ML19257A234
| ML19257A234 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000514, 05000515 |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1979 |
| From: | Bordenick B, Bowers E, Hastings W Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001030142 | |
| Download: ML19257A234 (74) | |
Text
NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Docket No.
et al.
50-514 (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant 50-515 Units 1 and 2)
CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES Place.
Portland, Oregon Date -
Wednesday, 19 December 19 79 Pages 1 - 71 1666 115 E
a i Teleoncre:
(202)347-3700 ACE - FED ERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporters 444 North Ccpitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE - D AILY p q g 3 ()
. - -?
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRR690 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 4
In the Matter of:
Docket No.
l 5
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al.
50-514 6{
50-515 j (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant 7'
Units 1 and 2) 8l-------------------x C3NFERENCE CF THE PARTIES 9
I Columbia Room 10 Sheraton Inn 8235 North East Airport Way 11 Portland, Oregon 9 7218 12 Wednesday, 19 December 1979 e
13 The conference of the parties was convened, pursuant to
- jnotice, 14 at 9:00 a.m.
!BEFORE:
15 i
16 MRS. ELIZABETH BOWERS, ESQ., Chairperson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 17 l l
DR. WILLIAM E.
MARTIN, Member I
18 d DR. WALTER H.
JORDAN, Member 19 il 1 APPEARANCES:
20 l
WARREN HASTINGS, ESQ., Portland General Electric Company, 21 121 Southwest Salmon Street, TB 17, Portland, Oregon 97205; on behalf of the Applicant.
i I
22 BERNARD BORDENICK, ESQ., and WILLIAM PATON, ESQ., Office 23 of Executive Legal Director, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.
C.; on behalf of the NRC.
24 co Feceral Reporters, Inc.
1666 116 25 l
I
la CR8690 1
APPEARANCES (CONTINUED) 2 LLOYD MARBET, 19142 S. Bakers Ferry Road, Boring, Oregon 97009, J.
CARL FREEDMAN, and ERIC STACHON ;
3 on behalf of Forelaws on Board (Intervenor).
4 RICHARD SANDVIK, ESQ., Department of Justice, 500 Pacific Building, 520 S.W. Yamhill, Portland, Oregon 97204; 5
on behalf of the State of Oregon.
6' 7
1666 117 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 AceJederal Reporters, Inc.
25 I
i
CR 8690 2
WHITLOCK t-1 mte 1 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
MRS. BOWERS :
On the record.
3 First I will introduce the board.
I am Elizabeth 4
Bowers.
I am a member of the Kansas Bar.
I have been 1
5 involved in federal administrative hearings for over 27 years, the 6:
fhrst 15 years as government counsel and the last 12 or so years l
7'I as presiding officer under various titles.
I have been in i
8 this program 7-1/2 years.
l l
9 You know Dr. Martin, on my right, chief ecologist i
I 10 for Battelle Memorial Institute at Columbus, Ohio, theenviron-l 11 mental scientist.
And you have met Dr. Jordan on my left, 12 ;
former Deputy Director of the Laboratory at Oak Ridge, and 13 also professor at the* University of Tennessee.
He is a 14 l physicist.
15 One thing I think is kind of interesting about the i
i 16 g board today:
we are essentially westerners.
I am from Kansas.
Dr. Jordan's home state is Montana, and Dr. Martin's I
is home state is Texas.
So we are all from west of the li
!?
I I would now like to call on the parties for appearance's.
20 l 21 MR. HASTINGS:
Mrs. Bowers, I am Warren Hastings.
I l
22 represent'the applicants.
I an an attorney licensed to 23 Practice in the state of Oregon.
With me on my left is i
24 Mr. Swanson of the company's generation licensing department.
l Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. SANDVIK:
My name is Richard M.
Sandvik.
I am i
I i
1666 118 i
l l
mte 2 3
1 Assistant Attorney General with the State of Oregon.
My 2
address is 500 Pacific Building, Portland, Oregon, 97204.
I 3
am representing the State of Oregon in this proceeding.
I I
4 MRS. BOWERS :
Thank you.
5 Please call me Mrs. Bowers.
Otherwise, you get hung i
l 6:
up on all sorts of peculiar things.
i 7'
MR. BORDENICK:
My name is Bernard M.
Bordenick.
l 8
I represent the NRC staff.
I am a member of the Bar of the i
9, District of Columbia.
With me today on my left is i
I 10 i Mr. William D.
Paton, who also is an attorney.
He is a member 11 of the Bars of the State of Maryland and the District of i
12 !I Columbia.
He will be entering a written appearance in this d
13 proceeding, probably some time next week.
14 And on my right is Mr. Richard Froelich, who is the t
15 staff's environmental project manager for Pebble Springs.
i h
16 ll MRS. BOWERS :
Intervenors?
17 MR. MARBET:
lbs. Bowers and members of the board, i5, my name is Lloyd Marbet.
I represent an environmental organi-U Zation known as Forelaws on Board.
With me on my left is i
20 j Mr.
J.
Carl Freedman, who is co-representative of Forelaws on j
l l
21 l Board in this state Pebble Springs licensing proceeding.
And 22 l on my right is Mr. Eric Stachon, who is the representative of 23 Forelaws en Board in the Skagit nuclear siting procedure.
24 MRS. BOWERS :
Thank you.
I An-FMeral Reporters, ine.
l 25 Going to the business on hand, on August the 30th i
i 1666 119 l
I i
mte 3 4
1 there was a notice of reconstitution of the board because of 2
illness of the prior Chairman.
I was appointed as Chairman 3
of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for the Pebble Springs 4
proceeding.
5 On November the 16th, the board got out a memoranda I
l 6:
and order concerning a conference scheduled for December 19th.
7 Now, that followed a conference call between the Board Chairman i
8' and all the interested parties.
The order starts out by l
9 stating the time and place; and then the purpose of this I
l 10 conference is to discuss schedules, the status of the State of 11 !
Oregon proceeding, and the status in this proceeding of certain l
,2 open items, namely:
alternate sites, financial qualifications, 1
h
~
13 !, Appendix I, Riverbend generic safety subjects, need for power.
14 [
Members of the public are invited to attend, but the l
15 lh!
I
, limited appearances will not be received at this conference.
[
d l
a 16 ;j This was published in the Federal Register on November 23, 44 Federal Register 67253. Starting with our laundry list, unless I
iE the parties and participants have any objections, we would like ;
o U
t 19 to follow that.
First let me check.
Does any party want to i
20 F make an opening statement?
Mr. Marbet?
l h
i 21 l MR. MARBET:
Madam Chairperson, I jist want to note lfortherecordthatwedidnotreceiveacopyofyourorder 22 23 on this proceeding, and I don't know what happened.
But if it 24 hadn't been for the fact that I became concerned and called Am.FMeraI 9eporters Inc.
25, the state attorney, we would not have had the final order on this.
I 1666 120 l
l l
mte 4 5
1 MRS. BOWERS:
I just gave my copy of the service list 2
for that order to the reporter.
But I know it shows you as 3
being serviced.
4 MR. MARBET:
I was not serviced.
I would note that i
Mr. Freedman now is on the service list for the Nuclear 5 'l i
I i
I 3
6f Regulatory Commission staff, and he didn't receive it, either.
1 7!!
MRS. BOWERS :
You are listed as 19142 South Bakers b
g; Ferry Road, Boring, Oregon, 97009; is that correct?
I d
g ll MR. MARBET:
That's correct.
i 10 i MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Freedman is not listed.
So I
11 !
Mr. Freedman, if you will give me the full information on you, i
12 l this won't happen again.
d l
13 l, MR. MARBET:
Would you like that for the record now?
4 MRS. BOWERS :
Yes, please.
I i
15 MR. FREEDMAN :
My name is J.
Carl Freedman, i
l 16 '
F-r-e-e-d-m-a-n.
I live at Box 553, Cannon Beach, and that is 97110.
is,
MRS. BOWERS:
All right.
I am sorry, Mr. Marbet.
h 19 MR. MARBET:
I just thought I would bring it to your 20,
attention.
21 l MRS. BOWERS :
Thank you.
As far as I know, there 22 was full service according to our service list.
Did you have 23 anything further, Fr. Marbet?
24 MR. MARBET:
No.
co Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MRS. BOWE RS :
Does any other party want to make an i
i n
I i666 12l l
mte 5 6
1 opening statement at this time?
2 (No response. )
3 If we have no objections, we will start with No.
1, alternate sites.
And we would like to bring to your attention 4
5 that the NRC staff on November 21 issued a draft supplement 6'
to the final environmental statement, which deals with the 7
reevaluation of alternate sites for the Pebble Springs nuclear I
8 plant.
Do you want to speak to that, Mr. Bordenick?
j 9
MR. BORDENICK:
Yes, Mrs. Bowers.
As you have 10 indicated, we on the staff issued the draft supplement to the 11 b final environmental statement related to the construction of 1
12 l the proposed Pebble Springs nuclear plant.
I believe the i
13 ; of ficial issue date was November 21.
Now, the corment period l
l 14 on this draft supplement will expire on January 14th.
Like the i l
15 draft environmental statement, the original draft environmental il 16 statement in this proceeding and other similar proceedings, t
this document has been sent to various interested federal, state i
ig and local agencies for comment.
The federal, state and local I
b l
19 bodies are listed on the small Roman numeral I, page 1.
i 20 g Today we have not received very many comments, time N
21 being fairly early.
So at this point we have no way of knowing l 22 lhow extensive the comments are going to be.
It has been the l
23 staff's custom in the past and will be the custom in this case 24 if necessary to extend the comment period on request for an l
Au-Fderal Recorters, Inc. !
additional 15 days I
so that anyone seeking a 15-day extension 25 I
i i
i 1666 122 l
mte 6 7
1 will in effect automatically get it.
And that would take us
,down to the end of January, assuming the comment period is 2
3 extended.
Using standard staff scheduling assumptions and 4
assuming we get a fair amount of comment, which, as I have 5
indicated, at this point we don't know how extensive the com-I I
6 ments are going to be, the staff will need approximately 12 1
1 7
weeks to put out the final supplement, which principally will I
l 8
address the comments received on the draft supplement.
l 9
So, using those standard assumptions, we have calcu-I I
10,
lated the final supplement to be released some time around the 11 {I end of April of next year.
Now, one way cur the other, the i
12 ;
staff, of course, will move the final supplement into evidence 0
I n
13 p in tris proceeding.
The unknown question, at least from~the b
14, staff's point, is whether or not any of the other parties or j
i the board intend to litigate any part of the final supplement.
15 3
I 16 h When I speak of the board litigating, I am more accurately -- I more accurately should say whether the board iE would have any questions regarding the final supplement.
n
?
i 19 In terms of final hearing dates, if there is a need i
20 a to hold evidentiary hearings on the final supplement, Isuppose!
I 21 l under 10 CFR 2.74 3 (b), if the final supplement is issued at I
22 l the end of April, we could go to hearing roughly May 15th, 23 assuming that is not a Saturday or Sunday.
Now, if -- and I 24 think this is something that the board might want to develop Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 further from the other parties this morning -- the question as 1666 123 l
l
mte 7 8
1 to whether or not we are going to have contentions from the 2
parties or board questions on the final supplement -- but if 3
there is no need to, quote, " litigate," quote, the alternative 4
sites question, I think we can go to hearing on the remaining 5i environmental matters much earlier.
And I will address those I'
6i as I get to them, in the order listed in the board's order.
7 So that my suggestion with respect to No. 1 on the 8; board's order, alternative sites, is that the board inquire of i
l the parties what their intent would be at this time with respect!
9 I
10 to the final supplement and/or whether the board is anticipating 11 questions that will require an evidentiary hearing.
12 l MRS. BOWE RS :
Thank you.
Let me check with the j
13 j parties.
Mr. Hastings?
n 14 [
MR. HASTINGS:
The alternative site question, of 15 l]l course,
is an issue which the staff raised and asked that we il s'
161 reconsider on the issue.
And we reviewed the alternate site
~
study which has been submitted by the staff, and we would feel iE, there is no need to go to a hearing on it.
i!
19 MRS. BOWERS:
Mr. Sandvik?
20 g MR. SANDVIK:
Mrs. Bowers, while I can't commit at l
21,
this time, I seriously doubt whether the State of Oregon would i
22 l request an evidentiary hearing on the alternative site issue.
23 MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Marbet?
24 MR. MARBET:
We have not completed our review of the Au FMetal Reporters, Inc.
l 25 alternative site study.
So it is premature for us at'this point!
