ML090540850
| ML090540850 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 02/05/2009 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-282-LR, 50-306-LR, NRC-2644, RAS R-1 | |
| Download: ML090540850 (28) | |
Text
R -I Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Northern States Power Company DOCKETED Pre-hearing Conference USNRC February 19, 2009 (11:30am)
Title Docket Number:
50-282-LR; 50-306-LR OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Location:
Date:
(telephone conference)
Thursday, February 5, 2009 Work Order No.:
NRC-2644 Pages 163-188 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
163 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED-STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL TELE-CONFERENCE x
In the Matter of:
Northern States Power Co.,
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units I and II,
- ASLBP No.
- 50-282-LR;
- 50-306-LR Applicant.
x
- Thursday, February 5, 2009 BEFORE THE PANEL:
WILLIAM FROEHLICH, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, CHAIRMAN DR.
GARY ARNOLD, TECHNICAL JUDGE DR.
THOMAS HIRONS, TECHNICAL JUDGE NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.ne*aIrgross.com
164 1
APPEARANCES:
2 3
On Behalf of Applicant, Northern States Power 4
Co.:
5 DAVID R.
- LEWIS, ESQ.
6 of:
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw, LLP 7
2300 N Street, N.W.
8 Washington, D.C.
20037 9
202-663-8474 10 202-663-8007 (fax) 11 David. lewis@pillsburylaw.com 12 On Behalf of the United States Nuclear 13 Regulatory Commission:
14 BETH MIZUNO, ESQ.
15 of:
OGC/GCHEA/AGCOR 16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 17 Rockville, Maryland 20850 18 30.1-415-3122 19 On Behalf of the Prairie Island Indian 20 Community:
21 PHILIP MAHOWALD, Tribal Attorney 22 5636 Sturgeon Lake Road 23
- Welch, MN 55089 24 1-800-554-5473 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
165 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALSO PRESENT:-
Matthew Rottman, ASLBP law clerk Sara Culler, Administrative Assistant Patricia Harich, ASLBP Administrative Staff Allison Crane, with Mr. Lewis Francis Cameron, with Mr. Mahowald Nathan Goodman, NRC/OGC Rick Plasse, NRC/OGC David Roth, NRC/OGC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwv'.nealrgross.com
166 1
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2
10:03 a.m.
3 CHAIR FROELICH:
This is Prairie Island 4
Nuclear Generating Plant,: Units 1 and 2.
It's just 5
after 10:00 a.m.,
on Thursday, February 5, 2009.
6 My name is William Froelich, and that's F-7 R-O-E-H-L-I-C-H.
I'm an Administrative Judge and I've 8
been appointed Chair of this board.
9 Here in Rockville I'm joined today with 10 Dr.
Gary
- Arnold, a
member of the board, and a
11 Technical Judge.
12 The third member of our board is Dr.
13 Thomas Hirons, who is also a Technical Judge and is 14 participating by telephone from Santa Fe, New Mexico.
15 Also here in Rockville with me today are 16 Mr.
Matthew Rottman, the board's law clerk for this 17
- case, and our administrative assistant, Sara Culler, 18 who you've dealt with as you linked into the phone 19 conversation.
20 Ms. Patricia Harich, also a member of the 21 ASLBP, administrative staff, is listening in by phone.
22 Judge Arnold?
23 DR.
ARNOLD:
- Okay, for the record would 24 the parties who are on line please identify themselves 25 and any of their colleagues who are with them for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
167
.1 record?
2 Who is. here for the Applicant, Northern 3
States?
4 MR.
LEWIS:
This is David Lewis, from the 5
law firm of Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw & Pittman, and 6
with me in the office is Allison; Crane.,
There are 7
also representatives from Northern States Power 8
listening in from Minnesota.
I know that Mr.
Peter 9
Glass, counsel for NSP, is on the phone, but I'm not 10 sure who else is at their remote locations.
11 MR.
GLASS:
We have a few more, so let me 12 just start here with Charlie.
Go ahead, Charlie.
13 MR. BOMBERGER:
Charlie Bomberger, I'm the 14 Vice President of Nuclear Projects.
