ML20148A837
| ML20148A837 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi  |
| Issue date: | 12/18/1978 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C, Schink D, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812290281 | |
| Download: ML20148A837 (179) | |
Text
~ ^
- y. '
9 M
NU
., A R P.HG U L ATO RY CO MMISSI O N -
g-,
e.
IN THE MNTTER CF: ;
fli .
1 4 DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, et al. j Docket No. 50-3410L (Fermi Unit 2) t .
~ '
Place . Detroit, Michigan Date . Monday, 18 December 1978 p ,,, 1 - 179 a
- p. -
w r 1 1
Ifib DOCUMENT CDHk!)h l POOR QUAUTY PAGES .
u m a,.:
k+. (302)347 3700 g .4CE NER.M. REPORERS, EC.
- q ow-an-m North C
- sl Sweet 7812290 A d - **hi"5"".. .c 2coci NATIONW1DE CCVERACE . O ALLY 1
CR1384 1
WEL/Wal 1
' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA O
Q 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
3 ---_____----_--______-______--- :
4 In the Matter of: :
5 DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, et al : Docket No. 50-3410L l 6 (Fermi Unit 2) :
l :
. 7 -_-__--------____--_--_---_-----:
- 8 Courtroom Number 1057 U. S. Court House B 231 W. Lafayette Street Detroit, Michigan 10 Monda* 10 December 1978 11 12 Prehearing conference in the above-entitled 13 matter was convened, pursuant to notice,',at 10:00 a.m.
(
14 BEFORE:
15 CHARLES BECHHOEFER, Esq. , Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
16 FREDERICK J. SHON, Member.
17 DAVID R. SCHINK, Member.
18 APPEARANCES:
- 1L HARRY H. VOIGT, Esq., EUGENE B. THOMAS, Esq.,
20 PATRICK K. O' HARE, Esq., and L. CHARLES LANT 1AF , Esq.,
o LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, 1757 N Sti .e, N.W.,
21 Washington, D. C.; appearing on behalf of the Applicants.
22 RICHARD L. BLACK, Esq., and STUART A. TREBY, Esq.,
23 Office of Executive Legal Director, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.; appearing 24 on behalf of the NRC Regulatory Staff, r
() 25 c0cc 9edezal cAeportets, .Onc 444 NORTM CAPITCL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
2 I
APPEARANCES: (Continued)
$O i
2 3 Err itson, 772 creen, Ypsilanti, Michigal.; appearing on behalf of Petitioners, Citizens for Employment and i J
3 Energy.
- 4 5
6 l
. 7 I
8 9
l 10 11 12 '
3 a
O 14 15 16 t 17
- 18 i e 19 4
- 20 '
e 21 22 23 24
' 25 cAce 9edera{ c.Repotietn, $nc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL. STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (aca) 347 370o
.- = - - - - .,.
3 1
bS$1bb1b LIMITED APPEARANCE STATEMENT: Page 3
Frank Kuron 6 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 l
l 12 13 O ,,
15 16 17 18
, 19 20 4
21 22 23 24 O 28 CC= SC CtQ hCf0titti, ht2C.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. O.C. 20001 (aoa) 347.s700
.CRfl384 .
WEL/wal 4 EEEEEERIEgs 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I guess it's close enough O 3 to 10:00 o' clock so we can start.
[
4- The proceeding involves the application for an 5 operating license of Detroit Edison Company and two other 6 cooperatives.
7 This Board has been established to rule en 8 petitions for intervention. Let me introduce the Board. .
l
~
9 To my left is Dr. David R. Schink, an environmental 10 scientist from Texas A&M University.
11 To my right is.Mr. Frederick J. Shon, a nuclear 12 engineer with the Nue'2ar Regulatory Commission.
13 My name is Charles Bechhoefer. I'm an attorney 14 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the attorney 15 member of the Licensing Board.
16 The construction permit for this reactor was 17 initially authorized by initial decision dated September 22, is 1972. That is Decision Number LBP-7226, published at 19 5AECl20.
20 The construction permit was' issued on September 21 26, 1972.
22 This decision was thereafter affirmed by the 23 Appeal Board, subject to a few comments on one issue, on 24 October 31, 1972. The decision was ALAB-77, 5 AEC 315.
P 25 On May 28, 1975, the Commission published a d
cAce. 9edesa{ c.Reposten, .Onc.
444 NORPM CAPtTOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (301) 347 3790
i-5 1 notice of receipt of the application for a facility operat-That was published in the Federal Register 4
i Q 2 .ing license.
j 3 at.40 FR 23122.
4 The notice of opportunity for heat .g was not
! 5 published until September 11, 1978. That citation was j 6 43 FR 40327.
4
. 7 This Board issued an order setting up this 8 prehearing conference on November 13, 1978, and the notice 9 was published in the Federal Register November 20, 1978 10 at 43 FR 54148.
11 In that notice we stated that we would at the 12 outset listen to limited appearance statements from any 13 members of .the public who had written in and requested to 14 make such statements.
15 I would i; squire now whether there is anyone 16 here who wishes to make such a statement?
17 (One hand raised in the audience.)
18 MR. KURON: My name is Frank Kuron, and I did
. 19 writa a handwritten letter to the Commission. I requested 20 permission to tell my story. Is that applicable?
21 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes, it is.
22 MR. KURON: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
23 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Since we have no microphones P
24 and no place from which to make statements officially, why O 2s aoa'e vou su
- xe veur
- temeae ero enere, or it v u'a c::Oce- 9edesa{ cAeposteu, Snc 444 NORTH CAPITCL STREET WASHINGTON, D.C, 20006 (801) 847 3700
6 1
feel more comfortable up here, you can come up here.
(} 2 MR. KURON: Well --
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: This room is really not set 4 up for witnesses.
5 MR. KURON: I generally can be heard regardless 6 of where I'm at. I don't have any difficulty in being
. 7 heard. It's'just that I have difficulty in being understood 8 or listened to, and I would hope that this body here would 9 listen to me.
10 LIMITED 12PEARANCE STATEMENT OF FRANK KURON, 11 5739 NELSON DRIVE, NEWPORT, MICHIGAN.
12 MR. KURON: First of all, with your indulgence, 13 Mr. Chairman, I know these proceedings are very dull and O 14 repetitious, and so on and so forth, and I hope I can kind 15 of break that up for you and maybe make your day for you.
16 First of all, let me introduce myself. My name 17 is Frank Kuron. I live at 5739 Nelson Drive, Newport, 18 Michigan. I live in the back yard of Fermi-1 and 2. I am
. 10 presently working on Fermi-2, and I say'that with emphasis 20 because tomorrow or the next day or next week, I don't 21 know. But this is the price I pay.
l 22 I am not a professional. I don ' ' make an; money 23 off of this. I'm a father of two, grandfa.her of six. I've 24 worked all my life. I don't make this a habit, or anything
() 25 like that.
cAce 9edesa{ cReposteu, .Onc.
444 NOftTH CAPITO4. STREET W ASHINGTON. DA Moot (aoa) 347-a7eo
-,- .s.n ' - ~ . - - - = a . .- .a kI
' 1 I do become involved locally, and I'did not miss
- (]) 2 one meeting as far as Fermi-1 is concerned. I became
! 3 interested approximately two years before they even broke i .
i 4 ground. So I'm well versed in the subject on my level, a
5- Some of the language I read here I don't under-4 i
6 stand, and of course I wish you would bear with me, Mr.
i
!. 7 Chairman, in my presentation. I'm going to try to make it I
! 8 as short and sweet as possible.
i-9 I worked on Fermi-1. I took cne thing right out i
! 10 of the ground. I know what it's like.
11 I worked on the Monroe power plant, and I know 12 what it's all about.
13 And I broke ground -- practically broke ground on O 14 Fermi-2.
l 15 Now, I did cooperate with Detroit Edison 100 l 16 percent for approximately the first year and a half, and I 17 just want to say to this Commission that this is a prehearing--
18 let's call it that--to decide whether you want a full-blown
. 19 hearing on issuing the license.
- 20 At this time I do not want to say too much. I 4
21 want to make it short and sweet and to the point.
22 As I said, I cooperated with Edison 100 percent.
23 But between the promises and the fulfillment was two 24 different things, and I became disillusioned with Detroit
() 25 Edison and their promises. And I could see that my c0cc 9edesa( cAeporteu, Snc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 2000t (202) 347 3700
8-
^
1 neighborhood was being affected -- adversely affected -- by O
4 eat eo er 9 1ace- ^=d I to1d enese eeor1e o- In fact, I 3
told them so hard and so firm that I understand I was laid off after a year and a half of work.
Nobody in my particular company wanted to lay,me 6
off, but nevertheless, that's another story.
7
- I vish to bring forth the full-blown facts at a i :
8 future date at wht this Commission has got to set -- a 8
full-blown hearing before the licensing.
IU I want to questica the security on this particular II plant. In my estimation there is none.
12 I wish to question seriously, and I think at a 13 full-blown hearing we can bring out specifics.
O 14 The quality control: Until recently there was 15 none. l 16 Then if the Commission will allow I wish to go 17 into the credibility of Detroit Edison, and I know that this 18 is a terrible, terrible thing, because in the years that I P
18
- was associated with the various projects I got to know many 20 of the Edison people, and I just want to say that many of a
21 them are very, very fine people, good people.
22 In fact, on two or three different occasions I 23 met ~with Bill Macy, the President of Detroit Edison. And 24 I want to tell this Commission, each and every point that 25 I brought to him was settled to our satisfaction in our cAce 9edeta( cAepostets, $nc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (aoa) 347 3700
_ - . - , , - - .. = . _ - . _ _ _ _ . . . -
9 1
community, and they were settled well. And I just want to say this, that I think Mr. Bill Macy is uninformed and
(]) 2 3 misinformed, and I wish to elaborate on that at a future 4 date.
5 Some of the people who are in charge of this 6 thing here, any similarity between those reports that you 1
, 7 read up in Washington and what I see and hear and know is 8 purely coincidental. In fact, I told the Atomic Energy
~
)
9 Commission when Tom Morgan and I went up there on our own, ;
i 10 out of our own pockets, I told them at that time that I-seen 11 and sat in on all of these meetings, and I read those reports e 12 and I wondered if I was at the particular meeting. Some of 13 them were locally held, which I participated in. Some of O 14 the suggestions that I gave to Detroit Edison were carried 15 out to the satisfaction and to the good of the Company and-16 the community.
17 So I'm not all bad, believe me, when I tell you--
] 18 I'm 62 years old, and, like I say, I want to live in peace And at least I want to leave
- 19 and I want to die in peace.
20 something here.
21 I am of Polish descent. No, I'm not a relative 22 of the Pope. But, by the same token, I am born and raised
.23 a Catholic, and I want to die a Catholic. And I'm probably
- 24 not as good a Catholic as I should be.
() 25 But in a proceeding of this kind, when you bring
< cAce-9edeta{ cReposteu, $nc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (302) 847 4700 J . _ _ _ . _ . - ..
10 l in religion -- I'm trying to establish something that maybe 2 I'm not as bad as I'm painted. After all, you don't see any
(])
3 horns coming out of my head. I am what I am. And a lot of 4
people in the last 20 years in and around Monroe County 5
wanted to know what that Polack wanted.
6 I want to tell you something:
, 7 I want peace and quiet. I want a good drink of 8 water. And I don't want no problems.. In fact, four years 9 ago, after 50 years -- I want to tell you the kind of guy to I am -- after 50 years of drinking -- you name it, I drank 11 it -- I quit.
12 I quit because I knew it wasn't right. It 13 wasn't good for me. And I quit it. And, of course, the O 14 old lady had something to do with it too, you know.
15 But, nevertheless, I want to convey to this 16 Commission that I'm going to lay these things out on the 17 table if I'm given the opportunity. And you are going to 18 pick out whether they're good, bad or indifferent.
- 19 I'm no nuclear nothing. In fact, I'm not a 20 good ironworker. I started a little bit late. I worked 21 for 21 years for Packard Motor Car Company. But then they 22 folded up under me. I was a tool and die leader when they 23 folded up under me, and I didn't even get a pink slip. I 24 went on my way.
() 25 At 42 years of age I went into construction, and cAcc. 9edera{ cReporters, $nc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W A S NI N GTO N, D.C. 20001 (202) S47 3700
11 .
1 believe me, I never worked so hard in my left.
2 I hate like hell to think that I'm going to be
- (])
3 fired again and I was fired because of my implication in 4 this. There's nothing in it for me, believe me. I work 5 for what I get.
6 At the time that I was in good with the Company, 7 with the company that was running this thing here, I worked 8 the same as anybody else. I didn't take advantage of it.
9 I was called upon for various decisions and help, and I io gave it to them.
11 Believe me when I tell you the people in Stony 12 Point, the people in Monroe County, right now the big thing !
13 is this. What really bothers me is there is nobody in
(:)
- 14 Monroe County who thinks for one second that you will not 15 issue them this license to operate -- nobody.
16 There is nobody on the job who believes that 17 this thing will work -- nobody.
18 And we have some of the finest people in the
. 19 world working on this job.
20 As far as quality control is concerned, I'm 4
21 going to show you, I'm going to tell you, that people from 22 all over the country are working at Fermi-2 today and 23 they're shaking their heads. One of them worked on thirteen 24 atomic plants, and he says, "This is unbelievable."
(]) 25 It's unbelievable.
c0ce. Jedesa( cReposten, Dnc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON D.C. a0001 (a0a1347 8700
12 1
I see good practices of construction which I
(} 2 know, just at my level -- no high engineering level, just l l
3 The word is out that the at my level -- and I'm wondering.
4 more you spend, the more you make. 1 5
Believe me. It's a cost-plus job.
6 The more anybody spends, wastes, burns, tears 7 up, throw it away, steal it, the more they make.
8 Edison now has gone in for an additional rate 9 hike, not for this year alone but for next year. And we 10 say to you, My God, where is this going to end?
11 I know this isn't your part, but if you will 12 allow me -- and I want the Commission to think it over, 13 because you're going to open up a can of worms -- credibility r 73 V 14 that's a terrible, terrible thing to attack a man's 1
15- credibility, or a company's credibility, especially an 16 l Old, established firm like Detroit Edison.
17 I have stories that I could tell you -- check 18 them out if you will -- and I'm going to point you in the
- 19 right direction. You do what you will. And then I'll sit 20 down in peace. I'll sit down in peace. I have done my 21 part.
22 Believe me, the last word I got out of my wife 23 before I left my house -- she got up and picked out my 24 shirt and pants and shoes and socks and everything else,
() 25 like a good wife, and she said, " Frank, if you lose your cOce 9edeza( cReporteu, Soc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (302) 347 3700 4
13 1
job over this, you and I are both in trouble."
2
(]) .ze ve been married a long, long time to that 3
woman, and she's the best in the world, bar none -- bar 4
none. And, by God, I'm going to tell my story, if you will 5
allow me.
6 I didn't come prepared to make a big speech or 7 anything like that, of course, like I said, I'm going to 8 make your day for you. I'm going to give you something to 9
talk about over your martinis, because if you live to be i l
10 99 years old, you'll never meet another guy like myself.
11 And when you leave here, you'll still wonder what the hell 12 does he want.
13 I don't want nothing. I don't make my living O 14 off of this. I'm ready and willing to work, and I've 15 worked all my left. And my father before me. But I'm 16 going to tell you things that are going on out there, out 17 in the world, that you'll never get in here.
18 I'm going to tell you those things, and then
. 19 you can do what you will, because that is your job. And 20 I'm not going to stand here and try to tell you how to do 4
21 your job.
22 So, Mr. Chairman, with that, and before I put 23 nur foot in my mouth, I'd better shut up.
24 So I'm asking you to cllow me, on the protection
() 25 of that plant, the security of that plant, the quality cAce- 9edesa{ cAeposteu, $nc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL, STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (aoa) 347.a700
14 1
control, and then I'll tell you the last one word that I f'N 2
(,) have. When I end up this story, like every good story --
3 by the way, I helped write the book, "We Almost Lost Detroit,
4 and I don't think I done this company any dis-service when 5
I sat down with John Fuller and we killed a few bottles of 6 l good Canadian stuff in writing that book. I think you mighta noticed the tone in there, you know?
(Laughter.)
9 But, nevertheless, it was a good experience. I 10 met a wonderful fellow. I told it to him the way it was.
I never got a And I didn't get a penny off of that book.
Penny. And I wasn't looking for any penny. I didn't want (T any penny. I had something to say and I told it to the
(/ g man.
15 But when I get done with this, like every good 1e story -- and I'm learning -- every good story -- I'm going
'7 to give you a little bit of the sex angle. Right on the
'8 end I'm going to polish it off with a good sex angle, and
- '" then I'm going to let you know just exactly what's going on.
21 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Think it over.
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Kuron, have you been 24 in touch at all with CEE, the Citizens for Employment and Energy, the group that is trying to intervene?
cAce 9edesa{ depottets, Snc 444 NORTH C APtTO4. STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 l (t.0a) 347 3700
. I 15 i
1 MR. KURON: Yes, yes, I have.
- () 2 In fact, reading all of your legal stuff in the 3 paper and in your correspondence, and things, I was wonder-4 ing if I'd be given th'is opportunity. 'And I joined this 5 particular group hoping that this would help me to make my 6 presentation and this.
. 7 And believe me when I tell you, I would stand 8 up on a stack of Bibles and take the oath and answer any 9 questions to the best of my ability. Believe me when-I tell 10 you that.
11 Thank you. Thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Are there any others here 13 who desire to make a limited appearance statement?
O 14 (No response.)
15 One of the things I forgot, I think the parties 16 and the petitioners or their representatives ought to 17 identify themselves for the record.
18 I guess we'll start from left to right, with
- 19 the Applicants.
20 MR. VOIGT: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board:
21 My name is Harry H. Voigt, and I am with the 22 firm of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, 1757 N Street, N.W.,
23 Washington. I appear on behalf of the Applicants.
24 My co-counsel, on behalf of the Applicants, is
() 25 Mr. Peter A. Marquardt. Mr. Marquardt is the senior
, cAce 9edesa{ cReposten, Snc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STRETT W ASHINGTON. D.C. a0001 (aca) 347.s700
16 1
attorney. His address is Detroit Edison Company, 2000 0 2 s c =a ^v =" o eroit, "ichts #-
l 3 Also appearing on behalf of the Applicants are 4 my partner, Eugene B. Thomas; my associates Patrick K. O' Hare 5 and L. Charles Landgraf, and also Mr. R. Larry Drake, who 6 is also on the legal staff of the Company. His address is
. 7 the same as Mr.. *1uardt's.
