ML19318C897
| ML19318C897 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 02700039 |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1980 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007070012 | |
| Download: ML19318C897 (60) | |
Text
_,
o-e I
w b.
L.
m 113 NRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA h
I f~T' FIELD in/s/80 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Parker bfm1
X tl 4
In the Matter of:
e 5
NUCLEAR ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
Docket No. 27-39 6
(SHEFFIELD)
R 7
_ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x A
j 8
d:!
9 Room 103 Peoria County Courthouse g
10 Main Street Peoria, Illinois g
11 Thursday, June 26, 1980 y
12 E
The above-entitled matter came on for prehearing conference, O:"
pursuant to notice, at 9:15 a.m.
g 14 i
E BEFORE:
2 15 5
ANDREW C. GOODHOPE, Chairman j
16 DR. LINDA W.
LITTLE, Member d
DR. FORREST J.
REMICK, Mereber p
17 5
APPEARANCES:
5 18 5
On Behalf of the NRC Staff:
[
19 5"
ROY P. LESSY, ESQ.
20 Office of General Counsel 21l Washington, D.C.
20555 i
l On Behalf of NECO:
22 l
TROY B.
CONNER, JR., ESQ.
j ROBERT M.
RADER, ESQ.
23 '
Conner & Moore Suite 1050 24 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
n.)
j Washington, D.C.
20006 25ll Pages 113-172 i!
I 1.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
800707041%
A bfm2 1
APPEARANCES: (Continued)
['T 2
On Behalf of NECO: (Continued)
%1 3
R. LEE ARMBRUSTER, ESQ.
General Counsel 4
NECO Box 7246 e
5 Louisville, Kentucky 40207 b
6 On Behalf of the State of Illinois:
R R
7 SUSAN SEKULER, ESQ.
g MARY JO MURRAY, ESQ.
]
8 Assistant Attorneys General State of Illinois d=
9 188 W.
Randolph Street y
Chicago, Illinois 60601 E
10 5
On Behalf cf the County of Bureau, Illinois:
I 11 SCOTT MADSON, ESQ.
J 12 Assistant State's Attorney Bureau County, Illinois a
On Behalf of the Intervenor: Schieler, et al.:
E 14 h
ROBERT F.
RUSSELL 2
15 Johnson, Martin & Russell s
Princeton, Illinois
?
16 On Behalf of the Anerican Nuclear Society-Chicago Section:
N 17 y
JOHN CANNON, ESQ.
5 18 RICHARD MIRANTI E
Suite 2245 t
19 20 N.
Wacker Drive A
Chicago, Illinois 60606 20 ALSO PRESENT:
21 DR. THOMAS S. BAER 22 NECO 23,
CLIFFORD L. WEAVER, ESQ.
SUSAN B. HARMON, ESQ.
J 24 8 g
s,
(_)
25 ;'
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
114 bfm3 1
PROCEEDINGS
()
2 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
The hearing will be in order.
This 3
is a hearing held pursuant to an order setting a prehearing con-4 ference issued by this board on May 19, 1980, to commence here e
5 at 9:00 in the morning.
2a 3
6 I think you all know the members of the board.
In e
K R
7 case you do not, I would like to introduce them.
On my right is
[
8 Dr. Linda Little.
She is the President of L.
W.
Little, Associates d
d 9
They are environmental consultants specializing in industrial iog 10 waste assessment and treatment.
She is also an adjunct Associate
)
2 l
11 Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engin-t 6
12 eering, the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
z 5
r^g i
13 On my left is Dr. Forrest Remick.
Dr. Remick is 4
l(/
E l
14 Assistant Vice President for Research and Graduate studies; also 2
15 Director of Intercollegiate Programs and Facilities at Pennsylva-N 16 nia State University, University Park, Pennsylvania.
3 i
M g
17 I am Andrew Goodhope.
I am a retired Administrative
=
5 18 Law Judge from the Federal Government, presently practicing law
=
19 in Montgomery County, Maryland.
We will now, since we have X
l 20 waited -- this hearing was scheduled to commence at 9:00.
21 Apparently, nobody has made an appearance for the State 22 of Illinois.
We will proceed now -- I will ask everbody, starting 23 with the staff, to note their appearances for the record.
24 MR. LESSY:
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my name
.O 25 f is Roy P.
Lessy.
I represent the NRC staff.
I filed a notice of i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
115 bfm4 1
appearance in the proceeding this week.
At the leave of the board,
()
2 I would like to remain seated this week.
3 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
That's permitted.
Nuclear Engin-4 eering Company?
5 g
MR. CONNER:
If the board please, my name is Troy B.
9 6
Conner, Jr.
With me is my partner, Robert M.
Rader from our firm R
b 7
of Conner & Moore.
Our appearances are in the record.
Also A
j 8
appearing today are Mr. R. Lee Armbruster, General Counsel, d"
9
~.
Nuclear Engineering Company.
Also present at the counsel table E
10 is Dr. Thomas S. Baer, Vice President of Nuclear Engineering
=
II Company.
s N
I2 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Thank you.
Representative of the
=
(g 13 County of Bureau?
\\/
m
=
5 I4 MR. MADSON:
I am Scott Madson, representing the County
$j 15 of Bureau, one of the Intervenors in this case.
x y
16 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Thank you.
Chicago Section of the s
N 17 American Nuclear Society?
{
18l MR. CANNON:
John Cannon, American Legal Foundation.
=6 l
I9 s
With me is Rich Miranti, a legal intern at the Foundation.
5 20 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
How do you spell that last name, 2I please?
22 l MR. MIRANTI:
M-i-r-a-n-t-i.
I 23f CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Is Mr. Mc Crea here?
i 24 MR. RUSSELL:
Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert Russell.
25 I I have been associated with th'at petition, Intervenors Schieler, l
\\
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
116 bfm5 i
et al.
I am with the law firm of Johnson, Martin & Russell, A
t i
2 x/
Princeton, Illinois.
Mr. Mc Crea had a hearing in Chicago.
Ee 3
hopes to be able to fly down here sometime after 11:00 this 4
morning and participate, if we are still going at that time.
m 5
g CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
All right.
We will note that a
3 6
appearance for the record.
We are still waiting for the State n
5 7
of Illinois.
They have not appeared yet.
It is 9:20.
They n
E 8
are an important Intervenor inthis proceeding.
I mm at a loss a
dn 9
g at what to do.
o N
10 g
You said they were catching a morning plane?
=
E 11 g
MR. LESSY:
That is my understanding, Mr. Chairman.
d 12 z
(Board conferring.)
4 I )h 5
I CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
We will wait another five minutes
=
E 14 g
for them.
That is the problem.
If we go ahead and proceed now.
k 15 we probably are going to have to spend tire trying to bring them i
i 16 3
back up to date when they finally do get here as to what was done.
W 17 d
It is 9:20 now, we will wait until 9:25.
If they have E=
18 i
=
not appeared, we will go ahead and proceed.
Also, I think rather s
than smoking in the hearing, you can urcke in the hall during a n
20 recess.
We will wait another five minutes.
Otherwise, we will 21 have to go ahead and proceed without them.
22 (Recess.)
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
The hearing will be in order.
Let
(~}
24 ld the record show we have waited until 9:27, and the State of t-25 Illinois still has not put in an appearance.
We have not heard r
0 k
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
L
117 bfm6-1 from them by phone or otherwise as to why they are not here.
They (n
2 certainly did receive a notice of this hear.ing.
s_)
3 Gentlemen, where do we go from here is the problem that 4
the board has before it.
We want to hear from you as briefly --
5 g
Mr. Conner, the board has a show-cause against the Applicant.
We i
4
{
6 are all familiar with that, so we will not go into it.
You R
- S 7
requested a hearing on the order to show cause.
l 8
I think, probably, if we start with you, what do you d
0; 9
see the issues to be to be heard and resolved in the course of E
10 that hearing?
E II MR. CONNER:
If the board please, we see this as a 3
Y 12 situation -- the basic issue that the Commission posed through
=
(~N 13 the efforts of staff is not of our choosing, but it encompasses s
=
l 14 all of the basic issues in the proceeding.
$j 15 Now, I think we have clearly identified already on the
=
y 16 record our position as to jurisdiction of the Commission, including w
g 17 this bocrd on the issue of disposed of waste being no longer
=
{
18 possessed.
That, of course, is our fundamental position.
=b I9 g
Within the issue posed by the Commission as to whether n
20 or not we can unilaterally -- was their choice of words -- ter-21 minate a license is another way of saying the same thing.
In i
22 j our various pleadings, we have come up with approximately eleven 23 issues from time to time, which I can put in the record which e
24 g
relate to the validity of the staff's order to show cause; and x_)
25 [ to.the validity of the legal rights of the Commission, through i
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
118 bfm7 I
the staff, or otherwise to require us to remain in custody of the
/~( )j 2
physical premises to do various things that we might be required 3
to do were we a licensee.
4 I then see that the third basic area is what are reason-5 y
able requirements.
The way this hearing has -- this proceeding 9
6 has gone to date, I think that really the procedural aspects R
7 relating to the issuance of the order to show cause are pretty s
j 8
well documented in the record.
I do not see as something neces-d y
9 sary for an evidentiary hearing.
Our position is we violated zoy 10 absolutely nothing, and that there was no need for the issuance
_5 11 of an order.
m j
12 However, as this matter progressed, we entered into an 5
Os.
g 13 agreement with the staff with the General Counsel's office of
=
m 5
14 the NRC, I should say, to make it specific which is in the w
e
.r 15 record, whereby we agreed to remain in custody of the premises
,=
i j
16 and to conduct maintenance as if we were a licensee until this w
i N
17 matter is resolve, or until either side give 30 days notice to w
5 y
18 the contrary.
That is the normal clause that I do not know any-c8 g
one has an intention of exercising until the matter is resolved.
j 19 n
20 In fairness, that clause is in that agreement.
On this 21 basis, I do not know there is any particular utility in having an 22 jevidentiary hearing on the background of the proceeding.
t 3
23 J
Now, under your agenda, we will come eventually to the 24 idea of a stipulation.
I have talked to Mr. Lessy about this.
I
(-)g 25 ; feel perhaps we can save a great deal of hearing time, man hours, i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
119 bfm8 1
and so forth if there were a stipulation as to the basic back-O'
(/
2 ground facts to put into the proceeding, which would eliminate 3
a lot of the need to instruct us, because I don't think it'is 4
important to the real issue.
5 y
The real issue in this case is: Does the NRC have any N
j 6
jurisdiction?
If so, under what conditions may NECO be allowed R
7 to terminate its license.
