ML20202E989

Transcript of 990127 Prehearing Conference in Greenfield,Ma Re Yankee Atomic Electric Co (Yankee Nuclear Power Station). Pp 176-282

ML20202E989
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	01/27/1999
From:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#199-19953 98-736-01-LA-R, 98-736-1-LA-R, LA-R, NUDOCS 9902030255
Download: ML20202E989 (109)

Text

, 7 '( . r}.,  : *

,*,s;, [?*. -; .g;.m ,y- ' y gg. ; - ' p Sjg *9 ;,y 7 " ] ' ' ! ~ " l' ' ' ' ~,,

,. _ a . ,_, g . %.- , ~  %

. qq ' g.': n..a ,_

' y' _ x . .e . -

~:

, %s y

. w: V ,f. M.T

y. g

. m . ~;. 2 . W n L. 0 ' t ~

' ' " ~ '

l -leh k  %

~ . . '

fk hy

...i'.'~.

.>,Y .'  :~

• v-n' N,p, : m4 . . . -

' ' ^

' ~

..w : (' j { v J L Q j.J ,.;. ;&. - 4

.c -

f ' 'w y < fy ; + :. .. j~~

.; M'y ' $(j.}h-' f,.

k '\ I '

.'.'($'q .I . 'r i: ,

h . .. M.6 g'>. .n ' ' i . )p ,,.:. s ' '4.L. , . %. .

n,

• 6

, f. ,  ;

'* d) E [.- ., ,# ( k .h) '

~

. v, .#, v. 4.g t c. A < . g

~ . y. k f. # .- !

'F * 'k * ?T.$ '

W "~

.. h ~

~ . , '

$h b[ l h I . .

f,'. ' ', f.

. y$ }l[* h

'~

{..l '

~

e'

+ ,'4? ' 'f.. T . l 4 /.

sM

. f J} ".

• • 't 3'. v. 4.+ e e

. .S - '

.. ,a' fAl .4-

., 4

y i., i 2 g. ,..

• y' ;:.7:..

?. . ;: .Q.

k .,,

' y ;,;_ ': g .c h ,P . NA g ' . gg" ,. /,'l[ ?g

,;. :. n.

y 7

j Y'e ;- ;

• } '., -

.~

s

.vkk*- .f h , " -

[M '

, 'fkf . ? Y N ""

! I ' -

l

~'~ ; , .e e .4 y [ '

' $j.l .. N $ h.  ! l~

r 4

., q g)' o d.r f A "

'f' ( l' \ ; j ; ' '

[.

' _ ' _ _ .) ;L Q r . ' '

.?" . ,-

• I - '

• 4 .. "' ^

. .&# . c i-  : D -u ' 9 K W <. n f;g >l

~^ll.:ck.'.lk-Gl%

~;

. .s >

.s v

Q .:m

', . . - ~ ~t' i

(* .Q,.r%l{.."l. # :...q'4l?.%h 74?j]%

1 t i ; @7j ., g., @- g!.g g 4 ; 3 -

. . g~ - . -- i . . .

s . i

.p  % -

. Q. Q ' R'.,,A

. ;' XQ'.s. AN . + .u.4. - '. r '

• u, .

['e,- ,N 'y.? . . ?y * *' - -

3 - 2..# <, .

a-r ;. V.~ t. f, 7 9,~ .; J gk. kd ' "

L. :. . r . .~. :; ..;.z'."

&,t s.-:[y.@

a; -- 4. . u. ,., .p g. ,

', L:

+. 3yy g,3; < . 4

, ,, , . , __ . y

- W,h.L , ,

9 c* '.t .; 1 #

..hQ: .g ' - /

4,y.A..3. 7,?tt

? '

+ tr 3; 9 g ,-

" G y ,4 ! p . l';}q: % h. . i J ,; . . .

'*lin . > .- ~

F' 6': .

>? . . . G

_- 'Y .. y l -

• . :,. v d y %-( i" d- . .s 's .*S i  ; A f e , -

( .,. f '[

+ . .

. . . .y :$l :. .n,jp:

A f, . DF, ... h.W, ., ..i.-S.,%

jfj! ..

p .

..w.

},, ,.

, e. .

C.j l ' ,y"{sls-.- g',;. g.UN " -j.j '"

L-

,s, gi* l 3 s - . 47 .,, . ?

h_l .}A , *'-%?- } f ','. 2:'..

"y Q '

. , g .

_ [;) 1. , i ?l"y '; f/ i . ,. y -i,. _

V V .' . :f .,.

a I.

. e

..u .

1 ;#C.'O  !.t  % .

m .,'... Q.w yrf. &"$.Q m.x:ge .

v -

.;. 4 y . .ch ; o ' -

. m.,. . %

4+j.,4.%,

r;

s. y . pmg.y 4,g, q, ,-

. s

=

..~r . . 7..s' 7. . - .s.4.r.4. -

. . .s . < y...., ,...: >

~ -

. 4 s. ., . q. m$ 4_ .  ; .

.,mm. 3~ . ,,.. m 3 ._ . ,.,.;.,..: .

a.

.,; - [: xlMnv.s . ..j.f. ,9,$;.M ,. .y.b K ('k' (

. w:. T ; :

4.ay.M &q u.A, ~ - . i a

.r..&. *~ :- .<%.:.n.e ~ .

y,-

D~ :. -_.

. ;3 y. . -. <

3_ ,

4);

..).miw.  % s $ V M % Q g::s. 3 4i.

i .: r ' ' , .;

.~

s

. m wt.; T.$s wtp .n. -x 7:

s " '

- ~ '

p R ::.Q~ [..r.qd Q " 9. ;./ m & : . -

~

b e..

.f .,

+ 4- y .

hf,.1 . d.j_^,g ;,y h.

bv.j:Ql.m.M. 3- ., ,4, ,s

. ,. 4 , .

lj

. . _.a ..,

. ,. , ..v.> , -

Q.V:

m$p. ;f.. . ..

f; .

}.Q'.U. ' .,4.q g ,.,

.g

. f;;

n

.p: &.W..L 4 ; . . . -

2 ; q.-Q.s .M~.:e.. .

c. n S ./w e .g u.4.u ..wn. .

- - 7~ -

. ;' ..;.c%.3. u n. .?

+. :1%,%18 *

[_. \f v. d. W ,? . .

. * . '.* ,, _ ; M. .. . .. . _. - '*jg

v . .. ' . .* . c - 4 -

.- as

.,d. ..y ,'  : >.

o&

e  : n. ,.

%. m ;.y.s m ..R.L.

W. ? - * *

[.p.;h W ] -F N % ' ; - - *

{

.f , ' i ? ': '

?.' .7)';.{;; M. ff-ll_k'3fy h J N) L;~ 'l%.,.;' ;~ '

jA -

.l

^ '

'. ~

'.s

_I.(. Q.M$ 7 hl Q 9.Q _ .; ,

'.O k..h'[ .

& , ,_ _j[p., 7. ( )

J ' ;%

ibMdir <

L.

/ '.'  ?

. - e V

NAV'*  %^' -

r nf w, 7p..w 9902030255 990727 l>

v ;.m.;j.-g; g

~

{DR ADOCK 05000029

^, ~

PDR <-

^

,. .. .. .. .u : '

n..  : y... . . . , , . . . _

~" _ . - _. ._ . ~ ~ ~ - - -- - - - - - - -

t 7 ,

hj $b? \ '

?g 4 ' > "n DOCHETED L 'i a .

4

.00CKETED USNRC bV e )w ' -

% TOFFICIAlfTRA.NSCRIPT OF PROdskI)ING a B -1 m0 :53 -

pp ; , , , y .

UNITED STATES 10F AMERIGA:mo:52 u,

9; ,. .

o.=i; , .e.

m .-

t. P.g.'4 . . JNUCLEIR 'R.EGUISATORV40,M, .M,ISSf0N. i . -

~

.~. .+

I r ,t 4 i '

/ l

,' -./-';

f I 7 - . + , y +

' RTitle

t z

1 4

,[,

s oYANKEE' ATOMIC. ELECTRIC. -

-('.- ._ q 4 , > -

,V. .. M, .

LCOMPANY-(YANKEE NUCLEAR -

"j j . "', '

<y" M -

a' *

. POWER STATION):

Wm

? ,,

m ,

. [-

, N.y

'PREHEARING CONFERENCE: '

Q '

S -

J  ?.. s v .,

e ..

z . iw

-NJ j. . ., .

x

[ ' Case No:: a ~

50-029-LA-R

<.s T.;' 4, W ,, s ,i 4 4

s 6 1

}

Ma m

%. . . , m e - -

r

@@/ sY' ,

s ASLBP No:- ,

198-736-01-IjA-R i ,

y .

-M '\ ~ #

9y

'l 8's .. ,

4 4

.4

@.ksy< '

cWork~ m . , .

Order No.:: E- ASB-300-644 J w, .

,3 g;,s ..

t.

0. '  ; )? ,,

y' j ,

s niJ ,.' '

', .. L . . . .'

s e >

LLOCATION:. > Greenfield, MA i 'm 4 .

