ML19208D386
| ML19208D386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/20/1979 |
| From: | Anderson G, Bechhoefer C, Decker R Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909280350 | |
| Download: ML19208D386 (76) | |
Text
m I D i ' d "3 1 bb?f0
~
~1 c
G N U CL3 AR RE G U L ATC R'f CO MMI55!C N IN THE MA 'TER CF:
DAIRYLAND PCWER COOPERATI'IE Docket No. 50-409
?mendment to (LaCresse Boiling Water Reactor)
Provisional Operating License Nc. JPR-45 i
j i
i 4
i 1
Place. La Crosse, Wisconsin Date.
Thursday, 20 SepteTler 1979 Pages 237 - 312 I
i l
^
1 l
l
- e. +.
l s
- ...cnen.:
I t:c:::ca7:e ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, OTC.
Offic:alRepor:ers 1n?r a
fUJd
.LM.Ncr-h C:::itcl Streef West:ingten. D.C. 20001 G, Cit / O a 0 'C '] f(I C
/L /3
~
NATIONWIDE COVERAGE * LY
CR6753 237 WRBloom/wb 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WELandon 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
----+
4 In the matter of:
Docket No. 50-409 5
DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE Amendment to Provisional Operating 6
(Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor)
License No. DPR-45 7
___________________________________+
Room 219, 8
Wing Communications Building, 9
University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, Wisconsin.
10 Tht : day, 20 September 1979 11 Prehearing conference in the above-entitled 12 matter was called to order, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m.
13 l BEFORE:
14 CHARLES BECHHOEFER, Esq.,
- Chairman, 15 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board RALPH S. DECKER, Member.
16 97 DR. GEORGE C. ANDERSON, Member.
APPEARANCES:
12 39 On behalf of Dairyland Power Coonerative, the Applicant :
KEVIN P. GALLEN, Esq.,
20 Morgan, Lewis and
- Bockius, 1800 M Street, N.W.,
21 hashington, D.C.
20036 22 On behalf of Coulee Region Energy Coalition, Intervenor:
ANNE MORSE GEORGE NYGAARD 24 MARK BURMASTER P.O.
Box 1583 25 Lacrosse, Wisconsin, 54601 i
7 c0ce. Jedera[ cAeporters, Snc.
J
'N d44 NORTH C APITOL STRLET W A S HIN GTO N. D.C.
20001 (202) 347-3700
238 WRB/wb2 1
On behalf of the Regulatory Staff:
2 EDNIN REIS, Esq.,
COLLEEN UOOD!iEAD, Esq.,
3 Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co:". mission 4
Washing ton,
D.C.
20555 3
6, 7
i 8
J 9
10 11 l
12 i I
13 s/
14 15 16 17 4
18 m.
19 20 a_*
21 22 23 24
?
25 4
cAce 9edera{ cAeporten, $na
_q d44 NORTH CAPITOL STREET
- /
t W A S HI N G TO N. D.C.
20001 (202) 147-3700
239 1
EEEEEE11 2
LIMITED APPEARANCE STAT"?!ENT OP:
PAGE 3
Ann O'Malley 297 4
Kathy Terpstra 298 6
Thomas K. Hanilton
,500 6
Roger Kanics 302 7
Ms. Buckbee 311 8
June Taft i
I 311 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 s.
20
~~
21 22 23 24
/
\\
25 cAce 9ede:al cRepciten, Sac 444 N O R TH C APITOL STR EET W AS HINGTO N. D.C.
20001 (202) 347-3700 1
240'
_ _ _. _ _ ~ _ _.
r 2753 l
P_ _R_ O_ CE_. E_ D_ _I _M G_ _S iloom 1
uar'on ladies Gord afternoon, wr, agbl CHAIRMAN BCCMHonFER:
2 called This orchearino conference is beino 3
and gentlemen.
tive to consider the apnlication of Dairyland Power Coonera l
4 license to to their provisional operatina 5
for an anendnent fuel pool.'
authorize an increase in capacity of their snent I
6 This conference was noted in the Federal Penis i
7 lt i
August 27,and a correction chanoina the roon to th s one 1:
I 8
was published August 30.
9 I will introduce the l
The Licensing Board, 10 t left is Ralnh Decker, l
To mv members of the Licensing Board.
l 11 j k with the who's a retired nuclear engineer, he used to wor 12 Air Force and then with the Atonic Energv Commission.
I i
13 To mv right is Dr. George Anderson, who is m
ks 14 l'
Professor and Associate Chairnan for Research of the 15 of Fashincton.
11 Department of Oceancorachv of the University h
16 My name is Charles Rechhoefer, and I'm an 1
l l
17 Board canel attorney with the Atomic Safety and Licensing i
18 19 '
of the Muclear Rcqulatory Connission.
At this stage for the record the carties 20 ;
so the Reporter will know who l
should introduce themselves, 21 j
is speaking.
22 from nv left to Let's go from lef t to richt, 23 [
l 24 l my right.
The Coulee Region Energ" Coalition.
\\*'
25 !!
ac.acled cRemicu. Dx 1036 6
~u== =,
aan u w oo I
I l
241 I
wrb/agb2 MR. BURMASTER:
I an Mark nurnaster.
2 5
MR. NYGAARD:
I'm George '!ygaard.
3 MS. MORSE:
Anne 11orse.
4 MS. WOODHEAD:
I'n Colleen Moodhead, Staff 5
Counsel of the ':uclear Reaulaco.rv Cenmission Staff.
To mv 6
left is James Shea, the Nuclear Regulatory Connission Droiecr_
7 Manager for the Lacrosse Plant.
And to his left is 8
Edwin Reis, also Counsel of the Nuclear Regulatory Commissich u
9 Staff.
10 MR. GALLEM:
My name is Kevin Gallen, I ' t..
I 11 ~
an attorney with the law firn of Mo'_ tan, Lewin and I
12 Bockius representing the Applicant, Dairyland Power 13 Cooperative, to my left is John Parkyn, Assistant Surer-14 intendent of the LACBUR facility.
15 CIIAIRMAM BECHHOEFER:
This mornina,as the Board 16 announced in its notice of this conference, the Board and the parties were invited to take a tour of the facilitv, 17 18 specifically the spent fuel pool.
The Intervenors, the 19 Applicants, the Staff as well as the Board had renresenta-20 tives at the plant site at 0: 00
~
21 The Intervenors uished to have all three of 22 their representatives acconnany the tour.
The Annlicants 23 objected to this, and expressed an invitation for onlv one 24 of them to join the tour for both space and security
/
25.
reasons.
&ce-]ed.za( cAepciten, Sac jQ}
444 N'RTH C A Pi rO L. STREET
!j,
,1 l
w...u~orou. o.c. 2oooi (2 2) 347-370o l
242 1
The Board stated that this arrangenent would be
" -b/ag b 3 p
satisfactory ir view of the fact that the purpose of havinev 2
s._
tour was to conniv the parties accompany the Board on the 3
with the Comnission' g parte rule and to afford the nartien 4
Fo the an opportunity to see whatever the naard was seeina.
5 Board stated that the lini'. ation to one norson would be 6
i satisfactory, and the Intervenors then declined to take the 7
8 tour for that reason.
The Staff mentioned that their position was 9
that the Applicant was responsible for securitv under 10 i
i l
10 CFR Part 73, so that the Staff did not take a nosition 11 in terns of the security requirenents.
12 i
13 I uould like to.ask whether anv of the other parties would like to supplenent the record wi.h resnett 14 15 i to the circunstances of the tour.
16 fir. NYGAARD:
Yes, sir, I would.
17 I feel, to supolement that for the record, that our ob ections were more than the fact that allthree of us 18 19 could not go on the tour.
Our objections, I think -- and were nrinarilv we have discussed it since this norninri 20 21 that the timeliness of the situation, that we were not notified that only one member would be able to go on this 22 23 tour.
I, nyself, didn't know ahaut it until late last night when I came home fron work.
24 25 Is. Morse was intm.ned bv telenhone vesterda'r J
cAce 9ede:a{ cReporters, Snc.
444 NORTH C A PITOL STREET 9
W A S HI N G TO N D.C.
20005 d
(2o2) 347 370o l
i 243 tb4 1
by the Applicant's representative, counsel.
2 The other is the nere selection o# who would 3
represent CREC or who would represent the Intervenors, 4
we feel that the Applicant should not have been the one to 5
select who would represent CREC but, rather, if it would 6
he limited to one, we should have been informed of that 7
and that we should have the right to decide who would go as
~
l 8 l representative of CREC, if that would be the limitation.
I s
9 The other is that the Applicant stated that to Mr. Burnaster and myself were not chosen because 'ts. ?torse f
11 was the spokesperson for the group and 'is. 'forse was our i
12 !
legal representative.
I i
13 p
We feel that given the record of all of this, l
for instance, the transcriot of last year's hearina on 14 i
15 August 17, that this is simply not the case.
16 The other is that ?tr. Burnnster and mvself 17 were sec':rity risks.
I asked Mr. Gallen to exclain this 18 morning why we were security risks and not Ms. Morse. And 19 I think that we should be informed.
If we cannot he 20 inforned by Applicant, then thev should intorm the Board.
21 If the Board cannot inform us, then we could secure that information through the Freedon of Information Act.
22 23 It was also stated that it was an unworkable 24 number.
We don't know -- in the past, I've been told hv 25 Mr. Steele of Dairyland Power, for instance, he's the head I
eqcescica cecpacu. sa go3g 444 NORTH C A PITO L STREET j
W A SHIN GTO N, D.C.
20001 (202) 347 3700
244 1
gb5 of Dairyland, that over 50,000 pecole have moured that nlant, 2
and I'm sure that thev went in greater numbers than we had 3
there this norning.
4 In the past six nonths, I know of two publicized 5
tours that more than the nunbers here were renresented as 6
members of the press.
On another occasion, four nenbers
~
7 of the State Legislature and Senate toured the nlant with th6 press, and the" were all there, in fact, during a s
9 SCRAM.
10 He feel that because of those reasons and
I objections that it was really unwarranted, that that 12 decision was made.
And I'm sorry that decision had to wait
'3 unti-right this morning to you, sir, to nake that decision
'4 on the fact that all of us couldn't go or that we would 15 have to subnit to Dairyland's arbitrarv decision then 16 !
and Ms. Morse be the one to go.
1
'7 I feel that it is consistent with what has 18 happened throughout these croceedings.
I don't think that
'9 DPC has, in fact, answered all our cuestions sufficientiv 20 in the past.
21 In last year's nroceedinas, for instance, on 22 page R3, the third paragraph,
'tr. Gallen stated while 23 reassuring the Board or trying to convince the noard that y
24 this proceeding, having to do with the full torn anendment 25
-- I mean the snent fuel expansion anendrent -- would he o
dice. 9ede:a( cRepo:te:s, $nc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STR EET j
7
' /
W A S HINGTO N. O.C.
2Not l
J
,6 (202) 347-3700
245
/agb6 taken on a nriority basis, and I auote hin:
2 "We fully intend to keen the nonrd 3
and all the parties to the proceedina fully 4
apprised of any develonnents with regard to 5
these other alternatives"-- he's annakina of o## shind 6 nonts fron the plant-- "and if the sense of urgencv 7
we now feel about the spent fuel rack 8
proceeding is dimished in any way through 6
9 developments along these and other lines, to we will notAfy all narties, of course."
11 I think that given the shipments that occurred 12 in this past March of eight assenblies, it certainlv seened 13 to change their urgency for the nroceedings, thev were 14 able to, in fact, refuel s a result of those, and that's 15 changing the sense of urgency.
16 Me contacted both ?tr. Gallen and Colleen l
Woodhead, and Ms. Woodhead inforned us, in "act, that she 17 18 did not know of their plans.
We talked to other people 19 within Dairyland and asked then to furnish what the con-20 tractual agreenent was ahead of time, and we could not he 21 inforned.
In fact, Mr. Keene of Dairirland inforned ne that 22 he aidn't even recognize us as parties to the croceeding 23 ar.d nothing came of it, we have never received an a.: count 24 of what the contract is other than through the cross.
25 And I think that, in essence, that and other c8cc-7cdcra[ cAcporters, 8t.c.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STR EET W A S HINGTO N. D.C.
2000t (202) 347-3700
246 wrb/agb7 thing that are too numerous to nontica, tnat they have made 3
2 this whole proceeding and us and the proceeding as allowing 3
the public to intervene into a sham.
4 I do not feel that, given those linitations, 5
that we can participate in-these proceedings in anv meanino-6i ful way and haven't been able to in the past.
~
7 MR. CALLE'1:
I would like to respond,
'tr.
