain that it
() 2 is proper to wait until-the staff's draft environmental 3
, statement is issued in order to . formulate a contention
() 4 in this matter, but there is no question we agree that
. e 5 i
AN the environmental consequences of a class nine as a
! $* 6
_ contention should be deferred at the present moment. ~
E n 7 1
- JUDGE KELLEY
- I'm not.sure I understand that. '
u .
. 8
" 8
- I'm sorry, Mr. Barth. You say you're not sure that this d
d 9 j is not the proper . time to file a contention?
o a
F 10 S MR. BARTH: There has been no environmental i E i
m 11 y assessment of the consequence of a class nine accident.
d 12 E We will address that in our final -- in our draft d 13 4
( ) @Q environmental s tatement. They simply cannot make a E 14 y contention on it and therefore I think that a contention e
C 15 g that our analysis is no good is silly because there has
]
. 16 g been no analysis. I think this is the kind of thing that d 17 g should be deferred at the present moment.
$ 18 i
= JUDGE KELLEY: To the availability of your draft 19
$ impact statement?
20 4 MR. BARTH: Or for the availability of the infor-21 mation of the applicant on which we base our analysis.
([) 22 My understanding from the staff is that we will 23 ask these people to perform an analysis which we will then look at it ourselves. We may not, but I am understanding 25
- at the present moment we intend to do so. You have d ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
67 4c28 I information from -- either from the draf t environmental
/^x
(_) 2 s ta te men t , power company's analysis or we will have information 3 from the power company, whichever comes fi rs t , gives the em
(,) 4 interveners the basis to make a contention in this area.
I e 5 MR. PAYNE: If I may, it appears to me that if the N ,
h 6 staf f does an adequate job and in fact considers the entire l R
C S 7 consequences of a class nine, then we would have no contention, E
Q 8 and I don' t know how we can know that until the staf f does d
U 9 its analysis. It's a serious problem. I mean, the z,
o G 10 availability of some information from the applicants that 5
IIl'
@ we could analyze independently gets us halfway there, but a
N I2 we still don't know what the staff is going to do.
- 5 a
(_w) g 13 JUDGE KELLEY: I don' t have anything else. Do ycu?
h 14 We've covered two and three , haven' t we?
15
{= MR. PAYNE: Yes.
d I6 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes, M
N I7 MR. PAYNE: N umbers four through seven are E
18 encompassed in the joint contentions under management P
g I9 capability.
n 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Right.
2I MR. PAYNE: Numbers eight, nine, ten, basically es 22
(_) I would say are under the heading of the need for this 23 l plant, the cost analysis regarding the usefulness of this 24 plant, and the objections have been that that, you know,
({')
25 is a challenge to basically a rule of the Commission.
E O
F ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
68 4c29 1
We're not going to push at this time as to those contentions.
() 2 tie accept that interpretation of the Commission's rules and 3
either ourselves or other interveners will attempt to meet
() 4 the requirements for waiver of those rules.
$ JUDGE KELLEY: I'd like to say the board thinks N
6
{' that interpretation's correct and your remedy in this area E
would be as you suggest a petition for a waiver.
N 8
N 8
MR. PAYNE: Okay, i d I d 9 i 7- MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, excuse me. I have a o
F 10
@ general comment about petitions under 2.758 over the next
=
E 11 g two days and that is , when in time such petition should be c 12 z reasonably advanced by those who want to have the licensing
() g 13 board and the Commission act on them. And I know Mr.
E 14 4
g Eddleman is already concerned about the fact that the 9 15 E
z word party is used in there, and we are interested of course 16
- y. in having such petiions if they're going to be presented be d 17 g presented at the earliest feasible time in the proceeding.
E 18
= The rule has no particular time frame written into it, but 19 l I would say that it is really a question of establishing 20 what the issues are going to be in the proceeding and 21 consistent with the rest of the Commission's rules of CE) 22 practice I would say a reasonable interpretation is that
' 23 I it ought to come early since it's part of setting what h' 24 the issues are going to be in the case. I.would be willing 25 o
it P
d ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC. ,
i 4c30 69 f 1
at least as to those petitioners as to whom party status l
O s- 2 is not contested by either applicants or the staff, and 3
that includes Mr. Eddleman, to allow them to file such O 4-petitions now irrespective of whether the formal preconference
$ order is actually out saying they are parties to the case.
a 3 6 i And where the petitioners have recognized both when they
. E y filed the petition in some cases and today or. tommorrow n
E 8 a at the conference that indeed a contention is a challenge d
d 9 j
. to a rule. They can recognize that. I think they ought c
y 10
.z to come forward promptly with such petitions. There may
=
E 11 g be cases where it involves a matter of factual interpretation d 12 3 and legal arguments that have to go to the board and in that C
d O, g 13 case I think they should do so. In other words , I think we E 14 g should in no way be faced at the eve of trial or thereaf ter P 15 g with petitions under 2.758 which could have been filed at 16
$ this phase of the case. That's a comment that applies not d 17 ,
only to Mr. Payne 's contentions , but to all of them.
g I
E 18 j g JUDGE KELLEY: Hell, I think the general D 19 g proposition that these things should be filed sooner 20 rather than later is a fair enough observation. There isn't 21 any deadline in the rule, as you say. On the o the r hand ,
() the burden, if burden there be, is ultimately on the Commission, 23 -
! right; If one of these things is pe rsuasive, it's not going
- i
) to be tried.
25 i i
I h
0 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
70 4c31 I-MR. BAXTER: Well, the burden might be on the
/~
( 2 Commission to make the decision , but the harm could very 3
well be on the applicants if the decision is made on the
() "
4 eve of this board's decision or some other adjudicatory e 5 g tribunal's authorization to issue the license, if it could 9
3 o 6 have well been made two yeare earlier.
E D ' JUDGE KEL EY: It's kind of hard to reason in the n
8 m
8 abstract, but I think your point, the general matter, is well d
d 9 7
taken that if it's the kind of thing that you know you want o
F 10
@ to take up it should be done sooner rather than later. We
=
E 11 g can speak to that. -
0 12 Z Do you have any comment on that, Mr. Payne, as to
' ()bg 13 when you feel 2.758 petitions for waiver should be filed?
E 14 w MR. PAYNE: Well, we have no intention of delaying.
~
15 E If we are going to do it, I mean that's still under discussion m
16 g from the standpoint of Kudzu alliance, but if we are going d 17 w
to move " forward a t least on the issue on need for power M 18 ,
= in terms of filing such a petition we will do it I would i e
- E 19 g assume within the next month. You know, I would think there 20 would be some movement on that in the very near future.
1 21 MR EDDLEMAN: Mr. Chairman, since Mr. Baxte r
() 22 referred to me, too, it might be simpler for me to just put 23 l in a comment here, too.
l I realize the complicated nature I)-
\
24 of the showing that you need to make under this rule 2.758, 25 l
\ \
l
' ll lI ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. !
71 4c32 I
and I have done a good bit of work and done a good bit ~of O
sj 2 work to try to establish it, and that's going forward. I 3
don't think I'd be able to file it today, but I'm trying to
() 4 do it at the earliest possible moment, and.indeed I've been j 5 working on this thing for two months now and mostly on the N 6 3 technical details of what.you have to show.
s y JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I guess I would say that e4 8 8 -
ei prompt filing is desireable, but certainly within the next 0
9 few months if you need some time to do a better job take c
i (~ 10 g the time to do a better ijob.
=
II k MR. RUNKLE: May I?
B JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.
( 13 MR. RUNKLE: The conservation council is also going l$ 14 to question the need for power. and we would not be prepared C 15
$ to do that at least until the preconference order came out.
=
~
16 M
m just describing what contentions are in from all the parties p 17 w and what contentions will be litigated. If one of the other
=
M 18
= parties is the only one to have a contention on need for
' k 19 I
j power we were concerned about that. We would like to see 20 the order before we move any farther with that.
-21 JUDGE KELLEY: I think we can just tell you, there
- J isn't going to be any contention on need for power because 3 there is a Commission rule that says we' re not to look at it.
1
) It's very clear and straightforward. You can assume that, 25 I think.
u ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4c33 72 1
Well, so we had the management's four, five, six,
() 2 seven; is that correct? And eight, nine, ten?
3 MR. PAYNE: Eight, nine, ten.
O 4 Number eleven has to' do with the financial qualifications e 5 g of the consortium of various municipalities , and the response a
3
- 6 I believe both from the staff and the applicant were tha t E'
u 7 7 that again was barred by a rule of the Commission.
c.
8 8
I'm advised that there has been a challenge to that d
6 9 y,- rule filed in the dis trict court -- the circuit court --
o b 10 g district court up 'in the District of Columbia and that that E 11 g is currently being litigated as to whether or not that rule d' 12 j is legal as it were, and I'm not willing to withdraw this (dT @
E 13 contention, but for the moment defer it pending a decision E 14 y
on that case. The name of the case I'm informed is New 2 15 g England Coalition on Nuclear Power versus NRC and was filed
. 16 j May of this year on that particular rule.
d 17 z JUDGE KELLEY: You know, we can.take it under e
M 18
= advisement. My sort of Tuesday morning hunch if I looked
- 19 A at the precedents and consulted my collegues I would find 20 that we' re bound by Commission rules that are on the books 21 and the prospect of their being thrown out by a court does 22
([)
not prevent their application, but I understand the point 23 I you are making.
24
(]) MR. PAYNE: Okay. Let me ask then a procedural 25 ques tion on that. If I wished to preserve this contention --
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i l 73 4c34 i
I . I have not practiced before NRC in any fashion before ---
() 2 do I need -- when you issue your prehearing order which 3 will say that this contention violatos a rule and we can' t
(]) 4 consider it, do I need to file a written exception to that 5 portion of your order?
e 2" 6 JUDGE KELLEY: No. There is a provision in the R
c.
S. '7 rule 2.751a, the last subpart thereof, which talks abodt --
5 k 8 it's a procedure for reconsideration and filing of G
C 9 z, ob j ec tion s , and you can come in, you can object to anything o
10 in the order, but you don' t have to.
h And the ve ry. fact
=
II
$ that you put forward a contention and the board rules against w -
fc I2 the contention you have an automatic exception.
()y m 13 MR. PAYNE: I mean, obviously, you know, right now l 14 I would tend to agree with you. If the court rules otherwise
{e 15 we would then at that point attempt to revive this
'd I0 contention at some point as being an appropriate contention w
I7 to be considered.
h m
IO JUDGE KELLEY: Right. Okay. Which brings us to P
I9 twelve is a security plan contention.
8 n
20 MR. PAYNE: Yes. In terms of the security plan.
21 y.m familiar with what was done at Catawba. Basically I've
() 22 read the order that was entered in the Diablo Canyon proceeding.
23 I believe the Kudzu Alliance is prepared to comply with that.
() 24 We do not at this time have an expert that we can tender to 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
'74 4c3g the board for consideration. I would like prior to that
( 2 to have some understanding of the real details or the 3
mechanics. of where that expert is going to have - to be to
() 4 see the documents and so forth before we -- we've made some r 5 g rough contact with a few different organizations, but we a
E' 6 need to have some real details before we can sit down and R
7
$ figure out what experience is going to be involved and so n
8 8 N on, d
6 9 g- JUDGE KELLEY: I should, just as a ma tte r of o
F 10 y recent history at Catawba there was another order issued
=
E 11 j
. last Friday and this was on reconsideration of the board's 6 12 4
z order, as a matter of fact, and the board ruled out the
() bg 13 security contention there for two reasons. The interveners E 14 y there did not have an expert in the technical sense of tne
- e i 9 15 g term and said that they couldn't get one and they had a 16 g couple of ex-employees from the plant, but they weren' t p 17 g qualified as experts as we saw it, and that was all that cw 18
= they were going to come up with. They objected to any kind
- 19 g of a pro tective order and so that board took the view that, 20 well, you've not met the preconditions that we need to go i forward and therefore we're going to snoot the contention
( () 22 and that's what they did, but the door's open for you if
+ 23 '
you get a qualified expert. Let's pursue that a little bit.
O kj 24 You will want to explore the availability of experts 25 and then a next step would be to advise the board either that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPAN' . INC. .
75 4c36 1
1 you'd ~found one or how you were doing at least and then also
~) are you familiar with the protective order that was entered 3
in Diablo Canyon?
- O' MR. PAYNE: Yes. Tha t 's some of the particulars e 5 I have questions about.- I'm prepared to execute the affidavit G 61 1 that was required there, and we have no objection to such
, E 7 .
- a protective order.
m 8
8 My understanding was that that required any O
c 9
.j examination of the document ~ to take place at a place, c
H 10
@ apparently an of fice or something of the applicant, and E 11 g the documents were kept in a safe there in th'at room and d 12 y so on. We're even agreeable to that. We're agreeable 13
, (')' @E to not ever. having physical cus tody of the documents , but i
E 14
_g I' d kind of need to know if that's going to be done, if it 9 15 g is going to be done here in Raleigh, and what times might
? 16 y, the documents be available. We might be trying to obtain d 17 someone who might have to have access to the documents on g
i i 18
= the weekend or something like that given their work schedule j 19 and those are, I think, details I can discuss With CP and L about l 20 th a t , but is that sort of the nature of the constraints that i 21 we would be functioning under?
i O L/
22 JUDGE KELLEY: I think I follow you.
! MR. BAXTER: Any suggestions for procedure at this
) i point?
( 25 !
i: ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
i i
i
' i 4c37 76 1
MR. BAXTER: Well, what we proposed in our answer
() 2 to the Kudzu contention was that they file a document 3
responding to the same set of questions the Catawba board .
Y 4 posed which includes the question of the retention of an e 5 g ' expert, among other things. We would then like-to be able a
3 6 e to address if there is a positive showing made there the S
f specificity of the contention as it is written now just n
8 8 a
0 for the purposes of discussing what portions of the security 6 9 g plan are going to be relevant and then we're open of course o
F 10 E
if we get that far to discuss with Mr. Payne the arrangements E 11 y and the terms of the protective order, d 12 E JUDGE KELLEY: Staff have any comment on this matter?
() b@ 13 MR. BARTH: None, Your Honor.
E 14 y JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, I think then finding 9 15
% an expert would be a logical next step. Perhaps just 16 3 informally the two of you, Mr. Baxter and Mr. Payne, could d 17 g talk to each other on that as matters progress and we will 1 18
= have something in our . . .
b 19 g My guess is -- well, I just don't know if we're 20 going to get into problems on this contention. It seems 21 to me it may be premature to really worry about it at this
() 22 stage. That Catawba board took the position that you can' t 23 ;
i expect people to devise something about plans they haven' t
() 24 seen and therefore they should be given access upon production 25 l i
i I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
t 77 1~
of an e.5 pert in signing a protective order and there was '
() 2 some dispute about the correctness of that rule and it 3
was rendered moot. I'm not sure if we'll face it here.
There are some helpful things in Diablo Canyon, e 5 g that decision, like definition of an expert. I think c?
3 6 el that's all we have -- the only bridge we have to cross at n 7
- this moment.
n 8
8 Thirteen is an emergency plan contention?
O d 9 g MR. PAYNE: Yes. That according to the response of c
6 10 E
the applicant and the staff should be deferred. He accept 4
E 11 l g that response.
d 12 E JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
0
- 13
@ MR. PAYNE: Fourteen and fifteen are radiological E 14 y monitoring issues. They are combined into the joint C 15 y con tentions . I might add that from my standpoint as to
. 16 j contention fif teen there are some aspects of it which are h' 17 y not incorporated in the joint contentions. - As to those E 18
= aspects we would just be withdrawing contention and that
- 19 g would be that there should be monitoring requirements. Tha t's 20 not part of the joint contentions .
21 JUDGE KELLEY: So you're content in this regard 22 O' with the joint contention?
23 l MR. PAYNE: Yes. Fourteen and fifteen are subsumed
] 24 in terms of what we desire to litigato in those joint 25l! contentions.
I f
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
78 1
JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Any other comments from I 2 Mr. Baxter?
i 3
MR. BAXTER: Yes. We were going pretty' fas t O
\_/ 4 the re for a while. I was trying to catch up with Mr. Payne's e 5 g recitation of my objection. I recognize it.
c!
3
- 6 On the emergency planning . contention generally he's E
n 7
- correct. We do have a problem of generalizing about these m
8 8 d
objections and there are elements of emergency pldnning o 9 .l.
.j proposed conter.tions which we construe now to be a challenge c
P 10
$ to regulations and we point that out where that occurs and E 11 y there is an aspect of Kudzu's contention thirteen which is d 12 E such which is the proposal for permanent relocation of ' the
() @
13 public. As to that we would invite a board ruling and we E 14 y
were correctly willing to defer proposal of specificity as C 15 g to the rest of the contention.
- d. 16 m
6 17 5
l M 18 E -
- 19 20 21
() 22 23
() 24 25 l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
79 cl 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Excuse me. This is where in 13?
()- 2 MR. BAXTER: The relocation point. On Page 10, 3 Line 3, of the petition itself.
~
() 4 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, Mr. Baxter, do you lose anything g 5 by deferring that, seeing what the plan says?
O
@ 6 MR. BAXTER: No , I don't lose anything by deferring R
$ 7 it. I am j us t trying to be very careful here how our objections 3
% 8 are characterized. We shouldn't even attempt to make sure O
C 9 this oral transcript is complete in terms of what we have. written z,
o g_ 10 down here. That is what my only concern is.
E 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Mr. Payne, does that cover a
p 12 the Kudzo contentions except for those in the consolidated r3 3 13
(_/ 5 paper?
=
M l 14 MR. PAYNE: Yes, sir, it does.
15
{e JUDGE'KELLEY: Do you have any further comment on j 16 your paper?
, e p 17 MR. PAYNE: No.
N 5 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you very much. I think we can k
s 19 move on then to Doctor Lotchin. Let us find the appropriate i n 20 papers for a moment.
l 21 (Pause)
() 22 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Back on the record. Doctor 23
, Lotchin, let me maybe just ask you a couple of general questions
(]) 24 at the beginning. As I understand it, your contentions are 25 l directed exclusively to the subject of emergency planning?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i 80 MS. LOTCHIN:
(]} 1 Not at all. I think if I were starting 2 out right now to write my contentions, knowing what I have just 3 learned over the past couple months , I would have done a much (a~)
4 better job. First of all, I was not aware when I wrote these
, e 5 about the rule of attacking an NFC ruling.
B
$ 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Um-hum.
R
$ 7 MS. LOTCHIN: Or I would have phrased what I was j 8 saying differently. However, I would have said pretty much the e
d 9 same thing.
i h - 10 If I can paraphrase what I see my contentions being, 2 : 11
$ they are then, I, as an individual and my family and others who a
p 12 live where I live will bear an undue and significant risk being
() 13 in the proximity of the Shearon Harris plant, and in my opinion l$ 14 there is no adequate protection for those of us who will be 15 bearing- this undue risk, and I did not see that necessarily as g' 16 an attack on the ten-mile rule because I think in my contentions e
d 17 on - or in the things I list I think they are certainly broader E
{ 18 -- and I mention many more things than the ten-mile ruling.
E g 19 The EPZ -- the ten-mile EPZ.
n 20 JUDGE KELLEY: I don't mean to imply that you were 21 restricting yourself to that at all. I saw that as one 22 feature. Go ahead.
)
23 MS. LOTCHIN: Because there is no emergency plan, 24 ' I did look at other things when I was writing my contentions ,
25 and one of the -- one of the things I looked at was the --
I l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
81 i-
- 5 r3 1 something called -- let's see here environmental impact O 2 statement for the operating license proceeding for the 3 V. C. Summer plant in South Carolina, which is a plant I hl 4 understand very much like the Shearon Harris plant will be, and
. e. 5 there is-a sheet in that document which indicates that an A
6I accident could occur which would result in five early G
$ 7 fatalities within a selected radial interval at a distance of j 8 fifteen to twenty-five riles from the plant. That is given d
% 9 a population of one hrndred per square mile.
z e
$ 10 When I looked at that and thought about my own E
g 11 situation in Chapel Hill, which is twenty miles from the plant a
( ,12 and has a large density, I am told of 5,000 persons per square OE s 13 mile, that is a fatality,of about 2,500, which seems significant
$'14 to talk about, and when I loolusi through all the other. documents
. b
! 5 15 that I could find, I couldn't find any reference to an accident E
g' 16 of that magnitude. '
e d 17 I also have looked at many more things including a 5
l M 18 statement or a paper by the Union of Concerned Scientists, E
f $ 19 which points out -- I think their statement is that accidents
! n i 20 beyond design basis are seen to contribute over ninety-nine 21 percent of the risks to the public from nuclear power plants ,
G
- (_/ 22 which to me means as I see it any accident which would be 23 catastrophic to me and my family is an accident that isn't
() 24 even discussed for the most part in the documents and has not I i
25 think been subject of public awareness so that in Chapel Hill, i
%f g. T C C P A t o
- c e.op st g ( g $,e o 4 Ny g q q,
- ol 1
.$r4 for instance -- and I checked with nine people from the radiation O
U- 2 protection department from the state. I talked to CP & L and 3 other people.
O 4 we11, we heve met in Chaget a111, the seme distance 5
g as Raleigh -- we won't have a warning. system of sirens. For a
@ 6 instance, we have -- we have shelters designated, and I checked
^
n
$ 7 with -- well, looking at these documents, they talk about'a
] 8 radiation emergency that might last a couple of days, and in d
9
". one of the most recent NRC documents they are talking about 6
y 10 contamination of a couple months ' duration.
3 II
$ In February, 1982, NUREG 0880 -- and I checked in is g 12 Chapel aill with the emergency preparedness people -- and I 13 said do the shelters have enough water stored? Do they have sa
$ 14 health provisions? Is there food stored?
15 There is no water stored, no food stored, but g 16 individuals -- there are at this point no plans for individuals us I7 to be given the opportunity to learn enough about probability 18
-- improbable-as those possibilities might be -- to store their
- g. I9 own food and water, to create shelters for themselves, to store e.
20 potassium iodine tablets. I think there has been up to this 21 point at least very little done in the area of public O
v 22 awareness.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: I think -- let me just make a point.
O 24 xs. torcaza, if 1 em maximg a speech here __
25 { JUDGE KELLEY: No. I just want to say this. We i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 03 c5 1 appear to be at a stage with emergency planning so that there
() 2 does remain quite a bit to be done. We are going to have at
.3 some later point -- I am not sure if you were here yesterday
(]) 4 when Mr. Baxter was talking about the state of the emergency e 5 plans for Wake County and Chatham and others. In any event, O
@ 6 I think the contentions in this area in terms of -- you know --
R
$ 7 is there enough potassium iodine? Can you evaluate?- Is 7.
[ 8 there enoug'a equipment? All these come up in the contention d
q 9 of a hearing on emergency plans where they can in the sense 3
$ 10 that contentions are raised by intervenors, and then.there is E
j 11 a case put on by the applicant on those points, and they can a
y 12 get to be fairly detailed presentations.
E
(]) 13 There is a form for that, but all I am going to say, m
5 14 we have been deferring some contentions this morning basically 15 saying, well, let's look'at that one when we get the documents.
g 16 Similarly, in the case of emergency planning, we don't have the w
g 17 plans at this point. It's kind of hard to say anything e
{ 18 intelligent about emergency planning if we don't have the plan F
n -
19 in front of you.
g n
20 MS. LOTCHIN: Well, I have some questions about that.
21 I think what I'm hearing is really not clear to me. I did 22
(]) hear Mr. Baxter say this morning that the Counties of Fake'and 23' Chatham would have emergency plans. Chapel Hill is in Orange-24
(]) County. We are twenty miles from the plant. Raleigh is 25 twenty miles from the plant. I don't understand. I don't
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. .
I r6 1 understand the thinking that there would be emergency plans for
() 2 Raleigh in one direction and not Chapel Hill in another. I-3 think we have a particular complaint. That is the word that 1 -
p/
s- 4 I think was used in response to_one of my contentions --
j e 5 because I feel that in Orange County in Chapel Hill we are n.
@ 6 asked to bear the same risks as people twenty miles away in-R 8 7 other counties and yet, you know, the~ tax base of our county n
8 8 will not be raised by the plant.
O d 9 We won't have the same emergency planning. We don't 1:
O G 10 even get power from CP & L. I think what I heard Mr. Baxter- '
_E j 11 say this morning -- and I am not sure if I understand u
12
{ correctly -- is that he would,be willing for us to comment
() m 13 later on on additional information.
m
-g 14 My question is, How can we comment or when is it 15
{e appropriate to comment on information which will never be in
! j 16 that discussion but which we think should be discussed? For e
p 17 instance, I think -- the things I have j ust brought up -- our 5
{ 18 situation in Chapel Hill twenty miles away will not be P
l
{
M 19 discussed in that other document, but yet in all fairness for i
20 public safety, which is what I am concerned with, they need 21 to be discussed.
l i
() 22 JUDGE KELLEY: Now, this is as distinguished from 23 ; where? You say twenty miles away. Twenty miles from the
/~T 24 l (_/ plant? Chapel Hill?
