ML15058A382
| ML15058A382 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/2015 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-341-LR, ASLBP 14-933-01-LR-BD01, NRC-1413, RAS 27314 | |
| Download: ML15058A382 (32) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Detroit Edison Company Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2 Docket Number: 50-341-LR ASLBP Number: 14-933-01-LR-BD01 Location: teleconference Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 Work Order No.: NRC-1413 Pages 234-264 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
234 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5 + + + + +
6 IDENTIFYING HEARING PROCEDURES 7 AND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 8 ___________________________
9 IN THE MATTER OF: :
10 DETROIT EDISON COMPANY : Docket No.
11 (Fermi Nuclear Power : 50-341-LR 12 Plant, Unit 2) : ASLBP No.
13 : 14-933-01-LR-BD01 14 ___________________________:
15 Wednesday, 16 February 25, 2015 17 18 Teleconference 19 20 BEFORE:
21 RONALD M. SPRITZER, Chair 22 DR. GARY S. ARNOLD, Administrative Judge 23 NICHOLAS G. TRIKOUROS, Administrative Judge 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
235 1 APPEARANCES:
2 Counsel for the Applicant:
3 Tyson R. Smith, Esquire 4 Darani Reddick, Esquire 5 of: Winston & Strawn, LLP 6 1700 K Street, N.W.
7 Washington, D.C. 20006-3817 8 (202) 282-5726 9 tsmith@winston.com 10 dreddick@winston.com 11 12 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
13 Brian Harris, Esquire 14 Joseph Lindell, Esquire 15 of: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16 Office of the General Counsel 17 Mail Stop O-15D21 18 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 19 (301) 415-4126 20 brian.harris@nrc.gov 21 joseph.lindell@nrc.gov 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 (202) 234-4433
236 1 On Behalf of Beyond Nuclear, Citizens for 2 Alternatives to Chemical Contamination, Citizens 3 Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Don't 4 Waste Michigan:
5 Terry J. Lodge, Esquire 6 Suite 520 7 316 North Michigan Street 8 Toledo, Ohio 43604-5627 9 (419) 255-8552 10 tjlodge50@yahoo.com 11 12 Kevin Kamps 13 Beyond Nuclear 14 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400 15 Takoma Park, Maryland 20912 16 kevin@beyondnuclear.org 17 18 Michael Keegan 19 Don't Waste Michigan 20 811 Harrison Street 21 Monroe, Michigan 48161 22 mkeeganj@comcast.net 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
237 1 On Behalf of Citizens Resistance at Fermi 2 2 (CRAFT):
3 Jessie Pauline Collins 4 Citizens Resistance at Fermi 2 5 17397 Five Points Street 6 Redford, Michigan 4820 7 jessiepauline@gmail.com 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 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 (202) 234-4433
238 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 (2:01 p.m.)
3 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. Let's get 4 started. Again, my name is Ron Spritzer. I am an 5 Administrative Judge with the Atomic Safety and 6 Licensing Board Panel here at the Nuclear Regulatory 7 Commission.
8 We are here today for a scheduling 9 conference. The case is "In the Matter of DTE 10 Electric Company regarding Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, 11 Unit 2, relicensing application," and this is Docket 12 No. 50-341-LR.
13 Let me ask, first, the other Judges to 14 identify themselves and then we will go around and 15 have all the parties identify -- identify themselves.
16 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yes. This is Nick 17 Trikouros.
18 JUDGE ARNOLD: This is Judge Gary Arnold.
19 JUDGE SPRITZER: We also have with us here 20 our law clerk for this case, Nicole Pepperl.
21 So, let's start with the parties. First, 22 let's go with the Intervenors.
23 MR. LODGE: This is Terry Lodge. I am 24 here for the Beyond Nuclear, Intervenor.
25 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. And is there NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
239 1 anybody with you from -- I think Mr. Kamps.
