ML15257A290
| ML15257A290 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/14/2015 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-271-LA-3, ASLBP 15-940-03-LA-BD01, NRC-1872, RAS 28285 | |
| Download: ML15257A290 (28) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee Docket Number: 50-271-LA-3 ASLBP Number: 15-940-03-LA-BD01 Location: teleconference Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 Work Order No.: NRC-1872 Pages79-105 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
79 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5 + + + + +
6 CONFERENCE CALL 7 ----------------------x 8 In the Matter of: : Docket No.
9 ENERGY NUCLEAR VERMONT: 50-271-LA-3 10 YANKEE, LLC, AND : ASLBP No.
11 ENTERGY NUCLEAR : 15-940-03-LA-BD01 12 OPERATIONS, INC. :
13 (Vermont Yankee :
14 Nuclear Power Station):
15 ----------------------x 16 Thursday, September 10, 2015 17 18 Teleconference 19 20 BEFORE:
21 WILLIAM J. FROEHLICH, Chair 22 DR. MICHAEL F. KENNEDY, Administrative Judge 23 DR. RICHARD E. WARDWELL, 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
80 1 APPEARANCES:
2 3 Counsel for the Applicant 4 Susan Raimo, Esq.
5 of: Entergy Services, Inc.
6 101 Constitution Ave., NW 7 Washington, DC 20001-2133 8 sraimo@entergy.com 9
10 Paul M. Bessette, Esq.
11 Stephen Burdick, Esq.
12 of: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 13 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 14 Washington, DC 20004 15 202-739-5059 (Burdick) 16 pbessette@morganlewis.com 17 sburdick@morganlewis.com 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
81 1 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2 Beth Mizuno, Esq.
3 Anita Ghosh, Esq.
4 Jeremy Wachutka, Esq.
5 of: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6 Office of the General Counsel 7 Mail Stop O-15D21 8 Washington, DC 20555-0001 9 301-415-4126 10 beth.mizuno@nrc.gov 11 anita.ghosh@nrc.gov 12 jeremy.wachutka@nrc.gov 13 14 On Behalf of the State of Vermont and the 15 Vermont Department of Public Service 16 Aaron Kisicki, Esq.
17 Kyle Landis-Marinello, Esq 18 Scott Kline, Esq.
19 112 State Street - Drawer 20 20 Montpelier, VT 05620-2601 21 802-828-1361 (Landis-Marinello) 22 aaron.kisicki@state.vt.us 23 kyle.landis-marinello@vermont.gov 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
82 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 1:00 p.m.
3 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Good afternoon, all.
4 This is Judge Froehlich in Rockville, Maryland. With 5 me are Judges Kennedy and Wardwell and the Board's law 6 clerk Nicole Pepperl.
7 Who's on the line for the parties at this 8 point?
9 MR. BURDICK: Good afternoon, Judge 10 Froehlich. This is Stephen Burdick on behalf of 11 Entergy. And I'm also joined by Paul Bessette and by 12 Susan Raimo, who's senior counsel with Entergy.
13 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Thank you, Mr.
14 Burdick.
15 Is the staff on the line?
16 MR. WACHUTKA: Yes, Your Honor. This is 17 Jeremy Wachutka for the NRC staff and I am joined with 18 counsels Beth Mizuno and Anita Ghosh.
19 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Thank you. And the 20 State of Vermont?
21 MR. LANDIS-MARINELLO: Yes, this is Kyle 22 Landis-Marinello and in the room with me is Assistant 23 Attorney General Scott Kline and Aaron Kisicki from 24 the Vermont Department of Public Service.
25 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Thank you. Thank NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
83 1 you, all.
2 On October 31st in LBP-15-24 this Atomic 3 Safety and Licensing Board granted the petition to 4 intervene and the hearing request filed by the State 5 of Vermont challenging the license amendment request 6 filed by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and 7 Entergy Nuclear Operations.
