ML19208A007
| ML19208A007 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 08/22/1979 |
| From: | Callihan A, Cole R, Mark Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909120194 | |
| Download: ML19208A007 (53) | |
Text
.
NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
COMMONWEALTH EDISCN:
Byron Station Units 1 & 2 PREHEAhING l
l Place -
Rockford, Illinois Date -
Wednesday, August 22, 1979 Pages 79 - 131 m
llbb b
b
=
7.i.c ne r..:
(202)347-3700 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OfficialReponers 44 Ncrth Cecitol Streer Wcshington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE CAILY
' O U D1 'l on y
79 CR6809 ;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
X In the Matter of:
l 4
l COMMONWEALTH EDISON:
Docket No. 50-454, 455 5
Byron Station Units 1 & 2 6
I PREHEARING 7
- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - X 9
Industrial Commission Ctrm.
'dh-4th Floor 10 Winnebago County Courthouse 400 W.
State Street jg Rockford, illinois l
12 Wednesday, August 22, 1979 l
t 13 Prshearing in the above-entitled matter was reconvened, jg pursuant to notice, at 8:40 a.m.
BEFORE:
15 16 CHAIRMAN MILLER l
DR. RICHARD F. COLE, Member I
DR. A.
DIXON CALLIHAN, Member j7 APPEARANCES:
l jg t
19 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
l MYRON KARMAN 20 RICHARD J.
GODDARD t
For the Applicant, Commonwealth Edison:
22 MICHAEL I. MILLER, ESQ.
l 23 ALAN BIELCUSKI, ESQ.
l 1 sham, Lincoln & Beale l
24 One First National Plaza 4
ani peponm. ine.
Chicago, Illinois j j }g y' /}
25 03 4
I
79-C I
APPEARANCES (continued):
2 For the Intervenors, DAARE and SAFE:
BRUCE VON ZELLEN l
JULIANNE MAHLER Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois For the League of Women Voters:
BETTY JOHNSON 7
MARY ANN NIELSEN CONNIE WARE 8
League of Women Voters Rockford, Illinois 9
ALSO PRESENT:
10 l
JIM NORGAARD
)j KATHERINE QUIGG l
MILDRED BERRY ROBERT KERRY JEFF HENDERS'40TT 3
CECILE MEYER DOUG NIMTZ SUSAN GOULD MR. HENNING MR. CAMPBELL JOHN D.
SPENCE g
JAMES BEEM 17 i
18 I
19 135 028 20 21 12 1
I 23 I
i 24 4
heral Reponers, Inc.
25 l
l
1 80 E E E 1 E E 1 p, I
pTATEMENT OF:
PAGE 2
I JAMES GITZ, 81 3
An Illinois State Senator, The 35th Legislative District JOHN D.
SPENCE se 88 5
CONNIE WARE 96 6
JOHN HENNING 97 7
STANLEY CAMPBELL 100 8
JAMES BEEM 101 l
9 i
IO 11 I
l 12 l
i i
13 1135 029 i5 l
t 16 l
17 u
15 19 i
20 21 22 I
23 i
\\
24 i
As aeral Reporters. Inc.
l 25 l
i i
81 309 O! 01 Kmte 1
PR0CEEDING 2
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
We will resume our special 3
prehe aring conference.
4 First we would like to recognize Senator James d
Gitz, who has several mat ers he would like to present and 6
which he would like to be made a matter of record.
The 7
Senator is invited to make the presentation.
There will be S
no ti me limitation.
9 STATEMENT OF JAMES GITZ, AN ILLINDIS STATE 10 SENATOR FROM THE 35th LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT 11 SENATOR GITZ:
I think you will find this orief.
12 First of all, I would like to thank the Chairman and members 13 of the Committee for the opportunity to submit testimony for l4 your record.
15 My name is Jame s Gitz.
I reside at 1605 16 S. Locust,.:reeport, Illinois.
I hold the elective office 17 of State Senator.
My legislative district include sthe City 13 of Byron, Illinois, the site of the Byron nuclear f acility.
19 I would like to make it clear that I come here 20 neither to praise or condemn nuclear power.
The re are, 21 nowever, thr ee issues which I believe are germane to the 22 opera ting licer.se under discussion.
My testimony is offered 23 in support of contentions 3 and 5 of the SAFE Statement of 24 Contentions, and contention 5 of the LNV Stat ment of 25 Conte ntions.
i135 030
82 309 01 02 mte i
Specifically, these issues are as follows:
2 One, the existence of substantial excess reserve 3
generating capacity of Commonwealth Edison even without the 4
Byron nuclear f acility at a substantial burden to the 5
ratepaying public.
6 Two, the lack of a state-wide emergency evacuation 7
plan, which would meet the NRC approval, not to mention the 8
lack of interstate planning with our neighboring states in 9
case of an emergency, 10 Three, the existence of serious allegations of Il quality assurance problems on the construction site of Byron 12 by a now terminated quality assurance inspector.
This 13 testimony was offered before a hearing officer of the 14 Illinois Commerce Commission on July 19, 19/9 in Byron, 15 Illinois, at a public hearing on the plant construction 16 program of Commonwealth Edison.
Ie I would likr first to turn to the issue of excess la generating capacity.
ower companies generally build plants 19 to meet the demand for electricity.
The greatest electrical 20 demand usually takes place during the summer.
If there is 21 not enough power to meet this demand, Commonwealth Edison 22 must either cuy power elsewhere, or suff er crownouts.
If 23 the company overouilds, particularly with expensive nuclear 24 facilities, it is the ratepayer who bears the brunt of this 25 decis ion, not the company.
i135 031
83 809 01 03 "mte i
I suggest that this is not an idle issue, since 2
Commonwealth Edison has petitioned the Illinois Commerce 3
Commission f or an 18 percent rate hike, 75 percent of which, 4
according to the Company's Chairman, is directly related to 5
its nuclear program.
Controversy has surrounded this 6
increase -- to a point where the Illinois Commerce
~
7 Commission has launched a full investigation into the plant S
construction program of Commonwealth Edison and publicly 9
acknowledged they are actively considering delaying the 10 contruction of the Byron nuclear plant due to excess power 11 ger,9-ating capacity.
- 12 Now most regulatory bodies and utilities seem to 13 argue that 15 percent is an a,ppropriate reserve margin.
14 That is, 15 percent over projected demand for the year.
15 Yet, in 1978 Commonwealth Edison's reserve margin was 26.7 16 percent.
le Now, one year would hardly stir one's soul.
Ye t 18 it is most interesting to look at the difference in recent 19 years between the company's f orecast and the actual demand 20 f or electricity.
In point of f act, Commonwealth Edison has 21 ceen overcuilt since 1972.
In 1973 their five year forecast 22 projected a 47.7 percent increase in electrical demand 23 according to their amended financial review.
Actual growtn 24 was f ar from 47.7 percent.
It was not even half that or 24 25 perce nt, nor even a third of 47.7 percent.
The actu61
?135 032
84 809 O! 04
'mte i
growth in demand was 10.1 percent --- about 2 percent per 2
year -- 1.94 percent to be exact.
3 Now, Commonwealth Edison has projected the growth 4
in demand for electricity at 9.8 percent in 1979 and 4.5 5
percent every year thereafter.
Using their own figures, 6
this still leads to a reserve margin of 28.2 percent in
~
7 1984, when ooth Byron units are on line, according to the 3
company's load capacity statement.
9 If the actual annual growth of 1.94 percent 10 continues in the future, the actual reserve capacity by 1984 11 could approach 56.7 percent.
That cost will be a special 12 a batross corne oy the ratepayers.
Moreover, I would 13 suggest to you that as electrical rates climo, more 14 e fficient appliances are utilized, and the country oecome s 15 more energy conscious -- if for no other reason than from 16 pocketbook r.3:essity -- these will all have a dampening 1s effect on the company's rate ; t jections, projections which IS acknowledge excess eserve capacity even at their figures.
19 Clearly, the company is not impaired from 20 providing reliable electric service if the Byron plant 21 undergoes further scrutiny and delay.
22 Returning to the second issue raised, I would like 23 to point out to the Committee that at present 1111nciis does 24 not have a state emergency plan which meets the basic 25 criteria set forth oy the NRC.
In te stimony bef ore the
!l3S 033
85 809 01 05
mte I
special Illinois Senate Committee on Nuclear Safety, of 2
which I am a member, a spokesman for the Illinois Emergency 3
Services and Disaster Agency disclosed last May that the 4
state had no plan and was at that time relying on local 5
plans which are by and large untested and qu.tstionable as to 6
their workaoility.
I I find this an incredible situation in a state S
whien leads the nation in reliance on nuclear power.