There are subsets of issues under that M
j 8
that are all on the record.
da 9
~.
For example, does the procedural section, 2.107, E
10 confer substantive authority on the NRC to impose health and 3
II safety contitions?
We say no.
On the other hand, this is already a
f 12 well briefed in the record.
5 I"_3 j
13 I see no point in making an evidentiary deal out of
\\/
=
l 14 this.
{
15 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
When you say conditions, you mean
=
g 16 conditions in addition to those already existing in past licenses?
M f
I7,
MR. CONNER:
Yes.
The staff, of course, has sent to 5
y 18 the board two versions -- let me start back with this.
The last
- b I9 g
prehearing conference over a year ago, the board asked then-staff-i 20 counsel if he could produce specific conditions to resolve this 2I case, closure conditions as we have come to call them.
He said 22.he would provide them in two weeks.
U 23 [
You got a list of 16 items, some of which are objectives.
(")
24 l Some of which are absolutes, some of which are reasonably accept-
%j
\\
25 lj able, some of which are not acceptable from our standpoint, some n
1 i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
120 bfm9 1
some of which -- the acceptable ones, essentially restate what r~s
(_)
2 we have already done or have already been committed to under the 3
license conditions as they existed.
4 Perhaps I can jump ahead a little bit here.
5 y
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
I did not mean to interrupt you.
n!
6 MR. CONNER:
I am skipping around a little.
I am trying R
b 7
to be responsive to your point.
I think the key issues here, M]
8 when we get down to reasonableness of closure conditions, come 4c 9
under the following headings: Things that -- routing maintenance
,zo 10 conditions; work that anybody, NECO, the State of Illinois, or Z
II indeed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, would have to perform l
3 y
12 on any site; erosion, fill in the holes.
=
13
[~}
As the grass seed washes out, put in more grass seed.
ss b
I4 As the snow puts the fence down, put in more fence.
$j 15 Secondly, there is this group of conditions which might
=
y 16 be acceptable, if stated correctly and properly as a final move.
w N
I7 Then, there is this third set of conditions, to us, which is the Nw 4
3 18 heart of the case on this issue that are undefined by staff.
c l
s I9 g
Staff wants to conduct this current study for two years, n
20 or something.
Then, they are going to say for whatever the longer 21 range conditions may be.
We do not know whether the staff is 22 still talking about this, or whether it is 16 conditions as 23 they may be modified, or intended to cover this third phase.
("N 24 I mentioned this to Mr. Lessy.
I am sure he will
(_)
i 25 address it, because he had not at that point talked to the l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
121 bfml0 1
technical staff on these points, as I understand it.
This, to
[')
2 us, is the big unknown in the technical determination of the v
3 issues in the case.
4 Coming back to the point I was making, though, I think e
5 that we can, by stipulation of basic facts, eliminate an awful E
3 6
lot of what would otherwise be a prolonged evidentiary presenta-
=
R R
7 tion.
I do not think there is that much disagreement.
A j
8 Certainly, a stipulation would minimize the need for d
=
9 evidentiary presentations.
At the moment, for example, the only E
10 thing I see would be a possible need to produce the people from E
5 11 the Atomic Energy Commission who, in fact, had the policy that we d
12 i say relates to the jurisdiction-position question.
E
=
g-d 13 Other than that documents, such as they are, speak for
(-
E E
14 themselves.
In other words then, what I am staggering towards a
I 2
15 slowly here is the fact that the only evidentiary presentation x*
16 that I would see that this board might need to consider would be 3M d
17 technical justification of proposed conditions, or -- and the x=
5 18 rebuttal thereto.
E I
t 19 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
That burden would be on the staff.
5n 20 MR. CONNER:
It is their conditions, yes.
In other i
21 wordr, our position is, and hopefully I clarified it, that the i
22lconditionswhichexistedinourpreviouslicensahadbeenfully 23 complied with.
l g-24 l io the extent we are still acting as if we were a licen-
\\/
25, see, we have been -- have been and are being fully complied with.
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
122 bfmil 1
In fact, I believe the board -- I. don't know whether the board
(}
2 has received copies of inspection reports that had been made over 3'
the past year and three months by the Inspection and Enforcement.
4 They showed that we are in compliance.
5 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
We have received sore.
We do not
=
h j
6 receive them all.-
.g 2
7 MR. CONNER:
All right.
N j
S DR. REMICK:
Mr. Conner, how about evidentiary showing d
d 9
on the mandatad issues from the Commission, whether NECO can zog 10 unilaterally terminate a license?
What do you see there?
Have El 11 I missed your point?
E d
12 MR. CONNER:
With all respect, Dr. Remick, I do not z
E d
13
.know that the board or Commission really understands our point.
h5 y
14 This is why we have been so careful to try to keep the record b!
15 pristine, if you will, that there has been no accidental prejudg-E 16 ment of what, to us, is the fundamental issue.
g e
p 17 l We believe that it is just so simple that if the legal 5
18 l determination is made, to use a very gross analogy, the problem E
19 is on the moon.
i 5
20 Therefore, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commis-t 21-l sion has no jurisdiction over it.
The case is over, but we l
22 have to go forward now.
The Commission has ruled on this.
The 23 : board has ruled on this.
We have tried very carefully to call 24 l attention to any language in any decision which in any way would I)\\
w
+
25 suggest prejudgment.
r, i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
123 bfm12 1
I think the record is absolutely clear on this now.
(a) 2 Whatever evidence we would need is that which already exists in 3
the record, which has been, one way or another, attached to various 4
documents.
Mr. Reese provided some of the missing staff papers e
5 from 1959 and 1960.
Ae 6
We have provided some Congressional testimony that goes R
7 back to those days.
I am sure there would be no problem of A
j 8
stipulating that.
So, again, I get back to the only point at 0i 9
issue, being the presentation of the Commissioners who were there 10 at the time, or the officers of the Commission who carried out the 3l 11 policy to estiblish what it was.
3 y
12 Now, does that answer your question, sir?
5 r"%
13 DR. REMICK:
Yes.
On the assumptions -- let us assume
\\)
=
E 14 you were able to prevail on the question of whether you possessed d
15 or not, would there still not be a question of whether a license
=
j 16 can be terminated by one party?
W g
17 MR. CONNER:
No, sir.
E 5
18 DR. REMICK:
You feel, in the existing record now, there
?
{
19 is evidence which would indicate clearly that the license would 5
20 not be in effect as long as it is not possessed?
21 MR. CONNER:
I do not mean to quibble, sir.
The docu-l 22 I ments upon which we rely are in the record, or referred to in 23 ' the record.
They are not in evidence, yet, because they have not g--
-24 been sworn to and admitted and so forth.
(>
25 That is a quibble.
The facts and the precedents upon 4
3 ti ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
124 bfm13 1
which we rely, except for possible oral supplementation are, in-A
(_)
2 deed, one way or another referred to in the proceeding at this 3
time.
There may be more.
I am surprised at the dirth of solid 4
evidence.
g 5
I am surprised that we cannot find more.
E 6
DR. REMICK:
When you say there might be more, would R
R 7
NECO's approach be to try to produce this in an evidentiary aj 8
hearing, or are you satisfied with what we have now as adequate, d
9 9
once properly introduced as evidence?
E h
10 I mm not quite sure.
El 11 MR. CONNER:
We would, as I told Mr. Lessy, the only 3
y 12 item of discovery that we see of any significance would be a E
(~}
13 further check of the Commission's files for such documentation.
v l
14 I have personally gone into this in some depth, and E
2 15 am reasonably satisfied, unless they are in the St. Louis record 4
5 j
16 center or something like that -- this was not articulate to the e
17 extent I would now like it to be, by 20/20 hindsight.
=
5 18 Stated another way, in terms of going forward with the
{
19 proceeding, I do not think this is a problem, if that helps 5
20 the board's thinking any.
21 CHIARMAN GOODHOPE:
On the stipulation, Mr. Lessy, 22 where does the staff stand on that?
23 MR. LESSY:
If I get to your question by leading up to I
24 it.
l
{v~}
25 g CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
However you want.
a l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
125 bfml4 1
MR. LESSY:
Is Mr. Conner through?
/~3 2
(_/
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
For the time being.
What I want to 3
do is find out what we are going to do with regard to these 4
hearings.
5 g
MR. LESSY:
Yes.
I think that one place for us to start, n]
6 for the staff to start, is to answer Dr. Remick's question.
One R
b 7
of the things that we might want to explore, which we probably a
j 8
should explore at the hearing would be the health, safety, and d"
9
~.
environmental consequences of NECO's proposed action.
zoy 10 That is, the action of sending a telegram to the Commis-
_5 5
II sion saying that it was leaving the site, the low level waste N
I2 disposal site.
Perhaps, just answering that question, puts the 5
5 13 framework in a different context.
(~)T
(.
=
h I4 Certainly, the factual background for the materials in 5
{
15 this proceeding is important.
I think we can probably stipulate z
j 16 to a lot of that.
m U
I7 '
As Mr. Conner said, my notes indicate that there were x
=
18 people at the AEC who, in fact, had the policy.
If those docu-l
(
C i
19 ' ments were to lead to a conclusion about what that policy was, I I
A l
20, would respectfully suggest that we are in a situation where l
21 policies are subject to interpretation, where regulatory require-22 ments upon licensees are subject to updating and change, as our e
23 ! own information changes, and the two questions blend.
I l
r-)
24l One, we will have to make a determination as to what the V
25 ; policy was.
Then, we nced secondly to make a determination as to i
i I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
)
1
126 bfm15 I
what the policy. is, or what it should be and how that impacts on
()
2 the overall hearing process.
3 The situation is simply -- the question -- the Chairman 4
asked a question about burden.
These show-cause hearings, there 5
is an interesting appeal board decision in Midland.
I am not 8
6 100 percent sure what that means.
G 7
Basically, what it says is in a show-cause hearing, K
j 8
the burden of going forward is on the staff.
The burden of d
o; 9
proof, if you will, would be on the -- in this case, the Applicant E
5 10 or the licensee who is the object of the show-cause order.
E 11 So, focussing this upon what we do next, I think it is 3
y 12 fairly clear that the last Commission order disposing of inter-
=
13 g-]s rogatory appeals was issued early this year, early 1980.
The
'w m
i 14 matter is now ready to get into the adjudication phase.
w k
{
15 There is one other appeal by the Chicago section of the z
j 16 American Nuclear Society.
There are no more procedural hurdles W
d 17 to focussing on the substantive issues which we are presented 5cx 18 with.