2 MR. KAMPS: Yes. This is Kevin Kamps with 3 Beyond Nuclear.
4 JUDGE SPRITZER: Okay. Is that everybody 5 for the Beyond Nuclear group of Petitioners, or 6 Intervenors?
7 MR. KEEGAN: No. Michael -- I am Michael 8 Keegan with Don't Waste Michigan.
9 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. And, for 10 CRAFT, who do we have?
11 MS. COLLINS: Jessie Collins.
12 JUDGE SPRITZER: And is that it for CRAFT?
13 MR. SCHOENBERGER: We have David 14 Schoenberger, as designated representative for CRAFT.
15 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. And for the 16 NRC staff?
17 MR. HARRIS: Yes. This is Brian Harris 18 for the NRC staff, and I have Joseph Lindell and 19 Elaine Keegan in the room with me.
20 JUDGE SPRITZER: And for DTE?
21 MR. SMITH: Yes. This is Tyson Smith for 22 DTE and with me I have Darani Reddick.
23 JUDGE SPRITZER: Right. Before -- is 24 there anything anybody wants to bring up before we 25 move into reviewing the Joint Proposal on Scheduling NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
240 1 that has been submitted?
2 (No response.)
3 JUDGE SPRITZER: Hearing no takers, we 4 will take a look at that document. We appreciate the 5 parties' efforts which obviously makes our job a lot 6 easier.
7 One question, or one thought we had, if we 8 do get to an evidentiary hearing in this case, there 9 are obviously different ways of doing it. There is no 10 correct or incorrect way, but we would prefer, as a 11 Board, to have the direct testimony and statements of 12 position submitted at the same time by all parties, 13 that is.
14 And then, following that, the rebuttal 15 testimony again submitted at the same time by all 16 parties. So we begin in two rounds of submissions, 17 not three.
18 Does anybody have any strong opposition to 19 that idea (inaudible) that is our (inaudible)?
20 MS. COLLINS: Well, submissions, are you 21 talking about the schedule that you sent that we 22 received or hammered out, conferred on, I guess is the 23 correct term?
24 JUDGE SPRITZER: If you look on --
25 COURT REPORTER: This is the court NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
241 1 reporter. Who was just speaking?
2 JUDGE SPRITZER: Oh, sorry. That was 3 Jessie Collins for CRAFT.
4 MS. COLLINS: Yes. Jessie Collins, yes.
5 JUDGE SPRITZER: Right. We should all try 6 and identify ourselves. This is Judge Spritzer.
7 COURT REPORTER: All right.
8 JUDGE SPRITZER: On page, if you look, and 9 this is the column, I am mainly looking at the column 10 dealing with the schedule of new or amended contents 11 are filed, although it would really apply to both, 12 actually.
13 The way it is set our there, the 14 Intervenors' written direct testimony and statements 15 of position would be filed 70 days after the ASLBP 16 decision, followed by either staff and Applicant 17 direct testimony and statement of position, 115 days 18 later, and 145 days after the decision, there would be 19 rebuttal testimony and statements of position.
20 Do you see that part?
21 MS. COLLINS: Oh, on the -- the page three 22 of -- what is the date on the document?
23 JUDGE SPRITZER: This is your -- the joint 24 proposal on schedule and joint motion on mandatory 25 disclosures.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
242 1 MS. COLLINS: Okay. That is the February 2 23rd one because it had a couple of drafts, so --
3 JUDGE SPRITZER: Yes.
4 MS. COLLINS: -- okay.
5 JUDGE SPRITZER: That is the one that was 6 submitted to us.
7 And what we are proposing, instead of 8 having essentially three rounds when the Intervenors 9 file their testimony and statements of position, the 10 staff responds with their -- the staff and Applicant 11 respond to their testimony and statements of position, 12 and then the Intervenors file rebuttal testimony and 13 statements of position.
