ML19276H136
| ML19276H136 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/24/1973 |
| From: | Haskins C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910100604 | |
| Download: ML19276H136 (92) | |
Text
LEW WEINSCHEL On 1496
.1 ty I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 3
+
(
l 4
In the matter of:
5 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY,! ET AL Docket No. 50-289 6
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Scation, a
Unit 1) 7 i
___________________+
8 9
House Majority Caucus Room Main Capitol, Building 10 North Third Street Harrisburg,. Pennsylvania 11 Wednesday, 24: May 1973 12 13 ]
Hearing in the above-entitled matter was convened, 14 pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m.
t 15 BEFORE:
I 16; CHARLES HASKINS, Esq., Chairman, Atomic Safety i
and Licensing Board.
17 l
DR. STANLEY LIVINGSTON, Member.
18 DR. JOHN LYMAN, Member.
I 19l APPEARANCES:
20 I
On behalf of Applicant:
21 GEORGE F.
TRONDRIDGE, Esq., and ERNEST L.
- BLAKE,
(
22 Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, 910 17th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.
C.
23 gll On behalf of the Regulatory Staff:
9 e-
,.,<ral Reporters, Inc.
25 Commission, Washington, D..C.
20545.
n o.ono o @,
1420 255
ty 2
1 on behalf of Intervenors:
2 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
3 THEODORE A. ADLER, Esq., Pennsylvania Department I
of Justice! Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120.
4 Citizens for a Safe Environment and Environmental 5
Coalition on Nuclear Power:
a 6
LAWRENCE SAGER, Esq., 45 High Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464.
7 i
8 9
10 11 12 13 II 14 15 ':
I 16,!
l 17 j
l
- 8l l
19!
I 20 l 21 5
(
22 23:
I 24
- e-ederal Reporters, Inc.
25 1420 256 i
jon1 3
1496 P3QQEgglEEE 2
CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
The hearing will be in 6rder.
3 This is a prehearing conference in a proceeding
(
l 4
involving an application by three utilities, Metropolitan 5
Edison Company, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, and 6
Pennsylvania Electric Company, for a license to operate the 7
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1, a p esurized wster 8
reactor located in Londonderry Township, Dauphin County, 9
10 A construction permit -- CTPR-40 -- was issued 11 on May 8, 1968 after full public hearing.
12 The record will show that this conference is 13, convened at 10:00 a.m. on May 24, 1973 in the Majority 14 Caucus Room, House of Representatives, Main Capitol Building, 15 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, pursuant to notice dated May 3, 16 1973, 38 Federal Register 11483.
17 The Board requests that the hearing has started, I
I o
18 that there be no smoking during the hearing sessions, i
19 In a memorandum and order dated February 20, 1973 1
20l the Commission concluded that a hearing should be held on the 21 l operating license application and that two organizations, l
(
22 j namely Citizens For A Safe Environment and Environmental 1
23 i Coalition On Nuclear Power, should be admitted jointly as 24 l
a party.
e-ceral Reporters, Inc.
I 25 Further, the Commission ruled.that. the' Commonwealth i
1420 257
4 jon 1
of Pennsylvania should be permitted to participate as a state 2
under Section 2.715C of the Rules of Practice.
3 By notice of hearing, also dated February 20, 1973,
(
p 4
38 Federal Register 519 8, the Commission designated this 5
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to conduct the hearing.
6 On my right is Dr.
M.
Stanley Livingston, a fromthedpiversityof 7
nuclear physicst, who holds a Ph.D.
8 California and who was a professor at the Massachusetts 9
Institute of Technology from 1930'until his retirement in 10 1970.
11 l On my left is Dr. John R.
Lyman, head of the I
12 l Office of Marine Sciences and Professor of Oceanography 13 in the Department of Envi:..nmental Sciences and Engineering i
14 at the University of North Carolina.
15, Also present today are two alternate Board members l
16l designated by the Commission: Mr. Max D. Paglin, a full-time 17 attorney member of the Licensing Board panel.
I Mr. Paglin, would you stand up, please?
18 l 19j Thank you.
~
20 ;
And also Mr. Ralph S.
Decker, a nuclear engineer i
21 consultant, formerly with the AEC Nuclear Rocket Program.
(
22 l Would you stand up, please?
I 23 Thank you.
24 In its notice of hearing e keceral Reporters. Inc.
the Commission directed 25 -l that the hearing should consider; one, whet ngcygidering n
I i
jon 5
1 those matters covered by Appendix D, 10 CFR Part 50, the 2
Provisional construction permit should be continued, modified, 3
terminated or appropriately conditioned i o protect environ-(
l 4
mental values; two, whether a facility operating license 5
should be issued.
f 6
For the benefit of members of the public who may beheretodayImaysaythatthepurposeofahrehearing 7
8 conference of this kind is for the Board to consider, with 9
the lawyers for the parties, such matters as clarification l
of issues, identification of witnesses and the 10 future hearing 11 schedule.
12 We will not be hearing any witnesses this morning.
13 f That will come later at an evidentiary hearing to be scheduled 14 [
anc. with respect to which full public notice will be given.
I 15 i
At that hearing sworn testimony will be presented l
16 and a record developed as a basis for a decision by the j7 l
full Board.
18 I might also mention that the Commission i
j9 ;
regulations provide for limited appearances by interested 20j citizens and in such case a person is entitled to make a i
21 short statement before the Board at the evidentiary hearing
(
22 r to file a statement in writing if they care to do 23 We have not had any requests in writing for such 24 l limited appearances, but I will ask later if there are people N-c-Federal Reporters, Inc.
j 1420 259 s
6 jon I
appearance at the evidentiary hearing to come.
2 The Board will now call on counsel for the parties 3
to identify themselves for the record.
(
l 4
First we have the Applicants, Metrpolitan Edison 5
Company, Jersey Central Powdr & Light Company.
6 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
My name is George F. Trowbridge.
7 I am a member of the Washington, D.C.
law firm of Shaw, 8
Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge.
9 With me is Mr. Ernest L. Blake from my office.
10 l My address is 910 17th Street Northwest, l
f Washington, D.C.
11 12 CHAIRMAN HASKINS :
Thank you.
13 Regulatory Staf f?
14 MR. OLSON:
Mr. Chairman, my name is Douglas K.
15 Olson.
I am counsel for the AEC Regulatory Staff, Office of l
16e the General Counsel, U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission, j7 Washington, D.C.
20545.
l I
Mr. Heward M. Wilchins also entered an appearance jg
- 9 for the Staff but was unable to be here today.
20 On my 1 ft is Robert M. Bernero, Licensing 21 Project Manager for the Staff.
CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Thank you.
(
22 l 1
Counsel for the Joint Intervenors, Citizenn For A 23 j Safe Environment and Environmental Coalition On Nuclear Power?
24
""'"*""[5 MR. SAGER:
I am Lawrence Sager, member of the firm i
1.420 260
jon 7
I of Sager & Sager, 45 High Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania.
2 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Thank you.
3
(
Commonwealth of Jennsylvania?
4 MR. ADLER:
Mr. Chairman, I am Theodore A. Adler, i
5 Deputy Attorney General, Pennsylvania Department of Justice, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120.
O 7
With me is Thomas Gerusky, the Offi e of Radio-8 logical Health, Department of Environmental Resources, 9
I Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
10 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Are there any other parties to II this case I haven't called upon?
12 (No response.)
13l The reporter has asked me to remind counsel to 14 file with him a notice of appearance,which I believe he 15 'l passed out to the counsel table, if you have not already I
16d done so.
17 I shall now ask if there are any persons in the l8 l room who desire to make limited appearances at the
~
i 19 l eivdentiary hearing to follow.
20 (No response.)
i 21 I hear no response.
(
22 I may say that the Board contemplates an agenda 23 generally following the eight matters which we listed in the 9
24i notice of the prehearing conference, although not nece'ssarily e - F ederal Repor ters, Inc.
h 25 in that particular order.
jon 8
1 We intend to focus particularly on what the 2
genuine and specific matters in controversy are today.
3 As you well know, the original petition for
(
p 4
intervention and the addendum thereto were filed in the fall 5
of 1972, many months ago, and there doubtless have been many a
6 changes in the situation since then.
7 As we read the pleadings filed at t! hat time it i
8 l appears that the Joint Intervenors were seeking to place in 9
issue 73 separate contentions.
We understand that counsel 10 for the parties met last week to discuss the matters in 11 controversy, as the Board directed in its prehearing notice i
12 and we are hopeful that progress towards simplification and 9
13 clarification of tnose issues will be reported by the partica 14 today.
b 15-We will now call on each party for any opening state-1 16c ment they care to make.
17 Mr. Trowbridge?
jg MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Mr. Chairman, my opening statement 19 would concern itself with the request which has been handed 4
out and I think now is as good a time, if it pleases the 20 21 Chairman, to proceed with an explanation of this document.
l
(
22 l CHAIR'IAS HASKINS:
Very well.
Please proceed.
23, MR. TROWBRIDGE:
This document entitled 24
" Applicants' Request For Prehearing' Conference Order,"
4:e-Federal Reporters, Inc.
I 25l has been distributed to the membe.rs of the Board and, of l420 262'
jon 9
I course, to the other parties and to the reporter, who I now 2
ask to copy this request into the transcript for future 3
reference.
4 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Is there objecting to insertingthisdocumentindhetranscript?
5 6
MR, SAGER:
No.
a 7
MR. ADLER:
No.
8 MR. OLSON:
No.
9 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Very well.
It will be 10 inserted in the transcript as requested by counsel for 11 the Applicants.
12 13 14 15 16e 17 t
18 l
19 j 20 i
21 I
(
22 23
~
420 263 24
- e-Federal Reporters, tre.
I 25 i
jon 10 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
(
l 4
BEFORE THE ATOMIC ENERGY SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5
I 6
In the Matter of
)
)
7 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL )
)
Docket'No. 50-289 8
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,)
)
9 l Unit 1)
)
l 10 l APPLICANTS' REQUEST 11 FOR 12 PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER 13 Applicants request the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 14 (board) to issue a prehearing conference order, following the 15 prehearing conference on May 24, 1973, covering the following 16 i
'l ma ti.e rs :
17 l
1.
Applicants request rulings by the Board at 18
,j this time on the allowability, in whole or in part, of 19"I
~
Contentions a, f, g and o and Contentions 15 (The Petition 20 to Intervene contains two consecutive contentions both 21 l 4
apparently numbered 15.
Applicants' request relates to the
(
22 l l
second of these contentions.), 16, 17, 20 and 33.
23 l' 9
2.
Applicants propose that the Board defer 24
.e-Federal Reporters, Inc.
rulings on all remaining Contentions to be schedu'1.ed by the 25!
1420 264.
i I
il jon 1
Board approximately three weeks after the end of the discovery 2
period proposed in paragraph 3 below.
Intervenors shall be 3
per.nitted to file, not later than 10 days prior to such
(
l 4
further prehcaring conference, such revisions to such 5
remaining contentions as Intiervenors may deem necessary or 6
desirable to meet the requirements of the Commission's Ruler 7
of Practice with respect to reasonable specifi ity.
Applicant 8
and the Staff shall have the right to object at the further 9
prehearing conference to any of che remaining contentions or 10 revisions thereof, including objections based on lack of jj reasonable specificity.
I 3.
Applicants propose that all discovery requests 12 13 and responses by all parties be completed by July 19, 1973.
i l
Toward this objective no discovery request shall be made, 14 15 except by order of the Board for good cause shown, later than l
16 h three weeks prior to July 19, 1973, and all responses to 37 discovery requests shall be made within three weeks of the i
l I8 date of mailing or personal delivery of such request.
I
)9 Respectfully submitted, 1
20 SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE i
21 By George F.
Trowbridge.
(
22 Dated: May 24, 1973.
23 24
- e -Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 i
I
'l 4 2 0 2.6 5 i
12 LEW #2 mm1 T1496 I
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
This request is the outgrowth of 2
the meeting to which you referred a moment ago, held on 3
Thursday, May 17, between counsel for the Applicant, the 4
Intervonors and the AEC Staff.
5 Counsel for the State of Pennsylvania was not 6
there and I will address myself separately to matters 7
between the Applicant and the State of Pennsyvan a.
8 i
We held this meeting with some hope on our part l
9 l that it would be possible to go down the 73 contentions, i
l 10 j explain our objections on legal grounds to some of those i
l1 I contentions, possibly work out greater clarity and h
12 ; particularly specificity in some of the contentions and 13 possibly eliminate some.
14/
This proved not to be a practical course of action.
- 15. I think we recognized that almost immediately.
I will let 16c Mr. Sager speak for aimself, but I think Mr. Sager almost 17 started the meeting by suggesting that was not going to be i
18 ; a profitable use of our time.
.i 19 I would say that Mr. Sager spent some time in ex-20, plaining to us some of his contentions. That was helpful.
It 21 will not take the place of the specificity which we will
(
22 l ultimately desire to see in the issues before this Board, 23 l but it was helpful.
At the concit;sion of our meeting,I proposed in 24
?- Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 principle the matters which are now reflected in this request.
1420 266
13 mm2 l
I stated there would be some contentions which we 2
would wish to challenge and to obtain rulings from the Board 3
at this time on, contentions which, in our view, represent
(
s.
4 either attacks on the validity of AEC regulations, or outside 5
the scope of this proceeding.'
6 As to these, I explained that we would want early rulingsfromtheBoard,sincewehadtoknowwhbtthe 7
8 scope of the hearing was going to be and, particularly, what i
I 9 jthescopeofanydiscoveryshouldbepriortothehearing.
10 I will, in due course, go through the 9 contentions 11 that we intend to ask the Board to rule on, in whole or in 12!part, today.
These are listed in paragraph 1 of the request.
O 13l; With respect to the remaining contentions, it was 7
14 'our suggestion that a further period of time coincirlent with 15' a discovery period be allowed in which Intervenors might 16 g add greater specificity and clarity to some of their contentiont 17 Possibly the discovery process, itself, will aid the Intervenors t
18 in doing that.
