ML19345D275
| ML19345D275 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/26/1980 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19345D277 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-A-80-179C, NUDOCS 8012120365 | |
| Download: ML19345D275 (39) | |
Text
-
_-_._2.
___. __ = u -
_.. u ; ;;._ _ __. _ - -
o g
u azue_a: Rr ::.v._ss::a
\\
J
\\
- / /
COMMISSION MEETING 2 h.h d:
DISCUSSION OF INSTRUCTIONS TO BOARD ON INDIAN POINT PROCEEDING s
(
Lw.
November.26, 1980 '.
1.-
39 pgg.
o A":
Washincton, D.
C.
f9
.: =.
l f-f
.s c
g -4 if
=
~8e a
i l
ALDEA%. X REPORTLTG F. Q x
4 c o n_
a.s An., s. w. w= -'
y-
, :. c. : c:4 Ta' apt a: (201 534-2245 x
- s o m 03 &5
I Rear I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I
2i NCCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
1 4!
5i a
A l
n j
6!
DISCUSSION OF IMSTRUCTIONS TO BOARD R
i 7l ON INDIAN POINT PROCEEDING I
E 8!
d i
9l i
Ok 10 E
i
=
i II Room 1130, U
1717 H Street, Northwes t, 5,
I2 j Washington, D.C.
E l
g 13 Wednesday, November 26, 1980
=
E 14 l 5
e 15 l The Commissioners met at 2:09 p.m.,
pursuant to r
a i
notice.
g' 16,
9 PRESENT:
b 17 w=
JOHN AHEARNE, Chairman.
{
18{
VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner.
A JOSEPH HENDRIE, Commissioner.
b I9
- PETFR BRADFORD, Commissioner.
A 20 SAMUEL CHILK, Secretary of the Commission.
2I LEONARD BICFMIT, Office of the General Counsel.
MR. CRANE, Office of the General Counsel.
22 '
23 24
-o0o-25 4
i u
I I
ALDERSON REPOh. iNG COMPANY. INC.
D*SC* A_".EZ "his is an u=cificial : a= scrip: cf a. =as ' g of ha "ti:ad Sca:as Nuclaar ?.aguLt:::7 Cc-dssion held on November 26, 1980 in the Cc d.ssion's officas a: 1717 E 5:: set, N.
W., Washd g:cs, D. C.
~ha =seeing as cyan :o public. a :a=dasca and obserracice.
- ds ::a=se:1 : has cc: been raviawed, cerrac:ad, c edi:ad, and 7
i: =a7 conta1= i=acc~:acias.
5:a ::zuscrip is 1::andad scla 17 for geraral 1 for.a 1cual purposas.
As pWdad by 10 C2?. 9.103, i: is c par of.ha fcM or d #cr. a1 :sec d of decisics of :he a::ars discussed.
Expressicas ed epd d c= 1: -'d = ::anse:17: dc =c: secassarily reflac: fi=al deca:--d-=:1ces or be11afs.
No plead 1 g c: othe r paper a7 be. filed vi-J1.he Cc d.ssics is any p:cesading as : a
- ssul: cf c addressed :c any s:a:a=e=: c: a p=e== conza1=ed hars1=, axcep as the. Cen=tissics =ay ac:horica.
d e
e O
i
,I 2
i I
EHQCEEglEqS 2l CHAIRMAN AHEAR'iE:
This af ternoon we meet to l
3l continue a process of addressing an order to a Licensing Board i
4l for a hearing which we had agreed to set up regarding Indian i
e 5'
Point 2 and 3.
E j
6' The last meetine we had led to a redraft of the E
7:
E l
order by the General Counsel in which he has attemoted to s
i j
8l reflect the changes that in his best judgment we had made at d
~.
9 li the previous meeting, which was on November 14th.
e z
i O
10 :
He has indicated in this redraft those areas where he z
E 4
II l believes that there is still open cuestion, and with that as 3
i 3.
12 :
our preliminary -- did vou want to make any remarks, Len, or
=
1 13 :
just go 'through the --
x 3
14 MR. BICKNIT:
No.
I think we oucht to ao throuc.h it.
}
15 :
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
=
E I6 ;
CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me ask, we are talking z
h I7 about a hearing whose outccme will determine whether we are
=
}
18,
to have another hearing?
19 '
s MR. BICKWIT:
The outcome will determine the couras a
i 20 of action of the Commission.
If that course of action is a 2I suscension or other action which -- with respect to which i
22 '
S ection 1. 99 (a) mandates a hearing, then there is the possibility 23 '
of an additional adjudicatory hearing.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What are the possibilities i
25 i of treating issues resolved in the first hearing as resolved?
J i
- l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
_ _ _ - = _.
~ - _ -.. _..
1 I
3 i
I i1i MR. BICKNIT:
I don't think that can be done, in view l
2l of the fact that the statutorily-required hearing is a hearing 3i that has to cbserve all of the strictures of the Administrative i
1 4!
Procedure Act, and the hearing that we have devised here would 5l net.
E l
j 6
CCMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, supposing we observed K
7l the Administrative Procedure Act.
n l
8!
MR. BICKWIT:
Nell, then it's a different story.
J
=;
9 !
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
It seems to me that tradeoff i
g 10 i might be worth considering.
E II l MR. BICKWIT:
Well, we considered it earlier in 3
y 12 l this discussion.
5 13 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNI::
That vas, I recall, the point 5
i x
I4
[
that you brought up back when we originally were going down uj 15 this route, and you described the differences between setting i
i
=.
16 'i g
up a discretionary hearing and investigative versus the full
^
i f
I7,
adjudicatory --
5 i
g 18 l MR. BICFFIT:
That's richt, but it still is
=
I9 :
available for the Commission to restructure this hearing so s
g n
20l that it does comply with all elements of the Administrative 2ll Procedure Act.
22 !
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, what sort of things l
23 would be different?
24 :
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It could be regarded as i
se Mel 25,
seves.al for the purposes of the second hearing.
j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 4
l 1l MR. BICKWIT:
I don't think anything could be.
l 2I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Mell, let's see.
I thought 3
you just said that if the first hearinc is a full-blown --
4 MR. BICKWIT:
Oh, If the first hearing is a full-i e
5l Llown Administrative Procedure Act hearing, there would not be 9
j 6i a requirement for an additional hearing.
If you decide to have t
i u
E 7l a hearing which complies with the Administrative Precedure s
]
8!
Act, and you notify the licensee that this may result in d
z, 9i suspension of the license, or anything short of that, then h
10 l I think you have satisfied the requirement in 1.89 (a) for the z
E Q
II i hearing mandated by that section, and there would be no n
Y 12 l additional hearing rights.
=
h 13 !
CHAIRMAN AHZARNE:
Then what changes would it make
=
l 14 '
in the format of the hearing as you have currently laid it out?
t=
g 15 l MR. BICKWIT:
You'd have to have the ex carte rule g
16 in effect.
You would have to have an initial decision by the w
t U.
17 Board, Eubject to exceptions being taken to the Commission.
x i
5 i
3 18 COMMISSICMER GILINSKY:
At the conclusion of the l
P l
"g 19 '
hearing?
n 20 !
