ML20062K101
| ML20062K101 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 08/13/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8208170022 | |
| Download: ML20062K101 (231) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ NCC E RIGULATORY COMMISSICN 9 g '- P 6 - J] 2 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In 6 . Mat =n: cf: : CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY : DOCKET NOS. 504329 OL & OM
- 50-330 OL & OM (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2.) :
I DATE: August 13, 1982 PAGzg: 8317 - 8546
~
A7 Midland, Michigan k k) { ALDK%X
, _ r _ "x, M *G 400 vi_T "d a Ave., S.W. W'*hd"g ==, D. C. 20024 g Talachc=a: (202) 554-1345 8208170022 820813 PDH ADOCK 05000:12 9
,1 PDR
8317
- I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
(~) 4 _______________________________x 5 g In the Matter of: : ,
" : Docket Nos. 50-329 OM
@ 6 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY -
"0-330 OM a
o
" y (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2) : Docket Nos. 50-329 OL E : 50-330 OL j 8 _______________________________x 0
o 9 Friday, August 13, 1982 5,
$ 10 Midland County Courthouse
$ 301 West Main Street k
II Midland, Michigan 48640 fo I2 Evidentiary hearing in the above-entitled matter ()f13 was resumed pursuant to adjournment, at 9:30 a.m. lt 14 BEFORE: i 15 {* CHARLES BECHHOEFER, Esq., Chairman Administrative Judge W Ib Atomic Safety and Licensing Board w I7 RALPH S. DECKER, Esq., Member h
- Administrative Judge IO Atomic Safety and Licensing Board b
P 19 g" DR. FREDERICK P. COWAN, Esq., Member . Administrative Judge ! 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 2I DR. JERRY HARBOUR, Esq., Member Administrative Judge 22 () Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 23 , I l ., 24 [ CJ l 25 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
8318 1 APPEARANCES (Continued): () 2 On behalf of the Applicant, Consumers Power Company: 3 JAMES BRUNNER, Esq. () 4 MICHAEL MILLER, Esq. PTTII.LT P S TE P TOE , Esq. 5 ANNE WEST, Esq. g 9 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 3 6 One Frist National Plaza, 42nd Floor R Chicago, Illinois 60602
$ 7 n
8 8 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Coramission: d y 9 WILLIAM PhTON, Esq.
$ MIC HAEL N. WILCOVE, Esq.
b 10 Office of the Executive Legal Director
$ 1717 H. Street, N.W.
$ II Wa s hing ton , D.C.
B y 12 On behalf of the Mapleton Intervenors: 3 ( ) y* 13 WENDELL H. MARSHALL, Esq. RFD 10 h 14 Midland, Michigan 48640 _ 15 On behalf of MS. MARY SINCLAIR y 16 LEE L. BISHOP, Esq. i Harmon & Weiss U 17 1725 I Street, N.W. 5 Washington, D.C. 20006 5 18 E Appearing Pro Se: 19 g MS. BARBARA STAMIRIS 20 5794 North River Route 3 21 Freeland, Michigan 48623 22 (J 23 , 1 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8319
./1/1
.dw 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Good morning, ladies and (~ U 2 gentlemen. As a preliminary matter, the only thing we 3 wish to comment on for whatever it's worth is it is () 4 Friday the 13th. I don't know what that will lead to. c 5 Do any of the parties have any preliminary 9
@ 6 matters or reports to us on matters which were left open R
$ 7 yesterday?
a - 8 8 MR. BISHOP: I have a report. I have delivered d d 9 to the parties a restated Contention 6 dealing with the i h 10 Howard affidavit this morning. Later in the day when we b 11 have back from the printer copies of the affidavit to k j 12 which that contention refers, we will pass those out. 5 13 (]) 'One note on that. Apparently the Howard affidavit that - l 14 I used to develop the contention and for the references g 15 and quotations is one that was told by me from m j 16 Ms. Billie Garde who took the affidavit. That was an w I7 unsigned final of the affidavit and so I am not rock h z
$ 18 hard sure that the page references for the quote are E
g I9 n exactly the way that it was when Mr. Howard signed it. 20 I will be able to verify that once I get back to 21 Washington and if there are any differences, I will .. 22 (]) forthwith submit any necessary corrections in the final 23 copy of the affidavit to all parties. 24 (]) CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: He did sign it? 25 ! MR. BISHOP: Yes. He did sign it and I think l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l 1/1/2 8320 1 the Staff will admit to that and the problem is that I () 2 don't have a signed copy with me and I will have to 3 verify that the first part of next week. () 4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Are there any other g 5 preliminary matters? Q
$ 6 After we get into the body of the conference, R
R 7 do the Applicants have need for some time to look over a j 8 this contention before we get started, because we could U d 9 rule or not rule on this or consider it later in the
! 10 morning?
6 h 11 MR. MILLER: I think we are prepared to 3 g 12 discuss it whenever you wish, Judge Bechhoefer. 13 MR. PATON: The Staff is not. It might (]) l 14 shorten things up if I would hear everybody else's 15 comments but it's six pages long and I haven't read it f 16 yet. Do you mean the new paper submitted'by w d 17 Mrs. Sinclair?
} 18 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes.
A 19 MR. PATON: {n I have not completed reading it, 20 but if the Applicant would like to address it, that might 21 help me in my reading of it. 22 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Let's get into that after (]) 23 we -- what I was saying, though, is we could take it up 24 after the first break this corning, if you want to, if 25 l that would help, bu* I know that Mr. Bishop has to leave ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8321 , 1/1/3 1 early today so that we ought to take it up while he is () 2 still here.
- 3 MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, I have some
() 4 preliminary matters. g 5 The first is that I really find that I N
$ 6 probably should not have urged Dr. Sullivan to give a ,.
R 8 7 quick analysis of the differences between the effective 8 8 full power years that are found in Section 5 and d d 9 Appendix C-10 of the Safety Evaluation Report. ' b l
@ 10 I think that, if it is acceptable, we would ! E j
3 11 prefer to give a fuller explanation in writing to
) ,
p 12 Dr. Harbour and handle it that way. I don't believe that 5 ' (]) ym 13 our explanation upon reflection was as complete as it h 14 should uave been. 1/2 2 15 W !
.j 16 -
i e i l G 17 i 5 f
$ 18 l 5 :
19 8 n 20 21 22 () ' 23 ,
- i
\ 25 1 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. n - - - - - . . - - - , , , - - - . -,-
l-2,pjl 8322 I been. CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Would it be possible to take 2 up this matter -- I guess we won'.t be doing it during this 3 prehearing or even maybe at a prehearing at all, but rm 4 (-) apparently there will still be a rewritten earlier conten-5 tion which involves the same subject matter. j 6 MR. MILLER: That's fine. R
" 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: But we will have a pre-n 8 8 a conference. You will certainly have an opportunity to l d !
k 9 submit an answer to whatever that rewritten contention b turns out to be. E k MR. MILLER: And we will make certain that it 3 g 12 includes our understanding of the differences between those c () 13 two values you found in the Safety Evaluation Report. I4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: If you wish to correct 15 Mr. Sullivan's statement you may do that separately. j 16 ' Either way. w I7 h MR. MILLER: The other preliminary matter -- well, x
$ 18
_ there are actually two more. The first is that we dis-19 8 n tributed to the Board and the parties a number of documents. 0 The cover sheet is a letter dated August 12th. It's a 21 letter from Mr. Kirk Davis to Mr. Cook reflecting the stop 22 work order that was described by Mr. Paton yesterday in.. (]) 23 lhis notification to the Board. 24 I would like to further report that effective (]) 25 tlate yesterday, as a.r.esult of the agreement between the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1-2,p32 8323 1 Staff and the company which is reflected in the document 2 that is entitled Work Authorization Procedure, which has 3 an effective date of August 12, 1982, and signed by Mr.
~
O 4 a. A. nooney for coneumere rower comgany end W. o. :shafer. .. g 5 for Region III of the NRC Staff.
$ 6 The stop work has been lifted and certain activitie s, ei
& 7 are proceeding in accordance with that work authorization s !
8 8 procedure. We anticipate that this procedure will eliminate d ( 9 the problems in communication which have existed in the
$ 10 past.
E t2 11 s j 12 s Oi' l$ 14 2 15 M j 16 us d 17
- M 18 0
19 g n 20 21 0 23 O 25 i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 8324 2/1/1 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: How will this group of j dw(] 2 documents be inserted in the record, not the evidentiary 3 record necessarily, but will there be a formal () 4 distribution? 5 MR. BRUNNER: I believe the Board is already g 4
@ 6 copied on those documents. Wefjust made a separate copy R '
b 7 for convenience and can provide one right now. If you 3 j 8 look in the CC section, I believe the Board members and G c; 9 all parties are copied. 6 10 MR. BISHOP: h I think they are referring to the
=
II
$ documents that are generated through the agreement, not 3
fc I2 the agreement itself. () 13 MR. BRUNNER: Oh. I think the agreement was - E 14 y attached. m 9 15 0 ' MR. MILLER: Does the Board wish to have each
=
f16 document, that is, work schedules and so 'on, that is 6 17 a submitted by the company to the NRC Staff and the
=
r 5 18
= documents that are created as each approval is obtained 19 j by the company?
20 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: No, I don't think so. 21 MS. STAMIRIS: Judge -- () MR. BISHOP: I understand that's a huge amodnt 23 of, paper, I would imagine. () MR. MILLER: It will be, yes. 25 ' MR. BISHOP: However, it is of interest, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8325 1 bviously, to my client and to Ms. Stamiris. Perhaps 2/1/2 (]) 2 could Consumers keep a file on that at the Midland plant 3 so that they could review that file periodically, so (]) 4 there would not be a burden on Consumers, yet there g 5 would be public availability in the procedures? 9
@ 6 MR. MILLER: Clearly a file is going to be R
d 7 maintained, but it is going to be a working file. I X [ 8 think that perhaps we can work out informally some sort d c 9 of access for your client and Mrs+ Stamiris to these
)
$ 10 documents on a period basis or something like that.
E 11 h I don't know that we need to burden the record 3 y 12 with it. 5 13 (]) The final point I had was the question of the l$ 14 plant tour tomorrow, and the company would like to know 15 if there are any specific areas of the plant that the
.j 16 Board wishes to see.
W I7 It is not a workday for many people at the hz 18
@ site. Some advance arrangements do have to be made.
A 19 g" JUDGE HARBOUR: Since I have not been to the 20 plant site, I would like a general tour of the auxiliary 21 building, control room, and if possible, one of the 22 (} 23 containment structures. Is there any work or has there been recently {}' 25 I any work underway on the access shops to the area of the I underpinning? il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8326
/1/3 1 MR. BRUNNER: Beyond just the excavation of 2 the shops, and they are just standing there. Maybe 3 Mr. Budzia can answer that.
4 MR. BUDZIA: No, I really can't. I know there's 5 been some work and they are about ready to start the
$ 6 first pier, I believe. I am not clear on the exact R
& 7 status as of today.
A 2/2 $ 8 e d 9
$ 10 E
11 a y 12
~
c Os'a l$ 14 2 15 s 16
![
e 6 17 5
$ 18 h
E 19 2 20 21 0 23 24 25 , ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l2-2,pjl 8327 !
- today. I JUDGE HARBOUR: If there is an excavation beyond 2 just the access shops, I would like to see the workings 3 there.
O 4 cHA1RMAu BEcHHOEFER: I e1so wou1d -- ie is e 11te1 e 5 bit different, but I would like to ree the portion of the j 9 3 6 site and adjacent areas which might be affected by fogging R S 7 and icing. A 8 8 MR. MILLER: Some of that is clearly outside the d d 9 site boundary, and there are roads adjacent to the border 10 of the cooling light that seemingly could be affected'by h II 5 fogging and icing. B: f c I2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I just wanted to see where O'i those -- - I4 MR. MILLER: Sure. That can be done. j e.: 15 MS. STAMIRIS: I would like to ask about the 16 reactor pressure vessel lateral support tha't was put in 3[ ; as I7 because of the defective anchor bolts. Is that observable? h z { 18 The last time I was on the site, I was told we E g I9 couldn't get in there that day to see it, and I don't know n 20 if that's a permanent condition. 2I MR. SAARI: I think there's some problems with 22 physical limitations in getting into that area. If you 23 , want to climb through the tube that '-s about- four f eet t in 24 diameter, you might get in there. ' 25 MR. BISHOP: How long? How long is the tube that's ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
T 2-2,pj2 8328 ,, I four feet in diameter? 2 MR. SAARI: Twenty feet. 3 MS. STAMIRIS: I will think about it. 4 JUDGE HARBOUR: I just wanted to make a statement 5 that I am not interested in a detailed tour, just a walk j e j 6 through. R S 7 Also, I wonder if it would be possible to have a 3 - 8
@ simple -- if it is available -- a convenient sized map d
9 N showing where the different structures are located on the c 10 site so that we can locate ourselves as we tour the site. ! II 5 MR. MILLER: There is also a model that can be -- 3 I JUDGE HARBOUR: I was thinking of'having something
=
13 ()f in my hand as we tour the site. l$ 14 MR. BRUNNER: That can be made available. C 15
@ CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: One other thing. I am not x
d I0 ' sure this is the right time, but I would like to see the w 17 h location -- I don't care if I tour it particularly -- the x .
$ 18
_ Technical Support Center or the center that will be used 8 in connection with the emergency plan, just the location, n 20 where it will be. MR. MILLER: That can be arranged. () CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I don't care if I go through 23 it or not. 24 JUDGE HARBOUR: Do you have any idea approximately (]) 25 I how long the tour might take that we are suggesting? ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
.2-2,pj3 8325 I MR. SAARI: We can certainly take as long or as
- () 2 short of a period of time as you like. Generally, I think 3 we are looking at about an hour and a half to see all the
(]) 4 areas that you indicate. 5 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: g One of the schedules that [ 9
@ 6 I had in mind, and how this will work out, I don't know.
R
$ 7 I am presuming that we will be typing this order we are s
j 8 going to issue. O q9 I would like to early in the morning deliver some [ c 10 materials to the typist who will be down here, and then we h
=
II
$ can go on the tour, and maybe after lunch reassemble to 2
y 12 pass out our decision. Maybe considerably later. 5 2%JOm$ 13 i
@ 14 2 15 s
j 16 ' W
$ 17 w
x i M 18 E 19 8 n 20 21 i (J - 23 f 24
%J ,
25 ' i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8330
/3/1 1 JUDGE HARBOUR: But the typist comes in at dw lakhr 2 about 8:30 in the morning, and it will take 15 minutes 3 perhaps with her before we can --
(,) 4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Alternatively, if there's g 5 any leftover conference to hold, we would probably want N
$ 6 to hold it first. We definitely would want to hold it G
$ 7 first, but that we won't know until later in the day, s
j 8 If we get through all the contentions today, d d 9 which I hope we will do, then we will not have to have z. c 10 any further schedule matter. h
=
s l II I might say that I hope that maybe we can get fa a 12 some idea of when the next hearing on whatever the subject (c,)5
~., a 13 will be -- I don't know what it will be on. It would be I4 nice to block out some rtime,rif we'could do so. If we j= 15 can't, so be it. But the Board would like to be able g 16 to schedule.
W II h
=
At the moment I only have one week taken up M 18 _ for anything through October other than vacaticn time. 19 8 Things start to fill up. l i 20 MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, may I inquire. If
- we finish tonight with all the matters with the parties,
, 22
( ss
) the Staff, counsel did not plan to go on the site visit.
23 ' Would there be any need for us to be here tomorrow l f'l v morning if we finish with the contentions tonight? l 25 l 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Probably not. l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8331 9/3/2 1 MR. PATON: We could get the order, I think, 2 Monday. 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: You could get it Monday. O 4 Bue enz discovery time eterte eo run es of the der we 5 serve it, which is Saturday. g
@ 6 MS. STAMIRIS: Judge Bechhoefer --
n'
" 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We are going to adjust A
! O the discovery or entertain motions to adjust the d *
; 9 discovery for any of the HFAC contentions, and all 10 h parties will have more than 15 days on that.
=
II
$ Maybe you can all agree on how much you need B
f a I2 or should have. If you all agree, we are likely to Oi' averove it-I4 l MS. STAMIRIS: Judge Bechhoefer, I wanted to 9 15 I y request on the discovery time that you say will start z 16 the day that you issue the order, I would' like to request h x that 15-days discovery not start until Monday.
$ 18
= If you issue the order on Saturday, I would i H i 19 l g" not like to have to come back later in the day to get 20 ;
that order, and I would like to be able to have until ' 21 Monday to begin my discovery and then have the discovery O st rt fr m there. 23 Grcnted, it would be a matter of a few days, Q 25 but a few days are very important to me. CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I don't know how we are ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8332 2/3/3 1 going to get you the order. ( 2 MS. STAMIRIS: Couldn't'you mail it? 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I want it personally () 4 served, if I can. I want -- I don't want to have a five-5 day mailing delay. g v 3 6 MS. STAMIRIS: Oh, I see. The five days. I G
$ 7 would be willing to, you know, agree that if you put M
8 8 it in the regular mail, that I would st. art my discovery d q 9 on Monday. I am sure it is not going to take five days g 10 if it is mailed from Midland to get to Freeland, b II
$ CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: If Mrs. Sinclair were here B
f c I2 on Saturday, we could give you copies to give to her. ()f13 MS. SINCLAIR: I don't think I am going to be
@ 14 here.
15 MR. BISHOP: I think she is as close to the g 16 site as she would prefer to be. w !2/4 N I7 M 18 E 19 g n 20 21 () 22 23 24 ; C) 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
2-4,pjl 8333 be. I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I mean the session down
. () 2 here when I will pass out the decision.
3 MR. BISHOP: We will try to work that out. () 4 You believe your order will be prepared late in 5 the afternoon on Saturday? g I l 3 6 JUDGE HARBOUR: Mid-afternoon. R b 7 MR. BISHOP: Mid-afternoon. 3
! O CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mid to late, but we will I d l c; 9 see how we go depending on how we come out.
z 10 The order would cover at least the contentions
=
II
$ that we admit. Whether we can get them written up on all 3
g 12 of them, I don't know. 5 (])f13 MS. SINCLAIR: I can arrange to have someone l$ 14 pick up the order for me. l {x 15 MR. BISHOP: We, I believe, can designate an 10 d agent to receive service, and we will work'on that and let w I7 you know by the break. j h x { 18 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We will allow the 15 days P 19 to start running on Monday, but if we are not through today, g n 20 we may have to have another conference in the morning. Why 21 don't we proceed. 22 {) Are we through with the preliminary matters? 23 l MR. MILLER: As far as we are concerned, yes, 24 sir. V(~'s 25 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Did the Staff -- was the l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
l 2-4,932 8334 1 Staff able to obtain any of the further inf o rma tion that we (]) 2 asked for. 3 MR. WILCOVE: Mr. Hood is not here yet. I k now 4 he's been trying to get that information. When he gets (])
; 5 here, we will ask him and then we will give you a report.
0 3 6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Okay. Now, let's -- the R { 7 only remaining contention of Mrs. Sinclair that we have to , s 8 8 discuss is the -- is No. 16, where it is my understanding d i d 9 the Staff didn't oppose it if it were written with somewhat b g 10 more specificity, and I am not sure the Applicant just E j B 11 objected to it because of specificity. It is my under-j 12 standing -- ! 5 l 13 MR. BISHOP: I believe that was the only objection. [) l$ 14 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Pardon? 2 15 MR. BISHOP: I believe that was the only objec-g 16 tion, to my understanding. - I
^
l d 17 MR. STEPTOE: Yes, your Honor. But the specifi-M 18 city supplied in the August 13th draft is not the kind of 5 [ 19 specificity that we were looking for. Let me generally 5 20 say what our problem is with this. 21 The first paragraph generally alleges that the QA 22 program for Midland -- is not even limited to Zack, the 23 QA program for Midland is not in compliance with 10 CFR ( 24 Part 50, Appendix B and, therefore, quality assurance and
)
25 control cannot be established at the Midland Nuclear Power ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l l
! l i 2-4,pj3 I Plant.
/m U So the first paragraph is extremely broad, frontal 3
assault on the Midland Quality Assurance Program. O 4 Now, following that for three pages is essentially V a 5 a recitation of the -- or summary of the statements in the 9 E' 6 Howard affidavit. In some respects I believe the statements R E 7 are -- the summary is not entirely faithful to the affidavit. A 9 8 s Inadvertently it departs somewhat from what was said in d 9 the affidavit, but that's not my basic problem with it. c 2-5 g 10 E j 11 a j 12 s ON' E
~
14
=
2 15 5 g 16 us l $ 17 l 5 ! $ 18 I - I E 19 8 n 20 21 a 22 L) i 23 , l l s 24
]
25 j 1 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8336 1 /5/1 My basic problem is if you read these numbered @wA-p )g 2 t paragraphs summarized what's in the Howard affidavit, 3 it is still not clear to me what evidentiary proof I (]) 4 am supposed to submit to meet this contention. 5 y For example, Paragraph 4 on Page 2 states that a
@ 6 on November 18, 1981 a Midland "QQ" contract employee R
=
" 7 directed Howard to sign a form attesting to have N
2 8 M completed the requisite training for his position despite d d 9 {- the fact that Howard did not receive such training. o
$ 10 7 Is that one issue that we are supposed to h litigate, whether Howard had received appropriate d 12 E training or whether a false document was solicited at S
13 O@- that point? E 14 y The next paragraph seems to raise an entirely
=
9 15 g different issue. It says that about essentially a month 16
$ after he was hired, he reviewed reports which summarized g 17 g the QA deficiencies,- and here it says at Midland, which E 18
= is an incorrect summary of the affidavit.
C 19
! In fact, it is QA deficiencies at Zack that he 20 reviewed.
21 Is that what we.are litigating, the historical 22 p(_)s QA breakdown that existed at Zack at the time that 23 Mr. Howard was hired? 24 Os l Going on to Paragraph 7, it deals with part of 25 I the corrective action. Is that what we are litigating, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8337 I whe ther corrective action taken to remedy that historical
/5/2
() 2 QA breakdown was adequate or inadequate? 3 Paragraph 8 is -- summarizes Bechtel's () 4 analysis of the historical QA breakdown, and Bechtel's g 5 analysis with respect to material certification was that 9 3 6 it was highly probable that Zack ordered correct l R
$ 7 materials for the Midland project from their -- to your 8 8 vendors. What is not included is the statement in the d
d 9 actual Howard affidavit and also in the underlying 10 h documentation which explains why Bechtel thought that
=
Il 5 this was highly probable, and I am aware that S f I2 Intervenors did not have a copy of that underlying I3 ()m documentation which justified Bechtel's position. l$ 14 But is that what we are litigating, Bechtel's g 15 x analysis of whether this was a paper work problem or g 16 safety problem. e I7 You go on to Paragraph 9. That indicates x 0 that -- that refers to a Zack internal report audit of 19 8 n Bechtel's QA documentation. 20 I am not aware that there is anything in the 21 How ard affidavit that indicates that Zack did an audit () of Bechtel. 23} Later on in here there are complaints that (]) Howard was fired because he informed a Consumers -- he 25 was fired because he informed a Consumers employee of his f3 concern. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i 8338 3/1/1 1 If he was incorrectly, there are Michigan dw 2 statutes and I believe NRC regulations that would give (]) 3 him some job protections. The Department of Labor 4 regulations, too, I believe, but his complaint about (]) e 5 being fired is not necessarily a QA problem. O I j 6 What I am saying is that this -- l l E 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Isn't that the merits? s l 8 If he was fired -- if a person is fired every time he d - q 9 finds a problem, that may well be a QA problem. y 10 MR. STEPTOE: It may or may not be, but it is 11 not a problem that we are supposed to be addressing here. k 12 MR. BISHOP: I would like to respond to this N t 3 a gs 3 13 point. l dm I h I4 MR. STEPTOE: I am still in the same position I i 15 was in yesterday. I am none the wiser as to what I have j
- 16 to do, what. evidence I have to put on, wh'at issues I have w
17 to meet here. h m 5 18 Am I dealing with job security or reporting A 19 problems? Am I dealing with the historical QA g n 20 deficiencies which Howard found when he was hired? Am 2I I dealing with the inadequacy of the corrective 22 measures? s Am I dealing with the overall QA program for 23 l Midland, or am I dealing with something relating to Zack? 24 The specificity that the rules of practice O 25 contemplate is not supplied here because we are given ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
f 8339 3/1/2 1 facts, but we are not given what is the ultimate factual 2 issue that Intervenors want to litigate. 3 This contention, for all its detail, O 4 essentie11y ee11e me thee they wene to 11eigeee g 5 everything, everything not just relating to Zack, but 9
@ 6 everything relating to Midland QA.
R
$ 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Bishop?
E l 8 MR. BISHOP: I think a short answer to d d 9 Mr. Steptoe's questions is: "Yes." 2i h 10 MR. MARSHALL: Correct. j 11 MR. BISHOP: The Howard affidavit details is (E 12 examples of a complete breakdown at ,the QA process at zacx, the contractor ror the ar^c Oi '3 y te=, =wett -
$ 14 Mr. Steptoe recognizes toward the end of the affidavit, 2 15 at Midland itself. '
N j 16 The purpose of a contention, an'd the Board r,5 (( 17 can correct me if I'm wrong, is to point out the basis 5 5 18 for a contention. The basis for the contention here is i: E 19 the Howard affidavit and the specific relationship of I R 20 that contention to the Midland plant. I believe that 21 is more than satisfied in this case. 22 Q The theory has been fully set out. The 23 instances described in the Howard affidavit and summarized 24 in the contentions specify those examples that Intervenor 25 is preparing to submit testimony on and expects the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8340 3/1/3 1 Applicant and Staff to respond to instances of QA () 2 breakCowns. 3 If indeed there was no meeting, for example, () 4 in Paragraph 16, on November 3rd, 1981, at which the e 5 resolution of the meeting was to try to back date h 3 6 documents and fix existing requirements to fit existing R
& 7 materials thae were sent not in specification, then s
8 8 so be it. Let's have testimony on that. O q 9 If you can establish that that meeting did not
$ 10 exist or that those particular actions were not E
11 recommended, then fine, that's for this Board to B g 12 consider. o 13 Our testimony as detailed in this contention (]) l$ 14 will be that there was such a meeting and that 15 Mr. Howard is aware of the notes of that meeting. The g[ I0 rest of the specific -- W
,N I7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Do you plan to call z
{ 18 Mr. Howard? n
" \
19 g MS. SINCLAIR: Yes. l n 20 MR. BISHOP: At the present time we do, yes, 21 your Honor. 22 That's all I have to say on that point. (]) c)/2 (3) 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i 3-2,pjl 8341 point. I MR. STEPTOE: Just one point, Judge Bechhoefer. A V 2 This is an example. Mr. Bishop refers to a j 3 meeting on November 3rd, 1981 and he says that at that (]) 4 meeting there was some kind of an attempt to backdate
$ 5 documents that not even his own contentions support that 0
@ 6 and the Howard affidavit certainly doesn't support that.
( & 7 His own contention says that there would be an attempt ! g )
@ 8 to try to get material certified to federal specifications.
U q
~
9 That is, you don't have the proper pape;rwork .for this
$ 10 material, so you go back and try to get it, but that is 11 not the same thing as backdating a document, which implies 3
g 12 forgery and fraud and a whole lot of other things. E 13 MR. BISHOP: Yes, forgery and fraud were alleged l (l
~J m
$ 14 in a different paragraph, your Honor. I apologize for that, 15 but that general --
I believe that the specificity that t l j 16 Consumers requested, the focus of their res'ponse is eminently l d 17 available in this contention and their continued opposition 5 18 to the contention represents to me at least their intent A 19 { n not to argue whether a particular contention is specific 20 or not specific, but a continued attempt to avoid the whole 21 issue and I think that that's an issue that we have to 22 {) deal with at the hearing. It is not an issue that is going 23 to go away and it is an issue that is extremely important l 24 to this Commission and to this Board. 25 I believe that the contention is clearly stated ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
43-2,pj2 i 8342 I and it is stated with particular detail, as Mr. Steptoe 2 recognized. The Board recognized that we were no t to 3 address the attachments to the Howard affidavit. Through ; O 4 discovery any addie1ona1 particu1a, deret>., con he f1ushed i 5 out. g f e,. h 0 I think that to continue to assert at this point G b 7 that the contention is not specific, does not demonstrate i
] 8 basis and is not sufficiently detailed to allow the parties ~
d d 9 to understand our theory of the contention, is groundless. 10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Does your contention attempt
- L II 4 to challenge the entire QA program at the Zack Company or is g 12 only insofar as it applies to the work at Midland? I am c
Oi' not sure how Zack te set ug. I4 MR. BISHOP: The contention deals with the 15 actions and the QA program at Zack to the extent that it is E I0 relative to Midland and the Howard af fidavi't describes -- , us I7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: To the extent that it is
- a:
IO relevant to work at Midland? I
# I9 8 MR. BISHOP: That's correct. And there are some I n
20 la'lFega tion % in the Howard affidavit that deal generically 21 with all of Zack's activities, some that deal specifically 22 Q with LaSalle and other plants and some that deal speci-23 fically with Midland. [ l l 24 This contention specifically describes the portion 25 of the affidavit that deal with Midland, per se, and then i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. ;
3-2,pj3 8343 I those that deal generically with all of their nuclear 2 business. 3 I believe that through discovery we can determine (]) 4 if Howard's allegations regarding all of Zack's nuclear 5
$ business perhaps did not include Midland and if that is a
3 6 e true, it can be struck, obviously. n R 7
; We are concerned with Zack's work relating to n
8 8 n Midland. We are also concerned with Midland's own QA d c 9 7. activities to the extent that Mr. Howard has alleged that O 10 *. I j there was also a breakdown in that system. l
=
I think to assert that there may be other remedies for Mr. Howard to try to get his job back is
=
0i' E areeo teroue. 14 g What we are talking about is whether the QA
= ,
I program broke down because an employee who tried to follow 6 it was fired and I think that is extremely' relevant. I7 (3-3 h
=
i M 18
=
19 8 ( 20 l i 21
- 22 l
23 () 25 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 8344 3/3/1 I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We don't have jurisdiction .dw"3 rdadvancdl to rule on whether Mr. Howard should get his job back. , 3 MR. BISHOP: That is entirely correct and I 4 realize that much as you might like to do that, I don't 5 g think that's within your authority. However I think a
@ 6 you can rule that because' employees who do attempt to C
" 7 use the existing Midland QA procedure have job actions 0
taken against them because of their attempt to use that d 9
- 7. process, I do believe that is extremely relevant S 10
- j evidence on whether the QA program works.
=
hII 6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Paton, are you 12 z prepared to address this? 1 c ()g MR. PATON: Yes. Mr. Chairman, it seems E 14 w obvious to the Staff that the matters alleged by 9 15 g Intervenors are ones that this Board is not going to T 16 g ignore. p 17 w To say that there isn some other remedy for l z .
$ 18 '
someone recording a QA deficiency and getting fired for E 19 l it I think is -- well, I just;-think it speaks for i 20 itself. I think the Board is obviously, in my opinion r 21 at least, going to consider these matters. t p 22 l ( ,/ At the same time I think it's fairly obvious 23 , i that the contention is a little unusual, in that it 24 h,) alleges 24 subparagraphs of facts. Some of the 25 paragraphs are not -- it's not self-evident where they i l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. l ,'
, 8345 1 are 1 ading.
3/3/2 2 So the Staff thinks that the contention should 3 be accepted. The Staff also thinks that at some time () 4 in the near future, whether it's connected with 5 discovery or not, the contention should be made more g a
@ 6 certain.
R
" 7 Clearly, I do agree with the Applicant that 3
j 8 some of these paragraphs leave you wondering precisely d
- c; 9 what is being alleged, but I think, subject to further
$ 10 modification, I think obviously the contention should be E
11 accepted. B 12 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Of course, an I 5 () 13 interrogatory to Mrs. Sinclair and Mr. Bishop could ask: l 14 What are you alleging in a given paragraph and it could j 15 be clarified that way. j 16 I might note again for the reco'rd that e N I7 Mr. Bishop had asked for considerably more time and we 18 sort of made him write quite a hurried contention last 0 19 night. g So perhaps that will explain some of the i n 20 paragraphs, if there are ambiguities or if there are 2I statements therein. () 22 Does anyone have any further comments on that 23 contention, or can we move on? 24 (} (No response. ) 25 I did have one further question. When actually ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i 8346 3/3/3 1 did Mr. Howard issue his affidavit or about what time () 2 frame? 3 MR. BISHOP: I think it was after July 21st. () 4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Oh, I see. It is a e 5 very recent one. h '
@ 6 MR. BISHOP: Yes.
