ML20050B559
| ML20050B559 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8204060045 | |
| Download: ML20050B559 (50) | |
Text
_. _....
E]
f f' ? f (?
?
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- h..
(:.
' r
.m
_=
N l
i w
{~[
O.
. m..
N ',i C.?iT. Y A f '.l,
(-
[
\\
. i., ' '
~
WR 0 51982* _g
"~~
g pc33 ITTM CWJ w
Q gggy WEY.XI N j
E p
4
+.,.
,g W
...._ [
m.
In tiut Mat:ts: cf:
.r..
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
)
(Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant,
)
Unit Nos. 1,2 and 3
)_
e:
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENTS 1 DOCKET NUMBERS 50-259 OLA
'T
~
TO OPERATING LICENSES DPR 33,
).
50-260 OLA
50-296 OLA d
DATE: April 1, 1982 PAGzg: 106 thru 158 A"' :
Huntsville, Alabama
.y f.). ',
4, l
~
$0
~
g.
/,n ALDERSOX REPORTING
?^F-
^
~
f.
?.;.;, n w.-
~
, %..- W':
M 400 Virginia Ave., S.W. Washing en, D. C.
20024 Telechene: (202) 554-2345 L. '.-
, f;" ' ' y *,' -:,
e,4
> ;..g
, 3.c
- 3 8204060045 820401
'.(jf'.Q' gj PDR ADOCK 05000259
~
T
.d # '
PDP
,. Q ;e. ' /
../ ~.._
h
106 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RAO 2
eEFORE THE NUCtEAR REcUtATORY C - ISS10N 3
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD O
4 In the Metter of:
)
)
e 5
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
) Docket Numbers: 50-259 OLA h
(Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant,
)
50-260 OLA 3
6 Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3)
)
50-296 OLA R
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENTS
)
7 TO OPERATING LICENSES DPR33,
)
Prehearing Conference M
)
8 8
Courtroom No. 4, Third Floor d
ci 9
Madison County Courthouse Huntsville, Alabama g
10 Thursday, April 1, 1982 j
11 S
The prehearing conference in the above-entitled matter g
12 5
convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 o' clock a.m.
O s
is BEFORE:
l 14 JOHN FRYE, III, Chairman g
15 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 g
16 d
ELIZABETH JOHNSON, d
17 Nuclear Member 5
Washington, D.
C.
20555
!3 18 U
I9 g
QUENTIN STOBER, Environmental Member 20 Washington, D.
C.
20555 2I APPEARANCES:
22 FOR THE AGENCY:
23,
WALTER LAROCHE, Esq.
1 24 l General Counsel j
Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 25,
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
107 RA 1
APPEARNCES:
(Continued)
O 2
rOR THE NRC STArr:
3 RICHARD RAWSON, Esq.
Counsel for the NRC O
4 we=hiastoa, o. c. 20555 e
5 PETER LOYSEN, Project Manager d
Technical Advisor 6
Washington, D.
C.
20555 R
6, 7
rOR THE PETITIONER:
M j
8 ROBERT PYLE, ESQ.
O Suite 9, Oakwood Center d
9 4783 Highway 58, North I
P.O. Box 16160 h
10 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37416 s
I 11 g
12
=
0i' l
14 m
2 15 5
16 g
s d
17 M
18
=
19 20 21 O
23,
24 i O
25 ;
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
7 7
~
(
7
.$ 08 s
/
?
J
,,t' i
1
-,{R(((((((({
' O 2
JuoGs raxE.
coed morning.
This is a prehearing confer-3 ence involving the request of Tennessee Valley Authority for a O
ucense -nd-e for its Br-rerry Staei
, to pomit five 4
g 5
year storage of low level' radioactive waste on site.
Several N
~
j 6
individuals;-- axcuse me, if I may -- off the record for a Rg 7
second.
j 8
(There was a short discussion off the record.)
d I
a a
9L JUDGE FRYE:
On the. ~ record ple ase.
Several individuals i
h 10 had petitioned to intervene with respect to this application, and
?
5 11 this Board denied those petitions, for failure to state an admiss-g 12 ible contention in October.
In January, the Appeal Board vacated O !
i3 ta t ru11ne, na rem naea the m star to tais Boara for new
/
l 14 ruling.
r
{
15 The Appeal Board stated that the new ruling must await J
16 the Staff's environmental assessment, which we understand will 2
y 17! address the propositiou of storage of low level radioactive waste E
M 18 for life of the plan, as opposed to five years, and comments by 5
19 TVA on that assessment, as well as an opportunity for the petitioners 3n
/,
20 to restate their contentions.
21 We understand that the Staff's environmental assessment I
Q 22 is due in the middle of this month.
We also understand that the 23 ' Staff and TVA have petitions pending with the Coramission, to review 24 the Appeal Board's decision, and the.t the Commission has extended 1
25 gits time within which to rule on thoso petitions until April 16th.
il
{
\\
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
)
l
l 109 I
i JATA2 1
The purpose of calling the prehearing conference, was 2
to be sure that we had all of the steps, procedural steps, set in 3
place to arrive at an expeditious ruling on this matter, on the O
4 assomption that the Appea1 aoard.s decision w111 remain in effect.
5 At this point, I would like to ask Counsel if they would in 6
to identify themselves for the record, beginning with the Staff, R
8 7
Mr. Rawson.
T.
j 8
MR. RAWSON:
My name is Richard Rawson, R-A-W-S-O-N d
ci 9
(spelling), and I am Counsel for the NRC Staff in these proceedings.
g 10 With me at Counsel table here today, is Mr. Peter Loysen L-O-Y-S-E*N iGj 11 (Spelling), who is the Project Manager for this proceeding.
is j
12 JUDGE FRYE:
Fine.
For TVA.
5 O j ia xa. t^ noce==
wa1ter te noche, staff ittorner for the j
14 Tennessee Valley Authority.
2 15 JUDGE FRYE:
And for the Petitioner.
j 16 MR. PYLE:
I am Robert Pyle.
I represent David Currad us y
17, and all of the Petitioners.
E 18 JUDGE FRYE:
Thank you very much.
I neglected to intro-E 19 duce the Board, sc I should do that.
I am John Frye, I am a per-
=
20 manent member of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel and 21 the Lawyer Chairman for this proceeding.
To my left is Quenton Q
22 l J. Stober, who is a part time member of the panel, and professor 23 of Fisheries at the University of Washington.
On my right, is Q
24 l Elizabeth Johnson, part time member of the panel, and a nuclear 25, engineer at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
0 i!
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
110 JA 1
I suppose it would be appropriate at this point, to ask 2
if any of the parties have statements that they want to make before 3
we continue further.
4 MR. RAWSON:
Mr. Chairman, I have one brief item that I g
5 might raise.
It seems that the date by which the Staff has esti-N 3
6 mated the issuance of its documents is really the starting point 57 7
for our further procedural steps here.
I have been informed by
- j 8
the Technical Staff that -- just in the last few days, that the d:!
9 review process is going somewhat slower than had been expected.
10 In addition, in the last few days, the Applicant has isj 11 indicated to the Staff that there are certain minor changes to B:
y 12 their application which will be submitted, which has been submitted E
O g i3 ora 117, bue which wi11 be submitted in writing in the very near l
14 future.
l E
15 Under those circumstances, we believe it is likely that E
j 16 the issuance of the Staff documents will be delayed from two to us d
17 :
four weeks.
We do not anticipate any further delays beyond that.
E 5
18 JUDGE FRYE:
So you are no doubts thinking in terms of
=s[
19 mid-May, I take -- early to mid-May.
M l
20 MR. RAWSON:
I think that would be the appropriate outer l
21 limit, yes, sir.
l l O 22 JUDoE, RYE:
I see.
Mr. ta Roche.
