ML20055B015
| ML20055B015 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 07/14/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8207200260 | |
| Download: ML20055B015 (244) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. . . . . . _ . _ .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . _ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM!CSSION [- D 3 I h LlL ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter cf: : SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER : DOCKET NOS. 50-400 OL PLANTS, UNITS 1 AND 2 : 50-401 OL CORRECTED COPY k DATE: July 14, 1982 PAGES: 214 - 456 AT: Raleigh, North Carolina 3 V ' W qu - T R - o I ALDR%X ", REPORT 1.TG h
- 400 Virgir.ia Ave., S.W. Washin g=n, D. C. 20024 ';l' if h Talaphene: (202) 554-2345 - ^'
4 e e n.< ' f.!, ' . ? eos ,a ' s ' c :,; . - i
'- ' iru m _ .-
)
s 214
, s 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s s 3 ATOMIC SAFETT AND LICENSING BOARD , O 4
----*---------x '
e 5
% In the matter ofi 3 ; :
SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAli POWER: Docket Nos. 50-400 OL 50-401 OL l 7 PLANTS, UNITS 1 AND 2. : g _ 1 [ ------------"-x ' 8 a r 1
,i l d 9 s f f N 's i g 10 .
x ,
'; Wednesday, July 14, 1982 \ '
h11 s Dobbs Government Building ci 12 Room 217 l,
* \
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 O!'= , s a 4 l 14 Prehearing conference in the above-entitled matter g 15 convened, pursuant to adjournment, at 8:30 a.m. o' 16 ti ) us s , , d 17 ' BEFORE: 1 ,4 18 JAMES L. KELLEY, Chairman . E Administrative Judge , , , I' g Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 20 GLENN O. BRIGHT, Member Administrative Judge ' 21 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board [ 22 JAMES CARPENTER, Member ( Q~ l Administrative Judge 23 l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board , 24 ,3 i ' 25 ;
- t t
(
.2. .s _
s ALDERSON RERORTING COMPANY. INC. s s s
215 1 APPEARANCES : 2 On behalf of the Licensee: y 3 THOMAS A. BAXTER, Esq. JOHN H. O'NEILL, Esq. O 4 Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M. Street, N.W. e 5 Washington, D.C. 20036 E
$ 6 SAMANTHA FRANCIS FLYNN, Esq.
# RICHARD E. JONES, Esq.
- j. s b 7 Carolina Power & Light Company
' '. i X P.O. Box 1551 I ' !; j 8 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 l u "y .
ci 9 . i l= 10 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
$ II CHARLES A. BARTH, Esq.
D MYRON KARMAN, Esq. g 12 Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oys u i= Weshington. D.C. 20555 l$ 14 15 On behalf of intervenors: 16 d WELLS EDDLEMAN TRAVIS PAYNE II h DANIEL READ a: RICHARD WILSON
$ 18 PATRICIA NEWMAN
, E SLATER NEWMAN
' l' R PHYLLIS LOTCHIN
, JOHN COWGELL i 20
> 21 22 l . O L 23 l0 4 25 l
\ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
irl 216 1 PEQQE[p[ HEE 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Back on the record. 3 We're beginning the second day of our prehearing 4 conference in the Shearon Harris operating license proceeding.
= 5' Our formal session this morning is getting underway a little H
l 6 late;because we did have some negotiations between the 7 intervenors and applicants and staff over some of the X .
] 8 contentions, and the board just wishe6 to state that we have d
c z 9 and continue to encourage negotiations of that sort. I h 10 think it's very helpful if the parties can get together on a E l is 11 contention and it's well worth -- where the process bears g 12 fruit after a while, it's well worth the time that you spend. 13 We had a request from CCNC that one of their members, l 14 spokesman for cl)em, come in today. . His availability is 15 extremely limited. Mr. Cowgell is his name. He can come j 16 in between 1:00 and 1:30. He wants to address one contention w g 17 as I understand it; but in any event, we said come in and we
$ 18 would accommodate him when he came.
b 19 g That would suggest going to lunch right around 20 twelve let's say and being back here at one so we could go 21 into the schedule. O 22 Ae fer es the echedule soee, we will cake such time 23 as needs to be taken to go over the items we need to get over. Q 24 Yesterday seemed to go pretty well in terms of the agenda and 23 things we obviously need to talk about, but it's sometimes hard I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
217 1 to tell how long something is going to take. If we are 2 through at three or four o' clock this afternoon, that's fine. 3 On the other hand, if we are not, if it comes Si30 or so and O 4 we have a wave to go, we can see uhether we want to keep e 5 going or consider whether we come back tomorrow morning and b l 6 finish up. Then I think we will have to wait and see. 7 This is just to say that the board here -- you know -- a lot a j 8 of people have come a long way, and the main thing is to d ci 9 address the points that need it, and we will stay over if we
$ 10 need to, but let's see how it looks in late afternoon.
E
- 11 Before we get into the contentions this morning, is l 12 Judge Carpenter had some comments to make about his piece of Oli= grior work that he did for Cr a t that he wanted to eatk to l$ 14 the parties about.
15 Jim. ha: j 16 wi 6 17 a
!ii 18 b 19 R
20 21 22 O 23 1 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
218 1 JUDGE CARPENTER: All right. I'd just like at this O 2 geine in the groceeding to make it a mateer of record that on 3 May 14th, 1982, I sent a memo to all parties to inform them of O 4 the fact that I had carried out two studies that were responsed e 5 by Carolina Power & Light and sent all parties copies of the 5
$ 6 reports that were the results of those studies so they might G
& 7 examine the nature of that work, and I'll put a copy of that M
j 8 memorandum in the record. The memo advised the parties that d d 9 they might submit comments by June 1st and I'd also like to
$ 10 put on the record that only two comments were received, one l $
j 11 dated May 24, 1982, from John Runkle, representing the Conservation is d 12 Council of North Carolina, which he notes was furnished to i 25 S 13 all parties, and I presume all parties got copies of that. lb 14 The other response was from Mr. Wells Eddleman in the form of 2 15 a post card, and it isn't clear to me that all parties got s y 16 that. l d d 17 MR. EDDLEMAN: I sent a copy -- a xerox copy of the { 18 card to docketing and service so they should have distributed E 19 it. I got one copy back -- a copy of the copy back. g n 20 JUDGE CARPENTER: I see. So all parties did get 21 copies? 22 MR. BAlt!'H: Your Honor, the staff did not receive l , 23 , your memorandum, Dr. Carpenter, nor have we received a l 24 response by Mr. Runkle or Mr. Eddleman. It's constantly 25 i been a problem in this case that this was part of the " ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
219 1 conversation and telephone conference and I thought the C 2 chairman's order had covered that. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: It sounds like it's at least in i l O 4 9^rt a tat ra- "ac vrod = la=o' r=^ vo" diaa'* 9
- i a 5 Judge Carpenter's memo. That's NRC's problem, not the d
h 6 party ^s; Anyway, I think you ought to check with downtown , R
& 7 docketing.
A { 8 MR. BARTH: Sir, I think that the regulations d c 9 provide, and this has been a practice, I've been with this 7: h 10 for ten years with the service staff council, and docket g 11 servicing does not affect, it does not serve the lawyers 3 j 12 who have to run the case. 9 13 JUDGE KELLEY: I wasn't referring to that, Mr. l$ 14 Barth. I was talking about Mr. Carpenter's memo, the way 2 15 we serve, and it's regrettable that you didn't get it and 5 g 1,6 we can certainly provide you with a copy, I would think. as 6 17 If the staff has any question, raise it forthwith. { 18 MR. BARTH: Thank you, Your Honor. E 19 JUDGE"KELLEY: Apart from that - H 20 JUDGE CARPENTER: That's my purpose in raising it 21 here, to ask if all parties have been properly served. 22 MR. JONES : We have not seen Mr. Eddleman's 23 response. 24 JUDGE CARPENTER: Yeah. It's brief. I guess I 25 l might as well read it in the record wouldtbe the simplest way ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
220 1 of serving on the parties. O 2 Ie reads: I c-nd no f- dringing your -rk f-3 CP & L in the areas of its Brunswick plant and its Roxboro
- O 4 co 1 9 1 ne to my attention s=99 1 rine cogies of your studies to a 5 me. .
H
$ 6 The next paragraph; for clarification I'd like to R
& 7 have on the record, one, theddatecof the first publication
- j 8 of the HYCO study (second printing was June,1981) . Second d
@ 9 item, the date you last worked for CP & L. Three, the z
h 10 contracts under which you worked for CP & L and, four, the E l is 11 amounts paid you under said contracts including dates of y 12 payments. I think your candor is very helpful and this 5 13 information should make your position clear. l$ 14 And rather than responding in writing to Mr. 15 Eddleman, I thought I'd respond on the record this morning j 16 so that if thereils any dialogue that might develop from as g 17 that it would be more sufficient than by written correspondence. f 18 With response to the first item, the date of the first h 19 publication of the HYCO study, I believe it was June, 1981. 20 It was simply a second printing, but I haven't verified that. 21 MR. EDDLEMAN: Sir, that study was done in '77, 22 but it wasn' t printing until ' 81? i 23 e I read the study. Most of that water monitoring i 24 data is I think '77, siome'in '78. It's a good study. I 25 ' liked it. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
221 1 JUDGE CARPENTER: Then I would guess it was 1980. i O 2 It was rough 1y a year. l l 1 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: Does CP & L know? O 4 MR. JONES: Th t sounds about right. I think the e M 5 work was done in the late '70s and the report probably was '80. 9 g 6 JUDGE CARPENTER: The date I last worked for CP & L, R d 7 I don' t work for CP & L. I did a study under a contract with A g 8 them and the last time I did some work under the terms of a d ci z 9 contract, which was simply in terms of being paid by the h 10 day for time that I spent on the HYCO project and the Cape D g 11 Fear project, I believe the last work I did had to do with is y 12 preparing the section of that report which is referenced I D 13 think at page 34 of that report. That was in 19 - late 1979 l E 14 or early 1980. I checked my records in 19 -- I'm sorry -- 15 1980, late 1980 and 1981. I checked my records for 1981. j 16 I billed Caroline Power and Light $1600. The previous us l l 17 year I spent eight or nine days on HYCO Lake twice and the { 18 billing for that field work probably came to $6000. l n 19 20 l 21 22 23 24 O 25 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
222 l l 3r1 1 . This was just to give you some feel for the 2 involvement. 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: I think that is the full response 4 to the questions I had. I didn't mean to imply by asking
= 5 them that there was anything wrong with what you did.
U
$ 6 JUDGE CARPENTER: I would be responding, sir, R
8 7 if I thought there was anything wrong. M l 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: I wonder, based on some of the d l c 9 things you said yesterday, if I could ask you a couple of 5
$ 10 questions about risk assessment.
E h 11 (Pause) is j 12 JUDGE KELLEY: This has to do with Judge Carpenter's Oli3 14 imperetatity ateo2 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes. h 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Same subject? j 16 MR. EDDLEMAN : Yes. I am not implying that there ws 6 17 is anything wrong with his impartiality. I realize that a { 18 good judge would often ask very sharp questions , and I don't E g 19 mean to imply that the questions he asked yesterday were very 20 sharp, but when you were speaking to Mrs. Lotchin about risk 21 assessment, you seemed to be stating that the view of risk O 22 assessment that you he1d is that probability times consequence, 23 equals risk. Q 24 JUDGE CARPENTER: Yes. I'm really quoting from 25 many of the documents , some that she was holding in her hands; ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
223 3r2 1 and I was asking if she could put it in the context of the 2 document that she had already directed our attention to. 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: Um-hum. 4 JUDGE CARPENTER: That I might then understand.
= 5 MR. EDDLEMAN: You are connecting it to the E
$ 6 commission's position?
R
$ 7 JUDGE CARPENTER: Yes. Absolutely.
A
$ 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, d
C 9 - JUDGE CARPENTER: And in looking at sa'fety, you z, h 10 are looking at increments of risk since zero risk is not -- g 11 I find it real helpful and certainly the commission's -- if is l 12 not explicitly stated, remember, the document is out for Ol'3 discueeien. 1t's what we have on the tahte hefore us today. l$ 14 so I think that is a good -- we tried to focus our discussion 15 in terms of the documents that she was using for reference. j
. 16 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, sir. That clears up what I -
w 17 ( wanted to ask. f18 JUDGE CARPENTER: Um-hum. E 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Did you have some further points for g n 20 that answer? Did you get through? 21 JUDGE CARPENTER: I wanted to ask Mr. Eddleman 22 O whether he thought 1 was fu11, respons1, . 23 , MR. EDDLEMAN: I think so. 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Judge Carpenter said he was trying 25 to relate Mrs. Lotchin's comments to studies that NRC had ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
224 3r3 1 done that was out for comment, and that answered my question. 2 Are you through? 3 JUDGE CARPENTER: That's all. 4 JUDGE KELLEY: That does cover that. Is that it? e 5 JUDGE CARPENTER: I will make a semigratuitous H
$ 6 point. I wouldn't want the applicant or anybody on the R
R 7 intervenors to be surprised to learn as they go into the s
] 8 literature that I have spent most of my time doing research d
c; 9 on the effects of chlorine environment. Roughly a million z h 10 dollars from the Environmental Protection Agency, that some 11 of the contentions on the table I do have some prior knowledge is l 12 of; and coming back to Mr. Eddleman's point, I am very Olis 14 conscious of the fact that -- that en7 decision reeched in the proceeding is based on the evidence presented, and I am 15 here to listen, but that is the perspective I bring to my job 16 on the board is from having been involved in research, and I 3l e p 17 was involved in preparing the EPA coronation criteria l w b 18 document as a consultant with the Environmental Protection ! e 19 Agency. 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I would hope that some 21 knowledge of the subject under discussion would not be O 22 1pso facto, disqua11fying from the case. 23 MR. EDDLEPAN: I think the opposite; but if you ,Q 24 won't cheac me, I would like to ask if he would supply a copy l 25 of that document or tell me where I could get it, the i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 1
225 3r4 I corcnation criteria. 2 JUDGE CARPENTER: I haven't received a copy yet. 3 What the status of publication of that document is with O 4 gresent sudgetary conseraints with the Environmeneat 5 Protection Agency I am not aware of, so I don't know its j
^
6 status. It exists and it has been out for review and is e.
$ 7 proceeding along through publication.
] 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: The people here or people up in d
ci 9 Washington that are coordinating this?
- z 10 JUDGE CARPENTER: Washington.
$ 11 MR. EDDLEMAN: Thank you, Judge.
is f 12 JUDGE KELLEY: One more point. Judge Carpenter's O => m is disc 1oeure of his prior cenerece work for Cr & t -- thee is l$ 14 not an uncommon thing for a judge to have had one kind of 15 contact or another in the past with one of the parties, and j 16 the common practice then is to disclose those facts right out as I7 front and then allow parties to make any comment that they see h z 18 fit. One specific thing that I did want to say is that I 1 e I9 believe CCNC's response says the last sentence -- first g 20 sentence says that -- well, I won't paraphrase. We agree 21 it's unlikely that your prior relationship with CP & L 22 O ,som1,1,ce,,,,, 1cs you, ,,,gme,t 1,cs,sse,,,,y,,,1, 23 proceeding. However, we would like to reserve our right to 24 question your participation if something unexpected arises ; 1 25 and Doctor Carpenter has made a full disclosure of the work ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
226 3r5 1 that he referred to and given you an opportunity to comment. 2 The point is when you have got a situation like this, 3 you clear it up right up front and you get it out of the way. 4 Then you go. We do not regard this as an open matter
= 5 throughout the proceeding insofar as the matter that's been 5
l 6 disclosed, has been disclosed. We would consider that at R
@, 7 this point to be a dead issue because we got no objection, and
$ 8 I gather that Doctor Carpenter's remarks chis morning on d
c; 9 Mr. Eddleman's questions did not raise further questions in z h 10 your mind, Mr. Eddleman. Is that right? E 11 MR. EDDLEMAN: That's right, ir { 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. So we* regard that matter O !a 13 then as closed ena not somethins that can be rateed at eny
@ 14 minute later on. If there is some new indication of bias E
15 on the part of any of us that for some reason we didn't gj 16 disclose, by all means, raise it. I don't think that will e 17 prove to be the case, but as to information that is out now, h a: 5 18 we regard that as having been laid to rest. l 0 19 MR. RUNKLE: The Conservation Council accepts that. 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. l l 21 JUDGE CARPENTER: I also thank you. 22 Q (Board conferring) 23 JUDGE CARPENTER: Turning to another subj ect, 24 yesterday we were looking at some contentions ~ ~that involved 25 the possible leases of radioactive materials from this l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
227 -r6 1 facility in which it seemed to me that it might be beneficial O 2 for those intervenors with an interest in that subject who want 3 to put forth those contentions to perhaps have a chance to 4 become more familiar with the Radway systems perhaps at one e 5 of the operating plants, and I wanted to ask whether there E
$ 6 was an interest in that, whether the applicant would be R
$ 7 responsive to that. Or if you have a resolution of it.
] 8 My point, it's difficult to visualize things when d
ci 9 you just read a document if you don't have much experience in o g 10 that area, and frequently it might be much more expedient to 11 have a visit and have a tour by a health engineer at an is j 12 operating plant and see what it's really all about. 5 Oi is MR. EootEMAN: audge, 1 eggreciete thet. but l E 14 personally I think I would rather look at their documents. 15 I went and copied a bunch of them off late last night. gj 16 JUDGE CARPENTER: I see. I am speaking to as 17 { Mr. Runkle's contention. 18 MR. RUNKLE: That was done at Three Mile Island V 19 just recently where many of the intervenors and applicant 20 had a tour of the plant, and I think they took members of the 21 board at that time through.the" plant. I've read some of the O 22 ,,p,,t, f,,,tse 1 te,,,, ors, e,d 1 ao, t ts1,x tsey got mucs 23 out of it. I understand your point. I personally would Q 24 rather not go through one. I would rather have my contention 25 stand on itself and the docurents. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
228 3r7 1 JUDGE CARPENTER: Thank you very much. I guess no O 2 response by the applicant is needed. 3 (Pause) 4 JUDGE KELLEY: Does that bring us then to the joint e 5 contentions, the subject of negotiations this morning? We b j 6 had a number of people. I guess the board would like to have R
& 7 a report on what transpired, and we had ten or twelve of you j 8 at various times back there discussing. Do the intervenors d
a 9 have maybe a spokesperson to lead off on this to give us their z 10 perspective and then to the applicants? II
$ MR. PAYNE: In terms of negotiations this morning, m
12 ( at least the intervenors and the applicants have arrived at 3 S * (V 5m 13 two contentions that I think we all agree upon.
~
One is with 14 respect to management capability. One with respect to steam 15 generators, and I'm not -- I'm not sure. Has the steam j 16 generator one been given to the members of the board? l us I7 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. h x
- 18 MR. PAYNE
- I believe you may have that in front of k 19 you and the intervenors accept that as a replacement for what 20 is listed under steam generators in our joint contentions.
21 ye.s not very long. !O 22 ,yoGE xEttEy, y,ybe you just read 1t 1,to the 23 record. O 24 yo ,got , oopy o ,it, 25 THE COURT REPORTER: I have a copy. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
229 3r8 I JUDGE KELLEY: The reporter does have a copy of the O 2 same document that the rest of us have. This one is entitled 3 Steam Generator Contentions, and it's ten lines long with some 4 material stricken in the sixth line about a reactor in g5 Yugoslovia. 'Is that the correct document? l 6 MR. PAYNE: Yes. R
$ 7 JUDGE KELLEY: I think it would be helpful to type j 8 it into the record. since it's short and you have a copy and a
9 you can work from that, o 10 h (The discussed document follows:)
=
j 11 a d 12 . i!! - O !. is lm 14 2 15 W j 16 m 6 17
- M 18 19 R
20 21 0 22 23 24 25 i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
STEAM GENERATOR CONTENTIONS
.}d Applicants have failed to demonstrate that the steam generators to be used in the Harris Plant are adequately designed and can be
/
operated in a manner consistent with the public health and safety and ALARA exposure to maintenance personnel in light of (1) vibration problems which have developed in Westinghouse Model D-4 steam gener-ators in the ???r? '?u;rrieri ' "n 1 - ~ elm *; (2) tube corrosion and crac,ing in other Westinghouse steam generators with Inconel-600 2d et tubesg carbon steel support plates and AVT water chemistry; (3) present
~ ~ ~ ~
de't$ection capa5Elity for loose metalor other foreign objects; and (4) existing tube failure analyses. -
~
~
(O f i 1
230 3r9 1 JUDGE BRIGHT: I would like to clarify something. O 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Sure. 3 JUDGE BRIGHT: On Number 3, the present detection O 4 capability for loose metal or other foreign objects. Are e 5 you talking about what is proposed to be installed at Shearon h 3 6 Harris or are you talking about the general state of the art? 7 MR. PAYNE: I think all of these talk with regard j 8 to the proposals for Shearon Harris. O d 9 JUDGE BRIGHT: And that would include 4, the d g 10 existing tube failure analysis? E h 11 MR. PAYNE: Yes, sir. is j 12 JUDGE BRIGHT: That's the applicant's analysis? 5 O 1 MR. PAYNE: Yes. l$ 14 JUDGE BRIGHT: Thank you. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Anything else? j 16 JUDGE BRIGHT: That's all. as d 17 MR. EDDLEMAN: On that I certainly thing that if { 18 we think there is a better state of the art and can bring in i P i j a 19 an expert on it to say that the existing is inadequate, that 20 is going to proof, but that is not what the contention is' l 21 about. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: The contention raferences the 23 Shearon Harris proposals. 24 MR. EDDLEMAN: Precisely. 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. Maybe we should ask the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
a 231 l 3r10 I staff next what their view is of this contention that's been 2 stipulated to by the -- I guess I will come to that -- joint 3 intervenors. Who are the underwriters of this contention? O 4 1 think 1 anow, but it ehou1d be clear in the record, bue 1 5 y will ask the staff next. a 3 6 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, we are not certain, but it R
$ 7 is our understanding that this replaces all of the contentions s
j 8 proffered by all of the petitioners regarding steam generators. d - 9 MR. BAXTER: I was going to asfk Mr. Payne if he o 10 would read into the record the number of the contentions that Il
$ this replaces.
s g 12 MR. BARTH: Since you asked me to comment, I did. o Oi' My problem is that 1 did not so throush all of the proffered
@ 14 contentions one by one and therefore ask the question in a 15 more general way to encompass any numbers that might have been f16 left out on the summary by inadvertence.
I7 JUDGE KELLEY: Are you asking for an opportunity to h a: M 18 file later comment? I' g MR. BARTH: No, Your Honor. I am asking for a 20 direct answer from these people that it replaces all of the 21 steam generator contentions which were proffered with regard 22 to whether they were enumerated on the summary of combined Q 23 l contentions or not. 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I think Mr. Payne is going to 25 do that. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
232 3ril I MR. EDDLEMAN: I will do it. O 2 ,UDcE KEttEy, o,M,. Edd1eman. 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. I have one comment to make Q 4 when I do mine. That is why I'm doing this. Steam 5 generators that are subsuied by this are Change /ELP 29, 30, 3 6 31, 32, 33, and 74. R t b 7 The list of problems incorporated by reference from M j 8 Eddleman 18 into 19 goes with this. Eddleman 19 goes with d I
. it. Eddleman 112, 113, and 114. There was one little thing e
10 h that I should put in. We had a little controversy about E l II experience with D2's and D3's. My understanding is that this g 12 has been left open in the following sense, that the intervenors O!' I4 are welcome to put on evidence about the pattern of Westinghouse models not predicting accurately what would 15 happen inside the D2's and D3's, f16 There has to be a relationship to the D4's, and I7 h the applicants aren't giving up any rights to object. Is that correct, Mr. Baxter? 19 g MR. BAXTER: That's correct. 20 JUDGE KELLEY: I understand that. 21 MR. EDDLEMAN: And so these two are the other ones 2 O that had steam generators contentions. 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. So Mr. Barth's question, 24 Does this subsume all the steam generator contentions? 25 l And I think the answer is yes. Right? ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
233 3r12 1 MR. PAYNE: I wasn't paying attention. What was O 2 the question 2 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Does this contention that has just O 4 been gut into the record subeume all of the eteam generecor e 5 tube contentions that are submitted? h 3 6 . MR. EDDLEMAN: To be clear, Mr. Chairman, all the R
$ 7 health and safety ones. I have some that go into the 3
8 8 commission that will be under 2758 and that way. d - c 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 10 h MR. PAYNE: I think -- you know -- just to make
= .
II
$ it absolutely clear, what it subsumes -- I can't is
{A 12 speak -- I have not -- I am not saying there is any -- I have O=' l not in exhaustive fashion gone over Mr. Eddleman's contention, 14 but it subsumes everything that was proposed in the joint g 15 contentions, a: 16 if us JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I7 MR. PAYNE: h If there is something that is -- you 18 know -- that has fallen out, we gave up a few things in
- s-g I9 negotiations this morning. They have fallen out.
n 20 JUDGE KELLEY: That should help. So let me just 21 i get back to you, Mr. Barth. I think your question has been 22 answered. Q With that answer in hand, does the staff have a 23 position on this contention? 24 MR. BARTH: Yes, sir, Your Honor. We have read 25l the contention which was discussed among the petitioners to l I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
234 Dr13 1 intervene and the applicants and the staff has no objection 2 to the admission of this as replacing all of the proffered 3 contentions as regarding steam generators, Your Honor. 4 JUDGE KELLEY: I think that says the same thing. 5
- Do you have any objection to its replacing all of the joint 6
@ -- the joint contention. document given to us yesterday?
E7 l 8 a d 9
. s t; io .
7.
~
E 11 p 12
~
S O l 14 m 2 15 s j 16 as y 17
- M 18 19 g
e 20 21 O 23 , l O 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4cl 1 MR. DARTH: I have no objection to replacing that. O 2 JUDGE xELtEY= 2his steam generator two gart2 3 MR. BARTH: Correct, Your Honor. O 4 xar I reine oue vare of the vreb1em2 we were a1so e 5 given a radiological monitoring contention. yesterday. Eddleman h 3 6 two is missing from that. That's why I'm trying to be 7 careful as to what I comit myself to. We were given a X 8 8 management capability contention yesterday. Eddleman, d ci z, 9 forty-one, forty-two, and forty-three were missing from that, h 10 from the list. That's why I'm trying to put this in general 3 11 terms of steam generator two contentions rather than in terms ii - I 12 of numbers. Q 13 MR. EDDLEMAN: Mr. Chairman, I'll get to that when l$ 14 I go over my contentions, but you should assume if it's not 15 on the list it's not in there, y 16 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. I understand your point. as 17 Now, let us leave 'til the end the question of the 18 effected condition a contention of this kind may have on E 19 g n party status and who's endorsing what and who's in by virtue ! 20 of this admission and all the rest. This will be sort of 21 a common question and we'll just have to just sort that out, 22 but let's see how the day unfolds before we go to that. 23 MR. PAYNE: The other contention that was agreed 24 upon by the intervenors and the applicants has to do with 25 management capability, which is the first contention. It ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
236 1 i is much shortened. If I may, I think it would be easiest O 2 again to read it into the record. I don't believe anything 3 was presented. It is basically the first - Q 4 JUDGE KELLEY: Excuse me, you don't have this one e 5 typed up? . b
$ 6 MR. PAYNE: No. If you look at the joint G
$ 7 contentions under management capability it is the first n
[ 8 paragraph of that which is one sentence long. There's a d ci 9 deletion of one word from that paragraph. And then one more g 10 sentence tacked on to that, which is basically lif ted from g 11 another portion of our contention; okay? And if I may read is y 12 that into the record, I think it will be clear. 5
% y 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Are you going to read the whole thing da lb 14 now or just the first paragraph?
15 MR. PAYNE: Just the first paragraph and accompanying j 16 sentence. My understanding is that that is the contention us ti 17 that was agreed upon. 5 { 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Oh, okay. All right. Go ahead. E l 9 19 MR. PAYNE: And that contention under management n 20 capability reads as follows: the applicants have not 21 demonstrated the adequecy of their managing, engineering, 22 operating and maintenance personnel to safely operate, 23 maintain and manage the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant 24 as evidenced by their record of safety and performance at their 25 other nuclear power facilities. A pattern of management ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i 237 1 inadequecies and unqu lified and/or inadequate staff is O 2 lixely to he reproduced at Shearon Harris Nuclear Power 3 Plant and result in health and safety problems. O 4 And that's the contention that was agreed upon. If e 5 you'd like, I could repeat that second sentence more carefully, d h 6 MR. BARTH: Staff would appreciate it if you would R
& 7 do so, sir.
3 l tj 8 MR. PAYNE: It is basicdlly, if you look at the ci 9 very last sentence of the contention as drafted, the last
$ 10 three lines, four lines, it's almost verbatim that --
j 11 MR. BARTH: I again request, would you please just is j 12 repeat it? 9 g 13 MR. PAYNE: Sure. A pattern of management
=
l$ 14 inadequecies and unqualified and/or inadequate staff is likely 15 to be reproduced at Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant and 16 result in health and safety problems, 3l as
@ 17 JUDGE KELLEY: I think that gives us the M 18 contention on the record.
E 19 Any further comments? I can go around the room g n 20 again. 21 MR. EDDLEMAN: Mr. Chairman, would you like me to 22 read the list of what that includes? 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah, sure. Go ahead. 24 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. This includes -- O 25[ MR. PAYNE: Turn your mike on, Wells. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
238 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: I'm sorry. I just don't believe O 2 in using extra electricity. 3 It includes CHANGE ELP numbers thirty-six, thirty-C 4 seven, twenty-one and twenty-two; CCNC, conservation council, e 5 twenty-one; Kudzu four, five, six*and seven; it includes b
$ 6 Eddleman three, forty-four, 101, 123, 127 and 127X.
7 That's a difference from what's written. 3
] 8 Mr. O'Neill asked me, this does not in my view d
C 9 combine either Eddleman 106 or Eddleman 42, and the pattern
- (
h 10 of whether construction defects at Robinson or Brunswick
$ 11 contributed to operating problems and whether that has is
{ 12 a relation to Harris is, I think, on the same basis that 9 13 we were talking about before with these steam generators;
$ 14 that is, the applicants haven't given up their ability to 15 object to it, the intervenors or petitioners haven't j 16 given up their ability to try to make the connection.
ros
!; 17 JUDGE KELLEY: So we'll get to some discussion of
{ 18 forty-two and 106 later in the day? E 19 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, sir. 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes, sir. And they're not subsumed? 21 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: Is that consistent with the 23 applicant's understanding? 24 MR. BAXTER: No, sir. One moment please. 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
; 239 ! 1 1 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, our discussion ,O 2 specifica117 inc1oded conteseion -- Edd1eman conteneton !
3 106. Mr. Eddleman in our dlacussion specifically inc1uded O 4 that contention. Ie 1eoks 11k to se a caech-a11 managemene l c 5 contention. It incorporates dozens and dozens of others and 6
$ 6 if it's --
a { 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Can we look at the -- let me pull out a j 8 106 to let me -- d d 9 MR. BARTH: Could we all take five minutes, Your Honor, . b 10 and t'ake a look for two -- two or three minutes? 15
)is 11 MR. BAXTER: And it's on your own desk, Mr.
j 12 Eddleman. S O ' 3" " ^"""' "" 2**'" **** * **"-=*""** l$ 14 break. You might want a cup of coffee. We'11 look at that, 2 15 too. E 16 '(Recess)
/
as d 17 JUDGE KELLEY: Judge Carpenter is a member of the 18 board that is now holding a hearing on the SEoreham operating c 19 the license up on Long Island. He has to be there tomorrow 20 and he'll have to leave today along about 4:00 o'c1ock or 21 a little later. Withdthat in mind, we thought we would at 22 least like to get over those contentions in which he has 23 , some special expertise, 11ke hearth effects and monitoring. l 24 And how would you characterize it? 25 JUDGE CARPENTER: Environmenta1. I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. l .- - - - . - - _
240 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Environmental contentions in the O 2 broade e en e. 3 I think we can go ahead for now on the joint one O 4 aa vera 9 =e re ent =oraias with -- =ove aext to e 5 CHANGE, but we might, if you could -- CHANGE, if you could U
$ 6 check your -- I guess your first twenty is what we'll speak 7 to first of all and see where we will go to beyond that.
A l 8 If you could check your environmental ones to follow up in d ci 9 that category, we'll make sure we get over them and we'll
- i h 10 get to Mr. Eddleman's environmental contentions after lunch Ei j
is 11 so that we'll be over all those hopefully before Judge y 12 Carpenter has to leave and then what we may end up doing is , 5 13 taking some of yours, some"of Mr. Eddleman's, coming back l$ 14 to you to accomodate that. Okay. 2 15 MR. READ: That would be okay. I haven't broken g 16 them down that way, but I think a lot of mine will be us 6 17 withdrawn or collapsed,about twenty-five of mine will be
$ 18 collapsed into the joint contention.
0 19 JUDGE KELLEY: It may not be that much of a problem, R 20 but in any event I want to flag it. 21 We left off on just what the stipulated management 22 capability contention included and we read off a number of 23 ; contentions and then the contentions that we read off were 24 agreed upon, except that Mr. Eddleman indicaited that in his 25 understanding his contentions 106 and forty-two were not ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
241 , i1 . I subsumed within the stipulited contention, and at that time r C 2 we broke to lo,oic, to look at these again and discuss it. We've ei ( 3 all read it up here and forty-two_, Mr. Eddleman, doesn ' t D > O 4 seem to be what we would think of as a management contention. , e 5 It talks about inadequecies. h j 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, and ' R b 7 that's what I told the applicants. I don ' t think that's s [ 8 an issue. d. c; 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, let me just turn to them. Our / z h 10 renction was thati forty-two may be in or out on its own z g *
*i
$ Il merits, but doesn ' t ha've much tq do with the --
3 , t N I2 MR. BAXTER: We don' t have a problem with that, O5ga 13 Mr. Cha irman . It's only 106. , l$ 14 MR. EDDLEMAN: And 106, what's going on there, there- ,, 2 15 was a misunderstanding of what list was what, that I had
$ 0 g 16 no chance to review, like I said on the record yesterday, as ti 17 I'm going to let them have 106 and also 127X which is not 4 s $ 18 on the original list in thiss so 106 is subsumed in management E
19 capability now for me.
- g n -
20 JUDGE KEU3's Okay. Then I,think that gives us , 2I the answer to that queau.9n. t t 22 MR. BARTH: Mr. Chairman? , 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes? [lst ' O 24 MR. EARra: Erom the etaff e seine of view of the c I 25 training program these people instituted is directly part of ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. i
242 1 their management. There's no question about that. How they O 2 operate this g1ane. te s gare of the managemene, and the 3 People that they train to do it is part of it. It seems O 4 to == forty-oae ~na forty-two re a=otin9 ===* r or the e 5 management capability and qualifications of these people. 6
@ 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, in any event, Mr. Barth, it's R
g 7 been hard enough to get where we are and we're going to look 8 at them separately, and if you want to think of them as d ci 9 . management you're free to do so, but we're not going to
~i h 10 disturb the present state of equilibrium over forty-two.
11 Now, we have a stipulation, as I understand it, is j 12 between the intervenors and the applicants over the management b O' gm 13 capability contention that was read into the record. Excuse l$ 14 me. 15 Does the staff have a position on that contention? is" y 16 MR. BARTH: Give us a moment. as 6 17 Subject to our prior discussion, Your Honor, we E { 18 5 ave no objection to the replacement of the contentions that P 19 { n have been cited with the proposal. that has been submitted 20 to . . . 21 And our exclusion, of course, is that we do take
- 22 exception to excluding forty-one and forty-two. With that 23 exception we have no problem and do accept the replacement of 24 all contentions regarding the management qualifications with 25 l the proferred statement by Mr. Payne which was read into the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 243 1 record. O 2 auDGE xELtEY: now, a gh11ade1phia 1awyer mighe l 3 distinguish between agreeing to the replacement of a O 4 contention on the one hand and objecting to it on the merits e 5 b on the other, and I guess what I'm now asking is, given the
$ 6 R
substitution of the shortened stipulated management
- g 7 M
contention stipulated between the applicants and the 8 8 O intervenors, does the staff have a position on the merits ci 9 of that contention?
$h g 10 MR. BARTH: We have no objection to the admission
?
11 h of the contentions as read by Mr. Payne, sir. is 12 I JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. Okay. 5 13 Now, was steam generators the other -- we've 14
@ covered that. I'm sorry. We've covered steam generators 15 and management capability; correct?
y 16 MR. PAYNE: Yes, that is correct. as (x 17 JUDGE KELLEY: Did you get any further with regard
!3 18 to negotiation on the joint document submitted yesterday?
E 19 g MR. PAYNE: n There were really no further discussiong, 20 to discussion of substance, regarding the health effects or 21 radio 1ogical monitoring this morning. I don't know exactly 22 where we stand at this point on those two areas in contentions. 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, certainly the areas you did 24
- O cover I think are very helpful. I wonder, do you have a i
25 sense, Mr. Payne, that further discussion of some limited
, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
244 I period of time might produce a stipulation on those 2 subjects or one of them or what's your feel for it? 3 MR. PAYNE: I think in terms of the health effects, 4 the way we presented it, the contention, if you look at I guess e 5 it's page three of these joint contentions -- h - 4 JUDGE'XELLEY: Right. h j g . R 7 xR. PAYNE : -- the contention really is that first n 8 8 paragraph, okay, that the long term somatic and genetic d d 9 health effects of the radiation releases have been seriously
$ 10 underestimated. That's the contention. In other words, j 11 we're not attempting to challenge the regulations or anything is j 12 like that. It's just the impact from the normal radiation Oj i3 re1 eases or any re1 eases have noe seen adegueee1y discussed @ 14 or have been underestimated. And the paragraphs following 15 that, A through F, are really a sort of basis, if you will, j 16 to support that contention. I don't know that we'd be willing as @ 17 to negotiate from that position very much. I don't know $ 18 where the applicants or the staff are coming down on that i 19 contention right now.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: And that contention subsumes five 21 CHANGE contentiors, one Kudzu and one Eddleman? O 22 xR. EooLExxy, Actua11y it sussumes _ sorry. 23 Started to say consumes -- subsection C, F, H, nine and ten I Q 24 ' of my number thirty-seven as I read it. That was another 25 thing I reviewed last night. l
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
245 1 MR. PAYNE: In other words, it's listed on the 2 list you're looking at as Eddleman -37D.P;-That".s incorrect. 3 Instead it's Eddleman 37C, F, H, nine and ten is subsumed O 4 in that. 5 MR. EDDLEMAN: Nine and ten are sections of 37 the
$ 6 way it was put together.
