ML19262B879
| ML19262B879 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 01/03/1980 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001160001 | |
| Download: ML19262B879 (96) | |
Text
-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
t IN THE MATTER OF:
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY Docket Nos.50-338SP 50-339SP (North Anna Pcwer Station, Units 1 and 2)
ORAL ARGUMENT p g,,,,
Bethesda, Maryland Date.
Thursday, 3 January 1980 Pages 1 - 94' 1754 128 o g
B
' T m en oA\\.A.Ina
(
Tatacame.
tccds 2cn 54Hr2 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporters 415 Second Street, N.E.
O g i 16 0 Og hshington, D. C.
MATICMEEDE COVERAGE
I 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
x 4
In the Matter of:
Docket Nos.50-338SP 5
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMP'NY 50-339SP i
6 !
(North Anna Power Station, l
Units 1 and 2) 7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x ORAL ARGUMENT 8
l 9
Sth Floor i
East-West Towers 10 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 11 1 I
Thursday, 3 January 1980 12 !
The Oral Argument in the above-entitled matter was convened, 13 l pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m.
BEFORE:
15 !
l ALAN S. ROSENTHAL, Chairman, Atomic Safety and 16 l Licensing Appeal Panel i
17 DR. JOHN H. BUCK, Vice Chairmr.n 18 DR. LAWRENCE R. QUARLES, Member i
19,
APPEARANCES:
20 JAMES N. CHRISTMAN, ESQ., Hunton & Williams, 707 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23212; on behalf of 21 h the Applicant.
- l 22 j JAMES DOUGEERTY, ESQ., on behalf of the Intervenors d
23 U STEVEN C. GOLDBERG, ESQ., Office of Executive Legal 24 !
Director, Nuclear Regulatory. Commission, Washington, eerei neoo,ter,. inc. '
D.
C.; on behalf of the NRC Staff'.
2 25 1734 129 i
lA 1
EEEEEEEE 2
PAGE 3
ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES DOUGHERTY ON BEHALF OF THE INTERVENORS 4
4 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES N. CHRISTMAN ON BEHALF OF THE 5
APPLICANT, VIRGINIA ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY 38 6
ORAL ARGUMENT OF STEVEN C. GOLDBERG ON BEHALF OF THE, NRC STAFF 64 7
REBUTTAL ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES DOUGHERTY ON BEHALF OF l
8 THE INTERVENORS 83 9
l 10 11 i
12 13 14 15 t
16 17 I 18 19 I I
20 l 21 i 22 }
i 23 24 f A.
Jeral Rooorters. inc. '
25 i
f le
CR 8908 2
EEER t-1 mte 1 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
This board is hearing oral 3
arguments this morning on the appeal of the intervenors, 4
Potomac Alliance Citizens Energy Forum, from a grant by uhe 5
Licensing Board of the applicant's motion for summary disposi-6l tion of this license amendment proceeding.
The effect of the i
7 action taken by the board below was to authorize the modifica-8 tion of the spent fuel pool for the North Anna facility, so l
9 as to increase its storage capacity.
I 10 l The argument is governed by the terms of this 11 board's December 5 order.
As provided therein, a total of one l
12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> has been allotted to each side for the presentation of 13 -
argument.
The appellants may, if they so desire, reserve a 14 I portion of their time for rebuttal.
i 15 !
I would like to remind counsel of the observation 1
1 16 [lin our December 5 order to the effect that they may assume l
I!
l 17 / that the members of the board are reasonably familiar with the I,I 18 I as well as with the positions of the respective I. record below,
~
19 parties on the appeal as reflected in their briefs.
And for 20 j this reason, as indicated in the order, there will be no i
21 l necessity for any counsel to devote a portion of his argument 22 to a detailed recitation of the background of the controversy.
l 23 '
At this point, I will request the counsel presenting 1
24 argument to identify themselves formally for the' record.
And i
Jderal Reoorters. Inc. ]
A 25 1 I will start with Mr. Dougherty.
s 1754 131 y
1
mte 2 3
1 MR. DOUGHERTY:
I am James Dougherty.
2 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
And you represent the intervenors?
3 MR. DOUGHERTY:
That's correct.
4 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
I take it, Mr. Dougherty, from 5
my secretary, that it was through inadvertence that you failed 6'
to acknowledge the receipt of the argument order?
7 MR. DOUGHERTY:
I think neglect is a better term.
8 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Well, I would express the l
9 importance of that kind of acknowledgment.
This is the only l
10 ! way in which the board can ascertain that counsel have in l
I i
11 fact received the argument order.
And by reason of our j
i 12 l secretary's failure to have received the acknowledgment 5 rom I
i i
13 y you, there was obviously some concern respecting whether you l
14;; had received the argn=ent order.
And the concern was compounded i
15 l when it turned out that no one in your office had any idea, i
d i
16 j apparently, as to whether the argument order had been received 17 ', by you.
!l la '
So should you be involved in further proceedings 1
19 i before our board, I would appreciate it if you would exercise i
20 !
some care in observing that condition.
21 l Mr. Christman?
i 22 l MR. CHRISTMAN:
Yes, sir.
My name is James N.
i 23 j! Christ =an and I represent the applicant, Virginia Electric and 1
24.; Power Company.
I'm with the law firm of Hunton & Williams, w i neoonen. Inc. j ac 25 q Post Office Box 1535, Richmond, Virginia, 23212..
I
~
F754
[32 a.
ste 3 4
1 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
All right.
Mr. Christman, I 2
assume that you and Mr. Goldberg have reached some agreement 3
as to the division of the one hour allotted to your side of the 4
case, as well as with regard to who will present argument 5
first?
6, MR. CHRISTMAN:
Yes, sir, we have.
We have split 7
the time down the middle, each of us taking half an hour.
I 8
lost the toss, so I will take the first of those two half-hours.
l 9
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
You lost the toss?
I 10 !
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Yes, sir.
i i
11 l (Laughter.)
i 12 ll CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Maybe you won.
Let's see.
i 13 j, Mr. Goldberg?
3 i
la j MR. GOLDBERG:
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
My name is l
15 !
Stephen Goldberg.
I represent the NRC staff in this matter.
I i
16 i CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Thank you, Mr. Goldberg.
17 h All right, Mr. Dougherty, you may proceed.
i l
18 l ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES DOUGHERTY O
19 ON BEHALF OF THE INTERVENORS 20 MR. DOUGHERTY:
Mr. Chairman, members of the board:
21 i At the outset, I would like to apologize again 22 !
for failing to give notica that I would be here.
And I assume 23 !;I it will never happen again in a similar case.
- i 24 l First, I would like to. reserve 15 minutes of the a
mee nwonm. m.,\\
r 25,l:
1754 133 hour0.00154 days <br />0.0369 hours <br />2.199074e-4 weeks <br />5.06065e-5 months <br /> that I have been allotted to respond to the arguments j
."I r
o
mte 4 5
1 presented by the NRC and VEPCO's counsel.
Next I would like 2
to briefly make some introductory comments about this case and 3
summarize the argument I would like to make and then go straight 4
into my argument.
5 VEPCO has argued repeatedly to the Licensing Board 6
and in its briefs to this Appeal Board that this is a small 7
case; that the environmental implications of spent fuel compac-8 tion are relatively insignificant; and that the legal issues i
9 raised in this case have already been resolved in previous 10 similar cases.
i 11 Our view is much different.
We think this case, l
i l
l 12 !
unlike the previous spent fuel compactor cases that this board 13 f has considered, raises fundamentally important questions of 4
14 j both law and policy.
Each time one of these cases comes before t
15 !
the board, we get closer and closer to the point at which l
16 l it is no longer credible or perhaps even honest to say, well, i
17 N spent fuel compaction is simply an interim storage technique il l
18 and eventually some sort of permanent disposal technology will 19 [ come along.
20 [
The fact is, we are using spent fuel pool compaction 21 l as a mid-and perhaps long-term storage technique.
I 22 !
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Now let me stop you right there 23 ;
Mr. Dougherty.
The Commission, as you are aware, has directed i
24 l the conduct of a rulemaking proceeding directed to the issue A
.ac e neoon m.inc.
25 b of confidence in the availability, when needed, of an off-site i
[) k
)
!\\
mte 5 6
1 repository for spent fuel pools -- excuse me, for spent fuel.
2 Now, the Commission, it seems to me ~-- and you can correct me 3
ifIamwrong--hasindicatedthattheissueoftheavailabilit/
4 of off-site repositories is not to be litigated in individual 5
licensing proceedings such as this one, pending the outcome i
6 of that generic rulemaking proceeding.
Now, if I am wrong 7
about that I would appreciate your pointing out my error.
If 8
I am correct in that belief, then I do not understand what the 9l relevance is of the point that you have just made.
10 MR. DOUGHERTY:
Well, Mr. Chairman, I've read the I
f 11 Minnesota decision very carefully and I have read the i
12 !
Commission's notice of October 25th many times.
And my firm 13 view is that neither Minnesota nor the Commission's notice of a
- 1 14 " the 25th preclude ciscussion or the long-term disposal ques-15 '
tions.
I 16 l I think that we have to discuss those issues in this 17 ;' proceeding and that the notice does not preclude our discussing ;
i 18 !
them.
I 19 E CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Well, it is true, is it not, I
20 ll that in the decision of this board which went to the District 21 !qof Columbia Circuit in the Minnesota case -- and of course, it 5
22 was the decision of this board in Prairie Island and i
l 23 I Vermont Yankee -- we determined that the matter of the 24 !
availability of off-site spent fuel repositories was not a fit Am.w.,.i neoomes. inc.,
25 subject for litigation in individual cases?
Didn't I decide P
f
'1754 135 a
mte 6 7
1 that in that' case?
2 MR. DOUGHERTY:
If I could restate what you said, 3
you said that this board ruled in the Prairie Island and Vermont 4
Yankee decision -- I think that was in ALAB 455 -- the long-l 5
term disposal question should not be litigated in individual 6
proceedings.
i 7
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
We said that it was appropriatel$
8 not litigated in that proceeding.
Wasn't that a principal i
9 issue?
Indeed, that was virtually the only issue that had i
10 ;
been raised by the intervenors on appeal in that case.
Their l
11 '
claim was that the Licensing Board should have explored the l
i 12,
degree of likelihood that those spent fuel pools would become i
1 13 1 permanent repositories.
And we held, I thought, that that was i
i 14 l not called for.
I 15 l And I don't recall the District of Columbia Circuit i
16 overturning that conclusion.
The District of Columbia i
17 1 Circuit I thought said that the Commission one way or another --
l 18 '
and they did not exclude the avenue which the Commission has 19 pursued, which is a generic rulemaking proceeding -- should 20 take another look at that finding that the Commission had made i
21 l several years ago in connection with denying an NRDC petition.
22 Now, I for the life of me do not understand how you l
23 l can argue based upon either Minnesota versus NRC or the 24,
Commission's actions setting up this rulemaking proceeding or A
.ceral Rooorters. Inc.,
25 ! the record that the rulemaking proceeding,be conducted, that 8
'1754 136
mte 7 8
1 the Licensing Board here was required to look 2.lto the matter 2
of whether there would be an off-site repository available 3
at any particular time.
I 4'
MR. DOUGHERTY:
That's not the argument I am making.
5 I'm saying that Minnesota, as well as the Commission's recent l
6' notice, require that operating license amendments like the I
one we're talking about today not be issued until those findings l s
7 8l are made.
I r
9li Now, the Commission has decided that they're going i
10 l to consider these questions in a generic proceeding and they l
i
?
have directed that these long-term and admittedly difficult
-11 I
12 '
questions not be resolved within individual licensing proceed-9 13 [i ings.
But nownere nas the Commission said that licensing
!l 14 j! boards may continue to issue permission.
l 15 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Where have they said that they i
16,
couldn't?
Don't you think that if the Commission's view were 17 that all licensing of spent fuel pool modifications were to f
h, 18 be withheld pending the outcome of the rulemaking proceeding, 19 it would have said so?
20 MR. DOUGHERTY:
I'm not convinced of that.
Well, I I
21 think you could make the opposing argument, which is that if 22 i they intended these amendments to continue to be issued they 1
23 l would have said so, and they haven't said either.
I think the 24 language in the October 25th order is ambiguous.
It is A
emi smomn. inc.
25 clearly ambiguous, and I suspect intentionally ambiguous.
g O
954137 s
mte 8 9
1 And I further suspect that the reason for that is because 2
Minnesota requires that before you can issue this kind.of 3
OL amendment you have to have the findings.
NEPA requires i
4 that you consider the long-term effect before you issue the 5
amendment.
6!
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Can you point me to language 7
in the District of Columbia Circuit's decision which precludes l
I I
8 the Commission from issuing any additional license amendments 9
of this type pending the outcome of the rulemaking proceeding?
10 MR. DOUGHERTY:
No, I can't.
11 !
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Well then, what do you base the l
12 f argument on?
i 13 ll MR. DOUGHERTY:
Well, I think you have to look first 14 l at the Prairie Island decision.
In that case, the Appeal i
15 l Board said there is no basis for arbitrarily cutting off the 16 j environmental analysis of the spent fuel pool compactions at I
17;l the date upon which the operating license in question expires.
I IS '
l They said, if we can expect, if it is reasonably probable that 19,
b e're going to need these spent fuel pools beyond that date, w
i 20 !I past the expected useful life of the plant, then under NEPA i
21 j
we've got to look at the environmental consequences of that I
22 i extended storage.
23 What it said, t hough, was that, because of the 24 '
NRC's policy statement in response to the NRDC rulemaking
,4 aret Reporters, Inc.,
25 I 4ll proceeding, they felt bound to assume that in fact some sort
]
1754 138
mte 9 10 1
of permanent disposal technology would become available before 2
the expiration of those operating licenses.
So that is why 3
it was inappropriate to consider those questions:
they had 4
been bound by a prior policy statement by the Commission.
5j Now, the D.C. Circuit in Minnesota affirmed that i
6l ruling.
They did not in any way suggest that the Appeal Board 7
has missed the point when it said NEPA requires you to examine a
the environmental consequences of this kind of compaction as l
9 long as you're going to use the spent fuel pool.
If you're i
t 10 going to use it for 50 years, examinetheenvironmentalimpactsl l
t 11 !
for 50 years.
i 12 !
A;d then it went on to repudiate the Appeal Board's 13 $ reliance on the Commission's statement that some sort of 14hpermanent technology would likely be available when necced.
i' 15 And that is why it was remanded for a proceeding, for a deter-16 l mination on these, questions.
t 17 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Why, if your view is correct, la !
did not the District of Columbia Circuit preclude the continued 19 storage of spent fuel in the Prairie Island and Vermont Yankee 3
il 20 0 pools pending the outcome of the rulemaking proceeding?
21 !.
MR. DOUGHERTY:
Well, I think the answer to that i
22 l question is fairly clear from the D.C.
Circuit's opinion, and I
23 l that is, as they mentioned in a footnote, I believe, if they 24 4 were to stay the issuance of the OL amendments, that would A
deret Reporters, Inc. ;;
25[' recuire the immediate shutdown of the Vermont.Tankee plant,
~
!!r 1
k
>17S4 139
mte 10 11 1
and I think Prairie Island would have had to go down within a 2
year or two.
