ML20197B246
| ML20197B246 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1350 OLA, NUDOCS 8610280290 | |
| Download: ML20197B246 (150) | |
Text
--_ - - - - - - - -
6R"Gl NAL m
G UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-133-OLA PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY PREHEARING CONFERENCE c- >
LOCATION: EUREKA, CALIFORNIA PAGES: 1 - 141 DATE: TUESDAY. OCTOBER 21, 1986 po\
- \\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -
OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 861028029C 6610J1 (202)347-3700 PDR ADCC^ O 5 00 '.' t 3 3 I PDR NATIONWIDE COVERACE
c I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 DEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
- DOCKET NOS. 50-133-OLA 5 In the Matter of: -
(DECOMMISSIONING) 6 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ASLPP NO. 8G-563-07-CA 7 (HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT UNIT NO.3) (PREHEARING CONFERENCE) 8 9 Colonnade Room Eureka Inn 10 Seventh and F Streets Eureka, California 11 Tuesday, October 21, 198G5 12
,- 13 The above-entitled matter came on for prehearing
' s'
-. 14 conference pursuant to Notice at 9:30 a.m.
15 BEFORE:
16 ROBERT M. LAZO, Administrative Law Judge JAMES A. CARPENTER, 17 Administrative Judge (Technical)
PETER A. MORRIS, 18 Administrative Judge (Technical) 19 APPEARANCES:
20 On behalf of the NRC Staff:
21 MARY E. WAGNER, ESQ.
MITZI A. YOUNG, ESQ.
On behalf of the Licensee:
23 BRUCE NORTON, ESQ.
24 RICHARD F. LOCKE, ESQ.
77 Beale Street, Suite 2711 25 San Francisco, California 9410G f
w./
r 2
I On behalf of the Intervenors:
2 SCOTT L. FIELDER, ESQ.
517 Third Street, Suite 14 3 Eureka, California 95501 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 1
15 16 17 l
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1
25 ,
i
2A 1
1NQEE 2
3 PAGE OPENING STATEMENT 4 ON BEIIALF OF TIIE INTERVENORS 11 5
6 WITNESSES:
7 None 8
9 EXIIIBITS :
10 None 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 G
V l
l-.-.. -.
3 1 P E O Q E E E I_ E G_ E 2 9:30 a.m.
3 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE LAZO: Good morning, 4 ladies and gentlemen.
5 Wil; this pre-hearing conference come to order, 6 please.
7 This Is an administrative proceeding before an 8 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the matter of Pacific 9 Gas and Electric Company, Ilumboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 10 No. 3.
33 The proceeding is identified as United States 12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket No. 50-133-OLA, the OLA 13 identifying it as an amendment to an operating license.
,7- .
' The proposed administrative action is the issuance m 34 15 of amendments to the licensee's facility operating license 16 which would approve specific Pacific Gas and Electric's 17 Ilumboldt Bay decommissioning plan.
18 On July 3, 1986, the NRC published in the Federal 19 Register, a Notice of Consideration of the issuance of an 20 amendment to the liumboldt Bay Power Plant Unit No. 3 and 21 offered an opportunity for a hearing on the amendment. That 22 notice set August 4th, 1986 as a deadline for the filing of 23 a Request for IIearing and Petition for Leave to Intervening.
24 In response to that Notice, the Redwood Alliance, 25 an unincorporated organization; Wesley Chesbro, a member of v
4 1 the Ilumboldt County Board of Supervisors; Douglas II. Bosco, 2 a United States Congressman; Barry Keene, a member of the 3 California Legislature; and Daniel Lee IIauser , a California 4 State Assemblyman, filed a joint request for a hearing and 5 for leave to intervene.
6 By Order dated August 26th,* the Licensing Board in 7 this proceeding scheduled a pre-hearing conference for here i
8 today at this location. The Notice was given general public l
9 distribution, including the news media, and was published in
}
10 the Federal Register on September 3.
11 Thereafter, on September 19, more than six weeks 12 after the filing deadline, the League of-Women Voters of 13 Ilur boldt County, and Gaye Barr, a Board Member of the
(
) 14 League, filed a late request for hearing and a petition to 15 intervene.
16 Now, let me briefly introduce the members of this 17 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Judge James A.
18 Carpenter, seated at my left, your right, is a Chemical 19 Oceanographer. Dr. Carpenter has been a member of the 20 Licensing Board panel since 1981.
21 Seated at my right is Judge Peter A. Morris, a 22 Nuclear Physicist. Dr. Morris also joined the Atomic Safety 23 and Licensing Board panel in 1981.
24 I am a lawyer and a Radiation Chemist and have 25 been a member of the Licensing Board panel since 1970.
k, )
~ _ , ,'
i 5
Now let me next call for appearances by the h 1 2 Parties. For the licensee?
3 MR. NORTON: Yes, my name is Bruce Norton, 4 representing Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Seated to my 5 immediate right is Richard Locke, an attorney with Pacific 6 Gas and Electric Company; and to my left is Terry Nelson, 7 the Plant Manger of Humboldt.
8 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Nelscn is Plant Manager?
9 MR. NORTON: Yes.
10 JUDGE LAZO: Thank you. And for the United States 33 Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
12 MS. YOUNG: Good morning. My name ic Mitzi Young; 13 I am representing the NRC staff. Seated to my right is the
\ __ / 14 Project Manager who is not entering an appearance in this 15 Proceeding. His name is Peter Erickson. And, en my left, 16 is my co-counsel, Ms. Mary E. Wagner, who will be filing 17 Notice of Appearance in this proceeding under the terms of 18 the law.
19 JUDGE LAZO: Thank you, Counselor.
20 And, for the joint petitioners?
21 MR. FIELDER: Good morning, members of the Board.
22 My name is Scott Fielder. I am the attorney for 23 the intervenors, the Redwood Alliance, the Honorable Douglas 24 Bosco, the Honorable Barry Keene, the Honorable Dar 25 Hauser,and the Honorable Wesley Chesbro; and I have beer h
b, I Q ./
l
6 1 acting as, in a sense, as the amicus curiae for the League 2 of Women Voters and helping them with their petition.
3 JUDGE LAZO: Is there a representative of the 4 League of Women Voters present?
5 MS. BARR: Yes.
6 JUDGE LAZO: Would you let us have your name, 7 please.
8 MS. BARR: Yes; my name is Gaye Barr.
9 JUDGE LAZO: You are Ms. Barr?
10 MS. BARR: Yes.
11 JUDGE LAZO: Welcome. Are you represented by 12 counsel in this proceeding?
, 13 MS. BARR: Mr. Fielder.
_- 14 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Fielder is representing you and 15 the League.
16 MR. FIELDER: If that is her understanding, then, 17 yes, I would accept that representation.
18 JUDGE LAZO: Are there present any other members 19 of state or local or municipal organizations who would wish 20 to render an appearance in this proceeding?
21 MS. SKLAREVSKY: My name is Valerie Sklarevsky; 22 and I am representing the cancer victims in this Humboldt 23 Bay SAFSTOR.
24 JUDGE LAZO: Well, we are not looking for 25 speeches. I wondered if anybody wanted to file a writter t
\_,/
l
7 1 appearance statement.
2 MR. ROSSMAN: What is a written appearance 3 statement?
4 JUDGE LAZO: Offering to file a Petition to 5 Intervene in this proceeding, is what we are talking about.
6 MR. ROSSMAN: Well, I'll offer to do that.
7 JUDGE LAZO: Well, I haven't seen any other 8 Petitions.
9 MR. ROSSMAN: Well, I've been writing letters to 10 you and the NRC about the nuclear problem for years and 13 years and years. I would like to intervene.
12 JUDGE LAZO: We are here, sir, to hear all
- 13 argument on whether or not there should be a public hearing
('
'; 34 in this application for an amendment to decommission the 15 plant. The Notice of Opportunity provided --
16 MR. ROSSMAN: Sir, where would the hearing be if 17 there were to be a hearing. Would it be here in Humboldt 18 County or in Washington?
19 JUDGE LAZO: If there is a hearing, it will be 20 here.
21 MR. ROSSMAN: I see.
22 JUDGE LAZO: I have to tell you that you woulc.
23 have a hard burden of proving good cause for the late filinc 24 if you were to file a Petition to Intervene at this time.
25 It is certainly possible that you could meet that burden.
m .j
8 1 And I would advise you to talk to counsel for the NRC staff 2 at a recess.
3 MR. ROSSMAN: The burden shouldn't be on the 4 public who lives in this state. The burden should be on 5 you -- you know, it's not harmful to us over the years.
6 Thirty years is a long time.
7 JUDGE LAZO: If we have a public hearing in this 8 proceeding, all of the members of the public who wish to 9 file an oral or a written statement by way of a limited to appearance will be permitted to do so at the opening stage 11 of the opening portion of the evidentiary hearing.
12 You will have an opportunity to file those
- 33 statements. You don't have to 'ile a Petition to Intervene.
x ,,, 14 But, please, let's not hold everyone up. If you would ash 15 the counsel for the staff to provide you with the 16 information as to how you file a Petition to Intervene, I am 17 sure that she will accommodate you.
18 A VOICE: Do we need to talk to her right now?
19 JUDGE LAZO: Please do it at a recess.
A VOICE: Do I understand this right, that we will 20 21 be able to speak individually, as a community, as well, tc make comments to you?
22 JUDGE LAZO: Not today. This is not art 23 24 evidentiary proceeding; we are here to have all argument 25 from counsel. The public is welcome to attend; all our m
e
I 9
1 meetings are open and fully on the record.
2 But we normally do not entertain any limited 3 appearance statements until the beginning of the evidentiary 4 hearing. It would be our plan to do so when and if there is 5 a hearing in this proceedings.
6 MS. BLACKBERRY: Can you tell us today if they are 7 going to give us that hearing or not?
8 JUDGE LAZO: 1 don't know. We haven't heard the 9 arguments yet. It is possible that that would be a ruling 10 from the bench. More likely, it would come in a few days, 11 or at least a week, after we get the transcript and get back 12 to Washington.
,7- 13 Now, Mr. Fielder?
x- 14 MR. FIELDER: yes. Members of the panel, I had 15 completed introducing the intervenors I am representing in 16 this case. I would like to introduce them now, if I would 17 be given that opportunity.
18 JUDGE LAZO: Please do so.
19 MR. FIELDER: This is Barry Keene. Mr. Keene is a 20 State Senator here in California and an intervenor in this 21 action. My intention today is to request the Board 22 entertain a brief statement, not just a statement of 23 contentions from the counsel, but a brief statement from the 24 specific intervenors requesting intervention in the case.
25 They will be fairly brief in nature; and I think sm. p
10 I it will be in the best spirit of fully airing the 2 intervenors' contention if each one of them -- there are 3 only five --- would be allowed a brief moment to set forth on 4 the record their observations on their contention.
5 JUDGE LAZO: It is unusual, Mr. Fielder. They 6 have retained you as counsel; and you are their 7 spokesperson. We want to get on with oral argument on the 8 individual contentions that you and the League have filed so 9 that we can decide the questions of standing and whether or 10 not admissible contentions will be granted.
11 ;. MS. TENORIO: Is there any way you can set 12 microphones in front of theses people so their voices are 7m 13 more audible? They are all speaking from one mike.
( i N_ 14 JUDGE LAZO: We only have the one mike at each 15 counsel table. We can have that be moved around in front of 16 the people speaking.
17 Can you hear me all right?
18 VOICES: Yes.
19 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Fielder, what are you suggesting 20 in terms of time?
21 MR. FIELDER: I would request that each of the 22 intervenors be given three to five minutes to give a brief 23 statement of position. And then we can proceed with the 24 more formal handling of the contention.
25 JUDGE LAZO: We will agree with your request.
1 m
i
11 1 Mr. Keene may proceed.
2 STATEMENT OF HONORABLE BARRY KEENE 3 SECOND ASSEMBLY DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLAT'JRE 4 MR. KEENE: Thank you very much.
5 I am Senator Barry Keene, a member of the 6 California State Legislature. I represent California's 7 Second Senate District which geographically includes some 8 some 650,000 residents along the north coast of California, 9 most of which are quite concerned about having an adequate 10 opportunity to state their views and concerns about this 11 issue.
12 I have been involved in nuclear safeguard laws and
- 13 similar legislation in California over the years. I have
~
14 been involved personally in the issue before you since 15 December 4th, 1984, when I presented testimony before the 16 Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the Public Scoping Sessior 17 on the DES, the Draft Environmental Statement for the ,
18 decommissioning of Unit No. 3.
19 I specifically requested a full-scale 20 environmental analysis of decommissioning alternatives with 21 special emphasis on seismic factors, leakage, worker 22 exposure, and the adjacent marine environment.
23 In a letter dated May 22th of this year to Herbert 24 Berkow, Standardization and Special Projects Directorate, 25 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I requested an extension of
12 I the public comment period on the DES and requested that a 2 public hearing be held in the local area.
3 The NRC denied the request for a public hearing 4 and I wrote to the NRC again on July 28th of this year 5 requesting a public hearing, citing the President's Council 6 on Environmental Quality guidelines that a public hearing be 7 held under specified circumstances.
8 It is difficult, therefore, and I think you can 9 experience some of the tension in the room from some of the 10 people who felt that they haven't had an opportunity to be II heard, that we are here before you again on October 21st 12 requesting a public forum to consider the issues and p 13 possible consequences of storing radioactive material in a s i
/ 14 seismically active area, near a major city, for about 30 15 years.
16 A public hearing really should have been held 17 within a month of the August 15th, 198G expiration date for 18 written comments on the DES.
19 I raised some concerns -- and I will just cover 20 them very briefly; I know you do have time problems -- about 21 the adequacy of the DES. And I will try to summarize those.
22 The first is environmental setting. One of the.
13 most serious oversights in the DES is the failure to provide 24 a detailed description and analysis of the environmental setting of the proposed decommissioning activities.
,m s_
13 1 Ilumboldt Bay is the largest coastal wetland and 2 estuarine area in California; and it serves as the habitat 3 and spawning grounds for numerous species of fish and 4 shellfish, anchovies, salmon, steelhead, rockfishes, 5 flatfishes, market crab, and oysters.
6 Some 750 acres of the Bay's bottom are used for 7 the commercial production of oysters. And, additionally, 8 the surrounding areas of the Bay serve as habitat for 9 numerous bird species and other wildlife. The DES is 10 absolutely silent on these very important features of the 11 area.
12 The second is site characterization. It appears
- 13 to be a glaring omission of the DES. It doesn't adequately l
14 characterize the site for the vicinity of Unit No. 3. There 15 is little, if any, treatment of groundwater, local soil 16 conditions, and the overall hydrogeologic nature of the 17 area.
18 That kind of assessment is critical in light of 19 the identification in the DES of continuous leakage, since 20 196G, of radioactive liquid from the spent fuel pool, which 21 has resulted in some soll contamination.
12 Third are seismic factors. In light of the fact 23 that the licensee, P.G.& E., decided in July of 1976 to shut 24 down Unit No. 3 for seismic modifications, it is imperative 25 that the final environmental statements contain a thorough s
14 I analysis of the relevant seismic factors and give serious 2 consideration to the interaction of those factors with the 3 hazardous materials that are stored on site.
4 The very cursory treatment of seismic factors in 5 DES avoids probably the most important environmental issued 6 in considering the decommissioning of Unit No. 3.
7 Fourth is public exposure. The DES presents 8 technical information on the dose assessment and risks of 9 human exposure to radionuclides, yet the document fails to 10 explain exactly what the licensee's Radiation Protection II Program entails.
12 Description of this program and inclusion in the
,, 13 FES of evacuation plans to be implemented in the event of a
' 14 worst case scenario would help allay many of the public's 15 concerns regarding the proposal.
16 Number five is the decommissioning plan. And, 17 while the DES includes a section entitled the 18 Decommissioning Plan, the document fails to explain uhat the 19 plan actually does.
20 The section is very superficial; it makes blanket 21 statements without providing any details at all. For 22 example, a statement is made on page 1-5 that the plan 23 ensures that contaminated water is removed from certain 24 systems and tanks. How? And where does that contaminated 25 water go? We need to know those things.
15 1 In conclusion, I believe that the DES is seriously 2 flawed and that the final EIS has to be substantially 3 revised to address the kinds of concerns that we have been 4 talking about.
5 Without adequate treatment of the environmental 6 setting, a detailed site characterization, a thorough 7 analysis of seismic factors, and emergency response and 8 evacuation plans spelled out in detail, the document does 9 not appear, to me, to meet the requirements of the National 10 Environmental Policy Act and the Council on Environmental 11 Quality Regulations.
12 One thing that is particularly difficult -- in
- 13 reviewing the NRC staff position on the eight contentions i ;
' _ 14 that were proposed by petitioners, it states:
15 "The contention does not identify 16 hazardous materials and it is not clear 17 that such materials are within the NRC's 18 jurisdiction to regulate or have a nexus 19 to the proposed action."
20 This is probably the key issue in the license 21 amendment proceedings, the proposed decommissioning would 22 store spent nuclear fuel rods in a spent 'uel pool on site 23 for some 30 years. We've recently learned from geologiste 24 that the Little Salmon Fault, which cuts right acrose 25 Ilumbold t Bay, just to the southwest of the site that is ir.
,~
I
16 I
questions, could generate an 8.0 Richter-scale earthquake.
2 NRC staff also rejected contention 4, the worst I
case scenario, stating, quote:
4 "The issue of whether adequate emergency 5 response can be taken in event of a 6 nearby seismic event, is an issue which 7 Commission has ruled cannot be the 8 considered in individual licensing 9 cases."
10 Nell, if the NRC doesn't consider this issue, who II is going to consider the issue? If a natural cataclysm 12 befalls the Humboldt Bay are, and the integrity of SAFSTOR
^. 13 is violated, we have a very serious problem on our hands.
- - I4 The FE3 and the Safety Evaluation Report really 15 must consider a worst case scenario that could involve an 16 8.0 earthquake on the Richter scale, a potential loss of 17 water from the spent fuel pool, crushed storage casks, 18 and potential increased temperatures and resultant fire,
~9 radioactive release.
0 If this should happen at any time during the 30-21 we had better have thought out an year storage period, 22 evacuation plan in advance.
23 me the staff's statement on That brings to 24 Natural Gas Contention 7, Proximity of the two P.G.& E.
25 Units. And the staff says about that, quote:
(
17 I "The staff objects to the contention 2 which seeks to litigate the environmental 3 impacts associated with earthquake damage 4 at the two gas-fired unites on the site.
5 These units are not within the scope of 6 the Notice of Hearing published on the 7 amendment application."
8 Well, the two fossil-fuel units might not be 9 within the scope of these proceedings but, if the same 10 natural disaster that I just described causes an explosion II and/or fire at Units 1 or 2, which are right next to the 12 stored nuclear fuel rods, we could have the same critical em 13 situation.
14 The NRC must really should consider all possible 15 events which could lead to a release of radioactivity from 16 the site.
17 In closing, I just want to reiterate the 18 importance on the public hearing on the license amendment.
I9 Because of the kinds of uncertainties surrounding 20 this proposal, the need for additional working to be done, 21 you really ought to have broad public involvement in the 22 proceedings.
23 It's imperative that the people of the Humboldt 24 officials be afforded an Bay area and their elected 25 opportunity to appear before the Atomic Safety and Licensing
/
I 18 I Doard in order to express their concerns about these things.
2 The public hearing, as it seems to me, should be I
scheduled after the FES and SER are made public and before, before any Board action on the license amendment.
5 I also feel very strongly that my rights and my 6 and mental health and constituents' rights to physical safety can only be protected by the continuance of a seismic 8 monitoring and analysis program at the site and by the 9 removal of all radioactive materials from the facility at 10 the earliest possible time.
II Thank you very much for affording me this time.
12 JUDGE LAZO: Thank you, Senator Keene, r - -
I3 Mr. Fiedler, who is next?
'- I4 MR. FIELDER: The next intervenor representative 15 will be Dan llauser.
16 ,
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
\
3 3 ,/
19 1 1 STATEMENT OF HONORABLE DAN HAUSER 2 SECOND ASSEMBLY DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 3 MR. HOUSER: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Panel, 4 my name is Dan Howzer, Assemblyman, Second District, California 5 Legislature. I represent the counties of Del Norte, Humboldt, 6 MendocinoandSono$aof'theCaliforniacoast, approximately 7 350,000 people.
8 Prior?fto that,. I was on the city council'and Mayor 9 of the City of Arcata and on that council for a period of 10 approximately eight years. I am not going to read a long
, ,q, 11 statement, but I would like to have. that statement itself 12 submitted to the record. I would like to highlight a few U
] 13 points.
14 I w uld like to thank you for this opportunity and I 15 w uld primarily like to go on record with respect to asking you 16 to allow for maximum public comment and input on this issue g7 today and, if necessary, tomorrow.
18 L cal and concerned citizens have long watched this 19 nuclear power plant's retirementand ultimate decommissioning 20 process move forward slowly. I don't believe that the 21 sluggish decommissioning process it the primary concern.
22 However, during that time the nuclear power industry 23 has come under a new microscope as the result of various
[
)
24 incidents, and particularly the recent Chernobyl catastrophe, 25 This issue, as you know, is volatile and is extremely
20 2 1 complicated. Therefore, the public's participation in the 2 decommissioning process must be even more accessible.
3 I must add that I find the bureaucratic process by 4 which this prehearing conference has come about extremely 5 cumbersome and partly uncalled for. I am glad that it is 6 happening, however.
7 As you recall, what we-had originally requested as 8 an additional public hearing on a draft environmental statement 9 for the decommissioning of the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant.
10 That draf t EIC preparation has been going on at this point for 11 almost two years.,
12 At the current rate of technological advancement, 13 any number of new founds can be made during that time frame.
l 14 Again, what we need is a hearing on that specific proposal.
IS I would like'to comment on some of the specific 16 contentilons. . Con ention No. 1,=I am extremely concerned about l
17 the potential for environmental impacts on the coastal wetlands i
l 18 as outlined by Senator Keene and on the environs in general 19 of the bay due to the long-term storage of nuclear materials l
I 20 at the Humboldt Power Plant No. 3.
I 21 The DES does not provide enough information for i
22 description or analysis of the environmental setting or 23 consequences of long-term storage at that site on the flora and 1
l 4 24 25 fauna of the bay habitat should contamination occur by any means.
