ML20062K085
| ML20062K085 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8208170009 | |
| Download: ML20062K085 (218) | |
Text
NCC'?u REGULATORY COMMISSION l
'^'h l h [
t
.. . ._so ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD f
l l
In the Matter cf: : [
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY : DOCKET NOS. 501329 OL & OM
(Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2.) :
DATE: August 12, 1982 pAggg: 8100 - 8316 AT: Midland, Michigan TA q s ALDOMOX RFPORT1XG
_r_ q 400 Virp ( a Ave. , S .W. Wasningen , D . C. 20024 Talachena: (202) 554-2345 0208170009 020:3 ; ;'
PDR ADOCK 05000:329 T POR
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD O 4 ------------------------------x o 5 In the Matter of: :
h : Docket Nos. 50-329 OM
@ 6 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY : 50-330 OM g :
$ 7 (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2) : Docket Nos. 50-329'OL g : 50-330 OL
[ 8 ------------------------------x d
c[ 9 Midland County Courthouse
$ 301 West Main Street
$ 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 E
j 11 Thursday, August 12, 1982 is j 12 Evidentiary hearing in the above-entitled matter E
Q 13 was resumed pursuant to adjournment, at 9:00 a.m.
h 14 BEFORE:
2 15 CHARLES BECHHOEFER, Esq., Chairman 5 Administrative Judge j 16 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board as d 17 RALPH S. DECKER, Esq., Member
$ Administrative Judge
{ 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board E
19 DR. FREDERICK P. COWAN, Esq., Member k Administrative Judge 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 21 DR. JERRY HARBOUR, Esq., Member Administrative Judge 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8100-A-l I APPEARANCES:
2 on behalf of the Applicant, Consumers Power Company:
3 JAMES BRUNNER, Esq.
4 MICHAEL MILLER, Esq.
PRILTiIP STEPTOE, Esq.
5 ANNE WEST, Esq.
g
" Isham, Lincoln & Beale
@ 6 One First National Plaza,-42nd Floor R Chicago, Illinois 60602 b 7 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
M WILLIAM PATON, Esq.
- 9 MICHAEL N. WILCOVE, Esq.
$. Office of the Executive Legal Director 10 1717 H Street, N.W.
h g Washington, D.C.
g 11
". On behalf of the Mapleton Intervenors:
g 12 WENDELL H. MARSHALL, Esq.
' 13
( ) 5*h RFD 10 Midland, Michigan 48640 l$ 14 On behalf of MS. MARY SINCLAIR 2 15 w
". LEE I. BISHOP, Esq.
g 16 -
MS. BARBARA STAMIRIS I7 5794 North River h
- Route 3 i b IO Freeland, Mich'igan 48623 I s 19 R
20 21 22
()
23 24 (J
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
8101 lw 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Good morning, ladies and 1-f( ,g/ 2 gentlemen. This is a prehearing conference in the 3 consolidated operating license and modification order
() 4 proceeding.
5 g Today we are dealing for the most part with 9
@ 6 new contentions which have been submitted for the operating y7 license proceeding, although we will have certain other l 8 matters, such as scheduling to take up as well and the d
". 9 x scheduling could cover both proceedings.
10 Since we have both new reporters and at least
=
II 5 one new representative, I think it would be desirable at B
fI c
the outset for the representatives of the parties to
() 13 identify themselves. Maybe we could just go from my left E 14 g' to my right. Mr. Marshall, you could start.
C 15 h MR. MARSHALL: I represent the Mapleton m
T 16 '
g Intervenors. My name is Wendell H. Marshall.
d 17 w MS. STAMIRIS: My name is Barbara Stamiris and z
M 18
= I am appearing pro se.
19 g MR. BISHOP: My name is Lee Bishop and I am 20 representing Mary Sinclair.
21 MS. SINCLAIR: I am Mary Sinclair. I am a l
l 22 citizen of Midland.
23 MR. PATON: William Paton. I represent the O nac steer-25 MR. WILCOVE: Michael.Wilcove.:.I represent the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
~ 8102
- 1-3 1 NRC staff.
() 2 . CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I guess we can note that 3 Mr. Darl ' Hood is with the staff.
() 4 MR. MILLER: My name is Michael Miller. I e 5 represent Consumers Power Company. Perhaps I just ought h
j 6 to introduce the other people on this side of the table.
R R 7 Next to me is Dr. Terry Sullivan, Consumers Power Company.
A l 8 Phil Steptoe and Anne West, our law firm, Ischam, Lincoln d
d 9 & Beale.
$ 10 At the end of the table is James Brunner an II attorney with Consumers Power Company.
3 I2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Before we get started N
t 5
a 13 5 with the substantive areas of contention, it might be m
l$ 14 desirable to clarify some of the papers that we have been IS just handed this morning and find out what their status
=
j 16 is.
W II l
h Mr. Bishop?
l =
l
{ 18 MR. BISHOP: Yes. What I have given to all the E
g I9 parties this morning first off is a notice of appearance.
n 20 All these papers were dropped off with all the 21 parties and I will serve the balance of the service list 22 from Washington either this afternoon or the next day or
(])
23 ,
so.
The next document is titled, " Revised Contentions
(]) l 25 I of Mary Sinclair, Based on Discovery Pursuant to Board ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
m
1-4 ~Cg3 1 Order of May 25."
2 This is those of her original contentions that 3 were originally submitted in I believe 1978 that were the 4 subject of discovery to the staff and to the NRC -- to the 5 staff and to the consumers.
g 9
@ 6 I would note before we get into that that G
$ 7 significant numbers of her original contentions have been a
8 8 dropped, as well as other contentions have not been d
c; 9 rewritten because discovery with the staff is not G 10 completed.
E II
$ The staff responded to Ms. Sinclair's discovery B
f I2 partially and notified us yesterday at our informal
)am 13 meeting that they would be responding with the balance of j 14 the answers to her interrogatories within two weeks I 15 believe was the estimate given.
E I0 So that according to the Board Order then as W
I7 soon as that phase of the discovery is completed within l h=
{ 18 10 days after that we will be either submitting detailed P
19 8
n specific contentions basad on that discovery or dropping 20 one or more of those, depending upon the content of the 21 discovery.
() CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That is within 10 days o f --
23 MR. BISHOP: 10 days of service, yes. ,
() CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: So that is actually 15 days 25 from the day they are sent?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~6104 ygg 1 MR. BISHOP: The next document is titled, f
2 " Restated Contentions of Intervenor Mary Sinclair."
3 This is our attempt to pull together the various l I)
N- 4 contenticns that she has filed recently on three different e 5 dates in response to the staff's SER and draft environmental k
@ 6 impact statement.
R
$ 7 Again, certain numbers of these have been 3
$ 8 dropped. Others have been reworded to make them more clear d
d 9 and to focus our. discussion today. So that these two i
c g 10 papers were prepared separately because they basically E
j 11 stand in different positions. The first is directly in 3
y 12 response to the Board Order and I believe well within the
() 5 13 time set by the Board.
! 14 The second set are those that were filed 2 15 admittedly beyond the time set by the Board and it's a j
. 16 question of discretion as to their admission, obviously as a
d 17 to the first set as uell, but in somewhat a different
{ 18 procedural status and I would like to speak to those U
! 19 separately.
g n
12 fol. 21
() 22 23
/~T 24 V
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~8105 2?l/1 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Let me clarify something.
s dw(d s 2 Have the other parties been given copies earlier of these 3 -- not the restatement of the earlier contentions, but nss 4 the restatement of the ones that we were coming here to 5 consider, because we had planned to go through these g
n j 6 contentions one by one and talk about each one of them R
$ 7 before we reached a decision.
M
] 8 I am just wondering what we should be going d
d
~ 9
. through. That's my question.
o 10 h MR. BISHOP: Well, to answer your question
=
!B II quickly, these have just been delivered to all parties d 12 2 this morning. We made a judgment last night that it 13
/~)'
t s gb would probably be best not to wake them up at 1:00 when E 14 y they were finished and drop them off.
m 9 15 g I apologize for some -- if there is any 3 16 j confusion, and perhaps if we work with the revised g 17 g contentions first, then during the course of the 5 18
= morning and in the course of any breaks, the balance of U
19 k them can be reviewed by the parties or they can be 20 deferred until tomorrow morning, if you would like to 21 discuss that then.
1 22
~ But I --
these were redone to allow us to 23 proceed more quickly instead of discussing the earlier 24 s contentions and discuss whether they should be made more 25 specific, how they should be dealt with. I tried to cut ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~8106 2/1/2 1 some of that time off and do that first.
O 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: For instance, I notice 3 that you have, withdrawn two of the contentions -- the only 4 two contentions, I think, that the staff says are g 5 acceptable, and I was wondering whether that was your
?
@ 6 intent.
l R
$ 7 MR. BISHOP: Yes, it was. We decided that we j 8 didn't wish to pursue those contentions. This is part of d
9 our effort to -- even though the staff graciously
}".
c g 10 consented to allow us to have those contentions, we 3_
!k II decided upon reviewing them and reviewing the balance of d 12 z the large number we had originally, that we wished to 13
('@ concentrate our efforts on these; and we did not wish to E 14 y pursue those.
m 2 15 w Although the staff did not object to those, e
~
16 l Consumers did, and we felt upon looking at' them and d 17 y looking at the relevant documents, that those were not E 18
= as important as the ones we have here, and that we wish C
19 k to save the Hearing Board's time and our time with just 20 those issues that we were very interested in pursuing.
21 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I was trying to ascertain 22
' f-) in part how -- whether the other parties are even going 23 l to be ready to address the new contentions. We certainly 24 0'- aren't familiar enough with them. I haven't even read the 25 document.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 8107 s
9/1/3 1 MR. BISHOP: Well, the re s t~a t'ed co n't'e ntio n s wi th ,
b 2 I think, one exception are quite similar to the earlier 3 contentions. Actually, the last three, I believe, are O 4 precise restatements or retypings. There are no changes
- 5 made at all except -- in Nos. 6, 7 and 8, and I believe 0
3 6 e that No. 2 is substantially restated. The others are in R
varying degrees within there.
n 8 8 a MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, perhaps it would d
6 9 7-aid the Board and the rest of us if Mr. Bishop would give 0 10 y us a reference to the earlier contentions by number and
=
E 11 g date as to which -- which each of these is assertedly a d 12 2 restatement.
13
( ) @b MR. PATON: Judge Bechhoefer, could I ask a E 14 y question just before that one? Is it clear that these two e
9 15 j documents now represent all of her contentions?
T 16 3 MR. BISHOP: Yes, that is true.
d 17 g MS . .S INCLAIR:. : Except for those that are M 18 g deferred.
19
! MR. BISHOP: Except those that are deferred
- 20 l depending completion of the discovery from the staff.
21 MR. PATON: I will defer to your question, but
(} 22 maybe if he indicates which one can be deferred, that l 23 l would resolve it all.
}2 lfol. 25 l
.l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
u
t8108 MR. BISHOF.: That's fine. Why don't I run
/2/.1 1 ew 11.
() 2 through that list now.
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Let's talk about the --
O 4 well, some of the earlier contentions which we haven't t
g 5 anticipated that we would be discussing --
4 I don't think we would be dealing
{ 6 MR. MILLER:
$ 7 with those today under any circumstances.
3
$ 8 MR. PATON: At least I think we want to know d ,
c; 9 which of the ones he thinks he is deferring. Then when z
o 10 we know that, we can forget the old contentions and know i h
=
$ II that these two documents now represent all of her I contentions except the ones he said she is deferring.
13 I think we should at least know that. Then 5
m m
E I4 we will have a handle on which contentions he is still 9 15 m advancing.
m
'0 I will be happy to' do that .
MR. BISHOP:
p 17 Of the original list of contentions -- now, o
e 5 18 here we are using the numbering system that the staff
=
19 l has used when they responded to interrogatories. As you 20 recall, I am sure, there were numbers in the 21 interrogatories, the original set, that had duplicate 22 J numbers and caused confusion. When the numbers started l duplicating with 45, we numbered that one 46 and 24 O continued on.
25 MR. PATON: Could you just wait a minute?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
! 8109-8111
?2/2 1 MR. BISHOP: Sure.
O C/ 2 MR. MILLER: In addition, it would be helpful 3 in addition to identifying them by number, you could also 4 give a brief description so we can make sure we are 5 following along.
g n
@ 6 MR. BISHOP: Okay. I am referring -- when I am R
C S 7 describing these deleted contentions --
to Mrs. Sinclair's a
j 8 contentions as originally filed on October 31, '78.
O q 9 The first one dropped is No. 33. It is on E
10 Page 23 of that document.
h
=
!k II CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Wait. So 33 dropped?
N I2 MR. BISHOP: Yes. It deals with fractured
() bj 13 toughness of the steam generator and reactor coolant E 14 g pump.
m 2 15 The next one dropped is No. 38, which is on w
e
'0 E Page 26, at the top of that document.
w l . The next contention dropped is No. 39, right x
$ 18
- below that on Page 26.
- 19 l
g JUDGE HARBOUR: Would you give the subject?
! 20 1 MR. BISHOP: I'm sorry.
21 39 relates to the primary reactor containment I
AJ 22 for water. Let's see. That's the containment leaking l programs contention.
l l 24 The next one that is dropped is No. 41, which 25 is on Page 27 at the bottom, nonsafety loads, Class lE ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8112 4/2/3 I power sources.
O 2 The next one dropped is No. 42 on Page 28 of 3 that document, relating to pressure transients.
4 The next one dropped is No. 46, which is on i 5 Page 30.
g 9
@ 6 MR. PATON: That's the new number?
R S 7 MR. BISHOP: New No.- 46. Originally that was M
8 8 the first renumbering of 45. If I describe it too much, d
[ 9 I will confuse myself.
z 10 MR. MILLER: That's the heavy loads?
_3
!3 II MR. BISHOP: Yes.
(
f S
I2 The next one is No. 47 on Page 31 at the top, ks) j 13 radio nuclide . sediment transport model, 47.
l$
14 The next one dropped is 48, again right below g 15 there. It deals with floods.
x Ib The next one dropped is No. 49, 'the next one h on the list, on Page 31, water supplies.
m *
$ 18
- The next contention dropped is No. 53 on 19 8
n Page 33, relating to mini decommissionings, being replaced 20 with a major piece of equipment.
21 The next o.n e dropped is No. 54 on Page 34,
() turbine missiles.
23 The next contention dropped is No. 55, again on
() Page 34, seismic design sequence.
25 And the last contention dropped is No. 56.on the top of Page 35, loss of AC power.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
f 8113 k2-3,pjl Dower I Now, within the -- we better stop now and see if 2 there are any questions as far as we have gone so far.
3 Within the list of those contentions which we have
() 4 not yet deferred or have not yet dropped or stated with 5
j specificity due to the lack of discovery from the staff, 9
h 0 these are within the original number'of contentions that R
S 7 the Board held pending discovery, include numbers 29 --
R j 8 would you like these described as well as we go through or d
q 9 just the numbers of these?
10 h MR. STEPTOE: Describe them, please.
=
II
$ MR. BISHOP: 29 is on page 21, asymmetrical load-fo I2 ing. ,
{) 13 34 on page 23, is the numbers as component supports .
14 Number 37 on page 25, dealing with pipe breaks.
=
15 h Number 43 on page 28, deals with sabotage..
=
y 16 Number.44 on page 29, DC power sy' stems.
w I7 Number 51 on page 33 at the top of that page, fuel h
=
{ 18 element assemblies.
A 19 8 And number 57 on page 35, the second contention n
20 on that page, and it deals with non-safeguard cables.
21 I believe, if I have done my homework right, you l
22 look at the contentions on the pleading that we filed this
(])
23 morning, as well as correlate those other two groups, and 24 they should all be accounted for.
25 MR. PATON: Judge Bechhoefer, if I could ask one I
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
2-3,pj2 8114 l
I question --
() 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes.
MR. PATON: --
you just listed seven that have beer !
deferred. If we look at those seven, plus the two documents 3 you submitted this morning, these are all the contentions 3 6 .
e you are advancing?
E MR. BISHOP: That's correct.
M 8
a 8 MR. MILLER: I understand, though, it is con- ,
d '
d 9 j ceivable that some of the contentions that are pending, ,
O 10 y submission of staff answers to interrogatories, you may l
=
E 11 g conclude to drop after you have reviewed the answers to d 12 z interrogatories.
c
() MR. BISHOP: That's correct.
E 14 y MR. MILLER: Could we go back to my question which e
2 15 w
x was on the restated contentions, that is~ Mrs. Sinclair's
? 16 g contentions that were first filed, I believ'e, July 18th, and they were supplemented on the 23rd of July and on August x
$ 18
- 3rd, and now we have a document dated today's date, if 19 8
n Mr. Bishop could indicate which of the earlier set of 20 contentions these new contentions are related. '
21 JUDGE HARBOUR: Excuse me. Mr. Miller, I think
() that was June 18th instead of July 18th.
23 MR. MILLER: That's correct.
() MR. BISHOP: Oh, yes.
25 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: One question I see from the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
2-3,pj3 8115 I
first line, what happens to the contention filed on August 2
6th, which I just got?
MR. BISHOP: It was mailed -- it was dated August 3rd.
$ CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: No, August 6th.
9 3 6 3 MS. SINCLAIR: The last one was about --
E D CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: It was dated -- "New Con-M S 8 M tention by Mary P. Sinclair, August 6th." It is No. 16.
d 6 9 7-MR. STEPTOE: I have never seen that.
o H 10 j MS. SINCLAIR: This is the last one I recall.
=
It is No. 15, and the date on it is August 3rd.
d 12 Z CHAIRMAN BECHUOEFER: This one you signed on August c
(' d
() g 13 6th. I just got it yesterday.
E 14 d MR. MILLER: We haven't received it.
k 9 15 G
m MR. PATON: I haven't received it.
JUDGE HARBOUR: It has to do with' the Zack, 10 CFR d 17 a report that the Zack Company filed, and it has to do with
=
$ 18
- 140 travelers -- I P
19 8
n MR. PATON: Let me show this to the Board. This 20 is the last one that Ms. Sinclair remembers filing. It is 21 dated August 3rd.
(]) CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I am aware of that.
23 JUDGE COWAN: Both 15 and 16 referred to Zack. l
() MR. BISHOP: I would like to at the first avail-25 !
able time take a look at that one, if I might.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
2-3,pj4 8116 1
JUDGE COWAN: That's a. reasonable request.
() 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The next question I would i
3 like to get into is first whether the staff or applicant
() 4 are going to have any objections to the timeliness of these e 5 g new revisions or anything of that sort, and I also wanted n -
- 6 l to inquire -- actually, the applicant's submission in l 9
a 7
- response to Ms. Sinclair's contentions was rather drastically n
8 8
late, and I wanted Mr. Steptoe or Mr. Miller, if you wish, d
6 9 g to comment on that.
o H 10 E The July 26th submission was considerably after
= ,
E 11 g the time when it should have been due with respect to Ms.
d 12 g Sinclair only.
2-(2) l E 14 e
2 15 j 16 -
w g 17
- M l 18
=
H E 19 R
20 21 22
\
23 24
() 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8117
/4/1 1 MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, we had nl -) 2 understood -- we had interpreted the Board's Order 3 requiring responses to be the day after the last --
10 4 days after the last contention was filed, and I believe g
5 that, you know, we tried to incorporate the --
in our 4
@ 6 response the response to her contentions of -- excuse me.
R
$ 7 Let me check on this, n
] 8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The way I figure it, the d
y 9 applicant met the date for Ms. Stamiris' contentions, but 2
o
$ 10 not for the June 18th contentions, even though you II
$ consider those -- the date of those to be around 3
, f I2 July 1, which is the date we received the statement of
(
()
- 13 good cause for late filing.
h 14 That was an undated filing, by the way, but 15 we received it on July 1.
h e
i l
s Ib MR. MILLER: If I could have just a second, l
1 A I7 Judge Bechhoefer. We were conscious of the dates, and we 1
h x
M 18
- had interpretation of orders issued by the Board which 9
19 8 in our judgment resulted in our submission being a timely i 20 one. l 21 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I am talking about the
/7 22
(_/ response to Ms. Sinclair's contentions only, not 23 Ms. Stamiris', of June 18th.
24
()3 s MR. MILLER: Yes, I understand.
25 I am looking at the Board's order of the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6118
!/4/2 1 telephone conference call of June 25th, which extended O 2 to both Ms. Stamiris and Ms. Sinclair opportunities to 3 file a statement of good cause, and the Board required 4 that the additional information described in the balance g 5 of the order was to be filed by Friday, July 9th.
E
@ 6 We deferred our response for five days after R
$ 7 that in order to determine whether there was going to be n
[ 8 any supplementation by Mrs. Sinclair.
d o[ 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That reached us on z
o 5 10 July 1st.
E 5 II MR. MILLER: I think that the history of this B
f I2 proceeding has been, especially with Ms. Sinclair, 13 contentions and other pleadings continued to come in in l$ 14 increments, and we wanted to make certain that we were 15 responding to everything that was going to be filed with hx d I0 respect to the Board's order.
w I7 MR. BISHOP: As we get into these, I think we h
=
$ 18 will find those that were filed originally on June 18th A
19 "g were, as the Board requested, in response to the staff 20 documents. Those that were filed later than that were 21 filed due to very recently discovered information which 22
()N
- s. we will get into later regarding the affidavits of 23 certain employees concerned with practices ongoing at the
() plant that were only discovered then.
25 I don't believe it is completely correct to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
6119, 2/4/3 I characterize her contentions as streaming in as 2 Mr. Miller had.
3 MR. MILLER: In any event, Judge Bechhoefer, 4 to the extent that the Board deems our submission as 3 5lbeingout of time, we would ask leave to have it 8
@ 6 accepted as late filed, and I guess apologize to the R
$ 7 Board and to the parties if there's been any j 8 inconvenience as a result of that.
d y 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I might comment, by the
$ 10 way, that the five-day rule only -- the five-day E
II response time only applies to rewritten contentions, and s
g 12 these new contentions were subject to a 10-day rule, and p) ss 5 3 13 that is how we determined that your filings with regard m
l$ 14 to Ms. Stamiris were timely, but the 10-day rule does g 15 apply to those.
e j 16 The June 26th date is within 10' days of s
I7 Ms. Stamiris' July -- you have to change one month to l
IO The July 26th filing was within 10 days plus b July.
E I9 service time of the July 9 filing and is therefore g
20 timely.
2I But I interpret our five-day rule only to i
() 22 apply to the rewritten contentions, and I am applying 3
! a 10-day rule as provided in the rules for new i
() contentions.
In any event we are inclined to accept the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8120 2/4/4 1 Applicant's filing because it has considerable O 2 information which is useful, but we are also inclined to 3 accept some of those late filed explanations that the 4 Intervenor may be coming in with, such as good cause, and g 5 that type of thing.
8 3 6 !!R . B I S II O P : Your Honor, I was about to offer R
b 7 that as a deal. I won't object to his if he won't object j 8 to mine.
O j o; 9 MR. MILLER: Well, I would be prepared to -- I
$ 10 think that there was --
I have explained our
$ II interpretation of the Board's order, but I don't believe S
g 12 that that constitutes justification for simply accepting 13 at this time Ms. Sinclair's August 12th filing as somehow a
b I4 timely and within the scope of the Board's prior orders g 15 with respect to when contentions were supposed to be
=
j 16 filed. I don't think they are.-comparable' situations at w
I7 all.
h
- /5 { 18
.fol E
, 19 n
20 21
/^% 22 (J .
23 24
(])
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
f 2-4',pj1 8121
.all. MR. BISHOP: I think that will be the best way to 2
deal with this is go through those contentions and to deter-3 mine what the -- a reasonable time for filing them should
() 4 be considered to be. I think dealing in a group like this j '
is somewhat difficult, especis11y- since the most recently o 6 filed contentions -- at least the most recently filed con-N 8 7
- tentions of which I am aware -- are due in large part to n
8 a 8 very recently discovered information, which is perfectly d
d 9 '
g appropriate under the Commission's rules. Perhaps that o
@ 10 g might be the best way to go about dealing with these.
I 11 j MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, I really think it d 12 !
E would be helpful, again, as we go through these -- and I'm OS@ 13 prepared to do that on a contention by contention basis --
E 14 g if we have in advance some indication of which contentions 9 15 g orginally filed by Ms. Sinclair in June, July and August, f 16 -
g these restated contentions refer.
f 17 w MR. BISHOP: I would be happy to do that, and x
$ 18 j
perhaps it may be a good idea, given the fact that they l 19 l
8 were filed this morning -- and I apologize for that --
that i after we do that, it may be appropriate to take a small l 21 recess so that they can be -- the parties can review these,
() and our discussion will be able to proceed more quickly.
23 l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, okay. Why don't
(~s 24 Q we do that.
i 25 The Board had one 'or. two more very preliminary ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
s 2-5,pj2 , 8122 I
matters before we were getting into the specific contentions
( 2 that we were going to discuss today. First, as a very 3
preliminary matter, we request that when the Applicant
() 4 files pleadings, that you put a date on the front, if you 0
3 could, follow the Staff process that they routinely follow.
a 3 6 o
Sometimes we have to go all the way through and 8
" 7 see when the certificate of service is dated to find out A
8 8 a what the date of the document is, and sometimes the certi-
- d c 9 2
. ficate of service gets separated.
O 10 g We would prefer that the Staff --
you may continue hI 6
to put dates on the other pages, if you want, but we would 12 z prefer on the upper right-hand corner, the way the Staff c
() rath6r routinely dates its documents.
E 14 g In fact, we would like all parties to follow that E 15 g if possible, on the front page mention -- some of Ms.
x Sinclair's documents don't have any date on' them at all.
MS. SINCLAIR: Just one.
x M 18
- CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We would prefer to have it 19 8 someplace on the front page. It is just easier.
The other matter is Ms. Sinclair wrote a letter 21 to me and I am not sure whether it was served on other
() 22 people or not requesting that we pay the expenses of Dr.
23 Anderson to accompany the Board and parties on the site 4
(]) tour on Saturday.
l 25 l I wrote a letter last Monday which declined that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
2-5,pj3 8123 1
on the ground that we don't have the authority to do that, A(J 2 and Ms. Sinclair had not received it yet and I guess other parties had not either.
() 4 I've got extra copies of it if you want them. I m 5 g have given a copy to the Applicant and I have given a copy 8
- 6 to Ms. Sinclair, and the Staff I guess got it through the E 7
- NRC internal mail. So that anybody else who wants a copy n
8
" 8 may have one.
d 9 y; The officially docketed served copy will eventually O 10 arrive --
hopefully arrive.
E 11 j The only other comment I have is a preliminary 6 12 g matter. We do plan, if we can, to issue an order before ;
d 13
(~T, v s we leave Midland, which would be by Saturday, and we are E 14 sx likely to take -- after discussing various specific con-9 15 j tentions, we are likely to take longer than usual breaks 16 '
$ in order to -- we are going to have a secretary-here, and d 17 y we would like to rule as we go.
$ 18 l = We may not announce our rulings until the end,
! 19 l but we would like to be able to issue an order so that to 20 the extent we accept any new contentions, we have set a 15-day discovery period, and we would like that to start as l '
22 l soon as -- well, this week.
l 23 i
! The 15 days we would like to s' tart have running 24 i
sj this week. That will apply to all parties. So as of the 25 date the order comes out, which we intend to be this week, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
22-5,pj4 gg I
assuming we accept any contentions --
because we see a
() 2 real time squeeze developing later in the fall, and I think 3
it would be desirable to the extent we approve any of these J
contentions, for discovery to start, and that means requests e 5 i g for discovery have to be filed within 15 days of the --
3
- 6 we said the date of service of our order. We intend to E
n 7
- serve people this week.
n 8
a 8 d
If we issue an order, it will probably be reserved i
= 9 g from Washington, but we want the dates for discovery to o
H 10
=
start this week, as I say to the extent we approve any E 11 g contentions.
d 12 23 $
c ,
(J i E 14
=
2 15 s
j 16 -
w p 17 s
5 18
=
19 8
n 20 21 2
()
23 l
24 (J
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I f
6125 MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, I guess I really
//l/
lw 1l 2 have to go back to the question of the timeliness of 3 the filing because I have now located that portion of the
(.
kJ 4 June 25th order that we were relying on, e 5 On Page 3 of the order, Paragraph 2, the M
@ 6 statement is made: "The Board will also permit a
$ 7 Ms. Stamiris and Ms. Sinclair to supplement their s
j 8 earlier filing to incorporate any more specific d
% 9 information which they wish the Board to consider in z
o g 10 ruling upon their new contentions, but they must do so E
h 11 in the same time frame as for the good cause shown."
a 12 It was our understanding that rather than I
,m 5
(,) j= 13 file something that would be subject to later l$ 14 supplementation in the event Ms. Sinclair elected to take
[= IS advantage of the opportunity that had been extended to j 16 her by the Board, that we would wait until that time w
g 17 period passed which would be identical to Ms. Stamiris' 18 -- well, the time uithin which Ms. Stamiris actually h
P
{
5 19 filed her contentions and respond accordingly.
20 That was our interpretation of the order and 2I we believe that our filing was therefore timely.
() 22 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I might say though that 23 i we also in a subsequent revision, or maybe the same --
() 24 i
there we provided two different dates for the Staff to 25 l file.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
8126 f/1/2 1 There may have been some confusion, but in any O 2 event we do plan to accept the Applicant's file and we 3 also are likely to accept some of the filings we are l C) kJ 4 getting today but we haven't -- we do want to be able to g 5 take advantage of the best information in the record, so E
@ 6 to speak, and we will have to go through contention by R
$ 7 contention in any event, but I think the best course A
l 8 will be to accept the latest information.
d 5 9 Are there any other preliminary matters before i
z.
h 10 Mr. Bishop starts going through the latest submissions?
E 5 II I'm not talking about on the merits now.
N I2 MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, just one matter.
3 O "m 5 I3 We previously distributed to all the parties a new Page 36-A l$ 14 and our response to Ms. Stamiris' contentions, and 9
- 15 apologize to the parties and the Board if there was any z
j 16 confusion.
w I7 I must say that it was not immediately h
z
$ 18 apparent to the casual reader that a page had been P
19 dropped so we apologize for any inconvenience that that l g n
20 made.
2I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We might also state one
) 22 other preliminary matter.
1 23 We do grant the Applicant's request to respond
(
/]
24 at this conference 'to what used to be called "13."
