ML20212J610
| ML20212J610 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1987 |
| From: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2418 OL, NUDOCS 8701280249 | |
| Download: ML20212J610 (75) | |
Text
.
OR GWAL O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF- DOCKET NO: 50-424 OL 50-425 OL GEORGIA POWER COMPANY (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2) ,
ORAL ARGUMENT O
LOCATION: BETHESDA, MARYLAND PAGES: 1- 73 DATE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1987
. 0l
,- /}Q. fe 'Ye A5( 69 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
O Official Reporters 444 North Capitcl Street Washington, D.C. 20001 8701280249 870121 gDR ADOG 0500 NAUONWIDE COVERAGE
CR29540.0 1 COX/sjg '
j )
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 5
In the Matter of: :
(Vogtle Electric Generating :
7 Plant, Units 1 and 2) :
8
g 9
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
' 10 Fifth Floor Hearing Room 4350 East-West Highway yy Bethesda, Maryland 12 Wednesday, Janaury 21, 1987
() 13 The oral argument in the above-entitled matter convened 14 at 1:30 p.m.
15 16 BEFORE:
17 JUDGE GARY J. EDLES, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 18 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 19 JUDGE CHRISTINE N. KOHL, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 20 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 21
! JUDGE HOWARD A. WILBER, Member 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board s
U. S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission J
23 Washington, D. C. 20555 24 25
-- continued --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
2
~~~T 1 APPEARANCES:
\_)
2 On behalf of the Applicant:
3 DAVID R. LEWIS, ESQ.
BRUCE W. CHURCHILL, ESQ.
4 DELISSA A. RIDGWAY, ESQ.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 5 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20037 6
JAMES E. JOINER, ESQ.
7 Troutmac, Sanders, Lockerman
& Ashmore 8 1400 Candler Building Atlanta, Georgia 30043 9
10 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
BERNARD M. BORDENICK, ESQ.
12 EDWIN J. REIS, ESQ.
7-) Office of the General Counsel
(~j 13 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 14 Washington, D. C. 20555 15 On behalf of Intervenor Georgians 16 Against Nuclear Energy:
DOUGLAS CLARK TEEPER 17 2800 Arlington Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 19 l
20 21 22 l
23 24
(~',
N/ 25 ,I i
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
) 202 347 .1700 Nationwide Cosetage 80N366666
29540.0 COX 3 1 P_ R_ O C EE D I N_ G S_
2 CHAIRMAN EDLES: The appeal board this afternoon 3 is hearing argument on the appeal of Georgians Against 4 Nuclear Power, the licensing board August 27, 1986, partial 5 decision. The In* ervenor is allowed 45 minutes for the 6 presentation of its argument. If it wishes, it may reserve a 7 portion of that time for rebuttal; the Applicant and NRC 8 Staff will share 45 minutes. I will ask the parties please 9 to identify themselves formally for the record, beginning 10 with GANE.
11 MR. TEEPER: My name name is Douglas Teeper. I 12 currently reside at 2800 Arlington Boulevard, Arlington,
( 13 Virginia and I am representing Georgians Against Nuclear G]
14 Energy.
15 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Mr. Teeper, do you want to take 16 any time for rebuttal?
17 MR. TEEPER: Yes, I do.
18 CHAIRMAN EDLES: How much time?
19 MR. TEEPER: At this time I will reserve 20 approximately 15 minutes.
21 l CHAIRMAN EDLES: That's ordinarily a tad longer I
22 than people reserve. Why don't we give you the 15 for the 23 moment and see how it goes.
24 MR. TEEPER: I believe I might be shorter i
25 l overall.
c b i.
i l
L
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I -,, ,.2 _ . < - -
l 29540.0 COX 4
,fq V 1 CHAIRMAN EDLES: We will give you 30 minutes to 2 start and 15 in reserve.
3 MR. HORDENICK: I am Bernard M. Bordenick of the 4 Office of General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 5 Commission. Mr. Churchill and I have agreed to divide the 6 time 25 minutes for the Applicants and 20 minutes for the 7 Staff.
8 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Mr. Churchill.
9 MR. CHURCHILL: Bruce Churchill with Shaw, 10 Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge here in Washington for the 11 Applicants.
12 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Okay, Mr. Teeper. Do you want to 13 come up to the podium for us, please.
14 MR. TEEPER: Mr. Chairman and distinguished board, 15 at this time I would like to clear up a few procedural 16 ria t ters , not being an attorney, and being a layman, having 17 never appeared before an appeals board, I am not quite 18 familiar with the procedure.
19 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Let me, if I may, explain to you, 20 that the purpose of the oral argument is to give us a chance 21 primarily to ask you questions which will help us in deciding 22 l the appea.l. We have allotted you 45 minutes, but as you will i
23 discover, a portion of that time is going to be taken up with 24 ; our questions, I am certain. But I would appreciate it if 25 [ you would just answer the questions as responsively as Om ,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
umm soa. cm, mu-
29540.0 COX 5 b
\J 1 possible, and then if you look up and no one is asking a 2 question, you are free to move along to your next point.
3 MR. TEEPER: Okay. I would also like to ask as to 4 whether the record that we are discussing today, that which 5 was put into the record at the lower Atomic Safety and 6 Licensing Board?
7 CHAI.1 MAN EDLES: The answer to that is yes, 8 although we are prepared to listen to the new information 9 that you have submitted along with your brief, at least in 10 the context in which you have submitted it in the brief.
11 But by and large, we will be looking only at the 12 record made by the licensing board, which includes, of 13 course, all of their various summary disposition orders and 14 things like that.
15 MR. TEEPER: One further question. Mr. Tim 16 Johnson of the Campaign for Prosperous Georgia made an 17 opening statement at the hearings on March 11, 1986 -- '86, I 18 believe it was. At that time, he left the proceeding.
19 I am curious as to whether his statements are 20 included in the record.
21 CHAIRMAN EDLES: His statements made before the 22 ! licensing board are a part of the record, although Campaign 1
23 i for Prosperous Georgia is no longer an appellant for us, and 24 3 they are no longer appearing before us today.
4 1
25 l You are on your own.
(~-) .
3 il I
i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I scmx., ~_m- m._
29540.0 COX 6
,7 t.'~') 1 MR. TEEPER: Thank you. At this time, I would 2 like to reiterate those statements made by Mr. Johnson 3 Georgians Against Nuclear Energy and Campaign for Prosperous 4 Georgia had, from the beginning of this proceeding, worked 5 together on different points on different issues. Georgians 6 Against Nuclear Energy were primarily concerned with quality 7 assurance, quality control, which involved the overall 8 construction and operation of the facility.
9 At a certain point during the the Atomic Safety 10 and Licensing Board's existence, originally they had admitted 11 quality assurance / quality control as a contention of possibly 12 being meritorious enough to require a hearing.
O) 13 From that point, we, being Georgians Against 14 Nuclear Energy, were contacted, both anonymously, and 15 otherwise, from people saying they were workers at Plant 16 Vogtle, and they were concerned about the quality of work.
17 They were not antinuclear, very much in favor of the nuclear 18 industry. They were concerned about the quality of work.
19 In our a ttempts, without legal help, to pass those 20 concerns on to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, we did 21 what we could, and somewhere along that procedure, the Atomic 22 l Safety and Licensing Board took i t upon themselves to dismiss 23 ; the contention as not having any facts in dispute.
24 ! JtIDGE KOHL: Mr. Teeper, wasn't that action in 25 dismissing the contention in response to the Applicant's i
tr) v i
i i i l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 2024I473NO Natiertw ide Ctw erage N A L J34 f686
l 29540.0
':0X
. 7 p)
\
motion for summary disposition? The licensing board had a 1
2 pleading before it that it was called upon to rule on. It 3 couldn't just ignore that request; could it?
4 MR. TEEPER: No, it would not.
5 JUDGE KOHL: Did you -- at a ny time, you said you 6 tried to bring the concerns of these anonymous employees and 7 workers at Vogtle to the licensing board's attention, how did 8 you go about doing that? Did you at any time submit 9 affidavits to the board or ask for some protective order to 10 protect the identity of the informants? What means, exactly, 11 did you use to bring your concerns to light?
12 MR. TEEPER: There were attempts, I believe, to 13 gain a protective order in a couple of insLances. I believe 14 it was our understanding, might have been our 15 misunders tanding at that time; that we might be able to bring 16 these individuals into the hearing. It was more for a lack 17 of understanding of process that we inadequately represented 18 the citizens of Georgia or the southeast, in that we did not 19 correctly bring sworn affidavits into the proceeding. It was 20 our understanding when the quality assurance concern was 21 f brought before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and was i
22 I accepted, we thought at that point it would be a motion for 23 hearing and we could then bring in those concerns.
24 i CilAIRMAN EDLES: Was the plan to actually bring in i
25 i those employees to testify before the licensing board?
O ;
i i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, meno s _,m m um n-
29S40.0 COX 8 tO, s
1 MR. TEEPER: Having been partly involved in this, 2 I would say that was probably the plan. At the hearing, two 3 individuals did come forward, one having been a quality 4 control individual, and because the quality concern was not S an issue at the hearing s tage, two individuals actually just 6 made pub]ic statements, which was allowed.
7 JUDGE KOHL: You mean they made limited appearance 8 statements?
9 MR. TEEPER: That's correct.
10 JUDGE KOHL: Did they identify themselves at that 11 time?
12 MR. TEEPER: Yes, they did.
13 JUDGE KOHL: As workers who had problems?
14 MR. TEEPER: Yes, they did.
15 JUDGE KOHL: They were never put on the atand 16 under oath?
17 MR. TEEPER: Not to my knowledge.
10 l JUDGE KOHL: When the licensing board -- as I l
19 understand it, the licensing board ruled initially on the 20 l Applicant's motion for uummary disposition on the quality I
21 i assurance contention, in that order, I think it was October 22 I 3, 1985, the board utressed the requirements of the NRC for 23 i submitting affidavits containing the information that you are i
24 talking about.
2S f Then, as I understand 3t, GANE then moved for n 0 l l
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I m mo, s. _ &o~,oe se m-
29540.0 COX 9 I J 1 reconsideration. But then, a t that point, once again, there 2 were no affidavits supplied from these individuals that 3 claimed to have knowledge of that. Here you were fully put 4 on notice by the licensing board as to your responsibilities 5 in that regard. Yet, you failed to produce the informants or 6 affidavits from them. Could you explain that?
7 MR. TEEPER: My understanding of the situation a was, at that time, this is what. I guess we would call a 9 double controversy. A number of employees were dismissed for 10 various reasons. One of these reasons involved the drug 11 testing program.
12 There were some problems with -- some workers 13 claimed made allegations that they were being brought in to 14 tests or in to us with complaints about safety.
15 JUDGE KOHL: This was allegedly retallation?
16 MR. TEEPER: That's correct.
17 JUDGE KOHL: Did any of these individuals ever 18 pursue complaints with the Department of Labor on that?
19 MR. THEPER: Yes, they did.
20 JUDGE K0llL: What was the outcome?
21 MR. THEPER: I do not have that information.
22 Earlier today there was some question raised as to what the i
23 status was, l
i 24 l My understanding at the time, after these 25 witnesses appeared, the board, I believe, took it upon O :
- ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I n wn,> sa -.aa -,a .,, u n
29540.0 COX 10 A
\ )
I themselves to inquire into the NRC to -- the safety 2 allegations they had made. One allegation had to do with 3 uneven settlement of an auxiliary building which could bring 4 into misalignment the pipes containing cooling fluids. There 5 was a problem with the attorney representing the individuals 6 before the Labor Department. Having an attorney-client 7 privilege, we found some problems, GANS being in a different 8 proceeding, that some of our information was cut off.
9 At that point, it was hard to bring those 10 individualu before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 11 while they were looking out after their jobs, basically, 12 before the Labor Department.
13 JUDGE K0llL: You thought the licensing board, 14 however, pursued on its own, some of the settlement of the 15 auxiliary building problem? How did you find out about that 16 and what was the outcome?
17 MR. THEPER: If I remember correctly, there was an 10 inquiry made f rom the board to the NRC Staf f, I believe to 19 the NRC office.
