ML19273B197
| ML19273B197 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Green County  |
| Issue date: | 03/14/1979 |
| From: | Cole R, Ferguson G, Goodhope A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904030080 | |
| Download: ML19273B197 (85) | |
Text
_
4 A
~ P Rau.=. ve;,
Nt: CLEAR REGULAIORY COMMISSION
- Ecc%et No. 50-549 i
NEW 'iORX STATE DEPARTENT OF PU3LIC SERVICE and
- Case No. 80006
, f NEW YORK STATE EOARD ON ELECTRIC GENERATION SITING AND THE ENVIRCN2 CIT PCWER AL'IIERITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (Greene County Nuclear Power Plant)
PREEEARING CONTERENCE r
r
\\
l Place:
Albany, New York Date:
March 14, 1979 Pages:
AM SESSION PM SESSION J-21468 - J-21552 PARSONT R E?C RTIN G S E.1VI C E.
I N C.
S EPCRTIN G $7tMcGRA7ME23 7904030086)
To m:
~
PU3UC SERVICE CONM1333CN Ad NCFAA3 STR EIT. ALJ AMY.
M. T.
1:237
l GC/jmc/vra l
Case No. 80006 and Docket No. 50-549 J-21463 l
~
L.,I -. :.D S. n, m. S,~,,. -. _, _ R u l.... r Ry C v.v.A. A S S. u,.,
e
.A t-c an._
_n c.
n i
3
- r. v. d m e.. r
.v.d.
- r,
i.
w*.
4 of the 5
- 2. O.u;R AL.u. 0R.rev. O.r n u.r S v. n,. r_
C. c
- v..= a, y 0 2 -..a
( G re o_..e i.
6 Ccuntv Nuclear Power Plant) - Dccket "o.
50-549 7
g 6,.. w
.;re,y v. C RM S *. n' *. r.
DrDA:."..W 'im. Cr
.T' a' I C S r. RV 7. C.r 9
- n. D s;r q v0RK S''A~^ r SC^'F'~n C I * ~* ~r C*" 0 ' F F r N r o"' * ' n ""
10
' ~ ' '
~ ~
- ~~
~' ~~"
.c r. v e.s
- n. < D.
..u..r sv
-. s,s. n +. v e..
e.
--re
.a 11 1n i
.e sI t h;.
.y,.. e R
.n 13 of the 14
=. E
, -. u..
r rm
. -. v.
e
.u.. r.
e. n, i r n..r 5.r.i vC~n _ G.er.r.
e_
v C O UI** Y
"""C ~' #"'^ R ""- "" ' 'M *~ "* " " ~ ^' C ' ' ~7 " Y 15
~~
A ^ o ~' ~i " a ~4 ^ "
- * ' ~ '
~ " ~ - -
- ~h e 0 0'ir R ^' "* *' "r O R "' *' v Cr *rr'"~S*^^'*^*
16
~~
~
Cr NEI YORK for a certificate of environ. ental 17 compatibility and public need to construct a 1200 Zi nuclear generating facility at Cementon, gg Greene County - Case Nc. 30006 19
.sL-v.. L -r.e C.e e.or _- n,a2..G C Ou...r_e v.C r n
i
,,0 held at the Offices cf the Ccamission, Agency 21 Suilding 43, "he Gcvernor Nelsen A.
Rockefeller j
~.,.
46 r._..
_4 _..
.e.e.e 23,_,
.a. b a.". ;r,.". e'.e v.^..,
aed..es",
t v
^.
23 l
l March 14, 1979, commencine. at 1 c'cicek c..m.
PaascNT REPcmTING Szas ct. INc.
J-21469 2
1
_ _U T.
QT.
Q a*
ANDREW C. GCCDHCPE, Chairman, Atomic Safety & t Licensing Ecard, U.
S. Nuclear Regula:Ory 3
Cc= mission 4
RICHARD F. CCLE, Member, Atomic Safety &
Licensing Scard, U.
S.
Nuclear Regulancry 5
Commission 3
GEORGE A. FERGUSCN, Member, Atcmic Safety &
Licensing Board, C.
S.
Nuclear Regula: cry 7
Ccanission 3
EDWARD D. CCHIN, Administrative Law Judge, New York State Department of Public Service, 3
Presiding Examiner 10 CONALD F. CARSON, Asscciate Examiner, New vo. < S. a.
e c,. _.....e....
.a e.,..._._.._..o._,,_
11 Conservation l'
~
APPEARANCES:
13
.c
.w
...e 3,.3.7.., C S,.,s /.c.y v
3_m.
Cryy.cS -..
ce,;,,
u i....
vu.i...
14 MICHAEL FLYNN, Staff Counsel NANCY SPIEGEL, Staff Counsel 15 Agency Building 43 The Governor Nelsen A.
Rockefeller 16 Empire Stace Plaza Albany, New Ycrk 12223 u
r c - U'5Lr m. = D, Sm.Am..e..c.
M. C.*.=a, R v.u= G u - - ~. n.o.v. uv.v_y e.c. L, 18 GUY CUNNING *G.M, Assistant Chief Hearing 13 Counsel s m.. u.... = <
_J
_--..d,
_s 2.,:e... Cnu,..se 20 Washington, D.C.
20555 a,
e4 MO em l
i PaascNT Rgrent No senvecg.tuc, j
{
2 J-21470 i
l 1
i APPEARANCES:
(Cont'd.)
I I
ee 3
.eo u,.
.e Cr..fn.:. R Al-.,.:C.R.r. v.
O.e..c..e.
e n,..r Ce s r 1
- v. C, ss..
4 LEWIS R. SENNETT, Assistant General 5
Manager, General Counsel VITO J. CASSAN, Assistant General Ccunsel 6
CHARLES M. PRATT, Senior Attorney EDGAR K. 3YHAM, Attorney GERALD C.
GOLDSTEIN 7
10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 3
I
.ro.,. n e. o A c...v e v.. O
.r a.,. N.v_r.v....
9
-s,er.:s,,a,. w v.
vs.
m 10 PHILIP H.
GITLEN, General Counsel 50 Wolf Road
,1 Albany, New York 12233 Sy:
CARL G.
IWORKIN, ESQ.
g DAVID A. ENGEL, ESQ., of Counsel I,
g For GREENE COUNTY & ASSCCIATED MUNICIPALITIES :
BUTIEL & KASS 45 Rockefeller Plaza 15 Sy:
AL3ERT K.
BUTIEL, ESQ., of Counsel 16 LORETTA SIMCN, Environmental Planner g,'
Greene Countv Planning Department Sox 514 18 19 For CATSKILL CENTER FCR CCNSERVATION AND CEVELOPMENT, FRIENCS OF CLANA, HUCSCN U
RIVER CONSERVATICN SCCIETY and the COLUMEIA COUNTY HISTORICAL SCCIETY:
21 NORWICK, PAGGIO, JAFFE & KAYSER 10 East 40th Street n e.
RCBERT C. STGVER, ESQ., cf Counsel i
PassoNT REPCRTING SENvtCE. lNC.
I
i 1
v
..,4<,
l
~
1 APPEAPANCES:
(Cont'd.)
4 For CITI:: ENS TO PRESERVE THE HUCSCN VALLEY, i
COLUMBIA COU';TY SURVIVAL COMMITTEE. and 3
MID-HUCSON NUCLEAR CPPONENTS:
4 l
g
. h., a. R,
3,s,.<.,,,<,
r.,- 3y s
.~.nz,-.
e
.a.
.r.
w 11 Chester Street i
c Glens Falls, New York 12301 6
y:
ROBERT J.
KAFIN, ESC., of Counsel For LEHIGH PORTLAND CEMENT CCMPANY:
7 DE GRAFF, FCY, CCNWAY, HOLT-HARRIS &
g
.v.r..n r.r.v.
90 State Street 9
Albany, New York 12207 l
By:
ALGIRD F.
- WHITE, JR.,
ESQ., or Counsel 10 11 1.,
as 13 14 15 IS 17 18 19
- o 21
{
en mas l
4 23 I
I I
i 1
1 Psaserer ammirua senvecc. Nc.
J-21472 1
_P _R _O _C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S n*
JUDGE CCHEN:
I call Cccket 50-549 3
before an Atomic Safety & Licensing Scard cf the 4
Nuclear Regulatory Corr.ission, and Case 30006 bef:re 5
the New York State Board on Electrical Generating G
Siting and the Environment.
7 n'-
e2
.4..g a
.e.'.e...b.
..e a' c 7 5 ae e.
Chairman Gecdhope, Dr. Cole and Dr. Fergusen.
Associate Examiner Carson and myself, Presiding Examiner Cohen, 10 a
a.
.s. a.. a.ac.-
n..u.e s~. a _ e.
11 Both dockets, as you all well recall, 12 involve the application of the Power Authority of the 13 State of New Ycrk for authority to construct a nuclear 14 generating plant in Greene County.
We resume today 15 with this c.rehearinc. conference :c l., cwinc. a hiatus IS which has extended since the end of July to consider 17
.crinclealay tn.e natter c:. schec.ula.nc c:. witnesses witn 18 respect to testimony of the three governmental staffs 18 and the intervencrs answering the Applicant's 20 presentation.
21 During this period that we have not en
~~
been in hearine., testi=cnv has been served hv. various "3
parties, and I assume you all have copies of that.
I P&RSCNT R EPCRTING S ERVtCE. INC.
A l
J-21473 1
Sefore we turn to the substance of the
.o prehearing conference, I would like Counsel to 3
- a. a c.. ~'* a.i.. * " s w.i
- b.
- b. 6 e.i.v.ide..
4*4_s- "v..at.4..~
- b. e _d _-
m
..a e
4 a cearances orallv.
v.
5
.v.S. S oIece.r.
. o.. u. o. S a.a.s o.c
- w
...e
. - v.
-o Department of Public Service, I am Nancy Spiegel. With 7
me also is Michael Flynn.
8 MR. ENGEL:
For the Department of 9
Environmental Conservation, my name is David Engel, 10 and with me today is Carl G.
Cworkin.
11 MR. BUT::IL:
For Greene County, Albert 12 Eue el of Buttel & Kass, and with me is Loretta Simen.
13 MR. STOVE R:
I am 3.:bert Stover 14 appearing for Catskill Center der Conservation and 15 Development, Friends of Olana, dudson River Conservation i
16 Society and the Columbia County Historical Sccietv..
17 MR. KAFIN:
For Citizens to Freserve 18 the Hudson Valley, Columbia County Susvival Ccmmittee, II Mid-Hudson Nuclear Cppenents, Rcher: J.
Kafin.
".0 MR. WHITE:
For Lehigh Portland Cement ag r e m..yg.e.y,
6 h a.
2 4.m. 6 Q4
[qQ.~ 3.2 2,
.T e y, ( we.y 3 y,
U. n T 6.
- 2. 3., <* a -
ww.
C mm w,
.v
..3 ee
.'d.ea.' ev, ". v a' l
.4 - d 7 W ".4 a_,
w'..,
' ^ ~ ".s e.'.
- s a
./..}.
?. 7.',v*. s*
.n..S.
- 6..b. g p...d.
} 4= a.2 a'a
_ b_ o_ g.h. a.m.
Q i
l e
l PanscNT REPcRTING $ERVICE. INC.
u - 2.3,4 4
s 1
Lewis, acccan.anied by Guv. Cunninc. ham and Sinc.h Baiwa.
n.
o.o,...
- e. c.,
- c... e3
.w-,- _3 4
- a...,
.w. o
.s1R.
. a 3
Power Authority of the State of New York, I am Charles 4
M.
Pratt.
With me today are Gerald C.
Gcidstein and
=w Edgar G.
Byham.
I also note for the record t.5e 6
act.earances of Lewis R.
Bennett and Vite J.
Cassan.
7 JUDGE COHEN:
Are there any other 8
acc.earances?
o.
(No response.)
10 JUDGE CCHEN:
As I indicated earlier, 11 we have received testimony and proposed exhibits from 1,.
various parties.
I will note those that I have 13 received and if any of you are missinc. testimonv. frca 14 these parties,.vcu will take appropriate stees to 15 cu.a_4 1
w 16 Frcm the NRC we have received the much-17 awaited Final Environmental State. ment plus varicus 13 segments of additional testimony.
We have not received 19 an identification of witnesses other than as to these 0
segmenos which NRC will be presenting nor, of course, 41 qualifications relating to those witnesses.
44 i
We have also received testimony and 23 propcsed exhibits from Staff of the Public Service Pa nsoNT REPomTtNo SEMvict. INc.
1
s J.'.' 4' ', :
1 Ccmmission; staff of the Decartment of Environmental i
l n*
Conservation; Greene County, et al; Citizens to P re s e rve
.4 the Hudson Valley, et al; Columbia County Historical Society, et al; the New York State Office of Parks &
5 Recreation and Mary Berner.
6 Extensions for service of testimony were 7
granted to the Cementon Civic Association until today.
8 Is any party here representing the Cementon Civic 8
Associaticn?
10 I note that Mr. Nickolitch, who has II represented the group, is not here.
The status of that l'-
testimony, if any, will be determined when and if it is 13
.o res en ted.
14 Lehigh Portland Cement received an 15 extension until March 16th, that is, this Friday, and 16 we ask Mr. White to be prepared to indicate at this 17 conference the nature of the testimony to be presented 18 and to identify the witnesses who will be presenting 18 that testimony.
~d Mr. White, will you de that, please?
al MR. WHITE:
Yes, your Hencr.
Lehigh en intends to present testimony detailing the effects, as 1
1 23 1
it views it, of the proposed locatica of the Gree.:e i
l i
i i
P4 R5CNT R EPCRTING S ERVICE INC-l
I t
U ",.3., U l
. 1/
1 County nuclear pcwer plant at Cementen.
n.
JUDGE COHEN:
Excuse me.
The effects 3
what?
I missed a few words.
4
.v..q.
nv.. r. e
- m..w.e m.e.te
. s c.. ' e ".',~.".
5 Portland Cement Comcanv. of the location of the.croccsed 6
Greene County nuclear cwer clant at Cecenton.
e 7
It intends to produce four witnesses:
8 the Chairman of Lehigh Portland Cement Ccmpany and the 9
. President of Heidelberger :ement AG, Peter Schuhmacher; 10 the President of Lehigh Portland Cement Ccmpany, Williar 11 Young; the Vice President, Secretary and General Counse..