R d 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I guess we had never 8 8 been given a specific date. d d 9 MR. MILLER:- July 26, your Honor. 7: o b 10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I see Mr. Hood is back E
=
g 11 here. Does he have further answers to some of E p 12 Dr. Harbour's questions? 5 l 13 I MR. WILCOVE: Judge Bechhoefer, may we answer (]) j h 14 those questions after.the break? 2 16 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes. j 16 MR. WILCOVE: We will do that then. W , I d 17 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Does anybody have
$ 18 anything more to state.on any of the Sinclair 5
$ 19 contentions? If not, we are ready to move on to n
20 Mrs. Stamiris. 21 MR. STEPTOE: Judge Bechhoefer, my understanding 22 is that the contention that is being proffered,
)
23 Contention 6, has been limited by Mr. Bishop's comments g .g 24 to the Zack matter, the Zack QA and the ADT, insofar as
%)
25 it affects the Midland QA. Iti.is_not a generalized 3/4 challenge to th 2 Midland QA, is that correct? ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4
.. 4 y
8347 x
,a nding.
r sta my unde That is c ouple la st BE CHHOEFER: ve the the I belie c of ay CHAIRMAN l o, As I adequ it w, the that 1 ! MR. BISHOP: re vie extent 3/4/1 NRC ' s to the r to dw ct 2 refe nd QA c&e U par agraphs w of the Midla stify to te 3 vie o nly u sly re an obvio t 4 NRC ' s wa rd c th is Za ck. Mr. Ho ein, but cess. kh cts u sly QA pro affe Obvio the r nd rie nce 5 4 expe Midla of the O hs entire ure n ot s i a 6 nd to on the 3 view I' m E 7 Za ck a our the NRC r 5 in BE CHHOEFER: way whethe n impa cts ate the n s , but CHAIRMAN fun ctio 8 [ adjudic is we can 0 its in 9 rms stay that staff perfo ve ntually C[ ,
! e xtent e g
10 stigativ will e
= inve ragraphs the NRC II - e pa that a nd wi
$4 the s nde rstand all repo rt I2 -
Iu a f eth ing ring rd som ISHOP: be pr epa ' Howa 13 MR. B on the are lh staff willn, n ot only that I4 vits stigat ive affida 9 15 inve a res olutio r six on what ching othe depending the I6 be rea but on u sly oy, n km vit, Obvio te stim cr s o affida cted. is, o ur its I7 prote rt of h= nt ly rms curre that repo in te entf I0 r the nce of will va y s pa rt of s 19 s ubsta ation, va nt a it pr "g amin r ele up th at cro ss-ex e also s s et Applic O ve it' s regulation the I I belie the ea ning and t that volved, m nsib y l pro cess s in ct respo s ent, (g all pa rtie the NRCa n ot pre I that a nd n is 23 I '* tors o a ctio ' 'o ANY , f
8348
;/4/2 1 adversely on the ability of the regulations to be O 2 comp 11ed with.
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We don't have authority () 4 to direct the Director of the Offices of Inspection or p 5 any inspection enforcement office to carry out duties in 0 j 6 a certain way. R
$ 7 We could certify a question like that. We M
] 8 could certify a recommendation to the Commission.
d d 9 MR. BISHOP: Yes. The Board can -- b b 10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: There is a orocedure
^
3 11 for doing that, but we ourselves could not issue a h a y 12 directive order. 5 13 (' ) MR. BISHOP: I understand that, your Honor, h 14 but the Board can also find facts. 2 15 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes, we could. j 16 MR. BISHOP: And one of the facts that the w
- D' 17 Board can find is that it is in the Board's opinion not 5
E 18 reasonable that the Staff acted in a certain way and I l h l9 think that's a -- M 20 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: All we could do is l 21 to certify to the Commission, and the Commission is the 22 (]) employer of those Stafi people and it could take action 23 if it agreed, but we don't have direct authority to tell 24 (]) the operating division of the Staff how to perform their 25 functions. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8349 f 3/4/3 1 MR. BISHOP: We understand. l: ()) 2 MS. STAMIRIS: Judge Bechhoefer, I would like 3 to confirm with the Staff my informal understanding () 4 that Mr. Keppler or the appropriate representative will n 5 at the time that the investigations are completed of all N
$ 6 of the allegations will present testimony on that subject
- R
' 8 7 before this Board.
E l 8 MR. PATON: Your Honor, could I talk to a . , c 9 Mrs. Stamiris about that, because I am not familiar with i C
$ 10 that. I think if we talked about it, we could reach an E
*g 11 understanding. I don't recall making that representation s
j 12 , to her, but it may have happened, but may I talk to her ; 5 ; ! 13 about that at the break and see where we are. I am sure {]) l$ 14 we can come to some understanding. l 2 15 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: All right. We are going l N j 16 to take a break shortly, but, Mrs. S tamiris , if you have w d 17 any general comments you may wish to make them. Then 5
$ 18 we will take a break and get into the specifics. '
5 [ n 19 The parties may not have had a chance to look 20 at the specific list. 3/5 21 C) 23 l gm 24 0 25 I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
3-5,pjl 8350 specific I MS. STAMIRIS: I don't have any comment other than
,116. .
kl 2 the statement of my support for Mrs. Sinclair's contentions. MR. BISHOP: We thought we would make that clear. CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I take it you still do not 5 j object to being consolidated with Mrs. Sinclair on the 3 6 g contentions with some of them seeming to overlap. We are E not likely to admit to contentions on the same subject for m 2 8 M essentially the same thing. L 5 9
- 7. MS. STAMIRIS: I agree.
O 10 j CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mrs. Sinclair's action
=
!s II on her former Contention 10 left me with some problems because one of your, contentions overlaps her Contention 10.
m () It raises the same question. 3 14
$ MS. STAMIRIS: Is that one that she dropped?
I 9 15 Q CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: It was No. 10 and it had m been stated in somewhat more detail, what u' sed to be 3-C 6 17 a but now is 1-C, but we were told that that subject is x
$ 18
- going to be introduced, or is an existing contention.
e 19 8 The only thing is it is being rewritten and we don't know 20 what the existing contention will cover. I will check. 21 MR. BISHOP: For later comment by the parties. I'N CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That is the one we are
'J 23 doing later? >
(} 25 MR. BISHOP: Yes. CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I am not sure how we will ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
3-5,pj2 8351 1 rule on tha t one. We have been inclined to let No. 10 in. () 2 MS. SINCLAIR: Well, as I said yesterday, I 3 dropped No. 10 among my new contentions because, under 4 (]) discovery, I found that I could make a much more specific g 5 and detailed and much more comprehensive contention in the 3 6 contentions I rewrote with the benefit of discovery. I R C S 7 couldn't state that in a new contention. A [ 8 MR. BISHOP: One thing we discovered yesterday d y 9 in our attempt to synthesize a new contention that was
$ 10 responsive and detailed, we apparently omitted an issue 11 that is of concern to the Board, and so that we would --
3 12 MS. SINCLAIR: But it is contained in the other I 3 13 one. (")N
% y a
m 5 l'4 MR. BISHOP: But it is of general relevance to 15 Contention 32 and draws our commenting process that the g 16 Board has set up, I think we can make Contention 32 or W g 17 Ms. Stamiris' 1-C, to the extent that there is anything E { 18 different, encompass all the issues that all of us are P g 19 concerned with, n 20 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: 1-C doesn't set forth any 21 details. That is why we have been inclined to allow Con-22 tention 10 which used to set forth considerably more {') 23 detail, although not -- 24 MS. SINCLAIR: But 32 doesn't? (3 It needs the (J 25 benefit of discovery. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8347 3/4/1 I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That is my understanding.
.dw
- cee c t (J 2 MR. BISHOP: Also, I believe the last couple 3 paragraphs refer to NRC's review, the adequacy of the
() 4 NRC's review of the Midland QA to the extent that it S 5 affects Zack. N
@ 6 Obviously Mr. Howard can only testify to R
$ 7 Zack and to his experience therein, but this obviously A
8 8
. impacts in our view on the entire Midland QA process.
d 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: 2. I'm not sure of the 10 extent that we can adjudicate the way the NRC
=
II
$ investigative staff performs its functions, but whether B
g 12 all these paragraphs will eventually stay in is ()Sg 13 something -- . i m 5 I4 MR. BISHOP: I understand that the NRC 15 investigative staff will be preparing a report and will d Ib w be reaching a resolution, not only on the Howard II h affidavit, but on the other six affidavits that are z
$ 18
- currently protected. Obviously depending on what the s
19 8 substance of that report is, our testimony, r cross-examination, will vary in terms of its scope, but 21 I believe it's also relevant as part of the entire QA ; () process that the regulations set up that it presumes that all parties involved, meaning the Applicant, () 25 contractors and the NRC act responsibly and to the extent that that responsible action is not present, it impacts ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
! 8346 3/3/3 1 did Mr. Howard issue his affidavit or about what time
() 2 frame? 3 MR. BISHOP: I think it was after July 21st. l () 4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Oh, I see. It is a
= 5 very recent one.
E n h 6 MR. BISHOP: Yes. R R 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I guess we had never X j 8 been given a specific date. , d d 9 MR. MILLER: July 26, your Honor. i o g 10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I see Mr. Hood is back z
=
g 11 here. Does he have further answers to some of B y 12 Dr. Harbour's questions? E 13 MR. WILCOVE: Judge Bechhoefer, may we answer (]) l$ 14 those questions after the break? 2 15 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes. , 5 J 16 MR. WILCOVE: We will do that then. E d 1:7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Does anybody have
$ 18 anything more to state on any of the Sinclair 5
{ 19 contentions? If not, we are ready to move on to n 20 Mrs. Stamiris. , 1 21 ' MR. STEPTOE: Judge Bechhoefer, my understanding 22 is that the contention that is being proffered, 23 , Contention 6, has been limited by Mr. Bishop's comments 24 to the Zack matter, the Zack QA and the ADT, insofar as 25 it affects the Midland QA. I t:'. i s _ n o t a generalized $/4 challenge to the Midland CA, is that correct? ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8352 3 - 5 , p ]. 3 I MR. BISHOP: Perhaps one remedy the Boa,.rd may 2 consider is to admit both 10 and 32 for eventual consoli-3 dation and reformulation, if the Board feels that 32 does O 4 not fully encompass all the issues that the Board is 5 g concerned about. a
@ 6 3-6 ^
n Q 7 3 j 8 d 6 9 b g 10 E g 11 a j 12
~
c Oi' . E 14 iS z 2 15 l E j 16 , l I us
!;[ 17
$ 18 E
E 19 5 20 21 0 23 O 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. I __ _ ___________________ _ _ _ _ l
8353 3/6/1 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We are not likely to do , @w(-) 2 that, since you are dropping 10. eb6sc 3 MR. BISHOP: I can resubmit it, if you would () 4 g like. I have no problem with that. e 5 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: No. E a .
@ 6 MR. BISHOP: It's obvious that the Board has a R
$ 7 vast amount of technical expertise and the Intervenors' N
[ 8 expertise is somewhat limited and to the extent that the d q 9 Board recognizes an issue that is relevant to a l $ , y 10 contention that we have raised, I think that it is well ' II l
$ within the Board's authority to admit a particular facet B
f c I2 of a contention, even if the Intervenors have not been 13 () a able to complete their doctorate and put that particular ! 14 part in. I think that in this case that that may be an f m L appropriate resolution. m 16
, MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, we couldn't hI x
disagree more. This is an operating license proceeding. ,
$ 18 i
= The Staff has conducted a comprehensive review of the ,
H i 19 g" FSAR and has issued a Safety Evaluation Report and 20 absent contentions on specific issues, there wouldn't be 21 any hearing at all on the operating license. !
) If the Board.has specific questions, of course, 23 we will respond to them, but to suggest that the Board I
() rewrite a contention for Mrs. Sinclair and her counsel, 25 I think is totally inappropriate and probably not in ! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8354 - 3/6/2 accordance with the latest Appeal Board and Commission 1 O 2 ehinkins on the sus 3ece. 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: He is probably right. O 4 aa a1ttsa: wheeher are- seemiris' steeement e 5 for the record, whether the document received today in 3 a
$ 6 effect supercedes all earlier filing by her contentions?
R
$ 7 MS. STAMIRIS: Other than my statement of good i A
l 8 cause, the eight contentions that I submitted this d C[ 9 morning do supercede all earlier submissions. ! z o
@ 10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We will take a 15 minute 11 break.
B : 12 (Brief recess.) I c
- g4LF)= y 13
! E 14 i N
=
2 15 r l $ . ! j 16 - as 6 17 4 E 18
=
1 ; 20 21 ! Q s 23 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8355 4/1/1 I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Back on the record. Is
'dw(sg/ 2 the Staff prepared to give any further report on 3
Dr. Harbour's questions? () 4 MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 5 y opportunity to discuss it with Mr. Hood at the break. P 6 3 f What I learned, we have not been able to reach the S 7 appr6priate people. So I am afraid we just don't have a 2 8 M the information. ' d d 9
}
C MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, might I suggest F 10 g before Mr. Bishop leaves, that we allow, say, 15 f' d minutes to discuss some schedule matters while he is still 12 z present? m 13 f ') @d
^
(, CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Why don't we do that right E 14 y now? z 2 15 g MR. MILLER: That's fine. The question of
.' 16
$ discovery periods with respect to some of the issues on d 17 l
w x i which the applicant has' agreed that valid contention M 18 1 = has been raised, as well as issues that go to -- as well ' 19 l as discovery that goes to issues that are already before 20 , the Board is somewhat complex, and let me sketch it out. 21 As the Board knows, as to the issue to i () 23 representatives of GAP, those depositions have not been taken, nor have the subpoenas been served. () 25 The reason fer that is that we were informed l l that Region 3 was conducting its own investigation and we ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i 8356 1 were requested to defer those depositions until the 2 Staff's investigation was concluded. 3 We were happy to comply with that request () 4 because we did not want to interfere in any way with 5 the Staff's investigation. g v
@ 6 It's now been approximately six weeks since R
E 7 the subpoenas were issued. s
] 8 We are now in a situation in which it is d
c; 9 possible that Mr. Howard, for one, and certain of these z o 10 h protected affiants for others, may be called as witnesses
=
II
$ by Mrs. Stamiris or Mrs. Sinclair.
B g 12 In those circumstances clearly we will wish c 13 ()f to have discovery directed at those individuals, and I l 14 think Mr. Bishop and I have agreed that there can be C 15 b suitable procedures for protecting the an6nymity or the
=
? 16 g confidentiality of the information, but w'e can't get t C 17 d started on that --
or at least committed not to start x M 18
= on that until the Staff completes its investigation.
19 l l I discussed with Mr. Bishop a 45-day period 20 l in which to initiate and, hopefully, conclude discovery 1 i 21 , related to the HFAC and quality assurance issues t i () generally. But then I realized that if I was going to l 23 , ' honor my commitment to Mr. Paton, I could not necessarily 24 O. even begin until I got the signal from him. So I asked 25 l him when we were likely to be able to proceed, and I want ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6 l 8357 ! I4/1/3 P i , I to put on the record -- Mr. Paton can speak for himself , i O 2 osvioue1v, sue 1 mene to gue on tue record ne was unes1e ! 3 to give me a date. l f4/O 4 i e 5 3 a i-3 a 6 E i
$ 7 I l
l 3 l 8 a 8 O ci 9 y i o g 10 i _m j 11 3 ! d 12 i c ! Oi' : l E 14 l C
=
r i 2 15 , w x i j 16 - as i b~ 17 , w :
= i M 18 l.
19 ! 8 n l l 20 e 21 22 0 23 ' 24 O l
~
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l
- 4-2,pjl 8358
- date. I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Would you like us to work in
() 2 terms of like 15 days from the time you get notification 3 when you can go ahead? (]) 4 MR. MILLER: I would like the Board to assert its g 5 influence, if you will, or other branches of the Staff l 0 i
@ 6 because we are going to -- quite apart from getting started R
C S 7 on this discovery, we are running up against time limita-A i l 8 tions in terms of just getting our work done of hearings, d c; 9 proposed findings and initial decisions; and I appreciate z o
@ 10 that the Staff are busy on a variety of projects. But E
II
$ what we would like to have is some sort of firm understand-3 y 12 ing as to when we can get started on this and encouragement c
13 to -- if not complete the investigation, at least release (]) l$ 14 us to go forward with our own discovery in this proceeding. 15 {e CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Is the commitments that are d I6 made applicable to the whole subject or doe's it exclude d l N 17 Mr. Howard, for instance, whose name everybody seems to 5 { 18 know? Is it limited to the confidential -- i P g 19 MR. MILLER: It really only applies to the > n 20 subpoenaes that we asked.to,be issued. 2I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I see. 22 {) MR. MILLER: But I foresee that the same request 23 ; could very well be made with respect to Mr. Howard, for 24 example, as well, that the Staff wishes to conduct its 25 l own investigation before having counsel for an applicant ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4-2,pj2 , 8359 1 take a deposition.
\~ 2 Your Honor, I think it is MR. BISHOP: --
I would 3 like to make it publicly known that I support Consumers h/ 4 4 Power in its position -- write that down. We are somewhat 5 3 prejudiced by this as well. 3 6 e We have some contentions raised that relp on: R e
" y newspaper articles of affidavits that we haven't seen.
n 8 8 a We would like to be able to follow through with 'our fourth d 9
}" grade civics and rely on the NRC to do the investigation o
H 10 g and to resolve the issues for us, so that we don't have
=
hII d 12 to. 3 They are obviously doing -- I am not saying l c (3 d 13 (,/ g obviously. They say that they will be doing an investi-E 14 y gation of the whole matter, and depending on the resolution
=
9 15 E of that by the Staff, contentions that we or Ms. Stamaris
=
~
16 g raise may be completely unnecessary. There may be need d 17 a for other contentions if-the investigation determines l E w 18
= new information or has an analysis that we believe is 19 8 clearly contradicted by what we have seen in t he public ,
20 records. 21 But we -- I don't think it is a good idea for (]) the Applicant to start its discovery process while that 23 investigation is going on. I agree with Mr. Miller, that what we need first is to have the Staff investigation (]) 25 completed, and then our discovery will be much more ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. i
.4-2,pj3 8360 I meaningful and it will separate the functions, keep the 2 NRC function much cleaner, and I believe that it would be --
3 it is necessary for the Board to set a date that is rea-4 sonable for the Staff to complete that investigation, and
- 4-3 5 I think that the Board should do th$t t .
$ 6 f
- a l $ l I s
8 n 8 i d d 9
- i o
g 10 z i
=
a ci 12 i5 . c Oi' E 14 5 M 2 15 w 2 ' g 16 . as 6 17 i 5 18 ; 19 8 n 20 r 21 O 23 1 l i 24 O . 25 ' j r il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8361 I MR. MARSHALL: Judge Bechhoefer, isn't it 4/3/1 dwr3 thb/ 2 true that Mr. Keppler has a temporary order of suppression, 3 what amounts to an order of suppression? 4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I would have no idea. 3 MR. MARSHALL: I believe he does. , a > 3 6 g CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I have no idea. I know E nothing about -- n E 8 a MR. MARSHALL: Am I wrong, Mr. Paton? d 6 9 g CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: -- about the O 10 E investigation.
=
E 11 g MR. PATON: I wouldn't call it suppression. d 12 g MR. MARSHALL: That's how we talk, us Yankees 13 (s~-)@d in Michigan. E 14 !
# MR. PATON: Consumers, at my request, agreed
=
9 15 j not to proceed with the depositions. I wouldn't call -
~
i . 16 '
$ that suppression.
d 17 g MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Keppler does speak pretty M 18 g plain over there from Glen Ellyn. E 19
% CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Could you give me any 20 '
l idea of the status of the Staff's investigation? 21 MR. PATON: Yes, sir. Yes, I can. . I 22 ! s) I want to take just a very minor exception 23 to the statement by Mr. Miller, which I think was n ss 24 entirely correct with one exception. I think I heard ' 25 him say at;the beginning when we first discussed it, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8362
'4/3/2 I I indicated that the Staff was conducting.an
() 2 investigation; and my knowledge is that at that time the 3 Staff had not started an investigation. () 4 MR. MILLER: That's true. 5 g MR. PATON: Okay. Mr. Chairman, my most
@ 6 current information on that matter is that Region 3 is '
n C I " discussing with the newly-created office of Investigation n [ 8 which allegations should be investigated by which 0 - 9
~. office. That information is as of approximately a week c
H 10 . j ago.
=
!B II MR. MILLER: Have they decided on the shape of the table yet?
= >
()c 13 MR. BISHOP: They haven't decided where the 3 14
$ table is yet. '
x b MR. PATON: Under the circumstances I take no T 16 B exception to that comment. But depending' on -- I can - A
. get an estimate of when they think they will be able to E
w 18 complete their investigatio'n, and I will report that to 19 8 the Board whenever you wish. 20 I will attempt to get it today or I can write 21 -- send a letter to all parties next week or whatever L) the Board chooses. 23 l 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: If we meet tomorrow -- or (^T won't there be anyone from the Staff yet?
%)
25 MR. PATON: I would like to maintain that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8363
.4/3/3 1 possibility, that there won't be anybody here from the
(]) 2 Staff. 3 MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, I would like to make one observation. I-don't believe that it is (]) 4
; 5 necessary from my client's standpoint to await the N
$ 6 issuance of any investigative report before conducting R
g 7 the discovery that we feel may be necessary and, M +
] 8 therefore, it is not Applicant's position that it will ,
d d 9 wait until the investigation is finally wrapped up by
$ 10 the issuance of a report by Region 3.
E g 11 What I understood the request was and what we k g 12 were honoring was not to take any depositions before the 5 13 NRC's investigation had proceeded to the point where it {]) i
$ 14 had talked to the witnesses themselves.
i 2 15 MR. PATON: I would modify that slightly, but l N j 16 that's c lo s e '. My version of that would be the e d 17 investigation had gotten to the point where we thought ;
$ 18 it would take about six weeks where we could arrive at i 5
19 some conclusions whether or not it was significant or M 20 not significant, but I don't think that's much of a 21 difference. 22 Mr. Chairman, if you wish, I will attempt to l ~) ' 23 find out from Region 3 today what their plans are, iT4 . f 24 l 25
, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
'4-4,p31 8384 are. I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, would you.have to find 2 out what the new of fice s: plans are, the Office of Investi-3 gation?
f k-)/ 4 MR. PATON: Hopefully, Region III will be aware , 5 [, of that. They are supposed to be communicating now. 9
@ 6 I can also attempt to find out --
they may not R o S 7 have objection to proceeding with discovery with Mr. Howard, s [ 8 but I will find that out also. d c[ 9 MR. MILLER: That would be helpful. ' Z o 10 MR. BISHOP: It depends on what they have done h
=
II
$ with him. I would like -- if we could agree on some kind B
fa I2 of -- these things tend to get lost in the shuffle. Could
/~% a
() g j *o we set some -- we will have an opinion from the Staff by, y 14 what, Monday of next week, as to what they suggest -- I , jz 15 suggest overnight would be good, but I will live with j 16 Monday -- what they -- is their best e s tima'te for completion w I7 of the different reports. We can then rdspondhto that:and. h m { 18 get a -- with suggestions to the Board that perhaps that A 19 schedule is inappropriate or is appropriata and seek a l 8 n 20 Board order within a week. 21 MR. MILLER: Yes. I agree. That seems to be the O sensible pproach. 23 l MR. BISHOP: We may have to ,do this through a I 24 ( () conference call the end of next week. 25 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: It would be easier to do it i I l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. i i
,4-4,pj2 8365 I with a conference call. (j k- 2 I will be in the office most likely most of the 3 next two weeks. ! i 4 MR. MILLER: Why don't we tentatively set a con-
$ ference call for Friday, the 20th.
n 3 6 e MR. BISHOP: Sounds good. 2
; CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Now, I also earlier noted n ,
8 8 a that for the other contentions that we are dealing with, d c 9 g the 15 days will start to run Monday; and we do think o F 10 y discovery requests should be filed this latter part of
=
E 11 g August. I can see spending lots and lots of time perhaps d 12 Z on the HVAC contentions later on that would be desirable. m () MR. BISHOP: What Mr. Miller and I, I think, had E 14 y agreed upon was an overall period of about 45 days to do
=
9 15 - m discovery, to complete the discovery in that particdlar m
.- 16 - i g area. l 17 r E(
m MR. MILLER: Yes, 5 18
= MR. BISHOP: As opposed to the tighter time 19 8 frame you may be --
20 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: One of the things I wanted 21 to find out is whether the Staff mainly and the parties in (]) general will be ready to go to hearing prior to the i 23 approximate December 1st date that we talked about for the (]) l QA matters on any other subjects, including remedial 25 actions or even some OL contentions. I don't know whether ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4-4,pj3 8366 1 you will be ready to do that. 2 MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, could we address that 3 immediately after the next break?: I have some information, () 4 but I would like to talk to -- I'm not sure that we have 5 factored in -- we've got a lot of things to do in the next - g c?
@ 6 few weeks, and I'm not sure that we factor in the unknown R
$ 7 quantity of discovery that is going to be issued in the j 8 next several weeks.
O c; 9 I would like to give a little thought to that and z o y 10 talk to the Applicant, but then I think we can respond. , _E
$ Il There are two possibilities, one of the soils 3
y 12 issues, and I think we do plan presently to issue the 5 () 13 supplement, safety evaluation supplement, on the soils h 14 issue on August 27th. Let me ask Mr. Hood, is that {m 15 correct? j 16 MR. HOOD: That's correct. ' M 4-5 b' 17
- 5 18
=
19 n 20 t 21 () v 22 , 23 , ; , 24 l 25 l l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. '
8367 I 6/5/1 MR. PATON: That is correct, on August 27th. ct Then it is a matter of when we prepare our testimony on 3 several related issues, Mrs. Stamiris' Contention 4, 1 () 4 and I think the one subpart of Contention 1, and there 5
% may be one or two other issues.
l h b But the other possibility is that Mr. Miller
%" 7 N
asked me at one point whether we could go to hearing 8 a 8 on selected QA issues, and he was going to give me a d I c 9 l g suggestion as to what those -- some of those issues e i H 10 C were, and I think we might be able to do that. But I
=
E 11 g haven't heard from him on which issues he has in mind. I e 12 i E c CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The Board would not I A (])] object to spending like one-week sessions disposing of E 14 ' y one or more issues. 9 15 g ' MR. PATON: That's fine with the staff, also. l T 16
$ But I need -- what I just said was that you indicated l
@ 17 l
g you were going to give me a suggested list of a few E 18 -
= QA issues you thought we could address, and the Board 19 l has just indicated that they had no objection to that.
20 The Staff has no objection to that. 21 So when you have your suggestions, we will look l 22 (]) into it and see if we can -- there may be some we can , t 23 , t be prepared for. 24 (]) MR. MILLER: I believe that these are issues 25 j - that remained open in earlier hearings or were the l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8368 15/2 1 subject of some comment by the Board in certain of its () 2 written orders. The list that I have include such 3 matters as the qualifications of electrical quality () 4 control inspectors, the adequacy of the quality , p 5 assurance program for underpinning activities, the 0 3 6 coverage of the quality assurance program for soils-related. R
$ 7 activities. It is kind of a related issue, s
8 8 Then activities covered by nonconformance -- d c; 9 certain nonconformance reports, Staff inspection reports
$ 10 and NRC's.
E 11 Then I think the Staff was asked by the Board 3 12 to comment on,its evaluation of that drawing, C-45, l
=
13 which was the drawing that expressed the limits of (])
- I h 14 Q related -- or Q soil, I guess is the way that it was
~
5 l 15 {m described. g' 16 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The Staff modified the W 6 '17 original version. We wanted to hear about that. 5 { 18 MR. MILLER: I could provide to the parties or ; P 19 for the record the NCR numbers and so on. They are g n 20 referred to in specific Board Orders. 21 MR. PATON: It would be very helpful if you 22 could provide that list you just read with as much detail l'_]/ 23 i as you have so that we can -- 24 MR. MILLER: I will be glad to do that. (]) 25 MR. PATON : --give it to Region 3 and get some ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8369
/S/3 i response.
() 2 MS. STAMIRIS: It is in the July 7th Board 3 memorandum. () 4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I know it included the e 5 ones about the electrical duct banks -- 3 9 3 6 MR. MILLER: I think all the various NCR's R
$ 7 that were listed related to various incidents of drilling s
] 8 in soils.
d q 9 MR. PATON: Unless you are going to refer to a , z o g 10 specific Board Order, if you can just give us your list, j 11 that would be helpful. k 12 MR. MILLER: Sure. I E 13 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The Board would have no {]) l$ 14 objection to hearing some or all these issues separate - 2 15 from other QA issues. We would prefer not to come out g 16 here -- to come out here for one-week sessions if we e d 17 could, four-day sessions ideally.
$ 18 MR. BISHOP: You would or would not?
=
H { 19 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Would, rather than for n 20 two weeks. 21 What about matters such as how'long would the p3 22 Staff take following the August 27th supplement to l LJ 23 develop their testimony on matters like diesel generator 24 building, for instance? 25 What kind of schedule are we looking at there? l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
h i I 837@ ; i j/5/4 I Do you need, like -- oh, for instance, should O 2 we sey __ 1, we seid , month ter deve1ogin, testimooy i 3 and another two weeks, which would put us into the O 4 midd1e ce Oceaser, wou1d we de reear to so on enet ! i 5 materia 1 in October or not? g l a 0 4/6 5 s v 3 8 N 8 . l d I ci 9 !
- i l o I
, g 10 . a la 11 f d 12 . E
= -
Oi' - I4 k
?!
2 15 ; w M g 16 - as 17 -; 6
= ,
f 'l m 18
= ,
H $ 19 i 8 a 20 ; 21 22 l 23 i O 25 l ' f r ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8371 1 MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, that's the one I 4/6/1 2 need just a little more conversation about. That's an 3 important date, and after the next break I wot1d like () im 4 to respond to that one. g 5 MR. MILLER: I don't know whether Mr. Bishop l -4 1
@ 6 is planning on attending the sessions having to do with R
C 7 L/ S soils-related materials. If not, maybe we could defer s
] 8 that part of the schedule until later and get on with d
9 Mrs. Stamiris' contentiens. {". o 10 Are you planning on being here on the soils h
= '
II 4 k matters? t B y 12 CHAIRMAN "ToHHOEFER: Wull, I assume when we E Oi' take us Hvace if do thee, ehet's eere of the OM. l 14 You will be here then. I don't exactly know how we will N 15 {= schedule the HVAC matters , but they could come in like E I0 early December w'h'en Keppler -- A l hI MR. MILLER: I think that's probably the
=
5 18
- earliest by which the parties would be prepared to b
19 ' 8 n address them. 20 Right. l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: 21 MR. MILLER: I hope that won't be the first () time we have hearings. 23 I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: No. I hope so, too. f') 1 Now, when we finally get the rewritten -- all 25 ' of the rewritten contentions, do you see ,- does any h i . ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8372 i4/6/2/ j party'. see a need for another prehearing conference of
- () 2 this sort to discuss them or could we just do it on the -
3 paper record? (]) 4 MR. MILLER: I th' ink we would be prepared to 3 g 5 rest on the paper record.- We will respond, the Staff 8 I
@ 6? will respond also to the restated contentions filed by' R
& 7 Mrs. Sinclair.
3 g 8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Filed or to be filede d d 9 MR. MILLER: Filed or to be filed. i e g 10 MR. BISHOP: Yes, that's right. g 11 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We won't plan on one, but k , y 12 if we have any serious questions, we may have to ask , 5 L 13 them in writing, such as the ones we have asked on the (]) E 14 contentions today. ' g
<$ 15 MR. BISHOP: We would prefer -- ?
I t j 16 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We would encourage people W g 17 to try to stipulate, particularly if it is wording w x { 18 questions, rather than substantive objections. A 19 MR. BISHOP: We stand ready to agree to wording 8 20 changes. We haven't been very successful so far, but I l ~ I 21 we will endeavor to. 1 22 MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, clarification, I
)
23 l think you indicated you intend to have discovery start -- l 1 24 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Monday. 25 MR. PATON: Monday. j I l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4/6/3 8373 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: 15-day period. () 2 MR. PATON: For a 15-day period. Does that 3 mean that, for example, interrogatories could be mailed () 4 out any time in the next 15 days after Monday? Is that c 5 correct?
