ML18230A030
| ML18230A030 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1977 |
| From: | ACE Federal Reporters |
| To: | Carolina Power & Light Co, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML18230A030 (74) | |
Text
ALAN I, PENN, PH.D.
GEORGE J, JAICASCIN, MBA SERNARD M ENOLEBERO, MBA
<EBT*s, IS4B> <ecords Ace geeleral (Beg/
STENOTYPE REPORTERS 444 NORTH CAPITOLSTREET WASHINGTONe D. C, 2000I 202 347 3700 Facilities franc 016 Phil
~','II, CSR CSR ROBERT JAMES MONICKr
'6
+~ / f)~
ato'Qf-'ULY 6, 1977 RE:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET 50-400, 403 CAROLINA POWER AND LI GHT (HARR I S)
RALEIGH NORTH CAROLINA
~ piggy e.
0PPCP~
Op DUE TO A PAGINATION ERRORS WE ARE SENDING YOU CORRECTED..
COPIES OF THE TRANSCRIPTS DATED JUNE 16, 1977.
PLEASE USE THIS IN PLACE OF THE ONE PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS INC.
NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
r rf II '}
fr r,
<ri(
~
g V
4 it
'yl I,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
CAROL'ZiaTA PONZP.
6 ~ZQHT CC~~W1Y (Shearon Harris Huc1ear Po"e'er Plant, Units 1, 2'r 3 and 4)
Eocket Nos.
50-400 50-401 50-402 50-403 Ra1eit3h, North Caro1ina Date Thursday, 16 June 1977 Pages 1340 1401 Telephone:
(202) 347.3700 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Offi'cielReporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDECOi/ERAGE - DAILY
1300 CR 3810
~I II2 PRANK:
ro NR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of:
CAROLINA POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY.
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power
- Plant, Units 1, 2,.
3 and 4)
Docket Nos.. 50-400 50-401 50-402
~ 50-403 10 12 13 New Federal Building Room 225 310 New Bern Avenue
- Raleigh, North Carolina
- Thursday, 16 June 1977 The prehearing conference in.the above-entitled matter 15 16 17 18 19 20 21.
22 23 24 ederel Reponers, Inc.
~5 was convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m.
BEFORE:
IVAN SMITH, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licens'g Board MR.
GLENN O. BRIGHT, Member DR.. J; V. LEEDS, JR Member APPEARANCES:,
THOMAS BAXTER, Esq.
and GEORGE F.
TROWBRIDGE, Esq.
Shaw, Pitman, Potts and Trowbridge, 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.;
and RICHARD E.
JONES, Associate General
- Counsel, Carolina Power
& Light Company, P.O.
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina; on behalf of the Applicant JAMES CUTCHIN, Esq.
and RICHARD C.
BROWNE, Esq., Office of the Executive Legal Director, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.. C.
20555;. on behalf of the Regulatory Staff.
l3ill ro APPEARANCES:
(continued)
JESSE C..
BRAZE, Assistant Attorney General for the State of North Carolina, P.O.
Box 629, Raleigh, North Carolina; on behalf of the State o
North Carolina<
THOMAS ERWIN, Esq.,
Water Tower Court, ll5 West Morgan
- Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602; on behalf of the Intervenor.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2.1 22 23 2 4 eral ReDOners, tnC.
FP I avl 13112 PROCEEO INGS 3
CHAIRMAN SMITH: It is 9-00 o'lock, an'd all parties are
- here, I believe.
Tnis is the prehearing conference that was 5
noticed in the Federal Register on June 9th, in the Carolina 6
Power and Light Company Shearon Harris Plant proceeding.
There are several new faces present including 8-mine since the last session of the proceeding.
My name is Ivan Smith.
I succeeded Tom Riley 10 as the chairman.
To my.right is Dr. J.
Leeds of Houston, I I
- Texas, Rice University, who will be serving as the 12 environmental member of the board.
To my left is Mr. Glenn 13 Bright of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission s Panel for 14 Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards.
He is a nuclear 15 engineer-physicist, and he will be serving as the engineering 16 member of the board.
17 Mr. Baxter, I note your presence.
I wonder if 18 you would begin for the Applicant, identifying those who 19 are present on behalf of the Applicant.
20 MR. BAXTER:
Mr. Chairman, to my left is George F.
21 Trowbridge of the firm of Shaw,
- Pittman, Potts 8, Trowbridge, 22 represent Applicant Carolina Power 8, Lignt Company today.
23 I
am Thomas Baxter of that firm.
To Mr. Trowbridge~s left is Mr. Richard E
- Jones, 25 associate general counsel of Carolina Power 8, Light.
av2 l3 11 3 I
MR.
CUTCHIN:
I am James Cutchin, attorney with 2
the ()ffice of Executive Legal Director.
To my right is 3
Richard C.
Browne, assistant chief hearing counsel.
<)ur 4-address is U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commi ssion, Washington, 5
Q. C. 20555.
CHAIRMAN SMITH:
Mr. Brak
?
MR. BRAKE:
I am Jesse C. Brake, a ssistant attorney general for the. State of North Carolina.
10 Intervenor.
MR.
ERWIN:
Thomas Erwin, appearing for the CHAIRMAN SMITH:
Is there anyone else present 12 who wishes to note his appearance?
13 Before we begin with the agenda that has been set 14 forth in the notice, does any party have any other special I 5 matters to ra ise before oroce eding?
16 17 (discussion off the record.)
CHAIRMAN SMITH:
Le t s begin with a
somewha t 18 different order than we have in the agenda.
I think before 19 we can get very far into the setting of the prehearing 20
- schedule, there should be determination by the board upon the ll 21 advice of the parties whether there should be an additional
.22 opportunity for intervention,. or opportunity to expand 23 existing intervention petitions because of the lapse of time 24 and whatever changing conditions there might be.
25 Unless there is a reason to the contrary, we will
av3 yP114 1
always follow ihe procedure of working from the left to the 2
right here.
4 please?
Nould the Applicant address that consideration, MR. TR(NBR IDGE:
Mr. Chairman, let me take them 6
separately, ihe question of new interventions versus the 7
question of new contentions by existing Intervenors.
On the matter of whether an additional intevention should be provided, it is our view that there is no neeo for 10 further notice and opportunity to intervene in the proceeding.
Obviously, ihe notice was originally published 12 as required by the act and the regulations.
Since then I
13 think there has been substantial publicity about ihe plant 14 and about the resumption of i ts schedule, the ooportunity 15 exists under ihe Commission s regulations for late petitioners 16 to intervene and the ground rules are spelled oui there.
17 I
am not saying there might not be a case where 18 good cause and other factors are shown which would warrant Iv a late petition to intervene, but I think any such peti ioner 20 should be required to show good cause and other reasons, and 21 I think a notice now would simply reopen, without any other 22 ground rules, the proceeding to new intervention which would 23 short-cut the requirements set oui in the regulation for late 24 petitions and good cause showing.
I would say, particularly in this case, while there
0
13)15 I
has been a lapse of time, I would suggest that the lapse of
'2 time has primarily affected the more volatile questions of 3
need for power or financial qualifications, things that 4
are likely to change in a period of a year or two, and in 5
this area at least those issues are already well, represented 6
by existing Intervenors, so that while so.thai we would 7
have the board follow what we conceive to be the provision of the regulations now.or-entertaining the late petitions.
CHAIR)StAN SMITH:
Mr Cu.tchin?
10 MR. CUTCHIH:
Mr. Chairman, the position of the 1
I staff is essentially the same.
That is, there is no provision 12 in the regulations for renoticing
'a delayed, if you will, 13 hearing.
14 There is ample opportunity for any individual 15 who may not have been present in the area at the time of 16 the original noiice to come i'n under the provisions of 2714 17 and shows good cause, address ihe four factors, and the boarcl 18 should weigh that, information accordingly.
19 CHAIRMAN ShfITH:
Uo you suggest the board does 20 noi have the authority to invite new intervention?
21 MR.. Cu'ECHIN-I do not, sir.
I think the board 22 has great discretion, but I am unable to cite any provisions 23 in the regulations for such.
24 DR.
LEEDS:
Does thai apply also io interested 25 states?
av5
>8116 MR. CUTCHIN:
I am not sure I understand.
OR.
LEEDS:
To interested states?
3 MR.
CUTCHIN:
The Commission has also been very 4
liberal in aJ.Lowing states
.to come in at any time they 5
expressed an interest, and I think tne state of North 6
Carolina came in relatively late, last August sometime, and 7
there was no objection at all.
CHAIRMAN SMITH:
Mr. Brake, I
am sure you know as a participant and as an interested state you can 10 participate as much or as little as you wish.
I want to give you whatever opportunity that you 12 wish.to have, so do you want to be.taken up in order as 13 if you were a party, or do you want to sit back and intercede 14 when you think it is appropriate?
16 MR ~
BRAKE:
Tociay?
CHAIRMAN SMITH-Today or anytime.
Nell, today.
