ML20012C596
| ML20012C596 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000025 |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1990 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#190-10150, CON-#290-10168 89-594-01-ML, 89-594-1-ML, ML, NUDOCS 9003220257 | |
| Download: ML20012C596 (82) | |
Text
>
W
-GK 10FFICIALTRANSCRIN OF PROCEEDINGS f
, ;L:
i i.,
MW*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Tide:.
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Rocketdyne Division (Special Material Licens'c Number SNM-21)
Docket No.
70 ASLBP No. 89-594-01-ML 1
O
.Bethesda, Maryland 269 3'47 MTE:
1 March 15,'1990 9003220277 M@,f,fi[z.
e
+
ADO
FDC F;DR t
/
g ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
~_h 1612 K St. N.W, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
~ >
f
q-t 269'
. :L
. UNITED STATES OF AMER'ICA J/'~'(-
'h_/L 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION' i
3 4
-ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL
{
5 6
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 7
In the Matter'of 1
8-ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL Docket No.
70-25 9
CORPORATION 10 Rocketdyne Division ASLBP No.
89-594-01-ML 11
-(Special Material License 12 Number SNM-21
^.
L /
l 13
=- - - - - - -.- - - -x l Sm L
14 Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
15 4350 East / West Highway 16 Room 442 17 Bethesda, Maryland 18 19 Thursday, March 15, 1990-L 20
'21 The above-entitled proceedings commenced at 2:00 22' o' clock p.m.,
pursuant to notice via telephone conference 23 before:
f-24 PETER B.
BLOCH 1
12 5 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 1
J s
270 4
1.
PARTICIPANTS VIA TELEPHONE l ',/~'V:
\\ -i 2
PHILIP RUTHERFORD, DIRECTOR _
v 3-ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 4
Rocketdyne Division 5
6633 Canoga Avenue 6
Canoga Park, California 91304 7'
8 JON SCOTT t
'9 Six Roundup Road 10 Bell Canyon, California 91307 11 12 DANIEL HIRSCH, PRESIDENT
- Q' Li 13 COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP
. %J 14-1637 Butler Avenue, Suite 203
'15 Los Angeles, California
~!
16-17 ESTELLE LIT i
18 18233 Bermuda Street 19 Northridge, California 91326 20 21' JEROME E.
22 C/O 18350 Los Alamos
'23-Northridge, California 91326
- h. ;
24 ks-1 25
271 a.
g 1
PARTICIPANTS: ~[CONTINU$D)
I
'\\
/k_/'
- 2 3
BARBARA JOHNSON, PRESIDENT 4
'SUSANA KNOLLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION i
5 c/o 6714 Clear Springs Road 6-Susana Knolls, California 93063
-7 t
8 SHELDON C.
- PLOTKIN, 9
EXECUTIVE BOARD REPRESENTATIVE 10 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF SCIENTISTS 11 3318 Colbert Avenue e
12 Los Angeles, California 90066
/T 13 5, )
14 RICHARD SAXON, M.D.,
PRESIDENT 15 IDS ANGELES PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL PESPONSIBILITY 16 1431 Ocean Avenue, Suite B 17 Santa Monica, California 90401 p
18 19 COLLEEN WOODHEAD 20 OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 21 U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
-22 Washington, D.
C.
20555 23 L
24
<~
V 25-l
8 272 1
PROCEEDINGS y
s /-
2 (2:00 p.m.)
3 JUDGE BLOCH:
I am Judge Peter Bloch, presiding.
4 officer in the case involving the request to renew a special 5
materials license number 21 for Rockwell International i
6 Corporation.
The request is to renew the license to l
7 October, 1990.
The roll has been called by the operator 8
assembling the call, so we will not need to repeat that.
9 The agenda and the ground rules for this 10 conversation and set forth in my order of March 9, 1990.
I 11 would like to announce that with me today in my. office is 12' Mary C.
Larkin of Ann Riley and Associates, Ltd.
Her phone
(}
13 number is (202) 293-3950.
I will leave an opportunity to 14 order transcripts at the end of the call, but that is the 15 number she may be reached at if you don't remember to stay
~
16 on the line.
17 Before we begin with other matters, I would like 18 to report that I received a document dated-March 13, 1990, 19 which probably has not been served yet on the parties.
The
.20 document is covered by a letter from Virginia Tharpe to the
'21 Licensing Board, and I have directed the Secretary'to serve 22 it on the parties.
In the document there is a letter of 23 March 9 from Charles Haughney of the NRC to Rocketdyne
_gs 24 Division.
Attached to the letter is a materials license
(
25 amendment number five for SNM-21.
It is an amendment that
273 I
was. issued on March 9, and it relates to the TRUMP-S EV]'
~ 2 project.
3 Attached also is a document also of March 9, which 4
is a safety evaluation report, license amendment application-5
' dated December 22, 1989, re:
use of plutonium in the TRUMP-6 S program.
It is a staff document, Docket No. 70-25, and it 7-purports to find that; the proposed TRUMP-G activity will 8
not adversely affect the protection provided for the health 9
and safety of workers, on the public or the environment.
10
-Before we move to anything else, the first subject 11-that we are dealing with today has to do with whether all 12 the relevant documents are now in the hearing file.
What I i
ex L(}
13 would like to do is to invite as the first participant in I
\\_
14 that conversation the staff, because it may have new 15 information before I even call on Jon Scott.
Would the 16 staff like to comment on what I have just said and on the 17 completeness of the hearing file at this point?
18 MS. WOODHEAD:
Judge Bloch, this is Colleen i-l 19 Woodhead, Counsel for the Staff.
The hearing file is 20 complete and up-to-date, as far as I am aware.
The
'21 requirements are the application, any staff documents 22 evaluating the application and any relevant correspondence.
23 To the best of my knowledge, it contains all documents that i
,r~g 24 fit in that category.
'O 25 JUDGE BLOCH:
I was surprised to get the safety
274 1
evaluation report, because there was a staff document that i.
i
/ --
x-7 2.
led me to believe that there would be none.
Was this 3
surprising to you?
4 MS. WOODHEAD:
The safety evaluation is about the 5
license amendment.
6 JUDGE BLOCH:
What else is there pending right 7
now?
There is nothing but the license amendment pending,-is 8
there?
9 MS. WOODHEAD:
The licensing action that was 10 noticed in the Federal Register for hearing was the renewal 11 application which has been modified to change it from 10 s,
12 years to one year, I-believe.
The amendment that was lI. (m.:
l 4
13 recentlyJissued modifies some sections of the license to l
\\J 14 limit ~the-scope of activity of Rockwell's use of plutonium 15 to the particular activities under the TRUMP-S project.
L 16 That was an application.
L 17 JUDGE BLOCH:
So, there are two things pending in 18 your view.
One is this case, which relates to the extension 19 of the prior license which is not going to be used, and the 20 second is the amendment which was just approved by the staff L
21 and they are two separate things?
22 MS. WOODHEAD:
Yes.
The license renewal is to 23 renew the license for one year which expired some time ago, 24 except for 2109.
That is the scope of the hearing.
The l
g-w -
-Q) 25' amendment request-sent in by Rockwell and granted by the
I t
275 1
1 staff had to do with modifying certain sections of the L 'l
'e Eif 2
existing license and to permit and authorize certain 3
activities under their research project.
It was necessary -
p 4
- I don't know all the details -- it was necessary to modify
.J 5
some sections of the license, 6
JUDGE BLOCH:
In the staff's view, what is pending y
15
'7 is the renewal of a prior license that can't be used anymore 8
except for the amendment that has been approved?
9 MS. WOODHEAD:
It could be used.
I think it's a 10 matter of fact rather than authority.
It is my 11 understanding, and the Rockwell Representative can correct 12 me, it is my understanding that they don't intend to do what L '(q 13 they are presently authorized to do under their license j
14 except for this one remaining research project.
They still 15-have the authority of their existing license to do other.
16 things as they have in the past.
17 JUDGE BLOCH:
But in your view, I am to adjudicate-18-the existing license and not the amendment?
19 MS. WOODHEAD:
Right.
That amendment had no 20 opportunity for hearing attached to it.
21 JUDGE BLOCH:
Since the existing license isn't 22 going to be used at all, is it moot?
23 MS, WOODHEAD:
Well, I think that's a very good 24 question.
They have the authority to do other things under
,f g 25 their license and the TRUMP-S project.
m
.m
-e.
276
.1 JUDGE BLOCH:
But they stated they do: 't plan to j_
l
\\
's s#
2 do anything but the TRUMP-S-project.
-l 3
MS. WOODHEAD:
That's right.
That has been our h
4 understanding.
5 JUDGE BLOCH:
Is the old license moot; that is an 6
interesting question.
7 MS. WOODHEAD:
It seems -- well, they have the 8
authority to do other things.
It is a matter of their 9-statement 1that they are going to use their license only for 10 this one purpose.
11 JUDGE BLOCH:
Does that mean there might be an 12 environmental assessment that is related to the TRUMP-S IT 13' amendment but not to'the prior license; is that what is V
14 coming up?
15 MS. WOODHEAD:
No, we are not going to'do an EA on 16 this license amendment because it had to do only with 17 modifying certain sections of the existing license and 18 administrative changes, words, and it doesn't authorize 19.
anything.
20 JUDGE BLOCH:
The TRUMP-S is not substantively 21 different from the prior license, it is just an 22 administrative amendment of words.
23 MS. WOODHEAD:
It had to do, and I am not familiar f-s 24-
- with the details.
The amendment was necessary in order to 25 make clear what their authorization for use of this six
c 277 1
grams of plutonium was.
There was something in the license p.
\\
\\_/
2-that was unclear in their ability to use the plutonium in
~
3 this research project, so it was really a matter of 4
clarifying the present license.
5 JUDGE BLOCH:
As far as you are concerned, the 7
6-hearing file is complete at this time?
7 MS. WOODHEAD:
Yes.
8 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Scott, would you like to 9
comment, since this is your motion.
10 MR. SCOTT:
When you said the hearing file is 11
-complete, there are very few documents there.
There is a 12-lot of information that I think should be put in the LPDR
- [
)-
13 that is in the PDR.
p w 14 JUDGE BLOCH:
Could you, for the record, enumerate 15 what --
16 MR. SCOTT:
For example, the amendment.
I don't L
17 know what you are talking about.
I have not been served l
18 that.
19 JUDGE BLOCH:
You are going to be.
That is why I 20 described it at the outset of the --
21 MR. SCOTT:
The December amendment.
22 JUDGE BLOCH:
You mean Rockwell's request for the b
23 December amendment?
The amendment was actually granted 24 March 6th, but you want to have in the docket the request
.,es'l l
l I
(/
25 that led to the amendment; is that correct?
l
i 278 1
MR. SCOTT:
Say that again.
