ML20080C687
| ML20080C687 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1984 |
| From: | DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| 81-463-01-0L, 81-463-1-L, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8402080212 | |
| Download: ML20080C687 (83) | |
Text
ORIGINAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA e
i NI! CLEAR REGtlLATORY COMMISSION
(
in the matter of:
DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al Docket No. 50-413 OL (Catawba Nuclear Station, 50-414 OL Units 1 & 2) m Telephone Conference Location: Washington, D. C. Pages: 12422-12505 Date: Friday, February 3, 1984 gf tw $4 > + .'AG l '
g (y' , l b ] _.- .
L1 L
d) I s
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES I
Court Reportm 1625 i Strut. N W Swte ICM
i 12422
,_s I UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA I )
\',/ 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
5 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE 6 ________________x I
In the Matter of: :
" : Docket Nos. 50-413 OL 8 DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. : 50-414 OL
- ASLBP No. 81-463-01-OL 9
(Catawba Nuclear Station, :
Units 1 and 2) :
10 .
X 11 Tayloe Associates h' = ing on D C. 2 BOO 6 Friday, February 3, 1984 r~x 14 I )
\,J 15 The telephone conference in the above-entitled 16 matter convened, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m.
17 BEFORE:
18 UAMES L. KELLEY, ESQ., Chairman 19 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Washington, D. C. 20555 i 21 RICHARD F. FOSTER, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 22 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 23 PAUL d. PURDOM, Member, 26 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 washington, D. C. 20555 f)
V TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
I' 12423 1
APPEARANCES:
(,x..)' 2 On Behalf of the Applicants:
3 J. MICHAEL McGARRY, ESQ.
Debevoise & Lieberman l 1200 17th Street, N. W.
washington, D. C.
- and -
6 ALBERT V. CARR, ESQ.
I RON SHEARIN, ESQ.
Duke Power Company 8 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 10 On Behalf of the NRC Staff:
11 GEORGE E. JOHNSON, ESQ.
HENRY J. McGURREN, ESQ.
12 BRADLEY JONES, ESQ.
VIRGIL BROWNLEE, ESQ.
13 Office of the Executive Legal Director U.-S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-w .,
18 hashington, G. C. 20555
\~ / 15 On Behalf of tne Intervenors:
16 ROBERT GUILD, ESO.
II Palmetto Alliance P. O. Box 12097 18 Charleston, South Carolina 29412 19 JOHN CLEWETT, ESQ.
Palmetto Alliance 20 236 Tenth Street, S. E.
Washington, D. C. 20003 JESSE L. RILEY 22 Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 Henley Place
%l Charlotte, North Carolina 28207 21 25 ___
()
'sj TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 I STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WMHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 e, , , - - . , - . - - -~.----n.
l 12424 1
PROCEEDINGS
(~')
Q 2 THE OPERATOR: Judge Kelley?
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.
I THE OPERATOR: Juoge Purdom?
5 JUDGE PURDOM: Yes.
s 6 THE OPERATOR: Judge Foster?
I JUDGE FOSTER: Here.
8 THE OPERATOR: George Johnson?
9 MR. JOHNSON: Here.
10 THE OPERATOR: Mr..McGarry?
11 MR. McGA P.RY : Yes, here.
-12 THE OPERATOR: Mr. Guild?
13 Yet, ma'am.
MR. GUILD:
11 THE OPERATOR: The court reporter?
L) 15 COURT REPORTER: tiere.
16 THE OPERATOR: Brad Jones.
17 MR. JONES: Yes.
18 THE OPERATOR: Mr. John Clewett?
19 MR. CLEnETT: Yes.
20 THE OPERATOR: Go ahead, please.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Can you keep trying Mr. Riley, 22 Operator?
23 (No response.)
21 JUDGE KELLEY: I assume she w111.
25 Well, as you just heard, gentlemen, we have the l
p( TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004
- WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12425 l people we need, except we don't have Mr. Riley. He is just jq _
/ \
(_,) 2 not home, but with nine of us on the line, I think we 3
should go ahead.
I MR. JOHNSON: Judge Kelley, I have also J.
5 McGurren, an attorney from the Staff on the line and he is 6 going to be making an appearance in the case.
I JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you.
8 MR. McGARRY: And Al Carr is here on the line 9
and Ron Shearin who has entered an appearance is on the 10 line for Duke.
11 MR. JONES: And Virgil Brownlee is in the office 17 with me also.
I3 JUDGE KELLEY: 0.' cay . Well, I hope the operator II tinds Mr. Riley, but I think- we ought to go ahead. I will g w)
\/ 15 get back in touch with him in any event.
16 MR. GUILD: Judge, let me just mention that 17 Jesse Riley is sending a submittal to the parties as of 18 yesterday on the motion for bifurcation, an affidavit, and 19 I am certain that that matter is of interest to him when we 20 get to that item on the agenda.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. Well, okay. I am glad to 20 know that he is doing that and we can entertain that 3 certainly. Maybe you can, when we get to that, speak for 2I Palmetto and we will have is written submission and 25 hopefully that will tell us what we need to know. But that TAYLOE ASSOCIATES f]
\v 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SulTE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12426 I was a little further down the line and maybe we will find
,_x
, 2 him by that time. ,
3 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me first just read off the 3
list of things that I understand to be before the house and 6 it is pretty much the same list you heard the other day, I but also I have a sequence that we could I think best take 8 this in and also some time suggestions.
9 From what was said earlier, I know we all have 10 some time pressures and we have got an hour or so for this 11 purpose, but we don't want to spend a lot more than that 12 and we do have a way of running on if we don't kind of 13 watch ourselves.
Il flere is my agenda list.
\v/ .
15 First of all, a couple of evidentary points 16 that are still open from the main hearing and I can just 17 announce rulings on those in a couple of minutes or so.
18 Secondly, Mr. Guild's point about an In Camera 19 matter.
20 By the way, the reporter should know that this 21 one piece I am talking about right now we will have to bind 22 up separately and treat it as In Camera.
23 MR. GUILD: Judge, if I can just interrupt, John 28 Clewett will be taking care of that matter.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: All right, fine, but I thought p TAYLOE ASSOCIATES V 1625 l STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 l (202) 293 3950
12427 1
around five minutes for that.
7-(_) 2 The third matter is the business of the 3
rebuttal on the diesel generators contention point, and we i .had previously said around 10 minutes for that.
5 The fourth point is Mr. Clewett's motion for 6
discovery of the underlying basis of the staff reports, and 7
that might run about 10 minutes for responses by the staff 8 and the applicant and then 5 minutes ---
9 MR. CLEWETT: I also haven't had any chance to 10 make my pi tch on tne record. So I am for that.
11 JUDGE r.ELLEY: Mr. Clewett, I assume we wcald 12 have some discussion, but I think your pitch is on the 13 record. You filed a motion that goes at some considerable Il f- length and that I gather is your basic pitch.
t ,
\- 15 Now you have asked for expedited consideration 16 of this well in advance of what the rules require, and we II are going to try to do that, but the next people at bat I 18 would think would be the staff and the applicant and tnen 19 we will see where we go from there.
20 Af ter that the bif urcation matter, and here we 21 have a motion from the applicant. So we would allocate 4 or 22 5 minutes apiece for the staff and Palmetto to speak to 23 that and then maybe 5 minutes or so for discussion.
21 Following that Mr. Guild mentioned a number of 3 points he wanted to raise about emergency planning
'Q/ TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 l STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
l
?
12428 I discovery.
7s I am not sure really what is involved there, we I
\_ N 2 never really got to it, but we can spend some time ~on it.
3 MR. GUILD: I would mention, Judge, I spoke with Ron Shearin yesterday and just ran over briefly the points 5
I. intended to make. So applicants at least have heard a 6
little bit about that.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: That will be helpful. Okay.
8 And then whatever other matters are before us, 9
but that is my list and my time breakdown. If we stick to 10 the times I indicated more or less, and I don't mean ,
11 something rigid, but fairly close, that is going to run un 12 over an hour right there.
13 There may be otner matters I know, but that is rx 14 what the Board has in mind for now and why don't we go
\
] 15 ahead with those matters and then we will see what else 16 there may be and how much' time we have got.
II First of all as to the evidentiary points.
18 There were two offers of evidence and two objections that 19 the Board just didn't get around to ruling on back in 20 December or thereabouts, and so we took those disputes 21 homes with us.
22 Now the first one relates to NCI No. 13955. It 23 is Applicant's Exhibit No. 35 and more particularly it is 28 Attachment No. 3 to that NCI. It is a memorandum to Mr.
25 Grier signed by Mr. Collings and approved by Mr. Underwood O
kj TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
w s 12429 1
and it was objected to as hearsay. It is hearsay and so is
/ 1s ,
(j' s 2 , most of the evidence in this case.
3 ij We are going to overrule the objection and 3.+ \p;w
'I
['~<
allow that in. Its hearsay character as we see it goes to w
- 'A weight just as is the case with the other hearsay in the v6 record.
7 We did look at the Federal Rules in that N connection and the rule on hearsay, Rule 803, Subpart 6.
, N'd' 803(6) provides for admissibility of, among other things,
" 0 reports of events, conditions, opinions or diagnoses made N .
II at or near the time via information transmitted by a person
.( 12 . with knowledge all in the course of the regularly conducted
.. .~ <
.* I3
.f %
activity, et cetera.
II
-h We are not strictly bound by those rules, but
(
' 'O we loon to them for guidance ana it seems to us it supports I
the admission of this document.
C We would just add that we are of course mindful is < of that San Onotre ruling which was the oasis of our 19 excluding the staff report on the damage in the diesel 20 generator room. We are not reading that ruling to reach 21 these kinds of routine papers. It seems to us if we did 22 thAt it would be extremely difficult if not totally 23 impractical to try a case of tnis kind. So that is our 21 ruling on that.
25 The second point related to a series of tables
.O TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
[ \,, 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
I 12430 1 in what we were calling the Sandia Report. The title of O
- 2 (s,/ that particular document is " Technical Guidance for Citing 3
Critiera Development," and it is NUREG CR-2239. This came 4
up when Mr. Riley was cross-examining a panel of staf f 5
witnesses and he referred them to a series of tables in 6
this report.
7 The tables at issue, and I am going to read 8 tnem off and the pages on wnich they appear in tnat 9
document.
10 Table A3-1 appears on page A-13.
11 A3-3, page A-17.
12 A4-1, page A-21.
13 B1-1 appears on page B-3.
13 82-1 appears on page B-4.
\_/ 15 B2-2 appears on page B-5.
16 And B2-3 appears on page B-6.
17 So there are seven tables in all which set 18 forth a variety of data.
19 The request by Palmetto was that the Board tage 20 official notice of those tables and that was objected by 21 applicant and staff on the ground that a sponsoring witness 22 was necessary.
23 As to the first six tables, we are granting the 28 request for official notice. We will do that and the effect 23 of that is that those tables and tnat data are in as (N TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
( 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12431 I- evidence of the truth of the matters they refer to.
sj 2 We are denying the motion for official notice 3
as to the last table B2-3 appearing on B-6. The reason is I
is that the first six tables are pretty straightforward 5
data, things like wind blowing and I can't even recall what 6 all of them are, but it is pretty straightforward stuff and I
not as we saw it likely to be a matter for substantial 8 debate.
9 The last one, B2-3 on B-6, is somewhat more 10 complicated. It gets into some CRAC code consequence 11 predictions and it seemed to us that that is just not 12 suitable for official notice.
13 Now as to the first six, official notice was 18 asked and has now been granted. I call the parties'
" 13 attention to Rule 2.744, subpart (i), entitled " Official 16 Notice."
17 It says, and I will read it, the pertinent 18 part. "Each fact officially noticed under this subparagraph 19 Shall be specified in the record with sufficient 20 particularity to aavise the parties that the matters have 21 noticed or brought to the attention of the parties before 1
22 final decision." We have already done that. We just i 23 specified it. "And each party adversely affected by the 21 decision shall be given an opportunity to controvert the 25 fact."
' TAYLOE ASSC,CIATES (h 162s STitssi, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
M "L
12432 1
,_ so that if the applicants and/or the staff do t >
\/ 2 what to controvert the matters contained in those tables 3
that we have noticed, they can offer whatever they want to 4
offer and just do it along with their findings.
5 Now as to the seventh one, we are denying 6 official notice because of the complexity of the matter. We I
are allowing the table in for the limited purpose to show 8 its authenticity. Nobody questioned authenticity.