8 Cha'irman, to those points.
9 I would like to point out that it was Dairvland' 10 understanding that the onlv reason the Board indicated in 11 lts order that parti es sculd be permitted to accenna-v ene l
12 Board on the plant tour was the fact that the Board warted t
13 to: insure that there was no c3 narte contact in riolation 14 of 10 CFR 2.780.
Ordinarily in such situations, only 15 counsel for each party is adnitted on such tours.
CDEC 16 has no outside counsel, and the person who has renresented 17 them should ordinarily be the one that acconcanies the Board 18 on the tour.
19 It nust be renembered here that the three individuals who are renresenting CREC here today did not 20 21 intervene in this proceeding on an individual basis, thev 22 intervened as a group, the coulee Recion Enerav Coalition.
23 Dairyland holieves that the person who has 24 represented the Coulee Region was Anne.'torse.
She has i
/
25 signed a number of the pleadings, she was theperson I cAce ]cde:a{ cRepo:teu, Sac.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET l Q}f
,lLh ?
wasmuoTou. o.c. zoooi (202) *47-3700
247 wrb/agb8 personally talked to during the course of some rather 2-abortive settlenent discussions which we had last winter 3
and spring.
It's my understanding she has made a nunber of 4
contacts with NRC counsel, and as a result, Dairyland had 5
come to consider her as the spokesman for the group.
6 i
In terns of trying to contact CrtEC, the 7
arrangenents for this tour, as you know, were not finali~.ed 8
until the beg'nning of this week.
We nade attennts to call 9
Ms. Morse and the phone nunbu that I had for her had been 10 disconnected and there was no address in the phone hook.
11 C:lEC only has a post of fice box, we_sent a letter to --
12 we personally delivered a letter to that nost office box.
13 I might uant to note that under 10 CPR Part 73, 14 '
the Applicant or the Licensen has nrinarv resconsibility for 15 security arrangements at a nuclear facilitv.
In particular, 16 I would like to extract a quote from 73.55 (b) (7) which 17 says:
18
" Access to vital areas for the 19 purpose of general familiarization and other 20 r,n-work related activities shall not be 21 authorized excent for good cause shown to 22 the Licensee."
23 I think that nakes it pretty clear that the 24 reponsibilitics inposed in this area are on Dairyland.
s 26 Dairyland does not believe it had any obligation c0cc. Jede:a( cAepo:te:s, Snc.
444 NORTH C APITOL, STREET W AS HI NGTO N. D 4.
20001 g
i,
}
I, (202) 347 3700 I
248 1
wrb/agb9 to admit any nore than one person as a representative of 3
2 CREC for the purpose of this visit.
3 There are a varictv of reasons for that.
One 4
is additional security arrangenents might be necessary.to 5
meet the purpose of the visit.
Another thing was-Dairvland 6
l felt that good cause had been shown for the adnission of Ms. Morse to accompany the Board on this tour.
It was not 8
satisfied that good cause had been shown for any of the 9
other individuals.
10 Ue made a reasonable offer, we think.
Ms. Morse 11 was physically present at the site thic norning, she was 12 pJrfectly capable of naking the tour with the Board.
She 13 i refused to do no unless Mr. Nygaard and 'tr. Buenanter vere s-)
14 permitted to accompany her.
I don' t knew whether or not 15 Mr. Burmaster and Mr. Nygaard could he classified as is security risks, all I know is that we felt that good cause 17 had not been shown for them accompanying her on the tour.
18 It's also interesting to note t!'at uhen the 19 Board, if I recollect correctiv, asked her whether or not 20 Mr. Nygaard or Mr. Durmaster could substitute for her as a 21 CREC representative on this tour, the response was that 22 no, it is all or. tone.
And I don't think we are obliged 23 to pernit all three of them to tour the nlant.
24 I might also note that -- I don't want to J
25 speculate as to what their motives were for refusina to ckce. Jedera[ cRepczten, $nc 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D C.
2000t (202) 347 3700
240 I susnect it permit one representative to take the tour, 1
b t10 to do with publicity or, nerhans, 2
might have something for apneal, I don't know.
3 preserving a red herring After she refused to go on the tour, however, 4
5.
and even though CREC had waived its right to acconcany the l
Doard on the tour, Dairyland made arrangenents with a non-6 i
the Assis" ant interested third party, Mr. LaVerne Hors nan, 7
Lack and Dan Number Lecknaster of the Corps of Engineers.
8 to acconpany the Board on the tour to assure that 9
- Eight, I
no improper ex parte contact took place.
10 l
I I think Dairyland's offer was reasonable.
11 ;
- Again, And for whatever reasons CREC chose not to acconnany the 12 i
I But I don' t think any inference could be made that 13 Board.
i the tour was sonehow improper as a result of that decis on j
14 15 by CREC, I think As to Mr.Mygaard's other allegations, I6 in centext if you would read the rest of that transcriot 17 from the original prehearing conference, you would see 18 that the original Licensing Board was considering consoli-19 l
the full-tern onerating dating these two proceedings, 20 licensing proceeding and the spent fuel nooi proceeding.
21 We felt that there was no need to do that and there were 22 a lot of reasons why that shouldn't be done, and we 23 that tine.
i 24
)
presented then to the Board at l
Uhat we wanted to do was to maintain a criority
\\o/
's c4ce. 9ede:a{ cAcporten, !]nc.
a,.
NORTH C APITOL, STREET
,{]
444 s vJ W ASHINGTO N, D.C.
2O(.,01 (202) 347-3700
250 1
wrb/agbil for the spent fuel proceeding vis-a-vis the full-torn s
2 operating license proceeding becaise the full-torn onorating 3
license proceeding will not really get connletely underway 4
until the Staff Safety Evaluation Review of older plants 5
is completed.
6 So I think when the arrangenents were nade with 7
General Electric for the tenocrary r rage of the spent fuel 8
asdemblies down at Morris, Illinois on a tonnorary basis, 8
we apprised all the parties of that fact.
However, Dairvlar.d 10 was hoping that there would be no need to nahe such a I
'l notice that we could have action on this nroceeding orior 12 tc that time, and the arrangenents were not finalised until 13 just shortly before the shinnents were actually nade, and J
14 the parties were notified.
15 As to Mr. Nygaard's complaints about not gettinc 16 additional information out of Dairyland, he seems to forget 17 that he's a party to a number of proceedings before t' 3 NRC 18 involving Dairyland.
Fornal discovery nroceedings and 19 processes were set up in these proceedings.
20 And I advised Dairyland not to just turn 21 anything over to hin anytime he calls.
There are fornal 22 discovery procedures that parties are obliged to follow 23 and they're aware of then, they*"- used the.m in the pact.
24 And they chose to ignore then and try to obtain these
/
25 documents outside the paraneters of this proceeding.
I don' t cOce. ]edera[ cReyotteu, $nc
,n 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET
}
W A S HINGTO N. D.C.
20000 (202) 347 3700
I 251 1
wrb/agbl2 think that is any way to run a proceeding.
And I inst acted 2
Dairyland not to provide those documents, and no formal 3
discovery request was ever nade for those documents.
4 CIIAIRMAN BECIIIIOEFER:
Let me ask you one 5
questl.on, Iir. Ga'.len.
I understood the arrangement v!.th the 6
I G.E. Morris facility was a tenoorary one, is that correct?
l 7
And if so, how long is that supposed to last, how long can 8
the. fuel stay there?
MR. GALLEM:
I'm nct certain, Mr. Chairnan.
i l
l I seem to recollect that Dairyland has an obligation to take those assemblies back within the next year and a half 12 or so, but I'm not certain.
I could get that information 13 for you.
_' 'u
-J I4 Dairyland had approached G E, and had not 15 had much success--as vou aight know, General Flectric has 16 commitments for most of the space in that facility, 17 long-term conmitments for the utilization of that space 18 and they only accepted -- the only way they would accent from Dairyland the eight assenblies was on an interin.
20 basis with Dairyland's assurance that thov would take then 21 back within a short period of tine.
22 Cl! AIR'!AN BECHI!OEFER:
Absent those eicht 23 assemblies, is the current scent fuel pool full?
24 MR. GALLEN:
I believe so, yes, Mr. Chairman.
25 CliAIRFJJ: BECIII!OEFER:
And when is your next c0ce-]cderaf cAeporter.s, $nc 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET l I-W AS HIN GTO N, D.C. 20005 (202) 347 3700
252 wrb/agb13 planned refueline'?
I'm trying to put some paraneters arounn 1
the time frame.
n f tR. GALLE!!:
I believe it will be February 3
4 of 1980, Mr, Chairman.
MR. B R IASTER:
May I ask a cuestion?
5 6
What will hapoen to the eight assemblies 7
if the Board turns down the nool expansion?
8 CIIAIR'1AM BECIIItOFFER:
I think the Applicant 9
will have to answer that.
10 MR. GALLEN:
The Aonlicant has a number of l
11 alternatives.
It might possibly be able to orevail uoon j
12 G.E. to keep those assembucs a little longer, although 13 I don' t thi.ik so.
14 Under the terms of Applicant's present license l
as I understand it, they are permitted to store a number 15 16 of spent fuel assemblies on-site in shipping casks, and perhaps that might be the option that Dairyland would opt 17 18 for in this case.
19 CIIAIR? FAN BECI!!IGEFER:
To stav strictiv linited 20 to the tour, does rhe Staff have any connents, any additiona l l'
21 comments to make for the record?
22 MS. WOODIIEAD:
'7othing further from what the 23 Board explained previously in that we recogniecd the necessity of having on CREC representative at the olant 24 25 tour for ex parte purposes.
Otherwise, we acknowledged the v
I c4:e-9ede:a[ cRepo: ten, $nc 9
444 NORTH C A PITO L STREET J
W A S HINGTO N. O.C.
20001 (20aj 347 3700 I
l
I 253 wrb/agbl4 Licensee's responsibility under 73.55 to decide who is permitted access to the plant, and we took no position on 3
their decision.
4 MS. ftORSE:
For the information of the Board, 5
I would like to say that, regarding the contract with n.r.,
6 Applicant does not seen aware but I an aware that the I
contract is a three year, un to three year one time only h
8 non-renewable contract.
G.E. will not keep the fuel any 9
longer than three years, and it's a tennorary contract l
10 l
So I guess the only alternative remains storing'the fuel U
in casks on-site or expanding the pool 12 f!R. GALLEM:
Mell ?!r. Chairnan, I think the I3 way this situation arose has something to do with the
~
14 vagaries of national policy with regard to renrocessing I
and 15 permanent waste disposal nites.
There is a possibility that 16 I before the expiration of the three-year period some other 17 f
alternatives may open up in these areas, Oflus 38
{
19 '
I 20 21 h 22 23 24 25 f
c0ce 9edeta{ cRepciters, Snc.
$0bb l) i 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WA S HIN G TO N. O.C.
20003 (202) 347 3700
254 1
la WRB/wbl 2
MS. MORSE:
Mr.
Chairman, I would like to add s
3 ene more remark regarding the choice of nyself as the 4
representative of CREC.
5 I would like to reiterate what I said at the 6
plant site this morning; that is, that it is difficult for 7
me to conclude that I am the legal representative of CREC 8
because I signed documents coming from the intervenors, no 9
more than Mr. Nygaard did.
And I had contact with Mr.Gallen, 10 Mr. Nygaard had much contact with staff counsel.
11 So I think it is a rather arbitrary decision.
12 And the reasons that were given earlier do not seem to hold 13 water.
And the only one I can conclude has any merit has 14 to do with the security reasons.
And it would be interest-15 ing -- I would like to know what security reasons Dairyland 16 has for not allowing Mr. Durmas ter and Mr. Nygaard to be 17 present at the plant, and myself as less of a security 18 risk.*
19 CliAIRMAN BECli!IOEFER:
I think at this stage we should co to the main business of the prehearing conference.
20 21 In the event the people in the bach do not know, 22 we plan to take limited appearance statements, but not until 23 tomorrow.
I don' t know whe ther everybody was clear on that.
But today we would wish to go into the motions for summary 24
/
25 disposition which have been filed by, first by the Nn.C staff, i
c4ce-9edera( cReporten. Daa 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET y
- "y W A S HIN GTO N, D.C.
20001 I UjV
,j j '
(202) 347 3700
255 WRB/wb2 1
and I think a day later by the applicants.
2 Ue have received no answers whatscover to those 3
- motions, a
4
!iow I don't know whether the intervenors under-5 stand what the legal effect of a motion for summary dis-6 position is.
But if we grantec. those motions there would I
i 7
not be an evidentiary hearing.
In order for there to be an 8
evi;lentiary hearing there have to be on the record matters 9
as to which there are -- significant matters as to which 10 there are factual disputes.