17 ShaJ.L I call upon you in each instance?
MR. BRAKE-Today it would really suit me to 1 r sit back.
Az the hearing I may want to be active.
20 CHAIRMAN SMITH:
Then it will be your responsibility 21 to bring to our attention when you wish to participate.
22 Otherwise, we will proceed O.
23 MR., BRAKE-Nhat is the proceciure?
Raise my hand?
(Laughter. )
CHAIRMAN SMI<rl:
You will be on the service list
avo I
and you can anything when you want to.
3 10 12 13 MR.
ERN IN:
lfe are aware of the regulations and we are asking for anything to be changed, but it has been a long time since the notice of hearing, and much of the hearing has to take. place,,
and we haven't seen the company coming in and showing good cause why they have put off construction of the plant.
I am not sure it is particularly fair in this set-of circumstances to require someone who alleges a
new contention to have to meet the tests set ou't in the regulation.
As I say, we met in the prehearing conference set of hearings four years ago
-I think it was in July and three years ago in July as well,. in ilashington, and it is
'3 14 'xceedingly a long time in the life of a case..
would think that there are
- many, many people 1'o 17 20 21 22 23 in this s~ate, and in this county and this city who are of the opinion that the construction of the plant is a
fait accompli, and are completely unaware of the.true status of: this proceeding.
CHAIRMAN SMITH-So you, would then provide addi tional o ppor tuni ty MR ERNIE:
I must. say I don't think;it would be in any way unfair-to the Staff or the Applicant.
Ne are not making a strong play for this, but I think it would be the fair thing at this point.,
av7 1348
'3 DR. LEEDS:. Let me ask the staff a question.
Do you think it would be inappropriate to notice the particular rule that provides for intervention with good 4
- cause, 2.724?
MR.
CUTCHIN-No, sir.
In fact, I don't think it 6
would be appropriate if the Staff or the Board chose to have 7
a press release or something of this nature to the effect 8
of course, Chere has been a notice of the resumption of the hearing but there won~t be.the usual details about it, and 10 I think again.there is discretion as to whether to include tha.t.
12 I think if one did, they should point, ou.t the 13 fact this would be an untimely a ttempt uncfer the rules. and 14 that there would be additional threshold tests for someone 15 to be al.lowed to come in.
16 17 that?
DR.
LEEDS-Mr. Trowbridge, what is your view on MR. TROYBRIDGE-l'(e would not object to a notice of I V the opportunity to present late petitions and a rec'itation 20 of the ground rules for that.
21 1'<e would ask if it is going to be done that it be 22 done very qui ckly.
23 24 DR.
LEEDS:
Do you think it would be a good idea?
MA. TROl'ABRIDGE-No.
I personally question the 25 necessity for it.
1
1349 CHAIRVAN SMITH:
But if it has
.to be done, it 2
should be done immediately.
3 MR. TRONBRIDGE:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN SI(ITH:
Do you have any additional 5
thoughts on the setting of a prehearing and hearing
- schedule, 6
with particular reference to the need for discovery?
NR. TROWBRIDGE-'es.
I can.do that or I can 6
complete what I understood to be the other half of your auestion about new contentions by existing Intervenors.
10 13 parts.
14 15 le 17 CHAIR/'.AH SV.ITH-All right.
I wasn't aware that you had reserved that aspect.
WR. TRONBRIDG=:
I meant to divide it into two 20 21 22 23 25
Fp~2caml 1350 I
CHAIRMAN Si'ARITH:
Maybe we can short-circuit that.
2 Do you have any wish to amend your intervention petition?
3 MR. ERNIN-Not at this time.
Ne woulci probably 4
be interested in changing some of the wording of our existing 5
contentions simply because of the lapse of time, changing o
circumstances of much much of our contentions have 7
~ contained statements that allege the occurrence of certain 8
events and there have been many more recently, events which we think con irm the soundness of the contentions.
he would 1G probably just want to clean up the language.
MR.
TR()1'<BRIDG=-
Pte would welcome an updating of 12 the contentions, the need.or power contentions and some of 13 the other contentions refer to 1974 and we would welcome an 17 20 updating of all of those.
P'e would like to see a timetable for the updating.
I f the updating didn't occur, and we will get to the discovery question next, if you like, we would want to ask the intervenor by way of discovery what documents and events are you relying on currently for your contentions?
CHAIR.";AN S'LITH -
!(r. Cutchin?
21 22 23 24 MR.
CUTCHIN-The Staff would agree that, indeed it woula be helpful if indeed the intervenor plans to change slightly the issues which he wishes to litigate, it would be helpful and we coulo perhaos avoid some delay in the hearing.
CHAIRtlAN S lITH-
't(hat type of time schedule do you
cam2 1351 l
think would be appropriate for you to update your contentions?
MR. ERNIE:
I v'ould like to ask what the Applicant ancf Staff would like for us to do?
I mean we will try to be as reasonable as possible, but we would like some -- some period of time to review them.
CHAIRMAN SMITH:
Two weeks?
MB.. ERhIH:
I think two weeks to a month would be 8
our pref rence, obviously..
The contentions
. elate to fairly important points.
Ana w will probably advocate some new lO discovery.
The last discovery was in 1974 on these ll contentions.
l2.
13 Again, our discov ry scnedule would necessarily, if there is any intention to go to hearing in the early fall would necessarily have to be somewhat abbreviated, bui I 5 by the same
- token, I think we need to go into some of these l6 matters again.
l7 i)R. LEEDS:
Did you take the deposi tions, you know, lb in July of '74 or something like that?
2G w'th CPv',L.
i'~iR.
ER)~ IN-Yes.
()ne of the depon nts is no longer 2l QR. 'EDS-'hich one is that?
22 23 MR ERr'lid:
Mr. McPherson.
is still with CPKL.
Mr. Morgan, of course, 25 CHAIHMAI< SM ITH:
How would July 8th be?
MR.
ER)" Ii'~-'
think that would be fine.
cam3 1352 CHAIR)iAN SMITH:
Ne can resolve some. of these tocfay.
2 You can have the maximum amount of time.
Our prehearing 3
conference order will have July 8th as the date by which you 4
may amend your contentions.
Then in the absence oi any 5
- request, the time for'answering will be as o herwise provideci 6
by the rules.
How, with that resolveci,,
what would be your view 5
about the follow ing schedule?
l'lR.
TPO~iBR IDGE:
'Bell, taking nex~.the period of l 0 discovery, we would agree that a periocf for supplemental I I discovery on the existing contentions is appropriate.
'.(e l2 woulci suggest,
- that, I et's say the discovery requests ought to l3 be macie not later than 30 days from July 8th.
l5
!ie would hope in this that as has been true in the J
- past, many of fair. Erwin's requests could simply be macie to us
)6 and on an informal basis and we coulcf provide the information l 7 on an informal basis.
- However, the 30 days is there for l8 l",r. Erwin to make his request if he cioesn't get satisfaction.
I would like to put the suggestion forward. that 20 oiscovery be limited to aocument requests and interrogatories.
2i That is a preference simply for not getting involveci.
22 unnecessarily in cie positions.
)'ie have not made this suggestion 23 be.ore to iver. Erwin and I cion't know whether he is ready to 24 react to it., but to recaoitulate, I would like to see a 30-day 25 d: scovery which woulci apply to us as well as to l',r. Erwin.
30
cam4 1353'0 3
days for making disc'overy requests from July 8th ancf preferably, limited to document reques s
and intexrogatories.
CHAIRl!AH SlriITH:
The s'chedule does not anticipate answers to the. amended contentions, nor the Board's ruling on the amended contentions.
HR.
TAO'ABRIDGE:
Lt does not.
I would hope to answer your question, what happens if we don't reach agreement, I would be hopeful that we could sit down with 10 12 13 15 lo 17 iver. Erwin when ne is prepared to revise his contentions, ancf
- each.a stipulation that would avoid rulings by the time periods for the Board.
I think it is quite likely that such a stipulation will be forthcoming.
The basic contentions aren't going to change.
Ne don't neea the power'.
6'e are not financially qualified, conservation as an alternative.
The bases for these are more or less up to i'lr. Erwin to select.
I don t think we will have much troubl e about amendea contentions if what we are amendinc is the bases for tnose contentions.
20 CHAIHhAH SMI.TH:
Mr. Cutchin?
21 MR.
CUTCHI~V:
You, sir,,
may believe I think he 22 may come in with additional contentions other than the ones 23 25
- that, have been presently allowed..
Of course, if tha't is the case and we could not reach a stipulation, I think, again, I'",r.
Erwin would have to make certain showings as to why at
camD this daie he is raising new contentions and woul'd have to show that he didn't have objective noiice of the information that was available to him earlier.
CHAIR15AN SMITH:
This anticipates new. contentions
'I or amenaments
- are, because of changers conditions since your initial opportunity we are already sort of ruling on what, good cause would be on this by giving you an opportunity for amendments because of changed conditions.