9 Therefore, those data are in just to show that in fact 10 those data were contained in that report, but they are not 11 in for the truth of matters they cover.
12 Those are tne Board's rulings on those two 13 points, and as far as I know there are no outstanding
(~~g Il evidentiary rulings that haven't been ruled on.
U 13 MR. GUILO: Judge, can we, as we have 16 customarily done, receive that last table as an offer of 17 proof'to the extent that it is not in?
18 JUDGB KELLEY: Yes. hell, it is in for a limited 19 purpose, Mr. Guild.
20 MR. GUILD: Yes, I understand.
-21 JUDGE KELLEY: So it is there in the record.
22 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, Z1 JUDGE KELLEY: It is a little bit better than an 21 offer of proof, as I see it.
5 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir,
(^)
D TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STREET, N.W. - SulTE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 k
12433 I
-s JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
k ,) 2 Now, secondly ---
3 MR. GUILD: Judge, before you get to that, I 4
didn't want to pass from your comment aoout the evidentiary 5
points remaining. At the end 1 Just a few clean-up matters 6
, that relate to that subject, evidentiary points, exhibits 7
that kind of nanging and that sort.of thing.
8 JUDGE KELLEY: Let's raise it at the end.
9 MR. GUILD: Thank you.
10 MR. JOHNSON: Judge Kelley?
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.
12 MR. JOHNSON: I would like to point out that Mr.
13 McGurren hasn't executed an affidavit. He can either get n
ss II 15 off the line or, if need be, he can sign an affidavit at the conclusion of the call.
16 JUDGE KELLEY: Why doesn't he sign an affidavit 17 at the end of the call.
I8 MR. JOHNSON: All right.
19 (At this point, 11:20 a.m., the open 20 proceedings recessed and the parties commenced in an In 21 Camera session.)
22 23 21 25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES (A) 16251 STREET, N.W. - SJITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
E 12434 I
,_s (The telephone conference resumed in open
/ \
( m, 2 proceedings at 11:50 a.m.)
3 JUDGE KELLEY: The next subject, the diesel 4
generator matter.
5 Now what we have heard so far, and I just want 6 to summarize this for a little context, and correct me if I 7 am wrong, but we had a contention put forward in the record 8 and we have heard argument both from Palnetto and from the 9
applicants and the staff which really addressed the 10 -so-called five factors, and I think we all know what that 11 means.
12 Mr. Guild has requested an opportunity to rebut 13 on the five factors' opposition that we heard a couple of
., 11 weeks ago on the phone.
( )
\/ 15 I unuerstand then, Mr. Guild, that you would be 16 ready to proceed on that point; is that right?
17 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, that is correct.
18 JUDGE KELLEY: Now just a footnote. I nave a 19 separate question or problem maybe about the contention, 20 but let's go ahead and hear you on the five factors 21 rebuttal for five to ten minutes, if you want to take that 22 time.
23 MR. GUILD: Judge, would invite your question at 21 the outset. I certainly don't want to, you know, just talk 25 into the wall. If you have a question and then I can focus (3 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
(/ 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
1 12435 1
my argument, please let me hear it.
,Q
'xs,) 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I will put it up front 3
then. Here is my problem. I look at the contention that was 4
-initially put forward and it is at page 9620 and 9621.
5 MR. GUILD: 9620, 9621 anc 9659, Judge.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, 59, too, all right, but 7 let's just look at 21.
8 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: And I am starting at the bottom 10 of the page and this is you talking.. "I do at this time 11 move that the Board entertain a new or amended contention 12 on the quality assurance at Catawba on the issue of whether 13 or not the reasonable assurance that the safe operation of 14
,f-s the emergency diesel generators is sufficiently impuned
' - , 15 because of the failure to adequately address the three 16 matters which are the subject of Board notification 17 63-160."
18 And just to paraphrase, the document will speak 19 for itself, which I incorporate by reference, but the three 20 matters being the QA problems at TDI, the manufacturer, the 21 numerous what I characterized as minor operational failures 22 of TDI diesel ge nerators in service and, third, the failure II of tne crank shaft at the Shoreham facility, the TDI crank 28 shaft, and then it trails off. But that is basically what 25 is there.
,o TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 4 ) 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE IC?4 WASHlHGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
l 12436 I Now you say 9660 is another one?
,_s
! \
'\~s' 2 MR. GUILD: On 9659 we pick up the trail again, 3
Judge, but get to your point. Those are the right 4
citations for certain.
5 JUDGE KELLEY: My point is this from reading 6 that one at least. It seems to me that I have got sort of a 7 specificity problem. The contention as stated on the recori 8 incorporates the entirety or a great, big, thick Board 9
notification.
10 I am used to contentions of about 50 or 60 11 words which say things like there is no reasonable 12 assurance that the crank shaft at Catawba will not fail in 13 service there are design defects, something like that. But gs li a reference to a great,-big staff document troubles me on i'~) 15 specificity grounds.
16 I am also troubled, fran41y, by the QA at TDI, 17 at Transamerica DeLeval. It is one thing, it seems to me, 18 to have a crank shatt problem at Catawba, and I don't know 19 whether they do or they don't, but based on the papers we 20 have seen there is some basis tor concern apparently. That 21 is one thing. It is another thing to litigate QA at 22 Transamerica, and I had a problem with that.
23 It seems to me that the problem was it came up 28 in a context that didn't lend itself to careful drafting of 3 contentions and I am not taulting you on that. Then we went O
-(j TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
12437 I
.,,, ahead and argued it on five factors. Then there was even
'\_ > 2 some talk toward the end of a stipulaticn with the 3
applicants and I gather that fell through.
4 But now we are homing in on this contention and 5
whether it ought to be. admitted, and-it just seems to me 6
that there are draf ting proble as with it. It is too broad 7 and too big and that is my problem.
8 MR. GUILD: All right, let me see if I can 9
address it.
10 JUDGE K8LLEY: Okay, 11 MR. GUILD: I think the key point that was 12 attempted to be communicated orally on the record was that 13 there are questions of whether or not the Catawba 11 f-~g emergency diesel generators will perform their safety i /
""' 15 function and whether there is reasonable assurance that 16
- they will perform effectively in service.
17 I have sort of rephrased a contention, a text 18 that essentially is what I saic at both of those references 19 in the transcript, and it would go as follows. Applicants 20 have not demonstrated reasonable assurance that the 21 emergency diesel generators at the Catawba Nuclear Station 22 can and will perform their safety function in service.
Tl Now that is the issue, that is the contetention 28 anc that is the allegation, if you will. The basis for that 25 contention is the staff conclusions that are reflected in I
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES t]
\s 1625 i STREET, N.W. - TUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12438 l the Board notification of October 21st, 1963 as k--) 2 supplemented by the November 17th, 1983 Board notification, 3 first being 83-160 and the second 83-160A.
4 Then there is further information that has just 3
been made of record in the January 26th meeting that we 6 alluded to on the record of the hearing in Charlotte, and I that was the meeting with Mr. Denton and staff with the TDI 8 Owners Group including representatives from Duke and the 9 manufacturer, Transamerica DeLaval.
10 So I think, Judge, that I accept your criticism 11 or the oral statement of tne contention, but the bottom 12 -line point is the reasonable assurance that the generators 13 will function safely in service.
II
,/s JUDGE KELLEY: I still have a problem with that.
\ }
' ~ ' 15 You stated it up to that point, and I follow all that, and 16 then I am looking ror the word "because," and tnen I am II looking tor something like because the crank shaft is not 18 designed right or something.
19 "
MR. GUILD: Well, let me give you the "because l
20 Tne "because" includes, as I had referenced, the three 21 factors that were identified in the initial Board 22 notification, and those three factors were, and this is a Il paraphrase, but they are contained in the document which 21 speaks for itself.
Z3 JUDGE KELLEY: I am saying again, Mr. Guild, I A. TAYLOE ASSOCIATES l N 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 I
g.
12439 I am not going to take a contention based on a
/~s
?
\
2
. '\s / cross-reference to some voluminous document.
3 MR. GUILD: Well, let me highlight the factors,
~I and I did the first time I raised this point. The first 5
factor, the first "because", the first basis is inadequate 6 design of tne TDI. crank shaft.
I Okay.
JUDGE KELLEY:
8 MR. GUILD: And that is reflected in the failure 9
at the Shoreham facility where there were actual cracks and 10 failures of the crank shaft in testing.
11 Now that design inadequacy, the crank shaft 5 12 design inadequacy was confirmed by LILCO, Long Island 13 . Lighting Company's survey by Failure Associates that has 14 now been ---
\~e' 15 JUDGE KELLEY: You don't have to prove it to me.
16 You just stated tnat you are concerned about the design of 17 ene crank snaft.
I8 MR. GUILD: The design of the crank shaft.
19 JUDGE KELLEY: That is pretty specific, and I am 20 just speaking for myselt. I understand that.
21 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
22 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead.
23 MR. GUILD: The design of the crank shaft is the 21 first point. The second point is the TDI, Transamerica 25 DeLaval operational history. In the record, the first TAYLOE ASSOCIATES (O) 16251 STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
Y !
i 12440 1
reference that you cited and quoted, I alluded to numerous 2
\s / minor operatoral problems. Now that is the staff's 3
language. They were minor at the time they viewed them, and 8
there were some 60 non-conformances, or 60 deviations and 5
violations.
6 The actual listing of those deviations and 7
violations came to us through the January 26th staff 8 meeting. Just to highlight the three violations, they are 9
violations of the Transamerica Der,aval people's reporting to obligations under Part 21 to the Nuclear Regulatory 11 Commission. In other words, significant deficiencies 12 identified in the manufacture, design and procurement 13 process by Transamerica DeLaval not reported as required to ll f s_ the NRC, and that raises a very big question about whether I )
lb tile NRC even Knows what is out there.
16 That point is tne Transamerica DeLaval quality 17 assurance record. That is the record that the NRC has found 18 tnrough a process of enforcement and inspection at the 19 manufacturer and it incluaed those three violations that I 20 alluded to.
21 The reason wny that point, that second point, 22 that second "cecause" if you will, the reason why that is 3 important for Duke Power Company in this particular case is 28 as Mr. Denton pointed out in the January meeting. Each of 3 the members of the Owners Group, each of the people who are (7l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
g.
12441 1
going to'use_TDI diesel generators at their facilities has
)
~ (/
x, 2 an obligation under inpendix B to do vendor quality 3
assurance and to essentially perform whatever necessary 4- audits or surveillance of equipment and processes 5 performed by others to assure that the equipment and 6 materials that they use at Catawba will perform in service.
7 So, as we have discussed, Judge, when you hire 8 a vendor at Catawba to do some work, and there aren't very 9 many out there ---
10 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Again, I understand.
11 MR. GUILD: --- Duke has an obligation to see 12 that the QA program of the people they rely on works.
13 The third "because" is the poor operational es 14 performance. The poor operational performance is reflected
'N / 15
. in a very limited operational history with these machines 16 in nuclear application.
17 The January 26th meeting included handouts 18 reflecting the experience at San Onofre ---
19 JUDGE KELLEY: You mean the performance at 20 different generating plants.
21 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, including particularly the 22 performance in testing at Grand Gulf. Grand Gulf has been i
23 identified as a facility, along with Shoreham, where the 21 TDI diesel generator is on the critical path to licensing.
25 JUDGE KSLLEY: Okay, I understand.
O /
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 $7REET, N.W. - SUITE 1004
[ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 l (202) 293-3950 l
12442 I
7- MR. GUILD: I point out that the Grand Gulf
( 1
\~j 2 machine appears to be of the same model as the Catawba 3
diesel generator.
I JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, I get it.
5 MR. GUILD: The-DSRV-16 as at Catawba.
6 All right, sir. So those are the three 7 "because" that support the three bases in fact for 8 supporting the reasonable assurance question as to the 9 . safe operation.
10 MR. CLEWETT: If I can interrupt for one second.
11 I am trying to take notes out here. Are the three the 12 inadequate design of the crank shaft, TDI's operational 13 history and the third one being TDI's quality assurance ---
w 14 MR. GUILD: Those are the three, that is right.
~
I3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, that clarifies it for 16 me, Mr. Guild. So why don't you pass on to the five 17 factors.