20 JUDGE KOHL: Is it a Ictter in this public 21 record?
22 i MR. TEEPER: I do not have that letter, but I l
23 ,
i believe so.
Il 24 j JUDGE K0llL llow would you find out something i
25 I don't recall seeing anything in the record (aboutthat?
O !
I i
i ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
dC I47 .Plul N.tlloitu idt! cot rf Jgf MO L .I.Ilv fM
29540.0 COX 11 1 about that. Perhaps that might be something the staff could 2 elaborate on if they know anything about it.
3 MR. TEEPER: Actually, today, I was inquiring on 4 the status of any such investigation. I had not kept up with 5 what the NHC Staf f was doing about any allegations that might 6 have been made by these whistle-blowers at thin hearing.
7 It is a matter of concern, and it fits into the 8 whole pattern of what we think are QA/QC violations by the 9 Applicant.
10 When we initially brought the contention, we had 11 gone to the public document room, looked at the NRC 12 violations, a number of them concerned QA/QC.
13 JUDGE KOHL: on the merits of this, I thought the 14 board's ruling was, sure, there were problems, as there are 15 with any project of that magnitude, but that they had been 16 essentially corrected, and further they were not problema 17 pervasive as to establish an actual breakdown of t.he QA 10 program, which happena to be our standard of the NHC for 19 pursuing quality assurance problems.
20 What evidence can you cite to that would 21 l contradic t the board's ruling on that?
22 MR. THEPER: Since the board diamisned the 23 ! contention on quality annurance, which we contested, there i
24 ,
have been numerous more notices of violation from the NHC 25 Region 2 of fice concerning quality ausurance.
O ,
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, x e n., s.. ,- m ~ , . . m ,. -
29540.0 COX 12 i
1 JUDGE KollL: But, again, assuming, arguendo, that 2 we can even consider that new information, absent a wc]1 3 documented motion to reopen, I&E, Inspection and Enforcement, 4 issues notices of violation all the time. Again, it's 5 inevitable that there will be problems.
6 Where in there any indication that we are talking 7 about a truly serious problem, a pervasive problem, 8 uncorrected problema?
9 MR. TEMPEH: I believe the series of NRC notices, 10 which la the only thing Intervenors, who are laymen, have an 11 opportunity to look at on that and workers coming to us, that 12 in the only way we can go into what we see as a pattern and a 13 systematic breakdown.
O, 14 JUDGE KOHL: When you say "a pattern," J et's focun ,
15 on that.
16 MH. TEEPEH Okay.
17 JUDGE KollL Are some of these I&E noticou in the la name area? Do you ace repeat violationn where the NHC 19 inspectora have come in and aald, look, there is a problem 20 with your QA auditing function, or let's make it a more 21 i discrete problem, a problem with a certain kind of weld and i
22 l they are told time and again, repeatedly, that these welda 23 i are not being dono properly and the QA procedures are not l
24 l being f.ollowed? In there evidence of that?
25 MR. TEEPER: 1 believe there is. There tu a l
O l Aa-FIIDliRAL RIIPORTIIRS, INC.
- ,e m n., w .. ,, , , m . ,, . . ,,o m -
29540.0 COX 13 i
I series of violations concerning design control measures.
2 My understanding is that when a plant is being 3 constructed, that,the design evolves; and as the design 4 evolves, there has to be a program from design that is 5 actually built, has t.o go back onto the design paperu.
6 From my recollection, there is a number of 7 violations where as-built was not put back into the riesign.
8 So what you will end up having la you might not 9 know what you are building, what is out there tn the plan la 10 not down there on paper.
11 JUDGE WILBER: Is this material in the record?
12 MR. TEEPER: I believe -- at this time I L'elieve 13 there were a couple instanceu of that. Since that ticin there 14 have been other violationn.
15 CilAIRMAN EDLES: Let me see if I am right. As far 16 as I can tell from your brief and your presentation thin 17 afturnoon, you are not, specifically attacking the resolution 18 of dinerete it. ems that Ir.E turned up. I gather thone itema 19 have all been resolved. Your basic point la here there are 20 an awful lot of things and we ought t.o infer from that there 21 l has been a pervaulve breakdown in the acheme where you 22 ! wouldn't have all of thcoe kindo of conntantly repetitive 23 notice of violations. Io that ennentially t.he thrust of your 24 l argument?
l 25 l MH. THEPEH: You, ulr.
O :
L i ,
ace-FEDERAL REroRTERs, INC.
3e m u., s , ,_ ,m ~ , u o n,, -
E 29540.0 1 Cox 14 1 CllAIRMAN EDLES: If that is so, what inference do 2 I draw from the fact that most of these seem to be fairly low 3 level violations on our category 1 being worst and 5 being 4 not so bad, they are all 4 and 5, as I recall; and also, I 5 believe, a number of these matters were turned up by the 6 Applicant's own QA program.
7 What inferences should the licensing board or I 8 now draw from that?
9 MR. TEEPER: I bcIleve if you have a pervasive 10 breakdown, and what we are calling low-level breakdown, there 11 lo a probability, there is a possibility, but a very high 12 orobability, that there are other breakdowns t. hat are 13 occurring that have not necessarily been discovered by the 14 NRC Inspection and Enforcement folks.
15 CilAIRMAN EDhEG Why couldn't one infer to the 16 contrary, that all of the looking that's been going on here 17 for years and yearn and yearn, we have only turned up nickel ill and dime items. We never have come up with any big stuff 19 here. Maybe the answer in there inn't any big utuff here.
20 ; Iun't that just as reauonable an inference to draw from all 21 l of that?
i I
22 MR. TEEPER: I don't believe no. I believe that 23 11: you look at a project the massive size of Vogtle and you 24 ;
realize the number of employceu were over 10,000 and you also t
25 noted limiting utarting, pay and inability of the NRC to go O
Aci!-Fl!!)liRAL Rlil'ORTliRS, INC.
.w o m . , x,m. e. e .,- s . o i,, u. ,,
l 29540.0 COX 15
'" )
1 over the plant, I think it's more liketly to infer that the 2 Staff is doing as good a job as they can to find what they 3 can.
4 At that point, you have to aucume there is a 5 certain number, and I guess that falls into the category 6 statistics which I am not here to debate, but there is a 7 statistical number of problems that are going to fall through 8 the inspection procesa.
9 What I am contending here is that it might very 10 well be that Georgia Power has done the big things 11 correctly. But my concerning la that valve, that weld, that t 12 pump, that. will fall when the plant goou into operation, the G 13 very fact I understand there in a preoperational test, and (Y
14 during those testa t.here are problems found, just like in 15 anything from, I queou, a car on up. Ilut the nature of the 16 plant is we have to 90 through the plant with a fino toothed 17 comb to find thene problems.
10 I am concerned that if you add up a number of la thenn design problems, welding problema, what you have in 20 when the plant gona lo full power, you are going to have --
21 you have incredibic amounta of heat and prennure, and theue 22 little problema, wo are calling them "little problemu," baned 23 { on the NRC criteria, they can either add up to a serien of I
24 f ailuren or n,aybe it doeun' t tako a uerica of failureu.
25 l Maybe it taken a 1cak in a main uteam line, and you have --
O k
I l Aci!-FliniiRAI. Riii>oRTI!Rs, INC.
, :o: mn., s _ u m,m ..o m
29540.0 COX 16 m
C 1 you have a significant problem. You have shut down, and, you 2 know, the industry capacity is not that good, in the first 3 place. I don't want to go into the whole industry matter.
4 Dut if we are going to bulld this thing at the 5 cout that it's going up, we want it to be built right, built 6 pafe. I am concerned, if you inaiet that all the little, 7 umall things that have been found by the NRC Staff.
8 There is aluo a serica, you said the Appilcant'tt 9 own people have found a number of problems. They havo, and 10 they have been very conucientioun about reporting, I believe 11 they are called 50.55Ea, and there have boon a number of 12 those problems also found. I also compilment the Applicant 13 on discovering that. Obviously it la in their bout interont 14 to find the problema.
j.
15 JUDGH Kollha Also doenn't that show t. hat the QA 16 program 18 working?
17 MR. TREPER: No. The fact t. hat they find uomo 10 problems on their own tu not, aa endorsement ot' the program.
19 JUDGH WILilHH : Ian't that what QA la supposed to 20 do, find thouo problems and nolving them?
21 MR. TEMPHH: Certainly. They are finding nome of 22 them, yes.
l 23 JUDGE WII,ItEH: Are you unying that. maybo the 24 ,
construction worker, the tradint failed, but the QA flound it.
I 25 i I thought we were dineunoino what the QA prooram was nuppound O !
i
! Acii-FliDliRA1. RiiPORTliRS, INC.
x m n., s ,.. m i o.... . ..ow~.
29540.0 COX 17 <
n 1 to do?
2 MR. TEEPER: That's correct. I compliment the 3 power company's -- some of their QA people and the f act that 4 they have found some problemu. Hut the very fact that they 5 have miused uomo problems and it took the NRC to find the 6 problems, if you are going with that logic, the fact. la their 7 QA program has failed if the NRC QA program han found things a that theirs hau not. I am saying if you go with logic.
9 That's not. the very fact that the NRC IS.E people found some 10 problems does not, in itself, condemn it, according to the 1
11 previoun NRC rulings. We all know there are going to be 12 problemn in nuclear planta.
13 What I am cont.cnding Lu that, the number, and I 14 never had a cumulative number of the number of violations i 15 Cound. I aluo don't. have it in my category, if I had a staff l 16 of 20 or more and engineeru, maybe I could got that k 17 f information.
4 4
18 Hut our fuellno, Unorgiann Againnt Nuclear Energy 19 l and citizens who had other jobo and tried to do the bent wo 1
20 could. We felt we could help the NRC Utaff, 11 we found 21 l nomething auch as wha t we thought was a pat. torn of QA i
i 22 problema, at that point the Staff would pick up on 1L and 23 i they would go in and nee what they can do.
t 24 l tinfortunatoly, i t'u alao our content lon, that. the
! l 25 l StarC being nometimes overwhelmnd, will nomuttmou gut into a i O ! -
i Acti-IIl!I)liRAL Riil>oRTiiRs, INC.
- ~ u w ,, u ,..,, ,ac u - ,, . w. u.u.
I 29540.0 COX 10 i
O 1 category of their own and certain contentions we bring up 2 will not be addrenced.
3 JUDGE KollL: Does your group ever bring anything 4 of that nature to the Staff's attention?
S MH. TEEPEH I believe we have. I wouldn't say it.
6 was official. Over the years I know we have recorred, when 7 callers -- and uometimes we don't know if theuc callers are 0 real or not - called us, and I believe I talked to a wolder, 9 who iu now working in West. Virginia, who told me that. the 10 containment pool was full of bad wolds, because he had dono 11 t. hem. At that point I was autoninhed and I told him to call 12 the NRC Region 2 offico. Wo have calla like that all t.ho 13 timo.
14 JUDGE WILitHR: Did you directly 90 to the Region 2 ,
1S offico?
16 MH. TEEpEH No, I did not.
17 JUDGE WILHRH Did you just refer him to them?
I' 10 MH. THEPER: I don't. know if thlu man might have a 19 gripo againut the coml>any for being diuminned, ho could be 20 lying to me.
21 JUDGl: Koll!,a I gunsta t ho NHC 11taf f would have a 22 l almklar problom; would they not?
23 JIIDGE WII,IIEH : Certainly, but. they would cortainly j
24 l have more ability to go to Plant. Vogtto, go down into tho 25 ppent f uni pool while i t 'n not filled up and check out tho ,
O l l
Acti-FlilJiiRAl. Rlil'oRTitus, INC. .., m u.m
- o: om., s, _im ,-
29540.0 COX 19
/O V 1 wolds that this individual identiflou as having slag and 2 other things. I am not a welder, again, I am not an 3 engineer, I have learned more than I would like to.
4 CilAIRMAN EDLEti Mr. Teeper, 20 of the 30 minutes 5 has run by. I am prepared to stay with QA, but if you have 6 other pointu you might like to raise with us, you might want 7 to turn your attention.