In.
of Lehigh Portland Cement Compan Edward Hyland; and 13 the Vice President for Manufacturing of Lehigh 14 Portland Cement Company, Ralf Schman, 15 I..
4s a.,so c..
4 e.o. 4-,. - -...,.4.ie u.
..m.
IS testimony en Friday, March 16th.
17 JUDGZ COHZN:
Thank you, Mr. White.
IS Would it be fair to say, if we are 19 using general categories of subject matter, that the "O
~
aresentation you propcse will deal with the sccic-e
'l economic impact of the prcposed plant specifically as ne
~*
4.
..e_a.as
- u. n
_re.u. 4 - u.
- o. n.., a..a,
.A 23 MR. WEITZ:
That is :crrect, v. cur Ecncr.
l PaMSCNT R EPCRTING S ERVICE. INC.
J-2 3,., -
ai 1
Earlier this morning, we had a brief e
discussicn, and I believe that it is accurate to say 3
that our testimony would fall into the land use-4 sociceconcmic category and relate only to Lehigh's
.c particular site at Cementon.
6 JUDGE CCHEN:
Thank you.
7 3efore we turn to a consideraticn of the 8
particular order of witnesses that we might take up 9
when we resume en April 2nd -- incidentally, that 10 d w_4 _l _' 'e m=".
.',. ~ -..
- '.e. a. was a_
".e=..i..
en c
_d _' '
3 a.
11 notice distributed to that effect -- I will remind the 12 carties cresentinc. evidence that they should have with 13 them sufficient copies of exhibits for the reporzars' 14 purposes.
15 If I remember correctiv., that is three 16 for the AS.3 and one for the Ccmmission, for the 3 card.
17 Those would be of ficial copies of the exhibits.
- And, 18 of course enouc.h cec.ies for distribution to m.arcies, o
19 if thev have not c.reviousiv. received them.
"O In order te avcid the less of time
-a c ~u ] e c ~- _a _..s
~ u. a
~..a y
~e...e o
. s n _;...c n
,. e., a ~. 2.. n e,
which has been prefiled, we are recuiring writcen
- 3 e b 'a
..ic a.s
'.e'
..". a *.
a S '. 4. -..,i * ^ '. e = G. Ia d
'w-';-.M.a.~..'.'..."..
J PaascNT REPORTING SEMVICE. INC,
--e e.w
+=
m-
J-21473 1
There is one exception to that requirement.
That is in 4.
the event a cartv. cannot determine whether he is 3
Objecting en the basis of the qualifications of the 4
witness until he has conducted voir dire.
If you 5
intend to conduct voir dire to determine whether you 6
will be objecting to the testimony, that should be I
indicated in the filine. bv. March 26th.
8 And I emc.hasize any chi,ections to the 9
substance of the testimony should be in by that date 10 as well.
11 For the parties' guidance, we put you I'~
(
on notice that both Boards, in their presiding over 13 these hearings, intend to view very strictly the issue 14 of friendly cross-examination.
If you are cross-15 examining a witness, it should be with respect to an i
IS area of that witness' testi.cny with which ycu disagree.
17 Cross-examination to buttress, to reaffirm, to 19 emphasize points made by a witness will be viewed most
'9
,3,.8.e.,3., y.
a.
- 0 a.,.i,s e a.,. e..,e
.,.,.,.4...4
.f
..a....,
.w,
, ~.
"I
~
we wished to raise before we turn to the witness nn
...a 6.. e I
I 33 w-w-
4 e.... C e
- o..w. G.
-a eed w
.- C..
.=w
=
d PansoNr AtponttNo Stavice. INc.
J-21479 l
1 Counsel met this morning and may have a proposal for us with respect to the order of cross-examination of 3
witnesses.
Is there a spckesman for that group?
4 MR. LEWIS:
Well, I will undertake to 5
recapitulate what was discussed this morning.
There 6
was a meeting.
Not all parties were present.
Sone 7
people I was unable to centact.
8 However, the general nature of the 9
discussion this morning was to determine what areas 10 of subject matter could be gene into at the cutset of 11 the hearing and, for t NRC's part, the outstanding I'
~
discovery filed against it was an important factor in i
13 determining what we would view as subject matters 14 which could be gone into at the outset of the hearing 15 starting the week of April 2nd.
IS The parties discussed what these I
17 categorics might be, and I think that what we can 18 report to you is that we have identified perhaps seven 19 areas that could be gone into early in the proceeding.
"O I think that the matter of the exact order among these i
- 1 topics would be scmething that would have to be e,
i
- ~
discussed scmewhat further among Counsel, but I will l'
eq
)
identify what they are, in any event.
i l
PansoNr RamonTINo Samvicz. INc.
i J-21480 1
One topic is terrestrial impacts and o.
it was the feeling of the parties that the m.atter of 3
transmission line impacts insofar as they relate tc 4
terrestrial matters could be treated on a back-tc-back 5
basis with the terrestrial subject matter.
6 JUDGE CCHEN:
Do you mean that would be 7
a second topic, but which would contain overlapping 8
areas?
9 MR. LZW'S:
Overlapping areas and 10 over?apping witnesses.
At least from the MRC Staff's 11 point or view, it is overlapping witnesses.
1**
Another area would be air cuality and
(
13 there has been some discussion this morning as to 14 whether er not the topic of air cuality would include 15 all of the various cooling tcwer impacts discussed in 16 the FIS and elsewhere.
"'h a t matter is still somewhat 1,*
,, o..... h e g.i,, g o. a.. i ae..--,-..n
- an; a<
c..,,,;
.ya.
uu - - -: -. -
18
=crning.
It was discussed as a possible early tcpic, 18 but I think that it :.s possible that there would hate "O
to be sc=e =cre discussicn on that.
I
- 1 Noise imcacts would be the next tecic.
l nn l
o.'ce..de s-a.
- a s - 4...-..",
d l
i 23
.w.e...:.c.
c
,ee wot,3 ;
u u
e a..v a.e -
., 4
.s--
l 8
P 4 RSCNT R E PCRTING SERVICE. INC.
I
V.77481 1
Tn.e CeCC=miss3Cni..g "est1=Cny 21.,eC..DF 2
., e 'e' u'.c a.# # 's - "- ' d k
i'l a
..r e s - - - -
- a..c..k. e - *-
.0.4 c.
3 A'sc, 4-
~as *".e
- a a ' 4.~.~, c#..". a.-= "4as 4
..,a. i~ wcu'd-eec s o>.".b..' e
.c ~c
.i...",..".a.
s "- "> e " -
b a-5 of r.lternative energy sources at an early point in the 6
proceeding, and also the subtopic cf vaste heat, as 7
to which there is, I believe, one specific centention.
8 JUDGE COMEN:
Is NRC the cniv. c. a r t ".
9
+. s, a *s has
- ece...e
- a s 4..~..": c.
a' e...="-4"a<
e.~. a,-":
e 10 sources and waste heat?
11 v
T --+s r y a n,.. c
,e.,. a.4.
.n.a. e. s, e.
u.
I ~'
PSC's testimony goes into that ac all.
I think maybe 13 e 'sI S*sa##.is *k.e y..4.7wi a.'
g a...
4..vc.1 leC'
^...". a -.
s.
r w.
14 aun :-
d a.. ' *,..ec=.1 s ea 4..-
4-
-s s
15 from any other; that is why I asked.
16 MR. LEWIS:
Scu, Mr. Chair.an, there
.ay 17 ve-v. we'1 b
t'#- = so ".i..i...-..". 4 s
-e c*..e a-aas
~^
13 c =
- a, c.-v.. bu* 7 be'ieve
- .".e a--4as =.'.'
- a'-
~5="-
=~-
19
.k..i s c 4.. *- w e s '.c "-.' A = -- -" a c.. '"4s
.4..=.~- d a s *. =.... a -
ry--
"O and, vcu knew, not atteme.t to sccce cut the entire I
i al order of events for the preceeding, because we si.- ply n,
c....
e.33 a
- s.w.: a-,e y e.,
.e 2,a
.a.c y.
.. 4.,.
.a m.
~---
i
^3 2.,caagr
.4.;
s,
..u.a a-eeC a..a,
--mn..
c
. c
.,. a-y.
a n.
1 P4MSC'ef REPCRTING SERvlCE. INC.
v
-.,434 s
1 obviously, this gets very much wrapped up with the 2
question of discovery and the cutstanding discoverv i
l 3
that there is.
4 Basically, I think that is what we can a
report to ycu as the matter of topics.
Perha the e
6 other parties have something they would like to add to 7
that.
9 JUDGE COHEN:
Miss Spiegel?
9 MS. SPIEGEL:
I think Mr. Lewis has 10 accurately summari:ed the discu Jicn that we had this 11 morning.
I would just add that I think that it is l~a also the understanding of the parties, and I believe it i
13 has been the understanding of the Scards as well, that 14 these items would be taken up on a subject matter 15 basis.
16 In other words, all of the testimony 17 that has been filed by various parties relating to 18 these topics, those witnesses would be heard seriatun.
I8 JUDGE CCHEN:
I don't believe we issued any fermal determination to that effect, but we have al informally agreed among ourselves, and this can e,
constitute that formal determinati n, that we will try U
to proceed en a subject matter basis.
l t
P4RSONT R EPC RTINd SERvlC" ; N C.
i J-21433 1
It shculd be noted that we are o
cognizant of the problem of pending objectionc to 3
interrcgatories and delayed return dates for 4
interrogatories and the impact those delays conceivably 5
can have en proceeding with cross-examination.
To the 6
extent that some material that might fit within the 7
proceeding by subject basis is not yet available, we de 3
not intend to let that hold up the hearing.
9 If one witness' interrogatories are not 10 in at the time of cross-examination of the group cf 11 witnesses with whom he would appear, we will just have 12 to call that witness back later.
s 13 The procedure may not be as neat as scme 14 of you would like, and it certainly is not as neat as 15 we would like; but if a witness is with a panel that s
IS ready to be heard and his interrogatories ccme in late, 17 that witness may in fact have to be called back to i
l 18 respend to questions about this in te rroc. a to rv. re sc. ens e s )
I 19 We intend, as much as possible, to keep 20 these hearings proceeding prcmptly, withcut delays cr 21 c.a.rs in the.crocess.
22 Co other Counsel have ccmments upcn 13 Mr. Lewis' suc.c.estien of tc.cics that ac..cear te be accnc.:,
e.= cur namentino scavica. iac.
l
I i
I J-21484 I
the crouc. readv. for the start of cross-examination?
2
.v.s.
- e. w. T. r.
r
- w 4
'4 v.. o_
- w 4..3,.
w,.
9,o a
3 m. a_ a - a *. ' " i s.~ _-..'.. g ' s c a.". # e _- e. - a,
- ^
- h. a_
e.v. a ". ~- *"=.
4 anything was clear, was that where certain parties' C
~
testimony which would be eventually the sub"ect of a s
S panel -- for instance, Lehigh Portland Cement Company 7
-- impinged on other topics -- and Mr. Lewis this 3
a#'a-.c^..as c."-='d #iad..". e *.. a.. s.n i e c i- - c ".
d.. a_.ac'4...c.":
9 only to relate to terrestrial concerns -- it was 10 thought by the parties this =crnin that these 11 discrete areas of testimony would be taken in the panel la where the bulk of the testimony was =cs: concerned.
\\
13 For instance, Lehigh and its concerns 14 relate to the land use and sociceconcmic impacts, and 15 to the extent that there was some testimony that related 16
.c t.he
- a..sm. i s s i
- r. cv.- ' do o -
~.o
..".a. *-=..sec - ' ~- i -.
17 improvements, that panel would be taken all at once.
18 That is of particular concern to me, as Mr. Schuhmacher 13 is headquartered in Heidelberg, and as the titles of 20 the witnesses would indicate, thev. are ene tcc. c. e c c. i e
,1 4..
.". e 7 e h i - " o -
a...i.. a ~..i c.".,
a.. A c a..~...4...'.. g s u " s ~- '..~. 4 ' '
rescurces and we.eed some lead time to arrange their 23 schedules or One wee.< or so tnat
,.2 woulc. ant'c pate P 4R $CNT R EPCRTING $ ERVICE. INC.
J-21485 I
that they would be here.
4.
JUDGE CCHIN:
We certainly will make 3
every ef fort to meet that problem, Mr. White.
4 MR. NEITE:
Thank you, ycur Honor.
cw JUDGE COHEN:
Do other Counsel have anv 6
co=ents?
MR. PRATT:
Judge Cohen, I think the 8
Authority has several cc=ents.
The first is, as 9
Mr. Lewis indicated, the subject of air quality and 10 metecrclogy is a subject that 'is. not quite clear what 11 is incorporated in that topic.
There are issues in 12 this case concerning cooling tower plumes which sene
\\
13 people wculd consider to be an air quality and 14 meteorclogy discipline.
There are other issues about 15 particular emissions which is also an air quality and 16 meteorology discipline.
e
..". e s " %" 4 ec s mea.14..c_ w _4 ".."...%. _
.~m o _ _4..
d Ib tcwe_ are,. n our v ew, cy no means reac.y :cr cross-18 examination.
Just to cite an obvious example, we have
'O served a notice to take depcsition of one er =cre al
- c. e c c. l e a t the NRC -- I c.uess in th:.s case one e.ersen nn
~~
who is in charc.e of the analysis of the alternate e
I
- o.'.'..c.
sv. s.a.m..
- 'e.e
=-a,
?..". 4 4..., a. "..~" e.- ^- #
i i
i PanscNr a PonTINo Samvect. INc.
a s.,.,, eco 1
interrogatories outstanding on that s &,ect, and to the o
~
extent that the subject of air quality and =etecrclogy 3
cave ed. o'.4..3
. w e.-.. a _ *_ e _- s c. =.' *. e -. =. 4 ". e -. m^.'.'.. ~
~
4 sv s e.."a-c. e.. e = ' ' v., -7
- k.."..>. *'.a-
-..a v.
4*
'e.-=-.~..~'-a
^
C*
. a:c e
.4. a..
.we 4... o..
.... s 6
Second, we did nu : get until this 7
morning a number of docu.ents that the NRC apparently g
has sent cut.