3 Obviously, if that kind of result were to happen, 4
you're talking about massive economic effects and social 5t effects, and that this effects would be borne upon the rate-6 payers or upon the utility stockholders, who essentially weren't i
i 7
culpable.
It was the NRC's failure to comply with NEPA that 8
was the source of the problem.
And I think the court recog-l 9,
nized it was sitting as a court of equity and simply did not 10 l want to impose harsh consequences on the public because of the 11 l NRC's failure to comply with NEPA.
I 12 l I think you have to distinguish those cases from this 13 h case.
Until about four months ago, there wasn't a gram of 14 spent fuel in the North Anna pool.
If this Appeal Board or l3 15 Nll if the D.C. Circuit were to decide that the OL amendment should 16 l be stayed, there would be no economic consequences for VEPCO's I7 ratepayers.
VEPCO could very easily just put in the old racks 18 or do a juggling act in the pool or do whatever has to be 19 done.
But there is no risk of severe economic consequences.
p!
20 So I don't think that kind of problem would occur if this 21 l case were to go back to the D.C.
Circuit.
22 l Additionally, I suspect the D.C. Circuit was sympa-l 23 ;j thetic with the Commission.
It had decided several of these
- l 24 ] cases assuming that there was no need to consider the environ-Ac,.. scerse Reoorters, Inc.
25 j mental impacts beyond the expiration of.the OL.
Suddenly the V
d 1754 140' 9
mte 11 12 1
D.C. Circuit says, no, this is wrong; NEPA requires such and 2
such.
But since this is the first time we're ruling on this, 3
we simply are not going to upset your whole licensing scheme.
4 B'.t as of today, the Commission has been put on notice that 5
these findings have to be made.
i 6
And I don't think that -- I don't think the NRC can 7
get away with it a second time.
8 CHAIRhAN ROSENTHAL:
What you're saying, though, is 9l it not, is that both the District of Columbia Circuit and the 10 '
Commission, in acting upca the judicial decision, were rather i
f 11 imprecise, in that neither of them, neither the court nor the l
i i
12 '
Commission, specifically indicated that there was to be no i
13 i,! further licensing of spent fuel modifications pending the il 14 outcome of the rulemaking?
15 j, Now, my experience is, with both the District of
.lf 16 '
Columbia Circuit and the Commission, teaches that if that kind l
I 7" of result is intended, it is explicitly so stated.
And I have -
!I 18 some trouble, candidly, with your suggestion that because there 19 '
wasn't a specific indication that licensing could go forward I
20 " pending the outcome of the rulemaking proceeding, we are to 21 assume that the court, the Commission, one or the other or 22 '
both, intended that licensing be halted.
I 23 MR. DOUGHERTY:
Well, Mr. Chairman, I understand what 24 ll you're saying and I agree that there is ambiguity in both the A
merei neoen m.inc.
25 D.C.
Circuit's opinion and in the Commission announcement.
I g
J H
1 h
i754 14l
mte 12 13 1
hesitate to speculate as to why the D.C. Circuit may have been 2
ambiguous.
As you know, there is a difficult history between 1
3' the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court in nuclear licensing i
I 41 cases, and I suspect -- and again, this is speculation -- but I
5l that if they had issued a decision which required shutdown 6l of the nuclear power plant and expenditures of hundreds of i
7; thousands of dollars per day, they might have had rough sled-8 ding on review.
9!
Now, as to the Commission's notice, again it would I
I 10 clearly put them into a difficult position for them to announcej l
11 publicly that they were going to suspend the issuance of all 12 licenses until they had completed this generic proceeding.
13 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Well, if they thought it would 14 put themselves in a difficult position and for that reason 1
15 '
they didn't do it, I don't know why we should undertake to 16 ;
do that ourselves.
17 ;l MR. DOUGHERTY:
Well, I simply can't answer that.
i l
18 I don't know why the NRC's order is ambiguous.
But the fact 4
19 that it is is significant.
3 1
20 I CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
I think we understand your I
21 ;l position.
Why don't you go on to other issues.
22 !
MR. DOUGHERTY:
Well, I would just like to tie this 23 l issue up, and that is that I think what Minnesota requires in 24 :
conjunction with the NRC's order is that licensing boards 4e mi neoon.,. inc. 4 25:l be precluded from considering these long-term issues, and 1
k 1754 142 l
mte 13 14 1
these issues have now been segregated and confined to the 2
generic proceeding.
3 I moved, my clients moved, in June asking this 4
Licensing Board, the Licensing Board below, to expand all of l
5 !
the contentions at issue to take a long-range perspective, to i
i 6i assume that the spent fuel pool would be used for an extended 7
period of storage.
8 I think, in light of the Commission's recent notice, 9,
that kind of motion would have to be denied.
The Licensing I
t 10 ll Board would be told not to consider issues in that matter.
l 11 :
But I think nonetheless Minnesota requires that no such 12 ;
amendments.be issued until that proceeding has been concluded.;
13 That is a difficult result, but I think that is required.
14 l I have three more issues which I would like to get h
15 j to, assuming I have time, and they are these:
First of all ll 16 '
is what I call the adequacy of the Licensing Board's decision. l i
17 :
We contend that the board -- that the opinion, the order of i
l 18 l August 6th, I believe, or 24th, is so vague and so poorly 19 !; supported that it doesn't meet the Appeal Board standard.
F d
20 d CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Well, supposing you're right 21,
about that.
This is a case that cones up on an appeal from 1
22 L the grant of summary disposition, rather than an appeal from 23 '
determinations made by the Licensing Board after a full 24 ' evidentiary hearing.
Now,- the question is whether or not the re
,eres neoo,,m. ene. '
25 S applicant was entitled to judgment as a matter cf law.
- Now, l
~
T754.143-nl
mte 14 15 1
in that circumstance, is it really relevant to our disposition 2
whether the Licensing Board's decision was good, bad, or 3
indifferent, recognizing that we have called upon licensing 4
boards to fully explicate the reasons under the decision they 5;
reached?
If the Licensing Board fails to do that, the ques-l l
6 tions that are presented are ones of law only.
Can't we 7
readfly cure that in fact?
8 MR. DOUGHERTY:
I submit it is somewhat inaccurate 9
to say these questions are legal questions only.
What the 10 l board had to do was determine whether or not there existed i
11 l genuine issues of material fac*
I 12 I CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
But they did this on a paper 13 jj record.
They heard no witnesses.
And the same paper record 14 that was before the Licensing Board is before this board.
15 lNow, why isn't this board in just as good a position to pass 16 judgment on these issues on this paper record as was the i
17 ;
Licensing Board?
I 18 '
Is it really significant in terms of the outcome l
~
19 b whether the Licensing Board adequately or inadequately expli-20 cated its reasons for reaching the result which is reached?
21,
MR. DOUGHERTY:
I think I see a couple af issues in 22 what you ask.
Our position, as I will explain later, is that
,I 23i! there were genuine issues of fact.
!i 24 jl CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
You may be right and you may i
mre neooners. inc.] be wrong on that 4
25 You can address those to us just as easily q
4l:
3 1754 H4
ste 15 16 1
as you could the Licensing Board.
2 MR. DOUGHERTY:
That's right.
But I think it is 3l within the power, and it may be appropriate, for the Appeal 4
Board to review the entire record and to reach its own conclu-5 sion as to whether or not a genuine issue of fact existed.
6:
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
We would have to do that anyway, 7
wouldn't we?
8 MR. DOUGHERTY:- Well, generally on questions of fact i
I 9:
it's appropriate that --
I 10 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Well, that is summary disposition.
i 11 We may give a licensing board's findings, based upon a record l
12 [ which may have conflicting evidence in it, a certain amount 13 of weight.
But where it is a question of the existence or k
14? nenexistence of a genuine issue of material fact, whether you i
15lcharacterizethatissue,asIwould,asoneoflaw,orwhether,,
16 l as you perhaps would, a mixed question of fact and law, the I
6 17, Licensing Board isn't entitled to any particular deference at 18 all, is it?
~
19 !l MR. DOUGHERTY:
I would argue that it is not, as a 20 j matter of law.
I think that as a matter of practicality, i
21 l unless this Appeal Board is prepared to go through every page 22 of the record, that there is going to be an implicit tendency I
e-1 23 ;
to assume that the Licensing Board's decision was correct.
24 ;
must Recorurs. Inc. l A
25 -
65i145 i
3909 02 01 17 gshM EE I
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
I suppose there is to some 2
extent a presumption of correctness that attaches to the 3
decision of the lower tribunals.
4 At the same time, however, I think you would find 5
that most acpellate bodies, judicial or quasi-judicial as 6
they may be, when confronted with a question as to whether 7
summary disposition was appr opriate will canvass the full B
record.
9 And I think you may assume that we will.
And for 10 that reason I think that you would be probably best off if 11 you turn to the question as to whether there is in fact a 12 genuine issue of material f act here, with the consequence 13 that the licensing board incorrectly granted surmary 14 di sposit io n.
15 And in that connection, I would like you to 16 specify for me precisely what you think are the genuine 17 issues of material f act and just how your response tc the IB motion demonstrated the existence of such a general issue of 19 material fact.
Because I was not at all clear from your 20 orief when you talked about your interrogatories and your 21 inte rrogatories indicating or -- excuse me -- your answers 22 to interrogatories indicating the existence of genuine 23 issues of material fact.
24 Sut I found your brief ratner imprecise in 25 identifying just what those material issues are.
And I d'
f754 146
3908 02 02 13 gshHEE I
think you would help your cause and help us if you could 2
indicate them specifically.
3 MR. DOUGHERTY:
Well, in my brief I chose simply 4
to refer to those pleadings in which we had --
5 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
dell, these are lengthy 6
pleadings.
7 MR. DOUGHERTY:
I understand that.
3 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Even below you were recuired 9
by 2.749 to identify specifically what you regarded as being 10
. the genuine issues of material f act that should be tried.
11 So I an asking you to that for me now.
12 MR. DOUGHERTY: Well, first I would like to talk 13 about the contention that we label alternatives.
Since the 14 first days of this proceeding, the intervenor s pressed a 15 contention called alternatives in wnicn we had once six 16 subalternatives tnat we alleged to be considered.
17 After negotiations and hearings, those wera 13 whittled down to three.
19 In support of its motion for summary disposition, 20 Vepco submitted an affidavit fro, an engineer in which it 21 said these alternatives are not practicable, or that th e y' r e 22 just simply too expensive.
Or just in very cursory f ashion 23 e pressed his view that the re is no question.
x 24 The intervenors responded, on the other hand, witn 25 an affidavit by cualified economists who looked at all of 1754J47 7
3908 02 03 19 gsnHEE I
the presentations that had been made by Vepco in its 2
application and in support of its motion for summary 3
disposition and expressed his personal opinion that those 4
analyses were completely inadequate and that they had found 5
nothing on which an expert could base a seasoned judgment as 6
to the relative wisdom of these alternatives.
7 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Economic wisdom you're 8
talking about?
9 MR. DOUGHERTY:
His aoplication was based upon 10 economic wisdom.
11 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Haven't we held that there is 12 no necessity to consider alternatives to a proposed 13 licensing action unle ss the proposed licensing action itself 14 has reasonaoly significant environmental consequences?
15 MR. DOUGHERTY :
I'm glad that you choose your 16 adjective well oecause I think it's important.
Yes, of 17 course this appeal ocard has held that.
18 CHAIRMAri ROSENTHAL:
Now are you accepting that or 19 attacking it?
23 MR. DOUGHERTY:
I'm accepting the point that it a 21 given f ederal action nas no cognitive environmental 22 consequences, then you don't have to go through an extended 23 analysis.
24 I don't accept the contention, and this point was 25 elacorated by Vepco in its brief, that a spent f ue l p ool t755148' O
3908 02 04 23 gshM EE 1
compaction does not rise to a level of significance for this 2
purpose, that there is no significant environmental 3
consequences.
4 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Now do you establish that 5
there is a genuine issue of material f act with respect to 6
whether expansion of this pool will have suf ficiently 7
significant environmental impact, that it is necessary to 3
consider alternatives?
9 Or was it the Trojan ruling that is inapplicable 10 here?
11 MR. DOUGHERTY:
de have not alleged that tne 12 environmental impacts in this case are greater than in that 13 case.
14 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Well, then, how can you raise 15 this alternative question oecause it would s eem to me that 16 in the aesence of the existence of a ;enuine issue of 17 material fact with respect to reasonaoly significant 13 environmental impact, that as a matter of law, at least if 19 the Trojan decision is correct, there was no necessity to 23 consider alternatives to the modification of the spent fuel 21 p ool.
22 MR. DOUGHERTY:
de have never alleged that there 23 will be no reasonably significant environmental effects as a 24 result of th.is action.
25 What we nave conceded is that the environmental 9
'1754 149
3903 02 05 21 gshMEE i
impacts will be acceptable.
2 We haven't made --
3 CHAIRMAN ROSERTHAL:
tihat do you mean by 4
" a cceptable" ?
5 MR. DOUGHERTY:
Sufficiently small not to se 6
troubling to us.
7 Ne verthele ss, real, ne verthele ss, concre te, not 8
significant for purposes of NEPA, perhaps, or preparation of 9
environmental impact statements.
10 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
de.11, 4here do the y f all?
In 11 the Trojan case, we determined that there was nothing on the 12 record that had been developed in that case to suggest that 13 the modification of the spent fuel pool there involved would 14 have sufficiently significant environmental effects to 15 necessitate the consideration of alternatives.
16 That is wnat we did hold.
Is that correct?
17 MR. DOUGHERTY:
That's correct.
IS CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
All right.
Now you say here 19 that you didn't conceded that there would be no 20 environmental impact.
But you did concede that the 21 environmental impacts would be a cceptable, whatever that may 22 mean.
23 Now where did you come out with respect to the 24 Tro jan line?
In otner words, are you contending that the 25 environmental impacts associated with this pool expansion I?.54 150
3908 02 06 22 gshHEE I
will be sufficiently greater than those in Trojan, that the 2
Trojan holding that no alternatives had to be considered is 3
inapplicable?
4 MR. DOUGHERTY:
In a word, yes.
5 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
All right.
Whe re do you --
6 what endeavor did you make below to establish in response to 7
the motion f or summary disposition that such was the case, 3
or at least that it was a genuine issue, respecting whether 9
such was the case -- because if you are contending that the 10 motion f or summary disposition should be denied because 11 there was a failure on the part of the aoplicant to consider 12 alternatives, in order to make that position stick, you 13 would have had to show that there was at least a genJine 14 issue of material fact on the natter of the environmental 15 impacts being sufficiently great that alternatives had to be 16 considered.
17 MR. DOUGHERTY:
That is, of course, if we accept 13 the whole thing in Trojan.
19 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Well, that's what I asked you 20 earlier on, is whether in f act we're talking here about the 21 reconsideration of the Trojan decision or whether you are 22 accepting Trojan and arguing that consistent with Trojan, 23 alternatives had to be considered here.
24 MR. DOUGHERTY:
1.r. Cha irman. I think that Trojan 25 is wrongly decided.