1666 124 l
i
mte 8 9
1 to comment on whether we would have any contentions to raise on 2
the study or not.
I would point out, though, that we are inter-3 ested in seeing what the comments will elicit, and could change 4
whatever position we take 'a er on in this proceeding.
5p MRS. BOWERS :
Usually the comments received are 6, published in an appendix to the final environmental statement.
7 Will that be true here, Mr.
Bordenick?
i 8
MR. BORDENICK:
That is correct.
9 MR. HASTINGS:
Mrs. Bowers, in reply to something 1
1 10 Mr. Marbet said, I would indicate that if Mr. Parbet feels that he 11 and associates are going to hhve contentions to raise, then i
12 ( perhaps it might be wise today to set some kind of a time
'l l
131' schedule on which the matter could be resolved.
I4 MR. BORDENICK:
Before Mr. Marbet speaks, could I ll 15 [ put one more question to him?
Iwanttoverbalizemyassumptionj U
i 16 or my understanding of what Mr. Marbet said.
If in fact, l
Mr. Marbet, we don't receive any extensive or significant com-l i
IE ments from the various federal, state and local bodies that we o
U i
'9 have sent a copy of the draft to, is it my understanding that, 1
I 20 > at least at this time, you don't think you would raise any r
li 21 y contention with respect to the a' ternative site analysis?
i i
22 l MR. MARBET:
No, that's not what I have stated at all.
I 23 The record will show that we have taken an interest in this 24 matter as it related to, for instance, the West Roosevelt site, I
Am FMera1 Reporters, lnc.
25 ; which was proposed by Pacific Power & Light across the river.
l 1666 125 l
l
mte9 10 1
We have not finished the review of the study, and I can explain lthe reason for that.
To a large extent, it has been our 2
3 involvement in the state proceeding, which is occurring at the 4
same time that this proceeding is going forward.
Most of our 5, effort at this point and resources are involved in the state I
6i proceeding. Until we have some better understanding of what the 7, scheduling and the requirements will be for this proceeding,
,1 8'
I would point out that I think it is premature to set a time l
9 period for contentions on this without having some understandingl i
10 t of what the final statement, environmental impact statement, will li l
I 11 I look like.
12 ;
MR. BORDENICK:
In response to,that, Mrs. Bowers, I ji 13 j would sinply say, I would substantially join Mr. Hastings in i4 urging that the board consider setting some date this morning O
15 p af ter -- that is after the comment period closes and/or after d
16 " the final supplement is out, for Mr. Marbet to indicate what, l
l if anything, he wishes to litigate with respect to alternative j
I iE ; sites.
In other words, I don't think it is critical that he I
M have contentions this morning.
But I think it would be well i
20 to set some future dates for him to advise the board and the i
I l
21 ' parties, particularly the staff, as to what he wants to contest I
22 as to the altern5tive sites.
i 23 I would assume that if we don't get extensive comments!
I 24 that the final supplement is not going to differ very much from l Ace.Federai Reporters, Inc.
25 what everyone has in their hands this morning in the draf t 1666 126 l
c
mte 10 11 1
supplement.
2 MRS. BOWERS :
He doesn't know that.
3 MR. BORDENICK:
I understand.
4 MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Marbet, do you think 30 days would 5
be a reasonable time to submit contentions?
i 6l MR. MARBET:
I would agree with 30 days, if that is 7
based upon -- contingent upon the submittal of the final EIS.
l 8l MRS. BOWERS:
Yes, rather than the comments, when l
l i
9' the staff issues its final.
10 MR. MARBET:
Yes.
I 11 I (Board conferring. )
I 12 !!
MRS. BOWERS :
There would be a discovery schedule set n
13 p up, depending on the ruling on contentions, if contentions are it admitted.
I
,N 15 g MR. MARBET:
I would appreciate that.
I d
16 MR. BORDENICK:
Mrs. Bowers, in an attempt to help 7
principally Mr. Marbet and the State along, the staff will l
commit this morning to sending in the comments as they come in,'
io, F
!9 as we receive them, so they will have an advance look at the i
1 20 comments.
1 i
l 21 ]
MRS. BOWERS:
But until they know what you do with them i
i l
MR. BORDENICK:
I agree, yes.
But as I understand 22 i
23 Mr. Marbet, the ccoments are going to be fairly significant as a l
?4 factor in his decision as to how he is going to proceed.
I u FMerW Reponer., ine.
25 MR. MARBET:
Mrs. Bowers, in order to help facilitate!
h l
1666 127 I
mte 11 12 I
the concern for scheduling, I would represent to you today that 2
we would be willing to begin to start our cliscovery now, as we 3
move forward, in order to prevent having an ellongated discovery 4
period after the comments come in, if that is all right with the t
5 staff.
We would appreciate receiving the comments as they come 6 I in, but I don't know how the staff would treat them in the finalj l
7 We are not interested in delaying this.
We would like to have i
i 8I all the information in front of us, and we can begin doing that !
l 9
now.
10 l MR. BORDENICK:
I would also add, and I think i
II Mr. Marbet would agree with me, on the past on other issues the 12 staf f and Mr. Marbet have engaged in wliat I would call informal.
il 13 U discovery and it has been fairly successful.
And we would be l
Id agreeable to doing that.
All Mr. Marbet has to do is call or 15 l write me and I will give him anything within reason that has to l l
16 !
I i do with alternative sites.
l
'7 MR. MARBET:
I appreciate the staff's presence in i
5 this proceeding.
g 1C
' ~
MRS. BOWERS:
That would be helpful, and the board 20 !! thinks it is a good idea for you to proceed on any matters that j-2I l you can, not waiting until after the final statement comes out l i
22 lto have something further.
23 MR. MARBET:
Thank you.
MRS.
BOWERS:
Do you have anything further on l
2#
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 I
. alternate sites, Mr. Bordenick?
i i
1666 128 1
1
mte 12 13 1
MR. BORDENICK:
I don't, Mrs. Bowers.
2 MRS. BOWERS :
Does any other party?
Mr. Hastings?
3 MR.
HASTINGS:
No, Mrs. Bowers.
4 MRS. BOWE RS :
And Mr. Sandvik?
e-1 5i MR. SANDVIK:
No.
6' MRS. BOWERS :
Before we leave alternate sites, at 7, some point we want to talk about the state proceeding.
I 5' don't know whether it is appropriate to break that out and talk 9
about separate subjects or just to let them go.
I am sure t
I 10 the state proceeding is very involved in alternate sites.
I 11 Perhaps it would be better to wait and talk about the state l
i 12 i, proceeding later.
13 Mr. Sandvik?
14 j MR. SANDVIK:
Well, the state siting standards don't b
15 i require extremely detailed inquiry into alternative sites, and il il 16 4 there hasn't been any in-depth work on that issue performed in r
the state proceeding.
It might be best if, after we cover the i
I specific agenda, I simply give you an update, to be corrected ic.
h I
'9 or modified by other parties, as to the status of the Oregon i
20 i proceeding.
l 21 MRS. BOWERS :
Fine.
22 MR. BORDENICK:
Perhaps I spoke prematurely when I 23 said I had nothing further on alternative sites.
I don't want 24 to appear to be pressing the board, but I was curious as to l
&FMeral Rnsters, inc.
I I
25 j whether the board was going to give us any indication this I
i i
1666 129 a
i
mte 13 14 1
morning as to whether they had any questions or they were going 2
to wait until the final supplement was out and related questions.
3 as to whether they were interested in viewing any of the prime 4
alternate sites, that sort of matter.
5i (Board conferring.)
6, MRS. BOWERS :
Dr. Jordan has a comment on that.
7 DR. JORDAN:
Regarding questions, I had not formu-i 8i lated questions as yet on the document.
It is a fairly I
9 extensive document.
I have spent some time with it, naturally.'
i i
10 l I note that there are a fair number of differences between the l a
l i
11 staff's positions, say, and the applicant's, particularly, for 12 i example, with respect to the West Roosevelt site, the merits 13 of the West Roosevelt site, say, compared with Pebble Springs.
il 14 So that I think that if we do go to hearing, there niay be 3
0 15 lt questions along the lines of why the staff felt that the
!I o
16 applicant's efforts in these matters was deficient or in
{
l
~
error, such things as that.
l iS But I would presume that that would constitute the c
o
'9 major portion of the questions, if I indeed have any, and it i
20 f is still early for me to say for sure.
l 21 DR. MARTIN:
I find myself in a position similar 1
22 to Mr. Marbet.
I haven't finished my review.
I do have l
23 questions, some of which may be answered as I continue reading 24 the document.
I think I can assure you that this board member wremuumnu i. ine.
25 will have some questions left over when he reaches the end.
i i
1666 130 l
k
mte 14 l
15 m
1 MR. BORDENICK:
I would certainly agree, it is still 2
fairly early, and the board, as everyone else, only recently 3
received the draft.
But to the extent that the board finally 4
does have any questions, I think the staff would be apprecia-5 ;1 tive of receiving those at the earliest possible time, so we i
6 can address them well in advance of any hearing.
7 MRS. BOWERS:
Well, we will follow that, the same 8
sort of procedure that Mr. Marbet suggested when he is firm i
9' in his mind that he has particular questions based on what is 10 before him, now that that will be transmitted to the staff for l
N k
11 l service.
12 Do you have anything further on it, Mr. Bordenick?
g ll l
13 H MR. BORDENICK:
No, hks. Bowers.
14 Shall I proceed with financial qualifications?
15 MRS. BOWERS:
Fine.
O 16 0 MR. BORDENICK:
Before speaking specifically to l
l financial qualifications, perhaps what I am going to say now i
is i is in the nature of a preliminary opening statement, which i
19 perhaps would have been better put earlier.
But in any event, 20 p I will state it.
21 For all practical purposes, at least, the staff is l
22 ! back in the posture of dividing up this case between environ-i l
23 mental and safety.
The applicant, as I understand it in the i
24 past and as I was informed by Mr. Hastings this morning, is a FWerat Reporters, inc.
25 requesting -- and the staff certainly has no objection to the i
d i666 131 c
mte 15 16 1
req 1est -- that we try to close the record on environmental 2 ; matters as soon as reasonably possible, and that the board 3
proceed to issue a partial decision on environmental matters.
4 So that the bulk of my preparation for this prehearing was 5 o related to the environmental side.
!I l
6j As to the safety side, I will simply say I am not i
7' in a position this mcrning to give any kind of information on i
8 l schedules.
I am sure everyone is aware of the situation with 9
the NRC in general and with the staff in particular with l
l 10 l respect to licensing activities subsequent to the Three Mile 4
11 ! Island accident.
It will probably be a while before staff is 12 q able to give me any information, and I in turn am in a position 13 [ to give the board and the parties information as to when the
., staff's safety review will be completed.
i 15j I think it is fairly safe to say it will be a little n
i o
16 j while, given, for example, that once the staff turns to specific
" cases, Pebble Springs is not going to be high up on the list, is. The cases high up on the list obviously will be the cases that I
h.
19 are waiting operating licenses, cases that are matters where 20 p construction is under way.
Where Pebble Springs will stand i
i 21 ! in its class I don't know yet; that is, cases where the appli-1 l
22 cation for construction permit still stands.
23 So I will specifically speak to the two items on l
1 24 'the board's list.
But in general as to safety, I am afraid it Aa FMerat Reprters, ine.
25 !is a long time before we can even consider when we will be i
1666 132 L'l i
mte 16 l
17 1
able to close the record on that.
That is in the nature of a 2
preliminary statement.
3i DR. JORDAN:
Before we leave the topic, I guess I l
4 would like to address the applicant.
I presume there will be 5 ' some supplements to the PSAR that will deal almost exclusively l
l I
6l with the changes in the design, the results from the Three 7
Mile Island.
So does the applicant have any notion as to when 8
he might be submitting these revisions to the PSAR?
9 MR. HASTINGS:
In the first place, Dr. Jordan, we
- 10. recognize the problems that the Commission has which arose out 1
i 11 of the Three Mile Island incident.
I did propose to I
12 i Mr. Bordenigk and to Mr. Sandvik the splitting of this pro,
?;
'l 13 h ceeding into two parts, one dealing with environmental issues
- 4 and one dealing with safety issues, because of the Commission's e
15 posture in granting licenses relating to Three Mile Island.
I 16 :
What we would like to suggest is a schedule that 3
would close the environmental issues in the earliest possible ic time frame.
And we were thinking of attempting to arrive at i
'9 a time frame for the rest of the proceeding which would result 20 in a construction permit in the -- in November of 1980.