We did not know, for example, that they 9
had obiected to any. of our interrogatories until this 10
..o....d.. c,
wh.e.. * '. lev. we.-
. _i e e.. u 3 ".
m= ~.. ". 4 e..._' a_ _- a_... a.
11 upstairs to hand us a copy of their objections.
We l ~'
have not had, obviously, in the few minutes since we i
13 got the objections a chance to review them in detail, 14 and I think that we plan to do that.
15 But I note that, for example, in the
/
16 Scard's ruling granting their objection to cur 17 interrogatory sets fcur through seven, T.y utes indicate, sc=e questions on trans=irsicn and sc=el 18 that we had sent 18 terrestrial ecology questions in those sets.
"O (Continued en fellcwine..c a c. e.. )
et da s MA men I
P&RSONT REPORTING SEMVtCE. INC.
2-1 u '
4,,'
c 3
JUDGE COHEN:
You were referring to an 3
extension of time to object or tine to respond?
3 MR. PRATT:
I'm sorry. An extension of time to object.
But that would, I assume, also
.s extend their time to answer them implicit, if they 5
6 decide not to object.
But what I am trying to convey 7
is that even scme of the subject material that are g
the most ready, such as terrestrial ecology, may in fact not be ready, because of the various interrogatories g
that have not been answered.
10 Third, the NRC staff, either as a g
g stra.,egy or because of pressure of answering the interrogatories, has made it very difficult for us, 13 at least, to understand exactly what they intend to do.
As I have pointed out, they have not identified the witnesses that thev intend to put forward here, 16 and, in fact, although we have asked Mr. Lewis repeatedly for an identification of those witnesses, even as late as this morning, they either won't or cannot identify which witnesses they will be bringing.
,0 We don't know exactiv 21
- the cualifications of the people or how many people will be involved in the 22 l
l i
panel, whether most of their witnesses will be one-man i
l P 4 RSCNT R EPCRTING SEM ylCE. INC.
s J-21488 1
1 panels or whether they plan to have multiple witnesses 2
on a particular subject, or even where in some cases 3
they intend to have experts or, in the other case, 4
merely the environmental project manager who can stand 5
up and say the FES has been issued.
6 So there are a lot of problems I think 7
with your statement that the hearings will go forward 3
even thcugh a particular witness's interrogatories have 9
not been answered, because we just don't know who the 10 witnesses are, and I can imagine that is going to pose 11 substantial problems to the hearings as they progress.
12 JUCGE COHEN: Suppose we ask Mr. Lewis
\\
13 as to the identity of his witnesses.
I frankly consicer 14 the failure to present the identification at the tire 15 the FES was served to be a technical violation of our is requirement that you present your entire direct case.
17 What is the status of the identification ig of witnesses, Mr. Lewis?
gg MR. LEWIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I apologinc, j
first of all, for not having identified them at that a
l og time.
I might say that one thing that has happened 1
l 1
in this case is that the Staff relied much more heavilv !
"2
- i on its final environmental statement as its testimony, j
,3 l
Pa RSCNT R EPC ATING S ERVICE. INC.
3 J-21489 1
with the exception of only five additional pieces, than 2
it has in almost any other proceeding of which I am 3
aware.
of course, when the final envircamental state-4 ment itself is issued, it does not bear en it, any 5
identification of the authors of various sections, and 6
that is something I readily acknowledge I do owe to the 7
parties.
8 Let me say a few more matters on that.
9 We did send around, February 9th, when we filed the 10 final environmental statement, identification of the 11 contentions as we understood them and the areas under
'12 which they fall, and a designation of the sections 13 of the final environmental stayement which address each 14 of those areas of contention, and what I will do very 15 shortly is supply the names and the professional 16 qualifications of the people who have prepared those 17 various sections of the document.
18 JUDGE CCHEN: What is very shortly,
.'ir.
19 Lewis?
20 Ma, LEw S:
I believe I can co it by 21 the end of next week, when I make my next filing on the 22 discovery as well.
I will try and combine it with my 23 March 23rd response to outstanding interrcgatcries 1, P &RSCNT R EPQRTING SEMviCE. INC.
J-21490 1
2, and 3 and it would be difficult to do it any sooner than that, unless the Board so directed.
3 DR. COLE:
It makes it very difficult 4
to set schedules for subject matters, Mr. Lewis.
5 MR. LENIS:
Well, I recognize the problemt 6
that is involved.
If the Board feels that it is 7
necessary'to have that information sooner than that,
'~'
8 then I will.
9 DR. COLE:
Is it that the infor.cion 10 is not available right now or you don't know who 11 sponsored the different sections?
12 MR. LEWIS:
Oh, yes, I do.
I can 13 identify the people.
I 9ay not have all cf the 14 professional qualifications in hand.
I can identify 15 all of the individuals br this Friday.
I may not be
(.
16 able to include -- I may c.ct physically have to 17 transmit'to you at that time -- all of their statements 18 of professional qualifications; but I can identify 19 all of them.
20 JL*DGE COHEN: Why don't you do that, 21 please, at that date?
22 MR. LEWIS: All right.
Mr. Chairman, 23 one matter that I did want to discuss, which has been i
A P& ASONT REPCRTih4 $CMVICE. INC.
5 g_074o,.
I referred to now by Mr. Pratt, and I did not know whether 2
or not the Board had received copies of the notice of taking deposition filed by the Applicant against the 3
4 NRC staff.
3 The Applicant has filed a notice that g
it wishes to take depositions against the Staff in 7
approximately half a dozen areas, and has stated that it is its intention that these depositions wculd be a 8
g follow-up to interrogatory responses received.
As a 10 result of the extension of time granted to the Staff to file responses to interrogatories filed against it, 11 12 the depositions are of necessity, I believe, going 13 to -- let me rephrase that.
There will be no possibility 74 that the depositions could be taken before the time 15 this hearing is scheduled to start.
This imposes for ig the Staff several problems.
1,,
First of all, it has imposed, I think, a yg problem for all of the parties, which is that we have had to try to identify areas that can be gone into gg og early in the proceeding on the basis of those where
,1 discovery will be completed, and the discovery is l
very extensive and covers many, many areas, and it is somewhat difficult, in fact, to identify areas.
l i
I l
PaasoNr armansa senvicc. tue.
I 6
l J-21492 1
Nevertheless, we have come up with those where we believe that all responses will have been f iled' l
3 and where it appears that depositions are not to be undertaken.
4 5
Now, also it imposes a problem for the 6
Staff in that it appears that the Staff would simul-taneously have to be representing various of its 7
witnesses at depositions and, at the same time, be_in 3
hearing on other matters.
It is, from our point of g
view, is highly undesirable in terms of the availability ig of counsel and in terms of hcw we had envisioned the
,1 case proceeding.a. We had expected, and we assumed the 1,.
Board intended, for discovery to be conducted on a 13 pretri 1 basis and to be completed before the hearing 14 began.
We recognize that we have been forced by the 33 magnitude of this discovery filed against us to seek
,6 extensions of time.
17 Now, at the present time, the Board gg has granted us until the 30th of March to file our p
responses to outstanding discovery and that, of course,
,3 I
i would be literally but just bcrely, before the hearing
.1 l
begins.
But the follow-up depositions would, of I
t course, of necessity, I believe, extend into the time 23 l
I I
I
...o~,
. ~.1,~
.... u.>~c.
i
7 J-21493 1
when the hearing has started, and I simply wanted to 2
bring to the Board's attention the fact that this is j
a matter of considerable concern to us.
4 I guess I will rest there for the menent.,
3 JUOGE COHEN:
MR. Pratt, as probably 6
rhe principal cross-examining party, representing the 7
Principal cross-examining party, and recognizing that g
scme matters may not have been fully completed with g
respect to the discovery prccess, what would ycu suggest 10 as the most useful subject order in which to proceed?
11 MR. PRATT: Well, in preparation for g
today's session, we have proposed our own schedule.
g We have possibly been a little overoptimistic and gone 14 through all of the topics, at least topics that we 15 thought were appropriate for consideration at this tire q
i IS The first one on our list was an issue that I think both the NRC staff and the Authority p
13 view n t as an appropriate joint hearing issue, and I g
therefore reserve all of our rights to it, the issue of financial qualifications, which has been ruled to be
.0 a joint issue.
It is my understanding that the NRC
,1 staff has scme material en that issue in, I believe, j
,l it is the safety 1
. evaluation re. cert.
P ERSONT R EPCRTING $(RVICE. INC.
i 3
l J-21202 I
We have listed next the alternative --
i o-JUDGE CCHEN: E::cuse me.
You say they i
I 3
have some material in the safety evaluation report.
4 Co they have it in anything that will be part of the c
joint record?
6 MR. PRATT:
I assume that if the Staff 7
is directed, they will put that into, or at least the 8
necessary part into, the joint record.
Maybe there is 9
nothing.
Maybe this issue will be resolved without l
10 any testimony.
11 JUDGE CCHEN:
Unless it is in the FES.
12 Now, I don't see how they can add anything.
13 MR. FRATT-Well, we would be happy to 14 rest on the record as it is now, but I don't think the 15 State's staff has put any testimony in on the subject.
13 That is why I focused on the NRC staff.
17 JUDGE CCHEN:
I would like to avoid 18 talking about things which may not be in issue here.
19 Is part of financial cualifications part of your direct 20 case or your answering case?
21 MR. LEWIS:
It is not.
There are, Mr.
E Chairman, certain cententions which appear under the l
03 category of need for power which appear, from our point i
panso,.7 armarma scavice. Nc.
i
9 J-21495 1
of view, to stray into the area of financial qualifica-2 tions.
Now, under the NRC regulations, the area of 3
financial qualifications is related to saf ety matters, 4
and that is why that topic is dealt with in the safety 5
evaluation report.
We did not intend to offer any 6
testimony on financial qualifications in this joint 7
proceeding.
3 JUDGE CCHEN:
If I may recall the series 9
of events that led to the issue in the joint hearings, 10 I believe there was a motion by some party ~aquiring 11 l
PASNY to prese at material on the financial cualifica-12 tions of itself.
Is that correct so far?
s 13 MR. PRATT: That is my recollection.
1 14 believe in March of 1977, the joint Boards issued 15 an order, a prehearing conference order, deciding the 16 subjects of the joint hearings.
17 JUDGE COHEN:
I recall that there was ig great argument as to whether the State Siting Board gg had any jurisdiction over that issue, and our ruling f r the State was that it did, and, therefore, the notion 20 1
was granted.
1 We are now at a stage where no one is
- esenting any answering financial qualifications
,3 l
j P4msoNT R EPC RTING S ERVtCE.1,eC, 4
J-21496 10 1
and, therefore, the motion was granted.
2 We are now at a stage where no one is 3
presenting any answering financial qualification in 4
evidence, and there is no motion requiring anyone to 5
present it, and it appears to me that to constitute 6
a nonissue at this point for this phase of the case.
7 MR. PRATT: Do you m3an it would beccme 3
an issue in the future?
9 My understanding is now is the time.
10 JUDGE COHEN:
No. What I mean is you 11 have made your presentation: no one is presenting 12 evidence en this joint record to dispute it.
13 MR. PRATT: We are gratified that the 14 parties view the Power Authority's financial responsi-15 bility as they apparently do.
Is JUDGE CCHEN: They may feel they have 17 successfully challenged it through their cross-examination.
I la MR. PRATT: That is possible.
19 JUDGE COHEN: All right.
So, Mr. Pratt, 20 j
you can proceed to what you consider your next f avorite
- 1 area to bring on.
I i
MR. PRATT: We had designated alternative 1
3 sources of pcwer as the second issue.
I might mention j
P4 ASCNT REPCNTINo Samvect. INC.
11 J-21497 1
the third one immediately with that, which was waste heat, because waste heat had been considered in the 3
proceedings to date as a separate subject.
We listed 4
weighting separately.
From the meeting held this 5
morning between counsel, it is my understanding that g
at least the NRC staff thinks that waste heat is 7
properly a part of alternative sources of pcwer, so 8
I mention them together.
9 JUDGE COHEN. Will you confirm or deny 10 my recollection that no other party other than NRC gg has presented testimony dealing with these two subjects 7 1.,
Mr. Butzel?
s g3 MR. BUT"EL: Well, it depends what is 3
included, your Honor, but I knew Mr. Kafin has 15 presented some testimony, I believe, that relates to 16 nuclear versus -- well, maybe I am wrong.
You are L
here, Ecb.
I shouldn't speak for you, 37 gg JUDGE COHEN:
I believe you are, Mr.
gg Butzel, but perhaps Mr. Kafin can enlighten us.
Cur testimony relates to what
.1 has been called the fuel substitution cuestion, and I don't know whether that falls in alternate scurces of 00 cower or dcwn in some econcaic analysis catecory.
23 PassoNT REPCRTING Samvict, INc.
4 l
J-214 97 =A I
JUDGE CCHEN:
It appears to me to be 2
the latter.
I 3
MR. KAFIN:
I wouldn't disagree.
4 JUOGE COHEN: You would not?
5 MR. KAFIN:
I would not. I think it is S
mo e an economic analysis than a cost benefit type of 7
review of different fuel scurces or what have you.
3 JUDGE COHEN:
Mr. Flynn?
9 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, part of our 10 testimony concerning engineering econcmics deals with 11 a generic ccmparison between the cost of a coal plant 10 and a nuclear plant.
I think that that fits in with 13 their overall testimony of cost, but it could be 14 interpreted as something to say about alternate sources 15 of power.
IS MR. PRATT:
Your Eoncr, I think one of 17 the ccmments that I wanted to make earlier is 18 appropriate, particularly appropriate now.
One of the 19 things that we have the mest difficulty discussing 20 this morning is the allocation of issues to a particular 21 panel or a particular topic, and I don't know that the 22 parties are going to deeply disagree about how that i
a 33 l
allocation snculd be made.
I knew on the sheet that we l
Paase,.7 aceri~a scavice, r~c.
J-21498 1
l 1
l passed around -- if the Board would like a copy of it, 2
we could distribute it now generally -- but I know that 3
the NRC staff's February 9th letter, in which they 4
group contentions under varicus tcpics, disagreed 5
slightly with the way in which the Authority Scd S
presented those contentions in its own prefiled 7
testi=cnv.
