ML20132H220
| ML20132H220 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1985 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#485-706 OL, NUDOCS 8510020095 | |
| Download: ML20132H220 (34) | |
Text
.
ORIGINAL
/ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of:
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
[Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2]
Docket No. 50-456 50-457 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL Location: Bethesda, Maryland Date: Monday, September 30, 1985 Pages: 1 - 11 8510020095 e50930 l J
PDR ADOCK 05000456 T PDR ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES l Court Reporters L
,p[ 1625 I St., N.W.
Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 O( (202) 293-3950
1
,0,6 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(,j 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 Before the. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 4 ------------------.x 5 In the matter of: :
~
6 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY : Docket No. 50-456 7 (Braidwood Station, Units 1 : 50-457 8' and 2) :
9 ------------------x 10 11 Monday, September.30, 1985 12 4350 East-West Highway 13 East-West Towers 14 Bethesda, Maryland 15 16 A telephone conference call was held in the 17 above-captioned proceeding, beginning at 2:15 p.m., pursuant 18 to notice.
19 BEFORE:
20 Herbert Grossman, Jr., Esq.,
21 Chairman of the~ Board.
22 A. Dixon Callihan, 23 Member of the Board.
i 24 Richard F. Cole, O 25 Member of the Board.
2 1 APPEARANCES:
'(
2 3 For the Applicant:
4 JOSEPH GALLO, ESQ.
5 VICTOR COPELAND, ESQ.
6 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 7 1120 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 840 8 Washington, D.C. 20036 9
10 For the NRC Staff:
11 STUART TREBY, ESO.
12 ELAINE CHAN, ESQ.
13 Office of the Executive Legal Director 14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 15 Washington, D.C. 20555 16 17 For Pro Se Intervenor:
18 BRIDGET LITTLE ROREM 19 117 North Linden Street 20 Essex, Illinois 60935 21 22 23 25
3 1 PROCEED INGS
\/ 2 [2:15 p.m.]
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We have before us Mr. Gallo's 4 motion to establish a -- did I hear from Mrs. Rorem? Is she 5 here?
6 MS. ROREM: Yes.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: We have before us a motion to 8 establish a hearing schedule and for other relief which is the 9 subject of this conference call.
10 Mr. Gallo also is having this call reported, but we 11 haven't made that an official transcript, unless the parties 12 move to have it done at the end. It will just be Mr. Gallo's 13 copy of that.
14 Now, Mr. Gallo, do you have anything further to say 15 with regard to your motion,?
16 MR. GALLO: Yes. As a preliminary matter, Victor, 17 is the reporter there?
18 MR. COPELAND: Yes, the court reporter is here.
19 MR. GALLO: Judge Grossman and members of the Board, 20 with respect to the motion, which really consists of two 21 parts,.one deals with the hearing schedule, and the request is 22 to set October 21 and 22 as hearing dates, I believe the 23 motion adequately explains the basis for those dates, and I 24 will not burden this call with further argument on that.
25 The other element of relief that is requested in the
4
-- 1 motion is a request for early distribution of the emergency 2 planning booklet that has been filed with Mr. Butterfield's 3 testimony, and as the motion indicates, Applicant desires very 4 much to distribute the Braidwood Emergency Planning Booklet by 5 October 16, so that it will be in the hands of individuals 6 residing within the ten-mile emergency plume pathway EPZ in-7 time for FEMA to evaluate the dissemination and the other 8 aspects associated with the booklet during the upcoming 9 exercise on November 6th.
10 Now the only additional thing I would add as to the 11 form of the motion is that in addition to the booklet itself 12 and the testimony of Mr. Butterfield, the Board has the
(' ,f 13 position of FEMA as stated in Counsel's letter of September 14 12, and the Counsel I am referring to is Mr. Flynn, Counsel 15 for FEMA, and on September 12, 1985, Mr. Flynn filed.with the 16 Licensing Board and the parties a Statement of Position 17 regarding Ms. Rorem's Contention 1(a) , and in there it is ~
18 stated that FEMA believes that the booklet I refer to meets 19 the guidance of NUREG-0654 and effectively addresses the items 20 contained in Criterion Roman Numeral II.G.1, and I would 21 submit that this Position Statement by FEMA provides an 22 adequate basis for the Board to grant the relief requested for 23 early distribution of the pamphlet.
24 I would also add and emphasize that we, of course, b("T 25 are prepared and willing to modify the pamphlet as
5 1 appropriate,.should it be required ultimately by the Board's i
2 decision on this issue.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, Mr. Gallo. I take it, then, 4 it is not the company's position that they would be issuing 5 another-brochure in the future, but that this would constitute 6 the brochure and the distribution, if the Board does not make 7 any modifications as a result of this hearing; is that 8 correct? -
9 MR. GALLO: That's correct, Judge Grossman. This 10 would be the booklet and the distribution until next year when j 11 another distribution of the booklet is required by the 12 Commission's regulations and guidance. It is done annually.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. If it's done annually, isn't 14 there some question whether you are even going to be on-line 15 before the next distribution comes up?