18 MR. GUILD: All right, sir.
19 Now let's address the good cause first. I think 20 that intervenor can be faulted no more than the Nuclear 21 Regulatory Commission staff itself in terms of tardiness or 22 lateness or failure to have identified this safety concern Tl earlier.
28 Mr. Denton didn't identify it until at least 3 the first Board notification went out and probably didn't
], TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 l STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12443 l reach a conclusion about wnat needed to be done and how
(,,/ 2 serious the problem was until he communicated to the Owners 3
Group last week, the 26th of January, 1984. So it is hard 4
to Tault an intervenor for not having been more.present 5
than the NRC was about-this safety concern.
6 Be that as it may, after making tneir pitch on I the record, or the record of the conference call on this 8 ~ subject, applicants' counsel, Mr. McGarry, submitted a 9
letter discovering a transcript allusion by Mr. Riley to 10 the subject of the Shoreham crank shaft failure, and hangs 11 nis hat on the notion that well, we the intervenors, unlike 12 the NRC staff, should have jumped on that IE bulletin and 13 the event of the crank shaft failure at Shoreham and g-~3 Il formulated a contention.
15 Of course, if we had done so,'it would have 16 been opposed on lateness grounds, but it would also have 17 been opposed on grounds that it was premature and that we 18 had stated no basis in fact because at that time the NRC 19 simply said it happened anu let's check it out. They had 20 reached no conclusions and they had done no investigation.
21 The LILCO people had not retained their consultant, Failure 22
( Associates, to figure out that there was a design failure l 3 in the crank shaft.
28 It could well have been that some workman at 25 Shoreham just forgot to put oil in the tning or something.
(
/~N TAYLOE ASSOCIATES k 1625 l STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 293 3950
i I
12444 I It could nave been a very limited event with no
\
q, 2 implications for Catawba.
3 So we maintain very clearly that our obligation 4
arose to pursue the matter when we did pursue it and that 3
we raised the matter on the record in the proceeaing.
6 Now we have a quality assurance contention I
here, and our contention has been litigated as an attack on 8 the adequacy of Duke Power's quality assurance program in 9
its organization and in its implementation, 10 As all the parties understand, we have 11 litigated sucn diverse things as welding inspection to the 12 question of the flooding of the diesel generator room, the 13 four foot of water, if you will, and the adequacy of the g 18 corrective action ta keep the thing from happening again
\ l
" 15 and to'see that the diesel generator worked.
16 Quality assurance covers all aspects of seeing 17 that nuclear compoacnts will perform their function and la service at the Catawba facility and they don't'just relate 19 to wnat Mr. Grier does or to a welding inspector.
20 So we raised the point initially on the record 21 in this proceeding as an aspect of tne then existing and 22 the presently existing Centention 6. I think it was an 23 appropriate comment, one we disagreed with, but the 21 presiding officer, the Chairman, said no, no, that is not 25 in Contention 6 and, you know, this is a matter that has to
/' TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
( 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12445 l be pursued, if at all, separately.
[-_\'
2
\m/ Having made that call, which we may have 3
disputed at the time, the point remains now that you can't 4
close the record on either Contention 6 in the aspect of 3
the diesel generacor matter now that this new information 6 has come to light, or you can't closc the record on 7
Contention 6 as amended to include very explicitly the 8 matters we have asserted, or, thirdly, you can't close the 9
reccrd on a new contention that focuses on quality 10 assurance in the diesel generator, the safe operation of 11 the diesel generator in the three aspects that we have 12 alluded to.
13 Eitner way you cut it in terms of pleading
- 11 technicalities, the basic bottom line point is we the I5 intervenors, palmetto Alliance and Carolina Environmental 16 Study Group, dispute tne assurance that these machines will 17 work safely and work effectively in operation for the 18 reasons stated.
19 We believe we have brought that matter to the 20 Board's attention as promptly as it coula be brought and 21 that it should be litigated.
l 22 Now we are informed that this matter has been 23 accepted for litigation in the Shorenam licensing 21 proceeding. I don't have a pleading or an order ---
23 JUDGE KELLEY: We can check it. I don't need an p TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
( 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 I
(202) 293 3950 I
t
12446 I order. '
,s i
2 All right, sir. But I am informed MR. GUILD:
3 that that is the safety issue that remains pending at 4
Shoreham. Of course, there are emergency planning matters 5
that are being pursued as well there, but there will be a 6 hearing. There has been a statement that there will be an
~
evidentiary hearing on the issue of the fix, if you will, 8 or the problem at Shoreham.
9 We have just been informed that it is 10 essentially not fixable, that the Shoreham situation is 11 going to require a major rework or replacement.
12 JUDGE KELLEY: We can look at that. Let me ask 13 you a question, Mr. Guild, 11 MR.' GUILD: Yes, sir.
\ 1 V 15 JUDGE KELLEY: On the question of the, or 16 actually there are three or four or whatever it is, the one 17 that speaks to tne lisely contribution that is already 18 advanced in the contention. On that point it you got this 19 contention into the case, would you contemplate retaining 20 an expert?
21 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, absolutely.
22 JUDGE KELLEY: Take the subject of crank shaft 23 failure. I assume it would take an automotive design 21 engineer or somebody like that to address the point.
25 MR. GUILD: bell, of course, Mr. Hunt, the NRC i
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES l v' 1625 ! STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 i WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 f (202) 293 3950 1
_ _ , , . . . - , , . . y, . , . , , . , _ _ _ _ , - - , . , _ _
- 12447 I
,f - Staff's witness on this subject, his expertise was based on i
A' the fact that he fixes his car. So, you know, what is good 3
for-the goose ought to be good for the gander in terms of I
the degree of expertise that a party has to have to make a 5
contricution on the issue or whether the crank shaft will 6
work or whether the diesel generator will work.
I MR. JOHtJSON: We would object to tnat.
8 MR. GUILD: We have limited resources and we 9
rely much on volunteer effort, but I have been in touch 10 with those people wno are available to this side of an Il issue, the organization at the national level wno assists 12 people in the public interest community and they know that 13 one of the two places in the country where the TDI diesel
(g
_t 14 generator matters are before a Licensing Board is in the
\g; 15 Catawba proceeding and we are actively seeking technical 16 assistance on tnis.
17 So, yes, we would intend to seek expert 18 technical assistance, including witnesses, and I would 19 suggest that on the issues that do not specifically require 20 engineering or technical expertise with respect to the 21 significance of the operational history and the
?
i 22 vendor quality assurance issue tnat the record I think 23 should reflect that Palmetto has made a significant 28 contribution to the development of a sound record on those 25 and similar matters on Contention 6 as admitted.
[]
N.. /
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHfMGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 i
j.-
12448 I
~s. JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I think that a little more
[
\- >\ 2 than covers our allotted time and I think that covers the 3
points.
4 I would like to move on to Mr. Clewett's 5
motion.
6 MR. CLEWETT: Yes, sir.
I JUDGE KELLEY: Just for the record, it is 8 palmetto's motion for discovery of underlying bases of NRC 9
Region II reports.
10 Now we have Mr. Clewett's motion before us.
11 Normally under tne rules you get 10 days in the case of a 12 party and 15 days in case of the staff reply. We didn't 13 indicte tne otner day that we would like to speak to this
- 14 today. I think the most orderly way would be for us to turn i
15 to the applicants and the staff and hear them in response 16 on the record and then we can follow that with some 17 aiscussion, la Mr. McGarry, are you prepared to speak to this 19 motion?
20 MR. McGARRY: Yes, sir.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead.
22 MR. McGARRY: We oppose the motion essentially Il for four points, four reasons.
21 First, we view that the Board has already ruled 23 on this matter as well as the Appeal Board in its rulings
(]
(_/
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 l STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12449 1
n on other' discovery motions in the January 14th through 2
, 16th, 1983 time frame. Therein intervenors sought discovery 3
from both applicant and the staff and the Board said that I such was not appropriate at this late date.
5 A second reason is the uniqueness of the staff 6 document in relationship to this proceeding. The Board I
examined the In Camera-issues and determined that it need 8 not hear from the staff except on several discrete items.
9 The Board tnen in essence instructed the staff 10 to evaluate the particular concerns and report back to the 11 Board. In essence the Board said'they wanted to hear from 12 the staff. Everybody knew what the ground rules were. The 13 record was left open simply to hear back from the staff. Of 18 course, the staff would be subjected to cross-examination g
15 and they were.
16 Third, tnis is a Board issue. The In Camera 17 witnesses are Board witnesses and we believe that the Board 18 can appropriately establish and fashion ground rules as it 19 sees appropriate. In this instance we think the ground rule 20 was let's near from the staf f and then we will have a 21 complete record.
22 Fourth, in any event, the staff did provide 23 background material prior to the hearing to the intervenors 28 and that was a stack of information that was an inch or so 25 thick. I think the only item that was not included were n TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
( '
1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
I 1245U I some notes of Mr. Uryc's and it is our position that those i \
(-) 2 notes, and I-thinK tne staff took this position at the 3 hearing, are not discoverable.
4 So, therefore, there is no substance to the 5
motion and it should be denied.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you.
I Mr. Johnsor 8 MR. JOHNSON: It is the staff's position that 9
this motion was made in an oral fashion I believe by Mr.
10 Guild or Mr. Clewett, I don't remember who exactly, at the 11 hearing on Tuesday, the 31st, and at page 12,335 it was 12 re]ected.
13 JUDGE KELLEY: Wait a minute. Let's get that 14 straight. Are you talking about just the other day?
Is)
/ 15 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.
16 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Clewett filed three motions 17 _and we ruled on two.
18 MR. JOHNSON: I understand, sir. Maybe I 19 confused it unnecessarily. Wnat I meant was that a very 20 similar motion was made by Palmetto Alliance and there was 21 extensive argument witn respect to the availability of all 22 the individual welders who were interviewed by Mr. Uryc and 23 Mr. Economos.
28 On the morning of the 31st we had extensive 3 discussion about whether the confidentiality was granted in TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
[]
Q 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12451 I an appropriate fashion, k,
s 2 JUDGE KELLEY: We did indeed speak to the notion 3 of confidentiality and it seems to me that that discussion
'I and our rulings have some bearing on the motion that we 5 are now talking about. I don't think it covers the whole 6 tning.
I MR. JOHNSON: Well, if I may just read from this 8 transcript at.12,335.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: All right.
10 MR. JOHNSON: This is Judge Kelley speaking.
11 "The second motion was a motion to provide the names of the 12 people who were interviewed by these two panel members in I3 connection with their work and these interviews are fS Il summarized in the appendix. We are going to deny that iV 3 15 motion as well."
16 JUDGE KELLEY: Right.
II MR. JOHNSON: "It does seem to us that this is 18 the nature for the discovery. We don't have to belabor the 19 fact that the Board feels that formal discovery would be 20 entirely inappropriate in this setting." Then it goes on.
21 So it is our position tnat the equivalent to 22 this written motion was made I believe on the morning of El the 31st and has already been denied both as to the 21 question of whether the staff nad profferred enough basis 5 and wnether discovery was warranted to delve into the
/
b] TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
t 12452 I
7-ss)- unaerlying bases of the staff's support or whether there t
\> 2 was something inherently wrong with the way in which the 3
confidentiality question was handled, assuming that that is l relevant to discovery.
5 So it is the staff's position that the 6 equivalent to this motion has already been made and denied.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, let me just say, Mr.
8 Johnson, that I think the rulings you are referring to, as 9
I recall them, I think have some bearing on this motion.
10 That is-true enough.
II hhen we made those rulings at that time it was 12 not our intention to deny or even rule on it anyway this 13 particular motion.
11 MR. JOHNSON: I understand that, sir.
(~'}
%./ 15 JUDGE KELLEY: I think we are clear on that.
16 MR. JOHNSON: I do understand that, but I think 17 the same questions are raised and I believe the same 18 results should apply. We agree with Mr. McGarry that in the 19 context in which this is raised it is too late. The conteet 20 of the staff's testimony is unusual and to the extent there 23 are questions in this written motion going to whetner the 22 staff's conclusions were founded adequately, that goes to 23 the weight that should be given to that testimony as to the 21 basis of the staff's findings and we argued previously that 25 that went to the credibility and there was an opportunity
( ) TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
(/ 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12453 I
/,,s to cross-examine these individuals on that. So we believe k~)\ 2 that no new grounds really have been offered here.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
I Mr. Clewett, would you like to make a response?
