ML20141H615
| ML20141H615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 01/10/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#186-770 OL, NUDOCS 8601140310 | |
| Download: ML20141H615 (29) | |
Text
_ _
OR G!NAL C) UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-424-OL 50-425-OL GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.
(Vogtle Generating Plant, Units l'and 2)
O LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D. C. PAGES: 166 - 192 DATE: FRIDAY, JANUARY 10, 1986 f-O I 0 .1 i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet 8601140310 860110 Washington, D.C. 20001 PDR ADOCK 050 4 (202)347-3700 NATIONWIDE COVERACE
CR25569.0 ERT/0jg 166 I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
s_ 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ;
1 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD )
4
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 5 In the Matter of: :
- Docket No. 50-424-OL
_ 6 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. : 50-425-OL 7 (Vogtle Generating Plant, :
Units 1 and 2) :
8 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _;
9 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
Suite 402 10 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D. C.
11 i
12 Friday, January 10, 1986
(_) 13 The telephone prehearing conference in the above-14 entitled matter convened at 10:30 a.m.
15 BEFORE:
16 JUDGE MORTON B. MARGULIES, Chairman 17 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 18 JUDGE GUSTAVE A. LINENBERGER, JR., Member 19 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 0
JUDGE OSCAR H. PARIS, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 22 23 24 of Reoran, lm 25
-- continued --
167 I APPEARANCES:
/
m..J 2 On behalf of the Applicant:
3 JAMES JOINER, ESQ.
4 HUGH M. DAVENPORT, ESQ.
Troutman & Sanders l S BRUCE W. CHURCHILL, ESQ.
DAVID R. LEWIS, ESQ.
6 DELISSA A. RIDGWAY, ESQ.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 7
8 On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
9 BERNARD M. BORDENICK, ESQ.
10 On behalf of FEMA:
11 l STEVEN M. ROCHLIS, ESQ. ;
12 l rx on behalf of Intervenor, Campaign 13
() i For A Prosperous Georgia:
14 TIM JOHNSON, ESQ.
DOUGLAS TEPER, ESQ.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 R momn, lx, 25
25569.0 168 BRT
%.)
1
, _P _R _O _C _E _E _D _I _N _G _S 2 JUDGE MARGULIES: Good morning. This is Judge 3 Margulies. With me this morning are Judges Linenberger and 4 Paris. Our topic for the conference call this morning is 5 to formulate further scheduling. For purposes of the 6 record, we would like to take appearances. Who appears for 7 the Staff?
8 MR. BORDENICK: Bernard M. Bordenick.
9 JUDGE MARGULIES: Who is appearing for the 10 Applicants today?
11 MR. JOINER: James T. Joiner and Bruce W.
12 Churchill.
rm. ,
(_) 13 l JUDGE, MARGULIES: Who appears for the 14 Intervenors?
15 MR. JOHNSON: Tim Johnson and Douglas Teper.
16 JUDGE MARGULIES: Counsel Laurie Fowler was 17 invited to participate today but she informed the board-18 that she did not wish to do so.
19 MR. JOINER: Judge Margulies?
20 JUDGE MARGULIES: I would ask that you identify 21 yourself so the reporter will know who is speaking.
22 MR. JOINER: Your Honor, we have other attorneys 23 in the room with us and I would like to identify those, 24 please.
25 JUDGE MARGULIES : Please do so.
Os ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
ll02 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
25569.0 169 f
- BRT
(/
1 MR. JOINER: I have with me Hugh M. Davenport, 2 who is with the Troutman & Sanders firm representing the 3 Applicants, and Mr. Churcnill has other attorneys with him.
'4 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do you wish to identify those 5 other attorneys, Mr. Churchill?
6 MC. CHURCHILL: I am with Shaw, Pittman 7 representing the Applicant, and with me are David Lewis and 8 Delissa Ridgway.
9 JUDGE MARGULIES: Does anyone else wish to 10 identify other participants or other people who are 11 attending the conference call?
- 7. . 12 We will proceed from here. Just for purposes of U 13 review as to what we have received and what we have handladi 14 I'll go over wnat our records show. We admitted for 15 litigation, other than in the area of emergency planning, 16 contentions 7, 8, 10.1, 10.3, 10.5, 10.7, 11, 12 and 14.
