ML20138D609
| ML20138D609 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1997 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138D595 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9705010179 | |
| Download: ML20138D609 (121) | |
Text
l I
1 o
l 2
013 \\ A j
j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
i l
4 MAINE YANKEE RESTART READINESS PLAN d
PUBLIC MEETING i
)
t y-m t
i Wiscasset Middle School Federal Street Wiscasset, Maine Thursday, April 3, 1997 1
i l
)
-^
9705010179 970418 PDR ADOCK 05000309 T
PDR A
i THE REPORTING GROUP
,s Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell J
O SPEAKERS SIGN UP SHEET NAME TELEPHONE NO. (OPTIONAL)
- 1. h i )
bn r 3sk 3 v :"
9
- 2. 9 o m %
% < ts
- 3. $Ml
,mn
'A07 ~7//7-M(o' 7A ni Onnrr i #
4.
S e d A w#
s.
bcJ 6.
c
\\4 % Gmx v
7.
Ocv cl K J e>
107 - Qv3 - wy f 8.
F8Jd%9&L
/
9.
10.
skd Af fsv1 24 1 (L5 3 9 ) [~
f C) 11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
I 20.
21.
22.
23.
1]
24.
I
2 1
1 NRC STAFF:
V[}
1 Charles Hehl Richard Conte i
Daniel Dorman
]
John Zwolinski William Ruland Jimi Yerokun Cliff Anderson For the State of Maine:
i Patrick Dostie i
Speakers:
Page Kris Christine 6
Henry Myers 11, 91 William Linnell 19, 89 Peter Christine 26 Fred Angier 39 Nigel Calden 45 O
H.
G.
Brack 53 David Hall 65 Abbot Fletcher 67 Edward Myers 69 Jonathan McKeen 79 Brian Morrill 81 Raymond Shadis 82, 98 Sen. Richard Carey 88 i
O THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
3 i
PROCEEDINGS
[7:00 P.M.]
MR. HEHL:. Good evening.
My name is Charles Hehl.
- I'm the Director for the Division of Reactor Projects in the NRC's regional office in Philadelphia, and I'd like to welcome you.to this meeting.
What we plan to do this evening, as. advertised,.is to get comments.from-the-public with regard to the restart plan for the restart of -- of Maine Yankee.
i Before we get into the program tonight though, I i
would like to go ahead and -- and let the members of the NRC that are up here at the table introduce themselves.
1 MR. DOSTIE:
I'm not with the NRC, but Pat Dostie, state inspector.
I MR. YEROKUN:
I'm Jimi Yerokun, and I'm the NRC senior resident inspector for this site here.
MR. CONTE:
I'm Rich conte.
My normal function is Chief of Reactor Projects, Branch No.
5, Region I; and I'm the panel team leader.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
I'm John Zwolinksi, and I'm the Deputy Division Director for Reactor Projects from the Washington, D.C.
office.
MR. DORMAN:
My name is Dan Dorman.
I'm the NRC Project Manager for Maine Yankee at NRC headquarters.
MR. RULAND:
I'm Bill Ruland, and I'm the branch 1
chief of the Electrical Engineering branch on Region I;
)
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
1 4
and I'm also on the Maine Yankee Assessment Panel.
MR. ANDERSON:
'I'm Cliff Anderson.
I'm the Region I technical assistant for the Assessment Panel.
MR. HEHL:
What we'd like to -- before we get started in taking> comments,' we'd like'to just take a' minute or two to talk about what we're'doing and what the process is.
3 We met this afternoon in a -- in a meeting with --
between the NRC and representatives from Maine Yankee to talk about their plan for restart of the Maine Yankee
' facility.
That plan was -- was sent to the NRC in a-letter dated March the 7th; and I believe copies of that plan were put in the public document room here in the
)
local area about the lith of March.
So hopefully, if you have the interest to -- to go ahead and take a look at that plan, I think it certainly -- if you haven't already, it would be worthwhile.
I We're not going to make any decisions tonight as to the adequacy of the licensee's plan.
The plan that the licensee has put together is a -- is a plan for a process.
It's a process to address the issues that are known to exist, both hardware and software, people programs process type of issues that have been identified.
It also lays out a plan for further evaluations that may identify further issues that have
)
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
5 to be resolved in the future.
'~'
After the NRC has an opportunity to -- to review the plan in depth, we will generate a restart plan of our own that'will be focused on -- on how the NRC will evaluate and inspect the.. activities at Maine Yankee to provide a level of confidence.such that they would be allowed to restart.
So that's -- that's really where we're at right i
now.
This is a -- this is part of our normal process, if you can accept plants that are shut down as a normal
- process, 13ut it is part of the process for returning these plants to -- to its state of health, to engage in -- in public dialogue, to get comments from the public on these plans.
And you do play an important role in this process.
We will take your comments.
We are transcribing this meeting.
We will -- we will evaluate those comments and -- and certainly incorporate any insights that are invited into our process for evaluating the readiness of Maine Yankee to restart.
J What we'd like to do this evening, we have about 10 people who have signed up who want to speak.
And I'd i
like to see if we could hold those speeches to maybe about five minutes so we leave some time at the end to get general comments or questions that may -- may arise
]
l during -- during the discussion.
We're looking at THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
6 I
probably about two hours.
It certainly has been a long day; and we will provide an opportunity both - :if you don't get your -- your question answered tonight, we'll certainly - u certainly be open to written questions or
)
i i
comments.
We'll address-those.
We'd like to, if.we-could, get -- get all the questions on.the record transcribed; and we will try to answer as many as we can here.
But if we don't get to all of them at the end of about two hours, then I think we'll look forward to i
written comments.
With that, I guess we would call the first person who has signed up to speak.
Kris Christine?
MS. CHRISTINE:
Thank you.
I'm Kris-Christine of Alna, and I do have a question.
But before I ask it, I'd like to comment on the March lith enforcement meeting at which the public was not allowed to speak, i
I and others take great exception to Hubert i
Miller's statement that Maine Yankee, quote, was never unsafe, end quote.
From 1978 to 1979 -- or 1989, Maine i
Yankee operated at a power level above 2440 megawatts thermal.
From 1989 to 1995, Maine Yankee operated at a power level of 2700 megawatts thermal.
And according to NRC's independent safety assessment, operability of j
safety equipment necessary to mitigate the consequences
/
of an accident at power levels above 2440 megawatts THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell 2
i i
l 7
thermal could not be demonstrated.
For more than 17 years Maine Yankee was operating with insufficient.
safety systems and was not operating safely.
So we.take great exception to that kind of statement.
Anyway, my question --
MR.-HEHL:
Before that, you had one question or-several questions.
Would you like --
MS. CHRISTINE:
Oh, I was just commenting on that
?
statement.
My question -- here is my question:
In referring to safety-related electrical cables, Appendix B3 of: Maine Yankee's Restart Readiness Plan states that, I
quote, nearly all cable separation discrepancies
/j discovered have involved plant modifications,- end quote, V
and that, quote, the original construction cables and circuits are assumed to be installed in accordance with the original criteria, end quote.
And Maureen Brown has acknowledged that at least two and probably three recently identified cable separation issues date back to plant construction.
In 1978 Inspector--- NRC Inspector Peter-James Atherton identified numerous inadequately separated safety-related electrical cables-dating back to plant construction and which Maine Yankee declined to reroute because of, quote, physical limitations.
And that's out
()
of a document dated March 14, 1978 entitled " Maine LJ THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
~.. _
i 8
Yankee' Response to NRC Staff Position on Fire Protection," in case you want to'look that up.
I-do have a copy with me if you'd like to see it.
To date.NRC has been: unable-to produce documentation --
MR. HEHL:- Is..there'a qrestion in-there?.Do:you want an answer?
MS. CHRISTINE:
Yes.
I'm getting to it, but I'm prefacing this question with-this information.
To date, NRC has been unable to produce documentation that'these originally installed inadequately separated cables were correctly rerouted to comply with regulations.
And here is my question:
Prior to restart,tdoes the NRC : intend to require Maine Yankee to physically.
inspect.all safety-related cabling including that dating back to plant construction and to verify that the corrective actions taken comply with current NRC regulations?
MR. HEHL:
While Bill is getting the mike, let me
. address that -
even though it.wasn't a question, let me just say from the standpoint of'the enforcement conference on March-11,.I understand your concern with not being able to participate in that conference.
But
-- but that has been the policy of the NRC; and certainly you're free to -- to -- to solicit permission THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
9
('N to change that policy.
But normally meetings that occur between the licensee and the NRC, whether it be an enforcement conference, whether it be a management meeting such as we had this afternoon to address specific issues or hear the presentation of.a plan,.the Commission has -- has determined that to have.public participation from other than just observation in those type of meetings is just not an efficient and effective way to conduct a meeting.
MS. CHRISTINE:
Well, I'm not refuting that policy.
However, I do and the public would like to make a comment when we believe that there are statements made
'by NRC officials which are not backed up by your!own-documentation.
That's why I'm taking the opportunity now to make a public comment on that because we weren't allowed to address that at that time.
I'm not disputing the fact that your policy does not allow public participation.
MR. HEHL:
Bill Ruland who is the chief of our electrical engineering branch can address the issues.
MR. RULAND:
If I understand your question correctly, I think you said is Maine Yankee going to inspect all safety-related cables?
MS. CHRISTINE:
Physically inspect.
I understand from the documentation that there is going to be
())
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
10 documentation reviewed including quality assurance U(~'s documents from the 1970's.
And I'm wondering if they're going to physically inspect original -- including the originally installed safety-related cabling for separation inadequacies.
MR. RULAND:
As we understand'the. program right now, we have -- we're -- the licensee has established criteria with which they're going to inspect their cables including safety-related cables.
And those cables and that criteria has been established.
Our division of electrical engineering branch and headquarters is reviewing that -- that design criteria r'N as we speak.
That's to include,both cables thatiwere w
added or modified since the plant was licensed and, in addition, a sample of cables that were installed during original construction.
MS. CHRISTINE:
So a sample but not all safety --
MR. RULAND:
A sample of cables installed under original construction will also be examined.
And we haven't completely agreed yet with what the criteria is.
We're evaluating that.
And once we evaluate that criteria, we will render a judgment on whether that criteria is acceptable or not.
MS. CHRISTINE:
So in other words, all
~
safety-related cabling will not be physically inspected.
{x_)}
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
11 1
MR. HEHL:
No.
I think the answer is the final decision has not been-made yet.
~
MS. CHRISTINE:
But at this point it does not include physically 'aspecting all of it?
l MR. RULAND:
That's correct.
MS.JCHRISTINE:
Thank you.
-MR. HEHL:
Henry Myers.
1 MR. H. MYERS:
My name is Henry Myers.
I'm from i
~
Peaks Island.
I have written many letters to the NRC over the last year.
I -- frankly, I don't recommend-N people'doing this-if they really want answers.
~
Is it the Commission's position or does the Commission -- do the Commission's regulations; allow-operation of a plant when-that plant is not in substantial compliance of the NRC regulations?
MR. HEHL:
Is this a question?
MR. H. MYERS:
That's a question.
MR. HEHL:
The question is that, no, the licensee has to comply with the -- with the -- both the license requirements and,other regulatory requirements.
MR. H. MYERS:
Does that mean that somebody is going to make a finding that Maine Yankee is in compliance with NRC regulations before allowing it to restart?
.MR.
HEHL:
Before Maine Yankee is allowed to THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell 4
)
12 restart, they will be in compliance with NRC.
MR. H. MYERS:
Well, is somebody going.to say that; or is it just going to be something that -- that kind of the words are that you get a feeling that this.is so, and no one actually says this?
MR. HEHL:. We will require the licensee.to affirm f
to us that they have completed the review.
We will be in looking independently to determine, in fact, that
{
they have -- are in compliance with their license.
l P
MR. H. MYERS:
Well, when they say they've completed a review,-that doesn't say that-they've affirmed that they're in compliance with the
' regulations.- Is'there going ~to:be a sentence.somewhere from Maine Yankee saying we have reviewed the plant,.our findings are that this plant is in substantial compliance with the Commission's regulations?
MR. HEHL:
Well, I'm not sure what you're asking.
MR. H. MYERS:
Well, I've written many letters; and I've gotten back nothing on this except hand waving.
And if you can't make that finding, then.I've seen --
MR. HEHL:
There will be a finding that they are in compliance with their license before they restart.
MR. H. MYERS:
What will the language be like?
What will the prototype language say?
Will it be that we've reviewed -- we've conducted reviews as required THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
13
(^N and this plant is in substantial compliance with our (m-license?
MR. HEHL:
I don't know what.the words are going to look like at this point.
MR. H. MYERS:
Well, is there a lawyer here that can answer that question?
MR. HEHL:
We didn't bring any lawyers with us, Henry.
P, MR. H. MYERS:
You realize I've sent many letters to the Commission on this point, and I get no answers.
I'vecasked'the~ Commission to-respond to my letters.
What they do is they sift them down to the staff who
'then defend positions which in my view and in'the view i
of people I consult on this matter that is just nothing.
It is just getting, you know, all people like me off their back.
That is the sense of the letters that come back.
{
So is there going to be a finding?
I heard Shirley Jackson say that regulations must be complied with.
Well, I find a refusal of the NRC in any of these letters to state that prior to operating this plant-there must be compliance with regulations and somebody must certify that there's compliance with regulations.
The NRC presumably can make a finding that there is substantial compliance with regulations even if Maine THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
i 14 Yankee declines to make that finding.
Somebody in my view, and I believe in the view of your Chairman, must l
make a finding that this plant is in substantial compliance with regulations prior to its operating.-
]
MR.-ZWOLINSKI:
This is fundamental to the way our rules and regulations,are~ written in which the licensee is compeled to make a finding of themselves under oath or affirmation to the staff.
The staff likewise must, following inspection, deliberation, ultimately make a j
finding of is this plant indeed' safe to operate, and do i
~
-we agree with what the licensee has provided us?
MR. H. MYERS:
Saying the plant is safe to operate is not the same as saying 1. hat the plant is in compliance with regulations because it can be safe in the view of --
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
To the extent that we are aware of the licensee's conformance with the rules and regulations, we would move forward and state we would have no problem with the licensee restarting the plant.
If we are aware that the-licensee is not in conformance 1
with a rule or regulation, we would not issue that letter.
MR. H. MYERS:
That means that if you have that belief that they are in compliance with regulations, you should be able to say that.
Mr. Miller says it's safe THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
15 l
because he says it's safe.
Other people say it's safe because they're willing to live next to it, and.that's
{
why they think it's safe.
That's not --
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
I guess I'm trying to understand your point.
The burden is placed on the utility,first and then on the agency second.
Firstly, the licensee must go through this restart plan, implement it, allow the e.gency time to inspect section after section after section, issue after issue.
The sum total of those
. inspection findings will have either a negative result or a positive result.
I can't foretell the future.
But ultimately, the compendium of' inspections that we perform, licensing O
reviews that we perform, technical evaluations that we perform will result in a decision from the agency predicated on what the utility has told us.
And should the utility provide us a letter which states that they feel that they are in conformance with the rules and regulations that the plant is ready to restart, they recommend lifting of the confirmatory. action letter that's in place, so on and so forth, then the burden is then shifted to the agency that are we aware of any issuq that would prohibit that decision being rendered?
And what I'm telling you, am I aware of any safety s
concern or any regulatory concern such as not meeting a
(J L
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
16 technical specification or not meeting a rule, the agency would not move forward.
Absent that information, the agency most likely would choose to move forward.
If you look at Section 3 in the licensee's restart j
l plan, you'll find that they go to great lengths to i
essentially repeat what we say as far as regulatory.,
requirements for technical specification performance, rules and regulations and the whole myriad of associated documentation that the agency would expect to be in -- a licensee to be in conformance with.
And they need to i
make -- affirm they're in conformance with rules and regulations.
They also need to confirm to their own
' criteria that from a safety perspective they've 1
satisfied themselves.
Once they've done that, they send it to us; and then the ball is in our court.
MR. H. MYERS:
I'm still asking the question.
You've --
J MR. HEHL:
Maine Yankee will not restart unless they're in compliance with their license and the other applicable regulatory requirements.
MR. H. MYERS:
Well, can't somebody write that down, what you just said?
Will somebody put that --
MR. HEHL:
It's on the transcript.
MR. H. MYERS:
No, no..Let me say -- I have another thing about transcripts here -- that will
]
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
t 17 i
somebody then say what you've just said in writing, that Maine Yankee is in -- that we at Maine Yankee as,far as.
we know --
MR. HEHL:' We will'in writing' lift the confirmatory letter, and that confirmatory letter being lifted will be the affirmation-that the-licensee is<in compliance.
i I don't know what the words are going to say at this point.
MR. H. MYERS:
No, no.
You and I can all sit down, and we know there will be little bits and pieces here
-since you.can't comply with=every single thing.
That's why I use the word " substantial compliance."
Your i
chairman said there must be compliance.- Your chairman says -- in speeches that she makes, she says there must be compliance.
She certainly won't say it in a letter
)
to me.
But are you going to require that they say j
something like we -- to the best of our knowledge, this plant is in substantial compliance with the license and application regulations?
1 MR. HEHL:
Yes.
We will require them to. affirm to us that they.have the plant in compliance with the l
regulations before they're allowed to restart.
MR. H. MYERS:
So you're going to say that they must --
MR. HEHL:
I don't know what the words are going to THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
18 say at this point.
MR. H. MYERS:
No.
I-think we should talk abcut this in various ways that it will be in the transcript, I'
and we're all going-to carefully review what's said when this plant restarts.
MR. HEHL:
Let's pick this up later on if've'still have time.
MR. H. MYERS:
Let me ask you --
MR. HEHL:
We don't have time at this point.
MR. H. MYERS:
I'm out of time?
Let me say as a
' point of order, these meetings -- all of these issues are exceedingly complex, like this one.
We could spend
'two days speaking about this thing.
Many people want to ask their questions here.
Each of them has an issue that vill take two days to discuss.
So what we're doing here is really not serious discussion of Maine Yankee.
And if you think this is real public participation, you kid fourselves.
MR. HEHL:
Well, the purpose of the meeting, Henry, is to get comments on the restart plan.
MR. H. MYERS:
Yes, but you don't act on them.
You want comments.
You want people to send you letters, but what you send back is junk; and that's what you do.
And if you want to ask people, I'm not the only person th?.t
/
thinks this.
And you just kid yourselves.
And you're
(_
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
d 19 going down a road which is that you think it -- I'm sure you don't want an accident at-Maine Yankee.
I don't-a 4
think anybody wants an accident at Maine Yankee.
Det
-you do not do what'the regulations require,'and you.go f
off in some direction which does not provide the assurance --. level of assurance --
i MR. ZWOLINSKI:
I beg to differ with you on that i
note.
We take our jobs very seriously.
MR. H. MYERS:
I didn't say you didn't take your jobs very seriously.
l MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Well, you're coming very close --
MR. H. MYERS:
No.
I'm saying that you wing it, and you play it by ear because y'u realize --
)
MR. HFHL:
And that's not correct.
MR. H. MYERS:
I'll discuss that with you at great I
length about how you wing it and play it by ear.
MR. HEHL:
Mr. Bill Linnell.
Bill Linnell?
i 5
MR. LINNELL:
My name is Bill Linnell.
I'm the spokesperson for Cheaper Safer Power and Maine Safe Energy.
t I think the Maine Yankee restart plan ignores two unresolved safety issues.
I think it's dangerously silent on both the cost of these repairs and a lack of a proven small pipe break emergency cooling analysis.
(T That analysis became a regulatory requirement after the V
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell i
.u--,
w 4
r---
20 Three Mile Island meltdown.
Economic problems were
(" '))
recently identified as a root cause of safety problems at Maine Yankee while again the small pipe break was identified as the root cause of the Three Mile Island meltdown in '79.
So I think the current restart plan is about as effective as rearranging the debt shares in the Titanic.
It's as if after losing three-quarters of the passengers, the crew of the Titanic is preparing to set sail 85 years later without any lifeboats.
Now, having said that, I would like to ask a question -- a couple of questions.
The -- I saw today the business plan with the circles and so forth.
And it j}
seems to me that given that economic stressors was found
\\_/
i as a root cause of safety problems at Maine Yankee, I j
think one of the things that needs to be included in this business plan is how much all of this is going to cost so that assessments can be made as to how this will impact the economic str'ess factor at Maine Yankee.
And I guess piggy-backing on what Henry Myers said --
MR. HEHL:
You want to -- an answer?
MR. LINNELL:
Yes, could you?
Sure.
l MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Well, ISAT had also concluded that there were concerns with the licensee indeed
(~]
demonstrating a questioning attitude in light of what C/
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
21
~N was perceived as economic pressures.
And you may be (Q
aware that the company has allotted a significant amount of resources to the new management team to get on with the recovery of the facility.
I agree with you, there are not finances in this particular document.
I don't believe we've -- we would have a basis to act on it in -- any type of financial information if it was in the plan.
The company does have a business plan and probably has some of the more microscopic numbers that you may be alluding to.
Tut your observation is accurate.
With respect to not addrecair.., Lne small break LOCA
{'s issue, as you're aware, our January 3rd, 1996 order x
contains a basis and rationale for assuring that uncertainties that currently -- that would exist without having that particular analysis available are bounded by the large break LOCA analysis.
And it's our understanding that the licensee doesn't have an intention today to explore going beyond the 2440 that they're currently ordered to operate for quite some time, on into 1998 or beyond.
So the issue of small break LOCA is really not a technical concern to the staff at this time.
MR. LINNELL:
Well, as a follow-up, my
()
understanding is that what went wrong at Three Mile V
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagoplan & Ramsdell
22
)
Island was that there was a -- essentially a small_ break (d
- LOCA and that the regulations that grew --
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Yes.
MR. LINNELL: '-- as a result'of'that or what we J
l learned from that, if you will; was that you can't rely on a large break LOCA:to bound your small. break.
I And so-the -- the path that the NRC seems to be taking-is that -- is to repeat history and to use a t
i large pipe break LOCA, which is a pre-Three Mile Island f
regulation, to justify the operation of Maine Yankee at 1
any power level.
And -- and I --
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Let me help you.
Maybe you're not aware that the licensee does have an analysis using a J
pre-1980 code.
Thi.a is the CE 1977 version of a small break LOCA code that they have used and have relied upon for the last cycle of operation.
So -- and by the way, the results of that code are -- are dependable and --
4 and.significantly less than the results from the large break LOCA code which is additional affirmation that the large-break LOCA code indeed bounds current operation in 2440.
MR. LINNELL:
Okay.
I understand -- you know, I'm 4
not a physicist.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Mr. Linnell, I'd be more than happy to continue to walk you through step by step.
But to THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
23 that issue, that the safety concern that arose when we first found that there was concern about the adequacy of the small break LOCA going back to the allegation -- UCS filed the' allegation,-and-the State provided.it to the staff.
Certainly, a very important issue.
Don't misunderstand.. The staff did take what we thought was quite a significant action by issuing the order which by imposing that power of restriction certainly bounded uncertainties that one may be able to postulate.
So we felt indeed we addressed the safety concern forthrightly.
And by the way, I think we feel-very strongly that
/
that should stand until :the licensee has had an i
opportunity to look at a comprehensive integrated response to going back to 2700.
MR. LINNELL:
Thank you.
I have another comment or i
a question.
In terms of the steam generator inspection, is this inspection going to use the plus point probe, essentially the-same probe that was used in 1995?
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
The licensee -- well, they're going to use 100 percent bobbin coil and then to'a limited scope 20 percent -- a less percentage with -- with plus point probe.
So as Bill just said, the answer to your question is yes.
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
24 MR. HEHL:
Yes.
That's typical is that you go in, you sample-a-certain number of tubes; and if you find defects, then we have a criteria that expands that sample out, you know,-and provides additional defects.
And we have to do larger samples and larger samples 4 until you find a problem.
So the answer is yes, it's going to be used.
And we've got folks that --
MR. DORMAN:
They're doing 100 percent bobbin coil inspection with basically the whole steam generators, all three of them.
For the plus point probe, they're doing inspections in some of the most vulnerable regions, around the eggerate intersections; andtthey're doing 100 percent in the plus point with the steam j
blanket region which is the tightest U-bends in the tubes in the centers of the steam generators.
They're also -- on the 30-inch sleeves that inre installed on the last outage, they're doing 100 percent i
plus point checkover of those sleeves with 20 percent 1
checkover of the smaller sleeves.
MR. LINNELL:
Thank you.
I guess my --
MR. DORMAN:
Depending on the results of those, they may --
MR. LINNELL:
Right, I understand that.
I understand that.
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
25 Am I correct in my understanding -- I've seen the document that Maine' Yankee brought down to Washington on the 26th of March to talk to the NRC about the steam generator inspection.
And in there it-talks about -- I understand they'll be looking at 199 -- the indications
-in the free span of 1995.
So those are -- am I correct in my understanding that those are defects that were spotted in 1995, and now we're going to look at them again?
MR. DORMAN:
They're going to be looking at those
'again, aus I recall, with both the A current and the plus point to benchmark the performance of the plus point r~'s against the eddy current on established defects, yes.
t MR. LINNELL:
Okay.
Thank you.
Now, you don't have to comment on this; but I just want to point out because this is a public meeting that when they did the sleeving operation, Maine Yankee -- I don't recall them mentioning anything about indications in the free span areas of the steam generators.
And they were adamant i
that this -- that the repairs in 1995 would be a life of the plant repair.
And they put that in on their own.
I I
don't expect you to comment on that.
This is between me and Maine Yankee, or the rest of us and Maine Yankee.
Thank you.
That's all I have.
I
'N MR. HEHL:
Peter Christine.
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
26
(s MR. CHRISTINE:
My name is Peter Christine.
I'm a N sl private citizen.
I'm-from Alna, Maine.
I also have i
1 some comments on the March lith meeting after which I i
would like sometof'your comments on an exchange:that.I heard today at your meeting down at Maine Yankee.
And I'd like to clarify'what I saw as a misunderstanding-about your role in the restart and what Mike Meisner felt was your role vis a vis his corporation in the restart.
First my comments on the March lith meeting.
In the past few months NRC staff members made public comments which I believe reveal that the NRC is unwilling to prescribe for itself the very medicine it recommends for Maine Yankee.
The agency will not face
- the~ fact that its disregard and unspoken contempt for j
its own regulations have contributed to Maine Yankee's current problems.
While Maine Yankee is advised to
)
prove its resolve with actions and not with words, the l
e NRC seems to hide behind words that confound or explain away its own reasons for inaction.
At the March lith meeting between the NRC and Maine Yankee, Hubert Miller did say that the plant had never been unsafe.
But since it was Maine Yankee's failure to conform to safety requirements that put the plant in its
(N current shutdown, Mr. Miller's statements then were made
\\j i
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell l
27 I
contrary to Chairman Jackson's statement that compliance issues are" safety + issues.
