ML19220A267

Transcript of 770128 Hearing in Harrisburg,Pa.Pp 63-155

ML19220A267
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	01/28/1977
From:	Linenberger G, Luton E, Salo E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
NUDOCS 7904170290
Download: ML19220A267 (92)

Text

$6b Si y

Jr i

Records acilities 3rancD-r p.g t N I. _.~..- o s u u t. AT O.Ii C O M M I S S i C.N pegulatory Dccket File

. hf

!/

/

nECEivE Kg

~

IN THE MATTER OF:

M bJ %ncsn/97') w

~

ncuufeng "-

ccw:sca MET 2OPOLI~~.'Ci EDISCH CC:CO.'dTI, 3

D' h" N

[e j7/MTY[;-

et al.

(Three Mile Island Muclear Station)

.-m f1

g.,.

Docket "o.

50-320 C

q l W Y,

dM,b[*nI94'}D b

2 u.s.g,'d,'3M^*"l9'e - Harrichurg, Pennsylvania G

as~cQk q

D /'cy ate - Friday, 28 January 1977 Pc9es 63 - 155

~

/070 Yet d C PCe e:

(:02; m. m c ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.

,,, gj OffichiReponers W

9 OO,q O 4J4 Nenh C: !!ci Street 3

s.

q9 Washmgten. O C. :CC01 y

,)

~[ '

N AT!O NWICE COVERAGE. DAILY

63 CR 1006 I

i UNITED STATES OF A.'1 ERICA

'EW:ro TR 2

NtTCLEAR REGULATORY COL'1ISSION 3

______________3 In the Matter of:

I 5

METROPOLITAN EDISON CCMPANY, et al. :

Docket No. 50-320 6

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station) :

7

---

X 8;

I 9f Hearing Room 2 North Office Building i

10 Commonwealth & North Streets Harrisburc, Pennsylvania jj, i

Fridav, 28 January 1977 12 '

i Hearing in the above-entitled matter was convened, 3l l

pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m.

BEFORE:

15 l 16 l EDWARD LUTON, Chair. nan Atomic Safety and Licensing Eoard 1:7 GUS LINENBERGER, Member 18 DR. ERNEST O.

SALO, Member 19 I i

APPEARANCES:

l'

'0 }

GEORGE F.

TROW 3 RIDGE and ERNEST BLAKE, Esgs.,

Shaw, Pittman, Potts L Trowbridge, 1800 M 21

Street, N.

W.,

Washington, D.

C.

cn behalf of the Acclicant.

22 i i'

HENRY J. MC CL*RREN and GREGORY FESS, Escs.,

'3!

Office of the Executive Legal Director, Nuclear Rec. ul a to rv. Commission, Washington, D.

C.; cn ns.

^ '

behalf of the Regulatory Staff.

.ce,e neoanen.Inc.

25 '

l.f i ~.".):10

.a t

1

64 I

ro APPFARANCES: ' (continued) 2 KARIM CARTER, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Fifth Floor Executive House, Harrisburc, 3

Pennsylvania; on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

CRAUNCEY KEPFORD and JUDITH JOHNS-RUD; on behalf 5

of the Intervenors, York Committee for a Safe Environment, Citizens for a Safe Environment of 6

Harrisburg, and Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power.

7 8

9 10 11 12,

13 O

14 15 16 l i

17 18 19 20 1

21.

I 22 ;

t 23 l 24 seers nwon.n. inc. -

25 ;

.,. 0 u,.

l l

a If CR1806 65 LW:bwl s1 1 il

_P _R O_ C _E E _D _I N_ G_ _S 11 2}

CHAIRMAN LUTCN:

Le t's begin now.

1 3

Good morning, gentlemen.

4; My name is Edward Luton.

Mr. Gus Linenberger.

5' Mr. Ernes t Salo are with me, i

If the parties will introduce themselves, we will 6

7 get going.

3 Let's begin first with the Applicant.

t I

9-MR. TROWB RIDGE :

Are we not missing an 10 !

indispensable --

I i

~

11 l CHAIRMAN LUTON:

I don' t knew.

I have no way of i

12 '

knowing that.

I 13 '

MR. TROWBRIDGE:

For the Applicant, my name 14 l is George F.

WOwbridge.

I an a member of the Washingten 15 l law firm o f Shaw, Pi ttman,

Potts & Trowbridge.

I 16 i With me from our of fice :.f Mr. Ernest Blake l

i 17 '

on my left.

la !

CHAIR'4AN LUTON :

Thank you.

i I

19 '

Staff?

l 20 MR. MC GURREN:

My name is Jaye McGurren.

21 !

On my rig t is Greg Fess.

Together we represent the.

t i

22 Nuclear Pegulatory Commis sion S ta f f.

l 23 f MR. GERUSKY:

I am Tom Cerusky, representing i

4' the COm=Cnwealth o f Pennsylvania.

2-d* FBI R eDO,ter s, Inc,,

25,

Our lawyer will be here any second. She had a longer 1

,i

-l i

i "1

31.~ ?51 l

' hf2

[

66 i

8

'l

'.I walk than we dic.

.i a il CHAIRMAN LUTON: Thank'you.

l

'l Is there a representative for'd.e Intervenors?

i 4!

The Intervenors being York Commitcee for a Safe Environment, i

5 and Citizens for a Safe Environment.

6i l

Mr. Trowbridge, it appears you are right.

,i'j We ire mi ssing a ne~cessary party.

I suppose we simply ought i

3!

to wait a few minutes.

i 9'

Mr. Kepford has represented those organizatiens 10 ;i in the past, so let's j us t wait a moment and see if Mr. Kepford i

11 I shows.

Would that be all right?

12 ;

We will be in recess for a bit.

13 I (Recess.)

i l *' i CHAIRMAN LUTON:

I think we can csume now.

15 '

I We have had a recess immediately following the 1

i t

introductions of those persons who were here at the time.

l  !

Since then we had some other people join us.

I would ask i~n !

l those persons who are participants this morning to please l

r intrcduce themselves, particularly the Intervenors.

'# O DR. K PFORD:

Chauncey Eepford.

I am representing 21 '

the Intervenors, Yo rk Committee for a Safe Environment, o

9, :

Citizens for a Safe Environment of Harrisburc and i

7 i Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power. l 24 : Wi th me i s abs. Judith Johns-Rud. i ni a oornn. m.; c c, "j CHAIR'4AN LUTCN : Co-Director o f the Invironmental 1 a I I ,'f <T - o r vy

s. 9 1

bw] 67 I I 1, Coaliton on IIuclear Power. i 2l MS. CARTER: Karin Carter, Assistant Attorney 9

3) General.

I represent the Commonwelath of Pennsylvania. .t CHAIR

• TAN LUTOti:

Thank you. 1 5' There are a number of things we can talk about 1 6[ this morning. Unless the parties want to propose scmething i 7 ! different, we are prepared to take them in no particular f 8 order. I 9 Then I should just go ahead and do that. j 10 I will begin first with a motion which is pending -- i 11 ; has been pending for sometime -- a motion by the Regulatory 12 Staf f in response to a set of interrogatories served on the i 13 Intervenors. 14 Ll The motion hasn' t been ruled en. i i 15 ' I an hoping that it won' t need to be ruled on. i 16 ! It is appropriate for me to inquire at the present time just c l 17' what status the discovery request is. I I la, Mr. Kepford, are you aware of the motion I am 1 19 f talking about? f l 20, DR. KEPFO RD: Yes, I am, and I would like to say 21 rather quito a few words about it. 22 ! Firs t-o f f, wi th regard to considering the answers 23 : to tho first set of interrogatories mailed out by the Staf f, i 24 I can see no reason whatsoever for any answers to the second 2 eve awo,rm. mc. 25 set. The questions are basically quite repetitive and there l I i I i f .. ' O. s.~ f ) u

bw4 68 t is virtually no information the Intervenors have to add to ,ep 1j the questions alreayd a.:swered. h Second, considering the time pericd in which the 3 l a questions were asked, the Intervenors had no :acilities i,l whatsoever for answering quesations. "I i 6j I was at the other end of the country and the people involve d in this area who could have helped with the it I 3 to these questions were unavailable, their time being answers 9' totallv consumed with other activities. 10 ; The question arises then why did I r.ot so advise s the Scard? Well, it would have taken the same kind of ef fort g; to tell the Board. That is, the writing out of answers, i 13 ; getting them typed, reproduced, ar.d so on. j, CHAIRMA:I LUTO:i: While that would undoubtedly be ! burdensome to you, you put the Board in an awful position. 15 I i I A moti n has been filed. Presumably -- This is the way it 16 37 usually works -- if we issued an crder ccmpelling compliance jg with the discovery request, and you s till found yourself I 19 unable to respond to that order, that would be followed up, 3g undo ub tedly, by a motion to declare you in default and i 21 dismiss you f rom the proccoding. n, Without any response f rom yo u at all, I don't ,3,,

es where we could do anything other than grant the motion.

24 There is a need to respond. i .avn A emrre,,, t re. ec CR. KZPFORD: As I read the Commission 's rules i i 'l q c - or:g, j e.>.. o* e

69 bw5 1l of practice, 2.2.740, I believe -- 11 k CRAIRMAN LUTCN: Let me ask the Staf f: is Staff a . i' 3 s till ins isting on its mo tion? 4! MR. MC GURREN: Mr. Chairman, we believe the l 5j. interrogatories asked in our mction to compel -- or in -- well, our interrogatories were very straightforward and asking 6 7! very basic questions that would help us in preparation g' of our case. 9' We do insist on our motion to compel. 10 t DR. KEPFO RD : I can give answers. r 11 i CHAIRMAN LUTCN: That is all they want,I :think. 12 DR. K,EP FO RD : Well, with regard to witnesses -- 13 ! CHAIRMAN LUTCN: I don ' t think that they want i l 14, them now. Even if they do, I am no't gcing to receive it I d 15 now. We shouldn ' t take up the time of the Prehearing i 16 ! Conference so one party might answer anothei party's i, 17: discovery request. t la I would ask that that be done outside of the t 19 ! hearing, as it properly should be done, but if you can respond, 1 i 20 j please do so. 21 DR. KEPFORD: Response is no problem.We have 22 nothing to hide. The problem is money, time,and facilities l 23-for grinding out the paperwork to answer. That is the answer. j l i 24 The Environmental Coalition, the York Committeej 38 AtOOrters, lec, -" ll"h 25 and so on, everybody involved in hearings before the t 'lU :i - O r c) t.1 a

bw6 70 i I , [ the Atomic Safety and L'icensing Board, the Newbold Island gg) hearings, Limerick, which are i. ore or less ongoing, Peach Ecttom, which has been ordered reopened by the District 3 ~,' Court of Columbia -- District of Columbia. 5; We have put out or are in debt to the tune of 6; appr ximately $40- or $50,000. ,l Now, granted the sum of 55 or $10 for getting out i i written: answers to such a moon is small. 3 Ecwever, we don't have an infinite set of resources.; 9 jg CHAIRMAN LUTON: All right. jj DP. KEPFORD: We are deeply in debt. Our g; indeb tednes s for Peach Ecttom alone to date is on the order i gi of 325,000. i 14 ' CHAIRMAN LUTON: All right. Let me tell v.ou scne o f my problems. I am simply not able to permit people to i 15 16 l participate in these hearings on their own terms. I have j7 Commission Rules of Practice which I am bound co follow. ja I ha*.e got to do that. I am also totally pcwerless to give j9 l you any assistance at all with respect to the financial I l d i f :.. 20 l culties or the organizations that you represent. 21 I am afraid I am goina to have to insis t that we i l t conduct this prcceeding in accordance with the Commission's 22 l ,3 - rules. I ha'<a no choice. l i >i 1 I am still going to need for zou to rescond ,i Who A f DGT*tf 5, l PC. 3 to the Staf f's discovery request as best vou can, an-d it.i us t j i I I f

1. 71 - O f'()

l t.).. ~r.. i 3

71 bw7 ,' ! may te that making the response the best you can will suf fice. i ,i 'f The motion -- Well, we will be able to dispose of ,l.i ~ ] th e mo tion. It will either be withdrawn, because there is 4' no'need or -- At least we will move somewhere. S' So I would ask you to please respond to the 6! i request. I realize that tnings have progressed beyond i 0 a.e , m service of a recuest to the point where the Staff i 9 has made a motion to the Ecard seeking the Scard's aid 10 i here. I know that. The Staf f talls me they are insisting 11, on their mo tion. 12 - Well, I am going to ask the Staff to -- I am going 13 I to assume the Staff's p rimary interest is in -- I think 1 14 ll assume correctly -- in receiving information so that it - a, I i 'c in fact, crepare its case. I 16 i ~ Consecuently, I would ask the Staf f to lcok forward i 1,,, i to the receipt of the info rmation, hopefully, without the l ~a f Board's aid, at the moment, anyway. I 19 I MR. MC GURREN: I didn' t hear the las t part. 20 ' CHAIRMAN LUTCN: Ecce fullv., without the Board's j i 21 i aid at the present time. 2', Mr. Kop fo r d, you have touched on the matter of the i i '3 i I In te rvenors ' ability to participate fully, because of 24 financial difficulties. ,,.i n,x,,,,,, i,,c. l l .=f DR. KIPFORD: Could I elaborate further on that l 'l

• 3- <1 - o v,.

~.s'.g

bs8 ,e 72 i h ,I ll point? a

• i 2 ll CHAIRMAN LUTCN:

Sure, but let me just go ahead -- e h 3 excuse me, let me finish what' Iam saying about it, and then I I I 4, think it will be broad enough for you to gc ahead and 8 i 5! elaborate. i 6-May I? 7l DR. KEPFORD: Yes. I 3 CHAIRMAN LUTCN: Thank you. 9 This really -- well, it isn't the mosc symmetrical i 10 : thing in the world, but le t ' s talk about it right now ani aay. 1 1 ^, What I am looking at is the Intervenors' 12 ' answers to Staf f interrogatories, an answer that was earlier 13 made indicates that without financial assistance -- Well, I 14 l! am not quite sure just what this is -- without financial 15 asistance, your ability to participate is going to be hampered.

1. '

6 I guess what we need to know about that is whether 17 you mean to say that unless the Commission gives you financial I 13 assistance, you are not going to participate at all in the i 19, proceeding. Or do you mean you will participate even without I i 201 that kind of assistance, to the extent you are able, i 21 particularly on cre ss-examinine; witnecs produced by the 22, other parties? t e f l e. -w l 'tJ**erti AfDCr?trs, Inc. I S.C ' 6 i I i 1 ?!0. ' ?S

_ avl 73 1 DR. KEPFORD: My intent i this answer was to state 2 th a t We will pa r ti ci pa te to the fullest of our abili ties. 3 CHA I RM A ff LUTON: All rich t. 4 Tha t is f air enoug h. 5 DR. KEPFORD: I completed a -- well, what I was 6 poino to sav crevious1'y tha t the time constraints en th e 7 coalition personral tha t were in force in the f all of last 8 year era now largely removec, and it will be oossible, at 9 least from a nanpower point of view, to answer the Staff's 10 motion. 11 I an sorry that t he Sta f f can't in te r p re t frem the 12 answers they have already rece ived and extrapolete frou theu h 13 the answers thev m ight expect to the sa a:e cue s tion s that are 14 asked. IS CH AI RM Af! L UTO.'l: I a at askinc pe rsons abou t the lo ma nn e r in wn i ch th e y intend to partic ica te. 17 Let ne ask the State of Pennsvlvania, roes 'ho la Sta te wish to out on an af firmat ive case? 19 MS. C.aRTER: The Sta te is in terested in only one 20 contention, con ten tion B of the Intervenors. We would -- we 21 are interested in puttinq on a t l e r. s t on e, a nd at most, two 22 witnesses and tnat is the extent of our in te rest, really. 23 Cid A I'7 D il LUTu ti: ' All richt, t ha nk ynu. 24 rha t is helpful. 25 'lhe re is a ce ti ti on to intervene that is pendira in .f t.J a, - u -J

.v2 '74 I this casa. Tha* netition was filed by the Environment 2 Cea.lition on Fuclear Power scr:.e time age. Eerhaps belatediv. 3 we a l c o ha v e -- I a :.1 not sure if it is be f or us, however, 4 but we also have a petition to intervene filed by the 5 Envircniaent Coalition on Nuclear Power, a petition to in tervene o wi th respect to unit I of Three Mile Island. 7 Let's take Tn rea vile I s l a r.d I first. .R Dr. Kenford, was it ynur in te nt i en that t ha t 9 petition he acted on in this unit 2 prnceading by this he ard ? 10 You may not be able to answer tha t, and I can 11 unde rs tand why, if not. You see, as I have cana back and done 12 my best to reconstruct the case in the wav that things ara 13 set out, it anpears that this licensinn hnard, the th rae of 14 us, has been consti tuted to make certain distinctions ehout 15 un i t 2. 16 Earliar, we had some "a sponsibili ties ' tith respe c t 17 to unit !, but it was quite limited, as I re call. It had only la to do wi th the question of a motion of a license. I be lie ve, 19 motion of tne unit i license. Scme th i na to do with the 20 emeroency core cooling system. 21 A cetition to in tervene was received from your 22 c rea n i r.a ti co, I believe. /e act M on .t aM ve denied the 23 cetition. Tha t eade d our involvement in -he un?. I pr,ceadian. 24 DR. KEPFORD: Tha t was May 19757 25 CH A f il'J A tf LUTml i I

• hink so.