8 MR. SCHINK: Is he related to Mrs. Drake?
, 9 MR. VOIGT: That's the first thing I asked him 10 when I met him. He said no.
11 (Laughter.)
12 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: For the NRC Staff?
13 MR. BLACK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. -
O 14 My name is Richard L. Black. I'm counsel for l
l 15 the NRC Staff.
16 On my right is Stuart A. Treby, Assistant Chief 17 Hearing Counsel.
18 We're appearing on behalf of the NRC Staff,
,
- 19 Office of Executive Legal Director.
20 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: And for the citizens for 21 Employment and Energy?
22 MR. ALSON: Yas, Mr. Chairman. My name is 23 Jeff Alson. I am-representing CEE.
24 Also with me is Tad Wysor, Rick Cannon, Nat 25 Pernick and also Leah Warn.
cAce 9edeta( cAepottess, Snc 444 NOMTH CAPITOL STREET W ASMINGTON D.C. 2000t (aoa) 347.a7oo
17 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The Board wants to go into
() 2 the question first of standing. We will hear all of the 3
parties on that. And then later on we would like to get 4
into the contentions individually and hear all of the 5 l parties on each contention. I think this will organize it 6
a little bit better.
7 MR. BLACK: Mr. Chairman, before we get into the 8
petition of CEE, could I first read into the record a 9
letter that I received from Martha Drake? It was dated 10 December 10, but I don't believe it has made the distribution 11 yet.
12 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes.
13 MR. BLACK: I'd like to read that into the record.
O 14 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes, I was shown that, but 15 it should be read into the record.
16 MR. BLACK: It is addressed to met 17
Dear Mr. Black:
18 I wish to withdraw my name and that of Dan 19 0;ake from the intervention in the Detroit Edison 20 Fermi-2 case. I trust that others will bring 21 up the problems that I wanted to address. I 22 still feel that I could justify getting standing,.
23 but the distance to the hearings and limited ,
24 resources make it difficult. Bob Asperger has
(])' 25 left the State. He would like to have his name c0ce 9ederaf cAeposteu, Snc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D A SM01 (308) 347 3700
1 I
i 18 1
4 removed from the service list, and Jeff Alson, O '
722 oreen, r esi1 anti, Michisan, rut on in his 3
place. He will be representing CEE, along with i
l Robert Maynard and David Hiller. If it is i
I 5-l possible for me to continue to get mailings on 1 I #'
the case, I would appreciate it. I am very i interested in what happens. Thank you."
' 8 And then there's a little personal note there, and I'll forget that.
,' 10 But at least that will indicate to the Board Il that Mrs. Drake and Dan Drake have dropped formally from 12 this proceeding and wish their petition to be withdrcwn.
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, the Board will take
, O f that into account.
- 15 I think the Staff might want to make sure that
?
16 Mrs. Drake's name stays on the mailing list.
1 1
MR. BLACK: We will do that.
I CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Make sure that the Secretary doesn't take it off.
20 I think we would like to start with the standing 21 of CEE. We would like to hear in particular about who is 22 the governing body of the organization and who is authorized 23 to tell us about it, particularly since Dr. Asperger, who 24 had listed himself earlier as at least the acting Chairman, 25 according to that letter'is no longer living in Michigan.
c0cc. 9edesal cRepozteu, Soc.
Add NORTH CAPtTOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 30001 (sea) 347 370o
1 19
- 1-1 We have received no notification from Dr. Asperger
!()
2 about whether or not he wishes to participate, or whether 3
he's actually moving from Mich'gan. We'd like to hear 4
something about the CEE organization, and also who we should 5
serve, and that type of thing, assuming that a hearing is 6
i
- held, who we should be getting in touch with and who we should serve and who the parties should serve.
8 i -
MR. ALSON: Myself, I think, would serve in that l 9
)
capacity. Dr. Asperger has lef t the State just recently, 10 in'the last two weeks or so. This has caused a certain 4
11 amount of confusion in the group, because he was the contact s 12 i person with the NRC.
j () We do not, as of yet, have a director to replace him officially. So I don't know how to answer that question. f 15 i The five of us who are here today, or the six of us including (
1
' Mr. Kuron, are members of the CEE group who have been particularly interested in this case.
18 Mr. Hiller and Mr. Maynard are UofM law students 19 and have also helped, but this is finals week for them, and so they were unable to be here today.
21 What other specific . . .
22 CHAIRMAM BECHHOEFER: Well, in the Applicants' 23 response your name was the only one given to us, with 24 address or residence. Is your residence for at least the O)
L 25 foreseeable future Ypsilanti?
cOce3cdeta( cRepotten, Onc. ,
444 NORTH C APITO!. STR EET W ASHINGTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
i
$- 20 I
1 MR. ALSON: Yes. l i
2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Are you a law student? l l .
l 3 MR. ALSON: No, I'm not a student. If you'd be 4 interested, I could tell you where I've worked. I don't l f
i' 5
- know whether that's relevant or not.
! 6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: No, that's not important.
- 7 Well, I think we would like to hear any comments l 8 that, first, the Applicants would want to make and thereafter
~
9 the NRC Staff, about standing.
l i
l 10 MR. VOIGT: Mr. Chairman, we served our response
! 11 on Friday, and we have made copies of it available here in
, 12 the room this morning, recognizing that some of those who l 13 were served by mail might not actually have received it in
- O
}
14 the mail.
15 We also have additional copies which we'd be l 4
16 glad to distribute to any person who is interested in seeing i 17 it.
18 That response summarizes our position with
' 19 respect to standing, and I will just briefly reiterate that 1
20 and attempt to respond to any questions which the members j 21 of the Board may have.
22 It would appear from all the information that we 23 have received that CEE, as an organization, has only an l
24 academic interest in this proceeding. They have never 25 asserted that they, as an organization, had any interest 1
cAce 9ederal c.Repsteu, Dnc dde NORTH C APITOL STR EET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20000 (801) 347 3700
~
21 4
l which would be affected by the operation of Fermi-2 G
, k.) 2 The question then becomes whether they represent j
3 members whose personal interests may be affected by the 4
operation of Fermi-2, and the extent to which they are 5 authorized and requested by those members to so represent
] 6 them.
7 To date only one member has been identified, Mr.
8 Alson. When we received his affidavit we made inquiry and 9 we were told the address he gave was an apartment house in 10 Ypsilanti, and that most of the people who lived there were 11 students at Eastern Michican University.
Mr. Alson has now told us that that's not the 12 13 case as far as he personally is concerned, and I accept that.
{} 14 I think the question of his standing, his 15 interest in this proceeding, however, is still very much up 16 in the air. I cannot judge from any of the stated purposes 17 or interests of CEE that there is anything asserted there 18 which is personal to hk. Alson.
- 19 I can look at the contentions that have been 20 raised here, and some of them are very broad and don't appear 21 to relate to anybody. There _re some others that seem to 22 relate primarily.to local conditions within a relatively 23 small radius of the plant.
24 There's one that relates to radiation releases,
( 25 - and Mr. Alson is agruably within the zone that would be c;Oce 9edeta( cAepotless, $nc.
444 NORTH CAPtf06 STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (102) 347 3700 N
i 22 1-affected by those radiation releases. L
( .
However, both the Applicant and the Staff have :
3 pointed out that that contention is an attack on the 4 1 Commission's regulations and is barred.
5 So putting that to one side, we submit on behalf of the Applicants that there still has been absolutely no
. 7 showing that any individual member of CEE has a personal 8
stake in this controversy such as to convert this from the abstract to the real. And the real is a requirement before 10 we go to the expense and possible delay of holding a hearing 11 in this proceeding where none would otherwise be required. I 12 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: How do you interpret the 13 l recent Supreme Court ruling in the case involving the '
,}
(
Price Anderson Act, which would seem to hold that the 15 injury that a particular person would suffer does not have
'0 to have any particular relation to the contentions asserted 17 by that person? That's how I've interpreted that.
18 MR. VOIGT It's my understanding, Mr. Chairman --
- 19 and I'm not familiar with the underlying NRC proceeding --
20 that the intervenors there were contesting the effect of 21 the cooling system of the plant on the lake, a matter which 2
they asserted did personally affect them. And the District Judge translated that into standing for them to bring the 24 court suit.
I don't suppose that either you or I would
, cAce 9edera[ c.Repotteu, One.
444 NOMTH CAPITOL STREET .
W A S HI N G TO N. O.C. 2M00 (202) 347 3700
~.
23 1
question the standing of people who own property around the ..
O 2 lake that was going to be used for cooling purposes to 3
oppose the operation of the plant.
4 The interplay between the court suit and the 5
NRC proceeding is interesting, and I suggest to you it's a 6 one-of-a-kind case. But I'm not sure that either the.
~
7 District Judge's decision or the Supreme Court case really 8 tells us how'we ought to handle the standing in our NRC 9 proceedings.
10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Do you have any comment also 11 on Mr. Kuron's statement earlier? We have his address, and 12 it's quite close to the plant. Do you have any commenf on
() 13 his statement that he is a member of the CEE?'How would 14 that affect it?
15 MR. VOIGT: I accept his statement but, again, 16 no one has alleged that their person or their property is 17 going to be affected by this plant. Everybody is expressing 18 concern about various aspects of the plant.
19 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, what does paragraph 20 2(a) and 2(c) say to you?
21 (Pause.)
22 MR. VOIGT: It says nothing to me, quite frankly, 23 Mr. Chairman, because there's no basis for it. There's no 24- specificity. Anybody can come in and say that they don't O 25 like low-level radiation, but does that raise an issue which cAce. 9edeta( cAepsten, $nc d44 NOMTH C APITOL. STR EET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
24 requires this Board to conduct a public hearing? I submit 2
not.
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, can a person 35 miles
=
i
' d away, or within 35 miles? If Mr. Alson says he adopts all 5 these statements and would provide specificity?
6 MR. VOIGT: Clearly not, Mr. Chairman.
l
~
5 7 MR. SHON: Mr. Voigt, it is alleged that not
( l
- i. 8 only his interests arise from the risk of low-level j 9 radiation, but also from the risks of releases of radiation 10 through accidents in the plant, a matter not necessarily 11 low-level -- whatever low-level may mean in this. context --
12 releases.of radiation through industrial sabotage, through
' 13 sabotage by outside terrorists, and through the transporta-14 tion of spent nuclear fuel from the plant through the 15 surrounding community.
16 Now, sorne of his contentions at least seem to 17 have a thrust that suggests that he believes the plant is 1
18 vulnerable to releases of radiation through accidents, for 19 example. In particular, contentions that relate to quality 20 assurance. Quality assurance is instituted in the event of 21 just such accidents.
22 It seems that he has been as specific as one 23 would expect.
24 MR.-VOIGT: I can't agree with that, Mr. Shon.
\ 25 Let's take the transportation as an example.
c0cc 9edeta{ cAepostets $na 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _b _ .. _ __ _ _ . . ____ ,,, _ ._
5 25 1
There is no allegation.in here of what the likely transpor-2 tation routes are, or what the possibilities of such 3 For all this Board knows, any planned transportation are.
4 transportation from the plant may not go even close to 5
Ypsilanti, Michigan.
l 6 It's that kind of factual connection that I
~
7 submit to you you must require before you can assume that 8 these very generalized allegations affect any specific 9 individual person.
10 MR. SIION: Let's address the release of radiation l 11 through accidents, for example. That's probably more ,
12 pertinent to what he's worrying about. I 13 MR..VOIGT: I don't know what he's worried about.
14 That's the problem. But, all right, talk about the l 15 release of radiation through accidents. There's a spectrum 16 .of accidents that the Applicants are required to consider, 17 and there's a class of accidents that are not required to 18 be considered.
19 Now, a petitioner is at liberty to take the 20 spectrum of accidents that are required to be considered 21 and attempt to show the Board how he is adversely affected 22 by them. That's not been done.
23 The releases from the Class-1 through 8 accidents 24 are extremely low, and those are calculated at the site 25 boundary.
cAce 9edesa{ c.Reposters, $nc.
- 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 *
(203) 347 3700 3.
p- m-s- www-.--gwg .g ,,p+-we em*+g y wme =
26 1
Now, how do we get from there to Ypsilanti?
() 2 Is this kind of vague, general allegation 3
sufficient to invoke a' hearing process that otherwise would 4 not be required?
5 MR. SCHINK: Could you foresee anyone who would 6
be admissible under the conditions that you've just laid 7
down?
MR. VOIGT: Certainly. For example, there is a 8
contention here about an area called Stony Point. Mhen we g
jo get to the contentions I hope to convince you that it's not ij a valid contention, but I would freely state that if there 12 was a resident of Stony Point here that he would have clear standing to raise that issue, raise that contention. He's g-) 13
\_/ !
14 directly affected by it.
Here there is no demonstration that anybody is (
15 ;
10 being directly affected.
MR. SHON: Mr. Voigt, if, indeed, the only 37 18 injuries that might be considered here are those which would
- ig result from the rather mild -- as you described it spectrum 20 of accidents that are generally described, why is it that Commission case law and everything else suggests that 21 22 PeoP l e as far away as 35 miles might be involved?
23 MR. VOIGT: The principal case on that point, if 24 I recall it correctly, said that it was not irrational for
() 25 a Licensing Board to entertain standing under those cAce- 9ecleza( cReposten, Sne.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTO N, D.C. 2o004 (zoa) 347 37oo
27 1
circumstances.' I don't read that as suggesting that the
( )) 2 Appeal Board would necessarily reverse you if you rationally 3
concluded not to confer standing under those circumstances.
4 The Licensing Boards have a wide area of 5
discretion in this field, which the Appeal Board has upheld on many occasions. I submit to you, gentlemen, that you 6
y have the discretion to go either way on this point.
8 MR. SCHINK: At one poi t in that discussion Mr.
g Alcon looked like he wanted to say something.
MR, ALSON: Thank you. Two things, one of which 10 n is not very important, but you pronounced my last name 12 correctly. Other, people have not, but it's not a very important point.
eq 13
() The second thing is that in my possession -- and .
34 )
15 if you'd accept it I could give it to the Board -- is an l l
l
,g affidavit signed by Frank Kuron, notarized on November 30, 37 1978. This was the affidavit that we had intended to ja be used in our application we sent on December 4 -- our 39 amended petition. It got hung up in the mail inexplicably between Monroe and Ann Arbor. But it's notarized November 20 21 30, and if you'll accept that I'll give it to you. It has 22 a bearing on some of the discussion that has been happening 23 here.
CHAIR!iAN DECHHOEFER: Do you have copies to give 24 25 to the other parties?
c:Oce 9edeta[ cAepotlets, $nc.
444 NORTH CAPITCR STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 2000)
(20*)
. 347 3700
28 1
MR. ALSON: Not at this point, no.
(') 2 CIIAIRMAN DECIIIIOEFER: Why don't you read it into 3 the record, and then transmit the original to our Secretary 4 with copies to the Board and the parties? I think that 5 would be the best way to proceed.
6 MR. ALSON: Okay.
. 7 It has tb, heading -- it says:
8 " Frank Kuron, on oath, deposes and.says:
9 1. He is a citizen of the United States of 10 America, and a resident of the State of Michigan, 11 and resides at 5739 Nelson Drive, howport, 12 Michigan, 48166, which is within two miles 13 of Unit 2 of the Fermi Nuclear Plant being 14 constructed.by Detroit Edison.
15 2 He and his family have lived at this 16 location for eighteen years.
17 3. He is a member of Citizens for Employment 18 and Energy.
- 19 4. He adopts the contentions of the amended 20 petition to intervene filed on October 13, 1978 21 with the NRC, and dated October 9, 1978, signed 22 by David Hiller."
23 It then gives his signature and is notarized.
24 CilAIRMAM DECI!!!OEFER: All right. Make sure you
() 25 serve the other parties and send the original to the Secretar: r cOce 9edeta{ cAeporten. Onc 444 NORTH C APITOL STREET ,
W ASHINGTON D.C. 20006 (102) 347 3700
. . ~ . - . - - - - . - . - - - . ~ _.
29 1
of the Coimd.ssion.
() 2 MR. SCHINK: Could I go back to Mr. Alson for 3
a minute or two here?
4 We were asking you about CEE, and I wonder if 5
you could give me a little more information about your 6 organization? Do you have a formal membership? How does 7
someone join your organization? Do you have officers, and 8
how are they olected? Do you.have laws and by-laws?
9 MR. ALSON: Okay. I don't have a copy of any 10 laws or by-laws with me at this time. The only official 11 officer we had was that of Director, which Mr. Asperger 1 12 We don't have an official had been until he left the State.
13 Director right now.
[}
14 As far as membership, we don't have dues or 15 anything like that. It's an expressed interest in whatever 16 CEE is working on at that time.
17 We're an unincorporated organization. We have i 18 '
no papers filed with the State of Michigan, or c7ything 19 like that.
20 MR. SCHINK How was your Director elected? And 21 how will the next one be elected?-
l 22 MR. ALSON: Just by democratic vote of the 23 organization, which, because of our scattered nature from-24 all around the State we tend to do things by phone communica-O 25 tion. . We often don't even have meetings together.
l cAce 9edetal c.Aepotiet1, $nc.
444 NORTN CAPITCL STREET W ASHINGTON D.C. a0001 (aca) 347.a700
30 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Would you say the participa-2 tion in a proceeding such as this is within the scope of 3
the type of activity that your organization engages in?
Your statement in the intervention petition is more 5
legitimate in terms of studying and apprising people of 6 the nature of nuclear energy. Is this type of participation
^ 7 usual within the scope of your organization?
MR. ALSON: Yes. And people familiar with us 8
know that we've also intervened in Greenwood, in the 10 construction permit hearings. This is the sort of thing
" that CEE does and intends to d 3.
12
. But we do other things, mass education of the 13 public. -
14 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We would like to hear from 15 the Staff now on the standing.
16 Mr. Chairman, I might initially note MR. BLACK:
17 that we indicated in our petition that we did want to 18 inquire further into CEE's organizational structure at
'8 this time. I think that some of the questions that we had 20 have been responded to, but let me back up a second.
21 I will first indicate that Staff is well aware 22 that at this point in this proceeding or in any proceeding E that it is often difficult for intervenors to particularize, 24 not only their standing through specified interests in fact, 25 but it's also difficult for them to particularize contentions ,
cAce. 9edesa( cAeposten, Snc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASMINGTON. D.C. 2000t (aoa) 347.a700
. = . _ __ , _ _ .