17 We received notions for summary disposition covering.all 18 nine contentions. We have ruled on eight of the 19 contentions and have yet to issue a ruling on 10.1.
20 We anticipate that the ruling on 10.1 will be 21 forthcoming in the next week or so, and our opinion is, at 22 the present time, that there is a likelihood that we will 23 grant the motion.
24 That leaves two contentions which are ripe for f) 25 hearing. That consists of contention 7, on groundwater, v
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 2 33 H 646 _ _.
25569.0 170
,s BRT b
1 and 10.5 on valves.
2 Have the parties received our memorandum and 3 order on the ASCO valves which we have found warrants a 4 hearing?
-5 MR. CHURCHILL: The Applicants have received it.
6 MR. ROCHLIS: Likewise the Staff.
7 MR. TEPER: The Intervenors have. ,
8 JUDGE MARGULIES: We believe that we should l 9 proceed for hearing on those contentions and we would like 10 to discuss, during this conference, the scheduling of a 11 l prehearing conference and possibly the scheduling of a 12 hearing date.
s ,
13 Moving over to the area of emergency planning, 14 we admitted for litigation contentions EP-1, EP-1-A, EP-2, 15 EP-3, -A, -B, -C, -H, EP-4, EP-5, EP-6, EP-7.
16 We have received a motion for summary judgment 17 on contention EP-6.
18 We have not taken any action on the contentions.
19 The time for discovery on emergency planning has not run.
20 It first expires on January 31, 1986, and at this time it i
1 21 is not our intention to review contentions for summary I i
22 disposition until the time for discovery has expired.
23 In setting up the matter for hearing, we believe 24 that emergency planning represents a discrete area and p 25 should be treated separately, but that does not mean that V
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800336664
25569.0 171
,,BRT
()
I we can't discuss it today as to what the parties anticipate 2 as to what their schedule will be.
3 Do the parties have any comments so far?
4 MR. CHURCHILL: Judge Margulies, this is Bruce 5 Churchill. We are in agreement, the Applicant is in 6 agreement with the separation of the technical issues from 7 the' emergency planning issues and when we discuss the 8 emergency planning we'll be happy to tell you what we think 9 is the prognosis in that area.
10 We are prepared to go to hearing on the two 11 technical issues, 7 and 10.5.
12 JUDGE MARGULIES: What is the position of the e-k_)g . 13 other parties?
14 MR. TEPER: The Intervenors have no objection to 15 what the board has said so far about the hearing on 16 technical issues and the emergency response being scheduled 17 later.
18 JUDGE MARGULIES: Could Intervenors speak up a 19 little more loudly?- We are having some difficulty hearing 20 you. I will repeat that. You are in agreement at this 21 point as to what has transpired so far. How about Staff?
22 MR. BORDENICK: This is Bordenick for the Staff.
23 We are also in agreement. As a matter of fact this is the 24 usual procedure that is followed in most cases, in any 25 event.
O ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33H646
25569.0 172 BRT
- ;m .
I 1 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do the parties wish to express 2 an opinion as to when the prehearing conference on those 3 two_ contentions should be held? i 4 MR. CHURCHILL: Your Honor, this is Bruce 5 Churchill. We were tentatively thinking about a hearing 6 date, the case to go to hearing probably Tuesday, March 11, 7 seems to be a reasonable date, which would mean that, based 8 on that date, prefiled testimony due 15 days ahead of that 9 would be Monday, February 24th.
10 We hadn't thougnt about a prehearing conference 11 and I'm wondering if I might at least throw up for 12 discussion the suggestion that since we only have two g).
(_ 13 issues, perhaps we could either forego the prehearing 14 conference or maybe have a short conference by telephone to 15 identify witnesses and so on?
16 JUDGE MARGULIES: Whac is the feeling of the 17 other parties as to the proposal of Mr. Churchill?
18 MR. JOHNSON: 'This is Tim Johnson with Campaign 19 for a Prosperous Georgia. We have no problems with those 20 dates; however I understand chat Doug Teper may have 21 problems with that. I'll let him speak to that.
22 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Teper?
23 MR. TEPER: Yes, this is Doug Teper. I'm going _
24 to be unavailable from March 10 through the 20th. It's 7-s. 25 possible that I am -- at certain points there, I will not V
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33Mi646
9 25569.0 173 BRT O
-v 1 be needed at the hearing. It depends which issues are
'2 being discussed at that time.