@ 6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That's correct. I did R
$ 7 not mean responses. Initiation of discovery, file a a
j 8 request for production of documents, you would have 30
.Q.
C 9 days to respond.
$ 10 MR. PATON: The responses go by the rules?
11 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The responses go by the a y 12 periods of time set forth in the rules, which I think 5 () 13 is 14 days for interrogatories and 30 days for l$ 14 documents, something like that. That's without looking 2 15 them up specifically. j 16 MR. PATON: Yes. ' W 17 MR. BISHOP: That's August 31st, I believe. h b 18 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Is that a weekday? s 19 MR. BISHOP: Unfortunately, it is. 20 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: So requests will have to 21 be mailed by that Tuesday. 22 MR. MILLER: The 31st. (]) ; 23 i CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Again, that's with the
' 24 exception of the HVAC, O.N 25 MR. MILLER: And with the exception of the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 8374 I i
;4/6/4 1 quality assurance issues generally, I had thought. We l
O 2 .ere uncertein wheeher ehose groteceed eerianee- l I 3 af fidavits go to :HVAC issues or other quality issues, f i 4b 4 e 5 h 3 e 6 i
- 1 Q 7 i 3
l 8 l e d 9 t ni l c ;
$ 10 [
j 11 F , is i ! d 12 l 1 z . 1 O -! '3 ! E l w 14 t 2 15 [ i n j 16 - v5 : (w 17 !
- i
. $ 18 I i I l A ! 19 ! n 3 t 20 21 [ O ' 23 , i j O 25 i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. L
8375 4/7/1 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Of course, when we dwg 2 ist as come up with a discovery schedule, it may not only be 3 you who is interested. () 4 MR. MILLER: Oh, yes. y 5 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The Intervenors may 9 3 6 wish discovery as well, probably will. I don't know R b 7 whether you wish to take depositions at the same time N j 8 that Mr. Miller will, but it is possible you may -- d x 9 .
]. MR. BISHOP: We will deal with that when we c
H 10 g come to it.
=
k CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I might add that the B d 12 z subpoenas which we already issued will probably be c Td 13 , g expanded in the scope of the operation that we are going ; E 14 i y to take at this conference -- following this conference, x 9 15 j to the extent we admit ' HVA'C contentions or some others T 16 ' l that perhaps bear upon this -- the questions that will 6 17 w x be asked will be broader -- or will be broader than they
$ 18 :
I
= were on July 8th.
19
$ MR. MILLER: Yes.
l 20 l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Anything further before 21 we go into Mrs. Stamiris' contentions? , r 22 (_3) Okay. Mrs. Stamiris, why don't you just start 23 , l with the numbers that you are -- I guess we will try fs 24 () to just do these numbers. 25 MS. STAMIRIS: Yes. Well, in the contentions
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. l
8376 4/7/2 1 I have submitted, which are essentially the same as my
- () 2 old contentions except they are reduced, I have penciled 3 in the number of the old contentions in case that helps
() 4 you refer to what I had before. o 5 Contention 1 dealF with the NRC's economic cost h
@ 6 benefit analysis in the DES, and I believe that it is R
$ 7 faulty and misleading for the reasons that I have stated K
[ 8 in the four examples I have given; and, obviously, thist d j 9 contention is based on NRC's analysis, which I just B g 10 received recently and that's the reason for its being - Il
@ filed at a late time.
B 12 {c CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: What comment do you have ()a m 13 -- I think it was the Staff's comment which said that -- 14 at least with the first No. A, that that matter would go m 15 into a construction permit cost benefit balance, but not 16 ' into an operating license. [ I7 h x MS. STAMIRISt Well, I had difficulty l
~
M 18
- understanding then why the NRC is raising the cost [
19
) benefit analysis that they did at this point in time, 20 because it was raised in the NES, which I understood 21 !
went along with the operators license. '
.)
y CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: It was my understanding
-- maybe the Staff could correct me if I am wrong, but 24 O it is my understanding that the Staff analyzes the 25l ,
cost benefit balance for operating the plant at the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8377 t/7/3 1 operators license stage subsequent to when the plant () 2 is completed. Certainly the construction -- for that 3 matter, the construction costs would -- environmental () 4 or otherwise -- would not be factored into the balance. 5 MS. STAMIRIS: Well, my response to that is g 4 \ 3 6l I believe that for the NRC to quote the logic that they R l 8 7' had in their DES that the construction costs are M
] 8 subcosts, therefore, they need not be considered at d
c; 9 this point, that the only thing relevant for them to 8 10 h consider in their cost effective -- or cost benefit
=
11
@ analysis is the operating and production expenses.
B y 12 That seemsito be just completely illogical 5 (]) 13 because of the fact that the public has not yet paid h I4 the bill, the $3.39 billion bill that is outstanding 15 for the construction of the Midland facility. g 16 Certainly that kind of cost was not considered w 17 at the construction permit stage. h It wasn't even -- E 18 3 they didn' t even dream that the cost was going to go P
"g 19 that high at the first part of the analysis; and at tnis f a 20 point I would think it would fair, as Mr. Miller argued 21 informally at our meeting the other day, that subcasts 22 not be considered at this stage.
({} I think that would be 23 fair.if the NRC then didn.'t consider any kind of cost 24 benefit analysis at all. (]) 25 Then we would both be on an even standing ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
bd78 4/7/4 1 because no one would be able to consider costs. But 2 for the NRC to consider costs and come up with a 3 conclusion that says that this plant is cost effective -- ! O 4 end ehey do so sy eote11y ignoring the construction . a 5 costs that the people of Michigan have not yet paid -- M N {6 N it just seems ridiculous. P5 fois 7 l ,~ N . 8 N 8 d d 9
- i ,
o '
@ 10 a
a d 12 z E Oed i3 E 14 id
=
2 15 5: j 16 . t d ( 6 17 1
$ 18 ;
i5 19 8 a . 20 21 O 23 , t O l 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
5-1,pjl 0370 I MR. BISHOP: Your Honor, there!s one aspect of 2 that which I think Mrs. Stamiris hasn't mentioned that is 3 implicit in the contention and that is strictly a legal (]) 4 point. 5 This is more of a annniobligation. In the con-g 9
@ 6 text of doing an impact statement there are cost benefit R
C S 7 obligatiom in an impact statement that may or may not be, a 8 8 depending on whether you are at the CP stage or the OL d
; 9 stage.
E
@ 10 There was an impact statement done with the con-E 11 struction permit.
$ 1-:If that discussion of costs benefit !
3 y 12 is adequate and current, then it can be incorporated and E 13 referenced in this particular impact statement. We don't (]) f l$ 14 think it is and it hasn't been. jx 15 This particular aspect of the cost benefit g 16 analysis is something that counsel on environmental M 17 quality regulations and the general law under the Environ-h x { 18 mental Policy Act require to be at least considered and l 5 19 addressed in the impact statement and the contention states l g n > l 20 that the draft impact statement just doesn't do that. l l 2I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I want to hear from both 22 {) of you. , 23 , MR. STEPTOE: Then, I will go first. I 24 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: All right. This particular 25 ' question was sort of related to a question which the l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
'5-1,pj2 8380 ,
I Staff -- O 2 MR. WItcOyE: 1 w111 go first, then. 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I just wanted to hear what O 4 the Steff's reection was. I w111 heer yours as we11. 5 MR. WILCOVE: I think that there are some incon-g e'
@ 6 sistencies or some illogical points to Ms. Stamaris' R
$ 7 statement. As the Staff pointed out in their response to N
8 8 the contention, money spent is spent. So that what Ms. d ' c 9
, Stamaris is saying is that because it has already cost E
g 10 too much money, we should ignore whatever benefits that 11 are going to be derived from the operation of the plant. is j 12 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: She is not saying exactly 25 13 that. She is not saying merely that in evaluating the w g 14 benefits you should also evaluate those particular costs. l y 15 MR. WILCOVE: You evaluate the costs that will a:
- j 16 take place in the future, not costs that al' ready have been as 6 17 spent.
Y
$ 18 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: What about costs to the E
19 rate payers? g n 20 MR. WILCOVE: That is not within':the jurisdiction 21 of this Board but the Michigan Public Service Commission 22 and if that money -- 23 l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Wait a minute. Is it not 24 within the jurisdiction of this Board to consider the 25 ' cost as part of a cost benefit analysis? I'm not saying ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
5-1,pj3 8381 1 we have the jurisdiction to set what the rates will be, but
'T
(~J
\ 2 can we take those costs into account in considering what 3 the operating costs will be of the plant?
() 4 MR. WILCOVE: But t ho's e c o s t s , to the extent that 5 they are going to be borne by the rate payers or anybody g 9
@ 6 else, have already been borne. The rate payers are R
t 7 supposedly going to have -- j M 8 8 MS. STAMIRIS: No, they have not. Ask Consumers. O i k 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Ms. Stamaris is saying they z O g 10 haven't been borne yet. She will admit that the company E 11 has spent the money but maybe the public hasn't paid for it h E 12 yet. I don't know how the Michigan rate structure is set. I E 13 ( 5-1ll f E 14 ! \
=
l 2 15 y 16 - e i d 17 l 5 18 1
=
N g 19 R 20 l 21 l es 22 (j 23 , 24 l
~j \
25 ! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8382 5/2/1 I MR. WILCOVE: dw
- Those costs, though, have already I
C 2 been incurred at this point pursuant to Commission rule 3 making and what we now consider are the costs of the g)
\- 4 operation of the plant.
g 5l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Economic? 6 MR. WILCOVE: Yes. But you look at the costs R l 7
'y as of today, August 13, 1982. What will be the cost n
8 8 a from now on of operating the plant? d 6 9 j CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Right. Does your FES o H 10 3 do that?
=
E 11 g MR. WILCOVE: Well, the FES looks at the costs d 12 3 of operation. Yes, it does do that. . c l ~' d 13 (' / @ CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Financial costs? E 144 p MR. WILCOVE: Yes, of what it will cost when l = ' C 15 j the plant is in operation.
~
16
@ CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes.
d 17 w MR. WILCOVE: But -- 5 m 18
= CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That would presumably N
- 19 g include the construction costs.
20 MS. STAMIRIS: If he was right, it would, l 21 I but he happens to be wrong in this case. r'; 22 (_) MR. WILCOVE: There is really no point in 1 23 l ! including in the cost of operating the plant money that rm 24 ( ,! : has already been spent. 25 ' MS. SINCLAIR: It hasn't been paid for.
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8383 5/2/2 f 1 MS. STAMIRIS: I would like to respond because O 2 I ehink thee Mr. W11 cove mieunderseends my goeie1on end 3 my argument. O 4 caAIRMAN BEcunOEFER: Before you respond I g 5 wanted to hear from the Applicant on this. Then you can [ 9
@ 6 respond to both of them.
R
$ 7 MS. STAMIRIS: All right.
M 8 8 MR. STEPTOE: There are two arguments. The ; a c; 9 first one was made by Ms. Stamiris about the cost i g 10 benefit balancing. What we have here is not an economic 5 Il cost benefit balance but an environmental cost benefit B g 12 balance which the economic savings to the community 25 Oi p res umab ly , as the final environmental statement says b I4 outweighs or -- the net economic.. savings outweighuthe 15 environmental impacts. ij 16 Second, this Board doesn't havd the jurisdiction as I7 to take into account how the historical cost of this 18 plant is going to be borne. , g I9 Finally, with respect to Mr. Bishop.'.s ; n 20 argument -- 2I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We don't have the 22 Q jurisdiction to consider the forward cost economics 23 or anything else, assuming we know it? 24 @/Q 2S [ l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
8384 5/3/1 dw 1 MR. STEPTOE: Well, to the extent that, say, 2 operating maintenance costs and fuel costs are rdflected 3 in a final environmental statement, if the Staff has () 4 done that, you can look at it and that is clearly a net g 5 benefit to the consumers of electricity. If they H
@ 6 purchasenelectricity at a price greater than the cosc R
$ 7 of the fuel.
N 8 8 The law of this case, though, as the Appeal d q 9 Board has said in a remap procedding is that economics z r o y 10 costs enter into NRC's purview in only a very, very _E II
@ limited way.
3 fc I2 It is primarily an environmental cost benefit 13 ()f balance that is done at this time.
$ 14 Secondly, with respect to Mr. Bishop's 15
{= argument about the environmental cost benefit > balance g 16 at the construction permit stage no longe'r holds water. w I7 That is not a valid argument that the proposed Federal h x IO b action at the construction permit stage is whether you A 19 8 n are going to build the plant and incur the construction 20 cost. 2I The environmental cost benefit balance at this () stage is whether you are going to operate the plant and 23 as far as that is concerned, money spent is spent. 24 (]) It is a totally different balancing that has 25 to be made and it's not a question of whether your ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8385
'5/3/2 1 construction permit environmental statement is out of 2 date or not. It is a different Federal action.
3 MR. BISHOP: Your Honor, there is an interesting 4 shell game going on here. We have a cost benefit analysis e 5 done for the construction permit. That estimate has 8
@ 6 been exceeded by I think over 1,000 percent, but now R
R 7 that we are at the stage at the next environmental cost N
- l 8 benefit analysis for UEPA, we are going to sort of d
q 9 forget that little discrepancy and go and look forward z h 10 again. 11 5 I don't think that that is what the law says. B y 12 I think that the law requires that when you do a NEPA 5 13 (]) analysis which includes a general economic and m 5 14 environmental cost benefit analysis, that it has to look jx 15 at the whole project, and to the extent that earlier g 16 DES's are adequate, then, fine. You refe'rence those M g 17 DES's. l $
$ 18 But when you look at the whole project, if A
g 19 the whole project is a facility which has nothing built n 20 yet and which will operate, you need to look at the 21 entire cost and compare that with the entire benefit 22 and come to some sort of a determination. ' (]) 23 Mrs. Stamiris' contention is that that 24 analysis has been segmented and has been fragmented and (]) , 25 ! has not c'onsidered all the relevant costs and I don't ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
838S 5/3/3 1 think we need to get into a long discussion on what 2 NEPA laws are. 3 MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, can I just s 4 supplement what Mr. Steptoe had to say, 5 First of all, the major Federal action that g
" I
@ 6 we are considering here under NEPA is an operation plan.
R
$ 7 The major Federal action that was considered some years 8 8 ago when the' construction permit was considered was d
c; 9 the construction of the plant.
@ 10 If you look at the cost benefit analysis 11
$ that has been done at the operating license stage, you m
y 12 will see that among the economic costs that are listed 3 ()o 13 arenthe costs for fuel and for operation and maintenance l$ 14 and they are expressed in mills per kilowatt hour: That 15 {= is a projection by the NRC Staff as to what the economic 16 costs might be that are going to be impos'ed on people
,N I7 who consume the electricity and out of those costs for !
t a { 18 fuel, operation and maintenance, the company is going to P 19 8 n recover the cost of the facility, 20 1 5/4 21 22 ([) l 23 I 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 l l
- 5-4,pjl 8387 l
ifacility I So to that extent certainly the cost of this () 2 facility had been expressed in the cost benefit analysis 3 that was prepared at the operating license stage. (]) 4 In the remand proceeding, the Appeal Board in this 5 j case, the Appeal Board was faced squarely with the same ,
?
6 R issue as to whether or not the sub costs should be taken \ c S 7 l account of in determining whether or not -- in that case a j 8 a stay issued, a suspension of construction, and decided d
- 9
~. it should not be. The essence of that decision was that o
10 h~ you look forward.
=
II
$ I think that the same reasoning applies with a B
fa I2 two-step licensing process that we have and how :NEPA deals
' 13
(]) =f with that two-step process and I think that the Staff has 14 done the appropriate thing, which is to look at the environ-x
- g. 15 mental costs and benefits, including economic costs of 4 x
E I0 e operation and to simply plug in a number on the cost side 17 h of the cost benefit analysis that reflects the current x { 18 construction costs can as well show a cost per kilowatt P 19 8 n hour of fuel, operation and maintenance would in essence 20 be double counted and would not necessarily be an accurate 21 reflection of what the true cost benefits were. 22 If you take the eight billion dollars per kilowatt {]) 23 hour per year, which is the economic benefit of electrical 24 energy that is calculated by the Staff, some calculatioh of l 25 fvhat that number would be, multiplied by the twenty-one ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
5-4,pj2 8388 1 mil per kilowatt hour that are cost, you could get a very () 2 large number for benefits, a large dollar number indthe I 3 economic benefit section. i () 4 I don't think that the Staff has in any way been i e 5 lax in its performance of its obligations under NEPA and R
$ 6 I think that is involved here is both misunderstanding of I R
$ 7 what major federal action they are licensing and how the s
j 8 Staff has performed its obligations of expressing the d i d 9 costs and benefits in an economic sense in the cost benefit '
$ 10 analysis.
E
@ 11 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: On that case where the a
p 12 Commission commented that money spent was spent, in essence E
/~T $ 13 is the Commission telling us: You have got a facility in ! , (/m l l$ 14 whatever form it is, and whitnyou are looking at is addi-
[z 15 tional costs to operate that facility. Somebody is going j 16 to have to pay for the facility, whether or not it's used. ! d - 6 17 MR. MILLER: The rate payers or the shareholders [ 5 5 18 are going to ultimately pay the costs of Midland. Even if A 19 Midland were not to operate the shareholders of Consumers {
" i 20 Power Company would bear the costs that would have to be [
l 21 incurred. ! l 22 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Perhaps the rate payers? 23 MR. MILLER: Perhaps. l 24 MR. BISHOP: It's a possibility. 25 ! CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I should ask Mr. Bishiop this : ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
'r
!5-4 pj3 8383 I In view of the Commission's fair'1y recent ruling out of 2 our consideration of any alternative at this stage, what
, 3 would we do with factoring in if we decided that the plant O 4 wes a11 eco exgensive2 whet cou1d we do with ehee2 ; 5 Maybe I should ask Mrs. Stamiris that. ! a , g 6 j 1 5-5 _ i E l
" 7 A ,
8 a 8 ; i 4 i
= 9 i
e g 10 E l is 11 l 1 ri 12 I E
= >
13 i l E 14 2 i l 2 15 l
- a i
= !
j 16 : ( us G 17
!B 18 i:
19 8 n : 20 ! 21 o 23 , ; l i 24 O r i 25 ; 1 , i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
r l 8390 :
- 5/5/1 1
6/$ga 1 MR. BISHOP: I'm not sure what -- the d" thb]. 2 contention raises that the analysis is inadequate in 3 that it doesn't consider the full range of costs. We l () 4 are not talking about the double counting. We are 5 talking about one full single counting and in that g , 9 3 6 sense, your eventual obligation, you have an obligation R b 7 under NEPA as well as under the Atomic Energy Act.
] 8 If you find in your consideration of the entire project [
d ' l 9 that it shouldn' t be licensed, then that's what your , 6 10 opinion should be. h
=
II k MS. STAMIRIS: I think maybe when you raise B i g 12 it -- you know, it seems like you started to point to c ()f13 the possibility of alternative or, you know, whether : E 14 g there is a need for this or something like that that e 9 15 0 that is going to stand once the plant is completed, and x
? 16 g my response would be that as I have tried' to limit y 17 a myself solely to the cost analysis that was done and
=
5 18
; that was faulty.
19 l If we start to -- well, if the argument is 20 , raised that we have got the plant built. Even though ' 21 money'has been borne at this point by Consumers'
) private investors and it has not been borne by the 23 f
, public and it will not be borne by the public, you [
24 O- know, until if you wanted the plant to operate, but 25 regardless of that, if they are going to go beyond the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8331 '-
- 5/5/2 1 cost, then I, too, could get into other things about f () 2 a need for this facility and I think there are very 3 strong arguments that could be made at this point that l () 4 there is not a need for electricity from the facility 5 at this point in time because of a decrease in the y
9 i @ 6 electrical growth far below the projections that were
# r b 7 originally made. I just didn't want to get into that
- A j 8 because I thought that was something you are not supposed '
d to do. 10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That is what your { II E 1-D says. E l I MS. STAMIRIS: My 1-D said that they overestimated a ' i () 13 the electrical growth rate in Michigan in this -- but i E 14 g I am saying in 1-B that they used an inflated figure, m 9 15 I Q you know, as compared to what I would use to estimate i 16 t g growth rate in Michigan, but it does not' address l i d 17 i t a whether or not there is any ultimate need for this , i x M 18
= facility.
s > 19 g" In other words, it does not address whether f I there is alternate capacity already available in 21 Michigan to produce the electricity at 1-1/2 percent O erowth r ee-23 ' CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: As I read that 1-D, O it looked likeathe only thing that was -- 25 l MS. STAMIRIS: I did not intend to raise any I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. ! I
8332 I intention in Part 1-B. I just intended to request a ./5/3 2 different data base than what they did use. 3 MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, I think you O 4 are quite right in the sense that expressing the 5 j projected costs of the facility before it is built a 3 6 in a cost benefit analysis under NEPA is just R
" 7 completely intertwined with a consideration of a
j 8 alternatives to the proposed Federal action. Therefore, d 9 you consider the environmental and economic costs of a l f e 10 h facility proposed, as compared to alternatives to l
= ,
II 5 that facility. l Es g 12 The Commission has spoken, I think quite : O!' E 14 c1 ear 1r with respect to oonsiaeraeton of a1ternatives to i g the proposed facility, not the proposed facility at 5 15 s this point, to the existing facility at the operating m 6 license stage. ; 6 17 It'said the licensing board should not do l M 18
= that.
19 5/6 8 20 21 22 23 24 O 25 ' l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8393 5/6/1 E dw I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: As a matter of fact Sh 2 there is a licensing board that I know something about 3 that I recently came across that held just that. () 4 MS. STAMIRIS: Thank you. 5 j CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The Commissioner was on 9
$ 0 that, too.
R l S 7 MS. STAMIRIS: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. 3 " 2 8 s CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I said there was a > d f9 S licensing board in the Lacross; case that I knew 10 g something about that just recently held that way.
=
k g MS. STAMIRIS: Held which way? [ c 12 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Held that a contention
=
Ods 13 which essentially raised two things, the need for E 14 y power, but it also talked about the cost of a facility, ! x 9 15 g went to what alternatives were available and therefore l
.- 16 -
! g we couldn't consider it. d 17 ! l g There it was a little clearer what the ! E 18 i
= Intervenors were driving at. ,
C 19 l l MS. STAMIRIS: All I can say is that is not 20 l what my- intent: wa's.f ine Part D and I guess the only l 21 l thing that I can go back to and I atill feel strongly 22 O. about is my original mxmmats which are not exactly 23 i the legal arguments that Mr. Bishop raised, but just 24 h) I the common sense arguments about the reality of the way 25 I the system is set up in Michigan and my feeling that the , t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8394 I NRC -- if the NRC rule said that we don't ever consider /6/2 2 or think or talk about costs at all in any way and 3 just, you know, which would be the same as saying a O 4 g1ane cou1d cose sn.o b1111cn and it wou1do.e meteer. 5 If that was the NRC's position and it was not y a
@ 6 even raised, then I would not have an argument, but R
b 7 for the NRC to raise it by excluding it, is like A [ 8 presenting an analysis to the public -- and you know, d d 9 the public has a lot of -- I mean, the public puts a 10 h lot of weight on statements like this when they are
=
II 5 reported in the paper and it is like presenting an is f I2 argument to the public that says: Because someone has O! '3 e mercedee car end because 1e uses dieser fue1, 11 we l$ 14 are going to look at is the cost of fuel,coperation 15 and maintenance in the next five years, that this is 16 going to be a very cost effective car and very energy I7 efficient because it runs on diesel fuel where they h
=
18 happen to have in their back pocket an outstanding bill 19 j for that car which costs some thousands and thousands 0 of dollars that hasn't been paid yet. 21 It is the very sAme line of reasoning that 22 O 1,he1,g ,,e,he,e. , hey shem1e,,,he ,h1e e, ,,1,e11, 23 ; at all if they are going to be able to rhiselit this way. 24ll CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Let's move on to B, 25 actually 1-B. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8395 5/6/3 1 Let me ask you one thina. I think some of the () 2 details in the original contention were fairly 3 desirable. Did you have any particular reason why you () 4 were dropping the estimates? The only basis for g 5 accepting 1-B was that there is a difference between 0
@ 6 the way to consider the Commission costs for Midland R
6 7 and for Big Rock and Palisades and I am wondering N j 8 why you rewrote it. d C 9 MS. STAMIRIS: I didn't. I b
$ 10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: You have to have an 11 adequate basis for your 6cntention. According to 4 s
j 12 the Staff, at least, I read their response to the 5 13 old 3-B, they accepted that, or they offered no (]) h 14 objection tc it, but the basis was in the old one. /7 2 15 M g 16 - e 6 17 4
$ 18
, 19 M
20 21 CD 23 () 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
5-7,pil 6396
.one. MS. STAMIRIS: Well, I made a mistake, then, in
() 2 drafting this because I intended to refer to that, you know, 3 to those same bases and my mistaken intent and I think I was hoping to reduce this and make it more precise and e 5 - g in my mind I thought that I would have the same rights to a 3
- 6 deal with those bases.
E 7
; CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: You should have just left N
- 8
" 8 it. ,
d r 6 9 g MS. STAMIRIS: Can I just include it. I mean, O H 10
@ I do want to. That is what I am basing that on. That
=
E 11 g is what I am referring to is the fact that they did it d 12 g dif f erently for Falisad' e s; and Big Rock than they have
^5 13 i for Midland. Can I include some of the wording from my E 14 g original contention?
9 15 g CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: YWe can consider your
~
16 ' l original contention which would be much easier I think. l 17 l w m MS. STAMIRIS: All right. Why don't we stick l 5 18 l = to the wording of Contention 3 as it is submitted on July < 19 l because that is my intent. l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The parties do have to know
- 21 what they are going to address. They would have to rely
(]) on what basis you have for saying that. 23 I MS. STAMIRIS: I would like to return to the [ wording of my earlier contension because it includes the (]) i 25 I basis. l , ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
5-7,pj2 839"/ - I CHAIRMAN BECHHOFFER: Is the Staff's position still 2 the same that you have no ob'jection? 3 MR. WILCOVE: Yes, if it is written as it was in 4 the July 9th, the Staff does not object to the contention 5 at this time, of course, not getting into the merits of it. y e+ 3 6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Of course. R b 7 MR. STEPTOE: Your Honor, we seem -- A
! O CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I was about to -- my questior, d
9 was to the Applicant.
~. Mr. Steptoe, did not your response 10 really go to the merits?
h
=
II MR. STEPTOE: Well, I was hoping when I didn't j 12 see what the $500 million in 1-B that we succeeded in 5 OiI3 exeteinine to Mre. Seemiris whee the oriein of her numher l$ 14 was. I would like to know if Mrs. Stamiris -- if we hit 15 {a: the right explanation. She gave no explanation of the j 16 origin of this $500 million. v5 I7 Does she disagree that it was in the year 2000, IO in the year 2000, $7? ( U I9 MS. STAMIRIS: I guess I do basically disagree. l 8 n 20 As I understood from the article that I was basing that 21 original estimate on and I tried to deal with it, that O 22 Vj we were dealing with the same dollars, you know, inflation-23 wise, that timespan difference had already taken into 24 account. 25 MR. STEPTOE: Well, under those circumstances, l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. I
5-7,933 8398 I my only objection is one of timeliness. I would agree that 2 this is a disputed fact abo'ut what those dollars are, but 3 I would like to point out that we are seeming to be i , O 4 aggroeching Mrs. seam 1ris. ogereeing 11 cense contentions 5 in the same way that we are approaching Mrs. Sinclair's g e j 6 and I think that Mrs. Stamiris' stands on a different R b 7 footing entirely with respect to time limits here. N 5-8 l 8 a d 9
$ 10 s
5 11 j 12 Q 13
.l ln 14 'l 1
2 15 I N 1 g 16 -
~
as
~
d 17
- M *
= 18 - l c- 19 5
20 21 22 0 23 . O 25 - ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
, ; 8399 5/8/l 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Let me ask you chen du fCU, 2 and I cm not so sure that I think that a completely new 3
Intervenor who has information based on, say, liew O 4 l informee1on, end I em noe saying wheeher or noe ehet j , 5 y . applies here, but if a person comes in with new e, 3 6 R 4 -
,4. n f o r m a t i o n , I don't think it matters whether they are
" 7
; a psrty or not. I think anybody can c'ome up and raise 8
, a \ !c new informations,st ;
any point in time, if it is new, k f. o and you balance ' the desirability of h.sving it for the
~\
$ ,Eebora. ,
z hl ' I k# )t
- IS ; '
Y'he Commission 'has told us in new contentions,, s in considering new IntW20enors or late Intervenors a (., , to
,look at the same criteiia. Aren'tweboundbythe E 1.4 2 %
y ' same standards? What difference does it make whether 2 15 g Mrs. Stamiris was:_ late or not in becoming an Intervenor g'16 if arguably she could not have raised -- if she did not i a 37 r '
' hia:
have the informstion to raisea particular issue t M 13
;:: earlier'h i G
- 19 ;
ll , MR. STEPTOE: I'couldn't disagree with you 20 more, Judge Bechhoafer. 21 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Tell me why. 22 O MR. S T F,r T O E : First let me explain. These 23 , j estimates in her original contentions that she filed O came from 198o, I thinx she said, so that is two years
, 25
- late right there.
S ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8400 I Second, it is implicit in the nature of /8/2 l 2 orderly adjudicative proceedings that notice and 3 opportunity for hearing and to get everybody in the case () 4 and you get them accepted as Intervenors and they file 5 g contentions and so forth. , a
$ 0 l What you are saying is that total strangers, l R
" 7 anybody can walk in off the street if they have new n
S 8
- a information they will be entitled to come in and d
- x 9 1
]. intervene and that is just not right.
o . H 10 p, CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Wait a minute. What f E 11 g is the information is new and they didn't have any c 12 i E reason at all? They wouldn't have a contention to come c j in. E 14 y MR. STEPTOE: Again, you are creating for z 9 15 j Mrs. Stamiris an argument that she didn't make. Her 16
$ arguments for explaining her late intervention did not i p 17 '
l g say that she just saw the decommissioning estimates M 18
; just recently. !
I 19 l What she said was she intervened for two ! 20 i , reasons. One was her disillusionment with the NRC ; 21 i l Staff and the second was I believe she said that she 22 i O was unsatisfied with the treatment of certain matters ! 23 , i l l in the SER. I could berwrong about that, but I think l l 24 ! that is what her two page statement was. l 25 i j l You seem to be making the argament for her ; I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
^ - ' - - -
W-
8401 1 that regardless of what her stated reasons were for () 2 filing this late intervention, if any of the contentions 3 that she now proffers meet these tests of those four () 4 factors, that she is automatically entitled to e 5 intervene. l
@ 6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I didn't say that. I I R
$ 7 said the same factors govern whether she is new or not. >
a 8 8 You still balance all these factors. Although I must d C 9 say there is a licensing board that recently said that
$ 10 if you got information that you couldn't have had 3
h II earlier you shouldn't even have to balance the factors [ s ! g 12 and they certified that to the Appeal Board. That is i , = 13 the Catolga Board. (~} m 5 I4 MR. STEPTOE: I am not aware of that case, 15 ' {= but certainly we have not addressed those other factors j 16 for those contentions. e I7 On Item No. A for example it seemed to be a h
= ,
$ 18 legal question. Therefore, I didn't raise it, but with e I9 g respect to Item B, what is going to help the record n
20 here if we come in with a sworn statement saying that > 21 ' the 1980 estimates were in the year 2000, $2,007. 22 (]) What is Mrs. Stamiris able to contribute to the record? { t 23 Is there a point to all this? l h/r g 24 o 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COf 4PANY,INC. ( l
i-9,pjl 8402 this j CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: What if she came in and O(/ 2 showed that the PalisadeF.- and Big Rock points figures, 3 even if they are converted to comparable years, came out 4 vastly different and vastly out of proportion, and I might 3 say that we calculated some of those figures and they don't a
!i necessarily reconcile. They may be one. dollar.od one and 8
one on the other one, but we tried converting them and n 8 i they didn't seem to be too comparable. O c 9 j MR. STEPTOE: I'm surprised to hear that, but in 0 10 y any event, I would like to emphasize that I don't believe
=
5 11 g that it is the interest of orderly procedure or in conflict d 12 z by the NRC Rules of Practice that new people can walk in ()h' off the street with new information which forms thc: con-E 14 y tention. Anybody who has a new contention can walk through
=
9 15 E the doors here and if they are able to contribute and meet t x ' ~ 16 g the four factors on that one contention, th'at that is N' 17 g a sufficient showing for them to be allowed to intervene. m
$ 18
- What you have to look at is what their reasons 19
% are and how the four factors apply to their own right 20 . .