Those issues are, as we have stated, the unilateral 5
{
19lterminationissue,which.isanotherwayofsay:
Was there a i
20 I reasonable basis for the show-cause order that was issued by the n
21 idirector.
22 Secondly, if the unilateral termination issue is resolved i
23 ' in a manner indicating that a licensee, or in this particular 24 g3 proceeding NECO, could not terminate the proceeding -- could not
(_)
?
25 ) terminate its responsibilities under the license, then the question i
h ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
127 bfn16 1
what conditions are appropriate to impose on NECO?
~
I think, therefore, we need to assess, as I stated, the
()/
2 x-3 environmental and public health and safety consequences.
We would 4
want to present the environmental health and safety consequences g
5 of the intended action by NECO.
R
]
6 We would also want to present the public health, safety, R
2 7
and environmental -- excuse me.
Public health, safety, and A
j 8
environmental assessment of what it is we are proposing in terms 0
=
9 of, if you will, appropriate license conditions.
10 In that overall framework, I think there are -- and Ej 11 basically, I am not too much in disagreement with Mr. Conner.
I 3
y 12 think, number one, there is a factual background that needs to 5
g-13 be set forth.
To the extent that that can be accomplished by (3)
E 14 stipulation instead of witnesses, I would be happy to work on one, Cs 2
15 indeed, to take the lead on doing something of that nature, be-5 j
16 cause certainly that is in everyone's interest.
e p
17 CHAIMRAN GOODHOPE:
We want you to do that, so we know 5
18 what the record is before us.
=
H
?
19 MR. LESSY:
My problem is in eleven years of litigation a
20 with such stipulations, Mr. Conner is going to want to present i
21 the facts in a manner that best suits his client's position.
I 22 might want to present the facts in a way that I do.
That process l
23, takes time.
l 24 Certainly, I think, based upon the preliminary discus-(.s\\
L.J 25 f sions we have had, I think we can come up with a factual stipula-I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l j
m 128 bfm17 1
tion.
That factual stipulation may well end ten years ago.
(~)T 2
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Why don't you stipulate what the u
3 documents are and what they mean; try to leave for us to draw 4
the conclusions from those documents?
5 MR. LESSY:
Fine, fine.
e 8
3 6
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Don't try to present a whole bunch e
R R
7 of conclusions.
Give us a factual record that we can work with, s
j 8
Then, you can make the argument about what conclusions we should d
d 9
draw from it.
Don't try to put those in the stipulation.
Other-10 wise, you'll get nowhere with the stipulation.
Ej 11 MR. LESSY:
I agree with that.
The second thing, of 3
y 12 course, is in terms of evidentiary presentation.
It is kind of
=
E 13 hard to cross examine documents.
You really need to get the
)
5 E
14 full picture to see not only what is in the documents, but how N
E 2
15 those documents were interpreted as they went forward.
5 16 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
You can put the documents in and W
g 17 get the author of them, and ask him whatever questions you want.
5 5
18 You can at least agree on what the documents are that are perti-E*
19 nent.
R 20 You can get the man who wrote it and ask him what them 21 mean if they are not clear on their face.
22 MR. LESSY:
Would that be at the hearing or at'the 1
23 l prehearing?
24l CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
It would have to be the hearing.
fm
()
MR. LESSY:
Therefore, the first step would be the fac-25 f
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
129 bfm18 1
tual background pursuant, perhaps, to stipulation, full or par-
~()
2 tial.
The more we can stipulate, the better off we will be.
\\a 3
Two, I think we need to assess such things as through 4
a discovery process, as I mentioned, NECO's ability, for example, g
5 to comply with the conditions that we are going to be asking for, E
6 bo t'.t technical ability to comply and perhaps even financial.
R 7
We would sort of need some sort of assurance.
I think j
8 the board would need some sort of assurance that if conditions d
d 9
were ordered, that this thing would not happen again, io 10 In other words, that the board -- that we would not El 11 have a situation in which we resolved the unilateral termination a
y 12 question and appropriate license conditions and have the situa-5 y
13 tion happen again, whereby no one was at the site.
(m3 q,-
=
l 14 So, I think what we need to do is, one, come up with a b
i 15 stipulation; and two, have a discovery period in which the docu-E 16 ments are one, brought into surrent focus; and two, perhaps j
e d
17 l fleshed out.
{
18 As Mr. Conner says, NECO has a lot of the staff docu-c 19 ments, a lot of the staff background documents.
We have not a
20 engaged in discovery, if you will.
We do not have all of the 21 documents from NECO's files.
22 One of the things I was hoping to ask the state people 23,} was that I know in one of the parallel state court proceedings 24. j involving NECO, there has been discovery.
It has been going on 7_s N_)
I 25 ; for a number of months.
One of'the things I was going to ask was i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
130
)fm19 1
how that was going, and the scope of that doscovery to the extent
()
2 that that would bear on it.
3 We would feel, basically in terms of the prehearing 4
phase of the proceeding, that we would want to do two things.
g 5
The first thing we would like to do is to have document requests a
j 6
of the licensee and examine those documents.
The second thing R
b 7
we would like to do is that since mahy of those documents are very Aj 8
technical in nature, and secondly since many of those documents d*
9
~.
involved -- may involve statements of company policy or position --
zo h
10 the second thing we would like to do is to take a limited number
=
II of depositions with respect to materials contained in the documents.
{
12 Basically, I think that that would put us in a position 9
g 13 r-(_3) to assess the overall situation; not only the historical situa-
=
b 14 tion but the present situation, and the technical situation m.ich E
{
15 would be, I think, necessary for the hearing.
=
j 16 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
With regard to these conditions w
C 3
17l' you are talking about, Mr. Conner broke them down.into three
=
{
18 categories as he described them.
The cosmetic group, which c
1 I9 '
s s
apparently does not have a problem with; then he has a middle n
20-group in which he said some are acceptable to hhn and some are i
not.
22 Then you have a two year study, apparently going on.
23 l Out of that, you intend, I assume, to bring up a group of more I
24 (3
conditions.
Where does this stop?
NECO got its license and L)
.h 25 N certain conditions were imposed. upon it as to how it was to 0
-i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
131 bfm20 1
operate that burial site.
Are you adding on additional conditions 2
(_)
at this time, because they want to close it?
3 MR. LESSY:
Let me clarify one point.
Was the Chair's 4
interpretation of the study, Mr. Conner, correct in terms of your position?
In other words, this two year study, that was e
5 for the purpose of generating additional conditions, was it?
not 7
MR. CONNER:
I do not know.
Staff talked about not M
)
8 being able to take a technical position until it conducted a d
{".
9 study of two odd years from whatever date that was.
10 MR. LESSY:
That would impose no conditions on NECO.
=
5 II What I understand the position was was we sent to the board under a
12 E
two different dates within a period of a month or two, site c
13
(}
j closure conditions which we felt were necessary for the dismissal E
14 4
g of the proceeding.
?r 15 E
CHAIRMAN GOODH0"E:
Then, you amended them.
You added x
?
16 g
some more on.
17 d
MR. LESSY:
As I understand it, the amendments were not 5
really too different -- not really too different from what was u
I' originally submitted.
If you will, it reflected more a tuning of n
20 the conditions.
The were produced, I.think, within --
II CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
What I am trying to get at is where 22 does this tuning in -- when does it end?
23 :
MR. LESSY:
I think it ends after we have assessed the 24 s,
information pursuant to the discovery process.
In other words7 k'^/
I 25 if this proceeding goes te hearing, we would present a witness i
ALDEF'50N REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
132 bfm21 1
who would explain the basis -- the technical basis, perhaps --
f) 2 a panel of witnesses of what we are requiring of NECO as part of a
3 the show-cause proceeding.
4 Basically -- I thi-t a year has passed -- I inquired of 5
the staff as to the currentness of the roughly 16 conditions.
e H
8 6
Basically, I was advised that that is basically where they are.
7 It may be that some additional information will cause minor modi-
)
8 fications of these.
O d
9 Basically, we are taking the same position on site i
h 10 closure as we took a year ago.
El 11 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
As I understand it, Mr. Conner, you 3
4 12 object to some of those conditions.
E=
d 13 MR. CONNER:
Yes, sir.
Yes, we definitely do.
I might S
.E 14 save some time for everybody here.
If I now understand what Mr.
dk 2
15 Lessy is saying, there is no third set of conditions which the U
,7 16 staff would want to impose, following some study program.
s i
17 If that is true, and if the staff will now so state that Y
E 18 it is willing to resolve the aspect of the case dealing only with
=
H E
19 l the conditions, if they can be imposed; if we are dealing only 4
20 with some way of working out the 16 conditions and nobody intends 21 to impose come additional group of conditions beyond that.
22 I ihink we have made a major step forward, at least t
23 j as far as NECO is concerned.
J b
24 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Can you answer that?
MR. LESSY:
I would not go quite that far.
I think I 25,
i 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
133 bfm22 1
would state that basically the conditions sent to the board
,)
2 represent our basic position in this matter. I cannot state that
(_
3 yet until we have access to NECO's records, which we want.
4 I would hope that that would be the position.
In other S
5 words, this is one of the reasons we need discover.
We plan on j
6 the board submittals as being basically the basis for what we R
7 are asking for in terms of the bottom line of the proceeding.
s9 d
n CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Do you know what documents -- just Jo 9
2, a minute.
Would the State of Illinois -- I believe they have o
h 10
?peared.
Do you want to state your appearances for the record?
=
5 II MS. SEKULER:
Susan Sekuler from the State of Illinois.
S y
12 I am accompanied by Mary Jo Murray and others from the Attorney
=
m
()
13 General's office; of the State Attorney General's office,
[
14 Clifford L. Weaver and Susan B. Harmon who represent the Depart-E
{
15 ment of Publ.ic Health.
=
y 16 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Do you know where the documents are e
d 17' that Mr. Lessy wants, Mr. Conner?
u*
18 MR. CONNER:
No, sir.
I really do not.
I am frankly
_c 8
I 19 mystified by the -- if I understood him correctly.
Why the E
i n
20 staff needs access to our documents to determine whether furhter 21 research by the staff or study by the staff is necesary to deter-22 mine if there needs to be further conditions.
23
'I really do not know where that leads.
24
(~}
MR. LESSY:
I think that --
v 25 MR. CONNER:
I think perhaps -- our records have been ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
134 bfm23 1
open to the staff over the 12 which this matter has been pending.
()
2 There may be some historical documents of some kind that have 3
come out in the state case, but as far as I know, all of these 4
have been available to NRC over the years.