3 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is this something that the 4 parties can work out?
- 5 MR. TEPER: .I believe so. This is Mr. Teper 6 speaking.
7 JUDGE MARGULIES: How about you, Mr. Bordenick?
8 Will you be able to make those dates?
9- MR. BORDENICK: Yes, Judge Margulies, we can 10 make those dates and I am in agreement with Mr. Churchill's 11 suggestion regarding a telephonic prehearing conference.
12 One fi ther suggestion is we might be able to exchange, in
)
~
13 advance of the filing of testimony and identification of 14 witnesses by mail or if in fact a prehearing conference is 15 .needed, I suppose it could be scheduled between now and 16 March lith. But at this point'I don't see a necessity to 17 , hold a separate prehearing conference away from Washington, 18 for example.
19 Also, Judge Margulies, I would like to note for
- 20. the reporter that Robert Peolis, Staff counsel, has also 21 just now joined me. I don ' t know whether he will be 22 speaking but ne is in the room with me now. That's 23 P-e-o-1-i-s.
24 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do all the parties agree that 25 it would be possible to proceed by way of a telephone Os ACE-FEDERAL REPORTEM, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide C -wee 800 33H646
25569.0 174 BRT
/~N.
- (.)
1 prehearing conference? Would that satisfy the interests of 2 the parties?
3 MR. JOHNSON: This is Tim Johnson. That would 4 satisfy us.
5 JUDGE MARGULIES: How about you, Mr. Teper?
6 MR. TEPER: I have no objection.
7 JUDGE MARGULIES: It would appear that everyone 8 is in agreement, then. I guess it would be appropriate at 9 this time to set a date for that prehearing conference. Do 10 the parties have any suggestions?
11 MR.-CHURCHILL: This is Bruce Churchill. I 12 wonder what the parties might think if there would be any o
-() 13 advantage, or the boa.rd thinks there's any advantage having 14 the conference after the testimony is filed. It would be 15 filed on the 24th. It probably doesn't matter that much so 16 any time is okay with us, 17 JUDGE MARGULIES: Well, one of the purposes of 18 the prehearing conference is to identify witnesses. It 19 would seem to be, the time to do that would be prior to *.he 20 time of filing the prehearing testimony.
21 MR. CHURCHILL: Okay. That's fine with us.
22 This is Mr. Churchill.
23 MR. BORDENICK: This is Bordenick with the Staff.
24 If that's the only item that would have to be done prior to s 25 the filing of testimony, I think we could simply do that by ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverase 800 336 4646
l
!25569.0 175 BRT 1 mail, set a date by which the parties exchange the names of 2 witnesses. In any event, if the board doesn't have a 3- calendar in front of it, I would note that February 17th is 4 a federal holiday, so that would be one date you probably 5 .wouldn't want to set a prehearing conference on.
6 JUDGE MARGULIES: There are other items that a 7 prehearing conference is supposed to cover, including the 8 obtaining of stipulations and admissions of fact and the 9 ' matter of the authenticity of documents. That may be an 10 area that might be fruitful to discuss in advance of the 11 filing of prehearing testimony.
12 MR. JOINER: Judge Margulies, this is Jim Joiner
() 13 for the Applicant.
I wonder ~if it might not be beneficial 14 to agree that witnesses be identified by-mail on a date 15 certain, and then set a telephone prehearing conference 16 after testimony has been filed to discuss possible 17 objections to testimony, stipulations of fact, admissions 18 and so forth?
19 JUDGE MARGULIES: Are the other parties in 20 agreement as to that?
21 MR. BORDENICK: The Staff is. Actually that's
- 22. what I had in mind. Mr.-Joiner stated it more artfully 23 than I did.
24 MR. JOHNSON: This is Tim Johnson and we have no 25 objection to that approach.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33Md46
25569.0 176
,,BRT
/ ;
V 1 JUDGE MARGULIES: With the prefiled testimony to 2 be filed by February 24th, should the parties be inforned 3 by February 18th as to who the witnesses are going to be 4 and have that done by mail? Would that satisfy the 5 requirements of the parties?
