ML20052E429
| ML20052E429 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8205110099 | |
| Download: ML20052E429 (98) | |
Text
__ ___________
FCC'2AR FIGmTORY COMPCSSION
- L.
\\(,
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAPD B
,{'
q
, ~-~ ; \\ ::V In the Mat:ter cf:
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DOCKET NOS.
50-443-OL SEABROOK STATION 50-444-OL UNITS i AND 2 DATE:
May 7, 1982 PAGES:
158 - 2.54 A;:
Portsmouth, New Hampshire g ol s
Di O
ALDOL %. X Y REPORTING 400 Vi_ginia Ave., S.W. Wa@d.g_nn, D. C.
20024 O
"2 5'====
(
) 554- '45 620D110099 0 2 0 T10 ',
PDR ADOCK 05000,*,$
r
158 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(")%
\\_
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
ATOMIC SAF3TY AND LICENSING BOARD O
s_j 4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 5
In the matter of:
e h
6 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
'h OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Docket Nos. NRC 50-4 4 3-OL
{
7 SEABROOK STATION NRC 50-444-OL g
UNITS 1 and 2 8
8
X 0
d 9
y Friday, May 7, 1982 g
10 2nd. Floor Courtroom E
Portsmouth District Court
{
11
- ortsmouth, New Hampshire
's 12 A continuing prehearing conference in the above-()
13 entitled matter convened, pursuant to Notice, at 9:30 a.m.
E 14 BEFORE:
w 2
15 HELEN F.
HOYT, Chairperson Administrative Judge j
16 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board M
d' 17 DR. EMMETH A.
LUEBKE, Member s
Administrative Judge 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
=
19 DR. OSCAR PARIS, Member g
Administrative Judge n
20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 21 APPEARANCES:
(')
22 On behalf of the Applicant:
s, 23 THOMAS G.
- DIGNAN, JR.,
Esq.
ROBE RT K. GAD, III, Esq.
(]
24 Ropes and Gray l
\\'
225 Franklin Street 25 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
159-160 1
On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
2 ROY P.
LESSY, Esq.
ROBERT G. PERLIS, Esq.
3 Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel
( })
Office of the Executive Legal Director 4
U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 e
5 h
On behalf of the State of New Hampshire:
6 g
E.
TUPPER KINDER, Esq.
7 DANA BISBEE, Esq.
g Assistant Attorneys General j
8 office of the Attorney General e
Concord, New Hampshire 03301 o
9 y
On behalf of the State of Maine:
10 PHILIP AHRENS, Esq.
j 11 Assistant Attorney General B
Office of the Attorney General g
12 Augusta, Maine
(~T C
x/
13 On behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
m h
14 JOANN SHOTWELL, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General 2
15 Office of the Attorney General 5
State House y
16 Boston, Massachusetts W
6 17 On behalf of the Town of South Hampton, New Hampshire:
{
18 EDWARD J. MCDEPMOTT, Esq.
g Sanders and McDermott 19 g
408 Lafayette Road n
Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 20 On behalf of Sun Valley Association:
21 LAWRENCE EDELMAN, Esq.
g)
(
22 Sanders and McDermott 408 Lafayette Road 23,
Hampton, New Hampshire 03842
()
24 25,
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
161 1
On behalf of theSociety for the Protection of the Environment in Southeastern New Hampahire:
ROBERT CHIESA, Esq.
3 95 Market Street Manchester, New Hampshire 03101 0
4 On behalf of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution:
5 e
h ROBERT BACKUS, Esq.
I 6
116 Lowell Street Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 g
Q 7
g On behalf of the Coastal Chamber of Commerce:
l 8
d BEVERLY HOLLINGWORTH, Esq.
d 9
209 Winnacannet Road y
Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 i
g 10 E
g 11 a
p 12 sd 13 s
E 14 x
E 2
15 5
g 16 us b'
17 5
k 18 0
19 n
20 21 22 i
l 23 I I
i 24
~j i
25 l
l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l l
162 1
PggQEgglEg{
(~y 9:30 a.m.
(_)
2 3
JUDGE HOYT:
I seemed to have lost my microphone, but L
O
(/
4 that has never stopped me before, so let me see if we can do e
5 something this morning thatwe forgot to do yesterday. Dr. Paris e
6 was kind enough to suggest this morning that we do it.
It is a
7 frequently that the Board introduces themselves a little bit more
{
8 than we did yesterday and give you some background.
I didn't d
d 9
bring along a list of accomplishments of my collegues here.
I Yg 10 am going to ask them to lict them for us.
i z
t 11 I will briefly tell you mine.
I am a graduate of B
g 12 Emery University Law SchoJ1 in Atlanta, which accounts for the 3
13 accent, and I have had e long career in Government, partly in
(]}
l 14 the military and partly in the Interstate Commerce Commission j
2 15 and now with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
That is roughly 5
j 16 what I have done.
e g
17 I am going to ask Dr. Luebke if he will give us all 5
M 18 a list of his vast experience with the nuclear field.
h 19 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Well, I am a graduate of the University l
9M 20 of Illinois, Nuclear Physics, and many years experience with it 21 in an industrial concern in nuclear power plants.
22 JUDGE HOYT:
Dr. Paris.
23,
JUDGE PARIS:
I have a PhD in Zoology with a major 24 in Ecology from the University of California at Berkeley.
I 25 have served on the faculty of the University of North Carolina ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
163 1
at Chapel Hill for two years, the University of California at
()
Berkeley for nine years, and for five years before joining the 2
3 Panel, I was the head of the Department of Zoology at the
()
4 University of Wyoming and Director of the Jackson Hole Biological e
5 Research Station, h
8 6
I am an Environmental Scientist, full-time, for the e
9g 7
Panel.
E 8
JUDGE HOYT:
I don' t think we have any other prelimi-O c
9 nary matters, so that we will officially call the proceeding into N
10 session this morning.
I think that most of the parties who E
5 11 appeared here yesterday are again present in the hearing room.
d 12 I see the New Hampshire team over there, and to just z
3
/~T d 13 list them again, we have the State of New Hampshire, commonwealth LJ g E
14 of Massachusetts, Town of South Hampton, Seacoast Anti-Pollution w
2 15 League, Sun Valley Association, New England Coalition on Nuclear 5
16 Pollution, and the Coastal Chamber of Commerce, and Society for 3W b'
17 the Protection of the Environment in Southeastern New Hampshire.
5 18 We also have noted as a Board that Petitioners who 5
E 19 have filed with this Commission and have not not made any 4
20 appearance on this record as of yesterday are the Coop, Members 21 for Responsible Investment, the Honorable Nicholas J.
- Costello, 22 Dr. Donald Herzberg, and Dr. George Margolis, Health Care
}
23,
Providers represented by Patrick--Packy Jacobson, is the spokes-24 person, and a Robert Preston.
Are any of those persons present
)
25 !
here this morning?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
164 1
(No verbal response.)
O l'
2 JUDGE HOYT:
Let the record reflect that none is 3
Present in the hearing room--yes, sir?
(O
_/
4 MR. AHRENS:
I would just like to say that the State e
5 of Maine is here also.
I realize that we are not an Intervenor.
An 6
I don' t know how you plan to---
3y 7
JUDGE HOYT:
(Interrupting.)
Yes.
What I have done
%l 8
is I have read the list of those who had petitioned under 2.714 0
f d
9 and you are a petitioner under 2.:715(c), and that would have been ic h
10 noted next up on the list.
Thank you, very much.
E 5
11 Yes, sir, Mr. Backus?
E y
12 MR. BACKUS:
I notice that some of the people are not
()
13 here--is it all right if I sit?
l 14 JUDGE HOYT:
Yes, sure.
2 15 MR. BACKUS:
I know that some of the people who are 5
y 16 not here who are represented by counsel believe, because I have t
W 17 heard from some of them, that the fact that the Staff objected x
M 18 to their petitions meant that:the Commission decided that they 5
{
19 did not have standing.
n 20 JUDGE HOYT:
Can we use your good offices to correct 21 that misimpression?
22 MR. BACKUS:
I would be happy to, and the particular
(])
23 individual, I believe, was Senator Preston, I know when I told 24 him about that, and he is still not here, but I would just have
(])
25 some concern that some people would not understand that in this ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
165 i
proceeding there is a distinction between the Staff as an
()
2 advocate and the Commission acting through this Board, and I 3
think there may be a misunderstanding about that.
()
4 JUDGE HOYT:
Very well.
I think we will certainly, 5
if that has been a misimpression, Mr. Backus, want it on the e
3 N
8 6
record that we would want to announce that if those persons want e
7 to appear at the next prehearing they make their appearance at 8
that time and state what positions they assume in this case that cd 9
we will permit them to come in at that point, assuming that they i
h 10 have a petition that would ultimately give them standing.
E 11 Dr. Luebke has reminded me also that they have a S
d 12 standing without a contention, which is also a possibility.
E
()
c 13 Would you advise them of that alternative as well.
E E
14 Very well, we indicated yesterday at the conclusion w
2 15 of the proceedings that we would like to get some timeframe 16 indications from you, and I wonder if I could ask Mr. Lessy to BW d
17 lead off on that.
E 5
18 MR. LESSY:
In order to make sure that everybody has
=
b 19 the same information in front of them, I have put some dates and a
20 timetables as a suggested guide on the blackboard.
21 JUDGE HOYT:
I think everybody can see the blackboard
(
22 which is on the wall there.
(3) 23 (Off the record discussion.)
(~g 24 JUDGE HOYT:
Back on the record.
I think we should LJ 25 describe on the record that we had a brief off-the-record time l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
166 while the blackboard was turned so all parties can see it and i
2 then Mr. Lessy is going to read it.
'J MR. LESSY:
Thank you, your Honor.
What I have done 3
rm I had started with k-prior to arriving at the hearing yesterday, 4
the March 1 hearing date, which we discussed yesterday was the e
5 A
scheduled hearing date under the Nuclear Oversight Committee in N
8 6
e the double schedule, and simply working backwards G
8 7
- Congress,
~
feeding in most of the requirements or rules of practice in N
8 terms of timeframe in other procedural devices to the present.
dd 9
i 10 JUDGE HOYT:
That, of course, would bes. March :1, 1983.
o 3
5 11 MR. LESSY:
That is correct, your Honor.
In order to save us just--give us a little flexibility in that regard, I
d 12 E
started back from February 15th, because no matter what kind of
()
13 y
14 schedule you build, there are always good cause reasons to b!
15 consider extentions to it, and worked our way backwards.
What I had done as of yesterday, I added some time 16
..se for consideration.of the matters that came up in discussion d
17 5
Shotwell concerning the necessity for M
18 between the Board and Ms.
=
19 a second prehearing conference.
I endeavored to discus this H
Kinder and and got some suggestions from Mr. Jordan and Mr.
20 from the Applicant's counsel.
I didn' t di,scuss it with 21 some Backus or with the counsel for the State of " sine, but just I'I 22 Mr.
a I did put down as.a suggestion this schedille, 23 as a rough shot, t
I guess -what. we had to do is even not to tie the 24 and, of course,
(~)'
x l parties down, but suggest that in a certain timeframe certain 25 i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
.~
167 1
Board orders, such as the Board Order ruling on parties contentions l
k.)s would trigger certain other things, like the date for 6/15.
Before we could open discovery, we would have to have the parties in 3
(')N issue settle, of course, so I set those down in the hopes that s_
4 this would not be a suggestion as more a framework for discussion, 5
3 e
h and within the timeframes that we have with the Board, so I would 8
6 e
3y 7
just open it for any comments or amendments for anyone.
wh8 As the Board said yesterday, other parties, of course, d
d 9
would have the opportunity to present their own schedule, but i
h 10 this is just one that I was going to suggest.
If you would like, E
E 11 I could read off the dates into the record, becuase, obviously, d
12 the blackboard-wont be in.
3
()
13 JUDGE HOYT:
Yes, I was going to ask you to do that, E
14 sir, and if you would go ahead.
Ue 2
15 MR. LESSY:
I would give you the first day, May 17, 198 2 5
g 16 as the date for any supplemental responses to contentions that would w
d 17 be filed at this time by the Staff and the Applicant.
18 Then giving the Board, of course we need come flexibility 5
0 19 as the Board noted based on the schedules of the individual Board 5
20 members; from the first week of June, or three days in May prior; 21 May 24-May 26, May 27, or the first week in June for a special f)
22 prehearing conference to consider the surrebuttal of petitioners f
x-23 whose contentions had not been considered at this prehearing
~T 24 conference and any other matters, of course, that the Board had (G
25 added to that.
The Board would have to decide under this ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
168 1
schedule if it wanted to have the surrebuttal, if I may use that
(~T
. term, eithe orally prior to that time or have it done--I mean, s-)-
2 3
in writing prior to that time, or have it simply done orally.
O Then I had indicated 6/15/82 as a date for a Board
%/
4 e
5 Order settling the contentions of the parties and the opening 3n 6
of discovery.
R 7
The next date is 8/13/82 as the last discovery request, s
8 8
9/3 as the completion of discovery, and 9/15 as the prehearing d
c 9
conference.
There is a prehearing conference required under 10 io 10 CFR Section 2.752 of our Rules, and I also thought, this isn't
- =
g 11 written in there but it should be, that that would be a good 3
p 12 time to consider any schedule adjustments.
That would be the
~
() cj 13 end of discovery.
There may be some outstanding discovery
=
14 disputes, and we could see where we are in terms of--how really b!
15 ready we are to go to hearing and,how successful the discovery j
16 process has been, and also that would contemplate the issuance w
d 17 of the Staff SER which we discussed yesterday prior to that
"=
18 time.
C 19 10/20 as summary disposition motions to be filed.
As g
n 20 a footnote, summary dispositions now can be filed at any time, 21 but it is still usual to revert to the prior practice and set 22 a final time for the filing of summary disposition motions.
You
(])
23 don' t want 7.rties filing summary disposition motions too close 24 to the hearing.
Responses under the rules 11/10 to summary
{)
25 disposition motions.
12/10 is the Board ruling on summary ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
169 1
disposition motions.
January 14th, the testimony would be filed.
O 2
February 4th would be rebuttal testimony filed and the hearing 3
beginning approximately Febraury 15,:1983.
4 So, if someone wants to start out to get the discussion r
e 5
going.
3 N
6 e
n a
7 s
8 8
a d
ci 9
lio 10
?
g 11 3
d 12 O
y= 13
=
I E
14 w
i i
2 15 j
16 us b'
17 w=
M 18 P
E 19 5
20 21 0
22 23
- O 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
170 l
JUDGE HOYT:
Let's proceed in this fashion, we will O
(/
2 go through the parties and see what comments you may wish to 3
make on it.