Certainly, if they e
5 do not know about then, this would not be a problem for --
Q j
6 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
DO you know what documents you want, R
7 Mr. Lessy?
Mj 8
MR. LESSY:
We intend on filing a discovery request U
9 with the board if we get into a discovery period.
We have an E
10 idea, particularly, of the categories of documents, if they
_3 11 exist, that we would desire access to.
We have not had access 3
y 12 under litigation discovery techniques to find them.
=
(v'~] !
13 Perhaps since the sta'te is here, they could report on
=
14 their discovery efforts in the state court proceedings how it has 2
15 gone, and the nature of that information.
5 y
16 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Well, I have a problem.
What A
17 pertinence their discover in a state court proceeding has at E
E 18 this proceeding?
- [
19 MR. LESSY:
Well, for example, the progression of the 5
20 state court discovery, Mr. Chairman, would give us an idea how 21 much time we need here.
We have all been in a number of procee-22 dings where discovery is handled quickly.
l i
23 i I have been in proceedings where once you filed dis i
t 24 ~ covery requests there are objections, privilege lists, and the.
25 j litigation goes on forever.
That only affects the timing of it.
h ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
135 bfm24 1
Perhaps that was the point I had in mind.
Basically,
(}
2 I think we do want to go in this proceeding with full current 3
information as to the site and as to NECO.
4 In order to do that in a reliable manner and put the e
5 best record before the board that we can, we are going to want 8
j 6
access to some of their materials.
We may want to ask questions R
R 7
of some of those people as to what those documents mean.
That 8
8 is what I would envision as the first step in the process.
N dd 9
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
You are only talking about the Y
E 10 conditions.
Do you have any discovery or any evidence that you E
^
5 11 want to put in on the question, first of all, that disposed of d
12 waste is not longer possessed?
E=
r~g d
13 MR. LESSY:
Basically, that involves a legal issue.
V E
A 14 However, one of the things in judging that issue might be the au!
15 pragmatic effects of suen a ruling, for example, if a licensee w=
j 16 could unilaterally terminate a license.
w y
17 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
You keep using the word "unilater-x=
18 ally."
I am not sure I know what it means.
I know what it
=
{
19 means.
What they want to do is withdraw and get our of there, b
J 20 whether it is unilateral, bi-lateral, or any other lateral.
21 I think this word " unilateral": everybody goes up in 22 arms when they hear the word " unilateral" for some reason.
23,
MR. LESSY:
We use it because the Commission used it.
i 4
24 l CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
All t>'y want to do is withdraw 25 ; and get out of there.
I t
h ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
136 bfm25 1
MR. LESSY:
Right.
()
2 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Do you have any documents or any 3
evidence that you want to put in any record that you want to 4
make, factual record on the withdrawal issue?
As Mr. Conner said, e
5 they are both wound together.
h j
6 MR. LESSY:
Basica'ly, I think we do, but I do not R
7 want to answer that question finally until we have prehearing j
8 conference upon the completion of discovery, a
d 9
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
All right.
ioy 10 MR. LESSY:
Because of the informatien we learn in the
_3 g
11 discovery process, I think it is the suggestion that one, we
(
12 finally set prior to the discovery process, one, what our scope
-c 13 of evidentiary presentation is; and two, what in final terms is 14 our bottom line in terms of site closure conditions.
That 2
15 suggestion is unacceptable, and I think inconsistent with the x=
g 16 Commission's regulations, e
p 17 We are basically starting, as you would in any lawsuit x=
5 18 if this were a lawsuit, with what we want and what the problem is.
=H E
19 I think the questions you are asking of me today you should be 20 asking of me after discovery is over so that we can finally dot 21 the "I"s and cross the "T"s.
Then, we can tell you the scope of 22 our evidentiary presentation.
23jl Secondly, what the bottom line is on license conditions.
24 I think we have the right to engage in that kind of process.
It
,3
()
+
25 does not have to be a five year discovery period.
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
137 m6 1
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
It is not going to be.
()
2 MR. LESSY:
It has to be enough time to permit us to 3
gather and analyze that information.
After all, we are talking 4
about a highly technical area, and a..
area that is of continuing e
5 importance.
5 3
5 It is not something that nither the Commission or the R
d 7
staff has dealt with before in the litigative process.
sj 8
DR. REMICK:
Mr. Lessy, after the first prehearing d
=;
9 conference, I believe the board and parties received a document
?
10 which were proposed conditions by the staff for closure of the E
11 site.
@m
(
12 Then, on June 5, we received a document that was called 5
('
13
" Branch Position."
Are we to interpret this as a revised set of
\\., )T l
14 proposed conditions for closure?
It was not quite clear.
The Ej 15 first submittal was, but the second one was just called a Branch z
j 16 Position.
w
(
17 MR. LESSY:
Your question is, does that constitute a
=
5 18 final amendment?
=
G 19 DR. REMICK:
I did not say final, but does it constitute g
a 20 an amendment from the first one, which was proposed conditions?
21 This does not say it is revised proposed conditions.
It just 22 calls it a Branch Position.
What weight are we to put on a I
23 Branch Position versus_a staff proposed position?
24 MR. LESSY:
I do know that the April 10, 1979 letter to
<s L-)
25)ythe board from staff counsel stated that -- it used the following ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
s
d 138 bfm27 1
language:
"At a minimum in keeping with the Commission's duty
~\\
2 to protect the public health and safety, and dismissal of the (J
3 proceeding must be on the following conditions."
4 Then the 16 were listed.
Then the letter also said that e
5 we would expect the licensee to submit his methods of meeting h
3 6
these conditions to the staff and board for review prior to e
Rg 7
implementation.
M 8
8 My understanding of the Branch Position was that this n
I dd 9
was ancther slant on the same thing.
The exact positive inter-i Og 10 relationship between the two, since I was not involved at the 3
5 11 time, I am not absolutely certain of.
<t
'd 12 My feeling is that they were not substantially dis-E_l 13 similar.
They were basically cutting up the pie, if you will, r~
Q)
=
l 14 the same way.
I have not had performed the technical analysis.
b!
15 I have, in reviewing the record, not seen a submittal by the N
j 16 licensee of its comments on these conditions.
m M
17 So that, the Chair's request that I comment on the N
18 licensee's comments made earlier this morning -- I would like some P
~
0 19 time to think about those and discuss them with staff.
Staff x5 y
20 wants to be reasonable in what it is asking the licensee to do.
21 This is one of the things that I think should await to 22 some extent some of the discovery period.
I think that -- I 23 f hope I have answered your question.
3 i
24 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
That is what we are trying to do,
[s) v 25 set up what the issues are.
These 16 conditions, as amended, are i
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
139 bfm28 1
those the issues as you see them, as far as closure is concerned?
'N
[O 2
MR. LESSY:
Yes.
As of this time, subject to --
3 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Can we enter an order that these 4
are the conditions that you want met and then set a schedule e
5 for discovery on those conditions?
The same thing we are going h
6 to do -- Mr. Conner has posed the issues as he sees them today.
R R
7 We will state them ourselves, put out an order as to what the Kj 8
issues are, set a schadule for discovery, both on the issues as d
d 9
Mr. Conner sees them and then your issues on closure?
Y 10 Is that reasonable?
We have to go ahead with this thing i
j 11 some time soon.
k d
12 MR. LESSY:
Yes.
I think I would be more comfortable E=
,S y
13 with a generic order which said that keeping in mind that the
\\)
=
E 14 staff's submittals of April 10, 1979 and June 5, 19 -- and the 5mj 15 subsequent one in May, I believe it was, rather than specifically -~
=
y 16 DR. REMICK:
The cover letter was June 5.
W i
i 17 MR. LESSY:
June 5, 1979.
I think as long as it is 5
18 referred to generically in light of these letters, I would be i:
9; 19 satisfied because these letters set forth the basis for our I
e 20 position, but not hte final one.
That is one that involves the 21 absolute bottom line on that, involves a lot of technical 22 ; analysis that, you know, may require some input from NECO on l
23 : their information.
I know it is.
i 24 i CHAIRMAN GOODHCPE:
We are going to bring you down, 7-l, )
25 j some day.
I don't know when.
d l
i AL DERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
140 bfm29 1
MR. LESSY:
I suggest that be after discovery.
~( ')
2 DR. REMICK:
How can the Applicant undergo discovery G'
3 from his standpoint if he does not know what your current pro-4 posed list of contentions are?
Right now, I am not sure what 5
they are.
We have two documents.
=
h 3
6 I am not sure if one amends the other, or if it is Rg 7
just with information of a branch thinking, and therefore we X
j 8
should not put much weight on it because the staff has not told dc 9
us formally "This is what we propose."
Y 6
10 If the board does not know, I don't think sne Appli-E E
11 cant knows.
If it wants to have discovery on these, how is it
- i 12 going to --
E=d 13 MR. LESSY:
It is clear that both these documents
[~x}
2 s_-
E 14 constitute at present our position.
I just don't want to -- I dz 2
15 just don't want to say -- if we want to amend one of these 16 5
16 in three months, I don't want anybody pointing to a hearing
- M d
17 transcript and saying you cannot do that.
5 i
E 18 I just want the flexibility.
This is the position as 5
19 of now.
X n
20 DR. REMICK:
The combination of those two is the current 21 staff proposed conditions.
Is that a correct statement?
i 22 MR. LESSY:
That is correct.
l I
23,
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
If you want to amend them in the 24 future, you had better have good reason.
Do you follow that?
<s
?
t N/
25 MR. LES3Y:
What is the --
y in I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
141 bfm30 1
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
We are trying to set this thing
()
2 up, set it up for hearing now.
You can't just say, "Well, I will V
3 let you know sometime in the future."
4 We always want to be free to amend it.
If you want to 5
amend it in the future, you'd better have good reason for amen-a 6
3 6
ding it.
R b
7 MR. LESSY:
All right.
N k
8 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
If you have no reason, you are not d
q 9
going to be permitted to amend it.
If you have good reason, z
10 we'll have to decide it then.
11 MR. CONNER:
If the board please, could I comment on 3
f I2 one point here?
5 13 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Yes.
fmU l
14 MR. CONNER:
I would like the record to reflect our 5j 15 clear objection to this idea of general discovery, followed by
=
16 g
another prehearing conference.
I know Mr. Lessy is new to this e
d 17 case and is not fully f amiliary with the record.
I am delighted 5
{
18 that he is here now as staff counsel.
C h
19 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
What are you objecting to, another n
20 prehearing conference, or the general discovery?
?
21 MR. CONNER:
Both; to the open so-called general 4
22 doscovery as distinguished from specific discovery.
I object to 1
23 f having to have another prehearing conference ard sort of formulate 24 the issues afterwards.