MR. BICKWIT:
At the conclusion of the hearing.
i l
21[
There would be no authority to -- except within L
l i
22 limited constraints -- change discovery or cross examination f
23 procedures.
24 )
The burden of goine forward wi'thathe evidence would I
1 I
25 i be on the Staff.
The contention rule -- it's arguable that 1
i i
,j i
l
- t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l I
[.
I 5
I!
the contention rule would apply in its normal -- in its normal 2l way.
3 i COMMISSIONER GILINSKU:
What does that mean?
4 MR. BICKWIT:
It's not entirelv clear whether s
5 the Administrative Procedure Act mandates the kind of contention j
6 practice that the Commission has been using, which is a very 7.
7 i
broad admission of contention practice.
~n j
8 My feeling is that it probably doesn ' t, that you dy 9i could probably allow for limitations on contentions which z
5 10 '
the Commission wanted to give the Board discretion to have, E
I II consistent with the APA.
But it's not entirely clear.
M d
12 I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So the principal dif ferences that E.
g 13 i you see are the initial decision and the ex parte?
=
x 5
I4 MR. BICKWIT :
Unless there's a significant curtail-b i
=
.g ment of normal discovery and cross examination practice and 15 t
j 16 ;
contention practice, and Staf f's role.
i N
I7 CHAIRMAN AHEARME:
Say a little bit more about the u
~
E 18 dif f erences in the Staff's role that you would see.
4
=
-b I9 3
MR. BICKWIT:
Under the Administrative Procedure v.
20 l Act, the Staff has to go forward with the evidence necessary 21l to establish the case of the Commission.
Here you have given i
22) discration to the Board to e stablish any order of pres enta-l 23,
tion.
24 Moreover, you haven' t set Staf f out en a course.
l i
)
25 5 You have left it un to the Staff what position it wants to take.
t l
4 l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
i i
l 6
i 1i If you issue the normal order to show cause, then Staff would l
2l have to go forward with the evidence establishing the case for 1
3:
that order.
If you do what we have been talking about here, l
l 4
which instead of issuing an order to show cause, is to establish!
5 g
a prior adjudicatory hearing, an adjudicatory hearine prior to H
j 6'
the issuance of an order, so that the Commission really is u
E 7l taking no position as a preliminary matter, Staf f would have to 3
I g
8!
go forward with the evidence, but it could go forward with the d
i n;
9 evidence establishing whatever position it thought was z
i y
10 !
appropriate.
z i
5 Q IIl COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
If we go with the approach 3
I I2 you have been talking about here, the result is that it requires E
i j
13 '
something beyond what is required now.
We would then hava to
=
m g: 14f go through just such a proceeding, t ouldn' t we, or just such a
=
15
.g hearing?
=
j 16 MR. BICKWIT:
There would be a richt i2
- aring.
A N
I7 Now whether that right is before or after the f ic dere is on i
}
18 l whether you can make the judgment that the public.
4, l
n "g
j safety or interest requires that the order be immediately 19 n
20!
effective.
i 2I j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, leaving aside that, 0
22 you'd have to go through one of these full-blown hearings?
23 MR. BICKNIT:
That's correct.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
Unless the increased required I
25!
ments were so light that they couldn'.t?
l l
1 MR. BICKWIT:
That's correct.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i 7
1 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Mo, no, unless they were l
2l accepted.
It's independent of whether they are slight or major.
3l The issue is whether thev are acespted.
I 4'
COMMISSIONER GILIMSKY:
Right.
Okay.
2 5l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
But to frame it to satisfy 0
j 6
the dual purposes of the investigation, which I thought we were R
i b
7 setting in motion, and also the ' statutory right to a hearing,
~
j 8!
which the Applicant would have in the event that we subsecuently Y
9l l
issued an order constraining operation in some fashion, 10 I includinc shutdown, we would have to frame that now in effect 5
l 5
II as a show-cause proposition, why it shouldn't be shut down.
t I2 MR. BICKWIT:
I don't believe so.
E 13 l j
CCMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Certainly in order for him n
14 l to appreciate and protect his position, why, you're certainly u
c 15 going to have to notify him that the outcome of this hearing d
I6 I could have that effect.
2 h
I7 MR. BICKWIT:
That's true.
I don't think one amounts y
18 to the other.
I think you have to notify him that it could
=
n l9 2
i have that ef fect.
O 20l COMMISSIONER HEMDRIE:
What does the Staff do now?
2I Do they go forward and try to shut. him down, or do they go 22 forward and call it as they see it?
23 MR. BICKNIT:
I think they can co forward and call it 24 as they see it.
4 25 CHAIRMAN PEEAPNE:
But when you said that the Staf f l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i I
8 e
i 1
would have to be trying to establish the Commission's case --
2l MR. BICKWIT:
That is only with mspect to the order --
l 3) if you go the order-to-show-cause route.
4l CHAIRMAN AHEAFME:
No, I thought your answer was 5
that with regard to the -- let's look at what flows from trying g
N j
6' to only have one hearing; that, I think, was the issue.
R 8
7l I thought you said in 'that one-hearing system, the Staff would 5
8l g
have to be making the Commission's case.
What is the d
9!
Commission's case?
?-g 10 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I assumed that the Staff z
i
=
II !
would be saying that the list of requirements proposed by D
N I2 Harold Denton a while back is sufficient for assuring the 5
j 13 safety --
n 5
I4 COMMISSIONER HENDR2E:
I don't knew.
u 5
g 15 l CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, at least that seems
=
l E
10 !
like the obvious thing, the position going to be taken, unless
^
\\
N I7 f diey have changed their position since then.
}
18 '
MR. BICKWIT:
In my answer to you, I attempted to s
I9 g
differentiate between having a full hearing in the absence of l
20 l an order to show cause, and having a full hearing which would 21 j accompany an order to show cause.
I 22 l In the case of the fi: st, Stu f has to go forward 23 with the evidence.
I do not believe it vauld have to go 24 ;
forward with the evidence to establish the Commission's case, l
25I because the Commission would have no case.
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 1
l 9
l 1
CCMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
To what extent could the 1
2l hearing be focused and narrowed as we are attenpting to focus t
3[
and narrow it in the draf t orders at hand?
l 4
MR. BICKWIT:
I believe that could be focused, as e
5 you are now --
S i
j 6
CHAIRMAN AHEAP3E:
You don' t think that focusing R
\\
7.
would have the --
I
-f8 I
MR. BICKWIT:
No, but you need an initial decision J
9 !
as to what should be done by the Board.
?
l 10 I CHAIRMAN AHEARNF:
But as far as the focusing --
3 l
5 II l MR. BICKNIT:
You can focus it.
D l
I 12 !
CHAIRMAN AHEAPNE:
So as f ar as, then, really, the
,~
l 13
=
only -- since the Staff's approach is independent, you're 14 I saying, that shouldn' t really af fect it, if they are trying to w
j 15 present, as I would expect they should present what they see
=
g 16 i is the actual situation, you don't see that being aff ected bv w
h 17 a single hearing versus a double approach?
=
6 18 l MR. BICKWIT:
I don't.
a 39 !
