ML19249E458
| ML19249E458 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000599, 05000600 |
| Issue date: | 09/19/1979 |
| From: | Wolf J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910010463 | |
| Download: ML19249E458 (90) | |
Text
TERA i
/
NU CLE AR REG U' ATO R't COMMISSIO N
^
P I
l i
1 i
i l
l Accessions Unit (orig + 1) i P-050 IN THE MATTER OF:
1 i
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
(Carroll County Site) l l
Place -
Mt. Carroll, Illinois Date -
Wednesday, 19 September 1979 Pages 1 - 89 O
D D
e Qw
~3'i O
A 2
taeonene:
w (202) 3 7-3700 ACE -FEDERAL REPORTERS,INC.
OffiaalReponers 4M Nor-h C:pitol Street 060 029
-Washingten, D.C. 20001 910 010 k62 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE DAl
CR 7171 1
wel 1 i
UNITED STATES OF A!1 ERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COf! MISSION 3
4 In the Matter of:
I 5j CO!!!!ONUEALT11 EDISON COMPANY, Docket Nos. S50-599 et al.
S50-600 6
(Carroll County Site) 7 8
9 Naaman Diehl Auditorium Mt. Carroll, Illinois 10 Nednesday, 19 September 1979 11 1
12 A prehearing conference in the above-entitled matter was convened at 9:30 a.m.,
pursuant to notice, 13 e I
i 14 BEFORE:
1 15 l JOIIN F. UOLF, Esq., Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
16 GLEIni O. BRIGIIT, Member.
17 ROBERT L. IIOLTON, Member.
18 ;
APPEARANCES:
19 RICIIARD J. GODDARD, Esq., and STEVEN GOLDBERG, Esq.,
20 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.,
on behalf of the NRC Regulatory Staff.
21 SUSAN SEI:ULER, Esq., and ::ANCY J.
B E :!N E T T, Esq.,
22 Assistant Attorneys General, Environmental Control Division, 138 West Randolph, suite 2315, Chicago, 4
23 Illinois 60601; on behalf of the State of Illinois.
24 !
JIM DUBERT, 129 Ash, Apartment 2, Anes, Iowa 50010; l
on behalf of Iowa Socialist Party.
25 i cac,. 9,1,zs ca,ga,u. #"
1060 030 444 NORTH C APITOL. STREET l
W A S HI N G TO N. D.C.
20005 f
(2Jd 347-3700
2 wel 2 1
APPEARANCES: (Continued) 2 JAMES C. SCIIUAD, State Coordinator, Iowa Public Interest Research Group, Inc., 36 Memorial Union, 3
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50010; on behalf of Iowa PIRG.
4 JO!ET U. COX, Jr., Esq., Co:: & Schmadeke, 206 North 5 l
!!ain Street, Galena, Illinois 61036 and l
DAVID N. IIOUARTII, Esq., RFD 2, Box 115, Elizabeth, 6 l Illinois, on behalf of The Jo Daviess County Ad-!!oc l
Committee on Nuclear Energy Information.
l l
JAN L. KODNER, Esq., Pitler and :landell, 230 West 8
Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606; on behalf of Citizens Against Nuclear Power.
9 EDUARD GOGOL, 6105 U. Hinthrop,, Chicago, Illinois, j
60660; pro se.
10 11 JAliES L..RUNYON, 1316 Second Avenue, P. O.
Box 307, Rock Island, Illinois 61201; pro se.
12 l l
MICIIAEL MILLER, Esq., ALAN P. BIELAUSKI, Esq., and 13 j PHILIP P. STEPTOE, Esq., Isham, Lincoln & Bcale, i
One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60603; on behalf of the Applicants.
14 15 ;
16 l 17 i l
18 i 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 c4ce-9edera[ cRepiten, $nc 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET 1060 031
-S_..~...c.'
(202) 347 3700
3 1
.P.R.O.C.E.E _D _I _N _G.S
'wb l 2
CIIAIRMAN MOLI':
Please come to order.
3 Wa're meeting here this morning in the matter of 4
the Commonwealth Edison, et al. Carroll County site applica-
,s t
5 tion.
Specifically, we're meeting in regard to the question s
of site suitability.
We're not going to take up at this 7
hearing any concentions that relate to the question of the 1
8 construction license or permit.
9 The Board this morning consists of Dr. Robert 10 I!olton of the School of Oceanographics, Oregon State University.
IIe's a biologist. He's sitting on my left.
it i l
12 ;
On my right is Mr. Glenn Bright, a permanent 13 technical member of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Doard.
14 IIe's a reactor physicist, engineer, and has many years 15 l experience in reactor safety research and development.
16 I am John Wolf, a lawyer.
17 j The Clerk for the Board this morning is Wallace Norris.
ja I
I At this time, befo:e we go further into the ig nature of the hearing I would like the attorneys present 20 to state their appearance for the record.
g MR. MILLER:
My name is Ilichael I. Miller, of g
the law firm of Isham, Lincoln and
- Beale, 23 Wi th me at counsel table is fir. Philip Steptoe g
and Mr. Alan Bielawski.
25 hCC-C C"s2f CyOfft:$, h/1C.
444 NORTH CAPITOL S TR EET W A S HIN GTO N, D.C.
20001 g
(202) 347-3700
4 s
t7RB/wb2 1
Also seated at counsel table is !!r.
D.L. Peoples, 2
Director, Nuclear Licensing for Commonwealth Edison, the 3
applicant.
4 CHAIRMAN 1;OLP:
If everyone will speak up it will help the record.
5 ;
I 6
MR. DUBERT:
My name is Jim Dubert.
I'm with the Iowa Socialist Party.
I'm not an attorney at law but I 7 i I
represent our group for these hearings.
8 i i
9 l MR. SCH?iAD :
My name is Jim Schwab.
I'm not i
10 an. attorney either.
I'm half-way through law school anyway.
I'm acting on behalf of the five-party intervention of 11 the Iowa Publ.c interest Research Group; the Dubuque 12 13 i Catholic Worker; the Dubuque Fellowship of Reconciliation; i
l 34 j Shell County Environmental Coalition which is the environ-l mcntal coord!3ating organizatioc !n Dubuque.
15 l
MR. KODNJ'R :
My name is Jan Kodner.
I'm attorney 16 l
l for Petitioners, Citizens Against Nuclear Power, Ed Gogol 17 l
and James Runyon.
My address is 230 !!est Monroe, Suite 2026, 18 ig Chicago, 60606.
Telephone number: 782-9466, 212 area code.
20 This is Ed Gogol an individual petitioner and a member of Citizens Against Nuclear Power.
21 MR. GODDARD:
My name is Richard Goddard, I'm g
representing the U.S. Ncclear Regulatory Commission Legal 23 Staff. With me, on my right ic Stephen C. Goldberg of the 24 legal staff.
Also seated at counsel table is Mr. Cli f ford 25 CC*
C CO CfCYC$r IIre 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W A S HIN GTO N. O.C.
2000t 1202) 34* 37CO
5 MitD/wb 3 1
!!aup t, the ProjectManager for the proposed plant.
2 MR. COX:
My name is John Cox.
I'm attorney 3
for the Jo Daviess County Ad Iloc Committee on Nuclear 4
Energy Information, which I assume we can call Jo Daviess 5
from now on.
The address I've been using for these matters 6
is 906 Carpbell Street, Moline, Illinois 61036.
The phone 7
number there is 815-777-9282.
8 Seated to my right is David M. Ilowarth, who is g
an attorney also for Jo Daviess County, and we will both be 10 acting as representatives of our group.
j, MS. SEKULER:
I am Susan Sekuler.
I'm an 12,
i 13 l Assis tant Attorney General for the State of Illinois.
I 14 represent the State of Illinois.
I Uith me at counsel table are John Vanvranken, 15 Chief of the Northern Division of the Environmental Control 16 11 l
37 j Division of the Attorney General's office, and Nancy Bennett I
18 ;
an Assistant Attorney General.
i CIIAIRMAN WOLF:
In the order that was issued 19 calling Ms special preheadng conference, we stated that 20 we would attempt to identify the key issues in the proceed-g ing and take any steps necessary for further identification.
I want to first, however, before we get into
~
that area, co into the question of the intervention pet;itions e Wesdons madng 6 nose pe M o n.
25
& ce 9e e:
cReporten, Dao a
j 444 NORTH C APITOL, STR EET W A S HI N G TO N.
D.C.
- 0005 (202) 347-3700
6 URB /wb4 1
I would like to ask the applicants and the staff 2
to comnent on the various petitions for intervention as we 3
call them up.
4 The first one I would like comment on is 5
CA:iP.
Mr. Miller, do you care to comment on that?
6 IIR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
1 f
The Gogol petition for intervention is the only 7
I 8 l one that the applicant feels is lacking standing, And l
9 !
Mr. Bielawski will ha addressing that issue.
I 10 Nith respect to the othe'r petitioners, while we do have objection to sore of the contentions that are 11 12 asserted, we believe that each of the other petitioners is i
13 a proper party in terms of standing to participate in these 14 proceedings.
ff4. BICLAWSKI:
?!r. Chairman, with respect to 15 the Petitioner Mr. Gogol, who is attempting to intervene 16 in this proceeding in his individual capacity as well as 17 j
a member of Citizens Opposed to ;uclear Power, we cppose 18 19 Mr. Gogol's petition.
Mith respect to intervention as a rcatter of 20 right, the Commission has held that a petitioner must estab-21 lish that he has standing to intervene in a proceeding.
Thc 22 standing test basically is that he has to show that he 25 comes within the zone of interest protected by the statute; 24 in this case it would be the Atomic Energy Act and I; EPA; and 25 dce-9edeza! CAcporters, Snc.
444 NORTH C A PITO L. STREET W A SHIN GTO N. O.C.
20001 l
I (202) 347 3700
7 WnB/wb5 1
he also has to prove that he will, or may suffer injury 2
in fact; that is, that he must demonstrate that the proceed-3 ings will have a real and identifiable impact on him.
4 The Commission has said inthe Pebble
~
5 Springs decision that a mere academic interest in matters 6
will stot confer standing.
7 Mr.
Gogol lives in Chicago, Illinois, approxi-mately 133 miles away from the plant site. And we submit 9'
that this is too far in terms of geographic proximity to --
10 well, the distance is beyond the goographical zone which 11 might realis tically result from plant operation.
12 l In other words, he has not asserted that he 13l will suf fer any injury whatever from die operation of the plant, or even from any credible identifiable accident, 14 i i
l Now there are a number of cases,. Licensing 15 1s '
Board and Appeal Board cases which consider geographic 17 proximity in terms of standing, and none have held that 18 133 miles is close enough to confer standing based or.
ig geographic proximity.
Nou if Mr.
Gogol is asserting that he is 20 entitled to intervenein this proceeding as a matter of 21 discretion, ue wauld also oppose that proposition.
22 Mr. Gogol has filed a number of contentions 23 nd they're identical in all respects to the contentions 24 of Citizens Cpposed to Nuclear Power and Mr. Runycn who we 25 i
c0ce 9edera( cAeporte:1, $nc i
444 NORTH C A PI T C L. STREET W Ain HINGTO N. O C.
2000t (202) 347-3700
8 WRD/wb6 would concede has standing to intervene in this proceeding.
1 2
As _2ch, his intere'st, or the issues that he raises will 3
be raised by other parties.
4 Mr. Gogel is a :aember of Citizens Opposed to 5
Nuclear Power.
And if that group is permitted to intervene 6
in this proceeding he will be able to participate as a 7
member of that group.
l 8 i CIIAIRMAN WOLF:
You're not cpposing Citizens 9
Opposing Nuclear Power as an intervenor?
10 MR. DIELAWSKI:
Not on die standing issue.
As 11 you'll see, we do not think that they have submitted one 12 good contention in this proceeding.
And we oppose it on 13 that basis, but not as to the matter of standing.
Le j
feel they have a member whom they've identified who lives 14 15 close enough to the site for standing.
I 16.
Cl! AIRMAN WOLF:
Are you saying they haven't I
17 submitted a contention relating to site suitability that's 18 acceptable?
19 MR. BIELAWSKI: Precisely.
That; plus there are some contentions which would not be appropriate for the 20 l
21 '
Licensing Board to consider in any proceeding, construc-22 tion permit or early site review CIIA. Id 7 d! U O L F :
Do they have any that are 23 24 acceptable for a constru ction permit?
25
. !R. BICLAUSKI:
Yes, they do. And we woulc dce 9edera[ Sepcticu, !.Inc.
1060 037 444 NORTH C APITCL STREET
... - ~.
m c..
(202) 347 3700 i
9 WRB/wb7 1
propose that those contentions be deferred until the con-2 s tr..cton perm:
.uc3 3
'Inere is a mechanism in the Commission's regula-tic.:s go
. ting early si ce review which permits parties 5
who participate in the early site review proceedings to 6
raise issues et the construction per.a.t stage.
We would 7
submit that is W at Citizens Opposed to Nuclear Power -- or 8
Against Nuclear Power -- should do in this case.
3 CIIAIRMAN WOLF: Does that complete your statement?
10 MR. BIELAWSK1:
Yes, it does, CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Mr. Kodner, do you wish to speak j,
n this point?
12 MR. KODNER:
Yes, Mr. Chairman, 13 First, for the record, the name of the group g
that we represent is Citizens Against Nuclear power, not 15 Citizens Opposed to Nuclear Power. --for the record.
16 As a f.'rst point, applicant has opposed 37 Mr. Gogol's intervention as of right on the grounds that he 18 has no standing, that there can be no demonstrable injury jg resulting from a catastraphic meltdown of reiioactive -- of the core of a reactor. And we submit that radioactive pollu-tion which would result trom a moltdown would not stop autcmatically forty niles outside of the site.
But we feel 23 an area as cicsc as 133 miles away in Chicago would also be 25 c4ce. Jedera( cAeporten, Onc 444 N O R TH C A PITo t. STREET W A S HINGTO N. O.C.
20001 (202) 347-3700
10 1
WRB/wb8 proposed site would be affected.
kk 2
As to lfr. Gogol's intervention on a discretionary 3
basis, we believe that Mr. Gogol would have a lot to add 4
to the proceeding he.c.
And Mr. Runyon has never participated 5
in a proceeding before this Board or the Commission.
Mr.
6 Gogol has, in the capacity of several limited appearances.
7 And of the three petitioners that I represent, he is most 8
conversant with the rules and regulations and testimony 9
which occurs in these proceedings.
10 I believe Commonwealth Edison will be addressing 11 the contentions in more detail later.
Just at this stage 12 suf fice it to say that we believe, while some of our con-13 !
tentions would be more appropriate at the constructior per-l l
mit stage we feel that some of them specifically, and 14 i
15 i particularly relating to the demand for power which will be I
16 occurring over the projected life of this nuclear facility, 17 cre very relevant at the early site review.
And we'll be l
getting into that in more detal in response to their 18 i
19 contentions, 20 CHAIR'GN WOLF:
Very well.
Thank you..
21 Mr.
Goddard, do you wish to comment?
22 MR. GODDARD:
Mr.
Goldberg will present the 23 staff posicion.
i I
24 i MR. GOLDDERG: To avoid repe tition, I would say 25 that our position en the matter is closely analogous to l
l c4ce-9edera( cReporteu, $nc 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET f
W A S HI N G TO N. D C.