14 To consolidate that somewhat by having all 15 the direct testimony and statements of position, both 16 from Intervenors and staff and the Applicant file at 17 the same time, followed by -- and we could give you 18 about 30 days to file rebuttal testimony and 19 statements of position. Again, those would all be 20 filed simultaneously.
21 MS. COLLINS: Okay. Jessie Collins here.
22 I defer to Attorney Lodge on this because he knows way 23 more about it than I do.
24 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. Mr. Lodge, do 25 you have any thoughts on that?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
243 1 MR. LODGE: Well, Your Honor, the reason 2 -- I am only speaking for the Intervenors, but I -- I 3 can tell you that in our discussions, my particular 4 reason or justification for the three rounds that you 5 described is that, in my estimation, having seen this 6 become more or less the standard in Federal court 7 practice, that it tends to focus the issues a little 8 bit more early than --
9 The problem that I have seen in having 10 litigated the Fermi 3 case, for instance, is that --
11 is that the -- the rebuttal -- or, pardon me, the 12 initial filing covers sort of the waterfront of 13 testimony instead of being fairly targeted, and then 14 the simultaneous filings of rebuttal testimony, again, 15 kind of leaves things a little bit more loose and 16 somewhat less focused.
17 It would simply -- we were just basically 18 using the -- the sentence argument methods or the 19 trial court method in District Court of testimony 20 presentation.
21 JUDGE SPRITZER: So, you prefer the -- you 22 prefer the current set-up, in other words?
23 MR. LODGE: We prefer -- well, we prefer 24 the proposal that we make.
25 JUDGE SPRITZER: Very good. This is Judge NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
244 1 Spritzer again. For the staff, do you have any 2 thoughts on --
3 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor. This is 4 Brian Harris for the staff. I mean, it has, you know, 5 sort of been the common practice to have these sort of 6 simultaneous filings, you know, of everybody doing 7 direct and then everybody doing rebuttal.
8 Indian Point had a slightly different 9 setup, and I think it works a little better to be able 10 to focus the parties on the issues that were still in 11 dispute at that particular point so that it wasn't --
12 we weren't getting filings and testimony on things 13 that weren't necessarily in dispute.
14 So, I think it makes for a slightly 15 cleaner record going forward. That being said, 16 though, if, you know, it is, you know, the staff could 17 do it either way, but I think it does make for a 18 better record to have it sort of in that staggered 19 filing of a direct testimony by the Intervenors, the 20 staff's direct testimony, and any rebuttal to what was 21 filed in the direct testimony of the Intervenors and 22 then a rebuttal filing by the Intervenors after the 23 staff and the Applicant's filing.
24 JUDGE ARNOLD: Is it common -- this is 25 Judge Arnold. Is it the standard procedure that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
245 1 party with the burden of proof is the one that goes 2 second providing their effort -- evidence?
3 MR. HARRIS: Normally, the party that has 4 to carry the burden is the final say. The party that 5 needs to make a prima facie case has to go first.
6 I mean, that is the normal sort of Federal 7 process of the party who has got to make a case goes 8 first and, you know, the defendant is -- normally has 9 the final say, but the party here with the burden has 10 the final say.
11 JUDGE SPRITZER: Well, the staff and 12 Applicant have -- have the burden on NEPA issues, 13 although I believe that the Intervenors would have the 14 burden of making at least a prima facie showing, as 15 Mr. Harris was indicating, and then the -- the 16 ultimate burden of persuasion would rest on the staff 17 t o m e e t t h e c o n t e n t i o n s .
18 19 Is that -- am I summarizing the law 20 correctly?
21 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
22 COURT REPORTER: Who was just speaking?
23 I am sorry?
24 MR. HARRIS: This is Brian Harris.
25 COURT REPORTER: Thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
246 1 JUDGE SPRITZER: This is Judge Spritzer 2 again.