. rankly, I think it has done violence 9
F754 151
3908 02 07 23 gsnHEE I
to the spirit of dEPA.
2 It creates a threshold of significance at which 3
point a duty to consider alternatives arises.
But there is 4
no such threshold in the statute.
5 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
rihat is the statutory 6
language?
I don't have NEPA before me, but I thought it was 7
something to the effect of a major federal action having --
3 I don't know whether they used the word "significant." out 9
some kind of effect on the environnent.
10 And I thought our Trojan decision, right or wrong, 11 rested on that precise statutory language.
12 MR. DOUGHERTY:
I don't think it does and I'm 13 quite confident if it does, it's incorrect.
14 The language that you re fer to is in 102(2)(c),
15 and that's the section that refers to environnental inpact 16 statements.
17 Such statements must be prepared when you nave 13 major f edersi action significantly affecting the 19 environment.
20 Howe ver, the balance of 102(2) states that it must 21 be implemented by the federal agencies to the fullest extent 22 possible.
And with the exception of subsection (c), there 23 is no threshold of environmental significance.
24 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Let us supcose that the 25 environmental significance of a particular action is
~
1754 152.
N08 02 OS 24 gshHEE I
virtually zero, is almost none, imperceptible.
2 Your contention would still be that in determining 3
whether to license this proposed action with the almost zero 4
erviror% ental impact, that alternatives to that action will 5
have to be considered.
6 MR. DOUGHERTY: Well, first of all, I don't think 7
the impacts of their proposed amendment are virtually B
insignificant.
9 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL I know, but 10 MR. DOUGHERTY:
Even if they were analogized to il the Hanley decision by the 2nd Circuit in which it said, the 12 environmental impact statement must be prepared, and not 13 where it has been demonstrated that the environmental 14 e ff ects will be significant, out whe re they may be 15 signif ic an t, where it's likely, enere :nere's a possibility.
16 These are the standards that have come down from 17 the courts and I would apply the same sort of standards to 13 consideration of alternatives if it may have cognizant 19 environmental consequences.
20 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
What endeavor did you make to 21 show in response to the motion for summary disposition that 22 the expansion of this pool might have sufficiently large 23 environmental impact, that alternatives had to be 24 considered?
25 MR. DOUGHERTY:
We've had a co nten t io n...
e f754 153
3908 02 09 25 gshHEE I
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
I know you've had 2
contentions.
But they are not good enough as responses to 3
motions to sumnary disposition.
4 MR. DOUGHERTY:
I understand, Mr. Chairman.
5 E ssentiall y, I think it's unnecessarv for us to elaborate on 6
the environmental consequences.
7 It seems to me that they are clearly sufficient 3
for the purpose we're talking acout.
Staff has declared 9
that this proceeding involves significant hazards 10 considerations.
11 The commission has prepared a generic 12 environmental inpact statement on spent fuel handling, 13 including principally, these nodifications.
I think more 14 importantly is the Minnesota decision in which the 15 D.C. Circuit didn't get involved with levels of significance 16 they said NEPA applies nere.
(ou're violating your 17 obligation to consider the environmental e ff ects and you la have to go sack and make findings.
19 If Trojan had any inherent validity. I think that 20 has been eliminated by the Minnesota decision.
21 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
So wnat you're really, if I 22 understand you correctly, really doing is suggesting that 23 Trojan is incorrect and we ought to reconsider it.
~
24 Is that what it really comes down to at bottom?
25 MR. JOUGHERTY:
Before last May I would have said
.]TbD\\.154
3908 02 10 26 gshHEE 1
it's incorrect.
And now I said it has been overruled 2
implicitly by Minnesota.
3 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
By the Prairie Island, 4
Vermont Yankee?
5 MR. DOUGHERTY:
No, by the D.C. Circuit.
6 CHAIRMAii ROSENTHAL:
So wnat you're asking us to 7
do is to reconsider Trojan in light of the District of S
Columbia Circuit's decision and to overturn it.
9 MR. DOUGHERTY:
Yes.
I would also ask you to 10 consider my arguments under NEPA.
11 I think that they on themselves demonstrate that 12 Trojan was off the mark.
13 DR. BUCK:
Ar. Dougnerty, do you allege any of 14 your alternatives have a lower environmental eff ect than you 15 celieve the modification of the f uel pool has?
16 MR. DOUGHERTY: Yes, I do, Doctor.
- lone of the 17 alternatives we raise call for dense configuration of the 18 fuel centers.
19 DR. BUC.<*
dhat is the environnental e ff ect of the 20 density in the pool?
21 MR. DOUGHERTY:
The issues we discuss in tnis 22 proceeding concerned increased concern of the pool going 23 critical, increased radiation, bomoardment of the fuel 24 assemolies, of stainle ss steel materials.
25 DR. BUCK:
Is that an environmental effect?
1754 155
3908 02 11 27 gshHEE 1
MR. DOUGHERTY:
Well, I think that is a risk that 2
there may be environmental eff ects.
I've never really been 3
able to understand the distinction between saf ety questions 4
and environmental questions.
5 DR. BUCK:
I'm trying to pin you down, what 6
environmental ef f ects you're talking about that is so much 7
greater in the spent fuel pool that we're looking at here as 8
against your alternatives or any of your alternatives.
9 MR. DOUGHERTY :
Well, there is principally -- I've 10 listed them.
There is a reduced risk of criticality which 11 apparently nas been one of the main concerns of the.iRC 12 staff.
13 DR. SUCK:
dell, how scout other environne,tal 14 eff ects of your alternatives?
The fact tnat you're naving 15 to do more cuilding and using pre materials and all tna:
16 sort of thing.
17 MR. DOUGHERTY:
Well, there could be off setting 13 gains and lo sses.
de haven't exolored them.
In fact, we 19 never made a big deal of the environmental effects of this 20 action.
21 We think it is sufficient that we can allege in 22 good f aith and with some correctness that there will be 23 reduced environmental impacts.
24 The lesson of IJEPA is that when you have ga ins in 25 one place and lo sses in another, tnat you don't try to i 75i4 156
6908 02 12 23 gsnHEE 1
balance them off.
You simply apply the statute.
2 And that is my view in this case.
3 DR. BUCK:
Do you mean overall now, you're talking 4
aoout reduced environmental effects of your alternatives or 5
just in one particular area?
6 MR. DOUGHERTY:
Well, I think the NEPA case would 7
establish even in one particular area that the environmental 8
e ff ects may trigger the application of the statute, descite 9
the fact that there are corresponding gains.
10 DR. BUCK:
Then don't you have to go through a 11 calancing on all of tnem in that case, all of the 12 environmental eff ects?
13 MR. DOUGHERTY:
No, the cases hold just the 14 oppositet in fact, that as soon as you cegin that balancing 15 and then the statute soplies cecause it goes to that sort of 16 decision-making.
And it is not concerned with the bottom 17 line.
13 DR. BUCK:
That's the only environmental ef f ect 19 that you can think of that the present rule has?
20 MR. DOUGHERTY:
If I had more time to refisct 21 DR. BUCK:
dell, you've been in this thing f or 22 months.
Surely, you know of the environmental eff ects that 23 you allege.
24 '
MR. DOUGHERTY:
aell, yes. I do.
And as I say, we 25 naven't focused on any environmental questions.
We teciced
! 1764157
3908 02 13 29 gshMEE I
to focus our resources elsewhere.
2 DR. QUARLES:
Before we leave this, Mr. Dougherty, 3
you mentioned that the change in the e ff ect -- and you 4
didn't know whether to say environmental, so you won't argue 5
that -- but suppose the effectiveness in the present case is 6
.5 and the new K eff ective for the compacted elements is 7
.51.
3 Do you maintain that as an environmental 9
consideration that you would have to worry aoout?
10 MR. DOUGHERTY:
I personally would not be troubled
.l l by it.
And if I had a choice, I would not allege that on 12 this basis, the amendment should not ce admitted.
13 il5PA doesn't call for quiboling as to fractions of 14 K effect.
If there's a reasonacle casis for saying that 15 there's a enance of environmental imorovement, then you must 16 implement that statute.
(ou must comply with it.
17 That is wnat I am saying, is that small shades of la difference just won't ma tter.
If there are environmental 19 advantages that can be alleged in good f aith, that's all 20 that's required.
21 DR. QUARLES:
.Nell, small snades of K ef fect don't 22 matter.
23 Are you saying that in this case the change in K 24 e ff ect is 9ere than a shading, that it is a significant 25 effect or significant change?
1 754' 158
3908 02 14 Ju gshMEE I
MR. DOUGHERTY:
I'm not sure I understand exactly 2
"is it significant."
3 DR. QUARLES:
Well, I only sant to use a word that 4
makes it different in your mind, whatever the word is.
You 5
are alleging that in this case the change of X is enough, 6
that it has to be considered.
7 MR. DOUGHERTYs For purpos es of NEPA, that's 3
correct.
9 DR. QUARLES:
Thank you.
10 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL Apart from alternatives, what 11 are the other genuine issues of material fact whien you 12 believe this record shows?
13 MR. DOUGHERTYs One contention we have pursued 14 with more vigor than the rest is the one entitled, " Surf ace 15 idater Cooling System."
16 As you know, in tne middle of tnis proceeding, 17 Vepco recorted to the commission thac they discovered a 18 defect in previous calculations of their cooling capability 19 of spent fuel cooling systems and that, in fact, they would 20 not be able to meet the temperature limits that it once was 21 tnought that it could.
22 We immediately responded with a motion to amend 23 the contentions to add this to litigate it.
None of the 24 parties opoosed it and the coard granted the notion.
It 25 nen cecane an issue.
1754 M9 9
3909 02 15 31 gsnHEE I
We submitted discovery, attempted to extract 2
Vepco's explanation as to what was going on, what they had 3
discovered, how they could aroitrarily change their 4
assumptions as to how many fuel pit coolers would function 5
and how many pumps would function.
And we ne ver got solid 6
answers.
7 rihen we asked them what the probability of 3
failure of spent fuel pool pump was, they responded that 9
they didn't know. And they gave us the same response when we 10 asked them what the procamility of farlure was of the heating.
12 CHAIRMAN.40SE:iTHAL:
What is the issue of material 13 fact?
14 MR. DOUGHERTY:
Can tney maintain the temperature 15 of the pool water within the limits set out in the FSAR?
16
,1ha t is an appropriate assumption as the design basis 17 cooling capability of the pool?
18 Can we assume that we will
>1 ways have two 19 functioning heat exchangers in the event of the abnormal 20 case, wnatever that is, or is it better, is it more 21 conservative to assume that only one pump in ona exchange 22 pool will work?
23 Vepco has said in certain circumstances that as 24 modified, the new spent fuel pool may go uo to a temperature 25 of 176 degrees.
This exceeds the FSAR limit, that tne f/54 160
3908 02 16 32 gshMEE I
licensing board never considered it appropriate to inquire 2
as to whether or not it might be necessary to change that 3
limit or to impose operating restrictions or technical 4
spe c if ic ations.
5 They let the whole thing slide by.
6 I think the unanswered cuestions in that 7
contention jump out at you.
3 I might add that in concluding its dismissal of 9
that contention, the board said it found that Vepco's 10 service water cooling system is acceptacle.
It apparently 11 looked at the arguments made by Vecco and our arguments.
12 And on balance, it determined that Vepco had made a cetter 13 case, but it never looked for questions of fact.
That 14 wasn't its concern.
15,
It never stated anywhere that there were no 16 material issues of fact in contention.
17 My final point is that -- and I hesitate to even IS raise this issue -- it concerns the scheduling of the 19 proc ee ding.
And we realize tnat we are injured and did not 20 process by scheduling.
21 Now I know appeal boards are very reluctant to 22 overturn scheduling decisions.
And I understand that when 23 making scheduling decisions, licensing coards are presumed 24 to expedite rather than delay the proceeding.
25 I still tnink if you look at the history of tnis 1754 161
3908 02 17 33 gsnHEE I
proceeding and the decision, scheduling decision made by the 2
board, you will see that we were denied a real opportunity 3
to participate.
4 Starting with the micdle of 19J7, at which ppint 5
Vepco ordered the racks, the new density configuration 6
rack s, they didn't submit their application for this 7
amendment until May of '73.
And then submitted a petition 3
that amended those petitions, and finally had a hearing in 9
Septemoer of '78.
10 It took the board three months to decide that we 11 did not have standing to sue.
I don't know what they did 12 for three months, but they finally said, we cidn't have 13 standing.
They never even addressed our contention.
14 dhen this appeal board summarily reversed tnat 15 decision, then the licensing coard started moving and we 16 negotiated with the other parties.
And we eventually 17 designated the contentions to be litigated.
18 At that point, they said, we're going to have a 19 full evidentiary hearing in 7 weeks, and that included 20 discovery, submission of written testimony, et cetere, 21 including making it impossible for us to mount our 22 presentation in 7 weeks and to go through pretrial 23 procedures, et cetera.
24 de raised this with the coard.
de called e otion 25 for an extention.
de filed oojections to that order.
A903 02 01 34 gs.hHEE I
Their response was three weeks prior to that 2
hearing, they granted us a two-week extension.
This was 3
apparently to accommodate the staff's need to bring in a 4
special witness.
But there was no attempt to assist us or 5
give us more time.
6 7
S 9
10 11 12 13 j
14
/
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 1754 163
dv0dO301 35 mgcHEd i
CHAIRMAN ROSEifTHAL:
When you filed your third 2
response to VEPCO's motion for summary disposition, which I 3
think was done on the 23rd of July, did you suggest to the 4
Licensing Board that you needed additional time, either to o
conduct further discovery or to answer the VEPCO motion?
6
- JR. DOUGHERTY:
I can't recall.
I suspect that we 7
didn't, t houg h.
o CHAIRi4Aii ROSE?CHAL:
That is when I think your Y
o pponen t suggested you dicn't, anc my question is whe ther in 10 the absence of such a sugge stion you are not now, as a 11 practical matter, estoppec from raising this complaint.
12 MR. ROUGHERTY:
This is a point we hammered on 13 throughout tne proceeding, particularly in the weeks before 14 we file that answer, and I woulo hate to think our failure lo woulc raise it again -- rai se s a que stion of e s to,toal, cut lo neverthele ss, if you look at tnose three months and what the 17 Soarc cia when it granteo piecemeal extensions, when it lo granteo partial sunnary =1sposition as to several issues and ly ten cays later reversed itself, we're saying, well, what is 20 the s ta tu s of tnese contentions.
21 And tnen they came cown again six or seven weeks 22 later and grantec summary aisposition again.
tie f el t 23 anc. I think, accurately -- that we were being jerkec 24 arounc.
23 CHAIRJAli ROSEiiTHAL:
All right.
fou felt that 1754 164
dv060302 36 mgcnEE I
you were being jerked around.
I think a lot of litigants, 2
botn in court anc before aaministrative agencies in 3
acjucicatory proceedings, nave that feeling.
4 Let me asx you this.
Do you contend that the sum 5
total of these events that you set forth anc wnat the Board o
dio along the line constituted in totality a denial of due 7
proce ssl o
MR. DOUGHERYY:
Well, I use that term loosely.
~
V CHAIRMAN ROSEtiTHAL:
Well, we don't use it tha t 10 loosely.