19 We would postpone until a second pre-hearing 20 ; conf erence, the resolution of the allowability of these 21 remaining contentions as they may or may not be revised by
(
22 ;Intervenors.
I 23 i
We will, at that time, challenge contentions which 24 we feel we didn't unders.tand or don't have a degree of e -Feceral Rc;;orters, Inc.
25 specificity that enables us to prepare properl'y for the hearing, i
j 1420 267
14 mm3 I
but these challenges, if they occur, are not for today as we 2
propose it, but for a second pre-hearing conference.
3 We also talked with Intervenors' counsel about
(
I 4
the matter of discovery and discovery hearings, and we have 5
here proposed a period during which all discovery requests 6
and responses would be completed, subject only to further 7
discovery upon the order of this Board for good cause shown 8
at a later time.
9 We talked with the Intervenors' counsel about the 10 I discovery process. We have offered -- and I again offer --
11 ltomeetatanearlydatewithIntervenorsandwithIntervenors' i
12 j counsel and with any technical representatives of the i
13 intervening groups both to discuss the substance of matters 14/.thatconcerntheIntervenorsandtobeashelpfulaswecan 15[ in identifying documentary materials which are in our possession I!
16E and which may be desired by the Intervenors.
17 We have also offered, within reason, to make copies 18 l of these documents available to Intervenors at Applican't's 19 expense. We mean this effort in cooperati n sincerely.
20 At the same time, I have explained that however 21 l cooperative we may hope to be, the initiative for identifying
{'whatmaterialstheIntervenorswishtohave, and in requesting
(
22 23 those materials, must rest with the Intervenors. We can't 24 undertake, on our part,.a broad obligation to supply tothe-
-- Federal Reporters, Inc.
I 25, Intervenors whatever might be relevant to their case. We can 1420 268 i
15 1
only help lead them in the right direction.
9 mm4 2
This written request is intended to reflect in 3
(,
principle -- in detail, rather -- what we worked out in l
4 principle at that meeting. Copies were furnished to the AEC 5
counsel prior to this meeting and the subatance of this was 6
dictated to Mr. Sager's secretary yesterday morning.
7 I believe and hope that it, infactkrepresents 8
agreements among us but I will leave that for Mr. Olson 9
and Mr. Sager to say.
10 With respect now tothe State of Pennsylvania, we 11 l anticipated -- I am not informed by Mr. Adler -- that the 12 State will, indeed, have some questions or interrogatories 13[ which they wish to submit to us.
14 It may be possible for the State to do this as 15' early as within a week or so from now. We will, of course, t
16, respond to such interrogatories as the State gives us and 17 we will respond within this discovery period.
18 ;
I think that concludes my opening statement and I
19]
explanation of this request.
t 20 ;
CliAIRMAN IIASKINS :
Thank you.
f of course we will hear from Mr. Sager to the extent 21 i
(
22 l that he has participated and will participate with you in 23 i
framing more specific contentions with respect to discovery 24 and also, obviously, from Mr. Adler on the discovery aspects t-
- ctal Repostets, Inc.
25 you mentioned.
1420.269 l
. 16 mm5 1
Now in this request that you have filed, 2
Mr. Trowbridge, you list nine contentions and ask that the 3
Board rule on their admissibility -- or allowability, to uce
(
4 your word -- at this time.
5 I am not at all sure the Board is prepared to rule 6 on them at this time,but after we have heard argument from 7
the other parties, we will see where we come out.
8 MR. TROWBRIDGE: I didn't necessary mean during the l
9 icourse of this, but by pre-hearing order following this pre-i 10 hearing conference.
11 CHAIRMJ.N HASKINS:
I also take it that you don't 12 inecessarily wish to exclude all of these nine contentions.
13 In some cases, it would only be part.
i.
14l MR. TROWBRIDGE: In some cases, I wish to exclude r
b 15 all.
In some, part, b
16 CHAIRMAN HASKINS: Later on, you will identify them?
17 MR. TROWERIDGE: Yes.
18-You might hear from other counsel generally the f
I' 19: acceptability of this.
I should explain the fact that we are i
20 'asking for rulings on these nine contentions and are going to 21 !ask the Board to disallow them in whole or in part, that does 22 !not represent agreement by Mr. Sager that they should be k
23 l disallowed.
9.'3l Repciters, Inc. h 24 This represents only an understanding by Mr. Sager I
25 that we would be asking for rulings today on a limited number i
I!
1420 270-I
- 17 mm6 1
of contentions.
2 Cl! AIRMAN HASKINS:
Very well.
3 Now, let me be sure I understand the schedule that
(
4 you are requesting. As I understand it, you request that all 5
requests for discovery be filed three weeks prior to July 19, 6 which is approximately June 28.
7 Then, as I understand it, you would propose that l
8 lthere be a second prehearing conference and that that 9 conference be held three weeks af ter July 19, whichI take it 10 jwouldbe something like August 9.
You are prepared to suggest 11 lat this time where that would put the schedule for a hearing?
I 12 I don't ask that you do so, but if you have an 13, idea, you might state it.
14 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
I think Mr. Olson is going to 15'. shortly explain the present schedule for completion of the 16 AEC review of the operating license application, including the 17 ; hoped-for dates of the issuance of the AEC Staff Safety 18 Evaluation, the ACRS meeting,and any supplement growing out of 0
19Jthat meeting to the Safety Evaluation and perhaps, if Mr. Olson 20,to --
21 l
MR. OLSON: I would be happy to --
(
22 j CHAIRMAN IIASKINS:
Just a moment.
23 l:
I plan to call on Mr. Olson, soon.
24 l MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Why don't I speak to the subject sceral Reporters, Inc.
25 of a hearing schedule after that?
I i
1420 271
- 18 mm7I CHAIRMAN HASKINS: All right.
9 2
Mr. Olson?
3 MR. OLSON:
Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Trowbridge noted,
(
4 the Staff has revised their schedule for the Safety 5
Evaluation.
Initially we were intending to go before the 6
ACRS in the beginning of June. There is been a slip until 7
August.
8I The new schedule for the Safety Evaluation Report l
9 j is for the Staff to issue that report on July 6,
'73 to go 10 before the ACRS on August 9 through 11,
'73, and to issue a l
11 supplement to the Safety Evaluation on September 3,
'73.
12 IN regard to that supplement, we expect to cover 9
i 13. the topic or tuci densitication in that supplement and high I
I 14fenergylineruptureoutsidecontainmentaswellasanyquestion5 15 that the ACRS may ask at that time.
16g CllAIRMAN HASKINS: Would you state again, please, 17 the second topic?
18 MR. OLSON: The second topic is high energy line h,
19 ; rupture outside containment.
20 CIIAIRMAN HASKINS: Thank you.
21 MR. OLSON: Steamline break,I believe, is a part i
(
22 of that category.
23i CHAIRMAN !!ASKINS: Now, would you care to comment on 24 what Mr. Trowbridge said about the contentions and the
- '- F eueral R(porters, Inc.
1420 272 25 schedule?
1 E
19 8
I MR. OLSON: Yes, sir.
2 Without going into the specific contentions, 3
(,
since Mr. Trowbridge has not done so --
end #2 4
CHAIRMAN IIASKINS:
The Board is not prepared to start 3 5
hear specifics on the contentions yet.
6 MR. OLSON: The Staff generally supports the Applicant's request as to requesting a ruling on these
/
8 specific contentions.
9 We feel it is now appropriate, since Staff and 10 the Applicant have made quite clear that these contentions 11 j are not proper before this Board for the reasons stated in i
12 ; our briefs.
13 As far as the scheduling is concerned, we have no 14 problem with that scheduling and we are willing to adjust 15 our schedule to fit the Applicant and the Intervenor.
16,;
As far as the other contentions are concerned, we feel that it is proper to postpone a ruling on the other 17 i
18 contentions until Mr. Sager had ample time for discovery. The l
19: Staff is willing to provide as many documents as possible and i
20; to provide technical assistance to the INtcrvenor by way of 21 supplying personnel todiscuss the contentions and, hopefully, i
22 ; to narrow and make more specific the contentions Mr. Sager k
i 23 l has raised.
9.c al Reporters,Inc.
i The Staff also wishes to state that its interest 24 innarrowingthecontentionsistoallowtheStaf'f"to.73ther 25 tan ? s i
I i
1
20 mm9 1
evidence and prepare testimony and be prepared for cross-2 examination and to determine which witnesses are to be presented.
3 The Staff is not trying to deliberately limit the
(
4 Intervenors' area of inquiry. We are trying to restrict the 5
area so they can be handled by the Staff, %pplicant, Intervenor 6
and Board.
7 CHAIRMAN !!ASKINS: Does that conclude what you care 8
to say at this time?
9 MR. OLSON: Yes, sir.
10 I
CHAIRMAN !!ASKINS: Thank you.
11 Mr. Sager?
I 12 l MR. SAGER:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
13 At the outset, in order to properly focus on the 14 position of tha Intervenors, may I gring to duz attention of 15' the Board that the Intervenors have filed a suit that is pre-16 sently pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concerning 17' the propriety of going forward with the hearings on the basis 18 that the Intervenors should have financial and technical a
19l assistance to fully be able to copy and review and fully I
20fpreparethemselvesforameaningfulandfullhearingonthe 1
2) issues that are before this Board.
22
(
The record has been sent tothe Court of Appeals and l
23 ' that matter is presently pending before that court.
l!
There is 9.:al Reporters,Inc.
I no state order and the Intervenors acknowledge ~th2 obligation 24 r-25 lwithintheirlimitedfinancialandtechnicalcap'cityatthis a
f42'O 274
21 mml0 1 particular point to go forward with the hearings.
2 That is just what we are doing.
In that respect, 3
we have met with the Staff. Wehave already asked for some
(
I 4
documents from both the Staff and the utilities. We have been 5
getting cooperation in this regard.
6 As Mr. Trowbridge has indicated, we met on May 17, i
7
'73 and reviewed the contentions and particular positions of 8
the parties.
I think it is important that the record reflect 9 ! that we indicated at that poir.t that, again, we want to go 10 forward in this matter, to get a full and comprehensive 11 review of the issues and the contentions.
12 llowcVer, it is a vicious circle in that when we 13 don't have the adequate financial and technical assistance, I
14f our abilities and capacities are limited accordingly.
I 15e We did outline the areas at that meeting in which 16c we were ready and, indeed, prepared to go forward.
17 We, too, recognize the overall question of the I
I8 limitations of what this Board will hear as far as the relevanc3 19 of the contentions.
I believe that the Applicant's request for I
20; the prehearing conference order, paragraph 1, does, in that 21 ! respect, represent the view of all parties as to getting a i
(
22 lclarificationfromtheBoardastothelimitationson 23 relevance of the particular contentions.
Of course, our 24 position as to whet.ier.the contention should be allowed 4:e-Federal Repotters. Inc.
25 ; is diametrically opposed to that position stated by the Staff 1420 275 i
~22 I
and the utility, but we believe that it is worthwhile to get 2
some directive from the Hearing Board, if at all possible, 3
as tothe limitations on certain issues.
(
4 Cl! AIRMAN IIASKINS:
Let me interrupt you at that 5
point.
6 Do I correctly count the number of contentions that 7
are in your pleadings to be 737 8
MR. SAGER:
I believe so.
9 l CIIAIRMAN HASKINSt Do we understand that you still
!lpressallthosecontentiorsasofthismorning?
10 11 MR. SAGER: Yr.s.
I For the re.ord, we press those contentions.
12 i
13,; For the reocrd, howe'rer, we recognize our limited abilities 14[i because of the financsil a'.d technical assistance that we don't I
155 have, and it is our position that, while we want to preserve b
16! many of those contentions, we will endeavor to outline to the 4
17 board, if this particular schedule is presented, as to what 18, contentions we intend at this particular point to go forward 1
19 f with, l
20' We do want to preserve our rights pending the out-come of the Third Circuit Court ofAppeals hearing and review 21 i
(
22 l of matters set forth in that particular case.
23 We are at the limit in that respect, Mr. Chairman.
C 24 We recognize our limited ability to go forward en toto on f -federal Reporters. Inc.
25 all the contentions. We are prepared to go foruard on.many of 1420.276
23 j
the contentions.
S 2
HOwever, we feel that theru will be an opportunity 3
for us to go forward on all of them depending upon the
(
determination by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
In that 4
5 respect, we want to preserve the right.
6 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
There are nine issues which the 7
Applicant has identified in whole or in part as ones which l
8 ! they wish the Board to rule upon.
i 9
I gather they would like the Board to eliminate them 10, from this hearing. And those, t he Board will deal with in due
)j cource.
12 Depending upon the outcome of those, we will deter-13 mine in part the scopc of the hearing.
L 14 l.'
As I understand your position, subsequent to the 15[ B ard's ruling on those particular contentions, you would 16g like to preserve all the others for the time being, is j7 that correct?
I jg MR. SAGI:R: We agree with the Applicant and we will I
!! propose, too, during the course of the discovery to j9 20 ; particularize many of the contentions.
Within the scope of the 21 ! contentions that are presented, the remaining contentions of the 73 that are not the basis of the request in paragraph 1 of 22 k
Applicant's request for a prehearing conference order, in that 23 i
respect there will indeed hopefully be possibly a narrowing 24 ual Reportm, I c f the issues through that discovery proceeding.
5 I
~
l 1420 277 c
24 I
That is the best way I can answer your question, e
mu13 2
Mr. Chairman.
I don't know what the meetings and documentation 3
that we have, whether that will eliminate some of the
(
l 4
contentions.
I don't want to close the door in that respect.
5 CIIAIRMAN IIASKINS: We understand that, but what I am 6
trying to get to is the contentions you might try.