15 MR.
GLASS:
Could you spell your name for 16 the --
17 MR.
BOMBERGER:
B-O-M-B-E-R-G-E-R.
18 MR.
WADLEY:
Mike Wadley, W-A-D-L-E-Y.
19 MR.
ALBRECHT:
Ken Albrecht, A-L-B-R-E-C-20 H-T.
21 MR.
HOLTHAUF:
Jim Holthauf, H-O-L-T-H-A-22 U-F.
23 MR.
GLASS:
That's it for us.
24 CHAIR FROELICH:
- Okay, that's it for the 25 Applicant, Northern States.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
168 1
Who is on the line for the Petitioner, the 2
Prairie -Island Indian Community?
3 MR. MAHOWALD:
Philip Mahowald, P-H-I-L-I-4 P
M-A--H-O-W-A-L-D, and listening is Francis Cameron, 5
C-A-M-E-R-0-N.
6 CHAIR FROELICH:
Fine, and would you give 7
the appearances for the staff, please?
8 Ms.
Mizuno?
9 MS.
MIZUNO:
- Sorry, this is Beth Mizuno, 10 with David.Roth and Brian Harris.
Listening in are 11 staff members Rick Plasse and Nathan Goodman.
12 CHAIR FROELICH:
Thank
- you, is there 13 anyone else on the line, any members of the press or 14 public who have joined this conference?
15 Hearing none.
16 This call is being transcribed by a court 17 reporter.
Therefore, I would ask that when you speak 18 please identify yourself to assist the court reporter.
19 Members of the public or consultants to 20 the parties may listen to the proceeding, but I prefer 21 to hear only from counsel for the parties to the case.
22 The purpose of this call is to discuss 23 matters relating to management and scheduling.
The 24 Commission's regulations require that the board 25 develop a
scheduling order to govern these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
169 proceedings, and to that end the board issued an order 2
on January 23rd, in which it identified seven specific 3
items to' be discussed. today.
4 We are certainly not limited to those 5
particular items, but unless there's a reason voiced 6
by someone on the line I propose that-we discuss those 7
items in the order listed in the January 23rd order.
8 First in that order, the first item was 9
the status of the mandatory disclosure process, 10 10 CFR, Section 2.336 calls for initial disclosure to be 11 made within 30 days of the board's order admitting 12 contention.
13 This board issued an order on December 14 17th, granting the parties' joint motion to extend the 15 deadline for disclosures until February 27th, and 16 allow for supplemental disclosures on the last 17 business day of each month thereafter.,
18 Are there any matters regarding the 19 disclosure process that the parties wish to bring to 20 the board's attention?
21 MR.
LEWIS:
Yes, Judge Froelich, this is 22 David Lewis.
23 CHAIR FROELICH:
Thank you.
24 MR. LEWIS:
The parties consulted on 25 Monday to prepare for this call, and try and reach NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www nealrnrno com
170 1 agreements, and discuss the matters, and one of the 2 issues that came up is that there may be some 3
proprietary documents, that would be disclosed on the 4
privilege log that parties may then want to obtain 5
- and, in particular, Mr. Mahowald indicated that 6
there's some information that may be relevant that 7
they may want --
the Indian Community may want to 8
protect as proprietary.
9
- And, as a result, we agreed that, I
10 indicated that I would try and work up a proposed 11 protective order for the other parties to consider.
12 And so, just to. alert the board at some point we may 13 be submitting something for the board just to govern 14 the_ protection of proprietary information,
- and, 15 hopefully, we'll do that, work it out between the 16 parties.
17 CHAIR FROELICH:.Mr.
Lewis, so that would 18 be, perhaps, a protective order, or a non-disclosure 19 declaration, or something along those lines?
20 MR. LEWIS:
Yes, actually, I was planning 21 on following procedures that have been used in other 22 license renewal proceedings and, therefore, I was 23 ready. to propose to the parties a proposed protective 24 order with an attached short non-disclosure agreement, 25 agreeing to the protected order.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
171 1
CHAIR FROELICH:
Okay.