16 In other words, are we now pretty much_ assured that 17 there is going to be a second distribution before the company 18 is due to go on-line, or isn't that the case?
l 19 MR. GALLO: I'm not able to answer your question, 20 Judge Grossman, because it turns on whatever the fuel load 21 date and startup might be. The current fuel load date for the l
22 plant is April of '86; however, affidavits filed on behalf of 23 the company before the Commission make it clear that the l
24 actual fuel load date will occur sometime after that, but I am i 25 not in a position at this point to hazard a guess as.to what !
l l
l
? l
r i
l 6 1 'that new date will be.
/-w\
l V 2 Mr. Wallace, in his affidavit filed with the
[ 3 Commission, indicated that the company is in the throes of an
! 4 exercise to determine a new fuel load date. It may be that 5 the next distribution might still come at a time when the 6 plant is not ready to operate.
7 On the other hand, it may not. I just can't say 8 more than that.
9 In any event, the company is prepared to distribute 10 whatever is necessary under the circumstances, 11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I see, fine. It seems clear 12 to me now.
) 13 Mrs. Rorem, would you like to respond to both 14 matters raised by Mr. Gallo in whichever order you care to, 15 one being the hearing date, and the second being the early 16 distribution of that brochure?
17 MS. ROREM: Okay. I was not firm whether you 18 intended to distribute the brochure to all residents of the 19 EPZ.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mr. Gallo?
21 MR. GALLO: The brochure, the booklet would be 22 distributed to all residents in the ten-mile EPZ, as well as i
23 delivered to all facilities catering to transients who might t
, [~') 24 be passing through that ten-mile EPZ. It would be the normal l V 25 distribution that is normally required by the regulations.
l 7-
- s. 1 MS. ROREM: Okay. Could you tell me this? Is there
('~')
2 a reason why it's necessary to distribute it to all parties 3 within the EPZ when the drill which'will take place in early 4 November will only involve a certain portion of that EPZ?
5 I mean, why would you need to distribute it to .
6 everyone now?
7 MR. GALLO: Well, I'm not aware, Judge Grossman, 8 that the drill is only going to involve a portion.of the 9 Emergency Planning Zone, so I really can't respond to 10 Ms. Rorem's question, other than to judge that a partial 11 distribution would be particularly difficult, because the 12 mailing list is compiled on the basis of residents in the
( 13 Emergency Planning Zone, and sub-mailing lists are not kept of 14 individuals residing in-various quadrants of the Emergency 15 Planning Zone.
i 16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Mrs. Rorem, could you tell me what 17 information you have which indicates-that the exercise would 18 cover less than the ten-mile EPZ?
19 MS. ROREM: Well, I guess it's rather an assumption, 20 because exercises always have encompassed only parts of an 21 EPZ. I don't know. Maybe they intend to do something with 22 all of us, but they never have before.
23 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I see. Okay. j
[}
V 24 But in any event, unless we have to check on that 25 for some reason, it seems clear that Mr. Gallo is offering, on l
L..
8
~3 1 behalf of the company, to redistribute if the Board determines
\. 2 that the brochure in this state is not totally satisfactory, 3 and perhaps you could adequately respond to his request on 4 that basis.
5 -[ Pause.]
6 Yes, Mrs. Rorem, you can speak.
7 MS. ROREM: I got the impression that he meant that 8 this-was the distribution for the year, and that any changes 9 or modifications would be encompassed in the next year's 10 distribution.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's not my understanding. And
(
12 Mr. Gallo, I guess, will clarify it. But my understanding is
() 13 that the company is undertaking to distribute again for this 14 year a brochure in whatever form the Board ultimately decides 15 is necessary. ,
'16 MS. ROREM: Okay.
17 JUDGE GE93SMAN: Of course subject to review by the 18 Appeal Board and the Commission.
19 Isn't that correct, Mr. Gallo?
20 MR. GALLO: That's correct, Judge Grossman, with one 21 footnote.
22 If the Board, for example, decided that on page 6 23 two or three words should be changed for some good cause, I
T 24 don't want to rule out the opportunity to petition the Board (O
25 to determine its acceptance or approval, of perhaps providing
9
~, 1 that change until the next year.
'/ 2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I understand that. And my 3 experience with regard to fuel loading dates ruggests to me 4 that this whole exercise is academic with regard to which 5 year's brochure. I would think that we would have very little 6 time between the -- at best, between when the new brochure 7 would be issued for next year and the fuel loading date.
8 But be that as it may, I think Mrs. Rorem 9 understands what your position is on the booklet.
10 Mrs. Rorem?
11 MS. ROREM: Yes. That's fine. You know, I have no 12 objection to the early distribution of the booklet.
() 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You have no objection to the early 14 distribution. Okay, that's resolved, then.
15 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Callihan, here. Just one question.
16 Does Mrs. Rorem have any objection to distribution 17 to the entire population in the EPZ?
18 MS. ROREM: Well, not if they -- let me put it this i
19 way. It does not make me happy. Because I feel that the 1
20 booklet is very erroneous in part, would prefer that the -
21 first thing that people read about it not be the erroneous I 22 information.