I 25 That request is granted and 7.m not sure what it is now.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8127
@/1/3 1 we also received some telephone inquiries from the Staff O 2 asking that they be allowed to respond to all the 3 contentions which were numbered 13 and beyond and we 4 don't know whether the Staff conferred with the other e 5 parties, but we told the Staff we would permit it to h
$ 6 answer orally rather than filing a written response.
R t/2 & 7 fol ;;
8 8 e
ci 9 b 10 j 11 a
j 12 O i. 13
,4 if=
2 15 s
j 16 as 6 17
- M 18 i5 19 8
c:
20 21 0 22 23 ,
O 24 I
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8128 3/2/1 1 MR. PATON: I had gotten Ms. Sinclair's lw re tonse 2 consent and I conveyed that to the Board.
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Right, but in any event
/
\J 4 we granted the Staff that request, so I am not quite 4 5 sure what date a written response would have been due, n
]' 6, but it was approximately at this time period and we told
- I
$ 7 the Staff they did not have to respond in writing to 13 3
j 8 through -- well, it turns out to be 13 through 16, d
". 9 although I guess not everybody has received 16.
o b 10 MR. PATON: Judge Bechhoefer, could we request s
II a copy of 16. I don't think we have seen it, except that 12 I have seen your copy. If we are going to talk about 16 --
E" f~') S 5> 3 MR. MILLER: We have not received a copy of m
E 14 g Contention 16 either.
9 15 If somebody wants to run 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
=
16 my copy through the Xerox machine.
f 17 Incidentally, Judge, I have a a
- MR. MARSHALL:
e -
5 18
= copy.
- 19 y CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We can take care of that 20 matter during the break.
21 MR. BISHOP: With regard then to the Restated 3 22 (J
\- Contentions, Contention No. 1 in that pleading is No. 1 23 ,
j on the June 18th --
24
(~/)
' MR . .. P ATON : Wait a minute, pleasa. Tell me 25l l what you are doing now.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8129
@/2/2 1 MR. BISHOP: What I am doing now is running O 2 through the August 12th Restated Contentions which are 3 a summary and calling down of those earlier pleadings. ,
Cr 4 MR. PATON: Restated or revised?
g 5 MR. BISHOP: Restated.
@ 6 And with reference now to her original R I b 7 June 18th, titled "New Contentions," No. 1 is No. 1, s
j 8 No. 2 has been dropped on the original list.
d q 9 MR. PATON: Just a minute. Are you referring
@ 10 t6 June 18th with regard to -- .
'N II MR. BISHOP: With regard to psichic stress --
s I2 MR. PATON: Just a minute. Are you referring N_
/~T
\>
3 13 g to June 18th?
~ .
E 14 y MR. BISHOP: With regard to psychic stress, e
2 15 w that contention has been deleted.
x
~
16 MR. PATON: Just a minute, plea'se.
6 17 l w MR. BISHOP: Did you find it?
x
$ 18
= MR. PATON: Yes.
5
- 19 j MR. BISHOP: No. 2 then on today's filing 20 corresponds to No. 3 on the June 18th list.
21 No. 4 has been dropped, relating to the,
/)
(s-22 relating to the diesel generator building.
23 No. 5 is restated as No. 3 in the most recent fl 24 k/ filing.
25 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I thought that you said ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8133 3/2/3 I No. 3 was No. 2.
O 2 MR. BISHOP: Can we try this again?
3 Perhaps it would help: One way I could deal O 4 with this, your Honor, is to just keep the numbers that j
5 they originally had. I renumbered them --
P
@ 6 MR. MILLER: You have filed it already, haven't R
S 7 you?
A
! O MR. BISHOP: All right, all right.
d c[ 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I might comment that when g 10 we finally decide what contentions are ready for i
fI litigation, I think we will renumber them all.
NI MR. BISHOP: We shouldn't bother memorizing
() bg 13 them at this point, then?
i E 14 It's too confusing y CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
9 15 y otherwise.
T 16 With regard to the August 12th g MR. BISHOP: 1 G 17 w filing, Contention No. 1 is No. 1 in the June 18th.
=
5 18 Contention No. 2 corresponds to Contention No. 3 l -
A 19 l in the June 18th filing.
20 Contention No. 3 in the August 12th paper 21 I
corresponds to Contention No. 5.
22 Contention No. 4 in the Augus t paper corresponds
((3 J '
I to Contention No. 6.
) Contention No. 5 in the August pleading 25 corresponds to Contention No. 7 in the June list.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8131 3/ 4 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Bishop, let me just 2 interrupt you for a minute. Is your reference on Page 4 3 to late filing of June the 7th, does that refer to the O 4 new 5? Do the numbers there refer to the earlier 5 numbers or the later numbers?
l, 9
$ 0 MR. BISHOP: No. I am trying to be somewhat R
E 7 consistent and referring to numbers in these recent k 0 filings.
d CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: All right.
0 10 g MR. BISHOP: After No. 5"on Page 2 of the new paper, that is the rest of the contentions listed on d 12 That means Nos. 8 through 3 June 18th have been dropped.
- s a i
d 13 g 12.
E 14 g The other two papers filed by Ms. Sinclair x
C 15 G on July 23rd and August 3rd are retained as Nos. 7, 8 and a
f 16 ,
y 9.
j d 17 l
w CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: 6 looks like --
a
- l M 18
= MR. BISHOP: 6, 7 and 8, excuse me.
19 l MR. WILCOVE: That's 13, 14 and 15?
20 MR. BISHOP: 13, 14 and 15 are now 6, 7 and 8.
21 MR. WILCOVE: Thank you.
'l 22
' d CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: 16 we will talk about 23 after you look at it.
' N 24
('d MR. BISHOP: We will deal with that later on.
25 I MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, I hate to keep ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 8132
!/2/5 1 on going back to things that you mentioned previously, I
(m 2 but you said something about a 15-day discovery period 3 on any new contentions that are accepted. As Mr. Bishop 4 has expressed, we are still in the process of determining g 5 which, if any, -- well, there are some restated 0 '
3 6 contentions from Ms. Sinclair's 1978 filing. We haven't R
8 7 had an opportunity obviously to even respond to those s
8 8 in any way, let alone in writing, and I take it that if i d .
y 9 the Board intends to establish a discovery period today '
s g 10 or within a very short time frame that that is going 11 to have to accommodate any rulings that are later made s
j 12 on these restated contentions.
- 3/(]) .
13 lm 14 2 15 s
j 16 -
w 6 17 s
M 18 E
19 8
20 21 ;
22 (3
23 I 24 (2) 25 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
'3-3,pjl 8133 contentions CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: This would only be for 2
contentions which we decide to accept now.
MR. MILLER: I see.
O CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We are not telling you to 5
j start discovery on ones that we haven't ruled on.
3 6 e
I can tell you the date of the order that we did E
that.
M 8
a 8 MR. MILLER: No. I am aware that there was dis-d I c 9 7.
covery opened on the original contentions. +
0 10 y CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: This was on the new con-
=
E 11 g tentions. This was our memoranda and order of May 7th, d 12 z which talked about a conference call on May 5.
S
' O -s 13 t-Paragraph.3 on Page 3.
E 14 W MR. MILLER: I guess the question I have is that 1 $
9 15 Q
= to the extent that these contentions represent significant
? 16 '
g restatements of matters that have been previously submitted, d 17 a is there going to be --
does the Board contemplate any
= i
$ 18
- additional discovery with respect to any restated conten-s 19 8 tions of Ms. Sinclair's 1978 set that may be accepted.
20 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We contemplated a 15 day 21 period of those as well.
() MR. MILLER: I see. Okay. Thank you.
23
! CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: But only from the day we l
() accepted them, 15 days after acceptance of each contention 25 and that was supposed to cover both new and rewritten l
l
- ALDERSON REPORTtNG COMPANY, INC.
3-3,pj2 8134 1
contentions.
() 2 MR. MILLER: All right. Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: And that is just the sub-() 4 mission of discovery and there is a response. Or whatever
= 5 g the rule provides for the time of discovery.
3
- 6 MR. MILLER: Does that apply to the 15-day dis-E 7
- covery period?
N 8
" 8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The 15 days is for the d
9
.j submission of any requests and that is by any parties.
e H 10
$ MR. MILLER: I see.
=
h CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: But all I want to say is 6 12 E that for contentions we decide on during this pre-hearing n3 ksl! conference and -issue an order on, I want that 15-day E 14 y period to start.
e 9 15 g MR. WILCOVE: Judge, according to your Board's
? 16
@ order, responses from the other parties --
'his t is the 6 17 z order of -- well, the memorandum of May 7th, responses
=
$ 18
= from other parties to restated contentions are due five H
19 l days from service, which if you count August -- if you 20 count today as the date of service, our responses to the 21 restated contentions are going to be due Tuesday.
() CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Now, wait a minute. The 23 restated, yes, if restated contentions are filed today,
(]) that's correct.
25 Well, we anticipated that that five days would be ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
3-3,pj3 8135 1 five days from --
O 2 xa. xIttEa: thee wee gersone1 service. I estee 3 with Mr. Wilcove. I don't think there is adequate time O 4 to resgend.
g 5 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I would tend to agree with R
( $ 6 you on that. We would want the five days from -- well, we E
l 8 7 will assume that it was mailed and you will get ten days a
8 8 in essence. I had not anticipated personal service.
d
<3-4 ci 9 i
e g 10 E
g 11 rs
, d 12 z
5 O sm is E
(
t 14
=
! 2 15 l
j 16 -
us 6 17 5
M 18 E
I' l 8 l
l 20 21 22 23 O .
25 l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8136 3/4/1 1 MR. BISHOP: Judge, we do our best to expedite dwQ service 2 things at every juncture.
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think we would give you O 4 from these restated contentions -- where would 10 days 5 go to -- it looks like it is going to be a week from y
a
@ 6 Monday.
R b 7 MR. MILLER: That would be the 23rd.
s j 8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes, d
9 MR. PATON: Judge Bechhoefer, can we stay with 8
10 that just a minute, because I want to make sure I h
=
II 5 understand the Board's ruling.
k I2 (Brief interruption.)
k 13 Judge Bechhoefer, the ruling that you just E 14 w made is with respect to, am I correct, the Restated 9 15 G Contentions that were filed today by Ms. Sinclair, is that x
0 '
correct?
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes.
t
$ 18 I believe he is referring to, if
= MR. BISHOP:
$ 19 g I may, to be sure I'm correct, to the contentions of the 20 original set that have been subject to discovery.
21 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: These are the restated
/ ones of the original set, is that correct?
23 MR. PATON: Well, now, let's -- are these
() revised or restated? Just tell me what you are talking 25 about.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
f 8137 I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I am using " restated,"
3/4/2 U 2 the way we used it in our earlier order which were 3 revisions of previously --
/D kJ g MR. PATON: Well, let's --
I have two documents g 5 here. One is called " restated," and one is called H
@ 6 " revised." Could you tell me which one you are referring R
S 7 to?
Z CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: When I talked about '
d 9 " restated," I am referring to what is called here
]".
0 10 p " revised."
=
II 5 MR. PATON: That is what I was afraid of. I d 12 z thought that was what you were referring to and again I am
() bg 13 looking at the word " restated" here and I wanted to get 3 14
$ it clarified.
m 9 15 g Can I try it again, Judge Bechhoefer?
e d CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes.
oi i 17 d.
a MR. PATON: I am looking at a six-page document
! x
$ 18 It has a number
= just submitted by Ms. Sinclair today.
19 t
! j of contentions. They are stated to be revised. They 20 may be revised and they may be restated, but you just 21 ruled, I believe, that we are not going to address these I4 22 l
\d today. I think you just ruled that the parties have 23
! until August 23rd to respond to those, is that correct?
\ CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Right. I am just 25 bringing up the same date that the February 1979 order ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
f 8174 0/4/3 1 used.
O 2 MR. PATON: I would like to suggest that we have 3 a little more time than that. In the context of O 4 everything that is going on here, I think that to set a 5 schedule like that is not particularly helpful. That g
@ 6 gives an extremely short period of time to respond. That R
$ 7 gives us essentially next week. It gives us five days a
j 8 to respond to these. '
d ci 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: These, as far as I am
$ 10 concerned, are not subject to any timeliness objection.
E 11 The response I believe is going to have to be on the is y 12 merits of the particular contention.
5 O gm l
is Off the record.
!$ 14 (Discussion had off the record.)
l= 15 MR. PATON: Judge Bechhoefer, I would like to j 16 say something else.
l
\ us 6 17 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Do you want to go back M 18 on the record?
5 19 Yes, please.
{n MR. PATON:
l 20 Judge Bechhoefer, the Staff would like to 21 request an additional two weeks. We would like to have O 22 three weeks to respond to these. The answer wou1d se 23 September.
Q 24 We would propose to file, if I can read that 25 calendar over there, on September 10th. That would give ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
t 8133 4
9/4/
1 us three weeks, wouldn't it?
O 2 You had said the 23rd which would give us one 3 week and I am trying to add two more weeks to that which O 4 would make it I think September 10th. ..
t
/5 e 5 3
9 h 0 f
e i w v,
[ 8 e
d 9
$ 10 z
3 ;
i Oad S 13 E' 14 id
=
2 15 s
16
]
w 6 17 ;
l w E l 5 18
=
g 19 ,
M 20 21 O 22 :
1
- 23 i
I 24 i
25 l
[
\
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
3-5,pjl 8140 1
.0th. MR. MILLER: September 3rd would be three weeks.
() 2 MR. PATON: September 10th, I would like that.
3 MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, I think that we m
i 4 need a little bit more information from the Staff before e 5 g we can make any judgment on this.
8
- 6 They still owe Ms. Sinclair responses to certain n
R 7
- interrogatories, so that the due date of revised contentions n
8 a 8 that Mr. Bishop enumerated for us at the beginning of this d
d 9 g pre-hearing conference has not even -- we don't when the
$ 10
$ Staff is going to get discovery to them and then he has E 11 g 10 days and then there is going to be a response due.
d 12
$ I want to, on behalf of the Applicant, determine c
d 13
(^J g
( when it is we can look forward to a final decision on the E 14 y
number of contentions chat we are going to have to be 2 15 g litigating in the operating license proceedings.
16 l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: My own inclination would f 17 d be for us to defer any decision on this for the moment, e
i M 18 l
s because I would like to find out a little bit more later 19 Q in the conference about the scheduling for other hearings l and I would like to see what we are trying to anticipate.
21 MR. PATON: Judge Bechhoefer, I can give you very
() quickly the Staff's response to the quality assurance 23 hearings.
l () The other hearing I really think we should talk 25 I' to the Applicant briefly about it and we would be able to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 8141 3-5,pj2 I give you better information.
2 The hearing involving the soils issues, we have 3 discussed it briefly but I think an off the record discussion
() 4 with the Applicant and any other party that wants to discuss I
5 it, I think we would be able to give you a better idea of g
n
@ 6 when we would be ready to go to hearing.
R
$ 7 I think we have even discussed one date, but I i 8 8 can- tell you that the Staff's position with respect to d
". 9 quality assurance is that we would be able to mail our z
o 10 g testimony on the last day of October.
=
$ II CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: So essentially if we had 3
g 12 at least several weeks to look at it it would be mid-Novem-s 5
J 5 13 ber?
m lE 14 MR. PATON: Yes, I think you have indicated before 15 that you wanted the Applicant to have two weeks to look at j 16 our testimony and then to prepare their tes'timony.
w I7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, that was assuming that h
x
$ 18 there was no prior agreements.
E l9 g Is your assumption that the Applicant and Staff n
20 will be taking somewhat different positions on the QA 21 question, because we had some discussions in a conference 22 call about a possible --
23 MR. PATON: That is just too' speculative for me 24 to respond.
25 I certainly right now there are issues on which we i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I
'3-5,pj3 8142 I
differ. We may, as a result of some management meetings,
( 2 be able to resolve some of those matters.
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We assume that it would take
() 4 about four to five weeks before we could go to hearing 5
j because the Applicant could get about two weeks to respohd 9
h 0 to the Staff.
R f7 n
MR. MILLER: I am prepared to be somewhat more
! O optimistic on the record than Mr. Paton is. I would hope d
d
~.
9 that we could reach agreement with the Staff with respect O 10 g to matters involving quality assurance. If we could have
=
fII some interim milestone dates before October 31st, I think we d 12 z would be in a position to advise the Board as to whether --
r' 13
(-) S
] when we would know whether we needed the additional two E 14 g weeks to file prepared testimony of our own, or whether we x
9 15 g would make a simultaneous filing with the Staff.
x d
M MR. PATON: I think I know what M'r.
Miller is h referring to, I'm not sure, but he may be --
Region III-7 m
$ 18 '
- has indicated to me that the management meeting which is 19 g very significant to all the quality assurance issues, that
' 20 the best information I can give the Board is that that I
meeting will take place in August and I am not sure if that l
22
([) is what you meant by " milestone dates," or not, but that is 23 i the best information I have.
(]) MR. MILLER: I wonder whether we could -- Mr.
25 Paton interjected the other scheduling matters, but I was l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
3-5,pj4 8143 I
really concerned about the operating license contentions as 2
to whet;.er or not we could have on the record a date by 3
which the Staff's response to Ms. Sinclair's discovery w .
4 will be completed so that we will know when the contentions !
5 process will have a reasonable chance of being concluded.
4 3 0 MR. PATON: I will attempt to do that. I don't R
" 7 want to lose track of the fact that I have asked the M
Q 8 Board until September 10th to -- did you say you were going d
d 9 to rule on that later, Judge Bechnoefer?
g 10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Right, right.
II
$ MR. PATON: All right. Let me address the matter k
fc I2 that Mr. Miller asked.
13
()f CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think maybe it would be l
14 a good idea to take our break now so that the Staff could l 15 perhaps find out a few more of these things. It sounds y 16 like the Staff couldn't answer right now.
s 17 (x There will be a 15-minute break.
l { 18 (Brief recess.)
i 19 t4 g n
20 l t 21 22
([)
i 23 !
24 (3) 25 '
, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8144 4/1/1 dw 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Back on the record.
O 2 Again, before we get to the specific contentions, 3 one of the earlier contentions which had been accepted was O 4 No. 13. That dealt with financial qualifications.
e 5 Well, the Commission recently has amended its 6
$ 6 rules to preclude consideration of financial R
$ 7 qualifications in a proceeding such as this. So I believe j 8 we announced or mentioned in a previous conference call d
C 9 that we would dismiss the financial qualifications
$ 10 contention, and we will just state on the record that we s
11 have done so or are doing so.
ex
{= 12 So the earlier Contention 13 also will be k-f13 dismissed on the basis of the Commission's change in its 14 So the record may reflect that.
rules.
15 Now, we will go back to the question that was d Ib pending to Mr. Paton.
M I7 MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, we had discussed with h
=
5 18 t - the Applicant our responses to Mrs. Sinclair's discovery, i
6 g and we had indicated that yesterday we thought we could 20 supply those answers in two weeks. We talked about it 21 some more, and I would like to request the Board to give
(~
22 us three weeks so that we would answer those on
! 23 September 3rd, that is, with the exception of the C' 24 contention on emergency planning, which I think is 27,
\-
i 25 but that contention has been accepted. So that one is not ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8145
/1/2 1 one that would have to be rewritten.
O 2 So I don't think the fact that we don't supply 3 that answer by September 3rd is going to be critical.
O 4 But as to all others, we would file our answers on or e 5 before September 3rd. That is a Friday, isn't it?
h 3 6 MR. BISHOP: Do we have any indication when R
$ 7 interrogatories relative to 27 might be able to be a
j 8 responded to? That obviously bears on our hearing dates 0
m; 9 and all that.
10 I realize that's in the jurisdiction of a h
=
5 II different agency, so it is difficult for you to predict.
k j 12 MR. PATON: May I have a minute on that, 2
OA5= 13 Mr. Chairman?
m 14 (Brief pause.)
x 15 MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, because we are dealing j 16 with another agency, that's difficult for me to -- I w
I7 think Mr. Bishopeis correct in making that request, but h
x I0 it is difficult for me to respond to it because we are e 19 g dealing with another agency.
20 I would like to discuss this matter with that 21 agency and inform the Board and the parties by letter in
() the near future when we think we would be able to respond 23 to that interrogatory.
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Also, although I am not 25 completely sure of what it is, in my opinion the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8146 3/1/3 I Commission -- it is not my opinion, but the Commission has O 2 established different rules for emergency planning for 3 low power and full power licenses, and I am not sure O 4 whether the existing contention would cover the -- whether 5 the con,tention would go to full power or whether it would j 6 go to matters which still apply to low power licenses and i R 7 the timing, of course, may well be different on those.
0 k So if we eliminate emergency planning from the d
9 question which we asked you about scheduling, would that o
10 h September 3 date -- or if that September 3 date were
=
II accepted, then how would the parties respond to the I
September 10th date?
13 B/2() $g lm 14 2 15 5
j 16 s
6 17 5 18 19 R
20 21
() 22 23 ,
T
(~j 24 u
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8147 04/2/1 1 MR. PATON: The September 10th date I requested sw gg date 2 to respond to -- respond to the -- what has been 3 designated as revised contentions.
l p
I ; J 4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Right. How does the e 5 September 3 date affect that?
O l @ 6 MR. PATON: Let me have a minute, Mr. Chairman.
1 R l $ 7 I am not sure that I see what your question is. If the n
j 8 Staff responds to interrogatories on September 3rd and d
d 9 then files responses to revised contentions on N
s 10 September 10th, I am not sure what your question is.
3
=
p 11 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: My question is: Does the k
j 12 September 3 date give enough time for other parties to
,, 5 (j $ 13 respond by September 10th or --
\ m
$ I4 MR. PATON: Well, I would think I would let the l %
l je 15 Applicant speak to that. It would be enough for the
.j 16 Staff. Obviously, we would know our own answers to a
b' 17 interrogatories.
M
$ 18 MR. MILLER: I don't see any necessary
=
19 relationship between the two dates.
2 5
20 MR. BISHOP: The September 3rd date is when 21 their interrogatories e;'t t re.
1 (m 22 MR. PATON: aswers.
I
( .)
J L.
23 ! MR. BISHOP: Your responses. Our revised or
(,,) 24 deleted contentions would be due 13 plus 5 from there, l 25 which would be, if my calculation is r i g P *. ,
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8148 4/2/2 1 September 20th. Then any responses they would have to O 2 those contentions would be due subsequent to'that.
3 MR. MILLER: Correct.
O 4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Oh, okay. So that the e 5 discovery would come in on the 3rd and --
8
@ 6 MR. PATON: Would be mailed on the 3rd.
R
$ 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mailed on the 3rd, and 3
l 8 the responses then would be due --
I don't have a calendar d
c; 9 in front of me on it, so I don't know how the Saturdays 5
e 10 and Sundays a p'p ly .
E Il MR. PATON: I had expected our responses to the s
I2 revised contentions -- just for the record, let me say N
/'i ! 13
(/ 5m that I am talking about a document that begins with l
l$ 14 Contention 28, just for -- it might make more sense to l
[z 15 somebody three months from now, but anyway, our request j 16 is that we file -- we mail those on September 10th.
W N 17 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: All right. Would that
$ 18 date apply to other parties, too?
E l9 MR. PATON: I wouldn't want to speak for the g
I n 20 Applicant.
21 MR. MILLER: We said we could get ours filed
() 22 by the 23rd if the Board is inclined to grant the Staff's l 23 request. Perhaps what we ought to do is have the usual 24 l (]) procedure where the party -- the other parties file --
I l 25 1
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
t
8149 I
4/2/3 1 don't know. The Staff has an additional five days, I O 2 guess. That would be --
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: So the 5th.
C' 4 MR. MILLER: We will take Friday, the 3rd.
g 5 MR. PATON: You'want to go five days before we 9
j 6 file ours? Is that what you're saying?
R S 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Usually you get five days l A h 8 after that.
! O i s
~ 9 l . MR. PATON: So he is going backwards, f $
10 MR. MILLER: Right, but if the Staff can do it h
=
II 5 earlier, we would be prepared to respori earlier as well.
I Mr. Paton, I take it you CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
(]) $g 13 still want the 10th?
E 14 w MR. PATON: Yes. We would like to have until C 15 Q the 10th, yes.
m
' 6 That really is virt'uhlly a full MR. MILLER:
d 17 a month from today, a little over, as a matter of fact.
m M 18
= MR. PATON: That would be impressive if that's 19 y all there was to do.
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Off the record for a 21 minute.
- (Discussion had off the record.)
23 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Okay. Back on the record.
l '
24 The Board is inclined to approve these l
l 25 I would like to make sure that particular dates.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8150
/2/4 1 everybody understands that what we are approving now 2 is -- what we are approving now is a commitment, and to 3 the extent that --
to make sure everybody is clear what 4 we are approving, what we are approving is that the e 5 Applicant will respond to the restated or revised h
@ 6 contentions submitted today --
8 7 MR. PATON: Beginning with 28.
E g 8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: -- on September 3.
d d 9 These are Revised Contentions 28, 30, 31, 32, 7:
h 10 35, 36, 40, 45, 50 and 52. That they will respond to E
'j 11 that on September 3. The Staff will respond to that on s
y 12 September 10th.
rm 5
(_) 13 In addition, the Staff will complete its response
!m 14 to the interrogatories by September 3rd.
4/3 2 15 s
j 16 e
d 17 18 l "
E 19 8
n 20 21 22
(])
23 ,
i 24
(])
25 '
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
t i4-3,pjl 01N 3rd. I MR. PATON: Could we say the Staff will complete
' O 2 its responses -- its answers to interrogatories by September 3 3rd except with respect to the emergency planning' inter-4 rogatory --
$ 5 JUDGE COWAN: No. 27.
9
@ 6 MR. PATON: It was Contention No. 27.
I G
l $ 7 MR. WILCOVE: I think it was Interrogatory No. 6.
A j 8 MR. PATON: Do you want us to get that number d
9 for the record?
c}
z c
10 JUDGE COWAN: The interrogatory concerning emer-h
=
Il
$ gency planning.
3 P[
I2 MR. PATON: Judge Bechhoefer, could the record s
Os m i3 ehow thee the interroeeeory thee re1etee to emergency g1en-l$ 14 ning is Interrogatory No. 6, and that the Staff is requ6s t-i 15 ing that that interrogatory -- the Staff is requesting that h
x E
- I0 we file answers to interrogator.ies on Septe'mber 3rd except us
,N I7 for that interrogatory.
18 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes. Just to make sure i:
19 that I have put on the record this date, the new contentions g
n 20 or restated contentions based on material for which inter-2I rogatories must be answered by September 3rd, those new 22 O contentions or withd,,wn contentiens, we w111 be ad 1 sed 23 of by September 20th.
24 Unless the parties tell me I forgot something, 25 we are now going on to specific contentions, right?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
8152 4-3,pj2 1
MR. PATON: I have a preliminary matter.
- ( 2 Oh, great.
l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
3 MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, I have a matter in the 4 -
nature of a Board notification involving a possible vio-e 5 g lation of a Board order, and I can advise the Board of it I 6
- now or later, whatever.
N 8 7
- CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER
- Let's do it now.
n
(
8 MR. PATON: All right. A concern has been raised d
d 9 g by Region III5 inspec tors . They feel the licensee has '
o H 10
$ violated the Board order of April 30, 1982, in that prior ,
=
E 11 g approval was not obtained for critical remedial soils work 6 12 3 in two instances.
S
- 13
@ As a result of this concern Region III recommended E I.4 se the issuance of a stop work order on all remedial soils 2 15 g work. The licensee issued a stop work order on August 9th, T 16 .
$ 1982. On August lith, 1982 Region III met with Consumers 6 17 w Power Company management to discuss this concern.
= ,
$ 18
= The licensee informed Region III that they did ,
19 l not feel -- excuse me. I will begin again.
20 The licensee informed Region III that they feel r they did not perform unauthorized critical remedial soils s work. Region III is continuing the investigation.
23 Whether or not a violation of the Board order ,
24 ,
O. exists, Region III determined that a lack of communication 25 does exist, and with the licensee's assistance is preparing ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. i
4-3,pj3 8153 I a communications mecha.nism that should prevent any future ,
2 concerns in this area.
3 The previously-described stop work order will
~
O 4 remain in ettect,une11 the worx activities are.1eemt1,1e,hy ;
5 the licensee and reviewed and approved by Region III.
y a
@ 6 I can be more definitive, Mr. Chairman, with l R
=
" 7 respect to the two instances that are referred to.
N l4-4 8 0 ,
e 6 9
- i o
@ 10 s_
g 11 ,
p 12 ,
a O s. i3 E 14 w
2 15 M
g 16 -
w g 17
- $ 18 19 8
n 20 21 22 0 .
23 .
l O I
25 ,
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
8154 4/4/1 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Great. That's about what dw([) 2 I was just going to ask you.
to.
3 MR. PATON: I heard you.
O 4 The two instances are, number one, excavation 5 below a Category I duct bank at a freeze wall crossing, g
9
@ 6 and number two, excavation for relocation of fire lines in R
o S 7 "Q" soil area.
A j 8 JUDGE HARBOUR: Would you read those again.
d Q[ 9 MR. PATON: Both or the last one?
z o
o 10 JUDGE HARBOUR: Just the last one.
II 5 MR. PATON: Excavation for relocation of fire k
N I2 lines in a "Q" soil area.
l (~\ Q t
() y 13 MR. MILLER: On behalf of the Applicant, I would m
l$ l-4 like to just state for the record that we believe that i g 15 there is --
that we have not been in violation of a Board x
g 16 Order and have communicated that position 'to the Staff.
w I7 The freeze wall was the subject of much h
=
5 18
-l
- testimony before this Board and was also the subject of s
19 y" specific communications in writing between Consumers Power 20 Company and the Staff, and as I understand the Staff ,
21 position, the Staff itself has not reached a
\
determination that a violation of the Board Order exists.
23l In any event, the improvement in communications with respect to approval by the Staff of specific work in !
25 connection with the soils remedial work and this Board's i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8155 4/4/2 I April 30th order has been a matter of some concern to the O) m 2 company for . period of time.
3 We welcome the improvement of communication with
' nuj 4 the Staff and the mechanism that is being worked out 5
l- between the company and the Staff to make certain that 6
{' any missed communications that may have occurred in the E
" 7 past do not take place in the future.
m 8 8 n It is our expectation that this process of d
< d 9 x-developing a working arrangement with the Staff to O
P 10 j improve communications is well underway, and we hope it
=
k' 3
will be concluded by tomorrow.
k JUDGE COWAN: Mr. Paton, do you expect to make
() g 13 this Board notification a part of the record?
! E 14 l y MR. PATON: Yes, Judge Cowan, since I --
I l =
! 9 15 g think it is part of the record as far as notifying the
~
16 What you may be refer' ring to is i
$ Board is concerned.