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Mow as far as you said the 20 presentation, order of presentation, as we have just recently 21 seen in Three Mile Island restart, the Board can modify the A
22) so-called order of presentation.
So I'm not really sure what 23 why that is a restriction.
24 MR. BICKMIT:
As I read the Administrative Procedure i
25l Act, there is a recuirement for the preconent of the order to il 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
~
i l
10 I
go forward.
2 CCMMISSIONER HENDRIE :
But there isn' t any order k
3
- here, j
i i
4; CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It's setting up a Board.
In this 5l y'
set, there would be no -- what would be --
e 9
I j
6 MR. BICKWIT:
It is very difficult -- it is very a*S 7
alt to match that provision of the Administrative I
c 5
8l g
Procedure Act with this particular situation.
I think the best t
J 9 i way to match it is to say since the Staff is always considered
?
10 l the proponent of an order when you have an order, that the z
i 5
1 4
II '
Staff would be the logical party to go forward with the evidence.
D N
II CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But you are saying that that's
=3 5
13 '
not crystal clear?
x E
I4 MR. BICKWIT:
It's not crystal clear.
Me are in an b=
i j
15; area that you don't see very much.
=
d I6 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
So you are saying that it is s
I h
I7 possible that even under that sincle system to put in some
=
}
18 l language that might give the Board flexibility as to who would c
l 3
99,*
go first?
t l
20 l MR. BICKNIT:
It's possible.
I 21 ;
CHAIRMAN AHEAPlIE:
So aven that might not be a i
22 difference?
23 '
MR. BICKWIT:
It's possible.
24 '
CHAIPPAN AHEARNE:
So then it might really end up 25 1
beine the only real difference is the ex parte provision?
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I i
11 I
I MR. BICKWIT:
The initial decision?
I 2l CHAIEMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, I'n sorry, the initial 3
3l i
i decision on the ex carte.
4 i
I 4l MR. BICKWIT:
Discovery, cross examinaticn --
1 s
5 CHAIR?G.N AHEARNE:
Well, we haven't yet reached 9
1 3
6j what that would or would not --
R I
b 7l MR. BICXWIT:
Contentio ns.
That's right.
~
l 8
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess it's worthwhile explorine, d
z.
9i having you review that question, to see what it -- it's going e
i 10 i to be an awfully long, protracted hearing, anyway, and repeating z
i II i it just doesn't --
D I
g 12 i MR. BICKWIT:
I think that's reasonable, to review I
2 13 ;
1 g
the bidding here.
Initially when I pointed these probleEs out, n
I4 j
my advice was to simply go forward as you wanted to construct
=
}
15 this hearing.
You are constructing it, I think, closer to the
=
j 16 '
statutorily-required hearing than I suspected you might.
=
.h I7 In light of that, I think it's reasonable to rethink
=
}
18 l it.
This way you are committed to the lengthy process that we c
i l9 '
have talked about that's almost certainly going to accompany a 8
l g
n 20 :
full statutory hearing, but most of the choices you havc made Il so f ar have been not to make use of the flexibility that, you l
22 !
have in this situation by not being controlled by the APA.
23 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
It icoks increasingly doubtful 24) that it's going to be anythina other than a lencthy process, i
1 25 l no matter uhich way we go.
So at least it wculd be worthwhile f t
I ii ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
12 I
to have you review what do you cive up.
t 2l CCMMISSIONER HENDRIE :
Len, if the licensee in a i
i 3
sincle hearine here has to both deal with the focus of the t
4i Commission's interest as expressed in the draf t, and also make i
5 g
his best defense against a -- to prevent a shutdown order that N
i j
6 might grow out of the proceeding, you're not going to be able R
E 7l to deny him the right to argue various points that are not i
j 8l within the scope of the six or however many questions, and the 4
2.
9 thrust of the draft order, are you?
O 10 MR. BICKWIT:
You're not going to deny him the z=
i 4
II,
right to argue why he
~
shouldn't be shut down for any reason, l
Y I2 l but if the questions narrow the basis for a shutdown, which is 5
13l' g
essentially the way I read them, you are not coing to the
=
W i
5 I4 licensee and saying, "We might shut you down for any reason t
_j 15 l whatever."
You are saying, "We might shut you down for the
=
g 16 f reasons that are inherent in these questions."
Then it's s
f I7 l really not in the licensee's interest to say, Don ' t shut me
=
1
}
18 down for reasons that the Commission hasn't suggested in the i
I9,!
?
cuestions."
E5 20 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, I thought that -- well, l
21l if you want to rephrase that, I thought you were --
l 22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
If you are limiting yourself 23 to a certain set of questions, to say you' re only going to act i
i 24 on the basis of the outcome of those questions, I would assume l
l 25l that the licensee would only have to deal with those.
l ii i
- i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l i
13 I
Il CHAIPl!AT AHEARNE:I thoucht the cuestion being asked i
2' is, would we be able to restrict the licensee's defense to the 3
range on which we have asked the cuestions.
In this investigatory-l 4l approach we are taking here -- for example, the way we have I
5 written the questions at the mcment seem to be focusing, we 9
j 6,
will concentrate primarily or perhaps even totally, depending E
e
-2 7l how the argument comes out, on the risk at Indian Point, and we
~
j 8
would do that, including evacuation possibility, and we will d
i z.
9i compare that with the risk elsewhere.
The licensee isn't g
10 I allowed on that, I guess, to argue that, what ought to be the i
E h
Il range of that, or that comparative risks are inappropriate as a U
I 12 l basis.
That's, I thought, what the thrust was.
E i
_d 13 l I'm just saying I thoucht that was the question Joe
=j 14 was asking.
}
15!
MR. BICKWIT:
The answer is you can't restrict his
=
g 16 l defenses.
A N
I7 CHAIPJ4AN AHEARME:
Pardon me?
w
=
z 18 ',
MR. BICKWIT:
You can't restrict his defenses.
But w
=
S "g
19 you will have the ef fect of -- I don't know whether " restricting n
20 them" is the right word -- you will have the effect of 2Il shortening then, narrowing them, to the extent that these l
I 22 d cuestions really limit the Commission's direction.
23 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, if you can' t restrict his 24 defenses, can we similarly restrict -- I'm not sure why we i
25 l could then restrict pecole who miaht feel that we are basinc l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
i I
14 I'
our judgment --
2*
MR. BICKWIT:
You can.
3 ;i CHAIFSGli AHEARNE :
-- on too narrow --
4 MR. BICKWIT:
You can.
This is the Marble Hill 1
5!
case.
There is no statutory right to expand the basis on N
i g
6; which the Commission might choose to shut down a plant.
R 7
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Including remove a license?
i E
8 MR. BICKNIT:
That's right.
If the Commission o
9' wants to shut down a plant for a given reason, and so specifies z
o i
b 10 it, there is no statutory right to an intervenor to come into E=
5 II l that proceeding and expand the bases.
S I
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Any other general questions on
=
i
=
g 13 '
this?
=
z
-5 14 I Okay, then, let us move back into the latest draf t, j
15 which is 179C, and let's try again working our way through the
=
j 16 '
pages.
m 17 Any problems on page l?