()
4 Do you want to start off, sir?
e 5
MR. EDELMAN:
My name is Larry Edelman.
I'm N
6 representing Sun Valley.
R8-7 Do I understand you correctly 5-24, 5-26, 5-27, or the s
8 8
first week of June would be scheduled for the contentions of di 9
those parties filing late contentions, is that right?
i N
10 MR. LESSY:
I'm sorry.
There was some noise and I g
11 didn't hear you, sir.
B j
12 MR. EDELMAN:
The second position there, the May or
() 5 13 the alternative of June, do I understand that that would be l
14 the scheduling for the hearings on the contentions of those 2
15 parties filing late contentions?
5 J
16 MR. LESSY:
The argument on the contentions of those E
p 17 parties filing late contentions, yes.
5 18 MR. MCDERMOTT:
No problem with that for South Hampton.
=
19 JUDGE HOYT:
For South Hampton?
g n
20 MR. MCDERMOTT:
Yes.
21 JUDGE HOYT:
Ms. Shotwell, for Massachusetts?
22 MS. SHOTWELL:
That's true for Massachusetts as well.
(}
23,
JUDGE HOYT:
I'm going to reserve the Applicant for 24 last.
Mr. Backus?
}
25 MR. BACKUS:
I think the schedule is too optimistic, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
171 i
Madam Chairman.
I don't think it provides enough time for
(~h s_/
2 dealing with contentions and I don't think it provides enough 3
time for dealing with discovery.
()
i 4
My understanding here is, and Mr. Lessy can clarify e
5 this, is that there has been and continues to be a considerable An 6
agreement between the Applicant and the Staff as to the actual Rg 7
likely completion date for the first Seabrook Unit.
I take it 3
8 8
that this schedule is keyed to the Applicant's projected d
d 9
completion date.
It is my understanding, and maybe Mr. Lessy Y
10 would care to advise the Board on this, that the Staff does not 3
5 11 feel that the completion date testified to by the Applicant is d
12 not realistic.
If that's so, it seems to me that that may 3
(.)
h 13 indicate that we have time for what I would consider to be g
l 14 necessary for a sufficient discovery and I think even further 5
2 15 sufficient requirement of contentions.
5 g
16 There has been discussion here yesterday about further w
g 17 refinement of contentions.
I'm just writing down some ideas 5
M 18 now.
I will come back to them if you would like to go onto the 5;
19 other parties but it strikes me that we might want to open 5
20 discovery around July, that we ought to take the next two months 21 to give the parties that are not here, that you've mentioned
({}
22 might want to have contentions filed and see whether the Board 23 wants to consider them, have those parties who have got
{}
24 contentions here sharpen those contentions as a result of the 25 discussions here and the suggestions of the Board, have an ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
172 i
opportunity for responses, have a prehearing conference on that,
([ ))
2 open discovery in early July and I would suggest that discovery 3
go through substantially the rest of the year.
({)
4 We don't have the SER.
We don't have the DES, I guess e
5 that's coming next week.
I don't/wIEN[ the FES is targeted to d
6 be made available.
I'm sure that Staff Counsel can tell us.
e Rg 7
That sort of schedule in my mind as I see being more reasonable.
8 Now whether or not there is a need for what seems to a
d 9
me a very fast moving schedule here, I think really depends upon 10 whether or not there is agreement that this Board's decision 3
5 11 is going to be necessary in terms of the projected construction
<k d
12 completion.
I would suggest the Board might inquire of Staff's 3m
([')
13 Counsel about the Staff's current understanding of when construc-l 14 tion is going to be completed and this plant is going to be a
2 15 needing a license for actual operation.
5 j
16 There is one other thing I wanted to say.
Go ahead, M
d 17 Dr. Paris.
"a:
18 JUDGE PARIS:
Go ahead.
E 19 MR. BACKUS:
One other thing is, the Board may be 4
20 aware, my client, the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League has pending 21 and on the docket for oral argument on March 28th, an issue
,r -
22 regarding the Emergency Planning.
I bring that to the Board's 23 attention because it is not our position that the hearing on gg 24 Emergency Planning should be pushed back in any respect.
In L) 25 !
fact, it is our legal position on that one that a determination i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
173 I
that Emergency Planning, including particularly evacuation,
/~S
\\-
2 could be carried out in a manner sufficient to protect 'he c
3 public health and safety, should have been made before now in 4
view of the fact that the issue was not determined at the e
5 construction permit stage.
Our view is that there are unique 39 6
problems at this site because of its proximity to the beaches R
7 and the physical characteristics of the site.
M 8
8 I just want to make the Board aware that it's our legal
{
)
e
(
q 9
and the duty of the Commission through this Board to make a
~
zc 10 determination of the feasibility of evacuation should have been E
11 made some time ago and should be made immediately.
We are S
{
12 pressing that issue.
So I guess I bring that to the Board's e
a
(,m) y 13 attention that it's our client's position that that issue l
=
l 14 should be given special and expedited treatment by this Board.
{
15 That's our legal position and so far the Commission, acting x
~
j 16 through the directive Nuclear Reactor Regulation has not agreed w
N 17 with us.
5
{
18 JUDGE HOYT:
Mr. Backus, the position the Board is in E
19 g
and indeed the Commission is in, is that you are tying us to n
20 State Legislation that has occurred.
We have no power whatsoever 21 to order an expedited hearing by the Court of the State of (n)
I believe that's jurisdiction that you are now in 22 23 To get to the issue of Emergency Planning when you tie
(])
24 it up in Court is to say to us, you will have to defer your 25 hearings until such as that iscue is settled.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
174 I think that we have a conflict here that I don't know 1
i 2
how to resolve in that we have no power to resolve it.
We must 3
live with the rules of this Commission and proceed with this l
)
4 fashion if the-jurisdictions have determined, as they rightfully
'~/
e 5
have, to exercise the option of taking the Emergency Planning l
3 N
d 6
problems into the Courts of this State.
e R
R 7
This Board cannot, of course, delay its proceedings a
8 8
based upon some court suit over which it has no power to either N
dd 9
require or request some expedited handling of it.
io 10 MR. BACKUS:
Well, I'm sure you are aware, Madam 3
5 11 Chairman, that the matter pending in the New Hampshire Supreme j
12 Court is not an appeal to which my client organization is a
/~w E
d y 13 party.
=
l 14 JUDGE HOYT:
You might not be a party, Mr. Backus, 2
15 but you certainly advocating their cause extremely well.
I 5
y 16 think the problem that the Board has is that we simply have no e
g' 17 power to see it except in accordance with the Rules of this 5
M 18 Commission in establishing this hearing schedule.
=H" 19 Dr. Luebke?
8n 20 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Can we go back to square one?
We can 21 proceed with all other aspects of this proceeding, whatever
()
22 happens to Emergency Planning in courts or otherwise, FEMA 23 or where ever.
i
()
24 MR. BACKUS:
No question about that, Doctor.
25 JUDGE LUEBKE:
I think that's what is on the blackboard ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
t
175 1
if I understand correctly.
O 2
JUDGE HOYT:
Is that right, sir?
3 MR. LESSY:
That's right, your Honor.
There is no r(r 4
reason to hold everything else up because of the uncertainty e
5 on Emergency Planning.
M9 3
6 JUDGE HOYT:
What Mr. Backus is proposing, Mr. Lessy, R
R 7
if I understand the basis of his argument is---
i A
8 8
MR. BACKUS:
(Int,errupting.)
No, I'm suggesting it d
o 9
is our legal position that the Emergency Planning Issue should io 10 be brought forward for expediting.
E g
11 JUDGE HOYT:
Exactl y.
You are even going one step 3
y 12 beyond what I just suggested.
()
13 MR. BACKUS:
And should deal with it on whatever
=
l 14 hypotheticals need to be dealt with in terms of arriving at
{
15 a decision as to whether or not Emergency Planning can provide
=
g 16 the independent safety now required under the Commission's w
17 Regulations, 10 CFR 50.47.
It's our position that we are now
=
18 before the court on, that that is somethir the Commission should 5
E 19 determine forthwith---
A 20 MR. LESSY:
(Interrupting.)
Mr. Backus is talking 21 about another court case.
Perhaps Mr. Dignan, who is a party
(~)
'q s 22 to that and I'm not, could explain it better than I.
What 23,
happened was that the Seacoast Anti-Pollution before this OL
()
24 was noti.fied, petitioned the Staff, that is the Director of 25 Regulation under 10 CFR 2.206 to suspend the construction permits ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
176 1
for Seabl.Jok, the issued construction permits on the grounds of 2
Emergency Planning reasons and the Staff denied that.
3 Mr. Backus has appealed that denial of his 2.206 4
suspension into the U.S.
Court of Appeals.
There is an oral e
5 argument scheduled for that this month.
That is the proceeding h
6 he is talking about.
It might be inaccurate.
R d
7 MR. BACKUS:
It's not inaccurate at all.
The only A
8 8
thing I would add is that the Staff did deny a Directive of rJd 9
Regulation and the Commission decided not to disturb that z'o 10 ruling.
It's actually the Commission's ruling from which the l
j 11 appeal was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Es
(
12 That is set for oral argument in the United States n 3 tJ 13 Court of Appeals with the District of Columbia Circuit on l
14 May 28th.
It is not sure it will be an oral argument.
As you 2
15 know that Court reserves the right to decide cased without E
j 16 oral argument essentially up until the last minute.
They us 17 have that standard form that they give the lawyers but at this 5
M 18 point they have scheduled it for that date.
5
{
19 My view of that, lawyers differ, respectfully I think n
20 that decision has no bearing on what you are doing one way or 21 the other because all the D.C. Circuit can say is, bad Commission.
O 22 vou should have taken this up before you are going to take it up.
23 So the most they are going to say is speed it up.
]
24 I can't see them saying anything else frankly at this 25 point because the convening of this Board and soon as, and I'm ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
177 1
sure you will admit an Emergency Planning Contention probably O
2 at Mr. Backus's request as well as others, it seems to me that 3
what the D.C. Circuit is dealing with is a moot situation.
(3 52 Mr. Backus disagrees with that and he is a very good 4
e 5
lawyer and may persuade the Court to do something else but the n
6 Applicant's view of that case is, it has absolutely no bearing Rg 7
on anything up here, including the schedule because it's a Z
8 8
practical matter, we can't do it.
d d
9 I remain silent around the experts from New Hampshire io 10 on the New Hampshire Supreme Court Case but I'm advised with l
3j 11 respect to that case.
That case sits up at the highest court B
d 12 of this State but meanwhile the work goes under the contract.
z 13 So again, as a practical matter, I'm not sure that the Board m
14 needs to give a great deal of weight to the pendency of that 2
15 case as far as scheduling matters are concerned.
Now it could 5
g' 16 very well be---
M 17 JUDGE HOYT:
(Interrupting.)
Excuse me.
Let me 5
M 18 interrupt at that point Jud I do apologize for doing so.
i
=
f19 Let me ask you, I didn't know yesterday and I didn't M
20 understand that that work was going ahead on the contract, do 21 you happen to know what the completion date of that would be?
()
22 MR. DIGNAN:
I don't, Madam Chairman.
I would be glad 23 to see what I can find out.
/m()
24 JUDGE HOYT:
Somebody else on here does.
Yes, ma'am?
25 MS. HOLLINGWORTH:
Madam Chairman, that work as far ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
178 1
as being continued on that evacuation plan, the contractor has 2
only been allowed---He has a contract and he has met with two 3
communities out of seventeen.
All others have refused to work 4
with that contract because they feel that the legislation has e
5 not been lived up to.
Anj 6
Two communities that have met with the contractor Rg 7
have not said that they will proceed with your evacuation plan, S
8 only that they will discuss,with him and wait decision of the n
dd 9
Supreme Court.
Yg 10 So in fact, the work really is not going forward.
E 5
11 JUDGE LUEBKE:
As a practical matter, couldn't we S
d 12 really consider the Emergency Planning thing as being on a z
O>
3
\\-
j 13 separate blackboard because other government agencies are
=
{
14 involved and really not under the control of the people who 2
15 are in this room?
j 16 MR. LESSY:
Yes and no.
Yes in the sense that at this w
17 Point there is this question of lack of control.
No in the h
18 sense that my hope would be that as we go through this; every-E 19 thing will fall in place, that that schedule once Mr. Backus's n
20 appeals and the other appeals and those decisions been issued, 21 and afterall Mr. Backus has his opportunity for hearing on
(~Ns_)
22 Emergency Planning right here, but that that will all meld 23 together.
,o
(_)
24 At some point, and it will prob;bly be in that final 25 prehearing conference or at sometime as we get later into the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
179 1
fall and winter and closer to the hearing, we may have to make
()
2 a decision as to whether or not the Board in fact wants to hear 3
Emergency Planning at the very end of the other contentions.
()
4 At this point it is speculative to some extent.
e 5
JUDGE HOYT:
I'm sorry, sir.
I did interrupt you.
Rn d
6 Would you like to continue?
e R
R 7
MR. DIGNAN:
No, I was just finishing up.
A 8
8 My view as I r.ay, I've been with Seabrook in particular d
c 9
and nuclear licensing long enough that the fastest way to get
!g 10 a long and delayed hearing is to start at the beginning bringing 5j 11 up every conceivable thing that can impinge on the schedule B
e 12 later and not setting a schedule.
I for one think that the Ec
(])
13 business of picking out an existing court case or a town that E
14 has had a fight with a contractor hired by a legislature and w
2 15 saying this is grounds for delaying for the whole proceeding E
j 16 is not going to be productive for anybody.
L M
d 17 I understand fully, Madam Chairperson, members of the l
18 Board, there are people in this room, certainly behind the bar 5"
19 anyway, that feel very strongly about the Seabrook.
I also 8n l
20 think that public interest is served by a decision one way or 21 the other.on matters like this in a decision that can come
)
22 forward as rapidly as is consistent with the due process of law (J
23 as we understand it in this country.
24 I do not think building in artificial delays at the
-s(J 25 start because of the existence of other forums, the Nuclear ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
180 Regulatory Commission is in a business where a lot of other
(_)
governmental agencies and officials have something to say about 2
what they are doing or have an effective veto on certain parts 3
O If we get into'the business of wanting of what they are doing.
4 to have everything lined up before this Board picks up a gavel, e
5 h
my one year old daughter will appear to finish the Seabrook II.