G 17 a whether or not there is going to be any evidence --
=
- M 18
= JUDGE COWAN: No, no. I just mean -- is this
- 19 g thing that you summarized to us going to be a part of the l 20 l record or is the summary accurate?
21 MR. PATON: That's as far as I intended to go
\ now. I wanted to put the Board on notice. I consider 23 I the Board has now been notified, and we are continuing 24 C-) our investigation, and I think obviously when that's 25 '
concluded, we would provide that to the Board.
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 8156 B/4/3 1 JUDGE COWAN: That's satisfactory to me, 2 certainly.
3 MR. MARSHALL: I am not quite clear on this.
4 I wonder if there's a void somewhere between Glen Ellyn, e 5 Illinois and their Staff over there and Mr. Miller. Am I h
@ 6 to understand that there is?
R l
$ 7 'Is it that large in scope? Are we just s
l 8 talking between the lawyers for the NRC and the lawyers d
c; 9 for the Applicant?
z o
$ 10 What I am understanding here: We have a 5 -
11 violation, a couple of violations, and if I am B
(E 12 understanding it correct, Region III is Keppler, am I
()j 13 correct on that?
m h 14 MR. PATON: That's correct.
15
{a MR. MARSHALL: Just how extensive is this void j 16 or this misunderstanding or lack of communication? Is e
g 17 this just between you and Mr. Miller or does this extend --
{ 18 MR. PATON: Could I respond briefly?
P 19
{
e Mr. Marshall, I just said the NRC has the 20 opinion that there may be a violation of a Board Order.
21 MR. MARSHALL: Oh.
() 22 MR. PATON: May be, very clear. That's why I 23 read it.
24
(]) MR. MARSHALL: I had a misunderstanding. I 25 wondered if you two fellows were playing tennis and I was ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
, 8157
-4/4/4 1 losing something.
O 2 MR. PATON: No, no. I said there may be.
3 Mr. Miller said his client doesn't think so, and I was O 4 just advising the Board of this matter and that the i
e 5 NRC is investigating it.
E
'4/5 3 e 6 N
& 7 :
M 8
N 8
1 g i d 9
- i ;
o 3 10 a
g 11 3
6 12 E
13 o
m E 14 w
2 15 w
e j 16 -
as 6 17 l { 18 E
19 8
n 20 l l
, t 21 lO 22 23 0 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8158 4/5/1 sw 1 MR. MARSHALL: A while ago we had a play on it (]) 2 words as to Mr. Keppler, you understand, and I see 3 Region III here, as to whether he said to the media so and 4 so, and I understood it one way. I just wanted to get it ;
e 5 clear right now before we go any further.
E
@ 6 MR. BISHOP: One last point of that, could you R
$ 7 explain briefly what the improvementt in communication ~
M
. 8 8 we are talking about is? I take it it is not mechanical.
d !
d 9 It is a question of --
Z, c
g 10 MR. PATON: Just briefly I will touch on it.
5
$ 11 I think it is in the direction of putting more things in 3
f 12 writing where people can clearly understand and see in
() m 13 writing what it is that is being asked and what is being l$ 14 improved.
g 15 That's the general nature of improvement in m
.j 16 communications.
W d 17 MS. STAMIRIS: I have a couple of questions.
{ 18 I would like to ask first what is the extent of the P
"g 19 i stop work order? Is that a stop work on all soil remedial n
20 work at this point?
2I MR. PATON: Let me have a minute because I --
() 22 MR. MILLER: I can answer that question. It is 23 ' totally at this point. There is no soil remedial work
() 24 going on at the site.
25 MR. PATON: It says on all remedial soil work.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8159 4/5/2 1 MS. STAMIRIS: I wondered, in line with this O 2 question that Mr. Bishop asked, whether you will be 3 presenting to us tomorrow or, you know, if whenever you 4 decide exactly what the communication mechanism is, will e 5 you be presenting that to us?
E W
@ 6 MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, my response to that is R
$ 7 I would assume'that the extent to which the Board is A
j 8 interested in this matter may be determined by the result d
9 9 of the Staff's investigation.
z o
b 10 It is conceivable that the Staff may investigate E
$ 11 this and determine that there was no violation of the i k
f 12 Board Order, in which I think it would take on certainly --
() dm 13 what I'm saying is the results were of our investigation l$ 14 obviously, I would think, would determine how extensive g 15 the Board wants to go into this matter.
x g 16 That would be my answer to Mrs. Stamiris.
W I N 17 MS. STAMIRIS: I would like to go on the record 5
{ 18 asking the Board -- I'm not stce whether I should make a P
g I9 motion, but I would like to ask the Board that --
it is n
20 a repeat of an earlier request that I made in conference 21 calls on this subject, because these miscommunications
() 22 problems that are going on with the soils remedial work 23 , are not new. ,
I 24
(]) They have gone on, and they were mentioned, I 25 l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8160 4/5/3 1 believe, in your April 30th memorandum, and they were O 2 discussed in a conference call subsequent to that.
3 At that time I suggested that in the Board's O 4 April 30th memorandum that your requirement that Consumers g
5 receive explicit prior approval should be explicit prior
@? 6 approval from the NRC Staff in writing to avoid the R
$ 7 miscommunication problems, and also to avoid problems 3
l 8 that we are faced with like this in which Mr. Paton has d
d 9 to come to the Board and say "A possible violation of i
o
@ 10 the Board Order," and if it had been done in writing, E
$ 11 then it wouldn't be subject to judgment after the fact.
S y 12 I would like to request the Board that if the 13 parties do not present to us tomorrow or in the near
=
5 14 future a description of a communication mechanism that jx 15 voluntarily agrees that all prior approval be written, j 16 that the Board would require such written' approval.
M d 17 MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
{ 18 respond to that.
A 19 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Go ahead.
h n
20 MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the 21 Board to allow the Applicant and the Staff to attempt
() 22 to arrive at the appropriate solution to this problem ,
23 and present it to the Board, and then the Board consider
() 24 whether you want to do anything about the solution, for 25 this reason: It sounds very simple to say put everything ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4/5/4 8161 1 in writing, but it gets extremely complicated at the O 2 site.
3 When the man picks up his shovel, does it have O 4 to be in writing?
g 5 It is a very complicated matter of the e
@ 6 description of what work is asked for, what work is R
$ 7 approved and at what level of detail do you go.
A i l
8 For the Board to say that everything is done d .
c; 9 on that site has to be in writing would impose, I would z
o 10 think, horrendous problems of procedure; and I really h
=
k II think that this is a matter that the two parties are is N I2 obviously having difficulty coming to grips with, and for 13 them to spend a lot of effort and resources on working m
5 I4 this out is -- indicates the difficulty of a problem.
15 For the Board to just .sicin an order and say everything h
x t ij 16 had to be in writing, I think would not be appropriate at l us N I7 all. '
T5 { 18 lfol. E
- 19 20 ,
21 0 22 23 l O 24 25 I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
5-1,pjl 8162 I' MS. STAMIRIS: I would like to suggest that what O
k/ 2 I think would help with this kind of problem would not 3 necessarily be a blanket statement that says everything
() 4 has to be in writing, but some kind of negotiation between 5 the Staff and the Applicant that would take some pains in j
4 3 6 deciding in more detail exactly what has to be approved in R
S 7 writing and what doesn't and I do think it would be worth s
{ 8 a few days of effort to put it down as best you can d
d 9 specifically on paper, very objectively, or as objectively 8
l= 10 as possible in the hopes of avoiding weeks of problems II k later.
B N I2 MR. MILLER: That is just what we are trying to 3
( )5m 13 l'do.
h 14 MR. PATON: That is my understanding.
15 MR. BISHOP: Will that be put on the record so h
x E I0 that we will be able to review that.
W I7 MR. MILLER: I don't know that it is necessary to h
e
{ 18 be put on the record unless the Board directs that it be P
g I9 put on the record.
n 20 I certainly have no objection if that document 21 that sets forth the approval is finally agreed upon, to 22 serve it on the other parties and the Board.
(])
23 ; CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: If you ever come up with
() 24 an agreement..of some sort, I think that we would like to 25 ! be told that you have it.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
5-1,pj2 , 8163 I MR. MILLER: It is ab.p, ttely essential that we O 2 do. Work has stopped and we are going to have to come to 3 an agreement and we will do so.
() 4 MR. BECHHOEFER: I think my only comment is that 5
g we would like a copy and we would like to be notified and 9
@ 6l I guess we will note that it has taken three months l
R o
S 7 I already to do that.
A k 0 MR. MILLER: Well, except tha t I think that the d
9 Applicant and the Staff have been proceeding on oral com-c H 10 g munications to some extent with respect to approvals of
=
II 5 certain specific detailed activities in connection with S
f c
I2 remedial work, and in addition there have been written Osn 23 communicatione from the Seeff ee necessery, b:1e the evenes l
Y 14 of the last few days with assertions that there may have l
l j* 15 been a violation of this Board's order and at best a mis-l E I6 understanding between Staf f and Applicant's' personnel,
[
t w 1 .
I7 everybody I think agrees that we need something better than h
x
{ 18 what we have been operating under for the last three months. '
P 19 8 On that basis, the Applicant has wanted this for n
20 We are trying to develop a procedure which will some time.
2I establish the level of detail at which written approval is
() 22 required and those types of activities for which all 23 approval by the Staff will be sufficient. It is my under-l 24 standing that this will establish a sequence of events for
(])
25 activities which we will talk about submission of schedules
, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
5-1,pj3 8164 I
in advance to the Staff and a time within which the Staff O 2 is to respond in writing with respect to items that are 3
scheduled for work one week or two weeks in advance.
() 4 MR. BISHOP: I appreciate that this is undefined 5
j as yet and so we don't know how important this is. I think 9
@ 6 it is appropriate, given the long-term nature of this dif-R S 7 ficulty, that whatever agreement is worked out is served on M
8 8 all parties and if those parties feel that it's worth d
9 elevating, appropriate motions can be made.
6 10 h I think it is necessary for my clients to at least
=
II
$ be able to see what the agreement is that comes out of these s
f I2 negotiations. They are, after all, parties to this pro-A3 13 ceedings.
5m/ m5 I4 MR. MARSHALL: I would agree.
{m 15 MR. PATON: I think the --
j 16 MR. MILLER: I think the Board ju'st said that we W
h I7 l would.
=
5 18 MR. STAMIRIS: I would just like to respond to A
19 what Mr. Miller said by saying that I believe his charac-g n
20 terization by saying that this is the sort of thing that 21 the Applicant has been wanting for some time is quite con-22 trary to the position that was argued in the conference
({)
23 calls on the subject. I think they specifically avoided 24 wanting anymore details or explicit written, approval at
(])
25 that time.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1,pj4 8165 I Just so that the record is clear, MR. MILLER:
2 I believe that what I stated in the conference call was 3
what Mr. Paton just stated, that the notion of having everything approved in writing is simply unworkable and 5
j that was the position I took then and I ascribe to what 9
6
@ Mr. Paton said here today.
A S 7 MR. MARSHALL: Judge Bechhoefer agrees that there M
9 8 M should be enough in writing so that.some learned people d
9
}". could be informed about what is happening down there. I C
10 h think it should be that extensive. I know we don't want
=
II 5 too much but I think we should have enough so that we can B
fc I2 at least draw conclusions as to what is happening.
() 13 JUDGE HARBOUR: I think that is what has been E 14 g agreed on by everybody.
x
{x 15 MR. MARSHALL: I am a little slower than the j 16 rest of us. I am what we call a slow learn'er.
w l I7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I don't think we need do l
.h x
{ 18 anything further on this at the moment. And I hardly A
19 8 think that the parties look like they are trying to hold n
20 back information from us that they legitimately think we 21 should have. So I guess we don't need do further at this
() 22 time on the subject.
23
, Are there further preliminary matters at this
() 24 time?
25 MR. MILLER: No.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
r- - - - - _ __
5-1,pj5 8166 I
(Discussion had off the record. )
() 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The Board thinks'before 3 lunch the only contention that we would like to discuss is
() 4 Contention No. 1 and I would hope that the parties would at 5
g least tell us --
one matter I think is fairly crucial on 9
that and maybe we could find out now whether any mandate E
- from the court has come out yet.
N 9 8 M MR. WILCOVE: No.
a 9
5-2 .
g 10 E
g 11 a
y 12
() 5sx 13 l$ 14 e 15 5
y 16 -
w g 17
$ 18 -
E 19 3
n 20 21 22 C) 23 24
(:)
25 j i . ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8167 5/2/1 1 MR. MILLER: To our knowledge it has not, dw(]) 2 no Judge Bechhoefer, and I believe it is worth noting for 3 the record that Consumers Power Company is a party to a O 4 case that is being treated as a related case by the Court 5 of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
j 9
@ 6 The case that it is related to is what is known R
S 7 as Vermont Yankee III, which is the most recent case in s
j 8 which the D.C. Circuit struck down Table S-3.
d 9 The Court's opinion, as everyone knows, was 6
10 issued some months ago now, but no mandate has been h
=
II k issued.
3 N I2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That is the question I 5
Ct a j 13 just asked.
14 And at least to our knowledge, and MR. MILLER:
e C 15
$ until such a mandate issues, it is our position that
=
0 Table S-3 as presently constituted and the' original and interim Table S-3 as well are still valid; that is, the
=
$ 18
= last step in the Court of Appeals decision process is 19 l the issuance of the mandate.
20 I might add that it is apparent to me that the 21 Court of Appeals foresees that petition for certiorari J to-the Supreme Court of the United States is likely.
23 l Indeed counsel for Consumers Power Company would file 24 one if no one else did and I believe that the Staff at 25 the NRC and the United States Department of Justice as ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8168
$/2/2 I well have publicly taken the position that they will file O 2 such a petition which again would have the effect of 3 staying the mandate.
O 4 On that basis, Contention 1 is simply not e 5 appropriate for adjudication in this proceeding.
h 3 6 MR. BISHOP: Judge, if I might respond to that.
i g
a 7 The Court of Appeals has ruled definitively N
8 8 that Table.S-3, has rejected the validity of S-3. A d
c} 9 petition for rehearing has been denied by that Court.
z o
@ 10 There are motions to stay the mandate that are outstanding 11 that have not been ruled upon. There is no petition for 3
g 12 cert filed.
~
c (s,s) 13 If what we have are Mr. Miller's belief of l$ 14 what he might.do and what other people might do --
the 15 problem is that we, for the purposes of a contention,
{m j 16 we are not talking about -- we are talking about for the w
17 purposes of a contention in a hearing that is going to be
=
{ 18 going on for several months and in the interest of trying E
g 19 to resolve contentions and leave as few outstanding as n
20 possible, we do have a ruling directly on point that S-3 21 is out.
() 22 It appears to me that the most appropriate way 23 for this Board to proceed is to admit the contention and
() 24 then subject to if Mr. Miller's looking into the future 25 comes to pass, or if Moses comes down from the mountain
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8169 5/2/3 1 with a new Table S-3, then you can act on that just as 2 you did with the new financial qualifications contention.
3 I think that to leave this outstanding and to O 4 appear that it is hanging in limbo is just acting beyond g 5 the realm of reasonable possibilities.
A h 6 MR. WILCOVE: Judge Bechhoefer --
R
$ 7 MR. MILLER: If I may respond briefly, 8 8 Mr. Wilcove.
d d 9 MR. WILCOVE: Sure.
b g 10 MR. MILLER: The reason that the motion for 5
$ 11 stay of mandate hasn't been acted on is that no mandate a
f 12 has issued. So there is no final decision that the
() d 13 parties can either move the Court of Appeals to stay or l$ 14 can get going to the Supreme Court.
g 15 So for Mr. Bishop to assert that there has been z
j 16 a decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of e
17 Columbia -- there has been an opinion with a pretty cogent
=
{ 18 dissent, but there has not been the necessary technical P
19 legal steps taken by the Court of Appeals so that the l g
- n
! 20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is ordered to do 21 anything at all with respect to Table S-3.
() 22 Therefore, it remains effective and valid until 23 j that mandate issues.
- 5-() 24
! 25 i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8170 5/3/1 1 MR. MARSHALL: Judge Bechhoefer --
iss(u)es 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Let me ask: If the Court 3 of Appeals should later rule, I take it that you would O 4 not raise any timeliness questions on the part of further 5
action by the Intervenors.
0 MR. MILLER: If the mandate issued and was not R
" 7 stayed, there would not be a timeliness objection that N
8 8 a you could make.
d 6 9 g MR. WILCOVE: Judge --
0 10
@ MR. MARSHALL: Judge --
= ,
MR. MILLER: That I would make.
d 12 3 MR. MARSHALL: Judge, I am a little, as I said, s
s 13
@ slow, again, on the trigger, but isn't it true that E 14 y speaking for the Appellate Court of the District of 2 15 g Columbia, that Judge David Bazelon did make a decisive
~
16 '
l decision, did they not, with one exception, one abstaining -
@ 17 g vote?
$ 18 g MR. MILLER: Sustaining it.
19
! MR. MARSHALL: Sustaining it.
20 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: They made a ruling. They 21 expressed an opinion.
22 (2) MR. MARSHALL: No one has taken an appeal to a 23 ,
higher authority since that time. It:still stands as it 24 (2) stands right now, doesn't it?
25 !
MR. WILCOVE: What can be discerned from this ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. '
8171 5/3/2 1 conversation is that there are a lot of unknowns, one of G
V 2 which has not been mentioned is the fact that the 3 Commission will issue some guidance as to what the Staff O 4 should do with respect to the Court of Appeals decision, 5 and I don't think at this point the contention should be y ,
9
@ 6 admitted. I don't think that the parties should have to R
S 7 undergo any discovery at this point in light of all the a
R 8 M variables, d
c; 9 On the other hand, I think that the best 10 h alternative is to defer any ruling on this contention at
=
II
$ all, which is what the Staff's position in its original B
fI response to Ms. Sinclair's contention was. There are just too many unknowns at this point to come up with a E 14 d determination either way.
M C 15 G CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Would it be preferable m
? 16 '
g for us to defer a ruling, or would it be preferable for d
w 17 us to --
x
$ 18
= MR. WILCOVE: Yes, yes.
19 l
I l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, wait a minute. I 20 am going to give you an alternative.
21 MR. MARSHALL: Judge --
f) 22 w/ CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Would it be better for us ;
23 to reject the contention now but offer no particular p>. 24 barrier or anything like that for accepting it later if 25 the Commission should indicate that it would be acceptable.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 8172 6/3 1 MR. WILCOVE: My reaction to that is that while 2 'h'ere t may not be a vast amount of difference between the 3 two in the end it would probably save paper work, red
(_) 4 tape, what have you, if the contention is deferred, 5 rather than rejected and then force the Intervenors to go j
9 a' 6 through the process of readmitting it.
R*
S 7 MR. BISHOP: Your Honor, given those choices, 3
l 8 obviously my clients are not interested in reserving a d
d 9 contention that is essentially known as contended that z.
o 10
,h we have an ill-stated contention.
=
II
$ The question is the effect of the Court of s
I Appeals ruling. My point that I was trying to make before
(~') S
" lm 13 is that I felt that given the fact that we are speaking of the relevance of the ruling with regard to the f
9 15 G relevance of the contention and for the purposes of
=
~
16 l admitting the contention, I believe that the ruling is 6 17 f a sufficiently direct that if there is a need to change it
=
$ 18
= later, it can be done.
19 l Obviously, one other way to deal with that is 20 to defer a ruling on it and to rule after the mandate has 21 issued and all the hoops have been jumped through. Given
(\
'# 22 that choice, I would prefer that you defer ruling if 23 .
I your other alternative is to reject it, just from a
(~) 24
\' convenience standpoint to my client.
25 35/4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8173
- 5-4,pjl ,
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Would.it make a difference to Aiert.
(-) 2 your client between deferring it now or -- what is the 3
technical state of the law now, assuming that a mandate has
() 4 .
been issued?
h MR. BISHOP: I don't think we have any direct 3 6 e
precedent- . for the purposes of an admission of a conten-E
- tion of what the precise ruling has to be. I think that N
8 8
" that is the point that I tried to make is that the Court of d
6 9 7-Appeals has ruled. It has written an opinion and has S 10 j denied a rehearing.
=
E 11 g It is a notoriously slow court to get opinions d 12 Z out of. This is August, after all, and the Court of Appeals 13
/~')
\' @E leaves town during August.
E 14 y I believe that for .the purposes of getting the z
9 15 g contention in and started.that it is more appropriate that 16 '
it be admitted now with subsequence possibility of rejecting g 17 w it and pulling it out later.
m M 18
= MR. MILLER: I guess I disagree with that analysis.
19 8 First of all, the issuance of a mandate by a court is almost 20 a ministerial act. It usually is accomplished by a clerk 21 at the direction of the judges who sat on the particular
() case. I think that Judge Bazelon is trying to maximize 23 his destruction of the nuclear licensing process by fooling r3 24 (y around with the issuance of this mandate. Besides that, 25 it seems to me that we have a very strong indication of ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8174 l5-4,pj2 1 how the Commission reacts to the Court of Appeals decision
() 2 because it has been issuing operating licenses for nuclear 3 power plants in the time period between the issuance of
() 4 Judge Bazelon's decision and today's date.
e 5 That is an indication to me that the Nuclear h
h 6 Regulatory Commission itself believes that Table S-3 con-R
& 7 tinues to be valid, and on that basis, I would think that M
8 8 this Board should reject contention 1 and if the mandate d
d 9 ultimately issues and is not stayed, or if the Commission, N
$ 10 contrary to my interpretation of recent events in other E
j a
11 dockets, should direct licensing boards to consider the p 12 uncertainties in Table S-3 that were the subject of the most recent Vermont Yankee opinion, then let the same
(]) 5 13 l$ 14 contentions be resubmitted. It seems to me that it is a 2 15 very minor matter for the Intervenor.
g 16 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Do you view that there will W
p 17 be any difference in the degree of burden, if any, that 5
18 the Intervenors would be under to submit a new contention E
, 19 later or to just defer it now or have us reject it now a
20 subject to later submissions? Is the burden that they 21 would have to undergo -- and I am not really considering 22 mailing them a piece of paper or even considering whether
(])
23 , mailing them a piece of paper now or later would be any difference in burden -- but other than that, would their
{} 24 25 burdens be any different if I rejected it now or if I or 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8175
- 5-4,pj3 I we deferred it, if we technically even took any sort of
- 2 action now?
3 MR. MILLER: I guess, Judge, I don't see any 4 difference in terms of the burden on the Intervenors from 5 any of the alternatives that you proposed, unless you were j
9 3 6 inclined to accept the contention.
R b 7 On that basis, I just think that the record would 3
k 0 be cleaner to reject it now. I think that the Board would d
c; 9 be perfectly justified for the reasons I have already 10 expressed for doing so, and if there is then some change h
=
II in the status of Table S-3, 5 I don't know that Mr. Bishop a
f I2 would even be required to file a new contention. Presumably 13
() o$ m the Board could then act and reverse its ruling rejecting 14 the contention.
z 15 Judge Bechhoefer, is there an MR. MARSHALL: '
j
. 16 order in connection with that same decision' ordering the w
I7 NRC to rewrite Table 3, by the Appellate Court for the h
z IO f District of Columbia, isn't it mandatory in that ruling 19 that they rewrite Table 37 Isn't that an order imposed 20 5-5 upon --
21
') 22
('J w
23
() 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
t 8176 5/1 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I am not sure that the D
ioonwd (a 2 order is imposed until the mandate is imposed.
3 MR. MARSHALL: We are in limbo right now. None 4 of us know, but we do have an order, don' t we?
g 5 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I don't know whether we 9
3 6 do.
R 8 7 MR. BISHOP: Our difficulty is that we are j 8 dealing with Mr. Miller's feeling of what he thinks
- d c 9 Judge Bazolon is thinking and I am not terribly sure z,
10 that that is the kind of guidance that is terribly II useful.
5 a
f I2 The point is that we do have an opinion and if 13 you were to reject it, there would be obviously no legal a
b I4 burden that would differ if we were to file it later.
15 That goes without saying. It would be preposterous if j 16 it were different.
I w
I7 But there is a practical burden and although l z I0 it may not be that much to Consumers Power or its Staff, l P 19 8n it is to the Intervenors and I think that it would be 20 cleaner if it wera to be retained and a deferred 21 ruling, if that is your preference, and rule subsequent
() 22 to when a final mandate is issued.
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: You are saying that if 1
(). 24 we defer"it, there is no difference in burden to you?
MR. BISHOP: No. There is a problem because ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8177
$/5/2 I obviously if it is then ruled later when the mandate does O 2 issue, then discovery and the whole process -- at least 3
the hearing will then start from that date, as opposed to 4 from now.
5
$ So it is really a question of again setting off 9
3 6 That is up to you to decide.
potential hearing dates.
N MS. STAMIRIS: Judge Bechhoefer --
n k MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, I believe that d
6 9 j there is truly a legal impediment to the Board's 10 h.'
accepting the contention. Table S-3 remains valid today.
=
II This is the Commission's interpretation and that is the legal consequences of the Court of Appeals not having
()g 13 issued its mandate.
I# CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Would you want us to hold b"
e that Table 3 is valid or that it just remains in effect?
16 MR. MILLER: That it remains in effect.
l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Which is a little I
z
$ 18
= different. ,
19 l
l MR. MILLER: Well, that's right. Table S-3 is 20 not before the Board. I think you simply have to accept 21 it as the product of a valid rule making process.
MR. MARSHALL: I don't agree.
23 MS. STAMIRIS: Judge Bechhoefer, I would like em
(-) to comment that my feeling is that there is not a vast 25 disagreement between the parties on the issues, and I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
81'78 5/5 3 I think it is obvious that we have to end up waiting to 2 see what happens before we can have different positions.
3 I think that the NRC's suggestion is the most
\> 4 fair to both parties that it be deferred, so then it 5 doesn't place an unfair burden on the Applicant or on the g
n 3 6 Intervenors. It is simply a matter of letting time pass a
b 7 and waiting to see where the burden will lie and I think s
k, 8 the most sensible way to deal with it expeditiously is d
- 9
~. to defer the ruling, as the NRC has suggested.
$ 10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I might advise the 3_
II k parties that I tried to call 'down to the Commission's a
12 N office yesterday and couldn't get any information that
,~
~, 13 they had acted or not acted and I was told that there was 3 14 Q a Staff paper that was before them, but I couldn't find 9 15 g out whether they had actually acted on it. So I have to
~
16 g assume that they didn't as of yesterday, and I couldn't f 17 w do much today.
=
$ 18
- We are not going to rule on the spot now, and E
19 l if anybody tells us by tomorrow that they have acted one 20 way or the other, we will come out with some sort of a 21 ruling on it, but at the moment, we won't.
I)
\d 22 I think we will adjourn for lunch now and 23 l resume at 2:00.
I
ks' 24l (Whereupon, a luncheon recess 25 l l
was taken until 2:00 p.m. on same date.)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8179 6/1/1 1 AF T E RNOO N S E SS I O N 2:13 p.m .'
dw /
2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Back on the record.
3 I guess we should proceed contention by 4 contention, and what I would like to do -- just to make g 5 sure the record is clear -- go down the old numbers, and R
$ 6 where they have been resubmitted, talk about those, and R
$ 7 make sure that we aren't inadvertently omitting any.
3
[ 8 I read No. 2 -- or you stated that No. 2 is --
d d 9 old No. 2 is dropped.
$ 10 MR. BISHOP: That's correct.
D j 11 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Now, we will go to old
~
s 3, which is the same as new No.
{ 12 No. 2.
() 13 MR. BISHOP: It's been restated as No. 2. It
$ 14 is not exactly the same. ,
g 15 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: It is not the same.
m y 16 MR. BISHOP: We will get to that, I am sure.
+
6 17 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Normally what I would do
{ 18 is have you respond to the Applicant's and Staff's A
19
{
n positions, but their positions may be different since 20 the contention is different. I don't know -- I think the 21 Applicant and the Staff should probably first see if
() 22 they wish to supplement or change their position in any 23 way because of the change in the contention or the change
{} 24 in the basis.
25 MR. BISHOP: It might help if I could explain ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8180 6/1/2 I why we got to where we are or else would you like to go O 2 first?
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We could do it either way.
4 MR. MILLER: It is immaterial.
3 MR. BISHOP: The original Contention No. 3, a
f6 n
which has now been redrafted as No. 2, was confusing to R 7
- all parties; and I had a long talk with Ms. Sinclair N
8 8 a about it, and I determined that her principal concern d
c 9 j relating to that contention was in the neighborhood of e
h unknown factors leading to core- m,elt ;of , which .operato.r: erro r
=
$ II -
ea.s.? one . o f ,3hetmo s tu impp rtan t.
3 d 12 z This is something that the Commission has been b 13 g dealing with in various phases, and so that the contention
! E 14 l p was redraftsd to focus attention on that particular aspect l =
9 15 g of- the : core : melt- .TMIip'roblems , ? a'nd with 'pirticular C -
~
16 reference to the analysis in the SER, s o t'h a t ' s the g
6 17 a
- evolution of this particular contention.
m M 18
= CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: If it is still a TMI 19 l contention, can you explain why we didn't hear about it
. 20 l last June?
21 MR. BISHOP: Well, it has part of its genesis 22 O' in TMI, of course, but also the reason that it is raised 23 now is because it is objecting to -- it is relating to fi 24 s/ the treatment of this particular aspect of the TMI 25 experience in the SER.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i 8181 6/1/3 I obviously, Mrs. Sinclair couldn't have known O 2 what the Staff was going to do until the Staff did it, 3 and actually it would have been premature to raise it at !
,O 4 that point. We wouldn't have known what the SER was going 5
y to say. i N
$ 6 The contention basically says that the Staff's R
E 7 treatment of the operator error problem in the SER was 3
j 8 deficient, and that's what the contention is directed d
~ 9
,". toward.
C
$ 10 472 5_
i a
l j 12 Oi .
i3 .
I E 14
=
2 15 5
j 16 '
us I d 17 l
!3 18 t _
h 19 8
n 20 21 0 22 23 1
!O 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
_ , _ - - - - ~ _ _ , , , _
6-2,pjl 3182 toward I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: What's the date of this?
2 MR. MILLER: 1981. It's on the next page, Judge 3 Bechhoefer.
() 4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Oh, I'm sorry. Do you have g 5 anything further to add before we hear from the Applicant 0
@ 6 and Staff?
R S 7 MR. BISHOP: No. That appears to take care of
- I j 8 the reasons for the contention. I 'believ5 the basis is d
q 9 stated and the particularities of this particular proceed-
$ 10 ing is stated.
