ML20049H536
| ML20049H536 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8203030275 | |
| Download: ML20049H536 (47) | |
Text
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN t
O /$
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Mattar of:
BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT : DOCFIT NO.
50-155-OLA i
O m.
March 1, 1982 pgggg 255 - 299 g..
Washington, D. C.
L-
~
b
% R 0219g y q r
e...
go1 v*nTrx a
e
.uDERSOX REPORT Gi O
F- %
400 Virp d a Ave., S.W. Wasnincr =n, C.
C.
20024 O
255
()
1 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
3
x 4 In the Matter of Docket Number 5 BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 50-155-OLA s
6
x 7
In the Offices of Alderson Reporting Company 8
400 Virginia Avenue, S.
W.
Washington, D.
C.
9 Monday, March 1,
1982 10 The above entitled matter came on for 11 telephone conference at 10:30 a.m.
12 BEFORE:
13
()
PETER BLOCH, Chairman 14 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 15 OSCAR H.
PARIS, Member 16 Administra tive Judge 17 FREDERICK SHON, Member Administrative Judge 18 APPEARANCES:
19 On behalf of Intervenors Christa Marias 20 HERBERT SEMMEL, Esq.
21 Mills C Beard 22 On behalf of Interveno r John O 'Neill, II:
23 JOHN O'NEILL, II
()
24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
256 O
o= den 11 or tice==ee co=== er= ro er co o =1 l
2 JOSEPH GALLO, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln C Beale 3
1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
O Washington, D.C.
4 On behalf of NRC staffs 5
J ANICE MOORE, Esq.
6
{
8 9
10 11 12 15 0
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
257 h
1 EEOGEERIEEE 2
CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Good morning.
This is Peter
(])
3 Block, Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 4 for the Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant, Docket No.
5 50-155-OLA, relating to a spent fuel pool expansion.
6 This is an on the record conference in this 7 case.
The transcript may be ordered at the close of the 8 formal conference from the reporter, whom I ask to 9 remain on the line at the end of the call.
10 The principal purpose in calling this 11 conference is to discuss scheduling matters.
The nature 12 of the conference was disclosed in our Memorandum and 13 Order of February 19, 1982, and the slip opinion appears O
14 at page 55.
15 Before we proceed, I would like to announce 16 that Dr. Oscar Paris, and Mr. Frederick Shon are with me 17 here today, so that the entire Licensing Board is 18 assembled.
19 I would like to ask the parties to identify 20 themselves for the record.
First, M r. Semm el.
21 MR. SEMMELs This is Herbert Semmel, I am the 22 attorney f or Inter veno rs Ch risto pher Ma ria, Nells and 23 Beard.
O
\\/
24 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Mr. O'Neill.
25 MR. O'NEILL Yos, I am John O'Neill, II.
I O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
258
()
1 am representing myself as an intervenor.
2 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Mr. Gallo.
3 MR. GALL 0s My name is Joseph Gallo of the law
(}
4 firm of Isham, Lincoln & Beale, 1120 Connecticut Avenue, 5
N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
I represent the licensee, 6 Consumers Power Company.
7 CHAIRMAN BLOCH4 Ms. Moore.
8 MS. MOORE:
My name is Janice Moore, and I 9 represent the NRC staff.
10 CHAIRMAN Bla.
Unless there is any 11 objection, I would propose that we begin today by 12 calling on the licensee to propose a comprehensive 13 schedule for outstanding issues, and that we then allow O
14 other parties to comment on the proposed schedule.
Are 15 there any objections to that manner of proceeding?
16 MR. O'NEILL:
No, no objection.
17 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Hearing no objection, Mr.
18 Gallo, would you please commence?
19 MR. GALLO:
Thank you, Your Honor.
I 20 First, I would like.to indicate to the Board 21 tha t Janice Moore, Mr. Semmel, and me met on the 23rd of 22 February for the purpose of attempting to reach 23 agreement on the further schedule in this case.
It was
()
24 a good meeting, but th e re were two significant stumbling 25 blocks to reaching an agreement on the schedule, that O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
259
()
1 is, among the three of us.
Mr. O'Neill did not 2 participate.
The fact that he is up in northern 3 Michigan did present a problem of logistics.
{
4 The primary stumbling block from the 5 licensee 's standpoint was the outstanding nature of the 8 Board's ruling on the additional contentions.
Mr.
7 Semmel indicated that he desires very much that we only 8 have one hearing, and that one hearing cover all 9 contentions.
10 It was my position that I wanted a split 11 h ea ring unless there was some assurance that we were 12 going to get a ruling fairly soon, and by that I mean 13 March 15 on the additional contentions, on which the O
14 parties have briefed their positions as I am sure the 15 Board appreciates, that are pending before the Board.
16 So that was one stumbling block.
Assuming 17 that that stumbling block was resolved during today's 18 conf erence call, Mr. Semmel and I have reached an 19 sgreement on a schedule.
I will let Mr Semmel speak for 20 himself after I tell you what the schedule is.
21 The schedule is a hearing start date of August S 2nd.
The calendar being what it is, August 1,
I 23 believe, is a Sunday.
The filing of testimon: on July
()
24 1.
Those would be firm dates, and the premise is that 25 the hearing would continue until conclusion on all O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
260 (m) 1 admitted contentions.
Assuming that the Board rules by 2 Msrch 15, additional discovery, etc., would be 3
{)
accomplished in the intervening weeks between March 15 4 and July 1.
5 As the Board may appreciate, I have been 6 p re ssing Mr. Semmel, both formally and informally, to 7 tell me who his witnesses are.
His position has always 8 been tha t until he has a hearing date set, he really 9 can't go about searching for witnesses because of the 10 pro bono nature of his representation, and the fact that 11 his witnesses must appear without payment.
12 So in an effort to try to accommodate that, we 13 have gone at this schedule arrangement in what I O
14 consider to be a backwards approach.
In other words, 15 fixing a hearing date, and then working back from that 16 date.
17 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Mr. Gallo, could you tell me 18 a little bit about the na ture of the discovery that is 19 still left to be had.
Is that only if there are further 20 contentions admitted, is that the notion?
(
l 21 MR. GALLO:
That is correct, Judge Bloch, only
[
l 22 if additional conten tions are admitted.
23 MR. SEMMEL:
I just wanted to say that even
()
24 then the nature of the discovery is limited.
