ML20040G892
| ML20040G892 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 02/10/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202160587 | |
| Download: ML20040G892 (93) | |
Text
-
D )
IN 1 A f
't
'r f\\ L uJL M NUCI. EAR REGU.ATORT 10CSSION C
e
/G[ \\ t ' f?%
In d:a Mat:::er of:
' \\.,
. '\\
)
', ; \\
CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR
) DOCKET NO. 50-537l 1I
- c. 2-
.: a
)
g; i
A-p
. A2, <
u_ ;..-
L'
/
g,b [O 4/
ftk7 C
DATE: February 10, 1982 pgggg: 1141 thru 1233 AT:
Oak Ridge, Tennessee D
3 D
--s
%(
- xu T-G 400 Vi @ ia Ave., S.W. Washingnn, D. C.
20024
{
Telephene : (202) 554-2345 6202160587 920p10 PDR ADOCk 050005]?
T pop
1141
,- psi j
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
_.s 2
BEFORE THE I
3 iNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
)
4 In the Matter of:
)
)
Docket No. 50-537 s
e 5
CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR
)
d
)
3 6
R R
7 i
8 Conference Seminar Room
}
Oak Ridge Administration Building d
9 Oak Ridge, Tennessee i
h.10 Wednesday, February 10, 1982 PURSUANT TO ADJOURNMENT, the above-entitled matter
!E. 11 d
12 came on for further hearing, at 9 :00 a.m.
N pd E 13 BEFORE:
5 j.
E.: 14 Board Memberst 2
15 MARSHALL MILLER, Chairman M
Administrative Judge l
J 16 U. S. Nuclear Pegillatory Commission 2
Washington, D. C. 20555 6
17 j 5
GUSTAVE A. LINENBERGER E
18 Administrative Judge g
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19 Washington, D. C. 20555 M
20 CADET HAND Administrative Judge 21 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
University of Californla O
22 eodese sey, cetifornie e4923 23 '
i O
'i 25,
1 N
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1142 pd 1'
APPEAP.ANCES:
x 2
For the NRC Staff:
' l 3
STUART TREBY, Esq.
J MS, MARY SWEENEY 4
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D. C. 20555 e
5 h
DANIEL T. SWANSON, Esq.
3 6
DP. CECIL THOMAS 7,
U. S. Departrnent of Energy
[
7 Washington, D. C. 20555 For the Applicant - Tennessee Valley Authority:
l 8
0 ci 9
LEWIS E. WALLACE, Esq.
/
g-W. WALTER LAROCHE, Esq.
g 10 Tennessee Valley tuthority 6
400 Commerce Avenue
~
{
11 Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 is 12 For the Applicant - Project Management Corporation:
j 5
g 13 GEORGE EDGAR, Esq.
=
s l
14 1800 M Street l
g Washington, D. C. 20036-2 15 5
For the Applicant - U. S. Department of Energy:
16 l
j l
- r!
LEO SILVERSTROM,'Esq.-
d 17 U. S. Department of Energy l
s Oak Ridge, Tennessee 18 For the Intervenors - Natural Resources Defense Council
{
19 and The Sierra Club:
5 20 ELDON V.
C. GREENBERG, Esq.
Tuttle & Taylor 21 1901 L Street, Suite 805 Washington, D. C.
20036 O
22 V
MS. BARBARA FINAMORE, Attorney l
23 DR*. THOMAS COCHRAN I
Natural Resources Defense Council 24 '
1725 I Street, Suite 600 pV Washington, D. C. 20003 l
25 l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i143 t
PW 1
APPEARANCES (Continued) :
2 For the State of Tennessee:
3 MS. LEE BRECKINRIDGE Assistant Attorney General 4
State of Tennessee Nashville. Tennessee m
5 6,
For the City of Oak Ridge:
3 6
WILLIAM E. LANTRIP,.Esq.
g R
7 City Attorney d
City of Oak Ridge j
8 Oak Ridge, Tennessee ad 9
10 is
~
E 11 g
i2 13 E
14 w
2 15 s
16 j
as j
17 g.
18 19 I
20 l
21 O.
22 23 ;
24 i'
25:!
~
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1144 I
INDEX 2
WITNESSES:
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 3
Limited Appearance:
O 4
Don Maxwell 1145 5
=
h 3
6 e
ca 8
7 8
8 e
Y d
9 lr:
Cg 10
_a
<b 4.12 i
3
=
g 13
=
i E
14 w
2 2
15 w2 16 g
A G
17 w
18 E
19 x
I N
20 21 I
i Q 22 l
23,J,i 24
- O 25 ~ '
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1145 I
PEQCEEQlEQS c1 2
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
All right, the second day of our 3
prehearing conference will come to order.
Mr. Maxwell of Oak n
lU 4
Ridge has asked for about five minutes of our time to address us, y
5 is that correct, sir?
9 6
We will loan you a microphone.
R 7
Whereupon, sj 8
DON MAXWELL ad 9
was called as a witness and testified as follows:
O g
10 MR. MAXWELL:
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Board, i
j 11 my name is Don Maxwell and I am a citizen of Oak Ridge and I have is y
12 been for the past eleven years.
[
f U/
13 DIRECT TESTIMONY h
14 THE WITNESS:
In the early part of 1972, there was much C
E 15 concern in regard to the siting of the Breeder Reactor Project.
j 16 Several of our local citizens became ve.ry much interested in the w
d 17 possibility of this project being located in our city.
The
~
E 18 necessary brochures, pamphlets, letters, whatever, were written.
5 19 It so happens that Oak Ridge was chosen as the site for this s
20 project.
21 Over this long period of time, we have waited anxiously
(
22 for t ds project to be started in our corr:aunity.
23 q!
. Secondly, I would like to point out that Senator Baker 24 and our Congressional delegation has been realizing unjust u
25j criticism in regards to this project.
p I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
H 46 RA a 2 I
When I look at the figures I am going to give you, such O
2, as employment of people in California of 1,095; New Jersey, employ-3 ment of 647 people; Ohio, 155 people; Pennsylvania, 677 people; 4
and Oak Ridge, Tennessee with 504; that doesn't sound to me like 5
y it is important for Tennessee.
I think that involved also in thin 9j6 project are 30 states represented that utilize benefits from this E
I 7
project.
N j
8 We as individuals realize that somewhere down the road a
9 we have got to reach a point of energy independence.
Now this is c
10 one of the ways that we find ourselves possibly reaching a point II in time.
is y
12 I think it is important that we consider our children O8 13 5
and our grandchildren and great grandchildren down the road in
~
14 supplying them energy.
We no longer can rely on the Mid-East m
15 as we have witnessed in past years.
We have a situation that we y
16 have got to reach a point in our nation that we are capable and us i
h I7 l ready to meet the energy needs of our citizens.
=
{
18 over this long period of time since 1972, there has been' i
c l
i-l I9 j
much discussion and there were those that were for the project 20 and there were those that were against the project.
I think we 21 have to draw a balance as to what our needs are going to be in the 22 future, as to how we are going to take care of the employment of N
23 our people and how we are going to take care of the needs down i
24 the road.
I might add that upon successful completion of this 25
- project, Oak Ridge would benefit probably to the extent of about t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l -
s 1147 I
r a3 150 people that would operate the project as such.
When you 2
relate 150 people to approximately twenty -two or twenty-three 3
thousand peopla employed in our community, that certainly is a 4, min.scule number; therefore, I would like to express my opinion 5
3 to you gentlemen that we certainly would move forward with regard n
j 6
to this Limited Work Authorization in order that accomplishments R
7 y
can be made for the future.
8 Thank you so much.
O d
9
[-
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Thank you, Mr. Maxwell.
O 10 j
As we all realize from our discussions yesterday, the
=
f II Board is interested both in developing a record and hearing your d
12 E
recommendations, and agreements that we are able to reach concerning Oe I
5 such matters.as scheduling; our contentions and discovery matters I4 we recognize.
C 15 b
Have you given any further thought to these matters,
- e 16 or is there anything you want to tell the Board before we ask you J
17 llj to comment specifically, or any questions?
=
M 18 Has anybody talked to anybody?
=s" 19 j
MR. EDGAR:
Yes.
We had the opportunity to confer last night and developed several points of understanding.
The first 1
is that we think that counsel can and, indeed, will get together at the earliest possible time to consider agreements as to new 23 ' contentions, discovery and the question of amending prior discovery O
'!andwhtwehopetoaccomplishthereisinthespiritoftheBoard's l advice, some means of getting perhaps some contentions stipulated I
i ALDERSCN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1148 RA a 4 I
on the front end, getting some simplifications of, for example, 2
amendment of prior discovery.
3 To give you one example that might give a more concrete 4
meaning to it, we have looked at some of our discovery on the 5
hypothetical core disruptive accident, our prior discovery 9
6 responses.
A lot that--there is a certain percentage of that G*E 7
information which we can't define but if we amended that, it s
E 8
M might be academic.
That is, some of the conclusions drawn we d
c 9
can amend it, we can give the correct answer today,.but the question j
S 10 y
is, would it be useful?
It just wouldn't have much application
=
2 11 g
to cer :ain elements of the analysis, so we think we can get d
12 3
together and try to work out some shortcuts there, and what we g
13 l would have in mind there might be an agreement that, well, you x
f I#
shouldn't amend set X or set Y; so, I think the parties and each E
15 g
of the parties can speak for themselves, but that was the spirit 16 y
of the agreement yesterday.
17 b
We did not reach agreement on the detailed parameters
=
18 of a schedule.
I mean what agreements we had were the agreements s"
19 j
that we came into the prehearing conference with.
It was the 20 schedule that we had submitted to the Board yesterday.
The 21 parties had defined their major points of difference and ourselves and the staff were in essential agreement, so what we, speaking 23 for the applicants have done, have agreed to the approach of
(])
trying to get things underway fast on the front end mainly by the informal mechanism of conferring and, if you can use the word i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1149 RA e S I
without a pejorative sense, negotiation, we at the same time believe O
2 that we would like.to see outside dates maintained on the schedule 3
grid and in essence what we would recommend here is that we get 4
going on these things but we set schedule dates which represents 5
g last dates for doing a given thing.
e 6
For example, we need to get rolling on the new contention i?$7 issue.
Okay, we can sit down with Mr. Greenberg and try to come j
8 up with an agreement or stipulation on admission or contentions d
d 9
~.
or at least edefine our areas of disagreement, but we really 10 think there ought to be an outside date set for when the last new contentions are to be filed, within that negotiating context.
N Likewise, we think there ought to be an outside date for b
13 g
the parties coming forward with pleadings to the Board addressing z
h areas of discovery upon which no agreement could be reached.
In e
C 15 g
this way, we would hope to sort it out but nevertheless maintain outside dates for doing the particular things that we need to accomplish to get from here to there.
=
18 That's the essence of our position as expressed in
=
19 j
general principals.
We are prepared to comment in much greater 20 detail about each specific milestone.
21 JUDGE MILLER:
Very well.
Now, the staff?
MR. SWANSON:
I think Mr. Edgar fairly characterized 23 the results of our meeting yesterday.
On the staff's part, we 24 are prepared to informally meet with Mr. Greenberg and Mr. Edgar and to determine if in fact the discovery request that you want l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1
1150 I
as you said come up in the near term could effectively accomodate
[R(. a 6 I
s 2
the given effect.
The person responsible for that area may not n
3 on an equivocal pathway of producing the document, so we certainly 4
are prepared and we will endeavor with our best efforts to 5
g accomodate early discussions involving discovery and contentions n.
3 6
and keeping in mind, of course, that is to say, as set forth e7 7
yesterday, we are--the staff of course is on several tracks t
j 8
working on Safety Environmental documents and updating discovery, rJ x
9
~.
but I believe we do have agreement among the parties to work j
10 informally and in fact set up a meeting as early as possible II when we can work on it.
is fI CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Mr. Greenberg?
=
y 13 MR. GREENBERG:
I don't have very much to add to that, z
f I4 Mr. Chairman, although with respect to the issue of coming forward 15 with pleadings on discovery, it seems to me that that is something j
16 that is best addressed in an ad hoc fashion after we see what we x
h I7 can work out with respect to the summary request.
I am not sure e-M 18 at this point one can, with any degree of certainty, say that as l
9" 19 j
of that date you will probably reach all of your agreements with 20 respect to discovery.
There may be new information coming up 21 throughout this period and it is very difficult for us to agree 22 in advance to that admonition.
Yesterday we were not sure that 23 l-we were going to be able to get all of the information we need i
within whatever time frame we have for the complete discovery.
I 25]
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Have you looked over your existing i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I 115.1 rn c 7 admitted contentions?
1 I
MR. GOLDBERG:
We have.
2l A
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Do you have any thoughts as to whether 3
- j or not those are sufficient in and of themselves without additional 4
m dification for the preparation of limited trial on the LWA phase?
5 e
R End TcHe A d
0 R
5 7
s
,8 8
ed 9
i f:
10 E=
j 11 a
d 12 -
M O(d
=
1 g
13 l
=
14 a
2 15 5
J 16 si d
17 5
5 18
=
c-19 A
20 21 22 23 !
i i
25,
f l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1152 JATB1 1
MR. GREENBERG:
We think that there are a significant i
2 number of these -- of the admitted contentions on which further 3
information is required.
There may be one or two or more, where 1
4x) 4 the additional information.
5 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
It's not information I'm -- I'm e
R 9
6 talking now about the pleadings, the scope of modification.
R 7
MR. GREENBERG:
In terms of modification, 6f the plead-N j
8 ings, I think there are a number which will not have to be modi-d 0
9 z,
fied as they.were expressed in general terms back in 1975,'76, C
g 10 and '77.
E 11 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Yes, the Board is willing to do those 3
i g
12 now.
You seem to have a pretty broad and extensive set of Ok =
13 pleadings.
The matter we're going to ask you about is really --
14 doesn't encompass probably a greater portion of the pleadings 2
15 It's possible that' NRDC feels it necessary.
x=
16 g
MR. GREENBERG :
I think for the most part that's correct, M
d 17 Mr. Chairman, however, there are some specific new issues to be i
{
18 l identified, and we have begun the process of identification I E
i 19 l should say, but the bulk of the contentions will essentially be n
e I
20 the contentions that are currently before the Board.
There may 21 be some miner modifications of those contentions to reflect up-22 dates.
For example there is specific references to DES or to ER,
(~)l G
23 there are scme changes in those documents, that does not reflect--
24 those modifications are essentially of the non-controversial nature.
(
- i 25 '
CHAIRHM1 MILLER:
Yes, they are more mechanical.
Would i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1153 JATB2 1
you have any ability to give us an inkling of the nature of what-2 ever new or modified pleadings that might develop.
I'm not trying 3
to bind you.
I'm just trying to see what you are thinking pre-
,c, U,
4 sently, and that goes for the other parties as well.
If they g
5 are able to -- as I say we're not going to hold you in anyway --
E 6
MR. GREENBERG:
I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and we R
7 have begun some considerations on this matter, although I want aj 8
to emphasize that this consideration is of a preliminary nature.
G ci 9
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
- Yes, icy 10 MR. GREENBERG:
I stated I think to the Board yesterday d
h 11 that in light of the Three Mile Island accident there have been a
j 12 a number of changes in the way we look at accidents and accident r
O 13 consequences, and one issue that we may want to present to the 14 Board relates to the considerations of new emergencies, planning 2
15 evacuation points of both NRC and FEMA.
It's not clear to us x
M y
16 at least that's been adequated reflected as a free standing w
l t
17 i contention in our existing pleadings.
5 E
18 Similarly, the issue of human error as a factor in
~
1 e[
19 accidents is one that we may wanc to emphasize in amending plead-
=
1 20 ings.