11
$ It derives from the analysis in the SER and, 3
12 therefore, I believe that the conditions for its admission N
5
(] j 13 has been satisifed.
m m
5 I4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Miller.
15 MR. MILLER: Yes, Judge Bechhoefer. We disagree.
j 16 First of all, I think, as you indicated, Re' vised Contention w
6 17 2 is really quite different from the original Contention 3.
5
{ 18 There is simply no reference in the original contention to A
19
{n the NUREG; document, which is now relied upon as the basis 20 for the contention -- for the revised contention.
21 The original contention apparently talks about 22
(} degraded core issues, and I believe that to characterize 23 ,the revised contention as a rewrite of the original con-24
{} tention is simply wrong.
25 It is a new issue. It is raised just now, today, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8183 16-2,pj2 1
for the first time. Nonetheless, I think that the contentior,
() 2 as written, as rewritten, still is deficient.
3 First of all, as you pointed out, there was a
() 4 ruling regarding CMI related contentions issued by this ;
e 5 g Board about a year ago -- over a year ago.
a 3 6 2 The document that apparently provides the basis n
R 7
- for new Contention 4 was issued in January, 1981 and, N
8 a 8 therefore, the underlying problem was at least known to --
d c 9 g well, available to the public about 18 months ago.
e f 10 j The leap of logic that is found in the contention
=
E 11 g that we believe makes it deficient, though, is to assume d 12 3 that a NUREG document which is prepared by a contractor is a
f d 13
\ j somehow a regulatory requirement and a part of the TMI E 14 y action plan; and I call your specific attention to the z
9 15 g sentence at the top of page 2 of the restated contentions T 16 j by Intervenor Mary P. Sinclair which starts with the word ,
l p 17 w "Nevertheless."
m M 18
= That NUREG is simply not a regulatory requirement.
19 8 The Staff has evaluated the Applicant's development of 20 emergency operating procedures. It begins at page 13-33 21 l of the Safety Evaluation Report, and that includes -- while 22
- ()N
( it is not complete -- the question of emergency procedures 23 i for operators will be licensed conditions to ensure that 24 O they are resolved to the Staff's satisfaction before a full 25 power license is issued.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
6-2,pj3 8184 I This is also a reference. to those pages to the 2 B&W generic guidelines for emergency operating procedures.
3 The other connection that is again illogical and
(! 4 results in the contention having no basis is that there is i 5 no inherent consistency as the contention assumes between g
I a
@ 6 the emergency operating procedures that are described in R*
t
" 7 the SER at pages 13-34 and the accident assumptions that j 8 are found in the SER at 15 -- page 15-3. In short, we d
l c; 9 believe this contention is controlled by your ruling on i $
10 h TMI and that even were that not true, it simply lacks basis
=
II 5 on its face to be admitted as a contention in this proceed-B 12 b7 { ing.
i (2) =c! 13 1 E 14 w
b 2 15 E
g 16 -
M N I7 l #
l $ 18 1 -
19 k
20 21 22
([)
23 l 24
([)
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
i 8185 7/1/1 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, if we were to dw( ) 2 adopt the latter approach, the approach which doesn't 3 look at the -- I shouldn't say it doesn't look at it --
O 4 it doesn't rely on the timeliness of it, would we be j
5 doing what the Appeal Board of the Allen Creek case which
@ 6 was 590 -- I think you told us we couldn't do it, which R
e S 7 was resolved contentions on the merits at the contention s
8 8 stage in essence?
d c 9 MR. MILLER: I don't think so. You are looking o
10 at -- as I recall that was the so-called biomass decision.
h=
k II CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Biomass decision, yes.
k N I2 MR. MILLER: But really I think that licensing 13 boards must be able to exercise some judgment looking at
=
l$ 14 the words that are in the contention and the claimed C 15 b basis for it in order to determine whether the pleading x
j 16 requirements of 2.714 have been met, e
I7 Really, all it requires is an evaluation of hz I0 these references and I believe that in Allen Creek the P
19 8 licensing board went much further than that in determining n
20 that the contention had no basis.
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Right. Well, I thought they just determined that they read the basis and found 23 out that it didn't have any info $mation to support the 24 That is my understanding of it.
()N
( contention.
25 MR. MILLER: I am not certain but I believe that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
818S 7/1/2 1 they may have gone and made some calculations with respect O 2 to the ability of a biomass --
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I thought that was 4 Dr. Buch in his dissent,. but be that as it may. I am 5 just wondering how far we can go, and by the way I have g
n
@ 6 this same comment on a number of your responses to other R
$ 7 contentions as well, which may or may not be relevant now.
N
[ 8 I can't remember.
O q 9 I am just wondering how far we can go in looking
$ 10 at the bases to determine whether or not they state a --
E 5 II whether they support a contention.
3 f I2 MR. MILLER: Well, it seems to me that the
() m 13 licensing board at least has to look at the references l$ 14 in the contention itself and language that is chosen by g
15 the Intervenor in order to determine whether there is
=
g 16 a colorable showing of basis, and I think 'that it's the W
II citation to the River Bend case that is found at Page 19 h
=
IO of our response to Mrs. Stamiris' contention.
A 19 What was said there was that the basis "ContemplatG g
n 20 a clear articulation of the theory of the contention 21 sufficient that the Applicant can make an intelligent
() 22 response," and as I tried to explain, we don't believe 23 that we have a theory that is articulated here so that we
() 24 can make a response.
25 We have a confusion on the face of the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8187 7/1/3 1 contention between a NUREG document prepared by a O 2 contractor to the NRC and a TMI action plan and a 3 confusion as well between the emergency operating O 4 procedures and the accident analysis.
e 5 That, it seems to me, is something that this d
j 6 Board can evaluate without requiring us to respond to R
@, 7 the contention, go through discovery and determine that s
j 8 that is in fact the case, d
7/2 9
$ 10 a
5 11 g 12 i3 O i.
$ 14 2 15 s
y 16 -
A d 17
- M 18 5
19 9
n 20 21 Q 22 23 ;
O 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8188 7-2, pj l I
case. CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Paton, do you have any I
2 comment?
3 MR. PATON: Mr. Wilcove will respond.
MR. WILCOVE: The Staff also. believes that this e 5 g is a new contention. It contains a great deal of new
- 6 citations, new information that was simply not in Mrs.
E n 7
- Sinclair's contention 3 filed on June 18th.
n 8
8 As the Staff stated and as the Applicant stated d
6 9 g in their responses to both Mrs. Sinclair's and Mrs. Stamiris' O 10
$ contentions, that they were given a second chance to restate E 11 j contentions in such a way that they would address good cause, e 12
$ that they would address basis and particularity, and it 13
(j
\/ @E seems to me that this is a third opportunity to do so -- or
! E 14 l rather that this is a third opportunity to restate these 1 9 15 i
j contentions and Commission practice does allow more than
? 16 -
l .@ one lunch hour to respond to contentions.
d 17 g CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Would you like additional M 18
= time?
s E 19 y MR. WILCOVE: Well, that was going to be my next 20 point, that in the first place, the Staff does object to 21 this contention. It feels that it is not a r e s t a t e m e.'.t
/^s 22
(,) or a clarification of the old contention 3 but a new con-23!
l t e n ':i o n , and beyond that, the Staff is just not prepared to i
rw 24 (j respond to this contention now.
25 If the Applicant and the Intervenors wish to do ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- 7-2,pj2 8183 1
so, the Staff will, of course, be happy to listen to it 1 (3 l (J 2 and if the contention is rejected, then so be it, but if 3
the Board is not inclined at this point to reject the
() 4 contention, the Staff will be requesting an opportunity to do so in writing at a later date.
{
A 6 MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, I guess this E
}
n really points up my objection that I have to a fundamental 8 8 a act of this whole process.
O d 9 j Mrs. Sinclair has been an intervenor in this s 10
@ proceeding since 1978 and we have done, as Mr. Wilcove
=
2 11 g quite properly points out, attempting to get additional d 12 3 operating 'icense contentions stated in the proper form o
("J id g 13 s for some months now.
E 14 y It is clear to me that this latest restatement x
9 15 Q of the contention is due to the fact that Mr. Bishop has x
7 16 g been retained and like any skillful lawyer,' he was sure 6 17 w that he could improve on the words that Mrs. Sinclair x
$ 18
- had previously used just to more closely peg these new 8 contentions to the pleading requirements, but what we are 20 looking at now is yet further delay while the Staff con-21 siders these revised contentions.
() We are simply running out of time to go through 23 this pleading process over and over and over again. I
() think that the contention ought to be rejected on its face 25 because it is a significant departure from the contention ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8190 7-2,pj3 I that Mrs. Sinclair filed arguably within the time limit O
v 2 set by this Board, or this Board should make an independent 3 determination now that it lacks basis as restated and denied, O 4 but we simply cannot continue endlessly to play pleading e 5 games.
$ 0 MR. BISHOP: Your Honor, could I respond to R
E 7 these arguments?
E -
! O CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes d
c; 9 MR. BISHOP: The arguments are basically in z
O 10 two categories and I would like to deal with them separately.
h
=
II
$ One is whether the contention itself is admissible is ,
g 12 under the rule ar d the second is whether it is untimely.
5 Oi I3 The firee coneention -- I don e went to mix the l$ 14 words -- the first ia'rcjtimen't is I believe groundless. The g 15 logic presented under the theory of the River Bend case,
=
j 16 the theory is relatively straightforward.
us I7 The SER, the pertinent portions of the SER that h
=
{ 18 are pointed out in the contention assume basically two P
19 types of operator actions faced with accident situations.
g n
20 One is no operator action for 15 minutes which 2I in itself could be an error, and the other action is O 22 r) u eventual long-term operator corrective action.
23 The reason that the contention is listed is that 24 the Intervenor objects to the Staff's limitation of its s
25 view of possible operator errors to those two particular ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
7-2,pj4 8131 I scenarios on the basis of earlier studies that have pointed O 2 out a multitude of scenarios of operator errors which can 3 lead to tremendously significant problems and not limited h
(J
( 4 to just no action or eventual long-term action.
5 They are related to positive operator action such
,0 n
3 6 as what has happened in various situations in TMI and in R
E 7 other reactors that have magnified the error, made the 3
9 8 n accident more serious, d
9 Now, the Intervenor obviously , the contention e
10 would ha ve looked -- now dealing with the timeliness issue ---
h E
4 II the contention would have looked dramatically different if, s
f c
I2 for example, Mrs. Sinclair hadn't written it last summer, pf (J 13 for example. Then the contenth h would have been written:
m 5 I4 There are numerous studies and it is commonly known that 15
{a various types of operator error can result in more serious d I0 accidents. I think that the Staff might n'o t recognize that w
I7 in its SER and so therefore I am objecting to the analysis h
=
{ 18 that it is not yet done in the SER.
P 19 I would shudder to think of the possible objections g
n 20 that would be raised to that type of a contention.
21 This contention is based on the fact that the
() 22 Staff in the SER did not make the proper analysis that 23 they should have made. The basis is there. The relevance 24 to this particular plant is based on the fact that we
(])
7-3 25 are dealing with the analysis in that SER.
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 8192 7/3/1 8
'? 1 Now, the timeliness part therefore derives
%w BER'
(]} 2 from whether you accept the premise that it is based on 3 the analysis in the SER. I believe that is the way it's O 4 written and if so, then the next point of decision g 5 before you it appears to me is whether this is a sufficiently l 6 close restatement of the earlier contention which obviously R
S 7 was timely.
A j 8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, wait a minute. No d
=; 9 contention since '78 was timely.
10 MR. BISHOP: Well, in that sense, that's right.
h
=
!k II CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: In the sense of the l
m NI 5
Commission's rule. We have to balance those five factors f13 with everything filed since '78. The balance may go E 14 g one way or the other, I mean, give more emphasis to one m
l
' 2 is fact than another.
y y
T 16 MR. BISHOP: Except that obvious'ly one of the l d 1:7 I
w reasons in those balancing factors is the reason for x
$ 18
= justification for a good cause for filing something at C
19 l this time and basically the reason for that is because 20 of the issuance of the SER in May.
21 Then your fur'ther orders set schedules based l
/~T 22 l \'# on that issuance of the SER.
23 It's true that the earlier contention did not i 24 f
{]) specifically include this particular NUREG or these 1 25 particular references to the pages of the SER and they ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8133 7/3/2 I should have and the articles referenced to, I believe O 2 it is a science magazine article referenced in her 3 original contention, which discussed within its scope O 4 the problem of operator error, but it was extremely e 5 general and this is an attempt to make this contention 5
3 6 more specific.
R S 7 I believe that on its own basis, given the kind 3
$ 8 of schedule that we are already talking about, to d
characterize this contention as somehow being the c
10 h critical path to getting to an OL hearing is vastly
=
overstated. As we went through this this morning, we fII d 12 z found that it was going to be a while before we get to
() g 13 an OL hearing, and one of the reasons for that is that E 14 W the Staff was two weeks at least -- no, about four or E
2 15 five weeks late in responding to Mrs. Sinclair's g
16 s j interrogatories.
6 17 a Your decision to accept this contention is x
$ 18
= not going to contribute to any delay of any OL hearing.
e 19 l MS. STAMIRIS: Chairman Bechhoefer, I would i 20 l
just like to add that as far as the specificity of the 21 contention and the addition of some new references, I f'/i 22 believe that Mrs. Sinclair should not be penalized for 23 the fact that it was not --
that she has added that O
24 specificity now. It is obviously a little bit late, but l 25 l I think that that would be in essence penalizing her for ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
8194 7/3/3 I not getting a lawyer. She did the best she could and 2 she is definitely dealing with the same issue now that 3 she was dealing with before. but I think obviously with 4 the aid of a lawyer she was able to do that in a more 5 proper form at this time and I don't think she should j
n
@ 6 be penalized for that.
R o
l S 7 MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, I just would M
b 0 like to point out that what is at Section 15 of the SER d
9 are actually analyses that are undertaken by the 0 10 3 Applicant in accordance with the standard review plan
=
II k
adopted by the NRC. What is talked about at the pages 1 s i
d 12 z in Section 13 of the SER, the reference to this contention, C/ gb 13 .
are emergency ope'ating r procedures.
E 14 g As one reads the contention there is no -- these z
9 15 l 5 are just words strung together with references to SER
, m
? 16 g sections that simply have nothing to do with one another d 17 a and on its face the contention lacks basis.
m I
$ 18 l
= As far as the greater specificity, I would
- 19 j just respond by stating that this is simply a very 20 different contention from the one with which the parties l
l 21 l were dealing until today and I don't see that there is any i T 22
('J
\ reason that Mr. Bishop could not have been retained in 23 ,
time to assis t Mrs. Sinclair so that we could all have responded to these within the time limits set forth 25 by the Board in its earlier order.
l4 / ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8195 1 MS. SINCLAIR: The reason was money.
/4/1
- " (
rddr 2 MR. WILCOVE: I would just like to add that 3 while this contention is phrased in terms of being
(^l k- 4 dissatisfied with the SER, I would also note that the g
5 SER is a review of information contained in the FSAR and a
@ 6 numerous other documents of public record and to merely t
R
& 7 couch the contention by saying that the analysis contained M
l 8 in the SER is deficient does not address the issue of d
d 9 timeliness when that information could have been in the b
g 10 FSAR for quite a long time and these contentions have E
$ 11 not shown that to be the casa that they are based on j 12 information that has not been available for some time.
(]) 5 13 MR. BISHOP: The only thing that I have to t
l E
14 add is that the contention is not relating to the g 15 analysis in the FSAR. It is relating to the Staff's
=
j 16 analysis in the SER and that is the basis ~for it, w
I7 I am beginning to resent these implications h
x
$ 18 that we have somehow couched and engineered contentions E
I9 so as to slip in under the wire. That is just plainly g
20 not true. We are working on trying to clarify 21 contentions for an Intervenor who has been involved in
{} 22 the proceedings for a long time, who has had a lot invested 23 in this and who is trying to comply with the Commission's
() 4 requirements and with the parties' requirements so that the major issues in this case can be heard and that is ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
819S 7/4/2 1 what we are trying to do here.
O 2 We are not trying to exclude parties. We are 3 not tr ing -- at least I trust that is not what the Board O
\/ 4 is trying to do -- we are trying to comply with the 5 Board's requirements and with the parties' requirements
$ 6 and I can understand the parties difficulties in delay G
$ 7 and that is a definite problem in this hearing that has s
j 8 been going on for a long time.
O c; 9 I dare say that the reason that we are just z
o g 10 getting to the OL phase at this point is not
$ Il Mrs. Sinclair's fault and the fact that the OL: hearing B
j 12 will be a while before it gets heard again is not ,
() 13 Mrs. Sinclair's fault.
l$ 14 Within that envelope of time that we are 15 allowed, we are allowed a considerable amount of time g 16 due to the time that it will take the Staff to prepare w
17 its witnesses to respond to its already current h
x
$ 18 obligations with regard to the OM hearing that any delay e
i e 19 that is involved in hearing this particular contention l 5 20 is clearly not significant, given those other factors 21 and I believe that based on the merits of the contention
(') 22 that it should be admitted. ,
23 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Wilcove, I would I () 24 like to hear the Staff's position on the questions 25 about ALAB 590 that I asked Mr. Miller; namely, if l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
7/4/3 8197 1 this contention stated, and I will just oversimplify it, 2 that the emergency operating procedures of the FSAR 3 were not sufficient, not the FSAR, the SER approved by
() 4 the SER were not sufficient to handle the accidents for e 5 which this plant is designed, or which are analyzed and h
j 6 for which this plant is designed to cope, could we just R
$ 7 look at that and look at the sections of the SER and s
j 8 say: "Well, those sections just don't say that"? Or d
@ 9 alternatively, would we have to allow there to be some z
O
$ 10 discovery and then wait for a summary disposition motion, E
j 11 as'suming.that was proper? Could we just say that one 3
y 12 section doesn't say what somebody says it says? Can we
() 5 13 say that at this particular stage of the hearing?
h 14 MR. WILCOVE: Yes, I think that we can say 2 15 that at this stage of the proceedings.
5 g 16 Well, of course, the licensing board at this t
a d I'7 stage is not supposed to go into the merits of the 5
$ 18 contention. I think it does have the right to look at P
19 the basis and make sure that it is accurately quoted
{n 20 or said what the SER, or whatever document it may be 21 has said to make sure that the quotation is accurate, 22 to make sure that the SER does say what the Intervenor
(")T
'w l
23 ; has said it is saying.
I 24 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I take it that for the
{
l 25 Staff to give us the answer to that question you would l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
t 8198 F/4/4 1 want the extension of time that you asked for.
2 MR. WILCOVE: Yes.
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I assume that your 4 technical people would want to look at that.
5 MR. WILCOVE: Yes.
g et
- @ 6 (Brief interruption.)
l R N8 b 7 follows c 8 8 ,
O ci 9
- r:
c
@ 10 s
is d 12 '
5 1
l O !. is I E x 14 2 15 w
2:
g 16 -
s i 17 ;
E M 18 l =
1
- 19 M
20 1
1
! 21
\
i O
22 23 l O 24 25 ,
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. t
- , - - , , - . - . _ , - ~ - -
- 8-1,pjl 8139 I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Unless somebody has to add 2 to anything further, we will go on to the next one. We are 3 not ready to rule.
() 4 MR. BISHOP: That's fine, your Honor.
5 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Let's see. Let me get my
$ 6 chart out here. Old 4, I take it has been dropped and if R
$ 7 I am not mistaken, the Old 4 that was dropped was the one
$ 8 that, at least in my own view, was probably at issue in d
- 9 the OL proceeding; .
$ 10 I had read the Old 4, and I just wanted to make E
Il sure that's the one being dropped as similar to Ms.
5 k
f c
I2 Stamiris' Contentions 2-B and 4-A, the diesel generator ,
13 building.
()f l$ 14 MR. BISHOP: Oh, y e s .' - We..nnderstandithat issue is
[x 15 to be considered as::a': matter of course thathe OM proceeding, j 16 so there's no need for a separate contentio'n on that one.
W 17 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I just wanted to make sure - -
h a
IO MR. BISHOP: That was our intent, your Honor.
h E
l9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
g --
that was your i n t e t'.t ,
n 20 okay.
21 The next one I have will be New 3, which is the
(] 22 same as Old 5.
23 l MR. BISHOP: Yes, your Honor. That's a contention 24 originally written in a general Class 9, failure to look at 25 Class 9 accidents. Again, here we are gEtting into ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
8-1,pj2 8200 I
somewhat not only a clarification of that, we talk about the
() 2 need to look at Class 9 issues, but also it references a 3
newly-issued report which cast significant doubt on the
() 4 validity of the methodology used by the Staff in the SER e 5 g to look at Class 9.
3
- 6
_ Here this report was available -- excuse me, the n
8 7
- FES, available in June of '82. So we are dealing with a N
8 a 8 report that is only very recently available and obviously 0
6 9
- 2- could not have formed the basis of a contention earlier.
O 10
@ CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: This, too, is a new con-
=
E 11 g tention?
d 12 Z MR. BISHOP: In the sense this is sort of a S
13 Og- hybrid. It deals with the Class 9 issue as she raised E 14 g before in the SER, but it does it also on the basis of a '
9 15 G
z newly-issued report which we have just discovered.
T 16 '
g I believe in that sense it provides a very clear 6 17 m distinction and reason for justification of the Class 9 x
M 18
- analysis in the FES.
C 19 8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Okay. The other contention i
20 was based in part on the Rogovin Report, which was issued 21 some time ago.--
() MR. BISHOP: Yes.
23 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: --
as you are aware.
() Mr. Miller, are you prepared to address this one?
25 MR. MILLER: Yes, I am.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
' 8-1, pj 3 83}1 1
First of all, once again, to describe this as a
() 2 restatement of Old Contention 5 is simply in this case 3
totally inaccurate. Old Contention 5 dealt with Class 9 l
Q 4 accidents and specifically references the Atomic Energy e 5 i g Act of 1954.
N
- 6 l We now have a contention which refers only to the n .
8 7 l
~
- ; analysis in the draft environmental statement, which, as n
i
' 8
" 8 the Board knows, is an analysis apparently required under d -
d 9 '
g the National Environmental Policy Act, 1969. And so the O 10
@ entire focus of the contention has changed. !
=
8-2 !
g L
j 12 (2)]S '8 l$ 14 2 15 5
g 16 -
e i 17
$ 18 -
5 e I9 5
20 7 l
l 21 l
1 22
()
23 s 24 l
25 t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8202 D/2/1 1 Secondly, we don't have the report that is f*
s hanged 2 referenced in the new contention. We do, howeter, have 3 a -- a Science Magazine article that purports to give O 4 the findings of the document that's reported, and I am n 5 simply not sure on the basis of this report in Science -
0
@ 6 Magazine whether this is accurately -- accurately states R
b 7 what the NUREG document contention -- new Contention 3 K
8 8 n says.
d d
9
} Finally, I think the Board should be aware 0 10 y of the fact --
=
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Would you like additional 6 12 E time to respond?
%3 l
l
("l l MR. MILLER: No, I really would not. I want E 14 g to get on with this one way or another.
9 15 Q Finally, I would like to point out for the x
? 16 Board's information that the Final Environ' mental Statement, p 17 w which was just recently issued, at Page 5-48, in -
x
$ 18
= talking about the uncertainties involved in major 19 l reactor accidents states as follows:
l 20 l "The state of the art for quantitative 21 evaluation of the uncertainties and the probabilistic
! (' 22
! \s) risks analysis such as.the type presented here is not l 23 well developed; therefore, although the Staff has made
^% 24 (d
a reasonable analysis of the risk presented herein, ,
25 there are large uncertainties associated with the results l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6213 9/2/2 I shown.
2 "It is the judgment of the Staff that the 3 uncertainty bounds could be well over a factor of 10, O
\"# ' 4 but are not likely to be so large as a factor of 100."
5 Therefore, Staff has taken a count of the g
a 3 6 e factor of 20-upward risk asserted in Contention.3 in the R s R 7
- Final Environmental Statement. ;
N f
8 8 a So once again, on multiple grounds we b'e lieve d
d 9
[-
this contention is objectionable and should not!be 0 10 E received.
= ,
. MR. BISHOP: Your Honor, if I might respond d 12 E quickly to those points --
o
, ()gd 13 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I wanted to give the E 14 g Staff a chance to.
e 9 15 G MR. BISHOP: All right. Would you like them z
! 16 '
$ to go first? '
d 17 w MR. WILCOVE: My objection to this ' contention x
M 18
= is along the same lines as my objections to Contention 2, 19 l
l that, again, at the risk of sounding like a broken 20 record, it is not a restatement, reclarification or 21 refinement of the old contention. It is a new s, contention, and again, the Staff simply cannot respond i
23 to this contention in so short of a time.
N 24 s ,/ CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Do you think looking 25 '
at it, that the Staff technically should respond to it?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
- 8204
@/2/3 1 I mean is the --
do you think what Mr. Miller pointed O 2 out, the fact that the -- that there could be a 1
3 misstatement in the order of magnitude of 20 --
the. fact O 4 that the Staff says that's within the range there that 5 they anticipate, would that make a difference to you or i j 6 not? ,
^
m
@/3 $ 7 3 .
8 n 8 .
d ci 9 ,
i o i e 10 ,
1 z ;
j 11 a
d 12 z
Ose is
$ 14 Y ,
2 15 l E i 30 E
l w ,
l 6 17 l = '
5 18 E
19 8
n 20 21 !
O 22 F 23 i
?
O 24 t
25 i-ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 8205 8/3/1 1 MR. WILCOVE: At this point I don't have enough dw n nol-) 2 information that I could form the type of answer that 3 I would like to.
4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, this information 5
g is said to be quite new. Do you think the Staff should v
@ 6 file a response to that contention -- I mean would the
% 7 S Staff like to file a response or do you think we should A
9 8 n
d reject it on one of the grounds mentioned by d
~ 9 j Mr. Miller on its face?
10 Can you tell from its face or do you think that II 5 we should invite further comments from the Staff, as a
d 12 z well as the Applicant if they wish?
() $g 13 I notice the Applicant also was not familiar l E 14 y with the particular report, although they. cited an x
9 15 g article that discussed it.
16
$ MR. WILCOVE: Well, all right. I think this
' 6 17 a contention should be rejected on the grounds that it is e
M 18
= not a rewriting or a restatement of the former s
E 19 2 contention. I think on those grounds I would say it 20 should be rejected.
l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: But if -- assume it was 1
(] 22 l s-a new contention submitted for the first time this day, 23 but based on this June report. What would you say
% 24 l (kJ then? Forget that another contention was even
! 25 !
submitted.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8206 8/3/2 1 MR. WILCOVE: I would say that I need time O 2 to respond.
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: You wouldn't think O 4 that submission today on the basis of a June, '82 report 5 should almost automatically go against accepting it?
y n
@ 6 I mean is today per se too late to file a contention l R b 7 based on a June report or not?
A
] 8 MR. WILCOVE: Judge Bechhoefer, I wouldn't d
q 9 quibble about -- this is again assuming we are going 10 to call it a new contention, that it was not based on h
=
s II a former contention. I would not quibble about two I d 12 z months, and I wouldn't say it is untimely because it
() gb 13 .
is based on a June report.
E 14 g CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Bishop, do you have x
2 15 g a response?
? 16 g MR. BISHOP: A couple points, y e's .
6 17 w The fact -- we don't have a copy of the NUREG
=
M 18 i
= report itself either. We are offering it on the basis 19 l of the article in the Science Magazine. As Mr. Miller 20 mentioned, we provided that copy to him just recently i i
21 !
so he could review it.
() This was again an attempt to go as fast as 23 we can with the best information we can, to try and fit under the Board's deadlines. I believe what is 25 summarized in the contention is a fair summary of what ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8207 3 I is contained in the Science Magazine article. In that
()
9/3/^T 2 sense the basis then becomes a Science Magazine article, 3 and the fact, obviously, that it has just come out and 4 the Board's -- the Commission's rules clearly allow 5 and contemplate newly-derived facts and' reports as 6 being bases for new contentions.
l E o
7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Could you give us the N
S 8 M reference of that article?
d d
9
}. MR. MILLER: I've got it. It's the Science 0 10 y Magazine. It is for July 23rd, 1982. The article
=
II
. begins --
I guess it is really just a two-column blurb.
t d 12 3 There is no other way to describe it.
13
()@ It is found on Pages 338 and 339.
I E 14 i y MR. BISHOP: I would call it an incisive 1 x l 15 2 .
j g review.
I 16
@ MR. MILLER: To the extent it is an incisive d 17 w review, if that's what in fact the Intervenors are 1 x '
l M 18
= relying on, I think they have misread the article, 19 l because what the factor of 20 refers to, as I read 20 this blurb, is the Three Mile Island accident, not the 21 total core melt down that is also discussed in these 22 l - paragraphs.
23 I really think this kind of shows j ust what 24 l
t sort of a procedure we are going through here if this 25 '
l -- I don't think that a two-column piece in a magazine ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
82D8 8/3/4 I which purports to quote what is identified as a draft O 2 in -- draft NUREG report in the magazine is proper 3 basis.
O 4 Now, then, once everybody gets a chance to g 5 look at the NUREG document itself, I think that we would 0
3 6 all concede that if it, in fact, contained..new?information, G
C 7 that the contention ccald rise and fall on that basis M
8 8 when, as and if it were filed.
d
'i 9
'8/4 E
g 10 a
is d 12 3
c O s= is l E 14 Y
=
2 15 s
j 16 -
as
( 17 M 18 5
19 8
n 20 21 22 l O 23 O
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8/4/1 8203 dw filed 1
MR. BISHOP: Maybe that's a way to deal with (3
u) 2 it. If I may claim the floor back from Mr. Miller, 3
granted we don't have the report yet. We are O 4 endeavoring to secure it.
5 g Also, given the fact that we are dealing here
$ 0
^
m with contentions that the Board ordered were to be
" 7 directed at the draft EIS and not the final, the t 3 '
j 8 d
draft EIS specifically adopted the methodology in the Rasmussen Report as being the methodology used with c ,
F 10 g none of the qualifications that are._ quoted 'in : the final.
=
II
, 5 I haven't read the final EIS. We just got it l 8 t
d 12 z a couple of days ago.