I didn't hear you
_j_
I L
2 well.
I 3
JUDGE BLOCH:
There is an~ amended license that I 4
just~ received that you will shortly receive.
I take it that-5 you want to have in the docket the document by which 6
Rockwell applied for that amended license.
7 MR. SCOTT:
Yes, I think that should have been 8
served instantaneously.
9 JUDGE BLOCH:
Let's get staff's answer to that.
i 10 Ms. Woodhead, what about that document?
11' RMS. WOODHEAD:
The hearing file is only required l
l 12-to contain documents related to the subject matter of the l
1L[)
13 hearing.
The renewal of Rockwell's license was the subject 14 noticed for-hearing.
i 15 JUDGE BLOCH:
I have to say that if that is true, j
16 then I don't understand what has happened here because l
L 17 Rockwell said that the only purpose they wanted this for was L
l l
18 the TRUMP-S project. I assume that is why I was given this l
1 19 amendment as part of the hearing file.
i 20 The only thing this case relates to right now is 21 the TRUMP-S project. If we don't have the documents related 22 to the TRUMP-S' project we don't have a hearing file.
23 MS. WOODHEAD:
I don't think so, because their 24 license is a broader authority than the TRUMP-S project.
It
~
U 25 is a matter of their intent to use a broader license for a q
279 1
limited research project.
3,.
(
).
'/
2 JUDGE BLOCH:
I can't authorize thrm to have any e
3 license except.for the TRUMP-S because they have represented
,1 4
in this hearing that is all they want it for.
There is
-5 nothing in the docket and there will be nothing in the 6
docket about anything other than the TRUMP-S project because 7
Rockwell has stipulated to that.
Would Mr. Rutherford like 8
to comment on that?
9 MR. RUTHERFORD:
Yes, this is Phil Rutherford 10 here.
It is certainly Rockwell's intention to do no more 11 than the TRUMP-S project under the presence license.
12 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
Ms. Woodhead, do you i
13 understand that?
14' MS. WOODHEAD:
I understand that very well.
15 JUDGE BLOCH:
Hold on for one second, I have a 16:
buzz that is going to interrupt the call.
-17
[Brief pause.)
18 JUDGE'BLOCH:
Please continue.
19 MS. WOODHEAD:
Rockwell has not modified its 20 license application to limit the application for the license l
21' to the authority to do this one certain research project.
22 JUDGE BLOCH:
It has not done that?
23 MS. WOODHEAD:
No.
They have only indicated they 24 wanted to modify their application from a 10 year term to a
(-
Q,}/
25'
.one year term.
280 l'
JUDGE BLOCH:
No.
I can find a document for you
,e k-)
2 that they clearly indicated as early as December Lhat it 3
would be limited to the TRUMP-S project, plus'the possession 4
of the materials that are in the ground on the site.
If you 5
need to have that document, I can't cite it right now but my 6
guess is that Mr. Rutherford can.
7 Mr. Rutherford, can you cite the document that~we 8
are referring to?
9 MR. RUTHERFORD:
I believe you are referring to 10 the letter that Bob sent to Ben on December 22nd, where we-11 had a description of the TRUMP-S project for inclusion in 12 the license.
It was that letter I believe that we certified l- [ )-
13 that this would be the only project we would perform under s_,
L 14 license.
Indeed, I think if you look through the original l
15 license application wording you would see.
16 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Rutherford, would you object if 17 I entered an order that all documents related to TRUMP-S 18 must be in the hearing file?
(~
19-MR. RUTHERFORD:
Let me put you on hold for a 20 minute, please.
21 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
Ms. Uoodhead, I am going 22 to ask you the same question after Mr. Rutherford answers.
23 MR. RUTHERFORD:
We are certainly prepared to
-24 enter all TRUMP-S documents which are related to the license
_g-()
\\ "'
25 application into the file.
It is our belief that they
1 281 1-exist.
For instance, that the control plan-for the TRUMP-S-
,a
'\\ 2 2'
- -three or four of the original applications, we would not 3
be prepared'to put all technical documents related to the 4
TRUMP-S in the file which do not relate to the license.
5 JUDGE BLOCH:
Some of the documents of course, 6
will be proprietary in nature and will not be made public 7
unless under protective order to particular parties.
Is 8
that what you are referring to, the need to not insert 9
certain things because of reasons of some kind of 10 confidentiality?
11 MR. RUTHERFORD:
Yes, that is correct.
12 JUDGE BLOCH:
Those documents need not be filed f,.,3 13 for the public record, but they must be filed with the v
14 Licensing Board as part of a protected record; do you 15 understand that?
16 MR. RUTHERFORD:
I hear you.
I am not sure 17 whether I agree with you.
18 JUDGE BLOCH:
I will be entering an order to that 19-effect unless you or the staff can give me a reason not to.
L
[
20 It is the standard procedure at the NRC that the entire L
21 application is made available to the Licensing Board.
- Then, 22 unless there is some objection, it is made available under 23 request to a party.
I don't know frankly whether the 1
i es 24 protective order procedure applies to Subpart L.
We would 1e
\\
C/
25 have to test that if there was a request.
1 o
282 1
I would not decide that now. I do have a strong
[
l
)
feeling that there is no reason to keep anything from the N/
2 3
Licensing Board because we are expected to keep things in 4
' confidence and have a very high security clearance.
So, I 5
think I can be trusted with it.
For the interest of a 6
complete record, I ought to have it.
7' MR. RUTHERFORD:
Are you suggesting that for 8
instance, the contract with the Japanese for the TRUMP-S?
9 JUDGE BLOCH:
No.
It is anything related to the 10 safety or environmental implications of the TRUMP-S project.
11 MR. RUTHERFORD:
Limited to the safety and 12 environment protection in the TRUMP-S project.
.fy j
j-13 JUDGE BLOCH:
Right.
I don't know that there is v
14 nothing in the contract with the Japanese that is related to 15 that, but I haven't seen that.
You would have to make the 16 determination about that in the first instance. If it is 17 related to the safety and the environmental implications it 18' ought to be in our record.
19' MR. RUTHERFORD:
Okay, we understand that.
20 JUDGE BLOCH:
Ms. Woodhead, do you have any 21-objections to my entering such an order?
22 MS. WOODHEAD:
No.
l 23 JUDGE BLOCH:
An order is entered that all 24 documents related to the safety or environmental g
'%s' 25 implications of the TRUMP-S project shall be served for our j
l
~
283 l'
record.
That will include future documents as well as em
\\~s 2
documents that already exist.
When the new documents are 3
created they should be' served in this docket; I
a 4
Mr. Scott, is there another matter that we should 5-take up?
6 MR. SCOTT:
Regarding?
7 JUDGE BLOCH:
Regarding documents or types of 8
documents that you want to have included in the record?
9 MR. SCOTT:
I think for the library to have a 10 complete record in Washington there is a record on the 11 history of let's say accidents, not just in the past 20 12 years but the operating history of the plant.
I feel that things like that ought to be put in the record.
l
(
- 13
.x l
s 14 JUDGE BLOCH:
You want things like the operating 15 history to be in the record. Mr. Scott, as I understand the 16 way Subpart L works though, you can outline in your case as 17 you'have in some instances done and others have done, in 18 areas where you want information. Then, Rockwell can respond 19 and I can add things to the file after that if there is some 1
L 20 need shown by you along with your analysis.
1' 21 I would prefer at this time not to order that we L
22 sweep up things from the prior record just on the grounds P
23 that they exist because I don't see that it is provided for.
l j~s 24 Is there something in the regulations that you think goes
" ]
l 25 beyond what I am now saying?
(,
[
L 284 L
1 MR. HIRSCH:
This is Don Hirsch.
May I make a 2
point on that matter?
3 JUDGE BLOCH:
If Mr. Scott wants to yield to you.
4 MR. SCOTT:
Yes, I will yield.
5 MR. HIRSCH:
I think there are two separate 6
questions here.
One is whether there is additional l
7 information outside the normal public docket regarding 8
Rockwell that should be made available.
Titat has to do with m
9 these information requests that you have decided to defer i
10 until Rockwell responds to our direct cases.
11 The second' question is what should be in.the local j
12 public document room, and whether there is any regulatory
])
13 authority'for that local public document room on this docket 14 to be extraordinarily more restricted than what is available 15 in the public document room in Washington.
16 JUDGE BLOCH:
There-is nothing in the regulations 17 that says it has to be the same.
18 MR. HIRSCH:
There is nothing in the regulations i
19 that says it is to be different.
The standard practice in 20 NRC cases is that the full docket is available in the local 21
'public document room.
22
' JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Hirsch, we have a special 23 problem as to Subpart L which isn't a standard case, and 24 there is a provision for the assembly of a hearing file.
25 The question is what portion of the regulations relating to
285 1
the hearing file, if any, do you rely on so that I have the l
).
^/
.2 authority to order more documents to be placed in the LPDR.
~-
3 MR. HIRSCH:
First of all, I think that these are 4
somewhat separate issues.
I think there is a question of 5
whether the LPDR in any regulation is permitted to have less 6
in it on the matter in question than the PDR in Washington.
7-To have a case based in California where there are documents 8
available in Washington but not here does not seem to make 9
much sense, particularly when discovery of documents other 10 than what is in the public record is prohibited.
i 11 The second question is in terms of what should be 1
12 in the hearing file.
Subpart L very explicitly gives you
., q (j
13 the authority to determine if there are disputes and to 14 resolve those disputes.
I will just read that.
The i
15 presiding officer shall rule upon any issue regarding the 16 appropriate materials for the hearing file.
I note that in 17 the NRC Staff memo to you which identifies what is in the 18 hearing file, it'is almost nothing.
Essentially it is the 19 application, the NRC Staff SDR and environmental assessment i
i l-20 regarding the'1984 application, but the 1984 application 21 itself isn't even there.
22 There is essentially nothing else in that hearing i
L
'23 file.
What we are arguing is that in a renewal case where p,7~%
24 the contested issues are essentially whether this facility l
x 25 has complied with the regulations in the past, that matters
286-1 1
related to that compliance should be in that file.
If we
(~3
\\f 2
were rich, we could go to Washington and review them in the 3
PDR there. I can see no regulatory reason that because we 4
are in Los Angeles that the violations for example that 5
occurred over the regulatory history of this facility should 6
not be-in the hearing file.
7 I can't see a regulatory basis that the staff can i
8 place their FDR for the 1984 application but not the 1984 9
application itself.
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you, Mr.-Hirsch.
Is there 11 anymore to that argument?