5 MR. CLEWETT: Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
6 I guess that I would liKe to put this in I
_ context, which is that the function of these licensing 8 nearings are supposed to be to get at the truth. Now it may 9
be that for one reason or another there are some leads that 10 have become available to us relatively later in time than 11 would have been ideal if the world were perfect.
12 But I still think that in order for these 13 hearings to do the job for which they were created under 14
)
the Atomic Energy Act that it is important for this Board
~
I5 to be interested in following up these leads when they 16 appear, and when they appear is significant as the ones 17 that have become apparent recently.
18 Now that argument also goes to some of the 19 motions of mine that you have summarily denied, but it is 20 in particular very important with respect to the staff's 21 recent submission for a couple of reasons.
22 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me just interject, Mr.
Il Clewett, that because this was focused at the staff's 21 recent submission was one strong reason that the Board 25 decided to hear parties on this and give it more (7 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
(/ 16251 $TREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 f202) 293 3950
12454 1
consideration.
{} 2
\s ,/ The motions that you are complaining about were 3
absolutely nothing but a retread of things we had done time I and time again, and that is why we tossed them out 3
summarily.
6 You may proceed.
I MR. CLEWETT: Thank you.
8 I want to make a couple of points about the 9
staff report then in particular, and this is in the context 10 of what we heard from the staff on the stand on Monday and 11 Tuesday.
12 Now it appears from what has been put on the 13 record that the staff has not done a very thorough job of
,-, 14 investigating the leads that have come its way. For e *
't) 15 instance, they didn't take any action to interview a single 16 one of the people that one of-the witnesses said could 17 support his side of the story. They accidentally happened la to talk to one of them because of their supposedly random 19 interviewing process. But they didn't make any effort to 20 follow up on the leads he gave them.
21 Similarly, when they were asked to go to the 22 other end of a penetration sleeve to scrape the paint off Tl to determine whether the laminar indications that took so 28 long to eliminate from the one end were also apparent at 25 the other end, they promised they would do that and they rm TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
( ) 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12455 1
dia not do it.
I \
^x- 2 Now if the staff is saying to the Board trust 3
us'and let us go away and resolve this and we will come 4
back later with a Board notification if we find anything. I 5
think it is true of Palmetto, but I think it is also true 6 of the Board, tnat this Board snould be skeptical of that I and the Board should want to satisfy itself that it is not 8 getting set up, because it it turns out that someone down 9
the road through a continued investigation by GAP or 10 through any otner means, if it comes out that these 11 hearings have been a big cover-up, the Board is also going 12 to be embarrassed.
13 So I tnink there is a real interest to the
,( "] 14 Board to not be so quick to trust the staff's assertions
"' 15 that they are doing a tnorough job of evaluating these 16 matters.
17 Now this bears on a couple of specifics. It 18 bears in particular on the matter that I won't go into 19 again that we just discussed In Car. era concerning welder
-20 "B," but it also has reference to this document as a whole.
21 I think that the Board would want to give Palmetto Alliance 22 some opportunity at least to engage in some discovery on 11 this so that we can bring to the Board's attention our
, 28 evaluation of wnether this series of staff reports is such 23 as to be worthy of being given any credence.
O
(, TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STftEET, N.W. - SUITS 1004 WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
-~.
12456 l JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Clewett, we spent some time
.(_/ 2 the last couple of days on Monday and Tuesday conducting 3
cross-examination on the staff reports and the adequacy 4 thereof. Why isn't that a sufficient way to test their 5 accuracy and completeness?
6 MR. CLEWETT: Because of the fact that it has 7 been impossible to pierce the governmental veil, if you 8 will, to determine what really went on. They apparently 9
engaged in the same improper use of confidentiality that 10 the Licensing Board came down so hard on the staff for in 11 the Comanche Peak case. They offered confidentiality on a 12 olanket basis to all of these witnesses.
33 I do think, Mr. Clewett ---
JUDGE KELLEY:
-~ 14 MR. CLEWETT: Apparently the person who is being
(/ 15 asked ---
16 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Clewett, I am running this II and you-are going to let me run it or you are going to get 18 off. -I am asking you a question or rather I am telling you 19 something and that is that we went round and round on
, 20 confidentiality the other day. We made a ruling and we 21 don't need to hear any more on that subject.
22 Now when I ask you for a response, Mr. Clewett, 23 it was my expectation that you would have something 21 specific in response to what the twc attorneys on the other 23 side said against your motion.
O TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
(,) 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
1 l
l 12457 I
,s Do you have anything to say about their o'
V) 2 arguments?
3 N MR. CLEWETT: Yes, sir. I am sorry if I have I been drawing in other things, but it is just that they all 5 seem to be related, sir.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: If you could focus rather briefly 7
',on the responses of Mr. McGarry ano Mr. Johnson.
8 MR. CLEWETT: Yes, sir.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead.
,y 10 '
MR. CLEWETT: 'with respect to Mr. Johnson,
,%. Il first, he said tnat in his opinion the same motion was made 12 orally and then im corrected it to say that a very similar I3 motion or that the equivalent of this written motion had 18 already Deen decided on.
f-'s J l
's 15 Now the quote that he read, however, showed y
16 that Mr. Guild had mentioned something about the names of
- 7 17 all of'the witnesses interviewed by the staff. He had not 18
~ addressed the broader question of discovery rights to be 19 able to test it. I think in any event, it is more important jo -to reach the right result.
- Il Now Mr. McGarry offered his view that since
.t M these are Board witnesses that essentially any ground rules
-3 are appropriate as the Board decides.
I think, however, 28 .tnat there are still overriding legal and constitutional 3 principles that have to be met.
O TAYLOE ASSOCIATES h 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 d
b . , _ -- , , ,- - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
12458 1
In particular, I don't think that it is an
(,\
's 2 adequate at according due process to Palmetto to say that 3
they 1. ave absolutely no interest or any right of ar.y kind 4
in questioning the staff statements.that purport to address 5
these issues'.
6 Now there has been ---
7 JUDGE KELLEY: If that- were our posture, Mr.
8 Clewett, I assume we wouldn't have let Palmetto 9
cross-examine the staff; isn't that right?
10 MR. CLEWETT: Well, Palmetto may have had 12 or 11 13 minutes, I don't recall, sir, but there is also a 12 separate need for discovery. I mean the question of access 13 to these witnesses through either some sort of anonymous Il letter or tnrough being given their names or through having 15 toe Board ask them to answer certain questions or asking 16 them to testify, things of this nature also are very 17 important because I don't think that the basis that we have 18 seen thus far indicates really, sir, that these reports are 19 likely to really be dispositive.
20 JUDG8 KELLEY: Okay. Anything else?
21 MR. CLEWETT: Just a couple of minor points.
22 Mr. McGarry referred to the staff document as 23 being unique, and in some ways it may be because the staff 21 apparently didn't follow their ordinary procedures in this.
25 But it is certainly presented as a typical staff report and
(]
'w./
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 I STitEET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12459 I I just wanted to correct that minor point.
. ,rm
'x ,)
' 2 Also, he stated that the record was lef t open 1 i
3 just for the staff. It was my understanding that it was l l
8 also left open for other purposes. I do recall seeing a 5
couple of very large panels from the applicant in this past 6 couple of days.
7 I just would observe overall that the hearings 8 and the exploration of where the truth lies is still 9
continue and I hope that the Board will grant our motion. I M will shut up now and let us get on with our other business, 11 sir.
12 Thank you very much.
13 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Thank you.
18 I suggest, gentlemen, that we take a few 7-13 u- minutes to maybe go to another room and then come back and 16 leave your phones off tne hook. I would like to stretch 17 myself. Be back in about three or four minutes, la (short recess.)
19 JUDGE KELLEY: Kelley is back on.
20 MR. RIL8Y: Riley is here.
21 MR. McGARRY: McGarry and Carr are here.
22 MR. CLEhETT: Clewett here.
3 MR. GUILD: Guild is here, too.
28 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Johnson?
3 Sounds like we are back, except George Johnson.
p j TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STitEET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20004 (202) 293 3950
l-i 12460 1
MR. RILEY: While we are waiting for Mr.
k,,) 2 Johnson, Judge Kelley, I would like to make one very brief 3
observation, and that is that we are very interested in 4
tnis and discussed it with Palmetto and we neld our fire 5
until we saw how serious it was because we don't want to 6
involve the Board or the parties in unncessary exercises.
- I JUDGE KELLEY: By the way, is CESG, Mr. Riley, a 8 cosponsor of this contention?
9 MR. RILEY: Yes, it is.
10 JUDG8 KELLEY: Because I wasn't sure from 11 looking at the record. It may be in there somewhere.
12 All right, go ahead.
13 MR. RILEY: Okay. That is all I had to say. We li don't like to take up frivolous matters. We like to take up p(-- / 13 substantive ones. It was not until recently that we 16 realized that this is a very substantially substantive 17 matter.
18 MR. JOHNSON: Are we back on the record?
19 JUDGE KELLEY: George Johnson?
20 MR. JOllNSON: Yes.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. Mr. Riley was making a 22 comment about his special interest in the diesel matter.
23 You can see it in the transcript. I don't think we have to 28 go back over it. That is really all that was said.
23 I think then everybody is back on.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES s j 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASM 'GTON, D.C. 20004 (1s2) 293 3950 i
- .-----, - -.-. -e , ~ , . . , - . - - - - . , .y -
_y,----,.,-m ,
12461 l Now how about this bifurcation question.
,_ We
/ 's
's_ ,/ 2 have a motion from applicants to bifurcate which I won't 3
restate.
I Mr. Riley, Mr. Guild indicated earlier that you 5
were going to send in a filing on that. Is that right?
6 I did yesterday.
MR. RILEY:
I JUDGE KELLEY: So that is in the mail now?
8 MR. RILEY: It is.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. How about as a matter of 10 procedure -- well, let me go to the staff and they can give 11 us a FEMA report ano some other things and then we can go 12 to Mr. Guilo and then if Mr. Riley wants to add anything he 13 can do that.
f3 Il Mr. Johnson, what can you tell us about the I
]
(m/ 15 usual consideration?
16 MR. JOHNSON: If you would like, I will start 17 with the FEMA schedule.
I8 JUDGE KELLEY: Bure.
19 MR. JOHNSON: It is our understanding that the 20 present situation is tnat both the North and South Carolina 21 revised emergency response plans have been submitted for 22 review by FEMA and that process has started.
II JUDGE KELLEY: I just got mine in the mail the 28 other day. Did everybody get a big thick package?
25 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, I did.
O TAYLOE ASSOCIATES U 1625 i stater. N.w. - suite i004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
_._ ._ _ . . - _ _ ~ . . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ -
12462 I MR. GUILD:
, I haven't seen mine yet, Judge.
e 2 JUDGE KELLEY: I just took a glance at it, but 3
that is what it appeared to be.
4 Go ahead.
5 MR. JOHNSON: I believe that is the document 6 that responds to earlier suggestions for revision or 7 changes that were made by FEMA.
8 Uncer the current situation FEMA tells me that 9
they woula anticipate what they call to be an informal 10 finding concerning these off-site plans about March 1st.
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Is that what has also been calleo 12 an interim finding?
I3 MR. JOHNSON: Right. The staff calls it an II fT interim finding and they call it an informal finding.
I5 JUDGE KELLEY: The formal finding is the Part 16 350 finding that they do on their own requirements.
17 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.
18 '.4R . JOHNSnN: And leading to the preparation of
'9 the prefiled testimony by a FEMA witness who would appear 20 at the hearing with a date of April l' ,
21 THE OPERATOR: We were just told that Mr.
22 McGarry just got cut off.
Il JUDGE KELLEY: Oh, he did.
28 THE OPERATOR: That is what your secretary told
%i me. Can I taxe a roll call and see who else is cut off?
('l TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
- () isas i sTaser, N.w. - suite iOO4 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
?
F 4
12463 I JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.
[
\/ ) ,
THE OPERATOR: Judge Kelley?
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Here.
'I Judge Purdom?
MR. RILEY:
5 JUDGE PURDOM: Here.
6 THE OPERATOR: Jesse Riley?
I
. MR. RILEY: Here.
8 ThE OPERATOR: Judge Foster?
9 JUDGE FOSTER: Here.
10 THE OPERATOR: George Johnson?
II MR. JOHNSON: Here.
12 THE OPERATOR: Robert Guild?
' I3 MR. GUILD: Here.