I think, should 2
that be necessary, if the parties could get together.
3 and come up with a joint proposal, a joint order that 4
they agree to, and file it with the board, I think 5
that would be the easiest way to proceed.
6 Thank you, Mr.
Lewis.
7 While we are on the mandatory disclosures, 8
I note that there's a hearing file required by 10 CFR, 9
Section 2.1203(a) (1),
and it requires within 30 days' 10 of the issuance of the order granting request for 11 hearing that the NRC staff shall file the docket, 12 present to the board, and made available to the party 13 the hearing file.
14 Can I inquire of staff as to the status of 15 the hearing file?
16 MS.
MIZUNO:
Your Honor, this is Beth 17 Mizuno.
18 We are proposingto produce the hearing 19 file and mandatory disclosures on the date set.
I 20 think that's what, February 27th?
21
- And, we are moving along in that regard.
22 I don't see any particular reason why we should not be 23 able to meet that deadline.
24 We are going to have to cut off the --
we 25 are going to have to establish some internal cutoff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
172 1
date.
I'd say approximately two weeks prior to the 2
- 27th, in order to pick up, you know, during those-two 3
weeks we'll be picking up all the, you know, things 4
that have come in.
But, we have-to set up some kind 5
of internal cutoff date.
6 CHAIR FROELICH:
That's a cutoff date for 7
the initial
- posting or compilation of the hearing 8
file?
9 MS.
MIZUNO:
Right.
10 CHAIR FROELICH:
- And, it's the intent of 11 the
- staff, I
- assume, to update the hearing
- file, 12 perhaps, on a monthly basis, coincident with the date 13 we've set for the mandatory disclosures?
14 MS.
MIZUNO:
Yes, Your Honor.
15 CHAIR FROELICH:
Okay.
16 MR.
LEWIS:
Judge Froelich, this is David
.17 Lewis.
My recollection is that our original joint 18 motion referenced and covered both the filings by the 19 parties and the staff, so it applied both to the 20 parties' disclosures and updates and the staff's 21 hearing file and update.
That's my best recollection.
22 CHAIR FROELICH:
Okay.
That's fine, and 23 when we didn't receive the hearing file 30 days after 24 the notice I
- assumed, and reread, and expect to 25 receive it on the 27th.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
-173 1
If I may ask the staff
- counsel, in what 2
manner is this hearing file going to be --
is
-it going 3
to completely electronic,. will it be a paper copy as 4
well an electronic?
What are your plans at-this 5
point?
6 MS.
MIZUNO:
'Your
- Honor, this is Beth 7
Mizuno.
8 We had originally we assumed that we 9
would be doing ain electronic production, since this is 10 an electronic the papers are being filed 11 electronically in this proceeding.
12
- But, if some other provision needs to be 13
- made, we are amenable to considering it, Your Honor.
14 CHAIR FROELICH:
Electronic is
- fine, 15 counsel.
I only hope that as it is compiled that it 16 would be available to the parties and to the public, 17 you
- know, in one place,
- easily, you
- know, cross 18 indexed, or hyperlinked, so that parties can receive 19 and view all the important documents in this case from 20 one location.
21 Is that the intent, is that how you 22 contemplate compiling it?
23 MS.
MIZUNO:
Could you hold on just a
24
- moment, Your Honor?
25 CHAIR FROELICH:
Sure.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
174 1
MS.
MIZUNO:
We're back on.
2 CHAIR FROELICH:
Thank you.
3 MR.
HARRIS:
Your Honor, this is Brian 4
Harris with the OGC staff.
5 The hearing file, we'll be creating an 6
index of all the documents, and all those documents 7-are going to be, you know, will be available from the 8
electronic docketing system.
There will be a folder 9
that is available there that says where it can be 10 found, the documents will be able to be accessed by 11 all parties there.
12 CHAIR FROELICH:
- Okay, in one central 13 place, and it will just be a file added called hearing 14 file to, I guess, the public files, and accessible 15 through ADAMS as well?