21 3 1 On Contention No. 5, the removal of spent fuel rods 9 2 from a leading storage facility is inextricably linked with i
3 the potential for environmental damage to the power plant 4 facility in general resulting from an earthquake in this 5 geologically active area.
6 I have asked in the past if any thought has been 7 given to relocating this radioactive material to another, more 8 compatible site with high security forces in place, and a site 9 not subjec to seismic activicy. That point has not been 10 answered in the draft EIS.
11 On Contentions Nos. 2 and 7, in reality those are 12 linked together and I find it very difficult to separate. I 13 believe that the problem of continuous leakage of radioactive 14 liquid from the spent fuel pool which has resulted in soil 15 contamination is in~for extreme further discussion.
16 I believe that there :is a greater risk for a higher 17 level of soil contamination than has been indicated in the DES, 18 especially since plans to' store irradiated fuel assemblies 19 within the same pool is contemplated.
20 The potential to contaminate the ground water basin
~
21 beneath the plant facility could occur. Ultimately, 22 contamination of the bay, its wetlands, and again the flora and 23 fauna that survive on it, could be seriously affected.
24 Realistically, nothing of an immediate catastrophic 25 nature would occur if there was leakage. However, the slow
22 4 1 and sure death of Humboldt Bay wold be even more tragic and 2 eventually catastrophic.
3 I believe that the Final Environmental Impact 4 Statement should fully disclose the potential cumulative 5 effects of increasing the amount of long-term storage of radio-6 active liquid in a pool already plagued by leakage.
7 Furthermore, that document should more fully identify 8 measures for mitigating the potential impacts, including 9 potential pump malfunction. And, bottom line, there is just 10 way too much to be risked by potential nuclear contamination 11 of the area farmlands, water, wetlands and bay waters.
12 Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity today 13 to present testimony. Most importantly though, I am hopeful 14 t!iat you will listen attentively to all commenters, both 15 intervenors and the general public, and take their comments 16 under serious consideration.
17 Thank yot$.
18 MR. FIELD i The_next intervenor representative to 19 speak will be Bruce Taylor on behalf of the Honorable 20 Representative Douglas Bosco.
.21 23 S 24 25
23 5 1 STATEMENT OF BRUCE TAYLOR, DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE 8 2 MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON BEHALF OF HONORABLE DOUGLAS H. BOSCO 3
4 MR. TAYLOR: My name is Bruce Taylor. I am district 5 representative for Congressman Doug Bosco. Congressman Bosco 6 is unable to be here this morning but he has asked me to make a 7 brief statement on his behalf for the record.
8 I appreciate the opportunity to present my views on 9 the decommissioning of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company's 10 Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant. My primary concern in this 11 case is to try to ensure that these proceedings reflect the 12 broad public interest of the people I represent as a Member 13 of Congress.
l 14 The Humboldt Bay plant will be one of the first 15 commercial nuclear power plants in the United States to be 16 decommissioned, and the decisions the Board makes in this 17 case could very well have important implications for future 18 policy. This is clearly a matter of public policy and I think 19 it is important that the public be afforded an opportunity to 20 participate.
21 Unfortunately, the NRC's licensing process appears 22 to be designed to limit rather than encourage public participa-23 tion in the decision-making process. I hope this Board will 24 act to remedy this problem, and I would strongly urge you to 25 hold a formal public hearing on the Final Environmental l
1 l
,,? (~'t
- ' ~
24 6 ~1 ,. Statement and . Safety Eva'luation- Report. before any license 9 !=
2 modification is approved.
e t
3 'I'think'the Board also has an obligation to ensure 4 that its decision in this case is based on the best facts 5 available. The draft environmental statement does not provide 6 ' a satisfactory basis for such a decision.
7 The analysis of potential environmental impacts.is 8 inadequate in a number of important respects, and the 9 document does not give adequate consideration to reasonable 10 alternatives to the 30-year SAFSTOR proposal.
11 Petitioners have outlined a number of flaws in the 12 DES in our petition to intervene. Our counsel will explore these contentions in more detail, but there are several aspects l 13 14 and I believe as particularly important.
15 First is the question of seismic hazards and the 16 potential risks associated with long-term storage of nuclear 17 waste at the plant site on the shore of Humboldt Bay, as i
18 cutlined in petitioners' contentions 3 and 7.
19 Given the long-standing public concerns about the 20 plant's susceptibility to earthquake damage, I think it is l
l 21 imperative that this issue be explored in more detail in the l 22 Final Environmental Statement.
23 This issue is particularly important in light of 24 recent reports that the Little Salmon fault may be capable of 25 generating a much larger earthquake than previously suspected.
, , , :1 25 7 1 My second: major concern is th~e DES's failure to 2 consider viable alternatives to the 30-year SAFSTOR proposal, 3 as outlined in petitioners' Contention 5.. The most significant 4 omission is thez absence of any discussion abotit ? the' option
.,, 1 5 of dismantlement at the time a federal repository for high
- 1 ;
6 level nuclear waste becoines available, presumably by 1998 or 7 soon after.
8 Although SAFSTOR may .be the n.tly realistic means of 9 decommissioning this plant at this point, other options should 10 be considered if and when they become available. Given a 11 hoice, I think most local residents would prefer to see the 12 nuclear waste removed and the site cleaned up as soon as 13 p ssible.
14 As such, I would urge the Board to consider 15 conditioning its approval of the SAFSTOR proposal to require 16 dismantlement, or at the least another review of the license, 17 at the time a federal repository becomes available.
18 In conclusion, I would ask the Board to see to it 19 that the contentions raised in our petition to intervene are 20 addressed in the Final Environmental Statement, and that the 21 public be given an opportunity to review that document and offer 22 its comments at a hearing here in Eureka before any license 23 amendment is approved.
24 In the interests of encouraging more public involve-25 ment, I would also ack that you allow any members of the public j
26 8 1 who are interested to present their comments directly to you 2 today.
3 Thank you for your consideration.
4 JUDGE LAZO: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
5 MR. FIELDER: The next intervor representative will 6 be Mr. Wesley Chesbro.
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 l
l 21 22 ,
23 ,
l l
[]
3 ,
24
! (J 25 .
1
,t 27 9 1 STATEMENT OF WESLEY CIIESBRO
. 2 .
BOARD OF. SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT 3 MR. CHESBRO: Good morning. My name is Wesley 4 Chesbro. And I have been an elected member of the Humboldt 5 County Board of Supervisors since 1980. In 1976, I petitioned 6 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be allowed to intervene 7 on the question of seismic safety of the Humboldt Bay Power 8 Plant.
9 That petition was granted and I played a key role 10 in the proceedings which eventually led to the closure of the 11 p lant .
12 I would like to begin by questioning the bizarre 13 bureaucratic logic which has led us to be holding a hearing h
14 today on whether or not to hold a hearing.
15 The original request which was made by a uanimous 16 vote of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, Congressman 17 Bosco, Assemblyman !!auser, Senator Keene and hundreds:of l
18 northcoast citizens was very simple. We asked that the NRC do 19 what virtually every ohter fedearl agency does, and which we 20 believe the law requires, that you hold a public hearing on 21 the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
22 Instead of simply granting our request, the NRC 23 required that we retain an attorney to file a petition to i
/'"1 24 intervene. Then the NRC raid, af ter we did that, that we
'\ '
'l 25 hadn't supplied enough information to prove that the elected
28 10 1 congressman, state senator, assemblymar and county supervisor 9 2 hadenoughlegal'standingtoberecohnizedasintervenors.
i, ,
3 So we had to file an amended petition to intervene.
4 All this so that the, people who are neighbors to the Humboldt S Bay Power Plant can be granted the basic American right to 6 participate in the decision-makibg process wit'h regard to the 7 Humboldt Bay plant.
8 But apparently, we are still not quite there yet.
9 Since today's session is a so-called prehearing conference and 10 not a public hearing, and only a limited group have been 11 recognized as intervenors, then our right to a true public 12 hearing has been denied.
13 Therefore, my first request is that you declare this h
14 meeting a public hearing and that any concerned individual 15 be allowed to address you.
16 In addition, I request that an additional public l
17 hearing be held af ter completion of the final environmental 18 impact statement but before the final decision on license 19 modification.
20 The draft environmental statement itself falls far 21 short of the standards that should be required. Those of us who 22 must live with the nuclear power plant will also have to live 23 with the consequences of the NRC's inadequate analysis.
['), 24 A plan to put the nuclear power plant in so-called l )
25 " safe storage" and put off all the tough decisions for thirty
29 11 1 years is no plan at all. Such a plan would only be successful 2 in getting the monkey off the back of the present generation 3 of managers and regulators.
4 It would take the heat off the nuclear industry for 5 the consequences of creating all this nuclear waste. The 6 process of dealing with the problems of decommissioning and 7 waste dinposal will be another and perhaps the final nail in 8 the coffin of the nuclear-power industry. No doubt, that is 9 why the NRC is so anxious and willing, apparently, to rubber 10 stamp PG&E's irresponsible proposal.
11 Specifically, I would like to address the areas of 12 inadequacy in the DEIS.
13 TIIese include the lack of discussion of viable 14 alternative storage sites for spent fuel, the failure to address 15 the question of evacuation plans in the-event of a worst-case 16 type of accident and the inadequate teratment of earthquake 17 hr.zards at the site.
18 There are, of course, other concerns but they have 19 been addressed I think by the other intervenors who have spoken 20 today, and will also be addressed by our counsel in the rest 21 of these proceedings.
22 First of all, the question of the failure of the DEIS 23 to address alternative storage sites.
24 I recognize that right now, today, thare is no 25 approved site for repository for the radioactive waste from the
30 12 1 Humboldt Bay plant. But to assume that this situation will 2 continue for another'30 years, and to proposal no alternative 3 steps'to remedy the situation, is irresponsible.
4 Alternatives such as building an interim storage 5 facility at a nonseismically-active site should be reviewed and 6 considered in the environmental statement.
7 Radioactive waste from the 7ee Mile Island Plant was 8 shipped to federal facilities at Hanford, Washington, and this 9 alternative might be available as well for the Humboldt Bay 10 plant. And it should be explored in the DEIS.
11 In any case, the decommissioning plan for Humboldt 12 Bay should provide for dismantling of the plant once a 13 repository site does become available. The federal government 14 suggests that such a site will become available at the latest 15 by 1998 and waste from the Humboldt Bay plant should be at the 16 front of tr.e line for disposal at such a site.
17 But this will only occur if the plan is in place for 18 dismantling the plant at an early date and has been approved.
19 Another major oversight in the draft environmental 20 statement is the failure to consider the seismic hazards to 21 the plant. Since it was information on the potential for 22 earthquake damage to the plant that caused its permanent closure ,
23 the same information supplemented by any newly developed data 24 should be considered in analyzing the 30-year storage proposal.
25 The liklihood for an earthquake has obviously not
l 31 13 1 been reduced because the plant has been closed.- The potential 2 threat to the environment and to public health remains great 3 and should be considered.
4 Recent geological research that has already been 5 referred to by Drs. Carver and Burke indicate that the Little 6 Salmon Fault is capable of an 8.0 magnitude earthquate. This 7 is new information that was not previously available and should a be analyzed in the, draft EIS.
9 In light of the failure of the draft EIS to address 10 the potential for damage to the plant in the event of an 11 earthquake, I guess'it is not too surprising that the document 12 fails to consider'the question of evacuation plans in the event
- p. 13 of an earthquake. ,
V > .
14 ,
In.1980, an earthquake toppled a freeway overpass 15 less than two-miles from the plant, despite the epicenter's
, , , u, 16 location of 40 miles away..'If.a similar earthquake occurred 17 on the Little Salmon Fault or other faults in the vicinity, not 18 only the plant would be seriously damaged but Highway 101 would 19 probably be closed, hampering emergency support activities 20 and evacuation plans.
21 In light of- the elementary school and residential 22 areas adjacent to the plant, this failure in the draft EIS l is unconscionable.
23 1
24 We are tired of being guinea pigs in the failed 25 experiment of nuclear power that- has slowly taken place.
32 )
14 1 In conclusion, let me repeat that accepting our input 2 as intervenors is not enough. We filed our petition so that 3 all Ilumboldt County residents could be given the right to speak 4 out.
5 The failure to date to provide such an opportunity 6 along with the obvious inadequacies in the environmental 7 document can only lead to a lawsuit in federal court if they 8 are not corrected.
9 Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE LAZO: Thank you, Mr. Cheshro.
11 MR. FIEDLER: Members of the Board, the last 12 intervenor who wishes to be heard this morning is Gaye Barr
(, 13 with the League of Women Voters.
\s 14 15 16 17 18 L
19 / .'l 20 21 22 23 24 25
33 j STATEMENT OF GAYE BARR 2
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS 3
MS. BARR: Thank you.
4 The League of Women Voters are concerned with the 5
longterm storage if highly radioactive material at a site 6
located in a potentially seismic active area. Humboldt Bay 7
Nuclear Power Plant lies in close proximity to three a ctive g
f aults, one of which, The Little Salmon F a ult, has the 9
ca pacity to generate an earthqunke of 7.5 to 8.0 on the Richter Scale, according to recent research being done by 10 3, two geologists at Humboldt State U nive rsity.
12 If PG and E could not comply with the necessary seismic modifications in 1983 because of economic g c o nsid e r a tio ns, has the NRC, in fact, made a specific d e te rmina tio n that the pla n is s eismic ally safe to safe store radioactive material there for the next 30 years. It
, seems in a contradiction that radioa ctive mate rials can be la successfully stored at the same apparently seismic site for 39 30 more years. It is further puzzlement that the entombment 20 method for decommissioning cannot be conside red a viable alte r n a tive because it may fail as a result of seismic 21 activity.
PG and E states that SAFSTOR will put the nuclear plant in a " safe condition for 30 ye a rs. " " Safe" is a nonspecific term and we believe it should be amplified to L 7 d
34
'h -Q j consider all the ramifications of a worse-case scenario 2
should an earthquake or tsunami occur .upon the wildlife of 3
Humboldt Bay, pasture lands and wetlands and the population ,
I of the area in general. Humboldt Lay contains a rich and
, l varied population of fish and fauna. It has a fragile and 5
- important wetland necessary for survival of many species l including resident birds and migrating birds using the Great 7
Pacific Flyway.
9 We believe the people of this area are vitally interested in the future disposition of this nuclear plant l
g and would welcome an opportunity to air the facts and their concerns, which, after all, may dire ctly affect their.
future. We urge you to hold a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Statement and final environmental statement.
Thank you.
j 15 l' MR. FIELDER: Members of the Board, that concludes j 16
,7 the intervenors statements.
JUDGE LAZO: We call that opening statement.
MR. FIELDER: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE LAZO: It had been, or is our desire to consider the co nte ntions that have been filed and the 21 responses by the other parties. Both PG and E and the NRC Staff have agreed, it appears from the most recent filings, that there are no questions of standing or interest; that i 25 the p e titio n e r s, indeed, have satisfied the legal
35 i ) requirements to participate as a party to a proceeding, if i
2 ne or m re of their contentions will be accepted for 3
litigation.
4 At the moment, the lic e nse e has agreed --
5 although we may want to hear again from the licensee -- that 6
f ur f the eight contentions filed in the amended petition 7
are acceptable for litigation. The NRC Staff has agreed g
that six are acceptable for litigation. Therefore, both 9
parties would appear to be urging the Board to adopt those 10 positions and to accept contentions which would complete the
- j final phase of interest and standing, and acceptable co nte ntio ns, so that we could, in fact, declare the p e titio n e rs to be full pa rtie s to the proceeding and announce, or make a decision, that there would, in fact, be 14 a full public evidentiary hearing.
I would lik e , though, to hear from the parties as 37 to their po sitio n ; and I would like you, Mr. Fielder, to 3g have an opportunity to respond to some of the written )
l l
,9 obj ections that you have seen from the licensee and staff.
1 20 Now, to some extent, that has been done today by your l l
21 petitione rs themselves. But, we should, I think, addr1ss g each contention and determine and make sure that you have an 23 pportunity, where objections to its admissibility have been file d , to have an op po rtu nity here to respond to those objections.
9
36 j There is another point or two we should cover. We 2
asked you to file a supplemental petition so that we would 3
have a list of co n te ntio ns. That you did, in a timely fashion. Thereafter, though, you filed an amended petition l 5
in which you repeated the same eight c o n te ntio n s, but fleshed out some of the interest and standing issues that seems to be outstanding.
g So, may I ask, can we consider the amended petition to be the petition that is now before the Board? In other 9
words, has the supplemental petition been superseded by the j,
amended petition?
MR. FIELDER: I would so stipulate.
JUDGE LAZO: All right. So it is the large and 13 s , la te r filed amended p e titio n , with the same eight
_ 14 contentions, that is now before the Board.
MR. FIELDER: That is correct.
l 16 JUDGE LAZO: All right.
And, as for the League of Women Voters, we just heard this morning from Mrs. Gaye Barr that she does f believe that you are represe nting her in this proceeding.
I And, in terms of representation, we were wondering about c o n s olid a tio n. The League has s u bsta ntially the same interest in the proceeding, and would a p pa r e ntly raise substantially the same issues. Is there a need to treat the 25 League as a separate petitioner, or are you all really just
37 s
i one set of joint petitione r, all represented by the same 2
counsel?
3 MR. FIELDER: I belie v e that we are one set of 4
joint pe titione rs. But if I could have a moment or two to 5
nfer with Mrs. Barr to make sure that I am not misrepresenting her position, I can confirm that.
JUDGE LAZO: Please do, yes.
7
. . ur ast statement was conect. We 8
9 do intend, and was our intention, that all of the
,g intervenors and their contentions be consolidated into one
- j block.
JUDGE LAZO: Very well, then; we will treat you all as one set of joint petitioners. And, if you are successful with your contentions, you will become joint intervenors.
MS. WAGNER: Excuse me, could I ask for cla rification? Would this mean that the League of Women g Voters and Mrs. Barr would not be filing their own
,g contentions?
MR. FIELDER: My best recollection, Ms. Wagner, is, that, the League's contentions are a mirror image, if you 20 g will, of the filing by the other intervenors. So, that, g they are really one and the same. I don't think that there is any overlap at all.
MS. WAGNER: W ell, just so we know what contentions g we are dealing. I just wanted clarification as to whether
38 j Mrs. Barr and the League would be adopting the contentions already filed by the intervenors.
2 3
MR. FIELDER: That would be correct; your
, understanding is correct on that point.
MS. WAGNER: And those are'her sole concerns at 5
4 this time ?
6 MR. FIELDER: That is my understanding.
MS. WAGNER: Thank you.
8 Judge Lazo, one more point.
JUDGE LAZO: Surely.
MS. WAGNER: I take it there will be an ' ppropriate time where we will argue as to the five factors for late
- l. intervention for the League of Women Voters? You have not i
13 1
ruled on that yet.
% 1.s JUDGE LAZO: No; that is correct.
15 MS. WAGNER: Thank you.
Mr. Norton, in representing your client, you
,g have stated that you believe there are four of the petitione rs contentions that are not admissible. Do you g
have anything to add to what you have already filed in writing regarding them?
1
. MR. NORTON: No. I would add, however, on the i 22 j League of Women Voters, if indeed they are to be represented by the same counsel, and the contentions are precisely the same, We would have no real obj ection. It was only as 1 1 y-aw=v- - - -v- *-,-9st7v'-'e-m-up**-~mW w'ev-*"F--e y --n-w,- eef---syp-evarms---w*We-tw-VW--g- -
=-e-P rwo W -N TT*'NM= - - - - p-c'um'-F**vu
39 x , coming in at this late date, if they came in with totally 2
new contentions and different conte ntion, which was our 3
concern. So, we would have no obj ections to their being represented by Mr. Fielder and a c c e ptin g those same Contentions that are to be admitted - - if there any to be admitted under the eight that are pending before the Board at this tim e.
7 g
JUDGE LAZO: You would, then, withdraw your 9
objection as to the lateness or timeliness of the filing?
,g MR. NORTON: That is correct. As long as they are j,
represented by Mr. Fielder--
JUDGE LAZO: They are represented by Mr. Fielde r and their contentions are the same, then, it would appear 13 that the issue of delay goes away.
MR. NORTON: Yes; there is no harm if that is, indeed, the case. If it is an all new b allg a m e , then, of course, the harm that the regulations is designed to protect 37 jg us against is there. But that has gone away, so we have no objection to their being admitted.
JUDGE LAZO: Ms. Young, how does the staff feel 20 about that?
MS. YOUNG: Ms. Wagner will be a d d r e ssin g this issue.
JUDGE LAZO: All right.
MS. WAGNER: W e ll, I think c o n s olid a tio n s and
40 I(9 acceptance of the intervenors conte ntions already filed
' N] 3 changes the balancing of the five-f a cto r test for late 7
itervention. Especially the fifth factor, which goes to the 3
extent to which petitione r's participation .will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. It seems that that factor, 5
which had the League and Mrs. Barr intending to file their own contentions, would have or could have broadened the 7
issues and delayed this ' proceeding, in that, we have some contentions before us and the League would, at a later point, have submitted their own. That factor now is changed g
in favor of a d mittin g her as an intervenor in this proceeding, and the League.
1 JUDGE LAZO: Ms. Wagner, had you completed your comments?
MS. WAGNER: Yes, I have. I am sorry, I did not d
realize that you were waiting for me.
s 16 4 JUDGE LAZO: Then, you do understand that the NRC Staff has no further objection to the League as far as their standing, and as far as their late petition is concerned.
! 19 i MS. WAGNER: Well, I think it changes factor number 5, but I still think there are several factors that go against her admission in this proceeding. It is a balancing test, as the Board is well aware; and, I think, still, there 23 i
has been no good cause for the League's failure to file on time. Which, according to our case law, is to be granted a o
b I
i
41 x
L y fair amount of weight in the balancing test.
2 I think, however, in this ea rly stage in the 3
Proceeding, that that is quite offset by the lack of delay that would arise from --
- *' ** Y*" * *9
- 0*
- 5 balancing act now and tell us how you would come out?
MS. WAGNER: I thini:, while it is a close q uestion, 7
g the staff would not oppose--
JUDGE LAZO: Would not oppose?
9 MS. WAGNER: W ould not oppose her pa r ticipa tion 10
- j under the terms set forth by Mr. Fielder this morning.
g JUDGE LAZO: W ell, that is very helpful, and thank you.
13 We want to come back to the staff. Ms. Young, we asked the question of licensee, and the question now to you is: Does the NRC Staff still believe that there are two g of the eight contentions that are not admissible, and you
,g still believe that six are admissible ?
,9 MS. YOUNG: I am trying, after statements made by 20 arry Keene, I am trying to gather my thoughts on our position for one of the contentions that the intervenors had id e ntifie d, hazardous mate rials. Ap pa re ntly, he explained that that reference was made to refer to the spent fuel to be stored on sig h t. And if I could just determine, for the g
moment, which contention that is.
4
42
(% JUDGE LAZO: It must be number 3, yes.
MR. NORTON: Yes; it is 3. Hazardous materials is 2
3 changed, and I assume, I was waiting to hear from Mr.
Fielder on that, what is meant by " hazardous materials"? is that the spent fuel?
5 MR. FIELDER: Does the Board now wish the
- intervenors to begin to address the specific contentions or
] 7 i
g reply to the staff's comments, vis-a -vis, Contention No. 3, about what hazardous waste we are referring to? It was my 9
understanding that we were going to go one contention at a i
time and work our way through them.
JUDGE LAZO: I think you are right, Mr. Fielder.
That is the better way to do it. Why don't you start off with the contentions; and, then, if any of the other. party's counsel wish to respond to them, we will give them an opportunity to do so.
MR. FIELDER: Would it please the Board if I start
,g my comments by first reading the contention, possibly for the record, and maybe so that the people in the audience can understand what we are talking about?
JUDGE LAZO: I think that would be helpful.
MR. FIELDER: Then, let me begin with contention No. 1:
23 "There is little discussion or analysis of the impact on the local environment and biota of the 25 1
43
) 3 proposed activities. Humboldt Bay is the largest 2
wetland and esturarine habitat in the California 3
Coastal Zone containing a pproximately 23 per cent 4
of the coastal wetlands in Calif o rnia. The DES does not document the p o t e n tial sig nific a n t 5
envir nmental impacts on these coastal wetlands of 6
longterm storage of n u cle a r ma te rials as is 7
8 9
(NEPA) and the California Coastal Act."
It is my understanding that the NRC Staff had 10 3,
no n e g a tive response to this pa rticula r contention, but Pacific Gas and Electric did raise some question about the via bility of this contention. Maybe we should hear next f rom PG and E on that point.
1.s JUDGE LAZO: All right. Mr. Norton.
MR. NORTON: W ell, Your Honor, we set forth in our resp nse the reason for that. But I might add that, I don't think' this Board had j u risdiction to deal with the California Coastal Act. What is required under NEPA is what this Board is required to deal with.
20 g
The petitioners, if they have a complaint with complia nce with the Califo rnia Coastal Act, indeed, should be dealing with the California Coastal Commission and/or the state courts of Calif o rnia. I don't think this Board can come into Calif ornia and tell and decide what the law of 9
44
) ,
California is. I think your duties and under NEPA and the 2
Code of Federal Regulations and the Nuclear Regulatory 3
Commission Regulations. And that part of the contention simply is not before this Board.
I don't know why the NRC staff did not object to that. But I certainly don't think there is j urisdiction for this Board to hear it.
7 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Fielder, on the j u risdictio n g
question, do you have anything to help us?
MR. FIELDER: Yes, I do. I do not agree with counsel for PG and E. The National Environmental Protection Act, I belie ve, may leave some room for, or requires that the Act, the Federal Act, take into account, whenever there 13 f~
) is an ove rlap of the federal act and possible state laws, 14 that the state law has to be addressed as well. In this 15 case, the California Coastal Act overlaps the j urisdiction as to how the National Environmental Policy Act would apply in this situ a tio n. And, as such, I believe that the comments by the California Coastal Commission, which were filed earlier in this case, address that question and point out that the federal law requires that the Calif o rnia Coastal Act be taken into account.
If I can have a moment, I will probably be a ble to find the reference in the Coastal Commission's 24 brief.
25
45 1 1 MR. NORTON: Excuse me, Your lionor, I guess the part 2 of Mr. Fielder's argument we find a little puzzling is the 3 Coastal Commission, on July 19, 1985, based on their regulations 4 granted an exemption. And if they have a complaint, it is with 5 the Coastal Commission not with this Board. I mean, you can't 6 overrule the Coastal Commission's exemption. If they have got 7 a complaint, it is with the Coastal Commission and not with the '
i 8 NRC.
9 I just don't understand what Mr. Fielder's argument 10 ir. There is nothing in this contention that covers what it 11 is he is complaining about the California Coastal Commission.
12 A VOICE: Nuclear waste.
13 MS. YOUNG: Judge Lazo, may staff be heard on this?
14 JUDGE LAZO: Yes, Ms. Young.
15 MS. YOUNG: The way that staff interpreted the 16 contention is that the intervenors were raising the issue that 17 the draft ennvironmental statement did not document the 18 potential significant environmental impact on coastal wetlands 19 as required by NEPA or the California Coastal Act.
20 I think to that extent, it is within the scope of an 21 issue that can be raised properly before the NRC. The NRC would 22 not enforce the positions of the California coast a1 Act, but it 23 would as part of its analysis in the draft environmental
[; 24 statement document impacts.
i I
25 And the intervenors assertion here is that there are
(-
46 2 1 more impacts or I guess there are other impacts which haven't 2 been considered in the environmental statement. So to that 3 extent, I think it is proper.
4 MR. FIELDER: I think she has summed up our position 5 very well.
6 JUDGE LAZO: Anything else on Contention 17 7 (No response.)
8 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Fielder, did you find the reference 9 that you wanted to bring to our attention?
10 MR. FIELDER: I am afraid I did not. If the Board 11 wishes, we can file a late brief or notation on this question.
12 And if we are wrong, we will certainly point it out. And if we 13 are right, it will be the correct citation.
14 JUDGE MORRIS: If during the course of the day you 15 e me across it, you might at least tell us.
16 MR. FIELDER: I certainly will.
g7 JUDGE CARPENTER: Mr. Fielder, do you expect to 18 resp nd to the issue of identifying what these impacts are?
19 Are you thinking about 1, 5, 10 or what is this all about?
20 MR. FIELDER: Well, it was my understanding that 21 undur NEPA the utility was required itself to do a fairly 22 sophisticated inventory of the biota at the af fected area, and 23 to analyze the impacts on the biota, that is the biological 24 organisms in the area, as part of their -- not just their final
( (
25 impact statement, but as part of DES.
47 1 And it is our contention that they completely failed 8
2 to do that altogether. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my 3 recollection that they did not even mention any of the biota 4 that is found in the wetland areas and the estuarine areas and 5 and in the bay, and which is part of the affected area.
6 I don't think -- in answer to your question, I don't 7 believe it is necessarily the intervenors' responsibility to 8 redo the environmental impact statement for the utility.
9 Maybe I misunderstood your question.
10 JUDGE CARPENTER: No, I meant if you could identify 11 something specifically that you thought was omitted and put it 12 in the record now and amend the contention and say "in particular," or some such thing.
lh 13 g4 I am simply inquiring as to whether there is in the 15 back of the intervenors' mind some particular items of interest.
16 MR. FIELDER: I think to answer your question, no, 17 we don't have an unwritten agenda of items that we wish 18 addressed. There's two ways in my mind that the question of 19 whether the issue of biota impact would be partly addressed --
20 there are two ways to go about that now.
21 One is if the DES had left out certain critical --
22 let's say, for example, certain birds that migrate through the 23 area that have a tendency to maybe store radionuclides for
,6 24 25 some reason in the fatty tissue of the birds -- and they left those out altogether, I think I would have to, if I want to
m
- L ,
48 1 make points, we may have'to specifically pinpoint that that is S 2
. , a what I think was left out of the DES.
3 But it is a'different equ'ation when the DES entirely 4 fails to address:any biota. When that occurs, I believe it is 5 sufficient not to then have to itemize but to simply point out 6 that when you do not do any biota. analysis, that that.itself is j
i 7 a sufficient contention. j 8 Do you follow what I am ---
9 JUDGE CARPENTER: Thank you, I understand yot' r 10 position much more clearly.
l 11 JUDGE LAZO It appears that we have agreement on 12 contention 2, as far as admissibility is concerned. Le t 's move 13 n to contention 3.
g4 Mr. Fielder, maybe you could read Contention 2 so 15 that it is on the record. And~just to amplify my comments, i
16 both PG&E and the staff are agreed that the contention should 17 be litigated.
18 MR. FIELDER: Very well. Contention 2 reads as 19 follows:
20 "There is inadequate discussion and analysis 21 of the storage of spent fuel rods in a spent 22 fuul pool which is already plagued by leakage.
23 The leakage of the pool has persisted since 24 1966 and continues to this day. The DES 25 states that ' pumps keep water level in the
~
49 1 liner gap lower than the water level in the 6 2 pool and ground water level. The water from 3 the liner gap is pumped to the rad waste 4 system.' ,
5 IIowever, such mechanical means of control-6 ing the leak are' subject to malfunction and 7 potential impacts of increased. contamination 8 have not been discussed.
9 'In addition, there is some information in 10 the ER to indicate that thede'are elevated and 11 trace levels of certain radionuclides in the 12 surface soils at the plant site."
13 As to that contention, the NRC and Pacific Gas and 14 Electric have not filed opposition'.
15 very well, shall we read on to No. 3?
16 JUDGE LAZO: Please do so.
37 MR. FIELDER: The third contention of the intervenors 18 reads as follows:
19 "There is inadequate treatment of the 20 seismic hazards at the site" -- excuse me, let me 21 review that.
22 "There is inadequate treatment of the 23 seismic hazards to the site. The DES contains virtually no analysis of relevant seismic
,4 24 25 factors and only cursory considerat'on of those
~
50 1 interactions with hazardous materials stores 8 2 on site. 4 3 This is unacceptable given the fact that 4 (a) the Little Salmon Fault, Bay Entrance Fault 5 and Boon Point Fault are located within two and 6 one half miles of the facility (the subsurface 7 trace of the Boon Fault comes within 600 feet 8 of the plant foundation):
9 (b) those faults are capable of generating 10 major earthquakes with magnitudes up to 7.5 11 that possibly could destroy the Ilumboldt 12 facility; and (c) the close proximity of the 13 plant to the City of Eureka could contribute 14 to the severity of any emergency in the event 15 of a large earthquake."
16 I would probably be well if we started with the --
17 seeing as how the NRC staff and I believe the PG&E have 18 reservations about this contention, maybe they should go first 19 on it.
20 JUDGE LAZO: Who should start? Ms. ---
21 MR. NORTON: We have nothing to add. We have heard 22 no response from Mr. Fielder.
23 JUDGE LAZO: Well, the staff has said that the 24 contention does not identify the hazardous material so 4.t is 25 vague. In that ---
L
51 1 MS. YOUNG: Yes, that is correct. And with the 2 statement from Mr. Keene this morning that the hazardous 3 materials they are referring to is the spent fuel to be stored 4 under the SAPSTOR plan, the staff would object to the 5 contention as they indicated on page 11, note 4, as repetitive 6 of Contention 7 which alleges that the environmental impacts 7 of leakages of the spent fuel pool due to a seismic event have 8 not been adequately considered.
9 MR. PIELDER: I have several brief comments on that.
10 JUDGE LAZO: Please proceed.
11 MR. PIEDLER: When this contention was written, and 12 it was written with all due speed because of the very short 13 time that the intervenors had to file their contentions in each g4 stagu of this proceeding, the " hazardous material" was not l 15 specifically broken out into its components.
16 It is true that one of the components that the g7 intervenors were thinking in terms of was the spent fuel that 18 is retained on site in the pool.
19 The other hazardous materials that Contention 20 No. 3 makes reference to are the presence of fossil fuels on 21 site and the possibility that theses flammables themselves may 22 become involved in exacerbating a serious earthquake event, if 23 one occurs.
24 Second, there are -- or I should say third, there 25 are identified hazardous materials which the intervenors,
52 1 because of the lack of discovery ability prior to the beginning 2 of the prehearing conference, the intervenors have been unable 3 to discover what other hazardous materials that might exist at 4 the plant are.
5 Which brings me to one of the issues that we wish to 6 possibly discuss today, to find out whether or not the Board 7 was going to allow discovery by way of interrogatories, by way 8 of depositions, to flesh out what cannot be done in advance as 9 far as the intervenors are concerned.
10 So, I will stop with that comment and other parties 11 can make comments if they wish.
12 JUDGE LAZO Just to accommodate your question, formal 13 discovery would begin when contentions are granted. Of course, 14 there is no reason why you cannot have some informal discovery 15 between the parties at this stage, and I assume that you have.
16 Later on, I want to talk about the local public 37 document rule and try and find out what is available down there.
18 Dut we will put that off for now.
19 Are there any further comments regarding Contention 20 3? Or have we ---
21 MR. ROSSMAN: I have a comment.
22 JUDGE LAZO: Sir, I want to get on with the parties.
23 MR. ROSSMAN: This is germane to this particular 24 contention about the earthquakes. And this is ---
25
53 1 JUDGE LAZO: Who are you, sir?
2 MR. ROSSMAN: My name is Gerard Rossman. And I have 3 been involved in this process for a while. I would just like 4 to read a couple of comments that Mr. Erickson here made in a 5 newspaper in the newspaper this week.
6 JUDGE LAZO: Sir ---
7 MR. ROSSMAN:' About this ---
8 JUDGE LAZO: --- I would like to complete this 9 proceeding.
i 10 MR. ROSSMAN: Just let me have one minute, okay?
11 This is about the increased possibility of earthquake hazard 12 locally. I quote from the newspaper:
/
13 " Peter Erickson, the NRC's Humboldt project 14 manager, agreed. Tho ' evaluation doesn't depend 15 on the seismic capability of the plant at all,'
16 he said. 'All possible events as far as we know 17 have been considered,' he said. A finding of a 18 greater seismic risk 'doesn't impact on our 19 analysis,' he concluded.
20 What this man is saying is it doesn't matter how big 21 the earthquake fault is. If it was a magnitude of 9 or 10, it 22 doesn't matter. They've already made up their minds. This is 23 really upsetting and I would like the NRC to investigate whether 4 24 25 these ---
JUDGE LAZO: Sir, would you please ---
54 1 MR. ROSSMAN: --- people are in fact open to any 2 information at all. Because if they're going to take this 3 exceedingly deficient document as evidence that it's safe to 4 leave this stuff, which everybody in the room knows, across 5 from an elementary school next to the Pacific Ocean, near a 6 populated area and !!ighway 101 with three earthquake faults for 7 30 years, it's rubbish.
8 And if they've made up their minds -- sir, have you 9 made up your mind on this completely? Because if you have, we 10 are all just wasting our time here.
11 lle's saying as far as the NRC, it doesn't matter ---
12 JUDGE LAZO: I am going to have to adjourn this proceeding unless you remove yourself.
b~}/ 13 C
14 VOICES: Let him speak. Let him speak.
15 JUDGE LAZO: Let me make a comment here.
16 A VOICE: You haven't told us you're going to give g7 us a hearing.
18 JUDGE LAZO Just a moment. We indicated earlier that 19 the question of interest and standing had been resolved. That 20 those petitioners had met that task.
21 Wo have also stated that there are contentions that 22 the other parties are urging us to accept. Which means that in 23 all likelihood there will be a hearing in this proceeding.
24 VOICES: Doo the likelihood.
25 JUDGE LAZO: Let me complete it, let me complete it,
55 1 please.
2 Earlier on I was asked whether or not the hearing 3 would be in Eureka and I said yes. But it well may not be if 4 we continue to have this interruptions.
5 A VOICE: We will behave, right?
6 VOICES: Right.
7 MR. ROSSMAN: Let me just read this other document 8 and I'll be quiet.
9 A VOICE: Peopic, don't lose the opportunity for a 10 Public hearing by being emotional. De rational.
11 A VOICE: We are emotional.
12 A VOICE: We are going to get rid of the nucicar 13 waste in llumboldt Cotinty.
g4 VOICE: Yea.
15 A VOICE: And don't lot your emotions ruin that 16 chance and chase them away..
JUDGE LAZO: Let's take a 15-minute mid-morning recess .
37
- 18 A recess'was taken.)
19 =,
20 21 22 23 24 25 l
5G I JUDGE LAZo: Will this prehearing conference come 2 to order, please.
3 MR. NORTON: Excuse me, Your I!onor, Mr.
4 Fielder has just made his presentation on Contention 3; and 5 we have not had an opportunity to respond to that.
6 One of the things he said was that he has read 7 through the documents and he can't find one word about 8 hazardous materials, so he doesn't even know what the 9 hazardous materials are and that is why he isn't specific.
10 I guess the only thing I can say about that is Il that Mr. Fielder 10, perhaps, reading the wrong document. I 12 refer him to page 4-G3 of the Environmental Report,
,,e~~ 13 specifically Section 4.2.3.2.1. It is entitled Chemicals 14 and llazardous Materials, which lists all of them.
15 I find it very difficult to understand how Mr.
16 Fielder can represent to this Daard that he can't be 17 opecific because there is no place that these materials are 18 listed when, in fact, they are listed in the Environmental 19 Report.
20 Gimilarly, he made the same statement about the 21 biota. I would again refer to the Section 4 of the 22 Environmental Report where all of the biota is set forth in 23 great detail.
24 And that is why we object to the lack of 25 specificity, the lack of particularity. All he has to do is g
s
_,/
57 I do his homework and he can tell us what it is that wasn't 2 considered which should be considered. But, to simply sit 3 here and tell the Board it is no place addressed, it's never 4 addressed, is wrong. It is addressed in great detail and he 5 should be required to be specific.
6 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Fielder, you you wish to respond 7 to that?
8 MR. FIELDER: The material that counsel for 9 P.G.& E is referring to are not contained in the Draft 10 Environmental Impact Statement; they are contained, in what II I understand, in a separate document.
12 It is the weighted opinion of not only the
, 13 intervenors that are participating here today but at the 14 California coastal Commission that, in general, they fail to 15 address -- in scant detail -- that they set some of them 16 out, it's true; but it doesn't address, in great enough 17 specifics, to allow for these items to be analyzed as they 18 should be analyzed in all the different forms of biota in 19 the affected area -- in great detail, not just categorized.
20 JUDGE LAZO: Well, you see what the problem is, 21 don't you, Mr. Fielder? Without being specific, it puts an 22 almost impossible burden on the other parties to try to 23 prepare to defend against that contention. It's vague and 24 mushy; it's not specific enough for them to prepare 25 testimony to try and rebut it. And that is the problem with p
'\
s'
58 1 a contention of that sort.
2 MR. FIELDER: I understand and know this problem 3 that you are referring to. And, by the way, for the record, 4 I want to indicate that, while counsel has referred to my 5 comments about it, what is or is not listed as far as biota 6 in the record, those were simply my comments.
7 Our materials have been prepared by quite a number 8 of people; and I cannot speak for them. So, if I 9 mischaracterize the impact statement and its attached 10 documents, that would only be as to myself.
11 JUDGE LAZO: Well, I'm not sure you've done that.
12 You were referring to the Impact Statement, that's true; but m 13 counsel for the licensee was refarring to their j 14 Environmental Report which is not the Impact Statement.
15 MR. FIELDER: That's true.
16 MR. NORTON: Excuse me, your IIono r , again Mr.
17 Fielder, perhaps accidentally, was tying the wrong parties 18 to the wrong reports. IIe kept saying P.G.& E.'s Draft 19 Environmental Statement. It isn't P.G.& E.'s Draft 20 Environmental Statement; the DES that he is referring to is 21 the government's docu.nen t . Our Environmental Report is 22 referenced in that document; our Environmental Report he 23 kept referring to as the Environmental Report. I think, 24 when he reads the record, he will see that he's gotten some 25 wrong parties with some wrong documents which led to some t )'
59 1
confusion.
2 But again, as to the biota, I can give him 3 specific reference. These are public documents in the the 4 public document and it bothers me that the lawyer S representing all these people makes these
- misstatements and 6 then says, "Oh, well I'm just the lawyer."
7 It's his job to read these documents. They are 8 available; all the biota is listed here in great detail. I 9 have it right in front of me, scientific name and common 10 name, alphabetically. And it just goes on and on for pages 11 and pages. And it was considered in great detail.
12 And for him to represent in front of the media and
,m 13 the public that it was not, I think is just improper.
I l
'/
- 14 But, beyond that, we require that he be specific 15 in his accusations, that he not be allowed to have general 16 contentions but they be specific.
17 JUDGE LAZO: Well, as we tried to explain, there 18 is good reason for having specific contentions, otherwise, 19 the other parties simply cannot find any way to rebut them; 20 they don't know what you are talking about. And it would 21 leave an open-ended type of a trial.
12 MR. FIELDER: On that point, this lack of 23 specificity works two ways. P.G.& E.'s Environmental Report 24 lista quite a number of biota. What the objection was to 25 was that it did not go into sufficient detail on the impacts ff Q )
y <
GO 1 on the biota of the proposed action of the facility.
2 And in going back to the Draft Environmental 3 Impact Statement filed by the government, it doesn't make up 4 for that lack, so to speak; there is no discussion at all, 5 as I pointed out as to the impact, what impact there would 6 be on biota.
7 The only suggestion that I can make at this time 8 is that, if the Board feels that there is insufficient 9 identity by the intervenors as to what affected biota they ,
l 10 want to concentrate on, then we would certainly be willing l
11 to pursue a further amendment of our contentions and hone l 12 in a little bit further, if you wish, as to the affected
,r- 13 biota that we think should be specifically addressed.
I4 But, in general, I believe that our statement 15 still would have validity; although, I must agree, that 16 maybe I have underspoken myself as the two documents and 1
17 mixing the two together.
18 Still, I believe that our overall statement stands 19 that there is insufficient discussion of the impacts on all l 20 of the biota. I think we would find that, if we go back 21 into lots of amendment, that we are going to amend it as all 22 the biota. And, again, that's a long list. And that isn't 23 going to get us anywhere; it doesn't change anything.
24 We are really making reference to the all the 25 biota in the Environmental Report have to be addressed, the
,m k s d \
\ ,I
G1 I impacts on that has to be addressed. And that simply hasn't 2 been done.
3 JUDGE CARPENTER: Mr. Fielder, I think, perhaps, 4
the interruption from the audience, right before the break, 1
5 has defocused you. Now you are talking about the term l 6 hazardous materials, not impacts on biota and as hazardous 7 material is used in Contention 3. We got off the focus of 8 Contention 3.
9 Is my question correct? Isn't the issue that we 10 are trying to get at right now is what you all mean when you II talk about hazardous material?
12 A VOICE: (Unintelligible.)
cs s 13 JUDGE CARPENTER: You are not the intervenor; c ;
s-- I4 would you let the counsel for the intervenor speak, please.
15 MR. FIELDER: Defore the interruption earlier, and 16 taking the break, I think that I did address that question.
17 Dy hazardous material, we referring to first the 18 fuel on site, second to the fossil fuel on site used to run 19 the Unit 1 and Unit 2, with the nuclear unit being No. 3.
20 And then I pointed out that we were not aware in 21 that catalog and explored with other hazardous materials 22 there were. And, at that point, that's when P.G.& E 's 23 counsel pointed out that there is some listing.
24 As to -- again, my feeling would be that, until 25 we've had an opportunity to do a little discovery on those
\
w/
G2 1
hazardous materials, it would be very difficult for us to 2 pin down at this very early stage, whether our contention 3 would also include other hazardous materials beyond the 4 fossil fuels and beyond the spent fuel rods and fuel pool.
5 I think that what I am saying is, I think we would 6 like to be given the opportunity to leave the other 7 hazardous materials, that exist on the site, open to further 8 addition as a contention in No. 3 if we can. If we can't, 9 then, of course, we probably would be -- we are ready to 10 sever that other material if necessary and just go with the 11 fossil fuels and the fuel rods on site as the principal 12 basis of Contention No. 3.
7- 13 JUDGE LAZO: Well, Mr. Fielder, discovery is not a
( l s' 14 way to find contentions; it's a way to find evidence on i 15 admitted contentions. So we are going to have to rule on 16 the contention on the basis of whether or not it meets the 17 requirements in the rules of practice. If it does so, then 18 you would be allowed discovery on that contention:
19 otherwise, you would not.
20 Mrs. Young, does the staff have anything further 21 on Contention 37 22 MS. YOUNG: I would just summarize the position in 23 our pleading that, if intervenors are referring to materials 24 that are not within the jurisdiction of the NRC to regulate 25 -- for example, the weakly identified fossil fuels at the
(-
L
.~_ !
G3 I other two units on the Humboldt site -- then those materials 2 are outside the scope of this proceeding which is the 3 storage of spent fuel for the proposed 30-year period.
4 And again, if the hazardous materials are the 5 spent fuels to be stored at the plant, the staff feels that 6 the contention is competitive with Contention 7, which talks 7 about the Environmental Impact associated with the pool.
8 JUDGE LAZO: All right. Mr. Fielder, would j l
9 you read Contention 4, please.
10 I just note that, again, both of the other parties 11 have objected to this contention and its present form.
1 12 MR. FIELDER: Contention 4 reads as follows:
em 13 There is no discussion of evacuation plans to be
- I
'x _/ 14 implemented in the event of the worst case kind of accident.
15 For instance, a 1900 earthquake toppled a freeway overpass 16 less than two miles from the plant despite the epicenter's 17 location being nearly 40 miles away.
18 If a similar earfhquake occurred on the adjacent 19 faults, Highway 101 would probably be closed which would 1
20 hamper emergency support activities and evacuation plans.
21 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Norton, would you want to briefly 22 summarize licensee's position?
23 MR. NORTON: Well, again, we've done that in 24 writing. And, if Mr. Fielder would tell us what problems he 25 has with our response, I will be happy to reply to that; but
64
% 1 I have nothing to add to what we've filed in writing.
2 MS. YOUNG: Judge Lazo, I think that if Mr. Norton 3 has just summarize his position, it would help those members 4 of the public that are attending the meeting.
5 JUDGE LAZO: Would you do that please, Counselor.
6 MR. NORTON: Certainly.
7 Again, the contention fails to specify what worst 8 case type of accident they are postulating, nor do they 9 relate it to a demonstrated need for emergency response 10 capabilities.
11 What they are arguing is that the DES, the Draft 12 Environmental Impact Statement, doesn't contain a discussion
. 13 of evacuation plan. If you look at the regulations, the 14 governing Draft Environmental Impact Statements, they are 15 not supposed to; and that's not what a Draft Environmental 16 Impact Statement is supposed to address.
17 That just isn't required in an Impact Statement:
18 and it isn't properly before this Board. I suppose you can 19 sit and dream up and claim that an Environmental Impact 20 Statement should address everything in the world; but the 21 regulations are quite specific as to what it's required to 22 address.
23 And evacuation plans or emergency plans is not 24 something that is addressed in. Environmental Impact 25 Statements.
T y
65 1
JUDGE LAZO: Very well.
2 Have you completed your statement?
3 MR. NORTON: Yes.
4 JUDGE LAZO: Mrs. Young?
5 MS. YOUNG: To summarize again, the staff objected 6 to this contention on two points. One being that the issue 7 of whether adequate amergency requirements could be taken in 8 the event of a seismic -- event at the site of is an issue 9 that the Commission has ruled cannot be considered in 10 individual licensing cases. I believe there is generic II rulemaking going on in this area, the status of which I am 12 not familiar with.
7~
13 I believe there is generic rulemaking going on in i
b 14 this area; but the Commission has ruled that the issue of 15 emergency planning prepared in response to a seismic event 16 cannot litigated in individual cases.
17 The second objection the staff had to this 18 contention is that it was vague in the sense that the 19 petitioners had not identified what the worst case type 20 accident was.
21 On those two grounds, the staff is of the opinion 22 that the contention should be rejected.
23 JUDGE LAZO: Now I believe, too, Mrs. Young, that 24 there has been some recent Supreme Court action in this 25 regard. Is that correct, Mr. Norton?
w,-
6G I MR. NORTON: Yes. The Supreme Court, I believe it 2 was yesterday, denied the petition for certiori filed by the 3 Mothers for Peace in the Diablo Canyon proceeding which was 4 attempting to appeal a -- decision of the D.C. Circuit Court 5 of Appeals upholding the Commission's ruling regarding 6 earthquakes emergency plan considerations.
7 So that, indeed, is the law now, that they are not 8 to be considered -- not required to be considered together.
9 JUDGE LAZO: And does that apply specifically to 10 Contention 47 11 A VOICE: (unintelligible) -- regard earthquakes?
12 MR. NORTON: It is certainly not on all-fours.
7'm 13 It's not -- this contention isn't exactly the same. The j 14 problem is Contention 3, 7, and 8 also touch on it; but I 15 wouldn't say that any of these contentions are precluded as 16 a result of that decision in and of itself. I think, 17 perhaps, a portion of them, as far as tonstruction of the 18 contention, certain construction could be precluded; but I 19 don't think, as worded, any of these contentions are 20 specifically precluded by that.
21 JUDGE LAZO: Okay; fine. Thank you.
22 Anything more on Contention 4, Mr. Fielder; you 23 get the last crack at it.
24 MR. FIELDER: Yes, Your Honor.
25 It is important to note that, when you talk about
'#, j w/
67 1 environmental impact, you are not just talking about the 2 specific environment sans the humans in it. The humans 3 themselves are part of the physical environment and they can 4 be considered -- the impact on them can be considered in an 5 Environmental Impact Statement.
6 Our request, our Contention No. 4, causes certain 7 -- contends that certain impacts might befall a human as a 8 result of a worst case type of accident. And it 9 particularly gave an example of an earthquake, one that, in 10 passing, did occur recently that did some very serious 11 structural damage to a very heavily built bridge a couple 12 miles from the plant. That's the example.
7_~
13 But I don't think that we intended or the
'L. 14 intervenors intended to limit the discussion of the impact 15 on the humans around the facility and in the town nearby, 16 Eureka, to only earthquakes or earthquake -- groundshaking 17 problems. I would say it was also to be considered in 18 conjunction with possible fires that might break out at the 19 facility and other types of off-gasing of nuclear particles 20 in some other fashion, by fire.
21 Certainly, it should be noted that this contention 22 takes on a little bit greater blunt given the fact that, 23 until -- just by legal history -- what closed the plant 24 originally was -- the plant was built to withstand a little 25 more than about a six on the Richter scale of earthquake.
p s !
s.
b 9
G8 4 1 2
That is what it was retrofit for.
And the NRC eventually determined, and quite a 3 number of agencies determined, that the maximum credible 4 earthquake appears to be a 7.0 for that area. And the cost 5 of retrofitting above a 7.0, to withstand that type of an 6 earthquake, was just finally decided to be prohibitive.
7 Now we found that this -- last week a report is 8 issued, a site-specific report, not -- one that was done in 9 the field with good data, and determined that the maximum 10 credible earthquake is much higher; it's fully an 8.0. And 11 the 8.0 exists on the Little Salmon Fault which is in very 12 close proximity to the facility itself.
13 Certainly an 8.0 -- that type on the type of 14 ground on which Ilumboldt sits, which is unconsolidated 15 landfill, is a very serious concern to all of the 16 intervenors in this case.
17 Now, getting back to my point. The environmental 18 impact on the humans around the facility caused by an 19 earthquake, I don't think, should be -- that contention 20 should not be simply removed from the case because it also 21 mentions the context of evacuation plan. There is more to 22 the impact on these humans than just the possibility of 23 discussing evacuation plans.
24 I would submit it with that comment.
t 25 MR. NORT01: Excuse me, your IIonor.
. C O
69 I Again, I don't think Mr. Fielder being a lawyer is 2 an excuse for saying things that simply aren't true. To sit 3 there and say that Ilumboldt is on a unconsolidated landfill 4 is just hogwash. I can't imagine a more irresponsible 5 statement than that.
6 Everything he said about the history was wrong.
7 And to sit here and say that Humboldt is on an 8 unconsolidated landfill is pure hogwash. I am astounded 9 that he makes those kinds of comments to this Board, 10 A VOICE: What about the earthquake fault?
II Do you want --
12 MR. NORTON: Yes, he is.
13 MR. FIELDER: I would like to respond to that s ;
Nd 14 comment.
15 As for saying disparaging remarks, Mr. Norton, as 16 directed towards intervenors, I think this is -- he has a 17 history of doing this, in fact. Putting that aside for just 18 a moment, what I am referring to as far as unconsolidated 19 landfill is language that I got out of an early 1960's AEC 20 report on the site wherein the site reviewer discussed the 21 problems of siting a nuclear power plant and that was one of 22 the -- he discussed the unconsolidated nature of the land on 23 which the plant sits.
24 And so, in that sense, I am referring to one of 25 the AEC's own documents. Maybe the document is wrong; maybe
70 I Mr. Norton's comment is correct in that sense.
2 JUDGE LAZO: Well, I think we are getting a little 3 bit off point here. Let's --
4 MS. YOUNG: May staff --
5 JUDGE LAZO: Yes, Mrs. Young.
6 MS. YOUNG: And I am focusing my comments on the 7 contention.
8 From Mr. Fielder's explanation, it appears that 9 the intervenors are proposing to drop the reference to the 10 evacuation plan and that the concern raised by this 11 contention is merely the environmental impact on residents 12 in the area of a seismic event at the site during the 13 storage period.
'._ 14 To the extent that the contention is raising that 15 issue, I think staff would state again that it would be 16 repetitive of Contention 7, which talks about impact coming 17 from leakage in the pool during a seismic event. And, on 18 the basis of repetition, the Contention should be rejected.
19 JUDGE LAZO: Any comments?
20 MR. FIELDER: I beg to differ with the NRC staff's 21 representative.
22 Leakage of the pool is just one of many types of 23 environmental impacts, being local biota and people around 24 the plant sustaining an injury from it. No. 7 dealt largely 25 to leakage and the contamination of subsoil.
w
, ,/
71 I No. 4 is much more honed in -- our should have 2 been much more honed in -- I think maybe we will have to 3 amend it a little bit to make it so -- was much more honed 4 in to addressing the risk of injury to residents surrounding 5 the plant -- the people surrounding the plant as a result of 6 an earthquake and off-site loss of radionuclides.
7 MS. YOUNG: You mean release?
8 MR. FIELDER: Yes.
9 MS. YOUNG: Off-site release?
10 MR. FIELDER: Off-site release as opposed to Il leakage. Leakage, really -- and Contention No. 7 talks much 12 more in terms of groundwater contamination and thereby 13 contaminating the food chain than it does a direct off-site 14 leakage caused by a major seismic event such as an airborne 15 condition.
16 So maybe, with the Board's consent, Contention 17 No. 4 could be slightly modified to make it reference off-18 site releases caused by other than spent fuel pool leakage.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
72 i
v' 1 JUDGE LAZO: Now, Ms. Young.
2 MS. YOUNG: Just another clarification. Maybe I am 3 reading Contention 7 wrong.
4 Appa r e ntly Co nte ntio n 7 talks about the 5 leakage in the pool due to the water in the pool being 6 emptied as a result of a maj or earthquake at the site.
7 Contention 4, in my opinion, seems to raise a similar issue, a unless you can focus, make the focus a little different in 9 terms of specificity. Is it that your -- maybe I am to misu nd e rsta nding -- is it that you are stating that 11 something other than ground water -- I am sorry. Is it that 12 you are stating that Contention 7 is only meant to raise the 13 issue of ground water contamination as a result of a breech 9 14 of the pool by a major earthquake?
15 MR. FIELDER: Of course it would depend on how you 16 define the word " leakage". It is true that you just limit 17 leakage only to, or only define it as to hydralogical 18 issues, then, it leaves out the possibility of character 1 19 problems caused by casks being crushed together and possibly 20 being some ignition, some fire in the spent fuel pools.
21 MS. YOUNG: I wasn't reading Contention 7 as being 22 that limited. That is basically the basis for my position.
23 MR. FIELDER: W e ll, with that caveat, if 24 Contention 7 were meant very broadly, as staff counsel has 25 indicated, that might render our concerns about Contention 4 7
i o
73 1 -- there is some, I can see some inherent overlap in the 2 two, one has to be candid about that. There is overlap.
3 My concern is, that, we not have extinguished 4 an issue accidentally, a piece of an issue, by crossing out 5 contentions just because there was some overlap.
6 JUDGE LAZO: Very well.
7 Now, if my memory is correct, Contention 5 is one a that everyone agrees should be litigated.
9 MS. YOUNG: Mr. Field e r, could you read that for to the people that are attending in the back.
11 JUDGE LAZO: If you want to read it, it is rather 12 lengthy; but we might as well have it in the record.
13 MR. FIELDER: Certainly, thank you.
ja MR. FIELDER: Contention No. 5 reads as follows:
i3 " Viable alte rna tive s, such as shipping 16 Spent fuel to locations other than Dia blo 17 Canyon, were not discussed. P etitio n e rs is contend that it may be possible to build an 19 interim f a cility in a safer and more 20 appropriate place until a permanent repository 21 is constructed. Spent fuel could also be 22 shipped to Hanford, Washington or Idaho Falls, 23 Idaho, as was the case with Three Mile Island 24 Plant. In addition, the petitione rs contend 25 that the proposal that SAFSTOR continue for 30
74 b 1 years is inappropriate in view of the real 2 possibility that a permanent repository will 3 be in pla c e by the year 1998. P e titio n e rs 4 submit that the license should be continued 5 only until such time as the federal high-level 6 waste repository is a vaila ble. Under the 7 petitione rs' alternate proposal, dismantlement a would take place as soon as a high-level waste 9 r e p o sito r y is a v a ila ble . The immediate 10 dismantlement proposal is consistent with PG 11 and E's present proposal for decommissioning 12 of the Diablo Canyon facility."
13 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Norton, does licensee still agree i .: that the contention is admissible?
15 MR. NORTON: Yes.
16 JUDGE LAZO: Ms. Young ?
17 MS. YOUNG: That is correct.
18 JUDGE LAZO: Would you read Contention 6, please, 19 counsel.
20 MR. FIELDER: Yes, Your Honor.
21 Contention No. 6 reads as follows:
22 "The DES fails to address the impact of a 23 major flo o d , tsunami or fire at the plant 2.s alone, or in c o nj u n c tio n with a major 25 earthquake. As was mentioned in the petition
75
% 1 to intervene, the DES failed to discuss the 2 possible impacts of any of the phenomena on 3 the people of Humboldt County or the 4 surrounding environment. This oversight is 5 significant given the fact that a tsunami 6 Previously destroyed a portion of Crescent 7 City in 1964. Crescent City is 80 miles of g north of the f a cility. A 50 or 100 year 9 flood, coupled with high tides, could possibly 10 inundate the Humboldt Plant, destroy fuel il storage tanks, and cause unknown damage to the 12 containment structures and associated i3 buildings and equipment. A serious fire could I
s u) ja cause similar damage particularly if caused by 15 an earthquake."
16 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Norton, does licensee obj ect to 17 this contention ?
18 MR. NORTON: No, Your Honor.
19 JUDGE LAZO: I think you earlier had indicated that 20 you felt it should be limited in some extent.
21 MR. NORTON: That is correct. It is limite d by 22 case law; but, as worded, with that understanding, we have 23 no problem.
24 JUDGE LAZO: All right.
25 NRC Staff, Ms. Young, what is your position?
76 l l
O i MS. YOUNG: The staff has no obj e ction to the 2 admission of this contention to the extent that it is raised 3 as a c halle n ge to the accuracy of the analysis of the 4 environmental impacts re sulting from site itself during 5 SAFSTOR period.
6 JUDGE LAZO: Anything you wish to add?
7 MR. FIELDER: No; I would submit it on the basis of a our amended contentions.
9 JUDGE LAZO: Very well, then; I guess that brings 10 us to Contention 7. Would you read that, Mr. Fielde r.
11 MR. FIELDER: Contention 7 reads as follows:
12 "The DES fails to address the impact on 13 the fuel rods stored in the spent fuel pond if 14 the storage would be emptied of water by a 15 major earthquake and/or damage by falling 16 d e b ris. During an earthquake, ground water 17 levels around the plant could flu ctu a te la wildly, and thereby allow the leakage from the 19 fuel pond to be transported into the Bay by 20 fluctuations in the water table. In addition, 21 the DES fails to address the possible 22 environmental impacts which could occur if one 23 or both of the natural gas fire units were 24 damaged by an earthquake."
25 JUDGE LAZO: Now, both lic e ns e e and NRC Staff 9
77 Q 1 believe that the contention might be acceptable if it were 2 limited to the impact on Unit 3. So, I will have to ask 3 you, Mr. Fielder, why are you interested in having the 4 contention extend to the gas fire turbine units?
5 MR. FIELDER: First, let me say that there does 6 appear not to be a very good explanation, or tie in, between 7 the Unit 1 and Unit 2, the fossil fuel units, to the storage 8 of the fuel, and that was an oversight in the drafting of 9 the original contention.
10 What was intended to be formulated by this 11 part of the contention was: we wanted to draw the parallel 12 problem of having two gas fire units running next to a spent i3 fuel repository. In the event that there is an earthquake, d 14 there could quite easily be a rather conventional fire in is Unit 1, the fossil f uel unit, or Unit 2, the other f o ssil 16 fuel unit, which could lead to an explosion. And, in an 17 explosion that is earthquake based, or othe rwise, material is from fossil units could be ejected and land, could possibly 19 land in the spent fuel repository itself and thereby raining 20 the debris from the blown-away part of the fossil unit and 21 the debris that it had to go through to hit the spent fuel 22 pool. That could, in turn, trigger a number of events, possibly events. First, it could spill the water out of 23 l
24 the pool, a good percentage of it; and, second, it may 25 compress enough of the casks, the fuel rod casks, or t
78 l
J 1 bundles, sufficiently that there maybe a drastic rise in 2 temperature.
3 When this contention was being discussed, it 4 did occur to us that something along the lines of Chernobyl 5 are things that people are already beginning to think about.
6 Where fuel caused fires, where unlikely things catch fires, 7 such as even metals, or other d e b ris , if they come in a contact with enough fuel. It gets pushed together and the 9 bundles crushed sufficient to have a mass that began to heat 10 up. That is a concern of ours: it might cause fire and the 11 carrying off site of this smoke with fuel in it.
12 JUDGE LAZO: W e ll, Mr. Fielder has stated his i3 pos3 tio n regarding the obj e ctions file d by lice nse e and ja staff. Do either of the other parties have anything to add?
15 MR. NORTON: No, Your Honor.
16 MS. YOUNG: If I understand Mr. Fielder correctly, 17 he is postulating some accident scenario that may effect is storage of fuel at Unit 3. But, are you limiting yourself 19 to analysis of the environmental impacts that result from 20 such potential damage to Unit 3?
21 MR. FIELDER: Yes; I think the entire thrust of 22 that last sentence in Contention 7 is: what would be the 23 environmental impact of the fossil fuel units catching fire 24 and ej e cting material onto the spent fuel and thereby 25 causing damage to the spent fuel? What is the environmental 9
r 79 y
) 1 impact of the spent fuel being damaged by the fossil units?
2 JUDGE LAZO: Yes; I think that is implicit in the i 3 conte ntion, that it is environmental impacts that you are 4 addressing.
5 MS. YOUNG: I was just trying to clarify whether he 6 was talking about environmental impacts coming from 7 OXplosions from Units 1 and 2.
8 MR. FIELDER: The answer to that is: No. All 9 alone, we are not interested -- well, we are interested, in to an overall sense, in the safety of this County--
11 JUDGE LAZO: That is beyond the scope of this 12 proceeding, right?
s 13 MR. FIELDER: Yes, Your Honor.
'n) 14 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Fielde r, well, go ahead.
15 MR. FIELDER: I am sorry, did I interrupt?
16 JUDGE LAZO: No; I just wanted to wait while you 17 consulted with your associate.
is Would you' read Contention 8 for us, please.
19 MR. FIELDER: Certainly.
20 Contention No. 8 reads as follows:
21 " Irrespective of whether the license 22 is modified to allow for decommissioning under 23 PG and E's 30 year plan, or it is modified to 24 only extend until the federal high-level waste 25 repository becomes a v aila ble , pe titio n e rs
80
% 1 contend that the license conditions requiring 2 seismic investigation and analysis should not 3 be deleted. The Humboldt facility is sited in 4 an area of great and ever-changing seismic 5 a c tivity. P e titio n e r s contend that the 6 dis c o n tin u a n c e of the u tilitie s seismic 7 investigation and analysis program would have e a detrimental impact on the health and safety 9 of themselves and resid e nts of Humbold t to County."
11 JUDGE LAZO: Now, Mr. Norton, you say that there is 12 no basis for the contention. Basically, that is what you i3 are saying.
ja MR. NORTON: That is correct. There is no 15 specificity. In fact, it is so generalized that I have no ie, idea of what he has in mind. I mean, those are all nice 17 fancy words, but I have no idea what his contention is. How 18 does it have a detrimental impact? There is just no clue as 19 to what we are defending against here.
20 JUDGE LAZO: W ell, Ms. Young, you appear to have 21 understood it a little bit.
22 MS. YOUNG: A little bit. I think some of the 23 phrasing of the c onte ntio n is the fault of staff in its 24 description of the action in its notice for opportunity for 25 hearing, i. e , seismic investigation analysis.
81
'd 1 The staff did not object to this contention to 2 the extent that intervenors were challenging the deletion of 3 those requirements which still currently exist in the 4 lice nse. I an unrelated, or previously issued amendment, 5 the requirement for seismic monitoring has previously been 6 deleted. And, it appeared to staff that the amended 7 pe tition, I think, contained new references in discussions e of standing with respect to the individual petitioners about 9 their concern regarding deletion of the requirement for 10 seismic monitoring network.
11 So, to that extent, the contention would be a 12 ob[ectionable if petitioners are contending that deletion of p 33 the wismic mo nito ring network is going to the seismic
( ;
'N _/ 14 investigations of concern, would be obj ectionable as being 15 outside the scope of the proceeding. But the staff has not 16 obj e ction to the admission of this contention in other 17 areas.
is JUDGE LAZO: W ell, Mr. Fielder, what do you have to i9 say about that, as far as d ele tio n of this seismic 20 monitoring system is concerned?
21 MR. FIELDER: W ell, it was my understanding that 22 the :eismic monitoring issue, the deletion of that part of 23 the heense requirement, has become a fait accompli. It has 24 already been done by licensee. The monitoring system is no 25 longer an issue, w'as my understanding. I do not know where
82
( )
m ,/ 1 my clients will end up as far as their wanting to pursue the 2 requirement that there be seismic investigation and 3 a nalysis. I don't know if, in other words, monitoring is 4 severable from these, from seismic inve stig a tion and 5 analysis.
6 So, our position is this: We b elie v e , you 7 know, we concur that monitoring has been terminated. We, if a there is a possibility of continuing seismic investigation 9 and analysis, we would very much like to insist that it 10 continue. Especially given the growing, the ever-changing 11 seismic picture here on the North Coast. And I would again 12 reference you to the most, within the last two weeks, the i3 discove ry that, in fact, the earthqtakes that we thought u that we could be subj ected to of only a 7.0 and now they 15 find that there has been an 8.0 within 250 years. So I 16 think it is an important aspect to maintain.
17 JUDGE LAZO: Well, then, you would accept the staff 18 position as far as how the contention should be dealt with 19 it if is to be acceptable ?
20 MR. FIELDER: Cut to the bone, yes.
21 JUDGE LAZO: Yes. All right, thank you.
22 It would appear that we have completed the oral 23 argument on the contentions that have been filed by the 24 joint petitioners in the amended petition and we can move on 25 to other matters.
83
(
d 1 Now, before taking a luncheon recess, we do 2 want to mention that the Licensing Board members think it 3 would be worthwhile to have a site visit and look at the 4 pla nt. We would propose doing that tomorrow morning, if it 5 acceptable to the licensee. Now, we don't want to view 6 anything or receive any statements that are not made in the 7 presence of the petitione rs and counsel for the other a pa rties. So this should be a joint visit. We would ask and 9 invite at least one r e p r e s e n t a tiv e from the joint 10 petitioners and, of course, the staff are welcome to attend, 11 if they desire to do so.
12 Let me ask Mr. Norton or Mr. Locke. Is there any
,, 13 obj e ction to us touring the site in the presence of
\
x.) 34 representatives of the intervenors, or the petitioners?
15 MR. NORTON: No; no obj ection at all.
16 A VOICE: Will you be given protective clothing?
17 JUDGE L?.ZO: If we, I don't know. We are thinking 18 that we would like to see the spent fuel pool. And it is 19 possible that you might have to go through a contaminated 20 area to get to the spent fuel pool. I don't know, I haven't 21 visited this pla nt.
22 MR. NORTON: That is correct; there will have to be 23 protective clothing, if you go into the spent fuel pool or 24 contaminated areas.
25 JUDGE LAZO: Now, what does that entail as far as
84
,J 1 shoes and rubbers and suit?
2 MR. NORTON: That is correct.
3 A VOICE: How about a mask; do you wear a mask?
4 JUDGE LAZO: How long does it take to suit people 5 up and provide them with dosimeters and that type of thing?
6 MR. NORTON: W ell, the entire process, tour, 7 suiting up, training and so on that is required, will take a 8 couple of hours. It cold easily be done in the morning, or 9 sta ring at 8:00, 9:00 o' clock, we would be done by noon 10 without any problem.
11 A VOICE: And will the media be invited be invited, 12 also?
i3 MR. NORTON: It is the NRC's party.
14 JUDGE LAZO: I would like to invite the media; 15 although, we would have to, I think, keep this down to a 16 reasonable number. With this p r o t e c tiv e clothing, 17 d osim e te r s, and time and effort, and security checks, I 18 really don't want to impose a large horde of people on the 19 lice nse e. They are quite accommodating. Can we come to 20 some agreement that we will have one or two representatives 21 from the media and try to keep it down to a reasonable i
22 number?
23 Mr. Fielder, are you able to go; have you been 24 through the plant?
25 MR. FIELDER: I have not been through the plant and
85
( 3
'u/ 1 I will make myself a v aila ble , if the Board thinks a 2 representative should be present.
3 JUDGE LAZO: We are not demanding or requiring you 4 to go. We are simply saying that we would like to see the 5 pla nt. We think it is important that we do, and you are 6 most welcome to attend. But you do run the risk of not 7 going that we might see something or be told something 8 accidentally that would go into our minds and you would not 9 be privy to it. So, just to be fair, we want you there, if io you can. But it is not a demand.
11 MR. FIELDER: I understood that. I think I would 12 like to be present, yes.
13 MR. NOPTON: Your Honor, as a practical matter, the m,
i D u size of the group, just handling getting through, and so on, is really can't be any larger than about a dozen; ten is the 16 preferable number, but 12 about as large a group as you can 17 handle at one time through the he process.
18 JUDGE LAZO: Why don't you parties talk about it at 19 lunch.
20 MR. NORTON: W ell, that is how many we can handle 21 and it is up to you people to de cide who you want to go 22 there. There will, of course, be the three of you; Mr.
23 Fielder will be four; and I assume that one, or maybe two, 24 from the NRC will get you to six. There is going to have to 25 be a tour guide from PG and E, plus Mr. Locke and myself.
86 m
p s_,) 1 So that gets us to eight or nine. So there is only room for 2 maybe two or three others. That is what I am suggesting to 3 you, that we have to keep that in mind. We can't have a 4 tour of 20 or 30 people.
5 JUDGE LAZO: I know. We never try to impose that 6 sort of thing on you.
7 I saw a hand in the back of the room. Would you a care to--
9 A VOICE: Can a representative of the public go as 10 well?
11 JUDGE LAZO: W e ll, we have all of these joint 12 petitioners who are in the Redwood Alliance, I assume that 13 they are all members of the general public. But, put your la name down as being interested. If we can keep it down to 10 15 or 12 people, and there is room for you, then, I see no 16 reason why not.
17 A VOICE: Excuse me, Your Honor, do you think 18 there will be another public hearing regarding this issue?
19 You spoke about it e a rlie r and I know one of the state 20 senators mentioned that he thought it was important that the 21 public be informed and be allowed to have some input into 22 such a dangerous and delicate issue. So, do you think there 23 will be one?
24 JUDGE LAZO: I think I have addressed that before 25 and, then, I got some flack from the audience because I said 9
87 7
1 very lik e ly . Isn't it clear to you all that these 2 petitioners have standing to intervene and have a public 3 hearing; and, that there is a lot of agreement that the fact 4 that co nte ntio ns should be admitte d ? The pa rtie s have 5 agreed on several contentions.
6 We have to go back and consider what has been 7 said. We might say: we are against you all; we are not a going to admit those contentions. But being urged to admit 9 them by several of the pa rtie s here, there is a good io likelihood that we will admit them. In which case, there it will, in fact, be a pu blic evid e ntia ry hearing, at which 12 time we will allow limite d appearance statements from 13 members of the public.
'J 14 A VOICE: Thank you.
15 A VOICE: Why don't you just say yes?
16 JUDGE LAZO: I am just kind of a cautious person 17 who likes to sleep on Sunday.
is A VOICE: I guess, if there was going to be a i9 public hearing, you know, we would relax a little bit. But 20 we feel like you guys are just bulldozing it through on us 21 again like you bulldozed it the trees and you bulldozed up 22 there, and yo'1 put in a defective power plant--
23 JUDGE LAZO: Now, come on.
24 We are going to take a luncheon recess, but there 25 is one lady in the back that does want to be heard.
88
, 7s t x
() 1 A VOICE: I am just concerned for your safety. I 2 don't know that there is a mask that will keep radiation i 3 out.
4 JUDGE LAZO: I will accept one more, and that is
{
l 5 the last one until after lunch. l i
i 6 A VOICE: Thank you. I would like to welcome you I
7 all to Humboldt County. I would invite not to just see the I a worst part of the county. Take a drive and look at the l 9 trees. '
10 JUDGE LAZO: We will adjourn for the noon recess.
1 I
11 We will take one hour and a half. Return at 1:30.
12 Off the record.
l 13 (Whereupon, at noon, the hearing in the above- )
la entitled matter was adjourned to reconvene at 1:30 15 P.m the same day.)
l l
l 16 17 f
l 18 19 20 l
21 22 23 24 25 9
- a
89-8] 1 2
AFTERNOON SESSION 1:35 p.m. l l
3 JUDGE LAZO: Will the prehearing conference come to 4 order, please.
5 Now, just before our noon recess, we were talking I
6 about a site visit tomorrow. And, Mr. Norton, have you and the 7 other parties discussed the number of people who would be {i 8 planning to visit the plant?
. 9 MR. NORTON: Unfortunately, we did not. I didn't 10 see Mr. Fielder at all during lunchtime. I don't know what i
11 happened to him. He wasn't here. I am just saying he wasn't 12 here so we didn't have that opportunity.
f l 13 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Fielder, I think you indicated that 14 you would like to attend the site visit?
I i
L 15 MR. FIELDER: Yes. Yes, myself and -- I would like 1
~
l 16 to take at least one, maybe two, people on the visit if there ;
{ 17 is room.
h l 18 MR. NORTON: May we ask the NRC staff how many of 19 their people --- '* '
20 MS. YOUNG: I believe the staff has a tour planned f 21 for the afternoon. So we would decline the. invitation to 22 attend the morning site visit.
23 JUDGE.LAZO: Very well..
24 Mr. Norton, did you have any discussions with members 25 of the media who had indicated ---
i i
90 2 1 MR. NORTON: They had all left, apparently, at the
!h.W 2 10:30 break. I don't know if you noticed, all the cameras and 3 so on left when we took the 10:30 break and there wasn't 4 anybody around.
5 JUDGE LAZO: Well, someone stood up and said can the 6 Press go.
7 MR. NORTON: -Yes, but that was ---
8 MS. HOMOROF: I am with KPFK radio.
L 9 JUDGE LAZO: KPSF?
10 MS. HOMOROF: F-K, KPFK, Pacifica Radio.
11 JUDGE LAZO: KPFA? Say it again, please?
i 12 MR. FIELDER: It is KPFK. '
13 JUDGE LAZO: That is Arcata? ~
14 MS. HOMOROF: Eureka. The station is in Los Angeles, 15 but I represent them up here. That is one of the Pacifica 16 Network radio stations.
l 17 JUDGE LAZO: I.see. And you would like to attend
! 18 this site visit?
l l'
19 MS HOMOROF: Yes.
20 JUDGE LAZO: May we have your name, please?
21 MS. HOMOROF: Ida Homorof, H-O-M-O-R-O-F.
22 JUDGE LAZO: Ina?
23 MS. HOMOROF: D-A. I-D-A. Like an idea.
24 JUDGE LAZO: Yes?
t 25 A VOICE: I think there will be two other media people
91 3 who would like to go, or at least a representative.
1 One 2 represents the Lumberjack newspaper from the university and 3 the other is Eagle News, a local ecological newspaper.
4 JUDGE LAZO: I am sorry, our court reporter is not 5 hearing you.
6 VOICE: Okay. Two people, two agencies that are 7 media representatives, one from Lumberjack, a university
~
8 publication, and the other from Eagle News, a publication from 9 our environmental dector.
- JUDGE 4LAZO: Come up to a microphone.
10 11 VOICE: Thank you. I would like to suggest two other
~
12 people th'at-will' go, one from th'et Lumberjack, a state university 13 newspaper, and._the,other from Eagle News, which is a publication 14 of the North Coast Environmental Center in Arcata.
15 MR. ORNELAS: I would like to be considered as a 16 member of the public to be able to go.
17 JUDGE LAZO: What is your name, sir?
18 MR. ORNELAS: Bob Ornelas, 0-R-N-E-L-A-S.
19 MR. NORTON: Excuse me, Your Honor. The. media has 20 to be CHP-press credentialed. If they have CHP press credentials, ,
1 21 then they can be considered for the tour. But otherwise not. )
22 JUDGE LAZO: Could you explain that? What all those 23 initials are?
24 MR. NORTON: It is California Highway Patrol. They 25 have to have press credentials. On other words, you have to be l
92 4 1 legitimate to be able to say I am the media.
2 MS. IIOMOROF: I have my press card from KPFK Radio.
3 I don't have a CIIP press card.
4 MR.NORTON: Then she can't go on the tour.
5 MS.'IIOMOROF: And I don't ---
6 JUDGE LAZO: Is that a safe-bearings consideration?
7 Or what is the reason?
8 MR. NORTON: ,It is a policy consideration. Anyone can 9 say they are.with the media. There are tens of thousands and 10 you could put out a pie'ce of paper and say this is a newspaper, 11 I'm with the media therefore I'am entitled to;go.
12 MR. FIELDER: That can be verifiad.
13 MR. NORTON: And that is why the CPII requires press 14 credentials for people to be admitted to certain things. And 15 they issue them. And they are verified that they are indeed 16 with the media and are entitled to whatever the media is 17 entitled to.
18 And we just ask for the same thing. If they have 19 press credentials, fine, no problem.
20 JUDGE LAZO: You are saying it is a policy matter.
21 Is it PG&E policy or ---
22 MR. NORTON: That's right.
23 JUDGE LAZO: --- local government?
4 24 MR. NORTON: PG&E corporate policy.
25 JUDGE LAZO: And that is from headquarters?
93 l
5 1 . MR. NORTON: We have no objection to the media coming 8 2 in at all, none. All we ask is that they have media credentials ,
l l
1 3 MS. HOMOROF: I have my press pass with me, if you 4 would.like to see it. I do not have a CHP credential.
5 A VOICE: I would like have someone verify that.
6 MS. HOMOROF: Well, that is a policy set by PG&E.
7 That is very bureaucratic, or whatever -- I am thinking of a 8 nice word.
9 A VOICE: It has not been adhered to in the past 10 either. Apparently, it is a brand-new policy.
11 A VOICE: Excuse me, I don't think that it is time 12 to rock the boat of.these proceedings on the basis of the CHP credential. But I would like to say that both the Lumberjack lh 13 14 is a credible newspaper and if you are from this area you know 15 that. And this reporter, Bob Crickman, has been on the staff 16 for quite a while.
17 And I understand that Eagle News -- and there are l l
18 other reporters there or the editors -- it is a popular 19 newspaper and if you have been around there you know that it ,
1 20 has a circulation of about,10,000 And it is put out every )
21 month. So it is not really an issue unless you would like to j 22 make it one.
I 23 JUDGE LAZO: Are there any of the media people present i 9 24 25 who do have a CHP credential?
(No response.)
94 6 1 A VOICE: Does'anyone know how long it takes to get 2 one of-those?
3 MS. HOMOROF: I would say 48 weeks, or something.
4 Why do you extend an invitation and then withdraw it?
5 JUDGE LAZO: Well, I guess they really didn't extend l l
6 the invitation. We thought that it would be perfectly all right l 7 for some member of the press to go, even if they were sort of 8 a pool press reporter. The big problem was the numbers.
9 A VOICE: Could you be a representative of the 10 general public?
11 JUDGE LAZO: Well if Bob Ornelas wanted to go, could 12 he represent the media as a member of the public?
13 MS. HOMOROF: Would you like to see my press pass?
14 JUDGE LAZO: I am sorry, ma'am, I don't think that 15 will satisfy PG&E at this point, as far as their corporate 16 Policy is concerned.
17 MS. HOMOROF: What have they got to be afraid of? Mr.-. --
18 MR. NORTON: Ma'am, we have absolutely ---
19 MS. HOMOROF: --- and he said he did.
20 MR. NORTON: And that's absolutely correct. We will 21 allow anyone with a CHP press credential on the tour. That's 22 been our policy and it continues to be our policy.
23 A VOICE: That is not true.
24 MS. HOMOROF: Then we ask you to give the approval.
25 A VOICE: Your Honor ---
,- s:
z.
Tv .,4 w e 4 / a
= = . =-- .
95 1 JUDGE LAZO: I am sorry, our court reporter is having 9
2 a lot of difficulty. If pe$ple do wish to talk, first it would
~
,3 be better if you came to a microphone.
But, most importantly,
~
4 plea e ide tify~yourselves by name.
5 JAnd this p'roceeding is falling apart. Does anyone 6 here -- I will ask again -- does anyone from the media have 7 this CHP credential?
8 (No response.)
9 JUDGE LAZO: The answer apparently is no because I 10 received no response.
11 A VOICE: Excuse me, could we clarify what he is 12 talking about, this credential, this CHP credential, could he
(~\1 13 clarify what he's talking about?
L.,'
14 JUDGE LAZO: All right, Mr. Norton, how do you get 15 one and how long-does it take?
16 MR. NORTON: I have no idea. I am not a member of 17 the media. But -- the people who were here from the local TV 18 stations and so on had all had those credentials, and I am sure 19 they can answer that questions. I don't know. I don't have any 20 idea.
21 A VOICE: Want me to call the CHP and ask them?
22 JUDGE LAZO: Ms. Public?
23 MS. PUBLIC: I was wondering if part of the problem 24 might be that you were worried about having (unintelligible.)
25 JUDGE LAZO: Well, you really should address your
96 1 questions up here.
2 MS. PUBLIC: Oh, I'm sorry. The media, the sort of 3 bigger media, has already left. They are not here, and maybe 4 they have those particular CHP passes. It is easier to allow 5 the public to go anyway than those'othe'r newspapers to go under 6 that thing.
7 I mean,'they are.not opposed to~the public going and 8 the public don't have:CHP passes,. ,. -.
9 MR. KIRKMAN: If.I could sa'y,something? The ---
10 JUDGE LAZO: What is your name, sir?
11 MR. KIRKMAN: My name~ is Dave Kirkman from the 12 Lumberjack. PG&E about three weeks ago extended an invitation
(] 13 to the Lumberjack to have one of its reporters go down to
(_/
14 San Luis Obispo County to tour the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power 15 Plant.
16 Now, they did not say anything about having to have 17 a C3P press pass at that time.
ig MR. FIELDER: If I might be heard for just a moment, 19 I think that we have been kind of getting bogged down on this 20 issue. And what I would suggest that we do is, unless the 21 Members of the Board are ready to make a decision on this point, 22 why don't we drop it to the foot of the calendar and handle the 23 other matters that are in front of us. They are the matters 24 to be dealt with.
25 And possibly we can get someone knowledgeable here to
97 1 'give some of the credentialed media, if.you will, a call --
9 2 those that were here earlier -- to see if they want to go. And 3 then possibly, with that feedback, we may be able to resolve 4 the issue very quickly at a later point in this hearing.
5 JUDGE LAZO: That looks like good advice, Mr.
6 Fielder. Let us just take a brief recess. .
7 (A recess was taken.)
6 9
10 11 12 (J
'N.
'f 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 9 24 25
98 I JUDGE LAZO: Well, thank you for waiting for this 2 brief break.
'3 I think we have decided that the only sensible way 4 to resolve this thing is to rule that only representatives 5 of the parties will attend this site visit at this time.
6 The Licensing Board will attend; the staff is 7 welcome if they wish to come because they are one of the 8 parties. Representatives of the joint-petitioners are 9 welcome to attend.
10 Dut I think if the press or members of the public 11 want to make a site visit, they should negotiate that 12 separately with the licensee. This visit really is for the 13 purpose of the members and the parties in this proceeding, 14 ascertaining what the facts are out there and having an 15 opportunity to look at it.
16 So, rather than clutter it up with a lot of 17 outsiders and members of the public, I think we will simply 18 restrict it to representat3ves of the parties and the 19 Licensing Board.
20 MS. HOMOROF: Why do you say "rather than clutter 21 it up"? They are cluttering up our world with radiation.
22 JUDGE LAZO: I think you have seen what the 23 problem is --
24 MS. HOMOROF: It's your choice of words, though.
25 JUDGE LAZO: Well, I'm thinking of too many people
99 3 wanting to go and making it impossible for the rest of us to 2 have an opportunity to see what we need to see and find out 3 what we need to find out.
4 Yes, ma'am?
5 MS. SOLOMON: But, if just one or two concerned 6 citizens would go, why is that cluttering it up?
7 My name is R. J. Solomon.
8 JUDGE LAZO: There should be lots of opportunity 9 for members of the public and the press to tour the site at 10 some other time. But I don't think they have to do it 11 tomorrow morning when we want to go.
12 Can we arrange to meet -- you say, Mr. Fielder,
,m 13 you will have, maybe, two members with you?
j 14 MR. FIELDER: Yes, I would like to have two 15 members with me.
16 JUDGE LAZO: And then there will be three of us 17 from the Licensing Board.
18 MR. NORTON: We need the names from Mr. Fielder.
19 of course, we have his name and three Board members; but we 20 need the names of the other two members that will be 21 attending.
22 ' JUDGE LAZO. Can you get that later in the day?
23 MR. NORTON: Yes, we do need it today.
24 MR. FIELDER: I will provide before we break.
25 MR. NORTON: Fine.
100 1 JUDGE LAZO: And will agree to meet at the plant 2 -- when, around -- how long does it take to get out there 3 from here?
4 MR. FIELDER: Maybe ten minutes.
5 MR. NORTON: About ten minutes; you can drive 6 there in ten minutes.
7 JUDGE LAZO: Meet there at 9:00 o' clock?
8 MR. NORTON: That's fine.
9 MS. SUZELL: Sir?
10 JUDGE LAZO: Yes.
11 MS. SUZELL: The idea is to save lives and we 12 would really like to (unintelligible).
- 13 JUDGE LAZO: I am sorry; we can't pick up your x i
> 14 ccmments from there.
15 MS. SUZELL: My name is Suzell; it's just one 16 name. This woman would like to go and I think we would like 17 to have her go as a person who is willing to look and see 18 what is happening. I wouldn't want to go there myself.
19 MS. HOMOROF: I am past child-bearing age and so I 20 am going. I am taking my life in my hands, but I'm going.
21 These two women on the staff certainly should not 22 go, 23 MS. DLACKDERRY: I want to say something, too --
24 Donnie Blackberry -- that it's censorship by them pulling 25 out those red cards, keeping the public from -- to see what
101 I is going on. And I think we would be in a reasonable risk 2 of safety (unintelligible) -- I think you are cutting the 3 media and the public out of this is censorship.
4 MR. WIIEELER: My name is Robbie Wheeler. I am a 5 past member of Redwood Alliance and, until recently, 6 affiliated with the organization.
7 I think we make a major mistake by saying that the 8 public isn't represented when the Redwood Alliance is there.
9 They are certainly speakers for the public interest. They 10 have always been open to the public to participate in the 11 organization; they represent the public very well.
12 I think if people would like to consider
,s, 13 themselves part of the public and want to have an interest f ;
l 14 in what happens with the plant, that they would do well to 15 become involved with the Redwood Alliance and ask to speak 16 for the Redwood Alliance and -- and become a full part of 17 the organization.
18 JUDGE LAZO: Well, that will remain our decision.
19 I again say that, if you, ma'am, or any others 20 wish to tour the plant, I think you should make an effort to 21 try and negotiate it separately with the licensee.
22 I think it is very important that this Licensing 23 Daard see that plant; and we don't want to lose that 24 opportunity.
25 A VOICE: Mr. Norton, the CIIP would like to talk
102 1 to you. A representative of theirs would like to speak to 2 you in reference to the so-called press pass.
3 MR. NORTON: Is he on the phone?
4 A VOICE: He is on the phone.
5 MR. NORTON: Please take his number and I will 6 call him back when we are done with this hearing or we have 7 a break, ma'am.
8 JUDGE LAZO: Let's just move on to one other 9 matter that we do want to cover. And I think I w.11 ask 10 Judge Morris to introduce the subject.
11 JUDGE MORRIS: By way of introduction of the 12 subject that we want to discuss with attorneys, since there rw 13 are a large number of public present, I would like to just i.
~ ' 14 explain a little bit about how this Board fits in with the 15 NRC activities.
16 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a permanent 17 panel of Administrative Judges. Approximately a third are 18 lawyers; approximately a third are environmental, engineers 19 or scientists or life scientists; and approximately a third 20 are physical scientists or engineers.
21 For each public proceeding, whether it is a 22 construction permit, an operating license, or an amendment 23 to a license such as this proceeding, when there is a 24 request for intervention, the Licensing Board is appointed.
25 The Board consists of three members, like
103 I ourselves, a lawyer, Dr. Carpenter, and myself, and we are 2 selected from this permanent panel or from some part-time 3 members of the panel and we conduct -- correct me, Mr.
4 Chairman, if I am wrong -- something on the order of 30 5 proceedings a year of this type. Some of them are quite 6 long.
7 An operating license, which is contested, such as G the Shoreham Nuclear Plant or Diablo Canyon, for so many, 9 many days, hundreds of days here. There are stacks of 10 paper, oh, ten feet high. So it gets to be a tremendous 11 logistics problem of processing paper, all of which is in 12 the public records, submitted under oath, and tightly p 13 controlled.
v' 14 Everyone is interested in an expedited hearing.
15 You hate to waste a lot of time shuffling papers. Some of 16 it is required. So we are looking for ways in which we can 17 do it more efficiently.
18 The Chairman of our panel is particularly 19 interested in seeing how well we can use computers to assist 20 us in our administrative problems of correspondence, of the 21 filing of papers, of accelerating mail. You all know the 22 U. S. Postal Service takes a minimum of five days from coast 23 to coast.
24 We are interested, when we complete the record, of 25 being able to review it efficiently and quickly and
104 1 thoroughly. And, to this end, we are trying to set up this 2 proceeding as a trial proceeding in which we will 3 computerize the record.
4 We are just in the preliminary stages of thinking 5 this through; nothing is decided yet. Clearly, Pacific Gas 6 and Electric has the resources to use computers. Clearly, 7 the Nuclear Regulatory Agency does, while we haven't really 8 discussed the details of it with our own staff. And whether 9 the intervenor can be found to have a way to participate 10 meaningfully, we don't know yet.
11 We have discussed the possibilities. I understand 12 the Redwood Alliance has a computer. Whether it is 13 compatible with the kinds of systems that the P.G.& E. and I4
- the NRC would have is questionable.
15 Their counsel is located here in Eureka; the 16 Redwood Alliance is not; so there is a problem of 17 communication there.
18 One possibility that we are discussing is use of 19 the public document room here in Eureka. There is a public 20 document room there; and I understand it is in the library 21 in the basement of the courthouse. And they have expressed 22 a willingness to have a computer installed there, which the 23 NRC would install and pay whatever transmission costs might 24 be required of the intervenor. They would not pay for 25 p,g,3 g,.3,
105 1
The idea would be to build a data base in 2 Washington, in the NRC offices, where the complete record 3 was on the computer. So each of the parties, including each 4 of the three justices, would have his own personal computer 5 and would have access to that central data bank. Each of us 6 would be able to file correspondence through the computer if 7 we can work out a way where this is mechanically possible, 8 or electronically possible.
9 We wanted to bring this to the public's attention, 10 since you are here, and we wanted to discuss a little bit of 11 the details with the parties. I have discussed with Mr.
12 Fielder and with Mr. Locke some of the preliminaries ahead 7- 13 of time. And I have mentioned it to staff counsel. And I 14 believe they have been represented in some of the meetings 15 that we've had on the subject.
16 Let me ask Pacific Gas and Electric, and you may 17 not have the answers here; and, if not, we can get them from 18 you some other time. Mr. Locke was kind enough to call me 19 last Friday and give me some information.
20 I wonder if you know what kind of word processor -
21 - or is there a standard type of word processor that would 22 he used in this proceeding?
23 MR. NORTON: Well, there are, of course, many 24 types that could be used. And, in fact, that is one of our 25 questions about the question you pose is, what type of word
10G 1 processor would the NRC contemplate.
2 One of the problems you have with this sort of a 3 system is that I suspect what the goal would be is to 4 standardize it so that it would be useful in other 5 proceedings and you would develop some sort of a standard 6 format, software and hardware.
7 And one of the problems is, I suspect, that the 8 different utilities, the different licensees, if you will, 9 would all have different -- or may well have a series of 10 different kinds of hardware and, for that matter, software.
11 For example, at P.G.& E., we are basically an 12 IDM/ IBM-compatible system. In the word processing, it
^m 13 varies a little bit, but it is, again, all IBM-compatible.
- 1 v I4 Now, some other utility may have a digital system 15 or whatever. So that is a question that we had, is what the 16 NRC was thinking in in terms of a standardized system.
17 JUDGE MORRIS: Well, let me interrupt on that one.
IS We do not want to try to standardize at this time; 19 we think that would be a big mista:.e. We think that the 20 measure of success in this proceeding is showing 21 feasibility, not driving towards the big system that would 22 handle the total workload of the whole NRC legal 23 proceedings. We just don't want to jump off on the wrong 24 foot. We just want to see what kind of problems would we 25 get into --
107 1
MR. NORTON: Sure.
2 JUDGE MORRIS: -- using off-the-shelf equipment 3 which can be made compatible to the biggest percent possible 4 of what you already have.
5 MR. NORTON: Yes, off-the-shelf equipment is okay 6 for hardware; it's a little bit more difficult with 7 software. I personally happen to be very involved in 8 computer litigation; and it's the software problem, not the 9 hardware. The hardware is easy.
10 You can get a vendor to give you whatever you need 11 in that regard in terms of modems, transmission, that sort 12 or thing. It's the software that's the trick. And,
.m 13 frankly, I have been developing software for complex
\
_ 14 litigation -- not this particular matter, but, frankly, 15 31tigation much more complex than this particular matter --
16 and it is the software is where the problems are.
17 One of the problems you have is that what you 18 would like to do is to develop the system so that it works 19 for you as a lawyer but you don't want to develop that 20 system for the other lawyer. I mean, you want him to 21 develop his own system, obviously.
22 So that becomes a bit of a problem once you start 23 accessing each other's computers.
24 I happen to work with some software people who are 25 very, very, very good. They can get in your computer, get
108 I in trouble; and I assume other people have the same -- they 2 get into my computer, I am in trouble. So that's something 3 we have some questions about, are some safeguards; because 4 you do want to be able to manipulate data. That's what you 5 are talking about; that's why you have the computers, to be 6 able to get in and manipulate the data.
7 And this young lady over here is having a problem 8 with that word; but, by manipulating the data, what I mean 9 is, you move the paragraphs around, you search the data for 10 what you are looking for. We don't manipulate in the 11 negative way at all; we manipulate in a positive way. That 12 is what a computer is all about.
c- 13 A VOICE: (unintelligible) -- inside a computer --
14 JUDGE MORRIS: No; I think what he is talking 15 about, if I may interject myself, is in developing a 16 document, we proceed to -- there may be several stages of 17 drafting. And, during that period, you would not like the 18 other parties have access to your drafts which haven't been 19 approved by your superiors, for example.
20 So there are safeguards that can be built into the 21 system so that data can be extracted from the data bank, 22 which would be a central data bank in Washington, of data 23 that you had released -- it wasn't draft stage; it was fully 24 protected from your point of view.
25 MR. NORTON: Yes, I think you would clearly have
109 I to set up a system where your work product is done on a 2 different system and only when it is a complete produce do 3 you thir; put it into the shared system of all the parties.
4 JUDGE MORRIS: You could off-load from the data 5 bank and process that on your own system.
6 MR. NORTON: Yes. Unfortunately, this 2s much 7 less of a problem for us than it is, for example, of the 8 intervenors and probably the NRC because we have systems in 9 place, we have capabilities in place to do this. And it is 10 much less of a problem for us than for others.
II But my concern, in the general tone, is the 12 software. Who is going to develop the software and how is 7- 13 it to be developed? Software is very complex and very
)
- 14 expensive; it would be for this. And I just don't know who 15 you are proposing to develop that software.
16 Are we talking about an outside vendor who would 17 come in and develop software? Are we talking about the NRC 18 developing it? I am not sure they have the capability to do 19 that; and I am not sure they have the people, the software 20 people to do that.
21 JUDGE MORRIS: There are a couple of things that 22 are being considered. One is to shop around for existing 23 systems because, as you mentioned yourself, you are heavily 24 involved in it. And, if there are other Jaw firms, big law 25 firms that have their own systems which might be made
110 1 available.
2 The other, I think, for the NRC, would be to hire 3 a contractor, not to try to do it in-house. There are 4 plenty of contractors around who would be delighted.
5 MR. NORTON: You can bet there are.
6 The other problems that we see -- and we've been 7 kicking this around; I think it's a good idea. I, 8 personally, am attracted to it. I wonder who would -- how 9 the intervenors, for example -- who they would train to 10 operate.
11 You have got to have somebody that knows what they 12 are doing. It is not a simple matter, despite what the 13 vendors tell you. You don't just sit down and press a 14 button as you do in these little novelty places where you go 15 in and you go through steps one, two, three, four. It's'a 16 lot more complex than that.
17 And I see that as a problem, is having operators 18 trained to utilize the system. Because you are really 19 putting somebody at a disadvantage if you take away the hard 20 copy and give them the computer and they don't know how to 21 use it.
22 JUDGE MORRIG: You are certainly correct. And I 23 don't know if you've had a chance to pursue this, Mr.
24 Fielder, any further since we last talked, if you have any 25 ideas that you would like to express.
111 I MR. FIELDER: I have given it some thought. I am 2 sensitive to the NRC's position about the paperwork piling 3 up in the halls of your agency just as they are piling up in 4 the halls of my office.
5 I do have a concern. And, while I think that the 6 Redwood Alliance, as a group, and the other intervenors, 7 amongst them they should have someone who is computer 8 capable and can quickly -- hopefully, quickly adjust to 9 getting basic information out of the system. I think that 10 we could do that.
Il My concern is that -- and I am assuming that this -
12 access would be in a public place like the public document 13 room here in Humboldt County, where not just the intervenors 14 could use the information. It is public information; and 15 the problem is going to come when a member of the public at 16 large who wishes to know what is happening in this public 17 matter is unable to access the information himself.
18 I don't have a real answer for that. I don't 19 foresee the answer to that question by having a sticker 20 pasted on the side of the machine with detailed instructions 21 on how to operate it that are so complete that anybody could 22 actually access in.
23 Short of that, I think that we can, if we only are 24 concerned about the intervenors, I am quite confident that 25 they will be able to wend their way through the system and
112
% I the function for their limited needs, which I do believe 2 would be limited to motions and getting electronic paperwork 3 and getting electronic transcripts. And correct me if I am 4 wrong, that's pretty much what I thought the system for our 5 purposes would clearly be used for.
6 JUDGE MORRIS: Well, there is one scenario, and I 7 am not saying that this is the direction any group or any 8 person that is going, but just let me raise it as a 9 possibility -- that the NRC, or this Board in particular, 10 telling you as an intervenor that you should type on of your 11 submittals a particular type font; would that give you a -
12 problem?
13 MR. FIELDER: I am afraid I will have to beg that 14 question, not be computer literate myself.
15 JUDGE MORRIS: Well, this typewriter, as an 16 object --
17 MR. FIELDER: All right.
18 JUDGE MORRIS: IBM Selectric, you can put a 19 different ball on it.
20 MR. FIELDER: Sure, that's not a problem.
21 JUDGE MORRIS: Because, if you could do that, then 22 there are what are called optical character readers which 23 are fairly accurate in translating the typed word into 24 electronic signals which can then be processed by the 25 computer
113 I One possibility would be for you simply to type 2 things up in your normal fashion, using a standard format, 3 and a font, so that they could be optically scanned right 4 into the computer and then be sent over the wires to the 5 central computer data bank in Washington.
6 To me, this would be the least imposition on the 7 intervenor. To the extent that you took advantage of having 8 any terminal and access to the data bank, then it would be 9 up to you to get trained in the use of it. I don't believe 10 it's all that difficult for search and retrieval, being very II much impressed by several visits by myself to a library of -
12 medicine where, as an ex-librarian, I went to the card 13 catalog and then I went to a computer which I hadn't seen 14 before and I found things much more quickly with the 15 computer and much more recently filed.
16 So I think this is the real value of having this 17 in the public document room as a parallel experiment, not to 18 our own proceeding, but to getting the documents that are in 19 the document room updated and a quality assurance, so to 20 speak, that they are complete. I think this would be a 21 tremendous advantage, both to the intervenors and to the 22 company.
23 MR. FIELDER: Well, I think I can speak on behalf 24 of the intervenors, that we are willing to cooperate in 25 thic, albeit an experiment. But I think we could probably q
\ {
114 1 benefit from it as well, given the fact that, on the one 2 hand, it's a trade-off in time and retraining, possibly, for 3 one, maybe two, people. On the other hand, the possibility 4 of not having to purchase or having to go through the 5 Freedom of Information Act to get expensive transcripts, 6 which is a considerable -- an important consideration for 7 the intervenors, by the way, I think that probably offsets 8 the problem of retraining someone.
9 JUDGE MORRIS: I should mention, I guess, that 10 there would be a printer associated with the computer in the 11 public document room so that you could not only show it on -
12 the screen, but you could print out what you wanted.
13 Whether there would be an expense for that -- I 14 see the staff is consulting amongst themselves.
15 Ms. YOUNG: We are just -- not being a party to 16 some of the meetings that have been going on between the 17 Licensing Board panel and I guess Office of General Counsel, 18 whoever attended, the only question that comes to my mind:
19 He are talking about a terminal being placed in a public 20 document room for the use of the general public including 21 intervenors?
22 JUDGE MORRIS: Correct.
23 MS. YOUNG: lias anyone given consideration to 24 whether this pilot program would run afoul of the 25 prohibition in the NRC's Appropriations Act of giving
)
____---.______-_-_______--_-w
115 I financial assistance to intervenors?
2 JUDGE MORRIS: We've given that some thought.
3 MS. YOUNG: That is one of the questions that I 4 have and definitely would not take a position on it's 5 advantages in this proceeding.
6 JUDGE MORRIS: We have given some thought to that.
7 Certainly, that's a reason for the NRC not giving the 8 intervenor a terminal. We think that would fall afoul with 9 Mr. Van Bourg (phonetic) in a big hurry.'
10 MS. YOUNG: We are talking about transmitting 11 pleadings using this terminal; is that correct?
12 JUDGE MORRIS: We are talking about that. We 13 believe that we can justify this; and the Chairman, as a 14 lawyer, can supplement what I say, if he wants to.
15 But, it is in the interest of the parties and the 16 interest of the NRC to have the proceeding go this way.
17 There are enough advantages in time and money that it 18 doesn't redown to the intervenor to be interpreted as 19 helping the intervenor.
20 MS. YOUNG: So we are talking about intervenors 21 having the opportunity of obtaining copies of the transcript 22 which, in the past, NRC contracts have submitted some 23 duplicating transcripts for intervenors' personal use.
24 JUDGE MORRIS: That's why I dodged on the question 25 I don't know the answer.
of a charge for printouts.
1 w.l
{
11G i
1 MR. NORTON: Would this, as a trial system, are 2 you contemplating running the old system in parallel so that 3 we would have hard copies of everything and, if somebody 4 pushes the wrong button, we lose nothing?
5 JUDGE MORRIS: yes, sir.
6 MR. NORTON: That would make me feel a little 7 better.
8 JUDGE MORRIS: It would make no change in the 9 existing system for the use of this backup. For example, we 10 worry a little bit about affidavits and oaths going over 11 these certifications --
12 MR. NORTON: Sure.
13 JUDGE MORRIS: -- over the wires.
14 MR. NORTON: you brought up --
15 JUDGE MORRIS: -- worry about coding errors and 16 things like that.
17 MR. NORTON: you brought up the optical scanning.
18 We took a look at that. To date, there is approximately 19 10,000 pages in this proceeding. About 15 percent of those 20 are in an electronic format already.
21 JUDGC LAZO: Could I have those numbers again, 22 please.
23 MR. NORTON: About 10,000 pages of hard copy 24 documents related to the decommissioning of Humboldt are 25 already in existence. And about 15 percent of that, 1500
,/m
\
}
v
117 I pages, are in electronic format.
2 JUDGE MORRIS: What does that mean, Mr. Norton, a 3 word processor or are they computer code?
4 MR. NORTON: Well, they are available. In other 5 words, nothing has to be done. Whatever system you came up 6 with, they could be fit right in. In other words, they 7 could just be transmitted.
8 Ilowever , the other 8500 pages would have to be j l
9 optical scanned or something; and an estimated cost on that I 10 is approximately $100,000. And that is for the record as it II exists at this early stage.
12 13 14 15 16 l
17 l 18 l
19 l l
20 l 21 22 23 24 25 l
m '
(
LJ l
118 1 1 MS. YOUNG: Mr. Norton, you described the number of 2 pages on the Humboldt docket left,the hearing record in this 3 proceeding?
4 MR. NORTON: That is correct.
5 MS. YOUNG: Because it is not necessarily clear that 6 the licensee will be submitting as an exhibit, for example, the l 7 entire decommissioning application. I 8 MR. NORTON: I understand. What we are talking about 9 -- again, those are rough estimates. That's based on probably 10 so much.of it being of good quality for the scanning purposes.
11 Optical scanning, as you know, depends on the~ quality of the 12 product that they are scanning.
~'
- 13 Those that are not of such good quality, for whatever (V
14 reason -- different format, et cetera -- are a lot more 15 manpower-intensive.
16 JUDGE MORRIS: Just -so we get it straight early in 17 the record, there is a difference between the optical scanning i
l 18 which can reproduce a diagram, for example, and a character
[
19 reader.
I l
20 MR. NORTON: Yes.
21 JUDGE MORRIS: So in truth, all of us could keep that 22 distinction' clear.
i f 23 MS. YOUNGi ~ Judge Morris, are we talking about a (7 24 scanning that can reproduce charts and maps?
\)
25 .JUDGErMORRIS: No, we are not. We are talking about
? k.
p
- \ e
119 2 1 an optical character reader which can scan typewritten pages, 2 not diagrams.
3 MS. YOUNG: Because I believe a lot of the pages 4 included -- at least the decommissioning application -- various 5 charts and maps.
l 6 JUDGE MORRIS: Those exhibits would not be in it. I i
7 MR. NORTON: Well, that brings me back to a question i 8 then. What would you intend to do with those tables, charts, 9 et cetera, that are in an environmental report and elsewhere i
10 that are parts of exhibits and become part of the hearing 11 record eventually?
12 Would they just simply be excluded from the
(~}~ 13 electronic system?
\mJ g4 JUDGE MORRIS: No, I think we would have to make 15 reference to them somehow.
16 MR. NORTON: All right. So that hasn't been really g7 thought through yet. Okay.
18 JUDGE LAZO: Well, at least we do not detect any 19 great degree of reluctance to embark upon this trial program.
l 20 Although I don't also detect a lot of enthusiasm.
1 21 Maybe you can,all think about it a little bit more i
22 and let us have your ideas.
23 MR. NORTON: Our computer people are very i
l
( 24 enthusiastic, as is anyone who seeks job security.
25 MR. FIELDER: I would appreciate at least the
120 3 1 opportunity over night to meet and concur with my clients about 2 this matter, especially seeing as some of them are not present 3 in court now, and make any final comments I have about this 4 issue tomorrow.
5 Although, I think that given the fact that we are 6 going to be using a redundant system, one that relies on hard 7 copies, as well as this experimental process, I am sure that 8 my clients will be more-than happy to participate in this 9 endeavor.
10 JUDGE MORRIS: Let me anticipate one question. What 11 happens when the public is so interested that you can't get to 12 the computer to. conduct'your business? If that happy situation
(~) 13 arises, I think we can find a way to another computer.
V' 14 MR. FIELDER: I would appreciate that.
15 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Fielder, what shape is the public 16 document room in here? Is it ---
g7 MR. FIELDER: I think in a word it is crowded. Maybe 18 my assistant can address that.
j 19 MR. ADAMS: Basically ---
20 JUDGE LAZO: Who is that?
21 MR. FIELDER: I am sorry ---
22 MR. ADAMS: My name is Jim Adams.
23 JUDGE LAZO: Jim Adams? l
[' ' 24 MR. ADAMS: Yes, I am with the Redwood Alliance.
25 Having spent too many hours probably in that document room, it
121 4 1 is crowded. There is some equipment there, and we have talked 2 briefly with them and they are interested if something can be 3 worked out.
4 Clearly, in terms of funds, there is no funds really 5 to play with in terms of acquiring equipment. So that would 6 be -- what you said earlier about providing equipment would be 7 absolutely necessary as far as I can tell.
8 JUDGE LAZO: Is the material shelved and organized?
9 Or is it sitting around in boxes?
10 MR. ADAMS: It is shelved and organized and a lot of 11 it is on microfiche as well, so you can go in and go through 12 stuff rather quickly.
[G'i 13 JUDGE LAZO: And they have a fiche reader right 14 there?
15 MR. ADAMS: They have a fiche reader right there and 16 there is a lot of documentation there. Essentially the whole 17 history of the Humboldt unit, and other documents as well are 18 there. I think it could work. It would just take some 19 logistical planning.
20 JUDGE LAZO: Where is that library from here? Is it 21 on I Street?
22 MR. ADAMS: It's on the corner of -- I guess it would 23 he Fifth and I, yes. It is at the ground level of the County 24 Court IIouse building on the -- I guess it would be on the west 25 side.
, 122 l 5 g JUDGE LAZO: I think we might pay them a visit, too,
(
2 just to see how they are organized and what they have and how 3 up to date it is.
4 MR. FIELDER: That would be a very simple process, as long as it's during the week.
(
5 I am sure that the -- it is l
6 located inside part of the public library of Humboldt County l l
7 and I am sure they would be more than happy to give all of us 8 a tour of their very limited facilities there.
9 JUDGE LAZO: No, we are not inviting everybody.
I f 10 JUDGE MORRIS: We are not characterizing this as a 11 tour. We have already contacted the person there and told him l
12 that we might drop by just to say hello.
, 13 MR. FIELDER: I see.
l 34 JUDGE LAZO: We will find out how much about 15 c mputers they know. Well, you mentioned, Mr. Fielder, a 16 p ssibility of meeting with your clients tonight and perhaps discussing it tomorrow.
37
)
18 I am not sure we are going to get together tomorrow.
19 Those of us that are going on, the tour will meet out at tho 20 plant. It will be close to noon', I suspect,~~by the time we 21 get back. And the important thing is, there is really not 22 much more business to do here unless some of you can correct 23 me. We are prepared to adjourn this meeting.
24 But before doing;that, .I do want to tell you that we 25 did meet at noon, and we have decided how we wich to rule on
123 _
6 1 the ---
S 2 A VOICE: Get closer to the mike, please.
3 JUDGE LAZO: Surely, I am sorry. I said that the 4 licensing board met at noon and that we have reached a decision 5 regarding the joint petition that was filed. And particularly 6 referring to the amended petition of7 August 26, which was the 7 latest petition that was filed -- I am sorry,-September.26. I 8 misspoke.
9 And it is the petition that was filed and has been 10 adopted by the League of Women Voters. We will have to go back 11 and write this up.aiid'get out an order, but we are ruling 12 orally from the: bench that the joint petition is accepted.
13 'All of the petitioners have satisfied the standing 14 requirements. 'And we do find that one contention,' Contention 15 5, is acceptabl'e .' There well may be other contentions 16 acceptable, to'o~. - And we will have to;g'o-back and make that 17 decision. ,
18 But we have announced today, here and now, that 19 Contention 5 is acceptable, and the Joint Petitioners are 20 admitted as full party to this. proceeding so that.there will 21 be an evidentiary hearing.
22 We will put out an' order within the next few days 23 ruling on the other contentions. And at that time, formal 24 discovery will commence. We would think that a 60-day 25 discovery period would probably be sufficient. It may be that
124 7 1 the parties may find that to be insufficient and they can 2 petition.for further time. But right now it appears to us that 3 60 days would be sufficient time for discovery.
4 And it would commence-on all-admitted contentions 5 from the date of issuance of our post-prehearing conference 6 order. 4 l
l 7 Are there any comments or questions? !
8 MS. YOUNG: Just for the Board's information, the
\
9 staff's tentative of schedule for issuing its final environ- ' )
10 mental. statement ---
11 JUDGE LAZO: Oh, yes.
12 MS. YOUNG: --- and safety evaluation, is the end 13 of February '87. I' don't know how that impacts the discovery 14 schedule the board has proposed.
15 MR. NORTON: Your Honor? Could we comment on that 16 also. I don't know what Mr. Fielder's desires are, I just 17 think I got a flash as to what the NRC's desires are.
l 18 In terms of the discovery schedule, we too think that l
l' 19 perhaps we ought to wait until the FES and SER are out to do 20 discovery. Discovery might perhaps start the first of February 21 or something like that.
22 And then, if you will, the usual second go-around 23 after those documents are released. But, frankly, we think it l 24 is a little premature to do the discovery now until those 25 documents are finalized.
I i
125 8 1 And I don't know where I got the impression, but I 2 think Mr. Fielder may agree with that. I don't know where I 3 got that impression from and I may be totally mistaken. But 4 something he filed or said or something, I got the impression 5 he too thought we ought to wait until those documents were 6 available.
7 JUDGE LAZO: No, I don't think so. He is ready to 8 start discovery now on your documents.
9 When is dhe SER scheduled, Ms'. Young?
10 MS. YOUNG: Both. The FES and the safety evaluation.
11 JUDGE LAZO: Oh,both.
12 MS.. YOUNG: The end of February. ,
13 JUDGE LAZO: The end of February. 19877 14 MS. YOUNG: '87. And I don't really see anything 15 that forecloses starting discovery now. I was just concerned 16 that we might be cutting the period too short.
g7 JUDGE LAZO: Yes. Well, certainly the intervenors 18 would be entitled to some discovery period after the staff's 19 final documents have issued.
20 MR. NORTON: And that's just the problem. You start 21 now, and we will have discovery for six or seven months. And 22 that just seems a waste of everyone's time. It is not that they 23 don't have our documents. They certainly do. They are in the 24 public document room. They have them. But obviously there is 25 other discovery they want to do.
3 126 9 1 But also, some of these issues may well go away in 2 the final environmental statement., The staff laay address some 3 of the concerns and I would hope that that is the case. I 4 would hope the intervenors, if indeed that happens, would 5 recognize that and it would mollify some of their contentions.
6 But it seems to me that we are wasting each other's 7 time, perhaps by starting discovery within a week or two and 8 continuing all the way into March of '97. It just doesn't seem 9 necessary.
10 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Fielder, I think counsel for the 11 licensee makes a good point. Most of your contentions relate 12 to alleged deficiencies in the DES. And as staff has said, 13 that is a draft statement.
14 It well may be that some of those alleged deficiencies 15 will be corrected by the time they put out their final 16 documents. You may not want to spend a whole lot of time and 17 effort and money going after a draft statement which will not 18 be the final statement.
19 Ilow do you feel about discovery?
i 20 MR. FIELDER: Discovery is always slippery subject.
1 21 And I do agree with .part' of what Mr. Norton is saying. It is 22 true, 'I' don't want tio spend a great deal of time and money on 23 useless discovery on a draft environmental impact statement.
24 IIowever, there are certain things that inherently will 25 overlap the DES and the FES, certainly things that will
127 10 1 naturally be part of the FES when it comes out in whatever form.
2 And I may want.to begin discovery process now on issues that 3 are guaranteed to bear fruit, so to speak. Certain witnesses, 4 for instance, that may be deposable.
5 No matter what the FES turns out to be eventually, we 6 will still want to take their deposition. And if we try to 7 crowd everything in towards the end until after the FES and the 8 SER are out, I think we might be a little short of time.
9 Or else we might be the reverse side of that. The 10 flip side of that would be that we might drag the proceeding 11 out over an extended period time unnecessarily. But I would 12 Prefer if I had a choice, and that I be given the opportunity
('\ 13 to begin discovery now.
V 14 And that, as you can well guess, the discretion on 15 the exercises, because I don't have very much money to work 16 with, I am going to be loathe to do any kind of discovery that 17 I do not believe is going to be highly productive.
18 In ther words, I am going to edit. I will do the 19 editing for the DES materials that clearly will not be produced 20 in advance. In other words, I am not going to do any discovery 21 on DES issues that are unresolved at this time until the FES 22 comes out.
23 I would like to be left with the opportunity to 24 proceed to take depositions of what I believe will always be 25 probative witnesses, no matter in what form the DES eventually
( ,
128 11 1 turns 1nto.
1 2 , JUDGE CARPENTER: Mr. Norton?
3 MR. NORTON: Yes.
'4 , , . JUDGE CARPENTER: Given that prospective of the
- e ; '; -l -
5 probable level of effort of discovery, does that seem unduly e
6 burdensome? I agree w'ith you, it is a long time period. But 7 it doesn't sound like the level.of effort is intensive 8 throughout the whole period.
9 MR. NORTON: Well, that remains to be seen as to how 10 intensive. The way discovery.tends to be done is they end up ,
11 sending us a whole lot of quest: ions and we have to do all the '
12 work to~ answer them. And I understand, I don't have a problem i
(~)
V 13 with that. It is just a question of when we do that.
J 14 I might add that we are also involved in the spent 15 fuel reracking, and that discovery is ongoing right now. And 16 it is~the same people that are involved in this proceeding that l
17 are involved in that proceeding.
l 18 And we also have the Diablo Canyon rate case discovery l 19 going on right at the moment. And, again, the same people are 20 involved. That discovery and the spent fuel pool reracking,
( 21 which is before the ASLB also, terminates I think in November.
I 22 And it had been our hope that this -- December 8th, Mr. Locke 23 has said it is December 8th that that discovery terminates.
24 And it was our hope that this discovery would not 25 start until after that. Again, just because of a manpower
1 129 12 1 standpoint. The same people in licensing are workin'g on those, 2 the same lawyers are working on those. And that discovery, 3 frankly, is a lot more intense than this discovery probably 4 will be. And indeed, it is at this time much more intense.
5 JUDGE LAZO: Well, if'we/let.the discovery. period r-6 commence on December 15, would that give 'you some --- ,
7 MR. NORTON: 'That'would be much better than if it
, i'
{
. 8 commenced right now, yes. And-I think if Mr. Fielder needs 9 extra time, we have no problem.with that. I presume we are not 10 going to have alhear'ingfunhil at least the spring.- j 11 I might add that the. spent fuel reracking hearings 12 are scheduled for March. So that would give him at least 90 b~ ) 13 days to do discovery -- excuse me, 120 days to do discovery V
14 which is twice what you were.just going to give him a little l 15 while ago starting right away.
16 So, I don't think anyone is going to be disadvantaged.
17 In fact, I think it will work to his advantage if we have the l
l 18 manpower available to address the discovery.
l JUDGE LAZO:
19 Well, if we said that it commenced on l
20 December 15 and closed 30 days after the SER and the FES were 21 issued?
22 MR. FIELDER: That's fine.
23 JUDGE LAZO: That would be a comfortable period, I 24 would think.
25 MR. FIELDER: That would give us approximately three
130 1 and a half months, I think, roughly. Yes, three and a half 2 . months.*Is$hatwhatyou.aresu'ggeAtiNg? December 15th until 3 -- by reading, we are talking about 30 days after the end of 4 February which means the end of March?
.)
I 5 JUDGE LAZO: Yes.
E S MR. FIELDER: I would be more than happy with that.
7 MR. NORTON: And again, if there is a hearing in the.
8 spent fuel pool reracking, which there'will be -- and I think 9 that is tentatively scheduled for early March, excuse me, late 10 March, and I think it is also scheduled to last two or three 11 weeks, we would ask that Mr. Fielder -- you know, appreciate 12 that we have that coming and we can't'~be in two places at once.
13 We can't be attending depositions in this case while 14 we are in hearing in that case. If you would just keep those 15 schedules in mind, I don't think it is going to be a problem.
l 16 I don't think we are going to have a conflict becauce it looks 37 like this discovery is going to end about the time that those 18 hearings are beginning.
19 MR. FIELDER: Well, we all have scheduling problems.-
20 Just this. week, the Redwood Alliance had scheduling problems 21 of course with the ongoing litigation in Diablo Canyon over 22 decommissioning.
23 So, we will try to mesh our schedules between the 24 two of us, I guess, Mr. Norton. And I wouldn't have bothered 25 the Board about those issues unless they really become a
( ,
'. 'j 131 1 problem.
8 2 JUDGE LAZO: No, it is perhaps premature to get into 3 it now. But since we have decided there will be an evidentiary 4 hearing, we might for a moment or two talk about location.
5 We were anxious to find a room large enough to 6 ' accommodate the expected members of'the public who attended, 7 and we almost did that this morning here.
8 I haven't been able to find any credible building 9 in Eureka that is available and large enough. I don't think 10 any of the state buildings are.
11 Does anyone else have any -- what do you think about 12 this room? Is this acceptable? Or ---
hi 13 MR. FIELDER: This room would be fine. There is-
\s/
14 another building that is alternately available sometimes, and 15 that is the Eureka City Hall, which has what I would consider 16 the equivalent of a large auditorium-like room that is well 17 designed for trial purposes.
18 I am not sure how well designed the dias is for a l
19 three-judge panel. But I think it would probably accommodate 20 that. And it does have room for witnesses and counsel to sit 21 up front. I think that might be a better facility, although 22 'this is certainly all right with me. l 23 JUDGE LAZO: Would they be able to schedule it for a g 24 period of.10 days or two_ weeks or however?
25 MR. FIELDER: We certainly could inquire. It has been
132 1 done before. I think, as I recall, the public utilities 8 2 commission held hearing there that will comment on the Diablo 3 Canyon case.
4 And prior to that, the Humboldt case when it was in 5 trial several years ago in front of the public utility 6 commission, they used that building also for at least one week j l
7 of the trial that was held up here.
8 Another possibility also is the Board of Supervisors 9 room. It may be too small, as far as the audience goes.
10 MR. NORTON: Yes, that is much smaller than this.
11 JUDGE LAZO: One of them is an intervenor. I am not
] sure we should go to their place.
12 13 MR. FIELDER: Your point is well taken. There might 14 be a conflict of interest there.
15 A VOICE: Is there any possibility that Humboldt 16 State Campus could be.---
g7 JUDGE LAZO: I am not familiar with it.
18 MR. FIELDER: We have several large auditoriums with l 19 large amounts of seating and various different sizes. So it doesn't have to be a giant auditorium so you don't feel like l
20 l
21 you are ---
l 22 JUDGE LAZO: We have had some experience over the 23 years with campuses.'- A lst of.them that have a law school have 24 a moot court that is very good. But'the campuses usually have 25 their facilities heavily scheduled. It is pretty hard - -
133 l l
l 1 A VOICE: Doesn't this room expand? l 9 2 JUDGE LAZO: It does.
l l
I 3 MR. FIELDER: Yes.
4 A VOICE: That don't those doors open up?
5 JUDGE'LAZO: Yes, they do. And if we had needed it, 6 we could have_used both rooms.
1 7
.MR. N'ORTON:[~ Excuse me, Your lionor, it has been our y experience in these proceedings -- and we have had a number of 9 them with Ilumboldt and Diablo -- that the first few days the 10 number of people is at least in order of magnitude greater than 11 that 4 that you have 'for the last two weeks of hearing.
12 As soon as the witnesses who know what they are
^'l 13 talking about get up on the stand and start testifying, most of (O
g4 the people disappear. And you have a crowd about the size of 15 this, at the most.
16 The first two days, however, during public comment, 17 I don't think this room would be large enough. It has been our 18 experience that at least in order of magnitude, more people are 19 there the first two days. And perhaps the Board might want to 20 consider scheduling the first few days in a larger place.
21 One time -- I forget the name of it, it is the 22 Veterans IIall or something out here on II or I Street, out this 23 way. We did it there once and it handled the large group and 24 then of course the next day there was nobody there. And we all 25 sat around in this huge room by ourselves.
134 1 JUDGE LAZO: I was there. It was like an armory.
2 MR. NORTON: Right. And so you might want to 3 consider scheduling it there for the first two days for the 4 limited appearances and so on, and then I think these qdarters 5 would be more than large enough for the technical witnesses to 6 testify.
7 Because, really, people don't stay and listen to the 8 technical witnesses. They just ---
9 JUDGE LAZO: Well, I was just thinking, as a tax payer 10 I would like to get some free space. If we could find a 11 federal building or a state building ---
12 MR. NORTON: We have not been able to do that in the 13 past. -We tried a federal building -- we tried the federal l r (\.)l l 14 court house, and.there just isn't -- it doesn't exist here.
i 15 There is just not the space.
16 The hall up there was quite reasonable, as I recall, l
17 very, very low rental.
A VOICE: May I suggest that if you use this facility,
( 18 19 you could expand it to use the other room for the first couple 20 of days, if what Mr. Norton is saying is true, and then 21 contract it as you needed to. ,
22 JUDGE LAZO: Yes.
23 A VOICE: And use this half to not have to move to a 1
24 different place.
25 JUDGE LAZO: Yes. As a matter of fact, the Inn was
ilk :
1 very accommodating. They said-if we needed both spaces, theyf l 8 2 would let us have it for the same price.
3 But if they had someone else trying to book it, I am 4 sure it would have been different.
5 A VOICE: What is the price?
6 JUDGE LAZO: I get your pardon?
7 A VOICE: What is the price?
8 JUDGE LAZO: The United States Government pays it 9 and it was $300 for the space'.
10 A VOICE: The college will give it to you for $50.
11 JUDGE LAZO: Are there any other matters-that we may.
12 properly dispose of here this afternoon? Yes, sir?
(U 13 MR. KIRKMAN: Just to clarify something that came 14 up earlier, I called Eagle News and talked to the editor in 15 chief't-- AndymHall, about this CHP. clearance business.
16 He informed the'CHP-clearances are:for commercial media 17 in case there is,a major accident or catastrophe or some sort 18 so that people can get,through police lines.
It wasn't designed 19 for.no,ncommercial media as such,' but.it hasn't really anything 20 to do with this issue.
21 Secondly, Andy Hall, who is the editor informed me 22 that Ed Weeks, who was one of the people in the plant managerial l
23 branch, had Andy Hall join a tour of media people as a 24 representative of Eagle News when the decommissioning of 25 Humboldt Bay first became an issue when the SAFSTOR approach 1
me
136 1 was discussed.
2 That's all. Thank you.
3 !!S. IIOMOROF: You have a note up there that ---
4 JUDGE LAZO: I gave that to counsel.
5 MS. HOMOROF: To PG&E counsel?
6 JUDGE LAZO: Yes.
7 MS. HOMOROF: Well, why doesn't he read it out loud?
8 He has it there.
9 MR. NORTON: I don't have it. I gave it to Mr.
10 Sarkesi to go call the gentleman in question. And the note 11 was incorrect, in any event. l 3 MS. HOMOROF: IIas he returned?
I 12 13 MR. NORTON: Yes, he. returned the call and he has 14 talked to them. The Arcata office does indeed issue CHP press 15 passes, contrary to the note that they have never heard of it.
16 MS. HOMOROF: Did you talk to the same man?
17 MR. NORTON: Ma'am, I don't know who they talked to
}g at the CHP. But this Arcata office of the CHP issues the press 19 passes. I am sorry, you are wrong. They do.
20 JUDGE LAZO: Well ----
21 MR. NORTON- That[ is all I can .say.
22 JUDGE LAZO: It-'seems to me that this is a kind of a 23 local issue that you all ought to be able to resolve among 24 yourselves. If you persist'with it, then what is going to 25 happen is you are going to deny us the opportunity to go out
137 -
I and look at that plant. And I think we should do that. And I 2 think it is right and proper that we should do it at least now 3 with the parties that are present.
4 MR. NORTON: Mr. Lazo, for the record, the local 5 press has been invited and toured the Humboldt a number of 6 times. They have been invited to do so.- They will again in 7 the future be invited to do so. That is done on a regular 8 basis. And also public groups have toured that -- it is just 9 that tomorrow we can't have 500 people out there.
10 There is no way you can handle that. So you have to 11 draw the line somewhere. And if everybody stands up and says 12 they're connected to this radio station or this or that or the
( 13 other things, where do we draw the line? So, as a matter of s.s >
14 corporate policy, we say fine, if you have got a CHP press 15 pass ----
s 16 A VOICE: Is that an issue in this case?
17 MR. NORTONi --- that is'where we draw the line for 18 this tour. tomorrow. 'We have accommodated people in the past, 19 we will accommodate people in the future. We are talking about 20 tomorrow morning at 9 o' clock tour. We can't just open the 21 doors.
22 First of all, we can't accommodate that many people 23 on a tour. We can only handle ten or 12 people.
24 A VOICE: Then why didn't you say 10 or 12 people?
25 What is 500 people had a CHP pass? It seems like'you should
138 1 say the number,.the number ---
9 2 MS. YOUNG: Excuse me, Judge Lazo, could we pursue 3 this off the record?
)
4 JUDGE LAZO: Yes. On the record, I want to say that 5 the licensing board has ruled on this matter and we do not plan 6 to change our ruling today.
7 Now, again, are there any other matters that we.could 8 dispose of that we should while we are here?
9 Otherwise, we are going to adjourn. Yes?
10 A VOICE: 'How is>the public going to get notified?
11 The standard procedure'is to print it in the federal register, 12 and most people in this town don't really~have to travel far to
(~] 13 get to a--federal register. Would'it be possible to send
\.J
' 14 something in the mail or: put .something in - the newspaper, the 15 radio or Tv? Would that be more appropriate than the federal 16 registe'r?
17 JUDGE LAZO: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission always 18 puts out a press release when prehearing conferences or hearings 19 are scheduled.
20 Now, we don't take a paid ad in the newspaper, but 21 we do create a press release. And it is available to anybody 22 on the wire. Mr.- Fielder will be here, and I am sure he can 23 get some publicity. -
l 24 MR. FIELDER: Yes, as soon as the notice is recieved 1
k l 25 by my office, I will be more than happy to make them available
l 139 l 1 to the local press and to the Redwood Alliance who has good l 9 2 relations with the local pressn. And I am sure that PG&E will 3 be doing the same.
4 JUDGE LAZO: Well, I would say that probably 10 days 5 or two weeks before the beginning of the evidentiary hearing, 6 the public affairs office in Washington will put out a notice 7 telling the time and~the date and the place.
8 So, when you get that -- and you will, you are on 9 the mailing list ---
10 MR. FIELDER: On that point, ,I note in looking at 11 the issues we discussed' iri . scheduling, that so far there has 12 been no mention of possible dates for.the evidentiary hearing
~
13 itself. And possibly the Bo'ard would be -- I don't know if you
(\ )) ,
14 are ready to disctiss the parameters /of when you think the 15 evidentiary hearing'would more than,likely go.
16 I know it is difficult at this very early date to 17 get a date to begin. But could we get your thoughts on that 18 point?
19 JUDGE LAZO: We really just would have to speculate.
20 But we have talked about closing discovery at the end of the 30-21 day period following the FES And the SER. That would make it 22 the end of March.
23 once discovery closes, there should be an opportunity 24 for people to file motions for summary disposition. That 25 might be another 15 days, 20 days. And then the preparation
140 1 and filing of advance prepared written testimony. So we are 2 talking about some month when there is no fog, like maybe May 3 or June.
4 MR. FIELDER: I only think there is one month of the 5 year that there is no fog over there at Ilumboldt.
6 JUDGE LAZO: So that is really guessing a little bit.
7 I think we have to get a little closer down and see when those 8 staff documents actually are issued before we finalize some 9 dated.
10 Yes, sir?
11 MR. ROSSMAN: When you go out to the plant tomorrow 12 morning, be sure to notice where the old elementary school is.
13 JUDGE LAZO: All right.
14 MR. WELLER: I would like to thank you for coming 15 here to our community and speaking with us, to the Atomic 16 Safety and Licensing Board for doing that.
17 (Applause.)
18 MR. WELLER: I would also like to thank you for the 19 informal structure that you have taken on at this meeting here 20 and being willing to listen to the people in the audience that 21 have come also. An'd to listen to then and to consider the 22 things that have been said, rather than worrying about order 23 before you even listened to them.
24 Thank you. . My name is Robby Weller.
25 JUDGE LAZO: We appreciate your hospitality. Thank
d' 141 l 1 'you very much.
9 2 This conference is adjourned. I 3 (Whereupon, at 2:51 p.m., the prehearing conference 4 was adjourned.)
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12
('s (j 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
~21 22 23 24 25
NO PAGE NUMBER CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAI. REPORTER O
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STNTES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
. NAME OF PROCEEDING: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3) i DOCKET NO.: 50-133-OLA (Decommissioning)
PLACE: Eureka, CA DATE: Tuesday, October 21, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the originai transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear J Regulatory Commission.
7 (sigt) Tam / h (T EE Official Repc..ter Reporter's Affiliation
- O s
ChaiRwaN
% p ' s a r cvw "t r ca. a...t
- w : . u ~t s
.. , -, . . . . _=_ - ...
, s., ~.cs,-n
.m ;aa g . < .<* . . < :t ; ..w.
w- . . . , , , , _ o < sd. $. . . .c
..<..w- ..,...
- v. us u.o N, . . < > , . ..e m ..:.et "L " ;
DAN HAUSER
"~1'le m . .-
sN[ Wmber of the Ir::islature
'"ond \ embly I)istrict
" ',N 'j[I .7 c c .r..t es,.c a terres.socewwr.cc r.. ,,... ,r.:cr Del Norte ilumboldt. ,,, ,,,,, ,,
,;"t 'l'
.\lendocino, and sanoma Counlies ,
'c w .o we ,... .aoe .,.e,,
[ ge,y r ug .a. croic t & CL455 F'C AOON SO O S ?*E f ' SwE 4 50 wtseet.
SaNt4 ac9. C A 95404 cOww $4CN foe ECONCw'C CFsELOPwENt STATEMENT OF ASSEMBLYMAN DAN HAUSER TO: The United States of America's Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board which was established to rule on petitions for leave to intervene '
and/or requests for hearing concerning Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3, Facility Operating License No. DPR-7.
DATE: October 21, 1986 Dr. Robert M. Lazo, Chairman Dr. James H. Carpenter Dr. Peter A. Morris Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. 20555 Honorable Chairman Lazo and Members of the Panel:
I want to thank you as members of this panel for being here 1 l
today and also thank the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NCR) for its decision to form this Atomic Safety & Licensing Board for the purposes of considering our, that is the interveners, contentions with respect to Pacific Gas & Electric Company's l Facility Operating License No. DPR-7 for their Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant, Un i t No . 3. This is an issue that I have been personally involved in for many years. That involvement began when I was Mayor of the City of Arcata. The City Council had become more and more concerned about the operating capabilities and safety of the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant due to the everchanging status of relevant earthquake oriented '
f}
\d o.
V October 21, 1986
, Page Two 1
information which, as you know, directly affected the plant's relicensing capabilities, and eventually, due to the degree of l
modifications required for the plant resulted in a decision to close the nuclear portion of the plant once and for all.
As a resident of Arcata, and Assemblyman of the Second Assembly District here in California, I have continued to be extremely interested in the outcome of this decommissioning process and will continue to be so on behalf of myself and the effected public that I represent until the process is complete and the guarantees of safety for that public and the affected environs are absolutely and unquestionably determined.
Before I comment on some of the contentions which the interveners have, I would like to go on record with respect to asking you to allow for maximum public comment and input on this issue today and, if necessary, continue the proceedings to
(.~s'~') tomorrow. Local, and concerned citizens, have long watched this nuclear power plant's retirement and ultimate decommissioning process move slowly forward. I do not believe that the sluggish decommissioniing process is a concern to them necessarily; however, during that time the nuclear power industry has come under a new microscope as a result of, and in light of, the late Chernobyl catastrophe. This issue is volatile and it is complicated. Therefore, the public's participation in this decommissioning process must be even more accessible.
I must say, however, that I find the bureaucratic process bv which this "prehearing" conference has come about extremely cumbersome and partly uncalled for. I am glad that it is happening; however, and as you recall, what we originally requested was an additional public hearing on a Draft Environmental Statement (DES) for the decommissioning of the Humboldt Bay Power Plant.
That Draft Environmental Statement preparation has been going on for, at this point, almost two G
q L.)
October 21, 1986 Page Three years. At the current rate of technicological advancement, any number of new " finds" can be found during that kind of time frame. Even today, as we sit here in this prehearing conference, certainly you will hear about the "new finds" regarding the seismic risk of the Little Salmon Fault. It has been suggested that earthquakes along that fault of magnitude l 5.5 and 6.0 could not be ruled out. However, new information is available showing that an earthquake of magnitude 8.0 on the Richter Scale, one which is a thousand times as powerful as a 6.0 event, can be expected. These fault systems caused the NRC to order the plant's temporary closure in 1976. We are here today to speak to contentions which generally relate in one way or another to the seismicity of the area and the impact that would be had on the environment should something break or leak and eventually impact the public or the environment of the bay in general.
O My original point, however, is that rather than having an additional public hearing on the Draft Environmental Statement to discuss these points more in detail, we are being made to jump through legal and federal beaureaucratic hoops just to make sure that the public is able to voice their opinion about this process and about the decommissioning plan; and therefore, subsequently, ensure that the public feel as comfortable.as possible with the final decision. I can only hope that'you Will listen intently to us, the interveners, and to the public, and take into careful consideration our contentions and feelings.
Keeping in mind the high seismicity of this region, along with the latest findings by geological researchers in this area, I now embark on discussions of specific contentions'that I would like to comment on:
Contention No. 1: As chairman of the Assembly Subcommittee on Fisheries and a member of the G
9 October 21, 1986 Page Four l Assembly Natural Resources Committee, the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, the Joint Senate and Assembly Committee on Fisheries and Acquaculture, and as a member of the Pacific Fisheries Legislative Task Force, I am extremely concerned about the potential for environmental impacts on the coastal wetlands and environs in general of the bay of long term storage of nuclear materials at the Humboldt Power Plant No. 3. Humboldt Bay's waters hold a diverse fish fauna which include many commercial species as well as non-commercial. At least 36 species of fish utilize the bay as a nursery ground or spawning area. Many of the bird species using the bay are protected by International Treaties lG which impose national responsibility for pro-tection of their habitat. Paragon Falcons hunt over the bay's marshes and farmlands and rare and endangered plants grow on the dunes and in the brackish and saltwater marshes. The rivers and streams tributary to the bay provide spawning .
habitat for anadromous fish. The bay's estuarine areas provide important nursery area's for juvenile salmon and trout. The DES does not provide enough information for description or analysis of the environmental setting or consequences of long-term storage of nuclear materials at the site on the flora and fauna of the bay habitat should contamination occur by any means.
Contention No. 5: The removal of spent fuel rods from a leaking storage facility is inextricably linked with the potential for environmental damage to the power plant facility in general resulting from an earthquake in this geologically 9
(s~s ) I October 21, 1986 1
Page Five active area. I have asked in the past if any thought has been given to relocating this radio-active material to another, more compatible, site with high security forces in place; the degree of security needed to ensure that radioactive elements will be secure during the proposed 30-year SAFSTOR period (should the radioactive material and elements be left at the current facility.) Although discussion of the potential of a move of this material to a site like Diablo Canyon where such storage facilities for spent waste are already in place, spent fuel could also be shipped to Hanford, Washington or Idaho Falls, Idahe as was the case with the 3-Mile Island Plant.
To allow this material to remain at the Humboldt facility is preposterous, especially, if other sites are available in which this high-level waste can be e placed. Additionally, if off-site storage is selected, then barge transportation of nuclear waste needs to be examined in the DES. That is, barge transportation of such wastes over Humboldt County's occasionally closed and sometimes chronically disre-paired road system needs to be weighed and compared.
Contention No. 2 & Contention No. 7: I find it difficult to separate these two contentions, at least from the standpoint of my background and constituency and previous testimony (both here and at previous hearings and scoping sessions). Based on my natural resources and fisheries oriented committee assignments and the focus of my legislative interests, I believe the problem of continuous leakage of radioactive liquid from the spent fuel pool which has resulted in soil contamination is in need of further discussion.
The DES states that the installation of a stainless steel liner has attenuated the leak; however, radio-9
l l
p
'Q October 21, 1986 Page Six
- active discharge has not been halted. I believe that there is a greater risk for a higher level of soil contamination than has been indicated in the DES especially since plans to store irradiated fuel assemblies within the same pool is contemplated.
The potential to contaminate the ground water basin beneath the plant facility could occur. Ultimately, contamination of the bay, its wetlands, and the flora and fauna that survive on it could be seriously affected. Realistically, nothing of an immediate catastrophic nature would occur; however, the slow and sure death of Humboldt Bay would be even more tragic and, eventually, catastrophic. I believe the Final Environmental Statement (FES) should fully disclose the potential cumulative effects of l 9 increasing the amount of long-term storage of racio-active liquid in a pool already plagued by leakage.
Furthermore, that document should more fully identify measures for mitigating the potential impacts, including pump malfunction -- there is much, too much to be risked by potential nuclear contamination of area farmlands and water, wetlands, and bay waters.
All of us know that any nuclear contamination is bad contamination, and is contamination that will be around beyond our lives and the lives of our ancestors. We must insure for the people who reside in this region that no contamination at all must ever happen. And finally on this issue, although I am seriously concerned with the severe health risks imposed by a 30-year containment process of the nuclear material to the Humboldt area may pose, I am also concerned about the very real threat of terrorist activity. I am very interested on behalf of my constituents to know just what security measures will be enforced if these radioactive materials are to G
- r G
October 21, 1986 Page Seven remain on the shore of Humboldt Bay for thirty years in a plant that is not operating. The potential for lackadaisical and unprofessional security exists. If the nuclear plant isn't operating, then obviou.*.y security in that area of the plant would be less.
There still is going to be radioactive materials available that could be used for some terrorist activity.
I thank you for allowing me to comment to you today. I am hopeful, once again, that you will listen intently to all commenters, both interveners and the general public and take their comments into serious consideration. What I'm sure we are all looking for and wanting is to have a hearing after the Final Environmental Statement is completed and also after completion of the Safety Evaluation Report since both of these documents e are part of the License Modification process. I look forward to reviewing these documents and commenting on them in the future prior to the License Modification requested by Pacific Gas &
Electric Company for their Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3.
Sincerely, DAN HAUSER DH:Im l
9 l
1
\.
4 DOUGLAS H. BOSCO . _ \M*p 40s Can=ON suunwG t ST DISTRICT, CAUFORNIA I
']
- b
\ '\ WASHINGTON. DC 20515 1202-225-3311)
COMMITTEIS: . .2 SUITE 329 0 $0 Ar1ON h 77 so OuA AvfNLE
,,,cy,,, o ,,,,, sAarA aosA.C4 ss404
^" "5"'" 5 310DSC Of EtpTESCHWiDl3 """'
TwE EURIKA INN D OD, B C M U '
1rw.7ssiErs j
EUREXA, CA 3550 t 907-445 2055)
STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN DOUGLAS H. BOSCO FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OCTOBER 21, 1986 I appreciate the opportunity to present my views on the decommissioning of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant. My primary concern in this case is to try to ensure that these proceedings reflect the broad public interest of the people I represent as a member of Congress.
The Humboldt Bay plant will be one of the first commercial O nuclear power plants in the United States to be decommissioned, !
and the decisions the Board makes in this case could very well have important implications for future policy. This i's clearly a matter of public policy, and I thin}d it is important that the public be afforded an opportunity to participate.
Unfortunately, the NRC's licensing process appears to be designed to limit rather than encourage public participation in tha decision making process. I hope this Board will act to remedy this problem, and I would strongly urge you to hold a formal public hearing on the Final Environmental Statement and Safety Evaluation R port before any license modification is approved.
e 1
9 STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS H. BOSCO CONGRESSMAN PAGE 2 I think the Board also has an obligation to ensure that its decision in this case is based on the best facts available.
The Draft Environmental Statement does not provide a satisfactory basis for such a decision. The analysis of potential environmental impacts is inadequate in a number of important respects, and the document does not give adequate consideration to reasonable alternatives to the 30-year SAFSTOR proposal.
Petitioners have outlined a number of flaws in the DES in our petition to intervene. Our counsel will explore these contentions in more detail, but there are several aspects that I O bolieve are particularly important. First is the question of coismic hazards and the potential risks associated with long-term ctorage of nuclear waste at the plant site on the shore of Humboldt Bay, as outlined in petitioners' contentions 3 and 7. Given the long-standing public concerns about the plant's susceptibility to carthquake damage, I think it is imperative that this issue be explored in more detail in the Final Environmental Statement.
This issue is particularly important in light of recent reports that the Little Salmon fault may be capable of generating a much larger carthquake than previously suspected.
9
STATEMENT OF j CONGRESSMAN DOUGLAS H. BOSCO PAGE 3 I
i My second major concern is the DES's failure to consider viable alternatives to the 30-year SAFSTOR proposal, as outlined in petitioners' contention 5. The most significant omission is the absence of any discussion about the option of dismantlement ct the time a federal repository for high level nuclear waste becomes available, presumably by 1998 or soon after. Although SAFSTOR may be the only realistic means of decommissioning this plant at this point, other options should be considered if and when they become available. Given a choice, I think most local residents would prefer'to see the nuclear waste removed and the cite cleaned up as soon as possible. As such, I would urge the Board to consider conditioning its approval of the SAFSTOR proposal to require dismantlement, or at the least another review of the l
license, at the time a federal repository becomes available.
In conclusion, I would .sk the Board to see to it that the contentions raised in our petition to intervene are addressed in the Final Environmental Statement, and that the public be given an opportunity to review that document and offer its comments at a haaring here in Eureka before any license amendment is approved.
In the interests of encouraging more public involvement, I would also ask that you allow any members of the public who are interested to present their comments directly to you today. _
lll) Thank you for your consideration.
s e
/'
e, .
,.p o -BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
" ,i
/
f M[O,g!.)
. QN' ~
CO U N TY OF HUMBOLDT s2s sTH STREET
.'k
- EUREKA. CALWORNIA 95501 1172 PHONE [7C73 445-7471 Good morning. My name is Wesley Chesbro. I have been an elected member of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisor since 1980. In 1976, I petitioned the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to be allowed to intervene on the question of seismic safety of the Humboldt Bay Plant. That petition was granted and I played a key role in the proceedings which eventually lead to the closure of the plant.
I would like to begin by questioning the bizarre bureaucratic logic which has led us to be holding a hearing today on whether or not to hold a hearing. The original request 4 which was made by a unanimous vote of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors. Congressman Bosco, Assemblyman Hauser, Senator Keene and hundreds of northcoast citizens was very simple. We asked that the NRC do what virtually every other federal agency does, and which the law requires - that you hold a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Instead of simply granting our request, the NRC required that we retain an attorney to file what is affectionately known as a
" Petition to Intervene". Then the NRC said that we hadn't supplied enough information to prove that the elected Congressman, State Senator, Assemblyman and County Supervisor had enough 1cgal standing to be recognized as intervenors. So we had to file an " Amended Petition to Intervene", All this so that the people who are neighbors to the Humboldt Bay Plant can be granted the basic American right to participate in the decision making process.
But apparently, we are still not quite there yet. Since today's session is a "prehearing conference", and not a public hearing, and only a limited group have been recognized as intervenors, then our right to a true public hearing has not yet been granted. Therefore, my first request to you is -
e that this meeting be declared a public hearing and that any concerned individual be allowed to address you.
~
/
Continued .
f- In addition, I request that an additional public hearing be
(_)g/ held after completion of the Final Environmental Statement but before the final decision on license modification.
The Draft Environmental Statement itself falls far short of the standards that should be required. Those of us who must live within the Nuclear Power Plant will also have to live with the consequences of the NRC's inadequate analysis.
A plan to put the nuclear plant in " safe storage" and put off all the tough decisions for thirty years is no plan at all. Such a plan would only be successful in getting the monkey off the back of the present generation of managers and regulators. It would take the heat off of the nuclear industry for the consequences of creating all this nuclear waste. The process of dealing with the problems of decommissioning and waste disposal will be another, and perhaps the finc nail in the coffin of the nuclear power industry. No doubt that's why the NRC is so anxious and willing to rubber stamp PGSE's irresponsible proposal.
Specifically, I would like to address the areas of inadequacy in the DEIS.
These include the lack of discussion of viabic alternative storage sites for spent fuel, the failure to address the (3
u,) question of evacuation plans in the event of a worst case type of accident and .tly inadequate treatment of earthquakes o hazards at the site 5Nfhere are of course, other concerns,
'$jk but they will be addressed by the other intervenors and by our counsel. First, the question of the failure of the DEIS l to address alternative storage sites.
l I recognize that right now, today, there is no approved repository for the radioactive waste from the Humboldt Bay Plant. But to assume that this situation will continue to exist for the next 30 years, and to propose no alternative steps to remedy the situation is irresponsible. Alternatives, such as building an interim storage facility at a non-carthquake prone site should be reviewed and considered in the Environmental Statement.
l Radioactive waste from the Three Mile Island Plant wa shipped to federal facilities at Hanford, Washington ( nd' Idaho Falls, Idaho. So this alternative might be available as well for the Humboldt Bay Plant and should be explored.
l In any case, the decomissioning plan for Humboldt Bay should provide for dismantling of the plant once a repository site -
has been designated. The federal government projects that 9 such a site will become available by 1998, and waste from the Humboldt Bay Plant should be at the head of the line for use of such a site. But this will only occur if
./
(,)
plans are in place for rapid and immediate dismantlement once a disposal site is approved.
Another major oversight in the Draft Environmental Statement is the failure to consider the seismic hazards to the plant.
Since it was information on the potential for earthquake damage to the plant that caused its permanent closure, the same information supplemented by any newly developed data should be considered in analyzing the 30 year storage proposal.
The likelihood for an earthquake has obviously not been reduced because the plant has been closed. The potential threat to the environment and to public health remains great and should be considered.
Recent geological research by Drs. Gary Carver and R. M.
Burke indicate that the Little Salmon Fault is capable of a 8.0 magnitude earthquake. This is new information that was not previously available and should be analyzed in the DEIS.
In light of the failure of the DEIS to address the potential for damage to the plant in the event of an earthquake, I guess its not too surprising that the document fails to consider the question of evacuation plans in the event of an earthquake.
In 1980, an earthquake toppled a freeway overpass less than two miles from the plant, despite the epicenter's location of 40 miles away. If a similar earthquake occurred on the Little Salmon Fault or others in the vicinity, not only the plant could be seriously damaged, but Highway 101 would probably be closed, hampering emergency support activities i and evacuation plans.
In light of the elementary school and residential areas adjacent to the plant, this failure in the DEIS is unconscionable.
In conclusion let me repeat that accepting our input as intervenors is not enough. We filed our petition so that all Humboldt County residents could be given the right to speak out. The failure to date to provide such an opportunity )
along with the obvious inadequacies in the Environmental Document -
can only lead to a lawsuit in federal court if they are not corrected.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
~~ b )
I'"') WES EY CHESBRO Supe visor, District 3
,~_ _ ._ ,,,y.. ,_