R
$ 7 JUDGE KELLEY: I wondered. Okay, s
8 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: And I was trying to make that clear, d m; 9 JUDGE KELLEY: What about radiological monitoring, 5 g 10 Mr. Payne? Where do you see things in that regard? E
$ 1I Negotiations hold out promise or not?
is 12 MR. PAYNE: I mean, I have no idea. N We're certainly 5 Q jm 13 willing. { 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Can't talk about it, yes. 15 MR. PAYNE: I don't think we've ever really talked j 16 about radiological monitoring so I don't have any sense of as I7 where we . stand on those contentions right now. h 18 JUDGE'KELLEY: Let's ask Mr. Baxter. ii I9 g MR. BAXTER: I don't think we're in a position now ! n 20 where any further discussion would be fruitful. We do not have 21 a very substantial disagreement on the health effects part. O
~
we ao o==the r aiotosto 1 =oattorias- w 'a lixe to Su=* 23 l address those objections and I think we'll be through then. 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Agreeable to staff? We just 25 l address those points; or do you want to adjourn for further
, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 246 l l 1 1 negotiation, Mr. Barth? ' O 2 xR. BARea: Y- caued my b1=ff. no. We are 3 prepared to address these, Your Honor. O 4 3UDGe x=LtEr> okar. We11, 1et's do that then. e 5 MR. Payne, do you want to go ahead with health
- 3
- 6 effects and then with monitoring?
E 7 MR. PAYNE: Well -- 3 j 8 MR. BAXTER: Would it be more efficient for me to d ci 9 say what we had problems with? [ 10 MR. PAYNE: g Yes. I think I'm basically set on
=
j 11 what you have to say about contentions. is pj 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Fine.
~
c Q 13 MR. BAXTER: We agreed to all of the restated l$ 14 health effects contentions, except for subpart D and I'm 15 simply not in a position today to take a position. It's j 16 us new and we would just request the opportunity ten days after 6 17 the conference to file our answer to it because I simply have lii 18 _ not had the people to consult with to take a position, but 0 19 other than D we are agreeable. g 20 JUDGE KELLEY: I think your request is something l 21 that may come up for everybody at one point or another. 22 Q You're going to want to file something when we're through 23 here or something maybe in about ten days or something. 24 We'll set that at the end. You would be willing to stipulate 25 except for date? ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
_ ._ - . . . . ~ - 4 247 1 MR. BAXTER: That's right. O 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: Mr. Chairman, the applicants, they've 1 3 been worried about me doing things that I didn't tell them j ,O 4 I was going to do. I have some of mine that I think are a i e 5 basis for that, too,which I think would combine into it. The h
@ 6 ones that I cite, the Wisconsin and Minnesota studies of the
- R
$ 7 Land Educational Associates Foundation, and I'll clarify that a
j 8 when I get to mine.
! d d 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Let's go with what's here for i
10 now, all right, and see where that takes us. E II R Staff, the proposition from -- well you just heard s g 12 it -- is the joint contention as written minus the, and.of Ol is course with the intervenors retaining the, as far as they're l$ 14 concerned. 15 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, the staff is opposed to i j 16 the admission of the contention labeled health effects which as I7 h has been rewritten. Let me read the first four lines so the 18 record will show what I'm talking about.
" The first four lines are the long-term somatic 20 and genetic health effects of radiation releases from the I
facility during normal operations, even where such releases 22 !O ,,, ,1,,1, ,,1,,1,, ,,1,,11,,,, ,,, ,,,, ,,,1,,,1, ,,,,,_ 23 estimated for the following reasons. That is the 24 ,O ,,,,,,,,,1,,,,,,,, y,,,y,,,,, The commission's regulations in ID:(CFR part twenty ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
= *--w---- .m- -.,-m.. . ,
248 1 set forth the permissible releases of radiation which may O 2 de to1erated by society. We are bound by those and any 3 inference that those are incorrect and should not be applied O 4 in this case is an attac* upon twe r.eeu1ations ana mar e 5 not be permitted unless thereiissa special showing 10 CFR 2.758. b
$ 6 The contention very clearly, states that where l R l $ 7 such releases are within existing guidelines this is not n
j 8 good and must be litigated. We cannot litigate the effect d ci 9 to society of releases which are within the permissible
$ 10 limits established by the Nuclear Regulatory Consaission' 3
h 11 which are set forth in part twenty. They are also set forth
; is y 12 elsewise in the regulations such as the lowest rates to be 5
Q 13 achieveableffor worker dose during operations. I h 14 Secondly, a reading of this in its totality states E 15 that society, including the commission which is holding this j 16 hearing, has not properly addressed or understood or estimated us 17 This j ( a: the somatic and genetic health effects of radiation. { 18 is a matter apart from the radiation to be released as E 19 permitted by the commission from the Shearon Harris facility. g I 20 We are well aware that there was a great split in BEIR III, l 21 B-E-I-R, III, regarding the somatic and genetic health 22 effects. 23 ; The argument of linearity or quadratic effects 24 as diminishing dose appertains is well known. The licensing l 25 forum for an operating license for the Shearon Harris ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
249 1 facility is not the proper forum to try to resolve a matter O 2 which has noe seen resolved by the national Academy of 3 Sciences over the last twenty years. It is beyond the purview i Q 4 of this licensing board to try and untangle or resolve the e 5 issue which splits the academic community on BEIR III as to h 3 6 the genetic and somatic effects of radiation. R
@, 7 In summary, by its own terms, the proferred M
8 8 combined contention challenges the limits permitted by the d ci 9 Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 10 CFR part twenty to 5 (; 10 release radiation; and, secondly, it goes beyond the j 11 gurview of this licensing proceeding which is the Shearon is y 12 Harris proceeding to attempt a generalized discussion or S 13 resolution of a biological matter which has split the
! 14 academic community and the National Academy of Sciences g 15 for twenty years.
m j 16 I understand that the commission ha,s provided us 17 a licensing board with technical members. It seems that x { 18 it is not appropriate for the licensing board or its k 19 g technical members to undertake to resolve this matter n 20 which has split the academic community for years; therefore, 21 we think that the proferred combined contention is beyond 22 the purview of the notice of hearing which sets forth the 23 l Parameters which we can hear. It is not a matter 24 particularly related to the Shearon Harris facility. It 25 goes beyond on that basis and is clearly a direct attack ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
250 1 upon the radiation whica the commission permits to be O 2 emittea tro tae sae roo a rri. 1.o111er aurio, oor 1 3 Operation, and, therefore, we are opposed in tota 11ty to O 4 the groterrea conteneio= aion r grevious1r re a into the
,e 5 record.
5 8
- 6 n
f 7 8 8 d ci 9
$ 10 E
j 11 a j 12 5 - Oi' l$ 14 2 15 g 16 as b' 17 M 18 0 19 g n 20 21 O 23 ; 24 i 25
, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4
251 1 5rl 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Barth, are you familiar with O 2 the commission's decision in Black Fox, 1980, Public Service 3 Company of Oklahoma, 12 NRC 2647 O 4 nR. 8ARTH: Not hv name. Your Honor. g.5 JUDGE KELLEY: It seems to say under certain a 3 6 circumstances we can litigate health effects in these cases. R
$ 7 MR. BARTH: I think that you will -- if you will j 8 read the third line, they are talking about releases within d
c; 9 existing guidelines.
$ 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Right.
E
$ 11 MR. BARTH: And they are challenging the is j 12 commission's permissible releases.
5 Oi1 JUDGE KELLEY: No, the'y are not. Not the way I
! 14 read it. I thought they are saying that when the -- when 15 the mistake has been made with regard to the health effects j 16 that will occur as a result of these releases and the impact e
l g 17 statement in Appendix I, according to the commission in I a: l { 18 Black Fox didn't address health effects. E
- g 19 MR. BARTH
- I think here, four Honor, we differ.
I M 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I commend that decision to 21 your study. O "" "^x'"*: ' " " d "*"" $"*' '" "ddi'i "" 23 , comments. We made reference to that decision and it does 24 guide licensing boards that they are not to do a remake of 25 the entire appendix in the rule-making in the adjudication ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
252 ir2 I of the issues , and that is something we keep in mind and hope O 2 the board end the perties do. We are on17 eetking ebout whet 3 new can be shown since that rule was developed. One other O 4 clarificeeion goint. e 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me stop you there for a minute
$ 6 because I think it's a point we were discussing a little bit y .
2 7 this morning. What do you understand to be the record in 3 g 8 the Appendix I rule-making to which parties and the board d q 9 like this are supposed to resort to consider whether the z h 10 commission has considered something? Are we supposed to E a 11 read the statement or the BEIR report or just what are we p 12 supposed to read? . Ob' MR. BAXTER: There is an evidentiary hearing on l$ 14 that rule. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Record? j 16 MR. BAXTER: Yes, sir. And a lengthy one. ws 17 h JUDGE KELLEY: Maybe you could spell out. We a: { 18 provided the intervenors with a copy of the FSAR and a copy E 19 of the rules. I am sure they don't have the record in that 20 case. Are you following -- are you with me on what I'm 21 talking about? 22 Q- (Mr. Payne nods affirmatively.) 23 i JUDGE KELLEY: I assume if you went to the record 24 and read the impact statement and the BEIR report and the 25 records and you had this exhaustive consideration of this ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
253 5r3 I kind of generic change on which elaborate findings were made, 2 the applicants, the staff might argue well, we have sort of 3 beaten that to death in the rule-making, and there is no point O 4 in doing it here; but if you have something newer, you might 5 want to bring in testimony, anti you might be able to show there
@ 6 is nothing in the record; but I want to get at the practical R
7 aspects of this if you want to pursue, where do you look? l 8 You say there is an elaborate evidentiary record there? d 9 N MR. BAXTER: Um-hum. -
.? 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Not just the impact statement and II
,$ the BEIR report?
g 12 MR. BAXTER: That's right. 3 O JUoGE xEttEY: um-hum. I4 MR. BAXTER: My firm happened to be involved in 15 that. It was before my time. It's not a recent record. g 16 There is testimony from live witnesses and et cetera. vs I7 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah. h 18 MR. BAXTER: And we have examined the -- the E ', g 19 literature cited in the proposed contentions here and all n 20 postdates that record. We will not be starting from scratch 21 already in that sense. We kept in mind the commission's guidance when they did this. O It will be up to all of us to , 23 bring forward what the record says to the licensing board l 24 when we litigate it from both sides. 25 MR. PAYNE: I think that it is our contention to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
254 I Sr4 bring forth new information post the Appendix I proceeding, n 2 V and I agree with Mr. Baxter in that all the reference in the 3 contention -- I believe that contention was 1977, and I believe O 4 ett of the information was beyond that. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I just wanted to be sure there 3 6 is no unnecessary hiding of the ball here in terms of what we N h7 are talking about. 8 MR. BARTH: Your Honor -- d 9 MR. PAYNE: Judge -- 10 h JUDGE KELLEY: Any questions?
=
II (Board conferring) g 12 MR. BARTH: If I may address this, this is a o
- Oi'E lesal ieeue for a moment. tet us h790thesize that the w 14 licensing board and all the parties in this room come to the a
bI x conclusion that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission insufficiently 6 considered health effects when it arrived at Appendix I in hI x Part 20 releases. Then under this assumption this cannot be
$ 18
=
e-litigated because we are not at a proper forum to challenge 19 g" the commission's regulations. That is done. If we agree 20 that the commission did not consider this thoroughly, that is 21 a matter beyond the purview of this board to consider in our 22 view as a matter of law. 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Why did the commission in Black Fox 24 tell the board that they could litigate these very matters? 25 You got to deal with that case. If you want to take the j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
255 5r5 1 position that we can't look at this at all, you have to explain O 2 chae case. l l 3 MR. BARTH: We will take a look at it, Your Honor. l O 4 JUDGE KEttEY: okey. e 5 (Pause) - b j 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: Mr. Chairman. ) R
$ 7 MR. BAXTER: I had one clarification point on the l M
8 8 language of the contention. I think we discussed it, but we d 9 didn't state it for the record. In a couple of cases there l= 10 is a parenthetical record at the end of a given part to sources 11 cited in former Mr. Eddleman contention. That is literature is g 12 sources cited in the contentions. 13 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Well, yeah, Mr. Eddleman. l 14 MR. EDDLEMAN: You may be getting this, Judge. 15 I was wondering if you had raised before the question of g 16 getting this appendix record in the local public document. us I7 rooms down here. I have spent several hundred dollars at h 18 If this thing a nickle a page getting stuff from the NRC.
# I9 8 is 20,000 pages, that.is a lot of money.
n 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Several of us are blanching at the 21 suggestion. Let me look into it. MR. E DLEMAN: O I assume the impact statement is 23 l not a problem. 24 JUDGE KELLEY: I don't know what the BEIR reports l 25 Can't you get the BEIR report in Chapel Hill? amount to. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i 256 l .r6 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: Some of the university libraries l O 2 de have them. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah. Well, okay. Let's see O 4 where we are then on -- anything elsee 5 JUDGE CARPENTER: I just would like to make a
$ 6 couple comments which might be put in the category of being R
d 7 fussy. Under Item A, Section 3, it reads, Failed to use a A
] 8 supralinear response. That is a term that is not familiar a
ci 9 to me, and I wanted to ask whether that is really expressing 5 l 10 the view that it should be a curve which is convex.
$ II MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge.
is y 12 JUDGE CARPENTER: Linear is linear. I don't know 5 ~ Oi 13 how you have degrees in linearity. 14
@ MR. EDDLEMAN: Now, I'm going to probably wave my 15 hands here because it's like the old thing about describing 16 l ![ a spiral without moving your hands, but there are dose w
17 response curves for radiation dose and the number of health h a:
} 18 effects that you get -- whatever the health effect is. I am 15 19 g sure all of us are familiar with that.
n 20 Let's say the radiation dose is going along the 21 baseline, and as you go across the baseline, the dose goes up, and then the response goes straight up. O 23 j Okay. Now, a linear one is obviously a straight 24 line. The quadratic one that I believe Mr. Baxter I believe 25
- is talking about comes up with a lower slope initially and ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
257 $r7 I then comes up more sharply farther out on the higher doses. O 2 The sugra11near response thae 1 am ta1 king about which has to 3 do with the Mancuso work and some of the Gofman work is one Q 4 that comes up more sharply at the lowest levels and comes up e 5 above a straight line and then more or less levels out into h
@ 6 the higher regions of dose.
a
- d. 7 JUDGE CARPENTER: Well, that's why I'm asking the 35 g 8 question. I would term that convex.
d d 9 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, sir. It's convex. i
$ 10 JUDGE CARPENTER: Is there a virtue to this N
II
$ terminology of supralinear?
m f 12 MR. EDDLEMAN: It's used in the journals like 13 Q Health Physics to distinguish it frc:r. the quadratic, the l$ 14 linear, and the threshold theories. 15 JUDGE CARPENTER: Thank.you for helping me. j 16 One other item under Item D. Since we are going vs I7 to be reading lots of pieces of paper from various people, h 18 I get frustrated with a reference. It gives me a title and E g 19 a year, I am very fortunate to have the NIH right down ,the M 20 street, and I have no problem with lilirary facilities, but I 21 need an adequate reference so I can go and read the material. 22 MR. PAYNE: My understanding of that reference was 23 that it was a paper presented in Congressional testimony. I 24 am not sure that it is published and readily available, i 25 JUDGE CARPENTER: I use this example just to make ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 258 Sr8 1 the point that I might have spent a half a day in the NIH O 2 11brary tooking for this . 3 MR. PAYNE: I believe there is a discussion of C 4 Doctor Sternglass's findings in the literature. e 5 JUDGE CARPENTER: My point is the reference to h 6 3
^
let the reader find the document if he has proper library n R 7 facilities. 8 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: I share that frustration. I refer d - d 9 to the book Secret Fallout which I believe references this. [; 10 I don't know who the publisher is, but I have a copy of it at E 11 home, and I can give it to you. y 12 JUDGE CARPENTER: I was trying at the beginning 5 13 of the proceeding to make this clear that well-spent time of l$ 14 doing background reading before the hearing and I need proper [z 15 references,
.j 16 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes. This source came from Doctor as l
z 17 Lotchin. l { 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Payne, where are we from your 0 19-perspective on the radiological monitoring? 20 MR. PAYNE: I assume we are going to proceed 21 through them and -- l 22 JUDGE KELLEY: That's right. 23 l i MR. PAYNE: -- and there are four separate 24 v contentions there. Excuse me. Various of the intervenors 25 had sort of primary authority for drafting those, and I think i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
259 l l 1 Sr9 1 that we will just take them, whoever had that responsibility O 2 w111 discuss them. 1 basica117 drefted what is 11sted e, ! 3 Roman numeral III with respect here relying on the TLD's O 4 ebout the eite. I would ear that in euggott of thie 5 contention that in their -- in the papers that they filed g a 3 6 in response to Mr. Eddleman's first set of contentions that 7 the applicants tried to provide us some guidance with respect M j 8 to what a contention should have in it, and one of the -- one d C 9 of the ground rules that they laid out is that there were 8, li 10 sort of two ways to establish basis. g 11 A plausible reference to authority, which I think n g 12 we just did in the health effects one; or, two, a reasonably 5 Q 13 logical and technically credible explanation that establishes
@ 14 the basis; and I think that is what this one is.
15 I have tried to lay out why in our opinion, in the j 16 intervenors' opinion, the TLD's that are proposed to be used as g 17 are inadequate, that they just do not serve the purposes that j f18 they may be called upon to serve in the event of an accident, E 19 and that they should be replaced with different devices that 20 my understanding are available, and I think at this time that's 21 about all I' have to say with regard to this contention. E KELLEY: O JU Any questions? 23 l JUDGE CARPENTER: I'd be interested in hearing the 24 applicant's response to whether they feel the intervenors' l 25 l perception of the applicant's plans are accurate as outlined
, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
250 5r10 1 in this contention. O 2 Ma. BAxTsa: Thank you, sir. This contention, 3 Roman III, really is simply a restatement of elements of O 4 Mr. sdd1eman e 1 end 2, and I note that it s mysterious to e 5 me that Mr. sddleman's contentions 1 and 2 were not listed b
. lR 6 among those that were to be considered because there are
& 7 whole paragraphs and sentences right out of those and Kudzu s
] 8 contention 4, and what we said in response to those three --
d - d 9 and there really isn't anything different here -- is that g 10 the intervenors are addressing a purpose for the TLD's for 11 which we have no intention of using them. They are talking is j 12 about emergency response decision-making and the information 5 Q 13 that is needed to do that, and we have described in our l$ 14 FSAR, in the TMI appendix, and Sections 11.5 and 12.3.4 the 15 real time effluent monitoring that will be provided by j 16 applicants at all significant release points in the mobile as 17 area of radiation monitoring capability. l h l 18 The contention, if you will, sir, it's like setting P 19 up a straw man and then fighting it. It's like saying the g n 20 wind is inadequate to cool the core, and we are not relying 21 on the wind. 22 Q In addition to that, they have given no basis for 23 the alleged inadequacies in the TLD's for the purposes we 24 are intending to use them; but the major point is that they are 25 I talking about a purpose that we do not have in mind and do not ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
261 Sril I rely upon at all. So it's the same contention and I have O 2 auet repeated what we have saia in our pegers. 3 MR. PAYNE: If I might respond just briefly. O 4 with res rd to the monitors and various effluent sites. the
. e 5 reference in this contention to Ginna or*however you pronounce d
$ 6 that -- in the accident there in my understanding is that R
$ 7 radiation leaked into the auxiliary building and from there 3:
$ 8 got it out, and that was not a normal effluent site. There d
C 9 were no monitors on getting out of that building, and that z, h 10 is in fact one of the ways we see the need for this. 11 The other aspect of this is that in terms of their s y 12 remote monitors -- I do not recall the number of them -- but c 13 there was a very small number for the emergency remote l$ 14 monitors that the applicants are planning on bringing out in 15 the event of an emergency; and as I recall, I think only j 16 two, but I could be mistaken about that; and that again, I as l g 17 guess our position is that those are just inadequate in the l x N 18 event of an emergency, you got to haul them out there before i: 19 { you can begin to get information. 20 MR. BAXTER: I would contend, Mr. Chairman, that i 21 Mr. Payne is simply factoring incorrectly about his statement g 22 about the releases at Ginna and TMI were not detected by 23 in-plant monitors. 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Insofar as this is an emergency 25 planning aspect, I think I asked you before whether the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
262 3r12 I on-site plans were already complete in the FSAR -- and forgive 2 me if I am not clear on what your answer was. 3 MR. BAXTER: We would be filing on-site plans O 4 1eter thie year. The FSiR meteria1 I recognized to -- they 5 g are -- e' 6
@ JUDGE KELLEY:. Insofar as this is an emergency R
7 planning contention, are we going to have additional j 8 information forthcoming that may have a bearing on -- on e.5 the contention? 5 10 MR. BAXTER: It will describe what I said we are h= . Il 5 going to do, which is the actual monitoring equipment that is j 12 will be relied upon for emergency action decision-making. S O 1 It is going to talk about the in-plant monitoring that are 14 described elsewhere in the FSAR and make reference to them. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Why isn't this just premature at j 16 this point? as g 17 MR. BAXTER: Because it's not going to say much l f18 more than that. I think that equipment is already in there. E 19 It's already described. ! g n 1 1 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Won't add anything to what is in 21 the FSAR right now? 22 MR. BAXTER: It will link a purpose to the 23 equipment and its qualifications and its capabilities and 24 it's the purpose I have described. 25 l (Board conferring) ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
263 Sr13 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Staff, do you have any O 2 comment, g1 ease 2 3 MR. BARTH: Yes, sir. I think the answer to the O 4 auestion is it's noe premature hecause the emersency plans as e 5 developed by the two counties and the applicants will have 3
$ 6 nothing to do with the use of thermaluminescent dosimeters R
E 7 at the time which are in place around the site. Let me go a j 8 through this if may very briefly. d o; 9 It is true that the applicants are going to rely g 10 on thermaluminescent dosimeters for radiation in the site. 11 It is true that they only provide right-after-the-fact is l S 12 reading of the dose. They do not provide continuous 13 reading. This is also true. They have to be retreated.
@ 14 This is true.
m . 15 Thus, in the event of an accident involving j 16 release of radiation from other than a monitored plant us 17 h release point, the TLD's are inadequate to determine the a:
$ 18 emergency sheltering in the evacuation plans. This is k 19 also true. But it does not therefore follow,Your Honor, 20 because there is lack not only of -- lack of any middle term 21 that they should have real time monitors for accident purposes.
22 This just is a non sequitur,the entire contention. It does 23 , not comment on the development of emergency plans by Wake 24 County or Chatham County nor to determine whether the 25 thermaluminescent dosimeters which are proposed for the site ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
264 Sr14 1 are adequate for the purpose. O 2 n ett purpose is confirmatory monitoring, and l 3 they are adequate for that purpose. There is no showing l
\
O 4 that they are not. We do not feel that the contention e 5 really makes any sense, and second of all there is no basis b j 6 to -- no basis provided that the thermaluminescent dosimeters R R 7 placed on the site cannot adequately perform their function. M [ 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Just as a general matter, isn't d ci 9 adequacy of a device to perform its function really a matter
$ 10 of proof?
3 4
= .
y 11 MR. BARTH: I think in Perry, ALAB, which I cited is g 12 earlier, the specific allegation must be made as to what is O 5' wroa8 aad so=e =recific basis Provided a9are fro = 9roor-l 14 Whether it's true or not is a matter of proof. There is 15 no allegation that the things will not perform their function. g 16 There is no basis given that they will not perform their as 17 function. h 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, the allegation is that one 0 19 of their functions is to provide information in the event of . 20 an accident, and they are alleging that that won't be fast 21 enough, and the applicants are telling us they won't use 22 Q them for that purpose. 23 , MR. BARTH: We stipulate they will not'use'them 24 for accident information. 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Stipulate they won't provide i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 1
265 5r15 1 accident information. O 2 HR. BIRTH: To determine if emergency sheltering, 3 evacuation plans should be implemented. O 4 JUDGE KELLEY: That is not their function? e 5 MR. BARTH: Correct, Your Honor. It's not. . b j 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Anything else? R
& 7 (Baord conferring) 5 8 8 JUDGE CARPENTER: I would like to hear the response d
ci 9 from the intervenors of 1. 1: h 10 MR. PAYNE: In terms of the response to the staff, E j 11 you know, a strange form of logic. First of all, Mr. Barth a g 12 has conceded all of the technical facts in this paragraph. S Qg 13 I don't think we need to cite some other document that says
@ 14 TLDs, nonremote reading, if everyone agrees that is true, so 15 the basis of this contention, at least the logical reasoning j 16 in it is agreed upon and self-explanatory, and it is in fact as g 17 -- we maintain that with respect to the two incidents at TMI x
{ 18 and Ginna that the measuring devices about the site there E 19 gave no accurate, realistic, prompt information about the g 20 radiation that was getting out into this immediate 21 surroundings, that the effluent monitors were not adequate 22 to tell you how much was really getting out there and that 23 the information as a result -- as a result of those failings 24 at TMI, no one I don't think is absolutely clear on how much Oa 25 got out, so I think that these dosimeters will ultimately, if ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
266 fr16 1 there is an accident, be used to measure that function or will 2 try to do it; and the information won't be there. No one will 3 really know. O 4 creuse) y 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Baxter, where does this take us t l 3 6 in your9 view? When you have a contention that says a R
$ 7 particular device won't provide a certain function and you a
j 8 come back and say it's not going -- it's not designed to 0 l 9 perform that function. We are going to do it a different 10 way. Where do we end up? Taking that to trial and hearing II
$ it or what?
is j 12 MR. BAXTER: No, sir. I think there has to be S O I a basis set' forward by the petitioners as to why the l$ 14 equipment we have proposed to use for the function that's 15 addressed here is inadequate. Then we will talk about whether I ij 16 we got to get something.else or upgrade the TLDs. I think I as I7 the contention lacks basis altogether because it has not I0 addressed any inadequacies in the equipment we proposed to b - E I9 use for this function. 8 20 JUDGE KELLEY: And once again, that equipment is l 21 described in the FSAR? l 22 MR. BAXTER: In the sections I cited earlier. Yes, l 23 sir. And those sections did not address the information to 24 the extent I can sec. 25 l JUDGE CARPENTER: Have the intervenors taken 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
267 4 Srl7 1 cognizance of the reference section of the FSAR? O 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, that is why my 1 and 2 3 aren't in there. I will present reformulation. I'm going O 4 to greeene a reformuletion which takee into eccoune that e 5 information which is intended to take into account the h 3 6 information I took care of in my June 28, '82, amendment. 7 (Board conferring) M 8 S JUDGE KELLEY: Let's move on to IV. That d C 9 Mr. Read will deal with for the intervenors.
$ 10 MR. READ: As respects the use of the TLDs and E
j 11 the dosimeter, that's at Section 12.5 I believe. We have a y 12 just discussed the -- I believe the staff -- the applicant's 5 - Oi 13 objection to this originally was that it lacked basis, and
! 14 there was no alternative proposed. We have discussed this, 15 and we have now proposed an alternative.
j 16 I believe we.have met their obj ections on that. as I g 17 I don't have anything more to say. Y
!E 18 JUDGE KELLEY: You may want to respond, but go E
19 ahead, Mr. Baxter. 20 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, this IV is the son or 21 daughter of Change Contention 35; and as we said there, TLDs g 22 are widely used throughout the industry and accepted by NRC 23 and other regulatory bodies for monitoring occupational 24 radiation exposures. 25 I Now, the contention does say they lack real time ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
268 Sr18 1 monitoring capability, and it jumps from there and says O 2 therefore they are inadequate to assure work safety and 3 health. I don't think we have any theorized or supported O 4 basis ter making that conc 1usion from that assertion. g5 There is no reason why there has to be the capability that 6 the contention asserts. R b 7 Further, while an alternative has been written n [ 8 down, there is no showing made either in theory or in fact d 9 as to why that would -- that monitoring capability would be o 10 an improvement or why it's necessary, so I still take the Il
$ position that the contention lacks basis with reasonable a
g 12 specificity. OO 13 V g JUDGE KELLEY: Is there any NRC rule which puts l$ 14 some kind of formal blessing on these TLDs? 15 MR. BAXTER: I am sorry, sir. I didn't get that. g 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I'm just wondering how the i u5 I7 h
=
rules stand in this regard. We have rules on monitoring f 18 I gather. Is there a rule that explicitly states that a 19 g TLD is an adequate device or is the company allowed to use 20 any one of a number of devices as long as the design 21 objective is achieved? O 22 <p,,,,, 23 MR. BAXTER: As best as I understand, the 24 O ,,,,1,t1,, ,,,, ,,e ,,,,1,y. 1s,y ,pec1,y ts, ,,,1g, obj ectives . ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
Y s' 269 i r19
\v c xs 1 JUDGE KELLEY: This isn't -
an attack on the rules? V - < v.. O 2 MR. sixrER: no. ,
~
N 3 JUDGE KELLEY: And an intervenor couldn't use
/~5 U 4 something else -- and you get'into something as to whether s
e 5 it's specific or not, but it's not prescribed by rules. b l g 6 Okay. 3 7 Staff? [' ' r l 8 MR. BARTH: In our view, Your Honor, there is no 0 , ci 9 basis at all -- not inadequate basis but no basis' at all z h 10 set forthastowhythermakuminescentdocimetersare 4 g 11 inadequate, and therefore the contention should be denied. i $ D g 12 It is not a matter that the staff feels that the basis is
'3
'O! inadequate or should be more elaborate. There is none. l$ 14 It is zero given to support, an[,Ithinkthecommissionhas 15 stated very clearly 1.n Comanche Peak as I cited earlier , j 16 there must be a specific basis set forth in support of the d S i 17 ' h contention. x { 18 JUDGE K'ELLEY: Maybe you could respond to-that, E ' I9 Mr. Read. g What is the evil that will be avoided if TLDs 20 ! are not used and some sort of read time devices used instead? 21 How would that protect workers? 22 Q MR. READ: I am not really too clear on that, 23 ! Your Honor -- the exact health consequences of that. I 24 think Mr. Eddleman might have a better response. This .:is 25 not something I was planning to testify to myself. l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
270 @r20 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: I am not testifying either, but the 3 point is that if I had a real time warning that the level in O' ' 4 the area was higher rather than an exposure warning where the e 5 guy comes in and reads the badge, also have the problem of R j 6 reading these things accurately. That is pretty important
$ 7 e in our health effects and in accurately assessing it.
l 3 j 8 If somebody comes back and the dose says fifteen 1 G l ci 9 milligrams, okay. Is it really. fifteen or i.s it ten or 10 twenty or is it ten or eighty? And sometimes, depending on h II , $ what part of the body they have that on, it varies; and it \ O l 12 varies with the accuracy of reading it, and they erase O! u
'3 themeelvee when you reed them, so you don't have adesuace l l5 14 documentation of it. Am I giving you something or am I I
15 getting far afield? l g 16 But if you have real time monitoring, then you do us l l 17 something about the problem when it ariscs'from the people l f18 working in the area. You don't have to worry about it on E 19 the next shift or the next month depending on when you have w M 20 the TLDs read. l 21 JUDGE KELLEY: So looking at the second sentence 22 O of this concention, you might say because of the TtD.s 23 inaccuracies and their lack of real time monitoring l . 24 capability, those devices are inadequate to insure worker 25 ! cafety and health because they don't give you an immediate ALDERSON REPORT!NG COMPANY, INC. l
1 271 pr21 1 reading of the situation and you can't act fast enough and O 2 peop1e gee more radiation than necessary, period 2 1s that __ 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes. External and internal. O 4 MR. o NEttt: ar. chairmen, cou1d I respond to that e 5 because I think I understand what their. contention is. h j 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Sure. 7 MR. O'NEILL: The TLDs are not used for that a j 8 purpose as a real time monitoring capability. It's worn on d c 9 your belt and over a period of time it shows what the total z 10 dose received by that individual is. When you go into a E 4 II radiation area, you have a real time monitor commonly known is g 12 as a pocket docimeter. You put.that in your pocket or 9 Q 13 various other places and you use that to determine how much
! 14 the dose you are receiving at that time. You can look at 15 it every minute , every five minutes, or whatever it is j 16 depending on your radiation area, so once again I think that as 17 is a contention that is alleging a purpose for TLDs, and I h
l f18 think we now understand they are not used for that. The 0 g I' pocket docimeter is the measuring device for radiation 20 workers. 21 Could you cite us the FSAR on that? MR. READ: O JUDGE KELLEY: There was a question I think, 23 l right? Question from Mr. Read? 24 MR. READ: Could we have the FSAR cite on that? 25 - MR. BAXTER: We will look it up. l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
272 Sr22 I MR. PAYNE: That may take care of it. O 2 MR. READ: That may resolve the question; and if 3 it does, if you could just point out the correct location O 4 to that. e 5 MR. O'NEILL: We will see if we can find a h 3 6 re ference . This is such a cotomon practice throughout the R
$ 7 entire industry. There may or may not be a specific n
[ 8 reference to it. O ci 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, that is helpful. . 10 How about Number 5, the calibration? h
=
11
$ MR. READ: Again, this is something that I did, 0
{ 12 Your Honor; and again it's something that I am not an expert Oj is on myse1f; bue as t understand it from reeding accounts of l l$ 14 the Three Mile Island accident, I don't believe the rules 15 l or the guidelines on inspecting the portable emergency
!j 16 response monitors have changed since then with regard to the as I7 frequency with which the monitors are to be inspected. We h
18 felt that under the conditions at Three Mile Island, the E 19 g . teams that went out and discovered' that the monitors which 20 l they took with them were inadequate, didn't work at all, 1 21 hadn't been calibrated sufficiently recently to -- to 22 O guarantee an accurate reading of the __ the radiation im 23 the area. 24 As I understand it from talking to some people 25 who are -- who have some experience with these things , the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
273
@r23 I plus or minus five percent will work out to about once a 2 month or so for calibration.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Something I'm not educated i O 4 on either. 1s there some TMt requirement that has grown out g5 of all that regarding calibrating? And more generally, say j 6 whatever you wish to say, Mr. Baxter. G b 7 Not to my knowledge. MR. BAXTER: I don't know 4 l 8 of any particular lesson learned that goes to that. This 0 9 is the former V of the joint contentions is the former f. 10 change contention 34 with a little added to it actually, and
!a II it says really nothing more than we don't think the proposed j 12 sampling frequency is of ten enough, and we think it ought to O!I@ 14 be more freauent. So ei1et you gee glue or minue five percene.
So other than just a personal opinion, I don't think E 15 there is any basis in here upon which to speculate that ours 16 Either isn't adequate or any explanation as to why it is. y 17 in theory or supported by facts. It is simply an exprea d on f18 of dissatisfaction and requests that something else be done, E 19 so our objection is that no objection and no specificity. 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, the concern I thought was 21 expressed by way of explanation here at least -- was that lO '* ***"" 7 '" "*9"*"' c' "'t " ="7 '**" ' '" '""c'"' 23 ; instruments in an emergency. Sort of a common sense p 24 suggestion. V 25 ! MR. BAXTER: No. But the word " infrequent" is l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. l
- t. - _
i 274 l l l Sr24 1 a matter of judgment. They are saying once a year is not ) 2 enough, but they don't say why. They just offer that opinion 3 unsupported by anything I am aware of. Except a reference O 4 to Three M11e Istand __ end 1 don.e know what the frequency e 5 of checks are, and we are trying to address Shearon Harris, h 3 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Staff? R
& 7 MR. BARTH: We have no difference from the M
j 8 explanation set forth by Mr. Baxter, and we call attention to 0 m 9 the commission's CLI 81-36, the Comanche Peak, in which the 5 . 10 g commission states that a contention to be admitted must set E 11 forth the basis to be admitted with reasonable specificity, Q is j 12 There is no basis set forth why the calibration which is ia now projected is inadequete. no more commene. O l*
@ 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, 15 JUDGE BRIGHT: Mr. Read, where did you get the 16 ii information that applicant only intends to inspect and w
17 calibrate these. air monitors annually? h 18 MR. READ: I believe that's at FSAR 12 -- let 0 19 g n me start from the beginning. It's at FSAR 12.5.2.1.7.3.1 20 and also .2 in place of .1 at the end. A .2. 21 JUDGE BRIGHT: And it makes an explicit statement 22 O of amnn,1, i 23 l MR. READ: That was my understanding from reading 24 it, Your Honor. 25 l JUDGE BRIGHT: Oh, look. Thank you. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
275 Sr25 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Let's go to VI now. C
- 2 MR. PAYNE: Unfortunately, on VI Mr. Eddleman 3 was the lead drafter. He has been carried off by a local 4 offictal here. I hope he is not incarcerated. I expect 5
him back. I think it was a parking problem.
$ 6 If you will defer that for a moment. I think that R
& 7 is the only thing remaining on the joint contentions.
a j 8 JUDGE KELLEY: We can figure it up. He can d Q 9- speak to VI, and we will do that. Either when he comes
$ 10 back or when he is on this afternoon.