23 MR. LA ROCHE:
We submitted our written statement, and I Q
24 j don't --
j l
25l JUDGE FRYE:
You have nothing further?
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
111 1
MR. RAWSON:
I don't want to expand on that at the 2
present time.
3 JUDGE FRYEs Mr. Pyle, you might want, since you have O
not responded to rvA's written seacements, you mighe wel1 wane to 4
e 5
do that.
N 6
MR. PYLE:
We saw the Staff's and TVA's suggestions for R
E 7
proceeding today, and with very minor modifications, we're quite
- j 8
happy with the proposal of the Staff.
The only modification that G
d 9
we saw is if the Board has the NRC proposal in front of them on Y
g 10 Page 2, the very last step, the Petitioner will file any reply to E
l 11 the Staff and TVA answers, comes only ten days after the Staff a
j 12 puts their response in the mail, and if we assume that it's going 5
O !
is to eaxe three or four days for mai11ne, this puts under a weex for 14 response.
We would appreciate another five days.
If we hcd E
2 15 another five days on the end, we are quite happy with the proposal s
j 16 of the Staff, and we think it conforms to the decision by the us d
17, Appeals Board, so that's our pos'ition today.
l l
5 18 JUDGE FRYE:
That's the only --
5
}
19 MR. PYLE:
That's the only modification we would require.
M 20 JUDGE FRYE:
Excuse me, may we go off the record again.
21 (A short discussion was held off the record.)
Q 22 JUDGE FRYE:
Back on the record.
Let's see, we left off--
23,
that was the only --
i O
24q MR.,YLE:
Thae.s the on1y modification.
We wou1e 11h.
25 j that to read 65 days.
il i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
112 JATA5 1
JUDGE FRYE:
65 days.
O 2
MR. PYLE:
And we also assume that should the mails get 3
horribly snarled, that we can apply to the Board for permission 4
to extend the time on showing that in fact we haven't been - we g
5 have not received anything, so we can certainly live with the A
6 schedule.
E 7
JUDGE FRYE:
Mr. La Roche, let me ask you, where do we s
j 8
stand with regard to TVA's desire to implement this storage?
d ci 9
ME. LA ROACHE:
Okay, we've really got to go back and
$g 10 look where we were last year at this time when we had a prehearing 3j 11 conference.
At that time, we were looking at the start up at is j
12 Sequoyah Unit I, and our allocation at Barnwell was about one half h ::
13 the amount of trash that we normally generate in a year just at h
14 Browns Ferry alone, and our allocation then had to be spread 2
15 between Browns Ferry and Sequoyah.
5 j
16 We have during that time period in the last year, us d
17 received extra space.
It's a first come, first served, not 5
18 guaranteed type of space, and we have not gotten into position 5
{
19 where we just built up trash so much that it has gotten in the 5
20 way.
This year we're faced with the start up of Sequoyah II now, 21 and our allocation is still very low.
Our guaranteed allocation, O
22 but we are still receiving first come, first served space that has 23 taken care of our requirements at the present time, but again, we O
24 aon.t have a guarantee, and there is still a need to use those 25 facilities.
Now -
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
113 JATA6 1
JUDGE FRYE:
The need is not quite so pressing now, I 2
gather.
3 MR. LA ROCHE:
Well, it's hard to characterize it, be-O cose w s reaur the s-e - it was 1-t year.
We were zucky 4
.5 last year.
We may not be so fortunate this year.
The other item Enj 6
that has arisen since last year is the low level rad wasta compact.,
Rg 7
JUDGE FRYE:
Is this the Southern States Energy Board?
s]
8 MR. LA ROCHE:
Well, it's the Southern States Energy'.
d ci 9
Board, but it's based on -- I don't know the exact name of it --
$g 10 the low level rad waste policy act, Congress passed last year, 3j 11 and since then Southeastern States have gotten together, to come is j
12 up with a compact and both Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina E
O s 13 are now having compacted for their respective legislative houses aj 14 to approve.
There are other states involved - I don't know where E
2 15 they are in it, but assuming that Alabama and South Carolina 5
j 16 approved the compact, there are -- there may be some relief along
- d l
17 those lines that would make the need to store trash in those i
E M
18 modules less pressing.
i
=
19 I think we'd like to still keep them as an insurance n
20 policy in case for some reason Barnwell was shut down, or the 21 restrictions got very great, but like I said, it's very hard to Q
22 characterize it as an urgent, pressing need because it changes 23 ' from day to day, and so -- if that's helped you.
O 24j 25,
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
114 RA b1 I
JUDGE FRYE:
Well, I take it that there is some hope 2
on the horizon from what you have said?
3 MR. LAROCHE:
Yes, sir.
4 JUDGE FRYE:
Regardless of what happens with this pro-5 y
ceeding.
a 6
All right, lets address where we go from here then R*E 7
in light of the Appeal Board's ruling.
Obviously, on page 21, s
8 8
it seems to me the Appeal Board has laid out what is to be done d
9 5.
with regard to the contentions, where they say, "The Petitioners h
10 must be permitted to recast their contentions, to plead with
=
5 II specificity, (1) the respects in which they believe that approval 3
d 12 E
of the five-year plan would inevitably lead to operation of the c
Oi' weste reauceton eaa so11airicetioa reci11er eaa (2) why the 5
14 Ei environmental affects of incineration cannot be adequately g
15 considered if and when TVA seeks approval of that aspect of its z
16 overall plan."
h II So, it would seem then that that is fairly well laid IO out or fairly well established.
8 I would like to inquire at this point whether TVA and n
0 staff want a ruling with respect to the time limits issues for 2I Contention 5 through 9.
We did not rule on that earlier.
2 Q
MR. RAWSON:
Mr. Chairman, from the staff's viewpoint, I
23 lII think it is necessary to have ruling on the timeliness of Q
Contentions 5 through 9, but we are not sure that that decision 25 f
l is required as any sort of a threshold matter in the Board's ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
e
1 115 I
consideration.
It seems to the staff that that issue can be
- ) b2 k
2 taken up at the time that the Petitioners come in with their m
3 amended contention, it can be decided in a broader context of O
\\/
4 those many contentions.
It may well be that contentions 5 e
5 through 9 as they have been previously submitted will change Ae 6
in some respect.
It is just difficult for the staff to know R
7 that at this point.
A j
8 JUDGE FRYE:
Oh sure.
O d
9 MR. RAWSON:
Under the circumstances, it would seem i
Cg 10 to the staff that the appropriate thing to do would be to decide 11 the timeliness issue in the context of the Board's ruling on 3
j 12 contentions generally.
5
()
13 MR. LAROCHE:
I think to a large extent I agree with m
14 the staff.
I think some of the problems the Board might have
{
15 could be alleviated if the Petitioners would take all their
=
g 16 contentions and consolidate them into concise contentions, W
d 17 which essentially 5 through 9 are the same as 1 through 4, they
{
18 are just stated a little differently.
One or two contentions--
P" 19 g
and I don't mean to speak for Mr. Pyle in the way he does n
20 business, but one or two really would get across the main issue 21 they are focusing on, and so there may be some way in which they 22 could withdraw those nine and come in with one or two that cover
(])
23 !
the same issues that were originally in the first four, and' the
(])
24 l five through 9 are essentially the same thing, and then there 25l may not be a timeliness problem.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
116-RA b3 I
Now, if they seek to add additional contentions that 2
go beyond the issues that were originally in the contentions, 3
then there might be a time limits problem we would have to look
()
4 at, but I know there is some redundancy in the contentions and 5
j there is case law that says that duplicative contentions are 9
3 6
improper.
R 7
I know there are several contentions that--or at least 3
)
8 one that goes precisely against what the Commission has recently dd 9
said about volume reduction.