20001 (202) 3#.7-3700
i 11 i
t I
URB /wb9 that represented by the applicant in its direct remarks on 2
these several petitioners.
3 The staff position on the standing of the 4
several petitioners ia set forth in its original response to S
the intervention of these individuals and the group called 6
Citizens Against Nuclear Power.
Specifically, we feel 7
that Mr. Runyon has standing in his individual capacity in 8 l this proceeding, that his personal standing can be used to 9
confer standing on the organization, Citizens Against i
10 i Nuclear Power, if in fact that is de' sired.
11 Petitioner Gogol is outside the geographical 12 one of interest that has been articulated in various NRC l
13 [
licensing proceedings and practice,:and, therefore, we would l
1-4 oppose his intervention as a natter of right.
- 15. !
As to counsel's basis for intervention as a l
l 16 l matter of discretion, we feel that there is an identity 17 of interest and contentions bet'. teen these several petitionerr 18 and there has been no showing that Mr.
Gegol's interests 1
19 are in any way separable from that of the other petitioners, 20 one of whom we feel has adequate standing to provide a 21 basis for Mr. Gogol's discretionary intervention.
22 Certainly this would not foreclose any informal 23 accistant that Mr.
Cogol may wish to give to Mr. Runyon or, l
i if :Ir. Runyon elects to have the group, Citizens Against 24 I
i 25 i
- uclear Power, represent his interests, that latter c8ce Jcderal cReporters. One 444 NORTH C A PITOI. STREET W A SHIN GTO N. D.C.
20003 (202) 347 3700
Q 12 I
WRB/wbl0 1
organization,during the course of these proceedings if they 2
are otherwise admitted.
3 On the matter of contentions, I w-Id j us t note 4
that as a general proposition contentions must f all within 5
the scopa of the issues designated in this notice, which 6
are, as the Chairman has indicated, confined at this point 7 I to matters of site suitability, and otherwise be pleaded in 8
conformance with the Commission's regulations which appear g*
at 2.714, namely, that they be set forth with particularity and basis.
l It is felt by the staf f that none of the con-ij tentions contained in the amended petition of these inter-12 venors satisfies those threshold requirements.
Without 33 l
exception they appear to pertain to matters beyond the issues 34 i
15 l f site suitability for which an early hearing and decision i
i 16 L are sought, and are otherwise lacking in the requisite 1
basis and specificity required by the Commission regulations 37 i
I l
and interpretive case law.
H3 So I would say we would have to oppose the ig intervention of any of these named indi-iuals at this 20 juncture.
21 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Ms. Sekuler?
22 MS. SEKULER:
- Ir. Chairman, the State agrees 23 t
24 l that in all probability the regulations and the case law l
i coming out of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would 25 i
c4ce 9edew{ cAepotleu, Snc.
444 NORTM C A PITO R. STREET I
W A SHINGTO N. D.C.
20001 U
(202) 347 3700
13 WRB/wbli 1 militace against Mr.
Gogol's being given a right to 2
intervene.
However we believe that the Doard should con-3 sider the possibility of his intervention as an individual 4
by discretion.
And we ask that the Board give particular 5
consideration to the fact that Mr.
Gogol's interests per 6 !
se will not be represented by any othar intervenor, and l
l that he from his own specialized knowledge and abilities 7
8 may be able to well assist in participating to develop a 9
sound record, to In considering those fac~ tors which normally it would weigh against such intervention, the State believes I
12 that the cetitioner's participation as an individual will 13 not ir. appropriately broaden or delay the proceeding, and l
14 l that without his individual participation he may indeed not i
l' 15 be fully represented, for, although CAMP may be allowed to 16 intervene, as an individual I presune the reason that he i7 asked for individual participation was that he felt that 18 he might be partially represented by that organization but ig not totally.
20 Therefore we ask you to consider these factors.
21 Thank you.
MR. GODDARD:
(See page 13-A following) 22 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
The Board will take under I
advisement the question of whether or not Mr. Gogol will 23 l
1 24 i be permitted to participate as an intervenor.
We might hear more about the questions that have : an raised as to 25 c$ce-]cde:a[ CReptten, $nc l
444 NORTH CAPITot. STREET W A S M t N GTO N. O.C.
- 2. 09 1060 042 m.o....
13-A i
WRB/wb MR. GODDARD:
Mr. Wolf.
CIIAIR'IAIT WOLF:
Yes.
3 MR. GODDARD:
Point of order.
4 The staf f questions the basis for the comment 5
of Ms. Sekuler.
6 CHAIRMAN UOLF: We understand your position, Mr.
Goddard.
MR. GODDARD:
Very well, sir.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l
c0cc 9edera{ cReporters Dna 1060 043
...~e...c.........,
W ASHINGTO N. D.C.
20000 (202) 3 7 3700 4
14 1
WRB/wbl2 CANP and ?fr. Runyon.
2 Does Mr. Runyon expect to be represented the 3
CANP?
4 MR. KODNER:
I believe so.
5 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Do you represent him, Mr. Kcdner?
6 MR. KODNER:
Yes, sir.
7 CHAIRMAN UOLP:
Is Mr. Gogol continuing a desire 8
to be classified as an intervenor individually, in addition 9
to CANP?
10 MR. GOGOL:
Mr. Chairman, the Three Mile 11 Island accident has shown that catastrophic accidents, 12 releases of radioactivity from nuclear power plants are, 13 at the bare minimum, a possibility.
And that fact is shown 14 not only by that accident but by at 1 cast several others:
15 the 1975 Browns Ferry fire; the 1966 partial meltdown at 16 the Fermi plant, and the 1977 pipe cracks at the Duane i
17 6 Arnold Energy Center in Iowa.
18 There are numerous federal studies, including 19 WASH-740, the 1965 WASH-740 update, and t,he Rasmussen 20 report, all of which indicate that a catastrophic release 21 of a substantial fraction of the core radioactivity to the 22 atmosphere could result in the contamination of a huge 23 land at!a, much more than forty miles' ci rcumference from 24 the plant.
And, in fact, basic ceteorology would tell anycne 25 th a t.
i l
l cAce-9edera( cAeporters, $nc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET j
j
{
W A S HIN G TO N. O.C.
20001 l V U (J Vy (202) 347-3700 i
15 WRB/wbl3 1 My interests are directly affected by any plant 2
which is located 140 miles frcm Chicago, since I can be 3
killed from it. And, therefore, I feel,that I sho.ild be 4
admitte( as an intervenor in thece proceedings.
5 I am a member of Citizens Against Nuclear Power 6
and wish to be represented by Citizens Against Nuclear Power, 7
but my interests go beyon/ my membership in Citizens Against 8
Nuclear Power.
9 CIIAIRMAN WOLF:
Well let me ask you two 10 questions.
11 What's your background, educational or other?
12 MR. GOGOL-I have an undergraduate degree in 13 chemistry from the University of Chicago.
And I am cur-l 14 rently a graduate student at the University of Illinois School of Public Health in Chicago, where my major field 15 l
I is environmental radioactivity and nuclearsafety.
16 I have been s tudying the question of nuclear 17 i
18 Power and radioactivity for appoximately five years.
ig CIIAIRMAN WOLF:
Do you have any contentions that are different from the contentions being raised by CANP?
20 MR. GOGOL:
No.
21 CIIAIRMAN WOLF:
Thank you.
22 Mr. Bielawski.
23 MR. BIELAUSKI:
Mr.
Gogol states that he's a l
24 member of CAMP, whereas I think he's more than just a 25 i
l cAce 9ede:a( cReyotten, $nc 444 NORTH C A PITO L, STREET W A S HINGTO N. D.C.
20001 f
(202) 347 3700
16 WRB/wbl4 1
member; he's a director of that organization.
And I would 2
feel that to the extent CAMP is a party in this proceeding 3
that they should be able to represent his interests.
4 Furthermcre, I don' t think that any of Mr.Gogole s 5
background really in fact has any particular bearing on the 6
issues of site suitability.
As example, I think Mr.
Gogol 7
wants to use this proceeding as an attempt -- as a means I,
8 j of voicing his general con cerns with nuclear power in 9
general, questions of policy, and not questions which are 10 related to the specific questions of this proceeding, the l
site suitability of this site. --the suitability of this 11 l
site.
12 13 CHAIRMAN UOLF: The Doard is aware of the factors l
1-4 it has to consider in connection with site suitability, 15 Mr.
Bielawski.
is I We will take the question of the intervention 17 by Mr.
Gogol under advisement.
18 l Mr. Goddard, in connection with your protes t ig regarding the comments that we permitted,from Ms. Sekuler, l
we desired their viewpoint because, as an interested state, 20 she represents an intervenor who will be party in this 21 proceeding.
We're well aware of the basis for your objec-22 tion, but we consider it was helpful to the Board to get 23 ;
her comments.
24 l
At this time I'd like to raise the questionof 25 i
l l
cA. e-]cdcra{ cAcjwiters, Sac 444 N 0 8t TH C APITOL. STRE ET W ASHINGTO N. O.C.
2Mo t (202) 347 3700
17 I
URB /wbl5 whether or not there are any reasons why Iowa PIRG should 2
not be permitted to intervene in these proceedings.
3 IIR. MILLER:
We have no cbjection.
4 MR. GODDARD:
Similarly, the IIRC Staff has no 5
objcction to the admission of Icwa PIRG as intervenors in 6
this proceeding.
7 CHAIRMAI! UOLF: " Sank you, Mr. Goddard.
8 Going down the list, we've indicated that the 9
Board has concluded that the State of Illinois is an 10 interested state and, therefore, subject to the rules, is 11 permitted to intervene.
12 I take it there are no contrary views on that point.
13 14 MR. GOLDDERC:
Mr. Chairman, my understanding I
i 15 was they wanted to participate as intervenors rather than l
as an interested state.
16 17 IIS. SEKULER:
We have on our aoplication both i
18 as an interested state and as a party.
With regard to 19 714(a), as to contentions, we believe thqy'll be judged 20 as are those of any other party.
21 CHAIRMAIT NOLF:
Yes.
22 I think they're coming in in a dual capacity.
But I think they have standing.
And the Board has deter-23,
l 24 mined they will be permitted to intervene.
25 On the question of the Iowa Socialist Party, i
l cAce-]edera[ CAeporters, $nc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL, STREET l
W A S HIN G TO N. D.C.
20005 1060 047 m.,....-
18 WRB/wbl6 1 are there any comments on that?
2 Mr. Bielawski?
3 MR. BIELAUSKI Mr. Chairman, as we indicated 4
in the pleading we have handed out to the Board and the 5
parties today, we believe that the Iowa Socialist Party l
should be consolidated, the petition of that party should 6 i i
l 7
be consolidated with Ioua PIRG's petition.
I 8
The basis for the request is that the signer 9
of the Iowa Socialist Party's petition is one of the members I
10 of PIRG upon whom PIRC relies to est'ablish standing in this 11 proceeding.
Also, as you'll see by the chart on page 3 of 12 our pleading which we handed out today, the contentions 13 which are submitted by the Iowa Socialist Party are sub-14 l
i stantially the same as those submite.ed, or they cover the 15 same issues as those of Iowa PIRG.
As such, we believe 3g that there is a substantial similarity of both the identity 37 i
18 l of the parties and the issues which they seek to litigate i
in this proceeding and, therefore, should be consolidated.
39 CIIAIR' TAN UOLP:
Thank you.
20 Mr. Dubert.
21 MR. DUBERT:
On behalf of the Iowa Socialist 22 Party, I would like to request that we not be consolidated 23 with the intervention of Iowa PIRC at all, on several 24 ma r p ints relatine to the Section on Consolidation in 25 l
1 cAce. Jedera[ cRepo:ters,.Onc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. O.C.
20001 (202) 347 3700
19 NRB/whl7 1
Title 10, Chapter 27.14 (e).
2 It specifically states there are three grounds 3
for consolidation.
I believe that the party has shown 4
that it should not be consolidated on any of those three 5i grounds; the first one being " irrelevant, duplicative or 6 ;
repetitive evidence in argument."
The applicants have l
7 !
charged that the parties' contentions are substantially I
8 the same as the Iowa PIRG contentions.
9 I would argue that,even though there are to similarities, that they are not substantially the same; that all of the arguments presented by the party were stated ij l
12 l in a different form, relate to broader and more general 1
13 1 areas than presented by Iowa PIRG, et al., and also are in i
i4 many cases, specifically It,em 1(c), substantially different i
1 than the contentions of Iowa PIRG.
15 In addition, there are three contentions, 16 l
l N s.
3(a), (b) and (d) which are completely different than 17 l
any contentions raised by Iowa PIRG.
The applicants have 18 i
l charged that these should be dismissed.
I would argue that jg at this time there has been no ruling on that and that 20 those contentions should be considered as separate con-21 tentions that aren' t irrelevant, duplicative or repetitive.
And, therefore, on the basis of those three, and on the i
basis of the dif ferences in the other contentions, we g j 1
should be admitted as independent parties on that point.
25 l
&lce 9edera( cReportcu, Dnc 444 NORTH C APtTCL, STREET W ASHINGTori. Q.C.
20001 (202) 347-3700 I
20 WRB/wb13 1
On the second point of having common interests:
2 I will admit that I'm a member of the Iowa Public Interest 3
Research Group and was used as standi.ng for that petition.
4 But above and beyond that my interests are different in
/
5 relating to the Iowa Socialist Party.
The Iowa Socialist Party is a partisan group, 6
l l
7 I it's a political party based in Iowa.
The Petitioners Iowa 8
PIRG, et al., are not political parties and are not g
partisan, and, in fact, many of them are incorporated as 10 non-partisan groups, and our interes'ts break there very 33 stronaly between partisan groups and non-parcisan groups and are representinc different interests.
12 j
i j
My interest as a member of the Iowa Socialist 13 Party and spokesman for the Iowa Socialist party is quite 14 different from ny interest as a member of Iowa PIRG.
15 In addition, I feel qualified as a spokesperson 16 for the Iowa Socialist Party because of my background 37 relating to several of my contentions on agriculture and 18 land use.
I have two degrees from Iowa State University's 19 Agr cultural College, and I'n presently a graduate student 20 at I wa State University's Ag-Economics College, and will 21 be using ny expertise in agricultural and economic areas 22 g l in this proceeding in relation to the contentions of the l
l Socialist Party.
The third point pertains to the authority to i
i l
l dec-9c/cra[ deporterJ, 8nc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W A S HI N G TO N. D.C.
2000t (202) 34?-37C0
21 URB /wbl9 1
determine priorities and control the compass of the hearings.
2 I feel that I have been, and the party has been part of 3
proceedings in the past and have abided by the rules and 4
regulations of the hearing processes, and I feel that I am i
j capable of continuing to de that, and will try to raise 5
6 only issues that I feel are directly related to our con-tentions and will not be repetitive or duplicative of 7
8 other points raised by other parties or other intervenors.
Therefore I would request that we be admitted 9
as intervenors and be admitted individually instead of to l
i ni in consolidation.
I I
I feel as a general point that more participation 12 j ja i by intervenors in the hearing, the more likely you are to have a fair and accurate assessment of the issues involved
- 4 in the siting of this plant.