8 MR. TEEPER: I will turn basically to a 9 philosophical argument at this point.
1 10 It's my group's feeling, looking at the NRC in the 11 last nix years of NRC onforcement, that, we live in a
! 12 political environment, and one admintutration might have 13 different priorition and goalo that a dif ferent 14 administration might not. It la our feeling that under thu i 15 current adminis tration, that the Nuclear Regulatory j
16 Comminolon hats gono towardo a phano of deregulation, I 17 bo11evo our curront adminis trat,lon was elected to deregulato,
! 10 to got government off the backa of industry.
1 19 It to our concern that both you individuala hero 20 i and the lowor board are under the aubtle but porvaulve, 21 Influence of deregulat. ion in ordor to give the Applicantu and l
i 22 the ut.111ty nationwido quito a bit of leeway, it in our 23 l content.lon t. hat. the nuclear induutry, being baned on 24 genera 11y monopolIcu, where thorn la not the compot.1t. ion to l
2S 4 provide the kind of optrit that might make bottor O
l Aci:. ,FisDliRAl.
- m n.
RITORTFRS, s , ,. . a ., , ,, , m , ,
INC.
..,n,,~..
29540.0 COX 20 0 1 workmanship, it is our contention that nuclee.r energy uhould 2 not be deregulated. We have a very big contention that the 3 NRC, with their budget reductions and their overall purpose 4 and goal, which was promulgated by the Congrena, in not being 5 carried out.
6 That la why we originally got. into the proccan, we 7 were hure to upur on the StaCC ao much au posutblo, to try t.o 0 raine inauen that. are of concern to the health, cafety and 9 well-being of the people of the country.
10 That.'u it, thank you very much.
11 CilAlitMAN EDLES: Okay, wo will move your f1vo 12 minuten over, if you want, and give you 20 minuten for 13 rebuttal.
- 14 MH. TEHpEh Thank you very much.
15 CilAIRMAN EDLE!!: Mr. Churchill.
16 Mr. Churchill, juut a quick preliminary question.
17 In it part of your QA program -- do you have a molhod by 1 11 which worker complaintu like thin work their way t.hrough the 19 management utructure and got runoivoil?
20 HR. CilllRCH II,1,1 We cortain.ly do, your lionor. Wu 21 l have one of the otrongoat auch programa that wo know of in .
22 ! thn country. It's called our " Quality Concernn program." l l !
23 ' 1:vos y worker that comou on in given npoetal inutructions at 24 Thny are told, in Iact, that it to their duty l how it worku.
2ti i to como C e rwa rel, L I: they have any concerna or if they havo O
i l
l i
Aci!.-FliDI!IRAL R1! Pol <II:I:s, INC.
- ,,n . m . , s ,m ....- . . , m u.
29540.0 COX 21 O
- I heard of any concerna, they are promised anonymity, and any 2 complainta or concerno are immediately investigated. The 3 program isn't just them coming forward. All the quality
. 4 related personnel are expected, at least once a year, to come 5 forward with interviews, basically, where they are auked if 6 they have any concerno.
7 Furthermore, when any worker, upon termination, O always 900s through an interview proccan with the quality 9 concerna group.
10 Moreover, thone workorn are always told that they l
11 are encouraged to go to the NRC, but there will not be any 12 retallation. If there in any retallat.lon, they are riuppotied 13 to and asked to como right back to the program and nay that 14 ,
and any complainta like that are inventinated.
1S CllAIHMAN HDLE!3: What is the rouclution of the 16 folko that went to the Department of Labor? Are you famillar 17 with what han happened with thone?
10 MH. CllOHCHILL I don't know for pure the 19 rottolution. 110mo of thone casou are u till pending, sumo havo 20 been disminned. To the extent that any cauco have actually
- 21 gono to hearing, thorn hau never boon a decision ruling 22 againnt the company, but not a11 of them have qono to 23 hearing.
. 24 , JtIDUM KollL 11oundu like theru wore a number of 25 thnm though. Do you happen to know how many?
, O :
i i
Acti-Fl!DliRAl RiiPORTliRS, INC.
I x m n., s m , o ., ,,,+. , , m., m , n ,. ,,. .,,
29540.0 COX 22
. ,O\
V 1 MR. CilUHCllILL: It tu my understanding there are 2 19 currently pending, or there have been 19 total.
3 JIJDGH KOIIL: To your knowledge han any of them ;
4 gono to a hearing before an ALJ?
5 MR. CilllHCllILL : You, uomo have.
6 JilDGE KollL llow many, do you know?
7 MR. ClluRCilILL: Two or three.
O CilA IHMAN EDLE11: Any of thouc folku taken back au 9 part of the not.t.lument wit.h thn company?
10 MR. CilllHCilILL: I know there have boon two or 1
11 throu uuttlements and I know that thu uuttlement would 12 involvo populbly back pay. I don't know whether they wero !
13 t.aken back au employoun or not.. I don'L have the detalla of 14 the uuttlements.
15 J U D Gl: Kollbs Do you happen to know, thiu might bo 16 l unfair, what the ukill of those individuatu were. For 4
17 examplo, wer e they wolders?
10 MR. ClluRCllILL: I don't know, I don't, know. I 19 could find out moru information. Wo have uomo people here 20 i that might be ablo to phod uomo morn light, on that., but. I am I
s 21 I not famillar with it.
l !
22 > JUDOH Kollbs Mayhn attor tho recoup.
! l i 23 '
Cll All4 MAN EDI.l:11: Thu boatd mlyht ntted Homo f urther i 24 l informalion 10 nocoupary. Wo mlyht auk tor uomothleig in i
25 af f idavi t f or m.
, O a
! 1 l
! r Aci!-Fl!Dl!RAl. RlilORTliRS, INC.
x m n., s ., ,, ,,m ia . m. ,, ..,n,.,.
l' o
i 29540.0 COX 23 ,
1 MR. CllullCllILL: I might point out there are a 2 number of roanonu why one would expect. a number of DOL canou 3 here. When anyotto comen to t.he atuality control program and l
4 talks about comething, or if they have a complaint. becauno I
1 j 5 t. hey are being disminued, they are explicit.ly advised by t.hu 6 company of. precluoly what their rights are with roupact to --
7 JUDGE KollL: IIn't that a requirement, though, 0 under the statuto? .
9 MR. Cil0HCilILL: I am not uuro how far the 10 requirumont, goon.
11 JUDGH Kollt.: There uro pontorn around, aren't 12 thoro, or nomething to indicate?
13 MR. Cil0HCill LL: I bo] levo -- you, thore may have '
14 to ho pont.orn, but t.ho program maken a point of tolling 15 employcou this. I nunpoct thorn have atuo boon groupu and up 16 in that aroa to help and counsel workorn who may have such 17 complaintu.
10 CilAIRMAN EDLEU I have uomo uuuplciones that
?
t l 19 uomotimou t.httuu programp, au thuy aro put out on papor, may f l
l 20 pound a bit mot o highf alut.in than whern ther foreman down there .
i l 21 on the job tu actually talking to nome wolder who tu doing i
l 22 l the wold. ;
23 3 MR. CllllRCil!LI.: That 'u true, your lionor . Thor i lu l 1 24 ( always that problem to worry about, parttoularly when you 7 l 25 ; have 13,000 poopin there. I do know, for examplo, juut !
O l !
, ,1 i
l i
Aci!-Fliolii<Al
,m i m ,, s _m ...
Riil>ol<TI!I<s, INC.
. . , o,, , .
i
29540.0 COX 24 O 1 talking to one of the follows over lunch, that one part of 2 one puttlement was actually to undertake a massivo -- t.his 3 wasn't part of the uuttlement, this was what the company did, 4 having looked int.o it, wau to taku -- undertake a mannivo.
S reeducation of a number of nuperviuorn to make very clear .
6 that this la not thu kind of thing that should happen. It'n 7 also my underutanding they didn't. find any definit.tvo a oxamples of intimidation. But whorn thoro la even a quantion i
9 of L t. , it's true, thoro tu alwayu the problem of putting down I 10 uomothing lofty on paper and than how docu it work in 11 progrous?
i i 12 Ilu t. t.hlo company han t.rlod very, very hard to i 13 overcomo that. They have exponded a lot of oEfort..
14 I t.hink they are widely reccynized an one of the 1S bot. tor programu in the country in thtu regard.
16 While we are talking about OA, wo uhould note that 17 Plant. Vogtlo tu not a t.roubled project. It,'u not a project 1 11 that in bn not wiih lega1 or iochnical or manaqument.
19 problomo.
l 20 on the contrary, I think it in well recognized 21 that Plant. Vogtlo la charaetortuod by managomont exco11 onco l
22 ! with an unquoutionable uunno or a commitmunt to quality. It I
l l 23 l L a unit ut the Cinnut managod conutruction projuctis, nuc1 car ,
1 24 l conutructlon projecto, in the count y. It hau an exemplary ;
25 tocoid of oxcellout quality aussuranco, wit h innovativo and O l l i
ACF.-l?l!Dl!RAl. Riti>oRTi!Rs, INC.
5 ""M .___l"""""~""
29540.0 COX 25 e
(
i offectivo management programo designed to make sure that 2 there is uarety and rullability built into the plant and also 3 that all NHC requiremonta are mot.
4 For examplo, there was a CAT inopoet)(m team in 5 the summer of 1983, t. hat in the construction assouument. team 6 that the region sondu out. Their reported glowing to*in of 7 the courgia power management., including itu QA program. Ono 0 of the quotou from that was that the managomorit exhibited "a 9 ounce of commitment to quality" and that. the "QA organizat. ton 10 and pornonnel are offectively implomonting t.hu QA program 11 rouultu."
I I 12 i Again, in 1904, in April, in the Commlaulon's 13 report to Congrena, puruuant. Lo the NRC Authorization Act, 14 plant. Vogtle wan cited do an example of the quality annuranco j 15 program that was aucenauful and that worked; and in that i
16 report, they quoted, "an orientation toward and an att.itudo 17 nupportive of quallt.y in Ltu nuclear projoet." There was a I
10 U AI,l' report , the mout, recent UAI.p report whero once again it 19 had nothing but. pralue for the quaitty annuranco program of 20 the UAl.p report which 1:ound that they have good quality 21 au n ut anco.
i 22 Then quito apart I' rom the QA program wan what you 23 l havo no doubt houn reading about, dooryla Powor'u roadleious 24 -
review prooram. A manulvo under taking. Firnt of itu kind.
25 l M,iybo thorn haun't hoon anot. hor like it, I don't know. IC
- O 4
i i
Aci!-Fliol:1<AI. Riii>olm:.1<s, INC.
m e r.., ..e . _ ...... . .. . , o. ,a.
29540.0 COX 26 O
O 1 there hau, it's only been one and not quite gone that far.
2 !!ut they set up an outside independent oversight 3 and review committee to go over all the findings. They went 4 through a,11 the basic anpects of construction, including 5 quality, to look Cor, ueek out, anything that in wrong, 6 anything that 10 right, and to make correctionn.
7 Jt1DCE KOlit.: What wau the impet.us for establishing 8 the readineau review program?
9 MR. ClluRCilII,1, The impetuu, I am not, sure. It 10 wau a management declulon made early on, because they wanted 11 to be ouru that everything wau done right.
t 12 J t1DGE K0lli, Did it have anythirig to do with the p
J 13 licenuing board'u initial admisston of Contention 87 14 MR. ClluHCilII,1, Oh, no, it had nothing to do with 15 that, i
16 JtlDUM Kollt : Was that fact entabliuhed prior to 17 that Limo?
1 11 MR . ClluRCllII,1, t Y e ts , St. wau cutablinhed prior to 19 that timo. It wau an innovativo program. Wo . net,ually had a 20 Iot of dineuuulonn with thu NitC about it, becauun tho NHC 21 l would havn to invlow thtu, the NHC, I holinvo, actually had i
22 l to havn extra utaffing. I could be wrong on thin, but thlu 23 la my improunion. Thny had to have extra otatting in ordor 24 : to be abin to accommodato thies. Certainly the company did,
?S , lotn of extra nl.itring to do it.