And, having heard nothing at 11 all from the intervencrs we could have granted the motion 12 cn that basis.
l We, up to this time, chose not to do so because 13 i
l Board itself had a number of questions, some of which the 14 l
15 are related directly to the intervenor's contentions.
16 Others stemmcd from them but are not directl-y related.
17 We asked those questions a little over a week agc, 18 we have Aotten esponses now from both the Applicant and J
19 the Staff, and have presuned that those resconses have 20 also been delivered to one or all of you.
Am I correct?
21 MR. ?!YGAlsRD:
We received then this morning.
22 CIIAIRA' BECI!!IOCI'ER:
We received then late 23 last night ourselves, one of them.
The other one, the 24 Staff's we received on Tuesday afternoon, just before I 25 left Nashington.
cAce-9edeta( cAcyciters, Snc.
444 NORTH C A PITOR. STREET WA SHINGTON. D.C.
20001 I U V
)
(202) 347-3700 i
256 wrb/agbl 1
What we would like to find cut, contention by flwsub2 m
2 contention, is whether there are any facts uhich are in 3
dispute and what the Intervenors nosition is on those.
4 It might be desirable, first, to have each of j
the parties, if they wish, to make a general opening state-5 6 l ment of what their position is.
We would like to really i
hear from the Intervonors as to whether thov still believe 7
I 8 !
there are matters to go to hearing on in connection uith the 9
spent fuel pool exnansion, factual matters in dispute 10 because we've not heard anything fron vou.
11 Mould you like to address that?
12 f f R.
NYGAARD:
Could I have a moment?
13 CIIAIR'1AN BECIIHOCI'ER:
Yes.
I 14 (Pause.)
l MR. NYGAARD:
I guess I'm ready, Mr. Chairman.
15 16 CHAIRMAN BEC!iHOEFER:
Very well.
17 MR. NYGAARD:
I guess the Intervenors from the I
18 start, I guess our chief concerns -- and, I guess, even before 19 we intervened -- vere, I guess, the principle and the idea 20 of increasing spent fuel capacity as a generic matter.
21 This, of course, has not been allowed into the croceeding.
22 Me were specifically concerned about the great 23 amount of fuel or the creater amount of fuel, that was involved in Dairvland's nlans and the two-tier design.
Me 24 25 do not have the resources, nor do we have the exnertise o
I c4ce-9edera( cReporters, One I
d44 NORTH CAPITOL STREET
,-a]q W ASHINGTO N. D.C.
20001
[
i (202) 347 3700
257 1
wrb/agb2 personally, to nit-pick all the legalese and nuclearose 2
that has gone on since we've been involved in this pro-3 cceding.
4 One of our chief goals, of course, would be 5
to bring this matter before a Board which we realize, of I
6 course, would be the only way that it could be broucht 7
before the public.
I think that storing snent fuel will 8
renain a controversial subject nation-wide. and I think, 9
of course, it will remain a controversial subiect in this 10 region.
11 I think that beyond that we cannot reallv fc-ward anything bevond what we have forwarded, other than 12 the fact that we did note that there has been nention of
'3 14 storage of Zircaloy fuel at LACBMR.
And the only part of s-15 i act1 ally the answer by the '!PC Staff having to do with your 16 ;
questions in the memorandum and order basically said that 17 it has been done.
Me still have reservations about that 18 process of stainless steel and Zircaloy storage.
And we 19 do -- and I guess we did get the indication that there 20 would be a licensing amendment if that would ever be done.
21 Other than that....
22 Me also have read that,by intervention, that 23 has been evaluated by the MRC.
That evaluation crocess, a
hoth by the MRC Staff and the Anplicant, is usually better 25 and more thorough if there is an intervention.
And I think 1
l cAce-9ede:a[ cAeporte:1, Snc Q7f 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W A SHIN GTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 1
258 1 wrb/agb3 that, of course, was a chief concern of ours. m 2 CHAIR?fAM DECHI!OCPER: So are you saving nou 3 really that you have no specific factual natters with which 4 you disagree with the subnissions of the Anglicant and the 5 Staff now in connection with the nethod by which the scent 6 fuel pool nay be constructed and operated? 7 MR. NYGAARD: Well it's my belief that axperts 8 tend to differ in their opinions. And I think thtu in that 9 we cannot buy our own expert to give our own opinions, 10 I think that the truth, if there is such a thing, and the criterion which the Board has to decide on this arendnent 12 has already been given and probably nilked to death. CHAIR"AN DECHUCEFER: At this stage, I would -v I4 like to ask the Staff whether it's true, and I believe it 15 is, that before Zircaloy fuel could he stored there would 16 have to be a license anendment. U The only reason I ask you to confirm this is the 18 Applicants, I think, said there would be also but they 5 have no objection to a type of condition that we outlined. 20 And I wondered whether a condition like that was necessary 21 or whether you would still haveto go to the fornal anend-22 nent process. 23 l The second nart of ny question is, would l l there be a notice of this anendment published, either a 24 t 25 i proposed amendment or an after-the-fact anendment, I'n cAce-9ede:af cRepo: ten, Snc 444 NORTH C A PITO l. STREET W A S HI N GTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 367-37CO
259 1 wrb/agb4 not sure. m 2 !!S. WOODI!EAD: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I can answe-- 3 that. It would, indeed, be necessary for the Applicant to 4 apply for a license amendment to use Zircaloy. 5 The primary significance of such an action 6 would be the different chemistry and radioactivity within 7 the core with the use of Zircaloy as opoosed to the nresent 8 use of stainless steel. That would b2 the most significant 9 safety item that the Staff would review. And of course, to ultimately it vould be stored in the spent fuel pool and 11 that would also be part of the review. 12 Dut the primary concern of the Staff would he 13 the use of a different metal within the core, which would 14 be of great significance and would require a Safetv Evaluation l Review and anproval by the Staff before such metal wern 16 used in the core, and it indacd would require a licence 17 amendment. 18 And, yes, it would be prenoticed and opportunity '9 for hearing would be allowed since ny understanding from 20 the Staff, the technical Staff, is that it would be of 21 safety significance and therefore would be -- would recuire 22 prenoticing in the rederal occister. 23 CIIAIR'IAM BECHHOEFER: Just to sort of wind up 24 this i o su.mari::e it, only stainless steel rods would be k 25 used until ycu go through the amendment nrocess? 3 e cAce-9ede:a[ cAeporten, Snc. 444 l NORTH CAPITOL STRECT ,)J i WA SHINGTO N, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
260 urb /agb5 MS. MOODIIEAD: That's correct. MR. NYGAARD: Does that also mean that they 3 would have to have a licensing anendnent if they were to 4 bring Zircaloy rods and assemblies from another plant to use 5 as off-site storage at another plant? 6 MS. MOODHEAD: Yes. At the nonent, the Connis- ~ 7 sion recuires application for license amendnent and approval I 8 i before fuel can be shipped from one pool to another, even 9 if it is the fuel that is owned by one larger utility, in 10 other words, those utilities that have several plants. I U l This nust be revicwed bv the Staff before this is cornitted i l and it would,.indeed, be reviewed before this could occur 12 I 13 at Dairyland. 14 - MR. NYGAARD: I see. 15 CIIAIRMAN BECIUIOPPE.': I would like to turn 1.470 16 next to the cover letter of the Staff's answers to our 17 questions. 18 In terns of evacuation in ac' rdance with F,PA 19 Protective Action Guilas, you seem to be taking the 20 position that requiring a niant to include such provisions 21 for evacuation would be a challenge to Connission regulations, 22 and I wondered what position the Staff was taking on the I 21 Connission's proposed regulation which was put out a year 24 ago July, which was a proposed anendnont to Appendix E 25 of 10 CPR Part 50, where the Connission told, I think, cAce-9ede:a[ cAepc7tc:1, $nc. ~ 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET N 'V A S HI N GTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
261 wrb/agb6 Licensing Board and the Staff that these amended or nronosed 2 s rules were to be followed, pendino the Connission's con-3 sideration of what the final rule would he. 4 And I wondered -- now, aside fron the facts 5 of this case where apoarently the epa guides have been taken 6 into account, but aside from that, is the Staff taking some 7 position with respect to that proposed amendment? 8 MS. WOODHEAD: If you'll recall, "r.
- Chairnan, 9
the proposed rulemaking directs different actions to be to taken in different licensing nroceedings. It speaks o. 11 actions in construction permit oroceedings, actual licensine 12 j proceedings for the operating license, and then it speaks 13 to those olants which oresentiv have onorating licenses. 14 - And in that case, it makes the statement that { 15 l the Staff will review the emergency plans of those plants l' which already possess operating licenses and that the 16 17 emergency plans proposed in this rule will be applied 18 to these plants as needed. So that there are three differert I 19 j standards here which the Conmission explains. 20 I And I assume that the reason being that for those plants -- for those operating licenses, the s aff is 21 ordered to review then and to nahe any nodifications or 22 23 corractions as necessary, but that there is a different standard and criterion to address between those plants uhich 24 have the licence already in hand and those that have not 25 \\ c5ce 9ede:a( cReporteu. Dae l 444 N O R TH C APITOL STREE, j J} W AS HI NGTO N. D.C. 20001 l jjg (2o2) 34 7 3 7oo
262 1 urb /agb7 yet obtained it, so that there is a different ctandard, 2 s E a'd, of course, possesses a license. 3 CHAIRMAN RCCHHOEPER: Under 10 CPR 50.91, i 1 d however, aro we not to apply the sano rules to the grant 5 i of a license amendncnt that we vould anniv for the grant 6 c f an operating license? We considered this, and I think in a footnote 8 we' cited Section 50.91, we considered that that wculd put 9 this in the category of a plant where an onerating license i 10 I was being applied for, at least in terns of what night he 1 11 l relevant to the anendnent. 12 IIS. WOODHEAD: Yes. To a certain extent, that i would be true. But I night point out also that 10 Crn I4 l 2.760(a) describes in the particular rule the fact that i 15 an operating license does give the right to operate to the 16 plant without inquiry into the licensing natters which 17 other plants must receive. i 18 ! So that those plants that already possess '8 operating licenses, even when an aanlication to amend is 20 I applied for, are in a different position as to those natterr 21 outside the anendnent itstlf. 22 c a that when the Staff nontioned the nrenosed 23 rulemaking night be considered in a different licht in 24 this particular case, it was succesting that since this 25 plant has an cperating license and the annlication for cAce-9elera( cReI.c:ters, Sac. ,q 444 NORTH O A PITC L STREL7 06 g W A SHINGTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
I 3 263 wrb/agb3 anendment concerns only the spent fuel pool, that this 2 ~\\ i rather a limitation upon the matters of concern -- the 3 matters that should be of concern, particularlv in connecticn 4 with tae summary disposition notion. CIIAI1Y1AM DECHHOEFER: But if we should deterninc 6 that the spent fuel pool expansion resul'.ed in. need for I 7I more strincent evacuation, 5:culd that not he -- because of i 8 ' the consequences of sone accident or sone nishan -- that 9 the expanded spent fuel pool could result in -- 10 l MS. WOODHEAD: "ost certainly I would helieve i that a change in the safety of the plant by way of nodify'nc II I 12 this pool would certainly trigacr many considerations. 13 But as the Staff has shown P; its safety T, 14 Evaluation and the Environnental Inpact Assessnent, as well 15 as the affidavit subnitted in the motion for sunnary dis-16 position and in the nost recent ansvers to Board cuestions, 17 j the Staff believes that there is no change in the safety 18 of the plant by this proposed spent fuel pool modification. U3 To that extent, it seems to the Staff that 20 the energency plans renain the same, they have no greater 21 need to cover matters than they previously did, although 22 the Staf f certainly understands that Dairyland is heing 23 reviewed -- or perhaps I should more correctly statt 24 the Staf f is now in the nrocess of reviewing Dairyland's 25 evacuation plans under the criteria o# the cronosed rule i accsaca cepacu. na
- 056 y) 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET I
W A J HIN G TO N. O.C. 20004 (102) 347 3700 1
264 1 e wrb/agb9 mentioned by the Board. And the Staff has not finished its revieu so It 3 has not made final deternination of what nodifications or 4 additions to its emergency and evacuation plans might be 5 necessary. 6 CHAIR".AN BECHHOEFER: Does the Anolicant have 7 any comment on that subject? MR. GALLEN: Only that, 'fr. Chairman, I believe 9 that review is being conducted in conjunction with the 10 l systematic evaluation program for the full-term operating Il license review. 12 Is that correct? MS. WOODHEAD: I believe Mr. Gallen is mis-13 taken. There is a separate task force presently reviewing 14 15 all operating plants in light of emergency and evacuation plans. This is separate and apart from the FEP program. 16 17 MR. GALLEN: In any event, Mr. Chairman, I 18 believe the issue is being covered in another forum and ~ 19 as we indicated in our answers to Board cuestions, the l Protective Action Guides have been incornarated into the 20 1 21 Dairyland plan and are being utilised at the cresent time. 22 Insofar as the overall motion for summarv dis-23 position, I assume I an in a rather incongruous cosition 24 of agreeing with CREC. They seem to concede that there is / 25 no factual incue here. Dairyland, as indicated in its cAce-9ede:a{ cReporteu, Snc 444 NORTH C APITOL STR EET 7 W A S H t N G TO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
255 1 wrb/agb10 answers, would not be adverse to the imposition of an 2 additional toch spec regarding the use of ".ircaloy fuel, 3 though we don't think it's necessary -' this tine. 4 Dairyland is only permitted to use stainless steel fuel 5 and to store stainless steel fuel at in LACBUR Plant at 6 this time. ~ 7 I l as to the other issues, I think the filings 8 l to*date and the affidavits of the Anplicant and the Staff I 9 i j and additional af fidavits related to the Board cruestions 10 l make it quite clear that there is no genuine issue o-11 material fact remaining in this proceeding. 12 2.749 stinulates that all material facts 13 : set forth in the statenents which were filed in connection '\\ ~ with the summary disposition motion will be deemed to be i 15 I i admitted by the opposing party unless controverted by the i 16 ! l statenent. As you noted previousiv, CREC has filed no 17 statement. 18 Ne believe that Dairyland and the MRC Staff l are entitled to sunmary dispos.' ~,n of all the CREC 20 contentions. 21 He believe 2.707 also comes into clav here 22 in light of the fact that the Board's order advised CREC 23 that they were subject to summary disposition unless thev. 24 filed subscquent response in this matter. CREC has abided (. / 25 by the Rules of Practice -- or cited to the Rules of Practic. e, i b CC* TC Cia 0C .YMC.