8 6
e f7 That's the problem we've got.
into business I really think that we shouldn't get 8
Let's get a d
at this date of worrying about other court cases.
d 9
/
h 10 schedule up there. IVerybody is an experienced lawyer, and sure, v:
we all know things are going to impinge on that schedule later B
E 11 and I think Mr. Lessy was very wise when he said, among other 5
6 12 E
Oo things that second prehearing can be used to take a good hard d
13 S
look at where we are scheduled to go from there in light of E
14 5!
15 what has happened in the interim.
It makes a lot of sense to me.
Well, I guess I am not suppose to be responding yet 16 B
to Mr. Backus so I will not go into the details.
W g
j7 sir?
JUDGE HOYT:
Do you mean you want another shot, 18
{
=
I'll take my shot at my friend Robert 5
i MR. DIGNAN:
19 9
If I get him early in the morning he won't beat me n
20 right now.
that bad at tennis in the afternoon.
21 I did interrupt Mr. Backus,and, sir, if
)()
JUDGE HOYT:
22 that's the start of your presentation, please go ahead at this s
23 Od 24 point.
MR. BACKUS:
Well, I want to apologize.
It's clear to 25 l ALDERSOr.' REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
181l 1
me from what Mr. Lessy said that I have confused the Board and (m~)
that there are indeed two court cases dealing with the Emergency 2
3 Planning.
I guess that's now clear.
The one that we've got in
(-)>
(
4 the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of SAPL, I just brought to e
5 the Board's attention because it is our position that the A
N h
6 Emergency Planning Issue should be expedited as a safety R
7 important issue and I don't need to argue that whole case.
Kl 8
With regard to everything else, as I said, it seems dd 9
to me that the schedule is a bit too hasty to properly deal
- zo b
10 with the issues that I expect will be dealt with in this case.
E E
11 I would still invite the Board to inquire of Mr. Lessy as to E
y 12 whether or not there continues to be dispute between the Staff
(')
13 and the Applicant about the completion date.
l 14 JUDGE HOYT:
Yes, we wanted to get that.
I believe 2
15 Dr. Paris has a question.
j 16 JUDGE PARIS:
Yes.
I' wanted to respond to that.
I M
g 17 just got back from what was suppose to be a 752 prehearing E
18 conference that turned out not to be because the completion 5
{
19 date of the plant was pushed back by the Applicant one year, n
20 You gave us yesterday, Mr. Lessy, the Staff estimate of the 21 fuel loading date which came off the Commission's Report to I'd 22 the Bevill Committee, I guess.
I would like to ask you to tell LJ 23 us whether the Project Manager has any different estimate with 24 regard to a fuel loading date.
{';
25 MR. LESSY:
The dates that I have of the Bevill l
l t
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
182 Schedule, your Honor, is hearing start 3-83, hearing close 5-83, i
(s_)
Licensing Board Decision 10-83, and issuance of OL 11-83.
Let 2
me just consult with the Project Manager for a second.
3
(~h This is a little bit beyond the area I usually get x_)
4 into, but as I understand it this was the sequence of events.
e 5
A There is something called a Case Load Forecast Panel N
d 6
e k7 which is a group of technical people and planning people who study the progress of the plant vis-a-vis its actual construction 8
d 9
completion.
In September of 1981 the Case Load Forecast Panel d
i h
10 and that's what it does, it forecasts, forecasted approximately E
an additional year for the construction of completion of Seabrook E
11 but that was not a Staff date.
That was what the Panel said.
d 12 E
rm a
subsequent to that, there were public meetings,
's )
d 13 S
meetings between the Staff and the Applicant as to what was E
14 U
really going on in Seabrook and a lot of new information was
=
2 15
- x obtained particularly about the large number of working people 16 s
M the site, the amount of the activity, the length of the d
17 at 5
18 shifts.
The last number that I heard unofficially was that
}
there upwards of 7,000 workers working on the Unit.
As a result,
}
19 M
the Case Load Forecast Panel felt I guess that it didn't have 20 enough information to make a judgement as to whether or not 21 the 11-83 date had to be adjusted and is returning sometime
()
22 in June or July to see what the rate of progress has been since 23 24 Septenber.
Officially though, the date that is still being
()
25 l carried is the date that I gave yesterday of construction i
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
183 4
y completion of Unit I for 11-83.
That's going to be re-evaluated O
2 on the basis of the progress and new information as I understand 3
it, in June or July.
O 4
3oooz r^a s when aia the cese toea roteceet renet e
5 make its prediction or forecast?
En h
6 w
3 8
8 a
o 9
z'o 10 z
a d
12 z
Q y
13 E
14
- =
2 15 s
j 16
.l w
l
((
17 g
18 E
19 8
n 20 4
21 O
23 1
24 O
25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
184 1
MR. LESSY:
The information that I have is that the r
~
2 initial one was made 9/15/81.
3 JUDGE PARIS:
That was the most recent one?
[' ~)
4 MR. LESSY:
Yes.
That was the one that's being e
5 reevaluated, based upon the increased construction activity at A
n h
6 the site in June or July.
R 7
JUDGE PARIS:
That was the one that forecast a years l
E 8
8 delay--
dd 9
MR. LESSY: (Interrupting) Yes.
i O
JUDGE PARIS: --which would push it to--
10 oZ
))
MR. LESSY: (Interrupting) I have 12/84.
i
<?
d 12 JUDGE HOYT:
Mr. Lessy, let me ask you, would that z
()
be any better information than the Applicant itself might have 13 am E
14 on what the completion date would be?
Why don't we consult with 15 the people who are doing the deed?
E How about that sir?
What dates do you project?
I 16 EW 6 '17 MR. DIGNAN: I gave you the dates yesterday for fuel 18 load, and we stand by them.
There's no doubt, and, you know,
=H 19 good lawyers and good technical people disagree.
But, as Mr.
8n 20 Lessy indicated to you, I'm not sure that that original 21 forecast took into account the level of activity on that site.
~';
22 They have thrown three shifts at that plant and thrown a lot (J
23 of personnel into it.
24 We still believe we will make this date.
(])
25 JUDGE HOYT:
Let me have that again.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1
185 1
MR. DIGNAN:
11/83 date.
(( _,y
)
2 JUDGE HOYT:
Why, that's the same date he has.
3 MR. DIGNAN:
But, we cannot guarantee it, any more than
()
4 they can guarantee their date.
But, we still maintain we can e
5 do it, and we will urge the Board to stay with this kind of a Aa 6
schedule for that reason.
.R 7
It goes without saying that the Board will be among s
8 6
the first people advised if at any time the Applicant feels d
d 9
that the dates they are giving you are not reachable.
But we 10 do feel its reachable.
E 5
11 JUDGE PARIS :
Mr. Dignan, I'm sure you would not be B
j 12 guilty of the last case I was on.
The Board was the last one 5
1 O s 13 to know.
m m
14 MR. DIGNAN:
I learned a long time ago, doctor, to
{
15 tell the Board before I tell anybody.
l
=
]
16 MR. LESSY:
I'm advised, your honor, further by Mr.
e d
17 Wheeler here, the Project Manager--I haven't introduced him.
E
{
18 This is Mr. Louis L. Wheeler, the Project Manager, P]
19 NRC Staff member for Seabrook, the second on my left.
M 20 The 9/15/81 projection by the Case Load Forecast 21 Panel of 12/84, was based upon, assuming an average rate of
(])
construction completion at Seabrook for a nationwide average--
22 23 ;
In other words, if this was the average rate of construction for i
f]
24 a nuclear power plant, given where they were in September of ' 81, v
25 it would take them roughly until 12/84 to complete it.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY INC.
186 j
Now, as I understand it, the Seabrook Construction,
()
as I've said, there are a number of workmen there, thousands 2
of workmen there at the plant, working long shifts, and that 3
()
4 based upon that, the Applicant, as I understand its position, p
5 is that they can beat that average.
N The question of whether they are beating that average 8
6 e
is going to be resolved in the Case Load Forecast Panel Meeting, 7
h8 or should be resolved sometime this summer to see what the rate N
d d
9 of progress has been since last September.
i Perhaps the Board is more familiar with these things 10 e
E than I am, but that's my understanding of the status of it.
ij JUDGE PARIS:
After the Case Load Forecast Panel does d
12 3
({)
m 13 its thing again, you will let us know, right'away.
14 MR. LESSY:
Yes, sir, we will.
N=
2 15 E
j 16 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Well, as a practical matter, what M
d 17 really happens is, the Power Company either runs out of 5
5 18 money, or makes a new forecast about the need for power, and 5
19 then suddenly they make a decision that'the plant dates are a 8n 20 year later.
And, where's the 752 on this blackboard?
Is that 21 9/15?
22 MR. DIGNAN:
(Indicating) 23 JUDGE LUEBKE:
So 9/15 is probably the date when 24 we are going to find out these things.
25 MR. DIGNAN:
Yes.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
187 1
MR. DIGNAN:
I can assure you, doctor, if that forecast
()
2 changes from the company's point of view, the Board will be told 3
then.
That's the way I work with Boards, and you can be assured.
()
4 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Do you mean, if the Board of Directors e
5 has a meeting, it will get in the newspaper, too?
h 6
MR. DIGNAN:
Well, it will get to you probably before R
7 it gets to the newspapers.
3 I
8 8
JUDGE LUEBKE: ' All of this doesn' t much change Item a
d 9
No.
2, when we have our next prehearing conference, does it?
$g 10 JUDGE HOYT:
Well, let's see where we are with this.
g 11 We have given Mr. Backus an opportunity.
If you are doing B
g 12 some productive conferring here, go right ahead.
I'm serious c
(]) y 13 if you are, go ahead.
M 1
h 14 MR. JORDAN: I just question the Staff as to whether or 2
15 not we should be disposing to the Board some of the events 5
y 16 involving New Hampshire Public Utility Commission, and decisions e
d 17 that may be regarding Unit 2, and what effect that might have 18 on the overall schedule,.and I'lli. talk with Mr. Lessy about h
19 that.
8n 20 MR. LESSY:
The only thing I can say, your Honor, 21 I've given the information that I have available to us. These rw 22 are the dates that are of ficially carried.
They are subject U
23 to reconsideration in June or July.
I 24 JUDGE HOYT:
We pick them up on our reports, too, Mr.
{s s_)
25 Lessy.
We are all tied to numbers and figures that are ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
188 I
l I
sometimes totally unrealistic, and I realize that.
Do you wish
()
2 to comment, sir?
3 MR. JORDAN:
Yes, ma'am.
With respect to the Long
,,(,)
4 Term Scheduling we were just talking about, I know the Board g
5 doesn't have the authority to order the Staff to come in with an N.
6 earlier schedule.
But it does seem that it would be very useful R
7 to this Hearing if they would.
I would suggest that we urge a
j 8
that the Staff--
d t
d 9
JUDGE HOYT:
The Forecast you are talking about is--
io 10 MR. JORDAN :
I'm talking about the Forecasting Panel
_E j
11 that Mr. Lessy has mentioned that we will need some time in 3
l 12 June or July.
Again, I would just urge, from m3 point of view, 5
[]}
13 and I would assume that the Board would want to urge as well, 14 that that Forecast Panel meet as early as possible and provide 2
15 the additional information.
E y
16 It seems to me that the 11/83 date is unrealistic, w
g 17 based on what we've heard.
I can't imagine that they are going M
18 to pick up a year when the history of nuclear power is always
=b
{
19 that you lose a year.
M 20 So, we are not talking about 11/83, and we need a good 21 estimate.
I just urge the Staff to get that as quickly as n
22 possible.
G) 23 JUDGE PARIS:
As you acknowledge, and well know, Mr.
24 Jordan, the Appeal Board has said that Licensing Boards can't 7\\
()
25 j tell the Staff when to do things.
l l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
189 1
MR. JORDAN :
Oh, absolutely.
I'm just suggesting that I~l 2
the Staff might have the courtesy, indeed in its own interest, to xs 3
do that.
(')
4 It does seem to me that it has an impact on the 5
schedule for the Hearing as a whole.
I agree, almost entirely, e
An d
6 with Mr. Backus' discussion with the Board.
I think the e
Rg 7
Discovery periods are unrealistically short and will decrease s
8 8
the utility of the process.
a d
d 9
It seems to me, we can set a tentative schedule of io 10 some sort, but any scheduling beyond the June or July period, E
E 11 really makes sense.
Let's get that Forecast in here, and see
<?
d 12 what we are really talking about before we have any sense that Ec 13 we are firm on anything past that time.
(]}
E 14 JUDGE HOYT:
I think you can appreciate that Mr. Lessy
$e 2
15 did say that you realize there will be slippage in that.
16 MR. JORDAN:
No question.
I just want to make the 3
M d
17 point that we'll be better off than--
5 M
18 JUDGE HOYT:
I do like a fixed schedule as firm as
=b E
19 possible, because I think it gives everyone an opportunity 5
20 to plan.
There are such mundane things such as airline 21 schedules and hotel reservations, and just the physical 22 movement of a number of people around that requires a great 23 deal of planning, and we simply have to have some--
t 24 MR. JORDAN: (Interrupting) No doubt.
e k_s) 25 MR. LESSY:
Historically, one of the most complex ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
190 1
matters is court room reservations for an extensive period of s_j 2
time.
3 JUDGE HOYT:
I have now probably the finest collective
()
4 list of courtroom sites in the State of New Hampshire, in my g
5 office.
I also have a speaking acquaintance with most of the 0
6 clerks.in this State, I think.
They are very fine gentlemen, R
Q 7
by the way.
A j
8 I think also you've added up there, on your schedule, d
d 9
during the talk here, Mr. Lessy, for the 9/15 date - The t1e ' oard, and 10 Prehearing Conference-Schedule Adjustments on a
El 11 I think that should be noted in the record as well.
B j
12 MR. JORDAN:
I recognize everything the Chair has been 5
(]}
13 saying, indeed.
I would be concerned that we end Discovery l
14 before we have another look at the scheduling.
That's the kind g
15 of thing I'm talking about.
I think that I recognize would be
=
y 16 a little too general to be particularly useful, as I think e
d 17 probably the schedule is.
5 5
18 But, I think, for the next month or so, I have some 5[
19 reactions, I think, might be useful.
The first date seems to 5
20 me to be good on Mr. Lessy's schedule.
21 I would suggest that the utility, to having from 5/17, 22 which is the supplemental responses presumably to any 23 contentions, and to any other of the contentions that were filed 24 after the sixth, that there be a two week--He has a one week 25 period to this special prehearing, or next prehearing conference.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i i
191 I
I would suggest that we need about two, and perhaps 2
three weeks, and I have a couple of things that would go into 3
there.