A long time acc. 4

.v3 7'i l And it is not clear to me th a t we have the powar 2 to have anythina to sav abcut your pending petition in unit ! 3 ir, this case. I want to raise that because I know you ha ve 4 wri tten to vcur government and you deserve a response from 5 somebody. 6 MR. TRuWBRIDGE: -.f a y I speak at this coin t? 7 I an inokinc at a letter. I s=e Dr. '<>pford not P a copy of this. It is dated Septenher 3, sicned hv 9 James P. Murray, Jr., Director and Chief Ccunsel, Pulemakinq 10 and Enforcement Division, a le tter which he wrote to the il Secre tary of the Commission exclaining how the Commission 12 intended to treat the la petitions to intervene filed by the 13 Coalition in la different reactor cases. 14 'lh a t le tter indicated that with respect to Three 15 Mile Island No. I, the cetition wnuld he reterred to the 16 Dire c*.or of tne Nuclear Reactor degulations as a ce t i ti nn to 17 show cause why TMI should no* ae reccened. 18 ?fith respect to I'!I No. 2, it was treated as a 19 petitinn to in t er ven e in the curren t T.I 2 proceed ing. 20 I think, by error -- I ha ppene<i to be involved -- 21 I t h i ntf it ans hv error of the Public noctrinent Service, 22 be ca uso I called the Public 11nconent Service to innoirm nhnur 23 it, whV TMI I was Sent to the board at all. 24 CHA IRM AN LUTUN: Could vnu cive me the da t2 of 25 tha t acain? e e

.v4 76 l MR. TROW!WIDGE: The le tte r is da ted Sect e.rher ' 3, 2 197.6, sicned by Janes "urray, addressed to Mr. Chilton, 3 Se cretary o f the Co,nissico. Distribution show on my copy 4 i s to 'Aa rk J. Weterhan, Esquire -- wh o I d on ' t r e c ca n i 7.e c and Dr. Chauncy Kepford. 6 CHAIR'4AN LUTON: Okay. 7 Ihank vou, Mr. Trown r idg e. 8 Your rasponse has i deed hean n f aid, and we ha ve 9 sta ted our posi tion with resoect to that :re t t e r. I don't 10 think there is any more we can say about it at the present 11 time. 12 Now, wi th respect to unit 2, without iceking back 13 th r o ug h av p'ap e r s, at the ::c men t my recollec ticn is tn a t the 14 Applicant's takino the posit 'n that intervention ought to 15 he deniec because the pe_titlen i s la te a nd tha t nn good cause. Ic was shown. ~ 17 I helieve the peculatory Staff took thn position IS the t naybe one cen tent ion was apcropriate for cnnsideration 19 in.this proceedinc. Gcod cause could he found with respect 20 to tha t cn e. 21 I think those were st!bstantia lly the onsitions. 22 I have several questions annut th i s. 23 Dr. ?ec tord, an yr < are no count aware, when we ~ 24 get a late cetitinn we have act to finc cocd cause before ee 25 can nn'it or receive such a petitinn. 'J -$ ~ O l ' O h J. .s. u %

15 77 I It a cetition from the Environment Coalition on 2 nuclear power -- well, I am not clear en the the r i t a ttenpts 3 to make a showinq of good cause or not. 4 Does it? 5 0D. K EP FO P D : Th e cause given in the cetition, o a s I r e c a ll, n s t.he fact tha t the decisions rendered, as I 7 reca ll. July 21, 1976, by the District Federal Court of the 8 District of Coluloia remanded a nunbe r o f i ssue s

• .o

-he 9 Commission for further hearing. 10 The cond cause which I would interpret tne petition il to reflect is that these are issues which the Coalition has 12 raised in the past which everyhedy denied by verinus boards 13 which the Coalition for one re a s on or anothe r h'a s no t e ithe r la decided to or.heen able to pursue, which are issues which 'n ce rta inly ha ve no t been se t tled, and I think thare are a numhar o f i ss ue s -- some o f w hic h a re included in the decisions in 17 a blanket way -- there are a nunher of issues which have not i8 been prope rly aired before the Atomic Sa fe ty and Licensinq 19 Boards, and which nust he aired if the boa rds ano the 20 commission are to live up to the interpreta tions o f NEP A 21 a.c.:nc iled n'r t liv th e Di st ri c t c nu r t in the dncisinns rondere-22 .luly 21, !?70, and *he Cnivert Cli f f s ra ci sinn. 23 C!! A I T.f A." LUTOTI: A11 right. 24 i d >n't thin'c anybody wculd deny that the rennarin7 25 of n c,urt decisinn which cnange s wha t uo to that ti ne nad ceen i. . ~. G.(%O t.-

v6 7R 1 established as equlatory nolicy, f ede ra l regula tions, wnuld 2 ne t. cons ti tute good cause to some extert. 3 Out I think we have not -- t he r e ::ta y h e soae 4 di fference a:::nng the par ties abouc the extent of tha t good 5 cause. Court decistens, the enes you -- they represented 6 a new ha ppening. 7 It seens to me to the extent the cetitien's P C+ntentions are related to those decisions, to the extent the 9 cnnten tions are now asserting.aatters which bear some 10 reascnable connection to those de cis ions, there wnuld not be !I much difficulty in finding good cause. 12 It is not apparent to ::e that tha* is, indeed, wh a t 13 is drne hore with respect to all of these c on te n t i n.n s. 14 For exanole, I ha ve n' t understood t h a t e i t'i e r o f 15 'bn two court decis ions had anythinq to do with the suoply of. 16 re la ti vo lv low-cost vellnw cake or U3 03 that is tal'<e d anout i7 in parT]rech 4 of th e pe ti ti en on pace 3. IS

ha t I ain tryinq to say is that one of tne parties 19 mMe tile a rnu'en t tha t s om e ne xus -- sco

;e c onne c t ion -- cur;n t 20 to ce -

hown between these court decisiens and the con ten tien s

.' l yno assert' before we are ahic to sta to that c;ned cause has 22 hann shown on ;he basis of those court decisions. 23 !~v, if there iis sn r.e thing el se, scos other set of 24 circut stances -ha. ycu think would constitute a snowing of 25 a noci c,use, we would like tr hear ebcut that. (

av7 7? I I find the cetition to be particularly confusinn 2 be ca us e, while it does reference the two cnurt -facisions, 3 that isn't all i t re ferences, a s you know. As authority, 4 it referenced the Atomic Enercy Act aenerally. IP referenced 5 Part 2, Ti tle 1 0 --- 6 CP. KEPFor?D: 2.714, I be lieve, of Tit 1~e 10. 7 CH AIR l14:1 LUTui!: (:k ay., n cle ll, le t ne a s '< w' n, did veu intend tha; we inck 9 sol'1v co the import and purnart of those two. court de cis t ans 60 in determininq whe ther or not to admit this petition? 11 DR. KEPFallD: The intent of this pe ti tinn is to 12 ce t ai red nrnh' ens which, to.:y knnwiedge, have not yet been 12 aired Seform th i.tomic Safe.y and Li cen si no Boa rd s. 14 I w'uld like tn quote f r o :r *.he Eshelmen decision, 15 pa ;:0 31 of my cony. !6 C!' i l !N 4: LUTo:I: /hich is a Xerox nf th e cricinel i7 dr.. i s ion, I quens. Onman nurnral III, "On replan, the 18 Cn ni ssi on sha ll underta'<e a ppropria te conside r, tion o f ins t e 19 disposal and/or un edriressed fuel cycle issues and restrike 20 thn coa t-hone f i t ana lysis as n e ce ssa rv i n.'ccordan.ca with ?I .' :'UC v.' r qu s i4'M: suprn." 22

Jnw,

.a" interoretation of "uneddre37ed fuel cyc.o 23 i 51'l0 5 And rn 7 F.ri!' ing cn3 Eaht!nq f i t a nO ly5 i 5" '/oflid "l o S ? 24 Cer?Ginly include th e envi rcn en tal cnsts of extrac. inn 25 uri'n nra f rm r inv-grnde nres, and I don't t n i n '- nis is bd-d'-]g.g- ..Q

~91v0 80 I an issue evar.!!scussed hefore the A tomic Sa f e ty and. Licen sina 2 Scard. 3 Mnr is it a prn51em t ha t ha s be en handled 4 generical y by th7 NGC. 5 In the Sta f f's replies to this pe ti tion -- and I. c a:s quoting f r o:' pace 10 of their reply -- in particular, 7 this con ten ti,n referring to yellow cake and the availability n of are, th' btaff says, "These contentions raised e c cn o.u i c ? c a.' t isques, not environmental cost issues, which we re the 10 subje ct of the I!RC decis ion. " e, few lines above f ro'n t he 11 Howe ve r, in the quo te 12 ce ti tion, it says, " availability of fuel and ene rcy and 9 13* en', iron...on t,1 costs o f i ts e xtra ction a r e an integral cart to of the nucle,r fusi cycia and tnerefore :al s t be included in 15 fu ti and craper cos t-hene fi t analysis of this reactor." 16 It is stated in t he con ten tien "environnen tal 17 ccsts." Yet, the Sta f f in tercre ts these a s economic costs. IS I would like to suc,est tha t it is virtually 19 1:nc o s s i hin te sana ra te the enviren:.9enta l c os ts f rom economi c 20 costs. Sconor or later they must be tied together. 2i C i 1 i P'M." i.UTO !: Ynu ind icated your under5 tandinc 22 of the cnurt f acisico tha t yno re f erenced to ce tha t all -- 23 I th i n % th o largunne was nther prchle:ns involvina waste 21 P.a nm e.:e n t. whatever they are -- 25 CR. " N FU N!': t-ram t ne de ci sion ? qi orb eJ s _

ov9 91 1 CI' A I R 'u ?' LUTON : Yes. 2 Dit. l i! P P ) P D : Or rin addressed fuel cycle issues. 3 Cil AIR'4M! LUTON: Ynu unde rsta nd that case, then, 4 tn perait the raisinq at this point of any contention he:ving 5 to do wi th fuel cycle issues. 6 DP. Kiil: FOP D : I can 't see how this decision coulc 7 he interpreted otherwise. P 9 11 12 f3 14 IS 16 17 la 19 20 22 23 24 7 r, s-s L 'i. ,h h' f j e=

cani P2 i

CHAIRMAi! LUTuN: Ukay. What I neec: is your under-2 standing of it. I think tha t is wha t I a' cettin.. 3 Next ques tion: is it your cosition tha t all of 4 the contentiens tha t are sta ted in the Environmental Coali-5 -tinn's pe ti tinn ar e fuel cycle contentions? 6 Op. K EP FO RD: 'Ja y I take a un ire n t to lock over the 7 petition? S CH.\\ I m.f i LUTuN: 0f ccurse. 9 DR. JdPF090: Thank you. 10 A quick survey of the contentions would lead me to 11 say that contentions number 2 and 3 of the petition are not 12 re la ted to fuel cycle issues. 13 Contentions 4, 6, 7 -- 4, 6 a nd 7 a re rel a tec to 14 fuel cycle issues. Contention 5 has to do wi tn the ra te 15 structure of the inplicant and its effect on energy con-16 servation, he it pos it ive or neqative, and the e f f ec t of 17 conservatinn would aq11n -- the discussinn again wnuld be la related tn - he Es he l :;.a n de c i s i nn. 19 Sn mv reading of the petiticn would say con tan tions 20 4, 5, 6 and 7 wnulti ".: covered under one or both of the 21 Ju!v l ')76 M c is ions wh ic n, in.uv mind, art a e s ta ti ro of th a ?2 Caivert Cli f fn decision. 23 CH Alii'i A.'; LUTu rl: T h., t is ve ry helpf ul to me. How 24 ahnut con t'ntions 3, 5, th e rest n f the:n ? Anat On vnu have :- 25 nfrer hv ny of show'nq aned causa? Yd;. ~-

.2 R3 = 1 D!7 KEPFoun: 5 was 'ne energy conse rva ti on, which 2 ag a.i n is related to Eshelman. 3 2 and 3 have tn do -- 2 has to do witn wnat consti-4 tute s a cost-hone fi t analysi s. /ho pays the cost and what the 5 real benefits are. 6 CHAIP't4N LUTON : Right. Ahat I want you to help ne 7 with is, can you suggest coed cause f o r th e 1ateness? Why are 8 th e s e con ta n tion s, jus t now - is not onssible to s=v th a t 9 a nv:uo r e -- bu t w hy a r e thev just beinc naie at the t i::.e this 10 pe ti tion was submi tted here, at that data as opoosed to wi-hin 11 the t i.::e firs *. allowed for the s ta temen t of contentions hv t ne 12 l!o ti ce of apportunity for Heering some very lenn time =co? 13 !)D. KEPFORD: $ecausa, again, of the Esheiaen 14 decision, which c'lls for a ra stri ctino of the cost-hamefit 15 analysis. I though t i t appropria.e to, for e chance, discuss lo real cos,3 and real bene fits. 17 CHAIR l. A:l LUTUN: So ycu would relate nunner 2 to 18 one or both of the court decisions ? 19 DR..<EPFORD: And 3 as it relates to ce st-oene fi t. 20 C:iAID? TAN LUTON: Are tnere any in here you wnuidn't 21 re !.r ta to althor one or hnth cf th os e court decisions in s o :an - }} '.t;'s r } 23 DR. KE!M URD: No, sir. The petition wa s based on -- 2d I -oess.hnre is a n utua l ni s::nc e r s t a nn i ra. -- ne ne ti;f en was 25 ba s e.! e n - '.e tvo cour. decisinns. I.3.I ~ 9

e

nm3 R

1 Cl!.i ! R14tt LUTat: So it is to th ase we must 100 '<. 2 '.'e l.1, you don' t n e ca s s a r i ly have to agree with.ae, but in a:v 3 own analysis of the a:atter, it seems to me tn a t th a t is what 4 we have to do. I wanted to be sure, as I said. Tio w I think I 5 am. 6 l}o any of the other parties want tn ma '< a any kind 7 of resnonse to anythinc !)r. Keoford and I have talked ahnut S here? 9 MP. TauP: BRIDGE: Ye s, indeed. I would like to be 10 sure that we have heard everythir.g t ha t ')r. Ke p f o rd wishes to 11 sa y on the subject of cood cause. I have just c nine f rom a 12 tuo-day evidentiary hearing on the ques tion of cond cause and 13 the burden was clearly liid nn the intervonor to proceed with 14 his exnlanatinn of good cnure and I am wai tino to ::ak a sur e 15 we henrH a ll of tne e xpl ana t inn that Dr. Kepford neans to 1o aw o. I7 c!! A I Tt AN LU fo'l: /,e 11, I ha ve to assuoe that to IP he the case, that we ha va he ar" i t a ll. I a at not denvin: 19 anybody an opportunity to state w ha t thev feel they neer to, 20 certainly. A,vthino of a specific nature ? 2! 't!?. fin r:liUII]Gi-i: Ye s. I was nskimo une ther '? ';r. O pf arrf ha i nn v thine r'o r a no :iav en tha :in h j o c *, he f ^ ra 22 proceedina.

2. 4 CM A IR'u t' LUT0;!:

I think vnu c7n on nnean, 25 r. T nwhr id ;a. W N ~ .3 '*O

.n m a 65 1 DR.,<2PFORD: Well, yes, I would like to quote -- 2 CHAIpl tali LUToil: Me11, I am sorry. 3 DR. KEPFORD: from Calve r: Cliffs. 4 CMAI TI Ali, LUTO:!: You knnw, it is going to be ne ces-5 sary for the Anard to run the hearinn. I an a freid that ! 6 don't know where ve are gning to go. Certainly it is the 7 Bnard that needs in be sifted by the pa rti es i n :r.a k inc t he s e 8 de terninations ana I raelly dnn't knnw that 'e need = n v-' c r e. 9 .D. T70WB7IDGE: Ia1 prepared to d is cu ss Eshel:.4an 10 or the ?!RC decisions es gend cause. Also prepared -- end at 11 some lenqth - to discuss any nther basis f or gned ceuse end 12 to give i:.v o wn views as to 'vhy there is nn basis for gccd cause I3 apart frc9 tnnse de cisinns. 14 Nnw, I don' t wan t to scend a lot o f the Scarc's 15 tine re f utin, arqu en ts of gend cause. which have not even to been c.ade. 17 CT! A I R't w LUTm!: Mavb e + 5cy won' t be iaMe, but thev 18 ha ve cett., inly heen in vi ted. I dnn't know how cla n y in v; a ti on s 19 we need. 20 Dr. Kepford, is there anything else you would like 21 tn nau by way of :a k inc; a sh ow i nn for nond c,use fnr ,ne late-22 nems of ,'nv nf tn a c^n tent ions a scertM here? 23 UR. K dP Fool): I'would lika to add that I think it 24 i s ve rv Un fortuna te t ha t members of the public ever see fit t, 20 ha ve "., in e t rvene in anv Inna crocess hefore any A to:.:ic Sa f e t v 9 ~~ ..).:.