8 The Board's order admitted two 9 contentions. Contention --
10 THE OPERATOR: Ex --
11 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: I'm sorry?
12 THE OPERATOR: Excuse me. I'm sorry.
13 This is the operator. Do you want to be live in the 14 conference now?
15 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Yes, that would be 16 great.
17 THE OPERATOR: Okay. I'll move you in and 18 I'll introduce you, Judge Froehlich. One moment, 19 please.
20 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Sorry.
21 THE OPERATOR: Welcome and thank you for 22 standing by. For the duration of this conference all 23 participants will be in a listen-only mode. I would 24 now like to turn the conference over to Judge 25 Froehlich.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
84 1 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Operator, the speaker 2 line are open so that --
3 THE OPERATOR: Yes.
4 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: -- the parties to the 5 -- oh, okay. Thank you.
6 THE OPERATOR: You're very welcome.
7 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Not so we have to 8 repeat ourselves, but was the court reporter with us 9 when we spoke a few minutes ago?
10 THE OPERATOR: Yes, she was.
11 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Okay. Then let's 12 pick up where we left off, and where I was saying that 13 the Board had admitted two contentions. Contention I 14 concerns the necessity for a 30-day requirement prior 15 to the use of a decommissioning trust fund for 16 expenses other than ordinary administrative costs to 17 operate the fund. And Contention V which deals with 18 a legal issue as to whether the LAR is in accordance 19 with the provisions of paragraph 8 of 10 CFR 50.75 20 when a licensee is already exempt from two provisions 21 of 10 CFR Section 50.75(h)(1)(iv).
22 The Board issued an order on September 23 3rd, 2015 scheduling this conference call for the 24 purposes of establishing an orderly way of proceeding 25 with this case and for the issuance of our initial NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
85 1 scheduling order.
2 Have the parties had an opportunity to 3 review the Board's proposed schedule which provides an 4 opportunity first to brief the legal issues related to 5 Contention V and then addresses Contention I in an 6 oral hearing at after the staff issues the results of 7 it's environmental review?
8 MR. BURDICK: Judge Froehlich, this is 9 Stephen Burdick on behalf of Entergy. Yes, we've had 10 a chance to review the scheduling order.
11 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: And, Mr. Burdick, 12 have the parties discussed among themselves leading up 13 to this telephone conference the outline or the 14 provisions that the Board has set forth in that order?
15 MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor. We've had 16 multiple phone calls and many email communications 17 with various proposals and counter-proposals, so we've 18 discussed this in some detail. I'll just get us 19 started, but other counsel may want to contribute as 20 well.
21 But I think we have reached some 22 proposals, some agreed upon proposals by the parties 23 to the Board on some issues. We have not reached 24 agreement on other issues and there may be a few 25 issues where we just have a little bit of additional NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
86 1 discussion on them, but we're ready to discuss these 2 with the Board here today.
3 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: That's good, and I 4 thank the parties for discussing this amongst 5 themselves before today's conference. Hopefully that 6 will make things move along that much more smoothly.
7 Where shall we begin? I guess the 8 overarching approach the Board had decided to take was 9 to proceed first with Contention V, treating that as 10 a purely issue and taking briefs on that and then at 11 some point after the staff issues its environmental 12 conclusions to move forward with the oral hearing on 13 Contention I. Did that generally meet with agreement 14 among all of the parties?
15 MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, this is Stephen 16 Burdick again on behalf of Entergy. I believe all the 17 parties are aligned with that overall process. One 18 area that we did reach agreement on was the trigger 19 point for the hearing on Contention I that we wanted 20 to discuss with the Board. Specifically in the 21 Board's September 3rd order it had included a table 2 22 and a table 3. And the parties are generally in 23 agreement with those two tables, however, those two 24 tables have triggers related to the NRC's issuance of 25 the results of its environmental review.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
87 1 It's possible that the staff could issue 2 the results of the environmental review prior to the 3 Board concluding its -- or issuing its initial 4 decision on Contention V. So our proposal on that, 5 with which we agreed, was to change the trigger date 6 for table 1 to be the NRC staff issuance of the result 7 of its environmental review or issuance of the initial 8 decision on Contention V, whichever is later. And we 9 thought that that was consistent with the Board's 10 discussion that it would proceed first with Contention 11 V and then would only continue on with Contention 1 12 once it has issued an initial decision.