You noted earlier on, this Soard is very reluctant 11 to step into scnecuting cecisions.
We have done it f rom 12 time to time.
6an Onof re is one case that comes to mind 13 wnere we concluuec that the scheduling cecision amounted to 14 a violation of aus process.
15 Now, recognizing that due proce ss is a ra tner lo elusive term, wnac I'm ;rying to get at is, really !ne ther 17 you are contencing :nat the sum total of the circumstances Ic here amounts to a cenial of oue process.
IV
!.'.R. DO U GHER f Y :
tes, I am contending just that.
I 20 think it would oe f air for this Appeal Boarc to establisn a 21 presumption that whenever a Licensing Soard allows only 22 seven weeks f or a prenearing conf erence anc dir :
rery and 23 suomission of tes timony ce: ween the date on whien the 2*
contentions are cesignatec ano that nearing, that that is a 23 cenial of due proce ss.
175i
!(,5
dvoo0303 37 mgenEs i
Tne fact t ha t they later give us two weeks, three 2
weeks before the nearing cid not mitigate that at all.
3 Granting a summary disposition and then changing their mind 4
anc cnen changing tneir mina hurt us.
When I tried to get d
experts to give me an affidavit on the question, a technical o
question, thay saic, "Well, when do you need their opinion?"
7 And I said, "In three w eek s."
And they said, "What are o
you talking about?"
y I can't go over their documents.
I can't co 10 incepencent researen.
I can't develop a position, and the 11 later extensions cid not help that at all.
And so we were 12 just stancing tnere watching tne e ven ts go by.
13 CHAIR:4Ad ROSEdTHAL:
All right.
You've aken 45 14 minutes.
.o you want to re serve 15 for a rebuttal?
Io MR. v0UGHERT(:
Yes, I would.
lo CHAIR.iAu R05EJTHAL:
I think we will near fron 17 Mr. Christman, af ter wnicn we will take a orief recess.
At to the outse t..ir. Christman, I a ppreciate tnat you nave oeen on ly vacation, but I trust that you did receive the letter which 20 a sked you to clarify what appearec to us to be an 21 inconsistency in your brief.
~
22 iou con't need to do that at the outset, but in 23 tne course of your argument, we will expect that of you, and 2*
i t may tie into one of tne points which dr. vougnerty cace 25 witn respect to tne ma tter of tempera ture levels in the 1754 166-
dvGo0304 36 mgcadd I
instance of an abnormal case.
2 URAL ARGUMEdT SY MR. JAME5 N. CHRISTMAN ON 3
3EHALF OF THE APPLICANT, VIRGIdIA ELECTRIC 4
P0.lER CD:.VAdY.
5 MR. CdR ISIt. TAN :
fe s, Mr. Chairman. I dic receive o
the memorandum, and I hope to clear that up midway through i
my remarks.
o As a matter of fact, let me tell you briefly what v
I propose to co, what I propose to say, so you will know 10 where I'm going.
11 I tnought I would make one or two brief 12 introcuctory remarks.
I really came prepared to ciscuss 13 just three issues:
the substantive issues that were raised 14 by tne appelate brief of cne intervenors.
It seems to me 15
- na t those enree suostantive issues are the alternatives, lo tne surf ace water cooling system which I will cisucss 17 seconc, and tne caterials integrity issue.
le I believe two of tnose were discussed by dr lv vougnerty as his key issues.
I guess tne estimates of our 20 case is that wnen tne intervenors filed their July 23rd 21 answer opposing summary cisposition, they could nave
~
22 re sis teu tne result that actually obtained in either of two 23 ways.
2*
They could nave shown why they couldn't re s pond 2e properly, or tney coulc nave cresented specific f ac ts sucn
~
1754 167
dv0dO305 39 mgc.ics I
as would ce aamissible into evidence to show that the re is a 2
material issue or fact.
3 Since they cian't do either of those things on 4
July 23, we think it is very oroinary anc expectable that S
the summary disposition would follow, and hence it dia.
o It is also, I suppose, the essence of our case 7
that the intervenors, qui te a part from the July 23rd answer, e
it doesn't seem that the intervenors ever cid really specify y
any f acts -- any specific f ac ts -- or any f acts such as 10 would be admissible in evidence.
And perhaps more important il f or your purposes, we don't believe they ever specified any 12 facts tnat are material in the sense that they really go to 13 tne important issues aoout expanding the spent fuel pool 14 capacity.
la To put it as balcly as I can, I con't t hink tna lo any of the facts that they specified --
o the e x e n t tha 17 eney specifiec any at all -- go to the ultimate issues of to wnetner the public nealtn an saf a ty will be tnreateneo or ly nrea tenea unreasonably.
20 chalk.tAh ROSEiiTHAL:
n'e ll. One claim is nace that 21 the intervenors coulo rely upon :no VEpCD uncertainty 22 respecting tne degree of prooability that pumps and/or neat 23 excnangers woulu f ail ano tne possioility :nat :ne 2-temperature in the water would rise above FSAR limits.
25
.iow, you may want to adcre ss that a little bi; I754 I68
dyC80306 40 mgcdEE I
later on, but they certainly can point to those 2
uncertaintie s, can't they, in resisting a motion for summary 3
oisposition?
4 MR. CHRISTMAN That was the example I was going 5
to use.
Mr. Dougherty points out that under certain o
conservative a ssumptions, the pool temperature rises to 7
something like 176.9 cegrees, but the record shows that the pool is structurally sound at a higher temperature than 175 o
or thereabouts, and the NRC staff has submitted an affidavit 10 saying at 176.9 degrees for short periods of time tha t il puolic health anc safety would not be harmed, and 12 unacceptacle operating conoitions won't occur.
13 I mignt also say that even if in the event of 14 complete f ailure of tne f uel pool cooling system, the record 15 snows tnat makeup water could be provicea from other lo installed station systems to prevent una cceptable boiling.
17 So tne intervenors don't really go to the ultimate issue of Ic saf e ty, whicn is, af ter all, wha t you are here to cecice.
IV CHAIRmAd ROSENTHAL:
Does the FSAR have these 20 limits?
21 MR. CHRISTMAda Well, the limits are not technical 22 specification requirements.
No, they are not required to 23 m ee t them, out as an operating matter, the pool f uel 24 temperature is set to alarm at 1 'A be;rees ano tnen at 17C 25 degrees, so tne o perators tai'i E:.on if they get tne alarms 1754 169
89080307 41 cycHEd I
of the high temperature or the high, high temperature 2
alarms.
3 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL They take action?
4 Md. CHRISTMAN:
They have an operating procedure.
5
/le su pplied that in Attachment Number 1 to our 6
in te rroga to rie s.
7 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Non, if they take ac tion at e
tnose levels, does that carry with it the possible implication that there might be a saf ety problem if those v
10 limits were exceeded.
11 MR. CHR ISTi4AN:
No, I don't think so.
12 CH A I R..iAd ROSEWTHAL:
Why ao tney take action?
It 13 is simply an abunaance of caution?
14 HR. CHRISTv.AN:
It is consicered an operating 15 concition tnat eney can't want to have.
I suppose it is an lo abuncance of caution.
17 Ine record snows tnat on 140 anc 170 degree Ic criteria, as we call tnem, are somewhat arbi trary.
They ly were not set because they were necessary to protect the 20 puolic nealtn anc saf ety -- merely because they are good.
21 sound operating limits.
22 CHAIRMAN HOSENTHAL:
Good, sound operating 23 limits?
Isn't it a genuine issue of material f act as to 24 whetner, if a limit whicn is set in the FSAR is exceeaed, 25 Onere cignt ce a saf e ty croblet?
1754 170
dv0dO30o 42 mgcHEd i
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Well, no, I don't really think so, 2
when the record shows that the structural analysis of the 3
pool sees une tempera'ture higher than the worst case temperature that has ' een analyzed in the pool.
4 c
5 CHAIRMAli ROSENTHAL:
You're saying that the record o
establisnes that the.:S AR limi t, whe ther put in for an
~
7 abundance of caution or for some other reason, is a limit e
that can be exceeded without raising a saf ety problem?
Y MR. CHRIST!4AN h'ithout unacceptable saf ety 10 consequences.
11 CHAIR.JAli ROSENTHAL:
Can ce exceeced over what 12 perioc of time?
Indefini tely ?
Two or three cays?
One day?
13 What?
14 c.;R. CHR ISTi.; Ad Well, tne record shows that really 85 ene casis of tne case is that the installec station systets lo will ce perf ectly ca paole of maintaining the temoeratures of 17 140 anc 170 cegrees.
Of course, anything has some le procacility of occurrence.
Iv Sut wnat tne record shows is that these second 20 f uel pool coolers would only be required for a ma tter of 21 f our to five days in the even t of a number of worst-case 22 happenings.
23 The rest of the time one fuel pool cooler and one 24 pump is qui te acequate.
23 DR. QuARLES:
.ihe t is tne technical specification t754 171
0900030Y 43 mgce.EE 1
for the upper limit?
How high can you go above 177 or 2
1 76.9?
3 Md. CHRISTMAN:
I co not believe the technical 4
specifications have any upper limit on f uel pool 5
t empe ra ture.
The technical specifications regarding fuel o
pool that I'm f amiliar with go to the center to center 7
distance of the fuel elements and the capacity of the fuel o
pool, anc those are the only ones I know of that adoress Y
t ha t.
10 I may be overlooking something in the tech specs, 11 but I con't know of anytning.
12 UR. QUARLES:
Thank you.
13 DH. BUCK:
Just for a momen t, let's just go back le to Inis 175-176-177 tem pe ra ture.
Woulc you recall for me 15 exactly wnat the concitions are uncer which one expects to lo reacn that?
17
- 12. CHRISTMAus Let me get to my point number two le and try to adore ss tha t, ano I will give you a little oit of ly occggrounc, because I think that is what we need here.
20 LR. BUCK:
'W e ll, I woulc like to know what the 21 temperatures woulc ce under the same conditions on the 22 a ssumption that you had the present oldf uel pool situation 23 ano its maximum as to wha t you would ge t with the new.
24 CHAIR:JAd ROSENTHAL:
I assume what your re s ponse 25 to sr. Buck will be based upon ma tters tnat are in the 1754 172
avC60310 44 mgcHEE i
record.
2
.4R. CHRISTMAN:
Yes.
J CHAIRMAu ROSENTHAL:
Okay.
Just so we are clear 4
o n t ha t, because we are obviously confined in passing upon a
tnis ma tter.
o DR. BUCK:
Yes.
I want a reference to it.
7 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Right.
e Let me start with the surf ace water reservoir.
9 The NRC staff required the applicant to do a test, a study, 10 of the capacity or the efficiency -- eff ectiveness, if you 11 will -- o f the surf ace water reservoir which is also Known 12 as the ultimate heat sink.
This is discu ssed in the Ucrth
'3 Anna-3 and -4 initial cecision for the construction permit 14 some years ago.
la Tne staff coulc not verif y f or themselve s tha t the lo surface water reservoir woulc ce completely acequate when 17 fcur units were in operation -- North Anna's 1, 2,'3, and 4 Io iiow tne com pany did that fielo test, and the ly staff's affidavits in this record reflect that a perf ormance 20 test was cone, and as a re sul t, the company found t ha t ba sed 21 upon "he octa of this field test, that under certain 22 worst-case conditions, the surf ace water temperature up 23 there in the reservoir could go as high as 100 -- well, we 24 a ssume 110 degree s.
I t's slightly lower than tnat.
- Before, 25 it was assumec to be or tnought to ce 95 degrees.
That has 217!i4 172(
dvo60311 45 mgcHEE I
now gone up to 107.7, which we call 110 for the sake of 2
conservatism.
3 The surf ace water cools off the component cooling 4
water, wnich is an intermediate cooling system.
And the 5
component ccoling water, in turn, cools the spent fuel pool o
water by means of two heat exchangers or coolers, as we call 7
them.
o liow, what happens when the performance test raised Y
the worst-case maximum calculation of surf ace water 10 temperature was that correspondingly, because of the heat 11 excnangers calculation, the maximum calculation -- the 12 maximum calculatec component cooling water temperature also 13 rose.
And as a result of that, the maximum calculated 14 component cooling water temperature went up to about 11,3.2 10 ce gr ee s.
Inis is calculated on a WoFst-Case Condition.
Io Ana let me digre ss and say that the worst-case 17 conditions I'm caiking about are four unit operation, a hot to muggy cay in the summer when tne heat transfer lv characteristics are very poor, a LOCA in Unit 3 or Unit 4 20 witn only one of the two redundant safeguard systems 21 operating, anc a rapia coolcown of the otner unit that is 22 not aff ec ted, 3 or 4.
23
?:nen you put tnose worst-case conditions in, you 24 come up witn tne worst-case 110 cegrees surf ace water wnich 25 results in a worst-case 113.2 componen t cooling water 1754 174 W
39060312 46 mgcHis I
tem pera ture.
2 Now tnat 113.2 degree worst-case component cooling 3
water temperature calculated from those worst-case 4
assumptions tna t I have mentioned became the input into the 5
analysis that was done for this case to show the adequacy of o
the spent fuel pool cooling system.
7 Now, if you will look at Table 7-1, and I hope 6
tha t's the right one, in our application, you will see the
~
9 resulting tempera tures -- the temperatures that result f rom 10 t ha t input of the worst-case component cooling temperature 11 for 113.2 degrees.
12 Now, there are six cases in just the fuel pool 13 analysis now.
Wow, we're talking about an abnormal case and 14 a normal case.
Normal is just an ordinary one third of the 15 core ha s ju st been reloacea or has been unloacec, and One lo unit has been refuelec.
Tha t is not the worst case, of 17 course.
Io Tne worst case is the abnormal case, anc that is 19 simply a full core disenarge, in which case the following 20 assumptions apply.
You a ssume that you have just reloaded 21 unic-1 or Unit-2, tne other unit, 45 days before.
You then 22 assume tnat you comple tely unload tne core of the remaining 23 unit, so you nave one tnira core from one unit ac tually 2+
cischargeo.
And you have a complete core from the second 25 unit more freshly dischargec.
...u
- 17.:54 175' M
d9080313 47 mgcHEE I
And tne assumptions are in the application, I 2
might add.
They assume that in the case of -- the normal 3
case, they assume tha t the one third core was discharged 4
instantaneously 150 hours0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br /> af ter shutdown, and in the 5
abnormal case, they assume the full core was discharged 6
starting 150 nours af ter shutdown in a 20 minute in terval, 7
which is pre try f ast, so it's unloaceo quite quickly.
o So, in short, you nave a very big heat loao in Y
that pool under those situations.
And then for those two 10 cases, normal ano abnormal, wnich really you see refers only 11 to now many spent fuel assemblies vou have unloaded and put 12 in Inat pool recently.
13 From that, they cia calculations of the maximum 14 temperatures uncer three scenarios -- one, where you have is only one pump anc one cooler in operation, the other where lo you have only one pump in operation running through two f uel 17 pool coolers, anc then they did the other case, which I ic woulc suspect would be the normal one, wnere they hac two iv pumps anc two coolers available, and they could run both of 20 them.