7 Obviously, your appeal to the Third Circuit is 8
something completely outside the scope of this hearing and 9
I certainly far beyond the jurisdiction of this Board or the I
10 Commission.
II If I correctly understand you, what you are saying 12 is that after the remainingcontentions have been perhans 13 ); narrowed or given greater < specificity,t2en you might wish to F
14i c,o ahead with evidence on some of them.
15 Depending upon the financial aosistance that may 16: be available to you, you might not go ahead on all of them or 17 you might go ahead on all of them and you wish to leave that 18 l option open, is that correct?
I9 MR. SAGER: Most likely -- that is basically correct, 20 Mr. Chairman. Most lihaly.
Ilowever -- and what we intend to 21 ; state for the record as the matter develops -- is that on i
22
(
certain contentions we will be going ahead ar far as we are l able within the limitations of our financial and technical 23 9:'el Reporters, Inc.
24 i assistance.
25 ON some issues we want to preserve.on the record l
H2E 278 c
l
- 25 mml4 1
pending the Court of Appeals decision, but we will not be able 2
to go ahead with them at all.
3 CilAIRMAN H3 SKINS: I beg your pardon.
Would you
(
I 4
restate that last point?
5 MR. SAGER: I woul'd suspect that after we have the 6
narrowing of the issues, there will be certain areas that we will be able to go ahead with as much as our fI,nancial and 7
8 technical assistance will allow us at that particular point.
9 j There will be other issuas that we will not be able I
10 l togo ahead with at all, as a matter of our prioritics in lspendingourmoneyandspendingourtimewiththefinancial 11 l
12 and technical assistance available to us, and we will endeavor 13 to co relate and advice t.he Board and the parties as to what 14 those issues are that we will not be going ahead on, those
(
15 contentions.
16; Itowever, for the record, we want to preserve those i
17 particular contentions on the basis that if the Third Circuit 18 l court of Appeals says that we are entitled tothe financial 19 and technical assistance, we will be abic to go ahead fully 20 ' and have the full opportunity for a review on thos e particular 21 l contentions as well.
I 22 CHAIRMAN HASKINS: I understand.
23 Thank you.
9 24 f Now, would you address yourself to the proposed
.. ial Reportets, Inc.
25 l schedule that the Applicant's request has outlined?
l 1520279 i
i
26 mm15 Are those dates agreeable to the Intervonors?
MR. SAGER: With certain limitations.
W f
1, als that the general format as to the 3
I narrowing of contentions, particularizing those contentions 4
if they need be, we don't at this point suggest that our contentions are not in conformity with regulations, but 7 lneverthelessinanendeavortoexpeditetheproceedingswe are in accord with the Applicant as to going ahead concerning 8
I the contentions. We are in accord with the Applicant --
9
! and, I believe, also the Staff --
as far as establishing 10 t
a further prehearing conference.
Further, we are in accord concerning additional prehearing conference being convened in the beginning of August, approximately three weeks after the July 19 date.
l a_
the July 19 date in paragraph 3 of the As to request, we would anticipate, in accordance with our limited 16
' financial and technical assistance, that at present the July 17
! 19 date is a realistic date. We, however, don't believe that 18 j
! the Board should rule that no further discovery will be 19;
,allowcd. We don't intend to delay the evidentiary hearings ion discovery matters after the July 19,'73 date.
However, we 21 l
!believe that up to the evidentiary hearings, without delaying
(
i ltheevidentiaryhearings, the Intervenors should have th,e 23 right to reasonable discovery.
1420 280 ai Reporters. ine. l We also want, again, to preserve our right.
It is 25
=l b
27 mm16 j
indeed a vicious circle.
2 The technical and financial assistance does, in effect, 3
establish the scope of what we can do.
In that respect, the I
4 scope of what our discovery will be.
5 My remarks, therefore, are based upon the premise at this particular point,that we are proceeding with the 6
limited financial and technical resources that we have 7
8, presently.
l My remarks are not occasioned or founded on the 9
! basis thatthe ThirdCircuit Court of Appeals at this particular 10 I
i l point allows the financial and technical assistance.
jj
- Indeed, if the Court of Appeals does allow the financial and technical 12 13 assistance requested, the general format as to the a
contentions in this discovery situation would have to follow 14
}
15 ; accordingly and change.
i 16,:
I recognize, as the Chairman pointed out, that those
- matters are not presently before this Board and we have to j7
- 1ive within the scope of what is the present circumstances and 18 19[thatiswhyIamlimitingmyremarksaccordingly.
I
. end #3 205 21 l
.s f
22
(
l 1
23 l
'-9.ral rep 0f ters. ISC.
24 I l
1420 281 25 i
jon1 128
?4 4
I CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Very well.
2 Now, with respect to the scope of discovery, do 3
I correctly understand that you contemplate some discovery --
[
4 let us call it informal -- before you would be in a position 5
to reshape your contentions?
6 MR. SAGER:
Yes, basically.
On many of the 7
issues we would like to have that opportunity.
If we were 8
not granted the opportunity for discovery at this particular 9
point we would necessarily -- if there is a mandate from the 10 Board to further particularize, wa would, again within the il l limitations of what we have, but I would think it would be i
12 i more fruitful and beneficial to all parties in the proceeding I
13 j to have the discovery at the same time these contentione are 14' being reshaped.
150 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Would you amplify a bit on what i
16l you have in mind by discovery?
17 1
In many of these cases, as you know, the discovery 18 is so informal that you merely request the Applicant to give 19.,
you a certain document or a certain report without going I
20 through the formality of an interrogatory.
21 l
Would you speak to that for a moment?
1420 282 22 MR. SAGER:
- Yes, k
23 Mr. Trowbridge has been very cooperative and the 9~, tal RG0f ters, Inc.
24 l Staff has been also very cooperative.
I would hope that we 25 can proceed informally with the discovery.
I think it will i
i
Jon2
. 29 1
expedite the proceedings.
9 2
For example, at our meeting on May 17, 1973 we
(,
3 discussed the problem of the concrete pouring of the contain-4 ment.
I raised questions concerning that and the Applicant 5
indicated that they would obtain for me certain documents as 6
to the repouring of the containment and so forth.
7 We also discussed low level radiation problems.
8 The Staff has already presented me with the proposed rule-9 making action of the Draft Environmental Statement i; Ja the 10 AEC dated January 1973.
That kind of assistance has been i
11 and will be helpful in moving the matter forward.
I 12 The Applicant has also, for example, indicated 13 that he will answer certain questions that I raised at taat 14 May 1973 meeting concerning the cooling towers and the 15 0 possible thermal pollution to the Srsquehanna River.
16c That is the type of discovery that, to some degree, c
17 has informally been occurring at this point and I hope will l
18 continue with greater emphasis, obviously, i
19b CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Now, reverting to the schedule 20 of dates suggested by Mr. Trowbridge, which I have i
21 specified -- I checked with my calendar backing up three i
(
22 weeks and going ahead three weeks -- the date he proposes for completion of the request for the discovery would. be 23 i
24 June 28.
That is over a month from today.
Leral Reporters, Inc.
25 !
Do you believe you would need that"much ' time to
\\ A 2'o 283 -
i i
jon3 30 I
make your informal requests to the Applicant and/or to the 2
Regulatory Staff?
3 MR. SAGER:
Yes.
I read paragraph 3 stating I
4 directly expressly that Applicants propose that all discovery 5
requested and response by all parties be completed by June 19.
6 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
That's true, but the next 7
sentence goes on to say "Except by order of the Board, that 8
request shculd be made three weeks pricr to July 19."
9 According to my calendar that would be June 28.
10 MR. SAGER:
Yes.
I 1[ }
~ ' CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Do I understand your request k
12 ;
correctly, Mr. Trowbridge?
13, MR. TROWBRIDGE :
Ves, sir, Mr. Chairman.
I 14 MR. SAGER:
As I understand it, the cutof f date for the request would be at the end of June and responses by 15 16j July 19.
17 Again, with reference to the linited financial l
I and technical resources that we have, we feel that we should 18 i
t 19 be allowed the time that the Applicant proposes.
20 We do not agree that discovery must absolutely be 21 cut off at th.t particular time.
We will endeavor to complete 22 all discovery requests that we are able to, with the limita-k l
23 i
tions that we have, by the end of June so the matter can move 941 Reporters, Inc.
24 forward.
l 25 However, we don't believe that it will obstruct, i
l T420'284-
~
I
jon4 31 1
delay or in any way prejud_-
the parties by allowing this 2
type of informal discovery all the way up to the evidentiary 3
hearings.
(
4 Indeed, I think it might well expedite certain 5
questions that would necessarily be brought out in the 6
evidentiary review on cross-examination.
7 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Well, I think perhaps you have 8
to differentiate between two categories of discovery.
- One, 9
the kind that you believe you would need in order to formulate 10 your contentions and, two, what further discovery might be 11 desirable in order to permit you tc try those accepted I
12 j contentions in an expeditious fashion.
I 13(
MR. SAGEM:
h'ith due respect, Mr. Chairman, I think 1;
b that both types of discovery come to the same objective.
If 14 15 we are to have a meaningful contention -- as I indicated 16g before, some of the contentions might be answered by the 17 discovery so there won't be a necessity of rewording the i
18 l contention in that respect -- I think the discovery will not 19 only fully deal with some of the contentions but, at the same h
20j time, in that process, will also prepare us for a meaningful 21 and full hearing on all the issues relevant.
l I don't think that you can really make the 22
(
23 i distinction as fully as the Chairman bas in that regard.
I 24 CHAIR"AN HASKINS:
h' ell, perhaps I spoke in too
-- utsat Reporters. Inc.
t 25 l cursory a manner, but what I was trying to indicate was,that 1420 285'
jon5 32 I
at some point the issues have to be framed.
2 You wish discovery to enable you to frame the 3
issues.
That would perhaps be the subject of a further
(
t 4
prehearing conference with an order of the Board specifying 5
the issues that are triable.in this case.
6 Then presumably there would be an interval between 7
that prehearing conference a'd the evidentiary hearing 8
i during which, if I understand you, you might like to perfect I
i 9
^
further discovery with a view towards expediting the hearing 10 but obviously the discovery you had leading to framing your 11 l contentions would also be relevant and helpful to the trial I
12 g when it is set.
13[
MR. SAGER:
dow I uncerctand you.
14[f CHAIRMAN HASKINS :
Thank you.
15 MR. SAGER:
I see no problem about cutting off l
16e the first discovery period for the purpose of formulating 17 the contentions as long as we have later discovery 18 ;
Opportunities.
i 1
19l CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Mr. Sager, I would like to ask 1
20 you a couple of questions and I will ask the other parties 21 l
to comment as well.
l 22 l In the Commission's order it formulated two issues
(
23 which I have read.
One had to do with whether the i
I 24 construction permit should be continued, modified, 4 0 216
-( :a! Reporters, lac.
25 terminated or appropriately conditioned to protect 1
l I
jon6 33 j
environmental values.
The other relates to the issuance of the operating license.
2 Now, with respect to the first, do you, as of this
(
4 morning, have a position on that issue?
5 MR. SAGER:
Yes, we do.
Indeed, the Petitioners 3
and Intervenors have requested a hearing concerning the 7
notice of the Atomic Energy Commission concerning the Juniata 8
transmission lines.
i ll CHAIPlSN HASKINS:
I will cut you off there.
The 9
10 l Juniata line is, as I understand it, related to Unit 2.
This gj.
case involves only Unit 1.
12 If you wish to talk to the Juniata line later, j3 let's put that over and deal with this,
.f you may.
)
MR. ShGER:
Well, our position -- the reason I i
bring that. forth is that our position is consistent in that 15 i
16 if y u are going to discuss environmental impact and a cost i
I j7:
benefit analysis we feel the parties' position and the public 18 position is prejudiced by further consturction, expenditure, 0
f environmental impacts, without the review that the National j9 20 Envir nm ntal Policy Act calls for prior to the construction 21 nd operation.
We feel that at this particular point that our g
23 p sition would be prejudiced in that respect without a full opportunity for a meaninful hearing concerning the envi.ron-eceui nepe.ters, Inc I
-r mental impact to allow the construction to go further ahead.
1420 N
jon7 34 I
CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Well, far be it for me to put 2
words into your mouth, but the Commission has used four verbs 3
here.
One is modified by an adverb.
They are whether
(
4 construction should be: one, continued; two, modified; three, 5
terminated; four, appropriately conditioned.
6 Are you in a position to choose one of those 7
verbs as your position today?
8 MR. SAGER:
To be consistent with our position, 9
l we think it should be terminated until there is a full review.
10 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Well, it may be a matter of 11 semantics.
You qualified that.
I take it you don't mean 12 terminated, period.
You mean terminated subject to conditions 13l which perhaps is suspended, though that isn't a word the l
14' Commission used.
15 MP.. SAGER:
Yes.
16 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Thank you.
17 Now I would like to raise this question.
There 18; are two types of issues in these nuclear plant licensing i
19 proceedings, as you well know.
One is the health and safety 20 category and the other is environmental issues.
21 l I would like to ask you, Mr. Sager -- and I will i
22 ask the other parties following your response -- are there k
I 23 any issues other than environmental issues before this Board?
--9.c:al Reportets, Inc.
24 [
MR. SAGER:
Yes, I believe there are. In our 25 petition we have proposed safety-related issues also.
I i
1420'238
35 jon8 1
CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
I realize some of your 9
2 contentions relate to health and safety, but if you read 3
the language of the Commission, which speaks of considering 4
those matters covered by Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50, you 5
appreciate that Appendix D deals solely with environmental 6
issues..
7 MR. SAGER:
Well, we feel that the public should 8
have an opportunity to have a full opportunity for a hearing i
9 j concerning those safety issues that we raised contentions 10 about.
If the Commission has decided that safety issues 11 are not to be presented at this hearing, and this Board so 12 finds, we respectfully object and take exception to that 13!
particular ruling.
h nd4 14 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Thank you.