3 Unless the staff has anything further, 4 let's hear from DTE.
5 MR. SMITH: This is Tyson Smith for DTE.
6 You know, from our perspective, we don't have a strong 7 preference either way, and when we discussed this 8 among the parties, I thought that, you know, the 9 reasons given by Mr. Lodge and Mr. Harris made sense 10 and it was certainly something we were open to.
11 And so, you know, we -- we don't have a 12 preference either way. Either way, I think, will 13 work, but I do appreciate the suggestion that, having 14 the Intervenors go first does focus the contentions on 15 the contested issues, and it does sort of narrow the 16 issues that would be discussed because you have a case 17 of rather than, you know, the Applicant, or the staff 18 having to cover, you know, the entirety and guess as 19 to what the actual issue that might be raised in the, 20 you know, expert testimony or legal arguments raised.
21 They -- instead of having to guess, they 22 are able just to respond to the ones that are, in 23 fact, raised.
24 JUDGE SPRITZER: Okay. All right. Well, 25 we will take your -- your thoughts under advisement, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
247 1 then. We will see in the final order, which will come 2 out shortly, how we resolve that issue.
3 Judge Arnold had a question for CRAFT.
4 JUDGE ARNOLD: This is Judge Arnold. You 5 recently submitted a notice of intent to participate 6 as a party, and this has left me confused as to what 7 the intent of this was.
8 You cited 10 CFR 2.1202B, which applies 9 just to the staff, because the staff has the option of 10 participating or not. So, what were you trying to 11 accomplish with this?
12 MS. COLLINS: I thought I had to file one, 13 too. I didn't know, so I just adapted theirs and 14 modeled it to. I didn't know that I didn't have to 15 file it. I thought I had to file something that day.
16 I guess I should start asking Mr. Lodge, 17 Attorney Lodge if I need to file.
18 JUDGE ARNOLD: So, you would be just as 19 happy if we just kind of disregard this and --
20 MS. COLLINS: Well, if -- if I wasn't 21 supposed to do it, please do disregard it.
22 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay.
23 MS. COLLINS: And know that I have little 24 legal expertise, so I am doing the best I can, but I 25 was just totally mistaken there. You know, I thought NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
248 1 I had to file something.
2 JUDGE ARNOLD: That is fine. I understand 3 that.
4 JUDGE SPRITZER: This is Judge Spritzer.
5 Just recognizing that you are not an attorney and 6 maybe not entirely familiar with the details of all of 7 our rules, but normally what we regard -- your 8 contention.
9 You had two admitted contentions, CRAFT 2 10 and CRAFT 8. Those are the contentions we would be 11 expecting to hear from you on. We would be expecting 12 to hear from the Beyond Nuclear Group, the ones we 13 referred to as the Joint Petitioners on Contention JP4 14 B.
15 If that -- if there is some different 16 arrangement intended by -- by the intervenors, you 17 know, we need to know about that. There is a 18 provision in 10 CFR Section 2.309 F3, addressing the 19 situation where one petitioner wants to adopt a 20 contention by another, although we really are past 21 that stage because we now have the Intervenors.
22 So, just so you understand, we would 23 expect to hear from you on the CRAFT contentions, and 24 we would expect to hear from the Beyond Nuclear Group 25 on their one admitted contention.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
249 1 If there is some different arrangement 2 intended, somebody should file a motion advising us 3 what that arrangement is and asking that we approve 4 it.
5 Do you have any questions about that? We 6 did have -- I guess this is a question, really --
7 well, maybe primarily for DTE. This is on page five 8 of your joint submission, joint proposal on schedule, 9 and joint motion on --
10 MR. SMITH: Yes.
11 JUDGE SPRITZER: -- mandatory disclosures.
12 On page five, Item 8, I guess we had two 13 ways of reading that. One is if the staff identifies 14 a specific document under 2.336(b) or 2.1203, then 15 nobody else has to identify that specific document a 16 second time.