So 21 we would have whatever has to be filed, filed before that time.
i 22 MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Marbet?
23 MR. MARBET:
I would like to ask the applicant a 24 question.
You say a construction permit by November 1980.
Is Ace Federat Reporters, Inc.
25 that contingent upon the resolution of both environmental and i
1666 133 I
l i
l
mte 17 18 1
safety issues by that time?
2 MR. HAS TINGS :
That's correct.
It is also resolution 3
of the state licensing proceedings and also any nuclear i
4 initiatives.
5 MR. IIARBET :
May I ask another question?
Are you l
6' applying for --
l 7i MRS. BOWERS:
Will you please address-the questions I
I 8
to the board, and then we will ask the applicant.
9l MR. MARBET:
I am sorry.
I am interested in knowing 10, whether the applicant is pursuing a Limited Work Authorization i
i l1 Permit.
12 MRS. BOWERS:
Mr. Hastings?
13 MR. HASTINGS:
No, we ars not, Mr. Marbet.
~
i la MRS. BOWERS:
Let me raise a question that may cause n
ll 151 this happy family to disappear.
Mr. Bordenick, the State of l
16 jOregon will do what it wants to do and what it feels it must do.
But going back a number of years to Northern States and iE the preemption by the Federal Government on health and safety I
h I
19 issues, Monticello, and also recognition by the State of 20 l; Maryland and the State of New York in more recent years that l
l 21 the state was preampted to inquire into health and safety f
I 22 ' issues, that both of th6se states limited themselves to environ- !
23 mental issues -- as I look at the report from the administrative 24 law judge on the state proceeding, the state does intend to Ace.Fecieraf Reporters, Inc.
l jinquire into health and safety issues in its proceeding.
I 25 i
i 1666 134 l
mte 18 19 1
Does the staff have a position on this?
2 MR. BORDENICK:
As far as the state proceeding, we 3
have no position on the state proceeding.
I will just stop 4
with my previous statement.
I, like the board had mentioned, 5
in the state proceeding, principally from the standpoint of how
!I
'l 6:Iit might impact schedules in this proceeding, I have noted that.i i
I 7
But the staff is not a party to the state proceeding.
And l
l 8 ' assuming we disagree with anything the state says or does, we i
I 9
are not going to challenge what they do or say.
l 10 MRS. BOWERS:
I think in the past, as I mentioned, 11 Maryland and New York -- this is in recent years, but not the J2 h immediate past -- both states recognized that they did not have 9
il 13 l; on board expertise, or available to them as consultants in the 14 area of health and safety, and that is the reason that they y
15, didn' t fight it.
Now Minnesota did years ago.
AndIdon'tknowl 16 [ their thinking, but it is just that there was no challenge by l
" the state.
And these were joint proceedings, and joint pro-i5 ceedings for environmental issues.
l 19 And then NRC was scheduled to do its own separate e
20 jl issue on health and safety.
And as I started out 4 saying, j
i
\\
21 l the State of Oregon will do what it determines it should do and
+
i 22 will proceed.
23 Mr. Sandvik, was this considered?
24 MR. SANDVIK:
What was the question?
Was the Au FMeral Reporters, Inc.
j 25 question of preemption considered?
We considered it on 1666 135 I
mte'19 20 1
probably a weekly or monthly basis.
But we don' t worry about 2
it too much.
3 (Laughter.)
4 We realize there is a grey area of preemption.
In 5.
fact, we are participating in an amicus capacity in the appeal l 6
of the Pacific Legal Foundation in California, where the 7,
federal district court struck down the California waste r
8l disposal laws as unconstitutional, and we are opposing that l
i l
i i
9' result in the Ninth Circuit.
l 10 l We operate under a statutory charge to exercise 11 l state jurisdiction to the maximum extent possible under the I
12 U.S. Constitution.
And since the courts haven't been able to I
'l 13 h articulate what that limit is to our satisfaction, we view it u,
as limitless until told otherwise.
h 15 ;
MR. HASTINGS:
I might add on behalf of the i
16 't applicants that the applicants are attempting to satisfy both h
Caesars.
l ic ;
(Laughter.)
i-19 MRS. BOWERS :
Don't forget Caesar's wife.
She's the i
20 one you have to worry about.
l 21
~
(Laughter.)
i 22 I want to make sure I understand.
Mr. Bordenick, i
23 you have spoken to financial -- well, the health and safety 24 issues in Appendix I.
l n Feeral Regmrters, Inc. l l
25 !
MR.
B ORDENICK:
I haven't specifically addressed l
l l
1666 136 i
i I
mte 20 21 1
those.
I just gave a preliminary statement.
I would like to
, proceed on financial qualifications and simply state, with 2
3 respect to that, first by way of summary:
Back in June of last 4
year, the staff presented testimony through Lou Gittleman on 5 lo financial qualifications.
And unfortunately, I had to leave 6
this proceeding to go to another proceeding and I wasn't present!.
7 But my understanding is there was some question as to whether l
8 l that testimony was timely filed.
And I think the way things 9
were resolved was that cross-examination was not completed.
10 ;
Some other things may or may not have happened, but in essence i
~ i 11 !
all:that happened last year is now moot, because since the 12 l question of financial qualification arises under the Atomic i
t h
l 13 ;i Energy Act, it is a safety matter and it will be, along with
- 4 everything else, deferred.
l 15 !
And I will simply say that at the appropriate time,
- I l
0 i
16 when we go forward with completing the safety record, by
~
virtue of the passage of time, Mr. Gittleman's testimony of iE last June will be stale, if you will, and we will be presenting '
l 4
what the lawyers call de novo or new financial qualifications 20,' testimony at the appropriate time.
21 l So in sum, I guess I am saying as to financial 22 j qualifications, that goes into the safety area, my suggestion l
23 is that the board not burden itself further with that question 24 this morning.
It is highly premature.
l A&Faferal Remarters, Inc. l 25 l
MRS. BOWERS :
It may be premature, but I noticed l
1666 137 I
mte 21 22 y
on page 4 of Judge Bergen's report that there is still five 2, percent of Unit 1 and 15 percent of Unit 2 uncommitted.
MR. HASTINGS:
That is not quite correct, Mrs. Bowers.
3j I
4 The agreement between the present co-applicants provides there 5
is an additional 15 percent that can be made available to 6
utside parties, and provides that if that is not taken up by i
7 outside parties, that it will be redivided among the three l
1 8[existingco-applicants.
So the entire matter is actually 9
committed.
i f
10 There has been some discussion in taking in an 11 ll organization known as Pacific Northwest Generating Company.
I 12iBut that has not been finalized yet.
I I
I 13 MRS. BOWERS:
My experience in another proceeolng a, where a cooperative wanted to buy in 15 or 20 percent of the 15 lplant, that it took many, many months for REA to take a final j
I il 16 position on the loan guarantee.
I i
e MR. HASTINGS:
That's correct.
I think the situation l
- g here is that the cooperative feels that it should wait to see
's whether the appropriate licenses are granted before making a 20 !: final commitment to join the present co-applicants.
l O
ll 21 p MR. BORDENICK:
Could I make a statement?
I know I
i 22 the case that you alluded to was Marble Hill, and I think l
23 Marble Hill, the Marble Hill proceeding is distinguishable l
t 24 from this one in that in Marbic you had committed coops who l
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25.were applicants.
Here, as far as the staff is concerned, the l
1666 138 i
i
mte 22 23 1
Pacific Northwest Generating Company is not an applicant.
What 2, their plans are and what Portland General Electric's plans are 3
is really their business.
The only thing I would reiterate --
!4p I have said it several times in the past, I know -- is that 5'
the applicant has been put on notice by the staff that if I
6 ownership interest is transferred during the pendency of these 7
proceedings, it will affect the whole ballgame.
We would have 8,
to renotice, redo need for power as to these new people.
So l
9l at least for the staff's purposes, I am content to take t
e 10,1 Mr. Hasting's representation that the coops are awaiting tl i
11 licensing of Pebble Springs before they Jump in.
12 That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be post-ij
~
i 13 h licensing activities related to any sale.
But for present M
purposes, the staff in effect is proceeding o n the assumption j
15 ll 8
( that we have all present owners as applicants.
And if the 0
16 situation changes before the record is closed, on certain j
a i
l issues we go back to square one.
l
.i ic,
MR. HASTINGS:
We are aware of the renoticing L
I M
requirements and the assignability of the license provisions 20 under the Atomic Energy Act.
However, the co-applicants are j
l l
21 l willing -- they are a very willing o~f co-applicants, and the I
I 22 coops have a right to state their positions.
23 MRS. 50WERS :
I notice in Judge Bergen's write-up 24 he says that all co-owners would be co-applicants.
l Ace Federal Reporters. Inc.
l l
MR. HASTINGS:
In this proceeding and in the state 25 i
l 1666 139
mte 23 24 1
proceeding, we have treated Pacific Northwest Generating 2
Company as a potential co-applicant and have produced testimony 3
regarding them, so that the record could be considered complete 4
either way.
5 MRS. BOWERS:
I don't want to be picky-picky, 6'
Mr. Bordenick, but in bhrble Hill there really were two new 7
co-owner co-applicants.
One was located outside of the service l
8, area of Indiana Public Service, or whatever it was called.
l l
9 The other was within, a cooperative within.
Now, the board i
10 renc ticed.
But after we renoticed, the utility in Kentucky, 11 which was completely outside of the primary applicant service i
12 l area, withdrew.
i 13 And so what we were faced with was a situation where c
la/ no new geography, no new people, were brought into the proceed-15 lj ing.
l 3
The cooperative's area was completely within the primary ii 16 E, applicant's area.
And so we went ahead.
17 But if we had been dealing with adding a geographical u
is area and new people, then that would call for renoticing.
e F
e-2 19 MR. BORDENICK:
I agree.
The only distinction I i,
20 ! was drawing between this proceealng and Marble Hill -- you may I
i 21 have had some shifting going on, but here all we have is a l
l 22 l discussion of Pacific Northwest Generating Company considering 23 purchase of ten percent of Unit 1 after that unit is licensed.
24 In Marble Hill, they may have had all sorts of factual ramifi-mFMerat Reporters, Inc.
25 l cations.
But as I recall, one of the main issues there was i
i l
1666 140 l
mte 24 25 i
1 the applicant and the staff disagreeing on whether all appli-2, cants had to be co-owners, co-applicants.
3lI MRS. SOWERS :
Co-owners had to be co-applicants.
4 MR. BORDENICK :
And the licensing board ruled yes, i
i 5 ' upholding the staf f's board, and the appeal board ultimately i
6' upheld that.
But I was indicating that would also apply here.
l7i But for present purposes, the staff in effect does not consider I
I 8,
Pacific Northwest Generating Company -- can't consider them as 9 ll
, an applicant.
We haven't been advised that they are a n i
i 10 '
applicant.
I 11 l What they propose to do after the fact is really l
i 12 their business.
i.
0 13 j MRS. BOWERS:
Let me check with other parties.
I M
Mr. bbrbet?
15.,
MR. MARBET:
hk s. Bowers and members of the board:
il l
M This issue disturbs me to no end, the reason being is that
", the nature of the state proceedings is such that Pacific i5 Northwest Generating Company is considered an applicant.
We I!
have examined the issues of need for power and financial 20 o ab,ility from the standpoint of their being represented as such.
21 h And what I find in this proceeding -- and this is an issue 22 ! that we raised in the last hearing that we had, that I can 23 l remember -- was that the staff -- there should be some repre-l l
24 sentation made as to what their status is.
co-Federal Reporters, Inc. I 25 Now, what appears to be appearing here is that the i
l 1666 141 i
i
mte 25 26 1
company is representing for purposes of this proceeding that 2
they are not an applicant.
I don't know how the Regulatory i
3 Commission should treat this.
It seems to me that it is a 4
misuse of resources to allow this kind of a situation to occur 5
some time later, in which an analysis should be going forward l
6 now instead of later.
i 7
MR. BORDENICK:
Could I briefly respond by pointing 8
out to Mr. Marbet -- I don't like to deal with speculative 9
scenarios, but let's make the assumption that the present i
10 ' applicants-owners receive a construction permit forUnits1andl 11 '2 and after that they decide to sell whatever interest they 12 l! decide to sell to PNGC.
At that point in time, the staff would n
t\\
13 h renotice.
There would be additional reviews.
14 But there is no way that I know of that the NRC h
I 15 d can require anybody to be an applicant to a proceeding, which l
b 16 !f it seems to me Mr. Marbet -- that is his complaint.
I have i
", only tried to state the f acts as they are.