15 CI! AIRMAN WOLP: Thank you.
16j The Doard concludes that it should take the 37 ;
question of the consolidation of the contentions of the 18 Iowa Socialist Party and Iowa Public Interest Research 39 Gr up under advisement.
20 MR. SCliWAB :
My nane is Jim Schwab.
I'm 21 representing the Iowa Public Interest Research Group and 22,
1 l
f ur ther intervenors in that joint petition.
23 P r the record, I would like to say first that--
24 l i
CIIAIRMAN UOLP:
Pardon me.
Are you--
25 l l
c$ce-9edeta[ cAeportets, $nc.
444 NORTH C APITCL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C.
20000 (202) 347 3700
2.<.
1 WRB/wb20 MR. SCHWAB:
I'm commenting on this.
.2 CHAIR"AN t.'OLP :
Are you working with Mr. Kedner?
3 MR. SCHUAB:
No.
I'm strictly representing 4
Iowa PIRG.
5 For the record, I would like to' state that after 6
this was first mentioned in a separate session between the 7
NRC staff attorney, Mr. Goddard, and Mr. Steptoe for Com-8 monwealth Edison, back in August, that the Board of 9
Directors of Iowa Public Interest Research Group did con-10 sider this natter at its August lith meeting and essentially 11 voted to oppose consolidation, with the following motion 12 being passed unanimously:
13 l "We,the Board of Directors of the Iowa l
l 14 j Public Interest Research Group, Incorpora ed, 15 oppose the consolidation of petitions ror leave 16 to intcrvene before the Nuclear Regulatory Com-17 mission in the matter of the Carroll County site, 18 of the Iowa Socialist Party (a political party) is and the petition of Iowa PIRG and the four other 20 petitioners."
21 Part of the reasoning that went into that was 22 essentially the reluctance of the members of Iowa PIRG to be consolidated with what they essentially view as a parti-23 san political party.
They wanted to essentially naintain 24,
i 25 a joint intervencion of groups that had strictly non-partisar l
c0cc ']edera[ cRepozien, Snc 444 NCRTH C APITCL STR EET 1060 052
,0...
I (202) 347 3700
23 l
WP.8/wb21 1
kinds of interests, maintain it as essentially a non-2 political kind of.atervention.
This is one of their prime 3
concernt.
4 I did specify in some length in our original 5
Petition for leave to intervene that we had numerous other members within the fifty-mile range of the site, essentially 6
using Mr. Dubert for standing as a specific name; for two I
i reasons, one being the time factor in putting this thing 8
9 together prior to the June 4th deadline, the other being unawareness of the fact that the Iowa Socialist Party even 10 intended to irnervene in the first place.
ji i
If the Board desired we could, at some lent th 12 and at some work, probably provide a laundry list of a y,
l 14 j couple of hundred names within that area, from Davenport all the way down to Dubuque.
So that relying on Mr. Dubert 15 I
l is not really a critical factor to establish standing in 16 nl our case.
Aside from that, we also wish to point out that ig I
Mr. Dubert is no longer the local Chairman of the Ic,..a jg aM UnhersW O.apte as was mondoned in de peWon.
20 An ther person has taken that position.
So he is still a 21 member but not an officer.
22 Thank you.
23 CIIAIR*4AN WOLF: We'll have a 10-minute recess 24 at this time since the court reporters have now arrived.
25 cAce-9edeta[ cAcyotters, Snc.
444 NORTH CAPtPOL STREET W A $ HIN G TO N. O.C.
20001 j
f}
(202) 347-3700 Uv
e 24 WRB/wb221 This will give then the opportunity to set themselves 2
up for the remainder of the hearing.
3 (Recess) 4 (The foregoing was transcribed fror' a tape 5
recording.
The following partion of the transcript was reported verbatim by the of ficial court reporters.)
6 7
8 l
9 i 10 11 l
12 l
13 ;
14
}
15 I I
I 16 l
17 18 i
t 19 20 21 22 23 l
24 j l
25 l l
c4 e-9ederal cReporteu, Dnc d44 NORTH CAPITOL STREET i
W A S HIN GTO N. D.C.
2000t (202) 347.J700
WRBloom mLandon 25 wrb/cgbl, CIIAIRf tA!! HOLP:
Please come to order.
2 Continuing with our exanination of the nuestion of the right of various carties to intervene, I want to 4
raise the question whether or not the.To Daviess cout. v 5
Ad IIoc Committee has standing to intervene in this nroceedin t.
6 Would you state your oosition?
7
?tR. GOLDBERG:
Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
8 Staff has not been heard on the Iowa Socialist Party notitio n
9 yet.
10 CIIAIR*tA'i WOLF:
Fell I don't know what vou 11 have to add.
I don't know of any rights to --
l 12 l tiR. GOLDBERG:
You don't have a statement of 13 position on the record as to the accentability of their l
intervention petition at this point.
Me have a nosition 14 15 we'd like to offer.
16 CIIAIRMA'I NOLF :
Vou may offer it, if vou 17 would quickly.
I 18 i MR. GOLCBERC:
First, I believe the Iowa 19 Socialist Party has standing to intervene in this natter 20 by virtue of the Dcrsonal interest of Pir. Dubert.
21 With regard to the matter of contentions, the 22 Staff would note that certain of the contentions, namelv 23 Contention lA sub-2 and 1B, fall within the scoce of the 24 issues designated for consideration in the I! earing '!ctice prepared in this case but are otherwise lackino in 25 I
l cAce ']edera[ CAeptteu, $nc 444 NORTH CAPITOL, STREET jq/
l lhhV V
w A S HIN G TO N. D.C.
20001 (202) 347 3700
26 1
wrb/agb2 the necessarf basis in specificity as required hv 2
Section 2.714 of the Conmission's iteculations.
The Staff was unsuccessful in attemnting to 4
meet before this conference with a renresentative of the 5
I Iowa Socialist Partv and perhans sone of the Staff's concern a 6 -
over the lack of particularity of those contentions could 7
have been alleviated.
8 However, having failed to reach that group I
9 and have that meeting cone about, we are constrained to 10 conclude right now that the Iowa cocialist narty has not II set forth at least one accentable contention so as to confer intervention on that g Nup under the annlicable l
Commission law and would opocse their intervention at this 14 time.
i With respect to the matter of consolidation, i
16 in the event the Board elects to grant the intervention petition of the Iowa Socialist Partv, we feel it is cre-
'8 mature to order their consolidation with the Iowa nIRG I
organi::ation on the grounds tha* that would more cronerly 20 be left for the contention identification stace. If there 21 is a similarity or indeed identitv of contentions on behalf 22 of both groups, we feel that appropriate neasures could 23 be made to consolidate their nresentation of direct cx les 24 l and cross-examination on those contentions once identi..ed.
25 But we would not support their consolidation were thev to l
cAcc. 9ede:al' cRepotte:s, !]nc.
l 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET
^
W A S HINGTO N. D.C.
2000t lh
/
(202) 347 3700 i
27 wrb/agb3 both be admitted at this time.
2 CHAIR' FAN MOLP:
Very well.
3 Mr. Dubert?
4 MR. DUDERT:
Yes.
5 To add a comment to the statements bv the 6
NRC counsel, just to make it clear on the record, I do not 7
have a telephone, and at the time of this summer, just 8 l recently, obtained a telephone.
But av mailing address on 9
the petitions is adecuate enough to reach me, and until 10 l just a few minutes ago, I was not even aware that counsel 11 waJ in ~.nced of any consultation with me on the specificity 12 of my contentions.
13 I do believe that I was available for confer-li ence and for consultation on these issues and, therefore, 15 I feel that his point ate,;ut us being not contacted and 1G not listing --
17 CHAIRMAN MOLP:
We understand.
18 !
However, I might suggest that it might be helnfu l 19 if you discussed the situation with Mr. Goldberg, 20 MR. DUDERT:
ife did do a little discussion inst 21 before, so we will continue.
22 CHAIRMAN MOLF:
We'll go back, now, to the 23 !
Jo Daviess County Ad Hoc Committee.
24 Does the Apolicant have any ment on whether l
25 I or not the Jo Daviess County Ad Hoc Committee should be l
c0cc. ]cdera[ cReporte:1, $nc.
pi _/
444 Naura capirei. srncer
,f 3
j W 4 S HINGTO N, D.C.
20008 t
U*
(202) 347-3700 1
28 Erh/agb4 permitted to intervene in these croceedings?
kh
?tR. BIELAMSKI:
We have no objection to their 3
intervention with respect to standing.
i CIIAIRatAN NOLP:
Mr. Goddard?
MR. GODDARD:
The NRC Staff concurs and suonorts 6
their intervention in this case.
l CITAIR'iA'i MCLF :
Pts. Sekul er?
l 8
MS. SEKULER:
No comment.
9 CHAIRMAN MOLF:
I think now we have completed 10l the questionof the right to intervene bv these various 1
11 groups, and the Board will nass on these nuestions when it 12 issues its order after this hearing.
13 l MR. ? TILLER:
fir. Chairman, I would like to point i
14 I out that the State of Iowa, which I believe filed a docu-15 ment requesting to narticipate as an interested state, is i
16 not present in the hearing roon, to nv knowledge.
17 CIIAIRMAN MOLP:
Yes, they are, Mr. ? tiller.
18 MR. MILLER:
I beg pardon.
19 CIIAIR'1A'T MOLP:
I thank you for reminding me 20 about that because I was going to ask the attornov repre-21 senting the State if you would state your annearance for 22 the record and state what your oosition is in regard to 23 to intervention, the nature of the intervention that you l
24 j wish to nake.
25 I
?tR. PETERSON:
Clifford Peterson, I'm Assistant I
c0ce-9edera[ cAeporte:1, $nc.
l 444 NORTH C APITCL, STREET W A S HIN GTO N, D.C.
20001 (202) 347 3700
29 wrb/agb5 Attorney General for the State of Iowa.
Me have filed an 2
appearance as.an interested state, and therein reserve the 3
right to intervene as a party later if the interests of 4
Iowa appear to be adversely affected hv the construction and 5
operation of the plant.
6 l CHAIR"A'I MOLP :
Thank you, 'tr. Peterson.
l 7 I The Board wishes at this time to state on the 8
j record that the Jo Daviess County Ad Hoc Committee has the l
9 standing to intervene.
The auestion of the contentions 10 will be discussed later.
M The Board also wishes to state that the Iowa i
12 Socialist Party has the standing to intervene and, again, 13 the question of the contentions by that nartv will be 14 j
discussed later.
l The Board has previously indicated and will 15 16 again state that the State of Illinois has standing to 17 intervene both as an Intervenor and interested state.
18 The Board also will state at this time that the 19 Iowa Public Interest Research Group, Incorporated, et. al.,
20 has tha standing to intervene and questions regarding their 21 contentions will be stated later.
22 The Board states that the Citizens Against 23 Muclear Power, Incorporated, has the standing to intervene 24 and questions regarding their contentions and the cuestion 25 of Mr. Gogol,ill be discussed later.
'.'e announced earlier cAce-9edera( c. Reporters, !/nc.
i 444 NORTM C APITCL STR EET W A $ MI N GTO N. O.C.
2Mo t (202) 3473,00
30 1
wrb/agb6 that we would take the cuestion of his intervention under 2
advisement, which we will continue to do.
3 MR. KODNER:
Mr. Chairman, are you making a 4
ruling as to Petitioner Runvon, James Runven?
5 CHAIF?tAST MOLF:
He's acolvina individuallv 6
as well as --
l 7 l l
MR. KODNER:
Yes, sir.
8 I CI! AIRMAN WOLF:
I would like to take that under 9
advisement for now, and we will announce in the order what 10 cur conclusion is with regard to him.
MR. KODNER:
Very well, sir.
12 CI!f1IR'1AN MOLF:
At this time I want to empha-
'3 size again that this hearing, this site suitabilitv hearinn, 44 j
is a hearing that involves a question of suitability of the I
15 '
site only, that certain factors have to be considered 16 under the rules and regulations of the Nuclear Regulatorv I
I7 l Commission.
These are set out in Part 50.51 and 100 of 18 10 CFR, which are incorporated in the regulations.
19 l
It's important to understand tnat when we 20 discuss the contentions that we're goina to consider here 21 that the refusal to discuss certain contentions which have 22 been formulated in the petitions or in the.supolenent to the 23 petitions does not mean that those contentions will not i
l be heard at the proper time, say, at the construction 24 t
25 l
hearing, when that takes olace.
i c4ce-7elera[ cReperters, 8ne.
1n 0 444 N O ff f H CAPITCL STREET W A S HIN GTO N. D.C.
20009 (202) 347-3700
d 31 wrb/agb7 1
It should be noted that if the Board finds that 2
the site is suitable, that it is not binding on the Commis.
3 sion to require the Comnission to issue a construction 4
permit.
It nerely is a device to trv to clear un questions 5
regarding suitability of the site to insure the Aoplicant, 6
if it is approved, that he can proceed then with the other 7
problems that are presented in connection with an apnlicatic s 8
to construct and operate a nuclear plant.
9 MR. COX:
Mr. Chairnan, in light of what vou to have just said, it would probably be apnropriate at this I
I 11 time for me tc request leave to file and present an oral 12 motion to the noard, if that's permissible.
13 CHAIRMA?! MOLP:
You indicated vou wer.e goina to present it orally?
Ordinarily we would orefer that it 14 u
l be written, but if this is innossible, you may go ahead 15l 16 at this time.
17 Is it long?
18 MR. COX:
I'll nake it as short as I cossibly 19 can.
20 I acologize for the amateurishness on the nart 21 of our presentation at this time, however, none of us in 22 our group are exnerienced at all in nuclear power hearings.
23 Me don't have any nuclear cower plants around here, and we've done the best we can under the circunstances to try 24 to comply with your rules and I hooe we do better in the 25 l
&lce 9ede:a( cAcportets, Onc.
444 NO RTH C APITOt. STR EET l
W ASHINGTON. O.C.
20001 (202) 347 3700
32 1
wrb/agb8 future.
2 I understand that you nade a reauest earlier 3
as to whether or not there was any objection to earlv site 4
review and I don't even know if we had made a decision to request intervention at that time.
But even if we had, we 6
~
wouldn't have understood what the question meant, so that's 7
why we are required to present this here.
8 Me move at this point to dismiss these 9
proceedings, although we understand clear fairiv well that 10 they're permissible under the rules for the following reasons:
in light of the circumstances of Three Ptile 12 l
Island and the preliminary determinations of the 'Tuclear 13 Regulatory Commission concerning the nechanical failure and I4 human failure at that niant, as well as the need to deal i
15 with the issue of cost of electricity and whether or not I
16 there actually is a need for this site in terms of the
'7 increased charges that are niaced upon citizens in this
'8 area to pay for their electricity and, thirdly, and most I9 importantly, I think, the inability to raise certain issues 20 before the Board at this hearing in that we, in our 21 dealings, though they have been verv kind and considerate 22 to our ignorance of the issues so far -- and by then I i
l I
23 mean the Staff attorneys from the NRC as well as the 24 attorneys for Connonwealth Edison -- thev've been verv i
25 !
patient with me and our Connittee, but thev have clearly c4ce 9edera[ cAepciten, Onc.