Intervention. 21 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, that's correct. but () I am assuming now that the info rmation -- if that was the 23 l contention of a person and if they were to make -- (]) MR. STEPTOE: Presumably that would be the reason 25 ! why he intervened, but as I said, I think that her reasons ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
tS-9,pj2 8403 I for her intervention were not to propound this one decom-
~ (3 x> 2 mission contention.
3 MS. STAMIRIS: I would like to respond to his
) 4 characterization of my reasons for intervening.
e 5 When he characterizes my reason, or he said one ; 9
@ 6 of my reasons for intervening was my disillusionment with l
t R o S 7 the Staff, well it makes it sound as though there is just s 8 8 some personal disillusionment that goes on. He is ignoring d c; 9 z the bases and the DES and SER analysis that was the cause ; o 10 for that disillusionment. - h
=
II
$ I don't want to go into some personal thing about B
fc 12 my disillusionment with the NRC Staff, because I don't 13 ' (]) f think that has any place in a proceeding like this. l$ 14 When I read the DES, as a matter of fact the first jz 15 thing that really struck me and changed my motivation about j 16 intervening in the operators license was th'is cost analysis M
,N I7 that was so; defective that it was shocking to me and so E
18 my -- 3 P 19 g It's not like some personal change of heart. It n 20 is the analysis that the NRC performed and the presentation 21 that they put in their DES, whenever it was issued this 22 spring, that motivated me in the first place to request (]) 23 ' in March that I be permitted to expand my OL intervention 24 and I had at that time hoped for a ruling. {]) - 25 < l I had asked for a ruling, aside from doing ~ ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- . c.
5-10,pj3 8404 1 contentions, I wanted a ruling on whether I was going to ' O 2 be permitted to intervene on timeliness alone. I didn't i 3 get that. I was told that you can't rule in the abstract. l O* 4 You have to see what my contentions are, so I showed you and ' this relates very clearly to new information that I had 3 6 e in terms of a new analysis and presentation of the NRC "o
" I in their DES that I hadn't seen before and which was the n"
8 a 8 cause for, you know, my raising the contention. d d 9 11 z - o g 10 a a d 12 z_ O. \ Oi'_ E 14 Y
=
2 15 E j 16 . as d 17
$ 18
_ 19 8 20 l I 21 O 23 1 24
- O .
25l . 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMP, ANY, INC.
8405 S/10/1 I dw MR. WILCOVE: Judge Bechhoefer? coggpn- 2 tion CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes? 3 MR. WILCOVE: May I respond by saying that
' 4 while the Staff would agree with the Applicant that 5
g Mrs. Stamiris' good cause statement standing alone 4 6
@ would not be a sufficient reason to expand her G
$ 7 participation in this proceeding. However, where she R
l 8 does allege specific new.information, the Staff does d c; 9 not feel that it is necessary that she use the magic
$ 10 words, "I have new information," where she comes forward II
$ with information, the Staff has not and will not object B
f 12 to her contention on che grounds of untimeliness. pf q 13 MR. STEPTOE: Your Honor, may I just add this: l 14 With specific reference, for example to the Commission j x 15 business, estimates of Palisades and Big Rock were g 16 made in 1980. s h There were estimates of decommissioning costs 18 for Midland in the environmental report. It seems s 19 5 n unreasonable to allow the Intervenor to wait until she 20 sees an FES or a draft environmental statement for SER 21 to make a decision to intervene or not. () 22 It is implicit when you notice up opportunity 23 i for hearing and solicit people who want to intervene r3 24 ( ,) .that they are able at that time to articulate the areas 25 i of concern which they wish to litigate, in particula. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8406
/10/2 1 with the environmental report which was docketed back O 2 in 1978 when we docketed our application.
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Were those figures the Q 4 same ones the Staff used? g 5 MR. BRUNNER: We are attempting to find that 0 3 6 out right now. R
$ 7 MR. STEPTOE: The $325 million is the figure A i 8
8 the Stsff used, came from the Applicant, but I don't U y 9 know at what date they came from the Applicant. 3
$ 10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: There yot have to --
3 j 11 MR. STEPTOE: But the decommission has been 3 y 12 around a long time as an issue. E ( J 13 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: But the 1980 figures h 14 were obviously not around. , 15 MR. STEPTOE: That's true, but she has got to j 16 justify four years of inaction and not juststwo.
- s3 g 17 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I don't think she does.
5 5 18 MR. STEPTCE: Well, the most recent two she P g I9 doesn't, wouldn't you agree? n , 20 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That, I might, depending i l 21 on when the information arose. 22 MR. MARSHALL: I think it's right. 23f MR. STEPTOE: That's what I meant by four 24 years. 25l MR. WILCOVE: The Staff has taken the position ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. !
8407 I on a number of other contentions that the mere fact 2 that a Staff document such as the SER discusses a defect, l 3 deficiency, or what have you that has been known for a l (^)s
~ 4 while, the fact that Intervenor may disagree with that l
5 analysis is not grounds for saying that a contention is g e j 6 timely or a certain defect, deficiency, or what have you R
$ 7 has been known for a while.
8 Although in the case of Mrs. Stamiris' ! d. c 9 Contention 1, the actual cost benefit analysis just i
$ 10 came out in the DES and now the FES. So to the extent 11 that she wishes to challenge the cost benefit analysis s
y 12 in this particular case, I don't think it is untimely. . l I ( )E$ n 13 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Let's go on to No. C. m 5 l'4 This is the one that was very similar to No. 10 which l y 15 was withdrawn, Mrs. Sinclair's No. 10. , x h/11 g 16 , ; e d 17 m ! M 18 5 19 : 8 n s 20 21 22 ! (2) 23 ;
}
t 25l ; ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8408 5/11/1 1 MS.JSTAMIRIS: The reason I put it here and 10 ) 2 I probably should have let more details, but the reason 3 I put it in and if:I remember, Mrs. Sinclair's (]) 4 Contention 10 correctly, I thought hers went more to s 5 the safety aspect of overestimating the lifespan of 9 3 6 Unit 1. Maybe I'm wrong.
- A
$ 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Her No.: 10 was written N
j 8 in terms of affect of the plant -- ; d c; 9 MS. STAMIRIS: The reason I included it here i 10 is because I am intending to focus only on its affect ' h
=
II 5 in the overall cost benefit analysis conclusion that the a fc I2 NRC drew and the arguments that I believe both ' 13 ( ) zf Consumers and the NRC made against that part of my I4 contention was that I had ignored -- I had looked at e C 15 h m some reference in I'm not sure if it was the DES or the j 16 ' SER -- W , MR. WILCOVE: The SER. ! E 18
- MS. STAMIRIS: The SER in C-10, on the s
19 I j effective full power year estimates, but on the same , 20 i page I had ignored the proposed remediation for that i 21 l which had to do with this after it was in operation and j
'() the reason I didn't go into all that was because I '
23 , l > wasn't dealing so much at this point with the safety , I 24 () aspect of it, but if you ask me did I ignore that l 25 I resolution that was stated on the same page in the SER, [ t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 8dfi9 I/11/2 1 it's not that I ignored it, but it's that I disagree , O 2 with 1e. i 3 I don't believe that it is feasible or it's i O 4 going to be fe sible once this reactor is operating to g 5 go in there and patch up the defective weld. In fact, O
@ 6 I don't think it can be done. '
R ' 8 7 I think there is a potential for some rupture , s ' 8 8 with this kind of deficiency that is not even addressed d - c; 9 by that kind of annealing proposition, so without going
$ 10 into all that, I just wanted to -- but that is the '
j 1; underlying basis for this point in my economic i 3 y 12 contention, that because there is a likelihood that I i 5 i Oi' thi= ""it " "2a h*va to be P a r^ ** * ^ t '^ o" r c^r~^ cit'
$ 14 or shut down or something else, because of that safety g 15 defect, that it affects the economic cost benefit and x
g' 16 , it affects it greatly and the NRC did not' take that 6 17 into consideration.
- s !
= 7 l
{ 18 ' CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Steptoe? G > 19 {n MR. STEPTOE: I have just been informed -- 20 before I address that contention, may I go back to the l 21 last one? I 22 I am informed that Applicant's estimate of f 23 $235 million went in 11 to the environmental report ! i r 24 of September 1980. j 25 i Now, with respect to Subsection C, we make ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. ;
i 8410 !
;5/11/3 1 this argument: That our reading of the Draft j O 2 znvironmental statement we coula not fina the particular l
3 lifetime that was assumed there for the purposes of the ! O 4 cose senefte de1ence. 1e seemea to us that the seaff ; e 5 made a yearly cost benefit balance: That is, the ! g . j 6 benefit with so much per year. ; R \
$ 7 s
8 8 d ' d 9 ! 2i O > b 10 l z .
= L a 1 d 12 -
z i 5 ', Oi' - t 2 14 i w : 2 15 Y , j 16 - t as N 17 i w : x , 5 18
=
s - E 19 ! 5 n t t 20l ? i 21 ! 22 O , i 23 , f i 1 24 0 !
- 25 '
i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. i i
8411 1 S
/12/1 it would be useful to me if Mrs. Stamiris dh 2 would point out where the Staff assumes 36 years or year 3 whatever she said. /'T V 4 The second point is I assume that this is e 5 just, despite Mrs. Stamiris' remarks about the R
j 6 treatment of this subject in the SER that this is an l 8 S 7 l environmental contention and she is not talking about M j 8 a sudden rupture or fracture of the reactor vessel here. O y 9 I would hope that we don't -- that is in z-g 10 this contention, it is submerged pretty far down and E Il
$ this is one of the reasons why we need specificity 2:
j 12 and bases in the contention so that we know exactly 5 Q 13 what testimony we would have to submit. m g 14 MS. STAMIRIS: Before I respond to the g 15 argument on this, I will go back to the one thing that
=
16 s[ Mr. Steptoe went back to on C on decommis'sioning and he us f
=
I7 came into this and he came in with a date of when the { 18 decommissioning estimate was first available in some P 19 g NRC document and the point I just wantsto remake is n 20 whatever he says about when certain information was , 21 available is beside the point because I am not talking 22 Q about the newness of information, but I am talking 23 l about the newness of the analysis, the conclusion that 24 was drawn together from this past information is new 25 l and I just want to make that distinction. l
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8412
;./12/2 1 JUDGE HARBOUR: Did you report that revision O 2 of 11 when you sent in the 200 page document on i
3 decommissioning cost in 1980 that it used $235 million ; O 4 aeoo==1==ionine oost in ene oo e benerie en 11 te et l
? e 5 the meeting?
h 8
- 6 MR. STEPTOE: I believe that it simply I t
l , a" 7 reported that estimate for decommissioning, your Honor. ; I 3 8 N 8 I did not know there was a cost benefit analysis in the L d i ci 9 environmental report. , i
;T6 foh 10 <
E gu a : , d 12 25 I c , C 13 E 14
=
2 15 L j 16 - l
'A i i g 17 -
$ 18
=
19 8 20 21 O ; 23 , O : 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. 'i
i 8413
- 6-1,pjl l MR. STEPTOE
- In any event, I repeat my argument, 2 that the Intervenors are not free simply to wait and see 3 what the Staff does and second guess them, and then start ;
(]) 4 their participation in the case on this basis. 5 MS. STAMIRIS: I think I already presented my g f 9 !
@ 6 arguments in that regard. I would like to go back to R
b 7 Point D on estimate of lifespan.. In my original contentions s 8 8 when I said that the Staff estimates about 36-year life-d i *[ 9 span, I found it very surprising that the Staff didn't -- - z o ! 10 and I, tco, searched through the DES for a long time, look-h
=
!3 II ing for what kind of an ultimate lifespan are they crediting 12
{c for this facility, and I found it very surprising that that , 13 kind of thing was not in here when they're talking about (]) o
=
5 I4 the cost benefit analysis. 15 But the way I came up with this 36-year lifespan -- h m > E I6 and I wish I had the DES in front of me and I could show ! w ! I7 you exactly where I drew the figures from, but what I did h z j l l { 18 was I got out my calculator and did some back work figuring P f 19 from some total estimates that they had given of -- we g ; n 20 were go'ing to end up saving X amount of dollars so many [ L 21 years from now. Then I just looked at that amount of 22 dollars, and I figuredr.what did'that,have~tonbe if you O- l 23 divided it out on a yearly basis. j ! 24 {) I am not explaining it very well, but I just went i 25l through some backwards calculations from some dollar figures ALDERSON REPORTING COMT ANY, INC. !
r 6-1,pj2 b 1 that were in there, and I figured out what it would have to () 2 have been for them to come up with that dollar figure, and 3 it turned out they had to have been using something close I () 4 to a 36-year lifespan. e 5 If you would like me to go through the DES and
@ 6 tell you specifically, you know, what I did, I will be R
$ 7 happy to do that after lunch.
A y 8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Has everyone addressed d c; 9 C to the extent they wish to? We will go on to --
@ 10 MS. SINCLAIR: I would like to say that in regards 6
11 to C, that my Contention 32, you know, that you are going -- w (c 12 what I revised incorporates a lot of safety considerations 13 and new information based on the discovery. But I think (]) d
!$ 14 if you were to incorporate it, I think it would add to that jx 15 contention to incorporate her concerns about the way it j 16 affects the lifespan and the cost benefit analysis. Now, e
d 17 I don't -- because my contentions didn't include that. 5 18 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Your No. 10 did. A 19 { n MS. SINCLAIR: That's why I would like to incor-20 porate what she's -- I had to write down my contention in i 21 terms of the interrogatories, and in my view that was a 22 {} stronger place and I didn't think you would allow it in 23 ' both places. 24 So I thought that was the stronger contention 25! based on the inf o rma tion I received through discovery. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
.6-1,pj3 8415 1
But if you incorporate -- I mean if this one has merit, () 2 incorporating the cost benefit analysis in that whole 3 contention I think would be the right way to go. O 4 MR. WILCOVE: Judge Bechhoefer, with respect to 5
% E'..a m p l e 1-C as it stands now, the Staff feels that it's a
3 6
= too vague and does not have basis and that -- i R
" 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We are going back to the i I
8 8 t a way it was written under No. 3, perhaps the last part of d d 9 j 3 deleted, but at least the A, B, C, D numbers should be e r F 10 ! j written -- should be retained. We will assume they are. ! II
'6 - 2 k I a i d 12 E :
l c l l') d 13 (/ mm 4 E 14
=
2 15 x
=
j 16 - l d , G 17 1 =
=
l 5 18 l = N
, 19 5
20 21 22 l CE) l 23 j l l {) 24 l i 25 , V i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. [
8416 6/2/1 t/dw I MR. WILCOVE: 3-C then. 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Old 3-C,11-C..now. 3 MR. WILCOVE: Well, then, without more A k/ 4 specificity as to how a given lifespan will affect the 5 g cost benefit analysis, I don't think this example can n 6 l
@ stand.
R S 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Do you think that's j 8 a matter for discovery or -- she refers to Page C-10, d 9 N which has a stated number of years on it, and she refers H 10 g to a 36-year lifespan, which she hasn't stated how she
=
. calculates that. But the --
how she derived it -- 1 - l 5 MS. SINCLAIR: I think it should be considered ('N b 13 i t> g that consumers, as I understand, has something like a E 14 g 20-year contract with Dow Chemical to provide steam. 5 15 g If this unit has even less of a lifespan than that, l : 16 l
@ that in itself indicates something about the cost g 17 g benefit analysis in regard to that unit. And in regard
$ 18
= to their contractual obligations.
- 19 j MS. STAMIRIS: I would just simply like to, 20 you know, when I used that 36-year lifespan, I mean it 21 would have been very difficult to explain where I got r 22 (3) that and how I got that in the contention. But I would 23 ,
! be very happy to give you a page reference in the l
24 l 1 (es_) i DES from which I derived that 36-year lifespan. 25 MR. WILCOVE: I think we do need more of a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. I
84171
@/2/2 basis as to how that 36-year lifespan was derived and 1
() 2 how a different lifespan would affect the cost benefit 3 analysis. () 4 MS. STAMIRIS: But in a way I simply would e 5 want to ask the NRC in discovery -- it seems like the h
@ 6 burden is on me.than to -- I mean I would like to simply G
, $ 7 ask the NRC what lifespan were they attributing to the M r j 8 total lifespan, because it is nowhere in there. d
@ 9 It' J didA' t say it clearly, and it seems they-
$ 10 should have.
11 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I am aware of that. S 12 MS. STAMIRIS: What lifespan did you use? I E 13 (]) Where can I get that information? i l 14 If this is wrong, what did you use? 15 I did the best I.could to figure'out for myself 16 what you were using. ' f ' w I7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The real question we have h
=
{ 18 is if we are going to be issuing a license for 40 years, l P : 19 from what date? g Should not we assume that has to be the f n - 20 lifespan, that the cost benefit balance is used to 21 justify a full-term operating license. We would almost l 22 assume that it will be 40 years from, I guess, the date (]) f 23 ; of the construction permit. l 24 MR. MARSHALL: That's how I figured. {]) 25 l MR. STEPTOE: Or maybe a longer time. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8418 3/2/3 1 MR. MILLER: We would hope we would get a 2 license issued from the date of the initial decision 3 for 40 years. That's what we are asking for. () 4 MS. SINCLAIR: You mean you consider the g 5 lifespan from the time of the construction permit? E
@ 6 MR. MILLER: No.
R
$ 7 MR. STEPTOE: The operating license, we would E
8 8 assume it would be. I thought that's what you said. O c} 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I did, but it was my
$ 10 assumption -- we don't issue the license as such.
E
@ 11 MR. STEPTOE: The Commission has recently 3 -
g 12 changed i'ts-policy on that. The LaSalle license, which 5 13 (]) is the most recent license they issued, it was for 40 m 5 14 years is my understanding. 15 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We would assume the g 16 lifespan would be for whatever the length' of the license, W 17 shall we say, being sought was. { 18 In any event, I don't know whether a specific A I9 number of years appears in the DES or FES. h 6/3 20 21 22 (:) 23 24 (:) 25 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6-3,pjl 8419 FES I MR. STEPTOE: Well, all we -- I think the Staff's (d7 2 only point and our only point, the contention accuses the ' 3 Staff of estimating a certain lifespan, and we didn't find O 4 ehee 11fesgen in the DES or -- 5 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We couldn't either. g e:'
@ 6 Is ther-e anything that-anybody..want.s to say about
^
e.
$ 7 1-.D or 3-D7 3
8 8 The basis is the same. We discussed this to some ' d ! ci 9
- extent already.
10 MS. STAMIRIS: I guess I would simply like to h II
@ ask before we leave 3-C, whether the Board would like me a
fa I2 to after lunch supply a page number from the DES, or if I3 Oi = the gereies wou1d, ehee wou1d show you where I did my 14 calculational derivations from. a: 15 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think that would be d I6 useful. I7 MS. STAMIRIS: Okay. h , 5 18 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Does anyone have anything l 1: g I9 more on 1-D or 3-D, either current 1-D or old 3-D? l 20 There the reading is not too different. , l 2I MR. STEPTOE: Judge Bechhoefer, just my under-l r l ! O st nding is th t the last paragraph in Old No. 3 is no 23 longer part of this contention. 24 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That's correct. , 25 MS. STAMIRIS: The only thing I would like to say , ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6-3,pj2 ! 8420 I about 3-D then is that what I had said before is that I 2 did not intend to raise the whole need for power arrange-3 ments, going into alternatives with this. contention or with the s'ub PAY s df u the"contentibn!!M I"did':h6t' th' ink that ; 3 wds'pYoper and';that was not ?myintentNat'this-time. 9
@ 6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think we should break for R
E 7 lunch, and we will need a fairly long lunch hour because 2 l 8 we will be worki ng on these other contentions. d d
" 9 Let's try to come back at 2:00 o' clock for the z.
C
@ 10 moment.
II We may have to take a fairly long break in mid-g 12 afternoon, too. I hope we can get through a little faster () m 13 on these, but there are f ewer thar. we had before. 5 I4 (Whereupon a luncheon recess 15 {z was taken in the above-entitled y 16 cause until 2': 0 0 o ' clock p .m. e
,N I7 of the same day.)
=
M 18
=
H E 19 ; 5 ' 1 20 1 21 l l 22 c) 23 l l 24 (,)s 25 ' i I . ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 1
i f 6-4,pjl A F TEREQQE S E S S I @E
) 2 (2:35 P.M.)
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Back on the record, and
) 4 let's proceed with your No. 2.
5 MS. STAMIRIS: First, I would like to apologize g 9
@ 6 to everyone for being late.
R
$ 7 Before we -- we had finished essentially with 3 -
8 8 No. 1, is that correct? d d 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That is correct. i c
$ 10 MS. STAMIRIS: Do you want me to tell you about .
E II
@ my calculations on the 36-year lifespan?
B I2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
- I Yes. Why don't you do that, l 5
()f13 m now. 5 I4 MS. STAMIRIS: I would also like to say at this y 15 time in regard to Part B of Contention No. 1 or 3, regard-m j 16 ing the decommissioning costs, I included the example that M I7 I did on why I believe that the two hundred thirty-five h
=
$ 18 million was a gross under-estimation of the decommissioning i A 19 ~
g costs 9because I thought it was the most relevant and per-n 20 tinent example to Midland; and if it turns.out that those 2I facts are the way that Consumers says that they are, that ! 22 they are representing the year 2000 dollars and that {J] 23 explains the difference between the two, which is not the 24 (m
%)
way I remember it -- what I am saying is if they -- if # 25 what they say turns out to be right, I have other bases i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
6-4,pj2 8422 ; i for the decommissioning costs under-estimate which I would () 2 like to then fall back on, and I just want to make sure -- 3 understand with the Board if I have a certain contention () s 4 and the contention is admitted, that if I have another way e 5 of Proving the very same thing or, you know, covering the , M 9 3 e 6 very same thing, when it comes time to a hearing perhaps ' R g 7 based on discovery -- or even in my discussions with Mrs. M 8 N 8 Sinclair this noon, she's already received some discovery d !
= 9 on the type of decommissioning that they intend to use ;
i o g 10 that would serve as bases for this contention, you know, l 3 ' E 11 if it was pursued. l S e 12 What I sm asking you is that I not be limited to E , c (]) yx 13 that one bases to prove my contention if indeed that baces E w 14 turned out not to be correct in my estimation. b
! 15 C HAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: At least admitting the g 16 contention, we have to make our judgment on the basis of w i g 17 what's in the record and what we had before.
w
=
M 18 MS. STAMIRIS: But doesn't it go back to - -
=
H E 19 admitting the contention, doesn't it go back to getting i 5 20 into the merits of the contention, which I thought we 21 weren't doing at this point, trying to decide who ends ( 22 up being right or wrong on the issue, but whether or not
) l 23 ! the issue is relevant? ,
() 24 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That's correct, but that !
%) !
25 doesn't mean we have to wait later on if you wanted to f I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. [
e C-4,Pj3 8423 1 substitute something that might be almost a new contention. i'M kl 2 Parties have to be able to prepare for that. 3 MS. STAMIRIS: For instance, after discovery, f3
\.s 4 you know, if this contention were admitted, then after g 5 discovery I were to find some other bases but I~.didn't.
O r j 6 change the contention at all, I kept it exactly as it is, R E 7 but I~found some other bases to show that the decommission-cx y . ing costs were under-estimated, wouldn't I then be able s d
; 9 to use, you know -- use -- I mean would I have to submit 3
@ 10 a new contention if I am not changing the contention at all?
E
)3 11 houldn't I just be able to deal with that at the g 12 time?
E 13 64ll g i4 2 15 x
=
g 16 e t' 17 s E 18
=
H E 19 A 20 21 r~ 22 (_)% 23 rm 24 (m s) i 25 ; b ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8424. !6/5/1 I dw MR. MILLER: I really don't know why we lG;ip/ s 2 ought to discuss this in the abstract. 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: It would depend on how () 4 you wanted to change it. It may or may not be a new 5 contention. y 9 6
@ Admitted contentions could be amended after R
S 7 l 9 discovery, but not necessarily in every respect. But 4 s 1/
! O if a contention is admitted, of course, you wii.l tnve to bcw 0a
{ \ 9 l
}c how you are going to support that contention.
10 h Undoubtedly, you will be asked by the Staf* or
=
j
~
I1 Applicant or both, g 12 MS. STAMIRIS: If something like that arises, ( I will wait until it arises. l m 5 I l On Page 2-8 of the Draft Environmental U 15 Statement, in the bottom paragraph on this page _s the , r 16 statement the 235 million represents no more than five 6 17 l g years of the projected lifetime production costc savings
=
5 18 i _ resulting from operation of the plant; and what I went s l 19 j through mentally was I said then 235 million is five 20 percent of what, and I came up with a figure -- well, it 21 was 4,700, bututhat was in millions of dollars. () Then I go back to Page 2.5, and at the top of 23 l that page are the per-year estimates of the cost () savings. So if we took the Staff estimate of 132 million 25 and divided that into the total, you know, because that's ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
!/5/2 8425 1 a yearly est.im&EE, I figured by dividing this yearly i O 2 do11er toee1 into ehe grand eoe 1, we would come up 3 with how many years they were using in their equation, [ .O 4 e=a ehee's how r ce-e uv with -- it was 11xe 3s.e, 1 :
e 5 think, for the Staff's, and then it was closer'to . 0
@ 6 36 for the 124 million.
R
$ 7 But that's the ba11 park estimate of how I 3
j 8 came up with the 36-year lifespan. L l d o; 9 Un1ess there's anything else, then I am ready [ ! $ i
@ 10 for Contention 2. ;
l 3_ , l g 11 MS. SINCLAIR: I would like to say -- is (5 12 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEEER: For the 36 years , you 13 told us what the basis is for that. (]' d
]
. 14 MS. GINCLAIR: Before you close off, I would ;
g 15 11ke to make a point. Is it a11 right? l \ gj 16 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes. ' 2 6 17 MS. SINCLAIR: I didn't want this contention E fP 18 to go by with j ust the amcunt of information so far { M 19 because it hinged so much on this 235 million. 20 In the responses to my interrogatories 21 Consumers indicated that their choice of dismantling -- l 22 their choice of decommissioning is going to be 23 l dismantling, which is the most expensive method of f 24 decommissioning. ! pJ l l 25 l It involves having 1arge portions of the plant [ t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. I l
l 842S
!! I under water while the process is going on. Workers have 2 to wear protective clothing, and much of the reactor has 3 to be cut by remote control, which is very costly and O 4 energy ineene1ve.
5 Furthermore, there has been no reactor that g M -
$ 6 has been fully decommissioned that anywhere compares R
$ 7 to this size of the two Midland plants. So that any M
j 8 realistic cost estimate and the realities of where we l d ei 9 are in this technology are not before us yet.
$ 10 Given the poor projected costs that has been
=$
t y 11 a history with Consumers Power Company, not only with a y 12 the Midland plant, but with the Marysville plant, for E Q 13 example, I think trying to accept this figure- of
! 14 235 million is a totally unrealistic estimate of what a t l $ '
l j= 15 dismantling approach to decommissioning would be. 10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: si That is the contention us i 17 which we are considering. But I might say that would:.not h
= '
} 18 be -- insofar as we are concerned, I might say right i e 19 g now that what we are concerned mostly is with timeliness !
20 ' on this one, not so much lack of basis. 21 So your decision on this one will be probably 22 Q based on timeliness more than any other, which we 23 , haven't ruled on or decided yet on this decommissioning i 24 subsection. ! 25'! MS. STAMIRIS: I think I have already ' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I sca7
/5/4 1 presented all my arguments on timeliness. I do feel 2 there are a lot of bases out there and a lot of 3 information that I could get from discovery that will O 4 further suggere the sxetchy exemg1,s th,, z h ,,, ,1,,,,
5 but I think this will not be the time to discuss them. 'T7foy 6 R E 7 j 8 c3 6 9 c g 10 11 a p 12
=
0i' ! ! I4 i $ 2 15 I E g 16 i as d 17
$5 5 18 E
19 {n 20 21 l ! 22 t 23 , i a 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- - - _ - . . _ = . _ , _
- 7-1,pjl 8428 I
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Let's go to No. 2. We have 2 got a lot to go. 3 MS. STAMIRIS: Yes. This contention is a revision
/~N
\/ 4 which consolidated my old contentions 5 and 6 and as stated, 5
y I believe that it has a bases and the timeliness of' it is 9 6 recent. R S 7 The date that I gave for the Howard affidavit is
! O subject to change. I was looking at some kind of cover d
letter that was attached to the one I was reading and E F 10 g that date'may not be the precise date of his affidavit,
=
II 5 although it is one of the summer months of 1982. k fI In place of the newspaper articles, I think what (} 13 I would like to do is cross out tho:se two references and E 14 - g insert instead Dar.tey if:fi' davit becau'se 4here ii's a ' Dart'ey x C 15 h affidavit that was given to GAP which is now public and x j 16 , I don't have a date for that either, but it is within the t W past few months. m IO CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Is that what those articles P 19 i 8 report? n 0 MS. STAMIRIS: Yes. One of them refers to that 21 and one of them was a newspaper article that said that 22 the reporter had read certain affidavits in which the (]) 3 affiants were claiming that they lost their jobs due to 4 QA reporting, but they were not named as to who they were. (]) 25 There were no specifics in that article. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
7-1,pj2 8423 I Therefore I thought I should just stick to the two where I 2 knew the people and had more specifics about th'e situations 3 and tha t be Mr . ~ Dartey ani Mr. . Howard'." ' () 4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: How do you spell that? 5 MS. STAMIRIS: D-a-r-t-e-y. His name is Dean g 9 3 6 Dartey. R
$ 7 We have the Dean Dartey and the Howard affidavits A
j 8 which are being distributed at this time. d c; 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Is the agreement that you
@ 10 referred to, there is nothing attached, but is that the E
11 same agreement that the Applicant circulated as part of 3 12 their response? I
=
() 13 MS. STAMIRIS: .Yes. I have that secrecy agree-
$ 14 ment.
15 {m CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: This is just a Xerox? E I6 MS. STAMIRIS: Yes. This is the s'ame thing that W d 17 all the parties have already received that was attached
$ 18 to my -- their response to my contention. Do you want one?
# 19 g It appears to me in reading over this document M
20 which I had heard of before but I had never seen for myself, 21 that Point 4 which spoke of not disclosing information l 1 22 {) without Bechtel's expressed authorization in writing, seem 23 to contradict the freedom that is supposed to be built into
~s 24 the internal reporting system between Consumers, Bechtel
(%) 25 j and the NRC that employees are suppose to, by my . . ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
-1,pj3 ' 8430 1 understanding, feel free to go to the NRC. () 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: How do you interpret the 3 words? Would you not consider that legal reporting () 4 requirements to which the employment agreements with n 5 Consumers and Bechtel are subject, would that not be part E 9
@ 6 of the employee's employment?
R
$ 7 MS. STAMIRIS: I did not read it that way when 3 -
l 8 I read it. I was reading -- a s in the course of his d
@ 9 employment, you know, like time on_the job and if it were z
O
$ 10 considered that they did not have to receive any authori-E 11 zation from Bechtel to go to the NRC and if they felt that, 3
12 you know, I mean, if that is the way they interpreted it N (]) E-13 and that is the way the practical reality of it was, then l$ 14 I would'think .that -- g 15 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Do you have any affidavits -- x j 16 or do you have any indication that employees have in fact A l'7 felt bound by this agreement not to reveal information to l
=
{ 18 the NRC? Do you plan t'o present a witness who would say g 19 that he felt that way and so therefore didn't report cer-n 20 tain things to the NRC? l 21 MS. STAMIRIS: I have understandings and infor-() 22 mation that workers are afraid to go to the NRC because 23 , they are afraid they are going to lose their jobs if they 24 do, but I have not -- the information that I have in that I 25 I regard, you know, is not t'ied directly to this. It is just '2 more general than that. It is not tied directly to this. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
8431
~7/2/1 dw 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Just offhand, this looks th/
s 2 like a fairly common type of pr6prietary information 3 agreement, not too different from the one I signed (]) 4 myself with the NRC and which is fairly routine, but 5 if it is being used in the way you state, it might well g e
@ 6 be something that we ought to look into, but if it R
$ 7 isn't, if there is no showing that it actually has done R
8 8 that, I am not too sure about whether we can even look d q 9 at it.