I forget which number it is but h
10 it said--basically the contention said that it is a Part 30 issue
=
5 II that has to be covered under Part 30, and the Commission has 3
g 12 said in its October 16th FEDERAL REGISTER last year, page 51,101 o
/"
(_)s j that it is a Part 20 matter and not a Part 30 matter, so there 13 z
h I4 is some error in there that needs to be looked at and perhaps
=
{
15 be consolidated into something more manageable than the 8 or
=
g 16 9 things that say the same thing.
W h
I7 JUDGE FRYE:
I think that's a comment.
Mr. Pyle when
=
f 18 I went over these before coming down and, you know, this is the I9 g
way I have viewed them and I certainly want your comments if n
20 I am viewing them incorrectly.
21 I viewed dividing them into basically two categories
understanding from a review of the Licensing Board's decision 24 and the Appeal Board's decision that the Licensing Board in that 25 case did deal with the segmentation issue as a part of broader 4
E 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
}2b 1
issues concerning the implications of a plan and the appropriate-
/~} b13 2
ness of that plan under the law.
3 I guess what I am suggesting is that if the Licensing
()
4 Board thought it appropriate, it could deal with these issues g
in a single, consolidated proceeding.
On the other hand, I think 5
?
j 6
I agree with the Licensing Board that the possibility of some R
7 sort of a bifurcation of the segmentation-issues from the VRS s]
8 issues would be advisable in this case.
It seems that the seg-d q
9 mentation matter is a threshold issue, if the Petitioners do E
h 10 not succeed on the segmentation claims, then the VRS question
=
II simply would not be raised, so we think that bifurcation, at 3
g 12 least at the summary disposition stage, would be appropriate.
5
()
13 It may well be that it would be approprimte through.:the matter of m
l 14 evidentiary hearings.
That is really a matter for the Licensing
$j 15 Board to address.
=
E I0 JUDGE FRYE:
Uh-huh.
M
.h I7 MR. LAROCHE:
I certainly don't have a problem with
=
M 18 letting Mr. Pyle recast his contentions first before the--
u6 I9 8
excuse me--the segmentation issue or the practicality that it n
20 will preclude further argument and then making a decision, 21 reaching a decision on whether because of that we have to go
(}
2 further and then letting, giving him a chance to have discovery 23 on volume reduction and put together contentions on the volume i
4
()
24h reduction.
But again, it would depend on the adequacy of the 25 I
contentions in the first place, so the practical preclusion ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
127 I
has to be decided I think first before we get to the other issues.
g bl4 W
2 It can be handled two step or single step.
I don't have any 3
real preference.
I would like to get this thing over with but
,.m
(_,)
4 putting it all together might get it done quicker but from one 5
j standpoint, doing it singularly, may.:also resolve it n
6 JUDGE FRYE:
Mr. Pyle, do you have anything?
R*S 7
MR. PYLE:
No, I don't really have any comment.
N2 8
M We are going to address anything the Board rules necessary.
d 9
2.
JUDGE FRYE:
Do you agree that you think that the 10 contentions directed toward volume reduction really don' t come
=
5 II into play until you are successful on the segmentation?
3 f
I2 MR. PYLE:
Yes, I would think that is fairly logical.
c"
(~')
5 JUDGE FRYE:
Yes.
So, well I suppose it is going 13 us a
3 14 g
to be very difficult for you to say at this point whether you e
C 15 h
could treat those two matters together or whether you would--
=
6 I take it at this point, there is no specified volume reduction h
I7 i system?
=
5 18 MR. LAROCHEi No.
We have a proposal that we are consider-w" 19 j
ing for Sequoyah.
Anything we do at Browns Ferry would be a 20 year, maybe six months to a year down the road at the time that 21 we put a licensing submittal in for Sequoyah.
We haven't done l
(])
that yet.
Even if we do decide to put a volume reduction system 23 '
in at Browns Ferry, it may be some time before we are even ready 24 3
({}
l with the licensing proposal to give to the NRC.
You know, we 25 '
may decide to go ahead and order a system and then have it tested I
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
128 1
1 to see and to know what it will do before we make that licensing I
()
2 submittal because you can't generate the information you need 3
to get a license until you have done certain testing, so in my
()
4 view it may be four or five years before we are really in a posi-5 tion to have detailed information on a volume reduction system l
6 and it may be only three years, but that is still a long way R
7 down the road.
8 8
JUDGE FRYE:
Yeah, but the point being that you haven't d
C[
9 identified a specific system at this point.
2o g
10 MR. LAROCHE:
That's right.
E 11 JUDGE FRYE:
Yes, so in light of that, I guess we will 3
g 12 just have to await the results of the contention process before
("%
3 13 we decide whether we need to bifurcate the matter or whether
(_/
5m m
5 I4 we should take it up simultaneously.
{
15 MR. LAROCHE:
If I also could add,,I am not sure that
=
g 16 the details of the volume reduction system need to be gone into m
h I7' in this proceeding.
Again, that is a matter for the contentions,
=
{
18 but we may be able to deal with volume reduction in a way that P
19 g
would be resolved for purposes of this proceeding and still leere e
20 open the details of the system for a later proceeding, when that l
2I licensing submittal is placed and appropriate petitioners seek
()
22 to intervene at that point.
23 f The Appeal Board did state the petitioners, from a
(')
procedural standpoint, the Petitioners have adequate remedy by 24 25 waiting and seeking to intervene on volume reduction.
They i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
129 1
i I
were only concerned, and I can give you the page on that...
g bl6 W
2 I think that they are really only concerned with the question 3
of whether there is practical preclusion and I think it is some-(])
4 where here, it is on page 12, a couple of pages, it says " Equally 5
l, important pending the action and furtherance of the longer term 9
6 solution by TVA requires additional regulatory approval from R
- S 7
the Commission. As a matter of procedure, therefore, the s2 8 M petitioners will have a subsequent opportunity to present their d 9 concerns regarding incineration if and when TVA initially submits 6 h 10 its application." = 5 II Then they go on and state that what concerns them is 3 f I2 the practical aspects and I think volume reduction can be dealt c () f13 with in that pradtical concern looking at what aspects, not 3 14 2 all of it, but what aspects of volume reduction cannot be addresses b at a later time or would be somehow a foregone conclusion that = E the NRC staff will somehow not get around--so, I think that it's w h everything in vo'lume reduction has to be addressed in this
- noc,
= M 18 proceeding, and I don't think the Appeal Board suggested that. 19 g JUDGE FRYE: Well, let me pose this to you.