16 MR.
HARRIS:
Right, it's in the --.
it will 17 be in the electronic docketing. system, but also 18 available through ADAMS, and it's just one folder 19 underneath the Prairie Island proceeding that will be 20 labeled hearing file, and will, actually, have all the 21 documents in it, plus the indexes.
22 CHAIR FROELICH:
That's fine, thank you.
23 Is there anything else that we need to 24 discuss at this point concerning mandatory disclosures 25 or the compilation of the hearing file?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
175 1
Hearing none, let's move on then to the 2
issuance of. the safety evaluation report and the 3
environmental impact statement, because these dates 4
are dates that will -trigger subsequent procedural 5
dates and the timing of our ultimate evidentiary 6
hearing.
7 The Commission's website indicates that 8
the draft SEIS is scheduled for March 11, 2009.
Is 9
this the date the staff is still projecting?
10 MS.
MIZUNO:
Your
- Honor, this is Beth 11 Mizuno.
12 That is not the date we are expecting any 13 longer.
Our new projected date is June 11, '09.
14 If I may continue.
15 CHAIR FROELICH:
Yes.
16 MS.
MIZUNO:
On the safety evaluation 17
- report, the schedule currently gives an expected 18 issuance date of May 15,
'09, and we are expecting 19 that that date is still a good date, Your Honor.
20 CHAIR FROELICH:.
For the SER, okay.
21 MS.
MIZUNO:
SER, yes.
22 CHAIR FROELICH:
- Okay, and so that will 23 shift the date for the comment period on the 24 supplemental environmental impact statement, and 25 probably also shift the date that you'll hold the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W:
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
176 1
public.meeting regarding the. draft SEIS?
2 MS.
MIZUNO:
I'm sorry, Your Honor, T
3 could.not hear you.
4 CHAIR FROELICH:
I'm sorry.
5 Moving the date.for the availability of 6
the draft SEIS.will also shift, I assume; the date for 7
the comment period and thepublic meeting on the draft 8
SEIS?
9 MS.
MIZUNO:
- Yes, Your Honor, and those 10 dates have been shifted in exactly the same way that 11 they appear.
12 Now we are looking at comments on the 13 draft SEIS, that's the draft S-E-I-S, to come in on 14 June 19, '09, and the end of-the draft SEIS comment 15 period would then be September 4,
'09.
16 And, the public meeting on the draft SEIS 17 would be. July 15,
'09.
18 CHAIR FROELICH:
Okay.
Under the 19 Commission's milestones in Appendix B to Part II, 20 Subpart L of the regulations, certain events are 21 triggered from the final SEIS, and I guess for our 22 purposes within 30 days of the issuance of the SER, 23 and any necessary NEPA documents, there were many 24 contentions, as well as motions for summary 25 disposition on previously amended contentions would be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
177 1
due.
2 Is that the understanding of the parties?
3 MR.
LEWIS:
Judge Froelich, this is David 4
Lewis.
5 One of the items that we discussed among 6
the parties on Monday was a proposal that summary 7
dispositions, motions, would be due 30 days after the 8
latter of the initial SER or draft EIS, whichever is 9
published later.
So, under the new schedule what we 10 would propose is if the latter document is the draft 11 EIS on June llth, then summary disposition motions 12 would be due on July 11,2009, and this is just being 13 an attempt to try and have those summary disposition 14 motions before the Board earlier so the hearing can 15 start more promptly after later after the final 16 documents.
17 CHAIR FROELICH:
Okay.
18 MR.
MAHOWALD:
Your Honor, this is Phil 19 Mahowald.
20 That is consistent.
I just want to note 21 that July llth would fall on a Saturday.
22 CHAIR FROELICH:
July 11th is a Saturday.
23 Perhaps it would help,
- now, Mr.
- Lewis, 24 could I call upon you to, perhaps, summarize in a
25 pleading, in a document, in a filing with the board, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
178 1
the agreements that were reached among the parties 2
concerning the motions for summary disposition and 3
newer amended contentions?
4 MR.
LEWIS:
We did not reach an agreement 5
on new amended contentions, just on theSdeadline for 6
summary dispositions.