- e.,
- c.... f 0tfCTS, 1036
,i S.. W A S HI N G TO N. D.C. 20001 l (2o2) s.7 37eo i
266 1 wrb/agbil in the past and the Staff's notion specifically advised 2 then that they had to file a subsequent response. 3 I think it's clear that there is no genuine 4 issue of natorial fact renaining in this proceeding. Me 5 think CREC's original contentions didn't have much of a 6 base to begin uith. Their responses to our interrogatories ~ were essentially non-substantive and confirned that fact. 8 Fof example, President and Conni.ssion case law in the i 9 Tyrono proceedings, the Gulf States proceeding and a nunher 10 of other proceedings in which similar contentions have been subjected to sunnary disposition. 12 It's interesting that the North Anna Board 13 recently granted sunnary disposition with respect to a 14 similar set of contentions. In that case, the opposing 15 l party had filed opposing affidavits and statements. 16 We are amenable to the licensc condition, as 17 we indicated, would be imposed,in the affidavits which 18 we have submitted to date. Me don't feel there's any i 19 reason to go to hearings on this point. He welcomedCREC's 20 participation, I think, in this proceeding un to this coint 21 in the sence that it may have caused everyo..e to sharpen 22 their pencils a little bit.and perhaps present a better 23 record for this Board to review. But there's absolutely 24 no need at this juncture to go to hearing. Me submit that lh) 25 the Daard should rule now on ,r notion for sunnary c;0ce-9eJe:af cReporters. Dna 444 NORTH C A PITO L STREET j 4, W A S M A N G TO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 i
267 1 wrb/agbl2 j disposition. I m 2 CIIAIPJtAM DECHHOEFER-Ils. Woodhead, do vou have 3 anything further? 4 I!S. WOODHEAD: 'tr. Chairman, I would also like 5 to ask the Board for a ruling on Staff's sunnary disposition 6 l and subsequent affidavits filed September '8, as well as ~ 7 i j the Staff's Safety Evaluation and Environmental Inpact 8 Apbraisal filed in mid-July of this year. 9 The Staff believes that there are no natorial 10 I issues of fact to be litigated and that the cleadings show l 11 I this fact, and we ask for a ruling from the Board of the 12 i no t:..onn pending. 13 (The Board conferring.) 14 l CHAIR"AN BECHHOEFER: I think the Board nenbers i l 15 will have a few nore specific questions on scocific tonics. I. 16 j Dr. Anderst n will lead of f. I l 17 DR. ANDERSOM: In response to one of the '8 Board questions pertaining to keeping the fuel pool eleva-tion at the 700-foot elevation, the response to that 20 ' question was, I think, that thev would keen it at least 21 16 feet above the top of the upper fuel rack in crder to 22 keep pool leakage at a minimum. 23 Now, in the Staff's SER statenent on Pacie 10, 24 as part of the pronosed nodification, the Licensee has r / n5 l coinitted to attemot to detect and eliminate the ocol s Sce- ]cde:a[ CSeyotte:1, $nc. 444 NORTH C A PITOL STR EET O .J l WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 l (202) 347 3700 \\
I 268 1 wrb/agbl3 leakage. 2 I'm wondering if this vill ec.,e out as a fornal 3 report and what will be the connequences of their finding 4 if they can do nothing about the pool leakage or if it is f predicted to get progressively vorce, for e::annle. 6 endlB1 7 8 l l I 10 l 11 12 i 13 l 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 l 21 22 23 24 / 25 c0cc-9e.l era ( cRepciters, Snc. 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET [ W A SHt.GTO N. Q.C. 20001 s v V ',f (202) 347 3700 l
269 1D2 MS. 1-lO O D II E A D : My u: derstanding from the 11RB/wbl 2 documentation of the Safety Evaluation in that the nresent 3 leakage is insignificant in relaticn to the amount of 4 water in the pool and the amount of water that goes to the 5 radwaste system. 6 I also understand from reading the dccuments ~ 7 j here--although you mus t realize I cannot testify as an 8 expert, that my knowledge is from the documents and from 9 discussions with the staff, that the applicant will attempt 10 to locate the source of these leaks at the time the spent 11 fuel pool modification, if such is approved, is undertaken, 12 and corr ect the leakage, so that there fould be none, or 13 significantly less. J 14 But I have no knowledge that there is any 15 anticipation that this might become a serious problem. 16 ?!y understanding is that it is not now of any significar.:e 17 and I have no reason to believe, or no knowledge that would 18 indicate that it might become a serious problem in the ~ 19 event they were unable to correct the leakage at the time 20 of moditication. 21 DR. A::DERSON: I guess my problem with this, 22 then, is that if it is insignificant why the licensee has 23 committed to nake this study. (~ 24 Perhaps the licensee would like to respond to 25
- that, d
dce-Sedeial Ckeyctieu, $nc. 7f u4 nonra camrei. sincer r - WASHINGrON. D.C. 20001 V ,a (202) 347 3700
270 1 WRB/wb2 !1R. GALLEN: I think it is a question of sound 2 engineering practice. The licensee has contracted with 3 an outside "irm to conduct an acoustic inspeccion. 4 Dairylend has in place normal visual inspection techniques. 5 We want to make sure whatever leakage there is, that it is i 6 detected and taken care of. 7 We don't regard it as a significant problem. 8 We glon't think it has the potential of a significant 9 problem. It's a question of sound engineering practice. 10 DR. ANDERSCNi I think you're telling me then 11 there is no good reason why you could not keep the apent l fuel pool at the 700 foot level; is that correct? because 12 13 you believe the radiation dose.iould be insignificant? 14 MS. WOODHEAD: Dr. Anderson, I believe the s 15 i staff affidavit is contrary to that. 16 It's my understanding that the af fidavit of i 17 Dr. Donohew stated that the radiation level -- the radiation 18 at the 700-foot level would be more serious for the workers 19 in the plant because of the radionuclides within the water 20 and that would come closer to the working surf ace. 21 MR. GALLEN: It's my understanding they attempted t ptimize the level such that the amount of shielding you 22 23 got from the -- the additional shielding you got frcm the 24 increased water level would not be offset by the potential 25 for increased exposure caused by the radionuclides that are I cAce 9edera[ cAepozicu, Snc 1036 ... _ _ c. _ S' - ' k, W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 20001 8 I (202) 3 7-3700
271 1 URB /wb3 in the water. C2 2
- S. 1 OODI!EAD:
Dr. Anderson, in the acaff's s 3 response to Board questions, within the affidavit of 4 Dr. Donohew, it is at the top of page 11-- 5 DR. ANDERSO'i: The sentence that reads, 6 " Keeping the water level helow the 7 700-foot <'.evation during normal operation is 8 l to reduce potential leaks from the pool," 9 is that it? 10 MS. WCODiiCAD: The sentence to which I was 11 referring-- Mould the Board like for me to read the 12 answer for the record, starting with the designation of 13 I'. 2 on page 10? I think it might be more helpful. 14 CIIAIPl!IsN BCCHIICE!'ER: Yes. 15 DR. ANCERSON: Yes, that would be fine. l 16 f!S. WOODHEAD: "The technical specifications 17 for Lacrosse specify that during normal operations i 18 the water level over the spent fuel pool elements 19 Shall be no less than 16 feet. Ist this depch of 20 water the dose rate from the spent fuel pool ele-21 cents is about 1 millirem per hour at the operating 22 level of the spent fuel pool area. The radionuclide 23 concentratiene in the spent fuel pool water will, 24 however, be an important contributor to dose rate in the operating area of the spent fuel pocl. With 25, I I c0ce 9ea'e:a( cReporten, Snc. } 1076 7 444 nenrw cuirou stars' W A S HIN GTO N. O.C. 20008 s 4, (202) 347-370o l
272 WRB/wb4 1 the pool filled to elevaticn 700 feet the dose 2 rate f:om the stored fuel elements will be 3 several orders of magnitude lower due to the 4 additional vater shield. However, at this ele-5 vation the dose rate from the radionuclide con-6 centrations in the spent fuel pool water is 7 about 5 nillirem per hour, and is Ne major 8 contributor to the dose rate in the spent fuel g pool area." 10 There is an additional sentence here to which 11 the Board refers: 12 "The reason for keeping the water 13 ! level below the 700-foot elevation during normal y operations" -- that is, during refueling - "the
- g spent fuel pool water is at the 700-foot level 16 to reduce potential leaks from the fuel."
This last statement is not caly an additional 37 statement of explanation but is the significant sentence
- g 39 there, the indication that the dose rate from the radio-nuclides within the water itself at the 700-foot level 20 w uld significantly increase occupational exposure since 21 it would be nearer to the workers.