12-MR. HIRSCH:
I have a couple of other items.
I ji
)
13 notice that the staff has placed Part II --
14 JUDGE BLOCH:
Let's now talk about what the 15 specific items are.
You have made a general argument that 16 there should be appropriate material for the hearing file 17 which you interpret to include anything for some period of 18 time that I might specify that is related to the performance 19 of the application and whether the license should be
'20 renewed; is that correct?
1' 21 MR. HIRSCH:
Yes.
I would also add that there L
22 should be the full record regarding the past applications by 23
-an amendment. It is extremely difficult to go through l.
I material that is in the hearing file that refers to past f-~
24 i 4' '
L 25 applications, past amendments and past licenses without L
1
287 1
those documents being there.
For example, there is
- K-).
2 reference to seismic analysis that was performed in past t
3 renewals but that seismic analysis is not there.
All we 4
have is the reference.
?
5 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
Are there any other new 6-arguments by any of the intervenors, arguments that are 7
distinct from what Mr. Hirsch has just made?
8
[No response.]
9 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Rutherford, would you like to 10 comment on the point that-Mr. Hirsch has made about all the 11 appropriate information including the NRC's files on the 12 application that is being renewed?
m l
i.
13 MR. RUTHERFORD:
We would have no objection to V'
14 intervenors having access to documentation within the 15 Washington public room.
16 JUDGE BLOCH:
They have that.
The' question is 17 whether you have any objection to the same information 18 being made available in Los Angeles?
19
-MR. RUTHERFORD:
No.
20 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
Ms. Woodhead, does the 21 staff?
22 MS. WOODHEAD:
Yes.
23 JUDGE BLOCH:
Why?
24 MS. WOODHEAD:
Because it is outside the s
('
25 requirements of the rule.
I 288 1_T 1
JUDGE BLOCH:
What about my authority to decide
/o i
?'s '
2 what the appropriate information should be in the hearing 3
file?
4 MS. WOODHEAD:
Given the limited scope of this l
5 licensing-action, I can't see any-necessity for any further 6
information.
7 JUDGE BLOCH:
Limited scope will be decided in 8
part by the decision I will issue next week on the motion to 9
strike.
I think you will see that while the scope is 10 limited, there are some serious issues raised about the 11 qualifications of the applicant.
If it is relevant to-the 12 pending concerns, is it within my authority to order the l
tN
( )
13 docket include matters that are relevant to the pending.
l L
14 concerns?
15 MS. WOODHEAD:
If it is relevant to their 16 application to renew the license for one year for a special 17 research project, that would be the test I believe.
i 1
18 JUDGE BLOCH:
Are there qualifications as a 19 handler of special nuclear materials in your opinion l
l 20_
relevant to the renewal?
l 21 MS. WOODHEAD:
There are.
1 22 JUDGE BLOCH:
In that case, I order that all 23 documents that have been created within the last 20 years p
24 that relate to prior applications related'to SNM-21 and k
l:
25 staff analyses, and inspections and violations related to
u-289
~
I 1
SNM-21 should be included in the local public document room k-2 for'this case.
Related to that Ms. Woodhead is, I was asked 3
whether I wanted to have the local public document room 4-continued.
I think under the circumstances where there will-5 be so much material to include in it, I am going to request 6
-that the staff continue to service this particular local 7
public document room.
8 Do you have any objections to what.I have just 9
ordered, Ms. Woodhead?
10-MS. WOODHEAD:
Yes.
I think that these documents 11 going back 20 years are probably unrelated to the present 12 application.
/m
'%)
l 13 JUDGE BLOCH:
That objection is overruled.
Mr.
14 Scott, do you have further comments?
15 MR. SCOTT:
Just one second.
16 (Pause.]
17 MR. PLOTKIN:
Judge Bloch, this is Dr. Plotkin.
18-JUDGE BLOCH:
Until Mr. Scott is finished, I would 19
.rather continue with him.
Mr. Scott.
Can I yield to him?
I have been sick.
l 21 Would you give me one second, please?
22 JUDGC BLOCH:
Dr. Plotkin.
L L
I 23 MR. PLOTKIN:
I don't know if this is the proper l
LD-~
24 place to bring it up, but I was wondering in the letter i
25' where the staff referred to other licensing matters besides l
l
i 290 1..
- this license.
J' 2
JUDGE BLOCH:
Dr. Plotkin, I believe that was the 3
-material that you will receive shortly that I referred to at 4
the beginning of this call.
1 x
5 MR. PLOTKIN:
Okay.
6 JUDGE BLOCH:
If anyone on the line thinks that 7
there is other materials related to other licensing related 8
to the TRUMP-S project or the SNM-21 renewal, I would state 9
that anything of that kind should also be included in the 10 hearing file.
11 Thank you, Dr. Plotkin.
Mr. Scott.
12 MR. SCOTT:
On my motion regarding scheduling p- (A)
~
13 service of public documents, I feel that the local LPDR u
v-14 should also be provided with a current looseleaf set of the 15 updated rules and regulations, policy statements, statements 16 of consideration with updates provided routinely.
Also, the 1
p 17 LPDR should have an updated hard copy version of the-18 practices and procedures digest.
There is only access to y
19 Part'70 in the Part L regulation, even though numerous other l'
20 parts appear to apply.
Part 70 and Subpart L were included L
21 in the hearing file with the rest of the applicable l
22 regulations and precedents were not.
23 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Woodhead, how do you feel about 24 this request?
i s--
25 MS. WOODHEAD:
That is completely outside the i
- d I
-291 1-requirement of Subpart L to put any procedures at all.
I
,,q_
b I A s' 2
think that the intervenors -- Subpart L and Part 70 which is s
3 really a provision of material to the public that is 4
available to the public,-and it should be available to.the
?
5 public.
6.
JUDGE BLOCH:
Does the NRC have any repository in 7
th6 Los Angeles area that has the requested regulatory 8
materials; do you know?
9 MS. WOODHEAD:
I have no idea.
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
I am particularly interested in your 11 reaction, Mr. Hirsch, as to whether you have an opinion 12 about my authority to do this.
- -~g, f
e-13 MR. HIRSCH:
I believe you clearly do.
I believe
-\\/
14 that the staff objection is undercut by its own decision to 15 include Part II in the hearing file.
16 JUDGE.BLOCH:- They didn't decide to do that, I 17 did.
18 MR. HIRSCH:
No, I believe that they did.
I call i
19 your attention to their memo to you where you had asked what 20 is the status of the hearing file.
October 23, they sent to 21 you a list of what they have included in the hearing file
-22 and attached is an index.
They indicate that they have 23 placed 10 CFR'Part II, the statement of consideration for ir s 24 Subpart L and 10 CFR Part II without appendices in that 25 hearing file.
y.
1 Ls 292 I believe that to the extent that Section II is 1-f. JR-2 relevant, that the full regulations that are relevant should 3
be applied.
I frankly don't know how one can expect a 4
proceeding to go forward when there are references in 5
Rockwell's pleadings to Part 100 but there is no current 6
version of Part 100 available to the other parties.
7 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Hirsch, what Ms. Woodhead had
-8 said was that it is usually the obligation of parties to-a 9
proceeding-to be able to obtain access to legal materials.
10 It is not usually the obligation of an agency of the 11-government to provide them.
I believe there are public 12 library collections that have updated versions of this, but 1 33
\\
l 13 I am not certain.
I know that is one thing that law L
14 libraries do and that public libraries do.
15.
MR. IIIRSCH:
Let me respond, if I may.
I don't 16 believe that is the usual practice with the NRC.
I note, e
L 17 and.Ms. Woodhead should know this as well, the public l
l 18' document room established in the UCLA case has been provided i
1 19 with a complete set of the regulations.and, for that matter, 1
20 a complete set of the precedent.
Mr. Scott is not asking 1
i' 21 for the full case law.
An old version of it is in the LPDR l
22 for the UCLA case.
23 lie is asking simply for the regulations in the
' ' r^')
practice and procedures digest that what is actually done by 24 25 NRC with regard to PDR.
Secondly, regarding the i
l
i q
293 1
availability of this information in other law libraries, l
\\
i/
2 there are available paperback versions of January 1989 of 10 3
CFR in law libraries here.
There is no updated version that 4
includes the new regulation that we have been able to locate 5
in the Los Angeles area.
6 This is particularly important, because when one 7
relies on the paperback version mistakes are made because of 8
these changes.
9 JUDGE BLOCH:
That is correct.
10 MR. HIRSCH:
All of us have found that we have 11 relied on the paperback version and we should not have 12 recently.
When I say all of us, I don't just mean the
(
)
13 intervenors.
It is not otherwise available here, and that 14 is why the request is made.
There is, to my knowledge, no 15 copy of the practice and procedures digest in Los Angeles 16 that is anymore recent than about eight years old.
17 JUDGE BLOCH:
Ms. Woodhead, under the 18 circumsthnces what I would like to do is, request that the 19 staff consider voluntarily adding some or all of the 20 materials that have been described by Mr. Scott; and that 21 they inform me next Tuesday about what their voluntary 22 decision is.
If they continue to object, give me some brief 23 statement of cuthority as to the nature of the objections 24 and the legal materials that prohibit me from adding 25 additional regulatory materials to the file.
i.
294 1-Do you have any objection to that request, Ms.
o' 2
Woodhead?
3 MS. WOODHEAD:
I would like to know if you are 4
going to write these orders out in a formal order?
5 JUDGE BLOCH:
I am not planning to.
It is on the 6
record, and we will have a transcript.
7 MS. WOODHEAD:
All right.
JUDGE BLOCH:
I believe we have ordered --
8 9
MS. WOODHEAD:
With a written order, because it is 10 very succinctly and clearly --
11 JUDGE BLOCH:
We have ordered it overnight, so you 12 can obtain a copy tomorrow.
If you have a difficulty with l
,x
\\
13 what is said, I would encourage you to call me and I will
(
J.
14 clarify orally end issue an order in order to clarify it if 15 it is not clear on the record.
Right now what I am 16 referring to however, is the statement of request by Mr.
17 Scott which will be just a couple of pages in the transcript 18 prior to what I have just requested.
19 I have asked you to consider adding additional 20 regulatory materials pursuant to Mr. Scott's request.
21 MS. WOODHEAD:
Yes, I understand what your request L
22 is.
1.
23 JUDGE BLOCH:
Is there some area of clarity that 24 you are aware of needing right now?
, 7-s\\
1' %)
I 25 MS. WOODHEAD:
No.
I just know that it is l
i l
295 t
1 difficult to understand orders from the transcript where the l[
)
! ~ \\~ /
2 intent is not clearly set out.
It is more confusing where 3
-there is conversation back and forth and things are done in l
4 shorthand.