23 I have a feeling that booklets that are distributed 24 subsequent to the first one are not nearly so well read or 25 understood or kept in memory.
4
10
. 1 So I am not completely happy with that. However, 2 Mr. Gallo did explain that he felt it would be difficult to 3 distribute to a portion of the EPZ, and I guess I -- you know, 4 I'm not happy about that, but, you know --
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But you can live with that.
6 MS. ROREM: I can live with that.
7 JUDGE GPOSSMAN: Okay. You're not asking the Board, 8 .then, to deny that, right?
9 MS. ROREM: No.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That's fine. Let's go on, 11 then, to the hearing schedule matter.
12 By the way, did the Staff have-anything to say on
() 13 that? It seems as though it's open and shut.
14 MS. CHAN: The Staff did not have any objection. Wu 15 discussed it with the Applicant, prior to the filino of their 16 motion.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. That's fine. So why don't 18 we go on to the hearing schedule part. And, Mrs. Rorem, you 19 can -- oh, one thing though before we start.
20 I had indicated through my secretary that we were 21 considering setting the hearing up in Chicago, but I ,
22 understand that Mrs. Rorem would prefer to have it nearer the i 23 site, and prehearing conferences have been held in Joliet, and 24 so that we think that we would, unless the facilities are not
)
25 available, that we would try to have the hearing scheduled for l
i
_ __.l
11 1 the Will County Courthouse building in Joliet.
O 2 Now with that in mind, Mrs. Rorem, could you tell us 3 what your position is with regard to those suggested dates?
4 MS. ROREM: Okay. I, you know, when the prehearing 5 conference took place, I felt as though the earlier, the 7th 6 or 8th.of October were pretty much definitive times, and I jf
- 7 was thrown for a loop when it was changed to potentially the 8 end of October or beginning of November.
9 However, having accepted that, it was a little bit 10 of a surprise to get the motion from Joe Gallo suggesting or 11 moving that the hearing dates be established on the 21st and i
12 22nd of October. That is personally a difficult date for me.
13 It does not make it any easier.to accommodate my expert
. -14 witness.
1 15 I didn't -- I thought that the explanation or bases
! 16 for establishing that as the date were somewhat questionable, 17 because I don't think that -- I don't think that a decision 18 will necessarily be made on the issue before November 6th, d
19 and it's going to be -- and if the people from Edison are tied 20 up with platining and so forth for that, I would prefer to go l
21 to the lith of November as a hearing date.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
23 Mr. Gallo, if I understand her, you have no 24 objection to that. You would prefer to have it earlier, but 25 you could live with a later date; is that correct?
12 es g 1 MR. GALLO: Generally that's correct. I might ask 2 of the Board or maybe the Staff, I don't have the proposed 3 schedule for all the activities, including the QA activities, 4 in front of me.
5 Does November 11 run into any activities that are on
~
6 the schedule that is pending before the Board for approval?
7 Perhaps you have it there, Elaine?
8 MS. CHAN: I have the schedule here. I don't see 9 anything on that particular day. There is a November 18th 10 deadline that is the closest.
11 MR. GALLO: What is November 18th?
12 MS. CHAN: Deposition of all witnesses completed,
( 13 except for the 82-05 issue.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, Mr. Gallo, let me first say 15 that we are not thinking of setting it on November lith, but 16 for that week, and I would think that we would set it for 17 November 13th, if we went that week, the lith being a legal 18 holiday here, and allowing us a day to travel would bring us 19 to Wednesday, the 13th, and that's probably how we would 20 schedule it.
21 Now that would bring us to the end -- the 18th, as I 22 see it -- the 18th is a Monday, so that you would not be able 23 to take depositions during those few days that we have the N 24 hearing. So you would have to take that into account.
(d And the next thing we have is November 19th, the 25
12 g- 1 written Staff position, but that snouldn't be any handicap for 2 setting it on the 13th.
3 Mr. Gallo?
4 MR. GALLO: I guess if the 21st and 22nd of October 5 are bad days for Ms. Rorem, I have talked to my witness, and 6 he thought that we might go forward on the 28th and 29th 7 without interfering with the exercise preparation on his 8 part. Is that a possible alternative?
9 JUDGE CALLIHAN: That's preferable to me over the 10 lith and 12th of November.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's the 28th and 29th of October 12 on a Monday and Tuesday. I would prefer the 29th and 30th.
() 13 But now let's hear from Mrs. Rorem and find out if 14 that's agreeable. That was the first of the two weeks that I 15 had suggested. .
16 MS. ROREM: Yes. I think I indicated to your 17 secretary that I preferred the --
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: The latter week.
19 MS. ROREM: The latter week. I don't have a 20 desperate reason for not liking that date, aside from personal 21 ones. They're nothing like the kind of reasons that you 22 people have, except that it's around Halloween, and I have 23 children. But that's fine.
24 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Halloween causes a problem for me, 25 too, but I think I can overlook that.