One is simply our gearing up our ovn arguments to O
4 cover thee.
5 But, importantly, as I mentioned yesterday, it seems O
6 to me that that's a very useful time for the parties to talk R
7 and come into the next prehearing conference with an awful n[
8 lot of agreed language.
I am of the sense that we can do that.
d 9
JUDGE HOYT:
I'm sorry, but I didn't understand.
You 10 do or you do not?
g 11 MR. JORDAN :
Yee, ma'am.
I do have the sense that we M
g 12 can do that.
For example, a number of the contentions that
(]) 5$
13 the applicant has objected to, of hours for various reasons.
=
l 14 I think taking the Applicant's premise, that he argues 2
15 eloquently, that they really need only to comply with regula-j 16 tions, I think that most of them can be redraf ted according to w
g 17 his desires, and we can deal with that sort of thing.
That's 5
5 18 what I'm talking about, that would save a lot of time, when we
?
{
19 get around to it later on.
It's something that's going to take M
20 longer than therweek oroso that's in there.
21 So, I end up with a prehearing conference, essentially,
{)
in the second week of June, or perhaps the second or third 22 23 ;
week in June.
Having accomplished all thoca items, it pushes 24 things back a little bit, but not very much.
)
25 Again, I agree with Mr. Backus, I think we should ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
192 1
push that Discovery period on down the line, and I would n(),
2 emphasize the SER, and I think the SER is going to be 3
significant here.
We've particularly seea the discussion of
()
4 unresolved safety issues, and we seem to have something of an e
5 impasse of useful dealings with those, given that the SER hasn't 6
come out discussing them yet.
R 7
I think there's going to be a lot of activity, both a
{
8 probably in new contentions and new discovery, as a result of d
q 9
the issuance of the SER.
I think we should simply take into 5g 10 account that that's not a magic Court of Appeals Decision, or z
=
1 5
11 some thing.
It's something we know is coming and that we know s'
N 12 we 'll have to factor into here.
5
(])
13 This is very rough, but I've just suggested a period 14 of something like a month after the SER, for any new contentions, 2
15 and the two month period after that for Discovery related to it.
5 16 g
Again I've pulled that out of my head.
But, it seems A
d 17 to me that that gets us to about the end of the year that Mr.
N M
18 Backus discussed.
E 19 g
I think it w'ill also take into account, and the local n
20 officials can certainly correct me on this, being able to deal 21 almost entirely, if not entirely, with the state and local 22
({}
plans that are supposed to come out later in the year.
23 Then we've got a package where I think we will be able 24
~
(V) to deal with all of that.
25 JUDGE HOYT:
State and local--
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
193 1
MR. JORDAN:
(Interrupting) Emergency plans, excuse me.
2 Then, at the end of Discovery, we should certainly recognize 3
that not only will there be summary dispositions that may well O
4 be useful in some cases, but there will also refinements to e
5 contentions that will be useful at that point. Again, probably An 6
much of which will be negotiated.
R 7
We ought to factor that into understanding where we 3
{
8 are going with this.
dd 9
I agree with Mr. Lessy.
I think we have to have a ie g
10 Summary Disposition deadline, although it wouldn' t come out to j
11 that.
On the way I've been talking about it, it would probably B
j 12 come out to something like January.
I would guess, from what oa 13 I'm talking about, it would be something in January.
He has l
14 October 20th.
g 15 My point there is that the parties could end up with
=
j 16 terrible burdens, having to respond to Summary Judgment Motions, w
g 17 in the midst of developing testimony.
So, we do need that E
18 deadline, some period before the testimony has to be developed.
=H
{
19 That's really my comments at this point.
That n
20 probably ends us up with the Hearing starting some time in 21 Shout--not that much later than we have here.
He has February
,m
(_)
22 15th.
I would guess with some overlapping, we could end up 23 with March or April 15th of '83.
I really don't think that
(_')
/ %
24 that's much of an extension.
25 But, it does take into account the SER, and the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
194 local plans we know are coming in the Fall.
I
' O 2
l i
3 l
! O 4
1 a
5 A
N d
6 a
i G
8 7
I g
8 a
d 9
.l i
o g
10 a
I 11 i
l W
d 12 z
i 13 l
2 E
i E
14 W
E 15 x
M 16 m
M 6
17 i
m M
l M
18
=
l r
g 19
_.5 I
n f
20 l
i 21 i
O 22 i
23 O
24 25 1
l l
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4 195' 1
MR. LESSY:
So in essence, you don't have dates, O
2 Mr. Jordan?
3 If I might just comment, your Honor, he is adding (s
k-two months to the discovery period and everything else two months 4
e 5
down the line pretty much?
d 6
MR. JORDAN:
What I am really doing is rather than Rg 7
closing discovery on 9/3, I'm just having the whole discovery a
j 8
period go the end of discovery on the SER and the local Emergency dd 9
Plans so that everything can be fully developed.
10 JUDGE LUEBKE:
I'm missing one point here and as I E
E 11 recall, some of the Staff Reports are coming out in September, g
12 October, and November.
People are going to have read these
('%
5
\\_)
13 things and maybe write new contentions.
How can you close l
14 discovery and all that stuff in September.
Is it possible?
9 15 MR. LESSY:
Sure.
The way it's usually done you are j
16 right, Judge Luebke, the SER is scheduled for 9/82 and as e
p 17 Mr. Jordan said, basically if discovery is over on admitted 5
5 18 contentions and the SER comes out, for example, and someone
=
19 wants to file a contention based on the SER, the rules clearly M
20 provide a mechanism to do that.
If you file a late contention, 21 what's the good cause?
The good cause is that the SER just came
()
22 out.
If the intervener wants discovery on that, then they move 1
23 for discovery on the basis of the newly admitted contention.
(])
24 JUDGE LUEBKE:
First he's got to read the thing.
25 MR. LESSY:
Yes.
He's got to read it.
He's got to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
196 1
decide what contentions, if any, should be added on the basis s_J 2
of it, move to add those contentions, and then once they are 3
admitted, to have discovery.
That's the mechanism that the t'h Is_)
4 rules set out in this context.
e 5
The problem that I have with open ended discovery An 6
periods that are five or six months long is that you'll find R
7 a flurry of activity on the back end of that, on the four and Ml 8
five month end of that and you in essence have wasted a lot.
d d
9 JUDGE LUEBKE:
Well, it's my experience that the io G
10 discovery schedule will really be set on the third line there g
11 after the Board Order is out as to what are the contentions, k
g 12 who are the parties, and how many contentions.
Then we can
(')
13 meaningfully say what is the discovery period.
We can guess now, h
14 but it is only a guess.
W 2
15 MR. JORDAN:
I agree with that and we sit a number for 5
y 16 contentions, some of which we may be able to wash out in just w
d 17 getting good explanations from people.
I forsee a lot of Y
18 discovery for a long time on those and I think we will need all
=H
{
19 that time starting right away.
Now if we end up with fewer n
20 contentions, I can sit here and talk about less time for 21 discovery but I think you are absolutely right, Dr. Luebke.
(]}
22 I feel we are a little in the dark at the moment on being have 23 confident that I could/ discovery in anything like the kind of
~'
24 (V) period that Mr. Lessy has set out.
25 '
JUDGE LUEBKE:
Nevertheless. the blackboard says that ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
197 I
we are going to adjust the schedule on 9/15 so let's adjust the qk/
schedule even before 9/15.
2 3
MR. JORDAN:
Yes.
Let's talk about schedule adjust-
/^)
\\/
4 ments before we are already into discovery.
e 5
MR. LESSY:
You mean make the 9/3 date in discovery 39 6
9/15?
In other words, have one entry 9/15 end discovery, R
7 prehearing conference, and schedule adjustments.
Would that n[
8 take care of the problem that you mentioned?
d d
9 MR. JORDAN:
Well, I wouldn't take 9/15 but I would i
O 10 put those two deadlines together.
g 11 MR. LESSY:
I personally have no problem with that B
j 12 adjustement.
5 (m_)y 13 JUDGE PARIS:
Let me ask Mr. Lessy one question before
=
l 14 we get away from here.
Mr. Lessy, do you think that the flurry 2
15 of activity that occurs at the end of a long discovery period E
16 is worse than the filing of late contentions, going through the
'.j w
g 17 five factors to an untimely filing, our~having to write a 5
5 18 decision analyzing all the five factors and balancing this in.
E 19 Doing that just seems to me to be a lot more work for everybody.
g n
20 MR. LESSY:
If the contentions based upon the Staff 21 documents that come out next September are filed or timely
()
22 filed after their issuance, then I would agree with you.
23 What I want to protect against is dragging our feet
()
24 on contentions which are independent of those which we are ready 25 to go on.
That was my theory and, of course, under the Policy ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
198 Statement handed out yesterday, you can rule on a lot of those i
im
(_)
Prehearing matters orally.
You don't need to get right,. magnum 2
3 opuses on late filing contentions.
I personally would rather
/~
(_)
to do things and address those five factors.
That was the focus 4
f this is to get what we can litigate, litigated and not have e
5 3n the thing drag on until every last dot is dotted and every last j
d 6
m R
think we are really going to have trouble.
S.
7 T crossed because I t
Ng 8
That was my theory.
Od 9
I appreciate your point though, your Honor.
j i
JUDGE PARIS:
I appreciate yours.
f h
10 a
s 11 MR. DIGNAN:
I'm sorry, Madam Chairman, I'm out of
<sj(
12 order.
You had some comments you wanted to make.
13 JUDGE HOYT:
Well, do you have productive comment?
()
m 14 MR. DIGNAN:
It was just that we are hearing a lot W
of talk about this discovery period and maybe I would like to 2
15 16 take crack at Dr. Paris's question.
W 6
17 When you are trying an Anti-Trust Case or something M
18 you may need a year for discovery.
There is a lot of reasons
=
b 19 because you are going to try under regular court rules with A
20 oral testimony.
I don't understand the great huge need."or 21 discovery in an NRC Proceeding anyway to start.
You get the
~'s 22 application to look at.
You are going to get the testimony (J
23 before you even have to walk into the courtroom and cross
("')
24 examine it.
It's not like in a courtroom where the witness
(/
25 is going to get up and tell a story orally and if you haven't ALDERCON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
199 I
nailed him down with a deposition beforehand, you've got nothing O
k/
to keep him under reservation.
You've got the testimony in your 2
3 hand before you go in there.
4 This emphasis on discovery, it's a nice way to pass P eces of paper around and assure full employment for the Bar i
e 5
An h
6 but for the NRC I'm not so sure that it serves the great purpose.
Rg 7
It might interest this Board to go back in the record Ml 8
and find out how many actual late filed contentions came in d
d 9
after the SER issued it at the construction permit stage.
You i
h 10 would be amazed how small the number is.
My recollection is that Ej 11 the number was zero.
Why is this?
It's because the opponents B
g 12 or Interveners are out there with twenty or whatever volumes
()
13 that application is, and they can discover whatever they need j
14 and crank every issue they want, well before they see this SER.
C 15 Now I know there is a right to refile after the SER E.'
16 comes out but the fact of the matter is it is a myth.
There j
W d
17 aren't that many that come out of the SER because all the Staff 5
M 18 is doing basically in an SER is commenting upon what is right, 5
{
19 wrong, or indifferent with the application.
The Staff is not n
20 designing the plant, we are.
The Staff is not in the business 21 of redesigning a plant either.
It's in the business of issuing
()
22 a report as to whether certain things are acceptable or not 23 acceptable.
So I just think this talk that we've got to have
(])
24 six months of discovery in this kind of a case where the testi-25 mony is in your hands before you have to even prepare for cross ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
200 1
examination, and where the application lays out the whole scene,
(~)
\\-
2 and you can pretty much focus on that and say, what about this 3
valve?
What about this piece of pipe?
I just don't see any
()
4 need for more than what is built in here which is a sixty day e
5 request, ninety response schedule.
That's'a pretty long A9 6
discovery schedule.
R 8
7 Now if we were going to go to bat in an Anti-Trust Case 8
8 here and we were going to have witnesses give their testimony dd 9
orally, I would be very sympathetic to a six month discovery icg 10 schedule.
I don't see the need for one in a proceeding like El 11 this where everything is laid out before you ask a question.
B j
12 MR. JORDAN:
Yonr Honor, with all respect, I find it
({)
5 13 difficult to agree that everything is laid on the FSAR.
It's l
14 very difficult to follow and it is written in a way that things g
2 15 aren't there for me'to see,.~whether they are complied with or not.
Y y
16 Discovery in my experience has been extraordinarily w
17 useful, I would add particularly in the area of Quality 18 Assurance which is one of out major concerns.
=
19 The problem, believe me, is not whether we can read g
n 20 the written testimony.
The problem is not wh' ether we can read
~
21 and understand particularly the things that the Applicant gives 22 us.
The problem is the thing that the Applicant doesn't give
[]}
23 us but are in the files.
Honestly, my experience in QA in b) particular, both at a couple of other facilities; has been that
/~
24
\\
25 discovery is extremely important and can take a long. time ~
j I
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~
l
201 1
i but it comes up with information that has been invaluable to the n
(_)
2 Board and the Commission.
I'm not sure whether I came out to 3
six months or not but it seems to me that is very useful.
()
I would add that it may well be that in the CP Stage 4
e 5
there were no additional contentions after the SER.
It was my E
N 6
understanding is at the CP Stage there was not the need to e
R R
7 resolve an unresolved safety issue but there is now.
That, at M
8 8
least, is a very significant distinction that many parties here u
d d
9 that are very concerned about those unresolved safety issues--
iog 10 the question is going to come when the SER comes out.
Have they E
5 11 been dealt with adequately or not?
The expertise that we d
12 have available to us tells us they are not going to be.
So z
()
3l 13 we are going to have a lot coming in at that point.
=
l 14 JUDGE HOYT:
The Board will vote, of course, in favor b
k 15 of discovery as fully and completely as possible but other than 5
y 16 that I don't think that we wish to go any further at this time.
w d
17 Let's see if we can run this very quickly through the 5
M 18 rest of the room.
How about the State of Maine?
19 MR. AHRENS:
Yes, ma'am.
I will try to limit my N
20 comments to ones that haven't been made before.
21 First of all, I appreciate very much the opportunity 22 to comment on the schedule.
As Mr. Lessy said, I was not asked
}"s}
~
23 l to comment on it or see it yesterday.
This is the first time 24 I've seen it set up this way.
I would suggest that it might 25 be appropriate for the Board to ask the parties here today to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
/
202 submit a proposed schedule in writing upon further reflection y
or perhaps consultation with their clients, especially since 2
the decision, as I understand it at least as set out here, will 3
O not be made until perhaps the first week in June.