~3 10 12 13 15 16 17 20 21 22 ZD 25 chas that your understanding, Mr. Erwin?
MR.
ER>)IN -
- Yes, Mr. Chairman.
DR., LEEDS-I guess I
am getting kind of confused here because I thought we were talking about contentions, then I hear bases for contentions.
I':thought I heard there were going to be no new conteniions,. just changes in bases.
How can you object to the contentions, then?
MR.. CUTCHIN:
Thai is what I am having difficul,iy with.
1(e are talking about revising the contentions as they need for power, financial matters and conservation, and we can esiablish what we are now going to litigate, if indeed there are new issues wnich are brought up, of course, then we would have the probLem of timeliness, good cause, why they should be aLLo~(ed at this L~ tigation.
Otherwise maybe we are talking about a problem that doesn't exist.
DR.
LEEDS-Those are statutory contentions anyway.
CHAIRMAN SMITH'-
.My thinking was an amended
cam6 l355 I
contention could create the same litigation problems as a
new 2
contention.
Our discovery schedule and our prehearing schedule 3
would have to anticipate thai.,
That is why I am trying to 4
oin down.the basis.
l'!e have already suggested, or we have already 6
advised 'lr. Erwin ai this point if he has amendmenis
.to make 7
on his present contentions based upon changing conditions, 8
thai we would aniicipate io be good cause now, for him.to file, and we have proviled the period.
()f course, if he goes beyond lo
- thai, then i" is another matter.
He always has ihe right io l l file an amendment of new conientions.
I would suggest discovery be for 13 a oeriod of 30 days af ier the filing of the amendecf contentions l4 if there is a siipulation among ihe oarties io them.
If not, l5 then after the Board ruling on the amended contentions and l6 resoonses to them in the formal iime sequences, with moiions l 7 and responses to motions.
CHAIRtlAH SMITH-i'tould this be satisfaciory to both the Start and. Applicant?
20 One week afier the intervenors file amendecI 2l 22 23 25 conieniions, ihe, pariies consult, to determine wheiher there is a possibility to stipulate ihe adequacy of the amendments to the contentions and if not,. file their answers.
tlR. TR()P!BRIDGE:
That is fine, Wr. Chairman.
But I now say we would be glad to look at Mr. Erwin's contentions
cam7 xB56 1
bef ore they are fi led.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: That's finc.
That i s up to the 3
. parties individually.
I want to make certain milestones.
MR.
TR(%BR IDGE:
And maybe save some paperwork.
CHAIRMAN SMITH:
The invitation would be for you to 6
consult in acfvance, bui in the event that fails I want to set 7
certain dates by which time such things must be done.
I would 8
suggest 7 days'f ter the filing by you of amended contentions which must be done by you no later than July 8th, the 10 Applicant and Staff either agree with you as to the adequacy 11 of the contentions or file answers and that would be due then 12 no later than tne 15th or 7 days af ter you should elect to 13 file.
HR. ERl'/IN:
Thank you.
I am very pleased with 15 Mr. Trowbridge~s courtesy extended to me.
It hasn't always lo been so.
I think the Chairman's ruling at this point is very 17
- helpful, because we have certainly had plenty of trouble with ld amended contentions in tne past.
CHAIRMAN SVITH:
I don~t think what has happened in 20 the past will have any particular relevance any more I. think 21 ii sort of consumes unnecessary time to comment along that 22 line.
23 MR. BBAiE:
Mr. Chairman, I do want to oarticipate 24 at his point.
'ould like to have thai amended to allow -th 25 State to ati nd the proposed conference, let us nave an
E()Tcami 1357 l
opportunity to attend.
CHAIRS LAi< SMITH -
Ceria inly. If'here is a
possibility of the parties, in an informal conference, to agree.
upon stipulations, the State will be invited to aiiend.
ViR ~
BRAKE:
Mr ~ Chai rman, as far as Mr. Trowbridge 6
is concerned, would I be correct in saying we would have the 7
discovery right within the same time thai.the intervenors 6
have it?
CHAIRMAN SMITH:
Yes.
You do have problems as a
i0 participating state, nowever.
You are not required to take II a position, but if.you do intend to take a position in the i2 proceeding, you, yourself, must be open to discovery and you l3 must state what your position is timely so that the other l4 parties can meet whatever motion that you have.
l5 Qo you have any plans to take a posiiion in any I 6 aspect of the proceeding?
g~g l 7 kR.
BRAKE-That was, frankly, one of my reasons for waniing to attend the conference.
What would be a timely 1
I 9 time to sta ie the posiiion?
CHAIRVAbi S lITH-" i'iell, I would think you should 2l fall within inai July 3th period.
I think ihat would be an 22 aporopriate time for the State io make any positions.it has 23 known.
MR.
BRAKE:
Okay.
l358 CR3810 FP:bwl 10 CHAIR~ SMITH Are there any problems about that last comment?
MR. CUTCHIN:
None for the Staff.
CHAIRMAN SMITH:
Mr. Trowbridge?
MR.
TROWBRIDGE:
No.
CHAIRMAN SMITH:
Let's make it that way then.
The State of North Carolina should file any position papers by July 8th.
As to the status of the correspondence on the subject of the hearing schedule,'as the Applicant urging hearings to be set in September, evidentiary hearings, and the Staff, are 13 15 17 18 19 20 22 yol. still unspecific about that'?
Some time in early fall, as I recall your position'?
MR. CUTCHIN: I could add perhaps a little to that, sir, at this time.
The Sta f would have no objection to setting a
tentative hearing to begin around September
- 15. with anticipation of completing it, hopefully, around the early part of October.
That would have to be subject,'f
- course, to the Staff's being able to complete its review of information, some of which has not yet come in from the Applicant on a couple 23 24 Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 of con tentions.
DR.
LEEDS:
I thought the ACRS meeting was going to be in October or something like that?
1359 bw2 MR. CVICHIN:" The 2CRS meeting is now scheduled for the August meeting, in anticipation of the Staff's publishing a supplement number 2 by early July, Men the Staff, of course, would publich an additional supplement addressing any ACRS concerns.
That is on the safety side.
On the environmental side, they are in the process 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 of updating their FES review in preparation oz submitting written testimony on the subject of financial qualifications and a number of other areas.
I meant to say on the subject of need for power.
CHAIRMAN SMITH:
Intervenors?
It has been proposed that September MR.
ERWIN:
We will met with any schedule the Board sets, but it seems to me there are so many contingencies here, that it might be wiser tohold off until we have some clear idea of where the Staff will be -- the Staff and the 19 20 21 22 23 24 ederel Re loners, Inc.
25 Applicant will be coming from.
If I understand Mr. Cutchin, the Applicant hasn' even updated his need-for-power information at this point.
Of course, that puts somewhat of a1 t puts us at
,somewhat of a burden in discovery, because we don't even know what their position is at this time.
We are supposed to take a position by July 8, and we don't really know what the CP&L position is, apparently.
lZ6O bw3
. MR.. CUTCHIN:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct that position.
I didn', mean to leave the impression that the Applicant had not provided any information on these subjects.
I'he Applicant has,
- indeed, provided mucn information, but in the process of its review the Staff may find that it 10 12 needs a few add'tional pieces of information, as always can and obviously does occur, and the bulk of the information I do believe,
- indeed, has been submitted.
I could not quote the amendment number for the need-for-power information, but it has been in for some weeks now..
MR. ERWIN:
That was my understanding, Mr. Chairman.
I am sorry, I misunderstood Mr. Cutchin, so I 13 withdraw what I just said.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: So you have no particular problem with 15 16 17 18 19 20 21' September 15 hearing schedule, as you see it now?
MR. IRWIN:
We will be able to attend, obviously.
There is no question of our being able to participate.
I think it, is premature, but that is just a comment.
DR.EZEDS:
Sometime after September 15, is what we are really saying; is tl>t right?
MR.
CUTCHIN: That would be the earliest that the 22 Staff could meet, and it may, indeed, turn out the late 23 24 Federal Banners, Inc.
25 September, early October schedule, we were talking about earlier, will be the one we will be able to meet.
We would have no objection to settingof a-tentative date for the Board's
bw4 schedule.
NR.
TROWBRIDGE:. I would urge the Board set aside for everybody's planning schedule, but the particular board members be set. aside a space of a couple of weeks, at least, 10 12 13 14 15 16 on or about the 15th of September, recognizing that what we now visualize as the completion for the Staff review, not. only on-the contentions, but the updating of the safety evaluation, there could be slippage and yet I think it is highly likely on the contentions which are discrete, involve different witnesses, that we proceed to hearing and we ought.
to schedule the time to do so by definition, if we are behind on some other element of the review process, we are behind in our hoped for licensing schedule..
And we would like to not get as much behind as possible.
I realize the Board may have difficulty setting its time aside, but when it is thought about, setting a date and 17 18 going through to the end, it's been my experience the Board can't do that.