21 Ana if you will look at that Table 7-1, let's only 22 talg about tne abnormal case because that's the conservative 23 one, you will fina that if you have only one pump but can 2*
run corn coolers, you get 154.2 cegrees worst-case.
If you 25 are unable or unwilling to use the seconc cooler, then the f754176
s9080314 46 agedEE i
temperature might go up to 176.9 degrees, but the record 2
shows that only is aoout for four to five cays, and that in 3
the four tc five days comes f rom the LOCA situation in the 4
Unit 3 or 4 which went into the calculation of the worst 5
case.
o CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
And your position is that the 7
materials supporting your motion for summary disposition o
demonstrate without contradiction that the operation of the Y
pool at those temperatures would not pose a saf ety problem?
10 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Well, let me play lawyer for a il minute, anc say, I certainly can't know of anything in our 12 opponent's submissions that would con tradict any of those 13 facts.
And frankly, I do n' t know of any contradictions in 14 the recoro at all.
15 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Well, that woulo nave to be Ic the case in orcer for you to prevail, wouldn't it?
17 MR. CHRISTMAda Yes.
Ie CHAIRt4AN ROSEilTHAL:
So -
Iv MR. CHRISTMAN:
Ple11, that may be a slight 20 overstatement.
rie would have to show that there is no 21 material issue of triable f act, and I am f airly confident
~
22 the recorc coes show that.
fes.
23 CHAIRMAd R05ddTHAL:
Well, you had initially in 24 connection with your action f or summary cisposition, you had 25 the affirmative obligation of estaolishing that there was f754 177
dv080315 49 mgcdEd i
no genuine issue of material f act with respect to the 2
possible safe ty consequences of temperature levels en that 3
order, cion't you?
4 MR. CHRIST;.iAN:
Quite so.
5 CHAIRJAii ROSENTHAL:
The first question is, did o
you establish tnat f act in your case?
And then the second 7
question would be whetner your opponent demonstrated that e
notwithstanding your showing, there was in fact a genuine Y
i ssue of material f act on tha t ma tter.
10 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Ouite right.
The' Perry Case.
11 CHAIRt4AN RodENTHAL:
The derry Case covers the i2 first pa r t.
13 MR. CHRISTMAN:
dell, I tnink that what your 14
.asking --
15 CHAIRMAd ROSENTHAL:
That's wny I posed the lo cuestion to you as to whether your position is taat, one, 17 you mace out your prima f acie or summary disposition case --
lu call it what you will -- in your moving papers, and whetner Iv it is your rurtner position that.your opponent didn't 20 controvert it to the point of at least establishing that 21 there was a genuine i ssue of material f act.
~
22 MR. CHRISTMAN:
fes.
We believe we carried our 23 ourden.
And I'm certain that tne intervenors stated no 24 specific f acts tnat would contradict wnat we said -- the 23 a ssuaptions that I nave mentioned, the LOCA in Jnit 3 or 4,
ifs 4178
av080316 50 mgcHEE I
rapia cooldown, the assumption of when the spent fuel is 2
unloadec, how many assemblies are unloaded, and what 3
intervals are all in the application.
4 I will grant you they are in two or three places 5
in the application.
6 CHAIRMAN ROSENfMAL Were they ref erred to in your 7
motion for summary disposition?
o MR. CHRISTMAlit The motion for summary disposition 9
was taken verbatim f rom the a rtdication.
The application it' elf was submitted as part of an affidavit of the project 10 s
il engineer, so it was certainly a ttached and incluaed as part 12 of the motion for summary disposition.
Inc eed, it was.
13 I guess the call is back in my court.-
14 CHAIRMAu RO,SENTHAL:
Yes.
15
- .f R. Cdh I STM All
As long as I'm on the surface lo water cooling sy s tem, I ought to aco that a part f rom the se 17 calculations which rely on a great many worst-case lo a ssumptions and are very conservative, we have in the recora iv evidence of operating experience, which I guess you could 20 say confirms that our numbers are conservative.
21 He also have the Surry vower Station wnien has a 22 similar cesigned spent fuel pool and has tended to operate 23 at 95 cegrees year round.
And the staff, I believe, has 24 saia that Ine maximum in prac tice in f uel pools as a general 20 ma tter tenos to be about 120 degrees.
1754 179
89080317 51 mgcHEd i
CHAIRt.iAN ROSENTHAL:
That's under normal 2
conditions.
I assume, then, Surry has not experienced a 3
pump or heat exchanger failure.
4 MR. CHRISI"AN:
Yes.
By their nature, the 5
worst-case conditions are so unlikely that we are not likely 6
to see them occur in real life.
~
7 I should say that if you are willing to look at 8
our pre-filed wri tten testimony, too, which is not submitted Y
under affidavit, we note that there was a full core 10 discharge at Surry, and the temperature only went up to 11 about 113 degrees.
Tnat is the abnormal case, but no t the 12 abnormal case witn all tne worst-case assumptions about the
^
13 surf ace water system.
14 15 lo 17 lo Iv 20 21 22 23 24 26 1754; 180 ~
CR 8908 52 HEER t-4 mte 1 1
At any rate, we rely.upon the calculations of the 2
worst case and we have actual operating experience to lend 3
some feeling that those figures are conservative.
4 DR. BUCK:
If I could finish up my question, I asked 5
whether there was in the record a statement a bout the differ-6 ence in temperature that would be calculated for, shall we say,.
l 7
the full expanded pool as against the conditions under the old j 8
pool.
And if it is in the record, what is it?
9 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Would you repeat that?
I 10 DR. BUCK:
What I'm trying to make sure is whether i
11,
the maximum temperature of 176 or whatever it is with the one i
i I
12 pump and one cooler, as to whether that figure calculates out 13 ll l the same or somewhat different, and if so, how much different, 14 in the case of the expanded fuel pool as against the old fuel Il 15 l' pool.
I 16 i MR. CHRISTMAN:
I'm not sure that that is in the I
il
- 7 ;
application as such, although there is a comparison of the I
i 18 l design duty and the million Stu's per hour.
I guess the only 1
19 thing I can say about that off the top of my head is that the a
20 ji 140 and 170-degree criteria did not change.
It was shown i
21 l before, the smaller capacity pool, that the temperatures would i
22 ;j be below that, and they still are below that.
But for four i
23 [ to five days, under worst-case circumstances,.you have to turn il
,,e n.cornes. inc.gl on a second cooler, whereas with the non-expanded poo 24 '
Ace 25 j could do it all the time, even during the worst-case conditions; i'
N5'4181 a:
mte 2 53 1
with a LOCA, with one cooler and one pump.
But I don't know 2
that I can give you the exact numbers.
3 DR. BUCK:
All right.
4 CHAIRMAN IOSENTHAL:
You have about seven minutes.
5 MR. CHRISTMAN:
That will push me a bit, but I have 6,
not too much left to say.
The other two issues I was going I
7 to address are alternatives and materials integrity.
I 8
Mr. Dougherty did not say anything about the 1
9l materials integrity, so perhaps I can abbreviate what I was t
10 j going to say.
I i
11 l As to alt'ernatives, though -- and I only had really I
i 12 '
one point here -- the four alternatives, including the proposed 13,'l the one that the applicant prefers, all involve using
- one, i!'
14 the same fuel assemblies on the same site and steel racks n
ll 15 ll under water.
The difference is that the applicant wants to
- 1 16.!! make more efficient use of the present fuel pool, use the a
17 ' same building that's already there, whereas the intervenors N
18 ] want us to build a new building or radically expand the old b
19 one.
q 20 il' It seems to the applicant, I think, that under these i
'I 21 " circumstances the only rational thing to do is to choose the 4
22 h most economic alternative.
The record does show that the
'i li 23 '; applicant has done that, although I don't suggest that the 24 'l economics of the matter are really at issue in this proceeding.,
A.
3 erst Reoorters. Inc..
25 l, CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
We've said that economics are 4
1754 182 u.
mte 3 54 1
not an issue unless they are tied tc an environmental impact.
2 Do you accept that?
3 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Well, I accept that in a case such I
i 4'
as this, where there is no significant environmental impact 5l and no conflict over the use of resources, that economics are 6
not applicable and are not relevant to this case at all.
7 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Well, what do you have to say i
8 to Mr. Doggherty's suggestion that our Trojan decision has l
9 been, in effect, put in the discard pile by the District of 10 Columbia Circuit?
i i
11
- MR. CHRISTMAN:
The State of Minnesota v. NRC case, 12 !
I really think that the answer is, if one refers to the 13, Commission, the NRC order in the confidence rulemaking, it h
14,'j says the Licensing Boards are no longer to consider these
,li 15 ' issues that Minnesota v. NRC was involved with in ongoing i
16 !
licensing proceedings, but these licensing proceedings will 17 be subject to any conditions that grow out of the confidence i
18 I rulemaking.
0 19 l' I think this Appeal Board is bound by that.
N 20 ;
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Now, I think he was using the 21 State of Minnesota versus NRC for an additional purpose, and 22 '
that was the one I had reference to, where he said our Trojan li 23 !l decision had said you do not need to explore alternatives 24 n unless the proposed action had reasonably,significant Ac wai Rmorms. W.
25 [ environmental impact.
And Mr. Dougherty suggested't' hat that d
!i ll P7'S4 183
ste 4 55 1
holding was no longer viable as a result of the State of 2
Minnesota versus NRC.
3 MR. CHRISTMAN:
There's one sentence in Minnesota v.
4 NRC where the court says something to the following effect:
{
5 We confine our action today to rejecting certain arguments of I
6 the appellants.
The argument was that these issues had to 7
be litigated in individual adjudicatory proceedings.
They a
said they -- the majority confined its action to that.
I 9
I did not read Minnesota v. NRC as saying much more 10 than that they wanted the Commission to update its confidence.
11 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
So you don't think it got into 12 this area?
8 13 ;
MR. CHRISTMAN:
I don't think it applies at all.
I la !
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
What about Mr. Dougherty's l
15 !
other argument that, quite apart from Minnesota versus NRC, 16 h our Trojan decision in the respect that we're talking about 17 ' runs head-on into the NEPA mandate?
la MR. CHRISTMAN:
Well, that can't be the case.
It 19 ; sounded to me as though that argument would lead to the conclu-l 20 sion that every federal action must have this NEPA analysis 21 done, and I don't believe that to be the case.
There was a i
22 '
case called Trinity Episcopal School, I believe, where they i
23 I discussed the obligation when you don't have a major federal 24 action significantly affecting the quality of the. human At Jerel Reoorters, Inc.
20., environment and what the agency's obligations. are under those 1
^
f
'17:54 184 J
- l
mte 5
56 1
circumstances.
And I believe they said, well, we decline to 2
outline the boundaries of the obligation.
And I'm not sure 3
that those boundaries have ever been explicated real carefully.
I 4'
But the hornbook on environmental law says that under 5,
NEPA 102 (e), which I think b what we're talking about here, t
6 major federal actions that do not affect the human environment 1
7 significantly.
Remember that that section applies to cases 8
where there is an unresolved conflict.
It is said that an 9;
unresolved conflict occurs wherever an action can be achieved 10 in one or more ways having different impacts on the environ-11 ment.
12 {
The intervenors have not shown any serious conflict 13 in this case.
And I would also suggest that NEPA is almost la 'i i
always subject to a rule of reason of some kind.
Where the l
I 15 environmental impacts are so small as the record shows they 16 are in this case, I do not believe that you have an obligation 17 ( to review alternatives.
And I think the Trojan case is right.
i 18 ;
My timer has four minutes, but I think yours probably I
~
19 f has about two or one.
l 20 >
CHAIPRAN ROSENTHAL:
I have three.
i 21; MR. CHRISTMAN:
The last substantive issue that was i
22,
raised in the appellate brief of the intervenors was materials i
23 integrity.
That is essentially a generic issue, which asks 24 I whether the cladding or stainless steel can survive the 31 years Aca
.eral ReDomrt. Inc. h 25 [ of the life of the license.
This has been litigated before ti
]I 1754 185
mte 6 57 1
in Vermont Yanke~e, Beaver Valley, and the Trojan case.
We 2
don't wish to make too much of the earlier litigations, because 3
those are not ipso facto binding.
4 CHAIRMAN RCSENTHAL:
They are certainly not.
They 5
have very little relevance, don't they?
There is no collateral l
6 estoppel present here.
7 MR. CHRISTMAN:
No, not as a technical matter.
But 8
we do think that when the intervenors haven't shown any l
9l reasonable different result would obtain, that the findings 10 are entitled to perhaps some weight.
You had a footnote in l
11 one of your recent decisions on sc= mary disposition, the radon 12 i case, I believe.
It was styled Peach Bottom, but it was a lot 13 ; more.
J 14 [
CHAIRMAN RCSENTHAL:
The radon case, yes, I have a I
15h: passing recollection, if not fondness, for that case.
16 l (Laughter.)
l 17 [i MR.
CHRISTMAN:
I thought you might.
You put a 18 footnote in there that said that this is the sort of generic 19 ? issue that was resolved in favor of the applicants in an i
20 earlier case.
You said this is not binding ipso facto on these 1
21 litigants here, of course, but there is no new evidence, there 22 '
is no real reason to think that a different result should 23 '
obtain here.
24 /
You did not suggest that that would be binding by A
detal Rooorters, Inc. '
25 any means, but I think it is entitled to some weight.
,For 3
o ll
mee 7 58 1
instance, when the Licensing Board in the Trojan case finds 2
that other spent fuel pools with one-quarter-inch liners have 3
not suffered leakage, we have a one-quarter-inch stainless 4
steel liner in this pool, I think that's entitled to some l
5 weight, or it ought to be, whether as part of your accumulated l
6!
expertise or whether as official notice of your earlier 7
decisions or what have you.
l 2
But in any event, the intervenors in their interro-l 9
gatory answers referred to some technical papers which were 10 not in evidence.
Our position is that even if you accept what l l
11 ;
they say, they really don' t go to the ultimate facts and they 12 aren't specific.
They don't go to the specific facts of this 1
13 j case.
And the specific facts which are on the record show il 14 ~ such things as that these materials are chosen because they l
15, suffer much worse conditions in the operating reactor core,
!l 16 that calculations of corrosion rates show the corrosion is b
17 i very small in, say, over 100 years, that there is experience
!I 18Ll in underwater storage of spent fuel of up to perhaps 18 to 20 l
19 3 years.
- i 20 !
And in short, all of these specific facts tend to 21,
leave one with the confidence that the material integrity is 22 l; acceptable and will be acceptable over the life of the plant.
N 22,!l I see that my time has run out.
Can I answer any
.f 24 other questions?
A derst Reporters. Inc.
25 DR. BUCK:
Well, I would like to hear something e
ll 1754 187
mte 8 59 1
about the cement situation, where you calculate 154 for the 2
cement and 176 for everything else, apparently.
3 MR.
CHRISTMAN:
If you will look at the Table 7-1 --
l 4'
and I know you're going to after this argument --
l 5
CEAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
We even did it before the 6,
argument.
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Quite so.
That is the 154.2 degrees 7
8 comes with the abnormal case, that is back to back.
i 9
DR. BUCK:
I know where it comes from.
i i
10 MR. CHRISTMAN:
And the one pump and two coolers, 11 l the temperature becomes -- goes up to as high as 154.2 degrees, l
i 12 slightly higher than 150 degrees, which the intervenors allege I 1
13 d is the maximum standard.