4 With regard to that also, if the Forecast Panel is 3
U going to meet perhaps in June, that maybe the decision of the 6
e Board could be held in abeyance until the Forecast Panel has 7
made its decision.
It's a suggestion.
The Forecast Panel isn't 8
Ud 9
going to meet until late July.
Obviously I think it would be 7:
appropriate to come out with a discovery schedule as soon as jo e
3l 11 possible and then have the opportunity to amend it later on.
B I think that the Forecast Panel Decision or comments may be d
12 z
/'N
?
something that will help out a great deal in this case.
(_/
E 13 S
Secondly, in terms of discovery one thing that came 14 S!
15 up yesterday that I was not clear about dealt with a contention E
I believe Mr. Backus was raising concerning the chlorine
.]
16 2
discharge vs. a Heat System.
As I understand it, the application g
17 x
18 had not been amended and as I understood it, Mr. Dignan said, b
in fact the proposal or the application has already been made 19 8n 20 to EPA to amend the license.
21 It would seem to me that it would be helpful to parties,i
( ')
22 especially of limited resources, not to require them to litigace 23 contentions or go into it in a discovery stage, if there are l
()
24 going to be parts of an application that are going to change,
~
25 especially with regard to certain ones where the Applicant at i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
203 1
least is openly contemplating a change and yet, where the
()
application has not been so amended, there might be some 2
3 adjustment for that in the discovery schedule it seems to me.
()
4 Perhaps I misunderstood yesterday the EPA request and the NRC 5
request and if so, I would stand corrected.
e 3n 8
6 Thirdly, I would like very much and I would request m
R 7
the Board ask Mr. Lessy what his proposed schedule would be, M
8 8
absent the Bevill Report.
I appreciate very much your comments dd 9
yesterday, Madam Chairman, that the schedule that you are going i
C g
10 ot put forth is not necessarily reliant on an end date and then 3
h 11 working backwards.
As I understand today, the schedule that B
d 12 is being proposed was being prpposed from that point of view.
E
()
13 We want the operating license put out on a particular day, and m
l 14 in order to accomplish that result, how can we adjust all of 2
15 the other schedules.
That may dovetail with the Staff's proposal 5
g' 16 absent the double report, but I would like to know that on the M
g 17 record.
E 18 JUDGE HOYT:
Mr. Lessy, do you want to respond to that?
E 19 MR. LESSY:
Just a couple points.
I think on the g
n 20 EPA question, the Board asked Staff to write to the EPA and 21 get a status with respect to that matter, and when we get one
{}
22 we willadvise everyone.
Again, that is a matter that is outside 23 of our control.
I didn't understand State of Maine's point 24 with respect to such; in other words, the fact that there is
{}
25 a contemplation of a change, if the change is made, that would ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
204 1
is made, that would be a basis for a change of contention.
I e
2 don't see how, if a late filed contention is admitted, is filed 3
based upon a change, then there are ways to deal with that.
(3 s,/
4 In addition to that, you could have discovery on a late filed e
5 contention, but at that point there is nothing before the Board.
6 MR. AHRENS:
What I am saying is that we are trying R
7 to save the Board, the Applicant and the Staff and the Intervenor s M
8 8
resources, and if, in fact, there is a contemplated change by 0
(
9 Public Service Company on a discharge, it seems to be not a o
b 10 worthwhile exercise to go into a discovery on a discharge system 11 that no one really intends to build.
3
(
12 MR. DIGNAN:
May I ask the Board to make an inquiry 3
13 of the State of Maine to the effect of have they read the
[]}
h 14 Evironmental Report portion of the Application?
m 2
15 JUDGE HOYT:
Counsel, I assume that the State of Maine m
j 16 is exercising its discretion in the production of this case.
M N
I7 MR. LESSY:
That's fine but I think before it is 5
{
18 alleged that an amendement is needed, somebody might want to P
"g 19 puruse the document.
n 20 JUDGE HOYT:
Well, the comment is on the record but 21 that's as far as we'll go with it.
22 MR. LESSY:
The other response I have, your Honor,
{])
23 is just not a response.
I undertook the coming up with some 24 sort of schedule knowing what happens when you do that but---
C))
25 JUDGE HOYT:
We realize that you were playing point ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
205 1
man on this, Mr. Lessy?
()
2 MR. LESSY:
Yeah, I don't mind doing it here.
I 3
think the point on working backwards though is that I did that
()
4 in order to gave us the maximum amount of time for each of these e
5 intervals given the Commission's Rules of Practice in the E
N 6
timeframe allowed.
e Rg 7
If the whole framework changes, it give us the s
8 8
Opportunity when it does change in September to make adjustments.
N d
d 9
What I am afraid of and I know Discovery in the Maine Yankee i
h 10 Case, there was almost a year before there was ruling on E
E 11 contentions in 'he one case that I know Maine is in.
It's not
~<
d 12 an Operating License Proceeding, it's a Spent Fuel Pool Expansion.
Eo
(])
y 13 What I want to avoid here is a situation where there m
E 14 is a high percentage of the contentions that we know about a w
2 15 already are litigable or ready to go into a prelitigation phase s
j 16 or a discovery phase, and I didn't want us dragging our feet e
d 17 as I explained to Judge Paris in terms of proceeding with what E
M 18 we can proceed with now.
Obviously we can't proceed with those 5"
19 things that we can't proceed with.
The purpose of this was 8n 20 to get the ball rolling in the proceeding with respect to this.
21 I think the comment about the 9/3 date is valid.
The
("T 22 end of Discovery could easily be made to 9/15 and that's when V
23 we'd have a prehearing conference and discuss any scheduled i
24 adjustments.
Hopefully by that time we would have more (v~}
25 information about the construction completion schedule.
The ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
r 206 l
t i
purpose of this was to expeditiously, admittedly, get the ball i
O 2
ro111ne mieh reegect to gereies end otecovery.
as 1 ser. 1 3
am the point man and I'll accept that role but next time I'm 4
going to nominate someone else.
m 5
E 9
t 3
6 c
Q' t
7 1
3 i
j 8
l i
a o
9 r
i i'
o 10 z
i 5
m 11 g
d 12 z
i 5
I 13 5
s m
i E
14 l
w 2
15 w
16 s
I ti 17 i
w CC M
18
=
I 19 i
Se 20 t
21 j
22 I
i 23
(
24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
207 1
JUDGE HOYT:
Yes, go ahead, sir.
O
%J 2
MR. AHRENS:
I thank Mr. Lessy for volunteering the 3
schedules.
It's never enjoyable being the first one to do 4
that.
e 5
However, I'm not certain that I heard an answer to the h
6 question.
I'm wondering if the Bevill Commission Date did not R
R 7
exist, and/or the proposed completion date, or the loading A
8 8
date is put off for a year,,whether that would change the dd 9
Staff's view of the proposed schedule.
i b
10 JUDGE HOYT:
What's that got to do with anything a
3 11 pertaining to the hearing schedule, though.
I think you are e
12 misunderstanding the role of what the Bevill Report is.
This z
()
j 13 is something we have, as a Commission, to report to the Congress n
l 14 of the United States, and we are required to do certain things 2
15 and fill out certain blanks, and I'll probably hear from g
16 somebody on some congressional staff for putting it that way, w
d 17 but, so be it.
18 MR. AHRENS:
I do understand your point of view.
E 19 JUDGE HOYT:
We live with this type of a reporting 8n 20 system, and it has some benefit, I'm sure.
I don't think I 21 want to try and enumerate it at this time, but the thing is, 22 we want to try and accommodate the schedules.
I think he has 23,
recognized all of the factors with which the Commission has to
()
24 live with.
25 I don't think that pursuing that any further is going ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
208 1
to gain us any insight into a schedule we are going to have to 2
come up with in this case.
3 I'm all for Discovery and will vote very strongly in (D
\\"#
4 favor of Discovery every time.
One of the things that I'm o
5 going to put up front though is, I do like the responses to A
9 6
Discovery to be as complete as possible, because there's nothing R
I 8
7 I find more difficult to do than to go through on a Motion to aj 8
Compel, and I think we shouldn't have to go through that d
d 9
ritual, so let's get it all up front now.
$g 10 You are going to have to come up with it ultimately i
3 h
11 anyway, so let's do it and work ahead.
d 12 JUDGE PARIS:
I'll vote with Judge Hoyt on that.
)
13 JUDGE HOYT:
Thank you, sir.
I'm sorry, Mr. Kinder, l
14 I forgot that you moved over there, and I didn' t mean to skip 2
15 you in the sequence.
1 j
16 MR. KINDER:
No, I don't feel skipped at all.
W d
17 JUDGE HOYT:
All right, sir, please proceed.
y
~
M 18 MR. KINDER:
My comments to Mr. Lessy, yesterday
=
19 afternoon, was that I thought the schedule he proposed is g
n 20 overly optimistic on the front end, that is, relating to the 21 refinement of contentions, and the opening of Discovery.
(O 22 I would expect that, for example, perhaps several j
23 weeks more on the front end, would save us some time later on.
()
24 I would think that instead of contentions being settled by 25 mid June, perhaps the end of June is a more appropriate time i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
4 209 to aim for settling those and for opening Discovery.
1
/G
(/
I also have a concern, which has already been voiced 2
about ending Discovery before that prehearing conference, which l
3
(~)\\
is presently scheduled in September.
But, the several weeks
(
4 5
I'm suggesting would be in the beginning of October.
I would e
6 like to have that conference and one of the issues being just 8
6 e
7 what Discovery will proceed from there, rather than having ag 8
ended it at that point.
N d
I point out also that by moving that prehearing d
9 i
h 10 conference to the beginning of October, presumably we will have z!
11 received the SER at that point, and the prehearing conference may be able to accomplish a great deal more in terms of where d
12 E
~
()
13 we go from there, if all the parties have had an opportunity to E
j4 see the SER prior to the prehearing conference.
w 2
15 From there, this two weeks that I've suggested, we assuming--there's a lot of assumptions, but assuming everything 16 a
M d
17 goes on schedule after that, which frankly I doubt, you would b
18 be in the position to begin the Hearing sometime in March or E
early April, which I think coincides with the Bevill report, j9 8n to the extent it's relevant.
20 JUDGE PARIS:
Mr. Kinder, that September 15th 21 conference Mr. Lessy has scheduled there, is a conference
('/
T 22 s.
provided for under 2.752, which comes shortly before the hearing 23 where you get your ducks in a row before you go to trial.
CT 24 U
We can have as many additional special prehearing 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
210 I
conferences between now and that conference, whenever it occurs, 2
as we need, to settle matters in Discovery.
3 MR. KINDER:
I'm not sure that that really will make 4
sense to have that sort of final prehearing conference at that e
5 stage, given the fact that the SER will be brand new to all h
6 of us at that point..
I guess that's part of my concern.
R CS 7
But, certainly a prehearing conference right around E]
8 then, or the beginning of October, I think will be very d
c; 9
beneficial, based on what we can see facing us.
10 Whether it's going to be the final prehearing 11 conference or not, remains to be seen.
12 Judge Hoyt?
()
13 JUDGE HOYT:
Yes.
l 14 MR. KINDER:
Pardon me.
I had just a couple of other
{
15 points that you requested I report back to the Board on, relating
=
j 16 to some of these things that are going on, peripheral to this e
d 17 proceeding.
One is this contract dispute that is presently 18 before the State of New Hampshire Supreme Court.
My under-P 19 standing is that a briefing session has been set for that case M
20 before the Supreme Court.
21 I believe briefs will be filed within approximately
(])
22 the next month or so, but that oral argument will probably not 23 occur until September.
(])
Additionally, the work is proceeding on that 24 25 consulting contract to develop emergency plans, although the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
211 extent of which emergency plans, you kr.ow, that are immediately y
O
\\/
implementable, may come out c f that study as somewhat uncertain.
2 But. the consultant is going ahead with the work, 3
()
and we'll do the work regardless of the extent of which the 4
communities themselves choose to participate with the e
5 E
consultant.
Obviously the plan is only as good as its input, 6
m R
7 and certainly you would come up with a better product.if the Kl 8
communities would participate.
But, the consultant is going dc 9
to carry it through and we would expect the final consultant's i
h 10 report some time in December, I believe.
El 11 JUDGE HOYT:
Thank you.
You might keep the various 3
0 12 Interveners and parties and this Board advised.
We would 3
(')
13 appreciate it very much.
l 14 Do you have any other comments to make?
Have you 2
15 exhausted all your points, Mr. Dignan?
5 j
16 MR. DIGNAN:
Yes, ma'am.
W d
17 JUDGE HOYT:
Yes, ma'am?
s M
18 MS. HOLLINGWORTH:
I would be inclined to agree with 19 the State of Maine in their opinion that the Bevill Report 20 is most important to know what startup time is, because those 21 cases are now pending in the Supreme Court will be resolved, 4
(])
22 and we would have longer time to get the answers in, if that 23 time were determined, if we knew what that time was.
I think
(~)
24 that is an important factor.
There are going to be several
(-
25 other things that would play into that, if we knew whether we ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
212 actually had to adhere more closely to this, or whether we 1
mU have a longer period of time.
3 JUDGE HOYT:
Mr. Lessy, what can you tell us on the tO V
4 Bevill Report that would help?
5 MR. LESSY: I have no additional comments with respect
~
g c'
and 3
6 to this.
My suggestion is that we proceed while we can, I
I 7
reconsider if any adjustments are reiuired in September.
l i
8 8
don' t think I can comment any further.
r)
Ci 9
JUDGE HOYT:
Did you (Ms. Hollingworth) want the dates t
1:
i 10 that are in the Bevill Report?
=
3 II IG. HOLLINGWORTH:
I'm going with the point that the B
f 12 State of Maine made, that if we knew what the startup time was c) e we would be concerned about how long we had.
13 going to be, u
g 14 I think that that's an important factor, because if you are E
g 15 not adhering exactly to that, you could move your date down a:
so that you would be getting the Decisions of the Courts in the 3[
16 us d
17 other states that we are waiting to hear on.
E M
18 JUDGE HOYT:
Go ahead, Dr. Paris.
=
19 JUDGE PARIS:
The dates that Mr. Lessy gave, from the g
n called for the operating license--correct me if 20 Bevill Report, 2I I've made the incorrect notes, Mr. Lessy--operating license 22 to be issued in 11/83, and the Hearing to begin when?
23 MR. LESSY:
The Hearing would begin in March of ' 83, 24 to end in May of.e3.
Two months, degenaing en the schedo11ng O
25 of the individual Board members.