14 s THE OPERATOR: The court reporter.
- \~ 15 THE REPORTER: Here.
16 THE OPERATOR: John Clewett?
17 MR. CLEWETT: Here.
18 THE OPERATOR: Okay. I will get him back in.
19 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I assume ne will be right 20 back on. Why don't you go anead, Mr. Johnson. He is going 21 to get the transcript anyway in terms of what was said.
22 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Dealing with an April 1st 23 date for the prefiled testimony being available, we are 21 talking something about like an April 10th or April 15th 3 hearing as a feasible date with respect to FEMA's TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
.((^)' ions i sinser, N.w. - suite iOO4 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
p.
12464 1
presentation of testimony, t t 2
'\-) JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Insofar as FEMA might be on 3
the critical path, you are saying that it looks like they I can be available in that time frame?
5 MR. JOHNSON: That is correct.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, that is nelpful to know.
7 MR. JOHNSON: If you would like me to address 8 the motion, I will wait my turn or whatever.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Is McGarry back on yet?
i 10 (No response.)
11 JUDGE KELLEY: We don't have Carr either I 12 assume.
13 (No response.)
~~ 11 JUDGE KELLEY: I am sure he would have an
'# 15 interest, and the more I think about it maybe we ought to 16 wait a minute.
17 Let ine check with my secretary and see if they 18 aren't getting somewhere in patching him back in. Would you 19 all just hold a minute.
20 (Pause.)
21 THE OPERATOR: Mr. McGarry.
22 MR. McGARRY: Yes, McGarry is here.
13 JUDGE KELLEY: We lost you.
21 MR. McGARRY: I don't know what happened. It was 25 not here at this end. I am sorry.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES (O,) i625 i sTnEET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12465 l JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Johnson was just saying how p_
, 2 things looked from tne standpoint of FEMA.
3 Maybe you could summarize it again, Mr.
8 Johnson.
5 MR. JOHNSON: To summarize very briefly, FEMA 6 lets me know that they will have their informal finding 7 approximately by March 1st, and that they would be 8 prepared to present testimony by April 1st based on its 9 position.
10 As a result, if FEMA.is the critical path item 11 on this, then a hearing could be had in the April 10th to 12 15th time frame.
13 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Why don't you go ahead gm 18 then, Mr. Johnson, and just address the motion.
(_ / 15 MR. JOHNSON: The staff.does not oppose the 16 motion to bifurcate and we have a number of points with 17 respect to that.
18 The staff believes that the fuel date of the i
! 19 applicant, we accept tne representations made by Mr. Owen 20 in support of the motion.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: That is the May 1 date in the
(
! 22 affidavit, right?
23 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir, I believe so.
21 However, it is also the staff's position that
- 25 even if there were some slippage with respect to that first i
- TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STR3ET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
)
12466 I date, the fuel load date, that without bifurcation there
! \
V 2 would likely be some delay in licensing occasioned by an 3
October or November date for an initial decision on a full I power license. What I mean to say is that if they didn't 5
quite meet the fuel load cate and it slipped somewhat, 6 there still would be an opportunity to make the time up .nd I
reacn the point where they could go above the five percent 8 power at the end of August.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: I think that, too, and I don't 10 have it right open in front of me, was a projection by Mr.
11 Owen; isn't that right?
12 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. Therefore, we believe 13 that the applicant's representation of two to three-month p li celay is a reasonable representation.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: I had'one other question kind of 16 along the same line. When you assessed time frames and 17 delays here I think it is sometimes assumed that if the 18 Licensing Board reaches a favorable decision on safety 19 issues and autnorizes low power operation that then 20 low-power operation will commence or fuel loading will 21 commence, and sometimes it has been my observation that the 22 staff doesn't get around to issuing the license until some 23 significant time after the Licensing Board decides the 28 case.
25 Are you saying that if there is a fuel load S, TAYLOE ASSOCIATES (Q 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WA5HINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12467 1
.~ date of somewhere in the first half of May, and if this
'\ _ ,4 2 Board decided the case favorably that the director would 3
'then issue a license or would it take longer?
'I MR. JOHNSON: I am not really prepared to answer 5
in detail that question, but I have representations from 6 the staff in.the Licensing Branch that they are gearing up 7
to meet the schedule.
8 MR. CLEWETT: Mr. Johnson, I am sorry, could you 9
speak up, please. I really can't hear you.
10 MR. JOHNSON: I am sorry. What I said was what I 11 have heard from the Licensing Branch is that they are 12 prepared to gear up to meet this schedule.
13 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
,-~s I'I MR. JOHNSON: Now there are a couple of other
I3 points that are relevant to the decision on the motion to 16 bifurcate. he have not taKen into consideration the 17 question of whether a new contention would be admitted on 18 the Transamerica DeLaval diesel generators. So we have not 19 factored that into our calculations and our assumptions on 20 this position.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: hhat about the somewhat different .
22 question. Does the staff have a fix on this problem such as M to indicate to it that it will hold up licensing for some 28 significant period of time whether it geta in this case or 3 not?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES (O 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
l 1
12468 I MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. The staff cannot speak
-s
[V <
2 with great precision on that question, but at this time we 3
believe that it is possible that the licensing review with I
respect to the Transamerica DeLaval diesel generators at 5
Catawba will be completed so as not to impact on the fuel 6
load date. It is hard for us to say with authority while 7
the review is in process.
8 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, you are basically 9
supporting the motion?
10 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. We have looked at the 11 various staff commitments and obligations and believe that 12 they can be met in conjunction with a bifurcated proceeding 15 with a Board appointed so as to reach the hearing stage 14 for emergency preparedness issues earlier tnan anticipated.
7-)
! s
\~ 15 The staff has one other point it would like to 16 make and that has to do with the prejudice that might be 17 shown by the intervenors.
18 It is our position tnat the Board would have to 19 consider the possibility of prejudice of the intervenors 20 and that under the statement of policy fairness is of 21 course a consideration. We haven't neard any showing of 22 prejudice, but tnat is an element that should figure into 23 the Board's decision.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: But you don't nave any specific 15 kind of prejudice in mind when you say that?
O TAYLOE ASSOCIATES V 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12469 I
MR. JOHNSON: What I mean by prejudice is I mean
[~~s)
'/ 2 in t'erms of fairness under the statement of policy.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: I understand that, but you don't I have anything specific in mind?
3 No, I don't.
MR. JOHNSON:
6 JUDGE KELLEY: I am sure Mr. Guild and Mr. Riley 7 may have and we will hear from them.
8 In that connection I would just like to make 9
some observations. One is about this notion of the policy 10 statement and Boards attempting to deciae cases inside of Il fuel load dates.
12 I did find upon my return here the other day a 13 copy of a letter from several of the witnesses and Ms.
l
(~ Il Garde and a couple of other people, and I don't remember N.)) 15 all, to the Commission dated I think the 26th 16 misrepresenting the Chairman's views, not so much the Board II as the Chairman. The quotations were taken out of context 18 and distort what I have said several times.
19 My position on this is very simple. We argued 20 the matter at some length a year ago in January or February 21 in a scheduling conference and we simply pointed out at 22 that time that the policy statement tells Boards to make an 23 effort to get these cases heard in that time frame inside 2I the fuel load date, but it stresses that it is to be done 25 with fairness to the parties, and if fairness requires mare f)
' N./
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
12470 1 time, more time should be taken. That of course is our
(~,/ 2 attitude and we will take such time as we need take.
3 I will say once more that we have been 8
attempting to get this case tried and decided before fuel 5
load, but we may not make that and it may take longer. If 6
it takes longer for us to get to a reasoned and adequate 7
and -fair decision, then that is the way it is going to be.
8 Now I am not going to respond to that 9
one-sided, slanted letter that I just referred to, but I 10 thought I would say something in the record for the sake of 11 setting that straight.
12 Now, Mr. Guild, do you want to speak to the 13 point?
11 MR. GUILD:
7~- Yes, sir. I had hoped that you 6
15 would have received that letter at the time we had the 16 hearing, Juoge, on Monday and Tuesday and apologize if it 17 didn't get circulated to you in advance of your return to 18 Washington. I certainly wanted you to have our views 19 directly in front of you and not feel that we were saying 20 something to someone that we weren't saying to you 21 directly. I appreciate your comments and response, i 22 Yes, sir, we, if you recall, met this issue of 23 bifurcation once before. It was in a conference call that l
l 21 was not transcribed. So the views of the parties are not of 25 record, if you will. You will recall then that we opposed t
I i
(]
(j' TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 I STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
{
12471 l the device, the suggestion or what-have-you.
,_ We think at
/ i 5/ 2 that point Your Honor had felt motiJated to propose the 3
device feeling that we would find ourselves unable to meet
'I that fuel load date without a separate hearing board on 5
emergency planning.
6 I think I pointed out tnat the suggestion had I
been previously raised in a paper from the applicant, a 8 scheduling comment that bifurcation might be necessary.
9 Well, the suggestion or the device was rejected 10 at that time and we believe it should be rejected now. Now 11 that the cards are on the table and it is a formal motion
-12 by Duke Power, we want to go on record, and I speak for 13 both Palmetto and CESG, as opposing bifurcation.
I-I
(- ~~
Mr. Riley has prepared an affidavit that speaks 15 to a number of points that will be circulated and I won't 16 try to speak for him on that or to represent his position, 17 except to say that it contests the representations of fact 38 made by Mr. Owen with respect to the financial consequences 19 of not meeting the schedule tnat is set forth in a formal 20 affidavit from him that is attached to the applicant's 21 i
bifurcation motion.
22 We ask that that affidavit of Mr. Riley's be M considered in support of Palmetto's and CESG's position on 21 this motion.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Right.
O d TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STaEET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 l
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 l
V I
I I 12472 1
,_s MR. GUIf0: Prejudice is clear, Judge. It is I \
\/' 2 just the phenomenon of not being able to ring any more 3
blood from this turnip, this turnip being the resources of 4
largely volunteer organizations that have tiied diligently 3
to meet time obligations and to participate as responsiole 6
parties in this case. We simply cannot do more than what we 7
are doing now. We are really stretched to the absolute <
8 limit.
9 It is nice to have the assistance from Mr.
10 Clewett from time to time, but Mr. Clewett is not an 11 employee of Palmetto and has only been able to do what he 12 has done on a very special basis. He is not available to us 13 on the kind of basis that applicants have maybe six or
-s 18 seven counsel. They keep adding new appearances in the case
\m / 15 as the level of activity cranks up, not to mention the vast 16 technical and financial resources that they have to support 17 the actual litigants.
l 18 I spoke with George Johnson a week or so ago on 19 this point of bifurcation, and without sort of, you know, 20 telling tales out of school on George Johnson, the point 21 that he alluded to this morning is that he has got himself 22 another lawyer to work with him and maybe that solves some 23 of the staff's problems that would have been occasioned by
.21 Mr. Johnson ---
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me get clear on the resource f TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET. N.W. - SUITE 1004
,. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12473 1 problem, Mr. Guild, in terms of this case of how it is (h
( ,) 2 running and how it is scheduled. Let's say that your 3
findings are in later this month and then other things will
~I come up in discovery I assume on emergency planning, but 5
what difference does it make whether you go to hearing in 6 April or July?
7 MR. GUILD: Well, it makes a difference becauce 8 of preparation time, Judge. I simply cannot be doing all of 9
tnese things at the same time. Presumably if you add a set to of new judges to consider emergency planning matters, wnich 11 I think would be a mistake, those judges are not going to 12 be sitting around twiddling their thumbs while the rest of I3 us take care of the safety and environmental record or 18
, decision with all of the paper that needs to be generated I3 on that, nor will they be twidling their thumbs while we 16 pursue matters that we intend to raise to the Commission if II the decision of this Board is adverse.
18 We have certainly tried diligently to preserve, 19 as we think the precedent says we have to, to preserve our 20 procecural or interlocutory, if you will, objections by 21 raising tnem as request for certification when they arise.
22 We don't hoard them. As one of the precedents said, we are M not allowed to hoard objections until the end of the case.