2's 23 DR. A*:DERSON : Fine. Thank you. MR. DE C4ER : Ms. Woodhead, I think I understand 24 l y ur argument; except that to ne the two sentences, or so, s 25 i c:@ce-Jede:a{ cRepotten. Snc. 444 NORTH C APITOL. S TR EET ,*q W A S HINGTO N. D.C. 20000 v ,y (202) 347 3700 1
273 I WRD/wb5' that you read, don't really make the point in a quantitative 2 way. 3 On page 10 it talks about dose rate from the 4 fuel elements of about 1 mr per hour, and it says that in 5 addition to that there will be some significant amount of 6 radiation due to the concentration in the water. ~ 7 On the following page it says that the dose rate from the fuel elements is really insignificant, down 8 9 crders of magnitude, and it says that the dose rate from 10 the concentration in the water is about 5 mr per hour. --if 11 I have road this correctly. So numerically there is no way to make any 12 i 1 l ccmparison here. 13 14 I wonder if you're abl to do that, to make a 15 numerical comparison ccmparing apples and apples and not 16 apples and oranges. 17 11S. WOODHEAD: A nunerical comparison between l the-- 18 i 19 IIR. DECHER: The dose rate to the worker with 20 elevation at both levels,.ncluding both sources. 21 !!S. UCODIIEAD: Me have no answer for you, 22 '4 r. Decker. 23 IIR. GALLE : ?ir. Ch air:ran, if I may:-- 24 Dairyland has been involved with a number cf / the calculations. A rember of our staff is aare who has 25 cAce-9ede:a{ cAepo: ten, Snc. 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET 7 ] W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 20001 =v V 8 / (202) 347 3700
274 1 WDS/wb6 participated in these calculations. Perhaps I could 2 consult with him for a moment. 3 CHAIPJ'A:i DECHUGEPER: All right. 4 (Pause) 5 MR. GALLEN: I think there is some empirical 6 evidence of work here, Mr. Decker. Dairyland has raised 7 the level in the pool on occasion and taken readings, and 8 has,found the readings increased as you raised the water 9 level up around the 700-foot mark. There was no substantial 10 decrease going up to that level. So that it was considered 11 advantageous at an optimum point somewhere between the 12 present coverage to the 700-foot level to insure whatever 13 lessening of radioactivity from the spent fuel assemblies 14 l themselves was not offset by the increase in radioactivity l 15 associated with the increase in height of the water itself 16 due to the radionuclides normally present in the water. 17 MR. DECKER: Is there anything about the is proposed new tech specs which would prohibit you from 19 raising the level of water in the pool up toward 700 feet if it turned out to be beneficial in terms of lowering of 20 21 the overall dose rate? 22 MR. GALLEN: "o, Mr. Decker. 23 DR. ANDERSON: While we're talking about the 24 dose levels from the spent fuel pool water itself, I'd / 25 like to ask a couple of questions about mcnitoring. / l' c4cc-7c/cra[ cRepcete:s, 8nc c. 444 NORTH CAPITOL. STREET W A S HINGTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
275 WRB/wb7 1 How often do you monitor radioactivity in the 2 spent fuel pool water? 3 MR. GALLEN: There are conthly readings taken. 4 DR. ANDERSON: Monthly? 5 MR. GALLEN: Quantitative readings. 6 I uas just told that is a gross beta-ca.~.ma 7 i reading. I 1 8 DR. ANDERSON: Could I get just a brief descrip-g ti.on of what you mean by your area monitors? 10 MR. GALLEN: I don't know whether you saw them this morning or not, but there's a monitor set on the wall 3, l above the spent fuel pool. And there's a portable monitor 12 i I set on the bridge. 33 DR. ANDERSON: With your monthly monitoring 14 are there other ways that you can detect problen:s other 15 than waiting for a month? 16 MR. GALLEN: I guess we'd want a better defini-37 l tion of what sort of problems you have in mind, sir. 18 DR. ANDERSON: Unexpected leakaga from one of 39 the fuel rods. MR. GALLEN: There would be radiation level 21 readings continuously in the control room that of course would be available to detect any abnormal conditions. DR. ANDERSON: Would you expect to get some help on this from your airborne radiation monitors? l c0:e-]cdcra[ cAcyatic:s, Sz:. 444 NCRTH C A PITOL :d TR E ET i W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 2ooot (2o2) s47-37oo
276 WRB/wb8 1 MR. GALLEN: They are also continuously on 2 line.' And, of course, during any fuel handling we'd have 3 additional monitors activated. 4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I'm going to another 5 area now. I wanted to find out a little bit more about 6 storage of freshly discharged fuel over other freshly dis-7 charged fuel. I understand from the responses I've gotten 8 to questions that there will be no technical specification 9 precluding that; yet at least the preliminary analysis 10 of the safety evaluation was based upon the applicant's 11 intention not to store freshly discharged over other 12 freshly discharged fuel. I wanted to find out why there l 13 wouldn' t be a Occhnical specification precluding such 14 storage. 15 I use the word " storage" rather than, maybe, 16 incidental placenent, because I'm not sure whether re-17 arranging fuel from one rack to the other, that such an 18 arrangement might be necessary. But storage I view as 19 storage over a certain term, at least; why there wouldn't 3 20 be a technical spe cification precluding that. 21 I will ask both the applicant and the staff on this. 22 23 MS. WOODHEAD: I can give you the staf f thinking 24 on this, Mr. Chairman. 25 I On first glance it appears to be of little cAce-9e.de:a[ cRepo:te:s, Snc. 7 3 444 NORTH C A PITO L. STR EET s W A S HINGTO M. D.C. 2000t h (202) 347 3700 k
277 WRB/wb9 1 significance to the applicant because they do not intend to 2 store fuel in any one particular place; and certainly, if 3 they did, they would develop precautionary mecsures to take. 4 At second glan ce, then, the staf f informed me 5 l when I asked the very question you did, that it b not as l 6 simple a matter as appears. Because when the applicant 7 gets to the point where the pool is almost full he may have 8 very little choice in where he stores spent fuel. 9 Now we are anticipating, and I.think the appli-10 cant is anticipating, at the monent, that the lower tier i ni vill be filled first and then the second tier will be I l 17 filled. But there has been no real study of the space 13 l available at each offload through time yet, so that there is no plan as to where each offload will be stored as the 14 l 1 years pass. 15, l l 16 So that it appeared to the staff that before r7 such a technical specification were imposed on the applicant 18 that a study of the space availability and how it might be 19 used up to the point of a full pool should be done in order 20 not to impose some sort of technical spe: lfication to re-s.1ve the safety concern at this point, which might create 21 a safety problem in the future. That safety problem might 22 23 be forcing the applicant to rearrange fuel when the spaces when the spaces within the pool are limited. And that could 24 25 be of nore safety significance than the present possible / o cAce-9ede:a( cAeportcu, Onc. jQ}f .~ 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W A SHINGTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
278 WRD/wb10 1 storage of one fresh assembly over another. 2 CHAIRMAN BECHIIOEFER: So moving around spent 3 fuel that has been in storage for quite some time, that 4 would crohte more of a risk than putting one freshly dis-5 charged-- I assume when you say " moving around" it means 6 moving around fuel that has been stored for some time. 7 Decause presumably there would be pleny of fuel that was I 8 stored for some time which could be put into the bottcm 9 racks. And presumably also this would be done before a 10 refueling. 11 MS. WOODIICAD: The short answer, Mr. Chairman, 12 is that we have not studied it and evaluated it enough to 13 feel secure that sort of technical specification is indicatec 14 or even valid at this point. Because the concern is toward l 15 ! the end of the space in the pool. At that point we don' t I have a clear concept of how the fuel might be stored at is 17 that point and what the licensee's limitations might be. 18 It is simply a lack of information and an acknowledgement that we might create a safety problem by 19 20 doing such a thing. And we do not have the information 21 necessary to make such determination at this point. 22 CIIAIRI!AN CECliliOEFER: What would happen if you 23 came to the end of the bottom rack, if the applicant had 24 been filling just the bottom rack and it came to the end f that and happened to fill in one freshly discharged 25 i cAce 9c.le:a( cReporte:1, Sac 444 N O R TH C A PITOl. STREET W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 20001 h (202) 341 3700 k
279 NRS/wbll 1 element, and then you had six or seven more to put in the l1 pool? What would prevent one frcm -- assuming all the racks 2 3 on the second storey were free, what would prevent the 4 applicant from putting one of the freshly discharged rods 5 over the one that you used to fill up the last place on i 6 ! the bottom? I i MS. WOODIIEAD: Nothing, at this point. 7 1 I 8 CIIAIRMAN DECl!HOEFER: Uell, should that be 9 permitted to happen? 10 ! MS. MCODIIEAD: Well, cs explained in Dr. i 11 Donohew's affidavit, ue did a worst case analysis and assumed 12 a fresh assembly was the cause of destruction of two fresh 13 l asserblies, and found that even with containrent open it i 1, would not crente a threat to the public health and safety, 14 I i and, of course, is not calculated in the possibility -- the 15 16 probability that the containment would be closed very swiftl; i7 upon such an event happening. is ! So'that since we do not have the information ig necessary
- he staff feels it should have before it would imposo such a limitation on the licensee, we saw no reason 20 f safety significance to impose a linitation.
21 CIIAIR'IA'I BEC:IliCEFER: Couldn't it be better 22 to impose it, then remove it if you found, for safety reasons 23 it had to be removed? 24 i l 25 : If you got to the situation where you found it I i I c4ce. ]cde:a[ c)?ecc:teu, $nc. 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET .d W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 2000t l 4202) 347 3700 i
2nn WRB/wbl2 1 was necessary to store one on top of the other,and it would 2 Create a safety problem not to, wouldn' t it be better to 3 3 amend it at that time and remove the specification? 4 MS. WOODl!EAD: It's my understanding from the 5 staff, Mr. Chairman, that this is a complex problem they i would like to address in its complexity rather than approach 6 7 on a first blush impression. 8 Evidently the storage of fuel assemblics has 9 many considerations of which I, frankly, am net aware. But to although I approached the staff with the same question, 1 l was informed that the l staff would prefer to make a study ji 12 of what the impact of this might be, whether or not it l 33 would truly make the situation safer or whetner in would s .s 34 create problems that do not need to be created at this 15 point. 16 MR. GALLEN: Mr. Chairman, if I might add:-- 17 I guess Dairyland's primary concern is that I is l we're not interested in inhibiting the operational flexi-l 39 - bility, =nd we want t., be able to reduce the movements 20 required for any given discharge of spent fue.. 21 Imp sing this as a technical specification might result in additional movements that perhaps might 22 23 n t be ne cessary if there weren' t such a specification. 24 And since the original bounding analysis et'* the staff e / 25 performed indicated there would be no significant threat to t accscdc-d cacmcu. sna 1036 L 444 NORTH C APITOl. STR CET W AS Hf N G TO N. D.C. 2000t (202) 347 3700
281 l WRB/wbl3 1 the public health and safety associated with using tiering l 3 2 of freshly discharced racks, we did not feel there was any 3 need for such a technical specification. 4 Dairyland has no real objections to the imposi-5 tion of such a technical specification, but we just don't think it is desirable ar this time. g 7 CIIAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I take it, as a normal 8 pra,ctice you do not intend to store freshly spent fuel on-- 9 MR. GALLETI: Correct, sir. 10-CHAIR:1AN 3ECHHOErER: --assuming you had an alternative. j 11 l MR. GALLEN: That's right. 12 I l 13 I Present plans call for no storage of freshly 34 discharged fuel, and I would expect we would continue to 15 j do that. Again, we would develop procedures which would insure we would not have to; again, designed to keep the 16 number of separate movements to a minimum in any given 17 n, discharge. 19 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The Board would like to take a short break. We'd like to go over these affidavits ,40 again. For about maybe fifteen minutes. 21 (Recess) 22 End Blocm 3 Landon fis 24 I 25 I cdce-7elera[ c.8epo:ters, 8nc. 1036 .5i' 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W A SHINGTO N. D.C. 2 COOS (202) 347 3700
l 292 fis WRB lWEL/wel 1 i 1 CHAIR::AN BECIUIOEFER: Back on the record. 's 2 I have one or two remaining questions uhich I 3 would like to lead off uith. 4 I would first like to ask the Staff, Ms. 5 Woodhead, whether there was any intended difference in the 6 safety evaluation in some accidents. Particularly the fuel 7 I handling accidents, were stated to be appropriately l 8 ^ considered when they fell within Part 100, and the cask drop 9 accident was said to be satisfactory if it's well within 10 Part 100 11 Is there any difference -- and you used the i 12 term "well within" occasionally throughout the safety evalu-13 I ation -- are you aware of any intended difference in neaning 14 there, or use of the terms? 15 MS. WOODHEAD: No, sir, I think that's probably just an inaccurate use of the English lanaquage. 16 17 I'm not aware of any difference there. 18 CHAIPJiAN BECHHOEFER: ?!y other question was 19 what, exactly, in Wisconsin and Minnesota, what are the legal 20 status of the EPA protective action guides? I think your 21 affidavit, or the affidavit of the witness, stated that 22 they were informally adopted or used. What exactly does 23 that mean in terms of -- can you clarify what the status 24 is? 25 . iS. UOODHEAD: My understanding is that both a dce 9edera[ cReporten, $nc. l0b{ l} 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 2000t (202) 347-3700