14 1 Mr. Gallo, can you accommodate the Tuesday and O 2 Wednesday of that week, rather than Monday and Tuesday?
3 MR. GALLO: Yes.
4- JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. I don't think the 5 hearing is going to go more than one day, really, and we'll 6 try and wrap it up in one day. But Mrs. Rorem probably has a 7 better idea than I do of that.
8 Now is everybody agreed on that, then?
9 The Staff?
10 JUDGE CALLIHAN: In his filing, Mr. Gallo made some 11 mention of the possibility of some preliminaries, and I quote 12 from page 2 of his filing dated September 26th, where it says,
() 13 " Applicant believes that certain motions to strike should be 14 moved, heard, and decided on October 21." I just cite that 15 for reference.
16 Is it prudent to consider doing those preliminaries 17 on, say, the afternoon of the 28th, so as to fit within your 18 frame of a day or two for the schedule, and still not run 19 further into the week of the 29th?
29 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, no. We'll.be doing this right 21 before the hearing starts on the morning of the 28th, unless 22 we were to decide to do it the week before.
23 Isn't that correct, Mr. Gallo?
24 MR. GALLO: Yes. I guess Judge Callihan is 25 suggesting maybe we can convene half a day early to deal with
~~. .. .
15
,_s 1 any motions.
/ I
- 2 JUDGE CALLIHAN: That's right. That's all I said.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. That's the 4 afternoon of the 28th. I'm sorry. I was thinking in terms of 5 the 29th.
6 Well, I don't see -- let me just discuss this with 7 Judge Cole.
8 [ Discussion off the record.]
9 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Well, we don't have any 10 problem with convening on the afternoon of the 28th in order 11 to decide this. But I'm not sure that we would have to do 12 that, because we have that extra time.in which motions to
/^T
( ,) 13 strike can be decided before we get out there.
14 Let me also say another thing. I'm not as big on 15 cross-examination plans as Judge Brenner was, and I don't 16 really think'that on this particular issue that 17 cross-examination plans would be necessary. My feeling is 18 that, to a large extent, they are an imposition on Counsel and 19 pro se people, and where I can, even though it lessens the 20 burden on the Board, I can appreciate how much of a problem it 21 causes the participants.
22 So I would just as soon do away with that 23 requirement. And so all that we would have is that motions to
s 24 strike, which I assume the parties can submit the week before, (b
\
25 and we can have it decided the week before.
16
-~ l Would you like to address that first, Mr. Gallo, and
2 then the other parties?
3 MR. GALLO: Yes, Judge Grossman. Is October 11 now 4 the file date for testimony? I've lost track, since we've 5 filed ours.
6 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I believe October lith is the date 7 that we suggested, yes.
8 -Is that your recollection, Mr. Treby and Ms. Chan?
9 MS. CHAN: Yes, Your Honor, October lith is the 19 date.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. !
12 MR. GALLO: Assuming, Judge Grossman, that we 13 received the testimony by the 14th or 15th, we would be in a -
14 position to file any motions to strike within a very short 15 number of days thereafter. We could get it into the hands of 16 the parties by the 18th, and the Board, too.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. And then the Board could 18 decide that the next week. So I really don't think that it ,
l 19 would be necessary to convene early on the afternoon of the l
29 28th in order to decide that.
21 Could I hear from Mrs. Rorem as to'whether she would
- 22 have any difficulty making that October lith date, other than l
l 23 .the ordinary difficulty in submitting prepared testimony?
i
/ 24 MS. ROREM: No. My only' difficulty is -- well, as I
}
I 25 said, I am not sure about the availability of my expert I
l
17 1 witness. In fact, I'm going through some begging and 2 -pleading.
3 If he is not available then, which he has led me to 4 believe he is not, at the end of October and beginning of 5 November, I would have to either find another expert witness, 6 or I would not be filing testimony.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: I see. Okay.
8 So why don't we, then, leave the date of October 9 lith as the date, and if your witness falls by the wayside, 10 you can make the appropriate motion on whether we could allow 11 you more time or whatever. I don't want to suggest anything.
12 But it seems to me as though the date of October lith is just 13 as good as any other date at this juncture.
14 Is that correct, Mrs. Rorem?
15 MS. ROREM: Yes.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. So why don't we do 17 that, and why don't we ask that Mr. Gallo -- well, I haven't 18 heard from Staff yet, but I would assume that you would not 19 need more time than the 18th or perhaps the 21st in order for 20 your motion -- to submit motions to strike.-
21 Could you speak to that, Ms. Chan?
22 MS. CHAN: Your Honor, if we have Mrs. Rorem's 23 testimony in hand by the 15th of October, we would be able to 24 file motions to strike, as the Applicant could, on the 18th. l
[}
25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Well, if you don't have it I
18 7s 1 in hand by then, but a day or two later, then I think the i s 2 Board, without issuing an order, will accept the motions to 3 strike on the 21st. But.if you do have it in hand by the 4 15th, we would expect the motions to strike to be in by the 5 18th.
6 So why don't we set that as a time? Is that i
I 7 acceptable to all-the parties?