17 But the last sentence would seem to say or 18 imply that no other parties are required to identify 19 any document -- or at least it could be read that way, 20 available on the NRC's website or ADAMS, which would 21 mean -- I don't think this is what you intended, but 22 it could be interpreted as meaning that neither the 23 Intervenors or DTE would be required to disclose any 24 document that they might intend to use at a hearing if 25 it appeared on the NRC's website or ADAMS.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
250 1 Do you understand the --
2 MR. SMITH: I do. I do. This is Tyson 3 Smith for DTE.
4 JUDGE SPRITZER: (Inaudible).
5 MR. SMITH: I do understand your question, 6 and I am not sure that we had really thought it --
7 thought about it that way.
8 My intent, at least, and I -- we didn't 9 discuss this specifically among the parties, so they 10 may have a different view.
11 But my intent was -- if it available on 12 ADAMS, we don't have to separately provide that 13 document in our disclosures, and that would include 14 whether it was on the -- and specifically identified 15 by the staff or somewhere else.
16 And I think we are mainly thinking things 17 like NRC guidance documents, you know, RAI responses, 18 things like that that are submitted to the NRC and 19 therefore, on the docket, no specific ADAMS number, 20 and the thinking was that, you know, Applicants and 21 the Intervenors, therefore, wouldn't have to, you 22 know, specifically collect and identify those 23 documents as part of their disclosure obligations.
24 JUDGE SPRITZER: Okay. I guess the 25 question --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
251 1 MS. COLLINS: Jessie Collins for CRAFT.
2 You know, a person -- I get lost regularly in ADAMS 3 and can't find things. So, I don't know if we should 4 say that no party is required to identify -- well, you 5 know, it -- documents that are lost in there, you 6 know, I can look all day to try to find something.
7 But, okay, that is just my two cents worth 8 on that. There may be some documents that we can't 9 find, but need.
10 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. Mr. Lodge, do 11 you have any thoughts about this?
12 MR. LODGE: My interpretation, and 13 recollection of our discussions was pretty much 14 constant with what Tyson just said.
15 JUDGE SPRITZER: Okay. So, you are 16 comfortable with the language as it is?
17 MR. LODGE: Yes.
18 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right.
19 MR. KEEGAN: Hello. This is Michael 20 Keegan. Am I on mute, or can you hear me?
21 JUDGE SPRITZER: We can hear you.
22 MR. KEEGAN: Yes. Okay. Thank you.
23 Yes, I take issue with how Tyson just laid 24 it out. The ADAMS is notorious for sprawling dockets.
25 We need to have identified what -- what documents we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
252 1 should be looking at which are germane. You can read 2 all day and find nothing.
3 So, those -- those documents, at least 4 need to be -- not necessarily provided, but 5 identified. We need to know that they are there.
6 JUDGE SPRITZER: Okay. What is --
7 MR. KEEGAN: If they take you to the 8 Judges to pointing it out, it is a question of a tree 9 falls in the forest, do you hear it.
10 Well, if you are not there, you don't hear 11 it. I need to know that the document exists.
12 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. I assume --
13 this is Judge Spritzer again. I would assume it would 14 be sufficient if the party who might rely on a 15 particular document would identify the location, title 16 and page reference of the document without actually --
17 that would be sufficient.
18 MR. KEEGAN: Yes. If they provide the ML 19 number.
20 JUDGE SPRITZER: Right. Exactly.
21 Sufficient -- they don't have to do anything other 22 than giving you sufficient information to go find the 23 document yourself in ADAMS.
24 MR. KEEGAN: Correct. Thank you.
25 JUDGE SPRITZER: Okay. All right.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
253 1 Anybody want -- anybody else want to be heard on that 2 particular question?
3 (No response.)
4 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. This is Judge 5 Spritzer again. Hearing nothing further --
6 MR. SCHOENBERGER: I have something 7 quickly, Judge Spritzer.
8 JUDGE SPRITZER: Okay.
9 MR. SCHOENBERGER: This is David 10 Schoenberger for CRAFT.
11 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right.