That is, i
25 ve have already served interrogatories at the end of O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
261
()
1 last August related to the unadmitted contentions, and I 2 think at that time we agreed that we would not reque st 3
[
additional discovery on the new contentions.
So 4 assuming the answers are satisfactory, there would not 5 be any substantial problem of additional discovery on 6 the new contentions.
7 We have also discussed, Mr. Gallo and I, the 8 possibility of handling that additional discovery as we 9 did the earlier discovery by taking a deposition instead 10 of having written answers, although we have not reached 11 an agreement on that.
12 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Mr. Gallo, the schedule you 13 have proposed has no date for either hearing briefs or O
14 cross-examination plans.
Have you thought about whether 15 those are desirable?
16 MR. GALLO4 My own view is that in this case, 17 I would recommend not having such papers filed.
That i
18 really triqqers the second problem with the schedule.
19 Mr. Semmel essentially would like to be unfettered by 20 other motions and procedural matters between the time of 21 discovery ends and the time he has to file his 22 testimony.
23 For this reason, and because of my own view
(
24 that, under the circumstances of this case, summary l
25 disposition is less useful than it might ordinarily be, O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
262
()
I we are both prepared to waive summary disposition on any 2 additional contentions, this is on the supposition that
(])
3 the Board, instead of rejecting all contentions allows 4 some conten tions.
5 The staff is not prepared to waive summary 6 d is p o sition.
It is my own judgment that if summary 7 disposition is injected into the schedule that we have 8 indicated -- I don 't know what M r. Semmel's position 9 would be at that point, the licensee's position is that 10 we very definitely wan t to hold to the August 1 hearing 11 date time and the July 1 testimony time, we don't want 12 those dates slipped.
13 My own judgment is that if you inject summary O
14 disposition into that type of schedule, the motions for 15 summary disposition have to be filed at a very early 16 time, really no later than April 1,
in order to permit 17 Mr. Semmel to respond, the Board to rule, and still have 18 enough time left to deal with additional testimony, 19 assuming that there are residual issues remaining as 20 indeed there were in the last co-round on this matter.
21 CHAIRMAN BLOCHs Mr. Gallo, can you give me a 22 rough estimate of the amount of time tha t you anticipate 23 being necessary for a direct case on the issues already 24 admi t ted ?
Have you thought about that?
25 MR. GALLO:
Yes.
It is my own view that based O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 G02) 554-2345
263
()
1 on the issues that have been admitted, we should finish 2 the presentation of the case.
The way I envision this 3 is that the first order of business would be for the 4 licensee to put into evidence the application.
The 5 staff would follow with the SER and the EIA.
We would 6 then move by stipulation ahead of time to the first 7 agreed upon issue for litigation.
8 The licensee would put on his direct case, 9 cross-examination by the parties.
The staff would go 10 second, and cross-examination by the parties.
If 11 Intervenor had a witness, they would go third, and 12 cross-examination by the parties.
Then we would move 13 into the next issue.
It is my judgment that that would O
14 take five hearing days, perhaps seven hearing days.
15 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Is that a consensus view, or 16 is that your own view?
17 MR. GALLO That is my view.
We have not 18 discussed this with the parties in terms of their own 19 judgment as to how long it would take.
20 CHAIRMAN BLOCH We have a scheduling conflict 21 with Dr. Paris, who has another hearing scheduled for 22 that week of August 2nd.
Is either the previous week or 23 the subsequent week open as a possibility?
(
24 MR. SEMMEL The second week would be 25 preferable.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
264
(])
1 CHAIRMAN BLOCH The week of 8 2 MR. GALLO:
Judge Bloch, I am always wearing a 3 hairshirt on this thing.
Any time there l's a sched ule
{)
4 conflict, rather than argue about it, and ultimately get 5 beaten on it, I just simply acquiesce, unless it is an 6 outrageous request.
I am certainly not going to argue 7 about on week either way.
If Mr. Semmel would rather 8 have the second week in August, I will say, okay.
9 JUDGE PARIS:
If the parties can agree on 10 that, then I will consider myself committed for the week 11 of August 9.
If the hearing, which begins on August 12 2nd, should run over, I will simply indicate that we 13 vill have to postpone.
14 MR. O'NEILL4 If I may speak.
15 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Yes,_ sir.
1S MR. O'NEILL.
My big problem, and I have made 17 this clear to the Board ever since the prehearing 18 conference in December of 1979, is that I work for our i
t 19 family restaurant, and our season runs essentially from
/
20 the middle of June until Labor Day.
This.is when I gain 21 the bulk of my income, and I work essentially seven days 22 a week.
23 I could conceivably take one day off, maybe
()
24 two.
But were the hearings to be held before Labor Day, 25 which is September the 6th, there is no way I really O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
265
()
1 could participate.
I an a full party to these 2 proceedings.
Many of the contentions are contentions 3 that I have brought up.
I really would be denied my
{}
4 rights to participe.te if it were any earlier than 5 ' September 6.
6 I understand that the licensee's refueling s
7 schedule would bring them back to a down period sometime 8 about this time next year, maybe a month earlier, 9 'sometime around January or February 1983.
I think that i
1G as far as needing time to fabricate the racks, we 11 learned about a week or two ago that many of the racks 12 have already been built, and I ' don 't see that this would d
13 cause a delay.
14 A delay to allow me to participate, it seems 15 to me, would have no prejudicial effect on the licensee, 16 if an order were oranted.
17 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Mr. Gallo, I would like to 18 know what our problem is in considering a May date for 19 this hearing.
Why do we have to wait until August?
20 MR. GALLO:
That is Mr. Semmel's date, Your 21 Honor.
We tall about August 9, and we still have not 22 heard from the Board about when it plans to rule on 23 those pending contentions.
My split hearing date would 24 be May --
25 If we were to go forward on the basis of a O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20074 (202) 554-2345
266
()
1 summary disposition ruling issued recently by the 2 Licensing Board, I would propose May 1 as a deadline for 3 filing testimony, and May 15 as the start date for
[}
4 hearings.
This is a unila teral proposal, I have not 5 discussed it with anyone.
6 MR. SEMMEL:
Judge Bloch, we have several 7 problems in this regard.
8 CHAIRMAN BLOCH4 Is this Mr. Semmel?
9 MR. SEMMELs Yes.
10 There are still a number of outstanding 11 things.
First, we have to know what additional 12 contentions are in issue.