496 5
15 Mr. Trowbridge, would you care to speak on this 16f issue?
1 17 MR. TROWB RIDGE :
May I speak on several issues.
i 18 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Would you begin by speaking on li 190 this issue and perhaps there will be abundant opportunity 20 l to address yourself to other issues later.
l 21 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
There are, in my view, contentions i
(
22 which relate to safety as opposed to the environmental issues.
lThese cor tentions, it seemed to me, relate to the operating 23 i
24 i
license.
- mi nepwim, inc. l 25 The issue of whether or not an operating license l
j i420 2ff9
36 jon9 I
should be issued.
2 In that sense, unless otherwise objectionable, 3
they belong in this proceeding.
(
4 I agree with the Chairman that the second broad 5
issue before the Board as to the continuance, modification, 6
suspension or otherwise of the construction permit, that 7
issue is concerned only with environmental matters and 8
comes up only under Appendix D and the National Environmental 9
Policy Act.
lI However, that does not exclude the safety matters 10 11 l from consideration in connection with the issunace of an l
12 l
operating license.
I 13 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Thank you.
i 14 Mr. Olson, do you have a statement on this issue?
15 MR. OLSON:
I agree with Mr. Trowbridge that clearly i
16 the contentions raised safety questions as well as environ-j7 mental questions and that insofar as issuance of an operating 1
18 license is concerned, it is now proper to consider those 19 safety questions.
20 :
I agree with Mr. Trowbridge.
21 MR. SAGER:
I thought Mr. Trowbridge agreed with 22 l
me.
(
23 l (Laughter.)
24 l MR. OLSON:
I also agree with Mr. Sager, then.
r
..ual Reporters, Inc.
25 (Laugh te r. )
i f420 290' I
jon 37 I
CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
I think all three parties agree 2
there are health and safety issues in this case.
Whether they 3
fall in Categories 1 and 2, eprhaps there may not be a
(
4 unanimity on that point.
5 Mr. Adler, I didn't mean to be so long in reaching 6
you but you were out of the room when I was going to reach you 7
and I don't think anything prejudicial has occurred during 8
your brief absence.
9 originally I was going to ask you for a statement l
l, of position or opening statement and then I was going to ask 10 i
11 you to speak a bit on the discovery issue as far as the i
12 Commonwealth is concerned.
13 MR. ADLER:
1 apologize rirst for being out of the 14 room.
It was unavoidable.
15 With regard to the discovery provisions provided 16 ;l by this paragraph 3 of the Applicants' request, we have no 17 objection to the dates set and, as such, we will have I
18 ;
certain interrogatories submitted to Applicants within the i
19 !
appropriate time.
t 20 However, what we would like to do -- I echo 21 Mr. Sager on this point -- we would like to reserve the right 22 l to raise any interrogatorics at a later point, esoecially in
(
i view of the fact that the ACRS final review of the Safety 23 li 24 i
Evaluation Report will not be done until August.
t
- * 'nal Reporters, Inc.
25 l If any new issues should be observed after this i
1420 291
jon 38 I
final report is done we may find it necessary to pose 2
additional interrogatories.
3 At this time we don't anticipate that and we
(
4 assume that all our interrogatories will be in within the 5
period set in paragraph 3.
6 However, we would like to rererve that right to 7
pose any additional interrogatories wh ch we feel are 8
necessary in view of the ACRS final review of the Safety 9
Evaluation Report.
10 CHAIRMAM HASKINS :
Now, you use the word 11
" interrogatories," to which you are obviously entitled l
12 under discovery, if that is where you come out, but do you I
13 contemplate that you would have to take such a formal step, 14 that the matters about which you seek information could not 15 be developed in a less formal manner?
16 ;
MR. ADLER:
We would rather have it in written 17 interrogatories.
He feel that the answers are necessarily l
18 ;
more complete in that manner and are more -- we are in a i
j better position to review the material when they are in that 19 20 form.
21 I don't think Mr. Trowbridge had any objection I
i 22 to our posing interrogatories and we anticipate no delay
(
i 23 because of our written interrogatories.
-9eai neperters, inc.
24 l We just thought that that would be a more I
25 effective means of discovering information.
1420 292 i
l i
t
jon 39 I
MR. TROWB RIDGE :
Mr. Chairman, I assume what we 2
are talking about is what we have experienced with the State 3
of Pennsylvania in other proceedings.
Whether you call them
(
4 interrogatories or questions, they are written questions.
5 They are delivered to the Applicant and the Applicant 6
provides written responses.
Both the questions and responses 7
would then be introduced in the record of thid proceeding.
t 8 }
I think that is what we are both talking about.
I 9
MR. ADLER:
fes.
i 10 :
CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Very well.
I 11 Now, Mr. Adler, you heard tle dates that I computed.
i i
12 I believe, for the procedural steps as proposed in the 13[
Applicant's request; namely, the request Jur discovery to be 14 completed by June 28, the discovery itself to be completed 15 by July 19, a second prehearing conference to Se held 16I approximately August 9.
17 Without indicating any approval or disapproval t
18 by the Board I would like to ask you if that schedule is I
h 19, generally satisfactory to the Commonwealth.
20 MR. ADLER:
We would like to -- the date for the 21 interrogatories is satisfactory to us.
June 28 and July 19 22 dates.
23 i However, we would have to add that we feel a I
--9_eai nepaters, Inc.
24 i
second prehearing conference should await the outcome of the s
i 25 final ACRS review which is slated for August 9 through 11.
l t420 293 i
jon 40 I
We feel that the hearing would be much more useful 2
at that time since we would have the opportunity to review 3
the full ACRS review of the Safety Evaluation Report.
(
4 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Mr. Trowbridge, what say you to 5
that point of the Commonwealth with respect to awaiting the 6
completion of the ACRS review before having the second pre-7 hearing conference?
8 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Mr. Chairman, I think this fits 9
into a comment I would like to inake on the whole subject of I
10 the discovery period and -- if I may?
II l CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Go ahead.
I 12 l MR. TRONBRIDGE:
We did propose a limit of July i
13 l 19 on discovery requests and responses, completion of them.
14 We deliberately left in it, however, a very specific relief 15 valve, if you like.
That is, that the Board could, for good t
16j cause shown, allow further discovery requests.
17 Typical of the good causes shown -- and recognized i
18 l in our licensing decisions of the Licensing Boards and of i
19 the Appeal Board -- a typical example, to respond to 20 i Mr. Adler's request, is that new information was developed 21 as a result of a document -- an ACRS report, AEC Supplemental 22 i
(
Safety Evaluation or othentise, which warranted further 23 discovery at that time.
l
-9 tai Reportess, Inc.
We meant deliberately to leave room for this.
24 I
l 25 We do think it is important that the Board set a i
l420.294
jon
'41 1
discovery schedule.
By that I mean to include discovery for 2
purposes of clarification or edification of isstes and 3
discovery for preparation.
(
4 Some element of' discipline in some proceedings --
l 5
I am hopoing this won't be one of them -- but some element of 6
discipline in the discovery schedule has really been necessary 7
or the lack of it, in my view, hasresultedin\\toolongapre-8 hearing process and in some cases delay in hearings.
9 I am just asking this Eoard to be a monitor, to I
10 set a time within which discovery -- hopefully, full and 11 informal discovery -- will :o forward.
12 ;
But there comes a point at which I would like to 13ll ask that the Board, which has the authority to set schedules, h
14 including discovery schedules, starts to play a role in 15 whether or not enough is enough, or whether or not discovery 16g requests are being made late for no obvious reason when they 17 could have been made before.
i 18 For this reason we do attach importance to I
i 19 setting a date after which discovery requests would not 20 ;
necessarily go unanswered -- this doesn't mean if Mr. Sager 21 calls me on the phone and says "Can I have a document" that 22 we will automatically say no.
It does mean that if I do say
(
23 no, then it would be a matter for the Board to determine.
I 24 i I would point out that on the schedule I have i
al F'cporters, Inc.
25 proposed we would be back three weeks after this discovery.
i 1420 295
jon 42 I
period before the Board, at which time there would be an O
2 opportunity for any party to suggest to the Board that it 3
wished for -- for reasons stated at that time -- to have
(
4 further opportunity for discovery in any area and the matter 5
could then be looked at by the Board.
6 There is a built-in point here at which, if the 7
discovery process period seems not to have been adequate, 8
as it turned out, there would be opportunity to explain why I
9 it had not been adequate and why further discovery should li 10 be allowed.
11 I think my answer now, to get back to the State's 12 l suggestion that this further prehearing conference be held l
13) af ter the ACRS review, I am reluctant to do that.
14 The ACRS review and the reports from them have a 15 !.
way of changing in their schedule, and with the -- what I call 16n the relief valve opened -- further new matter would be the 17 subject for additional inquiry by interrogatories by the 18 State or discovery by the Intervenors.
i 19 With that built-in relief valve, I would prefer 20 to go ahead and move forward on the sc'-Sule we are talking 21 l about because we are anxious to get tt
,acific contentions l
22 as quickly as possible and I hate to see that go very far
(
i 23 down the road.
I dat Reportels, Inc.
24 l CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Is that all you wish to say on I
25 l
that point?
i 1420 296 I
Jon 43 I
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Yes.
2 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Thank you.
3 I would like to hear from Mr. Olson.
Do you have
[
4 anything to add on this particular point?
5 MR. OLSON:
Yes, sir.
I think a fornal cutoff 6
date for discovery is necessary to avoid potential abuse.
7 I am not accusing Mr. Sager of intending to abuse it, but 3 8
think it is necessary to prevent that possible occurrence.
9 l The Board is left with the equity power of allowing 10 l new discovery for good causes, and I am sure the Board would Il properly e:iccute that power.
12 As far as the ACRS is concerned, I was assuming 13,,
that when we were dealing with the dates that they were 14i approximate.
c l.
15l:
I would hope that the next prehearing conference li 16 would not be scheduled on the same date as the ACRS and 17 hopefully would be the following week.
18 So I would suggest that instead of August 9, we i
19; move the prehearing to the week of the 13th.
20 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
As you point out, these dates 1
21 l are only approximate.
They depend upon certain steps.
I 22 i
The Commonwealth was suggesting we not schedule suca
(
23 a prehearing conference until af ter the ACRS was before us.
9_ tal Re >orters, Inc.
24 As Mr. Trowbridge points out, fron his experience 1
25 in other cases there tends to be a little slippage in som6 of 1420 297 I
i,
jon 44 I
these dates.
2 Mr. Sager, do you want to say anything on this 3
particular y sintof awaiting the ACRS report?
(
4 MR. SAGER:
I think as long as discovery is allowed 5
that we don't necessarily have to await the ACRS so long as, O
hopefully, we tentatively schedule it for a week after the 7
initial proposed hearing and hope that it will be at the time 8
designated, August 9 to 11.
9 I fully understand that that scheduling would be 10 probably too flexible if we waited for the ACRS to have 11 their determination.
In that regard, I don't see any reason 12l whatsoever to cut off the discovery concerning trial 13 j{
preparation or hearing preparation at such short order in June i:
14 I think that unless paragraph 3 is clarified in the 15 respect that we discussed, Mr. Chairman, as to making a 16[
distinction between that for the contentions and that for the 17 hearing preparations, I would strongly object.
18; I have no objection to some finality on the i
19]
discovery at a point, but I think the June date is not the 20,' point for the finality for the hearing preparation.
21 I
CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Thank you.
22 Mr. Trowbridge, you indicated earlier you wished 23 to speak to several matters.
Perhaps now would be the time 0
9'RCMitCrs,lnC.
24 to call upon you for the others.
It2h 29b I
25 Mn. TnoUBRIDGE:
Largely through my last opoortunit.
o e
jon 45 1
speak I covered most of what I intended to say.
2 There is one matter which was mentioned by Mr.
3 Sager which I would like to comment on, not so much as a
(
4 legal matter but because there are members of the public here 5
and I would like a fuller understanding of one aspect.
6 Mr. Sager mentioned that it was their position 7
that construction ought to be -- I think he adopted your l
word -- suspended pending a full environmental review and 8
9 hearing.
10 I would like the record to show and members of the 11 Public to be aware of the fact that many months ago, following 12 j the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act and i
13 the important Calvert Cliffs decicion wit.h respect. to the 14 scope of the Commission's responsibilities under that Act, 15 ':
the Commission did go to all plants under construction, b
16,'j including Three Mile Island Number 1, and require of them 17 that they file with the Commission a statement of any reasons f
they felt they had why construction of the plant shouldn't be 18 l
19 suspended during the process of completion of the AEC environ-i 20 mental review.
21 j The Commission then made a determination based on 22 that as to whether or not the construction of the plant should 23 l be suspended.
9rv Reporters, Inc.
1 l
It determined, in the case of Three Mile Island 24
{
Number 1, that it should not be suspended but it ~also afforded 25 i
9
+
l420 299
jon 46 I
at that time an opportunity for -6 embers of the public to 2
request a hearing on that determination, and no such request 3
was made.
(
4 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Since you have raised again the 5
issue of the Juniata line, let me ask you: is there any issue 6
involving the Juniata line which is before this Board at this 7
time?
8 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
My understanding, Mr. Chairman, 9
i is the same as the Chairman's, that the Juniata line relates 1
10 l to Unit 2.
i 11 l CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Mr. Olson, do you have any l
12 thought on that point?
13 MR. OLSON:
. 'o, sli, other than I believe 14 Mr. Sager has a request for a hearing before the Commission 15 on the Juniata line and that that should be left to the 16q commission to determine whether that is before this hearing 17 l or before another one.
i 18 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
All right.
19 Mr. Trowbridge, you indicated earlier that you 20 wiched to speak to each of these nine contentions which you 21 identified in paragraph 1.
Before you do so, I would like to 22 say that this Board is perfectly prepared to hear from all
(
23l Parties on all 73 contentions.
l 9wal Reporters, Inc.
24 I want the record to show that.
25 I gather that none of the counsel in the room i
142[F 300
- n 47 1
today wish to do that, wish to go through those contentions 2
1 through 73; is that correct?