I would prefer to have a written order.
?
5 JUDGE BLOCH:
If you have any difficulty at all,-
6 you will call with a description of the difficult 1y, I will 7
make a record of our conversation and issue an order to 8
clarify anything that is a real problem with you.
9 MS. WOOCHEAD:
All right.
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Rutherford, do you have any 11 objection to what has just transpired?
12 MR. RUTHERFORD:
Well, I feel that the most up-to-
[ ).
13 date versions of the various procedures, regulations that
\\_/
14 the intervenors are referring to would certainly be kept.in 15 the local libraries, certainly law libraries in L.A.
16 However, I feel sort of a responsibility for NRC if they are 17 willing to do it, if they are willing to meet your request, 18 so be it.
19 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you very much.
Mr. Sentt, is 20 there another point that you would like to make now?
21 MR. SCOTT:
Yes.
I would like to make sure that 22 this transcript is also put into the LPDR.
23 JUDGE BLOCH:
Yes, I will order that a copy of the 24 transcript be placed in the LPDR.
Is there any objection, fS 25 Ms. Woodhead?
296 1
MS. WOODHEAD:
No.
-I l
1-J 2
JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Scott, anything else?
3 MR. SCOTT:
No, I think on this particular matter 4
that is it.
i 5
JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Hirsch?
6 MR. HIRSCH:
I wanted to make sure that when you l
4 7
were discussing the matters to be included in the LPDR that 8
we are talking about the annual report as well, the 9
inspection report and the annual report.
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
Could you tell me something, are the 1
11 annual reports something like what was included with the 12 application for the last few years?
(
)
13 MR. HIRSCH:
That's right.
14 JUDGE BLOCH:
You want those also to go back for 15 20 years?
16 MR. HIRSCH:
I also want to make a comment about 17 that.
I know that you have on your own, chosen that this 18 only go back 20 years.
I would argue very strongly that the 19 full record of this facility is relevant to the decision to 20 renew it.
The full period that they have had a license by 21 the Commission should be relevant to the determination of 1
22 whether or not you relicense.
23 JUDGE BLOCH:
There is a way in which I agree with r~s 24 you, Mr. Hirsch.
In fact, some of the materials that are
(
25 likely not to be struck may go to an accounting back to the
F
~
297
(
1 initial part of the operation of the plant.
But the most l
)
i N/
2 relevant materials for the purpose of qualification, I still 3
consider to be the last 20 years.
I am not prepared at this 4
time to go beyond that because of the administrative 5
difficulty of doing that.
I might at some time in the 6
future, but not now.
7 MR. HIRSCH:
So that the record is clear, let me 8
at least state why we believe that the other decision should 9
be made, and if you revisit this issue it will be partially 10 based on this argument.
11 JUDGE BLOCH:
Please do that.
If you are 12 persuasive right now I could change my mind.
Go ahead.
!()
13 MR. HIRSCH:
The facility has had approximately 10 14 reactors up there, and from our own information we know of 15 accidents that have occurred at approximately five of them, 16 a 50 percent track record.
If I were Rockwell, I might be 17 trying to argue that although we had a lot of accidents in j
18 the past, we have had an unblemished record they might try 19 to argue for the last 20 years.
Therefore, the original 20 20 would not be relevant.
21 If the last 20 years have also been subject to 22 substantial environmental contamination incident, it would s
i 23 appear to me that the full 40 year record of this facility l
l fw 24 be very important.
If we are trying to determine what is 25 the likelihood of an accident involving plutonium in the L
l l
l i
298 I
1 TRUMP-S project if they were given permission to do it, the
{
_s
[
)
\\>
2 fact that they have had a large number of accidents over 3
time and that the accident record has not improved over time i
4 would seem to absolutely review the major accidents in the 5
entire license period.
6 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
At this time, that is
[
7 not enough to persuade me, but I was interested in the i
8 remarks and they could beco.ue important in the future.
Are 9
there any other arguments, Mr. Hirsch?
10 MR. HIRSCH:
I don't know the appropriate point to 11 raise this, but I would just ask where on the agenda it 12 should be.
The announcement that you made at the outset is,
(,-~)
13 of course, disturbing to I believe all the intervenors.
We 14 hope that there will be an opportunity in this conference 15 call to discuss it.
16 JUDGE BLOCH:
Could you mention what it is that 17 you want added to the agenda about what I said at the 18 outset?
19 MR. HIRSCH:
For example, you indicated that the 20 staff has granted a license amendment in response to a 21 request of December 22nd.
We have never seen an amendment 22 request by Rockwell to amend their current license.
We find 23-it frankly outrageous that there could be a staff action on fs 24 a matter where there has been apparently communication
)
25 between Rockwell and the staff precisely that which is being b
299 i
1 litigated in this proceeding and not have it served on the
- ~.,
2 parties.
3 We would, of course had we been served as we 4
should have, raised issues at that time regarding the i
5 amendment.
I believe there is a fundamental duty of 6
Rockwell to serve all staff correspondence on the parties.
7 I am frankly stunned to hear that an amendment to the old 8
license was requested in December but that no one know about 9
it until today.
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Rutherford, would you like to 11 comment?
12 MR. RUTHERFORD:
Yes, I would like to comment on
(/~~)
13 that.
We do not interpret the regulations for us to serve 14 upon the intervenors our regular correspondence to the NRC 15 relating to license application.
Indeed, the NRC does not 16 interpret the obligation either.
They did not serve them on l
17 the intervenors.
l 18 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Rutherford, you do know that as 19 of now, pursuant to my order, whatever was true in the past i
20 is no longer true.
Therefore, if it is related to the i
21 application all the correspondence about this amendment, 22 this application, should be served in this docket.
l 23 MR. RUTHERFORD:
I understand that, and we will 3
24 comply with your wishes.
I would like to make a second
-h 25 point.
I-
l i
c 300 L
1 JUDGE BLOCH:
Yes.
7 2
MR. RUTHERFORD:
The NRC did in fact serve upon 3
the intervenors a November 22nd letter later on, I think in i
4 early January.
The intervenors do have a copy of that 5
letter which describes the process --
6 JUDGE BLOCH:
If I understand correctly, if the 7
staff served it, it wasn't served on the intervenora.
It 8
was or should have been served on the LPDR but not on the 9
intervenors.
Do you know from the service list Mr.
10 Rutherford, whether I am correct on that?
11 MR. RUTHERFORD:
Correct to the administrative 12 judge including yourself and there was a service certificate
[ )
13 attached to the back with all the intervenors names and 14 addresses.
15 JUDGE BLOCH:
That was unusual for the staff.
16 Thank you.
17 MR. RUTHERFORD:
I have no comment on that.
This 18 letter made it plain that you were requesting staff to 19 include words describing the TRUMP process within the new 20 license.
Therefore, I find it difficult to believe that the 21 intervenors claim that this is a complete surprise.
22 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
Mr. Hirsch, do you have 23 a comment on that?
24 MR. HIRSCH:
Yes.
Two comments.
One is, first of 7-U 25 all, the December 22nd letter was not served by Rockwell on
301 1
the PDR or on the parties, or on you, sir.
None of us t
1 k/
2 received it for another month until the staff finally did 3
provide it. More intriguing, am I to understand that the 4
December 22nd amendment request referred to by the ctaff 5
that you referred to earlier in this conversation as what it I
6 is that they had decided to grant is the December 22nd 7
letter which was then served on all of us in January?
8 If that is the case, there is no amendment request 9
by Rockwell.
That document is entitled Supplement to 10 Application for Renewal, License Number SNM-21.
11 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Rutherford, is that correct?
12 MR. RUTHERFORD:
Subsequent telephone t
([
)
13 conversations to the NRC, they informed us that to include s
14 these words within the license would require an amendment.
15 Therefore, they went ahead and prepared an amendment.
16 MR. HIRSCH:
Am I to understand that there has 17 been no amendment request by Rockwell?
18 JUDGE BLOCH:
If I understand Mr. Rutherford, and 19 he can correct me, what he said is that they made the 20 request that you have seen and subsequently in telephone 21 conversations the staff chose to treat it as an amendment 22 request; is that true, Mr. Rutherford?
23 MR. RUTHERFORD:
Yes, that is true.
24 JUDGE BLOCH:
Ms. Woodhead, is that the staff's 7-s V
25 understanding, or are you not prepared to respond to this?
i u
302 F
1 MS. WOODHEAD:
I really don't know.
l' I
\\d
.2 MR. HIRSCH:
Judge Bloch, the amendments must be
~
3 in writing, must be sworn to.
There are clear legal 4
requirements for amendments.
There are opportunities for 5
hearing.
All of-that has not been complied with in this 6
- case, c
7 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Hirsch, what I am hearing is 8
that there are a lot of factors here of a legal nature and 9
of a factual nature that you believe have been done 10 incorrectly.
But, because of the importance and complexity 11 of this, I must request that whatever you are going to do
+
12 about it be done in writing as a motion, q(J 13 MR. HIRSCH:
May I request the following instead, 14 sir?
15 JUDGE BLOCH:
Sir.
16 MR. HIRSCH:
.I think that this is absolutely 17 essential ~to the case.
I believe that what has just 18
-transpired would severely damage the integrity of the 19 proceedings and is illegal.
I therefore would request that 20 you immediately schedule a hearing or prehearing conference 21 here in Los Angeles at the earliest opportunity to hear 22 legal argument about whether or not the amendment which 23 apparently has just been granted by Rockwell is legal, to 24 hear motions for a stay request if you do rule that it is rx "0,
(
l 25 legal, to hear other arguments about why there is no legal l
l 11
303 1
authority to amend that old license to permit this
,x
/
\\
\\
)
N' 2
prohibited activity, TRUMP.
3 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Hirsch, when a motion is filed 4
that has significance in this case, I think I have shown 5-that I can act very quickly.
I am not prepared to hold such 6
a hearing until we have a clear framework spelled out in a 7.
written document.
I am anxious to receive such a document 8
because I trust that you can prepare one that would provide 9
such a framework, and because you obviously are very 10 concerned about what has happened.
11 I am just not prepared to have a hearing where the 12 issues aren't clearly spelled out including the legal and
-s(j 13 factual issues that are to be contested.
I also would have 14 to have an opportunity for the applicants and possibly the 15 staff to respond before I would decide to hold such a 16 hearing.
I understand the need for expedition under the 17 circumstances too.
I need something in writing, and I think 18 that the staff and applicants are entitled to that.
19 MR. HIRSCH:
May I ask, do you not also need in 20 writing from staff and applicants who just discovered this 21 whole process orally between the staff and applicant, it 22 would appear that there is a standard not being fully 23 applied to the other parties as well.