wel 2 283 I States use these guides at the present time, but no legal 2 I procedure has made them binding. There are no statutes, is 3 t 3 my understanding. This is all from a phone call. I have 4 no further information. 5 MR. GALLEN: That's our understanding as well, 6 i Mr. Chairman. Uhen we indicated in one of the affidavits 7 that they've adopted them, we meant that they utilized them, i 8 nob that they'd gone through any formal procedure adopting 9 them, in accordance with any statute or regulation. 10 CHAIR:' c1 BUCHHOEFER: Right. J 11 l For the present time, that's all the questions I. 12 the Board has. He will let you know our decision on the I 13 sunmary disposition notions first think in the morning, N 14 when we meet at 9:00 o' clock. 15 I wanted to ask a few questions about scheduling for the operating license review and hearings. 16 17 Maybe, Ms. Woodhead, you could tell us the status of the environmental review and the final environmental statement, 18 19 and whether we can e::pect the environmental review to be 20 completed any substantial period of time prior to the safety review, whether we should be thinking of one hearing 21 22 or -- one combined hearing, or two separate hearings. 23 I believe the parties and the Board last year were talking in terns of tuo separate hearings. 24 { MS, UCOD:1EAD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Un fortunate: /, / 25 i cAce-9ede:a[ cAeyotters, Snc. 444 NORTH CAPITOL. STREET j W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
2R4 wel3 1 I cannot give you any even approxinate dates for the issuance 2 of the final environnental statement or the safety report 3 by the Staff. 4 My information is that the Staff probably will 5 be able to issue the final environmental statemenu towards 6 the end of 1980 or thereabouts, because of a shortage of staff due to other studies within the Commission. The 7 i safety report probably will not be out for two years. 8 9 This is the current information so, thercfore, 10 it appears to me that it might be the best procedure to it anticipate an environmental hearing prior to the hearing on 12 safety matters. Uhat I'd like to propose to the Board is that 13 14 I check with the staff who are more knowledgeable in these 15 matters when I return to the office, and advise the Board I i 16 and the parties of the best information I can obtain at 17 this tine, and leave it to the Board and parties to determine 18 uhother it would be better to proceed in two separate 19 hearings or to consolidate the environmental and safety matters into one hearing, to be held much later in tine. 20 21 CHAIR!1Tdi BUCHHOEFER: I take it the safety 22 review is still part -- or dependent in part upon the 23 Commission's generic review of the older reactors? 24 ?G. UOODHEAD: That's correct. The Systematic c / Evaluation Program is a review done by a group of the staff, 25 cbce. ]cdcra[ cReporters, $nc. jQ}f d 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W AS HI N GTO N. D.C. 20C01 (202) 347 3700
wel 4 285 1 separate and apart from those that do the safety evaluation 2 reports for new plants that have applied for licenses. So 3 that the subject natter is entirely different, since they 4 deal with the plant as built and review it with new regula-5 tions and new design nodifications and additions in mind. 6 And this task force is addressing a problem that, to that i 7 extent, it's much more difficult than starting with a design which is one of present day. 8 9 So I just can't give you an idea. 10 CHAIRMAN BECUHOCFER: I take it the reviewers i for Lacrosse will wait for the task force report before ij 12 they issue a safety evaluatien? I take it you would not issue a safety evaluation based on a unique review of 13 s 14 Lacrosse, at least prior to -- well, I'll call it generic 15 review, of all the older reactors? I nean, I take it the 16 task force report will be out first, at I then a separate 17 report would later come out for Lacrosse? 18 MS. WOODHEAD: That's correct, Mr. Chairnan, there will be a separate report that's a generic document, is 20 just prior to issuance of the safety evaluations of the ~ 21 plants under consideration. 22 MR. NYGAARD: Do I understand now that the 23 generic report is going to come out after the safety 24 evaluation report, or vice versa? / 25 MS. WOODHEAD: Before. Occ 'Tede:a[ cSeportcu, $nc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W AS HIN GTO N, D.C. 2000% (202) 347 37CO
I 206 wel 5 I 1 CI! AIRMAN BECHHOEFER: So that it will be 2 possible to relate the generic report, then, to a specific 3 reactor? 4 MS. I?OODHEAD: Correct. l 5 ' CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Okay. Ilhy don't you, 6 when you can find out something more definite, advise the 7 Board and the parties so that the Board and the parties 8 nay suggest their preferences for holding saparate or 9 combined hearings? i 10 After ue get done with this part of the l proceedings, or naybe even before, we will try to issue an 11 ! 12 order on contentions -- at least on the environmental 13 contenticas, and perhaps on -- I don't knou, have safety 14 contentions even been considered? Have submissions been 15 made on safety contentions or not? 16 MS. UOODHEAD: Only to the extent that there 17 l Were several safety contentions submitted by Coulee Region 18 Energy Coalition along with their petition to intervene, 19 and the Board and parties decided that since it appeared 20 that the safety review would not be complete for several 21 years, that in fairness to all the parties, it would be 22 better sinply to keep the contentions on the record, and 23 the Staff's and Applicant's responses, for consideration, 24 which would be more relevant to the Staff's safety evaluatien i / 25 l at the time it's issued. So no ruling was naue to admit i i i cAce 9edera[ cAcyotte:1, $nc. / 3 444 NORTH C A PITC L, STREET O ,vc WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347-370o i
el 6 237 w 1 any of the safety contentions. 2 Is that your recollection, Mr. Gallen? x 3 MR. GALLEN: That's correct. I believe we 4 segregated then out, environmental and safety, and j ust. left 5 it there. 6 CIIAIR?CCI BECIIIIOEFER: Well, now, project I l yourself into the future and you get your safety evaluation 7 8 coming out, and we have some contentions. Presumably the 9 Intervenors will want some discovery on their contentionJ. 10 Would you anticipate that there would be discovery after the 11 issuance of the safety evaluation? Decause -- in terms of 12 timing, is what I'm trying to think about. 13 MR. GALLE::: That was my understanding, Mr. 14 Chairman, that we would not rule on the safety contentions 15 until some point in time close to the issuance of the SER, 16 and then discovery would open with respect to those 17 contentions which were admitted. 18 MS, UCODIIEAD: That's my recollection too. It 19 was not necessarily at the time of the SER, but simply 20 somewhere in the approxima';e time frame of the issuance of 21 the SER. 22 The thinking of the Board and parties was 23 that it would be premature to really address the 24 contentions so far before the safety review is complete, 25 that circumstances could change so much
- t. hat decisions made dice-9ederaf cReportcu. Dne.
444 NORTH CAPITOL. STR EET p, 7 / W A S H t W,'O N. D.C. 2C301 l hj .J (2c2) 347-3700
wel 7 288 1 then, which was a year ago, could change so much that it 2 would be useless to try to address then so early. 3 CIIAIRI!AN BECIIIIOEFER: Well, I take it there won't be any real urgency to get the hearing through the 4 5 minute the safety evaluation comes out, am I correct? I 6 mean, I know the way the rules read. Once an application 7 l for change has been made, the existing license continues 8 until the change is made. So I just wanted to make it 9 clear that there will be sufficient time for discovery, 10 assuming contentions are accepted. 11 MS. UOODIIEAD: I would certainly presume so. 12 There would not be the urgency in this case that there 13 would for a plant that has no license. 14 CIIAIRIIAN BECIIIIOEFER: The Board will await 15 your report. 16 MS. UOODIIEAD: All right. I'll submit it as 17 soon as I can to the Board and the p.arties. 18 CIIAIRITI BECIlliOEFER: I gather there's no real urgency, but just keep us advised as to what you find 19 20 out. 21 I think that is all the questions we have and 22 the matters that we have to take up. 23 Do any of the parties have any other matters they wish the Board to consider before we -- we had planned 24 25 to adjourn, and then begin limited appearances this cAce-9ederal crc;:citeu, Dna 93g 444 NORTH CAPfTOL STREET V 'I W ASHIN GTO N, D.C. 20000 (202) 347-3700 i
2R9 wel 8 1 afternoon, if any people here want to make statements. 2 We will also be back in the morning, and we'll advise of 3 our decision on the cumnary disposition motions and also 4 take limited appearances toncrrow morning. 5 Is there anything that any of the parties 6 wish to raise, though, at this time? 7 MS, UOODIIEAD: Staff has nothing, Mr. 8 Chairman. 9 MR. GALLEN: I was just going to recommend that i 10 l we commence limited appearances for anyone who wishes to I 11 j, make a statement at this time, Mr. Chairman. I 12 MR. MYGAARD: I would like to just ask one question on the subject that you just alluded tc, and that 13 is that in that this is an ongoing process, the Systematic 14 I I 15 l Evaluation Program, I take it that we are going to be 16 allowed to make ongoing contentions, or new contentions, concerning matters that are brought up within that evaluation 17 18 ! program? I think -- I don't know -- I guess we sort of 19 decidGd on that last year. 20 The other is that I guess it seems rather 21 difficult, in that there has already been several hundred pages of reports having to do with the Systematic Evaluation 22 Program, and then reanalysis to some of the analysis that's 23 already been done, and in that the process is so long, we're 24 1 25 talking about two to three years, vill there be changes in 2 cAce-]cde:a{ cAepo:ters, $ne. 444 N OR TH C A PITol. STREET WA SHINGTO d. D.C. 20001 V (202) 347 37oo
wel 9 200 1 the license allowed having to do with pro'siems that may come 2 up within that evaluation? And it may be difficult, in fact, .s 3 to keep track of changes that are made, not only in the 4 license but technical changes, and actual physical changes 5 in the plant. i 6 I don't really know how to resolve this. I l 7 guess I'm sort of opening it up to question. It seems sort 8 l of a very unwieldy, very unworkable situation, as far as l I 9 I an intervention by citizens. I 10 l I think the three of us have lived'in the 11 area for a long time, and will probably continue to be 12 concerned about the plant, and what I do question is, wo 13 all have jcbs and our own lives to manage, but you're 14 talking about allowing a plant to continue on a provisional i 15 l license and continuing to allow them to operate while the 16 plar.t is being reviewed. 17 I guess I wonder if any sort of workable I 18 cituation can be arrived at as far as the length of time, 19 in a situation for intervenors. And will new intervenors 20 be allowed in, if contentions arise that other citi= ens 21 are concerned about, within this proceeding? 22 MR. GTtLLEN : tir. Chairman, if I might respond 23 to that briefly, it's my understandir:g that there's a 24 procedure available if CREC or any other potential inter-25 venor feels there are situations which arise which give c0ce. ]cdetal cRepczten, $nc dde NORTH CAPITCL STREET W A SHIN G TO N. D.C. 2000t (202) 247-3700 l
201 wel 10 1 them concern, and they think they're concerned about the N 2 continued operat;on of the plant. They could always file a 3 motion with the Director of Reactor Regulation pursuant to 4 2206, reauesting that appropriate action be taken with 5 respect to the plant. 6 ; I would add that one such motion filed by I 7 ! CREC is currently pending before the NRC, concerned with a ~ 8 number of items which first arose in conjunction with the 9 SEP program, if I recall correctly. 10 So certainly that avenue of redress is 11 available to them and continues to be available to them and 12 will be available to them throughout the period prior to i 13 i the issuance of the SER. ~ l l CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I would assume, also, ~ 14 i i that under Commission rulings any new information which 15 I i 16 comes out of the Systematic Evaluation P"ogram could be 17 the subject of new contentions, either by this group or by 18 other groups. That's my understanding of it now. I don't 19 know what the rule is going to be on re-noticing proceedings 20 which have been delayed for a substantial period of time. 21 There have been a -umber of Appeal Board decisions in that 22 area, and I don't know what the Commission is going to do 23 with them. So that I can't tell you. But normally new 24 j h# information could give rise to new contentions, so that the 25 cAce-]e.l eta [ cNepotters, !)nc. 7 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W A S HI N GTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
202 [ wel 11 1 Systematic Evaluation Program report, if it gave rise to 2 some new infornation, presumably it could give rise to new 3 contentions based on that, as matters not available before. 4 l IIR. NYGAARD:.Could it give rise to neu 5 intervenors? 6 CIIAIRMAII BECIIIIOEFER: That, I couldn't answer. I'm not sure. 7 8 Tha Commission is reviewing at the present i I g time some recent Appeal Board decisions in a related area, 10 l and I don't know what the annwer is going to be. I j; j MR. MYGAARD: I guess what we were also I 12 questioning about, and probably we would like a clarification' 13 from Applicant, is the status of 'he provisional operating 14 license as it stands right now. We have heard that it is l 15 n inf rm 1 extension of the provisional operating license, and that it expired in 1975. 16 MR. GALLEM: I believe, Mr. Chairman, under 37 t .g the Atonic Energy Act and under the Administrative Procedures Act any time an applicant who currently holds an Agency ig li nse submits a timely application for renewal of that 20 license, the existing license continues in etfect until 21 final disposition of the application. 22 23 CHAIra'L'I DECIIHOEFER: I think I referred to that earlier. That's part of the Administrative Precedure 24 Act, anyway. 25 dce-]cde:af cRepo:tets. Dnc. 444 NORTH C APITOL STR EET Vd e WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