- Suppose, 20 you know, that we have an acceptable contention on the segmen-21 tation issue and it is ultimately decided in the Intervenor's
() l favor, the Petitioner's favor, and that means that we would-- 1 23 - as I read this -- have reached the decision that segmenting the () application and just viewing it as a five-year application would V 25} unduly circumscribe the Commission's decision alternatives, when I i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
130 I the volume reduction portion of it is being forwarded some future 7" bl7 (_ 2 time. Now if we decided that, aren' t we then in a position of 3 saying either submit the whole thing now or we will not authorize () 4 the five-year, the other alternative being we would not e 5 authorize the five-year-- b 0 MR. LAROCHE: I am not sure, I think you could be in R
- S 7
that position. I think you could find it so unduly circumscribed s 8 8 that maybe everything in volume reduction would have to be-- d 9 I don't think that's the case but you could get in that position, z 10 I agree with you, but I don't think every aspect of volume reduc- = II tion is meant to be reviewed here. It would depend on the con-B f 12 tention, it would depend on-- c () j 13 JUDGE FRYE: Well, it would depend on the contention m l 14 obviously. We don' t review things that aren' t in issue, but 9 15 g the contentions so far have raised the volume reduction. = d Ib MR. LAROCHE: Only in sort of a broad way that somehow w violates NEPA without saying in what respect they are really = 5 18 concerned. P l 19 8 JUDGE FRYE: Well, Contention 6 is that VRS will n 0 i admit radioactive polutants. TVA has overstated the effectiveness 21 of the filters. TVA technology is unprecedented. TVA intends l () to utilize VRS for the life of the Barnwell and Browns Ferry. MR. LAROCHE: Well-- l () JUDGE FRYE: And so on. 25 MR. LAROCHE: You can go through each one. We admit l I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
131 1 radioactive polutants. Well, what polutants? Do they exceed g A bl8 W 2 regulatory weather? Filters, you know, that seems to be 3 a focused question, perhaps filters are in issue, whether something () 4 like that is filterable as opposed to the gas filters TVA would 5 I think you could make a decision that you could filter, g use. v 6 there is technology available to filter out to acceptable levels R 7 without deciding that TVA is going to indeed use those filters, s 8 8 because you would weigh the tilt position of the VRS to decide d 9 whether or not the filter system that TVA was indeed proposing g 10 meets the requirements. All you would have to do is say there = 11 is some black box out there that would filter appropriately, B g 12 here is the range parameters maybe, without getting into 5 (]) specifics of what TVA plans to do. 13 h I4 JUDGE FRYE: I see. t h 15 MR. LAROCHE: That is really what I was saying before, e j 16 You don't have to be specific on what TVA is proposing for Browns h I7 Ferry, only reach the decision that it is technically capable { 18 to incinerate or use some other--it doesn' t have to be incinera- _p" 19 g tion, some other volume reduction method that would be acceptable. n 20 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Pyle, do you want to comment? 2I MR. PYLE: I just think that right now it is kind of 22 () premature. We don't know what contentions we can actually back 23 up at this time. We have several people that are going to be (^} 24 f going through our documents that we have received from TV?. and v 25 until we have done that, we really are not in position to know i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPAN INC.
132 I exactly where we are going. (}bl9 V 2 JUDGE FRYE: I see. We do intend to stay pretty much 3 along the same lines but I don' t know exactly how the final () 4 attack will be. 5 JUDGE FRYE: Well, I would assume also it is worth 6 mentioning, it would seem to me, to get the. comments.of Ey7 the parties on this, that to the extent that you raise matters N j 8 that were not raised in the original contentions, 1 through 4, d then we would perhaps get into the question of the time limits. 10 MR. PYLE: I think the Board did indicate that. = II JUDGE FRYE: Yes, well lets go back to the schedule k fI then. m () (Brief pause. ) E 14 fndTakgB 15 s ] 16 2 d 17 W 18 E I 19 i A 20 21 22 (2) 23, () 25, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
133 1 JUDGE FRYE I would assume also it's worth mentioning, O 2 but it would seem to me - and I would get the comments of the JATCl 3 parties on this, to the extent that - I would want to get the 4 Staff's schedule, because we're inclined to agree with the staff, e 5 but we'd like - I think the TVA comments with regard to the h 3 6 Staff's evaluation ought to come in prior to the contentions. R 7 MR. PYLE: Well, I'll just point out for the record, s j 8 that there's nothing in the Appeal Board decision that requires d d 9 that.
- so g
10 JUDGE FRYE: No, there isn't. j 11 MR. PYLE: I believe that's up to your discretion how ic j 12 you would want to do that. I have no problem with the Staff's E O j i3 schedu1. on that under those circumseances, other than to sussese [ 14 some cutting of time in the use of Express Mail, to avoid the 2 15 mailing problem, and I do have some dates of time that I could 5 j 16 give you as my proposal, to sort of cut it.-a little bit, but again
- n d
17 i it's not all that critical. It's a suggestion from my standpoint, E !3 18 and.if you'd look at the Staff schedule, where it says TVA submits O 19 g comments -- make that two weeks instead of 15 days it will be 14 5 20 days. Add another week on top of that -- instead of 30 it would 21 be 21. It would be 35 instead of 45, and 40 instead of 50, and O 22 42 inseead of 0. 23 ; That would take into account using Express Mail. I'm i Q 24 not sure that the additional two week saving is all that valuable, 25 ; since I would hoping that maybe the Board would make a decision ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
134 JATC2 within two weeks af her that, so that you would have 'a total of 60 2 days, two months, to process and we'd have something to go on by the and of the summer. 3 O 4 aoooE PRTE: w 11, we 11 cerea 1n1r de our dese to gee a ) e 5 decision out as quickly as we can, once the matter is properly b d 6 submitted. How does Express Mail strike you, Mr. Pyle? e 7 MR. PYLE: It strikes us as unduly expensive. We don't 8 have as much money behind us as TVA does. They always turn around d ci 9 and get it from us anyway, but,we're inclined to oppose the Express
- s h
10 Mail. They haven't shown any real urgency about this thing. They M E 11 appear not to be as pressed as they were last year, and I think 4 12 that the 65 days that we've proposed they_ought to be able to live E O l 13 with. s 14 MR. LA ROCHE: Let me suggest this. The Cnly time -
- a t:!
15 the Petitioners would not need to use Express Mali. The Staff, 5 16 TVA, would use Express Mail, that would cut a lot of the time a us i 17 down, and since Mr. Pyle is very close to Chattanooga, I could E M 18 have someone to pick it up at his office and we would have it, 5 g 19 and we could undertake to send it to the NRC Staff by Express n 20 Mail ourselves the same day if the Staff wanted that extra time. 21 There's only really one time in which they have to 22 rely on anything and they've'got an extra five days, so I'm not Q 23 l sure whether they would need Express Mail themselves, and naturally 24 I think we can still keep within this short time schedule, and 25 l there wouldn't be any burden on the Petitioners. i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. i
135 1 JUDGE FRYE Okay. You don't have any problem with that e C3 2 I take it? 3 s O 4 e 5 - i g 3 6 e N A 8 8 m d d 9 i h 10 s a I a d 12 3 O ! i3 l 14 [ t i 2 15 M i j 16 s 6 17 f m M 18 = 19 1, 5 l 20 21 I O 22 23, O 25 ; i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