444 NC97H C A PITO L, STREET j
/
l W A SHINGTON. O.C.
20001 l VUU (zoa) 347 3700
33 1
wrb/agb9 pointed out to us that there are certain issues that are 2
much more appropriate at the construction permit stage, 3
as you have stated yourself.
4 and we believe, in light of the things that have been occurring with nuclear newer and in light of the 6
cost of nuclear power and the massive exoenditure of funds, 7
that these matters ought to be dealt with at one time.
8 They've been dealt with in the past, I've been 9
told, never before.
You told me shortly a little while ago 10 that there has been one other time when you've had an II Early Site Review hearing.
12 Me would request that these matters be dealt 13 with at the construction permit stage, that this matter 14 be dismissed as more appropriately dealt with under the l
circumstances as known to the Board and the general 15 f
population at this time, that all these Natters be deferred 16 I
17 to the construction pernit stage.
18 CFAIR* TAM WOLP:
Very well.
l 19 MR. COX:
And, further, we would ask the Board 20 to make a fornal decision on this matter orior to pro-21 ceeding, because we believe that it is a najor crocedural 22 point that ought *.o be dealt with as soon as possible.
23 MR. MILLER:
Mr. Chairman.
24 CIIAIpf TAN MOLF:
'tr. Miller?
I 25 "R.
. TILLER:
Thank you.
i c0cc. Jede:a[ cRepozten, $nc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W A SHIN G TO N. O.C.
2000t (202) 347 3700
34 I
wrb/agbl0 Mr. Chairman, I assume that Mr. Cox's motion 2
on behalf of the Jo Daviess organization is nade pursuant 3
to Section 2.605 (b), which contemnlates that the commission 4
on its own motion or any party to a proceeding nay move 5
that this type of a hearing and decision to not go forward.
6 The decision whether or.not to go forward is one that is 7 I firmly comnitted to this Board's discretion, as I read the 8
l rules.
9 !
As I listened to Mr. Cox's cresentation, it to seemed to me that the basic objection to going forward at 11 this time isssome concern about whether there is a need for 12 this plant, the cost of construction and so on.
These i
13 !
matters are raised as well in the contentions that were l
14 filed by each of the parties who have now baen nernitted to 15 l intervene in the proceeding.
16 Mr. Chairman, it's the Apolicant's nosition 17 that the material that has been subnitted in the anplica-l 18 tion for an Early Site Review Pernit is nore than adecuate 19 to demonstrate the need of the Aonlicants for this facilitv 20 in the time frame that we're talking about, which is 1900-21 1991, and that we are prenared at this tine to rest on that 22 submission with respect to the need for cower from this 23 l facility.
It's in Section 1 of the EArly Site Review 24 Environmental Report.
25 If the Board should determine that there is an I
l c4ce-9clera( cAepcrters, $nc f
444 NORTH C APITOL STR EET W A S HIN GTO N, D.C.
2000t (202) 347 3700
35 wrb/agbil 1
issue with respect to the desirability of proceeding with 2
the hearings and an ultimate partial initial decision, I 3
would suggest -- this is really a suggestion -- that all of 4
us, all the parties, be informed by the Board that it is 5
considering not going forward with this proceeding and that 6
we be permitted to make such evidentiary or other presenta-7 tions as may be appropriate so that the Board will have the 1
8 full benefit of the reasons why the Applic. ants are going 9
forward with this proceeding at this time.
10 I might make just one other comnent.
The 11 suggestion was made by Mr. Cox that all of this should be 12 I put together into one construction permit nroceeding.
13 As an attornev who has had occasion to partici-14 pate over some years in these types of proceedings, I think 15 it is fair to say that this whole Early Site Review pro-l cedure was devised to hoth expedite the hearing process and 16 to identify at an early stage for the benefit of the members 17 I
i 18 of the public uho are interested in the construction and 19 operation of nuclear power plants in thefr vicinity of the 20 issues that might disqualify a particular site from being tha 21 location of a nuclear power plant.
22 It is a benefit, it seems to me, to the Inter-23 venors, it is clearly a benefit to the Anolicants, to have these basic decisions on matters that are not going to 24 change in a year or two vears or five years, such as 25 cOcc-9edera{ cAeporten, Snc 444 NO R TH C A PITC L. STREET j
W A S HIN GTO N. D.C.
20001 (202) 347-3700
36 1
wrb/agbl2 meteorology, seismology and hydrology, to get those 2
established and to have those hearings concluded so that 3
when the construction permit application is filed, we can 4
then focus on the other issues that are involved in the construction of the facility, putting to one side the site-6 related matters.
i 7 i l
Thank you.
CIIAIRMAN WOLF:
Thank yott, Mr. Miller.
9 I
MR. KODNER:
Mr. Chairnan.
I 10 CIIAIR* TAN WOLF:
Yes.
MR. KODNER:
It's my understanding from what 12 counsel for Applicant has just said that thev are with-13l drawing their proposed findings as to the need for power?
l 34 l
Correct me if I'm wrong, i
15 l f tR. ?! ILLER:
?tr. Chairman, that is correct.
I 16 We submitted a proposed finding eight that dealt with, 17 in a very general term, with need for power.
He do not l
believe that that is an appropriate subject for discussion 18 i
19 at an early site review hearing.
And to, avoid any confusion 20 on that matter, we would ask for leave to withdraw that.
21 And there is another finding, proposed. finding 131, which 22 deals with decommiscioning which again we inadvertently 23 submitted and we
,uld ask for leave to withdrau at this i
l 24
- time, i
25 l MR. KODMER:
Str. Chairman, we believe that the I
i cAce-9edera( cRepciters, Dnc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASH *1TO N. D.C.
2000t (202) 347-3700 i
37 1
wrb/agbl3 rules and regulations of the NRC, as nrenulgated in 2
10 CFR et, sea., require that the demand for power be 3
considered at this stage of the proceedings.
4 According to Section 2.101(a) (1), suboaranraph l
one, the application is to be submitted -- nay be submitted I
6 !
in four parts.
part one, that part dealing with early site 7
review, states that that part shall also include the range 8
of postulated facility design and operation parameters 9 I sufficient to enable the Conmission to perform the review.
Section 50.34 (a) (1) states that the Preliminarv Safety Analysis Report should be filed as relates to site l
l 12 l
suitability issues, analysis and evaluation of major l
l3 I structures, systems and components of the facilitv which bear significantly on the accentability of the site must l
be considered.
That analysis must be made assuming that M
i M
the facility will be coerated at the ultimate pow r level l7 which is contemplated by the Apnlicant.
18 Ue believe that these orovisions recuire the U
Applicant to set sone sort of naraneters.as to what the i
20 l ultimate power will be, whE t the output should be.
And in i
21 l order to make a fair determination of that, we believe that
~
22 the Applicant nust have sone idea of what the orojected 23 i demand will be over the life expectancy of the facility.
24 !
and at the time the facility is to start un.
25 Uc, therefore, fairly read these regulations to cllce. 9edera( cReporteu, Onc.
444 NORTH C APITCL STREET W A S HI N GTC N, D.C.
20001 4202) 347 3700
38 wrb/agbl4 require that the Applicant come forth with projected demand l
2 in the future so that it may more accurately predict the 3
ultimate power level of the structure.
4 47e believe that if they come forth with their 5
specifications now in their report at this stage, and then 6
later determf ne that there may not be a demand for this cower, 7 !
that that would requira going through these proceedings all 8
over again and could nandate the resubnission of the docu-9 -
ments which they've already suhaitted.
In any event, we believc that those two sectione 10 11 Section 2.101(a) (1) (1) and Section 50.34 (a) (1) (1) recuire 12 them to make their projections as to the demand which is t
13 contemplated.
l 14 !
As an aside, we note that the Apolicant l
15 l initially projected that by the year 2000 the demand for I
16 power in the State of Illinois will be increased by a I
17 factor of 300 percent, a figure later revised downward by 18 l Applicant and now, as I understand, is being withdrawn I
19 totally.
20 Thank you.
21 CHAIR TAN WOLP:
Are you making a notion or 22 just a connent?
23 MR. IODMER:
?-tr. Chairnan, I am roving that the 24 !
Anglicant be recuired to -- be required to not he prohibited l
25 l from removing those contentions and those findings, pronosed c&c 9edera{ cAepotte:1, $nc 444 N O RTH C APf TOL STREET W A S HI N G TO N. D.C.
2000t (202) 34, 3700
39 wrb/agbl5 findings, dealing with the projected demand for power.
2 CIIAIR'tA:i WOLF:
I will overrule your motion.
3 Mr. Schwab.
MR. SCl!WAB:
I wanted to second that notion 5
which has already been overruled.
6 I also wanted to add a couple of comments to 7
this discussion in light of the Jo Daviess notion regarding l
the early site review.
8 9
CIIAIRf tAti NOLF:
That you may do.
10 MR. SCIIWAB:
Okay.
11 And in response to one statenent by counsel 12 for Commonwealth Edison in regard to that motion.
13 First, I would just like to offer the general i
l comment of, I guess, the philosophy of Iowa PIRG in relatior
'4 t
i 15 l to the problems cited with construction pernit nroceedings I
16 in the past that were referred to as they relate to early 17 site review and what it is attempting to solve, which is 18 that we feel in large part the problems that have arisen 19 in the past in the expediting of construction nermit cro-20 ceedings and the complexities in tying in early site review 21 issues, issues that are now nut under that umbrella,are 22 issues relating more to the technological conclexity of 23 !
nuclear power than to the legal conolexities of the systen i
24 that has been set up to deal with it.
25 f Secondarily, we want to suggest that we're c0cc 9edera[ cRepotten, $nc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STR EET j
W A S HI NGTO N. D.C.
20001 (202) 347 3700
40 1
erb /agbl6 very concerned about the potential prejudice to our abilitie s 2
as Intervenors to get effective renresentation at later 3
stages of this proceeding if certain issues related to NEPA 4
are resolved in the way that Connonwealth Edison would suggest, specifically such issues as we have acluded in our O
petition, which have been suggested for deletion by the 7
Applicant, one of which regarding uranir'. mining and 8
milling, there were several others,-- the failure of those 9
contentions to remain in this case would severely prejudice, 10 we feel, our Intervenors' abilities to get a fair cost-II l
benefit analysis, a fair, you know, proceeding.
12 CIIAIRMAN HOLF:
Hell, you undeestand, though,
'3 that those issues can be raised later.
Thev aren't I4 eliminated from the case.
15
!!R. SCIIMAB:
But what I'm saving is, if those 16 l
motions were granted by Connonwealth Edison -- that were
'7 submitted by Commonwealth Edison, that we feel that our t
'8 group would essentially be denuded of a lot of protection
'9 that otherwise might be afforded to then'.
20 Cl! AIR' TAM MOLP:
Not at the hearing on the 21 construction stage.
' lou'll have that opnortunity at that 22 tine.
l IIR. SCIIWAB :
Well I guess we'll deal with sone
~
23 l
of that then.
24 25 CI! AIR'!AN MOLP:
You.'re reallv arguing about I
l cAce 9edeta[ cAcj: otters, $nc.
'1;:,"J"J"'"2 ::"!,"
1060 0
- a. n,,.-.
41 I
wrb/agbl7 the procedure.
It isn't a substantive question that's 2
being determined here, it's the procedure, how we nroceed.
3 And the Commission.has made certain rtiles and regulations 4
and we, the Board, are bound to follow them.
But that doesn't mean that you can't raise those issues at the croper 6
time, at the construction hearing.
7 MR. SCIIMAB:
We're saying some damage might be 8
done before that.
But we'11 get into that.when we get into 9
the contentions.
CIIAIRMA!! WOLF:
That might be your argument, l'
but that doesn't.....
12 I
?!R. SCIIMAB:
The lart comment I wanted to make l
'3 was simply on behalf of specifically the Carroll County I4 Environmental Coalition, which is one group in our joint 15 intervention which lives in this particular area, nost 16 within five miles of the site, in regard to the idea that 17 this early site review and getting certain issues out of 18 the way, while in a sense putting the site on ice for the 19 next five years or up to the next five years is in the 20 interest of the intervening parties as well as the Anolicant.
21 Ue fell that that is somewhat gratuitous in 22 the sense that that kind of proceeding puts the property 23 interests and values of these parties in linho for a period 24 of time which they have no control over, and that that cannet 25 j
possibly very well be in their best interest.
There is more i
for Commonwealth Cdison to cain than for then.
ini1ws cAcc. Jedera( cReporters, Onc 444 NORTH C A PITO 4. STREET W A SHINGTO N. D.C.
20006 (202) 347 1700
42 1
IB wrb/agbl CHAIRrtAN WOLP:
Any further connent?
2 f tS. SEKULER:
I wish to address at this time 3
explicitly the notion of the Jo Daviess County, and I wish 4
to ask the Board to consider it in light o# Section 10 CPR r
2.605 (b) (2), particularly those asnects which ask the Board 6
to consider the likelihood of any findings nade in this proceeding will not remain valid until the recuired neriod 8 i of time for construction and the effect on the public 9 j interest of having a possibly inconclusive resolution.
10 !
The State is not prepared to argue in denth U
l any response or support of this notion, and we believe 12 l
that it night be helpful to have the notion resubnitted
'3 in writing and have the various parties subnit some tvne I
l#
l of writing in response, if that would he nossible.
I 15 I CHAIR' TAN MOLP:
Anv further connent?
16 l MR. GODDARD:
Ves, Ptr. Molf, the Staf' would 17 l like to be heard on this matter.
18 We, too, interpret the oral notion as clearly 39 stating the position under 10 CPR 2.605 (h).
However, it 20 would appear that documentation or an evidentiarv showing 21 be made under each of the cases under 2.6n5 (5) before any 22 determination of an early site review would occur.
i I
23 i The MRC Staff is entrusted with the resconsi-l 24 bility of conducting a necessary review and evaluation of 25 any docunented apnlication, and it must do so under the j
c9ce-]ede:a( cRepciters, $nc.
n!y y'}
Add NORTH CAPITOL STREET W A S HIN GTO N. D.C.
20008 I
(202) J47 3700
43 wrb/agb2 carly site review regulations in this case.
Those regula-2 tioH3'rentenolate a bifurcated process, and we do not see 3
any basis as set forth in the motion for deferring the 4
issues which are to be considered here until the entire construction nermit is filed.
6 CIIAIRMAM UOLP:
Mr. Cox, does this deal with 7
your motion?
8 MR. COX:
It's in resnonse to comments made on 9
the motion, Mr. Chairman.
")
We don't contend there has been any consniracy 11 here tc hide' things from us to make it more difficult for i
1 12 l us, and we're not saying that -- well we are savina that I
13 Commonwealth Edison is incorrect if they're saving that i
14 i it's better for the public to have these secarated hearings.
I 15 i I think in light of the simple fact that Commonwealth Edison H3 has made a decision at this point in tine to withdraw 17 their requested finding on need raises the issue that a i
"I decision ought to be withheld and that all these hearings 19 ought to be consolidated into one hearing on construction.