There are further some programmatic issues that may be 21 important.
One issue which we again tentatively identify is i
l t'~3 22 ! whether the Clinch River Breeder Reactor can meet the program's i
\\; J i
23.! informational goals if it cannot obtain adequate plutonium j
i l
4 24 ji supply, we believe there may be some question about this at this l
l kd 25 ;; time, As some examples of new contentions that we may come up l4 l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1154 1
JATB3 I
with.
I don't think any of these contentions reflect a funa-2 l
l mental shif t in focus on our part, but they represent additions 1
3 which we believe are. important.
Additions to the main bulk of 4
our contentions.
e 5
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Thank you, that's helpful.
Could we 6
ask which of the existing contentions go beyond the scope of what G
7 is required be gone into in a LWA type of hearing, which we're
~
j 8
now contemplating?
dd 9
z, MR. GREENBERG:
We have made a preliminary cut at that.
cg 10 It seems to us that most of these contentions will be relevant 35 h
II in LWA-1 hearing, although one particular contention that we have M
N I2 identified that may not be relevant is that related to the 13 5
Commission, at least part.
=
r:
5 I4 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Which number is that?
15 MR. GREENBERG:
That's #14 and I think parts of that E
I0 conte.ntion may be relevant but othe: parts may not be relevant.
I7 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Any others?
5 h
We have not completed our review on that, E
I I9 g
Mr. Chairman, and I hesitate at this point to indicate that they 20 are the contentions which will not be pursued.
It may be that 2I parts of the contentions will not be relevar.c., because the con-l 22 j tentions are broadly stated on there.
We can undertake an effort 23 I for --
24 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
We're going to need the information W
i 25 to understand if there would be objections for example, to rele-i j
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1155 JATB4 1
vancy, for purposes of discovery, or limited work authorizations--
(m a
2 we've got to have some understanding of pcsitions, to the matter L
3 we wish to address.
Okay, I guess -- State of Tennesee, do you 4
wish to state or assist the Court in any way on these matters, c
5 scheduling, discovery and contentions?
h 6
MS. BRECKINRIDGE:
I was part of a meeting yesterday R
8 7
about the scheduling and I was substantially in agreement with a
j 8
the other parties.
I'm not s're I have much to add -- discovery d
d 9
does suit us.
Y s
!9 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Okay, thank you.
Anyone else?
?
5 11 MR. LANTRIP:
On behalf of the City, I don't think our
<?
j 12 contentions have changed over the period of time.
We support --
=
hm:
13 CHAlRMAN MILLER:
You're mostly socio-economic aren't l
l
\\
s 14 you?
Eu l
15 MR. LANTRIP:
That's right.
The City supports that and 5
y 16 requests for the limited work authorization and we believe that e
d 17l the site if not suitable for tne breeder reactor facility would l
N 5
18 be an additional location for the industrial development of the 5
3 19 City of Oak Ridge.
M 20 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Okay, the -- I believe the City has an 21 amended contention of January 22, 1976, is tnan correct?
^
(}
22 MR. LANTRIP:
I'm not aware of that.
t 23 l CHA1RMAN MILLER:
You do represent the City of Oak Ridge, 24 h don't you?
i f
s li
\\ ^/
25j MR. LANTRIP:
Yes, sir.
il Nf d
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1156 JATB5 1
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Filing of the original contentions on
,f7 2
tne notes I have here dated July 7, 1976 and then there was 3
amended -- before we go into these matters -- as socio-economic--
4 MR. LANTRIP:
That is the one that one I guess the Board e
5 adlaitted as improper.
j 6l CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Yes, that's January 22, 1976, now R
7 does that encompass all of the City of' Oak Ridge wishes to put j
8 into the hopper here in contention discovery schaduling?
Gd 9'
MR. LANTRIP:
Yes, sir.
z' C
g 10 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
1 appreciate the fact that Counsel d
11 will have and continue to improve -- we think it's very nelpf ul j
B j
12 since you are best able really to develop some of these matters
<~S 5
(
)g 13 specific applicable fashion.
The Board is considering approach-k'
=
x 5
14 ing it from this point of view.
We would like to schedule a 2
15 commencement of a limited authorization -- limitec work authori-w=
y 16 zation hearing the week of July 12th, that is a Monday -- it will A
d 17 take you perhaps through the 13th to actually start -- give people 5
Cw 18 time to travel.
Eh g
19 1 We would like in ycur further discussions now and in a
20 your agreements in so far as you are able to agree on not only 21 milestones, which.se are depending on staff keeping us informed I
(v~]
22 h and working with Counsel on, but as well the discovery schedule 23 'j j
which is linked to the contentions or additionc and modifications 24 and even possibly new contentions.
By telling you the day that 8
1 25j we -- the Board would like to commence the hearing, we would like ll I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1157 JATB6 I
to have your consideration of those things necessary to be done
(.-
k_)
2 prior to that in terms of yoar own scheduling.
3 i1R. EDGAR: Well, there are several things that come up in 4
uur mind as to relevant to getting to the hearing.
You can make S
5 a list and essentially work backwards in order of appearance.
0 6l The first would be a final pre-hearing conference, but normally R
S 7
that can be on July 12th.
N k
8 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
We usually do it the day Defore.
'J 9
MR. EDGAR:
Yeah, and so we're just assuming that those z
O g
10 two are compatible.
d h
II CHAIRMAN 1IILLER:
Yes.
u f
I2 MR. EDGAR:
Secondly, with respect to commencement of 13 hearing, and in our minci it's a fundamental principle and one z
5 I4 that was rerlected in the Board's orders in this proceeding, and
{
15 enat is tnat once we commence those hearings, they ought to run
=
E I0 in continuous session.
If we have recesses and ad]oornments e
I7 l and what not we may not get ourselves organized to complete.
=
w*
IO CIIAIRMAN MILLER:
Well, as to that aspect, 1 Lhink the P"
19 g
j Board had that concept previously.
We still have the concept i
20 l althougn it isn't written as granted as they say because of in 2I being summer and there. heing developinents.
We have to have a l
22 I little flexibility although we ' re willing to -- well, let me put I)
<.3 23 '
it this way.
I think the Board will commit itself to proceeding 24 without delay and an a continuous fashion to the sane extent 25j that the parties demonstrate their ability prior thereto to 0
N li ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1158 JATB7 1
get things lined up for the day.
Look forward and backwards and
/'^')
2 you're going to have the same degree of cooperation, and I think
()
3 it will be a hundred percent.
4 Ma. EDCAR:
I think so.
1 Just thought it was important n
5 to mention the principles because we've always thought that that N
j 6
was a fundamental from the prior proceeding.
Alright, working--
7l E
8 we think you can merge the pre-hearing conference and commence sj 8
those 14 earings.
The next item is filing testimor.y, and typically d
c; 9
you'11 install a two week period between filing testimony and 7.
c g
10 commencement of hearings.
That's the traditional approach.
6 11 It is also possible though to have testimony filed prior j
a 3
12 to those milestone documents and have it subject to amendment.
5 13 If yoa want to really confess the time after the milestone docu-9g=
l 14 ments come out, it seems to me that you've got to put the testi-uu 2
15 many forward, and then hav'e amendments of that testimony reflecting a=
j 16 the milestone documents.
I d
17 '
Now this order is in with the thoughL that the Board 5_
M 18 expressed yesterday, which was let's assume that the environmental'
=H[
19 update and the Staff's site suitability repor t or SER is appropria.te
=
i 20 l comes out.
What do you do to accommodate new contentions, inst 21 minate discovery, et cetera.
Alright, the formula that we' ve 22 l developed for what it's worth is that within seven days the parties
()
f 23 '
will confer and attempt to agree on discovery contentions, if any.
1 24 [i aaned upon new matters of fact first raised in the update and the 8
25 h SER.
Now we're presupposing under the Board's suggested July 12th!
!i i
E I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1159 JATB3 1
deadline that we'll have that testimony filed before the milestone
/m t
J
(>
2 documents come out.
If that's the case, then we've got to have a 3
rapid conference amongst the parties and see if we can agree on 4
any amendments, last minute amendments.
e 5
In affect, what would happen here would be that the N
j 6
parties would move forward to prepare supplements to their testi-7 many and the two questions presented would be whether that amend-
~n l
g 8
mbnt of testimony is proper under the circumstances, i.e..the Q
9 development of new facts, and secondly whether there's any need iey 10 for discovery as to those new facts.
i::
5 11 You know, whether the information is sufficiently avail-B 3.
12 able that testimony then can be filed.
So we've said within k'N E
)g 13 seven days the parties can confer and attempt to agree.
Shortly
=
5 14 thereafter the parties have to cone in with whatever pleadings z
t 15 nay be necessary to the Board to resolve any outstanding issues.
16 Now the time frame of interest here given a July 12th g
v.
g 17 i deadline, there is not going to be any time for that.
In my 5
M 18 mind what you need to do is have a conference of the parties 5
19 l the last day the seven days after the milestone documents arrive, E
t 20 and within about two days from that you've got to get together 21 with the Board to present your differences orally and have the
()
22 Board rule on the spot.
I 23 3 There is just no time or place of pleading cycle there, l
24 so what you then would do would be to get together immediately, 25j to go to.the Board with any differences.
The Board rules.
People P
i, fil ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1160
@ATB9 1
amend their testimony and then you go to hearings.
m) 2 CHAIMUni MILLER:
Well, suppose you assign dates.
3 Assuming July 15 is commencement.
4 MR. EDGAR:
Could I ask one question about your assump-e 5
tions here.
If you're working on a July 12th as your start date 0
3 6
the final pre-hearing conference date, what date are you assuming i
A 7
for your milestone documents?
~
j 8
CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, that's referred to staff.
I'm 0
9 assuming that maybe by June or maybe a little before, if they zo g
10 are able to, that they can give the Board and parties some indi-E 11 cation because necessarily they are the ones who know what they
{a N
12 are doing and analysis for this and so forth, so that's a matter l
13 that we will have to obtain from the Staff.
If we can get some z
5 14 advance indications that this is possible, then we -- I suppose, l
j 15 June is what I'm saying, would be our thinking on this schedule,
=
l j
16 which the Staff would make a definitive announcement and/or --
I U.
17 '
Let me check to see -- there's no sense in what I think the Staff 5
{
18 can do.
Is this consistent with the Staff's capabilities?
P g
19,
MR. SWANSON:
We assume that by June we could give you a
20 a pretty firm date.
I did mention yesterday of course that 21 the current schedule is June 22nd and the safety document is 22 July 9th, n
23)
CHAIR 2GJI MILLER:
Are you assuming that those are matters 1
(-
24 that were necessary to be taken up at the LWA hearing or at the k_))
J 25 j first portion of the LUA hearing?
There's all kinds of safety i
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1161 JATB10 1
issues.
2 MR. SWNISON:
I'm talking about LWA related safety, 3
LWA safety related documents, site suitability.
4 CHAIRMMI MILLER:
It would take you until July?
5 MR. SWM1 SON:
That's correct.
This would not be a docu-g 0
y 6
ment for the construction permit, because that document I think G
7 as I mentioned would not be until Spring of '83.
Ej 8
CIIAIRMAN MILLER:
Wait a minute now -- we're not talking d
C 9
about the construction business.
We're talking about the limited i
C 10 type of beginning matters that would have to be considered in iG h
11 your site suitability report, and the LWA type hearing.
a j:
12 MR. SWMISON:
That's correct.
0$g 13
=
{
14 b
2 15 5
y 16 s
d 17 5u to 18
=
19 n
20 21 Q
22 l
V 23 '
24 ;j fd 1
25 t 1
!l!
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1 bumm u sem u
u m
1162 Clpw j
MR, SWANSON:
That's correct.
\\ >l 2
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Is there any way to advance that date 3
at all?
I'm not binding you to it and I know we're all having to S
4 look at the pace of things, sometimes they 'll go f aster and e
5 sometimes they'll go slower, we recognize that.
A N
N 6
MR. SWANSON:
The staff is very sensitive to the need to e
R j7 expe.dite the review process and this was the best pace they could N
8 8
come up with keeping that in mind.
0 ci 9
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Well this is February, when can you iob 10 take a re-reading and see what experience has shown you is staff's E_
E 11 c apability?
<a d
12 MR. SWANSON:
Perhaps half way between now and --
/m ?
() f 13 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
June.
=
MR. SWANSON:
April or May perhaps.
We could give the 14 E
2 15 Board periodic updates.
E_
j 16 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
That might be more helpful, then we A
p 17 can all have a feel for how things are developing.
It will help E
18 Intervenors, it will help Applicants, everybody.
=H E
19 All right, what about thirty days or something?
We A
20 won' t bind you to a date but we'd like to have some indication of 21 the periodicity.
/~w I
! s) 22 l
MR. SWANSON:
Maybe the beginning of April, that would
~
23 ' be 45 days.
24 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
By the way, Mr. Edgar, I owe you an 25, apology, that was a Roman numeral, it was a little Roman and I was I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1163 C2pw I
thinking big Roman, but it was a Roman numeral.
2 MR. EDGAR:
I'm trying to react on the spot because the 3
thoughts you have given me here are intriguing because, you know, 7s i
~'l 4
I was assuming something very compressed here, but you can still g
5 work this way.
I'm trying to write it down now in front of me 0
3 6
but here's the kind of sequence that I'd like to offer for
-k7 consideration, and that is you compress the front. end of the
%j 8
schedule as the Board suggests on the discovery.
Okay?
Then you d
d 9
have outside dates for milectones.
Now if people are doing their z~
~
C b
10 jobs, the discovery doesn't tend to bump up against the outside E
h 11 dates, but at least we have to have them there for enforcement 9
y 12 purposes.
7 y
\\ >1 f 13 All right, af ter you get that done, you file the testimony.
=
h 14 All right, then the milestone documents come along; then you go to 2
15 a prompt conference and you get together with the Board and you 5_
j 16 resolve any outstanding discovery or contention issues on the a
d 17 yspot crally.
Then you, if there's any last minute discovery, ff 5
18 that's accomplished on a quick turnaround and then you file
=H 19, amendments to the testimony.
=
20 Now that builds in a lot of extra parallel paths and i
21 everything, but if you want to really compress that time between (t'l 22 ] the mi3estone documents and getting to the hearing, in my mind k
n 23 ' that's the only way to do it.
Otherwise, you get on the series 24 path with summary disposition motions and this, that and the other 25 ) thing, and you can't accomplish that in less than ten-eleven weeks.
s e!
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1164 C3pw 1
I read, for example, Judge Miller's July 23 Order in Commanche Peak f
K.J 2
which shows a set of steps including summary disposition motions, 3
which in our judgment is about a bare minimum path to get there, 4
and you round out to ten weeks.
That's about the best you can do e
5 if you take that approach and sequence these things in series.
The Mn s
6 only way to reduce that time is to do something in parallel.
e E
5 7
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
That's what we're interested in.
E j
8 MR. GREENBERG:
If I could add a word here, Mr. Chairman; d
d 9
two points.
First, I do believe this final period for developing ich 10 testimony, determining if there are contentions that need to be E
h 11 amended or additional discovery dealing with summary disposition
<?
d 12 motions and the sort is absolutely critical to the sound holding E
9_=13 of an LWA hearing.
My concern I think is similar to Mr. Edgar's j
l 14 that this period is very, very dif ficult to compress and any s!
15 compression I think is going to adversely impact our ability to w=
J 16 present a sound case to the Commission.
We're going to need the G
(
17 environmental documents, we're going to need time to evaluate those
=
18 documents and come up with our testimony, and I am very concerned
=
b E
19 about any compression of that schedule following issuance of the A
20 milestone documents.