136 l RA d 1 I 1 I JUDGE FRYE: Do you have any problem with that? 2 MR. PYLE: No. .I will still end up paying for it 3 in the long run in my rates. O 4 (Laughter.) e 5 I don't see any purpose in it, but if it makes thcm h 3 6 all happy. R b 7 JUDGE FRYE: All right, lets come back to that in a Al 8 moment then, assuming everybody has agreed that that kind of d ci 9 procedure I think that's probably worthwhile to do. h 10 All right, so according to this then, we are going = Il to give 14 days, TVA will comment on the feasible options at is l 12 the end of the license term, 14 days after the staff's environ-c O"' meneet eve 1uation end sefeer en 1rsis is euh11shed. sm l 14 T: ten 21 days after the -- one week after that actually. 15 MR. PYLE: Excuse me, I do have a problem. That ij 16 one week is going to be a little tight. us .h II JUDGE FRYE: Okay. 18 MR. PYLE: The original was two weeks and he has cut 19 i 8 me down substantially and if he can make that ten days probably. \\ 20 l The problem is, if it please the Board, I have co-counsel in 21 Nashville, Tennessee. 22 Q JUDGE FRYE: Uh-huh. 23l MR. PYLE: And it is not easy to communicate with 24 him and clients who live all over north Alabama, 25 i JUDGE FRYE: Uh-huh. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
137, I MR. PYLE: And we never happen to run into each other % d2 b 2 as the normal course of business so there is a little bit of 3 coordination problem involved on our part. Seven days is just O 4 e 11ee1e eishe, so-- e 5 JUDGE FRYE: All right, so you would want that then b 6 to be 31 then rather than 21? R b .7 MR. PYLE: That would be fine. K 8 8 MR. LAROCHE: Ten days from fourteen or ten days from d Q 9 what? h 10 JUDGE FRYE: Ten days from-- II MR. PYLE: I don't need ten additional to his 21, is f I2 25 would be fine. O!' 3uooE FRYE: 25. Okay, so that would be, the 25th 14 day then the contentions would be filed and then "VA would then h: 15 Express Mail those to the stJf I take it? E I0 MR. LAROCHE: Yes. As soon as he gives us a call, as f I7 we will pick them up and get them out that day. a: 18 JUDGE FRYE: All right. Okay, then that then gets E I9 8 us to I guess then, the 35 days would become 40 days. Mr. Rawson c: 0 had said 45 days for TVA's answer and since we have given another I five days--no, excuse me, another four days, you are to day 22 Q 39, to respond to the contentions. MR. RAWSON: Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me, I am lost. 25 JUDGE FRYE: I don't blame you. I am really beginning ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
138 I to wonder whether it is going to make any difference when we (V7 d3 2 get all through with this frankly. 3 MR. RAWSON: The basis for the 45 and 50 days proposed' O 4 from the seeff schedu1e, Mr. cheirmen, wes the time germieted 5 by the rules under 2.714, ten case in the case of TVA, 15 days 6 in the case of the staff, with an additional five days-- R b 7 JUDGE FRYE: For mailing. K2 8 5 MR. RAWSON: I guess it is 2.720 for mailing. If we d 9 were to cut that down to two days which I believe is what the o h 10 Express Mail rules now permit, it may be three, I am not sure, = fII we would then be adding ten and fifteen days respectively g 12 to the 25 which you have established, plus-- a Oi' JUDGE FRYE: Okay. I4 MR. RAWSON: Either two or three, so it seems to the 15 staff that it would come out to either 37 or 38 and either 42 16 or 43. h II I hope I haven't lost anybody. x 18 JUDGE FRYE: 37 and 43...And assuming that's acceptable, s" 19 l j then that brings us to the date for the Petitioner's replying to the staff and TVA. MR. PYLE: As I indicated, we want five days in 22 lC ,,,1,1,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,1,,, l l l 23 l JUDGE FRYE: Okay. So that gets us from 43, lets see i O that te sivine you to, so thee wou1d move that to 15, eue== l 25 and 43 would take it up to 68. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
139 I MR. RAWSON: 58, I think. 2 JUDGE FRYE: To 58, uh-huh, so we saved two days. 3 MR. PYLE: But again to the former schedule we had () 4 wanted to add some time also, 5 g JUDGE FRYE: You,had wanted to add five, so it is more a 3 6 than that actually. R*" 7 MR. PYLE: So you are saving a week. A! 8 JUDGE FRYE: Yes. Now, all right, TVA and staff, are d c; 9 you going to be able to search your standing arguments and your z 10 time limits arguments at day 37 and 43, respectively? i5 h II MR. RAWSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that would be our B: g 12 contemplation that would be appropriate time to address those 5" P) g 13 q arguments. h 14 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. { 15 MR. LAROCHE: Before we address the standing argument, = l I0 I guess we could put something together again if you would like us II to have another brief on it, we will do that. It would probably = { 18 be to our advantage if we make clear in brief. E g JUDGE FRYE: I will leave it entirely up to you. So n 20 far as we are concerned, if you want to rest on what you have 2I already done, we will proceed on that and then of course Mr. 22 ' (] Pyle can respond to it. MR. PYLE: So he is going to, within this time frame, 24 (') address the standing issue also? v 25 End take d k a } l i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 1
l 140 1 JUDGE FRYE: That was my thought. That if TVA or Staff 2 wanted to raise the arguments with regard to time limits or 3 contentions, sustaining of contentions, that they ought to be done O at this Day av -d Dar 43. av for TvA -a 43 for the Seaff. Thae 4 e 5 then you see, by Day 58, gives you the opportunity to respond to A 6, something -- that's something else that should be taken into con-7 sideration with respect to that date. 8 If TVA is going to rely on it's entire brief to the N Appeal Board on its standing issue, it would seem to me that, you 9 i h 10 kn w, you should have adequate time. I assume that's what you're d i jj going to do. d 12 MR. LA ROCHE: Yes, it will be put in brief to you, but O i is it "12 "* ""= ""S"=""*- 'h r i=a "av ****** "" ^" S 14 since the Appeal Board brief.
- a b!
15 JUDGE FRYE: So, I would presume under those circumstances E 16 they are not raising any new matters. You've got that brief and is A p 17 l you will.be able to get to work on that in plenty of time. E !E 18 MR. LA ROCHE: Okay. 5 [ 19 JUDGE FRYE: And Staff didn't raise the argument as I A 20 understand it, at all. 21 MR. 'RAWSON: Mr. Chairman, that's correct. At the prior 22 l prehearing conference, reading the law as it then existed, the 23 Staff conceded the Petitioners standing, as the Chairman noted in 24 his decision, and as others I think have noted, it is a suggestion 25 that something less than 50 miles geographical proximity rule g I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
141 1 JATE2 I should be acquired in an operating licensing amendment of this O 2 case which involves a facility other than the reactor. I would 3 not want to foreclose the possibility that the Staff would be 4 re-analysing its position, but I really can't say at this point e 5 whether we would be taking the same position or change in our h j 6 position. G 7 JUDGE FRYE Should they change their position, is that s j 8 going to present a problem for you? d 9 MR. PYLE: Conceivably it could if they raised new z h 10 aspects of the argument that of course were not addressed. We can j 11 address TVA's arguments because they're on the record, and we've is g' 12 got copies of them, and we're going to be doing this at the same 5 O i is time we're soing to be deine a fair 1r fase response to a number of
- n 5
14 other things. If the Staff chooses.to: raise new arguments, we would 15 like a little additional time, and that's kind of why I suggested j 16 a little earlier that if they'll raise that by a separate motion s 17 ! to dismiss, it doesn't have to be considered within this time E { 18 frame, and can be independently done when they are ready to address i": 19 the' issues, n 20 JUDGE FRYE: Do it earlier in other words. 21 MR. PYLE: Earlier or later, it doesn't make difference Q 22 to me. It would seem wise to settle it before the Board sets 23, any evidentiary hearing, but at their convenience.-to have them 24 raise it by a motion to dismiss or renewing a motion to dismiss on 25 I the basis of lack of standing, and just keep it out of the conten-ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