5 3
18 l (No response.)
=
b l9 '
a Page 2?
n I
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
Well, when we talk about --
n 2I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Back to page 1.
22 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What I'm wondering about is 23 whether the outcome of --
24 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Sure, it may chance it.
It may.
l 25 i That's richt.
d f
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
l i
15 l
4 1
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The hearing -- (inaudible).
2I CHAIRMN1 IGEARNE :
I t may.
i 3l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
So you' re going through this i
4i on the assumption that --
i s
5!
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
- Yes, n
N j
6)
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
-- if we stay with the old R
l 7 !
track --
I j
8 CHAIP31AN AHEARNE:
Right.
On the assumption that if
=
9 we go to a new track, that the modification would be g
10 sufficiently clear that we can make the changes.
E 11 i Page 2?
3 i
12,
Page 3?
i 4
g 13 On page 3 and 4, what they attempted to do was
=
.E 14 l to change the tense essentially.d 2n Wa5 A.~
"E N'-
,ay
\\ cs s s. 4s m L g
15 '
Pace 4?
=
y 16 !
Going up to Page 5.
N 17 I had an issue.
I would, on page 5, like to strike t
C I
g 18 ;
the word "pernitting. "
"g 19 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Nas that more than just
=
20 '
house-painting, Jchn?
2Ij CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, it's sort of reflective on i
22 3 Mr. Sholley, I think is the accurate representation.
23 I'n very la.ery these days, after having read that 24]
decision, of saying anythinc more than I feel I really 25 understand what I'm saying, and I understand if I say with I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
l 16 I
respect to Unit 2, prior to resumption of operations, the 2 !
Commission will determine whether to -- the decision to i
i I
3 ;;
permit continued operation remains valid.
Putting in the l
l 4l word " permitting," I'm not sure what that leads to.
g 5li MR. BICKWIT:
I think you are overly pessimistic.
N i
j 6'
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I know without the word, the R
=
7l,
" permitting" in there, it says, " prior to resumption of n
j 8l operations at Unit 2, the Commission will determine whether
-J 9
the decision to permit continued operation remains valid."
2 j
10 l I know what that means.
_E I
II '
When it says " permitting," I don't know any more.
m Y
I2 !
I went through that decision twice, and I don' t --
E i
j 13 l MR. BICKWIT:
I'm not concerned about the application
=
m 5
I4 of 5holley to that word.
If your question is does it make
-=
j 15 l any difference, I can see another possible difference.
\\
=
sl 16 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARIE:
What's that?
.w t
g" l
17 MR. BICKWIT: " Permitting" has the ring of a majority l
=
{
18 f of the Commission.
Prior to resumption of operation, s
I9 8
resumption of operations doesn' t have that ring.
n 20 !
CHAIPlGN AHEARNE:
No, but it says "the Commission l
2I l will determine".
t i
22 MR. BICKWIT:
That's richt.
23 '
CHAIRMAN AEEARNE:
That certainly has the ring of a 24 :
majoritv.
l 25 l MR. BICKWIT:
No, but the Commission --
.I.
l ALDERSOM REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I l
17 i
I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Will determine whether its 2,
decision to permit continued operation remains valid.
i i
3l MR. BICKWIT:
That's richt.
And what haopens if the 5
i 4l Commission be split two9to-two when it makes that determina-g 5
tion?
My view is that decision remains valid.
If you leave 0
j 6'
the word " permitting" in, then it has the ring of the E
i 6
7l Commission needing a majority to bring this plant up.
i j
8 i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I uould assume that -- but you're d"
9' right, that might not be a valid assumption.
2 O
i g
10 Would you please reexamine the implication of z=
11 Sholley on that?
E N
I2 MR. BICKWIT:
Okay.
I've been doing it.
I've i
5 g
13 been doing little else.
=
m 5
I4,
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
Good, good.
Would you,
.-=
{
15 en that particular word.
That's my concern in that phrase.
=
j 16 '
Anybody else have any problems on page 5?
A N
I7
- COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let's see.
I wouldn't want x=
{
18 l this paragraph, if upon our review of Unit 2, we were to 19 g
i decide that there was something in f act so sweeping in our I
20 i conclusion that it did preclude bringing Unit 2 back up, I 2I wouldn' t want anyone to say to me at that tine that I couldn' t l
22 even look at the implications of that for Unit f.3-l 23 '
I agree that we have in fact adhered to our earlier 24 determination that Unit 3 should operate, but I don't consider i
25 '
us barred and I would like anybody to tell me if --
i I
1 il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I l
18 Il CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, we' re not -- Len, correct 2
me if I'm wrong -- we're not barred at any time from examining i
l 3l whether any nlant oucht to be --
i 4
l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is certainly true, and 5
g I just want to make sure we haven' t said anything in this s
j 6i paragraph that would sugges t that --
R
=S 7 i MR. BICKWIT:
No.
M!
8' COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
-- to the contrary.
If in
'4*
9 E.
fact there's somethina in the implications that the Unit 2
~
h10 investigation were that serious.
=
l II MR. BICKWIT:
I don't think so.
B.
N II CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I mus t s ay, for myself, the 5
I g
13 J difference I see is --
=
3 i
14 2
COMMISSIONER SRADFORD:
That's the footnote I owe C
E 15 !
g you.
=
f 16 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is that what you were going i
N I7 to say?
.=
u IO l CHAIEMAN AHEARNE:
Yes.
As of the last meeting.
g i
1 l
3 l
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That was exactly my point, 20 was that I really thought we ought to spell it out, so that i
21 somebody reading just this decision could have a clear picture 22 of what all the dif ferences were that I&E had told us.
I still 23 '
owe it to you.
I 24 ',
CHAIPNAN AHEARNE:
Ok ay.
Any other problems on page 5?
I 25 j Pace 6?
t t
J i
l t
il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 1
I l
l 19 l
1 Let's see, now.
There is where we will -- page 6, l
2f including the footnote that follows on cage 7, really could f
3l be significantly changed, dependinc upon how this comes out.
r I
i i
4' We will leave that in abeyance, though, anything on page 6.
i 5
g Page 7?
N j
6' COMMISSICNER BRADFORD:
7 is completely up for grabs,
R 7]
I guess.
n i
j 8l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Could I ask a couplc of questions, u
9 E..
Len, on the footnote?
g 10 You did, I believe, to the best that one could, E
=
E IIl with the transcript, that accurately reflects where we came out 8
i f
I2. I on that, so my questions don't say -- aren' t really addressed,
=
f 13 '
is this really an accurate representation.
It's more having
~
z E
I4 thought more about it, I want to ask scme questions, and I
_C h
IS l recognize that it may all be moot if we come out differently.
i j
16 '
You have the Licensing Board may also, without w
I7 i regard to the provisions, establish whatever order of presenta-
{
18 tion it deems best suited to the proceeding's investigative 19 g
purposes.
t n
20 '
What does it really mean in the context, particularly 2I l
of the TMI-2 restart reordering of order of presentation?
)
22 0 I would have interpreted there that --
i 23 MR. BICKWIT:
If you read Part 2 as saying that the 24 Staf f has to go forward the evidence, this is saying you don't 25 '
have to live with Part 2.
