ML20126M359
| ML20126M359 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#285-555 OL, NUDOCS 8506200304 | |
| Download: ML20126M359 (48) | |
Text
0.1G NAL -
Uh n EU STAJ.ES
'm" NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO:.'vEESSION O - -
IN THE MAlle_1t OF: DOCKET NO:
OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING STN-50-529-OL ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, ET AL STN-50-530-OL PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATIt!G STATION, -
. UNITS 2 & 3
(
LOCATION: #^C" 3"l-313I PHOENIX, AR - -
DATE: WEDNESDAYj-JUNE 12, 1985 I. . ,
01 o
ace-FEDERdREFoRTEas, INc.
O _
G5062OO304 850612
- N '"
PDR ADOCK 05000529 M4 North CapitclSt:eet T PDR Washington, D.C. 2CC01 (202)347-3700 ,
CR23495.0 Field /sg 3091 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 BEFORE THE 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 4 :
In the Matter of: :
5 :
OPERATING LICENSING PROCEDURE : Docket Numbers 6 :
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, : STN-50-529-OL et al. : STN-50-530-OL 7
(Palo Verde Nuclear Generating :
8 Station, Units 2 and 3) :
9 _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 10 Courtroom Number 2 Seventh Floor 11 Federal Building 230 North First Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85025 Wednesday, June 12, 1985 The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened at 14 10:01 a.m.
15 BEFORE:
I6 JUDGE ROBERT M. LAZO, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 17 JUDGE DIXON CALLIHAN, Member 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board j9 JUDGE JAMES H. CARPENTER, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 20 21 l
22 (2) 23 l 1
I 24 l Am-FWwd Rgorwrs 1% ;
25 l
1
3092 1 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR 2 REGULATORY COMMISSION, JUNE 12, 1985, FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, 3 PHOENIX, ARIZONA, COMMENCING AT 10:01 A.M.
4 THE BOARD WAS COMPOSED OF ROBERT M. LAZO, 5 CHAIRMAN; DIXON CALLlHAN, MEMBER; RICHAr.D F. COLE, MEMBER; 6 AND JAMES H. CARPENTER, MEMBER.
7 THE JOINT APPL ICANTS, ARIZONA PUBLIC SERYlCE 8 COMPANY. ET AL., WERE REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR C. GEHR AND 9 MARTHA E. GIBBS, ATTORNEYS AT LAW.
10 THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF WAS 11 REPRESENTED BY LEE SCOTT DEWEY, ATTORNEY.
12 ALSO APPEARING WERE E. E. VAN BRUNT AND 13 EMANUEL LICITRA.
~
O "
15 16 i 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
() 24 25
- *EEu^"r nU5EEn's' " ' ##**
o "dCn*Iio*m"[s5o*14 TELEPHONE 279-4711
3093 1
2 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 3 RECEIVED
() 4 JOINT APPLICANT'S EXHlBITS IN EVIDENCE 5 1 TESTlMONY OF KARL R. WILBER 3133 6 ATTACHMENTS:
7 W-1 ENYlRONMENTAL SYSTEMS CORPORATION'S
SUMMARY
OF 8 PROBLEM-SPECIFIC PROGRAMS 9 W-2 CURRICULUM VITAE 10 W-3 DEVELOPMENT OF A DRIFT SOURCE TERM, PALO VERDE NUCLEAR POWER 11 PLANT, CIRCULAR MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING TOWER 12 W-4 COOLING TOWER SCHEMATIC 13 ,
W-5 MODEL OF DISPERSE DROPLET O i4 GEaERATOR 15 W-6 FAN STACK ARRANGEMENT, DEPLOYMENT OF TEST SENSORS 16 W-7 DRIFT INSTRUMENTATION ON TRAVERSE 17 BEAM ,
18 W-8 COMPARATIVE COOLING TOWER DRIFT DATA 19 2 TESTIMONY OF DR. MORTON 1. GOLDMAN 3133 20 ATTACHMENTS:
21 G-1 CURRICULUM VITAE 22 G-2 MECHANICAL DRAFT TOWER DRIFT 23 DROPLET SIZE SPECTRA
() 24 25 i
COURT RE R RS P ON' ARIZON 85014 TELEPHONE 279-4711 1
, , , . , , . _ , , , _ , , _ , _ . _ , , . ,_,.y._ ,__ , _ . , . . , _ , _ , , _ _ , , , . _ , , , , , _ . _ , _ . , _
3094 1 G-3A ANNUAL SALT DEPOSITION RECElVED RATE PREDICTIONS OF THE IN EVIDENCE 2 NUS/ FOG COMPUTER MODEL FOR THE 5-BIN DROP SPECTRUM 3
G-3B ANNUAL SALT DEPOSITION RATE Ci 4 PREDICTIONS OF THE EPRI COMPUTER MODEL FOR THE 5-BIN DROP 5 SPECTRUM 6 G-3C ANNUAL SALT DEPOSITION RATE PREDICTIONS OF THE NUS/ FOG 7 COMPUTER MODEL FOR THE 10-BIN DROP SPECTRUM 8
G-3D ANNUAL SALT DEPOSITION ~ RATE 9 PREDICTIONS OF THE EPRI COMPUTER MODEL FOR THE 10-BIN DROP 10 SPECTRUM 11 G-3E ANNUAL SALT DEPOSITION RATE PREDICTIONS OF THE NUS/ FOG 12 COMPUTER MODEL FOR THE 38-BIN DROP SPECTRUM 13 -
G-3F ANNUAL SALT DEPOSITION RATE
() -
14 PREDICTIONS OF THE EPRI COMPUTER MODEL FOR THE 38-BIN DROP 15 SPECTRUM 16 G-4 COOLING TOWER DRIFT DEPOSITION AT PVNGS--FOG MODEL 17 G-5 COOLING TOWER DRAFT DEPOSITION 18 AT PVNG S--EPRI MODEL 19 G-6 DISTRIBUTION OF DUSTFALL AND SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS 20 G-7 DISTRIBUTION OF VEGETATION 21 SAMPLING LOCATIONS
$ 22 3 TESTIMONY OF THE REVIEW BOARD 3133 (DRS. CHARLES R. CURTIS AND DELBERT 23 C. MCCUNE)
() 24 25 i
COURT RE R ERS P O ARIZON 85014 l TELEPHONE 2794711
- l. - - _ _ . - . _ - . - _ - - . . - . - . - . _ _ - _ . -- . . -
3095 1 ATTACHMENTS: RECElVED IN EYlDENCE 2 RB-1 CURRICULUM VITAE OF DR.
CHARLES R. CURTIS 3 -
RB-2 CURRICULUM VITAE OF DELBERT 4 C. MCCUNE 5 RB-3 LIST OF REVIEW BOARD MEETINGS 6 RB-4 AN ASSESSMENT OF SALT DRIFT ON THE PRODUCTIVITY OF AGRICULTURAL 7 CROPS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING 8 STATION 9 RB-5A THROUGH RB-5C NADP DATA REPORTS ON PRECIPITATION 10 CHEMISTRY 11 12 NRC STAFF EXHIBITS 13 10 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWIN D. PENTECOST 3133 WITH SEVEN ATTACHMENTS
() 14 11 TESTIMONY OF DR. R0bERT B. SAMWORTH 3133 15 WITH ATTACHMENTS 16 12 LETTER DATED MAY 16, 1985, FROM E. E. 3133 VAN BRUNT, JR., TO GEORGE W. KNIGHTON 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
() 24 25
'"^* *Eo"u^n"r nS5oEe'n's' ' '"*' ****on
" !E4n[io'n"2's'so*2 TELEPHONE 279-4711
3096 1 JUDGE LAZO: LET'S GO ON THE RECORD AND CALL 2 THE HEARING TO ORDER, PLEASE.
3 WE HAD INDICATED YESTERDAY THAT WHEN WE O 4 PRESENTED A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE 5 THAT WE HAD BACK ON JUNE THE 3RD THAT THERE WERE SOME 6 ITEMS THAT WE HAD RAISED THAT WE THOUGHT WE SHOULD DISCUSS 7 AT LEAST WITH COUNSEL PRESENT. THERE MAY BE SOME ORAL 8 ARGUMENT.
9 IN REVIEWING MY NOTES I SEE THAT WE --
10 MATTERS THAT ARE STILL PENDING.
~
11 WE HAD ASKED IF MR. DEWEY OF THE STAFF WOULD 12 INQUIRE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ARIZONA STATE LAND
. 13 COMMISSIONER MIGHT HAVE ANY COMMENTS REGARDING THE
() 14 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. YOU MAY RECALL THAT WE HAD RAISED 15 AS A QUESTION THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR 16 SAFEGUARDS' LETTER OF MAY 13TH, 1985, REGARDING UNRESOLVED 17 SAFETY ISSUE A-45, THE SHUTDOWN DECAY HEAT REMOYAL 18 REQUIREMENTS, AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY NEED FOR A 19 PORY IN A COMBUSTION ENGINEERING UNIT.
20 WE ALSO NOTED THAT THE 2.206 PETITION FROM 21 THE COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY EDUCATION THAT WAS 22 REFERRED TO BY THREE OF THEIR MEMBERS YESTERDAY WAS 23 OUTSTANDING. THAT'S THE SPRAY POND WELL CORROSION MATTER.
() 24 AND L ASTLY ON MY LIST WAS THE QUESTION WHICH 25 HAD BEEN RAISED VERY EARLY IN THIS PROCEEDING AS TO TELEPHONE 279-4711 1
3097 1 WHETHER OR NOT THE NRC STAFF SHOULD PREPARE A SUPPLEMENTAL 2 IMPACT STATEMENT. WE HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE 3 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING WHICH W AS HELD BEFORE THE 4 COMMISSION IN WASHINGTON ON MAY 30TH, WHICH MR. GEHR 5 KINDLY FORWARDED. AND MR. GEHR HAD INDICATED EARLIER IN 6 0UR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE THAT HE FELT THAT MANY OF OUR 7 QUESTIONS WOULD BE RESOLVED BY NOTING THAT THE COMMISSION 8 HAD CONSIDERED THOSE MATTERS.
9 PERHAPS THE WAY TO BEGIN WOULD BE TO ASK 10 COUNSEL FOR THE --
11 MR. DEWEY: JUDGE L AZO, I THINK ONE ITEM YOU 12 LEFT OFF IN YOUR L AUNDRY LIST IS THE -- l THINK YOU ALSO j
13 ASKED THE STAFF TO REPORT ON THE STATUS OF I NV ESTIG ATI ONS.
14 JUDGE L AZO: YOU ARE QUITE CORRECT,
(]}
4 15 MR. DEWEY, YES, THE STATUS -- -
16 MR. DEWEY: WE ARE PREPARED TO DO THAT THIS 17 MORNING ALSO.,
18 JUDGE L AZO: FINE.
19 WELL, THEN, HOW SHALL WE BEGIN? DO EITHER 20 0F YOU GENTLEMEN WISH TO MAKE ANY OPENING REMARKS OR 21 COMMENT Ot! THIS PHASE OF THE PROCEEDING?
22 MR. GEHR: 1 THINK l WOULD JUST GO THROUGH 23 THE ITEMS, SIR, AND THE FIRST ONE, i THINK MR. DEWEY CAN
() 24 REPORT ON WHAT HIS CONVERSATIONS WERE WITH THE L AND 25 COMMISSIONER, AND I BEL lEVE HE TALKED TO SOMEBODY ELSE.
f COURT REP RS P ON Rik'N O 85014 TELEPHONE 2794711
3098 l
l 1 JUDGE LAZO: FINE. MR. DEWEY, WOULD YOU 2 PROCEED 7 1 3 MR. DEWEY: THEN I W I LL B E GL AD TO DO TH AT 4 AT THIS TIME.