20 And it's a sinnie fact that it costs peonle to 21 pay for their electricity, money everyday, to nav for lawyer s, 22 to pay for paper, I've got 75 pounds of paper that was 23 mailed to me simplv on site suitability and the safetv 24 I requirements that the Muclear Regulatory Commission has I
25 i placed upon an Applicant in order to construct the site.
i c@ce-]cdeta[ c.Aepotters, $nc.
444 NORTM C A PITOL STREET W A S HIN G TO N. D.C.
20C00 l
(202) 34,.3700 i
44 wrb/agb3 Here you do havethe nower to nake a decision 2
as to whether or not we need to proceed with an earlv site 3
review when these same matters car. be determined at one 4
hearing when you also determine the construction permit 5
and possibly decrease costs.
6 And also our position is that the construction l
7 !
permit request ought to be expedited not delaved.
T Te ' re I
not here -- I't.t not naking this notion to delav these 9
proceedings, I think these matters ought to be determined 10 as soon as possible.
And that certainly is cart of our 11 request, that we are saying as soon as it's feasible to 12 all the parties a construction perrit ought to be -- whether 13 or not one will be issued ought to be decided.
That's whv 14 we're raising this notion, to save monev and to simolv 15 i expedite the process if possible.
16 CHAIRMAN t?OLP:
The Board has considered the 17 Oral motion made by Str. Cox on behalf of the Jo Daviess 18 County Ad Hoc Committee, and it overrules that notion to i
l 19 discontinue the site suitability hearings at this time.
20 itR. COX:
Thank you, str. chairnan.
21 Mr. Chairman, if I might also raise one cuestion.
22 I think attorneys for Commonwealth Edison have reauested 23 I that the finding number eight be withdrawn, and that was 24 the argument of ifr. Itodner which vou overruled.
Does that t
25 l
mean that you are now also granting that notion?
I i
l cOce 9eclewl cAepoiters, $nc i
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W A SHINGTO N. D.C.
20005 (202) 347 3700 s
45 wrb/agb4 CHAIRMAM WOLF:
I overruled that cartiv because 2
the notion was out of order.
We had a notion before us at 3
the time.
But we will rule further on that cuestion on the right to withdraw.
l 6
l
!!R. COX:
Thank you.
l 7
l CHAIR!1AN WOLF:
In order that there is no 8 l misunderstanding re.Jarding that, the Ecard rules that the 9
Applicants' right to withdraw as to -- Mr. ' tiller, will vou "3
help me out on the number, is it number eight?
11 MR. MILLER:
Findings eight and 131, sir.
12 CHAIR?!AN MOLP:
That finding eicht and 131 13 j
the right of the Applicant to withdraw those two reauests 14 l is granted.
l 15 l Me're going now to the sunclement to the l
H5 t petition for leave to interevene which was filed hv Iowa 17 l
Public Interest Research Groun, Incorporated, and the arouns H3 !
associated with the Iowa public Interest Research Group, I
H) and pass upon the contentions that are stated in that 20 supplement.
21 f tR. ?! ILLER:
Mr. Chairnan, excuse Me.
I would 22 jus'. like to make a suggestion as to how we might nroceed 23 in terms of dealing with these contentions, with each of the 24 i contentions of the various carties.
I I
25 Table one to Anolicants' resnonse to notitioners' 8:e-]cdeias' cAepotters, $nc.
I 444 NORTH C A PITOl. STREET
'l [ "
W A S HINGTO N. O.C.
2000t d
(202) 347-3700
46 1
wrb/agb5 supplemental contentions is an effort hv the Annlicants to 2
categori=c each of the sunnlemental notitions to intervene 3
in terns of the issues each of then seeks to raise.
4 And since there annears to be substantial 5
identiti, if not an overlap,of the issues that are sought I
to be raised by the various parties, it seems to us that 7
perhaps it would be helpful to deal.with this on an issue-8 i
by-issue basis rather than on a party-by-narty basis.
I 9
CIIAIR'IAN UOM:
Mr. Miller, we want to deal 10 with Iowa PIRG because they have indicated to us that thev 11 have commitments for tenorrow.
12
? tR. KODNER:
Excuse ne.
Ne indicated that also.
13 CIIAIR' TAN UOT:
Very well.
14 Ue thought that, while we don't exnect to sit 15 tomorrow, that we would take these un in this order.
16 And I might explain at..this juncture that
'7 when we state that we have accented a contention or that we have refused to accept a contention, we will state that in an order, and then thenarty that made'the contention that 20 has been refused will have a period of 10 to 20 days to l
21 l submit a brief in support of any contention that they have 22 that has been rejected by the Board and then we'll issue 23 l a final order on the contentions after we receive any 24 l
arguments in a brief that the carties want to nake.
25 I do want to ennhasize, though, that the chief c4ce. ]c.deta[ cAeporters, Snc j
ddd NORTH C A pitot. STREET j
[
7 l
WASHINGTON. O.C.
20009 I vVs
() /
i (202)
- d 7.J 700
47 wrb/agb6 basis for refusing any of these contentions is the fact 2
thet we found then out of order in this tvpo of hearing.
But at the same time, we are not passing unon their eligi-bility later on to be used in connection with the constructi on 5 !
phase of the application.
6 So the fact that we aren't cornittina their 7
use at this time does not mean that anyone who has that i
8 contention cannot raise it later.
9 I'm asking Dr. Ifolton if he will state what our 10 findings were in regard to the contentions subnitted by 11 Iowa PIRG.
12 MR. GODDARD:
Mr. Chairman, excuse ne.
At this 13 point, I would just like to clarifv en the record whether 14 l if you declare a contention is tentativelv admitted, whether 15 either the Applicant or the Staff or other narties may 16 l oppose such admission in writing as well as the exclusion 17 of such a contention.
I 18 l
CHAIPl4AN MOLP:
Yes, it nay work both ways.
19 MR. GODDARD:
Thank you.
20 DR. IIOLTON:
I'll proceed with these in the 21 order in which they were submitted, and this is our 22 tentative -- our present ruling on these contentions.
23 We believe that Contention Munber One, which 24 l deals with seismic issues, is adnissible, and has been 1
25 !
admitted.
c0cc-]cde:a{ cRepo:te:1, $nc.
'=,"O:"';2 ::::."
1060 077 (202) 247-3700 i
48 wrb/agb7 We believe that Contention Two is admissible 2
and we will consider that as a part of the hearing.
3 We believe that Contention Three, in general, a
4 is admissible and our exception to that is 3 (a), which deals with transmission lines.
We would be esoecially 6
pleased to hear argument both pro and con from the narties 7
on 3.A.
The rest of three, the other parts of three, 8
which have to do.with the effective use of this site and 9
the surrounding economy are adnitted.
10 The third line of C at this time we would 11 like to strike out the "and the transmission lines."
l 12 Contention Munber Poor, we believe vou are 13 l
conte.nding things which are more aporonriatelv handled at 14 a construction hearing, and therefore, we are ruling that
~
15 l Contention Four, having to do with the nining and milling 1G of uranium fuels, is not admissible at this point.
17 Contention Number Five, since we are considerinc l
18 only the suitability of this site and not the ability to 19 construct at that site, we do not believe that this is 20 admissible at this tine.and would like it to be admissible 21 in a construction permit hearing.
12 Contention Number Six, which is the need for 23 power, is likewise not admissible at thi stage in reviewinc 24 the suitability of the site for a proposed facility.
i 25 !
Contention Mumber Seven is clearly relevant to l
l l
c:Oce-]edera{ cSeportets, $nc dde NORTH C APf rOL. STR EET
/
W ASHINGTON. O.C.
20001 l V
()
l (202) 347 3700
49 wrb/agb3 the specific site and its ouitability and is therefore 2
admissible at this time.
3 Since we do not conduct our basic safety and 4
accident reviews at this stace but, rather, thev are con-5 ducted at parts of the construction hearing, we do not 6
believe that Contention Number I:ight is admissible at this 7
time.
8 Contention Number Nine concerning the effcct of 9
the plume on the surrounding area is innovative and inter-esting, and if it were substantive,'would be admissible to 11 at this time.
We think this is a contention that we will 12 need a show of substance concerning the contention which 13 will be developed as aopropriate.
14 !
And Contention Number Ten concerning the 1
l 15 i general field of the ecology associated with this site 16 is admissible at this time, endBloom 17 Landonflws 18 19 e
20 21 22 23 24 25 !
I i
l
&ce-9edeta[ Ocl: otters, $nc.
i 444 N O R Tit C APITCL STREET
/
- y O W A S HIN GTO N. O.C.
20001 g U U t)
//
(202) 347 3700
fic URD lWEL/wel 1 50 1
CIIAIR'1AN WOLF:
We'll proceed to the next 7.096 2
amended petition for leave to intervene.
3 The next petition, Mr. Bright will state the 4
Board's position.
11R. BRIGIIT:
This is on the Citizens Against 5
j Nuclear Power, and I assume it's !!r. Kodner I'm addressing 6
here.
7 8
liR. KODNER:
Yes, sir.
9 21R. BRIGilT:
I' d like to say, !!r. Kodner, 1
10 l that in general these are better than your average run of contentions in the way they're put forward, before we begin.
n II wcVer, Contention Number 1 deals uith 12 nothin.g but the demand for electricity, which the Board 33 i
I 34 ;
does not feel is a part of this hearing.
l l
Nunber 2, alternative sources of energy, the 15 i
B ard doesn't feel that this is a proper consideration at 16 this time.
Ue've been asked to look at the suitability of 37 this site to put a nuclear plant on.
This is different than ig the issue of alternate siting.
So number 2 would not be 19 applicable.
20 Nunber 3 is financial qualifications, which we 21 are n t charged with looking into.
22 Nunber 4 is rather difficult to come to grips 23 with, but this is not -- we will not come to any kind of g
uv r 11 cost-benefit balance as a result of this particular 25 i
i l
c4ce-9ede:al' cRepo:te:
One.
3, l
u nearu c.wirou sv.ccr j
q (v if wasiusarou. o.c. Zoeoi (202) 347 3700 L
51 wel 2 1
hearing.
That vill have to wait until all of the votes are 2
in at the construction stage.
But we feel that this 3
Particular contention, number 4, is not acceptable.
4 Mumber 5 has to do with rate increases and, 5
ch, boy, if you lived in the PEPCO area as I do, you could 6
certainly feel a lot of sympathy.
But that is beyond the 7
scope of this hearing.
8 Number 6, again we're talking about the 9
financial capability or the use of capital, and this really to has little to do with whether the site is suitable for ji construction of the plant.
So we say that that is not 12 acceptable.
i3 Mumber 7, in the opinion of the Board, is 34 not acceptable.
15 Number 3, the spent fuel problem, not only do g3 we not feel that this belongs in this hearing, but we have j7 been specifically enjoined by the U.
S.
NRC to not worry n3 about ultimate disposal.
This is not within our province, 19 CHAIRMAN UCLF:
It's not ui, thin our juris-diction.
20 MR. BRIGHT:
Yes.
This is not within our 21 jurisdiction.
22 Nunber 9 is much the same thing.
There is 23 nothing unique about this situation that would make us 24 believe that this particular matter would be within the 25 i l
1 l
c4ce 9edera[ chj:czters,.Onc 444 NORTH C A PITC I. STREET
.[
WASHINGTON. D.C.
20001 (202) 347 37C0
wel 3 l
52 1
scope of the hearing, and inasmuch as the Applicants have 2
withdraun the decommissioning finding, number 10 would be 3
beyond the scope of the hearing.
4 Number 11, same thing.
5 Nunber 12, this has nothing to do with the 6 l Site, so we feel that it is not acceptable.
i l
7 Number 13 has to do with reactor accidents.
8 We are at this hearing not considering accidents.
We have 9 i a typical plant, normal plant, that's operated in the l
l i
normal way.
At the construction permit stage we will talk 10 11 about accidents -- believe me.
12 Mumber 14, Price Anderson Act, here again i
13 we're talking about a number of things here, but the Price 14 Anderson Act is the law, and this is beyond what we think is allowable.
15 (
16 Number 15, indeed one can accept the statetaent 17 that Illinois has no federally-approved plan.
We don't 18 know whether that's a necessary adjunct or not of these 19 things.
We c' feel that by the time it comes around to the 20 construction permit stage, that kind of hearing, that this 21 is going to be spelled out in great detail, and we will all 22 be able to know what we're doing.
But for this particular 23 hearing, we do not feel that it is relevant.
24 l MR. KODNER:
Would you rather I submit our i
1 25 :
response in the brief?
I j
dlce 9ede:a[ c. Reporters, $nc.
444 N OR TH c A PtTot. STR E ET 1060 082
... _ To~.
..c.
(2 2)347370 i
we. 4 53 t
1 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
You're going to have the 2
opportunity to respond in a brief.
We've made this dec.mion 3
now, and you may respond as to those that we have turned 4
down in a written brief, giving the reasons why you think 5
they should be admitted.
6
!!R. KODNER:
If everyone else is put in the 7
same position of having to respond in a brief, we will do 8
the same.
9 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Yes.
Hell, that's the proced-l 10 ure we've set up for handling it, as to all the parties.
j I
11 MR. KODNCR:
I just wanted to note that the 12 Iowa PIRG's contention was allowed as to unsuitability of 13 a suitable evacuation plan being developed in the Carroll 1
l County area, and that our Contention 15 deals with the same.
14 i
15 DR. HOLTON:
Uhich contention', please?
l tiR. KODNER:
Number 15.
16 17 MR. GOGEL:
No, it's number 7.
18 MR. KOLNER:
I'm sorry, our 15.
19 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Was your understanding that it 20 was admitted?
My notes show that we said that emergency 21 plan is not a site suitability grastion, and that unti1 22 after the TMI-2 report no decision would be made.
':'his is 23 in connection uith the Iowa PIRG.
24 Uell, let's go back and amend that.
It was 25 read in error, apparently, i
l cAce-9edera( cReporteu, Dnc.
j O / f}
Q Add NORTH C APITOL STREET W AS HINGTON. O.C.
20001 I
b1
) ()
(202) 347-3700
wel 5 54 1
DR. IIOLTON:
I made the error on that.
I 2
should have said it is not admissible at this time, and we 3
want to reserve judgment on this until we receive the 4
benefit of the Three lille Island Humber 2 report, the 5
ceramittee that's working on that.
And we would like to 6
reserve our final judgment until we see the final reports 7
of the task force studying the Three !!ile Island Number 2, 8
that task force study.
9 So I was in error, and I did not read this 10 correctly.
11 MR. SCHMAB:
Is this statement in relation 12 to nunber 8 or number 7?
13 DR. I!OLTON :
Number 7.
14 MR. SCHWAB:
Uumber 7 by itself does no*
15 bring up any issues related to Three Mile Island.
Number 8 supplements it, but number 7 is --
16 17 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
No, we're just stating that 18 we're under an edict from the NRC not to consider the i
19 matter -- we, the Board
- until after tl}c Throe Mile i
20 Islann report.
21 fir. SCHWAB:
Consider the matter of evacuation 22 plans in general?
You're under --
CHAIP11AN WOLF:
Uc're under restraint by the 23 i i
24 Nuclear Regulatory Commission not to consider certain 25 things that are being investigated in connection with c$ce- ]cdeta[ cAejtotteti, $nc.