142 1 tions, but keep it as a separate distinct issue. That will leave JATE3 O the Seaff with the resurar eimes in which to respond ana wi11 1eavs 2 3 us with the regular times to respond, and not put it in any of these O 4 dates when we're working on other issues too. This is sust strictiv e 5 if they're going to, b 6 JUDGE FRYE: Well, TVA said that they are going to - 7 MR. PYLE: Yes, but it's strictly if the Staff is going S 8 to come up with some new ideas. n d d 9 JUEJM FRYE When do you suppose you will know, when the i h 10 Staff is going to want to take a position? g l 11 MR. RAWSON - Mr. Chairman, it's difficult to say. We is
- j 12 were not contemplating the need to address that argument until Ol13 such time as the contentions were admitted and that would be on j
14 the schedule that we have been discussing here. I'm just not sure E 2 15 of whether the procedural propriety of a motion to dismiss for lack 5 y 16 of standing is on NRC proceedings. us g 17 JUDGE FRYE: Well, we're still at the Petitioner stage E 5 18 now, and the argument was raised initially by TVA, was not ruled 5; 19 on by' this Board or the Appeal Board, and TVA wants to renew it, a 20 so it's a live issue it seems to me. 21 MR. RAWSON: The one other point that I would make, 22 Mr. Chairman, is simply that the Petitioners have not addressed i l 23 as I understand it, the standing argument in the past. l 24 JUDGE FRYE: No, they haven't, and this is how this 25 ] comes up obviously because if Staff retains its position, and does f l l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
143 JATE4 1 not agree with TVA on that argument, it presents no problem for the 2 Petitioners as I understand Mr. Pyle, because he knows what TVA's 1 3 position is, and he's got plenty of time to address it. On the O other hand, if Seaff shou 1d ch.nge ses position, and decide to 4 e 5 support TVA on that matter, it might create somewhat of a problem b 6 for him, if that comes in at Day 43 you see, so that if it were 7. Q 7 possible for Staff to make its decision as to whether it will ad-7.j 8 here to its position or change its position earlier in the process G:! 9 and file whatever paper Staff wants to file, it would assist in his 'b 10 response. iG 11 MR. :RAWSON:: Under those circumstances, Mr. Chairman, j is j 12 the procedure of a motion to dismiss might be the best way to Oj is a aal it, d c=== th t wou1a r e in ear== 1 su== th 51 xidi11tv y 14 at the same time as it provides Mr. Pyle less of a burden in deal-g 15 ing with both of these aspects at the same time. It's entirely 2 j 16 possible that the Staff would not wann to change its._ position us y 17 on standing, but would have comments on arguments that wars raised
- a 18 by Petitioners in their response to TVA's motion, just as a matter 5
3 19 of the Staff's obligntions with respect to the Regulations and so n 20 forth. 21 Miat being the case, I suppose that also argues for the 22 procedure of motion to dismiss on separate track. It is very Q 23 difficult for me to put an estimate of two weeks or three weeks 24 on the amount of time that might be required for us to finish our Q 25, examination of the case laws and standing which is a very complex i, I t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
14-4 1 issue, in order to make a determination of whether we will be O5 Jv 2 changing our position or not, and I don't raise that as a great 3 likelihood that we will. I just want to say that that is a right O 4 that the party in the proceeding has, and we may want to re-analyse e 5 it, state a different position. e. 6 I guess what I'm coming down to is that the motion to 7 dismiss may make more sense from everyone's point of view. E. 8 JUDGE FRYE To dismiss the petition for lack of stand-e d d 9 ing? 10 MR. RAWSONs: Yes, sir, iG 5 11 MR. LA ROCHE: If I could address that. First of all, -J 12 my understanding of the Rules is that the person that makes the 6 O l i3 ~ motion has the durden, norma 11r under the Ru1 s, however, it is l 14 the burden of the Petitioners to prove that they have standing, 2 15 so a motion is not really appropriate at this time because they 5 g 16 haven't -- they have to meet that burden independently. It's not us d 17 ; up to us to get this kicked out because they haven't. 5 E 18 JUDGE FRYE: We're talking purely about a legal argu-5 { 19 ment. There's no dispute that the Petitioners are 30 to 35 miles n 20 away, you know, I think that's more or less stipulated. 21 MR. LA ROCHE: It's simply a matter of setting up a briefing C 22 l schedule, you know, we could file something within the next two i 23 i weeks and the Staff could have a week to respond, and the Q 24 Petitioners can have another week to respond. I presume we could 25 ; file our response within 5 days or something like that. That would i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~ 145 FATE 6 1 be four or five weeks from now. It would be all over, and that 2 would be before the Staff is probably going to get their document 3 out, and it would be done. O 4 MR.,YLE: I have no probier.s with doing it before we e 5 get into this. I do have some problems with his response times h 6 again because of our coordination with a number of different R 7 individuals. A ] 8 MR. LA ROCHE: Again, it's a legal issue. O ci 9 MR PYLE: Well, we still have more than one attorney. z h 10 We have three involved in this, and it becomes a coordination l1 problem for us, but I have no problem with addressing it prior 3 j 12 to - addressing it within the next two or three weeks. We just E O i is aca'e we=e it co i=9 aown in the next -- l 14 JUDGE FRYE: Two weeks -- you can file your brief in r; 15 two weeks? Why don't you do that, which is -- would get you to y 16 what - April 15th. I us 6 17 l MR. LA ROCHE: Yes, April 15th. E { 18 JUDGE FRYE: April 15th, TVA's standing brief, and then { 19 if you - well, you can I guess hand deliver it to the Petitionere f n 20 without any problem, but you're in Knoxville though, aren't you? 21 MR. LA ROCHE:- Yes, we can get it to him, at least over l O 22 ni,ht. 23 JUDGE FRYE: And then Staff's response a week later, 24 assuming you get Express service? 25, MR. LA ROCHE: I think that would be realistic, Mr. 'i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
146 1. Chairman, yes. I should note that I remain a little bit concerned O I p 2 about the procedural posture of a motion of this type when we're-3 JUDGE FRYE: Well, I think we're going to get a brief. O z ve askea him to f11 a drief. A 3rief of seanding gueseien e 5 to this Board rather than to file a motion. U 8 6 MR. LA ROCHE: I see. I see. 7 JUDGE FRYE And then you get an opportunity by the 22nd E. 8 -- excuse me - to respond to this brief, and then take a position e O ci 9 different from the'one you previously took if you want to, and i h 10 then that gets us to your response. E 5 11 MR. LA ROCHE: And we have two week.J. that would be ti 12 May 6th? 3 O j 13 JUDGE FRYER May 6th. Okay, and that should get all of s 14 that out of the way before vie get into the contentions, which I
- a t:
5 15 think might be helpful. 5 y 16 MR. LA ROCHE: And we would, if we need the reply brief A d 17, it.would be within five days or so of that, so we can get it 18 l E over night. 5 = b 19 ; JUDGE FRYE: Okay, so then that would get you to May - A 20 MR. LA ROCHE: lith -- I don't know if that's a Sunday 21 or what. Q 22 MR. PYLE: It's a Tuesday. I 23 ! JUDGE FRYE: Tuesday. All right, good. And then that Q 24 would leave any time limits argument still to be asserted at Day 25 ; 37 and Day 43, following the Staff's environmental assessment. 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
147 1 ATE 8 i MR. RAWSON: I think that's correct, Mr. Chairman. The 2 timeliness issues have been briefed by all parties. 3 JUDGE FRYE: Well, I'm thinking in terms of the restated 4 contentions now. You may want to say this contention is untimely e 5 because it's based on an untimely contention or what have you, 0 3 6 if you're going to make that kind of an argument.