Your-Chairman seems.to:be trying to' assure us and advise her staff that only adherence:.to regulationscand;not3 subjective, judgments of safety opined by. individuals will provide.us with..a >
solid foundation for determining safety.
At the February 14th legislative hearing in Augusta, ISAT leader Edward Jordan inappropriately commented that he I
wouldn't mind living near this plant.
But the hearing was convened to inform Maine lawmakers of the standards forLand the' standards of safety at Maine Yankee, not to hear which region Mr. Jordan might inhabit.
Again at i
the March lith meeting Maine Yankee was told they need, quote, to set the bar higher, end quote.
Just a few examples will suffice to show that the NRC set the bar too low to begin with:
The rapidly approved but not discredited relap five-way code and Maine Yankee's continued failure to comply with post Three Mile Island action plan, the previously documented but only recently addressed cable separation issue, or the recent guilty plea'of NRC project manager Edward.
Trottier to leaking confidential investigatory.
.a-information to Maine Yankee.
Regarding the cable separation issue, NRC claimed
(
at the March'11 meeting that the recent cable separation THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
28 issues are not the same ones as those raised in 1978 by NRC Inspector' Peter Atherton.
.That statement was made when the NRC could not even locate the Atherton report in its files.
-William Beecher, a4 spokesman.for the NRC, claimed that the Trottier transgression was an isolated incident.
How can he possibly know that?
I'd like to know why does the NRC repeatedly adopt a defensive posture or seek to assure us of safety by means other than strict compliance with regulations?
The NRC cannot be excused'by claiming that Maine Yankee must regulate itself and the NRC is but an auditing agency.
The NRC is'also an enforcement agency.4 And-as-the NRC has been saying to Maine Yankee, we will judge your actions, not your words, so is the NRC in the case of, physician, heal thyself.
Now, today at the meeting down at the plant there was an exchange that I think reflects a little of this confusion of the roles and responsibilities between the licensee and the -- and the agency.
Mike Meisner asked you, Mr. Hehl, I'believe, to let'him know when your inspection might-commence and what you would be inspecting.
And I thought appropriately in response you said that, no, excuse me, but your plan is your plan and we will then come down and inspect it according to what THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
29 we see fit is our plan, you called it.
Now, to me that showed that both Maine, Yankee-and the NRC are still misunderstanding each other as-to what role they should both play in this process.
It.seems that Mr. Meisner I
assumes that you are his partner in: restarting.. Now, to your credit, you said no,-we have ouriown plan.
You do your job, and we'll como see if you've done it correctly.
i And you also continued to say -- I'm obviously shortening this exchange a little bit -- but you also
'went on-to say that -- that they needed to complete it in full because your resources were stretched and you
'didn't want to essentially have to keep coming back,;
that you wanted certain things down and you believed that some of their timetables were a little short in time.
Now, on the surface that seems heartening.
It 1
j seems that you were saying this is your job.
We're going to come and review you later.
But I believe you i
said it for all the wrong reasons because on the heels of that you-quoted that your -- or you said that your resources would be stretched.
And I don't believe that's the proper response.
I think your response should be one of we are the' regulators.
You will adhere to a high standard.
And then we'll come by; and if you THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
30 do not pass that standard, you will fail and you will O
not~ restart.
It should not be a matter of your agency's resources being stretched that defines your role to licensees.
MR. HEHL:
And once again,>it certainly points out i
l that perhaps the difficulty sometimes in. communications because that -- that certainly I don't think was the intent.
I don't think it was the intent on Mr.
Meisner's part to imply some sort of partnership.
And I i
don't think -- and I certainly know it wasn't my intent to' indicate'that the primary reason why we wanted them to finish these plans was because we were stretched with
(~
tight resources.
Now, I thinkethat's in my opinion N-}J certainly a gross misinterpretation of those words at the best.
Certainly, Maine Yankee will have to complete their actions before we come in and look at them; but we have been looking at things as we go along.
There are certain things that have to be looked at in process, and we're doing that right now.
But it's a reality of life i
that we have stretched resources.
It's a reality of life that we have major inspection activities at a lot of facilities..
But we are expending the resources that 4
i need to be expended to ensure that when Maine Yankee f'N restarts, they're ready to restart, they've completed U
1 THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
l l
31 l
i i
the activities they have to complete, period.
l MR. CHRISTINE:
'I would also like to draw yourm I
attention-- 'I'm sorry, the rest of the audience _may not have this -- but on one of the slides that was presented here today,ethe slide was titled.' Nuclear Quality / Safety
~
Culture.
It.was a flow chart.
And I would put to you that you could probably best spend the limited NRC resources in proving through your actions and not words of your strength of will in regards to enforcement in that one of the weak areas was regulations in standards
'which1directly affected senior management.
Now, that would~be regulations and standards as interpreted by-the licensee.
But the licensee will only determinei,the regulations and standards by how high you set those standards.
And I think there's a lot of room for
)
improvement on your part in that regard.
MR. HEHL:
Appreciate the comment.
I think we have standards that are appropriate; and I think there's no doubt -- and there is no inconsistency in what the Chairman is saying.
Compliance with regulations is,a fundamental necessity.'
But,,on the other hand,-even as Mr. Nyers pointed.out,-you know, at 66 miles per-hour and the speed limit is 65 miles per hour, are you unsafe at 66?
I mean, if you're in violation of the law, we i
are certainly going to fully and completely expect that THE REPORTING GROUP
^
Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
l 32 the licensee complies with the letter of the law.
And when they don't, well, if they identify it and correct I
it and it's consistent with our enforcement policy, we'll give them credit for identifying and correcting it.
If we have to identify it and correct it,'then
~
we'll take the appropriate enforcement-action which.we have done in the past and will continue to do in the future.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
There are a couple of other issues l
i that I'd like to address.
You may have read or be aware that the-agency has been going through essentially a reevaluation of itself as far as lessons learned from
()
past activities at the Millstone facility as well ase
%-)
here at Maine Yankee.
We've sent a report to the
, Commission-with recommendations on a wide number of lessons learned that we feel the agency has accrued over I
the past year, year and a half.
l The commission I believe is going to adopt much of those recommendations, and they come from a variety of sources:
Internal investigations and internal evaluations within the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and recommendations from the field offices.
So there is a lot of change that's going out in the context of, indeed, some of the problems of some of I
(j~'\\
these facilities rest on the shoulders of the agency;
\\
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell J
33 and we'll be as assertive, as aggressive, as probing as we should have been.' 'And I think the report card.in so l
many words is we were-not living up to the expectations
'that our new chairman.has setJfor.ourselves. And to-her I
credit, she'is essentially challenging us tollive up to what Mr. Hehl just' referred ~to.
"Let's get on with 4
assuring that licensees comply with all rules and I
regulations.
I would like to address the issue that you-also raised with respect to a large set of notes that the staff has received'from -- from an individual living in the area.
I would like Mr. Dorman to address that.
MR. DORMAN:
I guess ~particularly I want to address the comments you made regarding Mr. Miller's comments on March 11.
You made an assertion that the staff couldn't find the notes at that time, and I can assure you that
]
1 the staff did have the notes at that time.
Both j
headquarters and regional staff had the notes at that time.
The basis of Mr. Miller's comment at that time with the issues in the notes were different from issues that were brought up at Maine Yankee.
The comments on cable separation-in the notes go to the design basis of separation of trains and cable trains.
The issues that we were aware of as of March lith have come out of --
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell 1
l 34
(~}
the current reviews were issues of individual cable Q'
issues that arose from modifications where the. licensee made some change to the plant, installed a new cable.
Most of these were -- at the time of the March lith comments, all of the'ones that I was-aware of were installed since 1978; and they were -- it was a separate issue.
So to say that -- to say that the -- that the concerns that are being dealt with now were the concerns that were raised in 1978, the issues that were being addressed now didn't even exist in 1978.
MR. CHRISTINE:
Excuse me, but you're using the
()
word issue-when you really mean the word exampl'e.
The V
overarching issue is cable train separation of redundancies to ensure fire protection.
That is the overarching issue.
Whether you're talking about a modification that's -- in fact, I believe it's even worse if at one time you had that -- the media pointed out that trains must be separated to provide fire protection.
Then you go about making modification and don't take advantage of that lesson learned in a prior date.
So the issue -- the basic issue of cable separation is the same.
If cables weren't separated, somebody (V~]
hasn't learned from a past issue.
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
35 jN MR. DORMAN:
I'm not aware that any of the issues
.that have been' raised currently:go to fire protection concerns.- They're electricalcseparation concerns.
For example, between power -- there:are some train
' separation concerns;-but I'm not aware-that,those go to fire protection-concerns.
MR. HEHL:
I think the bottom line is that the --
that I don't think there's anything that we know of that at this point in time that changes the bottom line which was indicated on March lith; and that is that these are different issues.
These are issues --- the Atherton -
1 letter was an issue having to do with the design in general offfire protection type of activities;tand what is being found now has to do with electrical separation of. cables which is a different issue.
MR. CHRISTINE:
Why do you separate electrical cables then?
MR. HEHL:
It's a different issue, because there 3
are many other reasons besides fire to separate these cables.
MR. CHRISTINE:
-You're protecting the redundancies by separating the trains; are-you not?
MR. HEHL:
You know, the difference is that -- that what Mr. Atherton was looking at was whether the original design of the facility was such
)
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
36
(*
that these cables were separated to address fire
\\
protection issues.
What they're finding now is the-implementation of those design standards -- you know, the design-standards weren't bad., Thecdesign standards called for' cable. separation.
We learned more after the Brown's Ferry fire, and-the implementation of new regulatory requirements reflected that in requiring facilities to make changes to accommodate a range of a
fires and things.
But the original design was there to separate cables.
The implementation of that design requirement is what they're having problems with now.
People didn't do what they were supposed-to do when they installed some of these cables.
And they're having to go through and search out each and every.one of these; and they're going to fix them.
MR. RULAND:
Let me -- I wouldn't argue with -- I think your assertion that if you do separate cables it's going to help you from a fire protection perspective, I'm not going to argue with that.
That's true.
It will.
But the' primary thrust of the cable separation issues right now are not fire protection related.
But you're right.
It does address fire protection if I separate cables, and it's going to help.
No question about that.
1 THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
37 i
[~h MR. DORMAN:
Let me just briefly go to V
what -- what we're.doing with this subject.
The staff has taken those notes and are comparing them to the position that the staff took.at:the time.
There's a lot of correlation'between those' notes and what the staff --
the positions that the staff took at the time in those areas.
What we're looking at is the differences.
We're going back and looking at what the position, what the reasons may have been why the staff did not require all of the things that Mr. Atherton felt should be required of a-licensee.
We plan to complete that review in the next month or so.
-(']
We've'also asked the licensee to--take a look at --
%)
at these notes compared to the fire protection program; and we anticipate that they'll finish their review in a month or so.
We expect that in another public forum such as this, probably in the late May or June time frame, we will incorporate that issue into a public meeting and report back to you what we have found to address this issue.
And if we find we have to do something,Tna will certainly address that.
MR. CHRISTINE:
Thank you.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
You can be assured that if there are any issues that are identified that have not been
)
satisfactorily resolved, we would expect the licensee to THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
i l
38 r
indeed resolve those issues prior to seeking approval to restart the facility.
So that;would be'the thrust of
-the agency's position as far as bringing closure to this entire matter.
MR. CHRISTINE:
Thank you.
I would just credit you with your lessons learned effort.
I would hope that-l that would extend to embody your chairman's words that compliance issues are safety issues and prevent any further didservice to the public by having l
representatives of your agency engage in what are entirely personal judgments about the safety of the plant and not professional opinions.
I believe Mr.
i Miller's comment did a great disservice by implying to i
the public something other than compliance.
It was a i
personal judgment on the safety and the past safe d'
l operation at Maine Yankee.
5 MR. HEHL:
No.
I don't think that's a personal judgment.
I think that's a professional judgment; and it comes based on a knowledge of the issues associated i
with the facility and a knowledge of the -- of the licensing process for these facilities.
I take very much exception to your characterization of that.
I think you've -- you're kind of out of time anyway.
MR. CHRISTINE:
Thank you.
j l
MR. HEHL:
Angier.
(}
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
39 MR. ANGIER:
Fred Angier, Alna.
[
Some of what I was going to say might be a. bit redundant, but I think it's important to have a general overview of,the steam generator issue.which I would like 7
to discuss.
In recent weeks in preparation for the inspection of Maine Yankee's three steam generators, Maine Yankee f
officials have stated that they plan to inspect 65 miles of tubing within the generators themselves.
The i
inspection is being touted as comprehensive in scope.
Since-the three steam generators house a total of over I
170 miles of tubing made largely of a controversial alloy, "Inconel 600, known'to-be susceptible to: cracking, I question how the inspection of only one-third of the tubing can be considered comprehensive.
Reinforcing my concern is the fact that in the past potentially dangerous cracks have been discovered and repaired in parts of the steam generator tubes not recent -- not recently sleeved.
It has also been reported in the media that Maine Yankee now expects-a number of repairs within the steam generator tubes will be necessary.
Maine Yankee j
officials, however, contend that-up to 20 percent of the steam generator tubes can be plugged without affecting either the safety or the efficiency of the plant.
In l
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
40 1995 Maine Yankee officials put a raximum nuAber of plugged tubes for efficient and safe - opera tion at 9 percent.
Question, one, d a you aceae tnat Maine Yankee can operate safely and efriciently at 100 percent power with 10 to 20 percent of their tubes plugged; and i iat does that -- and does that percentage include the 17,000 tubes already sleeved?
Two --
MR. HEHL:
Well, let's start with question one and make sure we can work our way through these, sir.
Fundamentally, the licensee will not be allowed to return to 100 percent power until they have made m
substantive changes to the plant and addressed a variety of technical concerns that have evolved over the last year plus.
And as I said earlier, that would be the 1998-1999 time frame.
Right now the licensee, should they solve their problems, they could request going back to 90 percent the level at which the order that we issued on the generator in '96.
MR. ANGIER:
Would it be safe for Maine Yankee to operate at 90 percent power with 10 to 20 percent of their tubes plugged?
MR. DORMAN:
I think that there are some things that we have to continue -- we have to look at.
They THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
41 (V}
have a request for operation at reduced reactor coolant system flow which would in fact restrict power to something less than 100 percent if reactor coolant flow was less than their current tech spec minimum of 360,000 gallons per minute -- per hour.
The issue that would cause that flow to be reduced, obviously, would be the plug in the sleeves of the tubes.
I can't recall the exact numbers involved; but it seems to me that about --
somewhere around 10 percent plugging they would get into that -- that much flow reduction.
MR. ANGIER:
Do you still contend that -- there was some talk when these steam generator tubes were being
()
sleeved -- what's your basic ratio for sleeved versus g
plugged?
MR. DORMAN:
I don't know that off the top of my head.
MR. HEHL:
We didn't bring our steam generator i
experts with us tonight.
We're trying to focus on getting comments on the restart plan.
Now, certainly in order for them to -- to operate the plant with plugged tubes beyond what is allowed in the technical specifications at the current time, they would have to come in for amendment.
They would have to make a safety argument complete with analysis.
We would have to
(')s review that argument and approve that prior to them
\\
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
42 operating at that point.
Certainly a lot of this is -- is at this point hypothetical based on the fact that the inspectionsi--
the reinspections of the-steam. generator just. started today.
And we'll be monitoring'that-inspection activity.
We have inspectors that will be out here looking at the monitor and looking at the results of the
'nspection.
i MR. ANGIER:
And I want to go on to the second question; but I just want to reiterate, in the past, you know, I've heard the rule of thumb back in 1994 was 1-to-7 ratio of plug to sleeve.
And then we heard assertions of 31 -- or 31 -- excuse me -- 35 to 1.
It's all over the place, and there doesn't seem to be any consensus. 'And I realize it's plant specific sometimas, but the divergence there is quite large.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
The fundamental issue is the reactor coolant flow, and there is some tech spec i
requirenent on that flow.
There is a tech spec change request for the staff requesting a slightly reduced, flowrate in anticipation of some number of tubes having to be plugged.
But this is all very speculative.
The licensee as well as ourselves have little or no idea will this plant
( }
incur one or two to be plugged or a much larger number.
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
. - ~ _ = -.
43
/
MR. HEHL:
It won't be speculative as to any decisions we come up with because it will be based on our engineers'i analysis as to-whether there's sufficient flow or not.
MR. ANGIER: 'Thank you.
The-second part of my question is'--'and this is somewhat--bothersome toeme.
After only eight months plus or minus of operation after i
operation at 90 percent power since the completion of the 1995 sleeving operation claimed, as Bill said, by Charlie Frizzle to be a life of the plant repair, why
'does Maine Yankee assume repairs to the steam generators l
1 will be necessary?
How long have they held these l
assumptions, and what-does that say about the overall
)
state of the steam generators which are already among l
i the-most degraded and retrofitted generators in the t
world.
And I would say they are the most retrofitted generators in the world.
There's not much doubt about l
that.
These questions become even more relevant in the l
light of the fact that Maine Yankee does not have and I
never has had an NRC approved model in effect for a small break loss of coolant accident whether it's at l
j 2400 or 2700.
Maine Yankee does not comply with post Three Mile Island criteria at 2400 or 2700 megawatts --
l 2440 or 2700 megawatts.
And if -- if they do, I would THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell l
4
44
('
like to see some proof of it.
i
(
MR. HEHL:- Well, I think we've already addressed the small break LOCA previously.-
.I think we indicated there was an analysis that was-done.
+
MR. ANGIER:
But that's a pre-Three Mile Island-analysis.
'MR.
HEHL:
And that analysis --
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Well, it's the same thing that we've already --
1 MR. ANGIER:
As far as I know, it doesn't matter whether it's a 2440 or a 2700.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
And if you look at what was 4
("]
required by the staff in new reg.0737;both 2K330 and'31,
\\j i
you should be aware that the industry as a whole
. literally took through the 1980's and early into the 1990's to come into conformance with both 2K330, the l
generic aspects, and 2K331, the specific aspects.
This licensee implemented what they thought was their approved 2K330 and 331 method in Cycle 14 which took place in the 1994 time frame.
So up until that point in time, they had been relying upon codes that had been found acceptable by the staff.
1 MR. ANGIER:
I appreciate your time.
Let me just reiterate though, what is it about the Maine Yankee
{}
design that leads to findings that the regulations THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
45'-
associated with Three Mile Island action' items 2K330 and 2K331 are superfluous or otherwise need not be complied with at 2440 megawatts for --'but not'at 2700?
.I.mean, I don't -- there:doesn't seem to be a clear explanation.
MR.'DORMAN: 'The~ order required them to provide a small' break LOCA evaluation model which is 2K330 and 31.
They've provided one, and that's under staff review.
But the basis for the operation at 2440 as stated in the order is that the pre-TMI small break LOCA analysis for 2440 has sufficient margin from the peak flying temperature from the large break LOCA analysis that covers the uncertainties for'not. addressing the~
issues associated with TMI..
So that margin covering the uncertainty provides confidence that for operation of 2440, that large break LOCA analysis is binding.
MR. ANGIER:
But that sounds like an assumption.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
That's analysis 'of the large break LOCA and analysis of the small break LOCA.
And you'll find the small break LOCA results are in the order of 1350 degrees PCT; and'the large break LOCA are in the order of 2,000, quite a substantial difference.
MR. ANGIER: :Thank you for your time.
MR. HEHL:
Nigel Calden.
l MR. CALDEN:
Nigel Calden, also from Alni.
My THE REPORTING GROUP
. Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
l 46
("}
family and I moved into this area five years ago.
We
- V did so with the knowledge that there was a nuclear power plant down the road, and we did so-without any qualms o
whatsoever.
Since that time-the plant has taken a hammering.
Public confidence is at an all-time low,-.snd the regulators are also taking a hammering.
But I'm somewhat more optimistic than some of the other speakers.
I believe what's going on here tonight i
is part of a process that is working in a clumsy sort of way.
And if we look at the last couple of years, we see that the NRC has implemented its ISAT investigation team.
They've put Maine Yankee on the watch list.
They've fired Ed Trottier for collusion with Maine
)
Yankee management.
We've got this meeting here tonight, and there are people at least listening to us for a
]
l change.
So I think there is some sort of movement j
here.
And as we've heard, the NRC is self-critical as well which is a substantial change from a couple of years ago.
So there is progress here, but it is clumsy and it's erratic, i
And I'd like to take this a step further in light of some of the comments that the chairperson opened the meeting with.
And I qucte, you said that the process --
the restart process is designed to provide a level of
)
confidence such that Maine Yankee can be allowed to (O
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
47 restart.
)
I want to address those competence issues because I'm not technically qualified.to. deal with those other issues.
But the confidence issue is what I'm concerned
[
with and one I think the public.is concerned.with.
l If we go back to the :ISAT. report,. the LISAT -t sam only looked at I think four of the systems in Maine L
Yankee.
And then they only looked at -- they didn't
-look at those systems completely.
They took vertical 4
slices I think was one of the terms used.
So in other words, they did a partial review of selective systems at Maine Yankee, the idea being, as I understand it, that I
the methodology was such that by'doing these partialt
)
reviews of a few systems, they could get a picture of the plant as-a whole and draw conclusions of the plant as a whole.
MR. HEHL:
Let me stop you right there and just comment real quickly on that.
The process that we go through in an inspection is that we certainly expect the licensee to -- to have these systems built -- designed, built and constructed and operating consistent with what the design is supposed to be.
And we look at the process all the way along.
But the vertical slice type of activity is -- is
'T really to challenge the system.
We look at the specific (b
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
48 system; and we look all the way from the original design through the operation, the. testing,.how it's. maintained, i
-procedures-associated'with.all of:that aspect but not so j
i I
'that -- you know, we're not drawing necessarily an inference that because of the four, systems we looked at and'if we'didn't find problemo Vith-the four systems that we had an inference that all of them were -- I 1
mean, you could draw some of that; but we're really looking to identify where are the weaknesses and where are the vulnerabilities that exist.
And then we'll turn those over and expect the licensee to go the rest of the l
way and look at the rest of the systems.
And then we'll come back and look and see=how well they did their job.
But that's the process.
MR. CALDEN:
And that's the issue I want to address because had you in those inspections that you've performed given the plant a clean bill of health, from my perspective, I think I would have found that adequate to extrapolate from that and say that the plant has a clean bill of health.
But you didn't.
You turned up numerous problems,.some of them quite serious,;manym areas in which the plant violated its licensing basis.
So I think-it's bad to draw the other extrapolation from that, that if you subjected the rest of the systems in the plant to the same kind of scrutiny, you would show THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
49 up a whole series of more problems.
And you've just said that-you're-basically relying-on the licensee to go from those systems'through the rest of plant and do-
'their work.
And from my perspective and I think from the perspec' dve of any other people in the public,
' that's
- certainly riot adequate.
This< licensee does not have the' history and the track record that would justify that level of confidence in the way they're going to do those investigations.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
As the licensee stated in their December 10th response to ISAT, it was their intention to move forward doing a limited vertical slice to the remainder of the systems.
They have done that.
We.are inspecting that which the licensee has completed.
They intend to go on with even more< inspections, greater depth, more detail.
After they're done, we'll follow that up with our own inspections.
MR. CALDEN:
But, sir, there's a big difference between their doing it and you judging their results and you doing it, from my perspective and I think from the public's perspective.
There is a very big difference.
MR. HEHL:
And I understand that.
But the reality of the situation is we-can't go in-there and review-every system.
We'-- we have to rely to a certain extent
/~N on the licensee's process.
And that's part of this THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell i
50
("'}
restart plan.
It's a method of us regaining confidence
-Q) i in some of their programs and processes that they.put in place to identify and. resolve deficiencies.
And that's part of what we're going.to be looking at.
We have a whole list of items that are restart, you know, criteria and restart work the licensee has identified.
As we said coming in here, we're going to come in with our own plan to monitor and to go in and challenge their system and see how robust it is, to see how well it finds problems and resolves them.
And if it doesn't, then they're not going to start up.
You know, we have to have confidence that not only that they -- you know, that they fix the problems that were already identified.
We have to have confidence that they can --
they can have an active program that can find additional problems and resolve them.
You know, these are complex facilities, very complex facilities.
They're run by a lot of people.
You know, and -- and there are going to be errors made in the performance of people.
There's going to be errors made in the performance of equipment.
We feel, you know, and we have reasonable assurance when we license these facilities that they're designed such that there's enough defense in depth to accommodate those errors that occur.
But we also rely very heavily on the THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
51 owner of the plant, the licensee, to maintain that facility.
And in this case, there's been some problems there.
But the reality-is that -- that, you know -.and you can certainly -- you can certainly make your case to Congress.* Make your case--- you know,~ I'd love to have, you know, 10 times the resources I have so that I could come in here and do 100 percent review of everything in the plant.
But I don't.
I can't.
MR. CALDEN:
But you understand what I'm saying.
You've just told us that you've got to re-establish your confidence in the plant and in the way they run it.
()
MR. HEHL:
Absolutely.
V MR. CALDEN:
But equally you're public servants.
We've got to re-establish our confidence in the NRC; and we're looking at an extremely spotty record here over the last 20 years, in fact, and some uncertainty on our part that this is a real change of response or is this just a temporary little thing until the plant is up and running again and then these things can be shoveled under the carpet once again.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
There were a few data points that came up in our meeting this afternoon.
I don't know if you had an opportunity to attend or not.
The licensee has implemented what we call a low threshold /high volume THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
52 l
(
reporting system in which they've encouraged everybody
(~r, that works for the company and their contractors to use a certain computer program to enter any type <of safety And they reflected that-I think the number,in i
' concern.
that inventory > has grown'.to over 1800 items :with the-
. projection that it'will continue to grow.
That's -.
that's some evidence that the licensee is taking much to heart that came from the ISAT itself, that came from some of the things that you've just articulated associated with being placed on the watch list and under very close scrutiny by the folks here at this table and many of the inspection teams that we will have at the i
site.
It's an integrated activity in which we're looking for any comments that you may have with respect to the licensee's plan of attack.
Is it -- is it from your view the type of plan that you would expect this licensee to provide us; or are there things that we should be looking at that from your perspective we have missed?
And give us the benefit of your insights to the facility that when we do issue our plan that we'll l
inspect against, you'll know it's our plan; and we'll share it with you.
MR. CALDEN:
Well, clearly we cannot have that sort of input.
We don't have the technical skills or the
~'\\
expertise.
We are relying on the NRC.
. (O THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
i 1
53 l
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Well,.much of it is quite readable and it does not get into a lot of technical issues.,It-
'goes-gets much'more into' process and programs.
So you r
may-find that-it's somewhat enlightening that-the a
licensee has at least established as game plan.to,get<
after their own-health.
i MR. CALDEN:
Okay.
Well, I thank you for your I
efforts.
MR. HEHL:
Thank you.