14 DR. BUCK:
My problem is that you take what you say 15 !
is an impossibility because you calculate up to 176.2 degree-i i
I 16 for the one pump and one cooler, and that would tend to bring t
f 17.
the cement temperature up to 176 degrees.
O 18 l CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
In other words, why the 1.
19 '
difference?
One time you have an abnormal case which has a ll s
20 failure simply, I think, of one pump, of heat exchangers 1
21 ',
operating, and you come up with a temperature level.
And then 22 !
we go to 20 pages on in your brief and we find the abnormal 23 case has changed.
It is now the failure of a pump and a heat 24 exchanger.
And we have a temperature of 176 degrees.
er i aeconm. inc. ]g Ao MR. CHRISTMAN:
The design basis calls for staying 25 ll i
1754 188
mte 9 60 1
below 170 degrees with one pump and two coolers in operation, 2
and that is La the application early on with the design 3
criteria or design bases.
So that is the assumption upon 4
which the system should be judged.
5 I really went on to say that -- well, that is the 6
design basis, and there your temperatures are 154.2 degrees.
t 3
7 It is conceivable -- well, you can calculate, as you said, a 8
worst case where you don't use the second cooler.
And I would 9
not infer from the fact that we calculated that worst case 10 that that is the design basis or that is a likely occurrence.
i 11 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
You used it one place.
Why 12 ;
didn't you use it both places?
'I 12 g MR. CHRISTMAN:
We just went another step in the II 14 ! conservative way.
15 l DR. BUCK:
Well, when you calculate one case, you 16 ;
say it's only 4 degrees over 150, and then you go to 176 and i.
17 you say that's only 2 degrees above another limit.
Well, you I
l!
18 'j sort of ignore the fact that the cement might heat up.
19 :
MR. CHRISTMAN:
I see your problem.
But all I can L
20,
say is that we use the design basis when you're talking about 21 the concrete, and that seemed to me a sufficiently conservative 22 l case, given that the ordinary situation is two complete pumps ll 23 :
and two coolers.
24 ;
DR. BUCK:
But let's go back to this concrete As deraf Reporters, Inc. ]
252 situation.
Is that allowable?
17h4 189
.I'l
mte 10 1
61 1
MR. CHRISTMAN:
The concrete standard is not in the 2
record.
I am told that the concrete standard applies to normal 3
operations.
The abnormal case here is the full core discharge, s
4 which is an unusual situation.
5 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Well, the concrete code applies 6
to normal operation.
Doesn't the concrete code set temperature,
7 limits, and it wouldn't really matter whether it was normal 8
operation or abnormal operation, would it?
9' MR. CHRISTMAN:
Not unless the standard on its face 10 says that this number, 150 degrees, applies for normal condi-11 tions.
l 12 !
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Why wasn't the code put before 13 3 the Licensing Board if there is an issue being raised as to d
14 ] whether these temperature linits exceeded or did not exceed 15 the code limits?
Thau might have also been a matter of what l
16 lt period of time we were talking about, whether it would be i
17m 170 degrees for three days or 30 years or whatever.
It would 18 have seemed to me that it might have been illuminating, if I 19 ' may put it that way, for the code to have been put into the 20 record.
21 l MR. CHRISTMAN:
Well, you know what I'm going to i
22 ll say about that, I think.
In the first place, we have always l
23 ! believed that this issue was about the pool liner, racks, and 24 l the cladding.
We were led to believe that for a long time.
Ac.
Jerat Reoorters, Iric.
25 !'
Indeed, the intervenors' interrocatories that were asked of l
1754 190 k
mte 11 62 us, I believe they asked for the effects on those three items --
2 the racks, the cladding, and the stainless steel.
That is what 3
we addressed.
I 4
We interpreted the stipulated contention to exclude 5
concrete.
This issue was raised in one of the answers to one 6,
of our interrogatories, it is true.
l 7
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
At that point you might have j
8 put in the code, i
9 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Yes, we might have.
I 10 DR. BUCK:
I just wonder why you didn't, because 11 l the next two sections of the code make it very clear that this i
12,
was operating.
13 j MR. CHRISTMAN:
The reason that we didn't --
0 14 [
DR. BUCK:
Well, you could have put the code in, and i
15 ; about three lines would have covered the whole thing.
16 '
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Which, as it turns out, we can't i
l l7r rely upon anyway, because this is not part of the record.
la MR. CHRISTMAN:
Yes.
I would not suggest that you 19 p, do.
The answer is, the technical people who reviewed those
- l 20, simply dismissed it as immaterial because they dismissed it as 21 h not applicable.
And I simply overlooked it myself.
i 22 l DR. BUCK:
Well, the way it was put in here led to i
23 L my suspicions.
24 ';
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Thank you, Mr. Christman.
An erg Reconers, Inc. '
25 l MR. CHRISTMAN:
Thank you.
i e
1754 i91
mte 12 63 1
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
We will take a ten-minute recess, 2 l following which we will hear from Mr. Goldberg.
I e-4 3i (Brief recess.)
i 4
5 i
6!
7I i
i 9i I
10 '
i II !
I i
12 ;
t 0
f i
I 15 i
'l a
fh 18 l!!
!l, 19 :l i
c 20 :I i
21 '
22 !
l 23
- i 24 a
A6 eers, aeooners. inc.,i 25 9, 1754 192 b
i,
dvC80501 64 gshriEE I
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Mr. Goldberg.
2 ORAL ARGUMEdT OF STEVEN C. GOLUBERG 3
ON BEHALF OF THE NRC STAFF 4
MR. GOLDBERG Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members o
of the a ppeal ocarc.
o The staff perceives the central issue in this 7
ma tter to ' e the a ppropriateness of the board's grant of o
o summary disposition of three particular contentions which v
form the suostance of Exceptions I through 4 in this case.
10 Before turning to the ma tter of summary 11 ci s po si tion, I wculo like to accress a point that was 12 brougnt out by Mr. sougherty respecting the consiceration of 13 waste t.unagement in unis proceecing.
14 CH A I R.iAn ROSEdTHAL:
tie ll, I would also like you 15 to ccoress before you sit cown ll.r.
ougnerty's pcin t that lo tne schaculing was unfair, to the point that it might ce 17 consicerec to have constituted a violation of cua process.
Ic
- .Hi. GOLvSEhU:
r e s, ?/.r. Chai rman.
First, witn lv respect to tne waste management i ssue, we believe tnat there 20 is no auciguity on oehalf of the commission as to wne ther 21 incivicual spent fuel expansion proceedings sucn as the one 22 involvec in tnis case shoulc be suspencec.
23 Anc I woulc respectfully cirect this sppeal 24 ocarc's a ttention to the quotec ref erence f rom the Octooer 25 25 notice of pro posec rule-making e t page tv of our appeal fhk
ovo60502 65 gshnEE 1
orief in which, if I might quote, it says:
" Fur the rmore,
2 the court in the State of 141nnesota case, by remanding this 3
matter to the commission but not vacating -- the f acility 4
licensees involvec has supportea the conclusion that 5
licensing practices need not be altered during tnis o
proceecing."
7 It goes on to indicate, however, that the outcome
~
o of that generic proceeding will be applied to existing y
proceecings as relevant.
10 CHAIRi.!AN ROSENTHAL:
How would it be a oplied?
The Il pool is expanceo.
fnare are additional spent fuel 12 f acilities put in the pool?
13 Suopo se tne commi ssion da termines at tne enc of le tne proceecing, the rule-making proceeding, that their 15 previously stated confidence in the availability of off-site lo repositories was unwarranted.
Il "l na t na,: pens in the se existing cases?
Are each of to the licensees orcered to remove the racks that have teen 19 placed in the pool since tne expansion was accomplished?
2U It's easy enough to say that you apply the results 21 of tne generic rule-making proceecing.
The question is new.
22
,'.i R. GOLuSERG:
I!,r. Chairman,
nat is an incication 23 on tne commission's behalf.
I con't believe that they 24 illuminate us witn what remecy they might fashion shoulc 20 eney fina that spent fuel ultimate waste anagement will not J ].).
\\
5v060503 66 gshHEd I
be available by a fixed cate.
2 CHAIRt4Ad ROSENTHAL:
But I'm a sking you, you're a 3
man of some imagination.
What remedies might be available?
4 I'm not asking you to predic t which of several viable 5
remedies, if there were several viable remedies, would be o
invokec.
/
I'm asking you to identif y f or me what might o
constitute a single viaole remedy snould the oetermination be tnat there is no confidence in the availability of 10 o ff-site re posi torie s, 11 ic.R. GOLvBERG
..ith respect to thi s f acili ty,
12 coulo we celimit the numoer of assemblies stored within the 13 pool?
I woulo note that this licensee nas authority to 14 store spent fuel in that pooll with whatever configuration 15 for the curation of tne license term if it wishes to lo maintain fuel oeyond Inat license term. Irrespective of the 17 outcome of the commission's rule-making proceeding, it must Ic ootain WRC authoritation to oc so.
ly CHAIRIJAd ROSENTHAL:
Beyond what term?
20 MR. GOLuBERG:
Seyond the term of the opera ting 21 iicense for iiorth Anna unit 1.
22 CHAIR.4Ao ROSE THAL:
Mr. Goldberg, I thought that 23 we souncly re jected a si.ailar argument aavanceu by the staff 24 in tne vrairie Islano, Vermont Yankee proceeding, wne re 23 certainly, tney need WRC approval to s eep the racks in the 1754 P95.
690o0504 67 gshdEd i
pool beyond the term of their operating license.
2 But wnat possible alternative is there to granting 3
t ha t authorization if there is no off-site repository?
4 1.iR. Gold 3 ERG:
It will depend to some extent on 5
the alterna tives available a t the expiration of the license o
term.
Sut it is quite possiole tha t it may be possible to
/
ship them to some interim away f rom reactor storage f acility e
tnat DOE is currently in the proce ss of a ttempting to develop.
y 10 CHAIRJAd ROSE!iTHAL:
But we're not real'ly talking 11 aoout the enc of the term in any event.
You are telling me 12 that the commission statec tnat the results of the 13 rule-making proceecing would be f actored into the indivicaal 14 cases.
13 And the question still exists in my ?.ind, how to coulo it po ssibly be f ac tored in?
Ie
Well, I woulc suomit that it could lo require tne witnorawal of the spent f uel ano placement in ly anonner facility, or it could.terely limit tne number of 20 a ssemolies storea in the pool itself.
21 CHA IR.4Asi ROSEliTHAL:
Well, I could see that tney 22 coula limit the number of accitional f acilities -- excuse 23 me -- tne adcitional a ssemblie s.
I ha ve come difficulty 24 in a cprenending precisely whare the Virginia Electric anc 25 rower Company could cisca tch its a ssenblies to.
- 175:4 l96-
c90o0505 68 N
gsnHEE I
I realize that some of the se utilities, as an
\\
\\
2 interim measure, are seeking to transf er assemblies f rom one 3
f acility to another.
Tha t is not in most cases an available 4
remeoy, is it?
5
- tR. 00LLBERG I wouldn't think in present a
circumstances i; is.
I certainly share your observatian 7
about the status of the waste management question on a o
nation-wice basis.
v But I would suomit that it is expectec that there 10 woulo be some interim relief in the form of 11 away-f rom-reac tor storage.
12 CdAIR:. Ad nodENTHAL:
That's wnat nis whole 13 rule-maging proc eeding is about, isn't it, to determine 14 whetner tne co aission's expectation sta:ec some years ago is in ene d9nial of the nRUC rule-making proceeding was lo justifiec.
17 AM. GOLJi ERO:
That is certainly one of the le motivations, I celieve.
It also may be possible to by construction an accitional spen; f uel pool on site to 2G alleviate tne storage strain.
21 CdAIR:4Au ROSEdTHAL:
In any event, I take it : hat 22 your peint is tnat wne ther tne commission was justifieu or 23 not in suggesting :nat One results woulo be f actoreu in, 2-Ins t uney none tnele ss. One commission has nonetneless 2:
explicitly statec tnat :nere was to ce no im.ac: u. con
.q7S4 197 i.
SvCdO506 69 g s hde=
l existing licensing actions.
2 4d. GOLuBERO:
Yes, Mr. Chairman, and that t ha t 3
ccmmission aecision, nonetneless overturned, would be 4
bincing on unis a ppeal board on review.
5 If I might, maybe I should turn next to the metter o
of seneculing.
7 Ine matter of scheduling certainly is one that e
lies foremost within the ciscretion of the licensing Y
boarc.
10 CHAIR; dad ROSEdTHAL:
I think Mr. Dougherty 11 acknowleogeu that.
But I think his position is that this is 12 a sufficiently egregious case, tnat it warrants us ste poing 13 in.
14 Ma. GULDSERU I'm af ra id tha t I con't snare 15 Jr. wougnerty's perce ption.
I think we nave two lo consicerations Inat we nave to focus on:
One, tne acequacy 17 of tne o ppor tunity f or tne intervenor to accress the sun.ary lo cisposition motions anc secondly, the acequacy of tne 19 intervenor's o pportunity for case preparation.
20 t4r. Dougherty has indicated enat upon acmission of 21 them as intervenors and tne establishment of the first day
~
22 ror nearing, there were some 7 weeks.
23 I cnink cnis acpeal board has incicated tna t it 2-will not ascribe to any fixea period of time in.<hich the 2:
acmission of an intervenor ano the establishcent of a 1754 198
or030507 70 gsnnE-I hearing must be se t.
2 CnAIRJAW 20SEi, THAL:
Tha t's right.
But the 3
a r gumen t, as I understano it, is that there were sort of fits ana starts hare, a li ttle piece here, a little piece D
the r e, t ha t the intervenors really were never in a position 6
of knowing tnat they had a certain amount of time.
7 And to quoto Mr. vougherty, the intervanors were c
" Jerked around here," tha t this hac a crippling eff ect on Y
their acility to prepare.
10 MR. GOLv5ERU It may have hao some impact on their ability to prepare, out I can't believe that 12
- .ir. vougnorty has cemonstratec why it was not possicle for 13 him to secure tne necessary expertise to serve a sucstantive 14 re sponse to Ine summary cisposition notion when ne indicates 15 in tne first, anc I celiave One second of his responses to lo
- ne sumaary disposition, that c.e was about to retain l '/
experts.
Io I con't see why he coulc not have oo ained this ly expertise at an earlier date.
And there is no reflection in 20 his tnird and final response to summary disposition on July 21 23rc that he neecec acditional time to form a substantive 22 opinion on :ne merits of the summary disposition mo tion.
23
.ii ts the possicle exception of the affidavi: of 2*
Jr. Waitzman, tnere is no reflection that ne has any 25 excertise to oring to oear.
k754 199 e
ov0cO50o 71 gsnddd i
- 08. QUARL5S:
44ay I ask a question at that point?
2 Are you maintaining that to get a tecnnical expert, there is 3
no problem ge tting one to do the research and write the 4
nece ssary cocument to support it in three or four weeks?
