ML20010B125
| ML20010B125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1981 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8108140049 | |
| Download: ML20010B125 (86) | |
Text
l
- /}
'9 NUC" U REG 7aTORY COMMISSICN I
'/
' O / W L) n hj,,
O c
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
In de.V.0 er of:
E PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY i
and DOCKET NOS. 50-387 and 50-388 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, f
Units 1 and 2) i O
DA"Z:
August 12, 1981 p;ggg:
921 - 1004 l
A7 Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania l
l i
f aff /To ^s l
l l
h 01
&'"""{jGb$$"? $'~
h M(f w
s W
/a NUs~ i \\Ys \\
V/),N
{
/*
t REPORTLTG ALDERSON O
f.
40 0 t71:7 nia Ave., 5.*4.
~4asningten,
C.
C.
20024 i
Talachcse: (202) 554-2245 I
l 8108140049 810612 l,
PDR ADOCK 0500038,/
PDR T
921 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3______
4 In the matter of:
4 4
5 PENNSYLVANIA POWER C LIGHT COMPANY s
a 6
and Docket Nos. 50-387 4
and 50-388 7 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, Inc.
4 8 (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, a
Units 1 and 2) 9
x 10 Grand Ballroom 11 Genetti Best Western Hotel Inn 77 East Market Street 12 Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 13 Wednesday, August 12, 1981
- O l
14 The hearing in the above-entitled matter was 15 convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m.
16 l
BEFORE:
17 JAMES P. GLEASON, Esq., Chairman, 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 19 NR. GLENN 0.
BRIGHT, Member 20 DR. PAUL F. PURDON, Member 21 22 23 24 25 O
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
921-A
()
1 APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of the Applicants:
3 JAY E. SILBERG, Esq.
O MATIAS F. TRAVIESO-DIAZ, Esq.
4 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.
5 Washington, D. C.
20036 6
BRIAN SNAPP, Esq.,
Office oI General Counsel 7
WILLIAM E. BARGERICH BAY HARRIS 8
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company Two North 9th Steet, 9
Allentown, Pennsylvania 10 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff 11 JAMES M. CUTCHIN, IV, Esq.
JESSICA H. LAVERTY, Esq.
12 Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 13 Washington, D. C.
14 On behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 15 ROBERT W.
ADLER, Esq.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources 16 505 Executive House, Box 235 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17 RALPH J. HIPPERT 18 Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency Transportation and Safety Building 19 Room B-151 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 20 On behalf of Petitioners for leave to Intevenes 21 DR. JUDITH H. JOHNSROD 22 Co-Director, On behalf of Environmental Coalition on 23 Nuclear Power
()
24 THOMAS J. HALLIGAN, On behalf of The Citizens Against Nuclear Danger 25 GERALD SCHULTZ, Esq.
On behalf of Susquehanna Environmental Advocates
[
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
~
l 922 O
i raoctrorxGs 2
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right, if we could come to 3 order, please.
{}
4 This is a resumption of our prehearing conference 5 which was held in Wilkes-Barre on July 22 and 23 of this 6 year in connection with the hearing of the application of 7 Pennsylvania Power and Light Company for an operating 8 license for its Surt:uehanna Steam Electric Station Unit 1 9 and 2 in Berwick, Pennsylvania.
to We are required by the Commission 's rules under 10 11 CFR 2.752 to consider a simplification of the issues and to 12 make whatever efforts are necessary to arrive at some kind 13 of an understanding between the parties as far as the issues O
14 being considered and adjudicated at the hearing is concerned.
15 As I indicated at the prior prehearing conference, 16 the contentions having been written many, many months ago, 17 and now having gone th rough the discovery process, it is 18 desirable in order for us to be able to concentrate our 19 attentions on the issues that deserve to be in the hearing 20 process, for us to make an effort to don't go to those 21 things that are not quite that material.
22 During the session on July 22 and 23, we did make 23 some progrees.
There were a number of contentions that 24 individual intervenors had not had a chance to review in the 25 light of recently issued documents, and it was the Board's O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
923 O
i fee 11no et that time that we euoht to continue that effort.
2 Therefore, that prehearing conference was recessea until 3 today with the order of the Board that the parties gather 4 together themselves and decide on the hearing format 5 yesterday, Acoust 11, to continue their ef forts prior to 6 having them put on the record as we are in the process of 7 doing at the present time.
8 I think that as we start we ought to re-establish 9 ourselves as being present, who ir, present, and establish to those who are not by identifying ourselves once more for the 11 record, and therefore I would ask that that take place.
And 12 start with the Applicant, please.
13 MR. SILBERGs Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
I'm Jay O
14 311 berg of the lawfirm of Shaw, Pittman, Potts and 15 Trowbridge, Washington, D. C.
16 With me here today, appearing on behalf of the 17 Applicants, are Mstt Diaz of the same lawfirm, and Brian 18 Snapp, an attorney with Pennsylvania Power and Light Company.
19 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Mr. Cutchin?
20 MR. CUTCHIN:
Mr. Chairman, I am James M. Cutchi:,
NIV.
To my immediate right is Ms. Jessica H. Laverty.
We 22 are attorneys with the Office of the Executive Legal 23 Director, and we represent the Nuclear Regulatory Coma.ission 24 Staff.
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Representing the state, please.
25 I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
2 924
()
1 MH. ADLER:
My name is Robert Adler, Assistant 2 Counsel representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
3 With me is Mr. Ralph h pport, who represents the
(}
4 Penns ylvania Emergency Management Agency.
5 CHAIRMAN GLEASON Dr. Johnsrud?
6 MS. JOHNS 7'JD My name is Judith Johnsrud, and I 7 am Co-Director of the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear 8 Power and will be the representative for that organization 9 in this proceeding.
10 CHAIRUAN GLEAS0ss Mr. Halligan?
11 MR. HALLIGANs Thomas J. Halligan, correspondent 12 for Citizens Against Nuclea r Danger, an ad hoc citizens 13 group from the Berwin area.
(
14 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Is either Mr. Schultz or M s.
15 Ma rsh he re a t present?
l 16 MR. CUTCHIN:
Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Schultz 17 had planned to attend, but as is apparent, Ms. Marsh was not 18 here yesterday snd I don't now anything of her whereabouts.
19 I'm not sure "f anyone else does or not.
20 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I see.
21 MS. JOHNSBUDs Mr. Chairman, I would only add tha t 22 although we have not been in close communication with Mrs.
23 Marsh, we have no indication at this point that she does not
/'\\
(_)
24 intend to participate in the U.oceeding.
It is my 25 understanding that she had to be away this week.
r^)'.
g l
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
925
()
1 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Fine.
We appreciate that 2 comment.
3 We are constrained, of course, to have a full
(}
4 understanding among all of the parties that whatever 5 decisions are made in this conference, they are binding to 6 all parties.
7 Mr. Cutchin?
8 MR. CUTCHIN Mr. Chairman, I was going + o sa y 9 something later on.
I think that was one of the reasons to that I suggested to the Board that the parties be directed 11 to attend yesterday.
12 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
They were directed.
13 CHAIEMAN GlEASON:
They were directed to attend O
14 the prehearing conference of July, arad of course, Ms. Marsh 8
15 missed the first day and came the second day, and of course, 16 she missed yesterday.
So she is now twice in direct 17 violation of the Board 's directives to appear, and I have 18 heard from her lips no good excuse for failure to appear, 19 and I think I would respectfully suggest the Board seek from 20 her a clear expression of her intent to participate in this 21 proceeding, because otherwise she is putting both the Board 22 and the parties to some burden to prepare for issues that 23 she may not pursue.
24 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Well, let it suffice to say for 25 the moment that we vill take that recommendation under O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
926
()
1 consideration.
2 Mr. Silherg, do you have any particular order you 3 would like to procees with respect to wha tever ha ppened
}
4 yesterday?
5 MR. SILBEBGa Mr. Chairman, I think what I can do 6 is summarize the nature of our discussions.
We met here
, 7 starting at about 9:00, concluded at about 3400.
We did 8 discuss each of the contfntions sponsored by the three 9 parties who were in attendance, ECNP, SEA, CAND.
We reached to I think an understanding both as to contentions which the 11 parties wish to proceed with, some contentions which parties 12 indicated they were withdrawing, and we reached an 13 agreed-upon order of presentation of contentions at the O
14 hearing.
15 Dr. Johnsrud also proposed a particular 16 arrangement with respect to the Radon issue which I think we 17 can discuss a little more later on.
18 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right.
19 MR. SILBERGs In brief, Mr. Schultz, on behalf of 20 SEA, stated that he va'; withdrawing Contention 15 --
21 CHAIRhAN GLEASON:
Excuse me just a minute.
22 If it is convenient, simply because I have kind of 23 a simple mind, I would like to take up those contentions by 24 number in order, with the environmental contentions first.
25 MR. SILBERGa Ce r tainly.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
927 1
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
And I would appreciate taking 2 No.
1, is 1 still valid?
Taking No. 2, is 2 still valid, 3 and then going through the environmental and then going to 4 the other contentions.
5 I would like the record to show that Mr. Schultz 6 is in attendance.
7 Is that all right?
j 8
MR. SILBERG That's fine with me, sir.
9 With regard to Contention 1,
the parties generally to agree that Contention 1 has three aspects:
the Radon issue, 11 the technicium issue, and the issue of the health effects of 12 all other releases f rom the nuclear fuel cycle.
13 With respect to the technicium and health aspects l
- O 14 of all of the portions, ECNP, which is the sponsor of that 15 issue -- SEA is also a sponsor of the health effects portion 16 -- both parties agree that that issue should remain in the 17 proceeeding.
18 With respect to the Radon issue, Dr. Johnsrud 19 proposed that the Radon issue in this proceeding -- and this 20 has not been fully worked out.
At least I'm not sure I have 21 a full understanding of all of the ramifications, but the 22 basic proposal was that the Radon issue in this proceeding 23 would be moved over into the consolidated Radon proceedings, those proceedings which are pending before the Appeal Board 24 25 involving Peach Bottom, Three Mile Island Unit 2, and Hope O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202: 554-2345 l
928 O
i creek raci11 ties, and the na e or the proceedine, and it 2 'also involves certain other f acilities that were subject to 3 the Commissin 's Radon order.
The most recent Appeal Board 4 in that proceeding was ALAB 640, issued n May of this year, 5 which set forth the Appeal Board's decision on the Radon 6 source terms.
7 As I understand the ECNP proposal that the Radon 8 issue would not need be completed in the consolidated Radon 9 proceedings in order for this Board to close the record, 10 make its decision, and for the operating license to issue, 11 if one is to issue.
The operating licenses for Susquehanna, 12 if they were to issue, would be made subject to a condition, 13 that condition essen tially stating that the operating
!O 14 licenses for the Susquehanna units would be conditioned upon l
15 the eventual final outcome of the consolidated Radon 16 proceedings.
And my understanding how that would work is 17 that in essence the Radon issue would disappear f rom this 18 proceeding.
There would be an agreement amongst ECNP, the NRC Staff and ourselves that in the event operating licenses 19 20 for Susquehanna were issued, those licenses would contain a 21 condition stating that those licenses would be made subject 22 to the eventual outcome of the consolidated Radon 23 proceedings.
Both the staff and the applicants advised Dr.
24 Johnsrud that we considered this to be a proposal that was 25 O
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,;rdC.
4ud VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i 929
, worth considering very seriously and appeared to have 2 considerable merit.
We committed that we wo'uld discuss it 3 amongst ourselves, and it is obviously a matter which will 4 need discussions beyond those that we could have from 3 :00 5 o' clock yesterday afternoon until this morning.
6 We would hope to be able to get to Dr. Johnsrud an 7 answer shortly, probably, we would hope within a week 8 certainly.
This involves discussions with people back in 9 Aller. town who are just not available over the next couple of 10 days, given people 's schedules.
4 11 I don't know what kind of schedule the staff would 12 be on to determine whether it could agree to that kind of 13 resolution of the issue, but it did seem to us to be a O
14 worthwhile suggestion, and we are considering it very 15 seriously.
16 HR. CUTCHINs I might speak for the staff, Mr.
17 Chairman.
I also will have to go back and discuss it with 18 19 those who have been involved in the consolidated proceeding, i
i 20 but to the staff as well, it does appear to have great merit.
21 CHAIRHAN GLEASON:
I don't see the complications, 22 but perhaps my naivete in this area of technical matters is 23 forgetting something.
24 Dr. Johnsrud?
MS. JOHNSRUDs I would like to clarify.
My intent 25 O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
,, - -. - ~.
i 930
()
1 in my expression yesterday was that this mode of handling 2 the Radon issue would, of course, also place it within 3 whatever disposition the case still pending before the U.S.
)
4 Court of Appeals in this matter might ultimately come to, 5 tha t is to say -- would you care for a very brief filling in 6 of the background?
7 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Maybe you had better.
8 MS. JOHNSRUDs The Radon issue arose from the 9 Three Mile Island Unit 2 operating license proceeding.
In 10 appeal f rom the dacision to grant the operating license for 11 TMI 2, the litigant of that case, Dr. Shepherd, took the 12 Radon issue to the U.S. Court of Appeals on a pro se basis 13 as a non-attorney, of course, being disallowed from O
14 t epresenting that organization formally.
However, he was a l
15 member of the organizations involved.
16 That case remains before the Court, held in 17 abeyance pending completion of the NRC's remanded review of 18 the Radon issue.
That issue has thus far been reheard 19 before the Appeal Board, and a partial decision has been 20 issued.
However, the litigation of the health effects of 21 Radon, which is the matter in question here, has not yet 22 taken place.
It has been indicated te us that the NRC 23 Appeal Board intends to schedule such hearings at some misty
(
24 time in the future, we hope reasonably soon.
25 Therefore, following the completion of those O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
931 O
i hea1th effects heeringe, it wou1d he our expectation that 2 the case would then, if necessary, return to court for 3 completion of whatever review is pending in the Court of 4 Appeals.
5 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I wouldn't want my remarks to 6 bo misconstrued.
I am not making any judgments as to what 7 the decision should be with respect to this proposal.