- o l l
i I
Aa-Flil]iti<AI Riilol<litl<s, INC.
w ir n., s., _ ,a,n. ,, - ..,n,.,-
\
29540.0 COX 27 rx .
'^
l JUDGE KOHL: I think you said they were outside 2 people who participated in that?
3 MR. CHURCHILL: There were a lot of people working 4 on the project. The project was supervised by a group of 5 design engineers who were inside people, who were not 6 involved in the original design or construction. In 7 addition, there was a group of outside people that oversaw 8 and reviewed the work done by that group.
9 In addition to that --
10 JUDGE KOHL: Who were they, by background, not by 11 name, but where would you draw these individuals from?
12 MR. CHURCHILL: Well, I believe they were drawn
(} 13 14 from industry. I don't know who they were. We might have put that in the affidavit that we submitted as one of the 15 attachments to our motion for summary disposition on quality 16 assurance, attachment 8, I believe. It may be in there, I am 17 not sure, perhaps that is something I could look for after 18 the break.
19 I guess one other point that I should make that is 20 directly applicable to Georgia Power Company management's 21 very strong commitment to quality, is their exceptionally 22 strong and effective quality assurance program and their very 23 strong drug and alcohol prevention program. On the matter 24 , that Mr. Teeper brought up about contention 8, the quality l
25 l assurance contention, I note, from looking at his brief, that
/~S !
(_), {
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i _m x.e_m_... m. _
29540.0 COX 20
\-]
1 the only issue that he is raisino on appeal before this 2 board, has to do with his allegation in the brief that the 3 licensing board refused to let whistle-blowers testify.
4 The contention wasn't briefed. He didn't discuss 5 the record. He didn't analyze why he would say that the 6 licensing board refused to do it. He doesn't say why the 7 record shows that.
8 In fact, that is not what happened. The licensing 9 board did not refuse to do it. The Intervenors failed to 10 bring them forward, in spite of many opportunities to do 0o.
11 In fact, they were even required to bring them 12 forward because we asked them specifically in our second and
(} 13 14 third sets of interrogatories for names, for specific allegations, we talked to them about the opportunities for 15 protective orders, they never answered those; and I think it 16 would be of value just to briefly recapitulate the history of 17 the so-called " offering" of the anonymous allegers in this 18 case.
19 As early as April 1984, when the contentions were 20 I submitted, there were allusions to anor.ymous allegations , but 1
21 l there were no specifics.
22 At the prehearing conference in May, once again, 23 the Intervenors said they had something, but they didn't say 24 what it was, they brought nobody forward.
25 Twice, as I said before in the responses to our O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(c-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage Su3346M6
29540.0 COX 29 LI 1 interrogatories, one was on February 4, one was on April 17, 2 1985, they did not identify anybody or identify any specific 3 allegations. They did claim that it had some information, 4 but they didn't identify it.
5 We then deposed Mr. Teeper because we -- well, for 6 one reason, we deposed him for lots of reasons, but one of 7 the reasons we deposed him for and discussed at that 8 deposition was because the time was running out for us to 9 file a motion to compel discovery. At that point in his 10 deposition, Mr. Teeper said well, we don't really have 11 anything now, nothing that we are supporting in contention E, 12 quality assurance comes from an anonymous source at this 13 point.
14 His counsel at that point said if we ever get 15 something from an informant that would bolster or we want to 16 use in this case for our QA, we will let you know or if we 17 don't let you know, we will seek a protective order to 18 protect the names of those individuals.
19 Mr. Teeper said he thought that they had, in a 20 [coupleofcases, sought a protective order, they did not. No 21 protective order was ever sought.
22 l Again, Mr. Johnson of the sister organization, the i
23 l other Joint Intervenor in this case, testified before the 24 l ACRS that they had something, but we don' t know what i t was.
I
?R I As a result -- no, even before that, when they c'
s_) I a
f
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! - m., ~ ~ m c- mn_
29540.0 COX 30
'V 1 answered our motion for summary disposition, as this board 2 well knows, they again alluded to having something, but they 3 didn't come forward with'anything.
4 As a result of that, plus the testimony before the 5 ACRS, counsel for Georgia Power Company asked the Joint 6 Intervenors for specifics. They asked, please identify what 7 you have and who did it, we want to know.
8 Not only for this hearing, but this company has a 9 very strong policy and a very strong program of wanting to 10 know it, so that we, ourselves, can allege whether or not 11 this is in support of this contention. He also reminded them 12 of their duty under section 2.740 (e) (1), the continuous duty
("N 13 to answer and to provide us the information that we requested
\_]
14 in our interrogatories. It isn't just that they didn't 15 volunteer the information, if they had it, they were required 16 to come forward with it, which they never did.
17 Then, Lee Glenn, who was the manager of the Plant 18 Vogtle Quality Concerns Program, on August 19, wrote a very 19 long letter to Mr. Johnson, explaining --
20 CHAIRMAN EDLES: August 19 of what year is that?
21 l MR. CHURCHILL: This is all 1985, I am sorry.
22 !J
- Wrote a very long letter to Mr. Johnson saying this is what t
23 our Quality Concerns Program is all about. This is how we i l r
( 24 protect the sources, this is what we are going to do. We are f
25 l concerned with what you said about allegations before the (E) l 1
I i
[ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, sc.m. ,_ m- -
)
29540.0 COX 31
,/ -
O 1 ACRS. We are concerned about what you have been saying 2 through this. We really want to know so we can investigate 3 it.
4 On top of that, the end of the paragraph, he said, S oh, by the way, we won't even tell our own lawyers about 6 this, this is just between the quality program and you. This 7 doesn't have to go through the hearing we, Georgia Power and 8 quality concerns persons want to be. The Intervenors never 9 took him up on that, never provided him with any 10 information.
11 Finally, as you know, there was a motion for 12 reconsideration. Again, as you know, they came forward with 13 nothing. The only thing they had was an affidavit from Bill
}
14 Bellamy who said we have nothing. That was the basis.
15 The one point they make in the briefs, your Honor, 16 that the board erred because it refused to allow 17 whistle-blowers' testimony.
18 Simply not testify is simply not the state of the 19 record. It was just the opposite.
20 JUDGE WILBER: Mr. Churchill, to go to a different 21 area, you submitted a letter on January 18 about the change 22 i in the results of the limit torque motor operator 23 inspections?
24 h MR. CHURCHILL: Yes.
25 JUDGE WILBER: I believe you said there were four
(_/
h t
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mmm ~ e_ mm , sa -
29540.0 COX 32 1 operators that were not reinspected because they were 2 inaccessible. Isn't that a little unusual, plant didn't even 3 have a license, and these are inaccessible? I don't quite 4 understand, these are dynamic devices, aren't they? They 5 move, they have to be maintained and here they are 6 inaccessible before the plant even starts up.
7 You use that as a basis for not reinspecting 8 them.
9 MR. CHURCHILL: I believe that they were 10 encapsulated as part of the vessel surveillance 11 instrumentation.
12 JUDGE WILDER: You mean you are never going to
(~j 13 look at them again?
LJ 14 MR. CHURCHILL: I don ' t know, I don't know. I do 15 know that there was legitimate basis, I suspect it's possible 16 to do that, but I would have to check.
17 But the company felt that there was a very 18 legitimate basis not to have to reinspect them. They were 19 inspected as a result of the limit torque situation where we 20 ;
were looking for the burnt wirings. All of them were 21 inspected.
22 The purpose of that letter was to point out take 23 l one of the fellows, who had been involved in that, said, oh, 24 my gosh, on some of the inspection orders, I forgot to set 25 out that they specifically should look for burned wiring. I O -
i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I mume ,_ m- -
29540.0 COX 33 l )
~
1 mean, everyone knew that's what they were working for. We 2 didn't have the exact documentation for it.
3 JUDGE WILBER: They were all specifically 4 inspected for the burned wire, yet in this reinspection you 5 found two more of the burned wires; is that correct?
6 MR. CHURCHILL: No, I am sorry. They were all 7 specifiaally inspected in the reinspection, they found two 8 more --
9 JUDGE WILBER: Didn't you say because you had no 10 documentation you reinspected the limit torque operators 11 because of lack of documentation that there was no record 12 that you had looked at it for a burned wire.
13 MR. CHURCHILL: My recollection is if there was
(~))
14 any burned wire found, it was not the same kind of burned 15 wire and it didn't have anything to do with the operation of 16 that motor element. I could check the letter for you if you 17 wish.
A 18 JUDuE WILBER: If I understand it correctly, it 19 says two instances of burn damage were found, but they were 20 on the superfluous wiring for the disconnected heater 21 circuit. The point is, it was there, and if these had been 22 l inspected earlier, specifically for burned wire, it's a 23 j little confusing to me how it was missed.
(
24 l MR. CHURCHILL: I am sorry, after the limit
[
25 j torque, the I&E notice came out about the limit torques, that n\~) l 3
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 5 00 Nationwide Cmerage Mu 336-6M6
-l 29540.0 )
COX 34 1 was when we inspected everything. That was what I~ referred ;
1 2 to as the reinspection. I believe that was when.that burned 3 wiring was found. ;
This letter comes back to say, uh-oh, we forgot.to
~
4 5 specifically put on the checklist'for the inspectors 1that. ,
7 6 -they should look for burned wires. So there wasn't another 7 reinspection that found more burned wires. That's my 8 recollection of that letter.
9 JUDGE KOHL: When, as I read your letter, the two
- 10. instances where the burn damage on the superfluous wiring was 11 found, was not on the four motors that are inaccessible.
j 12 JUDGE WILBER: Those have never been looked at.
13 MR. CHURCHILL: Oh, yes, they were looked at.'
q
)
- 14 JUDGE WILBER: But not for burned wire, j- 15 JUDGE KOHL: Not specifically.
16 JUDGE WILBER: It was kind of a quantum Icap there i
17 to say that there is no need to look.at these. I don't ,
l 18 . understand how you can say --
19 MR. CHURCHILL: I don't have the letter, I am
- . 20 sorry, in front of me. But that isn't the way I understand
, 21 that situation.
22 CHAIRMAN EDLES: That's the January 15 letter you 23 are referring to.
I 24 JUDGE KOHL: Yes.
j 25 JUDGE WILBER: Yes.
! (1) 4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwsde Coverage 910-336-6 646
I l
l 29540.0 COX 35 i
) F 1 CHI,IRMAN EDLES: Why don't you take a look at it.
2 MR. CHURCHILL: Okay.
3 That's correct, your Honor, it was during this 4 reinspection that two instances of burn damage were found, 5 but they were on the superfluous wiring for the disconnected 6 heater circuit and of no consequence.
l 7 JUDGE WILHER: That's the first point it was on 1 8 reinspection. The second point is you have four valves you I
9 l have not looked at, but somehow you are trying to express a 10 logic they don't have to be looked at because of the low, 11 what do you want to call it, burned wire rate?
12 MR. CHURCHILL: Yes.
, 13 l JUDGE KOHL: In other words, what does that say V
14 about the general inspection program? Is it good enough to 15 just rely on generalized inspection program, absent some 16 specific indication to look for burn damage?
i 17 MR. CHURCHILL: We rely also on the fact that 18 these four were all the same. One of them was not oniy 19 ;
inspected, but there was a complete engineering inspection of 4
20 j that one, and that one, we know, had no problems. These l'
')
21 particular types that were in there, in the complete 22 ,
engineering teardown evaluation of that one.
23 l JUDGE KOHL: Do you happen to know what the 24 , inspection would ordinarily look for if the burn damage was a
25 f in a specific item, what sorts of things are ordinarily n
./
4 i
I i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l x -- ,_
1 i mm n.,
j
~. .
- I
')
l 29540.0 l COX 36 l
()'
~
1 encompassed?
2 MR. CHURCHILL: This inspection was made because 3 -- let me see, I believe there was an I&E notice that said 1
4 that there were the possibility of burn damages on certain 5 parts of the device. In fact, it was Georgia Power Company i 6 itself that had detected and reported to the NRC the i
7 occurrence of the burn damages.