- 7 7
We will, as I say, attempt to rule as promptly as we can aj 8 on all of these matters, and assuming that we find a standing and d 9 we find an acc'ptable contention, that means that -- and I would e ? 10 think we might well publish a notice of hearing promptly, in order lI to get the discovery process going and then issue our written a j 12 memorandum and order sometime after that, if that's acceptable to 5 O s is the parties. m h I4 MR. ;RAWSON': I think the Staff would have no problem E 15 with that procedure, Mr. Chairman. 16 d JUDGE FRYE: TVA, I would think -- 'A ( I7 MR. LA ROCHE: Were you expecting to hold the hearing 18 within 60 days after your decision, 30 days or -- P i h 19 JUDGE FRYE: Well, that's the next point, I guess, and i i 20 I don't know to what extent we can address it here at this stage 21 without having'the contentions, but really the question at that O 22 ,oint assumin,you have, noeice o, hearin,is how much discovery 23 is going to be required. 24 MR. LA ROCHE: You could always set a date with -- 25 MR. PYLE: We intend to file interrogatory form discovery. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
148 i We don't anticipate any other at this time unless something opens 2 up within that. I would think that 60 days between the notice of 3 decision on our contentions and a hearing is adequate, assuming O 4 m gives us fair 1y good response ume, and they usua11y have in e 5 the past. It may be 90 days would be just a little bit more Enj 6 saving for us because they've got quite an organization to look 7 through and find and get the answers from, but that's up to TVA 8 as to how quick they can respond. U
- s 9
, JUDGE FRYE: 60 days sound reasonable to you? z h 10 MR. LA ROCHE: If we got the interrogatories at the same ? 5 11 time you issued your -- or within a day or two after you issued d 12 your notice of hearing, I think we could respond within a 30 day Z-O j 13 time period, possibly less. I can, depending on the questions. E 14 JUDGE FRYE: Sure, I realize we're dealing in things W t:! 15 that we can't be specific. Does 60 days seem reasonable to you? 5 y 16 MR. RAWSON:. It does, Mr. Chairman, sound reasonable, i w p 17 l except one caveat -- I would not want to foreclose the possibility 5 18 of. including within that schedule -- or expanding that schedule i 19 j to include some time for summary disposition. ~n 20 JUDGE FRYE: That was the next point I was coming to. 21 MR..RAWSONt Would you like to have me address further? Q 22 JUDGE FRYE: Yes, go ahead if you want, yeah. I 23 ' MR. RAWSON: I think that particularly as it relates Q 24 to the segmentation issue, it will be impo2 tant to have the issue 25 l addressed in summary disposition. It seems to the Staff that those ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
JATE10 1 issues are amenable to disposition, potentially amenable to dis-Q 2 position thrc, ugh the summary disposition procedure, and that it 3 holds open a substantial possibility of shortening the proceeding, 4 and we ought to be making provision for that at some point in the Q e 5 schedule. I'm not sure how concretely we can do so today. U 6 JUDGE FRYE: Well, that was - I think all of these k 7 time periods that we're talking about now obviously have to be a j 8 tentative, but I think it's probably well to talk about them now d c 9 and set up some guidelines that we'll try to meet, on the under-10 standing that of course something may happen. Ej 11 MR. LA ROCHE: I have no problem with handling summary is j 12 disposition while we're handling the interrogatories. Motion for 13 summary disposition wouldn't be filed until after they had their j 14 questions to us, and we would be putting the answers together t: l 5 15 when the motion was made, and it wouldn't be a problem, you know, j 16 for us handling two or three different things at the same time. us 6 17 JUDGE FRYE: I would suggest that we file, that we set a E !5 18 date for motions of. summary dispositions, say at Day 60 or something if 19 of that nature. M 20 MR. LA ROCHE: I assume we're going to have the hearing 21 at Day 60 then. That would put you -- 22 MR. PYLE: Are you referring to this Day 60 of this O 23 I schedule, so that right after the contention, our responses were 24 in, would be a closing date for filing a motion -- is that what 25 you're saying? l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
1 CUDGE FRYE: What I'm saying, 60 days after our notice of 2 hearing, would be the deadline for filing motions for summary 3 disposition. 4 MR, PYLE: Well, okay, we're way off in the future now. e 5 JUDGE FRYE: We are, we obviously are. b h 6 MR. LA ROCHE: So you would be extending beyond 60 days R R 7 for time of hearing - it would be 90 days maybe or 105 days. Aj 8 JUDGE FRYE: Yes, I would. d ei 9 MR. PYLE: If you think about it, if it's 60 days after 2ic h 10 the notice of hearing for summary disposition, there is then brief-Ej 11 ing on that, and then presumably the Board is going to take some 5: ( 12 time to read the quantity of paper that such motions generate, 5 Oi' "*"22' ""'**"S ' "" "*"'*"5' l l 14 crowding it with a need to make a decision on whether it's even 2 15 necessary or not. It seems like you're -- 5 t l j 16 JUDGE FRYE: All right, you're thinking it would --
- r5 d
17 earlier would be better? E l 18 MR. PYLE: I think the cut off on motions -- on motions of l ? { 19 that kind'can come much sooner than that and get it out of the way n 20 so that everybody knows whether or not they need to get ready for l 21 the new hearing. 22 JUDGE FRYE: 30 days - do you think that's more reasonab].e? 23 ! MR. PYLE: I would think that they have pretty well 1 i l 24 identified the issues already -
- I 25q JUDGE FRYE:
Well, that's -- I'm talking about the final I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
.l 151 I date, not the -- O 2 MR. FrtE: z'm thinking 15 days after you ru1e on wheeher 3 we.have contentions or not, and after -- the standing will be out O 4 of the way, and you ru1e on whether or not we have contentions or s 5 not and give them about 15 days to file their motions, I think s 6 they know pretty much what their motions are going to say right 7. 7 now, so that - I don't think that would harm anything to get 7.] 8 that over with in a hurry, d:i 9 JUDGE FRYI::. 15 days acceptab1e to you? 35 10 MR. IA ROCHE: Yes, that wou1d be fine, I'm strictly z_ { 11 ta1 king about segmentation. I couldn't'say whether we could 3 g 12 handle the volume reduction contentions within that time period. 5 13 JUDGE FRYE Okay. 14 MR. RAWSON: That was the point rea11y that I was referring t: E 15 to earlier, Mr. chairman, when I raised the possibility of bifur-5 y 16 cation. A ti 17 JUDGE FRYE: Right. 5 18 MR. RAWSON: As it related to summary disposition. It E h 19 seems to the Staff that summary disposition on the segmentation n 20 issue may more appropriately be taken up prior to summary dispos-21 ition on other contentions. 22 JUDGE FRYE: It a1most has to. It may be that it doesn't 23 but it seems to me at this point it a1most has to come first. I 24l MR. RAWSON: I think that's correct, Mr. Chairman, and it O 25 ' may also be more efficient from the Board's point of view, in 's ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
I terms of dealing with a more limited number of issues or digging O 2 into whae is substaneta11y very broad and comp 1ex issues. I wou1d .JATE13 3 also not want to foreclose the possibility that the staff may have O 4 discovery requests as they relate to Mr. Pyle's contentions, and e 5 for that reason I see us getting into a fairly conjectural area h 3 6 in trying to establish 15 days, or 30 days as a model schedule R 6 7 for certain aspects of this. Al 8 We have no problem with setting out guidelines which can d 6 9 be firmed up as we get closer to hearing. 10 JUDGE FRYE That's really what I'm trying to do at this E j 11 point, just to get some guidelines with the understanding that u j 12 circumstances -- we can't predict what circumstances will ba, 5 ?3 when and if it's done. l 14 MR. RAWSON: I would also point to that section of our 2 15 Regulations which permits motions for summary dispositions to E g 16 be filed up to and within a certain point of the hearing, which us 6 17 l states that they have to be filed within a certain time before 5 E 18 the hearing. Obviously the Board has the power to modify that. t 19 JUDGE FRYE: Is that still in effect? It was my recoll-g n 20 ection that that had been removed. 21 MR. LA ROCHE: I believe the 45 days rule has been removed. 22 It can be filed at any time. It may not be effective today, but l 23' l it would be effective within the time period we're talking about. 24 ! JUDGE FRYE: I think it can be filed at any time.