3 MR. SAGER:
Y e s,- Mr. Chairman.
(
4 PR. TROWBRIDGE:
I must say, however --
5 MR. ADLER:
Yes.
6 MR. TROWB RIDGE:
I rely on the order of the Board, but I do wish to state that we gave serious conside"ation to 7
8 going through these 73 contentions one by one and challenging I
9 the lack of specificity of many of them and asking for rulings 10 at this time of the Board.
i i
11 We decided not to do that.
l 12 An important consideration in my mind was that we 13 ;
could get going now on a finite discovery schedule with a w
14 period set after which it would be a matter of determination 15 by the Board as to whether the process should go on further.
16c That was the important consideration in my mind in deciding 17 that we would not now go through the process or put the l
18 Intervenors through the process, prior to some further time, p
191 both to do their own investigations and to do discovery, 20 ;
further time to refine the contentions.
I 21 i
CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Thank you.
You answered the 1
l 22 l
question.
23 I have not heard from Mr. Olson on this.
24 MR. OLSON:
Mr. Chairman, Staff. counsel is prepared
-- FeJeral Reporters, lec.
25 to speak to each contention, but we would certainly prefer not 1420 301 I
l
jon 48 I
to.
2 The Intervenor has requested adequate time to look 3
behind each contention and be given an opportunity to make
(
I 4
them more specific or possibly withdraw the contention if 5
the Staff and the Applicant satisfies his questions in the 6 j areas that he raised.
WewouldmuchprefertohavetheIktervencrmake 7
8 l a complete review of each contention and determine for ll himself if they are to be withdrawn and to have the public 9
10 satisfied that the contentions were voluntarily withdrawn or 11 properly ruled on after all evidence and argument was i
12 I considered than to have them summarily dismissed now and have I
13 ll some question as to the equity of the procedure be raised.
14 We would prefer to wait until after discovery 15, is completed.
I6 CHAIRMAN IIASKINS :
Thank you.
p 17 l Let me confer a minute with my fellow Board I
18 I
members.
I 19l (Board conferring.)
l 20-CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
May the hearing come back to i
j order, please.
21 I
22 l
As I understand it, the Applicant wishes to go
\\
l 23l through these nine contentions identified in paragraph 1 of l
24 their request for a prehearing conference order.
. esal Reporters, Inc. f.
25 I would like to ask counsel for the Intervenors 1420 302 i.
-j on 49 I
is that procedure satisfactory to you?
Are you prepared to 2
speak to the nine contentions one by one today?
3 MR. SAGER:
I believe so.
(
4 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Very good.
5 Is the Regulatory Staf f prepared to go ahead with 6
- 1. hat procedure?
7 MR. OLSON:
Yes.
8 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
We will let the reporter change 9
his tape.
It is suggested we call a short recess.
Let's have 10 a recess until 11:25.
I1 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
May I ask is it your notion that I
12 I would go through the nine contentions or stop at each one 13 for response?
14 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
My thought would be that you 15 would stop at each one for response.
16h (Recess.)
.85 17 I
19i; I
20 21 22 l 23 24
- rvettat Reporters, Inc.
25
.i420 303 i
I
50 l
Cl! AIRMAN IIASKINS : The hearing will now resume.
WEW#6mml
- 1496 2
One or two people in the audience have remarked 3
that they can't always hear some of the counsel, including
(
4 the Chairman.
I will try to speak up and I ask counsel 5
to bear that in mind because we don't have a public address 6
system on today.
7 The other announcement I would like to make is that 8
we shall run until 12:15.
In the event we have not finished I
9 i then, we will resume this afternoon.
I will not run the 10 hearing this morning beyond 12:15.
11 l Now, Mr. Trowbridge, just before the recess, we 12 were about to hear from you on the 9 issues specified in 13ll paragraph one of your request dated today.
l!
14[
As I indicated, I think it would be orderly if you I
150 expressed your views on these issues one by one and if we 16c then called upon the Intervenors and other parties to comment 17 on them seriatim.
i 18 l MR. TROWDRIDGE: Mr. Chairman, I begin with i
19 j Contention A. For the benefit of the members of the public 20' not familiar with this, Intervenors' contentions come in 21 two groups.
22 (l The first are lettered A through Q, and the rest
(
23 are numbered.
9s ceral Reporters, Inc.
24 l I start with contention A.
For the. sake of the 25 clarity of the transcript, I wish to read Contention A into.
)420 304
51 mm2 1
the record.
2 CHAIRMAN HASKINS: Would you identify the document 3
from which you are reading for the record?
(
l 4
MR. TROWBRIDGE: I am reading from document entitled, 5
Petition for Intervention.
It is dated August 7, 572 and filed 6
by the Petitioners to Intervene in this Procecding.
I i
7 i
I am at page 3 of that document.
I tead Contention I
8 A as follows:
9
" Petitioner contends that no operating license l
10 may.be and should be granted until such time that the 11 AEC or the Applicant can demostrate that the high-level 12 radioactive waste aricing from the operation of g
13[
said plant will be transported from said plant and 14 reprocessed in a manner assuring the complete protection 15 of the public health and safety."
l 16o To this contention, we object only in part. He 17, object to the contention insofar as it refers to reprocecsing 18 of high-level radioactive waste arising from the operation of i
19 qsaid plant.
20, We don't object to the contention insofar as it 21 l relates to transportation of such material from the 22 iplant. This objection is consistent uith several Commission l
23 l decisions, tha m -t recent of which is the Atomic Safety and i
24 ) Licensing Appeal Board decision in the matter of Long Island
- tarat Reporters, hc.
25 Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Decision i
1420505
.i
52 3
1 ALAB99, which reaffirms and clarifies earlier decisions in 2
the Vermont Yankee case with respect to the scope of the hearing 3
on environmental matters as it relates to the fuel cycle, both 4
before and af ter fuel is irradiated in the plant.
5 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Mr. Sager?
6 MR. SAGER: We recognize the question of whether 7
the fuel recycling process can be litigated in this particular 8 ' matter as a relevant concern in the cost-benefit analysis and 9 l in the environmental impact considerations as well as the 10 lsafetyimplications.
11 l Having been refused in previous Board decisions --
12 i and also the decision of the Appeal Board -- we feel that the 13ll issue and contention of the full reprocessing question is 14 i
relevant to an individual lincense proceeding and, to that degree, 15l we at least want to preserve on the record our contention that l
16d the full matter should be reviewed, notwithstanding any adverse 17 decision from the Appeals Board.
18 In that sense, we want to preserve the record.
I' 19 !
CHAIRMAN HASKINS: I think I understand your position, t
20 but does this Board have jurisdiction to review an issue which 21 l the Appeal Board has said is a matter of rulemaking and is I
(
22 loutsidethescopeofthejurisdictionofaLicensingBoard?
23 Isn't this Board bound by Appeal Board decisions l
24 i of that type?
- Mcral Report:rs, Inc.
25 MR. SAGER: We recognize that, bat I believe in order i
1420 106
53 mm4 1
for us to preserve the issue, if indeed the matter goes any 2
further than this Board -- possibly to the Courts -- that 3
the record should reflect we did raise the issue.
(
l 4
CIIAIRMAN IIASKINS: Thank you.
I understand.
l 5
Mr. olson?
6 MR. OLSON: The only objection Staff has to I
7 Contention A are the two words, "And reprocessing."
8 he urge the Board to strike just those two words 9
in this contention and leave the remainder of the contention.
10 l Vermont Yankee held it was quite proper to ldiscussthetransportationofwaste,butnotdiscussthere-11 12
- processing process.
13!
MR. TROWBRIDGE: May I make a further explanation?
14 In restricting our objections at this time to the 15 matter of reprocessing, it is not intended -- and the 16 request which we have submitted to the Board, I think, makes e
17 clear that we are not waiving objections at a later date to i
~
18 the question of adequate specificity of what is left of the 19 ' contention.
We are now dealing only with this legal point.
l 20 Questions of specificity would be determined at i
21 ja later time.
l
(
22 CllAIRMAN llASKINS: I understand what you say.
23 Could we characterize your point as a jurisdictional 24 l point, or is there more to it than that?
v-Fe:ea: Reporters. loc.
25 MR. TROWBRIDGE: My remarks were - -I am not sure l
1420 307
54 mm5 1
Mr. Olson meant what he said, but were prompted by his remark --
2 that the Staff will only have one objection to this contention.
3 We have more than one objection to this contention,
(
4 but we are asking the Board to rule on only the legal 5
question, the jurisdictional question of the consideration 6
of the environmental effects of reprocessing.
7 MR. OLSON: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should reclarify, 8
It was my understanding at the beginning of this lhearingthatboththeStaffandtheApplicantmadeitquite 9
10 clear they were postponing most of their objections to most 11 of the contentions for a later time, 1:ut there were certain t
12 ; contentions and certain arguments that they thought proper 13 to make at this time.
L 14[
I am only making the argument I think proper at i
15t this time, and I am reserving the right to argue against any i
- 16) other contentions and all contentions at a later time af ter 17 we had a period of discovery, i
18 MR. SAGER: In that respect, I hear what both the 19 Applicant and the AEC has said, but I don't fully understand 20 how the Applicant and the AEC can state to this Board that 21 f they understand the contention, they are apprised of what r
I 22 y we are at issue on, therefore we want a ruling as to the limita-(
2$ ; tions of that particular contention in part here, yet at the 0
-9.ral Reporters, Inc.
l' 24 ame time say that we don't have due and adequate notice because 25 of the particularity lacking in the issue as to what the I
142'O 308
55 I
9 mm6 contention really means.
2, Cl! AIRMAN liASKINS: I think perhaps the Applicant l and Regulatory Staff are preservil;g what may remain of the 3
4 issue.
5 For example, if the Board should eliminate item A 6
as an issue in this cane, there would be nothing further for 7
them to argue about.
8 On the other hand, if we preserve all or part of 9 l item A, as I understand it, they would like to be in a i
10 j position to argue it is not sufficiently specific and to 1I request that the Intervonor make what remains of the issue 1
12l more specific.
13[
MR. SAGER: I understand that.
4 14 ;
First of all, no the record is clear, I don't believe 15 that either the Applicant or the AEC said that item A should 16 fall en toto.
It is only as to the reprocessing.
t 17 I find it difficult, however, to find how this 18 ; particular item is not specific if we are all on notice as v
19lltowhatitsaysandwearehere arguing es to the limitatiens 20, of that particular issue.
21 It seems to me a contradiction in terms of one i
i 22
(
l side to say we don't know uhat you are talking about, and on 23! the other side say limit it only to the transportation.
24 CIIAIR:n:1 UASKINS: Well, I hear you and I think e 11 i
..eeat Reporter, Inc. )
25 counsel have made their points on this issue.
jf}Q 309 i
56 mm7 I
9 I would say if I said the issue might fall in whole 2
or in part, I am not putting words in counsels' mouths.
I was 3
posing a hypothetical from where the Board sits.
(
4 I would like to ask Mr. Olson this questiont 5
You referred to Vermont Yankee as your authority in 6
this case. Do you have readily available the date of the 7
Vermont Yankee decision?
8 MR. OLSON: Yes, June 6,
'72.
9 CIIAIRfG.N IIASKINS : Are you familiar with the Rule-10 making order which the Commission put out in January 26,
'73, Il docket 50-4, ent.itled Environmental Effects of Transportation 12 of Fuel and Waste from nuclear Power Reactors?
I3h MR. OLSON: Yes, I am familiar that there is such f
14 a document.
15 CHAIR.%AU IIASKINS:
All right.
i 16:
Pass on to the next item, Mr. Trowbridge.
17 MR. TROW 3 RIDGE: 11y next item is Contention 18 letter F, which reads as follows:
l 19[
CllAIRMAN IIASKINS:
Excuse me, just a minute.
1 20 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I neglected to call 21 l on you.
t 22 {
Do you have anything you wish to say on this?
I 23 MR. ADLER: We have no comment on Contention A.
24 I CHAIlu1Au !!ASKINS: Thank you.
". ef at Reporters, Inc.
25 Go ahead.
10 i
57 I
MR, TROWDPIDGE:
Contention F reads:
Omm8 2
"The reactor cooling systems are not designed 3
and constructed so that they will function during an
(
4 emergency.
Petitioner incorporates herein the contentions 5
set forth by the National Intervenors at the National 6
Hearings before the Atomic Energy Commission, the l
7 cmergency cooling systems."
8 l I read this contention, Mr. Chairman, particularly I
9 i in light of the second sentence of the contention as an attack l
lontheInterimAcceptanceCriteriaforEmergencyCoreCooling 10 11 Systems.
12 !
I have a further objectien to this contention in 13i that it seeks to incorporate herein the contentions set forth 14 by the National Intervenors in the ECCS Rulemaking Hearing in 15 Washington, a hearing which has now developed a transcript 16h of over 20,000 pages, and I can't accept the proposition that 17 we are incorporating whatever is in 20,000 pages that constitutos 18 the contentions of the National Intervenors in that proceeding.
li 19~
The matter of attacks on the validity of the i
20' Commission Regulations is dealt with in Section 2.758 of the 21 i Commission's Rules of Practice.
22 i Several decisions of the Commission have dealt with
(
23 i the quection of attacks, particularly on the Interim Acceptance l
24lCriteriainindividuallicensingproceedingsasopposedto
... eat Reporters, he, 25
- the borad Rulemaking Proceeding in Washington.
1
} k2h 7i
^
i i
58 mm9 1
I would refer in particular to memorandum and order O
2 of the Commission in the matter of Norther States Power Company, 3
Monticello -- a memorandum dated December 19, '72
(
l 4
CIIAIRMAN IIASKINS: Mr. Sager?
5 MR. SAGER: The pu'rpose of raising this contention 6
at this point, if it please the Board, was to again preserve i
l an issue that we recognize as being dealt with {at the national 7
}
8 hearings.