I
- 8 JUDGE WILBER: Yes, it was.
l 9 MR. CHURCHILL: I believe it was an I&E notice 4
10 that issued that.
11 JUDGE WILBER: There was an I&E notice issue t
12 because of your reporting it.
{} 13 MR. CHURCHILL:
JUDGE WILBER:
That's_right.
You told me you awaited the.
j 14 f
15 issuance of the I&E notice before you inspected the operators 16 for --
l 17 MR. CHURCHILL: No, I don't think I said that. I 18 don't think this letter says that.
3 19 JUDGE WILBER: I see.
20 MR. CHURCHILL: No. We found the problem. We did ;
21 what we wanted to do to correct the problem, which was 22 inspect for it. I do not have an answer to your question of 23 why then there would be two instances of burn damages that !
24 would be found, unless it was just because they weren't noted 25 simply because they are on the superfluous wiring. That is i
()
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-A7-37(n Nationside Coverage 800-33MM6 l -,-~ ,, -
.- .. - ~ . - - - . .-
29540.0 COX 37 1 possibly what it was.
2 But the whole purpose of that reinspection was 3 because of the burn damage. You see, we-can't prove QA-wise,
) 4 which is.very strict, that they actually were looked'at for 5 burn damage and because the documentation doesn't say look 6 for burn damage on the wiring --
7 Everybody there was confident that that is what ;
8 was looked at and would have been found, because that was the 9 purpose of it.
10 JUDGE WILBER: Do you know what type, what model 11 number it is, as I recall, the affidavit from Mr. Bellamy, 12 was it, seemed to be that there was a specific model number 13 that had the most frequent potential for burn damage, most
/}
14 frequently observed burn damage. But these four valves that 15 were looked at, you don't identify them in the letter as to a i
16 model number either.
17 MR. CHURCHILL: I can find that out for you in a 18 minute. Excuse me.
19 MR. CHURCHILL: They weren't of the smallest 4
20 type --
l 21 JUDGE WILBER: As I remember the number, it was ,
i 22 GMB with three zeros behind it. I don't know how you express 23 that.
t 24 MR. CHURCHILL: I am told that the ones that were i
- 25 not reinspected weren't of that smallest type where the l(2) f
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- x. - x_ m c_. m3m .
-- - , - . , , . , _ _ , , , ---..n.e,,_.- .,- .,. . . , , ,
29540.0 COX 30 f\
U 1 problem occurred, but'in developing the sample to get all of 2 the types that would, there is a chance it might be, it was 3 close to it but not the same model. I don't believe it was 4 the same model, no.
5 Do I have any time --
6 CHAIRMAN EDLES: You have about five minutes 7 unless my colleagues eat into a portion of that.
8 MR. CHURCHILL: T'ere h are one or two points I
, 9 would like to make. We mentioned in our brief that many of 10 the motions for summary disposition were not responded-to.
11 In fact, what we have in this case is a record that goes back I 12 three years. 16 of the Intervenors' original 31 contentions i
13 were admitted, and of these 16, we applied for summary
(~ }
14 disposition of all of them; and of the 16 disposed on 15 summary, three went to hearing. GANE's appeal on this case-16 covers the entire period. They have appealed 12 of the 13 17 contentions that were rejected, 12 of the 13 that were 18 dismissed on summary disposition and one small subissue of 19 one of the contentions that was litigated.
20 With respect to the rejected contentions, we have 21 made the argument that GANE has failed to brief that. We 22 ;
feel that is an important argument that we would like to 23 reaf firm how s trongly we feel about that, because we 24 literally were unable to respond to it other than Just recite 25 back to what the board did.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationaiue roverage im3M-M46
- - ~ . - . .. . . _ . - --
~ 29540.0 COX 39 1 They didn't identify the information submitted by I
j 2 the Intervenors that they said should have carried the day.
3 There was no discussion of the treatment of that information 4 by the board. There was no discussion of applicable legal 5 standards, there was no discussion of.the arguments of the 6 parties, there were no specific citations to the record in 7 short, they didn't identify the error other than saying the i
8 board ruled against us, that was error, now you have to find 9 out why that wasn't any good.
10 Salem, one appeal board, 650 said we will not 11 consider exceptions that are not fully briefed. The Maguire 12 appeal board in ALAB 669 dismissed claims of error because
{} 13 14 they were either without substance or inadequately briefed, point B2 ALAB 719 the board said, "We had said before the 15 '
issues must," I emphasize "must," "be fully briefed in order 16 to be considered on appeal." The other point I would like to 17 make in the minute I have left is that all but one of the 12, 18 or of the 10 summary disposition rulings that it is 19 appealing, were not responded to by the Intervenors below.
20 CHAIRMAN EDLES: They responded to, what, numbers 21 7 and 8?
22 ,
MR. CHURCHILL: They responded to contention 8 and 23 7 that's exactly right, and contention 7, tney are not 24 appealing that summary disposition ruling.
25 I think the Salem 1 appeal board said it best --
(2) i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3Ndi Nationwide Coverage *D3346646
I 29540.0 COX 40 m
(,) 1 ALAB 650, 14 NRC 14349 - "We will not entertain arguments 2 that a licensing board had no opportunity to address and that 3 are raised for the first time on appeal."
4 Since they didn't respond to the motion, they 5 obviously did not present an argument for the licensing board 6 to address. Therefore, I do not believe that they have the 7 right to appeal.
8 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Mr. Churchill, thank you very 9 much.
10 Any more questions?
11 JUDGE WILBER: Jus t one. May I have my letter, 12 back, please.
('] 13 MR. CHURCHILL: I was going to examine it v
14 carefully. No, that's okay, I have a copy of it.
15 JUDGE KOHL: I have one question, point of 16 clarification on the limit torque operators. The licensing 17 board initially rejected that contention because apparently 10 it was moot because new motors had been replaced. But I take 19 it the fact they were talking about burn damage, et cetera, 20 does refer to the new replacement motors; is that correct?
21 l MR. CHURCHILL: I don't know whether it does.
22 There were a number of motors. Whether those are the same 23 motors that were first the subject of the original report and 24 ! then replaced, I don't know.
25 l CHAIRMAN EDLES: I, too, assumed they referred to
- (O J !
i l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n w. - ~ - - - --
, 29540.0 COX 41
,G .
(_) I the new ones because the motors were replaced a year or two 2 ago, I thought.
3 MR. CHURCHILL: It may very well be. There are
! 4 different limit torque models in motors. Whether these are 4 5 the same ones that replaced the earlier ones that had failed i 6 the test, I don't know. But I don't believe that the reason 7 for the earlier failures, and, therefore, the rejection of l
O those, related to burned wirings.
{ 9 JUDGE KOHL: Steam damage, right?
10 MR. CHURCHILL: Yes, it was.
I 11 CHAIRMAN EDLES: We will take a 10-minute recess 12 and then come back and hear from the staff and then
(} 13 Mr. Teeper's rebuttal.
14 (Recess.)
-15 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Mr. Bordenick, you have 20 16 minutes.
17 MR. BORDENICK: Thank you, good afternoon.
l 18 I would first like to make a few general comments, i 19 and then I will turn my attention to contention 8 of the QA l 20 contention and also the last matter that was discussed by i
21 Mr. Churchill, the actor torque limit operators.
i i l 22 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Did the Staf f help out in trying 23 to get these whistle-blowers to testify?
24 MR. BORDENICK: I am not quite sure what you mean j 25 by " help out"?
! C) l i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 202 447-37(O Nationwide Coserage mith 346M6
29540.0 COX 42
(,
1 CHAIRMAN EDLES: What efforts did you make?
2 Obviously we don't know the names. The Intervenor may not 3 have served them up and all that. It seems to me there are 4 some disgruntled folks down there and they have some 5 potentially legitimate QA concerns and I am concerned about 6 what the Staff did to look at all this stuff, ask OI to 7 investigate?
8 MR. BORDENICK: To my knowledge, nothing along 9 these lines has been referred to OI by the Staff 10 specifically. This would all be within the jurisdiction of 11 Region 2. It's my understanding that anyone that came 12 forward to Region 2 and made any kind of an allegation, as is
{} 13 14 the practice nationwide, the allegation was investigated by the region. It's my understanding that the region has never 15 found any merit or substance to any of these allegations: I 16 can't speak to specifics, but that's my general 17 undersLanding.
18 As far as your question was did the NRC Staff ever 19 go out and try to help these people, frankly on the one hand, i
20 '
the matter of allegations can be looked at from several 21 contexts. One of them is within the hearing. What I 22 understand the Intervenor to be saying is that these i
23 I allegations should have been litigated in front of the 24 licensing board and for the reasor, we have set forth in our 25 brief, which I won't reiterate at this point, I don't think
(~~ .
q-) \
i i
i l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-, , _ - - m_
29540.0
.COX 43 -
5 1 tha t's necessarily so.
2 But anything outside of the hearing process, yes, 3 these were looked into. It's generally my understanding that 4 the region has never found any substance to any of these 5 allegations. I don't think it was up to the licensing board 6 or the Staff, for example, to go out before the licensing 7 board and help the Intervenors make their case.
8 As Mr. Churchill pointed out, there was a motion' 9 for summary disposition filed, a massive motion, well :
10 documented and supported, and by the same token, and I know 11 for a fact that the region in Atlanta devoted quite a bit of 12 resources to responding to that motion, and everything was
(} 13 14 fully addressed and documented with affidavits. It was our position, our position at the time that the licensing board 15 ruled on the motion for summary disposition, and it continues 16 to be the Staff's position up to the present, that there is 17 absolutely no evidence that we are aware of, that would show 18 a systematic breakdown of the quality assurance program. !
19 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Do you have any quality assurance 20 information on the DOL proceedings?
21 MR. BORDENICK: Again, very general. Until I 22 arrived here just prior to the oral argument, and Mr. Teeper 23 ; made specific inquiry of me, I wasn't prepared to address I
24 this question. I don't have any reason to disagree with 25 ,
anything that Mr. Churchill said, and I understand, over the (2)
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. !
g n.n ~~ + c- --
29540.0 COX 44
( ')
1 break, from talking to one of the other attorneys that 2 represents Georgia Power and some of its contractors, who has 3 handled the cases before DOL, he is probably prepared to 4 speak to the specifics if the board is interested.
5 JUDGE KOHL: You were aware of the DOL?
6 MR. HORDENICK: I was aware of the cases. I was 7 aware -- as I say, I have no reason to disagree with 8 Mr. Churchill. I knew there were some cases still pending.
9 I knew that a couple of them had gone to hearing.
10 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Hut as far as you are aware, none 11 of the cases that have golie to hearing have resulted in a 12 decision by an Administrative Law Judge?
{} 13 14 MR. BORDENICK: Not to my knowledge. To be frank about it, I didn't look into that matter until this morning 15 or this afternoon, because I did not anticipate -- I had no 16 way of knowing that it was going to conic up.
17 JUDGE KOHL: Does the Staff, as opposed to you as 10 counsel -- does the Staff follow the disposition of those 19 kinds of complaints with the Labor Department as a matter of 20 practice?
21 MR. DORDENICK: I believe they do in Region 2. I 22 am not absolutely positive of this, to be frank.
I 23 i JUDGE KOHL: Did they have an obvious interest?
l 24 f MR. BORDENICK: I think they have an liiterest in 25 l the person has come forward. The Staff is very concerned Cl) l
.s I
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i -n., x _ r-. ~~
~
l 29540.0 COX 45 e
\_
1 about allvJations and the Staff does investigate any 2 allegation that is made. Now, the type of investigation 3 woulet depend on the type of the allegation and that sort of 4 thing, but allegations are not treated cavalierly by the 5 Staff, principally in that context, I am talking about 6 l princ3 pally the region. As Mr. Teeper said, when he got 7 phone calls, he referred them to the right people, and that 8 was the region.
9 JUDGE KOHL: Do you know anything about the matter 10 Mr. Teeper raised, he thought that the licensing board had 11 looked into a couple of safety items. Can you elaborate on 12 that, do you know anything more than Mr. Teeper has provided 13 us?