23 We try to raise them in as timely a fasnion as we can. That 25 obligates time of counsel and obligates the limited A TAYLOE ASSOCIATES i / 162s i simi. N.w. - suite iOO4 WASHINGTON, D.C. 200C0 (202) 293-3950
12474 I resources that we have.
~~s
(/)
N- 2 For example, Judge, wnen we completed the 3
Monday and Tuesday hearings, all of the other participants 4
I suspect shifted back to doing their findings. Well, I 5
couldn't do that because I had to shift to trying to spend 6
about 15 hours1.736111e-4 days <br />0.00417 hours <br />2.480159e-5 weeks <br />5.7075e-6 months <br /> working on emergency planning discovery 7
which is fast drawing to a close.
8 Our resources don't allow us to have a separate 9
counsel that handles emergency planning matters such as Mr.
10 Shearin who is doing it for the applicant or the FEMA 11 people who apparently are taking care of these sorts of 12 things for the NRC staff.
13 So if, for example, the convenience of the one 14 f) party like the staff with matters like FEMA in having their V 15 direct testimony in by a certain date is an issue, and I 16 think it should be, then in fairness to all participants, 17 our ability, intervenors' ability to effectively -
18 participate should ce a very strong consideration as well 19 and we think that is consistent with the policy statement 20 and what the Chairman just said.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: I think that is a consideration, i
l 22 Let's say as we are sitting here today and discussing thts l
l 23 point, what time would you propose as a fair time to go to t
28 hearing from your standpoint?
U MR. GUILD: Well, sir, the time that I l
l
/O TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
\j 16251 STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 l
12475 I understand is available to this Board, and there are l,'\
5/ 2 reasons for hearing these issues that I want to touch on, 3
.but I think the time I understand for -- well, applicants' 4
bifurcation motion suggests that we wouldn't reach hearing 5
on emergency planning matters until -- let me see if I have 6 got this correct -- does it say June I think. Yes, it says I
"It appears that the emergency planning hearing cannot 8 commence until June 1984."
9 All right. Let's assume that as the outside 10 case. Let's assume that this Board issues an initial 11 decision on safety environmental issues sometime in May and 12 we go to hearing in June on emergency planning matters. I 13 would like to do something other than the Catawba ,
7s Il proceeding like all the rest of us sometime in the rest of
(
~'
) 13 my life, but I am prepared to go forward at that point 16 certainly. I am prepared to go forward in the May time II frame if this Board has'a decision that is done and has 38 finished its work on that and then is prepared to go to 19 hearing.
20 JUDGE-KELLEY: Let's make it clear that this 21 Board could not hear emergency planning before June. I just 22 don't see how that is doable.
El MR. GUILD: Well, we are prepared to go forward 28 on emergency planning hearings in that time frame. That 25 gives us the opportunity to first clear the deck on safety
- (3 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
(/ 1e25 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTOti, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12476 3
7 -. issues in terms of findings. Even tnough at this point
\'~s! 2 discovery on emergency planning is now slated to close the 3
6th of February, we still have to shift gears and use 4
whatever devices or tools that are available to us, if not 5
forma.' discovery, then the preparation time and informal 6 aiscovery to be prepared to go to hearing.
7 Judge, just to interject a note that I think is 8 a fairness consideration, I haven't been home literally 9
except for one day in four months and, you know, I have 10 other obligations and other work to do. I think the 11 participants all have an obligation and a right to be able 12 to have some opportunity to do something other than 13 literally 16-hour days day in and day out working on this g 11 one proceeding.
15 Now let me address a couple of our legal 16 objections to this.
17 he are aware of no precedent that supports 18 bifurcation in these circumstances. The only precedent that 19 has been cited to us is the Snoreham example, and I would 20 suggest that the Shoreham example is totally in opposite to 21 our situation here.
22 First, in Shoreham the device of using a 23 separate Licensing Board was a device that wasn't tnrust
. 21 upon the participants at a late stage in the case where the 25 one Board had already done considerable litigation on TAYLOE ASSOCIATES Q() 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINJsTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12477 I related matters, including the safety of construction and
/
7- i (m,) 2 then suddenly they decioed they couldn't reach fuel load so 3
they added a separate board. They have been following 4
separate tracks for quite some time.
5 The parties in that case are multiple and they 6
are parties with a distinct interest in the emergency I
planning issue as opposed to the only safety issue I am 8 aware that exists at this point which is the diesel 9
generator question. That case involves very, very xnotty 10 emergency planning issues where there are participating 11 local governmental entities.
12 Now no other case has been referred to us at 13 all offers any further support. They are even more remote.
-s 11 There are hearing officers being appointed to look at TMI
35 cheating issues. There is a separate board being set up to 16 look at the issue of shutting down Indian Point. So there II are no precedents for doing this that we think support a 18 belief that nas been thought.
19 Judge, there is a very, very overriding 20 importance, in our view, to this Board hearing the 21 emergency planning issues that it has accepted for i
! 22 litigation in this case and let me address that briefly.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, and then we are going to 21 have to wrap up because we are way overtime and we have 3 still got business to do. So make it short.
/^'T TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
() 16251 STitEET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
1 t
f 12478 I MR. GUILD: Fine. Judge Kelley, you and I
's_, 2 personally have, you know, we have gone around and around 3
and there have been some moments of acrimony not 4
infrequent. And, yet, with all of that said, I as a 3
litigant have an interest. And win, lose or draw, the tryer
-6 of fact that has gone the nine yards so far on this case 7 being the tryer of fact that hears the second aspect of 8 this case, there are first obvious advantages to 9
understanding the parties, the litigants, the counsel and to the participants, but in this case there are some very 11 clear crossovers.
12 First, you already heard evidence on an issue 13 that is going to bear very directly on the emergency
,y Il planning part of the case and that is the DES Contention 17 h 15 that relates to the unique circumstances with respect to 16 meteorology for likely accident impacts and the emergency II planning implications of that set of circumstances.
18 second, you have heard all of the argument i
19 supporting admission of revised emergency plan Contention 20 11, the Charlotte issue. You have considered factual 21 matters that were not in the nature of disputed facts, you 22 know, drawings, maps, demographics and decided in the 21 unique facts and circumstances that were in the confines of 21 tne emergency planning rules that it is a fair game for 25 litigation in this case.
f7 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 I STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12479 1
Having done so, Judge, we think it is only fair
/L
's,/ 2 to an orderly litigation of these issues and fair to the 3
parties to have this Licensing Board consider litigation of I that issue and emergency planning that considers these 3
local circumstances.
3 Now I think there is a due process aspect to I
that as well. Frankly where applicants and the NRC staff 8 have-challenged the litigability of that contention and 9
have been turned aside, it is highly in appropriate for 10 Duke Power' Company to then say we want another set of II judges to consider the issue that over our objection has 12 been admitted for litigation by this Licensing Board.
I3 So we argue very strongly that it would be not t
r'%I li only a prejudice and a burden to this party and to CESG to
\'~/ 13 be forced to follow two tracks at the same time, but 16 irreversible error for this Board to step down from 17 considering a series of issues that it has admitted based la on its understanding of the record where applicants and the 19 staff have opposed those issues and applicants not seen tc 20 find other tryers of fact to consider them.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
22 Mr. McGarry, do you want a brief response?
U MR. McGAR ai': Very brief. On that last point I 21 would trust that the Board holds applicants' counsel in 23 higher regard than to think that we are trying to O
\j TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UlTE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
r= \
12480 I
g~s circumvent the Board's ruling.
I
\ ) 2 I can represent that our motion for bifurcation 3
has absolutely no connection with the Board's ruling on the 4
City of Charlotte. We take our appeal to the Appeal Board 5
and we let the chips fall where they may.
6 Our motion is premised solely on one point. We 7
don't think we can get to a timely licensing decision given 8 this Board's constraint. This Board has to take time to 9
deliberate on the safety phase of the case. When that phase 10 is over, which now the record is closed and proposed 11 findings will all be in in a month of February and maybe 12 flip over a little bit to March. Thereafter the parties 13 have nothing to do, but the Board does. Let's get another je~) li Board and let's proceed further with the emergency plan
\~) 15 hearing. That concludes oar response.
16 JUDGB RELLEY: Okay.
17 Now I nave a separate topic marked here.
18 MR. RILEY: Judge Kelley?
19 JUDGE KELLEY: Excuse me, Mr. Riley?
20 MR. RILEY: I would like to make a ---
21 JUDGE KELL 6Y: I have got an affidavit coming, 22 right, from you?
23 MR. RILEY: You do.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: I do. Okay. I woula ask you to 25 maKe it brief, Mr. Riley. We have now spent about a half an I
f"%
/ ) TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12481 I hour on this topic. Go ahead if you want to make a brief
( ')
V 2 comment.
3 MR. RILEY: I appreciate it. It is a practical 4 consideration.
5 JUDGE KELL".Y: All right.
6 MR. RILE *f : The TDI development has now taken
'7 place and the pace of resolving this TDI tning on diesel 8 generators for the applicant I don't think is going to be 9 spectacularly fast. I think the thing that keeps fuel 10 loading off the critical path or is the critical path for 11 fuel loading is going to turn out to be at least the 12 staff's consideration of the diesel generator problem. So I 13 think we should vies the scheduling talk in that time 18 light.
I3 I very muco support Mr. Guilo's observations 16 and have independently arrived at very much the same thing.
17 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
18 Judge, in lieu of a formal pleading MR. GUILD:
19 in response, I hope you will accept our response on the 20 phone today as ---
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Oh, absolutely. This is going to 22 wrap it up because we are going to decide it as far as we l
23 are concerned.
l 28 MR. GUILD: I would just say tnis, that we think
' 25 this is a very important matter and if the Board is I
f)
\/
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 l WA5NINGTON, DA 20006 I (202) 293 3950 I
L
12482 I amenable to the applicants' motion to bifurcate, we would
'v) 2 ask with all respect that the Board make specific findinga 3
of fact and conclusions of law and we would intend to seek I immediate certification of the issue because we think it is 5
a very important policy issue and we don't want to have the 6 informality of this conference call suggest that we are not 7 prepared to take th'is all the way up because we are very 8 seriously of the view that it would be error to grant it.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, we will consider that. I 10 should just add one point, and that is, as I think I have 11 said before, a bifurcation motion is kind of a peculiar 12 beast in the sense that it is addressed to this Board and 13 yet it is a joint thing by tnis Board and the management of 11 the panel.
( )
v 15 The coard doesn't have tne authority to set up 16 another Board. It is Chairman Cotter that does that. So II what you get is sort of a joint judgment. I frankly don't la know what has been done in some of these other cases where 19 tney have bifurcated, whether they have written an opinion 20 on the subject or whether they just issue a little piece of 21 paper saying there is hereby a different Board. But I do 22 want to mention that it is not entirely in our hands.
23 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
28 MR. JOHNSON: Judge Kelley, I would just lixe to Ei state that we said that we would file a written document, p
g TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 2'l3 3950
12483 I
but in light of tnis phone call we would not anticipate
[s}
\/ 2 filing it.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes, I think we might have been I clearer before. Can everyone agree? We have got Mr.
5 McGarry's written motion and now we have had all this 6
discussion from all sides and I would think the Board could 7 decide the matter without any further filings.
8 Now Mr. Guild indicated, apart from this 9
bifurcation business we have just been talking about, that 10 he had some matters in the area of emergency planning 11 discovery that he wanted to raise.
12 Mk. GUILD: Yes, sir.
-13 MR. McGARRY: Your Honor, is this going to get
(T 14 into emergency planning?
U 15 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes, I thing so.
16 MR. McGARRY: Can we try to call Mr. Shearin ana 17 plug h'im in because when we were cut off he was cut off.
18 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, try to get him.
19 MR. McGARRY: If everyone stays on the line I 20 thing I have the capability of doing it.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: All right, I will be rignt back.
22 (Pause.)
21 JUDGE KELLEY: This is Kelley back. Who all is 21 on the line?
3 MR. McGARRY: McGarry is back with Shearin.
O/ TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 1
_ .._ _ . . _ ~ . . . , . _ _ . _ . _ . _ , . . _ . . . _ - _ - . _
12484 1
JUDGE KELLEY: Did you get Mr. Shearin?
Iv) 2 MR. McGARRY: Yes, sir.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Guild?
4 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
5 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Riley?
6 MR. RILEY: Here.
I JUDGE KELLEY: Purdom and Foster?
8 JUDGE PURDOM: Here.
9 JUDGE FOSTER: Here.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: Is Mr. Clewett still around?
II MR. CLEWETT: Yes, sir.
12 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, I guess we are all 13 back on.
18 Well, Mr. Shearin, you just joined us and Mr.
'v 15 McGarry may have' told you that we are about to start some 16 discussion of some emergency planning discovery matters 17 that Mr. Guild wanted to raise. So we had you join us.
18 Mr. Guild, could you just first of all describe 19 in sort of a captioned way what you have got in mind tnat
'20 you want to raise?
21 MR. GUILD: All right, sir. We are fast 22
( approaching the February 6th deadline, and with tne Board 23 on the line to tne extent there are some matters that 21 cannot be agreed to, I wanted to either see if we could get 25 a decision or see if we could use this as a very, very i
l t
q TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
- f. i l-
) 1625 i STREET N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
) (202) 293 3950 i
.4
12485 l'
-A. . short conference to resolve matters that . night be contested
( )
2 0 and then to just kind of reflect on the status of where we 3
~are in approaching the 6th of February on emergency 3
planning.
5 I mentioned a number of points to Mr. Shearin I 6 thi'nk yesterday or the day before now and I was just going I -to quickly run down a list of things that were on the table 8 and flag the ones that I think are disputed.
4 '9 Okay.
JUDGB KELLEY:
- i 10 MR. GUILD: If I can just jump in, Judge?
- U JUDGE KELLEY: Yes, I guess so. I think we will 3
- 12. sort of see how it goes. We have run up now a couple of 13 hours instead of one, and that is okay, but if it gets us
) T
, l3 . enmeshed into a lot of sort of detailed argument, I am not i !
ut 13 sure we are going to vant to do it this way.
16 Yes, sir.
MR. GUILD:
A Let me just allude to tne fact that as the 18 Board is probably aware, we have done some informal 19 discovery in the emergency planning area. We had a 20 conference when we toox a break in the fall during the QA
. 21 hearings and the applicants have been very helpful in 22 making available documents essentially that are in their 23 possession and sort of collecting documents from the 28 various state anc local government participants.
23 We have examined a n".fr r of these and sort of f^% TAYLOE ASSOCIAYt:5
- ) .
U 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 s
.. . . - . , , - - , - - - - - , , , .-,-r, :--- -v -r -
12406 l are in the process of copying a number, and I want to thank
' )
(s/ 2 Mr. Shearin and tne people at the company that have been 3
~ helpful in making those things available.
I We now come to the point where we are gettin u 5
close to the expiration date for discovery. I was informed 6
the other day that the applicants will take the deposition I
of-Jesse Riley on the 8th of February by consent, and I 8 have informed Mr. Shearin of our desire to on the same day 9
take tne deposition of Mr. Micnael Glover who is the 10 applicants' planning coordinator or the man who was the 11 central figure, if you will, in doing the planning for 12 Catawba at Duke Power.
.13 That was a request and a note to Mr. Shearin Il
- g. that he has neither. acquiesced in or commented on, but'l
('~'I 15 told him about that and didn't know whether it would ce a M disputed matter but wanted to raise it. Perhaps it is not 17 disputed so there is no need to take that further. But, if 18 so, I wanted to let the Judges know that we seek a 19 deposition as do they.
20 The second matter that is sort of a matter of 21 controversy is we have sought from applicants the 22 opportunity to gather information concerning the conduct of 21 the drill yet to come. That is the February 15tn exercise 21 drill and what-have-you involving state and local 25 government and Duke Power.
O TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
( 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12487 1
we have been informed that Duke has invited
/ \
(s,) 2 observation by a committee of citizens in Charlotte whose 3
-charge is to make recommendations about emergency planning I
in Charlotte for the Catawba Nuclear Station, but they have 5
refused voluntarily to allow observation at that same point 6 by representatives from intervenors.
I I made a request the other day to Mr. Shearin 8
that we be allowed to observe in whatever fashion was least 9
intrusive but would give us the muximum amount of 10 opportunity to gather information about the effectiveness 11 of the drill and he sort of said tnat he didn't think that 12 was likely that they were going to agree to that. So I 13 wanted te put that actter similarly before the Board.
18
,-) Then the last matter on emergency planning was s a
\~ IS I simply wanted to seek the guidance of the Board on the 16 question of whetner after the discovery period closes, as I 17 think the rules suggest, applicants and the staff would 18 commit to supplementation of the discovery as intervenors 19 have been asked to do until they actually go to hearing on 20 the matter.
21 That covers the issues I wanted to raise I 22 believe.
13 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
28 Shall we ask Mr. Shearin to respond or Mr.
25 McGarry?
p 3 f TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12488 I MR. McGARRY: I will jump in. As I understand f'v,/ I 2 it, there are three items. One is a deposition of Mr.
3 Glover, second is the drill and third is the continuing 4
obligation to supplement discovery.
5 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Is this Mr. McGarry?
I MR. McGARRY: Yes, sir.
8 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I thougnt so. Go ahead.
9 MR. McGARRY: With respect to the third item, of 10
- course we have the responsibility to supplement discovery 11 and we will act accordingly.
12 hith respect to the first item, which is the 13 deposition of Mr. Glover, my understanding is that Mr.
14 Guild thougnt to take that on the same day as Mr. Riley, he
# 13 have no objection to taking Mr. Glover's deposition shortly 16 .after February tne 6th and I think the discussions were 17 focusing on February the 9th.
18 MR. GUILD: I think the 8th, Mike, is the day 19 that Jesse is going to be deposed.
20 MR. McGARRY: Jesse is the 6th. We can't do them 21 both at the same time. So we would suggest the 9th, but we 22 have no opposition, as I said, to Palmetto's taking Mr.
23 Glover's deposition in the very close proximity of the 28 close of discovery date which is February the 6th. That 23 would be normal business hours and normal time.
O
'L.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
124b9 l MR.' GUILD:
,_q MiXe, if I might interject here.
t \
(/ '
2 Judge, we had anticipated, and I told Mr.
3 Shearin that what we wanted to do was do a non-stenographic I deposition under tne same housekeeping agreement that we 5
used in the QA session. You know, if the applicants want to 6 get a court reporter, fine, well and good, but we would 7
plan only to have a tape recorded deposition.
8 MR. McGARRY: We have no problem with that with 9
that witn tne same ground rules as before. I think the key 10 now is just to set a date and I think February the 9th was 11 the date we were talking about.
12 MR. GUILD: We can discuss tnat later. That 13 would be fine.
,e s II JUDGE KELLEY: That doesn't sound like a
)
k/ 15 problem.
16 JUDGE KELLEY: What about the observation part?
17 MR. McGARRY: The observation part we oppose.
18 JUDGE KELLEY: Can you define a little more 19 clearly -- I recall, for example, and this is just a dim 20 recollection and may be wrong, that there was a dispute
' 2I about intervenor observation at Indian Point.
22 Mk. GUILD: Yes, sir.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: The dispute I think was the 21 control room. I don't know, but that kind of thing comes 3 up. It is one thing to observe in the control room and p) g TAYl.OE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
~
12490 I
,,\
another thing to stand next to the fence I suppose. I am
/
\- 2 not sure what you are asking for and so forth.
3 Mr. Guild, when you say you want to observe,
-I where do you want to be?
5 MR. GUILO: Well, I am mindful of the decision 6
in the_ Indian Point matter, Judge, and what, frankly, I ara I
trying to do is to avoid whatever objection there might be 8
that is founded on that set of circumstances at Indian 9
Point, and if that objection is that the control room 10 representa too intrusive of'a place to be that implicitly 11 interferes with their conduct of the drill, all well and 12 good.
13 I don't have enough factual information about II f) how they set this thing up to be able to say.
A )
' 13 MR. HIL8Y: May I jump in, Bob?
16 MR. GUILD: Say that again?
17 MR. RILEY: May I jump in?
18 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir. ,
19 MR. RILEY: In a meeting before the citizens 20 committee, Mr. Carter, who is the Community Relations 21 Director, indicated there was ---
22 MR. GUILD: For Duke Power, right?
23 MR. RILEY: Duke Power Community Relations 28 Director. --- indicated there were going to be four 23 positions that would involve Duke. One is in the corporate Qb/
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 l STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 t.
12491
- ='
I office, another is in the control coor and the other two I
/si' w/ 2 am not sure of, but quite possibly includes the South 3
Carolina National Guard Armory which is to be the forward I emergency operations center.
5 Now.there is a.fifth place for observation, and 6 that is in the Police Department Coordination Office here
~
in Charlotte. I have received from Mr. Broom an invitation 8 to be an observer there. So that is no problem.
9 MR. GUILD: Okay, good.
10 MR. RILSY: I have no problem in desiring to be 11 in the control room or being in an intrusive position, as 12 Mr. Guild said, but it certainly seemed to me that the 13 forward emergency operations office in the National Guard
-- 11 Armory would be a different matter.
~~~# 15 MR. CLEWETT: May I also at some point make one 16 brief additional observation on this?
I7 JUDGE KELLEY: what we are trying to get now is 18 as good a fix. I mean if it is a disputed matter, and I 19 gather tnat it is, we need to know from the intervenors 20 just exactly where they want to be so that we can make an 21 intelligent assessment.
22 Now we have heard Mr. Guild on this subject in El general terms and Mr. Riley was talking about a couple at 28 specific places.
25 Mr. Clewett, do you want to add something along
(~3 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
( ,) 1625 I STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12492 I those 1.i.nes?
[-~ j
\/ 2 MR. CLEwET1: Yes,.if I may, sir. On the basis 3
.of my assumption not knowing that much about this ongoing 8
litigation, there will ne questions that arise during the 5
course of the hearing on the effectiveness of things from 6 one perspective or another.
I l It seems to me that it is sugggestive of the l
8 approach that should be followed, that when matters are in 9
litigation the procedure has been followed at other nuclear 10 plant locations around the country that if the applicant 11 provides the NRC, particularly the Commission, with, for 12 instance, a tour of the plant, that they also invite 13 intervenors to participate.
g'%s 11 Now it seems to me that the situation here is
( I
'~ # 13 not strictly on all fours the same situation, but it seems lu to me reasonable to follow the perspective that if, for 17 example, Duke Power Company has recruited a bunch of people 18 who are possibly going to be said to be a cross-section of 19 the community who observe this, that there be some 20 provision to factor into that those community groups that 21 are actively actually involved in litigating these issues.
22 It seems to me that if Duke is going to have 23 people at four different places to be the eyes and the 21 ears of what happens, that there is an obligation to 25 consider also having representatives of the intervenors A TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12493 I tnere.
(-
ky' 2 Now I assume that this isn't going to be 3
hanging off tne back of a fire truck or something like I
this, but if it is as an official observer under ground 5
rules that have been set out, that if there are going to be 6
people observing from, for instance, the control room and, I
for instance, the command post of one particular 8 organization or another that is responding, that the 9
intervenors should be given the opportunity to be there.
10 Now it may be that Just because of manpower 11 questions tnat, you know, for instance, Jesse Riley can't 12 be in more than one place at one time and neither can Mr.
13 Guild, but that there be that option available. So that is 14 7y my only point that the Board should consider that
- 15 perspective as well.
16 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
17 MR. GUILD: I think the reason we think it is 18 appropriate to consider under these circumstances if we i
19 understand that Duke has essentially invited 20 non-participants but observers from this so-called Nerkin 21 Committee of citizens in Charlotte to observe at those four 22 locations.
13 he simply ask for the least intrusive 21 opportunity to observe where we are at the same time 25 gatner the most amount of information, and we would say the p 4 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 3
1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12494 I
S. best measure of that should be the kind of observation 2
opportunity that is being given to members of this 3
committee who have no other official role in the drill.
JUDGE KELLEY: Let me get one other thing clear.
5 When you say you want to participate and be represented, 6 how many people are you asking for?
7 MR. GUILD: Well, I thins if you say there are 8 four locations, Judge, that are being observed, no more 9
than one representative in any one place.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: One apiece.
Il MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
12 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Now just once more let 13 me get clear, and maybe Mr. McGarry can help, on exactly 14 what these places are.
("T- I xnow the control room. That is
's/ g3 one.
16 MR. CARR: Your Honor, this is Al Carr. It is my 17 understanding that none ot tnese four people will be in the 18 plant at all and maybe perhaps Mr. Shearin can confirm 19 that.
20 MR. SHEARIN: That is correct. None of them will 21 oe at the plant.
22 JUDGE KELLEY: From this committee you mean?
23 MR. CARR: That is right.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Nobody is in the plant. Well, 25 tell me where they are again.
O'
(/
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SulTE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12495 I
,._s MR. CARR: Ron, why don't you go ahead. Do you
/
~
k ,)\ 2 know the four locations?
3 MR. SHEARIN: Yes, I have the four locations I
here. One of tnem is with the field monitoring team.
'S JUDGE KELLEY: They just sort or drive around in 6 their trucks, rignt? Field inonitoring, that is not a fixed 7
place, right?
'8 MR. SHEARIN: That is correct.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: So that is just somebody that to goes along with the radiation monitor people. All rignt, Il that is one place.
12 MR. SHEARIN: The second one is the News Crisis I3 Center'in the Power Building.
7s II JUDGE KELLEY: News Crisis Center, and what i
\~/ 15 building is that?
16 MR. McGARRY: That is the Power Building in 17 Charlotte, North Carolina. That is Duke's corporate 18 headquarters.
19 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. It is a media place, right?
20 MR. SHEARIN: That is cor:ect. Actually there 21 are just three locations "here they would be, the third one 22 being the Recovery Manager's Facility.
3 MR. RILEY: I beg your pardon? Please repeat 28 tnat, Mr. Shearin.
3 MR. SHEARIN: Do you want the three locations?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES O)
(, 16251 STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12496 1
MR. RILEY: No, just the last one, please.
j 2 JUDGE KELLEY:- The third one.
3 MR. McGARRY: Ron, the last location.
I MR. SHEARIN: The last one is the Recovery 5 Manager's Center which is in the^wakugia Building across 6 the street from the Power Building all in Charlotte.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: What kind of function gets 8 performed at the last one?
9 MR. SHEARIN: That is wnere the decision-making 10 function is carried out.
II JUDG8 KSLLEY: Decisions by wuo?
12 MR. SHEARIN: By the Recovery Manager for t.m 13 exercise.
il MR. GUILD: That is a Duke Power representative V 15 I understood.
16 MR. McGARRY: Yes.
17 JUDGE KELLEY: The Recovery Manager. What about 18 the so-called EOC, where is that?
19 MR. GUILD: That is in Clover, Judge. That is at 20 the National Guard Armory.
21 JUDG8 NELLEY: ~ That is tne National Guard Armory 22 and that is where Mr. Riley has been invited, right?
23 MR. G"ILD: No, sir. He has been invitied to the 21 Police Department in Charlotte. The FEOC, forward emergency 25 operations center is in Clover, South Carolina in the A
O
\
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12497 1
National Guard Armory and that is where the representatives
~(
r~s 1
\_j 2 of both North and South Carolina gather to coordinate the 3
accident.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. Now I think we have got 5
clear now where the city committee representatives are 6 going to be, the three places Mr. Shearin just named. .w w I
are those same three places the three places you were 8 asking for?
9 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir, and we would add the 10 fourth which is the FEOC, the Clover National Guard Armory.
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Plus Clover?
12 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
13 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. hell, I think we It understand it.
.-[
\ ) 15 Any questions, Judge Purdom?
16 JUDGE PURDOM: No questions.
II JUDGE KELLEY: Judge Foster?
18 JUDGE FOSTER: No.
19 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I thing we can get a grip 20 on-that.
21 Now it is about lunchtime.
22 The other note I have is a short time, namely, U that I received today a letter dated yesterday concerning 21 o ject of tne control room design review.
the su' You will 23 recall, gentlemen, there was a oiscussion of that and
(]
(y TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 L
i t-r[ les98 I whether there were contentions to be coming in on that at
-p C/ 2 the end of the hearing.the other day and we asked Mr.
3' McGarry'to essentially pull together the transmittal
'I letters and give us some background on what had happened 5
here. he has done that and some of you may not even have 6 it. I have looked at it and I would just say this, Mr.
7 Guild, if you want to respond to Mr. McGarry's letter ---
8 MR. GUILD: We did get it and we do want to 9 respond. We don't think that represents an accurate view of 10 things.
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, if you could serve 12 something by, today is the 3rd, by the 10th.
13 MR. GUILD: Fine, Judge.
7-s II MR. CARR: Judge Kelley, let me just say that
> 15 that letter was nothing more than an overall, just a basic 16 background and transmittal of the correspondence that had 17 gone back and forta reflecting the service.
18 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.
19 MR. CARR: We want an opportunity to be heard if 20 an argument comes in.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. Let us have an j
22 understanding, gentlemen, that we weren't asking you for an Il elaborate pleading and argument and all that. he just asxed 21 for the sort of basic information tnat is really a file 25 search kind of a tning.
A t, j TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12499 1 Mr. Guild, you can come back with the same kind (pf 2 of a thing. You can come back with more of an argument if 3
you want to, but we would expect to give both sides some 4 further opportunity to be heard.
5 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir. Thank you.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: What we might do in that regard 7 -- now we have got pending in f ront of us several matters.
8 Let me ask again when this exercise is going to take place?
9 MR. RILEY: February 15th through the 16th.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: What days are those, the middle 11 of the week?
12 MR. RILEY: Yes, I believe a Wednesday and a 13 Thursday.
7s II JUDGE KELLEY: I was going to say, gentlemen, in t,'~'/ ,3 my own person case after today I am going to be out in 16 Reno, Nevada next week attending a judicial college thing.
II So I am kind of out of pocket.
38 We will have to give you a decision on the 19 observation stuff next week sometime so you know one way or 20 the other whether you have got a right to go.
21
, The other natters also should be decided pretty 2;
soon. Would a telephone conference be okay?
11 Let me ask my colleagues first if they think 25 they can find a little time a week from next Wednesday, say 25 the 15th?
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
/)1
'y 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
. 12500 I JUDGE PURDOM: No problem.
~s
('-./) 2 JUDGE KELLEY: Can you do that, Dick?
3 JUDGE FOSTER: Foster is available.
4 JUDGE KELLEY: We could use that occasion and we 5
will announce rulings on whatever we have heard today that 6
we haven't rule on which is I guess is most of today's 7
discussion.
8 C<
MR. CLEWETT: Mal that you consider having 9
that telephone conference not on f the days that is 10 going to be used for the emergency planning exercise just 11 because tnat is a conflict that people are going to be 12 trying to be focusing on the. exercise itself then.
13 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. That was the 15th and 16th I 18 think I just heard?
(~
V] 15-InR . RILEY: Right.
16 JUDGE KELLEY: hell, is the 17tn all right?
17 MR. McGARRY: Yes, sir.
18 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Let's go ahead and set a 19 time now and we can mark it on our calendars so we don't 20 have to call you back again. The 17tn is Friday, and at 11 21 o' clock in the morning again?
22 MR. GUILD: Fine, Judge.
3 MR. McGARRY: Yes, sir.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Now as to the other point, we 1
25 will try to talx a little bit today about this
,O TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
- ( ,/ 16251 STREET, N.W. - $UITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12501 I
,, representation problem and we will just simply have to get
'i
'w ') .,
back to you, but one way or another we will get you a 3
ruling as soon as we can. It will probably be next week.
'I Thank.you.
MR. GUILD:
5 MR. CLEWETT: May I ask one other thing?
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.
7 MR. CLEWETT: .There is one other minor matter I 8 wanted to bring up. It won't take but a minute and it may 9
not be controversial.
10 he would be interested in having a list of Il everyone who has signed tne affidavit of non-disclosure. I 12 don't know whether the easiest way would be for each party 13 to provide a list to the others of who has signed or
,-w
, II whether the Board would find it objectionable to undertake
\ )
O to circulate unuer the same In Camera circumstances if l'
necessary a list of who has signed that since it is my 17 understanding that the affidavits themselves are submitted 18 to the Board.
19 JUDGE KELLEY: That is correct. Well, we can 20 probably do that. It will take a little time, but I think 21 we can uo it.
22 MR. CLEWEfT: Okay. Thank you very much. That U was my only point.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
25 Gentlemen, then we will get back to you next G'
y TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12502 l week on the representation business and the following wees
! )
\~s/ 2 on Friday we will try to get back and rule on everything we 3
talked about today.
4 MR. GUILD: Judge, one housekeeping piont that I 5
tried to flag early, and that is I am trying to get copies 6
and circulations of the exhibits from the Monday and I
Tuesday hearing.out to everybody and I have a couple of 8 points in tnat regard.
9 First, can you just tell me, Judge Kelley, if I 10 want to have the record copies sent, do I just send them to 11 you or should I send them to.the docketing and service.
12 JUDG8 KELLEY: I think docketing and service 13 gets them usually.
- 14 MR. GUILD: Okay, and then a copy to everybody
~ 15
. on the list to make sure.
16 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.
17 MR. GUILD: Okay, and in that regard if I car la - maybe talk with maybe Mike McGarry.
19 Mike, are you in D. C.?
20 MR. McGARRY: Yes.
21 MR. GUILD: I just wanted to get some of the 22 numbering straight. I went bac4 and frankly couldn't make 23 heads or tails out of our discussions about renur. bering 28 them.
Ti The third point was we had hanging this p
Q TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGToH, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 e n -
+r-. m - , 4 y , w-,,w,,-,,e-- ,,~er,-
, , ,,------e-,-~ ,
e9-- -+<----w.
12503 I request to include the informal discovery materials from
'/ 2 the applicant.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Oh, yes.
I MR. GUILD: What I would like to ask is if I 5
could submit simply one copy of that for the formal record, 6 maybe one to docketing and service and one to any party 7
that doesn't have one. But what I want to do is just have 8 it in the record what I can represent as what we have had 9
available, not for substantive evidence, but simply to 10 reflect what was circulated to support our position on the 11 need for discovery, et cetera. I tnink that everything se 12 want to rely on has been pulled from that pack and 13 individually introduced as an exhibit by one party or the 18 other.
> i V 15 To ao this last point, to include tnat pack as 16 an identified exnibit, I am going to ask for the 17 assistance from Al Carr that I sought before which was to 18 get a good, clean set of tnem.
19 MR. CARR: Bob, as I told you, I have got 20 somebody working on that, but I won't be back in Charlotte 21 It will take ten days or so to get all of until next week.
22 tnat together.
23 MR. GUILD: That suits me fine, Judge, if that 21 is okay.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
/]
(, 16251 STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASH'NGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
9 _.
I 1
12504 1
MR. McGARd1: Our position on that last point is O
(m,/ 2 tne applicant doesn't agree that that entire informal 3
package should be evidence.
I JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I think, if I hear Mr.
5 Guild correctly it is being offered for the limited 6 purpose of showing almost the thickness of tne stack. Is I that correct, Mr. Guild.
8 MR. GUILO: Yes, sir, and to the extent that 9
there are documents in there-that relate to particular 10 subjects, I want to be in a position to indicate, you know, 11 the pausity, if you will, of information provided on those 12 tnings.
13 But I think it is fair to say that to the em 14 extent that items were specifically dealt with in the
~ 13 hearing, they were either read from by the witness on the 16 stand so there was no need to put it in, or they were 17 offered independently as exhibits.
18 So I am offering the stack only for say 19 identification purposes, if you will.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: All right. Any objection on that 21 basis?
22 MR. McGARRY: For identification purposes, no.
23 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, granted.
28 Okay?
3 MR. GUILD: Yes, sir.
/'3 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
/ 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950
12505 1
JUDGE KELLEY: All right, gentlemen, I V 2 appreciate your. time and participation and we will be back 3
in touch with you as we said.
'I (Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the telephone-5 conference concluded.)
6 . __
7-8 9
10 11 12 13 18 15 16 e
17 18 19 20 21 e
22 23 28 25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES
, 1625 i STREET, N.W. - SulTE 1004 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
1 CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS
(~%
.ta i 2 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before g the U._S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a telephone 5 conference in tne Matter of Duke Power Company, et al.,
t 6 (Catawba Nucloar Station, Units 1 and 2), cotr.mencing at 7 11:05 a.m., on Friday, February 3rd, 1984 in the Offices 8 of Tayloe Associates at 1625 I Street, N. W., Washington, 9 D. C., were held as herein appears, and that this is the 10 original transcript for the files of the Nuclear 11 Regulatory Commission.
12 13 14 15 Mary C. Simons 16 --------------------------~~-------
-17 Official Reporter - Typed 18
~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~
19 20 Official Reporter - Signature
- - 21 22 23 i
21 25 i
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES 16251 STREET, N.W. - SUITE 1004 i WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
.-- -. _ .. .- - _. . _ - - .- . - -. . _- -