ML19344B246
| ML19344B246 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1980 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008260012 | |
| Download: ML19344B246 (24) | |
Text
_
i THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS P00R QUAUTY PAGES t
_i 1
CIISD STATES OF AMERICA 2j NUCLEAR REGUIATORY CCMIISSION 3
EEFORE THE ATCMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ECARD i
4l, 5!
In the Matter of:
e t
i p,
6 NORTERN STATES PCWER COMPANY, Docke t Nos. 50-282 (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating 50-306 n
R 7j Plant, Units 1 and 2.)
3 i
8' (Spent Fuel Fool Modification) u e
d 9i Y
~
_r:
10 ;
i St. Paul, Minneso ta,
2.e 11 >
Wednesdav,, Auguse 6, 1980.
i a
i 12,
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pur-e:i g
1.1 suant to no tice, at 9 : 30 o ' c lock a.a.
- r 14 '
2EFORE:
S:
15.
ROBER"' M.12E0, CEA IR.'%N, C;UENTIN J. STOBER, DAVD L.
E
{
HETRICK, Atomic Safety and Licensing 3 card Panel.
T 16
?.
A
>MRLENE E. SENECFAL and JCCELY:! F'J.C2NGLE2 OL5C';,
li 17 Special Assis tant Attorney Generals, F.innesota Pollution E
Centrol Agency, S tate of Minnesota, and AL ZLUALC:IYX, t
18 Law Cle rk.
i 19 ;
CFARLES 2ARTH, Esc., NRC ji a
ji 20 !
R03ERT E. >MRTIN, Proje c: Manager, ?rairic Island I~
Power Plants.
21
{
. S Lr.n..,..,w,,
r n,,,,. u 2 : w ~A-v.,
_, r. _. e..
.w s a nd
,CSr.,.t.-
_r.. _ u.. G,,
l nz
~. ~.
22 )
Sha'a
?itt=an, Fotts & Trowbridge, 1800 M S tr;a t, :..:,,
j Washington, D. C. 20036, appearing for Northern States j
23 Power Company, the licensee.
24 i' 1
25 j
$ COD bD Oh i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 2
i 1!,
_P _R _O _C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S i
2i CHAIR}%N LAZO:
Will the hearing come to order?
I 3
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
i 4l I apologize for this slight delay while we were wait-i t
g 5i ing for the court reporters to get se t up.
n l
6, This is an adminis trative procedure before the Atomic n
h7 Eafety and Licensing Board in the matter of Northern States i
u g
8' Power Company (?rairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units a
9 i
Nos. and 2).
z
'O 10 '
j j
The preceeding is identified as United States Nuclear
=
f II Regulatory Commission Dccke t Nos. 50-282 and 50-306.
N 12 l The proposed administrative action is the issuance of f
13 amendments to Facility Opera ting Licenses Nos. DPR-42 and DFR-6C 5
14 '
E which currently authorize the licensee, Northern States Power u
15 '
i Company, to possess, use, and operate the Prairie Island Nucleaq
=
?
16 i
j Generating Plant, Units Nos.1 and 2, located 'in Goodhue County,I E
17 i
0 Minnesota.
=
E 18 1
The amendments which licensee has recues ted would 0
19 g
authorize the licensee to expand the spent fuel storage capccity.
of the Frairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant from 687 to 21]
1,532 fuel asse=blies.
y 22 j Cn February 28, 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Com-i 23 "
j mission issued a notice antitled,' Proposed Issuance o!.;me nd-24 4 L
ment to Facility Operating License".
That notice was given 25 general public distributica, including the neus media, and was ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
n.
4 3
1, published in the Federal Regis ter on Shrch 12, 1980 2i The citation is 45 Federal Register 16056.
3l The notice provided, among other things, that any per-l 4'
son whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who g
5!
wishes te participate as a party in this preceeding may file a sj 6;
petition for leave to intervene in accordance with the Commis-t R
=5 7
i sion's Rules of Practice in 10 CFR Part 2.
s i
8 i
1 n
Cn April 9,1980, the State of Minnesota, by its 0
9' A ttorney-General, Warren Scannaus, and its Pollution Control 10 '
j' Agency, filed a timely regtest that the Commission hold a public
==
11 j
hearing to consider licensee 's reques t to expand the spent fuel 12
storage capacity of the Prairie Island unit and petitioned for I
13 g
leave to intervene as a party to such proceeding.