() $g 13 As a procedure also in the Board's earlier E 14 w
order on dealing with changes in position in the 2 15 w
x final EIS, if perchance the Staff in the final EIS 16
- g. has changed its position and no longer stands behind d 17 w the Rasmussen Report, then it could be a very real M f a *$
M 18
= basis for dropping the contention altogether.. But 19 l perhaps Mr. Miller has hit upon probably the best 20 way we can deal with this, is to again get copies of 21 the report and also consider any possible changes that I) 22 might have happened in the final EIS, and than decide 23 what to do with this contention later.
(]) 24 On the present basis we are dealing just 25 with the draft EIS, which is what the order is directed ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8210 f4/2 I toward. That draft EIS specifically adopted the G
2 methodology in Rasmussen and the numbers used in that 3 report, and this report, as far as we can tell, the
() 4 best evidence of this report is that there is a report 5 outstanding which severely criticizes that methodology, j
9
$ 0 and that is the basis for the contention.
R o
" y MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, I really have N
! O to protest the kind of procedure we are in. The Staff d
k 9 and the Applicant are asked to respond to contentions H 10 y that they get today. Mr. Bishop says, "Well, give me
=
k time to look at these documents that I cited somewhat s
d 12 z promiscuously in these contentions and look at the S
O' 3 ,
I FES, and then I will let you know whether I intend to E 14 y go forward with the contention or not."
x 2 15 w I think that the contention ought to be stricken x
16 g'
- ~
today. If, in fact, there is new information that becomes d 17 w available to the Intervenor, she and her counsel can x
$ 18
= make a proper application to the Board for another C
19
% contention.
- 20 But as it stands right now, I think the contention ought to be stricken.
( Furthermore, I would like to point out that
- 23 the FES has now been out --
I don't know -- a week or
! () so, maybe a little bit more, and the time for filing
- 25 new contentions based on information -- new information ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
S211 '
8/4/3 I in the FES is about to expire under this Board's prior 2 orders.
3 MS. STAMIRIS: Judge Bechhoefer, I would like 4 to respond. It seems that the arguments that Mr. Miller 5
3 and Mr. Wilcove have been raising go more to the merits a
b 0 of this contention, rather than the form and its bases i
R c y and particularity and things like this that I thought N
8 8 a according to the Allen's Creek decision, you know, which 0
6 9 j was to be the criterion by which the admissibility of o
S 10
@ contentions were judged, and the types of things.that
=
E 11 g we are talking about, even Mr. Bishop's suggestion d 12 E that we wait and see whether the merits of this contention 13
(' ) @ turn out to be valid or not and then decide what to do E 14 W with it, it seems like we are using the wrong standards ,
l 5 l 9 15 g and the wrong criterion by which to accept or reject it
~
16 g at this point.
g 17
- M 18
@/5 =
19 n
8 i 20 l
1 21 22 c) l 23 24 C^)i i
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- 5
.8-5,pjl 8212 ,
1
- point CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I guess unless somebody has
) 2 anything further to add on this one, we are prepared to go 3
to New 4, which is Old 6.
() 4 MR. BISHOP: Again, this contention, the original e 5 g contention filed by Ms. Sinclair, dealt with the allowance d
- 6 i _ of the Applicant to perform maintenance work while the plant
! E n 7
, is in operation.
n 8
" 8 This contention focuses that concern on portions d 9 i of the SER that do not limit the types of maintenance that o
P 10 S can be performed during plant operation and also bases the E 11 j need for the conflict with -- on responses in the NRC l
c 12 o i
g contained in its interrogatory resp nses to Ms. Sinclair.
fis/ d5 13 Again, it is based -- it is premised on the l E 14 y analysis in the SER and it is also based on information l 2 15 g just recently received from the Staff.
T 16 -
@ CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Could you explain what .
g 17 w
x "those systems" means in the second line of your contention?
5 18
=
s MR. BISHOP: Essentially that in several cases, l E 19 l
2 of which Davis-Besse is one, the Davis-Besse facility 20 maintenance of safety related components has attributed 21 to or been the initiating factor in disruption of those
! 22 l s._ particular systems. One other example --
23 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Which ones? How can 24 h_/ somebody answer that contention, in other words?
25 What systems are we talking about? Davis-Besse l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
f
i 8-5,pj2 8213 I
I is an entire reactor with quite a few systems in there.
2 MR. BISHOP: Again, the basis of this was in 3
the response to -- the NRC response to interrogatories.
4 I believe they mentioned -- the quote fr6m this is on the 5
g top of page 5 of the revised contentions, which is a quote 9
h 0 from the NRC response to interrogatories, which states as R
e t
l S 7 follows --
M k 0 JUDGE HARBOUR: Would you say where it is again?
d 9
c}
2 MR. BISHOP: We are getting to a different docu-O 10 h ment now. This is the one we are going to be considering --
. =
II
! 5 that the Staff and the Applicant are going to be filing B
f c
I2 comments on that were based on the original contentions,
) 13 the original 78 contentions.
I4 It is No. 36 on the top of page 5 of that docu-g 15 ment.
x E I0 MR. MILLER: Give me just a second, please.
W 17 This is the revised contentions of Mary P.
=
18 f Sinclair. It is the other one, the top of page 5.
I9 Again, this statement merely points up the fact 8
n 20 that there can be a problem with allowing maintenance of 21 certain safety-related facilities' functions to go on while 22 the plant is in operation.
l (])
23 Whether :th'e merits of::the;contenti6n: justify any 24 restriction again is for the hearing to decide. The point
(])
25 here is whether there is sufficient basis for considering ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8-5,pj3 8214 I that particular question.
2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Why is this not part of 3 Contention 36?
() 4 MS. SINCLAIR: Because a different issue is 5 addressed there.
l-e.'
@ 6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Don't they both deal with R
S 7 systems interaction then?
E g 8 MR. BISHOP: There is only -- there is a diffi-d d 9 culty because the z,
a conceptual difficulty, if you will, o
e 10 in the revised contentions. A lot of them deal with II
$ somewhat similar subject matter as are dealt with in the '
s y 12 paper that we are looking at right now but they -- those 5
( ) ym 13 contentions --
were to be revised by Board order to be m
5 I4 limited to revisions based on interrogatories.
15 l {x What we are dealing with in these contentions are r j 16 based on the analysis in the SER.
To some' extent there may w
I7 be some small overlap. I believe that the focus of each h
x M 18 particular one, though, is somewhat different; and perhaps P
19 you are right.
g I should have quoted the whole interrogatory n
20 response in the contention, and I apologize for that if it
'8-6 2I caused any confusion.
l ()
l 23 ,
l i
l l
p)
\-
24 l 25 '
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8215
@-6/4 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Just to clarify something w () 2 we have been talking about grammatically, what should onfusion 3 we read "those systems" --
the two words "those systems" rm V 4 as meaning?
5 MR. BISHOP: Those systems refer to the g
9 j 6 earlier reference safety-related components, maintenance R
$ 7 of safety components as referenced -- the safety 3
8 8 components that are referenced in that sentence refer to d
, c; 9 the description in the NRC response to Interrogatory No. 15, z
o
@ 10 and "those systems" referred to the exact -- to the same 11 thing.
s r-fc I2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Is it just the k-)g 13 elimination of " redundant power supplies"? Is that all m
5 I4 Contention 4 is talking about?
g 15 MR. BISHOP: No. It. can mean any others , and m
j 16 this is an example of a need to limit the ' types of M
,N I7 maintenance performed while the plant is in operation.
m
{ 18 MR. MILLER: The answer to the interrogatory
! A l "
19 on its face said the plant was shut 'down while l g 1 e 20 maintenance activity was being performed. I don't know 21 what we're talking about here.
l
() 22 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We are trying to figure 23 out what this contention says so we can evaluate it.
() 24 Mr. Miller, I will ask you in a minute, as soon as 25 Mr. Bishop is through -- I am going to ask you to comment
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l . _ _
8216 8/6/2 1 on it, but we are having troubles with what this O( / 2 contention says or determining what it does say or what 3 problem it is referring to.
() 4 MS. SINCLAIR: Well, I would like to explain 5 beginning with this fashion: To begin with, this was g
n
@ 6 one of a number of the kinds of problems that were R
o S y identified carefully and explained very well in s
j 8 Daniel Ford's book Three Mile Island, Thirty Minutes to d
- 9
~. Melt Down, and subsequently in delving into what he meant 0 10 g by this particular point, that here you have safety
=
fII systems in a plant that are supposed to be in operation d 12 z and we are told that these redundant safety systems are 1
C (3 d 13 (J g for the protection of the public, now if you have E 14 g maintenance going on that interrupts power or in any e
9 15 g way disrupts that redundant safety system so that you
? 16
$ do not have the redundant safety systems available y 17 w during that maintenance period, then obviously you are x
l M 18 l = jeopardizing the safety of the public.
8 E 19 g You no longer have that redundant safety 20 system in operation that you claim you do. So there 21 would be some limitation of what kind of maintenance
, 22 s should go on while a reactor is in operation.
23 l ; CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, now, if this l 24 pl x-s information notice came out in May, 1980, could you not l
25 l l -- should not that have been related to the -- whatever l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 - -
8217 0/6/3 1 was in the FSAR in terms of how the Applicant would deal O 2 with this, because I am sure that's all the Staff was 3 reviewing in its SER.
/^s V 4 MR. BISHOP: There's a threshold of what an g 5 individual is supposed to be able to do here, your Honor.
0
@ 6 This is an information notice that came out in '80. I l R S 7 doubt that it's regular reading meant for even normal a
k 0 Intervenors, information notices. We were made, d
9 available -- we were made aware of this information in o
H 10 g the NRC response to our interrogatories, and I believe
=
that's a reasonable burden to place upon an Intervenor, fII d 12 2 JUDGE HARBOUR: Is the Staff aware of the
()g$ 13 status of Information Notice 80-20, that is, as far as E 14 p any response that was required of the plant operators !
=
C 15 g or has any further action been taken within the Staff T 16 '
$ to address the particular problem? ;
p 17 w I am trying to find out if there is --
since 1980
=
, M 18 i = if everybody has simply forgotten about the requirements 19 l of maintenance while operating.
20 MR. PATON: Judge Harbour, could I get i 21 j clarification? You referred to Information Notice -- was
(~T 22 <
\> it 80- --
23 JUDGE HARBOUR: -20.
l MR. PATON: In the answers to interrogatories l 25 I there's a discussion of three events. All right. I'm l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. ,
y .we... - -.
I i
8218 :
I !
@/6/4 t, 1 sorry -- r O 2 acoas usaeoua: ene oevis-eeeee event mes 3 80-20. i 8/ 4
[
m 5 g :
- t 3
e 6 i N
$ 7
, i N '
i 8 8 t a .
6 9
- i r
, o i g 10 z !
= '
g 11 a
d 12 -
z !
5 O s= is l
E 14 ;
w ,
l 2 15
- M i
j 16 us t 6 17 [
w :
g !
$ 18 i
= ,
l 19 8
a ,
20
[
21 ,
22 O ;
23 I i
O '
l 25 ,
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l lC-7,jl SN I MR. PATON: Judge Harbour, the project manager 2 is not familiar with that, but if you, wish, we would attempt 3
to see if there has been any disposition of this by the O
'v 4 Staff and have the answer for you tomorrow, or we will attempt ,
5 to get it at the next break.
g e'
6 JUDGE HARBOUR:
@ I would appreciate that.
R C
S 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Miller.
A k 0 MR. MILLER: Yes, Judge Bechhoefer. First of d
c; 9 all, just so that we are clear, the Staff answers to inter-H 10 g rogatories as they describe Information Notice 80-20 call
=
II 5 it " Lost of decay heat removal capacity at Davis-Besse 1 is g 12 while in a refueling mode."
S O!' so su e on thee heese e1one the informeelon notice 14 does not deal with the operations -- with maintenance during 15
{x plant operation.
E I0 MS. SINCLAIR: Where is that from'?
us II MR. MILLER: Certainly, I take great exception to a:
I0 the use of responses to interrogatories to existing con-P 19 2 tentions to serve as the basis for new contentions. That n
20 seems to me to be an improper use or abuse really of the 21 discovery techniques that are available under the Com-22 Q mission's Rules of Practice; and on that basis alone the 23 contention should be dismissed.
1 .
It is also apparent to me that this contention 25 I really is pretty close to Old Contention 6.
I believe l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8-7,pj2 8220 I that when Old Contention 6 was drafted, Ms. Sinclair had 2 access than to the -- to something, probably to Information l 3 Notice 80-20 --
() 4 MS. SINCLAIR: No. I.had access to the book 5 Three Mile Island by Dan. Ford, Thirty Minutes to Meltdownv.
j h 0 MR. MILLER: In any event, the specific event R
C which he apparently relies is a matter that has been pub-A l
l 8 licly available since May of 1980; therefore, a timeliness d
- 9 objection.
$ 10 I would also like to point out tha t such matters 3
B II as maintenance procedures and what the operation of safety g 12 systems is to be during such procedures are typically
=
()
1 13 dealt with by technical specifications to the license, E 14 g and the Midland SER deals specifically with the technical x
C 15 d specifications for this reactor at page 16-1 of the SER.
m j 16 So once again, on the face of the contention I W
I7 believe that it lacks basis and is certainly not timely.
I Mr. Wilcove or Mr. Paton, CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
P 19 8 either one.
n i 0 Essentially I would agree with what l
MR. WILCOVE:
21 Mr. Miller has just said, that the Davis-Besse instance 22
(]) occurred in April of 1980, well over two years ago.
23 l The information notice came out on May 8, 1980, 24 and I don't think Mr. Bishop's statement that it is not
(])
25 normal reading matter for people is a valid statement.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
8-7,pj3 8221 I
Well, nonetheless, the information was publicly O 2 available, and it has been so for the last two years.
3 I also agree with Mr. Miller's statement that the 4 SER does explicit ly
- say that maintenance procedures will 5
g be dealt with, and they will be dealt with in textbacks 9 r h 0 as to what structures, what systems may be shut down at a
, R o
I
\
S y +
given time.
M l 8 As a. matter of fact, the first sentence of d
k 9 z Section 13.5.2.2 of the SER says that the Applicant has c
G 10 committed to a program in which all activities are to be 3
II
$ conducted in accordance with detailed written and approved B
fc I2 procedures and to complete the procedures in an acceptable j 13 time frame.
m l$ 14 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: An Intervenor, however, I
! 15
$ suppose could specify that a certain particular procedure e
g 16 should be required, and presumably that cou'ld be a litigable m
I7 issue, is tea t 'not?
h m >
18 l _ MR. WILCOVE: Well, yes, but it has not been 1 A w
I9
\
s-8 8 n
so in this case, though.
20 1
2I -
22 (3
23 24 J
25 i
+
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8222
/8/l w 1 MS. STAMIRIS: Judge Bechhoefer, I have a hd)h 2 question. I'm wondering if you can tell me is there any 3 point at which the importance of a safety issue would
() 4 take precedence over the, you know, technicality of g 5 the rules on timeliness or -- for instance, the existence n
3 6 of a document in the public records, to say that this R
$ 7 information notice was publicly available. I mean s
8 8 there are millions of things that are in that public d
c; 9 documents room, but in a practical, realistic sense z
o G 10 Intervenors just obviously can't find and read and keep G
$ II up with all of it.
B y 12 I just wondered: Is there ever a point in the 5
a 13 regulations where because an Intervenor has, albeit, 5
m
. 14 late, raised such an important safety issue, that some x
15
{x of the other procedural rules would be overruled for y 16 those reasons?
m I7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, the factor that --
h x
IO we have to take into account the significance of the b
P 19 issue and the Intervenor's ability on the particular l
8 n
0 That's part of issue to contribute to the record on it.
21 our balance. That's part of those five factors.
( 22 The later it is, the harder it is to come up 23 If there's a real significant with the other four.
24
(]) safety issue and the Intervenor has shown in some way 25 '
he or she can contribute on that one to solve the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8223 9
8/8/2 I question, that would certainly be taken into account.
2 I can't say there is no way we can just have a 3 . sharp cutoff thing.
4 MS. STAMIRIS: Thank you. That helps me to sg 5 know that at least it is one of the factors that you are 9
$ 0 balancing in your decision.
R b 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes. That's part of M
8 a
8 the routine, the way we look at all of these, d
- MR. MARSHALL: Judge Bechhoefer, along the 0 10 g same lines of the question which she just raised, if
=
!s II it would be cheaper sometime to waive the technicalities 6 12 z than to have the trouble arise later and have us
() $g 13 Intervenors have to pay for the negligence, wouldn't you 3 14 say, from the problems that arise?
m 9 15 I could guess.
g CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
x MR. MARSHALL: We better do it,'and waive the technicalities.
m 5 18 I think that's a leading
- CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
I E
19 8 question.
20 Just back from what. she said, MR. MARSHALL:
21 along the same lines.
Os/
22 MR. BISHOP: Your* Honor, as perhaps, hopafully, 23 one parting shot, if I might, the focus of the contention
- s. is on the NCR and the lack of analysis in the NCR of 25 whether or not certain maintenance procedures on ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8224 8/873 I redundant safety systems should be allowed while the O 2 plant is in operation. What we are trying to do is 3 provide specificity to that to respond to the O~' 4 objections of the different parties.
5 The basic contention is essentially the same y
9 3 6 3 as what was stated in her properly timely filed papers.
l E
- CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER
- What do you suppose N
8 8 a that Ms. Sinclair or yourself could supply to help us d
6 9 j to contribute to the record on this question?
O 10
@ MS. SINCLAIR: I can tell you. This was listed
=
5 11 j as a key way in which the safety of nuclear power plants d 12 3 is compromised.
b 13
()# @ Now, you are talking a lot about the information E 14 y being available in 1980 and we did nothing about it, but
=
0 15 j my contention is the information was available to the 3 16
$ Staff.
d 17 l g It's been identified as a key way in which
$ 18 g safety can be compromised, but the Staff didn't do 19
! anything about it in the SER, so I tried -- I put it in 20 more general terms in my initial contentions, but now 21 I have specified through a specific example at (3
22 Davis-Besse that because you want specificity -- and'.:I 23 i
have identified that the Staff didn't deal with this
% 24
{'d information that was considered very serious in the SER, '
25 and I also would like to know if I am going to live two ,
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8225 1 miles from this plant, that there aren't maintenance
~8/{$ 2 procedures that are allowed to continue for economic ;
3 reasons that compromise the safety of those plants by 4 putting redundant safety systems out of order during that g 5 time, and that's what I would like to establish in the 9
@ 6 record.
- ) R
$9 b 7 s
8 e.
8 O
ci 9 i
o y 10 j 11 rs r5 12 25 Oim i3 j 14 ,
2 15 s
j 16 -
as 6 17
\ Y l M 18 E
19 8
n 20 21 0 22 .
I 23 ,
i 24 O
i 25 l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8 8226 9/9/1 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Wilcove or Mr. Paton, dw(])
record 2 do you have anything further on this?
3 MR. PATON: Judge Bechhoefer, I just wanted O 4 to make very sure with Judge Harbour that we get the t
5 question right that we are going to pose to the Staff.
0 The Information Notice 80-20 is said to R ;
S 7 discuss the event at Davis-Besse, which is in our M
S 8 M answers to interrogatories.
G 9 I -think what you want to know is what has the
]".
o 10 h Staff done, if anything, in response to the Davis-Besse
=
E 11
, g problem that is discussed in this notice.
d 12 3 Is that your question?
=
-) '
- 13 JUDGE HARBOUR: That's correct. And are there i @
E 14 y other places within the NRC practices that address
(
x 2 15
[ g maintenance during operation.
- 16
( [ MR. PATON: That's a different question. What d 17 w are we doing about this and what are we doing generally x
$ 18
= about maintenance during operation of the plant.
19 l I know we deal with them in our textbacks.
20 JUDGE HARBOUR: Find out what else, if anything, 21 there might be, as far as branch positions and should it O 22 have to be dealt with in the SER is I guess what I'm 23 l getting at.
l 24 x MR. BISHOP: Again, that's getting into the 25 merits of the contentions, dealing with the importance <
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
8227 8/9/2 I of the particular issue. I am not sure for deciding on O 2 whether the contention is in it is app'ropriate to 3 decide as a threshold issue whether it is important to ,
O 4 be in the SER. That's the whole point.
5 I don't mean to misrepresent what you said, g
n
$' 6 Judge Harbour, but --
R b 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think what we are K
k 0 thinking about is if every SER but this one discusses d
- it, it may be different from if no SER discusses it, O 10 y but it is in the FES. I'm not saying on this issue, but
=
there was at least one contention where something was d 12 3 alleged not to be in the SER and it was in the FES or
() g 13 something like that; and if that should be the case, we E 14 y might be able to just take that into account, t
=
l 9 15 l E MR. BISHOP: I will withdraw my comment then.
=
l .- '16 j CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I am not going to try to i 17 a resolve i t -- the technical issue of the merits certainly.
=
M 18
= Does anyone have anything more on this C
19 l contention?
20 If not, we think we should take a break bec au s e 21 some of the Staff people in Washington leave at 4:00.
22 (Z) If you '.re going to find out, you may want to try to get 23 in touch with them now.
24 k'l
/ What do you need, about 15 or 20 minutes?
25 Is that enough?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
r 8228
.8/9/3 1 MR. PATON: I think 20 minutes is plenty.
l O 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Let's take 20 minutes.
3 (Brief recess.)
T9 4 m 5 b
@ 6 R
$ 7 3
8 8 d
ci 9
$ 10 11 a
j 12 Os3m i3
$ 14 2 15
, s j 16 ,
as
@ 17
, 5 18 l
=
19 g
n 20 21 0 22 23 24 0
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
9-1,pjl 8229 I CHAIRMAN SECHHOEFER: Has the Staff got some 2 answers to Dr. Harbour's question?
3 MR. WILCOVE: The Staff will have answers tomorrow 4 morning.
g 5 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: All right. Well, now, the 9
l @ 6 next one is New No. 5, which is Old No. 7.
I R
$ 7 In response to a question of mine which I asked a
8 8 Mr. Bishop, the reference to page 5-9 of the DEIS should d
d 9 be 5-7.
$ 10 I was trying during the break to read some of 3
11 that stuff.
h 3
j 12 Mr. Bishop?
E
(]) 13 MR. BISHOP: I believe we are getting into the l$ 14 realm of contentions that are very closely stated to 15
{x correspond with the. earlier contentions. The point here j 16 is that the analysis on the cooling pondain' the Draft e
d 17 Impact Statement is based on data from a vastly different i x l
{c 18 set of circumstances which the Staff knew about and should s
19 have done differently, and the contention essentially g
n 20 challenges the analysis in the draft statement because 1
21 it used improper data.
22 JUDGE HARBOUR: The question that I have relates
(~)
]
23 to the data base. Are you talking about the data base that 24
{} has to do with fogging and icing, or the data base that 25 has to do with cooling ponds performance?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
'9-1,pj2 8230 1
MR. BISHOP: Well, oh, and we can deal with them separately.
3
- The cooling pond performance, the draft DIS
() 4 specifically references the '73 Bechtel report which deals e 5 h with either New Mexico or Arizon- -- it.is somewhat unclear--
$ 6 h but at least it is a Southwestern cooling pond experience 8 7 t j which we submit is drastically different from the conditions 8 8
)d that are likely to occur in this area.
9 y JUDGE HARBOUR: Are those the data that are
$ 10 g referred to in that figure on pages 4-7 and 4-8 of the E 11
$ Draft Environmental Impact Statement?
d 12 h CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Table 4.1.
(]) y= 13 MR. BISHOP: Yes, your Honor. Then with regard E 14
$ to fogging and icing, then it is unclear from the text of 2 15
$ the draft DIS what that is based on. They mention that j 16 -
w they are talking about an experience from Dresden but it d 17 l 3 appears that it is being correlated and compared with the
$ 18 i
g range of temperatures to be expected based on the data base 19
! in Table 4.1, so that in that sense in regard to the cooling l 20 pond performance you are looking at something completely i 21 dissimilar and in regard to fogging and icing, you are (q
s/
22 comparing something more similar with something completely 23 dissimilar again, and that the analysis therefore fails.
24 O- CHATRMAN BECHHOEFER: 'Are you aware that in terms 25 of one of the things that we look at when we balance factors, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
9-1,pj3 8231 I are you aware that Mr. Marshall had an earlier contention O 2 on -- I believe it was either cooling ponds or cooling 3 t;ower performance , I'm not sure?
O 4 MR. 31Suc,, 1 am not aware e, that.
5 It was deferred until a
$ CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
9 ,
b 0 number of days after the FES was issued because there was R
S 7 some -- I mean the ruling on it was deferred because there s
k 0 was some question as to whether the cooling system was d
d 9 the same or similar to that which was analysed at the
}.
o 10 construction permit stage, but I am not sure whether you h
=
!I s
were aware of it.
kI I was trying to figure out whether there was O! '3 eny simi11e=1er or over1eg beeween those contenetone.
l 14 It's hard for me to state exactly because we haven' t got y 15 9-2 a final version of Mr. Marshall's contention.
x d I6 ,
as 6 17
= .
$ 18 E
g 19 n
20 21 A 22 U
23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8232 9/2/1 1 MS. STAMIRIS: Judge Bechhoefer?
Gw son ention2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes?
3 MS. STAMIRIS: I can tell you something of 4 the background on this. I attended the meeting when 5
James Carson came to Midland to talk to the road j 6 commissioner and the planning commissioners here to R
b 7 advise them that they now had information that they M
] 8 didn't when the first environmental impact statement was d
9 prepared, on just what the effects of this cooling pond 10' would be.
II
,5 He said that since that time the Dresden plant kI had operated and that they had found all these drastically different effects from a cooling pond in the midwest, l
14 as compared to the data that they had secured, and he 9 15
- g said Arizona at the time -- it's in my notes, or Mexico, 16 l New Mexico, whatever, the southwest -- and' therefore he 6 17 w told them about the huge additional amount of fogging x
M 18
= that could be expected in the midwest and that the 19
] the rma li.di s ch a rg'e - ,o r ;th e ': the rma l temperhture of the 20 cooling pond would be 90 degrees difference from the 21 ambient temperature. That is, when it was 20 degrees 22 Os below Centigrade, it would be 90 degrees above Centigrade. '
23 ,
I mean 70 degrees. There is a 90 degree difference s 24 l
s anyway in the operation of this cooling pond and therefore 25 you could expect this huge amount of fogging.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
t
8233 D/2/2 1 Now, it seemed to me with that, and that really O 2 was discussed in the DES, so it seemed inconsistent to 3 me to put in a chart..that had the thermal monthly O 4 patterns from the 1973 data again. Give us the data from e 5 the Dresden pond because that is what is more applicable h
3 6 to Midland and let us look at that.
l R d 7 It seems like it should be a fairly easy thing a
8 8 to do. I never dreamed that they wouldn't put that in d
d 9 the DES since they knew it in 1978.
$ 10 MR. MILLER: I'd like to suggest that the FES
$ Il responds precisely to this comment.
is I2 f MS. SINCLAIR: It's the same chart. I looked 13 it up. It is the first thing I got.
m I4 MR. MILLER: Well, it also states that in l Y 15 evaluating fog they used the data from Dresden.
ii[ I0 MS. SINCLAIR: Well, why wouldn t they use
? us II the Dresden data for evaluating the thermal patterns?
h 18 f It's the same climatic conditions that we are talking
- I9 8 about here.
n 20 There is a different pond that we MR. MILLER:
21 are talking about here and the thermal performance of the O 22 p,,, z ,,11,,, 1, ,,,,e ,, es, se,,,,1 mee,1 ,,, es, 3
Midland pond.
24 O ms, s1,cs,1,, ,,. ,,,1, m,,,1 ,,, ,,, 1, ,,,
25 southwest and that is what Carson clearly said, and that
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
t 8234 I is what they used in the DES and that is what they used
/2/3 O 2 again here in the FES.
3 It seems inconsistent --
4 MR. MILLER: There are two models. Excuse me.
g 5 I don't mean to engage in colloquy with Mrs. Sinclair, 9
3 6 but there are in fact two models. One is the performance R
& 7 of the cooling pond in terms of its own thermal -- what M
j 8 will happen to it in terms of the heat load that is d
c 9 imposed on it and the next part of the analysis is what o
10 instances of fogging and icing can be expected.
h II
$ Bechtel used its own model for thermal is g 12 performance of the pond and the FES indicates that in 13 predicting the amount of fog that was likely given that I4 thermal performance, it used data from Dresden.
15 Does the FES say that?
MR. PATON: I d I0 MR. MILLER: Yes.
us I7 MR. PATON: Where?
h x
IO Look at Page 9-19 and then 9-35 MR. MILLER:
E II g and 9-36 which are responses precisely to Mrs. Sinclair's O
comments.
)/ 3 0 22
~
23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
9-3,pjl 8235 comments 1 MS. SINCLAIR: The Bechtel model which you are 2 talking about, Mr. Carsen said was based on a cooling pond 3 in the Southwest and he said that is not realistic.
n)
(- 4 JUDGE HARBOUR: I would like to refer everyone to 5 the second paragraph of Section 5.4.1 of the DES which g
9 '
] 6 st' arts off with: " Currier & others" --
R E 7 MR. MILLER: What page?
A
$ 8 JUDGE HARBOUR: Page 5-7 of the DES, and it says d
q 9 that: " Currier and others," Reference 2, "and Hicks,"
10 References 3 and 4, "have developed models to predict the h
=
II 5 occurrence and density of steam fog over cooling ponds.
k fc I2 These models which have been confirmed by observations
()f13 over operating cooling pond in Illinois and Arizona pre-ln 14 dict that fog density increases as the air and water i
l jt 15 temperature difference increases."
j
. 16 I would like to know if the Inteivenor perhaps is e
I7 confusing models which are based on empirical data from h
x
} 18 Arizona with models which are numerical models or other E"
8 n
kinds of models which are generic in application and have 20 been confirmed at at least two specific sites, one of which 21 These are two different types was in Arizona and Illinois.
22 of models and two different types of confirmations.
(])
3' MS. SINCLAIR: I realize that and John Carson 24 addressed himself to that and he said that earlier model
(])
25 was not an accurate model of what could be expected in the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
9-3,pj2 8236 I
Midwest. ,
2 My point is that for both the pattern of thermal 3
temperatures and the fog and icing pattern, you ought to 4
use the cooling pond data from Dresden and let's see what I
that is, since that is the kind of pattern or model that
$ 0 is most likely to be expected in Midland.
E
" 7 He specifically said that that Bechtel model was n
8 8 a not appropriate.
d 9
[". CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That is the 1973 Bechtel?
o h MS. SINCLAIR: Yes.
k CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: What did the Staff mean in its DES where it says, I think the word is " adapted"?
c Ad 13 JUDGE HARBOUR:
, Ug On that table --
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Table 4.1 on page 4-7 of 9 15 "
G the DES, it says, . . . adapts from- Bechtel. . . ."
m I0 What does the adaptation mean?