But, yes, I can do that.
7 CHAIR FROELICH:
I think that would be 8
helpful to us in issuing our final order at the 9
conclusion of the conference call that has all the 10 dates and all the agreements of the parties, and that 11 way I think there's less chance that there will be any 12 confusion among the board.
13 MR.
LEWIS:
Just to
- clarify, Judge 14
- Froelich, I
don't think we even discussed newer 15 amended contentions, so maybe that was our oversight.
16 CHAIR FROELICH:
No, if there haven't been 17 do any, of the parties have any thoughts on the 18 newer amended contentions, and setting a deadline for 19 them, based onevents in the milestones?
20 MR.
MAHOWALD:
Your Honor; this is Phil 21 Mahowald.
22 CHAIR FROELICH:
- Yes, sir.
23 MR.
MAHOWALD:
I would suggest maybe, 24
- perhaps, keeping them linked to the motions for 25 summary disposition, as they are in the model NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
179 1
milestones.
And., if we are going to have the motions 2
for summary disposition 30 days after the draft SEIS 3
that we keep the same schedule and have proposed late 4
filed contentions also 30 days after that *date.
5 MR.
LEWIS;.
Judge Froelich, this is David 6
Lewis.
7 I would --
there will be two dates,.
there 8
will be the date when the draft EIS comes out, and the 9
date when the initial SER comes out.
I don't haVe an 10 objection to the 30 days, but I would suggest new 11 contentions, based on new analyses or conclusions of 12 those documents, that any such motions for new 13 contentions should be filed 30 days after the document 14 that provides the new analysis or conclusion.
15 CHAIR FROELICH:
Is that the same as.you 16 were say, Mr.
Mahowald?
17 MR.
MAHOWALD:
I'm guessing that it's 18 slightly different, because if I understand Mr.
Lewis 19 correctly, then if the SER is filed on May 15th then 20 any proposed late filed contentions would be due then 21 on June 15th.
22 MR.
MAHOWALD:
That's correct, that would 23 be my proposal, and I would think that that would 24 allow the parties to get a
jump if there are 25 additional contentions, and save us 30 days on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
180 1
schedule on those.
2 CHAIR FROELICH:
And, Mr. Mahowald, do you 3
have any objection to that interpretation.O f 30 days 4
from the SER, or 30 days from any NEPA document?
5 MR.
MAHOWALD:
I guess that would be 6
consistent with the model milestones, Your Honor, so 7
1 do think we can agree to that.
8 CHAIR FROELICH:
Okay.
All right.
Is 9
there anything else on the issuance. of the SER or the 10 EIS?
11 In this case, since we are likely to have 12 electronic filings made in response to the draft 13 supplemental environmental impact statement, I would 14 expect the contentions relating to issues that are 15 raised, new issues that are raised in the SEIS, that 16 those would come in within 30 days as the draft SEIS.
17 That filing
- comments, you know, to the SEIS wouldn't 18 take the place of the contention practice that's 19 necessary in our case.
20 Is that your understanding as well, Mr.
21 Mahowald?
22 MR.
MAHOWALD:
- Yes, sir.
23 CHAIR FROELICH:
Okay.
In that regard, I 24 think it would probably also be a good idea for us to 25 combine the motion for leave to file new and amended NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
181 1
contentions with the filing of those contentions:
2 Has that been a problem for any of the
-3 parties?
4 MS. MIZIJNO:
No, Your Honor, Beth Mizuno.
5 CHAIR FROELICH:
Thank you.
6
'MR. LEWIS:
No, Judge Froelich, and I 7
think that is the good practice, because having the 8
contentions is really important, and being able to 9
respond to-whether they should be admitted, so, yes, 10 one date is preferable.
11 CHAIR FROELICH:
Okay.
So, in our 12 scheduling order we'll include something to that 13 effect, and that's how we'll proceed with this case.
- 14.
Are there any current plans for motions 15 for summary disposition, and, if so, when would they 16 be filed?
17 MR. LEWIS: We discussed this a little bit 18 on Monday, just to get ahead of motions of motions for 19 summary disposition there may be, and I alerted the 20 other parties, motions to dismiss certain contentions 21 omission as moot.