13 With the same change with respect to table 14 3, although it's a little different. The beginning of 15 table 3 would -- our proposal would be it would stay 16 the same because any new and amended contentions would 17 still be triggered off of the staff's issuance of the 18 results of its environmental review, but in the middle 19 of table 3 where it talks about the Board decision, 20 that that would be changed to the Board decision on 21 new or amended contentions, or again issuance of the 22 initial decision on Contention V, whichever is later.
23 And so that would be the trigger from going from new 24 and amended contentions into the hearing process.
25 So that's the proposal that we had NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
88 1 discussed and agreed up with respect to tables 2 and 2 3.
3 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: That makes sense.
4 And the Board was not certain at the timing I guess of 5 the issuance of the staff's environmental review, so 6 perhaps at this point I would ask counsel for the 7 staff if there is at this point some projected date or 8 timeline that would give us a little bit of guidance 9 on when the parties and the Board can expect the 10 results of the environmental review.
11 MR. WACHUTKA: Yes, Your Honor. This is 12 Jeremy Wachutka for the NRC staff. The staff is 13 actively working on the safety evaluation, but it 14 doesn't have a projected date for issuance, and so 15 it's uncertain whether the environmental review 16 results to which all of these things are pegged to 17 would happen after the initial decision. It's 18 possible as counsel for Entergy stated that it could 19 be before the initial decision. The NRC staff agrees 20 with also making this ER or initial decision, 21 whichever comes first. I mean, whichever comes later.
22 Sorry.
23 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Okay. I don't want 24 to put you on the spot. I just wondered if the staged 25 of the active, I guess, preparation of 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
89 1 environmental review is more likely to be within the 2 next let's say 120 days, or would it be something 3 longer than that? Would you have a feel for whether 4 this was something that although being actively being 5 pursued is likely to come out within 120 days or it's 6 going to be considerably longer than that?
7 MR. WACHUTKA: Your Honor, I'd be 8 confident saying it would be done within 120 days.
9 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Okay. Thank you.
10 That is helpful.
11 All right. Were there any other -- one of 12 the Board's beliefs, the agreed upon revisions to the 13 schedules, tables, I guess, 2 and 3 from our order 14 makes sense, and that's perfectly acceptable and in 15 the initial scheduling order. We'll revise any tables 16 that are included there to include the provision of 17 the "or" date trigger, the latter of the environmental 18 review or the initial decision on Contention V. And 19 I thank the parties for that agreement and that 20 suggestion to the schedule.
21 Was there discussion among things that I 22 guess have to take place once something is moving 23 towards hearing going towards the dates for the 24 initial disclosures and the staff hearing file?
25 MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor. This 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
90 1 Stephen Burdick, counsel for Entergy again. We have 2 certain proposals that have been discussed both with 3 respect to the briefing schedule for Contention V, but 4 that's also linked to the schedule for mandatory 5 disclosures on the contentions. I think given their 6 connection it's -- in our prior discussions before 7 this call it makes sense to start with the schedule 8 for mandatory disclosures.
9 There had been two separate proposals that 10 I think we'd like to discuss with the Board today.
11 One proposal, given the bifurcation of the two 12 contentions and the proceeding first with Contention 13 V and then with Contention I, was to delay the 14 mandatory disclosures on Contention I until after 15 resolution of Contention V. And I note the NRC staff 16 counsel also feels -- or has a view on this, but I'd 17 like their input. But I think the benefit of that 18 proposal was to -- as the Board acknowledges in its 19 September 3rd order, depending on the results of 20 Contention V, that could certainly impact the hearing 21 process for Contention I and to preserve some of the 22 resources that it would take to go through the 23 mandatory disclosure process and the hearing file 24 process.