I7 MR. WILCOVE: With respect to that question, h
x
$ 18
- any answer we would give now would be speculation. We 19 8 would prefer to check with our people back in Bethesda 0
and come up with an answer to that question.
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Another question I am sure O th t the s me people could nswer perhaps is whether any 23 of the numbers of figures given on Table 4.1 of the DES 24 Q are based on or derived from Southwestern data?
MR. WILCOVE: Again, I think the answer is we will ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
9-3,pj3 8237 1
check with our people back home on that.
2 MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, it seems to me if 3
one looks at the figures on that table, it would have to be 4
plant specific. I don't believe there could be a condenser inlet temperature. of thirty-two and a half degrees at a h
8 6
- cooling pond in the Four Corners area. Maybe there could E 7
,- be, but I would be pretty surprised.
n 8 8
" CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Two questions put together d
a 9 g are designed to find out whether that was the.Bechtel data 0 10 E from the Southwestern cooling ponds modified by perhaps
=
E 11 g a formula to adapt it to Midland or whether they were
'i 12 9-4 3 derived specifically. It could be done either way.
c 13 (l)
E 14
=
2 15 j 16 m
p 17
- M 18 E
E 19 R
20 l
21 22 GD 23 4
25 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l 8238 ,
'9/4/1 dw I JUDGE HARBOUR: I would say that your on[])
2 speculation is probably not correct because the Four 3 Corners area is at a very high altitude. It is around O 4 6,000 or 7,000 feet. The winters are quite cold there.
g 5 We have been there in the wintertime.
9
@ 6 MR. BISHOP: Again, I think what we are doing R
S 7 here is we are arguing the contention and I think that j 8 that's -- we would like to have a Staff witness to explain d
=; 9 how the particular data was used. That is the whole point E
10 of the contention.
h
=
II CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I was going to ask which f I2 one of you would like to be sworn.
() g 13 MR. BISHOP: Not I.
3 14
@ MS. STAMIRIS: The Bechtel data base that you k
15
{m mentioned that was used in one of these aspects, can you I0 give me the date for that?
hI m
MR. MILLER: I don't believe so. I believe it M 18
= is the same 1973 model with respect to thermal performance s
19 i ) of the pond. That is not very sophisticated. That is l
i 20 not what was used then for fogging.
21 MS. SINCLAIR: No, but it is the same pond.
s So why not use Dresden for the thermal pattern, too.
23 CHAIRMAN BECCHOEFER: Off the record.
() (Discussion had off the record.)
25 MS. STAMIRIS: I would like to raise another ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8239 9/4/2 1 issue that I think is relevant to the question of why l O 2 I think we should deal with the most recent information, 3 as opposed to information from 1973, if it be the case O 4 that there is more recent data available and I don't e 5 think I am off base in raising the issue of the h
j 6 elimination of the cooling towers in the design of the '
E 7 Midland facility, because in 1973 the plant was designed R
j 8 and planned to have the cooling tower capacity and since d
9 that time Consumers has eliminated the cooling towers and 3
10 therefore the cooling pond is at a significantly higher h
=
II
$ temperature than it was planned to be in 1973.
E f I2 I believe that the cooling towers were 13 eliminated in about 1978 and so if that be the case then m
5 I4 the Bechtel data is from 1973.
15 If that is what is being used, it would seem to j 16 me to be erroneous or at least it should b'e replaced by M
17 o more recent data.
i =
M 18
= JUDGE HARBOUR: May I ask you, please, when 19 g you say that the cooling towers were eliminated, do you mean the blow down cooling towers which were to cool the i 21 l water before it was discharged back to the Tittapassee,
() or are you talking about a major change in the cooling l system where cooling towers were supposed to be the f3 24
(/ principal means of cooling and there was no cooling pond?
25 MS. STAMIRIS: I really can't answer your ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. ,
l 8240 9/4/3 1 question myself except that I know that the results of 2 this change -- the main thing I am keeping in my mind 3 is that the result of this change, whichever one it was,
() 4 resulted in a higher temperature to the cooling pond as e 5 a result, b
$ 6 MS. SINCLAIR: I know what that was. They R -
8 7 were going to have cooling towers before the discharge 3
l 8 to the river, but not a major change in the cooling d
d 9 system. It was just that they wanted to be sure that they
$ 10 could meet the thermal limits, but they did eliminate the E
g 11 cooling owers at that time and that is why I agree a
j 12 that this is another reason that it would be better to
() 5 13 use the thermal patterns of Dresden.
h 14 MR. MILLER: I don't think that would have
- Y 2 15 any effect on the temperature in the pond itself. I am E
g 16 talking about a cooling of blow down to the Tittapassee I
s 6 17 River.
5 l $ 18 I think that is discussed at Page 4-3 where it 5
{
n 19 says, " Cooling pond blow down cooling tower originally 20 proposed to provide additional cooling of pond water prior 21 to discharge to the river has been excluded from the l
.() 22 current plant design."
l 23 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: And the basic contention l
24 is to what extent has that been accommodated for and
[])
25 incorporated in the analysis of the thermal pond ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
9/4/4 ! NI 1 performance as well as the fogging and icing and that is O 2 the point of the contention.
3 MR. MILLER: Excuse me. Would you inquire of .
O 4 Mr. Bishop as to whether his contention is supposed to g
5 encompass the effect if any of the elimination of the a
@ 6 cooling towers on pond performance?
R 9/5 $ 7 '
3 ,
m 8 8 d
ci 9
- s o
@ 10 z
i j 11 a '
o 12 O! .
i3 Q t l b 2 15 g 16 - !
US .
l 6 17 l s !
$ 18 19 9
M r 20 l
i l 21 O 22 23 24 25 .
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8242
/5/1 1 MS. SINCLAIR: No. That is not what I said, dw e r 'drman cd2 MR. MILLER: I thought that is what he said, 3 but perhaps I missed, because the description of the O 4 cooling pond has been unchanged from the construction 5 permit s tage and again the FES current Final Environmental g
9 b 0 Statement so states.
l R t c y S MS. SINCLAIR: I still say these are two a
b 0 I think the question of whether you separate things.
d d 9 g really need cooling towers before you discharge to the 0 10
@ river is one question and the reasons why they eliminated
=
2 11 g those would be very important to know, but all I am 6 12 r E saying is why not give us the thermal pattern from l
() s 13 Dresden so that we know what we really have here in the E 14 sz way of a cooling pond performance, instead of still 9 15 j using data from 1973 because we have better data. Let's 16 -
3 just have it.
G 17 g CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: One of the questions..I
$ 18
= was trying to -- or not questions -- one of the matters N
19
$ I was trying to pose to the parties was whether this 20 contention would be sort of a subpart almost of 21 Mr. Marshall's contention which is not due for several .
(} 22 days. I checked. He has 21 days following the service 23 of the DES to file such a contention. This is Page.:23 .
24 O of the order. That is not my' time.
25 4 l
If there was a possibility that the parties ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8243 1
@/5/2 1 might wish to stipulate that Contention 5 raises a valid O 2 issue for hearing, if Contention 5 were to raise a valid 3 issue, I would think that Ms. Sinclair's issue would be O 4 encompassed therein, or could be considered to be 5 encompassed therein.
g P
@ 6 What I am not sure about is what Contention 5 '
R C
S 7 states, or what issue it raises, or what it will state.
M
% 8 MR. PATON: I have Contention 5, but you mean d
9 it may be rewritten?
o
@ 10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Right, and what I was E
II
! trying to figure out is if there is a valid difference k
e 12 z between the cooling system and the affect on the fogging
{l 3l 13 and icing and cooling system proposed standards then and today, there is likely to be a valid issue you created.
9 15 sx That is my only point.
? 16 I don't believe that any g MR. MILLER:
i I:7 a
. contention asserts that that is the case, that the x
$ 18 elimination of the blow down cooling towers is going to
=
s E 19 i
l g have an effect on the amount of fogging and icing and j 20 I don' t believe that that is --
21 MS. SINCLAIR: Nobody said that. Even if you 22 C~T
/ have cooling towers you are going to have the same amount 23 of fog.
24
{m/') CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: It's my recollection, 25 '
I will look it up, but I think that the DES said just l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l
8244
.9/5/3 I that and that is what my question was raised by.
O 2 Off the record.
3 (Discussion had off the record.)
{/ 4 I was referring to the discussion on Pages 5-7 5 and 5-8 of the DES. That discussion indicates that there
@' 6 is likely to be significant more icing and fogging R
S 7 during the operating license review than there was during M
k 0 the construct, ion permit review.
d N 9 That also indicates that the Dresden information o
10 was used in reaching that, but I think that there is a h
=
hII d 12 valid contention it would derive from what Mr. Marshall z had in before to the effect that there is excessive 1 I) 0g
\ 13 fogging and icing.
E 14 w That's how I read his earlier contention.
2 15 w His contention would be whether anything could be done x
? 16 -
g about it.
G 17 That was testified to by an w MR. MARSHALL:
x -
$ 18
= expert from the University of Michigan.
19 I am just trying to find l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
20 out what the valid contention was. If we had a contention 21 like that, the source of the data could clearly be 22
' considered a part of that. It wouldn't be a separate 23 ,
contention.
()
\s 24 What I was trying to inquire was whether we 25 should, in looking to whether interest will be ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8245 9/5/4 1 represented by other parties, whether we should be ;
(]) 2 looking to Mr. Marshall's contention at this stage in i
3 evaluating the late-filed criteria.
4 MS. STAMIRIS:
(]) So I would state that it would g 5 seem expedient if we --
a
$ 6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Or if the parties would R
$ 7 all agree on a cooling tower contention, or an icing and M
$ 8 fogging, at least, contention, which appears to be at d
o 9 least submitted way back.
Y b 10 MR. BISHOP: Well, that's true. That is an j 11 icing and fogging contention that was submitted by B
12 Mr. Marshall, but the contention we have as No. 5 deals l
5
{) 13 with that as well as with thermal pond deficiencies, lb 14 so in that sense there are two parts to our Contention 5, g 15 one part of which, if I understand you correctly, could x
g 16 fit under Mr. Marshall's contention, but'the other part ,
i g ,
~
d 17 would not, the relevancy and usefulness of using that, 5
{p 18 whether or not that particular data from '73 from the 19
{
n southwest was used to derive the model or apply the model 20 to the Midland plant. That is one part of our 1
21 contention which is not Mr. Marshall's.
22
{] CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
i I guess we haven't 23 heard officially from you, except in answer or in 1
24 response to certain questions and also from the Staff, 25 but perhaps you could address to the extent that this ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
f 8246 I
9/5/5 1 proposed contention fits in with whatever Mr. Marshall's
() 2 contention will be, which we don't know the wording of 3 yet. It's difficult.
() 4 MR. MILLER: The problem that I have with the g 5 contention as written is that it is contradicted on its 0
3 6 face, I think, by the data that appears in the draft of l
R
( $ 7 the Environmental Impact Statement and the Final A
{ 8 Environcental Impact Statement and as such, it lacks d -
d 9 basis and it should be rejected. I truly believe that Y
$ 10 there is some confusion here as to the use that the j 11 Applicant and Staff made of the models of thermal a
p 12 performance of the Midland cooling pond and whatever o
13 models were used or other data were used to estimate
(])
h 14 the amount of fogging and icing.
2 15 I believe we have done what Ms.- Sinclair says j 16 we ought to have done and I think that that is the only w
17 fair interpretation of the DES and the FES is the facts f18 A
raised by the assertions in her contentions just are
[
n 19 simply contradicted by the document itself and therefore 20 it lacks basis.
21 What I am hoping we can do is outside of the
/"% 22 contention process is to demonstrate to her that in fact V
23 , we have done what she says we should have done, but the 24 contention as written I think is not acceptable and 25 we ought to be --
I mean Mr. Marshall's contention, I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8247 9/5/6 1 don' t know what it is going to assert. He still has a ;
i l
O 2 couple of days before a new contention, if any, is due l
I
}
3 to be filed. !,
9/ 4
, o 5 !
E i 9 '
3 e 6 !
S '
R 7 s !
8 8 e :
, ci 9 :
! I C '
b 10 a
f l 5 h e 12 !
3 O ==s ia !
E 14 w
2 15 w
M g' 16 I M
t d 17 i w !
x I M 18 I I
C 19 l l A
20 r
21 l l
t l O 22 ;
23 , i i
24 O ;
25 t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
=9-6,pjl 8248 filed. MS. STAMIRIS: Judge Bechhoefer, may I respond.
() 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes.
MS. STAMIRIS: It seems that at this point we
() 4 have kind of impasse on the data base where this contention 5
g and I thought it might be expedient if the parties could a
f6 do what Mr. Miller is suggesting and perhaps take another 1 " 7 look at the data basse and whether Mrs. Sinclair has s
8 a 8 suggested something, as Mr. Miller suggests, and try to d
9
[". take care of it off the record and have another shot at 10
$ it tomorrow.
=
hII 6
MS. SINCLAIR: All I am asking is: Why did they 12 3 use 1973 data for giving us the thermal patterns of the c
() pond when they have adihitted'.that since that time the E 14 g Dresden pond data has become available to them and that that e
9 15 g is far more accurate for the Midwest and so why don't we 16 l have the Dresden pond data for'.the': thermal [ patterns also, instead of going back to the '73 data?
$ 18
= So I think what Staff says they are going to 8
[ 19 8 find out is where that 1973 data came from and then we 20 will have it clear that they used an inapproprh te data 21 base for the thermal patterns and yet they are telling us I
l 22 I
('N) that the Dresden pond gives us other data for fogging and 23 icing. It gives a real inconsistency about something that
(]) can be a very major environmental impact on this area.
! CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Wilcove, we haven't l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, .
624U
- 6-6,pj2 I heard from you on this.
2 MR. WILCOVE: The first order of business, I will 3
repeat what I said earlier. We will attempt to supply Ms.
() 4 Sinclair with the information that she is requesting. We 5
j will try to get that information tonight or tomorrow, and
?
@ 6 I ask that if the Staff is able to explain the situation G
R 7
- satisfactorily to Ms. Sinclair, perhaps she would be will-E 8 n ing to drop the contention, depending on what we receive d
9
~. in information.
E b MS. SINCLAIR: I would like the data from the II 5 Dresden pond, but first of all, get the basis of your k
g 12 data.
3 13
()$ MR. WILCOVE: All right. All we are doing is, 5 14 g and on this point I do agree with Ms. Stamiris that we have x
15 reached an impasse and we will try to get the information j 16 e that Ms. Sinclair wishes and I think that a't least until tomorrow we should move on to another contention.
=
IO 110 b l
E 9 19 M
20 21 22 (J
23 r 24 V
25 If ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
[
10-1,pjl 8250 I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Does anybody have anything
) 2 further on this contention?
3 Although 8 through 12 have been dropped, we have
() 4 a couple of questions about 10.
5 MR. BISHOP: Yes. As I mentioned to you during g
n -
- @ 6 one of the breaks, the reason that 10 was dropped was in R
S 7 the interest of expediting the hearing. We have combined --
a j 8 since it was very similar to a contention in th'e other set, d
c; 9 that will be commented on later. ~
E g 10 The essence of that contention was put in that II 5 framework m- in the other contention's framework. So that's k
12
{c why it was dropped.
() 13 It wasn't dropped because we don't think it was a l 14 good issue anymore. So perhaps upon review of that other 15 contention, that may be the appropriate time for the Board g 16 to explore whether that satisfies all of your concerns.
W I7 JUDGE HARBOUR: Who's other contention is it?
( h z
IO MS. SINCLAIR: It is mine.
A 19 1
8 JUDGE HARBOUR: 327 I n 20 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Old 32, very old 32.
2I MR. BISHOP: Yes, very old 32.
22
() JUDGE HARBOUR: I have some information which has 23 possible significance in relation to this. I would address 24 my statements, first of all, to the Staff and have some
(])
25 questions as far as tr'ying to resolve these.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1
I 10-1,pj2 8251 I
These are related to the circumferential weld --
() 2 maybe we should call that the belt line weld, that's easier--
3 the belt line weld, and I'm trying to check the accuracy 4
of the statements used as the basis for Contention 10, we 5
j came upon some apparently inconsistent values --
N 3 6 j g MR. PATON: Judge Harbour, I'm sorry. Could I N
8 7
- interrupt?
n k 0 JUDGE HARBOUR: Yes.
i d
x i
9
[- MR. PATON: If you.are about to ask some techni-e H 10
@ cal questions, Mr. Hood is out of the room, and I would
=
II h like to get him in here because I think that's the way 6 12 z you are going.
=
/~) d 13 JUDGE HARBOUR:
's / g Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes, he is.
9 15 G
z MR. PATON: Could I just get him inihere?
Possibly I could get him right now.
6 17 w JUDGE HARBOUR: We could wait for him to come z
$ 18
= back and we can go on to something else, if you want to.
9 19 8
n MR. PATON: Can I just take a minute?
20 JUDGE HARBOUR: Yes, if you want to see if he is 21 available. I would like to complete my statement just so
(]) it won't appear so broken up in the record, and we can 23 repeat it for Mr. Hood.
(]) The apparent inconsistent statements have to do 25 with the Effective Full Power Years or EFPY which appears i
(
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
10-1,pj3 g
I on page 5-19, where it says nine effective full.powerjyears, 2
and on page C-10 it says 15.1 effective full power years.
3 That's on page C-10, and that's before degradation to the O 4 50-foot gound tese 1e e1.
5 y This I say is an apparent inconsistency which to n
3 6 a layman is not explained, if it isn't indeed a real a
b 7 discrepancy.
N 10-2 ! 8 e
ci 9 i
h 10 gn a
ti 12 s l a t
- Ou'.
E 14 id
=
2 15 w
M >
j 16 -
us d
w 17 2: '
M 18 E
19 R
l 20 21 2
0 23 l
l O 25 l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8253 10/2/1 1 MR. MILLER: Judge Harbour, we will be happy dwn dilsbe- 2 to have Mr. Hood's explanation, but I believe that cancy 3 Dr. Sullivan could perhaps explain if it is not an 4 inconsistency.
e 5 DR. SULLIVAN: If you notice in Appendix C, h
l 3 6 I think the effective full power years are based on R
& 7 fluents level at the quarter T location, quarter thickness a
j 8 through the vessel.
d c; 9 JUDGE HARBOUR: Yes.
z 10 DR. SULLIVAN: The concern -- Well, the fluents II 5 would obviously be different at one-fourth thickness 3
f I2 through versus the surface, which is the number quoted 13 at Page 5-19. ,
l 14 JUDGE HARBOUR: And that is the outer surface?
15 DR. SULLIVAN: No; at one-fourth thickness g 16 through the vessel.
l w
I7 MR. MILLER:
h z
It is the inner surface of the
$ 18
_ vessel.
A 19 g JUDGE HARBOUR: The inner surface is referred 20 to in the Appendix C?
21 DR. SULLIVAN: No. The inner surface is on 22 O' Page 5-19.
I 23 '
DR. HARBOUR: And the one-quarter section
() thickness is the one that's referred to on Page -- is the 25 one that's referred to --
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8254
'10/2/2 1 DR. SULLIVAN: C-10.
O 2 JUDGE HARBOUR: C-10, all right. So that the 3 higher fluents at the inner surface would result in a I
4 shorter effective line than the fluents would at one-e 5 quarter of a section thickness?
3 e
@ 6- DR. SULLIVAN: But the location of interest is l R
& 7 lthequarterT location in the vessel.
y 8 JUDGE HARBOUR: I don't want to get to the d
9 9 merits of it. I think it is probably --
5
$ 10 DR. SULLIVAN: The criterion has to do with
$ 11 whether or not a crack will propagate, and the crack is k
y 12 presumed to be at the quarter thickness, and the ques' tion L
() 13 is will it propagate beyond that.
b I4 JUDGE HARBOUR: I understand. I have oneuchher g 15 question then, though, that there is a discrepancy ;
a i E I6 apparently that is real between the SER and FSAR. The I l
d I7 SER on Page 5-19, on the FSAR, Section 5.3.1.6.1.3 --2531613 ;
h x
II with points between all of them -- the flux properties I h
A 19 ascribed to the substitute surveillance sample for that i g n
20 weld is -- the substitute is WF209 material, and in one 21 the SER says that they are the place it says that the --
() same material and same flux, same base, weld; and the 23 FSAR says they are the same material and weld, but 1
different flux.
25 So this is a metallurgical question, undoubtedly ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
8255 10/2/3 1 of great significance, but it is an apparent O 2 inconsistency.
3 That takes care of old 10.
4 Aduitionally, I would simply nu'e ':h a t the e 5 proposed solution, which is thermal annealing once the d
l 3 6 Charpy limit is reached is based on techniques which have R
6 7 not yet been developed, according to a statement in the M
8 8 FSAR.
e (10/3 C[ 9
$ 10 a
5 11
(
12 O! m i3 i E 14 i
ifz 2 15 E
l j 16 -
! as I ( 17 E
l M 18 E
19 g
n 20 l
21 0 22 23 i
Q 24 25 !
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
10-3,pjl i 8256 FSAR I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Now, one of the things I
) 2 would like Ms. Sinclair or Mr. Bishop to focus on when you 3 are working on your own contentions is whether these matters- -
() 4 at least to the extent they cause a problem -- may be g 5 included in the contention.
9
@ 6 MS. SINCLAIR: Yes.
R
$ 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Those were some of the s
Q 8 bases why we were fairly inclined to accept some sort of d
- 9 9 a contention on the basis of 10 at least.
E
$ 10 MS. SINCLAIR: I have a good deal of what he said E
j 11 in my Contention 32 that I followed up from my previous 3
p 12 contentions. I had this current in formation based on 5
() 13 discovery, both from the Staff and from Consumers Power
! 14 Company, especially on the -- or the part about the annealinc
{x 15 techniques that they talk about are not feasible at the j 16 present time. -
W d 17 MR. BISHOP: That's in there.
5 18 MS. SINCLAIR: That's in there. The first part, P
19 the discrepancies in the FSAR and SER, you know, in the
{
n I,
20 period of time I had didn't catch all of that, so that 21 could be added -- or the Board could do that.
22 JUDGE HARBOUR: Would the Staff like to comment 23l on the first part of the apparent discrepancy concerning r^s 24 i the effective full power years that I brought up?
k) l 25 I could repeat the question if necessary.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
- 10-3,pj2 8257 1
MR. PATON: The difference between the nine years
( 2 and the 15 years?
3 JUDGE HARBOUR: Do you want me to repeat the
() 4 queston?
e 5 g MR. HOOD: I believe that the answer that the a
3
- 6 Applicant gave was a correct answer.
N 8 7
- CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER
- Now, we will go on to the n
9 8 6 next contention, I guess. There are three -- Old 13 is the d
6 9 y; way I read this next one.
O 10 y MR. BISHOP: Perhaps maybe the best way to deal I 11 j with it --
there was one contention left of the group that d 12 3 are left which are not related to various affidavits regard-0'.3@
13 ing quality assurance problems. Probably the best thing E 14 g to do is deal with that one and then we can deal with 'all' 9 15 j of the rest of them in a group because they deal with some
? 16 -
$ more issues, or we can proceed right on and do No. 6.',
It
$ 17 may be cleaner that way, because I think the discussion g
5 18
= about the quality assurance issues relates to all of them --
- 19 l or to 6, 8 and 16 --
or we can do all of those right now.
20 l
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Why don't we do all -- 6, 21 8 and 16. Are the parties prepared to deal with 16?
r3 22
's/ MR. MILLER: Yes, we are.
23 MR. PATON: I need a minute. I am working on 24 Os it right now.
25 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: 6 and 8. These were the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
10-3,pj3 8258 I
ones that you asked to respond to here anyway.
2 MR. BISHOP: 6 and 8 and then 16 deal with various 3
aspects of quality assurance problems that have arisen in O 4 ehe gase few weeke due to effidevies eurned over to the 5
NRC from various individuals.
0 No. 6 deals with the Howard affidavit from the e7 S 7 Zack Company, dealing with improper materials in iron duct s
! O work.
, d 9
No. 8 is -- deals with the non-compliance report, 10 which deals with the language of integrity of welds in
=
fII the HFAC system, and then 16 --
again, 16 also deals with fo welding problems contained in reports filed by the Zack O=l' Comvenv.
E 14 g
~
The question that I have about this, your Honor, g 15
=
is it appears to me to be beyond dispute that these have j 16
! us a basis. They are the -- the basis that's 'ade m available I7 l h to the Staff, actually these affidavits have all been made i z 18 f
public, I believe, and they have direct relevance to this U
8 n
case, to this facility. J 20 l The question is in'which docket would you like 21k ro have them heard?
O 't 99e r= to us th e ene=e re au tiev =="r aoe 23 ' issues which are most likely to be better heard in the l
Q OM/OL hearing, rather than the OL hearing itself; and if 25 that's true, if that's the way the Board feels, then we ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i .
b
'10-3,pj4 8259 '
I will -- we wotLd move that these contentions be moved out 2
of the OL docket into the OM docket.
!10-4 3 0 4 e 5 l &
I 3 e 6 N
$ 7 s -
8 a 8 d -
- i 9 i .
o
@ 10 s
j 11
[ a d 12 l
F c
13 Q$
i E 14 l
i 2 15 )
g 16 s
@ 17 w ,
x
!E 18 -
P 19 8
e 20 21 22 O
23 ,
!O 25 l
i
' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
s 8260 1 CHAIRMAN 3ECHHOEFER: We have sort of
-10(]/1
. dw 2 consolidated th e issues -- the soils related issues dokhot 3 anyway.
r'
\ That, as I understand it, has 4 MR. BISHOP:
g 5 sort of developed into a general QA type of hearing, 6 which Consumers at least and the Board as well in issuing R
C C 7 the subpoenas for certain individuals regarding other '
l 8 affidavits has acknowledged that these types of issues d
N 9 are relevant to the QA/QC proceeding, which is part of z
. 10 the consolidated docket.
E II I understood that these contentions we are 3
f I2 dealing with here, as well as Ms. Sinclair's other 5 contentions which will be commented on by the other m
N I4 parties, are properly part of the old OL docket, which l I 9 15 has not had much activity in it for a good while. But m
x 16 g'
I would be happy to have that clarified if that's b' 17 .
w incorrect.
5 l m 18 One of the things that we
- CHAIRMAN BEdHHOEFER:
19 I had; understood from one of our j ought to find out --
20 conference calls, I guess -- is that Mr. Keppler, his 21 testimony on QA may well have something about FHAC. matters i
in it. If that's not so -- if that is so, it might mean 23 '
that it would be appropriate if we label it contention
24 or contentions to hear it at the same general time frame l that Mr. Keppler comes in to testify, which sounds like ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
b i10/4/2 1 it will be in late November or December.
O 2 MR. BISHOP: Mr. Keppler also has in his 3 jurisdiction -- I think that's correct -- or possession O 4 the protected affidavits that raise also QA issues, which g 5 I understand the Staff is beginning to investigate and 9
3 6 may result in a report relating to QA issues also for
%C S 7 this particular docket.
M y 8 Perhaps Mr. Paton is best to talk about that.
d c; 9 CHAIRMAN..BECHHOEFER: Mr.~Paton'.probably should o
@ 10 address that at some point in his treatment of these E
II k contentions. '
E f I2 Do you have anything further because we will '
()g 13 hear then from Mr. Miller.
E 14 Mr. Steptoe will talk.
g MR. MILLER:
m 9 15 I would like to make some g MR. STEPTOE:
x g 16 distinctions among these various contentions. First of w
17 all, with respect to Contentions 8 and 16, which both h
x
$ 18 relate to essentially a Part 21 report filed by Zack t
C 19 g just recently, Consumers has no objection to timeliness, 20 to specificity or basis.
We would agree with counsel for Intervenor that j
22 C)s
% it properly belongs in the OM proceedings simply because 23 we have already started off on the Zack matters and there k) are findings of that that are already before the Board 25 on Zack.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8262 The second item that I would like to address l10/4/3 1 2 is new Contention 6, which refers to the Howard affidavit.
3 There we do not have an cbjection on timeliness grounds.
4 We have as a profferred basis a 27 page e 5 affidavit by Mr. Howard which was filed. It has some 3
l
@ 6 40 exhibits. It was filed with another affidavit and R
$ 7 about six statements and an.ll-page cover letter with 3
$ 8 Chairman Paladeno.
d d 9 It was filed not in this docket, but in i
O g 10 LaSalle, and it was an effort by the government, an E
5 11 accountability project, to prevent or at least delay the B
g 12 LaSalle Unit 1 from starting up until those charges had 5
(]) 13 been investigated. -
l$ 14 My problem with new Contention 6 is that it y 15 does not state its basis with reasonable specificity.
=
- g 16 There is a great deal of information in this docket. A A
I7 great deal of it relates not to this unit, but to LaSalle.
h
=
b I8 There are some porti6ns which deal with Midland, P
19 but it is Intervenor's obligation to give us a contention g
n 20 which defines the issues that we are supposed to litigate, 2I and I can't 1magine that this Board really wants to 1
(} 22 litigate the safety or QA problems associated with 23l LaSalle.
i 24 I believe that the new Contention 6 als o
(]) P 25 somewhat overstates what is in this contention in that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l 8263 I Mr. Howard was essentially a documents clerk who did not 2 make any specific allegations about the consequences of 3 the QA deficiencies which he was reporting to the 4 Commission.
g 5 Indeed, the cover letter from GAP states 0
@ 6 explicitly that they are not saying that LaSalle is R
$ 7 unsafe. They are saying there is a QA deficiency at 3
8 8 zack which prohibits the NRC from licensing LaSalle.
d c 9 It is not as if we haven't an affidavit from
! 10 a Mr. Howard which states that the materials used in the
$ 11 heating and ventilating system of the Midland Nuclear
[ 12 Power Plant will not be able to respond to the temperatures
(]) 13 and radioactive and chemical environments that are part
! 14 of the operating conditions.
15 You won't, I believe, find that anywhere in
{x y 16 the Houard affidavit. Indeed, to the extent I can find w
i 17 anything in these 40 attachments in the Howard affidavit x
{ 18 relates to the ability of the welds to withstand normal P
19 gravitational loads and also earthquake loads, and there g
n 20 is really nothing said about what the significance of 2I any missing material certification is.
l 1
22 OA )
23
()
25 l
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
8264 10-5,pjl is. I So we are left with an unwieldy and unmanageable 2 document or set of documents that Applicant and the Staff 3 are going to hunt through to see what it is precisely that
() 4 Intervenors think should be litigated.