14 MR. HORDENICK: Only from my recollection, because 15 I was present, of course, at both the limited appearance 16 statements and evidentiary hearings before the licensing 17 board, in Waynesboro, Georgia; and it was my recollection 18 that severa] women, I don't remember their names, I think --
19 well, their names aren't really important in any event. They 20 did come forward, and they made allegations, in effect, they 21 ! felt that they had been discharged because of the fact that l I 22 l they had raised different concerns. I think one of the women l
23 I might have been a QA inspector for the Applicant or one of 24 its contractors.
25 j Do you realize this is back in March of last year o :
U :
e ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.n., ~ _ . c m ..... .m _
29540.0 COX 46.
O 1 and- lot of this --
2 CHAIRMAN EDLES: These are all presumably 3 reficcted in the limited appe'rance statements?
4 MR. DORDENICK: Absolutely.
5 CHAIRMAN EDLES: What was, roughly, the date of 6 thoue? ,
7 MR. BORDENICK: The dates of the hearing -- it was O March 11 through 15? 14. March 11 through 14. What the 9 board did, as I recall, they did not take all of the limited 10 appearance statements at once. They set aside time on day 1, 11 time on day 2, I remember on the one day they went to make a 12 site visit, that sort of thing.
13 But as far as the two specific women, it might .
14 have been three, I think there were two women and a man, if I l 15 am not mistaken. They came in and they made these 16 allegations. The licensing board heard the allegations, as 17 is the licenuing board's practice on any kind of allegation, 18 my recollection is that they sent a letter, but I frankly 19 don't remember whether the letter was to me, to I&E, to the I
20 region, someone on the Staff.
If we looked for it, would it be in f 21 JUDGE KOHL:
22 the public record, would it be in the docket?
23 MR. BORDENICK: I think so. I think it's the ,
24 licensing board's practice, as probably your practice, when 25 you sent. something out to a service list, I am sure they ;
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. i 2u:447 3700 Ntionwide rmnage MXL3E(M6
29540.0 COX 47
,_.s 1 would send it to the service list, if they sent it down town 2 for docketing for service, I am quite positive that it would 3 be available.
4 JUDGE KOHL: Did the Staff ever do an SER on some 5 of these assorted QA related allegations, whether they were 6 the ones made in the limited appearance statements or 7 otherwise?
8 MR. HORDENICK: Of course, the Staff, one section, 9 I forget the section number offhand, one section of the Staff 10 SER is devoted to QA, but I don't think, in answer to your 11 specific question, I don't think if you go to the SER you are 12 going to find anything that addresses allegations.
/~'S 13 JUDGE KOHL: In some cases, we have seen where U
14 there have been a number of allegations of that nature.
15 Staff has done a separate SER supplement devoted to that, and 16 I just wondered whether that was true in this case.
17 MR. BORDENICK: I am sure it has been done in 18 other cases, I don't know if it was this one. As you know 19 SER is prepared by the Office of Nuclear Reactors, they are 20 intertwined with I&E. It's two different offices now.
21 Conceivably there could be a situation where you would find
- 22 l what you are talking about in an PER, but I don't think you
'\
i 23 ! vill find it in a Vogtle SER.
l 24 Let me go to this question of the limited torque.
25 l JUDGE KOHL: I would appreciate that, because your O i l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm s ,,. ,w,m m mmm
29540.0 COX 40
,Q V 1 brief -- I appreciate the legal argument you made in your 2 brief, but I must say I was surprised to find abnolutely no 3 discussion whatsoever about the I&E notices that were raised 4 by Mr. Teeper and that were addressed in the supplemental 5 affidavit from the Applicants.
6 MR. BORDENICK: Of course, the Applicants, the 7 aCCidavit, you were referring to the affidavit that was 8 attached to the Applicant's brief?
9 JUDGE KOHL: Right, the Bellamy affidavit that was 10 directed to the four I&E notices cited by Mr. Teeper.
11 MR. BORDENICK: Let me state we had no problems 12 with that affidavit. We did not disagree with the 13 affidavit. We did not specifically address the affidavit in 14 our brief, frankly, we didn't have time. Their brief, under 15 the rules, I think came in five days before ours. Since wo 16 did not disagree with it --
17 JUDGE KOHL: But you knew about the four I&E 18 notices that had been cited by Mr. Teeper, and the I&E 19 notices were generated by the I&E Staf f. That's why I was 20 surprised to find absolutely no reference whatsoever to 21 0 them.
22 MR. HORDENICK: We apologize for that. Perhapu I 23 can make amendments. I have with me an inspection report 24 $hich I can't make copics for you right now, because there 25 are notes on it, among other thinigs.
O :
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
wwm s,-aa.,cuc -n
-- - _ =_
29540.0 COX 49 f'N O 1 JUDGE KOHL: We should have it in our files. Is 2 it a recent report?
~ d 3 MH. BORDENICK: Very receNL, December 31.
4 JUDGE KOHL: Was it transmitted to us?
5 l MR. BORDENICK: 1,et me see.
6 JUDGE KOHL: Let's put it this way, if it hasn't 7 been, cneck that, if it hasn't been, then we would appreciate 8 your sending us copies.
9 MR. BORDENICK: I will send you a clean copy, with 10 more indulgence, I will read you the pertinent provision. I 11 will not, stand here and read you the whole inspection report 12 because only a small part is relevant to what we are talking f 13 about, but. I think the inspection report will perhaps clear 14 up some of the questions that you had in connection with the 15 previous reports and the current status. I guess I will give 16 you the bsttom line right now. We don't disagree with the 17 Applicants. We do not think that. there is a safety problem 18 present, and I think reading this inspection report will 19 i clarify that.
20 This inupection report, as I indicated, is dated 21 , December 31, 1986; and it's inspection report numbera l
22 ! 50-24/66-111 and 50-425/8650.
23 The language I am going to read f rom s tarts a t the 24 l bottom of page 31, it's under the general heading of 25 "Pollow-up of Reportable Items Units 1 and 2."
O !
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m m.n., s _ m-e m ns-
_ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . . . __ ~ ._
29540.0 COX 50 O- 1 This one, I am quoting now, the report in quotes 2 says " damage to internal wirir.g by space heaters, limit ;
3 torque valve motor operators." By the way, if I am reading 4 too fast, which I probably have a tendency to do, please let 5 me know. Then it goes on to say, "the Applicant determined ,
6 this item to be reportable in a March 20, 1986 letter. The 7 Bechtel Power Corporation final engineering evaluation report
- 8 dated February 20, 1986 was reviewed. The space heatern and 9 their associated wiring are not required in form or to 3 10 support the performance of the safet.y function, llowever, 11 there was evidence that damage had occurred to the safety ;
12 related motor power Acads."
13 Coing over to page 32, it says " damage to these 14 power leads could render the motors inoperable thereby 15 preventing the associated valve from performing the intended 16 safety function. The results of the evaluation indicated 17 that had this condition gone uncorrected, it could have ,
la impacted the safety of the plant. In order to prevent 19 potential damage to the power leads of the class 1-E limit i 20 torque motor operators, the Applicant stated in letters, this 21 must be in error because it says in letters to the November 22 10," I think the inspector left out "to the NRC" - " dated 23 November 18, 1905 and March 20, 1906 that the permanent power !
24 circuits to the space heaters would be disconnected and as l l 25 the circuits are disconnected, existing internal wiring will O l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- - , , , _ u m _ ,. -
29540.0 COX 51 im
( I 1 be checked for damage and will be repaired or replaced as 2 necessary. Upon review of the documentation for CDR85-07, 3 the inspector was unable to verify that the internal wiring 4 was connected as required. The Applicant's furt.her review of 5 the corrective action indicated t. hat the work had been done, 6 but documentation could not be located. The inspector then 7 selected seven of these valves containing the limit, torque 8 motor operators from unit I for inspection. Assistance was 9 requested from electrical maintenance and quality control 10 personnel.
11 "During the inspection, two of the seven limit 12 t.orque motor operators were found to have burn damage to the
/ 13 motor operator power leads. The Applicant, in response to 14 this NRC finding, formed a task force to review the 15 documentation and direct reinspections as appropriate.
16 Reinspections were performed on 110 operations with no 17 further identification of burned power leads. Documentation 18 of positive QC inspections were located for an additional 47 19 valves, 10 are planned for inspection, four valves contained 20 within the encapsulation vessels will not be inspected due to 21 the lack of finding any burned wire and acts as difficulty 22 associated with these valves."
23 ,
Then the conclusion is, "until the results of i
24 j inspections can be reviewed, this item will remain unresolved 25 and identified as unresolved items."
O ;
I I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
wcn s - c~,. ~~
29540.0 COX 52 b) 1 That is the conclusion on it. I think what we are 2 really trying to say is they only found damage on seven out 3 of 110 of the -- two out of 110, I am sorry, and burns, as I 4 understand it, were of a very small size, about the size of a 5 fingernail. The Staff's conclusion, although we are still 6 treating it as an open item, it's really not a significant 7 concern, as witnessed the fact as the appeals board knows it, 8 that I&E approved issuance of the license for this plant last 9 Friday.
10 JUDGE KOllL That was low power. When you said 11 this is treated as an open item, does that mean that it has 1
12 to be resolved for full power? ,
/] 13 MR. IlORDENICK : To my knowledge, I don't think V
14 that's a requirement, and given the fact -- let me say, I did 15 not receive the Applicant's letter dated the 15th until late 16 yesterday -- not late yesterday but late yesterday morning,
- 17 so I did not have time, getting ready with all the other la matters to get ready for on the argument, I really did not 19 have time to find out the exact status of it.
20 Hut my understanding is it's an open item, but 21 ! it's not considered significant from the standpoint of either 22 l low power or full power operation.
I 23 l CHAIRMAN EDLES: You are going to submit that item 24 l to un though formally?
25 f MR. Il0RDENICK: The inspection report? Oh, yea, I O !
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
29540.0 >
COX 53 1 will have it in your hands tomorrow and the other parties.
2 CilAIRMAN EDLES: I think, in fairneus, Mr. Teeper 3 and Mr. Churchill, if you care to respond to us with respect 4 to that item, we can give you, let's say, 15 days to do 5 that.
6 MR. HORDENICK: Okay.
7 I was just informed by the NRR project nianager 8 that the cloucout inspect. ion report is expected on February I
9 6, which is not too far away, so we will certainly expedite 10 getting that to the board and the other parties also.
11 JUDGE WILHER: You mean close out on this open 12 item?
13 MR. HORDENICK: That's the way I understand it, 14 yes, close out on this item. So I think the whole matter is 15 close to resolution.
16 CIIAIRMAN EDLES: I have no problem with Mr. Teeper 17 or Mr. Churchill commenting on the inapection report. Hy the 18 same token, if you want to await the closecut report. and then 19 comment on the Staff's resolution of this matter, that would 20 be fine, unless my colleagues have a different. view.
21 MR. HORDENICK: That's fine wit'a me.
22 i CilAIRMAN EDLES: Why don't. we then say -- what. was 23 the date, I am sorry, you said the closecut report would be i
24 due?
i 25 l MR. HORDENICK: February 6.
O ;
l i
i I,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2(12 347-INE) Nallona th rmerage N(Ek 3 4f4M
29540.0 C0X 54 m
1 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Okay.
2 MR. BORDENICK: Unless the board has any other 3 questions on the limit torque matter, I will move on to 4 another area.
5 I will like to return to contention 8, which la 6 the QA, very briefly.
7 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Ac long as you do it briefly.
8 MR. BORDENICK: FirsL of all, let me say in the 9 context of contentions that were admitted, this was the only 10 motion for summary disposition with the exception of 11 content ion 7, which in ground water, the licensing board 12 granted part and denied part and ultimately went to hearing.
13 Contention a was the only contention that the Applicanta -- I 14 am sorry, the Intervenor, at that time the Intervenors, 15 responded to the Applicant's motion for summary disposition.
16 As the board is aware, we have grouped -- the 17 Staff set up its brief such that we grouped the appeal into 18 three parts, the first part being the contentions that the 19 board excluded f rom li tigation, the second part being 20 contentions upon which the board granted the Applicant's 21 motions for summary disposition and the third part was the 22 one contention that was litigated.