3 So I think that one of the things that s
would be very appropriate wculd be some kind of resolu-10 tien of which subjects, which issues or contentions, 11 are in a particular subject.
I think there can be 12 honest confusion acout whether a part.cular issue is a 13 need-for-power cuestion or an alternate sources of 14 pcwer.
I use that as an example.
15 JUDGE CCHEN:
I have attempted, in the IS last few days, to attempt to classify the testi=cny we 17 have received so far into various subject headines and 18 to assign witnesses to these subject headin,s. That, ig of course, has been only a partial effort, because a0 NRC witnesses have not been identified.
4.1 Suppose I indicate the way it appeared 1
l to me, and then we can use that as a framewcrk and I
I J
perhaps see whether that is a logical kind of resciution "I
PaascNT RgromTtNo Samvect. INC.
J-214pg 1
of the subject matters and the relevant witnesses.
2 Scme of the subject matters I have used 3
do not match the finer specifications that have been 4
suggested here, such a s a witness for Price-Andersen 5
issues and a witness for deccmmissiening issues.
I 6
have lumped those within the broad category of 7
engineering econcmics classification. The classifications 8
I am using are to a great extent those frcm the Article 9
VIII regulations.
10 In any e' rent, for the engineering 11 economics classification, I have all the NRC witnesses 12 for whom we have received separate testimony, the panel 13 of Gordon and Lut:y of the PSC, Becker for the PSC, 14 and Berner for Citizens to Preserve the Hudsen Valley 15 et al.
16 The next subject, which I have called 1
17 air cualaty and meteorology, we have testimony frem is NRC witness Rush and a PSC panel consisting of 'lessrs.
19 Putta and three others.
20 (continued on following page) 21 22 03 PassoNr Repom ao 3rmvice. Inc.
3-1 j
J-21500 s
1 MR. DWCRKIN:
Excuse me, Judge Cohen.
2
- v.. 4 s.< o-a oo.<.,.
< u n=n -,,n.,.
s-e m.. -
l 3
--u
- ~...
- we.~.
4 individuals are in fact OEC employees.
Thank you, 5
.ac
<.4
.v.
s 6
Also in the air quality and meteorciccy 7
vrouc., I have Greene Countv. canel cf C:apski and Stewart.
8 Cn the subject of solid waste there is a witness frca 9
PSC, Lille.v.
Cn eclce.v. and seismolce.v., DEC Witness 10 Davis.
On terrestrial ecology, FSC Ni ness Jackscn
'l and DEC Witness Henshaw.
l'*
On water quality, a panel consisting of 13 one PSC individual, Gecdale, and Mr. Quinn of DEC.
14 That is a jetnt presentation again, 15 y.
owo_. 4,
MR. CWORKIN:
That is correct.
17 v u G H-,7 :
aquatic ecoa,cgy,
... n a,.-
s v z.
18 panel of Radle and Elliot.
Cn noise, a PSC witness, 18 Driscoll.
For land use and sccioeconcmic impacts,
- 0 NRC Witness Peelle, PSC panel Cunnings and Lilley, i
- 1 DEC Witness Senas, Greene County Witness McCarthy en he 4 m.. N E.f.4 N *. g.l.i '/, a "a.".e.'
^#
2 # a.' C, O, T
.a..k.i a.
3..4
.C.4 _C ".,
j y
w-s I
A.
-N a.*. o *..'". e ".".". d.d "..# # " ' '
- **a sa",
'#. e ~'^ s. P,".
3 l
n....-
i l
I i
I Paascoot REmmo SEmvect. NC.
l j
i i
o_,..0.,
s 1
For aesthetic topics, a PSC panel of 2
l S=clinsky and Bishcp; a Cclumbia Ccunty Historical 6
3 Society, et al, panel of Flad, Gusscw and Huntington, 4
with Mr. Flad also being sponscred by Citizens tc e
w Preserve the Hudscn -- no, I think that was Greene G
Countv.
7
.w...a c-...c.,
7s e...
8
.v.... 3 Lm. a r '
- v. e s.
p 9
JUCGE COHEN:
Mr. Flad, also sponsored 10 by Greene Ccenty, 11 Also in aesthetics, we have a panel 1,
effered by the New York State Office of Parks &
13 9ec reation, Witness Lehman, Va:cs, Kuwik, Forsht, 14 Lutters and MacLean.
15
.e.4 n a, _,..,
.w...e st._wm 4._. m a.._ c2 -. _4 _ c....
o.<
o-16 Mary Berner includes material related to the 17 aesthetic issue.
18 MR. ENGLE:
Your Ecncr, just a point of 19 clarification.
DEC Witness Senas I think would be "O
ac.crocriatel.v considered an aesthetic witness.
His
- 1 testimony dces overlap in the land use, but crimariiv_
An asesthetic issues.
nts testtmony is addressed to 23 JUDGE COHEN:
I have that proclem with PassCNT R EPCRTINo Samvice. INc.
l J-21502 I
his testimony, Mr. Engle, and te give ycu a preview of 4
my cwn preliminary classifications, I assu.ed aesthetics would fc110w Jand use, with Mr. Senas being the 4
bridging witness between the two groups.
.2 But if you consider him.cre appropriatel*/
6 to be aesthetics, that is fine with me.
7 The last one i have en aesthetics, as 8
I said, was a portion of the testimony of Mary 9
Berner.
I 10 I
On en.e transc.ortatien c.reur, we nac a i
'l PSC panel of Lilley and Greves and Greene County l'
Witness McGrath.
,/
13 Testi=cny on transmission facilities 14 submitted by pSC Witnesses deWaal Malefyt.
Then there 15 4s a se3...e c_. e s 4 s.. w...4.. e
~w y. -: e-
,q 4
w a
...~
16 ac.cears te warrant a heading radiclogical health and 17 safety.
At least that term is used in the State 18 proceeding.
A.d the OEC witness is Kelleher.
19 And finally there is a segment cf 20
. o.s 4...c..y a
uea._..- 'a_ h a
-..o.'ia..
e
- _4...~
C-
-ae 3
e.
.. C e C.4.. g y L, 70ses, 3.. d.
~..'. a.
3' s ~" ~... _i - a d---- ~v, o c C.'... u d
ao I
4.as.i e 1 e $ eg -...*'. e 3C.'..*"
- e.e> '."..d."."'.C .' ' c#
.u' ^ " e - a,
4
~
' ~
- 7. u ~" "*/. ' " -
5
--a
~
~,
23 i
.a..
i 4
1 1
6 e
l J-21503 I
Ncw, prior to this meeting today, I o~
was thinking alcng these lines with the particular 3
'rit..es ses relatinc. to these carticular headines.
Scme 4
c' you have suggested a finer gradation than have c*
here and again I refer you to the Price-Anderson and 6
the decc==issioning materiaa,.
7
.1*. c a.,,
O
.vc..
o..gAe.m.
fat e A.1,
.b.c. A. h. a *w 4Ao2 w u. 2. *.
2 v
w..
ou -,
8 at least decc=9.issioning, maybe decc:;nissioning and 10 Price-Anderson are distinct issues, but in locking at 11 our listiac. c:. teoics, tn.e ma'>cr cne tn.at we have l'
that you have not mentioned is a topic called 13 alternative sites.
N It had been our expectation that that 15 would be a separate topic cr discipline, that the IS people in the NRC who have pursued that subject are l
prchably different.
We don't knew who they are, of 18 course but thev are e.robablv different than the r
19 varicus s*6 ject witnesses.
20 v n G :. C nu....
- v. c,,..,.
o..a,< _; s a..,., 2 3.,
.r. -
v r
21 c
.,u.e s.,C =c.-
o.,
u..;s ao.<
-.-cea.s:
g.
e.,ne n..
e
.-w
.m T. s o.#.=.-
b s '- e C
=.e
.-.cea.d'..~
_i s v~ ~. " a.... a. d.,..v, ~.
a 7
y w.
23
.-,1.,,,
..,e
.,4.,ee
.es ;_-._.., _.
.,s... a _-..-
w.
^
l l
l PaascNT REPcRTING Samvict. INC.
J-21504 I
to the State proceeding has included any alternate e.
s.i. e t e s *- 4. c o. v. -. o -
- k. a s ' d a... ' _# _4 a d_ -.. a.. a s
_--,- v.e e d r -
3 be presented in support o f alternate sites, as recuired 4
by my notice of August 15, 1973.
MS. SPIEGEL:
Your Ftncr, excuse ne.
6 I assume, though, that we are not speaking of the 7
Athens nuclear alternative.
That, of course, is 3
add-assed-
~v. a.' '. ^ #
- k.e C e - u.-...e..*
c 3 o."-"-.ca.-.-
a-k 4-9
. e s 4..~..y.
10 JUDGE CCHIN:
No, I am referring, of 11 course, only to the possibility of other alternates, 12 the subject that we have thrashed about through various 13 rulings and appeals and rehearing orders and so en 14 earlier in this proceeding.
15 v.
s e e..a
. o
..e,.ne o
o,
...a..
e
.w
.w
...o.
16 has been no full-fledged alternative, as that tern is 17 used in one of the Commission's crders, presented for 18 consideration in Case 30006.
I am not referring to the i
19 PASNY alternative ncw, Mr. Pratt.
And I view the 20 decision that must be made by the State's Siting 3 card 21 as to wheth any. clan t should be certificated; tha:
i an
_4 s,
,3,,. c
, o,.1 a..
a..d d
a e *. a..~.. _4.. = ~. 4 ^..' s.. = d a.
v.
a3
.ha*. a -'=... "e
-a--434-=
ad,
..". e. 4.
.."s. be =.
I PaascNT REPonTrNo sznvier. INc.
v-21303 1
Cementon or Athens.
o*
.vvvW, I u m.n. e ~.
'.s.. n.4 4:
- s..%. a.. s - a. s - -.m.a.s..e.
n A
m e
3 to your Ccnnent abcut the alternate site witnesses of 4
.N bu'.
7
.". u...
..b. a *. v. a s an a-..-~
i=*e
~s.4...e *o e"*
^
e.
5 4.,.3 4 _ a. e
_..y s,.4ew o, w...e q
a,..
,,,.a
-; y.a.a.
_,,-* "e
--v
....-a.
6 decided in the State case.
MR. BUT"EL:
Your Honor, can I te heard 3
on that?
It is aP.carent that Greene County has not a
filed any testimony dealin~ in detail with any of the v
10 a.,.e.a.2..ve s.4.es
.h.a.
de se..eo
.w...4.,.
c,,
,_.4-,
11 pursuant to, I think it is, Section 70-20 of the l
Cc= mission's Rulinc,s.
I 13 It is also, I can represent to you new, I4 beyond our ability to resenr such testimenv. in the r
15 form to which I understood your Honor to have 16 reference just now, that is, in the form of cr in the 17 de*=4.'
- k. a *.
- "-.' d
]' ' s. 4."v.
a c e - ~. 4.#.i a ~ 4 c.. ^.#
s e-...a.
s 4. a.
13 other than Cementen or Athens as is centenplated by tha",
19 particular section, 70-20.
en 4.
A..h.e.w e
.d a 4
h..h.e 77 Q
\\8
.Dws.*- -..
- h. a s 5 s. l.w.
a a f %f e.w". e b bo anb as,yOy. O P. A Q m..k.* o,
..n.
.I E e... 5.S.5C 1
- N
- n.
S p
A en a.*.
- i.m..~be.w A.8 a.i k. e w m.. q h.
. t o.
s.4. o q 4.b. 4.a.b.
ws
.v p=.
weI.4o.g.a.
h he be
-.N.M.
N...e b
. O. e T W
- - e
. M...O. M
_ C a.M y. M C e M....M.
N
- , s 9 s #.
y l
i l
m.c~r as,.e vma sewice. sc.
1
u c.,20e-1 it is relevant to the ::RC proceeding en the basis of the Joint record that will be ccmpiled and which is 3
ene of the factors that will have to be taken into 4
S-.o,,...
C-Clearly, they do not rise to the same 6
level of detail, ac.ain, as may be contemplated by 7
Section 70-20.
8 There is also testimony, generic and 9
general in nature, in the cost submissions both as a 10 a.- *. c ' *..". e..r..e a.n r
.i.~. *. a. e - i..c..v. *ha
".=a-
" e e.. s " '..i.. e d a--.
11 by the PSC Staff that relates to the relative l ~'
advantages or disadvantages of locations, site 13 locations, other than Cementon or Athens, particularly 14 those on Lake Cntario, the so-called Lake Cntaric site, 15 and we have submitted scme follcw-up interrogatories en 16
..w. a.. e s. 4.~-...
.j.
17
- am simply not going to be able -- we 18 don't have witnesses available -- to offer the detail.
19 I don't read the re9ulations exactiv. the wav that
- v. e u "O
~.. v, b u
- ". a. i s
'--a'a"
.a... a.
..4
.. c.i al 1
I have centemplated, follcwing the I
C-..y,,~.<
n C.
..e w., @ C w-,.,..
a a
s e.. a..;
-- Cess, i
w.
y--
i 43 subpoenas of witnesses rem tne Staff who have dealt i
t i
i P A RSONT R EPCRTING S ERVICE. INC.
J-21507 1
.i.4.
s o m..e o. n..u.,_.,,...,,
4..e s.4.a.s
.4 e
v u.e-n_.
v 24 n.
- n...
e v
-. o
.y o b
6 M
~e.4 e
b4 s Ce m.. m...i s.4 m., n, 4 n
- 4a..is_
tI.?...ocee 4 gs, a
o e.
3 4 e,. d.4.. ~
a.' i.. g, '. e < a...
.l e,
4.
e,... a..'.eo-t
- o
- a_ _c e...
y e
4
.. -. 4.,.a. a.:
a s "..i....c..v,.
2 c~
I don ' t think eien then it can cc=e ue 6
to the detail that you may have in mind; but that had 7
been my expectations.
8 JUCGE COHEN:
You are apprising me cf 9
.vour views.
10
.v. 3..
,L... y r.
.g e.,.,,
an
,34.
c.
y,,
a.
11 to the degree that you intend to cut it off, I take 12 exception if that is what 'ou c.rocose to do.
Z r
\\
13 JUDGE CCHEN:
" hank you.