5 THER" ARE TWO AGENCIES FOR THE STATE OF 6 ARIZONA THAT ARE ABLY -- THAT ARE MOST CONCERNED WITH 7 THE TYPE OF HEAR ARE HAVING HERE ON THE SALT 8 DEPOSITION. THf CIES ARE THE STATE LAND 9 COMMISSIONER'S 4D THE STATE AGRICULTURAL AND 10 HORTICULTURAL AND THE STATE LAND 11 COMMISSIONEP THEY MANAGE THE STATE TRUST AND 12 SOVEREIGN L JY THE W AY, SOME OF THOSE LANDS ARE 13 LOCATED IN Th ,lLE RADIUS OF THE --
LAZO: WHAT WAS THE SECOND AGENCY,
(]) 14 J.
15 MR. DEWEY?
16 MR. DEWEY: THE STATE AGRICULTURE AND 17 HORTICULTURAL COMMISSION.
! 18 JUDGE L AZO: THANK YOU.
j 19 MR. DEWEY: AND AS I WAS SAYING, THE STATE i
20 L AND COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE DOES MANAGE SOME OF THE L ANDS 21 WHICH ARE CLOSE TO THE PALO VERDE FACILITY. AS A MATTER 22 0F FACT, THEY RENT THOSE L ANDS OUT TO SOME OF THE FARMERS 23 WHO FARM THOSE LANDS.
() 24 MR. GEHR: THEY OWN ROUGHLY 320 ACRES 25 ABUTTING THE EASTERN BOUNDARY.
- EEu^n"r nU5EEns' " ' $*o"dCn*Iz"o'n"[e*s$1 TELEPHONE 2794711
3099 1 JUDGE LAZO: THE STATE DOES?
2 MR. GEHR: YES.
3 MR. DEWEY: SO I CONTACTED -- WELL, THAT'S --
4 i CONTACTED THE STATE LAND COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE AND ALSO 5 THE STATE AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURAL OFFICE ON JUNE 3, 6 1985. INCIDENTALLY, THE AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURAL 7 COMMISSION, THEY ARE IN CHARGE OF AND REGULATE ON ALL 8 AGRICULTURE IN THE STATE, SO THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY A RELEVANT 9 AGENCY HERE, TOO.
10 i CONTACTED THESE AGENCIES AND TALKED TO 11 MR. ROBERT LANE AT THE STATE LAND COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, 12' AND HE REPORTED THAT HIS AGENCY WAS SATISFIED WITH THE 13 SETTLEMENT IN THIS PROCEEDING AND DID NOT HAVE ANY
() 14 PROBLEMS. AS LONG AS THE FARMERS WERE SATISFIED, THEY 15 WERE SATISFIED -- THE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE W AS SATISFIED.
16 AND THEY DlD NOT HAVE ANY COMMENTS, ADVERSE COMMENTS TO 17 MAKE WITH RESPECT TO ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE HEARINGS WE 18 ARE HAV ING AT THIS TIME.
19 l ALSO CONTACTED THE STATE AGRICULTURE AND 20 HORTICULTURE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, MR. BOB GRONOWSKI, AND 21 HE ALSO SAID THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE 22 SETTLEMENT AND HAD NO ADVERSE COMMENTS.
23 JUDGE L AZO: SO THEY WERE AWARE OF THE
() 24 SITUATION?
25 MR. DEWEY: YES, THEY WERE.
"*"Eo"u^n"r nUEEe'n's' ' '"' **"dCnYio*uYe5o*14 o
TELEPHONE 279-4711
3100 1 I TRUST THAT ANSWERS YOUR INQUIRY WHETHER 2 THE STATE WAS CONCERNED. AND THEY DON'T SEEM TO SE'
! 3 CONCERNED, AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS THEY WOULD 4 LIKE TO PASS ON TO THE BOARD.
5 JUDGE L AZO: THANK YOU, MR. DEWEY. THAT'S i
6 VERY HELPFUL.
7 ON THE MATTER OF THE ACRS LETTER, MR. GEHR, 8 DO YOU W ANT TO ADDRESS THAT.
! 9 MR. GEHR: SURELY.
i 10 l THINK THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE COMMISSION'S 11 MEETING ON MAY 30TH, 1985, RESPECTING THE FULL POWER 12 AUTHORIZATION FOR PALO VERDE UNIT 1 DEMONSTRATES THAT --
13 SEVERAL THINGS. ONE, THAT THE -- SEVERAL YEARS AGO THE 14 COMMISSION AND THE STAFF AND THE ACRS AGREED THAT THE
[ (])
15 ISSUE OF INSTALLATION OF PORY'S FOR COMBUSTION ENGINEERING 16 PLANTS WOULD BE DEALT Wl'sH THROUGH THE RESOLUTION OF 17 UNRESOLVED SAFETY ISSUE, USl A-45. I THINK THE STATEMENT
^
18 0F MR. FRALEY DURING THE COURSE OF THAT MEETING CLEARLY 19 SHOWS THAT THAT INTENT W AS STILL BEING FOLLOWED BY ACRS.
20 THEY ARE STILL CONTENT TO LEAVE THE QUESTION OF PORV'S TO 21 THE RESOLUTION OF THE GENERIC ISSUE ON DECAY HEAT REMOV AL.
22 THE STAFF ESPOUSED AND THE COMMISSION 23 CONTINUED iTS POSITION ON THAT, URGING THAT THE ACRS, IF 24 THEY HAVE QUESTIONS, IT'S TIME TO GET THINGS RESOLVED.
(])
25 IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ACRS AND THE COURT RE R RS P O RINON 85014 TELEPHONE 2794711
3101 1 STAFF WERE MEETING LAST WEEK ON THE MATTER. I HAVE NOT 2 SEEN ANY RESULTS OF THAT CONFERENCE, BUT BASICALLY IT WAS 3 TO DISCUSS THE RESOLUTION OF A-45.
4 AS YOU WILL NOTICE FROM THAT TRANSCRIPT, THE 5 STAFF IS STILL PL ANNING TO HAVE THE A-45 GENERIC ISSUE 6 RESOLVED OR READY FOR SUBMITTAL TO THEIR SECTION CALLED 7 CRGR BY THE END OF THE YEAR, WHICH HOPEFULLY MEANS THAT IT 8 WILL BE RESOLVED SOME TIME NEXT YEAR.
9 JUDGE LAZO: MR. DEWEY, DO YOU liAVE ANYTHING 10 TO ADD REGARDING THE PLANS OF THE CRGR7 11 MR. DEWEY: YES. I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT 12 AT THE MAY 30TH COMMISSION MEET 1NG, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE 13 ACRS, MR. FRALEY --
JUDGE L AZO: l'M SORRY --
(]) 14 15 JUDGE COLE: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
16 MR. DEWEY: --
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE 17 ACRS, HE SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT HE DIDN'T FEEL THAT THE 18 GENERIC ISSUE IN THIS CASE SHOULO IHPACT THE OPERATION 0F 19 THE PALO VERDE FACILITY. HE SPECIFICALLY MA.DE THAT NOTE.
20 JUDGE LAZO: I SEE. AND THE COMMITTEE TO
, 21 REVIEW GENERIC REQUIREMENTS DOES HAVE THIS ON THEIR 22 AGENDA?
23 MR. DEWEY: YES, THEY DO, AND THEY ARE
() 24 MEETING WITH THE STAFF FURTHER ON THIS. BUT IT W AS THE 25 CONSENSUS OF THE ACRS THAT IT SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY ADVERSE
'"^"EEu^n"rnEE E n's* * '7o$$4niz"onIs'so*
p 4 TELEPHONE 279-4711
- . . . _ _ _ _ _ __ ., . _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . ..... _ .._...~._,. ,~.__ _._. -
3102 1 lMPACT UPON ISSUING A LICENSE AT THIS TIME FOR PALO VERDE.
2 JUDGE L AZO: AND OF COURSE THEY WERE 3 SPEAKING TO THE FULL POWER LICENSE FOR UNIT 17 4 MR. DEWEY: YES, SIR. I BELIEVE EVEN FOR 5 ALL THREE UNITS.
6 JUDGE LAZO: I SUPPOSE THAT'S CORRECT.
7 THEIR IMMEDI ATE CONCERN W AS UNIT 1, BUT THE OTHER TWO 8 UNITS ARE THE SAME DESIGN.
9 MR. GEHR: THAT'S CORRECT 10 MR. DEWEY: IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE SPECIFIC 11 QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS, MR. LICITRA WILL BE 12 GLAD TO GO INTO SOME OF THOSE.
13 . JUDGE L AZO: NO, MR. DEWEY, WE THINK THAT
() 14 THAT SHOULD DISPOSE OF THE ISSUE.
15 NOW AS TO THE CREE PETITION, NOT THE 16 FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS BUT THE MICROBl0 LOGICALLY INDUCED 17 CORROSION ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED, AGAIN, MR. GEHR, WOULD 18 YOU REFER US, PLEASE, TO THE ACTION THAT THE COMMISSION 19 TOOK REGARDING THAT ISSUE, OR AT LEAST THE SUBSTANCE OF 20 THE DISCUSSION?
21 MR. GEHR: YES.
22 FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT ON 23 THE CREE PETITION, DESPITE THE STATEMENTS OF THE L INITED 24 APPEARANCES ABOUT UNWILLINGNESS TO ENTER INTO A DISCOURSE
({}
i 25 WITH THE CREE PEOPLE, THEY HAVE FILED TWO PETITIONS UNDER t ***EEu"Er((5E5'n's"** * **to"d**n*Iz"o's"[s5 TELEPHONE 279-4711
3103 1 SECTION 2.206, AND IN NEITHER CASE HAVE THEY TAKEN THE 2 TROUBLE TO GIVE US A COPY.
3 JUDGE L AZO: WE DIDN'T GET ONE EITHER.
4 MR. GEHR: BUT DURING THE COURSE OF THE 5 STAFF'S INVESTIGATION OF THAT PETITION, THEY HAVE GIVEN US 6 A COPY. WE HAVE OBTAINED A COPY, AND THEY HAVE ASKED US 7 TO RESPOND TO EACH OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THAT PETITION.
8 WE HAVE GIVEN THEM A RESPONSE. WE GAVE THEM THE STAFF 9 RESPONSE PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION MEETING ON MAY 30TH. AND 10 DURING THE COURSE OF THAT MEETING, THE STAFF REPORTED THAT 11 THEY HAD REVIEWED THE MATTER, THEY HAD SEEN OUR MONITORING
. 12 PROGRAM, OTHER CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TH AT THE APPL ICANT W AS 13 TAKING; THAT THEY WERE SATISFIED AND THERE WAS NO -- THAT
() 14 THE MONITORING PROGRAM WOULD DETECT ANY FURTHER 15 DEGRADATION OF FOREIGN EVENTS, THAT -- SO THAT ADDITIONAL 16 CORRECTIVE ACTION COULD BE TAKEN. I THINK PERHAPS 17 MR. LICITRA CAN STATE FURTHER AS TO WHAT THE STAFF'S 18 POSITION IS, BUT THEY WERE REPORTED THAT THEY WERE 19 SATISFIED WITH THE STATUS OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION OF THE 20 PROGRAM THAT THE APPLICANT HAS ADOPTED AND WILL BE 21 RESPONDING TO THE CREE PETITION IN DUE COURSE.