I am concerned, the way this 13 is developing, that the Board, in the interest of O
14 speeding it up, will be less considerate of the 15 additicaal contentions than otherwise.
16 CHAIRMAN BLOCHs No, we won't.
17 MR. SEMMEL:
Assuming that there are any 18 additional contentions admitted, we have to complete the 19 discovery.
We have to go out and find witnesses and 20 then get the witnesses' statements.
Then we also have 21 to write briefs.
I think we have agreed, among Mr.
22 Gallo, Ms. Moore snd myself, that some briefs are needed 23 on the outstanding NEPA questions.
Although we have a
()
24 difference of opinion on exactly the status of that, I 25 think we all agree that briefs are needed.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINI A AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
267
(])
1 I just don't think that it is possible for us 2 to accomplish all of that by May 1, and then have time 3 to prepare for the hearing by May 15.
4 CHAIRMAN BLOCHs Mr. Semmel, in terms of the 5 brief s on the NEP A issues, assuming that we do find tha t 6 we need those, parties have thought about that before 7 and there is no reason to have more than 10 days or so 8 for that, is there?
9 MR. SEMMELs We probably can accomplish those 10 -- I had agreed to file a brief first, and then the 11 other parties would respond, and then I could have a 12 further reply.
But as long as wa can have some notice 13 on that, we can do that.
O 14 In fact, under the schedule, I had or'iginally 15' contemplated filing a brief on the NEP A issue by March 18 31st, assuming nothing else interferes with that time 17 schedule in the meantime.
18 CHAIP. MAN BLOCHs The Board has reached a 19 conclusion that it does want briefs on those NEPA 20 issues.
The Appeal Board had asked for briefs, as I 21 understand it there were intervenors who had asked for a 22 continuance and had not filed briefs.
23 I think it would be helpful to the decision of
()
24 the Board if we did ha ve brief s on the outstanding NEPA 25 issues lef t af ter the A ppeal Board's decision, p
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
268
()
1 Obviously, that will be the most crucial way to limit 2 those brief s to matters tha t should be addressed in the 3 expansion of the spent fuel pool, and only to that and 4 not to the continued operation of the plant.
5 MR. SEMMEL We all understand tha t.
6 MS. MOOREa Mr. Chairman, could I ask for some 7 cla rification as to exactly which NEPA issues we are 8 discussing?
9 CHAIRMAN B10CHs As I read the Appeal Board's 10 decision, Ms. Moore -- We are going out of order, but I 11 will make sure that everyone gets a chance to comment.
12 Although we are in a disorderly mode right now, we are 13 going to make sure that everyone has a fair chance to O
14 comment.
15 Ms. Moore, we are interested in two issues 16 after the Appeal Board's decision.
The first is, in 17 light of the specific EIA in this proceeding, whether an 18 EIS on the expansion of the fuel pool is called for.
19 The other is on the question of whether we are required 20 to consider alternatives.
i 21 Does thst answer your question?
22 MS. MOOREs Yes.
23 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Do any of the other parties
()
24 have questions on that?
25 MR. GALLO:
Yes.
Judge Bloch, I have given
(
ALDERSON REPORTING COVPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
269
(])
- 1 f urther thought to this matter, and I really have not 2 had the opportunity to explore it further with Mr.
3 Semmel.
One of the things I did was to go back and look 4 at the papers and look at our own motion to establish 5 the hearing schedule,I then looked at the Appeal l
l 6 Boa rd 's order in this case.
7 While I do not disagree with your articulation 8 of the issues, I wonder if the briefing would be 9 meaningf ul until af ter the evidentiary is held on the to EI A.
Can we brief, and I ask this as a question, 11 meaningfully whether or not there should be an EIS in 12 this case, given the nature of the issue, without first 13 providing an opportunity for those who feel an EIS is 14 appropriata, to test the staff's conclusions through 15 cross-examination after the EIA is admitted.
18 CHAIRMAN BLOCH4 Are you suggesting a sort of 17 a stipulation as to an admitted environmental 18 contention, that we would then litigate?
19 MR. GALLO:
Yes.
As I see it, there is an 20 environmental con ten tion e xtant.
The Licensing Board 21 Order directing the staff to prepare an EIS framed a 22 con ten tion which essentially put into issue whether or 23 not an EIS was appropriate in this case.
()
24 The Appeal Board reversed the judgment that 25 the staff should prepare an EIS, but as I read the two O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
270
()
1 Orders, they left outstanding the contention that had 2 been framed by the Licensing Boa rd telling the Licensing
(]}
3 Board to reconsider at some point its action in that 4 regard.
5 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
That is helpful.
I suppose 6 it would be useful, in order to narrow the framework of 7 what we would heme, to have pretrial briefs at least on 8 this one issue, so that we won't litigate unnecessary 9 aspects.
What do you think about that, Mr. Gallo?
10 MB. GALLO:
I would not have any difficulty 11 with tha t.
I am troubled very seriously by the fact 12 that the staff continues to be of the view that it 13 intends to offer, as a matter of discretion, its O
14 discussion of alternative uses in its EIA.
15 Our position on the law is that the law does 16 not require it unless the Board decides that an EIS is 17 required, or that 10.22(e) requires a discussion of 18 alternatives.
Until those rulings are handed down by 19 the Licensing Board, it is my legal position that any 20 information and material on alternatives is immaterial 21 to the case and should not be admitted.
22 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Ms. Moore, how do you feel 23 about that?
)
24 MS. MOORE:
Mr. Chairman, I think we are 25 discussing two dif f eren t issues here.
I thought what we ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
271
()
1 were talking about was Mr. O'Neill's Contention No.
8, 2 which relates to the need for an EIS under 10.22(c).
As 3 f ar as alternatives are concerned, it has been our legal 4 position that as a matter of law, we are not required to
~
5 consider alternatives.
6 I realize that we told the Appeal Board that 7 we intended to consider them, but that does not mean to 8 us that it is at all required under 10.22(e).
We have 9 not determined at this point, due to various policy 10 questions, whether we should withdraw the alternative i
11 section presently in the EIA or not.
But, it has always 12 been our legal position that 10.22(e) does not require a 13 consideration of alternatives in this proceeding.
O 14 MR. SEMCEL:
Our position is that 10.22(e) 15 requires consideration of alternatives.
In addition, a t 16 the hearing we are entitled to the opportunity to 17 challenge the adequacy of the Environmental Impact 18 Assessment, as well as discussing whether there is a 19 need for an EIS.