12 MR. SCHOENBERGER: Judge Spritzer, you 13 made a good point, that CRAFT is independently 14 responsible for CRAFT's own contentions. So, at the 15 -- at this meeting today, I hope that I get an 16 opportunity to say a couple of words in our interest.
17 JUDGE SPRITZER: Well, we are not here to 18 hear any substantive argument about contentions. We 19 are -- you will get plenty of opportunity for that 20 down the road, but today is simply about the procedure 21 for the rest of the case.
22 MR. SCHOENBERGER: Yes. That is what I --
23 I would like to be able to say a few words about it at 24 some point.
25 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. Go ahead.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
254 1 MR. SCHOENBERGER: I have, when it comes 2 time, three issues. One was scheduling, one was 3 mandatory disclosure and one was the discovery process 4 and protocol, in general.
5 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. We are 6 waiting to hear what you have to say.
7 MR. SCHOENBERGER: I don't mind waiting 8 until further -- the meeting continues.
9 JUDGE SPRITZER: Well, we are pretty much 10 at the end, so if you have got anything to add, now 11 would be the time. But, can you keep it -- keep it 12 within the scope of what we were talking about, which 13 is basically the schedule.
14 Do you have any issues with the schedule 15 or mandatory disclosures?
16 THE WITNESS: With the -- with the 17 schedule, I -- given that CRAFT is independently 18 responsible for CRAFT's own contentions, the per se 19 Intervenor, CRAFT would request to the Board to grant 20 reasonable accommodation in order to address our 21 unequal position and compromised status, well, to the 22 other interested parties in this case for the purpose 23 of determining what constitutes a fair amount of time 24 for CRAFT to consider agency documents.
25 Pertaining to mandatory disclosure, CRAFT NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
255 1 hereby reiterates our formal request that we already 2 made in September 2014 and our reply to DTE -- DTE's 3 answer to the petition.
4 Our formal request from September 2014 for 5 NRC agency financial support, specifically intended 6 and available for pro se intervenors --
7 JUDGE SPRITZER: Okay. Well --
8 MR. SCHOENBERGER: -- in order to ensure 9 a reasonable standard of fairness and due process.
10 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. Well, you are 11 getting into things that are well beyond what we 12 intended to discuss today. If you -- if you want to 13 file or make a request to the Board along those lines, 14 you should file some sort of motion.
15 I will warn you, however, that unless I --
16 my understanding of the law is greatly mistaken, the 17 Board simply doesn't have the authority to award you, 18 you know, require the staff or anyone associated with 19 the Federal Government to provide you with any kind of 20 financial support.
21 I understand that from an Intervenor's pro 22 se Intervenor's perspective that may not seem very 23 fair or reasonable, but we have no authority in that 24 area.
25 So, I don't think any motion you might NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
256 1 file along those lines is going to -- going to produce 2 the result you want, but I won't prevent you from 3 doing it. But that is beyond the scope of what we are 4 getting -- we planned to get into.
5 MR. SCHOENBERGER: Judge Spritzer, I am 6 certain that I read in my research that -- that NRC 7 agency money is available for pro Intervenors, and 8 that it is -- and pro se Intervenors are entitled to 9 receive compensating measures in order to protect the 10 public's access to effective recourses for proposed 11 Federal actions.
12 JUDGE SPRITZER: Okay. Well, if you have 13 -- I would certainly be interested in reading the --
14 the -- whatever you are referring to. It would be 15 quite different from my own understanding, but we will 16 certainly consider anything you want to put before us 17 -- before us.