6 MR. JOHNSON: That is satisfactory to us. This 7 is Tim Johnson again.
8 MR. BORDENICK: This is Bordenick for the Staff.
9 That's satisfactory to us.
10 MR. JOHNSON: Was that the 18th? That is 11 satisfactory to the Applicants.
12 JUDGE MARGULIES: Shall we set Tuesday, March O)
\- 13 4th as the date for the prehearing conference?, Telephone 14 conference?
15 MR. JOHNSON: Could it be in the afternoon on 16 that date? I have something scheduled in the morning.
17 JUDGE MARGULIES: The board has no problem with 18 the afternoon of the 4th. Do any of the other parties have 19 any problems with the afternoon of the 4th?
20 MR. CHURCHILL: The Applicants that are in 21 Washington don't.
22 MR. JOINER: We don't have any problem with that 23 date.
24 MR. BORDENICK: We don't have a problem with 25 that either.
(~]
v-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4646
25569.0 177
. -sBRT 1 JUDGE MARGULIES: We will then set the 2 prehearing conference down for March 4th at 1:30 p.m. The 3 board will arrange the conference call.
.4 Would it'be appropriate at this time to discuss 5 the matter'of the emergency planning anticipated scheduling, 6 or do you think we ought to proceed with the matter of the 7 possible place of hearing for the actual hearing? What is 8 the preference of the parties?
9 MR. CHURCHILL: We could do either one. We'll 10 probably have something to say on both issues. I can give 4
11 you a very brief rundown of where we stand on emergency 12 planning.
O 13 JUDGE MARGULI'ES: Would you do that, then?
14 MR. CHURCHILL: As you know, we already have a 15 motion for summary disposition in on one of the contentions, 16 EP-6. We are planning to file motions for summary 17 disposition on all of them. And we hope to be able to have 18 those filed by the end of January. That's our best guess.
19 We don't have as much control over being able to 20 schedule these ma".ters because they involve information and 21 affidavits and so on from various state and local 22 governments. So it's a little bit harder for us to 23 pinpoint it exactly. But that would coincide with, roughly, 24 with the end of discovery and that's what we are shooting
(} 25 for at this point.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
25569.0 178 BRT 1 Now, the board has also asked for information, 2 more information about the state of emergency planning in 3 the state of South Carolina and we will be providing a 4 package of information which provides that information, 5 including-the plans that are being developed by the three 6 counties involved for very small, sparsely inhabited 7 portions of those counties as well as some information 8 related to the emergency preparedness of the Savannah River 9 plant. I don't know if we can have that completed by the 10 end of January or not. It may go into early February. But 11 that, right now, is our best indication of the emergency
.12 planning schedule.
/'N
(,) 13- JUDGE MARGULIES: Does FEMA wish to be heard on 14 this aspect?
15 MR. ROCHLIS: Yes, your Honor. This is Steven 16 Rochlis from the Federal Emergency Manage nent Agency and I 17 have with me our staff members who would review the 18 Applicants' motion: Cheryl Stovall, the primary reviewer, 19 and her supervisor, John Herd, who is the branch chief for 20 the technological hazards branch. We feel if the motions 21 are filed by the end of January and we receive them within 22 the first. few days of February, we would, based on the 23 schedule of our other activities, we would be able to 24 review everything and have everything back filed to the 25 board by April 18th. That's our best guess at this time 7-U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-66 4
25569.0 179
, BRT N-)
1 and that is driven in large part by Ms. Stovall, who is the 2 primary reviewer, having to go out on a number of exercises 3 between January and April in support of nuclear power 4 plants. So she's not going to be here all that time. And 5 then in addition she's going to have to do a lot of 6 write-ups with regard to those other exercises.
7 JUDGE MARGULIES: Does anyone else wish to be 8 heard on this aspect?
9 MR. JOHNSON: This is Tim Johnson with 10 Prosperous Georgia. We certainly will want to respond to 11 the Applicant's motions to dismiss on the further emergency 12 response contentions. It would be, needless to say, long
/~
(-)T 13 before that April deadline for FEMA.
14 JUDGE MARGULIES: At this point I think it's 15 appropriate to advise the parties'that on January 8, 1986, 16 the board granted Staff's motion to compel discovery. I 17 don't know if the parties have been served with a copy of 18 that order as yet.