I
/:
h 444 NORTH C APITOL, STM EET f
W AS HING TO N. D.C.
20001 l
(202) 347-3700
55 wel 6 1
Three !!ile Island, and one of them is this question of the 2
cmergency plan.
3 MR. SCIIUAB :
Okay.
If Three !!ile Island were 4
completed, if that investigation were completed during the 5
course of these proceedings, and before those hearings, this 6
would then be admissible at that point?
7 CIIAIPliAN WOLF:
It would be admissible in any 8
event at the construction stage.
It will be a matter that 9
I would assume there will be several contentions regarding 10 emergency plans, becance it's an inportant question that 11 has to be resolved before a construction permit can be 12 issued.
i 13 :
DR. IICLTON:
And it might be admissible here, 14 depending upon the results of the rulings that follow from 15 ;
the Three :lile I.= land report.
l l
IIR. SC11 MAD :
That's what I wanted to point 16 l
17 l out.
I 18 ;
DR. IIOLTON :
Yes.
We're waiting for added 19 guidance.
20 MR. I;ODNER:
fir. Chairman, do I understand 21 correctly that our Contention Nurber 15 is also being held 22 pending the outcome of the Three Mile Island study?
23 CliAIR1AN WOLF:
Yes, that's what was intended 21 l when !!r. Bright made his statement.
But it doesn't mean 25 that we're going to hold up on the site suitability problem.
l l
che 9ede:af cReporters. Dn=
f
^t /'
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET b
W A S HIN GTO N. D.C.
2 001 I
l m.>.....
wel 7 56 1
!$. SEKULER:
Mr. Chairman, I have two 2
questions, if I might ask them now.
3 One is in regard to the scope of the briefs 4
that may be filed in response.
As CANP has made a pro-se 5
response, and traditionally Boards have allowed amendation I
6 l of contentions to bring them within the scope of 7.14 (a),
7 l would amendment of contentions by either pro se or by I
8 parties being represented by attorneys be appropriate in 9
briefs that we are filing?
10 CIIAIRMAN WOLF:
You mean a contention that has been disallowed?
it l
12 MS. SEKULER:
Yes.
If perhaps in order to 1
l bring it within the scope of the hearing.
13 l
14 (The Board conferring.)
i 15 l CHAIRMAN UOLF:
Well, it seems to me that i
the basic reasons for denying a hearing on that at this 16 i l
stage was that it was more appropriate in the construction 17 i
18 l stage.
So it seems to me to be difficult to take that 19 contention and try to work it back.
It's fundamentally not acceptable.
20 MS. SEKULER:
Well, perhaps if I ask question 21 number two, you'll understand why I'm asking question 22 number one.
23 l
24 l It has been indicated that the Applicant will withdraw number 8 and 131.
I believe that it could be 25 l
c4 e 9e.letaf cReporten, $nc.
" NEdo"ro7e cI zoo"oi bbh OO6 w
(202) 347 3700
wel 8 57 1 I contended that in relation to these issues, perhaps the 2
decommistc oning is a better one to talk about here, that l
it could be shown that some aspects of decommissioning might 3
4 relate to this whole site suitability study, or at least 5
an argument in that direction could be made.
6 CHAIR"AN WOLF:
I'm sure an argument could be i
7 !
made, but I might tell you that when vie went over this 8
matter we decided that both those items should not be
{
raised as contentions at this tine.
It was only out of 9
l 10 '
regard for the fact that the Applicant had, in effect, asked 11 l for it that we agreed to it.
i 12 l So I think basically they aren't contentions I
13 ;
that are to be made and de~cided upon in a site suitability 14 l
- matter, i
15 !
MS. SEKULCR:
I see.
And it's not that the i
16 j findings of fact, since they have been withdrawn, are 17 limited in scope, but the scope can go beyond the findings f
of fact that have been requested by the Applicants?
That's 18 19 my question.
If it is an appropriate issue for site 20 suitability review?
I I
21 CIIAIRMAN WOLF:
If it's appropriate to site 22 suitability, yes.
23 MS. SEKULCR:
Thank you.
l 24 1 MR. MILLER:
Excuse me, Mr. Chairran, might l
I be heard on both of'those subjects?
25 i
l acacica spacu. scc.
1060 037 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET I
W A S HIN G TO N. O.C.
20001 (202) 347 3700
58 wel 9 1
CIIAIRMA!! WOLF:
Yes.
2 MR. MILLER:
First of all, with respect to the i
3 amendment of the contentions generally, it scens to me that 4
the process that's contemplated by Section 2.714 gives 5
potential intervenors an opportunity, first, to identify 6
- any aspect of the proceeding that they wish to deal with 7
and then refining them into contentions af ter formal 8
negotiations with Staff and Applicants, and further amend-
's ments at this time the Applicants would be opposed to.
10 I think that the issues have been well under-11 stood by the parties to this proceeding.
The contentions, 17 l as Mr. Bright said, are, by and large, drawn quite specific-i l
ally and drawn so that all of us can tell what it is that 13 l
14 the people are trying to raise in this proceeding.
15 Ue would be opposed to further opportunity for 1
16 !
amendment of the wording of this contention.
I i
17 {
With respect to the findings --
l 18 i CIIAIRMA'I WOLF:
Well, the Board has indicated 19 to Ms. Sekuler that we felt it would be difficult, if not 20 impossible, to make an amendment that would bring it within the scope of early site suitability problems.
So 21 22 I think she understands that part of it.
~
23 MR. MILLER:
Yes, sir.
I 24 Uith respect to the question of findings 25 that are requested by the Applicants, they really do relate f
cAce 9edera[ cRepc:teu, Onc 1060 088
... ~ e... c...,x 5..
W.SHING ON. O.C.
20000 (202) 3 7.J700
59 wel 10 1
to virtually all the site suitability natters.
But as I 2
understand the regulations, it's really the proposed findingo 3
of the Applicant that shape the cope of the hearing.
If 4
the Applicant only wants to have a hearing on one issue, and S
the Staff is willing to go ahead, and the Board is uilling 6
to commit their resources, I think that would be it.
Then we haven't done that, but --
7 everything else would be 8
CIIAIR!!Mi ilOLF:
Yes.
11 ell, it may well be 9
that the Staff agrees with you, but the rules also say that to we, the Board, are not bound by that.
l 11R. MILLER:
Exactly.
Thank you.
11 l
CIIAIR!!NI 110LF:
Mr. Goldberg, do you have any 12 comment at this time?
13 l
I 14
!!R. GOLDDERC:
Mr. Chairman, I want to under-15 stand.
It seems that with Mr. Bright's decision on the i
16 !
contentions of CNIP --
l l
CIIAIRIINI ilOLF:
That's not Mr. Bright's 17 l
18 l decision.
It's the Board's decision.
19
!!R. GOLDBERG:
I'm sorry, I,!r. Chairnan.
Ilith 20 the Board's decision on their contentions, that they do not 21 have an acceptable contention, are they, nonetheless, 22 granted intervention, or has that intervention been denied?
CIIAIRMMI 110LF:
17e have one that we said was 23 l 24 a good contention.
25 IIR. GOLD 3ERC:
Ir. Chairman, I didn't understand l
I cAce. ]edera[ c:Aepciten, $nc.
444 N O 8t TH C A PITO L, STREET lj W A SHIN GTO N. D.C.
20000 4
(202) 347 3700
wel 11 60 1
the Board to make that ruling.
2 (The Board conferring.)
3 CI! AIRMAN WOLP:
Mr. Goldberg, it's the Board's 4
view that Contention 7 of Iowa PIRG and Contention 15 of l
5 l Citizens Against Nuclear Power are both in the same category, 6
awaiting the TMI report.
And on that basis, until we get
~
l i
7 the report we cannot make a final decision about those two 8
contentions.
9 l But both the Iowa PIRG and the Citizens 10 Against Nuclear Power are considered as intervenors until --
l at least insofar as Citizens Against Nuclear Power are 11 i 12 concerned -- until a final determination is made in that 13 regard.
i 4 I MR. COLDDERG:
I guess the Staff will reserve l
the right to brief the distinction that I think can be 15 I
16 drawn from Contention 15 of CAMP and Contention 7 1.5 the 17 i PIRG petition.
18 !
CIIAIRMAN UOLP:
You may do that.
19 l We'll move to the contentions of the Seato l
of Illinois, and for the first one --
20 21 MS. SEKULCR:
Excuse me.
Mr. Chairman, will 22 these be in reference to the contentions as they were originally filed, or do we have to make an official motion 23 :
l 24 l to have our anended contentions --
l 25 l CIIAIRMA!! UOLF:
As they were originally filed.
I I
c$ce-9edcia[ cSepotters, $nc.
/.
444 NORTH C A PITO L STREET W A S HlNGTO N. 3.C.
2000t (202) 347 3700
wel 12 G1 1
11S. SEKULER:
May I point out to the Board 2
that --
3 CIIAIR!IAN WOLF:
These are the ones you filed d
this morning that you're talking about?
5 MS. SEKULER:
These were filed in response --
6 well, as a result of two informal meetings held with the 7
l' Applicant and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff, in i
8 an attempt to further define the contentions and make them I
9 I a little more specific.
10 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Yes.
kThat 7'm asking you is:
i Is this the amended contentions that you've 11 i
i 12 !
served this morning?
l MS. SEKULER:
Yes, these were previously 13 14 l served by mail, but --
15 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Hell, what ones have you I
16 changed in the amended ones?
17 MS. SEKULER:
Uith your permission, I'd like 18 to go through and indicate the changes.
19 CHAIRMAN UOLF:
Defore we do that, I'd like 20 to comment, and say that I would like to request all parties 21 to this proceeding to number all pages and all papers that 22 are filed, and also to date, on the front page of every l
23 l paper that is filed, a date.
It would help us in our 24 perusal of the documents if you would do that, please.
I i
25 j MS. S"KULCR:
"urber 1 has remained the same.
I i
acc. acica cacnacu. s-1060 091 444 NORTH C A Pf TC L, STREET W A SHIN GTO N. O.C.
20003 I
(202) 147 3700
wel 15 64 1
was at the request of the Applicant.
2 CIIAIRI!AN WOLF:
The Board will consider that 3
contention in connection with site suitability.
That is, 4
Conte." tion number 7, as amended.
I 5 !
MS. SEKULER:
3 renains the sama as it was l
6 l originally.
7 l CIIAIRMAN UOLP:
3 is an acceptable contention i
8 !
for site suitability for this proceeding.
9 MS. SEKULER:
9 remains the same.
10 CIIAIRMAN UOLF:
9, the Board has determined 11 that that contention is a proper one for site suitability.
12 MS. SEKULER:
10 has been modified to reflect i
13 the recent order of the Illinois Commerce Commission, which i
14 j
resulted in a partial denial of the rate increase.
15 CIIAIRMAN WOLF:
The Board had determined chat l
16 ;
the amendment does not change the position that number 10 j
is not an acceptable contention.for site suitability hearings 17 18 MS. SEKULER:
Humber 11 has been amended.
It
.3 was the intent of the State in filing its, cost-benefit 20 and transportation contentions to have the uranium cycle 21 discussed as part of that cost-benefit analysis'in the 22 transportation effects.
Ue've amended 11 to be more explicit 23 l about our concern and, therefore, what was 11 originally 24 has become a sub-section of the new 11, and 11 in essence 25 deals with the various issues of transportation of nuclear l
4 c4ce-9ede:al &?epzten, $nc i
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W A SHINGTO N, D.C.
20001 i
(202) 347-3700
wel 16 65 I
waste to and fron the site and consideration of impact of 2
those parts of the uraniun cycle on the site itself.
3 CHAIRMAN UOLF:
The Board will rule on l
Contention 11 in its written order.
It will not rule at 4
i 5 l this time, as to its acceptability.
6l MS. SEKULER:
I believe 12 remains the same f
7 i as it was before.
That was our decommissioning one.
8 ;
CHAINUui WOLF:
The Daard has determined that 9
Contention Number 12 will not be heard in connection with 10 site suitability, and this is in view of the fact that the 11 Applicant is withdrawing its contention.
12 l MS. SEKULCR:
Number 13 has been altered only 13 in that we have changed the word "right-of-ways" to " rights-14 of way," and the last four words of the sentence have been
~
i I
15 l deleted.
I t
16 ;
CHAIN'Jul UOLF:
The Board determined that I
i 17 Contention 13 in the State of Illinois' list of contentions 18 is not acceptable at the site suitability hearings.
- However, 19 that matter, it should be noted, is a segious matter and 20 should be brought up at the construction phase.
21 MS. SEKULER:
Thank you, sir.
There are no other changes from our original submission.
22 23 CHAIRMAN UOLF:
The Board has deternined that 24 the contention set forth in 14 (a) is an acceptable 25 contention for site suitability.
However, the Doard has I
c$ce-]ede:al CAcyo: ten, $nc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W A S HIN GTO N. D.C.
2000t (102) 347 3700
wel 17 GG 1
determined that the contention set forth in 14 (b) is not 2
a contention which should be heard at the time of the site 3
suitability hearings.
C-1 4
VOICE FRO!1 TIIC AUDIENCE:
For the benefit of 5
the audience, would you please tell us what (a) and (b) 6 l are, because we have no idea?
l 7 i CI! AIRMAN UOLP:
All right.
This particular l
8 i contention is set forth in two parts.
I'll read you quickly 1
i 9 l what it says.
10.
"14.
Neither Chapter 3 nor 5 of the CCS-SS-ER l
11 discuss the impact on the environment of 'non-routine' or accidental radiological emissions into the ground 12 i
13 !
water.
l
" (a) There is no discussion of control 14 I
nechanisms to prevent leaks of radioactive materials 15 l
from being absorbed in the ground water."
16 I
f And as to that (a) contention, we say that 17 18 it is a proper contention to be heard in connection with 19 site suitability.
Then (b) reads:
20
" (b)
There is no calculation of the effects 21 of a 'non-routine' release of radioactivity into 22 23 l the ground water on:
I 24 i
'i.
drinking water sources
'ii.
recreation areas on the Mississippi River 25 t
(l2C?fCE$r Oc CC*
C CIA C 444 NORTH C APITCL STREET
,]
W A S HI N GTO N. D.C.
2000t i
- )
/
(IC2) 347 3700
G7 wel 10.
1
'iii.
grazing lands surrounding the plant 2
'iv.
the Mississippi River fish and 3
Wildlife Refuge 4
'v.
local agriculture l
'vi, local flora and fauna.'"
5 6
As to all of the contentions under (b), we 7
say that that should not be raised at this time.
- However, 8 l it might well be raised during the construction permit phase.
i 9 l MR. STEPTOE:
Mr. Chairman, we have some additional copics of the other parties' contentions and 10 i
l 11 with your permission we will distribute them.
I apologize i
l that we didn't do this sooner.
12 i i
i 13 !
CHAIRMAN UOLP:
Fine.
k 14 (Cocuments distributed.)
15 CHAIRMAN UOLF:
As to Centention'15, the Board has deternined that that contention is acceptable 16 ;
17 l in connection with the determinations to be made as to sita i
i 18 suitability of the property that the Applicant has 19 acquired.
20 As to 16, the Doard has determined that 21 Contention 16 is a proper contention for site suitability.
22 17,"...