That two month timeframe is ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
213 1
going to be tight, and we are going to have to be working O
2 expeditiously to make that.
The fact that you might have a 3
change in a construction completion date a little bit, doesn't O
4 give you all the time to luxuriate that you really think you e
5 are going to get.
A N
6 That's why my recommendation was that we get us e
N 8
7 prepared and organized on what we can, with respect to what we A
8 8
can, and deal with the rest in time.
N d
ci 9
JUDGE HOYT:
Yes, let's have about a five minute
- so 10 recess.
I'm sorry, sir, did you want to have a comment before 25 5
11 or after?
He'll come forward after we complete our recess.
is j
12 We'll recess at 11:00 o' clock.
=
bS E
13 (Whereupon a brief recess was taken.)
o 14 b
2 15 s
j 16 us 17 M
18 i5 E
19 A
20 21 0
22 23 O
24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
214 1
JUDGE HOYT:
Let's have the Hearing come to Order, 2
and reflect on this record that all the parties to the Hearing whc 3
were present when the Hearing recessed, are again present in 4
the Hearing Room.
e 5
I believe sir, that you indicated that you had a M9 6
comment that you wanted to put on this record.
R 7
MR. CHIESA: Yes, ma'am.
s]
8 JUDGE HOYT:
Would you identify yourself, please, sir?
d C
9 MR. CHIESA:
Madam Chairman, my name is Robert Chiesa, bg 10 and I'm an attorney representing the Society for the Protection 5
g 11 of Environment of Southeastern New Hampshire.
E y
12 JUDGE HOYT:
Did you make appearance for the record
()
13 yesterday?
m h
14 MR. CHIESA:
Yes, I certainly did, and,I was here 2
15 during the whole day.
E
.]
16 JUDGE HOYT:
Thank you.
M d
17 MR. CHIESA:
I realize that I'm a rookie in the big 5
{
18 leagues of Nuclear Regulation, and I'm impressed by all the E
19 g
heavy hitters that you have here.
But I would just like to n
20 make one comment, because I have tried a few cases in my 21 lifetime.
()
22 My suggestion would be, your Honor, that the prehearing 23 ;
conference and schedule of adjustments take place around the
(')
24 first week in October.
In listening to comments made here, it 25 appears that there are quite a number of reports which are due to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
215 1
come out in the month of September.
I believe that if you left that 8
2 Discovery open until that time, and at/ time I believe the Board 3
could say to either continue it or not.
At that time we could 4
see what point we are at.
e 5
I realize also, and for a point of information for the A9 3
6 Board, my interest is in transmission lines.
I do like to note R
7 to the Board that there is a case pending before the New A
j 8
Hampshire Supreme Court.
The case has been briefed and has a
c 9
been argued.
I believe it was argued in February.
I cannot io G
10 tell you when the Decision will come down.
If I could, I E
E 11 certainly wouldn't be here, I'd be home looking at a crystal ball
<W d
12 and making money a lot easier.
E G
=
13 I would think, in all probability, that will also be dm=
E 14 down by September.
Whether or not that would have a bearing, w
2 15 provided that this Board allows me to be an intervenor, and that E
J 16 furthermore that the Board allows that the question of the 2
g 17 transmission lines be a litigated issue, t hat would have a 5
18 bearing on it.
=
H E
19 I would think that, in all probability, it would be 5
20 done by the 9/15, but I think that that extra two weeks in 21 there, in my opinion, would make things an awful lot easier ll) 22 for all parties here and would make it run a lot smoother 23 ;
in that respect, and that was my comment on it.
Thank you.
(l) 24 JUDGE HOYT:
You did understand Mr. Lessy's point 25 that even if the Discovery had ended, and we had reason to ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
216 1
permit Discovery, that that would be possible also, under the nU 2
rules of this Commission, sir.
3 MR. CHIESA:
I understand that.
Another thing I'm a O
k' 4
great believer in is to cut down as much paperwork as possible.
e 5
It would appear to me, as far as the Applicants, and also the A
N h
6 intervenors and the other parties, that if we could avoid more R
7 motions, and so forth, that I'm all in favor of it.
M 8
8 That was my only comment that the extra two week period a
d c
9 may take care of a lot of that particular area.
At that time, 10 it would seem to me that those reports would be out.
3 5
11 The Board and all of the parties would have an c
12 opportunity to look at them; they could certainly give you an 3a h_)
13 indication as to whether it was necessary for more contentions y
14 to be filed, and whether that would really be necessary or not 2
15 at that time.
E g'
16 If not, I think the Discovery could close in the first w
d 17 week in October, and just for probably a two week period on the 18 other ones, I think it's a pretty fair schedule to follow.
5 E
19 I understand perfectly what Brother Backus says, that 5
20 Discovery, and sometimes we do need more time, depending on what 21 you find out when you get in there, but it would appear to me
(])
22 that with the October 1, transmission, and that's about two 23 weeks, that I think much of that would be taken care' of at
()
24 that time.
25 In other words, what I'm saying is, the 9/15 date I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
217 1
think is a little bit premature.
2 JUDGE HOYT:
Have we passed that around the room for 3
everyone's comments now?
(~~)
\\/
4 MR. JORDAN:
Judge Hoyt, on the break, I talked to a e
5 number of the intervenors and had an idea that I think may help h
6 dovetail some of our concerns with Mr. Lessy.
I certainly 9
7 recognize the problem of Discovery dumping at the end of the Nl 8
period, and we are not interested in that, d
C 9
Mr. Kinder suggested what I thought was something zog 10 valuable, which is, we don't have Discovery end as of that z
=
j 11 prehearing conference in early October, but that we have the a
j 12 questions of, where do we go now with Discovery?
/"%
',)
y 13 I still have the problem of how do we solve Mr. Lessy's
(
x 14 concerns if we haven' t set something.
My suggestion is that the 2
15 Board can reasonably expect us to have made substantial effort s
16 on Discover up to that prehearing conference, and we go in g
w d
17 there expecting us either to be complete, or to have decent 18 reasons why we should be able to have more discovery on the
=
19 previously admitted contention.
That sounds like I'm suggesting n
20 something of a presumption that it closes, unless we have a 21 reason that we need to continue.
22 But, for example, if I come in in October and say,
()
23,
gee Judge Hoyt, I just filed my first Discover request last 24 week, you can tell me to go home, and I think that would be
{}
25 perfectly reasonable on Discovery.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
218 1
But, if I tell you we've been undertaking Discovery O
2 on twenty some, or thirty some contentions, diligently, and we 3
can show you this, and we feel we need to continua in this area, 4
then there's the mechanism for policing it, making sure it e
5 doesn't dump at the end, and not having a kind of artificial E
Nj 6
cut-off period that doesn' t take into account the SER, and the Rg 7
other kind of things that I raised earlier.
M j
8 MR. LESSY:
If I might respond, just to comment.
I've d
c 9
had that kind of open end Discovery in another proceeding a 7:
h 10 number of years ago.
The problem that everyone forgot, and it E
5 11 wasn't Mr. Jordan, was that when the Board then did cut off d
12 Discovery at the end of that prehearing conference, not finding 3
n c
(,)
d 13 good cause to continue it, the Interveners argue to the Appeal E
14 Board, or try to argue to the Appeal Board at that time that w
2 15 it was arbitrary and they didn't have adequate notice of the Y
16 end of the Discovery.
So, I'm just letting you know the other sM d
17 side of that, in terms of that argument.
18 JUDGE HOYT:
Good point, sir.
5" 19 MR. JORDAN:
May I ask if the Interveners won or lost 8n 20 in the appeal?
6 21 JUDGE HOYT:
They must have won since Mr. Lessy is
(~T 22 reluctant to give his answer.
\\-)
23,
MR. LESSY:
No, the Appeal Board declined to review the
()
24 Licensing Board's orders interlocutory.
There was an exception 25 filed on lack of procedureldue process on the overall appeal, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i
219 1
and'the Appeal Board did not grant the exception.
It said 9
2 that procedural due process did not require open ended discovery, 3
it just required a reasonable discovery period.
It was an O
4 anti-trust proceeding, and it was of slightly different context.
e 5
In any event, there is a flip side to that argument.
That's 6
the only point I was making.
o 7
JUDGE HOYT:
I wanted, before we completed this 3
8 8
prehearing conference, to deal with the standing of those other n
d d
9 Interveners here, other than the State of New Hampshire, and i
h 10 the Sea-Coast Anti Pollution League.
We have discussed this E
5 11 and decided that the easiest way to properly proceed in this 43 d
)2 is to see if there's any problems on the half side, and let the z
h 13 Applicant have an opportunity on the standing of those other 14 societies, such as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
2 15 Also, we have the Intervener down at South. Hamp to.n,
5 j
16 the Sun Valley Association, New England Coalition on Nuclear W
d 17 Pollution, the Coastal Chamber of Commerce, and the Society 5
M 18 for the Protection of Environment of Southeastern New Hampshire.
5 0
19 Do you have any problems with the standing of any 5
20 of those?
21 MR. DIGNAN:
May I respectfully inquire of the Chair llh 22 as to the breadth of what we are going at now?
Are we dealing 23 only with the question of whether the Applicant objects to the 4
lh 24 interest requirement, that by saying I agree to standing, I do 25,
not agree that there's a good contention, yet.
Is that correct?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
220 1
JUDGE HOYT:
That's right.
O
'~#
2 MR. DIGNAN:
Thank you, very much.
3 JUDGE HOYT:
Let me see - I think I ordered the Staff
(
4 to go first, but if you wanted to--
g 5
MR. DIGNAN: (Interrupting)
No, no, that's fine.
I O
6 just wanted to--
R R
7 MR. LESSY:
Go ahead, s[
8 JUDGE HOYT:
All right.
If you yield, Mr. Lessy, I'm dd 9
sure Mr. Dignan will be happy to pick it up.
10 MR. DIGNAN: Madam Chairperson, is there any particular j
11 order you wish the Interveners to be taken up?
I had them in
's y
12 sort of semi-alphabetical order at one point.
(
13 On the Coastal Chamber of Commerce, it was our view 14 that the interest requirement has not been met for the reasons 2
15 as set forth in our Answer to their Petition.
j 16 They have failed to identify any member by name and W
6 17 address who wished to be represented by the Organization, and the 5
M 18 Petition must be denied in its present form, under the Virginia 5
{
19 Electric Power case, ALAB 536, 9 NRC 402404.
n 20 It is true, as I pointed out, that it was assigned by 21 the Executive Director, but it contains no allegations as to his D
(,)
22 personal interest as is required, and I would refer the Board to 23 the Duke Power case, ALAB 528, 9 NRC 146151.
()
24 As I say, I guess we are not going to deal with the 25 lack of contentions, or contentions at all.
So, on that basis, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
221 I
on Coastal, we stand on our objection that interest has not been k
2 shown as required by the Decision to the Appeal Board 3
interpreting the regulations.
4 JUDGE HOYT:
I think that because we have such a e
5 large number, I'm going to take them up individually.
M9 3
6 MS. HOLLINGWORTH:
On the Coastal Chamber of Commerce, R
7 the--
M j
8 MR. LESSY: (Interrupting) Your Honor, would you like d
o; 9
the Staff to also state its position before she responds?
Eg 10 JUDGE HOYT:
Yes.
Let's do it that way, since we've 11 indicated that we are going to hear these individually because 5
y 12 there's such a large number.
Let's take the Staff position.
()
13 MR. PERLIS:
The Staff position was set out in l
14 writing a long time ago.
It was back on December 7, 1981.
2 15 The Staff determined also that the Chamber of Commerce did not E
16 g
show standing in that it did not identify either its member e
p 17 businesses or show that it was authorized to represent those E
{
18 businesses in the proceeding, and it did not show that its E
19 g
members will suffer any individual injury from the plant. And n
20 that's all.
2I JUDGE HOYT:
All right.
Ma'am, if you will go ahead.
()
22 MS. HOLLINGWORTH:
I was asked by Mr. Kendrick if I would 23 represent the Chamber because I am a business of the Chamber.
I
(])
24 am a director of the Chamber, and I have a business at Hampton 25 Beach, as well as being a director of the Chamber.
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
222 1
They asked me if I would be the one that they would O
2 name as the Intervener for the Chamber, and that is my role, 3
I believe that the papers were filed.
I can only tell you that O
k/
4 I did sign a paper for Mr. Kendrick, and it was notarized, and e
5 I note that Mr. Kendrick is no longer with the Chamber and has En h
6 been replaced by a new director.
^m 7
We have been receiving everything at the Chamber.
We s
j 8
did not receive a letter stating that we had to have our final d
9 pleadings in, or our contentions in, but everything else has 10 been coming to us, and the Chamber has been forwarding it to us.
E 11 We do think we can prove that the members and myself 3
12 particularly. would have some loss because of the Applicant
()
13 receiving the Continuance.
We believe that we can prove that.
=
g 14 I don' t think you want to go into that now, where you've already m
2 15 told Massachusetts that their arguments were not going to be 5
g 16 heard at this time.
w d
17 But. we do believe that we can prove, and I, as a 18 business member, I don' t know where I stand other than that.
5 JUDGE HOYT:
Let me suggest to you, perhaps, a course
{
19 n
20 of action that would be helpful to you, hopefully.
That is to 21 tender your position in response to the objection that you've 22 heard by Applicant and the Staff, place those in writing and
()
23 serve those on all the parties that you had noted in the 24 Service List that we gave to the various Interveners here
()
25 yesterday.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
223 1
JL'DGE PARIS:
I take it that you don't know the dats 2
of that filing.
3 MS. HOLLINGWORTH:
I can locate it for you.
I know
(~
\\
4 Mr. Kendrick did come to my business and have me sign it, and e
5 we had it signed.
39 6
JUDGE PARIS:
But you don't have that date with you.
R 7
MS. HOLLINGWORTH:
No, I don't.
M]
8 JUDGE PARIS:
Can anybody else identify that?
O c
9 MR. LESSY:
Our records--
i h
10 JUDGE HOYT:
(Interrupting) Does anybody have a E
5 11 calendar?
<B d
12 MR. DIGNAN:
It's the 21st.
3
()
d 13 JUDGE HOYT:
The 21st. All right, by May 21, if you E
14 Will, please, have that in to the Board, with all your reasons 5x 2
15 s ta ted,
and, please articulate them as completely and fully y
16 as possible.
W 17 MS. HOLLINGWORTH:
I will.
h 18 JUDGE HOYT:
Perhaps you can draw on some of the
=
19 counsel that you have seen here today, which should help in 8e 20 phrasing that appropriately.