a mS 86 1

and Licensing Unard. I think the ceasen interventions take 2 p 1 '-c e is mnre of ten than not the fact that the Co :..mi s s i cn it-3 self has not done its hoa.ework. It has not obeyed the Calvert 4 Cliffs nandata in many licensing cases bevend the Ca lve r t 5 Cliffs decision. 6 The late cause for the f ilino o f the 1-te rve n ti on 7 petitions of \\ugust i976 by the Envirc"??ntal Coalit ion is due 8 to the c on t i nu ing f a ilur' of the Co:" ai ssinn to address issues V which f!8 A required it to address. 10 I would like to read a short section frcm page 18 11 of the Calvert Cliffs decision. "It is moreover unrealis tic 12 te a scuue that there will always he an intervenor witn the 6 13 in f o rr'a t i nq, enerav and. coney requ irad to challence a Staff 14 re commenda tion which innnres envi ronmen tal costs. N EP.\\ 15 es tablishes. environmenta l protec tion a s an intecral part of ' nn rgy Commission 's bas ic 9anda te. The p ri rra ry re-d 10 Atomic 17 _sponsinility for fulfilling that ma nda te i te s wi th th e IP Ccwmissicn. 19 I ts respnnsibility is not singly to sit back like 20 an umpire and resolve adversary cnntentions at a hearinc 21 senan. Rather it must taka the initiative of cons id er ina 22 envi rnnnon t,1 values at ever y d ist inc t.va and c cm oran n-s i v e 23 stage of the procass beyond the Staff's avaluation anc 2t recommendation." 2L 'ina t wa s the Ca lve r: -- f rota the Calvert Clifts > If 8 t.),. s m

au6 87 1 decision decidad cuite a few y.e e rs a qo. The de cisions 2 deciced in July -- Julv 21, I believe, 1976, in my coinion 3 si:" ply restated tne Calvert Clif f s de cision. 4 The reeson the petition is late is because the 5 Co mtai.c s i cn is late and lax. And when another decision comes 6 do ir point!nc to laxity on the part of the Commission wi th 7 regar:f to the assessnent of environnental costs of nuclear S powe r, I strongly suspect tha t t r.e Envi ron?.e n tal C^a li ti on 9 nn Nuclear Power will be right back with another petition 10 again. 11 We are not required by law to be perfect. We are 12 not required to inck into the envi ronmen tal cos ts. We do it 13 be ca us e the the-A touic Energy Co.Tniss ion, now fluc le a r 14 Reaula tory Con.nission, hasn't. Tna t, I f=el, is nur gond 15 c a'rs a. 16 I mioh t add tha t eve ry e f f ort w a s 'nad e to net the 17 petition in within the 30-1a y de adl ine spec i f iad, I beliave, 18 hv 2.714 of ~itle-10. 19 CHA I R'i A.'i LUToti: Do you want to make a resnonse, 20 ,4r. Trowttr i doe ? 21 'i R. Tr!aWBPInGE: Ye s. I an just thrown o f f by that 22 3C days. 2.7I4 talks anout 3n days which relates to Notice of 23 Unnartunity tn P a r ti c i ca te ' in tn e " earing. Tha t was no r a than 24 twn years ago and I am unable to enrnect it up. Le t,e gn on. 25 09 KEPFocD Can I elabore te nn that point? . ~ t.).,

am7 PB 1

Cli A I R'wl LUToti: '*Ie will deter ine what the 2 redula ti en s me.=n. 7.'e w i ll c o ou r h e s t. 3 MR. TROWBRIDGE: 'J r. Ch a i rm a n, en the strength of 4 the presen ta tien that Cr. Kepford has made, I am coina to 5 confine c.y c oin ae n t s to what he has elleged in gced cause -- 6 more particularly to the Eshelman de cision -- as a basis f or 7 goed cause. I will not set up a series of straw men nn what 8 he might otherwise have argued, but I tn i n k the record S t.o u ld 9 snow we are prepared to discuss any other gend cause which 10 the Ccalition might e llege. 11 I think the only wa y to do this is the wav 12 Dr. Kepford himself has done it, wh i ch is to talk to indi-13 vidual con ten tions and I will in general accept his crnuping 14 of the cententiens. 15 Let me preface my remarks by sayinq senethi g accut 16 the Eshelman decision itself. It has two aspects. One which 17 I vill talk about when we ce: to con ten tion 5 which Cr..<eoforc 18 re la te s to the conservation issue. Let's set that one aside 19 for the nament. 20 The other Felf of Fqhel:aan is really the iPDC case 21 adopted by ra te ran ce in th e Isheimnn fuel cycin 1 :r.na c t s. The 22 fuel cycle i pact.7, wnich the court t,=lked ahnut, with the. 23 environmental inpa cts o f the fuel cycle. 24 I t cnns ider ed the Conmission's recula t ten s e: edied 25 in T=ble S-3 of P,rt 51 and the assessment of envirarnent,l f ~

.a.n8 89 imcacts for the entire f ue l cycle, Tne Cour t ca.mpl imen ted 2 the. Commi ss ion on i ts handling of the ca jori ty of th e inpacts 3 censicered, an f said so. 4 The Court took except ion, howeve r, to the degree 5 to which t he Ce mission had considered recrocessing and waste o disposal impacts. Tha t is a 11 the Court t eck exception to 7 when it r7manded the ma.te r to the Cormission for fur'.her pro-S caedings nn those matters, aad those ma tte rs only. 9 I ne ed no t t e ll t he Boa rd t ha t the Commission has 10 since spok en -- and I think spacen not only to the general 11 public but to acclicants, licensees and hoar is la a general 12 statement of onlicy and suppinnental s ta t= ment of policy, an<i 13 I :nin% if the Cor.aiss ion follows i's own schedule, it is 14 about to put ou t an i n t e ri ?. requla tion which will f r:-t he r 15 da fine the it..pects associated with reprocessin, and waste 16 discos =1 which will presunahly he b ird i ng regula ti on that = 17 is binding, as other reaulations of the Carmi ss ion a re, nn !8 participan ts and the Boa rd, and again f 'he Cnnqinsinn comes 19 anywhere near its schedule for the issuance of tha' in t e r i.. 20 recul a ti on, it will be in place c.y the time we hav4 a hearinn 21 in this procandin,. 22 Unw, let's go back to s me of.he individuel c,q-23 ten tions he re. Con ten tien '2 and contant inn 3 for the r,k, 24 of the r e c t- -d. when I '.s i k about cen ten ti,n 2, I mean cara;ranh ey " h, ',3, 1 25 2 of tne Petition for In t e r ve nt i on.. h e, <. e,. :. O, t M. ;' F,v ' f. s, m,=) _J t.) ; e ~ hm,, i \\ G y>,b c\\s v, '. ' c j.O ~ e p.s.$ .a a y w.

• g* M,.n 1,

7 c-. - a s % Q-) ' l? Y '3,3 ' ~ ~ t1

O ca :: V 90 l Aa regard, and have said 50 in praviou.1 respenJes, 2 the' paranraph nf tmhered I in the Contentino as in t roduc tory tn 3 the re aa in ing con ten tions, but I will use -- so I a.a using 4 paraqraph nuuhers id enti f ying the con ten ti on s, t'h i ch is wh1t 5 Dr. Keoford did himself. o I am at a loss to understand how Eshel?nn prnvides 7 a hasis for the proposition that t he c os'..i a nd nene fi ts h ave P laen i.apropariv idontifien and the herefits should net be 9 cene ra ti cn of electricity. It is dif ficult to arnue the 10 procosition becauJe I could see no nexus wha tsoe ver. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2! 22 23 S 4 d" bb W N ~ 6" W j, t.) : - %5

1 1 4' d 9i 'lhe re are sanc words abou t redn ing c o s', -b e n e f i t s. 2 Dr. Konford renn the Th e. are in the centext nf 3 redoinq cost-hnnefit to t '!N into acccunt additinnal 4 consideratino or the environmental inpac ts of reprnc essin;7 5 and ..a s te di spnsa l and t hat is a ll the Court was t a l '< i, o 6 ahnut. 7 It certainly does prnvide a basis for nuas tinning S wh,t is a vi rv l'n -astahlisheI Cn:..issinn preca innt =V 9 practice, Appo7L Board dec isinns and Li c e n s i-a Una rci 10 cecisions, tha t the bene fit to be balance : ag a inst il e n v i r o n;..n n ' a i cost is the cene ra tion of electricity. I2 00 ISBIM: I can't ccnce ive of anythinc in 9 13 Ecneln.an that wnuld re*'o ta ly succe s t tha t decisi-n 's a basis. 14 Siniiarly, Context 3 hi s t n do -- to da precise, 15 the petitioners contend the cm,- o f nucie= r pow = r by 'he 16 Apolicant a nt f the Couuiss inn = ssu~e c= ta s t r np.T i c a cc id an t-f r = e 17 c.ceratinn o f, oc l e, r pnw.e r p la nt s. I? I t <;nes on to say the c ns t-he ne fi t an -li v s : s nf 19 nuclear powe r plan ts should include the cast o f 'cciden ts. 20 Aga in, there is noth ina renntely connected 'ith 21 th i n nunjort in the ishala,n Caso and, an'i", ai thou * -nia-

• ic 'n s in '

22 on, inis is a cmn te tic, wnich cha!!enges rulliJ.i 23 na. : Snc el Heards and at leas' three cnurt decisinnq ^n thiu 24 sunject. 25 Hut un ar= nq* goi o in.o tho se da cis i^n s.

• 14

'3 Yf i e;, y +5

nashi 106 1

I think it is reasonably e asy to sav tha t th e y a r e 2 not paticularly well addressed in the prefinal sucple-3 ment to the final environ::: ental sta tenen t. And when one 4 looks at tha t i t is not hard to see that tha p e t i t i :>^ p r e -- 5 da tes the final su pp le me n t to the final envi ron.: en ta l sta t e-6 nen t and 1 # my understanding nf the way these hea rinns trens-7 pired in the past -- wnen, f or ins tance, a final environcantai 8 statement is issued for a piant, if new information is 9 presented, it is possible for the public, intervenors, to file 10 an intervention, within, again, 30 days -- s o, e th i r a 3 0 d a y s -- 11 cn the basis of new in f or.a tion provided by the Staff. 12 When looked at in this licht, the con ten tions in 13 tn e pe ti tion prena te the final environmental supplenent and 14 indeed, the draft en vi ronmen ta l supp leme n t to the final -- 15 th i s is ce ttinq ve ry con fus ing. With reqard to -- let me 16 talk about t he !.'e c e m be r, 1076 FES. 17 So, for tnat, the petition in my opinion with 18 regard to enernv conservation predates tha :ssuance of 19 the draf t and final FE3 and, hence, is easily timely with s 20 reca rc to the initial filing of the application of notice 21 f hearing, it m ig ht be c on s i.ie re d n o t ti aly. At least 22 wnen.e considered Es nei.::a n -- ind e e d, wnan we con side ree 23 the Decer.ner FE3 -- it appears more than t i c:a l y be ca t se, 24 quite clearly, t r.e S ta f f na s not add re ssed the e f f ec t nf wnat 25 e cnange in the r= te structure would be en the neec for a13 e =ee

c(-., e I I saa no cnnnectinn he-ween this conte xt and the 2 Es ne :aa n C a s e. 3 Tne Cn, te xt 4, 6, and 7, one of thos? -- well, 4 4 5, anci 7 are almost entirelv wha t the 'ita f f riescrihed 5 than t o 'c e. The do11er costs associated with the fuel cycla, 6 which the Coalition centends have not been properly evalua ted. 7 une i ten 'inic h Dr. Ko pf ord pi ck o d out r=s the 9 e n vi rnnnen t,1 c,st -- let ne u.3? his precise w n r i, --- t h e c e n vi ron...en ta l iroact o f aiinino lew-crade coa l shal as or s ven 10 seawe te r f or uranium. 11 Tha t is the nniv re f e re nce I car find to !2 envi rc.nen ta l 1-01 cts. 13 i:". T EP HD D:

ext sentence.

14 '7. i'IJ.'. B i? I M E : As oppcsed to th e c e n t o f -- t h = 15 do'.lar ccsts. !o A5 an en viron;.: ant e l i n.' a c t, ii fal'S in t ha '. 17 pertion nf Tabla S3 wnich the cour* 'fidn't disturh, hich 18 the -- in hct, as I said hetnre, <-an p l i c, te< f 'he age on. 19 It any be -- and I a:a not par.cenallv famili=r 20 ennugli witn th, r u l-:W i n q prncsedinq and nublic hearing tnat 21 went intn

• h e

..ia k ing o f S3 -- i r myhe t'in t the censideratinn 22 ni ve n into e n vi rcn'e n t'l i'cncts of the extrac. inn er ..ninq 23 c f u ra n i u..: <j i. in ' t in c lud a 5eawater or shalo -- navhe i t u, in ' ' 24 19 C 11:n e An 't .f En? inw Orado e nu rc e s Dr. :{ ap f n Td mentions l 'a r c. 25 If not. tne pisce t o ha ve r = i.c e d tha t pci,t was in th, hearing. 6 O ~ e.).',

3 I Th e pi n c e t o ha ve fought out tm que rtien as tn 2 whe-ther er no t this was a realistic encugh prosoect tn h1 3 even cnnsidered at this point in the envirennental 1 pact -- 4 it shnuld ha ve been raised a t the hearing. 5 The,Cc=i ss ion adented e renul = tion. It I n f or :.ed 6 th a Apolican ts and the Sta f f and th i? cards '.a have locked 7 at these prnceedings tha t the a nvi rnnnen til i pacts to F be factorad into cnst-henefit analysis with thmss c o n t ' i n e 'i in 9 Ta5>1e 53, and I see no basis in Esh e ina n for contes:in').that 10 portions of the Commission's regulations, whi ch th e court 11 deliberately and axplici tiv left undisturbed. 12 As I se id bef ore, the r=nainder nf Conten tiens 4, 13 5, and.7 ara l a r"e lv conce rn er' with dollar costs nf the fuel la cycle, including dollar costs which would he associatec -ith 15 the unavailaoilitv of uranium supnly. Ic ! take it t ha t the un= 'ilabili ty n r u ran io.a 17 supp!v -- if one assuued that e9 re to ha the si tua ti cm -- in IP not in itsel f an environnen tal inpact but it dres hear ca 19 the cos t or the hene fits sonn to ha chtained from the plan t, 20 but i' is essentially the economic s and hanefits nf the 71 pi n t that are at lason. 22 Ihis han othine to do r i th t he c s he i...a n enso. 23 The iishal nn c se ca n not -- it was crrcerned solo'v w.th th7 2a envirrnment,1 t o, cts of *Se nuclaar fuc; cycla. It o n -n: 25 conCorYCl i t ti t ':0 Cnst o f If ran itn, the cnSt of DrncaSLing, 19

,a u.t I cost of waste disposal or any of the other na tte rs dealt 2 w i',h in Con te n ti on s 4, 6, and 7. 3 M n'e' let ue come to Conten tion G. h 4 Here I will be ta l'< ing bo th to t e Coelition's 5 pnsition and the oos it ion advanced by the 5taff. 6 As vnu mentioned, '2 r. C ha i r a a n, the Steff 7 sucgested that one cnntention, Cca ten tien 5, m ight be alinwed. .,1. ~. n. v.7ua ~..u.r . u, p =.+...a...'.3. c9.. e. i..n c ~. 1 u .u. n -

v. n o

n .g t v 9 do with the suhject of a Cons 9fvatinn Contoni'iCn, a Contention 10 tha t canse rvation had not heen adequately addressed in the il Co:'aission's environnental rev'ew and consideratinn nf 12 al te rn q tivos, bu t it was a dec ision which sinply .nid that 13 the Gn,nissic, had inproperly t r ea ted the subject by ranui rinq !4 that interve:nors meet s o.ne thr7shold tes t be f ore the issua; IS WAS c v idered.hv the Co aaais s i on. Ic The courL revereed the Co.on i s si -n on tha t coin. !7 It said tant ntervenors need not ::e t the th r a snn l-i t2st to I P, ha ve that C7nt?n tino cnnside rod. T9 Sut tha t de c is ion d idn' t have to do <iith a la te 20 intervention or cond causa. Tha t had to do wi th a case i-21 which the in tervennr s had ra isad, tinolv nuestier af 22 cnns a rva ti^n, cu. st e d th e ra t ' o r '<< i t h i n t':a agency, anH 23 finc11v tn *he coure. 24 Eshelman does not say t ha t it _s in i tmal f cred 25 cause for a l a.1 i n ta vun ti an a nd ::e ti ti on. c.

.5 95 1 The S t, f f position is w:e wha t pu?zlino to me 2 o n.t h i.i. 3 The Sta f f sucge:it ed -- he fore I net to tha t, 4 le" me mee ano ther ohnerva t ion about the iishe laien case. 5 The Cha iraan remarked earlier tha t it ai;;ht be 6 consincred cond c,use i f ' he E s h e l :r.a n ca se were to have 7 re versed a rc:;uintory posi ti e n o f th a Com'is.tirn ahera en E in te rvenor cn'ild not prior t.,

• r.a t, r n'r, 'v",

rn!'od tN' 9 contention, here ins a decision which now said ha cou t f. 10 CHAI.T/ M! LUTmi: Th7F iS not ha t we have he re. Il Me have, noino h ic% at least to the Niagara ohawk decision 12 in - a ve ch e r 6, 1973, a clear dire ctive fr-m the Car missinn 13 tha t con ten tions rela ted to cnnserva tion of enerov we re la entirely a llowable. 15 Yn A t ha s b e en the rule and the pra;tico of So s 16 Enard sinca _such con te n tions have been rnu t ine ly a linwed. 17 And would have :een in this case had they been ti,elv advm c' 18 .'Iow, aninn hack to tne Sta f f casition, the 3tafe, !9 in i ts answer to tha ':ca 1it icn's pcsi tien, would alins the 20 contention on the around, as I understand it, that the drnft 21 cupplement of tha Fina l $nvi ronnen ta l 5ta temen t tiidn't 22 consider the question 0:' enercy conse rva tion al to rn ' tive :, 23 althou;h I shnold say tn.e t ' the final surpienentel doas, a-24 th e CrOunds th 2 t *he draf' s u r.D i o ;;;o n t d i d q / ; c q3[ par ;ng 25 cuestion of ene r-v cnnse rva tien a l te r na t i ve s a n'.i. -herefore, o, a