9 Insofar as the Rulemaking is finally established, 10
- I don't believe that on the side of the Intervenors we have I
! any qualms as to the criteria as long as the processes are 11 i
12, fully reviewed.
1 [
At this particular puint there has not been a r
14j Rulemaking as a result of the national hearings. We wish to l
13i preserve an attack on the acceptability of the Interim 16,; Acceptance Criteria. At the same time, we also, obviously, 17 want to preserve the issues as to whether the reactor cooling i
- systems will meet the criteria if and when the criteria is 18 I
finally established as a result of the national hearings.?nd 19 20;; the Rulemaking process through the Atomic Energy Commission.
21 Cl! AIRMAN 11ASKINS :
Well, let me see if I understand 22;you.
(
i 23 l ARe you making three points?
One is whether the
'"9.'3I Rep 0f terS, hC.
24 ' reactor cooling system of the Three-Mile Island Station 25 conoorts with existina Interim Criteria.
~
~
1420.312
59 1
Two, the validity of those criteria?
O mml0 2
Three, whether Three-Mile Island will comport 3
with any modified criteria that may come fromthe Commission
(
l 4
as a result of the ongoing Rulemaking process?
5 MR. SAGER: Precisely.
6 CHAIRMAN HASKINS: Thank you.
7 Mr. olson?
8 MR. OLSON: Although Staff counsel wants to postpone 9
any questions as to vagueness, this particular contention is I
fsovagueastobetotallyunacceptable.
It attempts to 10 11 incorporate contentions which are not listed, have not been 12' supplied to the parties, contentions that relate to generic 13 l, issues and contentions which relate to challenges to the 14flrulesandregulationsoftheCommission.
And therefore I 15(Iconsider this contention totally improper for this hearing, b
16f MR. TROWBRIDGE: Mr. Chairman, let me supplement my 17 remarks by a citation.
18 I referred to the fact that there have been several q
19 relevant decisions involving the aestion of attacks on the t
20 Interim Acceptance Criteria for norgency Core Cooling Systems.
21t I would like to refer specifically to the Atomic Safety and 22 i Licensing Appeal Board decision in the matter of Consolidated 23' Edison Conpany, Indian Point Number 2, dated March 10,
'72,
! and another decision of the Aotmic Safety and Liconsing' Appeal 24 c:! Repos ters, Inc.
25 Board in the matter of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power. Corporation, 1420 313~
i
60 mmll 1
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station, ALAB57 dated June 20, 2
72.
3 CIIAIRMAN IIASKINS:
Just so the record is perfectly 4
clear, do we understand that you wish to eliminate paragraph 5
P in its entirety?
6 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
I wish to eliminate it in its 7
entirety because I can't read it any other way than as an 8 jattackontheInterimAcceptanceCriteria.
I end #6 9
CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Mr. Gerusky, in the absence of start #7 10 lMr.Adler,doyoucaretocomment?
11 MR.GERUSKY:
No comment.
I 12 CHAIRrmN HAsKin:: Do you want to proceed to i
13[paragraphG?
14 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Yes.
l 15 Contention G reads as follows:
16[
" Petitioners assert that the Commission's 17 Rules and Regulations for levels of radioactivity 18 releases during normal and accident conditions are n
19[
improper and contrary tothe health and welfare and u
h 20 safety of the public and, therefore, invalid as a 21 matter of law.
(
22,'
" Petitioners further contend that the Applicant 23 could not operate the plant so that radioactive effluents 24 during normal and accident operational situations
- f ':cul Res;o ters, Inc.
t 25 and occurrences, would be at a level whereby the y
1420 314
.61 9
mm121 public health, welfare and safety would not be 2
adversely affected."
3 Mr. Chairman, this contention is in so many words
(
4 an attack on the Commission's rules and regulations as imprope.i 5
and invalid as a matter of law.
6 The Intervenors have not observed either the 7
procedure for attack at the validity of the Commission 8
regulations under Section 2.758 of the Rules of Practice, nor 9 ! have they made any showing of the special circumstances i
l which would warrant this Board to get into that question.
10 I
11 l Again I refer in this connection also not only to 12 i Section 2.750, but to the Commission memorandum and order 13l in the matter of liorthern states Power Company, Monticello 14 Nuclear Goacrating Plant, Unit 1, dated December 19,
'72.
15 CIIAIlU1AN IIASKINS : Mr. Sager?
l 16 MR. SAGER: There are two parts to the contention.
17 The first part was meant to be to preserve the issue i
18 l of the radioactive allowable releases in the regulations.
d 19 5 The second part was, as stated, a contention that 20 the Applicant could not operate the plant so as to meet the 21 criteria of the Regulations and it is not meant to be an 22 l attack in that respect.
(
i 23 i
MR. TRONBRIDGE:
Mr. Chairman, uith that clarifica-24 l tion, I would propese that the first sentence of Contention
- x. mal Reporters. Inc.
I 25 ' G only be eliminated at this time, reserving to a. future time i
1420 315 i
'62 mm13 1
any question I may have as to whether the second sentence of 2
the contention properly reflects the. explanation Mr. Sager has 3
just given.
4 This is obviously a matter which Mr. Sager and I 5
can discu:s prior to the next prehearing conference in an 6
offorc to see whether we can agree on wording of the 7
contention.
8 CHAIRMAN !!ASKINS: Again, I gather you were first l
9 ! challenging the Regulation and then you were challenging the i
10lcomplianceofThree-MileIslandwiththeRegulation?
i 11 tiR. SAGER: Yes.
12 l
CHAIRMAN HASKINS: Thank you.
13 Mr. Olson?
I 14[
MR. OLSON:
The Staff also challenges the first I
15 sentence, but does not challenge the second at this time.
16, The first sentence clearly states it is a challenge l
17 to the Rules and Regulations, and Mr. Sager indicated 18, that that was his intention.
4 19h I wish to refer the Board again to 2.758. There I:
20; has been no special shouing.
Mr. Sager is not offering a 21 jspecial showing,and should have an opportunity to do so at this
(
22 ; time.
i 23 l If not, this sentence should be struck by the t
24 Board.
1420 316~
r - Federal Reporters, Inc.
I 25 i
CIIAIRMAN IIASKINS : Mr. Gerushy?
I l
l
'63 mml4 I
MR. GERUSKY: No comment.
2 MR. OLSON:
Mr. Chairman, I ask now for the Board 3
to ask Mr. Sager if he wishes to make a special showing under 4
2.758A?
5 Cl! AIRMAN MASKINS: I don't think now is the time for 6
such a request.
You may renew it later, if you wish.
7 Paragraph O?
8 MR. SAGER: Do you 9 ant to ['ead that with the 1
9 jother contention that we agreed is' basically the same?
10 l CI! AIRMAN IIASKINS: Please address the Chair and not 1I the counsel.
12 One, because that is the orderly s.ay of doing 13 business.
14 Two, because the reporter can't follow you otherwise.
15 MR. SAGER: I apologize.
16 Mr. Trowbridge and I had discussions before and I i
17! believe there is agreenent that there is a redundancy in 18,the contentions and possibly, to facilitate the matter, both i
19e of those contentions should be read simultaneously.
.i i
20j CIIAIRMAN IIASKINS : Which are the two?
21 O is one?
Which is the other one?
22 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
B.
(
l 23i CIIAIRMAN !!ASKINS :
I didn't hear you.
I 24 I MR. TROWBRIDGE:
B.
..-nal Repor ters, In:.
' 25 '
Cl! AIRMAN liASKINS:
I don't find B in this request.
i 1420'317
64 mm15 I
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
B is the other contention Mr. Sager 2
would haveme read in connection with this one, by way of 3
explaining that ther e is a redundancy in there.
(
4 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
You are free to do so if you 5
care to.
6 MR. TROWBRIDGE: I would have done so in any event.
7 Let me first read Contention 0:
8 i
"The radioactivity released into the Susquehanna I
9 j during normal and accident conditions, especially jl 10 tritium releases, would adversely affect the health and 11 l safety of the public and public's water supply."
i 12 l Let ne first subdivide this contention, Mr. Chairman,
!3l into nornial releases and releases under accident conditions.
14 Let me confine my remarks in the first instance to 15! releases into the Susquehanna during normcl conditions.
I I
16I was unclear in reading this statement whether it was intended 17 to be an attack on the Commission's As Low as Practicable 18 Regulations for the Control of Normal Radioactive Releases, or 1
19 h whether it was intended only as a question as to whether we 20 ' would meet those regulations.
21 If it is the first -- that is, a question only i
22 i of whether -- if it is an attack on the validity of the
(
23 I Commission's regulations, I propose that it be stricken for 9.*:
24 I that reason.
M R(porters, hc.
25 If it is an attack on the question of whether we i
1420 3!8
65 mm16 1
meet the Commission's regulations for normal releases, then I 9
2 ask that it be stricken for a second and different reason, 3
namely that it is redundant of Contention B, which I will now 4
read.
5 B reads as follows:
6 "The releases of radioactive materials to 7
unrestricted areas during normal operation, particularly 8
tritium releases, shall be in violation of Commission's i
9 rules, particularly the Low as Practicable Standards i
10 j and the proposed Appendix I Part 50."
11 So my request at this point is that Contention 0, 12 insofar as it relates to normal operation, be stricken G
13l; on the ground that, in the alternative, that it is an attack 14 on the Commission regulations, or, if not, that the subject I
15 matter is already covered by Contention B.
16<
With respect to the other Aspect of Contention 0 --
I 17 namely releases under accident conditions -- I suspect that 18 when we come to have a further understanding of what accident n
19 conditions Intervonors are talking about, we may find that we 20, are also dealing with attacks on Commission regulations.
21 l
But until we know what the accident condition i
lsupposedis, I can't tell whether that is true or not and,
(
22 t
23 i theref ore, will reserve any objections on this aspect of 24 Contention o until we have a further definition of the' 1420 319
-. m..e no,im.,.
25 accidents referred to.
l l
66 ty 1 1
CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Mr. Sager?
9 2 l MR. SAGER:
I think Subparagraph B states our 3
position and I don't think that Subparagraph o is necessary, 4
accordingly.
5 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Would you be willing to withdraw 6
Subparagraph O from this case at this time?
7 ;
MR. SAGER:
Yes, with the understanding that I
8 Subparagraph B is a contention with the reservations that the I
9 l
Applicant and Staff has made as to the particularity, but t
l 10 i the purport of O ix reflected in B and to that degree I will i
I 11 withdraw it.
l 12 {
CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Mr. Olson?
9 13 [;
MR. OLSON:
My understanding is Mr. Sager has 6
14 withdrawn O with his understanding that his intention is 15' reflected by B.
I have no further comment on that.
i 16 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
The fact that your understanding r
17 of the content of O may be reflected in B, of course, doesn't 18 necessarily mean that B would be accepted as a contention.
19 That would be subject to later argument by counsel and decision 20 of the Board.
21 MR. SAGER:
I would think we would have the same i
22 Problem even if O were in as to the particularity.
23 CHAIFUUd? HASKINS :
Perhaps we reduced the contentions 24 from 73 to 72 this morning.
- hctral fleporters, Inc.
25 (Laughter.)
0
ty 2 67 I
CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Mr. Trowbridge, in your Paragrapr 2
1, you talk of Contentions A, F,
G and O.
I wonder if there 3
shouldn't be an "and" after the letter o and before the word 4
"of."
5 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
There should be and I apologize 6
for the error in the typing.
The word "and" should be 7
inserted after the letter O.
8 I would ask thatthe reporter, in transcribing this I
9 request, make that correction.
I will ask the alternate 10 l chairman, who has possession of the document, to note that.
I 11 l CHAIPlU\\N HASKINS :
Very well.
I 12 !
Now that we have the second set of contentions joincd 13 tothe first, would youspeak to 15 asterisk, which we understand i
t 14 i
to be the second of two items numbered 15 in the petition to 15 intervene?
i 16j MR. TROWBRIDGE:
In any event, it is on page 12 of 17 the petition for intervention previously identified.
1 I
18 Reading as follows:
" Petitioners contend that Applicant's 19 Environmental Impact Statement fails to discuss or analyze 20 fully the environmental effects, including cost-benefit and 21 risk-benefit considerations, of the entire uranium fuel I
(
22 cycle: VIG, the environmental damage from mining, strip 23 l mining, milling, and enrichment of uranium; environmental l
24 ;
impact of both the gaseous diffusion enrichment process and the
" - tecs.'i Re:,or ters, Inc.
25 generation of electricity for that purposo by the strip and/or i,
~
j 1430 321
ty 3
- 68 l
1 other mining and consumption of high sulfur coal; environ-2 mental damage attendant upon both chemical conversion of 3
uranium hexafluoride and uranium dioxide and fabrication of 4
uranium dioxide into nuclear fuel rods."
5 Mr. Chairman, this contention deals with, again, 6
the co.st-benefit environmental aspects of uranium fuel cycle ard l
7 identifies a number of elements of that cycle, all of which are l
3 !
outside the scope of environmental consideration in a single licensing proceeding dealing with a particular nuclear power 9
10 l plant, although I would like to point out for the benefit 1j of the members of the public here that the environmental effects 12/
of the entire fuc3 cycle are a matter of generic public 9
I 13[
hearings now Au progress in W shington.
14 CHAIRMAN liASKINS:
Are you making two points?
- One, 15 that the fuel cycle should not be taken up in any licensing 16 proceeding, and, second, that there is a rule-making proceed-r j7 ;
ing involving this very issue?
Is it because of thelatter 18 point that yoa think it shouldn' t be in the licensinc, j9 proceeding or --
MR. TROWBRIDGI::
It is primarily because of the 20 21 former, namely, that it i s, as explained by -- particularly
(
22 by the Shoreham decision, to which I referred early in the 23 l game in connection with contention A.
It is primarily that 24 d cision on which I rc.t my case and I think the fact that --
- * * "*" ' 'j'5-May I take a moment?
1420 322
ty 4 69 I
CHAIFUGR HASKINS: Certainly.
2 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Excuse me.
I got mixed up for a 3
moment in my ALAB decisions.
I do rest on the Shoreham 4
decision and the Vermont Yankee decisions which preceded it anc 5 I which are elucidated in the Shoreham decision.
6 CHAIRHAN HASKINS:
Would you give us the the 7
citation of the Shoreham decision, if you have it there?
8 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Yes, it is in du3 matter of Long 9
Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ALAB-i 10 99 dated February 1, 1973.
+
I I
i1 i
CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Mr. Sager?
i l
12 j
MR. SAGER:
My comments to Contention A would be 13]
equally applicable to this contention insofar as it is our 14 desire to raise the issue for preservation of the record.
15 We also feel that there is a distinction to be made 16t concerning certain matters raised in that issue as tothe i
17 portion of the fuel cycle that directly affects and relates 18 l to the plant, concerning the inventory of the plant and so i
19 forth.
l 20 !
We feel that there is a distinction to be made 21 between the Shoreham decision arm the reprocessing.
- Indeed,
(
22 j there has been a distinction made in the transportation of i
23 l the fuel.
There should be a distinction made in those matters i
24 that have a direct environmental impact concerning the uranium i
- cual Reporters, Inc.
25 li fuel cycle as it directly relates to be installat' ion'and'-
l 1420 323
ty 5 70 I
1 they are proper subjects for the cost-benefit analysis and the 2
environmental impact NEPA review.
3 CllAIRMAN !!ASKINS:
Mr. Olson?
(
4 MR. OLSON:
Contention 15 Sub 2 or asterisk, 5
states -- it refers to the entire uranrium fuel cycle.
There 6
is no separation in there.
All the itemizations were related tc 7 mining, milling, processing, allofwhichwerehpokentointhe 8
Vermont Yankee and Shoreham decisions.
9 Without being unecessarily redundant, I would like to read two sentences from the Shoreham decision which relt 10 te i
11 l to the environmental statement called "The Environmental 12 Effects of Uranium Fuel Cycle" which was noticed 37 Federal t
]3 Register 24191, November 15, 1972.
14 Those sentences state:
"The completeness, accuracy i
! and significance of the survey is one of the topics which the rtle-15 16 making proceeding will examine.
It is the function of the 17 rule-making proceeding to resolve just such questions as well as 18 the more basic question as to how or indeed whether the 19, environmental effects of the fuel cycle should be considered I
20 ' in an individual reactor licensing proceeding."
7)
Since that matter is before that rule-making 22 : proceeding, it is not a proper matter to be discussed at this
(
23 proceeding.
i 24 CIIAIRMAN IIASI INS:
Thank you.
..ai Reporters, in:.
25 Mr. Adler?
1420 324 I
ty 6 71 1
MR. ADLER:
The Commonwealth has no position on 2
this contention.
3 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Mr. Trowbridge, No. 16.
(
4 MR. TRWOBRIDGE:
No.
.5 reads:
" Applicant has 5
failed to include in the Environmental Impact Statement 6
the cost-benefit and risk-benefit analysis of those aspects of 1he 7
complete uranium fuel cycle that follow the use of the fuel 8 ; rods, particularly environmental effects associated with I
9 transportation, reprocessing and high level radioactive waste, 10 ; storage and monitoring.
Neither normal operational impact nor abnormal operations and/or accident damage to the environment 11 l
12,are discussed or analyzed."
l 13' I submit again, Mr. Chairman, on the strength of thc I
14 Snoreham and Vermont Yankee decisions that insofar as this 15 contention relates to reprocessing and insofar as high level i
16 ' radioactive waste storage and monitoring may relateto storage 17,: and monitoring off-site, after transportation of the fuel to i
18 !its first destination, is outside the scope of this proceeding.
I 19 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
You say insofar as it relates 20, to reprocessing.
What about the transportation?
l 21 1
MR. TRONBRIDGE:
Transportation of irradiated or I
i 22 : spent fuel from the plant to its first destination, normally
(
23 the reprocessing plant, is under the guidelines of the Commissica 24 'and under the decisions to which I have referred, within the e % 0fdl RedOftCf5,inC.
25 scope of environmental considerations.
j 1420 T25' i
ty 7 72 I
CHAIlU1AN HASKINS:
Mr. Olson, I will call you out 2
of turn because you had something in your response on this 3
veryissue.
May we hear from you next?
4 MR. OLSON:
Yes, sir.
5 On Contention 16, again the subject appears to be 6
the complete uranium fuel cycle and we are not dealing with the 7
complete uranium fuel cycle in this hearing.
He speaks l
8 lintermsofreprocessingandthat is clearly again under Shoreham I
9 i and Vermont Yankee.
He talks about transportation but we had I
10 ll previously said that transportation was a proper subject under lContentionAandthereforethisisredundant.
11 l
12 ne speaks of storage and storage is contention 18 i
13 ': which Mr. Trowbridge does not wish to challenge at this time.
I 14, Therefore it is again redundant.
Therefore the Staff urges that 15 this entire contention be struch.
i 16 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Mr. Sager?
17 MR. SAGER:
I think that the position of the 18 ' Intervenors should be made quite clear that we feel the only 19, limitation as to the National Environmental Policy Act is the
,I 20 determination of the proximity and reasonable relationship 21, between the plant and the environmental impact.
In RDC versus 22i Morton, I think it establishes the parameters in that respect 23; of the review.
We object to any piecemealing that takes away i
24 ! from the Licensing Board to hear a review of those matters that e.uai neperwis, ine.
25, have an approximate relationship to the activities that are 1420 326
ty 8 73 1
taking place at the facility and the consequential environ-2 mental impact.
3 In that respect, certainly transportation, waste
(
4 disposal consieerations, et cetera, are within the purview of tre 5
National Environmental Policy Act review.
6 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Mr. Adler?
7 MR. ADLER:
We have no comments.
8 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Very well.
As I announced l
9 earlier, the Board will recess at 12:15, which has now been 10 l reached,andreconveneat 1:45.
11 (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m.,
the hearing was 12l recessed, to reconvene at 1:45 p.m.,
this same day.)
13 '.
14 l
15 l
16 5
17 i
18 l l
19 i
20 t
21 l
(
22 23 i
24 :
I t.esa: Rc;crters, ine, 142a 327 23 i
I
LEW fr8 ty 1 74 1
AFTERNOON SESSION 2
(1:45 P.m.)
3 CIIAIRMAN HASKINS:
The hearing will now be in order.
(
4 We will resume where we left off this morning.
5 Mr. Trowbridge, I believe your next contention is 6
No. 17.
7 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Yes.
Cdhtention 17 reads as 8
follows:
" Petitioners contend that, because the Atomic 9
Energy Commission's as low as practicable formula does not 10 apply to spent fuel reprocessing plants, it is impossible 11 fthat the total amount of radioactivity that reaches the i
12 l environment as a result of the operation of Applicant's 13 plant will exceed sate and tolcrable limits."
14 CIIAIRMAN HASKINS :
The word " impossible" perhaps 15 is a misprint for "possible."
16' MR. TROWBRIDGE; I think it is.
MR. SAGER:
That is correct.
37 i
l jg MR. TROWBRIDGE:
There again, Mr. Chairman, we are I
j9 talking about the radioactive cmissions from a spent fuel 20 ' reprocessing plant.
I am not sure whether this contention is 21 intended as a safety contention or as an environmental 22 contention, but in either event, I would oppose the contention.
23 To the extent that we arc talkinc, about the f_,24
!cmissionsfromarcerocessine9ent i
from a sarcer stenatoint, i
_,,_ _ i _ a r 1, _ p_,i s,
h
ty 2 75 1
entirely clear that we are concerned, in this licensing 9
2 proceeding, with the safety of the Three Mile Island Unit 1.
3 I again would like to state, for the benefit of
(
4 any members of the public here,that reprocessing plants are i subject also to the AEC licensing process and to a safety as 5
6 well as environmental review.
7 To the extent that we are talking about possibly '.i r
8 I including in be environmental effects or the cost-benefit lanalysictheemissionsfromareprocessingplant, 9
I return 10 again to the Shoreham and Vermont Yankee decisions which have 11 already been discussed.
l 12 ;
CHAIPBAN IIASICINS:
Mr. Sager?
13 MR. SAGER:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, i
14 In answer to the questionwhether it is a safety 15i issue or environmental iscue, the purpose of Contention 17 was i
R 16 to be an environuental issue.
Again, it is the Intervenors' 17 position that the full review ac required under the National I
Environmental Policy Act requires a review of anything emanating 18 19 from the plant that will have an impact on the environment.
20 It is our position thatthe approximate relation-7) ship to environmental impact vis-a-vic radio 2cgical health
- 22. hazards by effluents and so forth from the plmnt would encompass 23 'the spent fuel reproccasing cycle to that degree.
24 Again, it is our pocition that you cannot piece-ral Repcrters, Inc.
u 25 meal the NEPA review by stating that a portion of it has h
ty 3 76 1
already been taken care of in the national hearings.
The 2
national hearings might set forth criteria as to the way to handle 3
the review but it is the Intervenors' position that the 4
national hearings didn take away the consideration from the 5
Licensing Board of the approximate or reasonable relationship 6
of all the environmental concerns coming from the operation and 7
construction of this particular facility.
8 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Mr. Olson?
9 MR. OLSON:
Well, on Contention 17, clearly it 10 l deals with the environmental effects of fuel reprocessing 11 l plants.
As stated before, this is under the Vermont Yankee 12 and Shorehara decision; beyond the scope of this hearing.
I would b
13[ like to add further that this particular plant will not be 14 ' tied to a specified reprocessing plant and that the specific 15 reprocessing -- the reprocessing plants to date are in the 16 Process of modifying or constructing their facilities and 17. therefore the releases have not yet been determined.
Their 18 l releases will be a subject before other Board hearings.
19 Therefore, it is inappropriate f or this Board to 20 + revieu the releases of other plants prior to those other i
21 l hearings.
(
22 C l!A I R M A N H r>S I: I N S :
Mr. Adler?
f MR. ADLER:
Coirc.onwealth has no additional co:pments.
23 24 l
CHisIPSAN HTSKINS:
Thank you.
-I - Atal Reporters, Inc.
1420 D0-25 Very well, Mr. Troubridge.
No. 20.
l l
ty 4 77 1
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
I am informed by Mr. Sager that 2
Intervenors withdraw Contentions 20 and 33 and I see no 3
purpose in arguing on these.
(
4 MR. SAGER:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
5 CHAINOW HASKINS:
Any comment, Mr. Olson?
6 MR. OLSON:
No comment.
7 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Mr. Adler?
I 8 !
MR. ADLER:
No comment.
f CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
That would seem to reduce the 9
10, issues from 73 to 70, if my numbers are correct.
I 11 Mr. Trowbridge, we have gone through your list.
Do i
12 'you have any more to say on their request?
i 13i MR. TROWBRIDGE:
No, Mr. Chiarman.
I think we 14 havecovered the request in discussion and argument.
15 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
The Board will have some i
16 general observations about the contentions as they now stand which 17 may be of guidance to the parties as they work together over i
18
! the next few weeks in attempting to make then more specific and i
19 to sharpen them up and perhaps to reduce their number, but 20 before expressing our tentative views on that, are there other 21 ! matters that we should consider at this prehearing conference?
I Mr. Trowbridge?
22
(
23 l MR. TROWBRIDGE:
I have looked quickly at your I
24 : notice of prehearing conference.
It seems to me we have, in
. ai Renters, tae.
25 fact, dealt with everything that could be dealt..with.
We.have 1420 T31 1
ty 5 78 1
dealt with most of the subjects on this.
2 Item 6 of the eight items was identification of 3
witnesses.
I think this will occur at a later stage.
I would 4
not suggest it was even possible to identify witnesses at this 5
point.
6 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
I think the Board would agree 7 ; with you.
Thatwould be somewhat premature this af ternoon.
8' I raised with you this morning the question of a I
9 possible hearing date.
I think you let that go by, perhaps 10 ; with the thought that you would comment on it later.
11 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Mr. Chairman, I don't have a firm 12 l view to state to the Board at the moment on one aspect of the 13 hearing schedule.
I have to see, to solue ex Lent, how the Staff i
14' projected dates are borne out in practice.
It seems to me clear 15 that we cannot look forward to a hearing -- it is rather useless 16 ;to try to schedule a hearing on the safety aspects until after 17 lthecompletionoftheStaffSafetyEvaluation--namely, the 18 supplement to it.
~
19 I would hope that a hearing could be scheduled 20(ratherpromptlyafterthatdate.
I think if the dates were 21 pulled together, probably the best course of action would be to fholdtheenvironmentalandsafetyreviewtogetherinasingle 22 fhearing.
It may be, however -- particularly if there is 23 24 slippage -- that the Applicant would propose to proceed with the
- - t Cocial Reporters, Inc.
25! environmental review and hearing ahead of the safety hearing li 1
1420 332
ty 6 79 1
but that is not a request that we now make.
2 CIIAIRMAN IIASKINS:
Can you give the Board at this 3
time a general idea of when you would contemplate fuel loading, 4
assuming the licensing process proceeds in a normal fashion?
5 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Let me check.
~
6 The contemplated fuel loading date is February 1, 7
1974.
l 8 l CIIAIRMAN llASKINS:
Would you have a date for i
i 9 I commercial operation?
10 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
We are referring to a computer 11 sheet here.
12 Mr. Chairman, subject to corrcction from behind 13lmeif1makeamistake--
14f CIIAIRMAN HASKINS:
If you need further tirae to 15! confer, please so state.
i 16 l MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Let me explain my definition of 17' " commercial operation" when I answered tl.e question.
Commercia]
l 18' operation is a day when the utility declares its plant to be 19l commercially--toreachthepointofcommercialoperation 20! and essentially hands over the scheduling of its power supply 21l to the dispatcher, Commercial operation would occur after the
('
22 startup test period and after the so-called steam output 23 l warranty test following the various stepwise increases in 24 power in the rt.:ctor.