- Well, l O l
25 j as a tentative schedule, and obviously all of this is tentative, d i i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
153 I we will say 15 days for filing motions for summary disposition 2 on the segmentation issue. Is the time period provided in the 3 Rules, Mr. Pyle, sufficient for your answer? O 4 xR. >YtE: I expect so. 5 y JUDGE FRYE I forget what that is. It's been 20 days 4 3 6 after service. R 7 MR. PYLE: I think that's fine. E g 8 JUDGE FRYE: So that would be 35th day for answer. dd 9 MR. PYLE: Well, there's mailing time added to that, so-- 5. g 10 JUDGE FRYE: That's right. This is 20 days after service. 11 MR. PYLE: But there's -- I believe the Rules provide, is j 12 what - five days. =3 13 JUDGE FRYE: Five' days. l 14 MR. PYLE: If you're making time line, you've got to 15 throw the.five days in too. j 16 JUDGE FRYE: All right, you're quite right, so let's us 17 ! make it 40, let's make it the 40th day. And then again, we would { 18 have to rule as promptly as we could, so that you'd know; all of i~ h 19 you would know whether you were going to have hearing or not, n 20 Now is there anything else any of the other parties want 21 to bring up? 22 MR. RAWSON: No, sir. 23! JUDGE FRYE: Now, one other point occurs to me assuming l 24 again favorable resolution of the standing contentions question, 25 do you have any objection to consolidating the Intervenors? i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. l
154 1 MR. PYLE: I thought that pretty well had been consoli- ^ " *
- JA 15 3
JUDGE FRYEs-It seems v.o me they have been functioning O 4 in ta e r in ar v at-o 5 MR. PYLE: They certainly do function with us that way. h j 6 JUDGE FRYE Okay, fine. R 7 MR. SWANSON: Mr. Chairman, the Staff has nothing to add j 8 beyond the couple of additional points that we raised in our papers r) c! 9 and we don't see any need to discuss those at this point. We have $g 10 discussed the first of those items -- it was the second item in El 11 which TVA took the position which the Staff circumscribed the is y 12 substance of different contentions which could be raised. I think Ei 13 we have discussed that without discussing it explicitly as a g 14 separate issue here today. E 2 15 JUDGE FRYE: I did want to ask you about that and it had 5 j 16 slipped my mind. It seemed to us that any contention based on us ti 17 j one through four as they were originally filed is clearly open at 5 M 18 this stage. As you get into five through nine, the contentions 5 19 based on.five through nine, there's a possibility that someone M 20 may want to say well, it's untimely, based on the fact that five 21 through nine was what -- about a month late, and any other conten-22 tion, it seems to me, that isn't based on any of the previously 23 i filed contentions would be untimely at this stage, is that the 24 i way the Staff views it as well? O 25, MR. SWANSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, we do have to deal with } l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
15B W 16 1 Footnote 13 in the Appeal Board's decision. I would agree for the O 2 Seaff.s,are, that most if noe a11 contentions that miehe be raised 3 beyond those nine original contentions would have to be dealt with C 4 under the untimeliness standard and would have to satisfy the s 5 various untimeliness requirements of the CFR 2.714. The Staff N 3 6 does believe, however, that in Footnote 1"> of the Appeal Board's it 7 decision, Page 21, the possibility is raised that contentions
- j 8
may be admitted under the general intervention standard to the a c; 9 extent that they are prompted by the Staff's environmental assess-10 ment. 11 For the Staff's part, we interpret Footnote 13, the state-is I 12 ment of Footnote 13, as being limited to contentions relating to E .f13 previously unavailable information or analyses that appear in j 14 Staff documents. That would be consistent with our Regulations { 15 generally. = j 16 JUDGE PRYER It's basically establishing good cause I i w d 17 would take it, for a late filing, is that -- l 5 l { 18 MR. RAWSON: Yes, sir - yes, sir, that's the area in E 19 g which that case law appears, but it seems to me that the Appeal e: 20 Board has held out the prospect that are some new contentions 21 which should be dealt with under the general intervention stand-22 ards, rather than the untimely intervention standards, and we 23 obviously don't know whether any of those types of contentions 24 l have been introduced by Petitioners. 25 ' JUDGE FRYE: Well, fine. i l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
156 i 1 MR. LA ROCHE: If I could address that. ?A 2 JUDGE FRYE: Surely. 3 MR. LA ROCHE: I'm not sure I really agree with the O 4 Staff. The reason for doins thee is the soard has sene this saok e 5 to you to look at Contentions 1 through 9. One through five, they h 6 have given you standards to look at, and any contentions prompted ^e. { 7 by the Staff's environmental assessment, has to be read lookinst a 8 at the segmentation VRS issue, which is on Page 21 too. The d C 9 Board must also permit the Petitioners to -- specificity in Items b b 10 1 and Items 2 are set out there. Okay, that's what I think they-- j 11 I think what they're talking about when they say prompted by the 3 j 12 Staff's environmental assessment, and what respects the Staff's ~= Oi1 "viroa= at=1
===== a* =t2a"= th*= to 9 *^d "ith =9 oifioitr-14 the segmentation and vas issue. t 1" I don't think matters that are just outside that scope j 16 are to be - are permitted to be raised here. I don't think Mr. m j 17 Pyle intends to raise anything outside the VRS or the segmentation / { 18 issue, but I really think that everything else is really precluded c 19 at this point. M 20 JUDGE FRYE: Well, we'll have to await the contentions 21 and see. Do you have anything you want to -- t 22 MR. PYLE: No, we just take a little broader view, more 23 like the Staff's position, that if there is new material in there-- 24 JUDGE FRYE: Were not aware of. Well, we'll just have to 25 l wait and see what's there and -- l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
157 1 MR. PYLE: TVA's attack. JT~18 V 2 JUDGE FRYE We'll have to address that if and when it 3 arises. Any other matters? O 4 "a
^"so"
The s**** x=o = or aoa, ar ch tr= a-e 5 JUDGE FR2E: Fine. 6 MR. PYLE: May I raise just one more question. We R a 7 have had a problem with one of the attorneys of record being 3] 8 dropped off the service list. Mr. Ellis is still an attorney of d ci 9 record insofar as I am aware, he has not been withdrawn. i h 10 MR. LA ROCHE: My understanding was that he dropped out, 3j 11 and that's why he was taken off the service list. is j 12 MR. PYLE: I don't think he has ever filed a motion with-E 13 drawing and he should be on any service list. j 14 JUDGE FRYE: Should be? 2 15 MR. PYLE: I think he's on the Staff service list. 5 y 16 MR. RAWSON: He is, Mr. Chairman. us b' 17 JUDGE FRYE: He's on the Commission's list. E Di IS MR. LA ROCHE: Well, he's no longer with the original 5 i { 19 law firm, I need to have an address an address. e 20 MR. PYLE: My information - I still send him mail there. 21 MR. LA ROCHE: All right, I'll reinstate him. 22 MR. RAWSON: Mr. Chairman, if you'll bear with me for one 23, moment, I think I can let you know whether he still is on the 24 Commission's list. 25 MR. PYLE: He received your last -- he received your i I i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
158 FATE 19 1 memorandum of this hearing. O 2 MR. u a==E= z aeree with you, he has not fued a 3 motion withdrawing, but when I last talked with him, he was not O 4 soins to eartic19 ate any further. now he mar have chaneed his e 5 mind since then. That's the reason he was dropped off our list. U h 6 MR. SWANSON: Mr. Chairman, according to the copy that Rg 7 I received of the Commission's most recent order, extending the
- j 8
time for which -- during which it may review the Staff and TVA's d ci 9 petition for review, Mr. Pyle - I'm sorry, Mr. Ellis, is on that 7: h 10 service' list, and he is of course on the Staff's service list. E 5 11 JUDGE FRYE: Yes. g 12 MR. LA ROCHE: All right, could Mr. Pyle -- could you 5 Q 13 call me or have Mr. Ellis call me and find out what his address l 14 is, confirm what his address is. 2 15 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Pyle, do you know his address? y 16 MR. PYLE: What it is - precisely what it is here in
- ,5 6
17 the - 5 18 JUDGE FRYE: That's right, on the service list. E 19 MR. PYLE: 2 20 MR. LA ROCHE: He now works for the State of Tennessee 21 and he told me he's not involved in that law firm anymore. 22 JUDGE FRYE: I'll tell you what, Mr. La Roche. Let's 23, adjourn if we've got no other business, and then we can settle this 24 thing off the record. If there's no other business before the 25 ; prehearing conference, we stand adjourned. I j (Whereupon the hearing was adjourned at 10:52 a.m.) ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD h in the matter of: Date of Proceeding: April 1, 1982 Docket. Ilumber: 50-059, 50-260, 50-296 OLA Place-of Proceeding: Huntsville, Alabama were held.as herein appears, and-that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission.. ROSE.WNOLD Brandehburg & Hasty 231 Fairview Road r,, m m.m na enn, gi,,nnao Official Reporter (Typed) c 4 t_ bwd Official Reporter (Signature) l l i l k 1}}