18 But as I said, it needs to be in the form 19 of a written motion so that the other parties have a 20 chance to read --
21 MR. SCHOENBERGER: Absolutely. That will 22 be done. And the third -- the third item I wanted to 23 discuss pertaining to the discovery process and 24 protocol, in general, is that I believe that there is 25 much more that this Board Panel could do to facilitate NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
257 1 a settlement to resolve the genuine dispute of the 2 admitted contentions without requiring costly 3 litigation.
4 The dynamic being that DTE counsel needs 5 to understand that CRAFT's contentions will become an 6 international matter of concern, which will be picked 7 up by the Canadian media and the Canadian Provincial 8 government of Ontario, that DTE will become 9 international pariah and will lose control of the 10 message, and should think twice before they enter a 11 war that they cannot win, noting that Ontario 12 residents recently successfully challenged the reactor 13 license application.
14 So, the Board --
15 JUDGE SPRITZER: Well --
16 MR. SCHOENBERGER: -- could do a lot more 17 to help facilitate a solution here.
18 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. In that area 19 of alternative dispute resolution, the Board does have 20 authority to, among other things, appoint another 21 judge who, if there is an interest on the part of the 22 parties in pursuing that.
23 So, again, that could be something that 24 should be submitted to us separately, but we are not 25 here to go into that today.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
258 1 If one or more parties want to request the 2 appointment request the appointment of a settlement 3 judge, again, you can file a request with us.
4 Ideally, it would be a request from all of the 5 parties, but if some object to that, then you could 6 still, I think, request appointment of a settlement 7 judge.
8 We would have to take that under 9 consideration after we hear what the other parties 10 have to say. But again, that is beyond the scope of 11 what we were -- what we covered in our order for this 12 particular scheduling conference.
13 All right. On the last issue, and this 14 does relate somewhat to the question of CRAFT having 15 an adequate time, and I think we are inclined to grant 16 60 days for new contentions, both based on the draft 17 EIS, and the final.
18 So, that will be covered in our order and 19 we will, of course, address the other issues that we 20 talked about here today.
21 Does anybody else have anything further?
22 We have heard from CRAFT. Either the staff, DTE or 23 the Beyond Nuclear Group have anything further that 24 they would like to --
25 MR. LODGE: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
259 1 JUDGE SPRITZER: -- discuss here today?
2 MR. LODGE: Yes, Your Honor. There is a 3 cherry lodge (phonetic) for the Joint Intervenors.
4 There is also, within that 60-day discussion in the 5 memorandum that I filed on Monday afternoon, non-EIS-6 related matters or new discovery.
7 We are also requesting that the 60-day 8 period attach to the discovery and the amendments for 9 filing of new contentions that are not -- not directly 10 EIS-related.
11 JUDGE SPRITZER: That is the one dealing 12 with safety and technical issues?
13 MR. LODGE: Correct, but yes. Correct.
14 JUDGE SPRITZER: Okay. So -- okay. I see 15 that. The top of page four, S plus 30. That is 30 16 days after the safety evaluation reports. That is the 17 proposed deadline for newer amended contentions based 18 on the SER.
19 And your position on that is also that you 20 would like 60 days there. Is that correct?
21 MR. LODGE: That is correct.
22 JUDGE SPRITZER: Okay. All right.
23 Anything else?
24 MR. SMITH: This is Tyson Smith for the 25 Applicant DTE. You know, I understand the Board is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
260 1 taking under advisement, but we would just like to 2 reiterate our view that we thing 30 days more than 3 ample time to formulate new contentions, filing 4 publication of the final staff-reviewed documents.
5 You know, the Commission only -- has been 6 extended after the period for filing initial 7 contentions from 30 to 60 days to give Intervenors and 8 other stakeholders time to review the application 9 which is a -- typically a lengthy document.
10 The EIS -- the draft EIS is also a lengthy 11 document, although less lengthy than the application 12 itself, which would suggest that, you know, 60 days is 13 maybe not necessary there, but I think we were 14 amenable to that, you know, recognizing some of the 15 limitations of the Intervenors.