25 But I guess I'd turn it to NRC staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
91 1 counsel for any input on this specific proposal.
2 MR. WACHUTKA: Your Honor, this is Jeremy 3 Wachutka from the NRC staff. The NRC staff agrees 4 with this proposal. Just reading the initial 5 scheduling order it seems that the resolution of 6 Contention V could resolve Contention I. And so if 7 there may be no need to get into the merits of 8 Contention I, the NRC staff doesn't see the benefit of 9 using the resources to generate a hearing file for 10 Contention I until Contention V is resolved.
11 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Okay. I suppose that 12 the State of Vermont would like to be heard on this 13 issue? Mr. Landis-Marinello?
14 MR. LANDIS-MARINELLO: Yes, thank you, 15 Your Honor. So the state has had some discussions, 16 and we recognize that the September 30th deadline 17 could be a little tight given that we're at September 18 10th now for the initial disclosures. So we have 19 offered to the parties to move that by a couple of 20 weeks. In the latest discussion we even offered to 21 move it as far as November 1st. And we're comfortable 22 with that.
23 We do not think that it should go beyond 24 November 1st. And we can give our reasons for that, 25 but we view a decision to move it beyond November 1st NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
92 1 as effectively granting a stay and we don't think the 2 parties can show they meet the standards for a stay 3 here. We think it could lead to a very significant 4 delay in resolving Contention I at a later point, both 5 because we'd be starting from square one a few months 6 from now with the initial disclosures. And there's a 7 lot of preparation that can be done in parallel with 8 the briefing of Contention V in terms of preparing our 9 witnesses and getting that moving forward once we have 10 those initial disclosures. And so for that reason we 11 think it's important to have that.
12 And I'll also just flag for the Board we 13 have some indications there may be a dispute about 14 what needs to be in those initial disclosures, and 15 given that, it's critical that these disclosures 16 happen sooner rather than later.
17 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: And I take it from 18 your answer that the State of Vermont is not 19 comfortable with bifurcating disclosure. That 20 November 1st date that you suggested would be a date 21 for mandatory disclosures covering both Contention V 22 and Contention I. Is that correct?
23 MR. LANDIS-MARINELLO: That's correct.
24 Yes.
25 And, Your Honor, if I could just add to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
93 1 that. We've put out -- and this is just about an hour 2 ago. We put out to the other parties a proposal that 3 has that November 1 date in there. And so, we have 4 not received a response yet from the parties. It may 5 well be that that is agreeable to all of the parties.
6 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Well, let's give them 7 a chance to chime in now. Mr. Burdick?
8 MR. BURDICK: Yes, Your Honor, this is 9 Stephen Burdick, counsel for Entergy. I wanted to say 10 a few -- we appreciate the parties and the active 11 discussions we've had. We've had some very open 12 conversation with the state and the staff, even this 13 morning. And we acknowledge that the state counsel 14 has provided a revised proposal that appears to be 15 consistent with some of the options that we had 16 discussed.
17 As I began, we ended on two separate 18 options. The first is the one that we had talked 19 about with deferring disclosures on Contention I until 20 the Contention V issues have been resolved. That is 21 certainly our preference, and so we would like to see 22 that option adopted.
23 However, the kind of alternative option is 24 what state counsel had proposed, to defer the initial 25 mandatory disclosures to November 1st, or maybe it's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
94 1 even November 2nd, whatever the first barrier day is 2 in November, that as an alternative. If our first 3 option is not chosen, then certainly we would prefer 4 the second option.
5 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Okay. And staff 6 counsel?
7 MR. WACHUTKA: Yes, Your Honor. The NRC 8 staff, we would prefer to bifurcate the disclosures 9 because the way that we currently see it is that 10 depending on the determination on Contention V there 11 might be no need at all for Contention I. And so, to 12 have to prepare for a hearing on Contention I, which 13 might not ever happen, would just be an expenditure of 14 resources that may not need to be expended.
15 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Okay. We'll take 16 this under advisement and come up hopefully with some 17 sort of an arrangement that probably makes no one 18 happy, but addresses the parameters that each of you 19 raised relating not only to the start date, but to the 20 potential bifurcation of mandatory disclosures between 21 the two contentions. Towhead is unless the parties 22 at this point or in the near future can come up with 23 a mutually agreeable proposal that will spare us 24 having to try to divide this baby and do it without 25 your input.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
95 1 I think, Mr. Burdick, you had mentioned 2 that there was some discussion; or maybe it was staff 3 counsel, as to the scope and content of initial 4 disclosures.
5 MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, I think there's 6 kind of two more items that we had discussed amongst 7 ourselves. Let me first address the briefing schedule 8 for Contention V, which is table 1 in the Board's 9 September 3rd order.
10 With respect to this contention the 11 trigger date for the briefing schedule for Contention 12 V is the Board's issuance of the initial scheduling 13 order, and that time certainly could vary depending on 14 when the Board takes that action, but we expect it 15 would be somewhere in the near term.
16 Entergy is still considering, but expects 17 that it will file an appeal with the Commission on 18 LPB-15-24. And looking at the briefing schedule for 19 that appeal, it overlaps significantly with the 20 briefing schedule for Contention V. And so, we had 21 proposed -- and I'll ask the other parties certainly 22 to make sure I state this correctly, but had proposed 23 that the briefing schedule for Contention V be 24 postponed to -- such that the trigger date would be 25 the last filing related to that Commission appeal.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
96 1 So assuming we appeal, which as I said, we 2 think is likely, the briefing on that appeal would be 3 completed by October 20. And so, our proposal was for 4 that to be the trigger date rather than the Board 5 issuance of the initial scheduling order. So 6 depending on the timing of the initial scheduling 7 order that would give about a 30 to 40-day delay in 8 beginning of that briefing schedule.
9 We've had discussions with the other 10 parties; and here I'd make sure I characterize this 11 correctly, I believe the staff is in agreement with 12 that. And I think the state agrees to that as well, 13 but it's tied to assuming that the Board agrees with 14 their proposed delay of mandatory disclosures to 15 November 1st or 2nd because of their interest in 16 receiving documents as soon as possible. And so, if 17 there's a greater delay with mandatory disclosures, 18 then they would prefer to move right into the briefing 19 schedule for Contention V. But certainly state 20 counsel can provide their thoughts on that as well.
21 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: I would like to hear 22 form state counsel, Mr. Landis-Marinello on this 23 issue.
24 MR. LANDIS-MARINELLO: Yes, thank you, 25 Your Honor. Mr. Burdick said that correctly. That 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
97 1 our position that if we're going to get these 2 mandatory disclosures by the Board's initial September 3 30th date or by November 1st or 2nd, then we're 4 comfortable with a slight delay in the briefing. If 5 there's going to be any connecting of those initial 6 disclosures to a later point, then we think everything 7 should go forward as rapidly as possible.
8 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: So your preferred 9 resolution with this would be to set October 20th, the 10 date that your reply to the potential appeal by 11 Entergy -- that that would be the trigger date, 12 October 20th. And that would be coupled with 13 mandatory disclosures on the 1st or the 2nd of 14 November?
15 MR. LANDIS-MARINELLO: Well, Your Honor, 16 let me be clear. Our preference is the exact schedule 17 that the Board has proposed in all three tables. That 18 is completely acceptable to the State of Vermont and 19 that is our preference on this. We think that's the 20 normal course of things, that you wouldn't have any 21 delay on mandatory disclosures, that parties would go 22 forward and produce that in the normal course.
23 Everything moves forward in the normal course on 24 parallel tracks because there has been no stay granted 25 in this proceeding and that's the fastest way to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
98 1 resolve all of the matters. And we think that the 2 parties, all the parties are well-equipped. All 3 parties are represented and have the resources to meet 4 all of the deadlines in the Board's proposal. So 5 that's our preference.
6 That said, we have heard from Entergy and 7 the NRC staff and are amenable to making 8 accommodations to that schedule. And in particular 9 we've offered bumping the date for disclosures up to 10 November 1st or 2nd, and we've offered to have this 30 11 to 40-day delay on briefing Contention V at the 12 request of the other parities providing that the 13 initial disclosures would come in either September 14 30th or November 1st.
15 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Okay. Staff, do you 16 care to be heard on this?
17 MR. WACHUTKA: Your Honor, the NRC staff 18 doesn't object to an extension in the briefing 19 schedule for Contention V. But just for the mandatory 20 disclosures though, the staff doesn't think that this 21 is really normal process because normally you would 22 have just the mandatory disclosures to worry about, 23 but in this case we also have the concurrent 24 Contention V briefing schedule. So that's why we 25 thought that the mandatory disclosures should 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
99 1 delayed.
2 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Okay. Thank you.
3 All right. Mr. Burdick, did you say there was a 4 second issue that was also discussed that --
5 MR. BURDICK: Yes, thank you, Judge 6 Froehlich. This is Stephen Burdick on behalf of 7 Entergy. The last area that we had discussed was to 8 see if we could reach agreement on any other of the 9 mandatory hearing requirements, and this is similar to 10 what's been done in many different proceedings, I 11 would say even most proceedings where the parties 12 agree to certain limitations on mandatory disclosures.
13 So we've had a number of conversations 14 about this and proposals and counter-proposals. And 15 so, we have reached some agreement. There are a few 16 topics that we felt were very helpful that we did not 17 reach agreement on, and those are things like 18 disclosures of drafts and elimination of the entire 19 privilege log. And certainly the other parties don't 20 have to agree with all those, but we felt that those 21 have been very useful in past proceedings to reduce 22 the burden of the mandatory disclosures and really not 23 taken away from the value of those documents. But we 24 have had some back and forth and we've reached 25 agreement on some of those typical types of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
100 1 provisions.
2 And, Your Honor, I'd be happy to walk 3 through some of those right now, or if it would be 4 more useful I think the parties could try to put 5 together a joint list that's agreed upon and submit 6 that to the Board because they become quite detailed.
7 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: I think that your 8 latter suggestion may be the way to go, not only 9 though with the points that the parties have agreed 10 upon, but those issues that perhaps there is still not 11 agreement on. Perhaps between now and when we set a 12 date for that to come to the Board the parties could 13 work out and maybe come closer on those things which 14 you don't have agreement on at this point.
15 Would it be useful if the parties were to 16 try to work through some of these items and at the 17 same time compile a list of the things that you have 18 agreed to among parties as to the privilege logs or 19 the scope of the mandatory disclosure and submitted 20 that in writing to the Board in a joint document, 21 let's say by next Thursday?
22 MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, this is Stephen 23 Burdick on behalf of Entergy. I think that would 24 certainly be doable to put together that joint 25 proposal and indicate where there's full agreement NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
101 1 among the parties and where perhaps there are only a 2 couple of parties that agree with it. And I think the 3 non-agreement here is also one of the driving forces 4 for our request for additional time for the mandatory 5 disclosures, that there does seem to be an additional 6 burden here than in other proceedings, and we think 7 that a little more time would make it more efficient 8 for all the parties to pull together the disclosures.
9 Thank you.
10 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: I think that would be 11 helpful, and I think when the Board has that document 12 from the parties we'll be best able to set the 13 schedule and the deadlines for those items in tables 14 1, 2 and 3 that we discussed earlier.
15 Okay. Do the parties feel it would be 16 helpful to the Board to hear those areas of 17 disagreement now, or is that something that can be 18 handled in next week's filing?