20 I think what this discussion illustrates is 21 that if we all sat down and wrote a brief outlining our 22 positions, it would probably be the best thin g to do 23 before the hearing.
()
24 CHAIRMAN BLCCH:
Mr. Semmel, you, I guess, 25 agree with the other parties that while the briefs might O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
272
()
1 be helpful before the hearing, there is no need to do 2 that particularly rapidly, provided we have the briefs
(~}
3 in hand when we go to hearing?
4 MR. SEMMELa That is right.
My thought about 5 doing it this month was simply to get it out of the way, 6 so that when we get the ruling on the additional 7 contentions, I could then devote myself to the 8 discovery, and then to getting the testimony.
j 9
As far as speeding up the date, there is one 10 other thing I would like to say.
I really don't think 11 tha t we can get a fair opportunity f or hearing if we are 12 pushed to a May 1 t,estimony because of our problem with 13 getting experts.
O 14
'On top of that, the worse that could happen, 15 both from our standpoint and from the standpoint of an 16 o rd erly hearing, is tha t we set an unrealistically early 17 date, and then can't hold to it because some snaq in the 18 proceeding takes place.
19 To the extent tha t we do get experts, and say, 20 "You have to be in Michigan on May 15th," and then that 21 is changed, it is not just like we reschedule, we have 22 to start again and try to get new people, because we are 23 really asking people as a courtesy to do this.
They may A)
(_
24 say, "Yes, I can do it on that date, but not other 25 dates," and then we are out looking again for other O
ALDERSoN REPORTING OMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
273
()
I witnesses.
2 That is why I had proposed the July 1-August 9
[]}
3 schedule, because I felt that this gave us adequate time 4 not only to get the witnesses but also to be sure that 5 everything vill be cleared out, so that we will know 6 that come the 9th of A ugust we will actually start.
7 The specific date does not matter, as long as 8 it is f ar enough so that we know all the procedures will 9 be over, and we will start pretty much on schedule.
I 10 think once we start, the hearing will probably not take 11 such longer than Mr. Gallo suggested.
12 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Mr. Semmel, could you suggest 13 how we ought to react to Mr. O'Neill's problem.
He O
14 stated a fairly serious problem, what attitude should we 15 take?
16 MR. SEMMEL:
Starting on the 6th of September 17 is all right with me.
We could push this back until the 18 6th of September, and if Mr. O'Neill is correct, it 19 really should not prejudice anybody.
20 We could set up a schedule for findings of 21 fact afterwards, which would allow time for a decision 22 by the Board before the next fueling cycle, so that the 23 racks could be installed, and the fuel removed if the
)
24 application were granted.
If the application is denied, 25 then the timing of course doesn ' t matter.
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
274
()
1 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
I take it that another 2 possibility for accommodating Mr. O'Neill would be to
(])
3 attempt to have three different two-day hearings.
That 4 would be another possibility, but you are not willing to 5 do that.
6 MR. SEMMEL:
Ultimately, it would add in the 7 thousands in traveling expense back and forth to 8 Michigan.
We want to be able to go there, conduct the 9 hearing, and not have to travel back and forth.
10 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Mr. Gallo, the September 6 11 date, I take it, is not very friendly for you.
12 MR. GALLOs No, we would not find that 13 acceptable.
The situation with us is that when we go 14 back up to power, we will lose our ability to have a 15 f ull-core discharge.
We want very much to get that 16 capability back.
17 We tried to accommodate Mr. Semmel's problem l
18 as he has articulated it, but then to go further into 19 September just is not acceptable becnuse, aside from the 20 long delay in this proceeding, we begin to lose the 21 margin to which we would need the Board's authority by 22 the next refueling outage.
l 23 CHAIEMAN BLOCH:
Le t's cla rif y that.
You are 24 going to need some kind of amendment by the next 25 ref ueling ou ta ge?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, j
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
275 gg 1
MR. GALLO:
Which would be, I don 't know the 2 e?.ct date, but I just take it a year from the current 3 outage.
Then went down February 6, so you would be 4 looking at February 6,
1983.
We would need full-core 5 off-load capability at that time, as I understand it.
6 MR. O'NEILL:
This is John O'Neill 7 interrupting.
8 As I understand it, you refuel every year, is 9 that correct?
10 MR. GALLO:
That is correct.
11 MR. O'NEILL4 So you will not be back on line 12 until around the 1st of April, assuming that you did not 13 go down in the interim.
You would then want to refuel e
14 in April of 1983.
15 MR. GALLO That may be.
That may well be, 16 that is a good point, that we are really looking at 17 A pril rather than February.
18 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
You also have a slightly 19 dif ferent picture beca use we were able to d ecide summary 20 disposition fairly expeditiously once that was assigned, 21 and I think you can expect that to continue.
22 If there were no serious problems of the 23 parties, I think we would push for the earliest possible lll 24 date.
I am beginning to see difficulties in do1*o that, 25 Mr. Gallo.
O l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
l 276
()
1 MR. GALLO4 The other prejudice that accrues 2 from letting these proceedings pend is that it has been 3 my experience that the longer a license application
(~}
4 remains pending before the NRC, the more vulnerable you 5 are to further requirements, changes, new thoughts.
6 Then, those become issues in litigation, which have to 7 be resolved before any license amendment issues.
8 Whereas, if the staff has jurisdiction only 9 with respect to a new requirement, you have, of course, 10 no problem, unless they issue an Order staying operation 11 or suspending operation, and no interference with your 12 operation, and that is not the case when you are pending 13 before a Licensing Board.
Unfortunately, those are the O
14 facts of life.
15 As a matter of practice and policy, my client 16 likes to get in and out as soon as he can.
What I mean 17 by that, before the Licensing Board and then out of the 18 Licen sing Board a rena.
In this case, we ha ve been 19 before the Licensing Board for somewhere approaching two 20 years.
Indeed, the scope of our inquiries and issues in 21 this cace is in a sense expanding.
l 22 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Mr. Gallo, have you completed 23 your discussion of the scheduling needs?
(
24 MR. GALLO:
Yes.
25 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Ms. Moore, have you any O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
W r
277
()
1 concluding comments on scheduling needs?
2 MS. MOORE:
The staff is rather flexible as to 3 the hearing date.