21 MR. LESSY:
If I might just note, your Honor, the
/"T 22
.taff has not received any such affidavit.
I don't know whether
\\_/
23 or not any other party has, or the Board has.
(~}
24 JUDGE PARIS:
That would be in the next mailing, I v
I 25 j presume.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
224 1
JUDGE LUEBKE:
I've been looking for it, and I haven't G\\_)
2 seen it, but it doesn't mean it's not on here.
3 MS. HOLLINGWORTH:
Madam Chairman, there is a
(^)s possibility where he was changed that perhaps in his transition x_
4 e
5 he didn't get them in, but I assume thas hey were.
That's why h
6 I appeared here because I assumed that everything had been in R
R 7
order.
M 8
8 JUDGE PARIS:
What you know is that he signed it; you d
d 9
' don' t know that he mailed it.
bg 10 MS. HOLLINGWORTH :
That's correct.
E E
11 JUDGE PARIS:
Okay.
e 12 MR. LESSY:
You might want to submit that, because we E
()
13 haven't received it yet.
m E
14 JUDGE HOYT:
I would urge you, Mr. Lessy, to perhaps w
b E
15 consult with Ms. Hollingworth, and perhaps you can advise her J
16 on the various documents that she would need to submit.
G G
17 All right.
Let's see where else we can go now.
I
=
M 18 don' t think we have any problems with the Commonwealth of E
19 Massachusetts standing, do we?
M 20 So, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would expect 21 that the order would have standing.
f')
27 How about the Town of South Hampton?
v 23 MR. DIGNAN:
The Town of South Hampton it was our view 24 that they have shown the requisite interest.
As the Board knows
(~j) m 25 :
their contention, we will urge it should not be allowed, and l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
225 1
they should not be a party, but the interest is there.
l 2
JUDGE HOYT:
The ruling will be as to standing only.
3 Mr. Lessy?
O 4
MR. LESSY:
Staff also, in its pl'eading dated December 2,
l g
concluded thatSouth Hampton has established a requisite interest 5
9 6
to intervene in the proceeding.
l R
I 7
JUDGE HOYT:
All right. How about Sun Valley Association?
El 8
MR. DIGNAN:
No objection, your Honor, they have shown d
C[
9 interest,in the Applicant's view, with their latest amendment.
20 10 JUDGE HOYT:
Thank you.
E h
11 MR. PERLIS:
The Staff agrees to an amended Petition.
3 g
12 JUDGE HOYT:
The New England Coalition on Nuclear
("T 5
y 13 Pollution.
\\/
m h
14 MR. DIGNAN:
They always have an interest.
It wouldn' t 2
15 be an NRC matter without them.
W
]
16 JUDGE HOYT:
Mr. Jordan, you have indeed worked magic, w
d 17 MR. JORDAN:
I have to say, your Honor, that that was 5
M 18 my honorable brother.
5 h
19 MR. LESSY:
No objection to the standing.
n 20 JUDGE HOYT:
The last one we have noted here is the 21 Society for the Protection of the Environment of Southeastern 22 New Hampshire.
23 MR. DIGNAN:
I was just noting that the T-Line issue
()
24 is ' 'mething we 'll argue about.
The standing interest 25 requirement is satisfied, so far as the Applicant is concerned.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
226 1
MR. LESSY:
Your Honor, the Staff concluded, in a Q
2 pleading dated January 12, 1982, that the amended Petition of
\\'
that Petitioner did satisfy the interest requirements of 2.714.
3 f~h sl 4
JUDGE HOY' :
Thank you.
Then, the only one that we
\\
e 5
are going to determine the standing on, and we'll hold that for 6
fourteen days, will be yours, Ms. Hollingworth.
If you will 8,
7 remember the dates--21, May, 1982.
3 i
8 8
I just have one thing I wanted to add here.
I just do 9
have one thing I want to add here.
Does any of the parties that i
h 10 have been participating in this proceeding, and I'm using the
'L 4
E 11 term party in terms of participation in the standing position.
B d
12 Do you have any information as to whether the
?.
()
13 Petitioners that failed to show up here, that is, the Co-op j
E 14 Members for Responsible Investment, and the others that I w
b 5
15 mentioned this morning, do you have any information that would E
g 16 be helpful to this Board as to where these people are?
Are they w
d 17 going to participate, or not participate. Mr. Kinder?
5 18 MR. KINDER:
Yes.
With regard to Mr. Arnold Wight, 5
19 who is a State Representative--
8n 20 JUDGE HOYT: (Interrupting)
He has withdrawn, sir.
21 MR. KINDER:
Yes.
That was my point.
22 MR. BACKUS:
Madam Chairman, somebody indicated to me
(')T
\\_
23 that a representative of Co-op Members for Responsible 24 Investment indicated that she couldn't be here yesterday or
(])
25 today, and asked me to bring that to the Board's attention.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
227 1
I did get a message that they were interesting in the proceeding, 2
is all I can say.
3 JUDGE PARIS:
As Judge Hoyt indicated earlier, we will
(
give them an opportunity to appear at the next one,but will you 4
g 5
tell them that just because it's not convenient, it doesn't get N
h 6
them off the hook.
If they want to participate, they've got to R
R 7
be here.
E I
8 8
MR. BACKUS:
Yes, I will, u
d d
9 JUDGE HOYT:
State of Maine.
i h
10 MR. AHRENS:
Madam Chairman, if you are making a 3
5 11 distinction between the people on the Service List and people d
12 with regard to those who aren't here, I believe that the Public 3
( [)
13 Advocate for the State of Maine is on the Service List, but I E
14 believe he has also filed with the Board a letter indicating W
2 15 that the Public Advocate is not going to participate.
E g
16 JUDGE HOYT:
Yes, that's correct.
A d
17 MR. LESSY:
I did have a question about that.
Is the r
5 18 Public Advocate's interest being represented by the Attorney 5
E 19 General's office, or is the Public Advocate not desiring to 5
l 20 participate?
21 I know in Mr. Wight's case, the letter said that Mr.
22 Kinder's office would be, in essence, the representation.
)
()
23 MR. AHRENS:
I don't have a copy of the letter that l
24 Mr. Fritshe filed with the Board in front of me, so I don't
(")S 25 recall.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i l
l 1
228
~
1 MR. DIGNAN:
His letter just indicated a withdrawdl of
'G
(_)
2 a request.
It was a very simple one line letter.
3 JUDGE HOYT:
That's the Public Advocate involved.
()
4 MR. DIGNAN:
It read in its entirety, by letter dated e
5 November 17, 1981:
The Office of the Maine Public Advocate E
N 6
requested a reasonable opportunity, pursuant to 10CFR, Section R
8 7
2.715C, to participate in the Seabrook Licensing Proceedings.
g l
8 The Office of the Maine Public Advocate hereby withdraw ^ that d
d 9
request.
Sincerely, Paul A.
Fritshe.
bg 10 I did not assume that anyone was taking over repre-3l 11 sentation or anything else, that he decided to pull the Office 3
j 12 out.
5
(])
13 MR. AHRENS :
I concur with that.
l 14 MR. LESSY:
Then you don't normally represent that 2
15 office.
E y
16 MR. AHRENS:
We do not.
The Of fice of Public Advocate W
g 17 has its own legal counsel, and the Attorney General does not--
5 18 In Maine, the Attorney General's office represents all State
=
19 agencies, except the public utilities.
The Public Advocate, 8
20 those agencies have their own counsel, so does the Department 21 of Transportation.
We also, as Mr. Dignan realizes, represents _
22 the public.
23 JUDGE HOYT:
Thank you.
I think that about concludes 24 the business that the Board wanted.
Yes, sir?
25 MR. DIGNAN:
Could I respectfully inquire?
It may be ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
229 i
,a j
1 q
1 that it has been reflected in the record, but if so, I did not
" (O
. 'd 2
make a note of it.
I assume that my good friend Mr. Ahrens in 3
Maine is being admitted as an interest at state, under 2.715C.
4.
JUDGE PARIS:
That's correct.
Our understanding is 4
.I e, <5 that he is the only State that has come in on 2.715C.
Everybody E
c!
j 6
else is coming in on the 2.714, is that correct?
. g ji 7
- MR. DIGNAN:
Madam Chairperson, as I understand it, 3
j 8
Wight, and the Maine Public Advocate are out.
Now, we have do 9
these others.
Do I understand that the Board's pleasure is 7:og 10 that they will be allowed to show up at the next Hearing, a
i j
11 prehearing, and perhaps establish their interest?
Are they q,
w
(
12 also now being given blanket leave to start firing in
~
0 p) 13 contentions, prior to the next prehearing conference?
Some of
(_
=
14 them never even filed contentions.
2 15 I don't have a problem with that.
This is a matter of 16 discretion with the Board.
I'm not going to try to urge you j
u 6
17 one way or the other.
I just want built in to some order from 5
M 18 this Hearing, a date by which, if you are going to give them E
19 leave, to file contentions again, to get them in so that we g
M 20 don't come up and have them present it to us on the table, 21 where nobody prepared to discuss them.
()
22 JUDGE HOYT:
Let me respond for the Board in this 4
23 fashion.
Yes, we will allow them to come to the next prehearing
(])
24 and establish their standing, if they can.
If they do have a 25 contention, it will be a late filed contention, and it will have ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
230 to meet the criteria for a late file contention.
Does that
()
r spond to your question?
2 MR. DIGNAN:
Thank you, very much.
3
,m
(_)
JUDGE LUEBKE:
I think furthermore we would want the 4
filing in advance to follow the same procedure that the e
5 M
"A Appli ant and the Staff would have an opportunity to file 6
e written response before the prehearing conference.
I j
MR. DIGNAN:
Thank you.
a dd 9
JUDGE HOYT:
Do you have any other matters to come 10 before the Board?
Mr. Kinder?
E 5
11 MR. KINDER:
Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman.
When we f
12 discussed the State's contentions yesterday, we discussed that E
y 13 some of them might require further specificity, and I wondered s
mj 14 if the Board had considered a timeframe in which you would like 5
2 15 to have the State submit further information on some of those 5
16 contentions?
E t'
17 JUDGE HOYT:
Do you think that you can make the date 5
M 18 o f May 21, Mr. Kinder, to evaluate' your situations to be such 5
19 that it could be accomplished by that date?
8n 20 MR. KINDER:
Yes.
21 JUDGE FOYT:
Very well.
Then we'll place the date 22 of May 21 on the State of New Hampshire for giving us a
()
23 rewording of their contentions.
Would you please file that with (J~)
24 all-parties?
'25 MR. KINDER:
So that I'm clear on it, there was also N
s w
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
231 discussion about trying to reach agreement with the Applicant p) and the Staff concerning the wording of other contentions.
What
(,
2 I was referring to--I see those as separate.
There are some 3
(-)~
contentions that were objected to by the Applicant and the Staff
(
4 n the grounds that they were not specific enough.
There were e
5 U
6 other contentions that there was a problem as to wording. Are R
R 7
you referring to both sets of contentions?
A 8
8 JUDGE HOYT:
Yes., I assume that that was what your a
d d
9 request was, what 'date we wanted your contentions to be fully 7:o 10 completed and presented to the Board in its new revised, 5
l
{
11 alternate, or whatever, statements you were making.
E g
12 MR. KINDER:
If that's the case then, I would like an
()
13 additional week.
l 14 JUDGE HOYT:
To what - May 28?
9 15 MR. KINDER:
Yes.
E t
y 16 JUDGE PARIS:
If Mr. Dignan refuses to talk with you A
G 17 until May 29, let us know.
E M
18 MR. DIGNAN:
We've already been talking.
It isn't 5
{
19 the rewording problem, as I understood it, it's that he needs n
20 time to expand on the contentions where the objection has been, 21 the lack of specificity.
I thought we had argued those out,
()
22 and the Board was going to rule one way or another, because 23,
if now we are building in that New Hampshire gets another
(])
24 crack at contentions generally, then I suppose I have to answer 25 them in writing.
Do I understand the Board to be giving leave l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
232 to New Hampshire to just have another round of putting up y
(])
ntentions, because it doesn' t seem to me that that's the route 2
we were taking.