5 j I can imagine.a numbe~:of r different things, but es 5 0 I don't think I should have to guess. So that this con-G
" 7
- tention as it presently stands is simply not in proper form.
n 8 8 n Now, there is one final point I would like to d
9 make with respect to what counsel for Intervenor Sinclair h 10 g refers to as the protected affidavits.
=
II These are apparently six. af fidavits '-that -were ifilect g 12 by the Government accountability project in this docket. l c
() 13 We have some sketchy newspaper accounts, but they don't I4 seem to relate to Zack. i
$ r 9 15 g There was some telephone conference calls in m -
16 which we pernaps misinterpreted the Board a's indicating l
hI a
that the Board wished to hear about those affidavits and M 18
, - indeed was raising those affidavits as a sui sponta issue, t s l
19 8 which prompted us to file requests for subpoena.
O Those are yet another distinct category of items I
here. We infer from subsequent Board actions in granting 1
(]) a request for subpoenaes that the Board had not intended i 23 to raise the subject matter of these protected affidavits, whatever they say, as a sua sponte issue, at least yet.
(])
25 ' We don't --
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
10-5,pj2 '
8265 I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We haven' t even thought 2 about it.
3 MR. STEPTOE: We don't have any contention from 4 any party on those six protected affidavits. We have had 5
discussions about if those are going to be put into con-0 troversy, about how it could be done protecting the affiant.
R b 7 MR. BISHOP: That's not exactly correct, because s
j 8 I remember our discussion yesterday, we -- counsel for d
9 different parties agreed that those affidavits --
that the O
10 h issues raised by those protected affidavits were already
=
II 5 part of the proceeding based on the Board's order.
k I2 f= Now, if I am incorrect, I w6did?like to be
() m 13 instructed.
E I4 MR. STEPTOE: If I am incorrect, I would like to g 15 be instructed, too. It is not clear what the Board had x
d Ib instructed us.
W 17 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: It was our intent in approv-I0 ing the subpoena to say that you could only ask questions P
19 8 about existing QA issues, and to the extent existing QA n
20 issues were in the proceeding, then you could ask questions.
21 We weren't limiting it to any particular con-22
(]) tention, but it had to be some contention that was accepted 23 or some issue which was in the OM or OL proceeding as the 24 case may be.
(J3 25 We didn't want to expand the contentions by ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
10-5,pj3 p 1
anything we did at that point. 826:
() 2 MR. BISHOP: The basis on which we were operating, 3
I believe, was that your order dated -- there was no date on the front -- line 9 says that Consumers asserts that the 5
g information relating to the af fidavit will be relevant to a
3 6
- the QA/QC questions which are to be the subject of hearings l a in October, '82.
n 8 8 a That and further language in the order led us to d t 9
j believe that the subject of these protected affidavits were C
H 10 j already decided by the Board to be within the realm of
=
the QA hearing.
! d 12 '
E If that's not correct, we will -- '
o Td 13 k'J @ CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We didn't know. Wc weren't E 1<4 y told.
=
9 15 G JUDGE HARBOUR: We haven't even read the newspaper x
~
16 -
y accounts.
6 w
1:7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I have no idea what they l
=
$ 18
= relate to. All we were saying -- all we could issue H
19 8 subpoenaes for -- all discovery is limited to contentions 20 on matters in issue, and basically if we let an issue in --
21 if we let a general issue in -- then the scope of discovery
!10() will automatically expand.
23 24 (J
l 25 l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
e l
8267 10/6/1 dw 1 MR. STEPTOE: Well, in the first place, we Xp A W 2 have not taken those affidavits -- I mean we have not 3 taken those depositions concerning that matter because
[ss 4 the Staff has asked us not to pending their s 5 investigation of those allegations.
N
@ 6 Also, I would be less than candid if I didn't R
$ 7 say we misunderstood the Board when we filed those s
j 8 subpoenas. We thought that you had made it --
d c; 9 introduced a new issue, and we felt that that was the z
o 10 only way that we could get discovery and meet our
,h
=
II 5 evidentiary burden. -
S f3 I2 Since the Board had not so ruled and since we are r3 13 t
m)g mistaken, we are certainly not proposing to inject those i
I4 issues into this proceeding.
I C 15 l h CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We have been informed I
E I0 by Ms. Sinclair that she proposed to introduce those l
W I7 h issues. We have not --
=
MR. STEPTOE: Well, in the absence of a n
8 n
contention, at this point we are not proposing that 20 those issues be heard.
21 l I might also add --
rm 22 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: By the way, we had &lso
(_)
23 thought.that perhaps some of the subjects of those
, 24 l (mu,) affidavits, which we are not aware of at all, might have 25 t I been some of the matters that Mr. Keppler was going to l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
~
i l
826E
'10/6/2 1 testify about then in October and now in December I 2 probably. If so, then you could take that position.
3 But we don't know what Mr. Keppler is going to s
x 4 say, and we don't know what specific matters he is ,
5 going to bring into his testimony.
h 0 MR. STEPTOE: Neither do we, your Honor, and l
1 R
o E 7 l we would feel a lot better if we did.
- I k 0 MR. PATON
- Mr. Chairman, could I inquire d
9 since the Applicant does not intend to inject those o
H 10 g issues in the case, does that mean they are :not going
=
!k II to proceed with the depositions before?
I MR. MILLER: Not necessarily.
c 13 h_)D MR. STEPTOE: Not necessarily. It depends.
$ 14 g We might have to take the depositions for other e
9 15 G
m purposes. But we -- obviously our discovery in any NRC
~
16 g proceeding is related to matters at issue.
d w
1:7 MS. STAMIRIS: Judge Bechhoefer, it is m
$ 18
= extremely frustrating to hear this conversation while --
s 19
% I mean I was a party to the conference call when this 20 was raised, and I guess I would have to appeal to the 21 Staff to confirm what I am saying at this point on s their memory of this particular conference call when i
23 i the GAP issues first came out.
() As I remember, they were raised in sort of 25 two parts. At one point I was talking about some ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
a 8263 10/6/3 I new issues, and Mr. Paton though t I was going to raise 2 the GAP issues, and I wasn't at that point.
3 But he is the one that first mentioned GAP and
() 4 said that it was relevant. The Applicant firmly I g 5 agreed, and all parties --
in fact, I was --
in the 9
3 6 first place I was the only party who disagreed because :
R C
S 7 I said, well, perhaps --
this is a soils hearing.
3 8 8 Perhaps the GAP issues are not relevant. You know, d ,
c} 9 this was in relation to the subpoenas. ;
z o '
@ 10 Then we got into that discussion in the soils E
II 5 hearing, and then b'oth. parties argued very strongly k
f I2 that indeed they were relevant, and that -- the reason 13 for that was because the soils proceeding, the OM hearing,
(}
14 had been expanded well beyond soils -- QA and soils to e
C 15 b QA in general.
m l E Ib Both parties argued that. We all argued that w
II h or sets.thatcforth as our position in the findings that
=
$ 18 *
. we submitted, and the Board agreed to that.
C l 8 You know, in the course of the discussion I n >
20 agreed to that, that's true. We all did discuss QA in 21 general in the OM. Therefore, if QA in general is I
relevant and certainly with the partial initial
(])
! 23 l
I decision that's pending before the Board at this point, these matters are fairly definitely QA matters, and we
(])
25 all agree and argue that they were relevant during i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 0/6/4 1 that conference call. 827()
O 2 ror the applicant to come forward now ana say i
3 they weren't trying to inject these issues into the O 4 groceedins or now ser ehee ther are not re1evene is g 5 completely contradictory to what they said and we all 9 t j $ 6 agreed in that first conference call.
l R i
$ 7 Mr. Paton --
l
) s (0/7 8 8 d t c 9 i
C
!; 10 .
z l E
q 11 a
i o 12 l E t = '
! 13 E
w
' 14 l, 2 15 l %
i j 16 -
v5 i p 17 18 I
19 8
a s 20 f 21 I r
22 :
O :
23 I t 24 O i 25 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. ,
a 8271 10/7/1 I dw MR. PATON: Wait a minute. You said a lot of
~( ) 2 things, Barbara. I don't specifically deny any of them, 3
but I don't understand your bottom line. What are you 4
trying to say, that they are relevant --
5 g MS. STAMIRIS: To the OM proceeding.
3 e 6 MR. PATON: All right. I won't deny that.
l 8
Where do we go from there?
n .
8 a
8 l MR. BISHOP: The point then being the -- that d
6 9 g the substance of the protected affidavits are subsumed 0 10 E within the hearing. There is no need for a separate contention on that point.
d 12 '
y MR. MARSHALL: Agreed.
'E 13 (JS k CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: If that's so, the E 14
- discovery would permit that scope.
m l 9 15 j MR. MILLER: There is an additional comment --
J 16 ~
$ CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Our problem is we don't 6 17 g quite know what the scope of -- particularly Mr. Keppler's 5 18 -
g new testimony is going to be, because if it weren't E 19 R for Mr. Keppler, the record on QA matters would be 20 closed and you uould then have to relate it, s o --
21 MR. BISHOP: The problem here is Mr. Keppler 22 (1
s- has before him one of his tasks to deal with these 23 protected affidavits. We don't know what he's going 24 pJ s to say, obviously.
25 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That's correct.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8272
- 10/7/2 1 MR. MILLER: Presumably he is going to
( 2 testify with respect to the second soil report --
3 MR. BISHOP: And a lot of other matters.
() 4 MR. MILLER: -- which really covers all 5 matters of quality assurance. It's been the g
9 -
@ 6 Applicant's position -- 1 might say with limited success i
R O
I S 7 --
that the quality assurance issues ought to be limited a
8 8 to those directly affecting the soils issues in the d
c; 9 OM proceeding.
10 That was a battle we fought and lost early on.
h
=
II 5 MS. STAMIRIS: Excuse me. tou did not maintain
?
fc I2 that position in your proposed findings.
() 13 MR. MILLER: That's correct, because that was l$ 14 a matter that we raised early in the evidentiary '
! C 15 b proceeding, and there was a ruling against us.
x ,
, y 16 MR. PATON: Judge Bechhoefer, it seems l W l
I7 important to Mrs. Stamiris to get the Staff's response h
x 5 18
_ to what she said.
l P 19 l 8 I have read the affidavits, and I think I e .
20 would say -- I read them some weeks ago, and I think I ,
21 !
I can safely say there is certainly some relevance -- that l
(]) those affidavits have some relevance to the QA issues 23 l in the OM proceeding. Is that --
() MS. STAMIRIS: Yes. I also wanted you to l confirm my, you know, statements I was making about ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8273 10/7/3 1 that conference call, not that they were correct in every
() 2 detail, but --
3 MR. MARSHALL: I heard it, too.
() 4 MR. PATON: Those affidavits are relevant, 5 if that's what you mean.
g 4
@ 6 MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, it is now l
1 R
C l E 7 apparent based on Mr. Paton's representation that we s
8 8 are going to have to go -- certainly go to the next d
q 9 step and go forward with the subpoenas when we are able o
@ 10 to do so without interfering with the Staff's own E
a II investigation, fa I2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: It does appear that
{ 13 most of the information they have would be relevant ,
14 to these issues. We couldn't tell when we issued the 15
{= subpoenas, and we just issued our memo to go along E I0 with it to indicate that we -- really, that we weren't W
hI m
sure.
$ 18
- MR. MILLER: There are two other matters that P
19 8
n I think have to be discussed. First, I think that 20 '
these issues belong in the OM proceeding, and I am not 2I certain that a contention as such needs to be filed
(]) and accepted, and that's particularly true since we're 23 talking about 15 days of discovery with respect to
(]) contentions and the operating license proceeding. .
l 25
! CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That's initiation.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8274
.0/7/4 1 MR. MILLER: Initiation of discovery. There O 2 is -- hut to gee ineo this groger1y, whee we wou1d 3 have to do would be to serve interrogatories on Q 4 Ms. Sinclair and Ms. Stamiris as to whether or not they e 5 were going to call any of the indisi7 dual affiants as n
8 e
6 witnesses, and to the Staff, also, I suppose; and if I
l E l
8 7 they were, then we are going to have to go the next i 3
8 8 step beyond the depositions that we had already planned d
d 9 and take the depositions of the individual affiants i
- i !
h 10 with all the complications that that apparently poses E
j3 11 with respect to the confidentiality of their identities.
~
d 12 3
a 0/ 13 E 14 W
2 15 g 16 -
vs g 17 5
ti 18 >
E 19 8
n 20 l 21 O 23 ,
l O 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8275 10/8/l 1 We are prepared to go through all of those dwf-)itiSs idL-c steps if necessary. I don't think it can be done 3 within 15 days after any acceptance of a contention l () 4 now, and I just --
5 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: If the parties all g
9
@ 6 agree that the -- I don't know if it is only this one, ,
l R
c
! S 7 this No. 6 -- I don't know if that's the only one, but R
8 8 if the subject matter of 6 is at issue with the OM d
c; 9 proceeding, then we don't need to have a contention on 2
o 10 it.
h I'm not sure that that's so.
=
a II MR. PATON: Could I inquire? I don't d
l 12 l @ understand -- I don't understand your position on No. 6.
1 a
( 13 You say that should not be a contention?
I4 MR. MILLER:
l We don't believe as presently
, b 9 15
! y stated that it's sufficient to enable us to litigate
=
T 16 -
g it in any proceeding.
I l MR. PATON: Oh, okay. For the reason stated
=
l $ 18 l
_ by Mr. Steptoe?
l $
19 8 MR. MILLER: Yes, n
l MS. SINCLAIR: May I respond?
l l 21 l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes.
() MS. SINCLAIR: Mr. Steptoe raised a question i
as to whether Howard's testimony really had relevance
(]) for Midland or perhaps just had relevance for some of the other plants. But I have read that testimony, and ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8276
- 10/8/2 1 it is very specifically related to Midland in that f)%
( 2 Mr. Howard brought his information from Zack because 3 he was terribly concerned about Midland to Mr. Leonard O 4 of the Mid1end oue1ier Contro1 -- oue11er Assurence s 5 Department, and asked him to assure him that his job ;
@ 6 would not be jeopardized by disclosing this to him.
R
$ 7 As a matter of fact, he specifically states s
8 8 in that testimony that he did disclose this information d
q 9 to Mr. Leonard, and it was because Mr. Leonard disclosed 2
o y 10 who revealed that information to ? ck that he lost his 3
= -
II 4 job. That's why he lect his job.
3 I I2 MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Steptoe, I think, -
5 13
(]) f knows all those things. What he is saying is what you
$ 14 have on peper is inadequate.
! 15 h MR. STEPTOE: Yes. I did not mean to imply
=
j 16 that there was no relevance of this affid'avit to W
I7 Midland. It has relevance to LaSalle and to Midland,
{ 18 and the difficult part is finding out just what it is P
19 8 that Ms. Sinclair wants to litigate.
FJ O
, Does she want to litigate the loss of job by l
21 Mr. Howard? Does she want to litigate the underlying
(]) safety of the plant? That's two different questions.
23 ' MR. BISHOP: I don't think we need to get into t 24 The the nuts and bolts of this particular affidavit.
(])
25 contention was drafted obviously relatively quickly.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
8277 10/8/3 1 We would be very happy to endeavor to 2 particularize that contention based on the information 3 that is there, because the parties obviously have a O 4 rieht to be gointed to specific goines of ehee effidevie.
g 5 It was just impossible to be done for this a .
l @ 6 particular filing.
R
$ 7 MR.. PATON: Mr. Chairman, Staff has not had 3
8 8 a chance to respond.
d d 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I realize that.
b
$ 10 MR. PATON: I would like to respond to No. 6.
E
$ 11 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We are hearing all of 6, B
g 12 8 and 16. We have had no objection to 8 and 16 from the <
E Q 13 Applicant.
l$ 14 MR. PATON: I do want to have a comment on j= 15 that, also.
j 16 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Okay.
us 17 MR. PATON: On 8 and 16. Applicant has assumed i
h x
{ 18 that those both relate to a Part 21 report that was i i:
19 filed recently, and I have I just don't know whether g --
n ,.
20 that's true or not. Neither one of them references i
2I Part 21.
22 If that's the case, I also don't have 23 objection to it, but I think if that is the case, I 24 think the contention should be amended to indicate that
)
25 so they can be limited in some way.
f I
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l _
r i
8278 0/8/4 I I mean -- may I ask Mr. Bishop if both of '
2 those are with reference to Part 21 that was recently 3 filed. 7 O 4 ma. 31suoe: 2 hee.s my unaerseemaine. ;
5 2
0/9 y j a !
3 e 6 t n 4
$ 7 l
[
8 a
8 L i
a -
d 9 I
e
$ 10 [
E ls 11 {
d 12 f, 7
3 i O s= '3
, E 14 t x 2
l 2 15 w
% r g 16 -
as 6 17 ,
m M i 5 18 (
9 I9 !
n b 20 [
21 [
O l 23 ;
I .
O -
s 25 [
l b f
I I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. !
&O-9,pjl 8279 ostanding. l MR. PATON: Okay. With that on the record, then 2 I don't have any objection either. That I think would 3
specify those two contentions at least to that degree, and
() 4 the Staff also doesn't object to them.
5 With respect to No.
g 6, I agree with the statement 9
@ 6 by Mr. Steptoe, but I also think that despite all of the R
S 7 many many opportunities that Ms. Sinclair has had, I l 8 think she should be given one more crack at this one.
d 9
}". I think if we could get an acceptable contention 0 10 g by tomorrow, I think we should. I think this is appropriate.
=
II
$ I think the affidavits filed by Mr. Howard have been a B
12 l
{c matter of interest to the NRC, but I think it should be ,
13 done very quickly.
m 14 I sympathize with the Applicant's frustration x
15 with constant amending of contentions, but I think we l
g 16 should be able to come to some kind of agre'ement, on that W
I7 contention by tomorrow.
h x
IO I think it is appropriate to litigate it. But as P
19 8
n worded, I agree with the statements by Mr. Steptoe.
20 MR. BISHOP: Very quickly, I have no problem with 2I that term. Mr. Steptoe just waved'.thattdocument at you.
22
(]) I don't believe that it is possible to write a 23 contention on that tonight while we are preparing for 24 tomorrow's hearing.
25 I I would be happy to be able to put one together l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
10-9,pj2 8280 I
in a week. I believe the' Staff -- I am not sure the Staff 2
even deals in weekly time periods.
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We are essentially through 4
with the contentions for with which you will have to deal.
5 In terms of preparing for tomorrow, we are going to be
{
8 6 e grilling Barbara tomorrow.
R E 7 MR. BISHOP: I feel very kindly towards Barbara R
k 8 and I am glad to help her.
d 9
]". CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: In terms of that, it would c
S 10
@ be useful if we could -- '
=
k MR. BISHOP: Your Honor, I just don't believe it B
e 12 l z is possible to do a professional job on that overnight. I i o
() just think that's unreasonable.
E 14 w MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, I would.ask -- for 9 15 I E example, the way it is worded, it is not worded as a QA
=
7 16 -
E contention.
A I7 i h z
I mean if that's what they are alleging -- they
$ 18 -
l = are talking about the materials in th'eahea. ting and ventilat-l H 19 8
n ing system. If that --
if that's what they want to litigate, 20 it may not be relevant to certainly the OM proceeding.
21 If it is a QA contention, maybe it is, but there's
(]) all kinds of problems with the way it is worded. <
23 ' I would also ask the same question of 8 and 16. ,
(]) Are those QA contentions or not, because the way 16 is 25 worded, at least, it is talking about welds and not QA.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
10-9,pj3 8281 1 I really think that should be -- that should be
('T
\d 2 r
clarified.
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Perhaps we should decide ;
4 first when -- if we admit two or three of these contentions, -
g 5 perhaps all three, should we have them all in the OM proceed-8
] 6 ing? >
R
$ 7 It doesn' t make too much dif f erence'tto. the Board.
3 l 8 The Board is going to be holding hearings constantly for d
q 9 the next year or so, probably, or six months to a year.
2 o
$ 10 MR. STEPTOE: Mr. Chairman, I think he should tell E
11 us whether it is a QA contention or if it is as written.
S y 12 For example, if it is QA, you might want to hear it in the
(]) d5 13 OM proceeding, but if it is a contention about welds, you I
l$ 14 might want to hear it in the OL proceeding.
15
{= CHAIRMAN'.BECHHOEFER: It might be better to hear l j 16 everything about Zack at one time. '
d N 17 MR. BISHOP: That's our preference. One of the y 18 difficulties is --
E 19 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: However it logically fits h
n l
! 20 into any set of issues.
l 21 MR. STEPTOE: Judge Bechhoefer, that is our 22 position, too. It is best to handle it all as part of the 1
{])
23 OM proceeding. It is our interpretation of the affidavit 24 and Part 21 notification that what we have here are docu-25 mentation problems that properly fit under the rubric of ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
9,pj4 8282 I
l QA.
() 2 I might also state the Applicant's position is 3
Intervenors have had this affidavit longer certainly than .
() 4 the Applicant has, and it is too late to be going back 5
g and taking another week and trying again.
n -
i 3 6 l e They should have it here today, and we object to .
R o I
" 7 >
- any restatement. The contention is improper in form and ;
N 8 8 !
n it ought to be struck. l d t
,10-10 z t C '
g 10 s
i c
S !
d 12 3
c ,
'3 CJ i !
I E 14 a
2 15 i
E j 16 -
l w
d 1:7 M 18
= 1 N
19 8
n 20 .
l 21 22 l
l p) i l
l 23 [
24
([)
l 25 i
l ALD'ERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- 10-10, p j l 8283 struck. I MR. BISHOP
- I think it is frightening to think 2 that the Board would consider striking this particular 3
contention because the Intervenors can't rewrite it over-4 night. I think that -- given the significance that is 5
y inherent in that contention, that it warrants thcrough 9
l 3 6 treatment by the Board.
R E 7 What I'm offering to do is to particularize that n
] 8 contention in a very, very short time period, which again d
9
~.
z has absolutely nothing to do with delaying any aspect of c
10 h this proceeding. '
=
II
$ To penalize the Intervenors by forcing them to B
\
g 12 l redo it overnight and stay up all night to do it and then l c
(} j 13
=
turn in a potentially sloppy job, I think is unconscionable.
l Y
14 MR. STEPTOE: Your Honor, just one thing. I do jz l 15 not -- I disagree with the implication that if this licensinc 1 g 16 board doesn't take this as a contention, th'e issues which I d I7 are going -- which are raised in the Howard affidavit are h
=
{c 18 going to escape the attention of the NRC.
h g I9 Just very recently the Commission itself in the n
20 Zimmer case, CLI 82-20, dated July 20, 1982, reminded 2I licensing boards that the NRC Staff is capable of investigat-22 ing construction-related defects, even various serious l (])
23 construction-related defects; and when there is not a --
24 a contention in~ proper form that meets the rules of practice
(])
25
- of the Commission, the licensing boards are not obligated I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
10-10-pj2 8284 I through exercise of their sua spo nte authority or through rh
\-) 2 bending the rules, to take in and consider issues which 3 don't meet the rules of practice.
() 4 The NRC Staff is looking at this, and the NRC 5
y Staff is going to do a thorough investigation.
9
@ 6 The Intervenors want to introduce issues, and this R
S 7 is generally true, not just of issues relating to construc-s j 8 tion defects, but issues relating to the safety of the d
d 9 plant. They have to follow the rules, and we are all pre]u-z.
o 10 G diced to the extent that they do not.
E II
$ MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, that Zimmer case is B
g 12 dis ti ngu is hable . That was a matter of whether the Board c
( )c 13 should reopen the record and it is not appropriate here.
m 5 I4 I was going to say that if the -- I don't think j: 15 the Board should strike this Contention. If the Board did l
d I0 strike the contention, depending upon t h e S't a f f ' s M
investi-I7 gation of this matter, the Staff would be very much inclined
=
to bring it to the Board's attention ourselves.
P 19 8 So I'm very sympathetic with Intervenors' desire n
20 to pursue this particular contention.
2I Although apparently my remarks were not taken very 22
(]) kindly, I wasn't trying to play games with Intervenor. I 23 think he should be given an opportunity -- Ms. Sinclair, 24 excuse me, should be given an opportunity -- if they can 25 expeditiously submit an acceptable contention, I think it l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
.,10-10pj3 8285 I is a significant matter and I think they should be given 2 that opportunity.
i 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I would like to pose some-4 thing. Unfortunately the last week in August. the first 5 week in September, I'm not likely to be doing much work y
a
@ 6 because I probably won't be around the office.
K C
'10-11" 7 s
8 N
8 d
ei 9 il I
C g 10 5
g 11 d 12 E
a Os= is
. E 14
=
2 15 w
l j 16 -
us 6 17
$ 18
= ,
l f=
1 E 19 l 2 20 21 i
1 23 ' '
t 4
O 25 .
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPAN'/, INC.
10-ll,pjl 8286 office I Would it be possible to come up with some sort 2 lofcontention, at least a broad one, by tomorrow that the 3' parties could agree would be acceptable, and then it could
() 4 be further refined through discovery or through other means.
g 5 Would it be preferable to try to come up with 9
l @ 6 some aspect of that affidavit?
R S 7 t MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, the Staff would not 3
y } 8 urge that, having reflected on the matter. We are not --
[ 0
- O 9 the people that are here are not tamiliar with that docu-z.
c I 10 ment. We have people in Region III that are, but we aren't.
q, h i
II k So it might not be very efficient to try to come 3
g 12 up with an acceptable cont-" tion by tomorrow. I realize t =
() m 13 I am changing y positioi. . out I think all things considered, 5 I4 ~
if Intervenors are willing'to-submit one'Ivery promptly, h
x
.15 - that might be a better way to go.
I0 d MS. STAMIRIS: Judge Bechhoefer,'I would like w
j f= I7 to raise a question about my' contention hpving to do with 5 18 HFAC matters. It was my Contention 21, and I did raise s
E l9 g those m,acters in a sense -- what I had in my mind was a 20 QAt type of contention that dealt with the HFAC and the 2I recent things that have arisen in this regard in my Con-
'J-22 tention 21.
23 Now, what I was going to do --
I guess I want to 24 u.{} ask for some guidance on this. Based on our informal 25 l discussion yesterday,f1 thought it seemed there was not
~
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i 10-ll,pj2 8287 I going to be a problem with getting all of the new Zack 2 allegations and Gap allegation:contenticns into the OM; 3 therefore, I was planning to drop that Contention 21 as O 4 an opereeer.s license contention, you xnow, en the onde,_
g 5 standing that these issues would be dealt-with in some 0 l
@ 6 integrated fashion in the OM.
R b 7 If that --
I would like that much assurance 3
l 8 tonight or else I would want to add Zack on that con-Q c 9 tention, because I have decreased my conbentions a great C
10 deal, and I don't want to lose tha t as a contention if h
=
II
$ that's not the case, that they will.be dealt with in the s
j c
12 OM proceeding as a QA contention.
'3 tlO s.
E 14 iS
=
2 15 W
j 16 us 6 17
!2 18 E
E 19 20 21 l 22 O
23 O
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l t
8288, 11 1 MR. STEPTOE: I think Applicant has the rights a 7L ).4 w 2 and defihition of what the issues and controversy are 3 going to be.
() 4 Intervenors have the obligation of fishing or s 5 cutting bait. They have had this affidavit for some 8
6
@ time now. They ought to tell us: Is the issue is er b 7 Howard getting fired; is the issue certification s i j 8 0
problems; is the issue employee discipline relating to 9
}". X-rays, which is also in the stack of documents.
l h 10 g There are a number of possible issues here
= !
1 hII d 12 and it does not seem to me to be asking too: .much to ask z that Intervenors define right now what it is about this c
13 G4dg affidavit that they are bringing to our attention that E 14 y they want to litigate.
=
2 15 g I mean the basis for that is here. All it is 16 '
$ is a requirement that they specify what it is that they 6 17 g are concerned about.
M 18 g MR. BISHOP: That is exactly what I am offering 19
$ to do.
20 MR. STEPTOE: Then they shouldn't be litigating 21 this issue at all.
) MS. STAMIRIS: That's what it means to accept 23 that burden --
24 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Apparently his question 25 is whether they can do it by tomorrow.
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 MS. STAMIRIS: Not by tomorrow.
() 2 MR. STEPTOE: Certainly not to ask them --
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Could you just look 4 through the documents tonight and list the subjects 5 that you were --
g 9
1
@ 6 MR._ BISHOP: The problem with that is I don't R
f7 really see what purpose that will serve. That will then {
f8 d
provide an outline that we will then modify and expand c; 9 upon.
$ 10 It seems to me to make much more sense to E
II 5 provide a comprehensive contantion within a very short a
f: I2 period of time that all parties will be able to work
( )g 13 with so they won't have to work with two different E 14 m particular documents, one of which is going to be quick
$ l 9 15 g and shoddy and the other one will be thorough and !
x '
~
16 -
E professional.
d 17 l w MR. STEPTOE: Your Honor, our experience with 1
x
$ 18
= contentions as they are being revised is that they change.
- t 19 l If you give the Intervenors another week, we are going to j have not only another Howard affidavit, but we are going l to have a couple of SSE reports in there as well as 22 m). a bunch-of others in a pattern and it is not going to be i 23 l l at all what is stated now.
24 O MS. SINCLAIR: You don't want what is stated 25 now.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
3 8280 11/1/3 1 MR. STEPTOE: We are faced with a moving h 2 target, your Honor.
3 MS. STAMIRIS: My contention was fairly broad lh 4 and I intended it to be so so that he could cover it g 5 in QA related manner in this regard.
@ 6 I don't think it would be a great change over l R l
$ 7 my contention. It would probably be an improvement over I
j 8 my Contention 21.
d d 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Off the record.
$ 10 (Discussion had off the record.)
E m
y II The Board has been talking over this situation.
s I2 fc We think that Mr. Bishop, you should come in tomorrow gg) my13 with a new contention based solely on the Howard affidavit.
I4 Now, it does not have to be in the best form j= 15 for a contention, but it should try to specify the g 16 portions of the affidavit that you are in'terested in w
h I7 ! raising after discovery and you have the opportunity
=
} 18 to restate contentions and we think it would be better P
19 n
8 for you to spend your time in the next few weeks 20 engaged in discovery, rather than in trying to rewrite 21 the contentions and then submitting them sometime before lh the Board can act on that.
23 l MR. BISHOP: Let me be sure that I understand lh what you are saying. You are talking about the affidavit 25 i' itself specifying particular portions of that affidavit ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8291 1 that have to do with this facility?