The fact is that 15 PNGC is not an owner-applicant at this time, as has been l
i:
i 19 represented to us by Portland General Electric counsel.
I don'tj i
20 9 see any choice but to accept that representation, and I have Fl l
21 li simply tried to point out that the staff 's reviews have l'
I i
22 l!, proceeded on the facts as the are, namely, PNGC is not an l
{ owner-applicant.
23 I
24 MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Sandvik, how come they are involved l An FMeral Reporters, inc.
I 25,in the state proceeding?
i
,i 1666 142 i
mte 24 27 1
MR. SANDVIK:
Perhaps that question should be 2
addressed to Mr. Hastings.
We treat matters similarly to the 3
manner in which Mr. Bordenick describes the NRC treats matters.
4 We have in essence four applicants for the Pebble Springs Evidence was presented as to l
project in the state proceeding.
5' 6 ! the need for power of those four applicants, as to the finan-l 7;
cial ability of those four applicants.
So the Siting Council 8 j took what was presented to it and took evidence on that.
9, I don't think I am the appropriate person to try l
10 !
and explain any discrepancy between the quantity of parties j
I i
11 l I
in the two proceedings.
12 l M RS. BOWERS:
Mr. Hastings?
13 MR. HASTINGS:
I would say this:
They are basically 14, separate proceedings, under different rules.
The situation l
15 [ insofar as this proceeding is concerned, Pacific Northwest i
L 16 0 Generating Company is presently not a co-owner.
We have had l
'7 discussions with them on coming into the plant.
As I mentioned!
l ic i to you, they feel it is to their best interest to see what i
P l
M happens as a result of this proceeding.
In view of that, they l
l l
20; cannot be classified, under your law and regulations, as a j
I l
21 y! co-applicant.
l 22 On the other hand, the materials and discussions 23 that we had with -- in part with PNGC were made a part of the 24 state record.
The state elected to go forward with PNGC on A&FMeral Reporters, inc. I l
i 25 ' that basis.
I
~
l 1666 143 I
mte 27 28 1
(Board conferring. )
2 MRS. BOWERS :
When we get to a point that we are i
3 considering in an evidentiary hearing financial qualifications, 4
that is when we will hear statements under oath as to exactly 5!
what the situation is.
6i MR. HASTINGS:
I might say, Mrs. Bowers, diat we l
7 had a prior hearing on this question before, as Mr. Bordenick 8
indicated.
At that time we did produce testimony and witnesses 9
not only on the financial qualifications of the present i
l l
10 l co-applicants, but also PNGC.
Mr. Marbet at that time f elt I
11 !
that he was not ready to cross-examine, as I recall, and I
i 12 ;
Chairman Yore set the matter over.
He did give him an oppor-y n
13 h tunity to cross-examine.
l l
14 h But as Mr. Bordenick indicates, that was about a O
I 15 lI' year ago and that will have to be updated.
But the record l
I 16 0, does have information in it regarding PNGC.
o P.
MR. BOWERS :
Let me check with the parties before i
i5 i I check with the board members.
Anything further on financial <
l' 19 qualifications?
20!!
MR. MARBET:
I think we are in limbo as to haw this I
21 ultimately becomes resolved.
It sounds now -- and I do remember; i
22 that it is true, there is some record on PNGC.
But now I have 23 no understanding as to how that applies to this proceeding, 24 because the applicant seems to be representing that they are l
AwFMetal Reporters, Inc.
25 not a part of the proceeding at the same time that they are i
I 1666 144 1
mte 28 l
29 1
attempting to put information in the hearing on it.
This 2
reminds me of what happened in 1976 in this proceeding, when 3
the applicant, after this hearing was closed, changed ownership 4
of portions of the Pebble Springs plant and never told the 5
board, and we were forced to come in with a motion to reopen 6!
the hearing.
7 We are always getting kicked around for the so-called, j
t 8 !
delaying of process.
But it is exactly this kind of a problem l
t 9'
that makes this reoccur.
i 10 MR. HASTINGS:
May I reply to that?
11 MRS. BOUERS :
Fine, Mr. Hastings.
i 12 i MR. HASTINGS:
The first thing is that Mr. Marbet h
II 13 g is misstating the record.
The record does indicate that as 2
14 soon as the new owners were taken in, the board and the parties g
15 l were notified.
i I
16 'l The second part of the proceeding, the second part 9,
of the matter, is that it is true that Mr. Marbet did make a i
However, the fact l
IEl; motion thereafter to reopen the. record.
l
'9 of the matter is as soon as the agreement was signed all O
i 20 1 parties were notified.
21 As I say, I feel there is nothing -- anything i
22 divergent in the manner in which we are proceeding.
The 23 board has been kept advised that there is this other party 24 that does exist, that has shown an interest in coming into the AwFMetal Remrters, Inc.
l plant.
And we have attempted to provide the information 25 1666 145
mte 29 30 1
regarding:that party.
2 I f Mr. Furbet feels that is improper, he can move 3l to strike the evidence as irrelevant.
l 4
MR. SANDVIK:
Mrs. Bowers, this is not on point.
s.
5' I need to excuse myself for about five minutes.
But I would I
I 6,
prefer to have the prehearing conference go forward.
I have 7
matters to attend to.
But I don't feel that I would prejudice 8
myself if I absent for five minutes.
I I
I 9;
MRS. BOWERS:
We need to take a mid-morning break, 10 so why don't we take five minutes now.
I i
11 (Recess.)
12 MRS. BOWERS :
Back on the record.
i U
13 l!
Mr. Hanchett?
Is Pz. Marbet in the hall?
14 Mr. Hanchett is an information officer from our e
l il i
15 p San Francisco of fice.
So the press and the media will be l
!I 16 referred to him for all matters.
17 We were discussing financial qualifications.
But j
15 maybe we have talked about it as much as can be talked about
'?
at this time.
20 MR. BORDENICK:
I would agree with that, Mrs. Bowers.'
l 21 MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Ibrbet is shaking his head yes.
n 22 'i So now, does the board have comments to make?
DR. JORDAN :
No.
I think there is nothing that the 23 24 board can do at the moment.
We can wait and see what the
&FMerat Reporters, ine.
l l
25 l developments are when the staff comes up with a reappraisal.
1 I
l j
1666 146 l
mte 30 31 1
I presume, as you said, there will be a reappraisal, and this 2, will undoubtedly come out as a supplement, then, to the SER.
3 MR. BORDENICK:
Yes, Dr. Jordan, it will be 4
Supplement 6.
The way I visualize it, Supplement 6 will 5,
probably be thicker than the original safety evaluation report. i i
6; DR. JORDAN:
Very likely.
l 7
MRS.
BOWERS:
There would be an amendment in the S i PSAR showing a change in ownership if there is a change of I
9' ownership?
i 10,
MR. HASTINGS:
If there is a change of ownership, 11 yes.
12 !
MR. BORDENICK:
- Right, li 13 MRS. BOWE RS :
We can go on to Appen~ dix I, 14 ' Mr. Bordenick?
O 15 d MR. BORDENICK:
Yes, Mrs. Bowers.
On that, I 16 i believe the board had indicated they had some questions, and t
i if they are prepared to state those now or if they would l
IE, like to hold for a few moments, I can finish the remaining I
19 items fairly quickly and we can get them out of the way.
i 20 " Whichever way the board wants to do it.
l 21 DR.
CORDAN:
The matter of Appendix I was raised, 22 of course, in this learning long ago, as to how they met i
l 23 Appendix I.
And the board did have questions at the time.
t think the questions were concerned with whether l' 24 / At that time, I a FMeraf Rnerters. Inc.
l 25 it had been adequately handled in the final environmental l
l 1666 147 I
mte 31 32 1
statement.
But I think that the questions that we have raised 2, most recently are the only ones that remain serious, at least 3
in my mind, and that is that it appears to us that in comparing 4
the applicant's and the staff's analysis of the dose to the 5
population, there seems to be major discrepancies.
And the I
t i
61 letter from Chairman Yore I believe pointed out what we felt 7
the discrepancies were between the analyses of the staff and d
8' the applicant.
i I
l 9
And so, therefore our major concern is that those i
10 discrepancies be addressed in the forthcoming testimony.
And I
l i
i 11 l as far as I know, there are no new questions that I wish to raise l
12 1 outside of that.
However, if at this time the parties have v
13 ll problems with that letter, then they should bring them up at 14,_this time, because as far as I was concerned we had expressed I
I 15 our position and it was your move next, so to speak.
l l
i MR. BORDENICK :
Dr. Jordan, perhaps I am slightly l
16 7
confused.
I have with me a copy of a letter I wrote to the i
i iE board dated March 7th, 1979.
Maybe we are talking about apples e
M and oranges.
But I was under the impression that -- let me 20 ; back up one moment.
j 21 The letter of March 7th was in response to the i
22 memorandum dated December 15th, 1978, an order dated 23 January 24, 1979.
And I encloced a copy of proposed staff I
24 testimony, which was in response to the " Memorandum Concerning l
Am FMerat Re@rters, ine, 25 Board Questions, Dated December 15th, 1978."
I am not sure I
1666 148 i
mte 32 1
33 1
that is the same thing as bk. Yore's letter that Dr. Jordan 2
referred to.
3 MR. HASTINGS:
Maybe I can add comething to that.
4 It was my understanding that there were originally some dif-5!
ferences between the applicant's testimony on Appendix I and 6
the staff's evaluation of that.
But subsequently the staff 7
reviewed the matter and came to the conclusion that the staff's l 8I presentation was accurate.
And the supplemental testimony that i
9 Mr. Bordenick is referring to is that testimony.
10 MR. BORDENICK:
Maybe we are talking apples and II oranges.
I am not clear just what it is we are addressing at 12 1 this point.
13 h DR. MARTIN:
I would like to make a suggestion and M
see how you respond to it.
It has been quite a while since we 15 l have been here and these matters get close, the way your 16 h lecture notes do.
It would be helpful to the board and probablyl' to all parties if someone would volunteer to review the actions iE, that have taken place on Appendix I matters, h
19 I recall a related problem having to do with 20 4 release of effluents to the cooling reservoir.
j l
21 DR. JORDAN:
That is exactly the letter.
i i
22 MR. BORDENICK:
Then I will state my understanding.
23 My understanding was that back in March the staff submitted 24 proposed testimony headed "NRC Staff Response to Memorandum Am Feerat Recorters, ine.
l I
25 Concerning Board Questions Dated December 15, 1978."
It was l
1666 149 l
mte 33 34 1
my understanding, although frankly I can't recall this morning 2
where I
got that understanding from, that the board had 3
questions relating to this proposed testimony that we had filed.
4 They were going to address them at this prehearing.
As I say, 5o I apologize for not recalling how I got that understanding.
i 6'
That is what I have in my mind this morning.
i 7
DR. JORDAN:
I think Dr. Martin has put his finger i
8 on my problem.
I have in front of me, of course, a copy of l
9 the December 15th memo which brought out what I thought were f
10 discrepancies, and 7 guess the applicant doesn't disagree that l
11 there were discrepancies, between the calculations of the path I
12 1 and so on.
1
!l 13 l At the moment my mind is a blank as tIo the reply 14, of the staff.
And perhaps it would help if someone would show 0
I 15 p me a copy of that document.
Il i
16 l, MR. BORDENICK:
I will be delighted to show you a
~
copy.
I would also make the following suggestion:
The docu-15 ment in question was prepared by Doctors Gotchy and Weller.
0
'9 My understanding was -- and as far as the staff is concerned, I
I 20 j this March 1979 document was prepared in response to board l
21 questions or concerns, or whatever term you want to use, and I
22 short of Dr. Jordan's recollection being refreshed by looking 23 at the document, I would simply state that for staff's purposes, 24 we are satisfied with the way things are.
And we will bring Au-FMerst Reporters, inc.
Doctors Weller and Gotchy out to the next hearings, and whatever!
25 1666 150 l
l l
mte 34 35 1
questions the board has can be put to those gentlemen at that 2
time.
'l 3
DR. JORDAN:
I have a complaint to make.
This 4
document was never served on me.
5, (Laughter.)
{
l i
6 i I do not have any recollection of raving seen that l
I 7!
document.
m l
8, MR. BORDENICK:
Like the board's order, as far as i
i 9li I
I know a copy was sent to you.
If it wasn't received, I i
10,
apologize.
l I
11 l DR. JORDAN:
No, I -- things can happen.
I have a l
l I
It is very possible that l
12 j lot of papers come over my desk.
iI l
13 [ that did get over, but I laid it aside and said I would look la at that next week.