MR. CALDEN:
I hope they continue in a fairly
+
l vigorous fashion.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
The burden is on the licensee; you're right.
MR.'CALDEN:
I think from the public's point of, view the burden is on the NRC.
MR. HEHL:
I fully agree with that.
We are certainly under the burden.
But I'll tell you what, I think we have -- we have, I think, some of our best 5
people working on the issues at.this plant; and we're
. going to get to the bottom of the issues.
And -- and the reality is that the plant is not going anywherer 3
until we have the confidence that it can be safely done.
MR. CALDEN:
Thank you.
MR. HEHL:
Mr. Brack, or H.
G.
Brack.
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
- ~. -
54 i
MR. BRACK:
I have a couple of quick questions here on the restart.
In terms of the> steam generator 1
inspections, my understanding is Mr. Douglas Whittier fs going to be the outside contractor supervising that." Is
(
that correct?
Did I hear.that in the news _ someplace?
MR.'HEHL:
I-have no idea.
MR. DORMAN:
I guess it's not my understanding he's an outside contractor.
MR. BRACK:
Didn't he just -- a little musical chairs here -- change a position?
He's no longer with t
the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company.
I MR. DORMAN:
I guess I can't speak to that for certain, but my understanding was he is still a Maine Yankee employee.
MR. BRACK:
But anyway he's involved with the steam generator?
MR. HEHL:
We do our own -- we do our own review.
They certainly can hire anybody they want to do the --
MR. BRACK:
Because I'm somewhat bothered by the fact that he was involved with Ed in terms of soliciting and receiving the office of Investigation report that was a part of the Department of Justice investigation.
And I~certainly would kind of worry about his being involved in terms of here is a person that -- with much involvement in the controversies that are under THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
l 55 investigation being involved in the steam generator inspection.
And that is certainly a controversial area there.
I'd like to just ask you in-terms-of the steam.
generator inspection,-in terms.of.the.. thickness, when you get up'into-the area-of the drill. plates and.the horizontal -- the upper horizontals which are areas that are most susceptible to corrosion damage and that sort of thing, you know, what's the thickness, what's the degree of -- can you tell us what the degree of corrosion is before you say that this steam generator is not safe to return to service?
Any idea on that?
MR. HEHL:
Well, there's an established criteria r')
\\)
for through-wall percentages.
JMR. DORMAN:
I think the -- I can't recall if it's specifically in Maine's tech spec.
But typically the tech specs require that if through-wall thickness is degraded by 40 percent or more, that the tube has to be plugged or the repair -- the degradation --
MR. HEHL:
And that criteria is developed based on testing that's done with those type of --
of -- whatever the condition exists.
Those tubes are subjected to first testing and have to demonstrate a certain robustness in being able to withstand any, you
/~'g know,' anticipated transient pressures even with that
%J THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
56 degraded condition.
So that -- that's the basis of the criteria.
MR. BRACK:
But I think I'd like to make the general observation that I.believe~the steam generators are the Achilles heel.here of the restart.
When you.
have had.60 percent,of-your: tubes showing degradation and cracking, circumferential cracking at the tube base,
{
and then you return this piece of equipment to service and you have these upper plates that are nonamenable to repair, I think that's a pretty controversial subject area.
I'm definitely uncomfortable with that return.of this steam generator to, as the flyer at the front of the building there said, without being replaced.
I think that's a very controversial move here to do this repair and now again to return this same degraded piece of equipment to use again.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
The agency just simply doesn't want to get into hypotheticals.
We need to see the licensee j
go in and inspect.
And the results of the inspection will dictate the course of action to be taken by the licensee and then by the regulator.
j MR. BRACK:
But it= strikes me in terms of the i
i comments tonight in general, I think everyone here would be quite surprised if you didn't return to service.
So r
I think there is a sense of we will soon --
s-THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
57 l
MR. HEHL:
Listen, there is no -- there is no predisposition'for returning this unit.
I mean, they're f
going to have to -- they're going to have to
' ' demonstrate,-you know,'that<they-can meet the.
requirements.
You know,-if you're'getting an. idea that --
r MR. BRACK:
Okay.
Well, let me just get on to my i
next question.
I'll accept that as far as you've stated that; and you've made that clear, that that component --
i where you stand on that.
Another question here in terms of the -- the restart readiness report, one thing that bothered me, and that was in Section 3 or S3, and that is the grid to rod fretting in the fuel assemblies.
And I have a question about that.
I i
First of all -- and Uldis isn't here. tonight, and I I
don't see anybody from the licensee that could answer i
this.
But in terms of this being Westinghouse fuel that j
is suffering the grid to rod fretting, is it old Westinghouse fuel assemblies and not some of the other fuel assemblies?
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Yes, you're correct.
It is only Westinghouse.
MR. BRACK:
In other words, there is no grid to rod fretting with any of the other --
[
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
.=- -
58 MR. HEHL:
Old or new.
MR. BRACK:
-- in ar;y or the existing --' in other words, what's-going to now be coming up here -- is another process.
This is a new. issue.for me as I: read your" reports, and I: haven't run across this grid to rod fretting before.
In terms of specifically what was causing the leakage in the fuel assembly and to realize that you have such a severe problem with this, this is a whole other safety issue here, and I'm concerned.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Do you understand what the licensee is doing to address that issue?
MR. BRACK:
Well, you're removing the fuel; and
(
this is a pretty expensive little accident we've had-here.
In terms of when you add up the costs of the old fuel, the costs of the new fuel, the costs of disposing of the old fuel, it is quite high.
So I understand that some of it is being replaced.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
And the licensee I'm sure is working with Westinghouse to secure additional fuel, and I understand that fuel can come on site in the June time i
frame.
And whatever contractual arrangements the two parties have --
MR. BRACK:
We'll find out who pays later.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
In fact, someone earlier mentioned O(T the meeting before the state legislature on February THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lc khart Hagopian & Ramsdell j
i
l 59 14th.
This issue was raised by the subcommittee.
And i
Mr. Flanagan-referred to certain contractual s
arrangements that do exist in which.there is some arrangement.
The: agency does.not have the details of the meeting.
MR. BRACK:
Do<you have any feeling yourself in terms of the difference between let's say a new facility l
and an aging facility such as Maine Yankee in terms of vibrations?
Is this something one would expect --
MR. HEHL:
Our understanding of the fuel failure mechanism really had nothing to do with whether it was in Maine Yankee or any other plant.
It was a problem with the design of the=-- the eggcrate supports.around these fuel elements.
' MR. BRACK:
So wherever Westinghouse fuel is, it may be susceptible to this.
MR. HEHL:
Exactly.
It needs to be addressed, and it's being addressed.
Our concern in that matter is with regard to the integrity of the fuel rods in inferring that --
MR. BRACK:
That it won't happen again?
And then I~have another question here in terms of the March 13th 9614 inspection.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:- I'm not sure -- you're -- you said i
it won't happen again.
I'm sure that the licensee and
)
i i
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell 1
l 60 f
Westinghouse are attempting to resolve this issue.
But v
to predict the future as to whether it will or will'not, one would expect that this issue:would be addressed.
But I can't -- I can't sit here in front of you and just l
attest that it's -- it's not goingxto happen.
MR. HEHL:
But the issue of fuel. rod leakage is not a new issue, and it's not unique to --
MR. BRACK:
Sure.
You've had extensive problems with that in the earlier days of the operation of the L
plant.
j MR. HC in:
But that's why we put limits on the activity level of the coolant, to limit that amount.
And when it gets to a certain limit, the licensee has to j
take measures to reduce it either by eliminating the fuel that's leaking or --
MR. BRACK:
I'm aware of that.
Anyway, it's certainly a disturbing issue here on top of all the other controversial safety issues.
Anyway, I have another question on the 9614.
In the 9614 -- the inspection report is March 17th, I believe -- they discuss the incident last year with the -- the discrete particle of-fission product-that was discovered in the chair.
And I was familiar with that, but I had never seen the radiological incident report
('%g that pertained to that.
And I see they gave us the
\\~/
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
61 inventory in that section of the inspection report.
And we have 218,000 micro-curies in'the chair, and I-was, quite surprised when I saw that.
And I would like tu) point'out to you gentlemen-here tonight that that had a major 3.3 years,'1996,rbrings you back to 1993.
And.
referring to State of' Maine Nuclear Safety Report tx) the 117th State Legislature by Uldis, who is not here tonight, on Page 11, he gives the -- the liquid --
release of liquid and fission -- liquid and fission activation products for 1993 as only 180,000 I
micro-curies.
And that means there was more radioactivity in that chair than you released -- or Maine Yankee released in the same year that it originated from -- from the reactor.
And I would just like to make a point here; and this raises another area, another issue, that I think is very important here in terms of your radiological surveys of what's going on in and around the plant.
This particle in the chair is definitely not included in your release inventory for that year.
It exceeds the total release inventory.
MR. HEHL:
Yes.
I don't know the numbers involved.
We weren't prepared to --
MR. BRACK:
Well, the numbers are kind of important here.
THE REPORTING GROdP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
62 l
MR. HEHL:
That's fine.
Let me finish.
I gave you
'}
the opportunity'to finish.
In fact, this week we are in 1
fact inspecting.
We do that-on a regular basis.
We inspect the radiologic controls of this facility.
And you're absolutely right.
A few years back there were significant problems-in-the' radiologic control area =that we fined the licensea for, and there were a number of issues involved.
I don't know what the numbers are there.
And we can certainly give you some information with regard to that.
r MR. BRACK:
Well, the information is in fact right here in 96-14.
And I think it's interesting because'it certainly makes it obvious that in terms of the reporting by the licensee, you're not picking up all the pathways here for emissions by the plant.
You know, you have your' liquid pathways; and you have your gaseous pathway.
The chair pathway is a new pathway.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
I would at least debate that -- I'm not real familiar with the issue.
I think you have overstated to some extent the s".;nificance of this particular particle of the chair.
MR. HEHL:
In any case, the chair never left the site; so it's'not a release factor.
In any case -- and I think your time is probably up.
If you have
(}
additional questions --
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
63 MR. BRACK:
I'd just like to make the observation that in terms of all your radiological incident. reports, 1
.I think they shed light on.the.situat on plan.
These-i reports.are not available'forsthe.most part.
As you know --
i MR. HEHL:.All of our inspection reports-are 1
i available in the public document area.
MR. BRACK:
Not your radiological inspection reports.
~
MR. HEHL:
The radiological inspection reports are in the --
MR. DORMAN:
I think Mr. Brack is referring to the licensee's radiological-incident report, which we don't have those.
MR. BRACK:
Well, anyway, the charge to obtain eight of them from the NRC was $500.
So you do have 4
them in your possession.
MR. IIEHL:
We don't normally keep -- I'm not sure what you're referring to.
If you're talking about the licensee's incident reports --
i MR. BRACK:
I'm talking about the ones that are referenced right here in your inspection report.
In other words, this RIR, the number being you give us 96-14.
That's not a number from the tooth fairy.
That's an NRC number, isn't it?
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
64 MR. YEROKUN:
Let me try to clarify that question
[
\\~-.
on the RIR.
Those documents are licensed documents.
We do have access to review those documents during the.
inspection process.' The numbers on-the -- that back up i
'those documents, we-use'those during our inspection
' process; and we do write in'our inspection reports assessments of the situations described in these RIR's.
We don't have the RIR's for public -- available for public view because they are not our documents although we do have access to those documents during our inspection process.
MR. BRACK:
Okay.
You have access, but I don't have access.
And I'm looking for the information in
(lT them that's very controversial.
MR. YEROKUN:
There are lots of documents that the licensee has that we have access to during our j
inspection process that we don't --
MR. BRACK:
That do not end up in the document area.
l MR. YEROKUN:
Absolutely.
And with respect to inspection reports, the background information that's obtained during the inspection process and information that's from the RIR's are published in the reports.
MR. BRACK:
What you're saying is -- we've been b(N through this before, but the issue is not really THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell l
0
65 l
resolved because of the content of those RIR's which
]
, ('%)
\\_/
tells a lot about Maine Yankee and what is going on.-
And this 3sn't an issue that's. going to go away.
MR. CONTE: -Thank you for'your comment.
MR. BRACK:
Thank you for the time.
MR. HEHL:
Mr. Hall, David Hall.
MR. HALL:
I'm David Hall from West Bath.
I think an important element in a Maine Yankee restart is adequate NRC oversight to make sure Maine Yankee is safe to operate.
And I'm hopeful that the NRC is changing its ways and will do the job it should.
In the past I had heard that the NRC was more interested in promoting nuclear power than in protecting the public.
Then that was confirmed to me at'a public hearing at the Wiscasset
-Middle School a few years after Three Mile Island.
The 3
NRC was at one table on the stage, and Maine Yankee was at another table on the stage.
They appeared to be l
having a love feast between them while the common enemy was the public.
This is a fair number of years ago.
Not so very long ago, whistle-blowers in the nuclear power industry were feeding'information to an individual who-was feeding.thiscinformation to the public.
The NRC hauled this individual into court in order to find out who these whistle-blowers were so that j7'T they could be punished for spilling the beans.
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
66 A few years ago I attended a meeting of citizen monitoring groups.
At that meeting there was a man who had been high up in the nuclear power industry and was still friends with high-ups-in the industry.
He felt that the NRC was failing to protect the public safety.
He was' hoping that concerned citizens and the nuclear power industry could work together to develop safety i
standards since the NRC was failing to do its job.
In certain circles the NRC was taken to mean nobody really i
cares.
The fact that the NRC has taken the current Maine 4
Yankee whistle-blower seriously and is looking at additional problems at Maine Yankee is an indication to me that the NRC is changing its ways.
It makes me hopeful that the NRC will protect the public after all.
So I'm quite hopeful at this point that things are changing.
I would also, just to add a thing, that I'll be interested to hear and find out what happens, is I'll be very interested to see what happens in regard to the inspection of the steam generators because I've received from a reasonably decent source that the company that developed the sleeving process has determined that it does not work.
And so I'll be interested to see when
(~'\\
they check things out if that bears out what I've been THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
67
(
told.
MR. HEHL:
Thank you for your comments.
Abbot Fletcher.
MR. FLETCHER:
I'm Abbot. Fletcher from Bath, Maine.
And I'd just like to make a few comments in.a little different tone.' of -the~available major power <
v sources, pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors like Maine Yankee, have far and away the less -- least impact and the least public health impact of -- of, as I say, of major viable sources, basically i
fossil fuels.
There's not much more water power left in Maine.
So we're talking a -- a low environmental and a low public health impact and by a whopping margin.
The industry throughout the world of this type of reactor, there are over 400 plants with over 8,000 operating years of experience, very scrutinized; and they have a very safe record.
And the same is true in this country.
And to say people aren't doing their job is not wholly correct.
You have to put it in overall perspective.
Nuclear power plants are being built in other parts of the world, and here is a technology that started in this country; and J.'d like to see it stay in this country.
As I say, it -- it is a -- a way of generating electricity with a much lower public health l
{}
and -- and environmental impact than our other available THE RFPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
68 i
sources.
4 1
Maine Yankee has been very-good for Maine.
Maine is a state in this country which is high on the tax 3
scale and is low on the family income scale.
And Maine Yankee with its low cost-electricity.has mitigated some of these poor standings of. Maine in the national i
economy.
Maine Yankee's being down has already hurt i
Maine economically.
And we read about some of the i
impacts in other parts of the state.
It's ironic that the arguments that you have here today and I've heard for the last 20 years go all over the lot.
They go up i
and down and around in circles and everything else when t
!f"'N people don't stand back and -- and take a good look at what Maine Yankee has done and what we hope it will do.
l What we want to do is -- is keep our money in Maine producing electricity and not sending it out of Maine.
1 This country imports over half of its oil; and if we don't have Maine Yankee, why, we're going to import more oil and we're going to burn more coal.
So we wish Maine Yankee and we wish the NRC success in this whole process, and get Maine-Yankee back on.the line if everything works out okay, and get all the advantages that go with it, low cost power, low environmental and low public health impact.
/~h Thank you.
D THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
69 4
MR. HEHL:
Edward Myers.
MR.
E. MYERS:
Edward Myers from South Bristol.
l I'm only very, very distantly related to Henry Myers; but I -- I may be just as. dangerous.
My first question relates to that gentleman called Blanch.
I thought he was a wild-eyed whistle-blower and ought to go to a psychiatrist, as we usually send them.
And then I met him, and he's quite calm and extremely intelligent and very analytical.
And he was not allowed, as we understand it, to speak at the Rockville meeting of February 9th.
A number of us in this county called Tom Allen, our new Congressman,-and Olympia Snowe, and who is the third Congressman?
Oh, yes, John Baldacci of Bangor.
All called the NRC, and they were assured that Mr. Blanch would be allowed to speak.
Mr. Blanch was not allowed to speak.
And this sounds a lot more abrasive than it is.
The NRC is a creature of Congress.
Did you, in fact, lie to Congress in the form of the Maine Congressional delegation?
Yes or no?
MR. HEHL:
I guess with regard to Paul' Blanch and his speaking permission, I know that there is a response that's being developed on that point.
i MR. ZWOLINSKI:
When -- when our Commission is petitioned to have an individual speak before it, one, THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
l 70 1
the Commission has to, followi'ag its own rules, ask itself -- in this particular ins,tance they invited the utility to speak as well as the staff.
They had to ask,
~
in light of certain~ petitions-that were coming before the agency, could certain individuals speak.
The Commission directed the secretary's office to allow-certain members of the public to speak.
And I'm not sure I know all the reasons, but a Mr. Shadis that lives here in Maine, a Mr. Linnell who lives here in Maine, a Mr. Connors that is a resident of Maine, were all allowed to speak.
And then a gentleman by the name of David Lochbaum, representing the Union of Concerned Scientists -- this is the association that initially.
brought forward the allegation which: led to the order I've referred to a couple of times in January of '96 --
was invited to participate.
And I -- from my vantage point, it appears that the sacretary's office was prejudicial towards residents from the State of Maine or individuals that had a vested interest directly.
And I think that -- that that's how Mr. Lochbaum was included.
But absent a discuscion with the secretary, it seems to me that that was the rationale that was probably applied.
MR. DORMAN:
I think one other consideration that went into that is -- was they icoked at the issues that THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
71 people were raising in their requests to speak and
("))
q assessed that some of the speakers that did speak were raising issues similar to Mr. Blanch's.
MR.
E. MYERS:
I think the question has been answered.
This still does not speak to the fact that the Nuclear Regulatory ~ Commission told three members of Congress that Mr. Blanch would be allowed to speak.
But let's move on to -- I do have three questions on the startup plan.
First, Mr. Sellman in his presentation on March i
lith, part of the printed program listed what he entitled as seven timeless principles:
Practice
()
ownership, improve staff confidence, equipment, complete
(/
outages technically accurate, operate conservatively-and practice self-critical behavior.
I am a columnist for the Island Institute's newspaper, "The Working Waterfront."
We discussed this at our staff level, decided that these were not principles but minimum common sense, and that when any of us set foot in a work boat, we look -- we could look at those seven as minimally common sense.
Does the pressure alarm ring when we turn up the heat?
Is the bilge pump working?
Is the water coming out of the exhaust?
Is the bilge empty?
Is there not oil there?
This is simply common
(]
sense.
V THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
72 Where do you go from there is the question that I ask, and it concerns me.
I'm -- I -- as I've put it, I guess it sounds rhetorical; but the March 11th meeting did not inspire confidence in the lay public.
And a second part of that question, Mr. Sellman-
-also at the March lith meeting said that he was going to make every effort -- and I honor that -
to be ready to start up on -- in mid July.
Mr. Meisner, the record will show, said about five minutes later that there are 22 safety systems which require an in-depth evaluation which he hopes to complete by the end of December 1998.
This -- this I found simply appalling, that people with the aplomb and expertise of you people sitting there plus the public had to listen to a plan to open in July when 22 safety systems by the report of the vice president of Maine Yankee Atomic were not going to be inspected fully for another 18 months.
MR. HEHL:
Well, I guess, you know, we'll certainly be looking at -- at that aspect of the plan.
"he March lith meeting was -- was a meeting to di.; cuss enforcement issues; and it. looked at issues that occurred over a long period of time.
It certainly was a day, I think, of reckoning for past performance problems.
MR.
E. MYERS:
Sir, I'm 80 years old, and I did not bring my hearing aid.
I did bring it to the March 11 THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
73 meeting, and I heard very clearly Mr. Sellman and Mr.
)
Meisner; but I cannot hear you.
I'm sorry.
MR. HEHL:
Let me speak closer.
The March lith
" meeting was-an.enforcementvconference.
It certainly
- with a forum for'us to ---to I guess take reckoning of the issues that-have occurred over a period of-time.
And I agree with you, that was certainly a meeting where a number of issues were discussed that were not -- not very flattering to the past performance of Maine Yankee.
We are going to be evaluating, certainly, the scope of their restart plans.
There are some clarifications with regard to what is intended with the 22 system reviews.
Part of that is included in the plan.
And I would -- I would encourage you to take a look at that.
s They're really kind of different issues. 'They're apples and oranges to a certain extent with regard to the issues associated with systems where there are problems and the broader reviews that we're doing across a lot of plants in that these are reviews that are being done in responee to' requests that went across.
There were a number of plants.
It's-not a reflection that -
that those systems are not capable of performing their functions; but it is a plan to go out to methodically
)
walk through these systems and -- and address whatever THE REPORTING GROUP i
Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
74 issues come out of those.
l MR. ZWOLINSKI:
I would ask.-you to look really'at
~
one page of the licensee's restart plan.
This is Page i
' Attachment ~3-1.
hit's the4 Restart Work' Criteria-on-their j
j safety screening ~and.the regulatory requirement screening.
And - -and note how -- or at-least what these words are saying.
We're going to be inspecting these systems; but note how the licensee is trying to-i
~
address the systems in totality as far as repetitive l
I 1
failure, equipment problems, reductions in margins, so on and so forth.
Many of the very issues that you're alluding to right now the licensee will be addressing to some extent.
Will the licensee have-addressed every issue on every system to-the nth degree?
They haven't t
sponsored that to us.
What:they're saying is there.is a certain threshold that they will meet, and that's what we're assessing against.
It goes far beyond the regulatory requirements for this facility.
I MR.
E. MYERS:
That is within the time frame of the I
startup?
MR. DORMAN:
I: guess I-would> point your attention
[
t to two other parts of the plan.
One is Section 8 on
-restart readiness assessments, and on Page 20 it talks to the plant system readiness assessments.
But what I
)
wanted to' point to is a listing in Attachment 6 of over THE REPORTING GROUP Fason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
75 20 systems, that they will be system ready in assessment before restart.
We're going to have to go through and look at the' adequacy of those system readiness assessments;'but by their plan-they're going to be addressing those to the criteria of safety regulatory compliance-that John mentioned.
MR.
E. MYERS:
Thank you, but I beseech you to look at the record of the March 11 meeting.
MR. DORMAN:
Yes.
I will go back and look at that.
I guess my recollection without looking at i
the --'at the transcript would be that that -- that that 1998 target goes to documentation isst.es.
But I will go back and look at that.
O MR. HEHL:
Well, we're not here to defend the plan. -We're going to have to evaluate it and make our decisions on it.
MR.
E. MYERS:
The record will show that comment was made to a lay person five and three-quarter miles east-southeast -- that's nautical miles -- from the plant.
A statement like that is quite unnerving because the end of December 1998 is'18 months.
Now, my final-question, sir -- and I'm not being sarcastic, I'm really being quite concerned -- the NRC budget was initially based on a goal of 1000 nuclear
/^T plants by the year 2000.
The budget, if I remember U
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
I 76 i
(-
rightly, in achieving that goal was $500 million a
\\
year.
There are now 109 plants in operation or just a fraction of a percent over 10 percent of what the announced goal.was.- You have made several references this evening.to strained resources.
It would seem to me that your resources per plant have been approximately multiplied by 10 in the two decades of the $500 million budget and the decline and occasional fall of the nuclear industry.
MR. HEHL:
Yes.
I appreciate your comment.
That's -- certainly we're in the process -- all of us have to belt tighten.
We're doing the same thing in.the federal government, tightening belts.
And we've O;
downsized this agency along with other agencies.
I apologize again.
I -- we have downsized this agency, no doubt about it.
And I appreciate your -- your observation.
That's interesting.
I wasn't aware that we were funded for 1000 plants, you know, $500 million.
And, you know, under Atoms for Peace, electricity was going to be too cheap to meter, too.
So those projections I guess went hand in hand.
The only reason I bring up resources is just you have to recognize that the NRC was never designed to be a 100 percent check everything that the licensee does.
'"}
You know, we license these plants by looking at the J
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
77 1
)
organization's -- not only the plant and how it's built but is the organization structured and with the people with the appropriate qualifications,to -- to run the 1
i plants well.t And when~we'findrthey' don't, youcknow, we i
go out'and we>-- we shut.them.down.. We hammer them;with civil penalty actions.
If it's -- if it's. wrongdoing on the part of an individual that's criminal, we criminally i
prosecute people.
You know, we try to use the tools we-have at hand, f
But I'm just trying to point out that if the l
expectation is that the NRC is going to come out andedo a -- you know, a top-to-bottom 100 percent review of j
l
)
each plant, we can't.
We-just can't.
We can go out, and we can do I think a very f
' thorough-and reasonable job.that will provide, I think, the assurance and confidence that this plant can be restarted safely -- can be restarted safely.
There j
j ain't no guarantees.
Okay?
We're going to have to look i
at the plan.
We'll take your comments.
We'll 1
incorporate that in, and we'll design an inspection plan J
4 which we will share with you.,Okay?
We'll make it publL:ly available.- That's fine.
And then we'llsbe back out here again to talk some more as we get closer' to a time when things are -- are progressing along.
And
(}
if they're getting close to restart, we'll-be back.
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
78
/~}
MR.
E. MYERS:
Thank you very much for your G'
patience and fairness.
MR. HEHL:
Okay.
We're drawing to the end of our two hours, but I would certainly open the floor for a period of time.
MR. H. MYERS:
Can I ask a question here?
MR. HEHL:
Yes.
We'll open it for another 20 minutes or so for some questions.
MR.
H. MYERS:
Have you identified documents that demonstrate resolution of cable problems identified by Atherton and then adjusted subsequent NRC documents?
It's my understanding the documents dated subsequent to
(~3 Atherton's notes describe or address problems along the L) lines that Atherton seemed to be discussing.
And then it's not clear though where the documente are that address resolution of those problems that seemed to be raised by Atherton and then raised subsequently in other NRC documents.
MR. DORMAN:
Okay.
I think all I can say at this point is we're reviewing considerable history in this area, and we'll be back in June to talk more about that.
MR. H. MYERS:
So if.I ask you, I think there is an April -- April --
MR. HEHL:
Henry, could I ask you to -- we'll stick
/'T around a few minutes after; but if there is somebody O
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
79 f
else that hasn't had a chance to speak or ask a question,'I'd like to give somebody else the opportunity.
Okay?
Go ahead.
MR. McKEEN:
My name'is Jonathan McKeen.
I'm from Damariscotta.
Do steam generator tubes cost something like $20 million to repair?
Maine Yankee is pledging to spend something like 40 million to take care of all the problems that they have.
We're spending I don't know how much per day for replacement power in the past few years that they've been down.
One of the problems cited by ISAT was economic pressure.
And the decommissioning
~
costs are estimated to-be over $500 million 10 years l
from now, and I think they have 1.4 million saved for that -- I mean 140 million saved.
4 -
Does it make financial sense to reopen; and if so, won't financial pressures and economic pressures that are cited by the ISAT team still be there?
MR. HEHL:
I think it's a fact of life that in the environment that'the electric utilities are -- are going to be operating in-in the future with -- with deregulation, being able to buy your electricity from the lowest cost source, those are all issues that certainly raise concerns with regard to what is going to
[
-THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
l 80
(
be the future impact on these facilities that -- of that activity.
And we are evaluating that currently.
We're 4
looking at -- at'how the companies are structured.
+
We've got a group in our. headquarters-that are looking at certain aspects of that.
But the reality is that what we have to focusaan is how the plant is performing, how it's performing from a safety standpoint.
Is the licensee -- are they providing sufficient resources to maintain the equipment important to safety?
You know, are they providing appropriate resources'both through personnel, plant,.
process standpoint?
That's what we have to look at.
The economics of Maine Yankee you're going to have to -- you know, that's'an issue that you have -- that they'll have to resolve with their -- with their 1
shareholders.
You know, we're going to be focused on performance.
And if the plant can bring their performance to the point where -- where they can restart, then that's going to be their decision from an economic standpoint.
We're going to be focused on the i
safety aspects.
Be mindful, I mean we're not -- we're not unmindful of the pressures that exist because it's not -- it's not isolated to Maine Yankee.
There's a lot of other facilities that certainly experience some of THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
~
i 81' the same pressure and -- and have experienced similar problems to Maine Yankee.
And we're -- we're aggressively pursuing those facilities, also.
But --
I
~
but.our chartersis really focused on the performance.
j MR. MORRILL:- I'd just like to offer a few comments this. evening.
'A. lot of people don't know me..
My.name is Brian Morrill.
I live in Wiscasset and have for seven years.
l I have over 30 years nuclear experience in aircraft carriers, cruisers and submarines.
I want to identify
-that=I have given an objective viewpoint, if you would, to looking at the NRC, to looking at the comments that Maine Yankee has had.
I've; heard them from both sides O
1 of the house.
I want to identify to the general public I
and -- that'the NRC has been more than fair.
They do not compromise on issues.
They look for the technicalities of issues.
They tend to maybe work with i
Maine Yankee.
I hope they do.
I want the issues identified and resolved.
Nobody has all the information about everything.
These gentlemen come with many years of experience. -Maine
)
Yankee has many years of experience.
Both can learn.
The point is to get the issues resolved.
I have two -- two beautiful young grandsons in the area.
I have no qualms about Maine Yankee.
I think THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
r f
82 about a nuclear submarine decision that I made may have
[
put your grandsons'down' aboard.- Is made-sure that.the e
decisions that were'made^were right.
I depended'onethe guy who was doingsthecfluid. systems to-makeithosei a
-decisionsicorrectly.'-eYou can't be -- have all-the _
knc.wledge-about-everything.' The:. thing is to= identify.
the issues-and apply all the knowledge that you can to get the issues resolved.
And I think these gentlemen, l
both at the NRC and Maine Yankee, are doing an excellent job.
Thank you.
EMR. HEHL:
In the back, I' don't know if you had a chance to speak.
MR. SHADIS:
We have a kind of shopping list-here i
of issues that are related, I believe, directly to the
-startup and its ultimate sanctification by NRC.
Speaking for Friends of the Coast, which is a small local organization but we've been involved in the NRC process we've filed one 2.206 petition, have another one on the way.
And we are involved with the Perry Island group, on the Westinghouse case, and other actions throughout New England;and~across the country.
Going to= root causes, which seems to be a. favored terminology,-in the ISAT report one of the root causes
)
of all of the problems at Maine Yankee Atomic seem to be
[
penny pinching.-
We know that the company itself is THE REPORTING GROUP l-Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
83
(}
making plenty of money.
So it's not resource deprivation but rather a choice of where to place those resources.
We are deeply concerned, given1the reputation of the Entergy company as a very ambitious company and one which applied in New York State to run one of their-nukes based on a production incentive, which was one of the sticking points in the contract down there, that that production incentive, that cost-saving incentive may be part of the contract that Entergy has with the -- whatever the shell of the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company is.
And we are precluded, however, from
[}
knowing what that contract looks like.
V My understanding is that Entergy refused to give it to the Utilities Committee of our legislature.
The contract was negotiated and then shared with NRC at a February 12th meeting which was purportedly a public meeting.
However, NRC's understanding of what is public and ours in quite different.
Because of Friends of the Coast's involvement on a number of these issues, we have been placed by order of the executive director of the NRC on the Maine Yankee mailing list.
We received notice on February the 14th that there would be a public meeting on February the
(~h 12th.
The notice we received was dated February the
(. l j
i THE REPORTING GROUP l
Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell l
84 10th and postmarked February the lith.
(
I -- this is the one solid point of criticism that I have for NRC, that a -- this does not constitute a public meeting.
You'cannot have a.public meeting unless you have public: notice.- The. simple fact that the doors are unlocked down in Bethesda, Maryland -- excuse me -- Rockville, Maryland doesn't make it a public meeting.
And, in fact, the doors were locked for half of that meeting.
The half that they were locked during was the so-called proprietary information half of that meeting which is basically when they talked about money.
~N We feel that that is a safety issue.
We feel that if the production incentive and the cost-saving i
incentive is still there, that what we are cruising for 1
is a repetition of the Charles Frizzle style of management which is going to put us short on maintenance, which is going to put us into a situation where we question the safety of the plant again.
I also want to mention that when NRC -- excuse me
-- when Maine Yankee first began operations, Yankee Atomic Electric Company held its license; and they did so until about 1981.- This is questionable because in transcripts of a meeting with NRC, the president of Yankee Atomic Electric and the president of Maine Yankee THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
l 85 disagreed, one following the other, about who actually held the license-at that point..But-when the management
-team was moved,.there was a license amendment.
In fact, whenethe plant manager. changed-his. residence from Massachusetts'to Maine and. changed where he drew his r
paycheck from Yankee Atomic Electric to Maine Yankee, there was a license amendment.
But NRC has changed the rules in the interim where we have an entirely new management team that has come in to give the -- the company an entire new look.
I understand we're putting catfish in the chowder now-around here.
I't's changed.
It's different.
It's a company from 1200 miles away.
And yet.NRC has not required a license amendment.
This is a big problem for us in terms of viewing this whole changeover in safety-related terms.
I wonder -- that's like number one on the list; and I J
wondered if maybe you would care to address that.
MR. HEHL:
What is the question there?
MR. SHADIS:
Okay.
I'm glad to get that on the-record.
I would like to move on to some more technical issues if I may.
MR. HEHL:
Was there a question in there to.
answer?
MR. SHADIS:
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
[)
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
_ =
86 I'm telling you that we have a problem.
And if that
+
doesn't have a question mark at the end of it, then we'll put an exclamation' point'at the end of it.
MR. HEHL: 'No, I mean, it's~just that we certainly ein the> meetings -- you know,-we. attempt to make public, you know, notices on meetings that occur.
We typically try to notice those well ahead of time.
I don't know what happened specifically with regard to this meeting, but certainly the meeting notices are also available from other means aside from getting the written notice.
You can go on the Internet and get all the meeting notices.
You can get all of the information available
/
there.
You can call in and get a summary of the meetings and things.
There are many other ways to do that.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
The staff has analyzed the initial paperwork documentation between Maine Yankee and Entergy and satisfied itself, independently of the utility and I
Entergy, that a license amendment wasn't necessary.
MR. SHADIS:
Yes, sir.
I understand that, but I do understand that it's a complete shift of gears from the previous history of this plant's license and responsibilities being shifted.
So I -- I do want to --
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
The activity that they're taking THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
87
/
here -- Maine Yankee is undertaking with Entergy is no D) different than you would find at many utilities.
MR. SHADIS:
I understand that, also.
And in fact, I understand that-from-the. transcripts of that meeting that some of-that prompting.was4actually there..
But I want to reiterate that when Charlie Frizzle took over management of this company, it required a license amendment, and that is a matter of record, i
So I feel that what a license amendment would have done for us is it would have provided us with the opportunity to open up Entergy's records to the public for public scrutiny.to see what kind of a cat it is that we're getting.
And now what we have is we have a company from away that: proclaims itself to be-a good company,-and they may well be.
But we don't know that, and we don't have access to the information.
4 MR. HEHL:
Before you go on, is there anyone else l
that has a question that would like to -- to get an opportunity before we close?
There are still other people involved.
I think you've had probably the equivalent of five minutes that we gave other people.
MR. SHADIS:
The rest are all technical issues.
I'm sorry I can't share them with you.
h'^\\
MR. HEHL:
You're more than welcome to share them.
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
88
(~^
If you'd like to give them, we'll enter them into the transcript.
SEN. CAREY:
Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, my name is Richard Carey.
I am in the Senate in the State of< Maine, and I chair the legislative Utilities Committee.
Mr. Shadis has been given some misinformation by someone, possibly on the committee, because the committee has never asked for the contract between Entergy and Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company.
As far as the ownership is concerned, the committee is not interested in the change in management.
We would be t
interested in having obviously a new license if there
(-)
was a change in ownership.
Thank you.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Should'there be a change of ownership, obviously Maine Yankee would be required to make application to the agency.
SEN. CAREY:
Exactly.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
That indeed would be thoroughly 1
reviewed, and obviously we would work with the State in coming to closure on an issue such as that.
SEN. CAREY:
Thank you, sir, and I appreciate the opportunity to square that up.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Okay.
()
MR. HEHL:
Anyone else who hasn't had an
\\sI l
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
i 89 opportunity to speak?
Go ahead.
Bill, go ahead.
MR. LINNELL: 'Thank you.
Bill-Linnell.
A quick follow-up question.
I understand that. Maine Yankee.is looking at some sort of electroplating processlLn the. steam tubes; and I -- I just would have a request.
You don't need to explain it now because I don't want to use up all of my time and yours.
But I'm wondering -- I would like to request if you could get some -- I'd like some sort of a
- -sort of a summary of where this process has been used.
And again, I don't expect you to rattle it off
/
the top of your heads but, you know, where it's been-O) used, when, to what extent, just so that we can get an idea that this is a proven technology.
The reason I.ask again is because we were told that the sleeving was a proven technology that would last the life of the plant, and now we're finding that they may not.
So I'd like just a request for that information.
MR. DORMAN:
I can briefly comment on that.
The --
the NRC has not approved this before for any plants lln this country.
It has been used, in my understanding, in Canada; and we are sending some of our people up to Canada to look at the application there.
We're also
' sending them down to -- to the developer of this THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
90
('N procedure, Framatome, to look at their procedures for N ),
inspecting the -- the -- these electric sleeves when they're installed.
And we have a substantial ways to go before we're going to be~ prepared to approve this process if that's where we end up.
MR. LINNELL:
Take your time.
Thank you.
Another quick request.
You know, again I return to this root cause of economic stress.
And, you know, I think that whenever some of these projects are -- Maine Yankee talks about these projects.
I know historically the NRC has focused on, and appropriately, technical issues and so forth, safety issues proper.
But now that
(~N economics has sort of jumped into the safety arena, I
'N,_,
would -- please take this request back to you to Washington.
I would ask that when some of these projects are being contemplated by Maine Yankee, certain repairs, that the NFC simply request cost estimates just
-- just so that some of these things we could start putting in perspective because -- and I think given the impact of economics on safety, that it may be arguably very much in your purview to -- to request that kind of information just so we get an idea of what kind of a --
you know, what kind of an impact it may potentially' have.
And then, of course, we'd like you to share that f]
with the public.
U THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
91 And finally, your answer earlier on the small break LOCA business was that there -- the licensee has some sort of analysis which justifies.that the -- the large pipe break and so forth.
And I'm-just wondering.if we could just request a copy or.an executive summary or something.
I know that I--- I.can't speak for Henry Myers; but I think he would feel a lot better if there was some sort of analysis provided that explained it or justified it or rationalized it or something, and I certainly would feel better, too, if that's possible.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
I can provide you a number of documents that have been generated by the staff that
'S addresses this very issue head on.
MR. LINNELL:
Great, thank you very much.
MR. HEHL:
Five minutes?
MR. H. MYERS:
I'd just like to leave this question for the record about the -- whether there is a document trail that begins with Atherton and ends with a document that describes what was raised by Atherton in subsequent NRC documents.
I'd just like to leave that for the record.
You cannot point to the series of documents i
starting with Atherton tracking through subsequent NRC
)
documents and then back and to Maine Yankee and ending with something that says this issue is closed?
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Mr. Myers, the NRC staff tonight THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
92 committed to you, the public, that ue would come back in May or June and discuss all the issues associated with fire 1 protection,~ concerns raised by Mr. Atherton and other technical issues in a forum something along the lines of this in which-we would make presentations to at least disposition the issues that we're aware of and-the status of issues as the licensee proceeds in the recovery.
MR.
H. MYERS:
Let me just say why I think this is significant.
Namely, Atherton raised issues that subsequent-NRC documents seem to confirm that certain of these questions raised-by Atherton were indeed.real questions.
Then Maine Yankee was asked to do certain things in response to this.
So documents go along in the spring of 1978, and then as far as I know there's 1
nothing subsequent to that that says these issues are closed.
Now, that's just a factual thing.
If the documents are there --
MR. DORMAN:
That's not correct.
There is an inspection report on the fire protection program at Maine Yankee that was issued roughly in January of '85.
I believe the number is Inspection Report 8411.
At the back of that inspection report there's about a two and a half page listing of documents back and forth between the~ licensee and the staff from April of 1978, right THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
i 93 after Mr. Atherton's notes, up until the time of that
)
inspection.- That's a large portion of the documentation that we're -- that we're lookingsat to find the answers
'to just.the question you're --
MR. H. MYERS:
Okay.
'So it's inthose documents?
l MR. DORMAN:
So I think the answer at this. point is
?
we are certainly taking that question and following it.
j MR. HEHL:
And part of the time it takes to do that is.because unfortunately documents that far back don't exist, you know, in our electronic retrieval system.
We
~
have to.go back and search through hard copy records l
that are archived and things, and it just takes time.
MR. H.-MYERS:
But there is a list of documents-that if you. track through those documents you will be i
able to say yes or no or maybe to this, whether or not the Atherton issues were resolved.
i 1
MR. DORMAN:
I think I can commit to yes, no or i
maybe.
4 i
MR.
H. MYERS:
Then let me'say on this question --
on the small break LOCA question which I've -- again, I don't -- I'm not asking for an answer to.this now.
But I have sent many letters.
And what I get back is -- I
-have explained why -- I've explained many times why I thought the -- the' answer provided did not really address my question.
I've gone through this with some i -
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason'Lockhart'Hagopian & Ramsdell i
94 number of other people, some of whom are more amateurish on this than others, some of whom are quite expert on
- this. 'But the-agreement -- there is general agreement that my_ questions have not been answered on that.
'And I suggest a' method of doing that would be to appoint someone on the NRC staff--- I mean, this would at least stop the letters from me -- that I could discuss this with and lay out my concerns and -- and continue to do so until it's -- it gets resolved one way or another or we just agree to disagree because as it stands now, I and the people I consult with do not believe this question has been resolved, the question being that the NRC staff allowed Maine Yankee to operate at 2440 without compliance with the post Three Mile Island-small break LOCA requirements and without having gone through the process that is required by NRC procedures if a plant is to be allowed to operate without -- out of compliance with the safety regulations.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Well, your assertion is absolutely false.
The order is very clear.
I'm sorry that you don't find our answers responsive to the questions that you've posed before the staff.
I'm the gentleman that is responsible for that particular area of working issues as they come across my desk.
And I feel the THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
i 95 issue is perfectly clear.
O(N MR. H. MYERS:
Well, that's -- well, I --
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
And I'm sorry that we've been '
unable to_ effectively-communicate.- We can agree-to disagree.
We can do that, or we can continue to write letters back and forth.
MR. H. MYERS:
No.
This is not -- this one is not I
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
And I'm not defending my own personal position.
I'm defending the position of the agency.
MR.
H. MYERS:
Well, the Commission refuses to even address this.
I hope you could. convey to the Commission something that's quite disconcerting about this whole process.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
The Commission was fully informed of all the activities undertaken by the staff -- the senior staff of the Nuclear Regulatory -- Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation when we were developing the order.
MR. H.-MYERS:
Let me say -- this isn't your fault
-- but I've read the transcripts of Commission meetings on Maine Yankee.
And except for the Chairman, the Commission shows virtually no interest -- the commissioners themselves -- I don't know about their I
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
)
96 r"
staffs.
But I looked at the questions put forth by the
[~ 3
]
commissioners -- I hope you'll convey this to them by way of the transcript.
But I looked at the questions they asked wh; ch i etc very -- basically they were nonquestions except for'the Chairman's.
So~the commissioners themselves cannot be up on these Maine Yankee issues.
So I think they look at -- you know, I believe that they are not really serious about all of this public participation because if they were, they would handle things differently.
On things like the license amendment issue, there are a lot of people that think there should be a license 7~
amendment.
And at least you could come up here and have O) a meeting and let people think -- talk about -- just on that one issue.
Send the lawyers up here and let people say why they think a license amendment is or is not required.
Maybe it's not required.
Maybe it is.
I have my views on that, and I know a lot of other people do; and there's no real opportunity to discuss this with the NRC people who think no license amendment is necessary.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
If there is a question in your comments, we'll get back to you on it.
MR. H. MYERS:
Well, no, there are many questions
()
in my comments.
You don't -- you just decide -- you're
\\J THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
97 up there.
You decide that, well, this guy sounds like a lunatic; and l'il -- and I'll just leave it that way.
And that's how it gets:left-because there's no.one in the absence of Congressional interest in this subject which is -
there~is no-Congressional; interest.in this
' subject.
And in the absence of this, you can just say whatever you want to say.
I have no way of getting answers to these things.
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
I strongly beg to differ, that our Commission has stated -- and this is all five commissioners have stated very forthrightly that openness and public responsiveness are just absolutely mandated and expected of all of us on.this panel from
,)
here on forward.
It is a very significant issue in the baseline end of our agency that I alluded to earlier.
To the extent that each commissioner has their own i
agenda and interest and the degree of involvement that they have with particular plants, each commissioner sets their own agenda.
MR. H. MYERS:
I agree.
I didn't say -- it's not your fault that they set their own agendas.
But the fact is except for the Chairman,'they display virtually no interest in Maine Yankee.
Just read the transcript of the questions that they ask and the fact that they O
denied Paul Blanch --
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
l t
i
)
98 l
1 MR. HEHL:
We're not going to resolve this.
[
MR. H. MYERS:
We're not going to resolve anything because-you can'.justtdo what youtwant to do becausesthe citizens do.not have any way of affecting this agency in
'the absence 1of'our< Congressional-people leaning on the Commission to do something.- And our Congressional -
i delegation is simply uninterested in this matter except they don't want to have an accident.
That's where their interest begins.
They want Maine Yankee to operate if i
i i
possible, and they don't want an accident.
And they l
want you to assure them that there won't be an j
-accident.
And if you assure them, that's all they 1
want.
But the first accident that occurs, I guarantee
]
that they'll be up here pounding on the table saying why did you allow this to happen?
MR. ZWOLINSKI:
Thank you for your comments.
MR. HEHL:
I think we're going to draw the meeting to a close.
If you want to submit your comments in writing, just give them to -- we'll have them transcribed in.
But we've gone on here now -- we will give you five more minutes, but at-9:32 we're going to pull the plug.
MR. SHADIS:
I appreciate that, and I recognize the lateness of the hour.
Let me just run through the shopping list here.
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
i 99
()
On the steam generators, primary side, the NRC asks 4
$V of Maine Yankee Atomic to review its FSAR with respect
'to steam generator' isolation:in-the. event of a steam
~r tube rupture and because they had a -
a half-hour
+
l
' isolation period which1would'have allowed the steam:.*
l generator to-become loaded with an awful lot of water.
And the -- in the FSAR, the scenario they projected, the
-- the bounding or limited -- limiting conditions were i
a two-ended break.
This way they felt that if the tube
^
section dropped out, there would be no resistance to the water flow as they have maximum flow; and that's what I
they were looking at.
But in terms of-the overall effect or possible 4 effect on -- on health and safety, this would not be the bounding scenario.
The bounding scenario would be one in which you had a single break and -- a single full break and a partial break, in other words, a hinging of 4
a broken steam tube in which case we could expect it to swing around and wipe out other tubes.
They -- they analyzed the -- the broken section as tapping against'other tubes, the impact of the water; but they did not look at'the possibility of a hinge break.
And I just want to point that out to NRC, the l
possibility that if you're reviewing that-particular section of the FSAR, that would be something to look THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
100
,r at.
,(
Secondly, on the secondary side, the upcoming
]
generic letter on the steam generator inspection refers to some experiences that they had in Europe.
And they were.particularly. concerned with the partial drilled tube support plates.
At Maine Yankee sometime in the past, in the mid 1980's, I believe, this problem came up that there were stress corrosion and cracking in one of the partial drilled tube sheets.
Their method of s
dealing with this was to sever the connection of that partial drilled tube support sheet to the side of the steam generator itself and allow it to float free
(~
together with the tubes that it was bonding.
j And I suggest perhaps in the turbulence of the steam generator and with the -- the more recently focused on stress corrosion cracking in the tubes that i
if you have them flexing as a unit free of the side of the steam generator, you may be having problems.
I hope that that is one of the steam generators you're going to be looking at.
Also on the secondary side, there is a lot coming out of Europe on the stress corrosion cracking in the steam generator vessel itself, in the transition zone where it begins to curve in toward the top.
And I don't
(N know that that't what they're going to be looking at, NY THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
~
101
?
c
/"
but we'd sure like to have them looked at, at that 1
5
~ (_]/
possibility.
'M Primary piping, Friends of the Coast raised an-
' issue with -- with NRC in the.2.206 which was rejected.
Wheni this plant' was built :and they ~ were: welding. the ;
1 primary piping in place,.the foundation welds were i
discoveted to be cracked.
These are microfissures.
These are a few thousandths of an inch in length, their J
depth.
At the time it was investigated and determined i
that there was not a mechanism for propogation of these i
)
' cracks.
And they decided instead of grinding them out 1
which would simply cause more problems than simply welding them over, they simply welded them over.
When this was investigated by NRC in response to d
our 2.206 petition, they did not determine what the weld material was in those foundation welds; but they did get a response from the licensee with regard to the s
)
incidence of in-plant in-service inspection on these welds.
And as far as I can read in their response, the welds closest to the reactor vessel itself have never had in-service inspection.- And I think while the --
while the reactor head is off, we urge NRC before p
allowing che plant to restart toimake certain that I'm wrong about that.
I think that would be right in line.
There is a lot of new material out on sensitized
)
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
102
(~}
stainless steel.
Some of the stuff came from the LJ materials section of NRC recently, the recent generic letter.
I spoke to people on the reactor side, and they said not in a reactor.
It won't. happen.
You don't have the limited > conditions.. I got a call back from people j
on the materials side.
They said, oh, yes, you need 450 degrees Fahrenheit over a period of six to eight weeks.
Sounds to me like you could have -- that that's bounded by the pressure and duration that you would have on the primary side.
So we're begging you, take a look at this issue again and see if we don't have something there.
Secondary piping --
MR. HEHL:
Can you -- how many more do you have?
MR. SHADIS:
Well, I thought what you guys j
wanted -- let me just ask you --
MR. HEHL:
What we wanted were comments on the plan, and certainly I think we've gotten a lot of good j
comments.
I would ask you to -- to provide us with those in writing; and we'll certainly try to address them.
But we're not going to be able to address those in --
MR. SHADIS:
I'll be glad to do that.
I just didn't want this to go off into a black hole of space.
(~)
And as you know, you have entertained political C/
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
103
/]
commentary here and projections or whatever.
But when
%.)
you asked for comment on the restart, I thought you.
wanted to talk about issues that might come up --
t MR. HEHL:
Absolutely.
MR. SHADIS:
-- with respect to the restart.
MR. HEHL:
But there-comes a point two and a half hours plus into the discussion where I think we -- I think we're at a point where --
MR. SHADIS:
Okay.
MR. HEHL:
I'm happy to take the comments.
We will certainly review the comments.
They don't go into a black hole.
I think we've responded to -- you know, you may not always like the response; but I think for the
(
)
most part we respond to everything we get.
Okay.
I certainly do appreciate everybody's participation tonight and patience.
And, you know, we will be meeting again probably in -- in -- and we'll advertise it well ahead of time to let you know, but as -- as the need arises.
I'm not sure what the next milestone point would be down the road.
But we'll certainly advertise it; and -- and there will be an opportunity for additional meetings before there is a final decision for restart.
So I thank you all for coming.
[9:39 P.M.]
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
...=.
.- -. ~.
1 104' i
- V l
i i
2 1
I i
1; 4
i l
1 4
4 N
J 4
4 4
D J
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
105 CERTIFICATE I, Maureen Lockhart-Wagner, a Notary Public in and for the-State of Maine, hereby. certify that foregoing proceeding was: stenographically reported by me
'and later reduced ~to print:through: Computer-Aided Transcription, and the foregoing.is a full and true.
record of the proceeding.
I further certify that I am a disinterested F
person in the event or outcome of the above-named cause i
of action.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I subscribe my hand this [M day of ' um /
1997.
/
Dated at Falmouth, Maine.
N]J
//c/n.n.tu
$$-[ocl$ibNoq/1" N6tary Public
/)
3 My Commission Expires April 24, 2001.
Q%.
j 1
THE REPORTING GROUP Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Cordensclt!"