Don't we need to hear
('"x 24 in writing the staff authority for taking this action and UY 25 Rockwell's authority for initiating something in this
i l
304 1
l 1
fashion when there is a pending proceeding, not serving it
-I) x_/
2 and not even having a written request for an application.
I 3
JUDGE BLOCH:
Unless there is a motion, I am not 4
prepared to act on my own authority to do that.
I believe 5
that a motion could frame the issues in such a way that it
)
6 might be practical.
You are talking about a very important 7
event in this proceeding, and I am not prepared to act to 8
frame the issues myself when this is supposed to be an 9
adversary proceeding.
10 MR. HIRSCH:
May I inquire why this argument could 11 not occur orally on the record at the earliest possible 12 opportunity; why one must wait written motions and 15 days r^s 4
13 for response; and then time for you decide and time for you
( )
14 to decide to come out here and hold a meeting.
I mean, this 15 is a 30 day delay.
16 JUDGE BLOCH:
You could inquire, but I have 17 already answered the question.
To the best of my ability 18 and as fairly as I can, I have stated why I need to have it 19 in writing.
Mr. Rutherford, do you have any comments on 20 what just transpired?
21 MR. RUTHERFORD:
No.
22 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Woodhead?
23 MS. WOODHEAD:
I would like to point out that r x.
24 under Subpart L 2.1205(1) the staff has the authority to l,1]
25 grant requested licensing actions prior to conclusion of the i
1 4
305 1
hearing.
i i
2 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
Mr. Hirsch, you nay just i
s-3 want to include that if you file a motion concerning this 4
matter.
5 MR. HIRSCH:
Ms. Woodhead is very wrong about 6
that.
7 JUDGE BLOCH:
That's all right.
She has just 8
suggested something and she may be very wrong, but just 9
mention it.
10 MR. HIRSCH:
It will be addressed.
11 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
Mr. Hirsch, are you 12 still having matters to bring before me?
e) 13 MR. HIRSCH:
On which item?
34 JUDGE BLOCH:
We are still on the first item, 15 which has to do with completeness of the hearing file.
16 MR. HIRSCH:
Clearly as to whether the service of 17 this document is included in that agenda item or the next 18 item.
I don't mean computation of time but service, 19 JUDGE BLOCH:
Are you talking about who should be 20 served or this narrow question on the agenda number two?
21 MR. HIRSCH:
I am talking about the question of 22 whether documents such as the December 22nd letter will now 23 be served on the parties and served at the same time that it 24 is sent?
r3
)
25 JUDGE BLOCH:
I understand, and whether it has to
~
t
r f
306 1
be' served on the LPDR or whether it has to be served on the
)
\\_/
2 parties; is that the issue you wish to raise?
3 MR. HIRSCH:
Whether the precedent Jon cited in 4
his motion that staff / applicant correspondence relevant to 5
the proceeding must be served on the parties and on the 6
Board.
We believe it clearly must, and we would like that 7
matter resolved.
i 8
JUDGE BLOCH:
It must be served on the Board, and 9
the question in my mind is whether I have the authority to 10 order it to be served on the parties, or whether I am 11 limited to ordering it be served on the LPDR.
[
12 MR. HIRSCH:
I remind you once again the citations l'
i 13 in Jon's pleading from the case law that all staff / applicant
(
14 correspondence be served on the parties.
15 JUDGE BLOCH:
Those are not Subpart L cases.
16 MR. HIRSCH:
There is no indication that that 17 precedent does not apply.
18 JUDGE BLOCH:
The only indication I see, Mr.
I i
19 Hirsch, is that there is a special provision for a case file 20 which is not provided for in more formal proceedings.
I am i
21 concerned that the case file is supposed to be the only type 22 of service.
Do you interpret the regulations differently, i
23 and can you point out sections that might lead me to the 24 same conclusion you have reached?
-~
25 MR. HIRSCH:
Yes.
First of all, there is an LPDR l
i 307 1
established in non-materials cases.
There is nothing
.(
'T
\\_)
2 special about the establishment of a hearing file.
There is 3
a local public document room established in all reactor 4
cases as well. However, there, all staff / applicant 5
correspondence must indeed be served on the parties in 6
addition to going to the LPDR.
7 I see no exclusion to the regulations or in the 8
case law that would permit NRC staff and the applicant to 9
have communications back and forth relevant to the 10 proceeding and only at some unspecified time in the future r
11 place it in a local public document room.
12 JUDGE BLOCH:
I agree with that, it should be done
)
13 currently in the local public document room.
My order to 14 have it in the case file certainly includes that, there is i
15 no question about that in my mind and there should be none 16 in anyone's mind.
When it is served on the case, it must be 17 served currently in the LPDR.
18 The question I am asking you is, must it be served 19 on the parties and do I even have the authority to have it 20 served on the parties?
21 MR. HIRSCH:
The answer to the second is that 22 clearly you do.
Where there is a reactor licensing case, 23 you have those precedents cited.
24 JUDGE BLOCH:
I have no question in the reactor 7-25 licensing case, it happens.
308 1
MR. HIRSCH:
There is nothing in the regulations p
(
)
2 that says that those precedents do not apply.
If one can 3
only apply NRC case law to this proceeding of cases that 4
have been conducted as material license cases, then you 5'
would only have two or three cases to look at for direction.
6 That would mean that every time an issue was raised that had 7
been resolved in a reactor case, one would have to re-8 litigate and republish it.
l 9
I see no restriction on that staff / applicant 10 correspondence requirement.
I see the administrative 11 procedure requirement mandating it.
I really do not see how 12 one can have a situation where you are trying to have an (m) 13 expeditious proceeding fair to the parties and have private e
14 communication that they do not see in a timely fashion, even 15 if it is served instantaneously on the LPDR which has not 16 been the case today.
One still is not going to see it for 17 some time.
One only goes in once a week or whenever.
18 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
Are there any other 19 intervenors that have anything new about this legal point 1
20 that has not been mentioned by Mr. Hirsch?
21 (No response.)
22 JUDGE BLOCH:
There being no answer, I assume 23 there is not.
Mr. Rutherford, does applicant have any 24 comment on whether service should be on all the parties or
. g-) -
.V
'25-just the LPDR?
I 309 1
MR. RUTHERFORD:
Let me hold for a moment, please.
p,
(
)
N~/
2 JUDGE BLOCH Thank you.
While Mr. Rutherford 3
holds, Ms. Woodhead, does the staff have a comment?
f 4
MS. WOODHEAD:
Service by whom?
5 JUDGE BLOCH:
There are two separate questions.
6 Service by Rockwell of related documents, that is the first 7
question.
The second question is service by staff of l
8 related documents.
9 MS. WOODHEAD:
It is my understanding that anybody 10 who is party to the proceeding is obligated to serve all the 11 parties with documents related to the proceeding.
Since the 12 staff is not a party, I think the staff would not have that f( )j 13 obligation.
14 JUDGE BLOCH:
Ms. Woodhead, on that one I think l
15
.you may be right.
Has the staff considered whether under 16 the time pressures that we may face here whether there is 17 any way to accommodate the needs of the proceeding to get i
lL8 things going faster by voluntarily serving the parties?
We 19 may have a time pressure as to when Rockwell plans to 20 implement the license and the license amendment involved in 21 this case.
22 MR. RUTHERFORD:
I am sorry, I don't understand.
23 JUDGE BLOCH:
If you serve only on the LPDR, ye~y 24 obviously --
V
.25 MS. WOODHEAD:
I don't understand what the time
310 1
pressure is.
x l
I
'/
2 JUDGE BLOCH:
We are going to get to that in a 3
little while.
I am going to ask Rockwell when they plan to 4
start operating under this amendment.
It seems to me that 5
there is some consideration of a need to determine the. case 6
before the license is actually used.
That would be the time 7
pressure.
Otherwise, it becomes something of a farcical 8
procedure, doesn't it?
9 MS. WOODHEAD:
However, they have a currently 10 valid license.
11 JUDGE BLOCH:
I am talking about the need for 12 expedition under the circumstances that the whole thing g
i 13 becomes a farce if they do what the license amendment is for (v
14 before it is authorized by the hearing.
The hearing then 15 becomes something of a farce.
16 MS. WOODHEAD:
But they have a present authority 17 to do just that.
18 JUDGE BLOCH:
Yes, they do.
That is why I want to l
19 complete the proceeding before it happens.
Doesn't the 1
20 staff have some interest in having the adjudication 21 terminate before the license is used?
22 MS. WOODHEAD:
I don't think I can comment on 23 that.
fs 24 JUDGE BLOCH:
I have a very strong interest in
'(
25 doing that. It seems to me that is one of the requirements 6
311 1
of fairness and expediency under the law, that we determine
~
.l
\\'
\\~/
2 things before they happen.
That is what I am asking for is, 3
the staff's voluntary willingness to help that to happen by 4
giving documents to the intervenors as efficiently as 5
possible at the time that they add things to the hearing 6
file.
7 If you would, I would like the staff to comment on 8
that request also by next Tuesday.
9 MS. WOODHEAD:
Yes.
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Hirsch, you were saying l
11 something?
Is that answered?
12 MR. HIRSCH:
No.
Two items.
One is the point (n) 13 that you made about the importance of a time pressure that 14 is very crucial here.
Let me give one minor example.
Even 15 were this amendment that apparently has just been issued 16 legal which I strongly believe is not the case, there is a 17 provision under the regulations to request a stay.
That 18 stay request must be within 10 days of the amendment.
19 Had you yourself not informed us in this 20 conference call about the amendment, we would not even had 21 known that it existed within the 10 day statutory period.
22 JUDGE BLOCH:
Your statutory period runs from the 23 time that you get notice, fx 24 MR. HIRSCH:
No, it is 10 days from issuance of 25 the amendment of Part L.
I 312 1
JUDGE BLOCH:
I believe generally there is a j
I
('o) 2 provision in the law that you can waive deadlines for good 3
cause. If in fact you weren't notified, you at least have an 4
argument.
I am saying to you that I would be inclined to 5
feel that way about something where something happened 6
outside your knowledge.
)
i 7
MR. HIRSCH:
I understand, but that has become a
'l 8
part of your discretion.
My argument is simply to.the point
]
9 about why notice is so essential, why timely service --
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
I understand.
I appreciate --
11 MR. HIRSCH:
The point I would inquire about is, 12 if Colleen Woodhead is indicating that the staff wishes to 7_
13 not serve the parties the correspondence it has with l
J 14 Rockwell about the case, she therefore is saying that the 15 parties do not need to serve her.
16 JUDGE BLOCH:
That is correct, the parties do not 17 have to serve the staff.