31 l 1
And a lot of this goes to the fact that much of the stage O 2 of this groceedine -- ehe review is noe fina1ized yee. And a good case in point is something that Mr. Voigt just I 1
4 l brought up, that it's awfully difficult for the Staff tu 5
understand how intervenors are expected at this point to, let's say, establish injury in fact on transportation routes, when in fact those transportation routes have not been established.
9 So, to us, we construe those standing requirements l 1
0 quite liberally and, of course, this has been recognized in I'
NRC case practice by establishing this geographical zone 12 of interest where in fact if they come in and say that they
'3 live within 50 miles, for instance, that that is usually l#
]
enough to connote that they will have some type of injury 15 in fact at this stage of the proceeding. And usually that
'6 is good enough for the Staff. We will take close proximity to the plant to establish that injury in f act in most 18 instances.
The thing that disturbed the Staff in this case, 20
. though, and the thing that we would still like to inquire 21 into a little bit further, is CEE's organizational status.
22 We are of the firm belief that even though they do have 23 members that live in close proximity to the p.' ant, if they l 24 are going to pursue intervention they should have the members ,
25 the resources,-and the experts let's say, to diligently and c0ceSedesal cRepsten, Onc. j 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHIN070h. D.C. 20001 (104) 847 3700
32 1 in good faith pursue this proceeding. It is a serious
() 2 matter. It does have the potential to cost money. It does 3 have the potential to involve lot of time. And it does l
4- have the potential to cause delays in the final operation 5 of Fermi-2 if and when that is finally authorized by this 6 Licensing Board.
7 So we do.want to make inquiries at this point a as to whether they will, in fact, pursue intervention in 9 good faith. And to that end, some of the points that we 10 wanted to inquire about have already been responded to.
ji But we would like to inquire further into how 12 many members they have. They did indicate that there is a 13 loose organization. They do have a board of directors.
O 14 They do have some type of authorization from the members to 15 the board of directors.
16 We'd also like to inquire a little bit more into 17 their purpose; what kind of resources they have now or 18 intend to get, and perhaps how they intend to get those, 19 let's say, not only funding but also whether they're going 20 to have.any technical people or expertise in that area; what 21 are their procedures for decision-making in the organization; 22 and, finally, how are we to find out who their representative s 23 are, how those representatives are authorized through the 24 organizational structure, and will this change over time
() 25 because of the loose-knit structure of the organization?
c0ccSedesaf cRepsteu, One
, 444 NORTM CAPtTot. STREET WASHINOTON. O.C. 2000t (302) 347 3700
33 I
So those are come of the matters that we would 2
like to have pursued a little bit further, and when CEE gets 3
their chance to respond I hope that they can touch on some 4
of these matters that we would still like to have responses 5
to.
6 But the Staff's position is that it seems to us 7
that they do have members who live in close proximity to 8 This is enough for us to connote injury in fact.
the plant.
9 And as long as they are That is enough to confer standing.
10 going to pursue this in good faith, we feel that the 11 standing requirement has been met.
12 (The Board conferring. )
13 I would like, Mr. Black, to CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
14 ask one question:
1 15 Is i.t the Staff's position that an organization 16 must havn available to !t technical expertise in order to 17 be admittu to a proceed.1.7g, to have standing to be admitted?
18 l MR. BLACK: No, I don't think as a general rule 18 that's a requirement at all, but I think that is one of the 20 factors that may play a part in a decision as to whether or 21 not an organization is going to in fact pursue seriously a 22 proceeding such as this in good faith.
23 obviously there's no blanket rule, that they have 24 to have money or experts, or what have you. But I think the 25 important thing is that we want to make sure that this is a cAce 9edera( cReposten, .Onc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (aoa) 347470o
34 I structured organization, and not merely pursuing just
( 2 academic interests.
3 I think all of these things are f actors that )
4 should come into this decision as to whether they are merely 5 pursuing academic interests or, in fact, serious about it.
6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think the Board would like 7 to hear from Mr. Alson on some answers to these questions.
8 MR. ALSON: Okay.
9 I guess I'd first like to say that our general to position on standing, I would just like to refer to the 11 Staff's own response that we got here today. Being non-
, 12 lawyers ourselves, we would like to say that that summarizes 13 how we ' feel abo,ut the situation, so we won't go into
(])
14 further detail right now on that.
15 The questions raised by Mr. Black, as far as 16 number of members in our organization I couldn't give you 17 an exact number, but I would say we have 20 or 30 people 18 around the State who are working on different aspects of
~
19 what we do.
20 I don't have, you know, a membership list, or 21 anything like that with me at this time.
22 MR. SCHINK: Does such a list exist?
23 MR. ALSON: Yes, I would think so. Probably it 24 was in Dr. Asperger's holdings, and whether he has sent O 25 that mafbe to Martha Drake or . . . I couldn't say where cAce 9edna{ cReptten, $nc du NORN CAPWOL WTREET WASHINGTO N. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
35 I
it is.
() 2 As far as resources which, you know, everyone 3
recognizes is a critical factor here, I can say at this 4
time'that we do have commitments from at least a couple of 5 l professors from the University of Michigan who I think 6 would qualify as expert witnesses.
7 I don?t have any affidavits or anything like that 8 with me today that I could show as proof, but there's no 9
doubt-in my mind that we could get at least a couple of l 10 expert witnesses. But we're not at the stage in our 11 intervention yet where we have tried to do that.
12 Money, I --
{}
13 MR. SCHINK: I don't think the resources or the 14 technical expertise is as important to us at this time as 15 the demonstration that there is a structured organization, l 16 that this isn't just five new faces who walked in off the l
17 Street and determined to become intervenors. i 18 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Intervention is a serious 19 business, and you will be asked questions that you'll be 20 expected to respond to. And we will want to find out 21 whether you are really able and willing to participate in 22 the proceeding.
23 MR. ALSON: Well, I don't know how to attack 24 I can point to CEE's past work in this area. I think that.
25 CEE has always fulfilled its obligations,both in the Fermi cAceSednal cReputeu, $nc eu NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (302) 847 3700
36 I
consideracions and in the Greenwood prehearing situation.
2 By our nature, in that we are spread across the 3
State, there is a certain amount of problem. I mean we l 1
4 can't gather the.whole organization together conveniently ,
5 in one place very often, so we tend to do a lot of things 6
by phone calls and letters. When a decision is needed on 7
an important issue and you're trying to make a decision by 8
phone and by letter, oftentimes you will not get ahold of 9
someone. So I can't say that every decision we make is 10 always backed by every member of CEE, but, you know, we 11 make decisions. We do-it by a majority of the group.
12 I have every reason to believe that we would 13 carry out the intervention to completion.
14 Are there other specific questions I'm not 15 dealing with?
16 MR. SCHINK: I'm still concerned a little bit 17 with this membership list, the location of which now
'8 appears to be unknown.
~
8 I think it would be useful if CEE, as represented 20 And I would hope
, by you people, at least knew who it is.
21 you'd find out who you':ce representing.
22 I'm also still curious as to how you would plan 23 to elect new officers.
24 HR. ALSON: Like I said, usually the only 25 officer we've had officially is Director, and that spot is c0cc 9edeta[ cAeptteu, $nc add NOMTH CAPITOL. STREET W A S NIN GTO N. D.C. 20006 (202) 347-3700
l l
l 37 1
open now, and I imagine it would be attempted to be reached 2
in some sort of consensus mode, if everyone were to agree 1
on someone. It's hard to take a vote, because a vote is a function of time, and doing this by phone and letter is not 5
so easy. To say, okay, how many people want this fellow to 6
be Director, that's hard to do by phone or by letter.
7 So, you know, I can't tell you right now. That 1
8 will be decided, but . . . l 8
MR. SCHINK: We both agree you have problems l l
10 there. Who will decide that? How are you going to decide l l
11 how to proceed?
12 MR. ALSON: As far as choosing a new Director?
13 MR. SCHINK: Yes.
14 MR-. ALSON: I assume some of the members who are 15 in contact with each other will either choose a list of 16 names or one none, and then put that to a test vote or 17 straw vote, and see how that goes.
18 The nature of the group I guess probably doesn't 18 see the position as Director maybe as important as a lot of 20
, organizations do. It's a pretty non-hierarchial organization.
l 21 '
The thing we're most concerned with is we have 22 a group of people in this part of the State who are interested.
23 in this intervention. Maybe that's what we should be 24 addressing here.
25 MR. SCHINX: Perhaps so. Do you know whether c:Oce.'3edeta{ cAeposten, Onc 444 NORTH C APITOL STftEET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20004 (801) 347 3700
~
I 1
l 38 l l
1 l there's a member from Stony Point? l
/~' l MR. ALSON: Not to my knowledge. l l
3 l (Pause.) l 4
Oh, yes, I guess Mr. Kuron actually lives in 5
Stony Point.
6 (The Board conferring.)
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Voigt, do the Applicants
, want to respond to any of the statements that have last been made?
MR. VOIGT: I'm not sure it's a response to Mr.
Alson, but I would urge this Board,1f you are interested in 12 the history of the responsibility of CEE as an organization, l
to take a look at what has happened in the Greenwood proceeding. '
15 In that case there was an organization called 6
Detroit Area Coalition for the Environment, commonly known
'7 as DACE, which was admitted as an intervenor having filed 8
a petition to intervene in response to the notice of hearing and, indeed, having stipulated contentions with the 20
. Applicant and the Staff.
21 Two and one half years later, CEE sought 22 intervention in the Greenwood proceeding, and we received 23 a response from DACE endorsing their intervention. The 24 response from DACE was signed by Dr. Asperger. CEE's 25 petition was signed by a Mr. Phillip.
c0cc 9ederal cRepotten, Snc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W A S NI N G TO N. D.C. a0001 (aca) 347 37oo
39 1
A few months after that, we received a copy of
() 2 a handwritten letter from Asperger to the Commission 3 announcing that he now represented both CEE and DACE.
4 In the course of ruling on CEE's late-filed 5 petition in Greenwood the point w0s made that they hadn't 6 shown that they had any local members.
7 The next thing we received was an' affidavit from 8 a lady names Mrs. Daubendeik, who was already on the service 9 list in trother capacity, saying that, oh, she'd just become 10 a member of CEE, and wanted to endorse their petition to 11 intervene.
12 This is a very slippery group-to get a handle 13 on, and I think that the Board has properly expressed its 14 concern and the Staff has raised a. concern.
15 Even if they are able to satisfy the minimal 16 requirements for standing, what assurance do we have that 17 they will fulfill their obligations as responsible inter-18 venors? That, to me, is an open question.
19 There's been no discovery in the Greenwood 20 proceeding. There's been no test of the organization's 21 willingness to respond. And, of course, we're not even out 22 of the starting gate in this proceeding.
23 I would also comment in response to your 24 question, Mr. Chairman, to the effect that are resources
( 25 and technical expertise a prerequisite for standing, I think c0cc. 9eu'esa[ CAeposteu, Onc 444 NORTH CAPtTOL STREET WASHING TON. D.C. BM@ t (308) 347-3700
l l
l 40 1
the answer is clearly no, you cannot impose that requirement
() 2 as a legal test for standing. However, if you were to 3
conclude that the organization had standing, I submit that 4
you could nevertheless consider their ability to contribute 5
to the record in evaluating what contentions should be set 6 for hearing here.
l 7
MR. BLACK: Mr. Chairman, one further comment l 8 that I might make. I wonder if it would be helpful to the 8 Board if i1 their deliberation on this petition, particular-10 ly the question on standing, whether it would be helpful 11 if CEE submitted a list of members, as well as a copy of 12 their by-laws? I'm just throwing that out as a suggestion.
13 (The Board conferring.)
(G~)
14 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:- The' Board has conferred, 15 and we think that while it would be desirable for CEE to 16 have a membership list at hand, we don't think it is 17 appropriate for us to ask for it at this stage.
18 You have supplied us with the affidavit and I 18 You will be called upon think we'll just leaveuit at that.
20 if there is a proceeding and you are admitted as a party to 21 participate, and failure to adequately respond to-discovery 22 requests may have an impact on your participation.
23 But I don't think that you ought to be required 24 to supply us with a membership list at this stage, at least.
25 I think that we have about covered the standing cAce 9edezal cRepsteu, Dna dad NORTN CAPITOL STREET WASHINoTON. D.C. 20001 (302) 347-370o
41 1
question.
) 2 Do any of the parties or petitioners have any-3 thing further they want to advise us of on standing?
4 otherwise, we thought we would --
5 MR. KURON: Mr. Chairman, if I might, I would 6 hope, just like we're sitting here and listening to the 7 so-called status -- and I say that with all kindness, because 8 I know you guys are the ones that do the work, and then the I 9 Commission takes ~the credit, but nevertheless one who is 10 familiar with the history -- and I mean years before they 11 even broke ground, and I have made it my business, at my 12 expense and time and trouble and everything, to be at each 13 and every meeting that was evet -- public meeting that was
[}
14 ever held. Through my time and trouble I became involved 15 into this thing here.
16 And then, of course, at one time Mr. Morgan and 17 I went to Bethesda, Maryland to the Atomic Energy Commission, 18 at our own expense, and we spent a couple of days there.
~
19 And we enlightened them a little bit.
20 But I would hope -- I think the right word is --
21 and I don't even know what the hell it means, but they say 22 "the Devil's Advocate" in these proceedings, to sit here 23 and listen to some of these things that are said, because 24 I wouldn't want to accuse Edison of being liars, but 25 sometimes they don't tell the truth, you know. So how are c0cc 9ederal cReptten, $nc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINOTON. D.C. 20001 (SO4) 347 3700
42 1
you going to call somebody a liar when they maybe just 2
didn't tell the truth?
3 But I would hope that being able to sit here in 4
a licensing proceeding ar1 to listen to this testimony, and then be allowed to enlighten Staff or the Board itself on I 6
some of the things that's going on, now I noticed that they 7
talked about the roads leading in and out of there. Believe 8
me when I tell you there are only a few roads. There's O
only one way to go, and that's out the main so-called
'U Fermi-2 Drive to the Dixie Highway, and then turn left or l'
right. That's the only way you're going to go.
12 We in the Stony Point area -- and I live in the O
sto=v rot =* r , z 11ve i= *a d cx v ra or rer 1-1 =a 2 -- l and I would wish that Staff would get Mr. Tom Morgan's 15 presentation on the exits and so on and so forth that he 16 presented at the.Kettering High School.
'7 What I'm trying to do is give you some of the
'8 background, some of the history, of these things. There's
'8 nothing been changed. If there's an accident at that plant 20
. we have to go right smack into the plant to get out of there.
21 We get out through Pte. Aux Peaux Road. There's only one 22 way in and one way out. It's been discussed, it's been l
23 talked on, and there's been nothing done.
Now, I live in very close proximity of the O 2s cooling towers, and I don't want to elaborate too much, I c0cc. 9edeta[ cAepotters, $nc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (108) 347 3700
43 '
1 ain't that smart, to cover all those places. But what's 2
going to happen when that cooling tower -- I listened to 3
Dr. Jens give the answer at Kettering High School -- two 4
days of a big full-blown hearing. I've got some of the 5
stuff in my briefcase. And the answers were not given by 6
Dr. Jens, and Dr. Jens went around left field on fence post 7
detection, radiation detection, what these cooling towers, 8
what effect, if any, they will have on the locality. Dr.
9 Jens then went around the other way, and he still didn't IU answer the questions, i
11 Aid so these are the things that what the so-12 called credibility could bring out. What's going to happen l l
13 when those cooling towers go in operation and they go sour?
14 Are we going to whip them with a wet noodle, or something?
15 Or are we going to close it down? No, I don't think so.
16 Because I don't think that this Commission could stand the i l
U heat that would be put on it if they come down to a decision l l
18 to close that plant. I don't think it's ever been done, and l 18 I don't think that any one individual Commission would be 20 able to withstand the heat that would be put on it to close .
21 that plant down.
- 22 And this is what I'm afraid. I would hope that 23 y,,d put some reservations on it. Some of the promises that 24 Detroit Edison -- I sat on the County Planning Commission 25 for one year, and I'm sorry to say I was not reappointed.
c:Oce 9edeza{ cAepsteu, $nc 44.4 NORTH CAPITOL. STREET W ASHINGTON D.C. a000t (aoa) 347 370o
. _ _ _ . _ ~ _ _ - -_. , , _
44 I I
The only County Commissioner -- I mean the County Planning O 2 Commissioner thee wae never reapgo1need was xuron. And I'm 3
sure you'll understand why.
4 But Edison made a promise of a beautiful, natural 5
park that eventually they tried to get the County to do.
6 And Kuron jumps up there and hollers loud and clear, naturall /
7 not one of the' favorites in that particular field.-
8
, But these are the things. These kids right now 9
are out-gunned, out-foxed, out-shot, and they don't have a 10 prayer unless you listen to them. Staff has to be unbiased 11 in.it, and if they've got anything, fine -- use it. If 12 they don't, forget it. That goes the same with me, right?
13 What the hell. I mean, do I know anything? My old lady 14 don't even listen to me all the time, either, you know.
15 This is nothing new.
16 Thanks a lot.
17 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think before we get into 18 the contentions we will take a ten-minute break, and come 19 back here at about 11:20.
20
. (Recess.)
21 CHAIRMAN BECHROEFER: We're back in session.
22 Before we start dealing with the contentions on 23 a contention-by-contention basis, Mr. Shon has one statement 24 he would like to make concerning some of the previous 25 discussion.
cOce 9edezaI cReposten, .Onc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (aoa) 347 3700 l .-
45 I
MR. SHON:. It involves the matter of whether or.
2 not the Commission shuts plants down, or whether there's so 3
much pressure that that never happens.
4 Indeed, the Commission does shut plants down, 5
and, indeed, there are plants at present shut down for 6
failure, in one way or another, to comply with the Commission 's
~
7 safety requirements.
8
, I just thought I'd mention that.
9 MR. SCHINK Unfortunately, Mr. Kuron missed it.
10 MR. SHON: Oh, did he?
11 (Mr. Kuron was conferring during Mr. Shon's 12 comments.) .
' 13 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
} Starting with Contentions, 14 I think we will address them numerically, starting with 15 Contention 4, which is paragraph number 4.
16 Starting out, the Board would like to have some 17 idea about what the petitioners would propose to present, 18 I guess. You mentioned that you have a member who has been 19 personally involved in the construction of Fermi-2 who could 20 testify to these matters.
21 Can you elaborate some on that? Would:you 22 propose to bring him as a witness, prepare testimony? That's 23 the type of subject matter I'd like to hear a little more 24 about.
H 25 MR. ALSON: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd like f
c0ce. 9eaesa{ cRepostess, !.Inc.
444 NORTM C APtTon. STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. SM01 (808) 347 3700
46 1 to make a general statement of our position regarding what
() 2 we're about to do.