22 JUDGE L AZO: WELL, MAY WE ASK MR. LICITRA 23 SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS?
- 25 JUDGE L AZO: THE PETITIONERS HAVE ASSERTED
"^"EEu^nYnYP5EEn*s*' '"' ****E(("n*Iio'n7s$o*i4 o
TELEPHONE 279 4711
...._.__~.._.,.,.___.__m.-...__.-.. _ . _ . - --. _ ,
3104 1 THAT THIS IS AN UNREVIEWED SAFETY ISSUE, THAT THE. SPRAY 2 POND WELLS AND THE PIPING ARE CORRODED AND LEAKING AND 3 THAT THIS IN SOME WAY IMPAIRS THE SAFE SHUTDOWN HEAT
() 4 REMOYAL SYSTEM. WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT7 5 MR. LICITRA: YES. THE --
6 DOES THE BOARD KNOW HOW THE SPRAY POND PERHAPS I SHOULD --
7 OPERATES?
8 JUDGE L AZO: WELL, WE MAY, BUT MAYBE WE 9 DON'T KNOW ENOUGH. PERHAPS YOU COULD BRIEFLY DESCRIBE 10 THEM FOR US.
11 MR. LICITRA: WHAT THE SPRAY IS IS A BIG 12 CONCRETE BLOCK LIKE A SWIMMING POOL WHICH CONTAINS THE 13 WATER THAT'S USED TO PICK UP THE RESIDUAL HEAT. AND THE
() 14 15 WATER IS PUMPED FROM THAT POND THROUGH PIPING, PICKS UP HEAT FROM A HEAT EXCHANGER, AND THEN IT'S PUMPED BACK 16 THROUGH PIPING THAT IS IN THE POND ITSELF.
17 JUDGE LAZO: COULD YOU TELL U5 SOMETHING 18 ABOUT THE QUAL ITY OF THE WATER 7 IT HAS HAD TERTIARY 19 TREATMENT SINCE IT CAME FROM THE 91 ST AVENUE PL ANT?
20 MR. GEHR: IF i CAN INTERRUPT. YOU MAY OR 21 MAY NOT REMEMBER, BUT TH I S W AS AN ISSUE --
22 JUDGE LAZO: 1 REMEMBER.
23 MR. GEHR: --
IN THE PREVIOUS HEARING. AND THAT
(} 24 THERE IS NO EFFLUENT'THAT GOES INTO THOSE PONDS.
25 WATER IS ALL WELL WATER --
"*"EEu^n"r nEEn's* * 'To$Un'iz"oNYa'so":
p 4 TELEPHONE 279-4711 u
3105 1 JUDGE LAZO: DEEP WELLS.
2 MR. GEHR: -- THAT HAS GONE THROUGH A 3 REVERSE OSMOSIS PROCESS.
() 4 JUDGE L AZO: WELL, THAT'S WHAT I WONDERED, 5 HOW IT HAD BEEN TREATED.
l 6 MR. GEHR: MR. VAN BRUNT, CAN YOU TELL US 7 HOW THIS WATER --
8 MR. VAN BRUNT: IT'S BEEN TREATED WITH --
9 IT' S J UST TAKI NG RAW W ATER -- IT'S NOT MINERALIZED. IT 10 GOES THROUGH FILTRATION AND THEN IT FILLS THE POND. AND 1
11 THERE ARE -- THE SPRAY POND IS IN TWO HALYES. AND THE 12 TOTAL WATER VOLUME IS L ARGELY A 30-DAY SUPPLY, WHICH IS 13 REQUIRED TO SATISFY' THE REGUL ATION. THERE ARE TWO HALVES 14 TO THE PONDS, AND THERE'S AN INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN THE
(])
15 TWO PONDS.
16 JUDGE LAZO: ALL RIGHT. SO THE TWO HALVES 17 IN TOTAL MAKE UP THE 30-DAY SUPPLY?
18 MR. VAN BRUNT: OF W ATER. HALF OF THE PONDS 19 MAKE UP THE NECESSARY SPRAY CAPABILITY.
20 JUDGE LAZO: HOW MANY SPRAY UNITS ARE THERE?
21 MR. VAN BRUNT: 320 AS I REMEMBER.
22 JUDGE L AZO: OH, IN -- THAT'S BOTH HALVES?
23 MR. VAN BRUNT: THAT'S BOTH, TOTAL, THAT'S
(} 24 CORRECT. I THINK.
25 JUDGE L AZO: NO --
"*"Eo"u^n"r nUEEn's* * 'To$$n'iz"oNYe'so*14 p
TELEPHONE 2794711
- - - . . - - - . . , , , . , ~ . - - . - - , , . . . - - - - - - - . - - - - - . - . . . - - - - - - - _ . . - _ . - - - . - _ _ . - - . ~ . - . . - - . . - .
3106 4
1 MR. VAN BRUNT: I CAN'T SWEAR TO THAT. I AM 2 GOING BY MEMORY.
3 MR. LICITRA: IT IS BOTH HALVES. 320
() 4 N0ZZLES FOR EACH UNIT OF THE SPRAY POND. EIGHTY N0ZZLE I 5 RISERS WITH FOUR N0ZZLES IN EACH RISER. AND THE OTHER 6 HALF ALSO HAS 80. SO THAT'S 80 TIMES FOUR IS 320 AND 320 7 IS 640.
8 JUDGE L AZO: IF THERE WERE SOME P! PES 9 LEAKING, WOULD THIS W ATER BE LOST?
1 10 MR. LICITRA: THE W ATER LEAKS B ACK INTO THE 11 POND ITSELF.
12 JUDGE L AZO: IT GOES BACK INTO THE POND?
13 MR. LICITRA: BUT THE PROBLEM WOULD BE IF IT 14 WERE SEVERELY -- THE PROBLEM WOULD BE THAT WHEN TriE W ATER
(]) y 15 COMES BACK, IT GOES UP THROUGH THE RISERS, SQUIRTING OUT 16 TO EJECT THE HEAT SO THAT MOST OF THE W ATER WOULD GO 17 THROUGH LEAKS, NOT THROUGH THE RISER. YOU ARE NOT 18 EJ ECTING G HEAT. THAT IS NOT THE CASE AT PALO VERDE. I 19 THINK IN THE UNIT 1 POND THEY HAD ABOUT THREE MINUTE 20 LEAKS. IN THE UNIT 2 POND THEY MAY HAVE HAD ABOUT A DOZEN 21 MINUTE LEAKS.
22 JUDGE COLL iAT 00 YOU MEAN BY A MINUTE 23 LEAK?
() 24 MR. LICITRA: SIXTEENTH OF AN INCH OR LESS.
25 JUDGE COLE: A GALLON A MINUTE OR SOMETHING?
- ***"Eo"u^n"rnU E En's*
- Yo$Cn'iz"osYa'so*14 TELEPHONE 279 4711
3107 1 MR. LICITRA: 1 DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RATE IS, 2 WHAT IT AMOUNTS TO, BUT THERE WAS AN EVALUATION PERFORMED 3 THAT SHOWED THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO LOSE THOUSANDS OF
( 4 GALLONS PER MINUTE BEFORE YOU START LOSING YOUR EXTRA 5 MARGIN THAT THEY ENDED UP WITH IN THE PLANT. THEY HAVE 6 DESIGNED A BASIS FOR FLOW. THE AS-BUILT CONDITIONS ENDED 7 UP WITH APPROXIMATELY 1900 TO 2,000 GPM EXTRA, AND IT 8 WOULD TAKE THOUSANDS OF THOSE LEAKS JUST TO LOSE THAT 9 MARGIN, WHICH WOULD GIVE YOU WHAT YOU HAD DESIGNED FOR IN 10 THE FIRST PLACE.
11 JUDGE CALLlHAN: AS I REMEMBER, EACH UNIT 12 HAS ITS OWN SPRAY POND SYSTEM, CORRECT?
13 MR. LICITRA: CORRECT.
(} 14 JUDGE CALLIHAN: COMING BACK TO YOUR I 15 PREYl0US REMARK, MR. LICITRA, DID YOU SAY THAT THROUGH THE 16 LEAKS THE W ATER WOULD BE PREMATURELY RETURNED TO THE SPRAY l
17 POND? IT WOULD LEAK OUT INTO THE SPRAY POND RATHER THAN 18 GOING UP INTO THE SPRAY AND IN TH AT W AY IT WOULD IMPAIR 19 THE COOLING?
20 MR. LICITRA: THAT'S CORRECT.
21 JUDGE CALLlHAN: S0 IN THE LIMIT THERE WOULD 22 BE AN INCREASE IN THE TEMPERATURE OF THE RETURN WATER?
23 MR. LICITRA: THE W ATER WOULD BE A L ITTLE 24 H IG HER, OR A LOT HIGHER DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH LEAKAGE YOU
(]}
25 HAD.
^"!!a"r a:H%'# '"*- %"N' M 5fA'1o TELEPHONE 279 4711
- - . _ . - , _ . . _ . . . . _ _ . . _ - . . , . - . _ _ _ . _ . _ ~ _ --. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3108 1 JUDGE CALLlHAN: 1 JUST W ANTED TO BE SURE I 2 UNDERSTOOD IT. THANK YOU.
3 JUDGE COLE: WERE ALL OF THE LEAKS IN THE
() 4 RETURN SYSTEM FROM THE HEAT EXCHANGER OR WERE THERE ANY IN 5 THE SUPPLY SYSTEM 7 6 MR. LICITRA: I BEL IEVE ALL W AS FROM THE 7 PIPING INSIDE THE POND ITSELF, NOT FROM THE HEAT 8 EXCHANGER.
9 JUDGE COLE: SO -- BUT ALL THE PIPING IN THE 10 POND ITSELF IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SPRAY AERATION PIPING 11 SYSTEM, IS THAT CORRECT?
< 12 MR. LICITRA: IT'S THE PIPING THROUGH WHICH 13 THE RETURN WATER GOES BEFORE IT GOES UP THROUGH THE RISERS
/~T 14 AND SPRAYS OUT.
U 15 JUDGE COLE: ALL RIGHT.
16 JUDGE LAZO: MR. LICITRA, THE PETITIONERS 17 HAVE ALLEGED THAT THE JOINT APPL ICANTS THEMSELF HAVE 18 ESTIMATED THAT WATER LEAKAGE THROUGH WALL PENETRATIONS 19 UNDER A LOCAL CONDITION COULD INCREASE THE TEMPERATURE OF 20 THE ESSENTIAL COOLING WATER, AND i THINK THEY SAID 21 SOMETHING LIKE 124.6 DEGREES F.
22 MR. GEHR: UP TO --
23 JUDGE LAZO: UP TO THAT. AND THE DES IGN
(} 24 CRITERIA -- l GUESS THE DESIGN IS 125. IS THAT LIKELY TO 25 BE A PROBLEM?
1 COURT RE R RS P Q Rid'ON 85014 TELEPHONE 279-4711
l 3109 1 MR. LICITRA: WELL, I BELIEVE WHAT THE-2 APPL ICANT WAS SAYING AND WHAT THE PETITIONER WAS 3 REPEATING, IF ALL THE INDICATIONS THAT THEY HAVE
() 4 DISCOVERED VIA RADIOGRAPHS WERE TO DEVELOP INTO LEAKS SO 5 THAT W ATER WOULD BYPASS THE RISERS, EVEN IF ALL OF THOSE 6 BECAME LEAKERS, WE WOULD STILL NEED THE DESIGN 7 REQUIREMENTS OF 125. IT WOULD STILL BE BELOW 125.
6 JUDGE L AZO: HOW DO THEY TEST FOR THIS 9 LEAKAGE OR --
10 MR. LICITRA: TEST SPECS DID YOU SAY?
11 JUDGE L AZO: HOW DO THEY TEST TO SEE WHAT 12 THE EXTENTT OF THE LEAKAGE IS?
13 MR. LICITRA: OH. THEY HAVE DEVELOPED A
(} 14 MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE PONDS WHICH CORREL ATES FLOW AND 15 PRESSURE DROP THROUGH THE RISERS.