Am I wrong about that, Ms.
18 Woodhead?
19 MS. WOODHEAD:
I don't believe that they have an 20 obligation to serve anybody but other parties.
21 JUDGE BLOCH:
They are not a party, so they don't
-22 have to be served.
23 MS. WOODHEAD:
I w0uldn't think so, no.
That is 24 my understanding.
7 25 JUDGE BLOCH:
If we were to rule that they were a
313 1
party in the future then you would have to serve them, but I
't E
~-
2 not until then.
3 MS. WOODHEAD:
That is why I think that to and 4
from -- service applies only to parties to a proceeding.
5 JUDGE BLOCH:
That is correct.
I am asking --
6 MS. WOODHEAD:
A party does not need to serve or 7
be served.
8 JUDGE BLOCH:
That's right. I was just asking the 9
staff to accommodate the need for expedition of the 10 proceeding by voluntarily doing something, and that's what I 11 would like you to respond to next Tuesday.
12 MR. HIRSCH:
Judge Bloch.
[g) 13 JUDGE BLOCH:
Yes, Mr. Hirsch.
14 MR. HIRSCH:
I just want to make clear that I do 15 not agree with the argument that all service need only be 16 between parties.
I believe that the precedent is clear that 17 the staff, whether it is a party or not, has an obligation 18 to timely inform the Board of all relevant developments and 19 see that all staff / applicant correspondence irrespective of 20 the party status is required.
21 JUDGE BLOCH:
I have heard that argument from you 22 before, and I would like this to be the last time.
23 MR. HIRSCH:
I just wanted to make it clear, 73 because you made a statement that I wanted to make clear 24
)
(
25 that we did not adhere to it.
314 1
JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
In the future Mr.
(
)
K./
2 Hirsch, if you have already said something on the record you 3
don't have to preserve an objection.
The fact that it is in 4
the record is enough if you want to use it as ground for 5
error or_ appeal.
You just don't have to repeat it again.
6 MR. HIRSCH:
I appreciate that, sir.
I don't 7
believe that you have ruled in this matter, so I was not 8
making an objection.
9 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
Are there any other 10 comments relevant to the hearing file, Mr. Hirsch?
11 MR. HIRSCH:
I think not at this stage.
12 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
Are there any other
(
)
13 intervenors who have comments about the hearing file that 14 have not yet been addressed?
15 MS. LIT:
Is this the time for EPA?
16 JUDGE BLOCH:
I think so.
Dr. Lit, please speak 17 up and describe your concern.
18 MS. LIT:
I would like to have the Rocketdyne 19 report to the EPA regarding their regulatory agency and 20 workforce that they have twice a month.
I have had 21 difficulty getting any of that information except when the 22 EPA holds every two months an open hearing.
23 JUDGE BLOCH:
Of course, cleanup and 24 decommissioning are not part of this case.
What is the
-Cs 25 relevance of the material that is being transacted between
t 315 J
t f
1 Rockwell and EPA?
).
2 MS. LIT: 'For example, the Dempsey Report talks 3
about visiting and checking on the approach --
4 JUDGE BLOCH:
I understand.
I believe that is 5
relevant to this case.
6 MS. LIT:
I would like anything that is relevant.
7 It seems that the regulatory agencies have been looking into 8
the radioactivity at the area four, and it has been 9
difficult to get that information.
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
Mr. Rutherford, do you 11 have any difficulty if I were to ask Rockwell to review the 12 correspondence with EPA and to serve on the parties in this
(
13 case the material that is relevant to any of the concerns s.
14 that are pending?
15 If you like I could delay that actual service 16 until next Thursday, because by next Thursday you should be 17 in possession of my ruling on motions to strike and there 18 will be somewhat of a restricted scope after that decision 19 issues.
20 MR. RUTHERFORD:
Will you hold, please?
i 21 JUDGE BLOCH:
Yes.
There will be a two minute 22 recess at this point.
23
[Brief recess.)
l l
(~N-24 JUDGE BLOCH:
The hearing la reconvened.
Mr.
l 's 25 Rutherford, have you had adequate time?
316 1
MR. RUTHERFORD:
Yes.
We would object.
(
)
k/
2 MR. SCOTT:
Hold one moment, Your Honor.
3 MR. RUTHERFORD:
We would object to this request 4
based on eeveral reasons.
5 MR. SCOTT:
One second, please.
6 JUDGE BLOCH:
Hold on, Mr. Rutherford, please.
7 Mr. Scott, you interrupted -- why?
8 MR. SCOTT:
He wasn't clear, and I didn't catch 9
the beginning of what he said.
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Rutherford, if you would start 11 over and speak very clearly.
It could be a transmission 12 problem, but maybe it could be done more clearly by you.-
i
(' )
13 MR. RUTHERFORD:
We would object to this request.
E14 These meetings with EPA are public, and these meetings are 15 free to -- we believe the intervenors can receive whatever 16 information at these meetings between the EPA from the EPA.
l 17 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Rutherford, there is precedence 18 cited by Mr. Scott in his motion that relates to the 19 obligation of an applicant to keep the Board and parties 20 informed of relevant material that affects the proceeding.
21 Did you have a chance to study that, and do you have any L
22 reason for us not to apply that precedent in this case?
23 MR. RUTHERFORD:
Our response to that is that it
/s 24 puts the burden of proof on us to determine what is and is l
(
25 not relevant.
V
~
h 317 1
JUDGE BLOCH:
That is true.
It is also true in x_ l 2
all of the other cases at the NRC, that the applicant has to I
3 look at what is happening and decide what is relevant.
In 4
fact, at times applicants have had difficulty with Boards 5
and the Appeal Board because they haven't done that 6
diligently.
It would be your responsibility, that is 7
correct.
8 MR. RUTHERFORD:
It would be left up to us to 9
interpret what is and what is not relevant?
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
That is correct, but you would be 11 asked to do it with care.
12 MR. RUTHERFORD:
Further discussions between the I
()
13 intervenors regarding the relevance of it or irrelevance of 14 material --
15 JUDGE BLOCH:
You could always have informal 16 discussions about that, because there might be questions l
17 that the intervenors really don't care about having in the i
18 record.
It would be your obligation to look at what is 19 happening and decide whether it is relevant to this docket, l
l 20 so that we don't go off and decide something when there is 21 really important information that the Licensing Judge has l
l 22 never seen, i
23 MR. RUTHERFORD:
We believe this request is unduly 24 burdensome.
g l
\\~s!
25 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
l I
{
318 1
MR. SCOTT:
Judge Bloch, this is Jon Scott.
N ') '
2 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Scott, briefly please.
3 MR. SCOTT:- Yes.
For example, in my citing there 4
was a March 2nd Daily News Article that the NRC reported oil 5
contamination outside the hot lab.
NRC reported cleanup of 6
radioactivity.
To me, that is directly relevant to the 7
concerns of the case.
8 JUDGE BLOCH:
You have some examples.
The legal l
9 authority you cite is also important.
Although it applies 10 to the operating license and construction permit cases, I 11 haven't been able to think of any reason why the same 12 rationale would not apply in the Subpart L context.
<s-
[LJ]
13 MR. SCOTT:
I agree.
i
(
14 JUDGE BLOCH:
Ms. Woodhead, has the staff any 15 comment on whether those precedents do apply in this 16 context, or would you prefer not to comment?
i 17 MS. WOODHEAD:
Precedent of inspection reports, is 1
18 that what you are referring to?
19 JUDGE BLOCH:
No, the precedent that states that 20 the applicants have a continuing obligation to file in the l
docket material relevant to the application for a license.
21 l
l E
22 MS. WOODHEAD:
All correspondence related to the 23 application that is the subject of hearing should be put in i -
24 the LPDR.
I
- (
~25 JUDGE BLOCH:
That is the staff's obligation.
I i-
'l 319 1
am talking now about --
's/
2 MS. WOODHEAD:
Yes, that is what the hearing l
3 policy contains.
The service of the parties --
I 4
JUDGE BLOCH:
I know you know the precedent, but I 5
am not coming up with the names of the cases in my mind.
i 6
Actually, Jon Scott probably can.
i 7
MS. WOODHEAD:
It's quite true of reactor cases, 8
but I am not sure it is true of materials license.
9 JUDGE BLOCH:
The question is, what is there in 10 the regulations on Subpart L that would stop me from 11 applying the same obligation of the applicants in the 12 interest of a full and complete record?
[/
)
'13 MS. WOODHEAD:
I suppose the basis underlying
'w 14 policy in Subpart L is to reduce the hearing to a simple 15 proceeding which is fully informative but yet voids the 16 complexity of the formal proceeding.
17 JUDGE BLOCH:
Would it be in your opinion fully 18 informative if documents relative to this amendment were not 19 served?
20 MS. WOODHEAD:
I believe if I interpret Subpart L, 21 as long as they are in the LPDR so that they are available 22 that would be sufficient.
I am not just at all clear on the 23 24 JUDGE BLOCH:
We are not talking about the staff's fx 25 obligation right now, we are talking about the applicant's
320 1
obligation.
You said before that if a party serves then it p_
t
}
- \\/
2 must serve it on a21 the parties.
3 MS. WOODHEAD:
Yes, I would think so.
I am not 4
sure that the correspondence is a requirement as it would be in a formal proceeding.
However, the staff has that 5
6 obligation, so it will be in the LPDR.
7 JUDGE BLOCH:
We are talking now particularly 8
about correspondence between the applicant and EPA.
9 MS. WOODHEAD:
Not relevant to any authority of 10 EPA to this proceeding.
11 JUDGE BLOCH:
No, it has nothing to do with the 12-authority of EPA.
It has to do with the fact that documents
,g V)
/
13 that are not between the applicant and the NRC might still 14 be highly relevant to the merits of this case.
For example, 15 if they had some kind of an independent study done that had 16 nothing to do with any agency which bore on whether or not 17 they were responsible in handling nuclear materials.
18 In other words, the precedent in the past in 19 operating license cases is, if it is relevant, even if it 20 had nothing to do with any agency, it must be served so that 21 we don't operate in the dark.
22 MS. WOODHEAD:
Yes, Judge Bloch.
23 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
Let's go off the record e
24 for just a moment.
\\_/
25 (Brief pause.]
.g,
m, ay:
321 1
JUDGE _ BLOCH:
I am prepared to proceed.
Pursuant
'\\ /
2 to the commission's precedent known as the McGuire Rule-3 which was a decision of the Appeal Board, the applicant 4
shall have an obligation to review materials that are 5
relevant to this docket as they are created including 6
correspondence with other agencies or any important 7
information-that affects the merits of this case, and to 8
serve information'that is important to safety or environment.