3 I'd like to quote two things first. One is'a 4 short two or three sentences from the tiRC Staff's response 5 to the original petition that was dated October 30, 1978.
6 It's NRC Staff response to petition for leave to intervene 7 filed by Citizens for Employment and Energy, and the date B is October 30, 1978. It's on page 9.
9 What I'd like to read is this, starting with the 10 first complete sentence on page 9:
11 "If CEE can cure the deficiencies in its 12 present showing.of. interest (identification and 13 addresses.of. members living near the Fermi Unit 2 .
14 facility, as well as statsinents of authorization from H5 the members of CEE that David Hiller is to represent 16 them in the proceeding) by appropriate amendment of 17 its petition, the Staff would then be prepared to la commence negotiations aimed at reaching an agreement Ha on those issues which should be admitted as matters 20 in controversy in this proceeding, either on the 21 basis of the aspects identified to date or a supple-22 ment statement of contentions as contemplated by the 23 statement of consideration accompanying the amendments 24 to 10 CFR Part 2."
() ,25 The part I'd like to emphasize is the phrase, c0ce 9edetal cRepsteu, Dne 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 30001 (802) 347 3700
47 I "
...the Staff would then be prepared to commence negotiations ,"
2 That, along with the wording of the notice of special 3
prehearing conference that was docketed November 15, 1978 4
and signed by Chairman Bechhoefer, where under points 2 and 5
3 of the purpose of this prehearing conference, read:
6 "2. To permit identification of the key
~
7 issues in the proceeding.
8 3. To take any steps necessary for further 9 identification of the issues."
10 Those two statements read together had inferred 11 to CEE that we would not be going through, point by point, 12 in these contentions. So we spent the time in preparation 13 for this special prehearing conference not in trying to 14 have data to support our contentions at this point. We l 15 thought the discussion would be standing, and maybe other 16 more technical - " technical" is a poor word -- other 17 procedural questions involved. The wording " identification,"
18 " commence negotiations," that sort of thing, did not lead 19 us to believe we'd be going through point by point on the 20 contentions.
21 Now, I guess this is not the interpretation 22 that the Board has.
23 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The Board will not 24 necessarily expect that every contention be addressed point 25 by point, but the Board would be prepared to indicate which cAce '.5cdesa( c.Reputeu, Onc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (Act) 347 3700
48 !
1 contentions at least present a possibility of being l
(]) 7 admitted if perfected, perhaps. We have to find at least l 3 one contention to satisfy ourselves that it is a valid l
4 contention in order to authorize it in the hearing.at all. l I
5 MR. SCHINK: You understand we're not asking 6 you to prove your contentions, or present detailed data 7 on your contentions. We're simply asking that you clarify a them, or explain to us how you intend to make your case.
9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Give us some idea of what to you are driving at. Some of these statements are less than 11 clear.
12 Now, the Applicants have taken the position --
13 I don't know whether you have read their latest --
g MR. ALSON: Just got it today.
15 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes. They've taken the 16 position that none of your contentions are qualified.
17 In order for us to authorize a hearing we have 18 to find that at least one is qualified. So we would like to to go through these and get at least a general idea of 20 what the contentions are going to involve.
21 Would you like to start with number 4? We want 22 a general idea of what type of presentation you had in 23 mind. You will certainly not be held to every detail on 24 what the contentions may involve, but we would have to
() 25 know something about the contentions, what the contentions cAce. 9edesa[ cReposteu, Onc.
444 NORTH C APITol. STREET W ASHINGTON, D.C. 30001 (aca) 347-a700
49 I
are driving at.
A k/ 2 MR. ALSON: Okay. One question I have Will 3
decisions be made today on whether or not to drop any 4
contentions?
5 It's possible. Well, we CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
6 won't make che decision today, but we'll issue an order as 7 a result of today's conference which, as I say, in! order 8 to authorize a hearing we have to find that at least one 9 contention is good. We may state that other contentions 10 do not qualify under any circumstances, or we may say that 11 the contentions require further perfection, elucidation.
12 MR. ALSON: Would I be correct, then, in saying "T 13 that the only contentions that you will rule impermissible (G
14 after the conference today would be those that, in your 15 opinion, there is no possible way we could clarify them 16 or support them, or whatever, in such a way as to make them 17 valid contentions? Is that a fair statement?
18 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Probably that is fair, yes.
4 19 MR. VOIGT2 May I be heard on this, Mr.
20 Chairman?
21 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes, Mr. Voigt.
22 MR. VOIGT: I think the Licensing Board is aware 23 that the Commission's rules were recently amended in this 24 regard. Formerly petitioners were required to submit their G
V 25 contentions as part of their initial request for a public cAce 9edesa{ cReposten, Onc.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 30001 (act) 347 3700
50
' hearing. And in order to do that in a timely fashion, they 2
only had 30 days from the time the notice was published.
3 That matter was considered by a group of people 4
. within the staff, headed by a consultant, a former 6
Administrative Law Judge Wenner, and the feeling was that 6 that was too rigid a requirement to impose upon the inter-7 l venors, and that experience had demonstrated that in the 8
long run you might save time if you had a little more 9
leisurely approach to the problem of defining intervenors' 10
- contentions.
11 So based upon that, proposed changes in the 12 rules were published in the Federal Register, and a number 1 13 of them were later adopted. l 14 One of those changes was to do away with the 15 requirement that contentions be stated in the initial 16 pleading, to give the intervenors additional time to i 17 frame their contentions, up until fifteen days before the I
18
- prehearing conference. I l
- 19 That procedure has been followed in this case.
20 The intervenors have had the benefit of the responses to j ,
21 their earlier pleadings, which pointed out wherein there l
l 22 might be deficiencies. They have also had the benefit of l l 23 this Board's order suggesting the way in which they should a
24 clarify their position.
V. 25 It seems to us that the purpose of the amendment i
, &ce 9edeta{ cAepsten, $nc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET 4
W A S HI N GTO N. D.C. 20001 (aoa) 347.s70o
l 51 l
1 was to lengthen the time during which this could be done, l
() 2 but then to establish a cutoff. And the cutoff is the 3 prehearing conference, which we are here assembled to j 4 conduct. i 1
5 I submit that it would be completely contrary l
6 to the considerations which prompted the change in the 7 rules to permit further amendment or expansion of the 8 contentions after we leave this room.
9 It seems to me that the intent of the new rule 10 is to require that this Board, following the conclusion l
11 of this prehearing conference, rule on all of the 12 contentions, one way gr the other.
13 Now, I don't mean to say by that that if you 14 rule that a contention is admissible, there might not be 15 a further opportunity to refine it. But I do submit that le you should not hold in abeyance your ruling on any 17 contention beyond the conclusion of this conference.
18 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Voigt, you mentioned 19 that the petitioners here had the benefit of your comments 20 on their, contentions. Did you not withhold commenting on 21 all of their contentions?
22 MR. VOIGT: We did not respond specifically, 23 but the point is they were on notice that you needed more 24 information concerning these.
25 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Were they on notice with cOce. 9ecl eta [ cRepottets, $nc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W A SHINGTON D.C. 20001 (302) 347 3700
52 respect to any particular contention? I'm not counting O 2 your most recene reseense, hue your ear 11er one I didn't 3
think dealt with any of the contentions, other than the general notice that they had to be valid contentions. Well, 5
that they had when they got nots.ce of opportunity for 5
6 hearing.
1 7
MR. VOIGT: My point, very simply, is, Mr.
- 8 Chairman, that your order and the other pleadings placed 3
8 them on general notice that today was the day. You're 10 right, we didn't specifically call out defects in their i
M contentions, becatys <a didn't treat what was in the i
12 earlier pleading at being the definitive version of the 13 contentions.
14 (The Board conferring.)
15 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, I think we should 16 start -- I do think that we will want to get further
" information on these various contentions, but we haven't 18 l decided whether we will on each one.
" 19 But we would like to hear something more about 20 each one individually, and to cet the various parties' 4
21 positions on the particular contentions. ;
22 We would like to hear first about Contention 4, l I
i 23 which is the quality control contention g'enerally. What l 24 types of showing did you have in mind? What type of 25 . showing do you intend to make as an intervenor here?
i 1
cAce3edera( cReposten, Onc 444 NORTH CAPITOt, STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (aca) 347.a700
53 1 MR. ALSON: Is it permissible for me to allow 2 other members of our group to talk on these too?
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: As long as they are members 4 of the group we will hear them. They should identify 5 themselves.
6 MR. ALSON: Well, I don't know whether they wa.,
7 want to or not, but, as you may have gathered, Frank Kuron l
g has worked at the plant.and he would be --
l 9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Is he the individual tn ,
1 10 whom reference is made in this? l 11 MR. ALSON: Yes.
12 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes. I think Mr. Kuron
. 13 has indicated some of the types of things he would be 34 willing to address already, so . . .
15 MR. ALSON: And then on point E, you can see 16 there are a few specific things' listed.
17 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: .Yes. I had a question 38 about what is meant by E.3. Both the Applicant and Staff 19 seem to have construed this differently. Is E.3 a
. 20 suggestion that there ought to be fencepost detection 21 during construction, or alternatively should it be combined 22 with what you had to say in paragraph 5, just a general 23 attack on the monitoring system?
24 I was wondering what it really related to.
25 MR. ALSON: Do you have any response to that, cAce. 9edesa( cAeporteu, Snc.
444 NORTH C APITOL, STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001
(***! **??* _ _. _.
54 1 Frank?
Q
\m/ 2 MR. KURON: Well, if I may, Mr. Chairman, why 3 this subject is very near and dear to me is because at 4 the Kettering High School hearing the Chairman of the 5 Board of Inquiry -- I think you'll find it in the minutes e of the two-day full-blown hearing, and the question was 7 asked specifically by this young Chairman: What fencepost 8 detection has Detroit Edison got to protect outside of 9 its area.
io You understand there is approximately 12 or 13 l
11 hundred acres in this particular area, surrounded by not l 12 densely populated, but to the north, Estral Beach and the j
(~ 13 Swan Creek area, and to the south, the Stony Point arca.
V) 14 And this question Qas asked by the Chairman. !
15 Of course, I never heard of any such thing. It was asked l 16 of Dr..Jens, the nuclear scientist who is involved in this.
17 And the question was pondered on for some two or three is minutes, and then Mr. Jens started out into left field. l l
19 He went around this way, not to the satisfaction l l
, 20 of the Chairman or anybody else there. The answer was 21 totally inadequate. l 22 So the Chairman responded again. He said, "Now 23 let me make my question clear so that you know what I'm 24 talking about. If some radiation was to escape from this j g/
(_ 25 location, how would we know about it?"
cAc.:- 9edesa( cRepeten, Onc, 444 NORTH CAPITOL 97REET W A S HIN GTO N, D.C. 20001 (102) 347 4 700
55 1
And after some more long, lengthy deliberation 2
-and silence, Dr. Jens come up with another so-called 3
, answer that was totally inadequate.
4 And, as the Chairman says, that this is not what 5
he wants to hear. He wants an answer to his question.
6 And evidently Dr. Jens didn't know it, or didn't want to 7 give it to him.
J' 8 So, therefore, let the record show that Dr.
9 Jens was very unhappy, but the Chairman made his point.
to And until today, as you know -- I'm also concerned. We 11 have a Monroe water system that's right in the back yard 12 of this atomic plant. And right in the back yard of the
(} 13 discharge at some time or other from this nuclear plant.
14 What fencepost detection? What do we have?
15 What kind of an animal have we got? As far as I know, we 16 have none. We have a lot of talk, but there is none.
17' CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Kuton, my question 18 really was whether this was supposed to refer to fencepost 19 detection during construction, as the Applicant seemed to
, 20 have interpreted it, or did you mean after operation?
21 MR. KURON : After operation.
22 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: So that properly would be 23 included if we would accept it as a contention at all, that 24 would be under number 5, I would think, which seems to be --
25 if it's acceptable at all, am I not correct it should be c0cc3ederal c.Repotleu, Onc 444 NORTH CAPITCL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (104) 3474 7"4
<I. . . . - - , - . - - . . - _ - .- . , . - - , , . _ , , - , , _ r., ,
56 1
in number 5, Mr. Alson? Do you have any thoughts on that?
O 2 MR. ALSON: I think your interpretation is 3
correct.
4 I need to interject again. We've been caught 5
by surprise by the intention to go through each contention, 6
one by one. This is the cause for the confusion of the
=
7 last few minutes, and our conferring here among ourselves.
8
. But also, of course, we recognize the nee'd to 9
get something done today, because we're all here.
10 What we would propose is this: That we could 11 go through the contentions, but I would like, and CEE 12 would like, to have some time te either proceed in the
(]) 14 way that we were led to believe it was going to be done --
these negotiations that were mentioned . . .I don't know 15 what the best way for that to go is.
16 But we are not prepared to put our best foot 17 forward at this prehearing conference on convincing anyone 18 that these contentions are valid.
19 We've bestcaught by surprise.
O
. CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: As I say, we have to come 21 up with at least one. We can't authorize a hearing unless 22 we're convinced that at least one of these presetits a 23 litigable position. So that some of these questions we 24 have are directed toward that. We may indicate nur ruling
) 25 on some of the others as well, or we may not. We have not cOce- 9ederal cReposten, Sne.
444 NORTH C APITOL, STREET W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 20001 (204) 347 3700 i
57 1
d(cided on that.
() 2 MR. SCHINK: If you had not been caught by 3
surprise what would be your posture? Is your problem that 4
you are missing key people, or what? Suppose you had under-5 stood what we were supposed to be doing hare today; what 6
would be different?
7 MR. ALSON: I think we would have come with more 8
. specific information about the contentions. In other words, what we were prepared for today is more in trying to under -
'O stand how the NRC operates, case precedents, things like 11 that -- procedurally, not with the substance of the con-12 tentions.
() 13
'4 And still the way I read what we had in our possession, I don't think we made a mistake.
15 MR. SCHINK: You understand we're not asking you 16 to support these contentions or to demonstrate, but simply 17 to explain to us what they mean and how you intend to 18 support these contentions and demonstrate them.
I MR. ALSON: Okay.
20
. (The Board conferring.)
21 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We think maybe a better 22 procedure would be to have the Applicant and Staff comment 23 on each of these contentions first, and then have your 24 people respond to the specific comments. Maybe that would O 25 be a better procedure to find out exactly what we are c9ce 9ederal cReposters, .Onc.
AM NORTH CAPITOL, STREET W A S MIN O TO N. O.C. a000t (aca) 347 3700
58 1
concerned with.
( )) 2 I'm not sure whether we've heard enough on 3 Contention 4. I guess the Staff hasn't spoken yet. Maybe 4 you haven't spoken entirely on Contention 4, Mr. Voigt. I 5 have read your response, but just briefly. I've read it all, 6 but I haven't researched the various points you cite.
7 Do you have any further comments on Contention 47 8 MR. VOIGT: I'd like to make two points, Mr.
9 Chairman. l 10 First of all, the Applicants' quality assurance 11 and quality control program has been fully documented in 12 the Final Safety Analysis Report. That has already been 13 reviewed by the Staff.
14 In the Interim Safety Evaluation Report which 15 was published by the Staff in September, 1977, they have
- s reported their findings that the Applicants' procedures 17 are in accordance with requirements and are acceptable to 18 the Staff.
- 19 Those statements appear at pages 13-3 and 13-4.
20 I sincerely doubt if Mr. Kuron, or anyone else 21 from CEE has ever even looked at t;ose documents. But I 22 submit that before we embark upon a hearing concerning the 23 adequacy of the Applicants' quality assurance program it 24 is incumbent upon the Intervenors to demonstrate what's
() 25 missing, what's vrong, wherein have we failed to comply with
&ce. ]ederal cReporters, Doc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTf H D4 RMOt (202) 847 3700
i 59 l 1 1 the Commission's regulations?
2 The Staff has found that there is e<xpliance.
3 These general allegations and innuendoes and 4
rumors that are cited in here hardly rise to the dignity of 5
requiring inquiry into a program which has been documented 6
and has been reviewed and evaluated and found to be accept-7 ,
able, j 8 !
- CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, let me ask one i i
9 '
question:
10 Assume the program is acceptable. Well, what 11 happens in an acceptable program if you see a big crack 12 there, and a crack over there? That's what paragraphs E.1
() 14 and 3.2 essentially say.
MR. VOIGT: All right. Let me ~~
CHAIRMN2 BECHHOEFER: What happens then? Are 16 we supposed to blind ourselves to that?
17 MR. VOIGT: Let me address the allegation in 18 paragraph E.
19 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, E.1 and E.2, because 0
E.3 I think we've questioned about already. -
21 MR. VOIGT: Well, I would really comment as to 22 E.3 that a plain reading of Cente t.on E, at least in my 23 mind, says that that's a flaw in construction. That's why 24 we responded to it as a flaw in construction.
) 25 All right, then, let's talk about E.1 and E.2.
cAce 9edeza{ cReporteu, Snc.
444 NORTM C APITOL STREET WASMtNGTON. O.C. 2Ne t (202) 347 3700
60 1 First of all, I would like the Board to know that
() 2 both E.1 and E.2 were addressed at the construction permit.
3 This plant fell into a generation of plants where you were 4- permitted to commence construction in certain respects 5 prior to the issuance of a construction permit.
6 The two flaws that are referred to had been 7 identified and detected prior to the commencement of the a construction permit hearing. So they were addressed by the 9 construction permit Licensing Board.
10 Secondly, there is full documentation on both 11 of these situations.
l 12 The situation referred to in paragraph E.1 was 1 13 reported to the NRC under 50.55 (e) . The cracks -- and 14 whether or not they're severe is a question of some debate --
15 were repaired by pressure grouting, and the NRC inspected n3 the results of that and signed off on it.
17 With respect to paragraph 2, that was not 18 reported under Section 50.55 (e), and Region 3 agreed that 19 it was not reportable because it was not a deficiency, but 20 it was a normal construction problem.
21 I would also point out that the only reason those 22 cracks were found was because of Detroit Edison's own audit 23 and inspection program. They were found. The material was ,
24 repaired. And that also has been signed off by Region 3.
() 25- This is all ancient history, gentlemen. Things cAce-9edesaf cAeposten, Snc dde NORTH CAPITOL, STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000t (302) 347-3700
. _ _ _ - ~. .. - - -. _
61 1
that were brought up that have'been before the construction O '
9er it i=== a aa ta v r aro=ehe *o ene ** aetoa 3
of the Board in that proceeding.