5 And tne fact tnat you gave him another three weeks o
snould cnange his ascision?
7 I'm concerned that lir. Dougherty made this point, 6
tnat you can't get a man to take on the job when he only has Y
three weeks or four weeks because he thinks that's all of 10 i t, so ne coesn't get s ta r ted.
11 Anc tnen sucdenly, ne gets three more. eeks wnen 12 ne's lost the first three weeks.
13
!.re you maintaining tnat tnis isn't a valia 1*
a rgumer.t ?
i:
..th.
GOLsEEHU 6.o. I'm not maintaining snat, lo Dr. Queries.
It we cegin witn tne acmission of contentions 17 in Ap.11 anc assume tnat tnat begins tne case crepara tion in lo earnest, the intervenor must appreciate that at some time he ly will ncve to go forward either with nis direct case or 20 otherwise cross-examine the expert witne sses of tne o ther 21 parties.
~
22 It woula seem to me reasonable to cegin the case 23 development at that time, nnen you nave a summary 2*
ciscositicn mo tion filec tne f ollowing month, it woula seem 25 to ma again reasonaole inmediately to begin to cevelop your 1754 200
dvCdO609 72 gsnHE-I case, either in response to summary disposition or --
2 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Wait a mj:.ute.
Let's trace 3
the nistory of this.
4 The intervenors are admitted as parties on the 5
23rd or April.
Is tha t correc t?
o MR. 00LuBERO:
The intervenor, I believe --
7 tney were acmitted as parties before April 21.
o CHAIRMAh ROSENTHAL:
The contentions were shapec.
9 Now some -- a li ttle under two weeks later, the coarc 10 scneaules the pre-hearing conference and subsequent hearing 11 to cegin on June 26tn.
12 Inat is some oO cays af ter the contentions had 13 ceen acmi tted.
Is cnat correct?
14
- .R. UOLu3 ERG Tha t's correc t.
la C.iAIR..iAli ROSEi. THAL:
Is tnat a reasonaole interval lo or time to expect tne intervenors to Ecquire excerts, to 17 nave those experts prepare their, to concuct their analyses lo anc prepare tneir testimony or affidavits, or wnatever they Iv are preparing?
20 ME. GOLuSERO:
nell, if we focus on the matter of 21 ene nearing preparation, this intervenor haa an a;?11ca tion 22 filed in May of 1970.
Staff documents issued in January --
23 CHA IR;c.An ROSE.iTHAL:
Wait a minute.
How do you 2*
count at all tha-period before tney are acaittec?
":hy 20 snoulc tnese intervenors or any intervenors expend
'i754201
~
dvCoO5l0 73 gsnddd I
consioerable time and ef f ort anc call upon others to expend 2
time ano effort prior to the time they are admitted as J
parties to the proceecing?
4 In this case, as I recall it, the licensing board 6
cenied their petition for intervention.
And it was only o
after we had reversed tna t licensing board action tha t they
~
7 were accitted.
e How can you count the perioc prior to the time Y
cnat they were ac=itted as parties?
10 MR. GOLJSEAU:
I'm not necessarily counting tnat.
11 Tney were acaitted as parties in January of 1979 and from 12 cneir accission as parties to this specification of 13 contentions, there was a rour-month perioc.
1-I don't tnink it is unreasonaole for a serious 15 litigant to be raniliar witn the documents of recora, the lo cirect cases of tne applicant anc tne staf f, anc to begin 17 tne case pre paration a t least as early as the accission of le contentions.
Iv Sut I would suomi t that in all earnest, that they 20 shoulo cegin case preparation oefore that at least as early 21 in tnis case, l>7v. as cneir accission as formal parties.
22 CHAIH..iAh ROSEiUHAL:
So you don't go back before 23 sanuary?
2*
i/R. GDLaSEnd:
I woulc not go back before January, 20
'7v, their formal acaission.
115f 202
dvo605.I l 74 gsanEd l
CHAIRt4AN ROSEiffHAL:
You're saying that as soon as 2
they were formally admitted as parties, that they had the 3
obligation to get moving.
4
.IR. 00LOSSRG They certainly had the obligation 5
to get moving.
Inere was obviously no commitment that they o
file any cirect testimony within 30 days or even 60 aays or
?
even v0 days of that point.
o Sut tney certainly shoulc begin their case Y
pre paration wi tnout regarc, it seems to me, as to the 10 specific hearing dates tnat are establishec.
Il CHAIR.4Au ROSENTHAL:
how when the licensing ocard 12 on.4ay 5 se nedul e s -- w na t was it?
It was specifically 13 scneauled for wnen?
14 MR. GOLJ5ERU It was a pre-nearing conf erence and 10 a nearing to follow immeciately following.
lo CHAIRt.' AJ RO3ENThAL:
So tnat Oney were toic on the 17 5tn of,4cy tnat in wnat I woulc calculate to be lo a pproximately 7 weeks, tney nave got to be reacy to go to Iv t ri al.
20 dow you tninK tnat that is a reasonable period of 21 time?.
22
't.h.
GOLDd EkU I oon't think it is an unreasonable 23 period at time.
24 CHA IR;.:An ROSEWTHAL:
I cian't ask you whe ther i t 2c was unreasonacle; I a saec you whether it..tes reasonacle.
)754 203
ovCo0512 75 gsnHEE 1
MH. 00LLBERG:
I think under the circumstances of 2
this case, tha t i t is a reasonable amount of time.
3 CHAI R.1 An ROSEdTHAL:
What are the circumstances of 4
tnis case that makes it reasonabla?
5 MR. 00LuSERGs The circumstance of this case is 6
that at that time you hao 7 contentions, for which
~
7 presumaoly the intervenor haa some f amiliarity with the o
basis wnen they were first sought to oe introduced as v
issues, and later through the negotiation process.
And then 10 the submission of stipulations.
Il CHAIRAAh ROSENTHAL:
vihen does discovery come into 12 all of tnis?
13
!..R. GO L u S ER U
'*; ell, ciscovery commenced u. con the l*
acmission or contentions.
lo CHA IRMAi. DOSE:4TnAL:
Which is when?
Io I.. H. 03Ls5ERU:
The acmi ssion of contentions was 17 April 21.
le CHA I R.. tan 20SEiiTHAL:
All right. So you think tna t ly the perioc cetween April 21 anc June 26tn was a reasonacle 2G perioc for trial cre pa ra tion, inclucing ciscovery?
21 l.:R. UuLs5EdG:
I tnink it is a reasonable perioc.
22 I..*oulc no te that the intervenors waitec until June i to 23 serve ciscovery, wnereas the staff servec ciscovery en. lay 2+
c, almost one month prior to that time.
25 I think tney snoulc have workec under the 1754 204
ovC60613 76 gsnned I
ticeframe that tney were given.
2 CHAIRMAsi ROSE.iTHAL:
tiha t was the urgency of this 3
case 7 has tnis a pplicant in May or June of 1979 in a 4
position where it neeced to get its authorization within a o
ma tter of a f ew months?
6 Mk. GOLvSERG bell, there is some information on 7
the record to tne eff ect that the applicant was o
contemplating his firs t ref ueling move to fiorth Anna Unit 1 9
in tne rall of '79 10 If it had ootained the authorization to conduct 11 tne expansion bef ore that cate, it would have oeen able to 12 co so in an uncontacinatec pool, which woulc have resulted 13 in some saving in occupational exposure.
le Tne a pplican t also curing the pencency of tnis lo proc eecing filea a motion f or interia relief unich woula lo nave permi ttec nic to install the new racks in tne pool, out 17 only to store tne spent assemblies in a configuration that to woulc not violate tneir prior authorization.
Iv CHAIR.tAJ 90SEifIHAL:
How uid tne intervenors anc 20 how frequently cid the intervenors announce to the licensing 21 coarc their cissatisf action with the scheduling?
22 MR. GOLuSEHU vie ll, they filec a motion to rescnecule tne proceecing,.tay 15tn -- I'm sorry, '!ay 21.
23 24 inere was a prior staff motion to reschecule the proc eeding 2p on t.iay 15.
I754:20$
svoc0cl4 77 gshnE2 i
They con't give any fixed dates for the conclusion 2
of ciscovery or the commencement of the hearing.
But if my 3
calculations of the dates or the time periocs containec in that motion are accurate, they would have called for a 5
hearing on approximately cid-August.
o I woulc note that af ter two postponements, the
~
7 nearing cate in this proceeding was alternately set for o
mid-August.
Y So that 10 CHAIRMAd ROSE:lTHAL8 So their problea then was 11 witn the fact sna t it came in small chunks rather than One 12 boarc, in response to tneir first request, saying, okay, you 13 want un til mic-August.
We will give you until mid-August.
14 MH. GOLuS5RG:
Tney certainly wanted adcitional lo time.
Iney requestec time beyonc tnat wnich the staf f, had lo sougnt.
17 Anc, in fact, there was an extension of time and ic the hearing was rescneduled for July 9tn.
IV In the interim, however, you cid have the pendency 20 of a summary cisposition motion for whicn the intervenors 21 nad oeen afforcec Inree opportunities to respond.
In at 22 least tne tairc o pportuni ty, tney had the full benefit of 23 answere to al A of their ciscovery.
24 And tne tnird and final response of summary 25 cisposition coes not reflect any evidentiary material.
aor
dvoo0515 7e gsndEd I
in their final re sponse to summary disposition do they renew 2
eneir suggestion that they snould be aff orced accitional 3
time or that the summary aisposition motion shoula be deniec 4
on procedural grounds.
5 It is true that thare certainly were some o
seneculing changes as tne proceeding ensuec, but they were 7
cil, so far as I coulc see, to inured to the benefit of the o
intervenor to allow him more time to first get comple te Y
responses to a ciscovery and then to consicer the responses 10 to the ciscovery.
And finally, to formulate some kind of 11 substantive responsa to the summary disposition motion.
12 I would respectfully suomit that it is an 13 coligation on tne li tigan t to diligen tly try to assemble as 14 strong a case as they can, particularly wnen, as in this 15 case, tnis intervenor f acec cisc.issal f roa tne proceecing of Io summary cisposition was granted in its entirety.
17 I don't tnink tha t it is a very satisf actory is answer to say Inat we were af raid of turning on, anc then lv turning off our case.
20 I tnink tact case snould have cocaencec at least 21 as early as the acmission of contentions anc certainly, as I 22 say, proceecing uncer the parallel of di smi ssal.
23 Iney shoulc nave gotten wnatever sucstantive 24 response tney could get to tne motion in an expecitious 25 fasnion.
1754 207
dv0dO516 79 gsndEd i
I do f eel that the summary cisposition motion was 2
correctly deciceo in this case.
We recognize that summary 3
disposition is something of an exceptional remedy for wnich 4
certain prerequisites nave to be me t.
And we feel that a
chose prerequisites have been met in this case.
o The applicant's action wi tn respect to the three 7
issues wnien form the substance of exceptions I through 4 o
were supported oy an afficavit or otr.er documentary Y
references.
They receivea the support of the llRC 10 staff.
11 CHAIR..tAJ ROSE!! THAL:
iiow was one of those issues 12 one of alternatives?
13
..tk.
GOLs3dRO:
Y e s, i t wa s, 1.tr. Chairnan.
1*
i 15 y
lo 17 Ic Iv 20 21 22 23 44 20 175'4 208
CR 8908 80 HEER t-6 mte 1 1
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Now, apart from our holding in 2
Trojan, would you be prepared to say that the applicant's 3
papers were adequate to, when considered in conjunction with 4
the intervenor's response, were adequate to warrant summary l
l 5
disposition?
i 6i MR. GOLDBERG:
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I f
7 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Or does it have to rest on 8
Trojan?
i 9i MR. GOLDBERG:
I believe Trojan would indicate that i
10 it is not required in these circumstances to consider alter-11 natives.
You have an action here which, according to the I
12 -
staff's environmental impact appraisal, wouli not have a sig-13 Ll nificant impact, would not involve a significant commitment of ii 14 resources, so as to bring the requirement of consideration of 15 dif ferent alternatives under 102 (c) or under 102 (e) of NEPA i
i 16 l into play.
17 !,
But apart from that, I do believe the moving papers li 11 18 ll and supporting papers of the NRC staff are adequate to il 19 a demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material ll l fact 20 l!
with respect to the three a.lternatives that are put forward l
21 l for consideration by the intervenor.
I l
The staff concluded in its affidavit in response to 22 1
23 " summary disposition that none of those alternatives offer any J
24 ] environmental advantanes,
they are more costly and not capable A.,
eerse neoorwri. inc. ;j 25 ) of being implemented within the time frame required for this J
ll 1954 209 u
81 mte 2 1
particular action.
2 None of those conclusions, by the way, are contro-3l verted by specific facts.
In their third response, the 4
applicant --
5 CHAIRMAN ROSENTEAL:
Wasn't there an affidavit 6l dealing with the element of cost?
7l MR. GOLDBERG:
Yes.
But I don't believe those I
8' present specific facts.
That affidavit is submitted by i
9' Dr. Weitzman, who is the intervenor's apparent economic 1
10 l consultant.
Mr. Weitzman claims that there is no sufficient I
t I
i 11 j information in the record for him to form a professional I
12! opinion about the reasonableness of the monetary figures i
13, assigned for the proposed fuel pool expansion and the alter-N 14 ] natives put forward for consideration by the intervenors, so 15 :l i
thar, he could form an opinion about their reasonableness.
16 Now, I would submit that Dr. Weit: man does not submit 17 h any specific facts suggesting that what these monetary figures l.'
} should be in his estimation, nor is there any indication of 18 I
~
191 his professional qualifications that he would be competent U
20 J to do so.
He doesn't show any familiarity with the costs of 21 '
a fuel peol expansion of the kind proposed or with any of a
1 22 ;;1 the alternatives submitted.
,'l.
3 ll So I don't believe that any of the material that il 24 ; Dr. Weitzman presents is of an evidentiary nature.
A 3eral Reoorters, Inc..i 25 l CHAIRMAN RCSENTHAL:
What is your view of a
d54210 1
82 mte 3 1
Mr. Dougherty's suggestion that our Trojan decision in the 2
respect that we're talking about has been overturned by the 3
District of Columbia circuit Court?
I I
4 MR. GOLDBERG:
I must say, as I was listening to 5,
that argument, with all due respect, I really can't appreciate 6
the argument.
I don't believe that the D.C. Circuit opinion 7
in Minnesota addresses that point.
8 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
So you agree with the applicant i
9' that the Minnesota case is confined to this matter of waste 10 confidence and whether there needs to be consideration of the i
i 11 l possibility that the spent fuel pool will be a permanent i
12 repository?
13 p MR. GOLDBERG:
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
,1 4
14 ]
I think what I would like to do, Mr. Chairman -- I l
15,
believe dat most of the points that we wish to make are i
16 !
developed in our brief.
We feel that the decision below was a l
l 17 ;' correct one, that the applicant has met its burden of demon-l 18 strating that there is an absence of any genuine issues of 19 f fact with respect to the three contentions which form the 20 substance of the exceptions, and we believe that the board's 21 decision should be affirmed in all respects.
22 !
I would be glad to respond to any cuestions that any l
23 [ of the Appeal Board members might have on any aspect of the 24 d record.