8 MS. ROREM: Yes.
l 9 MS. CHAN: Yes.
10 MR. GALLO: Yes, for the Applicant.
11 JUDGE GROSSMANi Or.ay. Now we have one more matter 12 that is not in this particular motion, but we did have a~
O(_,/ 13 proposed stipulation which was never fully executed. I 14 believe it represents the parties' understanding of the scope 15 of this revised Contention,1(a).
16 MS, ROREM: Yes, it does, and I have it in 'my hand 17 right now.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. And so, Mrs. Rorem,~you are 19 going to agree to that now; is that correct?
20 MS. ROREM: Let me explain something. l 21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
22 MS. ROREM: When I was -- first of all, I didn't 23 receive it, because it was sent -- well, it was sent Federal
( ) 24 Express and delivered to my neighbor, so I didn't get until a 25 week ago or so. I have received a copy of it, but I hadn't
19 1 read the copy, because'I knew it was a copy. And then I got 2 into midst of the possible negotiating on the entire 3 stipulation on the entire issue.
4 I got a call from my -- I was in touch with my 5 husband's office, and they said that Elaine Chan was 6 frantically trying to get in touch with me, telling me to sign 7 and mail this.
8 When I finally got around to reading it, it does not 9 say what I agreed to.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Oh, okay. Well, then, it's not 11 fully acceptable to you.
12 MS. ROREM: No. Because I did not say that I would 13 agree -- I said I would agree to what Joe Gallo proposed in 14 his motion, which is not the same thing. It says in this 15 stipulation -- let me find it -- aside from defining that the 16 wording of the -- and scope of Contention 1(a) are as 17 follows: "Intervenor contends an adequate emergency plan for 18 the Braidwood Station should include the following: (a) a 19 program to periodically inform the public within the EPZ on i
20 how they will be notified and what their initial actions 21 should be in the event of a radiological emergency originating ;
22 at the Station."
l 23 It goes on to say, "The parties. agree that Rorem 24 Contention 1(a) does not include other information in 10 CFR
[}
25 50.47 (b) (7) and specifically excludes 'the principal points of ;
1 l
20 3 1 contact with the news media for dissemination of information 2 during an emergency (including the physical location or 3 locations) are established in advance, and procedures for 4 coordinated dissemination of information to the public are 5 established.'"
6 I didn't agree to that.
7 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I take it, then, that you are 8 not agreeing to it now either?
9 MS. ROREM: I'm not. I will agree to the first 10 part. I mean, I would happily strike the second part and 11 agree to the first part. But I don't agree to that second 12 part.
13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, now, Mr. Gallo, would that 14 stipulation be acceptable to you without that latter part?
15 MR. GALLO: It would not.
16 I really do not understand the perceived difference 17 between the stipulation, as prepared by Ms. Chan, and our i 18 motion. Certainly, our motion intended to limit the 19 Contention to the interaction between the company and the ;
20 other emergency planning officials and the general public 21 residing and recreating within the ten-mile EPZ, and it did 22 not contemplate -- that is, our motion did not contemplate --
23 dealing with the exchange of information between the company
)
(O 24 and the news media.
25 And indeed, the whole thrust of our motion was to i
l 21 1 exclude that element from the Contention on the basis of our O 2 discovery.
3 MS. ROREM: But that's not what your motion says.
4 Your motion simply says how it should read. It does not make 5 a further agreement about limitation.
t d
i 6 MR. GALLO: What I am trying to say, Judge Grossman, j
7 is that while the motion did not say that the parties agree 8 that it excludes matters associated with the communication of
) 9 information between the company and the media not actually a q
19 part of 10 CFR 59.47 (b) (7) , the whole thrust of the motion was 11 for the purpose of excluding that very item. And I don't have 12 the motion in front of me, but I'm sure that a fair reading of
- 13 the motion would convey that' understanding.
14 MS.~ROREM: Well, I think that the motion, as
! . :L5 modified, just what it reads on the first page of'the i
16 stipulation and what it reads in your motion, does not
. 17 necessarily do what the second paragraph of the stipulation j 18- says.
1 19 I mean, I do not read that to mean that it is 4
a 20 exclusive of any contacts between Applicant and news media and 21 so forth, which is why you put it in, meaning which is why 1 22 that if I cross it out, you won't be happy with it.
23 So'you're agreeing and you're saying that the. thing, 24 as you wrote it, did not -- the thrust might have been there,
. .(}
25 or that may have been why you did it, but that's not what you 4
e ,w-- ,L., e- m , - --w.,,-,.~,n . , , , . , - , _ , , , , _ , , _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ , _ , _
22 s 1 wrote.
2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I'm not sure I understand 3 what the differences are between you now. My recollection is 4 that at the prehearing conference, there was some informal 5 agreement to narrow that Contention to the area of the 6 information distributed prior to the emergency itself, and 7 that was what was attempted to be accomplished in the proposed 8 ' modification of Contention 1(a) .