- l l
3 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
L
i 20 l
Il In other words, it is up to the Board to establish 2'
who coes forward on any issue.
3 CHAIRMAN AHEARME:
And your readinc of Part 2 is f
f I
4!
that the Staff always has to go forward on evr.ry issue, i
e 5;
independent of which issue it is, independent of how the 0
j 6
contentions were raised?
E 5
7l MR. BICKWIT:
It's the proponent of the order that s
i j
8l has to go forward, and where there is no order, I think the best, u
0 O
9' reading or the most nat"ral readina is that it would be the E,
5 10 l Staff.
E II CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now in your previous version of S
I I
I2 !
that footnote, you have without regard to provisions or past E
i 13 l E
precedent, and you struck past precedent.
I wondered why, and i
4 i
I4 what you meant.
Cj 15 MR. BICKFIT:
Ne were afraid that it was a negative
=
i E
I0 !
pregnant with respect to the other aspects of this.
That was A
N I7 the only place we had past precedent and we were afraid if we e
C 3
18 I left it in there and didn' t put it in everywhers" else, then i
8 i
I9 s
it would be read that we wanted past precedent to apply to n
20 !
every other feature of this footnote, and we don't.
l i
2I CHAIEMAN AHEAPNE:
I see, i
22 '
If we -- the way the order is currently draf ted, 23 where we have a focus on the questions, then you go on and 24 )
say, you have in here, in admitting and formulating contentions l
25j and subissues, the Licensing Board will not be bound by th=
l t
i
~
l 3
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
21 I
i I
provisions of 10 CFR Part 2.
2f That also then means, I guess, that the Licensing I
3 3
Board could, at its own discretion, gorbeyond our focused i
4' questions; is that correct?
e 5
MR. BICKWIT:
No, that's not what it was meant to E
j 6'
indicate.
The standard there is that you want, as indicated R=
7l elsewhere in the order, is you want a primary focus on those S
8 questions, and that is disrositive of that issue.
But the H0 9 !
Licensing Board can go beyond those questions, but it's not as i
E.
3 10 a result of this footnote.
E 5
II !
What this footnote is designed to do is to give it t
I s
j2 !
the authority to limit the contentions.
E n.
g 13 '
DHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I see.
=
m
.g 14 Anybody else have any guestions on daat page?
15 j COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
To what extent does the E
k I6 Licensing Board limit the contentions?
At any time?
m C
17 l
MR. BICKWIT:
That 's what it says, yes.
=
{
18 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I must say, when we talked I
l I9,
about this last time, I came away with the sense that you-all l
I I
n 20 !
had drawn from the TMI restart croceedinc the conclusion that l
21 f
the contention admitting and deleting process had accounted in i
i i
22l some substantial measure for the time that's cone by.
Now we 1
j 23 have since had. raised for us the question of whether that is 24 !
in fact the case. or whether there are other explanations, i
25 j including the fact that we ourselves, or at least the Staff, i
I l
a
- i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l t
l l
22 1
1 has been unable, during the time that the action plan was i
2 pending, and for other reasons, to come forward with the i
3 l necessary position and necessary documents.
l 4
Do you have a sense of which of those is the g
5 important factor?
Because obviously if it's the latter that S
j 6i has held up the restart proceedina, then there is no reason to R
=
7l<
focus very hard on the contentions in this one.
n j
b' MR. BICKWIT:
Well, I have no doubt that the latter 3
9 has played an important part.
As f ar as the extent to which 3
5 10 contentions have been a problem, all we have -- we have only E
II two pieces of evidence:
N I2 One, that the Board Chairman belicves that it's
=
j 13 l been atextremely important factor; and secondly, it sounds
{
14 '
credible.
It sounds credible because our contention practice C
15 is a very broad one.
And that's' all we have.
We have no --
E I6 I don't want to indicate that we have done any further examina-A 17 '
R y
tion above and beyond that.
=
3 18 '
6 i
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Then why is it that the i
i 19,
summary judgment procedures wouldn' t be adecuate in this case g
n i
and e"m"$?ed adequate in the T!!I --
20 'i M
21 MR. BICKWIT:
Summary judgment comes after discovery.
22 So if you've got a contention which is adnitted, you' ve got discovery rights that can last a significant amount of time, l
23 '
24 until the summary judgment motion.
r a
s.
i 25l It's been pointed out that there have been many f
i il I
ii ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
t
23 1
I !
summary judgment motions.
That doesn't mean that if offered, i
2l they wouldn't be granted.
It's often a resource question, as to!
I 3i whether you go :~orward with the sucmary judgment motion.
Also a 4
question of litigation stratecy.
T.2 g
5j CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Other cuestions on that?
All N
j 6
right.
Page 8.
R
=
7, I guess I -- I notice OPF is not here.
Interesting.
i E
k 8
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Well, scratch their paragraph.
3 9l CHAIR 3GN AHEARNE :
Well, no, the last time they were 3
i 10 l here, we went past, and so I guess they concluded the best way z
I E
I 4
II around that is not to show up.
3 Y
I2 l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
No contribution without 5
l 13 ;
representation.
a 5
I4 '
CHAIPMAN AHEARNE:
That's what they were hooing for.
b
_j 15 '
I guess my -- I doubt whether my modification would be
=
g 16 acceptable, but I couldn' t find their modification acceptable, A
C 17 because it doesn't really get at the points that I was trying g
=
{
18 l to make in mine.
It really just takes your version, and that's C
1 19 {
the question.
20 '
MR. BICKWIT:
And that's why you find it acceptable?
2I CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yeah, right.
- i 22 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY
The last sentence tracks 23 your approach.
I 24]
CHAIRMAN AHEARME :
The last sentence is there, and if l
l they really want to track my approach, then I have indicated a !
25 '
I I
I d
i
- i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
I l
24
- I{
codification.
2i COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
I thought they were supposed 3
to go work out a compromise, i
1 4l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
No, but I don't think they did.
i 5l I mean I didn't view it as a compromise, put it that way, because e
n j
6' I essentially read it as it was your version, with a throw-away G
5 7
line at the end.
E k
0 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How does yours differ now?
3
~.
9l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Instead of the last sentence E
10 which they propose, I have a different last sentence.
z=
1 II COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
So you would leave it, but D
Y I2 l modify the last sentence?
E I
j 13 :
CHAIRMANAHEARN5:
Yes.
=
m 5
I4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see.
You don' t want
+
E g
15 l to compare any of the --
i I6 i
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
The risks associated with --
W l
N I7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, th ere, now, you get x
=
18 ;
~into problems like 'oes the range include a whole bunch of plants l;
G
- 3.. I9 {
at one end of the spectrum, and one plant somewhere up near 20 the top of the spectrum.
Is it necessarily true that your 2I :
criterion will be whether Indian Point is way above that range?
22 )
I assume not necessarily.
So it would have somethine to do
~
l 23 '
with, you might say, the distribution of risks.
That's why I 24 j was inclined to pose that cuestion, as a practical matter.
We l
25 have said elsewhere here that the criterion will be I
+
4 0
l 1
J ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1
l l
25 l
I CIIAIRMAN AHEAENE :
Well, you see, your version, whichj i
1 2
they have --
j
+
3i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
I was going back to my i
4li original version.
I 5
g CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's the same thing as they have H
j 6!
used.
They used your original version, and it's an absolute.
R 7*
=5 l
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In my original version, it u
I g
8 says the Commission intends to compare the risks posed by
="
9I Indian Point to the risks posed by other plants.
E 10 You know, if you were going to say compared to the 3_
you would go and do that.
Necessarily it's hard to II
- average, 3
y 12 I
formulate it.
=
~
5 I3 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Yes, it is.
=
x 5
I4 ll COMMICSIONER GILINSKY:
And the dif ficulty with your E
{
15 i formulation is that -- this is something that will never get
=
l j
16 l in the transcript -- (drawing)
A N
I7 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE :
You can submit it.
E i
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
-- is this is your range, s
I9 '!
g and you may still decide you have to do something, even though --
i I
20 ;
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Sure, but my point is that in --
l still focus on this as an investigative board.
WhatIwascon-l 2I i
cerned with is that they do look at it, and it is with respect l
22 23 '
to the range.
It's not the absolute.
24 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
It's the risks posed by the i
25.l others, and that's th e --
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
26
.i I
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's the range of risks.
l 2:
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
When you say the range, it's i
3 this interval.
4l CHAIFMAN AHEARNE:
That's right.
And how you balance 5l that is up to the final judgment of the Commission.
s 0
6!
CCMMISSIONER GILINS KY :
Yes, but you've_gone on to R
l 7l say that whether it's in or above the range, et cetera, it's --
~
~
8' CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's right.
c 9
CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It turns out that if you've z
O g
10 l looked at this thing at all down here, and there's more over z
=
j 11 here,.amd Indian Point is here, you may decide do something about 3
d 12 both of them.
E
=
i f
13 CHAIEMAN AHEARNE:
That's absolutely correct, but x
5 I4 that -- no, it would, because the comparison that I an looking E
15 '
5 for, is it significantly above the range.
=
y 16 !
Now how it will then end uo balancing that is, or M
,f 17 how the Commission or whoever is sitting here ends up balancing
=
{
18 th at, is obviously going to depend upon how they fold that in.
b I9 '
9 i
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
It may not be significantly 5
20 !
above the range, and you may decide to do something.
21 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But the cuestion for this 22 investigative board -- I'm not asking the board member -- this 23 investigative board at the moment --
24 $
COMMISSIONER GILINS KY :
But the primary basis --
l 25 i CHAIRMAN AHEARME:
Yes, but, see, I'm not asking l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
27 1
I them to tell me what I ought to do.
I'n asking them to examine 2:
submissions in one of these issues in this area, is it l
3l significantly above the range.
I i
4 Now, as you say, they may come down and say, no, as g
5, you described here, it's not significantly above the range.
H j
6 It's right within this other plant and those two are sienificantly R
=S 7>
above all the others.
O i
A 8'
But the issue I'm asking them to examine is, is it 3
9i significantly above the range, not its absolute risk.
z Oy 10 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, ; thought you were l
5 II also going to compare these risks to the other one.
N II CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But, you see, the way the sentence 5
l 13* 'l goes on to say the Commission is concerned with the total risk i
m E
I4 posed by the Indian Point plants.
That's an absolute value.
C 5
5 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
John, how would you feel
=
k I0 about changing "significantly" to " unacceptably"?
m
.h I7 CEAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I don't initially see any problem
=
{
18 with that, as long as I can understand how I'm telling the C
l 19 '
g Board what unacceptable is.
See, if I say significant, th a t ' s --
=
20 the issue that I think that Vic is just discussing is, and I 2I think it's the right question.
Where would the Commission --
what would the Commission end up concluding is unacceptable.
22 I
23 So the Board can address a question cf mathematics or analysis 24 but the interpretation of that is up to the Commission.
l 25l COMMISSIOMER BRADFORD:
I assume if the word were I
6 d
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
l i
28 i
1 1 !
" unacceptab ly, " the Board would in fact brine back a description 2j of the situation.
3f CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Which I guess they would also do 4l if we asked "significantly. "
I would aaree if we end up with I
e 5 !
this as a single hearing, then we have to be mora precise, R
j 6
and prbbably " unacceptable" is the right word.
R 7[
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Actually, I would have said
~
j 8 !
" unacceptably" is less precise.
I was tryina to go over the J
0 91 difference, but " unacceptably" simply defers whether the z,
cg 10 standard is -- well, what the relationship is between that 3_
j 11 adverb and the range.
I 12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
But I think "unacceptabl6" carries 5"
I3 !
with it the judgment where "significant" is less of a judgment.
g m
5 I4 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That's right.
9:
{
15 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well,'I suspect that that continues,
=.
I g
16 then, to be an item of potential disagreement.
A i
N I7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You said above the risks a
E i
3 18 posed by most other plants.
It's just that I'm not sure that c
i s
19 ;
it's useful to -- well, you either have to get very much more n
20 precise or be general.
21[
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
They have to have the range.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There's got to be a way to 23 say it, because you are both agreeing on everything that's on 24 that piece of paper.
I 25 (Laughter.)
i I
J l
4 i
- l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
l I
29 I
l Ij COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
You say most other plants 2
-- (inaudible).
3)
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess at the moment I'd like to !
i 4'
stick with range, but let me --
I There's another problem, whick 5
g COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
N j
6 is that I R
=
t 7;
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Joe, chime in any time you want.
~
8f COMMISSIONER B RADFORD: He's here under protest.
4 9
z.
CHAIRFSN PREARNE:
That's not true.
C 10 l COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
-- which is that I don't 3
5 II l think you ever want to say that the compliance with the l
t g.
12 l regulations isn't a required basis for continued operation in 5
f 13 l any plant.
You don't. quite say that, because you say the
=
14,
g primary -- well, when you say the primary basis for the E
15 Commission's decision will be a risk emparison, you don't want d
I6 '
to put in there the inference that even if it turns out they are s
17 d
not in compliance with the regulation, it's all right if it E
18 ;
doesn't put them significantly outside the range of risks of 19,
other plants.
g 20,
CHAIP24AN AHEARNE:
No, that's certainly true, but I 2I thought in this particular section we were really addressing 22 different issues, which might be characterized as even if they 23 were in compliance with all the Commission's regulations, and I I
24 ]
thoucht that was really the fundamental issue that we are l
25 addressing in this whole crecess.
I il i
i i
J ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l e
i 30 l
I.
COMMISSIONER 3RADFORD:
That's richt.
Ne have as vour l
2 next point the question of contentions relating to compliance l
l 3I with the regulations, and I just -- I guess as long as they are j l
I 4
clear in themselves -- as long as that section is clear in itself 5
g there probably isn't a problem.
8 j
6' CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I in no way intended to have E
7' S
i that as an implication.
i U
i A
8~
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
To repeat the point, I think J
9 it's perfectly okay as long as it takes into account the zc g
10 possibility that there may be another plant, possibly a small z
5 Q
Il number of plants --
D N
I2 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Now once you start talking about
=
13 small number --
=
x 5
I4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, you know -- (inaudible)
-c C
{
15 CHAIEMAN AHEAPNE:
Well, I mean I get your approach,
=
j 16 '
7__
-A 17 M
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
.(Inaudible. )
i 5
IO l CEAIRMAN AREARNE:
Okay, paragraph 19, 20, 21, 22.
C l
19 I
g I guess there was no debate on those, so we move to page 10,
=
20 and there we get to this fundamental difference of approach of i
i 2I questions, and I guess my comment on that would be that I 22 felt that the approach that Joe and I had in our first 23 question addressed.l(c), and in the fourth question addressed 24 the other ones.
25 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
These questions ought to i
ii
- i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i 31 l
1 follow sone logic.
It seems to me they ought to work from the l
2l problem -- (inaudible) -- to the vadous fixes and safety measures, I
3' evacuation procedures adequate.
I t
4l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, that would be fine.
. hen I I 1
e 5r would propose that my question 4 be that first question slightly E
j 6i reworded.
R 7l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Where is question 4?
N j
8i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's on page 12, at the top of u
9 the page.
It would have to obviously be in one place.
E l
10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Yeah, I'm basically in E
j 11,
agreement with --
3 Y
12 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would view the main difference,
=
h 13 at least I turned my questions, I thought, focused on Indian
=
n 14 Point, and what seemed to be the fundamental --
5
'o
=
i r
15 :
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY :
(Inaudible) -- at Indian 5
l y
16 '
Point, but I would start with the probabilities and --
A N
17 CHAIRMAN AHEAPSE:
I had no particular commitment to x
=
{
18 !
any order.
It's more what the questions are that my concern was, o
i b
I9 g
not to have this be an attempt to have a board do WASH 1400.
=
20 '
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, wait a minute.
I was 21l trying to short-circuit the process in Seotember.
Now you 22 )
I guys want to have t -- this is the longer approach.
23 CHAIEMAN AHEARNE :
I really viewed yours as the 24 longer approach.
Because,. henestly, that's --
l 25l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, I b eli eve -- (inaudible) c
?
I I
- i 1
J ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
i e
32 i
I but I think that you need to sti t with what the problem is.
j 2;
CRAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That's what I was attempting to doj i
3 we were attempting to do, what risks may be posed by serious i
4!
accidents to Indian Point 2 and 3, including accidents not e
5l considered in the plant's design basis.
0 5
0[
COMMISSICMER GILINSKY:
I would ask --
R
=
r 5
7 i CHAIPNAN AHEARNE :
And then I also was asking what
~
j 8'
- i. provements would result from the measures required by Denton, o
9 and the sort of contention that additional measures should be E.
i l
10 required would be within the scope, what improvements a lot of
_c II l the emergency planning can contribute.
3 d
12 E
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Well, let me ask you this:
=
i.
]
13 What would you expect as an answer lo your cuestion 4?
Are you
=
z 5
I4 just talking about the number or would this spell out some l
[
15 sort of accidents, a range of accidents, some of the
=
j 16 !
crobabilities?
m
~
N I7 CCMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
We have had discussion in t
C 3
18 ;
paragraphs -- sort of an introduction in 20, and then 21 and C
i I9 22, it talks about the risk measures that would be useful g
20 both from an individual standpoint and from a societal stand-2I j!
point.
22 l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
And would this spell out i
t 23 '
something about releases or direction of releases or extent o i
24 ;]
releases?
i 1
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Me had already been addressing f
20 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
l 33 1,
I !
earlier an issue we had just finished debating on, a range of 2!
risks.
I'm asking the Board to decide what is their best measure.
l 3l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Their best number?
4i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Their best measure.
We are g
5l trying to ask them to balance, to do an investigation of the H
j 6
risks involved here with respect to the risks elsewhere.
R 7 j; Now we have had one preliminary review done on
=E s
j 8!
Indian Point, and we have decided, on the basis of that, to 4*
9' take several actions.
One of the actions we have is to ask z.
i c
10 '
this Board to go into this.
Now if we are going to spell out 5
II in great detail of calculations required and the methods of 3
E 12 l analysis, that, I think, is essentially asking them to set up a 5
l 13 '
panel to --
t m
i I4 '
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Idell, I just don't under-E 15 stand.
What do you expect the response to your question to be?
i E
I0 !
CH AIRMAN AHEARNE :
I expect their response --
A h
I7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE :
What you get from the
=
i f
IO f various parties, or each party can provide his own set of as I
I9 !
graphs and his basis for that set of graphs, and then decide g
t 20 what they think the best composite is for individual risks as 2If paths and prcbabilities versus distance fron the reactors for 22 '
such measures as fatalities soon af ter the accident, early 23 injuries, and long-term ef f ects, cancers and genetic effects.
24 '
On the societal risk side, you've cot disuributions i
25j of probabilities and consequences, as well as the expected risk $
i I
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I
i 34 1
or mean annual values, and they include such things as 2,
the early effects, the same as the individual, long-term i
l 3 l>
health effects, property damage and costs, et cetera.
3 4
i i
4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is it you're looking :or?
I i
g 5 -
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Since the individual risk is n
j 6
one person, why, it's a probability -- it's best as a probability R
7 versus dis tance, for a given injurious result.
The societal
- j 8
ones are those cumulativei things where they are probability-J
[
9 consequence types of things.
E 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would expect that the various E
11 j participants will approach that question on how do you estimate a
I 12 l those risks differently, and the Board will examine the
=
3 13 5
different approaches proposed.
=
z g
14 '
COMMISSIONER GILINSI'.Y:
So you want to leave it u 15 in the air?
E j
16 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Nell, I think that's what more or A
17 '
less -- we are committed down that cath, I think.
That's g-
}
18 really the issue that we have said we will have the Board P
l9 '
g investigate.
If we want to narrow it down to these calculations, l
5 20.
I don't think that the whole process is necessary.
Ilf To the extent that we define the scoce of the 22 l questions, and refer and do a risk comparison, and give them 1
23 as initially the reference the Indian Point study that was 1
24 done, beyond that, I would leave it up to the Board.
25 i And the way the parties would go.
q i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
35 i
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What would you follow this 2,
question 4 with?
3{
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I would then, after cuestion 4, i
4' I guess I'd go to question 3, and then I'd go to 1 and 2.
i e
5l It should be feasible.
It was the last time.
9 j
6' COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let's see.
Where do you deal o
S 7>
with --
M l
2 8!
7, CHAIRMAN AHEARNE :
It was " feasibly," not "f easible" N
9i z.
in the.last draft, and that's No.
2.
b 10 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
There are other specific Oz 2
I i
II offsite emergency procedures that what?
D d
12 f
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
That could be feasibly and should
=
j 13 i be taken.
I 5
I4 CCMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Couldn' t we just say "are 2
15 :
feasible and should be taken"?
E k
Ib l CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Fine.
m h
I7 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Victory.
=
l U
IO l COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
(Inaudible) -- possible P
i 19 9
effects of radioactive wastes on the property?
E i
20 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I think that's what is the risk.