C_s 25l CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
That's what we're going to try and i
l t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
L
142 bfm31 1
do now.
('^ )
2 MR. CONNER:
I would simply like the record to reflect v
3 that we have been trying in good faith to get this case over for 4
a long time now.
It does not cost the government anything to 5
j go through these hearings, because they get paid anyway.
We are n
6, operating that site now without a bit of income from any source.
R*E 7
We feel we have rights that must be respected to try a
j 8
to do this as expeditiously as possible.
I am sure the board J
9
~.
agrees with us.
zo h
10 MR. LESSY:
I want to make one further point about the
=
5 II license conditions that were filed.
A lot of these conditions a
s" 12 are generic, if you will.
It may be that -- it is our hope that 3
13
/~s 5
a lot of these conditions, as we obtain more information, can be
\\)
=
14 made a little more site-specific.
=
g 5
ze is 33,e xina of minor maaificaticn, or tuning 1, e3e
=
j 16 phrase I use, that I contemplated.
Basically, the staff is going w
f I7 to have to -- if these conditions were ordered, the staff and
=
5 18 the board is going to have to be able to enforce these conditions
_ch I9 g
and to assure compliance with them.
n 20 The more objective the s+;ndard is generally, the more I
aI l 4
easy it is going to be to enforce.
That is the kind of thing 22 iwe had in mind.
23 MR. CONNER:
Mr. Chairman, may I insert another comment?
24 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Yes.
J 25 i
MR. CONNER:
It is a eaestion of how long, oh Lord, how g
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
143 bfm32 1
long?
We have these 16 conditions after the board told the staff
()
2 to do this in a prehearing conference in March of 1979.
3
-Now, we are told that the staff may want to change them 4
again.
We have advised the staff -- I am sure that the technical e
5 staff knows this -- of the existence of the state of Wasington RN 8
6 conditions, which I believe started with 16, but have been modi-e 7
fied largely to make them more comprehensible and less absolute.
8 They also used this.
What I am really saying is if J
9 these conditions are 75 percent unacceptable to us, the state Y
10 of Washington's might be quantitatively 65 percent unacceptable E
5 11 from our standooint, but they do reflect an improvement.
<a J
12 Mr. Lessy suggests that perhaps we talk about these E
r~s
.h 13 16 conditions and try to put them into some kind of less
\\_]
=
E 14 absolute language, or something.
Perhaps it might make haste if du!
15 we were to talk.
w=
16 If the staff submitted a new set of 16 conditions a
M g
17 after some discussion, but on a very tight time schedule like 5
E 18 in two weeks; because otherwise, I'm afraid that the technical E
I 19 i staff or the NRC will not act until they are forced to.
N h
20 I The language, looking at number four, for example, 1
21 which was changed in four documents, direct gamma radiation from i
22, buried waste should be essentially background.
That certainly l
23 tneeds go be clarified.
d n
24 If it means essentially background at the site boundary, us 4
25 at the surface, at some place, that is one thing, but direct i
1 h
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
x.
144 bfm33 1
gamma radiation is going to be whatever it is where you measure
()
2 it.
.3 So, things like this simply need to be clarified.
Some 4
of these things demand these things be eliminated.
Now, you can e
5 not eliminate something entirely.
You can minimize things like a
6 that, but the absolute terms in here could get us into trouble G
7 for years to come.
j 8
This is the kind of thing that could improve it.
I d
m; 9
am just throwing this out as a suggestion.
E 10 DR. REMICK:
Would it be proper to interpret what you j
11 are saying as that you, perhaps fater discussions, stipulate a
j 12 what are the proposed contentions?
I am not saying you agree
=
13 with them, but at least so we knew what the proposed conditions and tly 14 were.- Could this be part of the stipulation?
E
- bgn t22 15 MR. CONNER
I would have to talk to the people at i
Y
)
/
16 NECO, but from a legal standpoint, this would be quite feasible; W
b' 17 now that we know there will be no additional conditions after N
l 18 some esoteric research, or something absent some very good showing E
19 of good cause, as the Chairman has said.
M 20
. CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
These conditions, you want to wait l
4 21 until after you have had some discovery, until you make them l
22,
final as to what exactly you want.
23!
MR. LESSY:
That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
24l CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Do you have -- all right.
We will C:t 25 just have to set down a schedule on discovery on these things, r
!~
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
145 bfm34 1
apparently, and arbitrarily do it, if that is what it is going to
(,)
2 take.
v 3
If you can sit down and draw up the stipulations that 4
Mr. Conner suggested with regard to the first couple of issues s
5 that he wrote, at least get your documents down.
If you want to 8
3 6
call in a witness, if there is some cechnical stuff in there that C
7 you want to have explained or challenged or whatever it is, wa Mj 8
can always put a witness on, or you can do it in depositions, d
o 9
However you want to do that; I cannot tell you how to
,zo 10 do it.
I would rather have it done at a hearing.
E h
II' MR. LESSY:
Basically, what I envisioned was this:
In 3
y 12 light of the order which contemplates the procedures as we go E
(~m 13 forward, I think we need to have a discovery period which basically
%-]
14 has two parts to it.
b i
z r
15 The first would be documentary discovery.
The second E
16 j
would be a limited nummer of depositions pursuant to that.
e 17 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
All right.
=
}
18 MR. LESSY:
I think the second thing that we want after E
l 19 that is.the final prehearing conference pursuant to the Commis-g n
e 20 sion's rules of practice in which such things like summary dispo-21 sition and any factual stipulation matters or anything like that 22 that are hanging are dealt with; orders of presentation, things I
23 ; of this nature.
73 24]
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
One may be necessary.
L>
8 25]
MR. LESSY:
I think the third thing is that -- filed s
a d
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
146 bfm35 I
testimony pursuant to the Commission's regulations which would
(
2
(_)
be after that prehearing conference.
3 Fourth would be the submission of trial briefs, pre-4 hearing briefs if you will, then the start of the hearing.
I suggest and hope that we would not skip any of those steps in 6
reaching s judgment here.
R 7
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
What we want is a list of witnesses, j
8 ineir qualifications, and the documents.
d" 9
~.
MR. LESSY:
List of witnesses and?
E f10 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Their qualifications, if they are
=!
II expert witnesses; and the documents that are going to be offered 3
d I2 through them and their prefiled testimony.
=-
a 13 f'/
'A 5
MR. LESSY:
And a statement of legal position, I
=
s.
14 guess.
k i
15 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Well, if you feel one is necessary.
E I0 MR. LESSY:
I am open to discuss with the board and w
h I7
- other parties in which these five steps occur.
=
3" 18 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
What we are going to try to do is I9 2
set up -- issue an order setting up what the issues are and a
20 setting a schedule for discovery on those issues quite promptly 2I as soon as the three of us can get together.
22 MR. CONNER:
Mr. Chairman, just to comment on this 23 h point, again, the purpose of administrative law is to simplify 24 f the proceedings, not to make them so drawn out that they are going
(~S
(_)
i 25 jj to take for three years.
if ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
147 bfm36 1
If this were carried,out in sequence, it would take
(~')
2 forever.
Certainly, another prehearing conference might be s_/
3 necessary, but it should not be testimony fine to the extent 4
that it can help.
e 5
This is a materials license case.
Most of the factual h
j 6
material is already in the record of the application.
It is R
d 7
already before the board.
Mj 8
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
That is what I am hoping you will d
9 be able to stipulate.
E 10 MR. CONNER:
I hope the stipulation will go forward i
j 11 now and not wait until the conclusion of discovery.
There is no n
i 12 need in doing these things sequentially.
=
l 13 We would really.like to get this case over, but if the s
_]
14 board will entertain all of these formalistic items that Mr.
Ej 15 Lessy is proposing, I would certainly hope they would be completed z
j 16 before the,end of the year.
W d
17 l CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
T,his is another thing that puzzles E
5 18 me from time to time.
What record do we have before us on this 5
19, show-cause proceeding?
Do we have any record?
a 20 MA. CONNER:
Sir, following past practice in this case --
i 21 I in other cases like this, I would presume there would be a stipu-22 lation that the basic record of the application, namely the 1
23, application was filed in 1966.
The license was granted.
The t
l 24 l applications to amend and renew the license was filed then; and I
- b. s) i' s.s 25 j come in with the documentation on that for the next several years; I
f ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
148 ngm37 1
the revised application which was revised in 1976, all the
()
2 questions and so forth filed by the staff thereafter; and the v
3 supplementary information.
All of which would be assembled in 4
a neat package, indexed, documented, and presented to the board g
5 as stipulated, Exhibit A.
j 6
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Any problem with that, Mr. Lessy?
R b
7 MR. LESSY:
As Exhibit A, I have no problem with that.
Aj 8
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
That will be our record.
Oo 9
MR. LESSY:
No, there will be more.
,zo 10 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
There will be more added to it, but 5
11 I want to know where do we start.
3 y
12 MR. LESSY:
That is a starting point.
5 13 7
CEAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
All right.
-s Jl 14 MR. LESSY:
We have to go forward in this proceeding --
b=
15 g
we have to justify, show a reasonable basis for the direcror's
=
16 g
order for the show-cause order.
That will require more than just d
I d
17 I a history lesson.
It will require current information.
That 5
18, is the second part of the so-called factual reccrd which you will c
l 19 lhave in front of you.
6 h>
g n
20 l MR. CONNER:
Current information cannot justify an 21 order issued a year and a half ago, 22 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
We will argue about that when we 23 ' get to it.
24 !
MR. CONNER:
I will apologize.
l 7y l
'~j 25 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
First of all, these two issues as i
ll ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
149 b2m38 1
Mr. Conner posed them, you have mentioned eleven issues.
I do
[J'T 2
not -- I have not combed through all of your papers to find the 3
eleven.
4 MR. CONNER:
We have, and they are really a subset --
g.
5 subsets of ones I have mentioned.
The basic one on position, 9
3 6
the basic one on reasonableness of the initial order.
Then, what-Ea 7
ever would relate to the closure conditions.
A j
8 Those are really the only things in here.
d d
9 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
All right.
We will hear now from Y
10 the State of Illinois.
Ms. Sekuler, what is your position from 3j 11 the State of Illinois?
5 g
12 You were an intervenor in the old proceeding, as I
=
E 13 understand this is a new proceeding set up by the Commission on s
]
5 l
14 this order to show-cause.
Are you going to be a party to this b!
15 proceeding?
w=
16 MS. SEKULER:
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize for our j
A d
17 lateness.
The plane was delayed.
Therefore, I missed about a E
18 half an hour or 45 minutes.