293 wel 12 1 MR. DURftASTER: So in effect they can i 2 operate on their expired license indefinitely? 3 CIIAIR:Cdi DECI!HOCFER: As long as they have 4 applied for renewal, yes. 5 IIR. BUR? TASTER: I don't understand the purpose 6 of them applying for a renewal, why they have to apply? 7 They're in no hurry to have the full-term, because they can 8 just as easily operate on what they've got now anyway. 9 I mean, fcur years to operate on an informal 10 extension of a provisional operating license, and then i 11 i another two years, seems to me an e::cessive amount of time. 12 CHAIR Udi BCCIHIOEFER: I don't think it's an 13 informal extension. I think it's the way the rules work. l l MR. DUIU1 ASTER: 1 mean that's a quote from 14 15 Dairyland Power in their annual report. 16 MR. GALLE:: Whatever the source of that 17 quote was, it wasn' t draf ted by us. 18 I IIS. MORSE: It was in the annual report. 19 11R. GALLE:I: I'm saying the license continues 20 in effect by operation of law, and will continue to do 21 so until IIRC finally makes a final agency decision on our 22 applicatio., for renewal. 23 As to y3ur other concerns, I believe ve 24 covered that at the prior prehearing conference. Dairyland P 25 is just as an::ious as anycne else to resolve all the l I l cAce-CIede:af cReporten Onc jQ}f /q f 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET 'U / W AS HINGTO N. D.C. 20009 U.o2) 347 37o0
wel 13 294 1 outstanding issues with respect to this application and go 2 through the full-term operating license proceeding, and we 3 have a great deal of incentive to reach a final decision in 4 that proceeding as soon as possible. 5 MR. NYGAARD: In other words, Dairyland applied 6 for a license in 1974, and it took until 1973 to process that 7 license for public review, and now it's going to take until i 8 198Q, 01 or 82 to resove it? 9 MR. GALLEN: I think what you have to under-l 10 I stand, Mr. Nygaard -- and Ms. Woodhead could probably 1 address this better than I could - - by coincidence, 11 or 12 whatever, this application got caught up in this generic I ongoing Commission review with a number of existing 13 facilities, and normally I don't think it would take quite 14 15 that long to process an application. 16 MS. WOODHEAD: That's right. 17 Perhaps I can give the Board and parties some 18 information on that subject. 19 In 1967 Lacrosse reactor was issued - pardon 20 me -- a safety evaluation report was issued by the Staff 21 concerning the Lacrosse reactor. In the safety report the 22 Staff addressed all safety items according to the criteria 23 then in force, the regulations in force, at that tine. 24 In 1974 Dairyland applied for a full-tern 25 l operating license, and because some major rulemaking was l c4ce-]cde:a{ cReyotieu, Snc 444 NORTH C APITOL. STREET / " } W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 2000t t V (202) 347-3700
wel 14 295 1 going on by the Commission, primarily Appendix K and the 2 ECCS, all re-reviews of the older plants that were licensed 3 under criteria which had changed quite radically since 1967 4 were suspended. So that the application has been pending 5 before the agency since 1974, and has been postponed, as 6 have all the applications for full-term licenses for the 7 older plants. 8 And then more recently another cause of delay 9 has been the creation of the Systematic Evaluation Program, 10 which is an attempt to consolidate the revieu and the 11 criteria which are used during the revicu, so that the 12 standards and criteria that are applied to these older 13 plants will be done in a uniforn manner, and that the tash 14 I will be performed thoroughly and will full attention. 15 So the delay has been caused by, I might say, I 16 the creation of new rules and new ways of applying them by 17 the Comnission. And, as I'm sure the Intervenors are 18 l quite aware from seeing the large amount of paper in the 19 Public Document Room, Staff is continually sending out 20 questions to Dairyland as well as to the other licensees 21 undar this program, to ascertain certain features in designs 22 of the plant so that they will be able to apply the 23 standards and criteria in use by the program. 24 CHAIR"A:I BECHHCEFER: Uill Intervenors in this l proceedino and in sinilar proceedings receivc m pies not / 25 i cAce-]cde:af cRepc ters. Dnc. 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET j W A S He NGTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
uel 15 20G only of the safety evaluation, but also of any report that 1 s 2 comes out of the Systematic Evaluation Program? end WEL 13 MS. UOODIIEAD: Most certainly. 4
- 15. MORSE:
Am I correct in my understanding, then, that the Intervenors will receive copies of any 5 I 6 documents relating to the evaluation by the NRC of LACEUR? 7 Is that correct? 8 MS UOODIIEAD: Any document? 4 g MS. MO RSE : Yes. 10 CIIAIR"AN DECIIIIOEFER: I would assume you'd g get any document that the Board gets. 12 MS. MORSE: The reason I asked is because I l i3 l had a conversation uith Mr. Gallen earlier in the year regarding the issue of containment venting, and he informed 34 15 me that that was not strictly a matter that was under 16 review with our intervention, so therefore we would not 17 receive that information. And that was contrary to the 18 information that I had received last year, so I'd like verification on what c::actly we are privy to. 19 MR. GALLEN: I don't recall that exact 20 conversation. I do remember discussing the routing list 21 for documents. At least Dairyland and I have discussed g this, and it's my understand that CREC is on the service 23 li t fr 11 documents related to the full-term operating 24 25 license proceeding, the SEP and the spent fuel proceeding. 9
- Cf0TfCT1, CC*
CC0 0 (2C. ~) 444 NORTH C A pitot. STREET '/ b W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 2000t (202) 347-37C0
wel 16 297 1 Obviously Dairyland will only be sending them copics of 2 documents which Dairyland itself produces or submits to IIRC. s 3 I assume liRC is doing the same. 4 !!S. WOODIIEAD: Yes, as far as I'm aware you 5 are on our service list for everything that goes out from 6 the Staff. 7 CIIAIR:1AN BECIIHOEFER: Any other questions or I f 8 matters to be brought up? 9 (No response.) 10 Then the prehearing conference itself is 11 adjourned for the day, but if anyone here wishes to make 12 limited appearance statements we will take those at this 13 time. v' 14 Does anybody in the room desire to make such 15 a statement? 16 (Show of hands.) 17 CIIAIRMAN DECIIHCEFER: All right. Anyone who 18 wishes to make a statement could, I guess, step up to the 19 podium there and identify yourselves either by organi::ational 20 affiliation or your general address. 21 I guess first come, first served, in no 22 particular order. 23 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATE? TENT OF ANN O'MALLCY, 24 324 SOUTII llTII STREET, LA CROSSE, WISCONSIN. / 25 liS. O ' f! ALLEY : I'm representing myself. I cAce-]cdeta[ cRepciten, $nc. 7 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W AsHINGTON. D.C. 2000t (202) 347 3700
290 came here to express my concern about the nuclear industry, wel 17 1 in particular the expansion of the spent fuel pool at the 2 3 Lacrosse Doiling Water Reactor. I understand that this pool was built to hold 4 5 l 84 assembifes, not 440. This expansion will triple the I have never heard of dangers in the event of an accident. 6 any nuclear reactor stacking assemblies one on top of ~ 7 i I 8 another. I'm really tired of these experiments going 9 ; l cn in my back yard. 10 I'm asking the public to take a look at the 11 and operating history of the Genoa nuclear pouer plant, 12 also notice that Dairyland Power Ccoperative has never had 13 a full-term operating license, but wants to make an amend-14 ment to this license for the r,econd time, and store more 15 high-level radioactive waste on the site. i i 16 I think it's time that we get in touch with 17 We reality.' We have no way of getting rid of this waste. is i ig I should find a way to isolate it from the biosphere. I do ~ I think not want the 11RC to rubber-stamp this e::pansion. 20 it's important that we clou down, and show some concern for 21 cach other and for future generations. 22 l (Applause.) 23 LI:1ITED APPEARANCE STATE:!E: 7 OF KATI!Y TURPSTRA 24 4438 STATE n0AD, LA CnOSS2, NISCO::SI::. 25 l c4ce-]ede:a[ cAejotteu, $nc. i 444 NORTH C A PITOL STREET I I W AS HIN GTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700
wel 18 299 1 IG. TERPST RA: 11y name is Kathy Terpstra, 2 4438 State Road, in La Crosse. 3 I'm a part-time student and a part-time E 4 secretary, and full-time housewife. I'm not a nuclear 5 scientist or a big executive or corporate lawyer, but I l was gifted with common sense. 6 ' Common sense tells me that nuclear power is 7 i 8 danocreus. The Three 11ile Island incident showed us that 3 pecple make mistakes, and machinery breaks doun, and small 10 accidents happen with quite alarming regularity in all the f 11 nuclear plants. 12 It seems funny to me that in the years that 12 i I was growing up, in the 60s, everyone was uorried about l 14 radicactivity and about how they were all building civil 15 l defense shelters, and they said radioactivity uas a pretty 16 dangerous thing, and now the low-level radiation escaping 17 from the pcwer plants, they say that, well, a little bit, it 18 isn't too much to worry about. 19 I don't understand that too much. 20 And common sense tells ne that expanding the l s:2ent fuel pool is a bad idea. Causing more waste to be 21 22 stored in an area only increases the risk of accident or 23 misplacement of very dangerous materials. And considering 24 the track record of the Genoa plant, these risks are very J 25 real. cAce-9ede:af cReporte:s, Sac 7, 444 NORTH C A PITOl., STREET dh W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
300 wel 19 1 Also, I'm worried about having other plants 2 shipping their wastes to this fuel dump. Common sense also 3 tells me that you have to have a license in order to operate. 4 Driving a car, getting married, raquires a license. And I 5 don't know how Genoa can operate without one. 6 Finally, common sense tells me that getting 7 rid of nuclear power plants is not the whole answer. You 8 must develop and make available safer forms of energy, such 9 as solar and wind. If you ask me, you should invest this 10 large amount of money into these alternative energy systems. 11 j That makes sense to me. 12 (Applause.) 13 LI!!ITED APPEARA!!CE STATE" INT OF THO 'AS K. 14 HAMILTON, 1816 DENTON STPIET, LA CROSSI:, 15 WISCONSIM. 16 MR. HAIIILTOU : My name is Thomas K. Hamilton. 17 I live at 1816 Denton Street, La Crosse, Wisconsin. I 18 represent myself. 19 There are a number of issues I am concerned 20 about with respect to Dairyland Power's application to 21 increase the amount of nuclear fuel to be stored at the 22 Genoa site. 23 Since Dairyland Power is a cooperative they 24 are not accountable to the Public Service Commission review. l 25 l This leaves the burden of regulation concerning the anti-l l cAce-9ede:a[ c)?epctte:3, Snc. 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET y ) ,] W A S HINGTO N. O.C. 2000t (202) 347 3700
wel 20 301 1 nuclear issues to you, the URC. 2 I certainly hope you realiac the responsibil-3 ities, and the impact these responsibilities have on the 4 general public in the Lacrosse area. 5 Dairyland Power's proposal to triple their h on-site fuel storage at Genoa is an entremely expensive 6 project. Dairyland has already spent significant amounts 7 ' l I 8 of noney on this project, uith the idea in mind that you, 9 the NRC, will eventually approve its proposal. 10 That makes you no;hing more than a rubber 11 stamp. Just as the public's noney has been spent on a l 12 proposal that has not been planned with public input, the 13 MRC is being coerced into approving Dairyland's proposal. j The question and concern here is: Is the 1-4 15 l public being served by this hazardous proposal, or are 16 Dairyland Power's profit motives and long-term interests 17 being served? 18 Another of my concerns is the fact that the 19 Genoa plant does not have a permanent license to operate. 20 Dairyland merely has a verbal entension of a provisional 21 operatinc license. If three to five years from now 22 Dairyland is told to cease operation at Genoa because the 23 plant cannot or appears never able to meet licensing specifications, vill I and other residents in this area 24 25 receive a refund for the money ve have been coerced into l c4c: 9edera[ cAepotten. One 444 NORTH C A pitot. STREET / i W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
302 wel 21 I investing on this project and in this plant? 2 Also, isn't it dangerous for a non-licensed s 3 nuclear plant to be operating, especially a plant that you, 4 the NRC, has said is poorly administered? 5 My questions and reservations have really 6 been concerned with non-technical aspects. This is because 7 I am not a nuclear technician. It is also because this 8 issue goes far beyond technical concerns, and affects every 9 citizen in this area in a non-technical manner. Most of 10 the people in the Lacrosse area only understand nuclear l generation of power in a very non-technical manner. 11 12 Because of this, you have a duty to consider 13 all sides of the issue, not just the technical issues that 14 only c:: pert technicians can understand. I hope you make 15 the right decision. 16 (Applause.) 17 LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT OF ROGER KANIES, 18 ETTRICK, UISCONSIU. 19 MR. KANIES: My name is Roger Kanica, and I 20 1.ive in Ettrick, Wisconsin, and I'm a member of a community-- 21 a spiritual community, called The Farm. I represent myself 22 and that community, along with June Taft, who is here today 23 too. 24 We've been present at the hearings that have 25 taken place last year on the general licensing. I have some cAce-]cde:af cRepticu, Sne }0b 3 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W A SHIN GTO N. D.C. 2MO S (202) 347 3700