9 Moreover, only af ter the Three Mile Island and Congressionti 10 attention to this situation nave the wheels of the state 11 government begun to grind ever so slowly towards meeting NRC 12 criteria.
That the construction and licensing of nuclear 13 power plants in the proximity of major metropolitan areas 14 could proceed at the state and national levels without 15 detailed and tested plans is incredible.
16 I take note of the f act that in Pennsylvania an 17 elected official, the Governor of the State, ultimately made 18 the initiaion decision of whether to evacuate in fu11,1 in 19 part, or not at all.
State involvement in any local 20 emergency is almost a certainty.
21 A report of the Comptroller General of the United 22 States entitled appropriate 1 " Areas Around Nuclear 23 Facilities 5hould Be Better Prepared for Radiological 24 Emergencies" noted:
25 "Today, 43 states have siza ble fixed nuclear
!135 034
86 309 01 06 ite i
f acilities within their boundaries.
These include nuclear 2
power plants, military installations, and federal nuclear 3
resear h r servations.
4, "There is only limited assurance that persons 5
living or working near these nuclear facilities would be 5
adequately protected in case of a serious --- although 7
unlikely -- nuclear. accident.
Most f acilities GAO vi sited 3
appeared prepared to respond to radiological re.1 eases within 9
their bocadaries, but deficiencies in planning and 10 preparedness cast some doubt on whether effective actions 11 would be taken to protect the public should a nucler release 12 extend outside f acility boundaries."
13 It also noted significantly that the Chairman of 14 the Nuclear Regulatory Commissica shouldt 15
" Allow nuclear power plants to begin operation 16 on;y where state and local emergency response plans contain 1/
all the Commission's essential planning elements.
In 18 addition, the Commission should require license appicants to 19 make agreements with state and local agencies, assuring 23 their full participation in annual emergency drills over the 21 lif e of the f acility. "
22 I want to make it clear that my ter;timony is not 23 intended to impugn the integrity of Commonwealth or tneir 24 own c ontingency planning.
There is, however, a clear gap in 25 the S tate Government's response to date to the potential of 1135 035
87 309 01 07 Kmte i
radiological emergencies.
Given the proximity of our 2
metropolitan areas to neighboring.=tates, this situation is, 3
in my opinion, a proper concern of the NRC licensing ocard.
4 Moreover, I believe thoughtful planning should extend well oeyond the immediate ten-mile area.
5 6
Turning to my last point, I submit to the
~
t Committee the testimony of Mr. Dennis Rice oefore the 8
Illinois Commerce Commission hearing officer on July 19, 9
1979.
His allegations suggest that the contractors on the 10 Byron plant do not have public hecith and saf ety uppermost 11 in their minds.
These are serious allegations which are 12 disputed by Commonwealth Edison.
13 I do not know who is telling the truth, since I 14 have a high degrse cf reepart for the opinion of Don 15 Lindvall of Commonwealth Edison.
Sur I believe the 16 integrity of the licensing process will only be preserved if 1e all such allegations are fully and completely investigated IS oy the NRC and the results made puolic.
The public has no 19 toleration f or duplicity, nor should it have to have such 22 toleration.
21 I hope the points raised herein will be addressed 22 in your difficult work.
Thank you.
23 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Thank you, Senator Gitz.
Do you 24 have extra c opies of your statement?
Do you have one at 25 least for the reporter?
1135 036
88 109 01 '08
'mte 1
SENATOR GITZ:
Yes, I have one.
2 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
If you will furnish it to the 3
reporter,. copies will be provided to the parties.
Thet will 4
include portions of the transcript of the Illinois Commerce 5
Com ittee to which you alluded.
6 SENATOR GITZ:
Yes.
7 CH..IRMAN MI LLER:
Thank you, sir.
8 We will proceed to limited appearance statements 9
of those memoers of the public not parties who desire to 10 make such statements.
de had a numoer of such statements yesterday.
We indicated we would entertain and receive the 12 balance commencing at 8:30 this morning.
13 Who wishes to proceed?
14 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT OF JOHN D. SPENCE 15 MR. SPENCE:
Chairman Mi
'.e r, Dr. Callihan,
16 Dr. Cole, ladies and gentlemen 1e I am indeoted for the rignt to be able to speak as la an interested citizen.
Yesterday I lef t at 2:30 when it 19 seemed apparent that the hearing would be closed.
I guess I 20 should have learned the lesson many years ago, when the 21 Pittsburgh Pirates scored 11 runs after two were out in the 22 ninth 21ning:
You should never 1r we the be11 game until 23 it's over.
It was an error in judgment.
24 I must acknowledge the great sense of favorne ss 25 reflected by Dr. Mildrr.d Berry, who thoughtfully called me
'13S 037
89 809 01 09
'mte i
to tell me of the extension, and his despite the f act that 2
.1 ha ve di f'-
t viewpoints on this matter.
All of us 3
could r ofit b" fe llowing ner example, which assures 4
rativla' conclusions' 5
I carry ave.- 30 years of accumulated scar tissue 6
because of serving in executive positions in industry i
positions and education.
I'm not a scientist; I'm a S
generalist.
My training has involved 67alyzing disparate 9
sets of facts in order to arrive at logical conclusions.
10 Emotions must be disciplined if at all possiole, because 11 this confusion can onf uecate the issues.
12 Use of minimal facts or just take a position of 13 some party, once taken out of context, is intellectually 14 dishonest no matter how sincere the intent.
My impre ssion 15 is too many who take anti-nuclear stances ooscure their lack 16 of knowledge with loud voices and sometimes f alse 17 repetitions.
18 I've tried to carefully sort out the f acts, and 19 let me state my position.
We live aoout eight miles from 23 the Byron si te.
I have no fe ar and want construction 21 accelerated.
It seems illogical to me that Art Moore, 22 district vice president of Commonwealth Edison, who lives 23 about 18 miles from the plant, or Don Lineille, who's the 24 utility's local voice, who lives about the same amount away, 25 would ce planting the seeds of their own demise.
I135 038
90 809 01 10 "mte i
Similarly, I. feel that the fact that 40 percent of 2
Commonwealth Edison's product is nuclearly produced, and 3
that makes my happy.
Costs are lower as a result and our 4
economy is sustained.
5 Lest you think me a patsy for Commonwealth Edison, 5
let me state that I don't always agree with what's done ey 7
the :ompany persennel and I have battled them on several 8
occasions when I though m
position was correct.
Just 9
remember, in large companies there are many people involved 10 nd it would ce difficult to have careless performance.
The 11 results have oeen good when taken in full context.
There 12 has been no major error.
13 Errors are measured quantit atiyely -- what is your ownpers5nal batting average in that are a --- and 14 15 quali tatively -- how serious were your e *rors.
16 I was litt e impressed with the printed material ie passed out yesterday.
A quick glance disclosed sinister IS verbiage, out little specifics except for relatively minor 19 findings in the context of the whole proolem.
20 Nitpicking is also relative.
How many of us, in 21 our own lives, operate without error?
Commonwe alth has had 22 no nuclear-induced injuries or deaths to date.
23 Let me present a comparison on relative saf ety 24 f rom a column of the Wall Street Journal dated May 13, 25 1979.
It's ti tled " Coming to Grips with Risk. "
It was 1135 039
91 809 01 11 vmte I
written by Byron Nathaniel Rothschild, former director of 2
the British government panel on science and technology.
3 Table 5, headed " Estimated Renge of Deaths for Specific 4
Ene rgy Output. "
Output was 10 qvy.
I can tell you that "g" 5
msins "giggy," a oillion watt-hours, and that's small in 6
relation to total usage.
7 Estimated range of deaths for coal for each 9
gigawatt power was 1500 to 1600 deaths.
For oil, 2214 9
deaths.
for wind powe, 230 to 700.
For solar space 10 heating, 90 to 100.
For uranium, 2-1/2 to 15.
And for 11 natural gas, one to f our.
12 He states that we ought to be able to compare the 13 various rists about us before being put into a panic by some 14 authoritative utterances.
The article contains more taoles 15 of interest.
16 In my opinion, the public has Deen misled almost le totally on Three Mile Island.
All of the facts have still 18 not Deen presented to the public in a coherent manner, if 19 you will.
20 Much criticism has been directed at your 21 Co mmi ssion, at the utility, and a the company which made 22 the reactor.
The f act is that even with human and equipment 23 f ailure, the safety system still worked.
That is a fact.
24 Sometimes misinformed and misunderstanding and 25 ciased media and some politicians wno lack intestinal
!13S Ch40
92 309 01 12 "mta i
fortitude have compounded the distortion and in my view have 2
hurt our country almost irreparable.