16 But, by the time we get to the final 17 environmental impact statement and the final SER, the 18 differences between those two documents -- between 19 those and the draft documents should be small.
20 They are highlighted by revolution 21 (phonetic) bars, which should greatly facilitate a 22 prompt review of those documents at that time. And, 23 considering that the schedule for holding evidentiary 24 hearing is key to those dates, we think that 60 days 25 of limbo in terms of whether there is going to be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
261 1 newly-admitted contents is unnecessarily long.
2 And at that point, the staff's review is 3 complete and all we are talking about then is having 4 a hearing on the contested issues, and that is 5 something we think we should move to expeditiously and 6 that there is no reason to delay that by another 30 7 days at that time.
8 MR. SCHOENBERGER: I have a rebuttal to 9 that for CRAFT. This is David Schoenberger.
10 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. Make it 11 brief, please.
12 MR. SCHOENBERGER: It should be noted that 13 more than ten years remain from today until the 14 Applicant's original operating license expires, so 15 therefore, a reasonable extension of time for 16 preparation and filing of documents pertaining to the 17 this proceeding is feasible.
18 And additionally, is prudent in order to 19 avoid the potential for inferior and hasty analyses 20 and deficient regulatory reviews.
21 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. I think we 22 have got a full appreciation of the parties' positions 23 on that issue. I think we are done unless anybody 24 else has anything that --
25 MS. COLLINS: I have one -- Jessie NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
262 1 Collins, CRAFT. I have one question, and then I will 2 be through.
3 And that is when the final -- the 4 supplemental environmental impact statement comes out, 5 is there any way I can get a hard copy of that instead 6 of on disk?
7 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, this is Brian 8 Harris for the staff. The staff can provide a hard 9 copy to her when it comes out.
10 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. Thank you.
11 MS. COLLINS: Thank you very much.
12 MR. KAMPS: Chairman Spritzer --
13 JUDGE SPRITZER: Yes.
14 MR. KAMPS: This is Kevin Kamps. Could I 15 speak very briefly to this 30 versus 60 days?
16 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. Very briefly.
17 MR. KAMPS: Yes. Since the -- having 18 taken part for decades now in these NRC proceedings, 19 on draft EIS's specifically, I think the only way that 20 Tyson's argument holds water is if the NRC completely 21 ignores public comments, which is certainly not the 22 case in the Fermi neck of the woods.
23 You can look at the Fermi 3 proceeding and 24 see there was large-scale and broad public 25 involvement. So, you know, there could be significant NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
263 1 differences between the draft and the final. And it 2 takes time to compare the two and to make sure the 3 public comments were adequately addressed, which 4 granted, that the NRC staff may completely ignore the 5 public. That certainly happens.
6 But, that is all the more reason for a 7 longer review time for the public to get its arguments 8 across.
9 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. Well, as I 10 said, I think we understand the parties' positions on 11 that. I will just note, in the event we do grant a 12 60-days, you should bear in mind that we would be much 13 less likely to grant any further extensions if we have 14 already given you a liberal time period to prepare new 15 or amended contentions.
16 You do have the right to request an 17 extension of time, you know, provided you do so as 18 provided in the rules which means it has to be done, 19 you know, before the deadline.
20 But, I think if we did grant any, you 21 know, the 60 days for newer contentions, or amended 22 contentions based on the final documents, we -- we 23 look very critically at any further requests for 24 extensions, so just bear that in mind, if we wind up 25 coming out that way.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
264 1 All right. I think we are done at this 2 point, so thank you for your attendance. Again, 3 thanks to the parties for submitting a joint proposal.
4 That is very helpful to us. It saves us a lot of time 5 and effort.
6 So -- and at this point we will adjourn 7 and we will get at it, shortly resolving this, the few 8 issues that we still have to deal with. Thank you.
9 (Whereupon, the conference call was 10 concluded at 2:33 p.m.)
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 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 (202) 234-4433