$ 10 I will want to see how the Staff and '
II
$ Applicant interpret those words that I read out in fc I2 Paragraph 4.
13 (]) f MS. STAMIRIS: All I can say is that the 14 knowledge *I.have of plant workers who do not feel free x to contact the NRC is not directly related to this d I0 secrecy agreement and I wonld be hard pre'ssed myself. W I7 I would have to find out more myself whether it was z { 18 related to this or not. A 19 8 e CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Miller or ; O Mr. Steptoe, would you like to comment? 2I MR. STEPTOE: No, your Honor, we have nothing (]) to add to what we said in the paper and the observations 23 i ! we made about the general nature of this kind of 1 agreement. CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Do you know how Bechtel
, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1 l 8432 7/2/2 1 construes those words "in themcourse of employment"? O 2 MR. seserom= we11, I have not hed any , 3 lengthy discussions with Bechtel. It just seemed O 4 obvious to me from the title of it as an employee s 5 invention secrecy agreement that down at the bottom N i
@ 6 it is a standardized form that is used to protect l R
$ 7 Bechtel's proprietary interest.
s j 8 I'm quite sure that nobody at Consumers d
% 9 Power or Bechtel is out there trying to dissuade
$ 10 employees from taking or raising legitimate safety E
j 11 concerns. Quite the contrary, there are established l 8 l' g 12 efforts to establish reporting channel which first E 13 of all the employee would go to Consumers or Bechtel
! 14 and second of all, if that is unsatisfactory, that 15 they could go to the NRC.
g 16 There is a formal program up there. us y 17 MR. MARSHALL: Judge Bechhoefer, I know of 5 { 18 my own knowledge that they do have a foreman down there i~ 19 { n right now who has been there ever since they started 20 turning the first shovel full of dirt. He says he i 21 will be 500 miles away from here the day -- and I t 22 know where he is going to be -- that they start- . 23 it up. 1 I 24 Now, that man says, and this is what he 25 says, as a hostile witness he will answer to a i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. :
i 8433 7/2/3 1 subpoena and if he does, he will tell the truth, but l () 2 other than that, he is afraid to stick his neck out. 3 His wife works for a local lawyer here in () 4 Midland and he has been advised from his wife what e 5 to say and what not to say, but that is a fact. h j 6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: You have probably R
$ 7 already identified him to some people in the room.
s j 8 MR. MARS HALL: Well, yes, he is going to d c 9 land up around 500 miles up along the Canadian coast b
$ 10 on the Michigan side.
E f 3 11 CHAIRMAN BEcHHOEFER: Well, does this g 12 person know anything about the use of this particular 5 13 agreement that we are talking about here? {) l$ 14 MR. MARSHALL: He knows about everything 2 15 down there that there is to know about down there, j 16 about fear I mean. I am talking about being -- x g 17 whether he has anything to fear but fear itself, M 18 that is one thing, but he does fear talking and 5 [M 19 he does have plenty to talk about, such as a crane 20 they moved one day to fill an 80 foot -- but there 21 are a lot of things. S 22 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Paton or CJ 23 Mr. Wilcove? i h 25 l i ( i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
8434 I Taking the second part first, l/3/1 MR. WILCOVE: W()
'ild'o ve 2 we have nothing more to add with respect to the secrecy 3 On its face, without any bases as to agreement.
4 whether that secrecy agreement has been used to 5 intimate workers from going to the NRC, there has j a
$ 0 not been a basis.
R
" 7
; With respect to the first part of this n
contention, I just got these affidavits the first d 6 9 _g time a grand total of two minutes ago, but just on its . O 10 E face, these employees work for Zack, not for CPC. So -
=
5 11 g I don't think that they -- they work for Zack rather d 12 3 than for CPC. So on that score I just don't think ( )$@ 13 th at there is a basis. E 14 y MR. STEPTOE: Your Honor, I thought we were 5 15 j only addressing the second issue, but with respect to 16
@ the Dartey affidavit, this appears to be a fairly ,
g 17 l g recent affidavit. It's talking about events that ! M 18 g happened back in 1980. He worked for two or three ! 19 l ! months at Zack and he was fired. 20 The subject matter of his allegations that 21 he took to the NRC was the subject of a $38,000 fine i and NRC investigative report so that the matter 23 ' ! discussed in the Dartey affidavit are a critique of 24 {' the NRC's report, very old news and this is not 25 timely. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8435
- /3/2 1 Now, with respect to the Howard affidavit,
() 2 the one aspect of that affidavit, rather lengthy 3 affidavit, deals with Mr. Howard's claim that he was (]) 4 fired unjustly because he took safety concerns to 5 Consumers and Bechtel. That is part of the overall g 9
@ 6 Zack matters and we have no objection to that being R
$ 7 folded in with the other>Zack matters in the OM M
l 8 proceeding. d q 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Except I guess for 10 your general objection for specificity. II k MR. STEPTOE: Not on this one. This one B 12 {a is specific, but this particular issue is one of ()o 13 many that I might spot in the thick volume that l$ 14 constitutes the Howard affidavit and one specific 15 issue in there was he got fired wrongfully and that I0 I know what they are talking about and I can address , h it with evidentiary proof.
= ~
5 18
= MS. STAMIRIS: I would like to say that 19 8 I have not had a chance myself to read through all of 20 l
1 this contention that Mrs. Sinclair submitted on the 21 Howard affidavit, but if this contention, if we were () 23 allowed to go into the internal reporting systems and I i l the reliability of the QA, QC reporting -- I mean 24 (]) the workability of this program, you know, that should 25l operate no job losses or fear of job losses, I wouldn't ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. t
. - - - - _ . _ _ _ - - _ _ _ . - .- -- _ _ . _ - ~ _ . _ _ _ _ . - _- _ _ _ _ _. - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
8436
/3/3 I object. I don' t care whether I would do it in the OM 2
proceeding or the OL proceeding. 3 It would seem like a more proper place to put () 4 it in with the OM proceeding and the other Howard 5 j allegations, then that would be fine with me. e.'
@ 6 The reason I would want to include the R
" 7 Dartey affidavit and maybe it really does belong more ,
N in the OM than the OL is because of the fact that d d 9 [- those things did go into the record last summer. 5 10 j There was talk about the Zack matter and the $38,000
=
h fine and the whole issue but what went into the i i d 12 E record was very one sided -- well, I should say two a l () sided, because Consumers and the NRC had their point E 14 y of view put into the record about that and what
=
9 15 g Mr. Dartey had to say about the same things that are T 16 ' g already in the record definitely contradicts some of f 17 w tne statements that were made in the record about how x M 18
= the first Zack matter was handled.
19 l MR. MILLER: I was just going to say, if 20 I'm not mistaken I believe that Mr. Dartey's name ; 21 was mentioned on the record when we were discussing (]) the earlier Zack matters by either Mrs. Sinclair 23 I or Mrs. Stamiris at that time. () MS. STAMIRIS: Well, his name was mentioned. I think he was mentioned by name when ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I 8437
/3/4 1 the subject first came up in the summer and then O 2 mrs. sinc 1 air ea1ked aboue 1e a u eue bie more.
3 It was closer to fall when she raised the matter. O 4 when the eestimony wene into the record enoue g 5 it this past summer, that's just what I said is that
@ 6 it did go into the record and I think probably also R
$ 7 by name, but he never had a chance to speak for s
8 8 himself and at that time I didn't -- well I didn't ! d l c; 9 have any financial means of bringing him up here as ; E g 10 a witness and I think I explained on the record once 15 1 11 b e f o 2. . that I spoke to him on the phone at that time 5 1 3 ! 12 and he agreed that the things that were being said
)] !
c 13 weren't true.
/4 h I4 b
2 15 l 5 g 16 - as d 17 18 E 19 l 8 n 20 21 23 ; i 24 O , 25l ' 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. j
8G38 1 7/4/1 dw 1 Had I thought I could subpoena him and 2 also have those expenses covered at that point in time, 3 I certainly would have done so last summer, but O 4 ehie effidevie 1e new. I meen le discusses some -- 5 it discusses his present day reaction to the events g a
@ 6 that happened in 1980, but the affidavit that I am R
$ 7 referring to is recent.
M j 8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: In this June or July d C 9 '82 about the same as those articles?
$ 10 MS. STAMIRIS: Yes, it would be roughly the II same time frame as those articles and I could get f
C I2 dates for you on both of those affidavits and give
' you that information on Monder.
O =l 14 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Steptoe, is it 15 your position that nothing in that affidavit is new j 16 information? vs II h MR. STEPTOE: That's correct. t = { 18 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: It wasn't available to E I9 8 n other people, according to Mr. Dartey. 0 MR. STEPTOE: There was an NRC investagatory I , report and a $38,000 fine two years ago and the 1 {J information was certainly available to anyone who spoke 23 l I l t to Mr. Dartey and certainly when the Intervenors knew O about Mr. Dartey at least a year ago. 25 l
! This is old news and there really --
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8139 t 7/4/2 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: What was the purpose 2 of the current affidavit? 3 MR. STEPTOE: I believe that in connection 4 with filing the Howard affidavit, GAP also filed e 5 a number of other statements which is meant to
@ 6 corroborate Mr. Howard's story about Zack and if you E
$ 7 read through the statements that they filed with s
8 8 Chairman Paladeno they say there are some statements d c 9 that indicate that Zack -- that the Howard conclusions d 10 are supported by what Mr. Dartey found two years ago 11
@ and Mr. Dartey is not surprised that Mr. Howard had u
y 12 problems.this year, and that is the sum total of'why 5 I () o 13 I think it was created, or the apparent purpose of
- l 14 that new affidavit. Of course, I can't speak for ,
I 15 GAP and certainly the affidavit speaks for itself g 16 and all of us here, a few of us have had 'a chance to e '
,d I7 read it carefully, but I'm sure if you do get a chance
=
{ 18 to read it, it doesn't appear to have any new E s 19 information in there. 5 20 JUDGE HARBOUR: Would somebody please 21 illuminate my ignorance and tell me what a traveller 22 Q is? '. * ~ _ . . :..
; _, MR. MARSHALL: A dodge.
1 - () MR. MILLER: I believe that a traveller is 25 l ! a written record of the fabrication of duct work that I i
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8440 l 7/4/3 I accompanies the piece of metal as it travels through 2 the fabrication shop. 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: If you have nothing i O 4 more on 2, we wul go to 3. ! t7/5 g 5 l a i X 6 a I N . S 7 I i 8 N 8 i d ! ci 9 : i' i o
@ 10 r
.E.
4 E 11
< l ilC f d 12 i
- z ;
3 l l Oi'3 i E 14 ! .< w ,
$ I 2 15 w
2: I
- j 16 i m
!i 17 i a !
$ 18 [
E 19 i 8 n 20 : 21 ; i 22 ! O ; 23 , ; i 24 O > 25 ! l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. [ l
-- . . . __ _ = _ . . - .
l-i 84.41 l i ! l i7/5/1 1 MS. STAMIRIS: It was formerly Contention 8. '
) 2 The changes between Contention 8 and 3 Contention 3 are basically I tried to put what I felt ;
4 ! (]) 4 were the most important or significant deficiencies 5 that had resulted because of the inadequate g j 9 -
@ 6 procurement system. I believe that the statements A I
- $ 7 in the SER on Page 3.11 about the mechanical and 8 electrical qualifications or for the equipment i 0 ,
l ; 9 qualification.. system indicatet.that as of this time
$ i i 10 h the NRC themselves have not closed off this issue. l 5 i Il 4 So I am assuming it will be handled in a l' m
g 12 further supplement by the NRC and I did mention
- f 13 l (]) f that these deficiencies are unresolved, despite the !
l$ 14 fact that Consumers themselves had identified 15 l problems with this procurement system as early 1978. ! j 16 l w I guess the other thing I could say about f I7 the different subparts is, for instance on Part A h
= 1 5 18
_ about the bolting, the anchor bolts which failed, s 19
) that is the first example. Then there are the low 20 alloy quenched and tempered bolting which was kind 21 of a follow up to the failed anchor bolt, as I
(]) understand it. When they went and looked at some of l the smaller bolting they also found that this was 24 (]) defective material and I believe also with the 25 L pipe workers strength bolting that I mentioned as my ; ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, i
8142
- 7/5/2 1 third example.
2 The reason that I include these and make. 3 no reference to the remedial actions that were () 4 implemented as a result of those 55 new reports is g 5 because I believe that for the most part those 8
@ 6 remedial actions were not sufficient, were inadequate R
$ 7 because at least, for example with the low alloy M
{ 8 quenched and tempered botting, the bolting was d Q 9 already installed and it is just a situation where
$ 10 it's almost impossible to remediate when you find E
11 that a high percentage of bolting material is a g 12 defective but has already been installed in support (]) 13 of safety related systems. It is a question of m 5 14 being able to, or how do you remediate something like f 15 that without going back and tearing it apart. j j
. 16 I also believe that the lateral' support w
17 system that is in place for the failed reactor h 18 pressure vessel anchor bolt itself compromises the E I9 integrity of the containment structure by the way 8 n 20 the support system was put in and some of the 21 potential affects that may still come from it. ss()1.22 23 , l () 24 25 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8M3 @/1/1 ' dw 1 Obviously, I haven't gone into detail 2 about these inadequacies, but I feel like the 3 examples I have given ofacore -- or unqualified O 4 equigmene on-site ere examg1ee thee coneein e 1oe g 5 of problems which cannot be remediated.
@ 6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Is your current 3-B E
$.. 7 any different than what's already covered by A
8 8 Mrs. Sinclair's Contention 7 -- wait a minute, 6. d ci 9 MR. STEPTOE: 7?
@ 10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The big long one.
II 5 MS. STAMIRIS: I will have to ask her. iit I2 f It may be that it is covered. O! '3 She doesn't know exaceir whee I had in mind. l 14 but I listed :HVAC components under this procurement 15 system deficiency, and has that been covered in the d I0 new Howard contention? as I7 MS. SINCLAIR: Well, that's one of the h c: I0 things that he talked about -- 19 8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Is it one of those n 0 15 or 16 things you listed? MS. SINCLAIR: Yes, it is, although I don't O xmow ir e n rina it for you i==eatete1r-t MS. STAMIRIS: I think that -- I know that O , enose enines are teixea eboue in ene aowera 25 ' affidavit, and I would be willing to cover the safety ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 8444 8/1/2 1 significance of those HVAC components at that other -- O 2 in conjunction with the other contentions in that 3 regard if some are accepted. O 4 CnAIRMAN sECanOEFER: All this raises is s 5 the safety significance, the way I read this S
@ 6 contention. This is a safety contention, No. 3.
R 5 7 MR. STEPTOE: It is or it is not? e'. I { 8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: It is. As I was d C 9 saying, the way I read it, all I read in it is a
$ 10 safety contention.
11 MS. SINCLAIR: Mine was written as a it j 12 quality. assurance contention.
=
0iis CaAIRMAN nECanOErER= Seme thine, que11er l$ 14 assurance, safety, versus environmental, I am talking j= 15 about now. i[ I6 MS. SINCLAIR: Oh, I see. us I7 MS. STAMIRIS: I wonldusay that it is a 18
@ safety contention, and I would also agree that has A
l9 already been covered. So I would be willing to h n 20 consolidate in whatever way the Board felt was 21 appropriate with that same subject matter in the 22 O ,,,,, ,,,,,,,1,,,. l JUDGE HARBOUR: Can you explain why you do O not believe that the remedial actions which were 25 presented are adequate in the case of the bolting ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8445 '/L73 1 problems? O 2 ms. s,xxIRIs: I can.t exp1ain ehem any 3 better than I already have, you know, only to the O 4 extene that common sense says to me ehae do1eine 5 that is already installed in support of safety-g
@ 6 related systems is not wholly accessible to remediation.
R 8 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I want to have you A l 8 8 explain what the -- also what the relationship of d ci 9 these three items, A, B and C, is to the Report 78.10, z o g 10 which I guess deals with just a very specific Il 5 subject, seismic environmental qualification is l c 12 documentation. Oi'm e is a documenteeion vrodtem, the ver r 5 I4 understand it. 15 I might say I haven't checked it, but I am gi 16 assuming it from your brief. us . I7 MS. STAMIRIS: Wel1, when I originally h
=
{ 18 wrote this contention, my feeling was in reviewing -- E g I9 I had one report in one of a series from that 55-E l 20 report, and my feeling was that they identified a 21 prob 1em in that their corrective action was very 22 Q specific and limited, and it did not look at the 23 generic implications of why equipment was not being 24 Q properly seismically and environmentally qualified, 25l and I thought that there were numerous examp1es of i l@/2 how this same problem was continuing. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 1
8-2,pjl 8G46 ontin ihgl Now, the three that I picked out to keep, I honestly 2 have to say that I am not sure of how the term, you know, 3 environmentally qualified is defined.
/"T (y 4 I thought that, for instance, bolting -- that --
0 5 my understanding with this bolting is that it was not E
@ 6 properly heat treated and is too brittle. I thought that l
R
$ 7 that would be --
that it wouldn't be environmentally quali-a 8 8 fied for that reason, and perhaps I am wrong in not under-d d 9 standing the definition. z. o 10 And I might add in my review of these documents, h
= '
ll
$ I came to the conclusion that I didn't have earlier that W
y 12 .the reason this bolting material was not properly. heat c () 13 treated and question tempered or whatever was supposed to l$ 14 be done with it was not the fault of the supplier, as 15 Consumers had stated, I believe, in their earlier findings, y 16 at least in their positions, but I feel tha't the documents m g 17 that I saw said that it wasn't the fault of the supplier, 1 x { 18 but it showed that Bechtel or whoever had requistioned this' A 19 material hadn't told the supplier that it had to beJthis g l " l 20 certain safety grades to go into a :.uclear plant. 21 Therefore, I drew -- I saw a similarity between (] 22 the same' sort of thing going on, for instance, with the :HVAC 23 l components that Mr. Howard had talked about where material 24 had not been properly requistioned from the suppliers. (]) 25 So we can't blame the problem on the supplier who then ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
.-2,p32 . 8447
~
I s u p p l i e d . d e f'e~c t i v e 'e'q u i p m'e n t , t
) 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: How about the bolting in the 3 electrical components? Are those . a f ailure to give the
() 4 suppliers adequate information? g 5 MS. STAMIRIS: Yes, that's what I believe.
] 6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Is that involved in all the - -
R
$ 7 MS. STAMIRIS: I am sure about it in A and B, and M
j 8 I can't tell you about it any more c specificity now f or C.
~~
d c; 9 I had that in my mind at the time, but I can't remember
$ 10 right now the paperwork or how I got the idea that it was j 11 indeed the fault of improper requisitioning on the part of 3
j 12 Consumers. , 5 (]) 13 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Steptoe or Mr. Miller? . h 14 MR. STEPTOE: Well, your Honor, confusion is E ' 15 {x apparent here. If this is a safety contention, individual j 16 problems that she is pointing to are in general old prob-e 6 17 lems, particularly the bolting problem, and I think that 5
$ 18 discussion points out that Mh. Starmiris has very little P
1 {n 19 technical -- in the way of technical expertise to contribute, , 20 but that's another one of the four factors that the Board 21 is to consider in ruling on contentions such asF.this. 22 (]}[ The IHVAC components; stani;im a;. separate il_ight, 23 so I won't talk about that. 24 The pattern that Mrs. Stamiris seems to see are 25 not apparent to us. As you pointed out, environmental I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
2 , p ]. 3 8448 1 qualification, Section 3.11 of the SER, what that has to 2 do with bolting problems is beyond us. 3 I think it reflects a lack of understanding of O b 4 what environmental qualifications are all about. ' 5 This is just a jumbo of problems which are g 9 3 6 either identified in inspection and enforcement reports a i
$ 7 or 50.55 E reports; and in no case if there is a safety M
j 8 contention do we have a reason for believing that solutions a , c; 9 to those problems which were identified by the Applicant z O
$ 10 are inadequate, is no t valid , is not timely and should 3
8-3h Es Il not be admitted.
~
d 12 E Q =y= 13 - i E 14 iS E 2 15
- a M '
j 16 - as , d 17
- M 18
=
l 19 8 n 20 ' i 21 O v 22 23 l l 24 25 l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8443 i8/3/1 dw 1 With respect to the ~HVAC components , to
- adhtted v 2 the extent that states a safety issue, I am not aware i 3 of anything in the Howard affidavit -- Howard was a O 4 documene c1erk, and he seid thee you've eoe e prob 1em
! 5 here, but he was not able to describe just what the g e
@ 6 safety significance of his findings were, aside:from R
8 7 the fact that there was in his opinion a major QA a j 8 breakdown at Zack, d C 9 And the tie of this to environmental ! $. I l l= 10 qualification, again it is not apparent to us. We II 5 think that it has nothing to do with environmental is g 12 qualification. c Oi'3 JuoGE COWAN= oo r heer you say thee l l$ 14 environmental qualification is not a safety factor, 15 h a safety problem? m 2[ I0 Oh, environmental' MR. STEPTOE: us l qualification is a safety concern, that's right. , = M 18
- _ JUDGE COWAN
- Environmental in terms of 19 g the temperature and the stresses that are experienced 20 due to environmental situations?
21 MR. STEPTOE: Yes, after an accident occurs, O thee's correoe. 23 l JUDGE COWAN: Or in service. O an. sezvTOz= 1 think environmente1 25 i qualification in the industry usually refers to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8450 8/3/2 1 qualification of equipment to withstand very hostile l't 2 (j environments that you would have after a reactor 3 accident. l[( 4 Oh, I guess -- I am informed by Mr. Miller 5 that it does take into account factors such as g 9
@ 6 aging.
R
$ 7 JUDGE COWAN: Tornadoes, floods, what have s
] 8 you.
O q 9 MR. STEPTOE: But again, the relationship 10 of environmental qualification to some of these h
=
II
$ issues is not apparent, but the primary point is a
fa I2 most of these issues -- particularly the bolting -- 13 i
!( ) are very old and Mrs. Stamiris is unlikely to be able z
5 I4 to help the Board determine if it feels it has to 15 {= shoulder that burden whether the resolution is I0 ' l k= satisfactory or not. I7 h In such circumstances the Staff has done
=
5 18 _ a very thorough review, and we are comfortable with 19 8 n leaving it up to the Staff's exhaustive review to 20
' ensure the safety and adequac y of such remedial 21 measures.
() MR. MARSHALL: Judge Bechhoefer, I recall 23 with regard to the bolting down there instance that () 25 they had where they submitted the faulty bolts to X-ray and showed that they were faulty workmanship 1 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l l 8451 l l 8/3/3 1 and material from the fabricator, and they failed. O 2 acoaE HAR800R: Mr. Seegtoe, wou1d you eev 3 that any of the references given in Ms. Stamiris' O 4 Contention 3, such as the 82.01, 82.03, which I e 5 assume refers to noncompliance reports -- would you h
@ 6 say that any of those relate to environmental R
$ 7 qualifications?
3 l 8 MR. STEPTOE: My understanding is that d d 9 82.01 does refer to environmental qualification of i o i g 10 certain components of the main steam, isolation j 11 valve control circuitry. j 12 JUDGE HARBOUR: What about 82.03? 5 13 MR. STEPTOE: 82.03, I believe, refers to ;
$ 14 the absence of battery pack power supplies, and for a 15 lawyer to try and figure this out quickly is not easy, j 16 but I think it relates to having uninterruptible d :
g 17 power supplies to certain equipment in the case of a E
$ 18 loss of AC power, which is not an environmental E
g 19 qualification. M 20 The bolting, I think, has to do with excessive 21 hardness upon procurement, the reactor pressure vessel n 22 bolts failed, not right away and not in accident U 23 conditions. 24 The remedial measures were to reduce the i 25 torque on bolting and to install further lateral ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 8452 I supports for the reactor pressure vesse1. j3j4 2 The Staff actually asked us to stop work 3 for extended period, several months, while that was -- O 4 wh11e they were grocurime the dess em, a very large . g 5 amount of material on that particular problem and the 0
@ 6 remedial work. i G
874 E 7 a N 8 8 i d ci 9 i O
!: 10 E
t g 11 ! E ti 12 5
'3 O i_
E 14 i'! E : E 15 , g' 16 - as N 17 l w C: .
$ 18
= .
N 19 8 n 20 ; 21 l lO 22 23 l I 25 ! ' l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. '
8453 I JUDGE HARBOUR: Are there any environmental 8/4/1
$wf~
2 tobw) qualification deficiencies alleged in the Howard 3 affidavit? () 4 MR, STEPTOE: Your Honor, it is a thick 5 affidavit, and I have read it twice. j There's a lot n
@ 6 of attachments, but I believe the answer is no.
R E 7 I believe that Mr. Howard -- as I said, he A g 8 is a document clerk. The only thing that I found in d there related to the ability of the welds to hold up O 10 g under gravity loads and also seismic loads. That
=
E 11 g would not be an environmental qualification issue. d 12 E But again, Mr. Howard is a document clerk S 13 Gs-g and he was -- he wasn't in the position to analyze E 14 y the significance of the QA deficiencies. - C 15 h MS. SINCLAIR: Chairman Bechhoefer, I T 16 l l would like to contribute here. g 17
- w x
First of all, on the question of timeliness, M 18
= Mrs. Stamiris indicates that the safety -- SER is 19 l the source of her information that these problems 20 have not been solved.
21 Furthermore, under Contention 40 I had 22 O. s discovered on -- that had to do with the lack of 23 , l ! environmental qualification methods, and I found out 1 24 - s through discovery that the NRC's response and anything l 25 I l that was in the SER was not updated to the latest ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
8454 I Commission decision, which was made May 27th of 1980,
- /4/2 2 and this is on Page 5 of my, you know, revised 3 contentions.
4 So I would think that Mrs. Stamiris' position 5 that the SER does not adequately address the g 9 j 6 environmental qualifications issue and that the SER L R E 7 admits, as she said, that the procurement deficiencies M j 8 are unresolved is a very important aspect of this , d i 9 contention that ought to be considered. 10 I also object to the fact that when we write ,
= '
fII a contention in fairly general terms, attempting to I .; define a subject, that we are attacked for lack of () specificity. But when we have specified in somewhat 3 14 i
% minute details, as Barbara Stamiris has here and as (
x 2 15 g Lee Bishop did in the Howard contention, it is called T 16 - g a laundry list or a jumble. d 17 x I don't think that's a fair characterization x M 18
= of the attempt to be very specific, since specificity 19
{ is one of the things that Mr. Steptoe is demanding 20 all the time. 21 I would like you to look at Contention 40 22 0 for the latest Commission decision on environmental 23 equipment qualification. !
- 24 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER
- Is this matter covered '
l 25 by your Contention 40? ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8455 8/4/3 1 MS. STAMIRIS: No, it is not. My Contention ' () 2 40 is broader, and this would not be covered by it, 3 because it does not talk to bolting. It is just 4 (]) specific for electrical equipment. e 5 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Does yours cover h j 6 the allegations in C7 R
$ 7 MS. SINCLAIR: On electrical components?
3 j 8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes. d O 9 MS. SINCLAIR: Itmpossibly could. I would E. 10 have to, you know, go further into it, but that's -- h
=
Il 5 this is what the Commission order was specifically 3 g 12 about, because it had to do with the IEEE standard
=
a 13 (]) g that has to be followed. So electrical equipment is x 5 I4 covered. But the others are not. 15 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: One of the things we g 16 have to figure out is when new contentions are w I7 covered by old contentions or something else. h
=
18 f MS. SINCLAIR: This is, of course, my I 5 I9 l 8 n revised Contention 40 that you will be briefing -- 20 you know, that I rewrote after discovery. This is l 21 [ what I discovered, and she is correct in saying that the SER and the Staff's position is incorrect (]) 23 i according to the latest Commissio: decision. t 24 i CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Wilcove or (]) l 25 j, Mr. Paton? l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8458 ; MR. WILCOVE: Yes. Essentially I am going 8/4/4 1 O 2 to he in agreement with Mr. Steptoe with respect to 3 this contention to the extent that Mrs. Stamiris is l l O 4 a11esins that deeiciency in the erocuremene system e 5 led to deficiencies in bolting, LAQT and pipe work 3
@ 6 restraints.
R 8/5 $ 7 i s l 8 e d 9 l Y '
@ 10 s
j 11 l g ; y 12 5 < Oi' -
@ 14 m
i 2 15 s j 16 . l w , p 17 ; 5 18 i i5 C 19 5 : 20 i l 21 I ! O 23 , i i I i 24 I O 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8457 3/5/1 dw 1 I certainly do see an untimeliness problem. co [^~7aints 2 V These SSE reports come from '79 and 1980, and the 3 corrective action report comes from a year ago two days () 4 ago. 5 So with respect to those I repeat myself
$ 6 that there is a timeliness problem.
R
" 7 And furthermore, I also see basis and e4 8 8 a specificity problems. I know 50.55E report - 79.10 0
9 l"- must be about two inches thick. I think inspection 0 10 y report 80L9 is the same, and I think that there must
=
E 11 g be more specificity than just to merely refer to d 12 3 50.55E report. c For the Staff and the Applicant to be able E 14 y to respond to such a contention, we need to see 9 15
@ exactly what in particular about the deficiency 16 3 Mrs. Stamiris has problems with and why the 6 17 g corrective action is not adequate.
t 5 18 g There is nothing to that effect in this 19 l ! contention. To the extent that she is saying that 20 l EQ procurement is still unresolved in the SER, it ;
- 21 says so right there.
22 O I don't really think that's .li.tiga ble - ! 23 , since before Consumers can get their license, that 24 O' will have to be resolved and it will be addressed in 25l a supplement to the SER. j i n ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8458
-/5/2 1 MR. STAMIRIS: I would just like to say I
(]) 2 wasn't sure myself how to deal with this concern 3 that I had because of the fact that the NRC () 4 obviously has not come out with their final position e 5 on it yet, but I decided to go ahead and set it 5 -
@ 6 forth at this time and if, you know, I am told that R
$ 7 I should wait to see what NRC's final position is in a
j 8 the supplement, then that will be satisfactory with d c; 9 me. z c g 10 But I was just not wanting to be -- I II
$ didn' t want to miss my time deadline on submitting a
g 12
- contentions when I knew I had this concern.that I c
Oi'
- neea to:aaare==-
I4 I didn't want to take the chance on waiting 15 for a supplement. E I0 MR. WILCOVE: Well, I would lik'e to respond W I7 by saying it says right here, Section 3-11, that the h
=
5 18 _ Applicant's equipment qualification submittal is s 19 g" dated November, 1981. So that could be examined 20 and an Intervenor would have the opportunity, if 21 she had done so, to look at that submittal and (]) determine why she feels it is deficient and then 23 i j put that in the contention, which was not done.
' Well, if you already had MS. STAMIRIS:
25 l reviewed it, and isn't that the one that you said i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8459 I -- that the NRC said they found deficient? f/5/3 I didn't l () 2 see any point -- or that the NRC found that submittal 3 i deficient, I didn't see any point in going through ! 4 l (]) the trouble of looking at it to see if I also found 5 g it deficient. n
@ 6 I thought it would be more expeditious R
" 7
; to try and set forth my concern, and thenato raise N 8 M the possibility of waiting to see what else the d
~9
- NRC comes up with as far as the final submission.
l ! S 10 P, MR. WILCOVE: Well, then the problem is
=
f when that submittal does come out, then, you know, ka Mrs. Stamiris will then allege she is dissatisfied (]) with the Staff's analysis of the problem; and as E 14 i y Mr. Steptoe said this morning, she is second guessing ; 9 15 g what the Staff will do. :
? 16 '
$ The problem exists -- or the submittal ,
l g 17 g exists today. All that will come out in a few M 18
=
s months is the Staff's evaluation of it. 19 l So I think that if Mrs. Stamiris had 20 wished to raise a contention on that matter, then ! 21 l she should have done so based on the submittal l 22 ' I (]) rather than just second guess and wait to see what 23 , the Staff will do, and then decide if she is ([) satisfied or not. l 25 8-6 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8460 8-6,pjl not 1 MS. SINCLAIR: Now just a minute. Last summer () 2 I was required to'.turnj inccontentions on Three Mile Island -- 3 on how the Three Mile Island Lessons Learned had been () 4 applied here in Midland, and I was told the last day I had e 5 to do that was July 31st of '81. A n
@ 6 In the meantime we were also told that the Staff G
$ 7 wouldn't have their evaluation on Three Mile Island Lessons j 8 Learned until '82, May, '82.
d c 9 I was required in that instance to second-guess i O g 10 what the Staff was going to come up with, and I thought j 11 that was such a preposterous request and such a preposterous s j 12 way to handle issues of that magnitude, that I didn't 3 13 bother to rely; and now Ms. Stamiris is being criticized (")T x l Y 14 for her wanting to make sure she got something in so she E 15 woQld not be precluded from doing that, getting something g 16 in, as we have been on Three' Mile Island issues, because w b^ 17 of that order that gave us only until July 31st of '81 to 5
-{ 18 get them in.