What 8 I am saying is that I don't see that it should take very 9 long to come to some decision with respect to it.
We must 10 keep in mind that we are on a critical path here as far as 11 this hearing is concerned.
12 MR. SILBERG:
As you know, Mr. Chairman, we have 13 already filed for a summary disposition of that issue, both O
14 the source term and the health effects aspects.
There are 15 certain risks that are involved in placing this proceeding 16 into a consolidated proceeding which is tied up with many 17 other issues, and a record which is a very long and 18 complicated one going back to the Perkins case in
- 977.
And 19 it is a difficult judgment as to whether we ar a ' setter off 20 litigating that issue here in a fairly well defined context, I
i l
21 or moving that issue into a consolidated proceeding, which is a much less well defined process with a pending Court of 22 l
23 Appeals lawsuit.
24 MS. JOHNSRUDs Mr. Chairman.
^
25 CHAIRMAN GLEASON4 Do you understand you are not O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
932 O
i geing to have eny he1 frem the Beerd with res ect to 2 resolving that issue, because the time for responses in your 3 motion for summary disposition and Contention 1, the time 4 f or responses has still got some time to run.
5 MR. SILBERG We are not counting on that as one 6 of the inputs.
We would, of course -- well, one of the 7 inputs would be to know whether the Board would have any 8 dif ficulties with that disposition, in other words, moving 9 that issue completely out of this Board's purview and into a 10 license condition.
11 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
The Board cannot rule in a 12 vacuum.
As you know, the Commission rules in many different 13 vays and we have to apply different things.
You know, the O
14 Commission can take it out of the jurisdiction.
Sometimes 15 it has to apply in individual cases, and the whole spectrum 1
12 is involved.
So we are not going to be much help.
17 MS. JOHNSRUDs Mr. Chairman, I would like to add 18 here first that I, as sponsor of this contention am left i
19 rather in the dark on this discussion of pending summary 20 disposition.
I received no such papers.
21 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
It has come in very recently.
22 I think I received it Monday of this week, so it is probably 23 at your office.
24 MR. SILBERG:
It was filed on August 7.
25 MS. JOHNSRUDs It has not arrived in my mailbox.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
933 1
Secondly, I would add that contrary to what Mr.
2 Silberg is implying, the Radon proceeding at this stage is a 3 rather clear and extremely limited issue pertaining to the 4 health effects of Radon emissions as 'ociated with a 5 reference reactor and fuel requirement, and while it is a 6 convoluted proceeding in the extreme in its history, it has 7 now moved to the point where that is the remaining issue.
8 That is, of course, the issue ultimately that was the basis 9 of the appeal to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 10 and that is the issue that is therefore pending.
11 CHAIRMAN GLEASONs If I understood his remarks in 12 talking about the complexity of the issue, it is the 13 complexity of the consideration that the Company and the 14 attorneys have to go through to decide.
15 MS. JOHNSRUDs It was my understanding that he was 16 including there that there were many other issues in that 17 proceeding, which is not the case at this stage.
18 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
However, let's go ons Leave it 19 where it is and get back to it as quickly as you can.
20 MR. SILBERG:
That completes Issue or Contention 21 N o.
1.
22 Contention No. 2 again has a numbo. of different 23 aspects.
It includes the question of quantities and health
! O 24 ef f ects of chloriae discharges into the river.
Mr. Halligan l
23 on behalf of CAND stated that that was an issue which would O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
_._.__.___._..-.____._.~.__.__..____-__-._,-______...,__-2345 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554
934
()
1 remain in the proceeding.
2 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
At least the third part of tha t 3 con tention is now going through the discovery process, and
[}
4 it will stay where it is.
5 All right, No. 3.
6 MR. HALLIGAN4 I have some comments on No.
2.
7 CHAIRMAN GLEASONs We don't want any comments on 8 these contentions, I mean, anything substantive.
9 MR. HALLIGAN It's inaccurate, what he said.
10 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right, Mr. Halligan.
11 MR. HALLIGAN4 No. 2 I believe I just received 12 corespondence yesterday from Sam Chilt, Secretary of the 13 Commission, and he dealt with this matter.
He said this was O
14 to inform you that the time provided for the NRC Regulation 15 within which the Commission may act to review the Appeal l
16 Board deci.on 641 in this docket has expired.
The 17 Commission has declined any review.
Accordingly, the 18 decision became final Agency action on July 27, 1981.
19 What does that mean?
20 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
What that means, Mr. Halligan, 21 is that the Commission no longer has before it the 22 possibility of reviewing the Appeals Board decision itself, 23 so that the Appeals Board decision remains in effect and
()
that decision in affect said they do not have jurisdiction 24 25 over the issue.
They referred it back to the Licensing O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, (00 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (232) 554-2345
935
()
1 Board or back to the status it was in.
2 And as you know, the Board has denied the staff's 3 action f or reconsideration of that issue, but has granted an
{}
4 additional period for discovery because of new information 5 tha t the prior Bosrd allowed to be injected into that issue, 6 and the Applicant has now recently sent up new requests for 7 discovery.
d 8
MR. HALLIGANs Yes, and we want it on the record 9 at this point that we object to this discovery request.
Dr.
10 Johnsrud has perused this and advised me that I am required 11 to answer within the next three days 1000 questions.
12 MS. JOHNSRUDs I didn't say 1000.
13 MR. HALLIGAN:
I don't know what the number.
It O
14 is a considerable number if you have to go through it step 15 by step.
Is it new information?
These are the same 16 questions they have asked and we have responded to on a l
17 number of occasions, and most parts we object to.
18 CH AIRM AN GLEASON:
I don't want to go into the 19 substance of disco'rery requests.
20 MR. HALLIGANs We object to this.
It was sent 21 f rom Allentown.
It was not sent from the representatives of 22 the Applicant in Washington, and they wanted to hand deliver l
23 it to my home.
They wanted to reach a certain deadline, and
()
24 the date indicates that I only have a few hours practically 25 to answer these questions.
l i
O l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
936 1
It is unreasonable, it is burdensome.
We object 2 to this very strenuously.
If you want to come back to it 3 later, we can.
4 But the main thing I indicated yesterday was that 5 on Contention No. 2 we would present a direct case on the 6 health effects caused by radiation, primarily would relate 7 to --
8 MR. SILBERG:
We haven't gotten to radiation yet.
9 We are only talking about the chlorine as'pects.
10 MR. HALLIGAN:
This is a dimension in other 11 words.
In other words, the chlorine issue is still a 12 contention pending this discovery.
At the last minute they 13 put this discovery in which is burdensome.
It is 14 unreasonable, and it is too excessive.
15 I mean, we move the Board to later this day issue 16 an oral ruling on this.
We request that this not be 17 included.
It is not necessary.
18 We also attempted to find out more about the 19 ethanol plants upstream yesterday and could not shed much 20 light on it.
But these applications were filed with the 21 Federal Government, they are pending, and it would be a 22 factor, and the state government has been informed of this.
23 They are aware of it.
24 I wish the representative for the Commonwealth, if l
25 he could perhaps briefly explain about that permit that is ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
___,.. _ ~, _ _
937 O
1 reau1 red that has heen orented, in fect, dea 11ne with this 2 chlorine issue.
If they are satisfied that the state will 3 monitor and guarantee the safety of the Susquehanna River 4 with the operation of this plant and the chlorine will not 5 contaminate it, that should influence any further options we 6 have.
7 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Mr. Halligan, I have to bring-8 this discussion to a close here.
I just want to state, I 9 guess reiterate, the order that was issued in connection 10 with new discovery requests on Contention 2, the chlorine 11 aspects in Contention 2 allowed the parties ten days from 12 the receipt of the service of that order to make discovery 13 requests, and it permitted the party to whom discovery was O
14 requested 10 days from the receipt of the order.
l 15 HR. HALLIGAN I'm fully aware of that.
16 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
So it is not a few days; it is 17 ten days from when it was in your hands, and I think the i
18 parties have been warned time and time again about answering 19 discovery requests.
20 MR. HALLIGAN:
Have you examined this document, f
21 the discovery questions, the extent of it.
22 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
And that is going to be the end 23 of the discussion on that contention right now.
24 liR. H ALLIG AN :
I still have an objection on the 25 record.
O ALDERsoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGIN!A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
938
()
1 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
You have an objection, and your 2 objection is noted on the record, and that is all we are d
3 going to take on Contention 2.
{}
4 So let's go to 3.
5 MS. JOHNSRUDs Mr. Chairman, before we do, may I 6 please make a correction for the sake of clarity and 7 veracity, that in looking over these discoverty requests, I 8 aust say I do agree with Mr. Halligan.
It is an 9 extraordinary request at this stage of the proceeding.
10 I in jest used the term 1001 in the questions.
I 11 certainly did no such counting and had no serious intent in 12 the use of that number.
It certainly appea rs excessive.
13 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right.
fm 14 MB. HALLIGANs Well, can I just say this for the 15 record, if it is permissible, Mr. Chairman, that the 16 Citizens Against Nuclear Danger, on that portion of Contention No. 2 dealing with chlorine, that we will present 17 l
18 a case in cross examination only, and therefore this would 19 become a moot question for discovery and testimony.
l 20 CHAIRMAN GLEASON4 It may be moot in your mind, 21 Er. Halligan, but it is not moot insofar as the Board's l
22 review of it is concerned.
Discovery, you know, the parties i
this has gone to the Court of Appeals.
The requirements l
23 --
24 on discovery on all parties have been emphasized and 25 stressed, and re-emphasized and reiterated, and this Board O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA A'K., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
939
()
1 is not going to add to that reiteration.
2 MR. HALLIGAN4 We are asking for a compromise
(}
3 whereby the state and the applicants simply present 4 testimony which would support the environmental studies 5 which the applicants claim will not contaminate the river, 6 and we will simply cross examine on the chlorine issue in 7 Contention 2.
That is our proposal at this time, along with 8 the proviso that we would be relieved of this burdensome 9 discovery because we would not be presenting a direct case 10 and not be surprising anybody with any new information that 11 is not already in the record.
M MR. SILBERG:
Are you withdrawing the allegations 13 about upstream ethanol facilities?
O 14 Md. HALLIGAN:
This is problematic.
In a sense it 15 is in limbo because I requested from Congressman Wtigren's 16 office information about these applications, and it hasn't 17 neen forthcoming.
Jewelcor themr, elves, one of the two 18 companies involved, they were not available to give the l
19 inf ormation except verbally.
They could not present.
They 20 said the applications were on file.
They said they intended 21 to proceed if they could get loans for the plants.
They 22 were ready to move and build that plant.
I got that 23 confirmation f rom their attorney yesterday afternoon.
24 In other words, I think the state government could 25 probably clear the air on this substantially a t the hearing, O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY.INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
940
()
1 and we would simply cross examine on that point.
2 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I really think the Board does T
3 not want to hear any more discussion on this contention.
{J 4
Please, let's go to No. 3.
5 MR. SILBERGs The next aspect of Contention 2 6 dealt with liquid discharge of crsium and cobalt isotopes 7 into the Susquehanna River, and that was an aspect that was 8 sponsored also by CAND.
9 Yesterday Fr. Halligan said tha t he would let the 10 Licensing Board know whether he was continuing to pursue 11 that issue or not.
12 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Mr. Halligan?
13 MR. HALLIGANa The isotopes itself, is that what
(
14 you --
9 15 MR. SILBERGa Yes, your allegations on cobalt and 16 cesium isotopes.
17 MR. HALLIGAN I indicated that the Coalition is 18 primarily responsible or eligible for handling that direct 19 case.
Our direct case on Contention 2 would deal with the 20 health effects overall of in general dealing with the 21 probability or possibility of effecting genetic damage to future generat.ons of peope living off-site in affected i
22 23 areas, even from ordinary use, primarily from a mode where
()
24 there might be excessive, releases of the radiation which did 25 occur, f or example, at TMI.
O l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
1 941
()
1 As you know, the ordered evacuation c.f the 2 children under the age of 5 and women who were pregnant who 3 were in that class from the area, the Governor ordered this.
{}
4 Our direct case will bear primarily on that point.
5 As far as the effects of the sedimentation in the 6 river caused by cobalt and so on, no, we will not present a 7 direct case dealing with the effects on wildlife and so 8 forth from the release.
We defer to the Coalition on that 9 point.
10 MR. SILBERGa So tha t means you are not going to 11 continue to sponsor the cesium and cobalt aspects of 12 Contention 2.
13 MR. HALLIGAN:
If it is interpreted to mean in the
(}
l 14 waterway.
We are not withdrawing it.
It would be joint I
15 sponsorship of the Coalition.
l 16 CHAIRMAN GLEASONs His response is he is not 17 withdrawing that part of the contention, so let's go on to 18 No.
3.
19 MR. CUTCHIN:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to inject 20 something here because I see wha t is happening.
The only 21 sponsor of that aspect of the contention, based on my memory 22 and reading, was CAND.
23 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Right.
24 MR. CUTCHIN:
It is impossible for CAND to pass 25 along to another Intervenor sponsorship of that contention (2)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,!NC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2?s 5
... _ _,_,, - ~ _ - -.
I 942
()
1 for purposes of a direct case.
2 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Mr. Cutchin, that aspect of the
~
3 contention's sole sponsor as CAND is subject to a motion for 4 summary disposition.
That option is within the hands of the 5 parties, and that is the only way it can be tested.
6 MR. CUTCHIN:
That I understand, sir, but for hia 7 to be saying now that he will defer to ECNP to put on a 8 direct case on tha t, I don' t want to leave any 9 misunderstanding, because that is not an option that is 10 available to him.
11 HR. HALLIGAN:
That is a misunderstanding.
We 12 will present a direct case on that portion of it.
13 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
No. 3.
t ()
14 MR. SILBERGa Con tentios 3, which is jointly 15 sponsored by SEA and ECNP, SEA stated that they would 16 withdraw Contention 3, and ECNP also stated that they would 17 withdrav Contention 3.
18 If that is the case, then the two pending motions 19 for summary dispositics filed both by the staff and 20 ourselves on July 30 would become moot.