14 MR. KAFIN:
I f ycur Honor clease I alsc r
15 don't want to be seen to be accuiescing in your 16 v~." a. a c ~ e.~ 4 - = ".i -' n o.'
.". e.- a_ _= e,. ~. 4 ' a_
" ' ' a_.. s
^v #
.". e m
I7 parties with respect to alternace sites or of your 19 d e s s-.'.4 *.4 ' a. o ' "..". e.'.i.~...' ' e 4.-. a "- - e o - '..". e d e.is.4
.. 'v."..'..
e.
19 is then presented to the Siting Board I don't see "O
that we have the burden to design a nuclear pcwer plant 21 on sc=e site sc=ewhere.
n.n
..w. e...,c s s _ o_ c_,,4,. o_ s,
,,. s.4 2me, 4
,. e e..
a.3 a.3.e.a.4.le s.4.
s a a.
. 4 r.
_w
.,s
.a..
c.,. a. m,.,. 4---.C.,..
p I
panscNT REPcRTING StRvicz. INC.
l
i
}
J-21508 1
is re"3uired whether an".bcdv. to the c.receeding. cuts in S
~
anything en the record en that, and it e.ay very well be 3
that the staffs here have not lived up to their burden 4
o w-. ease a
.-....3a.e
.ew, a
o..
...,,,,.. l e.,. a...
v 5
factors if that material is missing frcm this record.
G We have no intention of presentine any 7
testimony on alternate sites, but I don't want to be 8
l seen, bv not sceakinc. un new, to be acc.uiescing in 8
your interpretation, at least in the State's side, as 10 l
to what the res.consibility of the Sitinc. Scard and of 11 the agency sta::s is, l*
MR. SCTLEL:
I would just say that 13 Mr. Kafin has said it better than I have, much more 14 succinctly, too.
I join in his comments.
15 JUDGE CCHEN:
Mr. Owcrkin?
16 MR. CWCRKIN:
We believe, Judge Cchen, 17 that there is not a responsibility put upcn the Citinc 18 Scard to cheese only between the two sites for which 19 supposedly full cases have been presented as to their
- 0 e./ a --.
..e...a 1
....e, a c..
Ml JUCGE COHEN:
3efore you gc off cn a a
- a n.g
... a.,...,..
.c.
.u. a, e. e e..
.a... a...a s
e u.,
,,, c -.... a.
u.
23 i
i
.ti..
ge.- g.i.., ung a
n..a
. a-. w,C ;
..w.3 3a.4-.-. a
,O.
.. a.
e a
- w w
6 i.
I PamsoNT REPCRTING SERV 8CI. INC.
I
J-21509 1
a.' t e...a ~. 4 vO s 4 s
.C p 1,.,
- n... e C.#
."~a c r. 4
,..s
- ..".a
- ..".e e.
c a..d g w e." i. s *
.a..d u.' '. 4...a
- a. _l "
~".e :Ca 4,
o
..~;
e_.
.d-a 3
no plant, no apprcval of PASNY's application?
4 m.u.e.,.
y s a.4c 4.:
4.
,a, _. a_
2 a - a... 4._. o. u
-e a
.w
-..a.
..".e
' a.-.. s.ho u.' d b e "u i _' '
t.h. a.
e ' a.. ~. - ~- '..' d c.. _' "; "e
~
6 authorized at one of the two sites for which we have 7
received evidence or will have received evidence.
8 A. e v o u d _i.c. m=
e a_.d.., v. 4
- k.
"... =. '.
9
.v..n.. m. ogg n..
A =...
.c.
d.4s a c - a. _i.. - w.' '...%.
~
3 10
'..". a.,
.k. u. r e.."..' s v c t'.
wc t'. ' A
~...#.4..,. ".-
..a. c"--
e 11 c, 4 :n., s _,,,,,
e.,._
e,-a, 4.,., n a s yg. v u
".=va.
.i.n
...i.i d,
y..
e.
la which is that in the event the siting Board were to t
l'*
.e i.n d "..". a *
-.h e.- a. was sc...e ius*4._"4
=*4..c..
- e _ _ _i.'.4 a ~. _4 c n 14 o ' a. o l.=.~.~
- o." e.".,u.i l ~. " v '..". e
.o - we
.'%" '. o.'."j,
~.".a-.
15 e v e..*.*
_4..". o u.. d *.*. ' '. *..". *- _- a. ~..4-".*.
3
, e s.~.. e ' ". s _ _4 _' _4. m..'..
16 e
-ne
.2.4 4 g.nca a 4s s 43_3..o.
e q,
_4 _,. o_ ;
._o s4.a. 4s 1.,
_ a C _4.' _4
- V_a '.' e.4 ** * * '" *'.". e f' 8 **.'. e.. '.'.^.*'. c _'
n' *.*.". e.. s s.4 *. a.-_._#,
3.
19 u.e S.4 4,g.nCc._a ne s aI".e 4.~..e,
a a
w e. a.
...4
,e
. u.,. we
-i 10 n.o.,/.4 C.
..e n *.a.7 4...y a C +o s a w o *..w. s.4 as de..a L..a c - a -..s.~" 1 a. 7 w
--f 1
20
'.. '. e -,. * * ~- = ~- # ^.
.r.n o '.. a..- Wo.#s, 4.
.i s c u..
o1 C.e 3._,.._ _4
, e n-
.w c..
u" u' ' a.. *..". a c 4 4.. c., =ca.4 s
s_a.
no 3 _1_7 ".W e d.
~.. *,. a.'< 0. ".. a...'/...-..*..e..".$'.*
' ' '. a
- e "f
- - _' e 4
- j
$3
... ~ o c.b.
s.4. a. s
- ..k.a. m a.
4..
..b. e C 3 - a.
C a 3 r 3.4.. a. 4.,.
x
-..A, s
a Pa nscNT r~ttPcmTINo SEMvect. INC.
l s
J-21510 i
1 in essence, direct the Pcwer Authority that if it still feels that it wants to construct a plant, that 3
it should go elsewhere and develop another site, 4
Certainly there are many available in l
c*
the State.
The Pcwer Pcci cwns many, has options on 6
others and has presented cases en cuite a few.
7 JUCGE COHE:i:
I think the conclusion 8
that you say the Siting Scard may reach is one that 8
is pessible, at least under my interpretation of the 10 section.
They can find that the envirencental i= pact 11 is so horrendous compared to any benefit that the l'-
plant would provide that under no circumstance can it 13 be approved at a particular site.
I believe that is 14 what the statute means.
15 (Continued en follcwing page. )
IS 17 18 19
- 0 h,
e A M.
j i
i P4 RSCNT R EPCRTING S ERvlCE. INC.
i I
1 J-21511 a_,
i 1
MR. BUTCEL:
Your Honor, I would just like to extend that period.
3 JUDGE CCHEN: Uill this be productive, 4
Mr. Butzel?
I would really like to get gack to the 5
cuestion of witnesses and subject areas.
8 MR. BUTZEL:
I am not going to suggest 7
to you what you think is productive.
I 3
l JUDGE CCHEN: Thank you.
9 Mr. Pratt, do you wish to proceed with 10 some of the subjects and the order of preference that 11 you see in terms of having the most readiness for 12 cross-examination?
/
(
13 MR. PRATT:
Yes.
14 JUDGE CCHEN: We had alternative sources 15 of power and waste heat, and then I believe you had 16 raised some problems, if my memory is correct.
17 MR. PRATT-Let me just make a couple 18 of comments first.
I don't want my silence on the 19 very interesting and learned discussion that has been 20 going on in front of us to be interpreted as acquiescence.
21 I feel that we can wait until another day to consider
- 2 that subject at length.
23 Second, I think, dust to make clear my J
l l
i I
l PansCNT R EPCRTING StaviCE, INC.
o J-21512 1
point, I think that the topical framework that you 2
propose is a reasonable one frcm cur point of view, 3
and I would just note that I think it ought to have 4
in it this finer distinction that we have referred to 5
or that you have referred to, the decommissioning and 6
Price-Anderson panels, and I very strongly urge that 7
there he the addition of an alternate site panel.
8 This is a very important matter in the NRC case, and g
unless that is to be treated as a separate issue which 10 we terminate joint hearings on, we will very much wish 11 to have cross-examination of the witness or ritnesses 12 at the NRC who have had something to do with alternate 13 site methodology, site selection methodology.
14 I think that your topical framework 15 is in very general terms parallel to ours.
16 We have started in terms of the proposed g7 secuence. We have started with alternative sources of gg power.
This discussion would include waste heat, gg and then terrestrial ecology and then access improvemen 3 20 and then noise, just to take the first few.
Now, when we made this, in fact, until this morning, we did not 21 understand that the NRC staff was objecting to certain interregatories which we now do understand, and I think 33 m
PansoNT REPCRTING SEmytCE. INC.
I
~
3 l
J-21513 1
that the general ccmments that I wculd have to make o*
as to all of the scheduled discussion that we had been 3
having and will have today is that we would like to 4
have at least a few days opportunity to review the
=*
materials that were gotten from the NRC staff today and 6
to respond to the Board, the joint board, in some kind 7
of written fsrm, let's say by the end of Monday of 0
next week.
It is pcssible, for example, that the NRC 9
staff's failure to answer a set of interrogatories I
10 cn terrestrial ecology, to take that as an example, 11 so damages the readiness of that panel that it might l'
not be the best panel to start with.
Ne just haven't 13 had a chance to review what we got this morning.
14 But with that qualification, I would 15 say that the panels that I have identified are the ones IS that we thir.k probably are the most ready.
I underline 17 the word " probable" because quite frankly, we haven't 18 had the chance to lock at a lot of the materials.
19 We haven't had a chance to 1cok at any of the material 20 that the NRC staff has given us today, and, of course, 21 we don't know yet who their witnesses are.
U JUDGE CCHEN:
Let me he sure ! have I
23 your grcups correct.
Che alternative sources of pcwer m
P ARsCNT REPcRTING SERvict. INC.
I 4
l J-21514 1
and waste heat, the subject of Price-Andersen, 2
decc=missioning, alternative sites, terrestrial ecology, 3
access improvements and noise.
4 MR. PRATT:
I think we may be talkinc 5
at cross subjects.
I meant to add the subjects of g
Price-Anderson, decommissioning and alternative sites 7
to your topical framework as topics to be considered 3
in the joint hearings.
I don't think that those three g
subjects are ready for consideration at this time.
gg JUCGE COHEN: All right.
Mhat I was 33 trying to get from you was the subjects that you con-g, sidered most ready, putting aside for the mcment the fact that you new have learned that there are objections g3 34 to some of your interrogatories, MR. PRATT:
I have given you a few:
g3 gg the alternative sources of power, terrestrial ecolcgy, access and noise, the subjects suggested by Mr. Lewis 37 earlier.
gg I think we would join the addition of Price-Anderson
.2 deccmmissionine. to mv. c. r o u c.
We have put gg them lower in our pri7rity list, but I don't think 0
there is any barrier, immovable barrier, to putting them higher up.
I think they are probably straight-forward.
i P& ASCNr REPcmTING Stavict. !NC.
5 J-21515 I
As I noted before, the air cuality and I
e meteorology subjects suggested by Mr. Leiws is, I think,I 3
a problem.
I don't think it is really ready for 4
cross-examination.
5 I would make one other ccmment.
Mr.
6 Lewis is going to give certain identification of 7
witnesses, it is my understanding, and it might be 8
helpful maybe if we could do it in two stages: first, 9
if he would do it as scon as possible, and I would ask 10 it be by week's end with regard to the subjects that 11 we have been discussing as early topics; and then, 12 second, if he could put it in the topical framework 13 that we have spoken about the last few minutes, if he 14 could say in which panels, which topics, the :iRC staf f 15 expects what witnesses, who they are and what sections 16 of the FES will be ccvered.
17 I think finally, at scme point we are i
19 going to want to make a decision, whether it is formal, 19 in the form of a Scard order, or just a competent 20 understanding of all the parties, which cententicas 21 are in which topic.
I have an idea hcw they go.
I think other pecple could cuite reasonably have different l
~3 ideas.
And again, I don't know that that is a matter i
P4RSCNT R EPCRTING SERVICE INC.
1 l
J-21516 6
1 of enormous contentiousness, although it may be in terms i
2 of recalling a witness; but it is s-mething we ought 3
to make specific.
4 MR. LEWIS:
Mr. Chairman, Judge Cchen, there are perhaps two things I would like to say about 8
that.
I think that what I did offer to do would hope-7 fully meet the needs of Mr. Pratt, which is that I am 8
going to identify on the basis of my February 9th 9
letter, which identifies the FES sections, I will 10 identify who the witnesses are for that and they will 11 be arranged by panels according to respenbility to the 12 extent that more than ene witness is involved on a 13 particular topic.
14 The second matter I would like to touch 15 on is the fact that it appears to me that under the
.~
10 argument put forward by Mr. Pratt, we are heading I
toward a situaticn where there is only a very narrow, 18 narrow choice of those matters that we can proceed on.
IS Now, PASNY did chocse to file discovery in virtually "O
every area cov red by the FES, as is their right, and
- l we have objected to numerous of their interrogaccries.
a l
It appears -- and I don ' t knew how smalll ne i
23 of these matters will be resolved -- but it appears
,O.
P A ASCNT R EPC ATING SERVf CE. INC,
J-21517 I
I that under his concept of where we now stand, there 2
really are very few areas on which we can prcceed.
3 I might suggest to you that without 4
reviewing our documents, I cannot represent whether 5
or not any of the -bjections we have filed pertain, for 6
example, to terrestrial ecology, but it may be that 7
if there are any, they are very limited, and it may be
~
S that the Staff will take the positien that we could 9
go forward with the terrestrial ecc1cgy area, even 10 though there may be some very limited as yet unresponded 11 to interrogatory.
12 Now, other matters will be free to 13 take the position they would on that, but I think that 14 our approach would ba to look at exactly what is 15 remaining cutstanding and try and make a determination 16 as to whether er not that would prohibit proceeding 17 in that area.
ig JUDGE COMEN: I had attempted to make gg clear earlier, and maybe it is a dream -- I hope not --
a.0 that we would intend to proceed even with cutstanding 21 interrogatories.
The cuestions could be asked of the a.a.
witness.
If because of sc=e sur: rise or macnitude o f a;5 resc.onse or lack of ore.caration of the witness r"
P4mSCNT REponttNo SEMvicz. Inc.
3 J-21513 1
to respond to on the stand to the particular interroga-tory, he may have to be called back, and we will all a
3 suffer with thats But I think it clear that we do i
4 not intend to allcw weeks to go by for parties to 5
advance their objections to interregatories er for 6
other parties to respond to interrogatories.
7 We are going to go ahead.
3 MR. P RATT.-
Judge Cohen, ceu'd I note 9
at this point that one of the matters that we view as 10 an important discovery recuest is the production of 11 documents both by the State staffs and by the NRC staff.
1 I don't know if it appears in the written materials 13 that we have been provided today by the NRC staff, but 14 it is my understanding from conversations with :ir.
15 Lewis that he intends to invite us to ccme te Tennessee, is where the Oak Ridge National Laboratcry is located, 17 and to peruse dccuments en that point at our convenience.
18 Well, we haven't been invited to de 19 that yet.
I understand as to what his intention is.
MR. LEWIS:
You have been invited in 0
the documents.
.1 MR. PRATT: Well, again, I haven't read what we get this morning at 11 or 11:30. But that is
,3
/
l PansCNT REPCRTING SEnvics. INC.
i l
i 9
l J-21519 1
a ratter that is of the utmost seriousness to us.
If I
2 we haven't even had a chance to get the documentary 3
materials that we have asked for, I don't knew that l
we can very conveniently go forward with crcss-4 5
examination on the subject. Again, subject to reviewing 6
these materials, it may be that we can work it out so 7
that we will be ready bv the 2nd.
But I iust note 8
1 that we would have to object to being asked to cross-9 examine on a subject that we haven't had at least a 10 substantial portion of our discovery recuest responded 11 to.
12 CMAIRMAN GCODHCPE:
Mr. Pratt, as I 13 understand it, you.say that you just received the NnC 14 staff's objection to ycur interrogatories?
15 MR. PRATT: That's right.
IS CHAIRMAN GCCDEOPE:
I don't why this is.
i 17 This is dated 3/5.
Why is he just getting it now?
I la MR. LEW!S.
I don't knew the answer.
l 19 The other parties indicated to me that they had received ti 20 them and the Scard received them thereafter.
21 MR. PRATT: The mail in New York City is very bad.
Mr. Kafin's testimony 4ust arrived 'ecnday.,
s i
aJ In fact, mavbe it arrived cniv. because I made a s n_ e c i a l,i 4
i e
P A RsCNT R EPcRTING S E RVICE, INC.
l i
10 l
i J-21520 1
call to get it.
His first mailing has net arrived yet.
e So it may be that mails in New York City are slow.
I l
l 3
CHAIRMAN GCCDHCPE: Well, I have read 4
j the objections.
I really don't think they are going 5
to give you too much of a problem.
Scme of the things 6
they object to, they object to being required to make 7
a long study of something that is not in existence 8
at this time.
9 And that may be why you are inviting the.m 10 down to Cak Ridge to look at the source material.
Is 11 that it?
12 MR. LEWIS:
I am invitine them down to 1:
Cak Ridge because between the 120 document requests 14 and the 563 interrogatories which have as subsidiaries 15 to them numerous document requests, there is quite a 16 volume of stuff asked for, and it is simply not 17 feasible for us to copy that or to make it available 18 elsewhere and so I am invi*ing the Pcwer Authority 19 to inspect those documents at Oak Ridge, where they 20 reside.
21 CHAIRMAN GCCDHCPE: Well, that may or 22 may not be reasonable. Well, I have been waiting for 03 ycur answer to tnese objections, as a matter of fact, i
- p..o~r accentr~a scavice. r~c.
j
I
~
J-21521 1i I
1 and now I find you have just received them.
3 MR. PRATT: The reason we haven't answered i
3 them is because we didn't see them.
I can understand 4
why the Ecard ruled on them, but it did rule before I
5 we had seen them.
'i 6
JUDGE COHEN-Not on the merits, Mr.
7 Pratt: we have not ruled on the merits of any objection.
CHAIRMAN GCODHOPE:
No.
g g
JUDGE COHEN:
Mr. Pratt, I don't knew 10 how much study is required.
I have looked at the various l
gg objections.
How much time would you require -- and I 12 am talking about a brief time this very day -- to see i
g2 the general areas of the objections and to then come in 14 with some scrt of creferred order from your point of 15 view for cross-examination, even though all topics have 16 not been fully answered? They may be between now and g7 April 2nd.
l 18 MS. SPIEGEL:
I would simply point out 3g in this regard that the Ecard has granted us an
{
l
,0 extension of time until next Monday to file our objec-l g
tions to the scmething over 300 interrogatories we havei received from PASNY.
Now, we have already either i
responded to or objected to interrogatories that were l
I
....c~r = ~ m s m.c
.i~c.
i i
I i
l u - 2.3 - 3,
a.
1 contained in PASNY's first submission to us.
There r
l 2
were several others, and although I can't be specific l
3 at this point, I can represent to you that there will 1
1 4
in fact be cbjections to a number cf discovery requests 5
that we have received.
6 JUDGE COHEN:
Mr. Pratt, dc you have 7
my preceding question in mind?
3 MR. PRATT:
I do.
If I may have a =cnent, 3
your Honor?
10 Judge Cohen, after reviewing the matter 11 with my colleagues, it is our feeling that what we 12 could go today would, one, be time consuming and, 13 secondly, might not be that productive.
My understandir,g 14 is that we have a single copy of the materials that 15 we got frcm the NRC staff this morning, and it will 16 require a bit of time to make two or three ccpies of i,
17 that and to read it.
j i
e 18 MR. LEWIS:
I cave v:'u two cocies, if ig that will help.
MR. PRATT: Excuse me.
Second, I ar i
.0 inf :=ed, and just 1ccking at cur listing of the 21 questions that we have sent out, the tcpics of the i
i l
i cuestions that we have 03 sent the NIC s '~
' ' e -a
'-a a
l l
I I
t
%..e~r a m.m.
se vice. i~c.
i I
13 I
J-21522 1
number of them that are not yet answered or objected 2
to. SO I think that whatever we can lock at today 3
still leaves an uncovered area.
4 i
Obviously, with regard to the repartment i
5 of Public Service interrogatories, there would be 6
additional ones that we couldn't consider today, simply 7
because we don't know what their position is.
8 We have neither answers nor objections 3
from them.
10 If you would like, we could undertake to 11 look at the material that we have gotten today, but I 12 am candid to say I am not really sure how effective i
13 it is going to be.
14 What I would propose again is that we 15 be given something more than an hour or so to lock at IS it and that we get back to the Boards in some written 17 or oral fashion.
la JUDGE CCHEN:
I don't know that the 19 time remaining between today and April 2nd affords a
us the luxury of relying upon the U.
S.
mail for any-21
- thing, ac witness Mr. Kafin and your joint problem.
22 It is obvicus to you, Mr. Pratt, is j
43 it not, that what we are trying to establish 12 scme t
i t
l I
l l
%uo~r succi ~a sovice. i~c.
14 J-21524 I
small group of topics essentially that will impact 2
least upon you in terms of inconvenience that '.ie can 3
begin cross-examination en "onday, April 2nd?
That is 4
clear, is it not?
l 5
!!R. PRATT-That is right.
I am lcoking 6
for those topics, too.
7 JUDGE COHEN:
It wouldn't be easier 3
if we named them, would it?
9 MS. SPIEGEL:
Your Honor, this might be 10 an apropos moment.
I wanted to say something about 11 the scheduling of this case in general.
12 As I think most everyone is aware, the 13 State Siting Board has been given by the legislature 14 a statutory deadline for rendering a decision in this 15 case, namely, the early part of February, 1980. That 16 is less than a year frcm new.
17 I think it is clear, if it was nct gg already clear frem the way this case has preceeded in ig the past, I think further evidence has been given here 20 today, that this proceeding does not appear to be speeding up at all. We have a serious prchlen, and 21 at this coint I would ask that the Scards, considering the statutcry deadline that we are facing, set out some
- 3 P ANSONT REPC RTING SERVICE, INC.
i 15 l
J-21525l 1
kind of a tentative schedule allocating the time 2
remaining between now and February, 1930, so that we 3
and the Siting Board have a reasonable opportunity to 4
execute their mandate.
5 Now, obviously, a lot of this depends 6
on the length of cross-examination and what PASNY 7
anticipates with respect to cross-examination.
8 I would submit to your Honors that, 9
given the extraordinary magnitude of discovery which 10 at least in terns of this Agency is unprecedented, 11 should serve fairly well as a substitute for cross-l 12 examination in many respects.
I would hope that the 1
13 Boards would not permit nor would PASNY even attempt 14 to enlarge upon every interrogatory response during 15 cross-examination of Staff.
is And in many respects, although I consider 17 the discovery recuest to be unduly burdensome and i
la unnecessary, if it can be used to save hearing time, 19 if it will cut down on the amount of cross-examination
- c that all of us will have to sit through, then we are 41 willine to undertake and we already have undertaken I
I f
to be as resconsive as coasible to the cuestions we aa l
- 3 CCnsider to be prCper.
P4 ASONT REPCRTINo Stavect INc.
}
16 l
J-21526 l
l 1
i Everything that I have heard here today, 2
however, has not led me to be optimistic abcut this.
3 Well, I am not certain what I am asking everybcdy to i
I' 4
do at this point except to recognize the existence of 5
this deadline, to recogni:e that unlimited time is not 6
available and to recognize that to some extent, at 7
least, extensive discovery is designed and should be I
8 used as a substitute for cross-examination and in g
order to cut down cross-examination on those areas that Ig are truly in issue.
11 We have received many interregatories 1e that, althought they may not be technically cbjectionable
(
13 take one by one, in fact, relate to matters that are 14 not in controversy, and I would hope that PASNY does not intend for cross-examination to go along the 15 16 same lines, and I would put PASNY and everycne else on notice that I will object vocifercusly if that is 1,
attempted, and I hope that the Boards would agree with
,3 l
this philosophy.
3g JUDGE COHEN:
I share your hope that the 0
discovery will shorten cross-examinaticn, Miss Sciecel.,
1 f
I also recognize that there is a certain amount cf l
l self-interest, on PASNY's cart in movinc the orcceedincl t
i l
1 i
PaRscNT A gpCRTING S ERVICE. INC.
17 J-21527 1
to conclusion. After all, PASNY is the applicant. So i
2 I would not anticipate delay for delay's sake en 3
its part.
4 MR. PRATT: I didn't mean to interrupt 5
you, Judge Cohen, but I had thought --
g JUDGE COHEN:
One other thing, since 7
you have reminded me that you have interrupted me.
8 Actually, I have finished, but the last thought I g
would state to you, M ss Spiegel, and other parties, to is that we are acutely aware of the time deadline, and 11 the Federal Board is also aware of the time deadline, 12 that our State statute has imposed.
13 If it isn't obvious from anything that 34 has occurred today from our part, I hasten to make 15 clear that everything we are doing and plan to do is 16 with the aim of meeting that deadline.
17 (continued on following page) l 18 19 20 21 2
23 m
P 4 RSONT R EPCRTING SERVICE. INC.
j=c o _.,
u_,,a,a 1
.v..q.
er,...
o*-.... a s=v --
m'.n d 7 c'.. ' -
v Ah want to resr.cnd at lenc.th to Miss S.ciec.el -- buc we 3
have had over,e,,000 pages of cross-examina:icn in c
4
~"'s case, s v-...a c- --
d' "e -"; c e. * *.. a.. ~.,
s^~a 4"
4- -
y"--
a 5
candidly, I think, has nothing to do with the issues S
In this case.
We are going to conduct expeditious 7
cross-examinatien.
,Se are c.oinc. to c.o as c.ulcxlv. as 3
- 4
--..d 4--
we ca...
7 va v cb;"er-de..="'a-
~^
"a".a.
a va..
=
9 suggestien that there is going to be sc=e kind of 10 arbitrary limit placed on the times for crcss-11 e x a.~...i..a *.~..h.,v * ". e.Au '.".o 4.v.
In e
JUCGE CCHEN:
Any limits placed will 13
..o *s be a a".d' a.-v,
.ti.. 0 =**
~~ v, da#4.4*4-o...
w 14 MR. PRATT:
We are c.oinc. to c.ursue 15 s s - e x a.*..i..= '- 4 c.7 v.i o - - "u s ',v a..d -as's'- =..y
=~~a-
.e
. w v
16 k
V. * ".e D e c = - * ~ a...*.
c.#
O. u b ' 4 - Se v'-a c'
--=-- c
=..".
..a.
17
.lse o -,,-
4-
- s. c.
w 13 Now, on the subject that we were talkinc, 19 to a =ccent ago, I would again prepcse that we not 20 a"
e...
o eviaw ~^dav, 4..
= ".."-
'ad-
., a v,
..".a s e...=. =. s,
- 1 wut
.w. a..d e w i 1,- 1.ae-axo
- u. e,
.., 4 o w
w w
r-w...e...
c...
- ca,.
on t
aA
.c...W a c, y. b. g e.o. C' Cs
- -..~e.--,*.t-
- b.,. - 4 g e -
-,u w
i
~--
o.
o-.
o
- 4 I
23 i
'.o
~~ ~..~.k'..'
a a a
'n ' " a.*. #.crm -
a=.."..v."..=..
'e i
l i
p ase~r armvi~a senvice. isc.
l
5-2 J-21529 1
mind is the telecopier machine -- some kind of a 2
response cencerning which of these panels are the most 3
apt to commence cross-examination en.
4
- w e
4' r a
- k. e2 7 e., 7 v v G ;_ C n.u..n.I.
.u... o.a u,
-pr
-..a.
o y.--
e 5
suggestion but we want to resolve this matter while 6
the parties are present.
We have discussed this at 7
the bench, and we believe that a further conference 3
tomorrow morning at nine o' clock at this place will be 9
appropriate to receive your views as to what subjects 10 with which to proceed and the views of any cther 11 parties who attend.
l' If you are not prepared to indicate
~
13 those to us or other parties are not, or even if they I4 are, we will determine what witnesses will be first 15 heard and announce it shortly after that conference 16 or during the conference.