21 I would also add that it seems to me that it's going to em I
(
22 j be very difficult for us to react and develop testimony merely en m-y 1
23 li ndications by the staff as to what information is or is not 24 contained in the milestone documents.
I think we need the documents 1
4 25 j themselves.
And statements by the staf f in general terms as to what f
li ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC,
1165 they contain are not going to be sufficient to apprise us of their C4pw j
p, k_
whole nature and scope and allow us to develop our case.
2 So my disposition would be very much to go back to the 3
kind of schedule which all three parties -- and the other parties 4
e 5
as well -- had agreed to prior to coming into this conference;
~
6 namely, that there be a fairly substantial period of time following the release of the milestone documents before we move into the 7
8 hearing phase.
N CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Well you're talking about the milestone 9
i 8
document and NRDC's opportunity to analyze and develop evidence.
jo e
d
{
ij MR. GREENBERG:
Yes.
d 12 CHAIRMJW MILLER:
Now remember, NRDC doesn't have to go 6
9E 13 first.
We can give some more time to NRDC for that purpose than o=
14 is required or avai] able to the Applicant, you have some time w
b situations there which will be of benefit to NRDC.
f 15
=
16 (Brief pause.)
?i d
17 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
I'm assuming we have a conference and b
E 18 you show us what you really need and -- it's not a proforma type E
I 19 of thing --
A 20 MR. GREENBERG:
No, I --
21 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
If you show us what you reasonably need,
<s Ij we want you to have the time and opportunity that you reasonably
(
)
22
\\__
/
23 l require.
l l
~
24 l MR. GREENBERG :
Just looking at this proceeding and tryinh
/
(J
(
i 25 ] to determine how it's run in what we consider the most logical and i!
l l
ALDERSON' REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I
1166 expeditious fashion, we see ourselves having a complete set of C5pw j
(J information before we move into any part of the hearing phase 2
because it's critical in terms of analyzing what Applicants or 3
4 the staff may say in terms of their case.
Let me point out that we're concerned about not having e
5 A
N i
I mentioned 6 l the information until the very end of this process.
$=
7 yesterday that in discovary in 1975,
'76,
' 77, we had trouble 8
getting the information we needed on a timely basis and we think a
there is a risk now that we 're not going to have the information d
9 i
10 we need until the very last minute and --
E_
E 11 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Why are you apprehensive on that, let
<a 6
12 me understand.
6 9
13 S
MR. GREENBERG:
Well let me pass the microphone to Dr.
E 14 Cochran who had some experience with this the last time.
I think s
f15 he can articulate some of the problems that we perceive.
=
16 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Okav.
B i
DR. COCHBAN:
We had interrogatories both to the staff d
17 l 5
E 18 and Applicant.
By and large, Applicant answered the questions in 5
E 19 a more timely f ashion than the staff.
Many of the staff's answers l
20 ' were of a nature -- and I'm speaking now of the technical issues 21 on the core disruptive event and so forth, were of the following l
(wi 22 nature, "we haven' t made a decision on that yet", "we can't answer v
I that at this time".
Then bam, the SER comes down or their safety 23 24 analysis documents and they lay out their case.
That's the first 25 ) time we really get information from the staf f on what their 0
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1167 C6pw I
analysis is on the accidents by the staff.
We have never gotten, 6
2 until they put out the documentation in the form of their report lo n the core disruptive accident and also the report or their 3
9 4
le tters.
We never got what their sort of outline of what their s
5 position was with respect to the safety issue or how they went N
6 about doing the analysis of the core disruptive accident, which R
S 7
codes they used and so forth.
That's in effect my first round of Mj 8
answers from the staff and that's when I would like to go back and d
d 9
ask them, well what assumptions did you make daout this and what ic g
10 assumptions did you make about that, and so forth.
And as I g
11 mentioned yesterday, we spent a year and a half last time on this b
j 12 type of discovery and I being the one that bore the brunt of the
,I) 5 kJ 13 interrogatories didn't feel like that was an adequate time.
I was
[
14 coming into this hearing pressed to compress that.
I tried to 5
2 15 explain to my attorney that I didn't think I could do it in less 5
g' 16 than a year, you know, that December wasn ' t enough but we would go e
d 17, for December if that's all we thought we could get.
E 18 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
You mean December, 1982?
5[
19 DR. COCHRAN:
Yes.
We say a year, eleven months from E
20 now.
That's less time than we had before.
See, the problem is --
21 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
I want to discuss this with you when I tT
\\ _j 22 jcome to a good point in your discussion.
9 0
I 23 "
DR, COCHRAN:
All right.
The Applicant has spent four 24 years changing the design, the staff is going to spend a long 25 j period of time re-analyzing this design.
We don't get any time to U
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 1168 C7 1
do our analysis.
2 I mean they have been exchanging information on the 3
PSAR back and forth over the past four years.
They'v2 updated all 9
4 of the PSAR, they didn't update any of our contentions in this e
5 period, which they could have if they wanted to accelerate this N
6; program.
Instead, they simply interacted, the Applicant interactec.
R 8
7 with the staff.
They spent this enormous amount of time updating 8
8 the design of the reactor and the staff hasn't re-analyzed the n
dd 9
design of the reactor.
And we're not going to find out what the iog 10 staff's analysis of that is until they put out the SER and then 5
{
11 we get no time for discovery on the ' staff, it's one week before 3
j 12 you've scheduled the hearing.
95E 13 MR. EDGAR:
Was the PSAR made available to you?
E h
14 DR. COCHRAN:
Yes, I have the new design but T don't 2
15 have the staff's analysis of the new design.
I frankly didn't 5
y 16 know what the design was, George, because I didn't know if you i
d 17 were coming in with a heterogeneous core or homogeneous core.
E 5
18 Now we have some understanding of that.
E 19 I don' t know what the staff 's design is.
If you look at 5
20 the Final Environmental Impact Statement', the staf f says in ef fect 21 rejected the Applicant's design the last time around and said we
.e^N I
()
22 lsee ways to make some accomodations to meet our requirements.
So 23 in effect my interpretation of the staff's por.i tion is they are
[sj 24 simply licensing their regulations.
They 're simply saying this v
25, is what we're going to require and we think a dif ferent design will i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i 1169 C pw j
meet that.
They don't explain what that design is.
It's not the
'/
2 same design the Applicant has and frankly we don' t know what in the 3
staf f's view -- what reactor we're licensing.
t 4
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Well how much do you need to know at e
5 this stage?
Granted that you will certainly be entitled to gn E
6 into all of the details of the CP statement.
9 R
7 DR. COCHRAN:
It comes back to how you determine site 8
suitability.
N d
d 9
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
And we're asking what are the limitations i
h 10 on that in this kind of hearing, as you see it.
E 5
11 DR. COCHRAN:
As I see it, we must first determine what
<M d
12 the maximum credible accident is and then define a source term z
- 9513,
=
that is not exceeded by the maximum credible accident.
5 14 Now as I understand the staff's position the last time w
2 15 around, they were going to come in and say, look, we're going to w=
J 16 require that a core disruptive accident be an incredible event and 2
d 17 therefore, picking the source term is somewhat arbitrary because w
h 18 melt downs are incredible and so any source term we pick is larger
=.
s E
19 than a credible event.
A 20 Well, one has to develop the argument from my perspective 21 that they are not in position to make that case that a failure to
\\
/n) 22 l melt down is incredible.
We've lost two of the four fast reactors e
F
_s 23 !,we've built in this country because of valt down and they're I
(~'i 24 ] coming in here saying it's incredible and they're going to prove l
\\_)
i lit with a Rasmussen -- Applicant is coming in here saying we 're 25 a
il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
1170 C9pw I
going to prove this is incredible with a Rasmussen type analysis,
\\s 2
a PRA type analysis.
We've got to go and develop that case and 3
get discovery on the adequacy of the PRA approach.
To develop 4
that case, you have to develop discovery on the ATWAS proceeding, s
5 the anticipated reactors without SCRAM proceeding.
Also, on TMI N
6 which changes the whole Commission's perspective on whether -- on R
8 7
how one treats accidents with degraded cores.
Ej 8
And that's a good deal of discovery just on the issue d
d 9
of the probability of a failure to melt and then we have to get i
Oy 10 into the issue of what are the consequences if one does have a 6
{
11 core disruptive accident, are they large or are they small.
That a
j 12 means you have to get into discovery of all of the accident codes S
they're using and those depend in turn on the specific design g
13
=
{
14 of the reactor.
E 15 And, gentlemen, you cannot come in here with the source 5
g' 16 term slightly modified for an LWR -- LWA and say that that's all a
d 17 we need to do a limited work authorization hearing.
We have to do E
18 the safety analysis at this point in time and that's going to take
=
H h
19 a long time and a lot of discovery.
=
1 20 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
I have a few questions and I think l
21 Judge Linenberger has some.
cs
[ }
22l First of all, you've already obtained I assume a substantia $,
\\
./
h 23 ' amount of information previously.
24 DR. COCHRAN:
On a different design with a different 25 ; reactor --
s' 4
0 e
N ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1171 C10pw 1
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Well let's look at what you've got 2
befor we look at what you don't have.
What do you have here?
3 DR. COCHRAN:
I have discovery on a reactor of a different 4
design, using different reactor codes.
Now the position I'm going e
5 to be in --
M N
h 6
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Well --
R 8
7 DR. COCHRAN:
Le t 's suppose I come in and say, on the a
j 8
basis of my discovery, the Applicant hasn't proved his case and d
d 9
Applicant says but we 've done all this updating since then, we've ic g
10 changed the design, we've got a heterogeneous core,. that makes 5
h 11 the consequences of the accident smaller, etc., etc., and you a
j 12 gentlemen have left me with one week to discover the nature of 5
(~)N g 13 the saf~ety analysis of the new design with different reactor codes.
1
=
h 14 As far as I know, the staff hasn't done any of the analysis of 2
15 safety becau'se they misinterpreted what's required in an LWA-1 5
y 16 proceeding.
7:
y 17 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Well what we're trying to find out is E
5 18 what is necessary for the limited scrutiny that is to be given in l
P; 19 the site suitability matters in an LWA, hole in the ground a
20 proceeding.
21 DR. COCHRAN:
What is necessary is the discovery necessary c,( )
22 l to determine what the source term ought to be and what the s
1 23 ' probabilities are of a core disruptive accident and that's an i
24 enormous amount of discovery.
I'll be happy to walk through these 25 j documents in a fair amount of detail with you.
I mean, we cite a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1172 Cllpw I
number of these documents in the appendix.
2 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
I don't quarrel with the citation 3
of the documents.
In my mind, I'm not sure that I've had 4
delineated so that at least I understand the necessity of that 5
g inquiry in depth for an LWA; proceeding, which is not the same 9
extent as a CP where certainly you're going to go into all those a
h matters in the depth required, but nobody seems to be looking at n
E 8
M what are the limitations upon the extent or scope of such inquiries d
}".
at this particular stage.
9 0
10 p
I think Judge Linenberger has a question alcng those
=
h lines.
e d
12 3
JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Well, let's see if we can sort of 99:
13 g
scope the forest before we start cutting down trees.
Let me ask 5
14 2
the staff specifically, is it staff's position that an LWA-2 e
9 15 g
hearing requires that the Applicant demonstrate to staff's
^:
16 satisfaction in its preparation that indeed the accident consequences M
i F
17 '
d of this reactor f acility, core design, are no more serious than
=
18 would be the case for a conventional -- whatever that word means --
-p 19 i.
light water reactor system?
Does the staff require that the 20 Applicant set the foundation for proving this point before we go 21 into an LWA hearing?
22 l Ij' i,
MR. SWANSON:
No.
s-23 'j JUDGE LINENBERGER:
All right.
That means then, or let me infer what I think it means in part that the Applicant, I mean I
25 'lthat the staf f then considers that itself and the Applicant will be l
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1173 C12pw 1
ready to go into an LWA-2 hearing without a full analysis of a 2
credible accident scenario and the source term implcations of it.
3 Is that a correct inference on my part?
4 MR. SWANSON:
The answer is no, but if we could have e
5 just a couple of minutes.
N 2
6 JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Yes.
e t
R S
7 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Do you want a recess or can you do it --
N j
8 MR. SWANSON:
If we could have just a couple of minutes Gd 9
to address that, it'd be better.
Y 10 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
All right, we'll take about five Mj 11 minutes.
Let us know if you need more time.
u EndC.:j 12 (A short recess was taken.)
9s 3
13 5
14 5
'=
2 15 5
y 16 e
n 17 0=
5 18
=H E
19 5
20 21 I"3 22j
(_J l
23 l; i
24b 8
F i
1 25 j i
ll ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1174 RA d 1 I
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
We are resumed.
0 2
MR. EDGAR:
A preliminary matter before we get going, 3
the Chairman addressed the question of how might one compress 9
4 the post-hearing, I mean the post-milestone time.
I had made 5
g some remarks about a parallel procedure and what I did over the H
j 6
break was I had an internal set of notes that I developed last i
R
- 5 7
night that showed to me that if you go on a series approach
- j 8
after the milestone documents to get to hearing, the very best d"
9
~.
you could ever do is about eight weeks, and what I have done is 0
10 marked that up to reflect the parallel approach so you can see II both pathways and I would like to hand that out just for informa-c N
I2 tion.
9 =
13 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
All right.
i z
5 I4 (Brief pause.)
15 MR. EDGAR:
The correction I would have to make is on j
16 that milestone after week zero prime, instead of submitting e
C 17 d
pleadings, it really requires immediate oral conference with the
=
5 18 Board and argument rulings from the bench.
s" 19 8
(Brief pause.)
n 20 l
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Okay.
21 (Brief pause.)
i I)
(_/
22 ll CHAIRMAN MILLER:
I think we might have a few questions i
23 while the staff is conferring.
('S 24 E 1
MR. EDGAR:
Certainly.
</
As 25 ";
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
I am sorry, go ahead, we are not througho e
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1175 RA d 2 (Brief pause.)
h)
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Suppose we considered that the u
2 I suggestion of the July 12-13 commencement, what kind of dates a
would you have here from the weekly intervals?
MR. EDGAR:
I have not put it on the calendar.
I am n
not trying to do that, but what I tried to was to work backwards 0
f and say if week zero prime is roughly the third week 11 June, D
I j
then you end up with essentially the correct--or the answer you sj see, to get you to the second week in July.
9 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Well, suppose we did it backwards, 10 c
Z E
week 3 plus 3 days, what date is that?
11 4
MR. EDGAR:
That is July 12.
e.
12 z
O!
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
That would be July 12, wouldn't it?
13
\\_/ 5_
2 MR. EDGAR:
Right.
g 14 u
hi CHAIRMAN MILLER:
The time of prehearing conference r
15 x
and the heari.r.gs would commence the following day, the 13th.
16 g
Okay, all right.
If we did that, what would be the date for the j7 filing of testimony--is this amendment to testimony?
=
MR. EDGAR:
That is amendments, if any.
39
_E I
N M E ER:
To testimony?
20 MR. EDGAR:
Correct.
21 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
- Okay, 22 w]
MR. EDGAR:
And that would be the 9th of July.
23 j
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
I am assuming these are all work days 25j
^ **
Ji b
i!
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
ra d 3
))76 I
MR. EDGAR:
Yes, sir.
I don't have my calendar.
g>
r L#
2 Then going the next step backwards, the last date for discovery 3
responses if any, and that is not a necessary milestone if you 4
work something out.
I mean if there isn't any " milestone discovery" 5
but as the worst case, you would work forward from July 9 to July 6
4 and that is usually a national holiday, so we can--
57
- E 7
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
If it doesn't, we are all spending s
S 8
M this time in vain.
t.)*
9
}
MR. EDGAR:
That's right, so--
OH 10 3
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
So pick a date that would allow for
=
f the 4 t.h.
