ML20031F595
| ML20031F595 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1981 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110200186 | |
| Download: ML20031F595 (82) | |
Text
[0~A SY, b~ ".2(b
~
n O
'LL h '
,f-IIC " U RIG C TORZ CO.W. SSOCN 1
.l j.hu!j U.
i I
O ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD O
P 2 :.e.v2. =:2: cI:
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY QUAD CITIES OPERATION SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITY O
- x=: October 14, 1981 2.sazs:_1 es, 21 AC:
n ~, t-r e 1 -s e a 711innis l
l c; \\, A i ; a
' '/,'/'s
',< \\\\
(pf i I[i.bb y a-z OCT19 793;,
- t. k1 n'e > u : w.n ccmum 3
V/ r
.. N l
J} y,r-(;'y/
l.'d '/
i l
LIDK%S MMTXG l
0 f.
l 4C 0 71:7 r.is. Ave., 5.*4. ~4asning ::,
2.
C.
200:4 j
g Ta '.aph==e : (200} ~54-2245 i
8110200166 Bi 014 PDR ADOCK 05000?54 7
PD"
1 (2) 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5
6 In the Matter of:
7 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY QUAD CITIES OPERATION 8
SPENT FUEL STORAGE FACILITY 9
10 Wednesday, October 14, 1981 Rock Island County Office Building 11 1504 Third Avenue, Rock Island, Illinois.
12 Prehearing Conference in the above-entitled 13 matter, convene pursuant to notice at 9: 00
(
14 o' clock A. M.
15 16 BEFORE:
17 MR. JAMES KELLEY, Administrative Judge, 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 19 DR. RICHARD FOSTER, Administrative Judge, 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 21 DR. PETER MORRIS, Administrative Judge, 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 23 APPEARANCES:
(])
24 On behalf of the Licensees:
25 MR. DAVID STAHL and O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
1 i
2 Os 1
MR. ROBERT G. FITZGIBBONS.
Messrs. Is h am, Lincoln & Beale 2
One First National Plaza, 42nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603
()
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory 4
Commission Staff:
5 MR. RICHARD J. GODDARD, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6
Washington, D. C.
20555 7
8 9
10 11 12 13
()
in 15 16 17 l
18 19 20 21 22 23
()
24 25 O
sun m Ree0Ru u u eRu n srD.
S
3 1
()
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Good morning.
3 The matter before us this morning concerns the
(])
4 application of the Commonwealth Edison Company for an 5
amendment authorizing storage of increased amounts of 6
spent reactor fuel in the spent fuel storage pool at its 7
Quad Cities Station.
8 The matter was noticed in the Federal Register and 9
interested persons were given an opportunity to petition 10 to intervene, and we have had petitions to intervene f.wm 11 several organizations.
12 In cases of this kind, the NRC appoints a hearing 13 board composed of three people, a lawyer chairman -- and 14 that's my function.
My name is James Kelley and I am a
)
15 full-time member of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 16 Panel in Washington -- and two technical members, one of 17 whom has a background in physics, engineering, reactor 18 safety questions, let's say, and the other of whom, 19 typically, has.a background in environmental matters.
20 On my right is Dr. Peter Morris.
Dr. Morris is a 21 physicist and he has served for a number of years with the 22 Atomic Energy Commission, including Director of the 23 Division of Reactor Licensing and he is now a full-time 24 member of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
O#
25 on my left is Dr. Richard Foster.
Dr. Foster's O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
l 4
1 background is in environmental and radiological sciences 2
and he worked for many years as Director of Environmental 3
Programs at the Hanford Facility and is now a part-time
()
4 member of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
5 Our principal purposes this morning, as indicated in 6
the notice of this conference, will be to discuss whether 7
intervention ought to be grarited to the various 8
petitioning organizations.
9 Secondly, to discuss the merits of certain of the 10 contentions that have been put forward.
11 Then to discuss various procedural matters, some of 12 which the Board will put forward, others of which will be 13 put forward by various of the parties.
{])
14 This is not an evidenciary hearing.
It's a 15 Prehearing Conference of counsel and the parties and 16 Petitioners.
17 We are being stenographically recorded, just in the 18 interests of an accurate record; but it is a Prehearing 19 Conference and.not a hearing in the evidenciary sense.
20 Having introduced ourselves, the next order of 21 business will be for the various petitioning organizations 22 and the utility and the NRC staff to introduce themselves.
23 Perhaps, I could begin with the Petitioners and 24 working left to right, since that's a sensible way.to O
25 proceed.
O SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
5 1
If you could just introduce yourself and the name of 2
your organization and if you are an official in the 3
organization, what your position is.
O a
an a1 usa:
1== aod "111er-1 tro 5
MR. SONNTAG:
Sir, you will have to speax up and 6
spell your name, please.
7 MR. MILLER:
Robert Miller, M-i-1-1-e-r.
I 8
reside in Camanche, Iowa.
9 I am co-chairperson for Citizens for Safe Energy 10 based in Hillsdale, Illinois, and will be here 11 representing that organization, along with others from 12 that organization.
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
Are you accompanied by others in 14 your organization?
15 MR. MILLER:
Yes, I am.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Perhaps, they should be 17 introduced, also.
18 MR. MILLER:
To my right is Doug Collins, from 19 Clinton Iowa.
l 20 Mrs. Marilyn Boss from Hillsdale, Illinois.
21 Bob Romic is a representative of QCASES and is along 22 with us on the intervention.
23 Perhaps --
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
I am sorry.
A representative of O
l 25 QCASES, did you say?
l l 'O SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
6 l
1 MR. MILLER:
Yes.
Quad Cities Alliance for Safe
()
2 Energy and Survival.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
But that is a separate
()
4 organization, is it not?
5 MR. MILLER:
It is in regard to that.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
I just want to be clear that I 7
understand your organization and its people.
8 Mr. Romic is in a different organization, is he not?
9 MR. MILLER:
That's right; but we have combined 1
10 our contentions and are moving together as one unit in 11 this process.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
That is helpful.
13 Mr. Romic, and we will move one across.
]{}
14 M2. MILLER:
I am sorry.
We have a late-comer, 15 also.
15 Dennis lieller, who also is a member of the Board of 17 rectors of Citizens for Safe Energy.
18 MR. SMITH:
My name is Jack Smith.
I am on the 19 Board of Citizens for Safe Energy, too, and Director of 20 Older Americans'for Elderly Right.
21 ~
Our status vis-a-vis the intervention is somewhat 22 hazy, so'let ac just say that I am supportive of the group 23 here.
24 JUD3E KELLEY:
Okay.
I did want to get to some
~O 25 discussion of the status of the Older Americans
()
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
s l
i,
.s 7
1 1
organization and where they stood.
()
2 MR. SMITH:
Sure, cure.
,3 JUDGE KELLEY:
At this point we will just stick 1
! ()
4 with introductions and then we will get to that a little I
5/
later.
6+
Okay.
Does that introduce everybody from the 7
petitioning organizations?
8 (No response.)
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
NRC staff, Mr. Goddard.
11 MR. GODDARE:
Yes.
I am counsel for the NRC 12 staff.
My name is Richard J. Goddard from the office of 13 the Executive -egal Director of the Nuclear Regulatory 14 Commission.
()
15 On my immediate left is the Project Manager for the 16 Quad Cities Station, a membe' of the Division of Nuclear 17 Recctor Regulation, Mr. Robbie B. Bevan.
18 On Mr. Bevan's left is Mr. Nicholas J. Chrissotimos, 19 who is the NRC. Senior Resident Inspector at the Quad 20 Cities Station.
l' 21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
22 For Commonwealth Edison.
1 23 MR. STAHL:
Good morning.
My name is David l
24 Stahl, that is S-t-a-h-1.
I am with the law firm of O
25 Isham, Lincoln and Beale in Chicago.
O 1
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
E-
8 1
We are here representing the Applicants, 2
Commonwealth Edison Company, the Iowa-Illinois Gas and l
3 Electric Company.
()
4 To my immediate left is Mr. Robert G. Fitzgibbons, 5
F-i-t-z-g-i-b-b-o-n-s, of the same firm.
6 To his left is Mr. Laird Woldridge of Commonwealth 7
Edison Company, 8
To my immediate right Mr. Rich fleschner of 9
Commonwealth Edison Company.
10 To his right Brian Strooby 9f Commonwealth Edison.
11 To his right is Mr. Jim Toscus, also of Commonwealth 12 Edison Company.
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
I guess that covers 14 the introductions.
{')
15 Let me next for the record acknowledg a receipt of 16 the major, if you will, pleadings that we have.
I won't 17 recite every piece of paper, but we have the measure'of 18 pleadings that pertain most directly to the issues that we 19 will talk about today.
20 We have petitions for intervention from the Citizens 21 for Safe Energy, from the Quad City Alliance for Safe 22 Energy and Survival and from the Older Americans for 23 E]derly Rights.
24 We have answers to those petitions from Commonwealth O
25 Edison and from the NRC staff.
OV SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
9 1
We have a stipulation of issues and proposed
()
2 contentions signed by Citizens for Safe Energy, Quad City 3
Alliance, Commonwealth Edison and the NRC staff.
()
4 Attached to that document is an Appendix A, which 5
lists a number of, I will' call them, accepted contentions 6
or acceptable contentions, and Appendix B,
- list of l
a 1
7 contentions that are proposed by the intervenors but which 8
are objected to by the NRC staff and Commonwealth Edison.
9 In addition, I have a document filed just a few days 10 ago from Commonwealth Edison styled, "Prehearing 11 Memorandum," or words to that effect.
I have it here 12 somewhere.
13 But those, it seemed to us, shape the issues before 14
()
us today on intervention and contentions.
15 Is there anything that bar'.s on those issues 16 significantly that I haven't mentioned?
17 (No response.)
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
The last document that I 19 mentioned, the. stipulation, the Board wants to commend all 20 of those who participated iri that effort.
It represented, 21 obviously, a good deal of work by all the participants.
I 22 It appears to have been a very productive exercise.
23 Working out contentions is certainly one of the 24 hardest parts of cases like this; and if the parties can O
25 get together and agtee on what is in dispute, it makes the O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
\\
10 1
Board's job much, much easier; and we do appreciate that.
O 2
We, of course, are here and will resolve disputes 3
over contentions that you can't agree on, that's our job; 4
but we appreciate the effort at working things out and we 5
are glad to see that you got as far as you did.
6 The first order of busiaess that we have is the 7
question of admission of Petitioners as parties into the 8
case.
9 As to the Citizens for Safe Energy and the Quad City 10 Alliance, it's the Board's understanding that these 11 petitions are unopposed at this point by either 12 Commonwealth Edison or -- I am not talking about 13 contentions now.
I am talking about standing, plus one
(])
14 contention, if you will; and that on that basis there is 15 no objection to the admission of these orgrnizations as 16 parties; is that correct?
17 MR. STAHL:
From the Applicants' point of view, 18 Chief Judge Kelley, that is correct.
19 On the basis of the stipulation that was entered 20 into, we have withdrawn our opposition to the intervention 21 by CSE and the Quad Cities Alliance.