The dangers of the 3
predicted meltdown, the alleged escaping of radioactive 4
gases, and the 19 cows who acorted, led to the syllogistic 5
media conclusion that radiation did them in, only to be 6
refuted back in the publications at a later date.
I These have all added to our confusions, sadly, 3
because we have not had coherent, responsible and oojective 9
information.
Fully two-thirds of the American people, 10 according to a poll, don't know it's impossible for a 11 nuclear plant to undergo a n clear explosion because its 12 fuel is enriched only to 2-1/2 percent of U-235.
13 Peter Beckman takes Norman Cousins to task for a 14 Saturday Review article in which Cousins alleged that coal 15 was s af er.
He said Cousins should have commented on the 16 Congressional Office of Technology 400-page asse ssment il entitled "Tha Direct Use of Coal," printed three wee ks 13 before, indicating that coal combustion had oeen responsiole 19 for 48,000 premature deaths per year in the United States.
20 Inis figure is expected to rise to 56,000 in 21 1990.
Why is background radioactivi'v on Colorado twice the 22 national average and cancer in Color.
30 percent celow the 23 national a'rerage?
24 Time is so limiting that I feel I nave to close 25 with these ooservationst
!135 041
93 309 01 13 Kmte i
One, no one at or in the neighoorhood of Tttree 2
Mile Island was injured or x111ed.
The grea test dose of 3
radia tion received by anyone was fractional as compared to 4
chest or teeth X-rays.
Two, government's pandering to anti-nuclear 5
6 advocates will seriously hurt our future as a great nation.
not only politically but ec nomically.
e 8
Three, the Carter Administration decision not to 9
procead on waste recovery should be reverred.
Other nations 10 are well along in the development of it and it can oe done 11 safely.
Let's move.
Isn't it almost a travesty that tne 12 very people who decry the storage problem are the very ones
.13 who prevent its solution?
14 Four, Commonwealth Edison in my lifetime nave 1:5 reduced rates on countless occasions.
Only the compounding 16 of governmental regulations, ccatrols, and government-caused 1/
inflation has forced its increases, in my opinion.
Their 18 costs would be greater had they not had the courage co 19 proceed with nuclear power.
20 I saw their planning room in Chicago about 20 21 years ago.
I haven't seen it currently.
They knew what 22 they were doing.
At the time I questioned some of the 23 conclusions they had come to, but they we re right.
24 Inese people are not at tnis on a spurious basis.
25 If they are wrong, they can cost the puolic and stockholders
!13S 042
94 309 01 14 Kmte i
If they are wrong, they can cost the pub 1' and stockholders 2
a tremendous amount of money.
They turned out to be quite 3
rignt.
4 Five, where are the heroingers of doom with w
5 respect to earthquakes in the West and dams?
There aren't 6
backup dams as there are in a nuclear plant.
The cost in i
lives in some places could oe horrendous.
We saw an example 8
of that recently in a dam break in the South.
There are 9
other analogies.
Time prevents.
10 Why don't the Commission cring in Dr. Barry 11 Commoner, Amory Levins, Ralph Nader, and Dr. Ste rngla ss, and 12 let them decate extensively peter Beckman, Edward Teller, 13 Allen Bradsky, to name a few?
Give each plenty of time to 14 croadcast and telecast the confrontation nationally.
I will 15 take my chances on the good judgment of the American people 16 if they have access to real f acts and perspective.
17 de still have yet to lose a life from a civilian 18 nucle ar installation, end that' on an actual current or 19 latently inspired basis, too.
23 I want to extemporize for one more second.
I 21 think the tning that bothers me the worst of all aoout tnis 22 situation is that there has been Deen an implication of 23 i nmor ality, the lust for profit being so great on the part 24 of Commonwealth 2dison that caution is thrown to the wind, 25 and that they will proceed to do some thing that will
!135 043
... ~ -....
95 309 01 15
'mte I
endanger all of us.
2 Ladies and gentlemen, I have had contact with the 3
personnel at Commonwealth Edison.
I have seen them working 4
in areas to help people, boards, community fund and so on.
They're not this kind of people.
5 6
It's one thing to question, which I think is t
perfe ctly proper.
This is essence of democracies.
It's 8
another thing to do so with veiled implications or 9
inferences that show these people are trying to put 10 something over on us.
I submit their record over a period 11 of years, despite the Senator's comments, has been one tha',
12 has been quite smart.
13 We have yet to have a brown-out in Illinois.
14 Thcre has oeen a profusion of tha-in other p rts of the 15 cocntry.
Le t's have f aith and trust in them.
16 As f ar as I'm concerned, le t's move quickly, as 17 fast as we can, because, despite the Senator's comments, I'm 18 inclined to put my money on their judgment on a long-term 19 basis, because I suspect they have spent more time in the 20 study of_this proolem than any of us.
21 Thank you very much, sir.
22 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Could we have your full name and 23 a ddre ss ?
24 MR. SPENCE:
John D. Spence, 6710 Woodcrest, 25 61109, Rockford.
I'm out in the boondocks toward the Byron
!135 044
96 309 01 16
~
"mte i
site.
2 CHAIRMAd MILLER:
Thank you, sir.
3 Who wishes to proceri next to make a limited 4
appearance statement, whether :ritten or oral t 5
LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT OF CONNIE WARE 3
M5. WARE:
Mr. Spence is a hard act to follow.
~
l I'm not used to speaking in public either, so bear with me.
8 I'm Connie Ware and I live at 925 Little Road in 9
Rockton.
I'm a memoer of the League of Women Voters, but 10 I'm speaking now as a private citizen.
11 Since Three Mile Island, the worry about nuclear 12 energy is stronger.
People do not fully underscand the 13 arguments pro and con, but the bottom line is they are 14 scared.
Frankly, I~m as afraid of the spread of nuc1 ar 15 plants as I am of the spread of nuclear weapons.
Both have 16 a lethal capability that will ultimately be difficult if not I,
impossible to control.
18 I suggest that right now Commonwealth Edison has 19 the potential to go from being feared and castigated to 23 being considered conservationist heroes if they would 21 redesign their Byron plant to use sewage and garbage as its 22 e nergy source.
We know it can be done.
Chicago and 23 St. Louis are doing it now on a limited casis.
24 American ingenuity and willpower can do anything 25 with enough money.
We know waste products will be our i13S 045
97 809 01 17
.Kmte i
energy source some time.
Why not now?
2 As for the cost in changeover of design, if 3
America can call Chrysler out, why not Com Ed?
I for one e
urge the President and Congress to do just that.
Thank you.
5 6
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Who would like to go next?
Any 7
of you ladies and gentlemen who would like to express your 3
views who have not had opportunity to do so are invited to
?
come forward.
10 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT OF JOHN HENNING 11 MR. HENNING:
I'm John Henning.
I'm from 12 Rockf ord, Illinois.
I would lire to address the issue of 13 mining as related to the whole procedure of nuclear nower.
14 Recently, I was out in the Black Hills and was 15 discussing with the Sioux Indians out there about the mining 16 that will os taking place in the Black Hills.
They gave me 1e some interesting facts I would like to present for the 13 record.
h?
Three Mile Island nuclear crisis began with 20 uranium mining.
While the U.S. Government closes the study 21 of health ef fects by Three Mile Island, Joseph Califano, 22 Secre tary of the Department o; Health, Education and 23 delf are, says there will be deaths from the nuclear 24 accident, unlike other allegations.
23 Only 10 percent of the uranium mining in the i13S 046
98 309 01 O!
Emte I
Grants Mineralville of New Mexico has been mined.
Many 2
miners are dead from cancer.
Many more are terminally ill.
3 Livestock and wildlife have dieds water permanently 4
contaminated and land destroyed.
5 Now, the point that they have had cancer doesn't 6
mean that officially through a court system they have been e
proven that radioactive mining was the cause of the cancer.
8 That doesr 't mean +
- t the f acts aren't clear.
It means it 9
hasn't happened in che courts yet.
10 The Black Hills were formed two billion years 11 ago.
They are a sacred ceremonial grounds to the native 12 people.
Two-thirds of the Black Hills has uranium on it, 13 some of the highest grade uranium around.
14 The 1911ateral Commission, a consortium of major 15 powers of the world, has declared the Black Hills region a 16 notional sacrifice area for the energy needs of the nation.
17
" National sacrifice area" means chat in order for us to 18 maintain our standard of living we must sacrifice these 19 ceautiful lands, yes; but also any lands for the whole 20 ecological system of this country, in order that we may 21 maintain the larger need, which is what I would call greed.
22 With the mining process proposed in the Black 23 Hills, they will be using a system with aquif ers to pull the 24 ore out of the ground.
The aquifers -- because of the need 25 for so much water, there will be a depletion in the water lI$I Ok[
---,n~.n.