Applicants have not discussed how 23 this application and site suitability review have been l
affected," and so forth, by the Three Mile Island event, 24 as to this contention the Board has determined that it is 25 i
\\
cAce LTedera[ CS ortcu, h Q
444 NORTH C A PITO L STR f? ET l/
i U O !]> 095 wassisoTOn. o.c. 2o04:
(202) 3 4 7-J700
wel 19 68 not a suitable contention for site suitability.
2 The last contention, 13, the Board has 3
determined that that contention is not a prcper contention 4
for hearings related to site suitability.
5 That concludes the contentions of the State 6
of Illinois.
7 As to the nupplement to the petition for leave 8 l to intervene by the Iowa Socialist Party, Dr. IIolton will l
9 state the Board's position as to those contentions.
10 DR. IIOLTON :
Looking at the contentions, I
11 :
number 1.a.(i) is in the same category as all of the i
l 12 l contentions concerning evacuation plans and, there fore, we 13 i will hold this in abeyance until we receive advice from the 14 Three Mile Island task force.
15 i Contention 1.a.(ii) is an acceptable I
16 contention and will be admitted.
That's concerning the i
17 l geological and seismic characteristics of the area.
18 Contention 1.b. -- and this is an economic 19 type of contention, but the contention is talking about 20 the economics of the area being negatively inpacted by 21 selection of this as a site, and on that basis it is 22 admissible.
23 Iumber 1.c.
is basically acceptable.
He do 24 i note that number 1.c. (i.'
is one in which you will need to I
25 I build conc substance there for that contention.
In other l
c4ce. Jede:af cAepo:ters, Snc.
1 444 NCRTH C APITOL, STR EET
, /
W A SHINGTO N. D.C.
20000 1 U V t)
U-(202) 347-3700
I wel 20 U
1 I words, we have some questions about this one in terms of the 2
ability to build a case there.
3 1.d. (i) is acceptable, again if it can be 4
demonstrated.
l l
And number 1.d. (ii) is not acceptable, as we 5
6 will not be considering accidents in this particular case.
I i
l Ilow, I went through this quickly.
Do the 7
8 parties have the rulings down?
9 11R. COGEL:
What about 1.c. (ii) ?
Ilhat did i
10 i you rule on that?
i i
DR. IIOLTO'i:
Ile ruled that that is an 11 i i
12 l acceptable contention if demonstratable evidence can support l
13 !
it.
I 14 l 11R. GOG2L:
So that is the same for 1.c. (ii) 15 and 1.c. (i) ?
16 DR. IIOLTOII:
Yes.
I'm sorry.
Yes, it is the i
17 !
same.
18 ITe rule that Contention number 2, which is 19 !
the need-for-power contention, is not ace,cptable in the l
20 !
context of an early site review, and we rule that Contention 21 number 3, which goes to the future of nuclear power, and 22 so forth, is not an acceptable contention for an early 23 site review.
I believe that concludes your contentions.
24 j 25 CIIAIR:IAII tiOLF:
!1r. 3right will give the l
l c4ce. ]edera[ cRepo:te:1, $nc j
444 NORTH C APITCL STREET i
W A SHIN GTO N. O.C.
20000 (2C2) 347 3700
wel 21 70 1
Board's position with regard to the Jo Daviess County Ad Hoc 2
Committee list of contentions.
3 MR. DRIGHT:
Our first finding is, if it's at 4
all possible, write on shorter paper.
5 (Laughter).
6 It sure makes it a lot easier.
7 MR. GOGEL:
Mr. Chairman, are there additional 8 :
copies of this petition?
I don't believe we have it.
9 (Documents distributed.)
Mr. Cox,'as far as the Jo Daviess 10 i MR. BRIGHT:
11 County contenti.ns are concerned, your contention 1, having i
1:2 I to do with the plant as a safe source of electrical energy, r
I 13 is a little off track.
We're assuming-that it's a safe 14 l source at this stage of the game.
It does have certain 1
{
normal emissions, and those we must factor in to this 15 i
16 situation at the construction permit stage.
Then we will 17 l see what accidents have to do with it.
I 18 !
How, on the basis of that, none of the sub-i l
parts of Contention 1 are acceptable to tpe Board.
19 20 As.to (a), uell I hcnestly don' t understand i
1 21 it, is ny problen.
This is just not the kind of thing I
22 we're trying to look at.
23 (b), again we have the energency evacuation
~
24 i plan, and we don't know how it's going to go.
We'll have 25 to put this on suspense the same way that we have.done with l
cAce-9ede:a[ cAepciten, Onc.
l )!Q 444 NORTH C A PITCt. STREET W ASHINGTO N. D.C.
20001 (202) 347-3700
71 wel 22 1
the other two intervenors who had this particular contention.
2 Now, when you say illegal discharges, I assume I
3 l you mean other than normal, and I fear that's not the l
standard that we're trying to review at the site review 4 '
I i
5j stage.
We certainly uill at the construction permit stage.
I 6
MR. COX:
When you say that these things 7 l don't apply to site review, but do apply to the construction, I
8 l and they're going into the record today, does this make 9
them contentions at that point, or will they all have to be 10 resubmitted crmally at that time?
11 i MR. BRIGHT:
I'll defer to the Chairman on i
12 that point.
l CHAIRMAM UOLF:
There will be a new hearing, 13 l
14 I and you will have to restate those contentions for the i
i 15 l purpose of that hearing.
I i
16 ;
MR. BRIGHT:
(d), the Board did not feel that 17 it was relevant, going into research efforts and whatever, 18 ;
in terms of whether the site was suitable or not.
It's I
i very difficult to draw a nexus there for,this stage.
i 19 Nou, your Contention II we accept as it is, 20 21 geological problems, seismic activity, construction and erection, and (d), which -- well, we think that 22 23 MR. COX:
When we reasoned our contentions, 24 insufficiency of research or information or data, things like that, we're doing that because we take the position 25 cAce 9ede:a[ cAeporters, $nc 444 NORTH C APITOL. STREET W A S HINGTO N. D.C.
20005 fl /
{
a O
v U
(102) 347 3700 i
wel 23' i
72 1
that we're not for or against this plant, and we're trying 2
to operate as an information group and still word 3
contentions that somehow put us into an adversary position.
4 But as to number (d), sub-part (d), we did 5 I agree to simply a change in the wording, which we could change on the face, unless there's an objection, on line 6
t I
7 !
2 of part (d).
8
!!R. BRIGIIT:
Ilow, which (d) are you discussing?
4 9 l 11R. COX:
2 (d).
f 10 11R. BRIGIIT :
We have n'o problem with 2 (d).
i 11 fin. COX:
He've agreed to this already, 12 i though, and could get it in the record if you want, that i
l 13 on line 2 of that contention we eliminated the word "and" l
14 !
after the word "by" and at the end, we elininated the word "in" and cubstitued the words "to cool. "
15 16 IIR. BRIGIIT :
So your changed reading is:
i 17 "The insufficiency of data regarding such 18 difficulties resulting from the heat created by the 19 water used to cool a nuclear power p,lant upon the 20 surrounding sand prarie area at said site, including 21 its pipeline corridor."
22
?!R. COX:
Yes.
23 f1R. BRIGIIT:
That's perfectly acceptable.
24 !
And indeed that was, in general, what wa were thinking i
25 about.
l cdice-]cdera( cReperters, $nc.
1Uo,0,
,00 1
1
..._,,,c.......,
f W A S HING,0 N.
O C.
20001 (202) 3 7-3700
73 wel 24 1
III, having to do with the background ecolog-2 ical matters, whatever, (a) we accept.
(b) we cannot 3
accept at this stage.
The emergency operation of the emergency core cooling system would, indeed, arise if we 4
5 l had an accident that required the use of the emergency core cooling system, and it's very difficult to consider that 6
7 at this particular time.
8 (c) is acceptable.
9 (d) is acceptable.
10 (c) is acceptable.
f (f) is acceptable.
No, pardon me.
Ilere we 11 l
go with " illegal contaminated discharges" again.
12 l
13
'iR. CO:':
Excuse me.
We can amend this to 1
14 where it will now read -- on line 2, eliminate the word i
" illegal" and everything from the comma on, after " Pool 13" 15 on line 3, and the remainder of the contention will remain.
16 17 11R. BRIGIIT :
Let me see, then.
You want to i
)
eliminate " illegal" --
18 l
19 l Z1R. COX:
Yes.
20 11R. BRIGIIT:
And then --
21 tiR. COX:
Deginning after the comma on line 22 3, after " Pool 13," --
23 CIIAIR21NI UOLF:
And eliminate all the rest 24 of it.
25 21R. BRIGIIT :
Very well.
As long as you l
dce-Ocde:a[ cAcyozie:1, $nc d44 NORTH CAPITCL STREET h'}/
]
/
W ASHINGTON, D.C.
20001 U a (202) 347 3700 e
wel 25 74 1
realize that the discharges you're talking about are normal 2
plant enissions, it is certainly acceptable.
3 CHAIR!1A1 WOLF:
Yes.
You'd better read that 4
now, as it's been changed.
Z1R. BRIG!IT:
So now it would read:
5 6
"The effect of the strong river current 7 !
upon the potential transportation of contaminated i
ai discharges into Pool 13."
-- which I assume is the i
I 9 i backup behind Lock number 13?
i I
10
!!R. COX:
Yes.
l 11 j 11R. BRIGIIT:
All right.
12 (g) the Board does not accept.
l 13 :
(h) we don't accept.
He have been asked to I
i 14 j look at a particular reactor system, and if it is suitable i
for that particular reactor system.
So on that basis we 15 i 4
l 16 j do not think that (h) is viable, i
17 !
IIR. COX:
Could I ask a question about (g) ?
i 18 l What's the rationale for denying (g)?
19
? !R. BRIGIIT:
We have never,-- we will take, 20 at the construction penait stcga, the environment as we 21 find it.
And if there's another plant up the road that is poisoning the atmosphere, or whatever it is they do, then 22 we must take that into account in our view of the new 23 I
24 i plant.
25 Idle speculation on, "maybe a plant will go i
c0cc.9ede:af cRep: ten. Dnc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STftEET f,.
4 h!
{
W A SHINGTON. O C.
2000t 4202) 3474700
75 wel 26 1
in here, maybe a plant will go in there," something like 2
that, that is nothing we try to delineate.
3 MR. COX:
We're not dealing with speculation i
l here, though.
There's a plant in Byron and a plant in 4
5 Cordova, and we're talking about overlapping circles of 6
radiation from existing sites.
I DR. HOLTOM:
Your contention says, "as contem-7 8 ;
plated by the Applicant."
Are these sites in operation?
i 9 l MR. COX:
No, we're talking about this plant 10 as contempleted.
The rest of them are e::isting.
11 :
MR. HOUART!!:
This site would be in addition i
12 to the pre-existing condition of radiation that now comes 13 out of these other sites, and the Applicant has proposed to 14 put more plants into this grid work.
15 DR. HOLTON:
The two plants we're talking 16 about?
i 11R. HOWARTH:
Yes, the two units, I guess, is 17 l I
18 the label we should be using.
19 IIR. DRIGHT:
Hell, that may,be true, but if these other places are going and they are having an effect 20 21 on the environment, then that effect must be taken into 22 account when this plant is reviewed.
But as to site 23 suitability, the Board cannot see how we could really go l
into it.
24 25 MR. CO:::
Okay.
I guess we can answer that l
&ce-9ede:al deporters, $nc.
} }[G
} }
444 NORTH C APITCL STREET W A S HIN GTO N, D.C.
20005 l
(202) 347 3700
76 wel 27 in our briefs.
2 MR. BRIGHT:
(i) is acceptable.
l 3
(j) is acceptable.
Was (j) particularly 4
directed at the cooling towers?
5 MR. COX:
Yes.
6 MR. BRIGHT:
Your Contention IV --
7 l MR. KODMER:
Mr. Chairman, I don't believe a 8
ruling was made on (h).
I 9 l MR. BRIGHT:
Yes.
I said no.
l 10 l IV, the Board is willing to accept as it 11 stands, all parts, (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).
That's 12 without ruling upon the specificity, but the idea certainly 13 is applicable.
l MR. COX:
Okay, we understand your ruling.
14 I
15 However, we have agreed with the Applicant and the NRC to 16 remove some of the items you've approved so far.
I f
Under III, sub-part (i) (2), we have agreed 17 l
to remove that.
18 I
19 MR. BRIGHT:
III(i) (2) ?
Th,ank you for 20 bringing that to my attention.
21 MR. COX:
That's an accident, again, so --
22 MR. BRIGHT:
(2) is not acceptable.
23 j Okay.
Contention V(a) (1) is not acceptable.
I 24 :
It involves transmission linee, which is not considered at i
this stage, as does (2), which again is transmission lines.
25 i l
cAce-9edera( cReptters, $nc.
" f " $ 'o c. 2 T
u60
! 0/1 4ss uoro (202) 347 3700
~
I 77 wel 23 1
(3) is acceptable.
I (4) is acceptable.
l 2
3 (5), again, we have the same problem as we discussed before, except we're taking it from the birds and 4
l applying it to the farm animals.
So number (5) is not 5
l acceptable at this stage.
6 MR. COX:
He have agreed in number (5) to 7
I make a language change, so just for clarification, in line g
I g l 3 after the word "of" place the word "the",
take out the i
word "more" and substitute " Carroll' County."
And in line 10 4, take out the word " plants," and substitute the word 11 I
12 l
" units."
l MR. BRIGHT:
All right.
33 (b) is acceptable.
14 l
(c) is not acceptable.
15 Contention VI.
16 I
l (a) is considering alternate sources.
The j7 l
Board does not consider that to be acceptable.
18 (b) is financial qualifications, technical ig qualifications, and the Board does not consider that to be 20 acceptable.
21 (c), again, is alternative scurces, which is 22 not acceptable.
23 24 j (d) is need for power, which the Board is i
not considering at this hearing, so it is unacceptabic.
25 i
dce-9ede:a[ cAeyotters, Onc.
444 NORTM C APITOL STREET 1060 105 waswmoros. o.c. :oOO-(102) 347 3700
l 73 I
wel 29 2
That applies tc all parts of (d).
All parts are unacceptabic, 2
(e) (1) is not acceptable.
3 (c) (2) is not acceptable..
4 (e) (3) is not acceptable.
5 (e) ( 4) is not acceptable.
6 (e) (5) is not acceptable.
7 l I might reiterate that these can very well be I
8 i considered at the construction permit stage.
9 MR. COX:
Could I ask one other question?
I l
10 believe you said that the contentions cannot be amended from 11 this point forward, is that correct?
i 12 l CHAIRMA'! UOLF:
Well, we ruled on the l
13 contentions.
If you respond to our order, and you can l
state it otheruise we can pass on it then.
But it seems to 14 4
me that, as I stated before, if the thing doesn't fall t'c :,
I within the category of a site suitability contention, it's
}
3,! -
17 going to be hard to amend it to bring it within that.
9 :h.1:
.,]
i 18 l That's what I said before.
19 MR. COX:
So, we would still be permitted to l
M..
20 amend, but they'd be subject to your rulings, of course?