- Fedetal Reporters. Inc.
25 We presently estimatethat that commercial operation i
i 1420 333 i
ty 7 80 I
would occur in June or July of 1974.
Of course, the plant 2
will have been in operation and presumably startup will 3
occur and the plant will go up in stages and come back at 4
times.
5 The startup would occur probably after fuel loading.
6 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
I am not wedded to the term 7
" commercial operation" but it was a word you used in a
~
l 8 ' conversation dth me in another case and that is why I chose v
it this afternoon.
Perhaps I could put the question a 10 different way.
11 From an operational standpoint, as far as the l
12 l utility's planning is concerned, when would it be desirable I
13 lforyoutohavealicensefromtheCommission?
{
14 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
We need a license, by commonly 15 laccepteddefinitionoftheterm" operation,"toloadfuel.
i 16 lYou may not put fuel into the reactor until you have an 17. operating license.
It could be a limited operating license but 18 !we have to have an operating license.
That is the accepted I
i 19 jground rule for the commencement of operation.
20 CHAIMmN HASKINS:
So the crucial date, as far as 21 we are now able to determine -- and I don't hold you to this
(
22 but just for planning purposes -- is rebruary 1, 1974.
23 l MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Yes.
i 24 CHAIRMA:: HASKI:JS :
If we were to follow the suggestc i e - f (L*cral Repos ters, Inc.
25 schedule that was discussed this morning, with a second pre,-
l 1420 334.
ty 8 81 1
hearing conference coming not before the 9th or August, I 2
think we would be Lalking about having a hearing not before 3
Labor Day, some time perhaps in the month of September.
(
4 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Based on this schedule of staff, 5
it would be the middle or end of September, which I would 6 describe as shortly after the issuance of the supplemental End #8 7
Staff Safety Evaluation.
i 8
I l
9 i
l 10 l l
11 1
12 j
i 13'-
0 14 15 16 17 18 l 19 i
l 20 21 l i
22 23 l 24
~. C31 Rc;cf tels, Inc.
25 f420 335 J
4
LEW #9 82 ty 1 1
CIIAIRMAN !!ASKINS:
Mr. Olson, do you have any 9
2 ccanent on that issue?
3 MR. OLSON:
Yes, sir.
(
4 In the first place, in reference to the Staff 5
Safety Evaluation, the evaluation has been delayed because 6
the Staff didn't consider it an adequate and representative 7
document.
TheStaffdoesintendtoinsurethat{ tis 8 l complete and accurate prior to presenting it to the Board.
i 9 i Therefore, if necessary, we may have to go further.
I didn't anticipate any further delay but we don't 10 I
i I
11 wish to compromise this document for the purpose of expediting 12 things a week or two.
We think this is an accurate estimate of 13p time, of dates at the present time, md therefore we do 14 expect to go to the ACRS.
15 However, we can't commit the ACRS to review it on l
16 l that date.
He will be asking for that date and we expect the 17 Applicant will also be asking for that date.
Thcrofore, there 18 is a reasonable degree of assurance that they will.
i I
19 There have been occanions when the ACRS has asked 20 the Staff and the Applicant to return the following month to 21 I
answer additional questions.
Uc can't anticipate that at the present time but that is a possibility.
22 I
The Staff sup1.lenentnormally answers questions 23 24 raised by the ACRS and therefore there is a possibility that
. mal R;po.ters. Inc.
25 if the ACRS asks us to come back, that the supplement would 0
l f
1420 336
83 ty 2 i
I also be delayed to answer the later questions of the later 2
meeting.
We don't anticipate that at the present time but 3
it is a possibility.
(
I 4
In regard to the scheduling, we would expect that 5
if the hearing could get underway by the 1st of October, the 6 i Board could render a decision prior to the February 1 date, 7
and, therefore, could meet the Applicant's fuel loading deadlir e.
\\
i 8
i Again we wish to insure that there is adequate time l
9 l for the state and the Intervenor to have their discovery l
10 ;
and to complete their discovery and for the Board to make any i
l inquiries that they wish to make and, therefore, if necessary, 11 12 perhaps some time should be added to the initial period for 9
i 13, discovery and the firsL prehearing conference in order to 14 insure that we could expedite the later period of tha hearing 15i conference.
16 I am riot asking for more time but if the Board 17 feels it is necessary, perhaps that would be an appropriate 18 time to add more time.
19 CHAIPMAN HASK1NS:
Please understand we aren't 20 trying to set a hearing date this early in the proceeding but we i
l 21 j
are trying to get an idea of scheduling because of other l
22 l
commitments the Board has and lawyers in this room have also.
C 23 Mr. Sager, do you have anything to say about the l
24 l possibility of holding a hearing in September or.early
...'ral Repor ters, Inc.
October?
- i 25 1420 337 4
jon1
- 84 1 STY 2 1
MR. SAGER:
I would prefer in September because 2
of my schedule.
3 It is the Intervenor's position, Mr. Chairman, to
(
4 get a resolution of the problem in question as to whether 5
the unit should be operable or not as quicky as possible.
6 We feel that the public's interest should be 7
safeguarded.
If that means that the plant should not be 8
allowed to operate, the decision should be forthcoming as 9
immediately as possible, as well as we feel that if the l
plant is safe and the environmental impacts are in accordance 10 1
11 with the law, et cetera, the plant should also be allowed 12.,
to operate as switfly as possible because we feel the 13 public'c interect will be safeguarded as best as possible.
14 In s,at regard we will do everything within the 15[
limitations that we have to expedite the review here and we li 16[
are after a swift determination, too.
CilAIRMAN IIASKINS :
Do you have any view as to 17 t
18; whether the hearing should encompass both health and safety I
I 19 and environmental at the same time or whether it might be i
20 desirable to split the isrues and have two sets of hearings?
21 p MR. SAGER:
Unless there is a drastic change in 9
22 l our findings and technological research, I think at this 23 Particular point both phases could be heard together.
I think 24 l that that would expedite the process.
idetal Reporters Inc, h, 25 CI! AIRMAN IIASKINS :
Thank you.
I i
l 1420.338-
jon2 85 1
Mr. Adler, do you want to say anything about 9
2 scheduling at this time?
3 MR. ADLER:
With regard to the September or
(
4 October dates, both are suitable to the Commonwealth.
We 5
would just hope the matter could be expedited quickly.
6 With respect to the separating of the environmental 7
and safety features of the hearing we concur with Mr. Sager I
8 {
that they should be and can be held as one hearing.
I 9
CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Very well.
10 The Board, in going over the contentions that we 11 had yesterday before the three uere eliminated today, had 12 some preliminary conclusions and I thought I would read them 13 to you for the benefit of the parties in reshaping your 14 contentions and winnowing out some that may be redundant and 15 the like.
16c I would emphasize these are centative views.
They 17 are, by no means, firm, but it might give you an indication 18 of how the Board is thinking and might be of some guidance o
19 h to you as you work ahead in the next few weeks.
5 20 We identified our categories of contentions which we regard as not acceptable for the nurnoses of this hearing.
21 22 The first category is any challenge to the regulations.
23 I think the learning on that is well known to all and needs no elaboration.
24
- -I t de:at Repor tets, Inc. l 25 l The second category -
somewhat related to the I
i 1420 339:
i
jon3 86 I
first -- is matters in ongoing rule-making proceedings.
2 By that, we have in mind as of today the four 3
rule-making proceedings which are still in various stages,
(
)
4 the first being the ECCS hearings or rule-making proceeding 5
in Docket 50-1; the second being the lowest practicable in 6
Docket 50-2; the third being the fuel cycle in Docket 50-3; 7
and the fourth being the transportation of fu 1 and wastes, 8
Docket 50-4.
9 I am abbreviating the titles and not giving you 10 all the words in the actual Commission heading.
i 11 A third category of non-acceptable contentions i
i 12g would be those which contain purely legal arguments.
O I
13[
A fourth category, which is obvious, are those ll 14 contentions which are vague in nature, which are not specific 15 or which contain conclusory allegations unsupported by facts.
l 16ll Now, on a more positive note, the Board identified 17 l a category which we called possibly acceptable types of i
contentions, and again I speak as of yesterday, as we reviewed 18 19 :
the pleadings.
l 20 A number of docuraents have been filed since then --
21 particularly the Final Environmental Statement which came out I
('
22 in December.
23 !
The pleadings often refer to the Applicants' I
24 l Environmental Impact statement, which, of course, was at e:ral Reporters, Inc.
25 an earlier date.
14,20.d40 i
O Sh
+
e+
4-%ms.
m-
-j on 4 87 I
In that general category we identified as possible 2
areas: fuel densificatica, otherwise known as the Ginna 3
issue.
A second matter was flood protection.
A third was 4
an analysis of power demands.
A fourth was chemical 5
pollution.
A fifth was heated water discharge effects.
A 6
sixth is cooling tower effects.
7 We went on to identify another general category 8
which we called questions of compliance, and that involves 9
compliance with the regulations or compliance with the design 10 or compliance with the construction permit.
I1 It would also involve the quality assurance 12 i
program, the control of radioactive effluents, emergency 9
13(
plans -- including evacuation, plans with Civil Defense 14 officials -- nnd then the question of impact damage to the 15, Three Mile Island Station from external forces.
I 16e By that we would include sabotage -- either 17 industrial or by hostile action -- damage from airplane t
18p accidents and the like.
il i
19 !
And then a last general category which, from an 20l analysis of these contentions, seems to contain more 21 contentions t. hon any of the others but is very general, as
(
22 j I say, and that is: challenges to the cost-benefit analysis, 1
23 as contained in the Final Environmental Statenen 4
0 341 24!
Now, we suggest those categories, cctral Repxters, Inc.
t-25 l Some of you have taken notes -- the rest can pick i
jon5 88 1
it up word by word from the transcript -- as an outline of 2
groupings which might be helpful in organizing what the 3
contentions are and how they should be dealt with.
(
4 As I say, they are sort of preliminary thinking 5
on the part o3. the Board.
They are not hard and fast.
6 But I think within them they encompass every contention which 7
is in the case at this stage.
8 MR. SAGER:
Mr. Chairman, you have not included 9
in the environmental contentions the alternative classificatio:.
19 or group of contentions.
Was that by purpose?
Il Possibly one reason I raise it at this point is 12 l that Mr. Trowbridge and I had a discussion concerning that.
13 I don't speak for the Applicani_, but they li 14 indicated that he felt the alternative argument was a 15 difficult argument to make at the operating stage since many i
16 ;
billions of dollars have gone into the plant.
17 I was wondenng whether it was intentional for 18 the Board to leave out that particular category.
CHAIPEAN HASKINS:
The Board is certainly aware
}9 l
20 of that category.
We certainly didn't leave it out 21 intentionally.
I think, to some extent -- or to a large extent --
22
(.
l 23 it is included in the cost-benefit analysis category which, f r example, takes up the cost of oil or coal as compared to 24 l'
-\\.cral Peporters' Inc 25 nuclear power and there is a cost-benefit analysis'of_that f420
$42
jon6 89 I
rur.ning over a couple of pages in the Final Environmental 2
statement, as I am sure you know.
3
(
Are there any other comments on this particular 4
topic?
5 (No response.)
~
6 Well, I think we are nearing the end of our agenda 7
as far as we can go today.
I will call once re upon the 8;
parties., one by one, if they have anything further to raise l
9 i
or state.
10 i
Mr. Trowbridge?
11 l
MR. TROWBRIDGE:
Mr. Chairman, I take it that in
)
12 identifying areas -- which is, I think, helpful, and I don't 13 think, offhand, I took exception to the areas identified by ll 14 the Board -- within those areas, I take it, without now I'
i-15 ruling on the question, we cre still talking about -- there i
16d will be room for discussion as to the specificity of 17 contentions.
18, It isn't enough to identify an areas as a topic I
of conversation or discussion at the hearing.
19 20 ;
CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Absolutely.
The Board would i
21 j expect the most detailed and specifically drawn contentions l
(
22 I
within these general categories or any others that the 23 parties think tre worthy of consideration.
24 Is that all?
r-Federal RepMters, Inc.
I 25 MR. TROWBRIDGE:
That is all.
kk
jon7 90 1
CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Mr. Olson?
9 2
MR. OLSON:
No comments.
3 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Mr. Sager?
4 MR. SAGER:
Nothing further.
5 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Mr. Adler?
6 MR. ADLER:
Nothing.
7 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
I mEf sly that the Board nas, 8
during the luncheon recess, considered very cursorily i
91 these projected dates and when we came here this morning we i
10 had in mind a somewhat tighter schedule than this would 11 suggest, but we will consider this very cerefully in the l
light of the transcript when it becomes available and when 12 i
13 we review it.
d b
14 Then we would hope to put out a post-prehearing 15 conference order within a very few days.
16 [;.
We would encourage the parties, ac you have all 17 proposed, to cocperate with each other to sit down and meet 18 with the Intervenors -- I at talking now to the Applicant 19 and Regulatory Staff particularly, and to the Commonwealth 20l to the extent that it is involved -- to the end that we may 21 get a set of workable contentions which can be discussed at
{
22 the prehearing conference and which will, hopefully, soon l
thereafter, be the basis for preparation of the evidentiary 23 i
94,;
hearings to come.
- tteral Reporters, Inc.
25 Dr. Livingston, do you have anything further to. add'.
I'420 344 i
jon I
DR. LIVINGSTON:
No, thank you.
2 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Dr. Lynan?
3 DR. LYMAN:
Nothing.
4 CHAIRMAN HASKINS:
Very well.
The prehearing 5
conference will now be adjourned.
6 (Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m.
the prehearing 7
conference in the above-entitled matter was adjourned.)
8 l
10 11 i
12 l 13 ll 14 158:
I 16g 17 18 i
19 20l!
21 l
{
22 23 l
24
- - ederal Reporters, Inc.
25 i
l' f420f345 i
!