17 Is there anything else the parties wish 18 to raise today?
Mr. Lewis?
19 MR. LEWIS:
Judge Cohen, I wculd like tc U
asscciate myself most scrcngly with the ccmments made al by Miss Spiegel and the comments that she made abcut n,
the usefulness of the intensive interrogatcry process i
^1 i
as a possible substitute or at least a substitute of l
4 P 4 R ECN T REPCRTING $ERVICE. INC.
5-3 J-21530 1
the cross-examinaticn, and I feel they are ever mere 2
apropos with respect to the depositions.
3 Ncw, here we have a second round o f 4
discovery and I am not saying that the Staff has taken 5
a position that PASNY is not entitled to determine 6
what reascnable means of discovery it wishes to under-7 take, but the depositions will of r.ecessity, I belteve, 8
intrude upon the beginning of the hearing time, and 9
they do constitute a second round of discovery, and 10 we would hcpe that to the extent that depositicas ate 11 allowed to be taken, that they would foreshorten the 12 cross-examination considerably and, if, on the other 13 hand it appears there is no such reasonable hope that 14 the depositions could ser te that purpose, " hen that is 15 scmething perhaps the Board would want to weigh i.-
IE terms of whether or not the Staffs -- well, the Staff 17 of the NRC; I don't believe anyone else has been 18 served with deposition notices -- whether or not the 19 Staff cf the NRC should be subjected to that seccnd
- 0 rcund of discovery or not.
21 MR. PRATT:
Mr. Lewis, do I understand nn
~~
your ccmments to say that you are tbjecting to hating i
- 3
~
the depcsitions taken?
i I
f PaascNT RepcariNo $navicz. tsc
2
~
- _4 s
J _,,.. o, 3.
1 MR. LEWIS:
No.
I went to pains to o"
say I am not taking a pcsition ene way or the cther.
3 I am simply saying that the usefulness of those seems 4
l
.^v
.. a. cau'4 'e 'a.-,a'":
...... e - - a ^-...c ' d 4..,- cu a
n-a 4'
real option of reducing cross-examination, and it is 6
simply a consideration that if they are not, if there 7
is no such possibility, the cuestion arises in the 8
Staff's mind as to whether or not such a second round 9
of discovery serves any curt.ose.
'O JUDGE CCHEN:
Mr. Cworkin?
'l MR. DWORKI":
Yes.
Three matters, l '*
Judge Cohen.
13 First of all, in your list of tcpics to 14 he considered, you did not, as I understecd it, 15 explicitly list need-for-pcwer cententiens.
I assume 16 that you are including need-for-power contentions under:
1 17
..k.e
".a a d 4..c, ^'
e..,_d..e e i.. c, e c s-..c...4 s.
. ". =. =
'=4-I is 19 assumption en my part?
19
- n
<..cw
..w.a e.
u t D G _ C v^ u.._r u...
"O thouc.ht about it sc.ecifically because certainly need
.o al or pcwer, as you..<now, is not an issue in the State 1
96 j
case, and I don' t knew if any party other than NEC has '
i i
.3
- a s e... e d
- a. s. 4...^.r.": c....'"..=..
l l
Paaseur namnriso samvice. Nc.
3_,
a,, S u, 1
1' I was listing only known ititnesses, e
~
MR. CWORKIN:
I understand the known 3
witness part.
I would point out that Chapter 3 of the 4
FES is specifically named "Need for Pcwer Generating 5
Cac.acity" and si.-ce we in.carticular take stronc 6
positions with the conclusions arrived at, we 7
anticipate crcss-examination en the need-for-pcwer 8
panel, whcever they may be.
9 r
h.,..x-
.n.4 s
..2,,
w w
e a. are-4a.m
.:...e 10 to discuss several racets c: the need-:cr-pcwer issue 11 which perhaps are best raised and left for people to l'
meditate about in the coming weeks.
I3 First, as I am sure that all of ycu are 14 aware, on A ril 1st of this year, the Pcwer Authority e
15 and the remaining members of the Power Pcci w:.ll be 16 fili.yv with the State Energy Of fice a new long-range 17 p,an.
18 As you will recall, last year's icne-19 range plan was subject to crcss-examination after its 20 filing.
The Power Authority's Exhibits 137 and 133A 21 and 3 were based explicitiv uc.en last v. ear's 1 nc.-ranc.e
- ,. an.
23 At this point we have net seen the new PARsCNT REPCRTino SERvict. Inc.
I l
5=6 J-21533l 1
long-range plan to be filed.
We don't.know the I
o.
I centents of it.
However, I would point cut that to thet 3
extent that there are any differences between the 4
leads being projected and the new long-range plan as 5
contrasted to the old, there are two independent v.atters 6
which are raised.
7
- m. w.e.<.< s... a.. e w.w. 4.n-4s.,4se 4s
.,e 8
specifically there is a difference in lead forecast 9
by the Power Authority of any significant dimension, 10 that that issue, I would think, would have to be 11 retried, because the record would obviously be cbsoletes to.
An u, I am 11miting it very specifica.,.,y to a ci::erence 13 inthat load forcast.
14 The second issue which arises is a much 15 larger issue, and that Exhibits 137 and 133A and 3, 16 relying as they do upon last vear's forecast, any. new 17
.c acas. 4e s u,.bs ma..t.4a _7 '.. ;" d.i.".#e.-a....
~ ~ m s.. =..s 18 alreadv. in the record could result in very ma;4cr 18 differences in the boctem line economics which the ng a
p cw e.*.
A." *..".C.".# '.V.
'~
. _. v,.i.". g ^.*..'.7
" " e O..'. 5. 4 ".# '. a~
". ". " "..~
.a v
~
- 1
~
have mentioned, nn C o a s e 3 ".e....' ";,
- v. a.
- '...i...k
..N.a
..' - ". " -. - =.
a
.s i
n3 a s,wL~s.a 4... a.1 c.4 :e a..m.C e,
I
.w...e n.4.
m.,w k-
.a
,..ma-ay v,-
o aw ou I
i P aRseNT 9 EPCRTING S ERVICE. INC.
l
=
_a J-21534 s
1 we n e c e s s u,.-,,
.cm
...e enge.
.sb.
- w...o 4 _.f
- n
.w
-..A 02-e3 -
3 y
.e yy o
- c. reduce # as they have in many other instances, 3
,a. ; C,m.1,
.19, C.
w,,. g.4 *, 7
% C s. e.,,..k..; w-k.
C w.". 8
~.. d.. d,
- ^
y
.u.
.u.
.v.
4 p-c..
e ew e<.u.4-c.4. s s.bcw_a..3-
~..u. e. a y a ; -,,.- a c.a.. c Aa-o 5
to prevent the record from being obsolete.
6 On the economics point, I might note 7
that obviousiv., the State Siting Scard is required to 8
make findings as to econcaics, so that would becone an 9
4...ro-.an 4.
m.
10 r.,. addt'4-..
o *..". a.,
- "a c-a -
--=---..a,-,i 11 O.' #.4 c e 4 s. eg'a.'.- a d.c c o..e v- " *- wi'"
~. 5 e ' ^
c.
'.. e 12 plan en December 1 of 1979, and en January 1 of 1980 13 the long-range plan, the forecast contained in the 14
,. c,. g.- a.. e 3.3,n, b e c c..e s ".a..d..i..c.
". - c..
-.".a
<-'*a- - -
S.4. 4..
3 m
15 mca a..
16 As a consequence of that, I think it is 17 y e -,f 4...o
- w,.
we.,. e o,.,
4..
.4..a
.w,
--4
.-caa-.
e
...u 18
.ecess4 y oe oCye..4..e.
- a. s C... e. o..
1, a.
. 4.., e, -..a 2
s 19 a censequence of this.
"O e.d as ' sa4A a
=4.s
,. ' a a v. a
~..".'a-I a
21
=o.
e y.
w..i.,..g 3 o u.
...a v, "a 1
$---^-
2
-ry--e--=--
-. y "O
' e = ". a-a..eeA 3
Cwe-
...e..-4
..s '..."
".e e
.....' s P..'
- y v
w t
23 de 've
.....eed
- ^*-.
Cwe a..c' ' a u'
" w- - a c a a- - a- --.".a l
i l
l l
n.c~r aren~a sowce. :~c.
l
J-21535 1
very end of this proceeding, and if we are at the n"
stac.e where the State enerc.v. -clan has ccme cut, tha 0
would forn the ' asis for any litigation of the new c
4 Issues wnicn nave arisen.
5 If not, then it would be the filing that 6
has been made by the Power Authority and the remainder 7
cf the Pcwer Pccl.
a DR. v 0.f. r -
.v.
. u w c _.>. _'.., vc"
.i..di-'_=_d_
^
^
9 that it is the 149-b report that will not be out cntil 10 December 1979 and you expect that we are nct gcine to 11 be finished this phase of the hearing by then?
12 MR. DWORKIN:
Let me outline the changes s
13 which have occurred in legislation in New York in the 14 past year.
The Energy Office new has the long-range 15 plan function, which formerly was called 149-b and was 16 under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Cc==ission, l'7 mR. CvL_r.
a
.-w.v.. a._ _,. _ _. 4.-.
_e,
-,.. m a..
v o
18 MR. CWORKIN:
What we cross-examined on 19 last year and was presented as the Power Authority's 20 case was the filing made by the Power Pcci to the Public 01 Service Cc==ission under Section 149-b.
There was nc 20 final decision, determinaticn of any kind by the Public; i
23 c g.e.4 - o..-
Ce m.m...ia a m n.
ps n
~~4 o-- -- s
..*a..oa5s mvann PansCMT REPCRTING SEnytCE. INC.
u
-~a,a 1
New York State which would be binding on the Article o~
VIII Ecards.
3
. e
.w.a..-e w.e
_1 _, w
- u..
w,o cu--
e-
.. c s
2 3
m.
m 4
has placed long-range planning into the E.. :rgy Of fice.
5 The April 1st filing date remains the same, but new 6
the Energy Office is charged by statute with prcducing 7
a forecast, and that forecast becomes ainding.
8 So there are t.ic dates to keep in mind.
9 Cne is the April ist date will be a new filing similar 10 to Exhibit 146 new in the record, which was last year's 11 filing, and will contain a new forecast by the Pcwer l ~'
Pool.
IU The second date is December 1st, or, in I4 the alternate, January 1st of 1990, which will be the 15 forecast coming out of the Energy Office, the official 16 forecast of the Stace of New York.
l
What I am suggesting is tnat if there UI remain issues in this case to be tried after MI December 1st, then what we can use for a reexaminatica "O
of the need-for-pcwer issues and lead-forecascing ssue n1 wculd be the master plan ccming down from the Ener77 i
nn
-- ve.
l "3
C ".. *. ". e o.." a. - " a..d, --
'.4 e s~ ^.. ~ '.' # a. "a#^-=-,'
l i
I I
i PansoNT REPcRTING $ERVICE. INC.
l g
e _ ~9 _1.. /
that time, we can reexamine the issues in licht of the 2
1 i
various forecasts which have been placed into the 3
.co.a_ e_4.u.e
,e
.w 1
e.
... n_
,4 a. _, w c
e a,.se
.w3.... 4 s
- u..
a....
4 date, or the Power Pool for 1979.
5 In essence, what I am saying is that if
-o we continue to rely at this staga upon what was in the 7
record and placed in the record a year ago, it wculd 8
be conceivably obsolete if there are significant 9
changes which are occurring in this year's submission.
10 Is that sufficiently confusing?
11 DR. COLE:
All right.
I think I 1,
understand you.
13 JUCGE COHEN:
It will be clear in the 14 record.
15 MR. DWORKIN:
If I may, I would like to 16 bring up the final aspect of that.
As yo are aware, 17 we have made motions in the past and the Department of 19 Public Service as well, to have incorporated in the 19
. e e. m.~ ^. c '
'-."4 s ~, ~ ~ c e e A * ~.~, "
- e. a_ "_ e~.~ ' o.'
".*.e.'43
. ~
e.0 proceeding, which is still going en a year after its v
ee incection.
A r.cment ago I mentioned that we wculd 23 1
want to reexamine the need-for-pcwer issue if the l
l I
l PaascNT Repentimo Stavice. INc.
4
}
u
,.,a,-
- o,
1 a.
- o..e.. 4. s.i.". 7 4 ". *. c.',.. a s e... ' *..* c r. s ~....= d e m'.' "..da.'.' "
.d..
the 149-b,and the reascn for that is that our 3
presentation in the 149-b is dated the end of December and is just new bein-litigated.
As far as we are v
5 concerned, it is relatively current.
We may want to 6
update it to some degree, but I dcubt it, and we are 7
willing to go forward on the basis of cur presentation 8
in the 149-b.
9 Cn the other hand, the Pcwer Pool, since 10 it is now ccming in with a brand new submission, 11 presumably would want to go forward en the basis of 1.,
their latest estimates.
13 In that regard, since to date the motion 14
=ade b.y DEC and I beliebe by DPS as well, bcth have been 15 acted ut.en by a rulinc_ s a v. i n c. that it was c.remature to 16 incorporate a record that had not cicsed as far as the 17 ASL3 was concerned, but had not been acted upcn by the 18 Siting Board, I would advise at this time thg I will 19 I
" e.. a_..e w.i.. -
..v_
..m *..* c.. *
.i.. - -,- o..'_ _ a_
. ". e e....i.- a
- o..". = s a. '..-
3 record as scen as it is cicsed, and my.cs: current n,
me
..MC
.Ms&.a.M.M.d
{
.d MMd.
.. h..h.
.I a b..n g C' a b @.
. b., b k..N. a m.
))
a 6
l w
g an recort wi.9
.ce c.,csed.
13
.w
.. a..
u,..,, 3., x. o..Q
.e..
D d.M..
4..e,.
w l
I 6
P&MSCNT REPCRTIN 3 SERVICE. INC..
t
J-21539 1
vou the documents which we have submitted into that O
eco c,
.r.u..t
.u..r wo,,.,g n:c,-
a-cu
-.. ~.u. e.. a w a o:
a,
---u-oo -
u,-
s 3
advanced idea for the members of the Scard as to the 4
fact that we have made - rather substantial 5
cresentation, which is part of the reason we don't want 6
to have to repeat that presentaticn in this case, and 7
the reason we would like to have incorporaticn, and to 8
ive.vcu an idea of what i s c.oinc. to be cominc. in when 9
we do make that motion to incorpcrate.