11 MR. PAYNE: Sure, is l 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Should we move then to the other
~
Ol 13 chanse EtP contentions that have noe eo far been discussed l$ 14 under the heading of the joint contentions? Is that the 15 next order of business? j 16 MR. READ: Your Honor, you had expressed some i d I7 interest in taking care of my environmental contentions now. h a: { 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah. O 19 g MR. READ: I just looked through my contentions n 20 quickly, and as near as I can tell, the environmental 21 contentions which would be ripe for consideration now -- 22 O in other words, it we,1dn t be deferred ,ending the issuance 23 of the environmental statement -- have allbem subsumed by 24 these -- by these joint contentions , and I'd be willing to l 25l let my environmental contentions fly on your rulings and i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l .-
276 Sr 1 the joint contentions -- and if you would like to start on 2 something else now, that would be acceptable to me or if 3 you would like me to start with my other contentions , that p d 4 would also be acceptable. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Why don't we go to the others. j 6 I think that is a sensible approach. When I say other, R
$ 7 let me just say for the record we received from the seven j 8 petitioners here numerous contentions. Most of the d
c; 9 filings though -- most of the supplements to the petitions 10 l= ran anywhere from twenty or so contentions, and our reaction II was that we can cover that on about an equal split of time, is j 12 so we will just plan to go over each contention in that s 3
- f13 group of I think five petitioners. We had two petitioners
@ 14 Change /ELP and Eddleman who had well in number beyond that.
15 Change /ELP had 80, and Mr. Eddleman had 140, and we said we j 16 don't know if we can have oral discussion or what, so I am as I7 not saying -- we will have a board ruling on all your h 18 contentions, but it seems sensible to us and you know this, l P g I9 but I am saying it for the record -- to focus our attention n 20 on the ones that you thought most needed that hind of 21 treatment, so we would plan -- and you did supply us with l O 22 , 11,c ,, c.,,cy ,, y,,, ,1gsc, ,, ,, c,,ce,c1,,, cs,c y,, l 23 ; thought should come up front for purposes of oral discussion, 1 < 24 O ,,, ,, ,, ,,,1,p ,,,,,c, ,, ,,,,cs,,,, ,,, ,, ,,,p1,y 25 i that a bit by ear. 1
, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
277 3r27 1 We might then take about twenty from Mr. Eddleman O 2 and if we are soing to stay over, we wi11 take some more, bue 3 that is the -- that was the background for asking for twenty O 4 to be sinsled out, and if you did that end we -- I think we g .5 would propose to go in that sequence minus those that we have c<
@ 6 now already talked about by virtue of the joint contentions.
7 MR. READ: Your Honor, because -- because of the K g 8 fact that twenty-five of my contentions have been subsumed i d ci 9 z and the fact that numerous other contentions are challenges h 10 to the regulations and I propose to withdraw numerous other 3
=
Q a 11 contentions, I propose as an alternative that I begin at the g 12 top and run through them. I think it will take the same 5 13 amount of time to do that. l$ 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 15 MR. READ: If there is no objection. j 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Does that seem reasonable, as ( c: 17 gentlemen? l { 18 MR. BAXTER: Yes, sir. O 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We have got by the way about 20 twenty of twelve. Say again that we plan to break for lunch 21 right about twelve and come back at one. We will have O = ** 'i=* ' ' '" 8*"" *=*" "" i' 8 i"8 ' =* i" ' " 23
! C'A N P and then back to you.
24 Mr. Eddleman, we had gotten to VI on Page 5, the 25 l last of the several monitoring contentions , and I understand ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. i
278 Sr28 1 you were the chief draftsman of that, and so we look to you 2 for initial comment and then reaction and then rebuttal. 3 MR EDDLEMAN: So you want me to start off on O 4 1e2 e 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah. h j 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, this -- one -- a lot cf R
& 7 this is addressed in my June 28th amendment. I looked at M
8 8 that thing, and it said we rely on dedicated microprocessors, d d 9 We rely on computers and display screens which are circled 10 by little dots and inside the dots is nonsafety equipment. II It doesn't say what the reliability of those things are. 5 is l 12 They are bald assertions in there. O! m
'S tike the one that I hete thee always ehowe up
@ 14 is this accident happens and then this system will stop if a
15 it's working. It doesn't show how it's controlled or -- 16 ii if it doesn't, it doesn't say at all. It just says this w I7 works, and then you go on from there, but there is no h
=
@ 18 indication to me from what I read that the applicants-E referenced me to in their response that these components 19 g
n 20 had been reliability tested either for hardware or 21 software, and I have done computer work, and I can tell you 22 that the software work has to be pretty exhaustive to make Q 23 sure it works, and if it's hardware you are manufacturing, 24 you have to be sure you have got in the industry generally 25 ' to make it reliable enough so that you know it's going to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
279 $r29 1 give you the right answer most of the time. The 2 horrifying example I could give of that is the U. S. government 3 missile warning system which gives a lot of false positive 4 indications but you could have a false negative and say that e 5 something was not wrong when something really was, b
$ 6 a
w [ 8 a ci 9 . i
*h 10 s
5 11 g 12 O! .
'3 a
2 15 j 16 m d 17 1 M 18
=
i 19 1 g 20 l 21 22 0 l 23 , l i 24 O 25 I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
280 6c1 1 And I think that's the -- that and the fact that they O 2 don't have the abi11ey to detece specific radionuc11 des and 3 amounts being released on most of it4which we've gone back O 4 and forth on ie, bue we have our gosition and the age 11 canes e 5 have theirs. That's pretty much the basis of it. 3
$ 6 JUDGE KELLEY: When you say components of the R
& 7 system are unable to survive, you don't specify which l 3 j j 8 components?
- d l o 9 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, for example, there's some N
$ 10 in-containment monitors which say they're survivable for E
j 11 fif teen minutes. That means to me after the first fifteen is j 12 minutes they don' t know anything and, sure, if they know 3 l , Oi '3 enat's out ther vrod d1r uno so etaine's rone, d== ther l$ 14 don't have the reliability built into that and there's no 15 addressing of how reliable or surviveable a lot of the g 16 other components are at all in_. what I read, and so I don't us d 17 know how surviveable it is. All I'm saying is you can look E { 18 in there and it says this is going to work and it's an O 19 electronic system that involves a computer and microprocessor 20 and, you know, based on what information they gave, and I 2I don't even remember any reference to any tests of them, I 22 Q have no way to prove it won' t work, yes, but I don' t think 23 , that, you know, they're. supposed to - they're supposed .to 24 state their basis of what they've got in there and I think 25 l I know enough about electronics and comhuters to say it's not ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
6c2 281 1 proved. O 2 avoc= x=ttsr. ohar. Thanks. 3 Mr. Baxter? O 4 *a. =^xrza= *r. chairman, you discourased us e 5 yesterday from making set speeches in.this proceeding, but E
$ 6 as we pointed out in our response to Mr. Eddleman's big R
& 7 petition at the beginning of our response, the appeal M
g 8 board's Wolf Creek decision and other fundamental processes, d c; 9 due process, entitles us to know what the issue is.we're . [; 10 supposed to defend against and on which we might have the II h burden of proof, and that's at the hearing, and I guess g 12 for prehearing conference purposes I have to also consider 5 13 that I'm really responding to what's written down here in
@ 14 front of me rather than a lot of new discussion about 15 specific systems that Mr. Eddleman may be prepared to h
x i j 16 recite off the top of his head. us I 17 I can't find from Roman VI that it has particular I x { 18 origins in any of the contentions we had previously h g ,19 identified as being radiological monitoring, although I n 20 couldn't swear it's not somewhere in the 300 pages, but we 21 simply don't understand what issue we've been put on notice 22 Q to defend against in Roman numeral VI. For example, ife don't 23l know what radiation detection monitoring system is at issue. 24 The first sentence confuses in my view the quite disparate 25 concepts of emergency response and the ALARA standard. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
282 6c3 1 They have nothing to do with each other. ALARA is for 2 planned activities and expected operational occurences 3 whereas the contention sentence .also speaks about emergency O 4 responses. ! o 5 We have no allegations as to what specific b
$ 6 components in the system are included in this next item R $ 7 which is equipment qualification, and that's a whole A
l 8 8 different submittal that's discussed in the FSAR. I don't d ci 9 l know what components we're talking about, why they're not l b 10 h available, why they're not able to survive, what their i Il
$ functions are and what accident conditions we're talking a
j 12 about. And finally, the computer system. I don't - Ol '3 kn- eae c-puter system that is and I don't know whae
@ 14 monitoring system it's alleged it hooks into or why it 15 has to withstand some unspediffed accident, so I'm afraid g 16 it's illustrative of the kind of problems we have in a lot as I7 of other places with Mr. Eddleman's proposed contentions.
h x f 18 We simply cannot make out of the totality of these lines any confident assessment of what the matter is, and, therefore, O we objected for lack of basis, I guess, or reasonable 21 specificity because we're not put on notice as to what the O issue is-23
, JUDGE KELLEY: I might just comment that I think 24 that it's maybe somewhat difficult on both sides of the fence.
I On the one hand intervenors are supposed to address the i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
283 6c4 1 FSAR and absorb that and if they find deficiencies say what 2 they are with reference to the FSAR and that's in part the l 3 way the system works. On the other hand, I hear Mr. 4 Eddleman in this case saying that he's looked in the FSAR e 5 and he doesn't find any particulars, and I haven't read this h
@ 6 section of the FSAR and I'm not making any judgement, at all, N
" 7 but I'm just saying that there's sort of a -- I wouldn't n
[ 8 say exactly built-in dilemma, but there's a problem on both d 9 sides in being specific where there;can be general observation, s 10 g MR. BAXTER: Yeah. I appreciate that, sir. My i = II
$ problem is even more fundamental. I wouldn' t have the is f
c I2 foggiest idea of what section of the FSAR to go look at to
'3 Oi respond to Mr. Eddremen's comg1aine bere. It's that I E ra I4 confusing to me.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Staff? g 16 MR. BARTH: I think, Your Honor, that Mr. Baxter
- ss I7 has reasonably accurately summarized our view of this. I h
- e M 18
= would emphasize this by pointing out that this contention 19 8 identifies no system, it identifies no component, it identifies no defect, it provides no basis at all for the state Jent 21 that these things won' t work. I think that - I would not 2
O ,,,1,,, 1,,,,,1,1,, ,,, ,,,, ,,, ,,1,, ,, ,1,, ,,,,, 1, ,, You have an l 23 l. way we have any idea what's he's talking about. i i O rs^a which covers an entire booksne1f ead there's no war we 25 ' can in a practical way write" testimony to counteract this kind { i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. l l
6c5 284 1 of allegation. I will point out again, Your Honor, that we O 2 do agree with the Wolf Creek cite, that in Byron Nuclear Power 3 Station, ALAB 678 which just came out on June 18, the appeal O 4 has seated that -- 1e is very c1.ar1y on page 14, the s11p 5 otiinion, it is not enough to allege the consequence. You g a
@ 6 have to identify the problem, and the problem here and the R
& 7 defect alleged have not been identified, Your Honor.
M 8 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Eddleman, further comments? d
- c. 9 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, first I'm -- this was the 5
g 10 joint contention. I'm not sure how much of this first part E II I'm responsible for.
$ I haven't really double checked that.
is g 12 Let me see. There seemed to be a number of them. o ' Os' m m ar saxter says that he doesn't know what this ino1udes- r l g 14 believe it includes all these things, the in-plant monitors, 15 the out-of-plant monitors. You know, I'm not saying that they j 16 all stay in there if part of its admissable and part of it's as I7 not now, but that it does say that there are two goals of h l 18 in-plant and off-site monitors and which both relate to I9 somewhat if we talk about what Mr. Baxter's been saying 8 n 20 about the use of the in-plant monitors and one is to give 21 the emergency response personnel warning or information that O they need to plan and act and that may be something that 23 l needs to be deferred. There's also the idea that it's not 24 Q giving the people inside the plant the information they need to maintain ALARA, and as to the components and so on, it's in ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6c6 285 1 I think, FSAR 12.5.4.2. I think that's the one. I'm saying O 2 aat nueer from -ry, but I think aae's ee =e that aer 3 referenced to in their response to the original contentions O 4 that I ri1 d on this, and -- 1et's see. I'm 1ookins in the e 5 amendment to try to find the statement.
$ 6 Well, let me try to find that section of the N
8 7 PSAR because there was one specific section that I looked at n [ 8 that layed out how this stuff is linked into the computer d d 9 and it doesn't identify the computer very well either, but i h 10 that's the best identification I could find in it, and, you 11 know, it just basically makes summary judgements, this will a y 12 work, this will do this, and that's about all it says. But Q 13 since it relies on microprocessors and so on and I know
@ 14 that those things have problems and they haven't set any 15 reliability testing, I think there is a basis for it.
j 16 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Will you give that e d 17 a reference later?
$ 18 Well, this takes us up to about ten to twelve l 19 Let's take a lunch break ' til 6ne ' o' clock. .
l 20 MR. PAYNE: Your Honor, just a moment. This may 21 take just a quick minute. 22 Q You've deferred a discussion about how these 23 contentions would affect the status of the various four l 24 parties that are the source of the prime movers behind these 25 ! joint contentions. I'm not sure but what we could deal with ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6c7 286 1 that fairly quickly here. It was as I laid out, and I 2 believe -- I haven' t talked with Wells about this, but he's 3 not affected by it. John and I are the two, I think, that O 4 are affected by it. g 5 When these were proposed yesterday I made it clear N j 6 that we did not intend substantive amendments to the R 6, 7 proposed contentions that are filed by the intervenors. j 8 With regard to our party status it then implies I had no d - c; 9 ':ontentions on steam generaters or Kudzu Alliance had no
$ 10 contentions with respect to steam generators, arid I would 5
$ 1I say the admission or nonadmission of the contentions here is y 12 would have no affect on Kudzu. Likewise, I believe that Ol is ccuc on1y had contentions here with respece to the l l$ 14 management capability. And with regard to these contentions 15 I believe that that would be where they would come in.
g 16 CHANG, and Mr. ,ddleman have contentions with as (x 12 regard to all four of these areas and, therefore, I believe { 18 it's appropriate for them to be basically listed as the l Y I9 proponents of all four areas. You know, that would be g 20 my proposal on the way we deal with that. That may be 21 too confusing. I don' t know. l O 22 ,ooo, x, ster, We11, it is __ take some comments, 23 here, too, but it seems to me it has at least two practical I l 24 implications. One practical implication is you need one 25 good contention to be a party to the case; Okay. That's l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6c8 287 l 1 Part of it, but beyond that -- well, the first thing you get O 2 into after you're admieted as a party and the contenetons are 3 ruled upon, say it's discovery. Now, does that give us four O 4 differene intervenor erougs -uns dis-very on see- eenerators - e 5 or whatever? - That's a separate question. h 6 MR. PAYNE: Yeah, It's different. 7 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm not sure we can decide that
$ 8 right now, but it is a question and you can't just blindly d
ci 9 say this is the way it's going to be for all purposes.
$ 10 I still haven' t been able to eat lunch. Could you j 11 not come back after lunch?
is j 12 M2. BAXTER: No. Mr. Chairman, I think it's a 25 is Oi very st=9 1e goine- re's who's respons1=e enese four
! 14 contentions in this document; is that right?
2 15 MR. PAYNE: Yes. j 16 MR. BAXTER: If we cou.1.d just associate the groups as 6 17 with each one of them it wouldn't take but a minute. E { 18 Health effects is CHANGE, Kudzu and Mr. Eddleman. n g 19 MR. PAYNE: Yes. n 20 MR. BAXTER: Is that correct? 21 MR. PAYNE: Yes. 22 MR. BAXTER: And management capability is all four? 23 , MR. PAYNE: All four. I 24 MR. BAXTER: And monitoring is CHANGE, Kudzu and 25 Mr. Eddleman?
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
~
r 6c9 288 1 MR. PAYNE: Uh-huh. O 2 MR. BAxTER: and steam generators is cuaNGE and 3 Mr. Eddleman? O 4 MR. virNE: nae's correce. n ae's correct. l e 5 Now, with regard to your question about who may b
$ ,6 be designated as a lead intervenor or something like that R
$ 7 with regard to these various issues, I wasn't addressing 8 8 that right now.
l 0 - C[ 9 JUDGE KELLEY: No. We haven' t. got to that.
- z r o l y 10 MR. PAYNE: I was sort of clarifying what I thought z
, = 11 I made clear yesterday in terms of our intent with these l @ is j 12 joint contentions. 25 Oi '3 3UDGs xzttsr ooes this then, tho=en eaxe u= to
@ 14 the question of party status?
15 MR. BARTER: I guess I'm not sure what you mean, l g 16 Mr. Chairman.
- r5 g 17 JUDGE KELLEY: I'll put it differently. What
$ 18 difference does it make who's responsing it? If it doesn't U
19 have any practical implication, I don't caret g n 20 MR. BAXTER: I do. Well -- 21 JUDGE KELLEY: It has to have a purpose from the 22 O standpoint is somehody a , arty or not, doe, somehody have 23 discovery rights or not and so on down the line. To say 24 yem a sponsor, well, so what? 25 MR. BAXTER: Well, I can't foresee all the ways in l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. l l i
289 6cl0 1 which this may have a bearing on the conduct of the O 2 Proceedings, due I think we genuine 1r shou 1dn't ascrise two 3 PeoP l e who don't advance interests in subject matters we're O 4 soins to de titigatine. I thin
- ta t 11 enese - 11 these g 5 four petitioners over there we've been discussing have P.
j 6 uncontested party status as far as I know from the staff and R
& 7 applicants' standpoint.
{ 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Uncontested standing on everybody 0 ci 9 that came in. z~ o g 10
- MR. BAXTER: No. I mean party status, including n
[n 11 one admissable contention. a j 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Have we gotten to that? I haven't c Q ym 13 added them up.
! 14 MR. EDDLEMAN:
I think we have. m 15 JUDGE KELLEY: I think after this morning we have; j 16 that's right. as d 17 MR. BARTH: CANP we do not agree with that. 18 JUDGE KELLEY: We haven' t reached CANP or Ms. Lotchin. 19 We're going to reach CANP after lunch. g n 20 MR. BAXTER: And we do not consider Dr. Lotchin to be 21 a party of any of these joint contentions and her petition 22 Q ought to be denied. 23 i JUDGE KELLEY: And Dr. Wilson's had an omitted. I 24 contention yesterday, at least one. 25 MR. BAXTER: Yes, at least the staff and applicants ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 6cil 290 l 1 have agreed to one. O 2 JUDGE xEuEY, so the parer contention apare from 3 CANP and Dr. Lotchin is not really an issue at this point. O 4 MR. ExxrER= rhat's riehe. o 5 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm still unclear as -- I don't h j 6 mind going to lunch unclear. I.et's just do that. R
& 7 (Luncheon recess) j 8 JUDGE KELLEY: We're back on the record.
d d 9 We expect, as I mentioned earlier, a spokesman from
*/
h 10 CANP. He's not here just now, as I understand; is that j 11 correct? is g 12 Mt. Cowgell is not here yet, but he will be along, Ol 13 I think, and when ha' does come we'll interrupt things to ! l$ 14 allow him to appear for a while. i 2 15 I think we had gotten to the point where CHANGE ELP gl 16 was just going to start with number one and move through in as 17 light of the fact that some of your contentions had been x M 18 subsumed and others may be withdrawn and we'll ree -- in terms E , 19 of time we'll see where that takes us, but for an hour or so l 20 let's try that. 21 MR READ: I think Mr. Runkle has some cenna nts 22 Q to address to the discussion which was left sort of as I 23 understood it somewhat open-ended on the joint contention 24 number -- what number is it, John? Five? 25 MR. RUNKLE: Four IV. That deals with the use of ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
291 1 TLDS. O 2 oUDGE xEtLEr= Righe. were you -- you happened 3, to be out when we got to that matter; is that what happened? . O 4 MR. RoNxLE: whae happened is, they were going e 5 to reference us to the FSAR and they did reference to b
,$ 6 FSAR section 12.5.3.6.1.1, which states that they will R
g 7 use different kinds of dosimeters on their personnel, including a j 8 the pocket dosimeters, the personal -- the personal monitor, then d ci 9 they'll use the TLDs or they'll use film badges. And they g 10 said these will be issued as appropriate under 20 CFR'202 -- j 11 no -- 10 CFR 20.202 which refers to personnel monitoring. is j 12 I think that the contention IV should stand as is. 5 O i 13 The applicants have not assured us whether -- whether that l$ 14 these TLDs will be used as appropriate. The regulations 2 15 allow them to use whatever, any number of different film l j 16 badges, pocket chambers, pocket dosimeters, film rings, and as
@ 17 I assume that also includes TLDs, but we are not sure l !3 18 besides a bold assertion that it's industry -- industry t =
l H 19 practice that personal dosimeters will be used over a TLD. l g n 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Any comment, Mr. Baxter? 21 MR. BAXTER: No. l Q 22 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Then with your further _ 23 statement we'll be taking that -- we'll just take it 24 under advisement on that basis. 1 25 l MR. RUNKLE: All right. Contingent stands. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. l
6c13 292 1 We're not withdrawing the contingent. O 2 auDas x=ttsr Rieht. 3 MR. READ: Does that mean I'm up now? O 4 auDas x=tter: Riehe, you're up. e 5 MR. READ: Before I start, if you'11 tolerate one h j 6 general comment, we've had quite a few comments by Mr. Barth R
& 7 and by Mr. Baxter and O'Neill to the effect that we should M
j 8 be very specific or should form our contentions with, quote, a d 9 clarity and precision, etc, and from reading the FSAR I
$ 10 think they're applying to us a standard which they really j 11 haven't applied to themselves in terms of normally we will is j 12 do this, we will do that, etc., which seems to be quite 5
Q 13 frequent in the FSAR.
@ 14 If I taight. citecthe wolfhcreek opinion which both the E
15 staff and the applicant have relied on, I believe a closer 3[ .16 reading of that opinion indicates that the matters dealt w 17 with therein were contentions which were advanced by 18 experienced counsel, and as a second year law student, and E 19 this is my first NRC proceeding, I can't really consider 20 myself experienced counsel and I hope the board would take 21 that into consideration when considering my contention. 22 contention number one in my - h .CHANgg.EW tentantions Q 23 has been subsumed by the health effects. 24 contention number two deals with the environmental 25 l effects of operation of the plant and I believe it should be 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6c14 293 1 deferred until such time as the staff has prepared its O 2 EIS. 3 Shall I just continue? O 4 . 3uocE.xEttEY= tet me suse se you -- cou1a we have e 5 a sort of understanding between yourself, Mr. Read, and Mr. - 5 j 6 Barth and Mr. Baxter, particularly on things that seem to be, R
& 7 you know, withdrawn or pretty clear. You make a statement, s
[ 8 if I don' t see a hand raised you can go on to the next one. d C 9 On the other hand, if you want to make a response let me z o g 10 know and if it's obvious a response is called for I'll look 11 to you for one. Is that all right? t is g 12 MR. BAXTER: Yes. S 1 Os 0
' 3cocE xELLEr= res-l$
14 MR. BAXTER: To the extent contention number two 15 is considered to be an environmental contention by Mr. Read g' 16 that process is acceptable of deferring it until the' impact - as 17 statement. I didn't read it as one, frankly. h 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you view it as an environmental e 19 g contention? n 20 MR. READ: Yes, sir. 2I JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Yes. 22 MR. BARTH: We disagree and we oppose the contention, 23 Your Honor. The first three words are the applicants have 24 They're talking about the applicants. They're failed. 25 not talking about the staff's documents. And from our point I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
f 6c15 294 1 of view the applicants have not used Wash 1400 in; their
, O 2 ana1ysis and we abide by our original response that this 3 contention should not be allowed. It has nothing to do with
( O 4 the seaff documene. The firse eh=ee words, the seaff is 5 not yet the applicant. 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Isn't it true, though, that when you
^
n 6 7 issue your impact statement pursuant to the commission's n' l [ 8 policy statement the staff will be assessing the impacts of d C 9 a serious accident? o g 10 MR. BARTH: Insofar as it g';es to environmental l N
$ II you're correct, Your Honor, and I have no problem with a is 12 deferral on that part. On the other hand, I'm sitting l
g Q hm 13 here reading the contention about the applicant's failure. l E 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I'm pointing ;'out that staff 15 will have that document and some of the debate on deferral j 16 becomes kind of pointless in the sense that I assume that we l w h 17 could deny this contention or you can withdraw this contention, m 18 and even if you did either of those things when the staff came E l g 19 out with their impact statement if they had some new matter n 20 in there you could make a contention about it. 21 MR. BARTH: Well, we agree, Your Honor, with that 22 O ,,,,e e., ,, the 1e.. JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, I think your 23 l 24 understanding about deferral is satisfactory. 25 ' MR. READ: Okay. Contention number three is a l : ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6cl6 295 1 challenge to the ten-mile standard. I believe we've already O 2 discussed thae sufficiene1r and when the emergency p1an comes 3 out I'll either withdraw that or rewrite it based on new
, O 4 information in that p1an.
i i
- e 5 MR. BAXTER
- It remains our position that contentions !
5 j 6 that clearly challenge rules should be excluded by the board R 8 7 now and that applies to all of them -- the emergency planning M j 8 included. O 9 MR. BARTH: We join, Your Honor. C[
$ 10 MR READ: Contention number four.
3 1
~@
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Just a minute. I'm still not clear ' l $ l 12 what difference' it makes. Let's suppose we defer a ruling i b
- Q 13 on three and there's later contention having to do with some
! 14 aspect of this which we didn't rule on. Why should we
[x 15 deny it now? j 16 MR. BAXTER: Simply because I don't want any us g 17 petitioner or party to have the impression by the fact that the x
!3 18 board deferred the rule that they might someday, get an k 19 acceptable contention in this proceeding challenging in a 20 major way the commission's rules. I think they ought to be 21 told now that they are not going to and if they are going 22 l
Q to pursue some other remedy like a 2.758 petition or a rule-23 making petition they get started with that effort and not i 24 harbor any false illusions that some day they might be able 25 to get that. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6c17 296 I MR. BARTH: We join with the statement, Your Honor. 2 I think it would be appropriate to defer such part of that 3 as does not challenge the rules and get rid of the rest of O 4 1e righe now. g 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We can handle that, I think, a j 6 Go ahead. R b 7 MR. READ: Okay. Contention number four addresses n [ 8 a number of site specific emergency problems and to the r) ci 9 extent I think the same treatment I think should be given
$ 10 to that one as was given to number three.
E II JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Next? is j 12 MR. READ: Contention number five, I'd be willing 5 Os m
'3 to withdraw that.
l$ 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 15 MR. READ: Same for contention number six. iE I0 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. . as I7 MR. READ: Contention number seven also a cost h x { 18 benefit of construction, I'd be willing to withdraw that. U I9 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. 8 n 20 Contention number eight is an MR. READ: 21 environmental impact statement, or it will go to the 22 Q environmental impact statement when that document is 23 available, and I think in light of Mr. Barth's. previous i 24 challenge to that applicant's wording I'd be willing to 25 l change that to staff if he's willing to concur in that.
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
g3g lp - 297 4 1 JUDGE KEIZEY: Okay. ,
)
O 2 Mr. art;,2 t i 3 MR. BAT'.TH: It's not ,okay with us.
/We haven't i
O 4 m de any cos en :s so you c a'e sar it's inidequate.
. er its a 5
g n own terms it'r a non sequitur. , It's got ,to ihave some kind e '? j i 6 ] i _ of order in the thin 7,. 'We 'have? nok: fallad adequately n 1 ), r
$ 7 to consider long term affects, Your Honor. '
, 4
! j 8 ~
I think thd 'purpbsy of this JUDGE KELLEY: - I d q 9 really under the ~ circumstances is for thle interveriors to y I ' - 4 y l g 10 say that they will be looking forward to reo, ding your , x , 1 7'
= (,
11 i .' treatment of these matters and may well revise this;) i $ ' s ,'#. it
, . ,1 >
j 12 l contention so as to raise questions about it if they ', g; "r ] i }Q
~
13 find it inadequate. ,
# 2., '
l- c, 'a 14 MR. BARTH: ' I. accept.your statement of it, Your* ' , k 15 Honor.
" ~
s
,, y' s
Y * * ' l - I 1 i[.5 I0 JUDGE KELLEY: :dr,that fair enough?
+
17 ' j h MR. REA3:> 'That's fine, yes. a: 18 b JUDGE KELLEY: Okcy. And it.wil.1,.be deferred , v 1: , 19 8 and you will see what you thi'nk of the discussion when you y s' 20 ' " Jt' see it. -
; r ,r': ;A;,g. ,
fe 21 ' MR. READ: All right. '> ' i " O 23 c"*'"'*"""i"*""***"-- " "**"** "- **" " j willing to withdraw.- Contention nine I believe goes to a J iO t
""" 2*"S* * *** "99 i=""*'" ""# "** "'" '"" '"*" '",' "
- 25 1 t a 1
ALDERSON REPCRTING COMPANY,INC. i ..
)l
6c18 298 9 1 one and two, especially paragraph two of that regulation, and O 2 I wou1d de wi111ne -- ao you wane -- can we defer that unt11 3 1atervarid come back to number nine? l O 4 3coc= x=tt=v= rou said you'd withdraw ten, but you e 5 wanted to -- - 6 h 6 MR. READ: To pursue number nine. R F. 7 JUDGE KELLEY: To pursue nine. Is this -- I'm reading a 8 8 it myself again. This is at least in part a legal d
. ci 9 argument, inn't it? -
- i g h 10 MR. READ: Yes.
t E j 11 p JUDGE KELLEY: Does this table apply here or does d 12 it not? 15 S
't g 13 MR. READ:
m Yes. h 14 JUDGE KELLEY: And then you look at the rute and b 15 you debate that and your position is it doesn't?. x i j 16 MR. READ: Yes. as 6 17 JUDGE FRLTRY: I believe the position -- both the E J { 18 applicant and the staff argued that Table S4 applies to the E
/ 19 g transportation impacts of spent fuel in this case?
n 20 MR. BARTH: The staff takes the position, Your Honor, 21, subject of course to reviewing the staff memorandum on l 22 Catawba tc which you referred to. 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Excuse me. Give me that again. I 24 MR. BARTH: You asked us to look at the transportation 25 I memorandum for Catawba. I am saying we wil1 do that as part of this. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 6c19 299 1 MR. O'NEILL: Just to make our position clear, O 2 we do agree that Table s4 applies to the environmental 3 impacts of the transportation of spent fuel from Harris to lO 4 wherever it so . we 1 o n ve m de our 90 seion on the g 5 record that we do not believe that the transportation of N
$ 6 spent fuel from Brunswick or Robinson to Harris is recognizable R
& 7 before this board in this proceeding.
A l 8 JUDGE KELLEY: That, too, is a legal point; right? d i ci 9 MR. O'NEILL: Correct. b g 10 JUDGE KELLEY: What I'm wondering is, let's assume 11 that you're right. Do we have a contention here? We've got i B j 12 a legal argument, that's for sure, but if you're right does 5
- Q 13' this then mean that in your view there is a detailed l$ 14 analysis required and it's not there? Is that essentially g 15 what you' re --
x y 16 MR. KEAD: That would be the optimum result, us 6 17 Your Honor, yes. s { 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I just wanted to be sure i: 19 what it is we're dealing with. E n 20 Comment, Mr. Baxter or Mr. O'Neill? 21 MR. O'NEILL: No further comment. 22 lQ JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Anything else then? 23 MR. READ: Would you like for me to submit a brief 24 on that question, Your Honor? 25 JUDGE KELLEY: If you wanted to submit further ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
6c20 300 1 comment under what we'll call provisionallytthe: ten-' day O 2 ru1e you can gue that as item one on your 11st end then 3 before we quit we'll go ovar who's going to file what and O 4 when. I would think that it's something that might be e 5 helpful to have something on; otherwise I think we.can go 5 8 6 ahead. I E 7 MR READ: Okay. Number eleven I'm willing to a j 8 withdraw as a challenge to the cczumission's regulation. d ' c:i 9 Numbers twelve, amended twelve, thirteen A, and B
$ 10 for the saine reason.
5 5 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Thirteen A is in another document? j 12 MR. READ: Yes, it is. It was submitted, I believe, 5 Q 13 on about the 28th of May. May 24th, excuse me. l$ 14 JUDGE KELLEY: The thirteen A and B is withdrawn, 2 15 you any? g 16 MR. READ: Yes. as d 17 Number fourteen I do not wish to withdraw at this l $ i $ 18 time. Unfortunately, I don't have the expertise with me I h 19 to back, that up -- back up these specificity objections n 20 that both the staff and the applicants made to it, so I'm 21 afraid I'm going to have to let that one go before you as is O ' " '" *"'- 23 JUDGE KELLEY: You can submit it on the papers, 24 just go ahead on that basis then, right. Is that right? 25l Yeah. Go ahead. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. I
301 6c21 1 MR. READ: Okay. Number fiftenn would be a 2 challenge to the regulations as well. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: That's withdrawn? O' 4 Ma. aEAo: res. 5 Number sixteen, because of the nature of the 3 6 allegations that have been made in number sixteen and because 7 of the way that I have received this information and the 3 8 8 fact that the information that I received -- the sources I d c; 9 received it from were not - did not feel that it would be l= 10 advisablea for them to specify exactly what the allegations 11 were or exactly who they were, I think at this stage the a g 12 contention should be comitted because I have no legal means
'3 Ol of compe111ns discovery on tais point and I don't wane to l$ 14 force -- well, I can't. As a matter of fact, the ' people 15 from whom I got this information, I don't wish to bring j 16 their names into the open exactly as stated in the us I7 contention for fear of reprisal. .h a:
M 18
, JUDGE KELLEY: Well, we as a board have two concerns E
g I9 about this contention. One'is the usual one of whether n 20 it's a valid contention or not. Quite apart from that, though, 21 this is a very serious charge. It charges threats of-22 O ,,,,1,,1 ,y ,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,1y ,, ,,, ,,,11,,,,, ,,, 23 coming forward on safety issues, and I'd like to ask, Mr. 24 Q Barth, do you know whether these charges or charges of this 25 i nature have been investigated by I and E, inspection and ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6c22 302 I enforcement arm of the NRC? 2 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, may I address your 3 question at'a later stage? At the first break I would like O 4 - woe consu1e with our inspeceers on this mateer. Thank you. 5 y JUDGE KELLEY: Fine. Thank you. Bring it up ei 3 6 R later on this afternoon or if we're here tomorrow morning b 7 e'. that's all right. I just wanted to know whether the NRC
$ 8 l
d staff is en top of whatever is going on here if something d 9
*. seriou' sly problematical is going on.
o H 10 j Mr. B&Xtier?
=
II
$ MR. BAXTER:
is Just two points. I didn't understand pj 12 O Mr. Read's bottom line. Oi' You exv1ainea the difficu1 ties you have and then
@ 14 what did you propose at the end be done with the contention?
15 MR. READ: Well, my proposal is to the extent that 16 it's possible I would like to have legal means of compelling h x discovery on this question. As it stands right now I can't Pn 18
=
s develop any information essentially without some cooperation 19 g from CP&L, or from the contractors at the sitet 20 JUDGE KELLEY: This kind of thing I know has arisen 21 in various other cases, almost precisely the same thing where O there is a statement that there are plant employees or former 23 l i i plant employees who have information and yet they're afraid Q about losing their jobs or whatever and I don't mean to -- you l know, it's a serious matter and it does have to be looked at. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- 6c23 303 1 The exact way in which it's done in a contention context O 2 I confess I'm noe fami11ar with in any deta11 siteing here 3 this afternoon in terms of disclosure of names, in terms of O 4 whether it becomes a va11ci conteneton without names and so on
*e 5 and so forth. We've. got what you've got here and you've told b
$ 6 me why you're not going any further this afternoon. I think R
& 7 we have to consider just what we would do from a contention M
j 8 standpoint. d d 9 Mr. Baxtdr, do you want to enemant further? g 10 MR. BAXTER: Well, two things. First, the office E h 11 of Inspection and Enforcement does have means for dealing 3 g 12 with anonymous allegations, and if there have been any Og 5a 13 reported to them and they've investigated them, they would l$ 14 be reported fully in a report that's available in the public 15 document room, so I would think that if this matter has been j 16 brought to their attention they've investigated it- and there as l ti 17 is material available on it, but, secondly, I guess I don't l Y . { 18 understand, if we can't get anything written in the contention E g 19 now because of the problems of Mr. Read's confidential n 20 informants I don' t see how he's going to conduct a discovery 21 against us either if he doesn't know what to ask about. It 1 22 seems to me we're in a totally circular problem and I 23 certainly can't agree to the admission of a contention we 24 don't know anything about for whatever reasons. I 25 JUDGE KELLEY: When I asked Mr. Barth does I and E ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
6c24 304 I know about this, that was sort ofcquestionel. And if the 2 answer was no, they never heard of it before, then the 3 board would say then look into it and come back and let us 4 know what is going on. So that's a step that's available
$ to you, but I thought first we'd just find out whatever 9
3 6 information's available to you this afternoon so that we 7 would know where it stands. 3 k 0 I understand what you're saying, and I don't know d f' if we can add a 1ot this afternoon beyonci that. (Board discussion) f' JUDGE BRIGHT: There have been some cases where d 12 E this sort of thing has come up. Genera 11y the way the boards S O have hand 1ed it, the - at 1 ease the boards that I have been E 14 g concerned with, if you can present specific instances of 2 15 g we1d deficiencies or bad concrete or whatever in sufficient
~
! 16
$ detail with sufficient documentation then the board has 6 17 g usually looked kindly upon requiring the applicant and the M 18 i
g staff to look at these concerns and report back to us as a 19 l contention. Now, that's just for your information, Mr. Read. 20 MR. READ: Okay. Thank you. 21 If the board would give me, say, forty-five days to try O t<re deve1og it ana if I haven't deve1oved te hr that time I 11 23 be wi11ing to withdraw the contention.