19 20 It is usually necessary to take pieces CHAIRS SMITH: I think our immediate
- concern, 21 although that is a good point, and we do need notice, but 22 23 24 ederal Reooners, Inc.
25 our immediate concern is to arrange a prehearing
- schedule, which ~ould accommodate the recommendations you have made to try to shoot for September 15th.
That provides or about 60 days, which you suggest
l362 bwS about 30 days for discovery, which would mean the second 30-day period of that interval would. have to be used for the filing 10 of testimony and all other trial preparation.
Now,,
do you think that. that-is enough?
Enough time?
Of course, you would have. to anticipate,
- perhaps, motions for orders compelling discovery.
I don' knw what the background is, whether you have been able to work out discovery problems or not.
But I just want to bring to your attention, within the 60 days, there is work to be done, and I want you to bear in mind that that should be taken into account when you propose 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19.
20 21 22 23 24 ederal Resorsers, Inc.
25 a hearing date.
But, apparently, thre are. no oroblems anticipated.
DR.
LEEDS:
There might well be some questions from the Board, too, because it has been a long time since we looked at this record.,
CHAIRMAN SMITH:
Ne will defer a specific hearing date for now, but we will. anticipa e
~ in our post-prehear'g orders that the period for discovery wild begin I suppose we could set now a date for discovery requests.
It just brings to mind you have no responded to his request that discovery be limited to interrogatories and requests for documents.
And, apparently, eliminating depositions from d3. s cove ry.,
1363 bw6 You haven't responded to that, I don't believe, Mr. Erwin.
MR. ERWIN:,
No, Mrp Chairman.
I don' see the appropriateness of that particular request.
CHAIRMAN SMZTH: You are not willing to do that.
MR. ERWIN:
I mean if the Chair rules, I suppose, I think it may be within your discretion to rule that way, but I don't see the point of that.
10 CHAIRMAN SMITH: Of course, this is your opportunity to express yourself.
12 MR. ERWIN: I am just objecting to it.
I am not going to argue the point at great length.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 I. th'nk it is obvious why I would object to it, because it would limit our discovery and we in the past have conducted depositions and they are, of course -- and paid for the transcripts and they are utterly worthless at this point.
MR.
TROWBRIDGE:
I withdraw the request if I made it for a ruling by the Board on this.
I th'nk it could be largely done for interrogatories and the request for documents..
The regulations afford an opportunity for depositions and, if Mr. Erwin feels he needs to proceed that way, so be it.
'If I may comment briefly,we went through
- this, again I hate to bring up the past, but the past sort of covers this whole proceeding.
We went to this all during the summer of l974, and it costs my client, who is a public
bw7 organization, non-profit organization, a considerable amount of money to go through the process, and we compiled a great deal of information on the need for power, and so forth and so 4
on, all absolutely worthless at this point, except as a
historical arti act.
That is the only thing that bothers me about any of this.
We have the feeling form the Applicant that we must proceed immediately and at this pace, and somehow the sky will faill if we don'.
10 We have heard that so many times before, that we feel some reluctance to be put into an extremely tight 12 schedule.
~-
13 We had to operate under that in March and April in
- 1974, a schedule that I don' think has been matched in AEC h'sto~.
We had a series of hearings and filings that took place; I think we had two rulings from the Commission and two rulings from the board and one ruling from the Appeals Board. within a period of a month and a half, in this absolutely killing schedule.
Then, within two months, the Applicant, of his own volition, deferred its "onstr<<tionplans for two full years.
23 24 t
Federal Revorsers, Inc.
25 This is the kind of thing we just don '
want to see repeated.
CHAIRMAN SA?ITH: Now is your opportunity to be specific
1365 bw8 in what youwant from the Board.
MR. ERWIN: If we are speci ic about it, we will be tied in the present by the Applicant as contributing 4
to the delay in the plant, we we will be made as the bugbears, to to the ratepayers of North Carolina.
We will be made out as the evil ones trying to increase costs.
I am sorry.
We have alread been captioned in that 9
role before.
I will say we have always complied with every 10 schedule the Board has ever set for us, and we will comply 11 with every schedule that the Board sets now.
12 We will not appeal procedurally from any schedule 13 that is set.
14 We intend to proceed, and I'illnot object to 15 any ruling that. you make, but I would simply make these comments 16 17 18 19 for vour own, you know, as background information.
DR. LEEDS; Can I get some questions on this'?
Let me refresh my memory correctly.
Mr. Trowbridge, as.I remember correctly, 20 something like last year sometime, April of '76, 1
or thereabouts, yau made a request to the NRC Sta
= to review, 22 to start all over, whatever you do in this instance, to renew 23 their review, I guess, is the correct word,.
24 ederal Re>orders, Inc.
25 MR.
TROWBRIDGE:
This was May.
DR.
LEEDS:
May of '76?
bw9.
l366 MR.
TROWBRTDGE:
Yes.
DR.
LEEDS: That is a year and a month ago.
3 Did the Staff start then?
MR.. CUTCHIN:
Yes, sir.
The Staff began to update its look-see at some 6
of these issues, and it has resulted in many areas, in an 7
almost complete re-review of some of these things.
DR.
LEEDS: Okay.
So then we have talked about restarting this.
10 Now we are here talking about getting a hearing set in two mon hs after a year and a month 'of preparation; is that 12 right?
13 MR.
CUTCHXN':
That is what the calendar time would 14
- indicate, yes sir.
15 DR.
LEEDS:
Is there any indication of -- the last--
16 at one of the last sessions, there was a December 28th date 17 by which the pumpkin carr the carriage changed back into 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ederal Re>oners, Inc.
25 a pumpkin, because of ECCS changes.
. Are there any more carriages that will change into
- pumpkins, datewise?
MR.
CUTCHZN:
None that immediately come to mind on regulations.
MR.
TROWBRIDGE:
Not of that kind. Obvious'ly, tnere is a point when we need to start construction so as to get the. plant build on schedule, but in terms of special legal
bw10 i~61
- wrinkles, such as the ECCS cutoff date, that is not we don;t have any of those that I know of.
DR.
LEEDS:
Is there a procurement problem that exists with respect to equipment that you have to get?
Isn' some of this equipment on-site now?
MR.
JONES:
Mr. Chairman
~ and members of the Board, there is a pressing need to obtain a construction permit, in order to begin construction.
We had hoped to have the construction permit by the first of this year,
'77.
10 We have lost now, if we anticipate receiving a construction petit by the first of next year, a year of 12 construction time.
13 The unit is scheduled to come on-line in l984 15 We are pushing up the minimal construction time now, and if we don't get the construction permit quickly we will be 16 faced with the possibility of not meeting the in-service 17 date.
19 20 Now, this goes to one of the ultimate issues in the contentions, about. whether or not we need the power, but the North Carol'na Utilities Commission has, in fact, in an order suggested that this unit should come on-line in 1983.
22 23 24 edersl Revoners, Inc.
25 That is a date.
we simply can'0 meet, but we are extremely hopeful. of being able to meet the 1984 date.
All of the projections of the company, this will be a part of the evidence in the proceeding, and the evidence
lP68 bell of the North Carolina. Uti~mties Ccmnission would indicate that we, in fact, have desperate need for this capacity in the early 1980's, so we are faced with a deadline that is very real and very practical:
DR.
LEEDS:
What happened between May and now?
E3 Mat is a year and a month.
10 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 edersl Fle >orders, Inc.
25
44n ash 1
3810 I
MR. JONES'e have been responding
.to questions.
2 and providing information and documents to the Nuclear 3
Regulatory Commiasion Staff and.they have been reviewing the 4
application.
It has taken this long just to get to this 5
point.
We are at the tail end now of that review DR. LEEDS' presume from the transcript of the 7
last hearing that aJ.l the engineering should have been done 8
a long time ago on this plant because that was one of the 9
statements Mr. Trowbridge made, we want to keep going 10 with the engineering details, have all the plans done and 11 e verything.
12 13 That has all been done?
MR. JONES'ngineering has been going on 14 throughout the period of delay at a certain level.
15 16 MR. LEEDS:
Is it complete?
MR. JONES-t is not complete.
It is progressed.
17 Of course a lot, of things have been reengineered as a
18 result of the review.
We have been continually faced with 19 everything to recommit to newer or later designs, and some 20 reprocurement so the project has been very active..
That is 21 about all I can say.
22 MR. LEEDS-'hat. about the issues of need for 23 power.. which, let~s see, need for power 24 MR.
JONES -'eed for power, financial qualifications 25 and conservation are the three remaining issues.
1370 84nash2 3810 MR. LEEDS-I don~t wanf to quote myself on binding 2.
the Boarcf in this instance, need for power, I believe that 3
was the major item left in the environmental
- review, need 4
for power, so 'thai could have been completed and an LNA 5
applied for.,
Why not?
6 MR.
JONES=
It always appeared the construction 7
permit could come back as quickly as the. LNA.
Essentially 8
whet we -are saying at this point is we are ready to proceed 9
with the hearing, only the need for power and conservation 10 issues.