4 Mr. Ktron wants to bring them up again, but I 5
submit that before you permit him to bring them up again 6 there has to be some kind of threshold showing that there
. 7 remains an unresolved safety problem as a result of these 8 minor deficiencies which were identified long ago and 9
corrected long ago.
10 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Were these specifically 1
11 dealt with in the initial decision, these two matters?
12 MR. VOIGT: They are not dealt with in the 1
13 initial decision. '
They are covered in the transcript, and O 14 it is implicit from the initial decision that the 1
15 construction permit board was satisfied that they just l 16 weren't a problem.
17 (The Board conferring.)
18 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Voigt, I have a question
- 19 about paragraph 4.d. Is the Ralph Parsons Company still the 20 general contractor?
21 MR. VOIGT No, sir. -
22 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Was that Company-replaced 23 prior to t; hat construction permit initial decision, or ,
l 24 thereafter?
O 5 MR. v0IGT: They were reg 1 aced when the 1
l cAce 9cdesa{ cReportets, Onc. l 444 NORTH CAPITOA. STREET l w AsMINGTON. D.C. 20001 j (aoa) 347 370o
62 1
construction schedule slowed down and later actually halted, ;
l
(]} 2 around 1973, due to the Company's change in load forecast 3 and change in financial circumstances. It is my understand-4 ing that the reason they were replaced at that time was l l
5 because they had a time-and-materials contract to do all the l
l 6 work on the site, and with the slowdown in construction l
. 7 activity the Company felt that they could get greater i
8 economies, better pricing, by putting work out for competi-9 tive bidding. They couldn't do that under the contract 10 with Parsons, so they terminated Parsons, which they had a 11 right to do, and offered to re-let the contract as a 12 construction-management contract. That went,to Daniels.
13 Daniels is on the job now.
O 14 But this freed the Company up then, as I stated, 15 to have work let out on a competitive bid basis.
16 I further understand that Parsons was invited 17 to bid on some of the competitive bid jobs after they were 18 terminated from their total time-and-materials contract,
- 19 and they declined to do so.
20 This information is a matter of public record 21 with the Michigan Public Service Commission. But more 22 importantly, of course, the Daniels organization has at all 23 times been subject to NRC compliance, as far as QA/QC are 24 concerned, as the new construction manager.
() 25 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I gather, though, that the cAce 9ederal cAeporten, Onc 444 NORTH C APITCL STREET WASHINGTON. DA 3C206 (302) 347 3700
63 1 NRC in its adjudicatory program has not considered this )
2 particular question in the allegation.here that the change ]
3 was for somewhat other reasons than you've just described, .
1 1
4 and whether or not that is Tt least a litigable issue -- I'm l 5 not saying that it is, but --
6 MR. VOIGT: Not with what you have before you, 7 Mr. Chairman. I mean that's a very serious allegation, and l
8 to embark upon a hearing with nothing more than this kind of l 9 innuendo it seems to me would fly in the face of the require-ments for specificity and basis for contentions.
l H) 11 People do change contractors on these jobs, and 12 I've never understood that the construction permit was
/~T 13 conditioned upon the fact that you continue to employ the V
14 same contractors that you start off with. Quite the 15 contrary.
16 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: No, it certainly isn't.
17 But if someone raises a question about why a given contractor 18 was replaced, I'm just saying, whether it's a legitimate H) replacement or not, does it not create a question that is 20 susceptible to litigation?
21 MR. VOIGT: It is my position, Mr. Chairman, that
?
22 there is a great difference between raising a question and 23 raising an issue. Anybody can raise a question, but to 24 raise an issue that requires the time and attention of this G
(_/ 25 Licensing Board and the devotion of public and private cAcc Jedeza( cReporten, Anc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 2000t (202) 347 37oo
64 1
resources to its resolution, I submit to you takes a good
{} 2 deal more than that.
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think we've heard enough 4
on this.
5 MR. SCHINK: I'd just like to ask whether the 6 members of CEE present are aware of Parsons employees who
. 7 have made this accusation that they refused to sacrifice 8 quality control. We don't want to hear the details of these 9 accusations, but are you in touch with employees who are 10 prepared to testify on this point?
11 MR. KURON: Yes, I am. In fact, I predicted 12 six to nine montns to a year before Parsons was kicked out 13 that they would kick them out, because of the poor quality O 14 of work.
15 But i Fyou will again let me, as far as the 16 construction permit was concerned, the error that he's 17 talking about, Mr. Morgan and I on our trip to Washington, 18 to Bethesda, to the Atomic Energy Commission, took a fresh
- 19 newspaper with all kind of pictures about the present 20 buildup of the Enrico Fermi-2 plant. And let me say thir, 21 in all fairness to you gentlemen, those people in Bethesda 22 were shocked because the permit was for site preparation, 23 and here they was about half done.
24 And I don't want to elaborate on that, but I can
() "
25 assure you that the Atomic Energy Commission had a hell of cAce 9edeza( cAepotten, $nc 444 NOMTH CAPtTOL. STREET WASHINGTON. D4 2Mo t (202) 347 3700
~
65 a
1 a lot to say about that, because they were flabbergasted 2
]
3 when they seen the pictures that we gave to these people that were taken out of our local newspaper.
4 Now, getting into the grouting process, let me 5
say this. It was only after I brought it to the attention 6 of the Atomic Energy Commission that Detroit Edison admitted 7
. that this problem was there, and this was brought about in 8 this way because it was a dumb question.
9 I helped pour the initial slab in the reactor 10 floor, which is approximately eight foot thick, full of 11 number 11 rods. And I asked a stupid question: If water 12 could leak in those cracks, couldn't radiation leak out of 13 those cracks?
O 14 This quesition was asked of Mr. Jens, and he 15 couldn't answer.it. He did not answer it.
16 Now, don't be fooled. I'm going to tell you 17 something. Those reports that you read in Washington and 18 what I see and hear out there, and what this man says about 19
. quality control -- I was there from the very beginning. I 20 don't have to read these reports. I see. I know. I'm 2.1 told by people who know what the hell they're doing.
22 And this is what I'm trying to convey to you.
23 As far as quality control is concerned, until just recently 24 there wasn't any serious attempt at quality control, and I 25 don't care what their papers tell you they done or they cAcededeza[ cReportcu, Dae 444 NORTM CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (act) 347 3790 y - - - .,-, ~- - ,,-+-'
66 1
didn't do, or what Staff accepted or didn't accept.
(} 2 Now, let me tell you an innocent little rumor 3 that we can substantiate upon the assistance of an Edison 4 official. He come out there. He knew there was two huge 5 trailers full of records, full of this quality control
- 6 business, two huge trailers, long truck trailers, full of
, 7 these records of quality control, of welding inspections, 8 so on and so forth.
9 This Edison person asked the top supervision to 10 take those out in the back 40 and burn them. And the man 11 was very skeptical about such an order.
12 Now, I can give you names and that, but I'm 13 afraid I would give them the kiss of death. But if necessary 14 you people can talk to them quietly, secretly and --
15 MR. SCHINK No, we will --
1 MR. KURON: Now wait awhile. I'--
17 MR. SCHINK: We will not talk to them quietly 18 and secretly.
e 19 MR. KURON: All right. If this is not your 20 procedure, fine. Fine.
.21 But let me say this: After three months, this 22 man would not burn those records up. He was then told to 23 either burn them up or he would have them burned up.
24 Within four months after they were burned up,
() 25 the Edison people were in there looking for those records.
cAce- 9ederaf cAeporten, Onc.
444 NORTH C APITOL. STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
67
' Now, as far as pressure grouting is concerned, O 1 e ee11 rou eais' i 3 The initia1 ho1e, after all the hocus-pocus and l 4
the engineering reports, and the experts' reports, they 5
said, " Drill that hole right here for the Fermi-2 reactor, 6 right here is a good hole."
. 7 They went down there and they found water mamby-8 jamby -- nothing but water. Two 7-inch pumps in the north 9 corner of that hole, pumping seven days a week, pumping 10 the lake out, and back into the lake.
11 That's what they found, after the experts said, 12
" Drill the hole here."
13 We went down to bedrock. And don't forget, I O 14 worked on Fermi-1. And that ho1e was much closer to the 15 lake. And it was a good hole.
16 And, mind you, this area was all pressure grouted, 17 pressure grouted, before it was dug. And it didn' t help 18 The pressure grouting system, as far as I'm a damn bit.
a 19 concerned, -- and I'm no expert -- it does not work.
20 They've tried it in various other aspects. They had to 21 drill four sub-holes. They pressure grouted the area 22 before they dri11ed those holes. And we had a 5-horse 23 pump, and a man in there with a jackhammer with a rain suit 24 on dri11ing those holes.
O 28 se 1et's noe ta1k ee - e eressure er - eine. Ie cAcc. Jederal cRepsteu, Dna 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. O.C. 20001 (SOS) 347 3700
. .- ~ - . . . . . . - , , . -. ,.. ,.
68 1
doesn't work. It doesn't work.
2 So here --
MR. SCHINK: Mr. Kuron --
MR. KURON: All right. 'I'll give you an expert's opinion. But believe me, I appreciate the fact that you I 6
people are bending over backwards to listen to us. You .
1 7 l separate the facts from the fiction. Thank you.
8 MR. SCHINK: Do you understand that we're trying 9
to find out whether there should be a hearing? The kind 10 of information that you're giving us would be relevant in
'I a hearing, but I think it's not particularly relevant to 12 the questions at hand.
13 The persons that you are in touch with on these 14 subjects, if there were a hearing, would be required to 15 identify themselves and to testify under oath. I to Now, if there's a requirement,'as you imply, 17 for' secrecy and contact out of view, then any case against
- the Applicant is going to dissolve in that-demand for
- secrecy. -
20 So you need to ascure us, I think, or at least 21 a:sure yourselves, that these people will stand up and be 22 heard.
23 Well, like I said earlier, I would MR. KURON:
24 hope that I could point you in the direction. Now, I've 25 suffered great financial loss, humility, and everything cAce. 9ederal c.Reposten, .One.
444 NO811H CAPtTOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001
-(204) 347 3700
69 1
else, because of my outspoken attitude, and I don't think O 2 ex e ene e oe1 a ve ene cour se or fia =ci 1 8111er te 3 withstand what I've gone through the last four or five 4 years. I'm at the point right now where I should be 5
retired, but I can't retire because I'm not financially 6 able,to.
7 r Now, I don't know just unat's going to happen 8 after this deal here, but like I said before, I would point e your noses in the right directfen, and I would hope -- I 10 see by your remarks that this is impossible, but by the same 11 token, a hearing of this sort conducted on the job site, 12 or in the very near vicinity -- and we have people thnt are 13 the best, who would come in and tell you, quietly -- they'd O 14 give you their name and address and everything else -- about 15 certiain doubts that they have.
16 Now, I predicted that the Parsons Company would 17 be fired a long time before they were fired, because of 18 their -- and I'll tell you what, if this Company was smart 19 they'd be firing the guy that we got out there now, and 20 that's the Daniels Construction Company, because they're 21 worse than Parsons.
22 Thank you very kindly.
23 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Does the Staff have any 24 ~ comment on this particular contention?
25 - MR. BLACK: I think the only thing I would want c@ce 9edesal cReposten Dne 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WAsMINGTON D.C. 2000t
., (20th 347 3700 I' --
_ _ _ _ . . . . . , _ . . - - - . - ----- ---4
70 1
to say is that we perceived that the main thrust of this 2 contention was one of a concern with the adequacy of the
(])
3 quality control during construction.
4 Now, all of these things that are identified in 5 paragraph 4 seem to be examples of that lack of quality ;
.6 control. We feel that this at least presents a colorable
. c.7 issue that can be admitted into controversy. l 8 However, we also indicated that we felt they 9- needed more specificity to meet the requirements of 10 Appendix 5 to 10 CFR Part 50. In other words, what we felt 11 needed to be done is if they are going to allege that there 12 was a defect in the quality assurance program, they should
.13 tie those up with the requirements in Appendix B. ,
14 I'm not saying at this point whether this can 15 or cannot be done, but I think.that was one of the things 16 that we felt,that the allegation has to be taken out of the 17 realm of a general example into the realm of a defect or 18 a violation of the regulations.
- 19 MR. SHON: Mr. Black, Appendix B to Part 50 is 20 a very generalized document itself. As I understand the 21 nature of these. allegations, it is not that specific 22 requirements of Appendix B have been violated in general, 23 but that matters which might have been alleged to be 24 carried out properly under Appendix B were, in point of fact,
() 25 not so carried out. Things were not done at the very cAce 9edesa( cReptten, Anc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000t (302) 347 3700
71 nitty-gritty level, many levels down from the requirements O 3 as see forth in the gre11minary sefeer ^ne1rsie Reeore of 3
the Applicants' plan for quality assurance, which, in 4
itself, is a rather small document compared to the vast 5
amount of documentation.
6 It might be very difficult for these people with
-7 their particular background'to relate to a specific a
requirement in Appendix B, a violation of a rather complex 9
technical requirement for inspection or control.
10 Do you see what I mean?
11 MR. BLACK: I fully understand your point, and 12 I think this is a typical area or contention where 13 negotiations between the parties would be helpful, so that 14 we could define these contentions and get them back into 15 the specifics'of Appendix B. Otherwise, you end up proving 16 a negative. If you have to prove that firing the contractor 17 somehow jeopardized quality assurance, that might be awfully 18 difficult unless you tied it in to the requirements of
' 19 Appendix B. ,
20 MR. KURON: May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman, 21 please? Is this plant supposed -- the life of this plant 22 supposed to be 40 years? What is the life of this plant 23 expected to be?
24 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I believe that the license 25 is for 40 years from the date of application for the c0cc. Jedesal cAepsten, $nc W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
72 construction permit, so it's somewhat less than 40 years.
() 2 MR. KURON: God help us.
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: At this point, before we 4 break for lunch, the Board would like to turn to contention
. 5 8 That's the one on evacuation. This contention has a 16 fairly general introduction, but a very specific middle and
- ,7 end, and I would like to get the Applicants' comments, and 8 Staff's as well, on that contention, particularly in view 9 of the fact that back in 1974 the Appeal Board rendered 10 a decision, ALAB-248, in the San Onofre case, and I'd like.
11 to read one paragraph from that decision, and I'd like to 12 get the Applicants' comments both on that and on the 13 contention narrowly.
J
-)
14 It says this in paragraph 3, and it occurs on 15 page 8 AEC 963. It says this:
16 "The beach and other park areas within the 17 modified low-population =ene remain a cause for 18 concern owing to potentially large numbers of e 19 . persons who might be located in those areas at the 20 time of an accident. Among other things, it is 21 far from clear that as now constituted the existing 22 roads would be adequate for the purpose. Moreover, 23 as part of its feasibility demonstration, the 24 Applicant has indicated they can evacuate people
() 25 from certain areas north of the facility by moving c: Ace 9edera( cReposters, $nc 444 NORTH CAPITCL STREET W A SHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
73 1
them out partially abandoned Route 101 to safety
( [) 2 south of the reactor. But that evacuation route 3 requires that the evacuees travel closer to the l
4 reactor than their original locations in order l 5
eventually to reach safe ground. It strains l
+6 credulity to expect the people to drive closer to a reactor in order to escape from the emergency
.7 8 generated by the reactor. In the vernacular, it 9 might appear to them that they were jumping from 10 the frying pan into the fire."
11 This was in the case of the construction permit 12 stage, and the Appeal Board required the Applicants to
,-) 13 develop a new route prior to the operating license stage RJ 14 for evacuating those particular people.
is So I'd like to have the Applicants' comments'on 16 that as well as on the contention itself. l l
17 HR. VOIGT: Well, let me begin by saying, Mr.
18 Chairman, that the heart of this contention is the statement, 19 "CEE is concerned over whether there is a feasible escape 20 route for the residents of the Stony Point area."
21 They haven't said there isn't any such route.
22 They haven't identified any inadequacies in the Applicants' 23 emergency plans which are contained in the FSAR,or in the 24 State's emergency plan.
r~s
(._) 25 They just said, " Hey, we're worried." Now, that, cTecOedeta[ c.Sepsten, $nc 444 NORTH CAPITOL. STREET W ASHINGTON. O.C. 2000t (202) 347 3700
74 to me, is grossly inadequate as a contention. At a minimum 2
they must advise the Licensing Board of what specific 3
problem there is in the scenario.
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: What does the next sentence 5
3,y7 6 MR. VOIGT: The next sentence says:
d "There's only one road leading to the area."
8 That's not a problem,unless it's alleged that that road is 9 inadequate to transport the number of people that would be 10 l required to be transported.
11 .
CHAIRMAN BECHIlOEFER: What about the statement 12 that you have to go closer to the reactor in order to 13 escape?
That's part and parcel of the allegation.
I4 MR. VOIGT: All right. If it weren't for i
15 San Onofre, I would say, "So what?"
16 But I can't, because of what was said in that 17 case.
18 I can say, however, that clearly it's a matter
~
l9 of degree. If you're telling me that in order to escape 20 from an area I have to walk or drive a couple of hundred 21 yards towards the reactor so that I may then turn and 22 immediately proceed away from it, I cannot see that there :
23 is a legitimate concern.
24 Let's look at the facts here, to the extent that 25 If you'll look at Figure 1.2 in the they are available.
c0ce 9edera[ cAeposten, :h 444 NORTH CAPITbt. STREET
- WA SHINGTON. D.C. 19001 (2CS) 347 37GO
75 1
Staff's Interim SER -- it's on page 1-12 -- you can see the relationship to the site. Stony Point is not shown on this 3
figure, but it is in fact south of Pte. Aux Peaux Road and 4
out toward the lake. It's not a beach area or a resort 5
area. There are, I am told, some 70 single-family houses 6
in the area.
~
7 In order to evacuate those people, they would 8
, have to -- in the words of San Onofre -- move toward the 8
reactor the length of the local street to get from their home to the main road, which is Pte. Aux Peaux.
'I Pte. Aux Peaux is an all-weather paved highway, 12 and the 70 people and however many vehicles were involved 13
/T would then start moving away from the reactor across Pte.
\/ .
Aux Peaux Road.
15 Now those are the facts. These gentlemen have I8 not put forth any allegation that there's any difficulty involved in moving those people, that the road is inadequate, that there are too many people in the area to evacuate 18 within two hours -- nothing.
20
, I say to you that that simply does not raise an 21 issue for hearing. It's incumbent upon them to tell you 22 what's wrong with the existing emergency plans, what 23 problem is going to be encountered. They haven't. And I think it's fair to state from the facts that are known that O. 25 there is no such problem.
cAce 9edera[ cReporteu, Onc d44 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 3474 700
76 i
1 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, let me ask you this:
() 2 In the Applicants' Environmental Report on the 3 construction permit stage -- and I don't have the FSAR at 4 this point -- it indicated that there were 1,370 people at 5 Stony Point as of 1970. What happened to the other 1,0007 6 MR. VOIGT: I have no information on that, Mr.