We would only say that with regard to
(-}
(_-
4 the May 15 date tha Mr. Gallo has proposed, that hearing 5 should only be at most on the existing contentions, 6 since the staff would experience some difficulty in 7 preparing testimony on new contentions at this point by 8 the May 1 deadline.
9 I would also like to raise another question.
10 MR. GALLO:
Let me clarify that.
I was 11 proposing a split hearing on those dates only, so that 12 would be the existing issues that remain as a result of 13 the Board's ruling.
O 14 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
I understand tha t.
15 Ms. Moore, do you want to conclude?
16 MS. MOORE:
I just have one further comment, 17 and that was on the view that people are taking of the 18 discovery period with regard to additional contentions.
19 We understand tha t the intervenors have some outstanding 20 discovery, but I was not clear that this period would 21 not be open for the staff to ask any pertinent questions 22 it might have concerning these additional contentions of 23 intervenors if the staff perceived some confusion in the
(
24 additional contentions, or something like that.
25 That was not really clear, and I would request O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
278
()
I that when the Co rd consider whether there should be 2 discovery, that it be an open period of 30 days.
3 CHAIRMAN BLOCHs This will be open only with
{}
4 respect to newly admitted contentions, and with respect 5 to questions not already asked; is that correct?
6 MS. MOORE:
That is correct.
7 CHAIRMAN BLOCH4 M s. Moore, can you help me 8 out in the difficult quandary of balancing the 9 sch ed uling needs of Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Semmel?
10 MS. MOOREs Not a lot, I am afraid.
The staff 11 would be content to go either in August or September, 12 and it could make the May 15 deadline as well.
I will 13 say this, though, as Mr. Gallo has pointed out, the O
14 proceeding has gone on for a very long time, and the 15 staff loses witnesses.
Then we have to replace them, 16 and this puts us in some difficulty.
Although we can do 17 it, it does give us some problem from time to time, and 18 we would not want the proceeding to go on very much 19 longer.
20 We do understand Mr. O 'Neill's problem, and he l
21 did make it clear from the outset, and we are somewhat i
22 sympathetic with that problem.
23 CHAIRMAN BLOCHs Mr. Semmel, do you have some
()
24 concluding remarks with regard to scheduling?
25 MR. SEMMEL:
Yes.
It seems to me that the O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
279 O
' =o11t ne ria re 111 aoe= =ot ve====ca t1 e-rt 2 only saves five days of hearing that we have in May, and 3 then we still have co come back and have five days or 4 wha tever days are necessary, whether it is August or 5 September.
So it really doern't make that much 6 difference.
7 From our standpoint, it again raises the 8 possibility of doubling the expense.
It could be 9 possible, for example, that the same witness could 10 testify on one of the proposed contentions and one of 11 the existing contentions, assuming that we can get that 12 witness back twice, there will be double transportation, 13 or else we would have to get somebody new.
The person O
14 who is going to try the case has to go up there at least 15 time.
16 I don't really see that as accomplishing much, 17 and just making it more difficult and more expensive to 18 us.
19 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Mr. Semmel, in terms of the 20 contemplated hearing that was agreed between you and Mr.
21 Gallo, do you expect that before the hearing takes place 22 there would be agreement on the actual order in which we 23 would take up the contentions for the purpose of 24 assisting you to schedule witnesses?
25 MR. SEMMEL:
Yes, and I think that would be O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
280
()
1 very helpful.
2 CHAIRMAN BLOCH4 You are optimistic that that 3 will be done?
e 4
MR. SEMMEL:
Yes.
In fact, I can't any reason 5 why we shouldn't agree on what order to do it.
6 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Ms. Moore, do you see any 7 problem on the ordering of contentions; do you think 8 tha t will be able to be agreed to by the parties?
9 MS. MOOREs I don't see any problem with that, 10 Judge Bloch.
11 I forgot to mention one thing.
Mr. Gallo had 12 assumed an order of presentation to which I think the 13 staff might object, but we could attempt to work that 14 out among ourselves as well.
15 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Mr. Gallo, I take it you are 16 on-board on tha t idea, too?
17 MR. GALLOs I am sorry, did you address that 18 question to me?
19 CHAIRMAN BLOCH You believe that you can get 20 an agreement on the order of the presentation of 21 con ten tions?
22 MR. GALLO:
Yes, I do, Judge.
23 I would like to comment on the staff's
()
24 discovery suggestion.
I have no objection to the open 25 season on discovery for the 30-day period suggested by O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
281
()
1 counsel.
I would also suggest, however, that it would 2 be appropriate to extend the discovery to the now 3
()
question that has been f ramed by the Board.
The new 4 question I am talking about is the one that presents the 5 issue of the adequacy of the overhead crane and the fuel 6 transfer cask in terms of their impact on the spent fuel 7 pool should a drop occur.
8 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
You think there should be an 9 open period of discovery on tha t question?
10 MB. GALLO Tha t is right.
In order to remove 11 the mystery, we would propose to probably conduct some 12 discovery of the staff on that issue.
13 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Discovery would end when?
O 14 MR. GALL 0s Under our scenario, it would be 30 15 days from whenever we get a Board Order.
If we are 16 talking about a July 1-August 1, it would be 30 days 17 from the Board's ruling on the additional contentions.
18 If we are talking a May 1-May 15 scenario, it would be 19 30 days from the Board establishing the schedule.
20 MR. SEMMEL:
I understood that we were never 21 talking about a May 1-May 15, except on the already l
22 admitted contentions.
23 MR. GALLO That is right.
(
24 MR. SEMMEL:
Except for the cask drop, there 1
25 wouldn't be any additional discovery on tha t aspect.
I O
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
282
()
1 think it again illustrates that there is no point trying 2 to push for an unreasonably early date.
3 My only problem with the discovery is, Mr.
4 Gallo has expressed interest in deposing some of our 5 witnesses aft'hr I identify them, and that may create 6 scheduling problems.
So under any circumstances, there 7 would be a month between the time we file the testimony 8 and the time of the hearing, so if it is appropriate, 9 tne deposition could be taken at that time, although we 10 are not conceding that it is appropriate to take those 11 depositions.
I hope that we can handle it all through 12 interrogatories.
13 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Why don't we deal with that 14 when it comes up.
15 M r. O 'Neill, we have not forgotten ebCut you.
16 I appeciate your patience.
I would like you to comment 17 first on whether you believe you will be able to get an 18 agreement with the other parties on the order in which 19 contentions will be tried, and then to make whatever 20 concluding remarks you would like to make on scheduling 21 issues that have been discussed.