12 2
The 4th is on a Sunday, so the 5th would be probably t
b 13 e
the federal holiday.
z MR. EDGAR:
The 5th is a holiday.
9 15 D
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Yes.
=
E 0
MR. EDGAR:
So it almost has to be the 6th.
7:
H 17 '
O CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Okay, July 6th, and that is the last
=
5 18 date for discovery responses to the two matters that were first s"
19 j
! raised, the update and SER.
20ll MR. EDGAR:
Right.
21 i
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Now preceding that is the last date (O
22 U
dforfilingdiscoveryconfinedtonewmattersfirstraisedinupdate 23 j and SER.
MR. EDGAR:
And that is June 28.
25q CHAIRMAN MILLER:
June 28th.
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1177 ra d 4 1
MR. EDGAR:
That is also the date of the oral conference
( 'l I with the Board.
j CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Which is week zero on your--
4 MR. EDGAR:
No, sir, that would be week 1 plus 2 days.
3 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Yes, that is the date but you have n
j 6
got under week zero prime that the parties will confer and so
%*S 7
forth.
E 8
s MR. EDGAR:
Within 7 days the parties confer of d
d 9
week zero prime so that would be on the 21st, that is the latest 10 y
date for the parties to confer.
=
E
'l 5
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
That is the 21st?
c J
12 3
MR. EDGAR:
Yes.
13 j
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Of June.
14 MR. EDGAR:
And then two days after that which is tl.e--
g 5
15 g
wait--no, we have just fouled up.
Let me see July 12, July 9, 16 y
July 6, minus a week is June 28th, all right, and so I am scrry, F
17 ! the last date for the parties to confer would be the 26th of June.
l d=
5 18 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
That is within the seven day period?
E 19 5
MR. EDGAR:
Yes, sir, that is the end of the seven cay e
20 period, the June 26th, so that is a Saturday, but we are talking 21 about conferences.
(v^)
22 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Yes.
a MR. EDGAR:
And we would have to acccmodate that.
g 24f]
(~T CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Yes.
25 !
1 MR. EDGAR:
(Continuing) In my mind.
4 h
li ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1178 I
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Then when would the parties confer:
(, ) d 5 N'
2 then with the Board?
3 MR. EDGAR:
June 26th plus two days which is June 28th.
4 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Which is the same day as the last 5
j day for discovery on the new matters.
n 0
MR. EDGAR:
Right.
R*E 7
CEAIRMAN. MILLER:
It doesn't bother you that the two Nj 8
dates coincide?
d d
9 MR. EDGAR:
We would be responding to that which we
~
C y
agreed upon and we would be breaking loose any last minute stuff H
10
=
hII on that day on the spot.
2 Then week zero prime comes out to the June 18th or 19th.
12
-R CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Wait a minute, what was that?
13 E
l 5
MR. EDGAR:
Working back on the calendar, if June 26th b
9~
15 is the last date for the parties to confer.
D=
E CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Yes.
M d
MR. EDGAR:
Then week zero prime, the result is that 17 '
=
M 18 week zero prime is June 18th or 19th.
s G
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Well, that is the date that you are 19 n
20 contemplating the staff environmental update and SER.
MR. EDGAR:
Yes, and we have a little mismatch there.
21 I)
(_
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
All right.
Whereas the staff's 22 i
23 '
estimated date of yesterday was the 22nd, wasn't it?
8 24 "l i
MR. SWANSON: The 22nd was environmental document.
25 !
O CHAIRMAN MILLER:
The 22nd, yes, the SER, so your 0
h ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
- I
rn d 6 jj79 I
schedule seems to give us a date.
,s
( ')
2 MR. EDGAR:
It is a ball park...
3 CHAIRMAN MILLERr It is a figuring date.
4 MR. EDGAR:
- Yes, 5
g CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Which the staff believes now they 4
j 6l can't or won't meet.
R b
7 MR. GREENBERG:
Mr. Chairman, if I could just make a a
j 8
point beyond that?
a d
9 MR. EDGAR:
It is four days off right now.
z.
cg 10 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
It is more than that, July 4, but II go ahead.
s I
I2 MR. GREENBEnd:
We recognize that the Board feels l
5
~
(D 5 m) {
13 that there is a need to move this proceeding along and so do we, t
z g
I4 but, quite frankly, this kind of compressed schedule, three weeks 1
l 15 from the environmental update and the final discovery to a hearing j
16 puts an impossible burden on us and we think it is just going to e
i i
17 !
result in confusion and difficulty and conceivably in greater l
=*
18 '
i delay.
If we are going to prepare a cace and do it in a sound
?
h I9 fashion and the Board is going to proceed to hearing in an orderly l
i e
20 and seemly fashion, this kind of rush to a hearing makes no sense 21 at all, and earlier on, both the applicants and the staff had I
-s 22 ! agreed that it was appropriate to have a reasonable period to ceme; i
23 up with post-milestone discovery, to resolve matters that can be 24 reso]ved on summary disposition so as to avoid taking up the 25 '
Board's time during the hearing, to come up with testimony that n
3 0
0 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
rc d 7 1180 I
needn't be amended several times as new documents come forth and 9
2 I see nothing but confusion that is going to result from this kind
?
3 of schedule.
4 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Well, while you are using your crystal 5
y ball, do you foresee many summary disposition orders being entered 9
6 against you?
R=E 7
MR. GREENBERG:
I really can't predict what Mr. Edgar s*
8 M
or the staff are going to do.
O
}".
9 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
We can surmise what they are going to S
10 3
do but it is what you are going to do?
=
fII Assuming that the motio'n for summary disposition is d
12 2
against one or more of your contentions.
9c5 MR. GREENBERG:
Yes.
z I
CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Are you apprehensive?
MR. GREENBERG:
Well, I must say--
d CHAIRMAN MILLER:
With 2400 interrogatories?
e "b
17 It seems to me that you have your defense from here to Knoxville.
=
7 18 MR. GREENBERG:
Well, it doesn't rule out the possibility, P"
19 i j
Mr. Chairman, such motions are going to be filed.
i 20 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
So, but you see, that is what we are 21 doing, possibilities on the one hand and remote speculative kinds of i
n 22 I things, are one' thing; the more immediately or likely the other, i
23 ' and we are trying to find out--
MR. GREENBERG:
Dr. Cochran has just laid out that we are, j
25 !jgoing to be getting all kinds of information that is critical to if ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
ra d 8 7
1181 I
developing our case on the very last day or the first day of this S
2 last day of discovery period.
We aren't going to get the SER 3
until conceivably.; July 9thr_and,. but in any event, we aren't 8
4 going to have the Final Environmental document until July 20th; 5
g there is critical information in those documents and I con't see e
3 6
how we are going to be able to move in a reasonable fashion in R*
7 y
three weeks.
O DR. COCHRAN:
Let me just point out the problems I see.
9
~.
You are going to have a hearing down here and you are goi,ng to s
10 g
take my lawyers with you and they are going to be sitting in this
=
f II room and I am supposed to be preparing a technical case in Washingpon 12 8@:
I can3t confer with.my lawyers; imyltechnical documents are over f
in George Edgar's office at M Street, some of them.
z f
I4 CHAIRMAN MILLER:
You are all.from Washington, aren't you?
E 15 g
MR. EDGAR:
The door has always been open, I might add.
Ib DR. COCHRAN:
That's right, I can go over there, you a
17 b
know, it is very convenient, but you know how it is, I mean
=
5 18 you go from Bethesda to H Street all the time, it is just the most s"
19 i convenient thing in the world.
j 20 MR. EDGAR:
This is all an intervenor funding 21 contribution at this point.
1
- ~())
22 l
DR. COCHRAN:
This is a schedule made for the applicant i
23 l who claims he has got 650 people who are dead in the water and don.'t 1
24 )
4
[haveanythingtodobutpreparethiscase, and it is a little j
25
I f different at NRDC.
[
f d
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1
. r.
RA D 9di ~ l \\ 1 I CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well-- 0 2 DR. COCHRAN: I can't prepare a technical case _and be 3 down here and listen to the argument on the other aspects of the 4 case and have my attorneys down here. It is crazy. 5 g CHAIRMAN MILLER: Of course, part of this comes to U i 3 6 h a judgment we all have to make which is how much do you really R*S 7 need? Not what you want, not a full year, not a full scalu b 0 CP type of examination in depth. You would like to have and G }". I don't blame you for that. 9 S 10 y DR. COCHRAN: I would like to have, but there is a j requirement for a' reasonable determination -- I am not a lawyer -- 5 CHAIRMAN MILLER: You say you are not a lawyer, I gRf 13 realize that. W l E 14 DR. COCHRAN: In a legal case, but I would assume the g 5 15 l g requirements for a reasonable determination with respect to this y' 16 source term issue and so forth. d" 17 l I frankly don't know how to make that determination short = E 18 of discovery on the safety issues and there is no way to avoid the =s" 19 fact that that's a long and tedious problem. We don't have twenty j l 20 years of history of regulations on fast reactors like we do like 21 water reactors, we don't have the precedent. 1 I') 22 y This Board is supposed to set the licensing precedent I (._/ L d 23 ' for fast breeder reactors and this is going to affect how these P things are designed for the next fifty years if we build the 25 'lllindustry. I hope we don't fill the industry. O b ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. t
1183 re d 10 I CHAIRMAN MILLER: How many, you can hypothesize t 2 in being actually built. Maybe we shouldn't go into that. I 3 DR. COCHRAN: But nevertheless, you are setting the 0 4 precedent for the legal requirements and, you know, you want to 5 g rush in to this thing which this is supposed to be the future of n j 6I the nuclear industry and you have got the Palomino order that R*2 7 says full speed ahead, lets kill the discovery process. N E 8 s CHAIRMAN MILLER: No, I am not saying...again, I am d }" saying with all deliberate speed. 9 C h 10 MR. EDGAR: I wonder if I can make one comment at this = l II juncture. I think that there may be a basis that the Board could e 12 s have the wrong impression that first of all the time required to b 13 get up to speed and get to trial here should not be compared with a z I4 f the time that was consumed during the prior proceedings. Lets i 15 0 not forget that we had very substantial delays which one can = 16 y attribtite to the appeal on the programmatic issues and how that d 17 b impacted the FES. We had very subetantial delays in the FES and = it is not correct to say that that total time consumed in the pre-C h j trial process was necessary to get the information available. 4' 20 I The second point is I don't believe the Board should get 21, the impression that the NRDC is going to be deluged with new I\\ 22 \\-) y information first becoming available in the discovery process. \\ 4 23 1 The fact is that the PSAR has been updated continually. NRDC has received all amendn.ents, in particular regard to the I 25 :j heterogenecus core, we are now on amendment 63 of the PSAR. The d ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1184 ra d 11l heterogeneous core went in as amendment 51, it has been there, 2 it is a question of reading the document. It is a question of 3 attempting to understand it. 8 4 What we are trying to get a focus on here is what part 5 j of the schedule are we talking about? 9 6 Dr. Cochran's objections and his basic thrust is he want:s i R =S 7 to wait until December to go to hearing and the things that he is aj 8 talking about that make him wait until December are all in the d 9 } front end of the schedule. Well, we have already talked about S-10 y that and the clear message from the Board there, at least I don't = II find myself having any difficulty in understanding it is, that we ought to get together and get that front end stuff underway b 13 2 fast. z I4 What we are talking about now is a different issue and e 15 that is once the staff milestone documents are available, how do 16 you get to hearing? You have to start with the presumption that C 17
- you want to get to trial and you want to dispose of the issues b
= M 18 on the merits. P" 19 8 As long as you start with another assumption which is n 20 I need more time, you are never going to get there. I mean that 21 is self-fulfilling. In this parallel approach, all I am suggesting i 2 is having had twenty minutes to react to it, here is a way one d 23I$ could do it. Yeah, it is four days off but I would guess you ] /^T 24 (_ j h' could fine tune this thing and come up with an answer. It is an 1 25 l! approach. t i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
]~ j.8 5 ra d 12 I If you go a series approach, even paralleling summary i% t '/ 2 disposition motions which, quite frankly, in our judgment, are 3 not going to be terribly productive here, it is still going to 9 4 take eight weeks to get to hearing and for what benefit? 5 g So, what we are suggesting here to the Board is here is S 3 6 a way of doing it and there may be other options but we think the R
- S 7
correct one is captured which is once the substantive information i I g 8 is available, what procedures can we employ to get to a hearirg G k 9 on the merits? 10 These hearings will not be quite so painful once we II get them going and get talking about substance. B I2 (Brief pause.) 8 = 13 f MR. SWANSON: Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to interrupt, zf I4 I just want to get a chance to make a comment or two on discovery j 15 also. = E I0 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes. v. h MR. SWANSON: I think a couple of points need to be made. e I l Discovery that the intervenor is concerned with, I think we should! s" 19 ..j i split it up. First against the staff, Dr. Cochran expressed a 20 concern that a number of responses he got from the staff before 21 necessarily indicated the lack of finality of the staff's analysis. I f3 (_) They could not provide final detailed answers to his questions. 1 23 4i Now, I think that it wouldn't be accurate I think to t 24 0 8 y characterize all of the staff response that way, but I think by l necessity a lot of them were of that nature and were the same 0 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l rn d13 l}86 I questions to be proposed to us now, I am afraid the same type of ( I^) 2 ansvers would be given. In other words, until the staff's analysis 3 is completed certainly we cannot give him the final kinds of 4 answers that he wants. 5 g On the.other hand though, a discovery against the appli-3 6 cants I thin kis of a different nature. One of the information R= 7 y tools, ways of getting information that the applicants, or the j 8 intervenors do have available to them is among other things to 9 ~. attend these meetings where these chains of information are going 0 10 g on that he indicated seemed to be restricted to the applicants =! II and the staff.. The staff has been very careful since it re-e N initiated its review to give public notice to its meetings and b 13 g to make sure that this notice was sent to intervenors. I am told zh# that with the exception of perhaps the opening kickoff meeting, =0 15 b the intervenors have not availed themselves of the opportunity to = T 16 y sit in and just hear what applicants are telling us. F 17 d Now applicants can speak for themselves as to what = E 18 information they have made available to the intervenors but I s" 19 j think the bottom line is that, at least from the--in terms of 20 what is being proposed, the facility, the application, the core, 21 . etc., I think that information is by and large available. () Now the staff analysis of that core design is not il 23 4]availableanditwillnotbeavailableuntiltheanalysisis 24 7 8 d complete. That is a problem that is built into the timing of the .i 25 ]: staff document and its review. I just want to make one final c ll ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l 1187 'r 14 I comment about the discovery process in general. I don't think we 2 can take as a given that because we have had extremely lengthy 3 and involved discovery in the past that that is necessarily 4 acceptable; I won't belabor the point, the Board has already 5 g indicated in light of the Commission's general policy guidance 1 2 l II 6: that that type of discovery is no longer in accordance with the R r = l S 7 Commission's directive and of course, we can turn our precedent s j 8 to the Commission's May 20, 1981 general guidance on policy 9 ~. on the conduct of licensing proceedings. It is very explicit, c 10 the instructions there on discovery, tFat it cannot be allowed to II continue ad infinitum as an open ended discovery period might s g 12 allow for even six months, much less eleven months schedule. 9a5 I Finally, as to the proposed schedule, proceeding from z I4 the zero prime milestone the staff documents leading up to the f15 hearing, the staff does want to also indicate, and I think it is 16 y in general agreement, the sentiments expressed by the other parties, G 17 ' 8 that even leaving out summary disposition that were a determination I to be made, that that would leave us an eight week schedule which ' s" 19 j we believe is necessary to allow the proper preparation for 1 20 ! hearing. I think one of the fears in driving to hearing before l 21 ! a--the parties have had a chance to analyze information that you do O'v' 22 ) build an almost necessary round of rebuttal testimony which that i il l 23 I kind of schedule may allow us to get to hearings fairly faster i I 8 24 {' but doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion will be any l j 25 ]' faster though. l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1188 rc d 15 I CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, rebuttal is more pointed, more 9 2 focused and it is also within the Board's control. We think you 3 go much faster having to resolve certain matters by rebuttal in 4 our experience. You will go at a faster pace than you do on direct. 5 g MR. SWANSON: That may be, the point is-- 9 h 0 CHAIRMAN MILLER: For one thing you are able to rule, R*S 7 by then your rulings are made on admissibility and the parties Nj 8 all understand it, so you will find that is automatically a l 0 9 reasonably expedient thing. h10 MR. SWANSON: That may be. That may well be, my point II being simply there are trade-offs. 12 CHAIRMAN MILLER: We are willing to trade off trial 9;5 time. By that I mean we are willing to accept trial time in order z E I4 g to get to a hearing that is reasonable and fast. E 15 c We don't really have any reluctance and I am not talking = f 16 about the technical kind of discovery now, Dr. Cochran, but we m 17 ' h don't really have any reluctance to having some discovery on = 18 the witness stand, the parties and the Board. H N 19 j DR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, these are going to be 20 technical issues. 21 CHAIRMAN MILLER: That I admit is true. I I )) 22 l ( DR. COCHRAN: Any lawyer like yourself I am sure can i k 23]argueoffthetopofyourheadontheselegalissues. I am a 24 L 4 poor physicist and I can't develop these cases in a hearing room like this off the top of my head. You have to sit down with the { i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1189 ra d 16 I technical documents and do some original thinking some of the time. 2 CHAIRMAN MILLER: We see you have given a lot of thought 3 but let me just ask you, Dr. Cochran, with the kind of eleven month 4 approach and the analysis you have sort of outlined for us, what j5 would there have to be done to have a construction permit decision? e.' 6 What you have described for us, we wouldn't need much more just to g.