! 25 MS. LOTCHIN: Chapel Hill is twenty miles in one I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
, 85 fr7 1 direction, and Raleigh is twenty miles in another direction.
O 2 Raleigh is in Wake County, which is one of the counties which 3 have a plan later on. Orange County is not the county that O 4 was mentioned and, you know, I feel as tho' ugh --
g 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Orange County is a county that is not 0
3 6 at any point within ten miles of the plant?
R
$ 7 MS. LOTCHIN: That's right.
E 8 8 JUDGE KELLEY: So they don't need.a plan.
d C 9 MS. LOTCHIN: That's right.
$ 10 JUDGE KELLEY: That's what it says in the NRC rule E
$ 11 books.
is y 12 MS. LOTCHIN: As a citizen, as a person with an O5g 13 eight-year-old child, 1 am very concerned that these are issues c:
$ 14 that need to be raised, and when -is the appropriate time to E
C 15 raise them?
E 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I don't want to in this area 3l as li 17 be at least making statements of a technical nature loosely.
E
{ 18 My recollection is as a matter of fact if you are outside the s 19 g ten-mile zone, there is supposed to be ad hoc capability of the n
20 plan.
21 Be that as it may, the time within which you should Ov 22 raise -- or the opportunity for raising concerns of this kind 23 -- there will be opportunities in this hearing for certain kinds 24 of issues and for certain other kinds of issues there won't 25 l be. For the simple reason that maybe that the NRC rule is i
_.m-_....._._-, . . -
86 t
(Q 1 wrong. He have to go by thati whether we agree with it or not. 1 j
2 They have a rule-making procedure. They have a broad spectrum 3 of scientific opinion, an.1 they may decide ten miles is about 3
4 right, niid they adopt a r.ile, And that is the rule.
a
~
5 Now, you might come in as we were discussing earlier il
$ 6 this morning and petitior. for a waiver of the rule on the 7 ground that this particular area is so unusual that there ought s 8 to be some other distance, a ~~
c 9
'/.
, I don't know wtet,her that can be proved or not, I don't h 10 know where the wind blows here. But it's that sort of thing 11 that you could conceivably argue, but, insofar as concerns in .
( 12 offect are attacks on rules, they cdrl't be litigated here. '
O 5 g
a 13 That is not what we are here for.
l E
14 So I -- I would simply say that yo'u should look at i
g 15 the rules. You and I don't know now what the rules are going a
g 16 to look like.
us y 17 Mr. Baxter is going'to serve copies'of the draft u '
{ 18 rules on petitioner -- on the intervenors in the case and E
19 yourself as well if you are a petitioner as opposed to an 20 intervenor when the time comes , and you can review it and have 21 some reasonable time within which to raise complaints about the 22 rules if you think -- about the plans.if you thinkithey are 23 inadequate, but that isn't here yet, arid it's probably going 24 to be sometime next year. '
25 MS. LOTCHIN: Do you see all th2se issues thet'I been
' c f ,
I s l ALDERSON REPORTitJG COMPANY, INC.
~~____-_______________-___________
j - .x -
37 l
3 O s ta1 king ebout now ee issuee thet ere simg1y reteced to the p1ent2 j 2 In my mind they are -- they deal more with -- with safety than O
3 with a plan for -- you know -- an imaginary line on a map.
i
- 4 You know, one of the things that bothers me, for 1 e 5 instance, is that no one has done -- no one has collected
, @. 6 baseline data, background information, in Chapel Hill or most i 6 1 j E 7 other parts of the state; so when the plant goes on line, if
- n
$ 8 they are told that X amount of something has been released but i
d 9 9 it was nothing significant, how can we -- how can anyone expect
$ 10 us to believe that or feel secure when we didn't know what it
$ 11 started at, and it seems to defy rationality, and it doesn't
! is
( 12 seem that drawing an imaginary line on a map is not going to O g 9
13 make any difference to that issue, m .
l$ 14 I think it's well known -- I think these things are 15 well known and make people afraid. It would be much better in l- [ 16 us my opinion if all these things were laid on the table, if we i
17 all knew that rare ability of a Class 9 accident, could make j.
.i
{ 18 our own choices to protect our families in that case. I E
g 19 think that's different from a ten-mile-limit ruling. It's n
20 hard for me to see the dtfference.
21 (Board conferring) fh x
22 JUDGE CARPENTER: Urs. Lotchin, I will try to be
' 2'3 i
- 4. helpful without any notion whether I will be or not. You l '24 l should be stnre that I have only been a member of this panel 253 s'tnce last aovember, but I have been interested in matters of I
^
l I
- =^-
II ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
88 Oo I this aind. tn ear 71 aad t served as e consuttaat om the 2 governor's task force.
3 You just a moment ago raised questions about 4 monitoring radiation levels in the State of North Carolina as e 5 a background or baseline against which one could look for the b
3 6 effects of some release. Have you looked at all -- do you 7 know anything about the natural variation of -- for both n
[ 8 natural sources and fallout in the state?
O ci 9 !!S. LOTCHtN: What I've done is talked to the
$ 10 radiation protection officer -- the state radiation protection 5
11 officer, who tells me that the state has some -- some -- has is 12 done some spot-checking, but that their resources are very r {
d g 3 13 limited and are being cut and they do not now have anything that a
l$ 14 people in Chapel Hill could say specifically related to them.
15 They can say, for instance, in the Piedmont the j 16 general background radiation is, in the beach it is, in the us l 17 mountains it is, but not much more specifically, f18 When I asked him if there was -- if the state planned IE 19 to do specific gathering of baseline data information before 20 the plant went on line in such things as milk and water and 21 vegetation and that sort of thing, he said that with the --
Q 22 with their present capability that would be impossible, and in 23 my opinion that's a Catch-22 because that -- that information 24 is being as I collected -- is being collected within the ten-25 mile limit or around the plant, and yet that is not the area ALDEPSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
89
.O i which wou1d involve meny georie nor wou1d it be en etee involved 2 if there were -- if there were a serious accident.
Q 3 (Board conferring) 4 JUDGE CARPENTER: What I was trying to get -- sound 5 5 prospective. This is a prehearing conference about contentions, N
$ 6 and we are not arguing merits, but if I could be helpful in R
& 7 terms of what you did -- I did discover that you have looked a
j 8 into what the state's plans are. What I was trying to j
c3 9 distinguish, I personally as a new board member have a lot of o
g 10 trouble with this.
11 Perhaps it is not a very useful classification is
( 12 system which includes Class 9 accidents in the plural where O 8 5 13 the severity of the accidents goes from just beyond the design m
@ 14 basis to as far as your imagination would be inclined to carry 15 you, so anytime I hear about a Class 9 accident, I have some j 16 trouble trying to understand what the person is really talking v5 17 about because you can postulate almost any severity, so it's h
x
{ 18 very helpful; and if you look in the literature, you will see E
e 19 there are a number of accident scenarios with their own a
20 possibilities of occurrence and their own particular-21 consequences, and I think that in talking about it you used O 22 the word previous 1y undo, risx . inytime you ta1x a3out risu.
23 it's important to talk about probability and consequence side 24 by side.
25 What I was having trouble with, perhaps a speech, was ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
90 r12- 1 there seemed to be a wandering from sort of very small 2 accidental releases which might be very difficult to detect 3 against the background to very severe releases which would be O 4 feirty easy to pick out.
e 5 For example, if you thought you were having undue
! 6
@ risk. in Chapel Hill and -- and I have no idea of what you mean R
6, 7 by that -- I w~ould think that it would be easily measured, that M
8 whether or not you knew the preexisting background of natural Q
O c 9 radiation and fallout in Chapel Hill might not be important in
$ 10 terms of your notion of risk here. Do you follow me?
E 11 MS. LOTCHIN: Well, 1et me see if I do. In Chapel is
- j 12 Hill, as you know, there are lots of schoots, pub 11c health, Ol i3 and vertous geog 1e who have unow1edse in this etee.
There l$ 14 would be -- it would be -- if -- what I was trying to say, if 15 down the road there were in fact a release of whatever and it j 16 was reported to us and we were told that it was not a v
d 17 significant danger, I think there would be a great deal of panic.
E 1 g 18 There would be a great deal of disorderly response to that sort 5 19 g of thing for two reasons.
i n l- 20 Maj orty , we don ' t -- we don't now know what the 1
l 21 baseline data is. We don't know where we were starting, so O 22 1f we were to1d that the radiecion in m11k or in todine was a 23 certain level but we didn't know what it is before the plant O 24 went on tine. I think there is no way for geogte to feet secure 25 or whatever. That is just one of my -- one of my points.
t l ALDERSON PEPORTING COMPANY. INC.
Y1 5r13 1 I don't mean to wander all over between large
( 2 accidents and minor releases. When I was talking about Class 9 1 3 accidents and undue risks, I was referring to an accident in-( 4 which there was a containment breach, a serious accident.
e 5 I now don't know how far our imaginations can reach, but truly h
3 6 there is a serious --
R
$ 7 JUDGE CARPENTER: I don't mean to be facetious, but
$ 8 it is -- as an individual, I have an imagination too, but in d -
c 9 the context of talking about risks , I just want to make the z
o G 10 point that it's very helpful to talk about probabilities, 11 however uncertain those are, and the consequences together a
g 12 rather than a Class 9 accident. So when you told me
() 13 containment breach, you told me something that was helpful
@ 14 in terms of me understanding your thinking. That is the only
{m 15 point I wanted to make.
j 16 MS. LOTCHIN: Okay.
e d 17 JUDGE CARPENTER: I didn't hear you coming back E
{
18 toward the contention at the end.
{ 19 JUDGE KELLEY: We have a contention from you that g
. n 20 is essentially a siting contention. We have the papers on 21 that, and we have three contentions that are emergency planning
]
() 22 contentions that I think are best deferred until we get the I 23 rules -- not rule -- plans in front of us, and then you will
(]) 24 have an opportunity to review them and revise your eq,ntentions 25 if you see fit in light of what you learned from the review.
l t
ALDERSON PEPORTING COMPANY. INC.
u frl4 1 That is where we are at this point.
2 Mr. Baxter, any comment?
3 MS. LOTCHIN: May I ask a question on what you just O 4 said so 1 understand 2 .twhi1e ago 1 seid -- 1 asked e question, s 5 and I am not real sure what the answer is, and I'm asking~this E
3 6 question based on my asking this question before and having R
-$ 7 received this kind of answer.
A g 8 When I say things like I just said, no baseline data, d
ci 9 no -- no sirens, no evacuation plans, no potassium, all of
$ 10 those things, the answer is that it is taken care of; and my 11 answer is, but not twenty miles away where I live, and the 5
is g 12 answer is but ten-mi1e limit doesn't go to twenty miles; and, Oi c:
i3 you know, it s e cecch-22. end there hes to be somewhere for l$ 14 me to ask those kind of questions.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: We11, I don't think it's here by j
. 16 and large. Let me be frank with you. There isn't going to v5 17 be any sirens twenty miles away from the reactor or similar h
E 18 things to warn people. There are going to be sirens like ten C
g I9 miles out because the commission had a rule-making and they c:
20 decided that is where it ought to be.
21 Now, you know, you may not agree with that; but if O 22 you are dea 11ng with a question that.s what we ca11 a generic 23 question and the answer to it is the same whether you are here O 24 or cat,wba or 01ab1o canyon, you ho1d one of these r,1e. making 25 proceedings and you come up with an answer, and that is the t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
va r15 1 answer at every reactor in the United States, and you cant put
() 2 on the same -- it doesn't make any sense to put on an elaborate 3 proceeding starting from Square One every time you' license a
() 4 new reactor.
p 5 So that is -- that is why we did it that way; and 0
3 6 insofar as your problem, if your concern is that there won't G
$ 7 be any sirens in Chapel Hill, you are right. There won't be, s
[ 8 and there is nothing that this hearing can do about it for that d
d 9 reason.
N b 10 MS. LOTCHIN: The reason I have trouble understanding 11 what a generic ruling is, I understand that in the -- around S
[ 12 the plants in California that EPZ can extend and does extend
() E 13 up to thirty-five miles in some cases.
h 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Courtesy of the State of California.
15
{e There is a line around them running up to thirty, thirty-five j 16 miles. It has nothing to do with the NRC.
e b' 17 MS. LOTCHIN: It's a state ruling?
E
{ 18 JUDGE KELLEY: That's right.
P E 19 MS. LdTCHIN: How does that supercede the NRC ruling?
M 20 ~ JUDGE KELLEY: It doesn't. It doesn't. If the 21 State of California wants to require additional protection
(') 22 above and beyond the NRC's protection and as long as it doesn't 23 ; conflict with the NRC's protection, they can do what they want; 24
(]) but they can't adopt a plan -- let's say they want to adopt an 25 emergency plan and they say, okay, we will evacuate this town
$ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I !
r16 1 and when the sirens go off, everybody drive north; and in ccmes 2 the NRC and says no. Drive south. Then the NRC is going to 3 prevail, and they will all drive south, but in the case of O 4 heving __ you know .. strens at some other town, go aheed.
e 5 They are very expensive. But go ahead. If that's what you d.
3 6 want to do with state tax money.
Et
$ 7 So I think really you ought to review those plans M
8 8 when they come out and -- carefully, and if you think they are d
C 9
, deficient, file more contentions, but I think that is what you g 10 ought to do.
11 Mr. Baxter?
is g 12 MR. BAXTER: A couple of points. First to clarify Oli3 14 what 1 seid ear 11er, 1 did not __ 1 did not state or meen to imply that Raleigh is going to be within the plume exposure h:
15 pathway EPZ for this plant. There is a portion of Wake j 16 us County which is within the EPZ and therefore Wake County will f
17 have a plan for that portion of the county. It does not
{ 18 include Ealeigh.
C 19 g Second, the preoperational radiological monitoring n
20 program was a contested issue in the construction permit 1
21 hearings before the NBC and was heavily considered; and lastly, O 22 yr. chairman, 1 wou1d urge amd we had ,rged in our pagers in 23~ response to Doctor Lotchin's petition that the board rule now
, j O 24jonhercontentions. 1 se11 eve she has affirmed severa1 times i
il 25 l this morning before you that the plans aren't really going to I
l
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
25 1 i
frl7 1 answer her concern. Her concern is that Chapel Hill is not 2 going to be included in the plume exposure pathway EPZ, and 3 with the siting of this reactor which was determined at the O 4 time the construction permit was issued, and I think there are e 5 as you have stated to her several times -- there is a rule-0 6 making proceeding in which the commission set the limits it 3
R
$ 7 considered some Class 9 accidents. I couldn't enumerate what T.
[ 8 they all were, but they considered containment breach and 0
9 decided that ten miles EPZ was adequate.
z o
g 10 They were asked to reconsider that by Critical 11 Mass, and they are being asked to consider that by the is g 12 Citizens Task Force, so that is the forum where it should be Ol is done end the concentions ere rige for ru11ns now. end 1 utse l 14 that the board rule for them in the prehearing conference M
15
{
order.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
J The staff?-
vs 17 MR. BARTH: Insofar as the contentions suggest that M 18 you need not go beyond the ten-mile EPZ set forth in 10 CFR 5047A2, i- '
[n 19 I think the board can rule that is not permissible, 20 Other matters regarding plans by Mrs. Lotchin I 21 think should be deferred too.
O 22 yrs . tetch1, does have a remedy beyond this hearing, 23 ; and that is if she feels a rule of the commission is improper, O 24 yon ha,e a right te get1tiom the commission itse1f to change the 25 rule, and that probably is a remedy that should always be ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
96 Or18 1 available to those who feel that the rules are restrictive or O 2 should be different, and they are rather than try to use this 3 forum to change the rule, and the way to change the rule is to 4 go to the commission itself and petition the commission to e 5 change the rule, b
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Barth. A good point.
R E 7 Mrs . Lot. chin , I want to clear up one other thing.
7.
[ 8 I believe initially you filed a petition in your own behalf, d
ci 9 and did you also file on behalf of an organization that you
$ 10 were --
E j 11 MS. LOTCHIN: No. I only originally asked to file B:
p 12 on behalf of the Citizens Task Force, and we discussed on the ,
n5
- U 13 phone and it was later confirmed by mail that I was not to be
$ 14 allowed to intervene as chairman of the Task Force, but I would
{
a:
15 be allowed to intervene as an individual on my own intervening j 16 as an individual.
vs ti . 17 ' JUDGE KELLEY: Yes, I wanted to clarify that in the E
M 18 record. Okay.
fn 19 MS. LdTCHIN: Yeah.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: Is that clear to everybody?
21 MS. LOTCHIN: I also have another question if it's 22 all right.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
O 24 MS. LOTCHIN: Again this may be a question that's 25 ' not a concern -- that is out of the scope of this hearing, but ,
ALOECSON REoCoTING COMP A NY. INC.
97 l,
4r17; 1 I received NRC mailings, NRC bulletins such as this one which V
2 l came out in February, 1982, called NUREG 0880, and in here there
,c3 3 are NRC statements which seem to conflict with their rulings V
4 in my opinion. Where does that -- where is the jurisdiction e 5 for making those comply?
O j Let me give you an example. In this February, 1982, G 6l
$ 7 document it says that one of the qualitative safety goals of s
[ 8 the NRC is to require a level of safety such that individuals d
C; 9 living or working near nuclear power plants should be able to
$ 10 go about their daily lives without special concerns by virtue 11 of their proximity to such plants. Individual members of the u
-3 g 12 public should be provided a level of protection from the b4 13 consequences of nuclear power plant accidents such that no m
5 14 individual bears a significant additional risk to life and
@ 15 health; and my contention that I feel I am bearing an additional E
j 16 risk by virtue of the fact that I am living twenty miles from a
p 17 the plant, and that obviously conflicts with a rule that is E
M 18 already made and which we are abiding by in this body and --
C '
19 you know -- I really would like to know just as a -- for my g
n 20 own information how those become adjudicated.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: I am sorry. Now, what is it that f-]s
\.
22 you see as conflicting?
~ 23 3 MS. LOTCHIN: Well, I think that -- I think that k,_)s 24 I am bearing an undue risk living twenty miles from the plant.
1 25 ) However, I think we have all agreed that nothing -- that there 1
L
I 98
,r20 I will be no particular efforts made to protect my health and
() 2 safety because of the ten-mile ruling that we have just talked 3 about, and I see that as a conflict.
() 4 JUDGE KELLEY: I sec.
When you first spoke to e 5 this, I thought you were saying that the NRC had said h
j 6 something inconsistent in one document than what they said in R
R 7 another, which they sometimes do.
n 8 8 MS. LOTCHIN: That is what I was suggesting.
d d 9 JUDGE KELLEY: But I don't see a conflict now in
! 10 the way you described this. I don't know.
E E
< 11 (Board conferring)
B -
d 12 MS. LOTCHIN: Which are we to believe? I guess that 3
()' 13 is what I'm asking.
,E 14 JUDGE BRIGHT: This NUREG business can mean all 2 15 things to all people. Some of the NUREGs are for information N
16 or recommendations to the commission. Now, a specific case M
g 17 of this, the TMI Lessons Learned Task Force turned in a final 5
M 18 document containing all the recommendations as to what the 5
19 commission should put forth as rules . I had for development 8
., n 20 0585 or something like that. The commission took that document 21 and reviewed it intensively, and they came up with first
(')
v 22 a NUREG 0694 I think it wa s , w'hich was later clarified by 23 NUREG 0737.
They did not adopt all of the recommendations of
(]) 24 25 ] the TMI Lessons Learned Task Force, so going back to that J ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
99 l original document as far as we are' concerned is just a vaste r2({}
2 of time. We go with NUREG 0737. Do you understand?
3
[]) MS. LOTCHIN: I am afraid I do.
4 JUDGE BRIGHT: There are different kinds of g 5 NUREGs. Some of them are for information and some present 0
6 3 recommendations to the commission. Some present guidance to R
$ 7 the people in the field, and just picking one -- just any one, s
[ 8: it doesn't really me,an that the commission is going to adopt d
o 9
, essentially those goals. I am not all that familiar with 8
g 10 that particular document.
E
$ II MS. LOTCHIN: Well, could I ask if -- if in your n
12 opinion what I just read is an accurate assessment of the
(]) eg a
5 13 goals of the NRC at this time?
e l
Y.
14 JUDGE BRIGHT: Well, certainly. I mean how can.
y 15 you quarrel with a statement like that?
But if-the commission
= ~
j
. 16 in its wisdon decides that all the NRC has to worry about is e
(e 17 the ten-mile distance from the plant, then as far as they are
$ la conce rned , that constitutes meeting that goal.
P 19 g Now, you see, maybe I don't agree with it, but this n
20 is what the commission says. Very well. We will implement
() 21 this goal, at least partially by doing this particular thing.
22 .Do you see?
23 MS. LOTCHIN: It's always difficult for me to see 24 ] the fine things . I think I tend to be fairly literal.
I 25 JUDGE BRIGHT: It 's not so much a fine line. It's
100 I a matter of a practical implementation of an idealistic goal.
r2(])
2 You can't build a steel plant or anything else without the 3 danger of kind of perturbing people who might live within some
({}
4 distance of that plant, so the best you can do -- you make a 5 good practical decision which keeps everybody surly but nobody g
n j 6 mutinous.
R
$ 7 MS. LOTCHIN: However, in this case it seems to me s
@ 8 that -- I think everybody admits that a nuclear power plant 0
Q 9 presents a difference. There are materials there which are
$ 10 dangerous beyond anything our imaginations have led us to
@ Il consider before, and I think since that is so -- it seems to B .
12 me that our imaginations also have to.go further_than you have
(]) {sg 13 gone before in looking at solutions.
m 5 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Some of this though I think -- and 15 others similarly interested have to be put to different forums, j 16 Congressional committees. I don't know what else. Your w
17 question is, Where do I go to litigate my view that the plant h=
{ 18 down the road from me is more dangerous than the NFC seems to P
g 19 think? This is probably the wrong place because I think it is n
20 a little too vague and general a statement. We are in the 21 business of litigating very specific things around here.
(])
22 Is that pipe going to break? Have you got enough 23 school buses? It's that kind of stuff. It's not 24 philosophical questions that may be very interesting, but we 25 can't resolve them on the record, and it is pretty nitty-
101 1- gritty.
4r{}
2 MS. LOTCHIN: I am interested if the pipe is going 3 to break too. I would like to hear an answer to that.
)
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We are coming up.on maybe e 5 an appropriate lunch-break, gentlemen.
A
$ 6 (Board conferring)
R
$ 7 JUDGE KrLLEY: I have ten after twelve.
s
] 8 JUDGE CARPENTER: Could I ask some questions?
0 d 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Oh, sure. Go ahead.
i o
@ 10 JUDGE CARPENTER: I can't resist. You used the B
{B 11 expression " undue risk" several times. What do you use as 12 acceptable risk? The quotation that you read is -- is your y 13 perception that this is unacceptable risk even though it's m.
l$ 14 comparable to other risks that you take every day?
2 15 MS. LOTCHIN: Well, let me answer by saying first of 5
g 16 all I don't consider it comparable to other risks because the m
p 17 other risks I take every day like driving my car or getting in E
M 18 an airplane are risks that I choose to take, and a nuclear
?
19 power plant in my neighborhood -- I was not given a choice on
{
n 20 that. I think that the risks are in a whole different category,
, 21 and I have looked at this carefully over a long period of time (2) 22 and I -- I began looking at it because -- because a friend of I 23 mine whose fourteen-year-old child died of leukemia and she 24 lived about fifteen miles from the plant on Long Island, and
, 25 in talking to her about this she told me that three children on i
i
._ ____s
102 I
I their block had died of cancer in the same year, and I know ir7(])
2 enough about statistics to know this is not probable.
3 I had a five-year-old child at the time, and it scared
[}
4 me very badly. I started reading about nuclear power, e 5 everything I could find about it, studying about it, and then P
j 6 TMI happened; and in my opinion that is an undue risk.
R
& 7 I also am very -- it bothers me a great deal when we
[ 8 -- when I see the issues talking about whether my child is d
c 9 going to get leukemia or not and other people are talking about i
h 10 fish kills and this sort of thing, you know. I don't see the 5
- 5. 11 issue that way. I don't see the issues as -- as word games
()d$ 12 13 or whatever. I think it's a deadly serious issue that doesn't have any corrolary in my experience.
l$ 14 JUDGE CARPENTER: that plant on Long Island are you-C 15 referring to?