22 MR. GODDARD:
The staff is of the position, 23 Judge Kelley, that the two organizations named are proper 24 parties to this proceeding and met the test required for bg 25 intervention; and, of course, at this point we are SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
11 1
treating them as Consolidated Intervenors for all p~/
2 purposes.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
That was the Board's
()
4 understanding.
We confirmed it.
The Board has 5
independently reviewed documents.
6 The Board also believes that these organizations 7
satisfy tests of standing and tests of at least one 8
contention and it's admissible.
l 9
So the Board is ordering Citizens for Safe Energy 10 and Quad City Alliance for Scfe Energy into the case as 11 parties.
12 Let me step ahead and say that we just made an order 13 on the record, and that's good enough.
14 We will in this case, however, have an order ' hat we 15 will issue after the conference, setting forth the major 16 matters that were decided, such as Citizens for Safe 17 Energy admitted as a party, so that will be in a separate 18 order; but it is being done now, for all practical 19 purposes.
20 As indicated earlier, the status of the Older 21 Americans is a little unclear at this point; and I think 22 the next thing that we want to do is just clarify that.
23 There was a -- if I can just recite the background, 24 briefly, there was a petition for intervention filed by O
25 the Older Americans organization.
O SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
12 1
It was opposed by Commonwealth Edison on various O
2 grounds.
3 The NRC staff did not oppose that petition on
()
4 standing grounds but took the position that at the time it 5
filed the papers it was premature to reach any conclusion 6
about their admission as a party because they hadn't yet 7
filed a contention that, at least, satisfied the 8
contention requirements as the staff viewed them.
9 There was an opportunity to file contentions up to 10 15 days before this hearing.
11 We have not received any contentions from the Older 12 Americans organization.
13 Now, in their original petition they listed some
({}
14 areas of interest, that is true; and I suppose one might 15 debate whether those listings satisfied that requirement 16 or not, and I am not indicating any view one way or the 17 other, but those are the papers that we are familiar with.
18 I understand Commonwealth Edison in its very recent 19 memorandum to be opposed to the admission of this i
20 organization.
I am not clear about the staff.
.2!1 Mr. Goddard, as of today, what is the staff position 22 on the Older Americans' petition?
23 MR. GODDARD:
The staff position is, 24 essentially, unchanged from what it was. earlier, namely O
25 that the individual members of the Older Americans for
()
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
13 1
Elderly Rights and through them the organization could
()
2 probably perfect standing; but as far as the question of 3
contentions or aspects of interest, the staff is of the
()
4 opinion that, while aspects may have been alluded to in 5
the petition dated May 29, 1981, there are at this time no 6
admissible contentions or attempts to offer admissible 7
contentions, in the opinion of the staff, before the Board 8
in this proceeding.
9 Accordingly, we would oppose the intervention of the 10 Older Americans for Elderly Rights at this time.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
We will sort of round-table this.
12 Let me go back.
13 I am sorry.
It's Mr. Jack --
14 MR. SMITH:
Smith, Smith.
)
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
I should remember 16 that.
17 MR. SMITH:
Right.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, you have read the papers 19 and you have heard the staff.
20 Perhaps, you would like to comment.
21 MR. SMITH:
Yes, yes.
That is agreeable with 22 us.
23 Our Board, in spite of the nuance suggesting that I 24 was functioning alone without Board action and without the
()
i 25 membership -- that's foolish, of course.
O SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
14 1
The membership of our organization is much larger 2
than any other contending organization.
3 On the first meeting with the legal counsel of
()
4 Commonwealth Edison, it became quite clear to me that what 5
we were into was a purely technical proceeding, which has 6
some value, I am quite sure, for technicians.
7 The issue Older Americans wanted to raise was the 8
desperately dangerous health hazard; and I just kept being 9
suggested, "That, well, is not relevant here.
That's for 10 some other time," and that's perfectly all right with me.
11 So what I did was just simply cease functioning in 12 that particular capacity and rather worked along with the 13 other organizations.
[])
14 So I am not opposed to the proceeding here.
I am 15 just simply protesting that that is not the kind of 16 hearing we were interested in, but that's all right.
I 17 have to accept the ground rules.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
That la right.
You say it's a 19 technical proceeding.
It is a technical proceeding.
20 MR. SMITH:
Yes, it certainly, is; and I am no 21 physicist.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
And the issues are -- almost all 23 of them, at least put forward now -- pretty technical 24 iss'es.
O 25 MR. SMITH:
Yes.
I O SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
15 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
So let me be clear.
(
2 You say you are werking yourself with the other two 3
organizations?
()
4 MR. SMITH:
Well, I am a Board member of 5
Citizens for Safe Energy, correct.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
What we need to do from 7
our perspective is just clarify exactly what the status of 8
the petition is.
9 Now, are you content to have the petition for the 10 Older Americans group withdrawn?
11 MR. SMITH:
Considering the fact that I have not 12 kept your rules or the rules of the intervention process 13 and our organization has not kept it, there isn't really a 14 great deal I can do.
(])
15 I have just challenged the whole process, and that's 16 adequate to me.
That's American democracy, I guess.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
Given where we are today, we have 18 got to do one of two things.
19 We can't grant your petition as it stands.
We 20 either have to deny it or you can withdraw it.
21 MR. SMITH:
We made no effort to pursue the 22 points that we made I.
I understand.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Are you saying --
24 MR. SMITH:
I would hope that our withdrawal O
25 will not cast any doubt on the seriousness of the O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
N 16 1
contentions we made.
O 2
We just refused to go along with that process, and 3
there it is.
So --
(}
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Are you saying, though, that as 5
between having it denied by the Board or having yourself 6
withdraw it, you are choosing to withdraw the petition?
7 MR. SMITH:
No, no.
Obviously, we cannot 8
function according to your rules.
9 I do not care to function according to your rules, 10 so that's where we are.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
You are not answering my 12 question.
13 Do you want us to deny your petition?
[]}
14 MR. SMITH:
Please -- maybe I didn't hear your 15 question.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
The question is this.
We have 17 got to do one of two things, given the posture of things.
18 We either have to deny your petition or you can 19 withdraw it.
20 Which would you prefer?
l 21 MR. SMITH:
You go right ahead and deny it.
22 That's all right.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Now, let me add -- and 24 this may be of interest to you and to your members -- we O
25 do have in connection with hearings of this kind O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
17 1
opportunities for public statements by people, they are
()
2 technically called limited appearance, they are noticed, 3
they will be referred to and your people could certainly
(])
4 come and say whatever they want to say about the facility, 5
as long as it's somehow relevant to what is going on here.
6 MR. SMITH:
I understand that.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Thank you.
8 MR. SMITH:
Surely.
Thank you.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Moving to the question of 10 contentions, we have got the stipulated contentions.
11 Excuse me.
Let me just find the paper.
12 The Board has before it the document entitled, 13
" Stipulation of issues and contentions," and Appendix A of 14
)
that document sets forth 11 contentions; and the parties 15 have stipulated in Paragraph 3 of their stipulation as 16 follows 17 "The parties to this stipulation agree that the 18 contentions set forth in Appendix A should be admitted for 19 a consideration as matters in controve; v."
20 Let me say preliminarily -- and this is not an order --
21 the Board is inclined to admit the contentions.
They are 22 stipulated to and they seem recsonable, but we want to ask 23 a couple of questions first.
24 When you say, " Admitted in the controversy in this
()
25 proceeding," does that mean that the parties think that O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
18 i
i 1
these contentions ought to go to hearing?
O 2
Or, for example, are we going to be dealing with 3
summary disposition motions on some of these?
Where
()
4 exactly are we going is my question?
5 Let me ask the staff that.
6 MR. GODDARD:
The parties did contemplate the 7
use of summary disposition proceedings on these 8
contentions.
9 We felt that as drafted contentions set forth in 10 Appendix A to the stipulation did constitute contentions 11 for which the form was adequate to permit litigation 12 thereon.
13 We did contemplate at least the use of summary
(])
14 disposition, to the extent that the time frame allowed.
15 As the Licensing Board is well aware, the time 16 periods for summary disposition are somewhat lengthy; and 17 in a limited scope proceeding of this nature, as opposed 18 to a full-blown construction permit or operating license 19 proceeding, the schedule of this case may not of itself 20 allow full utilization of the summary disposition 21 provisions of the Commission's regulations.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
When you say that, all you 23 are really saying is you may make a motion, you may win 24 and you may lose on any one of these contentions; but they 25 are litigable contentions, however they are disposed of?
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
19 1
MR. GODDARD:
They are litigable, that is
()
2 correct.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
Is that your understanding?
()
4 MR. STAHL:
Yes, we basically concur in what Mr.
5 Goddard said.
6 We believe that some of the contentions set forth in 7
Appendix A may more lend themselves to summary disposition 8
than others.
9 I think it's going to be inevitable that we will 10 have an evidenciary hearing on at least several of these 11 contentions in Appendix A.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Is that consistent with your 13 understanding?
14 MR. MILLER:
Yes, it is.
{)
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
As I indicated, we have reviewed 16 these contentions and we do feel that they seem to be 17 proper for litigation.
So we are ordering their admission 18 into the case.
19 Again, that will be reflected later in a 20 post-hearing order.
21 Which brings us to the disputed contentions in 22 Appendix B.
What we would like to do now is take a little 23 time and hear argument from, particularly, the Intervenors 24 and -- by the way, I will use that term "Intervenors," and O
25 it just means the Consolidated Intervenors.
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
A l
-+
^
20 1
Is that a satisfactory term from your standpoint?
2 MR. MILLER:
Yes, that's fine.
1 3
JUDGE KELLEY:
-- from the Intervencrs and the 1 ()
4 staff, because we have a brief from Commonwealth Edison on 5
these points.
6 You can add to that, if you want to, at some point; 7
but, at least, your basic position is known.
8 Perhaps, we might start with the Intervenors as to 9
this No. 2 Contention about possible alternatives.
10 Now, you have read the utility's opposition to this 11 contention?
12 MR. MILLER:
Yes.
13 JUDGE KELLEY:
Is that correct?
14 MR. MILLER:
Yes.
()
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
Perhaps, you could speak to their 16 position and other comments as you think appropriete that 17 we ought to hear in deciding whether we ought to let this 18 contention in.
t 19 MR. MILLER:
Just excuse me for a moment.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Sure.
21 MR. MILLER:
Would you like us to --
22 MR. SONNTAG:
You will have to speak up, sir.
23 There is noise behind me here.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
The gentlemen with the TV O
25 cameras, I am perfectly happy to give you reasonable O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
21 1
opportunity to take pictures; but we have got a hearing to
()
2 conduct in the meantime.
3 If you could be a little -- well, I think you have
(])
4 been up front here quite a bit; and we are having some 5
trouble hearing witnesses and the reporter is having some 6
difficulty.
7 If you could just pull back a bit.
8 MR. MILLER:
Would you like us to deal with the 9
contentions one by one with supportive statements at this 10 point and provide you with copies of those or --
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
Certainly.
If you have got a 12 written, supportive statement, that's fine.
13 What you should do in that regard is -serve copies on 14 counsel and us, too, if you have got enough copies.
[
15 Maybe, for openers, could you do that?
16 MR. MILLER:
Yes.