$20 - ags MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
1981 pi 84:23 above-named pj 102:21 1989 pj 6:19 6:21 105:9 addressed t,i 23:10
$0 [9$ $
D1
$20pi 79:7 I99 UI 25:5 40 pi 55:18 79:9
$500 p163:16 76:1 1990's vi 44:16 400til 67:15 977$3 60:3 74:13 76:7 76:18 79:14 1993 pl61:5 61:10 45p1 2:13 absentpj 16:2 addresses p1 91:13 1994 p142:ll 44:20 4500j 102:6 70:21 addressingpl 21:12 1995 pj 6:21 23:20 absolutely al 51:13 45:13 74:12 75:5 25:6 25.8 25:20 79pi 20:5 62:5 64:20 94:20 adequacypi 4:19 40:1 43:9 97:12 103:4 23:2 75:3 99 5 12 5 til Ttpi agquateis 5:10 48:18 70:15 1998 p121:21 72:11 acceptable pj 10:23 adhere n) 29:24
-I-75:12 75:21 44:22 adherence of 27:4 1 01 42:13 1998-19999) 40:17 6 pj 2:10 74:25 accesspi 64:3 adjustednj 78:11 1-to-7pi 42:12 60 pi 56:6 64:10 64:12 64:13 adoptpj 28:8 1.4 01 79:15 600 pi 39:13
".16 8m 32:18 accident,1 5
10 tel 5:20 40:6 2,000 pi 45:22 65 pl 2:14 31:23 advantage al 34:21 3
2 40:22 41:9 51:7 2.206 pj 82:18 39:8 58:13 98:8 98:10 advantagespi 68:23 76:3 76:7 79:14 101:4 101:15 66[2]
31:22 31:24 98:12 98:13 advertisc pi 103:18 100 pol 23:22 24:9 20 giol 23:23 24:19 67 pi 2:14 accommodate pj 103:21 4
8 39:23 40.6 40.22 69 pi 2:15 36:8 50:24 advertised p1 3:6
+
3 51:17 68:11 74:23 76:24 77:12 accordancc p17:15 advisc[i]
27:3 1000 p175:24 76:18 accordingp1 6:22 advised pi 26:17 20 0917525 28:25 affected p1 31:11 109pl 76:2 2001 p 105:18 79 pl 2:15 accruedIil 32:16 affecting[2]
39:24 10th g2 49:11 84:1 218*000IiI 61:2 7thvi 4:12 accurate pi 21:11 98:4 11 2:11 8:22 22 p1 72:10 72:15 71:14 affirmpj 12:6 27 5 33:!$ 61:8 ach,ieving rij 76:1 16:11 17:20 73;I3 72:25 75.8 24 oi 105:18 8 pi 74:22 Achilles pj 56:5 affirmation pj 14:8 117thp1 6j:7 2400 pi 43:23 43:24 8,000 pi 67:15 acknowledged pi 17:6 22:19 11thpsj4:M 6:15 26:3 26:10 26:21 24400::
6:20 80 p1 72:24 7:17 affirmed 91 12:12 27:13 33:25 34:4 6:25 21:19 22:21 81 pj 2:16 actp1 18:21 21:7 afternoon pi 4:8 43j5 6
82 pj 2:16 action gj 15:20 9:4 51:23
- 0 84:1 94:14 8411[i192:22 23:7 27:19 32:6 again [20) 20:3 45:1 56:20 105:10 25:9 25:11 27:12 1200 pi 85:13 26 91 2:12 85 til 20:9 actions pl 8:17 30:5 51:20 51:21 12thpi 83:17 83:25 26th pl 25:3 88 p:
2:17 26:18 28:14 30:17 56:15 56:16 59:21 13500:45:21 2700 pj 6:22 23:15 89 p:
2:11 31:8 77:6 82:20 59:25 76:15 77:23
$9 $ $lk 43:25 13thvi 59:23 d$ @4 activation pi 61:10 4 active vi 50:15 103:17 14 pl 7:25 44:19 2K330 pi 44:13 140 pi 79:16 44:16 44:19 45:1 9 DI 40:2 activitics pl 5:5 againstpl 25:13 14thnj 27:7 59:1 45:7 900:
40:19 40:22 30:22 31:1 32:13 52:21 74:17 99:21 l
83:23 2K331 pi 44:17 43:8 35:13 95:17 agencies 01 76:14 act vityj6l 1701 7:1 45:2 91 91 2:11 2d3 6 2 agency p41 15:6 17,000 pj 40:7 96-14p1 62:12 15:8 15:15 15:22 1
80:2 86:25 170 p1 39:12 63:24 16:2 16:3 16:9 adamant pi 25:19 26:14 28:12 28:13 9614 pj 59:23 60:19 17th pi 60:20 3 01 1:20 16:4 addnj $8:14 66:18 28:20 32:11 32:16 60:20 18 p1 72:17 75:21 57:13 added p1 10:14 32:25 38:10 56:17 98 Ul 2:16
$9:4 70:5 76:14 180,00001 61:10 3-1pl 74:4 addit on( ]
10:15 addit {ionalp!
9:32 p198:21 76:15 88:17 95:11 I800 p152:5 3.3 pl 61:5 22:19 97:15 98:4 9thrij 69:11 19 9:
2:11 30 p]
81:9 24:4 50:15 58:19 i
30:2
- fg]cy sni 1970's91 10:2 30-inch pi 24:17 62:25 66:13 103:22 1977 p122:14 31 si 42:13 42:13 address gxi 4:21 agendani 97:17 19781,j 6:19 7:20 44:13 45:8 Abbot pi 2:14 6:5 8:20 9:4 97d9 7:25 28:1 34:6 331 pi 44:j9 67:3 67:4 9:16 9:20 32:10 34:10 34:11 92:15 35 pi 42:13 ablepj 8:23 14:25 33:9 33:12 33:13 agendas p1 97:21 92 25 23:9 55:24 79:23 36:1 36:23 37:20 aggressive p) 33:1 UI 4
1979 pi6:19 93:15 102:23 37:21 47:2 48:15 aggressivelyp1
( M y]8
[,}, f,;f3 abad ni 82:2 1980's pl 44:15 100:7 above pl 6:20 93:25 95:13 102:20
- E'"E UI E
6:25 agopi 46:1 46:19 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell Index Page 1
. ~.
agree - Brack Condenselt!"
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
65:19 65:20 66:1 38:25 39:1 39:1 41:25 88:10 99:2 begins p]
91:18 agreetsjl4:ll 21:5 40:21 41:11 429 arguments p] 68:10 Atoms p]
76:19 98 9 100:24 ariseoj 5:24 Attachmentnj 74:4 behaviorpj 71:15 40:4 53:16 73:7 43:5 44:5 44:10 94:10 95:4 M:20 44:23 45:17 45:23 agreed ( 3 10:20 announcedisj 76:4 arisesp3 103:19 74:25 behind v]
26:19 aroec pj23:1 34d attack p1 52:15 beliefp3 14:24
- 3 1 1 6
arrangement p1 attempt pj 86:5 belt 01 76:12 IPI N3 20:21 23:24 24:7 59:4 attempting [ 3 60:1 belts [1] 76:13 aheadpl 3:10 57:17 85:24 91:1 arrangements p]
attend pl 51d4 benchmarkp] 25:12 93:6 93:21 93:24 58:21 59:3 attended til 66:1 bencfit pl 52:19 8
18 answered pj 6:3 articulated p1 529 attention p3 31:3 bcsecchpl 75:7 "id 7225 aja,UI 71:5 94:4 aside pl86:10 74:23 best g41 17:17 30:15 ipl M 8 answers [sl 11:11 askspj 99:1 attest p1 60:5 31:7 53:38 aircraft pj 81$
13:10 93:3 94:22 48:3 attitude pl 20:25 Bethesda91 84:6 ashtpl 4
alarmp1 Mi R8 7
audience pl 31:3 betterp1 91:7 all-time pj 46:5 ant {,ca.pate pl 37:15 aspects pl 44:17 auditingpj 28:12 91:10 al ation pt 23:3 ant {cipatedO] 55:25 44:17 80 5 80:21 Augustapl 27:7 between psj 4:9 23:
70:14 anticspation pl assemblics p1 57:14 R2 m2 2&21 labic E7 21:16 Allen pj 69:12 42:21 57:20 57:21 28:19 35:4 37:5 63 64:8 63 49:19 59:7 65:18 allotted pl 21:2 anyway!+1 7:5 assemblypl 58:7 67:6 67:25 77:22 86M 88 9 6
allowle]
9:17 38:23 54:15 60:16 assertion pi 33:15 86:9 86:12
]I:13 15:7 70:6 60:19 63:15 beyond t4) 21:19 36:18 94:20 aware pel 14:16 assertions ul 42:13 14:20 15:22 15:24 p21 4121 74:17 98:15 100:12 aplomb rij 72:13 assertive p1 33:1 21:2 21:13 22:13 biggij 49:18 49:21 allowed pel-5:7 apologize pl 76:15 32:10 33:25 34:5 85:15 6:16 9:16 11:25 appalling p] 72:12 ssessedp]
m 35:1 35:5 44:14 bilge pi71:22 71:23 17:23 40:12 41:21 8PPC"'*d 03 65:17 assessing pl 74:17 60:16 76:17 92:6 bilip:13:24 8:19 46:35 69:10 69:15 69;16 70:11 71:7 Appendix p] 7:10 assessmentp] 4:1 away gs126:20 65:3 9:19 19:17 19:17 94:13 94:17 99:5 appics p]
73:16 4:3 6:23 75:1 67:8 85:13 87:14 19:38 23:24 43:9 allowingp]
11:23 applicabic p] 16:20 assessments ts) awfulp]
99:6 48:17 48:20 89:2 101:23 application pl 17:19 20:17 64:7 74:23 89:3 alloy pI39:13 88:17 89:24 74:24 75:4 bindingpl 45:16 4
alluded pj 97:15 applicd pl 70:23 assistant pl 4:3 bit (2) 29:10 39:2 l
alludingpl 21:10 83:6 associated pl 16:8 B3 ril 7:11 bits pl 17:10 74:12 applypl 82:7 38:19 45:1 45:14 backed p1 9:13 blackp3 102:24 Alna!"I 6:14 26:2 appoint 91 94:6 48:3 52:10 73:18 background ni 64:21 103:12 92:2 39:1 45:25 appreciate (73 31:17 bad p1 36:4 48:23 Blancht]
69:6 alongpl 30:18 44:23 76:10 76:36 association p] 70:13 Baldaccipi 69:14 69:15 69:16 69:21 47:23 76:14 77:24 88:22 98:23 103:35 assume p1 43:11 ballpj 16:15 71:7 97:25 78:13 93:4 92:14 appropriale pl 31:18 assumed p1 7:15 Bangorp1 69:14 Blanch's oj 71:3 always p]
103:j 3 32:6 77:3 80:31 assumes p) 29.5 barp) 27:14 27:16 blanket pl 24:15 amateura,shpi 94:1 a
pr ly pl assumption pl 45:17 basepj 56:7 boat pj 71:20 ambitious pl 83:5 assumptions tij based tsj 38:19 bobbinp]
23:22 amendment vil approvalpl 38:1 43:13 42:3 43:2 55:20 24 9 41:33 85:3 85:7 approve p1 41:25 assurance p] 10:1 75:24 83:7 boiling nj 67:7 85:14 86:19 87:8 90:4 19:6 19.6 50:22 basclinc p3 97:15 bonding p]
100:13 87:9 96:11 96:13 rovedel 27:17 77:16 apf21 bas.{cp W3 4H3 W he @
M 96:16 96:20 4
44:19 89:21 assure gs 27:3 AMERICA pl 1:5 Aprilp1 1:20 28:9 33:16 98:11 basisis321:7 21:14 57:12 amongp]
43:14 78:23 78:23 92:25 98:12 33:20 33:23 45:9 bothersome p143:6 48:22 56:1 62:3 bottom p3 35:7 amo2Etpl 21:2 105:18 assured pl 37:23 60:12 archived pi 93:12 69:15 llath (2165:7 67:4 35:9 53:20 analysis pri 19:24 arca ps] 4:14 33:12 assuring p]
21:14 beanspi 65:25 boundpi 22:6 19:25 21:36 21:17 46:1 55:2 55:6 33:7 bears tij 66:25 bounded pl 21:16 23:13 41:24 43:3 56:11 61:16 62:6 Atherton p.)
7:20 beautifultil 81:24 23:8 102:8 44:4 44:6 44:7 63:7 64:19 78:21 28:2 28:3 35:11 becamc p]
19:25 bounding pl 99.8 45:11 45:12 45:16 81:25 94:24 35:24 37:10 78:11 99:15 99:15 beco" "I
45:18 45:19 91:3 areas p]25:19 31:30 78:14 78:17 91:18 boundspl 22:20 99:6 91:8 37:7 4d:22 55:7 91:19 91:22 92:3 analyticalpj 69:9 arena 01 90:13 92:10 92:12 93:16 Beecherp1 28:5 Brack151 2:13 53:25 54:1 anClyzed pl 86:16 arguably pl 90:20 Atherton'spj 78:13 beg pl 19:7 97:9 54:9 54:15 54:19 99:20.
93:I began pl 84:21 56:3 56:22 57:7 argue pl 36:17 Anderson p3 2:5 36:20 Atomic pl 54:11 beggingni 102:11 57:24 58:2 58:12 4:2 4:2 72:16 82:24 83:11 beginpl 27:16 58:23 59:6 59.15
"'8ument I2I 4lm Angierits]
2:12 84:22 84:25 85:6 59:21 co.8 60:16 Index Page 2 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell
PUBLIC MEBTING/RESTAPT PLAN Cmdensclt!"
branch - complied MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
61:24 62:11 63:1 10:4 10:25 chairman poi 14:2 civiltil 77:6 102:17 102:19 103:10 63:8 63:12 63:15 Calden p3]
2:13 17:13 17:13 27:1 claimed p]
27:24 103:11 63:21 64:12 64:18 45:24 45:25 45:25 27:2 31:20 33:4 28:5 43:9 Commission [2o) claiming (il 28:11 1:6 9:6 11:13 64:24 65:5 48:15 49:18 51:10 88:3 95:23 97:22 13d0 13d1 32M branchis) 3:17 51:14 52:23 53:7 Chairman's g2138:7 clarifications tii 32d8 M W 3:24 3:25 9:20 53:10 53:14 53:24 96:5 73:12 k:f2
- f3 10:11 calm pl 69:8 chairperson p146:22 clarify pj 26:6 6
break p2]
19:24 Canada pl 89:23 chairs:ij 54:10 64:1 95:22 95:24 97:10 l2 7
89:24 challe gepj 47:25 clean pl 48:17 98:6 105:17 2
l cannotp]
28:10 50:8 48:20 Commission's [3]
22:6 22:9 22:15 52:23 73:2 84:4 challenging vi 33:5 clearni 45:4 57:9 11:12 11:13 12:16 22:19 22:20 23:3 21 96:6 43:22 44:3 45.7 chanec[2]
79:1 78:15 94:21 95:1 commissioncrpl 45:10 45:12 45:16 capabic p1 73:23 82:12 clearly [2]
52:23 97:16 97:18 45:18 45:19 45:20 card [i] 33:2 changcpil 9:1 73:1 commissioners [4]
45:21 91:1 91:4 carc t21 79:9 85:18 32:23 34:3 42:19 Cliff p12:5 4:2 95:25 96:2 96:6 93:20 94:15 99:9 carefully p]
18:4 46:16 46:18 51:18 closc[5119:ll 52:11 97:11 4
99 cares pl66:10 77:27 87:19 98:18 commitpl 93:17 closedal 91:24 committedtil 92:1 Brian pl 2:16 Carey p1 2:17 changed 141 85:4 92:17 committee pj 83:15 81:7 88:3 88:4 88:18 85:5 85:8 85:12 M
M gl 8
c rpi n3 brjenyni 37:1 changcovertil 85:16 3
tnj 51:21 Cf*3 T34 closestal 101:20 m
n
- 8 "E
3*9 bring ni 13:7 carriers rii 81:10 closurc[2]
38:3 41:17 72:25 72:25 casetel 8:2 28:15 Ch 65:10 76:22 80:17 51:3 51:5 51:6 88:21 mmenca%
66 6:17 bdnging!:]
38:3 62:22 62:23 82:20 clumsy pl 46:9 95:4 characterization al 46:19 communications pl 99:18 brings p1 61:5 3 :22 catp3 87:12 coal [ 1 68:19 30:6 Bristolpl 69:2 charge p 63:15 companiespl 80:3 catfish pj 85:11 Coast pj 82:16 broadertij 73:19 Charics pi 2:2 aus 82:22 101:3 companypq 21:2 broken 121 99:18 6
82:23 Coast's pi 83:20 21:8 52:2 54:11 99:20 Charh.e pj 43:10 66:22 82:25 833 causingnj
$8:7 codepj 22:14 22:15 87:6 83:5 83:12 84:22 broughtp1 25:2 22d7 22:19 22:20 33:22 70:14 CE p1 22:14 chart pl 31:6 85:10 85:13 87:7 Brown til 7:17 centers til 24:16 charter gii 81:4 s iI 44:21 compared p] 37:14 Brown's p g 36:6 certain pol 24:2 cheap 01 76:20 2
9 4 budget pl 75:24 Cheaperp]
19:19 I sion j 63 compcled p] 14:7 75:25 76:8 59:2 60.13 66:9 check pj 66:25 cojumnist gil 7135 building pl 56:13 70:4 70:r 70:7 76.24 compendium pi CU" l
1 15:13 built p] 47;20 47:21 73:17 74:!6 80:5 checkover[2] 24:19 93 57 compnce pl C 67:20 77:1 101:5 90:16 92:11 92:13 24:20 70 4 71:23 88:2j burdenni 15:5 101:23 chief pl3:17 3:25 100:21 103:24 complete vi 29:11 15:21 53:12 53:15 certainly p71 4:16 9:19 30:16 31:1 37:11 n
pj 8:22 41:24 71:13 72:11 53:17 5:17 6:1 6:4 choicc ol 83:2 burnIil 68:19 6:4 8:25 17:15 comment p5] 6:15 86:21 i
23:5 23.8 30:5 choosepl 16:3 9:12 9:15 23:16 Icted 12:7 business [4]
20:12 30:7 30:10 30;14 chowdcrpi 85:11 25:15 25:22 31:17 2
30:2 49:14 20:16 21:9 9t" 30:16 31:25 37:21 Christinc p31 2:10 33:20 38:13 47:18 buypt 79:23 41:19 42:2 47:19 2:12 6:12 6:13 65:4 75:17 76:10 completelypj 10:20 49;6 51:5 51:5 6:13 7:8 8:8 89:20 103:2 31:25 47:9
-C-
$3:17 54:18 54:23 9:10 9:24 10:17 commentary pl completion p) 43:8 55:2 60:17 62:9 10:24 11:3 11:6 103:1 complex p]
18:12 cabic p4]
7:12 62:13 72:18 72:22 25:25 26:1 26:1 commented p] 27:8 50:17 50:18 commenting p1 lian 1291
- 5 61 5
1 7
8 34:1 34:3 34:14 80:25 86:4 86:9 38:24 12:9 12:12 12:16 34:23 36:5 36:21 91:10 93:7 102:18 comments p5] 3:6 circles pl 20:12 12:22 13:1 13:22 4:5 5:13 5:15 78:10 102:20 103:11 103:15 66:9 68:12 13:23 13:25 14:4 5:17 5:24 6:5 cables [2cl 7:10 103:21 14:14 14:24 16:19 circuits til 7:15 6:10 18:20 18:22 7:14 7:22 8:11 CERTIFICATE pi 17:6 17:12 17:13 circumferential pj 26:3 26:4 26:10 9:23 10:9 10:9 105:1 17:15 17:18 17:21 56:7 26:12 33:14 33:14 10:10 10:13 10:15 27:1 28:10 31:20 certify pl 13:23 105:3 105 8 cited p] 79;12 79:19 33:22 34:5 41:19 10:18 34:24 35:15 38:8 38:14 75:6 46:22 52:14 56:23 35:17 35:20 36:1 36:10 36:14 36:19 chairpl6n:23 61:2 citizen ni 26:2 94 34 94 38 67:2 67:5 77:19 81:5 81:12 96:23 complied [2]
13:19 61:12 61:19 62:17 66:1 36:24 62:21 62:22 883 ci ns pl 66:6 96:25 98:16 98:18 45:2 cabling pi 8:15 g
Tile REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart llagopian & Ramsdell Index Page 3
com plies - differently Condenselt!*
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN
)
}MA)NE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
complies pl
'32:1 consc4luences pl 32:2 32:5 54:5 Damariscotta[si degrec[4]
55:10 comply (71 8:12 6:24 57:22 67:19 92:19 79:6 55:10 74:14 97:17
{
8:17 11:19 17:1I conservatively p1 correctingp) 32:4 Danpl 3:22 degreespj 45:21 i
{ 27:18 33:7 43:23 71:14 corrective pl 8:17 dangerous pl 39:17 102:7
(( - g==i[1] 579 considerableal correctly pl 8:12 69:4 delegation p1 69:19 l
((
--ive pj 78:20 9:22 29;8 82:5 dangerously pj 98:7 23:l'4 39:10 39:15 consideration 01 correlationpj 37:5 19:22 deliberation [11
)
corrosion pi 55:8 Danicl[i]
2:3 14 9 compromiseng 70:24 81:16 consideredp] 39:15 55:11 100:8 100:16 datap) 51:22 demonstrate pj 55:23 57:4 78:10 computerpj 52:3 consistent [2] 32:3 100:22 datepj 7:19 8:4 Computer-Aided uj 47:21 cost [7] 19:23 20:17 8:9 34:22 demonstrated ni 7;I 105:5 constitute pl 84:3 68:5 68:23 79:7 dated pl 4:12 concernpel 8:22 constructed pj 47:21 79:24 90:17 7:25 78:12 83:25 demonstratingpj 15:25 15:25 21:22 construction p) cost-savingpl 83:9 105:13 20:25 23:1 23:2 23:10 7 j4 7:19 7:23 84:14 dating [2]
7:22 dented p]
97:25 39:16 52:4 59:18 8:16 10:16 10:19' costa g4158:14 58:15 8:15 Department p154:22 concerned [*]
47:4 consult [2] '
13:14 58:15 79:14 David p]
2:14 dependabic[1] 22:17 47:5 58 9 66:6 94:11 country p) 67:18 65:6 65:7 70:12 depended pl 82:3 83:4 contains p]
21:14 23 6 days p) 18:13 18:15 Depending p] 24:22 l*
concerns p23 20:24 6
3:16 54 countypj 69.11 dealpj 47:3 depthpi 5:3 349 34 9 35:3 35:3 35:5 35:6 contemplated pj couplc p1 20;11 dcaling p1 100:10 49:16 50:24 101:9 40:15 72:2 79:25 90:16 2:9 46:18 dealt pj 34:9 Deputy p1 3:20 92:3 94:8 contempt pl 26:15 debatc[il 62:18 deregulation [il coursep) 56:20 concluded pl 20:23 contend [2]
39:23 debt [ ] 20:6 79:23 90:24 conclusions p147:15 41:11 court t2:16:15 65:23 decades [i]
76:7 describc[i1 78:13 condition p1 55:22 content pj 65:1 covering ( j 45:14 Decemberpl 49:11 described [i] 64:7 56:1 context pj 32:24 72:11 75:21 describes til 91:19 43 33 22 2
si n[1; k til 10 9 2
4 5 conduct p1 99 53:10 94 9 95:5 cracking [6]
39:13 97.1 36:3 36:4 36:4 conducted p] 12:25 continued [2] 27:18 100:8 decidedp) 71:18 36 9 36:11 44:25 j
2M 101:11 47:22 48:1 59:13 confestace p] 8:22 8:23 9:3 73:4 contract pj 83:8 cracks pj 39:17 77:20 83:10 83:13 83:16 101:11 ccision m MG confidence psj 5:6 15 15 15:23 80:19 desigacd p]
46:24 88 9 crea m pl R18 45:15 46:5 46:25 82:1 103:23 47:20 50:23 76:23 47:4 49:8 50:1 contractorpi 54:4 credit p]
29:6 decisions j 4 Ig dcsk pl 94:25 50:12 50:14 51:12 54:8 32:4 33:5 38:5 43:2 75:16 82:3 detailp]
49:16
- 51. 0 53:22 71:13 contractors p) 52:2 crew pj 20:8 82:5 details p]
59:4 72:4 77:16 contractualpj $8:21 criminal pj 77:7 declinc[ 1 76:8 determinc pl 12:8 confidentialp]
$9:2 cnmanally p) 77:7 declinedpl 7:23 31:13 101:15 27:22 contrary p) 27:1 criteria [ 41 7:16 declines p]
14:1 determinedp) 9:6 rm pl 16:12 contributedpj 26:16 10:8 10:10 10:12 decommissioning pj 66:23 101:9 yj,jy g]
con p1 62:6 79:13 determining 0127:6 confirmatorypi controls pl, lH1 62:4 50:5 55:13 55:20 deeplypi 83:4 dcyclop [ij 66:7 15:20 17:4 17:5 controversia 56:2 74:4 75:5 defects pi 24:3 developed p1 55:20 confirmed p3 65:14 criticism p1 84:2 24:4 25:7 25:13 66:23 69:23 conform [ ]
26 24 5
- 8 conformance pj controversics gil cruisers [i]
81:10 defend p]
13:j3 developcrp] 89:25 75:14 developingpl 95:19 14:17 14:20 15:18 54:25 cruising p]
84:15 fcnding p] 95:9 dialoguc pl 5:13 16:10 16:11 44:16 convenedp] 27:10 Culturc pt 31:6 confound v] 26:19 conycy[2]
95:13 current vil 8:17 defensc DI 50:24 differpj 19:7 confusion! 1 28:19 96:2 20:5 22:20 25:11 25:13 26:17 26:25 defensive pl 28:8 97 9 Congtess 81 51:6 coolant p1 41:1 34:1 41:4 41:22 deficiencicslll differencc p] 35:23 69:18 69:18 71:7 41:3 42:18 43:22 66:11 50:3 45:22 49:18 49:21 Congressionalp1 60:12 curycp]
100:24 defines p]
30:3 59:7 69:19 97:4 97:5 cooling [11 19:24 98:5 98:6 cyclc[2]
22:16 definitely [2] 56:11 differencespj 37:7 (12 Congressman pl 44:19 61:19 different pl 33:21 91:5
%IsI :3 degradation pl 55:19 35:11 35:15 35:18 69:12 69:13 connection [i] 100:10
-D-56:6 67:6 73:16 83:19 Connors 01 70:10 D.C pg 3:21 degradedpl 43:15 85:12 87:2
- [9
$1 damage pl 55:8
- 'I "I '
consensusp1 42:15
.index Page 4 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Iackhart Hagopian & Ramsdell 1
1
)
l l
PUBLIC MEETING /AESTART PLAN Condenseltl*
difficulty -cxtrapointirn i
MAINE YANKPE ATOMIC POWER CO.