21 CHAIRMAN GLEASONa Contention 3 is withdrawn.
~
22 HR. CUTCHIN:
I think for the record, Mr.
23 Chairman, that those two parties, to avoid any confusion
()
24 later, unless the Board considers their silence assent, l
25 could say positively.
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
943 O
i can1 amis GtS^ Sox wae 1 tae ooa or2 ramt 1-2 S E A --
3 MR. SILBERG:
And ECNP are joint spon so rs.
4 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
They are here, and if there is 5 any other response, I think you should make it now.
6 MS. JOHNSRUDa My comment, Mr. Chairman, was only 7 given the numbers of cancellations, expected reactors at 8 this stage of the development in the nuclear program 9 nationwide, it appears that the shortages of uranium that 10 were calculated at the time that this contention was 11 originally filed no longer appea r applicable.
Therefore, it 12 is rather foolish for us to spend anyone's time dealing with 13 this contention.
I O 14 CH AIRM AN G LE ASON:
Mr. Schultz.
15 H3. SCHULTZ I would just say that since the I
16 country has turned its back on nuclear power, I think we can 17 drop the contention.
18 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Contention 3 is withdrawn.
19 MR. SILBERG4 On Contention 4, which is jointly 20 sponsored by all four parties, I guess all the parties at 21 the meeting yesterday are of the belief that that contention l
22 should go forward as currently stated.
23 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right.
24 ER. HALLIGAN:
There was some confusion about our 25 participation since we thought we were eligible to present a l
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 200ed 402) 554-2'J5
944
()
1 direct case in No.
4.
2 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
There's no problem.
3 MR. SILBERG:
Mr. Chairman, there is an order 4 outstanding against CAND, April 30, 1960, in which the 5 Licensing Board 6
MR. CUTCHIN:
April 11, in combination with the 7 order of March 27.
8 HR. SILBERG:
In which the Licensing Roard, 9 because of discovery def aults of C AND, stated that while to they would have been justified in dismissing CAND entirely 11 from the proceeding, decided that they would restrict CAND's 12 ability to present a direct case to these contentions of 13 which CAND was the sole sponscr.
14 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I missed that very frankly.
15 Wha t is the --
16 MR. CUTCHIN:
Ihe citation?
There are several, 17 sir.
It is to the memorandum and order dated March 27, 18 1980, another order dated 11 April 1980, and references are 19 made back to the transcript pages 706 and 709 and 710 of the 20 prehearing conference of the 20th and 21st of March, 1980.
21 MR. HALLIGAN:
The problem with that, Mr.
22 Chairman, is we don 't have copies of the transcript, so we 23 cannot refer to our own testimony.
(
24 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Would you give me the page 25 numbers again, please?
A l
(_)
f ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
945 1
MR. CUTCHINs Yes, sir, in ene or the other.
2 CHAIRMAN GLEASch:
The March 27 order.
3 Do you have a page number for that, or are you 4 doing it from the transcript?
5 MR. CUTCHIN:
I'm doing it f rom my notes.
But.if 6 you will give me a minute, sir, I can find the order..
7 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I can find it.
It's in the 8 March 27 order and the other was in the April 11 order?
9 MR. CUTCHIN:
Yes, there were the two orders, and 10 one of those orders referred back to the transcript pages 11 that I identified for support.
12 MR. SILBERG On page 20 of the April 11 order it 13 s t a t es, I will read it, "CAND's sponsorship of environmental 14 contentions is limited to contentions or portions of 15 contentions of which it is the sole sponsor."
16 MR. CUTCHIN:
That would leave CAND viable, based 17 on my interpretatior., to present a case only on those parts 18 of Contention 2 which it is solely sponsoring, and those 19 portions of Contention 17 which survived Contention 16 20 having been summt
.'y disposed of.
this is on 21 MR. SILBERGa I would again read l
22 page 5 of the Mcrch 27, 1980 memorandum of the Licensing 23 Boa rd.
It states, the Board also declined to dismiss CAND
)
24 from the proceeding but lialted its contentions to those as 25 to which it is the sole sponsor.
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 8"4-2345
946
(}
1 CHAIRMAN GLEASON I do not understand tha t 2 ref erence, limited its contentions?
3 MR. SILPFBGa Yes, limited its contentions to 4 those as to which it is the sole sponsor, but since one can 5 only present direct testimony on contentions which a party 6 sponsors, that has the effect of limiting CAND's ability to 7 present a direct case to those contentions of which it was 8 the sole sponsor.
9 MR. HALLIGANs Briefly, Mr. Chairman, what they 10 have all lef t out, something very important.
11 CHAIPMAN GLEASON:
Let me just finish the 12 comment.
I have the references and I will look at them, and 13 whatever the order is, that is what it will be.
14 MR. HALLIGANs k' sit a minute.
Here's what 15 happened at that meeting or at that conference.
16 It was decided to clear the air of all of these 17 back charges and countercharges involved in discovery, and 18 when it came up to No.
4, I was not allowed to speak.
19 Although the contention is verbatim, my contention in part, 20 it is verbatim so it has to be part of my contention, and 21 the thing of it is I was ordered by Mr. Beckhoffer who said 22 you can address that tomorrow.
Tomorrow never came.
I was 23 not allowed to answer any questions on that.
I was not
()
24 asked any questio:
So when the time came, they said you don 't have to really answer any more interrogatories on No.
25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, I
l 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
947 1 4 That is what the order said somewhere in there, or in 2 the transcript.
3 So I didn't argue with that.
I couldn't testify O
4 on it anywa y, so I was excluded at that point.
And I wasn't 5 -- the thin g of it is, under tha t order, I did not have to 6 answer any discovery on No. 4 I was not ordered to, so I 7 didn ' t.
8 So my status should have been intact.
So there 9 was a conflict or a mistake in that order as a result of 10 tha t.
In other words, if I was told to file any more pa pers 11 under Contention 4,
I would have, and that would have 12 resulted in that order not being issued the way it was.
But l
13 I was not allowed to testif y.
I was not-told to present any 14 more discovery answers on !;o. 4 15 So you know, there 's a conflict.
16 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
- r. Halligan, I will read those 17 ord'ers.
If there is any doubt in the light of the comments 18 you 've just made, I will rule accordingly, and I'll be back 19 in touch with you.
20 MR. HALLIGAN:
One final matter.
Citizens Against 21 Nuclear Danger would like to present a case in cross 22 examination only on Contention 4.
23 MR. SILBERG Then the Board doesn't have to rule O
24 oa it-25 MR. CUTCHIN:
I would just suggest -- and I wanted l
' O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTors, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345 l
948 1 to refresh my recollection here also in rereading these 2 but my recollection is the rearon -- when we reached that 3 point in the prehearing, the Board did not need further 4 input from Mr. Halligan, is that he had at that time been 5 dismissed from participation in any but those contentions 6 which he solely sponsored, and therefore it would have added 7 nothing to the record.
8 If
.h a t be the case -- and I agree, the Board 9 should go back and read, and I think all the parties should 10 -- Mr. Halligan would only be able to participate in 11 environmental contentions, period, of which he was a 12 sponsor.
That is discussion we can have la ter, but there is 13 not hing to dicuss at present.
14 MR. HALLIGAN I think there was a 15 misunderstanding.
l 16 CHAIRMAN GLEASON Let the record show that 17 Contention 4 is viable except fo r C A ND -- well, he has 18 already indicated he is not going to put on a direct case a t 19 all.
20 MR. SILBERG:
The next environmental contention, l
21 Solely environmental contention, is Contention 14 t
l 22 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Right.
l 23 MR. SILBERG4 Tha t is solely sponsored by Mrs.
O 24 r a ae e twere 1e=ter4 7 se we we<e== a1e te 25 have any discussion of that contention.
O l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
., - ~.-
i 949
()
1 CHAIRMAN GLEASONs 177 2
MR. SILBERG:
17 sponsors -- the portion of 17 3 which remains deals with the electric field effects of 4 transmission lines f rom the Susq'2ehanna facility.
That is 5 solely sponsored by CAND.
Yesterday Mr. Halligan stated 6 that it was problematic whether he was going to pursue that 7 portion of Contention 17.
Perhaps Mr. Halligan can tell us 8 one way or the other today.
9 MR. HALLIGAF:
It seems that the American National to Standards Institute has proposed to put into effect new 11 standards of nonionizing radiation and various other effects 12 of radiation transmission and so on, and I don't know if 13 this has been addressed in the final environmental 14 statement, or the effect is still supplements coming out in 15 other documents.
16 CHAIBMAN GLEISON:
As in safety.
17 MR. HALLIGA!I Yes, I guess it would be in tne 18 sta tement primarily.
19 I wasn't able to get any licht shed on that point, 20 but I just want to indicate that I told the gentlemen and 21 the ladies yesterday that the aspects of No. 17 which were 1
l 22 dismissed by summary disposition, we intend to raise those l
23 a t the limited appearance testimony as individuals and we
()
24 would like at the end of going through all of these 25 con tentions to deal with limited appearance in some detail I
(E)
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
950 l
1 because this is very important we think.
But because I 2 think the mistake, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania should 3 deal with this because che Public Utility Commission granted 4 these right-of-ways.
It_will have to face any environmental l
5 problems to wildlife, to farming and so on or whatever.
We 6 believe that they'should -- we recommend that they present a 7 direct case on 17, and of course, the applicants are 8 prepared because I am sure they have presented in the past 9 an affirmative case, and we would in this regard just cross I
10 examine on No. 17.
I didn' t indicate that yesterday, that 11 part of 17.
12 CHAIRMAN GLEASCN.
All right, the conclusion of 13 that is that 17, that part still remains.
'~
i 14 Let's go to the safety questions.
15 Contention 18.
16 3R. SILBEEGs Contention 18 en the en ironmental 17 eff ects of herbicides is solely sponsored by ECNP.
18 Yesterday Dr. Johnsrud indicated that they would withdraw l
19 that contention.
20 21 22 23 24 25 0
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
>p 1Bfollows iland 951 Lupton 1
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
That contention is withdrawn.
2 All right.
Safety contentions, Number Five.
Contention Five dealt with low level 4
radiation does calculation models.
That contention is sole %y 5
g sponsored by EC&P.
EC&P under orders of the board is pro-N j
6 hibited from participation in the safety contentions.
There is R
I 7
a summary disposition motion on that contention.
Pending aj 8
responses have been filed by the staff, Ly no other parties.
d o[
9 We did discuss, even though EC&P is by order of the board ze 10 barred from participating, whether EC&P wiched to have the 11 issues remain, assuming they would have some ability to B
l 12 withdraw them even though they could participate in the 5
Q 13 litigation.
h 14 Dr. Johnsrud indicated that she would leave them in 9
15 as they currently stood, so that issue remains.
a:
g' 16 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right.
Number Six.
us ti 17 MR. SILBERG:
Contention Six, evacuation plans, 5
18 jointly sponsored by all parties.
That contention --
n 19 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Excuse me.
Did you have:something 20 you wanted to say, Dr. Johnsrud?
21 MS. JOHNSRUD:
With respect to Five and the other 22 safety contentions from which we are prohibited from 23 participation due to the discovery issue, I would, I guess it 24 is a reiteration of my comments at the previous prehearing 25l conference that we do feel that these are issues of sufficient ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I 2
952 I
significance originally accepted for the board to take them, and
()
2 require full examination in the course of the proceeding on this 3
and other EC&P safety issues.
O(,j 4
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I was going to make this comrent g
5 at a subsequent point, but I guess I can make it now.
I ton't j
0 3
6 know whether it would have any impact on anything you were R
7 going to say.
In any event, the prior order of the board, this s]
8 is the order of October 30th, 1979, which is 10 NRC 597, on d
y 9
Paye 603 of that order.
It says the following.
They were 2o 10 talking in the context of the ongoing proceedings being held in E
h Il connection with Three Mile Island.
For these reasons, we 3
I 12 hereby put all parties on notice that we will not dismiss any 5
[u~-} ay 13 contention from this proceeding without at least the showing in h
14 through affidavits required by 10 CFR Section 2.749, and of
{
i5 course it is the section that deals with motions for summary
=
y 16 disposition.
w d
17 Further, in that circumstance, we will have to be 5
{
18 satisfied that the issue in question has been properly resolved.
P
}
19 Now, that order means, just so we don't have any n
20 misunderstanding with respect to it, that if a party hr.s been 21 barred by sanctions from presenting any Pir.d of case, with 22 respect to any contention which t.'.
che sole drafter of,
(
w.
23 that that issue will still have to be answered, material put in 24 D,
the record by the applicant or the staff, as the case may be, 25 unless that contention is removed through a successful motion l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY INC.
a 955 1
for summary disposition.
(O
./
2 That does not me an that those issues have to go through 3
a new requirement as far as the Commission, about sending to the
()
4 Commission motions that the board is raising on its own.
We 5
are merely implementing by order.
Is that understood?
e A4 6
MS. JOHNSRUD: May I ask a question for the information k
j 8
7 of the intervening parties, Mr. Chairman?
s[
8 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Yes.
d d
9 MS. JOHNSRUD:
If a summary disposition motion is iog 10 uncontested, does this board automatically grant it, or does --
E m[
11 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
It does not and it cannot.
M g
12 MS. JOHNSRUD:
Thank you.
()c 13 MR. SILBERG:
The rule and prior Commission decisions 14 are very plain.
2 15 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Right. All right, let's go on.
j 16 MR. SILBERG:
On Ccntention Six, there was a long M
d 17 discussion yesterday as to whether that contention and 5
18 Contention Twenty were coextensive, and whether the fact that-5
{
19 Contention Six had been superseded by Contention Twenty, Mr.
n 20 Adler, I think, presented that argument forcefully.
The 21 intervenor's desire to keep in all aspects of contention six,
{)
although with respect to Contention Subpart Six B, Mr. Halligan 22 23 indicated he would discuss whether that remains a viable
, sue 24 with Dr. Johnsrud, and my notes are a little hazy as to what
(}
25 Dr. Johnsrud concluded, but my rec. _ action of it i s that she ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4 959 j
wanted to keep that portion of it in as well.