22 CHAIR FROELICH:
Right.
23 MR. LEWIS:
- And, those could be much 24 earlier than the July time frame we were talking 25 about, potentially, even starting within the next NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
182 1
month.
2 What the parties agreed to, though, is 3
that if we do --
if the applicant.addresses any of.the 4
contentions omission and a way to moot them that we 5
consult with the other parties ahead of time and see 6
if we could agree amicably to resolve the contention
'7 before we file the motion to dismiss them, so we would 8
try that first.
9 But, yes, there may be a number of motions 10 dismissed as moot over the next couple of months, and 11 then there probably are a couple of contentions that 12 we can't resolve in that way, because they are not 13 pure contentions omissions, if the applicant's 14 intention is to use summary disposition to resolve any 15 contentions that couldn't be settled or dismissed as 16 moot.
17 CHAIR FROELICH:
- Okay, and we would 18 propose that there would be answers to those motions 19 in ten days?
Is that the understanding?
- And, 20 consistent with 2.323?
21 MR.
LEWIS:
That would be my proposal, 22 Judge Froelich.
23 MR.
LEWIS:
- Okay, Mr.
- Mahowald, the 24 answers to those motions to dismiss would be due in 25 ten days, is that clear to you as well?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
183 1
MR.
MAHOWALD:
Yes, Your-Honor, 2
CHAIR FROELICH:
Thank you.
3 As the parties, I'm sure, are aware, 4
settlement is favored by this Commission, and have 5
provided for it in our regulations.
6 Could the parties report, please, if there 7
have been, or if there are any ongoing efforts to 8
settle all or part of this proceeding?
9 MR.
LEWIS:
Judge Froelich, this is David 10 Lewis.
I'll try it again.
There were settlement 11 discussions, prior to the board's ruling and many 12 contentions, and those discussions sort of were put on 13 hold while --
over the holidays and while we were 14 getting disclosure agreements put in place.
15
- But, I have discussed with Mr.
Mahowald 16 the desire to renew those discussions, and I
17 understand that the Indian Community is also 18 interested, and, therefore, we propose to do so.
19 The primary focus is on contention one, 20 the archeological resources contention, but our 21 discussion was to see if,
- perhaps, we could expand 22
- that, and we also discussed,
- actually, in the 23 conference call with all the parties on Monday, the 24 possibility and potential desirability of having a 25 settlement judge appointed just to help us with some NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
184 1
schedule discipline and-moving along.
2 CHAIR FROELICH:
Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
3 That was actually, the next point I wanted to offer, 4
the services of the settlement judge through the 5
- ASLBP, or ask the parties to consider either a 6
settlement judge or some other form of ADR to help 7
narrow the issues or, perhaps, resolve some of the 8
things that we would otherwise be faced with in 9
hearing.
10 So, I would encourage the parties to 11 continue the dialogue and not to be hesitant to 12 request a settlement judge, if you think that would be 13 helpful.
14 MR. LEWIS:
Judge Froelich, does that 15 request need to be in writing? I mean, it would be my 16 request to have a settlement judge appointed.
17 CHAIR FROELICH:
-I would suggest that it 18 be done in writing, as a request for a settlement 19 judge, after conferring with the. other parties to the 20 case, and, hopefully, having their agreement to it. it 21 would be forwarded to the Chief Administrative Judge, 22 who would appoint a settlement judge, who would, 23 hopefully, help you, you know, work through and put 24 some procedural discipline to the discussions.-.
25 A joint motion would be the way to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
185 1
proceed.
2 MR. LEWIS: *Thank you.
3 CHAIR FROELICH:
Thank you.
4 Next on the list of items that we had in 5
the notice of this conference was as to the hearing_-.
ý6 venue. Would any of the parties like to express -their 7
view on the venue for the evidentiary hearing, keeping 8
in mind that we had our oral argument at the Dakota 9
County Judicial Center in Hastings, has there been any 10 discussion or thought to where the hearing should be 11 held, if we have one, by the parties?