16 JUDGE L AZO: PRESSURE DROPS?
17 MR. LICITRA: PRESSURE DROPS THROUGH THE 18 SPRAY HEADERS AND THE RISERS AND THE SPRAY N0ZZLES SO THAT 19 i BELIEVE IT IS ON A WEEKLY BASIS THEY PLAN TO MEASURE l
20 THAT PRESSURE AND THE CORREL ATION BETWEEN THAT FLOW 21 THROUGH THE RISERS AND THE ACTUAL PRESSURE, WHICH IN TURN 22 THEY CAN CORRELATE INTO WHAT IS AN hCCEPTABLE FLOW AND 23 STILL MEET THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. AND WHAT THEY HAVE IS 24 A PROCEDURE THAT CALLS FOR CERTAIN ACTIONS WHEN PRESSURE --
[}
25 IF AND WHEN THE PRESSURE WILL DROP TO CERTAIN LEVELS.
- EEu^n"r nU5EEn's' " ' '"' ECn'Iio*u"[s5o*:
o TELEPHONE 279 4711
-.- _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ - _ . _ . ~ . . _ __ . - . _ _ .
3110 t
1 JUDGE LAZO: NOW CAN THIS MICROBl0 LOGICALLY 2 INCUDED CORROSION BE CONTROLLED OR ELIMATED? CAN YOU KILL 3 THESE L ITTLE G ALL IONELL A INFESTATION CREATURES?
() 4 MR. LICITRA: YES. IT CAN BE CONTROLLED BY 5 THE USE OF SOMETHING CALLED BIOCIDES. BUT WHAT THE 6 BIOCIDES WOULD 00 IS TO PREVENT ANY FURTHER STARTING OF r 7 THE PROCESS. NOW CURRENTLY THERE ARE A NUMBER OF 8 LOCATIONS WHERE IT HAS STARTED. AND THE BIOCIDES WON'T 9 STOP THE PROCESS ONCE IT'S STARTED, BUT IT WILL STOP ANY 10 FURTHER INITIATION OF THE PolNTS.
11 JUDGE CALLlHAN: CAN YOU GIVE US, 12 MR. LICITRA, PLEASE, A LITTLE INSIGHT INTO THE MECHANISM 13 THAT WE ARE ADDRESSING 7 WHAT IS ATTACKED? -
i 14 -
MR. LICITRA: WELL, 1 AM NOT VERY
(]}
15 KNOWLEDGEABLE IN THE PROCESS AND MECHANISMS. BUT WHERE IT 16 IS ATTACKING AT THE MOMENT IS THE WELLS, THE PIPING IN THE 17 WELLS.
18 JUDGE COLE: I GUESS I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND 19 WHAT YOU MEANT WHEN YOU SAID THAT A B10 CIDE WOULD BE 20 EFFECTIVE IN PREVENTING ADDITIONAL SITES FROM BEING I
, 21 CREATED BUT IT WOULD DO NOTHING AT THE EXISTING SITES OF 22 ATTACK.
23 MR. LICITRA: THAT'S CORRECT.
24 JUDGE COLE: NOW, THIS MEANS THAT THE
[}
25 MECHANISM IS STARTED BY -- WHICH IS ALLEGEDLY STARTED BY l "^**EEu^a"r nU5EE'n's'"""** 'M*o"d'"n*Ii'o*~$'s"o'2!
- recca~o~a 27. 711
3111 1 BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS BUT CONTINUED BY SOME OTHER PROCESS.
2 IS THAT WHAT YOU MEANT BY THAT? IF THE BIOCIDES AREN'T 3 GOING TO KILL THE ORGANISMS THAT ARE GOING TO CONTINUE THE i
() 4 PROCESS, YOU MUST --
5 MR. LICITRA: 1 DON'T KNOW THE RELATIONSHIP.
6 i PERSONALLY CAN'T TALK TO THE RELATIONSHIP. BUT IT'S MY 7 UNDERSTANDING THAT ONCE IT'S STARTED, THE PROCESS WILL l
8 CONTINUE UNTIL IT GOES THROUGH. ONCE IT G0ES THROUGH, 9 THEN THE CHEMICALS OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT CAUSES THE l 10 CORROSION TO OCCUR WILL BE SWEPT AWAY.
11 JUDGE CALLlHAN: YOU SAID THAT ONCE A LEAK
, 12 IS DEVELOPED, THE B10 CIDE WON'T --
13 MR. LICITRA: WELL, NOT ONCE A LEAK IS 14 DEVELOPED.
15 JUDGE CALLlHAM: A BIOCIDE APPARENTLY WON'T 16 CURE A LEAK, BUT WOULD IT RETARD THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE 17 LEAK?
18 MR. LICITRA: NO. ONCE THE CORROSION STARTS --
19 IT IS STILL NOT A LEAK YET.
! 20 JUDGE CALLlHAN: IT'S NOT A LEAK YET.
21 MR. LICITRA: IT' S NOT A L EAK. ONCE THE 22 CORROSION STARTS, DUE TO MIC, THEN IT W ILL CONTINUE. AT A 23 SLOW PACE, BUT IT WILL CONTINUE. THE BIOCIDES WILL 24 PREVENT ANY FURTHER SITES TO BE FORMED.
25 JUDGE L AZO: MR. VAN BRUNT, YOU LOOK LIKE i
COURT RE R$ P O N RidON 85014
- TELEPHONE 2794711
3112 1 YOU MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
2 MR. VAN BRUNT: BASICALLY WHAT MR. LICITRA 3 SAID IS CORRECT. ONCE THE ATTACK STARTS, THERE IS NO
() 4 EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT BY TREATING WITH BIOCIDES THAT 5 YOU CAN STOP THE ATTACK. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT CAN'T BE, 6 BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT. THERE IS 7 EVIDENCE THAT ONCE IT GOES -- THE ORGANISM GOES THROUGH 8 THE PIPE AND A TRUE LEAK DEVELOPS THAT THE ORGANISM IS 9 THEN WASHED OUT AND THERE WILL BE NO CONTINUED ENL ARGEMENT 10 0F THE HOLE, IF YOU LIKE.
11 THE SIZE OF THE LEAKS THAT WE HAVE PRESENTLY 12 ARE IN THE THIRTY-SECOND OF A INCH TO A SIXTY-FOURTH INCH 13, DIAMETER RANK.
{} 14 JUDGE CALLlHAN: SO THE FLUSHING ACTION l 15 WOULD STOP AN ENL ARGEMENT OF THE LEAK?
l l 16 MR. VAN BRUNT: THAT IS CORRECT, SIR.
17 AND WHAT WE DID IN OUR COMPUTATIONS, WHERE 18 WE HAD INDICATIONS OF PITTING WE ASSUMED ULTIMATELY THAT 19 THOSE WILL ALL END UP AS LEAKS, AND WE CONSERVATIVELY 20 ASSUMED A SIXTEENTH OF AN INCH IN DIAMETER HOLE, OF WHICH 21 WE HAVE ONLY HAD ONE I THINK OF ANY HOLES THAT W AS EVEN 22 CLOSE TO THAT. AND WE MADE THAT KIND OF COMPUTATION AND 23 FOUND THAT WE DIDN'T EVEN USE UP THE MARGIN ABOYE THE
(} 24 DESIGN MARGIN THAT W AS ALREADY IN THE SYSTEM.
WORDS, WE HAD A DESIGN BASIS FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF IN OTHER 25
- "Eo"u^n"r nEEn's* * '7o$$n'iz"oNIs'so*
p 4 TELEPHONE 2794711
3113 t
1 MARGIN, AND WHEN WE BUILT THE SYSTEM WE HAD EVEN MORE 2 MARGIN. SO WE ARE DEAL ING LARGELY BEYOND THE MARGIN.
3 SO WE FELT WITH THAT INFORMATION, THAT
() 4 TREATING WITH B10 CIDE WOULD KEEP IT FROM CONTINUING TO 5 DEVELOP, WE INSTITUTED A DAILY RECIRCULATION WHICH GETS 6 AW AY FROM THE STAGNATION SITUATION WHICH IS PART OF THE 7 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROBLEM. AND BY MEASURING THE PRESSURE 8 DROP ON A PERIODIC BASIS WE WOULD BE ABLE TO TREND WHETHER 9 WE HAVE ANY INCREASES IN LEAKAGES. AND TRENDING IS WHAT 10 IS IMPORTANT TO US. IF WE SEE A TREND IN PRESSURE DROP 11 CHANGE, WE KNOW WE WILL HAVE A CHANGE IN FLOW AND THEN WE 12 CAN GO TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION. BUT WE ARE WAY BEYOND THE 13 MARGINS. WE HAVE LOTS OF TIME TO DO SOMETHING. IT'S NOT 14 SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN JUST L IKE THAT.
(~}
v
~15 JUDGE CALLlHAN: WHAT KIND OF PIPE IS THIS?
16 MR. VAN BRUNT: STAINLESS STEEL. THE WELDS --
17 THE MAJORITY OF THE CORROSION HAS OCCURRED IN THE WELDS.
18 JUDGE L AZO: MR. VAN BRUNT, IS THERE ANY
- 19 LIKEllHOOD THAT THE ORGANISM THAT CAUSES THIS MIC MIGHT 20 INYADE OTHER SAFETY SYSTEMS IN THE PLANT 7 21 MR. VAN BRUNT
- IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THEY 22 WILL NOT AND HAVE NOT BASED ON THE INVESTIG ATIONS TH AT WE 23 HAVE DONE. INDICATIONS THAT WE HAVE ARE CONTAINED WITHIN WE DID HAVE ONE OTHER INSTANCE
{) 24 25 THIS PARTICULAR SYSTEM.
WITH A TOWER IN THE AUXILIARY FEED WATER SYSTEM THAT HAD
^"E"1 enM'# '"*- 'E 'o L O fi! f A 'f!
TELEPHONE 279-4711
3114 1 SOME INDICATIONS OF MICROBIOLOGICAL CORROSION ON IT. THIS 2 WAS ATTRIBUTED TO SOME STAGNANT W ATER FROM OUR HYDROSTATS 3 EARLY ON IN THAT SYSTEM, THAT IT LAY IN THE CAVITY OF THE
() 4 PUMP. WE CORRECTED THAT, AND WE HAVE NO FURTHER 5 INDICATION OF t.NY CORROSION OR ANYTHING ELSE. AND WE HAVE 6 ALSO AGREED TO GO BACK AND REINSPECT THE HEAT EXCHANGER 7 AND A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS IN THE SPRAY POND SYSTEM AT 8 OUR FIRST OUTAGE TO BE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT CONTINUING 9 WITH THE PROBLEMS. WE HAD INSPECTED A NUMBER OF OTHER 10 SYSTEMS PRIOR TO THE 30TH AND INDICATED TO THE STAFF THAT
, 11 WE HAD NOT FOUND ANY PROBLEMS IN THE SYSTEMS.
12 JUDGE L AZO: AND WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THESE 13 POTENTIAL PROBLEMS, YOUR ANSWER THEN IS TO AVOID
)
14 STAGNATION --
(]}
15 MR. VAN BRUNT: THAT IS CORRECT, SlR.
16 J UDG E L AZO : -- TO CIRCUL ATE THE W ATER.
17 MR. VAN BRUNT: UNIT 3 HAS NOT BEEN 18 HYDROJETTED. WE ARE GOING TO PUT WATER IN UNIT 3 TO MAKE 19 SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM, THIS COMBINATION 20 0F STAGNATION IN WATER TREATMENT THAT CAUSES THIS 21 PHENOMENON TO OCCUR.
22 JUDGE COLE: MR. VAN BRUNT, HOW SENSITIVE IS 23 THIS PRESSURE DROP MEASUREMENT TO DETECT LEAKS IN THE 24 SYSTEM 7
({}
, - . - . - , . . , - . . - - -- - - , - - . - . . . . , . ~ . . - . _...- ._.,.- - . -- - - -
3115 4
- 1 DON'T REMEMBER THE --
2- JUDGE LAZO: DO YOU KNOW WHERE THEY ARE
, 3 MEASURING THE PRESSURE?