9 Isn't that correct?
10 MS. ROREM: I don't believe that that was agreed to 11 at the prehearing conference.
12 At the prehearing conference, I was asked by Judge 13 Brenner what specifically I mean, and I said that so many 14 questions I had had in trying to narrow this thing in my own 15 mind had been answered by Joe Gallo or others who were part of 16 the Applicants, with, "You'll have to wait until the plan 17 comes out. You'll have to wait for the State Plan. Well, the 18 plan will take care of that."
19 It was extremely important to me to see what was in 20 the plan, and that was agreed to at the prehearing conference, :
i l
21 that I would look at the plan.
l 22 The plan was delivered to me on August 12ths. Three 23 days, four days later, Gallo entered this morning, which 24 really aggravated me, because he hadn't even asked me how I 25 felt about it, and it did not limit it.
23
,_s 1 After looking at it and deciding that the wording 2 certainly, you know, as he wrote it, did encompass what I 3 intended to encompass, I agreed. I'm not thrilled with it, 4 but I agreed.
5 But when I read this stipulation, the stipulation 6 narrows it to what Joe Gallo perhaps may have desired it to 7 say, but it does not say, just on the face of it.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, let me ask you, Mrs. Rorem, 9 do you intend to raise, in your testimony, the matters ;
l 10 pertaining to dissemination of information during an I 11 emergency?
12 MS. ROREM: Well, yes, I had intended to do that.
) 13 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I don't think we have an 14 agreement here.
15 And Mr. Gallo and Ms., Chan, if that is Intervenors' 16 intention, do you have any problem with the way we are 17 proceeding now, or do you have any suggestions on what the 18 Board ought to do now?
19 MR. GALLO: Well, I think in college we would have 20 said, " Punt," Your Honor.
21 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, unfortunately, the ball has 22 got to be in someone's court now, and it would seem to me as 23 though the Contention that Mrs. Rorem is offering is somewhat 24 broader than what you had thought you were trying to meet now, 25 and I believe the same is true with regard to the Staff.
24 1 Is that correct, Ms. Chan?
2 MS. CHAN: Yes. The Contention is considerably 3 broader than that which our testimony addresses, and we are 4 going to have to go back to FEMA and get new testimony.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, assuming that Mrs. Rorem's 6 proposed testimony covers that additional area.
7 But I take it, it's possible that it may not, 8 Mrs. Rorem; is that correct?
9 MS. ROREM: That's correct. Well, it is possible i
10 that there will be no testimony. l 11 MS. CHAN: When will we know, so that we can decide ,
l l
12 whether or not our testimony needs to address this? '
f%
( ,) 13 MR. GALLO: Excuse me. Let me interrupt.
14 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Sure.
15 MR. GALLO: It seems to me that regardless of what 16 Ms. Rorem's testimony says, or even if she doesn't file 17 testimony, the Applicant would have the burden of proof on' 1
18 whatever the Contention means, and if the Contention is 19 interpreted to extend as broadly as Ms. Rorem indicates, we 20 would have to provide testimony on the expanded portion of the 21 Contention, and let me use that choice of words for clarity's 22 sake.
23 Judge Grossman, you asked what I would do besides
(~N 24 punt. I would suggest that since we obviously don't have an 25 agreement on the stipulation, that the Applicant will file by
25 1 Wednesday, in the hands of the Board and Ms. Chan and Federal 2 Express to Ms. Rorem by Wednesday, a revised motion, if 3 necessary.
4 I will first review the papers, and if necessary, I 5 guess resubmit the motion, so it's very, very clear and 6 provide Ms. Rorem with a further opportunity to respond and l
7 present her arguments as to why the Contention should be 8 interpreted in the fashion that she believes it should be, and 9 then the Board will have to rule one way or the other.
p 10 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Callihan here.
j 11 Joe, you are saying you are addressing a revision of 12 the August 15 motion?
l
() 13 MR. GALLO: Well, if there's some question -- I do 14 not have it in front of me, Judge Callihan.
15 MS. ROREM: I do.
16 MR. GALLO: But there is a question from Ms. Rorem l 17 as to whether or not it was clear. I thought it was.
18 MS. ROREM: I will tell you exactly what it says.
19 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Are we talking about August 15, l 20 Mrs. Rorem?
21 MS. ROREM: Yes.
22 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Okay.
23 MR. GALLO: And, Judge Grossman, at this point, I
. (T 24 would suggest that if I am in Chicago and don't have the 4
d 25 papers and need to consult with Mr. Copeland, that I will
_ _ . . . - . . . _ _ _ . . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ , _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ - - - . - . _ - . . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ . . - - . _ . _ - - . - . _ . - _ _ . , . _ - ~ _ _ . . . . , . - _
26 1 return from. Chicago tomorrow evening, and the first thing 7-sy b 2
~
Wednesday morning, we will turn'our attention to this matter 3 and take some sort of remedial action.
4 My guess would be is that maybe we would even stand 5 on the existing motion, or, if necessary, file something new 6 and try to get the concurrence of the Staff in order to 7 abbreviate the period of time, and try to talk to Ms. Rorem on 8 Wednesday to see if there is any possibility of reconciling ,
9 the difference; if not, submit the difference to the Board for 10 a ruling.