5 g 16 MS. LOTCHIN: The one that just recently closed.
w g 17 JUDGE CARPENTER: Was it a nuclear power plant?
5 l M 18 MS. LOTCHIN: Yes, sir.
=
b I
{
M 19 JUDGE ' CARPENTER: I am not aware of its existence.
l 20 MS. LOTCHIN: I am sorry. It was north of New 21 York.
()
I 22 JUDGE KELLEY: Indian Point?
23 MS. LOTCHIN: Yes. Indian Point.
O 24 JUDGE CARPENTER: I think you made a good statement 25 that illustrates why your concerns go far beyond what this board 1
l l - . _ . , --__ ._, - - - - - - _ - _ . - - - . - - - - - - - - - , - - - -
103 br2A 1 is empowered to consider at this point.
b 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Anybody else stand between us and lunch 3 besides Mr. Baxter?
O 4 MR. BAXTER: If we are finishing up Doctor Lotchin.
g5 MS. LOTCHIN: I don't like the way he said finishing
$ 6 up.
R S 7 MR. BAXTER: I mean your portion of the order of the 3
8 8 presentation. Excuse me.
U 9 Well, while we haven' t had a chance to read the joint-10 contentions that were passed out this morning, we do. note at h
Il
$ the last paragraph the statement on Page 9 that Intervenor is y 12 Phyllis Lotchin participated in the draf ting of joint O9g 13 contentions and endorses the necessity and importance of l$ 14 litigating these issues. I would like to know whether we are 15 to construe this as a formal effort by Doctor Lotchin to 16 amend or supplement the petition by adding these new issues.
I7 MS. LOTCHIN: No. It's a statement of fact.
h 2: -
'{ 18 However you see it is fine with me.
F g I9 JUDGE KELLEY: It is a good question, Mr. Baxter, e
20 from a technical standpoint. Let's assume that we defer 21 your emergency planning contentions and let's assume your 22 first contention is not accepted for whatever reason. Then 23 where does that leave you? Are you a party? Are you in or O 24 are you out, subject to coming back in on emergency contentions 25 later on? So I will maybe restate it. Do you want to in a
. ~, _. _. __ ,
104 i
- 5
- 26 1 formal sense endorse this document or are you just supportive O 2 of it in a general way?
i 3 MS. LOTCHIN: I endorse it. Yes. And I did help
]
~O #4 --
as Mr. Baxter knows -- work on it. Other than that, I y 5 don't know what the legal proceedings would be. They are 2
a
@ 6 not contentions that subsume anything in my document.
l N
- S
' 7 JUDGE KELLEY: I understand that, and what I'm asking, M
8 8 are you saying now I'm putting these forward along with these d
d 9
, . other people and I want them to be considered as my contentions?
E 10 h Are you saying that?
II 5 MS. LOTCHIN: I don't know what the answer to that E:
y 12 question is.
O5 5 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Maybe I am not asking the question
! 14
@ very well.
15 MS. LOTCHIN: Could I answer what I think your j 16 question is? I wouldn't be prepared to defend all these us I7 issues in the same way that I would be able to talk about the h
18
, _. health effects of the issues that are on my document. However, i c: -
i-19 i g 1 __
n 20 JUDGE KELLEY: That ought to be a requirement, but 21 l ft.s not. Okay. I think that's enough. Thank you.
22 yt.s a quarter after twelve. Shall we say back here 23
- at 1
- 30? 1:15?
iO 24
<3oard conferring, 25 ! JUDGE KELLEY: 1:30.
(A luncheon recess was taken.)
! ALDERSON PEPORTING COMP ANY, INC.
105 r2 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Go back on the record.
3 I believe that brings us to Doctor Wilson and his
)
4 contentions; and along the lines of the format we have been e 5 following, Doctor Wilson, if you could give us a brief E
C4
$ 6 statement and then we will have comments from the applicant R
g 7 and the staf f and then any rebuttal comments you wish to make 8 and then questions interspersed and then perhaps more questions.
O d 9 MR. WILSON: Okay. First I'm sorry for my numbering and z'
1 ttering system. I realize now I should have done it differently.
c 10
?
E 11 Contentions lA through 1D seem to be conceded both U
c 12 by CP & L and by the staff. That's fine with me. I would e 's E
< > a d 13 like to reserve the right to rephrase it myself though. I E
E 14 think it can be sort of combined and stated more concisely, N
e 2 15 but I would like to not accept CP & L's combination and 5
16 statement but do that myself.
M.
M d 17 JUDGB KELLEY: Let me be sure we are with you.
5 5 18 MR. WILSON: The contentions that have to do with
=
H
{5 19 the cooling tower vapors.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: And there are four subparts.
21 MR. WILSON: A through D.
J 22 JUDGE KELLEY: But then too Roman numeral I does have 23 further subparts that you would speak to at this point; is that j 24 right?
25 i MR. WILSON: Yes. Okay.
106 f28 1 (Board conferring) "
b 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Is Doctor Wilson correct that the 3
applicant and staff essentially agree to lA through D?
4 MR. BARTH: Staff does, Your Honor.
g 5 MR. BAXTER: That's correct.
9 6
@ JUDGE KELLEY: Let me just say with regard to any R
E 7 rewording, we have the wording we've got. You're indicating n
8 8 that in some respects you might prefer to word it some different d
ci 9 way?
E 10 h MR. WILSON: Doesn't need to be. It's fine with
=
II
$ me as it stands.
S y 12 JUDGE KELLEY: At this point if both parties agree
'O 95 13 and -- with your wording -- and, Jim, do we have -- you have m
14
@ been studying this thing more closely. Do you have questions g 15 you want to raise about the meaning of those?
a:
g 16 JUDGE CARPENTER: Doctor Wilson, in the underlined ts I7 portion of I, I take it that the underlined portion is your
.h 18 basic statement of the contention?
P I9 g
n i MR. WILSON: Yes.
20 JUDGE CAPPENTER: I was curious because then the II next statement refers to toxic organic compounds, and could you 22 be more specific in putting the applicant and staff on notice 23 as to what your concerns are?
24 PR. WILSON: Well, I think that probably would' be a 25 better -- isn't that sort of what the period of discovery is for?
si_n ocnsi e ene-isre: e m eo s siv !NC.
107 r2O 1
That the problem of formation of chlorinated organic compounds 2 in water in which chlorine or organic compounds are mixed is 3 a well known literature. The environmental report acknowledges 4 that. They state one reference. That reference, the g 5 citation to that reference, is not present in any copies of v
3 6 the -- of the environmental report that I have seen, but it is E 7 a large literature.
j 8 JUDGE CARPENTER: Thank you. I just wanted to see d
c; 9 whether you had something more specific at the moment. Thank 3 10 you very much.
- 3
)3 11 JUDGE BRIGHT: I would like to clear up a point here.
12 Doctor Wilson, your second paragraph.
OE I You say the initial EP 13 states that chlorine will be in the system four hours a day.
$ 14 I think the four hours per day would refer to the original M
15
. whereas the two thirty-minute cycles per day would possibly.
g 16 refer to the two plants.
vs 6 17 MR. WILSON: You are confusing reading those
{ 18 sections.
n .
19 JUDGE BRIGHT:
$ I agree with you. Perhaps the M
20 applicant can straighten this out.
21 (Pause) 22 MR. BAXTER: Can't today, Mr. Dright.
23 MR. WILSON: Actually in the April 28th letter in l
O 24 which CP & L referred to questions from Mr. Morelli stated i
25 that continuous chlorination may be necessary to deal with the I.
108 gr30 1 problem of Asiatic clams, so in the applicant's mind there is i 2 uncertainty about how much chlorine or other chemicals will be 3 necessary.
4 JUDGE BRIGHT: Well, I guess we won't be able to e 5 resolve this particular thing, so I have no other questions.
El
! @ 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, it's the kind of thing 57
$ 7 that we can clarify I think at a later point, so Wilson l s
) 8 Contentior 1, small a through small d, is admitted.
O d 9 MR. WILSON: Contentions lE and 1F with four
$ 10 subparts to 1F, have to do with the analysis of the hydrology N
11 involving the lakes to be used for the coolant tower.
Es
( 12 It was my contention that the analysis was incomplete. :
O li3 The apg11 cent ergues that thet suestion is moot beceuse e l$ 14 pumping station from the Cape Fear River had been cancelled.
15 The staff agreed. The applicant argues that -- that they --
.j 16 they argue a different point. They say that -- that they us
{ 17 provide evidence about the heat sink dependability of the lake f18 and ignore my point, which was that the water level of the lake E
19 A
may actually be drawn down severely because of the inability of 20 Buckhorn Creek to replenish evaporative losses, so I think that 21 the -- both the applicant and the staff have missed the point 22 of my contention.
l 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Comment, Mr. Baxter?
24 Mr. O'Neill?
25 , Mp. O'NEILL: Mr. Chairman, I think that what the h ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
109 I contention actually said was that the Buckhorn Creek could not
{'?1 2 meet its steady water level on the main reservoir. What our 3 response indicated was that nobody said we had to, nor does the 4 analysis provide that is necessary to insure a heat sink, and
= 5 that's what we thought that the contention went to is the E
$ 6 requirement for adequate cooling water in the reservoir to R
$ 7 provide a heat sink for the plant.
A j 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead, Doctor. Yes, sir.
d d 9 MR. WILSON: That wasn't the precise statement on i
h 10 my part of -- of what I meant. I didn't mean that specific E
$ 11 water level had to be maintained, but just that -- I didn't a
p 12 think that Buckhorn Creek was proven to be able to keep those
() 13 lakes from being severely drawn down.
l 14 MR. O'NEILL: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
.4 15 MR. WILSON: It's a question of -- of my un.imiliarity j 16 of things we are talking about. The hydrologic problems.
t
^
d 17 The wording wasn't precise.
! 5 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you understand what Doctor Wilson E
19 is saying now?
g n
( 20 MR. O'NEILL: I understand that, but now I think that l
21 we pointed out that the FSAR analysis indicated that zero flow r~s 22 from the creek during the hundred-year drought condition was l
l
\-)
23 analyzed with Cape Fear make-up river water zero and the FSAR 24 analysis indicated there was at least a thirty-day supply of 25 water for emergency shutdown. He doesn't address that l
l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1
110
~57 32 1 information at all.
O 2 We are not sure how to respond to a contention that 3 Buckhorn Creek waterflow may not be sufficient to maintain a O 4 water level when we don't assume that we need that kind of a e 5 water level.
U
@ 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Wilson?
R
$ 7 MR. WILSON: Again, they are arguing a different n
[ 8 point. In a period of a thirty-day drought the question would d
c; 9 not be whether or not the' plant could be shut down on an g 10 cmergency basis, whether there would be enough heat sink 11 capacity in the lake to do that.
@ The question would-be could S
y 12 the plant continue to operate and provide air conditioning for
() bg 13 the public and not draw down the lake to an unacceptable level?
m .
[ 14 JUDGE KELLEY: What if it didn't? What if they 15 shut down the plant for six months?
g 16 MR. WILSON: To wait --
w 17
(= JUDGE KELLEY: It may be unfortunate from their
{ 18 standpoint and the air conditioning in Raleigh, but it's not E '
19 a safety problem, is it?
g n
20 (Pause) 21 MR. WILSON: No, probably isn't.
O- 22 JUDGE KELLEY: Um-hum. I'm just not sure what the
~
23 thrust is. If it's not a safety problem, what kind of.
O 24 environmental problem would it be to shut down the plant?
25 MR. WILSON: I guess if your concern is not with the
111
(~ 33 1 adequacy of the -- seems to me that the analysis of how the 2 plant should operate should take into account that they would 3 like that plant to be operating -- well, let me go back. If 4 that were to happen, I'm not sure how much difficulty it would
= 5 be to pump water from the Cape Fear River rather than shutting E
j 6 down the plant for six months. I think the response might be R
& 7 to build or complete -- I'm not sure at what stage of the s
] 8 completion this pumping station is, but I think that the pumping d
- i 9 station might then be put back onto the -- into the plant and 5
$ 10 used. Then the environmental effect of that Cape Fear water 11 would be an issue and -- would be an environmental issue, so is 12 that is how these two contentions are related and that is how
!(
O li3 it., an -- en issue re1ated to the enviremment.
l$ 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you think that your contention as 15 drafted now fairly includes that meaning or conveys that meaning?
16 MR. WILSON: Yes.
a[
as
.!i I7 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. O'Neill?
z
{
c:
18 MR. O'NEILL: Well, we certainly didn't understand s
19 the contention to say that. I think with respect to safety g
n 20 issues, we have addressed these. There also is a -- if the 21 water level in the reservoir fell below a certain point, that 22 p is not a question. With respect to whether or not sometime V
23 in the future hydrology conditions might change such that the 24 company would determine it would be useful to build a -- a 25 ' pumping station on the Cape Fear River is very speculative and ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
112
'm34 1 is not the plans of the company and is not something that we (Q
2 feel should be befort this board. We don't have to address 7- 3 every what-if situacion that someone might postulate.
(
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Barth, any comments?
e 5 MR. BARTH: Mr. Chairman, we understood this long E
- j. 6 involved contention consisting of two sentences. The first 7 one says that upstream water on-the Cape Fear, which is first M
l 8 the atmosphere. They will pump no water from the Cape Fear.
O q 9 That is why in our response on Page 77 we thought the question 5
$ 10 was moot. We didn't see what we are even talking about the E
11 Cape Fear for.
a p 12 .The second sentence states that the recent amendment
/~T 3 13
(,/ 5 purports to show the inflow from Buckhorn Creek will be able
=
l 14 to maintain the water level.
15 This is just not an issue in controversy. There is j 16 no safety significance to this. There is no environmental to w
g 17 this. If the plant doesn't have enough water in the reservoir, w
18 it will shut down. Insofar as the statement is made, I would P
19
{n like to point out that in Cleveland Electric Illuminating, 20 Perry Nuclear Power, ALAB 675, May 17, 1982, the appeal board 21 on Page 17 of the slip opinion discussed this situation in
- 22 which they point out that in order to litigate meaningfully v
23 a particular accident or scenario should be specified.
24 There is merely a statement by this intervenor that O 25 the analysis is no good. It just cannot litigate this kind of ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
113 TT35 1 an issue. What are we going to litigate? If he can show V
2 where a defect is made and what the significance is for the 3 safety and environment of the plant, we have an issue; but
~j
)
4 this is so vague. This doesn't help us, and to say as he does, e 5 this is a matter for discovery, that commission's regulations
] 6 are not designed to have general statements that something is R
$ 7 wrong to be clarified later by discovery.
3 l 8 They have to allege a specific defect in the FSAR d
@ 9 that the people sent to the agency. Then we have an issue
$ 10 that we can litigate. We think that the second sentence is j 11 meaningless, has no safety or environmental issue, and is a
y 12 vague and is way beyond the purview of 2.714,' lour Honor.
rs x
(-) lm 13 JUDGE CARPENTER: Doctor Wilson, looking at the --
l 14 your comment that follows, (F2). There is no sensible nor 15 useful measure of consumptive water use, and then I don't quite j 16 know what you mean by sensible or useful because under F4 you e
i 17 say even if their calculations were taken at face value. Are
{ 18 you questioning the calculations? Because in the rest of that-E 19 statement you say that the estimate of consumptive water use 20 is fifty-three cubic feet per second.
21 MR. WILSON: Well --
22 JUDGE CARPENTER: So that seems to answer the 23 question you raised in F2. That is the estimated consumptive 24 water use 25 l MR. WILSON: The amount of water consumed is really I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
114 s
r36 1 an important factor in assessing impact on this facility, and 2 it's difficult to find that figure in the -- in the environmental 3 report and the FSAR. It is not explained very carefully how 4 that figure is derived, what level of operation of the plant, ,
= 5 what capacity they assume the plant will be running at, what E
$ 6 the atmospheric conditions are that they have assumed which R
& 7 will affect the amount of evaporation. I don't think that
[ 8 it's been very carefully thought through, the whole problem d
c 9 of how much water will be going out of the cooling lakes and
$ 10 how much will be coming in.
E j 11 So what I'm alleging there is that their analysis of is y 12 this problem is deficient and that by the -- the possible E
13 remedy of eventually pumping water from the Cape Fear River,
(]
$ 14 that this may have safety implications and environmental 2 15 implications.
E ,
y 16 MR. BARTH: Mr. Chairman, I think -- if I may make us
{ 17 a small pickup comment- This' points up part of the difficulty 18 the staff has. He says the' analysis is no good. What part P
19 of the analysis is no good? Give Us the citation. Tell us
{n 20 what is wrong. He - ud it may have an adverse effect. What 21 are those advc ' 4: acts as far as aafety, health, and 22 environment? Becaue this will give us something to litigate.
(' ,
It is not enough from our point of view to say the 23l 24 world is going to come to an end tomorrow.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead.
il
!! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
115 1;
4 37 1 MR. WILSON: Mr. Barth misinterpreted my comments 2 about discovery. What I meant was that at this stage of the 3 , proceeding from my understanding it is merely enough to be 4 specific about what sort of general areas are that I think
= 5 are deficient. When I suggested that discovery was the way 5
j 6 h in which these would be more specific, what I meant was that R
\ 6, 7 the interrogatories of the applicant and of ' the NBC staff --
M l 8 was the way that they learn about the specifics. I haven't 0
c; 9 completed -- I am not a hydrologist and I haven't obtained any z
h 10 direct consultation at this point.
.]3 11 JUDGE KELLEY: I think a good rule to follow is be s
pj 12 as specific as you can at least in the contention. You can O
g 3 13 get into spirited debate among judges and lawyers about the g
[ m
=s l 14 extent to which you should be able to clarify and expand
!i!
L
[u 15 upon contentions through the discovery process, but it's hard 16 to argue that in the abstract. I think about all you can say
}
, '!$ 17 is that the intervenor should be specific about what he is
{ 18 complaining about, what he thinks the problem is.
0 19 I think we have pretty well talked about this 20 problem. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think we 21 better leave it to us to try to figure one out.
22 * (Board conferring) 23 JUDGE KELLEY: How about G? You want to speak l
24 to that briefly?
O .
MR. WILSON: Number 1G addresses the issue of the 25 l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. _
116
{ 38 1
bioaccumulation of radioactive materials in the environment.
2 The applicant argues that doses to animals have already been
-n 3 defined. Therefore, there is no problem. The staff argues V
4 that my contenticr. is too vague. Perhaps I should argue 5 another phrase saying that the -- the bioaccumulation through
] 6 food chains, through terrestrial food chains . The one that G
$ 7 I want to address is one that has been analyzed for other s
y 8 toxic materials such as DDT, PCB's and mercury. That is as 0
9 materials are ingested by one organism, that organism may then 10 be ingested itself by another one and on up the food chain.
=
II
$ The properties of various elements make them is g 12 accumulate in certain organisms or tissues of organisms and 13 animals.
f =
This is -- this is important in mercury. It's l$ 14 how mercury gets into tuna fish after it's dumped in the water.
15 The issue is not really specified in any NRC rules as something j 16 that has to be analyzed, but it seems to me that the applicant e
I7 should, because it's significant biological issue, and many
{ 18 other toxic compounds, certainly probably is in -- for E
I9 radiological compounds too, they should in their environmental g
20 statement review the scientific literature on the subject and 21 present some argument why that is not a danger.
22 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Mr. Baxter, any comment?
23 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Chairman, our objection here was 24 that we really didn't know what Mr. Wilson was pointing to.
25l He has not pointed to any basis, scientific evidence, for ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
117 contention that radioactivity will bioaccumulate anywhere.
{;39 1 2 We also elsewhere have discussed at length with respect to 3 other contentions of the analysis that is in the ER and O 4 presented by the applicant with respect to bicaccumulation e 5 in leafy plants and in cows' milk. These have been found h
j 6 with a lot of scientific studies to be the most limiting and 7 conservative pathways for bicaccumulation, and unless Doctor
$ 8 Wilson can point to something that suggests to the contrary, d
d 9 we suggest that this baformation that has been presented, that i
10 has been tested through many years of research in this area, h
z
! 11 does deal with that issue.
c 12 I don't have a reference off the top of my head E
() =
13 where this is dealt with, but I think that we have -- the
$ 14 applicants have provided information that bioaccumulation of sx 2 15 radioactivity and picked out the most limiting instances of 5
.- 16 such bioaccumulation.
3 2
g 17 JUDGE KELLEY: I will just ask you a layman's 5
M 18 question, Doctor Wilson. I really don't know anything about
=
S 19 this, but I don ' t let that stop me. Bioaccumulation of what?
8 n
20 Is it iodine or what is it that's concerned?
21 MR.. WILSON: I don' t think I have any specific 22 radionuclides that are concerned. Iod ine , cydium, strontium, O 23 maybe others, sort of the range of organisms that we are talking 24 about is large, and there really is very little literature
() 25 j on this issue other than cows.
I u ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
118 40 1 Cows haven't been picked because they are limiting.
2 They are picked because they are easy to study.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: And people drink milk.
O 4 MR. WILSON: And people drink milk.
= 5 PR. BARTH: Very briefly, Your Honor, we objected 5
j 6 on the basis that it was -- we obj ected on the basis that it R
R 7 is vague and no basis. I would again point out that in 7.
] 8 Cleveland Electric, Perry Nuclear, ALAB 675, the appeal board d
Q 9 required some specific allegation of something wrong with the z
h 10 proposal for the plant. None is made in Doctor Wilson's
=
j 11 proposed contention.
is j 12 I would also point out, Your Honor, as we look at O lis the contention. no desis to support these 8eneret ette8ecions l$ 14 has been made. The commission very clearly in Texas Utilities 15 Generating Company, Commanche Peak Steam Electric Station, j 16 CLI 81-36, which was filed by the commission on December 29, as 6 17 1981, specifically requires on Page 4 that for a contention to
$ 18 be admissible the basis for the contention must be set forth i
5 19 with reasonable specificity, and they also cite Missouri Power, l 20 and there is no basis outside of Doctor Wilson's personal views l-21 to support this proposed contention.
- l. 22 We feel that it does not comply with the agency's lO I
23 ; rules as interpreted by the commission and by appeal boards ,
24 Your Honor.
25 .
'UDGE KELLEY: Well, of course, the term " basis" l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l
119 I
gl comes out of the rule, but the point I want to make, you don't 2 rean proof, do you? You don't mean evidence?
w 3 MR. BARTH: He does not have to allege evidence.
(G 4 That was pointed out by the appeal board in Allen's Creek, 5 but he does have to allege some sort of cogent, rational 3 6 reason to support his contention.
R
$ 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Isn't it another way of showing you a
j 8 have to be reasonably specific as to why you think something is d
d 9 a problem?
10 MR. BARTH: I agree with you ninety percent.
h II
$ JUDGE KELLEY: That is pretty close.
is l I2 MR BARTH: Thank you.
13 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I think Mr. Barth makes a l$ 14 point. You don't have -- it's not a very specific contention 15 as I read it, and I just wanted to say something on the basis 16
- l of proof and turn to Doctor Carpenter for this.
as I7 MR. WILSON: I think it is a specific contention.
h:
{ 18 I mean it's not about a small detail. It's about a maj or E
19 issue, but it's quite specific, and ' think that the problem g
n 20 is not the specificity of the contention but Mr. Barth's 21 understanding of how specific the contention is and his 22 unwillingness to look at a contention that addresses a large 23 issue.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I guess what bothered me is V 25 the lack of -- even if the contention were radionuclide, where ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
120 42 1 do we start?
2 MR. WILSON: That is the sort of analysis that the l
3 applicant should start. I would like them to be required to O 4 present that sort of analysis which has. been studied, which are.
e 5 important in terrestrial systems from the point of view of b
j 6 how they accumulate through food chains.
R 6, 7 (Pause)
A
[ 8 a
d 9 Y
$ 10 z
II a
y-12
=
O e.
13 lm 14 2 15 W
j 16 us b' 17 18 g 19 n
20 21 0 23 24 O 25 i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
121 1 JUDGE CARPENTER: Dr. Wilson, to flesh out the 2 record a little bit, and also once again I note this is a 3 prehearing conference and I'm here as a technical member of 4 the board and we're having sort of a question and answer s 5 back and forth. In my job I'm not permitted to have an D.
j 6 opinion or to testify. My decisions are based on a record of R
$ 7 other people's testimony, but in order to get a feel .for s
j 8 your concern here at the hearing, a few minutes ago d
C z,
9 you mentioned DDT and put it in the same category as a c
G 10 radioactive isotope of some element, and I ask you to E
B 11 reflect for a moment as to whether the characteristics of y 12 DDT in terms of its high affinity for -- its lipophylic 5
13 characteristic and its selective metabolism which leads
%s 5 14 to an accumulation in such animals and birds as we've 5
15
{
=
observed. It's a very distinctive property of DDT.
16 It goes to the fatty tissue and it is not metabolized
, d W
d 17 4
so it goes up the food chain, vis-a-vis an isotope of g:
{
18 some element. For example, you mentioned strontium -
19 which is going ihto an environment where there is fair g
c.
20 amount of stable strontium and there is an abundant 21 literature on the abundance of strontium in plants, flowers, 22 bees and honey, so that one can anticipate how in
)
23 ; equilibrium the strontium may be distributed. It may 24 take a long time for the radioactive strontium to be O
25 f distributed in the same way that the stable strontium
[s b
< il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
-- me n-
6c2 12'2 1
which has been in the environment for a long time is treated. I'm U testifyinga in a sense trying to set 3
a framework for my question. Is it your contention that that literature which is based on recognizing that these e 5 g radioisotopes that we're talking about come from this plant n
3 6 i will be in some inorganic form most probably and the
%n 7
- analogy with DDT doesn't seem to be well taken. That's v
9 8 M really-the question I put back to you.
O c 9 g MR. WILSON: I think, Mr. Carpenter, that the c
F 10 E answer to your question -- well, first of all I feel like E 11 j this is a little cros -examination, d 12 E JUDGE CARPENTER: Yes. I apologize to you about c
) that.
E 14 MR. WILSON : I don' t see how that aspect applies f'
9 15 g to whether or not this is an admissable contention.
I 16
@ JUDGE CARPENTER: Well, you' re asserting that d 17 g
the applicants should because of -- by analogy with things E 18 like DDT that there is a substantial literature that I
- 19 g just referenced to which has been considered, but it's not 20 in these particular documents and you' re asserting that 21 the applicant should come forth with those analyses, and
() I was concerned that you were anticipating that it would in 23 some way resemble the kind of analysis and the kind of
() results that one would find for DDT. I realize I'm going 25 to the merits of the contentir. just a little bit.
ALDERSON FEPORTING COMPANY,INC.
123 MR. WILSON: Well, I think that all elements and
() '
all compounds -- first of all, your assumption that these 3
radioactive nuclides will remain inorganic compounds probably 4
()' isn't a valid one. Secondly, even'if they were inorganic 5
-g compounds like s troni t um, like iodine, you have certain v
3 6
- -affinities in biological systems. We know, for example, E
" 7 s
about t' he strontium going to the bones, iodine going to the
- 8. 8 a
d thyroid and so I think it's a good assumption that these d 9 7.
o compounds will be incorporated in some fairly specific E 10 g < way into organisms. It may not be the same way as I
< DDT is, but I think it will be some specific way, and d 12 E because of that specificity then there will. be sort of a S
13 O g- concentration pathway.
E 14 W
(Board discussion) -
9 15 E JUDGE CARPENTER: Thank you.
m 16 y'
JUDGE KELLEY: I think the last one here, Doctor, p 17 x~
about an accident that might destroy your business?
$ 18 MR. WILSON: lH is a -- again is one that I admit 19
{ isn' t very well stated. What I wanted to address was the i
fact that even though the liability of utilities for damages-21 because of a true accident may be a well defined problem, 22 l
hj their liability because of sort of reactions on the part 4
of. the public did not specifically involve something actually i
24
(]) happening, has not been addressed and the people can be 25 I financially harmed because of in this specific instance it ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 124 l
I may be a near accident. If there is a - ' or a near release ,
t
\ 2
%/ If the public is afraid then businesses in that area, 3
specifically agricultural businesses, may well be damaged.
() JUDGE KELLEY: Do you mean, for example, that you've
$ got an orchard out by this reactor and the word gets around e.'
3 e
6
_ that Dr. Wilson's orchard is out by the reactor nobody buys E
your apples, that kind of thing?
6.
8 8 n MR. WILSON: If maybe there's a question of -- maybe d
o 9
, g there's a small accident, a question of radioactive releases i
e F 10 E from the plant, it may end up that there is no relief --
=
G 11 g release, but as we know from the public's perception of d 12 E Three Mile Island, at this point even, what actually happens S
13
( @ and what the public remembers happening are not always E 14 y the same thing and their fears may hc /e an impact on me.
C 15 w JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Baxter?
, m 16 g MR. BAXTER: Well, the position we've taken in our p 17 w written response to this contention is simply that as best e
M 18
, = we can link it to the board's jurisdiction at all it would e '
C 19 g be as a NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act, about the 20 harm Dr. Wilson might suffer or his business might
, 21 economically f rom some accident or apprehension of one.
/~T 22
() In our view this is too remote and speculative an i 23 environmental impact to be considered by the NRC.
24 Os JUDGE KELLEY: Staff, any comment?
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
125 I MR. BARTH: I think, Your Honor, to save time
() 2 we jus t simply rest on the . filing. I will try to save time j 3 by doing so unless I think there is another point that ee
(') 4 should make because I do want to help us move.
g 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Let's move on to number two N
4
$ 6 captioned inadequecy of emergency and evacuation planning, G
& 7 and I believe, Doctor, our general reaction to part two-is g 8 similar to the reaction we've had to most of the other d
C[ 9 emergency planning discussions so far and that is to say it's-z i o g 10 premature at this point. On the understanding that you've E
11 expressed an interest in emergency planning and when those -
' h B
12 plans take shape, you ought to have a fair opportunity to N
o 13 review them and-:.decidea whether.you want to allege
(])
l$ 14 inadequecies in plans that are developed, but I think at this 15 point we will give you a chance to comment, but our reaction h
x
- j 16 is we are probably being premature to proceed with this W
4 d I7 at thic point, just as I indicated to Mrs. Lotchin.
{ 18 MK. WILSON: Well, I think that my contentions in P
19 this section were not really based on the evacuation plan.
- g n
20 They were based on what I felt to be first of all some 2I incorrect statements in the FSAR and some premises on which 22 any evacuation plans would be based that are incorrect.
Os- -
23 They don' t really rely on the evacuation plan themselves.
24
() In fact, Mr. Baxter was very careful to specify that contentions 25 would be admissable later only if they were based on new i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
126 1
information.
2 One of my contentions here are based on information 3 - -
I that already exists and therefore I think that they should
[d 4 be considered at this time independent of the evacuation I
e 5 :
g plan.
4 3 6
"_ JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I guess my comments were based ,
g' l, on statements like the evacuation plan wil'1 be inadequate.
6 8
f a
8 I Well, how do we know? You talk about Wake County department d
d 9
.j of emergency planning will not have adequate staffing. You e
F 10 E don ' t know whether they will or they won ' t , and you won' t
=
T/i ii g know until you see their plan, and that's , I guess, the basis c' 12 3 for our reaction.
o A d 13 V @ Now, could you explain with reference to some E 14 g specifics what specific contention we ought to take up this -
9 15 g af ternoon in the absence 'of those plans?
{- '
16
- j. . MR. WILSON: Well, in their analysis of contention ti 17 number A, for example, CP and L said that there were no g
$ 18
= specific -- no specifics mentioned. Naturally I think V '
19
{ subparts B, C, and D are specific oversights in their 20 as sump tions , and if the assumptions are wrong then the 21 details of the emergency plan can' t be right. For example, the size of the plume EPZ is specified that it shall be 23 I
about ten miles, but that the size and configuration
. 24
%/ ,
can be altered.
25 I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
127.
1 The applicant's premise is that a ten-mile circle O 2 is adequate, and I contend that that is an inadequate premise.
3 For example, there are plans to build a?l10-bed hospital
(} about eleven miles from the plant. If this circle is
- e. -5 g adopted as the basis for planning then that hospital will be N
3 6 2 excluded.
E n 7
- JUDGE KELLEY
- Well, neither you nor I nor the n
8 8 a
O applicants know today what that circle's going to,look like.
d 9
,, It may be an uneven circle. It may be eight miles one e
b 10 f_ place and twelve miles someplace else, but tha't's up to the
=
G 11 g county or it's up to some city if there is one out there to d 12 3 decide where that line's going to be. It's not our decision.
o
/~T d 13
() @ It's not the applicant's decision, and I just don't see how E 14 y-it's productive to talk about the emergency planning zone 9 15 g when it literally does not exist and is not within the 16
$ control of anybody in this room.
d
- e 17 MR. WILSON: I --
=
$ 18
= MR. BAXTER: I would only point out, Mr. Chairman, N
_ 19 y that what Dr. Wilson is talking about, at least in subpart 20 D, with hospitals is a twenty-five-mile radius, and I think 21 we can fairly confidently say it's not going to be that large.
() JUDGE KELLEY: Let me just look at this.
23 Okay. You say the ER fails to address the unique
() problem of potential need to protect or to perhaps evacuate i
25 eight hospitals,- most with large intensive care units within ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
a 128 1
1 a 25-mile radius. I think the point about twenty-five is
well taken. It's going to be more like ten, I would think, 3 L but in terms of evacuation if we' re going to be concerned -
about evacua tion, and I assume you will be concerned about c 5 g evacuating any hospital inside that zone, again, what's the 3
- 6 point of discussing that until you find out what the plan for E
n 7
- evacuating it is, how many ambulances have they got, how many
, n 8
a 8 buses have they got, so forth. That's coming. It's not d
d 9
.,,- here yet.
o
! F 10 E MR. WILSON: Okay.
E 11
{ 2"200 I;ELLEY : But go ahead. I mean, let's work e 12 E through this . I guess we continue to think that we' re being i
3 13
_) @ a little previous with emergency planning contentions.
E 14 y MR. WILSON: In 2B in which I say that the applicant's O 15 y assumption in sort of providing a picture of the population
~
16 l around the plant -- actually this is 2B and 2C. I ' ra saying
! d 17 j g that an important statement in their environmental report l M 18 l = is false, that county growth patterns are not homogeneous.
C '
19 l In fact by far the largest growth in the county is in the 20
, part of Wake County near the plant.
t 21 l
JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. And from an emergency planning standpoint the relevant consideration, I suppose, is 23 l
evacuation? Right?
l MR. WILSON: Well --
25 t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
'129 l'
1 JUDGE KELLEY: In other words, what difference does O 2 1 , m,,,,
3 MR. WILSON: It makes a difference because it's a serious error in this document that we're supposed to be m 5 commenting on right now. 'I mean, I --
3 -6 i e; JUDGE KELLEY: If this document were ' going to i E et control what the plan was going to say that might be.
. 8 8 d
N Once again, these applicants do not make these plans. It's 6 9 i
x Wake County that makes the plans. You want to be sure o
H 10 tha_t Wake County knows where the people are, you can go and tell them, but this isn' t foreclosing anything.
d 12 E - MR. WILSON: So you' re accepting a false statement c3 d 13
-@ in their environmental report. You're saying it doesn't E 14
- g make any difference what they_ say, whether it's true or 2 15 w false.
i
? 16 4
$ JUDGE KELLEY: I'm not saying. I don't know p 17 g whether it's false or not in the first place, and I don't E 18
- :: need to argue it with you or the applicants or anybody else.
39
{ We' re just trying to get our hands around what's here and 20
- what we ought to do with it, but let's assume it's i
inaccurate. I don't know to what purpose the staff plans O to gue thee informeeion. 1e mer form e vert of their i environmental impact statement, and if it's wrong maybe 4
O vou'd de interested in knowine that, hue we're te1kinu ehoue-25 !
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 130 1
emergency plans right now, and emergency plans are the
) province of Wake County. I assume they know where people 3
live and if they don' t know they will find out in devising
() 4 their plans, and you can come in -- let's say. you reviewed 5
3 the Wake County plan and you see how they' re going to e.*
b evacuate. Then you look at their resources and you conclude E
"j they made a terrible mistake, there are a lot more people n
8 a
8 over here then they seem to think and it won' t work for d
d 9
- 7. that reason. You can come in and make a contention to that o
F 10 y ef fect and litigate it and it will be a perfectly timely f contention for you to put forward after their plan is e 12 3 developed.
o 13
(")T
( @d MR. WILSON: So I think what you said is that you E 14 y don' t think that it's the role of interveners to question e
2 15 w specific statements that the applicant makes? I mean, x
16 g I'm --
@ 17 e JUDGE KELLEY: I didn't say that. Just for the e
M 18 record, I did not say that, nor did I mean it.
19 8 MR. WILSON: I'm saying that something they say 20 is not true.
21 1
JUDGE KELLEY: And I'm saying that for purposes
() of emergency planning it's irrelevant and we'll be having l 23 plans before you and everybody else here sometime next 24
( year and you can review them and if you think that they' re 25 i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
131 1
deficient we can litigate that, but that there is a population
() '
figure in the applicant's ER whether it's right or whether 3
it isn' t right it doesn' t mean anything with regard to these.
() MR. WILSON: I think you may be overestimating the e 5 g capabilities of the counties in doing their plans. They're S.*
3 6
guided very heavily by what the applicant tells them. At 9
n 7
- this time they' re thinking of a rigid ten-mile zone because n
8 a
8 that's what CP and L has told them. They don' t unders tand d
c 9 7- the details of the flexibilities of the boundaries. They're 0 10 E first meeting -- substantive meeting with CP and L officials
=
E 11 g was last week. The sheriff's department doesn' t even know d 12 5 anything about this yet. They don' t have the resources or c
d
(~)
s,f @
13 the ability to analyze all these documents. It's a tough E 14 y job for them.
o y' h JUDGE KELLEY: Sure it is.
. 16
@ MR.WI LSON : It's doubling what they have to plan b^ 17 g
for.
M 18
= JUDGE KELLEY: I'm not wishing to argue that 19
{ proposition at all, but tha t's the way their plan is and 20 they're the ones that are going to do it. I continue to i
think that your opportunity to come in af ter the plan is i (~s 22
(_) prepared is really all you need in this area.
23 Let me ask Mr. Baxter to comment.
24 O MR. BAXTER: T think I won' t on this one, unless you 25 have a specific question, Mr. Chairman.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
132 1-MR. BARTH: No further comment, Your Honor.
MR. WILSON: Number 2E has-to do with my assertion 3
that continuous monitoring of site is important. The
() applican'ts argue that it's their 'in-plant monitors tha t e ~5 '
- g they will' use to declare emergencies and that mobile 3
- 6 FI monitoring will be available. The NRC staff ignored -this 8 7
,} con ten tion . My con tention was a response to the experience E 8
". at Three Mile Island, too, in which the plant monitors were O
d 9
-j . off scale or not working and in which mobile emergency c
F 10 monitoring teams were hampered by transportation problems E 11
- $ and numerous equipment failures. Stationary continuously j d 12
- y operating monitors wou,1d be much more reliable protection.
d 13
^
()S They would also provide for detection of releases that-4 E 14
- y might occur in a plant -- from a place in the plant which E 15 y isn' t monitored which certainly might occur.
g' 16 g JUDGE KELLEY: I'm just,looking for a citation.
i d 17 y Yeah. One of the criteria for emergency plans, M 18 i E both on-site and off-site, reads as follows: adequa te I 19 -
2 method systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring 20 actual or potential off-site consequences of a 21 radiological emergency condition.
I) Adequate is a word people argue about a lot, i 23
- j but they raise the specific requirement in the regulations.
() 25. ;
Those regulations apply not onlytotheapplicant's on-site plan, but also to the off-site plans from Wake County and j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
--n----,. .n ,-- . - . , . . .. , -. . . --. - ,-, . , - , - ,. --
133' I
the like. Once again, if the thrust of this concern is
() the adequecy of one's monitoring capability off site, is 3
that a fair short statement?
() MR. WILSON: (Nodded head affirmatively) m 5 g JUDGE KELLEY: You can review the plans developed d 6 i by the off-site organizations and if you think it's E
n 7 .
7 n
inadequate you can come in and so allege, and that can be 8 8 j" a subject of litigation.
6 9 i Is the applicant's on-site. plan complete and in o
j 10 g the FSAR already?
E 11
$ MR. BAXTER: No, it's not. It will be later this d 12 g year, but we point out in our response to this particular a
()5 E contention that we do have some information in the FSAR that 14-
$_ the kind of monitoring equipment that's used on-site and E 15 s the contention really is at odds with the fundamental way
)2
. 16 that emergency action- decision making is conducted in that I 17 y it's not done on the basis .of off-site radiological monitoring,
- 5 18
- g but it's done with'in-plant instrumentation. And then with l C 19 -
i $ mobile teams that are sent out We complain that there is 20 no information set forch or allegations by Dr. Wilson 21 as to why that system and approach is not adequate.
22
, () JUDGE KELLEY: Mobile teams sent out to confirm the 23 l predic tions that the equipment on-site predicts will be the 24
()
i case.
25 l
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
134 I MR. BAXTER: Yes. The equipment on in-plant measures.
() 2 Actually what's the status of the plant and what's coming 3
out and then in addition the mobile teams are sent out.
() 4 JUDGE KELLEY: But they are confirmatory, basically.
5 g MR. BAXTER: The in-plants are not confirmatory.
9 6
@ JUDGE KELLEY: They are not confirmatory. I mean, R
7
'l the mobile teams are sent out.
R b 0 MR. BAXTER: That's right. It's a much faster d
c; 9 z
recognition of what's going on then relying on the area o
o 10 monitors.
E
!a II JUDGE KELLEY: Of course , now, we're getting into y 12 the merits of the case.
5
(])f13 m
MR. BAXTER: We are, but it's an issue that he 5 I4 hasn't addressed. He has not even touched upon the 9 15 g subject of why the in-plant stuff isn' t good enough to e
6 begin with, and you don' t even get to that, his question, h 17 .
g is my point.
E 18
= MR. WILSON: I think I did address that in my statement j 19 -
( here today.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: Staff, any comment?
21 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, the staff did not ignore the i
(]) paragraph. The contention in our view is an integral part 23 l of emergency planning contention and we feel it should be
() inferred.
25 j i
f 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
135 1
. JUDGE KELLEY: Off the record.
(h 2
(_/- -(Discussion off the record) 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, we've discussed this part
() '
two somewhat, but it continues to be and it's our ruling that c 5 .
j we are going to defer ruling on this in the sense that we d' 6 i see them as contentions a's: premature and we will expect that E 7 g you, Dr. Wilson, and others with similar interests will 8 8 d review the plans when they come out. We will set this d 9 j out in more detail when we write an order, but I don't o
@ 10 g
think you are going to be prejudiced in any way by this E 11
$ approach to the problem.
d 12
$ Let's talk about number three, the management 13
()@E capability issue. -
E 14 y Doctor, let me ask you whether you've had a chance 2 15 y to look at the contentions that the group of several of the
.- 16
$ interveners put together as joint contentions and circulated-H 17 3 earlier today, and they include in that a management.
M 18 5 capability contention. Have you had a chance to take a E 19 -
$ look at that?
l 20 MR. WILSON: Yeah.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: And do you have a reaction to it from 22
() 23 ,
the standpoint of its capability with your contentions?
MR. WILSON: I think it is compatible with my 24
() 25 contentions. The specifics that they've cited in their --
! .i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
136
(} I their previous contentions were different than those 2 that I mentioned in my contention.
3 f"S .
JUDGE KELLEY: So you think that your contention V
4 does contain some material, some things, that are not yet e 5 included in the joint contention?
h j 6 MR. WILSON: Some of the bases that I used in R
b 7 formulating my contention are different than these, than a
j 8 the ones that they used in formulating theirs.
d 9
JUDGE KELLEY: All right. I wonder if -- and 8.
H 10 g maybe you could just specify briefly how your contention
=
II
$ or contentions, depending on how you want to characterize s
f I2 it, how your part three varies significantly as you read 13 it from the joint contention that was served earlier today?
14 MR. WILSON: Well, my contention about management 2 15 debility has a few specific purposes that I don't see
=
- 16 mentioned here, though they may be implied. It would seem to me that the Brunswick and Robinson Plants have quality
=
$ 18
_ assurance plans which on paper look acceptable, but which in --
I n
there is apparently a gap between what's proposed and what 20 happens and, the re fore , I think that the operating records 21 of these plants should be considered in analyzing the management ability, not just the plan as set forth in
(~)}
u 23 documents being filed in this case.
4 There are several things that I wanted to C) 5 4
I investigate in discovery that I think might help to i f
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
t
] 137 l
j demonstrate and expose and hopefully rectify the flaws
> 2 in the quality. assurance program that the CP&L has 3 operating right now, so_it may be the intent of my 4 contention and the way in which I would proceed -in this e 5 exploring it that would be different from that of the N
h 6 joint contentions. I'm not sure about that because their 7 intent isn' t clear to me.
74 '
8 C4 g JUDGE KELLEY: Le t's pass to the other two for. a d
c 9 minute and then you can come back after we've heard from 7:
h 10 them.
E 3 11 Mr. Baxter?
- d 12 MR. BAXTER
- What we stated in our answer is .that z
=
d a 13 we viewed this contention to be one about the quality
=
E 14 assurance program at the -- proposed for the Harris plant, w
E 15 At least that's how I took the underlinings at the end of-E M
- 16 the long discussion to mean, that these were the allegations .
h i d 17 And the allegation that the QA program seems to be affected E
! E 18 by financial considerations and that the QA department's
?
{ 19 not independent from other departments and we didn' t really I
l 20 see how the discussion that preceeded it about I guess some 1
21 things that occurred at the Brunswick and Robinson plants 22 actually are linked to any deficiency Dr. Wilson asserts 23 exists in the quality assurance program for the Harris plant.
t 24 Quality assurance is not a guarantee of perfection.
L 25 It's a systematic ef fort to identify deficiencies and to
- i i J i
a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
. . . , . ,_ __ m . . _ . . . - - __. . . _ . . _ - . - _ - . . ,
4 138 ,
I respond to them effectively.
r%
(_) 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, what kind of a -- when you 3d say you want a link or you want a nexis between Brunswick
() 4 and Robinson on the one hand and Shearon Harris on the ,
g 5 other hand, what sort of thing are you looking for, what ,
g -
@ 6 sort of thing is missing?
R
$ 7 MR. BAXTER: For instance, we've got an entire R
l 8 section of our p SAR section 17. 2, quality assurance during d
C 9 We ' set forth there what our proposed the operating phase.
z.
o y 10 plans are for QA in the operation of this plant. I would E
h II like allegations --- I wouldn' t like them. I mean, if we're B
y 12- going to have them that we have not demonstrated our ability .
I
(]) Ey 13 to implement certain aspects or functions or responsibilities !
" i m o 5 I4 that we describe there as evidenced by some similar failure
! .g 15
{= if it exists that he can point to at one of the other plants '
y' 16 if they're comparable, but to say, you know, there's been a a
! 17 fine or two here and there and therefore the QA program
.h E
18 isn' t going to work, that's a big jump for me to make in 3-g I9 terms of knowing what I'm' supposed to defend in the QA e
20 program for Harris.
2I JUDGE KELLEY: On the other hand, if you had --
() 22 and I'm not saying that that's what's here, but let's say 23 l an allegation is made that the X utility company has in I
() 24 fact a poor QA program and as evidenced by all these big 25 i civil penalties they've gotten in the last several years i,
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
~139 I o r at some o ther plant . the inference is it's all one
(} 2 company and the same ' kind of thing will happen at the
- 3 new plant. Do we need any more than that?. It's a 4
.th track record claim.
5 MR. BAXTER: Yeah. Well , I'm not saying there 4
2' 6 aren' t track record contentions that could be devised, but e7 E 7 I -don ' t assume automa tically, and I think we' re entitled s
- 8 n to know whether there is something specific about this OA
! d d 9 j program that is analagous .to the GA program somewhere else.
o
- F 10 I
j I mean, just everything that. goes on within Carolina Power
=
&' Light Company does not automatically ' reflect upon the fII
' d 12 z adequecy or inadequecy of quality assurance that is going c
a -
(){ to be carried out at the Harris plant.
3 14 E JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead. Were you through or . . .
Y j* 15 MR. BAXTER: Yes, sir.
i y 6 JUDGE KELLEY: You were?
A F 17 j
. Staff have any comment on this?
=
@ 18
- MR. BARTH: Your Honor, the first several pages of.
9 19 E
n this contention relate to operational problems at other power plants, nuclear power plants by Carolina Power &
21 Light. We do not feel that the intervener has shown any sort of defect in the proposed operation of the Harris
(])
- l facility. We are quite mindful, of course, of the generalized track record that there may be questions that
(])
25 !
happened at Robinson, ' therefore why would Harris be different.
a i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i
140 j The reason is that Harris proposes specific people for 2 specific jobs, its specific structure for operation and is
- 3 a different facility. The president of CP&L who operates 4 the entire plant, the entire utility, does. not have
(]}'
e 5 personal operation of these plants and the nexis cannot n
f4 5
e 6l be established to those_ kind of top management. 'From 7 our point of view, an intervener to have a contention here 8 must show something wrong with the proposed operation of d
d 9 Harris and some sort of basis for it in order to have a good d
E e 10 contention. He felt that Mr. Eddleran had done this in 5
5 11 contention 3-1 where --
U d 12 MR. EDDLEMAN: 3A.