19 MR. JOHNSON: We have not been but we have no 20 objection to that.
21 JUDGE MARGULIEG: The order in the proceeding is:
22 "It's hereby ordered that Joint Intervenors are to 23 immediately respond to the Staff's emergency planning 24 interrogatories of October 7, 1985; and responses to be
<^3 25 received by Staff no later than 10 days from the date of
(./
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646 l
25569.0 180 BRT 0
1 service of the order."
2 MR. JOHNSON: It certainly will be.
3 MR. CHURCHILL: Your Honor, this is Bruce 4 Churchill for the Applicants. Commenting on what 5 Mr. Rochlis has said, it may very well be that FEMA will 4
6 find the motions are more straightforward and wouldn't require, per se, that much time to answer.
~
7 We are a 11ttli 8 bit concerned about taking that much time because of what 9 it might do to the ultimate hearing schedule. It might 10 threaten the ability to complete these proceedings in time 11 for the December 15 scheduled fuel load.
12 Ue could have discussions among the Staff and FEMA s
(_) -
13 and the parties and so on about that schedule. I would 14 like to avoid setting a schedule right now for responses to 15 ene motions wnich, as you know, according to the rules the 16 parties have 20 days. I'm hoping that it won't take that 17 long to resolve .
18 JUDGE MARGULIES: Well, it isn't our intention 19 to set any schedule in regard to emergency planning, in 20 that we don't know what we have. But, certainly the board 21 would have no objections to the parties attempting to 22 resolve their scheduling problems and we would welcome the 23 effort of the parties to do so. But we were interested in 24- knowing what was expected to come in and when. But we will s 25 leave it up to the parties to attempt to narrow these time ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
25569.0 181 BRT C
1 differences.
2 MR. ROCHLIS: This is Steve Rochlis from FEMA.
3 We have no problem with the dialogue but I just wanted to 4 highlight to the board and bring to the Applicant's and the
~
5 Intervenors' attention, essentially that we have one staff 6 member here at FEMA and a good part of her time is going to 7 be out of the office during-this time period. We'll do the 8 best we can but that was a realistic date based on 9 Ms. Stovall's schedule. We took it week by week. There's 10 approximately 3-1/2 weeks' time period where she basically 11 is here and is able -- will be able to work on the motion.
12 MR. JOHNSON: This is Tim Johnson with the m
13 Intervenors. We certainly appreciate the. FEMA shortage of 14 staff and don't want the FEMA person to rush her work, if 15 it interferes with it. I doubt there's any way an April 16 completion of their response could interfere with their 17 fuel load unless there are just profound problems with 18 Applicant's plans.
19 JUDGE MARGULIES: We will defer any action in 20 this area at this time and we'll expect the parties to get 21 together and confer and see what they can do, and the best 22 they can do in this area.
23 We will now get back to the other matter of the 24 hearing date and where the hearing will take place, if the 25 parties think it appropriate to discuss at this time or ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
'25569.0 182 BRT O , 1 they may want to wait until the prehearing conference.
2- I would like to express the position of the 3 board, that the board will adhere or expects to adhere to 4 the Commission's policy statement, that is to hold the
~
5 initial session in the vicinity of the site of the proposed 6 facility.
7 MR. JOHNSON: This is Tim Johnson with 8 Prosperous Georgia. Our preference would be that the 9 nearings on the technical issues be -- well, I'm sorry --
10 the hearings on groundwater be in Augusta, that the 11 hearings on the ASCO valves be in Atlanta, and the hearings 12 on the emergency response planning be in Waynesboro or
() , 13 Augusta. The reason is all of our staff are in Atlanta.
14 We do have an expert witness who is in Augusta, on 15 groundwater. Our expert witness on the valves is in 16 Atlanta. Our expert witness on emergency response at this 17 point is in Atlanta but of course that's very much"a local 18 concern. We just felt it should be there.
19 JUDGE MARGULIES: Did the other parties wish to j 20 be heard?
21 MR. JOINER: This is Jim Joiner for the 22 Applicant.
I would infer from Judge Margulies' statement 23 that at least the initial hearing would be either in 24 Waynesboro or in Augusta. That's certainly agreeable with
.25 Applicant and that, if it is appropriate, we would offer O
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33Mi646
25569.0 183 BRT 1 any assistance that we have available to us, as far as 2 locating a hearing room and any other facilities that the 3 parties might need.