That could easily have happened.
I do not i
15 h have any recollection of the document, and so consequently it il, 16:, could be that all of the questions will be answered.
As of l
this date, I cannot say.
i 45
- Now, Dr. Martin has undoubtedly seen this document. !
n F
l 19 So I therefore will turn the microphone over to him.
l DR. MARTIN:
I'm sorry.
I'm sitting over here j
20 q h
l 21 ll laughing.
I don't remember having seen it, either.
4 i
H 22 f
'Waughter.)
23 I would prefer to think that I mislaid it before j
i 24 reading, rather than didn ' t receive it.
l I
Am FMetal P rmrters, inc.
25 This does seem to be the kind of review and explanatibn 1
4 1666 151 i
i
mte 35 36 1
that I was asking for.
If someone could provide me with a 2
fresh copy of this, it may answer most of my questions.
3 MRS. BOWERS :
Let me check with the other parties.
4 Mr. Marbet, did you receive this?
5 !
MR. MARBET:
Madam Chairperson, I'm having a problem, l
l 6
because I have my materials with me and I can't find it either.'
7!
I remember having things submitted to me on this issue.
It is i8' not one of the primary issues we are concerned about.
But 9
honestly, I thought I had all of my materials with me and I i
10 can't find it, either.
11 MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Sandvik?
12 h MR. SANDVIK,:
Yes, I received it.
That's my copy 1
lt
~
IIl, up at the front table.
i 1:
l I4 DR. JORDAN:
Look, it's obvious that somehow or I
N, other the papers got misshuffled on somebody's desk.
15 And it I
i il I
- i 16, doesn't make any difference now who.
I don't think that any great amount of time has been lost.
So -- but insofar as l
1 IE are there more questions or not, we cannot possibly answer l
l
'9 today.
We have got to have -- please, would you reserve the 1
20 J document to the members of the board.
And after we have seen 21 it, if there are remaining questions we will raise them.
l ll t
22 ]
But as Dr. Martin says, it looks as though it does 23 exactly address the question that was raised when I tried to I
24 compare the applicant's amendment, I believe, in number 11 --
Am-FMers: Reporters, inc. I 25, was that the right number?
I don't know.
Anyhow, when I i
i 1666 152 i
i
mte 36 37 1
tried to compare those documents with the staff position, their 2. earlier testimony, it seemed to me that there were just major 3
discrepancies.
That is the position I am in and I have not had i
e-3 4
a chance to review anything since then.
l 5;
MR.
BORDENICK:
After Christmas I will reserve on 6'
the board and Mr. Marbet -- I take it, Mr. Hastings, you i
7 received a copy?
8 MR. HASTINGS:
Yes.
9 MR. BORDENICK:
I will re-serve on the board members !
10 and Mr. Marbet and his associates this testimony that I men-l 11 tioned earlier that was prepared by Doctors Gotchy and Weller.
12 f Until we hear otherwise from the board, the staff 4
13 li believes that, subject to this proposed testimony going into i;
14 the record, the record on Appendix I and the so-called zero 15 ;!!
release matter is appropriate.
h l
16]i DR. MARTIN:
I am just leafing through this and
~
scanning it quickly.
I notice reference is made to attachments.
c i
18 On page 5 at the bottom, the last line says:
"As noted in 19 Dr.
Weller's response of" -- attachment and so forth.
When i
1 20 f you re-serve it, would you include the attachments?
I i
21 ;
MR. BORDENICK:
Certainly.
Actually, there are 22 revised tables.
23 MR. HASTINGS:
Perhaps you would like to see our 24 copy?
I think it has the attachments on it.
l An FMeral Reponers, Inc.
25 MR. BORDENICK:
I don't think there is any need to ll 1666 153
me 37 38 l
i 1
burden the board or the parties with looking at it this morning.
2 Suffice it to say that this is proposed staff testimony and we 3!
believe it addresses previous board questions.
And if the l
l 4'
board has further questions, we would be delighted to address 5;
them.
l 6
Mr. Marbet informs me that he received the copy, so t
1 7l I will re-serve the members of the board.
I 8
MRS. BOWE FG :
Check with the parties.
9!
We would like to move on to the next item, unless I
i 10 there are other matters on Appendix I.
Mr. Bordenick?
11 i MR. BORDENICK:
I have nothing further.
12 ]
MRS. BOWERS:
Mr. Hastings?
13 l MR. HASTINGS:
I have nothing further,on Appendix I.
h 14 )
MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Sandvik?
I 15 '
MR. SANDVIK:
No.
d l
16.
MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Marbet?
i l
MR. MARBET:
No.
i iS MRS. BOWERS :
Then we go on to Riverbend generic
!9 safety subjects.
20 MR. BORDENICK:
I will be very brief on that.
I 21 think my preliminary remarks covered it.
I think the so-called i
I 22 jj Riverbend or generic safety subjects have been taken over by L
23 subsequent events.
And as I earlier indicated, I am not in a 24 position to speak to schedules as far as aafety review is a-FMeral Reporters, Inc. ;
l 2S I concerned.
Those matters will be -- certainly will be included i
1666 154 i
mte 38 39 1
in Supplement 6, I believe, whenever that is issued.
That is 2
about all I can say this morning.
3 MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Hastings, do you have anything on 4
this item?
5; MR. HASTINGS:
On the Riverbend generic issue?
Of i
1 6!
course, that is an issue that the staff is facing, and they had i
l 7
made some progress on that prior to Three Mile Island.
And it 8
is basically a safety issue, and if we bifurcate the proceeding 9
into two parts, I would assume that the second part of the 10 hearing is where that would go.
11 i MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Sandvik?
j 12 ;
MR. SANDVIK:
I have nothing to add.
l 13 l MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Marbet?
14 l MR. MARBET:
I have nothing to add.
I 15 DR. JORDAN:
Well, we are left with a pretty j
16 h uncertain time schedule here.
Mr. Bordenick's statement that I
he cannot say anything about when it may come is a bit of a iS, disappointment.
It seems to me that we ought to have some i:
19 feeling for it, because at the moment I would say that it appear's y
i, t
201 that it could be a year or two before the staff ever gets l
21 l around to analyzing completely the Lessons Learned document, I
22 applying it to all of the applicants who are -- particularly l
l 23 those applicants who are coming in with B&W systems.
And I i
24 can see how it might well drag on for a very long time.
And i
wFMetal Rnmrurs, inc.
25 if it is going to drag on for a very, very long time, then I i
1666 155
mte 39 i
40 l
think we and the applicant both need some help in this, 2
because it needs to come into the schedule, because the 3
applicant is talking about an impossible CP on November 20th, 4
which seems to be completely unrealistic.
5 If there is no chance, for example, of having a 6
revision of the SER by mid-summer, then of course those numbers 7l are out of the question.
And at the moment I very strongly l!
8, suspect that there will be no revision of the SER by mid-i i
9{
summer.
i 1
10 MR. BORDENICK:
Unfortunately, I am not in a position l l
i I
11 I to indicate any agreement or disagreement with what Dr. Jordan i
12 ;
has just said.
I inquired of the staff before I came out here I
13 l and they just were not able to give me any kind of information. -
i 14 l About the only thing I can say is when I get some kind of i
15 definitive word I will certainly let the board and the parties i
16 'I know.
i I suppose it is a reasonable statement to make l
i8., that the applicant's projection or hope or however you want u
19 to characterize it of having the CP by November is probably not i 20 a reasonable expectation.
But on the other hand, I don't want 21 l to make that flat-out statement.
I just don't know.
i 22 MR. HASTINGS:
I would say that insofar as that 23 date is concerned, as I mentioned, we believe that the State 24 of Oregon proceeding will be concluded by that time.
We had l
&FMeral Reporters, inc.
25 hoped to have a favorable decision from the State of Oregon l
l 1666 156
l 41 mte 40 I
by that time.
The voters will have had -- will have cast their 2
bal19ts in November on Mr. Marbet's initiative measures, and 3
we would know on that.
And the only then major stumbling block I
4' in the way would be the license in this proceeding.
5; Insofar as the generic issues in Riverbend are 6;
concerned, with the exception of the Three Mile Island proceed-1 7l ing, the staf f has gone a considerable way in resolving those.
i 8
Most of those do not apply to Pebble Springs or have been l
9i l
l resolved in Pebble Springs previously.
1 10 1 MR. BO RDENICK: That is probably a fairly accurate 11 statement.
12 i MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Sandvik?
i 13 'l i
MR. SANDVIK:
I don't have any comment.
14 ~
MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Marbet?
I 1 ~5 '
~
l MR. MABBET:
I almost hate to comment.
But I would i
,l 16 ' like the board to understand that our initiatives are not on l
the ballot.
I would hope that maybe Portland General Electric
,, would help us get them on the ballot.
l 19 (Laughter.)
MR. MARBET:
They speak as if it is a foregone 21 conclusion, which I tend to think may happen.
i 22 MR. HASTINGS:
I wasn't implying that they are on I
23 the ballot at the present time.
Mr. Marbet is circulating l
24 l
co-Federal Reporters, Inc.
MR. MARBET:
That may be true.
1666 157 i
mte 41 l
42 1
They are not my petitions,
by the way, also.
I 2
will drop the matter.
3 DR. JORDAN:
I guess I agree that probably the main 4
issue will not be the Riverbend one, but the changes that I I
Si mentioned that will result from the staff's evaluation of the I
6:
need for changes in the design and the response of B&W and the I
i 7
applicant, the proposed changes by them.
And this will l
8l undoubtedly lead to -- I say " undoubtedly."
I suspect strongly I
l 9'
that this will lead to some major changes in the design.
And 10 at that time the intervenor may have questions, new data.
i 11 I I think it is very hard to say anything at all now 12.
about what the schedule would be on -- so far as the reconvening 13
,and. continuing this proceeding on matters of health and safety.
l 14 l MRS. BOWERS :
I haven't been involved in this l
15 '
proceeding, as you know, for a long period of time, over a long l 16 'l period of time.
But in other active cases I am on -- and this f
I may be happening with -- it wouldn't be happening with iS, Pebble Springs, because I am talking about existing plants u
19 doing backfitting and other things in reaction.to Three Mile q
20 J Island Lessons Learned.
l 21 But on the other hand, in Pebble Springs I would 22 l; think there would be technical information flowing between the 23 applicant and the staff, with copies to the parties, as to what l
24 the applicant's position is on some matters that are now known; i
A*FMerat Reporters, inc.
I i
25 is that correct, Mr. Hastings?
1666 158 I
mte 42 l
43 1
MR. HASTINGS:
I think in certain of our other 2
plants, such as Trojan, there has been certain discussions 3.
between the staff and the applicants regarding Three Mile I
t 4
Island.
And whether certain suggestions of:the staff have 5j been taken care of, I don't know of any particular discussions I
6' on that subject at the present time so far a s Pebble Springs I
7 is concerned.
l 8
(Board conferring.)
l 9l MRS. BOWE RS :
We would like to consider now, to giveI 10 you a chance on number 5, Mr. Bordenick.
But we would like to i
11 '
consider what environmental matters might be ripe for hearing l
12 or a proposed schedule for them.
l 13 g.
MR. BORDENICK:
I think the environmental matters li J'
14 are listed in the board order, alternative sites, Appendix I, 15 need for power.
And I will address that.
And one that is not 16 'l on the board's list that goes along with need for power, and that is the coal versus nuclear economics previous testimony.
I E,,
Now, on need for power, I want to make it pretty n
19 clear that when -- I don't know that we have formally mentioned 20 y it in filing, but our intent is to update the record on the 21 l need for power, on the coal versus nuclear economics.
The t
22 reason we do this is because in a case like Pebble Springs, i
23 which, unfortunately for all kinds of rarious circumstances l
24 has been pending for a number of fears on certain issues, such co-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 as need for power, the record tends to get scale.
And we feel 1666 159
mte 43 44 1
in order that the board have a current record at the time it 2
makes a decision, it is incumbent on the staff to file testi-3 mony.
4 And unfortunately, I am not in a position to give 5
you specifics, because I have not yet seen draf ts of it.
But 6!
we visualize the need for power testimony to be strictly an 7
update of what has been an extensive record in this proceeding, 8,
together with the Skagit, the joint hearings with the Skagit I
i 9i licensing board.
And the same -- although not as far as the l
10 joint hearing is concerned, the same is true with the record 11 i on coal versus nuclear economics.
Some of that testimony was
\\
12 l given probably as far back as
'76, 1976.