E a
d 13 MR. BARTH: 3A, where h'e identified a particular
( S E 14 structure and_particular people and raised questions regarding E
E 15 their capacity .
.] 16 You just cannot take as a matter of logic the 2
, d 17 proposition that there were problems at other plants, therefore i x
=
E 18 there will be problems at Harris. The other plants, i =-
h 19 according to the staff, according - to the Commission, are
- 5. .
20 presently operating safely. There is no reason to believe 21 that Harris cannot also be operated safely.
-s 22 JUDGE KELLEY: There was a decision, you'll recall,
.)
23 by the appeals board a couple years ago. I think it's i
24 i ALAB 577. I'm not sure. I think that's right. In any
)
25 j event it's the appeals board decision concerning the i
t hl l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I 141 I management hearing that was held about Shearon Harris and 2 also the one where the licensing board had tried to build
(])
3 in a hearing, ar.' automatic hearing, at the OL stat, ion on 4 management, but the appeal- board in the course of that decision
(]).
g 5 said that one of the things that ought to be very relevant 0
6
- h. ,
when it comes time for an OL is the fact that there_are two R
$ 7 full time inspectors, I think, in Brunswick and that their s
j 8 testimony about how things work at Brunswick should have a 0
0 9
. bearing on how things work at -- might work at Shearon Harris.
z c
g 10 That opinion, _too, was reviewing a licensing E
II 5 board decision which it was a 'very broad ranging decision.
B
_N I2 It went into Brunswick and'it went into Robinson and just 5
13
( } zf a lot of f testimony and evidence on facilities other than 5 I4 Shearon Harris and the very fullsome compliment at the 15
{= end of the decision, the appeals board said that the 16 a{ licensing board did a great job in compiling this comprehensive z
f
=
17 record, seemed like their looking at other facilities was
$ 18 appropriate.
_ Reading that, if I'm reading that and I'm looking C
19 g for guidance, that seems to say to me you ought to look at n
20 those other plans.
2I MR. BARTH: If' you recall, the appeal bosrd dec-ision 22 A
v was . reversed;by the Commission sin CLI< 80.-12, wh.. ich . is; NRC 514.
23 l JUDGE KELLEY: Yes, I remember that --
24
(} MR. BARTH: Just as a technicality.
25 h JUDGE KELLEY: -- was on a point tha t has nothing e
i
, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- . .- -- _. _- .~ . ..
I 142 F
] to do with what I just said.
() MR. BARTH: Yes, sir. The Commission in that J
3 t
decision directed the staff make a preliminary assessment
] (h upon -- priar to docketing the application prior to i e 5
- ,3 docketing an 'OL and this the staff has done.
3 6 .
! 1 i -I understand -- I understand what you are saying, , i b E 7 1
! Your Honor. Part of the issue at the licensing board k8 I
and appeal board hearing which was especially ordered by '
4 c 9 j /
c the commission were such allegations by one of the inspectors h 10 '
! E that a television camera which was on security had been 5 11 l $ turned off. They cited this and they did not prepare d 12
[d to turn it on right away. If you hold a hearing today, d- 13 l p) s_ S this is Mr. Candrell's testimony that happened, that's F -
y E 14 y true, but that cannot be taken as an inference ,that ~ Harris i k 15 \
1 y cannot be operated safely. You jus t -- no way lto translate -
j 16 2 the allegations by Dr. Wilson. The citations on page nine H 17 l$ of his petition to intervene of defects at Brunswick and 18 c nobinson which are past events, that thic is an inference
! - 19
- A that Harris cannot be operat?d correctly.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: And you're telling me by looking at 21 organization boxes we can conclude that it can be operated 22 4
3
, safely; is that right? '
23 i
, MR. BARTH: Orgnnizational structures and personnel 24
()
to fill those structures.
l - 25 , \3 F
JUDGE KELLEY: Come on. Are we igoing to get b +
j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC
- ,y- - ,- -.y _ ,--m.., ..r--c ,c - , _ , _ .-p _.___.,y ~_y , . ~ , - . - - - -.-m ....J.;,-_.
i 143 I resumes? Are we really going to sit here and decide p' ; ..
2 that some particular individual is well qualified other li s 3 l than perhaps the very top people?
4 MR. BART!!: The staff does this, Your lionor. This 5
!2 g t*
is part of the staf t review which appears in the SCI) and I
j 6i they do review the resumes of these people and what their e7 E 1 experience is.
E
,eq 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, may I ask an informational d
9
. question?
E G 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Sure.
II 5 MR. EDDLEMAN: Mr. Barth referred to a review of is g' 12
~
this. I've been over to the document - room and dug a
- ~.s 13 g good bit and I've found CP&L's on it. It's so thick u:
E ,I4 (indicating) but I don' t know what document he's referring
/ 15 to as the staff review. Could he identify that by date or ij -16 us by_ its accession number or something for me? I don't i I[ have to have it now, but I just want to know what that thing l E 18 .
1s.
5 g I9
! n MR. BARTII: I don' t have the federal register
- 20 citation.
2I ,
JUDGE KELLEY: I've got a copy of it available.
MR. BARTII: On October 27, 1981.
3 3
, MR. EDDLEMAN: And it's a statement in the federal 4
register?
i ,4 25 {i JUDGE KELLEY: I have a typed version. If you
\ l
$ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
144 I want to make a xerox you can do that. It's not very long.
2 !1R . EDDLEf!AN : If you'll be providing it I'll be 3 glad to xerox it. Thank you.
D c 5 0
3
- r. 6 .N 8 7
- l u ,
5 8 e.
d 6 9 1:
c g 10 s
5 d 12 3
13 O= E E 14 w
E 15 S
j 16 x
8 17 i ti c
- e. I8 l :
N
_ 19 -
n 20 21 O
23 O .
25 j
- s!
l i il i
ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
145 I JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Well, let's -- excuse f]
2 me. Yeah. Did I hear a request for --
3 FR. WILSON: I have just one more statement. It 4
seems to me that the problem with quality assurance is g5 clearly a pattern that's been entered into over the past 3 6 seven or eight years at CP & L and that is probably related 7
to quality assurance at the' corporate level, not the level n
j 8 of any particular plant, and specifically the relationship d
9
.j of that -- of the quality assurance branch to the other 10 branches.
II
$ How close contact they have with the other branches, is y 12 what their power is with respect to the other branches. I 13 believe that's the issue.
l$ 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me ask you one thing about your 15 Part 3. The general pattern in your contentions, I believe, 16 is to have a description of preparatory introductory material I7 h leading up to an underlin'ing contention, but if the board's 18 reviewing this I might read it and think, gee, the real s I' g contention is up here in the preamble, and it states it 20 better than does the underlined part. I take it the whole 21 thing is a contention in a sense.
FP. WILSON: In a way. I don't know how to write 23 l these things. What I did was sort of write about an issue 24 and then tried to summarize it so those summaries may not 25 I contain the important specifics.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY INC.
f 146 1 JUDGE KELLEY: I really don't think your apology's 2 called for. I think you wrote a good document, but I just 3 wanted to raise that point and see whether it was correct in my 4 own mind in looking at it overall as a contention, and if the s 5 board were of a mind to edit it in some fashion as long as S
6 we are faithful to basically what was said we could do that.
3 B Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. When you g 7 MR. BAXTER: ,
M j 8 refer to preamble are you speaking of the underlined portions d
d 9 of the contention?
g 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Look at Page 8, Part 3 as 3
la 11 an example. The way I used the term it's not very apt, y 12 perhaps. It would be all of Page 8 and 9 up to where you O m!i3 under11ne on Pese 10 and you'd heve greemb1e down to the l 14 underlined contention part.
15 MR. BAXTER: Not just the first paragraph?
g' 16 JUDGE KELLEY: No. No.
ws ti 17 PR. BAXTER: Okay.
E k 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Is that fair?
E (Nodding head affirmatively)
, 19 MR. WILSON:
n 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
21 MR. WILSON: Number 4A --
22 JUDGE KELLEY: P.igh t . .
23 MP. WILSON: -- is -- states that the applicant i
24 failed to consider any direct effects of human population in O 25 its preparation of the cost benefit analysis. The applicant i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
147 1 responds that in the -- in the environmental r2 port they do 2 deal with the impact on man. They also argue that it's 3 nonspecific. The NRC staff says that the cost benefit 4 analysis was dealt with at the construction permit stage, e 5 I admit this one was again poorly worded. The N
- j 6 document that I referred to I think would clarify what I
- R j 6, 7 meant. Wat I meant was that the risk of damage to human n
] 8 beings is something which there are methods of quantifying
- e
- @ 9 and sort of putting a dollar value on, that that's in the past g 10 ten years I guess 'been sort of an area of increasing concern
@ 11 in trying to assess environmental impact and cost benefit is 12 analysis.
N O li3 so wh11e the epp11 cents do address the 1mpect l$ 14 of radiation they have not tried to include this in their cost l
,$ 15 benefit analysis, even though there are numerical ways of doing 16 this, 5!
r A
!i 17 To show that this isn't just a sort of a fabrication l E 18 that I made up I just noticed in Doctor Lotchin's documents that j
h E
g 19 on Page 31 of NUREG 0880 they make a similar recomendation n
20 for plants even that are operational.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Need no cost benefit, the staff is 22 going to do a staff benefit analysis in their impact etatement; 23 ! is that correct?
24 MR. BARTH: I'm not actually sure, Mr. Kelley, that lO 25 we will, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
148
$J 1 JUDGE KELLEY: I thought you -- the environmental 2 impact statement is going to have some kind of balance struck.
3 MR. BARTH: If we do, Your Honor, it will do no more 4 than -- the position we will take will be to update that g 5 produced in the final environmental statement of the a
j 6 construction permit and it will incorporate the differences R
g 7 that have occurred since them.
n
[ 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Baxter, any comment?
O d 9 MR. BAXTER: I didn't understand the contention M
h 10 Doctor Wilson had raised to go to the question of whether 3
ja 11 there needed to be quantification in a monetary sense of the p 12 environmental impact he's assessing here, but if that is the
() g 13 allegation I think there is ample precedence. I don't have l 14 it at my fingertips, but I could provide it to the board later E
2 15 both in appeal board and general court decisions that these-s j 16 kind of impacts need not be monitored for cost benefit purposes.
e p 17 It is not a dollar equation on both sides or either side of s
M 18 the balance.
E
, 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Uell, I think -- why don't n
20 we pass on to the board.
21 MP. WILSON: Let's see. In Number B and Number C gs 22 I allege two things, that a cost benefit analysis should
(-) l 23 li analyze the cost and benefits to the public, not the benefits I 24 to the corporation and the costs to the public, and also that O 25 their treatment of the construction work and progress costs ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l l
l
149 V 1 and benefits was not adequate. The applicants said that they 2 would provide cost savings and estimates of electrical 3 generation later, that would be forthcoming. The NRC staff 4 again said that this was dealt with at the construction s 5 permit stage. It seems to me that in volunteering that in 3 6 the future they will provide this is a tacit admission by the-E (t 7 applicants that my contention is valid, but then they hide M
[ 8 behind the plea that cost benefit analysis can't be relitigated.
O q 9 I would argue that if new costs and new benefits z
h 10 appear since the construction hearing then the board should 11 consider the possibility of reviewing this as part of the a
y 12 document that they will be passing judgment on.
O lis JUDGE xEuEY: Now, 1et'e ause set streisht in this l
14 contention what we're talking about, costs, we're talking about 15 dollar costs of construction?
g 16 MR. WILSON: (Nodding head affirmatively.)
us
$ 17 JUDGE KELLEY: Shearon Harris is costing 1.4 E
M 18 billion or whatever it turns out to be.
E 19 MR. WILSON: Costs of construction and costs of g
n 20 operation.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Take both. I'm not 22 aware that ne are concerned with construction costs at this 23 stage. You very often get into them at the construction 24 permit stage, that's true, but once you're up to a point with O 25 dealing with a built plant and whatever it costs, that's what i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i 150 I it costs, "t hat's been spent and you better look at the benefits v
2 to be derived from running the plant against the environmental 3 ' disadvantages of running a plant whatever they may be to strike O 4 some kind of balance, but I don't envision getting into a e 5 debate on dollar costs.
h
@ 6 Now, let me offer that as a tentative notion on my R
@, 7 part, but let me get some comment, a
3
) 8 Mr. Baxter, what's your view on that?
O ci 9 MR. BAXTER: I believe you're correct, Mr. Chairman.
z h 10 What Doctor Wilson's talking about is two different cost 5
~
g 11 benefit balances, one from the construction permit stage and is
.j 12 one that's done at the operating license stage, and we discussed O lis14 the emendment we intend to make to the environtrentet report to conform our current cost benefit balance to the commission's h
15 new need for our role when we responded at the beginning to 16 Mr. Eddleman's contentions on the subject, but as we say on
]
- us ti 17 Page 3 of our response to Doctor Wilson, the iiss ential changes 5
M 18 that the analysis is going to consider only the operating costs i
E 19 of the Harris plant, and that's what we're talking about now, g
n 20 this federal action is whether or not to turn on the switch l 21 and operate the plant and that's the cost benefit balance 22 that we think is relevant at the operating license stage, not i
23 ; the one of should it be conducted and all those sunk costs 24 reconsidered. That's done.
O 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah, because if you got into a debate ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
151 G 1 about dollar costs for the plant aren't you inevitably getting (V
2 into a debate about alternatives to the plant?
3 MR. BAXTER: That would be the only purpose of doing 4 it.
g 5 JUDGE KELLEY: I don't know why else you'd want to .
a
@ 6 do it, and if you've got a commission rule don't look at N
$ 7 alternatives, then why should we be interested in cost. I n
8 8 think that's a recent rule. I don't know whether you had a d
d 9 chance to read it. It ought to be down here in the libraries.
[3 10 Are you familiar with that?
$ 11 FR. WILSON: No.
is
( 12 JUDGE KELLEY: The coramission rule adopted last O n!i3 Merch er so, 1 think. which removed several issues from l 14 E
operating license proceedings, one of which was need for power, 15 another one of which was consideration of NEPA type alternatives, j 16 and it doesn't in so many words as I recall take out construction as g 17 costs, but it seems to me it would have that practical effect, f18 MR. BAXTER: If you read the preamble --
19 JUDGE KELLEY: Let tne ask you, why if you proffered 20 these figures on construction costs, why did you put them 21 forward at all? Was that before we had the rule?
22 MR. BAXTER: Well, the environtrental report was 23 filed quite a long period of time 'uefore the rule.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: When they're in the yard?
O 25 MR. BAXTER: Yes, sir. We're taking them out, i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
152 j 1 though, soon.
2 JUDGE KELLEY: Staff have any comment on this?
, 3 MR. BARTH: I must say, Your Honor, that we 4 interpreted this contention looking at Line 21 on Page 12 e 5 it speaks of construction costs as going to the cost of h
3 6 construction of the plant. We felt that this was previously 57
$ 7 covered, was not properly before the board here. Other matters a
j 8 in this contention of course, one, are costs of stress, d
c 9 living near the plant and such things as that which are
$ 10 really just not addressable.
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Don't be too sure on that one.
is
- { 12 Is stress under this heading? I'm sorry.
O lis MR. EDDtE11AN: Mr. Barth doeen't 1ive near the l$ 14 plant so it doesn't apply to him. ,
g 15 l MR. BARTH: Line 11, Page 12, Your Honor.
l a:
g 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
as d 17 MR. WILSON: That was a similar issue that I
{p 18 though may be able to be quantified and perhaps should be
{ 19 addressed.
, n l 20 JUDGE KELLEY: s' Let me just mention ~in'c'e this has 21 been mentioned in sort of a jocular vein. There was -- and 22 this is something you probably thought of, you know, but there 1
I O 23 was a decision by the commission awhile back about whether 24 they would consider psychological stress in connection with i
O 25 their NEPA reviews, arose in the TMI context, I believe, and ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
153 1 in any event it went up to the D.C. Court of Appeals 2 Commission, they said no and they weren't going to look at it, 3 didn't think they had to, and they were reversed by the 4 D.C. Court of Appeals in a split decision a couple of months e 5 agc , and they are now considering which way to .go. They 3
~
,s 6 could ask for a rehearing in the D.C. Circuit. They could R
$ 7 try to take it to the Supreme Court. They could just comply n
j 8 and I think one thing that we might be advised to do, I think i d
- c; 9 it's been suggested here in connection with various contentions, z
h 10 that we wait and see what the commission tells us to do in Q
11 that, but we'll come to that more pointedly in some of these
- is f
12 others , but you did refer to it and so I thought I'd just O lis mentien the; it's the kind of a thin 8 that risht now is one l$ 14 that's unresolved and, too, there is some hope that it will 15 be resolved, if not definitively then enough for our purposes g 16 in the fairly near future. So that's just a footnote on that as
$ 17 point.
j I
Y 18 Why don't we, jus t looking at D, Page 12 --
h l
0 19 9 MR. WILSON: It seems to me that these contentions 20 relating to the cost benefit analysis may not make a difference 21 in whether-the plant opens or closes, but their accurate 22 assessment would contribute to making a complete and accurate 23 record.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, that may be true. It may 25 also be true that, you know, one could argue, too, that we will ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
154 QO 1 end up with quite a bit on our plate here and quite a bit that G
2 we don't have to resolve through possibly lengthy hearings,
- 3 and we might then decide to not pursue something that may be 4 interesting but is not strictly speaking necessary.
g 5 MR. WILSON: I should point out, sir, that we who 0
@ 6 live here in Wake County already have a lot on our plate.
9
& 7 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, may I make a comment on E
$ 8 that Paragraph D very quickly?
0 d 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah, sure.
$ 10 MR. BARTH: The appeal board for the commission 6
la 11 has held very clearly that we are to consider environmental p 12 costs, not monetary costs, under NEPA, and insofar as the
() 13 costs of the commission goes to any kind of monetary cost, 14 any balance, this is irrelevant. Second of all, the t
2 15 commission's new rule on financial qualifications make it E
j 16 irrelevant whether or not these people can pay for the m
i 17 commission. That's part of operations. And their 5
M 18 financial qualifications of these applicants is not before the e 19 board and, therefore, I think that an appeal board's point g
n 20 of view consideration of monetary costs is not appropriate.
21 From the point of view of the ability to pay for 22 the proj ect , that's not appropriate through the recent 23 commission rule. Thank you, Your Honor.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me just add that on 7-(_/
25 ,
j decommissioning I think you're right, Mr. Barth. There was l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
155
]1 1 a quite separate rule adopted about the same time by the 2 commission which did away with their various tests of n 3 financial qualifications and at the same time they took out V
4 tests of decommi sioning, the ability to handle decommissioning; e 5 however, there is an ongoing rule-making in that area, and I
$ 6 believe there will be at some point in time a rule on R
E 7 decommissioning costs, but as of today that's not something s
% 8 we're to concern ourselves with by virtue of the rule I d .
ci 9 mentioned.
b
$ 10 MR. WILSON: If decommissioning costs are
$ 11 mentioned, though, shouldn't -- well, never mind.
is pj 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, they may be mentioned at great O E V
$ 13 length but I venture to guess that they were admitted before
$ 14 this rule got adopted and at that time they had to come in U
E is with that kind of information.
E j 16 Human factors is B on Page 13.
as ti 17 MR. WILSON: In B I specified that the -- on the E
M 18 basis of what I perceived to be a in the past a lack of C
19 acceptance for the responsibility for running nuclear power 20 plants safely that there might be shortcomings in the detailed 21 control room design review. The applicant added that my 22 concern or that my statement wasn't specific and that I might 23 ; review documents and then submit new contentions.
24 The staff echoed that response; however, in a O
l l ,
June 1st letter from Mr. MacDuffy of CP & L to Harold Denton l 25i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l
156 P"2 1 he says that this review was perforced, but he implied that it U
2 will not be submitted to NRC and therefore won't be acceptable 3 to me without discovery.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me ask Mr. Baxter the status 5 of this control room review and whether it's done and who is j 6 available to do and so forth. .
R
$ 7 MR. BAXTER: It is my understanding the review a
8 8 has been completed, some design modifications have been made.
U cf 9 The report hasn't been submitted to the staff yet, and when z
h 10 we do we will provide a copy to Doctor Wilson and we've E
@ 11 already stipulated that he may come forward with his is y 12 contentions at that point.
O j 13 MR. WILSos: .so that report vill be submitted to l$ 14 the staff?
15 JUDGE KELLEY: And to you at the same time, as I 3l 16 understand.
as
,b[ 17 MR. BAXTER: .That's right.
18 MR. WILSON: So it will be served to me?
O g l9 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. Let me raise at this point, n
20 and we can finalize this later, but you might be thinking l
21 about it. This is an example. Doctor Wilson gets the 22 document. How long should he have to get his contentions 23 in; thirty days? You might -- I don't know. That's a l f
'24 figure that I have seen in other cases. It seems reasonable.
O 25 MR. BAXTER: That's a fine figure for us.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
157 NR. BARTH: Sounds reasonable to staff, Your Honor.
{]3 1 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Thirty days to review it, get 3 contentions in?
4 MR. WILSON: I think that -- it's hard for me to
- 5 know. I can make some contentions after thirty days, but 8
[ 6 it seems like the precision that is required is going to R
& 7 require more sort of technical reviews that I can ' t.' do ..mys elf s
[ 8 and I think that thirty days is probably too short for that.
d .
C; 9 I think that sixty days would be better for me.
z h 10 PR. EDDLEMAN: Mr. Chairman, may I ask, are we 11 considering this generically; that is, there is a lot of us is y 12 who will be affected by this question.
13 JUDGE KELLEY: Obviously, we're going to figure
$ 14 this out about emergency plans. I don't know what else.
15 I'm just trying to surface this for a moment and see where 16 it leads us. No, not right now. We'll have to resolve 3l us I;[ 17 it -- we may end up resolving it in the order we write that E
E 18 you get later because.you may not be'getting anything between O
19 now and the order, but let's let that go for now. I've got 20 a concensus from three people on the question with respect 21 to one document. Other documents may present different 22 problems. Let's go ahead.
23 Preparational radiologic survey.
n 24 MR. WILSON: In this contention I allege that the U
25 statistical -- the sampling and statistical method used l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
158 f]4 1 both in the preparational and operational radiologic survey 2 were inadequate. The applic nt responded that the NRC rules 3 specify all'the sampling processes. The NFC staff responded 4 that my contention was speculative and provided no basis.
e 5 I don't think that my contention does question the d
$ 6 NRC rule, that Section 6.1.5.3 of the environmental report G
$ 7 does specify some of the technical aspects of their monitoring a
j 8 program, but it doesn't specify the statistical methods used d
q 9 in three key places. So just as in a scientific paper in 8
!; 10 which one's analytic methods are analyzed and presented, 11 so should the statistical analytic methods be presented is >
- j 12 because they make a difference in the interpretation.
13 The three areas that I have specific concerns
! ,14 about was that in their equation of the lower limits of El 15 detection, which is in Section 6.1.5-29, they don't specify j 16 in enough detail the time of day, the weather, the operational us 17 j status of the plant, the wind direction and the recent history b 18 of all those things to be able to -- that they would be used P
19
{
n in determining the standard. deviation, and that's the only 20 important part of that equation, that's the part which they 21 will use thereafter in deciding what's an abnormal variant 22 and what's within the statistical boundaries of normal, and 23 I don't think the methods that they use are specified carefully 24 enough.
25 Similarly, they don't specify the statistical or i
- 1. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
159
-L5 1 procedural method that'll be used to determine the significance 2 of a level which is higher than their lower limits of 3 detection. That is to determine if an unusual reading
()
i 4 represents a statistical variation or if it is a true e 5 abno rmality .
9 3 6 One might, for example, have a plan for repeating n .
& 7 that test again right now. You might have a plan for 5
j 8 trying to confirm it with other tests right now. But what d
c 9 they plan to do with something abnormal isn't specified.
z c
h 10 They may just wait another six months until their next j 11 sampling time and then see what it looks like.
1 B g 12 A third area is that they talk a lot about split
() 13 sample a nalyses , sending one part of the sample to one lab
$ 14 and another part to another lab, but they don't say what l 5 -
15 they intend to do about discrepancies between those. So I j 16
( v.
don't think that the board can be assured of the adequacy d 17 of their sampling and analysis without more detail in their E
M 18 plan.
g 19 PR. BAXTEP.: Uell, what we're getting is essentially n
20 a complaint by Doctor Wilson that the extent and detail of l
21 information which he finds in the material we filed with our l
- 22 application and no specific complaint that anything is being 23 , done improperly, at least supporting the written contention 24 that we have available to us. We make a couple of points 25 g in our written response.