. . B. . . . , .,

e. g:fi 4- J iDATE: e Wednesday, January 27,1999 ' . .

PAGES: 176 - 282 Q q.3 w' pp gy

. .. :ry '

• y k

.' (,g N'i.-k i:

+

?

st 4 /

i .-

\ w ,

[^Q<q j,.4., '

f I

FA <

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

"% ": ,, '1025 Connecticut Avenue,NW, Suite 1014-U f Tl ,

. Washington, D.C. 20036 R ,, '(202) 842-0034 Q;no

@' r.4 ,

y ,e .

W

+:'

j; ;\ ,; .:

e< 1 n,i,'

b, 4p; 's 9902030255 990727 PD9 A;

.. .g y;.

.~

ADOCK 05000029 ,([ h j; C PDR s

n. 4 e ' . . , e

_ , .s s . . , )

.,,,k g

_ . g..

< . ' 'q.

..i3

+

g

,.y 1

176 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'3 - -----

-X' 4 In the Matter of:  :

5 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY : Docket No. 50-029-LA-R 6' (Yankee Nuclear Power Station) : ASLBP No. 98-736-01-LA-R 7 Prehearing Conference  :

8 ---

'- - - - - - - - - - - -X 9

10 Grand Jury Room 11 Franklin County Courthouse

'12 425 Main Street 13 Greenfield, MA 14

\ 15 Wednesday, January 27, 1999 i

16 17 The above-entitled matter came on for prehearing 18 conference, pursuant to notice, at 9:04 a.m.

19 20 BEFORE:

21 THE HONORABLE CHARLES BECHHOEFER, Judge 22 THE HONORABLE THOMAS D. MURPHY, Judge i

23' THE HONORABLE THOMAS S. ELLEMAN, Judge

24 l

25 i

e 1

'(

1' 1d01 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue,'NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

. _ _ _ . . _ . - - _ . ~ _ . - . .....m.. . . - . . . . . . _ _ . - _ . . , _ . . _ _ _ . - _ . _ . _

4 ._ . . _ _ _ . .

177 1 APPEARANCES:

() 2 On Behalf of the Licensee:

3 ROBERT K. GAD, III, Esquire 4 THOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR., Esquire 5 Ropes & Gray 6 One International Place 7 Boston, MA 02110-2624 8

l 9 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

10 ANN P. HODGDON, Esquire 11 MARIAN L. ZOBLER, Esquire 12 STEPHANIE R. MARTZ, Esquire 13 Office of General Counsel

, 14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-15 Washington, DC 20555 16 17 On Behalf of New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution: I 18 JONATHAN M. BLOCK, Esquire L

19 94 Main' Street,-P.O. Box 566 20 Putney, VT 05346-0566 l

21 22 On Behalf of Franklin Regional Council of Governments:

'23. SAMUEL HOLDEN LOVEJOY, Esquire 24 P.O. Box 66 25 Turners Falls, MA 01376 L

. l

'( )

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters I

)

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i

L . .. .. -_ _ __ ._. _. .

178  ;

i 1 APPEARANCES: [ Continued] ,

- 2 On Behalf of Citizens Awareness Network

i 3 'DEBORAH B. KATZ  :

r ,

~4 P.O.' Box 83 i t

5- Shelburne Falls, MA 01370  !

I i

6 j i

7 I 8

9 10 11 12

~ 13 14 15 16 17-18 19 20  ;

i 21 l 22  !

i 23 24  ;

25

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters F

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014

. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

I.

179 1 PROCEEDINGS Oj 2 g

[9:04 a.m.]

3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Good morning, ladies and 4 gentlemen. We are here for the second day of this 5 prehearing conference. Do any of the petitioners or parties 6 wish to raise any preliminary matters before we start?

7 MR. LOVEJOY: Your Honor, I would just like to, 8 because I didn't get a chance yesterday, to go on record as

9 thanking Yankee Atomic and the NRC Staff for, as they 10 phrased it, not opposing our appearance here today and 11 yesterday and participating in the proceedings. It has been 12 a year of struggling with the paperwork to try and get some L

13 sort of governmental recognition and I appreciate that.

l 14 Secondly, I just wanted to go on record as 15 reserving any objections or any rights I had under a minor 16 complaint about service. Unfortunately we were faxed the 17 Staff's response 10 minutes after the office closed Monday l-18 afternoon at 4:37 and so I didn't get any of the Staff 19 . response until the following morning, which is yesterday i

20 morning, so I just --

it was an unfortunate circumstance j l >

l 21- that it came in so very, very late -- so I just wanted to l

22 thank everybody and appreciate it. l 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Did you serve the Board before j l 24 you served the other parties, because our filing was dated 25 December 30, and theirs apparently was dated quite a bit i.

I i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

j Court Reporters  ;

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 1 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i f

f I _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ ... , . . _ _ . , _ - . _ . ,

l i

l 180 l

1 later?

\

[G 2 MR. LOVEJOY: I couldn't answer without checking.

3 I'm sorry, Your Honor. I believe we met the filing deadline 4 and that was what we were trying to do. Of course, we did 5 have the predicament that the filing deadline happened the 6 day after the New Year's long weekend, so I couldn't answer 7 that. I believe the staff or the planning board actually 8 did the filings. I can't remember. I can get an answer for 9 you.

10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see. Well, that's okay. I

, 11 just wondered why ours was dated December 30th and I think l

i 12 it was faxed to us that day, as I recall.

l 13 MR. LOVEJOY: I couldn't answer you.

14 MS. HODGDON: Judge Bechhoefer, ours is also dated

/.

15 December 30th, but the fact is it was served on the 4th and 16 it indicates therein that it was served on the 4th.

17 I have the envelope here which the mail room gave l

18 me.

19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Oh, I am not doubting you.

20 MS. HODGDON: It shows that it was mailed on the 1 21 4th -- I mean there's no mystery about it. It was -- it is l

l 22 dated the 30th but the service shows that it was the 4th and 23 it -- the envelope shows that it was in fact the 4th, and of 24 course there's no deadline that was applicable to this, but 1

25 insofar as he might be mentioning the contentions, which was l

I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

\ w/ )

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

181 1 the'5th it certainly was timely. .I mean there's no

() 2 ftimeliness concern anyway.

3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. No, I am aware of that 4 and I am not doubting anything, but I just wondered why -- I 5 know we got it by fax, I think.

6 MR. LOVEJOY: We were making an effort, Your 7 Honor, to have you served prior to New Year's..

8 MS. HODGDON: The certificate of service shows the 9 4th and as far as that goes, our respon;& would have been.

10 due on the 25th of January --

11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right.

12 MS. HODGDON: -- which it was filed --

13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Oh, I'm aware of that. I am 14 aware of- the --

( 15 MS. HODGDON: It was filed on the 25th.

16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. No , I am aware of that.

17 MS. HODGDON: So it seems to me there is no issue 18 regarding this matter.

19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right.

20 MS. HODGDON: Regarding the timeliness of it, that 21 is.

22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. Well, he raised it, 23 so -- well, in any event we consider it timely and we'll get 24 to consider it later on today, I imagine.

25 Why' don't we then get into the Citizens Awareness ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters i

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

.. . m___ . . . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . - - - . . . _ _ ... .~. _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _

182 1 Network contentions. Ms. Katz.

/"'

( ,gf 2 MS. KATZ:- Thank you.

3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: You're on.

P 4 MS. KATZ: I want to thank you for allowing us to 5- present today. I am a little' nervous. It was much easier 6 having Jon Block start yeaterday. He is a very good 7 counsellor and so my starting -- you will excuse me if I am 8 a little awkward.

9 A lot of what was raised, a lot of what we raised 10 yesterday I really believe answers a number of the issues 11 that were raised in the contention. I don't think they need 12 to be gone over. I mean I want to expedite time for all of 13 us. .We don't need to go through the whole process.

14- I think there are certain things that would be 15 important to touch that were not fully dealt with and that 16 raised concerns for us.

17 The first thing I wanted to address is Yankee 18 Atomic's and the Staff's pleading to refuse our contentions

19. because we don't meet the standard, and we believe this is 20 unjust. We believe that in a certain way this is an 21 elevation of form over substance and that in fact a lot of 22 what we raise are really serious issues and we believe that 23 it may have been more difficult to read our contentions than 24 to read a lawyer's contentions, but we believe we get our 25 point across and that the issues there are very relevant to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. _._ _ _... .--... _ .._. _.... -_.._.._.. _ _._ -_ . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . ~ . ~ . . .

183 1- how the site will be left.

() 2 I mean our experience in fact has been not only at 3 . Yankee _Rowe but in fact throughout New England that the NRC 4 routinely and regularly shepherds its licensees through all 5 sorts of procedures and processes without any problem doing 6 'that and that this' issue that there is sort of a two-tiered 7' system, that there are lawyers and then there are ordinary 1

8 people like me, sort of second-rate and unable to perform, l 1

9 we think is a really dangerous precedent in terms of 10- democracy.