E I
19 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
You have heard most of it.
A 20 ;
MS. SEKULER:
Our first question is -- the answer to 21 your. question is yes, we intend to intervene.
In fact, we did 22 amend. our pleadings last year, approximately March of '79 on I
23 ' issues we believe now conform to the issues that should be 24 addressed in the order to show-cause proceeding.
l s.
v 25 !
However, we did not withdraw our original contentions I
I l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
~
150 r
bfm39 I
that had been filed in the preceeding where NECO was applying for 2
tenewal of its license.
3 We believe that some of the issues that were posed in 4
those original set of contentions which were stipulated to in g5 June of 1978 still present issues that are valid for considera-6 tion at this time, because the deal with such things as de-R b
7 commissioning and things of that nature which we believe were A
j 8
subsumed under contention 45, as we filed our amended contentions, d
n; 9
I would ask the board what was its intent with regard ig 10 to contentions.
If the order to show-cause --
i II CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Issues?
9t I
I2 MS. SEKULER:
Our contentions -- perhaps filing prior E
l 13 to the prehearing conference'.
l 14 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
No problem.
Ef 15 MS. SEKULER:
We would also ask for discovery, parti-g 16 clarly in regard to NECO's ability to formulate a de-commissioning v5 h
17 plan, their financial capability to carry out those plans and x
18 their intent.
=8 I9 g
We have attempted in the past year to work with the n
20 representatives from NECO and have, unfortunately, not been able 21 to get any answers to these questions informally.
22 j
Therefore, we think discovery is absolutely necessary 23! before we can formulate our decisions, as the NRC staff has 24 I indicated, as to what the final types of de-commissioning plan mO I
25 should be required.
?>
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
151 bfm40 1
I think I would like to add --
'fs (a) 2 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
You set up what issues you wish to 3
present.
You will get the record.
You can read it.
You can 4
study the issues and you can put up what issues you feel and 3
5 file those with the board promptly.
Then we will see about N
j 6
discovery.
R R
7 MS. SEKULER:
Do we have to refile for intervention?
N j
8 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
No.
d d
9 (Board conferring.)
i h
10 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
No.
You are accepted as an inter-E 5
11 venor as of right now.
d 12 MS. SEKULER:
Thank you.
As an historical note, because z
5 l
13 Mr. Lessy was'not present in the proceeding last year, I think l
14 I might mention to my knowledge the original draft that was 5
2 15 l Presented by the staff was predicated on the staff's assumption 5
g 16 that Part 61 of the proposed regulations would be forthcoming.
w d
17 I believe some of these conditions were presumably to,
5 I
5 18 be in line with what the staff thought would eventually become E
t 19 part of the rules and regulations.
Xa 20 I believe that our intent would be to premise our require-l 21 ments on the proposed Part 61.
22 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
61 is not a part of the rules yet.
23 '
MS. SEKULER:
Not'yet, they are going to have some 24 i pleadings July 17th and 18th in Chicago.
I do not know when the l
<-)
i
- (/
4 l
25 j finalization of those regulations will come about.
l I
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
152 bfm41 1
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
As I understand it, the only part
')
2 of 10 CFR, Part 20, 30,-40, and 70 are applicable to this pro-q_
3 ceeding.
That is is.
Those are the sections.
4 MR. CONNER:
Parts 2 and 20.
5 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Part 2, of course.
e Ae]
6 MR. CONNER:
Staff argues that.107 confers substantive R
R 7
authority.
I do not agree.
Aj 8
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Part 2, of course, applies.
dd 9
MR. LESSY:
I# there are amendments to the Code of ic h
10 Federal Regulations that had effect, the board would have to E
j 11 consider those.
I mean, we cannot limit -- we cannot draw a line s
y 12 now and say what is in the book today.is the only thing we will E
/~N y
13 consider.
(_)
m l
14 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
If new ones come in, bring them up 5
2 15 and we'll see what we'll do with them then at that time.
y 16 DR. REMICK:
I think what we are saying is 61 does not e
{
17 l exist.
Certainly, we will not consider it.
If you want to take
=
5 18.
parts of 61 and propose them as conditions or something, that is 5
19 jan independent matter.
a 20 To say that the Applicant should comply with 61, which 21 has not been promulgated does not make much sense.
22,
MR.'LESSY:
I cannot possibly disagree with that.
I 23{
(Laughter.)
24 U
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Anything further, Ms. Sekuler?
fx 25 !
MS. SEKULER:
No.
t i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
.~
153 bfm42 1
MR. CONNER:
Mr. Chairman -- being alone against these
()
2 many hosts -- I asrume that whatever discovery the board authori-3 zes would be the same for the staff as for the state.
4 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
That is our intention.
g 5
MR. CONNER:
That was not articulated.
I could inter-8 j
6 pret the colloquy between the board and Ms. Sekuler as saying R
7 something that, to the effect that after they formulate their
- j 8
previous position into new issues, then they will start discovery.
d d
9 I think theyknow what they want to argue about, so it Y
10 seems to me the same discovery schedule should apply across the 3
j 11 board.
s e
12 I would note historically that NECO has been working g3 13 carefully wh the State of Illinois, the Geological Survey, and v
E 14 the Department of Public Health.
15 CHAIRKAN GOODHOPE:
Let's not get into that.
E 16 MR. LESSY:
It would be the same discovery schedule.
j e
p 17, We would not be obliged to file the same documents.
s M
18 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
All right.
Mr. Madson, where does E
I 19 i the County of Bureau fit in here?
5 i
n h
20 MR. MADSON:
The County of Bureau will take the 21 pleadings as they find them, when they are finally resovled and 22 not try to add anything further.
23 f Our ultimate concern is, since we are the jurisdiction 24 having the land, is more on the closure conditions and perpetual f-(_/
r 25 care than the initial issues on the possessing ~of the nuclear h
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
a 154 bfm43 1 ' waste and the termination of the license.
O 2
zn whatever f hion vou mieht wane to descrihe, we w111 3
take the issues as we find them and fit in with whatever we need 4
which I do not think would be too much other than submitting a 5
g brief, or whatever we feel that we have to to protect our position, a
j 6
because we kind of feel like the low man on the totem pole, if R
7 the United States starts dumping this on the State of Illinois, Aj 8
and the State of Illinois starts dumptting it on the county.
4 9
IE.
We have no one left.
We are kind of interested in 10 seeing that the closure conditions are more practically disposed i
11 of.
We will take the pleadings as we find them, is I
I2 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Russell?
Ei p
g 13 MR. RUSSELL:
Mr. Chairman, the intervenors Schieler, V
=
- f
E 14 et al., intend to be a full participant in this proceeding also.
15 Their participation would be limited in the discovery end of it, j
16 primarily to following the lead of the state and NRC.
- ,5 f
17 l In so far as what has gone before us today, we would 3
18 support the statement of issues that has been put forth by the j
=.
l t
19 g
NRC.
I want to respond to one more comment in regard to disco-a 20 very -- I want to respond to one of Mr. Conner's gratuitous 21 statements he put before the board this morning.
22 We are the legal low man on the totem pole.
The govern-23 ment gets paid no matter,what.
That may be true so far as the i
24l attorneys go, but as far as the rest of us are concerned, the V
25 activity today is again demonstrative their slowdown speed-up ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
155 bfm44 I
activities throughout the entire proceeding.
,c
( )\\
2 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
All right.
3 MR. RUSSELL:
They are now trying to speed-up the 4
discovery process, make this board rush through it.
Their acti-5 vities all the way through this proceeding have consistently a
f0 shown -- they have given and taken away whatever served their 7
behest at a particular moment.
N*
8 n
Mr. Armbruster and I have been batting heads with this J
9
~.
probably longer than anybody else in the room.
It has been about zo h
10 five years now nhat we have involved in these proceedings.
II Throughout that time, I have seen their activities.
I a
d 12 E
can only caution the board that a reasonable time for discovery
=a
(~)
5 13 here is going to be somewhat longer than NECO requests.
That's v
m x
I4 all I have to add.
N IS CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
We will worry abou that, Mr.
=
E I0 Russell.
Thank you.
County of Bureau and Schieler, et al., will e
f I7 I be admitted as intervenors in this proceeding.
Mr. Cannon?
=
{
18 MR. CANNON:
Your Honor, the Chicago Section would R
I9 g
offer their expertise again on this aspect of the proposed n
20 proceeding on the same basis as the original proceeding.
We had 2I three individuals in particular, if the hearip3h were to come 22 to fruition fairly soon, who would be avat.ikt. with their exper-23 l tise il this particular area.
/~N 24 The focus proposed by the contribution preg 9 sed by the
(_)
25 i Chicago Society would focus on the issues as raised this morning --
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
156 bfm45 1
it would focus on what the technical ternination conditions should r3
!j 2
be as opposed to who snould have to bear the burden of meeting 3
those conditions, particularly to the extent any new, and what 4
could be characterized as unforeseen during the operational term g
5 of the license -- the conditions that should arise.
E 6
The thrust of that is that the Society feels its R
7 interest and the public interest is in seeing that nobody gets
~
j 8
stuck, or anybody who gets stuck gets stuck only with the absolute d
[
9 minimum requisite to public health, rather than the proceedings
?
10 becoming primarily a contention between NECO and the State as to E
11 who must bear the cost of complying with whatever is established
$3 I
12 as the conditicas.
,=
1
(~)
g 13 ;
The particular individuals offered at this time are
(_-
14 Mr. Larry Hoyan, working on low level waste; Mr. Joe Edelstein, Ef 15 concerning the transportation issues; and Mr. Howard Kittle, E
j 16 who is involved in a nuclear waste research project.
A d
17 :
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
What do you intend to do, present E
x w
18 ' those at the hearing as witnesses?
=&
h 19,
MR. CANNON:
Yes, to the extent --
a i
20 l CEAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Do you have any i.ssues that the i
21! Chicago Section wishes to present at this time?
h 22 l MR. CANNON:
New issues?
No.
I would note to the l
23 ' board, of course, that in line with the purpose of the interven-j i
(Q) 24 j tion as I outlined, we would hope that at a date not too far in
~s i
25, the future, the continued operation issue would be re-added to l
I 4
d ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
157 bfm46 j
the proceeding.
(A_)
We certainly cannot get into that now.
That is the 2
3 focus of the Society's interest.
They feel that they can contri-4 bute to that with, if you will, independent expertise to help the S
board decide the issues, where the existing parties, particularly 4
3 0
on the show-cause order, are now focussing on the contention of R
7 who must bear the burden, rather than on the issue of precisely N2 8
5 what that burden ought to be.