2 Chairman.
8 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I mean I'm just reasoning.
9 Those were 1970 population figures. That was in the record to in the construction permit case.
11 MR. VOIGT: I can go back and look at it over 12 the noon recess and make further inquiries.
13 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, we really couldn't 14 resolve that, in any event. I'm just trying to determine 15 whether it states a --
16 MR. VOIGT: Nor should you resolve it, but you 17 should require that the Intervenors identify the problem.
18 I'm being asked to respond to a concern. I don't even know
, 19 what the concern is.
20 It's ny understanding that there's no basis for 25 it.
22 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think that the concern 23 is that the people would say they'd have to go closer 24 before they'd get farther away, and I'm wondering if you
() 25 knew what the Appeal Board has said, and whether that in caceBederal cRepstart tk.
AM NORTH CAPROL STREET W ASHINGTON O.C. 20000 (202) 347 3700
77 1
itself does not create a contention?
) 2 That's what I'm trying to develop.
3 MR. VOIGT: I think two things:
4 First of all, I think what the Appeal Board said 5
has to be read as a whole. It was clearly a serious problem 6 in San Onofre, because of the potentially significant l 7 transient. population. Nobody has alleged that here.
8 Secondly, I don't know the distance that was 1
I 9 involved in San Onofre, but it's clear that the distance 10 here is very short.
11 MR. BLACK: Mr. Chairman, Staff would just like 12 to observe that I thinx that the Applicant has gone out of 13 the realm of arguing about specificity and basis now, and 14 is now arguing the merits of.the contention. I don't think 15 that that's relevant at this point.
16 I think it is clear to the Staff that the 17 Intervenors have presented a concern with reasonable 18 specificity and basis and that it should be addressed as an
~
19 issue.
20 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Alson, did you have 21 something further? I saw your hand up awhile back.
22 MR._ALSON: Well, you said, I guess, what I was 23 going to say. I was just amazed at the Applicants' twisting 24 of the contention, but you said it all. So I have nothing
( 25 to add on that.
cAce 9edesa{ cReporten, $nc 444 NORTH CAPITot. STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 30001 (SOS) 347-3700
78 I
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I also wanted to ask the 2
Staff, I noticed in your response you said that the Board 3
has got to follow the provisions of the existing Part 100 4
I notice in this proposed rulemaking that the 5
Commission has stated thus:
6 "The proposed amendment will be used as interim 7
guidance in reviewing the applicant's emergency plan."
8 Then it says:
9 "In cases where construction permit has already 10 been issued, emergency plans will be reviewed at the 11 operating license stage, in accordance with the 12 interim guidance of.the proposed amendment, depending 13 on timing..."
O 14 And I ask you:
l Are we not under instructions to 15 look at the new proposed amendments that govern the consider-16 ation of the emergency plans under those standards?
17 MR. BLACK: From the language you just read, it 18 seems like that's the case. However, I'm just not certain 19 that that still applies to emergency plans that are outside 20 the LPZ.
21 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The purpose of that amend-22 ment was to include -- the way I read it, at least -- areas 23 outside the LPZ, where it could be shown that the standards 24 of another governmental agency would not be met, like EPA, I ,
I") 25 L/ assume, or the State of Michigan, perhaps.
c4ce 9edera( cAeposten, $nc.
d44 NORTH CAPITOL. STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20008
, (202) 347 3700 l _ _
79 ,
1 1
MR. BLACK: I think the point that we tried to O '
=x i= th
- the tat ri= suia ace ** r 1 air ce a to en-3 Staff. And, of course, the Staff would follow that in its 4 '
review and assessment of the emergency plans.
5 We are not certain at this point whether that I
9 would be the case insofar as the Licensing Board, which we
+ 7 feel might be bound by the case law in Seabrook as far as 8 their consideration of any area outside the LPZ goes.
9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, we won't have to j 10 decide that, but I did notice, again from this environmental l
11 report for the construction permit stage, that there are j 12 four or five communities within -- well, the five-mile 13 line that the Staff is using in some other cases.
O- 14 MR. BLACK: Five-mile line for what? Arbitrary 15 line for the LPZ, or --
16 For the evacuation. The
, CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
17 Staff I know has used that as the level from which people 18 would be exposed. In several cases the Staff has used
- 18 that. I can't say whether it's appropriate to this hearing 20 or not, at this stage, but --
21 MR. BLACK: I think in the context of the 22 contention that was raised here there was a reference to 23 a 100-mile limit, and we think that that's carrying it a 24 little bit too far.
25 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes. Mr. Alson?
cAce ').edesa[ cAeposten, $nc add NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (aoa) 347.a7oo
ap-. _a ._ - _. -- -- . - n - u - , , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
80 1
MR. ALSON: Mr.-Kuron lives in the Stony Point O 2 area. Would you care to hear what he has to say about this 3
contention?
4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Not if it rea11y goes to 5 the merits, because that, I think, will be something that 6 we'll obviously have to deal with at the hearing.
7 MR. KURON: It might be just.a 11ttle helpful to 8 the Staff if they would read the report that Mr. Morgan
,9 made on this particular subject. I think it would help 10 them very, very much.
11 And you are right, Mr. Chairman, it was told to 12 us in no uncertain terms that this matter would be decided 13 and settled by the Licensing Board before they would issue 14 the license. And to date nothing has come about in that 15 particu1ar matter, and I just want to tell you, Edison's 16 answer to the problem was that they would notify the State 17 Police and the Coast Guard.
18 I don't know where the State Police is, and I 19 don't know what kind of a Coast Guard we've got over there.
20 But I can assure you that where I live at right now, I 21 would have to go approximately one mile straight into the 22 fire before I could make a sharp left turn and then proceed 23 along Pte. aux Peaux Road and get out of there.
24 And that goes for several thousand people, not O 2s seventy geogte. vou have a two-1ane hiehway2 Ie's aboue a cAce 9edesal cRepsteu, Dnc 444 NORTH CAPIToi. STREET WASNINGTON. D.C. 30001 (302) 347 4700
_ , . . _ _ _._._ __._ _ _.._. _. .~ . _ . . _ . ,
81 1
40-foot road. A highway? Highway, hell. We got two big 2
ditches alongside, and I could just see chaos out there when 3
and if we had to get evacuated. And 6. hen, of course, we 4
keep very much in the back of our mind when we had the 5
problem with Fermi-1, when we wasn't even notified for 31 l 6 days. And this sticks in my craw more than anything else.
, ,7; I surer than hell don't want that to happen 8 again.
9 Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, to If Staff will get the report from the Kettering 11 High School, there's a complete documentation. Mr. Morgan 12 and I spent fourteen months putting this stuff together, 13 and I think that at least the Staff could read it.
O, 14 Thank you. 'Any questions I'll be glad to answer.
15 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I wonder if any of the 16 parties or participants have any further questions on that 17 Contention 8 -- further comments, I should say, on Contention 18 8?
19 MR. VOIGT: I would like to offer several further 20 observations.
21 First. of all, it appears from what Mr. Kuron has 22 just said that this same subject matter was drawn to the 23 attention of the construction permit Board. I must say 24 there's nothing in their opinion about it. So it's not a 25 new problem.
c$ce 9edetal cAeposteu, $nc 444 NORTH CAPITCL STREET W ASHINGTON. O.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
82 1 Secondly, to respond to your inquiry.about the
(} 2 proposed change in the rule, Mr. Chairman, I think it is 3 clear that the Commission cannot change the rule on an 4 interim basis in compliance with the Administrative Procedure 5 Act, except by making some findings which it didn't make, 6 and probably has no basis for making. And we would
. J vigorously contend that this Board must continue to follow 8 the present rule until the new rule is properly adopted.
9 But quite apart from that, the new rule j l
10 envisions, if I interpret the proposal correctly, that you 11 will examine the need for specific emergency planning beyond 12 the low-population zone on a case-by-case basis. And while
. 13 that may impose a requirement on the Staff and the Applicant, O 14 to look into this thing, it doesn't suggest that there's 15 any occasion to have a public hearing unless the Intervenors 16 have identified a specific need -- which comes back to where 17 I started out:
18 It seems to me that in fairness to the Applicant
. 19 the Board must require specificity from Intervenors about 20 whats going to be violated, or what'~s going to be 21 inadequate. Just saying we're concerned about such and such 22 ought not to be enough to require a hearing.
23 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Are there any other 24 comments on the contention?
() 25 MR. ALSON: No, Mr. Chairman.
c:Oce 9edeta[ CAepostet1, $nc.
444 NORTH CADtTOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 2000t (202) 347 3700
83 1
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think at this stage O 2 11 are x zor tuaca, ae 3. secx sy 2,00 e.c1ecx.
3 (Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the prehearing l
4 conference was recessed, to reconvene at 2:00 p.m., this l 5 same day.)
,6
) .
l l
8 l
9 10 11 12 O 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2.1 22 23 24 25 cAce 9edesa[ c.Reposten, $nc 444 NOMTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (801) 347 3700
84 l' A., F,,, T, E E E 0,,,, QE S, E,,, E { J,, 0,,, E l 2 (2:00 p.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Prior to the luncheon 4 recess, we were just taking up the emergency plan contention.
5 We were wondering one thing, just for the record:
.6 Is Stony Point within the LPZ7 Our records show
. 7 that Stony Point is 1-1/2 miles from the reactor, and that 8 the LPZ is 3 miles. But this is based on the construction 9 permit application.
10 MR. VOIGT: It's still within the LPZ, Mr.
11 Chairman, and it's in the area that I ir't -d ad to you on 12 that figure, even though it isn't so it .
13 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: All right.
O 14 MR. VOIGT: I would also like to respond to the 15 question that you raised just before the luncheon recess 16 about the population figure that was given in the earlier 17 environmental report.
18 It's my understanding that there were exceptional
- 19 high-water conditions on Lake Erie in 1973 and 1974, which 20 resulted in properties in that area being flooded, and that ,
. I 21 the population has declined substantially on a permanent 22 basis as a result of those events.
23 I do not have an up-to-date population figure, 24 and the number of houses that I gave you was an estimate, O e noe an -tua1 count. It is c1e r that there has been, I cAce 9edera{ cRep<nteu, Onc.
d44 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 h (202) 347 3700 -
l 85 l
' believe, a reduction in the population. ,
() 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think we would like to 3
turn next to Contention 5.
4 (The Board conferring.)
5 Before we get there, Contention 9 is one that we 1
6 view as somewhat connected to 8, and we just wanted to 1 7 clarify or make sure that our understanding of that is 8 correct.
9 I realize that the FSAR will have to specify 10 what the treatment facilities will be, but our inquiry --
11 I guess to Mr. Alson -- is:
12 Do you intend this contention to somehow 13 challenge the particular treatment facilities that may be g ;
(J
(
14 listed in the FSAR? Wo have not had a chance to look at 15 that yet.
16 MR. ALSON: Mr. Chairman, this is one of a number 17 of contentions that, again, you know, there's been more 18 input into this petition than just from the five of us who 19 are here today, and it's one of a number that we would wish 20 to have more time to make more specific, to negotiate with 21 the Staff and the Board about.
22 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Do the Applicant and the 23 Staff have any comments on Contention 9, or paragraph 97 24 MR. VOIGT: Mr. Chairman, I think it's stated in O) g- 25 our response that this contention is woefully lacking any cAce- 9edera( cAepotten, $nc.
- 444 NORTH CAPITCl STREET W A S HIN GTO N. D.C. 20001 (zoa) 347.s70o
86 N l Chapter 13 does detail the provisions that have specifics.
O 2 been -de, -d e-. ere oeers -- - aere-ene wie .
1 l
3 hospitals -- and we believe before a hearing can be 4 permitted on a contention such as this, a specific inade- l 5 quacy has to be pointed out.
- ,6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER
- Staff?
7 MR. BLACK: I think, as the Applicant just 8 indicated, as far as we're concerned this contention is 9 tLtally void of any basis wha
- cever to permit it, as 10 framed, as an allowable contention.
11 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Let's go to Contention 5.
12 MR. ALSON: Could I say one final thing? You l
13 know, I don't disagree at least with what the Staff just 14 said, but, again, our understanding of what had been said 15 in previous documents was that the time to negotiate these 16 things and to make them more specific would come.
17 Another example is Contention 13. I will not 18 disagree with what the Staff said in their response to that, 19 but CEE would like to have time to make them more specific 20 so that we could have something to deal with here. ;
I 21 (The Board conferring.)
22 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Let's turn to 5. On this 23 - one, we referred earlier today in comments about the 24 ' inadequacy of the monitoring system. Here it appeared to i 25 the Board that perhaps what is being asserted is that there l
cAce 9edesaf c:Reposten, Onc 444 NOMTH CAPtTOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
y 87 1
should be a complete remotely-controlled system. Is that 2
what is being asserted here? I would ask Mr. Alson this.
MR. ALSON: Could I have one second?
CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes.
6 (Pause.) '
'6 MR. ALSON: Again, Mr. Chairman, this is an issue
'7 which specific people in our group know something about, and 8
. he is not represented here today. We're not attacking the 9
Staff's or the NRC's regulations in this area. We are 10 simply saying we don't believe Edison will comply at least 11 with the spirit of those regulations.
But clearly we would not be able to provide the d
specificity today. I'm sure I wish we could and you wish G(>
14 we could. Again, it was not our understanding that we were 15 going to be required to do that.
l 16 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Does anybody else have any I
comments on Contention 5? If not, we'll go :.4 to 6.
MR. KURON: May I ask a question on Contention 5?
'9 '
Is there such an animal? Have we got something 20
. like that? Is it possible? Why I ask that question is 21 because the same question was asked by the Chairman in the 22 Kettering High School of Mr. Jens, who is a nuclear 23 scientist, and he could not or did not answer.
24 I mean have we got something of this nature? I 25 mean somebody should be able to answer that. Is there such cAce 9edesa( c.Repsten, Onc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
i 88 )
an animal?
2 MR. SHON: I guess I don't understand your 3
question. Do you mean is there a radiation monitoring system 4
on the plant?
5 MR. KURON: Yes.
6 MR. SCHINK: Or is one conceivably possible?
7 The kinds of radioactivity that you might monitor for are a many in type, and the radiation monitoring systems that are 9 required under various health standards are rather complex.
10 It's my experience that many of these require 11 human intervention. Some kind of an air filter sampling, 12 with the removal of the air filters to a counting facility.
13 Now it is contemplated that automated designs of some kind 14 might;be constructed. But generally these things do 15 involve the use of staff to collect samples that have been 16 collected, and then take it to a laboratory for analysis.
17 There are other devices, of course, which can
)
18 simp 3y monitor the activity, gamma activity, for example, 19 which are passing by a detector. You could have things in 20 place which were monitoring radioactivity at all times. '
i 21 But they wouldn't tell you the full story.
22 MR. KURON: Well, forgive me for being dumb, l
23 but that question has been asked on several different 24 occasions, at hearings that I've been to, and it's never l j 25 been adequately answered. I mean today we're seeing movies c:Oce. 9edera( cReposten, Onc. ,
444 NORTH CAPITOL. STREET WASHINGTON D.C. 20001 q (202) 367 3700
89 1
like " Star Wars," and " Superman," and all that bit, and I
() 2 just want to know is there such a thing that we could have 3 fencepost detection, let's say, of our water supply?
4 They're promising the moon, you know. But is 5 there a machine or a monitoring system that could check that 6 ' water to guarantee that there's no radiation in it? It's i
7, never been answered, not to my satisfaction. And I would a hope that the Board would, you know, really look into 1 something like that.
10 Thank you very kindly. l 11 MR. SCHINK:- You could have detectors that would 12 tell you if you stood there you were going to die in a few 1
13 days. But the radiation standards that are generally i 14 imposed on a plant are so tight that the kinds of radio-15 activity we're looking for are much harder to detect.
16 MR. KURON: Thank you. Thank you.
17 MR. VOIGT: Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to 18 the question that you raised a moment ago, we believe that 19 we have adequately set forth our position on each of these 20 contentions in our written response, and we observed that 21 in a number of instances the Staff agrees with our position.
22 It might expedite your consideration of these 23 matters if we focused on two cases, either the case where 24 .the Staff and the Applicant are in disagreement, or any case
( )' 25 in which the Board itself desires a further elucidation. I cAce. 9ednal cReputen, Sac 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W AstilNGTON. D.C. 20001 (103) 347 3700
e go think we saw an example of that before lunch, when you 2
gentlemen had some questions of your own about some of the 3
sub-sets of Contention 4.
4 But I, at least, am content not to reiterate for 5
the benefit of the oral record what's already been said 6 in our written response on contentions such as 6 and 7.
~
7 6 and 7 the Board did have CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER:
8 some questions about, obviously, of the-petitioners. Mr.
9
'Alson, with regard to 6, which involves certain components, 10 the only example cited, as I think the Staff pointed out 11 in its response, are reactors which are completely different 12 And I wanted types than the one under consideration here.
l to find out whether that was the sum and substance of what 14 you are going to have to show, or whether you have any 15 basis for a contention relating to a reactor of this type?
16 MR. ALSON: The '.wo plants quoted, of course, 17 we knew were different types. The point was that the 18 durability of these' parts are often not what people think 18 they're going to be before the plant is put up.
20 A recent example that we think will lend more 21 3redence to this argument is this happened at the Duane 2- Arnold plant, which is a boiling water reactor, where the 23 crack in one of the coolant pipes apparently was caused by 24 I'm not sure if they know some sort of physical effect.
25 I don't believe they exactly what caused the large crack.
cAce 9edesa( cReposteu, One.
444 NORTH CAPITCL, STREET WASNINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3764
91 1 found that it was a mistake by the manufacturer of the pipe,
() 2 or anything like that.
3 So that would be, I guess, an example of a 4 boiling water reactor problem that has happened rscently 5 that was not included in the original contention.
6 But the purpose of the other two was just to show 7 that there have been durability problems that were not 8 anticipated beforehand.
9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Would the Applicant or 10 Staff want to respond to those comments?
11 MR. VOIGT: I think the point really is quite 12 simple, Mr. Chairman. Parts do wear out, and you have to
<w 13 replace them. There's nothing shown here to indicate that U '
14 these Applicants will not have the ability to replace parts.