22 MR. O'NEILL:
I don't see any problem in 23 coming to an agreement on the order of contentions,
(
24 number one.
25 CHAI3 MAN BLOCH:
Mr. O'Neill, I think you O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
283
(])
1 could speak more directly into the phone.
We are having 2 difficulty hearing you.
3 MR. O'NEILLs I do not see a problem with 4 agreeing on the order of contentions.
Is that better?
5 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
yes.
6 MR. O 'NEILL:
Number two, it is my 7 understanding that licensee would not put in new racks 8 until they had to take the power plant off-line for some 9 other reason.
I don 't think they would have any 10 advantage for doing that.
11 They would have the racks available, so that 12 the first time they would perceive wanting to put those 13 racks in it would be during the next refueling session.
14 If they wa n ted to put them in before that, they would 15 only do that if there was a problem with the plant, that 16 is my understanding, and the plant has been f airly 17 reliable.
18 So the delay of one month, it seems to me, 19 would not harm them in the least because th ey would have 20 the racks already, and they would have their order by 21 October, or so.
22 I think it is really important to take 17to 23 consideration the relative resources of the parties.
On
()
24 the one hand you have the NRC, and they have expressed 25 no difficulty with the later scheduling.
Consumers O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
284 1
()
1 Power, as f ar as a split hearing, would not be harmed.
2 But intervenors find it very difficult to pay for 3 copying costs, let alone plane tickets.
)
4 CHAIRMAN BLOCH4 Mr. O'Neill, would you have 5 any problem with the May 15 date?
8 MR. O'NEILLa For a split hearing or for the l
7 entire hearing?
8 CHAIRMAN BLOCHa The discussion was that if 9 there are no further contentions admitted, and we have 10 not commented on that yet, the staff and applicant have 11 expressed a willingness to go ahead with a May 15 date, 12 I take it Mr. Semmel was less anxious to take that date 13 because of his problem in obtaining witnesses.
How O
14 would it affect you?
15 MR. O'NEILLs I think even more so.
Mr.
18 Semmel is representing three people who are near the 17 public library and are able to do the research.
They 18 have three more people able to obtain witnesses.
I am 19 both preparing legal brief s and having to find 20 witnesses.
So I think that it would be even more of a 21 burden for myself.
22 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Mr. O'Neill, Dr. Paris has a 23 question for you.
()
24 JUDGE PARIS 4 Mr. O'Neill, could you tell us 25 the inclusive dates during the summer when the tourist O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
285
()
1 traffic is so heavy that it would be impossible for you 2 to get away from work at the restaurant for more than, 3 let us say, two days at a time?
When is the really
{}
4 heavy summer traffic up there?
5 MR. O'NEILL4 It is approximately the middle 6 of June, around June 15, it is either becinning the 11th 7 or the 18th, I am not sure which.
It is probably the 8 18th of June through September 6.
9 Another reason that May would be difficult is 10 that I have more work then plan ting trees, and that is a 11 very short season, and one in which if I miss a day, 12 there is no way to make up that work.
I have just lost 13 tha t work.
O 14 Also, we have been doing a lot of modifying 15 and preparing the structure, and we are airo beginning 16 to cook in late May through June.
17 JUDGE PARIS:
What about the first week in 18 June?
19 MR. O'NEILL:
As I said, we may be doing quite 20 a lot of remodeling in the restaurant.
By that time I 21 am usually working every day here, so it would be very 22 dif ficu lt.
23 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Of course, we are trying to
()
24 accommodate you, without having the problem of 25 witnesses.
I think it would be difficult, but not so l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
I 286
()
1 difficult than if we actually hit the peak season af ter 2 June 18.
3 MR. O'NEILL:
There would be no way that I
)
4 could do it.
I would just lose my rights then.
5 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
In terms of limiting the 6 burden on you, is it necessary for you to be present for 7 all the contentions.
If there is an agreement on the 8 order of the contentions, is it possible that you would 9 come to come parts of the hearing that are most 10 important to you?
11 MR. O'NEILL:
I don't know.
I think it will 12 be important for me to be there for the entire hearing.
13 We are not sure if Mr. Semmel can make it, and if he is O
14 not able to make it, then I think I will be the only one 15 of the intervenors conversant with some of the legal 16 problems and kind of at ease in a proceeding like this.
17 I think the other intervenors would be at a great 18 disadvantage in that case.
19 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Mr. Semmel, how do you feel 20 about an early June date?
21 MR. SEMMEL:
As I said, it is really too early 22 for us.
It means we have to get testimony in.
This is 23 on the assumption of no additional contentions?
()
24 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Yes.
25 MR. SEMMEL:
If there were no additional
()
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
287
()
1 contentions, then if we had until May 15 to get 2 testimony, an early June da te probably would be 3 possible.
4 MR. O'NEILL:
Is it realistic to assume that 5 this is going to last five to seven days?
6 CHAIRMAN B10CH:
Mr. Semmel, yes, I would like 7 rou to comment on that.
I think you said you thought it 8 was realistic.
As I understand, you are not saying that 9 you can't be there in June, as Mr. O'Neill was concerned 10 about.
11 MR. SEMMEL:
There are problems with my being 12 available for a hearing depending on the length of the 13 hearing and when it is, that may not change whether it O
14 is June, August, or September.
15 I must tell you, as you may know, that I have 16 not previously participated in one of those hearings, so 17 I am really not in a position to estimate the length of 18 the hearing.
I am really assuming that if Mr. Gallo and 19 Ms. Moore think that is about how long it will take, 20 that that is wha t is likely.
We don't have any enormous 21 surprising that they ha ven ' t an tAcipa ted that would add 22 greatly to the length of the hearing.
23 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Given the fact that the
()
24 parties may want to conclude within a calendar time of 25 nine days, the Board can go a long way to make sure that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
(
288
()
I we conclude within those nine days by holding extra 2 sessions, if necessary.
So if we set on wanting to 3 complete on one date, the Board is going to do 4 everything it can.
5 I believe we have completed everyone's 6 comments, is that right, Mr. O'Neill?
7 MR. O'NEILL I was just wondering, at the 8 last hearing we had about 26 public appearances, I don't 9 remember the name of it, but the arrangement where a to person comes in and just makes a five-minute talk.
Is 11 there going to be time for that this time as well?