23 Actually, there were three contentions litigated 24 on 10.1, the Intervenor stated in his brief that he was 25 withdrawing his opposition to that contention. So, in O '
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 147 1710 Nationw kle Gu erage M L)3h&46
29540.0 COX 55 q
N ]
1 effect, that is uncontested.
2 10.5, which is so-called "ASCO solenoid valve 3 contention," on December 23 the licensing board issued 4 findings favorable to the Applicant on that contention.
5 But getting back to the motions for summary 6 disposition, two quick points, one, as I said earlier, 7 contention 8 is the only one where the Applicants or the 8 Intervenors, rather, opposed the Applicant's motion for 9 summary disposition. One more point on QA. I agree with 10 Mr. Churchill's remarks and answers to board questions 11 regarding the readiness review program, and I wanted to 12 reiterate specifically, that program was proposed and rS s 4 13 instituted by the Applicants long before we got contention 8 LJ 14 from the Intervenors.
15 On the contentions that were excluded, very 16 briefly, as we have set out in our brief, and I won't rehash
, 17 the brief, on several of the contentions, the Applicant --
18 excuse me, I don't know why I want to keep saying "the 19 Applicant" for "the Intervenor" this afternoon, but if 20 Intervenor complains about the board's action in excluding 21 contentions, in several instances, most notably the 22 I contention having to do with geology, the Charles ton l
23 l earthquake, the Intervenor walked away from the contention.
24 l The licensing board gave them an opportunity to do something, i
I 25 '
as for example in the geology contention, it was agreed that (v~)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mum,, ~ _ m- -
29540.0 COX SG
)
I the board's ruling on that contention would be deferred until 2 the Staff came out with an SER, and the Intervenor would have 3 an opportunity after the issuance of the Staff's SER to 4 either comment on that or -- that was just, though, as to S part of the original contention; right, the Charleston 6 earthquake part.
7 So-called "Millett Fault" --
8 JUDGE KOHL: Which was rejected out of hand and 9 they had no opportunity to comment on.
10 MR. BORDENICK: You are correct. The SER aspect 11 only went to the Charleston earthquake. There is also some 12 confusion, all this is said in our brief, but I just wanted
(~T 13 to reiterate, that really when the Intervenor says that the
%.J 14 licensing board erred in doing something, he is disregarding 15 the fact that on some of these contentions, the burden was on 16 him to do something, and he failed to do it; or, in one 17 instance, where CPG, the previous co- or consolidated 18 Intervenor specifically wrote into the board and said we are 19 withdrawing this contention, now they come in a year or two 20 later and say, and complain about what the licensing board 21 l did.
22 The time to indicate to the licensing board that 23 ;
they didn't agree with what CPG was doing has long since 1
I 24 passed.
25 ;
of course, that situation is not applicable to all
<~1 i s> j t
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- ,- ~ _n,. ,,n - \
29540.0 i COX 57 O
\
)
1 the contentions in that category, but there are several where 2 they are clearly mistaken when they charge the licensing 3 board with error.
4 On the other ones, I think the licensing board's, 5 all the licensing board's orders in this case, in my view, 6 were models of clarity as to what they were doing, why they 7 were doing it, and I think that the action taken by the 8 licensing board in this proceeding as to the --
9 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Isn't it true, it's true that as 10 to, I believe, five of the contentions, there was no response 11 to the motions for summary disposition.
12 In a number of them, where they were rejected for
/~ 13 lack of basis or specificity, the licensing boards gave the U}
14 Intervenors an opportunity to respond. But they weren't 15 compelled to respond, and they could have rested on the 16 submission they had made earlier.
17 MR. BORDENICK: Absolutely. In all instances save 18 one, I think the licensing board would have been justified in 19 similarly disposing of the contention that they went beyond 20 that. They, in effect, tried to give the Intervenor another 21 bi te of the apple. They did not compel him to do that, but 22 ; for reasons best known to the Intervenors, they failed and i
23 refused to do that. Unless there are any other questions, I 24 l would conclude my argument.
25 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Thank you very much.
<n ,
NJ j l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Noonwide Coserage 800-33M646
29540.0 COX 58 O)i
~
1 Mr. Teeper, you have got 20 minutes now for 2 rebuttal. Excuse me, Mr. Churchill, do you have a question 3 before we get started with Mr. Teeper?
4 MR. CHURCHILL: The board asked a couple of 5 questions I said I was going to look to at the break. I 6 might be able to shed a little more information.
7 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Why don't you do that now and 8 then we will give Mr. Teeper the last part.
9 MR. CHURCHILL: All right. I won't attempt to 10 sort out all the limit torque thing. Obviously, we have to 11 talk to our technical people, see what the Staff's inspection 12 report, which I was not aware of, and the follow-up report O
G 13 are saying.
14 One point of clarification I might make at this 15 point. You asked, well, how could they be inaccessible and 16 yet they had to be maintained, they are operating. What they 17 are is they are encapsulated as part of the intake valves, 18 they are encapsulated as part of the pressure boundary, which 19 has already been tested for integrity. If we were to go in 20 there now and look at them, they would breach the integrity 21 f and the pressure, the containment integrity would have to be 22 f retested.
I 23 ! These valves and these motor operators are subject 24 f to maintenance, but they are on different schedules. At i
25 ; times when you obviously then would retest afterwards.
<8
%-)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I m- , _ m- mu_
29540.0 COX 59
(~'T r >
1 I think that is what the situation is. The ones 2 that are encapsulated --
3 JUDGE KOHL: Excuse me, is that the sort of 4 testing that is done two or three times every 10 years?
5 MR. CHURCHILL: I don't know what the frequency 6 is. It might be something like that, it might be a little 7 more frequent. Obviously they are subject to surveillance as 8 well as testing.
9 Now, the encapsulated models are SNB 00, the burn 10 damage models were different, they were SNB 000.
11 Beyond that, I don't say anything. But that may i 12 answer that question.
13 Another question you had, Judge Wilber, about,
(~}
t.-
14 well, didn't the letter show that you found two examples of 15 burn damage, those burn damages, that was not to the internal 16 wiring, that was on the wiring of the heater element itself 17 that was being disconnected. In fact, it would suggest just la the opposite if they found that -- the fact that they found 19 that. This is not what they were looking for, they were 20 looking for the burn damage on the internal wiring, but they, 21 i in fact, found burn damages on the heater element itself.
I 22 ( That's the aspect of it that was disconnected as not being 23 necessary.
24 I So you could make the opposite inference, that, i
25 j having found those two examples, which, incidentally, and I w> >
f I
i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l m u,.m ~_m_. mm
29540.0 COX 60
/~N
~
1 better not get in too much deeper than this, are not the same 2 two that Mr. Bordenick was talking about, that was something 3 that happened earlier that was the result that we recorded 4 that resulted in the I&E notice. Two different situations.
5 Is this clear?
6 JUDGE WILBER: Fine.
7 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Thank you very much.
8 MR. CHURCHILL: Did you want to know about the 9 Department of Labor cases, a quick summary?
10 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Okay. If you have some different 11 information.
12 MR. CHURCHILL: I said there are 19 cases, there 13 were not. 10 cases, three were settled. Two of those
(~}
x_/
14 involved, and your question, Judge Kohl, two of those 15 involved QC inspectors, one involved a craftsman. The 16 craftsman was reinstated. These are of the three 17 settlements, as part of the settlement.
18 12 were dismissed.
19 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Dismissed by the DOL?
20 MR. CHURCHILL: No. Well, they were dismissed 21 either by the ALJ after hearing, three of them were, or by 22 the initial investigator, in that process, before it goes to 1
23 l hearing, there is a preliminary determination made. If a 24 dismissed case, the dismissee wants to appeal and have the 25 I ALJ hearing he can, of those 12 that were dismissed, one has
<n I v
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, ,,w, ,, ~_+<.... --
29540.0 COX 61
'p
'J 1 been appealed and there are indications that another one raay 2 appeal.
3 As I said, three of those dismissal were ALJ 4 decisions which found for the company and against the 5 complainant.
6 JUDGE KOHL: When you say " appeals," is that still 7 internal appeals within the Department of Labor as opposed to 8 Court of Appeals?
9 MR. CHURCHILL: Yes. That means they want to take 10 the next step up. I think they use the word " appeal," but we 11 wouldn't necessarily call it that in this Agency.
12 JUDGE KOHL: None of them has found its way into O
V 13 the courts?
14 MR. CHURCHILL: No. Then there are three 15 pending. Thank you.
16 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Still the same 20 minutes, 17 Mr. Teeper, ,
18 MR. TEEPER: That's a long 20 minutes.
19 CHAIRMAN EDLES: If I could interrupt you, before 20 you get started, ask you two things to address. One, we have 21 not yet gotten an appeal from you in connection with the 22 concluding paragraph and initial decision. Do I assume that 23 '
you have elected not to appeal from that?
24 MR. THEPER: You should not assume that.
25 ; CHAIRMAN EDLES: Your time has already run out for O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mum sso. om. mw ,
29540.0 COX' 62 g
i filing.
2 JUDGE KOHL: A while ago. We just want to make 3 sure that_it hasn't been' lost in the mail.
4 MR. TEEPER: I personally was not the one who 5 either prepared the appeal you have or the one that has not 6 reached you. My assumption would be it is not coming. I 7 would have to contact the people back in Atlanta to make 8 sure.
- 9 CHAIRMAN EDLES
- The second thing, Mr. Churchill 10 went.over a long litany of opportunities accorded to GANE to 11 provide the witnesses, the bottom line being that you
-f 12 actually never served up the witnesses here. Can you address 13 that?
14 MR. TEEPER: Yes, I can. This is what I would i
15 call a sensitive matter. There are workers who would call i
't 16 and approach us, for a number of years now. This goes back f 17 before the licensing proceeding even started. These are the
! 18 kinds of workers who have been employed in the nuclear <
i 19 industry. They might be laborers, they might have certain
- l. 20 special welding skills, they might have certain special
. 21 plumbing and hanging -- the hangers that you hang the pipes 22 with.
- 23 These people typically are not willing to come to 24 a group such as GANE or even the NHC, because they like being i 25 employed by the nuclear industry. They make a good deal of
- (2) 1 1
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l
! 202 347-37(R) Nationsnie Coscrage mL 3M-6M6 l
29540.0 COX 63
/ 3 V 1 money, so they are not willing to come to us.
2 What normally happens, throughout the industry 3 from us discussing this with other Intervenors in other 4 cases, that as t.he plant winds down towards finishing 5 employment, if these workers aren't planning to go to the 6 next job site, they will then -- some will then inform a 7 group either by anonymous letter, phone call, some will come 8 forward and say, s.ure, we tried to finish that job as quickly 9 as possibic, you should see the stuff we did.
10 So when we were making the allegations from the 11 very beginning, we would have loved to encourage these people 12 to sit down with a notary public and somebody doing an O 13 affidavit, or a deposition; but in the atmosphere, the C/
14 environment that we work in, that was not doing to happen.
15 CHAIRMAN EDLES: I am not at all critical of the 16 efforts that you made to try to bring these people forward.
17 I understand the problems that you have.
18 But I guess what I am getting at, notwithstanding 19 what appears to be your best efforts to bring them forward, 20 you quite trankly, simply were unable to do that. Is that a 21 fair characterization?
22 MR. TEEPER: I think so. I think we were going 23 ! that based upon the assumption at the hearing on quality l
24 j assurance, quality control, we would be able to present, at 25 that time, I believe, they were Department of Labor nv l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I m- ~ m- mo -
29540.0 COX 64
/
O i L-) 1 affidavits where these workers made allegations, and it was 2 going through DOL. At that time, we thought if there were 3 hearings that we could present that before the board; but the 4 contention was dismissed before the hearing process.