- O MR. BARTH: Your Honor, before I reach a decision I 25 have talked with our resident inspector who is here and we ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6c25 305 1 have looked into welding, but we have - as an agency. We have O 2 had no information that nonconformances were being he1d back or 3 secreted or bad practices because of threats to job security or
- O 4 gersona1 securier.
e 5 JUDGE KELLEY: - Let me ask, Mr. Read, I think you 1 3
$ 6 said this. I just want to make sure I understand.
l R
& 7 Are you willing to get bhck to your sources who a
8 8 were concerned about their names being revealed and getting d ci 9 more specifics about what they're concerned with and coming
?5
, g 10 back with the specifics without at least at this stage
$ 11 revealing their names?
is i y 12 MR. READ: I'11 certainly try to do that. Like E Oi 13 I said before, if I can't do tthat within a specified time, 14 say forty-five days, I'd be glad to withdraw the contention. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: As a next step how does that strike j 16 you, Mr. Baxter? as 6 17 MR. EDDLEMAN: Mr. Chairman? 5 I 5 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Just a minute. E l g 19 MR. BAXTER: We are anxious to know whatever n l 20 information Mr. Read's got. I think it ought to be passed 21 along to the NRC office of Inspection and Enforcement as well 22 Q if he notices any problems in that regard. I would hope it 23 doesn't take forty-five days for him to get this information 24 together. I'd like to see it done on some shorter time 25 ' frame. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l - -
306 6c26 1 JUDGE KELLEY: What about thirty days? 2 MR. READ: That's okay. 3 MR. BAXTER: Fine. 4 JUDGE KELLEY: If you could then provide whatever 5 you can in the way of specifics to the board and the j 6 applicants and the staff and to the parties, and again R 6, 7 without any need at least at this point of names, I think I j 8 that's a useful next step and I don't think we have to do d - c; 9 anything else in the meantime, and we'll see what that
$ 10 produces.
E .
$ 11 MR. READ: Okay.
is l j 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. l l Ol is MR. >ARTa= Your nonor, I wou1d 11ke to add one l$ 14 further comment. Because of the very great problems 15 you've pointed out in this matter, if there'are threats by j 16 CP&L personnel to employees to withold information from the us 17 NRC,I think he'd be well advised to report to our office a: l $ 18 of Inspection Enforcement. It is not a joking matter. It's ! i2 19 a very serious matter. 20 MR. READ: I'm fully aware of that. 1, 2I JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Barth. f I C 22 Okay. On to seventeen. 23 MR. READ: Seventeen is a challenge to the 24 regulations as I read it and should be withdrawn. 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6c27 307 I MR. READ: Eighteen I'll withdraw on the merits. 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Oh, yeah. Mr. Cowgell from CANP 3 is here and has just a brief time. O 4 2 hat takes us ehrough seventeen. cou1d we - S interrupt'you for a minute to hear from Mr. Cowgell? 0 MR. READ: Okay. R b 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Can we take just a moment M
$ 8 to get the relevant papers here? Just go off the record d
9 for a second. O 10 " h (Recess)
=
II
$ JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We'can.go back on the record.
is g 12 Good afternoon. You're Mr. Cowgell; is that o Oi I3 - rrect2 l$ 14 MR. COWGELL: That's correct. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: How do you spell your last name, sir? I0 MR. CONGELL: C-o-w-g-o-1-1. h JUDGE KELLEY: Right. Thank you. m 5 18
= Now, I understand from what we heard yesterday 19 g that you would be coming in to speak to one'of the contentions O
of which you were a principil author. I guess it's number 21 seven; is that correct? 22 O ,,, cc,c,ss, y,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,, 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, maybe I can just say a word l O about our fornat. Generally speaking, perhaps very generally, the proponent of a contention such as the one that you have l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
308 6c28 1 will take a few minutes to perhaps summarize and explain the O 2 ehruse of the contention if that's warranted, then we'11 3 have responses from the counsel for the applicants and coun O 4 oounsai for the uRC seaff, then you wou1d have a chance to y 5 respond to them. During any of those points one of us may 9
$ 6 interrupt with questions. The main purpose is for us to R $ 7 get a good fix of what's being said by all concerned and M ] 8 answer questions that we may have so we can go back and d
ci 9 make an intelligent decision on whether the contention should i h 10 be admitted. With that, why don' t you go ahead? h 11 MR. COWGELL: .All right. Thank yotI. is y 12 I have a brief statement which I'll read which 3 Q $m 13 recasts contentions h9gsyg briefly and also makes a brief l$ 14 response to applicant's response. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Can I just -- I'm sorry. What do j 16 we have in hand? You filed a written response just the us 17 other day. Was that one of the three? 18 MR. BAXTER: Yes, sir. Yesterday morning. E 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. And the staff does not g n 20 at this point have a written response filed? 2I MR. BARTH: That's correct, Your Honor. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Fine. Thank you. Q 23 Go ahead. 24 MR. COWGELL: Thank you. In planning for the safe 25 l operation and maintenance of Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 309 6c29 I over its usefu1 life app 11 cants must take account of presently 2 evident circumstances whose probable future course will 3 directly and substantially change the operational contention O 4 of Shearon Harris nuc1 ear rower 11ane, particu1ar1r if such e 5 a change might threaten app 11 cant's ability.to safe 1y maintain b
$ 6 and operate Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
R R 7 The apparent economic disintegration of nuc1 ear A
- j 8 technology and the current political trends toward the reduction d
c; 9 of government regulatory and support services are two
$ 10 such circumstances which require the app 11 cant's serious
$ 1I attention as possible threats to their ability to safely it l 12 operate and maintain Sheasoni: Harris.
I 5 O 13 Absent this attention citizens against nuclear l$ 14 power fee 1s the applicant's provisions for the safe operation 15 and maintenance of Shearon Harris are seriously deficient. g 16 The substance of our contention is not to argue the facts us
@ 17 of these two developments. We contend, rather, the simp 1e 5
{ 18 fact conceded imp 1icitly by the app 11 cant's response that E 19 applicants have not given prudent attention to matters which l g n 20 appear to direct 1y affect their ability to safely operate 21 and maintain Shearon Harris. 22 Q App 11 cant's response that our contention is, quote 23 unquote, vague is therefore off the mark as is also their 24 assertion that this contention lacks, quote unquote,. 25 j specificity. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
310 6c30 1
!It!s basis would seem to lie at least in part in 2 the applicant's obligations to quality assurance. An 3
unavailable part is no less poor than a defective part. ' O 4 Me find the app 11 cant.s assere1on that our contention 5 is, quote unquote, philosophic to be vague. The issue is
@ 6 quite concrete and of immediate< relevance. If the contention N
$ 7 appears broadly drawn it is because the scope of its A
g 8 implications is broad. It is the applicant's burden to ! d 9 determine if and to what extent these two developments will s. 10 h impact their safe operation and maintenance of Shearon II is Harris to show how they are prepared to accomodate such g 12 developments so as to safely operate and maintain Shearon , a 4 Oi' Harris. l l 14 That's the end of my prepared statement. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. 6 - Let me go to the other counsel and then you'll hI a: have another chance to respond. M 18
- Mr. Baxter? ~
E 19 g MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, I think to a great 20 extent Mr. Cowgell and the applicants are still talking 21 past each other. I heard him say today that he doesn't 22 O ,,,,,,,,,, ,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,z ,,,, ,,, , ,,111 ,,,,, 23 understand his contention. At best I guess we might be O ta1xins adoue new rederatism and the attooatio= or m=$or 25 governmental responsibilities down to smaller units of ALE 'RSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
6c31 311 i gov 1 government, and on the other hand some pool of technical O 2 resources that are becoming spread too thinly. To me 3 these -- if that's what the contentions are we're talking O 4 ab-e pouuca1 or 1eginauve c-cerns that -y weu be g 5 sincerely held but really have not been provided with any 6 nexis to issues that are before this board in connection R
@, 7 with the operating license application that can actually a
8 8 be litigated. So we stand by our objection of yesterday d ci 9 morning. I b g 10 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, to us the contention
@ l1 is more in the nature of a limited appearance statement l
\ B j 12 stating that CANP basically feels there are problems in I 3
- Q 13 the nuclear industry. Beyond this we have no comment, 14
@ Your Honor, We do not feel it meets the characterization 2 15 of 10 CFR 2.714 for a viable contention.
y 16 Just as a side matter without humor, of course, us 17 h the fewer applications the agency has had the greater the x { 18 government has poured money into this agency so the P 19 g n economics have certainly gone up as far as the regulation 20 90,3, 2I JUDGE KELLEY: I guess one reaction that I had, 22 Mr. Cowgell, was if you look at the many contentions that 23 have been put forward and those that havg been accepted in 1 24 the last day or two, there is a fairly limited focus which 25 l this operating license hearing takes. , In some cases the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
6c32 312 1 commission will adopt a specific rule excluding a certain O 2 kind of matter thati mishe otherwise de heara I suess to 3 maybe -- the clearest recent example which is the rule that O 4 e kes need for eower out of these hearinsa. we istisate
; 5 need for power under~ construction permits, but the general 9
3 6 feeling is if you've gotten to the point of building the 7 plant then surely you need it for something and going back A - { 8 through that execrcise it doesn't make any sen5e. So it's d d 9 just excluded.
- i h 10 Some things we don't get into from the standpoint j 11 of breadth,and insofar as we focus here on the integrity a
j 12 of the piping and the wiring and the concrete at that plant, 5 Q 13 those issues do indicate the main focus. I have some doubt
@ 14 about the capacity of this board to litigate the healthSf 15 the nuclear industry generally in the availability down the j 16 line of engineers and technicians to service the plant.
v5 17 I don't know if we can get our hands around that. h 18 MR. COWGELL: I would not expect you to, sir. E 19 I would agree with the latter two remakrs. I tried to g n 20 emphasize in my remarks, and let me say again, it is not 21 cur intention to contend and argue the facts of the ec n mi health of the nuclear industry in any respect or the O 23 ; facts of political momentum toward reducing regulations at 24 any level of govenment, federal or local. Our contention 25 is that there is - if I may appropriate a legal phrase ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6c33 313 ! I I which has been common propenty now, there is probable !O 2 cause for someone who is prudently undertaking the planned 3 operation of a nuclear power plant for an intended useful O 4 life of someening mor, e3,n e,,,ey y,,,, , ,,,1,t,1n,, e 5 I don' t have -- I don' t know what figure's currently b
@ 6 respectable.
R n_ 7 3
$ 8 d
d 9 7:
$ 10
- z 11 l @
l l d 12 l !!! O! m 13 l$ 14 2 15 j 16 af d 17
$ 18
=
fn 19 20 21 0 23 , i 24 25 l
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
.. 3 14 Frl 1 JUDGE KELLEY: The usual license is forty.
2 MR. COWGELL: It would have to take professional 3 interest in the appearance of a disintegration of nuclear O 4 technology, having the clear implication that there may be e 5 in the future less easy availability of high quality b
$ 6 expertise, and uniquely skillful engineering accomplishments
- R l
& 7 offered by small vendors who serve the larger constructor. j n
] 8 What's at issue is whether the applicants have tJ \
m; 9 an obligation simply on the basis of their being an 10 appearance of such developments, having an obligation to
@ 11 look into whether or not there is any substance, again a m
i
~
12 reasonable looking into, and say something to me, the public, c ' O sm 13 which would certify thee they have teken these considerations l E 14 into account and find thus and so. 15 On the basis of this contention, had the applicant j 16 simply stated we have -- we have considered the widespread us
,N 17 opinion that the nuclear industry is in trouble and may be f18 going downhill for the next twenty years and da, da, da, and E
g 19 we think everything is hunky dorey. That would have mooted n 20 my objection. My objection is that the applicants have 21 shown no interest in examining the possible relevance of . O 22 cs, ,ppe,,,,c, ,, ese,.. 23 I do not wish to argue again as I say the health 24 of the nuclear industry. 25 JUDGE KELLEY: That clarifies your contention l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
315 7r2 1 for me. I appreciate that. , 2 (Board conferring) 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Cowgell, I think that lays 4 it before us insofar as your contention is concerned, and 5 we will be taking it under advisement with the other g a
@ 6 contentions and ruling in due course. Thank you very R $ 7 much for coming over. I know it was an inconvenience for A
8 8 you, d d 9 MR. COWGELL: Well, thank you. I apologize 10 that I wasn't more readily available. I would have liked II to have heard the whole thing. 5 3 N I2 JUDGE KELLEY: Not at all. Thanks. 3 + Oi i3 okey. sha11 we then -- sha11 we go back to l$ 14 Mr. Read in Number 18? 15 MR. READ: Yes. Hearing no objection, I'll 16 continue, Number 18 I'm willing to withdraw on the merits. a[ as I7 JUDGE KELLEY: Good. h 18 Number 19 has been merged into the MR. READ: E I9 health effects, the joint health effects contention. 8 n 20 Number 20 is a need-for-power contention which 21 would act as a challenge to the regulations. Therefore, 22 O 1e 1, ,1csa,,,, ,,,,1,g , ,,c1cio, ,,, ,,,peo,1,, ,1 cs, 23 ' rule. 24 Number 21 and Number 22 both are management 25 contentions , have been merged with the joint management ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
316 l 7r3 I contention.
- O 2 Number 23, again a challenge to the regulations.
l 3 Number 24 is withdrawn. O 4 MR. 8AxrER: 1s 23 withdrewn2 5 MR. READ: Yes. It's a challenge to the j 6 regulations. It's withdrawn. R o E 7 Number 25 lacks sufficient basis according to l ~ a j 8 the applicants and the staff. I don't have the staff d ci 9 noted down on that. I think -- I have -- Unfortunately 10 I haven't been able to study this matter in greater depth. II 5 Time concerns. I would merely like to point out that the a g 12 direction of one of the major runways at Raleigh-Durham O!' b I4 Airport does head in the general direction of the plant and certainly a -- it is quite conceivable and beyond the i 15 realm of mere speculation that an accident could occur f16 with an airplane from the airport striking portions of the I7 Beyond that I really can't provide any more basis h a: plant. { 18 for that contention. O 19 ~ JUDGE KELLEY: Could we have a -- let me make g n 20 this clear. 21 MR. BARTH: I have -- p 22 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Barth first, if you wish. 25. V 23 MR. BARTH: I didn't hear what happened to 24, 24 Your Ib nor. O 25 I MR. READ: It was withdrawn. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
F' 317 7r4 1 MR. BARTH: Thank you. I have no comments on O 2 25. Stend on the original comment. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Excuse me. I'm getting back O 4 into ie. g 5 (Pause) . 8
@ 6 JUDGE KELLEY: You say in 25 and four others R
E 7 they lack specificity and that they challenge the rules. K l l 8 25. Could you specify how that lacks specificity -- if d ci 9 you will forgive me? 10 MR. BAXTER: You are addressing Mr. Barth or me? 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah, I'm sorry. Mr. Barth. l @ 1 Ec \ . g 12 MR. BARTH: Sir, we felt that the mere fact of
~
O an etrPorc within a five-mile range did not provide any . I
@ 14 kind of reason or rationale or basis or specificity for E
15 stating that an analysis need be made. There are a number j 16 of airports in the country and the State of North Carolina as I7 with small airports and LLrge airports. These things are h 18 very often within this close or closer to plants. l E 19 JUDGE KELLEY: What is it that triggers a site 20 specific analysis such as I believe was done at Three Mile 21 Island? Perhaps some other reactors. 22 MR. BARTH: Several things do, Your Honor. Part 23 of this from the staff's point of view is the provisions in i 24 the standard review plan for aircraft analysis which has 25 its own criteria, but apart from that a showing by an ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
318 7r5 1 intervenor such as in -- in Three Mile Ish nd that the air 2 patterns took them over the reactor would certainly trigger 3 enough specificity to require that the matter be further O 4 investigated. 5 This also happened in the Big Rock Point where the - l 6 Air Force used the containment dome as their marking for i G 8 7 a change of course. They came right smack toward the M [ 8 reactor and then went another direction, d ci 9 This kind of -- this kind of reason and concern 10 over the concern that there are airports in the country and
; g
=
11 that there are tirplanes in the United States triggers some s l 12 kind of showing -- I believe as the commission put it -- a O! m 13 reaeonab1e men oughe to inquire further.
@ 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Where did the commission say that?
15 That is one of those things I don't
, MR. BARTH:
j 16 have the cite for. vs I7 (Pause) l h b 18 JUDGE KELLEY: You mean a reasonable man footnote O 19 that went to the Supreme Court? g n 20 MR. BARTH: I'm not certain, Your Honor. 21 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. That's one I happen to g 22 know about. Now, there isn't any rule that says -- 23 ; MR. BARTH: In the point of view of the staff, 24 unless something else is raised by the intervenors to show 25 some uniqueness to have an analysis made, l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. I .
310 7r6 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Staff? I'm sorry. Excuse me. O 2 ar. 3axter, 3 MR. BAXTER: Well, NRC Regulatory Guide 1.70 at O 4 Section 3.5.1.6 sets forth the conditions under which 5 applicants have to provide aircraft hazard analysis, and j 9 3 6 that says if you have a federal airway or airplane approach R b 7 within two miles of a site, you have to provide analysis, j 8 and for all airports within five miles of the site -- and d o' 9 we have no such cases here, and that is reported in the o l E 10 Harris FSAR. l II Then for airports between the ten -- located g 12 between five and ten miles and between -- and beyond ten ' o '
' milee there te e formu.la which re1 aces both the craffic O =l l
E 14 volume and the distance from the site of the particular g 15 airport. x 16 The Raleigh-Durham Airport is twenty miles away, II h and the Apex and Holiday Springs eight and six miles away < x M 18 from the plant do not have sufficient traffic volume E l g I9 operations to satisfy the requirement that such analysis 1 n 20 be done. 21 Now, this isn't a regulation. I understand that, l 1 l O but what we objected to in terms of basis grounds is that 23 there will be no allegation as to why that generic staff 24 judgment is not valid in this case. ! 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Are there FAA regulations behind ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~. . - - - .-. . _ . . - . -
320 7r7 I it? Do you have any knowledge? () 2 (Pause) 3 MR. BAXTER: I do not. () 4 MR. BARTH: We have an agreement with the Air 5 Force as to flight patterns for Air Force planes that they g a will not be within ten miles . of the reactor.
~
@ 6 R
& 7 JUDGE KELLEY: That is helpful. Okay. I guess M
8 8 we can submit on that basis, and we will consider it. d c; 9 26? z E 10 Number 26 is also a challenge to e MR. READ: E
$ Il the regulation and is withdrawn pending a petition for B
j 12 waiver of the rule, c (]) f 13 Rule Number 27 I will withdraw. I think other l 14 intervenors were presenting contentions on the same issue, g 15 and I really don't have the expertise or access to experts ! = j 16 to pursue that one. m 17 Number 28 I would like to submit that one for the
=
{ 18 board's consideration based on the -- based on the work of E g n 19 Sir Alan Cottrell who has written that the best standard 20 practice presently available is abo *ut only about a fifty 21 percent chance of detecting a crack under one inch thick -- 22 I mean one inch long -- excuse me -- in thick steel. I s 23 believe he was looking at Westinghouse reactor vessels in l 24 his analysis, which certainly is -- has access to this l 25 Harris plant. - ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
321 ) 7r8 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Baxter, any comment on 28? O 2 MR. sixrER, ye11, the contention as it was 3 written says nothing about Sir Alan Cottrell or anyone else
! O 4 in terms of a beeie in terms of the be1d eseertion that the 5 testing method wouldn't be adequate. He is cited by
$ 6 Mr. Eddlemen and we responded to them including citations 7 to considerable change in his position over the years; but M
$ 8 as this contention is written for us, we have no -- no way 0-ci 9 in which change haa specifically addressed the testing that 10 we have described in the FSAR and it will be carried out in II
$ testing programs associated with Shearon Harris reactor B:
y 12 vessel. O 5' JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Barth? l 14 MR. BARTH: We have nothing further to add, Your g 15 Honor. m j 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 29 to 337 Weren't they as I7 in consolidated -- h m { 18 MR READ: Yes. They have been merged with the i: h n
-- consolidated. Numbers 34 and 35 were also in the joint i
20 -- the joint contentions and number -- that was in the joint 21 monitoring contentions. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. 23 And Number 36 MR. READ: I think it's -- if 1 24 I want to raise that issue, I think I will raise that under 25 the joint management contentions, so I would consider that i 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
322 I 7r9 merged with that. , O 2 ,yoGE KsttsY, 111,,1,ht. 3 MR. READ: I am not sure if that's in the Q 4 statement that we handed out. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Excuse me. Let me make sure I'm
@ 6 36 -- did I understand you to say that straight on this .
7 you would consider 36 merged with management?
] 8 MR. READ: Yes, Your Honor. That's correct.
O f9 JUDGE KELLEY: 'Let me look at this a minute. 10 (Pause)
' MR. BARTH: That's listed in the summary that
,5 g 12 they passed out.
S O JUDGE KELLEY: With management? E 14 w MR. READ: I don't think that was originally. g 15 m MR. BAXTER: Yes, it is. Both 36 and 37. MR. READ: Well, that is what I was about to say 6 17 w about 37 as well. x { 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, upon stipulation, okay. k 19 g Go ahead, n 20 MR. READ: Okay. Number 38 deals with fuel 21 cycle effects and it does say applicant's analysis, but 22 I am going to change that to staff's analysis if that's 23 agreeable with the board and hold that one for consideration 24 at such time as the environmental statement is issued. 25 I JUDGE KELLEY: Maybe I can turn to the staff. i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
323 7r10 1 The S3 decision. Is this also, when I asked for information, pV 2 a case where we are waiting for the comission to decide what 3 to do? O 4 MR. BiRra: Our recommendacion, which appears on 5 Page 94 or 95, was that also your recomendation, Mr. Baxter, g e.'
@ 6 on S3?
i l E 7 MR. BAXTER: Yes, a ~ j 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. You indicated a willingness d c; 9 to defer until the appearance of the impact statement, and g 10 I think both of the other parties, the applicant and staff, 11 are saying we are waiting to hear from the comission in the is y 12 same way, and we will see what to do, so under either approach 5 Q 13 it would be a matter of defierring it at least for the time l 14 being. 15 MR. READ: Since the next two contentions, j 16 Number 39 and 40, deal with psychological -- as I7 JUDGE KELLEY: They are stress. l h:
$ 18 MR. READ: The same approach would apply.
E 19 JUDGE KELLEY: I would think there would be some e , M 20 kind of commission guidance on stress in the fairly near 21 future, so the board will know where to go with contentions 22 O of this nature. 23 MR. READ: Um-hum. Number 41 reference to the 24 applicant's sumary of the emergency plan and likewise since 25 the emergency plan is not yet available I have requested ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. r-., -
324 l I 7ril that one be deferred. 2 JUDGE KELLEY: When this says the emergency plan, 3 does that mean the on-site plan? O 4 MR. REiD: I be11 eve -- to te11 the truth I j 5 can't really remember, Your Honor. I have just written j 6
" defer" on this, and I haven't looked at it closely. I R
7 believe it's -- it refers to the off-site emergency plan. [ 8 JUDGE KELLEY: I would certairly defer that. O 9
- f. MR. READ: Yeah. Okay. Number M I'm willing 10 to withdraw on the merits. Number 43 likewise.
$ 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, a
j 12 MR. READ: Number 44 I believe.both the staff 5 13 and the applicant have admitted in their responses that is l$ 14 a valid contention, and I have no further basis to add at g 15 the moment. a: g 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Correct. Staff? Applicant? res 17 MR. BAXTER: Yes, sir. { 18 MR. BARTH: It's correct from our point of view, P 19 Your Honor. g I n 20 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Go ahead. 21 MR. READ: Number 45. I believe I will withdraw 22 Q that one since Kudzu has intimated that it is willing to go 23 forward with that. 24 Number 46 is again emergency plans, off-site, 25 and I'm willing to defer that as well. i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. l
_ - - - .. _.~ _ -
,325 7rl2 1 Numbers 47 through 52 are all cost benefit and --
O 2 end finencie1 contentions, and 1 m wi111og to withdraw them. i 3 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. O 4 MR. READ: - Number 53 te a heeten effecce contencion. e 5
- JUDGE KELLEY: s That is on 70, correct?
] 6 MR. READ: I. vill',give the old numbers as well.
b 7 g JUDGE KELLEY: , Yes.
).
] 8 MR. READ': INumber 53'is -- well, it could be '
\
a '. c 9 z, considered a health effects concen' tion or, an attacit on the - 10 mixing analysis. I',mwilli$htoconsiderthatasahealth 5 ' r i II 4 effect and merge with the other ones. . 3-is / , p 12 Number 54 I'm willing Io withdraw on Uie m'erits. i O f' ll ' ' , tt'e ela a-ber 8. Excuse me- . l E 14 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. > 15
$ MR. READi , Old Number 9. New Number 55. I'm x .s gl 16 willing to withdraw ~'on the merits.
as p-g 17 Old Number 10, New 56. ' I'm willing to withdraw x
$ 18 on the merits.
1 E 19 g . Old Number 11, New 57. It's been merged with _,
- e I 20 ',
the health effects contention. /.$ , ' -3, (
) , ;
21 Old Number 12, new 56'.' Likewise merge /d with the J. > .i - . . . O health effects contention. '/, =/ 23 - Old Nurober
, t 13, New 59,, has been merge, with the 24 health effects conteiftion. .
) ,
f 25 OldNumbersl4',[tewNumber60,hasfeen' merged
/,.,. .
Al,DdRSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. r, *d- .
. , [ , 'f _ -
326 i 7r13 I with the health effects contention as far as I'm concerned. O 2 1f 1 choose to pursue this issue 1 w111 bring te up under 3 that. The same thing is true for Number 61, old Number 15. A cost contention C 4 Excuse me. Old Number 16. New Number 62. g 5 and I believe there is a generic rule-making pending on this P 3 6 question, so when that generic rule-making comes forward, R
$, 7 I will be willing to draf t new contentions then, so I will
) 8 withdraw this one pending that, o
c 9 Same with Number 63, old Number 17. z 10 Number 64 I'm willing to withdraw that. That's
=
$ II old Number 18.
Es j 12 Old Number 65 -- new Number 65, old Number 19, S
is a m nit ring c ntenti n. It's been merged, and the same O
14 thing is true for old Number 20, new Number 66.
, g 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Now, when you say merged, the
/ 2 ij 16 monitoring contentions we discussed at some length, and they us h
II are pending decisions. They aren't in. x l3 18 MR READ: Thht's correct. E g 19 JUDGE KELLEY: But you are simply saying that 20 you are satisfied with the wording of the other contev . 21 and you will stand or fall on what happens to that? 22 MR. READ: That's correct. - b, O 23 j JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. 24 MR READ: Same is true for 67, old Number 21; O 25 and likewise 22 -- well 22-68 I will withdraw on the t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
327 7rl4 1 merits. O 2 c8eard conferrins) 3 MR. READ: Number 25, new Number 69, has been O 4 mersed with the monitorins. 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Excuse me. j 6 MR. READ: Yes. R P. 7 JUDGE KELLEY: I feel troubled about something. 3: [ 8 Judge Carpenter raised the same point. I want everybody -- d d 9 to understand the same thing with regard to admission of 10 the joint contentions , and the point I want to make is this , E 11 and I'll just say this is the way I understand it, Q is l 3 12 Take management capability. A lot of 13 Q g contentions -- in fact, we list some fourteen or fifteen l 14 contentions here as being -- as underlying, if you will, 15 the management contention that came in, j 16 Now, that does not mean in my mind that as 17 everything in those fifteen contentions -- every line and h I8 every word is subsumed in the management contention so
# 19 that you can come in and say well, here is ,my evidence on 20 such and such a point add then the objection is that is not 21 in this contention. Oh, yes, look at the old one.
22 Well, this isn'.t just a string citation of 23 fifteen contentions as I understand it. They may have 24 some historical significance if you are trying to find out 25 the meaning of something, but the operational language is ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
328 Frl5 1 in the joint contention that was -- that was in fact O 2 adegeed and some of the materia 1 in chese -- if you witt -- 3 ancestral contentions is not in -- O 4 MR. READ: I am fu117 aware of chae. Your Honor. e 5 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. But I wanted to be 6 j 6 sure we all were. 7 MR. READ: The contentions are sufficiently -- a j 8 the joint contentions are sufficiently broad that -- that d ci 9 they have encompassed the things I was really concerned
$ 10 about, and I am perfectly willing to accept it.
E
$ II JUDGE KELLEY: Management 2.s a broad contention.
is j 12 It's true. But I wanted to be sure. Is that consistent 0 - 13 with your understanding? l$ 14 (Board conferring) 15 MR. BAXTER: It's the applicant's understanding. j 16 Mr. Chairman. These are substitutes. vs 17 MR. BARTH: Staff understands it too. 18
@ MR. EDDLEMAN: There are understandings between E
19 various of us and the applicants, so if he says he is going g n l 20 to stand on the exact words right now, then I don't know 21 what that does to that. I think it changes it, but I'm 22 not sure, and I'd like to at least talk to him before I say i 23 that I assent to what he just said because that is not my 24 understanding. 25 MR. BAXTER: There is no change in anything that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. l
329 7r16 I I told you before. lO 2 MR. EDDtEMiN: That is the assumpeton that I wes 3 operating throughout. I find a lot of times that the O 4 essumption that wee seraightforward17 chvious to you g5 doesn't seem to get stated in a way that means the same j 6 thing to me. I spent a lot of time this morning asking a 7 you does it mean I can do this and do that and you said j 8 of course. Yes. And s) on. And that's what I'm talking d f9 about. If you say that is identical to your statements 10
- y here, then I don't have a problem.
2 II 4 MR. BAXTER: It is, is g 12 MR EDDLEMAN: Okay. So that is what I'm saying. S O I have notes on what I said was okay, and I might reference lm 14 that if they say it's not, - 15 JUDGE KELLEY: I think we are clear on this, j 16 The reason I raised it really was when you said you referred as
!$ 17 to an old contention, Mr. Read, and you said this is merged M
15 18 in the new one.
# 19 MR. READ: Um-hum.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: And you look at it and say I don't 21 know if it is or it isn't -- because all I understand is that 22 the old one is an ancestor, and this is a substitution that 23 , took place. 24 MR. READ: Um-hum. 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead. Go ahead. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
330 7rl7 I MR. READ: I think for practical purposes that would O 2 mean that the contention was withdrawn on the face of it. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: It's no longer operational in a O 4 1egal eenee. It's the 30tne contencion. Thee is the 5 operational contention. 3 6 MR. READ: But as you pointed out I believe, if R b 7 the issue came forward as to what exactly this contention
] 8 meant, I would at that time feel justified in referring a
ci 9 back to my original contention and saying here is what I 10 understood it at that time to -- II
$ JUDGE KELLEY: I think that would be legitimate is g 12 as a point of argument. Yes.
3 O2' MR. READ: All right. Can you -- can someone I l$ 14 refresh my memory as to where I was? 15 MR. EDDLEMAN: 69-23. f16 MR. READ: That has also been merged with the I7 monitoring contentions as have Numbers 24, 25, now 70, 71. h 18 JUDGE CARPENTER: This is where I'm having 19 8 trouble. You say it's been merged with instead of being 20 replaced by. That's what.I'm asking. I'm getting the 21 feeling that all of these which are very particularized 22 have become incorporated, long, long, multipart contentions 23 : by use of the word " merge". p 24 I am not very clear about what you mean by the i 25 word " merge".
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
331 7r18 1 MR READ: Subsumed. 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Superseded? 3 MR. READ: Yes. O 4 JUDGE xEttEY: Okay. I chink I can eccept 5 supersede better than subsumed. .
$ 6 MR. READ: That is not --
R
& 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Is superseded okay?
A ..
] 8 MR. READ: Okay. Fine.
d 9 Number 72 has to do with radiation health effects ,
$ 10 which I understand it will be considered in the staff's 11 environmental assessment of operation. Therefore, I is y 12 would like to defer that one till that environmental .
E ~ Q 13 assessment. l l 14 MR. BARTH: Your Honor, our objection to this l $ g 15 is that radon is hanging over a construction permit before i a:
;j 16 the appeal board, and it does not seem appropriate for this w
g 17 matter here. 5 M 18 JUDGE KELLEY: I understand. Go ahead. We i: y 19 will decide that.
- n 20 MR. READ
- If I could, Your Honor, I'd like to 21 withdraw 73a at this time and return to 73b at the end 22 l Q since there might be some spirited discussion on that.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: 73 must be in the supplement. 24 Is that right? 25 MR. READ: No. It's 73, small a. There is a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
332 7r19 1 small a and then a small b there. O 2 JUDGE KEttEY: Oh. 3 MR. READ: Okay. And if I could, I would like O 4 to withdraw 75 and at this time return to 72b when 1 5 ] *inish because that way we can steam through the rest of - l 6 the contentions and then just return to 73b. 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead.
] 8 MR. READ: 74 has been merged, superseded as d
ci 9 you will, with the steam generator contention.
!; 10 Number 75 is awaiting the staff environmental 3
=
Il statement, so: I ask that that one be deferred. 4 a p 12 Number 76 I'm willing to withdraw on the merits S 13 of it, l$ 14 Number 77 is redundant. I'm willing to withdraw 15 that one on the merits, and the last two contentions are j 16 -- 78, 79, old 32, 33, basically go to cost benefit and us l x 17 to the extent that those are discussed in the final { 18 environmental statement. I'm willing to defer those E 19 g questions, and Number 0 I already spoke somewhat to that, 20 and that is basically for the consideration of the board 21 in considering the other contentions and -- 22 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 23 MR. READ: And -- 24 JUDGE KELLEY: It's basically a legal argument, 25 is it not? ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
333 7r20 1 MR. READ: Yes, Your Honor, it is. I don't O 2 really feel like discussing that at the moment. 3 Number 73B. The staff and the applicants or Q 4 I guess essentially the applicants in their response. e 5 MR. BAXTER: Excuse me, Mr. Read. I have not 5 '
$ 6 caught up with the end of your list. If you could just l R I
& 7 give me just thirty seconds.
M j 8 MR. BARTH: And I did not catch what would d
> c; 9 happen to 80, Your Honor.
z h 10 JUDGE KELLEY: 80 was withdrawn and B we are 11 going to talk about. is j 12 MR. READ: Mr. Barth asked about Number 80. That S ~ 13 is essentially a legal argument for the consideration of
$ 14 the board in considering the other contentions, and I am E
15 not advancing it. I will withdraw that as a contention as j 16 pertains to the Harris plant per se. as 6 17 MR. BARTH: Thank you. l
- Y
{ 18 MR. BAXTER: I just had one comment on Number 78 0 g 19 which Mr. Read asked be deferred. We took the position n 20 that this is a challenge to the new need-for-power rule and 21 we would ask that a board ruling be issued on it. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: We will consider it in that light. 23 MR. READ: All right. I 24 JUDGE KELLEY: And you wanted to go back to -- 25 l PR. READ: 73b. I believe that -- I believe I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
334 7r21 1 this is also covered -- I believe -- as far as I know, this O 2 has covered everything that was in my May 24th amendments 3 as well as to the only one that was outstanding for O d discu== ton i= 73b-e 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Without looking again at May 24th, 5 j 6 did that elaborate on contentions already here in large R
& 7 part?
A 8 8 MR. READ: Yes. This was one addition. O 9 JUDGE KELLEY: And that would bring us down to C[ z o . g 10 this one? 11 MR. READ: Um-hum. 73b if I might. I am not is y 12 really sure what -- how I should address this. It says -- i 9 13 if I might read it into the record that the section on l E 14 radiological impact of routine operation, Section 5.2 of 15 the ER is inadequate because it fails to consider the 16 radiation and,other health effects likely to result from 3l us y 17 the routine military use of plutonium and/or other a: M 18 materials extracted from the fuel used at the plant. E l 19 To the extent that'this will be considered in g , 20 the staff's environmental statement, don't know whether 21 the board would like to defer ruling on this until later 22 or what. I do feel that this is an issue that should be 23 considered in considering environmental effects of the 24 plant. 25 l MR. BAXTER: We are not in favor of a deferral, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
335 Fr22 1 Mr. Chairman. Our position was that the federal action that O 2 is retevent here under uEri is the issuance of an opereeing 3 license for Shearon Harris , and that doesn't include a O 4 pregoeat or even e contempiecion of the use of waste from 5 the facility for military purposes and in fact current g n
] 6 United States policy is against that, and under NEPA this R
& 7 is a speculative and remote impact that need not be analyzed n
[ 8 and it should be ruled on by the board, d - ci 9 MR. BARTH: - This is a fair summary of the law z h 10 as staff sees it and the contention should be denied. E
$ 11 MR. READ: May I respond?
is y 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Are you agreeing with what 5 13 Mr. Baxter said? l$ 14 MR. BARTH: Yes, Your Honor. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Any other comment, Mr. Read? j 16 MR. READ: I would like to respond if I might, w 17 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. Go ahead, h f18 MR. READ: There have been several proposals 5 19 over the past several years to use spent fuel from R 20 commercial power plants for weapon production and -- as 21 I understand it, based on the report that was issued by 22 the environmental policy center the federal government is 23 ; currently considering this alternative. The applicants 1 24 pointed out in their response to this contention that 25 current federal policy as expressed in -- I believe it is ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
336 the Hatfield amendment forbids the use of commercial spent fr23 1 O 2 fuet for weapons production. 3 However, current federal policy as we all know O 4 ie often eubjece to change and the propesats -- the meeter 5 is under -- has been under study by the government, and I'm j 6 sure some sort of plan has been developed to use this R 2 7 material for weapons. I think that in view of the fact
$ 8 that applicants -- they won't be ruling on applicant's d
d , 9 operating license for at least three years and they propose
,y 10 to operate the plant for a period of anywhere from twenty-
=
II five to forty years during which time the plant will be s lS 12 producing somewhere on the order as I understand it of :about Qg 13 400 kilograms of plutonium a year for which plutonium there l$ 14 are essentially three alternatives. 15 One is to leave it in spent fuel and store it ad I0 infinitum in a repository, and second is to reprocess it I7 and use it for commercial power, and the third is to extract h 18 it from spent fuel and use it for weapons production. C 19 Under the circumstances I think it certainly is 20 not inconceivable that -- that the government would in fact 21 use the fuel produced at the Harris plant which could not be 22 produced without the issuance of the operating license in 23 weapons production. 24 As I understand it, the government is currently 25 look bg into the possibility of -- of reopening the Purex 4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
337 7r24 1 plant at Hanford which could accept not only military spent 2 fuel but also other fuel which is compatible with the Purex 3 process which would include fuel produced at the Shearon O 4 Harris glent. 1 be11 eve the competibitter requiremente ere 5 that basically it's used in zirconium, tubing, in 202 g a 3 6 pellets -- and I forget what the third criterion is , but R
$ 7 all three criteria apply to Shearon Harris, so based on s
] 8 those considerations that any environmental view of the d -
l o 9 effects of the plant, the operation of the plant, would have 10 to consider military use of the fuel. II Mr. Read, now from what you have
$ JUDGE BRIGHT:
is g 12 said, I gather that your only problem is with military use Ol 13 of the plutonium. 1e thee correct 2 l 14 MR. READ: As I understand it, Your Honor, the E 15 government has undertaken a draft and environmental impact j 16 scatement of the breeder program which is the other l I7 possibility for future use of the fuel beyond placing it in I h 18 a repository for permanent disposal. I I9 JUDGE BRIGHT: Well, do you think that the g 20 breeder reactor is a military use of the plutonium from 21 Shearon Harris 2 22 No. Q MR. READ: It isn't. 23 , JUDGE BRIGHT: Well then, I want to go back to 24 the original question and be very clear on this. 25 MR. READ: Um-hum. l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
338 f . 7r25 1 JUDGE BRIGHT: As I gather it, your only problem O 2 here in this conteneton is mi11eary use of the p1utonium 3 that can be extracted from the Shearon Harris plant. Is C 4 that a fair statement? g 5 MR. READ: In this contention: Yes. 9 3 6 JUDGE BRIGHT: Okay. Thank you. 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. That brings us to the 3 8 8 end of the Change ELP contentions. Right? O c 9 Yes, Your Honor, it does.