- S 7
handle that CP. N 0 M DR. COCHRAN: Perhaps not. One of our contentions d" 9 [- is that the LWA is inflickable and that you ought to be holding 3-10 y a CP hearing. = CHAIRMAN MILLER: That is just a question of law. 5" 12 DR. COCHRAN: No, it is not just a question of law. b 13 It is a matter, it turns on the facts as to whether this is a z f_ unique design that is substantially different from a light 9 15 2 water reactor. = T 16 B CHAIRMAN MILLER: Lets assume all of that. Still why w = 17 ' d is it not significantly--these are mixed questions of law.in 1 5 18 fact, and maybe more, whether or not the procedure outlined in our s" 19 i. rules of practice is or is not applicable? ) 20 DR. COCHRAN: Well, I can't speak to the legal issues. 21 CHAIRMAN MILLER: That is what I am suggesting. i () 22 l \\_/ DR. COCHRAN: There is, as I recall--well, I will speak. q l 1 23 ' As I recall, the Commission--is the Commissicn to the legal issue. I l 24 l 4 l rule that the LWA process does not apply to unique facilities j 25 ij such as reprocessing plants and so forth and so on. I i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. I
1190-ra d 17 I CHAIRMAN MILLER: For processing plants? 't) 2 DR. COCHRAN: Fuel processing plants. 0. 3 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Reprocessing? 4 Are you equating spent fuel reprocessing plants with 5 3 this fast breeder reactor? 4 6 DR. COCHRAN: No, sir, I am not, I am talking...that the R
- E 7
fast reactor is filled with liquid sodium is significantly differer,t 2 8 M from a thermal reactor who by, moderated by water, and that that 3 [- significantly affects ones analysis of what constitutes credible oH 10 j accidents, the amplifications of the probability of the SCRAM, II are quite different, and one simply cannot pick up this site 12 5 suitability regulation and transfer them without going through b 13 g the safety analysis to determine whether that was appropriate. E 14 CHAIRMAN MILLER: That continues to be a question in the g 9 15 E Board's mind. We are not persuaded that we have to do the full = '7 16 j scale analysis required for a construction permit in order to get 6 17 to the hole in the ground stage. w 2m -18 MR. GREENBERG: Let me just add one point to that, =s E 19 g Mr. Chairman. 20 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes. 21 MR. GREENBERG: Going back to the regulations which lrequirethattherebe"reasonableassurance"theproposedsiteis I 22 (_/ i i 23 l! a suitable location for a reactor of the general size and type l 8 proposed from the standpoint of radiological health and safety 24 I 25 considerations. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1191 d 0 I CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes. V 2 MR. GREENBERG: The basic point here is that in an 3 LWR proceeding, you have got a lot of experience, you know roughly 4 whether a proposed site ic suitable for a general size and type of 5 y reactor and it is a lot easier then to make this LWA determination. 9 3 6 In this proceeding, you don't have that experience, you R*S 7 don't have general reactors of the same size and type. You are aj 8 pretty much in the position of having to make a judgment about this 0 9 reactor ana that means discovering information about this reactor h 10 and understanding the safety consequences that you have. II CHAIRMAN MILLER: Of this kind of reactor. B E 12 MR. GREENBERG: Well, excep'. this is a one of a kind 13 3 reactor. z I4 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, not necessarily, I mean the C 15 l g general principles of what, Phoenix and all the rest are of the f 16 progenies that you are presenting of this as a price of making z 17 ' You weren't saying it is forever unique, you were emphasizing b that. = 5 18 the uniqueness in order to ask for a more extensive inquiry and s" 19 I we are wondering to what extent is that reasonably necessary and 5 i e O to what extent does it have, we are trying to find out-- 21 MR. GREENBERG: I appreciate that. Our point is that I) 1 \\_ !theextentoftheinquiryis--mustbegreaterinthisproceeding 22 l! 23 than in a light water reactor. CHAIRMAN MILLER: All right, lets accept that but what 25 l!! limitations are there nonetheless because of this kind of proceeding r b ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 1
1192 rn d 19 as against a CP full blown hearing? That is what we can't seem to get the full focus on.
- End take D 0
4 5 e s" 3 6 e N R 7 n 8 8 n d d 9 i O 10 s j 11 a t i
- j 12 13 i
h 14 a 2 15 5 g' 16 i. ( 1/ e TW 18 5 E 19 A 20 21 I 0 22 4 23 'j l h 24 l 25,j I lf i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1 I93 FATE 1 1 MR. GREENBERG: Again going back to the language and regulations, d 2 lanaguage and regulations require the finding of reasonable 3 assurances is different than a finding that the regulations are 4 in fact met, as you are making a probablistic judgement, rather g 5 than a judgement in matters of law that regulates X, Y and 0 3 6 g, R i 7) CHAIRMAN MILLER: Responses are based on our record, E! I g 8 however, they are adjudicatory is set., d 9 MR. GREENBERG: Correct, but you still need a substantial 35 10 amount of informationwith respect to addir~ -- consequences, and s Il getting back to Dr.Cochran's point in this proceeding, rituch of is j 12 that information will not be available until we have Staff Ei 9g 13 analysis, until we have an opportunity to examine that. z 5 I4 CHAIRMAN MILLER: That's your point and you may be 15 correct, Ihr not trying to rule on that error and the merits of y 16 it. I think you're over the bounty on one position and the Board us .h I7 -- we're trying to get the record complete at least as to your =: { 18 positions on it. Another thing, has the Staff completed its P h l9 observations. i e 20 MR. SWANSON: If I might add something -- I hope that I 21 made the point before that I think in terms of the information D) 22favailable, in terms of what is proposed by the Applicants, that ( il 23 h information is available and has been available, and continues to a 24 be available not only in the proposed form, but also is being 25 l discussed with the Staff in its public meetings. In terms of the 1 O ll ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY,INC.
9k JATE2 1 Staff analysis, I did want to add a point that I didn't mean my O) ( 2 comments that I made alittle while ago to supercede my earlier 3 point that the Staff is prepared to meet informally with the 4 Intervenors and provide information it does have. e 5 Now that will be parts of the Staff's analysis that will E N 6 be complete before the LWA-2 hearing may result and management ^n 7 has agreed that we have a position on a matter we are prepared -f8 to respond to the information requested that relates to that. d d 9 CHAIRMAN MILLER: This is the position that the Staff i O 10 has taken and keeps currently available I understand? ? MR. SWANSON: That's correct. Now we get back to the h 11 M j. 12 Board's desire for information about what is necessary for an ~ 9ig 13 LWA versus CP and I guess focusing specifically on Judge Linen- ~I 5 '14 berger's questions, and we can hopefully explain our position. 2 15 I think the way some of the questions were. answered and the quick E It is g' 16 yes or no answer might have been somewhat misleading. i d 17 true that for an LWA the staf f does not believe that the risk 5 18 need be shown to be comparable from an accident at Clinch River = 19 l as opposed to -- that it be comparable to that of an LUR reactor. g = 20 That doesn't mean that at some point that doesn't have 21 to be established. The staff contends the position that in fact 22 the overall risk of accidents was assumably comparable at some (} 23 point but not for an LUA. That is because certain elements of t 24 risk, the cause,-- mechanistic and probablistic analysis that 25 goes into the likelihood of accidents does not need to be l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. l
1195 JATE3 1 established. ("N t,l 2 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Why do you say that? Uhat is the basis 3 of that? 4 MR. SWAUSON: Again, getting back to 50-10, shows that-- g 5 already shows that there is a reasonable -- we have reasonable N j 6 assurance of the fact that site suitable for plant site and type R 7 proposed. e j 8 CHAIRMAN MILLER: How does the Staff take that as the d d 9 section discussed with Mr. Greenberg -- why is the Staff's analysis i O g 10 where do you go from there starting off with the same section in 11 this proceeding? ? 12 MR. SWAUSOM: Okay, for this -- for what we are now j E 9j13 assuming to be an LWA-2 proceeding, we do have to go the added = 14 dimension of making sure that we've -- the safety questions are 2 15 -- the unresolved safety questions regarding the activity that 5 j 16 is to be performed. Now to take an example -- as we work back, 2 6 17 relate directly to your question. We understand that what is 18 likely to be proposed is base mat be constructed. =H 19 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Is what? M 20 MR. SWAUSON: The base mat be constructed for the facility. 21 How the containment design pressure, it's directly related to /~) 22 l base mat design, whether or not the containment is properly (/ l 23 ) anchored to this base mat. How to get into an accident analysis a 24 we need to have a handle on the containment design pressure and 25j its relationship with the base mat backing up on that -- tc got 0 a I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INu.
1196 JATE4 1 back to the accidents, we need to have a bound on the accident 2 in terms of 'the energetic core disruptive accidents, so that we 3 can determine whether or not the containment design pressure 4 would be such that the anchoring between the containment and e 5 the base mat is adequate, so working backwards, there are certain A 6 analysis that have to be performed depending on the activity R R 7 being proposed as part of the LWA-2 application. l a I j 8 In this case we need to determine in terms of accidents G:! 9 energetics whether or not that we bounded that so in signing off Y* 10 on a base mat construction, wecan assure ourselves that we do have j 11 reasonable assurance that we have bounded that accident. Now E: j 12 bounding an accident doesn't require a full blown analysis of 5 13 the mechanism of how that accident can be created. Merely to j 14 have that sufficient analysis'made so that we feel that we have 5 15 reasonable assurance that we have in fact bounded. j 16 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Well -- may I? A (( 17 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Go ahead. 5 5 18 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Well, I think the direction you are 5 19 going offers the potential that the Board was trying to achieve a 20 in asking the question in the first place. That is to say scope 21 things reasonably here in order to evaluate the reasonableness I } of NRDC's stated position as to its needs. Now what -- recogniz-22 s a 23 ) ing that I may not have completely understood the intent of what 1 24 ;! you were saying, Mr. Swanson, you did say the Staff does not be-8 4 25j lieve that it's necessary to go into an LWA-2 hearing with an ? b ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l l 1197 l I JATE5 1 accomplished demonstration that the risks from a, from this 2 reactor are comparable with the light water -- those of the light 3 water reactor. That means then that the risks may be comparable, 8 1 4I they may be less and maybe greater. g 5 You went on to say that certain things need to be bounded 0 3 6! in order to get at base mat and perhaps containment design E h { 7j criteria, such that at least bring things up to grade level i ~ j 8 in acceptable way, but having said in the first place that it's d d 9 not necessary to demonstrate that accident impact is comparable g 10 with what's believed to be the case for light water reactors, Y:] Il then. proceeding without a full blown accident analysis, could 'e j 12 try to put a bound upon what the accident might be in order that 5 9g 13, you do the right kind of job on the base mat, as far as I'm = s 14 ! concerned, leaves a very large gap -- informational gap, on which b i 15 ' to base a finding by this Board that the site is suitable for 2 y 16 the size and type reactor proposed. e d 17 i Now, you put up a bound on the accident for the purpose 5 18 l of design and constructing base mat, E k fine, but implicit in what ? b 19 l you've said is that there's not a lot of firm hard analysis a 20j regarding accident consequences that have been gone into, so that 21 puts some great uncertainties on this bound -- now as far as I'm ) (~) 22 j concerned, base mats are a lot more forgitring with respect to k/ p 23 analytical errors than the people, the impact on the environment i 4 I (-] 24[ifaccidenc consequences are all a factor of two or three. l (_/ I 25j Base mats can easily have a factor of 5 or 10 cf safety ? h 0 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC, 1
1198 JATE6 1 in them. People are not as forgiving as base mats in these kinds ('T () 2 of errors, so what I don't see in what you've said is how that 3 approach will allow this Board to make that decision about the 4 suitability for site, in terms of accident consequences for a s 5 facility of this general size and design. That's what I'm n. j 6 missing. R E 7 MR. SWAUSON: When you stated your assumptions, Judge Lj 8 Linenberger, you substituted I think the word impact once and dc 9 consequences later on for the word which I used which was risk, 10 and it may be that the problem is a need for a definition of the j 11 -- what we define risk. When I said that we are not going to -- a j 12 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Excuse me, I was hearing risk in the 5 S 13 following sense. Probability of occurrence, times are folded in 14 with impact should it occur. The two taken together means risk. 5 2 15 MR. SWANSON: And that is consistent with the way in 5 g which I used it, however, when you stated your assumptions you 16 e d 17 i said that -- I believe you indicated that I had said that I was 5 5 18 not going to have an assessment of the impact. That's what our-- 5 19 I want to make a quick point of what our position is. I indicated n 20 that we are not going to require a final assessment risk, meaning 21 that we are not going to require an analysis for the LWA hearing i /~ 22 i of the causes factors, the mechanistic factors which the probability N-]l 23 !l and likelihood, and what we are going to require is that we have 1 24)reasonableassurancethatwecanadequatelyboundtheimpactif 8 25j you will, or consequences of an accident. l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1199 JATE7 1 Now ultimately when we get down the road, we will add in entra p) ( 2 factors if we have to -- but the LWA hearing we are going to take 3 as given the probability and focus on bounding that consequence. 4 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Okay, let's accept for the moment c 5 that that's the way the Staff will approach it. We want to get 9 i j 6l into the details of accident initiators, the mechanistic -- I a 7 don't like the word -- but scenario -- if you will, that goes j 8 with initiating an accident. You will come to the. hearing with G } 9 your own confidence that you have placed in an upper limit on ?- 10 the consequences of such an accident, presumably in terms of { 11 health and safety considerations. 's j 12 Now then, that confidence with respect to that point, o f,} d 13l then derive either from what the Applicant tells you or it can %/ 14 derive from what the Applicant tells you which is then independen* y, E 15 t massaged, assessed and evaluated by your own technical people, j 16 such that you arrive in essence that an audited -- not a denovo a d 17 ) but an audited full appraisal of what the -- what the applicant E l 5 18 has done. Now which of those two situations do you see coming in C 19 with -- to an LWA-2 hearing? An acceptance of what the applicant 2 0 20 gives you or starting with that, and your own Staff analysis to 21 determine the reasonableness of it? (V 22,j MR. SWNTSON: I think it would be most accurate to say 3 ll 23 h that it would ce the latter -- the staff analysis combined with l 25 JUDGE LINENBERGER: And--onthispointthen,wouldyourj $a l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. i
'1200 JATE8 1 testimony and/or your witnesses be subject to scrutiny by other () 2 parties and by the Board with respect to kinds of analysis you 3 have done? That is what you've done? 4 MR. SWANSON: Yes. g 5 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Anything further that the Staff has A h 6 on this subject? As you know we are interested in the extent, the R l [ 7 scope, the issues, which should be dono la the LWA and as compared j 8 for the purposes of analysis of a CP? Is there anything further G d 9 that the Staff has? 10 (Brief pause.) j 11 JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Dear in mind,