5 So I will be very forthright in saying legally, I 6 believe my organization has failed dramatically. I mean, the 7 lower board gave us a lot of leeway knowing they were working 8 with laymen as far as late filings. I believe even the 9 Applicant was somewhat conscious of the fact that they were 10 working with people who were not legal experts and were 11 overwhelmed, I guess would be the point. That being the 12 point, I would like to just mention that the motions for
(} 13 summary judgment were coming fast and furious. At one point during discovery on one contention on the SALP drift 14 15 emissions, there were 67,000 pages of discovery documents.
16 Basically, it was myself and one or two other 17 people. We basically -- I myself :oncentrated on quality 18 assurance, and we had an engiTOer in Savannah who was 19 formerly employed at Savannah hiver plant, do ground water.
20 That's all we were really able to respond to. I am pointing 21 out our failures, but the purpose of that is that we were 22 hoping, and we assumed wrongly, that by us pointing out 23 l certain contentions that we thought were problems for the 24 apple can't that Staff or the Applicant themselves would 25 address that, n '
(_J :
f ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
ww.~ un.,,na c-n am ,
29540.0 COX 65
)
1 Some of these they did. There were sor.e that both 2 the Staff and the Applicant did address, once we had pointed 7 it out.
4 CHAIRMAN EDLES: In that sense you played a 5 constructive role in the proceeding certainly?
6 MR. TEEPER: We like to think so and we would like 7 to continue to do so by preventing the plant from being 8 licensed.
9 I would like to address some of the issues that 10 Mr. Churchill brought up. Number one, the quality concern 11 program, my organization contends that this program, while it 12 was implemented, and I think it is a good program, I think (3
'uJ 13 the emphasis behind it was to expedite licensing. What it 14 does, in my view, is round up all the paper that is involved 15 in the licensing process. It's a good program, but I think 16 the initial impetus behind it was to make sure that when they 17 got to licensing procedure, every piece of equipment, every 18 material out there, had a document that supported it, and I 19 can say that while they made grea t hurdles, it's almosi 20 impossible to have every piece of paper on every piece of 21 pipe that comes through.
f 22 I JUDGE KOHL: Are you referring to the readiness 23 ; review program?
24 ! MR. TEEPER: Yes, I am. I am sorry, that's what I i
25 was referring to, the readiness review.
l O l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I amnu s m,,,m a , m ,2,, m -,
n 29510.0 COX 66 O ;
1 JUDGE KOHL: It's the NRC that requires the 2 Applicants to have all that paper trail and documentation. I 3 mean, that is a large part of any quality assurance program, 4 is that you have that paper documentation.
5 MR. TEEPER: I unders tand that. I believe the 6 Applicant implemented this program to be another layer of 7 management to help them accumulate and document all of this.
8 Of course, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was more than 9 ready to help the Applicant out in this, and I think that's a
_ _ ?\
10 decent partnerahlp, but, at the same time, from an 11 Intervenor's perspective, it approaches the level of conflict 12 of interest, if we are looking at this as an adversarial "T 13 relationship, or as a regulator to an industry. That often (J
14 was the feeling among some individuals within the 15 Intervenors.
16 I am sorry, I said quality concern. The quality 17 concern program, once again, gets back to the nature of the 10 people working at Plant Vogtle.
19 Numerous workers are not willing to go through the 20 program. I applaud, once again, the Applicants for setting 21 l up a program where anybody can go, I believe at one point i
22 they had a trailer on-site where you could go in anonymously, 23 l say there was a problem, but it is often the case that 24 workers are reluctant to use this process. Just as they are 25 reluctant to go to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They l O i I
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2e m m., s a.uc n>,mo, mmm
29540.0 COX 67 1 are doing their hourly pay or salary pay, and that's all they 2 are concerned about. Some workers were willing to use it and 3 some worked, and about the time the drug testing was 4 implemented, I believe there was a feeling of fear at the 5 work site that if you didn't -- if you weren't a team player 6 and if you complained too much, you would be reported through 7 the drug program. There was an emergency hotline, if anybody 8 was suspected of using drugs, anybody could call in. This 9 technique, I think, can be used for retribution for 10 anything. Not necessarily if somebody is on drugs, if 11 somebody got in a fint fight, they could call in this 12 person.
t 13 So I believe once again the kind of environment 14 that happens at these work sites does not necessarily 15 guarantee the complete success of a quality concern program 16 like the Applicant implemented.
17 Let me move on real quickly. I would say 18 concerning the limit torque motors, it's interesting that 19 this comes up, once again, late in the game, because early 20 on, as I believe you pointed out, there was a concern about 21 this showing up in I&E reports. I think this reficcts, since 22 it was brought up early in this proceeding, back in early 23 '84, I think, once again, there should be -- this brings up 24 quality assurance, quality control.
4 25 I think if a specific contention is brought up O
4 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mmn., s._ m- ..o _
29540.0 COX 68 m
i )
1 carly in the game, I think the Applicant would have 2 heightened awareness of a specific problem and they would 3 keep a closer watch on this. But it seems like, here it is, 4 with the license already granted, the low power license, and 5 we are still concerned with this.
6 That is one of the things that might be a little, 7 small problem, if the leads, the wire leads coming in were 8 burned, and they replaced the engines, whatever, the motors, 9 I think, you know, that shows that they were responsive, but 10 they didn't correct what is years later a problem.
11 Let me move on to some of the staff questions.
12 On the geology, that was one contention that we O
U 13 concentrated on. We are very much concerned about the 14 geology of the region. We brought in Dr. Lawless, who had 15 been senior project engineer at the Savannah River plant. He 16 had vast experience with the problem over at Savannah River 17 plant, which is similar to the problem over at Plant Vogtle.
18 That was the fact that there were certain assumptions made 19 about what to do with, in the case of the Savannah Hiver 20 plant, waste.
21 ! There were assumptions made about the material l
22 l that was between the ground water and the surface.
23 Well, that assumption proved to be false at l
! Dr. Lawless was doing his best to try 24 Savannah River plant.
25 ,
to let the Applicantu know that they were basically making a O i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2n2 m.m sg,* g mgm.
29540.0 COX 69 1 similar assumption and that it had f ailed at Savannah River 2 plant.
3 JUDGE KOHL: When you say "the problem was 4 similar," the same at Savannah River as at Plant Vogtle?
5 MR. TEEPER: Yes.
6 JUDGE KOHL: Do you mean that they had the same --
7 these bore holes that they filled with grout and material, 8 that you alleged breached led to contamination of the 9 aquifer, was that a similar problem in Savannah River?
10 MR. TEEPER: I would hate to repeat my expert 11 witness' specific testimony, but I believe so. I know he was 12 extremely concerned about the wells that were dug at Vogtle.
13 JUDGE KOHL: But were there similar wella dug at 14 Savannah River? What is the basis for saying the base at 15 Savannah River was relevant to the " problem" at Vogtle?
16 MR. TEEPER: The basis is the fact that I believe 17 that officials at the Savannah River plant assumed that the 18 blue marl would be an impermeable layer and ground water 19 would not be affected. Two years ago there was what 20 Dr. hawless called " massive contamination" of the ground 21 I water with heavy chemicals and metals, Icad, mercury and I
22 different chemicals they used for processing at the Savannah 23 : River plant. It was Dr. Lawless' thought a similar si tua ti on 24 .
was in effect at Vogtle, and where the Applicants are relying
}
25 on this blue marl to protect the ground water, 3 L didn't work O !
I i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
semm s,~-,ac c~.,a ww-
29540.0 COX 70 I
at Savannah River plant.
2 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Was his testimony, though, that 3 the water, the contaminant had simply seeped through the marl 4 or they went through the bore holes? That's what Ms. Kohl
' 5 Coal was driving at, I thought. -
6 MR. TEEPER: I remember him arguing very 7 specifically that the bore holes were a specific concern of 8 his at Vogtle. Admittedly there are holes that were caulked 9 or whatever word was used. There was some question as to how 10 rigid the caulk was, how much settlement there would be. I 11 think, not being an expert in it, I think the assumption is 12 the question of penetration into the ground water. Somehow 13 or other, at Savannah River plant, these chemicals and
/]
C 14 materials that were not supposed to be -- that were not 15 supposed to reach ground water, in fact, did.
16 Here we are talking about right across the river, 17 the same similar type situation where once again the 18 Applicant is relying on this layer of blue marl to keep it 19 out.
20 So that actually is the ground water contamination 21 contention.
22 l Hack to the geology contention, I think the 23 parties were waiting for a U.S. Geological Survey that I 24 don't believe actually resolved the question. I believe they 25 are still -- it's unknown. I am not standing before you G
V i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
m m.m m,_ m m,. -mo
29540.0 COX 71
('
1 today saying --
2 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Charleston?
3 MR. TEEPER: This~is the Millett fault. The 4 origin of the Charleston earthquake is unknown. I guess 5 there was a --
6 JUDGE KOHL: That's what you had an opportunity to 7 file additional material before the licensing board after the i 8 Staff's Safety Evaluation Report was issued; correct?
9 MR. TEEPER: I couldn't tell you one way or the 10 other. But the information I have is there is no known 11 source of that earthquake. There are assumed or alleged 12 sources, and we thought the geology was worthwhile to do
/N 13 further study and hearing on.
d 14 CilAIRMAN EDLES: Mr. Teeper, why don't you take an 15 extra minute or two to finish up, if you have one or two 16 final items.
17 MR. TEEPER: I will do so. Once again, I would
. 18 just like to summarize by saying that the role of citizen 19 Intervenors is a difficult, time consuming and expensive 20 one. The plant is 150 miles from Atlanta, where the 21 The difficulty of going to the plant or to
{ Intervenors live.
22 i the count.y where the document room was of immense concern and 23 ! prevented some responses to some motions for summary 24 j disposition, this is not your concern.
{
25 The point being the overall intervention was, once I
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
x-u s .o. m . m~,,, .., ,, -
29540.0 COX 72 p
b 1 again, the fact that looking at the documents we have looked 2 at, that are available to everyone in the public document 3 room, based on what is arguably rumor and innuendo about the 4 kind of activities going on at the plant among the workers, 5 we feel it necessary and compelling that all information bo 6 available and all possible consideration be given to possibic 7 effect on health and nafety and the effect of this plant on 8 going into operation. I, once again, feel like the politics 9 of the times are very much involved in this, and that there 10 is a certain kind of feeling that the current administration 11 feels like nuclear power is the way to go and that we need to 12 get these plants licensed as quickly as possible; and I am 13 af raid with this kind of a political air that certain things 14 are being pushed in the background.
15 Real quickly, I would just like to mention that 16 Georgia Power requested and was given a number of exemptions, >
17 certain general design criteria as far as pipe restraints, 18 some of their pretesting, tests were put off until after they 19 got their low power license. Some of this might be quite 20 common, but it is our contention that if you look at the 21 number of open ques tions that are ctill related to -- what 22 ;
they are called is " outstanding items," including i
23 ! enforcement, unresolved items, I think it is a feeling among i .
24 the general public and certainly among our group that the 25 political times are pushing this plant to a 11conne where the O
l I
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-., - . um-, --
a 29540.0 COX 73 (s
\
1 plant itself may not be ready.
2 So thank you very much.
3 CHAIRMAN EDLES: Mr. Teeper. Thank you v,ry much 4 and I appreciate the efforts you made to be here this 5 aftornoon.
6 Mr. Churchill, Mr. Bordenick, thank you for your 7 help.
8 The case now stands submitted for decision.
9 (Whereupon, a t 3 :30 p.m. , the hearing was 10 concluded.)
11 12 O '3 14 15 16 17 10 19 20 21 !
t 4 22 l 23 l 24 t 25 l O i k
l I
ACE-FEDERAL REroirniRS, INC.
- e w n,, u.,u,,,,. a. n-,a ~ n ><u u n
- - _ - _ _. _ _ . . , ,-_--_ _- - - - - - ~
4 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER O
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before ,
the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter oft
- NAME OF PROCEEDING: GEORGIA POWER COMPANY (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2)
DOCKET NO.: 50-424 OL, 50-425 OL
' B E T !!E S D A , MARYLAND PLACE:
DATE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1987 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original l transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L l
(sigt) fllO.%
(TYPED) b i WENDY S. COX
! l Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation i
4 O
.