4 JUDGE MARGULIES: Would it be beneficial to 5 start with the hearing on groundwater where everyone agrees 6 that it should be , in the vicinity of the facility, and 7 then to determine what the participation of the public will 8 be to see whether or not it would be feasible to move it 9 from the vicinity of the facility?
10 MR. BORDENICK: This is Bordenick for the Staf f.
11 I certainly-agree that's a reasonable suggestion.
12 MR. JOHNSON: This is Tim Johnson. I also agree 13 it's a reasonable suggestion. My thought would be to have 14 it in the same hearing room where the prehearing conference
- 15. took place last spring.
16 JUDGE PARIS: Mr. Johnson, this is Judge Paris.
17 The board found that room really not satisfactory, 18 primarily because the bench was so small that the three of 19 us had difficulty spreading out the papers we had at that 20 time. We are going to have much more to deal with at the 21 hearing so we would like a courtroom with a bigger bench 22 than that, certainly.
23 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. That makes sense. This is 24 Tim Johnson. We would prefer it be in Augusta because our 25 expert on groundwater is a college professor in Augusta and
.O-ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80LL33 H 646
_ i
- 25569.0 s- 184 BRT 'i
(,)
1 it would 3 just be much more conducive to~his participation 2 for it to be in the city, rather than having to drive to 3 Waynesboro for the hearing. v 4 MR. JOINER: This is Jim Joiner for the
,5 Applicant. If I may make a couple of points?
6 Insofar as the difference in Waynesboro and 7 Augusta, it appears to us that the main' factor there is the 8 convenience of the parties as far as obtaining --
9 convenience of the board as far as obtaining motel 10 accommodation,s and so forth. And'in that respect I would --
11 it's my belief that Augusta would have better 12 accommodations for m3als and lodging than would Waynesboro.
(s,) d3 Of course the board is cert'ainly aware of interests stated 14 by a number of public officialsfin haynesboro, and I don't
^
15 want dy comme'nts to'be idterpreted as detracting in any way
_ P
's 16 from the suitability of a Waynesboro location.
,r . 17 Insofar as the other contention is concerned, 18 however, I would pbint out that in all likelihood most of 19 Applicant's witnesshs~will be located at the plant site.
20 Certainly all of'the records that pertain to these two s
21 contentions are located at the plant site. So, as a matter
' '_ 22 of logistical convenience,' if you will,the Applicants 1 23 would prefer, if possible, to have both these technical
[ 24 issues heard somewhere id the reasonable proximity of the 25 plant site. ,
L -
- y.
s s
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33H646
25569.0 185
, BRT 1 JUDGE MARGULIES: Maybe we ought to discuss a 2 time, which would have a bearing on location and the 3 convenience of the parties. Do any of the parties have any 4 idea as to how long their presentations might be?
5 MR. CHURCHILL: Your Honor, this is Bruce 6 Churchill for the Applicants. We don't think our 7 presentation would take very long. W'e would be filing .the 8 prewritten testimony and we would enter it into the record 9 as if read. So it would really take only a few minutes to 10 present our direct case for each issue. It's a question of 11 how much' time it would require for cross-examination. 'I 12 wouldn't be surprised if both issues could be taken care of G
k_/ 13 within a week. But I don't really know. It depends on how 14 long cross-examination takes, primarily.
15 MR. JOHNSON: This is Tim Johnson with 16 Intervenors, and I would also think the hearing could be 17 completed in a week. Our witness on groundwater will file 18 pretty extensive testimony. But, again, he also will read 19 it into the record and then will go on cross, and of course 20 we will want to cross the other witnesses. I'm not sure 21 how long that would take. It depends on the testimony, 22 obviously.
23 JUDGE MARGULIES: Well, the testimony, 24 Mr. Johnson, will be prefiled. Then there would be no g- 25 purpose served in reading it into the record. Everyone V)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage M336-6646
.. 1 V >, i 25569.0 186 L_ .BRT
- if~D l
'J
~ .
I will have or should have' copies before them and it's bound 2 in and the purpose of prefiling the' testimony is that 3 cross-examination can commence immediately.