12 CHAIRMAN BLOCH4 We certainly will, under the 13 regulations, go out for public appearances, although we O
14 could conceivably show up early or stay late for that 15 purpose, rather than requiring the presence of all the 16 parties in that particular period of time.
17 MR. O'NEILL:
I think that that took all of 18 one morning the last time, and there has been a lot more 19 attention that this hac received in the last year or so, 20 so there is likely to be more people interested in 21 speaking.
22 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
If you wanted to be present, 23 you could.
But, again, as a party it would not be
()
24 necessary for you to be prasent for the limited 25 appearance statements.
We can schedule that around the O
ALDER 50N REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
289
(])
I hearing.
2 The Board will take a very brief recess.
/3 3 Please remain on the line.
()
4 (A brief recess was taken.)
5 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
We have concluded our 6 of f-the-record discussion.
7 First, we would like to announce that subject 8 to the subsequent issuance of our opinion on late-filed 9 contentions and to a possible change of mind as we 10 express our reasoning on the issue, we have the 11 tentative conclusion that we will deny all of the new 12 contentions.
13 That makes our scheduling problem a bit O
14 easier.
We, therefore, wish to block out the period 15 June 7th through June 16th for the hearing.
We would 16 plan a Saturday session on the the 12th, if it is 17 possible either to conclude the hearing by having that 18 session, or if it is necessary in order to stick within 19 those initial seven days.
20 We also would plan to schedule the limited 21 a ppea rance sta temen ts withink that general time, but we 22 will announce more details about that later.
23 We do wish to ask the staff a question which
()
24 arose as a result of a recent letter to us.
We don't 25 think that this will affect our scheduling, but we would O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
_.i
290
()
1 lik e staff 's reaction to that.
2 We noticed that there was a recent change in
(])
technical specifications for the Big Rock Point Plant 3
4 relating to a possible embrittlement of the reactor 5 vessel.
6 We would like to know whether it is necessary 7 for us, in considering either environmental or safety 8 issues, to know whether there is a substantial change in 9 the staff's view of the life expectancy of the reactor 10 vessel or the life expectancy of the Big Rock Point 11 Plant as a result of the embrittlement problem.
12 MS. MOORE:
Let me reiterate that question to 13 make sure I got it.
O 14 You wish to know whether there is a 15 substantial change in the staff's view of the life 16 expectancy of the Big Rock Plan t due to the 17 embrittlement problem; is that it?
18 CHAIRMAN BLOCHs That is the short form of 19 what I said, that is correct.
20 MS. MOORE:
When would you like the answer to 21 this question?
22 CHAIRMAN BLOCH When is it possible to get an 23 answer to that question?
f 24 I guess I am also interested in Applicant's 25 view of the same question, although I am more certain of ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
291
()
I what Applicant will say.
2 MS. MOORE:
I don 't know the answer to that 3 question right now.
4 CHAIRMAN BLOCH Do you consider it relevant 5 to the environmental and safety issues before us; it 6 seems to me to be.
7 MS. MOORE:
Mr. Chairman, I have the project 8 manager in the room with me at the moment, and he would 9 like to ask me a question on the subject.
10 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Why don't you confer 11 o f f -th e-re c ord for a moment.
We will recess until you 12 speak up once again.
13 MR. O 'NEILL:
I have a question, shall I O
14 wai t?
15 CH AIRM AN BLOCHs I think you should wait for 16 the question because we want to hear Ms. Moore's comment 17 before we hear other comments.
18 MR. O'NEILL All right.
19 (Discussion was held off-the-record.)
i 20 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Please proceed..
21 MS. MOOREs The project manager has informed 22 me that at this time he does not believe the staff is 23 considering changing their view of life expectancy of
()
24 the plant.
25 In addition, I am not sure, unless we would ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
292
()
1 say that that plant must shut down tomorrow for this 2 problem, tha t it really af f ects the safety or 3 environmental isr;ss having to do with the need for the
)
4 expansion itse3f.
5 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Ms. Moore, if there were a 6 substantial difference in life expectancy, I would take
'7 it that that would not be true.
If the plant were going 8 to close down in six months, for an extreme example, 9 then exposing workers to radiation, would seem to have 10 somewhat less purpose, wouldn't it?
11 MS. MOORE 4 That is correct, sir, but I have 12 no indication at the moment that there is an immediate 13 problem with the embrittlement question tha t would O
'~
14 necessitate a short life span for this plant.
15 However, I will investigate it further and 16 inform the Board in writing of the staff's view of the 17 embrittlement problem, and whether we consider it to be 18 important to the life expectancy of this plant.
19 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
We would appreciate it if 20 that could be done expeditiously.
j 21 Mr. O'Neill, I believe you wished to say 22 something?
23 MR. O'NEILLs You say tha t you denied all new
()
24 contentions.
'd ha t is the status of the contention 25 concerning air traffic?
O ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,'NC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
293
(])
1 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Did you receive our opinion, 2 Mr. O'Neill?
3-MR. O'NEILLs Yes, I did, but I have not J
4 completely ~ read it.
Has it been expanded?
5 CHAIRHAN ELOCH:
It was admitted and 6 s'utstantially-expsnded.
We did not specifically address 7 theiquestion offplanes other than of the Ohio National 8 Guard, but frankly I don't see, if..there are other
,a 9 National Guards that like to fly low over !the plant, how
~
10 there is any intellectual distinction between them.
So
'11.. w e would be inclined to interpret cur ruling fairly 12: broadly on thst l'scue.
13 MR. O'NEILLs I was not sure.
I have not yet O
14 had i chance to finish reading that% order.
15 I do have a letter.that I raceived just the 16 day before yesterday concerninc cverflights of the 17 Illinois National Guard, and I sent you a:datagram on 18 that.
I will be forwarding.that t o you s'oo n.,
19 CH AINM AN'BLOCHO ' I think we' still do need to 20 set deadlines for discovery, hearing, and NEPA briefs.
z _
21 MR. SEMMEL:
There is no particular need on
- s 22 additional discovery, other than the change involving i
23 '.the crane a nd the cask drop.
+
)
24 CHAIR AN ELOCH:
That is my understanding as 25 well, but I though t we did need a discovery deadline on ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
294 O
' thet-1 de11 eve th t =nou1a de 3o aers tro toaer-are 2 the parties agreeable to that?
l 3
MR. SEMMEL4 Yes, at least I am.