11- I think we have relevant information to add to 12 this process and that the idea that Yankee raises that we 13 have a choice about whether we employ a lawyer I think is a .

14 lack of understanding on their part that we come from a-poor

) 15 rural community and that the ability to at any point raise )

1 16 $25,000-$30,000 for legal counsel isn't necessarily within l 17 our means. We have done it at times in the past and we just 18 can't do it each time, so that we are asking the Board to 119- take that into consideration in terms of any limitations 20 that we had in our contentions.

l 21 Unless there is any response -- do you want -- I  !

l 22 can go on in terms of the different issues.

23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think that would be the thing 24 to do.

25 MS. KATZ: In terms of --

O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l

l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034  !

l

184 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We'll hear comments, I'm sure, b

q j 2 which will include those, on that subject, when we get to 3 each of the contentions.

4 MS. KATZ: Okay.

5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We did ask --

6 MS. KATZ: I am going to try --

7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I said yesterday I think we did 8 ask you to try to determine which ones -- which contentions 1

9 were in essence the same or similar to the NECNP i

10 contentions, which by the way your organization has )

11 joined --

12 MS. KATZ: Yes.

13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- so we consider them sort of 14 more or less joint contentions.

\_/ 15 MS. KATZ: Good.

16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And to the extent that your 17 contention on a given subject is pure duplicate at least in 18 substance, then we probably should merge it with the NECNP 19 contention and either, you know, we don't know whether we'll 20 accept or not accept certain contentions, but it would be 21 preferable for ef ficiency if nothing else to join like i

22 contentions.

23 MS. KATZ: We are in agreement and for efficiency 24 what I just want to raise is certain issues that were not 25 covered by New England Coalition that are in our contentions ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

1 185 1 that are parts of our contentions, so that I have pages

( 2 listed and references to talk about so that what I want to 3 begin with was on page 3.

4 I mean we have concerns about the migration of 5 tritium under the site and through the groundwater and the 6 issues of doing a groundwater analysis. I mean we do not 7 see in the LTP adequate addressing of this issue and in 8 Yankee's FSAR, which is incorporated into the 9 decommissioning plan at 306.1, the Environmental 10 Radiological Statute, it talks about that in 1965 tritium 11 was detected in Sherman's Spring. The presence of tritium 12 was attributed to the migration of tritium from the ion 13 exchange pit into the groundwater. At the present time, the 14 tritium concentration is significantly below the 15 Environmental Protection Agency community water system 16 limit. In addition, the water from Sherman's Spring as well 17 as the Deerfield River into which it flows is not used for 18 human consumption.

19 Now we have concerns with this in terms of the 20 extent of tritium in the groundwater and how far it's 21 travelled. This has been going on for 25 years or 24 years.

22 The issues of how it may have affected the groundwater and 23 how far it's gone are very serious to our community, and 24 although Yankee is saying, well, at this point it is below 25 EPA drinking water standards, we don't know that it was

['

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

186 1

1 1 always below EPA drinking water standards, and we don't know

( ) 2 how far it migrated and when Yankee says it is not for human 3 consumption, we disagree with this.

4 You know, our children swim in that river. We 1

5 fish that river. In fact, houses are adjacent to that river 6 and so -- in fact, some of the wells and there are schools l 7 adjacent to that. It is not clear how the groundwater could 8 travel and affect people's wells or the fact that tritium 9 could in fact be taken in through ingestion and the effects 10 of what would happen through that process.

11 I mean tritium is classified, is not being 12 reclassified as a dangerous envirotoxin. It's very l

13 controversial at this point. There are scientists who in 14 fact feel that it should be reclassified as falling between O 15

(,,1 an alpha and a beta emitter because it is so potent, and the 16 issues of how this could have affected our community are 17 very serious to us.

18 JUDGE MURPHY: Ms. Katz -- Ms. Katz, just a 19 second, please. You are confusing me and let's not get off 20 with me being confused so early in the morning.

l 21 MS. KATZ: Okay.

1 22 JUDGE MURPHY: Are we talking now about your 23 Contention Number 1 on page 2, site release?

1

!- 24 MS. KATZ: Yes. It is in the site release. It is 25 on page 3 to 4 where it says "the migration of tritium from ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

l

187 1 the ion exchange pit to the Deerfield River raises serious

() 2 concerns about the migration of tritium throughout the 3 groundwater and offsite."

4 JUDGE MURPHY: Okay.

5 MS. KATZ: That is what -- I'm sorry.

6- So that we are concerned and we do not see in the 7 LTP the issue fully addressed.

8 We are also concerned about the issues of 9 agriculture. This is a farming community. The fact that 10 tritium could get into the groundwater, could be taken up by 11 vegetation, which in fact we are concerned may have 12 happened, the fact that it would then make its way into the 13 crops, that it would be ingested, all of these are a pathway 14 we believe needs to be investigated as part of any site 15 remediation in release of the site.

16 That's basically in the first contention, what we 17 are concerned about that wasn't addressed in terms of what 18 New England Coalition brought up.

19 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Ms. Katz, we have heard, on this 20 issue we've heard the Licensee say thc_ they will calculate 21 a total effective dose equivalent that stays below the 15 22 millirem per year limit they have committed to.

23 In order for them to do that, they have to 24 consider the processes you are discussing. They have to 25 consider the internal exposure resulting from ingestion or O- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1

i 188 1 inhalation of radioisotopes.

m k ,) 2 I gather that is not sufficient assurance to you.

3 What in addition would satisfy you that that will be done 4 properly?

5 MS. KATZ: I think it needs to be incorporated 6 into the License Termination Plan in more specificity, that 7 in fact they will investigate the effluent pathways and the 8 contamination pathways for tritium in terms of the migration 9 into the Deerfield River and that these will be included in 10 any estimates and calculations that are made, and that these 11 documents are made public, so that we can have some assurity 12 that this is taking place.

13 I mean they may in fact be doing it, but we have 14 no way of knowing that that is happening, and, you know, the 15 issues -- one of the things -- I am not sure it is at this 16 site but later, I mean Yankee raises well why do we want to 17 know about historical amounts of tritium, you know? And 18 that in fact is involved with the health consequences in our 19 community and the issues of the synergistic effects of 20 tritium and dioxin, and if the ion exchange pit has in fact 21 been leaking for over 20 years into our river and our 22 children have swam in it, then these issues are really of 23 vital concern to us in terms of what has been going on for 24 20 years that we have not had access to information on.

25 That is why it is so important that this be clarified and fh

( ,) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l 189

~

1 put in'the public record about what will take place.

j'~g i

( ,j 2 We can't undo the past, that they had a leak, and  ;

3 they didn't do it on purpose, but its effects may have had 4 serious consequences on us. i 5 JUDGE MURPHY: Let me just make sure -- are you 6 saying then the measurements that Yankee has made or will 7 make are inadequate?

8 MS . . IGCrZ : We are concerned that they may be 9 inadequate. If Yankee is saying that the river is not used 10 'for human consumption, that they are not thinking of the 11- fact that our children swim in it routinely, that people  ;

12 fish from the river, that agricultural land is adjacent to '

13 Rit , that there appears to be a pathway that they are not I

14 including.

15 JUDGE MURPHY: So you are saying then that they ,

16 have.not included this in their calculations of the total' 17 effective dose equivalent?

18 MS. KATZ: The data in terms of this is not public 19- and so we have no way of knowing whether it has been 20 included. We want it included and what we are raising is 21 that it needs to be included. From the way it's written it 22 does not appear that certain pathways for tritium have been 23 included in terms of this process or will be.

24 JUDGE MURPHY: So they are not part of the plan?

25 MS. KATZ: We do not see it as part of the plan --

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 f ,-v _ - .s--.. - - , ,

190  !

l' and that's part of the issue of doing the well tests. They '

() 2' have done certain testing of wells where they have found 3 . concentrations of tritium which they talk about not being {

\

4 above' EPA standards for drinking water at this point, but {

5 that doesn't mean that in those test wells that it wasn't at 6 one point above the EPA standard. This is 20 years later l 7 and it is now at -- I think one of the wells is 6,000 t

8 microcuries per liter -- now, 24 years later.  !

9 The issues are about those effects and we want to  !

10 ensure that that is calculated in. I mean Yankee has taken i

11 the stance that remediating the river and taking out what is  !

12 in there not only is not cost effective but has the

]

l 13 potential to raise the silt and raise more contamination in l l

-14 the process, and we accept that, but we want to make sure 0 15 that there is some guarantee that we are protected in terms 16 of what is in that river.

17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: So you would like the LTP to be 18 amended to include investigation of these pathways --

19 MS. KATZ: Yes.

20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- at least?

21 MS. KATZ: Yes, and the investigation of 22 groundwater. I mean if the tritium is in the groundwater 23 and it's gone to Sherman Pond, offsite, then the issue that 24 there -- it may have gone further than that. There may be 25 other sources how it has branched out and we believe those ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

,191 1 Eneed to be investigated and we need that these documents be 2- made public.