That portion
(})
2 deals with.a statement made by a state official a number of 3
years ago concerning the amount, the level of resources that the 4
state had to carry out its emergency planning responsibilities.
()
e 5
My recollection is that Dr. Johnsrud wished to keep 3
N 6
that portion in as well.
Is that correct?
7 MS. JOHNSRUD: Yes, it certainly is, Mr. Chairman.
8 This issue also involves the funding for the provision of d
q 9
adequate emergency response capability on the part of the state, z
go and certainly my following of this issue in the long aftermath of a
3 5
11 TMI 2 makes ic quite clear that it would be extremely difficult B
d 12 for the state or any other agency of government ever to have c
13 enough funding to do a fully adequate job, so it certainly
(}
E 14 appears to me that this financial question and the capability w
2 15 of the Office of Radiological Protection to respond at all hours E
16 that are considered in Part B are certainly viable matters that 3
A d
17 require extremely careful investigation by the board.
18 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
How about C?
Six C?
Which E
E 19 Susquehanna Environmental Advocates is presenting?
There was A
20 some reference in the prehearing session last month that C was 21 withdrawing that contention, but it was a little bit vague,as fs 22 I reread the transcript, on the basis that it was, I guess, b
23,
covered by Twenty.
Am I incorrect on that?
24 MR. SILBERG:
I am sorry.
My memory on that is not 25 ;
'tery good, sir.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
5 955 1
MR. SHULTZ:
I think to clear that up I was under
()
2 the impression and I was mistaken that it was covered by 3
Twenty.
()
4 CHA*IRMAN GLEASON:
All right, so the whole contention g
5 stays in.
All right.
N 6
MR. HALLIGAN:
Mr. Chairman?
R 7
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Mr. Halligan?
E j
8 MR. HALLIGAN:
We concur that Citizens Against dd 9
Nuclear Danger will in all probability present a direct case io 10 and cross examine on Number Six.
The great discussion was El 11 about the timing of it.
They want to put it off until later.
B j
12 I don't even think they can have that particular matter 5
(])
13 adjudiated this year, because yesterday we were handed a very l
14 extensive county plan for emergency-evacuation, but only for 2
15 one county, Luzerne.
They did not present the county plan 5
16 for Columbia County, which is more important because Berwick is j
'A
\\
l d
17 in Columbia County.
E 18 Also, PP&L has requested that the full scale emergency
=H
{
19 plan drill be postponed until next March, March of
'82, from I
t n
20 November of this year, so these are factors that must be taken 21 into consideration.
They have not trained their instructors 22 yet.
The state has not gone into a training program or anything 23,
yet.
It is just on paper, and the Columbia County plan hasn't I
24 been prepared, apparently.
This is evidence.
(-)s 25 MR. SILBERG:
Mr. Chairman, I was planning to cover ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i
e I
I 956-I the order of contentions later.
()
2 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
We will get into that later, because l
3 that is an issue we have to get into, and I think that is O
(_j 4
obvious that would be one of the last things.
All right, e
5 Contention Seven, the generic issues.
E?
6 MR. SILBERG:
Contention Seven was solely sponsored by R
R 7
EC&P.
As I mentioned before, EC&P indicated they believe their nj 8
contention should remain in the proceeding.
Applicants have d
C[
9 filed summary disposition on Contention Subpart A.
%o 10 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Seven cua Eight?
l h
11 MR. SILBERG:
No, we filed for summary disposition on 3
l 12 Subpart Seven A, which deals with containment design.
That was 3
(])
13 filed on August 4.
We have also filed summary disposition on mg 14 Subpart Seven D, ATWS.
That was filed on July 17.
No Ej 15 summary disposition motions -for Seven B and C have yet been m
j 16 filed.
They may be filed soon, we hope.
M N
17 On Contention Eight, our summary disposition motion s
5 18 on that was filed on July 16.
I believe the staff responses P
19 l
g to both Seven D and Eight have either just been filed or are i
n 20 soon to be filed.
2I CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
We do not have receipt of them as 22 yet.
w 23 MR. SILBERG:
I think they were due '.o be filed 24 yesterday and today.
25 I MS. LAVERTY:
That's right.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l l
- _.., _.. ~ _ _ _ _,
i 7
i
'957 1
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Let us go on to Nine.
O l
\\_/
2 MR. SILBERG:
Contention Nine is a combined. safety 3
and environmental issue on decommissioning,both the cost of
()
4 decommissioning in terms of the cost benefit issue and financial 5
qualifications to decommission.
That is an issue which was 8
6 jointly sponsored on all of the parties, I believe, and the R
j 7
intervenors wish to keep that issue in this proceeding.
I E
l 8
8 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right. Ten?
d c;
9 MR. SILBERG:
Contention Ten, dealing with on-site z
Cg 10 railroad accidents, is sponsored solely by CAND.
At yesterday's 3
h 11 discussion, Mr. Halligan stated that if the board were to rule B
I 12 that the right-of-way, the railroad right-of-way which is off 5
()
13 the site as applicants define it, i.e.,
as described in the l
14 final safety analysis report, were in fact to be considered off g
15 the site notwithstanding Mr. Halligan's argument that perhaps x
y 16 applicants would have to buy that right-of-way, and he would W
d 17 withdraw that contention.
E
{
18 There is a caveat to that.
The caveat was a request E
I9 g
by Mr. Halligan that Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would supply n
20 him with documents showing who in fact owns that right-of-way.
21 By that right-of-way, I mean the railroad line that runs along 22
(])
the river and off the site as we consider the site to be 23 ;
defined.
24
(])
But it was not clear to me whether Mr. Halligan's 25 offer to withdraw was based upon receipt of the documents which j
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
W 956 1
Mr. Adler could obviously not promise before he would go and look
()
2 for them, or Mr. Halligan's commitment which he made yesterday 3
to make a good faith -- I am sorry, Mr. Adler had'said that
()
4 yesterday, Mr. Adler's commitment which he made yesterday to make e
5 a good faith attempt to find such documents if they exist and E
N d
6 supply them to Mr. Halligan.
e R
7 On this, I am not sure where that contention --
M 8
8 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I am sorry.
What are the documents N
d d
9 designed to prove?
iob 10 MR. SILBERG:
Mr. Halligan has requested from the E
E 11 Commonwealth those documents which show who owns the right-of-way,
<B d
12 the railroad right-of-way that runs along Route 11 next to the 3a f~)@d 13 Susquehanna River and off the actual site of the Susquehanna
(-
j 14 facility.
2 15 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Let me see if I get this straight.
E
.~
16 MR. HALLIGAN:
Maybe I should clarify?
E M
d 17 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Well, the first part of it, if I M
18 understood you correctly, if the board rules again that what is l
s l
E 19 off-site is still off-site, he would withdraw that contention, i
A 20 the remaining aspects of that contention, provided the state 21 provides him --
22 MR. HALLIGAN:
That is inaccurate.
((^)g 23 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
You had better state it again.
l l
24 MR. HALLIGAN:
Basically, the main point was, Mr.
25l Silberg gave some assurances, and I r. guested this yesterday,--
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
9 959 1
I questioned him about how they would ship fuel to the Berwick Oj 2
site, by rail or by motor vehicle, and he indicated that their t
3 cask in all likelihood would be motorized.
They would travel
()
4 over highways, and likewise the high radiation waste would stay 5
on-site for about 15 years or so, and in all likelihood, if and e
k 6
shen they are removed for storage or burial elsewhere, they would Gg 7
also leave the Berwick nue via motor vehicle, and this has some s
8 8
of the indication in later documents to this effect, and.Iwwill d
d 9
take that more or less at face value.
$g 10 It seems that the board, you know, could verify this, s
g 11 but it seems that the railroads in all probability would not be a
y 12 used to move nuclear materials in or off of the site, which was 5
(~3 13 our primary concern, and also in the supplemental reports that s_/
l 14 were just issued, the NRC has got commitments thattthey would 2
15 take some other precautions to protect runaway trains and so j
16
- forth, w
6 17 The only condition I had or question was that.if one 18 site is to include these railroads into like Mintycoke or
=
19 Bloomsburg and so forth, then perhaps that would be grounds.for gn l
20 maybe a new contention or new consideration.
That was the only 21 addition I would make.
4 22 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I think we can state categorically 23 that weare not going to raise those areas.
I
~N 24 MR. HALLIGAN:
You would decree more or less than the (d
25 on-site is the geographical area of the property and not the ALDERSON REPORTtNG COMPANY, INC.
I
10 900 1
extension.
All right.
And as far as the Commonwealth is
(~),
2 concerned, I have here the list of documents I would request, 3
but that is not contingent on my decision neccssarily.
We are
/~N
(-)
4 concerned about the statewide rail plan and so on and so forth, g
5 And I believe the attorney f or the Coraonwealth can identify 0
6 these documents, but that will be a separate matter.
So, R
7 Citizens Against Nuclear Dangers at this time will withdraw s
l 8
Contention Number Ten.
O C
9 MR. SILBERG:
I just want to make sure the record ieg 10 reflects the information which I told you yesterday on the use j
11 of the railroad spur.
What I said is that low level radioactive a
j 12 waste shipments would be by truck.
Deliveries of new fuel to the p)3 13
(,
g plant would be by truck.
Shipments of spent fuel from the plant m
E 14 are not expected for at least ten ye2rs, and perhaps longer.
g 15 The company has not determined whether they would be by truck or
=
y 16 by rail, and that as of the present time there are no licensed w
d 17 shipping casks for shipping spent fuel by rail, and in any E
h 18 event this kind of shipment would not occur for many years in P
h 19 the future.
n 20 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
And it is subject to whatever the 21 Commission comes up with, which is an ongoing position.
All 22 right, Contention Ten has been withdrawn.
ggg Ond tplB 23 Lupton fo s
24 25 I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~
NRC Tps 2&3 Lupton 961 1
Contention Eleven?
[]
2 MR. SILBERG:
Contention Eleven.
v 3
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
This is also one -- well, go ahead.
4 MR. SILBERG:
It is solely sponsored ly Mrs. Madh e
5 as a joint saftey and environmental contention dealing with the 9
6 on-site storage of low-level waste and spent fuel.
We have R
7 filed on July 28th a summary disposition motion with respect to A]
8 the on-site spent fudi storage.
We have not yet filed a motion d
o 9
for the on-site storage of low level wastes.
$g 10 We had written it in a prior order.
This board in Ej 11 rejecting CAND?s request for investigation of on-site low level 3
g 12 radioactive waste holding facility stated that a discussion of 5
13 that facility would be appropriate in the context of the low l
14 level portion of Contention Eleven.
2 15 Since Mrs. Marsh is not here, we cannot discuss it 5
y 16 any further.
as
((
17 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I really can't see the tie-in for 5
5 18 those two things.
That is a matter before the board for a 5
{
19 different ruling.
Are you talking about a request for a hearing?
n 20 MR. SILBERG:
There was a request for an investigation 21 by CAND on the low level waste facility.
I think you are 22 thinking about --
s 23 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right.
I understand you now.
24 So Eleven is still in.
25 MR HALLIGAN: And the Citizens Against Nuclear Danger ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
2 962 I
would like to have a case of cross examination on Contention OV 2
Eleven'.
3 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Well, that will be all right anyway.
()
4 MR. CUTCHIN:
Subject to clarification.
e 5
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Subject to clarification of prior M9 f
6 orders.
All right.
Rg 7
MR. HALLIGAN: Because there is a significant A
8 8
development at the state level.
The NRC has just notified the e
c; 9
governor that a major radioactive waste storage facility is 2o g
10 proposed within the state.
This sets off a reaction in the 3_
11 legislature, and we will be in touch with the general assembly B
I IS on this, and we are concerned about this, because it is a major 3
(]}
13 change, and we have requested hearings on both the low level and m
5 14 the storage of new fuel on the site, and the Supreme Court has
[.
15 so ruled recently.that when a request for a hearing is called
=
g 16 for it is to be granted.
This, hopefully, you will have to w
I 17 adjust any regulations to meet the legitimate request for l
b l
l
{
18 hearings.
I P
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Contention Fifteen.
h 19 n
20 MR. SILBERG:
Contenti.on Fifteen, which is solely l
21 sponsored by SEA, was with+ awn.
That deals with occupational 22
{3 radiation exposure of construction workers on Unit 2 while s/
i 23 Unit 1.is operating.
24 MR. CUTCHIN:
Is silence assent again, Mr. Chairman?
25 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
(Nodding affirmatively.)
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
3 965 1
MR. SHULTZ:
That's correct.
It was withdrawn.
I I ()
2 don't feel we havo the resources to participate effectively on 3
that contdntion, given the concistent refusal of the board and
()
4 NRC to provide us with funds for attorneys and expert s.
e 5
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right, Number Twenty.
6 l
MR. SILBERG:
Just to clarify the record, Contention 8n 7
Nineteen was withacawn prior to the prehearing conference.
8 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Yes.
O c
9 7:
MR. HALLIGAN:
What was Nineteen on?
That had to do 0
10 S
with the Class 9?
E 11 l
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
The Class 9 accident.
d 12
{
MR. SILBERG:
The TMI accident as Susquehanna O-@d l
13 MR. HALLIGAN:
Maybe later on we will have a comment s
E 14 y
on that.
Would it be approriate now or later?
E 15 j
MR. SILBERG:
That contention was sponsored by SEA i
?
16 and not by CAND.
p 17 MR. HALLIGAN:
I am well aware of that, but the g
18
=
affidavits wer filed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission lo l
opposing summary disposition when it was still being considered 20 and it seems that the veracity of ~ that affidavit will be 21 challenged, because we think it was used primarily to support 22
,)
NRC policy to protect them against the negligence claims that 1
23 i
have been filed in Federal Court by the General Public Utilities l
l n
24
(,)
Corporation in the sum of $4 billion, and we are concerned about 25 this, and we are going to ask for a review of this matter l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1
4 l
964 1
independent of these proceedings.
(
2 Now, the fact that it is no longer a contention means 3
that this will not be ex parte proceeding, would it?