15 And lacking that, I don't think I even have to say anything 16 about the preceding allegations.
17 MR. BLACK: I don't think I can add anything 18 further to what has been stated.
19 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: On number 7, Mr. Alson, 20 I wondered if you were aware that the type of reactor here, 21 a boiling water reactor, doesn't have steam generator tubes?
22 MR. ALSON: We're quite willing to drop 23 Contention 7.
24 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: With respect to Contention
) 25 10, which I think is the next one that we haven't talked cAce Jedera( cAeposten, Snc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W A S HIN GTO N. O.C. 2000t (202) 347 3700
92 ,
1 1
about, generic safety problems, here there is a difference 2 between the Applicant and the Staff responses.
j 3 I wondered whether the Applicants would want to i 4 comment on the Appeal Board's recent North Anna decision 5 wherein it seemed to say that in an operating license l 6 case a Board should at least make sure that at least a 7, plausible answer -- I think " plausible" was the word used 8 by the Appeal Board -- was reached to various generic 9 Safety problems, irrespective of whether those problems 10 were contentions or not. j 1
11 Here there is at least an attempt to raise a l
l 12 generic safety question, and the Staff has said that it 1 I
13 has not issued the Safety Evaluation Report yet, which .4 3 14 the vehicle for presenting at least a solution to these 15 problems.
16 I'd like to have your comments on what you think 17 the duty of the Board would be -- not this Board, but the 18 hearing board, if there is one -- in this area.
- 19 MR. VOIGT I must say I'm not familiar with 1
20 the North Anna decision to which you refer.
21 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: It was in August, I think.
22 MR. VOIGT: It strikes me that in tern.s of 23 ruling on an intervention that's putting the cart before 24 the horse, because you can't possibly decide whether or to 25 what extent to consider a generic issue until you first of cAce.9edesa{ c.Reposten, Snc 444 NORTH CAPfTot. STREET WASHINGTON. O.C. 20001 (102) 347 3700
93 I all decide that you're going to have a hearing, and that u 25 the other is availability of alternatives. They are, of cAce 9edesa{ cReposten, Sne du NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHIN GTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
152 1
course, fundamentally associated with one another, and they 7
( s 2
have important connections and implications for one another, 3
but they are generally two different and separate sections 4
in an environmental impact statement.
5 Your assertion that NRC failed to address the 6
availability of alternatives in the environmental impact 7
statement filed at the time of the issuance of the con-struction permit seems to the Board simply not to be so.
9 They did address alternatives.
10 Are there some that you think they should have 11 that they didn't? If so, what are they, or can you say?
12 MR. ALSON: I guess I can't respond to that.
() 14 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Let's turn to the last of these contentions, which is 19.
U Here we have a difference between the Applicants 16 and the Staff again.
I I think I'd like to start off by asking Mr. Alson 18 on 19, what are the peculiar atmospheric conditions that you 19 have reference to here?
20 MR..ALSON: Would you like to address that, Mr.
21 Kuron?
22 MR. KURON: As we know, these two huge cooling 23 towers, 400 foot high, are right on the very edge of the 24 lake and, therefore, we will have different atmospheric
(~')
conditions to contend with in the operation of these two cAce 9edeta[ c;Aeportets, $tsc.
M4 NCRTH CAPff0L. STREET W ASHINGTON D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
153 1
cooling towers. l c's ,
(j 2 Here again I would say that at the Kettering l 3
hearings the question was addressed very well by Mr. George 4
Thomason, then the supervisor of Berlin Township, who was 5
just a few hundred yards away from these cooling towers.
6 I might add that Mr. Thomason was not reelected, either.
7 In fact, he's left the State.
8 But, nevertheless, he made a very find presenta-9 tion.
10 And questions were asked by the Chair, seriously, 11 of. Detroit Edison, and as I stated, at that time -- and 12 there again, I have not read their answer to the particular
(~) 13 problem, s -called problem, if they wanted to admit it, they
'J 14 simply say that they have no way of knowing because there's 15 nothing similar, there's no way of testing, there's no way 16 of knowing. And, therefore, they feel that nothing will 17 ever come of this area.
18 But here again let me insert a little something 19 to this Commission and to Staff: I am a firm believer in l .
20 one look is worth a thousand words . I am a firm believer 21 in that. And especially in my education, so on and so 22 forth, it's a lot better for me to see, feel, touch, hear l
l 23 than to read about it or hear about it.
1 24 But anyway, I would suggest to this Commission
.O You might
() 25 and Staff to take a tour of this given area.
cAce 9ederal cReporten, Onc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STR EET W A S HI N GTO N. D.C. 2000)
(102) 347 3700
154 1
check the roads out while you're at it. Check the location 2
in the area around these two cooling towers, which I'm sitting on the south of them. The Swan Creek area and the i
Estero Beach area is to the north, immediately north of 5
these two huge cooling towers.
6 There's no question in my mind that they are I 7
going to create their own atmospheric conditions and that 8
the Estero Beach area and the Swan Creek area will be Lower 9
Slobovia at times. They'll be running around with icicles 10 hanging down off of their nose.
11 We've had Fermi-1 discharge out into Swan Creek 12 by an open ditch, by an open creek, and at many times just
)
13 a small amount of steam off of this outlet created problems 14 in the Swan C:.aek and in the Estero Beach area. It created 15 its own ice, created its own moisture, created its own fog.
16 There again, we do not have nothing. There are 17 no blueprints.
l There are no studies. There are no books l
l 18 telling us what these two towers are going to do.
19 So we ask, in all your learned experience and 20 Staff's, and so on and so forth, to give this some serious 21 consideration. What effects, if any, if you issue the 22 license to operate this plant, what effects are these two 23 cooling towers going to have on the immediate locality?
24 Are you going to be able to close them down if they are 25 adverse effects? Can this Commission do that once it issues c4ce 9edeza( cRepostm, One 444 NORTN CAPITOL STREET W AS HINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3',00
155 l
the license?
2 You know, sometime ago -- when was it, just in 3
the last two months -- I spoke to the Environmental 4
Protection Agency, and we had three youngsters sitting up 5
there, one about 35, one about 30 and one about 25, and 6 they were gung-ho. They were really gonna go places and 7 And in the front row sat the politicians, sat do things. l 8 the Congressman's aide, the Senator's aides.
l 9 And I told them at that time that when and if 10 they issued any particular orders against this particular 11 steel mill for pollution that they would get kicked upstairs 12 so far that they wouldn't even know they're around, or they
{} 13 14 would be booted out of the system entirely.
What guarantees do we have in thic location that 15 these cooling towers will have no adverse effects on us, 16 and if they do what are you going to do about it?
17 I personally don't think that anybody is going 18 to do nothing about it.
19 As you understand, I hope and I pray, one of the
. 20 greatest things today,one of the biggest things that's 21 happening today, is nobody has any faith in government.
22 The greatest thing that's happening in our country today is 23 that nobody has any faith in government. We just don't 24 trust them. We just haven't got that hope.
O k/ 25 And this is what we're putting to you today, to cAce- 9edera( cRepsten Onc 4M NORTH C APITOL STREin W ASHINGTON D.C. 20001 (201) 347 3700
l 156 1
conduct a full-blown hearing into issuing a license to n)
(- 2 operate this plant.
3 There were questions at the Kettering High 4
School. These questions was brought up and these answers 5 were not forthcoming. The people sitting for Detroit Edison 6 did not have the answers.
7 Believe me, that's an awesome thing going on 8 over there. There'll be over 50,000, I understand it from 9 an engineer who built them, there'll be 50,000 gallons of 10 water dissipated per hour which is going to go into the 11 air in the form of steam.
12 There are times right on that very shore when we
,r~) 13 can see the steam from the Davis Besse plant way over
'w_/
14 across the Lake. Hopefully it might go out over the Lake, 15 but I'm sure with the souuhwest prevailing winds in this 16 area that it will carry that out over the Estero Beach 17 area, Swan Creek area, into the Newport area. And I'm 18 afraid we're just going to be in for one hell of a mess.
19 So, there again, I think it really has to be
. 20 considered. In other words, we've got to gather up all of 21 the information we possibly can, because if we allow this 22 thing to go into operation, fine and dandy, hey, it's a 23 big deal, it's going to cost a lot of money. And once it 24 gets started, we just can'c press a button and shut it n
(_) 25 off, unless there's a nuclear accident. But if it was cAce. Jedeza{ cReposten, $nc 644 N O R TH CAPITOL STR E E',
W A SHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700
l 157 1
operating and this was the only thing that was going wrong,
() 2 I think we'd have a hell of a time shutting it down.
3 So please, in your wisdom and the Staff's wisdom, 4
and the people who are available that can give you an honest 5
and unbiased answer, you must check out this cooling towers 6
situation, because I'm afraid they're going to be one hell 7
of a source of aggravation, agitation and trouble for the 8
neighbors in and around that area.
9 I know the hour is getting late, and I know all 10 of us want to go. I could probably talk to you all night, but my voice runs out. And I'm sure the Chairman agrees 12 with me.
() '
14 But first of all, I want to thank you for the tolerance. Believe me, you boys have bent over backwards 15 to accommodate the youngsters and myself. We must say that
'6 they have done a commendable job up against these giants 17 over here, and God help them. I am sure the next time l8 they're going to come a little older and better prepared, 19 and let's hope that there will be a next time, because
. 20 there are things thac have to be said.
21 As I said'in my earlier statement, I've got my 22 stuff pretty well lined up, and I'm going to give it to you
'3 straight from the shoulder. You pick it out, and after I'm 24 said and done, believe me, I'll leave it in your lap and 25 I'm not going to go any further with it, I can't go any cAce 9edeta( cReptteu, Snc du NORTH CAPITOL STREET W A S HI N GTO N. D.C. 20001 (aoa) u 7 a700
[ 158 1
further. I have limited means and life and limb and
() 2 property and money, and so on and so forth. So it's your 3 job. I don't intend to tell you how to do your job. j l
4 Once again, I want to thank you very, very much.
5 This is probably one of the better commissions that I've 6 been up against, and I've been up against some pretty tough
~
7 ones. l 8 So if there's any questions, if there's any way 9 I can help, I have offered to help Detroit Edison, but I'm 10 not going to be talking to the people who perpetrated this 11 thing, I want to talk to the Old Man himself. l 12 I used to be President of the Stony Point Area 13 Homeowners and Taxpayers Alliance. We built it to work with 14 Edison. And in the years that we were in operation we did l 15 work with Edison. I did, on two or three different 16 occasions, talk to Bill Hacy, the President, a very fine 17 person. And I'll tell you this: He acted on I, suggestions.
18 He acted on them, . and for the benefit of the Cotupany.
~
19 Today I can't reach him. Unfortunately there are people
, 20 under him who see that I don't get to him, by phone, by 21 mail, by whatever.
22 So I've done my part. It's up to you to do your 23 part. It's been a pleasure to be here this afternoon, and 24 please, get together with Staff and if you see fit to hold r)
(_ 25 this full-blown public hearing on the licensing of this cAce 9edera{ cReporteu, Onc.
444 NORTH C APfTot. STR EET WASHlN GTON. D.C. 20001 (301) 347 3700
-________-----___r---__
159 1
plant, fine, I want to be a part of it. If it ain't, it's
() _
2 been nice knowing you.
3 Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
4 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I think the Applicants and 5 Staff should have a chance to comment on Contention 19, 6 which we were talking about to some extent. I would like 7 to hear from Mr. Voigt.
8 MR. VOIGT: First of all, Mr. Chairman, it has 9 now become clear, if it wasn't clear a long time ago, that 10 every point that Mr. Kuron has brought up today is a point 11 that was brought up by Mr. Kuron and his associates before 12 the construction permit Board.
(~') 13 All Mr. Kuron is really trying to do is relitigate
(>
14 a number of issues that were presented to and decided by 15 the construction permit Licensing Board.
16 Specifically, the question of the possible 17 adverse environmental impacts from natural draft cooling 18 towers was considered and decided by the construction permit 19 Licensing Board in that portion of their decision which
. 20 begins with numbered paragraph 35.
21 Now, there's been no significant change in the 22 design or proposed conditions for operation of those towers 23 since that hearing. The only thing that has been added to 24 the record is that the required additional modeling has r^s kJ 25 been completed by the Company and presented in the cAce 9edeza{ cRepsten, $nc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON D.C. 20001 (102) 347 3700
160 1 environmental report for the operating license stage.
) 2 Now, you gave Mr. Kuron a chance to tell you the 3 specifics of his concerns about the cooling towers, and 4 perhaps to enlighten you as to what has changed since he 5 presented these concerns to the other Board. I leave it 6 to you gentlemen to judge whether you heard anything 7 specific or anything that would justify a further examina-
, 8 tion of this question at this time.
9 Now, with respect to the Staff, I am again very 10 troubled when I compare their reaction to this contention 11 with their reaction to Contention 11.
12 You will recall when they commented on Contention 11 they said since the Applicant has identified the
{) 13 14 maximum probable flood at the site in the FSAR and has 15 assessed the flood design of the facility, the Staff 16 believes that this contention lacks specificity and basis.
17 Going on: "In order for the contention to be is acceptable, it should set forth with reasonable specificity 19 at the very least either how the A;splicant has not
. 20 adequately identified the maximum probable flood, or how 21 the structural integrity of the plant and Category-1 22 structures will be adversely affected."
23 Now, that's a safety contention. When a safety 24 contention is raised the Staff -- quite properly -- says, 25 tell us what the Applicant did wrong, tell us where their cAce.Jedesaf cReposten, Snc d44 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (aoa) 347-s700
161 I
analysis is inadequate, or tell us where what they propose l 2
won't do the job.
3 Here we have a contention about the impact of i f
cooling towers, which is a NEPA contention. But I don't 6 see that that's a valid distinction for not requiring the 1
6 same kind of approach, that the petitioners, Mr. Kuron, l 7 have to tell us what's inadequate about the analysis, or 8 what's inadequate about the design, and what the adverse 9 consequences are going to be.
10 The previous Board found to the contrary, and i
11 unless something new has come up in the meantime that Mr. ,
12 nuron can identify, or unless CEE can point to a specific 13 inadequacy in the analysis of this problem, I submit that
(]}
14 there's no valid contention and no reason to have another 15 hearing about the cooling towers.
16 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Mr. Voigt, did the analysis 17 earlier deal with the icing question which Mr. Kuron 18 mentioned?
19 MR. VOIGT: Indeed it did, and there are specific
.- 20 references to fogging and icing in the findings of the 21 construction permit Licensing Board.
22 MR. SHON: Mr. Voigt, has the material that has 23 been developed since that time -- I noticed that the 24 Licensing Board at that time expected further studies --
O
- 25 MR. VOIGT: That is correct.
c0cc. 9edeta{ CAepostets, Onc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. O.C. a00ol (aca) 347-a700
162' l Have those further studies given any MR. SHON:
13
(_j 2 substantial indication that the original estimates may have 3
been grossly in error in under-predicting the amount of 4
fogging and icing? Do you know that, offhand, that something 5
surprising turned up?
6 MR. VOIGT: To the contrary. It is confirmatory.
7 The information that's been developed since the construction 8 permit is included in Section 5.1.4 on atmospheric effects, 8 and Section 2.6.2 on meteorology in the ER for the operating to license.
11 MR. SHON: Fine. I don't want to go deeply into 12 the merits of this.
{} MR. VOIGT: But if you wanted to 13 I understand.
14 confirm for yourself my statement that the picture hasn't 15 changed substantially, you could look at those sections.
16 MR. SHON: Thank you.
17 MR. SCHINK: May we ask the Staff why you 18 supported this contention? What was your thinking?
19 MR. BLACK: Yes. I must admit, when the Staff
.. 20 . assesses Intervenors' contentions it's not a state of legal 21 art, by any means. There are certainly no definitive 22 guidelines by which we do this, but we basically just kind 23 of take a poll of the attorneys and technical staff that's 24 working on the case and find out if it is stated with 25 sufficient clarity that it does raise a concern and there is c:Oce. 9edesa{ cRepotteu, One.
444 NORTH C APITOL, STREET W ASHIN GTON. O.C. 20001 (act) 347 3700
I 163 l
1 some reasonable basis of specificity to it. j 1
() 2 Now, in this case'there was a consensus that 3 because they do allege unusual atmospheric conditions around 4
4 the site there is a possible concern here that should be 5 addressed.
6 With'that we thought that it was completed 7 reasonably.
8 Now, obviously, during the course of discovery 9 if these Intervenors are admitted as parties to this 10 proceeding, we would try to refine this contention through 11 discovery, to try-to get more detailed bases for why they 12 have a concern here. But at that point, since the Staff --
13 and also Mr.-Voigt raised another good point, that the
, 14 safety questions where we do have a finer handle on'it, we 15 do require probably a higher degree of specificity when is the Intervenors do raise contentions, and also, when both 17 the Staff and the Applicant have dealt with that issue and 18 we can point to a document and say your concerns are 19 addressed in this document, both Staff and Applicant, then 20 We feel more confident in throwing that type of contention 21 out.
22 But in this case -- and I have not looked at the 23 initial decision on the construction permit stage for quite 24 awhile, and I don't really remember whether this issue was
. () 25 addressed or not, but assuming that it was we're still going cAce 9edeta[ cReposters, Sac 444 NORTM CAPITOL, STREET WASMtNGTON. D.C. 30001
- (aoa) 347.a700 u _- _ _ _ _ t . _ . _ , _, , . , . _ , _ _
1 1
164 to address this concern in our FES on the operating license 2
stage. l 3
So, consequently, I can't tell the Intervenors 4
that this is where the Staff has addressed this problem, j 5
and here you can see the answers to your concerns. I 6 don't have that document, and I can't point to it.~ So 7
there is a subjective type of reasoning that goes through
. 8 this type of process by the Staff, and I can understand 9
Mr. Voigt's concern that perhaps we do do this arbitrarily.
10 Indeed we do. And I can't give you any more justification 11 than that.
12 MR. SCHINK: Mr. Kuron, in this contention -- I 13
(]) gather you're the driving force behind it -- twice the 14 expression, " adequate consideration has not been given to,"
15 was used.
16 I wonder if you have read the documentation that 17 the Applicant has prepared?
18 MR. KURON: No, sir, I have not.
19 MR. SCHINK: It seems to me if you'd come in here 20 and said, these guys have considered fogging and icing in 21 the abstract, and it may look all right to them because it's 22 only so many days and so many hours of this kind of problem 23 and they're willing to accept it, but I live right where 24 it is and I'm not willing to accept it, you might pound on O 25 _your desk and gat a hearing.
cAce3edesa( cRepsteu, One 444 NORTH CAPITOL. STREET WASHINGTON. O.C. 30001 (302) 347 3700
165 1
But I must say that I get a trif!a impatient
() 2 with the charge that adequate consideration hasn't been l
given when you don't know what consideration has been given.