I4 h
Both the licensee and the NRC staff filed responsive u0 15 '
i 2
pleadings, stating that they would not take issue with the I
I 16 y
State's showing of interest nor its description cf the aspect I
E 17 y
of the subject matter of the proceedings as to which the State l
.l E
18 g
wis hes to intervene.
t 19 I f
i j
Thereaf ter, on April 24, the State filed a supclement l 20j to its pe tition for leave to intervene se tting orta its con-
' li 21 '
I tentions and bases therefor.
- {
22 i Cn June 23, 1930, this A tomic Safe ty and Lic2nsing i
23 :
2 card, which had been es tablished to rule on petitions for
)
24 leave to intervene and/or requests for hearing and to preside 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1 i
4 1!
over the proceeding in the event that a hearing is ordered, is-
}-
l 2
sued a notice of prehearing conference to be convened here to-3 day in St. Paul at this location to consider the petition filed 4l by the State of Minnesota and the need for further actions in g
5 this proceeding.
0 l
6 All parties and the petitioner or their respective R
R 7
counsel were directed to attend the prehearing conference.
A j
8, Now let me introduce the members of the Atomic Safety i
e i
9 and Licensing Board which will hear and decide this cas e.
z h
10 l Seated at my right is Quentin J. Stober who is research z
I
=
l 11 l professor, Fisheries Research Institute at the University of S
(
12 l Washington in Seattle.
Dr. Stober has bean a member of the 1
5
/
g 13 !
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel since 1974
=
m g
14 l Seated at my lef t is David L. He trick.
Dr. Retrich E
15l' j
is professor of nuclear engineering, University of Arizona.
He
=
j 16,
has been a member of' the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board panel t
E 17 '
s ince 1972.
a
,U i
{
18 !
My name is Robert M. Lazo.
I have been a member of
- I c
i "g - 19 l the panel since 1970.
[
=
20 !
T et me now call for appearances of the parties.
I 21!
For the licensee,
d I
22 3 MR. SILEERG:
Chairman, my name is Jay Silberg, f
23 i
partner in the law firm of Shaw, Pittman, Pc tts & Trowbridge,
l 24
'4 ash ing ton, D. C.
l 25]
Accearing with =e today on behalf of the licensee and ]
I i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I
i I
i 5
1.-
the applicant for the amendments in this proceeding, northern 2
States Power Company, Deborah Berstein of the same law firm, t
3 and Joseph Bizzano of.iorthern States Power Company.
I 4;
MR. BARTH:
Mr. Chairman, I'm Charles A. Barth.
I'm 5l attorney with the Office of the E::ecutive Legal Director.
I s
n 6!
work for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and represent its A
\\
R 7
staff in this proceedings, sir.
-f8 CHAIRMAN LAZO:
For the State of Minnesota.
d 1
9i MS. SENECHAL:
Mr. Chairman, my name is Marlene z
i O
g 10 i Senechal.
I'm a Special Assistant Attorney-General.
z
=
j 11 j With me today is Jocelyn Olson who is also a Special a
I y
12 i Assistant Attorney General, and Al Kowalchyk, who is a law 5
I j
13 '
clerk with our firm.
=
-z E
I4 CHAIRMAN LAZO:
Thank you all here.
You ' re mos t wel-n I
=
t 5
15 i
- come, i
16 W
As our firs t order of business, I wanted to cention s
(
17 that the Board made a visit yesterday, August 5, to view the i
i
~
i g
18 !
s pent fuel storage pools 'at the Prairie Island f acility.
Coun-n l
1 I
39 g
i sel.for all of the parties were invited but chose not to be in n
i 20 !
attendance, and each has--let me jus t check.
l 4
21h I spoke with counsel for the NRC staff who has waived !
22 i any objection to the Board's viewing the sp r.: fuel pools.
f I
23 f
35L. EARTH:
That's correct.
i 24 CHAIRMAN IAZO:
Mr. Silberg, I also understand that l
25 1 the licensee. also waived any objection to the Scard viewing l
1 i
S ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
t
i l
O 1
the facilities and not being accompanied by counsel for tha 2l partie s.
3 MR. SILBERG:
Ye s, s ir.
4 CHAIRMAN LAZO:
Did you also communicate my request i
e 5;
to the counsel for the State of Minnesota?
r i
H j
Yes.
Las t Friday I spoke with ecunsel y
8 7
for the Minnesota Pollution Agency for the S tate of Minnesota aj 8!
and informad them that the Board wished to take a site tour, d
I 9l asked them whether they wished to attend, and they daid that n
3 l
5 10 l they' would waive the right to go along on that tour.
z
=
I j
11 l CHAIRMAN LAZO:
Very well.
D I
(
12 l Now, each of the parties has posed no objections to 4
g 13 l t he petition by the State as far as standing is concerned, and
=
j 14 !
rbcently the NRC staff and the licensee hcs respended to the
=
=
i 15
.g State 's revised contentices, indicating at leas t no objection to i
j 16 one or more contentions, which would appear to mean that we
^l m
N 17 are new in a position to rule on the petition and to admit the
{
18 '
Stata of Minnesota as a party to the preceeding.
i i
r t
39 That would seem to be the first order of business, to m
i n
i 20 discuss the contentions, t alk about scheduling of the hearing; 21 l but before proceeding to do that, I think it would be appropri-22 ll ate to ask if any of the parties wish te make an opening state-23 -
cent.
-I.
- Yes,
'@, Chairran.
1 25 8 t
As I think the Board is aware, the partics have since t
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 2
/
I the pe tition was initially filed been in contact and have had 2'
a number of discussions as to the substance of the contentions 3
originally raised by the State of Minnesota.
- Je have had mee t-4 ings here in Minnesota at which both the NRC s taff counsel, li-5 g
censeeand PCA attended in which we attempted to e::plore and S
3 6
better unders tand the nature of the concerns by additional in-R i
7l formation and generally attempted to resolve this matter with-l "5
8' out. the necessity of a hearing.
M d
}"
9l As a result of those mee tings, the State of Minneso ta 1
E 10 i j
has earlier filed their withdrawal to Contention 3 in this pro-11 l s
ceeding.
a i
i I
5 l
Subsequent to the filing of tha t withdrawal, the par-3 13 i j
ties have had additional discussions ; and as a result of these E
14 l g
discussions, counsel for the parties have agreed in substance 9
15 i j
to the withdrawal of all contentions, the withdrawal of the 16.
pe tition for interventien, and the reques t for hearing and have 17 agreed to request that this licensing board terminate che pro-cw 18 i
i
- cceding, j
E 19 !
l 3
Prior. to finalizatien of this agreement, however, it 20 !
i will be necessary for the State of Minnesota to present the 21 i h
agreement before the board of the Minnesota Follution Control 22 '!
j Agency.
23 j '
Counsel for the company has discussed the substance l
)
24 j i
3 and the specific language cf the agreement with the ccepany, and !
25 j i
1 a
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i I
8 1.
the company is prepared today to accept that.
2, The NRC S taf f, counsel, and its technical assis tants 3l have reviewed the terms of the proposed agreement, and as I r
i 4i understand it, are willing to accept them at this time.
e 5!
Counsel for the State has reviewed them and are will-0 3
6' ing to accept them but have stated that the terms must be pre-R 7l sented to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Rj 8:
It is my understanding that the next meeting of that 0
9l agency is scheduled for August 26; and at that time, counsel 3
10 would be prepared to present and recommend MPCA's adoption and z
E I
4 Il I
agreement to the s tipulation.
5 E
12 :-
What we would propose at this time is that the board--
)
E 3.
13,
CHAIRMAN LAZO (interrupting):
Pardon me, c:unselor.
m i
5 I4 What date was that?
i j
15,
MR. SILBERG:
August 26.
=
y 16 (Continuing)
What we would propose at this time is x
17 y
that the Board take no further action in issuing rulings cr j
18 decisions in this matter but to await what all parties hope 19
_5 g
will be the signing of an agreement in this matter which would l 20 j call for the termination of this proceeding; and immediately l
21
)
af ter the appropriate documents are signed follcwing approval 22 :!
by the MPCA board, a =o ti n would be filed with this licensing 23 -
board asking that the proceeding be cerninated supporting by
+
24 '
l the a3reement that 's signed.
25 With that as background, I be ? ieve, and I think other '
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
l i
9 I
1 parties agree, that no immediate action is needed by this i
i 2
Board.
3 I would, however, like to note in the unlikely, 4
what we all hope is the unlikely event, tha t the MPCA board i
does not accept the stipulation, I would propose the follow-e 5
i E
3 6,
ing course of events :
R I
7 Licensee has objected to the State 's contention, No.
~
j 8'
1, on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
U 0;
9i As we s tated in our filing, the odier parties are z
i h
10 l allowed to file a response to that argument.
I originally E
i
-]
11 ;
suggested in my submittal that that response be made today a
y 12 !
because we are here in conference.
In light of' the agreements !
E g
13 i tha t have been reached, it would not be.necessary or appropri-
=
zg 14 ate to have that discussion at this time.
s E
i 15 -
g However, in the unlikely event tha t this agreement j
16 '
is not signed because of the action of the !ECA board, I would
^
y 17 ask that written responses be filed not more chan one we-k i
=
I l
3 18 l af ter the date of the August 26 meeting on the res judicata i
l
-p 19 g
L and collateral estoppel cues tion a n d that the 3 card, sub-l l
1
=
20 sequent to the receipt of these papers, promptly issue an l
21,
appropriate prehearing conference order.
At that time ne 3
l 22 I could preceed with further discovery, if necessary, and i
23 )
scheduling of the evidentiary hearing itself.
All parries l
24 J hope thac thct will be unnecessary, Mcwever, rather chan 25 have another pr.1 hearing conference, af ter what we hope ;c be ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I i
i l
10 l
1 !
a very low probability of that, we think that this aan be done 1
2l by written pleadings addressed to the Boa.d, and the 2oard 3
would have encugh information at that time to make an appropri-i 4!
a te determination on the only issue which would be outs tanding, I
i e
5I which is the acceptability of Contention 1.
?
6!
CEAIRMAN LAZO:
Counsel, if the next mee ting of the 1
R 7'
MPCA is August 26, how soon thereaf ter would the licensing j
8l board be advised as to whether or not the board had accepted e
i
?,
9j the s tipulation?
10 MR. SILBERG:
I would see no problem in advising you 3
d 11 l telephonically as soon as we got word of the board's action, j
a f
12 i What Iwould propose is that counsel for the State jus t call
)
E 13 everybcdy up and let them know what happened.
2 5
14 CHAIRMAN LAZO:
Do you contemplate presenting the I
y 15 l Ecard with the copy of the agreement?
=
g 16 MR. SILBERG:
Yes, at the time we file a motion sub-z 17 l
8 sequent to approval by the FECA beard, we would include as an I
p r
y 18 l attachment to that motion the agree =ent reached by the parties. ;
19 j
In subs tance, the agree ent calls for a license con-l 20 !
dition or technical specification to be included in the licenses!
1 21 i 9
for Prairie Island Facility in the event the NRC s taff approves.
1 s
22 )
the proposed reracking.
23 The license acendment would, in substance, provide e
24i I
that no more 1,120 spent fuel assemblies could be s ecred in tl.e 25 spent fuel pools until such time as the NR3 had approved the i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1 i
11 i
i 1
insertion and withdrawal of the spent fuel shipping cask into
)
2j the small pool.
It would not limit the use of the small pool 3i for local or off-load or other nonroutine temporary withdrawal 1
i 4'
of fuels.
l g
5)
CHAIRMAN LAZO:
As to Contention No. 2 ?
ti I
j 6
MR. SILBERG:
That con te ntion would be withdrawn.
R 7'
CHAIRMAN LAZO:
The Commission certainly encourages s
8i settlements and comments counsel f c.r the parties for the ef-I d
1 91 forts they have made in attempting to reach such a settlement.
z
.i Oy 10 !
However, the State has raised some safe ty issues.
I think we E
II.
4 would want to know how those would be addressed.
i s
t n
i j.
12
{
MR. SlL3 ERG:
I wculd note in that connection that t
=
1
)
i 13 -
i the issue presented by Contention 2--well, first of all, I E
I4 '
think the stipulation addresses on its face the safety issues i
e O
15 b
i that have been raised by the s tate in connection with Contsn-l
=
E tion No. 1.
i A
I 37 '
t d
CHAIRMAN LAZO:
Yes, that appears to have been the
=
E 10 '
pcsition of the state all alcng.
\\'
19 -
l; j
j MR. SlLBERG:
As far as Contention No. 2, as ide from l
20 i;l the legal ques tion as to whether that issue is even appropri-
'(
21 in light of the Ccmmiscian's statement of policy on the are 22 1 h andling for accidents, I would note that that exac t same is-23 '
cue was racently litigated before the Minnesota Energy Agency
)
24 in a hearing to which the M?CA was a party, that evidence vas 25 f
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
i 12 i
1 presented by intervenors in that proceeding and by the appli-1 I
/
2; cants on the likelihood of so-called, what used to be known as 3
Class 9 accidents involving spent fuel pools, so that that is 4{
an issue that has been litigated, and the decision based on i
5l that hearing has not yet been issued, but there was a full e
6 3
6 ventilation, to use the words of one Judge, of that issue R
l 2
7 quite recently in a proceeding to which MPCA and the State of Mj 8
Minnesota were parties, d
=
9 CEAIRMAN LAZO:
Mrs. Senechal, do you have anything 5
10 to add to what counsel for the licensee has stated?
z=
i j
11j MRS. SENECHAL:
Mr. Chair =an, I essentially agree a
(
12 l
.with counsel for licensee as stated.
3
/
g 13 With respect to :the stipulation that we have dis-
=
l 14 cussed, our position is that we are prepared to recommend this t
1 4
2 15 l to our client but that we cannot commit to it since it has not I i
5 g
16 '
been submitted to our client yet.
We have discussed in sub-A i
17 stance the contents of the stipulation with the PCA staff, with 5
i 1
h 18 ;
cartain members of the PCA staff, and we vill be presenting it l 19 to the e:cecutive director of the FCA, and we will, in turn, j
n r
s 20 '
present it to the PCA board on Augus t 26.
21i.
With respect to the safety issues that were raised 5
22)!
in our contentions, we do believe that t h e safe ty issue:
23 in Contantion Nc. 1 could be dealt with through the stipula-l 24 i tion, as counsel for th'e licensee has suggested.
j 25 With_ respect co Contentien Sc. 2, this icsue was
[
l 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l l
13 i
i socewhat litigated in a state proceeding.
I should point out 2j that licensee in that proceeding sdamitted dhat the state had 3
no authority with respect to this issue, but they did offer i
4' tes timony with respect to the probability of the kinds of acci-e 5;
dents we 're talking about.
There was no testimony with respect l
?
6' to the consequences, and, of course, that will be something we e
i 6
7
- will be discussing with our client when we do discuss this
-n j
8l s tipula tion.
d 9l CHAIR.YAN LAZO:
When you refer to the s tate hearngg, zo
\\
10 !
was that the hearing regarding the certificate of need or--
z 1
=
IIl MRS. SENECHAL (interrupting):
Yes, that's correc t.
3 y
12 1 CHAIRMAN LAZO (con:inuing):
--was that an environ-
=
i g
13 -
cental quality hearing ?
x I4
>SS. SENECHAL:
There 's been two s tate hearings, the u=
f g
15 ;
one where the tes timony regarding probability of an accident l
i j
16 I of this type was discussed was the certificate of need hearing f s"
17 before the Minnesota Energy Agency.
i
=
a l
3 18 CHAIRMAN LAZO:
- hat is the s tatus of thesa hearings,,
n 5 - 19 have they been completed?
i i
i 20 '
MRS. SZUECHAL:
3cth hearings have been ec ple :ed.
i 21 i i
l F
The hearing in regard to the question of whe ther er I
I 22) not a state Z:3 is required 7111 be before
-'c
"--esota in-j I
23 viron= ental Quality Ecard on Septacher 13.
Ihe hearing enam-i 24 g iner's report in that matter has been issued, and the carries 25 -
have filed exceptions Oc the hearing examiner's r port if they J
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i 5
l 14 l
1!
chose.
)
i 2l MS. SILEERG:
I would note for ~ the record that tha t 3
hearing examiner's report recommended that no environ = ental i
4i impact staten ent subject to state law was required with regard i
I e
5i to rereacking of the Prairie Island pools.
l 6l MRS. SENECHAL:
Tha t's correct.
R 7
With respect to the matter before the Minnesota Energy U
g 8
Agency, the hearing examiner has not yet issued his report.
O l
9 z.
Briefs were to be filed September 22.
Tha t was based on the as-O I
g 10 l sumption that the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board would 3
h 11 ;
act on the ques tion of the EIS in August.
Tha t mee ting was can-u y
12 !
celed and it has been subsequently rescheduled for Sepeccher 18,
)
E 13 and we have filed a motion, therefore, to have the briefing z
5 14 schedule also moved back 30 days.
So I would e:cpect that tha t
=
{
15 i decision will be sc=e:ime this fall but I couldn' t say when.
=
d 16 CEAIRMAN LAZO:
Would you anticipate that if you make l z
(
I7 your recommendation to your client at the Au3us t 26 mee ting that
=
w i
3 18 t
n they would be in a decision to act upon it with some dispatch ?
4 b
i 3
I9 h MRS. SEMECHAL-They would act upaa it on that day.
4 i
20 i
CHAIRMAN LAZO:
That mee ting.
21 !
I
' IRS. SENECHAL:
The way it is generally done, the PCA 1
22 board meets once a month, and the iters or, which ac cion will be 23 ij taken at that =ee ting are scheduled in advance and--well, the 24]'
board, of course, hcs the authority to defer it to ano ther te a t-25 ing _ if they choo'se, but generally they act upon thor a things t
i!
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I P
15 i:
which are scheduled on the agenda for daat day.
2l CHAIRMAN LAZO:
I see, l
3l MR. SILBERG:
Mr. Chairman, in connection with the i
4 testimony that was presented at the Minnesota Energy Agency 5f hearing, our intent if this proceeding were to go forward would e
i j
6 be that essentially that same testimony would be presented here.
n 7li For the information o~f the board, I would note that 8
7.
i j
8 Northern States Power Company in that proceeding presented e
L 9l testimony by a panel of witnesses from the consulting firm of z
O g
10 lI Pickerd, Lowe & Garrick which presented a probablistic risk z_
j 11 assessment of a loss of water accident in the spent fuel pool a
g 12 :
caused by failure of the components of the spent fuel pool or
)-
E j
13 by a major accident in either of the Prairie Island units.
=
z j
14h That testimony showed that the risk of such an accident, tha t 15 the probability of such an accident at Prairie was approximately j i
y 16 ten to the minus ten.
x f
17 We also presented testimony by a pa'nel of uitnesses t
E 3
18 ;
from Northcen States Power Company and Westinghouse Electric i
n t
h I9 and Nuclear Services Corporation which also presented a risk i
20 assessment from a qualitative point of view involving the de-1 21; tailed evaluation of disarming both the spent fuel pool and :he 22)1 reactors and the qualitative judg=ent as to why the risk of a 23 major accident affecting the spent fuel pool was extremely low.
24 CF.ls2 MAN LAZO:
Mr. 2arth, on behalf of thw MRC 3:aff, 25 what is your position regarding the proposed se ttlement?
e ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
4 1
16 I
I j !
MR. BARTH: First, sir, in order that the record be
)
i 2l clear, I would like to read a very short part of what the 1
3l basis of the settlement is so we know what we're talking 4
about.
I e
5 CHAIRMAN LAZO:
Proceed.
r I
a 3
6' M2. BARTH: The settlement to which my agency would e
R g
7!
agree and the department has agreed so far would read:
i "If the NRC authorizes the issuance of the amendment 8
i a
=;
9j which is the subjec't of this proceeding, such amendment will z
h 10 l contain the following language :
z
=
5 11 i.
"Until such time as the NRC issues to Northern States s
y 12 (
?ower a license amendment authorizing the insertion and with-
)
E g
13 drawal of a spent fuel shipping cask into ad from Pcol No. 1
=
j 14 when spent fuel is stored in that pool, Northern States Power
_~
r R
15 shall s tore in the spent fuel pools no more than 1,120 spent 1
9 j
16 :
fuel assemblies discharged as a result of normal refuelings.
i p
17 This limitation shall not apply to s torage of any fuel which is g
18 '
to be returned to the reacter.
Northern States Power may s tore,
r E
19 !
spent fuel in Pcol No. 1 so 1cng as the re are storaga locations !
i
=
l 20 i in Pool No. 2 into which all spent fuel in Pool No. I can be 21 {
placed prior to insertion of a shipping cash."
1 22 3 I want there to be no mistake as to the subs tance of 23 i what we are agreeing to.
)
24 As you probably know, there are two pools, and the i
25 i
small pool is intended to be used to withdraw fuel.
1 J
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
\\
17 I'
At the las e proceeding, which is 6 NRC 265, in which l
2I the number of racks to be s tored, the Agency had a tech spec.
3 3(8)(b)(1) which prohibited the mcvement of the cask over the i
4i small pool.
It was felt at that time that this provided suf-e 5
l ficient safety so there could not be an accident which would
?!
3 6:
result in harm to the public.
R 7
We feel that the substance of the agreement which I 7.
i j
8l recited would permit an increase in storage, which is what the e
i
{". 9l power company wants, and at the same time would allow the small 10 1
'j j
pool to be cleared of fuel so that there would be no problem 5
II l'
j of damage to that pool.
We feel that the present tech spec j
12 i may well, and its adminis tre.tive controls, prohibit the move-
)
I 13 g
ment of large weights over the pool.
E
'# l
=
i We have no objecticn to the withdrawal of the conten-j w
9 15 4 I
j j
tions by the state, and we have no objection to the impos ition I
16 y
of the language I recited if and when they do approve the in-17 y
crease of storage to 1,582 fuel assemblies.
E 18 '
j The staff will agree to append the language I have l
C 19 :
A h
read cnto any amendment we may issue and to take su:h s teps as 20'$
i l
necessary to terminate this preceeding.
1 i
21 h
The second cencential by the state relates to 1 css of 22 ]
water from the lar;e pool, and w have not made any safe ty evalu-4 23l. ationc--of course, I'm not certain this cculd occur.
I think
- 24 that if the state withdraws it intervention, I'm not certcin we 25 1
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
\\
I 18
\\
1 will ever reach such an issue.
We have not reached that issue i
2' in the original licensing of the facility or in the amendment l
3!
to increase the storage capacity of pools which was set forth l
i 4'
in 6 NRC 265; and to this date, the staff has not felt this to 5'
be a safety issue, sir.
e
?
3 6
We will, of course, if and when we approve the amend-R 7"
ment to go 1,582 fuel assembles make a safety evaluation of a
8l accidents which might occur.
a d
9 As has been pointed out, the Commission has go tten
,z Oy 10 '
i rid of the language calling for Class 9 accidents and in its z
4
=
11 i
i stead urged that consideration of accidents which might occur i
z r
l 12 thall be made.
It i.s our position, as a matter of law, that I
5 13 g
this puts us back under classifications of NEPA which requires 14 that we assess such accidents as are not remote and highly specu,
15 g
lative.
This is tandard out of Citizens against Tonic Sprays
=
1 16 i
p versus Bergland,
3-e-r-g-1-a-n-d, which is found in 423 Federal '
x I,'
5 Supplement 908, 1977.
=
I81 The staff's legal position is that our staff will con-
)
h I9 sider all accidents within the spectrum of those which ar2 not n
1 20 so remote and so speculative as need not be cer ' dered.
';hether '
I this differs from the agency's previous magic words of " improbable' i
22 i I'm not certain, but our safety evaluacion and our environmental 23 4
i evaluations of th'e proposed amendment will consider the entire i
I
'4
^
range of accidents which are not so remote and so speculative as 25 to only exist in a Walt Disney land.
1 i
ALDEPOON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 19 1
CHAIRMAN LAZO:
In ycur view, then, counselor, the I
2' Contention 2 filed by the staff refers to a remote and specu-3 lative accident, filed by t he state ?
l 4l MR. BARTH:
It would be ridiculous for me to say i
5!
some thing like that as a lawyer, sir, but the staff will take e:
I
.n 3
6 a look at whether or not there could be a loss of water, e
5 7l total less of water, from the Pool No. 2, and we 'll make some t
I nj 8l kind of judgment whe ther it is speculative or remote.
s 9{
Ihe only mechanism which the staff knows of by i
10 l which this could occur is by missile; and if there is no z
i j
11 j heavy missile, like a spene fuel cask of a hundred cons, aver a
1 y
12 -
the pool, there wculd not be any other mechanism that is E
3 g
13 '
known by which. the pool could be s o damaged as to lose all x
5 14 :,
water, but again these are words by a lawyer, so they really i s
5 15 l^
don't count.
l rz=
j 16 CHAIR'GN LAZO:
Yes, you're act tes tifyin;, sir.
i p
17 i MR. SILBERG:
Mr. Chairman, I woule
- e tha t the 6
g 18 question of Icss of water accidents has been addressed r
19 l s
.,g j
generically by the staff and by the Department of Energy in 1
i 20l their respective seneric envirencental impact s tatements on 21 the spent fuel program.
In both dccurents, as I r2 call, the 22 1 conclusion was reachcd that it was a hich17 rc cte event.
23l CHAIRMAN LAZO:
Have you comple ted yat s ta teme n:,
24 1 a..b..?.
25 '
,i,q, 3;373
,cs, sir.
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I I
20 l
1f CHAIRMAN IAZO:
Thank you.
I 2!
}&s Senechal.
3 MRS. SENECHAL:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
4!
I'd jus t like to make a couple of points.
l I
I e
5 rirst of all, as Mr. Silberg indicated, we agree that i
j 6l since there is the possibility that we may settle this matter e
i E
7 that it may be more appropriate to defer our response to li-7.
Q 8!
censee 's response to our contentions, but we would like to ma ke d
=;
9 it cicar that we reserve our right to do that.in writing af ter
?