P { 19 I think that this is a contradiction in the way n 20 this hearing is being handled. 21 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think that latter order j 22 was motivated by a Commission issuance on Three Mile Island 23 which preceded that by six months. 24 MS. SINCLAIR: It was not a fair or a -- it was I i 25 not a fair way to deal with the issue. i. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8461 >6-6,pj2 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, the Commission has () 2 stated otherwise -- I mean has ruled otherwise with respect 3 to TMI issues anyway. , t (/ 4 Let's go on to No. 4. e 5 MS. STAMIRIS: On Contention 4, I raised this N
@ 6 contentioncon the basis of statements I read in the SER R
& 7 that to me said that all kinds of axempti'ons, had been s
j 8 granted to certain requirements on the welding of piping, d , d 9 and in some cases the basis for those exemptions: appear i o
$ 10 to be the financial hardship to the utility or the imprac-j 11 ticality of being able to do anything about the welding, 3
y 12 that the NRC didn't meet certaincstandards, but that it c 13 judged the there was a balancing that was done, I (]) l$ 14 understood, by the NRC in this impracticality to the
~
E 15 utility against the public health and safety gain that z j 16 would have come from sticking. !in two'cer' tai'n trequirements e 6 17 and that was -- those-are the kinds of things I have in { 18 mind with Parts A and B. A 19 { n Part C is different, but I guess in general I 20 would like to say that I am not, unfortunately, familiar 21 enough with Mrs. Sinclair's' contention to know whether 22 {) these kinds of welding conditions have been already addressed. 23 ; in some of her contentions, but if they are not, I would 24 like to pursue that myself. 25l I guess I should address that Part B on the i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
@-6,pj3 8 4 6'2 i I
corrosion damage due to electrochemical attack, and I m k_) 2 would like to have you delete the second basis that I gave 3 because I believe that although corrosion damage was men-tioned in this news article based on some of the GAP
$ allegations that I read about in the newspaper, it did not a
3 6
=_ relate it to improper grounding, and so I am not certain N
1 8 7 l j whether it had to do with improper grounding. n E 8 s But the FES citation that I have given was in d d 9 j response to a concern I had raised when the public was b 10 y given a chance to respond to the draft environmental state-
=
E 11 g ment. One of the things I brought up was the corrosion d 12 3 which I believe I rmentionedafronrtime toi time. in ;the. OM hbar NE 13 j ing, and their response on this page 9-39 in the Final E 14 W Environmental Statement indicated that corrosion that I 9 15 g was referring to was a result of welders not properly ground-- T 16 g ing their equipment, and it was, you know, 'a pitting attack l 17 ! 6 w that occurred in the piping, and it was assumed to be an x M 18
= isolated incident because it was related to welding pro-19 8 cedures.
20 I did no.t see any basis given at that time, and L. 21 I have not ~seen any basis in any position papers from the () NRC or Consumers to satisfy the generic concern for whether 23 or not there is corrosion damage to piping that is more l () extensive than the areas that have been specifically identi-l 25 ' fied. So I do have a safety concern with corrosion in 7 piping that may be hidden. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
8463 8-7,pjl hidden. I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: My recollection is that the O 2 Board already asked the Staff to bring in a witness on the 3 corrosion of piping question. I think Judge Decker did that () 4 back at one of the OM hea' rings, whatever the day was when 5 g you raised that question on cross examination; and my 9 j 6 impression was that,that 'is sue' was goi'ng ' toz bet addressedo - R b 7 in the OM proceeding. s 8 8 MS. STAMIRIS: That's right. d i c; 9 ' z MS. WEST: Judge Bechhoefer, that's our understand-o g 10 ing, too. > B II CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I thought the Board had N I2 asked for a witness on that. c () 13 MS. STAMIRIS: Tha t 's right. I think that would m 5 I4 then cover my concern. At that time I was not relating the 9 15 g corrosion problem to improper welding practices. m y 16 C'HAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Nobody knew about it. You A i I7 ~ produced a report or referred to a report that mentioned it,
=
IO and I don't think .anybody : knew why it occurred. C 8 MS.cSTAMIRIS: That's right. n 20 , CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We do want to, hear abou t that, 1 2I and that will be in the OM proceeding. 22 O ms. s,,yzars, ox,y. ,,,, z 111 ,, ,,,1,,1,, ,, 23
; d.eal with it when the witness comes to the OM proceeding.
I 24 ' So I will be willing to drop that portion of Contention 4, (]) 25 because I think it will be:more adequately addressed when ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8-7,pj2 ! 1 that witness cF es. () 2 CHAlnMAN BECHHOEFER: The witness may well testify 3 to the same things tha t you see in the FES, but you will () 4 be able to ask him: about that and we will be able to ask p 5 him about that, so I think it will be covered. 0
@ 6 MS. WEST: Chairman Bechhoefer, I don't see any G
8 7 basis in Ms. Stamiris' stated contentions for the allega tions ; s .
] 8 that there are unsafe weld conditions, and I additionally d
d 9 do not think that_there is a basis for the claim she has 5 h 10 made here today that exemptions have been granted to E { 3 11 Consumers Power on the basis of financial hardship or y 12 practicalities, suggesting that these things can't be 5 13 solved, or that any weld conditions present a threa t to {}}
$ 14 public health or safety.
l 2 15 Even though she makes the general allegation that 5 g 16 welding conditions, practices and qualification; deficiencies e d 17 have resulted in unsafe conditions, the only example she 5
$ 18 gives do not' support that.
=
b { M 19 The Class 1 and 2 piping, the reference is the 20 SER does not speak to the unsafe weld conditions at all. , i 21 All it speaks of is Consumers plans for pre-serticecadd r3 22 in-service inspection of welds that is required of all O 23! Applicants by 10 CFR 50.55A. 24 The low alloy steel welding section in SER on 25 pages 5-10 and 5-11, in addition to not referring to any l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- 8-7pj3 8465 I
problems with the welding, but simply state that the steel 2 welding meets most of the requirements of Reg. Guide 1.43 3 and Ms. Stamiris gives no basis for saying why the Staff's { O 4 eve 1ueeiem of adesuecy for mese of the requirememes im 5 y Reg. Guide 1.43 poses any threat to public safety at all. 9 8-8 3 6 n \ i 7 a j 8 : 0 t 9 i C g 10 a a ti 12 3 c Oi' . . E 14 5 x < E 15 - + j 16
- ,5 y 17 i
$ 18 E
19 8 n 20 ' 21 22 0 l 23 , O 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
t 846S 8/8/l 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Wilcove. @w el([) 2 MR. WILCOVE: I would agree with what 3 Ms. West said, and I would also add that -- for instance, () 4 with respect to Class 1 and 2. piping, you.:see a number g 5 of examples, and the Applicant and the Staff are only 0
@ 6 left to guess as to exactly what Ms. Stamiris feels is R
$ 7 the problem here.
A 8 8 I am reading these pages. I agree, I don't d c; 9 see where they refer to any problems, unless perhaps she z o
@ 10 is referring, for instance, to Page 5-12 that certain
$ Il pipe welds will conform, for instance, Section 52.43, 3
g 12 certain pipe welds will conform to the 1974 edition, g .. 13 (]) $m to the December, 'l~97 5 addenda , as opposed to the 1977
! I4 edition of the code.
15 But again, that's just a guess, and I would 16 also add that they are not even required to -- that f x I7 Section 50.55A states that for systems that have been h
=
5 18 constructed previously, they are allowed to conform to C I9 g codes of prior years. n 20 But most fundamentally, the problem I have 21 is we are left to guess exactly what Ms. Stamiris 22 feels is the problem. (]) , 23 The same thing with respect to low alloy 24 steel weldings. It is possible she is saying that (]) I 25 j controls imposed on preheat temperatures don't follow l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
, 8467
- 8/8/2 1 Reg Guide 150. That's the first full paragraph of O 2 rege 5-10.
3 Again, as Ms. West did point out, Ms. Stamiris () 4 would have to allege more 'han just that. She would e 5 also have to show why the Applicant's proposal for A n
@ 6 meeting the regulations here are inadequate.
R
$ 7 .. CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Ms. Stamiris, do you 3
j 8 have any response? d '
=; 9 MS. STAMIRIS: No. I don't have my SER with g 10 me, and my general concern was with seeing exceptions j 11 granted, I believe it was, tocReg g'u ' ides . I'm notacertain
! 3 g 12 what standards they were that were being exempted, and I c , l 13 just remembered statements about it being impractical {]) l 14 for the Applicant to be expected to do something about 2 15 that. E j 16 I really admit that I cannot be' specific enough w d 17 about my safety complaints, and I understand that 5 { 18 Mrs. Sinclair has a contention that perhaps deals more E I9 adequately with welding conditions. h n 20 MS. SINCLAIR: I have a Contention 35 that I 21 revised under discovery, and one of the workers that 22 {] 23 anonymously reported to GAP has extensive documenation
, on inadequate welding and failures in welding, and my I
24 information from that came only from the Midland Daily 25 News, but I know that it is there. The Midland Daily t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8468 8?8/3 I News had access to the affidavit itself that was neutered. () 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, I can't say how we I 3 are going to rule on your contention, but I might say
/~5 4 you don't have to show timeliness on that one as far as L
(,/ P e 5 I think those were timely. You have one less hurdle h j 6 than Mrs. Stamiris has on a contention of this sort. 7 MS. STAMIRIS: I think that I would be willing M j 8 to drop this contention because -- d c; 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: As I say, Part C would z O
$ 10 be covered.
E j 11 MS. STAMIRIS: Right. That's one of my big f M g 12 concerns. , c 13 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The Board -- l$ 14 MS. STAMIRIS: So I will drop Contention 4 j= 15 at this time.
- y 16 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER
- I think we better take a l A 6 17 short break, not the long one I was talking about.
5 < { 18 MR. MILLER: Perhaps we can hope to finish up P { n 19 before we take- another break. We are through with the 20 main four contentions. ' l 21 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: This is a five-minute ; 22 {) break. l 23 i (Brief recess.) T9 24
}
25 ; f ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8469 1 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Let's turn to 9/1/1 2 Contention 5 . what I understand to be the old 16. 3 MS. STAMIRIS: Right. I think it's my old () 4 16. 5 This is a contention that I don't think g e j 6 will be a question of timeliness because it is based R C S 7 on the Staff's conclusion as stated in the SER and 3 j 8 I was surprised to realize that the failure of the d
$ 9 diesel generator building power supply was not a safety 10 h system that was backed up by something else. I think
=
II 5 it is a very serious condition that represents a very B g 12 l serious unconsidered safety threat. a {} 13 The explanation that I have cited on I4 Page C-16 and 17 of the SER, to my way of understanding i $ g 15 it, it sounded like this was an attempt to use the [ = g 16 auxiliary feedwater system and a turbine' driven pump I W
, which were not safety related or qualified to
=
5 18
- Category I Etandards.
H 19 8 n It sounds to me like it's an attempt to 20 use a nonsafety system as a back-up for a very 21 l important safety system and the turbine driven pump, ([) in the absence of any electrical supply -- well, to 23{ me the fact that they were using a non-Category I (]) 24;l safety systems to attempt to back-up an important 25 ! l safety system seems like the same as having no back-up l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8470 D/1/2 l 1 at all. () 2 I think that the potential failure of the 3 diesel generator building power supply certainly should () 4 be a design basis accident that is considered and g 5 accounted for in the safe design of the Midland plant. O 3 6 I don't have much more to say about that. R S 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Ms. Sinclair, let me s 8 8 ask you something without just looking through. Is d d 9 the unresolved Issue No. 844 I think it is on this b g 10 question of one of your earlier contentions that you -- 11 MS. SINCLAIR: I had something on safety B g 12 blackout but that is not one that I did a lot of study c 13 on and turn in because she had a contention on it (]) i ! I4 and I thought it would be covered there. So I did l $ 15 not have that covered. g 16 MS. WEST: Chaiman Bechhoefer, 'that was A
,d 17 Ms. Sinclair's contention 56 and she did drop it.
l l 18 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Now, you did not have P 19 to satisfy timeliness on those. g n 20 MS. SINCLAIR: I see. Well, I guess all 2I those factors -- 22 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Was the only reason (]) 23 that you dropped it, the only reason that it was 24 {) Mrs. Stamiris' contention? l 25 I MS. SINCLAIR: That was the main reason. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
( 84.71 9 1 Given the time constraints and since I was the only O 2 eechnica1, eo-ce11ed expere that we hed, I hed to he ; i 3 very selective about how many and what kind of h 4 documents I could handle and if I thought that i s 5 she was able to handle some, but I have ! 8 l
@ 6 documentation on that one and I could submit it R
$ 7 if you wish and it is one of my contentions on a '
l 8 which you asked for additional discovery. It's d , ci 9 just that the timellimitations were so great. z C 9/2 y 10 3 g 11 a ci 12 : z \ 5 Oi' E 14 x l 2 15 5 16 ( i t us l @ 17 l s
!E 18 E
E 19 R l 20 21 - O 23 , ' t ! 24 l ' O ' 25 i l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
)-2,pj1 8.f72 ' eat I CHAIRM AN BECHHOEFER: Miss West, are you going r%
2 to respond? 3 MS. SINCLAIR: It's not 56. 4 MS. WEST: I said it was the renumbered 56 as in 5 your interrogatories. y 9
@ 6 MS. SINC' LAIR: Oh, I see, the renumbered ones.
R S 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: As I said, I guarantee we s
] 8 are going to renumber everything. It doesn't come in as
'd
$ 9 part of this order but af ter we get done with all the z
, 10 other ones we are going to have some way of going through
=
II
$ everything so that everyone will know what we are talking B
I2 about. N () 5f= 13 MR. MILLER: I thihk that it would be useful to m 5 I'4 all the parties if when the last contention is decided jz 15 upon by the Board if an appendix to that order would have d I6 all the contentions restated and numbered consecutively e I7 then we will know what we are talking about. h x {; 18 CHAIRMAN BECH OEFER: That is what we do intend 19 Otherwise we will all be hopelessly confused g to do. n 20 about what we are talking about and I want to avoid that. 2 MS. SINCLAIR: I do have more documentation in (} 22 my original contentions and I"have a lot of confidence 23 in them because Bob Pollard assisted in drafting these 24 and one of the things that my contentions states and I (]) 25 think it should be of concern to the Board is that the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
)-2,pj2 8473 1 present gen' erat' ion of plants, including Midland, are not ,
() 2 designed to accommodate a total loss of all AC power and 3 therefore I think that this is a very important issue to , () 4 get into.
~
e 5 If you need more specificity than Ms. Stamiris, M 9 3 6 I have good documentation and I can study.it and within a R
$ 7 reasonable timeframe I could submit more inf orma tfio n .
M j 8 MS. STAMIRIS: If it was permissible, I do believe ! d C 9 in re-reading her contention that I think that that is , 7: C g 10 really exactly the same issue that I am dealing with. I E j 11 don't think that there would be any question about trying 3 p 12 to just take two similar contentions, but since it is in 3 13 (]) my mind exactly the same issue that I am addressing, I l$ 14 wonder if it would be permissible for me to at least use j
=
15 some of the CFR citations and other documentations tha-g 16 she used and plug it into my contention 5 i'n order to w g 17 provide a better, more specific documentation for it.
$ 18 CH AI RMAN BECHHOEFER:
- g . .... . Let'.s hear what the other
! - 19 parties have to say. We have sort of an unusual situation 20 where one of the things we look at is whether another party l 21 has a simi1ar . contention and that party has now dropped 1 22 {) her contention, but she dropped it because you are consider-23 l ing it, or you are advancing it, and I would like the I 24 Applicant and Staff to address that I guess fairly novel
}
25 situa tion . ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
9- 2, p j 3 8474 I My real question is: In view of this, do we treat 2 or do we consider that Ms. Stamiris would have to establish 3 timeliness factors in view of the fact that it is the same 4 contention as Ms. Sinclair is dropping? 5 MS. WEST: I think in terms of Ms. Stamiris pu tting g c* 3 6 fort.h this contention, there are serious time limits problems . g . C S 7 The only thing she is worried about is the infor-A j 8 mation that is referenced in the SER and all of that infor-d y 9 mation on pages C-16 and C-17, the fact that it is not a 2 10 design basis event for Midland and the way Midland plans
=
II 5 to handle station blackout was described in Revision 30 to 3 , . I2 the FSAR that was published onaOctober, 1980. N
=
0=?' - , So this informeeson hee seen out for neer1r two E 14 g years now.
=
y 15 - 9-3
=
~~
.- 16 -
B v5 6 17
- 5 18 E
19 8 n 20 21 1 O 23 O - 25l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i 8475 9/3/1 dW CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, the question I 1
"now
() 2 posed to you is that because an Intervenor who would 3 not have to prove timeliness and assert those () 4 contentions when she has already done it, dropped out , a 5 in favor of another Intervenor who came in and, say, 0 3 6 let's assume that this one is late, should we in R R 7 those rather unique circumstances consider timeliness j 8 in view of the fact that we are only going to have one d y 9 contention on the subject? If we accept one at all z O g 10 there will only be one accepted. [ j 11 Otherwise we can look at Mrs. Sinclair's 3 12 { contention and consolidate Ms. Stamiris with hers 13 (]) if we decided that that contention is adequate. I l 14 guess it was subject to being restated after
$ 1 g 15 discovery. !
x j 16 MS. WEST: Chairman Bechhoefer,' I think we W > g 17 also have to look at the reasons Ms. Sinclair gave w
=
{ 18 for dropping her contention and I think what she 19 primarily relied on in dropping hersias I recall was g l i 20 the fact that she couldn't do it all. She did not 21 rely on the fact, at least in the record, that 22 another Intervenor was putting other contention, (]) 23 what she believed to be her other contentions, 24 forward. (]) l 25l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: She said that. ! l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8476
)/3/2 MS. SINCLAIR: That is exactly what I said.
(]) 2 I said the reason I deferred to Barbar&'s contention 3 on this is that I had to make a very careful priority () 4 of my time and since she was handling it, I decided
; 5 I would go over this one.
8
@ 6 MS. STAMIRIS: I think it would be easier R
& 7 or acceptable to drop my contention and allow s
j 8 Mrs. Sinclair to resubmit her contention. I don't d d 9 It isajust an important issue that we both know. 10 wanted to deal with. h
=
II
$ MS. SINCLAIR: If my contention would have B
I2 ( to be incorporated with hers, timeliness no longer 13 is an issue with mine. (]) I ! 14 What other issues would hers have to meet I $ 15 or other criteria? d I6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We would'have to l i w 17 determine that it was a valid contention, the basis h'
=
18 and specificity and et cetera. h E 9 I9 MS. WEST: Chairman Bechhoefer I think n 20 with both Ms. Sinclair's and Ms. Stamiris' 21 contention as they are presently stated, they both have serious basis and specificity problems. To []) 23 allege or to get a contention accepted that is based on a generic issue, it is necessary to state {]) 25 some nexus to the plant which Ms. Sinclair has failed ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8477 9/3/3 1 to do. O 2 Ms. Seam 1ris, on the other hand, has not 3 shown a basis for her contention. She claims it is O 4 en unconsidered sefeer ehreae end the ana1rsis in e 5 the SER shows that it has seriously been considered b
@ 6l I and systems are installed in the plant to deal with it.
R
$ 7 Moreover she claims that the way the Midland M
8 8 plant will deal with a station blackout which is the d c; 9 auxiliary feedwater system and the turbine are not g 10 safety re1ated. That is not true. They are safety 5 h 11 related. is y 12 MS. SINCLAIR: I am wondering about that. 5 Oi1 I have just been reading about that. You would be
@ 14 amazed at what is not safety related.
l !; 15 l {= MS. WEST: I beg your pardon? j 16 MS. SINCLAIR: I don't think they are safety
-A p 17 re1ated. I don' t have the citation right now but
- a 2
{ 18 I am very sure that the auxiliary feedwater is not n . 19 {. safety re1ated. 9/4 20 L 21 0 23 , 24 O 25l l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. l
l 8478 0/4/1 1 MS. WEST: Ms. Sidclair, the auxiliary lhted 2 feedwater system is safety rela'ted except for the 3 condensate storage tank. r (m) 4 MS. STAMIRIS: That is really what my 5 y contention says. That is all it said in this
" i
@ 6I
~
contention was that it was being relied upon, the n
" 7 source of the cooling water was the non-Category I a
9 8 5 condensate tank. That's what this contention says. d 9
}" CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: By the way, your b 10 y
=
contention now still has a reference to a Contention f 15 which theoretically- doesn' t exist. d 12 3 MS. STAMIRIS: Oh, whatever that was. Let (3 (j < j 13 me see. E 14 y I might add that perhaps the only difference
~
9 15 g between mine and well, other than the fact that 16 ) $ Mrs. Sinclair's perhaps is better documented, I think d 17 g we are dealing with essentially the same issue. I say M 18 g "despite extensive deficiencies in reliability 19
$ questions associated with the diesel generator 20 building," and this is one of the things that did come 21 to my mind when I realized that the failure of this 22 (s) system was not even considered in the design basis of 23 i this plant was that with all the problems that we have r3 24 l
(,) been hearing about with the diesel generator buildinc 25 and, you know, all the unusual circumstances that have ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8473 I I 9/4/2 been involved in the soil settlement. That may or may 2 not compromise the integrity of the diesel generator 3 building that certainly there are serious questions 4 about whether it will satisfactorily perform its - 5
$ function through the life of this plant and there are a
3 6
; more questions for this diesel generator building than E
; there are for the average plant that the generic n
S 8 5 issue considered that I think that because of that d d 9 x- that provides a nexus to the Midland plant that
$ 10 s Ms. West spoke about.
=
E 11 j MS. WEST: If what you are talking about d 12
) is as you said previously that the condensate 13 O' ES storage tanks are not safety related, that is not a E 14 y safety threat because a station blackout won't k 15 y threaten those tanks.
T 16
$ What it would take would be a combination d 17 6 of a station blackout and a seismic event.
E 10 g MS. SINCLAIR: If the equipment is not E 19 R safety related and you are relying on it to back-up 20 a safety system, that seems quite irrational and that i 21
- is one of the biggest points that has been made in all 22 l
( () of the studies on systems interaction and the concerns l 23 , t that have arisen since Three Mile because it was -- ! 24 l () 25 I and it has occurred in many places where a nonsafety l l related equipment has impacted adversely on safety ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4 8480
/4/3 1 equipment.
2 Well, I think we should at this MS. WEST: 3 point attempt to define exactly what this contention is (]) 4 saying. j 5 Is exactly what you are saying, could you
$ 6 i make it more specific because you have talked about a i E
; number of deficiencies and there is no way for 1 N
8 8 Consumers Power to answer that. d 6 9 g What we need is something specific to respond S 10 E to. The analysis in the SER says that there isn't a
=
E 11 g safety problem. It says even if the loss of all AC c 12 E power should occur that there is reasonable assurance 13 O @S that the pool will be cool. E 14 y Is there anything you can raise that 9 15 j threatens that or questions that? Otherwise it is not 7 16 - 3 a valid contention. d 17 @/5 y M 18 E 19 8 20 21 i 22
)
23 , I () 25 ' i I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
9-5 5,pujl 8481 stention.1 MS. STAMIRIS: I think I have already raised my 2 argument:as to the reliability of the combined auxiliary 3 f e edwa te r turbine and the condensate storage tank system () 4 as a backup to this important safety system and I think e 5 there is -- I mean, I jus t don' t know if we can get that h
$ 6 direction from the Board at this point or if there is some-G
$ 7 thing that we are going to have to wait for but, you know, s
j 8 as to whe ther or not I can improve on the specificity of d
@ 9 my contention by adding some of the sources tha t Ms . Sinclair 5
g 10 has in hers or whether she might be permitted to resubmit
$ 11 hers, I don't know if you can tell us that, but --
3 12 MS. SINCLAIR: I have one more thing to add. N 5 (]) 13 In the responses to my interrogatories the NRC response i l$ 14 had this to say which is very specifically directed to 15 {= the dif ficult L Atua tion that we have in this diesel genera-y 16 tor butiding and it says that: "One of the things that w d 17 will threaten the reliability of the emergency on-site 5
$ 18 diesel ge nera to r is that the excessive settlement and P
19 cracking of the diesel generator building due to improperly k n 20 compacted soil can seriously and adversely affect diesel 21 generator performance since this can cause excessive 22 differential movement between the diesel generator and []) 23 > building foundations." And this last reason is one of the 24 kinds of things that has been arrived at in the study of []} 25 f why diesel generators have failed and therefore we have -- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
D-5,pj2 8482 1 you know, we have a situation where that is more pronounced () 2 than on the usual site because we have poorly compacted 3 soil which can certainly very directly cause excessive () 4 differential movement between the diesel generator and the e 5 building foundation. A 4 3 6 MR. PATON: What page is that, Mrs. Sinclair? R
$ 7 MS. SINCLAIR: It's the NRC response to Interro-A j 8 gatory 31-D.
d 2[ 9 MR. PATON: What page? z h 10 MS. WEST: Page 51. Is 'that what you are qu6 ting; j 11 from?
?
g 12 MR. MILLER: Maybe you can point out for us, E 13 (]) Mrs. Sinclair, where the quotation that you just read out l 14 of your restated contention 52 appears in the Staff's N y 15 answers to interrogatories. I don't believe it does.
=
y 16 MS. SINCLAIR: NRC response to Interrogatory 31-D. M g 17 MR. MILLER: I understand that. 4
$ 18 JUDGE HARBOUR: Is this simply a restatement'of C
19 your contention? Those words do appear in your contention. I 20 MS. SINCLAIR: You would have to read the whole 21 response in order to be able to -- I don't know -- 22 MS. WEST: Chairman Bechhoefer, the quotation that
)
23 has been cited in Mrs. Sinclair's revised contention, page 24 52 that she has read does not appear. 25l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I have got the page in I l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. i
6483 9-5,pj3 I front of me and I don't see it. I just can't find it. O 2 MR. WILCOVE: Our response to Interrogatory 31-D 3 - is the opposite of what was quoted in Mrs. Sinclair's con-O 4 . tention 52.
'9-6 g 5 N
@ 6
} 7 s
j 8 d ci 9 o b 10 E g 11 a p 12
~
c O sm '3 l 14 2 15 E j 16 A 6 17
$ 18
=
C 19 9 5 20 21 i O ( 23 l 24 25 ; I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
>-6,p31 t 8484 I
52 MS. SINCLAIR: Let me read it. " Diesel generator 2 performance in general is not affected by the structure in 3 which it is located except for extremes, such as total () 4 building failure, excessive differential movement between 5 3 diesel generator and building foundation or improper design a 3 6 e of combustion air intake and exhaust systems." N 8 7
; They have identified excessive differential move-n 9 8 M ment between diesel generator and building foundation as a d*
9
]. reason why diesel generator performance can be affected 5 10 y
and my response to that --:.my redefinition then of that
=.
f interrogatory is~that the NRC Staff itself has identified d1 3 ' 12 a reason why we have reason to doubt this diesel generator , 9 i l ()g: 13 building can function, because we have more evidence than E 14 y almost anyone in the country that our diesel generator
=
9 15 G building can indeed have th'i s thing go wrong with it, m
~
16 excessive differential movement between die'sel generator g , h building and building foundation. m
$ 18
= I don't know why the quotes were in there like s
l 19 ' 8 they were. It could be a typographical error. We were all 20 going awfully fast and working very late, but the words are 21 there and they are in NRC's response to Interrogatory 31-D () and there are several reports on diesel generator buildings 23 i because there have been so many failures of diesel generator (]) buildings. 25 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: What I would like to _t , ALDERSON REPORT!NG COMPANY, INC. l _
I 9-6,pj2 8485 1 understand is what does all this have to do with station ( 2 blackout. I thought we were talking about station blackout. 3 MS. SINCLAIR: Because if the diesel generator l () 4
~
bui1 ding fails, and this is one of the reasons that it can p 5 fail and has been found most often to fail, then you have 0 3 6 station blackout and no plant in the country today -- R 8 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Wait a minute. M j 8 JUDGE HARBOUR: The failure of th'e diesel generator d y 9 building will not cause station blackout. z h 10 MS. STAMIRIS: Are you saying that total failure 3 11 h of the diesel generator. power supply will not cause station i j 12 blackout? o i 13 JUDGE HARBOUR: (]) You still have the off-site bases. l h 14 MS. STAMIRIS: But it's the combined, the com-g . -
! 15 bined off-site /on-site blackout power failure. I'm talking x
l g 16 about if the outside one fails and the diesel generator e 6 17 building fails. 5 5 18 MS. SINCLAIR: And so is my contention on that. P - l { M 19 MS. STAMIRIS: That is what total station black-20 out was in my estimation. 21 MS. SINCLAIR: That was mine, too. 22 {} JUDGE HARBOUR: Can you explain what you believe 23 will cause a simultaneous loss of off-site power and 24 failure of the diesel generator building?
- 25 MS. STAMIRIS
- I would be hard pressed to explain ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
-6p3 S.186 I it. Maybe Mrs. Sinclair can, but I think the fact that 2 the NRC itself has raised this as a potential generic 3
concern, isn't that what they are talking about in that O 4 tote 1 seation b1ecxoue2 1sn.e thet the generic concern j c' 5 that is addressed in that? 3 6 JUDGE HARBOUR: Station blackout is one thing but R o S y the' foundation problems and the diesel generator building j 8 are another problem. d
-7
#i 9
- i !
h 10 E j 11 6 i$ i y 12 s Oi' ' E
- 14 t
g l = 2 15 g 16 - t us t 6 17 !
$ 18
, 19 5
20 21 22 23 24 25 > ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I 8487 - 9/7/1 30
-dw 1 MS. SINCLAIR: Let's put them together. ,
prr51cm ' (~) 2 MS. STAMIRIS: Yes. 3 JUDGE HARBOUR: By what nexus does one do that? () 4 MS. SINCLAIR: Well, when you have the soil 5 g problem that we have and the cracked diesel generator i n
@ 6 building that we do, then one of the kinds of reasons R
S 7 that a diesel generator building can fail that has been a j 8 found the most often is that there is excessive d q 9 differential movement between the diesel generator and
$ i 10 building foundations.
II k MS. STAMIRIS: But that is dealing with one of B hI the two problems. Couldn't you then knock out both the () 13 off-sitee.andtthe on-site power supply? Isn't that ' possible? m 2 15 w x MS. WEST: I'm sorry. This is totally beyond
- 16 y the scope of this contention. This deals only with 6 17 x station blackout.
=
M 18 l
- MS. SINCLAIR: Well, station blackout is 19
% achieved -- it's an accident because you have failure 20 to these kinds of systems and that is what we are <
i 21 talking about. The adequacy of these kinds of systems y on this plant that certainly could lead to station 23 blackout and how they would handle it. 24 i Os JUDGE HARBOUR: Would the Staff care to say l 25 something about the status of the Task Action Plan having ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. l _. ___ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____
u 8488 I to do with station blackout, the possibility of an 9/7/2 2 initiating event being an earthquake? 3 MR. WILCOVE: Just a moment, Judge Harbour. () 4 (Brief interruption. ) 5 MS. WEST: Chairman Bechhoefer, I think we g n j 6 should also point out at this point that the combination R E 7 of events that the Intervenors are talking about, in s [ 8 order to wipe out both the diesel generator building d f9 c and the off-site power supply would require a seismic 10 h event beyond the design basis of a diesel generator.
=
5 I MS. STAMIRIS: How do you know that? 3 MS. WEST: It's an issue in the proceeding now. m () g 13 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The adequacy of the E 14 y diesel generator building to withstand an earthquake
=
2 15 . w is an issue. .
= '
16 g MS. STAMIRIS: But what if that safety shutdown d 17 g earthquake caused the off-site power supply to go out at M 18 l = the same time? 19
% CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Presumably it would not 20 cause the diesel generator building to fail if it's 21 qualified. If it's qualified, if it meets the standard, 22 O it won't do that.