, MR. READ:
l= 10 - MR. BAXTER: Sir? II Let me just say that the board
$ JUDGE KELLEY:
a l 12 very much appreciates your willingness to evaluate your O!' @ 14 contentions as time goes on and things happen and documents come in and things get said and you change some and withdraw 15 some, but it very much expedites and assists the process to j 16 be willing to reassess and pull back the ones that you don't as I7 want to push. There is plenty here to debate about even h 18 when all the -- even when a lot of contentions for one reason O 19 r another get withdrawn. So thank you. E n 20 MR. READ: You are welcome, Your Honor. I think 21 all of my substantial concerns have been addressed, and I 22 think on behalf of Change that Change feels the same way. 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. That will leave us 24 in terms of a major piece of work Mr. Eddleman's contentions 25 that will I guess start after a ten-minute break. Let's ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
339 hr26 1 take ten minutes. O 2 (A recess was eauen) 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. We are back on the record, Q 4 and I believe this brings us to Mr. Eddleman's presentation
.o 5 of his contentions. Let me just try this out with you, b
$ 6 Mr. Eddleman. We asked,you for your list of twenty and N
8, 7 you gave us twenty and the next twenty. Some of the a j 8 twenty very probably have been pulled up into the joint e . c 9 contentions by now. 10 MR. EDDLEMAN: I have a list checked off that way, h 5
- II 4 sir.
's g 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. So do you want to proceed S
Qg 13 on the list of twenty minus those and then we will just keep l$ 14 going as you -- as you see fit I guess. It leaves us with 15 a lot of contentions , and we will have to see how much we j 16 can cover, but we will certainly get over a good bit, as 17 MR. EDDLEMAN: I know that, Mr. Chairman. I had l h a: M 18 thought -- don't want to keep the board around just for ma, E 19 and I have so many contentions including a goodly number 20 that I don't feel I can withdraw. I have piles of bases 21 here if they want to cite bases, but I thought I would go 22 over these twenty and the next twenty if we can get to them 23 , and any more that we can get to including any one that 24 anybody has any particular concern with, and I would take 25 up questions and per the conference call of June the 3rd, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
340 7r27 1 which the transcript is still at the LPDR. O 2 dUDGE xEttEy, tet me c1arify. rh, transcript 3 of the telephone call? O 4 MR. EDDtEMAN: Teteghene conference calt of June 5 the 3rd I believe. -
$ 6 JUDGE KELLEY: There isn't one. Did I say there
- R b 7 would be?
j 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: I thought there was a reporter on d 9 the line. Somebody was asking what your name was, and I h 10 thought there was a reporter there.- E
$ 11 JUDGE KELLEY: No. In any event, I think it is y 12 was the next day we issued an order, and the basis of the 5 13 call which I think incorporated substance of it -- but the l
5; 14 short answer is that there is no transcript of that call. 15 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. I didn' t understand that, j 16 Thank you. as 17 At any rate, to try to make a written response i f18 based on board questions and other questions and thinking E 19 that goes here to most of them that we don't get to, I don't 20 want to tie things up. We have motions to get to, and I 21 have a couple of preliminary matters that I think have to 22 deal with largely the way the applicants responded to what 23 is a contention and the background of them, and I think it 24 will take me five or ten minutes. O 25 ' JUDGE KELLEY: I think we indicated before -- but ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
341 7r28 1 let me state again. Here we are at twenty to three and we O 2 propose to go this afternoon up eitt five ,1us, sut we are 3 also quite prepared to come here tomorrow morning and spend I O 4 eeme more cime discuseing your concentions. 1 wane -- 5 while on the one hand, not comenting as to going over g 9 3 6 every single one, I want to give you a good shot and give , 7 us a good shot at the contentions and so on, and we are not . A
] 8 by any means bent on finishing today, and you will have time d
d 9 to voice your concerns and make your points. o 10 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, I appreciate that, h
$ II Mr. Chairman. I was just trying to see if it might be more is
( 12 efficient for me to make a written response later and also O 5' have yet another filing deadline with the Utilities l$ 14 Commission at five o' clock tomorrow. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: If you have done prioritizing in
- g 16 your own mind and you get over those that you think most us I7 need oral discussion here and you make your major points f
C 18 and think you can make the rest of it by written submission,
- 19 then maybe we can finish today. We are not against that.
20 MR. EDDLEMAN: I would like to, 1 21 JUDGE KELLEY: But we are willing to go either 22 way is all I'm saying. l 23 Okay. Why don't you go ahead. 24 MR. READ: If I might interrupt for just a 25 second, Your Honor. With regard to the motion that I l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
342' 7r29 1 filed earlier at the beginning of this proceeding -- 0 2 JUDGE xEttEY: Yes. 3 MR. READ: -- I have talked to Mr. Baxter, and O 4 he indicates that he isn' t really ready to argue that motion e 5 at this time, and that would be acceptable with me if some - h 3 6 alternative mechanism, either by a conference call or R
& 7 whatever, could be arranged.
il j 8 JUDGE KELLEY: I had a couple of questions I d ci 9 wanted to ask. I think it's reasonable for Mr. Baxter g 10 to have further time since he just got it down here to file B 11 a written response, and I suppose we could get on the phone is l9 12 and if that seems to be indicated, I don't think it's 13 crucial that we get to it here. l$ 14 MR. READ: Okay. 15 MR. EDDLEMAN: Mr. Chairman, if you are going j 16 to do that, I would like to at this time adopt that motion w 17 that Change filed as mine. I don't know if I am allowed to I h a: M 18 do that in NRC practice, but I concur with its basis, and I k 19 would like to see it adopted. 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Any comment from Mr. Baxter or 21 staff? l 22 MR. BAXTER: No. O 23 MR. BARTH: No, Your Honor. 24 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. We will consider you O 25 I a cosponsor of the motion. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
343 7r30 I MR. EDDLEMAN : Yes, sir. O 2 JuDcE xEttEY: so eha11 we proceed with Mr. Edd1eman 3 then at this point? O 4 co ehead. 5 Okay. g MR. EDDLEMAN: If I may be allowed to 9
@ 6 say just one little facetious thing starting off. I was R
7 referred to as a cleanup hitter early on, humorously speaking [ 8 as a cleanup hitter for the Natural League here. We c.s ci 9 realize though the Applicant's League is ahead seventy-five 10 to nothing in this game at this stage, but the Natural II
$ League thinks that since the game goes on for eleven million is
! g 12 years in that Natural League that we have not yet begun to i O .S5 take our swinss. and here I so-b I4 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead. g 15 MR. EDDLEMAN: I want to start off by addressing a: f16 somewhat -- have the applicants really responded to what is II h a contention? This might be worth exploring. When I got 18 l into this, I didn't know a blasted thing about framing 39 g contentions. I had endeavored for some years to learn about n 20 that because I thought that I was going to be in this 21 situation at some point. 22 What I did was I basically tried to get intervenors 23 , to feed me old contentions that worked and why did they work, 24 and that wasn' t very successful. In fact, I would say it O 25 ! was uniformly unsuccessful. I must have put out twenty or 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
344 7r21 1 tjhirty contacts and gotten one or two sets of contentions over O 2 a couple of years, and nobody could really tell me what a 3 contention was. O 4 1 viewea thte ee a teerning proceee. I started e 5 off looking at the ones that I did find which were mostly b
@ 6 from Virgil Summer and Catawba and some cases in N
$ 7 Pennsylvania, and I tried to understand what made the a
j 8 contentions contentions, and why some were admissible and d q 9 some were not, and I couldn't find a logical basic that made l E 10 sense to me, you know, based on my thorough lack of legal II 4 training, but it looked to me that a lot were simple and is ( 12 short and seemed to say this is wrong with the plant and it S O would have bad consequences -- they weren't making it, and 14 a lot of the objections were that there wasn't -- they 15 didn't really say basis sometimes, but you haven't j 16 explained how this accident could happen or why it would us 37 h happen and so on, but I think that has something to do with 18 the length of some of my responses.
# I'
! Also in my references and so on I noted 10 CFR 50.32 g 20 which is about incorporation by reference in the FSAR and it l l 21 says you can do it provided such references are clear and 22 specific; and if that is the definition of clear and specific 23 that the applicants are abiding by, I think it's highly 24 variable because if you look in there, there are some 25 things where they just say we have experience with such and l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
345 7r32 1 such. They don't cite the studies or name them and some of 2 them name a whole document or say that is taken care of in 3 WXXX, four digits, and so on; and so when I was trying to O 4 understand whet specificity wee, e 1oe of it, 1 seid, we11, 5 if the FSAR is no more specific than that, that is about g n
@ 6 how specific to be; and that was part of my basis .
8 7 E I also in the old 10 CFR 2 I recall some little s Q 8 subsection that said that even those framed by lawyers d 9 should be read or interpreted fairly broadly by the boards, 5. g 10 and I looked through Mr. Runkle's copy and couldn't find it. II I don't know if that's been changed; but at any rate, I am is l 12 not relying totally on that. O!I CP & L make this very interesting argument that since I l$ 14 am an energy consultant and a teacher and helped technically 15 with the case in '79 -- basically I read the technical j 16 documents and spewed stuff back out to the lawyers when they as 17 need it,that gives me some unusual or better qualification h f18 than the average person in drafting contentions, and to me 0 19 g it's a good example of their level of logic here. It n 20 completely contradicts the kind of arguments that they are 21 making about me not showing nexus to say -- well, in numbering their responses to me, they say he hasn't shown why this O 23 failure here means something to it; and they advance no 24 basis whatever that I can see that being an energy consultant 25 or a teacher or anything gives me an ability in highly ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
346 9 Pr33 1 technical legal pleading and contentions. O 2 ror exangte, xr. gayne, who 1 ehink is a good 3 attorney -- and I am not trying to impeach him, but I asked 4 O him what is a good contention, and he said he didn't know, a 5 Even. Judge Kelley said he only knows them when he sees them; E j 6 but maybe that is too broad -- and I really understand there R
& 7 are things that are like that; but what I'm saying is that X
$ 8 for CP & L to claim, especially whenever I get up to testify d
ci 9 as an expert, they advance the theory that says he is an E g 10 intelligent guy that went to ,a nice institution years ago, 25
=
y 11 but we are darned if he has any particular expertise at all; is y 12 and then, of course, if they want to insulate their house, 3 e p, 13 they might ask me a question; but that is beside the point. U
@ 14 But they produce a completely contradictory theory, l 15 and what I'm trying to say is that I tried to frame contentions gj 16 based on the best I knew -- and it wasn't much but since then
! d g 17 I have gotten ahold of a lot of the NRC cases on contentions, l $ l { 18 and the AIABs showed contentions that to me are at least as O g 19 vague, and I know everybody else has an opinion on this -- n 20 and almost anything that was put into this proceeding and 21 that a lot of them, the board would give a possibility of 22 revising later on or revising within a certain time limit 23 and so on, and while I don't propose to revise merely as 24 many as I put in here, I think that this is relevant to ! O 25 , what is a contention and what should be admissible, and l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. l
347 7r34 1 that is the statement that I basically stand on on that. O 2 1 have down at the ena of my etatemene at the very 3 end I'd like to say something about copying of the service O 4 list because I have great difficulty with that, and I have e 5 asked CP.& L to help me out, and they said that certain b j 6 things are too expensive to do and some things are too -- 7 might get the documents out of their control. I offered [ 8 to pay them for copies, and they haven't quite established 0 q 9 the cost of them or whether they can do it, particularly z h 10 the amendments to the FSAR and ER. I need a copy of that. 5
=
Q II I've gotten to the point last night when the is j 12 Xerox machine broke down, the librarian jumped right on it S Qg 13 and tried to fix it for ten minutes -- or five minutes and
@ 14 they couldn't, and I got down on my stomach and with one 15 of their nail files, supporting myself on my stomach, with j 16 my head, shoulders , and arms completely off the ground and as h
17 reaching into the machine as far as I could go and pulling m M 18 the thing out to get it fixed and running, I said the hell O g I9 with this; it's worth money to me to get the copies I'd 20 like and CP & L will help me, and if they won't, I'd like to 21 say something about the service list. At the end I will deal 22 with that. 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me just interrupt and ask 24 Mr. Baxter. Copies of documents forthcoming -- well, let's 25 take amendments to the FSAR and ER. Do you have any ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
348 7r35 1 objection to supplying copies to the intervenor? O 2 (rause) 3 MR. BAXTER: I thought that, leaving aside O 4 other kinde of liceneins correspondence. 1 thoughe that e 5 the local public document rooms were set up for the FSAR h , @ 6 and the ERs . We had not provided copies of the original 7 documents to intervenors. A 8 8 (Pause) c.5 9 Q[ MR. PAYNE: We would like to know when and what 10 material is coming to -- just to find out -- to get some is 11 idea of what they are doing and when they are putting them y 12 in. - 5 13 MR EDDLEMAN: I have stood for a couple hours
@ 14 at a time and --
2 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Let's go one at a time. I just , j 16 got a question to the applicants about supplying these l ^ g 17 documents. I would actually like to look at this myself. y 18 Can we take a thirty-second pause? O g 19 (Pause) n 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Back on the record. 21 I'd like to refer you to Pages 39 and 40 of the 22 decision dated March 5, 1982, in the Catawba proceeding, 23 copies of which I believe were sent to the LPDRs, and I 24 believe there was a motion made and granted in that 25 proceeding which did this. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
349 7r36 1 Well, a motion was made as follows. That the O 2 intervenere be served with copies of a11 retevane documenes 3 generated by the applicant and the staff in connection with 1 Q 4 this operating license proceeding. This would include 5 most significantly amendments to the FSAR, other formal
$ 6 technical exchanges between the applicant and staff, l R
& 7 emergency plans generated by state and local authorities, s
8 8 draft environmental impact statements, staff SER as d d 9 supplemented; and that order was entered and objected to . i h 10 and objection overruled and it stands in that case; and I'd 3 la 11 like you to look at that order and see whether it causes g 12 you -- and the staff too. I'd like the staff to look at 3 the same rder and see whether you have any objections to O 13 l$ 14 it and perhaps you could include it in your posthearing 15 filing in the near future. j 16 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman, I must say that while as 6 17 I guess Mr. Eddleman brought this matter up with Mrs. Flynn 5 { 18 today, this is the first time I have been made aware of the A 19 , problem; and I think, as I mentioned yesterday, we are i 20 always open for discussing problems with petitioners . 21 The proceedings will move faster if we do that in advance 22 and have time to consult with ourselves and our clients 23 and get back to Mr. Eddleman, 24 JUDGE KELLEY: The more you consult and consult pJ 25 early, the better off we will all be, but I would ask you to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
350 7r37 1 look at that order. O 2 MR. 3 xrER, nas the caeawsa certified that 3 objection to the appeal board? 4 O JUDGE KELLEY: No. They were asked to, and they 5 declined. They can seek direct certification of that order y a
@ 6 if they want.
, R l
$ 7 MR. EDDLEMAN: I would like to say that the ER 3
$ 8 amendments which I am not sure were in this list you read d
d 9 were among my concerns. 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes, they are. II
$ MR. EDDLEMAN: I'm sorry, is g 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah, It includes that. .
l MR. BARTH: Your Honor, I think from our point O l$ 14 of view it does not go to the -- to the matter at issue. 15 We will serve copies of documents of our own source to the ij 16 applicants upon those that you admit as intervenors here, v5 I7 We don't need an order for that. We will certainly commit 18
@ to do that.
E g 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Staff-generated documents the n 20 staff would serve? 21 MR BARTH: Staff-generated document which we 22 send to-the applicants in this proceeding, Your Honor. lO 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, in any event, that 24 sounds good; but in any event, would you look at the order 25 thoroughly that I am referring you to and see whether that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
7r38 1 includes anything that you object to or omits anything you O 2 think ought eo be inc1uded. 3 MR. BARTH: Yes, Your Honor. I have. That is O 4 what I'm erving to evotd decause che commteeion in Caro 11na e 5 Power and Light, Shearon Harris, CLI 80-12, 11 NRC 514, E
$ 6 very clearly held that the licensing . boards had not been 7 delegated authority to direct the staff in administrative s
j 8 functions. I see no reason for us to get into this kind d 9 of a discussion. We will commit to provide the papers to l E IC these people voluntarily. II
$ JUDGE KELLEY: I would have to look again at a
g 12 I don't think it has anything to do with that decision. 9 ' O what I'm talking about, but I will look at it. l$ 14 I am asking that the staff'and the applicant 15
. look at the Catawba order and advise this board of any j 16 objections that they have to it.
as 17 MR. BAXTER: In our postconference -- h 18 JUDGE KELLEY: And we will set a date for that. O 19 MR. BARTH: Can you give us the date of the order, 20 sir? 21 JUDGE KELLEY: March 5, 1982 22 MR. BARTH: Thank you. 23 MR. EDDLEMAN: Shall I proceed on my contentions? 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I think you were through 25 l various introductory points. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
352 7r39 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, I have one -- well, maybe 2 two introductory -- but maybe I should save the next 3 question till we get to 758, but what does " withdraw" mean? O 4 If I withdraw a concention, does that mean 1 am seying thet e 5 I'm not going to pursue this in this case? U 3 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Basically. R
& 7 MR. EDDLEMAN: It doesn't mean that I'm saying 3
g 8 that it's no good or there is no validity to it'l 0 ci 9' z JUDGE KELLEY: Doesn't have to. 10 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, okay. Then whenever I is II say I withdraw something, I don't mean tbat it's no good, l 9 12 It's just that I don't think I can pursue it under the Og' circumstancee. l$ 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Sure. You may decide as a 15 practical matter, you may decide as the case is shaping up 16 that you have a lot of good contentions, but you just can't I7 h litigate them all so you drop a few. You just withdraw f18 them. You don't have to say they are not good. That is e 19 g the end of that, n 20 MR. EDDLEMAN: And like if the board is going 21 to rule on the ones that are, quote, unquote, challenges 22 to the rule or alleged to be so, I think I will just let 23 the board rule on them rather than withdrawing them. 24 JUDGE KELLEY: That's all right. 25 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. Let's see. With respect ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. i _ _
o
> 35.3.
t I a, Fr40 i to the matters of financial qualification -- and I don't have 2 that list here -- but the, applicants have their list of what t 3 they think is my financia#1 ' qualification --~ and I think the
. ,/ f O 4 eteff has eome eart of orsentzee.u ,on it, and1uoJ1dlike -
. w e 5 toleteverybodyknowthatIama'hartytothisap'p2h.--
b ' j
.r 6 I don't know what -- a IIgal action in the D.C. Circuit g ,
o . -
"., 7 Court of Appeals , Dcecker NumberdF2-1581 I believe the g i sv _
.7 ; . ,-
8 8 titleisNewEnglanei'CoalitiononNhclearPollutionetal 4 o 9
-{' > l ,
h5 V-af g vs. NRC, challenging their adopti.on o'f this ' financial ,P.
\ f, g 10 i
J rll qualification. '$ ? *
' U! ' ,
- f, N!
i i i '} 5 II At any rate, my/ Ettorn'ey,i.s William JordarL III, ' S
,. . (', /i ,
j g 12 ' D.C. ,- [ a Harmon and Wise, 1725 , S]treet ,4 North,hesh..,f Oi'E Washinston.D.C..'2co6s;;ebgneo.umserriid;>>833-sco-- s
.?? ' " 1
,,Y
' . s r
I , w 14 and I would direct any. qf your ques'tions abogt that case ' b ', , . I 15
- g to him; but I'm letting you iknowif you k53 w[ I will ndt,', , I v l.
m . f t , a
. */ - i 16 '
si discuss this in any detail because I think the suit -- the' 4 w I7 , h g NRC rule which $he boardj says. they. are bounf,bp will take
# i' j
M 18 ' _ care of it., ,'i ' ' l F / 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah, I think that's right. The \ {" 20 rule is there,'i.and welir,e going to follow the rule -- well, . c
, 4e , ,
- s. -
21 as a practic ma'trer unsil the commission tells us to stop',,0_,
*/ :.. : - t 22 and they would j do that presumably if they losn the case. -
l ,' .
/ ,
i 23 Otherwise we'will follow it. O ', < i ;, e _ .: -
-? r / l In other words', it's what the 24 MR. EDDLEMAN:
O 25 commission says an'd not what the court s qs thatf $s relevhnt .
\ . .
.( 1, ;
it ALDERSON REPORTING COMRANY, INC.
~
/ V -
I
'# au "
..a .-
354 Tr41 1 here? O 2 JuDcE xEttEY We11, 1 am not meaning to suggest f 3 that boards go around ignoring court decisions. We are l O 4 ware of them too. We are their immediate delegates and e 5 look to them for guidance as to how to react to court
!'16 3 rulings.
,)f k7 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. Let me start in on my M
/ '~* ), $ 8, laundry list then. Number 3. What did we say?
, ;'q -
Number 3 is superseded by (
$' 9 Superseded is the best word?
$ 3 ' 10 the joint contention on management capability. f-11 Now, let me just ask, has that been stipulated
) 5 is
[., g 12 to? I think it was. i 3 j 13 JUDGE KELLEY: I believe it was. Okay. 8
. l ,14 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. Number 4. I have a hard
. /M 15 time keeping my papers organized, but I will do the best I j 16 can; but, Number 4 is at Page --
, as 17 ' MR RUNK1E: 46, b;1 h
$ 18 MR. EDDLEMAN: Thank you, h
g 19 MR. RUNKLE: CCNC has adopted some of these n 20 contentions, and I will get involved in only those that 21 we adopted if I have something to add. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: That sounds okay. At least 23 provisionally. 24 MR. RUNKLE: Yes. 25 MR. EDDLEMAN: It seems that this may be ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
p . .. ... 355 7r42 1 considered a challenge to the rule because we are only O 2 considering sing 1e fa11ures2 aowever, what 1.m getting ae 3 is in trying to decide what kind of actions are possible O 4 et the plant. you have to take into account these factore, g 5 many of which have*to do with the way Brunswick was n 3 6 constructed, the way Harris is being constructed. The R 8, 7 ICS the applicants have told me is not a thing that they a j 8 have there but it is a computer system. I believe in my d ci 9 628 amendments I was saying well, computers can cause an g 10 error even when they are not safety equipment by sending E Q II a spurious signal, and so at any rate I'm gc'..g to leave 9 m j 12 one to the board. I think there may be a basis to get E Oi' rid of it, but I will leave it to the board. l$ 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Any comments? g 15 MR BAXTER: No. x ij 16 MR. EDDLEMAN: Number 7. as I7 JUDGE BRIGHT: I guess my problem here -- could h x Ci 18 you make a very short statement? Not necessarily that that 19 is all we will consider but a central idea of what your h n 20 commission -- your contention is? 21 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. I'll try that. I would q 22 say that due to CP & L's construction failures as V 23 evidenced by what has been observed by I & E at Harris -- 24 well, CP & L and also construction problems; mean that -- 25 I well, CP & L's construction and operating problems at . ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
356 7r43 1 nuclear plants mean that there is a need to address accident O 2 sequences in more depth because the defense in depth concept 3 on which nuclear safety is based assumes that most of the O 4 1eyere win be genere uy fu ny funceimat.
; 5 What I'm saying is that CP & L is fairly unique N
j 6 and the Harris plant being their next plant is unique in R E 7 that they have had all these problems that are not unique j 8 but special. They have had all these problems and they 0 - C 9 need to do a better analysis than you would need at an - g 10 ordinary plant that was operated by a utility that had a 11 better record. I think that is about as good as I can do, is l 12 (Board conferring) 13 Q MR. EDDLEMAN: And then for basis I cite their
@ 14 construction and operating at Brunswick and the I & E 15 inspections at Harris. For example, the failure to gl 16 control the pipe hanger welds, as 17 JUDGE BRIGHT: Okay. And then all the rest h
18 of this here is a backup? That is you. You are actually E g I9 making your case here? n 20 MR. EDDLEMAN: It's like I said about what I 21 thought a contention had to be. I probably put in more 22 than I needed to. As I understand it, a contention only 23 needs to put the applicants on notice generally as to what 24 they are defending against and raise an issue that is 25 worth something in the hearing. They say cognizable. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
357
- 7r44 1 JUDGE BRIGHT
- Well, that is specific enough so O 2 they know what they are up against, and ehere is a prob 1em 3 that I have in reading your contentions because there are O 4 so many things included in it I don't know exactly which 5 ones you intend to really actively pursue and which dnes j 6 you said well, look, this is true or has happened and R
& 7 therefore we should accept this contention.
K 8 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, I tried to narrow this down, d ci 9 and I can probably do better in writir.g later if necessary.
$ 10 JUDGE BRIGHT: I think that will do it.
E j a 11 MR. RUNKLE: I would like to draw the board's j 12 attention -- that multiple failures resulting from a 5 13 single occurrence are considered to be a single failure,
!Y 14 and that is Part 50, Appendix A, so when it refers to 15 multiple failures, that is --
g 16 MR EDDLEMAN: I think I used the language as ti 17 common mode failures, and that is, of course, what I'm
/
{ 18 talking about. A { 5 19 (Board conferring) 20 MR. BAXTER: Mr. Chairman. 21 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes? 22 MR. BAXTER: While we are hearing -- we have the 23 same difficulty, of course, that Judge Bright did; and we 24 are hearing a slightly new answer to what we answered in 25 writing. It's difficult for me to say I rely on our papers I
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
358 Fr45 1 when I heard something a little bit different today. .I (') 2 thought Contention 4 was simply for reasons I didn't quite 3 understand an allegation generally that multiple failures, 4 (]) something beyond the single failure criterion was needed g 5 in the safety analysis for Harris. Today it's asserted 9 3 6 that there is a problem with the construction that should R
$ 7 require assumptions of multiple failures beyond what the a
j 8 regulations require. O c; 9 I haven't heard it, and we would oppose the 5 g 10 contention. E .
$ 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Does the staff have i 8 l g 12 anything to add?
5 13 MR. BARTH: Nothing, Your Honor. []} l$ 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Number 7 I guess is next. 15 MR EDDLEMAN: Number 7 says that the safety j 16 analysis, safety evaluation report, should incorporate a w g 17 comprehensive failure modes and effects analysis. I { 18 think it's best to defer that until they come out with it. E g 19 They might actually buy what Mr. Vastakus has been telling n l 20 them, and that would make it moot. l 21 JUDGE KELLEY: That should wait the appearance l 22 of the SER? Q 23 ! MR. EDDLEMAN: Right. 24 MR. BAXTER: We are not in favor of deferral. 25 JUDGE KELLEY: You feel there is enough information? l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
359 ,
- 7r46 1 MR. BAXTER: I think he should be able to formulate O 2 his contention based on our application.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, are you saying, Mr. Eddleman, i O 4 chae your reel focue is soins to be on the SER ana you are a 5 willing to withdraw with regard to the staff -- to the h
@ 6 applicant's papers?
l 7 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, no. If that's what he is s j 8 saying, I have read some of the so-called failure modes and d ci 9 effects analyses in the FSAR, and I don't believe they are g 10 adequate, but in order to specify it in the detail which I 11 think Mr. Baxter would like to be satisfied -- and possibly is 12 the staff -- I would have to do it in writing, but I do not i 5 Q 13 agree based on what I read in the FSAR that those FEMAs: are lt 14 sufficiently comprehensive and sufficiently anchored, 15 sufficiently supported. j 16 This is one where, you know, I might drop a lot us d 17 of them; but this looks to me like it's really a crucial E { 18 issue in terms of whether the plant is going to be safe, O 19 and I will probably drop most of the others before I let g n 20 go of this one if it turns out to have some -- some meat i 21 to it in terms of their analysis. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: One thing that might bear a little 23 talking about at this point because it does I think concern 24 us in terms of how the process works. We had contentions 25 filed as of I believe May the 14th that several petitioners ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
360 7r47 1 including yourself filed some later documents and I believe O 2 for the most part at least the applicants and staff had 3 simply responded to them and -- okay -- and then here we O 4 are today, end one cou1d ergue anything that came in efter e 5 the 14th was quote, late and has to be looked at under the b j 6 factors and all the rest of that. R 8, 7 I don't know that we are much disposed to go s j 8 through that exercise now, but it's another matter to leave d C 9 this conference and then go back to the drawing board and, g 10 you know, try again. I think we have got the things and 11 they stand submitted. Whatever problems they have -- they S y 12 are being raised and we will have to decide. That isn't E Q 13 to say that you can't later file late contentions and get l$ 14 it in, but we can't go through a process whereby we are 15 sort of continually recycling and never getting to a ruling. j 16 . MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, sir. as 17 JUDGE KELLEY: I think you follow me, m { 18 MR. EDDLEMAN: I do. And I'm not proposing i: - 19 that we do that. What I was saying, Mr. Baxter suggested g n 20 that I don't have any problem -- didn't suggest it but it's 21 a question whether I had any problem with the applicant's
'"i "'" = d** """ "*"'" """ ""d ' d -
O 7"'" 'h*7 23 have to stand on that on the record, Judge. It's in the 24 board's discretion. I will go with whatever the board says. f 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I understand that. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
361 7r48 1 JUDGE CARPENTER: Mr. Eddleman, responding to your O 2 introductory remarks about what is a contention, you just 3 made the comment that you had read the failure modes effects 4 analysis in FSAR. I am not put on notice as to which ones [] e 5 you read and which ones you think are good, bad, or I
@ 6 indifferent; so it's hard for me to understand what it is R
8., 7 you are contending. 3
$ 8 MR EDDLEMAN: I understand that, Judge, d
ci 9 JUDGE CARPENTER: Whether it's all of them,
$ 10 some of them.
11 MR. EDDLEMAN: It's very difficult for me. is j 12 In the first place I am not sure I found them all. For
. 5 13 example, when they bring in amendments to the FSAR, they
, @ 14 change the index. to each volume, but at least prior to 15 Amendment 3 they didn't change the main index. If I j 16 wanted to find out what was changed, I either had to us N 17 intercept that thing before it was put into the book or 18 else I had to look through every volume to see what had E 19 been changed. g I am not sure I found all the failure n 20 modes effects analysis . 21 In fact, one of them is referred tc6 as a 22 reference somewh'ere. I wasn't able to -- this is part of 23 the consequence of having to go back and forth to the 24 libraries and copy things off and spend hours at the 25 copying machine doing that. I wasn't able to get it all l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
362 fr49 1 down. I would say to you -- okay -- part of this is that O 2 1 simp 1x -- 1 den.c think anybody cou1d handte that vetume 3 of material -- okay -- in the amount of time that we have O 4 got. I mean CP & L took years to prepare it and the staff
=5 will take years to analyze it, but the petitioners are h
j 6 supposed to prepare contentions based on it in four or 7 five months I guess. K l 8 This is what we had and with it out of our e ci 9 possession in effect, it's off to the library, but the g 10 library has certain hours it's closed. It was closed for
=
q 11 a week in May, completely closed. I could get the is j 12 documents there in Chapel Hill -- and I did, iii 13 But it's very hard to deal with this, and I llii 14 did the best I can. I don't believe that FSAR is designed 15 to form a basis for pleading contentions. It is basically j 16 CP & L's pitch to the NRC, yes, we are good and give us the as 17 license. h 18 JUDGE CARPENTER: Yes, but you are now looking-O 19 at it and saying it's deficient in some way, and my point g 20 is broadly stated as you just expressed yourself, what we 21 might get for testimony is the whole FSAR verbatim. 22 MR. EDDLEMAN: No, sir. With respect to failure 23 modes effects analysis. Right. Right. Of course, the 24 other thing is sometimes when I am reading for hours and 25 hours and I will look at this and my mind says, look, this ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
363 I 7r50 1 doesn't make any sense; but I'm tired enough that I don't O 2 have a comprehems1ve note of this is wher I ,, reading 3 here or this is where I'm reading there, and this is what O 4 is wrong with it. re s hara for me to figure out what is y 5 wrong. I have the same problem with the FSAR and the ER, 9 3 6 and I am not asking this as an excuse, but I am saying this
^
c.
$ 7 is a problem that I actually face.
M
$ 8 It's a practical problem. How do you make sense d
ci 9 l ot;t of that document? 10 JUDGE CARPENTER: Well, it isn't that it's the h i E 4 II most proper example, but it is a clear example. Instead a g 12 of saying in their preamble management -- the management Q 13 contention as far as I could see in the introduction in a b I4 sense, rather than simply asserting that you have examined l 15 one or two or three -- or however many you feel comfortable j 16 with -- failure modes effects now, and it appears to me they as 6 17 are deficient in the following ways, and that puts the s 5 18 applicants on notice as to what he has to defend himself O against, and we understand what it is that you want to 19 20 address to this board. 21 MR. EDDLEMAN: I understand and I wish that I had 22 done that and, you know, I had to do all my own copying, 23 my own typing and so on. O 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8c1 364 1 JUDGE CARPENTER: I don' t want to delay this anymore. O 2 I suse simp 1r wanted eo be responsive about your comment 3 about what is the contention. I think it's easier to define O 4 whae is not a c = een u e th - what is c= ten u = . 5 MR. EDDLEMAN: Thank you. I agree. g 9
@ 6 May I take number fourteen and fifteen slightly G $ 7 out of order because that will keep us flipping through the j 8 book in order?
d ci 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
$ 10 MR. EDDLEMAN: Number fourteen. I think the E
II applicants and staff hold that this is a challenge ta the is l 12 rules because need for power can't be considered. I say 13 Q and I stand on it that I'm not challenging their load 14 forecasts. What I am asserting is that in terms of operating 15 the plant it would certainly be nice if they had a market ij 16
. for the power and I'd like to refer you to the testimony
- l I7 of CP&L's witness Span. This is the transcript of the h
z I It starts in at 1731, and his construction permit hearing. 19 8 testimony isn't numbered, but this is attachment five to 20 his testimony which is bound in at 1731 in that transcript, I dockets 5400 through 403 in 1977, where he gives the price Q elasticities of demand. And I won't belabor it. It gives 3li them in the range that I said here - actually higher than Q a lot of parts than the range I've said here, and what I'm 25 sa is o te % p h ne of de eff e ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8a2 365 1 is, wham, it's in the rate base and the rates a,re going O 2 to so ug and that has an effect on how much execericier 3 People can sell. And if the amount of electricity they O 4 can se11 soes down, ther st111 have to cover that fixed o 5 cost because the big thing at the Harris plant is going to b
] 6 be the fixed cost of it in the rate base, and, therefore, Et & 7 if sales go down the rates go up even more which makes the s
j 8 sales go down even more which gets them into really big d o 9 trouble fairly fast. And I think that you might be showing g 10 mercy to them if the NRC can do this by not giving them an E j 11 operating license so they won't get themselves into this B j 12 mess. That's the statement 'sf that contingent. E - Q 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Doesn't that still get you into
! 14 load forecast when you're talking about business --
15 MR. EDDLEMAN: No. I'm assuming load forecast g 16 is correct, but they haven't taken into account what it's us 6 17 going to do with their rates. s l { 18 JUDGE KELLEY: So the rates go up and you say the E g 19 loads will go down because people can't afford such high. rates? M 20 MR. EDDLEMAN: Their witness says so, too. Okay. l 21 Wel1, I'm not going to argue it. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 23 Any comment? 4 'NEILL: O MR. We don't have anything to add to our 25 final. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I I i 366 8c3 1 WDGE KELLEY: Mr. Barth? O 2 Ma. >Aara, we have nothing to add, Your aenor. 3 Earlier you suggested if we had something to add l O 4 " =houta c=11 it to your =tteatio= to so r^=ter-e 5 WDGE KELI@Y: I'm just being sure. Okay. U 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. Number fif teen. Now, let's h R R 7 see. The basis of this was before they filed the s j 8 amendments and before the rule was changed on need for 0 . ci 9 power they presented ~an analysis of costs and benefits, b g 10 By the way, they say, you know, you confused one E g 11 unit with all of them. I remember copying that out of a thing B y 12 that was bent over and I didn't see that because some things 5 g 13 were four units in the right-hand column. In fact, as far l$ 14 as I recall,that page didn' t even say per unit per year, l 2 15 but then they have some of them as per unit and all in the g 16 same column. It was pretty confusing. But the point of that as ti 17 is, I need to ask a question about this one because it l i M 18 basically alleges that their cost benefit analysis is O g 19 seriously in error, seriously enough so if you counted the e 20 costs of the plant that hadn't been sunk yet that it 21 probably loses you money to operate it. And I understand 22 the NRC's passed this rule. What I need to know, and it 23 ; may n6t be a simple anhwer is, before the rule was passed 24 how much of this might be heard? When are the sunk costs determined for the determination of the costs and benefits, 25 l AL.OERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8c4 367 1 the operating license stage? Because the table that they've O 2 f11ed and the information ther f11ed takes it basica117 from 3 the year one. O 4 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm not sure. I don't think I know e 5 the answer to your question. I'm not sure. They.used to
?
$ 6 litigate need for power in operating license cases. I could E
R 7 never understand why. But I don't know the answer. I'm [ 8 sorry. Do counsel? Can you be helpful at all? d ci 9 MR. BAXTER: No.
$ 10 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, in that case I'll just leave E
j 11 this one to the board. And I do have put together some of is e y 12 the parts of an affadavit and petition already and I hope to do S
' ' " "^** **** r ""
O " "a " ** "" Y " ""55'"***' 3"***- h 14 time if you can do it better. I think I can do a little l U 15 better if I take my time. g 16 MR. RUNKLE: Why in the ER in the first place is us
!i 17 there any mention of any costs and benefits and load if 5
i !B 18 we cannot challenge them? 5 { M 19 MR. BAXTER: As we explained yesterday, that 20 environmental report was filed before the commission passed 21 this rule and we are going to be amending the cost benefit 22 section in the near future. 23 MR. RUNKLE: By removing? 24 MR. BAXTER: It won't be removed altogether, but lots 25 ' of features of it will be. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
368 8c5 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: By the way, the applicant suggested 2 that I wasn't aware of some things when I wrote this. I 3 wrote these contingents about these in rough order that O 4 they.re in the amendmene here, and it was on1r on may the 11eh l 5 I think or May the 10th after the library reopened that I ! g e' 3 6 even found out from an accession list or otherwise that they R
$ 7 filed that, that changed it back to two units and so on.
M
] 8 So, you know, I wasn't trying to fool the board or pull the d
ci 9 wool over the applicant's eyes or anything. I was relying
$ =
i g 10 on what was out there. E 5 II But I would like to call your attention to part of is (5 12 amendment two to the ER, specifically table 8.1.1-1, which is Q 13 an estimated benefits of SENPP. And I'll be brief. l$ 14 It states that the proportional distribution of 15 electrical energy per unit 1.96 kilowatt hours industrial, g 16 1.33 residential, 088 commercial, 0.02 highway, .11 public v5 17 authority and 1.22 for resale, a total of about five and a h 18 half kilowatt hours. And I'm sure that's a typo, but that
# 19 g got past them in an amendment, so I think there's some basis 20 for my statement that they were using inaccurate information.
21 Many of these, as you have Number 37 is next. 22 O ,,,,,, ,,, ,,per,,,,,sy ,3, 3 ,1,,co ,,em,1,, ,,s,e1 h 23 ' effects. I believe that was stipulated in. 24 I don't have a lot to add to what I wrote. I 25 I think number A is the one that I think is important here, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l 8c6 ; 369 1 particularly, you know, it may have need to be deferred in O 2 119 ht of what the nac says aboue esrcho1oeica1 stress, due, H 3 years ago I was in a car accident and the person who was O 4 dea 11ne with me saia what are you soine to do for gain and e 5 suffering?" I said "I'm glad I'm alive. What do you mean b d 6 what am I going to do for pain and suffering?" He said e 7 "usually they give you three times the value of your medical n . l 8 treatment and your monetary loss for that." And I said r) o 9 "well, you know, we'31 see."
- i h 10 But the point is that when somebody dies of cancer, E
5 11 and a number of folks in my family have, it is not a simple ri 12 thing. You wake up and you fall over dead or you die in 3 O la your sleep peacefully. You die rather slowly over a long l$ 14 time usually and it's not a very pleasant experience. And it 2 15 seems to me that that's a cost and that's an environmental 5 j 16 impact of these deaths that I think everybody admits that us p 17 some deaths will result from the operation of a nuclear plant, E { 18 and the production of the fuel for its operation. I think 0 19 everybody admits that. They argue about how many and so on, g n 20 but I think in everything that I've seen peop1e have never 21 considered the pain and suffering of these people, the pain 22 and suffering of their relations and so on. For example, O 23 , being a teacher -- 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Can I just get clear -- 25 l MR. EDDLEMAN: Thirty-seven. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 370 8c7 I l JUDGE KELLEY: Right. Thirty-seven is what you're O 2 . 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: Page 106 at the top is where I am, O 4 Judee. 1 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. And my question is, given the g . c'
@ 6 stipulation N of the joint contention on hoalth effects, R
& 7 are you now just focusing on things that you think are 8 8 not in the stipulated contention?
d j Ci 9 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, Judge. g . g 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 11 MR. EDDLEMAN: Now, if you think this is, Judge, I is y 12 might say it is, but ... , l 5 l Os' m (no ra ai cu toa) 1 l$ 14 JUDGE CARPENTER: I'm confused now. Are you ( ! 15 suggesting that you want to propose additional contentions? ! $ I m i j 16 MR. EDDLEMAN: No, Judge. I'm standing on this one, as 17 this 37A. I'm saying, in other words, the ones that are h m { 18 superseded by the joint contention I have listed off. I l 0 I9 g believe they're like C, G, 8,9, and 10; but whatever I said n . 20 back there is what stands on that. 21 Okay. I've got some others. C, F, H, 9 and 10. 22 Q But there are some things in here that I don't 23 , think are adequately covered. I'm going to stand on the 24 wording, but this particular one, 37A I though was worth 25 talking a little bit about. I think when you consider the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8c8 371 I environmental impact of this that you don't say just these O 2 guys die or even just these guys die and their lives are 3 worth $300,000 each, but you say these are real live human O 4 beings and they die ana they suffer and the=e is eomething e 5 to that, too. It's not that they're cleanly killed or -- U
$ 6 I don't think there's any merit in killing them cleanly 7 either, and that's what I'm talking about here. And I
$ 8 basically stand on this as filed. . If they want more -
O ci 9 I think this is one that says -- you know, common sense i h 10 tells you this, if you want to risk analysis that says E , j 11 something about it I can probably dig one out of my files. i i5 l 12 JUDGE KELLEY: What you're focusing on now, if 5 r O i 13 I understand you, is the psychological stress that l$ 14 accompanies, let's say, death by cancer? i j 15 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes. The pain and suffering g 16 is the word I used, but it may be character 3 zed, but like as d 17 I said, the NRC guidance on psychological stress says you've E
!3 18 got to include this. It may be that the NRC says that e 19 g psychological stress is just worrying about it and not the n
20 actual effects when they happen, and in that case this 21 pain and suffering is something different, but it may g 22 overlap. I don' t know. 23 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm wondering myself. I don ' t 24 know the answer, but there's a recent decision which directs 25 I the NRC to consider stress. I thought that was stress ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
8c9 372 1 occasioned by fear that a plant was going to have an O 2 accidene and that sort of thing, noe gato ana suffering 3 associated, let's say, with dying by cancer. O 4 MR. EDDtEMAN= Right. 2 hat's my understanding
. *5 too, and I think it's my contention 87 on psychological d
j 6 stress that speaks to that, what you're talking about. g 7 We'll get to it.
~
A j 8 JUDGE KELLEY: But at any rate you now are d ci 9 focusing on parts that you don't think are included in g 10 the joint contention? E {s 11 MR. EDDLEMAN: Right, and I just leave the others (E 12 to the board. I think number D there's a basis in NRC O i is erans1ation 520. I managed to get a copy out of the NRC l$ 14 here now so if applicants need to look at it, NRC translation 2 15 520, it's available from the public document room for a 5 g 16 nickel a page. They may have it in their files. I don't as d 17 know. But, you know, the others that are not superseded in
!B 18 37 I'm just saying let them stand. Eight and sixty-nine I 5
19 think pretty much the same way. I mean - I don'.t know. {- . i 20 Maybe I should come to them explicitly. I'm just taking 21 the ones in order that I had, but I said that those two 22 Q were rather related. Eight is the one about fuel cycle 23 effects. I think it's pretty clear health of that effluents 24 O in that taste s3, whether taste s3.s any ,ood or noe, of 25 course -- and I am a member of NRDC and there's that court l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 1 . _ _ _ - - _ .. . . _ _
_5 8c10 i 1 case, but until the commission acts, etc. 2 I think that for a moment - MR. BARTH: 3 I got lost. How do we get on eight 4 from 37A? I'd like to follow this. e 5 MR. EDDLEMAN: I just blindly followed my list, h j 6 and if you notice where it says 8 I've done one of my R
$ 7 inundations here and said' really 37 was the prime contention $ 8 on that and 69 and 8 were related to it and I d
ci 9 just commented on 8 but I said I thought I was* getting a z h 10 little out of order.
$ 11 MR. BARTH: Thank you, Mr. Eddleman.
is j 12 MR. EDDLEMAN: I thought it was good that you O 2 i3 cou1d 11tigae the effaces of the eff1oents from the
! 14 health cycle and I proposed to do that -- UREM fuel cycle.
l a: 15 Pardon me, g 16 MR. RUNKLE: I would like to question this as 17 disposition of putting this off - deferring this contention l 18 until the commission does issue guidance to licensing k 19 g boards I think if table S3 has been kicked out by a court n 20 case I think that this is an area that needs to be litigated 21 now. Maybe by the time we. get around to the hearings it O 22 may not be, but I think that the va11dity o , tab 1e S3 has 23 been severely questioned in waiting until the commission O 24 decides I don.t think mayhe yea,s in th, ,uture. l 25 ! CTUDGE KELLEY: I don't think that's terribly ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8cll 374 1 likely. I don't believe the mandate in that case has issued, O 2 . thae if tsae.s true ae this time le has no sinding 3 effect on the commission. The commission has indicated . O 4 . artier eher miehe seek rehearing or ther mar so to the g 5 Supreme Court. I don't agree 'with your observation that i 9 j 6 it's right for us to just march on without having any direction R
$ 7 from the commission.
A
] 8 MR. BAXTER:. Mr. Chairman, I have information on d
c; 9 that. Rehearing was petitioned for and already denied by
.$ 10 The NRC along with other participants have
$ the court.
E i j 11 already filed for a stay of the mandate and the conmission's a j 12 announced that it's asked the solicitor general to seek 5 Q 13 Supreme Court review.
! 14 JUDGE RELLEY:. Thank you. Excuse me just a moment, a
15 Let's take another ten-minute break. h m j 16 (Recess) as
,N I7 JUDGE KELLEY: Back on the record. We'll resume z
{ 18 discussion on Mr. Eddleman's contentions. E 19 MR. EDDLEMAN: I believe we're at number 46. And 20 with respect to numbers 46 and 47 Mr. O'Neill will make a 21 couple of statements which I think I'm going to agree to. 22 Q MR. BARTH: Sir, for a moment. I'm trying to 23 follow this. As I look at the 20 the next bracket is 24 69, 8 and 14. I don't know where 46 comes from. 25 MR. EDDLEMAN: The parentheshs you should ignore. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8cl2 1 If you were a computer programmer you'd igncre everything O 2 in pereneheses. You have av and 14 and 15 are eakem 3 out of order. I said I was. 57's really up next, but O 4 we're soing to take care of 46 and 47 decause that's the war I g 5 you turn the pageJ. D
$ 6 Number 46 is on page 125 and number 45 is on page R
Q 7 127. E g 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. d ci 9 MR. EDDLEMAN: I apologize for any inconvenience. g 10 MR. BAXTER: Would you use the microphone, Mr. j 11 Eddleman? E g 12 MR. EDDLEMAN: I just don't like to use that 72 Q j m 13 e1ectricity. l$ 14 MR. O'NEILL: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Eddleman has asked 15 me if I would read onto the record to satisfy his concerns g 16 about the neutron shield and embrittled bolts which is -- was as d 17 the basis of his contention 46, that in fact the Harris design 5
$5 18 does not employ a single neutron shield but rather a neutron E
19 shield pad assembly consisting of four pads that are bolted g n 20 and pinned to the outside of the core barrel and that's 21 referencing USAR section 3.9.5.1, and I believe Mr. Eddleman 22 Q and I have discussed this and that satisfies his concern. 23 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yeah, but the point I'm getting at 24 is your statement a litt.le farther on. I knew it was 25 pads, but the point is that the ana1ysis says the pins are ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
376' 8c13 i going to hold that thing in place come hell or high water even O 2 if the ho1es fa11, and that's the goint. I mean, if thae's 3 true I don't have any basis for this and that's what I wanted O 4 on the record, so I'm withdrawins thae. e 5 JUDGE BRIGHT: You're withdrawing 46?
- b d
- 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: I'm withdrawing 46.
E 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. E l 8 MR. O'NDILL: Also with respect to 47, Mr. Eddleman, 0 c:i 9 I believe you were most concerned here now with respect
$ 10 to the copper content of "the welds?
E {is 11 MR. EDDLEMAN: The copper phosphorous and g 12 venadium. I think we went over that. If you just E Q 13 reference the tables that's all I want, if those tables l$ 14 show what you purport to show. I just want it referenced C 15 in the record. s y 16 MR. O'NEILL: This really references Mr. Eddleman's us d 17 June 28th amendment where he discusses the copper content of 5 M 18 the welds in the reactor vessel, and in our response to that-5 [ n 19 dated July 13th, 1982 on page 12 we give the FSAR tables which 20 set forth the venadium copper and phosphorous weld metal 21 content. Those are FSAR tables 5.3.1-7 for unit one and 22 l Q 5.3.1-10 for unit two. 23 , These levels are considerably less than those that i 24 Mr. Eddleman had some concern about, I believe. 25 l MR. EDDLEMAN: That's right. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
377 1 And just to follow up, you also stated that the 2 base metal also met those criteria for the percentages of 3 those metals. And what I did, I spoke to Sir Alan Cottrell () 4 and I then consulted various experts at MIT Department of g 5 Metallurgy, Dr. Steele from the Bureau of Standards, Art Lowe 9 h 6 of Babcock & Willcox and others who all basicall.y G
$ 7 told me if it's a .3 copper and up or has a significant amount E $ 8 of these others in it, then you have a basis for concern.
d y 9 It might embrittle much faster.
$ 10 I'm doing this to get on record the basis I'm z =
j 11 withdrawing this one, too. In other words, if this 3 12 { basis turns out to be false then I might come back. I () 13 don't think it is, but I'm just putting the basis of the
! 14 withdrawal on the record.
2 15 JUDGE KELLEY: I understand that. That's an g 16 appropriate thing to do. W d 17 MR. EDDLEMAN: And I'm withdrawing on that E
$ 18 basis.
5 19 Now, in pagination order number 54 is next, even h n 20 though 57 was earlier on the list, so I propose to turn over 21 to number 54. 1 22 This is the security plan, and to the extent that (]) 23 , it addresses 50.13, which is the rule about not being able I 24 to stand military equipment, I think the correct course for (]) 25 me is a proposed rule-making. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l 8c15 3 y JUDGE KELLEY: What page is it on? O 2 *a zoot==^*= vase 143, 3=a se-3 MR. RUNKLE: I also notice 54-2. There are , 1 O 4 two 54=- one on 9 se 139- l e 5 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes. I'm sorry. That,was a i A h 6 misnumbering, o 7 Well,.54-1 and 54-2 really deal with the same 8 problem, but 54-2 is the security plan aspect of it. And N 9 what I'm saying is I've talked to a lawyer, I've pursued i h 10 experts, I'm going to join in with the group. We're - E 5 11 thinking about getting together maybe a joint attorney and d 12 a joint expert to take a look at that security plan and 3 o O sm 13 formu ate contentions on that basis, so I think this should E 14 be deferred until we get a chance to look. W 2 15 By the way, I have experienced considerable
- 16 difficulty in finding somebody who's clearly qualified in this.
a us 6 17 I mean, just locating a person. I've been at the FBI, the
$ 18 CID at Fort Bragg and all over the place. And I asked the E NRC too and the guy said "Do you want me to shoot myself in 19 g
20 the foot?" In other words, he wasn't going to help me 21 out. In other words, what I'm saying is, I'm not sure that i 22 30 days is enough time for me to get moved on this, but I'm ! 23 , going to try to do it and I'll try to do it within a reasonable l 24 time. I think if 90 days has gone past and I can't do it I'm I 25 going to have to drop it. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
M9
~
8c16 " 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me be clear. Mr. Payne of Kudzu, O 2 I believe, was going to pursue this and his next step was 3 to see if he could find an expert and see how, he makes out 4 in that regard. Are you in concert with Mr. Payne or are 5 you on a separate track? g , c'
@ 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: I've been separate so far, Judge, but G & 7 the applicants suggested that we might want to get together s ] 8 and I think that might be constructive. Now, .I'm not d @ 9 suggesting that -- I think it might be useful. I've even z
h 10 talked about hiring another attorney. I've' discussed 11 this a little bit with the applicants and I've said, is { 12 "You'll throw me entirely out of this and make my attorney O j i3 come in ana talk for me if I'm hiring an attorney for this
@ 14 purpose", and they said probably not. You know, see --
15 if I can't look at it, and I'm not quarrelling about that. g' 16 I don't want to look at the thing. I want an expert to look us 17 (x at it, but if I can' t do it and I have to have a lawyer to ;) M 18 look at it, then they've got me in a catch-22. ,Then your l # 19 g lawyer has to represent you sin every other thing. n 20 MR. BAXTER: All right. The point was not whether --- 21 we agree with Mr. Eddleman if he retained a lawyer for the O 22 ,, comity ,1e, ,s,,, ,, ese c,,, 3, cc 1, e ,111 ,ep,e.e , 23
, himself for all other things. That's what we agreed to. ,
O 24 ,,, ,oos,,,,, ,11 ,1gs,. ,,,,,, s.,z ,,, { I 25 trying to say. l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
380 Scl7 1 JUDGE KELLEY: That seems to follow; yes. 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: So I'm just saying that I would 3 like to defer this until I can get back in contact with 4 an expert and then if I can' t manage it within a reasonable 5 time, which I think is 90 days, I'll drop it. g
?
@ 6 JUDGE KELLEY: That seems satisfactory. Okay.
R
$ 7 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. Number 57. This is an M
8 8 emergency plan, one that's pretty comprehensive and it was d ci 9 drafted under the apprehension of the Catawba thing. You g 10 got to remember when I wrote these things up I had no idea
$ II what position the staff and the applicants were. going to 3
g 12 take in here. I we .id they'd be as obnoxious as the O !m is ones in caeawho and say eae y- can't de -veing. Y 've
@ 14 got to use your x-ray vision of the future to project what's 15 in'.this document, tell us exactly what's wrong with it and j 16 not only that, work voodoo on us so that we don't correct it I7 by the time we write the thing so that you can have a l'
f l 18 contention", and I addressed that, I think, in my initial, 5 I9 g you know, pleadings starting off my contentions. n 20 But at any rate, since these folks seem to be t 21 more reasonable I think the best thing to do is to defer l 22 O es1, ,,, ,,,11 the ,1,, ,,me, ,,, ,,,1e ,me 1,,, ,,1 ,,, 23 see if I think something's wrong with it, and that's what I 24 propose. l I 25 JUDGE KELLEY: And that's really consistent with ALDERSON, REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 1
~
i, . . , f, A: ,
/
) ~
301
)j/~'
i 8c18 '
, f,
,;, / ' 9,
.. . ' 1 1 what we've said with regard 20l/the,othar contentions in this t
2 area. , , , 3 J MR. EDDLEMAN: Right. And, you know, I think it
/)
O 4 wou1dde/he1gf=1ifther'aserveiton><ewheneher.geeit, p 5 but I kncw[since it comes from 'somebcsdy else I may.. have to, 9 3 6 you know, hang out 'at the County Commissioner's office and . n n , ' -
,1 -
P1 7 get it, but I'll ,do everything I can to get the thing as soon {
;) , ,' {* < r' , \
) [ 8 as I can andJfile it. l e ( / , Ci 9 JUDGE KELLEY: I believe that applicants indicated 7: *
~
, , )
, h z 10 earlier their intention to sort of serva the.intervenor -
@ 11 parties. , / '
2 tl 4 y 12 MR. PAXTER ' , That's right. I said yesterday we i 5
- O y m
13 recognized the interest in a' hearing on this and we're I 14
@ interested in getting started, so as scon as we get it we
- m .
g 15 will serve it. l m g 16 MR. EDDLEMAN: Now, numbers 59 and 60, if I can ! d 17 take them together. 59 is on page 158. h 60 follows it on a 5 18 page 161. These two are basically addressing chang 5s 'in j g i t 19 what the CP was issued on, and according to the' NRC's rule g n 20 now that doesn't happen, so I'm just going to leave them for 21 the board to rule on. j I think they're, going to be 22 Q considered challenges to the rule. I want to challenge 23 that rule, too, but I know I have to do it in the appropriate 24 form. 25 I I really don't think that the NRC is doing the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
382 8c19 i people of North Carolina a favor by letting us lose an O 2 additional two or three billion bucks on this deal, but then, l 3 you know, it may not be the NRC's responsibility at all. O 4 "u der 54- Thi= i= dout =9e== ruet na, ett,
.. 5 I have two things to say about it. One is the applicant's b
6 argument. It strikes me as one of these nice, clever 7 legal arguments that makes sense if you follow their s 8 8 assumptions, but in another way makes no sense, and here's c.5 d 9 the way I take it doesn't make any sense. Even if they
- i h 10 have a license at Robinson and Brunswick to ship their spent E
j is 11 fuel anywhere it needs to go, and that is included in p 12 those plants' licenses; nevertheless,. if the operating license 5 Q 13 for Harris didn't include the authority to receive and store
@ 14 that spent fuel.it wouldn't come here.
2 15 Now, they applied to do this, and, therefore, I g 16 think the impacts on this area -- you're talking about the e g 17 area within 50 miles of the plant, the zone of interest, E bi 18 the impacts on this area from that table actually are 5 19 occasioned by the license having those provisions in it { n 20 to accept and store the spent fuel. 21 Now, so what I'm sayingcis, in other words, if 22 they didn't have the operating licence or even if they 23 didn't have this provision in the license, this wouldn't 24 be here, so I think it's worth considering and I'll just 25 l leave it for the board to rule on that basis.
}
, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8c20 383
; The other thing is I drafted a - let's see. It's O 2 c tied revised mddlem n 54x- Let's see te I c = 1 r 3
my hands on it. I handed them out to everybody else.
, 4 JUDGE KELLEY: I've got them.
e 5 MR. EDDLEMAN: I can't reach it. Here it is. Okay. U 8 6 This one, the written stuff down at the bottom e f7 really raises another issue, the handwritten stuff. I just
,< 8 think you can ignore that. That is the environmental N 9 effects and so on. I. can raise that at the time the ER i
$ 10 and so on come out, but I think there are two obvious z
! 11 things and one of them is explicitly referred to in my I
d 12 contention that's already come in before. That is that the z_ O l 13 trans-shipment means when you take it to Harris, unload it E 14 to store it, then you got to load it back to take it away U
! 15 wherever it goes after that, so you're actually loading 5
.- 16 and unloading fue1 twic. more than you would if you just l
l d 17 left it at Brunswick and then shipped it away from Brunswick M 18 in a unit train when Brunswick runs out of steam, so I think 19 there's an environmental impact of bringing it up here n 20 that comes from taking the fue1 up here and unloading it and 21 loading it again at some future date to take it away. And O 22 that's sasica11y addressing fue1 hand 11ng. l 23 , Now, the applicants say a fue1 handling accident has 24 minima 1 consequences, you know. Now, under Murphy's Law we'11 see what happens. I have in some of my other contentions 25l!' l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
r 384 8c21 '- ' i referred to, and particularly 628 amendment I cited the best, O 2 source I had, and I've actua117 been on the phone to or. 3 Resnikov and others trying to get the more precise cites O 4 for aose seacemenes ab-e ww ee eings can 1 eave -d e 5 they've not been tested, but I'll let that stand on its own ' 5
$ 6 merits in the amendment. But what I'1h saying is that 7 about handling twice is already in my stuff explicitlf:and I s
8 8 think implicitly the first paragraph is, too. It talks d a 9 about the -- I'm talking about the integrity of this i h 10 building in a number of these things. And all of a sudden j iG 11 your tornado missile resistent building -- and I picked is g 12 tornado missiles because that's supposed to show how tough Olis it i=- rn other words, I risure te it'11 h ad1e torn ao l!P- 14 missile then it'll also handle, you know, a pitchforld tossed 2 15 -attittorrashand0 grenade,or, you know, something else flying s
- g 16 by. You know, it has to be tougher to withstand the tornado e
6 17 missile than almost anything else.except the earthquake maybe, 5 { 18 and I think it's seismic too. I think they do have a seismic C 19 design for the pools. 20 At any rate, but all of a sudden units three and 21 four aren' t there any more, and that's changed since they Q ' 22 docketed this. Units three and four had a connection to 23 that and that connection I presume involves some kind of O 24 ogening. In face, I know it had to invo1ve some kind of 25 l opening. What I'm saying is, they might not have made i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8c21 38S 1 that outside wall there tornado missile resistent because 2 the units were going to be there, and if you've got a tornado ; 3 missile resistent containment sitting on the other side of 4 your wall why make the wall in the middle tornado missile 5 resistent too? It almost couldrt't get to it if unit three 8 j 6 and four were going to be there, except that three and four R 8 7 are never going to be there. Maybe unit two's not going a j 8 to be there, but, you know, that's the question that can come 0 ci 9 up. -
$ 10 So those are the two pieces. So I propose this j
11 as a rewording. It's not twenty-five words or less. It's s j )2 probably seventy-five words or less, but it's a rewording O l i3 of whee I think are the basis and specificity grob1em gares
! 14 of 64.
15 Mr. Baxter and I have discussed somewhat formally j w 16 which ones are the basis and specificity nok; I hope fitting g 17 in with what he wants, but, you know, I'll let him say. { 18 JUDGE KELLEY: 64X is now offered as a substitute E 19 for 64?
.g n
20 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yeah, for those parts of 64 which 21 l the applicant objected to on basis and specificity. He says O 22 it.s on1y , art of it. 23 JUDGE KELLEY: So 64X is a supplement to 64? Q 24 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes. I think it basically restates, I 25 you know, that's what it's meant to be. It would -- I can' t -- l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. m.
386 8c22 1 parts of 64 I think the applicants object to because there are 2 challenges to rules and so on. Okay. There are some parts 3 that they don't appear to object to on that basis. This is O 4 a substitute which would supercede those parts that they g 5 object to simply because they don't have basis and specificity. ' il
$ 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Is it going to become evidenced to R
R 7 us when we read 64 -- 64X in the applicant's objection to 8 8 64? Just what is the ccntention? rJ ci 9 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, 64X is the contention. As
- i h 10 to what they objected to, I think you have to go to them.
j 11 JUDGE KELLEY: I just worry about knowing what the in j 12 contention is. Do you want us to rule on 64X?
- O !m is *R. EDDtExxN= Yes, z wane you to ru1e on thee, and l$ 14 I think you'll probably rule on the parts of 64 just saying, 15 well, this is a challenge to the rule to the extent they're y 16 required for that, but I'm not sure. It is broken down.
l 17 It is A, B, C and so on, and I think there's parts, you know,
=
M 18 give you some idea of what the allegations are, and the 628 i: 19 h n amendments give some more basis to parts of it, oh, particularly 20 parts E and -- let's see -- E, F, G, H, I. I may have made 21 a couple of mistakes in this lettering, but I think that 22 x__ 64x is a1mo,t a separate ,;hin, about emer,ency p1annin, Os 23 l for this. So it will probably be deferred to emergency 1 24 planning. 25j And the reference to Dr. Resnikov's work, he l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
.387 Sc23 .-.
published a sort of a reprint of this study that's coming Q 2 t in the Fall of '82 in the Waste Paper which is a publication f the Sierra Club Radioactive Wasta Unit thing in the 3 Q 4 Spring of 1982, and I have a copy of that, and if the e applicants can't dig it out of what they're resources are 5 . E g I'll supply them one, a xerox copy of the article. 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me mention on the record just 2 7 8 the possibility, I think we now have spent fuel contentions j 9 from at least three different intervenors proposed, and the board may consolidate those in some fashion. 10 z j yj Mr. Baxter? d 12 MR. BAXTER: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, we responded 3
* '"* "***"" * " ' * " * * " " " """" '5' """ "*" ""-
O l is E 14 Eddleman had a chance to review that response we got an W 15 amended contention 64 on June 28th. We filed a response
- f. 16 to that yesterday. This one is not maybe substantially a
rA g 37 different, but it's slightly different, and we've received 18 some other papers today that I would presume are going to E 39 be addressed to substitutes. We didn't object on timeliness 9 20 grounds to the June 28th amendment, but the time has come 21 where we are going to, and neither Mr. O'Neill or I are 22 going to be in a position to respond substantively to whether 23 , or n t the basis or specificity or other legal objections 24 may obtain to these new things that are being passed out 25 today, and we're just going to have to avail ourselves of ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8c24 38,8 1 the opportunity to respond in writing and we will be raising O 2 timeliness considerations at this goine. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Barth?
- 4 MR. BARTH
- We're not prepared to address the e 5 contention at this point, Your Honor. I think it's best U
$ 6 to reake no comment. I haven't the foggiest idea what he's e
7 been talking about the last five minutes.- Contentions 8 8 are passed out every ten minutes of this hearing. N d e o 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Let's go on.
- i h 10 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. I think it's pretty clear what E
@ 11 my position is, and I think this just restates what I've g 12 already said, so I'll go on from there. Let's see. The.next
~
O l is one on =r 11== i= 78- 1 believe th t'= to== or contro1 l$ 14 Power. 2 15 I don't know, At some point I wanted to come back and 5 g 16 pick up 42, which isn't in this list in this order, but I as g 17 have something on it that I can get out of my way. May I Y i M 18 just go to 42 now? E JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah. l 19 R 20 MR. EDDLEMAN: Number 42. 21 JUDGE KELLEY: Is that on the list of the top twenty? 22 MR. EDDLEMAN: I don't think it's on that list, but - l we had a discusion about -- I've got a number of housekeeping 23 24 things. I just realized that I have promised to dig out a ! 25 thing about where the FSAR had said something about the -- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8c25 Okcy. Sorry. 3gg j Number 42 is a quality assurance thing as I consider h 2 it, and what I have is the statement that the -- JUDGE KELLEY: If there's some special reason for 3 Q 4 bringing it in at this point? e MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, so I can get this thing out of 5 E b my stack and not have to worry about where it is, and then I e 6 can do the stuff more expeditiously. 7 8 GE EM: Okay. E. c N 9 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. Yesterday the chairman kindly
- r:
10 supplied me with a copy of the NRC staff's analysis. I don't
- e z
j jj know what it's entitled Preliminary Assessment or the d 12 Organization and Management of Carolina Power and Light company iG O l 23 E 14 I haven't had a chance to review it in great detail. Just b
- a 15 when I looked at it it seemsuto summarize things mostly on 16 the basis of boxes and qualifications and even total amassed 17 years of experience in nuclear. These people have 1257 years g
b 18 of experience among them and the like. k j9 I don't consider that analysis, and they say it's
?
20 Preliminary, but, you know, I'm just sa,ing that to state 21 what my position is, but I'm not endorsing this thing as an adequate anclysis. But one of the things that I noted here t n U 22 23 on page 13 at the bottom -- or rather near the bottom of that, 24 they're talking about Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. 25 The SALP,- .lbt?s see. I think that's the systematic
, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8c26 3901 1 assessment of licensing performance review board. And I O 2 refer to the sat > in some of my updates. I think grobab17 3 'the 628 one may be the 6-5. O 4 2he CP & L gerformance of 11 censed activier during e 5 Pl ant construction has been slightly below average for plants U j 6 under the jurisdiction of NRC region two. The board attributes i 7 this performance rating to a lack of effectiveness of CP&L's 8 quality assurance / quality control program for identifying and d ci 9 correcting problems. The report noted that this problem
$ 10 area has been highlighted to the NRC resident inspector for Z
j is 11 continued close scrutiny, and that goes on to sa; that g 12 CP&L's overall performance was below average, and number two 5 O ( is excu1, tes en e a tiette dit. l$ 14 At any rate, in my 28 amendment I addressed their 2 15 QAQC analysis, and the applicant came back to me and said y . j 16 he hadn't looked at what we've got in FSAR I think it's 17 --
<ss 6 17 it's section 17.2. Now, this is at page 23. I'm really 5 !5 18 trying to get through this as simply as I can. Page 23 of the E
{ 19 June 28th amendment. It's contention 41 actually, not 42. n 20 I think 42 will fall into it. 21 Okay. My problem with that, I read that analysis. Q 22 I really looked over it in detail. 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Is that page 23? 24 MR. EDDLEMAN: It's June 28, 1982 amendment page 23, 25l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
391 9rl 1 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm looking at Page 23. b 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: 6-28-82 amendment. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: What page? O 4 Ma. EDDtEMiN: Page 23.
; 5 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm looking at --
8
@ 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: Contention 41 toward the bottom 7 Everybody got it? It gives job description and gives an s
j 8 outline of what the program does, but it does what the d C; 9 procedures were written. It basically to me -- it's a
$ 10 cartoon that says what will be done and what will be 11 assured. It's just a bald claim. It will do such and is l3 12 such. It looks like a commercial for something, but it's pJ ga 13 not a basis, and I have laid out a bunch of questions about l
@ 14 it in there that I think I need an answer to even say if the 15 thing is valid or not, and I don't think I can even answer j 16 on that basis, so anyway this really -- the Contention 41 as
( 17 amendment here on Page 23 of the June 28th amendment, what 18 I think takes this original 41 and 42 and it says pretty E 19 much what needs to be said about it, and if they say you g n 20 haven't said what the problem is, that it really needs to 21 be -- I think I do say it needs to be corrected, and basis 22 I think is provided in this NaC eva1uation of cP s t.s O 23 management, that the QA is one of their biggest weaknesses, 24 and they are constructing Harris, so I think that would be 25 a good substitute is what I am saying. Shorter substitute. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
392 2 1 Easier to review for 41 and 42 in my original, so then I O 2 wou1d -- 1 wou1d 1et this supersede those with the 3 understanding that they are -- that its grandparents or O 4 whatever and if you want to know what I mean, maybe they e 5 can shed some light on it. If they confuse you, don't b
$ 6 deal with them.
R
& 7 JUDO VELLEY: Mr. Baxter, you have responded to 8 8 the 6-28 amendmer.t' d
ci 9 MR. BAXTER: Yes, sir.
$ 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead.
$ 11 MR. BAXTER: Well, I just heard him say I think is g 12 that he was. going to substitute what he just said for all B
13 (ai5a this, and what he just said was something having to do with 3 14 construction quality assurance at Harris based on the staff's g 15 report, a: g 16 MR. EDDLEMAN: I was explaining why this amended as g 17 41 that's in the 6-28 amendment is adequate contention. 18 MR. BAXTER: Let me just put it this way. We 0 19 g responded to an allegation of FSAR Section 17.2 which is n 20 ab out the operations QA program. That's what we understood 21 the contention to be. If Mr. Eddleman wants to amend it, he 22 will have to do that in writing; and we w:.ll respond to it 23 that way. 24 For my purposes, I can't respond to that. 25 MR. EDDLEMAN: Are you saying the operation's QA ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
303 Or3 1 and construction QA are different things and they don't have O 2 enything to do with eech other: 3 MR. BAXTER: I am not going to make a sweeping C 4 statement that nothing has anything to do with anything else, a 5 but we are certainly two different programs and two -- and we b
$ 6 are not litigating here the quality assurance of the 7 construction program. That was done at the CP stage.
M j 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, I think that the ability of d d 9 the construction QA to make sure the plant is. ready to go'
$ 10 is definitely at issue and that the postoperation is a E
j 11 cartoon. It's a cartoon. If you want to defer that, then ic j 12 I will defer it. 5 13 JUDGE KELLEY: I understand the different points l$ 14 of view, and we will simply make a ruling on it. 15 JUDGE CARPENTER: Mr. Eddleman, if I can, wasn't j 16 this a case where the board must look to see that the w g 17 general design criteria have been complied with? To say 5
} 18 that the operating considerations should in some way 0 19 g acknowledge an imperfection in construction, no way, n
20 Various pieces of regulations that the applicant is 21 responsible for complying with will be complied with. 22 You see, this is qualifying back and forth. It really 23 doesn't add any strength to your argument and tends to 24 confuse the issues. O 25 MR. EDDLEMAN: All right. 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. L
394 @r4 1 JUDGE CARPENTER: Do you see my point? The O 2 construction must be up to speed and all aspects of the 3 operating system including operating procedures must stand O 4 on their own merits and the cross-talk between your g 5 consideration is more confusing -- more confusing to me il
$ 6 than helpful.
R
$ 7 MR EDDLEMAN: All right.
s 8 8 JUDGE CARPENTER: And it doesn' t beg -- you see , d c; 9 you are really begging more concern in your mind about
!; 10 some construction deficiency that should be compensated 11 for in the operation. That is not the way the board can a
p 12 look at it. . S ~ O 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: Let me respond to that.
! 14 JUDGE CARPENTER: I was making an observation E
15 in passing, not really specifically wanting to replow that j
. 16 one.
m d 17 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, if you will let me, I E k 18 think you have in effect suggested that this ought to be P 19 { n split into two things. One about the construction QA, QC, 20 which the board is responsible for being done right, and I 21 will probably have a comment about that in a while. This 22 is where the Diablo Canyon mess comes in, but another one 23 which says the operation's QA is not established on the 24 basis of what they put in the FSAR 17.2 so far is not 25j sufficient that anybody can judge whether it's adequate or k ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
395 l l 9r5 1 not. It's just a cartoon of what the procedures are. O 2 rn other words, I can say 1 wi11 accomg11sh en 3 antigravity machine, but that's a hell of a lot different O 4 than the des 81 n of it that works. a 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I think we can move on, h
@ 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: On to what extent? 41 would R
$ 7 then be within construction -- and let me just make this M
] 8 Diablo comment here because I raised it a couple times, e
c; 9 especially about sui' spondee review. The thing that z o g 10 disturbs me about Diablo -- 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Does this relate to the contentions? is g 12 MR. EDDLEMAN: It relates to 41 S gg 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead.
@ 14 MR. EDDLEMAN: So it would be better if I knock 15 it out. I can say when I got to the sui spondee one that g' 16 is what I was talking about. Don't have to say it again.
us 17 One problem at least at Harris -- I am saying 18 that a thorough and accurate analysis is necessary. 1
# 19 got the Diablo board decision where the board okayed the 20 low power. license and the board in that decision says 21 basically yes, the issue of the seismic design was raised.
22 The staff has completed its review. We aay it's okay. 23 ; That's the end of it. That was the import to 24 me of what it said in there, and I can give you the citation l 25 in writing later if you want them, but then after that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 1
396 l 9r6 1 happened as was shown in this meeting that we had with the O 2 NRC s environmental people on the 7th of April. It was 3 revealed and subsequently sent a pile of documents to the O 4 library here, the LPDR, showing in gross detail they found e 5 over a hundred errors in the seismic design after the d
$ 6 board had approved it.
R
& 7 What I'm saying is that, you know, the NRC process n
l 8 in my mind -- we intervenors are only minor helpers in this, d C 9 Now, we are supposed to kind of look over people's shoulders
$ 10 and scream if they think something is wrong and see if you 11 think it's worth reviewing, and that may help the process S
g 12 some, and the fact that we are looking at it may help the 5 ~ 13 applicants do a better job because somebody might jump on
! 14 them if they do a sloppy job on something, but in this case 15 at Diablo -- and I am not suggesting that there is something j 16 wrong with the NRC. Rather, I am afraid it is typical of us
!i 17 the NRC.
E { 18 It got by the staff. It got by the applicant i: 19 A hundred {n and the applicant's consultant and by the board. 20 odd errors, serious errors it looks like to me. Seismic 21 design of a plant that is close to an earthquake fault,and 22 a junior engineer found the first one and they started 23 checking back through it and they found more. 24 It looks like if they had done an adequate job 25 of checking in the first place they would have found that, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
397 Cr7 1 and they should have done it. I think the board 1 O 2 particularly in light of the seriousness of the fault out 3 there should have dug into this in more detail and d manded m re thorough review, and what I'm saying in 41 O 4 e 5 is CP & L has got problems. They had them for years, and b
@ 6 that is really the basis of this.
7 I think you need a more thorcugh going inquiry 3 8 8 into this QA and QC in Harris than some ordinary utility d d 9 that had a good record, and that's all I have to say. b .
$ 10 I believe that we are now at Number 78.
E j is 11 JUDGE CARPENTER: I would like to ask how long j 12 you expect to spend on that. 5 13 MR. EDDLEMAN: Would you like me to go to 84 l$ 14 first? 15 JUDGE CARPENTER: That's up to you. 3l 16 MR. EDDLEMAN: I will be glad to do it if it's as ti 17 more convenient for you. E M 18 JUDGE CARPENTER: I don't want to suddenly be O in the middle of that one, g 19 n 20 MR. EDDLEMAN: Now'again, with this one I have 21 a proposed rephrasing, and it incorporates some data that 22 became available to me after the 14th of May. This is 23 Number 84, the original Eddleman filing, and that's on 24 Page 190 -- at the bottom of 190 is where it starts and 25 it references -- it says ES. That should be ER Table 3.6.Z-1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
398 1 9r8 1 Where I say "or corrections to it" I mean corrections and O 2 updates. 3 The proposed substitute -- O 4 JUDGE KEttEY: Now, is chae eomething we got n 5 today? H
$ 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes. Headed -- it's headed N
d 7 Proposed Contention on Chemical Pollutants / Carcinogens -- j 8 JUDGE KELLEY: In view of the fact that I don't d 9 think any of us up here, probably not the other parties , o l= 10 have read the substitute, let alone focussed on it, this II is the kind of material that you have to focus on. I is y 12 wonder whether it wouldn't be better, all things better 5 Oi' that you can submit it and we will have whatever the l$ 14 applicant wants to file by way of objection or whatever. 15 MR Okay, EDDLEMAN: ij 16 JUDGE KELLEY: And then the board will do what as I7 it has to, but to attempt to explicate is not something ha: 18 fruitful. O I' g MR. EDDLEMAN: I will go along with that. I 20 really -- I couldn't understand why the applicant couldn't 21 understand what I was saying, and now that I see the typing 22 and the printing, I think that was a lot of the source of 23 this difficulty, but I -- but they said Mr. Eddleman 24 didn't say what chemicals. Where it says Page 191, Line 1, 25 l 2, 3, 4, 5, forming NH2CL, N2H2CL2, NHCL2, and NCL3 and ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
399 i @r9 1 others, I mean those are just examples of thing that you O 2 can get when you react to att that seuff, and r imagine 3 Judge Carpenter knows better than I do if there are errors O 4 in ehere. e 5 Those are the things that you can form from 3
$ 6 ammonium chlorine. Then you have other pollutants 7 pouring down the Cape Fear River, and to the extent this
[ 8 gets into the Cape Fear it will be biologically d c; 9 concentrated or it has the potential to be in the fish and 5
!; 10 even in the seafood off the coast, and that is the basis i
j 11 of this thing. is g 12 Now, the main addition -- and I'm doing this for S 13 your reference of what it says -- not arguing it -- in
@ 14 this proposed contention, the proposed replacement, is to 15 refer specifically to data that I got from the Corps of j 16 Engineers in the State of North Carolina as to what was es
( 17 being monitored around there.
$ 18 I also found that the LPDR on the -- I think
- c
# 19 it's the 8th or the f th of July for the first time -- a g
~
20 document which I hai. asked to be delivered because it was 21 missing and it's there now in the library and the 22 librarian doesn't have any idea when it came in, and it's 23 the report from '78 and '79, the monitoring report, I 24 believe forwarded by CP & L to the NEC on February the 25 8th, '82; and in there you can look at what' data they ALDERSCN REPORTING COMP NY. INC.
400 9r10 1 monitored the water for, the elements and so on, and most O 2 of them are heavy metals and the __ you know __ the gross 3 pollutants, chemical oxygen demands, suspended particulates O 4 and cotitor= decteria ana so on. xina of stanaera eture. e 5 I'm saying they haven't tested to know exactly 5 lR 6 what organics are in here, but the Hull River Assembly
& 7 did a study of that which feeds into the Cape Fear and 8
established that all kinds of industries were discharging e - m; 9 chemicals into it and that was dyes and other things like 10
$ that. They react with chlorine. When they do that,
@ 11 they can form carcinogenic chemicals which can be is 12 j concentrated tn the food chain; and this would apply to 5
13 the lake to the extent that the carcinogenics are formed l$ 14 in the lake. 15 From what CP & L is putting in, I think that j 16 pretty well explains the basis of what I am talking about, ws g 17 and I will just leave it at that. M 18 Okay. JUDGE KELLEY: Comments from the U 19 applicant? g n ! 20 MR. BAXTER: No. 21 JUDGE KELLEY: Staff? l 22 MR. BARTH: None, Your Honor. 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead, g 24 MR. EDDLEMAN: Number 78 is on Page 186.
- V l 25 MR. BARTH
- We covered that, Your Honor, at ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
401 i l Dril 1 3:59 p.m. today. ! O 2 JUDGE KEttEY: Excuse me. Lee me mention that 3 Judge Carpenter has to leave and catch a plane, but we Q 4 still have a quorum and we will proceed for a while this g 5 afternoon, and I think we may now be able to finish up, a
@ 6 so sort of looks that way. That's what we are going to R
E 7 try to do. N l 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, let me -- d ci 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Excuse me. The last voice 5 g 10 was from where? E
$ 11 MR. BARTH: From the wilderness here. We a
g 12 covered 78 at 3 59 p.m. 5 Oi1 MR. EDDLEMAN: Pardon me. Have we? I don't l 14 think that's correct. 15 MR. READ: I believe Mr. Eddleman started j 16 on 78 and for Mr. Carpenter's benefit went from there to us g 17 84 without any substantive discussion of 78 18 JUDGE KELLEY: That is consistent with my 0 19 e recollection. M 20 (Judge Carpenter left the hearing room) 21 MR. EDDLEMAN: All I will say is that except 22 for the reference to PVC cable I understand there is no l O 23 PVC control cable. That is in the middle of the page. -s 24 I will get this retyped if you want a better copy. l 25 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Stand on the submission? ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
402
- )rl2 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes. There is one thing I O 2 wanted to clarify, Judge. It's my understanding -- see, 3 I don't want to make the board come back tomorrow if it's O 4 aoc nece== r7- ta race. 1 aoa'e ac to so en7 toaser e 5 this afternoon if it's not necessary, but if I have to 6
$ 6 state the bases,or what the meaning of all my contentions R
& 7 is more clearly, I think I can do a better job of it in 8 8 writing now that I have learned more about what a d -
ci 9 contention is in twenty-five words or less. I got off
!; 10 because I thought you needed more to back it up. If you 11 can say it in twenty-five words or less and state the s
12 basis shortly, I think I can get it better in writing i 5 13 than I can do here talking, but if I don't get the
@ 14 opportunity to do that, then I would have to do I think --
15 unless you won't permit it -- is to drag the rest of my j 16 Harris file over here, which is about twice as big as I as g 17 have here now, and go through all of them. 18 (Pause) l @ E g 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me'make sure I understand you. l 20 Maybe you could restate that. 21 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, what I'm saying is that if 22 the board would permit me to respond in writing to the l 23 applicant's and staff's criticism of my contention with 24 basically a short statement -- I won't promise to be 25 l twenty-five words -- certainly half' a page or less about t l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. l
403 9r13 I what the contention is -- what does it mean, and perhaps O 2 a statement of what is the basis, and te wou1dn.t be that . 3 in every contention. If they say we think it means so O 4 ana eo end he doesn't see the basis -- and 1 am limitins g 5 this to the ones where they are objecting to basis and ' N j 6 specificity because the other things are legal arguments. 7 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. M
] 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: Then --
d C 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me be clear. You are talking 10 about a response to an obj4ction about basis and specificity? II
$ That is one thing.
is l 12 MR. EDDLEMAN: Right. 13 Q , JUDGE KELLEY: An amendment to a contention is
@ 14 something a little bit different.
15
. MR. EDDLEMAN: Um-hum.
16 ii JUDGE KELLEY: As I said before, the contentions us 17 h a: with all their virtues and faults are now before us. { 18 MR. EDDLEMAN: Right. E 39 g JUDGE KELLEY: And the papers have been written l 20 l with reference to them, and I think it's time to focus on
, 21 the contentions that we have got and decide on them one way 22 or the other as a basic approach; and if you are 23 , contemplating -- well, I think that is enough said. You 24 understand what I'm saying?
( 25 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
404 i I 9rl4 1 JUDGE KELLEY: And then I think maybe we would O 2 ask the parties how they feel about getting some further 3 submission on the contentions that we haven't talked about. O 4 MR. EDDLEMAN: Ask them if they feel it would e 5 be helpful. What I want to do, would it be helpful to 5
$ 6 the parties and the board for me to restate some o,f these R
& 7 in twenty-five or fifty or a hundred words as to what I was M
8 8 getting at? Particularly the ones they said they weren't d ci 9 sure what I was getting at and to state the basis of them;
$ 10 and if you say I can't put in anything but what was in there E .
j 11 before, I think I should be able to loop the reference or a g 12 give more detail as to what I cited so they can find it. 5 Q 13 MR..BARTH: For the staff, Your Honor -- l$ 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me get a comment from the 15 parties on the proposal. Mr. Barth, you were saying -- g 16 MR. BARTH: It would not be helpful from our us 6 17 point of view. We have matters here, and we should
=
{p 18 adjudicate them. l [ M 19 JUDGE KELLEY: What about the general proposition, j 20 Mr. Barth. It's true, is it not, that petitioners for 21 intervention put forward contentions and they don't write 22 briefs about them. Just put them forward and they then 23 are responded to by the applicant -- typically by the 24 applicant and the staff. Sometimes at some length and in 25 I some detail and there isn't any formal provision for a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i 405 l l 9rl5 I written filing of a reply by the petitioner, and we indicated O 2 in our earlier order -- order of June 4th I believe it was 3 that we had a couple of requests for permission to file Q 4 replies, and we said in effect, well, let's wait and have e 5 the prehearing and you will have a chance to reply to some h
@ 6 of the points at least. Perhaps the bulk of them. We R
$ 7 will wait and see if you want any further chance to reply M
{ 8 in writing to the applicant and the staff in the light of d
} 9 what happens there.
E 10 ' g Now, this afternoon we have heard from E 11 Q Mr. Eddleman on some of his contentions but not all, and a l 12- he is proposing to file something in addition with respect O!' 14 to soma of the contentions that he hasn't spoken to, and that's what you're being asked to comment on. , g 15 (Pause) x g 16 MR. BARTH: Ordinarily, Your Honor, I would d I7 say that this is a viable alternative to permitting the h x 5 18 comment on the staff's and the applicant's filings, but U I' g the track record of this proceeding shows that every five 20 i minutes Mr. Eddleman has come in with new material which 21 no one has seen, and we just simply cannot handle that. 22 If we take the assumption that we do not cover 23 all of his contentions, the staff will make no objection 24 to a filing by Mr. Eddleman promptly -- however that may 25 be determined -- in which he will make an effort to point ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
406 9r16 1 to an error in the applicant's analysis of his contentions O 2 or the staff s ana1xsis of his c.centios insofar as 3 they meet the standards of 10 CFR 2.714; but I in advance O 4 make a motion for the board to etrike all material which e 5 is new and not relevant to those two considerations. h 3 6 JUDGE KELLEY: So you are saying that you would R R, 7 not object to permission to Mr. Eddleman to file a reply a j 8 paper that spoke to arguments by the staff or the d C; 9 argument that the contention was lacking in basis or (; 10 specificity? Is that right? E 11 MR. BARTH: Correct, Your Honor, h is 12 JUDGE KELLEY: What do you think of that, I 5 13 Mr. Baxter? l5 14 MR. BAXTER: I think to the extent Mr. Eddleman j 15 hasn't addreased particular contentions here at the j 16 conference, I.have no objection to him addressing our as l a: 17 arguments -- that is, if we say he didn't have a { 18 reference and therefore that is not basis and he says, oh, 19 yeah, I did. You missed it. That's all right. Going n 20 out and digging it up and giving it to us at this point 21 is what is supposed to have happened by May 14th or under e s. 22 any interpretation of the regulations by June 28th, and U 23 it wasn't supposed to happen at the prehearing conference 24 either for that matter in terms of Mr. Eddleman's either/or -- 25 ! with a paper afterwards or doing it here. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
407 9rl7, 1 There have been cases where on a very few issues , () 2 the licensing board has found merit -- they have given an ,I 3 intervenor or a petitioner to reformulate in one or two ([) 4 areas, but I do not see in this particular case the a 5 likelihood of success based on oun success with severall 5 j 6 amendments already, and I think that is something that the R
$ 7 board would only come to on its own well into the process j Q 8 of ruling on the contentions if it really thought it was e
d 9 almost there in one given area, but the wording was z, h 10 inartful. 11 I mean not a wholesale invitation to redo them, a l 12 We would be starting from scratch. 13 ({} 3g MR. BARTH: I did not understand any invitation l$
~
14 by the board for any reformulation of any contentions t g 15 whatsoever. We obj ect to any reformulation of any M
- g 16 contentions totally. Absolutely object.
e l l z 17 This is no time to start there nor did I
$ 18 interpret your remark or invitation to address that. I P <
19 would not address it had it not been brought up. g n 20 JUDGE KELLEY: I think what you said was l 21 consistent with what -- the discussion we had with what 22 ({} Mr. Baxter has said. Let me go back to Mr. Eddleman and 23 see if we don't have some kind of an agreement on this. l 24 Maybe we don't, but let me try. 25 l The proposition that I understand to be evolving ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
408
/
9r18 1 from this discussion is that we might wrap up your O 2 aiscussion of contentions very shortly here and not reach 3 a goodly number of your contentions and then the understanding O'4 would be chae you woutd not file enythins etse on contentions s 5 that we have discussed this afternoon or on contentions G
$ 6 that are referred to as incorporated into the joint
@, 7 contentions,'but that with respect to the remaining 7.
[ 8 contentions you may wish to file a brief statement answering 0 9 9 argument of the applicant and the staff against the
$ 10 admissibility of your contentions? Specihl reference was j 11 made to arguments claiming a lack of specificity or basis, is 3
( 12 'MR. EDDLEMAN: 'Ihat 's correct . I wasn't trying to get any more than what Mr. Baxter said. I don't Q 13 l5 14 really understand what Mr. Barth is saying some of the g 15 time. I don't know. I should tell you what he is
=
j 16 saying about never having seen some of the stuff,before. d , 6 jl7 I don't believe that is true. yi . { 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I think a key point here -- E g 19 of course, you know the board can just rule on this -- n 20 this kind of thing, and it may not please anybody, but one
' 21 point that ought to be at least clear here I think is whether you are going to be in a mode of reformulating O
23 , contentions or whether you are in effect giving explanatory 24 commentary on contentions already before us by way of (] 25 countering an argument that it lacks specificity or basis. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
409
- )r19 1 I think Mr. Baxter as I hear him is objecting, O 2 and I know Mr. Barth is obj ecting to reformulating 3 contentions, but a submission that says.my Contention 34 Q 4 is okay because I said this and this and the other, and
.5 that is specific enough, is in the nature of argument; j 6 but it is something that the board might agree with.
R R 7 Who knows?
~
They might not otherwise see it in that light. - M 8 8 Now, is that kind of a rather limited reply d m; 9 satisfactory to you? E {3 10 MR EDDLEMAN: Yes, Judge. What I wanted to 15
=
Q 11 get at was where I understand the purpose of this order -- is
. y 12 and in this prehearing conference you said well, name 5
- 13 twenty of them. That is all we will get to and maybe l$ 14 another twenty. I thf.nk that is why I named another 15 twenty to start off with, but I don't name the ones on j 16 which there was basis and specificity, so I will have as l
a: 17 some of those left that I wasn't prepared to discuss. ! 18 If it's easier to do it this way, that is what t ii 19 g I want to do. Okay? They say there is not sufficient n 20 specificity in this. There is too. If there is and 21 here is what it is -- and I will try to be as brief as 22 possible in that. 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, let me be real clear on 24 one point. I will say it once more. I am prepared to 25 sit here tomorrow and go over every single one, and so is ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
410 9r20 1 my colleague. I sensed -- what I don't think is critical. O 2 1 don t think 1e s essential. we could wrap up today and 3 still render due process to all concerned. O 4 Secondly, I thought that it was your preference g 5 .on balance not to spill over and take half of tomorrow on 9
@ 6 that discussion.
R
$ 7 MR. EDDLEMAN: It is. It is. And I think 3
8 8 we got it worked out. I am agreeing with what you are d 9 9 proposing; and if the applicants and staff say okay, then
$ 10 I think we are done with that, and I will run through the 11 rest of my list here, and we will be done, is g 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Now, run through -- in 2i i 13 running through the rest of the list, what exactly do you
!E 14 contemplate?
15 MR. EDDLEMAN: Saying what I am going to do with j 16 each contention. I start with Number 78. , as l 17 MR. BAXTER: Of the top twenty? 18 JUDGE KELLEY: On that, that is easy. That i: j n 19 I understand. 20 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yeah. 21 JUDGE KELLEY: Fine. Go ahead. 22 MR. EDDLEMAN: So do I understand that I am l 23 getting the opportunity to do what you say? 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Sure. 25 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
411 9r21 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. Well, let me be clear on , O 2 chee. we have hea this discuesion end nr. Edd1eman wi11 3 be entitled to submit -- and we w: L1 be setting a time for l 1 O 4 submise1on taet t thina w111 aggty to ett of taem -- some g 5 additional reply argument, if you will, on contentions we n
@ 6 didn't discuss this afternoon at the hearing. This will 7 not be by way of rewriting contentions but rather by way a
j 8 of arguing the adequacy of the contentions that have already a c; 9 been submitted.
$ 10 a
~
E 11 12 c
~J a lm 14 2 15 E
j 16 us 6 17
- M 18 19 R
20 21 0 23 24 25 ! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
10c1 412 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: Correct. O 2 aDDGE RELtEr= une . Is that an accurate seacemene 3 of our discussion? O 4 MR. BAxTER= res, Mr. Chairman. e 5 MR. BARTH: I think it is, Your Honor. To tie U
$ 6 up everything, I think you also implied that the staff and R & 7 the applicant would have no further reply whatsoever. This
[ 8 is absolutely agreeable with us. There will be no reply to d ci 9 Mr. Eddleman's filing by us. - g 10 JUDGE KELLEY: . That's agreeable with the board? g 11 MR. BAXTER: I'm not waiving that if I need the B y 12 opportunity. 5 O i 13 MR. BARTH: You cannot have a renvoir forever, h 14 R-e-H-v-o-i-r. 2 15 MR. EDDLEMAN: All I'm saying is that if Mr. Baxter s j 16 feels he needs to make a reply I don't object to it. 1 as 6 17 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I don't think it will be a { 18 practical problem. So with that then why don't we finish A
.{
n 19 the list of - finish the twenty as to where you are on those 20 and we will look to your reply -- such replies as you want 21 to make consistent with our understanding; that is to say, you 22 aren't required to file repliesfcbut you may within the 23 limits of our earlier statement of the understanding. 24 Mr. EDDLEMAN: Can I get just the page of the 25 transcript that says what I can do, because I'd like to have ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
10c2 i it very clear. My memory I think is good, but I'm not sure Q 2 it's good enough that - 3 JUDGE KELLEY: I believe that -- let me ask the O 4 staff. W n't we in a matter f a few days have a copy of e 5 the transcript of the PDP? - U 8
- 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: PDR, Yes, sir. They told us at Apex E 7 they'd have something down here next week, and itdarrived 8 about six or seven weeks later, and I was looking for it all d
ci 9 the time. I called the PDR branch in D.C. to expedite it. I g 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, it's fair enough that you 25 5 11 should have a hand on this piece of paper. I'll make a si 12 note to see that you get it.
- 13 MR. EDDLEMAN: Thank you.
E
- a 14 Well, I hid already finished 78 and I'll let it stand 2 15 on its merits.
y 16 JUDGE BRIGHT: Pardon me just a moment. You say you as g 17 finished 78?
$ 18 MR. EDDLEMAN:- Well, I said I was going to let it 5
8 19 stand on what it said. n 20 JUDGE BRIGHT: Stad Lu what it said? 21 MR. EDDLEMAN: Right. 22 JUDGE BRIGHT: Would pou do me just one little favor? 23 , MR. EDDLEMAN: Certainly. 24 JUDGE BRIGHT: Would you connect up the first part O 25 !and the last part and tell me where that middle has anything ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
414 1 to do with what I think of as this contention? This relates O 2 to off-site power lossi is that correct? 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: Virtually complete loss of controlled .O 4 gewer. I benev A of these were off-site. s-eof ! l g 5 them might have been in-plant. In other words, if you o 9 3 6 cause a common mode failure of a certain kind you cause all R
& 7 the control power to go, but now that's about as clear as 3
l 8 I can make it. You said to relate what you think the c.5 ci 9 contention is and I'm not sure what you think the contention g 10 is, but if you just tell me what the middle is maybe I can 5 j 11 try to go from there. 3 y 12 JUDGE BRIGHT: Well, the way it reads to me is 5 Qd 13 that you're going to lose off-site power, bang. Now, this l$ 14 is certainly -- it happened at . Crystal River more than once 15 as I understand it for periods up to fifteen minutes. Okay. g 16 Now, that's what we have the diesel generators for, as N 17 MR. EDDLEMAN: Right. { 18 JUDGE BRIGHT: But now then you -- let's see. Well, i: - {n 19 I can kind of see how you.might use that, but then a 20 vulnerability in accident situations, you didn't say anything 21 about an accident situation up here. The short circuits 22 Q due to a use of this particular equipment, cable and wiring 23 not qualified under accident -- 24 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. I think I can try to 25 connect it up. l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. l
415 1 JUDGE BRIGHT: I thought it was just a simple O 2 1oss of off-site power. 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: I think I see what you're getting l 4 at now, Judge. The start and the end -- the end where it's e 5 task A44, section blackout of NUREG 606. Those relate 6 h 6 to the loss of off-site power. And in the middle I'm R
$ 7 trying to talk about some consequences. I recall s
8 8 contingents that were tossed out. I say you can't have this. 0
- ci 9 You just say I lose off-site power; so what? The diesel's g 10 come off, for example. Okay., But what if they don't or N
g 11 what if something else.goes wrong? Then you've got aaproblem a p 12 to deal with. 3 - Q 13 What I'm saying is that given that a lot of this l$ 14 equipment is made to older standards that were before this 15 was considered a serious possibility,'and given that the g 16 known PVC cable - I omitted out the PVC because they don't as 6 17 use it -- could be degraded and that -- there'is more 5
$ 18 explanation of that in some of the others.
E g 19 I notice I've gotten blanks up there at the top, n 20 but I believe the contention that should be in the blanks, 21 and it says the above, 77 - 77;I. guess is the main one. 22 There may be some others further above that, and if you -- Q 23 ! 77 would be the main one above that should go in there. 24 I think it is implied in what I already said on paper here. I 25 Then, let's see. I say in this little thing that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l 416 1 goes out to the side, because I think I realized the same O 2 pros 1em ehat you did or I triee to -- 1e says sefore ehis 3 ' loss of power problem was considered critical or frequent O 4 enough, design features to present -- prevent it beyond e 5 the two redundant power supply divisions diesel generator 3 3 6 and on-site DC. k7 A Now, that's what it says. Am I clearing it up? 8 8 JUDGE BRIGHT: Well, I just want to be sure that d ci 9 1 know what we're trying to litigate here, i . O g 10 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, I am saying that -- E
~
g 11 JUDGE BRIGHT: Well, are you saying that this plant 3 y 12 will go completely ape if you have a 15-minute loss of 5 Q 13 off-site power? l$ 14 MR. EDDLEMAN: ;1omething else has gone wrong at 2 15 the same time and some of these degradations can contribute g 16 to an accident under those conditions, yes, that's what I'm w i 17 saying, that that possibility is there and I don't think Y M 18 their analysis of it is good enough. E 19 JUDGE BRIGHT: {n Okay. The various components, . 20 you're saying then, for example, that switchover from off-site l 21 power to diesel generator power is going to kick off all 22 these relays and cause circuit breakers to cut off power 23 ;. to the involved control and -- 1 24 MR. EDDLEMAN: It could. I 25 JUDGE BRIGHT: -- it goes cascading down the line. l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
417 1 This is the part that bothers me. O 2 xa. zootexxx, aight. If the stuff 1s degraded 3 I'm saying that relay could be out of -- or actually, O 4 whatever feeds power to the relay could give it too much e 5 power or too little. It could short out and, wham, you 5
$ 6 don't have your switchover.
3
$ 7 Now, a lot of these common power supplies, as I A
l 8 think I noted in my 628 amendments about something else,
~
d d 9 the redundancy between, say, unit one and unit four and
$ 10 unit two and unit three, but units four and three aren't
$ 11 there anymore so they're obviously. going to have to do some 3
g 12 kind of redesign or else build those new four and three buses 3 in there anyway, and I don't know if they're going to do Oi1 l$ 14 that or not, and I don' t know if they've addressed it in 2 15 their amendments. They haven't in anything I've seen so j 16 far said, well, here's. how we're going to take' care of it as 17 ard keep that redundancy. Though I think to try to answer { 18 your question a little more, I'm saying to lose off-site r i: 19 power and this degraded equipment and connections and ! 20 circuitry are in there, I'm talking about electrical 21 equipment, then the possibility exists that it will take out 22 the control power. It will not work right. It will either 23 ; send spurious signals or not send the right signals to switch 24 it over to get those redundant power supplies in there or the I 25 diesel generator will fail. That's the point of it, that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
418 j if the off-site power goes away and it's degraded equipment O 2 and wiring, electrical equipment, can't handle that, can' t 3 maintain the supply of power that's needed to maintain O 4 the safety functions, that's what I'm getting at. I don't e 5 think they've addressed that in sufficient detail. I don't b 6 think their design and construction is adequate to it. 7 JUDGE BRIGHT: Okay. Thank you, sir. M l 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: Now, number 87 psychological stress. U - ci 9 I think that we have --
- i h 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Do we have any comment from the i $
s 11 other parties on that? d 12 MR. BARTH: Not from the staff, Your Honor. 35 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Q Go ahead, Mr. Eddleman. 13 j 14 MR. EDDLEMAN: Number 87, psychological stress. 2 15 I think that's really clear. That's got to wait. Now, 5 y 16 I'm just going to let the board rule on it. as g 17 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. W
$ 18 MR. EDDLEMAN: Number 105, exclusion area size.
5 19 Now, one of the things it says in the parts of 10 CFR 50 about {n l 20 operating license is that you've got to address changes that 21 have happened since the CP stage and one of those things was 22 Three Mile Island. 23 What I'm maintaining in number 105 -- and I haven't 24 even looked at it. I'm trying to do it from memory, but -- 25 now, I'm not trying to. I just started into page 210.
- What 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. _ _ _ ._._ -- -~ _ _.
419 i I'm maintaining on 105 is that in light of that accident l O 2 exceeding the design easis I think thae - you and the l 3 applicants and the staff have argued back that actua11y O 4 the re1e-e wasn e - overdeagn saas of re1e-e, at 1 east e 5 that they measured, or whoever measured it that they 3 j6 relied on. I think probab1y that the applicant or the staff R
& 7 generally didn't respond to the evidence of it. I'm saying a
j 8 they did it wrong. They need to reestablish that exclusion d
- ci 9 area and I make an argument in hiere and I cite NRC cases,
- i h 10 and basically I drew this out of other documents and tried E-g 11 to put it together the best I could, and any lawyering a
p 12 deficiencies are my non-lawyerly self. And, you know, I'm E O i 13 s ying I think the argument 3s good and let the board rule. l 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me ask you whether or not in 15 this contention you think -- is there an element of j 16 emergency planning here? I mean in the sense that before w g 17 you hand the current emergency planning bill, which is very { 18 new, these part 100' siting criteria, I think, serve some P 19 l l { purpose from an emergency planning standpoint as we11 as l 20 just a110wahlee releases. 21 MR. EDDLEMAN: As I understand 111 -- let me 22 O sorrow ur. Runk1..s ce,y. I think it.s prosas1y the same as 23 , thet.ene?I xeroxed and used. Okay. It seems to say when 24 you put the plant downs atsa certain--you've got to size your 25 ! exclusion area and your 1ow population zone such that certain ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
420 1 doses won't be exceeded. O 2 whae I.m saying is ther .s evidence coming out of 3 Three Mile Island, and I hope that in this basis I referenced - O 4 3UDom xantsr= Are those doses under accident e 5 conditions or doses under normal operation 2 ' h j 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: Under accident conditions, Judge. R
$ 7 And worse than that, if you look at page 211 at the top -
A j 8 in other words, the bottom of 210 and top of 211, I just ; d ci 9 copied the citation out because I think it said what I wanted z h 10 it to smy. I don' t know if that's how lawyers do it or 1I not. The board ruled and I guess that might have been is j 12 the ALAB, but it said the ASLB. They have distinguished 5 Q y m 13 between the design basis accidertts and the even more severe
@ 14 hypothetical accident required to be postulated 10 CFR 100 --
15 there's a type there -- for the purpose of evaluating site j 16 suitability. m g 17 And what I'm saying is that it's under accident 5 { 18 conditions you've got to look at thattzone under a basis of A 19
}n a worse accident then what's really considered credible.
20 And an accident at least as bad as Three Mile Island now ought 21 to be considered credible-now because it happened. I've 22 Q seen things that have very little possibilities, but they 23 happen, and that's my rationale for it. 24 And then I cite table 13.2 of the 1977 SENPP safety 25 ' and evaluation report and it says that they use design basis ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
421 I accident to do it. It's footnote one to that table confirms O 2 this as the dea doses therein are 1ess than those in 10 cra 3 100.11. So that's my argument on it. O 4 And the other thing I think about it is this,
.a 5 TID 14844 which I believe is from I;9631, and is the basis of
$ 6 this, is outdated, but, you .know, I made the argument in here.
R
$ 7 I'm talking about accident conditions and I think they ought a
j 8 to before they operate the thing because obviously it's d ci 9 not dangerous in this way unless it's operated, so I think
$ 10 it's part of the operating license. They ought to be E .
lt 11 required to set that zone and I also think, and, you know, j 12 and argue that it's not relevant, but the expanding population 5 4 Q 13 in the area -- I think I raised the question about zoning. l 14 I did, down at the bottom of the page, 211 - zoning and 15 so on to make sure that you didn't get concentrations of g 16 people in the area that would be at more risk based on a as 6 17 more realistic evaluation of what that iodine release could 5
$ 18 be under credib1e conditions and making it conservative at E 19 g 111, I think, requires by making it a bigger relief than that
\ 20 at the basis of setting this LPZ and EPZ. l I 21 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm raising a question and let l O "* """"'" 7 " ' * "'* "" " *** """"*"- " "i"' "'"* '- 23 But if in fact the low population zone for the reactor 24 was set on one basis several years ago and one reason for 25 doing that was to establish emergency planning procedures of
; ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
f 422 ; 1 l 1 one kind or another, arguably, it's new emergency planning O 2 rules simply superseded that -- in other words, you can 3 put in place an emergency planning rule that will comply O 4 with 50.42, thae s thae. I aon e know. I'm suse raising 5 the question. I don't know the answer. g j 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: I think I see what your point is, R
$ 7 Judge, but I don't think it's my point here. My point s
l 8 here is if you've got to have those things for the plan or d C 9 not and the fact that you have them now when you don't have z, 10 a plan I think proves that.
=
11 JUDGE KELLEY: My question is, does the LPZ have is y 12 any operational significance if you've got a plan under c i Q 13 50.47 which is acceptable? I don' t know. Do you know? l h I4 MR. BAXTER: I don't think it. govern,s evacuation ! t;
,@ 15 capability determinations anymore.
16 JUDGE KELLEY: What does it govern? 3[ as I7 MR. BARTH: I suppose at the boundary, Your Honor. { 18 MR. BAXTER: I believe it's used for design purposes. O I9 That's my understanding, the dose rates you're going to set at g 20 certain areas. 2I JUDGE KELLEY: In accident situations? 22 Q MR. BAXTER: And we have FSAR analyses showing now 23 that we meet those dose rates for accidents. 24 JUDGE KELLEY: I'm really kind of groping here, 25 as I think I admitted. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
423 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: I think the ones Mr. Baxter was 2 referring to are design basis, but what I'm saying here is 3 these may need to be set beyond design basis and design O 4 basis probably needs to be higher in the light of Three , 1 g 5 Mile Island. The amount of radiciodines , for example, 9
@ 6 in setting these conditions. That's right in the rules. .
R
$ 7 So here I think I'm doing what they want me to do as A l l 8 explicitly as I can. I'm saying here is the rule that's :
O c[ 9 wrong. Here's why it's wrong. Here's the credible i z o 10 scenario for it. It's either good or it's not. I'll g 5 y 11 let the board rule on it. 3: 12 MR. BAXTER: If that's what it is, it's a I c Q jm 13 challenge. l$ 14 MR. EDDLEMAN: I'm saying you guys haven' t 15 complied with the rule. That's what I'm saying.
.g 16 MR. KELLEY: I think -- let me see what's..the us N 17 step.
$ 18 Are you going to rest on your paper or do you A
19 { n have something further? 20 MR. BARTH: We have nothing further, Your Honor. 21 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 22 MR. EDDLEMAN: 112 is a steam generator that is 23 superseded in the joint contentions. Number 115 anticipated 24 transient without Scram. Page 225. Nok- I think -- 25l HEW i s has been argued about and argued about and so on for 4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
424 1 a long time, but I was establishing first off here some basis O 2 that this coord 1ead to an exerem 11 serious accidene and I 3 cite a specific document for that, and that's the pump and O 4 the borne insection r te= i= not co==iaerea =efeer e 5 related equipment at Harris, and I'm sure I got that out - 6 m h 6 of the FSAR, but I have no site to it. And other failure R
$ 7 modes that are possible, and I list off some that I think 3
j 8 might be possible and that's to say that there's more d ci 9 than one.
$ 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me ask you, Mr. Eddleman, whether E
g 11 you have any comment on this. The applicants at page 137 of a p 12 their response quote some statements by the commission in 5 Q 13 connection with the HEW's rule-making to the effect that
! 14 they think that things are' safe enough pending the completion 15 of a rule-making. That seems to imply that if that's so, j 16 or more importantly if the commission thinks that it's so, as 6 17 there is no need to litigate hapless-type events in individual E
{ 18 cases, i: { n 19 MR. EDDLEMAN: Fall, you know, by the time they 20 get to the operating license stage in the hearing maybe it 21 may very well be that this rule-making has been completed, 22 and then I'll have to see whether I'm going to have to seek 23 , an exception to the rul or whether I think their analysis 24 is adequate or whether I think the staff's analysis is 25l adequate and so on and so daybe the best thing is to defer l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
425 1 it or kick it out on the basis of whether it's a challenge O 2 or an attack on the rute-makine. I'11 1 eave it to the : l 3 board. O 4 3ooo" """: okar-e 5 MR. EDDLEMAN: Number 132. I think this one on U 8 6 the control room should be deferred. CP&L stated that , e 7 their control room design review isn't complete yet. There A 8 8 seems to be a little of that number three. When I was down N d ci 9 at the library the xerox machine broke down and all that. i h 10 I was getting some of that copied off and it seems they 3 5 11 have some kind of display there, and I really haven't had d 12 time to review it, and it's. just been there for a few days. E c And, you know, I don't think I've had adequate time to Q 13 l E 14 review it, but I think the best thing to do is just to 2 15 defer this one until that is out and in my hands and I can 5 g 16 look at it. . as ( 17 JUDGE KELLEY: We talked about this yesterday, E
$ 18 didn't we, Mr. Baxter?
5 19 MR. BAXTER: Yes, sir. There's a new wrinkle to { e 20 this one, though. Mr. Eddleman amended this contention in 21 the June 28th filing bn our response we gave ycu yesterday - - 22 You may not have had time to look at it - ,We agreed to 23 , take a reformulated version of the contention, so at your 1 24 leisure you might look at that and see whether you have 25lt any problems with that. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
426 1 , MR. EDDLEMAN: I'm sorry. Mr. Baxter, I appreciate O 2 rour ca111ne that to av attention. 3 I'd follow through with one thing else about the O 4 June 2sth while I'm at it. l l e 5 JUDGE KELLEY: While we're on 132 then could we U
$ 6 have from the staff in the post hearing filing that we've R
R 7 referred to a statement whether they agree or disagree 3 8 8 with the applicant's stipulation to this contention number d ci 9 132?
$ 10 MR. BARTH: Yes, sir.
E 5 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Could you take a look? j 12 MR. BARTH: We will do so, Your IIonor. E Q 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Fine. And then -- l$ 14 MR. EDDLEMAN: Mr. O'Neill has been thoroughly g 15 confused by my attempts to clear up this typo that's
=
j 16 referenced in the June 28th amendments. It's the one where 1 as i 17 I'm talking about -- I think it's the environmental impacts 5
$ 18 of fuel, nuclear fuel, and it -- Let's see where it is.
A 19 {n I can't find itpibutranyway the relevant document 20 that he doesn't know what it is I've shown him already. It's 21 NUREG 0889 draft environmental impact statement alleging O 2 *** "*** " ' **"* " * "i "' $" "' ""* * *"
- 23 uranium mill. I think .it' represents the NRC's state of 24 the art environmental analysis of these impacts, and that's 25 l why I put it in that contingent. And I'm sorry about the i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
427 1 typo. O 2 106 has sone away. It was sudsumed or -- 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me see. I just want to be O 4 sure about arere we re now-e 5 I had a sheet of paper with what I think were the a j 6 top twenty. Is 106 in the second twenty? l R l { 7 MR. RUNKLE: Yes. s 8 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, d ci 9 . Now, Mr. Eddleman, are you proposing to walk
,g 10 through the second twenty?
E h 11 MR. EDDLEMAN: I don't have to. I could do it 3 g 12 under the statement. There are a couple'of them that will 5 i Q 13 probably.go away. For example, number 70 ,.'- the applicants I l$ 14 think had made an objection to that. Basically this 15 refers to a kind of electricair. penetration that they didn't j 16 have and the need existed only in a few plants. They put . as
!! 17 proof of that in the record and I'm done with it. I withdraw 5
5 18 it. That's number 70. i: 19 JUDGE KELLEY: {e Number 70, you're withdrawing that? 20 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes. 21 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 22 MR. EDDLEMAN: I might just call to -your attention 23 as I skip down through this -- now, I'm not wanting to make this 24 my written comment, but with respect to 116 there is stuff in 25 I the 628 amendment about that. With respect to number six, the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
428 I Honiker v. Hendry case, there was a bench order in that case O 2 in the Circuit Court of Appeals recently that basically said 3 they just wouldn't try the matter and it's, as I understand it, O 4 on appeal to the Supreme Court from that. So that's going on. 5 -
$ Number 33 is intervenor funding. I just want the a
@ 6 board to rule on that. I think the rule is clear, but I'm R
" 7 saying, look, you know, I spent several thousand dollars on N
j 8 this already and I'm spending a lot of my time and so on. I'd d
- just like to put in my request for funding and<:say,'look, if 0 10
- j it ever becomes possible for funding I want to get it back 4
g j because I'm -- I think if I'm laying my money out -- you know, I d 12 3 o CP ELL, for example, I don' t think would have buil,t the D plant if they couldn't rate base it, so I'm just getting my ' E 14 y request in. x C 15 g JUDGE FET T RYY I know at least in the recent past
- 16
$ there's been in the NRC either authorization or appropriation d 17
- a acts that have had explicit language barring financial z
5 18
- assistance to intervenors. I'm not certain whether right s-19 j now that kind of language is in effect. If you want to check 20 it, there is some background behind that, though, that you 21 may also be aware of. The NRC had a rule-making back in I 22 O ,,1,, ,,,_,,, ,, ,,, ,,,,,,, ,, ,,,,1,,1,,,,,,,,,, ,,,
23 i decided not to do it. That's more complicated than that. I 24 l O think the short answer will be no. 25 ' MR. EDDLEMAN: Yeah. I'm just saying -- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
429 ) I JUDGE KELLEY: But we'll just have to look into it 2 a little further and -- 3 MR. EDDLEMANV All I'm asking for is the short O 4 answer. 5 y Ntimber 73 about TMI action plan I think is best 9 3 6 deferred because they haven't put in their full response to it. S S 7 I haven't had a full chance to review amendment three in a j 8 particular. I did Xerox this thing out of it last night that a 9
- f. I think are just completely cartoons. Just as a first blush they say position 2:.AC 3, CP & L will comply. And I'm hII damned if I know what that means. You know, I guess that means k they're going to try to do what the NRC said and whatever that O!'
E 14 is, but the e1a one said whatever the NRC said for ehem eo do g and then their response. Add the new one it just said will , e 9 15 g comply, will comply, will comply, and so I'm going to have to
- 16 g take some time to look at that, but I think the best thing to d
w 17 do is defer 73. m
$3 18
- With respect -- there's one of them, I'm referring t--
19 l to FSAR 1.6, that table of W-Caps, I'm not sure this is 110, 20 but let me justrm'a ke this response about it. 21 O 23 24 O 25 I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
430 'llrl 1 JUDGE KELLEY: I think we better narrow it down. O 2 We w111 get on the record with this, and 1 wou1d 11ke to 3 know where it fits. O 4 xa. zootEx^a: ves. str. I'll tr7 tee 5 me look at my index for a second. g . a
@ 6 (Pause)
R
$ 7 MR. EDDLEMAN: The one with W caps. It's a l 8 miscellaneous one, isn't it?
d ci 9 MR. BAXTER: I'm sure. g 10 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. I don't know. Number 9. E 11 I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. It just occurred to me that if is
- y 12 I was going to try to wrap it up that I should knock that 3
13 one out. Number 10 I will not comment on, but I will l$ 14 try to find this thing. 15 No, it's not Westinghouse controls. I am j 16 trying to do two things at once, and I better stop and ' e 17 do one, h b 18 It seems to me that it's probably miscellaneous 19 plant design. .It's their response to me, IBRD, n 20 applicant's response to Eddleman. 21 JUDGE KELLEY: Maybe it's something you could 22 just include in your filing. 23 MR. EDDLEMAN: Sure. I will be glad to do 24 that. I don't want to waste your time. On 120 I have 25 ! read their analysis of that type equipment. It seemed to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
431 lir2 1 be that the FSAR was much more in the nature of a summary O 2 of the resotes and atehough it described the ana1yetcat 3 methods, that was it. O 4 103. I believe there is stuff in the update e 5 that they said about sample counting. I don' t> think that b
@ 6 cures it. I mean in their updated filing. I don't R
& 7 think that cures what I'm talking about. With respect 3
$ 8 to the hydrogen release -- maybe I better put all this d
d 9 stuff in what I write. b 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, there are just a few items. E
=
11 It wouldn't be very much to add. I think it's a good idea, s j 12 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. Then I will leave it at 5 13 that. In other words, the ones I have talked about here, l$ 14 I won't say any more about. The ones I haven't that are 15 basis that are specificity are brief. Here is what it j 16 really says. Not rephrasing it but saying here is what as y 17 the basis is that I said. 18 JUDGE KELLEY: By way of explanation for the E 19 g submission. Right. I don't mean to be arbitrary, but n 20 this could be kept to a page or less double spaced per 21 contention. 22 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, I think that is a perfectly 23 , reasonable criterion; and if I exceed it on one, I will 24 make it a half page on the other so that it averages out on all of them. I will commit to that. 25 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
432 lir3 1 MR. O'NEILL: I would like to ask Mr. Eddleman O 2 to withdraw Contention 51 which he and 1 have discussed 3 and he has recognized that based on FSAR 5.3.1.6 there will O 4 be six specimen capsules in each reactor vessel and there 5 was some ambiguity in the FSAR. That is a fact, and I g n
@ 6 believe that satisfies Mr. Eddleman and he is willing to 7 withdraw Contention 51 3
8 8 MR. EDDLEMAN: You are saying that is a fact. O ci 9 There will be six capsules in each one, and I had the z h 10 specific rule and said this doesn' t seem to comply with 11 the rule. It seemed to imply to me that there were six 3 g 12 for two units. He said it's six per one unit, and under 5 ' 13 that basis I withdraw 51 l$ 14 JUDGI KELLEY: Very well. 15 hR. BARTH: Mr. Chairman. j 16 JUDGE KELLEY: Excuse me. I think that -- this as l x 17 then covers your contention subject to your filing the
!5 18 papers we discussed, right, Mr. Eddleman?
P 19 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes , I think so , Mr. Chairman, {n 20 JUDGE KELLEY: I was going to suggest that we 21 stretch for five minutes so you all could think about just 22 what the loose ends are, and we are all a little tired and 23 we might forget to do something unless we all sort of focus 24 on that. We will do the loose ends when I get back. 25 MR. EDDLEMAN: Don't cheat me, but the June 28th ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
433 11r4 1 amendment has something to do with the diesel generators, O 2 and 1 chought 1 wou1d bring that reference to your attention. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Off the record. O 4 (Discussion off the record) g 5 (A recess was taken.) 4
@ 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Go back on the record. I think R
$ 7 we can finish up in the next few minutes. We don't have A
8 8 a lot of items. d y 9 I wanted to go around the room and have people z o .
!; 10 raise things and remind the board to do something. Let E
11 me just mention a few things that we do have in mind. We a y 12 spoke from time to time in the course of the prehearing more 5 d 13 I think today than yesterday about particular items that lE 14 would be submitted in writing after this prehearing but 15 fairly soon so that what was submitted to be considered by j 16 the board in deciding the issues it has to decide. us 17 We didn't set a date for any of that. I suppose h 18 it would be sin.pler to get the same date for all or most of 0 19 g that material. I do not have before qie -- or clear in my n 20 mind exactly what all the items are. They are Mr. Eddleman's 21 filings by way of response. 22 Oh, there were a number of things. Maybe I will 23 . ask your help at this point. Mr. Eddleman, we know what 24 we are talking about because we just talked about that. O 25 - MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes, sir. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
414 lir5 1 JUDGE KELLEY: What about it? A time for you to O 2 f11e that peger. Do you have a suggestion 2 3 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, because I will be tied up in O 4 the Cr & t rate case for a week or two. 1 would need thtrev e 5 days. I would like to do it at the same time that everything 5
$ 6 else comes in. I would do it sooner if the rest need to.
R E 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Eddleman suggests thirty days, s j 8 Do we have anything due from CCNC or from Change ELP of that d ci 9 nature? g 10 MR RUNKLE: For CCNC I needed to get an answer E 11 back to you on whether we were going to follow up on the is y 12 physical security plan. 13 JUDGE KELLEY: Oh, yeah. l$ 14 MR. RUNKLE: Our board meets on the 18th. I can 2 15 drop you a letter next week sometime. You should have it by j 16 the end of next week, as b' 17 JUDGE KELLEY: A letter to us with copies to the 15 18 other parties? 5 19 MR. RUNKLE: Sure, { n 20 MR. EDDLEMAN: Just to double-check, I said 21 ninety days from now that I vould have it or drop it. My 22 business of pursuing the security plan. I think you said 23 that was okay. 24 JUDGE KELLEY Let me take it one at a time. 25 Surely the day that Mr. Runkle is suggesting next week is fine. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
435 llr6 1 Okay. Let me step back to Mr. Eddleman. You wanted more O 2 time to explore the availability of experts and related 3 problems; is that right? O 4 MR.EDDtEMAN; Righe. My grebte 1s thee 1 con l
- e 5 make phc,ae calls to people, but sometimes they don't return U
3 6 them, and some people that I have called a dozen times for G
& 7 -- half a dozen times I call them and they say yes, we will 7.
[ 8 get it to you right away, or I call the FBI for something, d ci 9 and they say we will get back to you, and they don't, and I g 10 have to call them day in and day out for weeks, and I need E 11 ninety days to track all the stuff down. Not because it will is j 12 take me ninety days but because I have to depend on other S O 1 people to locate an expert. I think I have the lawyer problem l$ 14 covered. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Let me just proceed and j 16 then we will get back to that then, but I would like to have us ti 17 ninety days on that question and thirty days on your other 5 { 18 filing. E g 19 MR. EDDLEMAN: Right. n 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Do you have any filings, Mr.* Read? 21 MR. READ: Well, we discussed the matter of the 22 welding quality control. 23 'i JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. 24 MR. READ: And I had suggested forty-five days 25 on that. - II ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
436 llr7 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: I hate to bring it up, but I think () 2 I'm going to have to. I have a contention that goes to that 3 where I actually named an individual in reference to record (]) 4 before the North Carolina Utilities Commission; and if I am e 5 going to follow up on that, I would propose to do it on the h 3 6 same schedule that Mr. Read is basically. R ,
& 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Which contention? Do you know I
] 8 what number that is?
U d 9 MR. EDDLEMAN: I don ' t have -- A h 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Just so we know what it is. E 5 11 MR. RUNKLE: One of the three contentions. 6 12 Probably 3D maybe. 3C. E 13 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, that is superseded I guess. ({} l$ 14 If you are going to require me to come up with names of 2 15 people to pursue it, I think it would fall under 3, and I j 16 can take my time, e g 17 JUDGE KELLEY: I want to keep this very clear just 5 M 18 who is going to do what. Let's be careful as we discuss these E
, 19 items.
M 20 As I recall it, Change was going to look into the 21 allegations of the people they been in touch with and they 22 were going to come back and supply a list of specifics p) 23 without names, and then we would see where we were going to 24 go from there. That was what we were going to do. g-)s 25 Correct? ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
437 llr8 1 MR. READ: Yes. O 2 JUDGE KELL 2Y: And if you have a similar contention, 3 Mr. Eddleman, I guess you might likewise do that if that Q 4 sounds like a mission you might undertake. e 5 MR. EDDLEMAN*: Fine. And the time frame is -- b j 6 JUDGE KELLEY: We will work on that. I have R 8 7 suggestions of thirty, forty-five, and ninety days on three 8 8 different items. Maybe that is okay. I am not saying that d ci 9 isn't a good time frame.
$ 10 Now, let me go to the applicants . First of all, 11 yes -- yeah, is y 12 MR. RUNKLE: We are not finished over on this 5
13 side yet. lti 14 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. 15 MR. RUNKLE: Righ t . When Change was making their
.'j 16 presentation was to file a brief on the fuel storage issue as 6 17 and the conservation --
f18 p JUDGE KELLEY: On the applicability of Table S4 19 to that situation. 20 MR. RUNKLE: Yes. 21 JUDGE KELLEY: The Conservation Council raised 22 the same issue. 23 MR. RUNKLE: I can either submit a joint brief 24 with Change or submit one ourselves or just feed him
- 25 information. I mean --
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
3 438 Ilr9 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Why don't you try to work together; l O 2 and if you agree, fine. rf you den.e, you can each submie 3 something; but if you come to the same point of view, you O 4 can fue a joint geger. 5 MR. READ: We would suggest forty-five days on g n 3 6 that,.Your Honor. R
@, 7 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Are there other M
g 8 items on this side of the room? d - d 9
. (Pause)
E 10 MR. EDDLEMAN: I am not certain there are none, but h
= .
$U is I can't think of any more.
, y 12 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Four so far. Well, first 5 O 13 n substance let me ask you two things, Mr. Baxter. First l$ 14 what have you got in the way of issues in an effort as you 15 are taking away from here? j 16 MR. BAXTER: We are going to respond in writing as 6 17 to some of the new revised amended contentions Mr. Eddleman E y 18 provided today. O g 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Right, a 20 MR. BAXTER: Those were all filed with the board. 21 Is that my understanding? 22 MR. EDDLEMAN: Yes. I passed them out to 23 , everybody who is here. 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. 25 MR. BAXTER: We are going to respond to the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
439 I i llr10 1 Change motion served yesterday morning -- renewed motion on I O 2 the separation of the hearing. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. O 4 MR. BaxTER: we are soins to respond to verasragh D e 5 of the combined health effects contention that was - 5
$ 6 distributed yesterday morning by the group. That is the c 7 one I wasn't prepared to answer on Sternglass.
M
$ 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, d
ci 9 MR. BAXTER: And we are going to respond to -- 5 g 10 with our position'on the Catawba ruling on serving documents. 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. Right, is y 12 MR. BAXTER: That's all we have on our list. 5 13 JUDGE KELLEY: What time frame would you suggest l E 14 first of all for your filing? Maybe I should add one 15 element in terms of how the board sees it. That is to say j 16 when we say we think we need to have these papers in order us 6 17 to do what we need to do, I would like to confirm my 18 impression., but my impression is that the various items O 19 that are being described right now relate to a rather -- g n 20 rather small number of issues that will be before the board 21 and that the bulk of the work that we have to do is submitted 22 as is, which would suggest that we are not in a real big 23 hurry to get these submissions. 24 On the other hand, we like to get our work done 25 in a reasonable time. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
440 llrll 1 MR. BAXTER: I wodld agree with you about O 2 everything except Mr. Eddleman's opportunity to file 3 reply argument. There are a large, large -- I hope he O 4 understands he is not waiving any of those if he doesn't e 5 file further replies. 5 j 6 JUDGE KELLEY: No. But I was thinking about G
& 7 that as an exception. If that many of your contentions are j 8 sort of hanging fire until you file, we might want to have d
d 9 that fairly soon. Tb g 10 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, I will do my best, 3 l 11 Mr. Chairman. As I' recall, there were about fifty -- is y 12 somewhat less than fifty that had the basis in specificity. 5 13 I think we knocked out twenty,-five, so there is at most l 14 twenty-five more. You will get at most one page on that -- 15 one page each on that. Probably not that. And I can lo g 16 it faster if you think so or if you change your mind later, w g 17 if you give me a little notice. U
$ 18 JUDGE KELLEY: 'You said thirty?
i: - 19 MR. EDDLEMAN: I said thirty. 20 JUDGE KELLEY: I think that is okay with us. 21 MR. EDDLEMAN: Okay. That gives me time to deal 22 with the rate case then. Otherwise I could have done it 23 ; quicker. 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Now, Mr. Baxter, can you 25 ; pick up our thread? l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
441 3 '11rl2 1 MR. BAX'ItR: Yes. You were asking how long we O 2 wanted. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah. Right. Q 4 MR. BAXTER: We are going to offer to meet e 5 Mr. Eddleman at fifteen days if he would come in with his 6 4 3 6 additional argument. We would file our other papers on that R
@, 7 time frame because we are anxious to get together.
E 8 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, you are offering fifteen 0 9 if he is willing to do fifteen. Is that what you say? 9
!; 10 MR. BAXTER: That's right. I think there would j 11 be - .nay be a substantial delay in the board's deliberations a
j 12 depending on what he files, and there may be a need for us S Gg 13 to ask leave to respond again, and after we have had these Vm
@ 14 responses out for a month now -- at least from the m
g 15 applicant -- m j 16 MR. EDDLEMAN: Can I deal with them informally? us 6 17 Because fifteen days will be hard to meet. What is going 5 5 18 on in the two cases -- the CP & L's cases? In the rate U 19 case they have told me no, you can't get more extension of g n 20 time or you shouldn't be allowed it because what you are 21 doing with the NRC is irrelevant, and legally that has merit, 22 but in terms of what I can practically do, it has a problem; 23 and I would like -- 24 JUDGE KELLEY: You say you are going right into g G 25 a rate proceeding tomorrow? ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
442 . 11r13 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: No, it's not tomorrow, but I have O 2 e fiting deedtine tomorrow end then the rate proceeding is 3 going to block up a lot of the end of the month, so I will O 4 do ie es feet as 1 can under that. 1 witt not detay. I e 5 JUDGE KELLEY: Thirty days would be like the d 3 6 15th of April, right? R
& 7 MR. BARTH: 15th of August. -
A
] 8 JUDGE KELLEY: August. It's late in the day.
0 l d 9 MR. EDDLEMAN: What I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman,
$ 10 is that if you will give me a statutory thirty days, that E
11 I will be willing to talk to the applicants and do my h is p j 12 damnedest to get it done quicker and to block out with them 5 Qd 13 about how much I'm going to file and what I'm going to talk l$ 14 about so that they have some idea. You know,-I'm not g 15 pursuing to lay down the law to them and be bound by it, x g 16 but just to talk to them a little bit next week on the us 17 phone and say here is what I think I will be responding x M 18 and filing something further on and here is what I think it E 19 will be, and let them see what they need to do on that l 20 basis. l 21 MR. BAXTER: No, that is not my problem so much. It's getting the filings before the board and the matters O 23 before the board so they can rule on them. 24 MR. EDDLEMAN: I guess I am further suggesting l 25 if we can work that out, maybe we can get them filed faster. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
443 ) llr14 1 MR. BARTH: Your Honor -- O 2 Ma. BixTER: We11, between fifteen end thirty I l l 3 there are a limited number of alternatives. If you have O 4 one, so eheed end say te now. m 5 MR. EDDLEMAN: What I am saying, I will try to h
@ 6 make it as much less than thirty as I can, and I will try to R
R 7 talk to you about that to see if what you do has a bearing A l 8 on it. I will do it as fast as I can, but I can't commit d ci 9 myself to do it in fifteen days when I have the rate case. E
!3 10 MR. BARTH: May I make a statement? The
$ 11 agreement to which Mr. Eddleman agreed proposed by Your a
p 12 Honor, agreed by everybody else, is a filing by Mr. Eddleman 5 13 with you. I don' t want any discussion with Mr. Eddleman l$ 14 or -- if he wants to talk to them, fine; but we are 15 concerned with his fulfilling the agreement he made with j 16 the licensing board to file a paper addressing objections g .. g 17 he made with contentions. Not further negotiations or { 18 talking. E 19 MR. EDDLEMAN: I am not negotiating the g n 20 contentions. 21 JUDGE KELLEY: I think I can spend a few minutes 22 asking interested parties when they think they ought to file, 23 , , and it seems to me they are interdependent interests in this 24 matter, and it warrants some brief discussion. I think 25 l we discussed it about enough, and by way of compromise we ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 444 11rl5 1 will set your deadline, Mr. Eddleman, at August 10th. O 2 MR. EDDtEMiN: iugust 10th: 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. And we wi'.1 set the O 4 applicant's de dline at August 10th also, e 5 MR EDDLEMAN: Mr. Chairman, that is practically h
@ 6 thirty days as I read it; so I don't think I have to say 7 anything even though -- I think I can make it.
M 8 8 MR. BARTH: Your Honor -- Your Honor, I -- d c 9 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me -- okay. (; 10 MR. BAXTER: I had one other comment.
@ 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.
m j 12 MR. BAXTER: If we are still on my part of it. S 13 I do not know. We didn' t raise an objection to Change l$ 14 asking for additional time to plead a contention on 15 construction defects because they apparently didn't j 16 understand how they could do it without. revealing names. as 17 Mr. Eddleman asked for an opportunity that I don't even a: { 18 understand what contention it relates to, and he didn't i: l 19 know either, and it seemed to me he got it, and I just think 20 there ought to be a motion filed if he really has some 21 contention that is similar and he needs the relief. Then 22 he ought to assert it. It's sort of a way to do business. 23 Just let go by. I don't know what. This is for an 24 amendment opportunity, for some unknown contention. 25l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
445 1 JUDGE KELLEY: I think you've got a good point. . O 2 What you re suggesting, I eake 1e, then, is that if Mr. 3 Eddleman wants to revise a particular contention along the O 4 11nes of the change contention that to say a welding defect 5 contention involving someone who may or may not be named, g e j 6 he should just file a motion to do so. Is that a likely G
$ 7 contention; is that right?
3 j 8 MR. BAXTER: That's right. Pointing out to us d d 9 what he's filed already. We know what he's talking about 5, g 10 and we can respond to the motion. E j 11 MR. EDDLEMAN: That would be okay. And the other is i j 12 aspect of this, which I think I started to address and a Q 13 the board wanted me to go ahead and follow up was that
@ 14 3I which that as in is superseded by the joint intervenor's 15 contention on management capability.
g 16 MR. BAXTER: That solves the problem. as 17 JUDGE KELLEY: So are you willing to just withdraw 18 it on that basis? A 19 MR. EDDLEMAN: Well, I'm saying it is effective g n 20 withdrawal. And the question of what evidence I can get 21 on it now is a matter for discovery. They can send me an 22 Q interrogatory, how much evidence have you got on this, and I 23 have to tell him. 24 MR. BAXTER: That's great. We don't need 45-day 25 ! leave. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
446 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: Not to me. O 2 JUDGE x m EY: We've sett1.d that, so ehe app 11 cants 3 are filing papers on four different items, I believe, and
- O 4 we've see August 10, and we set August 10 for Mr. Ead1eman for
~
. e 5 his I'll call them response papers. You had a separate
$ 6 request of 90 days for security which strikes me as a t
57
& 7 little long. I don't know. Let me ask Mr. Baxter first A
8 8 and then the staff how they regard the request of 90 days d d 9 to move ahead,on the security question.
- i h 10 MR. BAXTER: I don't have any objection to that a
j 11 provision. We had asked the board to do what the Catauba is g 12 board does, and that is require intervenors to answer a Ol13 series of questions. I think it would be useful if that l$ 14 were formalized within the 90-day period and that response 2 15 in, but if that's done in the 90-day time period it's more g' 16 than adequate as far as I'm concerned. l d l ti 17 JUDGE KELLEY: You referred to the questions - 5 { 18 I know the questions you're talking about. I don't have a E g 19 copy in front of me. n 20 MR. BAXTER: The expert is the main subject, I believe. 21 JUDGE KELLEY: I think I'd like to take a look at l lQ 22 that when we go home. That can be one lose end. 23 , The board owes people a brief directive on what l l 24 we want them to do with ~ regard to security and with regard to 25 your pursuing that, and we'll set a time in there, but I'll ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
447 1 bear in mind your request for time and -- O 2 MR. EDDLEMAN: It goes to the job that. Iiihave in the 3 fall, which is teaching school. It takes up more of my time O 4 and makes it harder for me to be available. They practically g 5 never get through to me at school. N
$ 6 JUDGE KELLEY: We'll bear that in mind.
R { 7 The staff dnvisions that the board will issue s j 8 something fairly soon alout what we'd like to hear from people 0
- i 9 on the subject of security, and that'll have a time limit
$ 10 of some sort.
g 11 Do you have any time limit to suggest? B j 12 MR. BARTH: I have no objection to the time limit 8 - Q 13 proposed. I would like to point out that in our filing
$ 14 respondings to all these contentions we included the Catawba 2 15 papers relating to the security matter so the petitioners g 16 who intervene have well been put on notice for some time as e
ti 17 to what you require in Catawba. E
$ 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Did you give them the April order as 5
19 {e well as March 5? 20 MR. BARTH: Not the entire order, sir. We gave them 21 pages out of it. 22 JUDGE KELLEY: I'll look into that. Okay. 23 ! MR. BARTH: We also owe you some papers. 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Just a minute. Let me consult my l 25 l notes here for a moment, l i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- 448 1 Okay. Can you tell me?
2 MR. BARTH: We owe you a paper on the Catawba 3 transportation memorandum to see whether it's consistent 4 with the position we took here. We owe you a response on e 5 Black Fox and 10 NRC regarding the ability to litigate 5
$ 6 radiation emmissions permitted by the commission. -
R
$ 7 JUDGE KELLEY: Not emmissions so much as the health A
j 8 effects resulting from the ammissions. O ci 9 MR. BARTH: I understand, Your Honor.- If I use
$ 10 the wrong words the record makes it clear and I agree with 11 what you're saying.
is g 12 We owe you a response on the motion to separate O l is the groceedines resardine unie o=e from unit ewo, and we
! 14 owe you some kind of a note 6n the Catawba board's order E
g 15 regarding services papers. We are quite agreeable to provide a: y 16 these on or before Tuesday, August 10, which you set for as d 17 other filings. ' E { 18 JUDGE KELLEY: Fine, i: 19 MR. BARTH: I would bring up one other matter if h n 20 I may, when appropriate, Your Honor. 21 The staff has no objection to the admission into - O 22 as an issue in controversy of ,dd1eman s conteneien 132 as 23 ; formulated on page 14 of the applicant's response to O 24 amendments (second set, to contentions of getie1oner 25 I Wells Eddleman dated July 13, 1982. We discussed this ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
4$5 anong ourselves and have no problem with the board admitting Q it as a contention in this proceeding, sir. JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. Q 4 Could you remind me, now, Mr. Baxter, where the applicants stand on 132 as just referred to by Mr. Barth7 e 5 , 3 MR. BAXTER: That was our answer.he was just { reading from. We agree to it.
% 7 a
8 8 a d 9 i h 10 E gn a j 12 . O *5s 's l!; 14 2 15 s j 16 as 6 17 M 18
=
19 8 l
- 20 21 Q 22 -
23 l 24 O 25l i l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. t
450 13rl 1 MR. BARTH: It's time. O 2 JUDGE KELLEY: So ordered. But now getting back 3 to Change ELP in the welding, we didn't set a time. You O 4 suggested forty-five days as a time. I think that stands e 5 in a somewhat different footing because it requires your . b j 6 finding some people. 7 MR. READ: They will be difficult to find. A 8 8 JUDGE KELLEY: They may be. That seems d ci 9 reasonable to the board. Let me check whether counsel for
$ 10 the other parties have any objection.
5 11 MR '. BAXTER: No objection. 3 y 12 MR. BARTH: Staff has no objection. 5 13 JUDGE KELLEY: So that is forty-five plus
! 14 fifteen is August 60th. Now, whatever it is. Forty-five E
[ 2: 15 days from today. , j 16 MR. EDDLEMAN: That is how I calculate them, and us
!5 17 it works.
E { 18 JUDGE KELLEY: And the other thing that I see 0 19 g here in my notes,is the brief on the applicability of S4. n 20' It sounds like it could be done a little earlier. Say 21 August 10th along with most of the other things. 22 MR. READ: That's acceptable. 23 JUDGE KELLEY: And I think that is all that I 24 recall. O 25 l MR. RUNKLE: There wasn't a ruling on the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
451 '13r2 1 consolidation of Change ELP. We are going to leave that O 2 off2 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah. Okay. Is there objection O 4 from either the applicant or the staff to the consolidation i e 5 of ELP? 1 h !
@ 6 MR. BARTH: Not from the staff. l R
& 7 MR. BAXTER: No objection, s
8 8 JUDCE KELLEY: Okay. So ordered. d 9 MR. READ: There was also my individual motion z, o ' U .10 for consolidation for Change'5LP. E
$ II JUDGE KELLEY: Granted.
3 f S 12 Okay. Does that take care'of it -- of the sort
~
13 of pending assignments including one or two for the board? l$ 14 Now, just a couple of more words here from us. i 15 We will be turning to doing a memo and order on these j 16 questions soon and get it out as soon as we reasonably can. vs I7 It will take awhile. It's fairly complicated, and there h x { 18 are a lot of questions. I can't give you any confident P 19 g prediction as to when that's going to happen. n 20 (Board conferring) 21 JUDGE KELLEY: Early fall, which we will not 22 Q define; but seriously, we will try to get it out as soon' as 23 we can. 24 Now, in terms of what we got to get to, the 25 ' scheduling, we did right up front talk about when we expect l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
452 13r3 1 certain things to happen. We haven't said anything about a O 2 schedute for discovery end when we issue this memo and order 3 which will formally grant party status and admit certain of O 4 the contentiene, norme11y discovery le ogen et that goine, n 5 but it would seem to me that anything relating to scheduling 9 3 6 of discovery depends in large part on what contentions you are R
$ 7 at and we don't want that yet with respect to a lot of them, a
j 8 so I think it's premature to really talk about that, but we d C 9 might entertain motions to that subject at that time. That
$ 10 is to say right after we issue the order, and I don' t r'eally E
$ 11 see anything to set anything else now. We will know more a
p 12 when we know where we are going on the contentions. I 5 Q 13 might just add by way of information for some of the l$ 14 intervenors there is a procedure set up in the rule 15 governing this kind of hearing that is 2.71 -- 715a. I j 16 think I mentioned this before where you come in and file as 17 objections to the order, and there being so many parties and h
=
{ 18 interests, there will be a lot from all quarters, but that F 19 will be a step that we will go through after we issue our g n 20 order. 21 MR. EDDLEMAN: Judge, doesn't that section say 22 something about doing it in five days? 23 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah, I think it does, and it's n 24 not uncommon for boards to extend that time in a complicated 4 V 25 ' case, which we might well do. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. l
453 13r4 1 MR. EDDLEMAN: That was just a question I was O 2 eekins. 1 em not eskins for en exteneien. 3 JUDGE KELLEY: No, I understand. But that's O 4 not written in stone. I don't have anythins etse that we e 5 have to cover, but let me go around the room again and see b 3 6 whether there are other things you want to raise.
^
e.
$ 7 MR. EDDLEMAN: Two items I think that are minor it
] 8 housekeeping. One is that you mentioned about getting a d
9 9 copy of today's transcript available to me so I would know
$ 10 exactly what I was responding to and what I covered and so j 11 on and getting it to the LPDR. As long as I know it's a
j 12 there. Either place. I will meet your August 10th S Q 13 deadline even if you get the transcript there on August l$ 14 the 9th. 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Yeah. You know enough now to g 16 start, and I thought when I got my transcript I would as g 17 Xerox a copy and mail it to you. 18 MR. EDDLEMAN: That will be fine, Judge. l 0 19 The other question I have is about the service R 20 list. We are already getting some of the correspondence 21 from NRC staff. They are just sending it to us, but there ( 22 are a number of -- I think including the petitioners who are 23 still here -- who I think the applicant and the staff already 24 basically said yes, we agree these folks have at least one 25 admissible contention and therefore they ought to be parties, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
454 13r5 1 and I was wondering if on that basis those who do have at O 2 1 east one admissib1e content 1oo cou1d be put on the service 3 list. O 4 aunos xstter: For rurgo ee of settins copies of e 5 torrespondence and things like that? h j 6 MR. EDDLEMAN: Right. So that when they file R E 7 another amen u. ant to the FSAR I don't have to get on my 3 [ 8 stomach at the library to fix the Xerox machine again. d ci 9 JUDGE KELLEY: The NRC has what they call a z h 10 service list. I don't know whether they -- they issue one -- 11 whether there is a different list called a party list.
$ I a
g' 12 don't think there is. I think as a practical matter 5 13 Q g petitioners for intervention get put on the service list,
@ 14 and that is that. It may be that -- I am not saying they b
15 will, but the staff may say that guy is just a petitioner g 16 so I don' t have to send him anything, and if it would -- if us 17 it would advance things from your standpoint if you were a h f18 party now for that purpose, is that what you're saying? O 19 s' . EDDLEMAN: Yes. To clear it up, I'm not as g n 20 concerned about the staff because they are sending us most 21 of the stuff, but a lot of stuff that the applicants are 22 filing -- I've been trying to work something out, but 23 getting on the service list from now on would be a way
- 24 around it.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, we have got a pending ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
455
'3 0 L#RC 1 objection from the applicants. We asked for their comments --
0 2 theirs and the staff., __ on the aind of order we entered in 3 the Catawba, and they are going to file their points, and I O 4 thina before ruung on ebet we wou1d tiue to see what they e 5 have to say. 3
$ 6 Okay.
MR. EDDLEMAN: Then that all comes in on R
& 7 August 10th?
M 8 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. d C 9 MR. EDDLEMAN: I am sorry. I had forgbtten that. E, 10 JUDGE KELLEY: Anything else? 11 a 5 MR. READ: Insofar as the copy of the transcript g 12 goes, I'd like to ask that you order one be sent to the local 5 Oi' 14 public document room in Chapel Hill if that's feasible.
@ JUDGE KELLEY: Should be. I will see what I can
[e 15 do, j 16 Anything else from the applicants? as g 17 MR. BAXTER: I have a cleanup item. Yesterday x 15 18 _ when you were questioning me at the very beginning about i: 19 g n the emergency planning process, I put out a little 20 misinformation. I said that in the State of North Carolina 21 there is a single nuclear emergency response plan to which 22 Q there are plant amexes , and that is not correct. There are 23 ; individual state plans for each nuclear power plant in the 24 state, and then there are amexes for each county within the 25 l EPZ. i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
456 l14kl 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you. O 2 Anything else from the staff? 3 MR. BARTH: We have nothing further, Your Honor. O 4 MR. EDDtEMiN: 8esed on whet Mr. 8exter Just g 5 said, do those state plans for Harris exist yet? e 3 6 MS. FLYNN: No. R 0 R 7 MR. EDDLEMAN: Maybe not. Okay. M 8 8 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, I think it's been d c; 9 a productive conference and I appreciate everybody's 10
$ cooperation and contributions, and we will be getting back b
a 11 to you in the form of a decision before too long and then g 12 we'll carry on from there. S O5 m 13 Thank you very much, 14 MS. FLYNN: Thank you. m 15 JUDGE KELLEY: We 're adjourned. g 16 (Whereupon, the proceedings were adjourned.) as 6 17
- M 18 O
19 g n 20 21 O 23 O 25 ! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
O "" ^^ "" "'^' "' ' ""'SS' " This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the Q Nuclear Reculatory Commission, Atomic Safety and Licensina Boara, in the matter of: Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Date of Proceeding: July 14, 1982 Docket llumber: 50-400 oL and 50-401 OL i Place of Proceecing: 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)
C , 1 A . /S4d v ',-, J Official Reporter (Signature) Kathleen M. Cardea
, Official Reporter (Typed) r+T ?.- # . $ n . 0 . A =. m Official Reporter (Signature)
(O LO -
. . _-}}