indeed we are trying a j 12 to put you on the spot now, not for our own gratification but = fl 13 because considerations likely such as these are going to be l 14 guiding us in the discovery contention determinations and machi-2 15 nations, evaluations that we have to make, so that's the reason 5 j 16 for it. It's not out of curiosity on our part. e d 17 MR.~SWANSON:: To -- to relate to Judge Linenberger's i t x l C M 18 first question about the probability of LWRs, the reason that I 5[ 19 said that the analysis might be support bounding of accidents 5 20 it is not required to be the same as 2or a LWR that in Clinch 21 River we are requiring that the facility be able to demonstrate I 22 its ability to accommodate an accident beyond what is normally l us n 23]i design basis for an LWR and that being a core distruptive accidenti 24 h and what I was saying, we are also imposing on the Applicants 25j the requirement that the overall risk however be comparable to i U 1 n ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1201 7ATT9 1, an LWR accident -- that's just by way of elucidation. Those l j 2 f are not the types of analysis that we would think would be I l 3 l litigated in the context of an LWA proceeding, however, by way 4 of background, e 5 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Well, -- E I 6i MR. SWANSON: ~ e e E 4 5 7l JUDGE LINENBERGER: I don't know -- just to speak o,ff 8) ~ [ the top of my head, myself only here at this point, I haven't a d 9 thought about it any longer than it has taken you to say it. Y 10 It seems to me that that's -- what you've just said, weakens z ( = n j 11 l your position with respect to your abilities to preclude that a i 3 12 [I the site is suitable. Perhaps I nisunderstood you, but I think E 1 0 g 13 l what you said -- I infer what you said to be a step backward i T 1 g 14 l from where you quit five minutes ago. 15 l I E MR. SWANSon: No, what I uns sayine was that the facility; E_ l 1 J 16l must demonstrate its ability to acconnodate greater accidents e b-17l3 than we normally require of a LWR. 5 l 18ll E The second point which I would think perhaps goes more E i 19 l to your last comment is that the overall risk must be demonstrated' 5 E l 20 l to be ccaparable to LWR, That is one of the bounding requirements! 8i 21 B that the Staff is putting on the Applicants. h 22 ; JUDGE LINENBERGER: For the LWA to proceed, the risk ('s) s, s 23 must be demonstrated to be co= parable. 1 24 MR.SWAUSON: Not for an LWA-2 proceeding. That's what 25 I was s97 ng before, is that -- when we talk about overall risks i t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1202 JATE10 I which we do not believe requires to be demonstrated for the /~') 2 purpose of an LWA-2 -- that is, it was put in by way of back-(s 3 ground because I think some of my answers to your first question f 4 might be somewhat misleading. It's strictly in terms of LWA c 5 discussions that we missed some of the points pertaining to 9 6 fundamentals of our explanations. R 7 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Do we have any comments on these dates ~ l j 8 that we've been talking to Mr. Edgar about, assuming that the d C 9 end date, July 12th, the final pre-hearing conference and then K, 10 the commencement of the evidentiary hearing -- following that ] 11 discussion. B j 12 MR. SUANSON: I think given the -- our best estimate 5 13 and indeed our -- keeping in mind the -- that the need for x 5 14 expeditious reviews and our best date for the documents, the 15 Staff documents could not accommodate the hearing beginning on = j 16 July 12th. The second Staff document which we believe is nec-a d 17 i essary for an LWA-2 litigation, safety document, is not likely E 18 to come out before July 9, E. 19 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Which safety dccument is that? M 20 MR. SWANSON: That would be a safety evaluation report i 2I related to LWA-2 matters and that would also include updates I 22 ] as necessary for site suitability report that was issued in g 23 1977. 1 24l CHAIPRAN MILLER: And what was the preceding date in 1 f 8 25,; June for the -- .i P 0 ALDERS DN REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1203 JATEll I t1R. SWANSON: The environment document? n t \\ '%) 2 CIIAIRMAN 11 ILLER: Yes. 3 11R. SWANSON: Yes, it would be the environmental -- 4 the appraisal of the environmental or the environmental update e 5 would be June 22nd. E 6 CHAIR!'AN 11 ILLER: fir. Edgar, you haven't had a chance R 7 lately to respond to some of these comments.
- j 8
11R. EDGAR: Well, I'm not sure at this juncture I have G 9 a great deal to add to the subject. A couple of ninor factual 3 10 points I mention, but -- for the record, that the heterogeneous 11 core has been filed with Amendment 51 of the PSAR and that E: f I2 doesn't tell you much, but put that into prospective, Amendment d3 13 5 51 was filed and made available to everyone, including URDC on = 't 5 14 the 14th of September, 1979, so that the heterogeneous core and E { 15 its design has been a part of the PSAR's for a little more than = gj 16 two years -- almost two and a half years. e h I7 It's a question of reading it. Now, in our judgement E l 18 i the key element here is defined in practical and reasonable ways i:" I9 g of getting to hearings. One can toy with schedules and make it 20 too complex, buc we think that the Board is on the right track, 21 that ifiit is necessary they could time phase the FES and then p l V 22 j the safety document and allcw us to get underway. We would in-23)l i dorse strongly the principle that the Board expressed, which is 24 we'll trade front end tire for hearing time. We think the key 25 element here is although we are in an adjudicatory proceeding, i: I h ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1 1204 1 the Board has special expertise by very definition the composition g 2 and structure of licensing boards allows them to understand and 3 control the course of highly technical proceeding. 4 The real purpose of the hearing is to get to the merit e 5 of the environmental and safety issues. We don't believe that a E9 3 6l lot of the discovery in this proceeding is necessarily worthwhile, g 8 7 In fact I think it's fair to say that in the past discovery became 8 almost an end in itself. We think the pressure of getting people d ci 9 to hearings so that they have to state the technical merits of 10 their case, so that the Board can see, examine and define the 11 technical merits, is the proper thing to do, and the schedule we a
- j 12 have marked up is off by four days.
I would suggest that that 8E 13 could be fine tuned. It's out of synch with the past safety 14 documents, but not necessarily out of synch with the environmental E 2 15 ' documents. 5 j 16 We would also like to emphasize another thought that has e ti 17, arisen in the conversation, which is if we're going to confer 5 5 18 amongst counsel and achieve a more expedient proceeding through A 19 those processes, I would suggest also that the past practice i= 20 that this Board has employed and that is to have rather frequent 21 pre-hearing meetings with Counsel. I don't think we need to get t 22 into a paper war. I think that's counter productive and I think L) 23 ' we learned that before. It is productive if you could get before 24 the Board periodically on an oral basis and hear'their point of 25 j view and to obtain the discipline that will come from the Board's d h l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1205 i WATE13 1 management of the hearing process, and those are rather broad 2 thoughts but those are essentially what I would like to add at i 3 this point. 4 e 5 Ae 2 6l c R 8 7 s 8 8 e. d 6 9 Y l E 10 x= { 11 a e 12 z 13 ~- l 14 2 15 S 16 3 uf d 17 x 18 l 5z = 19 y a 20 21 11 O 23h
- l 24 E f
l 25ll i! o O l! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I206 Flpw I CHAIR W IILLER: Two questions I have, Mr. Edgar. First .I x/ 2 of all, these confer?nces with counsel, you're correct we have 3 held them in a past. Those are not prehearing conferences, 4 they don't have the formality of prehearing conferences, g 5 MR. EDGAR: That's right. 0 3 6 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Could those, as we have from time to R 7 time in the past, be held in Washington where most of the files s j 8 and personnel are located except of course the State of Tennessee d 0 9 and Oak Ridge? ie b 10 MR. EDGAR: I use the phrase "prehearing meeting of j 11 counsel" and I do draw a distinction. I think they can be held ?
- j 12 in Washington.
I can add one more thought to that too, that for 95g 13 certain types of issues where we'll need a quick ruling, quick = z 5 14 direction, a conference telephone call can suffice. But my b 15 thought is that those types of meetings or interactions with the y 16 Board are extremely productive and having them in Washington, A d 17 ! because of their nature, is appropriate. N { 18 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Let me inquire of representatives and P 19 l counsel for the State of Tennessee as well as Oak Ridge. What n 20 would be your reaction? I might say four or five years ago when 21 we were last working on this case with the parties, from time to I n.(/) 22 l time the Board did call conferences with counsel. They were not q x-23 )prehearing conferences, they didn ' t have the formality, they weren't il 24 followed by prehearing Orders as this will be, but it was a means 25 jby which matters of discovery and timing could be discussed. Now E, j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1207 l F2pw 1 if it were necessary for the Board to take action, then of course 7 - 2 there would be a written Order but many times that wasn't 3 necessary, the problems had been resolved, 4 What would be the attitude or position of the State e 5 of Tennessee and Oak Ridge? By the way, are there any other R N d 6 intervening governmental entities? e 9 8 7 MS. BRECKINRIDGE: I know that Roane County was -n 8 8 intervening, u Gd 9 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Did they withdraw? i 10 MR. EDGAR: Yes, and the Board issued an Order approving E_ i 11 that withdrawal. B d 12 CHAIRMAN MILLER: We would like, for the record at this E 9 = 13 g point, since I interrupted myself, to know whether th re is =j 14 anyone else. E 15 MS. BRECKINRIDGE : I don't believe so. E }' 16 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Would you tell us what would be your i d 17 feeling on these conferences with counsel? E 5 18 MS. BRECKINRIDGE : I think they would be very 5 { 19 appropriate. Certainly, at least for me, it's as easy to get E i 20 j to Washington as to Oak Ridge. 21 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well Washington isn't that far. What } r, () 22 jabout counsel for Oak Ridge. il 23 ' MR. LANTRIP: Obviously it's not as convenient for us 24 but we have no problem. I'd like to know what kind of notices 25 jyou might have or time schedule for scheduling such conferences. l ?, Il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 1208 F3pw ji CHAIRMAN MILLER: We could give two weeks notice, couldn' t lq) 2 we, counsel? 3 MR. E DGAR: I think that would be reasonable. 4 CHAIRMAN MILLER: And I think some indication perhaps 5 informally among counsel of the things that are to be taken up, e Muj 6 if it were initiated by or based upon reports, that counsel for 7 the various parties were going to give to the Board. I would say N I E 8, we'd undertake to give at least two weeks notice that we're n N going to have a conference and will probably consider such and 9 i 10 such topics so that you would have an opportunity to see. 7_. E 11 Let me inquire, is this feasible among all you lawyers <U J 12 in Washington,first of all, I assume you will be the ones perhaps 6 0513 initiating it and seeing that it is subject to reasonable notice. E 14 MR. GREENBERG: We have no objection to such procedure d_ 15 and believe it's feasible. 5 16 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Dan? ?z 17 MR. SWANSON: We believe that would be appropriate. 5 E 18 CHAIRMAN MILLER: You will receive notice and if there 5 E 19 is anything that you feel would prejudice you, let us know because A 20 we're tryinc to be reasonable and f air to all the parties and h 21 what we're saying is you're probably scheduling matters at that 4 ['s 22 h time, but if it hits a nerve, let us know necause we don't mean 7 u 23 to impose upcn the rights of the parties. 1 24 d Another question that I have, you 've heard now the staff 's 8 b l 25 j considered judgment as to the dates, June 22 and July 9 for these a k k ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1209 F4pw I documents, the SER, SSR and whatever modications or updating of 2 the FES. What would the Applicants recommend in terms of 3 establishing a target commencement date, at any rate. What we 've 4 done is July 12, but we note that it was somewhat out of e 5 synchronization with the staff. What would be your recommendation 8 6; and we're going to adt for a similar recommendation both from the R 7 staff and the Intervenors. Start with the end date and work M j 8 backwards. Gd 9 MR. EDGAR: Well my thought would be that we could work i O g 10 a system for these dates, you know, we 're using a degree of 11 precision that I'm not sure is appropriate but if I can take the a j 12 first week in July as my benchmark for Week Zero Prime, I would SE 13 think we could get to hearing in a month's time and talk about h 14 the first week in August. And the basis for my statement would be 2 15 the approach outlined in that handout that we put in this E g' 16 morning. i d 17 CHAIRMAN MILLER: What are we talking about, August 2? E 5 18 MR. EDGAR: Yes, sir. 5 19 CHAIRMAN MILLER: And commencement of evidentiary hearing a 20 the 3rd? 21 MR. EDGAR: Yes. l,~) 22 f CHAIRMAN MILLER: What are the staff's comments? LJ i l 23 We prefer, you see, to have calendar days, don't have enough finge s l 2 24 to figure out what is milestone zero and all that. If we see a 25 jdate, we know a date, if there's some reason you'll tell us about 'l l l1 I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I210 F5pw 1 it but a date we understand. 2 l Staff and then Intervenors. 3 MR. SWANSON: Staff would suggest that were we to again 4 eliminate summary -- a time before summary dispositions, that we e 5 could meet the first of the two milestones and it took eight weeks, N 6 that would arrive at an August 17 date and we think that would be 7l E R - an appropriate and. expeditious start date for a hearing. sj 8 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Mr. Greenberg: c Ci 9 - DR. COCHRAN: Mr. Chairman -- ~ic g 10 THE REPORTER: Dr. Cochran, I'm sorry, I can't hear you. 6 { 11 CHAIRMAN MILLER: The reporter can't hear you, is your is 8 j 12 mike turned on? Talk into it, eyeball-to-eyeball. 5 g 13 DR. COCHRAN: If you will permit me, in reaching this = l 14 issue of the dates, I would like to go back again to where the 2 15 staff left off with respect to -- M y 16 CHAIRMAN MILLER: All right. 25 d 17, DR. COCHRAN: And I think I can now explain to you what E 5 18 sort of issues you would not have to cover in this' hearing. E 19 h In bounding the energetics, one has to know how big an g a 20 explosion ene could get in this reactor and in terms of the source 21 term how good the containment is, how strong it is. Is it t 22 computer coded to assess the containment's ability to stretch and 23 !ithe seals to hold and so forth. For a given energetic release i II 25 jcontainment. i l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1211 FGpw Ig As to how big the explosion is, the way the analysis , ) has been done previously is to look at some accident scenarios 2 l 3 j that are considered bounding and calculate one,of the controlling 0 f 4 variables in this analysis, at one point in the analysis, is what c 5 is the reactivity insertion rate when the reactor goes through 0 3
- 6) Prompt critical and then one can take that data on the condition R
E 7 of the, reactor at that point and insert it into a code called a I 8 8 ~ VENUS II. n Y d 9 Now the question of how much reactivity is inserted in ieg ' 1'0' the reactor at prompt critical is going to turn on some other 3 g 11 issues like how these various proposed accidents that are w j 12 considered bounding develop over -- one of them for example is 0 -5: 13 loss of flow of sodium shutoff in failure to SCRAM the reactor, E i j 14 the sodium starts boiling, the cladding melts and the fuel melts. 2 15 It is going to turn on issues like whether the ftel melts first 5 y 16 at the top of the reactor core or closer to the midpoint. It's e p 17 f going to turn on issues like whether all of the assemblies in the 5 i E 18 ' core sort of melt at close to the same time or whether there's a =H } 19 l large divergence in the timing of melting and so forth. 20q$ A The reasonableness witn respect to whether one has 21 l bounded the accident is going to turn on the reasonableness with 4 /" lN) 22 l respect to these assumptions and also with respect to one's xs il 23 ] understanding of the codes themselves. 1 24 Those are the issues that were the bulk of our interro-25 l gatories and relate to contention 3 primarily, and issues that you' i 0 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. f
1212 F7pw 1 would not have to address to determine explosive potential of the 2 bounding scenario or the capability to accomodate sodium fire in 3 some holding tank. That arguably would not be -- control the 4 site parameters ; however, as a matter of fact the Applicant wants e 5 to use that as a controlling accident or something similar and s s 6 not some other accident, but we don' t need to get into that. e R 8 7 But there are a number of issues like that, perhaps ~ j 8 qualification of electrical equipment and so forth, that you G d. 9 would not have to get into. You would have to get into the d 10 issues that go to our contentions. Now the staff has admitted that dj 11 they will be doing their own analysis as they did previously a
- j 12 and that we really won't get any answers from them until they have 8Ej 13 completed that analysis.