! f I'
I
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
160 Cte i one is thee the.gregeratienal rediotosicet 2 monitoring program was considered at the construction permit Q 3 hearings. I'm not arguing any legal collateral estoppel 4 or anything. else on that basis , but just to point out the g 5 fact that it has been something that's been received a lot n
3 6 of regulatory concentration in this case.
R
$ 7 The second thing is that the description we s
[ 8 provide with our application isn't meant to be necessarily 0
c 9 a scientific paper perhaps of the kind Doctor Wilson is used
$ 10 to or a detailed day-to-day procedure on how every' aspect of E
- j 11 the program is actually carried out. We use and rely upon a a
j g 12 lot of guidance that is available in the literature and we've O
i 5 13 invited it, some of it from the staff in the form of NUREG 0472 i C o l$ 14 and that document which our program complies with specifies
{ 15 sample time, number, location, frequencies, the type and the ;
l j 16 bases for all the kinds of decisions , and I think Doctor Wilson, j d i g 17 while he didn't find everything he wanted perhaps in our !
E I
{ 18 document, could find it if he went far enough. And the E
g 19 information isn't whether the board de novo duplicates the n
20 staff's review here and delves into all that information, but 21 whether we have a matter in controversy raised by the 22 petitioner.
23 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, first of all I'd like to l
O 24 say that the address by Doctor W11 son is a new centencien and 25 the' staff answered the contention which appears in the 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. !
L.
161 7 I petition t.o intervene which he filed.
5 We pose this as being 2 vague and nonspecific and without basis and we continue to do 3 so.
1 O 4 Now, if the board determines it would be appropriate 5
to address this matter raised by Doctor Wilson orally, that's 3 6 another matter. It has very little to do with the contention R
$. 7 which appears as E under C in his statement of contentions, s
8 8 Your lionor,and this is no place to start making specific d
d 9
. contentions. The commission's regulations provide that the 5
10 h contentions be filed fifteen days prior to prehearing to E
II
- E allow everybody a chance to look at the things and figure is g 12 them out. This is no time off the hook to start talking O 3 13 V 5 about the analysis of var. ants, whether you have a population l$ 14 within the same universe or a population which is in a 15 different universe because it is five standard deviations j 16 away from arithmetic mean. This is irrelevant.
us I7 The contention which we have addressed is the one h
[ 18 which is given at E and that is overly general to the point E
g I9 that no one coul'd answer it and no basis given for it except n
20 the personal opinion of Doctor Wilson. The crux of that is 21 the number of samples are inadequate for statistical 22 O
V comparison. This is a matter of great comparison in 23 analytical statistics. If there is a matter with the i
< 24 matter presented in the FSAR and the abundant literature L
25 that accompanies that, it should be pointed out and specifically ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
162 ,
6dl8 1 addressed and some basis given for an abnormality and a 2 specific analysis made, not just this general statement. The 3 oral statement adds nothing to this, in my view, Your Honor.
O 4 JUDGE KELLEY: hnything else?
e 5 Okay, h
j 6 FR. WILSON: I'd'like to respond to that.
R
$ 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Give your response and we'll have s
[ 8 spent fuel.and then we'll have a break. Okay.
O c 9 MR. WILSON: My response is that Mr. Baxter g 10 attempted to characterize this as just another detail in an G
11 extensively detailed document. I would argue that many of a
p 12 the -- it's more than a detail. khat it had to do with is 5
() 13 the interpretation of how the -- an interpretation of the
@ 14 data that is collected.
E 15
{e !
The section about radiological monitoring goes into 16 great detail about how that data will be collected, but it f
a p 17 doesn't talk about how it will be interpreted. The data is i E
{ 18 useless without interpretation,'and the interpretation is l P l E 19 complicated. It's not a simple matter. I would think that M :
20 a carefully thought out description of one's radiological
- 21 monitoring procedures should include how decisions are made 22 based on the data.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Let's say a few words about c
24 spent fuel. Can you summarize this one for us briefly, O 25 Doctor?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
163 i,
6d19 1 MR. WILSON: My contention about spent fue'l is one i
k_)
2 that I have to admit is borrowed from another proceeding.
3 It's been a recent proceeding in Michigan. I don't even O 4 know the situation.
e 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Big Rock Point?
h 6' FR. WILSON: Yeah, I think it is Big Rock Point.
R
$ 7 Yeah. It's a surprising point of view about the analysis E
[ 8 of criticality in spent fuel pools and I think it should be at U
d l 9 least mentioned in this proceeding.
Y 10
, @ I think I can summarize the sort of a technical a
11 basis for it that was presented in that hearing to see if it's y 12 applicable in this case. At this stage I' just . anted to ,
E
(]) y e
13 mention it.
$ 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah, I think with the reference l 15 that probably tells us enough for right now. Let's pass ' ,
j 16 on.
e 6 17 I think Doctor Bright has something to give us.
i 5 l M 18 Glenn?
E g 19 JUDGE B'RIGHT: Well, yeah, that's what I wanted to n
20 ask you about, Doctor. Would it be fair for me to assume 21 that your first sentence there merely says there is going to 22 be a lot of fuel there and not that the fuel storage facilities 23 ; are inadequate; that is, sizewise?
24 MR. WILSON: Yes.
t
() 25 : JUDGE BRIGHT: Okay. Then so F is the actual '
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
w- g- p e m ,-
mmm+ -+ --- v m -
l l
164 l
l A10 I statement here.
(d 2 Now, you just said, I think, and correct me if. I'm 3 wrong, that you are basing this on some unexpected 7
r 4 supercriticality situations in fuel storage pools by three g S gentlemen, actually. Have you read-this article?
a j 6 MR. WILSON: Yes.
^
n 6 7 JUDGE BRIGHT: Are you qualified to actually be s
j 8 able to evaluate a multigroup diffusion theory calculation?
O ci 9 MP.. WILSON: Personally?
$ 4 g 10 JUDGE BRIGHT: Yeah.
E
- $ 11 MR. WILSON
- Or as an intervenor with technical l
! i:
g 12 support?.
O li3 JUDGE se1cHr: We11, that was goins to be my next
$ 14 thing if you said no.
! g '
{ 15 MP. WILSON: Personally, I'm not. ]
- l j
. 16 JUDGE BFIGHT: Personally you're not.
s i
!! 17 MR. WILSON: As an intervenor I think I would be, s
E 18 JUDGE BRIGHT: Okay. You would plan if we c
$ 19 litigated this to have qualified witnesses?
5 20 MR. WILSON: Yes.
21 JUDGE BRIGHT: Because I doubt if you'll get these 22 fellows from Argentina.
23 l MR. BAFTH: Argentina? -
24 MR. EDDLEMAN: Probably busy making a bomb right 25 now.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
165 6 ; I* JUDGE BRIGHT: I guess that's all, Doctor.
2 JUDGE'KELLEY: Mr. Baxter? Mr. O'Neill?
3 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Chairman , j us t to reiterate our O 4 response, it would be very difficult for applicants to do 5 very much with this proposed contention. We pointed out that g
a j 6 there is in the FSAR a very detailed description of the R
b 7 conservative assumptions that go into our analysis of sizing a
j 8 the spent fuel pool and insuring that there will be no 0
0 9 criticality event with spent fuel storage. Doctor Wilson has
$ 10 not cited any inkling as to what might be wrong with that 11 analysis other than citing some magazine article. I suggest-is y 12 that that's not sufficient basis for any contention in a s
O i '3 groceedins. otherwise the intervenere cou1d 3uet so to the l$ 14 library and pick lots of articles and suggest that without 15 taking into consideration fifty-two articles, 158 articles, j 16 or 300. That's not sufficient.
us 6 17 JUDGE KELLEY: Staff?
Y
{ 18 MR. BARTH: I think that Doctor Wilson's own E
g 19 statement, Your' Honor, thus far, is our position we've n
20 borrowed this from another proceeding, he knows nothing about 21 it. He knows not whether it applies to this reactor or this 22 site and just wants to mention it. It has no specific 23 application to this reactor which is one of the requirements 24 for contention and no basis is given of the intervenor's v 25 ability. He doesn't know whether it applies to this reactor.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
(. 166 i
l ,d22 1 I think his own statement would require this be denied, sir.
. U 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, that won't be the first 4
3 contention that's been taken out of another case.
4 O 4 .MR. BARTH: That's right.
l g 5 JUDGE KELLEY: That in and of itself is not i 9 l 3 6 necessarily an obj ection.
, g
$ 7 -
I think we can all stand a ten to fifteen-minute I
a
- j 8 break. Let's take one.
d I d 9 (Recess) z C
! g 10 I $
g 11 i is l ti 12 '
, 15 i
c 1 l O i ia .
- b I4 l
E 15 i
E y 16 i w
( 6 17 l N N 18 h -
, 19 n
20 i
! 21 I
22
! 23 4
24 4
O 25 , ,
1 1
I, i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
167 e
l
, 7 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We are back on the record.
2 This brings us to the contentions of the Conservation Council 3 of North Carolina. Mr. Runkle, you are the spokesman. Is 4 that correct?
g 5 MR. RUNKLE: I'm here as the executive coordinator i li
@ 6 of the council, so 1 can speak for them.
R
$ 7 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Let me ask first, we s
[ 8 have your supplement and then responses to your supplement and a
c 9 then you have a filing date of June 29th called additions to
{3 10 supplement, petition to intervene, which essentially adopt a
]
y.
11 number of numbered contentions previously filed by Mr. Eddleman.
( 12 Let me j us t ask the other parties, do they have this document?
, O li3 Do you have it?
$ 14 MR. BAXTER: Yes, sir. ,
15 MR. BARTH: Oh, yes. Staff has it, Your Honor.
j
. 16 MR. RUNKLE: What I would like to do with that, m
, d 17 Your Honor, is not address any of those specific contentions l Y
$ 18 of Mr. Eddleman but as later this afternoon and perhaps
! E '
[ g 19 tomorrow when we -- Mr. Eddleman addresses specific. of these t n 20 contentions, during lunchtime we went over and there were about 21 six or eight of them that was on his list of priorities to O dt"c""" ""d "' """' ti there "e'e " "" * ' """ '""d 23 like,to discuss at this point to keep the discussion around 24 those contentions at one place if that is possible.
i 25 l JUDGE KELLEY: That sounds useful. I was going i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
168 7 1 to ask if there was any objection from either of the applicants 2 or the staff to the filing of this supplement, addition to the 3 supplement. Mr. Baxter?
O 4 MR. BAXTER: No. Our written response we provided e 5 you today just says that we rely on the responses to the h
3 6 referenced contentions, all o'f which we objected to.
R
@, 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah, but this effectively makes the M
g 8 contention, the contentions of CCNC as well as Mr. Eddleman.
O c; 9 Any objection from staff?
z c
h 10 MR. BARTH: Staff has no objection, Your Honor.
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
a y 12 MR. BARTH: At this time. Our contention on O i
=
is Edd1eman contentions egg 1x to CCNC conteneiens.
$ 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Sure.
i 15 PR. RUNKLE: We accept that.
j 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Sure. Okay. So you will speak e
17 to the initial or the original CCNC filing. I think possibly M 18 21, the management one, which has been incorporated into the P
19 joint one which we are handling a little differently.
h c.
20 MR. RUNKLE: Yes.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
22 MR. RUNKLE: I will do them in order here. I will l
23 try to get some of the applicants ' responses. It's a little 24 clear they organized them in a different way than I have. I 25 ! will try to address some of their different problems with the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
169 l
(c) 1 contention. The first deals with the power agency Number 3, 2 whatever the current name for that is -- Eastern North Carolina 4
3 Power Agency. Is that the right name?
l
[]}
4 MR. BAXTER: North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power g 5 Agency.
O j 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Referred to in this pleading as PA3.
, g
$ 7 MR. RUNKLE: And the -- just a series. of addresses --
n 8 8 it addresses their involvement with the proceeding and their d
c; 9 financial qualifications to be a party to the license. We
$ 10 realize that any kind of financial qualifications they have may 11 be similar to the contentions that Kudzo 11 brought that were B ,
y 12 discus' sed this morning and also might be annenm3 by the lawsuit
- C) a y 13 New England -- New England Coalition on Nuclear Power versus NRC, 1 x
@ 14 so'at this time 1 think we should defer this contention until d
2 15 either that case is decided or we decide something on this end, E
j 16 Kudzo 11.
w g 17 l MR. BAXTER: We have the same position. It's a i
E M 18 challenge to a commission rule which has a presumption of
- 19 g validity.
n 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. But you are aware as'you 21 have indicated that the commission has in a recent rule which
() 22 takes financial qualifications out of these cases?
23 ; MR. RUNKLE: I am aware of that, and until that l () 24 changes, that's fine.
25l The second contention addressed cost benefits of
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
t
, 170
) <
r4 1 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. , This toogoes[againsEone >
(O
/
2 of the regulations , and I think-as such will need to have a
' r y-d a 3 2.756 challenge to it, so at this time we don' t want> any kind f
(
4 of ruling on that until either we will join one of the other
't ,
e 5 groups that are doing this or do this ourselves. f' )
E ,
7 '
3 6- JUDGE KELLEY: Well, let me mcke sure'that it's o
R .
' ' b
/
6, 7 clear between you and the board. The contention itself is j jg; a i
$ 8 submitted to the board an,d is before us now as we understand it.[r >
a , , - e :
d 9 We also understand that y',o u, knodd: t,out this' ',re c e, n t rule.We .
- 7. ; ,..
o / i \ . '
g 10 have indicated -- that is, ar./ y , set the rule applies, the rule .4 E l 5 11 would bar the contention, ' tend lwh'eti we go home tomorrow, we '/
j t' 4 - -
p 12 willstartworkingon;this=and\weexpectwewouldwrite,upan E ,t < f O i 13 order saying this is _ outf by, reason of'the rule.
That doesn't i
ly 14 mean that your -- you are perfectly free to comd in with one-
.) .
e y, '- 4 of the 2. 758 petitions sayir.g waive the rule, b6t those could 2 15 g
j 16 go down independent ttracks.g. , l ,; ,
g, -,
1;[ 17 MR. RUNKLE:' Is it poselble that we'~caniwaive rules-g ,
1 .i-N
=
18 that we haven't raised :>
any contenti'ons on if. there are other W
$ 19 rules that we might, formulate a coritention '
on that we can later -
6 , -
20 waive the rules to ? See, I mean f6h Ls to sav this-is our ' -
i
./ /,,
21 contention, you agree to throw it out of this procedure.
i ,
22 Then we waive tt rule. I mean are there other rules that Q 23 we can waive later on that we don't have to bring contentions I,-
(
24 up about? <
?
0 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Of course, you can't waive them.
I i '
I l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1
b g n
~
- 171 i js
,i A - '/
. . ( ,, ,
, .s 5 ,
1 It is the commission that does the waiving. You just ask for i 2 a waiver.
t; f 3 MR. RUNKLE: Um-hum.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: That's an interesting question. l 5 I am not sure off the top of my head.
g n
3 6l Any comment, Mr. Baxter?
- . R b $, $' 7 !!R . BAXTER: I would think that if petitioners are I, ~
[ 8 interested in having a particular issue litigated, they are 1 d d 9-
. obligated to come forward with an attempted contention or a z
. o l
E 10 petition to waive the rule. I don't think you can sit on ll your rights for a year or so and then decide later that you E
. a g 12 want to try one.
I3 JUDGE KELLEY: The longer you wait on such a thing, u:
5 14 the more compelling would be the argument from the other side
- C 15
{x saying you should have done it last year. That's true I 16 think.
3-v.
I7 MR. RUNKLE: Then we certainly don't want to
{ ,
18 withdraw the. contention so you need to rule on it then I -
- g. 19' guess in the order.
t
" ,20 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. It's -- you are not 21 prejudicdd by our ruling that rules against a contention on 22 a basis like that. It's not a stigma in any sense.
23 ' PR. RUNKLE: And also in Contention 3, questions e <
24 physical security plan. I think we are at the same place t ap 25 that we were this morning. At this time the Conservation i f . . '_t l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. l
. -, ,y
}
172 1
C' ' couacil nas not decided enether we maat to look et the ew ysicet 2 security plan or not. We appreciated the Kudzo Alliance 3 expressing their going forward with it, and we may join that.
4 We recognize the Catawba order and the Diablo Canyon order and 5 be willing to go through the procedural safeguards on the g
a 1 3 6 thing.
g .
$, 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me be sure. I.et me be real n
8 8 clear. When I understand where the matter stands as between 0
ci 9 you and the board once we finish up here, you say that you're
$ 10 not certain at this point whether you really want to pursue 11 this or not?
a py 12 MR. RUNKLE: No, we are not. We just found that O s 5 13 out that one of the other intervenors was willing to go ahead a:
l$ 14 with it. We wanted to bring this contention in case no one 15 else would look at the security plan. We need to decide j 16 whether we want to join them, which would probably be the us 17
(= easist way to do it -- to have one expert sponsored by a M 18 couple groups to look at it rather than three experts by three 19 different groups.
g c:
. 20 JUDGE KELLEY: I understand. You could decide 21 that question and advise us within a week or so which way you O 22 want to go om it.
23 , MR. RUNKLE: Our board meets this Sunday. I will O 24 raise it then.
25 l JUDGE KELLEY: You raise it then. I think if you f
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
173 1
77 just simply let .us know with a copy of your brief letter to 2 the other parties telling us whether you have decided to just.
3
' l work with Kudzo and just hire one expert. If you do that, O 4 would you then -- I was about to say would you withdraw your 5 contention? But you haven't seen the plan, so you haven't j
a 3 6 got any plan contention.
R
$ 7 PR. RUNKLE: Well, we haven't looked at it yet, t
s
[
8 so it's inpossible for us to raise that contention.
O ci 9 JUDGE KELLEY: I understand that. Okay. Why g . .
10 h don't you put it to your people and let us know how and
=
II 5 whether you want to proceed.
is g 12 MR. RUNKLE: We do want to cooperate on this thing.
S O we wouta prodebtv 8e with xuazo eua hire ea exeert te we
$ 14 wanted to go into it at all.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: I appreciate that. Okay.
16
![ MR. RUNKLE: The fourth contention is an argument es:
I7 that the applicants have said is really not a viable argument, h
e M 18
_ In their environmental report they rely on a -- on a table in i:
g n
19 the regulations,' 51.20G, which is -- which gives the 20 environmental impacts of transportation of fuel and waste to 21 and from one lightwater power nuclear reactor --
22 JUDGE KELLEY: Excuse me, Mr. Runkle.
n U 23 Have you had the desire on the part of the 24 applicant and the staff to speak to anything we have raised 25 ' so far? I gather not.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
174 1 MR. BAFTH: Nothing additional from the staff, Your 7Q 2 Honor.
3 ,
JUDGE KELLEY: So we will on spent fuel probably 4 get over to you.
e 5 PR. RUNKLE: Excuse me then. It seems to me that 0
@ 6 when they were relying in their environmental report on this c .
$ 7 table and then asking in this proceeding, this hearing, for g 8 a license to receive radioactive waste, spent fuel, and that d
m; 9 from the other reactors that they are-operating now, it seemed
$ 10 to me misguided to rely on the environmental impact from one E
j 11 reactor, so if their environmental report did not look at the a
p 12 impacts from bringing all this other waste and spent fuel from O
V E
13 the other reactors -- as a -- till this -- at a meeting a l
E 14 couple of weeks ago that the other reactors h'ad licenses, the g 15 same kind of license, to either store spent fuel or transport a:
j 16 them from one. That would cover the transportation.
- us p 17 I'm just trying to determine whether there is any I 5 M 18 kind of -- if there is any kind of holes in this. Each H
g 19 reactor has their own license to transport and store. Do M
20 these interlap?
j 21 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, subject to correction and not 22 meaning te he in any sense definitive, 1 he11 eve if a remctor
.O 23 is licensed to operate, incident to that is the authority to I
(~ 24 store spent fuel at that reactor and also transport it to a 25 processing plant and to transport it to another spent fuel s
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
175 7 1 pool if that's what you want to do. You can get into some 2 debates about other aspects of it. I say this from Catawba.
3 The staff in Catawba takes'the position that they will factor O 4 into their environmental statement the transportacion, s 5 environmental impacts of moving spent fuel from Oconae and
@ 6 McGuire to the Catawba, and they say also that they will R
$ 7- factor in the impacts associated with storage at the site, but E
8 8 is just one view from another case.
O c; 9 The staff will have something to say about that I'm
$ 10 sure. But go ahead.
11 MR. RUNKLE: We are concerned about the storage of a
y 12 radioactive waste and probably the biggest problem we have O l i3 with the who1e environmente1 revert is we heve no idee of how
$ 14 much will be stored at the -- at the Shearon Harris site.
15 The response seems to be that, well, they will take all that g 16 they need to take and that they will -- it will be a safe us
!! 17 storage of the radioactive waste, and that is a concern, and E
{ 18 if the legal argument in this contention fails, at least the F
E n
19 last line should be a contention where that -- that the whole i
20 aspect of storage is not adequately covered by the environmental 21 report, i
22 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me just ask you what, if any, 23 quarrel you have with the values that are included in so-called 24 Table S4. It attributes various heat consequences and 25 radiation exposure consequences to transportation from one l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
t
176 r10 jd 1 lightwater reactor. Arb'you saying that those numbers shouldn't 2 be used and we got to do some other kind of analysis or that 3 the numbers properly manipulated will produce the right result?
()
4 MR. RUNKLE: I'm not having any quarrel with the g 5 table there. I'm -- I think it's a silly way to regulate 8
@ 6 long-term environmental and health effects with a table on i R
.$ 7 what the impacts will be at any one site, but I don't want to E
8 8 challenge at this time the regulations. I would be happy to d
C 9 perhaps withdraw this contention if one of the other intervenors z.
e g 10 had a -- a more specific spent fuel contention that was willing 11 to stand.
a
(= 12 (Pause) -
() 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, maybe we should move to m
g 14 Mr. Baxter. I wonder. A little factual background might be 15 helpful here. I don't know if you or Mr. O'Neill is going to j 16 speak to that. What do you have in mind? Are you going to a
17 be storing a lot of spent fuel from other reactors and are you
{ 18 going to fill the pool or what is in the offing? What are P
19 your views on this contention?
g n
20 MR. O'NEILL: That application'does request 21 nuthority to store spent fuel that has been produced at the
> 22 Robinson Unit 2 and Brunswick Units 1 and 2 at the Harris pss-]
23 plant. Quite frankly, the company cannot say with any 24 certainty how much fuel would be transshipped from those two 25 plants to the Harris plant because of the uncertainty at the a
a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
177 rlJ 1 present time of federal policy away from reactor storage. As
/ \
V 2 you are aware, there is legislation before the House and has 3 been passed by the Senate that would impact on the company's O 4 plans in this regard, 5 With respect to the question of how much fuel, we g
9 3 6 don't know; but certainly it's bounded. That is, the pool is R
& 7 of a specific size and cannot accept any more fuel than can be s
[ 8 stored in the pool. With that.-- in that regard, there can d
c; 9 be an analysis as there is in the FSAP. and the EP of the g 10 safety impacts and the environmental consequences of the E
11 storage.and accidents with respect to spent fuei storage, a
y 12 and we can bound that by the capacity of the pool. The 5
("% a 13
(_) 5 m
FSAR does analyze both PWR fuel and boiling water reactor
! 14 fuel in Brunswick with respect to all the analyses.
15 If you look at Table S4 with transportation impacts, j 16 we submit that the Brunswick plant environmental statement w
y 17 and the Robinson plant environmental statement have taken f18 into consideration the transportation of the fuel from e 19 g Brunswick and Robinson to either a processing plant or a spent 4
20 fuel storage facility or another plant such as Harris.
21 With respect to transportation of Brunswick / Robinson fuel 22 from Harris to a reprocessing plant or repository away from
)
23 reactor facility, Table S4 would delineate those environmental 24 impacts.
(,
x-
)
25 We suggest then there are really no unanswered 4
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
178
- I questions before the board because Table S4 would take care of 73
\_/
i i
2 environmental impact with respect -- the only issue that would
{
3 be cogni7able would be receipt and storage at Harris, and those O 4 are dealt with in the FSAR.
s 5- JUDGE KELLEY: When you say that transport from 6
$ Brunswick and Robinson have been taken care of in the R
' 7 respective impact statements for tho'se facilities. Does any ,
2 g 8 l statement aggregate all of this transportation? That is to l 0
y 9 say, does the Robinson impact statement talk about z
O g 10 transportation from both Robinson and Brunswick to Harris?