() 4 MR. VAN BRUNT: THEY ARE MEASURING IN THE 5 HEADER. AND IT'S REL ATED TO -- BASICALLY WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE HAVE REMOVED -- WE KNOW WHAT THE PRESSURE DROP 6
7 IS ACROSS THE N0ZZLE AND WE HAVE REMOVED THE N0ZZLE AND WE i
8 HAVE PLOTTED THE CURVE OF FLOW VERSUS PRESSURE DROP. I
- 9 DON'T KNOW WHAT THE --
10 JUDGE COLE: SO W ITH REDUCED FLOW YOU GET
~
11 REDUCED FRICTION --
12 MR. VAN BRUNT: R IG HT.
l 13 JilDGE COLE: -- AND LESS OF A PRESSURE LOSS 14 IN FLOW THROUGH THE SYSTEM?
)
15 l GUESS MY FIRST REACTION TO THAT WAS IF THE --
r 16 THE MOST L IKELY -- OR THE MOST IMPORTANT DESIGN FEATURE IN
, 17 A SPRAY AERATION SYSTEM AS YOU HAVE THERE WOULD LIKELY BE 18 THE EXPOSURE TIME THAT THE SPRAY IS EXPOSED TO THE AIR, 19 AND A FUNCTION OF THAT FOR A N0ZZLE DESIGN WOULD BE THE i 20 HEIGHT TO WHICH THE AERATED STREAM RISES ABOVE THE GROUND 21 LEVEL. AND IT SEEMED TO ME THAT MAYBE EVEN A MORE l 22 ACCURATE MEASUREMENT OF THAT MIGHT BE THE HEIGHT TO WHICH l 23 THE SPRAY N0ZZLE GETS 'INTO THE AIR, AND THAT WOULD BE A LOT EASIER DETECTING AND INTERPRETING.
{} 24 25 MR. VAN BRUNT: 1 AM NOT SURE HOW YOU CAN
'"^* *EEf"r n*Ep'EE'n's' ' '"*' '***o "d'3n*Iio*N[s o[
TELEPHONE 279 4711
_ - - . _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ , . _ _ . . _ - - , _ . , . _ _ , _ . . . ~ - - _ - _ _ - . - - _ _ - . _ _
3116 1 DETECT IT WITH THE WIND BLOWING AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
2 JUDGE COLE: YES, SOMETIMES YOU 00 GET 3 STRONG WINDS AT PALO VERDE.
() 4 MR. VAN BRUNT: FORTY-FIVE MILES AN HOUR 5 SOMETIMES.
6 JUDGE CALLlHAN: IS THIS A NEW PHENOMENA?
7 MR. VAN BRUNT: NO.
8 JUDGE CALLlHAN: HAS THE STAFF HAD ANY i 9 EXPERIENCE IN OBSERVING THIS IN OTHER INSTALLATIONS?
10 CERTAINLY IT CAN'T BE NUCLEAR UNIQUE.
11 MR. LICITRA: IT'S NEW TO ME BUT I l
12 UNDERSTAND IT HAS OCCURRED AT OTHER INSTALLATIONS, AND 13 TYPICALLY IT O'CCURS IN COLD W ATER SYSTEMS.
14 JUDGE COLE: EXCUSE ME. WHAT Kl'ND OF I
() 15 SYSTEMS?
16 MR. LICITRA: COLD W ATER SYSTEMS.
17 JUDGE COLE: OH, COLD WATER SYSTEMS.
18 MR. LICITRA: YES. BASED ON MY LIMITED 19 KNOWLEDGE, IT'S NOT KNOWN TO SURV IVE ABOVE 90 DEGREES C.
20 SO ANY SYSTEM THAT'S -- BOILING WATER OR WATER ABOYE 90 21 DEGREES C, IT JUST DOESN'T SURVIVE.
- 22 JUDGE CALLlHAN
- HAS THE APPL'ICANT FOUND ANY 23 0F ITS COHORTS ELSEWHERE THAT'S HAD THIS PROBLEM 7 24 MR. VAN BRUNT: WE DID SOME RESEARCH AFTER 25 WE GOT INTO THIS PROBLEM. WE FOUND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN I
i
"^"E"r*4:: M'!s'""' T'onS 57io *fA'f.
TELEPHONE 279 4711 l
l
'3117 1
1 SOME 28 OTHER INCIDENCES REPORTED TO THE COMMISSION I 2 THROUGH THE L ICENSING EVENT REPORTING ROLL OR THE 5055-E 3 REPORTING SITUATION OF THIS KIND OF THING AT OTHER PLANTS
() 4 AROUND THE COUNTRY. I ALSO -- LIKE MANNY, i HAD NEVER RUN 5 INTO IT MYSELF IN MY EXPERIENCE, AND ONCE I GOT INTO IT- l 6 FOUND OUT IT WAS A FAIRLY COMMON OCCURRENCE. AND IT'S 7 NORMALLY TAKEN CARE OF BY AVOIDING STAGNATION AND BY BEING 8 VERY CAREFUL WITH WATER CHEMISTRY. APPARENTLY WE HAD A r 9 COUPLE OF HOLES IN OUR PROGRAM THAT PERMITTED SOME
- 10 STAGNATION IN s0ME AREAS, AND WE HAVE TAKEN STEPS TO 11 CORRECT THAT.
I 12 JUDGE CALLlHAN: IS THERE ANY INDICATION 4
13 THAT THIS IS IN ANY W AY REL ATED TO RES IDU AL FLUX OR --
)
i 14 MR. VAN BRUNT: NONE THAT I AM AWARE OF.
)
15 JUDGE CALLlHAN: -- OR CONTAMINATE IN TH5 16 WELL?
17 MR. VAN BRUNT: IT MOSTLY COMES FROM WELL 18 WATER. IT' S FAIRLY PREV ALENT IN WELL W ATER. AND THERE 4
19 ARE V ARIOUS STRAINS OF G ALL IONELL A.
20 JUDGE CALLlHAN: IT MAY BE PRIMARILY 21 ASSOCIATED WITH THE MEDIUM RATHER THAN THE HARDWARE?
23 JUDGE COLE: WHY MIGHT IT THEN HAVE BEEN 24 MORE ASSOCIATED WITH THE WELLS THAN WITH OTHER PARTS OF
[}
25 THE PIPE 7
)
"""EEu^n" nU'EE'n's' ' '"*' 'S*o"dCa*Iio*Nl's"$2 TELEPHONE 279 4711
3118 i
1 MR. VAN BRUNT: MY UNDERSTANDING OF THAT IS
[ 2 THAT THE SELECTION OF -- WHEN THE MATERI AL, THE WELD 3 MATERI AL THAT WAS USED TO WELD THE STEEL WAS SLIGHTLY
_ () 4 DIFFERENT THAN THE STEEL. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHETHER IT'S 5 STAINLESS 3 OR 4 OR 3 OR 4-L. AND THEN THE WELD MATERI AL 6 MATCHED UP WITH THE NON-L GRADE OR W ITH THE "L" GRADE.
! 7 I UAN'T REMEMBER WHICH. BUT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE 8' BETW EEN IT. AND THAT SEEMED TO BE THE ONLY REASON THAT 9 THERE W AS ANY INDICATIONS IN THE WELLS RATHER THAN IN THE 10 OTHER MATERIAL.
11 JUDGE COLE: POSSIBLY A SLIGHTLY MORE l 12 IRREGULAR SURFACE THAT LEFT SOME --
'1 13 ,MR . VAN BRUNT: POSSIBLY. .
14 -
JUDGE COLE: -- CREVACE?
15 MR. VAN BRUNT: IT COULD BE THAT AS WELL.
! 16 JUDGE COLE: MR. VAN BRUNT, I THINK YOU l 17 PROBABLY HAVE COVERED MOST OF IT, BUT JUST ,TO MAKE SURE 18 THAT THE RECORD IS CLEAR ON IT, COULD YOU SUMMARIZE THE 1
19 THINGS THAT YOUR COMPANY IS DOING TO RESOLVE THIS PROBLEM 7 1 20 MR. VAN BRUNT: JUDGE COLE, I HAVE IN FRONT 21 0F ME THE LETTER THAT I SENT TO THE COMMISSION ON THE 24TH 22 0F MAY DESCRIBlNG THE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS THAT WE HAVE ,
23 TAKEN. B AS I CALLY TH E TWO TH I NG S TH AT W E D I D, SPECIFIC 24 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS WERE, ONE, WE ARE NOW ADDING BIOCIDES 25 TO THE SPRAY PONDS TO DEAL WITH ANY FUTURE CORROSION THACKER AND REE IELD, INC, 4222 N TH ST.. SUITE 200 TELEPHONE 2794711
,,...-,----,------_-_,.-,.,en .--e,-,,.,g.,,e ,-p .,~-,w,,n_,,,.,m ..w,3ww,%ree.--.3,-*+-r----w ra r -m'
3119 1 INITIATION. SECONDLY, WE DID INSTITUTE A MONITORING 2 PROGRAM WHICH WILL PERMIT US TO MONITOR ANY DEGRADATION 3 THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED FROM CORROSION WHICH HAPPENED
() 4 PREYl0USLY AND IT WILL GIVE US TRENDING AND WE CAN TAKE 5 CORRECTIVE ACTI0l'. THOSE ARE THE TWO PHYSICAL THINGS THAT 6 WE H AV E DONE.
7 ADDITIONALLY, WE MADE EXTENSIVE ANALYSES OF 8 THIS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WE HAD NOT REDUCED THE MARGINS OF 9 SAFETY THAT WERE INITIALLY PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM IN 10 THE DESIGN BASIS. AND WE SHOWED, AS MR. LICITRA HAS 11 INDICATED, THAT WE HAVE MORE THAN ADEQUATE MARGINS IN THE 12 SYSTEM EVEN SHOULD ALL OF THE EXISTING SITES GO TO HOLD.
13 JUDGE COLE: ALL RIGHT, SIR.
14 HAVE YOU FOUND IT NECESSARY TO REPA1R ANY OF 15 THE HOLES THAT YOU DID FIND?
17 ONE OTHER THING, WE HAVE AGREED TO GO I NTO 18 AN INSPECTION PROGRAM, AND AS A PART OF THIS WE ARE GOING 19 TO INSPECT AT OUR FIRST OUTAGE COMPARED TO THE DATA WE 20 HAVE ALREADY DEVELOPED TO SEE IF THERE W AS ANY ADDITIONAL ,
21 DEGRADATION OR WHATEVER.
22 JUDGE COLE: ALL RIGHT, SIR. HOW OFTEN DO 23 YOU CONDUCT TESTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE'S ANY FURTHER 24 DEGRADATION? I ASSUME THAT'S THE PRESSURE TESTS?
}
25 MR. VAN BRUNT: WEEKLY PRESSURE TESTS.
$l/o"dCnYz"o'n"2's$$[ I
""**EEu^n"r nNoE"E'n's' ' '""'
TELEPHONE 2794711 l
1 3120 i 1 JUDGE CO.E: ALL RIGHT, SIR.
2 MR. VAN BRUNT: AND ONE OTHER THING, WE HAVE
! 3 ADDED SOME PIPE SAMPLES INTO THE PONDS TO MEASURE THE
() 4 CORROS'10N, MEASURE ANY CORROSION THAT MIGHT OCCUR.