()
4 In other words, you are saying Nineteen is no longer e
5 a contention, so therefore we can go to other agencies of the A
r n
l 8
6 government and raise this matter which we feel -- in other words, c
7 the NRC is saying in effect that human error was involved and 8
not just mechanical error, and the Class 9 accidents in some dg 9
way --
z k
10 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
You can go to other agencies with 2
jj that contention.
That contention is now out of this proceeding.
<m d
12 The board will have some comment with respect to it later.
Z c
13 MR. HALLIGAN:
All right.
({}
E 14 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Twenty.
Nx 2
15 MR. SILBERG:
Contention Twenty deals with emergency l
N P anning issues.
It is at the present time in.
Yesterday the l
16 B
e p
17 state representatives presented copies of the Luzerne County N
18 Plan and the most recent state plan, which dates back to 5
7 19 February.
It also presented for the information of the parties 2
20 a cross reference between the allegations in Contention Twenty 21 and the Luzerne and state plans.
22 Contention Twenty deals with the Luzerne County.and 23 state plans, and it is the state's belief that the plans as 24 Presented yesterday resolve the issues raised in Contention N
I 25 Twenty, but obviously the intervenor does not have time to review ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
s 965 1
either the new plan or the state's cross reference list.
()
2 MR. HALLIGAN:
What citizens pointed out yesterday or 3
this morning is that the Columbia County plan has not even been
()
4 prepared yet.
g 5
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I understand.
You have already made 9
6 that point.
R 1:
8 7i MR. HALLIGAN:
But he keeps referring to Luzerne only.
M j
8 MR. ADLER:
If I could just comment cn that, the dd 9
certificate of service that the Columbia County plan will be i,
10 served as soon as it is available, and it will be available 5
11 within a week or two, when it will be completed.
It has not yet
<5 6
12 been completed, and it will be served as soon as possible.
I 3
i c
j (~)j 13 just have one note that in my certificate of service I incorrectly s-m l
14 referred to it as the Cumberland County plan rather than the
$0 15 Columbia County plan.
g 16 MR. SILBERG:
I would note that Contention Twenty A
g 17 deals only w ith Luzerne and not the Columbia County plan.
18 MR. SHULTZ:
I would just like to mention something
=H
{
19 regarding the plans that were given to us.
As everyone n
20 realizes, you know, we have not had the opportunity to go over 1
21 the plan in detail, but I think at least one member from our 22 group, Lea Csala, had a chance to look over the Commonwealth 23 comments.
Even though the Commonwealth purports to answer the 24 objections we raise in' Contention Twenty, she found that in s-25 actuality the plans do not meet the objections in some ways, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
6~
Q6G 1
including -- well, this is lA(3).
The contention states that the
()
2 plan fails to mention where or how the public will be informed 3
concerning thyroid blocking chemicals, or where they will be C
4 stored.
e 5
The Commonwealth comments go on to state that the N
k 6
drugs will be issued to institutions.and the drugs will be stored R
~
7 at the Luzerne County emergency operations center for emergency Al 8
workers.
It is my understanding that it does not cover how the d
c[
9 drugs will actually be issued to the public or how the public zo 10 will be informed where they can get the drugs.
E g
11 MR. ADLER:
Mr. Chairman, it was not our representa-B j
12 tion necessarily that every single aspect of Contention Twenty 5
13
[}
has necessarily been resolved.
Our intent was simply to help 14 the intervenors identify those items that are still in dispute 2
15 and those that have ' "n4 resolved, and that way we can narrow w=
g' 16 the very large and broad nature of Contention Twenty to only M
d 17 those specific items that are still in dispute.
s M
18 MR. SHULTZ:
Mr. Chairman?
=H
{
19 CHAIRMAN GLEASON: Mr. Shultz?
n 20 MR. SHULTZ:
At this time I would like to ask you and 21 the board for perhaps an explanation of part of your order.
I 22 (3
believe it was, well, the most recent order of the board, which
%)
23,
not only prohibited SEA from presenting a direct case on Six, l
24 which I expected -- well, which I expected, but also prohibited j
25 us from presenting a direct case on Twenty.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
7 961 1
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Only in one aspect.
Only in the
()
2 evacuation aspect.
The thing that I guess would be identical 3
to that aspect.
I may be wrong, but there are aspects of
()
4 Contention Twenty that are in a sense duplicative of Contention 5
Number Six, and to the extent that you are barred from Contention e
E N
8 6
Six, you are barred from Contention Twenty, because it doesn't e
R 7
make any sense ts have a sanction on one and permit you to come 3
j 8
in on a later contention.
And as I read, and I would appreciate d
d 9
it if the other parties might correct me if I am in error, as I io G
10 read your part of contention Six, it was dealing with the 3l 11 evacuation aspects, dealing with training after-- but whatever M
g 12 that was, that part ycu are being prohibited, but not all of 5
13 Contention Twenty, because Contention Twenty covers a whole
[}
l 14 statement of response plans.
2 15 I realize it is a little confusing.
I have problems 16 with it myself.
g w
d 17 MS. JOHNSRUD:'
Mr. Chairman, could I follow on with a 5
18 question related to this?
I spent some time with SEA's person,
=H
{
19 Ms. Csala, last night, looking at the newly received Luzerne o
20 County plan, and while some of the questions that have been 21 raised in Contention Twentyrmay appear to have some response 22 in the plan, nonetheless, on a paragraph by paragraph basis, 23 we both found many more questions raised in this newly received 24 version of the plan perhaps even than were answered.
25 I Will there be adequate opportunity for SEA in those ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
8 968 1
portions of the plan or other parties with respect to Contention
.()
2 Six to do a careful cross examination of matters that really have 3
not been available to us previously?
.fe are so close to going (j
4 to hearing on-an issue that is clearly extremely important to the e
5 Commission.
En 6
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Mr. Cutchin?
7 MR. CUTCHIN:
I would like to comment, Mr. Chairman.
8 I think the fact that EC&P has bcen barred from participation, d
=
9 and that is a pretty broad word, in Safety Contentions should go i
h 10 so far as to mean that they do not get to discuss or ask 3
5 11 questions about those things in this proceeding, period. If they d
12 wish to advise other parties, they can do so off the record.
E=
({}
13 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I was going to make that comment, E
14 but also make the comment that the board has a great interest Um 2
15 in this contention and the emergency plans, and it will be asking 5
y 16 its own questions.
Other parties can cross examine with respect M
d 17 to it also.
So I think to the extent that I am capable that I
18 can give an assurance that those plans will be thoroughly aired 5"
19 in the context of a hearing.
I gather that is the purport of 8n 20 the question.
Is that right, Dr. Johnsrud?
21 MS. JOHNSRUD:
- Yes, I must say I am a little troubled 22 by what I think I hear in Mr. Cutchin's observation, that O-23 representatives of a party barred on technical bases from 24 pr.rticipation in a proceeding of this significance should there-25l fore on narrow technical grounds of rules of practices of the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
?
l l
969 1
Commission be in essence barred from offering assistance to the 2
board and the parties in the careful review and examination of 3
these plans.
I' hope that was not the intent of the NRC's counsel.
O 4
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I think it is clearly the intent v
g 5
of this proceeding.
It has to be that orders, you know, mean 9
6 what they say, and what Mr. Cutchin indicated, I think, is t
GT l
7 accurate, that as far as direct participation in the safety s
[
8 contention, that your organization is barred, but that does not d
d 9
prohibit you from giving assistance to other parties and ie 10 intervenors, and you could get done -- I guess I shouldn't say E
h 11 this -- indirectly what you might not be able to do directly,,but 3:
y 12 the orders are what they say.
I 5
13 Mr. Shultz?
=g 14 MR. SHULTZ:
To me it sounds like Mr. Cutchin wants 5
l
{
15 a gag put on EC&P.
l l
j CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Let's not characterize people's 16 as d
17 motives, please.
E
{
18 MR. HALLIGAN:
Mr. Chairman?
P 19 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Mr. Halligan?
20 MR. HALLIGAN:
Would you at this time perhaps issue 21 what would amount to a verbal order?
I believe the rules 22 stipulate that the emergency plan of evacuation and so forth i
l 23 is to encompass a ten-mile radius.
I believe that is the rule.
24 And geographically, nearly one-half of that radius is in 25 I Columbia County.
Now, I think that we must deal with both ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 10 970 1
county plans, and the one that was submitted yesterday was a A
(,j 2
draf t pl an.
Now, is that what the NRC rules require, or it has 3
to be the official approved plan, and if it is, then public
()
4 hearings are in order.
I understand under Federal regulations i
e 5
the counties and the subdivisions of the counties must hold R4 6
hearings under Federal guidelines, first, in order to make the R
7 plan official.
Ml 8
Once it becomes official, are we to then deal with it, d
d 9
or can we deal with the draft plans first?
I believe Columbia iog 10 County should henceforth be mandatory, because it is within the E
h 11 ten-mile radius, and the report, the study will be forthcoming S
j 12 in a matter of days, but I think just for the record we should E
("}
13 not be dealing with one county, because invariably downwind, 14 downwind is the Wyoming Valley.
Most evacuations would be west-E 15 erly into Columbia County.
It would not send people into the 5
y 16 path of a radiation storm.
You would send them away from it.
e d
17 And in most circumstances, you would be sending them M
18 intoiColumbia County and westward, so that county plan is really 5
{
19 more important in my judgment than the Luzerne County plan, n
20 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Mr. Halligan, let me just say 21 briefly, and then finish this contention, which I presume is 22 still viable,- that these plans go through a process and the 23 process is one of draft and revisions and discussions back and 24 forth with people, and they go through a hearing process at some 25 point, exposure and comments.and the people in the communities l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
11 971 1
by PEMA.
It goes through a reviewing process by the NRC. staff,
()
2 and then it becomes finalized, and so 'an intervenor interested 3
in this has to follow the various steps and changes as they are
()
4 made, if he wants to have a complete understanding of where they e
5 came from and what they are, or he can wait until the final 39 6
version and say, you know, that is a tactic.
R 7
Anyway, let 's go on to Contention Twenty-One,
a j
8 MR. ADLER:
Mr. Chairman, before we leave, I would d
~
c 9
simply request an identification from the intervenors of icy 10 what a reasonable time for them to review our filings would be, E
g 11 when they will determine whether or not they will have met their B
6 12 needs.
Ec 13
)
An additional point is, if in fact they find 2
m 5
14 additional deficiencies in our plans, I would appreciate it if l
E l
y 15 they would communicate them to us, and we will evaluate them
=
l g
16 and determine their validity, and if in fact taey are valid we l
w g
17 will do our best to amend them.
W 18 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right.
The intervenors do have i
5 19 a request of Mr. Adler, I guess really a request for cooperation 20 in their comments locally and hopefully they will be given that.
21 All right, Contention Twenty-One.
22 MR. SILBERG:
Contention Twenty-One,on the SCRAM m
f l
'm l
23 discharge volume question, is jointly sponsored by SEA and l
24 CAND.
That contention, according to the:intervenors, remains a l
nj l
25 l viable issue.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
12 97E 1
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right.
Thatosummarizes, if we 2
can summarize.
3 MR. SILBERG:
We do have a proposed order of proceedin'
()
4 with contentions.
e 5
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Let's at least summarize what we E9
[
6 have just heard,.at least as far as contentions that are R
8 7
deleted.
In addition to those that were deleted in the prior M]
8 proceedings, we now have Number Three, Number Ten, and Number d
o 9
Fifteen, I believe.
Icy 10 MR. SILBERG:
And Number Ei.ghteen.
3 5
11 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
And Nurher Eighteen.
<d c
12 MS. JOHNSRUD:
And Number Nineteen.
Eo
(])
13 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Nineteen was out.
All right.
- Now, j
14 do you want to go to the order of contentions, as far as the Y
2 15 hearing is concerned?
t g
16 MR. SILBERG:
That will be fine with us.
W 6
17 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Let us do that.
5 M
18 MR. SILBERG:
We have discussed this amongst ourselves
=e C
19 yesterday.
I think we have a general consensus with one 20 exception.
That, I believe, is the staff's position on Contentior.
21 Four.
With that exception, I would read off the following list p
22 of contentions in the order in which we would propose that they V
23 be heard.
In all cases, this is an order of contention rather 24 than starting on a date certain.
(~]s 25 Contention Two, radiation aspects.
Contention ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
13 975 1
Seventeen really is the one case where we have picked a date
('S 2
certain because of the availability laf applicant witness. We j
3 would start that contention on Tuesday, October 13, even if that
()
4 meant breaking into other issues.
Our Contention One.
Whatever g
5 remains of that, it may be technician and health effects on the 8
6 whole fuel cycle.
Contention Four.
R i
8 7
MR.' HALLIGAN;" Weren 't you going to go back to n
j 8
chlorine, Part Two?
d C
9 MR. SILBERG:
That comes later.
You wanted it later.
io G
10 Contention Seven B and C.
E j
11 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
You are picking up --
3 l
12 MR. SILBERG:
We are not necessarily going through all 5
13
[}
environmental followed by all safety.
l 14 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Seven B and C.
' Those are the ones 2
15 not subject to summary disposition.
j 16 MR. SILBERG:
Now, there muy be subsequent motions for W
d 17 summary disposition which are granted, and there may be motions
{
18 for summary disposition which are not granted.
So we would have P
{
19 to fit those in.
n 20 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right.
21 MR. SILBERG:
After Seven B and C, we come to 22 Contention Nine, followed by the low" level portion, the low 23 level waste portion of Contention Eleven, followed by Contention 24 Fourteen, if that remains in.
Followed by the chlorine portion Os 25 !
of Contention Two.
Followed by Contention Twenty-One, and i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
su 974 I
finally, the emergency planning contentions.
f])
2 MR. HALLIGAN:
Six and Twenty simultaneously?
3 MR. SILBERG:
Yes.
The staff's position on Contention 4
Four is that that issue,ought to be heard toward the end of the
{}
5 proceeding, if at all, because of the recent new proposed rule e
U 6
changes by the Commission publised in the Federal Register on R
8 7
August 3, which would, if adopted by the Commission, prohibit El 8
litigation of need for power and alternative energy source dd 9
issues in operating license cases.