'3 I mean part of it is because we are operating in a 4- system in which we don't know what the Licensee has done.

5 It makes it harder. They may have already done this work 6 but because this information isn't public, we don't'know, 7 and we just want to ensure that it is done, that there is 8 some guarantee.

9 JUDGE MURPHY: Would you go to page 6 of your 10 contentions? In the first_ full paragraph,. starting down- l 1

11 about the fifth line, "CAN believes that the calculations 12 Yankee uses to justify limited cleanup would leave the 13 . community with a site that has higher levels of 14 radioactivity than allowable under NRC EPA and State of 15 Massachusetts standards" and then it goes on and then, down 16 several. sentences, it says "We cannot believe that the 17 intention of-the Commission or the EPA or the State of.

18 Massachusetts was to allow Yankee to manipulate its figures 19 and undermine the 15 millirem standard."

20 Now what figures is it and what calculations is it 21 that you are talking about?

22 MS. KATZ: Well, what we are talking about is what 23 we addressed yesterday, which was the issue of in terms of 24 being the 15 millirem standard to use the person in this as 25 an adult male weighing over 200 pounds who is on the site

() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 I

192 1 eight hours a day, 55 percent of the time inside and one >

'l (s 2 percent of the time gardening. That is what we were 3 referring to there.  !

4 JUDGE MURPHY: Ms. Katz, that issue did come up l

5 yesterday and you probably heard it -- it came up repeatedly '

6 last evening. If the Licensee had elected to use as their 7 reference individual an adult that lived on the site, stayed 8 there 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day, and spent most of their time indoors, 9 would that be a satisfactory assumption from your 10 perspective?

l 11 MS. KATZ: I think that if we look at the average  ;

12 of the critical group then what needs to happen is we relate 13 to children in terms of it. There may be some mean age of 14 the child you take, so that it is not the most vulnerable of l

() 15 the baby, but I think we have to think in terms of children 16 being on the site. It is not enough that it focuses on  !

17 adults. It needs to focus on the most vulnerable group and  ;

18 we believe that that group is children, and they are j 19 outdoors much more than adults. My children were, at least.

20 They are constantly -- they are close to the ground. They 21 are playing in the ground all the time. They are engaged in 22 activities that would be normal activities on that site and 23 if the rule is going to relate to normal life in some way, 24 if it is going to have relevancy, then we believe it needs

, 25 to be relevant to this community.

l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

[]

\ Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014  ;

Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034  !

4

_ - . - - . - - - . _ - . - . . - - . - . . ~ ~ . . . - _ - . - - . - . .

E  !

h .

193 l 1 Maybe if i' was in Washington ~there's a lot of t-

/

( <2 concrete around, it wouldn't.-- you know -- you wouldn't be j 3 so concerned with them playing in the dirt but the reality  !

4 is_here that --

5 5 JUDGE MURPHY: Getting hit by cars. l 6 MC. KATZ: Yes, you would be worried about getting 7

~

hit by cars, but they wouldn't be radioactive.

,8- JUDGE ELLEMAN: Yes. On that concern, the l 9 Licensee or the public staff may want to correct me on this, 10 'but it is my impression that the Licensee is in a bit of a l 11 bind to do what you request because all of the data that had  !

12, been generated for allowed body burdens of radioisotopes, 13 excretion rates from particular organs, these are the data j i

l 14 that are required to make the kind of calculation you want.  ;

! T j k,,)

15 These data are generated for adults. There are C

l 1

l 16 not, to my knowledge, any comparable data for children, and j l

17 so I think they don't'have a technical basis for making the 18 kind of calculation that you would like to have made. j 19 Now if others want to comment on that, I would 1

', 20 welcome what you say, but I think it is a rather -- the 21 database is not there to allow what you would like.

22 MS. KATZ: In terms of -- i 23 JUDGE MURPHY: I think we ought to drop that.

l 24 MS. KATZ: In terms of Mr. Resnikoff, he in fact l 25 has stated that there are and that this has to -- if you see l

l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

( Court Reporters i 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

- -. .. -. .. -----. -. _ _ - - . . - - - . - . - . - _ ~ . . - . . _ . - - . .

194 f 1 FRG' Number _13 attached I think to New England Coalition's

' t 2 pleading, there is an issue that is raised about the NRC in f i

3. fact taking account of children in terms of calculations.

l 4 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Okay. We'll take a look at --  !

5 MS. KATZ: So that we believe in fact -- we  !

I 6 believe that this makes common sense and that, you know,  ;

l 7 those regulations should be looked at and in fact the issue 8 is if the regulations don't meet the most vulnerable then 9 there are ways in which the regulations may need to be 10 revised, but at this point we are talking about the-11 interpretation of the regulations.

12 We also think the regulations should be revised.

13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Are you aware of any 14 regulation, and I use that term precisely, regulation that 15 requires that an adult 200 pound male be used?

16 MS. KATZ: No.

17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Regulation now, not even guide 4

18 or anything else?

19 MS. KATZ: No.

20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I am going to ask the same 21 question to the Staff and Licensee so --

22 MS. KATZ: Okay. What I wanted to do was go to j 23 page 7, which is under Soil Remediation --  !

24 JUDGE MURPHY: Excuse me. Let's just finish up i

- 25 on -- l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters .

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 )

Washington, D.C. 20036  ;

(202) 842-0034 I i

1

t  !

i l- 195 l 1 MS. KATZ: Oh ,~ I'm sorry --

.2 JUDGE MURPHY: -- if you don't mind. It would be s

f 3- much more helpful to us to finish up one issue at a time.

• 4- MS. KATZ: Right.

f\

5 JUDGE MURPHY: And have it on the record one issue '

t l.. 6 at a time. Is that okay?

l 7- MS. KATZ: Yes. I thought you were done with the i i

8 questioning, that's all.  !

\

9 JUDGE MURPHY: We are with you, but now we are i s

10 going to have to hear the other parties, i 11 MS. KATZ: You've got to hear from the other guys.  !

12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Would this be all you have to ,

13 say about your Contention 1?

! 14 MS. KATZ: Yes -- I mean we felt we covered a lot I lO lb 15~ of this yesterday --

16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right, right, I understand.  ;

17 MS. KATZ: -- and that to go ' over it does not ma' e 18 sense and we don't need to.take up people's time with it.

f 19 It was thoroughly addressed. ):

. -20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER

All right. Mr. Gad or -- i 21 MR. GAD: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm sorrf you  !

22 have to listen to me, but I know that people don't like the  ;

I

'23 fact that we have rules on how you plead things when you get +

l 24 into a formal adjudication but in fact, as the Commission l' 25 has held in amending them, they serve a purpose, and I think s

! ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

, Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 l l

l l $

h

_ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . .___..___-..__.-m. . . . _ ._.._.-.. _ _ __.. ._ _ - _ . _ _ _

196

, .1 that frankly what the discussion thus-far this morning

() 2- illustrates is what that purpose is and what the vice is, 3 frankly, if you don't adhere to the rules.

l l l .4 Now as originally framed, CAN Contention A-1 was L

5 exactly the same contention that was offered at the standing 6 aspect of this hearing'and what the Commission said was-i

.7 inadmissible -- same substance, same words, same i 8- typographical error, same rounding errors, All right? It  ;

9_ was just'the copy key used over again.  ;

i 10 Now this morning we have heard that within this  ;

11 same contention are a whole bunch of other things, some of -l 12 which are as amorphously stated as, and I quote, "We are '

13 concerned that they may be inadequate . . . .

14 It almost doesn't matter what the subject is. l lO 15 You_cannot under 2.714 admit or proffer a 1

)

l 16 contention in terms of "We are concerned that they may be 17 inadequate" -- whatever it relates to, You simply can't 18 deal with it in an adjudicatory context.

19 Third point -- ,

l 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, should she have said 21 "They are inadequate" --

22 MR, GAD: Your Honor, the contention must identify 23 a specific assertion of law or fact that is capable of being 24 tested in a trial context.

25 If someone says the light was green when the car

~ ()

I

. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 3 014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

197 1 went through, someone says the light was red when the car

() 2 went through, we now how to try that stuff. We don't know 3 how to try, and I quote, "We are concerned that they may be 4 inadequate."

5 That is a speculation. That is a call for 6- discovery. That_is a call for education. -That is a call 7 .for clarification. That is not a litigable contention in an 8 adjudicatory context, and, you know, for better or for 9 worse, that is the context we are in. I didn't dictate it.

.10 . Yankee didn't dictate it. The rules dictated it.

-11 When we are in'that context you have to play in 12 that context and that is the point that we were making.

13 One other observation, if I may. Contention 1 as

~14 explicated this morning seems to also include a notion that 15 we must either develop a historical record for historical 16 purposes or that we must examine offsite areas for their 17 present implications. To be honest with you, it was a 18 little bit confusing to me which of those is advocated, but 19 the fact of the matter is that what we are here about is the 20 criteria for the release of the site. By definition, the 21 site is releasable if its onsite burden meets a standard.