10 l the decision has been made with respect to the s tipulation.
_E i
II The second point I would like to make is jus t to maha S
i j121 it quite cicar that we are not at this time able to commit this.
)
- f 13 We only can commit to a reccmmendation to our client.
A i
E I4 !
CHAIRMAN IAZO:
We understand, w
M
(
15 Counsel for licensee sugges ted a one-week period in i
g 16 ;
the event that your board does not accept the recommendation, i
i i
C 17 '
I s
in which time you wculd respond to the res judicata collateral
- 6 18 s toppel ques tions,
Is that sufficient time ?
I 19 -
j MRS. SENECHAL:
Yes, tha t would be fine.
j 20 -
6 CHAIRMAN LAZO:
Very well.
~
21 !
Again~ let us say that we commend the parties for the 22 ?
efforts they have made to reach a settlement and hopa that your 23 efferts will be successfully concluded.
We will want to sea tha
)
24 1 d
agreement when the motion fer terminaticn ecces in and Nill en-25l-deavor to rule on it promptly.
'i
- l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i l
21 1
Are there any other matters that we may profitably
)
2i attend to this morning?
3 It appears to us that there 4 probably not much more i
i 4j we can do at this point c:< cept to agree that we will await the i
s 5:
report af ter the August 26 meeting and whatever pleadings are 9
6i filed thereafter.
E i
7l MRS. SENECHAL:
Mr. Chairman, would you want, a s Mr.
3 i
j 8l Silberg suggested, to have us telephene dhe parties to this J
9 9i proceeding as soon as char information is available and also 3
10 i telephone the Chairman?
E l
)
11 l CHAIRMAN LAZO:
Counselor, I don' t think that's B
l g
12 l necessary.
We'll want to see the proposed agrec=ent at the time
)
E 13 the motion is filed, and I think we 'll jus t wait until the 14 pleadings are in our hands.
Naturally, we will be curious as e
g 15 to the outecce of the =ce ting, b ut I think the = ails will bring
=
f 16 us that infor=ation in good time.
I z
C 17 3
MR. BARTH:
Cr perhaps a female.
=
6 18 )
CHAIRMAN LAZO:
Ve ry likely,
+
M j
I9 j HRS. SENECHAL:
Also, a t this time wculd it he ap-I i
20 propriate to--the state wculd like a copy of the transcript of I
21 the prehearing conference.
Jould it be appropriate to reques t 22 rI one at this tice ?
t 23 :
1 CHAIRMAN LAZO:
You're asking for a free capy of the
)
2<4 j
transcript?
i MRS. SENECEAL:
If tha t 's pces ible, yes.
's.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l l
22 I
CHAIR >MN U 20:
Your request is granted.
2I MRS. SENECHAL:
Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN uZO:
Mr. Silberg, I'm afraid tha t it's I
4l not within our power to give you a free copy of the tran-5 y
script.
n 6
MR. SILBERG:
I was afraid you'd say tha t.
u
}
7l CHAIRMAN UZO:
We would like to be even-handed, n
Q 8
you understand.
J I
sE.
MR. S ILBERG :
We realize that the Ccemission is not h
to l always even-handed in its even-handedness.
=
l II CHAIRMAN uZO:
Cnce again are there any other cat-2
12 i ters?
Ctherwise we 're going to adjourn the conference.
=
l 13 i
3 (No re s ponse. )
l z
f
- li j
CHAIRIGN UZO:
Hearing no responses, the prenear-j, 5
15 I
E_
i ing conference is adjcu rned.
16 '
)
(Whereupon, at 10:45 o' clock p.m., the prehearing
[
h' 17 I
conference was adjourned.)
E 18 '
-n j
19 I i
20 l
1 21
'l 22),
'l 23
)
24 25 l l'
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
p 1/24/50 1,
P This is to certify that the attached proceedings 'cefore the ATOf1IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the matter of:
Date of Proceeding:
6 AUG 80 Docket !! umber:
50-282/50-306 St. Paul, flinnesota Place of Proceeding:
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.
Cynthia Nelson Of ficial ?.epor ter (Typed)
)
(
o
()W VA
' bQ/\\ q t
Official Reporter (Signature) i
)
DOCUMENT NOT FILMED DUE TO POOR l
LEGIBILITY l
DOCUMENT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM HARD COPY FILES ccessio u ber f he Requested Document (2) Contoct "Hard Copy" File e
oc ent 1
goo ifMOO Y5(
-