5 JUDGE COLE: TO EACH OF THE PONDS?
7 JUDGE COLE: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
8 JUDGE CALLlHAN: WHAT INSPECTION OF THE PITS f
9 BEFORE THE LEAK IS DEVELOPED -- WHAT DID YOU FIND? DID 10 YOU GET ANY ORGANIC MATTER OUT OF THE INDENTATION?
i 11 MR. VAN BRUNT: JUDGE CALLlHAN, I H AV E NOT i
12 PERSONALLY LOOKED AT THE CORROSION MYSELF, BUT FROM 13 TAL, KING WITH OUR ENGINEERS THAT HAVE, IT'S KIND OF LIKE A 14 RUST SITUATION AND YOU CAN CLEAN IT OUT, KIND OF CLEAN IT
- 15 OU T. BUT THAT WILL NOT STOP THE CORROSION.
16 I W ILL HAV E AV AIL ABLE TOMORROW, BY THE W AY, 17 WHEN WE GO AROUND, OUR METALLURGIST WHO IS FOLLOWING UP ON 18 THIS AND CAN ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS FAR BETTER THAN I CAN.
19 JUDGE CALLlHAN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
i 20 JUDGE COLE: THESE PITS THAT HAVE BEEN 21 OBSERVED, HAVE THEY BEEN ON THE INSIDE OF THE PIPE OR THE 22 OUTSIDE OF THE PlPE?
4 23 MR. VAN BRUNT: INSIDE OF THE PIPE ONLY.
24 JUDGE CALLIHAN: THAT'S A HOTTER WATER THEN.
- 25 JUDGE CARPENTER: MR. VAN BRUNT, 1 JUST l
l 1
Cour4T RE R ERS P O R $ON 85014 TELEPHONE 279-4711 i
- .- _= .. _. - --. _ _ - . _ . .
4 3121 1 WANTED TO ASK, APPARENTLY THE FREQUENCY OF THESE PITS IN t
2 ANY PARTICULAR WELD IS LOW ENOUGH THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY 3 CONCERN ABOUT THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE PIPE 7 l () 4 MR. VAN BRUNT: WE CAREFULLY ANALYZED THAT l 5 ASPECT OF IT AND DETERMINED THERE WAS NO JEOPARDY TO THE 6 STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY TO THE PIPING SYSTEM AT THE WELDS OR
, 7 ANY OTHER PLACE BASED ON THE KIND OF -- I'LL USE YOUR WORD --
l 8 FREQUENCY OF THE PITTING THAT HAS OCCURRED.
9 JUDGE CARPENTER: THANK YOU.
10 JUDGE CALLlHAN: ARE THE TWO COMPONENTS OF 11 THE SPRAY POND AS A PARTICULAR UNIT IN PARALLEL?
, 12 MR. VAN BRUNT: YES, SIR. ONE IS THE SAFETY ,
13 TRAIN "A" AND THE OTHER IS SAFETY ^ TRAIN "B". AND THERE 14 ARE 320 N0ZZLES IN EACH ONE OF THEM. AND TWO OF THEM
({}
15 TOGETHER PROYlDE THE FULL SOURCE OF WATER, BUT THE TWO 16 TRAINS ARE SPLIT AND THERE'S A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TW0 ,
17 PONDS SO THAT YOU GET THE FULL 30-DAY SUPPLY.
18 JUDGE CALLlHAN: BUT THE FEED WATER IS i 19 DIV IDED BETWEEN THE TWO?
j 20 MR. VAN BRUNT: YES, SIR, THAT IS CORRECT.
! 21 JUDGE CALLlHAN: THANK YOU.
22 JUDGE L AZO: THANK YOU.
I 23 MR. DEWEY, ONE OF THE EARLY ALLEGATIONS BY i'
(} 24 THE WEST V ALLEY PEOPLE W AS THAT THE ENV IRONMENTAL IMPACT 25 STATEMENT WHICH WAS PREPARED AND CIRCULATED BY THE NUCLEAR l
"**aA"r"a" M't'" '"*- '"'AiO57i'd'4'# o TELEPHONE 279-4711 I
3122 1 REGUL ATORY COMMISSION WAS DEFICIENT IN THAT IT HAD NOT 2 ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THE SALT DRIFT IMPACT ISSUE. AND I 3 WONDER IF BASED ON THESE PROCEDURES UP TO THIS POINT,
( 4 WOULD YOU COMMENT ON THE ASSERTION? DO WE NEED A 5 SUPPLEMENTAL ENYlRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT?
6 MR. DEWEY: NO, SIR, WE DON'T. THE TEST OF 1
7 WHETHER A NEW IMPACT STATEMENT IS NECESSARY IS WHETHER 1
8 THERE HAS BEEN ANY SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION THAT WOULD 9 ALTER THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT IN THE EARLIER 10 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS. THERE ARE CASES IN PolNT ON 11 THIS, SUCH AS THE PIEDMONT HEIGHTS CIV IL CLUB V. MOREL AND, 12 WHICH IS 'AT 637 FEDERAL 2ND 430 AT 442 THROUGH 443, AND 13 WARM SPRING TASK FORCE YERSUS GRUBBLE, 621 FEDERAL SECOND 14 1017 AT 1023 THROUGH 1026. THOSE CASES ESTABLISHED THAT
(]}
15 IF THERE IS NO NEW INFORMATION, NO DIFFERENT INFORMATION, 16 YOU DON'T NEED TO PUBLISH A NEW STATEMENT. IN THE PRESENT 17 MATTER, OUR ORIGINAL E.R. CONCLUDED THAT THERE WOULD BE NO l 18 ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FROM THE SALTS FROM THE 19 F ACI L ITY. 'AND THERE W AS --
i 20 JUDGE L AZO: l'M SORRY, MR. DEWEY. YOU SAID 21 THE ORIGINAL E.R.?
22 MR. DEWEY: YES.
23 JUDGE L AZO: YOU MEAN THE --
24 MR. DEWEY: EXCUSE ME, THE F.E.S.
(]}
25 JUDGE L AZO: OH, VERY WELL. THANK YOU 1
1 P Ob O O TELEPHONE 2794711 l
3123 1 MR. DEWEY: ALTHOUGH I THINK THE E.R.
2 CONCLUDED THE SAME THING AS THE F.E.S. IT CONCLUDED THAT 3 THERE WOULD BE NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND IT
() 4 DISCUSSED IN FACT THE POSSIBILITY OF DAMAGE TO VEGETATION 5 CAUSED BY SALT DEPOSITION AND THERE WERE SOME MODELS 6 SHOWING PREDICTIONS THAT PREDICTED SALT DEPOSITION CAUSED 7 BY SALT DRIFT FROM THE FACILITY. THE CONCLUSION WAS THAT 8 THERE WOULD BE NO HARM TO THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT AS AN ADDED l 9 SAFEGUARD, HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE MONITORED.
10 NOW THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED 11 FOR THIS PROCEEDING REGARDING THE SALT DEPOSITION QUESTION 12 MAINLY INYOLVED THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA STUDY. AND THE 13 UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA STUDY HAS FORTIFIED THE RESULTS OF
{} 14 15 OUR EARLIER CONCLUSIONS BUT THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY NEW OR DIFFERENT RESULTS. AND BASED UPON THAT, THERE'S NO
( 16 NEED TO HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
17 JUDGE COLE: BUT, MR. DEWEY, THEY CERTAINLY 18 HAVE RESULTS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE STAFF HAD. DID YOU 19 MEAN TO SAY THAT THEY HAD NO RESULTS OF ANY IMPACT, 20 DETRIMENTAL IMPACT?
21 MR. DEWEY: WELL, NO DETRIMENTAL IMPACT, BUT 22 THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY DIFFERENT RESULTS EITHER BECAUSE THEY I
23 ONLY FORTIFIED WHAT WE EARLIER FOUND IN THE EARLIER
{}
24 STATEMENTS.
25 JUDGE COLE: THAT THERE WOULD BE NO
'"^**EEu^n"r nU5l"En's' ' '" ' *$'o"d$$nYio'nYs5$E TELEPHONE 279 4711
3124 1 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 7 2 MR. DEWEY: THAT THERE WOULD BE NO 3 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
! () 4 AND WE DID MAKE -- AND THE EARL IER 5 STATEMENTS DlD COMMENT ON THE FACT THAT THERE WAS VERY 6 LITTLE INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE LITERATURE ON THE 7 EFFECTS OF AIR SALT DEPOSITION BUT THAT THE -- WE 4
8 ACKNOWLEDGED THAT FOL I AR ACCUMUL ATION OF AIRBORNE S ALT ON 9 LEAF SURFACES CAN CAUSE LEAF DAMAGE, AND WE PROVIDED THAT j
i 10 THERE WOULD BE MONITORING TO TAKE CARE OF THIS.
11 SO THE ARIZONA STUDY ONLY SUPPLEMENTED THE 12 FACT THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY DAMAGE.
? .
13 UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE'S NO LEGAL 14 BASIS FOR THE STAFF TO BE REQUIRED TO FILE ANY ADDITIONAL 15 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT.
l 16 JUDGE L AZO: MR. DEWEY, 1 AM JUST WONDERING 17 ABOUT THE RECORD IN THIS PROCEEDING. WE HAVE ALL RECEIVED 18 A L ARGE NUMBER OF PREFILED TESTIMONY DOCUMENTS. WE HAVE l
- 19 HAD TESTIMONY ON THEM. FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW, IS 20 THIS EVIDENCE NOW IN THE RECORD IN A MANNER SUFFICIENT
! 21 THAT WE MAY RELY ON IT AND IN THE EVENT THAT ANOTHER 22 TRIBUNAL MIGHT W ANT TO REV IEW WHAT WE HAVE DONE HERE, 23 WOULD THAT INFORMATION BE AVAILABLE TO THEM AS PART OF
{} 24 25 THIS RECORD?
MR. DEWEY: I BEL IEVE WE HAVE AGREED THAT COURT RE R$ P O Ald'N O 85014 TELEPHONE 279-4711
'_...-.,, ,-.m __ ,_,m.__-..,., -..,_ _ __-, . -. . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ . . _ - . . - _ . . _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ . -
3125 1 THE TESTIMONY IN THIS PROCEEDING IS GOING TO BE INCLUDED 2 AS PART OF THE RECORD IN THE TRANSCRIPT.
3 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA STUDY --
() 4 JUDGE L AZO: THAT'S BEEN MARKED AS AN 5 EXHIBIT BUT OF COURSE WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY EXHlBITS IN 6 EVIDENCE AT THIS POINT.
7 MR. DEWEY: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. GEHR, IF t
8 YOU WILL, TO MAKE THREE COPIES AV AIL ABLE OF THE ARIZONA 9 STUDY FOR THE REPORTER.
10 MR. GEHR: I HAVE ALREADY DONE S0.
11 JUDGE L AZO: WELL, THEN, MAYPc WE ARE 12 GETTING ON.
i
! 13 MR. GEHR, JUST TO NEATLY TIE THIS MATTER UP i
AND COMPLETE THE RECORD, YOU ARE THEN INTENDING TO OFFER --
i
{} 14 15 MR. GEHR: THE TESTIMONY --
16 JUDGE L AZO: -- THE TESTIMONY OF YOUR
- 17 WITNESSES INTO EV IDENCE7 18 MR. GEHR: AND THEIR EXHlBITS.
19 JUDGE L AZO: AND THEIR EXHIBITS 7 20 MR. GEHR: WHICH INCLUDES THE U OF A STUDY.
21 JUDGE L AZO: CORRECT.
22 MR. GEHR: NOW ON THE U OF A STUDY THAT I 23 HAVE MARKED, IT'S REALLY A VOLUME -- I DlD NOT PUT IN THE
{) 24 25 STATUS
SUMMARY
VOLUME WHICH I S A L ARG E TWO- I NCH TH I CK --
TWO OR THREE-lNCH THICK DOCUMENT. I HAVE THREE COPIES OF
)
i l
COURT R R5 p O R 2"ON 85014 TELEPHONE 279 4711
. ._ - = ..-
3126 1 THAT AND 1 WILL BE GLAD TO PUT THEM IN.