22 That standard is reasonably rigorous and as we 23 went through yesterday, you must assess the impact of the 24 onsite radiological burden through multiple pathways, but 25 the site release criteria does not take into account, the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. - . - - . . ~ .- . - . - - . . ~ . - . . - - . . .

I 198 1 eque. tion does not recognize offsite inventories, so to the

() 2 excent that I heard that that is now in the equation of 3 *(a), frankly it is beyond the scope of the site release 4 criteria whether: they are SDMP criteria or 1402 criteria.

5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, would not a pretty 6 specific contention be that tritium has been found onsite.

7 The LTP'doesn't adequately indicate how tritium will be 8 dealt with onsite -- the' contention says that to me.

9 MR. GAD: If that is a quote, no, it would not be 10 acceptable.

11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It s not a q. tote. I am not 12 quoting from anything.

13 MR. GAD: I understand, but if you are saying to 14 me write down these words on the pad over there and would 15 that be an admissible contention, the answer is no, because 16 of your use of the word " adequately."

17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And it says where -- it says 18 where the tritium has been located.

19 MR. GAD: That is not the issue. The issue is in 20 order to make a litigable contention in an adjudicatory 21 context, you can't say it's not adequate, You have to say 22 why it doesn't meet the rules.

23 Now putting aside that problem, you can't -- you 24 have to deal with the fact that we are dealing with a 25 written plan. This plan says what you are going to do for ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. , _ .- _ . .. ~ _ ._. _ _ .. - _ _ m ._ ..-._._ _ _ ... _ . - . - . . . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . - - _

.199  !

i i the assessment of the onsite radiological inventory l

() 2 including that -- that it is susceptible to groundwater I i

3 transport mechanisms.

l 4 It also happens to include, and perhaps this is l 5 where people get confused, it happens to include some I 6 preliminary data. We are only here about the plan, we are l 7 not here to assess the data, but there are -- if you take a  !

8 look at page 2.6 et seq. in the plan, and the table  :

I 9

immediately after that, you will'see that significant 10 analyses of groundwater implications are ongoing. So, in j

11 the face of that, no, you can't walk in and say it is -

12 inadequate, you have to say it is inadequate because. You 13 really have to say what it is that must be added to plan 14 with sufficient specification so that someone could say, O 15 yes, I agree, and now that is capable of being implemented.

16 That is not here.

17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I think Ms. Katz has i

18 mentioned a few things that should be added to the plan. l 19 She just did it now.  !

20 MR. GAD: And I guess I must have flinched, Your )

i 21 Honor, because I didn't hear any that were specific, other 22 than we want more, we want to know what the history is, and l 23 we want to know what is going on off-site. Those are i 24 inadmissible. i 25 Now, one other thing I think bears illumination. j

() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters  !

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 ,

(202) 842-0034  ;

i

_ . _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ . . - . . _ . _ . - . . .. .. _ . _ . _ __ _ _ - - -__.__-_...__m__._

200 l- 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I am not -- I wouldn't

() 2 necessarily agree that those are inadmissible if they bear l

3~ on on-site' cleanup.

i 4 MR. GAD: By definition, Your Honor, if you assume 5 that there was a brick of -- and this is an assumption, I 6 hope the record will reflect -- but there was a brick of 7 tritium 10 miles off-site it cannot bear on on-site cleanup.

8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No, but I thought the tritium

'9' was found on-site.

10 MR. GAD: There is.

11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And that is what she is talking i.

12 about.

l 13 MR. GAD: And that is being evaluated, and no one 14 has yet said that there is anything inadequate with any 15 specificity. No one has ever said there is anything L -16 inadequate with the evaluation, detection evaluation and i

17 remediation, if such be required of any nuclide that is 18- found on-site, including tritium.

19 Now, just so that we are clear, okay, the Yankee 20 ' license termination plan imposes upon itself some site 21 release criteria that are not contained in the regulations, 22 that are more constrictive than the regulations. One of 23 them we are all very conscious of and that is the 15 versus l

24 the 25. Another one happens to be that this LTP assumes for  ;

1 25 itself a site release criterion that the EPA criteria for i

() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l l (202) 842-0034 j l

201 1 drinking water will be met with respect to on-site sources.

f I point out this observation to show, number one, 3 the depth of Yankee's commitment here, but, number two, that 4 doesn't have to be there. And if one comes in with-a 5- voluntary undertaking, you can't reject the acceptability of 6 an LTP because the voluntary undertaking isn't acceptable to

7. you. Frankly, if it turns out that someone has come in and 8 voluntarily accepted a more constrictive standard and people 9 aren't happy with it, then the solution for that is we will 10 get rid of it.

11 I don't know if I have responded tu Your Honor's 12 . question.

13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, not completely. Because 14 if'the claim is that because of the discovery of, say, 15 tritium, you are not going to make 15, even though you say 16- you are going to.

17 MR. GAD: That is an-implementation issue, Your 18 Honor.

19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, that is not an 20 implementation issue.

21 MR. GAD: The plan --

22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: By definition, I mean you can 23 call anything implementation, or you can call anything plan, 24 and I can juggle it around so that every issue is both, but 25 -- and the significant matter is if the LTP defines certain

() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 L-

-(202) 842-0034

i l

202 1 methodology, and if it isn't good enough, then that can be 2 amended.

3 MR. GAD: Your Honor, --

-4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That is what I am talking 5 about. And it could be based on predictions of future 6- results, because all of this stuff is predictions of what is 7 going to happen in the future.

8 MR. GAD: The LTP is not a prediction of what is 9' going to happen in the future, Your Honor. The LTP is a 10 commitment that we will do the inventory, run it through the 11 program, and if the number doesn't come out at or below 15 12 ~ millirem TEDE, then we will go out and remediate until it 13 does. The LTP is a commitment that the groundwater on-site 14- will meet the EPA drinking water standards, and if it 15 doesn't, then it will remediated until it does. There is 16 nothing predictive about that at all. It is a site release 17 criterion. It is, if you will, the test level at which you 18 pass the test versus where you fail the test.

19 If Your Honor wants to hypothesize, as I think 20 Your Honor did, and I may have misheard, --

21- JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I did. No, I did.

22 MR. GAD: That someone comes in here and says that 23 that site is so dirty they will never_make that criterion, 24 then the proof is in the pudding. You either do or you 25 don't. But that is not an LTP issue. The Commission has ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 2 84 b3

203 1 said that the LTP'is about the site release criteria and the

() '2 means by which you will demonstrate that you have complied 3 with them.

4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, the means are what we are 5 talking-about, I think.

6 MR. GAD: That's -- and that is the testing for 7 --of the on-site' inventory versus the dose assessment 8 mechanism versus the 15 or 25 millirem TEDE. It is 9 basically numbers.

10 JUDGE MURPHY' And I gather, though, that that is 11 what she.is concerned about, is going from the numbers to 12 the release criteria.

.13 MR. GAD: Well, if you are back to the -- what I 14 consider the main part of Contention Number 1, -- I once 15 thought it.was only part of Contention Number 1, but I was 16 probably wrong, -- this is the same old argument that says 17 .that if you satisfy the five microrad per hour average 10 18 microrad.per hour peak,fand that is all you do --

19 JUDGE MURPHY.: That is not what I am getting at.

20 I understand that issue well. What I don't understand.is, I 21 think she is saying that you take a sample of soil and you 22: determine the amount of radioactivity in that soil, and L- 23 then, on the basis of that, using some model,.you calculate 24 what the annual dose would be.

l- 25 MR. GAD: TEDE, yes.

l-l I(

) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. . _ . . . . - . _ - - . - - . - . . - . . . . . - . - - - . - . - . . _ . _ . . ~ - .

l 204 1

1 JUDGE MURPHY: TEDE from that sample. And what i

() 2 .she is saying, I think I heard her say, is she doesn't 3 think, or she does not accept the model that gets you from '

4 the amount of radioactivity in that gram of soil to the  ;

5 TEDE.  ;

6 MR. GAD: The dose assessment model.

7 JUDGE MURPHY: 'Yes.

8 MR. GAD: Well, assuming that one wanted to say 9 that the dose assessment model was incorrect, all right, and 10 this is not a political question based on value judgment, 11 this is a technical question, there is a right answer to it.

12 So if someone wants to say that the equation by which one 13 gets --

14 JUDGE MURPHY: . Excuse me. But she is saying that 15 there may be more than one answer to it. I think. .

16 MR. GAD: Well, as Your Honor has defined the 17 question, there oughtn't to be, because -- ,

18 JUDGE MURPHY: No , it depends on what the model 19- says.

20 MR. GAD: The issue is if you take a stipulated 21 set of givens, --

22 JUDGE MURPHY: Yes.

23 MR. GAD: -- run it through an equation, all 24 right.

.25' JUDGE MURPHY: Yes.

t-i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

.. . ~ ~ . . - . , . ~ - . . - . - - . ~ - . ~ _..~---- -.

l l l l

l 205 l t i i 1 MR. GAD: You come out with an answer that either

()

1 e 2 is or is not properly in the units of the criterion.