) 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That raise a question r
3 that you wish to litigate.
() 4 MR. BISHOP: I would be willing to do that if e 5 by that you did not mean that I was to designate b
$ 6 specific portions of each particular part of the R
& 7 attachment to that affidavit. I don't think that that N
y 8 is reasonable.
d -
o; 9 MS. SINCLAIR: Because we don't have them.
5 g 10 MR. BISHOP: For one reason.
5 Il MR. STEPTOE: That is acceptable to the 3
y 12 licensee.
5 13 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We will accept that
(]) f 14 and later on, if you will look through that information 15 that you will undoubtedly get at some point and you j 16 Either add to it have to modify your contention, fine.
d I7 or take from it.
h x
IO On that understanding, I will MR. BISHOP:
19 y endeavor to draw up something which might possibly meet 0
with the beneficial view of Consumers Power.
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: In fact, it would be
() nice if all of you could stipulate to something.
23 MR. MILLER: Well, I think it certainly is i
() conceivable.
25 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, Consumer offered ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 8292
<11/1/5 I no objection to the other HFAC contention and if one 2 could be properly written up indicating the part of it 3 that you have problems with, or that raise issues for >
O 4 you, they mighe se much more emeneb1e to egreeing to 5 that kind of a thing.
g a
@ 6 MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, I would also request G
$ 7 that Intervenor give some thought to whether or not those s
8 8 that they see mainly now to be contentions directed at d
q 9 hardware and not at QA and if they are QA contentions, 5
g 10 I think that they should be so worded.
@ II CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The Board thinks that all is j' I2 of the HFAC contentions should be heard together. We 5
Q 13 have not yet quite yet decided which proceeding, or
=
g 14 whether it really matters much because there may well 15 be some overlap in between the actual dates.
i
- [ I6 MR. BISHOP
- The problem with c'omplying with l us I7 Mr. Paton's request is that they deal with mechanical, h
x
} 18 physical things, but they are obviously QA contentions.
E g I9 If I am asked to put the magic words QA into each ;
n 20 sentence, I will be happy to do it.
2I MR. PATON: My question is: What is the thrust i
22 of the contention. Is it that the hardware is bad or 23 that the QA is defective? i Q CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Or that the deficiency 25 gave rise to defective hardware?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 8293 1 MR. PATON: What is the thrust of the
() 2 contention? That is what I am getting at.
3 MR. BISHOP The thrust is both that, for
() 4 example, the fact that the QA gave rise to defective e 5 hardware --
M M
j 6 MR. PATON: Okay. That is fine. The way that R
R 7 it is worded now, it is just hardware. They are not QA l 8 contentions the way they are worded now. That's all d
d 9 right. I have made my thrust known.
$ 10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We do want all the E
g 11 HFAC contentions to be considered together and that would u
(5 12 include this.
13 We will probably, to the extent we would approve
(])
$ 14 of Mrs. Stamiris' contention on that, we would probably 15 consolidate you, you could all participate as co-sponsors, j 16 so to speak because I can't recall whether yours is e
d 17 exactly the same or not, or whether it covers eve rything 5
5 18 here or is broader, but we are likely to want to have 5
19
}n all of these contentions consolidated at least for 20 presentation..
,T1/2 21 22
()
23 24 O. t 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l ll-2,pjl 8294 consoli- MS. STAMIRIS: Am I correct in understanding then 2
ed that we are to give it our best shot for tomorrow, but 3
not necessarily - you know, if by virtue of the fact that 4
~
we are trying to do it overnighg that we want to improve 5
g on it in a week or something like that, will it be so per-mitted?
R
" 7
- MR. BISHOP
- On the basis of the attachment, I N
9 8 a believe.
d 9
}"- CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: On the basis of the attach-0 10 g ment you could. It may be a little more time before we
=
f could approve of it.
d 12 6 MR . B'IS HO P ': : We will do our best, your Honor.
a ~
r"% d 13 Ug We will have it for you; tomorrow morning.
3 14 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We think the time could be 9 15 G
x more productively spent in discovery than in rewriting the
! 16 g contentions at this stage, but before we go' into the hear-
@ 17 a ing these contentions could be rewritten or changed or x
M 18 '
= modified. A lot can happen after discovery.
C 19 8 MR. DISH 6P: My only point, your Honor, I don't 20 want to belabor this anymore, but it is going to be a while 21 before we get to hearings 6n this. I don't think that
() breaking our necks to get something -written by tomorrow 23 -
j morning -- I fail to see the absolute benefit of that, but l 24 l (]) I understand your ruling.
I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEER: Well, we also understand l
l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
ll-2,pj2 8295 I
that on these contentions at least maybe we will depart from
) 2 our 15-day rule because both the Applicant and the Inter-3 venor indicate that there is quite a complexity involved
() 4 and additional discovery time might well be warranted, but 5
y if so, we have got to have enough time for it.
6 R
We foresee from what we have heard this morning i e
" 7 7 that Mr. Keppler may be ready to testify on matters such n
0 as this in late November or December. I't takes a certain d
9 i amount of time before that to prepare testimony and for O 10 g other parties to develop their cases.
=
II k MR. BISHIP: That's true, and depending upon --
3 fI c
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEER: There is not that much time
() m 13 before early December.
I4
- h MR. BISHOP
- And obviously depending upon what z
l 0 15 i
b Mr. Keppler says, what his testimony is, that will have a l
m j 16 s
great bearing on what our testimony will be', to the extent II h that he covers, that he covers all the issues that we intend x
M 18
- to cover, there will be no need for us to put on any direct 19 8
n testimony, so that it is very difficult to carry out dis-20 covery in that framework, but that is something we will be 21 able to deal with down the road.
22
(]) MR. STEPTOE: Your Honor, I will just say that I 23 do not understand Intervenors to be free to wait to see
() what Mr. Keppler says before they start taking discovery.
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That's correct. Mr. Keppler' s ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
11-2,pj3 I
829S testimony I don't believe will be delivered until --
2 MR. BISHOP: The Staff has said that Mr. Keppler 3
will be doing an investigation and will be taking a position
() 4 on not only the impact affidavits, the Howard. affidavits, 5 but the projected affidavits.
y 9
@ 6 I think it's appropriate for us to know what that R
b 7 position is before we are obligated to prepare our direct a
k O case. It's relatively simple.
d I q 9 MR. STEPTOE: Well, there are two things, your 10 Honor.
h There is discovery and then there is testimony.
, E II
% Now whether or not the Intervenors want to put in direct B
f I2 testimony, they may want to delay a little bit and see
() =
13 what Mr. Keppler finds out, but that does not mean that they 14 are entitled to delay in carrying out discovery.
m 15 h CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That's correct. Through m
E I6 discovery, you may well be able to find out' Mr. Keppler's W
I7 position.
x IO MR. BISHOP: To the extent that he knows his P
I9 position.
h l
20 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes.
2I MR. BISHOP: Perhaps then too --
22 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I would like to say that
(])
23 as 6 is written, we were inclined not to approve it just l
f', 24 because it lacks specificity, so that is why we do hope l
%) 4 25
$1-3 you come in with something more specific.
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
11-3,pjl ggg7 specific I MR. BISHOP: So do I, your Honor.
2 I guess the only one -- we could have a few 3 minutes to deal with No. 7.
O 4 CHAIRMAN eECHHOErER: , er 14.
S 5 MR. BISHOP: Yes. If you would read the first line ,
A.
@ 6 of that, it gets even more confused, but it talks about R
E 7 Mrs. Sinclair's contention 61, Old 55. Again, there are
- i j 8 four numbers in two lines.
d c; 9 This contention is based on, again, a June '82 5
g 10 report dealing with the, ,,synergism between chemicals and E
h is II radiation upon polymer csble insulation add jacketing 7.and N I2 as such we submit that it is a contention based on newly 5
O sa '3 ecautrea information retetive to enis proceedine end we t!)
5 I4 submiteit as such.
i jx 15 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Let me ask you something.
16 t 3l Does this contention, re-reading it, is thi's limited to ,
as I7 the effect on materials, or are you trying to raise the z
{ 18 effect on humans?
i:
"g 19 MS. SINCLAIR: No.
n 20 MR. BISHOP: No, that's deleted.
2I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: All right. That is what I l / 22 wanted to be sure about.
23 MR. BISHOP: We deleted the humans.
I 24 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We have received the 25 Applicant's answer, but it may change in view of the fact l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
11-3,pj2 8298 I that the contention changed a little bit.
2 MR. STEPTOE: Your Honor, the one thing I would 3 like.to point out is that I believe Mr. Bishop inadver-() 4 tently misstated the substance of the 1982 paper. It deals 5 with synergism between radiation and temperatures.
g
@ 6 (Whereupon 6:00 p.m. was R
C 7
r l reached and the hearing N
j 8 continued until 6:30 p.m.)
d q 9 MS. SINCLAIR: No.
.9 o -
G 10 MR. STEPTOE: The contention deals with synergism ll
$ between radiation and chemicals. '
s 12 Now, why, if there exists a synergism between I
3
{) 13 radiation and temperature for equipment qualificationnpur-l$
14 poses there should also be a synergism between radiation t
g 15 and chemicals, what chemicals are unspecified, that is
- i 16 unclear, and we believe that that report ma'y provide basis E f d !
,f I7 for some kind of contention, but not the ones that Inter-x 5 18 venors are proposing. That is, the issue of synergism P
19 between radiation and chemicals has no support anywhere g
n 20 in that contention, I believe.
2I MS. SINCLAIR: Mr. Bechhoefer, I don't have the 22 report in front of me, but he is misinterpreting and mis-(])
23 reading that report because the principal thing about that 24
(} report is that it tells us something about what the pro-25 gression of synergism is. That was what the study was made ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
t ll-3,pj3 8299 l l
1 for, and it says that radiation alters the chemical bonding, !
O 2 the bonding in a chemical material and produces peroxide l
3 which oxidizes thermally, which again produces heat and
() 4 pushes that reaction forward.
5 This ordering of the way in which this happens g
n
@ 6 is one of the significant things about this whole document R
& 7 and if I can -- when I find the document I will read it.
s j 8 MR. STEPTOE: Perhaps there is a little bit of i d
9 '
c; confusion here in terminology.
z i c ;
y 10 When I said synergism between chemicals and l 3
{3 11 radiation, for qualification purposes, I was assuming that f 12 what Mrs. Sinclair was talking about was that you bathe !
(]) = 13 these cables in some kind of chemical that you might find l
l l$ 14 in the environment in containment after an accident and '
]x 15 also in a radiation field. I I .
g 16 Now, what I believe Ms. Sinclair'is doing is w
d I7 saying that if you just have a cable and air and you eradiate
{ 18 it at certain temperatures within the cable there are cer-i P
19 tain chemical changes taking place, and that is certainly g
n 20 true, but that is not the same thing as what I thought she 21 was raising in the contention.
22 Normally in an environmental qualifichtion of
(])
23 i electrical equipment, tests are run at high radiation doses 24 and also subjecting the equipment to beequalified to
(])
l 25 certain extraneous chemicals.
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
11-3,pj4 8300 I MS. STAMIP.IS: Judge Bechhoefer, I would like to
() 2
(> interject that it seems like we might be about to get into 3 an argument on the merits of another contention, and I think 4 that what Mrs. Sinclair is saying is that radiation, 5 chemicals and thermal degrees are all a part of her conten-g 9 ,
@ 6 tion, and I think that to go into an explanation at this !
R S 7 point would be getting into the merits of the contention s
] 8 and that would be taking us away from the criteria again d - '
c; 9 that we are supposed to be using at this point.
$ 10 MS. SINCLAIR: Plus the fact that my conclusion E
=
j II t and my contention was that this is why this study was [
t I2 initiated is that they are finding that the . insulation is N_ ,
c 13
{} f becoming brittis much before they expected that it would lb 14 and this is why the study was initiated and the contention 15 says that you can't expect the wide span that you thought !
=
10 you were going to have, based on this new data.
l E i w
11-4 Nw 17 I t
x
$ 10 -
=
N 19 g
l l 20 21 2
CD l
23 ,
l l 24 '
()
25 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l - . -
8301 11/4/1 I dw JUDGE COWAN: I would like to ask Mrs. Sinclair da! 2 whether she does indeed intend to include the effect of 3 chemical exposure to the insulation as well as
() 4 radiation and temperature. I have read the report and 5 it is very clear that they are dealing with the effect y
9
@ 6 of radiation and temperature in a certain sequence.
R E 7 I do not see anything that makes me think they are s
j 8 talking about additional exposure to chemicals. Are you d
9
]". including chemicals in here? I don't see it in the 0 10 y contentions.
=
h MS. SINCLAIR: You can't not include chemicals d 12 z because you are talking about studying polyvinyl chloride c
FTd 13 and polyethylene degradations.
\m/ g Those are chemicals.
E 14 E It is the affect on these chemicals, plus, I mean there u
9 15 g is a certain class of chemicals, polymers, that is going T 16 -
g to be effected this way.
p 17 w JUDGE COWAN: Polymers are chemicals, of x
$ 18
= course, but the basic question is whether testing those 19 l chemicals should include --
testing those pclymers should 20 include exposure to various other chemicals. I don't 21 see that in the contention and I doubt if that is what
(' 22 you mean.
23 l MS. SINCLAIR: Well, there is plenty of
()
I 24l evidence to that effect, but that is not in this 25 contention.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1/4/2 8302 1 JUDGE COWAN: I don't see it.
() 2 MS. SINCLAIR: I didn't put it in the 3 contention.
() 4 JUDGE COWAN: As long as'.it is restricted to g 5 effect of radiation in degrading polymers and the E
j 6 additional effect of temperature and the additional R
& 7 question of the effect of low doses, as compared to -
3 8 8 high doses, I have no problem with it.
d Q 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: You shouldn't have said 5
g 10 that.
II
$ MR. BISHOP: All we know now is that Judge Cowan l
=
I2 has no problem.
13 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
(]) I have a few questions I
! I4 would like to ask Mr. Steptoe, I guess.
15
{z MR. STEPTOE: Yes.
d I0 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I am not' exactly positive w
I7 about this relationship to the Commission rule making.
.h
=
18 f# The way I always understood the rules and I9 the decisions interpreting the rules is that the n
8 20 Commission has a right to deal with any issue it wants 21 to through either rule making or adjudication or both
(} 23 and however it specifies it, it doesiit.
Now, I read this notice of rule making here
(] 25 and I didn't see a thing about saying that you can't li*.igate the issue.
ALDERCON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8303 1 MR. PATON: That occurs, Mr. Chairman.
1/4/3
() 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I want to add one thing 3 in addition. I also looked at the rule making as well
(]) 4 and to me, the only thing the rule making does is set s 5 dates for the compliance of operating plants with n.
@ 6 certain standards which appear in a reg guide.
R
$ 7 Now, to me the reg. guide is something that i
A j 8 the Commission has -- it's comparable to what they did d
l c; 9 in the ECCS. They established interim criteria and then l 2 C
g 10 they said, "Well, ; 'ou can always see whether the plant 11 complies with the interim criteria."
B y 12 Now, does this contention say anything more 5
13 l
(])f than if the plant doesn't comply with what amounts to l ! 14 an interim criteria, which is a reg guide that the j= 15 Commission has established as in essence an interim j 16 criteria, and I am referring to the Commi'ssion',s M
I7 decision numbered CLI8021, which is the one that gave h
a t
IO rise to this whole rule making, May 27, 1980.
h l
E 19 8 The way I read that decision is that it n
20 establishes standards of Reg Guide 1.89, as an interim 21 Commission rule and says that the rule making will 22 determine when operating plants will be required to
{])
3 comply with that rule.
1 24 In fact if my reading is correct, I don't see
{])
25 why this rule making would have anything to do with ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 8304
- 11/4/4 1 this contention at all and I would like you to explain O 2 thee, too.
3 MR. STEPTOE: First of all, I guess I should 4 start by apologizing. We were rushing to put this e 5 thing together and I cited the most recent Commission 9
$ 6 utterance on this ruling in the docket, which was R
& 7 CLI -- whatever it is --
which merely extended the 3
j 8 deadline for compliance for operating plants, you are d
- ! 9 correct.
- r: '
O G 10 l E
g 11 a
d 12 :
c i i3 Os _ ,
E 14 iS 2 15 i
$ I g 16 - !
s
! d 17 .
l l !B 18 ,
i5 19 1 2 n
20 21 22 23 l O l 25 I
. I I
l l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
J i
8305 1I I should have gone back and found the original 11 dw/5/1 .
coEsace 2 notice of grogosed ru1e making end thee wou1d have been 3 the more relevant citation.
() 4 MR. BISHOP: I'd like to strongly object to i
e 5 your failure to do so.
A 9
@ 6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I read all of that l G l & 7 material. I did go back and look it up and that A
8 8 Commission material that I cited seemed to say that d ,
=; 9 there is an interim. criteria that you accept Reg 1.89 z
o .
[
g 10 and to me this contention says'nothing more than that ,
3 11 h because of the study, the plant isn't going to comply B
j 12 with that reg guide, which includes the studies of 5
13
(]) f synergism and so I was just wondering if my reading is b 14 wrong.
j
[
=
15 MR. STEPTOE: No. I think your reading is j 16 correct, your reading of the rule making 'is correct.
W 17 My point was that the Commission is on the h
e 18 h trembling verge of coming down with a rule on an A
19 g environmental qualifications and also a revision to n
20 Reg Guide 1.89.
21 Those will be coming down, I believe the rule 22
(]) will be coming down very soon, certainly the reg guide, 23 too, will be out this year.
(]) My point was not that you are barred by anything
' 25 -
the Commission has said, but that it does not make sense ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. ;
8306 11/5/2 1 to litigate this issue until we know what the standards
() 2 are, because the standards are about to change. So.it ,
3 is addressed to the Board's discretion then.
i
() 4 I read the contention and I must say I.cannot I L
e 5 find in this contention any reference to a particular h
j 6 regulatory requirement such as Reg Guide 1.89.
R
$ 7 I read this contention as addressing the issue s
j 8 of whether the Staff's methodology for environmental 0
c; 9 qualification was accurate or not, rather than the z
O
$ 10 compliance of Consumers Power Company at Midland with z
= <
j 11 e s tablished.::dritsmia .
3 12 To the extent that it deals with the Staff's N
c 13
(]) or the NRC's methodology, and whether that methodology
=
5 14 is correct or not, then I think there is an implicit Y l
[= 15 inconsistency in litigating that issue.
g 16 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The only ' thing that se' ems W
N l7 to me to be under litigation in the rule making was the
=
{ 18 co mpliance date.
E g I9 MR. STEPTOE: No, no. That is not correct, a
20 your Honor. The thing I cited to, change the compliance 21 date and that was --
I think if you read that it says 22
(]) that we will be coming out with a rule in the near 23 l future. At least that was my understanding when I cited I
(]) 24 l it, but it is certainly the case that the Commission is 25 I about to come down with a rule, a substantive ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8307 11/5/3 1 environmental qualification rule which deals with things
() 2 like synergism and it is also going to come out with a 3 totally new revision of Reg Guide 1.89 which is going
(]) 4 to add even more specificity on just how we are supposed 5 to take into account synergism.
g e
3 6 So I guess I read these things slightly G
$ 7 differently than you did. I read the contention as '
3 8 8 challenging environmental qualification methodology 0 '
c; 9 rather than compliance with an established standard.
$ 10 If I read this contention the same way you did, E
11 I would think the same way you do, that it would not be 3
y 12 barred by the fact that rule making was going on, but 5
13
(]) again I think the question is the adequacy of the l
14 methodology, rather than compliance with an established 15
}x
. standard, because I don't find that established' standard g' 16 in new Contention 7. '
M LL/6 d I7 l' $
$ 18 -
5 19 8
n 20 l
21 (2) 23 I -
() 25 l
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8308 1/6/1 i CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, certainly in terms 2 of numbers and references, it isn't, but what does the 3 Staff think about that contention?
() 4 MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, may I have one minute S 5 because I had my position and then I remember that I 6
@ might have said something inconsistent in my file. l R
b 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, you didn't file M
j 8 it. I gave you permission to address it.
d d
9
]. MR. PATON: All right, good. I was afraid to ,
S 10 g say what I wanted to say.
=
I
,$ Mr. Chairman, the Staff does not object to d 12 z this contention and would like to comment on the merits c
Td 13 (s^J g of it, which I realize is probably not appropriate, but E 14 y from what I understand, the dose rates discussed in the z
9 15 g report on which they relied, far exceed anything that f 16
$ would be expected to be found in the nuclear power plant.
d 17 w
x MR. BISHOP: That is good discovery, Bill. I M 18
= I appreciate that.
19
! MR. PATON: I mean, it just seems like that is 20 an issue that would be appropriately addressed by them, 21 but if they want to pursue the contention in light of ,
() that at this point the Staff does not object to the contention, but I would predict that it is going to go 23 24 l
p(_) away very rapidly. !
25 MS. SINCLAIR: That isn't what the report says.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
_ ._ . . . =.
8309 1
ill/6/2 1 MR. PATON: Okay.
( 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Bishop, do you have :
3 any further comments on that?
() 4 MR. BISHOP: No. I have no further comments 5 on that.
g n
h 6 JUDGE HARBOUR: Should we quit for today?
R !
b 7 MR. MILLER: Perhaps it might be worthwhile j 8 to find out just what it was that the Intervenors thought d
c; 9 z
they were doing, whether they were challenging the o
10 h Midland compliance with a standard that you believe, I
=
!3 II Judge Bechhoefer, or whether they were challenging the 12 k methodology which is implicitly interim rule. >
c
() CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, maybe you could :
clarify that.
x b MR. BISHOP: What was that? Could I have the x
T 16 '
y question again?
! 17 6
a CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, you believe that x
M 18 i
= by virtue of this report the plant does not comply with :
s j 19 the current environmental requirement which are described 20 in the reg guide, or whether you are trying to say that .
we should have better environmental requirements or
() different environmental requirements, because the 23 ,
decision I quoted seemed to say that the Commission was
() 25 II adopting, at least on an interim basis, and it still has in effect certain reg guides as the interim criteria.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8310 11/6/3 1 What'I.:am saying is: Are you saying that
() 2 because of that --
and the interim criteria, by the way, 3 has a reference to synergism in it, the reg guide does, ;
() 4 I shculd say.
e 5 MS. SINCLAIR: I can' t answer you in legal h
@ 6 terminology, but what I understand about this report is R
& 7 that it asks you to reconsider how strong and how much a
j 8 of a lifetime you think this plant can have and then that d
o 9 it will be different because they are finding, based on
$ 10 this experience and on this particular research that they
@ 11 have done, that the installation on the wiring is going B
y
~
12 to deteriorate much more quickly than had been assumed i
() m 13 before.
$ 14 Now, you have to put that in whatever legal l 15 framework you think that is.
g 16 MR. BISHOP: Your Honor, I am not that terribly A
t 6 17 familiar with the Reg Guide. I don't believe we are l Y
{ 18
- l engaging in an attack on the Reg Guide. f E
19 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEPER: The Reg Guide i g 1 n 20 incorporates a new reg document,- by the way.
21 JUDGE COWAN: Are you questioning the 22 existing standards used in qualification insulation, for
(]) l 23 instance?
24 MS. SINCLAIR: I would say that the study
(~
]) ,
25 raises questions because:.they have found it deteriorating 11/7 faster than they expected.
l I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1
l
'11-7,p31 8311 cxpected.1 MR. BISHOP: To the extent that they don't incor-l 0) s 2 porate this kind of analysis --
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That is what you are trying
() 4 to say inithe contention -- I shouldn't say only the NUREG g 5 Guide. It's the NUREG that actually covers the synergism 9 -
@ 6 point NUREG 0588. That is the document that is also incor-l i
g ,
[ 7 porated in the Commission decision.
E 8 8 MR. STEPTOE: Well, all I can say is that I hope d
d 9 that whatever happens here, we get a definition of what i
o
@ 10 this is.
3 l
B 11 Obviously, if they are challenging the Commission's g 12 standards for environmental qualification of equipment, that c
13 is one thing. If they are challenging our compliance with
(]) d l$ 14 it, that is different.
2 15 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: If they are, challenging the 5
j 16 atandards, we can't hear it. If they are challenging the e
p 17 compliance with what the Commission says is the standard --
5 M 18 of course if the standard changes during the course of I =
g 19 the proceedings, we have to look at whatever the current M
20 standard is.
l 21 MR. STEPTOE: Right.
l
} 22 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We have to rule on conten-23 , tions now, and we can't wait.
I r% 24 ' (Discussion had off the record, )l l
()
25 I guess we don't have to find what we were ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1
ll-7,pj2 8312 I looking for, but some place in that NUREG is the treatment
( 2 of synergism.
- 3 Is there anything further on this contention that
() 4 anyone wants to add? If not, is there anything that we 5 should do before we adjourn?
g 4
3 6 MR. WILCOVE: Just two things from the Staff's R
b 7 point of view. First is with respect to your questions ,
s '
l 8 about the tables in the DES, the person who would have been d
q 9 able to answer that question for the Staff will not be in z
h 10 his office until Monday. Perhaps the Applicant could get E
11 that information.
3 12 MR. BISHOP: I think it should be done overnight, N
c 13
(]) your Honor.
l 14 MR. WILCOVE: We are trying to get that infor-15 mation from other sources, but we don't know what the h
x g 16 success .of1that will be. '
A
, d 17 MS. SINCLAIR: Try Argonne National Laboratory.
l w 18 MR. WILCOVE: We did try and the person who would A
19 answer that question won't be in until Monday.
t h
n 20 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Do your best.
l 2I MR. W'ILCOVE: The other thing is that there is 22 still outstanding the Applicant's motion to strike, Con-(])
( 23 tentions 28 to 50, I assume that that has been mooted.
l l /~T 24 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That has been withdrawn.
! (/
25 MR. MILLER: I don't know that we said that.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
ll-7,pj3 I
We said that it was premature.
2 Ms. Sinclair has met the deadline as necessary 3
and has withdrawn certain contentions and therefore we
(} 4 have withdrawn the motion.
5 g We do have one other matter, Judge, and that is 9
3 6
- in our meeting yesterday there was some un certainty E
" 7
- expressed by Ms. Sinclair and Mr. Bishop as to'the extentu n
8 8 '
a of his participation.
d 9
}". We have been proceeding today I think with '
O 10 t j respect to schedules and everything else on the assumption'
=
f' that he is going to continue throughout this proceeding, and I would just like to have that confirmed for the record, c
() 13 if we could do that.
E 14 w MR. BISHOP: I don't think that I can -- first of I
all I don't believe that my particular -- well, as we said
? 16 g yesterday, this is an expensive proceeding 'and we are I7 h
m attempting to go forward as expeditiously as possible...
$ 18
- I have not been told formally by my client to 19 g what extent they want me to work for them. I think it is 20 something that I can't give you an opinion on yet.
MS. SINCLAIR: Well, we certainly think he is
() almost indispensible, but we also are trying to raise '
funds, so depending on whether we are able to raise'the 24 funds to retain him, it will make all the difference in the
(])
25 world and actually, it is only within the last week that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
II-7,pj4 , 8314, I
we have found that we could retain him even for this 2 period'of time, but many efforts are going forward in 3
that regard.
4 11- ,j <,'
Q bh '
{ 0 ,
3 e 6 R .'1 ,
(
2 7 .
i!
^
i ,
n s I 8
n 8 '
t
'l d
- I
, ,d' 9 ,
? N '
[. -
?
r ., 10 'I 3
a .n / .
i 64 . . ,
g 12
, ;org: e 1
a p
.( q is i
, j 16 ,,l' ,
. vi 4 lf 17 l, i ,
.a '
'at /
$ 18 , ,
= -
5 '
19 .
R 20 21 22
'O 23 24 O
25 .
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- 11-8, 931 8315 regard I MR. BISHOP: I don't think that that is really
{J 2 relevant to the public record, to tell you the truth, your 3
Honor. The parties will agree on a schedule, on a hearing l
() 4 schedule, and we will meet it, whether or not I sit in this 5
3 chair or someone else does, I don't believe it is relevant.
2 6 g MR. MILLER: Well, it's not quite that simple.
E I think dealing with attorney intervenors, rather than N
8 a 8 intervenors directly is quite different in terms of schedul-d d
9
]- ing discovery, in terms of the types of questions that are 0 10 y posed in interrogatories and otherwise. I just think tha t
=
hI d 12 we have to be able to make our plans based on some sort z of a reasonable basis here.
I o
() MR. BISHOP: We are doing the best we can.
t E 14 i
y MS. SINCLAIR: I have been of the opinion for
=
9 15 g years, and I think I have expressed it in your presence
~
16 y at other times, I couldn't agree with you more that it i 17
- g certainly expedites things and you get a much better record
! $ 18
- when you have an attorney and because these are such serious e
j 19 issues that citizens have tried to grapple with all on 20 their own and scratching the bottom of their own pockets, 21 I think it is disgraceful that this country cannot afford
() the kind of professional and technical assistance to give 23 l those people who are paying all the bills here and bearing all the risks the opportunity to fully and adequately
(])
25 get their position in the record and I couldn't agree with ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
ll-8,pj2 8316 I you more, but that is the situation that we are in.
2 MR. MILLER: The people sitting to your left are 3 Government employees who are charged with doing that and next
() 4 to the Government, it is the public utility involved who 5 has an obligation to its citizens --
j 9
@ 6 MR. MARSHALL: Do you mind if I throw some tea R
e >
S 7 in your pond tonight?
l i
[ 8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: With that we should adjourn d
c; 9 until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
z ;
o ^
g 10 (Whereupon an adjournment was
_3 II
~
taken in the above-entitled I i $
f c
a I2 matter until Friday, August l'3th , f O5m 13 1982, at the hour of 9:30 a.m.)
j 14 l
I 15 E
.j 16 -
W ,
@ 17 !
$ 18
= ,
, 19 A
20 21 22 (J ,
23 24
() 25 l ALDERSON REPORTil1G COMPANY, INC.
i
l O noctr^a azoutazoar cosarsszon This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the I
() Atomic Safety and Licensing Board L in the matter of: Consumers Power Com any Midland Plants, Un ts 1 & 2 1 Date of Proceeding: August 12, 1982 Docket Number: 50-329 OL/ 50-330 OL ,
Place of Proceeding: Midlana. Michiaan were held as herein appears, and that this is the origina1' transcript ,
thereof for the file of the Commission. >
i l
Pauline James & Associates I l
Official Reporter (Typed) :
P O '
3 , /
\
j GV nc . c:m?n I i
Official Reporter (Signature) i I
i (2) (
i i
--- --