difficulty 91 30:6 donc pai 16:14 Edward pi 2:15 enlightening vi exceedinglyvi18:12 directed on 70:6 29:7 32:7 44:4 27:8 27:21 69:1 53:4 cxceedsni 61:23 49:13 49:16 53:23 69:2 direction fil 19:5 casuro p) 30:24 cacclient pl 82 9 68:14 73:20 cffect p1 43:21 3t15 directly p) 31:11 exceptpl 12:19 99;13 99:14 cater p] 52:3 88:1 95:23 96:5 97:22 70 20 82:14 s pi 805 cffective[2]
9:8 Entergy p) 83:5 98:7 j
directorpi 3:3 8
20;6 83:10 83:14 86:17 cxception pi 6:17 3:20 83:22 I2 3$2 N9 p
e m
u 38:22 l
disagreeg2) 94:10 cfficiency pi 39:25 Entergy sp] 87:11 exchangepi 26:4 95:5 24:22 25:10 33:12 disagreed v 85:1 33:13 35:1 37:1 efficient pl 9;8 entertainedpj 102:25 28:18 29:10 disconcertingaj 40:24 41:15 45:6 40:2 entire g21 38:4 cxclamation pj 95:34 54:7 5t12 55:15 efficientlypl 40:5 85:j0 86:3 63:12 70:24 74:23 effort (2) 38:6 entirelytil 38:1i excuse [5]
28:24 discovered 141 7:13 75 9 78:19 89:20 72:7 85 9 34:12 42:13 84:6 39:17 60:23 101:7 92M 93:6 93:17 discredited p 27:17 efforts 01 53:8 entitled p1 7:25 84:20 discrepancies 91
$'2 eggerate tri 2013 q2 cu%)
2m 3:12 7:)2 59:13 envaronmentvi executive pi 83:22 9
43$17 cight pi43:7 63:16 79:21 91:5 discrcictij o0:22 76:16 102:7 cnvironmental[31 cxhaust p]
71:23 di 5
ss1,sg Douglas 01 54:3 citherpj 15:10 67:12 67:25 68:24 exist t7i 4:22 21:15 down poj 5:10 39:25 60:14 equally p1 51:14 3011 48:10 59:3 72:20 92:2 94:8 96:19 clectric pi 79:21 cquipment [7] 6:24 80:23 93:10 84:22 84:25 85:6 50:21 56:8 56:16 cxistingpi 58:2 discussed pl 71:17 28:17 28:25 29:14 90:2 71:13 74:10 80:9 cxistsvs 55:22 73:8 46:3 68:7 68:12 discussingni 78:14 77:5 79:12 82:2 electrical p1 3:25 equivalent p1 87:21 expandsoj 24:3 discussionI41 5:25 83:8 84:6 89:25 7:10 7:22 9:20 crratic pi 46:20 cxpecip21 16:9 18:16 70:21 103:7 103:20 10:11 35:3 35:14 crrors pi 50:19 25:22 31:25 37:16 35:16 disinterested ni downsizedpi 76:14 50:21 50:25 37:25 47:19 48:11 i
105:8 76:15 clectricity pl 67:24 cssentially pi 16:6 52:16 599 60:3 68:16 76:19 display pl 97:22 draw pj 31:2 47:15 22:1 23:20 29:13 89:12 99:18 3
48:8 48:23 98:17 32:11 33:5 expectation vi 77:1I sposjng vi 58:15 clectron.ic pj 93:10 cstablishedpj 10:7 expectations p1 disposition ni 92:6 drawing pj 48:4 78:3 cicctroplatingpl 10:10 25:13 53:5 33:3 disputing p1 9:16 89:6 55:13 expected pj 97:13 drew pi 85:5 element ni 65:8 estimated ni 79:14 expects ni 39:21 disregard vi 26:15 drillni 55:6 drilled p1 100:5 cigments[i]
59:14 estimates p1 90:17 cxpendcdpl 30:24 disscryicep 38:9 38:13 100:9 100:11 climinating pi 60:14 Europe pi 100:4 cxpending p1 30:23 distantly vi 69:3 droppedp1 99:j0 cmbodyp:
38:7 100:22 expensiveoj 58:13 disturbing pl 60:17 duration ni 102:9 cmcrgencyni 19:24 evaluate (43 5:5 experienceni 67:16 divergencevi 42:16 during pj 5:25 cmissions 01 62:15 5:17 10:21 75:15 80:25 81:9 81:21 division ni 3:3 5:25 10:15 64:3 cmployec pi 54:14 cvaluating pi 5:19 81:22 10:21 73:11 80:2 3:20 10:11 64:5 64:10 64:16 cmpty pi 71:24 experienced pl81:1 "gI 41 64:22 04:9 c
ation pl 417 cncourage pj 73:15 cxperiences[si 100:4 q
5 21 cncouraged pl 52:1 cvaluations p] 4:25 cxpert pj 902 63 7 64:18 91:17
_ p'.
91:18 cnd p41 5:23 6:8 15:14 32:21 cxpertisc pl 52:25 7233 documentation ni El71 69:2 71:4 6:19 7:13 7:16 cvenin vi 3:2 8:5 8:10 9:14 72:24 74:19 75:7 27:14 64:18 72:11 3:6 5:20 76:5 cxperts p]
41:18 9:25 10:1 169 75:17 78:1 75:21 78:3 86:2 81:6 Expires til 105:17 75:12 86:17 93:2 car pi 19:13 19:16 86:3 90:5 97:15 9
g9 documented pl carly vi44:15 cndingpi 91:23 105:9 89;8 27:19 cast-southeast vi ends pi 91:18 cycrybodyp) 52:1 explained pi 91:8 documents psi 10:2 75:19 enemy pi 65:18
,y4.s py 93:23 93:23 64:2 64:2 64:3 cconomicpi 20:1 Energypl 19:20 103:15 cxplanation pl45:5 h
c 6 5 8
8 o
6:
8 9:3 cvolved [i]
40:15 cxtend p]
38:7 78:12 78:15 78:18 90:8 28:13 31:9 32:3 cconomically pi 32:6 72:20 73:4 cxactpl 41:8 cxtensive[ )
60.8 92;18 92:24 93:5 engagep!
5:12 Exactly pl 59:17 cxtent [7 14:16 68:8 93:9 93:13 93:14 cconomicspl 80:13 38:10 88:18 49:24 62:20 73:17 docsn't pi 12:11 engineering pj 3:25 cxamined pi 10:19 74:13 89:14 97:16 90:13 90:20 21:18 42:14 4t10 cconomy pl 68:7 9:20 10:11 cxampic pj 34:13 cxtrapolatepl 48:19 45:4 50:10 56:17 Ed pj 46:13 54:20 engineers' pi 43:3 35:4 cxtrapolation vi 84:7 86:2 cddy pi 25:13 England pl 82:21 cxamples p1 27:15 48:23 Tile REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Ilagopian & Ramsdell Index Page 5
catmacly-heals Condenacit!"
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
entremelypl 51:16 Ictry pl 36:6 focus (2) 41:18 function pl 3:16 grew p122:2 69:8 few[i2j 26:11 27:15 80:6 functions p) 73:24 gridpl 57:13 57:19 47:14 51:22 62:5 focusedpl 5:4 fundamentalpj 57:24 58:5
-F-65:15 66:1 67:5 80:16 80:20 81:4 14:5 31:21 42:17 grinding [n 101:11 Fm mM facepl 26:14 g
f 1
52:11 40:12 grouppj 80:4 facilitiespel 30:23 field pl 32:22 follow til 49:16 fundedp]
76:18 82:20 32:25 36:8 38:21 filed p123:4 82:18 follow-up[2] 21:24 futurepj 5:1 groups pl 66:2 l
50:17 50:18 50:23 00:1 00:25 81:3 files pl 28:4 89:4 15:12 32:8 60:2 growpl 52:6 facilitypz]
4:11 finalpi 11:1 75:22 following pl 14:9 79:22 80:1 grown p]
52:5 21:4 32:13 35:25 103:23 70:1 85:1 93:7 guarantee al 98:13 38:2 38:20 51:2 finally 0) 91:1 footpj 71:19
-G-guarantees p1 77:18 i
52:20 59:7 59:8 finances p1 21 5 foregoingpl 105:4 G pj 2:13 53:25 guessv41 6:11 62:4 74:18 financialp 21:7 105:6 gallons til 41:5 15:4 20:19 24:21 l
fact p.19:17 12:8 79:17 79:18 foretellp) 15:12
(( $[ $
finding pij 11:22 form p169:19 game njS3:5 gyy 12:20 12:2I i3:18 forth pj i5:21 20:12 gascousv1 62:16 73:5 74:21 75:10 51:17 54:20 58:24 13:24 14:1 14:3 74:11 90:12 91:4 gears [486:21 76:21 62:2 62:3 62:11 14:7 14:10 36:2 92:24 95:6 96:1 generalp]
5:24 guiltyp) 27:21 66:11 69:18 71:5 89:18 79:20 84:5 84.8 forthrightlyp123:11 35:13 39:3 56:4 85:3 87:3 97:22 findings pi 12:15 97:11 56:23 81:14 94:3 EuY PI 82:4 97:1 guys p) 102:15 97:24 15:10 44:25 forump3 37:16 generatc[1]
5:3 factor [2]
20:18 finds p150:9 73:5 9B4 generated [q 91:12
~
62:23 finc[2] 62:1 77:22 forward pl 6:9 generatingp] 67:24 factualp]
92:17 fined [462:7 14:18 16:2 16:3 generatorp4] 23:18 Ilpol 2:13 11:8 Fahrenheitos 102:7 finishnj 30:12 49:12 70:14 97:14 25:4 39:4 39:18 11:17 11:21 12:2 failp! 30:1 37:15 62:1 62:2 fossilpi 67:11 39:22 39:24 40:20 12:10 12:18 12:23 failing p1 66:5 fifC I:51 8:1 34:15 found p]
20:13 41:12 41:17 42:4 13:5 13:9 14:12 66:8 34:19 35:2 35:6 23:2 35:14 37:19 54:2 54:16 55:1 14:23 16:16 16:21 35:13 35:19 36:1 44:22 48:18 72:12 55:5 55:11 56:12 16:24 17:9 17:23
- f 3
12 0 15 I
I-1
- 10 3 3 01 6 1 6
100:18 100:23 19:15 53:25 78:6 fairp) 65:19 81:15 92:20
]j
]j2 fairlyly 53:10 fired pl 46:13 kg7 C generators 94j 24:10 faarness p]
78:2 fires [i] 36:9 fraction [q 76:3 1
93:19 95:2 95:7 95:12 95:21 96:24 fairy [y 63:24 first[tol6:ll 15:5 Framatomep) 90:1 43:14 43:15 43:17 97:20 98:2 fallp1 76:8 23:2 26:10 55:23 frame p 37:18 56:4 66:21 99:1 40:'.7 44:20 58:21 100:19 halfpi 32:17 68:17 Falmouthol 105:13 57:16 69:5 71:10 84:21 98:13 84:8 84:9 84:10 f;lsepl 94:21 74:19 gencricpl 44:17 92:24 103:6 Firsfly[u 15:6 frankly pl 11:10 100:3 102:2 familiarp1 60:23 half-hourp] 99:4 62:19 fission [3]
60:22 Fred [2] 2:12 39:1 genticman pl 69:5 61:9 61:9 70:11 94:23 Ilallp) 2:14 65:6 familypl 46:1 frec 8 25 25:6 65:6 65:7 65:7 68.4 fitpI 29:1 25:18 100:12 100:j7 gentlemen pl 61:4 81:21 82:8 hammerpl 77:5 far[in 16:6 17:2 fivepl 5:23 46:1 fretting pl 57:14 57:19 57:25 58:6 givenpl 20:13 hammeringp] 46:5 32:12 38:3 44:10 72:9 75:18 87:21 57:8 67:8 74:9 91:15 97:10 98:21 48:17 81:11 83:4 46:6
- "d8 74:17 88:10 92:15 five-way p3 27:17 88:7 90:19 hand pl 12:19 31:21 6 8 :20 13 gladpl 85:20 102:23 76:21 76:21 77:9 93:9 101:19 fix pl 36:16 50:13 pgN:
goalpl 75:24 76:1 30 2 fashion pi 53:11 Flanaganvi 59:2 84:16 6
76:4 handic pl 96:10 frit pl 95:21 97:2I flattering p3 73:9 front pj 56:12 60:4 g espl 53:3 74:17 happypi 22:24 f;vored nj 82:22 Fletchcrpj 2:14 FSARpj 99:2 75:12 WM feast [U 65:18 67:3 67:4 67:4 99:7 99:25 g nepl 93:25 94:16 hard pl 93:11 February [e 27:7 flexingpj 100:17 fuelp7157:14 57:18 98:20 hardwarc ui 4:22 58:25 69:11 83:17 float [u 100:12 57:20 57:21 58:7 floorpl78:4 58:12 58:15 58:15 good pl 3:2 68:2 hauledm 65:23 83:23 83:24 83:25 8*I 58:16 58:19 58:20 68:13 87:14 102:18 head p] 41:16 91:13 flow poi 31:6 federalp]
1:19 59:10 59:14 59:15 government p] 76:13 101:22 41:2 41:3 41:6 6:13 59:19 60:6 60:15 grandsons pj 81:24 headquarters pj 41:10 42:18 42:19 feedingp1 65:21 43;4 99:11 99:11 fuelsoj67:11 82:2 3:23 10:12 33:18 flowrate 1 42:21 fullp1 29:12 99:16 great p16:17 7:4 80:4 65:22 105:6 16:5 19:15 38:13 headspj 89:13 foclingp1 12:4 fluid pl82:4 St6 I"IIy pj 31:25 53:16 93:14 healvi 28:16 flycrpl 56:12 72:g7 95:16 greatern!
49:15 health p]
5:12 fif.
flyingpl 45:12 2
!Index Page 6 Tile REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Rarnsdcll
)
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Cordensclt!"
hear - issue i
MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
48:17 48:20 - 53:6 hirepl 54:18 imports p1 68:17 information(17j interestisj 4:15 67 9 67:13 67:24 historically pl 90:10 imposing 01 23:8 89 16:2 21:8 70:20 95:24 97:4 27:23 629 62:11 M:5 W7 R23 6804 R14 historyp1 22:8 improve pl 71:13 W3 64dj 6402 989 hearpl 9:5 27:12 47 78:20 86:22 improvement DI 65:21 65:22 81:20 interested p) 65:12 54:5 66:19 73:2 3
heardt 13:18
~
31:16 84:10 86:12 87:16 66:19 66:20 66:24 holepl 102:24 103:12 in-depthp1 72:10 89:19 90:22 88:12 88:13 26:5 42:11 42:12 46:17 65:12 68:10 honorpi 72:7 in plant [1 101:18 informed ui 95:16 interesting p] 62:12 73:1 81:13 hopent 38:6 53:10 in-servicept 101:18 inhabit [i]
27:12 76:17 hearing pi 27:7 68:14 81:18 95:13 101:21 initialp]
86:16 interimpj 85:8 27 9 65:14 72:25 96:2 100:18 inaction til 26:20 input pj 52:24 internalpj 32:20 heart p152:8 hopefuloj 65:10 inadequacies 01 insights pj 5:18 32:20 66:15 66:16 10:5 52:19 Inteinct [i]
86:11 heartening p] 29:17 hopcfillly pj 4:14 inadequately pl inspecti 2) 5:5 interpretedlij 31:12 heatpl 71:22 ISPes p1 72:11 701 8:11 8:15 9:23 9:24 intersections pl heavilyni 50:25 l*P nggil 66:6 inappropriately ni 10:3 10:8 15:8 24:13 i
heel il 56:5
- 8 52:21 horizontalpj 55:7
,27:8 introducc[ 1 3:11 hocis p129:20 horizontalspj $5:7 ntive ]
83 inventory p) 52:5 lichlpel 2:2 4
ns tcd pl 1025 61:1 61:20 61:21 3:2 3:2 4:4 hourp] 31:22 31:23 84:15 72:17 7:6 8:6 8:19 41:5 98:24 investigated [2]
inc 01:8 inspccting M llA 101:9 101:14 9:19 11:1 11:7 hours pi 6:1 11:16 11:18 11:25 6:9 78:4 103:7 incidencep] 101:18 823 4 62:3 12:6 12:17 12:21 housen) 39:11 incidental 28:7 46:11 54:21 54:22 60:21 60:24 63:2 inspection [4:1 14:9
$$ 3 13:3 13:7 16:18 81:14 63:13 63:20 Ilubert pl 6:17 5
investigations p1 30:22 39:6 39;10 32:20 49:9 IE{0:7 6
2602 18 19 19:14 19:17
- 4 20
- 21 24:1 25:25 hurttil 68:7 39:14 42:5 42:8 investigatory p1 included pl 20:15 47 19 52:12 55:2 27:22 28:21 30:5 31:17 hypotheticalni 61:19 70:21 73:14 55:5 56:19 $9:23 invited p) 5:18 33:6 35:7 35:18 42:3 includingpl 8:15 60:20 61:1 63:6 70:2 70:16 35:23 38:17 38:25 bypotheticals pl 10:1 10:3 10:9 63:8 63:10 63:22 involved [ini 7:13 40:10 41:17 43:1 56:18 44:2 44:7 45:24 incomc[i]
63;4 64:4 64:5 64:6 41:8 54:15 54:20 47:17 49:22 51:13 Inconelp]
39:13 54:24 55:1 61:23 1
92 0
6 1
idca p 42 4 47:12 31:1 93:2 100:3 101:18 dNM 55:20 57:1 58:1 55 57 5 incorporatc pi 5d7 10101 59:10 59:17 60:6 5
90.
54:25 ft20 97:17 37 38 77; inspections pi 15:13 60:11 61:22 62:1 identificd p 1 4:24 incurpl42:25 24:12 42:3 48:16 tronic p1 68S 62:22 63:6 63:10
[4 indeed pi 14:10 49:15 49:17 54:3 ISATooi 20:23 63:18 65:6 67:2 50:14 78:9 78:j0 20:24 22:20 23:10 inspectoris]
3:13 27:7 46:11 47:6 69:1 69:21 72:18 73:3 75:14 76:10 32:24 38:1 88:19 3:15 7:20 7:20 47:6 49:11 52:8 g1:19 78:3 78:7 78:24 92:12 28:2 79:13 79:19 82:23 32 5
- 9 independent pl inspectors v] 42:6 Island p3 S
87:25 88:25 91:15 50:3 81:10 81:14 6:23 insparc[il 72:4 22:9 27:19 43:24 93:8 98:1 98:17 82:6 independently pl installed pol 7:15 44:5 45:1 65:15 12:8 86:18 102:14 102:17 103:4 identifyingp] 32:4 8:11 10:4 10:15 71:16 82:19 94:15 103:6 103:10 ignores pl 19:21 Indicate pl 30:11 10:18 24:18 34:3 isolated pj 28:6 held 91 43:12 84:22 impact voi 20:18 indicated p]
35:10 34:6 36:13 90:3 8004 85:2 67:9 67:9 67:13 44:3 instance p1 70:2 isolation pj 99:3
, dication[il 66:13 anstead p]
101:11 99:5 help p1 22:12 36:19 6725 68:24 80:1 in 36:25 90:20 90:23 99:21 indications p125:5 Institute's p1 71:16 issue ps]
14:21 Ilenty al 2:11 impacts pl 68 9 25:18 insufficient pj 7:2 15:9 15:9 15:23 11:7 11:8 13:8 implement p1 15:7 individualpl 33:11 integrated pl 23:14 18:14 21:13 21:21 impicmentation p1 34:1 65:22 6503 52:13 23:1 23:5 27:20 18:19 20:19 69:3 27:24 33:9 34:7 78:24 91:6 36:3 36:6 36:11 69:25 77:7 implemented ni individuals 0127:5 YD3 59 19 34:13 34:14 34:16 hereby vi 105:3 hidep] 26:19 44:18 46:11 51:25 70:5 70:19
!n igentp1 69:9 34:23 34:23 34:25 intend pl 8:14 35:12 35:j5 35:18 hightsi 29:25 31:14 imPI pl 30:9 industry pl 44:14 49:15 37:18 37:20 39:4 65:21 66:3 66:4 58:16 66:3 68:3 66:7 67:14 76:9 intended [il 73:13 41:5 42:17 47:4
!"P 8 "I 3
high-ups 01 66:4 fif y87 higheral 27:14 08 30:10 I
t P1 60:1 60:3 60:6 hinge pl 99:22 23:5 39:3 61:17 ag; tionp 21:19 60:7 60:17 61:16 inferringpl 59:20 hinging pl 99:17 61:24 65:8 80:10 62:19 64:25 65:3 inform pl 27:10 TilB REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart 11agopian & Ramsdell Index Page 7
issned - Maine Condenseltl*
PUBLIC MEETING /RF3 TART PLAN MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
74:14 80:14 84:13 78:21 92:2 32:12 32:16 34:21 92:7 92:25 101:17 91:2 93:20 94:15 88:21 91:13 91:24 junk pl 18:23 34:25 36:5 38:6 licensec's p1 4:19 localpl 4:14 82:17 95:1 96:11 96:15 Justice pl 54:22 least pel 7:17 14:17 16:4 49:25 locate pl 28:3 97:14 101:4 102:11 46:15 53:5 62:18 52:15 63:13 63:20 Lochbaump1 70:12 3ustified m 91 9 assued pl 40:20 67 9 67 9 74:6 74:3 70:21 92:21 Justifics[tl 91:3 92:6 94:7 96:13 licensecs [2]
30:4 locked pl 84:8 issues pel 4:21 Justifypl 22:10 leave p15:23 91:16 33:7 g49 4:33 4:25 7:19 49:7 91:20 97:2 licensing p1 15:13 Lockhart-Wagnervi 9:5 9:20 18:11 led p] 70:14 38:21 48:22 105:2 g2 2g
-K-left pl 62:22 67:1I lic pl 69:18 2
longerpl 54:10 33:21 33:24 34:1 keeppj 29:13 63:18 97 3 lifelsi 25:20 30:20 look p714:15 6:9 34:2 34:10 35:1 68:15 legislative pl 27:7 30:22 43:10 79:20 8:2 13:4 16:4 35:11 35:11 36:2 kid [2] 18:18 18:25 88;6 89:17 23:14 25:8 30:17 36:22 37:24 38:1 kind p2]
7:4 legislature ts 58:25 lifeboats pl 20:9 37:13 40:25 44:12 38:8 38:8 38:19 12:3 38:23 48:25 61:7 83:15 liftp] 17:4 46:10 47:9 47:22 45:14 47:2 47:4 54:23 61:24 73:16 length [2]
19:16 lifted [ 1 17:5 47:25 48:1 48:12 53:2 53:19 53:20 82:13 87:12 90:21 101:8 liftI E DI 15:20 48:13 68:13 71:20 71:20 73:15 74:2 60:18 62:8 70:25 90:22 90:23 lengthsIil 16:5 lightpj 20:25 43:20 75:3 75:7 75 9 71:3 72:21 72:21 knowing pl 83:13 lessis] 22:18 23:23 46:21 63:3 70:4 75:13 77:18 80:12 73:6 73:8 73:16 73:18 74:1 74:11 knowledge ts) 17:17 41:3 41:4 67:9 likelypj 16:3 81:16 85:10 89:24 75:12 79.24 81:16 38:19 38:20 46:2 lessonpi 34:21 likewisc[il 14:8 90:1 96:7 99:22 81:17 81:19 81:23 82:6 82:7 99:25 102:11 lessons pl 32:12 limit 3131:23 60:12 82:7 82.8 82:14 known pl 4:22 32:16 38:6 looked gel 30:19 60 13 83:31 85:22 87:23 39:13 47:7 47:8 48:5 letterpil 4:12 limitationsp] 7:24 90:12 90:12 92:2 Kris p) 2:10 6:12 14:22 15:17 15:20 70:25 72:21 96:1 93:4 93:6 92:7 6:13 17:5 17:5 17:15 limited pl 23:22 96:3 101:1 92:10 93:16 93:16 32:1 35:12 100:3 31:7 49:12 99:8 looking g2,3 5:25 94:35 96:7 103:3
-L.
102:3 102:5 12:8 25:5 25:10 issuingp]
23:7 Ictiers pol 11:9 limiting t:1 99:8 30:18 35:24 37:7 items pl 45:1 lack pl 19:23 12:18 13:9 13:11 limits til 60:11 37:8 42:7 42:7 50:5 52:5 languagept 12:23 13:16 13:21 18:22 linc14] 35:7 35:9 48:9 50:4 51:16 itselfpil 26:13 12:24 93:22 94:7 95:6 68:22 101:24 52:14 52:18 64:13 66:12 72 @ 7530 28:12 32:12 52:8 largcusi 21:17
]cyclpol 5:6 lines pl 78:14 92:5 76:25 80:3 80:4 70:2 82:25 86:18 22:6 22 9 22:18 6:20 6:22 19:6 L.innelipel 2:11 81:12 81:12 89:5 87:14 100:12 100:23 22:20 33:10 42:16 22:11 40:19 46:24 19:17 19:17 19:18 93:3 99:12 100:20 101:20 45:12 45:16 45:18 49:8 60:12 71:17 100:25 45:21 91:3 93:2 Icycis pi 6:25 2
2
.J.
largcly(11 39:12 8 UI license [22]
11:19 23:16 24:21 24:24 largcrpj 24:5 12:9 12:22 13:2 25:14 70:9 89:3 losing pl 20.7 Jacksonpl 13:19 24:5 42:25 16:19 17:18 50:23 89:3 90:6 91:14 losspl 43:22 Jacknon,s 91 27:1 last i,1 11:10 22:16 76:25 84:22 85:2 liquid pl 61:8 lotsni 64:15 James pg 7:20 24:18 40:15 46:10 85:3 85:7 85:14 61:9 61:9 62:16 lovepl 51:6 65:18 Ja ary 21:13 1
60:21 68:11 86 9 8 87 g;
limip] 2:4 3:14 latc pl 37:17 96:12 96:16 96:20 85:17 93:13 98:25 68:4 68:5 68:23 job [el 29:7 29:18 latencss til 98:24 licensed p]
10:14 listed p]
71:11 68:23 68:24
" "I WI li nsoc16 1 4:20 6
0 lawmakerspl 27:10 72:14 jobs p) 19.8 19:10 92 10:7 11:18 lowest pl 79:24 lawyerpi 13:5 12:6 14:6 14:11 listening pl 46:15 lunaticpl 97:2 John pl 2:3 3:19 lawyers (2) 13:7 14:19 14:20 15:6 listingpl 74:25 69:13 75:6 96:15 16:10 17:6 20:24 92:24
.y.
Jonathan p1 2:15 lay pl 72:4 75.18 21:18 22:13 23:13 literally pl 44:15 mailingi11 83:23 79;5 23:21 28:20 31:13 94;g Iivc pl !5:2 33:5 Jordan pt 27 8 31:13 32:1 34:2 laIs 01 4:24 g1:7 Msinc v41 1:10 37:11 37:13 37:25 1:19 2:7 3:8 27:13 IC8dCfD1 3:38 40:12 40:17 42:23 lives p] 70:8 70:9 judgep]
28:14 3g) 4;g 49 27 8 44:18 47:20 48:11 living pl 279 4:10 5:5 5:19 jagtagpl 49;g9 leads pl44:25 49:2 49.6 49:10 33:3 33:11 6:18 6:19 6:21 judgment pl 10:22 leakage pl 58:7 49:14 50:6 51:1 loaded pl 99:6 7:2 7:11 7:23 38:15 38:18 38:18 60:6 51:24 52:7 52:17 LOCAp21 21:12 7:25 8:14 9:22 judgments pl 27:4 53:5 53:12 56:18 Icsking pl 27:22 21:17 21:22 22:2 11:22 11:25 12:14 56:21 57:17 58:10 38:11 60:15 22:6 229 22:15 13:25 16:18 17:2 58:18 59:25 E13 Julypl 72.8 72:14 leanin 98:5 22:19 22:20 23:3 17:2 18:16 19:2 jumpedpl 90:13 44:3 45:7 45:10 Icarnp 81:22
.8 4
June p) 37:17 58:20 learnedpl 22:5 76:24 80:8 91:2 22:10 25:2 25:17 4
Index Page 8 TIIE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdcll
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN CordenscItl*
M ine's - notes MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
25:23 25:23 26:2 Maryland p] 84:6 73:2 misinterpretstion pi 93:21 96:24 97:20 26:5 26 14 26:16 84:7 Meisacr's Iij 30:9 30:14 98 2 26:17 26:21 26:23 Massachusetts 01 meltdown pj 20:1 missed tij 52:19 myriad gu 16:8 27:10 27;II 27:13 85:5 20:5 misunderstand [ij material p) 301:16 Incmbers gs) 3:10 23:6
-N-j j
30:24 32:14 33:22 26:11 70:7 71:6 misunderstandingp) 101:25 name tel 3:2 38:16 39:7 39:7 materials [2]
102:2 88:3 26:6 29:3 3:22 11:8 19:18 39:20 39:22 40:1 102:6 mention [q 84:20 mitigate gel 6:24 26:1 70:11 79:5 40:4 40:21 43:11 matter [7]
13:14 Incationed p) 58:24 mitigated pl 68:5 81:6 88:4 43:20 43:23 44:24 30:2 38:4 44:10 75:6 modelp1 43:21 Namelyp1 92:10 46:12 46:13 46:25 59:18 87:8 98:7 Inentioningpj 25:18 45:7 national [ 1 68:6 II met p1 4:8 69:8 anodification121 nauticalpl 75:19 3
9 05 2 61:6 61:13 65:2 meter p) 76:20 34:17 34:20 warpi 27:9
"" ' * *
- I'l 4 I Inodifications pl warlym 7:12 65:8 65:9 65:16 rnethod sj 44:19 99 3 66:11 66:13 67:5 50:1 94:5 100:9 7:13 34:2 necessarilyp] 48:4 67:8 67:12 68:2 niay p514:25 5:24 68:2 68:2 68:4 5:24 21:1 21:10 methodicall iiI modified p1 10:14 Y
necessary[5] 6:24 68:6 68:7 68:8 23:9 24:23 31:3 73:24 money pl 68:15 39:22 43:12 86:19 68:14 68:15 68:16 32:10 37:9 37:17 methodology p]
83:1 84:12 96:21 necessity pl 31:21 68:18 68:20 68:21 52:14 53:4 59:16 47:13 monitor pj 42:7 69:19 70:9 70:9 69:4 82:1 83:10 micro-curies [21 5&8 need go! 16:10 16:12 70:10 70:19 72:36 85:22 87:15 89:18 61:2 61:11 Inonitoringp] 42:5 27:13 30:24 45:2 73:9 79:8 80:13 90:20 90:23 92:2 microfissurcS[i]
66:2 56:18 89:7 102:6 80:24 81:2 8]:13 100:38 103:13 101:7 month p]
37:12 103:39 81:18 81:21 81:25 McKeen ni 2:15 microscopicio 37:16 neededpi 29:11 82:9 82:24 83:11 79;5 79:5 21:10 months g4j 26:11 s pl 20:15 2
1 pi 1
midpl 72:8 100:7 43:7 72:17 75:2I 87:1 88:5 88:10 48.8 57:2 66:9 Middleni 1:18 Morrillp!
2:16 negative ni 15:10 88:16 89:5 90:9 79:16 80:22 86:4 65:15 81:5 81:7 dMy M 90:16 91:23 92:13 94:6 might p]
27:12 most gel 16:3 24:12 92:21 94:13 95:23 28:22 39:2 103:3 34:4 43:15 43:16 ncycrtsj 6:18
- 8"8 HI 55:8 63:4 103:14 26 22 43:21 60:24 96:7 97:23 98:9 26:7 62:22 76:23 88:9 28:9 61:11 86:10 mi epj 8:19 99:2 100.6 105:3 Inovc pj 14:18 10100 105:13 Incasurcs p]
60:14 16:2 16:3 49:12 M aine'.s p1 55:16 mechanistn p] 59:11 Mile tici 20:1 56:14 71:8 85:21 new p:121:3 33:4 10):10 20:4 21:25 22:9 34:3 36:6 44:13 maintato p) 51:1 27:19 43:24 44:5 anoved p]
46:1 58:1 58:4 58:15 Inedia pl 34:18 45:1 65:15 94:14 85:3 80:9 59:7 60:7 62:17 maintained p148:2 miles p]
31:22 rnovenncist til 46:16 69:12 82:21 83:6 med..actoc pj 26:13 31:23 39:8 39:12 MS t,) 6:13 7:8 85:9 85:10 88:13 maintenance pl 84:18 meet 12157:4 74:16 75:18 75:19 85:13 8:8 9:10 9:24 101:25 major pj 30:22 Inccting pij 1:11 milestonc p] 103:20 10:17 10:24 11:3 news p154:5 H:6 61:5 67:6 67:10 3:5 4:8 5:16 Millerpl 14:25 newspaperpi 71:16 26:22 multipHediu 769 next p1 15:2 37:12
@5 makes p]
17:14 1
19 25:j 6 26:3 26:5 Miller's pj 6:18 musicalgn 54:9 57:8 103:19 62:13 66:14 man p1 66:2 26:10 26:21 27:13 26:25 33:14 33:20 must vi1 13:19 Nigelpl 2:13 managernent tej 27:25 28:17 37:19 38:33 13:22 13:23 14:2 45:24 45:25 9:3 21:3 31:11 46:14 46:23 51:23 millionisj 76:1 14:8 15:7 17:13 nobody p1 66:9 46:14 84:17 85:2 58:25 59:5 66:1 76:7 76:18 79:8 17:14 17:24 28:11 gg;39 85:9 87:7 88:12 66:2 69:11 72:3 79:9 79:14 79:15 34:19 gag managerpj 3:23 72:6 72:20 72:20 79:16 Mycrspo 2:11 56:9 27:21 85:4 73:1 73:4 73:7 Millstonc pl 32:13 2:15 11:7 11:8 75:8 83:17 83:18 H:17 H:21 D0 mandated p1 97:13 mind pj 27:9 H q:.
83:24 84:4 84:4 12 12:10 12:18 65 March p4]
4:12 84,8 84:9 g4 1 mindful p) 80:22 12:23 13:5 13:9 normalpj 3:16 4:14 6:15 7:25 84:24 86:8 86:9 minimally p] 71:21 14:12 14:23 16:16 5:9 5:10 8:22 25:3 26:3 86:11 87:4 96:14 minimum pj 41:4 16:21 16:24 17:9 normally p]
9:1 26:10 26:21 27:13 98:17 103:17 71:Ig 17:23 18:2 18:8 63:18 18jj Notarypl 105:2 1
tings [s]
1 minus 01 43:7 4
35 105:16 60:20 71:10 72:3 minute p1 4:6 31:22 69:1 69:2 86:6 86:14 95:22 72:6 72:19 72:25 41:5 69:2 69:3 71:4 note pl 19:8 74:6 103:22 73:3 75:8 minutes [7]
5:23 72:24 74:19 75:7 74:8 margin pl 45:11 E
4 72:9 78:8 78:25 75:17 78:1 78:6 notes pil 33:10 2
5 45:14 67:13 87:21 91:15 98:21 78:9 78:22 91:7 33:16 33:17 33:18 misinformation p1 91:16 91:25 92:9 33:21 33:23 37:3 margins p1 74:10 Meisnerpi 26:7 gg:7 93:5 93:13 93:19 37:5 37:14 78:13 mark 0186:2 28:20 29:4 72:8 95:2 95:7 95:12 93:1 TILE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell Index Page 9
i Personnel Condenacit!"
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN mothin6 YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
=
I nothingI41 12:19 62:7 63:23 63:24 open pj 6:4 72:14 overarching pj 34:14 patience 91 78:2 13:15 59:11 92:16 63:25 65:19 69:11 78:4 78:7 87:11 34:16 103:16 noticepg 83:23 73:8 73:22 83:21 openedpl 46:22 oversight pl 65 9 Patrick pl 2:8 opennesspl 97:12 overstated tij 62:20 Paulpl 69:21 97:25 83:25 - 84:5 86:7 7 91:11 92:22 Operability [i16:23 overview pl 39:4 paycheck pl 85:6 p1 86:6 numbers pj 21:10 86 9 86:12 41:8 61:22 61:24 OPeratc pil 14:10 own [i715:4 9:13 pays pi ss 23 62:8 64:4 14:12 21:20 40:5 16:12 25:21 26:16 pCTpj 45:21 2j0 Peacep) 76:19 2
7 2 10 numerous [2] 7:21 989 54:17 70:1 959 Peak 0145:11 25:14 28:17 29:1 48:21 Operated [21 6:20 97:16 97:19 97:21 Peakspi 11:9 20 4
6:21 34:11 35:14 36:2 owner gi, 51:1 penalty pj 77:6 1
36:12 36:22 39:21 073791 44:13 operatingpi 7:2 ownctship 91 71:13 pennypi 82:25 40:17 41:19 56:15 oathpl 14:7 7:3 13:21 14:4 88:11 88:14 88:16 pcopicp4]
4:22 42:1 47:21 67:16 5:21 11:11 13:14 58:3 74:12 75:22 objective [t]
81:11 79 22
-P.
13:15 15:1 18:13 76:2 79:15 85:1J observationI5I9:7 operation p61 11:14 18:22 18:24 36:12 87:13 89:8 89:18 21:11 56:4 63:1 90:12 92:17 93:21 22:10 22:16 22:20 P.M.] p]
3:1 46:15 49:5
$0:18 obt@ain pl 76 25:17 38:16 40:2 103:25 50:20 53:19 67:18 94:11 98:20 63:15 41:1 43:7 43:8 pagepj 2:10 61:8 68:13 71:1 72:12
" NRCpal 2:1 3:11 3:12 3:14 obtained 91 64:22 43:9 459 45:15 74:3 74:3 74:23 72:13 77:2 77:8 3:22 3:23 4:9 obvious pl 62:13 48:2 60:9 76:2 92:24 81:6 87:20 87:22 4:11 5:2 5:4 obviously pl 29:9 operations pl 84:21 panel (41 3:18 89:23 94:1 94:11 4
7:20 8:1 8:4 41:6 88:13 88:16 opined [ij 27:5 4:1 4:3 97;13 96:12 96:14 96:15 9
4 88:20 opinion 01 30:13 paperwork 01 86:17 occasionalpi 76:8 opinionsp]
38:12 part psl 5:9 5:11 30:9 31:16 43:5 pcrpi 31:22 31:23 11:9 11:15 11:23 41:5 41:5 76:6 12:1 13:20 13:24 occurp) 9:1 opportunity ps) 46:9 49:25 50:4 22:7 25:3 26:11 50:25 86:6 3:2 6:2 9:14 79;g g h2 4
perceived p1 21:1 26:12 26:19 26:21 occurred [2]
72:21 23:14 51:24 62:2 27:16 77:21 27:24 73:6 79:3 87:11 87:19 77:7 83:10 93.8 percent p4]
23:22 28:2 28:3 28:5 occurs pl 98:.13 88:23 89:1 96:19 103:14 23:23 24:9 24:14 103:22 28:8 28:10 28:12 offp] 13:16 19:5 partialp!
47:11 24:18 24:19 39:23 2
3 2 41:15 89:12 101:22 optinusticp1 46:7 47:13 99:17 100:5 40:3 40:5 40:6 4
102:24 oranges pl 73:17 loog goo ll 40:13 40:19 40:22 46:11 46:17 51:15 40:22 41:3 419 52:25 53:15 63:16 offerpl 81:5 orderp41 18:11 participatc p] 8:23 43:8 51:8 55:18 63:25 65 9 65:10 office p]
3:4 21:13 23:7 40:19 70:16 65:12 65:16 65:23 3:21 32:21 54:21 41:20 45:6 45:10 Eartici ation E
66:5 66:8 66 9 70:6 70:18 95:18 45:20 45:22 65:24 9;7 9:18 8:17 70:14 83:21 94:21 percentagcpl 23:23 66:11 66:14 66:15 officcs p]
32:22 96:9 103:16 95:20 40:7 68:20 69:14 69:17 0III.
E rticic 31 60:22 pcreentages pj 55:14 75:23 76:23 77:11 ordered pl 21:20 39 8 3 3 6
perfectly pl 95:1 ohanizati n[2]
particular[7] 21:6 oilpi 68:17 68:19 82:17 83:16 83:22 71:24 21:16 62:21 70:2 perforrn pl 15:13 organization,s pl 94:24 97:18 99:24 15:14 15:15 84:3 84:20 84:24 old pl 57:19 58:1 77;I 85;8 85:13 89:21 58:14 58:16 72:24 particularly pj 33:13 Performance m i
Or8Ein*I nl 7:14 100:5 16:7 25:12 50:20 90:11 90:17 91:20 017 E mpj 69:12 50:21 72:23 73:9 1
7:16 10:3 10:16 91:22 91:25 92:11 partics pi 58:22 oncc t41 10:21 16:14 10:19 35:25 36:9 80:17 80:18 81:4 94:6 94:13 94:16 30:5 51:21 48:1 partner pl, 29:5 perforrned pl 48:17 96:20 99:1 99:23 101:4 101:14 101:22 onc[4 ] 7:6 12:5 originally p] 8:11 partnershippl 30:9 perfoming 7323 102:2 18:12 20:15 23:9 10:4 parts 9139:18 67:21 80:7 80:7 y 3d5 originated pl 61:14 68:9 74:22 NRC's ni 3:4 perhaps p1 30:6 40:10 42:25 45:8 otherwisc pl 45:2 pass pi 30:1 loo;j4 0i 83d8 Q D1 74:14 47:5 47:10 57:12 oughtpj 69:7 passengerspi 20:8 period vi 31:1 Cucleargi71 1:6 599 60:3 65:16 outsp] 83:19 past p3] 26:ll 32:7 72:22 73:6 78:5 32:13 32:17 34:25 99:5 102:7 31:5 32:21 46:2 69:25 70:24 74:3 g
33:4 0uy ves pl 38:15 39:16 42:10 permissionp) 8:25 61:6 65:13 65:21 74:22 79:12 82:18 4
66:3 66:6 67:20 82:18 82:23 83:5 65:11 72:23 739 69:22 71:6 75:24 769 83:6 83:7 84:2 outage p1 24:18 79:11 100:7 81 9 82:1 95:18 85:1 85:17 94 9 outages pi 71:14 Pat p) 3:12
""W 95:19 95:7 96:15 97:3 outcomcpl 1059 Path D1 22:7 18:24 54:24 75:18 Zukes p]
S3:7 99:15 100:8 100:19 outside m
$4:4 p
6$17 rmberpol 24:2 onc-third pl 39:14 34;g 62 PdW E3 32:15 39.21 40:1 onespj 28:1 34:5 o
11 43:13 E
ays pl 62:15 38:15 38:17 95:10 42:21 42:25 52:4 63:21 67 9
- 13 62 I personnelp! 80:11 Index Page 10 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell i
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Cmdenselt!"
perspective public MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
perspective pol 34:3 38:12 39:25 95:10 prevent pl 38:8 50:2 53;3 r
4 5 tions pj 13:13 previous [ij 86:22 progress [ )
46:19 y, oj 3
Previouslyp) 27:19 progressing p177:24 l
49:21 52:18 67:20 46:4 47:15 47:15 Positive p) 15:11 44:3 prohibit t:1 15:23 90:19 48:17 48:19 48:22 pertained pj 60:25 48:25 49:3 51:1 Possessionpl 63:17 primary pi 30:11 projectpj 3:23 36:21 99:1 101:3 27:21 51:9 51:12 51:19 possibilityp1 99:22 53:19 53:21 59:12 99:24 101:2 101:6 102:10 Petergj 2:12 7:20 projected p1 99 7 25:25 26:1 28:2 i lcs pj 71:12 P
projection 91 52:6 5
ble j 91:10 P
petition pl 82:18 7
Projections pl 76:21 101:15 77:1 77:13 77:16 Possiblypl 28:7 Print oj 105:5 103:1 l
petitioned pl 69:25 80:7 80:11 80:17 88 8 printed p1 71:11 projects pl 3:3 petitions 01 70:4 84:19 85:4 89:17 94:17 101:5 101:23 postpj 27:18 43:23 privsie pj 26:2 3:17 3:20 90:9 i
Philadclphia pj 94 34 Pmbe t4j 23:19 90:10 90:16 P ant'spj 86:22 l
3:4 Postmarked pj 84:1 23:20 23:24 24:11 promotingpl 65:12 l
P antsp31 5:10 physicaloj 7:24 5 12 67:15 67:20 Postulatcol 23 9 probingpl 33:1 promptingrij 87:5 physically pj 8:14 73:20 73:22 75:25 posture p) 28:9 probicm pi 14:19 proofpi 44:1 9:24 10:3 10:25 76:2 76:18 76:25 potentiallypl 39:16 24:6 58:8 59:12 Propert2i 29:23 11:4 85:15 86:1 100:7 77:4 89:21 97:18 90:23 90:12 physician vi 28:15 s pi 55:6 poundingp] 98:14 pr len
,1 l
P,la propogation vil01:10 physicist oj 22:23
)7 32:24 36:12 40:18 proprietarypi 84:10 i
7 22 P ck pj 18:6 playtej 5:14 19:!'>
25
- 9 48:6 48:21 49:1 prosecute pj 77:8 pickingp:
62:14 19:16 29:4 22:11 23:8 35:4 5 3 6
$0 protect pi 66:5 picture pj 47:14 pleavi 27:21 40:5 40:13 40:22 piece pj56:8 56:15 pledging pl 79;8 41:2 43:8 46:2 t
66:13 72:23 73:18 74:10 78:10 78:13 Pr ting [2] 35:21
$I h3 $l pieces p]
17:10 plenty pt 83:1 6
$6 g
p backingp!
p u tsi 41:7 42:12 67:11 67:20 68:23 79:11 83:12 88:10 34:15 34:20 35:2 101:12 panching pl 82:25 plugged 19]
39:24 practice p1 71:12 35:6 35:13 36:2 Procedure pt 90:1 36:19 36:22 36:24 pipe g41 19:24 20:3 40:2 40:6 40:23 71:j5 Proceduresni 48:3 37;j4 92:3 92:20 22 9 91:4 41:14 41:20 42:22 pre-1980isj 22:14 "I
"I
, E7~5 d
21 105:4 11:6 102:13 pu in 11 41:9 P [CEEDINGS j g
4 Pf placc pj i
plu
)
l Proven pl 19:24 pre-TMI pj 45:10 o
89:15 89:17 j
83:2 10):6 25:)) 25:12 40:16 precluded p] 83:12 3:1 43:7 72:14 103:7 predicated pl 15:16 proceeds pl 92:7 E
6:
7 5
blaced DJ 15:5 predict pl, tion pl 60:2 52:10 83:21 point (4:1 11:3 processp41 4:7 27:5 34:19 45:6 13:4 13:10 15:5 predisposi 4:21 4:21 4:23 46:24 52:17 77:15 plan p2]I:10 3:5 17:8 18:1 18:9 57:2 5:9 5:11 5:11 91:11 102:19 3.7 4:10 4:11 23 h0lIj 23j9 prefacing p] 8:9 18 provided pi 14:11 4:13 4:16 4:19 23:4 45:8 87:10 25:12 25:12 25:15 prejudicialpl 70:18 46:23 46:24 47:18 1
908 93:24 j
5 7
35:9 42:1 42:2 preparation p] 39:6 47:23 48:14 49:25 44:20 53:14 61:4 prepared p) 61:23 53:3 58:4 64:4 provides p1 24:4 9:5 15:7 16:5 18:20 19:21 20.5 61:15 66:16 69:23 90:4 64:6 64:11 64:17 45:15 20:12 20:16 21:8 21 9 27:19 28:24 preparing pl 20:8 64:22 66:23 68:21 providing pl 80:9 70:17 74:21 74:25 8
76:11 8&l2 82:18 8&lg 28:24 29:1 29:6 prescribc p]
26:13 g
g 86:3 91:21 93:6 presentation pl
.f6 99:23 103:6 103:8 9:5 71:10 52:16 52:20 52:21 processespl 50:2 103:20 public p4]
1:11 53:5 63:3 71:9 presentations pg proclaims pl 87:14 3:7 4:13 5:13 72:14 72:19 73:14 pointed pl 31:22 92:5 producep) 8:4 5:14 6:16 9:6 73:24 74:3 74:22 34:38 prescated pl 31:4 pr ducingp] 68:16 7
1 P s n
- 20
- 8 51 3:8 8
8 5 pmduct pi 6& 22 plansni 5:14 policy pl 8:24 pressurc(41 71:21 38:14 46:5 47:5 30:12 73:12 9:1 9:11 9:17 79:13 81:1 102:9 productionpl 83:7 49:5 51:14 63:7 83:9 84 14 64:8 64:9 65:13 plant pri 7:13 32:3 pressures p1 21:1 7:19 7:22 8:16 politicalp!
102:25 55:25 79:18 79:18 products [i]
61:10 65:14 65:19 65:23 10:14 11:14 11:14 poorpi 68:6 80:23 professionalp]
66:5 66:15 67:9 portion pl 93:2 pressurized p) 67:7 38:12 38:18 3
4 j
ja jo i
14:12 14:13 14:19 posedpj 94:23 presumably Vj 13:24 program pl 3:9 81:14 83:17 83:18 10:6 37:14 50:15 15:19 17:18 17:21 position p1 8:1 pretty pl 56:10 83:24 84:4 84:4 52:3 71:11 92:20 18 5 25:21 26:22 11:12 37:4 37:8 58:13 84:5 84:7 86:5 26:24 27:9 28:17 38:3 54:10 95:10 programs p1 4:23 87:11 87:12 90:25 Tile REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell Index Page 11
public's - resolved CondenscIt!"