I' 3 JUDGE MURPHY: Yes, exactly.

4 MR. GAD: All right. So then it becomes a 5 question.of whether or not someone says the equation is the '

i l '6 correct way of getting from the givens to the.-- all right, ,

i .

l l 7 two problems. Number one, I believe that the equation has l

! 8 in fact been given to us.

9 JUDGE MURPHY: Is that part of the regulation?

10 MR. GAD: It is part of the NUREG structure, the 11 RESRAD structure, the NUREG-1500 structure, all of which i

'12 were -- and I have said this before, and someday someone 13 will either agree with me or disagree with me, but when the

! 14 . Commission promulgated the TEDE site release criterion, they 15 referred to this approach. There is an earlier study in 16 there that they quote from at great length. At one point I 17 believe they quote from -- there is an appendix, and I can't

'18 remember the name of it, but we cited it in our materials, j 19 at least in the standing side and perhaps also on this side.

20 But there is a part in the back of this study l 1

21 where the author of the study says let's understand I 22' something here, we are not talking about bounding cases. We j

23 are not writing the kind of criterien that you use, for l 24 instance, under Part 20 for the site boundary criterion, 25 which is.the most affected individual. He says we are doing i

i I

~

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 y e-T --w kW w.ru

206  !

1 this on the basis of an average. And then he defines what i

i

() 2. he.is talking about, this is the median person. Some will

-3 be a little bit over here, some will be a little bit over I 4 here. This is our unit, if you will.

5 -Now, if we want to protect --

and since we are  !

6 dealing with a fixed source term, all right, the fact that

-7 some are going to get more and some are going to get less is l 8 a function of factors we can't doing anything about. So the f i

9 'real question is we could define it in terms of most I l

10 affected person, you would have one value over here. We  ;

11 could define it in terms of the median person, we would have l 12 one value over here. We could define it terms of the median 13 . child. Y0u could define it in terms of the median lawyer ,

14 who is under six feet, always one of my favorite, all right, 15 but they are different units of the same thing. They can be

16 ' calibrated to one another. This is how the Commission did 17 'it , and, therefore, I think it was prescribed.

l 18 Prescinding from that, if, in fact, we were back 19 to the legislative phase of deciding what the standard ought 20 to be rather than deciding whether or not it is going t o 21 -- we have a plan for demonstrating that we meet it, ar.yone 22 who wants to come in and say that the equation is wrong, 23 that it doesn't adequately get from the input givens to the 24 desired output units has to say why. All right.

25 For instance, a valid contention might be, if we ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

s . . ,_ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ .._ _ _ _ _ . _

_ _ . _ _ - ~ _ . . . . _

i i

207 -

1 were at that stage, that you have missed -- that you have

()

i 2 missed pathway X. And you take a look at your equation and 3 .you say, well, I have gone shinefdose, I have got  !

l 4 inhalation, but, oops, I missed agricultural intake. l

-1 5 JUDGE MURPHY: And isn't she saying, well, you 6 missed the lawyer-that is under six foot?

7 'MR. GAD: No, because the lawyer that is under six 8 foot, Your Honor, is covered by the average person standard.

9 JUDGE MURPHY: I see.

10 MR. GAD: It is just a unit.

11 JUDGE MURPHY: Is the child --

12 MR. GAD: Yes, Your Honor.

13 JUDGE MURPHY: -- covered by the average person 14 standard also?

15 JMR. GAD: Absolutely. j l

16 JUDGE MURPHY: Okay.

17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And you say that is prescribed 18 by rule, or is this a !;UREG or a Reg. Guide, essentially? l 19 MR. GAD: It ia, Your Honor, the studies that the i 20 Commission referred to when it promulgated the TEDE standard 21- in 1402.

22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Is that the standard -- l l

23 MR. GAD: There is a long Federal -- there is a i 24 long Federal -- boy, I am having trouble this morning.

25 -There is a long exegesis in the Federal Register explaining

( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters l

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

208 i i

1 what the study is,.how they got -- I'm sorry, what the  !

() 2 standard is, how.they got there, and'what the concepts are 3 that they draw from these input documents. Now, that is ,

i 4 legislative history. That tells you what the legislation 5 means. And if it does tell you what the legislation means, i

6 then it is every bit as much of the prescriptive law as the 7 words of the legislation itself. Yes, indeed.

8 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, may I be indulged?

9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes.  ;

10 MR. DIGNAN: I have listed with interest to this 11 colloquy because, I guess with the exception of the board, I l 12 go back'as far in this business as anybody. I am even a 13 veteran of the old ECCS wars. And if now CAN is saying that i

14 it is the model we are attacking, then what they are

15 attacking.is RESRAD. RESRAD is the model we are using. I R16 understand it to be quite accepted in the scientific 17 community. And I think my Brother Gad has made a good point j 18 when he says if you are going to attack a model in an NRC l

l 19 proceeding, you must attack specifically with a contention 20 .that delineates where you say the model is wrong.

21 In the old days of the ECCS, there were always 22 arguments, I remember, about whether the model has 23 improperly split downcomers, and that sort of thing, in 24 order to show the results one was getting on the cooling j i

25 side.

l I

4 ,

) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

I( Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l  ;

l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i

_ . ~ , , . , , _ , _ - - , -. -, ._-

I 209 l t

1 -At a minimum, the new regulations of the  !

() 2 _ Commission must require that in a model case. I mean if any

{

3 of you Judges have sat through a model case, I have sat 4 through one, they are terribly complex, they are terribly i i

5 expert-driven, and they must be driven by an expert saying

{

6 thistis where I say the model is improperly constructed. t 7 You cannot, under the Commission rules, wander into the  !

t 8 hearing room and say I don't believe the model.

l 9 Now, whether that model is part of the Reg., which 10 I happen to agree with Brother Gad it is, when you trace the 11 history out, but even if you should conclude, no, it is not 12 yet part of the Reg., it is a model. It is a computer 13 model, and if you are going to attack it, the minimum that 14 is required under the regulations as they stand today is

) 15. that somebody, some expert with expertise comes in and says 16 this is where the model goes wrong, and this is why I think r

17 it is that place. And if we don't, we are on an open-ended 18 discussion which will be of great interest to mathematical i 19 experts, which will be a mile over my head, but it will 20 serve us nothing, which is part of the problem of the CAN 21 contentions.

22 I was quite moved by Dr. Elleman last night when 23 he addressed the audience, but the problem we have got here 24 is a lot of these contentions being brought by well-meaning 25 people, concerned people, are being brought in the wrong ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

, _ . -.m _ _ _ _ _ <_ .___..._...m. _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ .

210 l

1 forum. They really belong in the Congress, at least at the

() 2 Commission level, and probably in the Congress. Maybe 3 Congress should not have allowed nuclear power, but as the i

4 Supreme Court said, they did. And there is a limited amount 5 any of us can do here. And one of the things we could do is 6 correct a bad model if somebody brings in a specific 7 contention and says to this board and to the parties, this 8 is where this model was wrong, it has to be corrected in 9 order to have a correct TEDE evaluation. But absent that, I 10 respectfully suggest there is no contention that the 11 Commission will allow this board to hear in that area.

12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, isn't the failure of the 13 model to explicitly include, say, women and children, is not 14 that not the defect that they have both, both NECNP and

() 15 Citizens Awareness Network, haven't they both pointed to 16 that in one context or another?

l 17 MR. DIGNAN: But the problem with that, Your l

l 18 Honor, is that the model does , in the sense that it takes a 19 reference person. Now, if I could run public relatione for 20 the international agencies that set these things up, I would 21 have picked child, you know, because then I wouldn't have I 22 this problem. But you have got to have some reference l 23 point, and it really doesn't make much difference in the big L 24 . swing whether the reference point is 250 pound me, or a 1

25 little smaller Brother Gad, or it is a child. You have got l' l i

() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i

l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

i

- , - . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ , m_., , - _ _ _ , , . _-.!

l l 211  !

l 1 to'have a reference point off which you work. And,  ;

( 2 presumably, you could set this thing as child rem, set it at

{

3 a higher number than 25 and move on from there. It doesn't L i 4 make any difference what the reference point is as long as l 5 there is one.  !

6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well,'what I was driving'at-is 1

7 if you set the reference point -- if child were to be used, J 8 and, theoretically, at one point the Commission said it was 9 being conservative and adopting many things for conservative l 10; . reasons, because they didn't know everything, and so they ,

11 acted conservatively to bound the likely range of products i 12 that would come out. My question is, unless it is required 13 that the model~use a standard adult male, and I am not sure

]

14 a statement of considerations is good enough, but that is. I Q(sse 15 another question, but unless that is required, why wouldn't 16' we be free to say, in doing your modeling, use a child?

17 MR. GAD: Let me try a very short answer to that 18 question, Your Honor.

19 [ Pause.)

20 MR. GAD: May I try and answer that question?

21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. Yes.

22 MR. GAD: If you elected to say that the model 23 units ought to refer to, let's call it the average child, j 24 I just to create a phrase, now you have to associate a number -

25 with that.

l l

f ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

212 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, take the same numbers as

() 2 you got for ---

3 MR. GAD: You can't, that's the rub.

4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Why can't you?