O
[".
9 So, I do not know if we would be arguing for lesser u
5 10 y
conditions or more conditions than the parties.
We would be
=
5 II arguing for the. safe conditions, then means to ameliorate the u
s 12 unforeseen nature of whatever burden that leads to.
4
/~'
g 13 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
I assume you wish to be an inter-V) 3 14 E
venor, too.
{
15 MR. CANNON:
Yes.
=
k I0 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
The Chicago Section of the American a
h I7 Nuclear Society is continued as an intervenor in this hearing on
=
{
18 the order to show-cause.
I have been here trying to think, can P
I9 you come up with these conditions we find anytime in the near e
20l future that you wish to propose so we can get those into an 1
21 order from this prehearing conference?
l 22O MR. LESSY:
Are you addressing me, Mr. Chairman?
l 23lj CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Yes, Mr. Lessy.
What I am getting
(~)
at is we would like to know if you can put them into final form f
24
't) 1 3
25 in the next couple of weeks so that the board thcn ~ill know w
b ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
158 bfm47 1
exactly what the conditions are that you want.
Then, we can put
(~')
2 those into an order following this prehearing conference, so we
'v 3
will'know right where we stand.
It will still be understood 4
that*you can amend them in the future for a good cause, as I stated, g
5 MR. : ~5SY:
I think that is a reasonable request, Mr.
j 6
Chairman.
R 7
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Is two weeks sufficient?
A j
8 MR. LESSY:
I might like the opportunity to discuss the dd 9
conditions with Mr. Conner.
So, let's say approximately two i
b 10 weeks.
E=
g 11 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
All right.
3 y
12 MR. CONNER:
We will assure that it is done in two
=m (o
_g 13 weeks.
_)
=
{
14 MR. LESSY:
We do have this brief to answer that was Ej 15 filed by the American Nuclear Society.
That will take up some
=
16 of that time.
Let's say within three weeks.
I think that will g
w M
17 l be absolutely safe.
w=
5 18 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
That will get us to what, the 5
{
19 15th of July?
This is the 26th; the 15th of July.
Is that too n
20 soon?
21 MR. CONNER:
I would rather have it sooner than that.
22 MR. LESSY:
That will be all right, Mr. Chairman.
The l
i 23 15th of July.
The 17th of July is three weeks.
24 l CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
All right.
Let's do that, and get g_
L-]
i 25 l it to me.
At the same time, I would like you to refine your ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
159 bfm48 1
issues, Mr. Conner, as you see them, as you discussed them here (s()
2 this morning; so that when we put the order out everybody will 3
know exactly what the -- we have something that we have to -- we 4
need a starting document to work from that we don't have now.
5 g
This is the same thing for the State of Illinois, Ms.
N 6
Sekuler.
If you have any issues that you want presented; you R
7 get them in to us in the three week period, so that we can put M
j 8
out an order.
O y
9 MR. LESSY:
Mr. Chairman, might I suggest to get the
?
10 order on the issues after the staff files within three weeks 3
11 these site closure conditions, that any other party -- every other 3
12 ? party, say the Applicant in this case, be required to offer its
=
(')
g 13 comments with respect to those conditions.
(>
i wg 14 Then, we would have the areas of agreement and the E
R 15 areas of disagreement.
E j
16 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
The comments are those are the W
i 17 l issues as you see them.
They will say, "We don't agree with them, E
m 18 and we're going to contest them."
3 P
g 19 l It would seem to me if this is a way you are going to n
1 20 l set it up, then Mr. Conner does not agree witn it.
He is just k
21 going to say, "I do not agree with it.
I am going to contest it." ;
i 22{
MR. LESSY:
Any party would have a chance to file a l
I i
23 ] response --
1 (g
24j CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
We are getting into anothe filing,
's_)
i 25 ] then.
Then, we are going to have two or three more weeks.
Let's 4
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
160 ofm49 1
just put out an order.
2
(
We'll get out an order setting up what the issues are.
3 We will start a schedule of discovery, so we can get this thing 4
going.
g 5
MS. SEKULER:
Mr. Chairman, might I suggest that if the 8
6 NECO company has any areas that they agree to, they might in R
=S 7
response stipulate those particular issues, rather than necessarily a
j 8
having a response?
d o;
9 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
They are going to -- counsel for zoy 10 the NRC and Mr. Conner are going to get together to see if they 3
Il cannot stipulate -- they are going to stipulate what the record 3
y 12 is before us.
=3 gg 5
13 They are also going to enter into some other stipula-
%-)
l E
14 tions.
You'll get the record and read it.
You'll know what they Ej 15 are talking about.
If you have anything to add or contribute
=
g 16 to it, you are welcome to do that.
Likewise, Mr. Lessy and Mr.
e 17 Conner.
N 3
18 MR. CONNER:
If it will help anybody, our position is P
}
19 we have fully complied with conditions one and two.
Everything E
20 has been buried in accordance with the license.
All structures 21 have been decontaminated and taken care of.
22 I see that as a non-issue, but that does not get us 23 ! anywhere.
I 24 i CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
I do not see where we can fight
-s k_)
25, much over that, it either has been done or it has not.
4 l
0 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4 161 afm50 1
MR. CONNER:
Sir, you talk about various parties sub-
/"T' 2
(_)
mitting the new version of the issues.
This is, as we see the 3
record, not as picking our own favorite issues.
You want to state 4
the whole thing as we see.
5 y
In other words, we should include what staff -- what n
5 0
see to be staff's issues as well as our own; or did you mean to R
- S 7
put them in?
j 8
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
I would rather just have you srbmit d
9 your issues and let the staff submit theirs, because what we will
~
?
5 10 get into is 30 pages of argument.
_E!
II MR. CONNER:
Exactly.
Here, again --
3 N
I2 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
This is what we do not want.
g 13 MR. CONNER:
We are quite willing to restate the next k'm)N 14 two issues to help you.
I was just trying to get -- I am trying.
ej 15 to get the record in shape to move forward.
=
y 16 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
That is what we are trying to do.
A f
I7 MR. CONNER:
I will put in what I see to be the general
=
{
18 broad issues to --
c 19 MR. LESSY:
I though the only thing we needed to file i
n 20 now was the site closure condition issues.
2I CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
That is what I want so we can put 22 out an order.
23lj i
MR. LESSY:
We do not need to submit the two overall 24l issues, the unilateral termination -- the show-cause issue -- that 7-
\\_/
25i is the first issue --
it ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
N.
162 bfm51 I
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
He will put that in.
You do not
/
\\
(_)
2 need to worry about that.
MR. CONNER:
An attorney is nothing, if not cautious.
4 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Yes.
Sometimes -- I had better not 5
y say that.
5 0
(Board conferring.)
Rh7 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
What did you say, the 17th?
N2 8
s MR. LESSY:
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to make one d*
9
}.
further statement just so it is clear.
o P
10 j
Take, for example, the first license condition here if
=
5 II you will; one, that.all waste is buried in accordance with require-3 12 ments of the license; and two, that all structures, equipment,
=
(_}-
y 13
(
and materials not to be transferred to the custodial agency have m
z I4 been dismantled, decontaminated, if nea2ssary and disposed of.
IS Whether or not that has been done -- okay -- may or
=
k_I0 may not be subject to a stipulation, if we feel it has not been m
h I7 done, and Mr. Conner feels it has been done.
Then we are going 5
3 18 to have to present evidence on that point.
P "g
19 I mean, we will have to present evidence as to what
=
20 the -- whether or not the structures, equipment,.and materials 2I have been dismantled, and decontaminated.
22 That is why I want to work closely with Mr. Conner and
)
23 the other parties on this.
I am a litt',c less optimistic than
,r 3 24l perhaps the board is on the scope of such a stipulation.
\\_)
25 :
We will try.
0 i
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1
163 1
A A
GOODHOPE:
I do not know.
I might have to take bfmS2
('N 2
my two experts on either side of me and just ride out there and
%)
3 see if it has been done.
I might not want any evidence.
Is 4
there anything further?
Yes, Mr. Cannon.
e.
5 MR. CANNON:
On the technical conditions, would it be R
8 6
possible to submit a suggestion for phrasing the issues in terms e
Rg 7
of whether certain technical conditions should be required at the s
j 8
site as opposed to focussing narrowly in terms of licensee should d
d 9
be required to comply with this condition as a condition of clo-i O
b 10 sure.
E E
11 Or, site owner should be required to do it; or staff
<m d
12 should be required to do it.
What I am getting at, is it 3ad 13 possible i n this proceeding to usefully separate the technical t
D w
E 14 need in the interest of public health and safety for certain w
2 15 physical conditions on the site, as opposed to the issue of who 5.
16 it should be imposed on?
k2 y
17 j CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Fixing the responsibility?
w=
5 18 MR. CANNON:
Yes, that is a separate issue.
It would E
I 19 have the advantage of -- to use the sequential issue here, for h
20 example, with the State of Illinois as the owner of the land.
21l To argue one round of proceedings here that NECO should l
b 22J e required to do this and then not be faced with the concerns t
i 23 ! raised with the County of Bureau; that next year if the issue is 24hshouldtheStateofIllinoisberequiredtodoit, we are not d
25 ] debating the same conditions again.
n i
i l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
164 bfm53 1
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
We have not gotten into that this
/^%
(-)
2 morning.
That is another issue.
Who is going to end'up ultimately 3
bearing the responsibility?
4 A whole lot of us may have made some mistakes some-e 5
where along the line.
Now, we have to decide how we are going En' 6
to cure this in a safe fashion.
R 7
Maybe some responsibility goes to everybody.
K]
8 MR. LESSY:
Mr. Chairman, it is an interesting sort of d
9 intervention that the Chicago Section has.
It really is stating 3
h 10 as an amicus curae to utilize this expertise that exists as to 5
h 11 what the appropriate conditions would be.
3 y
12 I do not have a problem with that, although it is an 5
()
13 unusual' type of intervention.
To the extent that those experts 14 would have to be evidentiary presentations, we would have to ask w=
2 15 them some questions so the board would know what weight to give x=
y 16 to their suggestions.
w p
17 The notice of hearing in this case, which limits the x=
5 18 proceeding, is one, the unilateral termination issue and secondly, F
-[
19 what conditions are appropriate on the licesnee for site n
20 closure?
21 I do not think, with all due respect, that we can 22, expand the proceeding into anything more than that.
As was just i
l 23 ! recently suggested --
I t
{}
24 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
You mean as to fixing responsibility 25 in the future?
)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
165 bfmS4 I
MR. LESSY:
Yes.