We can do that on some 17 aspects of the contentions.
18 I am not prepared to deal with the contentions 19 specifically myself, all the contentions.
20 I would like to give opportunity for other members 21 of the group present to deal with specifics of those 22 contentions as well.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
24 MR. MILLER:
Contention No. 2 specifically, I O
25 would like to have Dennis Heller speak to contention No.
O SONNTAG REPORTIMG SERVICE, LTD.
22 1
2.
(
2 I have a copy of that here that I would be willing 3
to share with the NRC staff and -- I don't know.
()
4 Do you have any other copies, Dennis, to share with 5
the --
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
I will tell you what.
If you 7
want to take about a ten-minute break and sort of figure 8
out your papers and who is going to say what.
9 What you are going to do is line up a presentation 10 as to each of these three Appendix B disputed contentions, 11 correct, the alternatives, the cost evaluations and the 12 earthquakes.
13 I think, however, let's talk about format for a 14 moment.
It might be most useful, if, say, one of your
()
15 people talks about alternatives, we should hear from the 16 other people and then go to funding and then go to 17 earthquakes, so that we have got right there together in 18 the record each party's position on each disputed 19 contention; but if you want to take a ten-minute break 20 while you consider that approach, that might be useful at 21 this point.
l 22 MR. MILLER:
Yes, I think so.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
We are making pretty good 24 progress.
Let's just quit for ten minutes.
O 25 O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
23 1
(Whereupon a recess was had,
()
2 after which the Prehearing 3
Conference was resumed
()
4 as follows:)
5 6
JUDGE KELLEY:
We are back on the record.
7 Just a comment on something I didn't mention before, 8
that is our smoking rule.
9 I walked in here thinking this was a courtroom, and 10 in courtrooms you don't smoke at all.
11 This is a council room.
I guess that's a little 12 different, and there we have followed a rule that the 13 Board and the lawyers and the reporter do not smoke.
14 If you are in the back of the room, you are a
)
15 nonparticipant observer, smoke if you want to.
16 So with that, we will get back to Contention No. 2, 17 consideration of alternatives.
18 Yes, s'ir, go ahead.
19 MR. MILLER:
I do not have a summary statement 20 on all of the contentions, and I apologize to the Hearing 21 Officers and those present on that; but we do, however, 22 have some statements prepared that we will submit copies 23 of to the reporter so that you will all have a copy in the 24 transcript of the proceedings.
O 25 I would like to move to Dennis Heller and allow him O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
- = -
24 1
1 to cover his statement on Contention No. 2 of Appendix B.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine.
Mr. Heller.
3 MR. HELLER:
My name is Dennis Heller of
()
4 Prophetstown, Illinois.
I am a member of the Board of 5
Directors for Citizens for Safe Energy, the President of 6
the Northern Illinois Energy Association and Manager and 7
chief stockholder in The Energy Shop, Incorporated, of 8
Prophetstown.
9 I would like to speak briefly in support of 10 Contention No. 2.
11 Contention No. 2 reads, "The licensces have not 12 considered in sufficient detail the possible alternatives 13 to the proposed expansion of spent fuel storage capacity.
(])
14 "Specifically, licensees have not considered 15 preferable alternatives for managing the spent fuel during 16 the remainder of the operating license for the Quad Cities 17 Nuclear Station, namely the possibilities of, A, shutting 18 down the Quad Cities Nuclear Station once the racks l
l 19 presently installed in spent fuel pools are full; or, B, l
20 reducing electrical output from the Quad Cities Nuclear 21 Station in conjunction with either energy conservation and 22 pricing alternatives, which would reduce demand or 23 increase the use of under-utilized fossil fuels."
24 First, in support, I feel conservation is the most O
25 logical and cost-effective alternative to the re-racking O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
25 1
at Cordova.
(
2 The Department of Energy sponsored study completed 3
early this year concludes that the full implementation of
()
4 energy conservation measures throughout the country will 5
lead to an overall energy savings of over 30 percent in 6
this country, while at the same time allowing for 7
expanding buciness climate.
8 Utility companies throughout the country have taken 9
the lead in systematically promoting energy conservation 10 and the use of alternative energy systems.
The success of 11 this policy is most notable in California, through the 12 direction of the Public Utilities Commission.
13 Seconaly, I feel Commonwealth Edison should take 14
()
advantage of this opportunity to gradually get themselves 15 off of the nuclear treadmill.
16 A December, 1979, study by Paine, Webber, Mitchell, 17 Hutchins concludes that utilities with 50 percent capacity 18 are considerably higher risk than those using coal-fired 19 generators with scrubbers.
20 The two-to four-year lead time in closing the plant 21 will allow the company to safely shut down the reactor l
22 before a Three Mile Island-type disaster destroys the 23 financial strength of the company.
24 During this time the company should look to O
25 alternatives such as clean coal-fired plants, wind farms, O
l SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
26 1
supplemental help from solar.
O 2
During 1980 U. S. utilities spent 30 million dollars 3
on solar research.
Com Ed should be included in this
()
4 research.
5 Southern California Edison has just signed contracts 6
to build a 270 megawatt wind farm.
Why not, Commonwealth 7
Edison?
8 Pacific Gas and Elcctric has just started building a 9
600 Windmill plant east of San Francisec.
Why not 10 Commonwealth Edison?
11 That's my written statement right now.
12 I think the --
13 MR. MILLER:
I think, in connection with
(])
14 Contention 2, Bob Romic also had some pertinent 15 information and would like to be allowed to speak, also.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:.Go ahead.
17 MR. ROMIC:
Due to the fact that the licensees' 18 final environmental statement, dated September of 1972 19 states, " Irradiated fuel will be transported to process 20 plant," and makes no menticn of increasing the spent fuel 21 storage, it is felt that Commonwealth Edison, the licensee 22 responsible for the ongone operation of the plant, would 23 be going against its word to the citizens of the area of
'i4 the station and to the surrounding communities.
O 25 One must wonder if the citizens near to the station O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
c 27 1
at the time would have allowed the licensees to build Quad
()
2 Cities 1 and 2 if they knew that they would have had a 3
high-level, radioactive-waste dump in their own back yard.
()
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Thank you.
5 Mr. Goddard.
6 MR. GODDARD:
The position of the NRC staff on 7
the admissibility of proposed Contention 2 is quite 8
simple.
9 There is no showing or no basis presented by the 10 Intervenors in support of this contention that there will 11 be a significant effect on che human environment.
12 A recent Licensing Board case involving a similar 13 spent fuel pool modification at the Zion Station, also a 14
[)
Commonwealth Edison facility, which decision was affirmed 15 by the Atomic Aafety and Licensing Appeal Board, held that 16 the Board need not consider alternatives of shutting down 17 a station or reducing the power generated by such a 18 station as an alternative to expansion of the spent fuel 19 pool.
20 With regard to Mr. Romic's comments regarding the 21 intentions of the Applicant to ship spent fuel from the 22 Quad Cities Station, I think the Board and all parties are 23 aware of the fact that at the time the concept of adequate 24 away-from-reactor storage was an assumption.
()
25 That assumption is no longer valid; and, O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
28 1
accordingly, this is the reason spent fuel pool 2
modifications, such as the one sought here today, are 3
presently being proposed.
()
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
The Zion ruling you referred to, 5
I believe I have seen one in seven that makes much the 6
same point; but those determinations are case by case, are 7
they not?
i 8
MR. GODDARD:
The determinations are case by 9
case.
10 However, the staff has issued NUREG-0575, the final 11 generic environmental impact statement on spent fuel 12 handling and storage.
13 On a 39-case examination that study by the technical 14
[)
staff found
- t. hat spent fuel pool expansion did not pose a 15 threat to the environment, although specific aspects of 16 each modification were subject to case by case analysis t
17 and proper subject for adjudicatory hearings.
18 Inasmuch as there is no basis set forth here to 19 assume a significant impact on the environment, the 20 staff's position will be that this contention should not 21 be admitted.
22 If the Applicants -- rather, pardon me.
If the 23 Intervenors would come forth and allege a specific 24 environmental impact of significance, perhaps such O
25 contentions might be a more appropriate subject for O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
29 1
litigation.
(
2 As set forth here, the staff position is such 3
alternatives need not be considered.
()
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Is the staff in the process of 5
preparing an Environmental Impact Statement in this case?
6 MR. GODDARD:
Yes, the staff is preparing an 7
Environmental Impact Appraisal as opposed to an 8
Environmental Impact Statement.
9 That Environmental Impact Appraisal is in 10 preliminary stages now.
I think I can safely say -- I can 11 safely say -- that it will find that there are no 12 significant impacts on the human environment, although 13 portions of that document are not complete at this time.
14
{)
In fact, the staff's proposed dates of issuance for 15 both the Safety Evaluation and the Environmental Impact 16 Appraisal in this proceeding are presently for the middle 17 of January, 1982.
18 This is premised on timely receipt from the 19 Applicant of the presently missing portions of their 20 application.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Could you just tell us, briefly, 22 what the procedure is with an E. I. A.
in terms of 23 opportunities for comment and the like, or is there any?
24 There isn't any?
O 25 MR. GODDARD:
There is no procedure for comment O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
30 1
or requirements for wide circulation of an Environmental 2
Impact Appraisal once it reaches the -- once the finding 3
has been made by the staff that the environmental impacts
()
4 are insignificant.
5 Also, there is no requirement in an Environmental 6
Impact Appraisal for cost-benefit balancing and weighing 7
of alternatives to the proposed action.
8 JUDGE MORRIS:
Is that document made public?
9 MR. GODDARD:
Yes, it is made public, sir.
10 JUDGE MORRIS:
Through the public document rule?
11 MR. GODDARD:
Yes, sir.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Once it is made public, is there 13 a further opportunity for raising contentions in a case 14 like this?
{])
15 MR. GODDARD:
Yes, there would be a basis for 16 raising contentions based on the contents of that 17 document.
18 JUDGE FOSTER:
Will that document be issued as a 19 draf t or in final form?
20 MR. GODDARD:
It is issued in final form, sir.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Commonwealth Edison.
22 MR. STAHL:
Well, our position, Chief Judge 23 Kelley, is as set forth in our prehearing memorandum.
24 We agree, basically, with what Mr. Goddard has said.
O 25 I would also point out to the Board the Northern O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
31 1
States Power Company case, Prairie Island Power Generating
()
2 Station, decided in 1978, which is contained in Footnote 4 4
3 on Page 46.
()
4 The statement is that it is, basically, 5
inappropriate for licensing boards to consider 6
discontinuing operation as an alternative to the continued 7
operation of a nuclear facility in a spent fuel 8
proceeding.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Let me just take a moment 10 here.
11 What I was thinking of, Mr. Goddard, in the Salem 12 decision, the Appeal Board says -- they are talking about 13 adequacy of consideration of alternatives and it goes on 14 to say, "This is not to dispute the fact that the 15 Commission's regulations clearly permit and encourage 16 parties to challenge the admission and content of the 17 staff's E. I.
A. at hearing."
18 So that opens it up on those issues when you come 19 out with the E..I. A.
20 MR. GODDARD:
Yes, sir, it would.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Sort af deferred consideration of l
22 contentions to that point --
23 MR. GODDARD:
Yes.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
-- it would seem.