4 7, >
2 'i,
21 CHAIR:'A'.I UOLF:
In your response you can give
_v
/S 22 authorities, amend, do whatever you think would convince us 23 that that contention is a viabic one under the site l
suitability hearing.
24 25 IIR. COX:
Thank vou.
l
- c. Ace-9edeta[ cRejw:teu, nc.
l 444 NORTH C A PITOL STREET Q
W A SHINGTO N. D.C.
20001 (202) 347-3700
79 wel 30 1
MR. BRIGHT:
I believe that concludes it.
CHAIRMAN WOLF:
That takes up all of the 2
contentions at this point.
3 As we stated earlier, the Board will put out 4
i 5l an order stating in effect what we've said here regarding the contentions, and each party will have the opportunity 6
to submit a brief as to why the party believes that th0 7
i contention that was accepted was not acceptable, or why the 8
I i
one that was rejected was acceptable.
9 Now, do you have some comment, Mr. Kodner?
to,
MR. KODUCR:
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
As is Mr.
g, Cox, we are new at this game, and we had not participated 12 i3l in an early site review before.
Due to our limited man-I power and resources, we decided to concentrate on certain y
l aspects of the proceedings as submitted by Commonwealth i
15 Edison and the other utilities, and, in particular, the 16 I
demand for power and the possibility of the evacuation plan.
j7 Now that those things have been withdrawn 18 and we nay not be allowed to raise any contentions as put 39 forth in our amended petition, we'd like to move that we 20 could anend the petition one more time.
Now that we know 21 which direction we can channel our resources in, we'd like 22 to have 1 cave of the Board to re-anend our petition to 23 include contentions so that we may more adequately 24 l
participate in the proceedings before this Board.
We made 25 cAce 9ede:a{ cAeporten, Onc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET WASHINGTON. O.C.
20001 (202) 347-3700
wel 31' i
30 1
a judgment before that, to us, the most important thres':old 2
issue was the --
3 CHAIRMAN WOLF:
Yes, I know.
You surely have 4
the right to make a notion to do that.
Why don' t you go 5
ahead and make the motion when you submit your response to 6.
the order, and at that time we'll pass on it.
And at the l
7 l time you make the motion, submit whatever contention you l
8 want to stand on.
9 We can't draw it out forever, but I think to,
that would not hold the matter up 15 you did it that way.
11 MR. KODNER:
Thank you.
12 CHAIR".AN UOLF:
Now, we have accomplished two of the main purposes of our meeting this morning.
I'm 13 i
14 l assuming, in going forward at this time, that if we can 15 i finish the parties would rather finish right now than to I
i go to lunch and come back for a half hour or so.
Perhaps 16 '
I i
l we can finish in less time than that.
17 i
18 The thing that we have to do now is to l
determine when we can meet again, and questions about 19 i
20 discovery, and that sort of thing.
21 So, Mr. Steptoe, do you want to comment on that?
22 23 l MR. STEPTOE:
Applicant believes that 24 l discovery should commence as soon as your order issues.
25 As for meeting again, I think that depends c4cc 9e.:! era ( cAepo:te: Snc.
444 NORTH C A PITOL ST8t EE r W AS HINGTON. D.C.
20000 8002) 3 47.J 700
81 wel 32 l
l on Staff's schedule for completing the Draft Environmental 1
2 Statement and Safety Evaluation for the site suitability 3
aspects of this matter, and that might be an appropriate 4
time, once those are completed, to --
5 CHAIRMAN UOLP:
IIasn't the Staf f completed 6
that?
You mean we're at a hearing where they haven't completed the documents needed?
7 i I
MR. GODDARD:
That is correct, sir.
The 8 i t
i Staff at this point contemplates the issuance of a site 9 l t
i lo safety evaluation report appro::imately June, 1980.
It r
l also expects to issue its Draft Environmental Impact li l
Statement on the site in June 1930.
12 13j CIIAIR"AN UOLF:
Are you telling us that you i
14 won' t be prepared to go forward until 1980?
i I
15 MR. GCDDARD:
That is precisely what I'm 16 telling you, sir.
Those are gross estimates, uhich wo hope we can comply with at this time.
17 ;
18 i CIIAIRMAN WOLF:
Uhat's the comment of the 19 Applicant on that situation?
e (Laughter.)
20 MR. MILLER:
The Applicants are flabbergasted.
21 Frankly, Mr. Chairman, going back again to 22 the representations that were made in the application with 23 respect to the need for power, those were based on 24 i
understandings that ue had that the Draft Environmental 25 i
&ce-Jede:a[ cScyctleu, $nc.
I 444 NORTH C A PITO t. STREET 106I) 109 waswiuoTou o c. 2 coo-(2C2) 347-3700
wel 33 82 l
1 Statement, at least, would be forthcoming in late summer or 2
carly fall of this year.
And while we understand that there
~'
3 has been some delay in the licensing process because of the 4
agency's requirements in dealing with the aftermath of the 5
Three Mile Island accident, nonetheless this comes as quite 6 ;
a surprise.
7 I I think that the parties can still continue 8
to go on and engage in discovery, so that the issues are 9
ripe for decision once the Draft Environmental Statement 10 is out.
But what I think I'm hearing is that after the l
Draft Environmental Statement is out, it then is circulated 11 12 and comments received, and a Final Environmental Statement l
13 would be prepared.
That, in my experience, is at least 14 another five-months process.
So we're talking about a
,j i
15 Final Environmental Statement on site suitability issued at 16 the end of 1900.
17 I don't know what to say, obviously, we have 18 no control over it, but we stand ready to assist in 19 enpcditing that process in any way that we can.
20 MR. COX:
Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would 21 move to stay these proceedings until all the information a
22 that can be made available to people like myself, who really 23 don't understand that there are issues at this point, is 24 available.
If the ::RC Staff hasn't completed that work I 25 l don't know how I can proceed in trying to get involved in l
cAce-9ecl era { cRepo:ters, Snc.
444 NORTM C APITOL STREET l
W A SHINGTO N. O.C.
20001 l
(202) 347-37CO
l wel 34 03 1
discovery, and things like that, when I don't have that 2
information.
3 CIIAIRIIAN tiOLF:
IIell, I don't think that motion I
4 is well taken.
It's a problem in proccdure that we have 5
j here, and we're going to give you full opportunity to get I
6 information.
I don't think any motion is necessary in that 7
regard.
l 8 ;
IIR. COX:
Mcll, my motion is procedural, and l
l 9 j I'm asking that the proceedings be stayed until we have an t
I 10 l opportunity to review that information.
1 11 !
CIIAIRf1A!! 170LF :
Dut we can't pass on it now, 12 because wo don't know what the situation is.
13
!!R. IIILLER:
Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to 14 respond briefly to tir. Co::'s motion, because there is a 15 l multi-volume report which details the Applicants' evaluation 16 of the site, and the factors that go into the deternination 17 of the site suitability.
There's backup material to that l
which may be of interest to him.
18 i
19 I assume that, notwithstanding this rather 20 clongated schedule that we've just heard from the Staff, 21 that they have work in process regarding the site evaluation 22 that would also be available to the parties for discovery.
23 So the process can go ferward, even though i
24 !
these formal documents are not going to be issued for scme RB fis 25 time.
I cAce-9ede:a( c.Repo:te:
1, Onc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET
/
j W A S HI N GTO N. D.C.
20003 g V U L) 5 1 5 (202) 347-3700
I 84 flwsLandon ICUrb/agbl ttR. COX: Hold it.
You're suggesting discoverv 2
go forward but not be closed until such time as --
3 MR. MILLER:
Yes.
4 MR. COX:
I don't know how to rescond to that.
5 7,ve never been involved in these before but I would think I
6 !
what we asked would be slightly unreasonably to deny to i
7 l the public who are asked to be Intervenors in these hnarinas 8
at their own expense and not have available to then the 9
information the United States Government has sunplied, 10 but to require then to proceed in discovery without having i
l all the available information at hand.
That's the basis 11 12 ;
of my request, t
13 C!%IR'!AM HOLP:
Mr. Miller, I would be interested I
9' 14 l in inquirina when have vou connieted vour submission of vour i
l information, your environnental report and so forth to 15 16 MRC.
17 MR. MILLER:
Let ne see if I can assist, i
i On April 5, 1979, there was a letter to 18 16 !
Dr. Denton from Cordell Reed, Assistant ;7 ice-President, 20 Connonwealth Edison, requesting that there be an earlv site 21 review conducted.
But I believe there were earlier 22 submissions.
23 Excuse ne if I night just consult for a second.
24 (Pause.)
25 I'n inforned that there was a subnittal nade to cAce. 9ecle:a[ c. Rep:: ten. Dnc.
444 NORTH C A PtTot. STREET
- j) l W A S Hs N GTO N. O.C.
2000f
[ }
() 'J l I L-(zoa) s47 avoo i
85 1
wrb/agb2.
the Staff in December of 1978. And the Comnanv was informed 2
in April of this year that the submittal was accentable 3
for tendering as an application.
That was done on April A.
4 There have since been two amendments to the 5 J environmental report.
The latest is August 24, 1979, but 6,
l these deal with relatively minor matters of detail.
So 7
l the y,lication has been on file since Acril of 1979 8 1 itR. GODDARD:
If I may complete the answer to 9
that question, Mr. Wolf.
10 CI!AIRMA?! MOLP:
Mr. ? tiller, the Roard has not 11 received copies of that.
Are we on the list to get then?
12 l
{
f tR. IIILLER:
I certainly hone so.
And if not, i
13.
I can represent you will be getting them.
14 i
PtR. GODDARD:
'tr. Molf, since the submission i
15 !
i by the Applicant, therchave been two suonlements to the i
16,'
site suitability environmental report.
Those are submitted 17 I
under cover lettersdated June 22, 1979 and August 24, 1979.
18 !
CIIAIRMAN MOLP:
Mr. Miller mentioned that.
19 MR. GODDARD:
I don't believ'e he did.
20 MR. MILLER:
I did mention the most recent one.
21 MR. GODDARD:
Also, on June 27, 1079, the 22 fuel load for these units was delaved bv acproximatelv one 23 year, I believe.
24 l
At this point, I think it is only accronriate 25 l
that I state for the record that the Staff will not issue cAcc-]cdeta[ cRepciters, $nc 444 NORTH C APITOL 1TREET jh/]
jjQ I U b Il l lJ l
wA S HIN GTO N. D.C.
20003 Mo2) 347-3700
}
l R6 I
wrb/agb3 a site suitability Safety Evaluation Report until nuch nore 2
of the information relating to TMI-2 is available for 3
release.
4 In response to Mr. Cox's motion, I would like to 5
state that.the Staff has no intention of proceeding to a 6
hearing until such time as the documents are iscued.
To the e
7 !
extent that new matter was presented or made available in l
8 i
those Staff docunents, these would serve as a basis either I
9 for new intervention, if appropriate, or for additional 10 contentions by admitted Intervenors for good cause shown.
11 I l
We are not suggesting that the hearing nroceed 12 '
prior to the issuance of the documents.
Also additional 13 j
questions are in the process of being fornulated for 14 suhnission to the Anolicant on the question of alternative 15 :
sites.
The answers to those cuestions will he made a 16 part of the document.
You should receive copies of those.
17 So there will be a continuing supnlying of information to 18 l
all of the interested parties in this case.
'9 CHAIRu N MOLF:
Hell I don' t* think Mr. Cox's 20 motion is well taken.
He don't intend, the Board does not 21 intend to proceed until all information is available.
It 22 is not the procedure of any Board to do that, so there's 23 no reason for such a notion and it is overruled.
24 I think that we should go ahead with discovery t
25 and continue the process until all the infornation is I
4
- CfCllCU, f2C, CC*
C CN 444 Non1H C A PITOL STREET OU [ 1)
W A SHI N GTO N. D.C.
20001 (202) 347 37C0 a
U
R7 wrb/agb4 assembled.
And we will request recorts fron time to time 2
about the progress.
I 3 !
In the meantime, we'll get out the order 4
regarding the contentions.
We expect to hear fron the 5
parties regarding their view of the rulings that have been s
6 made as to what are accentable or not accentable contentions 7
Are there any other natters that we should 8
discuss at this time?
9 f 1R. KODNER:
fir. Chairman, you stated, if I am tol paraphrasing you correctly, that discovery would be connlete d 11 upon the subnission of the environmental renort, the draft 12 Environmental Impact Statement and any other documents
' 13 l which have to be sumitted by the NRC Staff.
If I'm under-i l
standing you correctly, could discovery continue for at 14 15 least a period of 30 days thereafter, so ve have an 16 opportunity to examine --
17 CI!AIPftAN WOLF:
If there are problens, surely i
18 we can, in view of the elongated procedures that we're 19 faced with, 30 days won't natter much.
But you can noint l
that out to the Board, if there is that kind of necessity.
20 21 Any other natters that should be discussed?
22 Tir. Miller?
I 23 itR. !! ILLER:
Mene for the Annlicant.
~
24 CI! AIR' TAN WOLF:
Mr. Dubert?
l 25
?t2. DUBERT:
Mothing.
I dce ]clcta[ cReporters, $nc.
444 NCRTH C A PITOL STREET W A SHINGTON. O.C.
20001 d202) 347-1700
98 wrb/agb5 CIIAIR!!AM WOLP:
Does'the Staff have any natters?
ftR. GOLDBERG:
No, sir.
CIIAIR"A?! MOLP:
Btr. Cox? -
ItR. COX:
Mothing further.
CIIAIR'!AM UOLF:
?ts. Schuler?
6
?!S. SEKULER:
ftr. Chairman, we just have onc 7
question.
At the time that petitions for intervention were 8
filed in this proceeding, there was also a Federat neriister 9
notice requesting comments on the advisability of the early 10 site review of the Carroll County Station.
I was wondering if this has been taken under advisement, if there will be 12 any Board ruling coming forth after having read any of 13 the comments that were received.
They 'cere not notions,
$3 i
14 they were just comments.
I don' t know how inany ccanents I
15 you received, but the State did send one in.
16 CIIAIRMAM MOLF:
I've seen the State's, but l
I have not seen any others, 17 i
l 18 !
MS. SEKULER:
We were just not sure what cart 19 in this proceeding those ccr.ments would nlay.
20 CIIAIR:!AN UOLP:
Uell, we looked at then and 21 they go to -- are weighted into our conclusions regarding 4
22 the matter.
I don' t think there is any other way of statina 23 !
it.
f 24 Any further cuestions?
l 25 !
(:Io response.)
8ce ScNe:af c.Scyotle:.1, $nc.
I 444 NORTH C A PITol. STREET
[
/
0 i
W ASHINGTO N. O.C.
20000 (202) 347 3700
89 1
wrb/agb6 CIIAIR"A?! 0.'OLI':
If not, we'll adjourn sine. die.
7 (Whereunon, at 1:n5 n.n.,
the hearina in the 3
above-entitled matter was recessed, to reconvene sine die.)
4 5
l 6
7 l
8 i
9l 10 l
11 '
12 i i
13 l 14 I
15 !
i 16 17 I i
13 19 20 21 i
l 22 I
23 I
i 24 l l
- 2) l l
I c4ce-9edera( cAeporters, $nc 444 NORTH C APITO L STREET W A S HIN GTO N. D.C.
2000f (202) 347 37CO