= [ 14 It's going to take a good bit of discovery. We will 5 2 15 have time probably to do the discovery from -- on the part of the 5 y 16 Applicant. They were reasonably prompt on answers because they've I d 17 2 done all of this analysis that's in the PSAR and so forth and 5 5 18 they just regurgitate the conclusions. But with the staff it's =+ { 19 , going to be very dif ficult. And therefore it's going to take a = 20 h f air amount of discovery beyond these milestone documents; namely, 21 the safety documents and site suitability documents. f^') 22 ) That brings me back to my December date, which I don' t (/ i 23 li t hink is unreasonable. You simply can't compress that into twelve ! 1 24 yl weeks, eight weeks or these other numbers that I've heard before. 8 [ i l 25 Now I would like to answer Mr. Edgar's remarks about the e iI ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. L
1213 F89w I hetereogeneous core, I've know that that's one of the cores. I i x; 2 talked to Mr. Edgar last night abott this and asked him -- the 3 question I asked him was is the homogeneous core a fall-back 4 option or are we only going witis the hetereogeneous. The issue a 5 is not whether I read the PSAR and knew there was a heterogeneous N j 6 core or not, the issue is is there one core that is going to be R R 7 the design or are we going to come in here and license both of s j 8 them. If it's one core and it's the heterogeneous core, staff is G 9 going to have to re-analyze that to do this safety analysis. The i O b 10 staff's analysis with respect to the choice of channels that are d { 11 grouped in the SAS 3 codes for purposer of analyzing the initial a j 12 part of the accident scenario is quite dif ferent from what the 9 j 13 l 5 I Applicant chose for the grouping of the assemblies in that i zg 14 computed calculation, and they got a very different answer. 5 15 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Who got the different answer? E y 16 DR. COCHRAN: The staff got a different answer for the 7: d 17 energetics than the Applicant got. In fact, one of the main 5 M 18 issues between the staf f and the Applicant has been whether or not r 19 { the reactor should be capable of accomodating 561 megajewel (ph.) = 20 energy release or a 1200 megajewel energy release. The staff's 21 l position was the Applicant's analysis wasn' t sufficiently conserva-N em l 22 !l tive, they wanted to go with the 1200 megajcwel number and further-k '~' 23 ] more they didn 't agree with the staf f 's analysis with regard to thel 24 Containment capability even at the 661 megajewel -- 25j CHAIRMAN MILLER: The s taf f 's analysis? c N i! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. l t
i214 F9pw 1 DR. COCHRAN: Yes. That was on the previous design i _ () 2 which involved the homogeneous -- 3 CHAIRMAN MILLER: I'm sorry, who didn't agree with 4 the staff's analysis? e 5 DR. COCHRAN: The staf f and the Applicant were in N 6 disagreement. with regard to what size accident should the reactor b 7 be capable of containing, if one measured this as the energy ~ j 8 release expanded to one atmosphere, and staff's position wac e d 9 1200 megajewels of energy release; Applicant's position was 661 10 megajewels. The staff's position was we don't think your current ?j 11 design will accomodate even the 661 megajewels but we think we can b j 12 see ways to change the design so that it will -- everything will 8,= 13 g work out. I 14 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Pardon me just a minute. What is the 2 15 present position of the staf f on that? 5 y 16 MR. SWANSON: Maybe we sheuld just get the information M y 17 directly from Dr. Thomas. 5 E 18 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Fine. =H E 19 ? DR. THOMAS: The staff acknowledges that in the review A 20 of the previous core, the homogeneous core, there was a substantial 21 disagreement with the Applicant in the energy released in a core f; 22jdisruptiveaccident. I believe the numbers were on the order of t1 23,il200 and 661. Those numbers have changed, or at least the N 24 Applicant claims the numbers have changed as a result of going to 25 j a heterogeneous configuration. We believe there are some changes i! n ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1215 also. We are in the process of appraising those changes so we F10pw 1 4 k/ 2 today cannot say definitely what those numbers are. There still i 3 ' are some disagreements with the Applicant, but the numbers are 4 likely going to be somewhat different than they were before. e 5 CHAIRMAN MILLER: And the difference is caused by -- R 74 d 6: DR. THOMAS: Going from the homogeneous core configura-o R l 7 l tion to the heterogeneous configuration. g !f8 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Does the staf f have some information, J = 9 not necessarily with finality, that would aid the analysis by 5 10 NRDC or Dr. Cochran? Could you give them some idea of the kind 6 5 11 of analysis, not r.ecessarily with finality, but in fairness to <a e 12 them so that they can start doing some additional work. Is this z E s () 13 possible? { 14 DR. THOMAS: Sure. We can -- as you might guess, this 5 9 15 is a continuous process. We began to review the Applicant's 5 J 16 information in the October time frame. We are continuing to meet I p 17 j,with the Applicant to get information from him, and as we 5 E 18 accumulate the information and proceed with our review, certainly =9; 19 j we can make available the information we have developed to that n 20 j point. 1 21 CHAIRMAN MILLER: The s taff I take it, technical staff ^( 'a, 22 j and legal s taf f, would not only have no objection but would y 9 23 "l voluntarily make such information available as it is available to i l 8 24 {them? l 1, i i 25,j DR. THOMAS: Surely. O I! ll ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC. l 1
l l 1216 Filpw I MR. EDGAR: May I add a footnote to this. / x_) 2 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes, I want to make sure -- we're 3 going to come to you, I want to make sure now from the staff -- 4 I'll get back to you, Dr. Cochran, but since you raised the point s 5 I'm curious to see what the present status is. A h 6 MR. SWANSON: When Dr. Thomas mentioned that yes, we R 7 could make information available, that's certainly true but we s j 8 don' t mean to accede to the suggestion of Dr. Cochran that all of d d 9 the elements of the scenario he was going through are necessarily i o 10 prerequisite to arriving at, nor would it be relevant to the kind _6 j 11 of discovery that would be going on for an LWA hearing. B j 12 CHAIRMAN MILLER: No, but we're interested -- if we're 0 j 13 5 going to have the differences of opinion of relevance, we sure would = l 14 like to have them raised now or early because we don' t want to have 5f 15 a lot of time devoted to legalistic arguments one way or the E y 16 othar about relevance for discovery purposes. W d 17 MR. SWANSON: I think we probably set forth the x= M 18 differences as to whether or not various scenarios in core U 19 disruptive accidents might be or need be a prerequisite to a 5 20 determination of LNA purposes. 21 CHAIRMAN MILLER: We'd like to have as much definition l es l ) 22 jof what is or what is not necessary for LWA purposes as we can get.
- x../
1 23 l That's why we've been asking questions for two days and we've been 1 24 getting some pretty general answers and not definite responses. 25 ]We'd like to have more of that, yes. d a ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1217 F12pw 1 M2. SWANSON: And in the absence of a specific discovery (~' : 5 m) 2i request it's difficult to give a very specific answer, but the 3 position as I stated before is that in arriving at positions for 4 this hearing, it's not necessary to go through the mechanistic 5 description that Dr. Cochran was suggesting needs to be done. e A N 8 6 In other words, to decide which accident we need to worry about, e R R 7 whether the fuel is going to melt at the top or the middle layers E 8 8 or the other scenarios that he talked about. As I pointed out N Jd 9 before, that type of analysis is not required. i 10 DR. COCHRAN: Could he tell us what is? 2 5 11 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes. I think this would be a good time. <a d 12 We've been trying to get the specifics on what is or is not within 9,6 13 the scope and there seems to be a lot of differences of views Ej 14 so if you would ventilate it briefly, it would be helpful. 5 2 15 MR. SWANSON: Well simply put, to arrive at an upper 5 16 bound as to consequences of an accident, it isn't necessary to g e p 17 j go through analysis and find out what's the most likely accident 5 E 18 that you're going to encounter. We're simply stating that we =H { 19 don't think you need to go through that final analysis as you 5 20 would perhaps for a construction permit, to an upper bound 21 analysis. [; 22 DR. COCHRAN: Could he just walk through the analysis l x_/ I! 23 lt that he's proposing? l 24 CHAIRMAN MILLER: How would you arrive at the upper 25, bound, how would the staff say one would arrive reasonably at the I f 0 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1218 F13pw 1 upper bounding aspect? (J K 2 MR. SWANSON: Well le.t me let Dr. Thomas have a crack 3 at it and try to answer that, but the generalization unfortunately 4 is that the determinant source term for purposes of site suitability g 5 analysis, we do not have to go through a step-by-step analysis N j 6 to determine the most likely cause of an accident. R R 7 CHAIRMAN MILLER: As I understand the question being N 1 j 8 raised, it is how are you reasonably going to arrive at the upper a c 9 bound and how can it be tested. io g 10 DR. THOMAS: In listening to the conversation, I'd Ej 11 like to make clear a separation of two categories of information B j 12 that are required for an LWA-2. One is site suitability, the 8 = 13 m g other is analysis cf those activities that the Applicant would = l 14 propose to conduct in an LWA-2. In other words, the Applicant 2 15 would propose to conduct certain activities and the Regulations 5 j 16 require that there be no outs tanding issues related to those A 6 17 activities. I distinguish that from the source term in my E 5 18 comments. 5 { 19 The site suitability source term or the source term g = 20 that's used to determine site suitability is for the most part 21 non-mechanis tic. You would generally assume a certain fraction \\ <~ (v-) 22 J of the core inventory is uniformly distributed inside containment g 23.di and leaks out to the atmosphere at the containment design leak 24 rate and proceed using atmospheric dilution f actors in determining 25 l what the consequences would be. That does not require detailed N Pl i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
l 1219 F14pw I knowledge of the mechanism by which those nuclides could have + x_/ 2, possibly become so dispersed inside the containment. l 3 l As far as what Mr. Swanson was trying to describe on 4 how the pressure containment would tie to the base mat design, e 5 for this particular plant we're going a step beyond what we N 6l normally do for light water reactors. We have required that the i R l 7 Clinch River Reactor be able to accomodate accidents that are a j 8 normally thought of as beyond the design basis accidents. The G d 9 analogy to light water reactors would be a core melt accident. N 10 We're not saying that the Clinch River reactor includes these 6 j 11 accidents in the design basis but that the plant be shown to be a j 12 able to accomodate it. To do that we would need some sort of ,a, i (j 13 a bounding analysis to determine the pressure that would develop z 5 14 f rom an energetic disassembly of the core and that pressure would $f 15 determine the ability of the containment to withstand it. If E g' 16 the containment is tied to the base mat, the ability of that I d 17 ' connection, which is likely one of the first activities that the w E h 3 18 " Applicant would choose to do under an LWA. P 19 j So we feel that this sort of information can be R 20 ' developed with much less -- in much less detail than would normally 21 be required for the complete CP review and analysis. It does go ~ l (} 22 j a little bit f arther than the normal for an LWR but it certainly il 23 would not require the depth or detail of information that would be En 24 ' required for the complete CP review. 25ll c i E
- I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
ra g 1 l 1220 I JUDGE LINENBERGER: Sir, I have got a problem. 73 '\\~ 2 DR. COCERAN: You see what kind of answers I will get 3 when I ask these questions in interrogatories. 4 JUDGE LINENBERGER: And the problem is not really 5 g whether the base mat is going to have enough design conservatism n 5 0f in it. As I said before, and your comments didn't seem to take R =" 7 account of what I said before. Base mats and to a large extent sj 8 containment buildings are awfully forgiving of accident, of d* 9 ~. errors and accident analyses, but confound it, to grant--for this O 10 Board to recommend the granting of an LWA-2 hinges on a deter-5 Il mination that is much more sensitive than how forgiving is the e d 12 y base mat. It hinges on the determination that the site is 8 f 13 suitable and the suitability of the site indeed determines, z h I4 hinges on a determination that accidents are not going to be so = 15 bad but what the site can live with them and that hinges on an j 16 accident analysis that the Board does not understand how said v. C 17 ' l analysis can ignore mechanistic considerations. = M 18 1 Mechanistic considerations are very relevant to what es I9 j a person standing at the site boundary is going to experience l 20 l as far as the Board can see. Lets not--we are not trying that 21 question here, just advising you how the Board currently looks l O 22 l at this and the kind of problems that you are going to have in i 1 i 23 '; convincing the Board that without looking at accident mechanics 4 l you can assure that a person at the site boundary is go: ng to 25 !j be impacted in an acceptable way for this design and size of a I i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
ra g 2 1221 I 7-plant. That is the comment, Mr. Chairman. 2 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Dr. Thomas? I 3 I DR. THOMAS: Can I respond to that, please? 4 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes. 5 g DR. THOMAS: I appreciate the distinction made between 9 3 6 the base mat and people and we also appreciate that. That is why R
- S 7
I tried at the outset to distinguish between site suitability sj 8 matters and matters related to the activities that the applicant G" 9 ~. wetld likely request under an LWA-2. o 10 JUDGE LINENBERGER: All right, sir, but let me just f see if I understand one point that I think I heard applicant NI and staff both make yesterday. Namely, that the site suitability 5 13 2 determination favorably must be made--a favorable determination I4 must be made before an LWA-2 can be granted, so-far as you make 9 15 2 a distinction between base mats and people at the boundary a = T 16 g site suitability determination that affects people at the hcundary 17 d has to be made before we can recommend that base mats ba under- = 5 18 taken. P" 19 8 DR. THOMAS: Very definitely. Both have to be addressed. n 20 I would only point out that in March, 1977 when we issued the 21 site suitability report by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, this was the staff's document that was to be used to support tne 23 'llI staff's position at the hearing. The means by which we-- 25 CHAIRbGR MILLER: Which particular hearing are you L a Il h ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