O 25 MR. GCDDARD:
Yes, sir.
O SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
32 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Was there something the 2
Intervenors wanted to add and then we can move on to the 3
next one?
()
4 MR. HELLER:
Could you briefly describe the 5
difference between an Environmental Impact Statement and 6
an Assessment and at what time are conclusions drawn?
7 Mr. Goddard, I think you stated that it will show 8
minimum impact?
9 MR. GODDARD:
Insignificant impact.
10 MR. HELLER:
Insignificant impact, but it hasn't 11 been issued yet?
12 I don't understand.
13 MR. GODDARD:
That is correct.
However, the
[]}
14 review process has been under way for some time within the 15 staff.
All aspects of that document are not complete at 16 this point.
17 I have been informed by the Project Manager, who is 18 the coordinator for the issuance of both that document and 19 the safety evaluations, that the conclusion will be that 20 the impacts are insignificant.
21 MR. HELLER:
The difference between Assessment 22 and Statement is what?
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, a statement -- speaking 24 very generally and not wishing to be held to it at all --
O 25 is something that one prepares because you are required to O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
33 1
do so by the National Environmental Policy Act.
()
2 You do a draft and you circulate it all over the' 3
place, people comment on it, you do a final statement and
()
4 then you might litigate the final statement; but you only 5
do that if the action you have in mind amounts to a 6
so-called major federal action having a significant effect 7
upon the environment.
8 If what you are proposing doesn't have that ef fect, 9
you don't have to do it.
10 Now, e lot of agencies, including the NRC, go 11 through a procedure that is one step short, called an 12 Environmental Impact Appraisal.
It's, essentially, an 13 exercise designed to determine whether they ought to do a 14 Statement or not.
)
15 It doesn't require, as I understand it, circulation 16 of drafts, comment, but rather just some kind of fairly 17 close look by the agency itself at the consequences of 18 what it is doing.
19 Let me just make one comment.
From our perspective 20 it's important to realize that we are sitting to apply the 21 Commission's rules and the Commission's -- and the 22 statutes that govern the Commission.
l 23 We are not in any sense a sort of policy-making I
24 body, so that one might sit in one's arm chair and think
(')
~#
25 that conservation is better than nuclear power.
And maybe i
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
34 1
that's-right, but we are not here to decide that question.
2 We are here to decide whether or not the application 3
from the utility meets the Commission's rules; and if it
()
4 does, they get the amendment.
3 You get into consideration of alternatives 6
intrincically through NEPA and the environmental 7
legislation.
It does apply to us, we are certainly 8
governed by it; but we wouldn't be -- we would get into an 9
alternative contention on the basis of some kind of NEPA 10 requirement or some kind of environmental requirement the 11 agency would bave adopted not because someone may think 12 it's just a good idea.
13 So we look at this from a somewhat -- I won't say 14 narrow but -- restr*.cted perspective.
15 Why don't we pass on to Contention No. 7 concerning 16 cost evaluations?
17 MR. MILLER:
At this point for Intervenors I 18 would like to have Bob Romic read a statement that he has 19 prepared and supply the information to you.
20 We can supply the repor'ter with a copy of that after 21 the hearing, so that can be in the transcript, also.
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine.
23 MR. ROMIC:
It is felt that the licensees should 24 be required to submit cost evaluation for handling, O
25 transportation and storage of the additional fuel which O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
35 1
will be stored in proposed racks for the remainder of the Gl/
2 operating licenses for the Quad Cities Nuclear Station for 3
the following reasons.
()
4 1.
With the licensees' advertisement program 5
emphasizing that nuclear power is a cheap, clean, safe 6
source of energy, it should be allowed whereas the 7
licensees provide to show that they are financially 8
capable of dealing with the costs of the current request 9
to re-rack -- the current request to re-rack to reaffirm 10 the statement.
,ee 11 2.
In the application the subject of the 12 comparative economics associated with various spent fuel 13 operations is discussed.
14
[)
The cost comparisons contained in this section do 15 not include the substantial hidden subsidies to the 16 nuclear power industry.
17 Some sources estimate Energy Research and 18 Development Administration's enrichment services to be 19 worth at least.1.0 mill per kilowatt hour to the nuclear 20 industry.
21 The Price-Anderson Act could provide as mucn as 3.8 22 mill per kilowatt hour.
23 Research and development costs provided by 24 government are probably incalculable but were estimated by 25 the Investor Responsibility Research Center in January, O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
36 1
1975, to be about 5 billion dollars.
No doubt that that O
2 figure is quite higher due to the current administration 4
3 in Washington.
()
4 These costs are also sprerd over the tax-paying 5
public and make it appear that nuclent power is a bargain, 6
when, in fact, it may not be.
7 One other cost not considered in the rate comparison 8
is decommissioning of nuclear plants.
When one considers 9
the additional costs of mothballing at 3 to 5 million, 10 plus 60 thousand to 100 thousand per year for 11 surveillance, entombment at 18 to 30 million, plus 15,000 12 to 25,000 per year, or dismantling at 36 to 60 million, 13 involved here, the rate comparison might be less
{])
14 attractive for nuclear.
15 The costs of the request operating license 16 modification is relevant to this proceeding due to the 17 fact of the never-ending amount of electrical rate hikes 18 which Commonwealth Edison and Iowa-Illinois is famous for.
19 The alternatives stated in the application fail --
20 this is 3 Excuse me.
l 21 The alternatives stated in the application fails to 22 discuss the alternatives to spent fuel storage 23 modification such as construction of a new, entirely 24 separate and safety-oriented spent fuel storage pool and O
25 the following:
I l ()
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
. ~.
37 1
Dry cassion storage, air-cooled storage racks --
(}
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Excuse me, excuse me.
Are we 3
still on 7 or have we gone --
()
Right.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
Pardon me.
6 MR. ROMIC:
Yes.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Pardon me.
Go ahead.
8 MR. ROMIC:
-- air-cooled storage racks, 9
air-cooled vault type and shielded, sealed storage casks.
10 Dry storage of light water reactor spent fuel i
11 assemblies have been in use in West Germany for several 12 years.
The West Germany style -- the West German style i
13
' sone,is a high-quality, cast-iron cask filled with helium 14
[)
and stored in a separate building at the reactor site.
15 This would prevent the problems of transshipment of spent 16 fuel.
17 The use of alternative, dry, passive-storage 18 techniques for aged fuel has been researched by the 19 Department of Energy and the Tennesse Valley Authority and 20 appears to be equally feasible and environmentally 21 acceptable.
22 Since the storage capacity at Quad Cities will not 23 run out until 1984, these alternatives should be examined 24 and explored.
O 25 There would be a limited amount of work done inside l
l O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
~ l 38 1
the pool, which would cut down on the amount of electrical O
2 power that would need to be purchased from other sources l
3 while the station is in a shutdown phase.
()
4 There would also be no need to purchase new racks, 5
which, along with, would include the high interest rates 6
accompanying the purchase of said racks.
7 With the dry storage casks, the purchase of the 8
casks would take place according to the demand.
9 Some of this information is availabic in the Final 10 Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and 11 Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel, dated 12 August, 1979, NUREG-0575 Volume 1, Paragraph 3, entitled, 13
" Description of Alternatives."
(])
14 For some applications, particularly if extended 15 storage is expected, dry storage may have economic 16 advantages over water-pool storage.
17 These issues in the application the licensees have 10 failed to address.
The only alternatives they state are 19 shutting down the plant, the re-racking and then a 20 transshipment method of spent fuel.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
e 22 Mr. Goddard.
23 MR. GODDARD:
Proposed Contention 7 as drafted 24 speaks only to requiring the licensees to submit cost
()
25 evaluations for actions which would be carried out, that
()
r l
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
39 1
is the handling, the transportation, and storage of spent 2
fuel from the Quad Cities Statior..
3 Whether or not the modification is granted, the only
()
4 effect of the modification which is at issue here would I
5 appear to be the additional cost of fabricating and 6
installing the new, proposed, high-density racks.
7 There is no nexus in this contention between the 8
safety or environmental factors which the Commission must 9
consider.
10 Mr. Romic's argument is, essentially, an economic 11 one, dealing with the impact upon the utility's rates.
12 The staff would submit that this is not the proper forum 13 for such an argument.
14
()
Certainly, the Illinois Commerce Commission or other 15 rate-making bodies within the State of Illinois might be 1C influenced by the argument made by Mr. Romic.
17 However, it is the position of the staff that 18 neither his argument nor this contention are proper 19 subjects for NRC consideration in this proceeding.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
Can you point to anything in the 21 regulations that would authorize this Board to require 22 cost evaluations of this kind?
23
. MR. GODDARD:
Only in the event of a showing of 24 environmentally preferable alternatives would we get into O
P.5 the question of cost evaluations and balancing O
l SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
40 1
alternatives.
]
O i
2 I think this Board can take notice of the fact that 3
the costs involved to modify the spent fuel pool would be
()
4 a very small fraction of the costs of maintaining or 5
operating a nuclear reactor.
6 In real world considerations I don't think that the 7
solvency or the financial qualifications of the licensees 8
are even called into issue by virtue of the proposal for 9
such a modification.
It is a very small portion of the 10 costs or, indeed, the operating estimate of nuclear power 11 generation at the Quad Cities Station.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Applicants.
13 MR. STAHL:
When we first saw Contention No. 7,
({}
14 we interpreted that to mean that the Quad Cities Alliance 15 and Citizens for Safe Evergy were attempting to bring into 16 issue the financial capability of Applicants, which we 17 believe is clearly inadmissible under the Consumers Big 18 Rock case.
I -- what is that case called?
19 Just a minute, please.
20 It is the Big Rock fuel pool expansion case.
We 21 cited it on a prehearing document.
22 It's Consumers Power Company, Big Rock Nuclear 23 Planc, 11 NRC 117, 1980.
i 24 Mr. Romic --
()
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Does that speak to costs?
()
i SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
i
_... - - _ _ _ -. - _. _ - ~. _ - _ -.,..,, - _,... -
i
)
41 1
MR. STAHL:
Pardon me?
(
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
Does that speak to costs?
3 MR. STAHL:
What it speaks to is the issue as we
()
4 interpreted Contention 7 to raise, namely the financial 5
capability of the utility to maintain the expanded spent 6
fuel pool during the unexpired portion of the operating 7
license.
8 Mr. Romic's curr,ent description of the concerna that 9
are encompassed within Contention No. 7 seem to be 10 somewhat different and, I think, indicate even more that 11 Contention No. 7 is inadmissible insofar as Mr. Romic is 12 speaking about matters such as Price-Anderson, costs of 13 decommissioning nuclear plants, the ef fect on rates.
14
[)
Those, again, raise issues that are clearly outside 15 the limited scope of tI21s proceeding.
These are matters 16 that are more appropriately determined by agencies such as 17 the Illinois Commerce Commission, Congress of the United 18 States and raise policy matters that this matter is not to 19 concern itself with, as the Chief Judge noted in response 20 to the last contention.
l 21 I would also make a general observation that the two l
22 statements we have heard in support of Contentions 2 and 7 23 are really more appropriate, it seems to me, for airing at 24 an evidenciary presentation, either as direct evidence or I) 25 as a limited-appearance statement and, really, are not l
l l
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
l
42 1
appropriate for what we understand the limited scope of 2
our hearing to be today, namely legal arguments on the 3
admissibility under the Commission's rules and regulations
()
4 of these particular contentions.
5 I am sure there is much that could be said in 6
response to the statements that have been read by Mr.
7 Heller and Mr. Romic on behalf of the Applicants rebutting 8
the points that they have made, but we don't understand 9
that to be the purpose of this hearing today.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
11 MR. ROMIC:
In the application they state, you 12 know, the comparative economics associated with the 13 various fuel options.
14
[}
I feel it is only justified that if they are going 15 to consider -- they list like coal-fired generating as 12.
16 mill.
17 If they are going to --
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Would you give us the citation?
19 MR. ROMIC:
I just feel that --
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
You are citing the application.
1 21 Can you give us a page on that?
22 MR. ROMIC:
I just feel that it is only 23 justified in this, if they are going to use this as pr oof 24 that this is the proper way to re-rack, that they should
()
25 issue -- they should fully assess the real costs O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
43 1
associated with nuclear power.
l
()
2 It's not just the proceeding -- it's not just the 3
idea of the Price-Anderson Act or even when we bring up
()
4 the possibility of shutting down Quad Cities.
They say 5
the financial costs to the stockholders and the customers 6
involved, it's a burden to the stockholders and customers 7
involved.
8 Well, that is irrelevant to the issue.
What we are 9
dealing with is this plant has been built; and at one time 10 they said that the fuel would be shipped, would not be 11 stored there.
12 MR. MILLER:
Could we provide the reporter with 13 the page number later?
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
Would you please?
15 Good enough.
Anything else?
16 JUDGE MORRIS:
Well, I would ask if Commonwealth 17 or, perhaps, the NRC could speak a little further on just 18 how one decides whether a contention is admissible or not.
19 I think this might be helpful to those present and, 20 also, it might better focus on what kind of arguments 21 should be made at this time as opposed to uhat should be 22 made on the evidenciary record.
23 MR. STAHL:
I think from the Applicants' point 24 of view, the only issues that are admissible in this kind O
25 of a proceeding are those issues that can be shown to O
SONNTAG.'EPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
l 44 1
raise health or safety concerns which might result from 2
the expansion of the spent fuel pool.
3 That's a very general statement but I think that's
()
4 the framework in which all of the particular contentions 5
have to be resolved.
6 I think for that reason matters such as 7
decommissioning and Price-Anderson and effect on rates, 8
those are really not issues that have any relationship to 9
health and safety and have not shown that there is any 10 nexus between the expansion of the spent fuel pool and any 11 endangerment of the public health or safety.
12 Those are matters that relate generally to the 13 operation of nuclear power plants, policy determinations 14 that are unrelated to the narrow and specific issues that
[]}
15 have to be decided in this proceeding.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Mr. Goddard.
17 MR. GODDARD:
I am not quite sure if I caught 18 the gist of your question, Dr. Morris, with regard to this 19 item.
20 Are you looking for the technical requirements, such 21 as the basis and specificity required in the contention, 22 or as to what is an appropriate contention for a 23 limited-scope proceeding such as this one?
24 JUDGE MORRIS:
Well, both of those things, as to 25 what is discussed and why at an evidenciary hearing.
O SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
45 1
MR. GODDARD:
A contention to be admissible
(
2 under the Commission's regulations, specifically Section 3
2.714 of Part 10, Code of Federal Regulations, must be
()
4 asserted with basis and specificity.
5 The allegations made by the Intervenor in such 6
contention must be supported by a basis either in the 7
contention itself or a basis must be provided or must be 8
essentially one that you can clearly infer from the 9
wording of the contention itself.
10 Specifically applying this to Contention 7 as 11 proposed by the Intervenors, it is a naked assertion that 12 licensee should be required to submit these cost 13 evaluations without further elaboration.
14
[}
Now, in a limited-scope proceeding -- I personally 15 have been involved in several spent fuel pool modification 16 cases -- I think it is essential that Intervenors and all 17 other parties continually keep coming back to the limited 18 scope of the proceeding, modification of the pool, and 19 avoid the sometimes-tempting tendency to expand beyond 20 that into general areas of interest within the scope of 21 the subject of nuclear power genera 11'-
22 The only contentions which are acmissible in a spent 23 fuel poor. modification proceeding, for example, should be 24 those contentions that bare directly or derive directly O
C3 from that modification.
O SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
46 1
This is not an opportunity for an interested party O
2 to re-open and to re-litigate the general questions of the 3
desirability of nuclear power.
The Congress has already
()
4 answered that for us.
5 JUDGE FOSTER:
If you should decide that a 6
full-blown E. I. S. is required, as contrasted with the E.
7 I.
A.,
would your position be that some of these 8
alternatives were then available for discussion?
9 MR. GODDARD:
Yes, sir, it clearly would.
The 10 need for an Environmental Impact Statement turns on the 11 existence of a major federal action, as you know, with 12 significant impact upon the environment.
13 I would, again, refer to NUREG-0575, which is a
(~)
14 basis or a consideration of the staff in preparing its 15 environmental analyses of any application of this nature.
16 Quoting from it, I offer the following.
This is a 17 quote from Paragraph 6.0 of the Executive Summary at Page 18 9 of Volume 1.
19 "In the judgment of the staff:"
20 "The environmental costs of extended spent fuel 21 storage are incrementally small and are, essentially, now 22 incorporated in the previously recognized ccsts assigned 23 to the uranium fuel cycle.
Consuquently, no modifications 24 to 10 CFR Part 51 of Section 51.20 (e), including the S-3 7,s (J
25 Table, indicating environmental impact summaries are O
i l
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
47 1
necessary."
I 2
JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
Could you supply the 3
Board with copies of that NUREG?
()
4 MR. GODDARD:
Yes, sir.
It's a three-volume 5
I will see that copies are served on the Board and 6
also on the Intervenors.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Fine.
Well, I think that was a 8
useful discussion.
9 With that in mind, why don't we turn to the 10 remaining contention, No. 12, the contention being that 11 the racks are not adequately designed to withstand 12 earthquakes because safe shutdown and the operating basis 13 of earthquake previously established are no longer 14
{)
appropriate.
Suggestion that the Mississippi Valley is 15 right for a major earthquake.
16 Let me ask the Applicants first about your 17 determination of the safe shutdown and the operating basis 18 of earthquakes.
19 You say in a couple of places it was established in 20 the op *ating license proceeding, and I would have thought 21 it would have been established at,the construction permit 22 proceeding.
23 MR. STAHL:
I believe it was the operating 24 license proceeding.
()
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Strange time to be establishing O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
r_<
__e,_.
- -. - - -. -... -.,.. ~
48 1
it.
2 MR. STAHL:
Well, I was not personally involved 3
in those proceedings, so I do :tand to be corrected on
()
4 that.
5 JUDGE KELLEY:
You can check it and just let us 6
know.
7 MR. STAHL:
I will check that and if it --
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
Usually you figure out earthquake 9
hazards before you build a reactor; but, a part from that, 10 let me just state a concern that I have got about No. 12.
11 It does seem to me to be quite vague.
Earthq. des 12 happen on faults and they happen only on active faults and 13 they only hurt reactors if they are pretty close.
This is 14
{])
a pretty broad generalization.
15 I suppose a classic example is this case involving 16 Diablo Canyon that got so much publicity.
That 17 established the safe shutdown in the construction permit 18 proceeding.
19 They went out and started to build the plant and got 20 a lot of it built and found out that there was one closer.
21 They had a big problem and the proceeding over all the l
22 rest.
23 But they knew what they were looking at.
They were 24 looking at something called a hot three fault, they knew
- ()
l 25 exactly where it was and that was the focus of concern.
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
...-.m._
..w
.=,-
,+.-
y
_e-_._
gy.
49 1
That was the so-called controlling geologic structure.
O 2
Now, you rea11, can.e come in end say,.There mey be 3
an earthquake in the Midwest." That just won't do it.
I O
4 don't know exactiv what you have sot in mind.
5 Ideally, you know, if you came in with a contention 6
and you said, "These previously established design bases 7
earthquakes are inadequate because there is a fault seven 8
miles away that is about to have a 7.2 earthquake," then 9
we would know what you are talking about.
Maybe it 10 doesn't have to be that specific, but it strikes me it 11 ought to be more specific than it is; and with those, 12 those are my just sort of preliminary comments, if you 13 could speak to the contention.
14 MR. MILLER:
At this time I would 11ke to have 15 Bob Romic again speak for the Intervenors.
16 MR. ROMIC:
We would just like to bring to the 17 attention of the Board that earthquakes are very difficult 18 to predict when or where they are to occur.
19 lhen Quad Cities was constructed huge amounts of 20 concrete was poured to fill a void within the ground on 21 which the site is now located.
The question arises on 22 this:
What is to prevent this void from reforming or 23 shifting?
24 The station is currently undergoing some work by a O
25 local firm concerning the earthquake possibility.
O SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
l l
50 1
It is our request that, since the NRC is currently O
2 gathering information on the earthquake possibility in the 3
Midwest, the Hearing Officers allow this contention
()
4 submission while the information being gatnered by the NRC 5
be made available to the Intervenor so a review of the 6
information compiled will take place.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
I am sorry.
Are you -- are you 8
suggesting that the station was built right on top of a 9
fault?
10 MR. ROMIC:
I am just saying that there is a --
11 the largest earthquake ever taken place in the country has 12 been in the Midwest.
It's down here in the boot hill of 13 Missouri.
[]}
14 There is also another fault which runs through 15 northern Iowa and --
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let's stop in Missouri for a 17 minute.
i 18 Do you know where that fault is?
19 MR. ROMIC:
I supplied the information to the 20 licensees.
I thought they would get it to you.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well., I got some newspaper 22 articles.
23 MR. ROMIC:
Right.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
That is really not cur idea of
()
25 information about this kind of a thing.
It may be O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
51 1
suggestive but it doesn't re*11y prove anything.
(
2 MR. ROMIC:
LJ.. don't know what else -- what 3
do you expect me to do?
()
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Well, I gave an indication at the 5
beginning, I thought; and I know you can come in and you 6
can say, "We think there is going to be a earthquake on 7
the x fault and it's going to be bigger than what this 8
reactor was built for," period.
And that sounds like -- I 9
don't know whether you can prove it or not; but, at least, 10 it's very clear what you are saying.
11 MR. ROMIC:
If we had the funds the utility 12 company has, we could hire or bring in experts and 13 attorneys and fight this.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
That is an eternal problem.
{)
15 MR. HELLER:
Would it be helpful to find out 16 specifically what is being done now at the reactor?
17 We know that something is being done in relation to 18 earthquake-proofing but, you know, the details we do not 19 have.
20 Obviously, the utility companies are, you know, 21 taking some kind of minimal preventive measures right now 22 at this time as of last week; and I don't know of any --
23 as I say, I don't have the details.
Something is being 24 done.
O 25 JUDGE KELLEY:
I don't know whether you are l
i
/O i
l SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
52 1
prepared.
Maybe you can give us some information about 2
what the Intervenors are referring to.
3 MR. STAHL:
Chief Judge Kelley, what we are
()
4 prepared to talk about today is the direct attack on the 5
safe shutdown er.rthquake and the operating basis 6
earthquake which were established for the Quad Cities 7
plant, whether it be at the construction permit or the 8
operating license station.
That is what we understand to 9
be encompassed within Contention No. 12.
10 Now, in order to make this an admissible contention, 11 it's incumbent upon the Intervenors to show some 12 reasonable factual basis to let this Bvard conclude that 13 the S. S. E. or the 0.
B. E. are, in fact, no long'er
[]}
14 adequate.
15 I suggest that newspaper articles such as those 16 presented to us by the Intervenors are not adequate to 17 meet that standard.
18 What we have done in response --
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let me just stop you.
We are not at 20 the stage of proof.
21 MR. STAHL:
No, I understand that; but I think 22 that there may be some threshold level of proof here that 23 is necessary to get this contention admitted.
24 It's not enough for the Intervenors to come in and 25 say, "Recent developments suggest that the S. S. E. and O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
53 1
the O. B. E. are no longer appropriate."
2 They have to specify with reasonable particularity 3
what those recent developments are and why, in light of
()
4 those recent developments, the S. S. E. and O. B. E. are 5
no longer appropriate.
6 They have not done that, in our opinion.
7 We have even gone one step further and have 8
requested an eng'.neer or seismologist with the firm of 9
John Bloom and Associates to prepare an affidavit, which 10 we have here and which we can present.
11 We only received it yesterday.
That's why I had not 12 served it prior to this time.
13 We could present this to the Board and to the 14
{)
Intervenors and to the NRC staff; and the basic 15 cenclusions of this affidavit are that no new information 16 acquired since the operating license proceeding provides 17 grounds for challenging the design basis earthquake 18 established for the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Plants and, 19 in the opinion.of the airiant, there is no basis for 20 concern about the adequacy of the 0. B. E. and S. S. E.
21 design accelerations for the Quad Cities Nuclear Power 22 Plants.
1 23 The affidavit also contains more detailed reasons 24 supporting those conclusions; but it seems to the O
25 Applicant that, in view of the very generalized and O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
54 4
1 speculative evidence presented by the Intervenors in 2
support of their attack on the S. S. E. and the 0. B. E.
i j
3 and the affidavit of Mr. Summerville, which, in our
! ()
4 opinion, establishes that there is no basis for challenge 5
the S. S. E. and the O. B.
E.,
that under those 6
circumstances Contention 12 as presently worded is not j
7 appropriate for litigation in this proceeding.
i 8
JUDGE KELLEY:
Is it appropriate for us to be in 9
the busiaess of reviewing affidavits at this point, 10 evidenciary affidavits?
11 MR. STAHL:
I think it's probably unnecessary, l
12 because I don't think that the Intervenors have provided 13 enough information in support of Contention 12 to meet the 14 requirements of 2.741-B of the Commission's Rules of l
[}
15 Practice.
l 16 They have to specify a basis for this contention I
17 with reasonable particularity.
l 18 All they have said is, "Recent developments,"
19 unquote, have indicated.that the O. B. E. and S. S. E. are 20 inadequate.
They haven't provided any basis to 21 substantiate that conclusion.
22 So I think in response to your question, no, there 23 is no need for the Board to consider our affidavit, 24 because I think this contention is inadequate and O
25 insufficient on its face.
O SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
55 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
I am concerned, because it gets
()
2 us into sort of a muddy situation.
3 I know what a motion for summary disposition is; I
()
4 understand that.
I understand about arguing contentions.
5 I understand about having evidenciary hearings.
Those 6
three are different boxes.
7 Now I have got a piece of one box and a piece of 8
another, and I don't know whether that is appropriately 9
styled.
10 The reason we turned to you at this point was the 11 Intervenors were wondering about -- as I recall, they 1
12 thought there was some sort of exploration or engineering 13 or digging or whatever going on at the site at this point.
('3 14 Is tht. what I heard?
V 15 MR. HELLEE:
From a worker who is working for a 16 subcontractor at the plant currently, you know, we learned 17 that earthquake-proofing, something, is being done, money 18 is being spent at this time, last week.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
I don't know if it's fair to say 20 to the utility right here this morning at 10: 30, "Tell us 21 what you are doing about earthquake-proofing," but if they 22 can say a few words about general information, fine, and 23 if not, fine.
24 Can you shed any light on this at all?
O 25 MR. STAHL:
Well, I have just been advised by O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
56 1
Mr. Fleschner -- and I as an attorney for the Applicant am O
2 not aware, really, in any general detail what is going on 3
in terms of earthquake-proofing at the Quad Cities plants.
()
4 However, I am aware that the NRC staff does have 5
certain requirements for seismic qualification.
I am 6
advised there is a bulletin referred to as 79-14 which has 7
been promulgated by the NRC staff.
8 Certain work is being done by the Applicant at the 9
Quad Cities Plant in response to and in order to meet the 10 requirements of 79-14.
11 I would defer to the NRC staff for a more detailed 12 explanation of the purposes of 79-14; and if you wanted to 13 get into the particulars of what the Applicant is doing in
(])
14 response thereto, we could provide that information, at 15 least in some detail, this morning.
16 I don't think that is appropriate on the record.
17 IUDPE KELLEY:
Why don't we defer that for the 18 moment.
l 19 Does the. staff have under way a sort of generic I
20 earthquake review?
21 MR. GODDARD:
Yes, sir.
I believe Mr. Bevan, 22 the Project Manager for this proceeding, can speak for the 23 I. N. E.
l 24 MR. BEVAN:
I know what they are talking about,
()
l 25 Bulletin 79-14, which came out two years ago.
O l
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
I
57 1
I cannot at the moment recall the origin of it or
()
2 exactly what case gave rise to it.
Maybe one of you guys 3
could.
()
4 But we did require all licensees to go back, make 5
new analyses based upon new, more conservative assumptions 6
of their hangers and their pipe supports and on a 7
schedule; and as an outgrowth of that, they are proceeding 8
with stiffening some supports, putting in new hangers in 9
some places where the new criteria would seem to call for 10 it.
11 That's sort of what it boiles down to.
I think 12 that's what they are referring to.
13 JUDGE MORRIS:
Do you know, Mr. Bevan, whether 14
[)
that arose from a difference in the requirements for 15 analysis or for the requirements of ability to withstand 16 ground shaking?
l l
17 MR. BEVAN:
It arose from new requirements for i
18 analysis, which has its own background.
19 You know, why do we change the ground rules?
I 20 can't really get into that.
I can find somebody who can 21 or I can get up on it; but it did stem from a new 22 analyses, by new analytic methods, which were acceptable 23 at one time and then we decided were not acceptable, to go 24 back and do ar analysis using the new, acceptable methods O
25 and see'what you got.
O l
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
58 1
They did that.
They were more conservative.
In P
2 some cases they found that in order to meet the 3
requirements, they had to beef up some supports.
()
4 JUDGE FOSTER:
Were these analyses based on an 5
analysis of the structure in relationship to an 6
established S. S. E. or O. B. E. or did they delve back 7
into whether the earthquake itself was going to be more 8
severe?
9 MR. BEVAN:
No.
It had nothing to do with 10 increased severity of earthquake or added -- or any 11 incident which gave rise to new concerns or that the 12 design-basis earthquakes heretofore considered were 13 inadequate.
It had nothing to do with that.
({}
14 JUDGE FOSTER:
Thank you.
15 MR. BEVAN:
And I am not sure that I.ee what 16 the relevance of all of this is to the spent fuel pool 17 action that is before us now.
I would like to get that 18 in.
19 JUDGE KELLEY:
I think all we are looking for at 20 the moment is a little background as to what has gone on, 21 and that's what I view what has been said.
(
22 Just one other comment on Issue 12.
23 You mentioned that, you know, you have limited 24 resources and don't have access to seismologists, and O
l 25 that's all true.
I am sure that is true.
O SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
59 1
It is a problem for Intervenor groups with limited
)
2 money; but in an area like -- and the only real answer to 3
that I have heard about is intervenor funding; but r
4 Congress hasn't done that, and that's just where that 5
stands, so we don't have money to help parties.
We can't 6
do it.
7 So the Intervenor group has to do the best it can.
8 I know in a case that I just finished hearing in 9
california on a seismic issue, the Intervenor group had 10 very little money, but they did have a lot of help and had 11 a good lawyer and they had a couple of seismologists, one 12 of whom was very highly respected, Field.
They subpoenaed 13 a whole bunch of other seismologists and put on a 25-day,
{)
7,000-page hearing over earthquakes close to San Andreas 14 15 fault; but it's not easy to do, but this is to say that 16 there is a burden on you at this stage of even pleacing a 17 contention.
18 It's tough to state a good seismic contention 19 without having.a seismologist look at it, at least consult 20 in my some way.
21 My own reaction -- and I am only spaaking for myself --
22 that as drafted, it's too general, it's too vague and it 23 doesn't tell the utility just what it is that is being 24 alleged.
O 25 Now, the problem then may be, "Well, you have got to O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
60 1
go to St. Louis University or wherever and find out which 2
fault and how big," but I don't see any way around that if 3
you really want to litigate that claim.
()
4 It's hard to come in and make a general claim.
The 5
utility is not going to do it.
It's your contention and 6
it's your burden of proof, and there is really nothing 7
else that I can say but that you do take on a tough 8
tachnical burden in that area.
There is no escaping it.
9 MR. MILLER:
May I respond for a moment, please?
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Sure.
11 MR. MILLER:
I would like to express 12 appreciation for your understanding and indulgence because 13 we are limited.
To be recognized with that burden, that 14 is something that we have to assume,
{])
15 I wculd like to find out -- maybe just a point of 16 clarification -- if these contentions or if any part of 17 the contentions are denied in terms of being relevant, 18 would it be possible for us later in the proceeding to 19 move on discovery of new information and be judged by the 2C merit of that new information on any of those three 21 contentions?
22 JUDGE KELLEY:
The basic scheme under'2.714 --
23 which little letter, Mr. Goddard?
24 MR. GODDARD:
C.
O 25 JUDGE KELLEY:
-- C, dealing with late O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
61 1
petitions, the idda is when new information becomes
()
2 available, if you wenc to make a contention about it, then 3
you can seek to do so.
()
4 Chances are you may be opposed but you can seek to 5
meet the various -- you know, how late is late, how 6
important is the issue, how much can i contribute; and you 7
go through this whole litany.
8 Then there is a ruling made one way or the other, 9
but this is not the last day or the last word on 10 contentions.
New things can come up.
11 And there is a lot of new documentation forthcoming, 12 there are more pieces of the application, the staff S. I.
13 E.,
the Staff Safety Evaluation, any one of which -- I am 14 (g
not necessarily saying they will give you new information usi 15 but they might, and that may provide an opportunity for 16 some further contention.
1/
MR. MILLER:
Thank you.
18 JUDGE KELLEY.
Let's see.
We sort of skipped 19 aroend.
20 Have we gotten your position on No. 12, Mr. Goddard?
21 MR. GODDARD:
No, sir.
You got Mr. Bevan's but 22 not mine.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Let's have yours.
24 "R.
GODDARD:
The staff position on proposed O
25 conter
- is simply that the new information presented l
()
l SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
62 1
via the newspaper articles Applicant served on all parties O
2 as part of their response does not appear to include any 3
new information outside of the scope of known historical
()
4 earthquakes or known faults, which were, in fact, 5
considered in deriving the 0. B. E.
and the S. S. E. for 6
the Quad Cities Station.
7 The majority of the emphasis of the newspaper 8
article is, in fact, upon possible seismic events in the 9
Iowa, southern Illinois, southeastern Missouri areas.
10 As a matter of fact, it seems to indicate that a --
11 one of them seems to indicate a rather strong viability of 12 the New Madrid Fault Zone, which was, in fact, considered 13 using the 1813 Ne4 Madrid earthquake at the time that the
(])
14
- 0. B. E. and S. S.
E. for this facility were established.
15 As to the extent that there is any new information 16 that has not been presented by means of these newspaper 17 articles, the staff would like to be made aware of it at 18 this time.
19 If the only new information is within the articles, 20 then without getting to the question of proof, which is 21 not the appropriate conc'ern of this Board, which 1 A ruling 22 on contentions, the staff would simply state that there is 23 no basis shown to support the allegations of the proposed 24
)
Contention 12; and, therefore, the contention must fail.
25 JUDGE KELLEY:
Applicant on Contention 12, while O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
_ _ _ ~ _. _ _ -. _. ~. -
63 1
you have spoken in your papers, do you have anything to
(
2 add 7 3
MR. STAHL:
No, nothing to add, other than what
()
4 we have stated in our paper and what I stated earlier this 5
morning.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Thank you.
Why don't we take a 7
ten-minute break?
8 MR. STAHL:
Excuse me.
There is one thing we 9
would like to correct in our Prehearing Memorandum.
10 On Page 14 we refer to the Plumb River Fault having 11 not been active for over 250 thousand million years.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
A long time.
13 MR. STAHL:
That's right.
It should be really 14
{)
250 million years, which is leng enough, but we would like 15 to make that correction on the record.
16 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
Fine.
Let's take a 17 ten-minute break.
18 19 (Whereupon a recess was had, 20 after which the prehearing 21 conference was resumed 22 as follows:)
23 24 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
We are back on the record.
O 25 Given the present status of things, it does not O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
64 1
appear we can do a great deal in the way of specific time 2
schedules but we vould like to get as good a fix as we can 3
on certain matters.
(
4 Let me ask the Applicants, first of all, from the 5
standpoint of your operations and assuming that, 6
ultimately, your application is granted, when do you need 7
this authority?
8 By "need," I mear. either you have got it or you shut 9
down, let's say.
'0 What are the time pressures from your standpoint?
11 MR. STAHL:
Well, there is a refueling outage 12 that is scheduled for the fall of 1982.
13 In order for us to accommodate that refueling
(])
14 outage, I think we would need an order from the 15 Commission, say, by June or July of 1982.
16 Now, whether that means that if we do not get the 17 order in June or July of 1982, we have to shut down --
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
That is a separate question.
i 19 MR. STAHL:
-- I can't really speak to that.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
You are stating now, at 1 cast as 21 I hear it, you look at your schedule and you see an outage 22 and that seems like a logical time to do it.
23 MR. STAHL:
That is correct.
24 JUDGE KELLEY:
And, therefore, you would want l ()
25 some decision early summer, is that what you are saying?
()
i I
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
65 1
MR. STAHL:
Yes.
I have just been advised by G
(/
2 Mr. Fleschner that, in fact, the station now plans to 3
begin installation of the racks on July 15th in order to
()
4 accommodate the outage, which means that we would need the
~
5 order several weeks before that, I would say, June 1st.
6 MR. FLESCHNER:
Completed by the 15th of July.
7 MR. STAHL:
It has to be completed by the 15th 8
of July.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
So you are talking about a 10 '
hearing in the early spring,;are you not?
11 MR. STAHL:
It's difficult to really coordinate 12 these time dates; but I think to complete the operation by 13 July 15th, we would need to have a Commission order some 14 time the first part of April.
[~')
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
You mean the decision in the 16 first part of April?
17 MR. STAHL:
Yes.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
When is your application going to 19 be complete?
20 MR. STAHL:
By November 20th.
21 JUDGE "ELLEY:
Let me ask the staff then -- I 22 may have some other questions for you but let me ask the 23 staff this question.
24 Your Safety Evaluation you anticipate at what time?
')
25 MR. GODDARD:
The Safety Evaluation and O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
66 1
Environmental Impact Appraisal will be released in mid
(
2 January of 1982'as of this time.
That is our best current 3
estimate.
()
4 That is premised upon receipt of the entire 5
spplication by November 20th.
6 JUDGE KELLEY:
Right.
That is on your critical 7
path.
8 MR. GODDARD:
That is.
9 MR. BEVAN:
That is right, it is, it sure is.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let'_s take a look at it from a 11 clightly different angle.
12 Discovery will be available after this hearing, 13 interrogatories, depositions, for instance; but I would 14 gather that there will be a lot of unfinished discovery 15 until those various documents are available.
Some can be 16 done now.
17 But you can't expect Intervenors to complete 18 discovery until some time after the staff's documents are 19 available; correct?
20 MR. GODDARD:
That is correct.
l 21 MR. STAHL:
I think that is a fair ccnclusion.
l 22 JUDGE KELLEY:
Even assuming that the staff's 23 projection turn out to be on target, which is January 15th --
24 I am really sort of thinking out lour: -- wouldn't you have O
25 to have at least a 60-day interval before a hearing?
()
j SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
67 1
MR, STAHL:
I think we were speaking on behalf
(
2 of the Applicant looking for a period of 30 days after the 3
completion and filing of the staff documents within which
(])
4 all parties, who intended to prepare testimony, would 5
prepare and file that testimony and then proceed to 6
hearing approximately two weeks after the testimony is 7
filed, which.eans if the staff documents are completed by 8
January 15th, we would be commencing our hearing 9
approximately the 1st of March 10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Let me just say, we are not 11 talking here this morning about any proposed particular 12 date.
13 MR. STAHL:
Right.
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
We are just trying to get some
()
15 parameters.
16 MR. STAHL:
Right, I understand.
17 JUDGE KELLEY:
When we get to the point -- in 18 fact, we probably would have another Prehearing 19 Conference, at.least one more so-called Final Prehearing 20 Conference, where all of these things would get buttoned 21 down; but it is desitable, I think, as we sit here this 22 morning, to have somu notion of where we are going and 23 what the timing looks like.
24 My personal reaction is to your 30 days, two weeks, O^
25 that is awfully fast; but -- okay.
I hear what you are O
4 SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
68 1
thinking.
O 2
From the Intervenors' standpoint, we go onto 3
discoJery at this point; and let me ask you this.
()
4 I have had the impression, at least this morning --
5 you don't have legal counsel here this morning, do you?
6 MR. MILLER:
No, we don't.
7 JUDGE KELLEY:
Do you have any legal counsel or 8
assistance available to you?
9 MR. MILLER:
At this time we don't.
10 In terms of the proceedings during the official 11 hearing, we have been trying to and we are continuing to 12 talk with legal counsel in the area to try and secure 13 that; but we are in process on that yet.
[]}
14 JUDGE KELLEY:
All we can do is, you know, urge 15 you and wish you luck on that.
16 You are going to have to find somebody, if you can't 17 afford to pay full fees -- and most organizations can't --
18 somebody who will be sympathetic and help you out.
19 As you get into the discovery process, for example, 20 discovery rules are pretty technical and, you know, do the 21 best you can.
22 I think the staff is often -- well, as to the rules, 23 isn't that right, Mr. Goddard.
24 MR. GODDARD:
I couldn't hear you, sir.
O 25 JUDGE KELLEY:
We are talking about counsel and O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
69 1
whether the Intervenors will have counsel and the need for 2
counsel in certain respects, suc 1 as discovery and 3
discovery rules.
()
4 It's been my experience that staff counsel have 5
informally talked with intervenors' groups about things 6
like discovery and how the rules are used.
7 MR. GODDARD:
Yes.
The staff has done that, in 8
fact, in this case; and we have provided the Intervenors 9
w :h pertinent portions of our regulations and called 10 their attention to the specific portions of those 11 sections.
12 I feel there is something that I must bring to the 13 attention of the Licensing Board at this time.
14
{)
The date of mid January which I gave the Licensing 15 Board and parties as the projected date for the issuance 16 of the staff Safety Evaluation, Environmental Impact 17 Appraisal, I am informed by Mr. Bevan, our Project 18 Manager, was based upon a Commonwealth Edison schedule to 19 provide the last of the missing sections of the 20 application to the NRC not later than the 2nd of October, 21 1981, which date has already passed.
22 Mr. Woldridge of Commonwealth Edison Company 23 in'ormed Mr. Bevan after I made that date known to you 24 that the latest of those sections would be presented to
(_..s)25 the NRC staff for review on November 20th, 1981.
O SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
70 1
It was, the date for the release of the staff 2
documento in mid January of 1982, premised upon the 3
October 2nd date and not the November 20th dcte.
()
4 Accordingly, we are talking about 49 days or a 5
seven-week slip in our calculations based upon this later 6
release of the or availability to us of the application.
7 This is a Commonwealth Edison schedule; and, accordingly, 8
that would probably move the date for release of the staff 9
documents from mid January to approximately the first week 10 of March.
11 JUDGE KELLEY:
I appreciate your raising the 12 point.
It's the pacing item, it seems to me.
13 Okay.
Well, all I can -- I think I have already
{}
14 said it.
If you can get a lawyer to help you out, that's 15 fine.
We will be -- I don't know if you or your members --
16 have you got copies of the NRC rules?
17 MR. MILLER:
Yes, pertinent sections have been 18 provided to us by Mr. Goddard.
19 MR. GODDARD:
Part 2 and Parts 50 and 51, sir.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
All right.
The rules are in Psrt 21 2.
You should go ahead with discovery as to items, you 22 kn osr, that you are ready to go on.
23 We are all bearing in mired that there is some 24 additional documentation that will be forthcoming and you 25 may want to discover somewhat on that.
O SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
71 I
1 I might just mention one consideration.
Right now 2
there is no limit on the number of interrogatories that 3
you can put to a party.
Many feel that there ought to be,
()
4 not just in the NRC proceedings but elsewhere.
5 There is under active consideration a proposed 6
change to the Commission rules that would limit 7
interrogatories to 50.
How they define sub parts I am not 8
sure.
9 But, anyway, I think you should be kind of selective 10 and I suggest that you be rather selective, even though 11 the rules are open-ended at this point, in putting out 12 your interrogatories and really just go for what you want 13 to know.
14
{)
But from the Intervenors' standpoint, a part from 15 late-file contentions later -- that is something else --
16 discovery is really all that is on your menu in the next 17 three months.
18 Am I not right on that?
Is there anything else to 19 be done, Mr. Goddard?
20 MR. GODDARD:
No.
21 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes, that is it.
So I don't 22 know.
23 From what I am told now, an early spring hearing 24 doesn't look too realistic.
What you might do -- maybe
()
l 25 you can tell us now but you might find out whether there
()
l l
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
I_..__.__..__..,_..___._-._
~ -
72 1
is some pressure on you other than the fact that you have 2
got a convenient outage in the fall, any reason why we 3
should be more concerned about having a hearing earlier
()
4 rather than later.
5 Do you have any such ir. formation now or would you 6
want to come back on that?
7 You can come back, if you want to.
8 MR. STAHL:
I think we will come back later.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
You can write a letter, copies to 10 the parties, as to what the situation is.
We will do that.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
I might just comment.
Maybe this 13 ja obvious; maybe it's not.
14 The NRC does attempt to accommodate Applicants for
[}
15 licenses within reasonable time frames with respect to 16 their operations and their needs, the understanding being 17 that if they lose, they lose; but on the assumption that 18 they win, it does make a difference to them when things 19 happen.
20 So we will take that into account, at least, in 21 setting times.
22 There will come a time for closing discovery, arid we 23 can work on that when the time comes.
24 Do the parties have other suggestions about things O'
25 we need to do in that regard?
O SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
73 1
I am not sure I see any need for status reports,
()
2 although the rule refers to status reports.
In this kind 3
of a case I don't think that is really necessary.
([)
4 We wanted to ask one question about this 5
stipulation.
Paragraph 1 speaks of consolidation, and I 6
won't quote the whole paragraph.
7 My question is this:
Consolidation to me normally 8
does mean consolidation for purposes of trial.
Let's say 9
you have three Intervenor groups.
You have, let's say, 10 one Intervenor group or one lawyer who tries the case and 11 the other groups don't put. in a case.
There is one 12 lawyer, one case.
13 That is not what you contemplate here, as I read it.
14 O
The second sentence says that separate representatives v
15 will continue to be recognized.
Each organization will 16 retain the right to submit evidenciary material and 17 conduct cross examination, and absent a consolidation 18 order that is what happens.
l 19 I am not.sure what you really gain here, is what I l
20 am wondering about-21 If it's a pledge to cooperate and work together, 22 that's fine; but is it more than that or is that really 23 what it is?
24 MR. STAHL:
I think speaking for the Applicant, O
25 I think the Chief Judge is correct, the exception to the O
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
74 l
1 consolidation may be larger than the consolidation itself.
2 JUDGE KELLEY:
That is really what I was saying, 3
yes.
()
4 MR. STAHL:
The Intervenors have retained their 5
independent freedom of action, I think; but I think the 6
consolidation does go further than a pledge to work 7
together.
It does extend to discovery.
8 We would anticipate that any discovery requests made 9
on Applicant would be consolidated by CSE and QCASE.
We 10 would not receive separate discovery requests from those 11 two organizations.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
Does that correlate with your 13 understanding?
(])
1 '4 MR. MILLER:
Yes, we understand that.
15 JUDGE KELLEY:
I don't know.
From the Board's 16 standpoint, what we want to avoid is duplicate 17 presentations as you get to hearing.
18 As a practical matter, if you are going to divide up 19 the case and it's not a problem, then I guess we don't 20 have to worry about it.
21 One of the things we did in the last case I was in, 22 we had two organizations, about 16 contentions, and they 23 didn't want to be consolidated.
24 What we said was, you know, " Split them up.
You O
25 take half and the other one take half but that's that."
()
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
75 1
They even thought that was okay and they agreed to that.
()
2 Later one of them dropped out, so the other one did 3
them all, anyway; but it was an approach that seemed to be
(])
4 agreeable, because you tend to have stronger interests in 5
one thing as opposed to another.
6 I don't think we have to cross that bridge now, but 7
we would have a sort of a general concern about 8
du p1.'.c a tio n.
If we don't have that, then I guess we are 9
okay.
10 If there is a substantial threat, then we would have 11 to look at consolidation again; but we can leave that down 12 the road, I think.
13 MR. GODDARD:
Judge Kelley, the staff has one 14
)
point with regard to discovery.
15 As you are well aware, the discovery against the NRC 16 staff is a rather complex burden, more difficult than 17 discovery, for instance, against an applicant or licensee.
18 This is especially true in the case of Intervenors 19 such as organizations here who are not represented by 20 counsel, at least at this point in. time.
21 To date in this proceeding and for the remainder of 22 the proceeding, the NRC staf f will cooperate with 23 Intervenors with regard to informal discovery.
We have 24 been accessible by phone and by meil.
To the extent that O
25 information is requested of us, we will attempt to provide
()
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
i 76 1
it in an informal way, without having to restrict it to 2
the somewhat strictured provisions of Part 2 with regard 3
to discovery against the NRC staff.
()
4 JUDGE KELLEY:
Very fine.
I would like to see a 5
similar approach from the Applicants, if that is agreeable 6
with you.
7 MR. STAHL:
W 11, we will certainly make every 8
effort to cooperate witu reasonable discovery requests in 9
an informal way.
10 JUDGE KELLEY:
Yes.
This can be further down 11 the road; but if we can get away from these elaborate 12 rounds of pleadings, in which you get interrogatories and 13 you get denials and you get reasons for denials, it's a 14 big waste of time.
{])
15 If there is some way we could cut through that, 16 let's all approach it in that spirit.
I would like to.
17 MR. GODDARD:
Sir, along those lines, on one of 18 our recesses, I spoke with counsel for the Applicant and 19 with Mr. Robert Miller, the representitive for 20 Intervenors, with regard to the possibility of a 21 Settlement Conference later in 1981 with regard to several 22 of the contentions which would normally be the subject of 23 summary disposition, contentions which, in the view of the 24 staff, are most susceptible to early and rather cursory O
25 disposition.
()
l l
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
77 1
Accordingly, we are going to be working out a
()
2 schedule whereby the Applicant and the technical staff 3
will provide aporopriate expert witnesses, who w'ill
([)
4 attempt to resolve the issues set forth in such 5
contentions to the satisfaction of the Intervenors.
6 The Intervenors, of course, are not binding 7
themselves to settle the requested contentions.
8 JUDGE KELLEY:
That seems to be an excellent 9
idea.
If you bring out the right people and have them 10 answer questions, you might make some progress along that 11 line.
If the Intervenors aren't convinced, then we will 12 go ahead; but I think it's a good idea.
13 Are there other matters -- I think we are reaching 14 the end of our other matters -- that the Intervenors want
)
15 to bring up at this point?
16 MR. MILLER:
No, we are not prepared to bring up 17 other points at this time.
18 JUDGE KELLEY:
Okay.
Applicant?
19 MR. STAHL:
None from the Applicant.
20 JUDGE KELLEY:
We will get a letter from you 21 describing the practical dates you will have, timing?
22 MR. STAHL:
Yes.
23 JUDGE KELLEY:
Is there anything else from the 24 staff?
O 25 MR. GODDARD:
Nothing else from the staff, sir.
l l
C:)
SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
78 1
JUDGE KELLEY:
Let us just take a 30-second O
2 recess.
3
()
4 (Whereupon a recess was had, 5
after which the Prehearing 6
Conference was resumed 7
as follows:)
8 9
JUDGE KELLEY:
My colleagues have a couple of 10 technical points that they would like to --
11 MR. GODDARD:
Sir, louder, please.
12 JUDGE KELLEY:
My colleagues have a couple of 13 technical points that they want to raise and then I think
(]}
14 we will be about done.
15 JUDGE FOSTER:
This is in relationship to the 16 evaluation on thermohydraulics.
i 17 The fuel module or fuel rack modules have a base 18 plate which is supported by square or retangular legs.
19 Those legs have some holes in them for water to move in 20 and out.
21 It was not a clear to me how those holes were taken l
l 22 into account in the overall evaluation of the temperature j
23 of the water in the fuel bundles that would be stored 24 above them.
7_g
%,)
25 Perhaps, this could be explained more fully in some
()
1 SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
t
79 1
additional material to be supplied.
()
2 MR. WOLDRIDGE:
Are you asking about the holes 3
in the feet themselves, on the side of the feet?
()
4 JUDGE FOSTER:
That is correct, and what the 5
role of those is relative to restricting flow to the 6
channels stored above them.
7 MR. WOLDRIDGE:
We will respond to that.
We 8
have already considered those holes.
9 JUDGE KELLEY:
Dr. Morris.
10 JUDGE MORRIS:
I guess this would be addressed 11 to Commonwealth, also.
12 Table 8-3 in Revision 1 of the spent fuel 13 modifications for increased storage capacity, dated June,
)
1981, lists the current concentrations in the pool and 14 15 also lists incremental additions due to the expanded 16 capacity.
17 The paragraph below that table -- well, first of 18 all, in the table itself, it would go -- if you go to 100 19 days, you find.the increase is approaching 50 percent.
20 In the paragraph below the table there is sort of a 21 conclusiory statement that because of other conservatisms, 22 this is a negligible amount, will have a negligible ef fect 23 on radiation levels or possible exposures.
24 I was wondering lf somewhere along the line you O
25 could expand on this and give some better basis for that O
l SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
~.
80 I
conclusion that this 50 percent increase, or whatever it 2
is, is truly negligible.
3 JUDGE KELLEY:
Just two other brief matters.
()
4 As we mentioned before, we will be issuing an order 5
probably next week memorializing the basic things we did 6
here today and, I expect, rendering our decisions on the 7
disputed contentions.
8 The possibility of a site visit was mentioned 9
earlier, and it is something that the Board would like to 10 do.
They are interesting.
I think they are fun.
11 But I wasn't prepared at this time.
We really 12 weren't ready for it, so I think the Board would like to 13 pass.
14
{)
I might just add that, normally, some reasonable 15 number of Intervenors, if they want to go along on such a 16 trip, arrangements can be made.
Perhaps, we could do it 17 next Prehearing.
I am not sure.
We will -- this is just 18 to say yes, we will do it and it can be the staff and the 19 Board and the Applicants and some of the Intervenors who 20 would want to come along.
21 When the arrangements for that are made, we will try 22 to let everybody know in advance.
23 If nobody has anything else, I think we can adjourn 24 for today.
Thank you very much.
O 25 MR. STAHL:
Thank you.
O SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
. _ _ _ _ _, - _ _ - ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _, _ _.
I 81 1
MR. GODDARD:
Taank you.
O 2
twarca ere a11 tae proceeainga aae 1
3 and teatimony taken at the Preaearing O
a conterence at taia ti.e and place.)
5 6
t 7
i 8
i 9
1 10 I
11 12 13
- O 15 16 l
18 19 20 21 22 1
23 4
24 O
25 A
O i,
l SONNTAG REPORTING SERVICE, LTD.
L-_,__-..__
O This is ;c certify that the attached proceedings before che k
O A C-AFLTY o e s ~.1 le y ob O
in the =atter of:
i Date of ?raceeding:
Ock / V,19f/
Decket tiu=ber:
Place cf ?roceeding:
[J/,% c[,
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcri;;
therecf for the file of the Coc=ission.
fW.%
IN o nnTk6-. 0 S $
I Official Reperter (Typed) 4 l
f W
k/
OffR i?1 ?e;.rter (Sign.ure)
J 1
l l
i
(
O I
e a
l l
.