4 MR. GALLO:
Mr. Chairman, my recollection of
(
5 the aircraft issue, what I call euphemistically the B-52 8 contention, is that the Board did expand the contention 7 beyond merely the Ohio Air National Guard and the Air 8 Force.
It also included the question of small aircraft, 9 and citing specifically as an example the incident 10 described in one of Mr. O'N eill's pleadings.
11 CHAIRMAN BLOCH That is correct, but we did 12 not mention the Illinois Air National Guard because at 13 that time we were not aware of it.
O 14 MR. GALLO:
That is right.
15 MB. O'NEILL:
May I ask a question regarding 18 that contention?
17 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Who is that speaking; Mr.
18 0'Neill?
19 MR. O 'NEILL:
John O'Neill speaking.
20 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Yes.
21 MR. O'ntILI4 Does that contention also 22 concern the possibility of planes not hitting the dome, 23 but hitting the control room.hich is in a separate O
24 ed m ning euuding, uch mer or mer not he es etrong es 25 the dome?
O ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, l
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20C24 (202) 554-2345
295
()
1 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
The contention relates to 2 damage to the plant as a result of an aircraft.
I think 3 you need to read the opinion.
I don't think we need to 4 rule f urther on that.
5 MR. O'NEILL:
All right.
6 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
I would like to establish a 7 date for the filing of testimony to be at least 30 8 calendar days prior to the first date set for the 9 hearing.
I think as of the date set for the pre-filing 10 of testimony, we also would appreciate any briefs which 11 the parties may wish to file concerning the need to 12 consider environmental alternatives.
13 Are there any questions about the order which A
14 we have just entered in this case?
15 MS. MOORE:
M r. Chairman, do you have a 16 specific date for the filing of testimony?
17 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
No, I don't.
I am hoping 18 that the parties can subtract, is that a difficulty?
19 MS. MOORE:
No, sir.
20 MR. GALLO:
Let's see what date May 7 f alls 21 on.
22 MR. SEMMEL:
We are lawyers, and not 23 mathematicians.
()
24 MR. GALLO:
Mr. Chairman, ay 7 is a Frid a y.
25 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Then May 7 it will be.
O l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
296
(])
1 Are there any other comments on the order that 2 has been issued?
3 There being no further comments, this 4 conference is adjourned.
I will leave my phone on line, 5 so that other parties wishing to order a transcript will 6 be able to do so as expediously as possible, as another 7 hearing is scheduled.
8 MR. SEMMEL:
Mr. Chairman, one more thing.
9 As a result of the fact that the racks were 10 constructed, or some racks were constructed and a re on 11 site, although not in the pool, have you had a 12 discussion with Mr. Gallo about the possibility that at 13 some point they might want to seek temporary permission O
14 to install the racks in the event that after the 15 refueling they have to take all the fuel out of the 16 core?
17 CHAIRMAN BLOCH Mr. Semmel, I think that 18 should be made moot by our June hearing date, isn't that 19 your understanding, too?
20 MR. SEMMELs Is Mr. Gallo still there?
21 MR. GALLO:
Yes, I am here.
22 MR. SEMMEL I just wanted to make sure.
We 23 had an understanding that if th e y wanted to do that,
()
24 they would move on 15 days notice, which is the normal 25 notice on motions, and that we would have adequate time O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
297
()
I to respond to that.
2 Now maybe the June date makes it unnecessary, 3' I don 't know, but I just wanted to have it on the record
)
4 that we would proceed in that way.
I I
5 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Mr. Gallo, on that point, 6 does there seem to be a current scheduling problem?
7 MR. GLLLO4 I do not think so.
What Mr.
8 Semmel, as I understand it, is addressing is if some 9 sort of emergency situation should arise where the plant 10 had to shut down and could not start up without 11 discharging the full entire core, which could not be 12 accomplished af ter the start up date coming up in April, 13 tna t we would not unilaterally install a rack in order O
14 to relieve that situation.
15 I have advised my client that if that 16 situation should arise, we could not unilaterally 17 install that rack, that we would need leave of the Board 18 as long as this proceeding is pendine.
In those 19 circumstances, our remedy would be to file an 20 appropriate motion with the Board, and Mr. Semmel would 21 have his opportunity to participate through that 22 vehicle.
23 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Are we talking about April of
()
24 1982 or April of 1983?
25 ME. GALLO:
I am talking about April of 1982, O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
298
(])
1 when the plant will resume operation.
2 Let's assume some sort of problem arises in 3 May, the plant has to shut down, the staff takes the 4 position that some sort of inspection is needed, and in 5 order to accomplish the inspection the core has to be 6 discharged, that cannot be done af ter April of 1982 7 because we lose full-core discharge capability.
8 In that event, we either have the alternative 9 to ask f or extraordinary relief from the Board, or to 10 sit shutdown until we get a ruling on this license 11 amendment.
12 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
But at this time, there is no 13 scheduling decision here for the Board, is that O
14 correct?
15 MR. GALLO That is correct.
16 We are essentially running that risk, and 17 waiting for the eventuality to occur, rather than to l
18 attempt to get some kind of extraordinary authority i
19 initially.
l 20 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
Are there any further 21 necessary comments before we adjourn?
22 MR. SEMMEL:
One other question, Mr. El l
23 We are not going to order a transcript of this
()
24 conference, but you will issue a written order that we l
25 will get a copy of?
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
299 Q
1 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
We are no longer required to 2 issue written orders, even in response to w ritten 3 motions.
I was not planning to issue a written order a t 4 all.
5 MR. SEMMEL:
Fine, I just wanted to inquire.
6 MR. GALLO:
Herb, I will furnish you a copy.
7 MR. SEMMELs Thank you.
8 MR. GALL 0s You, too, M r. O 'Neill, I will 9 furnish you a copy.
10 MR. O'NEILLs Thank you.
11 CHAIRMAN BLOCH:
The hearing is adjourned.
12 Those wishing to order a copy of the transcript, please 13 stay on the line.
O 14 (Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m.,
the telephone 15 conference was adjourned.)
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 O
24 25 O
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
in the matter of: Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant I
- Date of Proceeding:
March 1, 1982 Docket flumber:
50-155-OLA Place of Proceeding: Washington, D.
C.
were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Coccissica Patricia A. Minson Official Reporter (Typed) hQ cgy
- a. s,2 official Reporter (Signature) l
,0 O
1 s