303 wel 22 1 stuff that I just don't understand about how -- it seens 2 that the intervention has caused, like, the NRC to take a 3 really close look at Genoa, and that all has caused the, 4 you know, the systematic evaluation, and everything, to 5 like -- I mean this is happening all over the country, you 6 know, after Three Mile Island, people are taking a look at 7 all the plants, okay? 8 So this plant is getting a good look taken at 9 it. 10 ; Uell, how come -- are we going to go ahead and l 11 ; built this fuel -- you know, this fuel depot, if there is 12. a chance -- and there is a chance -- that the whole Genoa l 13 plant could get shot down here within the ne::t couple of 14 years, because it might not be safe? You know, where does 15 that lcave us? If we build a big fuel dump, what does this 16 i 1 17 mean? Does this mean that there's a lot of unstated stuff 18 going on here? Does this mean it's going to become a fuel 19 depot for Monticello and Red Uing and anything else that's 20 going on around the State? Is that a possibility? If so, 21 that affects everybody, you know. 22 I mean, like, we're talking about the param-23 eters of this conference and this discussion being, you 24 know -- you kncu, is it safe and is it cool to go ahead and 25 build this ruel depot? But the real parameters of any i i cAcc. ]cde:a{ cRepc:tm, $nc I j 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W A S HIN G TO N, D.C. 20001 (2C2) 347 3700
wel 23 304 1 discussion of nuclear energy, you can't hardly limit it in 2 the long run to just how it's going to affect us, or just, 3 you } now, is it feasible or is it safe, or is it economic, 4 or something like that. 5 I wonder if, you know, we can get an answer? How come we have to go ahead and -- you know, how can we 6 7 go ahead and approve a fuel -- you know, a fuel assembly I 8 dump, if there's a -- you know, if there's a chance that 9 this plant could be shut down? If the plant's shut down, is i it still safe to go ahead and, you know, store fuel in to 11 there? I 12 Uell, I just don't understand that. 13 Uhen we talk about the parameters of nuclear s 14 power, you know, what's the issue? The thing I have been impressed with lately -- I mean I've looked at it economic-15 ally, and I've looked at it as much as I understand it 16 technically, and that's prompted me to get into the solar 17 industry along with all my partners in our community. 18 We install solar collectors and we advise folks on, you know, 19 how to implement solar energy. And ue do it ourselves, in 20 21 our own lives. 22 One of the things that I've noticed about the nuclear industry, and this is also true about the energy 23 habits of the American - you know, of this civili::ation 24 right nou -- is that the people who profit by it, and the 25 ll c4:e 9ede:a[ cRepo:ters, Sac $0bb 0 444 NORTH C A PITO L STREET l W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 2000t (202) 347 3700
305 wel 24 I people who make the decisions about it, are at the other 2 end of a continuum from the people who actually end up 3 working on the projects, living near the projects, and 4 whose future generations are affected by the waste material 5 that's left behind. 6 I feel like the native Americans in this 7 I country, in relationship to the nuclear industry, are a 8 prime example of just how it's been running. For instance, 9 like, the nuclear industry, Kerr-McGee and other people, 10 have mined out tons and tons of uranium in South Dakota, 11 "ew "e::ico and other places around the country, and have 12 left tens of millions of tons of tailings lying around. Kids 13 play on them, you know, they're used in foundations and 14 floors, and stuff like that. i 15 Indians who were taken into -- you know, who -- 16 40 tn 90 percent of the existing uraniun in this country is 17 on Indian land. You know, who's going to mine that? 18 Indians are going to mine that. You know. That's what's 19 happening right now. The Indians are the people who are 20 being subjected to unsafe conditions, and who can least 21 afford to have it come off their tail. It's coming off their 22 tail first. And I feel like that is an inequity of the 23 system. 24 But we sit in this conference room and are i 25 ! fairly far renoved from that situation. I feel like we have I c0ce. ]cdera[ cReporters, Sac }Q} 'o 444 NORTH C APITOL STR EET 'V W A S HI N GTO N. D.C. 2 Mot (202) 347 37C0
306 wel 25 1 to project out in our hearts to those people, and understand 2 t-hat the decisions we made here always goes back, and it 3 always comes down in terms of life and sweat of those people 4 and their future generations. 5 And the questions that these Intervenors and I everybody that's here that's questioning the progress of 6 i i 7 this pool, you know, I think it goes back to that. You know, 8 we're intervening for people who can't be here to tclk for 9 themselves too. I 10 I just feel like, you know, I'm not an expert. i i 11 ! I'm moving fron common sense, too, and I'm moving as fast as i i 12 I I san from common sense to implement any alternatives that l Since we started considering the effects of Tyrone, 13 we can. 14 and testifying against Tyrone, we've cut our electrical bill s 15 by at least 30 percent, just on savings and conservation, 16 i and have come up with other ways and means to do stuff. I feel like a lot of people have been doing this. 17 l That's all I wish to say. 18 19 You know, I'd like to have that question 20 answered, though, like how come we've got to force ahead ano do this pool storage, when everything else seems to say, 21 22 you know, we're slowing down, we're having to take a closer 23 look. Uhy are we going to run ahead and make this fuel l l storage? 24 25 Thank you. l c4ce-9ederal cReporters. Dnc IO36 .S: l 444 NORTH CAPITCL STREET l W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 200o1 l (202) 347 37oo
307 wel 26 I (Applause.) 2 VOICE FROII TIIE AUDIEIICE: Is there an answer 3 to that now? 4 CIIAIRMAN DECIIIIOEFER: The Applicant or Staff 5 might want to -- well, normally people making limited l 6 appearances are allowed to raise questions, and I wondered 7 whether the question raised by Itr. Kanies could be answered, l 8 perhaps, and you could explain why you were going ahead e 9 with the pool prior to the final disposition of your 10 operating license request. 11 MS. LOOD!!EAD: I thought that I had answered I 12 l that unasked question previously when I pointed out that in i 13 1s67 a full safety evaluation report was done for the 14 Lacrosse plant, prior to the sale by AEC to Dairyland, 15 before Dairyland became the official owner. A safety 16 evaluation and approval of operation of this plant was done 17 twelve years ago, and these older plants are under review d 18 only to compare them, their design and their operation, with 19 today's standards to see if there is any need for modifica-20 tions or changes in the plants. 21 It in no uay indicates that these plants are 22 unsafe. They were approved by the Atomic Ener;y Commission 23 under the usual Staff safety review process, prior to l licensing, at whatever date they received the license. 24 i 25 l So that the re-review that's being done now a cAcc 9edera[ cRepc: ten, $nc 444 NORTH C A PITO L. STREET j '[ z W A S HIN G TO N. D.C. 2000t I VdV jj f (202) 347-3700 i
l 308 wel 27 by the Staff is only to address the new regulations in terms 1 2 of the designs and the operating procedures of the older 3 plants, and does not in any way indicate that there is a 4 safety question. 5 CIIAIFlWI BECIIIIOEFER: You might want to just { explain further what the results -- if you found there were 6 t 7 j some upgrading or improving necessary, how that could be 8 accgaplished. You might want to say a word about that. 9 MS. UOODHEAD: Well, I know that if the Staff 10 decided that safety required that modification or additions be made to these plants to conform to today's s'_andards 11 12 which neu plants must conform to, that the Staff would impose these requirements on the plant or revoke the 13 14 license in the most drastic procedure, n; i I might additionally point out that the Staff is continually updating its safety requirements, and this 16 applies to even the newest plants, because the technology 17 ~ 18 is continually being tested-and improved, and new regulations are continuing to be issued, which wou'd! apply to a plant 19 2, that has an operating license one year old, cs well as to a a plant that has an operating license of twelve years 21 22 duration. 23 So that, as I pointed out previously, the Systematic Evaluation is a special task force among the 24 25 l Staff to address older plants that were built in the days cAce-9edera[ cReporters, $nc dde NORTH C APITOL STR EET W ASHIN GTO N. D.C. 2Mo t (202) 347-3700
H 309 wel 20 1 when the nuclear industry was developmental. And from 2 discussions I've had with the Staff, they tell me that in 3 many ways these plants were built optimistically because it was an experimental type program before these plants were 4 given commercial licenses, and that the Staff has a great 5 6 deal of confidence in the designs of these older ones. 7 But because we have new regulations and new 8 crit,cria, the Staff thought it best, or the Commissioners s 9 thcught it best, to re-review these plants to, in a tern, io double-chenk our prior safety evaluation and document the I it safety systems that exist and compare them to the new 12 concepts and regulations the Staff uses today. 13 That is the essence of the program. 14 MR. CALLEII: I might just add to that, Mr. 15 Chairman, that I realise there are efforts underway in the Coulee Region and in Dairyland's service area to implement 16 energy conservation and the use of less electrical power, 17 but I think the actual energy demand is still increasing 18 19 in the Dairyland service area. And if Dairyland were not 20 to proceed with the expansion of the spent fuel pool at this o 21 time, the LACDUR facility would have to be shut down due to inability to discharge additional fuel assemblies, and 22 replacenent power f;r the 50 negawatts electrical or so that 23 24 is supplied from the LACBWR plant costs along the order of 25 G30,000 per day, I think, something like that. Maybe my i CC* SC.YC70 hCy0ilt:3, $11C. 444 NORTH C A PITO L STRECT I w as HINGTO N. D C. 20001 (202) 347 370o
310 wel 29 1 figurcs are off. I haven't reviewed them lately, 2 Anyway, I think it's quite an expensive s i 3 proposition for Dairyland. And given the fact that we believe the plant can be operated safely and provide adequate 4 5 protection to the public health and safety, we. don't feel 6 there is any need to not go ahead with tha expansien on the 7 l assumption that three or four years from now some decision l i 8 may or may not come doun concerning these new NRC require-a 9 ments, if any, that might be imposed as a result of the I 10 SEP program. I might also add that Dairyland fully intends 11 i to comply uith any and all MRC requirements during the 12, i 13 interim. Just from a variety of standpoints, it just s. 14 doesn't make sense to shut the facility down in the off is chance that something might come up later. The additional 16 amount of spent fuel to be discharged in the interim would 17 actually be quite insignificant, compared to the inventory 18 that's already present in the pool right now. i WRB fls 19 20 e 21 22 23 24 l 25 i ~ cTee-Jederaf cRepciteu, Dnc. $0bb .Oo 444 NORTH CAPITOL STRECT W A S H I N GTO N, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
311 URS/wbl 1 l LIMITED APPEARA:!CE STATEMENT OF MS. DUCKBEC fis Landon 2 RUSUFORD, HISCO:: SIN 3 MS. BUCKBEE: I'm representing myself. 4 I live alone in a log cabin, and I don't have 5 electricity. And I don't feel deprived for that. I cook 6 with wood and I heat with wood. I don't like electric 7 lights. And I feel I'm having more fun than probably any 8 ten. people put together that '.Jork at Dairyland Power. I'm 1 j having a lot of fun. --you know? It's hard work. 9 10 And I don't think everyone has to live without clectricity. I don't think that's the answer. But what 11 i i 12 do they need beyond a refrigerator or maybe a radio, a hot 13 water heater. 14 I think people are going to start cutting back. I 15 And I think that the acceptable risk is doing more for our-16 selves in that respect, rather than turning to nuclear 17 power. 18 Thank you. ig (Applause) LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEME::T OF JUNE TAFT 20 MS. TAFT: I'm June Taft, and I'm representing 21 myself as a wife and a mother. And I also live at the 22 community called The Farm. I'm representing the folks 23 there. 24 25 We're saying we don't really agree at all with c0cc 9ede:a[ cReporter.t. Onc h0b{_ y 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W ASHIN GTO N. D.C. 2000t (202) 347 3700
312 URB /wb2 1 the expansion of the fuel pool because we feel that the 2 fuel rods, chat the whole industry creates poisons that are 3 deadly for thousands of years, ar;d that I don't feel that 4 these poisons have been shown-- They have been proved by 5 Caldicott and others who I feel really care about the world' 6 children, that these are poisonous to the children, they 7 are harming them and not only giving them cancers and leu,kemia but jus t giving them as thma and, you know, making 8 i a g their immune system not work like it should. And I think that is wrong for us to be creating more of these deadly 10 3, poisons when we could be putting our energy into solar 12 energy and other sources that don't harm the children like 13 these do. 14 Thank you. 15 (Applause) 16 CliAIRMAN BECIIIIOEFER: Anyone further? 37 (No response) 18 VOICE: Can we still make our appearances temorrow? ig CIIAIR"AN BECI!!IOEFER: Yes. 20 A With that, we will adjourn for the afternoon and resume here tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. 22 (U ereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing in the 23 above-entitled matter was recessed, to reconvene at 9:00 a.m. the following eay.) o c4ce3ea'c:af cReprieu. Dnc 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W A SHIN GTO N. D.C. 20001 l (202) 347 3700 !}}