11 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
12 By the way, let me ask this: Is it your position --
O
\,,) 13 I don't right now recall the substance of your August 15th 14 motion, but did you depend at all on representations made 15 during the prehearing conference?
16 MR. GALLO: In part.
17 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay.
18 MR. GALLO: Representations made at the prehearing 19 conference and answers to our interrogatories.
20 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Well, that's fine.
21 Does Mrs. Rorem care to --
22 MS. ROREM: Yes. I just wanted to say that in the 23 interrogatories -- he didn't just depend on the 24 interrogatories -- wait a minute -- no, I guess it was -- it
(}
25 was the prehearing conference. I just want to make it clear 1
. - - - . - , . . , ..-,,.,y , _ . ~ . . . , , _ . . - , , , _ _ . _ _ . _ ,
_ , . . - , , _ , , . , - , _ .-._.m., , - . _ .
27 7- 1 that -- all right -- Your Honor said -- I'm reading from this 2 where it's quoted --
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: By the way, before you go further, 4 I think we will make this an official transcript, Mr. Gallo.
5 I will have my office here file the required papers 6 with the reporter.
7 Okay, continue, Mrs. Rorem.
8 MS. ROREM: Okay. I'm looking for the specific --
9 the thing that I said. There was a point where he quoted me 10 and someone asked me, "Do you mean you are- concerned about 11 public education before and after" -- yes, here it is.
12 Okay, this was during the deposition, a question,
) 13 "You are talking about education before an accident.ever 14 occurs, though, is that correct?" I answered, " Absolutely."
15 I am not an attorney, and.I forgot something which I 16 think I knew, which was that the word " absolutely" has legal 17 meaning, and I just want you to understand that I did not mean 18 the word " absolutely" in any legal sense.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: You mean in the exclusionary sense, 20 that you also might have had other things in mind?
- 21 MS. ROREM: Of course, yes. I meant that I was 22 extremely concerned about that. I shouldn't have said i
23 " absolutely." I meant yes, of course, I am concerned about
/~N 24 that. The word " absolutely" was a very poor choice for me to j N- .
l 25 make, the choice of the word, because by saying " absolutely" I
28
-s 1 mean that that is what my concern is limited to.
'D 2 Am I correct that legally that's what that would 3 happen?
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I don't think that that word 5 has any different meaning in legal terms than it has in common 6 usage.
7 MS. ROREM: I shouldn't have used the word. I 8 shouldn't have used " absolutely." I meant yes, I am very 9 concerned. And I didn't mean it to be at all exclusive on --
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, right now it appears to the 11 Board that we don't have an agreement on a stipulation, and 12 that the Board is going to have to rule on the scope of the
) 13 contention, and a possibility exists that if the record is not
~
14 clear, that Mrs. Rorem did in fact limit the contention to the 15 area that Mr. Gallo sugges,ts, that we might have to come up 16 with a further hearing date.
17 Is that possible.for the other parties here, 18 Mr. Gallo? Because it seems to me that if we do not limit the 19 contention, that you might have to ccme in with further 20 testimony.
21 MR. GALLO: That would be true, Judge Grossman, if 22 the contention is broadened beyond our present perception, we 23~ would have to file additional testimony. I suggest that we 24 take it a step at a time. Let's see what we can do on l C[~'\
25 Wednesday and if it is necessary for the Board to rule, and 1
. - . - - . . . - , . - - - . - . , - _ , _ _ - - _ _ . . , - . . _ . . . - . . _ . , - - - - . . . - i
29
,-s 1 the Board rules in Ms. Rorem's favor, we may have to indeed
2 reexamine the feasibility of the presently scheduled date for 3 the 29th and 30th.
4 JUDGE GROSSMAN: But it is also possible, even if 5 the Board were to rule in Ms. Rorem's favor, that her proposed 6 testimony, if it ever does materialize, might not go beyond 7 what you have prepared in your proposed testimony, so we could 8 still be sticking with the originally set hearing'date that 9 was set during this telephone conference.
10 So I think we are just going to have to play it by 11 ear then, and we cannot make a definitive ruling now.
12 Does that sound agreeable to the parties?
O
( ) 13 MS. CHAN: Yes, that is agreeable, your Honor.
14 MR. GALLO: That is fine with the Applicant.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: .Okay. And with you, too, I assume, 16 Mrs. Rorem?
~
17 MS. ROREM: Yes.
18 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. We have no further business 19 now, do we?
20 MR. GALLO: Judge Grossman, just one item that I 21 would like to mention for the record. We have been trying to 22 arrive at an agreeable date with Ms. Rorem to depose her 23 witness. I assume, Ms. Rorem, that we are still able to do
('N 24 that, should it become a reality that your witness will 25 provide testimony in this case?
30 1 MS. ROREM: Yes.
b)
\# 2 MR. GALLO: All right, we'll leave it at that, Judge 3 Grossman,-and see if we can't come up with a date for that 4 purpose by mutual agreement.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Now could I ask the reporter 6 when we would have a copy of this transcript available to us?