4 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. If that's what I said --
5 I must have ---well, I misspoke myself. What I meant to
-6 say is we would have his prefiled testimony entered into 7 the record as if read, not that we intend to have him read 8 it from the; stand. He would summarize it from the stand.
9 JUDGE MARGULIES: So actually we are speaking in 10 terms of a relatively short hearing. It would appear to me 11 that the -- that to hold the hearing in the proximity of 12 the plant should not work as any great problem to any of
?x . }
4,,) 13 the par. ties. We do have the matter of limited appearance la statements under which we should accommodate the public.
15 ftR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir, in that there's probably
\
16 as many people in the Atlanta area as would want to speak 17 in,the Augusta area, although I understand the board is 18 more interested in hearing from the people in the area of 19 the plant. 8-20 JUDGE MARGULIES: That is not necessarily the 21 case, Mr. Johnson...'If you feel there are sufficient people 22 to be heard in the Atlanta area, you may raise the matter 23 and it might be appropriate to hold limited appearancos in 24 the Atlanta area. I don't want to --
f 25 MR. BORDENICK: In other cases, Mr. Johnson, k- a e ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364646
25569.0 187 BRT (3
.V 1 boards have gone to particular towns in the vicinity of 2 plants for the purpose of -- only of holding prehearing 3 conferences there. We could certainly do that in this case.
4 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. This is Tim Johnson 5 again. I think there is quite a bit of interest in the 6 Atlanta area. We have had a number of inquiries from 7 people asking if there would be hearings in the Atlanta 8' area and would like to request that there be, at least for 9 the purpose of limited appearances, such a hearing in 10 Atlanta.
11 MR. JOINER: This is Jim Joiner for the '
12 Applicant. If I may simply make an observation for the
,Q t
s j 13 information of the board, there have been a number .of 14' hearings at the Georgia Public Service Commission. There 15 will be many further hearings at the Commission. Limited 16 appearances are permitted there. And based on my 17 participation in those hearings, I would simply observe 18 that most of the interest, if not virtually all of the 19 interesteshown thus far by public witnesses making limited 20 appearance', relates to economic and ratemaking 21 considerations as opposed to issues of radiological health 22 and safety.
23 MR. JOHNSON: I would just observe tha.t the 24 reason for that is that the Public Service Commission 25 instructs each witness that they are not to speak to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
25569.0 188 BRT tN,
(_/
1 concerns of radiological safety, but only to economic 2 issues since that is all that the Public Service Commission 3 addresses.
4 MR. JOINER: As anyone who spoke before the 5 board would address safety issues and not economic issues.
6 JUDGE MARGULIES: I don't want to foreclose anyone 7 from the possibility of holding a limited appearance 8 session in Atlanta. It's something that we probably would 9 want to take up at the prehearing conference. It's a 10 matter that we can discuss at that time. I would suggest 11 that you prepare your arguments for, against, whatever they 12 might be.
('^s L.) 13 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. This is Tim Johnson.
14 That's fine.
15 JUDGE HARGULIES: We also have the matter of a 16 site visit which is also a matter that we could take up at 17 the prehearing conference. But the board would like a site 18 visit to the facility.
19 MR. CHURCHILL: Judge Margulies, this is Bruce 20 Churchill. We would be happy to entertain a site visit.
21 We have been talking about starting the hearing on a 22 Tuesday. Would the previous Monday be a good time for the j g 23 board to come? Monday, March 10?
24 JUDGE MARGULIES: Well, it's something we could 25 O
-) discuss at a later time. We could_ work in the site visit ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
255611.0 189
,s BRT k_I 1 as well as the limited appearance into the course of the 2 hearing, which appears that it will only run over a short 3 duration. So we could take off a day or so during the 4 hearing, or whatever.
5 JUDGE PARIS: It's a nice break after a couple 6 of days of hearing.
7 MR.-TEPER: Mr. Chairman, this is Doug Teper.
. 8 Can you explain what exactly is the purpose of a site visit?
JUDGE PARIS:
9 The board and all the parties who 10 wish to attend visit the site and a.re given a tour by the 11 Applicants, in order to get a firsthand look at what is 12 going on. It is good for this to occur in advance of the O
k/ 13 hearing because then the testimony with respect to the 14 plant will have more meaning to the board and a,ll the 15 parties. They have a mental image of what is being talked 16 about.