2 JUDGE L AZO: WELL, WE ALL HAVE THAT AND I T, 3 IS IN THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM. PERHAPS THAT WOULD BE
() 4 SUFFICIENT.
5 MR. GEHR: ALL RIGHT.
6 AS TO THE MATTER OF THE NEED FOR A l 7 SUPPLEMENTAL F.E.S., IF YOU W ANT COMMENT FROM THE 8 APPLICANTS, MISS GIBBS IS PREPARED TO RESPOND.
9 JUDGE L AZO: WOULD YOU PLEASE, MISS GlBBS?
10 MISS GIBBS: THE JOINT APPL ICANTS CONCER 11 WITH MR. DEWEY. THERE IS NO NEED TO FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL 12 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY. I THINK THE CASES MAKE IT 13 CLEAR A SUPPLEMENT IS ONLY REQUIRED IF THERE IS .
(} 14 SIGNIFICANT NEW lNFORMATION. JUST THE FACT THAT THERE'S 15 NEW INFORMATION DOES NOT REQUIRE A SUPPLEMENT. I THINK 16 ESPECIALLY DURING THIS CASE NO SUPPLEMENT IS NEEDED 17 BECAUSE THE CONCLUSIONS HAVEN'T CHANGED FROM THE ORIGINAL
- 18 FINAL STATEMENTS FILED IN THE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND 19 OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDINGS.
20 JUDGE L AZO: THANK YOU.
21 MISS GlBBS, LET ME ADDRESS THIS QUESTION TO l
22 YOU. WHEN THIS ISSUE WAS FIRST RAISED BY THE INTERVENORS, 23 THAT IS THE NEED FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, WE --
24 AT LEAST WE HELD THE CONTENTION IN ABEYANCE BECAUSE WE
(]}
- 25 SAID FIRST OF ALL WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE IMPACT
"^**Eo"u^"r nU5EE'n's' ' '"** '***"dCd[io'sYa'so*24 p o TELEPHONE 279-4711
3127 1 STATEMENT IS DEFICIENT AND THAT EVEN IF IT WERE THAT 2 EVIDENCE DEVELOPED IN THE CASE AND AN INITIAL DECISION BY 3 THE LICENSING BOARD WHICH WOULD BE FAVORABLE TO THE
() 4 APPLICANT WOULD DEVELOP A RECORD WHICH WOULD IN FACT 5 SUPPLEMENT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT AND AUGMENT 6 IT AND BECOME PART OF IT.
7 NOW, IF WE ARE TO ACCEPT THE PETITION TO 8 WITHDRAW THE PETITION TO INTERVENE AND APPROVE THE 9 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND SIMPLY DISMISS THIS' PROCEEDING 10 WITHOUT WRITING AN INITIAL DECISION, WOULD THIS EVIDENCE 11 THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE TESTIMONY OF THE JOINT 12 APPLICANTS AS WELL AS THE TESTIMONY OF THE STAFF, WOULD 13 THIS BE THEN PART OF THE RECORD WHICH ONE COULD SAY HAS 14 SUPPL EMENTED THE STAFF' S F. E. S. ?
[}
15 BOTTOM RIGHT: 1 AM SURE THAT'S CLEAR 16 BECAUSE -- l'M SURE THE BOARD IS AWARE THAT THE REGULATION 17 THAT PROVIDED THAT INITI AL DECISIONS WOULD MODIFY l 18 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTS IS NO LONGER IN THE RULE BOOK. I l
! 19 UNDERSTAND THAT THAT W AS AN INADVERTENT OMISSION WHEN PART 20 51 WAS REDRAFTED L AST YE AR.
21 1 THINK THE IMPORTANT QUESTION HERE IS THAT 22 THERE IS NO NEED TO MAKE THE SUPPLEMENTATION IN THE FIRST 23 PLACE. THAT IS, BEFORE YOU 00 A SUPPLEMENT, I THINK YOU
{} 24 HAVE TO MAKE A THRESHOLD DETERMINATION THAT LEGALLY AND i THINK HERE IT IS FAIRLY 25 REQUIRES A SUPPLEMENT.
'""!!#14 : M'Is' "*- 2 ' 0 5710 54 7,'11 TELEPHONE 279-4711
3128 1 CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO. SIGNIFICANT NEW INFORMATION SUCH AS 2 A TRIGGERING DEYlCE THAT WOULD COME INTO PLAY. SO I DON'T 3 THINK THE BOARD HAS TO REACH THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR
() 4 NOT THE FINAL STATEMENT WOULD BE SUPPLEMENTED BY ANY 5 DECISION THAT YOU WOULD RENDER. !
6 MR. DEWEY: THE STAFF AGREES WITH THAT. YOU 7 HAVEN'T REACHED A THRESHOLD WHERE YOU NEED A SUPPLEMENT IN 8 THE FIRST PLACE.
9 JUDGE L AZO: WELL, THE ORIG INAL IMPACT 10 STATEMENT SAID THAT THERE WOULD BE YlRTUALLY NO IMPACT; IF 11 ANY AT ALL, IT WOULD BE NEGL IG lBLE, AND THE EVIDENCE TO 12 DATE FORTIFIES, AS YOU SAY, THAT STATEMENT?
13 WELL, ALL RIGHT, THAT'S USEFUL.
14 WELL, MR. DEWEY, I THINK WE CAN -- AND 15 MR. GEHR -- l THINK WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SUBJECT, i
16 WHICH IS THE STATUS OF INVESTIG ATIONS AND ALLEG ATIONS.
17 AND WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO TELL US ABOUT THAT, MR, DEWEY?
18 MR. DEWEY: W EL L , TO BEGIN WITH, I WILL 1
19 REYlEW THE INVESTIG ATIONS TH AT THIS BOARD W AS ORIG IN ALLY 20 INTERESTED IN AT THE TIME OF THE OPERATING LICENSE 21 PROCEEDINGS IN 1982. AT THAT TIME THERE WAS SEVERAL 22 INVESTIG ATIONS TH AT CAME TO THE BOARD' S ATTENTION. THE 23 STAFF AGREED TO KEEP THE BOARD APPRISED OF THE RESULTS OF 24 THOSE INVESTIG ATIONS. THOSE HAD TO DO WITH THE 25 ALLEGATIONS BY ROBERT GUNDERSON AND CHARLES WRIGHT AND THE
"^**EEu^nYnU5EEn's' "** 'N'o"df$n'Iio'n"[s5o*i4 TELEPHONE 279-4711
,l 7_ _ _ m_ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . , . . , _ . _ _ _ . _. _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . - _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . , _ _ . _ , . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . .
3129 1 INDIV IDU ALS WHOSE ALLEG ATION APPEARED IN THE AUGUST I ST, 2 1982 LETTER.
3 AND WE SENT YOU PERIODICALLY THE
() 4 INVESTIG ATIONAL REPORTS HAV ING TO DO W ITH THOSE 5 I NV EST IG AT I ON S. WE ALSO SENT YOU INVESTIG ATIONAL REPORTS 6 0F THE ALLEGATION BY MR. WALLACE ROYCE, WHICH I THOUGHT AT 7 THE TIME WAS KIND OF A -- THE SAME TYPE OF INFORMATION 8 THAT YOU WERE INTERESTED IN WITH THESE OTHER 9 I NV EST IG AT I ONS.
10 WE CONCLUDED WITH ALL OF THOSE 11 I NV ESTIG ATI ONS, AND I SENT YOU A
SUMMARY
LETTER TO THAT 12 EFFECT. THAT W AS ON MAY 14TH OF 1984 i BELIEVE. SO I 13 TRUST THE BOARD -- OR THEN ON J ANUARY 3,.1985, i SENT YOU 14 A -- ONE FURTHER INVESTIG ATIONAL REPORT HAV ING TO DO W ITH 15 MR. ROBERT GUNDERSON'S ALLEG ATIONS WHICH WERE SENT TO THE 16 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. INCIDENTALLY, THE GUNDERSON 17 ALLEG ATION DID RESULT IN A $40,000 FINE TO THE APPL ICANT l 18 HAVING TO DO WITH THE FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS. BUT THAT 19 MATTER HAS NOW BEEN FINISHED AND THE APPLICANT HAS PAID 20 THE $40,000 FINE.
21 S0 i BELIEVE THOSE CONCLUDE THE 22 INVESTIG ATIONS THAT THE BOARD W AS INTERESTED IN.
23 AS OF TODAY, THE STATUS OF I NV EST IG AT I ON S 24 FOR THE PALO VERDE UNITS IS THAT THERE'S BEEN 167 25 I NV EST IG AT IONS IN TOTAL, AND OF THOSE, ONLY 14 REMAIN TELEPHONE 2794711
3130 1 OPEN. AT THE MAY 30TH, 1985 COMMISSION MEETING WHICH W AS 2 HELD REG ARDING PALO VERDE, THE COMMISSION WAS APPRISED OF 3 THESE INVESTIG ATIONS AND W AS TOLD BY STAFF MEMBERS THAT
() 4 THOSE -- THE 14 REMAINING INVESTIGATIONS WOULD NOT 5 ADVERSELY IMPACT UPON THE FULL POWER OPERATION OF UNIT 1.
6 AND BASED UPON THESE ASSURANCES, THE COMMISSION ALLOWED 7 UNIT 1 TO BE L ICENSED.
8 JUDGE L AZO: 00 YOU HAVE A TRANSCRIPT 9 REFERENCE TO THAT DISCUSSION?
10 MR. DEWEY: YES, SIR. THAT W AS AT PAGE 37.
11 JUDGE LAZO: THANK YOU.
12 THANK YOU MR. DEWEY.
13 NOW, MR. DEWEY, ARE YOU ALSO GOING TO 14 INTRODUCE THE PREFILED TESTIMONY OF YOUR WITNESSES.
15 MR. DEWEY: YES, SIR. I GAVE THE REPORTER 16 COPIES YESTERDAY.
17 JUDGE L AZO: FINE.
18 AND MR. GEHR, YOU HAVE GIVEN THE REPORTER 19 COPIES? MAYBE CAN WE IDENTIFY THEM ON THE RECORD SO THAT 20 WE WILL BE ABLE TO REFER TO THEM7 21 MR. GEHR: YES.
22 WAS IT YOUR INTENT THAT THE TESTIMONY SHOULD 23 BE RECEIVED AS EXHIBITS RATHER THAN -- AS WELL AS THE 24 EXHIBITS THEMSELVES? I HAVE PROVIDED THREE COPIES, IN ANY
)
25 CASE.
COURT RE R RS p o Al$'ON 85014 TELEPHONE 279 4711
~
3131 1 JUDGE L AZO: THAT MIGHT BE SIMPLER.
2 OTHERWISE THEY PROBABLY SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE 3 TRANSCRIPTS AND THAT WOULD NECESSITATE A NUMBER OF COPIES.
4 WHY DON'T WE PUT THEM ALL IN AS EXHIBITS?
(])
5 MR. GEHR: WELL, I WOULD FIRST OFFER THE 6 TESTIMONY OF KARL R. WILBER AS JOINT APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT 7 NO. 1. JOINT APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 1 HAS ATTACHED TO IT --
8 JUDGE L AZO: MR. GEHR, THIS TECHNICALLY IS 9 STILL PART OF THE OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING WHICH HAS A 10 NUMBER OF OTHER EXHIBITS IN IT.
11 MR. GEHR: I KNOW ABOUT THAT. I SAID 1 12 BECAUSE I NOTICED BEFORE WE USED ALPHABETICAL NUMBERS, 13 ALPHABETICAL DESIGNATIONS.
14 JUDGE L AZO: YOU USED DOUBLE ALPHABETICAL O 15 DES IG NAT I ON S.
16 MR. GEHR: YES, AND I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE --
17 i WAS COMING UP TO A TOTAL NUMBER.
18 JUDGE L AZO: WELL, LET' S KEEP IT S IMPLE. WE 19 WILL USE I.
20 MR. GEHR: J OINT APPL ICANT' S EXH IB IT 1, THE 21 TESTIMONY OF KARL R. WILBER, HAS ATTACHED TO IT ElGHT 22 EXHlBITS IDENTIFIED AS W-1 THROUGH W-8.
23 NEXT I WOULD L lKE TO 0FFER IN EVIDENCE IS 24 THE TESTIMONY OF DR. MORTON 1. GOLDMAN AS JOINT O 25 APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 2. JOINT APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT NO.
I
""E"u% &"d%'n? "*' '**%fCEli'o'Ph*<
TELEPHONE 279 4711
3132 1 2 HAS ATTACHED TO IT EXHIBITS DESIGNATED AS G-1 THROUGH 2 G-7. '
3 FINALLY l WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THE TESTIMONY
() 4 0F THE REVIEW BOARD COMPRISED OF DR. CHARLES R. CURTIS AND d
5 DELBERT C. MCCUNE AS JOINT APPL ICANT'S EXHIBIT NO. 3.
6 SUCH JOINT APPLICANT'S EXHlBIT 3 HAS ATTACHED TO IT i 7 EXHIBITS IDENTIFIED AS RB-1 THROUGH RB-4 AND RB-5A, 5B AND 8 5 C.
9 JUDGE CALLlHAN: COPIES OF DR. GOLDMAN'S 10 TESTIMONY THAT YOU HAVE FILED CONTAIN THE REVISED EXHIBITS 11 G 6 AND 7?
12 MR. GEHR: YES. I THOUGHT WE OFFERED THOSE.
13 THEY WILL SUPPLANT THE -- THANK YOU, DR. CALLlHAN.
{} 14 YESTERDAY DR. GOLDMAN IDENTIFIED TWO REVISED 15 ATTACHMENTS G-6 AND G-7 TO SUPPLANT THE ONES IN THE 16 CORRESPONDING ATTACHMENT TO HIS TESTIMONY.
17 JUDGE CALLlHAN: DOES YOUR REVIEW BOARD 18 TESTIMONY INCLUDE THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA STUDY 7 19 MR. GEHR: YES, IT DOES. IT IS IDENTIFIED 4
20 IN THAT TESTIMONY AS EXHIBIT RB-4.
21 JUDGE CALLlHAN: THANK YOU.
22 MR. GEHR: IT W AS SO MARKED ON THE 23 REPORTER'S COPY.
24 JUDGE LAZO: THANK YOU, MR. GEHR.
[}
25 WELL, IF THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS, THESE
'"^**EEu^n"r ni"P $ O a [ON 01 TELEPHONE 279 4731 4
.,,-.--n.., - . - - . - . . . -,...n. -
y ,,,e_,,,, ,_--y,,__--,-,m,--,-,,.,.,.-,-w.-ne, ,,,+.----,,----n ----------en_- . , - - , -
3133 j.
1 EXHIBITS IDENTIFIED BY COUNSEL FOR JOINT APPLICANTS MAY BE 4
2 RECElVED IN EVIDENCE.
3 MR. DEWEY, DO YOU WANT THE IDENTIFY THE
( 4 STAFF EXHIBITS?
6 THE STAFF WOULD LIKE TO OFFER INTO EYlDENCE i
7 THE STAFF EXHIBIT 10, I BELIEVE WHICH IS THE NUMBER --
8 WHICH IS A CARRYOVER FROM OUR PREYl0US EXHIBITS IN AN 3
9 EARLIER PROCEEDING -- WHICH IS THE TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWIN j 10 D. PENTECOST REGARDING SALT DEPOSITION FROM PVNGS ON 11 AGRICULTURAL CROPS. ATTACHED TO IT ARE SEVEN ATTACHMENTS.
- 12 WE ALSO WISH TO OFFER STAFF EXHIBIT 11, WHICH IS THE NRC STAFF TESTIMONY OF ROBERT B. SAMWORTH ON 13 14 THE RATE OF EMISSION OF DRIFT FROM THE PALO VERDE COOLING
(]}
15 TOWERS. WITH THIS TESTIMONY ARE MR. SAMWORTH'S 16 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND TABLE 1 AND TABLE 2.
17 IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, STAFF WISHES TO 18 0FFER INTO EVIDENCE STAFF EXHIBIT 12 WHICH IS THE MAY 16,
- 19 1985 LETTER FROM MR. E. E. VAN BRUNT TO MR. GEORGE 20 KNIGHTON REGARDING THE SALT DRlFT AND MONITORING PROGRAM.
! 21 JUDGE L AZO: WELL, THEN, IF THERE ARE NO 22 OBJECTIONS, STAFF EXHIB ITS 10, 11, AND 12 MAY BE RECEIVED j 23 IN EVIDENCE.
24 NO OBJECTIONS HAYlNG BEEN HEARD, THEY ARE
(])
25 RECElVED, AS ARE JOINT APPL ICANT'S EXHlBITS.
l
"^* *"Su^n"i c n eUE 'n's'"""** '"* o$!CnYin"fe$o'i!
o m ~o~c u.4m
3134 1 i THINK THIS MIGHT BE AN APPROPRI ATE TIME TO 2 TAKE A BRIEF MORNING RECESS. CAN WE RECESS FOR 15 3 MINUTES, PLEASE7 O)
(_ 4 MR. DEWEY: ARE WE THROUGH WITH ANY 5 QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE FOR MR. LICITRA?
6 JUDGE L AZO: YES.
7 (RECESS TAKEN AT 11:17 A.M.)
8 9 (THE PROCEEDINGS WERE RECONVENED AT AT 11:29 10 A.M.)
11 JUDGE L AZO: WOULD THE HEARING COME TO 12 ORDER, PLEASE7 13 WE ARE GETTING SMALLER AND SMALLER, LOSING
{} 14 15 OUR AUDIENCE. -
WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATTERS BEFORE US, 16 AND BASED UPON THE TESTIMONY WHICH WE HAVE RECEIVED AND 17 THE ANSWERS TO THE BOARD'S QUESTIONS, WE HAVE DETERMINED 18 THAT IT IS THE BOARD'S DECISION THAT -- UNANIMOUSLY WE 19 AGREE THAT WE SHOULD ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND 20 DISMISS THIS PROCEEDING WITH PREJUDICE. WE ARE PREPARED 21 TO DO THAT BY ENTERING AN APPROPRI ATE ORDER. WE SEE NO 22 REASON TO WRITE AN INITIAL DECISION OR ASK FOR ANY 23 PROPOSED FINDINGS OR CONCLUSIONS OF L AW, SO WE WOULD WRITE
{} 24 25 AN ORDER DISMISSING THE PROCEEDING.
IN THAT CONNECTION, WE WOULD REQUEST COUNSEL d"*'
'"^*"Eo"u'Er nU5EE'n's' 'M*o$!Ca*Iis"[s'o#
o i!
TELEPHONE 279 4f11
3135 1 FOR THE APPLICANT TO PREPARE A PROPOSED ORDER WHICH WOULD 2 REFLECT THE PROCEEDING AS IT HAS TAKEN PL ACE, REFLECTING 3 THE FACT TilAT WE DID ASK BOARD QUESTIONS, RECEIVED THE
() 4 WRITTEN TESTIMONY INTO EVIDENCE AND CONSIDERED THOSE 5 MATTERS IN REACHING OUR DECISION TO DISMISS THE 6 PROCEEDING.
7 MR. GEHR, IS THAT A PROBLEM, OR WOULD YOU --
8 MR. GEHR: N O, SIR. WE WILL DO SO AND GET 9 IT TO YOU BEFORE THE END OF THE WEEK.
10 JUDGE LAZO: 1 THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER TO 11 HAVE YOUR PROPOS AL TO WORK W ITH. WE OF COURSE WOULD LIKE 12 YOU TO SEND IT TO COUNSEL FOR THE STAFF SO THAT WE WILL 13 HAVE ANY COMMENTS --
14 MR. GEHR: CERTAINLY.
(]}
15 JUDGE L AZO: -- THAT THE STAFF WOULD PROPOSE 16 BY W AY OF MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT. AND THEN UPON -
17 CONSIDERING WHATEVER YOU DRAFT, WE CAN THEN ISSUE A FORMAL 18 ORDER.
19 MR. GEHR: WE WILL ALSO PROVIDE A COPY TO 20 MR. RAYNER.
21 JUDGE L AZO: YES, PLEASE.
22 MR. GEHR: WHEN I TALKED WITH HIM THIS 23 MORNING HE WAS CURIOUS AS TO WHAT HAD HAPPENED OR lb 24 GOING TO HAPPEN, S0 l WILL KEEP HIM ADVISED.
(])
25 JUDGE L AZO: W EL L , I THINK IT'S BEST.
"*"!Sv"Ur aS"e'U 'aY "** E'o$!Ca"in"fe5o'f!
o TELEPHONE 2794711
3136 1 AS l SAY, WE ARE UNANIMOUS IN OUR DECISION 2 AND IT HAS BEEN REACHED. THERE IS NO P0lNT IN G0 LNG BACK 3 TO WASHINGTON AND WRITING YOU ABOUT IT.
() 4 MR. GEHR: WE WILL SUBMIT IT.
5 JUDGE L AZO: VERY GOOD.
6 NOW ARE THERE ANY OTHER MATTERS THAT WE CAN 7 PROFITABLY SPEND OUR TIME ON THIS MORNING AND DISPOSE OF7 8 THEN HEARING NO RESPONSE, WE CAN ADJOURN.
9 WE HAVE MADE PL ANS TO VISIT THE SITE 10 TOMORROW. AND ARE THERE -- DICK, ARE THERE ANY OTHER --
11 JUDGE COLE: N0, I DON'T THINK S0, EXCEPT 12 THE TIME WE PL AN TO BE THERE.
13 JUDGE LAZ0: AS I STATED, WE DO PLAN T0 14 VISIT THE SITE TOMORROW. STAFF AND COUNSEL HAS BEEN
[}
15 lNVITED TO ATTEND AND MR. RAYNER OF WEST VALLEY HAS BEEN 16 INVITED. I THINK BOTH HAVE DECLINED BUT HAVE WAIVED ANY 17 OBJECTION TO OUR VISITING THE SITE.
18 MR. DEWEY: I WAS G0 LNG TO CHECK WITH MY 19 0FFICE AND SEE IF -- AND GET THL'1R INSTRUCTIONS ON IT. I 20 MIGHT GO TOMORROW.
21 JUDGE L AZO: YOU ARE MOST WELCOME, 22 MR, DEWEY.
23
{} 24 25 YERY WELL THEN, WE WILL ADJ0 URN.
THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING.
""*"!Eu"[t' dEEE'Es" '"' ECa*In"o's"[s$o' o 4 TELEPHONE 8794781
3137
. t 1 (THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED AT 11:44 2 A.M.)
3 O 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12
. 13 O 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 25
- "!Ev"[r*n's"EEU'nY'd"** 'E'o$!E"n'[i'o'u"l'Eo'i!
TELEPHONE #19 4711
(
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to cortify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, ET AL PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 & 3 t
DOCKET NO.: STN-50-529-OL STN-50-530-OL PLACE: PilOENIX, AR DATE: WEDNES'AY, JUNE 12, 2985 woro hold as heroin appears, and that this is the original transcript thoroof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
)
L L /vrt.;fn - ' f! W u k .
Kathryn flowarp /
Of ficial Reporter Thacker & Groonfield, Inc.
O
= = :. -
n u .o,.or.4,n
= w =.w:
%