10 That rule, if adopted, would result in a dismissal as Ej 11 a matter of law of all of Contention Four.
It is applicant's 3
y 12 position that we don't know how long it will take the Commission 5
(
13 to a et on that rulemaking.
The comment period is scheduled to t
14 close October 2nd.
We don't know what the final result will be, 2
15 although we hope it is adoption ofi:the-rule as proposed, and we 5
g 16 would just as soon proceed with the litigation of Contention w
d 17 Four.
18 We have basically completed all of our work on that 5
{
19 contention in any event.
n 20 If at some point either during the hearing itself or 21 during the preparation of proposed findings or during the 22 decision period the Commission were to adopt the rule as
/7 V
23 proposed, that issue would just drop by the wayside.
It seems 24 we don't know what happened, or the time scale on which anything O
25 might happen.
We would propose that that issue be taken up in ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
15 975 1
the normal course.
()
2 MR. HALLIGAN: Mr. Chairman, the Citizens Against j
3 Nuclear Dangersi. object to this conjecture by the applicants that
(])
4 Number Four will become a moot question.
We feel that this one
=
5 is very important, and it should not be inserted or scheduled l
Mn s
6 in a time frame when findings of facts and other deadline e
Rg 7
documents are to be: filed and so forth, because this requires a A
8 8
considerable amount of input, and we feel that.what they are n
d d
9 talking about is that they are hoping against hope that this will i
s 10 not be an item that can be litigated.-
a E
5 11 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Mr. Halligan,vyour position is not
<k i
d 12 at variance with the applicants, it is the same as theirs, and Ea
~g d 13 I think that since they both agree, Mr. Cutchin will move ahead am E
14 with it.
w t
5 15 MR. CUTCHIN:
We will make an attempt to do that, Mr.
g 16 Chairman, but let me state the staff's purpose for suggesting W
g 17 that this await at least an indication of how long it would take 5
M 18 is a matter of conservation of resources, and the staff will make 5;
19 every effort to move forward.
5 20 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Let's do this.
We will put it in, l
21 and if you run into problems, let us know.
We will not defer 22 it to the end, but we willnshift it.
We will adjudicate it 23 outside of the context of the Commission's --
4 24 MS. JOHNSRUD:
Mr. Chairman, am I not correct, however, 25 that direct testimony would have to be filed within 21 days of 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
16
^
~
976 1
going to hearing by the staff as well as other parties anyway?
I 2
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Yes.
3 MS. JOHNSRUD:
So that would be in advance of the
()
4 October 2 comment period.
e 5
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Well, they will have from now until 34 6
that point to decide where they are going.
R 8
7 MR. SILBERG:
Of course, the staff is not obligated 3
j 8
to file testimony at all.
d C
9 MR. SHULTZ:
Mr. Chairman?
b 10 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
If you could wait just a minute, j
11 Mr. Shultz, I want to make sure that we have everything here.
B y
12 I may have missed it, but I don't see Number Five and E
13
[}
Number Eight in this schedule.
14 MR. SILBERG:
Those are subject to cummary disposition 2
15 motions.
E y
16 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Well, let's schedule them.
We W
6 17 don't know how they are going to be decided.
5 5
18 MR. SILBERG:
I did not schedule any of the contentions 5
{
19 that were subject to summary disposition motions.
I would just n
20 put them in in the order they would come.
21 The first is Five.
I would put that after Four, and 22 I would put Seven A and Seven D at the same time as Seven B and
~
fsb 23 Seven C.
Our witnesses.are off on the west coast on that. And 24 Eight immediately following.
L 25 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Immediately following Seven.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMP ANY. INC.
17 977 1
MR. SILBERG:
Yes.
Now, Eleven, spent fuel, I would do
()
2 at the same time, just before we do the low level portion of 3
Eleven.
I think that is it.
O 4
CHA1RanN GtE^ SON:
^11 rieht.
e 5
MR. CUTCHIN:
Mr. Chairman?
E9 6
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Yes.
R 8
7 MR. CUTCHIN:
It may be the appropriate time to make M
j 8
this comment.
I think because Ms. Marsh is the sole sponsor of dd 9
Eleven of Fourteen, it may be beneficial, since she has not been Y
10 able to attend, I would respectfully suggest that at least the g
11 board in its prehearing conference order direct her to indicate k
j 12 in writing whether she intends to pursue a direct case.
5
({}
13 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I will do that, Mr. Cutchin.
h 14 MR. HALLIGAN:
For the record, Mr. Chairman,-the 2
15 citizens would hope and urge that Number Eleven be maintained as s
j 16 an important contention before the board, and keep in mind that A
i 17 the citizens will present a cross examination on that, and we E
18 would like to have a direct case from the applicants, and the 5
C 19 state, because they are involved in facilities that are used for 8
20 storage or decommissioning, and so on, irregardless of Colleen 21 Marsh's decision.
We assume she will concur and respond to 22 your order, and wish to testify, and so forth, but for the record 23,
we would hope that you would maintain this as an important issue 24 irregardless, and that we will definitely wish to cross examine, 25 and I believe we are the only party who is allowed to cross ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
r~..
-,. - _., _ ~
m
1G 976 1
examine.
This~is important, because it is a very volatile
()
2 issue politically in the communities, and it was something that 3
was not brought up at the construction stage. They didn't talk
()
4 about this matter properly, and if a plant has a serious e
5 accident, like TMI, it might have to be decommissioned three, M
N d
6 four, five years from now, not 30, so that is the relevancy of e
N 3
g 7
that particular contention, sir.
M 8
8 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right.
i d
d 9
MR. ADLER:
Mr. Chairman, intermingling of safety and i
h 10 environmental contentions raises an issue about filing dates.
E E
11 The last timeewe met, we had only set a date for filing of
<B e
12 environmental testimony.
Are we going to have one date --
3n 13 CHAIF'AN GLEASON:
Yes, I am g6ing to get into that
(])
h 14 next.
All right.
Well, the order of those contentions will be 5
2 15 in the order, so there will be no misunderstanding.
g 16 MR. SILBERG:
Mr. Chairman, in terms of scheduling our M
g' 17 witnesses, I suspect that this is an unfair question, but do you 5
M 18 have any idea as to when we might know what the results of the A
{
19 pending summary disposition motions would be available?
M 20 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
The board has had its work : sessions i
21 with respect to it.
It is in the process of preparing or will 22 be.
There are certain of the motions for summary disposition 23,
that are still awaiting responses.
It seems to me I made a note 24 on One, Three, and Seven A. The ones that are beyond the. period
(-)S u
25 l are Five, Seven D, Eight, and Eleven.
We hope to have that out ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
- - - ~. -, _
.,n
.w,-
a n-
= w p
-w
19 975 1
in, well, a ten-day period, week after next.
m 2
MR. SILBERG:
I withdraw my unfair question.
3 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I will say this.
I have looked over
()
4 the comments that have been made about submitting the identities, e
5 qualifications, and general subject matter and general subjects b
6 of testimony of the expert witnesses, and I think we ought to R
7 compromise everybody's position and require those to be submitted aj 8
by a 40-day period before the hearing, so it won't be 60 days, dd 9
it won ' t. be 30, it will be 40 days.
10 I forget which.. I had that date marked when I went E
g 11 back to the calendar.
I forget what it is, but you all can W
j 12 figure it out.
It is somewhere in August. It is toward'the end.
(]}5g 13 MR. SILBERG:
Twenty-five is my quick count.
l 14 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Well, anyway --
2 15 MS. JOHNSRUD:
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. That is 16 identification of witnesses?
j w
d 17 CHAIRMAN GLEASLd:
Identification of expert witnesses.
M 18 MR. SILBERG:
And their qualifications.
k 19 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
And their qualifications.
It allows R
20 the other parties to get their testimony prepared.
The testimony 21 is not the.last order.
It will be the final order coming out 3
22 of this prehearing conference.
It will have to be submitted b
23 21 days prior to the hearing, and it has to, of course, be in 3
24 writing, and the proposed exhibits if you intend to use (J
25 I
exhibits in your testimony, will have to be in the same schedule ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
20 980 1
as the written testimony.
2 MR. SILBERG:
I count the date as September 15th.
3 CHA1RMAN GLEASON: That's right.
4 MR. HALLIGAN:
The last time we met you said 30 days.
e 5
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I did say that, and there was k
)
6 objection on the part of the applicant, because of the long R
i 7
history.
What I have done is compromise to 40 days.
Xl 8
The cross examination plans that we talked about last e3 ci 9
time should be filed about a week ahead of the hearing, and filed Yg 10 only with the board.
Keep that in mind.
E j
11 MR. HALLIGAN:
All three members receive -- each is y
12 individual, the three of you gentlemen, and we don't have to send Q :n 13 it to the Secretary?
h 14 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
You can just send it to We Safety 15 and Licenning Board 7anel and me as chairman, or we can get 16 g
a duplicate.
You don't have to send it to three of us.
Or you as 6
17 can send all three copies to me.
{
18 MR. SILBERG:
That would be September 29?
E 19 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Right.
R 20 MR. CUTCHIN: Mr. Chairman, I would sugg.,st that perhaps 21 they address it to you personally.
Otherwise, knowing this l (
22 system, it may get sent to any place in the world.
23 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Yes, I agree with that.
Send it to 24 me as chairman of the panel.
I 25 MS. JOHNSRUD:
A question, please, Mr. Chairman.
With ALL $LSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.-
dA i
98:
I respect to cross examination plans, am I correct in assuming that
(')
2 you are insisting that these be filed one week in advance of the 3*
hearing of a particular issue?
()
4 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Yes.
g 5
MS. JOHNSRUD:
You are not asking that all plans be --
h 6
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
No, but it does -- then you see some R
7 problems, because you don't know how -- we may be in cross l
8 examination on two contentions on the first day.
d o[
9 MS. JOHNSRUD:
Exactly.
zoy 10 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
This is always a problem on time, 5
j 11 and it is the same problem Mr. Adler raised with intermingling S
y 12 of safety questions, and I don't really know how to handle that
('S 13
)
as far as time is concerned, to be responsive to that.
14 MR. CUTCHIN:
Could I suggest that perhaps for the g
15 first three issues or four issues, that the board perhaps set x
j 16 a date and then look at how things are going the first week, and e
d 17 we could make guestimates on staggering due dates later on.
E
{
18 That has worked in cases I have been in in the past, rather e
19 g
than having everything due on one date, and I would suggest n
20 perhaps there be a possibility of staggering the testimony due 21 dates, if we are presuming that we have at least, say, a four-i' 22 week hearing or so.
Once you get into the hearing, everyone is gsO 23,
busy, so it doesn't help, but 21 days prior for all of the i
I 24 g-)
testimony might1get a little burdensome in some ways.
V 25l MR. SILBERG:
Mr. Chairman, I guess in terms of cross ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
csa 982 1
examination plans, that is something which the board is doing for
()
2 its convenience and purposes, and it is up ta the board in terms 3
of staggered testimony and filing of testimony. I would strongly
()
4 object to that.
I think that would deprive applicants and, I e
5 think, the other. parties of adequate preparation of cross h
6 examination.
R 7
MS. JOHNSRUD:
Mr. Chairman, if I could add here, as I s
8 8
look at the burden that would be arising 21 days in adva.ee of d
c 9
the hearing, to expect all of that testimony submitted and then 10 only the very short period prior to going to hearing on October E
j 11 6th. for ' the intervenors or for all parties tc tave an opportunity a
p 12 to develop their cross examination plans on the first several 5
[}
13 issues does in fact seem to be excessive and a short time.
m 14 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I understand that, and it is a
{
15 complicated problem.
Mr. Silberg, why wouldn't it be fair to
=
j 16 in effect take -- we now have the order of issues, and we realize, w
d 17 of course, that some issues will not take as much time, so it is E
{
id a little hard to judge, but why -- in a sense, wouldn't it be E
19 g
fair to take a look at the issues and contentions, divide them n
20 let's say by three's, so that the first five or six are required 21 to meet that first deadline?
i r
22 MR. SILBERG:
You are talking about testimony 23 l submittal?
l 24l CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Yes, I am talking about the written 25 testimony, and then the next six a week later, is due a week ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l l
23 983 1
later, and the following six a week after that, so that you have O
2 ehe testimony end you ere going to heve 1e in et 1eese ewe weeks 3
before the hearing on that issue.
I mean,we will repeat the 21
]
/
4 days, but I think you can almost entertain that kind of approach g
5 where you will have it in your hands at least tw( weeks before 6
the issue comes up.
R 7
MR. SILBERG:
The probler that I have with that, and I A
l 8
8 think it is a.more significant problem for the staff ahd ourselves d
ci 9
than it might be for the intervenors, unless we have it during a g
10 period of time when we are not in the hearing itself, we are 11 going to have precious little time to look at it.
We are going is y
12 to be more concerned about what we are doing the next day.
Also:4 5
(
13 we will be traveling in part on Monday, so we are not going.to l
14 have that day in the office.
Maybe we will have one full day in a
g 15 the office a week.
m j
16 I think you really need the time to be able to prepare us
!j 17 cross examination.
I think the intervenors would be significantly
{
18 disadvantaged if they get two thirds or, you know, a third of our E
19 g
testimony the day we go to hearing, and then they are going to be n
20 expected to prepare, to review that, to prepare cross examination 21 while the hearing is under way, and they don't have as much of the 22 travel burden that we do.
23 MS. JOHNSRUD:
Yes, we dol.
24 MR. SILBERG:
It only takes you two hours. But I think I
25 it is a significant burden, and it is something that has been in ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
en 984 1
this schedule since Day One, which is advance submittal of
()
2 testimony.
That was in the original -- in the special prehearing 3
conference orders.
I think it would just make cur life much more O
4 airric=1e-g 5
MS. JOHNSRUD:
Mr. Chairman?
O 6
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Dr. Johnsrud?
R 7
MS. JOHNSRUD:
I think related to the impending circus sl 8
that Mr. Silberg is referring to here of all parties having to d
c 9
give their attention to a number of issues at the same time,in ioy 10 order to lessen that burden with respect to the filing of the 3
l l
11 cross examination plans, what I am seeing is that we wouldihave 3
g 12 three sets of testimonies coming in in the period just before c
13 going to hearing.