6 96 I had not pl?ced t.his issue in pe rspe c ti ve. 2 I th i n ': tha t is a conte for the public. 3 The Sta f f, it seems to me, icnores some real 4 practicalities of li fe. 5 I au not sure th a t this Board is aware -- well, 6 I cake it 5Ta t -- I think the Board is a wa re -- tn a t th e 7 Coalition on I!uclear Power was an intervonor in the C ccerating license proceeding f or the Tl'I iunber i. C They file d na Aunust 7, I972 a petir.icn to 10 in te rvene and a long list of con ta n ti ors. 11 One of these cententions - Con ten t ien I:umbe r 2 3 -- 12 had to do with the Acolican t's rate s tructure and the 13 allecatien tha t th e Applic an t's ra te struc tur, p renn ted tn a 14 wasteful use at ele ctric enerov. 15 This is not a new sub jec t to the Coalition. It 16 is the centention 'ihich chviously, if it was done in 17 Au-ust 1972, could h;1e been done nn a timely ha si s 'fi th 18 respect to T 'I t!umbe r 2. IO ihere was no need for the Ceali tinn to uait unt12 20 T"I 2 is 90 percent complete to ra ise nues tions which could 21 ha ve been -aised and should have been ra i nnd :r.o r e than two 22 v e, r s -, " c. 23 In fact, I thin? then tne Sca r 1 cn...es gone al.v tn 24 cc siderations of coca cause, I t h i n '< it,innt aspeciall" !aVa 25 into acccun t th e fac th = t the Cm liticn has sa? qv whilo th e c.!0. 2.93 _

li

9.,

1 plan t was heiw constructed without raiJinc th e issue it 10w 2 wishes to advance tha t th e const ruct ion pe r::.it shnold be 3 revcked and the noeretino 'icense deniad. 4 Recentiv the Cnaiit inn sa t by in the first 5 instance, a s t he Board will re ca ll, when in the Calvert 6 Cli f f s decision e vervhndy wna had a con s truc ti co permit 7 issued prior tn the ':a ti ona l Envi ron::.e nta l Policy Ac t, whi ch P is our case, evervhedy who had e constructi^n Mr-it 'ient 9 th rouen fi rs t an administretive p r o c e ed i n'; in which thev vere 10 required ". o show reasons why cnnstruction should not be 1i suspended. Ele wen t throng h such proce ed ings. 12 Che C o ;;:.:11 ssico de te rmina tinr was not to suscend, 13 out th e C^ m i s s i c, o f f ered a nvhady, any interested nenher la of the public, an opportunity for a hearing et t ha t p o in t to 15 consider this. 16 Inere was no in te rven tion then. Ii t he Coumiss ion subsequen tiv, i-cnnnoctin^ vi?h 18 its.NEPA review and the opera t ing license, offered a second 19 crocrtunity and the Coalition dien't then in te rvene, nor were 20 rnv of the co.t_entions it now seeks to raise advanced by the 21 existin; intervenors. 22 in ' St3 f f onsition

alcc,

't seenn to 'e, :n i nnr1 23 anntner practiceli ty of this c'se -- the Sta f f sugges ts th e' 24 there ::a v h e so.ne excuse in the f=ilure tn adiress th e sunject 25 c f c on se r'< 4 t i on in the dra f t supplement tn tha Fin =1 ( c.... x

,a s, - 1 Environmental Statement. 2 I would r en ind the Board t ha t this is one of la 3 pe titions dua. ped indiscriminate 1y in the lap of the C o.::u i s s io n, a ihev are, to the hest o f I::V knowledne =nd helief -- S this is certainly true as to the najority :f tha: which I o have seen -- identical including this conten tien on 7 conservatinn and ra te structure. 8 To sut;;est that t-h e dr,f: e n vi r enn en t,1 s ta

e..an:

9 in Three Mile Island's dra f t s u p o l e :;:e n t to the Three Mile 10 Island 2 envirec: ental sta tenen t had any ra in t i en to the l' advancinc or not advancing of th's contentien just ic;n ores 12 the 13 o tner conten tions, o the r.:e ti ti on s, t ha +, we r e file 13 ov tne Cea li tinn. ia CH A I P 4 A N LUTWi t There simiv can realisticall" -15 'e any cause and effect r e la t i on sn ip 3 tween " reft c 16 surpienen t and the filinq of this series of petiuions. 17 Lastly, I think the Staff ecsitior is goin"; tn le nn.e somatninc o f e mockerv cut of the.;on.mi s s i on 's e = r iv 19 notice proceeding. 20 It is some years ago now in which -- havinc seen, 21 as I have seen, plants ready for nue ra tinn ait as much na 22 ten ve'rs on the around while hearir.cs vent en -- =Mcpte; a 23 an aarly notice procedure,'the purpose nf.shich ves to brian 24 cu any interventinc.s early =nd ce fine the con ten tions enr iu, 25 to prnvide a crocess by vnic h the early contention s 'inr.t 0 $ ( + -.J v ?.

9 9.: I contribute to tne crocess of review rather then inilow nn 2 The suggestion that '4 r. 'A c Gu r re n - e :< c u s e m e, 3 that the Sta f f - 4 'A R, .'.fC GU RR Ell: It is ::iine. 5 MR. TPu t'IS R I DGE : -- the Sta f f position sugge sted 6 le t's wa it and see if there is sone thine; t o r:ua r re l wi t h 7 in the environnen.al sta tenent hefore anybody ha s to nake 8 nis interest known. 9 Tha t seens to me not consistent. 10 Mr. Chairnan, I think I have addressed everything 11 tha t -- eve rything but one item that Dr. ; e p f ord,nni n te d. 12 He coi n te ri to the Calvert Clif f s decision which, 13 cenerally speakinn, requ ir es t ".e tiRC to take scne in i tia ti /, 14 in environnental raview end responsibility -- I would remind 15 the Scard that in this creceedinc we have taken the position 16 curse l ve s, consi s ten t wi th t he position whica a Ucard chaired 17 by "r. Luton later e :. bod ied in a cecision in the Prairie !slanc 18 Case -- th i s H o a rd do e s ind e ed ha ve inc e pen de n t responsicil.tv 19 to see to it tnat the IJEPA review has been cone and done righ.. 20 There is no question. tiot on lv the Staff, but, in 21 cur view, th i s hoard has th a t responsibility. 22 C:M I C A N LUT0!I: Staff? Sta f f may nake a respons', 23 but ye'l dnn 't h ave tc. 24 1H. C GUO9 E?I: Mr. r ess will respond for r.ne Steff. .E55: Since I crepare the S: 3 f "s re sparse, : 25 '3 0. e &,) 4,

.!Oet 100 t will do the resconse now, '.t r. Ch a i rn 7n. 2 cHAI m< AM LUTO:i: All, rig ht. 3 4 5 7 F 9 1O i! I2 9 o ia 15 16 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O ~...f 's h s.

101 CR1806 2-yo lew I MR. FESS: With regard to Dr. Kepford's remarks en CmWI 2 ithe Eshelman and :! ROC decisions, this is the first time I nave i 3 ever heard those decisons called the new Calvert Cliffs. il .4i It. tn.at's true, Dr. Kep_ orc, is t.ne :1rst one to i iStoick uo on it. ~ l 6i .They are not the new Calvert Cliffs decisions. 7l i Those decisions said the Commission had inadec.uarelv.. I Si documented the environmental effect of reprocessing waste t I 9 ! management and didn't say anything else about.the rest of the 10! fuel cycle issues other than the fact that the Ccmmission had i II done an admirable jcb of documenting the environmental effects i i 12 trom those tuel cycle issues. i l. 13l There fo re, the majori*.y of the contentions, which I i Idi don't think I r.eed to reiterate because counsel for the I 15 Applicant has discussed them, and all the parties have them in i 16' front of them -- they only discuss econcmic costs unrelated to i l

17. either the Eshelman or :IRDC decisions on the environmental 18l effects of reprocessing and waste 2nagement.

i 19l Now, I think the Staff 's response adequately sets out l Ol' what our position is contentions 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. ' i I 2I As far as Dr. Kepford's centention that one of them 22 raiscs an environmental issue, the whole paragrach -- tha t ' s 23I Nc. 4 -- discusses the price of U-306 and then right at the 1 24; tail end he says, " Petitions contend t!.at availability of fuel P-receral 8ecoFers. 'r'c., 25 : and energy and environmental cost of its extraction are an I

I t 1 Ou7 i l c=w2 l' integral part of the fuel cycle and therefore must be included 1 2 i in the full and proper cost-benefit analysis." 3' Mr. Keoford's cwn reference to 10 CFR 2.74 tells dl him that that is not the particularity sufficient to allow 5 contention to be admitted into the preceeding. 6 The mere mention of the word "anvironment" does not 7! allow the issue to be then expanded into a reading that is not I i 8 ! even there. i 9l The whcle paragraph 4 deals with costs in terms of 10! dollars. i ~ 111 Not one eF/ironmental er_r_ect is mentionec. t I 12! Now, with regard to contention 5 en the Applicant's 13! rate structure, I will be frank and say that the arcuments l I 4 !, counsel for the Ac.c.licant have raised this mornin~u with regard l 15! to the Coalition's history of participation in atomic safety 16' a nc-liconsing hearings is new to me and that I was never aware I7! of the fact the Coalition had raised conservation issues as 18 i early as thev had and that the conservation issues, with I I9! particular reference to the rate structure of the Applicant, "O these issues were known to ther and could have been raised in 2I this proceeding, as I understand it, on a timely basis. 22' The Staf f's position was based on the fact the 1972 23; draft environmental statement prepared by the Staff had nc 4: addressed conservation and we felt that although Ishelman is ' cerci tecor'en. l,ic., og, not on all fours, tha t it provided sufficient nexus such tha: e il

l 103 I cmw3 I the raising of the censervation issue by the Coalition would i 2! allow it to intervene on that issue in this proceeding. i 3 I would make a request to the Chairman if maybe i 4 Dr. Kepford and the Coalition could address how he sees 5 Eshelman's relation to the conservation issue and the gocd 6 cause for the late filing and perhans the Staff may be able i 71 I to better understand the Coalition's history of participation 8l! in these proceedings, with carticular reference only to the i 91 conservation of ancr;j issue and the rate ctructure of the 10l a c. c. l i c a n t. I 11l CHA7F MAN LUTON: Is it correct to say that the l 12 Staf f is at this point no longer sure that it supports the 13' l admission of tais contention ?? i l#I It needs to understand some more about it before it I 15 l decides whether it will go with the position taken. l 16 MR. FESS: That's correct to say. t i 17 ! Some of the law facts I learned this morning, it i I8 would be safe to say I an entertaining a new position. io CHAIRMAN LUTON: All right. 20l Dr. Ke p ferd, I don't know that you need the Staff's l 21, support but if you care to say any more about tnat centention 1 t 22' 5, relating it to the 3shelman decision, you certainly may. 23; DR. KEP FORD : Yes, there are a number of things 24! I would like to say. A" NerC) If 00r99f 5 IrtC., 25' But first off, I would like to ask the Chairman a i

l l 104 cmw4 I j[ question. i That is, wou'd it be possible to elaborate slightly 2l l 3l on contention 4 with regard to the relationship between environ-i mental costs and economic costs pertaining to U-308? 4 i 5> I think there is a verv fundamental croblem here i t ! which tae Staff quite simply f ails to realize. 6 I f 7 CHAIRMA LUTON : Okay. We started wi"h discussion i 8 from you and we got discussion frca the other parties. 9, I think we can close this discussion with v.ou makinc. i 10; responses at the end. l l 11l You may indeed address contention 4, if you will. i 12{ But I wish, firs, you would speak to the matter that i ! the Regulatcry Staff 13 14! DR. KEPFORD: Contention 5? i 15j CHAIRMAN LUTON-Yes. If you would start with 1 16: that, I would appreciate it. ~ 17i DR. KEPFORD: The first thing I would 11.<e to say is that 13j the Invironmental Coalition on Nuclear Power is a group a t 19! which -- a citizens' group which has evolved over a period of I I 20! time. 1 21; Its personnel have not always had the same philosech; 22; with regard to the conduct of Tearings. I .gey change, as do tne pal.3csognies or, :Or instance, 23: a. l 24; the regulatory commissions and public utilities.

• • 3erQl IeDOt*ers, Inc. ;

25, Operating phil;ucphies change. Cperating cersc.cnel I 9

105 4 i c m w o-l change. i t 2! Ue have had one particular problem that those two l I 3 croues haven' t had and that is money. i i d! Quite of ten, while issues in the past -- everybody I 5li raised in the past as energy conservation, cuite often the 1 l 6l Coalition has been in the position that either the personnel l 7! didn' t see. fit to cursue the issue at that time or there was i 1 8 simply not the money available to pursue it. 9l As a further example, there have been indee rather I 10! severe breakdowns in communication between members of the II, Coalition itself and its paid legcl staff, which had led to, e i 12l well, we no longer use legal staff if at all possible. i 13 With all due regard to lawyers present. I4f (Laughter.) 1 i 15 DR. KEPFORD: It appeared to the present membership 16 of the Coalition and the present representative of the Coalition i i 17i -- that is, myself -- that the Eshelman decision opened the i 18 Ldcor to the discussion of the energy conservation option, which l 19 lhad certainly not been addressed in the initial, final, and 'eO Idraft supplements by the Commission. 1 2I~ The general subject o f energy conservation hadn' t e 23 22 been addressed. 23. I 24' eral Reccr*ers. Inc. ; 25-t.J f, .,i m -w

M .n a s n2 107 1 plent. 2 In th e third peragraph of page 805 of the final 3 FES, the subject o f ut ility ra te s truc tu re t ; encnurag e 4 consunption of ele ctricity is discussed, but tne Steff dees 5 not rea lly consider wha t the e f f ect on the need for the 6 plan t wouli be i f energy conserva t ion we re truly co' side r ' t if the rate structure were altered. 8 There are no nu:sers to support enythina 9 which is civen here. In those regards, I cen only think 10 tha t the contention is timely and shculd be allowed. II CHAI9MAh LUTOM: All r ig ht. 12 4R. :-E55: Can I as> one more cue s tion, "r. 13. Chair'an? la CHAIRUAN LUTUN: Sure. 15 'A R. FESS: I wonder if i)r. Kepford can address ic the other point raisen by !1r. Trewbridge, and that is, what is 17 the connection between the rate structure c en ten tico 18 in this case and the f a c t th a

• t ha t sa :ne e xa c t petition --

19 word f or wor d, I believe - wa s filed in 13 othe r cases? 20 How do you connect your contention the ra te s tru c-21 tt.re snould be looked at in this case wi th the fact that 22 ynn filed it indiscriminately in a ll *he other cases ? 23 I P4. K E!4 0 91): First aff, I resent the i moi ica tion p.a tn a t the pe tition was filed ind iscrimina tely hecause it was 25 not by any s tre ten of th e inacina tion f. led indiscriminately. <s.. ... *s

b

nash3 103 1

'J R. FES3: I will wi thdraw tnat word. 2 DR. KEPFuRD: It was filed at the request by the 3 coelition of members of the cc ilition wno ha ppened to l i ve 4 i r. these areas whe re these nuclear power plants are operatina 5 or are under construction and, in genera l, while I haven't 6 examined every ur.ility rate struc.ure against wnich we inter-7 vene,.ay unders tanding o f the utility ra te structures is tnat E they are in general sic.ilar, ef f ering ce clinir ; block rates 9 for - well, con sis tino o f declining cloc'< rates. 10 CHA I R'.t AN LUTON: Dces that comple te your response 11 wi th respect to Contention 5? 12 I realize you wanted to say more about Contention a. 13 I will permi t you to do t ha t, bu t be f ore y ou -io -- 14

09. K EP FORI):

Yes. I would elso iike to acd 15 I am not really sure' the other oe:itions filed by the i6 coalition are procer discussion for this i3 card. I dcn't think 17 they are a'. issue. I 'hink wnat :,s at issue is th i s,o a r t i c u - 18 lar petition, I"n r e e ' tile Island Unit 2, wnich is under 19 consiceration ri.jht now. 20 CH AI R'si Air LUToi4 : The Sta f f has a choice. 21 'Ar. Fess, if you wan t to make a rescense now to 22 all tha t has bec.i sa ic about Contentien 5, y1 m a y -!n so. 23 If you would rather censicdr i t a wnile and submit an a;;end-2d me9; to vnur answer, if. hat shculd be necessary, fou can oc 25 it that wa't. $ A

• 5

{ c a.'. 'J

irnash4 10-) 1 MR. TRu,G9 I DG' : .'.!a y I c om p li c a te li fe ? c 2 We have been discuss ing the issue of cood cause and 3 I don't intend to discuss it further, but the regula tion s 4 as interpreted hv the Apoeal Board go en to say that you 5 consider four othe r fa ctors. 6 In add it ion, I am precared to discuss the four other 7 factors ?nd would be sliqh tly ne rvous if the record didn't a contain cav discuss ion o f then a t all. I an nervous about 9 whe ther we do the appealing or whether they do. I am 10 nervous either way about not havino at least off-red or tried to present our views on the four factors. 12 CHAI OMAN LUTON: It is a hit of complicatien. 13 Just hold tha t a..a in ut e. 14 'J R. TROMBRIDGE: I would be delighted to have a 15 recess to tnink that out. It wouldn't be that lanc a 16 di s c ussi on. 17 'J R. FESS: Did I h e a r 'f r. Trowbrione ask fer a 18 recess? I would join in t ha t. 19 CHAlohAM LUTON: Okav, the Sta f f will tell us when 20 we ccme back whether it is going to want to amend its 21 written answer or sav una tever more it has to say about '. h e 22 discositien, either in writinc or co i t now. 23 MR. i-ESS: Then Dr. Xepford,you war ad c. o say 24 some thing about Contention 4, I believe. 25 DR. K2PFORO: Yes. 9 ....~s....

na s a5 I10 1 CHAI R!' AN LtJTON: And then we nava, t n e.::a t t e r o f 2 addressinc the f cur f a ctors. 3 Le t 's t n '< e a ten-m in u te re ce ss. 4 (Recess.) 5 6 I .C e 9 10 Il 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 ,4; 22 23 24 9 { bY 1, " W ' .D r

.7jul Ii1 1 CH t I R VA N LUTON : All r ig ht, we vcuid like to 2 start now. 3 ?m. FESS: Mr. C ha i r ma n, I am nrepared to 4 clarify the Sta f f's cosi ti n. As loath as I am to change 5 th e posi ti on of th e Sta f f af ter we f i led our pe tition.. o hearina ne-arpunent this morninc I am now orecared to say 7 011t we do c hange out pos it ion on the cond-cause issue, ? and tha t c,e s to Fhe tardiness of the ra i.i ina of the 9 can ten tion on conservation. 10 Uur pasition is now t ha t it is a tardy con ten tion 11 and that it dnes not succort a showinn of suitable gcod 12 cause to intervene on the ba sis of the Aroli;nn t's ra te 12 structure. I sav that bec,use the coali ti nn d i:lq' t raise la the issue of cnnservat ion of ene rgy a f te r the Staff's 1072 15 en virencen tal statenent ca e out. 16 The cnalition, when it did rai.qe the con se rva tion 17 of enormy issue in its Aucust pe,tition tn intervene in this 13 proceedina, didn.: ak e any men tien of the fact th a t 19 conservaticq of enerny was inadequate ly cons idered in the 20 St1ff's draft su ca l e.ae n t to the fina l envi ronmentrl s ta t ea.en t. 21 Third!v, the [qtervenors have nrovi de rf nn now 22 i n f orma t i co to !'y -- or at any o tne r ti rne -- in indicate 23 th 10 the re in :end causa the the ra isi na a f th i s late 24 contention en con se rva ti c, of energy -- that is, tne 25 Acolicant'c rate s'ructure -- nthe r thnn the caque reforanc? 4 ' [I U. )

.7Ju2 112 1 tn nn "underst'ndina of Apol ican t's ra te struc'ura s" and 2 that they are based on a declininq b l o c ': svstem. 3 I don't feel, speaking for the Sta f f, tha t that 4 is sufficient new i n f orma ti on to allow interventinn at 5 this time on that' contention. 6 CM Al m u rf LUT09 : 0 '< a v. 7 Is it ynur un ferstandino, Mr. Fess, tha t the way 8 that contention 5 nas been e xp la ined hnre 'his.unrnino, it 9 dces not ha3r reasonable connection with the Eshelman 10 decision -- or wh i ch e v e r one it wa s -- t he enermy 11 conservation decision, and that had the con ten t ion assart7d 12 tha t, instead of rate structures, had it asserted, for 13 examole, "The dra f t supple ent s ta temen t fails to ennsider 14 the al te rna t iva of energy c o ns e r va t i on, " that would have 15 heen a dif ferent case and one wnich might ha ve eve wi'hin Ic the a:M i t n f that court decision? 17 If vou don't acree with ma, don't, hot I just I F. want to be sure I understand what vou naid. 19

n. FESS:

I au not p r epa red tn s a y <h n t Eshe lm an 20 cculd be interoreted as sayino. I am prepared to say what 2I ishaLman dtd any. 22 An i road 2shelnnn, i ' sa id 'ha' thn [ q t a r v en n r :; 23 h'd rnised tne con s e r va t ico issue rnd th e n the Co mission 24 had said, "'/; e + n't need in cnn s id e r it." A r:i ' ha Cnu t 25 Sa id, "It was "aLief. Go ha c t' and cnnsider it nnN." q u *. e.n.n, J.:. s

lju3 113 1 that is ont the cane here. 2 C!MI ?"AN LUTUN: That is not the context here, 3 in your epinion. 4 .19. F ESS: t:o. The coali tion never said that 5 we had not adequately considered conservaticn or tha t we 6 had ignored conservation. 7 CT!Af fPi AM LUTON: All rich t. Okay. Tn a n k y o u. F Or. Kepford, vnu wanted to address 9 cortentien 4 in some fashion. 10 00 KEPFORD: Yes. Tha nk you. 11 It has been alleced that cen ten tion 4 addresses 12 strictly tne dollar cost nf uranium and, seve ' nention or 13 two in the last sentence or two, does not talk about la envi ronn en ta l cost. 15 '!h e t I would like to sa y is t ha t the dollar cost to is rela:ca totally to the envirornental cost, and the 17 re la tion sn i p is th i s : The dollar cost of urania, are is 18 related to the concentration of U3 09 in the rock, 'he are 19 concen tra tion. 20 At the low cost, it's around 2000 or 3CCO parts 21 car million. The ecor.nmic costs cunted are dne quite 22 si.aply to lower concentrations of '.he ur a niu nt in -he rock 23 and, nf cnur:1, s e a ra t e r, ' w he re th e con c'n tra tion s a re nn 2a the orner,f carts cer billion. 25 The dollar coat is a function of th e concent ation e U f. .J >e

7Ju4 Ii* I o f t.' r = n i ':n in <hatever it is. T!'a t is a recnvery cost. 2 i.'he n yo u ca ", for ins tance, s 100 a pn';nd of 3 U3 C, i f th a t is what you pay, tn ::ine it from a low grade 4 of cnal or a lou-qr,de shale, being as it is of such a low 5 concnn tre tion in the roc'<, you have to terrn over far 6 larger otr-ntities of rock to get a t it. That is '".e 7 e n v i r on:.:en t a l cost. They are s tri c tly rela te-f. n "r. LI::5!i;ERGEit : A cuestirn here, Dr. VecforM. 9 Granting the : iia r i t s o f wha t vnu just spoke to, is it yottr understandina that the operation of Three ' tile 2, 10 11 if i t 's aver a cp rove d, rould carry wi th it the' in:clica t inn 12 of oni.nc :n such utrnns of tryinc to extract uranit:, fron 13 sa a mter or cnal or shale ? i4 "O.

5PFORD:

That's part of the unknown 15 infornation. To the hest of my knowledge - lc 'i?.

f. I:!EN!!E9GEc :

The pronle-I' having is 17 correctina t!p 'nat considera ticr of ge tting uran tun frcn IP sm'trces and pinces wnere it is not currently neing gotten 19 an n roduction hasis with this ca se. 20 'J o, if you coul-f help me there, I would 71 1p"re cin tn. t.. ?? s' '3'!- ; r 0 : Tn e latest esti.ute o f esmrrces 22 [ ha va hef,ra n is an 17') \\ ne'is re l e.'se o f r ch 21, 1 9 '/ S. 2* I inM e '? ' r, ther' [3 S,e Or [Wo p'inlished i, 1974 wh i ch n ave 25 9.e r n - t t a l l y -he sa:::e e s tima te s o f re sourc's i-t ae n:. t S " b6 ". ~J

,7 jus Ii5 I 5pril 2, 1076 - 2

An. LI t' E:l!!EG. is' :

ixcuse ne, sir. Let's lea ve 3 th ' fornal testia.nny tn the avidentiaru hearina. 4 ':h a t i s voitr poin t? I don't ned the sta tisti cs. 5 I need the thrust of vrur discussic, arout re'ovirn ~ 6 ur =n i tn frna en ta te r 'th en t he na t i on isn't dnino i t,

and, 7

so far as I n n '.<, your con ten tinn dos sr 't a ven cla la thet 6 ~hrea ~!i l' I q l 'ni in operation will recu ire that the nativ 9 dn i'. IO So, I ':.1 g rop in;; f nr t he relavance of your Ii re f a ranc e to e:'tr., c tinq uranium f rna s ha la, coal and sea 12 ta te r. 13 m.

2P? ann:

It's.. nf,elief t.m t nuclear 1.t re ac tars nre ra c in:;. u.1 der construction arn mai,- clarned will 15 nor, than e xh, rne ene es t i.~a t ed uran iu:: rosaurc33 nf to the Unitea Stat n. I7

13. LIlEMUERG2R:

I s tha' nne o f vnur con tan tinns ? 13 'P. ' 'IPFORD: That is nhat contentinn a is all 19 enut. Un paga 7 of the petition, it's stated, "In 20 raality, the Uni ted Jta ten is now grnssly ovarcomaitted =s 21 f r a3 ;h ' n n ~r n a nd e n t i:,:n t:a d raserven o f il3 01 are '2 ccncar,qe. 23 'noi requir uentr for the 23R reacters ocor=b'e, 24 S i,- vril t, or planned, w i '.; h c a pa c i ty o f 2 3 7, ^m n a c-1Na t t s, 25 i [1 r lll T

• I, I 3 :, C#3') tons n[ U3 '39 7mr t.na[T 30-YS=r 3?. 2"O

7Ju6 !!6 1 11Totion at a .% capacity f a c *. o r. The nstinatso 2 res-orves of !12 0 ' are 640,090 tnns minnhle U3 UA. That 3 is a t the 30 n onund cutoff, 4 I t 's - e un de r s ta nd ing tha t the 530 a pound 5 cutoff is no t.'n .,r5 itrary economi c cuto f f. It's.ny 6 underst=nding th a t there is a geological discnn tinui ty / in the f our l cnncon tra tions of uraniun oro at 3;out that H ccTi recov>rv lovel, end tha cres then don't apuent until e al.:or' a factor of 10 drnp in con.en trat inn. 10 Tha t 's ivhy one goes from the 'se s te rn sands ton es Ii tn.,11 nf, sudden coa ls n'd so on. How ines Three ' tile 12 I.e la no fi" in' I" fits in incrementally. 12 7. .I.':E'iB E RG E.7 : Tha t m<pla i ns t, no, th , th e la 1"jic you 're "mployino hare. Tha t 's a l l I vas trying tn . 15 unde rs tand. Ic Tha n '> vnu, sir. 17 PR. K7PFORD: nd that is the ennnectic^ 's far 18 as I can 'i n e b e tw n '> n e n vi rcr ne n ta l cos' and daller cost. lY 'lhav ar' inscnnrlble. 2C "p. T'7&l'3 D I DGE : 'f r. C ha i r:ra n, it s e e.rs t o -'e 21 w",7 r c nn L ". n : o r t a l'> in'; n hn r r t !!nhe i m en. '.'.' e are t a l i n g 72 ab^Ut ' r ;.' ' 'n fmr wintin; to tllk about ' Ira ni r :m n':pr'.v. 23 i n.1 wo ar' ta!! in :,hr'r t 9 D/- p re s s re l a n s s. 2d A.q [ ca [d ' e f or ?, ['.. precared ;n t a [ '- nonut r 29 n m! Clf f Se for "ain[nq this C^nhenti",n at Ohis t i...e 'Oart 9

, j'r7 Ii7 I frrr' the Es'nl::an dec ision. It seems to me te have cotten 2 c l s e e n ou nh to that that { nit J.ht to ho ce ri:li t ted to dn sn. 3 C H A I T' i:1 LUT'RI: I don't unde rs tand vo'Jr last 4 _ re+ arks. Yo'1 were close enourjh to ca r mi t an ar ;umen t nn? 5 ' f it. D'a!:3 RI DGE: ..'M are ce ttin, close enough to 6 discuss ennd cvrse or reasons for ad vancion the i r 7 contentiens th," have n.+ th i n.-- to dn wi th Esnal:::an. ,.:3t,e.- r r ' n,, n , e s., / * .e.,,,,,

m... a.

s. a..-, :.e.,. 4. ~. m .s v. .v 9 m-^ l 1.11 t e -I tn :s sh e l'a n. I th,ucht the prinr discussion TC had to -in tith gond cause. I:nwe ve r, i t mich t he shown. 11 " ' '. T"O'/U3 R I nGE : I thcucht I explained earlier 12 th't I mold enn fine ::vs e l f to the reasons ndvanced earlier 13 in the ~nn ' h" I' r..T e ;' f o rd, a n'i he has been basinq his it gr^d cn';s' on the Es he lm a n decisinn. 13 CH if R" \\l: L UTO.'! : He tres sce ci fi ce llv i-vi ted tn 16 state any,rher elements of oced cause if he had t he.:.. 17 Prann % 1v thav 'ren't being asserted, so I don ' t see wha t i R it is ynII In '!1 r' he 9rqrrinn aqqiqst here. Ih 59 f.n m v 9 e f, I me f f., s77) 9. f. m-e e $o f. ... +.s

118 I 43 I! MR. TRCW3 RIDGE: I have listened to Dr. Keoford r.q / 5.m.1 d I[306 2y and didn't hear a mention of Eshelman or any connection 2 with it but rather this contention -- n 1 4 CNAIRMAN LUTCN: Mr. Linenberger was sec'-ing scce f 1 5 understanding and clarification of the logic, t 6l MR. TRCWBRIDGE: I thought the ground rules were a ,.<j that we were tying to Eshelman. ? 1 3' I will not present further arcument. w f 9 DHAIRMAN LUTON: I will not -- my understanding l t 6 10y of the ground rulesi as I sa.v beyond that they are neces-l t r il II sarily the same as yours, but I am not c.oing to -- I l wouldn't want you to arr_ve at the implication that any j e, i ground rules ha'.e been set out. Namely, that the only i Id shcWinc; of good cause that is permitted to be made here 15 this morning is by way of a relationship with the Eshelman 16 decision and the NROC decision. That is not my understanding j,' of the ground rules. i i t I3 I MR. TRCN3 RIDGE: Nor is it mine, Mr. Chairman. I j ' l, My understanding of the ground rules is that the Intervenor - ; l 'O d or petitioner in this case -- has, in my view, the burden l 21 of advancinc good cause and if he advances as good cause I 22 Eshelman, that is all I propose to talk about. If he I '3 advances other reasons, I would talk about them. CHA!EMAN LUTCN: I don't think we have any \\ ct " "dee 31 R ecor'tr>. I NC. disagreement abcut the propriety o f that procedure. i i I a i I <x - nitQ e,g) }, u. '.)

s

.I 119 i fm2 1, Mr. Trowbridge, you indicated prior to the last o l 9 2" break that for the Acclicants you would like to address what I i l 3J I will call the four factors -- I am sure all the lawyers l 1 1 i 4 know what I am talking about. It is on elaboration -- l 5l some appea2 coard embellishment on the bare cones showing of I 6' good cause. Since I am certain the lawyers understand i i 7 i what you are talkinc about and since I am not certain Dr. j. l l l i 3 Kepford understands what I am talking about, I think it is i I i 9, only fair that I ask you whether you understand what we are IO l talking about here and whether you are prepared today to speak II ! to those matters. 12 Mr. Trowbridge indicated he is. I am sure Staff 13 ' counsel are probably able and ready to speak to it today. i 14 You may not be. I 15 DR. KEPFORD: I was sort of under the impression I 16 that that is what we had been talking about much of this l l l i l~ l / morning, was good cause. i. I8 ' n, CEAIRMAN LUTON: That is right, sir, but it is -- e, .i. ( ", 39 i ".. 7 are vou aware of the decision in the Western Vallev Case-1,, e s \\ m0 i Fuel and Processing Plant in which i..as held that even 2 21 j though there i.s no good excuse tendered for the lateness of l l ,2 ' j a petition'to intervene,the Board nevertheless has to go ~ i 23, further and, based on four factors set out in the regulations,. 1

1. j make a determination whether or not an assessment of these ce. Ner s: Aeoorvers. Inc.

4 ac four factors Constitutes what amcunts 07 a showing of gOcd 1 i

p I i 120 i I f f=3 cause even though the excuse tendered for the lateness 4 ii .t ,j might be viewad as insubstantial? ' i' 3 - s, yes, we have been talking about gcod cause all l i ,. t morning but there is a refinement and if you are not aware .c, of that, I am not sure it would be fair to -- t 4 I 6 DR. KEPFOR": .I am unaware of the Western Valley decision. l' e i 1 "here have been a couple of other af ter that. 8 TFOWBR' SE: "be you are familiar with 9, s. I I 9 ic 2.714 and may recognize the four factors unde: 714. Lock i ~ 11 ' at this. 12 ! DR. KEP FO RD : Ch, yes, these four conditions I-13, am f=M liar with. ja ' Are you entertaining now discussions related to 15 these four carticular issues? I 16 CHAIREMI LUTCN : I an about to but I wanted to be i i 17 >l sure you would not be treated unfairly if I did. I 13 DR. KEPFO RD : Yes, I am prepared to speak tc I 19 f these issues. l 20 CHAIRMAN LUTON: Fine. I Mr. Trcwbridce. s d l 9,. MR. TRCW3 RIDGE: Let me c.o down them brie fiv -- 23 ] CHAIRMAN LUTCN: I think we ought first start j 't

A !

with the statements of Dr. Ke ford and then cet the other kI I kb, (. { 25 ! parties' respCnses te it. e $.).. .J h*

• wwa

if 12.1 I fm4 > !l Dr. Kepford? i: 11 4

a. :i DR. KEPTORD:

Okay,.coint number one. The avail-8 . d, abilit.y of other means whereby the.cetitioner's interest i i j t 4; will be protected. I know of none save going to the hearing l t 5l board, which means generally filing a petition prior to the 6,[ issuance of an FES draft. Timely, in a given time slot, or 7; untimely, late. I know 35 no oths r means of protecting the i 3 interests, as they have been related to me by the membership 9, o f the Environment Coalition, save intervention before the 10,. Atomic Safety and Licensine. Scard. 11 l Point two, the. :ent to which the petitioner's 12 ! .carticication mav. be reasonabl.v excected to assist in de-13 ; veloping a sound re;ord. Without the petitioner's participa-ta i tion, I don't thiak there would be any record whatsocver, t 15 ', 'I am not aware of the state's c.osition on these i l I 16.; petitions or what particular evidence the state wants to i 17: submit, and in the absence of such knowledge, I can only 1 I la ' conclude that the reason we are here today is solely because i 19 of petitions filed by the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear 20 l Power and its member groups and members. So, yes, we are \\ 21 here to develop a sound record. i l l l 22 Point three, the extent to which the petitioner 's i 23' interest will be represented by existing parties. I don't i l ^4 think there are any existinv.carties in this hearing save A '38 A gga rters, I f*C. W 25 the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power and its member 1 l \\ ne .of. t.h.*. i

1 l 122 l <Ug l i

c. roues who are lookinc. out for our interests.

That is why a n 2 l! we are here, because we feel the NRC, Regulatory S taf f, 11-l 0 J censing boards, have not been doing their job under, for in-I i stance, as we discussed earlier this morning, the mandate l 4 1 5l of Calvert Cliffs. And giving, I might add, broadest exposure i, 6! of the various issues, to quote from Section 102 NEPA: I 7l " Referring to page 9 of Calvert Cliffs." l 3 CHAIRMAN LUTCN: Of course, all of these Sectico 9 2 duties are qualified bv the chrase, "to the fullest extent i 10 ' cessible." II We must stress as f o rce full.y as ossible that thi e l 12 language does not provide an e~ scape hatch for future drag-l l I3 ging agencies. It does not make NEPA's procedural require-1', ments somehow discretionary. Congress didn't intend the 15 Act to be a paper tiger. And so cn. l 16 ! It is the feeling of the membership of the I i l  :' Coalition that the Cctmission has not been representinc the i l I3 l best interests of the oublic in its assessment of the 3,' j, environmental effects of nuclear power plants and has I e 20 ! therefore not been protecting the incerest of our members. 21 So, we don't feel that car interests will be represented by any other existing parties in this hearing. i i I e, Point foer, the extent to which the petitioner's [ '~ u ,j participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceed- ... o moom,,. r, c. -~ \\ k ing. The petition under discussion today,the petition filed o o l l _ o gil'f df). 8 w =-g a. .w r.me. y e =m --*6= -6 dw* e

I l 123 fm6 in August, 1976, can only broa' den the issues. Given the 't f i 2.' opportunity there are other issues which I would like to add P, l 1 1 3 :, to thia hearing which would, at this time, mean filing 1 .I i 4 another petition and going through this sama business l 5, all over again, because agai:. referring to Eshelman, I 6' feel there are other " unaddressed fuel cycle issues," 7-which have not been addressed by the Commission in its j l' 3 licensing proceedings and its draf ting of draf t and final l I 91 environmental statements. So, ves, we most certainly are i I I I 10 here to broaden the issues because I think there are many 1 11 ' issues which have not been addressed, nonetheless of which 12 is the decommissioning of nuclear pc plants. l l 13 I feel one issue which the Conmission had dodged - ' i i J i 14 i I have. raised it at other.icensing hearings -- for... stance, I 15 Peach Ecttom Units 2 and 3 aperating license. It was defined 16 : denied bv the Ecard. iut o-_. Something NEPA says the i 17 l Commission is not supposed L.o do: put off for future dates. I la At any rate, we are her2 to broaden the issues. Whether or l I 19 ! not that delays the croceedings, that is not fo- -a

• o say.

I i I 20 I think the imcortant thinc is that the issues l I 21 he discussed, those that haven't been discussed. I think l 22, with regard to the fulfilling of the mandate of NEPA and I 23 Calvert Cliffs and Ishelman and the NREC Verment Yankee i i I 1 t 24 ! decisien, I think it must be concluded that any delay of -ct E fr2 tral At c,ters,IFC. [9g 25 ] the proceedinc must take second pcsition with regard to the a l .. g - n (' f.3 1

I 124 I I fm7 I; obe.ving of the written law and ac..clicable court decisions. h l ll CHAIRMAN LUTON : Dr. Kepford, how do the interests I 2! of the Intervenors and the Coalition differ? i 4 The way it ultimately came out was that no exist-i i \\ 5! ing party would be representing the interests. Presumably, 6' the interests are different. Can you tell me how? 7' DR. KEPFOR2-The ECNP is a coalition of groups I 8 with member groups and individual members in a number cf 9 states. The fork Committee for a Safe Environment and the 10 Cititens for a Safe Enviro.n=ent of Harrisburg are two member j i II ' groups of the coalition. The names of all three appeared i 12 on the petition and I don' t kno; that their interests really i 13 do differ. I think they are identical and I think they are (B) 1 14 l! represented by only one persen at the consent of all three J r.' l l4 groups, I might ada. 16 f MR. TROWSRICGE: Can we have a clarification? l I, i All three names are -- i 1 I3 DR. KEPFORO: Which petition are we talking I9 l about? 0,: MR. TROWBRIDGE: That is what I would like to 4 l i ,i ..<nCw. l CHAIEMAN LUTON: Now, I am lost. 23, I got interrupted and Dr. Kepford was about to .i .I

1. 41 resp;nd to something I didn't near and what I was thinking e"

• • st A epcreers, Inc,1
• t of is c.one and what.ou c.entlemen are talkinc. abcut i.s also y

Y h e 8

• f l

bf. J

125 fm3

)

gone. What is the question that you are about to answer? g 2 'I DR. KEPFORD: Your cuestion was with recard to -- v l l i 2j CHAIRMAN LUTCN: Whether the interests of the .i I 4, organizations, all of them that you are representing, l 5' whether thev are the same or whether thev differ. You in-I t 6 dicated when you first made the argument that, as I understood 7} it, no admitted party could effectively represent the in-3 terests of ECNP. You concluded, I thought, that the inter-9 ests of all the outfits are the same. If that is so, the 10 next cuestion is whv is it that vour Committee couldn't I l 11 be effectively represented by ECNP or ECNP couldn't be 12 effectively represented by the other outfits? 13 : DR. KEPFORD: The petition under discussion at 14 the =ctent, which, I think, is the August 1976 petition, l I l'~ entions only Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Pcwer. l l 16 CEAIP.'4AN LUTCN : I knew bct the York Committee I I l 17 ' and Citizens for Safe Environment are already in the case i 13 by virtue of another petition. I 19 DR. KZPFORD: I don't see any problem -- it would I i .I 20 be merely a'precedural step as far as I am concerned to i 21 modify the previous petition, the one on which we.tave I i 22 ] stipulations made, to say that the Environmental Coalition 23 'I l cn Nuclear Pcwer is the affected -- ir the party, because -- d end S 2d well, I don't think it is a point worth hagglinc.

• C9 *
• Teal EfDor'fts,!nC. l n

,,s d] # O /. -.. V y ; e _3 + I I I i i me e m -m e-e-

i LEW 9 ch 1 126 1 CH A I R '.t A ti LUTON: I'm not goirm to characterize it 2 cna way or tne other. It w i ll ha ve to be noe of the th i no s 3 we inn % at as we look at these four factors. I just wanted 4 to hear what vcu have to say about it. 5 You were askinq for a point e.f clarification? o 'R. ITO?3 RIDGE: Yes. 7 Or. Kactord ct one point said a ll three names R were nn a cetition. I was askinr. what ceti. inn. 9 D'?. K E1)FO RD : Tnat was the initial -- tne pe ti ti on 10 on which we have stipula tions acreed upon. Ii 'i R. TROWBRICGE: I a:n sugge stinc to you tha t the 12 coalition was no t on that. 13 CH AI R'l Ali LUTUS: I think tha t 's co rre ct. 14 D '?. K 9 R)R D : Could Mre. Johns Rud, as encirectnr 15 of the coali.icn, add a few words of cla ri fica tion to how 16 Onese have been drawn up and wPv ? 17 '4RS. JuH:!S-RUD. I tn i n '< it would hele n clarify IS the point =t issue, ",'r. C ha i r a n. 19 CHAIR'tA N LUTut!: Okay. 20 'f RS. JOHNS-RUD: Public interest e n vi rnnm en ta l 21 groups of th is nor t must he mystifyinq to agencias that have 22 cnntinuity of nar:nnnel and bu ,ets, of cnurse, for their 23 ocerations larce s ta f f s. The Envirnnmen tal unali ti on 24 on f;uclaar Pnuer was ini ti = tad late in 1770 in -asconse in 25 felt conc-ns.smnra ne rw s o f c :ra l; local mrcan i za t inn s a asA e.5 t. s L e==w .sm %- -m mem

^@ l ~,,t thrcughout the state -- in everal parts of the state. 2 As vnu know, the orpaniza tien has been invovled 3 in a nua.ber of licensina proceedings both at cnnstruction and 4 pe rmi t S tac;e s -- const ruct ion, license, and operating permit 5 steres. P.ut th e ope ra ' inn m e n.he rship, of course, va rie s wi th 6 raspect to those who are the nost immediate concerns of a 7 re=cter inminent'to their own neighborhocds end the available P parsornel. 9 ihe a tten t ion o f t he organiza ti cn dC."P as a whole, ha ving been absorbed in some of the earlier iicans'.; cases, 10 11 all of the energies, the moneys, the available pe rsonn e l, 12 to t he e :< te n t af havino to nake e cifficult choice et certein 13 stages in the ongoing process, such tha t scme filings that la nich t have tq%an place, that we would ha ve liked to have take 15 place, siuoly c,ulan>t be accomplisned. Te can ha ve a large 16 staff of lawye rs, and so fcrth. I am sure you are acnuainted 17 with such cleedinos. IS But, with rescect to the func ti eninc of the se 19 ne mb e r g roups o f tne coa li ti on, ea ch cpera tes ind e penc en tl y 20 in such manner that, at t he t i me o f the filinas in Tl! 2 21 operatinc license, the member arcues of the in v i ro nm en t a l 22 Coal 1.icn - namiv, the Ci tizens for a Se fe Invirnnman of 23 Harrisburc and the .N e w Yori Oc:unittee f or a Safe Envirnn ent -- 24 "te r e in a nosition to mak,- tne filinas. The coalitinn as a 25 wh e l e, f ee linq in a real-wcric sense sna t tneir in te re sts q,'.__,,e o c.> e em -em --ee ee

129 1 were t? nre repre se n te d, didn't no so at tnat time. 2 In this instance, however, of the Auqust petitinn, 3 it was the feelino of the memberthip of the entire coa li ti nn 4 thrcuchaut tne stata and beyond the s tate 's horders that the 5 in.oli ca ti ons o f the Eshelman and the NRDC decisions on waste 6 ca nag elien t a nd, of course, cen se rva ti on we re ma tters tha t did, 7 indeed, a'fect the entire me.rt:ersnic cf the Envi ronm en ta l R Coalition, as tney are, o f course, fuel cycle na t t e r s and 9 ma tters of comparetive ccsts with re spec t to the ccnservation 10 espect. 11 hooe that that ma y he l p to clarify th e further 7 12 que s ti n-s. 12 CHAI'iM\\tl LUTati: .c i n e. 14 I accreciate your statement. 15 'tr. Troworidae? 16 '! R. f tJ ?:9RfCGE: I will try o be brief in v 17 discussico of the four factors, 'tr. Cha i rman. 18 I a.a no t very far acart fron Dr. <epforo en the 19 first one, tne ava ilabili ty of other re med ies. I don' t know 20 where the coalition could ac and say, "We wish, after the 21 plant is 90 percen t cenplete, to put a stop to it" wi:n any .22 success. 23 I wculd point 00;, hnwever, tha t one o f tne 24 contentions -- n a m e l y, con ten tion 5, having to do with ra*.e 25 structure -- I sculd suggest that enere i s a r, covicus, more f = f% & f eJ._

e. V

lha 129 I acoropriate forum for discussion of rate structure, na :re l y, 2 tne Public Utilities Co:mnission o f the S te te o f Pennsyl"an ia, 3 othe r than this li censing board. 4 As far as c.!dino in developino a sound record, I assume from wh e t Dr. Keo ford sa id this morning the coa li ti on o is in no hatter position than the two exis ting Intervenors, 7 and th a t we can expect f ro.o the coalition the same kind of 7 response th a t th e - ier two in te rv e n inc organi za tions na va y given to the staff interrogatories to da te ; namelv, we ha ven 't 10 cotten any wi tnesses ; we have no documen ts to tell you aboat. Il I don't think that i s mu ch o f a p r on i s e of helping to develoo 12 a scund rocord. 13 To the extent of in te re s t, vou already po in t ed la cut the in terests of the two groups tha t ere here are l '.' synnny ::nus wi th the interests of th e c c,a l i t i o n. In fact, in 16 allow the coaliti9n in would, at this point, am oun t to al. 7 wing 17 the exis tina In tervenors to ra ise new issues witncut gnon la cause at a late cate and after the issues had been sticula ed 19 be tween the parties at a previous prehearing conference. 20 As far as the broadening or the issues is concerned, 21 Dr. Kepford nas said that is precisely what he wishes to do, 22 a n,f he would t i'< e .o broaden th e m some mora. 23 As to the ma t ter of d e lav, I hope ne vill get to, 24 before this May is out, tne que s tien of scneauling of the 25 hearing in 'nis proceecing. I think celay in that hearino I + ~# 9 v..

g 130 I would he inevitable, unless both the Applicant and the 2 5 ta.f f, whi ch might be rur on ly cnoice, if the Applicant were 3 to alve up his riqhts of discovery, a nd tne Board would 4 require the coalition do the same. 5 CH A I R'1 MI LUTON: I don't read that fourth one 6 there as, in a sense, sa ving *.ha t no dela / a t all is tolereble. 7 De vou read it that way? S 'J p. i'RO MB R I DGE : I have not suagested that nc 9 delav is tolerno'a. I nave answered the question as to 10 wne tne r the re would be a delay. I n my v ie w, t".e re would be a 11 delay. !2 Sha t I actually said we.c that, de pendina on when ~ 13 rha Board sets the hearing schedule, there may not he a delav, la but only at the expense of giving up discovery. IE CH AI Q M A N LUTON: Even if there wa s d e l e y, if you lo are not addressing the effects of it, if thare is delay, then 17 my cuestian woulc he, so wnet? IF I read that to say wnat we nave to cons ider is not 19 whe ther there vill be delay, pericd, but ra tne r the e xten t 20 the petitioners' participa tion will delay the proceeding, new 2I much delav. 22 Mell, anywav; Staff? 23 MR. rE552 'f r. C na i r :aa n, wi tn.espect to Sn e first 24 f?ct+r, I think it is safe to say that, pronaoly, the 25 in terests of.he coalition, as expressec in th i s A ug u s t 1976 b u :. ..a

e 6 131 I

petition, 111 not he' represented or prote cted by an y o tn e r 2

f e r.u n. 3 With regard to the rate structure issue and wnether 4 the coalition could co be fore th e Public Utility Co:;missinn 5 of the S ta te of Pennsylvania, I don't see tha t as a protection 6 of their interest in this case, because the comnission looks 7 at conservation of energy as an al te rna tive to the nuclear 8 power plant and not in te rns o f how much is be ing charmed cer 9 kil owa t t hour, so that I dcn't see tha t tha t cen tention could 10 be taken to the Public Utility Connission f or resolution. 11 The second f ac tor, pe ti tion ers ' par ticipe. tion tc 12 develop a sound record, since we have established this norning 13 that tne cetitioners and the parties, i n te r ve n ing parties 14 that is, the Iew York Co;...:ittee for a Safe Envircnment and 15 the Committee for a Sa f e Environment of Ha rr i s bu rg -- are 16 ess e nt ia lly ' the sa:ae croups, then I den't see tn a t the 17 a c'n i t t e n ce of tne pe ti tioners, ' he coalition, is aninn to 18 charge the recnrd on the issues Onat are alraedy aomi'.tec, in 19 the sense th a t On e y are going to be the sare people 20 participating in the presen tation of wi tne sses, the 21 presen ta tica o f e v ;dence, and the c r os s -e x -1m. i na t i nn of 22 wi.nesses. 23 I 1 '. s o ha ve n' t de te ct ed, wi th reca rd to the 24 issues in -he t u 70s t 1976 petition, any carticular decree of 25 exoertise on the cart of .n e c oa li ti on to present "hese 6 4 Jg s) ) 9

..@7 132 I icsues in that they are ::or e cua l i f i ed than any othe r 2 organizatinn to air these issues. 3 The third f a c tor, the extent to which pe t i ti one rs ' 4 interests will he represented by existing parties -- well, 5 since we have deter:ained t ha t the petitioners and tne existing 6 in te rve n ir c parties are the sa :ae, then, certainly, to some 7 r.Xtent their interests are coina to be p ro te c tad. Certeinly. S they are -ninn to recresent all nf the interests, whetner it 9 is the Com.11 ttees for the Sa fe Environment that are ad.:ii t t ed 10 or the c oa li tion. But on tne is su e s t ha t I see cresented in il the August 1976 pe ti tion, since those issues are not in 12 con trove r ty, their interest is nor noinc to be recresented 13 hy existina partins. 14 The fourth fa c tor, to admi t a ll these i ssue s now, 19 I th i n k, would sinni fi can tiv nrotract tne croceedin. Ple 16 would have to address eech o f th e conten ti nn s with regerd 17 t,o the par ticul'ri ty r ecuire ment s and the other f=ctors th a t IP weigh in whether or not cen ten ticos snould be ad mi t t ed. Se 19 will heve to reocen discovery, and I don't see tha t we could 20 do that in a snnrt time wi th renard to a ll these issues that 21 are heing raised. ?? I think tha t 15 t he Stafs position, '!r. Ch a i r 2 23 Ct r \\ I h"t a :! LUToN: Thank vnu. 24 J7 MiPFuiin: Can tne coalition rescone:? 25 C.MI N N LUTuN: All rient. Briefiv, please. c. -e

133 1 I S'. K!iPFORD: li t h rega rd to celavinq the precedure, 2 I sculd li%e to poin t out tha t these issues were raised by 3 th e coali t ion -- that is, the issues under controversy -- in 4 auqust of 1976. Af ter tha t, the regulatory 5taff, t he UpC. 5 issued its dra tt supplement to the final -- final suppleaent 6 to the environnental sta tement. 7 And it is certainly tne opinion of those in the E coalition wno have icoked over " his document tna t, while tncse 9 issues were addressed thoa, they weren 't raised - they weren't 10 discussed in a rational ma nn e r b y t he reculatory Staff in tne 11 two docunents tha t we r e issued, and any delay that the 12 raisinq of these issues causes now, cue to discoverv and so 13 cn, is not reallv cur feult. These issues thet we nave raisad 14 should have been raised years acc by the Conmission itself. 15 Simply by following the Calvert Cliffs ccurt cecision, thev Ic were to innk into *.he envi ronme n tal cost to the f ull es t 17 possible e < ten t, words on that order, and th e y haven't neen. IR Plhile we ere talkinc accut c elaving tne proc eed inas, 19 pe rhaps it night he advisable to talk about wnat kind of a 20 hearino schedule we are talking ahcut. 21 CH A I R'Wi LUTU N: 'e will net tn :nat. 72

39. r: iPFORD:

I think it is related tn tn i s. 23 For.ay; elf, I would like tc see tnese hea rinas over 24 with hv someti,e in April. If tM

• constitutes a de l w in tna d

25 prococ f ino s, t he n I'm snmewha t mys ti fi en. 9 ~04 8 u' J

I i l 134 I CR1806 I[ CHAIRMAN LUTON: The Scard can't but implement its LEW li l .ake410 ~1 rule here. Everybody indicates that tha petition raising these dgsl i

3. issues was asserted August 25, 1976 or there abouts.

The petiticn i e I 4, still hasn't been ruledoon. I 5; Well, everything accepted all that blame for all tha t l 6; delay let me take. cart of it away bv indicating that ac.. car en tiv I f 7l due to service difficulties within the NRC, I didn't receive my I t 3, co.ev until Se.ctember 10. t 9 In any event, I am sure we will be able to rule on i I3]this petition promptly following the conclusion of this prehear-a 1 II l ing conference. I think it is appropriate we talk about a 12 . _4... e. l w I3 ! DR. KEPFORD : Mrs. Johns-Rud wculd like to clarify, I l Id!think, some misapprehensions of the Staff or misunderstandings f i IS ' l of the Staff with respect to the membership of ECNP and the relatic h l 16, ship between the York Cc mittee and Harrisburg Committee -- I I7 l CHAIRlG.N LUTON : If you want to do that for the I 13 benefit of the Staff, talk to them af ter we are done, i I9, M RS. JCHNS-RUD: There is a statement made by the Staf f I l l '0, which inaccurately depicts the relationshic of there croues. l I d .It takes about one sentence. i --24 C'J. A.7.U'a'u'1 ' U~. ^."..- .s - - --- 3 5 *- - ~ j ,3, MRS. JOHNS-RUD: Thank you. .,,l The memberships of these three organi:ations are by Meral A eoo,ters, lec. 'i ^C .no means identical, as seem to be implied by the Staff's statemen: .i i I t i

1. ** O b(

ej 7 - J mm +@+ -g m egn. m +6 m mm-

I 135 4 dgs2 Iiljust now. The interests of citizens for a safe environmenc and ! h 2 the York Committee are indeed represented in the earlier petition,, 1 I 3!but the interosts of the membershio of the envir nment coalition I P ii 4' on nuclear power, which includes persons throughout the Ccamen- ! i 5l wealth of Pennsylvania and beyond its borders, in the matters ad-6' dress J in the August cetition related to the Eshelman decision -- 1 ~ l 7l namely, matters of the handlinc of radioactive waste and matters! f 1 i Sarelated to conservation -- affect those who are not members of i i.l 9l the earlier two pet tions. i 'l I o 10 l Ther'efore, the interests of the membership of the II coalition as a whole certainly are not adequately represented 12 ' by only those two earlier admitted groups. i I hope that helps to clarify thinc,. I 13 I I4 ' CHAIF.MA:I LUTC'i: All right, thank you. i 15 ~ I was a out to mcVe onto a censiceration c:- tne time j t c i 16 at which we might s =-- ~"e hearing. That might be lecicall.y i l i l,e related to what we have been talkinc about. I. 13, I am not quite ready to get there yet. I don't think 19 the parties are either. The Board has some matters to point out i 20 to the parties that the Board is particularly interested in. I i 21 gThat will require some evidence about. l 9 1 l v1 i The nature of what the Scard requires and amount cf t -1 1 I ,3 J,.m 4 ",.". - hava. s c... o..h. 4..~

• o d o w.i ~.".
• h. o :a.-

- s ="4'.'." .o,~^

• o.". a..=. -

4a 4 9

1. jling at any particular time.

So before we get to tne matter or na, neocnon. u,c. l m'- j. setting a time as best we can -- Mr. Trowbridge touched on t.ere i, i 1 ,'.( I - m >n J ... v 6

11 136 l 1 lI dgs3 1pthis morning and we talked about it at the last prehearing con-a i (lg 2 ference which was a long time ago -- it continues to be my under-1 6 3 istanding that w;;h respect to environment issues in this case, a I 4 environmental matters, the Board is obliged to cerform what : l 5 l might characterize for convenience as a full blown NEPA review i 6; just as though this were a construction permit case and just as I 7; though it was only that, for example. I, 3 Ncw, this is not that kind of case literally. It is 9 not. One of the cuestions in the case is whether the construc-i i 10 ' tion permit shall be acdified, terminated, or conditioned er some-t i 11 ' thing like that. i. 12 ' The other c.uestien in the c sa is whether the Operatenc. 13 l license shall issue. The Commission rules are less than crystal 14 !! clear about the environment duties of the Board in a case such i 15 ' as this. It continues to be my understanding that -- it con-16 i tinues to be this -Ecard's intention to perform that full blown i i. j I 1:7 l NEPA review because we think that is a necessary i.ndication, j i i 13 ! acclication of the rules as tnev stanc. ~ I I I 19 If any parties differ with that assess-t, let us 20 ' know in writing at the earliest possible time so we can get a I 21 ' clear fix on just what our duties are. We think we know, but i z-1r anybou,v c. _,ers witn. t.nat we wcu_,c _31.< e to hear about it as i:_ t I 23 d scon as cossible, a j - I d It conti...e s to be our understanding that w c,,. a.w,2,.. o,c.., 25 l MR. TROWERIDGE:

an on the record in the prehearing h

I 87 68 4

• 'II)A j

C 3:. ? .~

137 l l i

l dgs4 lilconference.

1 a __f h 2 ',j CHAIRMAN LUTCN: There is a statement -- there is cne 1 3 licensing board's tr ea tmen t of the ma tter in the Prairie I.. and d i .I i l 4 'nitial decision. That particular aspect didn't get appealtd I 5land it is no more authoritative than any other pronouncement 6' bv a licensing board. 4 l 7' MR. MC GURREN: It is also the Staff's understanding l l l 8, that tha t tr ea tmen t is required. 9 CEAIRMAN LUTCN: Thank vcu. i 10 DR. KEPFORD: Intervenors welcome a full blown NEPA 11 review. l y-(Laughter.) I2 ' MR. LINEMBERGER: By way of addin" some detail to the h 14l Chairman's comment, there are matters that the Scard might be l 15 i I interested in cominc before the evidentiary session. i 'l 16 There is of course, in the scard's view, the ecssibilit'. i i 6 l,'. ' of a delay in completion of construction of any project resulting i 13 I in things not being acccmplished quite the way the.v will cric.- j I i 19; inally be viewed as intended to be accomplished. I I, i O Specifically, the Board would like to request both l 21 Staff and Applicant to address themselves to the considerations - l 3 of what has been done and is being dcne to assure that tho i i 23 i qualit'; of construction and the reliability of operation, t 1 4,i assuming an operating license issues, will n.o : be compr:mised by thc A derai A eportets, l ac. i 74 sicw down and the construction stretch out of constructica 'l i l 9 l e., i ~ O ( )O, j s J s

• =-

. - =..

o 138 .a I dgs5 1hschedule. 2 In this same context, I think it would be helpful for 2lthe A.cclicant to review iust briefl" what the c-erating ex-l 2 e l I 4 perience has been with cuity, and of course, the Staff would be l S. free to comment on that to any extent they wish. This leads i i 6' me to another question. i The latest word the Eoard has with respect to the j i i 3' safety evaluation re. cort is that there is a supplement destinec to I 9 issue at the end o f this mon:h. I s ho uld like tc incuire, is 1 t i IC'that schedule still current? t I 11 ' MR. MC GUP.REN: Let me give you an update. The schedule i 12 is such that the first supplement, we are thinkinc c f more than I 12lone supplement is -- would not be ready at the end of this month. I *' e Our present schedule contemplates the issuance of a 15 first supplement in the mid-February range and we also contem-l plate another supplement to be issued within a couple of months ! 16 l I i 1,< : a.e .w-..a da.. i i 13 33, 7333333333 Mid-April you are saytag, approxt-19 ' matelv. I l 0! MR. MC GURREN: That is correct. l l l l MR. LINCND E RGE R: Wo uld you comment, sir, as to the i 2 relevance of the centents of those supplements to the s cheduling,. l of initiation of the evidentiarz-hearing? .m. n.. c _i e 2_ _a. e -.... m_.n. 4 n o-4- C G. 2.0 0.I A. -o v. <.i wxr m. mc. ; t cq -,have been admitted that any matters addressed in the second 9 I i .; 4 _o-,o e..> :. '.)

139 I dgs6 I supplement will not concern those contentions which have been

o.,

(hh 2,! admitted. Coes that answer your question? 2 h MR. LINENBERGER: In part, I guess. What I hear jou l i l 4 saying is that the Staff views the first supplement currently 5 ' intended to issue in mid-Februarv as something we should wait for 6 ; before initiating evider.tiary hearing with respect to the con-Matters in controversy. tentaons. 3' MR. MC GURREN: Let me just check. I have discussed I with the licensing project manager the matters which are out-v 10 standing on which the Staff would c =plete its review in the i 11 ' ! first supplement and there is a relationship to the contentions 12 so we do feel that we would not want to proceed on certain issues h, crior to tha issuance of supplement one. Id ! MR. LINEN 3ERGER: Could you say approximately what f 15 ceriod of time be.vonu the issuarce of suc.c.lement one the Staff I 16 would censider itself prepared to go to evidentialy session? l i l,', MR. MC GURERN: We would be prepared at the :: te of 3 i b.hise,anca 'l i l' l  ! mR. LINENBERGER: With rescect to both the first and l i I 20 l second supplement, I think -- all right, mcmentarily we discense I j 1 ,I with thu first one, but the aspec t of a sccend supplement un-I '2 cublisned nanv ng over our c;21ective heads as we initiate an l ,, qevidentiary heartng I guess troubles me just a little bit, and Il 'J l '# j a,xnm.;ne,think -- maybe this is not the Chairman's choice here, but sc=e-2 wem i " 'lwhere alcng the way before we c.c to evidentiarv. hearinc. we need

• R 1

i .j l I 4 i el b ' DOI n. ~. r -eme +.-am.. e.e-

140 I dgs7 something to indicate that we are just, if you will, spinning h

• $icur wheels because there is a seconn supplement hanging over ourl J

I l, -)heac. 7 s. i j u i 4 l MR. TROWBRIDGE: May I address myself to that for a 5;i moment? 6' MR. LINENBERGER: At the Chairman's option here. CHAIRMAN LUTCN: Go ahead. i 3 MR. TRONBRICGE: We are all in agreement apparently 1 9 cn the environmental side we will have a complete envirc.nmental 10 t review and all the papers are to be issued and available and the 4 i 11 review complete. On the safet.v side, whcih comes un only in 12 the operating license request, the ground rules, as the Board g I3 lk now s, are that the Eoard must resolve those items which are in i '., lcontroversy -- and that certainly means we ought to have every-i ~c ' thing finished, b.y Ac..olicant and the scaff. which relates to thel ! items in controversv. I 4

3..

In addition to that, the Scard ahs the authority to t 'S raise additional questions. It would seem to me if the Board 19 'lhad an identification, say at the time or shor:l.v after suc.cle-l i i "O I ! ment one is issued, if it had an identification of the matters to I i

• }

I be covered in supplement two, it is very likely the Ecard would ,, 0 find itself in a position to decide whether or no: they thought

• 1

'*.there were extraordinary circumstances that required ge :ing inc: i a other matters. -ei n eoornn. mc. ,,_mn-e nd 41'O "-c

e. I.

~'U l i a )pp 6l*i/e .n J f'ly +nv

innshi 141 I "D. LI. ib "lW!m' A : I th i n ': that ea 3 tha ' i n '. f cf c 2 thinn !.ms n iiuif in'; to r i t n ...v cnrnent. c J I n c i-la n t, ll y, I tn in? the Snari wuld l i '< e, in 4 addition to wh t? ve just t a l '<.e d about, would 1 1'01 a 5 little more de t a i l e-f ha n i: fnr the S ta f f': exnrassion of G crnfid2ncn .n , r e ce nt l e t t.a r th a :. nore of the ite;os addressed 7 ir i.'Up 3G 013 , r, ..a'.ers, ara ..:a ' t e r s n f ,n ' c on c.i r m her,. P This i s no t a ch.' l l e n n e, if vou wili. ft ;i 9 just t;1a t nv r1ad in; in "URiG 0133, tihich ir annittadlv 10 quite 1eneric in i ts t re a t"le n t o f thos' ?r ch i e n:s -- :r.y 11 reedir; of t ha t causes.. m. t o a.i'< about the o= sis of 'avings 12 cn the part of ~he S ta f f t ha t "har treat..nn: of all tn o se 13 3'a t t e r s is in!e+i cc :.c l e e an f,r as -- '-i =d e m:- to a i'r 14 as this spe cific fault is concerned. 15 A. s the S'.aff well ': r n.v s, t.h e r e are ad fit ional 16 it1.'s not W^r'sced :in far with respect to Three "ile I7 [510rd Unit 2 th2t ATO C 9 n

• a i -* e d in

U E iM 01'; a r' < ' I., ' a IR li t tl e curious tince t ha t has rec'ived s on e distrihotier 19 i n t is th 9 11 sis f o r ""d o c i d i r r) ~,bn t ".n N O of those 20 i t e"'s 13 the I r' 2 :i h hir enpliCahl3

• o "I'Ti r 7 e 'Il l e [ 519 nr !

l iF, i t 7 A* t o-cr .e havn a letter en En<'v7r.:, n v i F. 2h 1r* c^nt, dined i') I 3. I. .e l i '1 V e n o th i r r-na -.. ' i ..' r i n " l ';. '. 23 39, '.' e are At This a q i r. t ind n[ "'!O ' l i P S, th a 2d 3* 0 l T ri iS. I 7 0 [", th,C 13 C" t! ) i 9 0 f o r

t. U' e Y i 19 0 *. i A r ' h ' ' T* -

~.

f. L.

4.-. t

4. 2

,.>.3 u..m.

,,n ,,,4,['L p,3 ,,.. 3. r,,, a

e. q.

o O g.

• e e t.y, t,

...J

.nach2 1a2 I .O. 'EWooo: 't r. Ch 71 r.:.an, I, ';y let'.er indicated 2 0 2 c n :. h 7 r 17,,l TM. os in f"r a " of a "l!O n n ! 3". In this da~e 3 I haven't seen it. 4 C!ia.I!r't :t UJTo i: c:e l l, I don 't ha vn one f r you. 5 I n'o n ' t t:n ni.i hnu ana gnas abou-gn* ting these encomen ts 6 f ro.a the Cn...issinn. Shy Men 't ynu renuen t the D e g'J l a.n r'/ 7 St,ff to ", one fnr you. .o .u

u., r., =...

.,. i.., 5., n.. .1,.....,. ?,,.<,. .a 9 cocies of ti',e an documents. 10 1P. iP r d R D : "nd t :'a su np le.: e n t s ? 11 "d. 'IC S UIi:lli::: 'ih e supplement I? Y5, we will 12 nate sure you c o t th o s e. i 13 nti. ;'!;Pi u'? us Th ' n '" you, i4 "!h a t i s !!UilEG 115'i ? IS "P. . C GUnr7 g;;: [ c,,.n't nive you he : i ". l e nf i'. 16 "!l. SIL!ER: I am nor sce c i fi ce. lly f nn t lia r vii ta tha 17 nu.ter. I a- =snu' inn it is the '?Ji?.:G <l ac u,:.o n t c-varinc 'he i F. soconc natcn of isst.e s. I t. is the second cn=pter of ; s cu e.; 19 recentiv rniced, n':1to si,ilar tn ::U qEC' 01375, en ve ri n - 20 different i t e :.u. 21 f )P. 9 PFOR: : !'o r s 1i relatn

• n Three ' tile !aland?

22 SN.. 2 [ i.'/ :i; : Thnv nr1 na ae ri c iqquna, .s o !:. 0 n f.i.iic h 2J re la to to !h r en 'ila Island. 24 "R. 'I n.) / :H7IUCC: Do I cn rectiv understarm vou '. a v a 2S a.d e d taa 3taff -- not the a cclicant -- to rasannd .o the e r) ).

• h'

.,,,_g

O inerh3 la3 i Staff oositinn on .h e itene in.iUREG CiS3i sa s that *he sub-2 stance of voor request? 3 !!9. L ;LOBERGE:1: That is the 3>hstance of .'na t I 4 ha ve said, Mr. Troworidae. ' i th i t qces no 1:nplied guaran.ee, 5 however, tha t if the '! card f inds the Sta f f's resunnses less e than satisfactory, thit i t wouldn't turn to the acplicnn t 7 . th 5999 questions about *he s a,ae suh 'e ct. P "7. T.r?' o i r q' : Tha-is understecd. s 9 CH A I '?" A:. LUTOM: l' . '1cGu rre n, I w=nt tn no 10 bac% tn the Staff'c proje ctions abou t then the suppl an en ts to il its safety analvsis recort, sa f e ty evaluation renort, will 12 he i s s';e d or exrected to he issusa. 13 That dis cussion .ia s ' li t t le less than cn'plete. I I4 continue to he n ^ile't ha t trnubled by our prnceedinn to 15 hearin1 i n,, d y., n c e of th e issunnce of all thnt has In he 16 issued. .;hil e it is ' rue, as Mr. Trowbridce points out. 17 th ' earc c'n, -,s scen as the se accu.:ents issue, we c=n J 18 t a ': e a in cr.u d e c id e w he tn e r o r n o t th e re Arn any ::e tt er s 19 th e r e tha t a re so a :< traor71na ry that we..iig h t 7nt .o go t 2C into tnem. 21 -nother thing odd sc ce t ;...e s ha nne n s. ihen the 22 Co u ::ii n s i nn riniv dne5 ner armord t o ; u h. i s.Ti n.7 A dec..'n" 23 it c A use s 9 i.!!G r new S ttei::o t ed i n ". 9 T va a t i o n nr 90 e X.0 a n q i ^ 9 24 ov'r contentions ' merted hy alreac" ed iii t t ec intervenors. 25 [ f.qq't t h in i' we at:^ ht ~ o overl^d tha' [t W/ o.. .)

.nash t I..- I nat happen in th i s ca s e, but it is cer ta inly possible. 2 v.i th us ha ving croceeded to a he arino in adv=nce nf *he 3 issuance of tha s e c,,d n u ~. a a.e n t, '.ee "iould na ve to c^ 4 back and co it ag.?in. That is wha t we would li'ce tn 'id. 5 Mould any of the parties care to speak to th a t ? 6 'J U. 'i p:r!!D7 I DGd: Chviously, I a.. sitting worryin] 7 about nne cossibility, a 00s315: 1i 9' that is chvinusiv 8 intolerable. 'l e, re reedv to opera.e an f that 'te are 9 not thrcugh wi-h the process of de cidinc whe thar we are IC allo wd tn. Th a t doe s take ti.ae. There 7re aany slips in e 11 procedures. I have seen li ttle acoran cr,w into very larM 12 od trees in *he ma tter of conta st. Very ti-e c^n suminc. I3 pron our standnoint, while I und 3r stand the 14 Ecard's re luc t=nce to risk the oossioility of havirq tn come 15 back aqain, icokina a t the world from where we wnuld icok 9: Ic i t we wculd ask the Soard to un tha t ra the r than a,': the 17 acclicant to run the risk of the .esring late enmugn in I F1 the ca:.;e to threaten the coeration. 19 C!!AI RMAT L;JTall: I-is fair enough tha t ynti nhm.id 20 ask the Board to do tha t. I f rs t wan ted t o c c:n.oi n te d i s-21 cons t on, hnwavor. 22 'r'. .iA D.,: i would lika ar t i the : i ". a r,,nd ' :.e 23 arnli can t to he o r apa r rr! .6 discriss sn e envir nnon ta: 2t all7s t f ans, pa r ti c e-[ a ri v water rsa, I wnuld like

• n

7q -

25 the 'iC 7 rti "'o f f id [,'e

• S sea thq t 'C -t o-ria t l

'f a. 2, if tnere ire ~ Whf -,.a

O 19 n -1 s n u i any ch'nnes, on prnjected water use. That is, the v o l ur'e 2 of tater taken in, consumed, discharced, ir orncortion er in 3 re la ti on to river stage, carticula rly in view of the. 4 experience and nperatinn of Unit I and t he proj?ctions for 2. 5 Re la ted to this, the aquatir impacts of such water c use includea a su mary o f the ma thcd s use.1 a nd results of 7 monitoring aquatic 1::.na c ts c Tn re e ' tile Un i t I a-H die proonsad methods if a d-fi t i --a l ::e t hrd s = ra n ha used for 9 Unit 2. 10 I would like these in "ha categories of impincenent il on fisnes, entra in:::ent o f plank ton and juven!!e fishes, 12 distnarqe a f f e c ts, both ther.ca L and c he i.:i c a l, includinn 9 13 a -fiscussion of the re.' son 11 effects. 14 How, referring to cage 11-4 of the finni 15 su rp l e..e n t to the fi na l e n vi rrn m en t a l s t a t e.::o nt, in p= racr 7ch to 11.!.5.6 ;here is a short discussic, of the fish Rill prohlec.3 17 th, t we re e xne ri en ca d, I beliave, twic e a nd I wnuld like IP further clerification of any additional resolut!-n of 19 th e s e fish k!!!s as descrihed in the paragraoh. 20 Thnn turnino to pace ! !-5, pa raq ra ch 11.1.6.2, 21 I would li%e a clar i f ica t inn o f t ha t caraar,rh. c,on..' :.y n' 22 l'o r e xa,p le, a -iascrictinn of "he e 23 c-Ilecting shnrt time in t e r "a l river wn'.or, -, 9 d I nun te, 2* " s.' t::c i ? s " '-d = Hiscussicn of Scw this till ;rnvide ' e '- 0

a...3 a.. _.4 n m.

.e n s t o n e. ~. 4. u s. - a. 1 ,,1 2,s. Ana u; .n m

n s'

a n e. 4 f.., 4.~,. n.n. 4 a, n a se os t t.i.. -..b

, ash 6 l6 I the some came, the fifta naracrap, ur. dor Jectinn i 1. 1. 9. '.s 2 fcurth and f if th.paracraphs -- the descria tinn and analysis of 3 wna t is a complete mixinq

7. o n n.

4

n other 'rords, I wetild like the Staff and the 5

anclicant to he crepared to discuss all aspects of the o acua ti c mnni tnri, ! prcoran. 7 ..e woulf 1;:e -- the Board wnuld like tm sao a e sn nr t su-~arv in .h e f o r :, n f t h e. t. 9 I etili turn the discussicn back to Dr. Linenberger. IC ii

d i3 l4 15 io 17 18 19 20

?l 22 2, 9 9 4 69 2b q T - O.'.) }. vc

12 avl 147 l W. LI.N S!B EC GEc : Ae11, it tust occurred to the 2 bo a.rd that our earlier cor=::ents wi th recard to the possible 3 Imcact of stre tch-ot t of construction schedule on quality 4 assurance, there ulay be other considerations -- indeed, there 5 are other considerations -- that the board would like to take o a icok at there hecause the stretch-cut in construction 7 scnedule has been flaaged a variety of times and places an 8 ccaing abnut because of financial cens id e ra t ions, l e t ' :5 s 1y. 9 The heard has an chligation to concern itself 10 with finan cial conside ra tions insofar as they ii.~pa c t the 11 cualifications of the Applicant to not only comple te the 12 Jcb in a proper w=v, b'; t to crerate the facility in a 13 cualified and responsible nanner, and th ere f or e, the bear-! 14 will want some assurances and supportirg evidence for th me IS assurances t ha t the same financial considerations that c=usea 16 the f a ci li ty construction to be delayed in i ts conpla tion will 17 not, indeed, 1 cact upcn the safety and qua l i f ied ce rf o r:e'n ce 19 of the f acility if it is allowed to ocerate. 19 Indeed, those considera tions of that nature will 20 certainly be brouaht into the question o f whe the r the facility 21 should he allowed to operate. So the hoard will expect ecce 22 testi:cny in that area from ca th A pp li ca nt cnd 3t=ff; 23 Apolicant, a s to what they' a re doing, w ha t, tney have donc, 24 why tney are convin ced thev are ra=dy to nnerate the faci.itv 25 properly :-d safely; and Staff, es to what thev nave done to '1.M - ". e'.?,2 -2 d e em

v2 I ' I assure themselves th e t rna t Apolicant says can be anticip= ted 2 as future reality. 3 MR. TRO'/ISRIDGE: M3y I take this opnortunity to 4 advise the board of sorcethinq I i n tended to do a t the enu of 5 this proceedinq ? o It re la te s to your ques ti en about financial 7 cua li fi ca ti on s. At the cresent t ;.ne, ns re flected in our 8 acclication for aceracina license, T"I is nwned 50 percent bv 9 Me tropolitan 511sen, 25 percent cy Jersev Industriel, and 25 10 cercent by Pennsvivania Elec tric Coutcany, a ll sunsidiaries of 11 GPU. 12 !!e =re in th, orocess of amending -- filina an 12 a me r.d :: e n t to our cnnstruction ce rm i t f o r T'!! N U. 2 -- alsc. 14 in ci de n ta l l y, for Forking River over in !e rcey Indus tri al -- 15 in which we will rearranca the pe r ce n tag e s t o r.o re nearly 16 fit their ac tual load r aq u ir e:..en t s. 17 In th a t con-ection -- anc we will, ir-iaentaliv. 18 file an ancrcpriato a..: en d m en t to our FSA0 to reflect this. 19 I think it is all in tne family. I t hi nk it does 20 not change the financial aJaltfications, 'ut in the process of n 21 doinq this, we will be ucdnt inq the f ina nc i a l intnrmatico 22 a' nut tne c: :pany ann its suosiniaries with tha 3.af'. e 23 Anc as a.:a t t e r ' o f f a c t, I had a entirc with 24 Mr. '!cGurren last week witn the Staff as te ina t infor ation 25 they would 1 :< e to have, and his will he rean" -- this can 79 9f-099 e.- ...v

.v3 la; I read ily a cconnoda ted. 2 'i R. LI N ENH E9GEp : (M e o the r poin t he re. 3 7te have been talkirg abou t va r i cus schedules for 4 the SAR and hacefully developinq a basis for schedulin; the 5 evidentiarv hearing. 6 Pernaps I should incuire of cconsel for the 7 Apolicant whether the ne s t recent dates of the blue hook, the 8 project status sur ary issuance for fuel t rad i r.g ana 9 connercial noeretion, are still accurate dates so far as 10 counsel %qows? 11 The in f o r ma t i on presented here indicates that 'uel 12 Inadinn is scheduled for lic-uctcher cf this ve a r, and 13 c n:: Lercial aceration for "ay of next year. la 4R. TRJrtBRIDGE: 't id-ac trhe r I know to be correct. 15 May next year -- I know it is scring next year. Io ltR. LINENBERGER: 3na dc ycu assinn a relativeiv 17 hian croca cili ty of cert,inty to that..id-Uctober fuel land !!? ca te ? 19 l10 Tih nlB RI DGE : I had lots of disappointments in 20 schedules, but I will say this,..t r. Li 9 e nhe rg e r. T'fI ca lled 21 its shots. T '! ! called i ts shots a s aarly as this and corr:ctiv --ce sn. 23 "!?. LINENi!ERGER! Thank vnu, si r. 24 CF A I D 'U N LUTO N : The la s : thin 7 that I ha ve -- ann 25 ve have baen talking about it and now it is ti e :n nve t. m

ava 1:j 9 1 directly to it -- and that 1.s tne ra tte r f or se r ting a date 2 for the start of tne evi,en tia rv hea rina. 3 Tne re are some -- I will put you on notice the 4 hoard has come hesi ta tion he re. I c An 't rea ll y Ja y that a 5 request will be lad e t ha t w e sat a hearin, at anv particular 6 t i.ne, but we remain reluctant to ne t a hea ri ng in advance of 7 the issuance of those docur;ents. 8 Tne documen ts -- the 1,tast of which is expe : ton 7 to Se ornduced in the. lidd l e nf April. And anothor un:ertaintv 10 is the hna rd's di sposi tion o f the Coa lit inn's po ci r.i nn to 11 intervene. 12 0f course, the.:a nne r in which m dispose of it 13 could ha ve s m:.e a f fe c t -- wi ll h ave some effec' no tha n a t '. i e s 14 b'i way of preparing for a hearing. So we can and wi ll rule le on the petition quickly. Io /;1 th t na t.s ta t e me n t of douots and.:n ce rt s ir ty 7 here, the parties heino aind ful of the board's eluctanc9 .P once again 'o proceed to hearinq in the aoser.ce of trat final 19 Staff succleneat -- and we don't even know wha

• it will 20 address - le t's talk about scne da te s c r a < f ate, a propnJed 21 time nerind.

22 Anvene w,nt tn propone s mi th inc; ?

3

't R. Tou r:R i1I CG:i: ' I hardly W re. ?4 ( i.,unn ta r. ) 25 Mit. ryu.',ili?Iln'd: Le e ne put wnnt I had c l a r n ~.1 to 9

av5 191 1 propose. 2 un the assunction th e t th e hoard wnuld act o ro mo '.1 v 3 on the Coa li tion 's pet it ion, en the f ur ther asst'mption that 4 if the hoard were to orant the Coalitirn's petition it wnuld 5 a s ': the Cnali tion that it take t he proceedina as it finds 6 it -- na me l v, the discove rv is over -- we would he preparnd, 7 who ther er not we have addit innal con ten ti rns to address, 8 to file testi7cnv for a hearing in !1 arch. 9 T e s t i:".on y ca n be filed seven days prior to the 10 hearino, but not la te r than -- not earlier than 'Ja r ch I. 11 So I a:a talkinn a'ccut a.hearinq '4 arch 7, nn. I2 CHA!Tm Ul L UTU.'! : Staff? 13 ..P. 'AC GURR EN: Wi th re na rd to the c on t e rTt irr s thn. 14 ha ve been ad:aitted, the Sta rf could be prepared in file its 15 t e s t i. con y hv 'J a r cn 1 and to proc e ed with a hearing within seva, I6 days tnereafter. I7 I8 IY 20 -.2I m.4y 23 24 ar 4 s, h 5 9

i#13 152 l C,% I O l.fa.?! L U T O ?l : Dr. Ke e f ord 'l 2 DR. K EP F0Q D: ..he the r or not the petition 3 of the Coalition i s admi t 'd, the carties I represen t 4 would be precared to mee t ei the r. scheduled -- tha t is, 5 th e if a rch 1-or the week following Ma rch 1. o ll th recard to the pa ss ib le 1 i.mi ta t ion tha t 7 discovery being foreclosed if the Coalition's pecition is 8 ?cnitt?d, I think we would have a hard ti.ae with that. 9 However, as far as I am conce rne d, th e r e would 10 be plenty nf time be tween now and 'la rc h i f or any discoverv 11 the Coalitice wnuld wa n t to make on Sta f f or discovery 12 requests an the Staff or the Anglicant. 13 I dnn't see tha t as a problem. 14 CHAIR'JMI LUTO1: All r ich t. It a ppe n rs tha t all 13 th re e -- I '15. CARIER: Ne would he prerared tn an along 17 with tne Marcn i and Varen 7 sch=dule. IR DR. LUTa ti: E ve ryhncy innared av entree'.y to -- 19 well, I think we are not going to accept your succe s ti on s. 20 Pie a re g oi ng to ha ve to talk about it. 21 (!J oa rti confers.) 22 Ull. LUTU.'l : 't h e fact is that the :Mard we e r s, 23 because of t he i r c o c::a i t :::e n t s to othe r thi nns, will not he able 24 to cc to hearinq in tne mon th of 'tarcn a t sil. 2 '.: I a:' trying to oc bevond tne mincie of Aoril becaus "? e -nay, y 6 m. m

b ! r., o I tha t is when the Requlatcry Staff will issue the secend of 2 its supolen:ents, 3 MR. FESS: l)o you uncerstand tha t the Staff's 4 position is that the second s u. col e m en t is not, as we see it, 5 a necessary prerequisite to holding the hearinc;7 6 C H A I p l \\ll LUTWi: 4 see that the same way. 7 "R. MC GURRE:i: I know th e re was men tion made o f 8 a desire bv the Board to know what ite ms were still ocen 9 followinc the filing of Sucplement 1. 10 We could provide that on issuance of Sucplement 1. Il ?!e could ind ica te what i tems were s ti ll coen. 12 CH A I R'i',N LUTO:i The absolute hest we ere reads to 13 do at the cresent time is schedule this nearing for the first 14 week in Acril or the third week in Acril. Presumably everybcdv 15 would de si re to have it th e first week in April. We can dn lo that. 17 Unless the r e is some strong objection from someborv 18 to our setting tne he a ri cq for tne first cart of /pt11, we will 19 do tha t. We will do it by a f o r m.1 o rd e r. 20 Me will also accept the Regulatory Staff's offer to 2' tell us -- we pre f er in wr it in>; -.lus t wha t s ub,'e c ts the 22 sunpl ea:ents will cover. 23 MR. SC GURREN: 'Could tha t cone in a le tter form .o 24 the Boaro? 25 CHAI,UtAN LUTON: Ye s. /e would prefor :t in (;M - *3f1y . ~.

h3 151 writina. In le tte r for'n ir -ig ht. i 2 l.f R. '4C GUDR EN: I have one cuestion with regaro 3 to a question raised b y '.f r. Linenberger. 4 Could I perhaps have youy state again your 5 concern with the NUREG documents? 6 If you could, aive,ae more detail er shat you are 7 after with regard to the NUREG documents. 8 'm. LIrlEriBERGEP: i.e l l, I could cull for ins tance a 9 aut of the air, althouch E ',iP chencmena a re not t ne subject of 10 the first document. It is Item 27 in the la ter documen t. Il There is a cene ric miscussinn that savs this and 12 th i s a nd -his ehout wnat e l e c t r o:namn e ti c 1, pulse s mi an t co to 13 a ceneratino system and its associat.ed trens.aission lires. 14 And what the svsten might do to li ve th roucn these 7,ulsas. 15 Ukav. The kind o f thing I had in mino ite r3 in,v ic earlier corr.;en t wes : how do I ':new tha t tha t g ene ric ni enk e t 17 ca tecarica l chsera ti on made -" cut the iapact of d"P applies IC exolicitly to Three ' file Uni no the wa y it is conf igured, IV for example ? 20 Oces. tha t help ? 2i- 'A R. '!C GU RR E.N : Yes. Tna n k you. 22 'H A I TC N LUTUN: .iha t we will do is issue a-23 order setting thc hearing for -- we will set aside acri; 24 th ro uen S. That is '.t e n d a y t hrougn Friday. 25 Onas anvbocy have anythinc else tn reise at 'h;s .v. 'k

te t 155 i time? 2 MR. MC GUDREN: I have one thcugnt. Dic you 3 also establish a date for filing testirony? 4 C!iAI PMAN LUTotI: Let's just do i t in accordance 5 with the rule. I think the rule recuires tha t w ri tten 6 testimony be subnitted five days in advanc e of the sessi,n 7 of the hearing at which the te stimeny is to be o f f ered. 8 Le t 's jus t do it that way. That will he e n o uch. 9 MP. MC Gupp E*:: Section 2.743. 10 CHAId'i AU LUTUN: Okay. 11 I can't think of any reason to change it right now. 12 would you, ore fer some thino else ? 13 MR. MC GUPRE:i: No. I was just wonderina fI 14 missed som.ething. 15 C:i AI R't AN LUTON : No. I hadn't said anythina ahaut to it. Y,'e wi ll just go with th e rules. 17 Then I think we are a li done. ! thank you f or 18 your carticipaticn and the courtesv. 19 .:e are in recess. 20 ( ?lh e re u pon, at 12: 45 p.m., the hearing was 21 ned.) 22 23 24 ou

• 4 _ n O

=}}