10 I would note that we have heretofore Il submitted our entire case in the 149-b to each of the la-active parties in this case, to the best o f my 13 knowledge.
I have spare copies at this time for any 14 of the active parties in this case who have not ye:
15 received that testimony and, at the same time, I have 16 cocies for the Scards, and if they would accept ther atI 17 1
this time, I would be happy to pass them cut as scen as I8 we go off the record.
19 (Continued cn followinc. c a c_ e. '
M hw N1 l
e4 l
O, mes 4]
ow PaascNT REPomTING SEnvtCL INC.
6-1 J-21540
[
l JUDGE COHEN:
Mr. Pratt, there is really 2
no need to respond to Mr. Dworkin's general preview, 3
unless you feel you have to.
You might do better in 4
having the time available for reviewing those objections:
5 but if you insist, go ahead.
6 MR. PRATT:
I wanted, I think, to make 7
exactly that point.
I understand practically everything
~
g he said to be merely prefatory, and we wou1d reberve g
our rights to comment in detail on what he said until
'O he actually makes the motion.
gg I would suggest here that the motion g3 meant to incorporate would be best made in writing.
g3 think it is going to be a complicated one and it is I
g4 the type of one that should not be rade orally in the hearing r em.
15 JUDGE COHEN:
I would expect that, but gg I would expect him to identify parties moving, exact 17 designation of pages, exhibit numbers or anything else.
gg MR. PRATT:
I can't control what Mr.
3g Dworkin-gives the Board, but it seems to me it is a
,0 i
bit unusual of a procedure to give the Board written
,1 materials in advance of their being offered as evidence.
I note in that connection that it is 23 m
l PaascNT REPC8tTINo Ssnvict. INC.
2 J-21541 1
my understanding that the case presented in 149-b 2
proceeding by the DEC has not been in any way cross-3 examined, and so we would of course expect it, if it 4
is incorporated here, that it is going to be cross-5 examined here, as well.
s I do have two other comments concerning 7
tomorrow's task, or today's task that we are to report 8
on tomorrow.
9 Miss Spiegel has asked for additional go time to.make objections. We resisted that, unhappily, 11 but we did resist it for exactly the reason we are now 1.,
seeinc., that is, that the Authority's time to crepare I
33 for these hearings is bit by bit being eroded, so that g4 we are going to be compelled to begin the cross-15 examination with very little backup time or lead time, 16 if any at all.
g7 But regardless, I would ask Miss Spiegel 33 if she could by the day's end indicate what interroga-gg tories she objects to in the categories, or in the
- g topics that we have identified as the possible early topics.
If she can tell us in those areas only by
,1 day's end where she is gcing to object, that would helo us.
l 03 l
l l
I P AMSCNT R E *CRTING S ERVICE. INC.
l J-21542 3
1 JUDGE COHEN:
Miss Spiegel, at the close 2
of today's session, it would be helpful in terms of g
development of the record if you could ccoperate with 4
Mr. Pratt per his request.
5 MS. SPIEGEL:
I will, your Honor.
g CEAIRMAN GOODHCPE:
Are you talking about 7
the March 5, 1979 letter?
g MR. PRATT-I think that is the date.
9 I don't have it right in front of me. That is one the gg Board has ruled on already.
11 It is also my understand 1;g that the NRC 12 staff has served all of the objections that they plan 13 to.
I would just like to confirm that that is correct.
14 MR. LEWIS:
Not quite. We did file 15 yesterday cur objections to PASNY's interrogatory sets 5,
6 and 7, and I am expecting that we will file today gg 17 the objections to your second document request, gg I have to call back the office to verify that that has --
gg o.0 MR. PRATT:
I note that this makes it, one, difficult, and, in a true sense, impossible for us 1
to adequately review what the preparation of the case is.
But we will do the best we can.
P&R SCNT R EPCRTING S kRVICE. INC.
J-21543 a
1 JUDGE CCHEN: Do it on the basis of what 2
you have, Mr. Pratt. That is all I can tell you.
3 Mr. Dworkin?
4 MR. CWORKIN:
I would lL e to hopefully 5
correct a possible misimpression.
It is not true that 6
our testimony in 149 has not been offered for cross-7 examination.
I would like to point out, first of all, 8
there are three sets of testimony.
Two of the three 9
by Harvey and Henshaw of DEC were cross-examined. The 10 Power Authority has a complete right to cross-examine.
11 They in fact did not bother showing up.
However, I 12 don't believe that gives them any right whatever to la try to come in and recross-examine in the other pro-14 ceeding.
15 With respect to the load forecast itself is which was prepared by our consultants, the Power 17 Authority, along with the rest of the members of t' e 13 Power Pool have specifically waived their right to 19 cross-examine the forecast itself and the model used l
1 20 to produce that forecast, and in lieu of crors-l l
because they felt it was to their benefir lI 21 examination, I
to do so, are instead submitting what is being called e
,3 a critique, and that will be part.of the record.
i P &MscNT R EPC ATING $ ERVICE. INC.
l t
5 J-21344 t
I 1
i The Power Authority's due process 1
2 rights have been ccmpletely fulfilled. There is no 3
question that the Power Authority'has no right to 4
further cross-examination at any time.
5 Cur feeling is that the Public Service 6
Commission in their original order incorporating the 7
149-b record which was later rescinded was correct 3
in the test that it provided and that test was any 9
party that can shcw that it was unable eo participate 10 in the 149-b proceeding should be allowed to cross-11 examine, and the right of cross-examination would be 12 limited to such parties.
13 And I believe we have already gene on 14 record in that regard that we certainly agree with that 15 test, and we wculd offer it up as part of our motion 16 to incorporate.
I'7 MR. PRATT:
Judge, I don't want to is prolong this at all.
Mr. Dworkin is making an argument, 19 and it is an argument based, in my view, on his 20 statements and errors.
It is going to be cur 01 contention,1f he should ever move to incorporate f
22 testimony frcm the 149-b preceeding, that there are
- 3 i
certain rights of cross-examination that have not been I
i I
e I
i P AmsCNT REPCRTING SERvtCE, INC.
6 J-21545 1
waived, and I don't want there to be any mistake that 2
at least that is the position of the Power Authority 3
and I think the other members of the New York Power Pool.
4 3
JUDGE CCHEN: Fine.
We look forward with 6
interest to the argument that we have been promised.
7 Mr. Dworkin, the panel members think g
it inadvisable at this point to accept your gracious g
offer of the testimony that was submitted, and we will 10 wait until scme formal action is required. Thank you gi very much.
12 Miss Spiegel?
13 MS. SPIEGEL:
Your Honor, I have another g4 matter, a small matter, that I would like to raise at this time.
15 16 MR. PRATT:
Miss Spiegel, could I g
interrupt yea just for a second, before we leave the subject that we have been on?
I have been told that we 8
g have asked certain questions of the Department of Environmental Conservation staff on terrestrial ecology.
,0 It would be helpful if they could tell us today whether n.n.
the.v intend to object to any of those questions.
JUDGE CCEEN: Could vau resnond, "r.
23
~
~
l P& R$CNT R EPQRTING S ERVlC1. INC.
T-215J6 1
Dworkin? And if not, perahsp after the session, you could check with your office and determine, if you 3
don't personally know.
4 MR. DWORKIN:
It is my understanding that 5
we would not have any objections to any of the 6
interrogatories on terrestrial ecology. We are working 7
on them at this time and responses will be forwarded B
very shortly.
9 JUDGE COHEN:
Is that it, Mr. Pratt?
10 MR. PRATT: That is it.
11 MR. BUTZEL:
You invited comments tcday 12 on scheduling, and since I will not be able to be here 13 tomorrow, not knowing that we would extend, I would 14 just like to express a few comments on behalf of Greene 15 County.
15 JUDGE CL 'EN:
Go ahead.
17 MR. SUTZEa.
I basically am prepared 18 to accept any schedule that the Boards direct. Me 19 would like, if at all possible, to keep cur witnesses 20 in a compact segment, and that really only arises in 21 one case, and that is the case of Mr. Webster and cur 22 l
panel. We would hope that they could appear seriatum, I
t t
23 in terms of witnesses.
l I
PaasoNr Reccarimo scavice. INc.
l I
J-21547 JUDGE COHEM:
That seems like a reascnab;e 3
i tequest at this point.
MR. BUTZEL:
Otherwise, the transpcrtation 3
and the socioeconomic pe son we a.il produce when those 4
subjects come along.
5 8
I w uld like to offer a couple of general observations.
I think it is fine to try to 7
deal with easy subjects first, but that also just g
tends to put off the evil hour.
g There are verv, very substantial issues 10 in controversv here frca the Power Authority's point of 11 view as well, obviously, as from the other parties:
visual impact, road impact, socioeconomic impact.
Those are all ones that are very important to us, and I just urge the Board to try to schedule those relatively early rather than putting them of f until the end, because in the end, the time will come to press in e. ore and more, and the oblication to perhaps cut off cross-18 examination will become stronger and vet at that 19 particular point, the Power Authority would certainly
,0 i
be in its right to say this is really at the very center of the case and we must be civen adecuate time.
l n_n.
e We will creduce our witnesses at any
^3 i
i I
Pe nsCNT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
J-21543 1
time. We are ready to go, you know, subject to reasonable n
notice at any time.
I hope that will be taken into 3
consideration.
4 JUDGE CCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Butzel.
5 Is there anything else?
6 MS, SPIEGEL:
Your Honor, this relates 7
back to something that we all dealt with during the 8
summer, namely, the topic of emergency procedures.
9 If your Honor will recall --
10 JUDGE CCHEN:
I recall the history. Get 11 to the point.
12 MS. SPIEGEL:
In any event, the upshot 13 of where things were left was that although the Power 14 Authority will be directed to produce that testimony, 15 you granted them, in effect, a stay or a delay of 16 implementation of that ruling pending the outcome 17 of the suit that they had brought against the Siting 18 Board in the Southern District. That suit has now been 19 decided, and it has been decided adversely to PASNY, 20 and at this time, any possible reason PASNY might have 21 put forth in defense of its po"ition has evaporated, 22 and I would just urge ycar Honor to reiterate the order testimonyforthwith,l 23 and to direct PASNY to submit chat PaRsoNT REPORTING SERVICE. INC.
J-21549 i 1
again keeping in mind that the time element and the 2
sconer that testimony is filed, the scener it can be 3
dealt with, also.
JUDGE COHEN:
I will decline to order 4
5 PASNY to produce it forthwith.
My recollection of my 6
ruling is that PASNY was granted until the time of its 7
rebuttal case to serve that material.
8 MS. SPIEGEL: Well, your Honor, as I read a
v.our order, the determinative factor was the pendency a
of the federal suit, and your ruling really stated --
10 11 I hope I am not misconstruing it -- in any event, no later than the filing of rebutta.1 testimony.
In other 12 words, I read it that even if the suit was then still 13 g4 pending, PASNY would only be given until then to file.
JUDGE CCHEN:
I will review the ruling 15 over the evening, Miss Spiegel, and I will rule on gg 37 your present request in the morning.
MR_ PRATT:
Judge Cohen, I really must gg take scme issue now.
Miss Spi; gel made a very ig emotional sneech a few minutes ago abcut the need to l
0 4
l move this ca.e along and meet the February, 1930 dead-
.1 line.
We a.e new getting ready to engage in scme I
cross-examination of some positions stated by the staffs;
,3 I
passeur stamam.o sewice. tue.
J-21550 I
and by the intervenors.
For her new to recuire us n*
to stop that preparation and step cur efforts alenc 3
the line of cross-examination and to start back and 4
prepare some testimony seems to me to be counter-5 productive.
I take issue with the idea that we have 6
to stop and go, stop and go.
I take the position thct 7
it is new our time to cross-examine.
Miss Spiegel has 8
had her time.
I strcngly urge that we stici to the 9
schedule presented.
10 JUDGE COHEN:
I am aware of these 11 considerations.
I will consider them in line with the 12 rulinn to be issued.
13 MR. FLYNN:
I have one small matter to 14 lessen your burden, not to add to it.
On March 5th, 15 I objected to certain interrogatories submitted by the IS Power Authority and Greene County.
After serving those 17 objections, Mr. Butzel, for Greene County, revised his 18 set of interrogatories.
That revision was dated I
l 19 March 5, 1979.
He deleted numbers 15, 54 and 57.
%3 Therefore, we will withdraw our objections to them 21 and there is no need for your Honors to rule on them.
22 JUDGE COHEN:
15, 54 and 57?
23 MR. FLYNN:
Yes, sir.
i PaMsoNT REPCRTING S EMVICE. INC.
I l
J-21551.l i
JUDGE CCHEN:
You P.ad some objection 3
to other interrogatories, did you not, with respect 2
i to Greene Countv?
3 MR. FLYNN:
Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN GCCDHCPE:
That was DTS to 5
Greene County interrogatories, your cbjections to those?
6 MR. FLYNN:
Yes, sir.
7 CHAIRMAN GCCDHCPE: And those are all?
g MR. FLYNN: Those three are. There are g
l still outstanding objections.
10 l
MR. PRATT:
I don't think that Mr.
Butzel circulated his reformed cuestions, generallv.
12 MR. BUT::EL:
No, I did not. They are deleted, those numbers.
Just strike them out. That is all I did.
15 While we are on that subject, your Hener.
=0y I ask all carties to clease send cocies of 17
~
l interrogatory answers and further interrcgatories to Loretta Simon at the Greene County Planning Department, P.O.
Box 517, Cairo, 12143.
Miss Simon is assisting 20 in the answering and preparing of our answers to interrogatories and it expedites things _f we can get 22 them directly to the Department.
23 I
i l
l l
l
....o~r ac m n~a scavicz.i~c.
I
.D v-2.3
-e a 4 JUDGE COHEN:
Anything else?
g All right, we will adjourn until 9:C0 2
a.m.
in this ream.
3 (Whereupen, hearing recessed to Thursday, 4
a r c.5 H, bH 9, at 9:00 a mo) 5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 l,
16 17 18 19 20 21 nn M
l 1
I l
l Pa sscNT REPCRTING $tMVICE. INC.