3_ .
5 II PR. O'NEILL: No, Your Honor. We suggest th'at I' B
g 12 the environmental impact statement for Harris would contain
() 13 a notation there may be additional fuel stored at Harris as
=
I4 suggested in the application and that the impact statement l @
s 15 I
{
should take into consideration the impacts of the transportation s
j 16 of that additional fuel from Harris to the processing plant or I I7 l h wherever, and that those environmental impacts are known as
=
{ 18 not included in the environmental report because the regulations i
s g
I9 indicate that Table S4 has taken care of that issue, so that I n
20 we submit that the staff in its environmental impact statement 21 will recognize the additional fuel and bound it with Table 22
("% S4 values at a maximum value of three times the values in
\_)
23
- Table S4 and that would be an improbable maximum bound.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: Aren't the numbers in S4 sosmall 25 that it doesn't matter what the multiple is? Three times I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i l
L
179 I Right?
7rA3 nothing is nothing.
V 2 MR. O'NEILL: Well, the numbers are there. They 3 certainly are very small because of the very strict O 4 regulations for transportation both by the commission and the g 5
, Department of Transportation set very stringent cast a
j 6 requirements, packaging requirements such that there are R
" 7 essential 1y no impacts from transportation.
M 8
$ (Pause) a c; 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Did you say you have an analysis 10 of storage of -spent fuel?
5 II MR. O'NEILL: The FSAR does go into some detail I a
g 12 with respect to the analysis of the spent fuel pool and O l ia inc1 ode en ene1xets of both swr end rwe egent fue1 end ett 14 the criticality of analyses and accident analyses and the le 15 impacts from accidents all include both types of fuel as an j 16 assumption.
e
{
a:
17 JUDGE KELLEY: There is no analysis of safe 18 f
storage of radiated fuel assemblies, the 1ast sentence.
' 19 g You're saying in your view there has been?
n 20 MR. O'NEILL: Yes, sir. We have pointed those 21 sections out in our responses both to CCNC and -- and in some 22 detail to Mr. Eddleman in our response to his contentions on 23 l the storage and transportation.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
When you say that you have bound 25 the amount of spent fuel by the capacity of the pool -- and ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1 l
I 180 1 l
A I again I'm speaking as a not technical person here -- but does 4;,g 2 that mean the capacity to which it could be maximumly expanded 3 or the capacity that it will be when you open up_ initially?
(]}
4 I'm speaking of all the reracking proposals whereby more and g 5 more spent fuel gets stuck in the same pool.
8 j 6 MR. O'NEILL: First of all, the Harris spent fuel R i pools were designed to accept the spent fuel from four 900-
{7 n
n 8 8 megawatt reactors. There will be two units constructed --
0 C 9 and the pool size has not been reduced, so there is more than z.
o g 10 adequate capacity as presently designed.
E 11 If the applicant at some point in the future that a
p 12 reracking was required -- that would require a license
(~
x 5 a
5 13 amendment from the commission and there would or would not be
=
m 5 14 both the consideration of the environmental and safety 15 impacts of that reracking, but it is not the intention and
- j
. 16 right now of the company nor would it consider under possible e
N 17 scenarios necessary to rerack their adequate spent fuel s
M 18 storage will be provided at the Harris pool for the Harris s
g 19 and Brunswick plant assuming rederal policies developed
' 20 within the next couple of decades as Congress indicated they
, 21 ytti, l
() 22 JUDGE KELLEY: I would ask if you were able to rack 23 in a pool now, you would put in the maximum racks so to speak?
(} 24 I gather that is not necessarily the plan. )
l 25 l (Pause) 4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
181 7
l- MR. RUNKLE: It was my impression that you could not 2 get a hearing for a reracking proposal. Do you get an 3 opportunity-for hearing?
O 4 MR. KARMAN: The amendments.
s 5 JUDGE KELLEY: A great deal of time has been spent A.
@ 6 oh that exercise in the last two or three years.
R
$' 7 MR. O'NEILL: Chairman Kelley, I didn't lea rn .
M
$ 8 The plans are not for borated racks which would be as the 4 d c 9 technology now exists, a maximum capacity. Nor are they
$ 10 for double tiers nor compaction, so there are opportunities
{a 11 sometime in the future to expand, but the plans are considered p 12 by the company for any contingency including Brunswick and
/~T b
\,/ g 13 Robinson at this time.
m l 14 JUDGE KELLEY: That is helpful. This is an area 15 where having some facts is helpful in assessing what is_ going g 16 on.
m M 17 Does the staff have a comment on this contention?
E y 18 MR. BARTH: I would add only one thing, Your Honor.
P I 19 That the analyses in the FSAR and the ER which presently are g
1 20 without regard to the origin of the fuel. Where this fuel 21 comes from makes no difference. They have analyzed fuel which 22 may go in the pool. If the fuel comes from a different
- v("}
23 reactor, you have a time lag and your impacts are smaller.
24 In answer to your earlier question, the impacts of l f")s
(
25 Table S4 really are nil, and I think you are essentially ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
182 7
7y 1 correct, Your Honor, that four times zero is still zero, so this V
2 really makes very little difference.
3 The other matter I would like to bring to attention 4 from our point of view of the staff, if you have a contention 5 relating to storage of spent fuel, it's incumbent on the g
9
@ 6 intervenor to provide some sort of showing what is wrong with 9
$ 7 the analysis in the ER and FSAR and provide some basis for it, s
[ 8 and that has not been done, so from our point of view we stand d
9 9 by our earlier answer, and we would like to point out that there
$ 10 is no defect cited by the intervenor -- by the parties in the 5 11 analysis made in the ER and FSAP. regarding the storage of spent E:
y 12 fuel at the proposed Harris facility.
< 5 O i i3 aunce xetttY: okey. ause one goint, vr. serth.
$ 14 I refer from time to time to Catawba. We had a staff filing y 15 in Catawba that was in response to a number of questions we e
j 16 posed to the parties in that case about the spent fuel e
(= 17 contentions that are being litigated there, and the staff
{ 18 filed a pleading the 5th of April, 1982, entitled NRS Staff 5
g 19 Pesponse to Board Questions on Spent Fuel Storage and Operator n
20 Qualifications. Could you and your colleagues review that 21 pleading? And I'm not sure that that pleading is consistent n 22 fully with your responses to these contentions, and let's not U
23 try to do it now, but would you just when you get a chance 24 check that over and if you find -- let's leave it this way.
q V
25 l If you find a significant inconsistency, file something.and i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
183 ;.
"T7 1 tell us what it is; and if you don't, then I will assume that
]G 2 you agree with the Catawba filing.
3 MR. BARTH: We will do so, Your Honor.
s-
-}
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you.
g 5 (Board conferring) 9
@ 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Number.5 speaks to TMI i R
$ 7 Lessons Learned. Mr. Runkle, do you wish to comment on that?
Z 8 8 MR. RUNKLE: I am willing to withdraw that. I d -
c; 9 think the most -- most of it is assumed by the joint contentions z
o .
g 10 filed this morning by the intervenors. I didn't think it would E
I h 11 add much to that, and it's pretty well,,-- can pretty well a
p 12 withdraw that at this time.
(~)'
B 5 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Fine. 6 is shared safety systems.
m h 14 MR. RU"KLE: l'm willing to withdraw that at this b
5 15 time. It's covered by other contentions by the intervenors, x
( j 16 and I don't think -- it does not have the basis to stand on w "
- b. 17 itself.
l
{ 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Number 7. We are speaking ,
P .
19 i
{
n to 7 and 8 actually.
20 MP. RUNKLE: And 9 also.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: And 9 also. Well, 7 and-8 seem I
(~)
x_/
22 to speak of population in a narrower sense than 9.
23 MR. RUNKLE: The 7, emergency response plan, does l
24 j
{} have to address the people that are now using Jordan Reservoir 25 for recreation purposes. At the time the EP was written, the l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. l
184
' 14 Jordan Reservoir was not filled in, and I don't know what the U
1 2 estimates are -- a hundred thousand people use it in a day or 3 over a year's time or something -- and I would like to look O 4 at the emergency response plan to see how they deal with that _
-i e 5 because it is within or very close to ten miles. ;
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
3 The Jordan Reservoir. It's'close S
$ 7 to the ten-mile line? But'isn't this someth2.ng that will in ,
e
- e. ,
$ 8 any event be addressed by what the Wake County plan -- '
d.
ci 9 MR. RUNKLE: I think'it's in Chatham.-
g 10 JUDGE KELLEY? Chatham.
E
{is 11 MR. RUNKLE: It's within -- it's nearest point was ;
- g
. 12 within five miles, so as an emergency plan, I would defer that O j i3 unt11 1t comes eue.
l M.
14 JUDGE KELLEY: That seems satisfactory for 7.
15 Okay with the applicants and the staff?
- j. 16 MR. BARTH: It's acceptable with the staff, Your as d 17 Honor.
5 l M 18 (Pause) 1 i P .
j 19
{
n MR. BAXTER: Well, it's a contention about the 20 environmental report. You are saying that you are really 21 interested in how the population is using the emergency planning 22 and that is why you want to defer it?
23 . ,
MR. RUNKLE: Yes. Specifically the Jordan but also 24 l
any emergency plan will have to have population figures in it.
25 , '
I think that was something Doctor Wilson addressed this morning l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
~ 185 I on the validity of a population in a certain area.
((]?
2 JUDGE KELLEY: A comment?
r" 3 MR. BARTH: The contention says you use 1970 k%) -
4 figures. You should use 1980. There's a lot of difference e 5 of where that population is. I have no problem with h
@ 6 considering 1980 population figures on the Jordan Reservoir R
$ 7 insofar as it may be within the LPZ. The contention of n
.] 8 Doctor Wilson is where the people are located and where their 0
& 9 houses may be and how many kids they have. That is a
$ 10 difference.
E 3 $ 11 MR. BAXTER: As we said in our answer to this a -
12 contention, an amendment to the environmental report now does
()
- 13 make use of the 1980 census, and I don't think it's permissible m
g 14 to change something to an emergency planning contention.
15 It seems that that is moot now, and I think it should g 16 be withdrawn with the understanding that when the emergency w
p 17 plans come out, Mr. Runkle can come back, as other people can, i
{ 18 if he has a specific problem. Just for cleanliness I think.
E g
19 JUDGE KELLEY: I think we want to be clear as to what n
20 we are doing, but it is the case, is it not, that when the 21 emergency plans do become available, p2ople then had a free l
() 22 and open opportunity to file contentions about it? Presumably 23 including one about the number of people living around the l
(~T 24 Jordan Reservoir or there on a Sunday afternoon?
s/
25 MR. RUNKLE: It would make things -- if it would make 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
186 77 40 I things easier, I will withdraw that contention if I have an-U 2 opportunity to come back and question the emergency response 3 plan if that would be an easy way for you to handle it.
O 4 JUDGE KELLEY: I think it might be a little cleaner.
e 5 MR. RUNKLE:- Fine. I will withdraw contention
@ 6 Number 7.
R
$ 7 JUDGE KELLEY: With that understanding.
R
$ 8 MR. RUNKLE: Sure.
c.i U 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Does similar reasoning apply to E.
$ 10 Number 8?
$ Il MR. RUNKLE: We addressed all around it, and I is g 12 wanted to jump in the discussion earlier wi th Doctor Wilson O l13 on the ten-mile limit. I'm still not clear on 5047C2 just l$ 14 what -- who has to have the ten-mile limit. I'm not sure.
15 Now, in the emergency response plan those are done g 16 by the counties or the municipalities or other localities in as f:: 17 -- in about ten miles, so it could be up to any number of M 18 miles.
E 19 JUDGE'KELLEY: Not up to any number. Well, in my g
n 20 view, that.' issue will be fully litigated in the next five years, 21 and there will be all sorts of hairs split over just how far 22 that can go. My own view is that about ten miles means 23 something pretty close to ten miles. Maybe eight. It may 24 be twelve, but it isn't twenty-five. That is my opinion O 25 for what it's worth.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
187 i Al 1 MR. FUNKLE: So when the emergency response . plan 7(N 2 l
'comes out,'we'do get to litigate whether ten or twelve or'eight 3 miles would be better in any certain area?
i O 4 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me just speak very generally.
g .5 I think the answer'to that is yes based on the various-factors.
9 a
6
- $. i that are ticked off in the rule itself, based on demography, R
$ 7-political lines, things like that. I know we had this case i
i- g 8 in California where it's perfectly reasonable sto start with a
. d c; 9 compass and draw a circle around and see where it hits and.if x
! c i
g 10 you are in the middle of the Mohave Desert and it doesn't hit E
i a
11 anything, ten miles is good enough.
p 12 In most places.you will hit something or something ,
x
() $
a 13 where it ought to deviate a little bit. The-circle around m
14 5 San Onafre cut through San Juan Capistrano, and the initial i $
l {x 15) ' inclination was to leave it there with a cut,.and the board in g 16 that case said no, move it out to Mile 12 and include the e
f
=
I7 whole town, and you can make that kind of a situation. It
{ 18 can be arguable.
E g I9 MR. RUNKLE: I am looking at a map that has a ten-e 20 mile radius around it. Who has to defend if we have several l 21 valid contentions on the plan? The intervenors have one or 22
[
{} 23 two. Doctor Wilson, CCNC, whatever. Who has to_ defend the plans before the board? Does the applicant defend that?
4 24
[ Does the applicant have to vouch for the emergency response plan
, ()
25 l as passed by the counties and the municipalities?
i
} } ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4
_ ~ . - _ ~ _ . ~ . . _ . _ _ - _ . . _ . _ _ . - . _ _ - _ _ .
188
'4 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Once again I wouldn't want to U
2 pronounce on something we may want to litigate later. I can f- 3 tell you how lt's been done in other cases. When the 4 applicant puts the case on, he calls the county officials, I
i e 5 and they get on the stand and defend their own plans. They 8
@ 6 don't necessarily show up with a lawyer. The applicants'have '
R
$ 7- a rather difficult situation here in the sense because they n
8
~
8 have to have those plans basically approved or they can't have O
C 9 an operating license. Yet they can't control it because it's z,
O g 10 not their plan, and there is a provision in the rule that 11 recognizes that and says in effect if the applicant did the 3
y 12 best he could and came up with something that was an adequate e- 5 l
l-)g y 13 substitute, that is okay. recognizing that they may not get t a m
5 14 the cooperation that they need.
j
=
15 So it's a little bit out of the ordinary, but that's j 16 the way it tends to run.
m (a 17 MR. RUNKLE: And if that point would ever happen,
{ 18 we can litigate the issue of whether they made an adequate F
19 substitute for the county plan or something?
g 20 JUDGE KELLEY: I am sorry.
l t
21 MR. RUNKLE: You said that there is a part of the l
l 22 r
{) regulation that said if they tried their best.
j 23 JUDGE KELLEY: If that comes up, yeah. If that l 24 comes up -- and it does from time to time. That kind of a
(} ,
25 l situation.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
L
189
. 744-
- 1 MR. RUNKLE: I am trying to get a feel for the next
(-)
. 2 couple years of hearings.
3 MR. BARTH: Please.
O 4 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah. kfter that he can take it from i 5 e there.
O
- @ 6 MR. RUNKLE
- I am going to live with you all for R
I
$ 7 a while. I thought we would clarify some things.
s
- j. 8 MR. O'NEILL: What happened-to Contention 8?
d
- 9 .MR. RUNKLE: I will withdraw that if I can raise 1 $ 10 more contentions about the emergency plans.
i d j
i l
a 11 JUDGE KELLEY: I think that is probably with the p 12 understanding that you can look again when the plans come in.
() m 13 MR. RUNKLE: And there is a reference to a rule-
$ 14 making too -- well, Citizens Task Force'which Phyllis Lotchin
[x 15 is having a rule-making on that at this time:_but when that g 16 rule-making either succeeds or_does not succeed, we may have a s
- d 17 different problem on that. I want to draw your attention to E
M 18 that.
5 19 JUDGE'KELLEY: Um-hum.
g n
20 MR. RUNKLE: You were talking to her this morning and j
21 saying that one of her opportunities would be to make a rule-22 making. She or her organization here.
)
23 , JUDGE KELLEY: Right.
24 MR. FUNKLE: Okay. 9 was just a general keep-i 25 ; open-the-emergency-response plan, and I think that has been ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
190 77 1 answered, so I will withdraw that contention also.
2 -JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
, 3 MR. RUNKLE: And looking at Number 10, it cuts --
O 4 it cuts a -- to the same issue on whether how much input into n 5 the emergency response plan the applicants have to make. I'm 8
3 6 specifically looking at the rescue personnel or any kind of R
$ 7 cleanup personnel at any accident, and it seems to me that the
{ 8 applicants would have to provide certain teams of cleanup U
C; 9 personnel on any accident. I don't think that this.would be i
- z o
@ 10 part of the emergency response team provided by a county.
11 Now, it might be. I don't know what the practice a
y 12 of it is.
() 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Just a minute, please.
m j
E 14 (Pause) e 15 E
l g" 16 m
i 17 E
M 18 E *
- 19 8
20 21 (2) 23 ,
24 l ('~;)
( 25 7
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
L
191 8el 1 JUDGE CARPENTER: I have some trouble with O,y 2 understanding this contention as to exactly what the concern 3 is. I see it in very broad terms, but I don't see it in O
\- 4 terms wher'e you could hear arguments about it, litigate it.
e 5 MR. RUNKLE: I think that there should be a 2
6.i j 6 procedure for anybody in a either accident response or- jus t G
$ 7 normal operation of the plant who does receive a certain
~
j 8 amount of radiation. There is no insurances that these d
d 9 personnel, emergency rescue personnel, will not exceed i
c
$ 10 over their lifetime the radiation limits or go to some other j 11 nuclear pc wor plant. It is a fairly broad contention.
B y 12 (Panel discussion) 5
())) l 13 JUDGE BRIGHT: When you say rescue personnel or e
5 14 emergency rescue personnel, you're talking about people that 15 would be in the employ of the applicant; is that correct?
y 16 MR. RUNKLE: Yes. Yes.
v:
j @ 17 , JUDGE BRIGHT: Okay. So that would be essentially
! E j
I fp 18 on-site workers for which the applicant is responsible?
$ 19 MR. RUNKLE: Or any off-site workers or team on-site n
i 20 that must go off-site to clean up any accidents.
21 JUDGE BRIGHT: Okay, but they still work for the 22 applicant?
23 l MR. RUNKLE: Yes, they work for the applicant.
24 And in the --
O' 25 JUDGE CARPENTER: I'm still having trouble visualizing l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
- 8c2 192 I this going off-site to clean up an accident, to quote you,
( 2 go off-site to clean up an accident.
3 MR. RUNKLE: Well, if the plant ' spilled that t
4.
much radiation that it was off-site I would hope that they
- 5 .w ould send-their people out to clean it up, or if-one of.--
0
~
6
- this might even refer back to some of the transportation.
U 6 7 If there was a transportation accident that needed to be s
j 8 cleaned up, these people that -- applicants, employees, d
$ 9 would.also have to -- would have to clean it up.
z c
g 10 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, might I comment?
3 II h What we've said in our response is tha t we ' ve got a B
y 12 health physics program described in a section of the FSAR E
(} f13 that Mr. Runkle hasn' t addressed at all. It describes our 14 methods of recording and reporting radiation exposure and our 2
i 15 procedures for obtaining workers occupational exposure j 16 histories during previous employment as well as our w
f
=
I7 procedures for furnishing information about occupational IO b exposures at - Harris to the NRC. That is exactly what b
I9 I
g you're talking about as I unders tand the contention, and the n
20
, contention doesn' t address that program at all, which is ' why 21 we raised the basis objection we did.
22 JUDGE KELLEY: That is a good general point that i
CE) !
23 l I might just state agreement with. I didn't state it earlier i
24 f today, but the applicants have prepared these lengthy documents, 25 j the ER and the FSAR, and most of the petitioners are familiar L
b ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 8c3 193 1l in one degree or another with them as. I know from our O. 2 discussions today, but there is an obligation on. If the --
3 if the point that you are raising is addressed specifically C)
\s 4 in the PSAR let's say, then there is an obligation on the e 5 petitioner or intervenor to address that in some fashion, E
c.*
j 6 at least reflecting some knowledge of the existence of the e7 i
.R 7 discussion and then saying with -- in some reasonably E
y 8 specific way why it's inadequate. On the other hand, if the 0
d 9 contention is put forward that apparently is -- that doesn' t h 10 mention it apparently is oblivious to the applicant's E
ja 11 discussion then it can be faulted for lack of specificity 3'
. 12 and not coming to grips with what's been put before the house E
() 13 and might be denied on that basis. I'm not commenting on
$ 14 this specific one. I'm making a general point.
E 15 MR. RUNKLE: Okay. I will leave the contigent out 5
g 16 for your ruling on it.
/ .
d 17 ! JUDGE CARPENTER: But did you have some response
, 5
$ 18 to the applicant's response to your contention?
5
[R 19 j MR. RUNKLE: I have not looked at 12, whatever it is l 20 that they have ' answered close enough to know whether that 21 covers this or not. I really can't tell you at this time
, 22 whether that covers it or not. If it does answer this question, 23 fine.
- 24 I JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
25 , (Panel discussion) ,
h ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
194 j JUDGE KELLEY: Number eleven is an emergency plan 2 ' contingency, I believe, in the sense that this is the kind 3 of thing, drills , that could tend to get covered in emergency
- 4 plans, announced versus unannounced drills. '
o 5 One of the standards for the plans, both the off-site A
N 6 plans and the applicant's plan are that periodic excercises h
R g 7 will be conducted to evaluate major portions of emergency l s -
E 8 response capabilities, periodic drills in order to be d
d 9 conducted to develop and maintain key skills' and efficiencies Y
$ 10 identified as a resul t of excercises or drills will be. corrected.
3 E
< 11 That whole concept is built into the plans that again we
?
d 12 don ' t have ye t, and I think it's appropriate to withdraw this E
o 13 and come back later with a drill contention if you've got one.
(])
$ 14 MR. RUNKLE: Okay. Although the applicants 2 15 respond, they found no objection to the admission of this E
g' 16 contention and at this time since that's the only one of 1 .
l p 17 mine that they found I would like a ruling on that -before --
l E l E 18 I don't want this .one deferred if it's going to be a 1
=
F
{R 19 . question of --
20 JUDGE KELLEY: Being a party?
21 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, r
22 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah. Can you refresh our l
I i 23 , recollec tion? There is no objection?
I 24 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Runkle's correct.
A 25 t JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i
! 195 1 Staff on this?
D
2 MR. BARTH: We've found contention twelve to be of 3 good merit, Your Honor.
A
(_). 4 MR. BAXTER: Eleven.
e 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Eleven.
2 9
'j 6 MR. BARTH: And therefore I do not think that you R
R 7 need to find that eleven is good in order to save him. I-n j 8 think that twelve could save him as well.
O d 9 MR. BAXTER: I'd say if the board agrees with the
@ 10 s ta f f , that's true.
E j 11 MR. BARTH: That's correct.
S 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Does the staff agree on eleven? Is
- }
f 5
(~T d 13 that okay?
\_) @
h - 14 MR. BARTH: I think eleven is the straight emergency
, E 15 planning.
E j 16 JUDGE KELLEY: And should be deferred.
l 7:
d 17 i MR. BARTH: There's no basis to know what sort of i E I
I h-18 c
drills there are going to be now, what kind of drills there s
- 19 are going to be'in the future. There's no basis for that
\
R 20 contention now.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Now, on twelve you're saying,.Mr. Barth, 22 that's okay as far as the staff is concerned?
O 23 MR. BARTH: Somehow we found this to be acceptable, i
24 Your Honor.
l
' (^) 25 ) JUDGE KELLEY: All right. And, Mr. Baxter?
N l 3 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l
m 3
196 1 MR. O'NEILL: On twelve, Your Honor?
'"' 2 - JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah.
3 MR. O'NEILL: We did not find this acceptable,
\
('~/
L 4 although there is not a section in the yard that says 5 consequences of multiple dam failures.
g j 6 The specific instance described by CCNC in their R
$ 7 petition was one that we pointed out that the ER and the FSAR s
E 8 adequately dealth with. The bottom line was there might d
- 9 not be adequate water to cool the Harris plant if an accident C[
x 0
h 10 were to occur, and we do point out that the main dan is E
11 seismic category one structure and we point out that the only i
B 12 impacts from the failure of the Buckhorn Dam if it were to N
E ~
13 fail would be on the face of the main dam and beyond that
(]) m 5 14 the auxiliary reservoir is the reservoir that would provide'
]=
15 active co-ling or safe shutdown. Thus we don't believe that y 16 the petitioner has addressed that analysis, nor certainly has i
f 17 l he had an opportunity yet to respond to it here. We would 18 object to that contention. .
P "g 19 JUDGE RELLEY: Let's go ahead for now, Mr. Runkle.
e 20 MR. RUNKLE: On contention. twelve are we on, or eleven?
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, you didn' t speak to twelve, ' did l 22 you? I think I skipped on ahead when it looked like we might 7_
(_) 23 have agreement over here.
24 MR. RUNKLE: Okay. On number twelve, the third from O
k
25 ) the bottom up, the Cape Fear Intake Facility. I've been 0
! li l
$ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l 197-m 1 assured that that facility is not planned at this time, so
/~N
\- 2 there would not be any effect on that. I guess the term is 3 rendered, the five words, and Cape Fear Intake Facility 4 would be ' rendered moot.
e 5 . JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.
M e
j 6, MR. RUNKLE: Which also moots contention number G
, s 7 thirteen. If there is no Cape Fear Intake, any low flow a
j 8 of the Cape Fear River really makes no difference on the O
j d 9 plan.
-i c
- G 10 JUDGE KELLEY: That is -the case; - isn' t that right?
E g 11 There is no Cape Fear Intake?
M j 12 MR. O'N$ILL: That's correct, Your Honor, and we
~
=
(')
g 13 cited the filing of June 3rd in which that was officially N_/
[ 14 announced to the staff. -
5 E 15 MR. RUNKLE: And after they provided a copy.to me so 2-g' 16 that -- I read it over and it's -- I mean, I'll go with their W.
d 17 assurances.
5 E 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Without j umping too far ahead let me F
'E 19 go back to twelve.
n 20 Did you say whatever you wanted to say with regard 21 to tne applicant's arguments?
22 MR. RUNKLE: It seems to me that the applicant is O 23 arguing that it might not happen because their analysis --
24 and I'm arguing that it may happen because of my analysis.
n 25 I think that's a question of' fact.
f l
ll ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
u > /
is ,e
- ! s 3
- 198 -
.' V' ';
c.
1 JUDGE KELLEYL Proof? -
U
> Yeah, a que., s t. ten of proof.
2 MR. RUNKLE: The e's a a f #
3 lot of water in that 'and it's very likely to go. -> 'I 4' MR. O'NEILL:' ie, assumed the proposition that Jordan e 5 Dam might fail. We just
/,
suggested
' ;\. '
that petitioner has not
. ~) ,'
.n M ,
,/
$ 6 addressed our analysis of h6w that would not impa'c't on' tiie #
^
a abilit.y to cool Shearon liarris.
d
$ 7 !/
n v ...
[ 8 JUDGE KELLEY: *I understand. Okay. jI th.tnk we ,
d '
ci 9 understand the differing positions./ t, ,
c '
g 10 Fourteen concerning hydrala,verticulata. .
j i:
11 Mr. Runkle. This illu$trates my basil:: problem I #
[ . ..
f 12 have with both the staff and the applicants. It seems to me
- 13 that here is adequate specificity, there ibfadeatTate , bas.is
- t r, -
[g 14 for this contention, and both of th,eri /
found $e ault with that,
.{ j 2
- R 15 that this is -- they're going to proof and they're saying that
, y j '
, gg' 16 that gives the basis to it. I can supply testimony to this w - '
)
tix 17 in experts. I feel that this. contention there is adequate e
M 18 basis for and it's very specifid. 1 r ;
t ,
( I . ' ' <,
G .
l ; 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Can you tell us'f about what hydra --
n : ,t, j
20 can' t even say it -- hydrala' verticulata is. ^ <p, ,
i l .
j 21 And then pass to you./ /
""/^
I +
i.
l 22 MR. RUNKLE: Ilow 19ng do you want me to talk on it? ,
> , yQ~\
l 23 JUDGE KELLEY: No t too long. #
j l , ,
/
l 24 MR. RUNKLE: All right. It's one of the worst water-1O l
25 weed menaces ever found.'
~
lt;was in;a couple of lakes in
- . i 4
l ; ,'
.! ALDERSON REPORilNG COMPANY, INC., (7.
+
i * ,
h
, m ,
199 1 Florida and it's moved all through the country. It's 2 been found in thirteen lakes in Wake County. It's not 3 in the Shearon !!arris Lake yet and it's not in Jordan
( 4 Reservoir yet. It grows from any depth of the water. I t'
, p 5 clogs up and it causes forty to sixty percent loss of R
@ 6 retrievable water from any impoundment that it gets into.
G
& 7 TVA has studied it at length. There was a -- several n
!j r
- [ .
8 workshops, one of the CP& L staff memLars was on an ad hoc o 9 committee studying it. There's basically no long term cure C
7
- -@x 10 for it and it's a very severe problem in this area.
r
,'=
p- g , 'g 11 JUDGE CARPENTER: Mr. Runkle, let me be sure I'm 1 -
( 12 taking the first sentence of item fourteen as being the 4 -
13 basic contention. The fault that you found is that there
(]}
- ,n! 14 was no consideration, and you complain that the applicant's 2 15 staff now in responding to that have tried to put forth a E
j 16 proof at this time. Is that a fair summary of your position?
m d 17 And if --
E
{
18 MR. RUNKLE: Well, I don't know if there was C
y 19 inadequate -- there was no consideration in the environmental
)
n 20 report. The applicant responds that that was one '#
the things 3 21 they did consider, but they certainly didn't mentio. ic at all, t . ,
- f 22 " JUDGE CARPENTER: Well --
(2) ii 23 , MR. RUNKLE: Unless I know that they adequately i
_; 24 considered it I really can't respond to that.
Y-( ) j
- d3 ; .
(!,25{/ JUDGE CARPENTER: Yes, sir. I understand your
/ i,
// ljposition. Thank you.
i! ,,, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1 l 's 1 j \? .1 _ _ _
200
> 8h1 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Applicant?
b 2 PP.. O'NEILL: Our position was that we did consider 1
3 hydrala verticulata among other possible fouling media, and O
4 that the plan is designed against that, and our response y) 5 indicates how we have the travelling screens that would t
j 6
- prevent objects including this plant fron clogging the plant R
7 cooling system.
[d Even assuming that it were to grow in the 4
l 8 reservoir, which there is no basis to establish that it-might, d
ci 9 Additionally, the research that we have shows that I
10 hydrala verticulata doesn't thrive very well in the depth 11
- @ and the type of water we'll have at the lake, and that i is 12 y admittedly is evidence, but we suggest that in order to just l O l is come og with a foreign g1ent from vieride end susgeet it e
- @ 14 going to impact on this plant there has to be sone basis for l E 15 that.
.'j 16 And then, secondly, that he should have addressed v:
f a
17 our objection with respect to the design that would take care M 18
_ of it even if it were to grow there.
P
{
n 19 JUDGE'KELLEY: Staff?
20 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, all we have is an allegation l
21 by a lawyer that water hyacinths are going to grow and plug 22 the plant, and that just provides no basis , it just doesn't.
O 23 : We could well assume, for instance, a lawyer's statement that i
i 24 culex will grow in the water and plug the plant, and culex O
25 l will, and there is no question about that.
L l'
.t i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 201
~
1 Neither of these will impact adverse 1y on-the plant.
2 We just do not think there is any kind of basis provided 3 with this beyond the self-serving statement of the lawyer 4 making it.
e 5 JUDGE KELLEY: He says it might clog intake valves. '
P.
i 6 MR. BARTH: There is no basis given for this any 7.
?; 7 more than~there is a basis for saying the culex would do the n
[ 8 same. This is just the name of a plant which grows in water. '
I d l' It came from South America originally and it's -- to say that d 9 g 10 you have a plant that grows in water is going to clog the !
E_ .
l g 11 plant with no kind of basis at all provided, not even as ;
is g 12 much as provided in Allens Creek for the biomass contention O 5 13 just does not provide any kind of basis for letting this kind l$ 14 of contention in.
2 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Would it help if -- I think :
E !
j
- 16 Mr. Runkle indicated that this particular plant was in some e
!;i 17 of the bodies of water around here,is that correct?
?
E 18 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir, thirteen lakes in Uake E
, 19 County alone.
n 20 MR. BARTH: This is not in the contention as filed, 21 which is what we addressed, Your Honor. I'm quite willing There is no Q 22 to concede that it will grow in this area.
23 question about that, but will it grow in the area and plug f I
24 up the plant? If there is a basis for that it is not given.
25 l JUDGE KELLEY: I think you've got a point that l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. f
l 202 3 1 you're supposed to file a specific contention in the first 2 place, not just an open-eneded thing, that you can then 3
come and make more specific at a hearing., That 's sort of a O 4 general principle. That isn't to say you can't shed a little
- 5 bit of light on what your contention is intended to reach 8
3 6 when we come to -- we came down here to get information.
R 7
You know, if I read all this and all I really need M
[ 8 in order to make contention out of it is that it's out there d
c; 9 in the lakes now even as we speak in North Carolina, if that's g 10 enough then why shouldn't we say, well, okay, now I understand 8
j 11 and use that information?
is y 12 MR. BARTH: I think, Your Honor, that the Perry O ;" i3 atin, which wee cited eer11er sPecifica117 resuires that the l$ 14 adverse scenario be set forth by specific specificity, not j {
=:
15 that the consequence be set forth. All he's done is set I
j 16 forth the consequence that the plant will be plugged, that w
y 17 the scenario, how it will be plugged in view of the travelling E
M 18 screens, the intake structures both of which are designed by 0
19 g
n the power company and which are also controlled by EPA which 20 has design requirements for intake structures, there is no 21 kind of scenario set forth as to how this water hyacinth 22 is going to plug up this intake structure outside of the 23 conclusions being given it will. And in Perry the appeal 1 24 board said it is not sufficient to allege the horrible 25 conclusion. You've got to allege someh a the specific ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
j 203 4 1 scenario by which that may come about, and that has not been 2 done here, sir.
3 MR. EDDLEMAN: Mr. Chairman? i
,\
r !
l 4 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm sorry. What did you say? l c 5 MR. EDDLEMAN: Is it irrelevant to comment? ,
P.
$ 6 I looked at the section.about those travelling screen's and e7 ,
e3 7 if I recall it only says that there are travelling screens j 8 there, d
ci 9 JUDGE KELLEY. Ue'll have to look at that.
z' '
e b 10 That's part of our job. We'll do that. l E -
5 11 Has this 500 KV line been withdrawn?
is y 12 MR. RUNKLE: I have been assured that it's been .
,. 5 (j 13 cancelled, so that would moot that contention. ,
$ 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
U 2 15 MR. RUNKLE: I'd like to address contention 16, 17 s ,
j
. 16 and 18 --
e p 17 JUDGE KELLEY: Fine. .
5 M 18 l MR. RUMKLE: -- in one group because they all deal O
g 19 with the samplin's of water at specific sites, either on the a
20 site or around the site. I feel that the present monitoring 21 as cutlined is not adequate, that certain other tests should r~ 22 be made of :he water at those points at perhaps a daily rather i
'J ..
23 , than every two-week or a six-nonth period, and the reason for l 7_, 24 this is that corrective measures can be taken as soon as -
25 j radiation levels are greater than background.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
204 3M 1 16, 17, 18 basically are the same thing, that their O 2 monitoring at these stations is inadequate.
3 JUDGE CARPENTER: Mr. Runkle, I'd like to ask if O 4 these three contentions are framed against the knowledge of g 5 the monitoring of the discharge points from the plant where d
$ 6 there is continuous monitoring? l R
$ 7 MR. RUNKLE: Okay. These are not continuously A
j 8 monitored.
0
@ 9 JUDGE CARPENTEP.: No, but I say for something
$ 10 to get to the sampling points it must go by the continuous E
11 monitors at ute plant , I would presume. I'm asking a 5
a
.j 12 question.
O li3 MR. RuNxtE: Those wou1d de discherge pointe thet l$ 14 are expected discharge points. If'there was an unplanned
{
a:
15 discharge point it might get someplace, it might get into j 16 the spillway, the waters, some other wa . The present e
d 17 on-site monitoring seems to me to be just those points where E
$ 18 it's expected that there will be some kind of discharge. I E
g 19 think although t' hat monitoring contention is one of the ones I
20 that are in the jointly filed contentions of this morning on 21 those kind of monitoring of point discharges.
22 JUDGE CAP? ENTER: Mr. Runkle?
23 , MR. RUNKLE: Yes, sir.
24 JUDGE CARPENTER: I have some problem because you 25 j ust hypothesized some sort of random discharge points.
I
$ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
205 3 1 General design criteria in the regulations, the whole strategy 2 of the design of this plant, the primary consideration is 3 integrity of that part of the plant that contains i
O 4 radioactive materials, so I'm having a hard time following e 5 your scenario.
N 3 6 MR. RUNKLE: I'm having a hard time understanding i R
$ 7 your question in that it assumes that there will be no
[ 8 discharge of radiation at any time from the plant.
d .
d 9 JUDGE CARPENTER: No. It assumes that the !
g 10 discharge of radioactive materials will be through pipes E
la 11 that come from the treatment plant for l'iquid wastec et j 12 catera, and the airborne materials through known points which
! () 13 must be monitored as part of the Tex-pax.
$ 14 MP. RUNKLE: What if it comes to an unplanned point?
15 What if there is a pipe carrying. radioactive water from
- j 16 someplace that breaks? These are areas of specific concern i e
d 17 that need to be more adequately monitored.
E M 18 JUDGE CARPENTER: Well, the point is, the people .
E l g 19 in the plant wou'ld know the pipe's broken probably n
20 independently of discovering it from these remote monitorings.
I l 21 I don't want to get into a debate with you, but I just want
{) 22 to get clearly what you have in mind.
23 , MR. RUNKLE: I do think that one deep well 24 groundwatering monitor will protect the twenty or so wells Os 25 l in the area that will be drinking water. There ouFh t to be l
'l l
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
206 at least some kind of monitoring of those deep water wells L]
1 2 besides one on the site. There ought to be one at the 3 nearest water supply intake which is at Lillington, a little O 4 town downriver from that, e 5 Specifically, it's an area of concern that there 0
3 6 are people that are using this. Whether the radiation R
$ 7 comes from someplace -- what if it doesn't, you know, go a
{ 8 through a monitor? What if it comes from some point that's d
c 9 not planned or otherwise? There should be some monitoring x
h 10 of these special areas of concern is the contentions that I"n 11 raising here.
3 y 12 JUDGE CARPENTER: Well, r.y point, if you could O
v 3 13 g point to this board's intentions to the possibility that as m
5 14 there would be unmonitored releases we'd certainly be very E
'S interested in listening to that contention that there are j 16 points of exit that are uncontrolled.
v5 g 17 MR. RUNKLE: I cannot answer that question. I 5
l { 18 mean, I can point -- how can I point to an area that we E
g 19 don't know of that might or might not leak in the future?
n 20 But certain areas ought to be better protected and this is 21 one of them. These are three of them that of all the, you
' "t**d di*'*"' ***c" ""*ded c '* ""d*
O "" " " "it 't"8 23 at these to protect people as corrective measures can be 24 taken as soon as possible. I don't much care if it comes 25 from a place that's a planned point or an unplanned point or l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i
207 ,
i 1 a mistake or they know about it or they don't know about it.
2 Certain areas should be monitored outside the plant at 3 specific places or on site.
O, '
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Excuse me.
e 5 Applicants?
@ 6 MR. O'NEILL: I would only add the point that G
$ 7 perhaps Docor Carpenter's questions were going to -- is that M
j 8 as we pointed out in our response the purpose of monitoring Q
c 9 these points"are not to protect people. The purpose is
$ 10 merely to establish environmental data to demonstrate the j 11 mathematical models that are used to estimate the very low is y 12 population exposure generated by the plant rele'ases- and O li3 the exposure eethwave.
! 14 With respect to protecting people, as I believe 15 Doctor Carpenter was suggesting, every possible discharge g[ 16 path is monitored and there is a monitoring and sampling us ti 17 system. Those systems are described in FSAR Section 11.5 E
{ 18 and that system is designed both to monitor any radioactive E
g 19 discharges and to automatically close appropriate valuves to n
20 insure that there is not any escape of effluents greater 21 than limits and to alert the plant operator in the event that 22 technical specification limits are even approached. To 23 that extent that's what protects people, and I think that 24 CCNC really doesn't understand that and their concern and 25 their contentions with respect to the sample points are misplaced.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
208 t
1 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. S ta f f ?
2 MR. BARTil: I have nothing further to add, Your !!onor.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Anything else? Mr. Runkle?
G l 4 MR. RUNKLE: I think'that some of Mr. O'Neill's e 5 argument is subsumed under the contention on the management E
j 6 capability. He seems to assume that if there is any kind R .
8 7 of release that'it will be corrected right away, for any valve s
j 8 that leaks right away that the people at the -- the personnel d
i d 9 at the site will be able to take corrective measures. We're i 5 .
! @ 10 not convinced. We think that certain points of concern E
y 11 ought to be monitored to protect people.
B j 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. That brings us, I think, to c
13 nineteen. I believe this contention is similar.
[}
l 14 MR. RUNKLE: I think it's word for word.
I 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. I've seen it.in Catawba and j 16 I know that Kudzu had it before the house earlier today.
e d 17 i MR. RUNKLE: Kudzu number two.
E
$ 18 JUDGE KELLEY: I think we said looking at it as an E
$ 19 environmental contention the staff's impact statement would n .
20 be discussing the socioeconomics of so called class nine 21 accidents in due course and that we would defer a ruling I
22 on the contention with a view towards its possible revision
,.O 23 2 in the light of whatever the staf f had to say, or if you are 24 l satisfied with what the staff's had to say its withdrawl, or
() 25 q ,1f you're not just going ahead with it, but is that approach i
W ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
209 l 1 satisfactory to you also?
} l 2 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, it is.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Twenty is a decommissioning i 4 cost contention, is it not?
g 5 MR. RUNKLE: Yes, it is. It seems to be a E
3 6 challenge on the rule of financial qualifications.
R E 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah. As I said, at least 5
j 8 temporarily -- let me. stress that, temporarily -- say it'once '
d o 9 more, there is a rule-making going about decommissioning :
-i i e
b 10 which may produce a rule which may require some analysis of B
v) a 11 ability to withstand certain costc but: as of right now we p 12 aren ' t dealing with this , 1C, you know, like any other rule
() 13 you can petition for a waiver in this particular case, but
$ 14 as a contention we wouldn't accept it for the reason I E 15 indicated.
E j
. 16 MR. RUNKLE: Okay. And then once again just to e
d 17 clarify this, if the rule-making goes through that they would.
E l M 18 have to consider cost of decommissioning, say, then the
=
C g 19 applicant would do an analysis of that and then that would 5
20 be new information that we could make new contentions on7 i
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Generally speaking, a rule like that I 22 is made applicable to cases then on~ going, possibly even the
(])
23 ; ~ closed cases where they will have some special proceeding you 24- l can come in and prove you have enough money to decommission, j
25 J -d.atever the rule requires. We can't say it with certainty f
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
210 1 at this point exactly what the procedural posture would be.
2 I think you would -- you meaning intervenors generally.
3 and the intervenors in this case would have some shot at it.
O 4 MR. RUNKLE: Okay. So I forget what I was doing.
g 5 Have I been waiving these or withdrawing them?
E j 6 JUDGE KELLEY: I think on -the ones where they are --
G
$ 7 yeah. On the ones where you'have a contention that's at s
j 8 odds with, say, a recent commission rule we ought to consider d .
c; 9 that they are submitted to us and we'll rule on them, and if
?
5 10 they're at odds with the rules we'll reject or disallow the E
11 contention, but you are free separate and apart from that to 3
y 12 seek whatever --
E s,) 13 MR. RUNKLE: Okay. And then my last contention
, m g 14 is twenty-one that's merged into the group. management i U 15 capability contention.
g' 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Okai. That brings us up 'til ten of i
p 17 5:00. CHANGE would be next.
5 M 18 Off the record for a minute.
C
$ I9 (Pdnel discussion) n 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Our disposition is to quit for the 21 day. I think we're all feeling a little limp. This did not 22
(} turn out to be a terribly good venue j ust because it's sort 23 o f humid and stifling. I dgn' t mean any reflection on -the state, 24 and we're certainly grateful, but anyway why don't we quit?
25 l We had a pretty decent day actually. We would start in the t
I i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l l
f 211 1 morning then with CHANGE ELP, I believe.
- O 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: Are we going into joint contingency?
l 3 JUDGE KELLEY: That's right. Mr. Payne on Kudzu's O
\/ 4 joint contingent would be 'the first thing, then to CHANGE ELP, p 5 and then to Mr. Eddleman.
0 3 6 We are in the process of talking to the other R
$ 7 gentleman from CANP who had some problems getting here. Ne
-7<
.$ 8 may say to him if he can get over here for a while anytime d
9 tomorrow just show up and we'll work him in, so we may have 9
z e
g 10 to break the routine in order to give him a chance, but with j 11 that why don't we break for today? I don't know if you can-a y 12 leave things here or not, or whether you want to. I haven't a
- 13 Perhaps it's best to take things home.
-(]) asked.
h 14 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, could we start earlier i
j
=
15 tomorrow because everybody has other committments? We could g 16 start at 8:00 or 8:30. You wake up in the morning anyway.
I
^
d 17 Why not come here? _
5 18 MR. EDDLEMAN: Depends on how far you come.
h t
E l ; 19 JUDGE KELLEY: That's a logistics factor. You are l
5 20 coming down from Durham?
21 MR. EDDLEMAN: About half an hour.
22 JUDGEKELLEY : Well, I don't think we want to go any O 23 carlier then 8:30. The people want to get started at 8:30.
24 MR. BARTH: Yes, k.)
25l' MR. READ: Your Honor, I've already made a prior N
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
> li 1 ,
212 1 engagement for 8:00 and we leave right after that from Chapel O 2 Hill, so I don't think we'll be here. We were here at ten to 3 9:00 today, so I don't think any earlier than that.
4l JUDGE KELLEY: Well, if we start with Mr. Payne it e 5 will take a while to get through the joint contention.
E n
@ 6 MR. READ: I'm one of the --
r7
- ,} 7 JUDGE KELLEY
- I know you are in on that.
s
! E 8 MR. READ: I'd certainly like to be here for that.
d d 9 MR. BARTH: Certainly, Your Honor, if tha t would render I
E 10 that kind of approach impractical, I think there are enough E_
i 11 contentions of Mr. Eddleman's which are not consolidated. We i d 12 can probably spend some time' there, sir. I think we could i
3=
=
('/
N 13 somehow fill the time.
! E 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Let's say 8:30 and we'll try to hold
't
{= 15 on the joint contention, or at least doing very much on it, l j 16 but you're pretty sure you can get here before 9:00?
d 17 MR. READ: Yes. We were here yesterday -- I mean J
E 18 today about five of 9:00.
{er 19 JUDGE KELLEY: By the way, does apybody know whether 20 you can park in this building?
21 MR. RUNKLE: There's a guest parking lot right across 22 the street. You go and put what building you're going to.
O 23 , That's the visitor parking lot. There's plenty of parking space.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We ' re adjourned for --
l O 25 MR. BAXTER: You asked us this morning to report on the i
P l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1 I
P 213 i mode of responding to the CHANGE motion we got today and
, j we will be prepared to address it tomorrow if' time permits.
2
- 3 JUDGE KELLEY
- Oh, the last motion? !
4 MR. BAXTER: The one that was distributed this morning.
h n- 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. Right. Okay. Well, can the i N I d 6 staff do the same?
4 v:
e7
- 8 7 MR. BARTH: We will make every possIbic effort to N
8 8 do so, Your Honor.
n i tj J
c:i 9 JUDGE KELLEY: .Okay. Adjourned for today, i A i
h 10 (Whereupon, the proceedings were adjourned)
E.
. u a ti 12 E
- 4 0
!Oi' i 14 4 b E is
- m
. =
g' 16' l =
,i d m
17
=
5 18
=
N '
l _. 19 -
A 20 .
! 21
' l 22 0 23 ,
I I
, 24 !
l O- 25 ,!
u
, O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l ,
l
- l. - . . . - - - , - . . - . - - - . . . . . . - . . - -
. . . - . , . . . - - . . . , - - - - - - . - - . . , - - - , . - . . - - . ~ - - , - - . . -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COW 4ISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in the matter of: Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Date of Proceeding: July 13, 1982 Docket flumb e r : 50-400 OL and 50-401 OL Place of Proceeding: Raleich, North Carolina were held as herein appears, and that this is the original . transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.
Ronald Graham Official Reporter (Typed) g h
?mdErbA A'.M Official Reporter (Signature)
Kathleen M. Cardea Official Reporter (Typed) llc.c~& . Cct.x &w p'fficial Reporter (Signature) h m