3 4
MR. KURON: Sir, in answer to that question, I 5 did attend a public hearing at the Kettering High School, 6 and that question was asked very well, and I listened to 7 the Edison engineers.
1 8 As this man said, nothing new has happened since !
1 9 that time, so I've still got to assume that they don't have 10 the answer, unless, like a lot of things, they had the 11 answer on paper and it looks good on paper.
12 But I'm going to tell you something: I've seen 13 the problem. I've seen the paperwork. And any similarity
\r-'.
14 is purely coincidental. Yes, I am concerned, very much 15 so.
16 MR. SCHINK: That is information that we would 17 be interested in hearing. But if you haven't prepared 18 yourself by looking at the paperwork, then.it's very hard 19 for us to hear you tell us that the paperwork and the facts 20 are not consistent with one another.
21 Are you aware of the fact that there are 22 documents on public file that you could read, to go beyond 23 this high school hearing which you keep referring to, which 24 really won't be a part of the record that we're dealing C1
\_/ 25 with in this case?
c0ce. 9edesal cReposten, One 444 NORTH CAPWOL STREET W A S HI N G TO N. D.C. 20001 (302) 347 3700
166 I
MR. KURCN: Well, I appreciate what you're saying, 2
believe me, and of course I'm not as learned a person as 3
some of the people sitting across this room. There again, 4
I'm counting on you, in fair play, and Staff, and so on and 5
so forth, maybe to give me some direction.
6 No, I did not read these things, because I didn't--
7 between the time that those public hearings were held, there 8 was nothing outside of probable expertise. And I've seen ,
1 9 the experts too many times. You can buy and sell them.
10 You know, you can hire any experts you want.
11 MR. SCHINK Let's not get into that.
12 MR. KURON: I appreciate your position.
() 13 MR. SCHINK: Would you speak to Mr. Black or 14 some other member of the Staff and get advice on where you 15 can find the written material?
16 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: The documents in this case 17 are on file, by the way, in the Honroe County Library 18 System, 3700 Custer Road, Monroe, Michigan.
d-19 MR. KURON: I know where it's at. Thank you.
.. 20 MR. VOIGT Dr. Schink, may I clarify what could 21 perhaps be a source of at least potential confusion to this 22 Board?
23 All of the hearings that Mr. Kuron is talking 24 about are the construction permit hearings.
.(v '25 I'm sorry, I didn't realize MR. SCHINK Oh?
cAce Jedeta{ cAeposten, .Onc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (302) 347 3700
l 167 I
that.
2 MR. VOIGT: All of the hearings that were held 3
at this high school were the hearings that were held by the 4
construction permit Licensing Board. The transcript of 5
those hearings is obviously accessible to you gentlemen as 6 part of the records of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. j 7
What Mr. Kuron is saying, over and over and over 8
. again, is that he disagrees with what was testified to at l
8 '
those hearings and, moreover, that he disagrees with the 10 Licensing Board's acceptance of or conclusions concerning 11 that testimony.
12 Mr. Kuron is trying to relitigate the construction 13 permit proceedings. It's just as simple as that.
({}
14 MR. KURON: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get 15 in any argument with Mr. Voigt, but I did make my position 16 known here first thing this morning.
17 As far as these contentions are concerned, they 18 are part of your job to get cleared up and get cleared out 19 of the way before you isstte a license.
. 20 I have further information.
I have substantiated 21 information. And, as I told you earlier, I'll put your 22 nose in the right direction. You do what you have to do.
23 Some of the statements that I have made, all I l
24 want to say is I'm gonna make them for a matter of record
'() 25 so they'll be in concrete. They'll be forever and eternity:
l l
cAce. 9edeza( cRepsteu, One 444 NORTH C APROL STREET WASHINGTON D.C. a0001 (aoa) 347 3700
168 1
"Kuron says "
2 And I hope really as far as these cooling towers 3 are concerned that I'm wrong -- really. But I still have 4
that doubt in my mind, and my friends and neighbors in the 5 area very.much have that doubt in their minds. And it has 6 never been cleared up by Detroit Edison or nobody else.
7 So I have these doubts in my mind, and I hope
. B that I'm wrong -- really. I'm not too big a man.. I've 9 been wrong ) )re. I don't make my living offa this !
1 to gavbege. 2 .lere on my own expense and my own volition.
1 11 and I'm gonna tell you something, and I leave 12 it to you: I thank you for your tolerance. I'm sure I'm ,
l
(} 13 getting under Mr. Voigt's skin. But I'm not a learned 14 lawyer like himself, and therefore I beg of you to allow 15 me to present my case the way I see it. Then you do 16 whatever you will on 11.
17 Now.I have a story to tell, as I said in my 18 . letter, and I want to tell it at a public hearing for the 19 licensing of the Fermi plant.
. 20 And last.but not least, I'm gonna talk >about 21 the plant protection, security if you will, about the 22 quality control and about the integrity and so on and so 23 forth of this particular Company. And I can say it loud 24 and clear, and I can substantiate. And that's all I want 25 you to do, is listen, and after I'm done saying it, forget c0ce 9edesc.i .Aeposten. Onc.
444 F/ st'.h L .=*tTOL STR EET WASHINGTON. D.C. 3000t (202) 347-3700
169 1 it if you must. But I want the right to say it.
,y
(,) 2 MR. BLACK: Mr. Chairman, at this point I think 3 the Staff would like to change its position relative to 4 Contention 19.
5 As I indicated before, one of the reasons we 6 felt that there was some reasonable specificity was the 7 phrase, " peculiar atmospheric conditions."
, 8 After just hearing the author of that contention, 9 I didn't hear anything that would indicate to me that there to was any peculiar atmospheric condition.
11 MR. KURON : I'm not the author of that contention.
12 MR. BLACK: I thought Mr. Kuron was the author
(~3 13 of that, and that he just explained it.
L.)
14 Dut anyway, I still haven't heard anything.yet 15 that would lead the Staff to believe that there is anything is peculiar about the atmospheric conditions around the site 17 that perhaps would change the assessment that was made is earlier at the construction permit stage.
4 19 MR. SHON: I would like to ask Mr. Alson to 20 address himself specifically to this. Who is the author 21 or originator of the contention, do you know?
22 MR. ALSON: It's someone who is not here today.
23 (Laughter.)
24 MP. SCHINK: That's a very large group.
ry
-J 25 MR. ALSON: I'm frustrated. I thought that in c0ce 9ec!:ta{ cAeportets, Sne.
444 NORTH C APITOL STREET W AS HIN G TO N. D.C. 20001 (2C#) 347 3700
170 1
the decision on what contentions would be accepted that one O 2 didn't talk about the validity of them, but that one rather 3
argued the basis for the contentions, and whether if the 4
contention were true, then, you know, should that be dealt 5
with in a hearing.
6 And time and time again today the issue has been 4
7 led to the validity of the contention. Am I just mistaken?
- 8 At every prehearing does validity --
9 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: I don't think we've been 10 inquiring about the validity, but whether what you say when 11 you say " unusual atmospheric conditions," has any specific 12 basis. What do you have in mind? Are there any?
() 13 MR. ALSON: I assumed it would be for us to make 14 a case for it in the hearing.
15 MR. SCHINK: The problem lies in what Mr. Voigt 16 politely calls the contention being inartfully drawn, and 17 a high-powered lawyer such as Mr. Voigt would have written 18 these quite differently if he were on the other side, and 19 we would have a far more specific idea of what you are 20 contending.
21 If in fact we were not aware as a Board that this 22 is a very unequal battle in terms of legal talent -- I hope 23 I don't offend you -- we probably would deal very differently 24 with these issues that you're raising. And in fact what O
V 25 we're trying to do is give you every benefit of the doubt, cAce 9edezal cReporteu, One.
444 NOitTH C APITOL STREET W ASHINGTON. D.C. 30000 (202) 347 3700
171 recognizing the fact that you do not have a great deal of
( 2 legal talent to back you up.
3 So you shouldn't feel that you're being mistreated by being asked to specify in some greater detail what's 5
here. We're really confronted with either asking you to 6
do that, or simply throwing out many of these contentions 7
that you've presented here.
- 8 I'm sure we're taxing Mr. Voigt's patience by 9
our handling of you.
l 10 MR. SHON: Mr. Alson, for example, in the i
11 particular contention we've been dealing with now, number 12 19, it is true that some of the matters that we've discussed 13
(]) may go, as the attorney said, to the merits of the 14 contention. But a number of them go to whether or not 15 these matters have already been considered at the construction i
if permit stage, and whether you have anything new at all to 17 tell us.
18 This is the kind of information we want. If 19
. you can say, oh, I have data from New England that proves 20 that the material on which the original decision was based 21 is completely wrong, we want to know that.
22 MR. ALSON: Okay. That clarifies the situation.
23 MR. SHON: You don't have to present the data 24 here, of course, at this time. But you have to say, yes, I O 25 know of someone that knows, or I have data to back it up, cAce 9edera{ cReporteu, Onc 444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (Sca) 347 370o
"1 172 l
MR. SCHINK: There is another component of this O 2 unequal battle, which I'm sure the Applicant is much more 3
aware of than you are, although perhaps you are too. And 4
that is, although he has the legal skills, you have the 5
capacity of wasting time on the reactor operation, and that 6
can be very expensive for them.
7 And so although it is an unequal battle, you
- 8 both have weapons which do sort of counteract each other.
8 And just as we should give consideration to your lack of 10 legal talent, we have to at least be aware of the problems 11 which you can present to the Applicant.
12 MR. KURON: The Board has been more than fair, O '3 he11 eve me. .
14 MR. TREBY: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to 15 indicate on behalf of the Staff that the Staff also is 16 sympathetic to the fact that these are pro-se 3ntervenors, 17 and that they may not be able to frame their contentions 18
, in the most artful manner.
19 However, the two people who have filed affidavits 20 1n these proceedings indicating that they are the members 21 of this organization whose interests are going to be 22 affected, and who have indicated that they adopt all of 23 these contentions, are present here today. And what the 24 Staff has been seeking to hear or to have these people tell 25 us, in whatever terms they can state it in -- layman's or c: Ace. 9ederal cReporters, Onc.
444 NOMTH C APITOL. STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. 30004
173 1
however artfully they can express it -- just what their g
/ 2 concerns are and what facts they have which support those 3
concerns.
4 And that is what we are a little concerned about 5
that we are not hearing today.
6 MR. SCHINK: These contentions came to us with 7
a letter from Robert Maynard. Robert Maynard is not here 8
- today, is that correct?
8 He's a law student, and the finals MR. ALSON:
10 are this week.
11 Will he, in general, be appearing in MR. SHON:
12 the position you are now as the representative?
13 I guess I couldn't say at this MR. ALSON:
(]) 1 14 point. I mean I don't know the schedule of the future l l
l 15 hearings. ;
1 16 MR. BLACK: What year law school is he in, do 17 you know? l 18 MR. ALSON: I don't know.
18 (The Board conferring.)
. 20 MR. ALSON: You know, along the lines of what 21 was just mentioned, we again would like to opportunity to 22 present more information on some of these contentions, 23 specifically, 5, 9, 13 and 19, I think were four that the 24 Board has expressed concern that we have not been specific O/ 25 about, but yet they do feel that we do have information cAce 9ederal cAeporteu, Soc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL. STREET l W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 L __ __ _m _
174 1
that is relevant to them. And there might be others that
() 2 the Board would also like to put in that group, I don't 3
know.
4 But CEE would at least ask for some time to make 5 these contentions more acceptable to the Board, again, 6 based on our belief that we were not going to go into 7 today what we did. I'm sure it looks awful, but this is 8 not what we were told to prepare for by people who we know 9 who have been involved in these proceedings before, and 10 the written documents we had in our possession.
11 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Basically we do have to --
12 in order for a hearing to be authorized, we would only have 13 to find that one contention meets the various criteria, plus 14 the fact of whether or not the group has standing.
15 But I would like to say that this Board, if it 16 should make such a finding with respect to one contention, 17 we have decided that CEE should be able to meet with the 18 Staff and the Applicants and discuss some of the others 19 which have been talked about.
. 20 So if we. decide that any one of these is 21 admissible, and if we decide that a hearing is to be 22 authorized, we would think it desirable -- and we would 23 strongly recommend -- that the parties get together and 24 try to work out an agreed set of contentions, perhaps.
\ 25 This Board will come out with its decision, c0ce 9edesa{ cReptien, Snc dad NORTH CAPITOL STREET WA5NINGTON. D.C. 2000t
-(302) 347-3700
l l
175 1 1 perhaps rejecting some of them. Some of the questioned ones l tO 1
2 l have been withdrawn already. But we will come out in due i 3
time -- I hope quickly -- with a decision, and we will 4
establish then some guidelines for the parties to work out i 5
and confer.
1 6 l Is there anything else that anyone here thinks 1
7 need be said today?
8 MR. VOIGT: Just two very brief observations, 8
Mr. Chairman.
18 First of all, I would like to associate myself I'
with Mr. Treby's remarks of a few moments ago. There are 12 two people who have sworn affidavits adopting these
() 13 contentions, and we've had the good fortune to hear from 14 both of them today.
15 They have been given an opportunity to explain 16 to you, in their own words, what they conceive the meaning 17 of the contentions to be. And I really think that we 18 should go ahead and rule at this point, and not give 18 further time for other un-named people who haven't come 20 forward and. haven't even identified themselves as' 21 petitioners, to try to come up with additional information.
22 The other point I would like to make is that 23 it will be difficult -- and I would say almost impossible --
24 for me to enter into any kind of meaningful discussions 25 concerning these contentions unless I received the guidance cAce 9edeta{ cReposten, Onc.
ud NORN CAPlfCL STREET W AS >tlNOTON. D.C. 20001
(*** ** N #
l l
176 I I
of the Board as to each and every one of them, as to which 2
ones are deemed. admissible.
3 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes, we would expect that 4
any subject areas at least that we felt were admissible we 5
would identify.
6 But I might say that considerable work on a lot i
7 of them would have to be done before they would be made to
- 8 be acceptable contentions, even though the subject matter 8
may be permissible.
10 MR. VOIGT: I understand.
11 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: And that's what we were 12 driving at.
13
(]) I would think we would give, hopefully, guidance, 14 assuming we find any of them to be good contentions as 15 stated.
16 Mr. Alson?
17 MR. ALSON: Yes. To reply to one of Mr. Voigt's 18 remarks, that the two people who have signed affidavits e
19 from CEE are here today, well, that poses an assumption that 20 there are only two people in CEE that know anything about 21 these contentions. And that's clearly not the case. There 22 are many, many people who authored contentions who are not 23 here. So to say that, wow, you know, we!ve got the two 24 people who sent in their affidavits, and they're here, and 25 they haven't done a very good job, doesn't at all deal with c0cc 9edera{ cReposten, Onc.
4A4 NORTH CAPtTOL, STREET W A S HI N G TO N. D.C. aMol (aoa) 347-370o
177
' the question.
.n U 2 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: We understand this, and you 3 were also at times relying on experts whom you may have 4
consulted who would not necessarily be members of CEE in 5
any event. So we understand this. Your case does not have 6 to be solely supported by your members' expertise.
9 7 I guess the Staff would like to be MR. TREBY:
8 clear just who the representatives of CEE are, as far as l l
9 filing papers. I guess we've heard today that Mr. Alson 10 is the representative --
11 CRAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: It's my understanding that 12 the Staff was going to advise the Secretary also that i l
()
13 documents should be served to Mr. Alson.
14 MR. TREBY: Right. Now, is there any other 15 representative of CEE who should be on the service list?
16 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Ask CEE. I can't tell 17 you.
18 MR. ALSON: Could we discuss this after the 19 proceeding, or do you need the --
20 MR. SCHINK: Mrs. Drake has indicated a continuing 21 interest. She's a member of CEE.
22 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes.
23- MR. TREBY: I understand. I just want the record 24 to be clear. I understand that the only representatives of O 25 CEE that are to be served as of this date anyway, are Mr.
cAce-]edeza{ cAepotteu, Snc.
444 NORTM CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001
178 Alson, Martha Drake and Mr. Hiller.
2 MR. ALSON: Well, I think maybe we should . . .
3 could we discuss this after the hearing, or is this --
MR. VOIGT: I would prefer to have it on the 5
record, Mr. Chairman. I want to know who I need to serve. l l
6 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Yes. i 4
7 MR. ALSON: I think Mr. Kuron should be on the
- 8 list as well.
9 MR. VOIGT: Now just a moment. Normally there's l 10 one representative for a party. Mrs. Drake has withdrawn 11 from the proceeding as an individual and has said that she 12 hopes CEE will represent her. '
O
. ar xuro=, who e reed oez s 11 teea vee rcr.
14 has now emerged as a member of the organization.
15 It seems to me that we only ought to have to 16 serve the official representative of the organization.
17 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: My own inclination is to 18 say that the Secretary of the Commission should serve 19 Mrs. Drake and Mr. Kuron, and that you should serve Mr.
20 Alson. -
21 MR. VOIGT: That's agreeable.
22 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Well, I don't know about 23 Perhaps one of the law students. Who will be Mr. Hiller.
24 drawing up your papers?
O 25 MR. ALSON: David Hiller has done most of that.
c0ce Jedetal CAeporteu, Soc.
444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET WASHINGTON. D.C. 20001 (aoa) 347-37oo
179
-CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Would it be' satisfactory 2 .to you if direct service from the parties just went to you 3
and to Mr. Hiller?
4 MR. ALSON: Yes.
5 CHAIRMAN BECHHOEFER: Would you serve them, then?
6 MR. VOIGT Certainly.
1
. 7 CHAIRMAN DECHHOEFER: And we.will leave Martha
. 8 Drake on the Secretary's service list, and she will 9 eventually get served with anything tiled and anything 10 anybody else files. So I think that will take care of that.
11 With that, I guess this prehearing conference' 12 is concluded, and I thank you all for spending the time 13 to appear here and-participate here.
({}
14 I do want to say that I think the Commission's 15 regulations as they now stand really do not give the 16 Applicants and Staff enough time to respond to supplemental 17 petitions, and I think the fifteen-day period is a little 18 bit rushed. I apologize for asking for responses, but-it n
19 did help the Board to be aware of what your positions were
- 20 _before we walked in here.
21 I thank you all for the contributions you have i
22 made.- {
23 (Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the prehearing 24 conference was adjourned.)
A v 25 _ _ _
c0ce 9edesa{ cReposten, Anc.
444 NORTH C APITol. STREET W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20001-(303) 34747M
. _ . . .