A6
.deral Reporters. Inc. j 25 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Hearing nothing from my i!
F 1754 211 m
83 mte 4 colleagues and having no questions myself, we thank you, 2
Mr. Goldberg.
3, Mr. Dougherty?
At the outset, Mr. Dougherty, l
4 Mr. Goldberg referred to a sentence in the Commission's 5
October 25, 1979, notice of proposed rulemaking to che effect l
l 1
6l that the Cc= mission has decided, however, that during this 7
proceeding the issues being considered in the rulemaking g
should not be addressed in individual licensing proceedings.
I Now, why is Mr.
Goldberg wrong in suggesting that i
9 i
t 10 ; that sentence eliminates the ambiguity that you had suggested 11 ! existed in the Commission's notice?
12 MR. DOUGHERTY:
That statement by the Commission is 13, an exercise by the Commission of the exercise that the District d
Court --
14g that the Court of Appeals gave it when it ordered 15 this procedure undertaken.
It said you can do this in l
16 l adjudicative proceedings or you can do it in rulemaking I
7;' proceedings.
And that s tatement says, our decision is we're 1
1 y going to do it in generic proceedings.
\\
19 Therefore, it would be inappropriate for the Licensing il 20 [I Boards to undertake the same sorts of analyses.
Nevertheless, 21 the Cc= mission never said that you could continue to issue the 22 ! license amendments, because that would mean directly -- would t
23 be directly in conflict with Minnesota.
They simply decided a
24 j how best to resolve these questions.
er.i neoane,. inc. ;'l Ae 25 j CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Well, does it make very much c
il 1754212 3
84 mte 5 1
sense to be conducting these individual licensing proceedings 2
if the bottom line is that the board cannot authorize any 3
action to be taken?
4 MR. DOUGHERTY:
Of course it does.
If there are 5
report technical or environmental or safety issues that can I
6l be resolved, they can be resolved.
And in that respect, the i
.i I
7l pending proceedings can continue, if it so happens that those j 8
proceedings are concluded before the generic proceeding is l
concluded.
9 I
10 I CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Well, let's go on for a couple 11 of sentences.
Furthermore, says the Commission, the court in 12 i the State of Minnesota case, by remanding the matter to the 13 b Commission but not vacating or revoking the facility licenses 14 involved, has supported the Commission's conclusion that I
15 licensing practices need not be altered during this proceeding.
16 ]
Now, isn't the issuance of license amendments to it 17 permit the modification of spent fuel pools a licensing
- l 18 practice which the Commission has said need not be altered 19 !l on its interpretation of Minnesota?
Now, that may be an 20 incorrect interpretation of Minnesota.
But as you appre-21!i ciate, we are compelled to accept, whatever we might think of 22 !
it, the Commission's construction of judicial decisions.
f 23 Now, they say, supported the Commission's conclusion that c',
]
licensing practices need not b e altered.
That seems to 24.
... _......y 23 me, if the prior. sentence doesn't cut against your. position, a
il Il 1754 213
85 mte 6 1
this one does.
2 MR. DOUGHERTY:
That statement strikes me as 3l preposterous, quite frankly.
4 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Well, preposterous or not, we I
5' are bound by it, aren't we?
l I
j 6ll MR. DOUGHERTY:
What they said was the D.C. Circuit 7
in Minnesota supported a subsequently-made conclusion.
The 8
NRC's decision to handle this in a generic proceeding was made 9'
in August or September or October.
There is no way that i
10 t that previous opinion could support it, and that's why I say 1
I 11 I there is ambiguity here.
I don't really understand what they l
12 '
were saying there.
I 13,
There is another sentence in that same area where il 14 '
it says that all proceedings now underway will be subject to 15 whatever final determinations are reached in this proceeding, 16 l, in other words, in the generic proceeding.
I 17 h Now, I would like to get back to the question you I
18.
raised a few moments ago about what are we going to do if we N
19 0 discover in that generic proceeding that in fact we don't 20 h have reasonable assurances.
If we can continue at the present 21 to issue the operating license amendments and then at some 22ll point say, well, gea, we made a mistake, we've got to go back
'l i
23 d and backfit these plants, we are in a real bind.
And I
- i 24 $
think the Commission recognized that and I think that the a.
.,.i a.coners. inc. i c
25 D.C.
Circuit did as well.
!l 1754 214 b
86 mte 7 1
What this statement says is all proceedings now 2
underway will be subject to those determinations.
It means 3
that the proceedings will remain subject ta the conclusions 4
reached in the generic proceeding, not the licensees will be 5
subject to those conclusions, but the proceedings will remain 6
subject.
And I think that implicit in that statement is that 7
there is a recognition of the mandate for Minnesota that you 8
can issue the intervening amendments before we make these 9
findings and make these determinations.
10 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
I don't know whether that's 11 right or not, and I must say that, as I indicated to 12 Mr. Goldberg, I am somewhat pu== led as to just how that would 13 be implemented,.
14 MR. DOUGHERTY:
I hope you're not asking me for an 15 answer.
16 CEAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
No, I'm not.
I gather your 17 answer is that there is no way that that statement can be 18 satisfactorily explained.
19 MR. DOUGHERTY:
Well, I think that the Commission 20 recognizes that -- I think they understand the firm mandate 21 of the D.C. Circuit when they said that NEPA requires you make l
22 these findings, and they sort of danced around that.
But i
23 they have never said you can issue the amendments.
And I
I 24 hate to propose that we are going to have to hold in abeyance i
Am ne amemn. ine.
25 these proceedings until the generic proceeding is.over, but 1754 215
87 mte 8 1
this may be such a case.
2 I'm not comfortable suggesting that.
3 The second point I had to make concerns the service 4
water cooling system.
The Appeal Board knows, of course, that 5
on motions for summary disposition occasionally it is appro-6 priate to deny such a motion even if the intervenors present 7
no opposition whatsoever.
8 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
We are fully familiar with the 9
Perry case, and I think you can proceed on that assumption.
10 MR. DOUGHERTY:
What I'm saying is this is such a 11 case.
VEPCO is in charge of the facts relating to the service 12 water cooling system defect.
We have asked them about it and 13 they said they don't know the answers to our questions.
14 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Well, I thought I heard 15 Mr. Christman say that the record establishes without contra-16 I diction that the temperature could rise to quite high levels 17 for a period of some days, at least, without there being any 18 safety consequences at all.
Now, if they have the affidavit 19 of a competent e xpert to that effect, why isn't that enough, 20 assuming, again, that it isn't controverted to the point that I
l 21 !
we could say there is a genuine issue of material fact about I
i 22 that, notwithstanding that expert?
23 Now, did you controvert that?
i 24 l MR. DOUGHERTY:
We simply couldn't.
ereiMeoorters,Inc.!
Ace 25 !
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Why couldn't you?
1754 216
88 mte 9 1
MR. DOUGHERTY:
This was a piece of information, a 2
fact which developed as the proceeding went along.
They made 3
it in the middle of the proceeding.
Once we heard of it, we 4
immediately established it as a contention.
We proceeded to 3
send VEPCO an interrogatory question and were not given 6
subsequent answers.
7 DR. BUCK:
Which fact are you talking about?
8 MR. DOUGHERTY:
Well, there was apparently an error 9
in their earlier calculations as to the integrity of the 10 cooling system and this required recalculation of actual Il temperatures and changes in the assumptions of which components.
12 would function.
13 CHAIRMAN RCSENTI' '.L:
I'm not talking about that.
i l
14 I'm talking about -- maybe I misunderstood Mr. Christman, but l
13 l I thought he said that the record establishes without 16 contradiction that the temperature levels would rise to a 17 quite high point, I gather, if I recall correctly, well in 18 excess of 170-some degrees, without there being any safety 19 consequences at all.
20 This doesn't go to what assumptions are being made I
2I!
as to whether this cumo will operate or that pump won't i
I 22 operate, or the heat exchangers will or will not operate, 23 and whether the temperature might rise to 150 or 160 or 170 l
I 24 i degrees.
This goes to the point that, even if you have the l
wei neconen, ine,l Ace 25 I abnormal case and things fail left and right and the I
l l
1/54 217-I
89 mte 10 1
temperature runs up, so what, there are no safety consequences.
2 Is it true that he educed expert opinion to that 3
effect?
And if so, was it controverted to the point that a 4
genuine issue of material fact existed?
5 MR. DOUGHERTY:
You might want to ask Mr. Christman l
6 about this, but my understanding of what he said was that if 7
the temperature were to rise to a level of
.'.77.5, I think, 8
that there would be no unreasonable impacts on the environment 9
or on public health, not that there would be no effects.
10 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Well, we will have to go back 11 and look at those papers more carefully.
I think the record 12 l.
will speak for itself.
13 MR. DOUGHERTY:
But regardless of which he said, l
14 I we're not in a position to plead, to state to the Licensing Board 15 '
that in fact this is not true.
We don't have the information. ;
16 All we can do is evaluate what they answer to our request for i
17 information, obtain an understanding of the problem, as we 18 did, and conduct cross-examination or otherwise try to help l
19 the Licensing Board resolve the question.
i 20 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
I don't follow that.
Let's 21 l, assume hypothetically that this may or may not be the case, l
t 22 that the applicant put in support of the summary disposition l
23 i motion an affidavit from an expert in the area which stated I
24 l-categorically that the temperature could run up to 225 degrees Ac, erst Reoorters, Inc.
25 !
for a period of two weeks and it would have absolutely no i
I 1754 218 ~
i
90 mte 11 1
impact on any of the materials in the pool, and he set forth 2
his reasons.
3 Are you telling me that you would be entitled to 4
resist summary disposition on that issue by simply coming in 5
and saying, well, that's what the applicant says, but we don't 6
know whether that's true or not; we would like to get his 7
expert up there on cross-examination?
8 MR. DOUGHERTY:
No, it's not.
9 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
What are you saying?
10 MR. DOUGHERTY:
Such a statement would be very 11 probative of their right for summary disposition.
Certainly, l
12 !
the Licensing Board should give that kind of affidavit a lot I
1 13 of weight.
But when you're talking about closer questions of I
i 14 l unacceptable safety consequences and about temperature limits i
- 15 !
that are one degree or.6 degrees off from the maximum 16 temperature calculated for the pool, at that point the i
17 Licensing Board has to say, well, we're going to take a l
l 18 second look, we are going to try and see if maybe there are 19 questions of fact here.
20 !
Aside from what the effects would be, the board i
21 !
should have asked:
well, perhaps it is appropriate that we l
22 i revise the FSAR limit of 170 degrees if it is really possible 23 f that it might go up this high, or perhaps the technical 24 fi i
specifications.
There are other questions, not Am aal R eporten, lM. l just what the 25 environmental effects will be.
}
g} l m I
91 mte 12 1 One more thing on the service water cooling system. 2 This is a small point. Mr. Christman stated this morning, as 3 VEPCO has submitted to the Licensing Board in the past, that 4 in the event that all of the spent fuel cooling systems fail, 5 there are adequate makeup systems within the building that 6 they could turn a fire hose on the pool or empty a tank into 7 it or something of that sort, that this would prevent the 8 pool from boiling. 9 That seems to be not the case in fact. We presented I i 10 this question to VEPCO in the interrogatories and asked them 11 what the coolant capabilities of these backup systems were, 12 ! and the response was that they have no cooling capability; l [ 13 ' all they can do is supply water if it starts boiling. So -- l 14 DR. BUCK: Isn't a supply of water a cooling 15 ; capability? I i 16 MR. DOUGHERTY: Well, it may be some, but it certainly l 17 ' doesn't remove heat from the pool. It's not like a heat l 18 exchanger or a pump. 19 DR. QUARLES: This trings up a very interesting 20 l' question. What happens to the water that boils off, if it l 21 doesn't remove heat from the pool? I thought the steam i 22, removed heat from the pool. I 23 ! MR. DOUGHERTY: Well, I'm not a technical expert. 24 l But it's my understanding, once the pool starts boiling, that Acr twel Reconws, Inc. ; 25 d there are clouds of steam within the water and that steam has I 1764 220
92 mte 13 1 less deterioration and it tends less to absorb heat, and so 2 that when the assemblies are in there they are hot and giving 3 off radiation and it continues to build. And as it boils, it 4 gives off heat, and that's not enough. The assemblies begin 5 to generate more heat. 6 DR. QUARLES: I understood you to say there was no 7 heat removed. 3 MR. DOUGHERTY: Well, that's not accurate. But they 9 inplied that they could prevent the pool from boiling with a 10 fire hose, and that is not the case as we understand it. 11, Finally, one question we haven't talked about today I i is relief. f If we prevail in our request for.a reversal of the 12 13 j board's order, there is a question as to what the future shape l l I 14 of this proceeding might be and what might be done with the l l 15 ! spent fuel pool. And I just thought I would inform the board I ,l l i 16 ' of our views. f l 17 We would like to see the grant of summary disposition l 5 18 reversed. Obviously, we think the issues we've raised in our I I 19 l pleadings raise serious questions of fact and that they should l i 20 ; be subject to full discovery and we should be given a chance r 21 to get the experts on board and present our case at a hearing. I 22 [ Now, as to what to do with the spent fuel pool, the 23 l obvious option is to take out the new racks and put in the new 24 I racks. VEPCO has said that this would involve 13 man-rems. 4 Am tral Rmorun, lm. ig i 25 !l But we don' t see any need for that. It would be okay with I d754 221 I
93 ste 14 1 my clients if we simply left the fuel assemblies where they 2 are. In fact, it might be smarter -- I don't know who should 3 decide this -- to space them out, for whatev9r reason. But 4 the new racks essentially are okay from our point of view, up 5 until the point at which we conclude the hearing. 6 If we eventually fail to persuade the Licensing 7 Board to deny the amendment, well then, the status quo has been 8 maintained and it can continue. But if we do prevail, at that i 9 point we have a tougher question, and probably the new racks i l 10 f would have to come out. II CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: So you are suggesting that if I 12 l we agree with you that the su= mary disposition was improper i 13 ' and remand the proceeding to the Licensing Board for eviden-V. I4 { tiary hearing on one or more of these contentions, that the i IS j status quo should be allowed to remain in effect pending the i 16 ! outcome of the proceeding and depending upon what the l I 17 Licensing Board concluded, the status que at that point might 18 have to be altered? c I9 l MR. DOUGHERTY: That's essentially right. Our i 20 preference would be that the assemblies that are now there 21 be spread out more, so that the center to center distance is 221 at least that that it was designed to accommodate. But we d 23 i; wouldn't ask that the racks be taken out or'the workers be i ,# ':t exposed. raf Rooorters, Inc. l Am-23 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. Dougherty. I! 1 ll t754 222-
94 mte 15 1 On behalf of the entire membership of this board, 2 I wish to thank all counsel for their helpful presentations. 3 And on that note, the appeal stands submitted. 4 (Whereupon, at 11:55 p.m., the oral argument was e-6 5 adjourned. ) 6' 7-8 9 l 10 l 11 l l 12 l l 13 I 14 l 15, l l 16 f 17 i 18 i' 19 20 l i 2I i 22 l i i 23 24 Ace-se Reporters, Inc. i 25 1 l 1754 223 i
- }}