The Commission's order in Marble Hill Ak/
2 was issued March 13, 1980.
I do not have the full site to it.
3 Basically, the proceeding is bounded by this notice of hearing 4
issued by the Commission.
That is an admissible conclusion from 5
j that.
N 3
6 I do not think this proceeding -- i rthis proceeding R
b 7
here, which is a limited proceeding, you want to get into the 2
8 n
question of state versus county versus NECO versus anybody else.
d 9
z.
That is not at issue right here.
o h
10 If someone has a complaint in that regard, it does
=
II beyond this proceeding, under the Commission's teaching in Marble 3
12 E
Hill.
That request for additional action would be treated under
=
U
()x g
13 l
14 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
You are suggesting if we come
$jj 15 somewhere to the conclusion that NECO's filing; that all the z
E I6 conditions, and that their license should be terminated, and they e
(
I7 should be able to abandon that, then we should just leave it right
=
i
{
18 there?
=
I9 l 8
g MR. LESSY:
If they met all the requirements that the n
20 board feels -- then, there is no additional requirements no 21 impose upon NECO.
22 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
All right, then.
NECO's license 1
23l is -- who is going to end up with the place, then?
Mr. Madson is
/~)
24 not going to like that one bit.
\\_/
k 25 -
MR. LESSY:
The license conditions that we filed talk 4
il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
166 bfmS5 I
about transference to a custodial agency.
That is how that issue
?%
V 2
gets in.
3 I think.if counsel for the Nuclear Society --
4 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
We are probably just starting s
5 trouble on this.
Mr. Cannon, I don't know whether I'm going to 6
let you get into that er not.
We'll worry about that when we R
7 get to it.
=l 8
DR. REMICK:
It seems to me, I don't know how you can J
n; 9
separate it, but it does not seem like the board basically has 2
10 to decide the question.
z=
11 Can the Applicant unilaterally terminate the license?
m I
12 If the board should decide that, yes, they can --
E
(')N y
13 MR. LESSY:
You do not reach the second question.
~
a 14 DR. REMICK:
You do not reach the second question.
If 15 you decide no, they cannot, the question is are there conditions y
16 that must apply, be imposed before the license can be terminated?
A b~
17 It seems to me in those that there are conditions, 5
5 18 there might be a question of who has to carry out those conditions.
C-19 m
I do not know.
M 20 We'll have to see it when we get into it.
Do you agree 21 that is kind of the order in which the hearing would proceed?
1 22 MR. LESSY:
Yes.
Liability before remedy.
23l CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Mr. Conner?
(~}
24l MR. CONNER:
May I make a suggestion?
Since we are s-c 25 going to ave all those other formalities and if the board is I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
167 bfmSG I
uncertain as to its jurisdiction beyond NECO, why not certify it
/^T k/
2 to the Commissioners in the interval and get some instructions 3
on it?
4 It may be that if NECO -- if our theory is correct, and g
5 NECO is dismissed, there is no proceeding; the fall-out from that 9
5!
6 would be that Illinois is bound by the agreement that it made R
b 7
with the Federal Government back in 1966.
i Mj 8
That does not address the question as to what this d
y 9
board's responsibilities are, if any.
It might save time in the z
1 0
1 y
10 long run, simply to certify that question up to the Commission 5
h 11 while we are doing these other things.
m N
12 (Board conferring.)
=
()
13 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
I do not think that is practical, mg 14 Mr. Conner.
Ej 15 MR. CONNER:
Okay.
=
E I6 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Does anyone have anything further?
M h
I7 l (No response. )
E 18 You're going to file your issues and statement of issues g
c8 19 g
on Jule 17th.
They're going to be filed on or before July 17th.
n 20 DR. LITTLE:
That does not say that you can't get them 21 in earlier than that.
22 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
They're going to file those, then 23 we're going to set up a schedule for discovery on those issues.
, ~}
24 l Therefore, file as quickly afterwards as we can.
l
{,
4 25,
MR. LESSY:
I would trust that the schedule for I
L ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
168 bfmS7 l
for discovery would afford an opportunity and ample time to have
/']
(_/
2 a request, get objections, go down to St. Louis, whatever, pick
]
3 the documents, have them copied and examine them and go through 4
the whole process.
j 5
y CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
We'll set a schedule.
If you eed 4
j 6
time during that schedule, why you file a motion.
Yes, sir?
R
\\
- S 7
MR. MADSON:
Mr. Chairman, it is probably a silly M
]
8 question, but the proceddings here -- when discovery is ordered J
9 by one party or another, all the intervening parties have given zey 10 copies of the discovery documents, aren't they?
E II CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Not necessarily.
B N
I2 MR. LESSY:
If we file a discovery request directed
=
(}
13 towards NECO,-and we go down and they make their files available, m
5 I4 and we pick out X-number of documents and leave many documents 2
15 there.
There really is no role in there for you.
,=
j 16 If you want documents --
w N
I7 !
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
What he wants to know, the docu-
-a E*
18 ments that you take -- that you pick up, would he get copies of?
E l9 q
MR. LESSY: Not as a matter of course, a
20 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Are these discovery requests filed --
2I where is it?
Where is the depository; for this proceeding, where 22 f is the depository?
l 23 '
MR. LESSY:
The public document room.
Discovery 24fi documents are now put in the public document room.
It is a matter 25 j between the parties.
.)
s
.4 l
ll ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
e 169
.bfmS8 1-MR. MADSON:
We are a party, since we have been allowed
.(o) 2 to intervene.
3 MR. LESSY:
You would have to file discovery requests 4
against the staff saying "We want all documents you got under g
5 discovery."
E 6
You do not automatically have a right to --
R 7
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Here is the problem.
Say, Mr.
Ml 8
Lessy gets discovery from NECO on some documents.
The question d
d 9
is, does he -- he gets his copy of them.
Does he make four more Y
10 copies to send out to the rest of the intervenors?
E h
11 MR. 03@ER:
The rules require us to serve -- if we 3
y 12 produce a given document, we have to send it in to the board and E
(~T g
13 so forth. 'In formal discovery, we would do this; informal C/
=
l 14 discover -- I think what Mr. Madson and Mr. Lessy are talking 2
15 about -- I guess that's up to them.
w=
y 16 We have no control over it.
We do want to cooperate.
m M
17 Here, again, we do not know what Mr. Lessy has in mind for 5
E 18 discovery.
=
{
19 Obviously, we will bring the state of the record up n
20 to date.
We will provide them anything they do not already have.
21 Beyond that, I do not know.
22 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
That is the problem.
Mr. Madson 23 ' asks will he get to see everything that is produced in discovery.
6 24 The answer is no.
You will get to see everything that is effered (U) j 25,
in evidence.
He may discover 100 documents and offer one into i
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
a 170 ofmS9 i
evidence.
You will not see the other 99.
Ii MR. MADSON:
That is the question.
Well, I'm a.'.most 2
v
-3 ashamed to say it, but sometimes we don't trust the government.
4 (Laughter.)
DR. LITTLE:
Here is the situation.
Mr. Lessy goes g
5 G
6 down.
He asks for the 100 documents.
He is looking for things e
in there that will meet his needs, not necessarily your needs.
7 S
8 Ee may find one document out of 100 documents that he is interected n
d
=
9 in, and hand the other 99 back.
i h
10 MR. MADSON:
Hopefully -- we are placing a great deal E
5 11 of faith in the public interest here.
That is; whether it is d
12 demonstrated by NRC or not, we would kind of like to look over 3
(s h
13 a shoulder as to whether we are getting sold out or not.
5 E
14 DR. LITTLE:
One intervenor cannot expect another w
b l
15 intervenor or another party to make discovery for him.
If he
=
16 wants to make discovery, he must do it himself.
a A
MR. MADSON:
All I wanted to do was avoid a great deal 37 x
18 of undue duplication of efforts.
If they are putting in every-
=
h 39, thing that is being discovered in a reasonable fashion, or some-
=
i n
4 20 thing being suppressed, we want everything done openly.
i 2j We do not have to second-guess our own government.
MR. LESSY:
A person who intervenes as a party to a 22 23, proceeding, there are certain rights and responsiblities he has.
I
\\
24 [ We are going to try the cases we see fit.
If you want to engage
\\_)
q 25 i in discovery you engage in discovery as you see fit.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
171 bfm60 1
If you want what we have in our files, ask for it.
o kl 2
Unfortunately, it is a little bit of a formal process.
l 3
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Or you can come down to Washington 4'
and look at it.
g 5
MR. MADSON:
All right.
E]
6 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
That will be permitted, won't it?
R 7
MR. LESSY:
If he files a discovery request, certainly.
A j
8 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Could he ask informally to see it?
d d
9 MR. LESSY:
I am not sure, given the statements that I,
h 10 he just made; but I would permit him informally to do it.
E 11 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
He was not serious on that, I 3
y 12 don't think.
E 13 (Laughter.)
l 14 MR. CONNER:
Make him post bond.
2 15 (Laughter.)
5 y
16 MR. LESSY:
We do xerox a copy -- chere are charges e
i 17 for that also, just as NECO will charge us, wx 5
18 DR. LITTLE:
Finally, of course, if the staff has an
~
e 19 agreement with NECO to get some document which is proprietary, M
20 that does not transfer to some other party.
You would have to 21 initiate that yourself.
22 MR. CONNER:
Thank you, that is a separate ball game, 23 '
of course.
I don't know there is any proprietary documentation,
(')
24 j ' but obviously if there were a legitimate proprietary document, 3
25 l everyone would have to sign an agreement.
j 4
f i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
s-e 172 bfm61 I
CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
Do you understand that?
t0 v
2 MR. LESSY:
Yes.
3 CHAIRMAN GOODHOPE:
This got over sooner than I thought 4
it would.
Anybody have anything further?
g 5
(No response.)
9 3
6 The hearing will be adjourned to be reset by the board.
e n
b 7
(Thereupon, at 10.58 a.m.,
the prehearing conference 2
8
.4 in the above-entitled matter was recessed, to reconvene at a d"
9
~.
date to be determined by the Board.)
E 10 E
llll g
11 m
j 12 s
Oi' E
14 id
.u 2
15 j
16
- rs
-p 17 4
5 18-5 19 e
20 21 22 23 t
t 24 6 (q
25 '
i;
-0 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
t
o e
l O
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
Nuclear Engineer ng Company, Inc. (Sheffield)
Date of Proceeding:
June 26, 1980 Docket Number:
27-39 Place of Proceeding:
Peoria, Illinois j
i were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.
David S. Parker Official Reporter (Typed)
O Official Reporter (Signature)
O
.