7 THE REPORTER: Judge Grossman, generally it's 8 however you order it, whether it's daily or two-day or 9 three-day or five-day.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I think we'll put in for l
11 daily on this.
12 Fine. I take it that does conclude the business
) 13 before the Board?
14 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Just to summarize, this week we are )
15 going to hear something about the revision of Rorem Contention-16 1-A. October 11, date for filing proposed, and the hearing is 17 set at the moment, at any rate, for Tuesday and Wednesday, 18 October 29 and 30.
19 JUDGE GROSSMAN: That's correct, as far as we are 20 concerned.
21 Now one more thing. Since we are restricting 22 ourselves to those two days, it may be possible that we cannot l
23 get that. courtroom in Joliet -- and, by the way, that would be l
. l 24 a larger courtroom than I understand you had before. And it's 25 possible that we might have to move for Chicago.
L
- 31 1 MS. ROREM: Is there no other place to hold the 7s k 2 hearing?
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: If there is no other place. We'll 4 try further in Joliet, but there is that possibility. Would 5 that be acceptable to you, Ms. Rorem?
6 MS. ROREM: I would really prefer that the hearings 7 be held near the facility.
8 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. Well, we'll do our best, 9 then. If it's impossible', we will just have to have.another 10 telephone conference and decide on what our further measures 11 ought to be.
12 MS. ROREM: If you cannot find a place in Joliet,
) 13 would it be possible to move it to Kankakee?
14 JUDGE CALLIHAN: To where, Ms. Rorem?
15 MS. ROREM: Kankakee.
16 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Well, I am not familiar with the 17 geography there. Would there be any objection from the other 18 parties to that? Mr. Gallo and Ms. Chan?
19 MR. GALLO: No objection.
20 MS. CHAN: We don't have any objection if the Board 21 knows of a place in Kankakee that is suitable for the hearing.
22 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. I don't know of any place 23 now, but we'll be trying Joliet and --
24 MS. ROREM: Kankakee is the county seat of Kankakee
(%
s ,/
l 25 County, so there'are county facilities, just as there are in i l
- y. ,_,-m. ,-.,._,_m. ,,_,,,,.___,,.,.,,_._.,.,-.._,_s, - . . _ . _ , , , - _ . , . , _ _ .,
32
-s 1 Joliet.
( ) 1 x_s/ 2 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, fine. Thank you. I believe ;
l 3 that does conclude the business before the Board.
4 MS. ROREM: Okay.
5 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay, thank you very much. ,
6 MS. CHAN: Your Honor, one more matter. This is the 7 Staff.
8 I wanted to find out if you had made any plans in 9 issuing an order on the Applicant's revised schedule for
! 10 discovery.
11 MS. ROREM: I must get off the phone now.
s 12 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. My recollection was that --
/
(,,-)- 13 you're referring now 'o the September 12th letter?
14 MS. CHAN: Yes, Your Honor.
15 JUDGE GROSSMAN: It was my understanding -- I'm a 16 little hazy on it -- that the changes were those'that were not 17 required to be further adopted by the Board.
18 MR. GALLO: No, Judge Grossman. The motion that was 19 filed was seeking Board approval of revisions to the 20 schedule. I have been in contact with Mr. Guild, Intervenor's 21 counsel. He asked me just the other day whether or not the 22 Board had ruled on the motion. We're operating under the 23 assumption that the Board will approve in fact the revision to lN 24 the schedule.
Q 25 JUDGE GROSSMAN: This was an agreed-upon schedule,
33 1 was it not, with all the parties agreeing?
O 2 MR. GALLO: Yes, it was.
3 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Okay. And I guess it slipped my 4 mind that I would have to issue an order. Fine. Certainly 5 the Board has no objection to the revised schedule, and we 6 will then issue an order adopting it.
7 Fine. Does that then conclude all the business 8 before us?
9 MS. CHAN: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
10 JUDGE GROSSMAN: Thank you.
11 MR. GALLO: Thank you, Judge Grossman.
12 .[Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the telephone conference O) g,, 13 was concluded.]
14 15 ,
16 17 .
18 19 20 21 22 23
([) 25
0 1 CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER 2
3 4
5 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 6 before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the 7 matter of: COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY 8
9 Name of Proceeding: [Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2]
Telephone Conference Call 10 11 Docket No. 50-456/50-457 12 P1 ace: Bethesda, Maryland 13 Date: Monday, September 30, 1985 14 15 were held as herein appears and that this is the original 16 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nucl' ear 17 Regulatory Commission.
18 (Signature)
(Typed Name-of Reporter) And Riley 20 21 22
,et 23 Ann Riley & Associates. Ltd.
4 24 25
. - - _ . , , . - _ . . _. _ _ _ . _ _ , _ - _ - - , _ _ _ _ _ . - _ . _ . . . _ . , _ . _ . . . - . - . _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ . . _ . - . . - . . _ _ . ._ _