ML20151M899
| ML20151M899 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, 05000603, 05000604 |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1988 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#388-6900 CP, CP-OL, NUDOCS 8808080031 | |
| Download: ML20151M899 (45) | |
Text
'
ORJSWA UNITED STATES O
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
I
.-=============================k===========================.
In the Matter of:
)
)
ALL CHEMICAL ISOTOPE
)
ENRICHMENT, INC. (ALCHEMIE
)
Docket Nos.
FACILITY-1 CPDF); ALL CHEMICAL) 50-603-CP/OL ISOTOPE ENRICHMENT, INC.
)
50-604-CP (ALCHEMIE FACILITY-2, OLIVER
)
2 SPRINGS)
)
(Pre-hearing Conference)
O LOCATION:
Knoxville, Tennessee l
PAGES:
1 through 43 DATE:
July 21, 1988
.m me = =s = = = = = = = me m.
.= am es - ss = = am mm m ma m as su me se ss m an m m me = = me se s= = me m en sa mm em TR. o I 1
O I
/
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION l
OficialReporters Q
1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 628-4888 B609C%Cc3l.
m.ccmfg3 7?c 7a 1 A po's 7g>A P D L-a--.-,-
\\
1 1
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-2 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD S
OT&I 3
In the Matter of:
)
4
)
Docket Nos. 50-603-CP/OL ALL CHEMICAL ISOTOPE ENRICHMENT,
-)
50-604-CP 5
INC. (ALCHEMIE FACILITY-1 CPDF) :
)
ALL CHEMICAL ISOTOCE ENRICHMENT,
)
6 INC. (ALCHEMIE FACILITY-2,
)
OLIVER SPRINGS)
)
7 (Pre-hearing Conference) 8
' thursday, 9-July 21, 1988 10 Moot Courtroom College of Law 11 University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee 12 13 The pre-hearing conference convened, pursuant to 14 notice, at 9 : 2 8 a.ra.
fD 15 BEFORE:
HON. MORTON MARCUI<IES, CHAIRMAN HON. OSCAR PARIS, MEMBER 16 hor. EMMETH LUEBKE, MEMBER Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 18 AFLEARANCES:
19 Egg the Applicants:
STEVE IR7/I?1G, ESQUIRE l
21 Irving & Sams l
703 South Illinels Avenue, Suite 202B 22 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 23 Egr the Nuclear.Begulatory Commission Staff:
24 BERNARD BORDENICK, ESQUIRE United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 White Flint North Rockville, Maryland 20535 Heritage Reporting Corporation 3
(202) 628-4888 (V
2 i
1 P R O C E'E D I N G S.
2 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Please come to order.
(~3 u;
3 Good inorning, ladies and gentlemen.
At this time 4
I would like to introduce the Atomic Safety and Licensing 5
Board that are hearing these proceedings.
They are on my 6
left Judge Oscar Paris, an on my right Judge Emmeth Luebke, 7
and I am Judge Morton Margulies.
8 This Board was appointe 'on May 3rd, 1988 to 9
preside in two docketed proceedings involving three 10 applications.
The proceedings docketed All Chemical Isotope 11 Enrichment, Inc., AlChemIE Facility-1 CPDF, docket number 12 50-603-CP/OL involves an application for a construction 13 permit for a facility, and the facility operating license 14 employing centrifugal machines to enrich nonradioactive
(}
15 isotopes at the centrifugal plant demonstration facility 16 located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
17 The application proceeding docketed All Chemical ~
18 Isotope Enrichment, Inc., AlChemIE Facility-2, Oliver 19 Springs, _ docket number 50-604-CP is for a construction 20 permit.for a facility to use centrifugal machines to enrich 21 nonradioactive isotopes at A1ChemIE Facility-2 at Oliver 22 Springs, Tennessee.
23 These facilities are subject to NRC regulation as 24 producticn facilities because of their capability of 25 enriching uranium.
t Heritage Reporting Corporation pg (202) 628-4888 a
4
(
3 1
jThe Board ordered the holding of this cpecial r3 2
pre-hearing conference on June 16th, 1988 for'the purpose of
%)
3 discussing thef matter set forth in 10 CI/R 2.751(a) and in 4
2.904.
5 A verbatim transcript is being prepared of the 6
conference, and this will be on a consolidated record 7
including all proceedings.
8 Appearances will now be taken in all of the 9
proceedings.
10 Who appears for the applicant?
11 MR. IRVING:
If Your Honors please, Steve Irving 12 attorney for the applicant AlChemIE and representing all 13 matters.
14 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Could you give us your address 15 and whether you're admitted to practice?
[}
16 MR. IRVING:
If Your Honors please, I have been 17 admitted to practice to the State Bar of Tennessee and the 18 Federal Bar.
My address is 702 South Illinois Avenue, Suite 19 202B, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 37830.
20 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Thank you.
21 Who appears for the NRC staff?
22 MR. BORDENICK:
If it please the Board my name is 23 Bernard N.
Bordenick, I'm from the Office of the General 24 Counsel of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 25 Washington, D.C.,
20555.
I'm a member of the Bar of the l
Heritage Roporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 n
ss i
4 1
District of Columbia.
' (~]
2 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Are there any other appearances?
U 3
(No response) 4 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is there anyone to appear for r
1/'
5 the State of Tennessee?
We received a petition to intervene 6
as an interested State under the provisions of 10 CFR 7
- 2. 715 (c).
8 MR. BORDENICK:
Judge Margulies, I would like to 9
speak to that question.
I'm not per se authorized to speak 10 for the State of Tennessee, however I can state certain 11 facts that are within my knowledge regarding the State's 12 participation.
13 As the Board is aware the State has filed a 14 request to participate as an interested State under
(}
15 10 CFR 2.715 (c) and the NRC staff welcomes that 16 participation.
17 The State in its request to participate indicated 18 two concerns.
I won't get into the substance of the 19 concerna at this point.
At my suggestion the -- what I will 20 call the technical people for the applicant, the State and 21 the staff have been talking as recently as about a week or 22 10 days ago, there were some conversations.
And based on 23 those conversations it's my understanding that with respect 24 to one of the State's concerne they are satisfied that l
j 25 concern is resolved.
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 l
-m-w-
-w=
v T) 5 1
As to the other concern I think they are satisfied r~)J 2
that the concern is being addressed and probably will be
(_
3 satisfied.
4 I spoke to the attorney for the State Deputy 5
Attorney General, Michael Pearigen, last week and confirmed 6
what I just indicated to the Board.
He told me at that time 7
that he probably would not attend the conference this 8
morning, but that he would get back to me on that particular 9
point.
10 He called me on Monday, unfortunately, I was at my 11 lunch break at the time and the message he left was that he 12 was not going to appear at the pre-hearing conference at 13 Knoxville on i7uly 21st.
He will write letters to that 14 effect.
Cl 15 Last week when he told me probably would not J
16 appear I suggested to him that he might want to notify the 17 Board of that fact in advance.
Apparently he has not done 18 that.
19 I don't know what their intentions are with 20 respect to the future, but I may be a little ahead of the 21 question, but the staff certainly has no objection to the 22 Board granting their request to participate.
He told me, in 23 effect, he would want to continue to monitor the hearings or 24 the proceedings and the staff certainly has no objection to 25 the State doing that.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
6 1
JUDGE MARGULIES:
Well, I think you're a little
(~
2 premature, Mr. Bordenick', the Board in instituting this Q)g 3
special pre-hearing conference specifically r.tated that the 4
parties in the State of Tennessee or their counsel are 5
directed to appear at this special pre-hearing conference.
6 It appears that the State of Tennessee is in 7
default of the Board's order.
8 The order also points out that the matters to be 9
discussed are thcae enumerated in 10 CFR 2.751(a),
s 10 subparagraph (a) (3), is to consider all intervention 11 petitions to allow the presiding office 4 to make such 12 preliminary'or final determination as to the parties to the 13 proceeding as may be appropriate.
14 That was one of the things that we were to 15 consider here today, the State of Tennessee's petition to
('.
s l
16 intervene, and we are not in a position to do so.
17 We will move on.
In enumerating the matters to be 18 discussed at a special pre-hearing conference under section 19 2. 751 (a), the first matter to discuss is to permit i
20 identification of the key issues in the proceeding.
21 The Commission's orders in those proceedings set 22 forth the issues that the Commission wants considered.
In 23 both construction permit applications they are:
- one, 24 whether in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.34 25 the applicant has described the proposed design of the l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 u- ~
6 7
1 facility including, but not limited to, the principal r~s 2
architectural and engineering criteria for the design, and b
3 has identified the major features for componbnts 4
incorporated therein to assure adequate protection of the 5
common defense and security.
6 Two, whether the applicant is technically and 7
financially qualified to modify the existing facility in 8
such a way as to assure adequate protection of the common 9
defense and security.
10 Three, whether the issuance of a construction 11 permit authorizing the modification of the facility will be 12 inimical to the common defense and security.
13 Four, whether in accordance with the requirement 14 of 10 CFR part 51 the construction permit and operating (V~T 15 license should be issued as proposed.
16 The langnage involving Facility-2 Oliver Springs 17 is slightly different.
Rather than speaking in terms of 18 altering the existing facility, the language speaks in terms 19 of constructing the new facility.
But basically the issues 20 are exactly the same other than the status of the facility.
21 It is clear on its face that these are the issues l
22 in the proceedings.
Do the parties recogn;;e any othac 23 issues that are involved?
24 MR. IRVING:
No, Your Honor.
25 hP. BORDENICK:
No, we do not, Judge Margulies.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l
s 8
1 If I might digress a moment, I was just a few 2
minutes ago advised that there is a representative of the 3'
State of Tennessee present in the hearing room.
However, he 4
is not an attorney, he's a representative of the Tennessee 5
Department of Health and Environment who was the client 6
department for the Attorney General.
I don't know whether 7
he wants to address the Board or not; I'm just relaying the 8
fact that he is present.
9.
JUDGE MARGULIES:
Does the individual wish to 10 address the Board?
11 MR. WEST:
No, we didn't come prepared to make a 12 presentation at this time.
13 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Would you please identify 14 yourself for the record?
(}
15 MR. WEST:
I'm Charles West with the Tennessee 16 Department of Health and Environment, Division of 17 Radiological Health.
18 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Where are you located, Mr. West?
19 MR. WEST:
Offices in Nashville, Tennessee.
20 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Thank you.
21 (Pause) 22 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The notification of the 23 Commission in the construction permit for the construction 24 permit application also advises that there's a different 25 issue to be decided, whether or not the proceedings are Heritage Reporting O cpotstion (202) 628-4880
9 1
contested.
(~
2 The notice specifies, if this proceeding is not a G}
3 contested proceeding as defined by 10 CFR 2.4 (n), the Board 4
will determine the following without conducting a de novo 5
evaluation of the application.
6 One, whether the application and'the record of the 7
proceeding contains sufficient information, and whether the 8
Commission's staff review of the application has been 9
adequate to support the proposed findings to be made by the 10 Director of the Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear 11 Safety on items one to three above; and to support insofar 12 as the Commission licensing requirements under the Act are 13 concerned, the issuance of the construction permit proposed 14 by the Director of the Division of Industrial and Medical (V~)
15 Nuclear Safety.
16 And two, whether the NEPA review the Commission's 17 staff conducted has been adequate.
18 As far as the Board can determine this is not a 19 contested proceeding as defined in 2.4 (n).
Do the parties 20 wish to be heard on that?
23 Mr. Irving?
I 22 MR. IRVING:
Judge Margulies, we concur with your 23 findings on that; we do not believe
.t. to be a contested 24 proceeding within that definition.
25 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Bordenick?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 w"
w 10 1
MR. BORDENICK:
Likewise, the_ staff agrees with 2
the Board's characterization of the proceeding.
(')
V 3
JUDGE MARGULIES:
Staying with the construction 4
permit applications, the applicant is looking for certain 5
exemptions from the Commission's regulations.
6 They are spelled out in detail in the appendix to 7
AlChemIE. letter of November 17th, 1987, and they cover some O
five or six pages, 9
How do the parties expect this request to affect 10 the contentions or the issues?
11 MR. BORDENICK:
I guess that question is 12 principally addressed to the staff.
That matter will be 13 addressed in the staff's safety evaluation, at the time of 14 the staff's safety evaluation.
{~}
15 I can tell you informally that we've looked at 16 those five or six pages as you mentioned and I think for the 27 most part we probably will be in agreement with the request, 18 and the basis for the agreement will be set forth at the 19 time our evaluation is issued.
20 As the Boazi has recognized, this is somewhat of a 21 unique case.
Principally the mattors before the Nuclear 22 Regulatory Coinmission on the basis of the fact that, of the 23 way I like to put it, this is a production facility that's 24 not going to be used as a production facility, but it could 25 be used as a production facility.
Heritage Reporting Corporation rg (202) 628-4888 LJ
a 11 1
So a lot of what one finds in part 50 with respect fg 2
to the general type of application that the Commission deals V
3 with is just simply not applicable to this application.
4 JUDGE MARGULIES:
But there are other items that 5
we're concerned with, Mr. Bordenick.
For example, one of 6
the issues is specified by the Commission that we are 7
supposed to consider is the financial qualification of the 8
applicant. And here, from the way I read their application, 9
they are asking for an exemption.
10 MR. BORDFMICK:
Well, I can tell you that's one 11 exemption that will not be granted.
The financial 12.
qualifications is under review.
So on that particular one 13 there won't be an exemption on that one.
The matter is 14 being reviewed.
15 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Irving, what is the
(}
16 procedure you expect to follow in obtaining these 17 exemptions?
The regulations are, as tha Board reads them, 18 quite specific in terms of how to proceed to obtain an 19 exemption.
E::emptions are not readily granted by the 20 Commission.
The Board itself does not grant exemptions.
21 What procedure do you expect to follow?
22 MR. IRVING:
If Your Honor please, the exemptions 23 in this particular case, by and large, primarily address 24 radiological issues: the handling processing acquisition 25 such of special nuclear materials.
Heritage Reporting Corporat$on (202) 628-463C
~'
12 N.^
1 AlChemIE's license does not seek to enable us to
(~}
2 get special nuclear materials.
In our process to date*what U
3 we've done is list our exemptions with the staff.
And 4
again, they do go to this issue of primarily special nuclear 5
materials, list them, present to the staff our justification 6
for their nonapplicability.
7 And in terms of your earlier question as to what 8
affect it has; basically it has the affect to simplify the 9
proceedings and to take from the proceedings those issues 10 which clearly on their face have no relationship to the 11 AlChemIE application.
12 In terms of the procedure that we intend to 13 follow, Your Honor, we would take that as part of our formal 1*
record which we have sabmitted to the staff and submit that 15 in our formal submission to Your Honors; that explains our
{}
16 justification for the exemptions, a brief statement on the 17 purpose behind it and such.
18 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is that how you plan to proceed, 19 Mr. Bordenick?
20 MR. BORDENICK:
We intend to follow the normal 21 procedures that would be followed with any applicant in 22 seeking an exemption request.
23 I think in this particalar case, to a large 24 extent, not a total extent, the basis of the exemption is l
I 25 simply going to be, as Mr. Irving explained, the fact that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O
i l
t r
13 1
the particular requirement in question is just not r'
2 applicable to their application.
t 3
This is a unique application.
It is filed under 2
4 part 50.
There's some things we're not in total agreement 5
with the list that they've set forth as specifically was the 6
case with the financial qualifications.
There are probably 7
several.
8 I haven't looked at this matter recently, so my 9
recollection is somewhat hazy.
10 But I think the basis for their request and the 11 basis for our granting the exemption, and certainly a good 12 number of these cases is going to be that it's just totally 13 not applicable to the -- well, the application.
On other 14 ones where that's not the case the usual procedures on 15 seeking and granting e::emption will be followed.
}
16 JUDGE MARGULIES:
When you say the usual 17 procedures you are indicating a petition filed by the 18 applicant; a finding by the Board as to whether the 19 applicant has made a prima facie case, and if they have made 20 a prima facie case to certify the question to the 21 Commission.
Is that your understanding?
22 MR. BORDENICK:
Well, that's certainly one route 23 we could go.
I have not discussed it with the applicant or 24 with the staff in that context.
But that's certainly a 25 route we could go; yes.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
6-14 1
JUDGE MARGULIES:
I know of no other procedure.
2 MR. BORDENICK:
Well, the staff in the case, say, 3
of power reactors the staff routinely grants exemption 4
requests.
5 You' re speaking in terms of a waiver of the rules.
6 We' re talking in terms of if the staff has been delegated 7
the authority by the Commission to grant an exemption on 8
compliance with the given regulation; that's the vehicle 9.
that I was referring to.
10 JUDGE MARGULIES:
I would expect that the parties 11 will document their proposal as to how they intend to 12 proceed at the appropriate time.
13
-MR.
BORDENICK:
Well, that certainly will be the 14 case; yes.
(}
15 JUDGE MARGULIES:
As to the application for an 16 operating license, to date we don't have anyone 17 participating that is going to file any contentions.
So at 18 this point there are no issues before the Board in the 19 operating license proceeding.
20 Do you wish to be heard, Mr. Bordenick?
21 MR. BORDENICK:
Well, I don't know whether you 22 were finished.
23 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Yes.
24 MR. BORDENICK:
Your thought.
25 Well, I'm certainly in agreement with what you've Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
15 s
1-said.
I think I would probably go one step beyond that.
We (G~)
2 did notice with respect to the CPDF application, "e did 3
notice, as you've pointed out, both the construction permit 4
application and the operating license application, because 5
that's a facility that's presently in existence.
It 6
requires modification in it, as you pointed out, the CP 7
aspect is really in the context of modifying an existing 8
facility.
9 I think it's the staff's position that we've 10 noticed the operating license aspect.
There having been no 11 petitions to intervene that there's nothing pending at all 12 before this Board on the operating license aspect.
13 It's obviously conceivable that there could be a 14 late petition to intervene, and at that time I would assume 15 that this Board would, since it's familiar with the matters
{}
16 at hand, would be designated to rule on such petitions.
But 17 in the absence of such petitions the staff submits, in 18 actuality, nothing before the Board on the operating license 19 aspect.
20 JUDGE MARGULIES:
What would be the appropriate 21 timing of that, Mr. Bordenick, taking into consideration the 22 provisions of section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act?
23 MR. BORDENICK:
Well, I think what we contemplate 24 is, assuming that the staff is authorized to issue the 25 construction permit.
And again, I'm speaking only with Heritage Reporting Corporation pg (202) 628-4888 V
y 8
1
\\
16-1 respect to the CPDF application.
Once the staff has been 2
authorized by the Board to issue the construction permit and 3
3 the modification as made, I think=there's a 30 day waiting 4
period for issuance of the operating license, i
5 But essentially, our review on the CPDF 6
application for a construction permit in an operating 4
7 license runs in tandem.
We -- other than the 30 day waiting 8
period we would issue the -- after the 30 days, assuming all 9
things are as they should be at that time, we would issue 10 the operating license absent any approval from the Board to s
11 do so.
12 That's what I meant by, thera's nothing before the 13 Board on the operating license aspect, absent any timely or 14 untimely petitions to intervene which presently is the case.
15 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Are you suggesting that it would
[}
16 be timely for the Board to take that matter up at the 17 present time and to rule on that aspect of the application?
18 MR. BORDENICK:
I'm not quite sure I understand 19 the question.
Msybe it's because in my mind I don't know 20 what the Board is suppose to be ruling on with respect to 21 the --
22 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Well, the Board would have to 23 formalize their position.
24 MR. BORDENICK:
Oh, I see.
25 I think it would be appropriate to do that at the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O
q
-s
i 17 1
conclusion of the CP aspect of the case; yes.
,g 2
JUDGE MARGULIES:
At the conclusion of the CP
~V 3
aspect.
4 MR. BORDENICK:
Yes, because we don't know, again, 5
it's conceivable.
I am not anticipating any, but it's t
6 certainly conceivable that someone will file a late petition 7
to intervene on the operating license aspect.
And it's 8
logical that if that happens that this would be the logical 9
Board to rule at such a petition.
10 JUDGE MARGULIESt Thank you.
11 One of the matters that we should discuss here is 12 whether any of the matters under consideraticn involve 13 classified information.
And if there are matters that are 14 classified and se.feguards have to be taken, what procedures
(}
15 we should follow.
16 Is there anything classified about the equipment 17 or the buildings themselves?
I don't want to know details.
18 MR. IRVING:
Yes.
19 JUDGE MARGULIES:
But in terms of whether we are 20 dealing with classified material or not.
21 MR. IRVING:
We're dealing with both classified 22 materials and information, Your Honor, yes, sir.
23 If I might just add briefly, Your Honor, the 24 A1ChemIE facility will be a completely Q-cleared facility, 25 complete Q-cleared personnel working out of.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
W i
l' 18 A..-
4 1
MR.:BORDENICK:
Sorry, I didn't hear your comment?
/~N 2
FE.'IRVING:
Q-cleared facility.
b 3
MR. BORDENICK:
That was the last part, I didn't 4
hear the first nart.
5 MR. IRVING:
Q-cleared personnel.
6 MR. BORDENICK:
Which facility were you referring?
7 MR. IRVING:
Well, any facility.-
8 MR. BORDENICK:
Okay, thank you.
9 JUDGE MARGULIES:
How will that affect the hearing
^
10 process?
11 MR. IRVING:
Your Honor, to my knowledge, it 12 wouldn't affect it whatsoever.
Nothing that's classified or 13 none of the classification issues with respect to our 14 facility or operations really should come up on the issues 15 as they've been defined.
I don't see that would affect the
(}
16 hearing at all, sir.
17 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Bordenick?
18 MR. BORDENICK:
Well, I sort of agree with that in 19 part and disagree in part.
Perhaps I can set a few things 20 in context.
As I said earlier, both of these facilities 21 ultimately will be facilities that are production facilities 22 within the meaning of the Atomic Energy Act, but they won't 23 be used -- the application is not an application to use them 24 as production facilities, but they could be used as 25 production facilities; and that's the heart of the staff or Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-48G8
k, 19 1
the Commission's concerns and jurisdiction regarding this 2
application.
3 Some of the equipment, talking about the 4
centrifuges, some of them -- it's my understanding that some 5
parts are classified and some parts are not.
6 MR. IRVING:
That's correct.
7 MR. BORDENICK:
But unfortunately you're dealing 8
with the total package, so if part of it is classified, then 9
I suspect it's going to be pretty difficult to separate out 10 what is and what isn't, so pod might as well treat the whole 11 thing as classified.
12 Now, as I understand it there's going to be one 13 document, if and when these applications are approved, that 14 will contain both the physical security plan for this 15 facility.
In other words, how do you keep unnuthorized j (}
16 people out of the facility.
17 The other part of the document will be the 18 safeguards portion, which is to say, how do you prevent 19 either authorized people or unauthorized people from using 20 the facility for what it shouldn't be used for?
21 lt's my further understanding that the document 22 we' re dealing with is going to be marked proprietary, and 23 that's at the applicant's request.
24 Now, there are -- so in terms of classification, 25 we' re not talking in terms of these documents being secret Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
20 1
or top secret types of documents that'you would talk about rg 2
in terms of security and clearances _and that sort of thing, V
3 you're talking -- I guess the analogous -
for me at least, 4
the analogous situation is if you were -- if an application 5
for a power reactor were in front of this Board and an 6
intervenor had raised contentions regarding the physical 7
security plan, and that's been done in several cases as I'm 8
sure the Board is aware, there have been several Licensing 9
Boards.
10 There are procedures to be followed in how, for 11 example, I know the Board is compelled to review these 12 documents because there's an Appeal Board decision that says 13 they can't -
you can't write off, in effect, on the plan 14 without reading it.
{}
15 So I think your concern is, how do you get a hold 16 of the document, and once you get it what are you supposed 17 to do with it to make sure that unauthorized persons don't 18 ge: access to it.
If that's your question, I think there's 19 some very simple answers to that, which I can provide now or 20 later.
21 Also, if you're focusing specifically on 10 CFR 22 2.904 which was specified in your order as a matter for 23 discussion this morning, if you're looking for assistance, 24 staff certainly can offer it.
We have present -- actually, 25 we have present today the gentleman from our Office of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
21 1
Security.who happens to be the staff reviewer for this
's 2
particular application.
If the Board and the applicant have (d
3 no objection he can also generally advise the parties on 4
these procedures or if anyone deems it appropriate to have 5
someone who is not -- who's in effect not in the position of 6
having to approve or disapprove the plan, as this gentleman 7
would be, we do have other people available from the Office 8
of Security who can assist us.
9 I don't know if that, what I've said, clarifies 10 the matter or if you want me to indicate some of these 11 procedures which I personally have been following and havo 12 followed, rather, in other cas'es.
13 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Well, would you be good enough 14 to.
15 MR. BORDENICK:
Sure.
In this case, at some point
{}
16 in time the Board -- well, the Board is currently, I think, 17 in possession of -- as to each application.
And I think the 18 plan, the two books, so to speak, are going to be different 19 for the two facilities.
20 And just by way of a piece of information, the 21 CPDF facility, although it's on the Oak Ridge Reservation, 22 which is a federal reservation operated under contract for 23 the United States Department of Energy.
My understanding is 24 that the CPDF facility will be, in effect, a little carved-25 out enclave which will be treated as leased property, leased Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 4
i
+
22 1
private property, r~g 2
For example, we talked about the State of V
3 Tennessee this morning, one would think that the State of 4
Tennessee would not have authority to conduct whatever 5
matters within their jurisdiction on federal property, but 6
in the case of CPDF it's my understanding that's not the 7
case, since in effect you've got a private enclave on a 8
federal reservation.
9 But putting that aside, we don't have an 10 intervenor in this proceeding.
The parties and the Board 11 are all clear to, without more, to look at these documents.
12 You have an application in front of you on the 13 security plan.
I have been given to understand this morning 14 that that's not the current plan.
I think the applicant
(~}
15 needs to get you, assuming the Board is interested in 16 starting reading, its reading right now, needs to get you 17 the current version, although that version is still under 18 review by the staff.
So it's the current applicant's 19 version as opposed to the current -- Rev.
2, okay.
Rev.
2, 20 So I don't know if the Board is interested in 21 getting those documents now.
They can get them.
Those 22 documents along with any other document, all the Board needs 23 to do is to keep them in a -- I keep my, I'll call them 24 sensitive documents so to speak, any document I'm involved 25
-- this Board Chairman happens to be the Administrative Law Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
>t s
' i-
'23
..i 1
Judge, I'm involved in art enforcement proceedinr) or V
i r'
2 sensitive. documents that aren't classified in any sen.se of (j%
3
- the word,- but you just don't want people that don't need to 4
see it, to see it, so I keep it in a locked file cabinet in 5
my office.
I think that's all you need to do.
Just'take 6
steps to assure yourself that people that don't have, I 7
think the security people talk in terms of need to know, 8
don't have ready access to it.
But you don't need a special
}
9 safe.
10 In the case of Dr. Luebke who I know is now 11 receiving mail at his residence, all we need to do in a case 12 like that is to take whatever document you're sending, put 13 it in an envelope addressed to him, mark addressee only, and 14 then put it in another regular envelope with nothing on it 15 except his name and address.
That's all that needs to be
{}
16 done.
17 So I don't see any of the staff people tugging on 18 mo, so I guess I haven't said anything out of line.
19 If the Board please, I have with me the staff 20 project manager for this proceeding, Dr. A.
Thomas Clark, he 21 says that he might be able to add a few things that will 22 help the Board, also, if the Board would like to hear from 23 him.
24 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is there any objection?
25 MR. IRVING:
No, Your Honor.
Heritage 10aporting Corporation (202) 628-48C8 t
~
I 7
A.
+
24 l
1 DR.' CLARK:
The only thing I want to add,fJudge t
2 Margulies, is that the' staff is not relying on the
{
F 3
classified information per se in its review.
And I don't 4
presume to say what the Board will do; I don't know what the t
5 Board will do.
If you rely on classified information for 6
whatever you do it may be that some protection of that is 7
needed.
But so far we have not. relied upon classified 8
information in our review.
9 And so'we treat this security plan ao proprietary 10 information.
Well, no, it's both on the part of the request 11
'of the applicant and the staff.
The safeguards portions of 12 that plan are always treated by the staff as proprietary 13 information.
14 OUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Bordenick, do you see the
/~T 15 possibility where there would be an oral hearing when we U
16 would go into safeguards information?
17 MR. BORDENICK:
That's certainly a potential.
I 18 think that would be the Board's option.
Once you've 19 reviewed these documents, obviously, if you have questions 20 we'ree going to have to go into a public hearing.
I don't 21 know what the precise term is, but there would be a hearing 22 closed to the public, and in that regard in anticipation of 23 that possible eventuality the staff has had some discussions 24 with representatives of the Department of Energy down in or 25 over in Oak Ridge and they have offered the use of, what Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
[
}
?}-
s
's
.}
..g;
\\
y~
1 they call secured facilities for such a purpoce, in the x
/~T 2
event that becomes necessary.
5 O
,3
.And there's a conference room, sini:e such'a
>4 hearing would'be closed to the public,;just in round s
.i.j 5
numbers, I believe the NRC's contract for reporting services '
6 provider that they have someone who would be cleared to, 7
even though the hearing is closed to the public it's still 8
stenographically reported and goes into the Commission's 9
records, but albeit not in the document room where it would
-10 be -- in other words, it would not be availabl'e to the 11 public.
re
^
12 So taking into account the Board, the stenographic-13 reporter, parties and so forth, I came up with a round i
14 number of 15 people probably being involved in a hearing of 15 that sort.
And there's a conference room, a secured 16 conference rootn,. actually, in the CPDF facility; and there's 17 also a secured conference room in the federal building.
18 There's a federal building in the city of Oak Ridge, which 19 is: (a) in general not open to the public.
You need -- I l
20 mean, it's not difficult to get in there if you have 21 business with a government agency, but the particular room 22 that we could use would not, of course, be available to the 23 general public and it would be a secured room otherwise --
24 in other words, it has been checked for bugs or whatever 25 term, you know, people in that business use, along those Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
T y-
- y,
i 26 3
1-lines.
1,-
(^g '
2 So I've already ascertained that 'in the event it's
\\J 3
necessary for' the Board to hold a private htiaring, so to 4
speak, there are facilities in Oak Ridge which is only about 5
a 30, 40 minute drive from Knoxville.
6 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Bordenick, you mentioned 7
that the parties' representatives are cleared.
l 8
FR. BORDENICK:
The people that have a need to be 9
involved in it such as myself, the project manager, the 10 staff witnesses, the Board, I assume all have Q-clearance 11 from the Commission.
12 The applicant's people certainly -- well, I guess 13 not all of them are cleared, but certainly the ones that 14 would need to participate.
We would know whether they're
("%
15 cleared or not.
%-)
16 JUDGE MARGULIES:
As yet the State of Tennessee is 17 not a party, but do you he,ve any knowledge as to whether 18 they have people that are cleared?
19 MR. BORDENICK:
Well, I have not specifically 20 raised this topic with the State of Tennessee.
I've 21 discussed, generally discussed this application with the 22 Deputy Attorney General that originally filed the petition 23 who has since withdrawn his appearance and his successor.
24 And my understanding is they're not concerned with the 25 subject matters.
Heritage Reporting Corporation f--
(202) 628-4888 i
f 27
,1 Well, as I say, I've not asked them the question.
(~
2 I'm implying from the discussions I've had that they're riot (3/
3 interested in the subject matters that we've been discussing 4
for the last few moments, they're interested in other 5
matters.
6 But if they are -- if it turns out for some reason 7
or other that they are interested, I'm sure there are 8
procedures that we could follow.
And the staff would 9
certainly be glad to take the lead in making sure that, for 10 example, if the State did want to participate in that sort 11 of a hearing that only people who are qualified to do so 12 would in fact do so or it could, for example, include, as is 13 the case, say, you have an intervenor in a power reactor 14 proceeding contentions on safeguards materials, they execute 15 an affidavit of nondisclosure.
And they follow the same
(^)T u
16 sorts of procedures that the Board would follow, that I 17 would follow in making sure that the material they're 18 dealing with does not become generally available to people 19 who don't have a need to know about it.
20 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Thank you.
21 MR. BORDENICK:
Judge Margulies, one additional 22 administ.ative point that Dr. Clark pointed out to me, in 23 the event it does become necessary to use a DOE facility, 24 DOE has certain -- there's a form that everyone would have 25 to fill out.
I've done it.
It's a one page form.
And DOE, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O
t'
28 1
as I've indicated, or they indicated to me that they would r~T 2
fully participate -- not participate but cooperate with the V
3 NRC in implementing any of these procedures to use their 4
facilities, if necessary.
5 (Board conferring) 6 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is it your position, Mr.
7 Bordenick, that at this point that it really is premature to 8
look to anyone providing classification assistance under 9
2.9047 10 MR. bORDENICK:
Well, I guess you can imply from 11 what I said that that's correct.
I'm not -- you know, if 12 the Board wants us to designate either the reviewer or some 13 other person in the Division of Security, we have no problem 14 doing that.
But I think until the Board reads -- I think 15 the Board is going to want to read the current version of
{}
16 the applicant's plan and the staff's review thereof.
And at 17 that point you may decide you're satisfied with it and you 18 have no further questions, then the conversation we've had 19 over the last few minutes was an academic conversation.
20 So the staff is flexible.
I mean, we can -- if 21 you think you want to designate someone this morning, it can 22 either be the current reviewer, if the Board and the 23 applicant have no problem with that, I think he can, even 24 though he's the staff reviewer he can still give you 25 unbiased independent advice, generally speaking, or if Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O
~
29 1
anyone has concerns that-he's the staff reviewer there are fwI 2
one or two peoplu back at the NRC headquarters, the Ditision O
3 of Security, who are available.
I have ascertained that 4
before I came down.here.
5 JUDGE MARGULIES:
I think at the very least that 6
if we are going to have a reviewer, and it may not be 7~
necessary, I think we ought to wait: and see.
But I think we-8 should have an independent reviewer, someone other than the 9
one who has input.
10 MR. BORDENICK:
Frankly, that was my initial 11 reaction, too.
But in order to try to attempt to save staff 12 resources if, you know, I've made the suggestion that 3 f the 13 Board and the parties didn't have a problem we could use the 14 reviewer.
But if anyone feels they'd rather use the -- get
(~)
15 someone independent of the review, that's fine.
V 16 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Irving, do you have any 17 objection to using an independent reviewer from staff or 18 would you prefer to have someone appointed by the Commission 19 independent of staff?
20 MR. IRVING:
Your Honor, we have no problem using 21 an independent reviewer-from staff.
22 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Thank you.
23 (Board conferring) 24 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It's appropriate now to discuss l
25 further scheduling in the proceeding.
When can we expect to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O,
c 30 1
receive the safety evaluation report and the environmental.
2 review from staff?
7-}-
v 3
VR. BORDENICK:
We discussed this matttr with the-4 applichnt prior to today.
And, of course, the staff is not
't 5
going to be in a position co issue its final documents until 6
it has received all-tile inforroation it needs to receive from 7
the applicant.
There's still come pending matters that-they 8
have to submit.
9 t guess if you want to be overly cptimistic, we 10 might be finished the r(view &a early as four weeks from 11 now.
I think if you want to be -- in my own mind, if you 12 want to be more realistic, I think you caa cxpect to see the 13 staff re.-lew, assuming that the applicant gives us timely 14 submittal on what he owes us and assuming thoss submittals 15 arn what we' re looking for, J.'d say around six wecks or that
{
16 puts it probably 3n the time frame of Lebor Day.
17 I don' t know whether the applicant vents to follow 18 up on that aspect of scheduling or not.
19 MR. IP.VING :
Judge Margulies, as Mr. Bordtnick 20 knows, we do have a little bit different feeling about that 21 particular issue.
2P Again, there has ueen or we anticipate thure will 23 be a large amount of exemptione granted on rome of the 4
24 requirements of the Act, we don't have a powerplant and a 1
25 number of other reasons.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4888 f-)x l
'u
w 7
31
-1, And the application form that we have devised and 2
thw iasues have been fairly well narrowed, simpler and r-)
x/
3 generally the easier fona ars dealt with in these type of 4
proceedings.
5 We have given, there were thres requesto by NRC 6
for documents they had not received, and we gave them, I 7
guess, two of them yesterday, we still have one to come to 8
them.
So we'll have our part of it couplete by today or.
9 tomorrow at the latest and they will then havn all that 20 information.
11 The hearing for us is a culmination of three years 12 of trying to put into affect the Technology Transfer Act to II enable AlChen.IE to do our business.
The granting of a 14 license is one of our last steps, and then being able to be
/~
15 in a position where we 9sn effectuate Department of Energy V) 16 the lease on the CPDF facility and begin ou.T operations out 17 there.
18 I just say it just briefly, one, of course, the 19 reasons of the Technology Transfer het are not to benefit us 20 or just the benefit of DOE or NRC, because it benefits of 21 the folks of the transfer of technology on benefits.
Our 22 products -- we've got a lot of uses for our products and a 23 lot of other industries we have orders that are out there 24 waiting for us.
It's a very important thing to AlChemIE.
25 We've been spending three years of putting effort and Heritage Reporting Corporation i
(202) 628-4888 g3 G
I
l 32 1
expense out, and now it's time we're going to be able to get
. ~s 2
some recompense for our efforts.
.,]
3 So I urged Mr. Bordenick and Mr. Clark and the NRC 4
staff, if they, on this application, have means available to 5
cut their review time or carve out an enclave from their 6
normal review schedule and make it smaller and get their 7
review completed and to this Board as quickly as possible.
8 And we spoke about this yesterday, it is not 9
impossible, we don't feel, that the staff -- that our 10 information can be to staff and that their staff review can 11 be completed within this four week period, not just the s'.x
- L2 week, the outside, but actually within a four week period.
33 And so we -- I would urge on this Board to 14 consistent, of course, with all your concerns and
{^s}
requirements to take every step possible to expeditiously 15 r
16 schedule this matter.
And I know that the NRC staff and Mr.
17 Bordenick are going to be putting every effort for 18 themselves to get the review completed as quickly as 19 possible.
20 I certainly don't want to err in trying to seek a 21 date we might not be able to meet and ther. anuse problems of A2 havina that said and not being able to moet it.
But I do 23 feel like that we can get this done, this last step done 24 quicker than the six weeks, hopefully wit),in the four week 25 period.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 C4
)-
..j; 33 i
And, Your Honor, we're seeking to be in CPDF'and r"N 2
ready to begin our operations, our goal for a program we've d
,3 had ongoing, is fc; September 15th.
And that's what we've 4
been trying for.
That'? the dates we've been having to work V
5 with on our commercial accounts.
And, of course,.you know, 6
a lot of things have delayed this.
This, of course, is a
/
-7 little later than we had hoped it'would be and such.
8 But again, I just ask this Board if any steps 9
available to the Board consistent with your concerns that 10 you could expedite review on this matter or look at.it as 11 quickly as possible.
I know you all are busy on other 12 matters as well, but I would like just to make the 13 applicant's position and concern on the clear.
14 JUDGE PARIS:
Mr. Irving, on June 21, 1988 the 15 staff sent to AlChemIE Isotope Enrichnent, Inc. a request
(}
16 for some additional information and which, to my knowledge, 17 you have not sent to the staff yet.
18 MR. IRVING:
If Your Honor pleases, we received a 19 couple from the NRC, request for additional information.
I 20 personally participated in drafting responses to them, and I 21 don't have that particular document in front of me.
If four l
22 Honor -- Judge Paris, tell me which.
23 JUDGE PARIS:
It was a cover letter nddressed to 24 the attention of Mr. Pfeifer from Mr. Clark, and l
25 accompanying it was a request for additional information Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
36 1
to get the revised application to the Board?
1 2
MR. IRVING:
Again, Your Honor, those matters will 7g
%0 3
be prepared, as far -- to ny xnowledge, Mr. Pfeifer is 4
=present with me, that should be available today.
5 We anticipate this Board having it in their 6
possession by tomorrow.
7 (Board conferring) 8 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Do the parties have anything 1
9 else they wish to discuss at this time?
l 10 MR. IRVING:
On behalf of AlChemIE, the 11 applicants, Your Honor, no.
12 MR. BORDENICK:
On behalf of the staff, and again 13 this is a matter that I discussed with A1ChemIE, I wanted to 14 make a suggestion on how we could proceed once the staff's r]
15 review was complete.
L 16 And by the way, the staff -- this is not a case 17 where the staff's review documents will be -- have to go to 18 a printer and..be bound and that sort of thing.
We will --
19 as soon as the staff's review is finished we will have the 20 results of that review in the Board's hands the same day 21 it's finished, assuraing it doesn't come at the very end of l
l 22 the day.
23 So we're not going to lose any time with printers.
14 And since the Doard and the staff are both in the l
Aetropolitan Washington area we can make arrangements to get l
Heritage Reporting Corporation S
(202) 628-4888
/
l
~
37 1
you those documents probably within hours of our haviny them
)
l 2
available.
So we won't lose any time in that regard.
(^),
1
'(_
3 But since this is an uncontested proceeding there 4
are some time savir.g, for example, there'a no discovery in 5
this case.
There's not going to be any motions for summary-6 disposition, that sort of thing.
7 I think on:e the staff's review is finished, where
'8 we go and how we get there is, in large part, going to be 9
determined by the Soard's reading of the document.
10 So I would suggest that when the Board -- the 11 Board has read the documents that they institute a 12 conference call with the applicant and the staff, and may or 13 may not want to have it stenographically reported and we can 14 determine such things as, do we need another pre-hearing
' /"T 15 conference.
If not, can we start, you know, move the V
16 scheduling process along at that point.
17 I think that staff's suggestion was really in 18 response to the applicant's concern that their application 19 move along as speedily as possible.
And it seems t'o me that 20 to sit here today and try to plan a schedule would be 21 counterproductive.
But the way to proceed is when tts Board
[
l 22 gets the documents, these documents -- this is -- again, 23 this is not your normal power reactor case with humongous 24 documents.
You're talking about documents that are 25 manageable.
The reading time on them should not be that t
(3 Heritage Reporting Corporation l
l (402) 628-4888 w
~]
1 l
l 38 1
significant as would be the case with a power reactor.
(~)
2 So that when the Board has read and digested, the
%J 3
application, obviounly, I'm sure the reason asked when they 4
would have the carrent version in their hand is that the 5
Board can start reading that now.
And then the staff 6
documents, once you have read and digested those, then I 7
think we can see where we go.
8 And I think the way to proceed expeditiously is to 9
have the Board institute a conference call, and then we can 10 see where we are and where we go from there.
11 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Well, when your safety 12 evaluation reports and environmental reviews are completed, 13 you're going to go back to the applicant with those, aren't 14 you, in terms of trying to get things rectified before.
15 coming to the or using the term rectified, before coming to
[}
16 the Board.
17
!!R. BORDENICK:
Dr. Clark is saying, yes.
I'm not 18
-- I think things will already be rectified.
19 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Woll, we discussed the'possible 20 problem of financial fitness.
21 MR. BORDENICK:
That will be -- the determination 22 of whether they are qualified or not will be set forth in 23 the evaluation.
Now, I guess your question is predicated on d
24 a finding by the, staff that one aspect or another the 25 applicant -- well, in the case of financial qualifications, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O
{
l
39
+
1 for example, you're suggesting what happens if the staff 2
makes a finding that they're not firmancially qualified?
3 JUDGE MARGULIES:
I'm preceding the thought that 4
applicant is looking for an exemption, so you're not going 5
to have anything in terms of --
6 MR. BORDENICK:
Well, he's not going to get an 7
exemption from all of part 50.
8 JUDGE MARGULIES:
So how is that going to work 9
into this schedu3e in terms of when the Board will step in?
10 Are you going to go back to the applicant?
11 MR. BORDENICK:
That will all be taken care of in 12 this time frame we've been talking about.
13 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Go ahead.
14 MR. IRVING:
Judge Margulies, if I could make one 15 clarification.
The applicant has requested an exemption
{}
16 from those scrutinies of financial qualifications that set 17 out certain criteria relating to powerplants; the costs 18 involved there, the various expenditures that we had to show 19 that we have the ability to put forth, but were related to 1
20 powerplants.
21 Now, we've never requested an exemption at anytime 22 or had at any time tried to request an exemption from 23 providing NRC in terms of our own -- for our own personal 24 business plan with our financial qualifications.
25 Indeed, the staff, I'm certain, will quickly be
{
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 l
a 40 1
impressed by the financial qualifications of AlChemIE.
I l
2 think if there's been any kind of a misimpression before 3
thls Board that AlchemIE has sought to do that, for any 4
reason other than that relates to powerplants, and it's not 5
applicable to the AlChemIE situation itself.
But certainly 6
it's a valid,and legitimate concern of NRC that AlChemIE has 7
the financial ability to perform.
We've already been 8
through that review five or six times before we've gotten 9
here with various government industries or entities.
That 10 occurred in fact before we were even awarded the contract by 11 the Department of Energy.
12 So that work from AlChemIE standpoint is 13 essentie11y completed.
It's ready to give to the staff 14 members.
And I have concern whatsoever that that's going
{}
15 to take anything longer than a standard review, Your Honor.
16 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Do you wish to say something, 17 Mr. Bordenick?
18 MR. BORDENICK:
I do.
On the exemption question, 19 I think using the term "exemption" has created some 20 confusion.
21 For example, we're not talking in terms of 22 granting them an exemption from the requirements for the 23 emergency core cooling system.
This facility doesn't have' 24 an emergency core cooling system.
25 What we're suggesting is, those provisions of part Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O,
41 1
E 0, for example, relate to an emergency core cooling system r~
2 are simply not applicable.
U) 3 I think the list should have been called a 4
nonapplicability list as opposed to an exemption.
Now there 5
admittedly are some areas, for example, financial P
6 qualification, they originally said they should be exempted 7
from that requirement totally.
And I will be candid with 8
the Board and say that the staff felt that was not the case, 9
but the staff really didn't know what the financial 10 qualifications review in this case should consist of.
11 So there was a lot of groping around as to what it 12 should consist of; and that was finally determined.
It is 13 my understanding that the applicant is providing what it is 14 that we have asked for.
{~'}
Now in that situation the Board may feel that the 15 16 staff's review wasn't -- it has been a very narrow financial 17 qualifications review because of the nature of the 18 application.
It's conceivable; of course, the Board may 19 disagree with that, that it should have been a wider focus.
20 But in an area, again, such as an emergency core 21 cooling system, obviously, we're not going to do a review of 22 that because there's nothing to review.
23 And so we're really talking, not about exemptions 24 per se, as nonapplicability.
In the case where -- it's not 25 a question of, if the regulation requires three warning Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O
9 42 1
lights with bulbs of 60 watts, do they want to uso 40 watts.
2 It's a question that they don't need the warning lights
' {]/
s-3 period because it's totally inapplicable to this 4
application.
5 So that's what you're dealing with here, is 6
nonapplicability as o,rposed to exemptions.
7 JUDGE MARGULIES:
But there are other areas in 8
regard to safeguards.
9 MR. BORDENICK:
There are.
Yes, there are.
- And,
)
10 of course, the Board is free as it would be in any situation 11 where the regulation is applicable.
And in some instances, 12 again, because of the type of application you're dealing 13 with, the staff has narrowed its focus.
14 The Board is certainly free to disagree with the 15 way the staff focused.
But I don't think the Board is in a
{}
16 position to say we should have looked at, for example, the 17 emergency core cooling system regulations for this P
18 application.
Because clearly, that's not applicable.
19 (Board conferring) 20 JUDGE MARGULIES:
I assume in your submissions, 21 Mr. Bordenick, you will make clear the distinction of what 22 are exemptions and what are --
23 MR. BORDENICK:
We will certainly attempt to do l
1 24 that.
Hopefully, that will be the case.
25 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is there anything further?
I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-s l
_ ---. - _ = _
s 43 l
1' (No response) 2 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The pre-hearing conference is c,
3 concluded.
Thank you.
. 4
- (Whereupon, at 10:40 a.m. the conference was 5
concluded.)
6 7
8 9
10 i
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 l
I 20 21 l
l 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O.
'w--*m,>--gry w
g w g nymg v-
m per p + + mmey-w m-s gg
+---eW-699 u---*---'+TN-'
,--e--
w 4w-w-o.
m
.w--s
--ww-a a m w-e eaee e-n
--W-+mme- - -=n eww &c
+e,emsw--
r s-F-y--
l l
+
1 CERTIFICATE
('i 2
N) 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the ma'tter 5
of:
^
6' Name:
FACILITY-1 CPDF); ALL CHEMICAL ISOTOPE ENRICHMENT, 7
INC. (ALCHEMIE FACILITY-2, OLIVER EPRINGS)
(PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE) 8 Docket Number:
50-603-CP/OL, 50-604-CP 9
Place:
KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE JULY 21, 1983 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 13 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 14 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the 15 direction of the court reporting company, and that the 16 transcript is a true and accurate record of the for j
17 proceedings.
/
1 1
18
/s/ i
</ NP 19 (Signature typed) :
KENT ANDRENS 20 Official Reporter 21 Heritage Reporting Corporation 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-. - -