We would have due dates for cross
{])
mg 14 examination plans in advance, substantially in advance of coming 5
2 15 to hearing, which in turn would require going back to re-review l
g' 16 those plans right before actually doing cross examination.
w d
17 If it would serve the purposes of the board of having 5
{
18 those cross examination plans only a dayain advance, so that P
[
19 they could be looked over just in advance of the actual dealing l
n 20 with issues --
21 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I think two or three days would be 22 helpful.
7sO 23 MS. JOHNSRUD:
I wonder if instead of a full week l
24 that we could work this in in such a way that the cross plans 25 would be more closely associated with the actual presentation of l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
25 985 1
the testimony.
()
2 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
We can put that period down.
Not 3
one day but at least two or three days.
()
4 MR. SILBERG:
I am really not concerned on the filing e
5 of documents.
h 3
6 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
We realize.
R d
7 MS. JOHNSRUD:
It certainly does add a very substantia) i s
8 additional burden to intervenors to have to prepare those and d
C 9
get them out.
I would hope that a Pandwritten low energy, low ie 10 reproduction process might be satisfactory, and so forth.
E j
11 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
We are not requiring any extremely
~*
i y
12 fancy document.
We think that it is going to be extremely E
13 helpful to the conduct of the hearing fromvyour wint of view as l
14 well as the board's.
l 2
15 Mr. Cutchin?
g 16 MR. CUTCHIN:
I threw out the idea, Mr. Chairman, and W
d 17 I won't press it.
5
{
18 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
And then you ran.
E 19 MR. HALLIGAN:
Mr. Chairman, the citizens will concur i
gn 20 with whatever your decision may be.
We would, however, a sk l
21 for one exception.
The testimony, the direct testimony on Number i
22 Six and Number Twenty about the evacuation plan, we would request 23 you defer the filing of that for an indefinita period, until we 24 get these reports on file, and we get these hearings and these O.
I 25 matters al] out of the way, because that is going to be months ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
e 26 906 i
down the road, probably.
I feel that we cannot prepare direct
(])
2 testimony on that intelligently in the early fall, you know, 3
before the hearinas even begin.
So if you would consider that
()
4 exception, to defe.
direct testimony, et cetera,on those two e
5 contentions. becaus. they are the last ones to be dealt with.
3 N
6 Maybe at the hearings themselves you can set a date definite 7
for those, when you have a better picture.
N 8
8 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Well,-we have heard from everybody.
n d
d 9
Why don't we let the board wrestle with this, and we will rio it i
h 10 as best we can.
Everybody's concern is expressed. We are E
5 11 starting with a three-day hearing phase, which depends on.how
<M d
12 fast we go.
We may decide if we drag our feet too much to switch Ec g d 13 that into four days in the second phase, but that depends on how
(^/ 5
\\_
E 14 rapidly we make progress.
But we will do the best we can.
5=
2 15 MR. SHULTZ:
Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
w=
16 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Mr. Shultz?
E M
g 17 MR. SHULTZ:
I just have a question.
What kind of E
5 18 cross examination plans?
?
E 19 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
It is just a general -- there is no l
20 specific format it has to meet.
It is kind of what you intend to 21 prove in your cross examination', or what you are concentrating 22 on, that kind of thing.
It helps us to get out anything that s
23 strays.
It helps you to focus.
It does not have to be very 24 sophisticated.
gg i
(_)
l 25 MS. JOHNSRUD:
Mr. Chairman, may I assume then you will l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
27 987 1
give a reasonably free reign in pursuing questions, that is,if it
()
2 is related to tica subject matter, but that it -- responses.
3 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
No, I want you to concentrate, Dr.
()
4 Johnsrud.
That is the whole purpose of it, not do eliminate, e
5 because human beings, even lawyers, are known to be verbose, and h
6 the idea is to stick to the issue, stick to relevant questions.
R 7
MS. JOHNSRUD:
Exactly.
I am asking about follow on
.1 8
8 questions from those questions that are prepared in advance.
d 9
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I understand, but they have to have 10 a relevancy, they have to be material.
The board is entitled, as j
11 all the parties are, to conclude after this many months of k
p 12 looking at documents and arguing with each other, if you will, 5
13
(}
that the issues are fairly well in our minds, and they should be.
l 14 Therefore, the contentions and the cross examination ought to be
$[
15 clear.
m j
16 So, if you start straying too much, the board is not c,3 6
17 going to support it.
{
18 MS. JOHNSRUD:
Bu you are not prohibiting follow on P
19 g
questions.
n 20 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
No, we are not prohibiting it.
21 MS. JOHNSRUD:
Thank you.
i 22 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Is the State of Pennsylvania 23,
prepared to.-indicate what areas other than those areas in the i
24 contentions it isSinterested in pursuing?
g)s
(
25 MR. ADLER:
Yes, sir.
We have a. ace so in writing, and ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
de
[
980 1
that is included in the packet that I presented to you today.
()
2 The majority of the issues are open items in the SER which may 3
be resolved in the second supplement to the SER.
We are also
()
4 committed to meet with the technical people from the applicants e
5 in an attempt to better understand the issues involved, and if Enj 6
we find that we have any misunderstandings, we will withdraw those R
g 7
issues.
I am not sure it would be efficient to go over:them now.
s g
8 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Well, as long as you have handed dd 9
that to us, that is all that is necessary, and I guess the io 10 parties have copies of them.
Ej 11 MS. JOHNSRUD:
M r. Chairman, I do not recall receiving 3
y 12 that.
i 3
(])
13 MR. ADLER:
That was part of the filings I gave you j
14 yesterday.
2 15 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
The last item of that says the 16 Commonwealth of Pennsylvani's statement of position is based on j
A l
b~
17 information available as of August 10th.
l N
18 MR. HALLIGAN:
Mr. Chairman, we will probably in writing l
5
{
19 ask the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to be an active participant n
20 and give direct testimony on Number 17.
In fact, virtually all 1
21 of the contentions, we think they should prepare and testify.
22 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
That is between you and the State l
g s.
l
%]
23,
of Pennsylvania.
(-
24 MR. HALLIGAN:
On Number Eleven.
V) 25 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Number Eleven Contention?
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l
. ~. -
29 989 1
MR. HALLIGAN:
Yes.
You are going to deal with
()
2 Number Eleven on a summary disposition motion dealing with 3
radioactiveuwaste.
I would call your attention please in your
(])
4 deliberations to the letter that was sent to Governor Thornburg e
5 on August the 6th by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 6
Director for Operations, informing him and the legislature and R
7 the Commonwealth about this business of establishing a waste n
8 8
storage site at Berw#ek.
n dd 9
I believe we are petitioning the board at this time to 5g 10 retain Contention Eleven because -- and the Commonwealth should 3
{
11 be a party to this, because the gouernor has been informed and 3
y 12 the DER should now actively get involved with this.
I believe 5
13 there are state laws and Federal and state regulations that l
14 tie in on this matter, and it should be litigated, I believe.
i 2
15 MR. SILBERG:
Mr. Halligan, excuse me.
One point to u
j 16 clarify.
You tied that letter to the summary disposition w
d 17 motion.
The summary disposition motion deals with spent fuel 18 storage.
That letter deals with low level waste storage.
The 5"
19 issues are different.
8" i
l 20 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
In any event, Mrs. Marsh is going 21 to be asked what her contentions are.
22 MR. HALLIGAN:
You have just established a new board 23,
dealing with the storage of new fuel and transport thereof.
Do I
24 youi. intend to -- What is your pleasure?
25 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I intend to have a ruling on that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
30 4
990 1
within a tel-day period.
2 MR. HALLIGAN: On summary disposition, we feel that tne 5
3 estimates are now that 200 or more people wish to testify, to
()
4 give their statements for approximately five minutes, plus any g
5 written statement.
9 6
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Limited appearances, you are R
R 7
talking about?
A g
8 MR. HALLIGAN:
We think this is very important.
dd 9
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
We understand that, and of course, i
C 10 the board has directed, and we want to hear from these people, 3j 11 and we are going to work them into the schedule just as rapidly S
g 12 as we can.
5 13 MR. HALLIGAN:
Let me give you just one p6 int on this.
{}
l 14 When we had the construction ~ permit itearing in Berwick, like 2
15 about eight years ago or thereabouts, there were 60 sore people g
16 who wanted to speak.
They were not told in advance what time w
d 17 to be there or what.
They just said a certain day, in,the school M
18 auditorium.
5
{
19 The board got up there on the stage, and une PP&L had M
20 25 engineers and lawyers on the sidelines there, and they 21 started at 9:00 o' clock in the morning.
When I got down there 22 at about 11:00 o' clock in the morning the hearings were over.
e-())
23 What they did was, they went down the list alphabenical:1 They 24 called off your name. If you weren't there, they went to the next 3
)
25 name and the next name, and by noontime I believeLthey went l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
31
{
.i 99:
1 through the 15 or so people that showed up, and they packed up
()
2 and went back to Washing':on.
They did not give these people 3
their due process, their constitdtional rights and so forth.
()
4 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Were there people in attendance e
5 at --
h 6
MR. HALLIGAN:
They were.not informed to be there at R
{
7 a specific time or place.
They had requested -- most of these s
8 8
people had requested in writing to the Secretary that they be d
d 9
informed of the time and place, and we at the least meeting iog 10 requested that the place be King's College or Wilkes College, 3
h 11 by the way, and in the evening, and on the weekend, and on 3
4 y
12 their behalf I would like to have a discussion on this, because 5
(])
13 we feel that this is -- this also benefits people who favor l
14 nuclear power and'the granting of the license.
Obviously, some 2
15 of those people would come forward, too, but with any of our 5
j 16 issues that have been dismissed, some of these may surface, but w
p 17 many others, weoare not coordinating any sort of, you know, 18 massive filibuster.
People are coming forward on their own that 5
{
19 want to speak on the issue, and they have not been informed yet n
20 of a time and place, and I think they should be allowed to make 21 plans and prepare their testimony and do their research so that gs 22 they don't waste your time and anybody else's time when they do 0
23,
come forward.
I 24 So, I would appreciate that, and there may be
~)-
ss 25,
discussion on this, and we resolve this somehow and give these ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
g.
99a I
people the benefit of the dei;bt, and perhaps hold some.of these O
weeriae oae aev'ee 1ee e ta 8erwicx or thereenoute, watch 1-2 2 3
the affected area, or Shickashinny in Luzerne County, where
()
4 people don't have -- there is no bus transportation connecting 5
from lower Luzerne County to the city of Wilkes-Barre, a very e
3 N
6 poor connection going west of the city here, so this may be a e
^n t
8 7
problem for some people.
Evening sessions wouldhbe, I believe, s
8 8
appropriate in some cases but in other cases maybe people could d
=
9 be given an option, say, look, here 's a slip of paper, you know,
- i b
10 you can check off when you could come, what day, and period of a
3 5i 11 time, and so on.
If possible, if you could give them a little d
12 leeway.
Eo 13 Obviously, you are more familiar with titis than I.
E 14 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I am very familiar with the
- s 2
15 process, in not only this kind of hearings, but other hearings g
16 held by governmental bodies.
It is always a difficult type of us p
17 a procedure to arrange, to suit everybody's needs.
5 Di 18 What we will do is try to accommodate, to the extent
=
19 humanly possible, the needs of everybody that has written. Even 8n 20 then it is hard, because some people write and they don't show 21 up, and the board is sitting there. So we have to, you know --
22 we will do the best we can, because we certainly want to hear 23,
from these individuals.
We don't want any misunderstanding of 24 the board.
25 Many times I found in the past people have given ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
33 '
993 1
comments that everybody else has.
O g_/
2 MR. HALEIGAN: Would you more or les.= urge the 3
Secretary to inform these people of time and place of the 4
' e trings?
g 5
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
We probably would not be able to O
l 6l give a precise time.
We could probably give a range of times R
s 7
for a group and notify them to be there for a certain period of M
j 8
time.
We will send something out to them.
d q
9 MR. EALLIGAN:
Or maybe a fact sheet 'of what will be zog 10 expected,:the proper guidelines or something.
E j
11 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
That is a good suggestion.
3 p
12 All right.
Now, the board itself as of this point 3
( ) h 13 does not have any specific issues that it intends to raise, l
14 which should be considered in this sui sponti.
There has been a 9_
15 question raised in our minds with respect to Contention Nineteen,
=
y 16 that has now been withddawn, and that deals, I guess,wwith the w
d 17 aspect of it that has been raised by the staff in its opposition 5
h 16 to summary disposition of that contention.
P
{
19 MR. CUTCHIN:
I missed the last part.
n 20 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
We are dealing with the credible 21 accident contention.
22 MR. CUTCHIN:
Yes.
23 CHAIRMAN GLEASON The applicant filed a motion for 24 g3 summary disposition of that contention.
The. staff filed a
%-)
l 25 motion in opposition to summary disposition of that contention.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
-r-,-.
34' l
994 1
The contention has now been withdrawn, so in that sense what your
()
2 concerns were is moot, but the issue is not moot in our minds.
3 Glenn, do you want to talk a bit to that?
()
4 MR. BRIGHT:
My puzzlement is really what was the e
5 thrust of your submission.
It appears to me to be one of two E
N 6
things.
You are saying -- Either you are saying we have a big l
R 1
8 7
Problem or this was an incomplete case submitted by applicant.
s 8
8 Would you please --
dd 9
MR. CUTCHIN:
Our opposition was based on the fact that io 10 we believe the licensee in >its motion had defined the problem E
5 11 too narrowly, and the staff did not have a problem with the i
p 12 resolution of the situation because the matter is addressed in 5
(}
13 great detail with the safety evaluation report.
I believe there j
14 are some 120 pages of analysis, and it is also addressed in the 2
15 final environmental statement.
E g
16 So it was simply a matter of being certain that and a
g 17 identifying the material issues that had been identified 5
5 18 broadly enough.
The staffumay well have, if the matter had
=
l 19 proceeded further, come back with its own summary disposition g
e 20 motion, fully setting out the material issues and disposing of 21 them.