I 21 i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE :
Yep, you go back and read i
22
- paragraph 22.
It tells you what sort of things you do for 23 '
societal risks.
You really need to start and read 21, right?
4 3
CCMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I see.
So that's what 25 interprets risk, then?
I 1
4 I
i d"
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
f
~
l 36 I
I' COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Ye ah.
And that's why there I
l 2;
was thac discussion in 20, 21, 22.
It seemed to me that scme i
i 4
34 discussion of these kinds of measures was necessary.
I i
4 CHAIRMAN AHEARNF:
Read the order and see how it looks i
e 5'
in the order.
P.
j 6,
All right.
That would move us to page 12, question R
7l 5, I guess that's as follows from the modification in the 3
i j
8!
transcript.
O i
[
9 Question 6 is as --
2 10 1 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is this?
z 1
=
II i CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Question 5, this was added.
l N
12 '
And question 6, I think we did end up agreeing to.
5 5
13 i COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Does 5 end up where -- the
=
z 5
14 i thing in the parentheses, does that end up where we wanted it i
C 1
2 15 '
to?
s g
16 MR. BICKWIT:
I think so.
A N
I7 CHAIEMAN AHEARNE:
Move to No.
7.
I had to go x
=
f 18 i back and look at the contentions, and at least my look at the
)
i F
I h
I9 h contentions led me to the points I raised when I circulated l
5 20 :
this at noontime, or this morning.
21 l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Is the only contention for i
22 '
noncompliance the diesel generator?
l t
i 23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, I would have read a 24 couple of others of those-to say that they were stating a i
I i
25 i problem in terms of a single failure criterion, and one also in l
I l
l
- l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
i l
37 1 :
terms of whichever GCC it is that deals with fire protection, t
i 2,
3 or 4.
But in fact, rather than to restir the tea leaves j
3' there, John, if you're taking -- if the third of those in your I
i 4;
view includes the first ones, then I'd be perfectly happy just s
5 to go with --
N j
6 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I thought the third one did.
I R
7'I COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yeah, you had made that aS sj 8'
point last time, and I went back and thought about it, and it 4
z.
9!
seems to me that that's all right.
0 10 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Okay.
Joe?
3 II l COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
Retaining the parenthetical 3
i E-12 l l
statement of the end of question 3, and then deleting 7.
=
2 o
13 !
Well, that was where I was sort of by default some time ago.
5=
- A i
5 I4 l CHAIRMAN AHEAPNE:
All richt.
Vic?
All right.
-b
{
15 And then that moves to No. 13 -- page 13, which No.
=
i E
I6 8 was where we had come out last time.
I notice that OGC, i
d 17 g
with appropriate caution, said " appears to have".
=
5 I8 l MR. BICKWIT:
That's all you could s ay, from reading c
1 that transcript.
I9 i
c 20 !
(Laughter.)
21 '
CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Are there any other issues, 1
22f comments, questions?
f 23 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I guess I'd put the word l
24 "wish" in, instead of " care."
I thought " care" had a slightly 25 l sardonic ring to it.
l l
/
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l
a l
38 I
CHAIRMAN AHEARUE:
All right.
And I think where we 1
2i are at the coment, then --
l i
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE :
By the way, the rest of you 3l 4,
would like to have 8 phrased as it is now?
I couldn't raise a i
e 5 !
dus t, could I, gather a party for recoval?
E j
6 CHAIRMAN AHEAPSE:
Based on --
R 7
COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
The state is certainly going n
)
j 8
to be a party to this thing, and they can -- and state of ficials
(
c 9i can send letters to the Board to suit themselves.
E.
y 10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
If I were sure of that, Joe, E
j 11 then I probably wouldn' t have suggested it, either.
I went into a
y 12 last time a little bit why I would like to be sure that we had 5
f 13 I an overall state position here, but there's always the possibili by1
~
z I4lt that in fact the state will choose to stay out of it, and I j
15 guess I'm trying to avoid that in as gentle a way as I can.
=
y 16 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
I make no, you know, no l
A I
C 17 determined assault here.
It was more a query to see whether g
E 18,
the --
l c
l I9 l
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
Well, putting aside the question j
20 of the length of this whole proceeding may encompass the terms 2I -
of many governors.
t 22 (Laughter.)
i 23 COMMISSIONER HENDRIE:
How about the plural?
Do I
24 4 those governors of the state of New York?
l 25 (Laughter.)
l d
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
f t
1
{
1
..;$s' '4+o, 0
i..
? 'ktf
,i O g
\\\\\\\\/
////
f.' '
by 4M{c
! %'<4////s*
$/
1 N
V
IMAGE EVALUATION 4
l TEST TARGET (MT-3) 3 i
i 1.0 lf a R4 i
l3 m gtg
,; su l
1.1 b f u g 2.0 L
I I.8 i
l j
l.25 1.4 1.6 6"
! p 4"W/
'O$pW/%
4$ 4%
b,.n!'
M e
i nn?:.
N' o
&*h&
46 i
I i
i 4e e
.e
- II CHAIFF1.'? AHEAR2 Z :
I.en, then ! guess you are going l
2,l to de several things:
3 Ccreare the ene rersus twc-hearing accroach, and u
1 4
then you right as well also see 'ot.at change that would make 5
w._ _..,.
a..A
='so ce..
m='.
. a_ w..# '..i.. c. .e c.de- ^-# '".es a.
e N
i
-g 6
ques tiens, and then reflect in the next draf t the decisions we
-n
~
E 7
=ade today; tentative decisiens, I guess is the right werd.
1 n.
i 8
Anv. other cuestiens?
4, a
i oI A' 1 ric.ht.
han'c v. cu.
=.
g 10 (Whereupen, at 3 :15 p.m., the hearing was z
=_
4 II.
adj curned. )
d 12 z
i n
=_
j
=
13
=
ii 2
14 1 I
J Z
S s
15 ;<*
c i
i.
16 i
s f
=
i
- ~ <!
i Mt E
18 4
I
~_
19
),
x 4,
.i.
e dw.n &
t f
I 21 4 1
x.
22l 23l a
I s
24 e t
25,
3 ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
NUC' EAR REGULATORY CO.'CESSICN m.
a.
.,..a.~.,
.a.,.
,... g e..,.,.,....,,, a 2
- a.,. e.,,...u..
u
.2
,..... 3 M EC a
. u.,. n. c...,,
w..
.a.
w...~.:
c,.,. s..a
//. J6
.s.
Docket Nu=ber:
?I. ace of ?receedir.i;:
fu ef=1, 3,C,
/
.u...
... a.
..'..:.....'.e
'. 4
..a. s
.-d.g'.....'
..- =....e -.' -.
=,. e._ e. s d
.w yy p
w.
y
. h. a.
, p '..
'...iT,
=..u.,.
- .m w
. u. C w w 6...m. J w. w< =..
..e4
.A s
.W.
ha k' Let 0 6'.' '..d a.'.R a. a e r. e - ( ~. f e-a. d. )
e t
e L.'
- 4 4 c.i
.t,,...,.
/..*.4..=...,.,:
fw.
e......,
i i
(
i I
1 l
1
- -