,, ~
.......,. -, ~... -
99 309 01 02
'(mte I
table of that area, and the rainf all isn't great enough to 2
replenish that.
So the net result would be a drying of that 3
area and another desert-like area.
4 Einstein said in 1939 that if nuclear power was 5
ever going to become a reality in the energy field, it 6
should never be in the hands of private corporations, 7
oecause private corporations are always put in the pcsition 8
of sacrificing safety for costs, because cost is profit.
9 I am a stockholder of Commonwealth Edison stock.
10 I celieve that we do need electrical companies.
I celieve 11 we do need electrical usage.
I don't believe the procedure 12 my company is using is the proper one.
13 Thank you.
14 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Thank you.
15 GP 16 le 18 bbb 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
100 CR 6 809 EAK(jeri) t-2 mte 1 I
LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT OF STANLEY CAMPBELL 2
MR. CAMPBELL:
I'm Stanley Campbell, 328 North Ivan 3
Street in Rockford, Illinois.
The ::ip code is 61103.
i 4
I would like to register my opposition to the Byron l
5 nuclear power plant.
I believe that the risks aren't worth the 6
supposed benefits of the plant.
Some of the people who are 7
in favor of nuclear power remind me of myself when I was 16 or I
8 17.
I believed in the" people that were out there working for j
l 9
I
, themselves and were building empires.
I felt they were being i
10 opposed by certain people in government and certain people l
Il that couldn't make it on their own.
There fore, they were being 12 impeded from the supposed utopia they were trying to build for 13 us all.
Id This belief led me into serving in the Army and going 15 to a place that I found out we were wrong, that this ideal of 16 i
us as gods, almost, trying to find ourselves -- find our i
17 freedom and idealism, allowing us to build a beautiful nation l
18 and maybe turning it into a beautiful world -- was wronc.
We I9 had to question these, stop.
l 20 We have to consider all of the things that are coming !
t 2I out from our actions.
I know some of the feelings right now l
22 is not, well, how doe s 'this relate to nuclear power.
The 23 dangers ;are too great, especially to Rockford.
I'd hate to 24 see anything happen for Rockford.
If they want to build it A
versi Reoorters, Inc.
25 anyplace else, fine and dandy.
Just keep it away from Rockford.
101 mte 2 1
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Thank you.
2 Who would like to be heard next?
3 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT OF JAMES BEEM 4
I'm James Beem.
j i
5 You don't understand how dangerous nuclear power is, I
6 especia31y in the hands of mortals.
It's obvious the leaders 7
of government and the World don't understand ii.
They don't i'
8 understand the danger to human ~. life, animal life, continuation I
i 9
of life in this planet.
Obviously it's going to continue, 10 whether in this stage or a more professional stage.
11 There is no way we can defy the laws of God and no l
[
12. way to defy the laws of nature, which God created also.
Ac i
13 long as we keep playing with things we don't understand anf we 14 are not meant to understand -- we can understand them and study l l
15 them, but we cannot use them because we do not have the power 16 to create perfection.
l 17 To try to perfect something that could destroy and 18 create havoc and holocaust is crazy.
Not only is it crazy, but i
I 19 it's ins ane.
Anybody that supports the government, whethe r 20 -
it be the United States, Soviet Union or Japan, that supports i
21 '
that kind o f lunacy, should be more thoughtful.
22 Rockford happens to be a target on the Soviet Union's 23 list; after the nuclear war we will not be able to deny ourselves.
24
<!eral Reporters, Inc.
25
!l35 050 s.
102 mte 3 1
Only God can annihilate us, whether it be Krishna from India 2
or Jesus or Buddha or whoever you believe in.
It's against i
l 3:
the laws of God to create these things.
To create demonic j
4 demolition is insane, to make people suffer so much more w
5 craziness.
I i
i 6
Unless it changes the other way, ycu are going to bac l 7
places, man.
Amen.
l 8
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Thank you.
i 9
Who would like to go next, please?
Who would like 10 to be heard, make a special limited appearance, written, oral, I
H any way!
12 I take it that yesterday afternoon and today that we l
t 13 have concluded the opportunity which has been requested by m:ny 14 of you to make your views known.
We appreciate that and we wish i
15 to have the expression of views.
They will be inclu.ed and i
l 16 incorporated in our transcript of proceedin a,
which, as you 17 know, is on file at designated libraries and places where the 18 public may have access,
i 19 We will consider that the opportunity for limited 20 appearance statements has now been concluded.
We will there fore, l
21 proceed now, with the parties and counsel, to go into such 22 matters as scheduling.
23 Eefore we do that, I think Mrs. Johnson had a correc 1
24 tion for the record that she desired to make.
A ceral Reporters, Inc.
25 MRS. JOHNSON:
Thank you.
For the record, the 1135 051
mee 4 103 1
League of Women Voters of Rockford, Illinois, would like to 2
correct any impression that night have been given in the 3
opening statement by Commonwealth Edison's attorney that the 4
League was unwilling to meet with Commonwealth Edison prior to 5
this prehearing confarence.
Although Commonwealth Edison had 6
received the League's amended contentions on August 1, as soon 7
as contacted by Commonwealth Edison we tried to arrange a meeting.
8 Because there was only one possible date open for h
+
9 a meeting before the prehearing conference when the NRC staff l
10 could attend and all League representatives could not be 11 present on that date, we were unable to meet with the.m.
t 12 CHAIR E MILLER:
Thank you.
I'm sure tnat the 13 record will reflect that that was the understanding of all of l
14 the parties involved, unless they wish to say something to the 15 contrary.
l 16 MR. MILLER:
There is no profit in disputing a i
i i
17 natter that is ancient history.
I trust we can conduct the i
18 negotiations on open, good-faith basis, and that is Commonwealthi 19 Edison's desire and intent.
20 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
The Board encourage? that position i
21 and attitude on the part of all parties, Applicant, Inte rveno rs 22 and staff, and anybody not included in those descriptions, i
23 including the Board.
i 24 The Board has now ruled that there are Intervenors deral Reporters, Inc.
25 who have stated one or more valid er viabic contentions or i
!l3S 052
104 mte 5 1
issues, and therefore there will be an evidentiary hearing on 2
the application for the issuance of an operating license on the 3
Byron plant.
l 4
We would also ask the parties and counsel to get 5
together in the sense of negotiating or at least discussing 6
the further refinement of such contentions as have been brought I
7 forward, with the intention of eliminating duplications, perhaps having more discretely defined parameters of the issues l 3
that will be the subject of discovery during the environmental O
i0 hearing.
l 11 We have indicated that a period of time would be 12 allow:ed for that purpose, about six weeks.
However, that was 12 prior to the estimate by the staff of the filing of certain l
14 documents py the staff, such as the safety evaluation report, I
15 the SER, the draft anvironmental statement, DES, and the i
16 final environmental statement, about five months or so there-17 after, following comment by various persons, known as the FES.
l 18 Since we use these initials, we thought it would be
{
19 well for the record to reflect what we are speaking of.
It 20 l would be helpful to the Board and parties if the staff would 21 indicate whether they have additional information which they i
22 were going to seek overnight.
23 MR. KARMAN:
Yes, Mr. Ch airman.
We contacted our 24 office back in Washington, and while I would not like to be ederal Reporters, Iric.
25 condemned at any future time for giving dates now which will i
!13S 053 i
105 mte 6 1
not be the dates on which the various staff evaluations will 2
be issued --
3 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
We will give you limited immunity.
l i
4 MR. KARMAN: The latest information I have, I
~
l 5
Mr. Chairman, is at the present time the estimate is for the i
I 6
safety evaluation report to be issued in June of 1981, the 7
draft environmental statement to be issued in September of '80, a
with the final environmental statenent in February of '81.
l l
9 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Now, with this information, we l
l 10 realize the staff is giving us their good-faith estimate as
'I of this time.. We accept it, Mr. Karman, in that spirit.
We 12 know there are sometimes slippages.
I don 't recall very many I
13 accelerations, but if there have been you can call it to our 14 attention.
l l
15 With that information, the Board will request o f the 16 part!.es a time for discussion and to make written recommendations i
17 and reports to the Board concerning the various issues set 18 forth by contentions.
After discussing that, we will go on to l
i 19 other matters of scheduling, which may be dependent upon or l
l 20 triggered by that date.
21 Who wishes to be heard in that respect?
l 22 MR. VON ZELLEN:
May I ask a question of the Board, i
23 please?
24 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Yes.
A coral Reconers, Inc.
25 MR. VON ZELLEN:
Would you clarify for me exactly f
1135 054
106 mte 7 1
what we mean or what dif ference exists between the phrase 2
"prehearing conferences" and " evidentiary hearing"?
As I l
3 understood it earlier, yesterday, there would be two prehearing 4
conferences.
We are admitted as Intervenors for a hearing.
i 5
But the next meeting we vould have that you will decide now 6
the date for would technically be another prehearine conference..
l 7
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Not quite.
We have two different l
r l
8 Boards, as you know:
the Intervention Board, which decides i
9 whether or not, as we have explained; and then, as there will i
I 10 be an evidentiary hearing, there is a Licensing Board which has l t
11 the full licensing powers, including the holding of an eviden-l i
12 tiary hearing..
l 13 Letis discuss the latter.
That is the point at which l 14 we now are.
There undoubtedly will be prehearing conferences.
l 15 It will be necessary to call another one to ao into the plead-l l
16 ings or contentions -- we are not sure.
Tnat would depend on i
i i
17 the nature of the report which the parties will make to the l
l 18 Board following their discussion.
19 1
It may be that you will be able not necessarily to 20 stipulate, but to indicate to the Board that the following 21 contentions, while opposed by those who cppose them, neverthe-l 22 less state the issues, pleadings, i
23 Then the Board could rule on the written presentation !
24 and it would not be necessary to have a special prehearing 4
metal Reporters, Inc.
25 conference for that purpose.
If the Board is going to have to i
113S 055 i
107 mte 8 I
rule upon the statement of contentions and statements that the 2
parties can't agree on, i t might or might not be necessary to 3
have a physical prehearing conference.
If the issues are i
4 presented clearly enough by all of the parties pro and con, the 5
Board may be able to rule in writing without having to have a t
l 6
physical prehearing conference.
I t
7 Now that is the p,-Ladings issue.
Scheduling we are l
l 8
going to get into now.
We may be able to project the scheduling l i
9 in a sufficient enough form to carry forward for some months or ;
10 whatever reasonable period intc, the future.
After we find i
11 your issues, those then govern broadly the nature of discovery.
12 I suppose most of you are familiar wi,th discovery.
l 13 It's similar to discovery provided by the Federal Rules of l
14 ' Procedure.
They are also set up in the regulations.
O,ur own 15 regulations are primarily controlling.
But those are similar 16 to the same rules.
17 Discovery consists of written interrogatories to 18 parties, for example.
It consists of requests for protection j
19 of documents that can, and at some point does consist of 20 depositions, whether upon oral questioning, which is common or i
21 customary; or it could be upon written interrogatories by l
22 depositions, which is different from interrogatories to a party. l 23 These are the kinds of things that are generally cc: oted by 24 l the broad term "discove$y," which is the ability, w1mnin the A
be,.ineoonen.inc.
25 framework of the issues and interpreted with reasonable 113S 056
108 mte 9 1
liberality, because at that state deciding what is relevant is 2
not quite the same that rules of a court and parties and a court 3
would use in determining relevance for the purposes of I
4 admissibility.
These are the kinds of things handled by discovery 5
6 which is ongoing once the issues are framed, which is handled largely by the parties.
7 8
It's only when they get into a dispute that they are I
9 addressed by the Board.
It 's the opportunity o f all parties l
l 10 to inquire into or have reasoned answers under oath by the 11 parties who are asserting factual and other positions.
This 12 is normal, customary in any litigation and certainly in our I
13 kind of hearing.
14 There is one question that the Board does wish to 15 hear from counsel and the parties on, and that is the extent i
16 to which it's reasonable to require discovery to proceed in the !
17 near future once the issues are framed prior to the receipt of, i
18 let's say, the draf t environmental statement, which the staff I
19 estimates to be September of 1980, which itself invites comment I
20 not only from various organizations and agencies which have an 21 interest, but parties as well.
And the staff's notice will take l 22 care of that.
23 The Board would like to be advised of the position 24 of all parties and counsel as to the a 'ity and fruitfulness A
a.r.i aeoorters,inc.
25 and scope of issues which could reasonably be pursued by
!!3S 057 l
~
109 mte 10 1
discovery prior to the completion of such studies and reports 2
by staff.
3 Does this answer your general inquiry of the Board i
4 as to what happens next in a sense?
5 MR. VON ZELLEN:
It's not exact y clear to me that 6
we are able to make a scheduling of time until the Intervenors,
7 the petitioners and lawyers for Commonwealth Edison have met i
8 to assess the contentions.
In 30 days, you will receive from I
I i
9 us a statement of our agreements and disagreements.
And at i
10 that time it would be, it seems to me -- you would then have 11 the evidence as to the need for another prehearing conference i
,2 or a, Licensing Board hearing.
[
1 I
13 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Licensing Board hearing is a full-14 fledged matter which will follow discovery.
We couldn't put 15 a date on that now.
It can't:be before the remote date set
~
16 by the staff.
i 17 As far as going ahead with discovery, the Board sees no reason why we couldn 't enter an appropriate order to proceed l 18 19 w.th discovery on the issues as framed by the contentions.
The i 20 Board might or might not have to have a special prehearing 21 conference to discuss issues or not.
The Board is capable of i
22 ruling.
23 You make contentions.
They are opposeduby, say, the 24 Applicant and staff.
The Board has enough informatien.
We
.ne neoonm, inc.
25 have heard from you and we can read, and we can enter an order
!!35 058 l
mw-.,.y -
c.-.-..
-m%
..-----.we<*r-*-----
- * ~ - - - - - -
110 i
mte 11 i
saying it's granted or denied.
We don't have to come here for 2
that purpose, although we will hear from you to see what your 3
report is, in order to determine whether or not it's necessary.,
i 4
Mr. Karman, you have something on that?
=
5 MR. KARMAN:
Maybe I can resolve a misunderstanding 6
that Dr. Von Zellen has.
I don't think anybody contemplates the commencing of any discovery until the Licensing Board will 7
I 8
rule on the contentions, which means nothing can be done until I
9 after that period of the meetings between the parties, the i
10 report to the Board, and the Board's issuance of an order l
11 stating what the contentions are.
Only then can discovery 12 s ta rt.
13 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
That's correct.
That irself would l
14 be apperiod -- I don't know whether it's two months, three l
15 months, but that's approximately the time required to accomplish; 16 these matters.
It would not be earlier :than that time that the l'7 Board's order would indicate that discovery is to start.
That 18 would be the triggering date for the commencement of your I
i 19 discove ry.
f 20 Does that assist you in evaluating the time problem?
21 MR. VON ZELLEN:
Thisseemscontrarytowhatyousaidl 22, yesterday, when you said, since at least one contention would 23 be accepted from each of us, that we were going to have a 24 hearing.
My understanding was we could start discovery as of coeral Reporters, Inc. l 25,
yesterday.
I13S 059
111 mte 12 1
CHAI'. MAN MILLER:
Informally.
That means you don't 2
have to wait for our order.
You could ask the staff --
3 MR VON ZELLEN:
This is what was concerning me.
4 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Informally.
But it's not in strict 5
compliance with the rules that follow the order.,
I'm tr'ing to anticipate what you 6
MR. VON ZELLEN:
y i
7 are going to do next with the staff.
That is, to get a recom-f 8
mendation from the staff as to the next meeting we will have 9
on the contentions.
I I
I 10 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
You didn't do that yesterday j
Il afternoon?
12
. MR. VON ZELLEN:
I did not do that.
I i
13 MR. KARMAN:
As a matter of fact, we are going to j
l 14 commence such meeting af ter this session this morning.
It.
i 15 undoubtedly will require an additional visit from the staff, l
i 16 but we will start right away.
17 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
As soon as we adjourn, you ladies l
18 and gentlemen can start your conference -immediately, and then 19 do as much as you can.
And as Mr. Karman suggests, there will l
l, 20 be a necessity of one more physical meeting after you have I
l 21 sorted out the things we discussed.
That will get you on your 22 way.
i 23 MR. VON ZELLEN:
I remind you, yesterday you indicatedi t
24 six weeks, possibly.
Later on you said you might double A
ceral Reporters, Inc.
25 that.
!13S 060'
112 t-3 mte 1 1
CEAIRMAN MILLER:
I was so startled at the staff's 2
estimate of time that the six weeks was more in line with us 3
having an immediate ongoing proceeding, which had been the l
l 4
Board's impression, not having information to the contrary.
5 That is what we have opened this morning, whether or not it l
6 should be six weeks, eicht weeks.
We want to keep the matter 7
moving.
l 8
It does appear that there is more time than we had l
l 9
realized would be entailed, although it's getting refined now 10 as to dates.
11 You indicated, sir, with the commencement of college i
12 and so forth that you had a time problem with 30 days.
Would
}
13 eight weeks suit you better?
l 14 MR. VON ZELLEN:
You had indicated double the time to l 15 12 weeks.
16 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Do you need the double time?
These,
i 17 conferences will help you sharpen, -if not resolve, your pleading 18 issues. Don't you believe in eight weeks, if you could tell us 19 what issues remained unresolved, which is all you are doing --
20 those that are resolved would be the subject of a common report 21 and none of us will have a problem with that.
22 MR. VON ZELLEN:
We will know more later this i
23 morning.
Do you have to decide now?
24 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
We find we should.
We must take A
veral Reporters, Inc.
25 into consideration the parties, and we could end up having
!!3b bb!
1
- ~..
~
w...
. ~
..,w
113 mte 2 1
four, five, six proceedings flopping in the breeze like 2
shirttails in a laundry.
We would like reasonable dates fixed. l l
3 The present information of the Board -- the Board is l
4 of the view that about eight weeks would be about the right j
l 5
time, considering both factors.
And I have an inclination to 6
give you more time because of the problem you mentioned, school.
7 But we do feel responsibilityaas a Board to keep these matters 8
moving with reasonable expedition.
9 So does anybody wish to be heard further?
We are i
10 going to select a date which is about eight. weeks shortly.
11 MR. MILLER:
Mr. Chairman, that is agreeable to the t
12 Applicant.
I would like to point out that, really, beginning j
l 13 now for a draft envirormental statement which is tentatively l
l 14 scheduled for September of next year is not an excessively l
15 long time period for discovery in these matters, so that the 16 matters can determine what the facts are that relate to the l
17 contentions that are in issue.
18 The schedule that is now proposed would be arreport l
19 to the Licensing Board by all parties some time in the middle 20 of October.
I 21 CEAIRMAN MILLER:
About October 22.
i 22 MR. MILLER:
We could anticipate that within 30 to 45 1
23' days tnereafter any disputes between the parties would be 24 re sol ved.
Realistically speaking, it's probably not much before-e me,.i neoonen, Inc.
25 the first of the year that discovery would be under way in any
! ! 3S r;62 l
114 mte 3 I
meaningful sense with respect to all issues in controversy.
2 That does not seem to me to be an excessive time.
I object and 3
urge the Board not to lengthen the time period further beyond 4
the middle of October for this first st op.
We were talking I
5 ab<. t Octc %r 3 yesterday.
October 16-17 would be agreeable.
6 15th is a Monday.
7 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Monday, October 15, would be about 8
the eight-week period.
So the Board will request the written f
I 9
report on final statement of issues and contentions to be in f
i 10 the hands of the Board by October 15th, 1979.
II Now, we have indicated and suggested that discovery 12 could proceed on a less informal basis.
An informal basis is, 13 I
as the parties desire information, it's helpful to find out 14 what is the basic information that the Intervenors want and 15 address interrogatories, if they choose, to both Applicant and 16 staff.
i 17 The sooner you get into the basic documentation and 18 basic answers, it will save time, and it will take time anyhow ---
I9 Mr. Miller is correct on the discussion of amount of time 20 ;
involved in discovery overall.
As soon as you can get at it, 21 the better.
22 On an informal basis, you can start on that tomorrow.
23 Discovery itself will commence after the written reports made 24 by all parties, whether jointly or individually or both, after i
. eras neoonm. ene.
25 October 15th.
At that time the order will be issued by the l
e, gr.
- ng ;r
.e
~ ~ oo m -- -
~,...,
e.
n
~ ~. -. ~ - - ~ ~ -
115 mte 4 I
Board.
It's possible to give you an order on contentions without 2
another prehearing conference.
If we can do so, we will com-3 mence discovery at that point.
Probably we can do it.
Wehavel 4
gone over the contentions.
l o
5 Thereafter comes the discovery period we have 6
described.
It might be useful for us to describe to the 7
parties that have not been in a hearing of this type the i
I 8
fact that there are in the future prehearing conferences, not 9
special prehearing conferences on pleadings and contentions, 10 but full-fledged prehearing conferences that go inte matters Il such as further scheduling, refinement of issues and contention -
12 ruling upon motions, developing those things that are necessary 13 to get to an evidentiary hearing.
I An evidentiary hearing is like a trial.
It's as I
14 15 close to a trial as anything in NRC proceedings.
We follow i
16 the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Civil Procedare) 17 We have our own Rules of Practice which are paramount.
We have-l 18 subsidiary considerations of the Administrative Procedure Act.
~
19 '
We follow the Rules of Evidence and there are good reasons.
l 20 They are usually 200 or 300 years old.
I i
21 We don't want you to be unpleasantly surprised and i
22 think we are getting technical.
We will be and we are alerting; 23 you in advance of the nature of it.
We want you to have i
24 full opportunity with your discovery and prehearing conferences, A
,Jeral Reporters, Inc.
25 which are more informal, which will go into motions to be made.
i i
i
!l3S 064
116 mte 5 1
MS. JOHNSON:
Can you indicate to us what, if any, 2
way we can rely on Nuclear Regulatory staff experts and this l
3 kind of thing for our use in this?
4 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
That you should discuss with 5
staff counsel.
There is no -- you have no clear and -- clearly l 6
spelled out right to do so.
7 The staff, while it's a component of the Nuclear l
l 8
Regulatory Commission, as is the Licensing Board, we have 9
independent duties.
Here they appear as a party.
They observe i
10 the rules.
There are certain time matters and others where l
11 the rules give them the right to last response beer.use of f
12 the nature of the work.
I 13 They are independent.
We don't tell the staff or 14 Mr. Miller what to do.
We may tell them certain things they l
15 can't do, certain things, and they can apoeal.
This is an l
l 16 adjudicative -- I suggest you confer with staff counsel, who l
17 can tell you what the situation is and advise you.
l 18 He probably won't agree with some of your contentions, l
19 but nonetheless you will find that Mr. Karman and the staff i
i 1
20 will tell you what is available to you and what you can do i
21 to try to accomplish something within reasonable limits.
MS. JOHNSON:
This would be most helpful within the 22 23 limits we are allowed.
Of course, both Commonwealth Edison 24 and the staff have these experts available, and we have a
.deral Reporters, Inc.
25 limited amount of funds to get people to testify for us.
I
!135 065 l
117 Mte 6 1
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
We realize that.
Our rammission 2
has no power to allow counsel fees or costs or matters of that 3
kind.
We have not been given the power.
Inerefore, this 4
Board can't grant somebody a divorce or lower taxes.
There 5
are a lot of things we can't do.
6 By discussing with staff or Applicant's counsel, you 7
can find out the parameters.
And this is one of the handicaps l
8 that conscientious Intervenors have.
We recognize it cnd we j
i f
9 do what we can, but what we can do is limited.
You have the 10 right to participate in the sense of discovery of what witnesses' i
Il by name, say, and so forth on relevant matters, and cross-l i
examination at the hearing.
l 12 13 You do have a certain access to expert testimony 14 both in advance and at hearings by cross-examination.
Admittedl.y i
15 that is not your own.
But you see, the League of Women Voters l
l 16 upon its own request has been granted the right to intervene.
17 You do the best you can, But you have chosen to go that 18 path.
~
l9 I'm sure we will all be cooperative.
But there are l
20 places where not having a party with the finances to afford 21 expert witnesses per se is a disadvantage.
We have that in 22 mind when we give opportunities for cross-examination.
l 23 MR. MILLER:
That really raises a topic that I think 24 we ought to get on the table now.
We have been talking about e
- n. seoon m.inc.
25 informal discovery and discovery in accordance with the rules, l
!l35 066
118 mte 7 l
I which will follow the Board's order.
Commonwealth Edison 2
company is willing to participate in any informal process, and 3
of course we will respond according to the rules.
There is, l
4 as you know, volumes.of printed material that relate to one or i
5 more of these issues.
In the normal course of discovery, thesej l
will be made available to the Intervenors for their inspection l 6
I 7
and copying.
8 I just want to nake clear that any documents that a re l l
9 copied will be done so at the expense of the party requesting l
10 them.
They can look at them. obviously, at whatever length II they want to, and reproductions will be made, but at their 12 cost.
I want to cet that out on the table so that if that is 13 a c ause for problem we can discuss it now.
l t
Id CHAIRMAN MILLER:
The Applicant and you as counsel I
15 intend to be cooperative in the sense of making available 16 rather substantial volumes of printed material, r.blications 17 and the like, which are available to the Intervenors for 18 inspection and use, I9 If they wish to have copies made of portions of this 20 material that is voluntarily made available to them, they will i
2
be expectedi:to pay the cost of reproduction per page of whatever 22 they request to be reproduced; is that correct?
23 Any problem with that?
MS. JOHNSON No, I don't think so.
A w.r.i neoonm. inc.
25 I did have one other question.
Maybe this isn't il3S 06/
l
119 mte 9 1
the correct time to ask this, but how would you define experts?
1 CHAIRMAN. MILLER:
I will give you a general defini-3 tion.
4 MS. JOHNSON:
Is there such a thing?
l 5
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
We do know who in a given field -
6!
look at the available materials and bibliographies, and you
~
7 will gct a feel for who has written in what field.
You can I
8 inquire of staff and Applicant counsel to list the persons l
l t
9 who ars regarded as experts in the following areas.
You will 10 find a certain amount of cooperativeness.
They technically 11 might not have to answer those things, but they will cooperate, i
l 12 I'm sure.
i i
13 There are areas of cooperation which will get you to 14 a certain point where you will have the information.
From 15 there on you have to make your own judgment.
l 16 Mr. Karman will tell all of us what repositories 17 are there in the area where the transcript, for example, the I
18 publication, matters to be produced in the future, will be i
19 both placed and will be reasonably available to both Intervenors 20 and the public.
21 Would you giue us that information?
22 MR. KARMAN:
To the best of my knowlege, the local 23 public document room for this area. for this proceeding, is 24 the Byron Public Library, Third and Washington Streets in A
werei neooners, inc.
25
- Byron, Illinois.
All of the printed documents w-th respect
?135 068 1
120 mte 9 I
to this proceeding should be at that library.
2 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Are there any other places --
3 MR. KARMAN:
If anybody does go to the library and 4
has difficulty in locating any,of the documents, please contact 5
me and I will see what we can do about getting them there.
6 MR. VON ZELLEN:
We have objected to that library.
l l
~
7 It's not at all accessible to us.
It has limited hours.
l l
8 They are only open certain times of the week.
It's a tiny l
1 9
library.
10 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Open certain days of the week?
Il MR. VON ZELLEN:
Yes.
I2 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Wh:Lch days?
13 MR. VON ZELLEN:
It's open about 10 or 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> a l
I4 week, is a11.
It's open two hours every day except Friday, it'd 15 open two hours in the mornin.; and they take two or three hours i
16 I
for lunch and two hours in the afternoon, and then Saturday 17 morning.
It's only open two hours at a time.
18 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
That doesn't sound reasonable.
j l9 MR. KARMAN-The establishment of these local public 20 document rooms is not the province of staff counsel.
That 1
21 library was the local public document room for the proceeding 22 during the construction permit stage.
It's also my understand j 23 ing that many documents have been sent to the library at 2#
Northern Illinois University.
A ederal Reporters, Inc.
25 If there is a strong feeling amongst the parties i1B 069
121 mte 10 1
to this proceeding that they would prefer to have the local 2
public document room at Northern Illinois University, and if 3
Northern Illinois University would accept such designation as 4
, local public document room, I would take it upon myself when 5
I get back to Washington, to see if a transfer could be made.
6 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
I would appreciate that.
It's not 7
your selection and you don't have the responsibility.
But we 8
do appreciate your willingness.
l 9
Let me inquire as to the suitability and availabilityI i
10 of such alternate sites.
11 MR. VON ZELLEN:
We had talked earlier with l
l 12 Betty Johnson some months ago.
I don't know how the others l
13 in my group feel, but at that time I thought it would be more l
14 appropriate at the Rockford Public Library.
15 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Has any inquiry been made as to i
16 space availability?
All libraries won't voluntarily make l
17 available space and keep them in a logical fashion.
I'm not i
18 sure, but we will discuss something more suitable than a 19 library only open 10 or 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> a week.
I 20 MR. MILLER:
One other possibility is the Ogle 21 County Courthouse in Oregon, Illinois, which is reasonably 22 close to the site, which is a desirable attribute for a local i
23 public document room.
I l
24 M3. JOHNSON:
Rockford is 16.8 miles from the site.
A ewei nwonen, im:.
25 CHAIRMAE MILLER:
How close is it to the small 070 l
I i
122 tate 11 1
library you have described?
2 MR. MILLER:
Oregon is about 13 miles, I'm informed, 3I Mr. Chairman.
CEAIRMAN MILLER:
We can't have a maximum location i
j in the sense cf ready availability down the street.
What is 6
reasonably within your requirements among those that have been 7
suggested, Mrs. Johnson?
8 MS. JOHNSON:
Any of them would be suitable.
I thinkl
~
9 Northern Illinois University and the Rockford Public Library, i
10 I'm sure, would be open enough hours to accommodate us.
I'm j
l 11 not sure what a rrangement could be made in Oregon.
If they l
l 12 were open enough times so that it would be accessible, I believe r
13 that would be all rignt, too.
I 14 MR. VON ZELLEN:
I know the Oregon library.
It's a l
i 15 small, overcrowded library.
l 16 MR. MILLER:
It was the courthouse I was suggesting.
17 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
What about Northern Illinois 18 University?
l 19 MS. JOHNSON:
This is farther from the site, but it j
20 would be acceptable.
i 21 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
You said no.
What is the status i
22 in the state institutional system of colleges?
23 MR. VON ZELLEN:
They are all free-standing 24 universities in Illinois.
It's not a branch of the e
e,.i n porters, irx:.
25 University of Illinois.
Wisconsin has branches, but not
!l3S 0/1 i
123 mte 12 1
2 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
The sma.ll libraries have limited 3
facilitics, attendance and availability. What are we down to?
4 MR. VON ZELLEN:
The University has an expert in m
5 public documents and that could be of some assistance to the 6
League of Women Voters.
7 MS. JOHMSON:
I suspect the Rockford Library does, i,
8 too, but I don't know.
9 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Can anyone speak for the i
10 University?
You'll have to inquire, find out what is available, II you as Intervenors and Mr. Karman.
Get in touch with 12 Mr. Ka'rman, who will try to do something.
But he must have i
13 clear directions.
14 We feel the present facilities are not adecuate.
I i
15 Pursue this and take Mr. Kannan up on his offer.
j 16 MR. VON ZELLEN:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to l
l 17 complete the statement made by the attorney from Commonwealth 1
18 Edison.
Although I don.'t see a vast amount of documentation, l9 I would put on the table as well tha'. Commonwealth Edison would-20 be expecteu to pay for any documentation we provide to them.
21 MR. MILLER:
That is understood.
i 22 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
The sword cuts both ways.
We don't, 23 expect anybody to make a profit on it.
Reasonable costs and 24 charges, as are requested.
If you request 100 pages of eemi neconm. inc.
25 something or another, have a clear understanding that you will
?!35 0/2
124 mte 13 1
pay, hcw much per page, and when.
We don't like these dangling 2
things and the Board has to end up getting involved in those s
matters that you should resolve among yourselves.
l 3
Anything further?
l 5
Where do we stand on scheduling, or have we carried 6
it as far as we are able to with the imponderables at the l
7 moment?
l 8
MR. MILLER:
I think we probably have, although we 9
have some suggestions we would be willing to put forward on the, e-3 10 record at this time for the Board and parties to consider.
As I mentioned yesterday, it would seem appropriate, l
II based on present staff estimates, to consider the possibility 12 l
13 of a split evidentiary hearing, with the environmental conten-Id tions going in advance of the safety contentions.
This is a 15 '
tentative schedule which we have drafted up.
i 16 We propose that discovery would close on environ-l i
17 mental issues 30 days after the mailing of the final environ-i 18 nental statement, and that responses to discovery on those l9 issues would be due 15 days after the final round of discovery I
i 20 l was initiated.
l 21 Motions for summary disposition, if any, would be 22 l filed not later than 45 days after the final environmental statement was issued, and responses due 20 days thereafter.
23 24 And that hearing would commence some 75 days after the mailing e
are a.oomes. inc.
25 of the final environmental statement.
l l
k l bb
- 0. b 1
125 mte 14 1
One of dae reasons for beginning discovery now is to 2
avoid to the best of our ability any last-minute rush to 3
discover what the facts are that underlie the contentions.
I 4
And we would hope that all of the parties would be in a position 5
to move forward e.:peditiously to a hearing following the close 6
of discovery and following the motions for summary disposition.
7 And the schedule that I have just laid before you is 8
designed to accomplish that fact.
9 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Thank you.
That is helpful.
10 This suggested schedule now will appear in the 11 trans crip t, so you will have a chance to study it.
If anybody !
12 wishes to comment on that projected schedule, you are free to 13 do so.
i 14 MS. JOHNSON:
I have one comment, and I may not 15 know enough about it, but it seems uo me that some of these l
16 issues are both environmental and safety and that we might be l
17 duplicating somewhat.
It might be difficult to completely I
18 divide these.
I I
19 CEAIRMAN MILLER:
The bifurcation of those issues is n;
i 20 i not uncommon.
We often have the NEPA issues on the one hand i
21 and health and safety on the other.
Occasionally there are 22 areas where you have overlaps, but usually they are discussions '
l 23 among yourselves first, and then by and with the Board, and a 24 general prehearing conference.
A.oer.: seport rs, inc.
25 We are generally able to sort out, rather accurately,,
!135 0/4
125-A mte 15 1
I believe.
We can specify those where there might be a question 2
and allocate those.
3 MS. JOHNSON:
Is this a common thing that you do l
4 divide?
5 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Not unusual.
I worry about the l
6 word " common."
7 MS. JOHNSON:
Is it done frequently?
8 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Yes.
9 Any further questions or discussions about scheduling?
Whatistheadvantageofseparating,l 10 MS. VON ZELLEN:
11 or disadvantage?
l i
12 CEAIRMAN MILLER:
There are several advantages.
In l
13 certain aspects, they are discrete or separate subjects, with 14 certain rules that obtain as to one and not the other.
The 15 area of overlap is auch less than the areas where they are l
16 readily definable, separable, by the nature of the subject 17 matter and parties and the like.
i 18 There is the timing factor.
There are matters involving the environment which are not generic in nature, I9 i
20 but which have more general applicability both ways than certain t
21 safety matters, which perhaps have to be more precisely 22 limited.
1 23 We are able to proceed both sooner and more satis-l 24 factorily, generally, with envirormental.
It has its own A
ederal Reporters, Inc.
25 rules, own subject matter, its own statute and the like.
l l
', 1 3.%. 0/4 l
mte 16 126 1
What is the difference between apples and oranges?
2 They are both fruits, but I may have one and not the other.
3 It won' t prejudice anyone.
I 4
Is that correct, Mr. Karman?
5 MR. KARMAN:
That's correct.
6 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
We have done this before and no one 7
failed to agree or was deprived of any rights.
You might find 8
at a trial it would be better to go for one week or two weeks 9
on, let's say, environmental, and have a month or two off 10 before you went into a different subject matter with ongoing II day by day witnesses.
12 Trials can become de-energizing.
They are not 13 picnics.
Parties and counsel find we can reasonably segment I
I 14 without prejudicing the continuity of the testimony anc j
l 15 cross-examination and the like; that you will be happy to have l l
16 the procedural availability of this kind of bifurcation, also.
I 17 These are some of the things that occur to the Board.'
18 MR. VON ZELLEN:
I can't see how we can discuss i
l9 some issues, say safety issues, ar.d being precluded or kept i
20 from introducing environmental notions.
It's almost a l
21 synergism.
l 22 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
When you start disengaging, you j
23 will find it can be done logically.
Why don't you wait until you get into it farther, and then if you have a problem take l
24 Awemeres nownm. nne.
I 25 it up with the Board.
We are basing this on experience.
The
!l35 0/6
mte 17 127 I
two are not interdependent to the extent you can't do it.
l 2
We are not suggesting something new, novel or untried.
We 3
have done it in other cases and the Appeal Board has sustained l 4
it.
i 5
MS. JOHPS';;:
We are limited in funds and naybe we i
6 have to get the same expert twice, when he ebuld speak to both 7
of these issues at the same time.
l 8
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
That is doubtful.
You hardly ever ;
i 9
come across an all-purpose expert who has the requisite i
10 qualification, who can talk meaningfully on both.
Wait until 11 you get into, talk to experts and make a judgment.
12 We won't preclude you from raising the question with j l
13 the Board.
It's not set in concrete.
We will bifurcate, but 14 we have a strong inclination to do so under the circumstances i
15 of the case.
We will continue to hear from you.
16 Anything further on scheduling or procedure?
l 17 We will consider we have gone as far as we can at 18 this time.
It will be subject to review as we get into the 19 matters with greater detail.
20 What else would you like to -- I take it on 21 October 15 we expect to have written reports, and that will 22 determine what will happen next.
I 23 Anything else anyone wishes to ask or suggest?
We i
9ederal Reporters, Inc.
24 are about ready to conclude the special prehearing conference.
A 25 There will be a written order.
We will cite the transcript
'1SS 077 I
mte 18 128 I
references.
It will indicate there will be an evidentiary 2
hearing and there will be published a notice of evidentiary l
3 hearing at time and place to be fixed by the Board.
An 4
eviden,tiary hearing will go forward, there's no question about 5
it.
6 Anything further?
Once, twice --
7 MR. VON ZELLEN:
I have a question.
Is there i
8 any statute or precedent that requires that members of hearing i
9 boards of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission publish statements 10 of their own potential conflict of interests?
II CEAIRMAN MILLER:
None that I am aware of.
I'think l
i 12 any member of any board would readily indicate for the record 13 if he felt there was a possibility of any.
I know of none.
l I4 DR. COLE:
We have to file documents annually with 15 the general counsel of the Commission showing ownership of any t
16 stocks or bonds and things like that.
17 MR. VON ZELLEN:
I had that in mind, whether or not 18 any of you were stockholders in a utility.
o I
DR. COLE:
That is not permitted for any board 20 member, I'm sure of that.
2I MR. VON ZELLEN:
Or vendor.
22 DR. COLE:
Or vendors, yes.
23 MR. VON ZELLEN:
Other issues would be whether any I
i 24 of you were consultants or are consultar.ts to vendors or A
Jdef al Reporters. Inc.
25 utilities.
!13S 078 i
i
mte 19 129 1
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
This is the point where I have to 2
intervene as Chairman.
The Board does not debate, subject 3
itself to cross-examination.
However, this is not to say j
i 4
that the matters that you raise are not matters that you are I
5 not entitled to be interested in.
6 As Dr. Cole informed you, federal employees of 3
7 certain rank, of which we are of that rank, do file annually l
8 detailed financial statements, from which it is determined if 9
there is any potential conflict.
It has to be removed or l
10 appropriate steps taken.
Those have been filed by all of us i
11 each year.
They are updated and are thorough and detailed.
i 12 If you wish to obtain information, you are perfectly I 13 free to do so.
I can tell you there are no conflicts of 14 interest among any of us with reference to the matters you go i
15 into.
j l
16 As a procedural matter, I can't permit any hearing j
17 to get to the point where the Board is cross-examined.
The 18 information is available to you.
19 MR. VON ZELLEN:
Nonetheless, you introduced I
20 Dr. Cole as an environmentalist.
Environmentalists are spoken l
21 of often as being fu=zy-headed.
I 22 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
I introduced him as an environmental 23 scientist. I'm informed it's a term of art and is not the same 24 as environmentalist.
He is an environmental scientist.
A, wel Reporters, Inc.
25 DR. COLE:
Really, I'm an environmental engineer.
!135 0/9
mte 20 130 1
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Any further information about the 2
background of any members of the Board, we will supply that t
1 3
for you.
i 4
MR. VON ZELLEN:
Well, the Nuclear Regulatory l
=
S Commission is often described asta part of the revolving I
6 door, that Board members or persons of the Nuclear Regulatory 7
Commission, when they leave their office, take positions with i
I 8
vendors and utilities, and likewise, personnel of the NRC j
i 9
often are appointed or receive their appointment after h7.ving i
10 been in a vendor --
11 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
I said if you have any cuestion or I 12 want background information among any of us, we have no l,
13 reluctance to supply it.
Do you desire information as to the 14 biographies of the members of the Board?
i 15 MR. VON ZELLEN:
Has any member of the Board been
~
i 16 an officer or an amployee of a utility or vendor?
I 17 DR. COLE:
I have not.
l 18 DR. CALLIHAN:
No.
(
19 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
The answer is no.
20 I am a lawyer and have practiced law for a number of 21 years.
I have had a lot of jury trials.
I have practiced in l
22 Washington for 18 years and for about 12 down in Champaigne, j
23 Illinois.
I guess I sued, as far as utilities were involved i
24 l exclusively, a lot more often than I defended any of them.
t
.o.c.i neporters.
h DR. CALLIHAN:
Would you define " vendor"?
j i135 080
mte 21 131 I
MR. VON ZELLEN:
One that supplies the utility with 2
a reactor.
3 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
In response to your question, 4
insofar as the Board feels it proper to give biographical I,
5 information in the manner requested, I think our answer is in 6
the negative to your inquiries.
7 As far as any additional information is concerned, 8
you are free to obtain it.
1 9
Further questions?
Any questions of any kind or 10 nature?
II We are about to adjourn the special prehearing 12 conference.
Hearing none, we stand adjourned.
Thank you for 13 your cooperation.
We are looking forward to hearing from you I#
and seeing you some time in the future, f
15 (Whereupon, at 10 :10 a.m., the special prehearing l
16 e-4 conference was adjourned.)
17 18 I
19 i
20
!.13 091 L
21 22 i
23 24 A4
- W ReDortm, Inc.
25 1
(