I l
13 l Regip Boyle was the staff's witness.
We went back i.
14 f and looked at that record, and we felt it was -- the informa-15 l tion was just out of date and we did not want to leave the i
16 ) record in that state.
And we felt that it was incumbent on 17 us to update it and to file testimony in advance of any hearing 16,, date set on environmental matters.
l 19 I think that is a pacing item as far as when we are
'l i
20 !
going to hold a hearing, which will hopefully wrap up the i
21 !
environmental record in this proceeding that is determinative i
I I
22 about the alternative sites question.
23 MRS. BOWE RS :
Do you have anything on this point, 24 Mr. Hastings?
co Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. HASTINGS:
I was only going to point out that 1666 160
mte 44 45 1
an extensive record on need for power was made several years 2
ago in Seattle, and at that time that record was closed and I
3l proposed findings were submitted.
I think the issue now 4
arises, as Mr. Bordenick indicates, in that the staff desires 5
to update that record.
j i
6' MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Sandvik?
7l MR. SANDVIK:
I have no comment.
l 8'
MRS. BOWERS:
Mr. Marbet?
l 9i MR. MARBET:
We have had an abiding interest in this '
l i
l 10 proceeding on the issue of need for power, and also the coal 11 i versus nuclear analysis.
We would welcome the staff's update, l
12 ; with a provision, of course, that we can respond to that update 13 fan$ bring in whatever necessary input we feel to provide to thisj
\\
14 l proceeding.
15 As far as the coal versus nuclear, my initial I
i 16 concern is that I would -- I don't exactly know how this is i
P going to get treated.
But it seems to me that the problems I
i i6 at Three Mile Islar.d are not just safety-related problems, but g
ll 19 they also affect design, which thus affects economics.
It seems!
20 ] to me that it is rather difficult, to say the least, for us to 21 assume that the staff can go forward and give us a real i
22 complete economic comparison between coal versus nuclear, with- ;
i 23 out knowing what kind of design changes may have to take place l
24 at the Pebble Springs facility.
l AwFWereI Remrters, Inc.
I 25 It happens to be the same reactor vendor.
- Also, l
1666 i61 1
mte 45 46 1
our own work in the state proceedings has led us to do a 2
considerable amount of analysis on alternatives, not just coal 3
versus nuclear, but the economics of other alternatives, 4
specifically wind generation facilities.
And at this point 5
I am in discussion with Mr. Freedman as to what input we will l
6' try and bring into this proceeding on that.
7j We work from limited resources.
That is our 8l biggest problem.
We are trying to stay on top of everything, 9
and these are two issues that we are very much concerned with.
l i
10 l MRS. BOWERS:
Am I correct with coal versus nuclear l
11 i it is not just the economics, but also the health effects?
12 i MR. MARBET:
No.
i 13 h MR. BORDENICK:
No.
My recollegtion is it is i
14 l strictly cost of fuel.
That is all we are talking about.
I 15 And I don' t agree with what Mr. Marbet says in terms l i
16 j of design changes at Pebble Springs.
Certain assumptions were i
7 made and it was strictly a question of economics:
Is it l
l IE q cheaper to burn uranium or coal?
That is really all the l
19 testimony is addressed to, is my recollection.
20 Q DR. JORDAN:
I think Mr. Marbet's point is well 21 taken, that in comparing coal and nuclear you have to update l
22 the nuclear costs also because of the Three Mile Island, is i
i 23 what he is saying.
j 24 MR. BORDENICK:
Fuel costs.
l A&Feeral Reporters, inc. '
{
25 DR.
JORDAN:
All costs.
It isn't -- it is the totali 1666 162
mte 46 l
47 i
1 economics.
2 MR. BORDENICK:
All I can suggest is I think we run 3
the risk of engaging in a debate which we really can't reach 4
any resolutions on.
I would suggest that at the time the j
5l staff files its update, that Mr. bbrbet react to it in any l
6 way he desires.
And the board can make appropriate rulings I
I 7j based on what they have in front of them at that time.
l l
8 MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Marbet?
9l MR. MARBET:
It disturbs me that the intervenors I
10 l are going to be left with having to bring to the board's i
ll !
attention a matter that basically is before you now.
The 12 i description of the staff's economic analysis now seems to be I
13 l one in which they are representing that they are on}y going to 14 look at fuel costs, which I find ludicrous, after all the time 15 that has passed in this proceeding and the significance of the l
16 h events that have occurred at Three Mile Island.
l J
If an economic analysis is to be done, it should be iS, done from the standpoint of what information we have gathered l
h 19 to date which affects these proceedings.
And I think those 3
20 j costs are not just fuel costs, but the costs of construction, l
21 l the realities of alternatives as they are today, I think to 22 date.
And I think that the staf f -- it is incumbent upon the i
23 staff to provide that kind of analysis.
I don't think it is 24 incumbent on the intervenors to wait around after a bunch of l
Am.FMere Reponers, W.
I 25 time passes in which the board can be presenting their l
l 1666 163 l
mte 47 48 1
concerns to the staff now and having them move forward, for 2
us to come in later in this proceeding and try and point out 3
the problems of the staff's analysis.
4 MR. BORDENICK:
I would respond to that two ways.
Si The board has certain statutory responsibilities, as does the l
6' staff.
And if the board requests the staff to address X, Y and Z, 7
the staff will address it.
If Mr. Marbet wants us to address l
8 something, I suggest he file a motion.
Otherwise the staff 9
will run the case the way it thinks it should be run, subject 10 to the board's responsibilities.
Il DR. JORDAN:
I don't think it is up to us to tell 12 the staff.
But we have heard Mr. Marbet's problem, and if there 13 ! is no updating in the capital cost, that component, 'tha t he i
14 l will be filing motions.
And I think all we can say is that the I
15 ' staff should be aware that the board will be sympathetic to the l o
16 j possible motion in that direction.
Because, as every one of us l
17 in this hearing knows, the major costs for nuclear are those in lo capital costs.
And if there were to be significant changes in n
I 19 the capital investment required as a consequence of Three 20 Mile Island, duat would be a significant change in the costs 21 l of nuclear power.
22 So I think the matter has to be addressed in some i
23 way or another.
If the staff can come in and say, we believe, l
24 in view of the fact that these changes are not significant, thatf afMetal Reprters, inc.
I i
25 there will not be a significant change, that's fine.
That's up.
l 1666 164
mte 48 49 1
to the staff.
2 As I say, I will not tell the staff how to operate 3
and what testimony they need.
But they have to be aware of I
e-4 4
Mr. Marbet's concern.
5, MR. BORDENICK:
We don't know what design changes 6
will be required.
So we are putting the cart before the horse.
7 DR. JORDAN:
That is Mr. Marbet's point.
8, MR. BORDENICK:
I am advised that whatever proposed 9l testimony we will submit to the board on what I am calling i
10 l coal versus nuclear, we hope to file in March a need for power i
11 update in March or April.
And I would simply suggest that 12 we wait until that time and sort out whatever it is that has 13 l to be sorted out.
l 14 {
MRS. BOWE RS :
Mr.
Marbet?
15 MR. MARBET:
I may be j umping the gun, but it seems 16. to me we cannot discuss scheduling until we see what material 17 is before us.
I would suggest then that the board entertain l
iS a conference call at the~ time the testimonies are served on o
i' l
19 all parties and we have some better indication as to what time 20 ! periods we will need to provide an adequate analysis and go l
21 i forward.
i i
i 22 MR. BORDENICK:
Or further prehearing.
I view l
23 today's prehearing or conference -- I don't know if it was i
24 ever called a prehearing; it is just a conference.
This is ce Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 really just an interim step.
l 1666 165 1
mte 49 50 1
I would agree with Mr. Marbet.
And of course, we 2
will have to have further conference calls or conferences, live 3l conferences such as this morning, or prehearing conferences or i
l 4
whateve r.
I don't think the board is in a position this 5
morning to formulate any kind of definitive schedule.
6 MRS. BOWERS :
I suspect it is easier to get l
i 7;
Mr. Marbet to a conference than it is to get him on a conference!
8 call.
9, (Laughter.)
l l
10 i MR. MARBET:
I apologize for that.
I have been 11 moving throughout the state and a tape machine is not respon-12l sive.
13 l MRS. BOWE RS :
My secretary listened to your speech 14 over and over.
15,
MR. MARBET:
It is a spiel.
I i
i 16 'l (Laughter.)
j i
I For the board's notification, I have shortened it.
IE cl (Laughter.)
l 19 MRS. BOWERS :
That will save the taxpayers money.
20 l (Laughtar.)
21 MR. HASTINGS:
I was going to say that if most of i
22 this material comes from the staff and the items that we can 23 consider, items 1 and 3 and 5 and now 6, and they have also f
24 indicated when they will expect to file testimony in these erwerai neponers, ine.
l 25 proceedings -- and it seems to me the limiting condition of I
I 1666 166 i
i I
mte 50 1
51 1
that is the alternative site study.
In the common period, it 2
seems to me we can go forward and set some kind of a tentative 3
schedule for further hearings on these matters.
i 4j MR. MARBET:
I think that's ludicrous.
l 5l MRS. BOWE RS :
The board has promised, when it is in i
1 6:
a position to submit questions to the staff after reviewing i
t 7j the supplement of the draft environmental statement, that it 8i will do promptly.
And Mr. Marbet has made that same commitment.
l The track record on the release of staff documents is less than l 9
+
i l
10 perfect.
11 i MR. BORDENICK:
In Pebble Springs?
12 i MRS. BOWERS :
I think in all proceedings.
So how l
13 firm a date could be agreed to now?
I think we need to have i
la l the final document and then talk about it, i
15 MR. BORDENICK:
I can't quarrel with that.
j 16 MRS. BOWERS :
Your colleague Mr. Scinto used to say:
, Well, here is a soft date, and here is a medium date, and here
'~
iS, is a hard date.
n 19 (Laughter.)
i 20 ;!
And then he would have to revise it from time to i
21 l time.
I know it is difficult, and the staff's resources, of 22 l l
course, are often shifted from one matter to another.
And l
I 23 Mr. Bordenick I think made it clear at the beginning, there 24 are some other matters pending that have a higher priority Aa FMeral Reporters, lr c.
j 25 than Pebble Springs.
I l
1666 167 i
mte 51 52 i
1 MR. HASTINGS:
That relates to generic issues 2
insofar a s Three Mile Island is concerned, not to this 3
proceeding.
I hsve found that, unless lawyers are held with 4
their feet to the fire, that really, things seem to slide by i
5l and nothing gets done.
That is what I am simply suggesting, l
6' that we try to establish some dates, and that has sort of a 7
coercive effect, at least, in attempting to meet it.
Without i
8, that, it is simply put on the back burner.
And I have been 9
guilty of that in my practice, along with every other lawyer.
i 10 j MRS. BOWE RS :
The board will be monitoring this 11 i matter and it may be appropriate that we ask for a status 1
12 ;
report from the staff.
l I
13 l MR. BORDENICK:
I was going to say, I would be in a N
14 h position to -- well, first of all, I will advise the board and N
15 L the parties, it is my practice in any proceeding to advise j
1
'6 l the board and parties whenever I get any kind of information that I think is of procedural or substantive interest to the i
i8,, board and parties.
I don't know if it is well to file a monthly.
il 19 report or set a date.
But I will undertake to try at least 20 once a month to submit some sort of an infornal status report i
21 l in writing to the board and parties to indicate where we are, 22 l i whether or not these dates I mentioned this morning have 23 changed, gottten better or worse, or whatever.
l 24 DR. MARTIN:
Looking over my notes, it seems to f
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 me that, based on your current estimate of release date for 1666 168 i
mte 52 53 1
the final supplement to the FES, it would be May 15th, 1980, 2
and release for April 30; and then 15 days later, approximately, 3
would be the earliest date, unless, of course, something 4
unusual happened and the final supplement were released at an 5
earlier date.
61 MR. BORDENICK:
That is possible.
It could be l
7' released at an earlier date.
As I say, that will be a function l 8
of the comments.
And we are early in the comment period and we 9
don't know what the next three weeks are going to bring.
I 10 DR. MARTIN:
I am pointing out that the scheduling - !
I 11 i a hearing on the environmental matters is timed pretty much to i
12 the scheduling for that document.
A change in that, the
.13 discovery could begin now.
il 14 MR. BORDENICK:
I think Mr. Marbet and I have I
15 agreed that discovery, informal discovery, will commence.
I 16 h I would agree, Dr. Martin, and I think I mentioned earlier,
'7' the alternative sites question is what we call the pacing item.:
i8 j. But the unknown at this point is how extensive of a question ll 19 will that be.