PU2LIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
92:1 96S 97:12 63:10 63:13 recent pl 27:21 27:12 r-Wlypj 28:8 I
105:2 105:16 raiscpj 79:25 27:25 39:6 39:18 regionalp1 3:4 repetition p1 84:16 102:2 33:18 repetitive p1 74:9 t
- public's pl 49:21 raised 921 28:1 53:14 33:10 34:10 35:2 recently p) 7:18 regions pj 24:13 replaced p1 56:13 publiclygij 77:22 59:1 78:17 78:17 20:2 27:20 39:19 segularpl 62:3 58:17 publishedp1 64:23 92:10 regulatc[1]
28:11 replacement [i]
7223 raiscs UI 61:16 73:5 regulation [4j 14:21 79:13 P8IIDI 9s:22 pumpp) 71:22 22:10 32:22 95:19 report os) 28:3 i
"E DI II I regulations p318:12 32:14 33:2 37:19 l
punishedp]
65:25 3
range 91 36:8 recollectionp175:10 f,Ij3 ] @6 Purportedlypi83:17 1
0 1
rapidlypl 27:16 recommend p] 11:10 13:19 13:22 13:23 61:6 63:13 63:22 Purposclil 18:19 15:20 13:25 14:4 14:6 72:15 82:23 92:20 Pursuangpl 81:3 ratheroj 83:2 recommendations p1 14:14 14:18 14:24 92:22 92:23 i
purview pj 90:21 I
4 32:15 32:19 32 22 15:19 16:8 16:12 reported [2]
39:20
{
put[ifl 4:13 4:20 rationale pl 21:14 recommends pj 17:19 17:22 19:4 105:4 7
16:22 25:21 26:24 31:6 40:1 46:12 70j23 26:14 22:2 26:16 27:4 reportingp]
52:1 50 2 60:11 67:19 rationalized p191:9 record [izi 6:6 28:10 31:10 31:12 62:14 31:14 31:20 33:8 72:2 82:2 84:17 rattic pl 89:12 49:7 51:16 67:17 reports [io) 58:5 44:25 94:19 84:18 86:3 96:1 Raymond uj 2:16 72:8 75:8 75:17 63:2 63:4 63:6 P:tting p1 85:11 re-establish [2 51:ll 85:21 87:8 91:17 regulatorpj
$6:21 63:9 63:10 63:20 90:19 51:15 91:21 105:7 regulators pl 29:24 64:6 64:21 64:23 reactor [141 3:3 FCC0fd8 l23 87:11 46:6 representatives p]
i l
-Q-3:17 3:20 32:21 93:11 regulatory [12] 1:6 4:9 38:10 l
41:1 41:3 42d8 recovery (21 21:4 11:20 15:25 16:6 representingpj qualifications p]
61:14 67:15 95:19 92:8 16:20 19:25 36:7 70:12
- f reputation p] 83:4 reduccpt 6&l4 q
ified p1 47:3 8
42!20 Reinforcing [ij 39:15 7 3[20 q=lity p]
10:1 reactors pj 67:7 3
5:5 reinspections p]
89:10 39:g9 90:7 ality/ Safety p]
67:8 reduction p] 41:10 4 :4 90:14 90:17 90:21 1:5 readp] 32:10 58:4 rcductions p1 74:10 reiterate p1 42:10 91:5 qualmspl 46:3 68:8 95:22 97:23 81:25 101:19 redundancies pl 44:24 87:6 requesting [i] 42:20 34:15 35:21 questionabicpj readabicpj 53:1 rejected pj 101:4 requests [2]
71:1 rc un antp1 313 84:23 readinesspj 1:10 relap pl27:17 73:21 questioning [1120:25 5:19 7:11 57:12 reevaluation [il related [31 36:23 require pl 8:14 questions ti,] 5:24 74:23 74:24 75:3 32:12 69:3 82:14 12:6 17:16 17:20 6:4 6:6 7:7 ready p]
15:19 tcferenced til 63:22 relates pl 69:5 19:4 37:9 55:17 18:14 20:11 43:19 30:25 72:7 75:1 references 01 76:4 releasepl 61:9 72g 54:1 62:25 71:8 realp1 18:17 47:18 referred pl 33:6 61:20 61:21 62:23 required [iol 12:25 78:8 92:12 92:13 51:18 62:19 92:12 59:2 70:15 37:10 44:13 45:6 1*
d I'I Ifl3 94:4 94:22 96:1 96:19 referring pl 7:10 85:14 87:7 88:16 9 l3 96:24 97:24 reality p]
30:20 61:6 63:12 63:19 94:16 96:17 96:17 CICV " UI 4
q:sck p1 54:1 30:21 49:22 51:4 refers p1 100:3 requirement pj19:25 89:3 90:7 53:21 80:6 rclicd p1 22:15 36:11 42:19 74:5 dII q11ckly til 47:18 realize p) 13:9 relypj 22:5 49:24 requirements [,1 11:20 11:20 169 q itcle:1 21:20 19:13 42:15 58:7 reflection [i] 73:22 23:7 42:16 45:22 reallyps 5:8 relying p]
44:21 16:20 26:24 36:7 reflects p]
28:18 49:2 52:25 57:5 74:18 94:15 48 21 53:1 56:24 11:11 18:16 21:22 58:16 61:3 66:16 34:13 47:25 48:8 refusalpj 13:20 remainderpl 49:13 requiring [i]
36:7 69.8 75:20 75:23 59:11 64:25 66:9 refused pl 83:14 remembcr01 75:25 rcroutepj 7:23 1
refuscspl 95:12 removing til 58:12 rerouted pl 8:12 qu pe 1
4 madcrpi 1 & 22 res{dence[:1 85:4 6:19 7:12 7:13 rearrangingpl 20:6 7:14 7:16 7:24 ICE U1 44:13 rendered pl 15:23 resident gj 3:15
" DI 3
27:14 27:14 46:23 regaining p1 50:1 89:15 reopen p1 79:17 70:10 reasonabic p1 50:22 f*88tdI'll 3:7 repairp1 25:21 residents oj 70:18 quoted (i1 29:21 31:16 59:19 62:10 43:10 55:19 56:10 resistanec [il 99:10 77:15
-R-reasonablypj 66:22 N N 8]3 56:15 79:8 resolution pi 78:10 repaired 91 39:17 78:16 radioactivity p1 reasons pl 26:20 101:17 61:12 29:20 35:19 37:9 regarding p1 27:24 repairs p1 19:23 resolvc pl 26:18 25;20 39:21 43:11 38;l 50:3 50:16 radiologic [2] 62:4 70:8 33:14 62:6 roccivedp1 33:11 regards pl 31:9 9
y8 resolved pj 5:1 radiologicalpj60:24 66:21 83:23 83:25 geg;0n DI 3:37 61:17 63:2 63:8 receiving p1 54:21 3:25 4:2 24:15 37:25 65:1 81:19 Index Page 12 TIIB REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Rarnsdell i
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN Condenacitl*
resolves - silent MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
81:23 82:8 93:16 returning pj 5:11 93:11 19:10 66:12 94 9 94:12 57:2
-S-second141 15:6 servants til 51:14 429 43:5 72:5 servicep 55:12 resolvesp1 50:10 reveal gal 26:12 S3 91 57:13 secondary p1 100:2 56:8 56:24 resource til 83:1 review 07]
5:2 safe 04114:10 14:12 100:21 102:13 set [s] 20:8 27:14 resources [ts] 21:3 12:7 12:11 18:4 g4;;4 34 25 15:1 15:1 15:3 19:19 Secondlypl 100:2 27:16 31:14 33:4 29:12 29:22 30:3 29:19 37:11 3705 38:15 40:2 40:21 secretarypj 70:22 33:10 71:19 97:21 30:13 30:21 30:23 41:25 459 47:11 55:12 65 9 67:17 secretary's(21 70:6 sets p1 97:18 2
64:
2 80:11 83:3 103:11 safely [5]
7:3 70:18 seven p]
71:12 40:5 53:22 77:17 section pil 15:8 71:20 81:8 reviewed [4]
10:1 77:17 15:8 15:9 16:4 severpl100:10 5 :14 12:14 12:25 88:20 0
6 respond pl 13:11 20
- 4 afety[42]
6:24 7:3 10:17 102:2 severepj 58:8 103:14 revacws pj 12:25 15:24 16:13 19:22 secure pl 58:19 had N:!O respondedvi 103:12 15j 34l1 20:2 20:14 23:1 seeun 5:22 8:3 70:8 82:13 3;
response nel 8:1 23:10 26:24 27:2 29:1 29:7 44:1 85:25 86:20 87:3 23:15 28:23 29:23 theton.calpi 72:3 27:5 27:6 27:11 46:10 48:13 50:9 87:23 88:7 98:23 29:23 49:11 51:18 Rich p] 3:16 28:9 38:8 38:11 50:9 56:18 57:17 102:15 102:23 103:5 69:22 73:21 92:14 Richard pj 2:2 38:15 39:25 41:23 60:25 66:20 66:24 1o3s 101:14 101:17 101:19 2:17 88:4 52:3 58:9 60:18 67:22 87:12 102:12 share p152:22 77:21 103d 3 right ps) 5:8 scck p] 28:9 87:24 87:25 90:24 0
5 45 75:5 80:8 80:10 sccking p]
38:1 shared p]
83:16 j
6 2
80:21 84:13 84:19 secm pj 42:14 45:4 shareholders pi responsible p] 94:24 47:17 53:13 62:5 99 12 90:13 90:20 76:5 82:24 92:11 80:16 I
I responsive p1 94:22 94:1g 99:14 selective pj 47:11 shares [1]
20:6 8
rightly p]
76:1
~
70 22 15 l5 gest pj 25:23 31:3 ringpj 71:21 9:23 10:4 10:9 Scllman pl 71:10 32:25 48:11 48:12 RIRpi 63:23 64:2 10:25 85:16 shocts [i]
100:9 72:5 73:1 sM pl 83dI 48:24 49:3 87:23 RIR's [4]
64:7 sait p] 20:9 Sen(41 2:17 88:3 restart [44]
I:10 64:8 64:23 65:1 sample p]
10:15 88:18 88:22 shiftal 86:21 Scnalcpl 88:5 shifted pi 15:22 3:7 3:7 4:10 road [s] 19:1 46:3 10:17 10:18 24:2 5:3 5:7 5:19 103:20 24:4 86:23
$l 4
8fg" 3 Shirlcy p1 13:18 4
hj robust pj 50:9 sampics pj 24:5 2
15:19 16:4 16:18 robustness p1 55:24 24:5 17:22 18:20 19:21 Rockville pl 69:10 sanctification pl sending p1 68:16 shoppingpi 82:13 89:23 89:25 98:25 20:5 26:7 269 84:7 82:15 seniorpl 3:15 short pl29:15 84:17 30.2 30:25 38:2 rod (51 57:14 57:19 sarcastic pj 75:23 31:11 95:18 shortening p1 29:10 i
57:24 58:5 60:6 satisfactorilypl hj sensep]
13:16 shoulders p1 32:25 r dspj 59:]9 56:25 71:19 71:21 shovcicd p]
51:20 54:2 56:5 57:12 i
65:8 73:12 74:3 role (5] 5:15 26:7 satisfied pl 16:14 71:25 79:17 show [4127:15 48:25 74:4 74:23 75:2 26:8 29:3 30:3 86:18 sensitized pl 101:25 72:9 75:17 77:25 80:19 101:23 rolcs pj 28:19 sa d p1 79:15 sent [41 4:11 13:9 showed p]
29:2 7
103:2 103:5 103:23 room pl4:13 31:15 32:14 93:22 ho s
D3 restarted pi 77:17 root pl 20:2 20:4 sentence p]
12:13 sho j
4 63 77:17 20:14 82:22 82:23 separate pl 34:6 s utpl 5:10 W
restarting p] 14:19 90:8 says pj 12:5 14:25 35:16 35:19 36:10 29:5 roughly pj 92:21 36:18 36:24 shutdown vi 26:25 15:1 17:14 17:14 restarts p]
18:5 Ruland pi 2:4 separated pl 7:21 sidepl 99:1 100:2 sca e pj 68:4 68:4 8:11 34:19 34:24 100:11 100:17 100:21 30:25 3:24 3:24 9:19 restricip]
41:2 9:21 10:6 10:18 scenario pj 99:7 36:1 102:3 102:6 102:10 separating til 35:22 sides 0181:13 restriction gij 23:8 11:5 36:17 99:15 99:15 result (4) 15:10 rulepj 14:21 16:1 Schoolpl 1:18 separation ps] 712 siftpj 13:12 15:11 15:15 22:4 42:11 65:15 7:19 10:5 27:20 signed pj 5:21 results pj 22:17 rules pl 14:6 14:17 Scientists p1 70:13 27:24 27:25 33:23 6:12 22:18 24:22 42:7 15:18 16:8 16:11 scope [y 23:23 33:24 34:14 34:23 significance p]
45:20 49:19 56:19 33:7 70:1 85:8 39' O 73:11 35:3 35:5 35:14 62:20 retrievaltil 93:10 run pl 50:18 51:12 screcr.ing p) 74:5 36:5 36:22 significantpl 21:2 58:5 77:3 83:6 74 1 sencs pl 49:1 23:7 62:6 92:10 retrofitted p1 43:15 98:24 sen.tintzedpl 67:16 91:21 97:14 43:16 return pl 40:13 runtiing til 51:20 scrutiny pl 48:25 serious pl 18:16 significantly pl 55:12 56:8 56:11 rupturc pl 99.4 52:11 87:12 48:21 96:9 22:18 56:15 56:24 90:7 scarchpl 36:15 senously pl 19:8 silent pj 19:23 TIIE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockbat [lagopian & Rarnsdell Index Page 13
sissilar-serisis Condenselt!"
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN
- MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER 00.
1 penitarpg 71:3 90:13 91:3 91:8 95:18 stop p1 47:17 94:7 surface [i]
29:17 81:1 sounds p1 45:17 staffspj 96:1 strainedp1 76:5 surprised [2]
56 24 '
4 sisiple p3 -
84:5 69:17 72:3 '97:1 stagepl65:16 65:17 Streetpj 1:19 61:3
-i sa'suplygug 56:17 102:8 semialaam[1]
102:1 strengthpl 31:9 surveyspl 61:18 stand p1 23:13 stress (s1 20:18 susceptiblep] 39:13 71:34 72:12 90:17 source pg.
66:22 C:7 101:12 101:12 79:24 57:10 68:13 90:8 100:8 100:16 55j8 59:16 101:13 sources 14) 32:20 standard pl - 29:25 100:22-swtogp1 99:19
~
17:11 67:7 67:10 68:1 pj 30:1 stressorstij 20 13 systenigial 41:2 99:6 9EI6 South t:1 69:2 standards pij 27:10 stretchod rs) 29:12 47:25 48:1 49:24 l
I sitpg 17:9 60:4 spacept 102:24 27:11 31:10 31:12 29:22 30:3 30:12 50:8 52:1 73:13 siestal' 3:15 52:13 span pj 25:6. 25:18 31:14 31:15 31:18 30:21 74:14 74:24 -75:1 58:20 62:23 speak ps]
5:21-36:3. 36:4 36:4 strict p]28:10 i sitting til.
72:13 6:12 6:16 - 10:13 66:8 "I'"' P'I-7#3 s&pj 56 22 j situation pj 49:23 54:12 69:10 69:15 standings pl 68:6 strongly pl-23:12 4
q 63:3 84:18 69:16 69:M ' 70:3 standpoint p] 8:21 97:9 48:6 48:12 48:24 situaticesp1 64:7 70:5 7f\\
- II 80:8 80:12 80:20 2
structuredp1 77:2.
49:3 49:13 72:10 h
h3 stands p]
94:11 80:3 72:15 73:18 73:23 six pl ~ 102:7 79;3 skillspj 52:24 82:12 89:1 91:6 startHj 40:10 50:1I stuffp1102:1 73:25 74:8 74 9 j
- 8 W8 sleevetil 42
- 12 speakers p]
2:10 stylc[ 184:16 sloovedlet 39:19 46:8 71:2 started [sj 4:5 subcommittec p1 l
4 67:22 40:8.41:13 41:13 speakingpj 18:13 59:1 i
~
24:17 69:22 82:16 starting p1 91:22 subjectpl 37:2 table pj 3:11 52:11 i
24:19. 24:20 -41:7 spec g4141:4 42:18 startup pi
,71:9 56:10 97:4 97:6 65:16 65:17 98:14 j
4 90:2 42:19 55:16 74:20 82:15 subjected pl 48:24 takes (2193:8 93:12 -
slesving pg 25:17 specific [4]
9:5 state girl 2:7 55:23 taking pj' 4:5 4
43$
66:23 89:16 42:15 44:17 47:25 3:13 5:12 13:21 subjectivep1 27:4 9:14 22:8 46:6
} slicepl 47:24 49:12 sp8:6ificallyp]$5:16 submariac pl 82:1 52:7 86:25 93:7 5
slices [il 47:10 68:3 68:9 70:19 submarines tal 81:10 talks pj 25:4 74:23 86:8 slidstil31:5 specification pl 83:6 88:5 88:20 substittil 98:18 tapping til 99:21 slidesp1 31:4 16:1 16:7 105:3 subscribep] 105:1I slightlyp]
42:20 specifications [ij statementp1 6:18 UI 41:22 subsequentpl 78:11
' smallpel 19:24 7:4 79 27:1 78:12 91:19 91:22 tax [i] 68:3 20:3 21:12 21:21 specs p]
$5:17 28:2 75:20 92:11 92:16 teampj 3:18 21:3 22:1 22:6 22:14 speculative p) 42:23 statementspj 9:12 subsequentlyp]
46:12 47:6 79:19 l
23:3 43:22 44:3 43:1 26:25 7g.g7 85:3 85 9 45:7 45:10 45:19 5:22 states pl 1:5 substantialpo]11:15 teams al 52:12 s{e- - E pl j
45:20 82:16 91:1 7:14 7:11 15:17 12:15 13:1 13:25 techpj 41:4 42:18 93:20 94:15 speed pl 31:23 status pl 92:7 14:3 17:12 ILR 42:19 55:16 55:17 smallerpl 24:20 spend p1 18:12 stayp] 67:22 45:22 46:18 90 3 tecimscal931 4:3 Snowe gal 69:13 31:7 79:g steampel 23:18 substantivcut 40:14 15:14 16:1 16:7 so-calledlij 84:10 spendingpl 79:10 24:10 24:14 24:16 success pl 68:20 21:22 40:15 41:21 52:24 53:2 85:21 softwast [ 1 4:22 spilling pl 65:25 25:3 25:19 39:4 suchp:1 5:6 4
8h23 WI W I
I solicit pj 8:25 spoke [i]
102:3 9:4 15:25 35:25 soliciting [ 1 54:20 spokesmantil 28:5 l
37:17 46:25 47:13 scalitics p]
M3 58:8 59:8 solidp127:6 84:2 spokesperson p]
43:14 54:2 54:15
' solycp3 40:18 19:19 55:1 55:4 55:11 58:24 sponsoredtil 74:15 2
21 V1 5
73 34
{,
2 technologytsi 67:21 spotted p].
25:8 89 35 89;'7 99:3 99:3 99:5 sufficientisj 43:3 someplace pl 54:5-spotty til 51:16 99:18 100:3. 100:12 45:11 80:9 telling pl' 15:24 sonnetimep1 100:6 spring p1 92:15 100:15 100:18 100:19 6d suggest pl 94:5 sonnetimes p1 30:6 squarc til 88:23 100:23 tellstil 65:2 100:14 42:15 staffps) 2:1 stocl p) 102:1 gumpy g3;9 temperature t:145:12 s
1 E3 M
3 9
- g.
)
g somewbestpj 12:13; 23:6 26:11 27:3 step p1 22:25 22:25 8uPerfluous p145:2 terminologypl 419 33:11 33:15 33:17 46:21 4
stick [t] 78:24 8uPervising n] 54:4 82:23 soon pj 56:25 33:18 37:2 37:4 37:5 37:6 379 support pl 100:6 terms pil 23:18 Isl 42:20 44:13 44:22 stickinglij 83 2 100:13 47:10 54:2 54:20 45:8 70:3 71:13 stillpel 16:16. 18:6 54:24 55:4 55:5 supports 01
.9:13 sortp 1309 : 46 9 -
71:17 86:16 91:12 29:2 41:11 54:13 56:22 57:11 57:18 46:16 52:23 - $5:8 91:25 92:25 94:6 66:4 71:5 79:19 supposed pl 36:13 58:6 58:14 59:7 89:6 89:10 89:11 94:13 94:23 95:17 84:15 87:20 47:22 59:8 59:22 61:17 1
l Index Page 14 -
THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramadcli
=
=
PUBLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN C=dcascit!"
testing - whistle-biswers MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
62:13 63:2 85:15 tighteningoj 76:13 trucpj 36:21 67:17 87:3 87:4 89:5 101:20 85:16 99:13 tightestoj 24:15 105:6 undertaken [u 95:17 vested [ 1 70:19 testingpj 48:2 timeless pj 71:12 try p) 6:7 64:1 undertaking p187:1 viabic[1 67:10 77 8 86:7 102:20 55:21 55:23 times p1 51:7 unfortunatelyp1 vibrations [u 599 thank ps) 6:13 70:15 93 23 trying[s]
15:4 93 9 viCctil 72:15 2
timetabics pj 29:15 unisterested nj yiewgsj l3:13 13:13 0
2 4 38:5 38:24 43:5 Titanicpl 20:7 tubegsj 55:18 56:7 8 " UI 45:23 53:7 539 20:8 99;4 99 9 99:18 53:24 65:4 65:5 titled [aj 31:5 100:6 1009 100:11 unaquep1 60:7 viewing pl 85:15 67:2 68:25 75:7 TMIp145:14 tubes [2ij 24:2 unit p1 57:2 100:17 viewpoint al 81:11 78:1 82:10 88:14 today[7]
20:11 24:16 39:18 39:22 UNITEDol 1:5 views pj 96:18 21:19 26:5 28:17 39:24 40:2 40:6 unicaspj 16:18 vigorous pj
$3:11 6
3 24 31:5 42:5 68:10 40:8 40:23 41:7 g4:4 violatedp]
48:22 u
Maba[y M
1$;g3 6
- 9 6
7 95:25 96 6 89:6 99:19 99:21 unnundfulp! 80:22 virtually [2]
95:24 Tom pi 69:12 100:13 100:16 unnerving [ 1 75:20 97:22 thermalp) 6:21 6:22 7:1 tonc[ij 67:6 tubingpj 39:9 unresolvedpi 19:22 vis [2j 26:8 26:8 they'vepo]
12:10 tonight p2]
39 39:12 39:15 unsafe p) 6:19 volume p1 51:25 12:11 16:13 16:14 4:18 6:3 41:18 turbulence p] 100:14 26:23 31:23 vulacrabilitics pl 4
6 turn [2] 48:10 71:22 unspoken p] 26:15 48:10 91:25 103:16 turnedp1 48:20 unwithng[ij 26:13 vulacrable p) 24:12 thickness pi 55:5 55 9 55:17 100[4] 27:16 76:20 two[i7] 4:6 6:1 upg4n 3:11 5:21 76:20 91:10 6:9 7:18 18:13 6:12 8:2 9:13
-W-UI took 6 37:4 37:6 18:15 19:21 40:9 18:6 33:3 33:5 44:15 44:19 47:9 42:25 58:21 74:22 33:22 39:23 43:2 walk p122:25 73:25 third pj 69:13 thorough p1 77:15 87:6 76:7 78:4 81:24 44:20 48:20 49:1 wanis pl 19:3 81: 4 9 :23 103:6 49:17 50:11 51:19 Washington pj3:21 thoroughlypj 88:19 tools v] 77:8 two-ended [ 1 99:9 3
25:2 90:15 thought p]
23:6 tooth p]63:24 28:23 44:18 69:6 typc[n C23 R8 wa
[2j C2 top pj 41:15 60:17 64:4 64:18 66:3 21:7 35:13 47:24 52:10 93:24 102:15 103:2 89:13 100:24 68:11 71:22 72:8 5:
5:21 thousandths [ijl01:8 top-to-bottom pi
!N4 76:22 87:11 88:23 waterpj 67:7 89:8 89:23 90:5 67:7 67:11 71:23 threep41 7:18 77:12 20:1 20:4 21:25 typicalp!
24:1 93:1 96:7 96:13 99:6 99:11 99:21
- 01 15:9 39:11 typically p1 55:16 96:15 97:1 98:14 Waterfrontpj 71:17 24:11 27:19 39:7
- 3 39
- 11 43:24 45:1 86:6 100:7 103:3 wavingp1 12:19 65:15 71:6 71:8 totality [i]
74:9 upcoming ol 100:2 ways pj l8:3 65:11 94:14 touted [i]
39:10
-U-upperpj
$5:7 66:14 86:14 90:3 three-quarter [ii toward[ii 100:24 56:9 weak pl31:10 U-bendm 205 75:18 toward3 p]
70:18 urgc[i] 101:22 weaknesses [il 48:9 U
23:3
-quarters Ill track p149:7 93:14 usedpj 22:15 23:20 weeklij 62:2 Idis pl Shl6 I
threshold p1 74:16 4 8 1[i 9I:18 4[
3 t
shold/high vi train pl 34:14 35:4 usi pl 22:13 wel mepj 3:5 p,
trains [41 33:24 15:12 87:25 th " hjl 33:24 34:19 35:22 usua%[y 69:7 wcid p1101:15 1
unabic[sl 8:4 2 25 u
1 s I
36:14 40:11 44:]$
transcribedp] 6:7 8:10 95:4 wclded[)
101:13 47:19 48:2 49:3 98:20 5
welding p1 101:5 uncertaintics pl utility p1 15:5 64:25 73:25 75:2 transenba.ng pl 21:15 239 45:13 101:13 80:11 91:22 93:11 5:16 uncertainty pl 45:15 8
welds [4]
101:6 93:14 93:25 94:16 transcript p] 16:23 51:17 101:16 101:19 101:20 g
88:2 uncomfortabic[il
_y_
West [ij65:7 56:11 Westinghouse pl 55:14 55:17 Transcr. t.ip ion ni under[sl 10:18 vantagen]
70:17 57:18 57:20 57:23 throughout[2l 67:14 105:6 14:7 45:8 51:21 variety pl 32:19 58:19 59:15 60:1 82:21 transcripts [4] 16:25 52:10 53:17 54:25 40:14 82:20 thrustp1 36:21 84:24 87:4 95:22 76:19 various pj 18:3 whatsoeverp146:4 38:2 transgressionll]
understand [2218:22 verifyp) 8:16 WIIEREOFuj l05:11 version pl 22:14 whereverpl 59:15 ursd y[i1 2
tratisient 01 55:25 2
4 thyselfpl 28:16 transition p] 100:23 24:25 25:5 47:12 versus p]
41:13 whistic-blower p]
49:22 51:10 58:10 verticalp]
47:9 66:12 69:6 tight pl 30:13 Trotticrpi 27:22 58:16 58:20 69:10 47:24 49:12 whistic-blowcrs pi tighten pi 76:12 28:6 46:13 85:11 86:20 86:21 vessel [2i 100:23 65:20 65:24 THE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart Hagopian & Ramsdell Index Page 15
%1ittier-[9:39 CondenscItl*
PUZLIC MEETING / RESTART PLAN MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
~
Whittactpj 54:3 8:1 8:14 9:22 20:23 22:3 22:12 wholeps!
16:8 11:22 11:25 12:14 22:24 23:21 32 9 24:10 44:14 47:15 14:1 16:18 17:2 37:23 42:17 44:8
,I 47:16 49:1 50:5 17:2 18:16 19:2 44:12 45:18 49:10
^j 589 68:21 85:16 19:3 19:21 20:3 51:22 53:1 53:12 93j4 20:14 20:18 22:10 56:17 57:22 58:10 25:2 25:17 25:23 58:18 58:24 59:24 al 67:19 25:23 26:5 26:14 62:18 69:24 74:2 whopping [1] 67:13 26:17 26:22 27:11 86:16 '86:25 88:15 I
widepl 32:15 27:13 27:23 28:11 88:19 88:24 91:11 wild-eyed pl ' 69:6 28:14 29:2 30:16 91:25 94:20 95:3 30:24 32:14 33:22 95 9 95;16 96:22 Willimp) 24 38:16 39:7 39:21 979 98:16 2:11 28$
39:22 40:1 40:4 wallingpI 15:2 40:21 43:11 43:20
_[_
wingp] 19:12 19:16 43:23 44:24 46:12 wipepj 99;19 46:14 46:25 47:8
[7:00til 3:1 47:12 54:11 54:14
[9:39pi 103:25 t
Wiscesect pg 1:18 59:8 59:12 61:13 1:19 65:14 81:7 65:2 65:8 65 9 washp] 68:20 68:20 65:16 66:12 66:13 within p1 32:21 67:8 68:2 68:5 399 39:21 74:19 68:14 68:18 68:20 without[9]
20:9 68:21 72:16 73:10 21:15 39:24 46:3 79:8 80:13 80:24 56:13 75:10 - 94:14 81:2 81:13 81:18 94:15 94:18 81:22 81:25 82:9 l$ l$ h2 withstand pl 55:24 WITNESS p) 105:11 84:25 85:6 85:6 wonder [tl 85:17 86:17 87:1 88:10 wondered p1 85:18 88:16 89:5 90:10 wondcring pl 10:2 89:9 91:4 I
96:7 97:23 989 I
wordpl17:12 34:13 99:2 100:6 34:33 Yankec's pj 7:11 wordspel 10:24 26:16 26:23 27:18 12:4 13:3 17:7 39:7 68:7 i
17:25 26:18 26:19 yeart,j 11:10 32:17 28:15 30:14 31:8 32:17 40:16 00:21 33:3 38:7 47:11 61:20 75:25 h3 57:24 58:3 63:23 74:7-99:17 w
s p1 52:2
' $0 16:1 10 46:19 51:17 61:5 world t:1 43:16 62:5 65:15 65:19 43:17 67:14 67:21 66:1 67:16 68:1I worrypl 54:23 72:24 79:12 79:14 worsep]
34:18 81:8 81:9 81:21 81:22 worthwhilerij 4:17 Ycro a pl 2:4 writepj16:21 64:6 3:14 3:14 64:1 95:5 64:15 64:20
. 85tj:
]j:20 W1 10:20 11:2 19 35:13 written pl 6:4 York 0383:6 1
6:10 119 12:18 14:6 86:10 younggt) 81:24 wrongpl 21:25 yourself'p]
$9:6 29:20 101:24 younclves p1 18:18 wrongdoing [1177:6 18:25
-Y-
-Z-Yankeenal 1:10 zonclal 100:23 3:8 3:23 4:1 Zwolinksip) 3:19 4:9 4:10 5:5 Zwolinskip53 2:3 5:19 6:18 6:20 3:39 14:5 14:16 6:21 7:2 7:23 g3;4 39;7 39;g g
'Index Page 16 TIIE REPORTING GROUP / Mason Lockhart IIagopian & Ramsdell i