3 I understood that there was going to be an attempt to
{ 4 reword. That's fine, but-- e 5 b JUDGE HOYT: (Interrupting) Reword in terms of g e meaning your objections have specificity. 7 M 8 MR. DIGNAN: No, because the reworded ones are the ao 9 ones which, if you recall my response to New Hampshire, there are i h 10 several where I said that I'll take the contention if it's 5 11 worded this way. d 12 Mr. Kinder and I, and we've probably have had all the 3m 13 discussion we are going to have to have on that, I indicated to ( '] l 14 him that if there was something in the way I had reworded that 2 15 bothered him, because I wasn' t trying to hook him, send it to 16 me in writing, and I'm sure that we could agree. kW d 17 The other ones, where I argued lack of specificity, 5 M 18 or I argued against their admission, I wasn't offering a = 5 rewording or anything else. I was taking a substantive position 19 8n 20 that it wasn't a litigable issue. 21 If I hear Mr. Kinder correctly, he wants a chance to g-22 pick those contentions up again and play with them, and send V) 23 them back in, and try to convince you that they are litigable 73 24 issues. If that be the Board's pleasure, so be it. That's a V 25 matter of discretion with the Board, but I think what Mr. Lessy ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
233 1 and I want is a considered chance to answer the new arguments r~) 4/ 2 as to why these issues are litigable that we've argued are not 3 litigable. (\\ (_) 4 MR. LESSY: My notes may be incomplete, but I have, m 5 as subject to a rewording for a specificity, just New Hampshire's h 6 three and four. R 7 Three was class 9 accidents, and I might be incomplete g 8 on this, and four was the ATWS contentions. I don't believe d c 9 there were any other ones. Do you have any others, Mr. Kinder, bg 10 that were going to be reworded for specificity purposes? 3 f 11 MR. KINDER: Yes. As I recall, and the reason I've 3 g 12 raised this is because it was my understanding yesterday that E () 13 that was what the Board wanted me to do, was to provide further l 14 specifics on some of these, and those included number 6, which b E is was cuallrications of safety Related Equipment; number 7, which 5 .j 16 was Instrumentation-- w d 17 JUDGE HOYT: I believe, and of course the record will 5 18 disprove what I'm about to say, be.t I believe my understanding 5 { 19 was that in view of the fact that you had raised objections M 20 as to specificity, and that the contention in its present 21 form may very well not have been a litigable contention. 22 If the State could demonstrate that it wanted only {) 23 limited matters, which would then give you an opportunity, as (~ 24 the Applicant, to meet that head on, then that subject should \\ >T 25 be allowed. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
234 MR. DIGNAN: That's fine with me, Madam Chairman. I () 2 was just saying this, that if it's your pleasure to let them do 3 more than negotiate rewordings of the ones I've offered to p) (, 4 negotiate, that I want an opportunity to give you a writing o 5 responding to their new arguments as to why their contention U h 6 is good. That's my only point. ^e. 7 JUDGE HOYT: Well, I don't think that we are going to Ml 8 break that exercise. I don't think that that would be d d 9 productive. We understand your position, and we will then have 10 to look at whatever it is that Mr. Kinder would submit, and
- =
j 11 consider whether or not that was specific enough that it could k j 12 be reached. o 13 MR. DIGNAN: My problem is that my objections to (]} l 14 certain of these contentions he's talking about didn't go to 2 15 specificity. I took the position that what he was trying to 16 do was litigate an issue that is not litigable, specific ]w d 17 or otherwise. w b 18 Now, if he is going to try to reargue those-- l 5 { 19 JUDGE HOYT: (Interrupting) I don't think that those M 20 are the same contentions that he's talking about. Is that r 21 correct? 22 MR. DIGNAN: They certainly are. I just heard the 23 numbers, Systems Interaction, was my position. 24 MR. KINDER: I didn't use that number. g i 25 MR. DIGNAN: I'm sorry. I misheard you then, Mr. f i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
235 Kinder. MR. LESSY: I have three, four and six. You are () 2 j right about that, sir, as being ones that, according to my 3 notes, six was Environmental Qualification of Safety Related 4 quipment that the objection was specificity. a 5 h Number seven, on instrumentation, the Staff had a 3 6 e 7 basis objection, in addition to specificity, and you can make it M 8 as specific as you like. We would still have our objections. dd 9 We would be happy to reconsider, if you have new wording on i S jo specificity on three, four, and six, consider those, but the e E m jj , Board had not given all parties an opportunity to resubmit a d 12 whole new set of contentions. 3ad 13 Mr. Kinder was given the opportunity, in accordance-s 5 E 14 with Mr. Dignan's comments, to be more specific on three of w 2 15 those contentions. That's what my notes reflect. E j 16 m M 17 M 18 = N 19 8n 20 21 (. ) 23, 24 O a 25 l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l t 236 i MR. DIGNAN: My objection to No. 4 was substance, (~) 2 not just specificity. Mr. Lessy and I are in disagreement. On 3 that I know but I took them on substantively and said that the 's 4 General ATWS Iscue simply cannot be litigated before a Licensing e 5 Board under Commission precedent. 3 N h 6 Now,what he says is that he is not going to dream Rg 7 up a system that he is going to litigate with me, I want an n[ 8 opportunity to answer substantively as to whether that system de 9 is one that should be put in the category of the legitimate i h 10 ATWS Contention.- That's my point. E 5 11 The ones I thought we were going to reword are the 5 d 12 Nos. 7-10, for example, where I listed four questions that I z ((_m) E 13 would be willing to litigate. I've already told Mr. Kinder S E 14 if he's got a problem with the,m, write me a letter and give w 2 15 me his wording. I don't think we are going to have any problems 5 16 with those or any of the others where I reworded because we Se d 17 are down to splitting commas and conjunctives hopefully. E 18 That ATWS Contention, I'm going to stand pretty tough h 19 on that one on the substance and I want a chance to do it if 5 20 he is going to change the substantive contention. 21 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Lessy? O) ( 22 MR. LESSY: Our position on that was that we had a 23 substantive objection to that also on page 15 of our response () 24 that New Hampshire had made no attempt to show that the interim 25 operation of Seabrook would be in violation of the applicable ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
237 j Commission Regulations. We had a substantive objection to that ) also. 2 JUDGE HOYT: Which one is that? 3 () 4 MR. LESSY: That is New Hampshire No. 4. o 5 JUDGE HOYT: Nos. 3-6, would you have any problems f 3 n s 6 with that? o Rg 7 MR. LESSY: No. 8 JUDGE HOYT: How about you, Mr. Dignan? e c 9 MR. DIGNAN: With him simply rewording 3 and 6? i h 10 JUDGE HOYT: Yes. E 5 )) MR. DIGNAN: On No. 3, that's the Class 9 one and ) r 2 that will be on the list to be served. 3 Again, as I make those comments, I have an appreciation 4 of what you have said just prior to what I've said, e 5 JUDGE HOYT: When we use the word received, received Me 6 by the Board as being a determinitive date. Maybe that will R Q 7 be a little bit helpful to you too. M 8 8 If you can mail i,t out twenty days ahead, you can d d 9 assume that it is going to be delivered. g 10 MR. AHRENS: Unless I use return receipt, I wouldn't g 11 rely on that with the U.S. Mail with any due respect to any B j 12 representative of the U.S. Mail who happens to be in here. 13 It would have to be a mathod of service to guarantee that it j 14 gets to you because the stakes are extremely are important for 2 15 everyone. 5 y 16 JUDGE HOYT: The express mail services are very l W p 17 expensive. We realize that. We will try to limit it down with E M 18 keeping that in mind. E 19 g Yes, sir, Mr. Jordan? M 20 MR. JORDAN: Just to speak to what Counsel for Maine 21 just raised on expense. It does seem to me and has been the O) (, 22 practice in other NRC Proceedings with which I've been involved, 23 that we shouldn't really need to serve by express mail on () 24 parties who don't need to respond. For example, in *he normal 25 course, we might serve on the Loard or we might serve on the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
248 1 Applicant and the Staff on messenger express mail but we (_) 2 really don't need to serve those same documents on the 3 ntervenors unless there is a good reason. I would say that's n(-) 4 really the ground rule. e 5 JUDGE HOYT: Perhaps that was what I was trying to h 6 articulate when I said that if you served it on the Board then R R 7 if you've set it out twenty days in advance to one of the 3 8 8 Parties, then they've got it by then too. d d 9 MR. JORDAN: I can't imagine sending something twenty 5g 10 days in advance. E 5 11 JUDGE HOYT: Yes, ma'am? <U j 12 MS. HOLLINGWORTH: Madam Chairman, considering the () 13 list, would it be possible to have my name put in place of m l 14 Mr. Kendrik's name? 2 15 JUDGE HOYT: Yes, ma'am, you certainly may. You may 5 y 16 write a letter to the Secretary of the Commission and Mr. Lessy w d 17 will give you the postal zone of the Commission. What is it 5 18 1717 H Street, N.W.? = 19 MR. LESSY: It's just U.S. Nuclear Regulatory g n 20 Commission, Washington, D.C.,20555, Secretary and you might 21 explain that he is no longer in that position. I~) 22 JUDGE HOYT: Anything else? v 23, MR. LESSY. I guess I would just ask, your Honor, V) .24 I think the matter of overall scheduling is under advisement (~ 25 of the Board at this point. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
249 j JUDGE HOYT: Exactly. We will try to give you some 2 indication on it as soon as we get back and we make our 3 conference determinations, then we will also set the prehearing O 4 conference, the next one coming up, and you can look forward e 5 to a July date. 5 8 6 Perhaps Mr. Kinder can help us? Will that work any e 7 problem in this area? That is a vacation period and this is E 8 a heavy tourist area? n dd 9 MR. KINDER: This the first week in July you are i h 10 talking about? Ej 11 JUDGE HOYT: The first part of July. 3 d 12 JUDGE PARIS: Shortly after July 4th. E f.') c \\/ d 13 MR. KINDER: You may with regard to accomodations, om E 14 I don't know if you were intending to use this room again or not. w 2 15 JUDGE HOYT: It seems to be a good location and it 5 B. 16 seems that it could be one that we could get perhaps which is M d 17 not too easy to come by. 5 M 18 MR. KINDER: You may, with regard to accomodations, = b 19 July 4th, of course, is prime time around here. 5 20 JUDGE HOYT: Could we go inland and get away from 21 the vacationers? () 22 MR. KINDER: Yes, certainly. 23 MR. LESSY: We had the Remanded Seismic Hearings () 24 before the Appeal Board in Nashua, Ne.w Hampshire. That's kind 25 of an old fashioned, wood paneled, New England courthouse. It's ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
l l 250 l I 1 quaint. It's larger than this. The Clerk's Office has kind ! (^). \\- 2 of an honor system with a dime for a cup of coffee. So that 3 might be another possibility. It's not a resort area that I ('s (_) 4 know of. There are some winter ski resorts near there. It's e 5 closer for some of the participants and farther from others. b h 6 MR. BACKUS: Well, it's further from the people that G 7 live on the seacoast and they are very concerned that the j 8 hearings to the extent that it can be arranged, would the dd 9 facilities be on the seacoast. i h 10 JUDGE PARIS: Well, we're talking about a July G j 11 prehearing conference. k j 12 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Backus, don't you think thought that () 13 we perhaps can use this hearing as a public relations forum l 14 to get it across to the people in this area that these prehearing 2 15 conferences, and that's the reason we laid it out in the Order s j 16 of the Board on March 12th, these are not hearings in which A 6 17 we take public testimony. They are public hearings but not 5 { 18 in which we take public testimony. We are not trying to conceal E 19 anything from the public. We are not having any secret gn 20 conferences. These are open public conferences in which the 21 public may attend but we do not have any public testimony being (]) 22 taken. That comes at another time, another place perhaps, 23 and another location, taking into consideration all the serious ({}) 24 concerns of every party that may wish to make a limited appear-25 ance on this record. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
251 1 This Board is going to, I can assure you, be extremely 2 sensitive to the holding of meetings in any place, time, or 3 condition, even an open air hearing if that would be an p., g,j 4 appropriate forum, I want to be that absurd to make my point. e 5 The popMbus; of this area will have the full opportunity to E 6 participate at the appropriate timg but I think there is a R 7 misunderstanding as to what prehearing conferences are all a j 8 about, what we are trying to do here, and we're working with d o 9 the parties and the contentions. We are perhaps putting the 10 nuts and bolts and the machinery together. Perhaps that may 5 j 11 give people a little enlightenment as to what we are doing. B y 12 I'm grateful but I don't want that to creep in the {)9 13 record that we are holding the hearings in Nashua or inland l 14 simply because we want to move them away from the people that 2 15 are most nearly concerned. We are simply limited to the g 16 facilities that we can obtain or places that we can go and w 6 17 where we can have the meetings. You can't have it both ways. 18 You can't protect your tourism and then tell the Board, look E 19 g we haven't got a place for you to stay because I'm not going n 20 to pitch a tent to hold the prehearing conference. Now, it's 21 just that ridiculous. 22 Now we will make every attempt to accomodate every r3V 23 ; party and every person who may want to speak later in these 24 hearings. There has to be reasonableness also that has to g-)s u_ 25 come through. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
i 252 MR. BACKUS: I recognize that, Madam Chairman, and if it is not reasonably possible for your Board to hold 2 3 conferences as well as hearings in this area, I'm sure that ("r kJ that would be understood,but to the extent that it is possible 4 e 5 to do so---I mean it seems to me that the Commission in your An 8 6 implementation of its policy, you make a considerable effort e 7 to get yourselves all here instead of having these prehearing g conferences in Washington or Bethesda. d d 9 JUDGE LUEBKE: Sometimes we do. We call them confer- / jo ences of Counsel and we hold them in Bethesda. eZ 5 11 MR. BACKUS: Yes, well we much appreciate your holding <3 e 12 this conference here. There are people here who, for example, z () do not have cars. Even though they are not speaking at these 13 oa E 14 prehearing conferences, and I think people do have an idea what wb N 15 a prehearing conference is, want to be here. I just urge you 5 J 16 to take that into consideration that there has always been a E d 17 high degree of interest in the conduct of any proceedings 5 M 18 involving this Board on this project and to the extent that 19 you can work it out without having to pitch a tent, and come A 20 and enjoy the seacoast region, we hope you will do so. There 21 are much better restaurants here in Portsmouth than there is () 22 in Nashua too, I might add. 23 JUDGE PARIS: Mr. Backus, it just may not be possible ['s) 24 to meet on the beach on the 4th of July weekend. x i 25 MR. BACKUS: Unfortunately you may be right. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
253 1 JUDGE HOYT: I can assure the parties in this case h' 2 and to the persons who may be attending behind the bar, that 3 they are not going to shortchanged by this Board, Mr. Backus, 4 in any fashion. e 5 I think the history of the careers of anyone of the U 6 individuals on this Board would certainly demonstrate that. e 7. Anything else? l A 8 8 MS. HOLLINGWORTH: Madam Chairman? n d d 9 JUDGE HOYT: Yes, ma'am. i h 10 MS. HOLLINGWORTH: Madam Chairman, I agree totally 3 5 11 with Mr. Backus. "Being in the area and being in the tourist d 12 indus try I understand your plight with finding accomodations z (~h 5 s_/ d 13 but I assure the people--- S E 14 JUDGE HOYT: (Interrupting.) Can we call on you then w 2 15 perhaps for some help, ma'am? 16 MS. HOLLINGWORTH: I assure the Board that we will _sa p 17 make every endeavor in the seacoast to house your Board because 5 5 18 we feel so strongly that the people should be able to come and = 19 listen even though they can't participate. 5 20 JUDGE HOYT: We would appreciate very much if you 21 would give me your card or something in which we could contact () 22 your Office and obtain that information or perhaps you should 23 give it to Mr. Lessy or some other parties who may be here from (') 24 outside the State of New Hampshire. That's all we'll say. 25 You should also be advised that we are on proposed ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
254 1 budgets by the government and we don't get the rate that the 2 hotel charges and some of it has to come out our pocket. Now 3 I'm personally willing to pay for the privilege of being in 4 your beautiful State but not too much. e 5 MR. LESSY: Thank you, your Honor, h 8 6 JUDGE HOYT: All right. We will adjourn until the o i 7 following Board. Al 8 (Whereupon the prehearing conference ended at 12:01 d ci 9 P.M. ) 10 E g 11 a p 12 O i i3 m E 14 C a: 2 15 5 j 16 us ti 17 5 M 18 = f19 n 20 21 ] 22 23 O 24 25 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC. - l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 1 Licensiner Board A r n m i c-c, f n e., ,mi I in the matter of: Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 Date of ?roceeding: priany, may 7. 1997 Docket !!u=b e r: NRC 50-443-OL & NRC 50-444-OL Place of ?roceeding: pnreymni,+.a. nny namncw;vn were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Cocaission. Robert E. Mayer Official Reporter (Typed) N' NJ[ b$nx V Official Reporter (Signature) l \\'~ 1 i f .}}