20 l DR. MARTIN:
You indicated that this would be i
21 l updated as information becomes available.
i 22 MR. BORDENICK:
I am in agrC19. int that that is i
I i
23 probably the pacing item, and I 6;h +.hink it is worthwhile l
24 to, for example, think in terms.)f hearing any earlier than l
a Fw eral Reporters, inc.
l 25 May 15th, l
i 1666 169 j
l t
mte 53 54 1
DR. MARTIN:
We can set that as a target date and 2
judge from time to time how close we are to hitting the target 3
date.
4 MR. BORDENICK:
I will try to help the board and 5
parties on that question by filing these status reports from 6
time to time.
7 DR. MARTIN:
Very good.
8 MRS. BOWERS :
I want to mention one other matter, 9
of course, that comes into consideration.
And Mr. Bordenick I
10 '
did touch on priorities earlier.
We board members are on 11 !
numerous proceedings and so are the staff people.
And of 12 '
course, some of the rest of you are involved in the state 13 l proceeding that has scheduling ongoing.
So I fdr one certainly l
14 '
could not commit a date for Pebble Springs at this time, late 15 ;
spring or early summer, because I am on Diablo Canycn and on l
4 i
16 ;t Rancho Seco and on other matters that we just have to see what j
l F
the situation is as we go along.
l i8,
Have we run down through our laundry list?
i li 19,
MR. BORDENICK:
For the staff's purposes, I think 20 i' we have.
i 21 l MRS. BOWERS :
The items --
h 22 MR. BORDENICK:
You have the state proceeding.
1 23 MRS. BOWERS :
That's right.
24 MR. BORDENICK:
I was referring to the five specific '
Au-Fseral Retmrters. Inc.
l 25 items.
1666 170 I
l
mte 54 55 1
MRS. BOWERS :
So was I.
2 We have before us several documents filed by 3
Mr. Sandvik, keeping us informed on what is happening in Oregon.
l 4l And on July 24th, he sent us a copy of House Bill 2570, which l
Si we appreciate getting. And also, Mr. Hastings sent us a copy l
6!
of Judge Bergen's report on the situation as far as the state i
7 Siting Council is concerned in Oregon.
i8' I particularly appreciated his, under introduction 9l and background, giving a rundown through the years of the I
10 proceeding and Mr. Marbet's litigation all the way to the 11 Supreme Court.
And that gave me in one place, in a few para-1 l
12 l graphs, the state history on this proceeding, which I hadn' t l
l 15 l had a cha,ce to read in that form before.
14 l Now i have a few questions.
Mr. Sandvik, do you 15 l i
want to proceed, and then some questions can follow?
t 16 !
MR. SANDVIK:
I will give a general description, l
and then answer any questions that the board may have.
i8,
First of all, the applicants can't engage in any 0
19 significant on-site construccion work at Pebble Springs until e
20 ? they have a state site certificate.
The earliest a site i
l 21 l certificate could be issued under House Bill 2570 is November 22 15th, 1980.
The Siting Council is proceeding with the l
23 !
Pebble Springs case with a view to being in a position to render 24 a decision as close to November 15th, 1980, as possible, Aa-FMeral Reporters, lnc.
l 25 whether that decision is af firmative or negative.
They are i
I 1666 171 l
mte 55 56 1
doing so on several tracks.
2 First, Mr. Bergen's recommended order did not 3
cover all issues outstanding in the state proceeding.
As to 4
his recommended order, exceptions have been taken by the 5
parties, and the Council is proceeding to deliberate on those 6
issues as promptly as they can.
They have already approved i
7 Mr. Bergen's findings on essentially uncontested issues and 8
are scheduling some of the tougher issues for after the first 9l of the year.
10 However, there is going to be a need for further i
11 i hearings at the state level because of House Bill 2570.
That 12 i legislation requires the Oregon Department of Energy to study 13 l two issues :
One, the availability and cost of long-term la storage of radioactive wastes; and the other I guess could be 15,
put as implications of the Three Mile Island accident for the 16 !
State of Oregon.
l
'7 The Department of Energy has completed its study l
i8 on the waste disposal issue required by the bill and served i
19, that on the parties to the state Pebble Springs proceeding in l
20 p the middle of November.
It is committed to completing its 21 l Three Mile Island portion of the study required by House Bill 22 2570 by -- I believe the date is February 5th, 1980.
I 23 We are going to be having a prehearing conference in 24 the state proceeding tomorrow, to attempt to establish l
Aa FMeral Reporters, inc, j
25 schedules for hearings on both the waste disposal and i
1666 172 l
mte 56 57 1
Three Mile Island issues.
As soon as Mr. Bergen adopts a 2
schedule for those hearings, which will not be held jointly --
3 they will probably be held sequentially -- I will serve that 4
schedule on the board and the parties to this proceeding, 5
because that should assist in scheduling matters for the federal 6
hearings.
7 So we are proceeding down two tracks:
One is to I
8 conclude the Council deliberation on the recommendations 9
Mr. Bergen has made to date; and the other is to conclude the 10 hearings required by House Bill 2570.
Tnose hearings have in 11 !
part -- or the necessity to investigate the matters listed in 12 l House Bill 2570 has in effect prevented Mr. Bergen from issuing l
13 what could be called the other half of his order.
a la f One of the major issues which he did not address is 15 waste disposal.
Obviously, it didn't make much sense to issue I li I
16 ) a recommended decision on waste disposal, given that further l
17 study was required.
Similarly, while we don't have a precise i
i8. identification of'the specific issues, several of the outstand-I a
19, ing issues of the issues not addressed in part one of 20 ;! Mr. Bergen's order have to do with the implications of the H
21 Three Mile Island accident on the State of Oregon and on the 22 evidence in the record under various safety-related siting 1
23 standards of the Council.
I 24 So by way of conclusion, I guess all I can say is A&FMerW Reorters, inc, j
25 that the parties and the Council are attempting to resolve I
i 1666 173 i
mte 57 58 1
everything outstanding at the s tate level with respect to 2
Pebble Springs, so that it is dene in advance of November 15th, 3
1980.
But under that legislation, there is no way a site 4
certificate can be issued earlier than that date.
5' MRS. BOWERS :
I recall a conversation with 6
Mr. Yore quite some time ago, and I am just not -- maybe you i
i 7
can help me on this.
Is there something in the Oregon situation I8' that if something -- something about the governor, a year, and 9l the legislature, and if somebody files in court, it. cays?
10 l MR. HASTINGS:
What you are referring to is the old I
Il !
statute and the old statute in which our original site certifi-12 l cate was granted, it did not become final until the appeal l
l 13 l, period was over and signed by the governor.
In 1975 the f
14 legislature changed the statute, and the site certificate now I
15 ' becomes final upon issuance.
l
.i 16j MR.
SANDVIK:
As I recall, though -- and I don't l
'- ;have the statute with me -- if an appeal is taken, that stays IS ri the effectiveness of the site certificate and no activities
!I 19 can be undertaken until the appeal is concluded.
There is a 20 direct appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court, which eliminates 21 one level of appellate review.
But if there is an appeal, to l
22 the best of my recollection, there is a stay of the effective-23 ness of the site certificate until the supreme court reviews l
24 the matter.
Am FMeral Reporters, Inc.
l 25 MRS. BOWERS :
I think that is what I am recalling I
1666 174 I
mte 58 59 1
in a vague sort of way.
I knew this tied in very definitely 2
with possible litigation in Oregon.
3 MR. HASTINGS:
The difference essentially is that 4
the site certificate now becomes a vested right subject to 5'
appeal, where under the other one you had nothing until the i
I 6!
appeal process was over and the governor signed it.
And as l
7 hk. Sandvik indicated, it changes the appeal procedure to l
8 make it a direct appeal to the supreme court.
And it is my 9
recollection that during the appeal period construction will i
l 10 [ be stayed.
Il MRS. BOWERS :
On page 3 -- is it "Mr.
Bergen" instead.
1 12 i of " Judge Bergen"?
I know there are state administrative law 13 jndges because I spent a week at a school at the University of la l Nevada at Reno some years ago and there were federal adminis-15 trative types as well as state people.
l i
16 Anyway, on page 3, up in the top paragraph, down
~
four or five lines from the bottom of that top paragraph on iS page 3, talking about changing standards for the siting board, n
it i
19 q and it says:
20 l "On February 14th, 1978, it" -- meaning the siting 21 board -- " changed the working of the general standards to
{
22 reflect that its final decision is no longer a recommendation 23 to the governor."
24 What does that mean?
l
>FMeral Reponers. Inc.
I I
25 MR. SANDVIK:
Thi-relates to what Mr. Hastings i
o I
I 1666 175 l
mte 59 60 I
was describing.
Prior to 1975, the Siting Council's predecessor,
2 which was called the Nuclear and Thermal Energy Council, made 3
a recommendation to the governor and the governor made the 4
final decision on whether or not the site certificate would be 5
issued.
In 1975 the governor was eliminated from the siting I
6, process, so that -- I believe it was 1977 -- in any event, i
7 that reference was simply a housekeeping amendment to the j
8' rules to show that the decision was actually the Council's 9
decision and not simply a recommendation of the governor.
It l
10 1 was a procedural housekeeping change to reflect the change i
l 11 i in statute.
12 i MRS. BOWERS :
Let me check with the parties.
We 13 l have heard the report from Mr. Sandvik and some helpful i
14 comments from Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Bordenick, you are not i
15 involved with the state proceeding?
I 16 j MR. BORDENICK:
No.
I have no comment, j
i MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Marbet?
l i3 MR. MARBET:
Essentially, I am in agreement with l
ii 19 what Mr. Sandvik has represented to you.
I would like the 20 4 board to understand that I brought enough copies to cover 21 l
{
everyone's interest here of our exceptions to that order, so 22 that you might understand what our position in that proceeding 23 is.
V 24 The applicants have taken it upon themselves to
&Feers Anortm, Inc.
l l
25 provide you with the order and I would like you to understand
~
l i
1666 176 I
mte 60 61 1
more fully what our position is in the proceeding.
I have them 2
with me and I would like to serve them.
3i MRS. BOWERS :
You can hand them to us, but there l
I 4l needs to be a formal service.
I 5'
MR. MARBET:
I was using the record to do that.
l l
6l I have done it before in the past.
Maybe I am wrong.
i l
7 MRS. BOWERS :
Is there objection?
I 8l MR. HASTINGS:
I was going to say, the board was l
91 furnished with the order under the McGuire decision and it was 4
felt by the applicant to be a significant event in the licensing l 10 I
I 11 !
process.
Now if Mr. Marbet is going to serve exceptions, I 12 l have no objection to tha t.
I think it would be appropriate I
13 ! that the board have the entire record before it, which would 14 l include all' parties' exceptions and all parties -- they are i
e-5 15 '
documents filed subsequent to Judge Bergen's order, j
16 ]
MR. SANDVIK:
Perhaps I have been remiss in not serving everything on the board and the NRC staff that is is a served in the Pebble Springs proceeding at the state level.
19, But I really did not consider every pleading filed by the
- l 20 parties to be a significant event under the McGuire rule or i
21 j under any other concept, that it needed to be called to your 22 attention.
l 23 I have every intention of serving copies of the I
l 24 Siting Council's decision on part two of Mr. Bergen's recom-l A&FMeral Regmners. Inc.
25 mended decision.
But I really don't think that the board l
l 1666 177 l
l
mte 61 62 1
needs to see all of the intermediate proceedings filed by the 2
parties.
It generates a fairly large stack of paper and I 3
don't think it serves a useful purpose to you.
Perhaps that 4
is presumptuous of me.
But I think what you would be interested 5
in would be any further recommendations by Mr. Bergen or a 6!
final decision by the state Siting Council, not what the 71 parties were arguing back and forth in the process.
I 8l I would be glad to compile and serve everything on i
l l
9 I the board, but in my opinion it is not necessary or pertinent.
10 MRS. BOWE RS :
Mr. Hastings, you used the term the 11 !
"McGuire ruling."
Are you talking about the McGuire nuclear 12 ] power plant proceeding?
13 l MR. HASTINGS: 'Yes.
My recollection is, if there 14 are significant events that occur during the licensing process, 15 l it is the duty of the parties to bring that information te the i
16 i; board.
7 MRS. BOWERS :
All I can say is, I have been i5 5 involved in other proceedings where there are state matters it i
19 going en and maybe not considered significant, but certainly 20 i this board needs to be -- needs to know what is happening as I
i 1
21 far as scheduling and status of the state proceeding.