23 , l MS. STAMIRIS: Well, that's the question. 24 O, CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That's part of one of the I 25 ' things I think we have to decide. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
; V m
8483t l 9/7/3 I JUDGE HARBOUR: That has already been the ! () 2 subject of a great deal of testimony. l 3 MR. MILLER: Itv.will be the subject of a () 4 great deal of testimony. y 5 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: And it will be more. 9
@ 6 The ability of the building to conform to whatever the
( R o l S 7 proper seismic standards are is an issue still to come. 3 l 8 MS. SINCLAIR: But this contention is addressed d c; 9 to station blackout. 10 So far we have been talking about various h
=
5 II ways in which this could be initiated. We don't mean to B j 12 limit it to how the diesel generator building can i 5 function, but:that is certainly a big part of it, but (])af13 ,
- I4 the issue is how does this plant function and shutdown IS in the event of station blackout and the fact is that f16 none of the plant's present generation plans, according I7 to my contentions for which I had help, are able to h
=
l M 18 l - withstand this kind of a situation. E I' 19/8 8 n 20 l 21 22 (:> 23 (2) ; 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6490 78/l w I MS. STAMIRIS: Just one last argument that I i g tion W 2 might make and I am not going to be specific. It is a 3 situation where I can remember reading it and I can't 4 (]) remember where I read it, but it was in one of the NRC 5 reports. Perhaps it was in relation to this 8-44 task, g 9
@ 6 but I remember that my feeling was the NRC was placing R
C S 7 ~ this concern about total station blackout because of A 2 8 5 the fact that there had been some close calls with diesel d 9
}"- generator building elsewhere and there had been some O
F 10 g question about reliability of diesel generator buildings
=
that hadn't been subject to the kinds of problems and fII d 12 z concerns that we are talking about here. () m 13 If it seems a valid generic issue on those h terms alone, when we add the additional concern of the
=
9 15 G soil settlement problems, it certainly seems to make it
=
- 16 g a valid issue for this point.
h MS. WEST: Chairman Bechhoefer, I think we are
=
M 18 j = confusing, or the Intervenor is confusing two things v 19 l here, the reliability of the diesel generator and the 20 reliability of the diesel generator building. 21 Station blackout deals with the event where diesel generators may fail. ({) 23 As the SER shows, the Midland plant is l l 24 l equipped to deal with that eventually and the Staff (]} l 25 has concluded that core cooling will indeed occur in the l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8491 1 event of a station blackout. 2 On the other hand if there is a seismic event {" ) 3 which might threaten the integrity of the diesel () 4 generator building, but that is not a station blackout e 5 Problem, in.~ that event the off-site power would still 3 N
$ 6 be there.
R ! l 8 7 MS. SINCLAIR: But you are talking about a a t 8 8 failure of both and that happens. We have power d c 9 failures. ! 7: h 10 MS. WEST: I am not talking about the failure E 5 11 of both. E : j y 12 MS. SINCLAIR: But station blackout is talking ! E l 13 about a failure of both and that is the subject of l () dE i l 14 this contention. I ! $ i 2 15 MS. WEST: Well, I think that -- y 16 MS. SINCLAIR: Station blackout -- W d 17 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Let's hear from the Staff. { 18 I don't think we have yet. E g 19 MR. WILCOVE: First, the Staff would not f 20 object if when Mrs. Sinclair submits more revised or j 21 restated -- it's hard to remember which ones are which 22 -- revised contentions,,we would not object if she l 23 wishes at that time to include a rewritten station 24 blackout contention. O MS. SINCLAIR: Is that one of mine that was 25 l s i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8492 1/8/3 1 deferred? 2 MR. WILCOVE: It was one that was dropped. 3 Am I right? 4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: It was dropped, but is g 5 it one that the Staff has responded to discovery or not? O j 6 MR. WILCOVE: Yes, but since Mrs. Sinclair E 7 did assume that Ms. Stamiris is going to pick up the Z j 8 contention, we wouldn't object if when she submits more d
- ! 9 contentions, if she wants to include one on station o
G 10 blackout. E j 11 The second point is that Ms. Stamiris' contention, B y 12 as it stands now, is not sufficient. For one thing, 5 O ei 13 there is a time 11 ness erobtem. She hasn't affirmative 1r ji I4 alleged any new information which would justify late 15 filing and as Ms. West pointed out, the information in
- g' 16 the FSAR 1980, so I think it would be a' severe i us f I7 timeliness problem.
18 Also I don't think there is sufficient basis. l i: 19 As I read the contention, it seems to be saying that g n 20 the auxiliary feedwater system will not be adequate 21 during a station blackout, but she has not shown why 22 Q she feels that, and according to the River Bend 23 decision, if, to address a generic safety issue in a 24 licensing proceeding, she must establish some kind of 25 l nexus to show why the Applicant's method of dealing ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8493 I with the problem is not adequate and she has just not D/8/4 () 2 done so here. 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mrs. Stamiris, do you () 4 have any response? Otherwise we will go on to the next 5 one. g 9 3 6 MS. STAMIRIS: No, let's go on to the next one. R
$ 7 MS. SINCLAIR: Am I supposed to write --
3 l 8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: No, we haven't ruled yet. d c; 9 MS. SINCLAIR: All right. .'
?
g 10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: My one question would 11
$ be, if we were to follow the Staff's suggestion and s
y 12 allow Mrs. Sinclair to submit a revised contention E (])f13 m based on discovery and that type of thing, would you 14 have timeliness objections? The Staff apparently would
=
15 not. The one she dropped. She said if she didn't g 16 drop it, when she submits her next group she would submit w I7 it. h M 18 ! (/ 5 '9/9 h 19 n 20 21 22 () 23 24 () 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
m/9/1 8494 dw it 1 MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, I don't O 2 underseand. Are we to assume that 1e.s as if she ; 3 never dropped the contention? I l O 4 CHAIRMAN:BECHHOErER. Aa --the- Seaf f .eeld , .she ! 5 submitted the revised contention along with her other g I
@ 6 revised contention which would be following the Staff's ,
^
n E 7 later discovery, even though the Staff has completed l 8 8 discovery on this. f d ! l q 9 MR. MILLER: Well, I think it would be highly i l 10 irregular to do this, but I don't see that there would {= ! II
@ be a timeliness objection on our part if what we would [
is g 12 be doing was in effect expunging Mrs. Sinclair's l 5
' drovvias of thie ooateatioa from the reoord-O :l=
l$ 14 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, the timeliness 15 would only arise because theoretically, based on a: g 16 discovery, it should have come in along 'with this other us I7 group. h a: { 18 MS. SINCLAIR: I haven't received all the NRC's C l 19 8 information on it. n O CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Not on this one. l t 2I MS. SINCLAIR: I mean, perhaps on this one, 22 Q but I understood that -- 23 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: No, not on this one. i This would have come in with your others if you had 5 not dropped it. That is what I was trying to ascertain, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 1
8495 9/9/2 I whether you people were going to object to the () 2 timeliness because technically it would be a 3 timeliness problem of a couple of months anyway. (G,/ 4 Let's go on to 6. S 5 MS. SINCLAIR: I only received the NRC's O
@ 6 material last week. It's only perhaps been 10 days R
E 7 today. 3 l 8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: But I was assuming, as d 5 9 the Staff said, that you would not submit a revised 10 one on this one, if you did, until you submitted the h
=
II
$ whole bunch of revised ones following the latest a
g 12 discovery you get from the NRC. l 6 13 MS. SINCLAIR: (]) I see. ' b I4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I was inquiring whether E l 15 there would be objections as to timeliness if you E I0 included it at that time. w I7 MS. SINCLAIR: I understand. Thank you. h x { 18 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Sometime at that time or P 19 g before, but I guess if you submitted one today -- I n 20 haven't figured the number of days. You might still be l 21 l timely here and there may even be a day or two more, 22 {) but it is very close to this period of time. 23 ' MR. WILCOVE: Before we go on to the next 24 contention, Mr. Hodd can answer Judge Harbour's 25 question about 8-44. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. a /1 n
~ -10,pjl I I .8-44 MR. HOOD: I will just answer your question.as 2
to what is the status of 8-44 with respect to earthquakes 3 and power on station blackouts. () 4 I will first addreas the remarks made by Ms. i 5 j Stamiris about reliance upon the non-Category I condensate !
?
@ 6 tank atnthe initial source of water for the turbine driven i R
b 7 feed pump. ' A k 0 That is an acceptable design. It is true that the y G c 9 condensate storage tanks are not in Category I,andhthatain o 10 the event of a station blackout that would r'epresent the !
=h k
II source of water for the feed pump. The station blackout g 12 is not at this time a design basis event for plants. ; C 13 ()f I don't know if I interpreted your question cor-E 14 y rectly, if that was the crux of your questioncor whether z 9 15 g or n'ot it was something else. ; z
~ .
16 W M JUDGE HARBOUI: That is a satisfa'ctory answer ' as far as I'm concerned. z , i
$ 18 '
. MR. HOOD: Beyond that I can only add that the ,
u . I9 g diesel generator building must on its own merit meet the l 0 seismic regulations. I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I will assume, or I could () inquire, but I assume that the diesel generator building 23 ! will be part of the safety margin study that will be under-() taken. i MR. MILLER: The ssismic margin review? ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1
-10,pj2 8497 .,
I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Which I understand we are 2 going to hear about in this proceeding. 3 MR. MILLER: ! I'm not certain that we had under-4 stood prior to today that there was any expectation that 5 g there would be testimony regarding the outcome of the seismic a
@ 6 margin analysis.
R e -
" 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I thought that was a state-A >
S 8 M ment in the record that it would be third as part of the 01 d 9 proceedings. o
$ 10 MS. STAMIRIS: OL?
35 II k CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes, as part of the OL it contentions that are already in, the soil contentions.
=
Gd 50 g 13 ln 14 , 2 15 g 16 - l vs I;[ 17 m
$ 18
= ,
,#8 39 e
20 21 O 23 , I 24 O I 25l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i 8498 .
.0/1/1 1 MS. STAMIRIS: You did mean to say OL?
2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes, because I had an l 3 agreement way back in auprehearing conference over a O 4 year ago that we wou1d hear the -- there was some 5 question about whether we should assume - g .use..thessafe a '
@ 6 shutdown earthquake which was employed at the construction -
R E 7 permit stage or whether we should hear new evidence on
- j 8 that, and we already heard new evidence on that. But I d
c; 9 understood as part of that agreement, the ability of E 10 various buildings to conform to the safe shutdown h
=
II ! $ earthquake and I had understood as part of the operating is g 12 license proceeding only because we expect that we would ei Oi' have e deoision in the ot vroceedine hv th eeti e-E 14
- g
- : MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, I would like .
to have the opportunity to go back and review the j i 16 ~ transcript becauseII must say my recollection does not correspond with the Board. a: r M 18 I
- CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That was my recollection. l 19 g Maybe I will have to check as well. We don't have to 20 resolve this now.
21 MR. MILLER: Perhaps we can try and find the Q transcript references which deal with this and discuss it when we get together again. 24 i Q 25 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: There certainly is no , I urgency in resolving this question now. l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6493 1 JUDGE HARBOUR: Either transcript or Board 10/1/2 (]) 2 issuance, I am not sure which. 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I thought we did this. (]) 4 Maybe my recollection is wrong or incorrect. Maybe
; 5 you remember.
0
@ 6 MS. STAMIRIS: I remember something to that R
$ 7 effect.
n l 8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I will have to check d q 9 specifically.
$ 10 Why don't we proceed with No. 6.
E
$ II MS. STAMIRIS: This one has to do with NRC's s
y 12 risk assessment concerning potentiali. release of E 13 radioactivity to the underlying ground water, and I say (]) ! l 14 that it is unconservative because it depends too heavily 15 on the clay layer being impervious, and I think that
-j 16 no one can be guaranteed that a clay layer is impervious W
I7 at all places and at all times. h m { 18 A great deal of reliability is pl' aced on that E g I9 on -- I don't know. When I put it in quotes, I don't n 20 know if I was quoting it from here. I don't know why I 21 have the quotations around the words " essentially , l 22 impervious," except I remember reading various []) 23 statements that referred to this clay layer as being 24 essentially impervious.
/)
I 25 To me that's not the same -- no one can know ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8500 10/1/3 1 that the clay layer is really impervious, yet that () 2 seems to be what needs to be known in order to protect 3 our ground water from radioactivity. , ! () 4 The reason I put in the reference to Mr. Kane ' 's ; e 5 OM testimony is because my memory of his statements at
@ 6 that p6 int had to do with a boring that was taken in R
$ 7 relation to the soil sediment problems, and I asked M
[ 8 about the source of water in that boring, and he wasn't d l d 9 sure.
$ 10 He was speculating at that point without any Z
h 11 great deal of study: or background information, but he a j 12 said that it appeared or that it was at least possible 5 (]) 13 that this water was under artesian pressure. 14 l10/2 h a 2 15 g
- g 16 -
w d 17 t s
$ 18
=
$ 19 8
n 20 21 22 (:) : 1 23 l () 24 25 i I l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. i . _ _ _. -_. _ - _ _ _ - - _ - .
6601
- 10/2/1 I i
dw Well, the statements that are in the DES say prf9ure. 2 q) that it is the confined aquafer, the lower water table, 3 is the one which is under artesian pressure; and so if 4 (]) what Mr. K~ane was seeing as an effect in that boring 5 3 system was indeed under artesian pressure, then it would a f6 E seem to me to at least raise a serious question whether
" 7 that artesian pressure could have somehow come from the n
8 8 a underlying ground water source that is supposed to be d d 9 j protected. 0 10 E That, I wouldzsay, is the basis of my concern 4
= ,
in this contention. d 12 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Ms. West. ()3! MS. WEST: My responses are basically those E 14 g outlined in our written responses. She -- Intervenor 9 15 g claims that the qualities of clay layer are unassessed,
~
16 l- but we point out the properties of the clay layer are, in d 17 . a fact, clearly established in FSAR Section 2.4. x M 18
= She also is worried because she claims that a M i
- 19 g great deal of reliability is placed on the imperviousness 20 of this clay layer in protecting ground water from what 21 it would require an extreme rare accident to even pose a 22 l l () threat at all, and we would like to point out that on 23 !
- { Page 5-59 of the DES, the Staff has evaluated -- even
() 25 I though it first says that it is extremely unlikely that i a core melt could penetrate clay layer, it points out that l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. ;
8602 10/2/2 1 even if it does, it still won't pose a threat to ground (]) 2 water in the T'i~t taba'wa s e e" Riv'er1 'bec au s e 't he It ime' 'it ' wo'uld 3 take for the radioactive fill to travel to the river 4 (]) would be long enough so any contamination in the j 5
-Tittabawasee IRiver wihld - be ' virtua.lly' .elim'i'na t ed .
9
@ 6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Ms. West, I would like R
E 7 to find out the Applicant's position on the second part 3 ' 8 8 , of that contention, which I don't recall that you even d c} 9 covered, and the Staff says it was acceptable. I don't 10 {= think you said anything, as I recall, at least, in your l Il 5 response about that. W fc I2 MS. WEST: Are you referring to the permanent 13 (]) f m dewatering? - 5 I'4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes. Maybe you did. 15
. Well, I don't see it.
j 16 e Let me hear the Staff's a ttitud'e . Do you still I7 support the second portion of that contention? h e 18 f MR. WILCOVE: Yes, we do, Judge Bechhoefer, I9 8 n but with respect to the first part of theccontention -- 20 ! the first point is that at Page 5-58 and 5-59 of the l 21 DES the Staff explains why it feels that the clay layer 22 will protect the ground water; and in this contention {]) 23 l Ms. Stamiris has offered no indication at all as to why 4 {} 25 this analysis is not satisfactory. The second point is that when she cites the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l l
8503 0/2/3 1 testimony of Mr. Kahe, as both the App 11 cant and the O 2 seeff goineea out, nr. xane we- noe ea1xing enoue the 3 clay till, but the plant fill, which is way above the C 4 clay 1ayer referred to at Page 5-58 of the DES. e 5 A 9 3 e 6 p , s f 8 u 8 d ci 9 i c g 10 m a : ri 12 E
=
Oi' lt: 14 2 15 ; 5 ! 16 i ! 6 17
$ 18
=
N 19 8 n l 20 ! 21 22 O 23 24 25 l, i l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
8504
'10/3/1 dw I MS. STAMIRIS: I would just like to say I knew DE 2 that Mr. Kane -- that he was talking about the fill 3 layer above it, but it didn't seem like that layer was
(]) 4 supposed to be under artesian pressure. That's why I g 5 questioned whether or not there could be some connection 4
- 3 6 -- or that, you know, dewatering could affect the R
$ 7 connection between the lower layer, which is not s
8 8 supposed to be -- it is supposed to be impervious to the d 9 upper layer. c} 10 I mean it does state in the DES that the upper E 11 layer is not supposed to be under artesian pressure, S y 12 but the lower layer is. If Mr. Kane raised the 5 13 concern about artesian pressure, and that is supposed (]) l$ 14 to be talking about the upper layer, that seems g 15 inconsistent. e d
- I0 MR. WILCOVE: I would respond that none of that M
17 is in this contention, and I think that if you want to
.h 18 raise any such points in a contention, they should be P
19 down on paper in which you specify how you feel artesian g n l 20 pressure under the plant fill will affect the clay 21 layer, and the Staff again is just left to guess at that 22 {) point, and we didn't guess. 23 MS. WEST: I think that's a good point. It.'.is 24 extremely unclear from this contention what possible 25 effect the Intervenor thinks it might have on the clay l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8505
;10/3/2 1 layer, whether the Intervenor thinks it is going to affect 2 the layer above the clay, and then somehow affect the
{) 3 clay itself, is it going to affect the water below the 4 clay and then affect the clay itself. g 5 We just don't know what to respond to. ' 8
@ 6 MS. STAMIRIS: I have two basic questions in my G
$ 7 mind about the ground water under the plant. One has to 8 8 do with whether or not that clay layer was originally ,
d y 9 defective or, you know,-has some gaps in it someplace i 10 or some weak spots in which it is not impervious, if i g$ 11 that could be its original condition. k l S 12 I don't feel very secure about a guarantee 13 from anybody that a clay layer is totally impervious. m O $l5 14 Secondly, my concern is that the effect of 15 permanent dewatering upon the clay layer might cause g 16 some kind of degradation on the clay lay'er or some kind w 17 h'
. of effect in the soils that would connect the upper and
=
{ 18 the lower ground water supply, that in time -- obviously, E g I9 n I don' t think this would happen overnight -- but whether u 20 in time dewatering could have a potential effect on this. I MS. WEST: I still don't understand the basis 22 l for this. She asks was a clay layer originally defective, ( 23 l implying it is now defective, which certainly isn't 24 true; and I don't understand what that has to do with 25 I dewatering or why her questions aren't answered by the ; i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
;10/3/3 8506 '
I reference in the FSAR. l () 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think dewatering is a l 3 separate subject. The way I read the dewatering part -- () 4 it says, "The NRC risk assessment concerning potential n 5 release of radioactivity to underlying ground water is 9
@ 6 unconservative . . . and it does not consider potential .
R
$ 7 effects of permanent dewatering on the ground-water s '
j 8 relationships." d c; 9 That would be the contention where the Staff
$ 10 has -- that's the contention that the Staff has no 3_
l $ II objection to, and it is the one that so far I don't B ' i j 12 think you have answered. i A d 13 '10.r%,) g - i t
,5 14 2 15 g 16 -
i d d 17 18 E 19 e n 20 21 ; 22 O l 23 I I l () 25 I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. L
10-5,pjl ! 8507 Ed. I MR. MILLER:
~
Excuse me, but just reading the 2 words as we did, it seemed to us there was -- that's an 3 "and" that appears there, not an "or," and it was -- relied () 4 dependence on the natural safeguard of
~
the " essentially 3 [* impervious" layer and not considering potential effect 9
$ 0 of permanent dewatering on the ground-water relationships.
R E 7 It was not an alternative bases for non-conser-N
- 8 M vative --
d 9
~
2 JUDGE HARBOUR: Excuse me. What is your proposed ! o ' l P 10 t y antecedent part of "and it does not consider potential
=
3 II effect"? I
~
MR. MILLER: The NRC risk- assessment. () I MS. STAMIRIS: 11 I can state is in my own mind I m I4 f= I did not intend to mean that these two conditions had to
~
9 15 g occur simultaneously. I wasn't talking about the combined
=
l effect of these two th in gs '. I was raising'two different hI m concer'ns with the NRC's riskhassessment4. f i
$ 18 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That's how the Staff treated l _
l P l 19 . 8 it. n 0 That's the way I intended it. MS. STAMIRIS: l 21
- CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That's how I read it, too.
l (') Does the Applicant have any objection to that i contention, just those words, "Unconservative because" and drop down to, "It does not consider potential effect l (]) l 25 of permanent dewatering on the ground water-relationships. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
0-5,pj2 8308 I Therefore, public health and safety is jeopardized by" -- it O ks 2 would be "this inadequacy." 3 MR. MILLER: Excuse me. Unless again -- the 4 reference is to the DES, and then the conclusion is 5 g apparently of public health and safety. c? 6
@ CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Maybe the last conclusion R
E 7 should be out. Maybe the last sentence isn't really M 9 8 M appropriate. d* c[ 9 z MR. MILLER: I am still -- despite the explanation o H 10 g by Mrs. Stamiris on the record, I think that we are still
=
II k puzzled as to what effect permanent dewatering makes the 3 f c I2 NRC risk assessment unconservative. Is it because it drys (') y "j I3 out the clay somehow? 3 14 g We simply can't tell from this. Is it because x je 15 the pumps may operate and collect ground water that's been d I0 ' w contaminated by radioactivity? I7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: h x I think it is more because b I0 it didn't discuss an.aspec't of it, of something that Mrs. A I9 h n Stamiris thinks is relevant. b MR. MILLER: The contention as written does not i 21 describe what aspect it is of the potential effects of 22 permanent dewatering that we are going to have to deal with. (]) MS. STAMIRIS: All I can say is the first part 24 of this contention has to do with an analysis performed (]) 25 ! l by the NRC,.which is addressed and I thought was inadequate ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
.0-5,pj3 8509 I because of reliance on the ori'ginal, you know, impervious-2 ness o'f'this clay' layer. 3 The second part of it refers to analysis that I O 4 feel should have been included in the DES and wasn't, and 5 so I can't -- well, I mean I can't find fault with the g
?
@ 6 ' Staff's analysis on the second part. I am finding fault witt, l R R 7 the fact that it wasn't done.
A 10-6k 8 e d 9
$ 10 gn a
p 12 s O! '3 ls 14 2 15 j 16 , as i 17 5 18 E 19 { 20 21 l O 23 24 25 I l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4 l 6510 10/6/1 1 MR. WILCOVE: Judge Bechhoefer, as I understand 2 it here, what -- you know, if this contention is -- d 3 this part of this contention is admitted and the Staff () 4 does not object to it, we will be litigating whether 5 or not dewatering will affect ground-water relationships g v j 6 and whether it would have any effect at all, and the R
$ 7 Staff is prepared to litigate that point.
s j 8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That's how we understood d q 9 it. E 10 MR. MILLER: h If one looks at Page 5-59 of the
=
II k DES, what the Staff assumed there was that the E 12 contaminated water never got to the clay layer. l f Instead c () m 13 it just reached the surficial sands, and by that method E I4 migrated to.the 2dittaba&aseeiRiver. 'Yet;itistill 5 15 concluded in the DES,that any contamination in the Tiitabasa see' River' ko'uid'- be? vir'tu' 7 a lly ' ei:iinindthd by Ithe C
$ 17 ! length of time that it took for that movement of the
=
IO contaminated water. 5 19 8 n CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Let's go to 7. 0 MS. STAMIRIS: Are we ready for No. 7? I Okay. Well, Contention 7 has to do with the (]) containment integrity, and it does deal with the 23 I combined effects of the examples I have listed; and I have made references to different problems which I (]) 25 feel are problems that cannot be completely or ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8611 ~!! I adequately remediated even if they had been identified O 2 grevious1y. 3 I feel that the combined effect of these O 4 significant weeknesses on the coneeinmene is something 5 that the NRC has not taken into consideration. g e'
@ 6 I didn't see -- I see the NRC and the SER in R $ 7 their posturing generally to treat safety systems s
8 8 and safety issues as separate issues, and I feel like , d ei 9 there's a great need to step back and look at a broader z h 10 picture and take things together as a whole. m 11 If you have a little deficiency here and a a j 12 little deficiency there and another one here, we can't Q 13 -- when you are dealing with nuclear plants and the b I4 reactor containment system, I don't think you can do 15 it that way because those three taken together can add j 16 up to a very serious problem, and I don r t see this kind as I7 of analysis being performed. h x { 18 So if you want me to, you know, try and be E g I9 more specific about the examples I have listed -- I n 20 have already talked about the reactor pressure vessel 21 support modifications, which goes back to the anchor 22 bolt failures, which I feel although the NRC Staff has
] 23 j
signed off on the remedial plans for that, I feel that 4 there is still a lot of compromise that is taking place Q 25 I to what the original standards were, and that taken ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8612 (0/6/3 1 in conjunction with other safety problems, it can have (]) 2 a -- there could be a serious degradation of the [ 3 livelihood of the containment performing its intended l O 4 reer cuactioa-g 5 Example B is one 55-U report which occurred 9 j 6 in 1981, which I considered to be uncorrectable when R l 8 7 adequate shear reenforcementiis found to be lacking in s j 8 the containment. l d c; 9 The remedial action for this, as I understood ! E h 10 it, consisted of reanalysis on paper of what the
@ 11 original requirements were and a determination that !
B (a 12 in fact safety margins were still met. ; 13 In other words, new figures and paper analyses []) f ( l$ 14 were performed, but obviously nothing was done to the 15 containment structure itself and really can't feasible j 16 be done to go back in and tear it apart'to put in the e l d 17 original rebar that was missing.
$ 18 Example C has to do with inadequate loading P !
19 combinations, and it is something that I referred to h n 20 when I was reading the SER; and in my mind I remember 21 that I considered this one of the exemptions that the 22 NRC granted to Consumers. If I remember right, it was
)
23 based on the oldness, the age of the design of the 24 containment being that this is one of the earlier plants, 25 that certain loading combinations were not as strict in ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8513l >0/6/4 1 the early days as they are now and, therefore, they O 2 are not being re w irea to meet tho.e .. 10,ainy 3 combinations. O 4 ,0 / 7 e 5 U N 6 fN
$ I N
{ 8 d - c 9
$ 10 E
j 11 m y 12 c Oi' l$ 14 2 15 5 j
. 16 ,
as 6 17 5 5 18 - E 19 R 20 21 0 23 , O 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
'0-7,pjl 8514 combinatiloris A failure to postulate pipe ' break' .ef f ect' in the
~g ??
2 containment seems to me to be another exemption, and I can't 3 remember the basis for that exemption. () 4 The NSSS Seismic /LOCA deficiencies which are
~
g 5 referenced in : 'a. 19 8 0 55E report are designed deficiencies 8 , @ 6 which I have -- I have question as to how they are going l R 8 7 to be resolved, and as to.whether or not that is going to A 8 8 come up in the OM proceeding, because I know we have i d
- @ 9 covered seismic in ': the OM proceeding, but the containment 3
h 10 structures were accepted from considerations for the new 11 seismic standards because they are founded on the palatia1-k 12 { t i,l l , and yet I thihk the fact that, you know, there is , () 9 13 fill soil around their sides and'perhaps dewatered . fill m 5 14 soil there, you know, makes some other changes in the
$ ~
g 15 support of thes~e ' structur' e's th'a t1I am'- not/ certain' thatc-they a g 16 should be exempted. ' l w
$ 17 And the Seismic /LOCA deficiencies that were U
l { 18 identified with the containment structures, I think taken k g 19 in combination with those other safety factors I mentioned, n > 20 contribute to a questionable integrity of the whole system. l 21 JUDGE HARBOUR: Can I ask you, please, Mrs. () 22 Stamiris, what kind of inter-relation are you thinking about 23 ! in the last two lines that are here in your contention? 1 () 24 MS. STAMIRIS: Well, I'm just talking about what 25 I I really introduced by discussion in this contention, that l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
0-7,pj2 8515 1 these all represent safety questions and safety issues, and l () 2 in my mind to varying degrees unresolved safety issues, 3 and that the inter-relationship being that they are all () 4 at the containment structures and, therefore, when you e 5 consider them altogether, it will have a combined effect 9
@ 6 on the integrity of the containment structures that is R
$ 7 greater than any one of them taken separately.
j 8 I know they have all been addressed separately, d q 9 but they have not been addresse l in an integra'ted f ashion. z C g 10 JUDGE HAREOUR: So you are saying, then -- am I
~
g 11 correct in understanding you are saying the in te r- rela tio n-S y 12 ship has to do with their all being related to or associated c (]) ya 13 with the containment? l$ 14 MS STAMIRIS: Right. 2 15 JUDGE HARBOUR: Okay. g 16 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Ms. West or Mr. Steptoe. M g 17 MR. STEPTOE: Your Honor, we, too, are puzzled
$ 18 by what Mrs. Stemiris is referring to as the inter-related P
19 { n effect of these unresolve.d safety issues. 20 For example, Item No. A, reactor pressure vessel 21 support modification relates to the supports for the
/'i 22 reactor vessel, not for the containment. It doesn't have
(/ 23 anything to do with the containment, at least directly. 24 All of these are -- let me just say that Item A -- 25 Item A is old. It is a 1979 problem. As we have seen,
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
_0-7,pj3 8516 , I there's.been extensive analysis of this. There is no good 2 cause that's been shown for raising it at this time. 3 Item B is a 50.55E report, which was iss'ued in 1981, a O 4 yeer ego. e 5 Item E is two years old. O j{ 6 Item E, by the way, is an analytical problem, R 7 5 but -- and again,.it deals with the nuclear st~eam : supply
~ ~
M
$ 8 system, the analysis of that rather than of the containment !
O q 9 per se, aT.thottgh,. 6f: course ,.rany.thh g . in the . containment is - - z o
@ 10 has some connection when you are doing a seismic analysis.
E 11 You have to model the whole thing. h is l10-8 y 12 5 Oi' E 14
=
2 15 l j 16 - l e d 17 l l $ 18 i = N i ' 19 8 n 20 21 l l 22 23 i O 25l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8517 l 10/8/1 t. dw Mrs. Stamiris ' referemcm. to the SER are 2 equally puzzling. Item No. C, inadequate loading 3 combinations, I believe is simply a misunderstanding () 4 of the SER. 5 She is referring to the use of ACI-349 and g n
@ 6 Regulatory Guide 1.142, and if you read the page of R
$ 7 the SER she is referring to, it is clear the Staff has M
8 8 not indicated that there is any problem t3nre. d q 9 Moreover, those -- again, trying to find a g 10 connection, ACI-349 and that regulatory guide deal with 3 II h how you build _a. concrete -- reinforced concrete section. a p 12 They don't tell you how to analyze a nuclear
<w
() by 13 steam supply system for seismic and LOCA loads. m 5 I4 Moreover:;,the section on Page 3-21 is a 2 15 misreference. It refers to other than containment j 16 structures. I believe she should have b'een referring e I7 to Page 3-19 and 3-20, which again refers to?.ACI-3 4 9,
.h
=
{ 18 and again, comes to a favorable conclusion. E g I9 n It states in the top paragraph, "The Applicant 20 has identified critical sections of components and 21 determined that adequate safety margins exists when the 22 ([) current Staff's acceptance criteria, ACI-349 in 3 conjunction with Regulatory Guide 1.142 are used." () 24 The results of this evaluation were used and 5l found acceptable by the Staff. l
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
t 8518 10/8/2 1 So is that a basis? () 2 In sum, this contention fails because it is 3 not timely. Most of the pieces of it are not timely. ! () 4 Pieces of it that refer to the SER are puzzling and no e 5 basis is found in the referenced sections of the SER; U
$ 6 and the concluding section "The interrelated effect l l R I
& 7 of these unresolved safety issues" is a puzzlement to j 8 us. It is not clear what interrelated effect these d
c; 9 things have. ,
$ 10 I guess I forgot to deal with Subsection D, l 3
h 11 which was the reference to the SER Section 3.6.2, and ' l 8 I
, p 12 all that is is the statement about how we -- Consumers -
c 13 conducted its pipe break analyses its postulated (]) $m --
! 14 pipe break analyses, and there was a statement in there 2 15 that says in the containment penetration areas. We ,
E y 16 did not postulate pipe breaks, but instead we agreed w ! { 17 to do augmented in-service inspections to increase the l 18 assurance that pipe breaks would not occur there. I {5 n 19 The Staff again found that fully acceptable in ; 20 accordance with, I believe, the Standard Review Plan -- 21 or, I'm sorry, it was in accordance with Section 11 of ! 22 the code, and the Staff's conclusion is that the Staff {) 23 , finds that the Applicant!.s augmented in-service 24 inspections program, although deviating from the 25 Standard Review Form, provides an equivalent level of ! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPA NY, INC.