The issues can move forward just as they could in 12 an LNA application right now.
Ne are prepared to move forward.
13 and I.think there is no reason why the Staff and the 14 Intervenor can,t move-forward.
This is why we suggest setting 15 a,time so we can g6t issues out of the way.
16 If there are no more contentions relating to 17 safety matters, and if the Staff schedule slips slightly 18 it becomes a matter of dealing with uncontested issues in 19 any subsequent section of a hearing.,
but right now it would 20 look like, if we scheduled a hearing for the middle of 21 September we probably could finish the whole thing, but 22 we can at, least finish the contested issues..
23 MR.,LEEDS-'e fore you can seal it, the Staf f is 24 alleging you have to have at least an LNA.
25 Is that right?
1371
¹4nash3 3810 MR. JONES-The Staff has agreed with the 2
construcXion of the Seal Mat.
MR.
LEEDS<
When was that?
MR. JONES-The job was done early this week.
5 Actually we have done about everything you can do under an 6
LWA-1.
An LWA-2 really would require the essentially same 7
safety review we are completing for the construction permit.
10 MR. LEEDS-Not.the financial qualifications part?
MR.
JONES t No.
Cr/AIRMAN SMITH:
We have dangling here Mr. Erwin~s i I comment Chat you don~t like the schedule.e but you will comply 12 with what the Board says.
13 Discovery is largely a matter for the parties.
14 We are interested in it only when there is difficulty and 15 there is trouble we have to resolve.
We make no assumptions 16 at this stage of the proceeding.
We don't assume there is 17 or is not a need for power but.there is a need to proceed 18 with a hearing timely.
The Board is not able to carry a
IV burden for you to provide a comfortable period.
If you 20 have
- problems, you bring them to our attention.
If you 21 don~t want to be criticized then maybe you shouldn't be 22 in.this business, but as far as the Board is concerned you 23 make your points known and we wiJ.1 listen to them.
If you don't make.them known, we wiJ.l assume you 25 have no objections, but the burden is upon you to make your
l372 e4nash4 3810 1
posi.ti on known.
2 MR. ERWIN:
I believe I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN SMITH>
Your position as I understand it now,you wil.l go to hearing September 10th if we set it there, but you don~t like it.
MR. ERWIN:
Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN SMITH>
Are you proposing another schedule?
MR. ERWINt I would say that in response to what 9
Mr. Jones said he seems to say the need for power issue is 10 a sort, of static one set in concrete by the utilities i1 commission and it can be, as he puts it, disposed of and that 12 is it.
13 I would just comment tha~ our experience, or at 14 least our observations on the experience of the last three or 15 four years has been, that is the most volatile issue of 16 all.
We get predictions every year and they have been 17 consistently overpredictions.
I have got the latest 18 submission, Amendment No.
56 of the
- company, showing I 9
- about, an average 3 percent increase in summer peak.
20
- Now, I would certainly think that a rational 21 schedule would take into account this year's summer
- peak, 22 because I don~t know how many more years we can go on with the 23 company saying something is going to happen and it doesn't 24 happen.
I think one of the very best tests we can sub ject 25 predictions of peak load and need for power to is reality
1373
¹4nash5 3810
~ ~rw I
itself.
What actually happens?
Do these predictions hold 2
up in reality?
It is our contention that they don',
so 3
clearly we would prefer that the summer peal: of 1977 4
certainly be reached before the time be
- somewhat, to be 5
somewhat analyzed before we go to hearing on this issue 6
because it is,the best test I know of of their most recent r
7 pro jections of demand.
I consider the need for power and financial 9
qualfications ought not to be put ahead of everything else 10 but probably-quite possibly ought to be at the very back end.
11 They are the things that really determine whether the plant 12 goes or not, or ought to be
- anyway, whatever they are.
13 14 available?
CHAIRMAN SMITH:
How soon would summer peak data be 15 MR. JONES<
Mr. Chairman, I think the summer 16 peak will have o.ccurred before we reach a hearing in 17 September.
It can be factored into the testimony.
One summer 18 peak does not form the full basis for our long-term load 19
- forecast, and, of course, the problem that we face is the 20 fact that Mr. Erwin would just as soon not have this hearing 21 for two or three years, on the assumption he is.right in 22 his contentions.
23 24 on with it.
If we are right, on the other
- hancf, we need to get 25 MR.
LEEDS-We talked abou.t the summer peak in
1374 84nash6 3810 1
2 10 12 July of ~74, had this very same discussion about whether or not we should wait and catch the summer peak.
I think there-was a statement
- then, Chat maybe it occurs in September I don~t know when it occurs.
But we have at least two years of data on summer
- peaks, more than we have.
had before.
MR.
JONES-It can occur in September, Mr. Leeds.
The process of forecasting
- loads, however, takes into account much more than a single summer peak.
The faci of fhe matter is,.that the load forecasts that we are currently utilizing for planning purposes has been subjected to an adjudicatory hearing.
The North Carolina Utilities
~-
13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Commiasion Staff has done an independent load forecast.,
that has also been subjected to an adjudicatory proceeding.
Mr. Erwin represented the same client in that proceeding, the Attorney General was present in that proceeding and the NRC-prevented testimony also in that proceeding.
We are not cutting new ground.
We have been over this issue once and a finding has been made in support of the construction schedule we are now pursuing.
MR. LEEDS:
Late January or early February of this year.
23 25 CHAIRMAN SMITH:
Would the record of that proceeding be useful in this proceeding?
MR. JONES-Yes, sir.
1375 84nash7 3810 I
CHAIRMAN SMITHS'ow do you feel, Mr. Erwin?
2 MR. ERWINs We hav no objection to that.
3 As a matter of fact, we-have been over this matter a good 4
deal more than just once or twice.
I think ihe parties have 5
most of the parties have been over it three or four times 6
in various settings.
r 7
Our contentions are unchanged and we think 8
experience has confirmed this.
9 CHAIRh(AN SMITH-Mr-. Cutchin?
10 MR. CUTCHIN:
Much of that information and, j I I believe,
.the transcript, parts of the transcript, of that 12 proceeding have been submitted to the Staff in its 13 assessment of the need for power.
14 MR. LEEDS-Do you plan to make an independent 15 calculation rather than just assessing what they have done?
16 h%.
CUTCHIN-Yes, sir.
The Staff will make its 17 own independent need for power assessment.
18 19 MR. LEEDS'hat wasn't my question.
MR. CUTCHIN-'ndependent calculation, other 20 than just giving full credit. to that analysis.
The Staff 21 wiJ.l make its independent analysis.
22
&AIRMAN SMITH!
So, the problem remains we have 23 to somehow divide 60 days into the various segments of 2.4 25 discovery.
My feeling is, it is quite compressed, but you think it is possible for the parties to now agree perhaps at
'; 84nash8 3810 I
an intermission as to what the discovery procedures, steps 2
should be, shooting for September 15th or 'October 1st hearing date.
This does not mean the Board has decided to set hearings. on.that date,,
but, it would be impossible to do that if we don~t provide for discovery, leading.toward that hearing data.
10 12
. Do you.think it might be 'possible, gentlemen, for you to agree upon a discovery schedule?
MR.. TROWBRIDGE:
Can I ask for further clarification?
E had understood before that the Board was not going to rule from that table now when the hearing will occur, but has the Board decided it will indeed set 13
~
a hearing date, and to proceed with whatever is ready, 14 15 l6 17 IS 19 20 21 23 hopefu
> ly, everything at thai time?
CHAIRMAN SMiTH:
After this conference the Board wiJ.l confer among ourselves to see what our schedules are and see how close we can come to the date that the parties seem to agree upon., but now I think, or I think it is our responsibility to hear from the parties as to how they would like to have the prehearing schedule set.
Now,. perhaps it may be that we would decide that we cannot have hearings September 15th on October
- 1st, and in
)
that event we could stretch out the prehearing procedures 25
.to give you as much time as possible.
MR. LEEDS-Let me ask a side question that
1377
¹4nash9 3810 I
might give me some information to help me make a decision, 2
correct me if I use the wrong term, the North Carolina 3
Regulatory Commission MR. JONES-'tilities Commission.
MR., LEEDS-'orfh Carolina Utilitie s Commission 6
was discovery available in those proceedings?
MR.JONES-Et is available under the North 8
Carolina Utility Commission regulations.
None of the parties av'ailabled themselves of the opportunity,. although 10
.the Commission Staff has access to unlimited data from the I I
- company, and this is in their file, and a great deal of 12 informat'ion is available to
~he public, from the Utilities 13 Commi ss ion.
I MR. LEEDS--. Is the. State of North Carolina~s 15 Attorney General the attorney for the Public Utilities 16 Commi ss ion?
17 MR-BRAKE>
No,, sir They have their own attorney 18 and have the power to intervene if they so wi sh.
CHAIRMAN SMITH-The Board members are all able. to 20 go to hearing in the early fall.
Ne don t have. specific 21 dates in mincf,, but early fall. So,,
we think it would be 22
- appropriate for the parties to confer among themselves 23 and agree, if possible, as to a discovery schedule leading,to, 24
- say, September.
15th or October
- 1st, as.the beginning of the 25 hearings.
k4nashl0 3810 I
Would that be possible, gentlemen?
Would you like 2
to do it aX the end of this conference and report to us or do 3
you want to take time now?
MR. TROWBRIDGE-Let~s.take a recess now.
CHAIRMAN SMITH-Let~s take a 10-minute recess.
6 We will be back at 5 af ter 10.
7 (Rece ss..)
9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25
1379
~85debiI 3810 I
3..
10 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 CHAIRMAN SMITH!
Gentlemen, lek~s proceed.
You ar e not talking among each o ther so a pparently you have arrived at some decision.
MR.
TROWBRIDGE ~
Apparently we have.
Let me take part of the schedule problem as I see it.
We could sit here and set out a schedule for discovery and assume that at every step of.the way motions to compel have to be filed or objections or that there are delays; we have great confidence that we willin fact conduct the discovery without having to bother the board, without having to get rulings and without delays in the process.
We can~t exclude this from the possibility bu we would have the board set a schedule which assumes the parties will. in fact conduct discovery,'eaving open
.the possibility that the parties will be making and say we didn t make it.
In other words, I would sugges.i a discovery
- schedule, and I think again the end of the discovery request period be August 8th.
That is a month from to July 9th.
Let me, say, let me add here that, as far as the Applicant is concerned, additional discovery can begin tomorrow.
There is information Mr. Erwin coulcf ask at any 23 25 time in the process.
We are not precluding it, and we will respond promptly to discovery requests when we get them.
We will in any event respond to discovery requests
1380 FP85debi2 3810 1
not later than two weeks after August 8th.
That would be 2
August 22nd.
That is intended to be a deadline on our 3
responses, and assumes we could get a discovery request on 4
August 7th and we will respond to it.
Then we would ask the Board to set a hearing date 6
to contemplate the filing of.testimony 10 days ahead 7
of the hearing.
MR. ERWIN-'r. Chairman, my understanding is 9
substantially the
- same, except for one slight difference, 10 that is the proviso that you added earlier, if the Applicant J1 should contest the amended contentions and a ruling should be 12 required that the nonth be told from the time of the ruling, 13 because if we have to go through a period of a week af ter 14 July the 8th I think we ought to be allowed the full period 15 thereafter.
That is the only difference that I would mention.
16 CHAIRMAN SMITH:
Et sure seems you have some 17 leverage there.
Your contentions will probably rece've a
18 very favorable view from the Applicant.
19 MR. ERNIN<
That hasn't always been the case, but 20 we hope it will be now.
21 CHAIRMAN SMETH:
There is always the problem of the 22 Board accepting contentions too.
I think that is a reasonable 23 way to puX it.
Let me hear hat again.
MR.
ERWIN:
My understanding of what you propose,
1381 FP85debi3 3810 I
3.
r Mr. Trowbridge and whaf the Chairman had added to it before the recess was that we would be required to file our amended conientions by July 8th, that if they were stipulated to, and the Board acceptecf them, that the time for discovery request would,begin at that time, that if they were not, and it required a ruling by the Board within that.
week period, that he said the time for discovery would commence at the end of that week period.
DR.
LEEDS:
I have missed a week here or we cut a
10 week out.
I thought there was a week af ter July the 8th for 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 the Applicant and Staff and the State of North Carolina to look at those. contentions and decide whether or not they were going to respond or agree to
.them or whatever, then there would be 30 days.
If I go to August the 8th I count only'.two weeks for discovery requests.
Have you all changecf the two weeks?
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
I think Mr. Erwin has just suggested that August 8th ought to be in the event of a
controversy over the am nded contentions ought Xo be 30 days from the resolution of that controversy.
21 22 23 DR.
L'EEDS-The problem is he won~t know af ter a
w ek from July 8th..
MR. TROWBRIDGE-'f he will knock on our cfoor and give us a call he wi.ll know before that.
25 DR.
LEEDS:
If he files them before July 8th he
1382
~ FP85debi4 3810 1
P 2
wiJ.l know before'hat.
MR. TROWBRIDGE'- If we talk about it before that.
I may get a big surprise here but. we are all talking about three very hasic contentions.
The rest o. i.t, Mr. Erwin did a good job as compared
.to most contentions pe.titions.to intervene in explaining the basis for the contentions.,
They are not something antiquated.
The contentions 8
are fixed ancf it is really up to Mr. Erwin to put almost anything he wants as the basis for them.
10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CrIAIRMAN SMITH:
This is stipulated contentions acceptable to the Board; If the contentions are not stipulated the time for answering the contentions will remain the same and the Board will set its own discovery
- schedule, taking that into account.
This,way that would be the, nature of the schedule.
It would take into account
.the need for this but this anticipates
.the-filing by July 8th of contentions stipulated to be adequate..
The Board will view them promptly and interpose our views into the schedule promptly if we have to.
MR TRONBRIDGE-Very good.
CHAIRMAN SMITH-'. notice everyone nodded in
'greement to that proposal.
MR TROWBRIDGE-It. is still our hope and request thaX the Board order,, following this prehearing conference,.
the Board will, in fact. set aside a period for a hearing is, not
FPd5debi5 3810 1
2 3
T' 4
casting in concrete if we run into insuperable problems in
,the discovery period but nevertheless the present expectation of the Board and parties.
DR. LEEDS-'e.t me ask about that hearing date 10 because I. think I. am now a little confused.
By August 22nd we are going to get discovery requests answered?
R ight.,
DR.
LEEDS:
If we talk about, I guess September 15th we are talking about two weeks.
That includes pr eparation, includes examination of that data, analysis of that data, I
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22.
presume development of additional information, from independent
- sources, and filing of written t stimony five days prior.
That gives you two weeks Ro do all of that analysis in contemplation MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Excuse me.
If you look at it as nothing is going to happen until August 22nd, then we are going to pile a box of papers on Mr. Erwin~s'desk on August 22nd.
I don~~ think that is a likely scenario.
I think it is one, if it occurred, it could be brought to the attention of the Board in a conference call and a question raised as to the hearing schedule.
A much more realistic. scenario is we would have 23 24 provided the material desired by Mr. Erwin long before that time but you have to cut a cutoff date CHAIRMAN SMITrl: It is unlikely we would start a
>384 FPb5debi6 3810 1
IO 12 13 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 25 hearing before September 15th in any event.
It would more likely be the 19th or 20th.
I think you can sense a feeling by the Board t;hat your schedule is somewhat unrealistic but I don~t think it is so unrealistic that we can t be shooting for it anyway.
l'le wiJ.L consider all of these factors.
Now, as to the hearing itself we already have is, as I can
- see, quite a few volumes of transcript, most of that related to the exemption.
That is of no value in the hearing on the construction permit itself; is that correct, gentlemen?
Nould any part of that be of any value.to the record from here on in?
MR. CUTCHIN:
I do not believe so.
I believe that is a closed issue.
MR. ERNIN:
Mr. Chairman, I would think it is of very great value for impeachment purposes but that is the only value I can see myself.
CHAIRMAN SMITH-Right.
Then we had three days of hearings in October of 75.
One of the items on our prehearing agenda is wnether any of those issues that were heard at that time have to be reheard.
Mr. Chairman, we have looked perhaps somewhat quickly at the transcript of those three days o.
hearings.
From our standpoint we don~t see why there would be
1385 FP85debi 7 38)0 I
3 10 a need for anybody to sit down and develop acfditional testimony on those items.
On.the other.
hand, it could be that sone pieces of information or some references could be updated.
Ne would think it quite proper for any of the parties to bring the testimony up to date, and obviously to cross-examine in other words, we are not saying the record is closed forever and a day on those three days of hearings on those issues.
The most we can see that is likely to come out of this is poasibly some updating of the testimony at that 1
1 time.
12 13 CHAIRMAN SMITH-Mr.. Cutchin?
MR. CUTCHIN!
I think the Staff would suggest we 14 be guided in general by the rules for reopening the hearing.
15 That, is, if there is some, not just merely for a cnange in 16 the details but if is some significance either environmental 17 or safety issue that a party believes sh'ould be updated or 18 readdressed that they make the necessary motions and the 19 Board make a decision at that, time as to whether to reopen 20 the record on those issues.
21 Otherwise, one could be surprised when he walks 22 into the hearing and party A wishes to update and party B
23 has not really reconsidered that issue.
You may have to 24 rehash the whole thing again and that may involve some 25 needless delay.
xp86 FP85debi 8 3810 1
2 9
10 12 DR. LEEDS:
Your SES is coming out in August?
MR. CVTCHIH:
The
We will publish a supplement only to address matters that.the ACRS raised that were not already addre>sed.
DR. LEEDS'ill it be out before July the 8th?
MR.
CUTCHIH:
Most probably,
- yes, because the ACRS likes 10 days.