22 The staff did not have a problem with the resolution 23 of the matter, just with the definition.
24 MR. HALLIGAN:
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bright?
25 l CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Hold it a minute.
We are, I guess, l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l o
w,,,
e -,--
p,
m--
w
,w--
995 1
just trying to ascertain wheth'er tha't issue has been answered
()
2 with arguments.
You have indicated that it has.
3 MR. CUTCHIN:
The answer is, it has been addressed
()
4 at length in the safety evaluation report and in the final e
5 environmental study.
h j
6 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right.
Mr. Halligan?
R 7
MR. HALLIGAN:
As I said earl er and I will reiterate s
j 8
here, this deals with an accident that could actu&lly have d
d 9
happened, similar to the one at TMI or a variation of it.
We io 10 feel there was an ulterior motive, and Mr. Stark,..the expert E
j 11 from the NRC, who was here yesterday -- he is not here today --
3 g
12 could not answer this, but his affidavit indicates that human 5
{)
error was a primary cause and the General Public Utilities 13 l
14 Corporation is suing the NRC for $4 billion, claiming that it g
15 was primarily their fault, that the NRC did not properly x
g 16 cegulate the licensing of TMI, and they did not inform the e
d 17 power company, the Metropolitan Edison, of the potential danger, s
18 although they knew about it from a plant out in Ohio, et 5
19 cetera, et cetera.
M 20 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Does this have to do with the 21 qualification of operators?
22 MR. HALLIGAN:
No, this has to do with the agency's 23 negligence.
The General Public Utilities is claiming that the 24 NRC was the primary cause of the accident.
They claim that 73 V
25 the Federal agency's negligence in their regulatory duties was ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
36 996
?
the primary cause of that accident.
Now, this information, I fee:
2 the affidavit and so forth, challenging the applicant on summary 3
disposition, was influenced by this lawsuit, and I would suggest w
4 that perhaps this matter would be brougnc to the attention of e
5 the Attorney General, and that this matter be looked into further h
j 6
I will go to Senator Hines and Senator Specter's offi E
5 7
next week.
They have regional offices in Scranton.
I am going s
j 8
to make some vigorous complaint on this matter.
d 9
We feel in this proceeding that the NRC staff, that z
O 10 the NRC itself, the regulatory commission, nuclear power, has j
11 not properly evaluated some of the contentions that we put a
j 12 forward in their summary disposition, affidavits and so on.
5
(]}
13 And a number of contentions, I believe, were designed to sweep h
14 under the rug health and safety and environmental issues that
$j 15 should have been adjudicated and brought out at public hearings.
x j
16 We feel this is all tied in, and has culminated in w
d 17 this particular affidavit here, and this matter before the 5
5 18 Federal Court.
Now, it will not be the Citizens Against 5
19 Nuclear Dangers involved in this, but other third parties are 20 concerned about it, and the record of this hearing to date, 21 the prehearing conferences, correspondence, and so forth may l
l 22 be requisitioned or parts thereof requisitioned by 'others who
(-)
v 23 are concerned about the health and safety of the nation and the i
(~s 24 role of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in protecting that
(-)
25 f health and safety of the people of this country, and I feel that t
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
37 997 1
this has got to be looked into independently even though the
()
2 centention has been disposed of.
The issue certainly has not.
3 And if the NRC is found guilty of this negligence in performing
()
4 their duties in the Court, then it will have a great impact not e
5 only on TMI but perhaps the future of nuclear power and the way A
N 6
you issue licenses.
R
[
7 MR. SHULTZ:
Mr. Chairman, if I could speak to this n
8 8
briefly.
d d
9 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Mr. Shultz?
i i
o 10 MR. SHULTZ:
We are not satisfied with the NRC E
5 11 staff's treatment of this general issue.
I realize that the time
<k j
12 has passed for the filing of new contentions.
We are going to 5
(])
13 file a new contention anyway as soon as possible.
I point out l
14 to the board the reasons we have not been able to file one to 2
15
,this day.
I would state briefly that it has just been impossible 5
g for us to impose a new contention that I thought would be ade-16 m
l 17 quate in this time frame, but we will be filing one.
We hope x
18 that the board will take into consideration the serious nature 5
g" 19 of the issues.
n 20 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right, Mr. Shultz.
21 I believe that concludes the areas that we wanted to 22 cover.
Mr. Silberg?
23 _
MR. SILBERG:
Just one other matter.
I think we 24 brought it up in prior sessions at the prehearing conference, l
q\\s i
25 and that is the conflict on the first week of the hearing, with ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1
996 i
the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur.
We would request that the
()
evidentiary portion of that hearing be suspended at about 2:00 2
3
' clock Wednesday, October 7th, and perhaps the rest of that
(')
4 time could be used for limited appearance statements of people e
5-who would not be observing that holiday.
Perhaps we might start Nn d
6 evidentiary presentations the first thing on October 6th, e
7 except what is the more typical course of starting several days s
E 8
of limited appearance statements.
Perhaps have some evidentiary n
d c
9 Presentation and then the limited appearance : statements at' the i
10 end of that first week.
E 5
11 MR. HALLIGAN:
Mr. Chairman, the citizens would agree d
12 with that.
E
( ) = 13 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
So that would cover;the 7th and E
14 the 8th?
w 2
15 MR. SILBERG:
Yes, sir.
The afternoon of the 7th 16 from about 2:00 o' clock and then all day;on the 8th.
s M
g 17 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right.
E 18 MR. SILBERG:
If it would be easier, we would be
=b 19 willing to start earlier on any of those days.
8 n
20 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Earlier than 9:00 o' clock?
21 MR. SILBERG:
Sure.
22 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
That would not be convenient for 23 the board.
(-
24 MR. SHULTZ:
For the record, Mr. Chairman,we wouldn't U) 25 want to start earlier;than 9:00 o' clock. :Also, I would like the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
39
^
993 1
limited appearance statements scheduled as soon as possible after
()
2 the beginning of the hearing.
I think the public would be better 3
served.
()
4 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Dr. Johnsrud?
g 5
MS. JOHNSRUD:
I certainly on the part of ECNP would A
6 concur with Dr. Shultz' comments and recommend that limited R
{
7 appearance statements take place during that first week, to the a
j 8
extent possible, and get down to the evidentiary business d
o 9
subsequently.
bg 10 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Very good.
Ej 11 MR. HALLIGAN:
There is one more item.
E j
12 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Mr. Halligan, you have more things 5
{)
13 to say.
j h
14 MR. HALLIGAN: Just one.
There is an issue I 2
15 communicated with the NRC last year about, the problem of the E
g' 16 Pond Hill water storage reservoir, and we believe that.public w
p 17 hearings should be held on this matter.
M 18 Now, they set up an advisory committee down the river 5
{
19 in some of the communities, but these are informational meetings 1
20 and they are conducted by the PT&L primarily.
The public 21 relations operations primarily.
That reservoir is vital to the l
22 operation of this nuclear power plant.
At low flow it could
. ()
l 23 require the shut down of the plant or could require a lot of 24 problems of electrical output and so on, and they are trying to 25 circumvent the laws in various ways in these matters.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
40 100h 1
MR. CUTCHIN:
Mt. Chairman, I am going to object to
()
2 this continual characterization.
1 3
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Yes, that has been discussed
/^N (j
4 before.
e 5
MR. CUTCHIN: It is addressed in the final environmental 3
N 4
6 statement.
R d
7 MR. HALLIGAN:
We have no contention on this.
N[
8 MR. CUTCHIN:
I think the continued character dd 9
assassination that takes place on this record is uncalled for.
$g 10 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I think you've got to stop this, g
11 Mr. Halligan.
B g
12 MR. HALLIGAN:
I did not intend to direct this at any 5
(])
13 person or any group.
I am saying that the reservoir is a vital l
14 part of the environment.
{
15 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I understand that, and we are beyond
=
j 16 the point where you can raise a contention with respect to it.
M d
17 There has been ample discussion on that reservoir before in 5
M 18 this record.
=H
{
19 MR. HALLIGAN:
All right.
In conclusion, I had a l
l 20 motion before the board to ask the board to invite the 21 Susquehanna River Basin Commission to be a part of this.
Are rs 22 you in favor of that motion?
It is unresolved at this point.
(_)
23 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
The board just does not go and 24 p
invite people.
The board presides over these issues, this v
25 hearing process.
'Please; 'Mr...Halligan.
We appreciate very, very ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
en j--
100 1
much all of'the parties' participation in this prehearing
()
2 conference.
I think it has been constructive and helpful, and 3
I think it will permit the parties to narrow their concentration
()
4 on the issues, e
5 There is one aspect of it that we did not resolve, 34 3
6 and I don't think that we can do it here, I presume, because I R
7 haven't heard any comments from any of the intervenors that Ml 8
perhaps they have done it.
That was the question abo'n d
c; 9
designating a lead intervenor with respect to contentions.
We z
o 10 think, the board thinks, and it has been found out in other
~
11 cases, that this is a very, very good method for the substance 3
g 12 of intervenors' cases to have as much of an impact as it can
(])S 13 have in these hearings, in hearings of this type.
l 14 I would seriously suggest to the parties and the 2
15 intervenors that they have a session amongst themselves to see z
j 16 whether they can come up with some designation of lead w
17 intervenors on the contentions, and then it would be that
{
18 person's responsibility to handle the case, to conduct the P
h 19 cross examination, and it really is a method, as I indicated, n
20 for not only carrying out the hearing expeditiously in a 21 thorough fashion, but it is a method of getting the most out of 22 your contentions.
23 Dr. Johnsrud?
(^S 24 MS. JOHNSRUD:
Yes.
If I could respond briefly, since L'
25 l we have recently gone through a similar arrangement in the i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
42 100E y
Three Mile Island Unit 1 restart proceedings, to some degree, I
()
would concur that it was helpful to the parties, and I would 2
3 hope to the board, to do so.
However, where there may be
()
4 substantially different approaches to a contention or, as in e
5 several cases here, contentions of multiple parts that are only 3
N 6
tenuously connected with one another but classed under a single e
7 contention, there may be instances in which another party might Ag 8
wish to take a sufficiently uifferent approach in cross n
Y e
d 9
examination.
i 10 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
There may~be.
E 5
11 MS. JOHNSRUD:
To me, to take a rather full and d
12 separate track in their cross examination.
I would hope that 5
()=
13 if lead parties are designated, that the board will exercise E
14 flexibility enough to permit --
$x E
15 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
I think we would, because we cannot 16 require you to engage in this kind of an effort as a board k
M d
17 order.
But if we suggest that, I think you will find, 5
18 particularly, of course, in multiple parties involved in some 5
E 19 of these contentions, that by working together and making sure 20 that the lead intervenor knows the point thatyyouwwant brought 21 out, that they will be brought out, and that is a way of focusing
('s 22 the attention of everybody, including the board, on the O
4 23 contentions.
24 It is found to be very, very helpful.
25 MS. JOHNSRUD:
If I could add one other caution, I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
43
}QQ3 I
do hppe the board recognizes that there is a minimum of, I
(~')
2 think it is something on the order of 40 or 50 miles between 3
Mr. Shultz and Mr. Halligan, and my location is a full 120 4
miles from Wilkes Barre, which puts it even farther for Mr.
e 5
Halligan, and therefore there would not be the opportunity for b
6 close interaction among the intervenors that might appear on the C
R 7
surface to the board, so I would caution that this will.be s
8 8
very difficult for us to arrange for any really adequate extended d
d 9
preparation between us in the short time before we go to hearing.
g 10 I think these contentions, however, fall out, given g
11 the various sanctions and limitations imposed by the board in S
g 12 such a way that there are almost automatically designated lead
()
13 parties on a number of these contentions.
h 14
~
CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
Well, there certainly are in some E
2 15 respects, yes.
g 16 MS. JOHNSRUD:
We will endeavor to make such an W
t' 17 arrangement and to let you know.
5 M
18 CHAIRMAN GLEASON:
All right.
That will be very E
19 helpful.
g n
20 Is there any other matter to be brought up before 21 the board?
(]}
22 MR. SILBERG:
Just to arrange transportation for the 23 side trip.
( 24 MS. JOHNSRUD: Sir, I may have missed something in 25 your talking with the other parties. Has there been a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
44 1004 I designation? 2 CHAIRMAN GLEASON: There has not been a design-tion. (> 3 We are still struggling with it. It will be published in a ~ (_s) 4 matter of orders as quickly as we can agree on the same. 5 g MS. JOHNSRUD: Will there be or does the board O 3 6 expect that there may be available additional space for R 7 storage of documents at whatever site is chosen? Z 8 8 CHAIRMAN GLEASON: We are going to try to get that d 9 now and as a matter of convenience ,zo g 10 MS. JOHNSRUD: Thank you. It would be very much Il appreciated. S j 12 CHAIRMAN GLEASON: All right. 5 13 (a) MR. CUTCHIN: Mr. Chairman, might I suggest that if b I4 we are through with the prehearing conference, that need the { 15 schedules for that trip be discussed on the record? = -d I6 CHAIRMAN GLEASON: Very good, Mr. Cutchin. M h I7 Once again, I want to extend my appreciation to all = { 18 of the parties in the proceeding who participated in this P" 19 g endeavor, and this will bring to a closa the prehearing n 20 conference. Thank you. 2I (Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the prehearing conference 22 was concluded.) 3 23, 24 cs, t \\-) 25 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
,m + . /- NUCLEAR.*tENTORT CO!sCSSICN 7013 is Oc certify cha the attached prcceedings bercre ;he 3 7-ATOMIC SAFETY AND IJCENSING BOARD in tha :!at:ar cf: Pennsylvania Power & Electric Co., and Allegheny Elec. Coop., Inc. (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2)
- Oate cf ?rcceeding:
August 12, 1981 Ucckec Mu:::'cer: 50-387 & 50-388 Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania .m ace c ?rcceeding: Jere held as herein appears, and tha: this is the Original transcet : thereci for :he file of the Cc==13sica. Alfred E. Ward Of ficial Repcr:er (Typed) Id s !/_ Official Repce:er (signa:ure) __}}