12 MR. LEWIS: We did discuss that again. this 13 week, and we all agreed, of cou rse, that it should be 14 in the vicinity of the plant, and I think the 15 consensus was that that was a pretty nice facility we 16 were at, if that was available.
I think all the 17 parties indicated that they liked that ve nue.
18 CHAIR FROELICH:
Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
19 With that statement in the record, I'll have our 20 administrative staff get back in contact with the 21 Judicial Center and keep the lines of communication 22 open, so that if we do go forward to hearing we can 23 hold it in the Judicial Center in Hastings.
24 DR. ARNOLD:
This is Judge Arnold.
In 25 honor of ruling on the petition to intervene of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
186
- 1.
December 5th last year, we admitted a total of seven 2
contentions, and of those six were admitted in a more 31 focused form, than their original formulation.
That 4
is,.the original contentions we found to be overly 5
broad and the entire contentions did meet 6
admissibility standards, but within each of these six 7
there was a
narrower issue which did meet 8
admissibility standards.
9 I just want to make sure that if we end of 10 in hearing the record doesn't become bulked up on 11 evidence of contentions as they were originally 12 formulated, rather than in the focused form with a 13 bunch of irrelevant material.
14 And, I wanted to ask if there were any 15 questions on how we reduced the scope of some of the 16 contentions.
17 MR. LEWIS:
Judge Froelich, this is David 18 Lewis.
19 I don't have any questions.
one of the 20 benefits of the summary disposition process is that it 21 allows, prior to the hearing, parties again to focus 22
-on the contentions, and the board to make sure that we 23 are looking at the right focus, and if appropriate, in 24 fact, further narrow it, or further define it, to 25 whatever issues actually really were made NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
187 1
controversially after the board looks at the summary 2
disposition motions and any declarations and 3
4 So, I think that will also provide an 5
opportunity and a. powerful tool to make sure we have 6
the right, proper focus..
7 CHAIR FROELICH:
Thank you.
8 I think what Judge Arnold was saying is 9
that, you know, we are in the process now of harrowing 10 down and, you know, reducing, hopefully, the number, of 11 issues that, ultimately, have to go to hearing, and as 12 part of that we are working from the contentions, you 13 know, as they were admitted by the board.
14 Are there any other matters which any of 15 the parties wish to raise that may impact the 16 scheduling or the scheduling order to be issued?
17 MR. MAHOWALD:
No, Your Honor.
18 MR.
LEWIS:
No, Your Honor.
19 CHAIR FROELICH:
Well, I would propose 20 that we would hold a subsequent scheduling conference 21 telephonically in, perhaps, three or four months, or 22 as we go a little further along on the procedural 23 schedule, as it is amended, or has been amended, and 24 the issuance of the SER and the SEIS.
25 The board will issue a scheduling order in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
188 1
the next week to ten days,- and I think we'll speak 2
together again in about three or. four months.
3 In the meantime, parties should file any 4
motions they have with the board, hopefully, pursue 5
.. settlement to the extent possible, and I don't know, 6
Judge Arnold, do you have anything else?
7 DR.
ARNOLD:
Nothing else.
8 CHAIR FROELICH:
Judge Hirons, do you have 9
anything?
10 DR.
HIRONS:
No, I don't have anything 11 else.
12 CHAIR FROELICH:
Okay.
Do the parties 13 have anything else they wish to raise at this time?
14 MR.
LEWIS:
No, Your Honor.
15-MR.
MAHOWALD:
No, Your Honor.
16 CHAIR FROELICH:
Hearing none, we'll stand 17 adjourned, and I thank you all.
18 MR.
LEWIS:
Thank you.
19 MS.
MIZUNO:
Thank you.
20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter was 21 concluded at 10:33 a.m.)
22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Northern.States Power Co.
Prairie Island.Nuclear Plant Name of Proceeding: Pre-Hearing Conference Docket Number:
50-282-LR; 50-306-LR Location:
(teleconference) were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a
true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
Je I rtello O ficial eporter Neal R.
Gross & Co.,
Inc.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com