17 JUDGE MARGULIES: Judge Linenberger?
18 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Yes. This is Gus 19 Linenberger. I would say that that there is a variety of 20 perhaps ancillary considerations that may not come into 21 discussion at the hearing but which the board can get a 22 feeling about by seeing the facilities, components and 23 organization of the site activities. So we do find that 24 this serves a meaningful purpose for us.
25 MR. TEPER: This is Doug Teper. The reason I O,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
25569.0 190
[)BRT v
1 bring the question is if it was possible to make a request 2 to the Applicant to see certain facilities at the time the 3 site visit is taking place, that might not, possibly, be on 4 the normal tour. I would just like to request if that 5 would be possible?
6 JUDGE MARGULIES: Well, why don ' t you attempt to
-7 work that out with the Applicant, Mr. Teper.
8 MR. TEPER: This is Mr. Teper. I would like to 9 do that. I would just -- I think it might be important for 10 the board to see certain parts of the plant that might 11 possibly be overlooked in a normal tour that might be 12 helpful to any determination.
A
\-) 13 JUDGE MARGULIES: Well, my interest in looking 14 at the plant, and the board's interest, is in terms of the 15 contentions that we are to hear. It is to serve as a 16 backdrop in terms of what the proceeding is about, and the 17 board's interest will be limited to that purpose. Is that
- 18 what you had in mind, Mr. Teper?
19 MR. TEPER: Yes. This is Mr. Teper. Anything 20 that I request will be pertinent to the hearing.
21 MR. CHURCHILL: Speak up please, sir.
22 JUDGE MARGULIES: He said that anything that he 23 n111 request will be pertinent to the hearing.
24 Well, I am sure that that is something that you
/~T 25 will be able to work out with the Applicant, Mr. Teper.
U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
25569.0 191 BRT
[lv 1 MR. TEPER: Thank you very much.
2 JUDGE MARGULIES: Are there any other areas that 3 we should go into at the present time?
4 MR. JOHNSON: This is Tim Johnson, Just for the 5 record I should mention that, of course you will recall 6 that we had filed a contention on financial qualification 7 which, subsequent to our filing, the Commission itself 8 issued a new rule reinstating an earlier rule that 9 prohibited consideration of such and therefore the board of 10 course denied our request to consider it. We are a 11 plaintiff in litigation on that and I understand that there 12 has not been a decision but it may be sometime soon.
/~N
- (,) 13 - Should we prevail in that litigation, we would refile that ,
14 contention and that is something I guess you should have in 15 mind for the schedule.
16 JUDGE PARIS: I didn't understand Mr. Johnson.
17 Are you suing the Commission?
18 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. We and several groups 19 around the country who are in positions similar to us.
20 MR. CHURCHILL: We can't hear, Mr. Johnson.
21 MR. JOHNSON: I'm sorry. What I just said is we 22 and a number of other groups around the country are 23 coplaintiffs in a suit, but it is against the Commission 24 itself. Not against the board.
25 JUDGE MARULIES: I don't know of any anticipated ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- X)2-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 4646
25569.0 192 BRT Jn ;
' k) ,,
1 ruling in that proceeding, but assuming something does come 2 down during the proceedings, certainly it's a matter that 3 you can take up and raise once again.
4 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. Thank you.
- 5 JUDGE MARGULIES: Does anyone else wish to be 6 heard on anything else?
7 Is there something we haven't covered that we 8 should cover? Does Judge Linenberger have anyth(ng? Judge 9 Paris?
x 10 There being nothing else, the conference is 11 adjourned. Thank you very much. N I
12 i (Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the telephone
() 13 I conference was concluded.) -
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
-,w+y 4 -
--.,.y -- -
--w --*- g- , a- --
-m --
w -%-- +-w ---s ---
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
- .. ( . .
l%)
This 'is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED- STATES ~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
.NAME OF PROCEEDING: GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.
(Vogtle Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2)
DOCKET NO.: 50-424-OL; 50-425-OL PLACE:- WASHINGTON, D. C.
wA
(_)- DATE: FRIDAY, JANUARY 10, 1986
'i were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
/
(sigt) 4e ZN (TYPEDJ !
JOE [BREITNER 3 Official Reporter i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS INC.
Reporter's Affiliation,
-p
'd
.