lggg rag 3 I referring to, Dr. Thomas? ('V 2 DR. THOMAS: Right now, so far, no particular case. 3 I am just referring to the document. 4 This report establishes the bases that'the staff would 5 g rely upon for its determination that the site was suitable. We 9 3 6 intend to file a similar course this time. Not only I would refer R 7 to the particular pages of Roman III dash 14 in which the source aj 8 term for determining site suitability is described and without-0 9 getting into any detail, we are just pointing out that it is a 10 non-mechanistic term and it goes through the scenario by which f3I site suitability is assessed and on which a finding by the staff 3 12 or at least recommendation by the staff as to the suitability of the 85 1 13 5 site is made. 4 It begins on the page I mentioned, Roman III dash 14 15 and continues for several pages. f16 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Well, let me just say in response i l C 17 ' to that, I am aware of what this says and if this were submitted = to me as a doctoral thesis, I would have real problems about s-19 j whether the writer should get his degree. 20 These are all--much of this, as I view it, and I will 21 engage in hypoberbia here for the sake of discussion, much of this i' O 22 i U lconstitutestomenicasoundingkindsofthingsthateverybodywould 23 ' like to be the case but I have problems finding the kind of hard, t cold analysis and reasonably defended assumptions that allow one 25]lto draw these conclusions. l il ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1223 ra g 4 I Now, please, sir, this is not the place for me to debate 4 2 the merits of this document with you and I am not going to do so. l1 m only trying to help us jointly develop an understanding of what 3 4 we are moving into here in this LWA-2 hearing and--I will stop 5 g right there. e 6i MR. SWANSON: We appreciate the comment and we will Juh7 9 certainly keep it in mind, in our preparation. O CHAIRMAN MILLER: Does the staff have anything further 4 9 now on issues, contentions, discovery, or schedules? S 10 3 MR. SWANSON: Just a couple of matters. One, we = fII indicated that,our proposal, that even knocking out the four j 12 weeks for summary disposition in the schedule, we didn't mean 13 g to suggest nor do we want to be held to the assumption that we x f meant by that to eliminate the possibility of summary disposition, 15 merely that the schedule would not have built in a concrete 6 accounting of that fact; under the rules for summary disposition, F d 17 I motions could be filed. = 7 18 CHAIRMAN MILLER: It would seem to be at almost any time, 5j can't they, under the provisions of the Rules of Practice? 20 MR. SWANSON: Yes. 21 CHAIRMAN MILLER: At least it is liberal as to the G 22 l k opportunity. 23 ] MR. SWANSON: That is correct, and just a final point, and now I don't know whether now is the time to mention it or not, 25 I] but in terms of logistics, since at least two of the parties have h N O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. l
rng5 1224 I suggested the hearing before October 31st which is the end of the \\ ') ( 2 World's Fair, I suggest the parties at least think about locations 3 for the hearing, keeping in mind the balancing of local interest 4 and opportunity to participate and listen. 5 g CHAIRMAN MILLER: We will have it here. The Mayor n j 6 tells us he thinks it could be arranged. G 5 7 MR. SWANSON: Well, but I understand, I am just 5 g 8 saying the parties need to be thinking-- 0 }". 9 CHAIRMAN MILLER: I am saying from the standpoint of S 10 y lodging, it might be a good idea. = h II MR. SWANSON: The staff has been, we called I think c 12 8@ jast about every motel in town. =" 3 E_ CHAIRMAN MILLER: You can get a block of rooms. z MR. SWANSON: Well, it is more than just a block. M 9 15 g The governnent rates that the parties are getting: at-the ~ motel.tha: Z ~ 16 y think a large number of people are staying goes up to I think eighty, 17 d ! eighty-five until--From May 1 until October 31--and it is a consi- = 5 18 deration. I don't know how far you have to go before rates start s" 19 j dropping but it is something to keep in mind in terms of planning. 20 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes. Mr. Edgar, do you have anything 21 on the specified subjects? I I (~) 22 l (,) MR. EDGAR: Well, I think we have said it all and we 23 ' think we would welcome the Board's ruling and Crder in due course. ) 24 s 8 ( I don't want to get. into a shouting match with Dr. Cochran but l 25 ]0 his complaint that he doesn't have information I find a bit curious h I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
ra g 6 l 1225 I I I I and particularly in the core melt area where we have had meetings 7~ with the NRC staff, the Clinch River Project on this subject matter, 3 in October of '81 and January of '82. 9 ,4 The information that was presented there is available. g 5l There is no reason why that couldn't be assimilated. We don't n i eSderstand the concern that there is a lack cf information and 7 I-will, at_this point, say no more about that. a k - 8 'L In closing we simply want to urge the Board to consider 25-u dj'9 the August 7 hearing start and to issue an Order to that effect. s 10 E CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, on this applicant's proposed E 11 g schedule, the last one that you gave us, you have an indication of d 12 y filing of testimony, I assume that is written prefiled testimony? 0,s: 13 MR. EDGAR: Yes, sir. 5 14 y CHAIRMAN MILLER: And what date or time period is 5 15 indicated? I can't tell from the document. T 16 y MR. EDGAR: I have got it after the close of discovery. Y 17 d CHAIRMAN MILLER: Oh, after the week 197 = l 5 18[ = MR. EDGAR: Yes, sir, it comes in very quickly. People 19 l-H E I
- ! have to get preparing their testimony in parallel before that time.
20 lt has to be done throughout the period roughly from week 11 through 21 week 19 and what you do at the end of that period is take a quick I /~ 22 (_) l check and see if you have anything to add. It presumes that the / 1 23 ]:l people, that all parties are getting together and working out i 24f 8 l things on the front end. 25 j' CEAIRMAN MILLER: I think one of the suggestions here, I! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1226 rc g 7 and I don't recall, maybe all of you suggested, was a fairly 3 (m) Prompt contercnce among counsel carrying forward what you have been 2 doing here in the course of our prehearing conference, you want a 3 date set for that or do you want to do it on your own initiative 4 and Power and so forth? e 5 We would like to enter an Order, oh, maybe by Wednesday 6 of next week. 7 MR. EDGAR: We would like to do it as soon as humanly 8 N possible. 9
- i CHAIRMAN MILLER:
Well, how soon is that? 10 N j jj MR. EDGAR:
- Well, I--
c E: CHAIRMAN MILLER: Do you want a date or do you want us .J 12 E to fix a date? 13 5 MR. EDGAR-Well, I think counsel should get together 14 5 15 and set the date. We can do that. 5) 16 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Do you want to confer and set a date M l not later than when? Give me an outside date for the record. g j7 ; MR. EDGAR: Well, I can only give it for myself. I 18 = b 19 can't speak for the others. l A CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, they will yell if they think ( 20 21 that you're-- MR. EDGAR: All right, next week. l (] 27 j 1 v i 23 l CHAIRMAN MILLER: What day of the week? l 1 8 24 ji I MR. EDGAR: Thursday. N 25 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Okay, we will look at that date a l 1 l L I! ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC. I
rc g 8 1227 I moment. Mr. Greenberg, how does that date grab you? 2 MR. GREENBERG: Let me confer with Dr. Cochran. 3 CHAIRMAN MILLER: All right. 9 4 (Brief pause.) g MR. SWANSON: Excuse me, while they are conferring, 5 H 6 are we talking about an informal meeting of counsel only or are ES 7 we talking about-- N k 0 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Yes. d" 9 ~. MR. SWANSON: (Continuing) With the Board? z 10 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Not with the Board. s j 11 MR. SWANSON: Okay. B N I2 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Not at that point because we expect 95 I3 5 your thinking to go further and the Board is going to enter t 14 i it as a scheduling and we are probably going to pick some calendar 'e f_ I$ date. E Ib MR. SWANSON: No, I wasn't suggesting that the Board i 17 should be involved in this first session. d= { 18 CHAIRMAN MILLER: If you feel the Board--if you will let P" 19 _8 us know, we can fix it later, but as I understand, you can all get 20 l together and maybe get handlescn much information, procedures and 21 so forth, or at least show you are trying and you can call on us i to give you a hand. MR. GREENBERG: We would like to get together as quickly as possible. Our problem is with a limited staff, we are 25 1!! going to be preparing for the oral argument on the 50.12 exemption i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
rn g 9 1228 request. That oral argument is next Tuesday. CHAIRMAN MILLER: Tuesday. MR. GREENBERG: I don't know how much time we will have 3 between now and then to prepare for the meeting of counsel as 4 w 11. My problem beyond that is that I am going to be out of 5 5 town from Friday until Wednesday, the 24th, and I will be back in g 6, town on Thursday, the 25th. y 7 i When we talked last night we reached a tentative agree-8 j ment that a meeting of counsel could be held on Thursday, the 9 I 10 25th, and that additional week of time would give Dr. Cochran g jj the time he needs to work up technical data. 2 ]. CHAIRMAN MILLER: All right, we are going to show that 12 z y u have talked about the 25th of February as the outside date. 13 What is the date today, by the way? 5 14 5 JUDGE LINENBERGER: The 10th. i5 E CHAIRMAN MILLER: The 10th. That is 15 days to sit ) 16 a uf down and confer among yourselves. You can see why the Board likes j7 18 l to put precise dates. I unders tand your reasons, they are perfectly good reasons, but if you are not going to get together { j9 A among yourselves and try to carry forward the conversation that l 20 y u have done under the stress of this hearing in the last two 21 days. I have a calendar, that is 15 days. That is why the Board 22 v ! is probably going to put a calendar date because these kinds of 23 24 ;i things, come hell or high water, have to be done, and I am sure 8 that in your work you will keep in mind the fact, keep in mind 25 i! l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1 1229 ra g 10 I the fact that we want this to proceed, to be given the number one ,c '~] 2 ) priority by all of you insofar as you can reasonably do so. The 3 Board intends...now, is there anything further before we adjourn? 8 4 Does anyone have anything further? JUDGE LINENBERGER: Well, a couple of little items. Number one, ER andPSAR, the Board would like to request of the applicant n 7 two updated sets of ER and PSAR collated and in binders. One set n 8 8 to go to Dr. Hand and one set to come to our office in Washington. o 6 9 i MR. EDGAR: At East West Towers? O h 10 E JUDGE LINENBERGER: Right, yes. = E 11 y Secondly... 0 12 j MR. EDGAR: Excuse me, Judge Linenberger, you wanted 5 13 s an updated ER at East West Towers and an updated PSAR at East E 14 y West Towers, one of each at Dr. Hand's address? 9 15 l JUDGE LINENBERGER: Right. i 1 J 16 MR. EDGAR: Okay. H 17 ' l 0 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Right, and in another proceeding = l M 18 l g where I requested this, what came was a broken cardboard box of E ' 19 J E loose papers. Now that won't suffice here. These should be in 20 binders, put together where the pages belong, the old pages 21 extracted where they should be extracted and a useable,. workable.. i (\\_/~) 22 l MR. EDGAR: An up to date document. 23 ' JUDGE LINENBERGER: Right. Thank you. 24 3 8 Now, the Chairman yesterday expressed an interest in, I 25 j and all of us share in this, in a revised statement of contentions' l \\ a i b N ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
E ra g n 1230 I or a current statement of contentions. Mr. Greenberg, I believe 2 you made comment you had-- 3 MR. GREENBERG: A clean copy. 4 CHAIRMAN MILLER: Do you have a complete copy of the 5 g admitted contentions? n 0 MR. GREENBERG: I can certainly get a copy of the G 7 } admitted contentions to the Board at East West Highway tomorrow. O CHAIRMAN MILLER: Well, you don't need to hand deliver G f. 9 it, but if you could get a copy to the Board and other parties S 10 g it would be helpful because we all.. = l! MR. GREENBERG: We would be happy to do that. s CHAIRMAN MILLER: Thank you., 9"=13 l JUDGE LINENBERGER: The third item, well, perhaps z fI I should make it a question to you, Mr. Edgar, wherein is there 5 15 g an up to date description or accounting of what currently is the 16 g make up of applicant's, or various groups that comprise applicants.. "b 17 ! MR. EDGAR: The organization. = M 18 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Organization. s E 19 g MR. EDGAR: Okay. 20 End Take g 21 ~ 22 l (J' 23 ' 1 8 24 !j !l 25j i l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l l 1231 JATH1 1 JUDGE LINENBERG: There was a time when Commonwealth 2 Edison was in the act. I have no idea what they are now. 3 MR. EDGAR:: I am prepared to address that. Let me -- 4 the Applicant filed a document which is entitled statement of 5 general information, pursuant to NCFR 50-33. That document was 9 6 first filed in October of 1974. Alright, at that time, as you R 7 recall, Project Management and T.V.A. were co-applicants for E I j 8 the licensing. Subsequently the four party agreement which is d:! 9 the underlying agreement that binds all of the parties into ? E 10 together was modified to realign the respective responsibilities { l1 of the parties and to place in ERDA the lead management role a j 12 in regard to the project. A E () 13 How the contract amendment to the four party agreement z gi 14 reflected that as Lown as Modification #1, or Mod 1. Whan Mod 1 M 15 was executed then on May 6, 1976, the Applicants filed an amended j 16 statement of General information pursuant to 10 CFR 50-33. That 7: !'[ 17 ' described the organization set up with ERDA, PMC and PBA as 5 h 18 co-applicants. How the only change origanizationally is that by 19 virtue of the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, by = 20 operation of law, the Department of Energy assumed all responsi-21 bility and rights and obligations of ERDA. f) 22 j Okay, none of the contracts have changed and none of the v 23.h respective obligations and rights of the parties have changed, a 24 so that if you read functionally the discussion of the May 6, 1976 25 ) Statement of General Information, the statements there hold true f ti it d ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1232 JATH2 I today if you cross out ERDA's name and insert DOE's name. 2 CHAIRMAli MILLER: Well, what happens if DOE is abolished, 3 and we hear rumors from time to time. 4 MR. EDGAR: Well, I can't speculate on that. I assume, p 5 Judge Miller, that the functions of DOE would be trancferred to n 6 l some other agency and again there would be a law that would R 7 implement that. Now the only other thing that.you will see -- you s j 8 will see two other things in that statement of general informatione d c; 9 that are out of date. One is at the time it was filed there are E 10 certain people on the Boards of Directors of Project Management 11 for example, or the Tennas'see Valley Authority -- there has been is j 12 turnover in terms of jobs and people, and finally there is a cash 8 Ei 13 flow sheet attached, showing how the project operating costs x 5 14 would run and construction costs would run, and that has to be { 15 recalculated. = g' 16 Now all of this is under the process of revision, and x I7 will be submitted within -- as I understand it, a month or two, = { 18 but for the functional -- how the organizations fit together, P" 19 g what their responsibilities are and how the project operates, n 20 nothing has changed. 2I CHAIRMAN MILLER: What about the utilities involved? I 22 l Have there'been any changes in their composition? 23 MR. EDGAR: No, they are still -- well -- 24 CHAIRMAN MILLER: It was a group -- I don't recall who 25 ) those were. N !i b ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1233 JATH3 I MR. EDGAR: Yes, the way it works is there are 753 b) \\d 2 contributors and the money comes through Breeler Reactor Corpor-3 ation and gets paid over to PMC, Project Management, and Project 9 4 Management is the corporation participating directly in the 2 5 project. O j 6 CHAIRMAIT MILLER: Does anyone else have any matters now R 7 in the way of housekeeping nature, or whatever. We're about to a j 8 adjourn. One -- two -- three -- out. 0 9 (Whereupon the hearing was adjourned at 11:55 a,.m.) 2 s 10 sgn a d 12 z 8 i i3 = 5 14 s= 2 15 M y 16 vi l 5 5 18 19 l M 20 21 I o 22 23 j l.. 8 l 0 25j l' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
O auctzxa arcutaroar cosarssro-This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: Clinch River Breeder Reactor Date of Proceeding: February 10, 1982 Docket Number: 50-537 Place of Proceeding: Oak Ridge, Tennessee were held.as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file-of the Commission. Peggy J. Warren Official Reporter (Typed) O%J Official Reporter (Signature) O O
.---__---.---__--_-._------.----_----_-a}}