1,0/8/3 6019 I safety, and it is acceptable. 2 So that -- and again, I will take you back to 3 the River Bend decision where the Board required l O 4 simp 1y to sey there is e deviation from the reeuietory l 5 guide or other Staff guide in this document. g a
@ 6 In a contention, you also have to explain R
$ 7 why that deviation is a concern. '
N 10/9 j 8 d ci 9 i h 10 3 g 11 is o d 12 ' c l Q 13 E 14
- a l 2 15 g 16 .
e d 17
$ 18 i5 19 9
n 20 21 l O 23 24 O 25 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
t 8520 10/9/1 I dw Itiis apparent that that what we have here cc^]e rn 2 (_/ are Mrs. Stamiris' feelings or disagreement with 3 conclusions stated in the SER, and I believe she is () 4 unable to articulate just why it is the conclusions of 5 the SER are erroneous; and by saying in token she is j 6 unlikely to be able to provide anything in terms of a R
" 7 good record on the issues, therefore, we believe it n
2 8 M would be a mistake to take up this contention. d
. CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Wilcove.
o F 10 j MR. WILCOVE: The Staff will be following the
=
hI d same lines as Mr. Steptoe on this point. In the first i 12 1 3 place, I think Mr. Steptoe is righti.wh'en he says that
=
()j ( j d 13 we are dealing with three old 50.55E reports. E 14 y Not only are they old, but, as I said when we e 2 15 g talked about 50.35E report, 79.10 earlier, it is a T 16 - g thick document. g 17 w Ms. Stamiris mentions RVP support x
$ 18
= modifications -- well, what about it? Again, we are 19
] going to have to guess as to what she is referring to 20 or why the corrective actions posed were not sufficient.
21 ' The same thing with lack of adequate shear (]) reinforcemen1. Ms . Stamiris did try to explain a few 23 i minutes ago what she feels the corrective action posed 24 (]) was inadequate, but I would note this is the third time 25 ! that Mrs. Stamiris is submitting contentions with respect l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8321 10/9/2 1 to this proceeding. O 2 She submitted them once in June, again.in 3 July, and now; and again, we are left to guess at what O 4 she's referrine to. g 5 The same thing with respect to inadequate O
@ 6 loading combinations. I agree with Mr. Steptoe that R
$ 7 the load combinations are not inadequate, but, again, s
] 8 it is a guessing game as to what she means, why she d I ci 9 feels they are inadequate. I E
b 10 There is nothing on that page that would E
$ 11 indicate inadequacy.
is y 12 With respect to the failure to postulate 5 Q 13 containment pipe break effects, Section 3.62 is over
$ 14 two pages long; and again, we have to guess at exactly 15 what she is referring to.
16
!l Again, with respect to Seismic /LOCA as f
a: 17 deficiencies, referring to a 50.55E report, an old one
} 18 at that, and we have to guess at -- you know, again, i:
19 what about the deficiency and what's wrong,;*ith the g n 20 corrective actions that were taken. 2I As for the interrelated effect of those 22 unresolved safety issues, as it stands now it is too 23 vague to be litigated. 24 We have five issues here with X number of I 25 combinations that we would have to guess at what type ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8b22 l10/9/3 1 of combination -- what type of combined effects she is , 'l () 2 referring to. 3 It is just too vague as it stands, and again (]) 4 to repeat myself, it is untimely, i g 5 MS. STAMIRIS: I would like to respond that, , R ; j 6 first of all, I think of the reactor and the containment l R l $ 7 -- I think of it as a kind of an integrated system. , s y 8 I did say the reactor containment integrity, and it , d I q 9 seems like in some of the arguments against this, we ; g 10 were focusing on the containment in itself, and I did g 11 not intend that. - k i y 12 I would be the first one to admit my lack of 5 13 expertise in pursuing the deficiencies, and, you {]) ; l$ 14 know, the complicated things that are involved in a l 2 15 contention like this, but I do feel that I have : E l j 16 identified some serious safety concerns; and I honestly i e r g 17 submit some of these things that I feel are really ! Y { 18 going to be difficult for me to pursue on the hope that A 19 I might be able to get some expert help from someone, { n i 20 you know, that would come forward and that would be : i 21 willing to talk to me about these things, eor perhaps 22 take the stand.
)
- 10/10 23 (
24 c) 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. I
80%3 0-10,pjl I stand. I'm going to be pursuing that in the hope that I () 2-could get someone who is an expert to analyze.these things 3 beyond the analysis that has been performed by Consumers and O 4 the NRc Seaff. 5 [, With respect to the reactor vessel support modi-9 3 6 fication system, I think that this is a unique and untried R S 7 remedial scheme. I don't think there has ever been any n [ 8 experience with such a lateral support system at a nuclear d d 9
}. plant, at least I am not aware of any, and that in itself o
F 10 g is a reason for questioning how well it is going to work,
=
II especially in combination with.these other errors. , fI c Points B, C and D to me are very similar in that 13 ()f each of them concerns some manner in which originallor-
$ 14 g certain safety requirements are not met, but a reanalysis , % 1 9 15 h y is performed or something that the NRC judges to be an y 16 equivalent means of satisfying these standa'rds is accepted.
w I7 For instance, on page 3 -- well, it is on page f# 18 3 -13.c o f the SER in Section 3.6.2, which is Example D, the I9 failure o postulate containment pipe break effects. As n 8 20 Consumers' lawyers have stated, they'.didrnotppostulate 21 these pipe break effects at the containment, and then the 22 NRC judged that their inspection their surveillance (]) -- 23 ! Program would be an equivalent means of meeting this
/') criterion -- well, it seems to me like saying, well, we (s
25 have identified a problem and it is a potential safety I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
10-10,pj2 8524 I problem, and we know you don't meet the safety requirements, i q 2 but, you know, we are going to check it every week or we 3 are going to trust'.you to check it more often than usual () 4 or something like that. e 5 The basic problem I have with this is that we b
@ 6 are going back to subjective judgments again. Not only has R
R 7 the NRC made a subjective judgment on the adequacy of this n [ 8 equivalent substitution, but we are going to be basing d q 9 our final acceptance of this safety standard on Consumers z c g 10 subjective judgment when they perform their in-service 11 surveillance, w 12 They are going to check.it more often because they-I 5 ()f13m haven't met the safety requirement, and that seems to be 5 14 basically the same thing that's been stated on page 3-21 {m 15 regarding the inadequate loading combinations that -- j 16 because it is an old plant and the codes di'dn ' t require it M , 17 at that point, it says the load combinations for the con- { 18 crete structures do not agree with the current NRC acceptance P 19 criteria. g n i 20 I just -- I had to admit that I can't pursue it 2I adequately myself. I hope I will get some' help with it 22 in the future, but I do feel like the integrated effect of {]) 23 l these safety questions raises some serious questions that i gS 24 I h aven't been addressed at this point.
- (_/ f til 25 l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. f i
8525 11/1/1 1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Does anybody have anything dw- ) 2 more to say on 7? If not we are going to 8. 3 I might say that 8 is an entirely new () 4 contention and the parties could have more time to 5 respond if they would want that. g ; e
@ 6 Let me also comment on 8. There is a portion R
$ 7 of this contention which on its face is not accurate.
N l 8 MS. STAMIRIS: It's not? d d 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: In the South Texas case 10 the Applicant permitted itself to perform an audit of Il
$ this sort. I believe the Staff approved it.
a g 12 The licensing board took no action whatsoever. c ([)f13
=
One of the Intervenors asked permission as a result of 5 I4 this audit and as a result of an agreement with the 9 15 g Applicant to include this Intevenor's representative in z ' j 16 ' s the audit. I7 h They asked to withdraw from the proceeding. M 18 The only thing that we approved of is that they withdrew. s 19 g We did comment that it was a reasonable 20 settlement of a problem and I guess we commended both of 21 them for doing that but we never required any 22 Os independent audit. So I guess that section of the 23 l I contention is not accurate. () 25 MS. STAMIRIS: Well, I certainly accept your correction for the factual matters and I thought this ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8526 1 was a case that you were involved in. '11/1/2 () 2 I will just tell you that this information was 3 received on the basis of a phone call. () 4 I had spoken with someone relating to this ! i g 5 case before and I called yesterday to confirm it and j e ' 3 6 this is the way I understood it as a result of that l R 1
$ 7 phone call.
A l 8 CEAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, be sure to ask d c; 9 Mr. Bishop because one of his partners represented l
$ i g 10 the --
$ Il MS. STAMIRIS: Well, Mr. Bishop -- !
s g 12 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That was the Intervenor ! E (] 13 that withdrew as a result of being included in the annual l$ 14 audit. 15 MS. STAMIRIS: Right. Well, Mr. Bishop made d I0 the phone call. So I thought that there' was some w I7 connection and I didn't have first-hand knowledge of h
=
18 this obviously myself, but the reason this is essentially C I9 a new contention is because I did tell the parties at 8 20 our informal meeting the day before this hearing began 21 that I was considering deferring and I listed certain 22 contentions, and what they were were they were what I (]) 23
, would call my design deficiency contentions in which I i 24 assert a pattern of design deficiencies and I listed
(]) 25 a long list of examples that dealt with these design ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8527 11/1/3 1 deficiencies. () 2 Admittedly contention 7 that we just reviewed, 3 that is what's left of those contentions, but I had () 4 several others that had to do with what I have a 5 considered a pattern of design deficiencies at this 0 3 6 plant and because I felt that those contentions were R l $ 7 unwieldy and not going to be -- I wasn't going to be s 8 8 able to deal with them adequately, I was searching for a d c; 9 way to resolve my concerns with the design adequacy of g 10 this plant. 11
@ Rather than defer the contentions I wrote up ,
B g 12 this contention to replace those others in the hopes that E 13 (]) ef if aLproper, you know, what would satisfy me as a proper ; 5 14 design audit were performed at'this plant and not by a 15 party that had any connection or of consumers choosing, j 16 but an independent third party such as Brown & Root i d 17 who I understand who I was audited by Bechtel before { 18 Bechtel was given the job at South Texas. Well, if 19 g Brown & Root could come back here. n 20 A1/2 21 - ( , 23l 24 (} 25 I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8328 11/2/1 dw I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I'm not sure I'd 2 recommend it. 3 MS. STAMIRIS: They might do a very aggressive () 4 job of auditing. 5 y (Remarks madecoff the record.) 9
! 0 MS. STAMIRIS: I an asserting that without G
" 7 such an independent audit that there will not be the E
a 8 assurance of the design integrity of the plant and d 6 9 7- without -- I did not attempt -- the thought crossed my S 10
@ mind about explaining why am I not assured by the NRC's
=
E 11 g assurances that the design is adequate, or why would I d 12 g not be assured if the NRC performed it. 13 C_m)E
@ Obviously,I:iwould not feel that Consumers or E 14 y Bechtel could audit their own work as was suggested at 9 15 j the ACRS meeting which I understand was not to be the 16 l only review, but I think the appeal?.that I wrote in d 17 l g this case outlined a pattern of lenience on the part of E 18
= the NRC that has caused me to not feel assured of their s
E 19 s own review and their success or ability to perform an 20 l audit in such a way that it would be thorough enough, 21 I don't know for whatever the reasons, but I just feel l 22 p)s (, that it would have to be done by a third party not 23 i
! connected and preferably -- well, I think it should be i O done by e co getitor.
25 l I think we need the utmost degree of l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8529 1/2/2 1 objectivitytand agressiveness in this kind of an audit O 2 et this point. 3 I don't have any more to say about it. O 4 CaA1RxAn BecanoErzR= Mr. Seeeeoe2 e 5 MR. STEPTOE: Judge Bechhoefer, there may not b
,8 6 be a whole lot to argue about here.
R
$ 7 The Board has already expressed its interest s
l 8 in hearing from, at least from the Staff about the d C 9 recommendation of the ACRS that an independent design E, 10 audit be done. Jim Cook has already told the ACRS h
=
11
@ that in addition to any design review done by Bechtel 3
g 12 that we will comply with the Staff's requirements with 5 Q 13 respect to an independent design audit. l 14 There is a letter from Mr. Tedesco dated 15 July 9, 1982 which asks Consumers toasubmit plans for j 16 as such a design audit and the NRC and Cons'umers are going I f 17 to be working together to establish that. l { 18 We certainly would have no objection to I9 g e bringing a witness up to explain just what we are going 20 to be doing in that regard. I don't think there is any 21 question that an independent design audit is going to O de aoae-23 I don't know that we need a contention to do 24 Q this but certainly this is one of the things that we are 25 ' going to be hearing testimony on. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8530 1 The other aspect of the contention is a little 31/2/3 () 2 bit more confusing. The contention says that the ACRS 3 has recommended an.. assessment of Midland's construction () 4 quality in addition to its design adequacy and the ACRS 5 was told by the NRC that Region III is going to prepare g 9
@ 6 a report on construction matters. That is at Pages 19-1 R
$ 7 and 19-2 of the first supplement to the Safety n
8 8 Evaluation Report. d c; 9 Again we would have no objection to the Staff 5 10 providing a witness either from Region III or from II 5 Washington who would explain just what they are planning B g 12 to do in this regard. I C ()a 13 Our concern would be that they are going to b I4 probably issue a number of those construction reports 15 and by conceding at this point.to the Board that it may j 16 ~ want to hear about them and how they are going to be w I7 done, we do not want to suggest that we can't close the h
=
{ 18 record in this case before we get the end result of P 19 8 that process and the end result have to be litigated, n 20 but certainly these two reviews that are going to be 21 done, how they are going to.be done is certainly an 22 issue that the Board can hear. (])
- 11/3 23 ;
i 24 ' (]) 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
.1-3,pjl 8531 lere 1 M,R . PATON: Mr. Chairman, I hear the Applicant ID (s 2 l coming very close to saying that they intend to perform an 3 independent' design verification, but I don't think he really
() 4 said that. I don't think the Applicant is in a position to i e 5 commit to this Board that they will perform an independent h j 6 design verification. R
$ 7 MR. STEPTOE: Well, he only reason why we wouldn't n
8 8 be, your Honor, is that the Staff has not yet told us what d y 9 that constitutes,.but we have agreed in principle. E b 10 Mr. Cook has told the ACRS that we are going to j 11 be meeting with the Staff and discussing how this is going i E o 12 to be done and the Staff has asked us to do it. E c i 13 (]) $m MR. PATON: That illustrates my point.
! 14 Applicant says, "Well, you don't really need a 2 15 contention because we are maybe or sort of going to do it."
E y 16 Then I ask him, "Are you going to do it?" And he said, w d o it yet." {z 17 "Well, you haven't told us how to M 18 I think that supports clearly Mrs. Stamiris' P h 19 contention. She says she believes that it is necessary l g . 20 and the Applicant says, "Oh, don't worry about it. We 21 will probably do it." I don't think that is a defense 22 to the contention. l 23 If they are going to dolit and they want to put (3 24 a commitment in the record that they are going;to perform ! U 25 an independent design verification, that might affect Mrs. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
i 8532 .1-3,pj2 1 Stamiris' contention, but short of that, I don't see that O s_/ 2 their good intentions'or expectations are any answers to 3 her contention. 4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Would you accept the con-g 5 tention -- what is the Staff's position on the contention? O 3 6 MR. PATON: We accept it and the reason that I R
$ 7 would be hard-pressed to argue against it is that the ACRS j 8 has recommended it and as Mr. Steptoe says, in a letter d.
c; 9 dated July 19th: "We request that the Applicant begin N 10 an evaluation leading to an independent assessment o'f h
=
11
$ Midland's design adequacy." -
B f S 12 Now, they have not committed to perform it but 13 ({) g in light of the ACRS recommendation which the Staff is l 14 passing on to the Applicant and requesting that they per-2 15 form it, I would find it difficult to oppose the contention. x j 16 All she is saying I think is that'it's necessary. w g 17 It is certainly based on very current information. 5 5 18 MR. STEPTOE: Well, your Honor, Mr. Paton P 19 attributes more deviousness to me than I would, g n l 20 We are going to hear testimony on this. It's 21 clear. It's just not -- I am.not certain what the effect 22 {} of the contention is. 23 Obviously I was trying to go through all that 24 but if we have a contention here, it seems to me that the (%J^3 25 contention merely asserts that there is a need for these i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8533 11-3,pj3 ; I reviews to take place and it's already in issue. 1 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The Board could agree or 3 disagree as a result of that, but whether or not we could () 4 force you to' perform a particular type of review I am not 5 sure. Maybe we could. g 9
@ 6 MR. PATON: Mr. Chaiiman, I don't think that Mr.
G S 7 Stamiris is asking if you could do that. She said that [ 8 she doesn't believe you have reasonable assurance that this d
- C 9
, plant will operate correctly in the absence of the results
$ 10 of an independent design verification.
E f h s 11 It's like any other contention. That's why she 12 says that we don't have reasonable assurance and the N 5 (]) 13 Applicant doesn't want to commit to do it, but they say: l$ 14 Don't worry about it. ~ g 15 I don't follow that. If they are going to do it, a j 16 then put the commitment on the record and that may affect w 17 Mrs. Stamiris' contention, but I don't understand the 1 h
=
18 h statement that says that we are all talking about it and P 19 g" we haven't really responded to the Staff's recommendation 20 and therefore this Board shouldn't consider it as a conten-t 21 tion.
,3 22 1U 23 i
24 []) 25 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8534
,1-4,pjl } -tention.1 That is just not understandable. It is certainly 2 not responsive to a conten' tion.
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Does this contention anti-4 cipate that not only would we determine whether there should 5 be a study, assuming there hasn't been one submitted before g 9
@ 6 we get around to making a determination, but would this R
$ 7 contention have us review this study to see whether we s
8 8 would agree with whatever the results are or not because 4 c-9 that might be considerably more difficult? z, o 10 The study itself of course could give rise perhaps h
=
11
$ to other contentions if the timing is such that the Board.
B g 12 still has jurisdiction. l (]) = 13 ; It may or may not because we may have completed l$ 14 the case by that time. 15 {x
. MS. STAMIRIS: I did not seek that review in this j 16 contention. '
m i {e 17 MR. STEPTOE: Fine, your Honor. Then we have { 18 no objection to this contention on Mrs. Stamiris' statement. P 19 obviously if new information comes to light as a g n 20 result of the report, she can attempt to introduce a new i 21 issue in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice 22 at that time. (]) 23 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Of course, the report that l {} 24 would give rise to that information would not be current 25 when it came out. l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. l
>1-4, p j 2 8535 1 MS. STAMIRISh Judge Bechhoefer, when I say that 2 I did not state in this contention that I was envisioning 3 an ASLB review of it, I am also making the assumption that 4 if there are problems with it, that there will be some 5 forum to address. g a
@ 6 ,
If it is not this ASLB, obviously if this design g ,
$ 7 review was done and it was inadequate or if it found --
N 8 8 let's say it went in there and it found very serious d c 9
, problems, wouldn't I be correct in assuming that they would g 10 be addressed in some way before this Board or some other E
II Board? is 12 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: That is probably correct. N c OiI3 $ I4 Cereein1r the Seeff wou1d have le end the gossid111er of e
!:i show cause order if a license order had already issued --
E 2 15 there would be a number of avenues for approaching it. y 16 If the Board were still available' and it became as I7 relevant, if the study is through before we get through -- h x ' M 18 MS. STAMIRIS: Right. E 19 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Once we get through, one g n 20 way or the other, we will pass it on to the Appeal Board 2I and the Appeal Board will pass it on to the Commission 22 O and some Boare w111 h,ve it. 23l This is true whatever decision we make. One of 24 these days there will be an end to this. 25 , Is there anything further? I l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
,1-4,pj3 8536 I MR. MILLER: Before we leave the whole matter of 2 contentions, I would just like to state for the record that 3 despite : orders of this Board that have been issued over a O 4 geriod of time heginning in Mey with respect to the timing 5 of contentions and what they were suppose to contain, over g
a 3 6 the last two days we have been dealing with contentions n'
$ 7 that were given to us as little.as 12 hours before we were s
j 8 asked to respond to them. d q 9 We had difficult choices to make. We could have 5 g 10 asked for additional time and I am confident that this j 11 Board would have given it to us. The Board has really been s 12 quite courteous to all the parties in that regard. I 5 l('ya=ig 13 lm 14 2 15 j 16 , w (( 17
- $ 18 l _
h 19 9 t a I 20 l 21 Q L 22 23 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. L_
8537 11/5/1 I dw MR. MILLER: But that would have been really rqggrd contrary to the interest of our client in getting an 3 expeditious resolution of these issues. So we have 4 elected to respond to them as best we can, but by so j 5 doing, I hope that the Board will not misunderstand , s 6 3 that we are in any way waiving the objections to E timeliness that we have expressed in our. earlier E a 8 filings to the Board with respect to these contentions d 6 9 g that are put before us the day before or the day of 0 10 y, this prehearing conference. 5 11 g MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, there is another d 12 y matter about scheduling.
/"s E 13 \/$ CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, that is what I was E 14 6:00 y going to get into.
g 15 (Whereupon the session was
- 16 -
$ continued beginning at 6:00 p.m .)
g 17 g MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, the Staff indicated E 18
= that it intends to mail the supplement, the next 19
! supplement to the SER which will address the soils 20 issues and we intend to mail that on August 27th.
21 I discussed with Mr. Miller his plans for (3 22
\_/ responding to that and he indicated that he would be 23 ,
; able to put the Applicant's testimony in the mail in rm 24l
(_) response to that and I assume in preparation for the 25 soils hearing on Friday, September 24. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8538
.1/5/2 1 As a result of his statement, the Staff intends
( 2 to mail on that same date, September 24, any testimony:. 3 that we have that concerns soils issues that is not () 4 contained in the supplement to the SER. 5 MR. MILLER: Judge Bechhoefer, is there going
$ 6 to be a testimonial sponsor or sponsors for the R
$ 7 supplemental safety evaluation report on the soils?
A 8 8 MR. PATON: I assume there is. There will be d C 9 several.
$ 10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I assume so.
E 5 II MR. PATON: If that poses any difficulty with B g 12 the Applicant, I would be very glad to discuss it with 5 (]) 13 him, but I would assume at this point a number of
$ I4 witnesses to sponsor that document.
15 MR. MILLER: I just wanted it clear on the j 16 record that the supplemental safety evaluation is going W I7 to constitute the bulk of the Staff's testimony with h m IO respect to the remedial measures. b A e g I9 MR. PATON: That is our intention, yes, n 20 MR. MILLER: I would suggest October 12th. 2I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I have a problem with () 22 that week. 23 : MR. MILLER: Considering that the Board is 24 (]) going to have the bulk of the Staff's testimony of the 25
! supplemental evaluation safety report sometime after --
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
8539 1 qui kly after August 27th, could I suggest the week of 11/5/3 () 2 October 4th? 3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Can anybody estimate how I (') 4 long the hearing session is likely to take? g 5 MR. MILLER: I think it is going te be N
@ 6 difficult for us to know until we receive the supplementa:.
R
$ 7 safety evaluation report in its final form.
K j 8 My expectation is that there is going to be d c; 9 a minimal amount of cross-examination by us of Staff z 8 e 10 witnesses, but I don't know. E 11 Considering the number of discrete issues a p 12 that we have to deal with, it may not realistic to 5 13 (]) assume that we will finish them all in that four-day m 5 14 period. 15 MR. PATON: I would say that that would be g 16 unrealistic to say you wereggoing to finish in four 17 days. l ,d 18
- 11/6 $p 19 8
n 20 i 21 22 () 23 i ([) 25 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. 1
8540 11/6/1 I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Would it be realistic Q s 2 to list it from the 4th to the 8th and then the days 3
- from the 19th to the 22nd for the remedial issues?
G 4 Are we realistically looking at two decisions 3 on soils or should we -- a 3 6
- MR. MILLER: I don't think so. I'm even 8
beginning to wonder whether there isn't some -- n 8 8
" CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The question is whether d
= 9 2-we should issue one decision. What we will have to do 0 10
@ is separate certain parts that Mr. Decker will be
=
. involved in, but that is not too difficult.
d 12 Z MR. MILLER: I thought that it would prove to T E 13 ( (~J j be a way of conserving everybody's resources in terms E 1-4 y of the way in which the issues would be heard and E 15 decided by the Board, but events have overtaken us. T 16
$ There are the issues that I discovered g 17 g earlier today which remain open as a result of the E 18
= Board's questions and other matters'.'
19 l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I will anticipate we 20 will have one set of findings for all of those, but 21 perhaps you want separate ones on remedial actions. 22 MR. MILLER: I don't think so. (m N- 23 , j CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I would say not, but 24 we can be flexible. ( 25 MR. MILLER: There is still the ppen schedule i
! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8541
.1/6/2 1 items with respect to discovery on the matters that are O 2 still the subject of an open NRC investigation and 3 when the NRC Staff will be prepared to deal with the 4
4 list of quality assurance issues that we tender to e 5 them earlier today. b
] 6 Could we agree that by next Friday when we R
& 7 have our conference call that we will be able to make ;
s j 8 some headway on those? d d 9 MR. PATON: Yes. I made a call today to b g 10 attempt to get people working on that and I will do i 3 j a 11 what I can to be able to address that Friday. y 12 MR. MILLER: For the record, I would like to ;
= 1 ask that Mr. Brunner be included as a participant in
[]) 13
$ 14 the conference calls. He was for a while and then we 5 i 2 15 dropped him and I have missed him.
y 16 MR. PATON: He was the tenth man. W d 17 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: If we have these calls, 5 5 18 should Mrs. Sinclair participate or should Mr. Bishop E g 19 ' participate? M 20 MR. MILLER: I assume that since she is now 21 represented by counsel'that Mr. Bishop ought to be 22 participating. 23 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I assume that both of 24 them should be on the mailing list. Sometimes it is () 25 difficult for a client and an attorney to communicate ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 8542 1 on technical matters without having each other's ' U 2 documents. 3 MR. MILLER: Finally, I would just like to () 4 request that those persons who are not aware of our e 5 new address, I will state it for the record. Itiis now h
@ 6 Three First National Plaza, Chicago 60602. Both the ,
l R 8 7 address and the zip code have changed. , s j 8 (Discussion had off the record.: d c; 9 MR. PATON: Mr. Chairman, before we brehk up, t l
$ 10 I don't want to interrupt, but there is another E
11 possible record matter before we finish. B 12 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: There was one other N 5 ()f13 record matter, too. I wanted to make sure that the
@ 14 record reflects -- I think I said this earlier -- that 15
.h the record reflects that the 15 days for discovery
=
l g 16 on newly accepted' contentions, Awith the ' exception of I w I7 any that we accept on the HVAC matters, the Zack h
=
k 18 _ matters will begin Monday. e 19 ?
- l/7 8 n
20 21 22 (]) : 23 ! 24 (:) 25 i i l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i 65'43 11/7/1 [w 1 MR. MILLER: I was going to say and other Moggay 2 quality assurance related contentions, but you are 3 already -- () 4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, I am not issuing 5 an order with respect to any other ones. y e?
@ 6 MR. MILLER: Thank you.
G E 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: So it covers only the s M 8 new contentions and there are guaranteed to be at least d
- two new HVAC ones. They will not be covered by the 15 0 10 P
, days.
=
Do you have anything further? ti 12 3 MR. PATON: Yes. Mr. Hood has an incomplete 3$ ((J j 13 but not lengthy response to Judge Harbour's previous ! E 14 . [ g question. 9 15 g MR. HOOD: The question was raised regarding
^
j 16 Sinclair's restated Contention 4 and I believe also y 17 g referenced by revised Contention 36, Subpart 3 E 18
= regarding the Davis-Besse 1 incident which was the 19 l subject of information noted at 80-20.
20 That subject was also subsequently the 21 subject of an IE Bulletin No. 80-12 on May 9, 1980.
/ 22 (3) More to the point a Darrell Eisenhut generic 23
- letter to all operating PWR's was issued on
(> 24 I
't) ! June 11, 1980.
23l l This generic letter required modification to j technical specifications as a result of the Davis-Besse
}
ncident. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
.2-1,pjl 8544 I It did provide model technical specifications to
) 2 be followed by 'the operating PWR licensees in drafting 3 those technical specifications.
r~ ( 4 Itlis not necessary to issue a similar letter n 5 with respect to plants that are under -- currently in the N
$ 6 licensing review process because our administrative process R
C S 7 within NRC will automatically provide those technical 3 - 8 8 specifications. Changes:Willbbe incorporated when we d i i y 9 review the technical specifications of those plants, such ; z o y 10 as Midland. E II
$ So the answer to Judge Harbour's question as to 3
g 12 whether or not there is another document associated with 5 a In4 Os 5m this incident, the answer is yes. Technical specifications l$ 14 will cover this matter. 2 15 The detailed technical' specification review x g 16 for the Midland plant has not yet arrived to the stage r w 17
,d where that detailed review has commenced. That will be
=
{ 18 completed before the operating license is issued. Indeed, P 19 g the technical specification will be part of the license. n , 20 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: You were saying at'least 2I for the Davis -- the text specs arising out of the Davis-22 () Besse incident would automatically be checked by the 23 l Staff to see that they were there? i l 24 {} MR.H OD: Yes. The~ information coming from the 25 Davis-Besse answer will be reflected in the technical i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
>2-1, pj 2 8545 I specifications for Midland, as well as the other plants.
() 2 I believe that answers that question. There was 3 a second qu'estion related to Ms. Stamiris Contention 5. () 4 It had to do with DES Table 4.1. ' i 5 'I can only answer this question in part at the g 9
@ 6 moment. One of the questions was what does the term R ,
& 7 " adopt'ed from" mean in the footnote.
s
] 8 I had been unable to contact my primary source, d
[ 9 which is an individual in Argonne National Laboratories. o
$ 10 Instead, because I was unable to contact that individual,
- E ,
y II I have asked the Applicant if he would compare the numbers ; 3 ; 12 in the DES Table to those that appear in the Bechtel Table. Y ! E 13 (]) f That has been done. The numbers are the same. l 14 ~ There is additional data in the Becntel table 15 {m which the DES does not use. Those additional words were j 16 for an earlier line of a cooling pond configuration,.4which w - 6 17 was not subsequently adopted. ;
$ 18 So the answer to the question what " adopted from" P
W g 19 means, it's really the same table for all practical purposes, , 20 It is the same data. 2I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: How about Southwestern 22 data? (]) 23 MR. HOOD: That's the portion I have not answered i 24 {) yet. I Shaveosomeeunderstinding of that, but I would really 25 l like to have it from principal sources before I give it to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
,2-1,pj3 ,
8546 1 the Board. () 2 MS. STAMIRIS: Just to clarify the record, I 3 believe when Mr. Hood began this latest answer, he referred () 4 it to as Stamiris Contention 5, and it should be Sinclair e 5 Contention 5. h j 6 MR. HOOD: I'm sorry. I stand corrected. G 8 7 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Is there anything further M j 8 from Mr. Hood or from anyone else before we adjourn? d 9 MR. WILCOVE: No. b g 10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I certainly thank you all 3 5 11 for devoting two rather long days, and I hope we get the j 12 order we are talking about, at least get it out with 5 respect to the contentions we will admit. (]) 13 j l$ 14 Whether we will later have to f o llow ' itt.up C 15 explaining why we may not accept all of them, that we g 16 will have to decide. We are trying to get it done on all e p 17 of them.
$ 18 MS. STAMIRIS: When we are off the record I 5 \
19 have one thing I would like to r'aise. X 20 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We are still on the record. 21 Absent anything further, the prehearing conference ! {} 22 is closed. 23l (,Whereupon an adjournment wa8 taken in the above-24 entitled cause at 6:20 p.m.) 25 ! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the matter of: Consumers Power Company Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2 Date of Proceeding: August 13, 1982 Docket Number: 50-329 OL/ 50-330 OL Place of Proceeding: Midland, Michigan were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission. Pauline James & Associates Official Reporter (Typed) J
?Q[aab, =
f'
,w, a, p
Official Reporter (Signature) 9}}