Sometime they are generous and give you a
. couple more days, but it will probably be out before 10 days
~
CHAIRl(AN SMITH:
Mr. Erwin?
MR. ERWIN:
I second what Mr. Cutchin said.
14 15
)6 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25
310406jul CHAIRMAN SMITH:
The fourth item in.the agenda was 2
changes in the proposed scope of the hearing in relation to 3
the Applicant~s financial qualifications, need for electrical 4
power, including energy alternatives and the seismic 5
implications of geological fault.
He adequately discussed the first two phases of 7
that item, but just for the Board's.informal information, 8
where do we stand with respect to the fault?
What has 9
happened?
How does.that impact upon our hearing?
10 MR.
TROWBRIDGE-Let me see if I can reconstruct a
11 little timehable.
The fault became a problem shortly before 12 that three day session we had in October of
- 1974, and there 13 was some discussion of it at that time.
14 At that time Mr. Erwin was interested in the fault, 15 ancf the Intervenor indicated that they would hope tha.t they 16 would not that.,the fault would resolve itself, that they 17 would not have to file contentions, but reserved the right to 18 do so.
Subsequently, I had discussions with Mr.- Erwin.
20 I reported in a le tier to him, I think the date was 21 February 13, 75, in which the understanding we reached
- was, 22 if Mr. Erwin wanted to file any contentions in the area 23 having to do with the fault, he would do so within three weeks 24 of the.time that we filed our final report on the fault with 25 the Staff.
l388 10406ju2
'On the strength of Chat, I would indicate I would 2
not request to the Board any request, for a deadline for the 3
filing of anything on that.
The contention was.filed with 4
the Staff on March 7, ~75, and it~s my understanding between 5
the Applicant and the Staff the seismic the fault issue 6
has been completely been put to rest as an inactive fault.
7 And I take it that the Iritervenors, having not filed any 8
contentions, have resolved in their own minds, to their own 9
satisfaction, the fault is inactive, or at'east thai they 10 don~t want to get further into the subject.
II CHAIRMAN SMITH'-
Mr. Cutchin?
12 MR. CUTCHIN:
The Staff would supplement what Mr.
13 Trowbridge has said slightly.
That w'll be one of the issues 14 addressed in Supplement Number 3.
The Staff has indeed 15 concluded its analysjs of the fault situation, and has indeed 16 concluded that the fault is not capable as defined in the 17 regu3.atioris in I 0 CFR Part 100.
CHAIRMAN SMITH:
Mr. Erwin?
MR. ERNIN-'r. Chairman, we would certainly agree 20 with what has been said.
I would add we did have the active 21 advice and support of a couple of geologists of note in this 22 area who foJ.lowed this matter and participated in some 23 meetings in Nashington, and while they object to the 24 regulations, they have to abide by the Staff~s conclusion 25 that it~s not capable under the regulations, so we will, if
)10406ju3 1
Mr. Trowbridge needs any further assurance, there will be no 2
contentions from the Intervenors regarding the fault.
DR. LEEDS:
The next item is.the item on the 4
request of the Applicant for, I guess, to use to get an 5
exemption from some of the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55 with 6
respect to items they have already procured.
What is the status of that?
The letter from 8
Mr. McDu fie, if I remember correctly.
MR.
TROWBRIDGE >
Let me start with'aking exception 10 to the use of the word
"'exemption."'R.
LEEDS-You define it.
Mr. McDuffie sent a
12 letter in and said he wanted to use some components 13 MR. TROWBRIDGE'nder the provisions that the 14 regulations would contemplate that such authorizations may be 15 requested and granted.
As far.as the Let me say this.
I 16
- assume, and Mr. Cutchin can correct me if I am wrong, that 17
.this subject will be dealt with in the supplement to the SER.
19 MR.
CUTCHIN<
That's right.
MR. TROWBRIDGE-I would suggest to the Board, when 20 it does see the write-up, that this is put in perspective, and 21 we don t have divisions of obsolete plant that may have been 22 suggested by the differences between what we have done in the 23 way of code on our own and in the requirements of some of 24 Xhe later addenda are not that significant.
That the Board 25 can judge for itself.
It seems to me, as far as his hearing,
1390 31 0006 ju4 1
the first step is that the Staff acts on the authorization 2
request.
If that is a matter of particular interest to the 3
Board, like any other phase of the safety review of.that plant, 4
it s something
.the Board can 'inquire about in as much detail 5
as it wishes.
If it is a matter whi'ch the Intervenors want 6
to make a contest a contested issue out. of, then it would 7
be up to the Intervenors, I think,. to.file a motion to add,'
contentions in this area.
Let me
- acfd, you have Mr. McDuffie~s letter.
You.
10 will be getting a supplemental letter which explains more l I fully the areas in which we mee.t the some areas where we 12 volunteer, anticipate the code requirements and a closer 13 definition of the areas where we don't I think you wiJ.L 14 get through our letters as well as the Staff~s SER supplement, 15 more information in this area.
16 MR. CUTCHIN-The Staff will indeed,.as I
17 indicated, address this particular issue along with many 18 others in the supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report.
19 The Staff would have to 'say at.the present it sees no reason 20 for this.particular issue to rice to a higher status
.than any 21 other.
There is indeed provision 'in the regulations for 22 so-called hardship
- cases, as in this instance, a plant does 23 not get through the review process quickly enough to not get 24 caught with some components that don't literally 'meet the 25 requirements of the newer ASME codes.,
1391 310006 ju5 They must indeed be able to demonstrate in these 2
cases that those corn'ponents provide an acceptable level of 3
safety and quality, and the Staff will look at the
'I 4 'iXferences in the older and newer addition to the code, 5
additions.to the code they will make a judgment as Xo whether 6
the components do meet an acceptable level of safety and 7
quality and will give their. reasons for that'onclusion.
? think, to put it further in perspective,.
just 9
because these components do meet an older code cannot on its 10 face mean.they are unacceptable, because there are indeed many 11 plants that are currently operating that are designed and 12 builX to those very same codes.
13 DR.. LEEDS-I. don~A think this should come as' 14 surprise to anybody, for example, in the transcript on page 15 93 at that prehearing conference in Bethesda, l4aryland, we 16 discussed the very problem we are talking about here, of 17 delaying this plank that length of time and having an older 18 plant or.
a plant designed in earlier times and coming on-line 19 later.
I. think at that time we were contemplating, only about 20 1-1/2 years delay..
21 22 If I'emember correctly, that was July of ~74.
r This is July of ~77, which is three full. years, so I think 23
- that, you know, my personal view, they said=
I, was. an 24 environmental member before, but l~m concerned with safety, 25 too.
I have had some experience in the past. designing safety.
13/2 31 0¹06 ju6 1
systems for reactors, and I
am concerned about that.
There 2
is a problem of ECCS qualifications, it seems Xo me, which 3
was not addressed at that time.
That was the pumpkin date 4
of December 28.
There is the problem that has come up lately 5
with respect to fire protection.
There is a
problem of thi's 6
plant having dual control rooms.
I don't remember, and have 7
not reviewed the PSAR to see where they are, but there may 8
well be some problem there..
I presume the Staff is going.to address fire 10 protection.
MR.
CUTCHIN<
That is a matter that has been 12 discussed.
There has been information asked for from the 13 Appli.cant, and it ind'eed will be addressed.
14 15 16 DR'EEDS~'nd cable insulation, what kind of fire protection qualifications for that stuff..-
MR. CUTCHIN:
I couldn't address the details.
)7 DR, LEEDS' know, but there is a whole list of 18 them.
19 20 MR. CUTCHIN'-
There is indeed quite a list.
DR.. LEEDS-I think the Staff needs
.to go back and 21 look at it and come back and tell us from there forward what 22.
changes have been made in the rules and regulations, and 23 25 which ones this plant's complying with and which ones are not being complied with, and why it.is okay for them not to..
I can leave it up to you to go through the whole
1393 310006ju7 1
list.
MR-TROWBRIDGE -
It seems to me.this is what the 3.
4 supplemental SER is about.
When you ge.t it, you will also ge.t
.the answer to what has happened for a whole year.
DR.
LEEDS:
I understand that, sir, but what I~m 6
reaJ.ly putting them on notice for, if they are going to tell 7
me, "We looked at it, and it s okay," I want to see it in 8
detail.
I was trying to be polite about it.
But since you brought it up, I want them to be specific about it.
I want 10 it in line, either by supplement or testimony.
I don't care ll how.they do it.
12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 25
139"
~7vma1 CHAIRMAN SMITHS'he Applicant s motion for this 2
prehearing conference centered around a request, as I have 3
- stated, a request of the Board to give the Intervenor an 4
opportunity to modify or comment. on possible modification of 5
his contentions, of their contentions.
We didn~t put that on the agenda because it is 7
included in'the general nature of the matters Xo be considered 8
in a prehearing conference, but we will take it up now.
Would you proceed on tha.t, Mr. Trowbridgel 10 MR. TP()WBRIDGEi I
am at a loss CHAIRMAN SMITH-All right.
Your mo'tion for 12 prehearing conference, dated May 26th,
- 1977, stated in.the I
13 second paragraph,
.the principal purpose of the prehearing 14 conference would be,
- one, to ascertain current interest in 15 pursuing the outstanding contention relating the need for 16 power, Applicant's plan for equal financial qualification 17 and Xo consider financial matters and other procedures relating 18 to the hearing.
Then you talk in more detail, you have already 20 discussed the contentions, and we have already discussed the 21 contentions and I guess we can assume from the comments from 22 the Intervenor that he did not intend.to retreat from any of 23 them.
24 MR TROWBRIDGE:
I think that is implicit.
We 25 understand all three contentions are still alive.
1395 P7vma2
'e'HAIRMANSMITH-In fact, he may amend
.them.
MR. TR0NBRIDGEt, Ne understand the amending will 3
take the form of updating the bases for.the contentions.
&AIRMAN SMITH:
But, nevertheless, I wanted to 5
give you an opportunity to specifically discuss this, because 6
it was in your mot'ion.
7 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
No.
If the Intervenors wish to 8
siay with their three contentions, we are not suggesting 9
that they should do otherwise.
l0 12 CHAIRMAN SMITH:
Mr. Erwin.
MR. ER('IN-'hat is fine.
Thank you.
DR.
LEEDS:
Since the ACRS is going to meet, I would l3 like the Staff to inquire of the ACRS which items on their l 4 list of generic items for light water reactors must be complied 15 with prior to the iasuance of the construction pernit or l6 resolved with the Staff, and whatever schedule is obtained i 7 and proposed resolution and which items on that list must be IS resolved during construction, but prior to operation.
As you know, Herb Shalman has come out since we have 20 even discussed this so I would presume the Board would look 2I carefully at the.letter and see if it complies with the Herb
.22 Shalman decision.
23 Also, in looking over the record we, at the July 24 conference, I don~t remember exactly, I can find the reference, 25 but we were concerned about the storage of equipment on-site
1396 P7vma3 I
8 1
and,.the quality assurance that was going.to go on during the 2
time of storage.
3 At. that time,. it was concerned with a couple of 4
years~
period and now we are talking about several years.
I 5
presume the Staff has been observing as they said the would 6
how.the equipment has been stored and whether or not any 7
deterioration has occurred, or anything like that.
I would like a report on that.
That is all in 9
line with the other part, too.
I have some other areas of 10 in+crest that perhaps would be be tter if I phrased them as 11 questions in written form and submitted them to you in the 12 near future, which I presume we could do.
Right?
13 I just wanted to bring those up, because I thought 14 there is som Ching you could do, you might want to get started 15 on soon, specially with respect to ACRS.
16
&AIRMAN SMITH-As I recall, soon after.the 17 conclusion of the October 1974 session of the hearing, the 18 Board submitted other questions which will be answ red 19 presumably during the hearing.
20 MR TROWBRIDGE-We had a note to inquire whether 21 these were still questions the Board wanted answered and we 22 already have our answer.
23 24 The next question is, do you have any more?
DR.
LEEDS:
They are coming.
I will try to get 25 mine to the Chairman as soon as I can and we can get them to
1397
~7vma4
'."+ 8 1
you as saon as possible.
2 MR. TR()WBRIDGE-Will it have a recapitu'lation 3
or shall we go by the transcript?
DR.
LEEDS-If it is clear, fine, and if it is 5
not, I will i+ok at it and see.
But I think my'oncerns 6
about the ACRS letter are very clear.
There is no problem 7
with that.
MR. CUTCHIN-I understand, yes.
MR. TROWBRIDGE'e will even reread the Hartsville 10 decision.
DR.
LEEDS:
Yes.
I tried to write it clearly there.
12 I guess while they are conferring, one of the things that has 13 come up, if you poured that seal over the foundation, what 14 kind of quality assurance program went on during that?
If it 15 was poured under a LWA-2, and Appendix B would apply.
16 MR. CUTCHIN-I am not sure that it is a decided 17 question as to whether it could be poured under an LWA-I or 18 LWA-2.
There was such consideration by the Staff in its lV concurrence with the interpretation of the exemption to have 20 authorized.that particular seal mat.
Of course, it is very 21 thin cover, and the Staff already having satisfied itself 22 regarding the fault, some of which may have been covered by 23
.this, all of these
.things were considered by the Staff.
It is not clear that it would have required Appendix 25 B attention 'during its pouring.
1398
~7vma5 2
a ttention7 DR. LEEDS:
My question is, did it have Appendix B
MR.
CUTCHIN:
I do not know.
Maybe the Applicant could answer that, but I would doubt it.
The Staff did not 5
require it.
7 permanent?
DR.. LEEDS-Is iX going to be removed or is it MR..CUTCHIN~
My understanding is that it is 9
permanent, but that it could be easily removed if iX were 10 required.
MR.. TRONBRIDGE: If Mr. Howe could describe a
12 little bit what this cover is.
MR-HONE<<'"
A seal mat or bud mat as it is commonly 14 referred to is a protective coating to protect against further 15 weaChering.
Ne had excavated down to a point.
Our commitment'6 in the SAR was a commitment on rock we left a barrier of 17 rock which we knew would weather,, that will be scraped
- away, 18
- cleaned, and a thin layer of several inches of ~ concrete will I 9 be poured over that..
Only as a preservative.
It has no 20 structural or seismic implications and was merely intended to 21 protect against further weathering of the rock.
22 DR LEEDS:
I don~t know whether you were a witness 23 before or not., but the Staff'ay want. to look at that..
I 24 presume it will take some stress and I presume if it is going 25 to be loaded at. all by the structure, one would want'o make
1399
~7vma6 1
sure it didn't crumble, or whatever, or deteriorate in some 2
manner.
I don~t want to get into an argument about whether 3
Appendix B applies or not.
I want to find out what was done.
CHAIRMAN SMITH-Okay.
That concludes the matters 5
that the Board wished to consider during this prehearing 6
conf erence.
Each of the parties will have an opportunity to 8
add anything.
Mr. Trowbridge?
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
I am J.ooking over my notes, Mr.
10 Chairman.
I believe we covered everything.
MR. CUTCHIN:
Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to add 12 except Mr. Browne would like to supplement the discussion of 13 the Utilities Commission hearing because he represented the 14 Staff there.
He might be able to shed a little more light 15 on what actually transpired there.
16 17 you.
CHAIRMAN SMITH:
I would be pleased to hear from MR BROWNE:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to 19 make a point clear because of Dr.. Leeds'uestion about the 20 Utilities Commission's
- hearing, to the extent they went into 21 the need for power question.'
want to make it clear I did 22 apoear as counsel for the Staff..
Mr. Stello, Director of the 23 Operating Reactors for NRC appeared as.the witness for the 24 NRC Staff.
We appeared pursuant to an invitation from the I
25 Commission and our role in,those hearings was limited to a
shoo P7vma7 Tg 8 3r 4
discussion
'by Mr.. Stello of 'licensing procedures at
- NRC, how NRC deals with safety and environmental questions in our licensing, and was intended for background inform'ation for the Commission.
We didn.t appear in any adjudicatory sense and didn~t put any evidence or.testimony or, in fact, of any discussion whatever in our testimony about need for power 10 l2 l3 l4 16 17 I8 l9 questions as we might understand them.
It.was primarily background information for the Commission, so they could have a better understanding of about how NRC operates and licenses plants.
DR.
LEEDS-I am glad you said that, sir, because I sure had the impre.ssion that you made a presentation on need for power.
MR.
BROWNE:
I wanted to be sure it was clear.
CHAIRMAN SMITH-Mr.. Cutchin, do you have any feeling for how long this hearing wiJ.1 take?
I realize the danger of making such a prediction.
MR CUTCHIN> It is very difficult.
You are asking 20 2l me to speculate on some the other parties could thing..
I would.think a matter of perhaps give a similar f,eeling 22 23 25 I think one to two weeks aX the max, if we stick with the thee matters that remain.
Of course, it depends upon how deeply the Board wishes.to go into many of these areas.,
I can't hazard a guess on that.
~7vma8 s
CHAIRMAN SMITH-Mr. Brake, do you have?
MR. BRAKE-Nothing.
CHAIRMAN SMITH-Mr. Erwin?
MR. ERNIN-I have nothing.
CHAIRMAN SMITH-Mr. Trowbridge?
MR. TRONSRIDGE-When.the Board, if and when.the
. 7 Board establishes a date for the hearing, will it also set a
8 date for the filing of te stimony, so many days?
CHAIRMAN SMITH:
Yes.
The only def inite dates we 10 have now are the dates beginning August 9th, 1977.
~-
12 13 adjourned.)
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 CHAIRMAN SMITH Thank you
~
Hearing is ad journed.
(Whereupon, at 10-'51 a.m.,
the hearing was 25