19 MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, this is Stephen 20 Burdick on behalf of Entergy. Yes, I think the 21 largest areas of agreement are whether drafts and 22 comments on drafts need to be disclosed, and also the 23 content of the privilege log. We've reached agreement 24 on at least excluding certain information from a 25 privilege log, but our preference would be to exclude NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
102 1 the entirety of it. So there are some minor 2 differences there. Or I guess those are significant 3 differences. But then beyond that I think there are 4 some minor differences in the types of -- I think in 5 some of the minutia of some of these other 6 requirements, but I'm hopeful that we can reach 7 agreement on most of those other areas.
8 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: All right. Then I 9 think it would be probably best if the parties worked 10 together on a joint document that certainly lists all 11 the things that they agree upon and at the same time 12 those parties who have disagreements with that joint 13 document indicate to the Board where those 14 disagreements are and what their concerns are. And 15 upon receipt of that next Thursday the 17th the Board 16 will take that into consideration and work through the 17 issues dealing with the briefing schedule and the 18 trigger date that we discussed at the beginning of 19 this conference.
20 Were there any other issues that we should 21 be discussing today or that the parties want the Board 22 to have input on leading up to the scheduling order in 23 this case?
24 (No audible response) 25 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Are there any other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
103 1 issues?
2 MS. MIZUNO: Your Honor, this is Beth 3 Mizuno with the Office of General Counsel for the 4 staff. And if we are submitting something to the 5 Board on September 17 and our mandatory disclosures --
6 that would be on the 30th, we're looking at what, 18 7 days, which is not -- no, 13. Sorry. I'm not good at 8 math. Thirteen days, which is very, very tight. I 9 mean, we can and we are working towards the September 10 30 deadline, but if we're only submitting something to 11 you on the 17th, you're going to need some time to 12 figure out what you want to do and then you need to 13 draft something. We could be getting very close to 14 the September 30 mandatory disclosure due date before 15 we even hear from you. So would it be possible to 16 move the September 30 due date by a couple weeks just 17 for now so that we can have some breathing room to 18 actually act upon whatever it is that you order?
19 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Ms. Mizuno, I 20 appreciate your concern. I would advise the staff to 21 proceed with the September 30th date that is already 22 scheduled, however, that may be extended once we 23 receive the pleading next week. The staff should 24 begin to think about those type of things that need to 25 go into both the hearing file as well as those things NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
104 1 that should be disclosed. So I wouldn't just stop 2 work on it. I would be thinking about it, however, it 3 is possible that you may get a little bit of an 4 extension from the deadline set by the regulations.
5 Were there any other issues?
6 MS. MIZUNO: Thank you, Your Honor.
7 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Anything else?
8 (No audible response) 9 MR. BURDICK: Your Honor, this is Stephen 10 Burdick on behalf of Entergy. We have Nothing 11 further.
12 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Okay. Any other 13 concerns from the state or from the NRC staff?
14 MR. LANDIS-MARINELLO: This is Kyle from 15 the state. Nothing further from us. Thank you very 16 much, Your Honor.
17 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Thank you.
18 MR. WACHUTKA: No further concerns from 19 the staff, Your Honor.
20 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Okay. I want to 21 thank the parties for their discussions leading up to 22 this conference and urge them to continue to talk 23 among themselves on all those issues that they can 24 reach agreement. That will go a long way towards 25 making this case move ahead smoothly. It will also NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
105 1 prevent the Board from imposing deadlines that may not 2 be everything you had hoped for. So I would hope that 3 the parties would spend the next week as they prepare 4 that pleading for the 17th, discussing and trying to 5 reach agreement in as many areas as they possibly can.
6 And I thank you for your efforts in advance.
7 Judges Wardwell and Kennedy, anything to 8 add?
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: I have nothing.
10 JUDGE WARDWELL: I have nothing.
11 CHAIRMAN FROEHLICH: Okay. Then I thank 12 you all for your participation, look forward to your 13 pleading, and we will get an order out very quickly 14 after receipt of the joint pleading. Thank you, all.
15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 16 off the record at 1:33 p.m.)
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