9 related to the concerns of this case on all the parties and 10 on the Board and me, the presiding officer.
11 Are there any further matters by any of the 12 intervenors related to the hearing file?
l j'~)
E(
13
[No response.)
l-. v 14 JUDGE BLOCH:
There being none, there is a brief 15 matter in number two on the docket.
I think the best.way to 15 proceed with this is to ask Mr. Rutherford if he can answer L
17 the questions in number two.
18 MR. RUTHERFORD; The On-site emergency plan was 19 served on the Board and yourself and the intervenors on the j
20 29th of December, 1989.
The date of the letter was the 22nd 21 of December, 1989.
l-L 22 JUDGE BLOCH:
I understand that Rockwell was on 23 vacation in that relative time period, the whole company; is l-l./~T 24 that correct?
l F
i
\\j 25 MR. RUTHERFORD:
Rockwell was on vacation from the
F 322
,s 1
23rd until I believe the 2nd of January.
Y k-
'2 JUDGE BLOCH:
It was actually served in the middle l
the vacation period.
3 or 4
MR. RUTHERFORD:
That is right.
Mr. vamford 4
5 mailed those documents during the vacation.
6 JUDGE BLOCH:
There is now an official statement 7
on the record about that.
Is there any important comment 8
that any of the intervenors need to make about that, that 9
could result in current action by the licensing by me, by 10 the Licensing Judge?
11 MR. PLOTKIN:
This is Dr. Plotkin.
There was just 12 one thing having to do with the contingency plan, having to
((
13 do with unavailability of references, I realize that it may v
14 be --
L 15 JUDGE BLOCH:
Dr. Plotkin, the unavailability of l
16 references in the plan?
17 MR. PLOTKIN:
Yes.
There are two references in L
18 there, one of which is impossible to get hold of.
The other l
19 one took some time and a lot of effort to --
20 JUDGE BLOCH:
I would always like you to request 21-cooperation from a party before making that a formal matter 22 before the Board.
23 MR. PLOTKIN:
I didn't know that -- can I clarify 24' that.
If something like this comes up again, it is okay for
~)
'u f 25 us to call Rockwell and tell Mr. Rutherford that how about i
f 323
~
1 this reference?
]
'r T
k, 2 2
JUDGE BLOCH:
Yes.
Even.though the parties to a 1
3' case often feel like adversaries, they are all people and 1
4 it's good to communicate, j
5 MR. PLOTKIN:
All right, thank you.
We will do 6
that.
7 MR. SCOTT:
May I make a comment on that?
i 8
JUDGE BLOCH:
Please.
9 MR. SCOTT:
I called Rockwell regarding a letter 10 of cooperation that they would send regarding my brief.
I 11 was told that they would send it to me --
12 JUDGE BLOCH:
Regarding what?
( ),
13 MR. SCOTT:
Regarding my brief, the letter of 14 cooperation with Rockwell.
They said that they would send 15 it to me.
A week later I called and they said they wouldn't 16 send it to me.
They called me back and said yes, we will 17 send it to you.
Unfortunately, they'sent it to me after my 18 brief was filed.
19 JUDGE BLOCH:
Okay, so there was a problem.about 20 cooperation which also occurs at times between people.
If 21 there is a consequence of that for you, you should file 22 something about it.
I do suggest that you try cooperation 23 first.
Sometimes it doesn't work.
24 MR. SCOTT:
Understood.
g-w
~V l
25 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Rutherford, apparently the l
l l
i
i 324 l'
parties still can't get one of the references cited'in the
[~'}
k/
'2 RCP....Would you be willing. voluntarily to provide that to 3
'Dr.-Plotkin?
4 MR. RUTHERFORD:
May we.ask which reference that s
5 is?
E 6
JUDGE BLOCH:
Yes, Dr. Plotkin.
f 7
MR. PLOTKIN:
The 1964 reference.
8 MR. RUTHERFORD:
I don't have the plan here in 9~
front of me.
Can you read it out?
10 MR. PLOTKIN:
There are two references and I don't 11 have it either.
There are two references, one is 1964 and
~
12 another is 1968.
1
,m) '
i[
13 JUDGE BLOCH:
We will go off the record for a-
%j 14 moment. I think I can come up with it quickly.
15 MR. SCOTT:
I can also.
It is reference number-16 one, the one that was not included as an exhibit in the 17 Bridge the Gap pleading.
18 JUDGE BLOCH:
Could you read out reference number 19 one?
l:
L 20-MR. SCOTT:
The actual title, I am going to have 21 to pull.
Shouldn't reference one be sufficient for them?
22 JUDGE BLOCH:
I think it probably can, but I don't 1:
23 know.
Could you just check into that Mr. Rutherford, and 1
24 when you know whether you can provide it voluntarily you
.g g-25 could let the parties know.
If the answer is no, I would be L
I 325 1
interested in knowing about that.
,_y
- s
)-
' N/
2 MR. PLOTKIN:
Judge Bloch, Dr. Plotkin.
3 JUDGE BLOCH:
Yes.
4 MR. PLOTKIN:
Reference number one is by J.
5 Mishima.
The title is a review of research on plutonium releases during overheating and fires.
The number is MW-(
i 7
83668 from August of 1964.
8 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Rutherford, if you can provide 9
that voluntarily, that would be great.
If not, I would just 10 like to know that.
11 MR. RUTHERFORD:
We will furnish it.
12 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
I think it is adequate
[/
i 13 if you give it -- it depends on the length of it.
If it is x_
14 a lengthy document, it should be in the LPDR, and I should 15 have one copy and one copy to Dr. Plotkin.
If it is 40 16 pages or under, I would like.it to be served.
17 Are there any other comments'about the hearing 18 file by the intervenors?
i 19
[No response.]
20 JUDGE BLOCH:
There being none, let's move on to 21 item three in the agenda.
Mr. Rutherford, could you answer 22 the questions in Item three?
23 MR. RUTHERFORD:
We have not yet started any L
24 radioactive TRUMP work.
We do not yet have a start date 7-s i
i 25 established.
i
l
[
l E
i 326 F
Can you tell us~if there_is a date i
l' JUDGE BLOCH:-
q N-2.
that we could reasonably count on as being the earliest n
3 possible date that it might occur?
4 MR. EsTHERFORD:
In order to~ complete our 5
contractual obligations under Phase I of the contract by 6
-October 30th, we would have to start in time toward the end 7
of April.
8
' JUDGE BLOCH:
Is that the earliest date that you 9
would be starting,'the end of April or is it possible that 10 you would choose to start before then?
11 MR. RUTHERFORD:
We might choose to start before 7
12'
- then, t
[)
13 MR. PLOTKIN:
This is Dr.-Plotkin.
Mr.
c 14 Rutherford, can we get a best guess as to the earliest date 3
15 that you would like.to start the TRUMP project?
16 JUDGE BLOCH:
If you would wish to answer that, I 17 would appreciate that Mr. Rutherford?
18 MR. RUTHERFORD:
I think toward the end of April-19 is really the best estimate.
20 JUDGE BLOCH:
If you were to change the plan so 21 that an earlier date was planned, I would like to know 22 because I consider it necessary that we expedite the 23 proceedings so that as little as possible occurs under the fg 24 new license before the Board has a chance to act on it.
25.
MR. RUTHERFORD:
We would certainly inform you of
m s1 u
i
.327 U
1 our intentions toLstart.
,s l
Y'
'd 2-JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you.
3 DR. SAXON:
Judge Bloch, this is Dr.. Saxon 4
speaking..
5 JUDGE BLOCH:
Yes, Dr. Saxon.
6 DR. SAXON:- I want to ask a question.
Mr.
7 Rutherford said that they would start the radiological part 8
of the TRUMP-S' project --
'9 JUDGE BLOCH:
That is the only thing that we have 10.
any jurisdiction over.
11
~ DR. SAXON:
Okay, I just wanted to determine that.
12 JUDGE BLOCH:
Yes, that is correct.
On question
,m f( J) 13-four, I have asked people to make comments on the schedule
. x, l
14-of the case.
It seems to me that it is logical to allow 15' comments to be made in the order of intervenors first, 16
. applicants and then staff.
I would like to ask Ms.
17 Woodhead, you are not obligated to lie on for this portion of 18 the call.
19 Would you like to terminate your participation?
l 20 MS. WOODHEAD:
I would be pleased to.
Thank you.
21 JUDGE BLOCH:
Thank you for joining us.
12 2 MS. WOODHEAD:
You are welcome.
23 JUDGE BLOCH:
I would like to ask first whether l
24 the intervenors have possibly reached an agreement among l }V '
<-]
,- ~
25 themselves about how they would like to proceed on this L
l l
..o
H 328 1.
portion of our work.
y
' ' 's /
2 MR. PLOTKIN:
I guess I might jump in.
One of the
'3' things that disturbs me is - -
4 JUDGE BLOCH:
Stop.
Dr. Plotkin, the only 5
question is, have the intervenors reached an agreement about l
6 who would go first on discussing ways of expediting the 7
proceeding.
i 8
MR. PLOTKIN:
We haven't.
9 JUDGE BLOCH:
If you haven't, I would like to call 10 first on Mr. Hirsch to outline any ideas he has for
'o 11.
expediting the proceeding.
12 MR. HIRSCH:
I believe that the proposal made in L /~N; 13 the Jon Scott motion is quite sensible.
Initially 60 days Q
14 were given for Rockwell to respond to the direct cases.
Jon' 15 has. recommended that 30 would help expedite the case.
Since 16 the radiological plan was not received by us until early l
17 January and since the two supplements to their application 18 for renewal were not received by us until late January,.it 19 seems not inappropriate to give the applicants the same time l
20 period to respond as they forced on us.
L l
21 I think that one has to have time somewhere in i
22 that 60 days period to be the --
l-23 JUDGE BLOCH:
You would say that you had from what 24 date to what date to respond?
,r g l
Q,,l '
~
l 25 MR. HIRSCH:
We only received the two supplements I
t l'
i
hk 329 l'
to the' applicant, they were served on the 18th.
\\t v
-b
.2 JUDGE BIDCH:
January 18th?
3 MR. HIRSCH:
January 18th, 4
JUDGE BLOCH:
And, you filed when?
5 MR. HIRSCH: ' We filed on February 19th.
6 JUDGE BLOCH:
That's two months.
7
-MR. HIRSCH:
One month.
January 18th --
8-
.J,UDGE BLOCH:
One month. Thank you.
Do you have 9
further argument on that?
I also wanted you to outline ways 10 that you might have thought of to expedite the proceeding 11 after.the applicants respond.
One thing that occurred to me 12 which you might want to comment on is the possibility of
(
13 combining some of the other phases.
For example,-the 14 intervenors might file supplementary information and 15 analysis in one stage.
It is possible they would be able to 16 do that in as little as two weeks at that point.
17 Then we could require analysis and rebuttal if any 18 by applicants within two weeks after that.
Would a schedule 19 like that be helpful?
l 20 MR. HIRSCH:
My view of it is, I think we would
'UL have to discuss that among ourselves.
It is a new idea.
I 22 would have initial concern, in that we then would not have 23 an opportunity in our analysis to be able to deal with 24 material that had come back from Rockwell.
We are
.,r 3 1 -O' 25 essentially cutting off that ability.
If Rockwell is p'
i
330 h ;,
1 restricted primarily to.its application and direct case that-11 1
L Jh i-2' it has!already provided that is one thing.
But if there is 3
a lot of new material, that we have lost the ability to
)
4 address that.
4 5
JUDGE BLOCH:
I don't want to force it on you.
6 The problem is one of time convenience for the intervenors.
J 7
What is happening is that the longer that the proceeding 8
takes the more that Rockwell is going to be able to operate 9
under its existing license unless there is a motion that you 10 bring before that for a stay that is granted.
11 MR. HIRSCH:
I understand.
Let me make --
12 MS. LIT:.
I have to leave, Judge Bloch.
I have
~4
,i j another very important appointment.
13 14 JUDGE BLOCH:
Okay, you are excused.
15-MS. LIT:
Thank you.
16 DR'.. SAXON:
I would like to be excused from this
- 17 also.
18 JUDGE BLOCH:
Dr. Saxon, you may go too.
19 DR. SAXON:
Thank you.
20 JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Hirsch.
-21 EMR. HIRSCH:
One suggestion that might help 22 expedite-matters is that it would appear that the 23' information acquisition phase would start earlier.
It is my g sg reading of the Appeal Board order and of Subpart L, that 24
,(/
l 25 there would be no restriction for you to begin obtaining
331 1
that information now.
Rockwell has submitted its direct J
- 2 case in its application and intervenors-in their.
Were we l
3 to wait, 4
JUDGE BLOCH:
No, I don't believe that applicant's 5
' direct case is submitted.
That is still going to happen 6
when they respond.
7 MR. HIRSCH:
I would argue that that is the 8
response to the response by the intervenors.
The burden is 9
on the applicant and the material they are supposed to 10 present, they should demonstrate why they should be licensed 11 would be in their application.
I also note'that the Appeal
'12 Board order dealt with this matter and talked about it when
[k 13 the intervenors direct cases were to be filed.
At that I %_J 14 point, the Board could begin to make its additional 15 requests.
16 JUDGE BLOCH:
I could do that.
My only problem is 17 that as I look at the materials, I am concerned because the 18 applicants are free to answer everything including even 19 matters that are raised just as a request for information.
20' I guess I am reluctant to interfere in that process until 21 after they have a chance to voluntarily fulfill the record.
22 MR. HIRSCH:
If I may make a suggestion in that 23 regard.
Perhaps it would be useful for you to request of 24 Rockwell within the next five days or so, they identify to f-s V
25.
you what information that has been requested they will
a 332 1
l' voluntarily provide.
_p_
4-
^'/
2-JUDGE BLOCH: 'Of course, they already have a new 3
obligation-which may result in the provision of additional 4
information.
5 MR. HIRSCH:
But by so identifying to you within a L
6 week or so, you will then have the information you need to 1
y 7'
-know whether they will be voluntarily supplying the
- 8 information' requested or whether you have to take action.
9 It would of course mean a residual issue if what they said 10 they were going to voluntarily --
11 JUDGE BLOCH:
One thing I could ask of the 12 applicants-if they are willing, and I am just floating this 13 idea and Mr. Rutherford can comment.
I could ask that they.
14:
provide any.new'information that they know they are going to 15 provide as promptly as they can in order to expedite the 16 proceeding.
17.
MR. RUTHERFORD:
Let me respond to the intervenors 18 statement that they only had one month --
19 JUDGE BLOCH:
What I would like to do Mr.
20 Rutherford is let all the intervenors speak first, so we 21 don't have to go back and forth, and then you can respond to 22 all of it.
23 MR. RUTHERFORD:
Okay.
/
v 2
JUDGE BLOCH:
Mr. Rutherford, I didn't misstate
]
3 anything, did I?-
j 4
MR. RUTHERFORD:
Yes, you recalled it correctly.
5 JUDGE BLOCH:
Please say what my error was._
.l 6
MR. RUTHERFORD:
I said you recalled it correctly.
7-JUDGE-BLOCH:
Oh, correctly, thank you.
I thought 8
I heard incorrectly.
Thank you.
Are there any.other 9
necessary matters before the conclusion of this conference.
10 MR._HIRSCH:
I have a couple.
You indicated that 11 we had 10 days to respond.
Would you indicate 10 days from 12 when or what the date is of that response?
13 JUDGE BLOCH:
It is 10 days from today.
V-i 14-MR. HIRSCH:
Today.
That is to be received as of
-15 the current rule within 10 days of today?
16 JUDGE BLOCH:
No, it is not necessary that I 17 receive it. -Just serve it within 10 days by regular mail.
18 MR. HIRSCH:
Secondly, at the beginning of the 19 call _you indicated that you were serving to the parties this 20 new amendment.
21 JUDGE BLOCH:
The Secretary has been asked to do 22 that; that is correct.
23 MR. HIRSCH:
Will we be receiving that tomorrow, p
24 or do you know?
%_/0 25 JUDGE BLOCH:
Just one second.
4 344 l'
[Brief pause.).
A/
-2 JUDGE BLOCH:
I thank you for your reminder.
We 3
failed to'ask for it to be done Express.
My Secretary is 4
currently doing that.
I can't at this time promise that.
5 It depends on where the Secretary is with having done 6
service.
7 MR. HIRSCH:
You will try to do it Express but it 8'
may not go out until tomorrow, because it is 4:00 o' clock 9
your time I guess.
10 JUDGE BLOCH:
It can't go out Express today, that 11-is correct.
It also may be that it has been served already 12 by regular mail, and I won't make SECY do it a second time.
p f 13 MR. HIRSCH:
I understand.
If I may, just for the 14 record indicate that we would be moving for a stay as well 15
-as other matters, so that you are on notice within tbis 10 16 day time period.
17 JUDGE BLOCH:
I appreciate that.
I will be in 18 service in another case next Thursday and Friday.
It won't i
19 matter, because there will be a 10 day response period.
20 Depending on the nature of the motion for stay, I can
-21 expedite the response period.
If it is going to arrive here 22 Thursday or Friday, you should have the option of serving me 23 at my home.
24 I will be at 3270 Aberfoyle Place, Northwest.
A-(-}
v 25 B-E-R-F-O-Y-L-E Place, Northwest, Washington, D.
C.,
20015
5 l!
P 345 1
in case the stay request would-be arriving next Thursday nr ik ').
Friday I will be able to review it when I return home from 2
3 Florida on Saturday.
No gifts will be accepted.
i 4
MR. HIRSCH:
It is clear that we put you-on notice 5
about the request, so that regulatory requirement of 6
responding quickly is understood.
We are doing our best.
7 JUDGE BLOCH:
I am conscious at this. time.
8 MR. HIRSCH:
Okay.
One other matter.
Do you have 9
handy that amendment.
Is it possible just to give us the 10-language, the new part of the license.
That would be very 11-helpful.
12 JUDGE BLOCH:
I can do that.
The only new part of l
l-n l /
I 13 the license reads as follows:
Paragraph 11 "Notwithstanding 1 %)
14 Section 1.5 (1),- Pu shall be handled only for the purpose of 15
-decladding, removal of bonding material, examination, 16
. repackaging, and the TRUMP-S program described in the letter p
17 dated December 22, 1989.
Authorization for the TRUMP-S 18 program shall end October 30, 1990."
That is the only new 19 paragraph of which I am aware, l-l 20-I have just learned from my Secretary who just i
21 spoke to the Secretary, that the amendment and SCR will be 22 sent out Express mail today.
It's almost never done after j
23 4:00 o' clock, but we have gotten that accommodation from the j /w 24 Secretary.
I hope that it happens.
1QJ l
25 MR. HIRSCH:
Very good.
Thank you.
l
[
t l
i
-r 346 i
g 1
JUDGE BLOCH:
Are there any other necessary-
)*/
2-
-matters for this conference?-
3.
MR. PLOTKIN:
Judge Bloch, this is Dr. Plotkin.
I 4-uam just concerned that I am-a little confused about a lot of i
5 ~
this.
6 JUDGE BLOCH:
You may have to resolve that in 7
' conference with the other parties.
8.
MR. PLOTKIN: ' I want to know if we have been 9
informed of all of the licensing application matters that --
10 11-JUDGE BLOCH:
I am not prepared to address that o
12 right now.
What you may notice as you look over the f( /-k 13 transcript of this hearing, is that I have ordered that you l
s_
14 will be.
15 MR. PLOTKIN:
All right.
I just wanted to make 16 sure that was included in all of this.
Thank you.-
17.
JUDGE BLOCH:
You are.welcome.
Any other u
18 necessary matters?
19 MR. RASKINS:
When you feel the transcript will be 20 available in the local' document room?
p 21 JUDGE BLOCH:
We will send one copy of the i ?
L 22-transcript tomorrow, assuming that we will receive it on 23 time which almost always happens, we will send one copy
-r g 24-Express tomorrow to the LPDR.
A.
25 MR. RASKINS:
Thank you.
l l
\\
l 347 1
JUDGE BLOCH:
Are there any other necessary
.p t
2-matters?
L.
3
[No response.)
4 JUDGE BLOCH:
There being none, the conference is 5
in adjournment.
The parties that wish to stay on the line 6
to order a transcript may do so.
Thank you.
y 7
(Whereupon, at 3:59 p.m.,.
the Hearing concluded.)
8 9
.10 11 12 A
g j
13 t
x/
14 15 t
16 17 18
.19-20 21 22 23 24 gg V
25 I
e 11 y
I ny l'
"b REPORTER'S. CERTIFICATE
( l,f This is to certify that the attached proceed-
-ings beforeithe United States Nuclear-Regulatory Commission in the matter of -
3 i
NAME'0F PROCEEDING:
e i
DOCKET NUMBER:
I L
PLACE OF PROCEEDING:~
were held-as herein appears, and that this is
~
the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission-taken by me and thereafter reduced _to typewriting by me or:under the-direccion of_the court report-ing company, and that the transcript is a.true-and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
I
%s.w $ a x&my V
U Mary Rosenberg
-Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
i i
i O
-