But to 22 get involved in all of the filings, all of the proceedings for l
23 the state, is something that would -- we have enough problems 24 with paper right now without getting the whole record of the Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 state proceeding.
1666 178 l
mte 62 l
63 l
1 MR.
HASTINGS:
And I didn't intend to imply that 2
they should be made a part of this record.
It was Mr. Marbet's 3
suggestion that he amplify what I sent you with certain other 4l papers.
The only reason that you got Judge Bergen's decision l
5' was that there is another case, I believe involving Carolina 6!
Power & Light Company, which says a state's findings on need i
7I for power have -- are to have a decided influence on your 8j dacision-i I
9l Judge Bergen has made certain findings regarding I
I' 10 i that insofar as the State of Oregon is concerned, and under l
I i
11 the Carolina Power & Light case, as amplified b; the McGuire 12 :1 case, I felt it was the duty, my duty, to give you a copy of 12 l that.
l 14 MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Marbet?
15 MR. MARBET:
Mrs. Bowers, I think we are getting l
I 16 'j close to the point of the problem that is before you.
I wasn ' t!
attempting to raise a severe issue on supplying reams of papers iS of exceptions.
But need for power is a contested issue in g
6-19 this proceeding.
Judge Bergen's order that was served on you 20 j was a preliminary order.
I would think if the applicant was 21 l serious about bringing to your attention a document of great i
22 '
significance, it would be a final order of the council.
But i
23 he brought you a proposed order, which is not a final document, 24 which raises an issue favorable to the applicant, which is a-FMeraf Rewrters, lnc.
25 need for power, which we do not agree with at all.
That was 1666 179
mte 63 64 1
the reason why I felt it incumbent upon us to take the extra 2
Xeroxing expense to show you that there is a difference of 3
opinion on this issue and at least provide you with that 4
understanding.
5l I did not mean to try to bring the state proceeding 6
into this proceeding.
7 MRS. BOWE RS :
Rather than going on with this, how 8
would this be:
Get me one extra copy, and I will ask that it 9
be serviced to everyone on this service list.
10 MR. MARBET:
Thank you.
I will do so.
(Distributing 11 l documents.)
12 l MRS. BOWERS:
Anything else as far as these issues?
i 13 i DR. JORDAN:
Perhaps it isn't entirely -- perhaps it i
14 l, isn't directly involved with the state proceeding, except that n
f 15,
I notice one of the items that is going to be covered in I
J 16 4 volume two is the matter of emergency plans.
It is not clear l
~
to me that emergency plans is necessarily one of the items from I i8, TMI-2 that would be involved in this particular case.
I know i
i 19 in some cases it has been, and let me expla tn.
i 20 ;!
The staff has issued some docume nts requiring 21 I changes in the submission of emergency plans, requiring that l
22 the scate plans be -- I celieve have approval,' federal approval, l
23 and so on.
And these things may significantly change the l
24 applicant's submission with respect to. emergency plans.
And
&Feeral Reporters, Inc.
I I
25 so I guess the question I do need to address to the staff and I
1666 180 i
mte 64 l
65 I
the applicant is, will there be an amendment to the applicant's 2
PSAR with respect to emergency plans, and will this be required 3
as a matter of fact by the staff, that the applicant conform I
4 with proposed changes by the staff in the emergency plans, 5
which essentially gets rid of the old LPZ and so on?
I am sure 6+
you are aware of the changes that are being made.
I want to 7l bring this up now.
8 Is this one of the matters that will be addressed l
9 in this proceeding?
I 10 MR. BORDENICK:
Dr. Jordan, I am aware generally 11 that there are some proposals regarding emergency planning.
12 ] I am not in my mind quite certain that they are final require-13 ments.
So that the only way I can snswer your question is, i
14 whatever final requirements are in place, whather it is emer-l 15 l gency planning or anything
- else, the applicant in this l
16 j proceeding and every other proceeding is going to have to meet I
'7 those requirements, and then probably file a supplement to his ic PSAR.
I o
it i
19 9
I would say emergency planning for Pebble Springs 20 o is probably not one of the most critical considerations.
I 21 think we should probably require a 50-mile LPZ around j
I 22 Pebble Springs and not have too much to worry about.
That i
23 is not to say that emergency planning is not a pertinent 24 l question in the licensing proceedings.
It is only to say that Au-FMetal Reporters, Inc. '
l 25 Pebble Springs is a site where it is probably, in my mind, at I
1666 181
mte 65 66 1
least -- I am not on the technical staff
-- but I don't think 2
it is a big problem.
3 MRS. BOWE RS :
I understand.
4 MR. BORDENICK:
But they will have to meet whatever 5.
requirements are imposed on the industry.
I i
6I MRS. BOWERS :
There has been a series of documents 7'
on the aposed rulemaking for emergency plans, October 23.
8 And then there was a publicity release recencly that I under-9l stand is going to be published in the Federal Register i
10 l tomorrow, the 20th of December, and it deals with the ten-mile, i,
ll !l 50-mile.
12 {
But when this rulemaking will be completed -- it is I
13 ahead of us, and what all will happen in that rulemaking we I
14 [ldon't know.
15 l MR. BORDENICK:
I certainly don't.
j i
16 MRS. BOWERS :
Let me check, before I check with the i
board.
Anything further, Mr. Hastings, before we go on to i8 any other matter?
d 19,
MR. HASTINGS:
Nothing, Mrs. Bowers.
i 20li MRS. BOWERS:
Mr. Sandvik?
21 l MR. SANDVIK:
No.
22 MRS. BOWERS:
Mr.
Bordenick?
23 MR. BORDENICK:
I think that covers it as far as j
h 24 I am concerned.
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Marbet?
4 1666 182
mte 66 67 1
MR. MARBET:
Nothing further, except to note that 2
we are interested in emergency preparedness regardless of the 3l demography.
i 4l MRS. BOWERS :
Dr. Jordan brought a matter to the 5l attention of the other board members yesterday evening.
We I
i 6l asked him to bring it to your attention this morning.
7 DR. JORDAN:
This is a matter that all of the people 8;
should be aware of.
I don't bring it that it is necessarily 9l a matter that needs to be addressed by any of the parties.
I I
10 l was interested in reading a copy of some remarks by 11 Mr. Robert Short, whom I believe was addressed as president 12 ;
of Portland General Electric Company, and these were remarks 1
13 l made September 12th to the New York Society of Security 14[l Analysts.
l And in it he mentioned -- I observed this by reading 15 a copy of the Wall Street transcript for September 24th, 1979, l
16 on page 55633.
I
'7 In it, he pointed out that PGE was the principal j
i8 sponsor of two large plants near Bordman, Pebble Springs 1 and o
11 19, 2, and he mentioned the ownership share of 40 percent and i
20 l! referred to the nuclear waste disposal issue in the Oregon i
21 l legislature.
One of the things he said is, quote:
1 22 "We are not optimistic about eventual construction 23 of Pebble Springs in Oregon and are evaluating reloccting the 24 project at Hanford in Washington State."
Aa FMerat Reporters, ine.
l 25 I guess I feel if there is a significant reevaluatioJ 1666 183 i
mte 67 68 1
going on on these lines, that we should be aware of it.
So I 2
only now address Mr. Bordenick and ask him:
Are there any 3
significant happenings going on with respect to relocating the 4
plant that he is aware of, at Hanford?
5.
MR. BORDENICK:
Are you asking me?
I 6!
DR. JORDAN:
I'm sorry.
Mr. Hastings.
7 MR. HASTINGS:
As far as I know, there are none.
8 But as I mentioned in earlier discussion here today, Mr. Marbe l
9l has two potential initiatives to place on the ballot, and thereI i
10 is a third initiative sponsored by Senator Wyers, State 11 '
Senator, and a number of others which would in essence do the 12 same thing that Mr. Marbet's initiatives would do.
And one i
13 !
or more of those initiatives may be on the ballot.
And i,f i
la l they pass, obviously nothing would be built in the state, i
15 ;
unless the Northern States case is applied and the company 16 is willing to assert the Northern States preemption doctrine.
It may be, in view of the time involved in such l
i8, a court challenge and the fact that the people have expressed 0
19 their will in such a way, it might be preferable to move the n
20 1 plants to Hanford.
21 MRS. BOWE RS :
Mr. Marbet?
i 22 MR. MARBET :
Now that we still continue this l
23 discussion, I think it is important for you to realize the 24 full impact of those initiatives if any of them passes.
Two l
- Fmus Reporms Inc.
l 25 of them deal with construction and licensing in Oregon, one 1666 184
mte 68 69 1
of which I am a participant in sponsoring.
The other, of 2
course, was sponsored by Senator Wyers.
If either one of 3
the future initiatives passes, there is language in each 4
initiative to the effect that an applicant would not be allowed 5,
to invest money by floating debt, an Oregon-based applicant i
i 6 1 would not be allowed to invest money in any out-of-state plant.
1 7
So it would not just merely be a question of the utility moving 8!
across the river and successfully being able to finance it 9
under the conditions of the laws that we are proposing to be 10 enacted by the people of Oregon.
11 MRS. BOWE RS :
Does it also deal with waste disposal?
I i
12 i MR. MARBET:
One of the initiatives states to the i
1 13 effect -- and I will provide copies of these to you.
I have.
14 l copies with me now, if you would like to see the initiatives.
15 l, MRS. BOWERS:
Hang onto them.
If they become law, 16, we will be interested in knowing about them.
l I
MR. MARBET:
In describing what it does, the waste i
i3 c! disposal initiative states simply that, before the Energy l
19 Facility Siting Council can render a decision on licensing q
20 ;
of nuclear plants, it has to make a determination that there I
i 21 j is a federal repository in existence willing and able to accept l
22 radioactive wastes.
Then, if it makes that determination, then 1
23 there is a referendum to the people on whether or not the j
24 license shall be granted, based on a vote by the people of the l
m Fb ral Reporters, Inc.
l 25 state.
l l666 185 i
mte 69 70 1
(Board conferring.)
2 MRS. BOWERS :
Let me check with the parties.
3l Mr. Hastings, anything further?
I 4l MR. HASTINGS:
I have nothing further to add.
All I
5' I can say is, in answering Dr. Jordan's question, there has 6
been consideration given on the subject of moving the i
7i Pebble Springs unit to Hanford.
But as far as I know, there 8j has been no study or plan or anything definite done, but simply 9
a matter of discussion.
i 10 l MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Sandvik?
11 MR. SANDVIK:
I have nothing further.
12 i MRS. BOWERS :
Mr. Bordenick?
I 13 l MR. BORDENICK:
I have nothing further except to 14 state the obvious:
If Pebble Springs is moved to Hanford, i
15 that would be the end of this proceeding.
16 'l MRS. BOWE RS :
hk. Marbet?
MR. MARBET:
I would welcome the end of the i8 :d proceeding.
i 19,
(Laughter.)
20 "
MRS. BOWERS:
You know, I have taken over in the 21 l middle of several proceedings because we have had resignation, i
22 illness, and that sort of thing.
I always feel a little I
I 23 uncomfortable that so much has gone ahead and I can't recall.
I I
24 the testimony and the prehearings or the evidentiary hearings.
l Am FMcM Rumnus, ine.
l 25 But my board member s here have been extremely helpful in 1666 186
mte 70 71 1
briefing me on this proceeding, and I hope that I can go back 2
and read every word in time.
I haven' t had the opportunity 3
to yet.
I 4l But anyway, one thing they assured me -- and this is i
5-not always true in all proceedings -- that I would be dealing i
I 6l with gentlepersons who are polite to each other, and that I I
i 7!
didn't need to anticipate at this time that there would be any l
8l broken noses or blood splattered on the wall.
And sometimes i
9l those things do creep into proceedings when people feel very 10 strongly about one position or another.
11 '
So anyway, I would like to thank you for a coopera-i 12 l tive attitude on all parties' part.
And I feel this has been l
1 l
13 l productive.
It has been many months since the parties and
!i 14 the board got together.
I 15 i When I go on a proceeding, I welcome an opportunity l l
i i
161 to meet the participants rather than just conference telephone l
calls.
iS,
so if you have nothing further, we will consider h
I l9 this matter recessed until we are able to -- until 20 FT. Bordenick knows that we can proceed with other matters.
21 l Incidentally, in closing I would like to thank everybody for i
i 22 not taking my documents.
23 (Laughter.)
l -
24 Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m.,
the conference was a FMual Rmonus, tm.
e-6 25 adjourned.)
l 1666 187 l
l
!