5 MR. GAD: Because the Commission's 25 was based on 6 the reference that they used, and, therefore, what you would 7 have to do is to calibrate your average child standard to 8 - the standard that was used to impose the 25 -- let's just 9 call the 25. Twenty-five to the average man, let's assume 10 hypothetically, represents 28 to the average child. So if

11. you want to call it average child instead of average man, 12 you are going to have to raise the number from 25 to 28 so 13 that they end up being the same thing that the Commission 14 promulgated. That's why.

15 This is all about units. If we convert the speed 16 limit from miles per hour to kilometers per hour, we can't

.1'7 still call it 55. That is all that is involved here. Your 18 Honor?

19 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Yes. Mr. Gad, and I would address 20 this also to Mr. Dignan, we have been talking --

21 MR. GAD: I am happy to sit down.

22 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Well, I will let both of you 23' decide. We have talking about errors in model, and we do 24- hear in the contentions, challenges to a model.

25- MR. GAD: May I close the shade?

() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 4

213

)

1 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Oh, please, yes. We have done i l O

(]g 2 this to you twice now, haven't we, in two days.

l 3 But what I hear also in the contentions is that 4 the licensee is silent on the questions. It is not so much l {

i l

5 that the methodology is incorrect, but that the methodology l

' l 6 that is to be pursued is unknown. Now, do the two of you 7 feel that if we take the license termination plan, and take 8 all of the NUREG documents that are referenced, and if we )

9 compiled all of that to go through in a sequence, that it 10 defines a pattern of conduct and it defines a progression of i 11 activities that any reasonable person can discern as being 12 the plan the licensee is going to pursue? I'm sorry, that 13 came out more complicated than --

14 MR. GAD: No , I understand the questien. My 1 1

( 15 grimaces were at two points. First, when you threw in a 16 reasonable man, okay, because I think we would have to go 17 into a long recess perhaps to detect and locate someone that l 18 everyone would agree meets that standard. I think the l

19 answer to your question is as follows, yes, with a 20 qualification. And the qualification is that the license l 21 termination plan is supposed to be a testable obligation.

l 22' All right. It is not exactly like a hypothesis in 23 scientific terms, but it is like the protocol for going out 1

24 and doing a study. I don't think that it needs to be, wants 25 to be, or ought to be, or, within the limits of Xerography, I

r ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

D Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenne, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

214 1 could be down to the nth level of detail.

() 2 JUDGE ELLEMAN: I understand and I would not ask 3 for that, but --

4 MR. GAD: I understood Your Honor's question to 5 be , should the LTP, read in the context in which it is 6 published, all right, which is a very technical one, and it 7 includes some of the NUREGs, it also includes the technology 8 and the models such as RESRAD, should it --

should you find 9 it to be an undertaking to which Yankee can be tested at the 10 end? Yes. That is our objective. If you don't, there is 11 something wrong with it.

12- JUDGE ELLEMAN: And the pattern they are to pursue 13 in reaching the end, is that also assumed part of it?

14 MR. GAD: The syllogism by which they get to their

) 15 conclusion is -- we believe is in the LTP, supposed to be in 16 the LTP. If it isn't in the LTP, then it needs to be fixed.

17 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Okay. Thank you.

18 MR. GAD: Your Honor.

19 JUDGE MURPHY: Do you have any more comments on 20 that?

21 MR. GAD: No , I'm sorry, I thought you were going 22 to ask me a question.

l23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Let's go to the staff. Staff, 24 whoever is going to handle these.

25 MS. HODGDON: Yes. I believe we are talking about I

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

.....-. -- .._- - - - - . . . - . ~ - . . . ~ - . . _ - . - - - . - . - . - . ~ . . . ~ . . - - .

215 i 1 two things, (1) tritium, and (2) the average member of the j

() 2 3-critical group. And so with regard to' tritium, the staff's number -- CAN's Contention 8 is~also -- raises the same )

i 4 tritium concern and the staff addressed it there. As I i

5 regards to all these speculations about what a good l 1

6 contention about tritium would be, the problem that the 7 staff had with CAN's contention, as it expressed -- as it is 8 expressed there in the staff's answer, is that it is 9 historic. And with regard to Judge Elleman's question-about 10 what is the problem, if -- because Yankee is required to, or 11 says they will calculate the TEDE, the T-E-D-E , that stays 12 below 15, doesn't that take care of the problem?

13 And certainly it does with regard to the historic 14 tritium. In our answer we.say that it is well below, even 15 at this time, it is well below the EPA drinking water 16 standard. And so concerns about swimming and things like 17 that are certainly less than concerns about a drinking water 18- standard, because the EPA, like us, sets a standard that is 19 a maximum, it is not a worst case, but I mean you really 20 might drink the water, and so if you swallou it in the 21 river, it is the same thing. ,

I 22 So we don't really have anything more to say about l 23- tritium because it is all over our pleading and the answers 24 to tritium wherever it is raised.

l 25 With regard to the various questions about the j l

l 1

t ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1

216 1 average member of the critical group, yesterday I mentioned (A) 2 the proposed rule, new Subpart E to Part 20, which appeared

3 in the Federal Register on August 22nd, 1994, and I don't 4 have the cite at hand, but I cited it yesterday, and I am 5 sure that was -- I hope that people might have read it. And 6 then also the final rule, and the statement that the 7 Commission made on adopting that rule, which I believe is 8 July 21st, 1997. And there the Commission explained what it 1

9 was doing and it said what it was doing with regard to some l 10 comments about using women and children instead of the 11 average man. I must say that it didn't go into great detail 12 about why -- I mean the average -- not the average man, the )

13 average member -- well, the reference man is actually the 14 proper citation, which Judge Elleman asked some questions

() 15 about just now. Reference man, why do you use reference )

1 16 man?  !

17 The Commission didn't go into great detail about i

18 that, I think, because they assumed that everybody knew it.

19 But, in any event, everything that has been raised here was 20 addressed there in the context of the rule. The summary on 21 the final rule, of course, does not include everything 22 because there are two NUREG documents that are referenced 23 there, which includes all of the comments, and that is all 24 in there if you want to read it.

25 But all I can tell you is that reference man is --

f~ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

A Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1

l l

.. - ~ , _ - - . . . . .- --- . - . . . . . - - - . ~ . - . - - . - . . - . - . . - - - - -

217 i 1 I think it is based on ICRP-74 and the comments were that we

() 2 3

should have used, the Commission should have used perhaps a

-newer model, or that it should have used women and children,

]

4 but the thing about reference man is that all of his l l

L '5 documentation is there. He is 70 -- he is 70 what -- he I l

l 6a weighs 70 kilograms, which is 154 pounds with my -- I don't 7 know. Mr. Gad, I t-lnk is a mathematician. Is that right?

8 ' Seventy times 2, it is 2.2 i the conversion factor, so -- to 9 get to pounds, which is much less than the 200 and 250 10 pounds he weighed yesterday, so he is'somewhat smaller than 11 he is represented as being.

12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do you have any explanation for 13 this drastic loss of weight in one day?

14 MS. HODGDON: No, this is CAN's reference man, I 15 am talking about the one that the NRC used.

16 MR. GAD: The late hour last night.

17 MS. HODGDON: Yes, late hours. He is -- he weighs 18 70 kilograms. I am just doing this from memory, I think he i 19 is 170 centimeters tall. And we know about how much skin he 1

20- has, and we know everything about him. And if you look at 21 any health physics handbook, you will see about five or six  !

22 pages there, which will give you a column for this man over 23 here, reference man, and next to it will be a column for 24 women, and next to it will be a column for children of a

~25 certain age, maybe five, and then for newborns, and the only L ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l 218 1 thing that is filled out is men, and the women are not

< (,~) 2 filled out all the way. And so as Mr. Gad says, you would 3 have to calculate that, and it would be a difficult 4 calculation. You would have to calculate all of that. And 5 so the reason we use this model is that it is only model 6 there is.

7 And so with regard to the other questions about 8 these various NUREGs and these computer codes and so forth, 9 I have read all of these things myself, insofar as they 10 exist in prose, I think, at least I have scanned them, and I 11  ; find that a lot of things that exist in code are not really 12 explained as well as the layman might like in prose.

13 For example, the residential farm scenario, which

,~

14 is said to be the most conservative scenario because you k ,, 15 have got the reference man living there with his wife and m

)

i 16 children, and he is the average member of the critical 17 group, and he does certain things. He raises the 18 vegetables, he waters them with the contaminated water, to 19 the extent that it is still contaminated. He eats the 20 vegetables and so forth. So that is supposed to be the most i

21 conservative scenario, and I think that -- and that is why 22 Yankee used it. l 23 You could use a different one which is the 24 building occupation scenario, where he goes -- you know,

- 25 they rehab those buildings, somebody uses them for an l

rN 1 (j

\

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

219 l' industry. People work there eight hours a day. That is a

() 2- much less conservative scenario. These things are all 3 calculated using the computer codes and the prose 4 descriptions of them are not enough to answer every possible 5 question, but, yet, they are generally there.

6: MS. HODGDON: I could tell you a lot more about 7 reference, ma'am, but I won't. I will just say that is the 8 ' reason that the Commission uses this concept, and that is 9 the reason that it's recognized in the international 10 community. That is what health physicists go to.

11 I am not a health physicist, and I just can tell 12 you that I looked at these charts and it was obvious to me 13 certain things, why they adopted them. Whether there are 14 other things out there, I do not know, but I do know that

( 15 the Commission didn't adopt them, and it explains why it 16 didn't adopt them in its final rule.

17 JUDGE ELLEMAN: I think you said that the scenario 18 of the farmer is the most conservative scenario. Is that 19 the same as saying that if the licensee adopted the kinds of 20 delivering patterns that CAN'and NECNP proposed that you 21 would come out with lower, not higher, projected doses for a 22 site?

23 MS. HODGDON: We really don't know. I mean, I 24 don't know. But all I do know is that what the Commission 25 said in CLI-98-21 is that that would be a worst-case g ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. . . . _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ . - - _ . - . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . ~ _ . - . _ _ _ . . . . . _ . . _ _ . . - _

t l

l I l 220 .

l~ 1 scenario and that worst-case scenarios weren't appropriate

() 2 in this area ~in this discussion, that it was not appropriate 3 to use a worst-case scenario, because the scenario was j 4 conservative enough :to odo the job, and that's what they i 5 wanted. That there's no value in doing worst case.

6 JUDGE SECHHOEFER: Mr. Block, I know you haven't  !

7 ' joined these contentions, but do you wish to comment at all?

l j 8 MR. BLOCK: Yes, Your Honor. I hope the Court r

l 9 will forgive me. I'm getting sick, and I'm a bit difficult

-10 to hear.

l 11 First I would ask Ms. Hodgdon to provide a  ;

i' 12 citation to the part of the final rulemaking where the i

13 Commission definitively describes their choice of' reference 14 man. Do you have that citation available?

r

\ 15 MS. HODGDON: May I answer the question?

i 16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes.  !

17 MS. HODGDON: The staff does not -- the rulemaking  !

118 does not use the-word " reference man," to my recollection.

19 MR. BLOCK: It doesn't to mine either. That's why 1 20 'I asked for a citation. ,

21 MS. HODGDON: The average member of the critical 22 group -- I believe I said the Commission thought --

l 23: MR. BLOCK: I have to object. I just asked for a 24 citation, not to give a'--

f 25- JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, let her answer the f

i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters i

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 c (202) 842-0034 l

. _ , . ~ , . . , _. . _ , . __ . _ . . . . _ _ ,_ __ _ - - .

1 221 L

! 1 question.

1

()

2 MS. HODGDON: Let me answer the question, since it 3 was asked and since the Board has agreed that I can answer 4 it.

5 I started out by.saying that they don't use the 6 term " reference man," that they thought everybody knew that.

7- In fact, they did. They thought everybody knew that. And 8 so-that's why they don't use it. But they do reference the 9 documents on which they base it, and they do reject the idea 10 of women and children. And I didn't say anything that -- I l 11 didn't misrepresent the final rule. It's as I said it was.

12 And I addressed it yesterday the same way.

j 13 MR. BLOCK: Well, I think it is a

-14 misrepresentation, having read it and all of the three

) 15 volumes of comments and the generic study, and I would say 16- that when you go to the section that-deals with the choice 17 of scenario, what's discussed is ICRP-60, and if you go to 18 'that set of standards, you will' find a means of dealing with l

19 children. So the fact is that the staff is aware that the

'20 means is available, and there isn't a definitive rejection.

l 21' All'there is is a discussion of a variety of approaches, and 22 a recommendation that a conservative approach be adopted.

23 And I think that it's unreasonable to press the notion that 24 there's a definitive rejection when it's not there.

I 25 .And also when you offer the information that

!: ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

l Court Reporters.

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

?

1

~ . , . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _

-__.._m ._ _ _ ._ . - .. .~ . . , ._._-.___-.-..__m._ . . . _ ._.

222 1 something exists at a specific place, you should at least be

() 2

-3 able to provide it or offer to provide it.

it. I read through that material too.

And I don't see And I'm at pains to 4 be able to find anything like what you're describing.

5 However, you will find in the section that deals 6 on residential scenarios and other scenarios discussion of 7 the ICRP-60 standard, which includes women and children.

8 MS. HODGDON: Excuse me, if I may answer the 9 question again, if it is a question.

10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes.

11 MS, HODGDON: I don't believe I said that it 12 didn't include women and children. In fact, I specifically 13 said that it did.

14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Does it exclude women and O

Q 15 children?

16 MS. HODGDON: In including them it does not 17 exclude them.

18 . JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Lovejoy, do you have 19 comments?

20 MR. LOVEJOY: Your Honor, I just have two very 21 short comments. It's just the hope the Franklin Region 22 would have that perhaps we would like to reference the 23 average worker once the site is released fishing at lunch

~

24. and catching an average fish and eating it and feeling safe 25 in that activity.

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. . __ - ._ . _- J

~ . _ _ . ~ . _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ ...._ -_.. _

i 223 l 1 As a more specific comment, which actually

() 2 overlaps lwith one of our contentions, which maybe we can 3 deal with now partly, to the extent that the staff --

i 4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Let's wait on your contentions

.5 till we get to yours and --

6 MR. LOVEJOY: I think the question is if you read 7 the LTP, what seemed to be missing from our experience and l

8 to the extent the staff that. reviewed it could be looked at 9 as experts, and maybe that's a question that can be raised l

10 later, I don't know, there seemed to be no reference to 11 random sampling, which is sort of the other way to test the l 12 computer model.

l 13 And so one of our main worries is that there's a l

'14 way to test the model that's in the LTP, the model that's

) 15 being used in some independent fashion. And we don't know l 16 exactly how to institute that, and so we're simply looking 17 for a way to test the model. We have no way of doing that

! 18 except to find an expert that could help us do that. At 19~ this time we don't have that. So we're just urging that a l

20 way be found to test the model, and the only suggestion we l

21 had was some sort of way of backchecking by using random 22 analysis.

L 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Lovejoy, let me just ask l-

! 24 you one thing. Did you use the term " average worker"? I l

25 assume that doesn't include women and children -- well, i

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

i  !

I I

1 1 224 l l

1- children anyway.  !

() 2 MR. LOVEJOY: _Well, I would hope that it would 3 include pregnant women. It could easily include children 4 cleaning up a 2,000-acre site, you know, or, you know,  !

5 mowing the lawn,~et cetera. I don't know what's going on L  ;

6 there.

l )

7 The main concern we have with regard to site  ;

8 release is simply that attention be paid that once the site f

i 9 is released, that it be the safest, cleanest site possible, t

10 and to the extent a model is being used which is not  !

'f 11 testable or hasn't been tested, we're concerned. And one  !

l 12 way to test it would be random sampling to test the results j

r 13 of the model.  :

r l '14 So to the extent our staff review was an expert 15 review, I'm simply requesting that there be some way to do 16 random sampling backup to the computer modeling being used.

17 That's the extent of the comments I think I can make. i 18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Ms. Katz, do you have rebuttal?  !

I 19 MS. KATZ: I just want to respond that what we're 1

20 concerned with is the application _. We believe that it's  !

I 21 open in terms of who is the average member of the critical  !

22 group, end we believe that a conservative position on that i

23 'needs to be taken, and that this is about application and i

24 interpretation, not that we're creating a whole new rule. l l

25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Would you like to, now that [

i 4

,( '

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ,

Court Reporters  !

, ,1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 L

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i i l

.- - - . - .- .- .- ~ ,_ ._ _. - - - - .. - - - - .~,

225  !

1 you're there, go on to number 2?  !

() 2 MS . -)UVrZ : Okay.

3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, the next one. '

4 MS. KATZ: Under our second contention, which was i 5 about soil remediation, there's a reference to it on page 7,  !

6 but specifically on page 11, the first paragraph,'we talk 7 about during the early component-removal project at Rowe, J l

r 8 'large numbers of hot particles were released during the l  !

i l 9 underwater cutting of'the million-curie baffle. Because  !

\

\

10 these hot particles contaminated workers, over 110, and l

\

11 migrated throughout the site, a thorough and independent 1

12 review of affected and unaffected areas should be undertaken 13 .to ascertain the extent of the hot-particle contamination 14 onsite and in the surrounding property. And our concern is

() 15 that the license termination plan does not clarify that this 16 will take place.

i I 17 There are two things that I would also like to 18 mention in this in a recent NRC Information Notice 97-36, l

i 19 unplanned intakes by workers of transuranic airborne j 20 radioactive materials and external exposure due to 21 inadequate control of work. This was in Information Notice 22 97-36, US NRC.

-23 One of the things that's talked about in fact is 24 the uptake of transuranics, and it states: For reactor 25 facilities that have experienced fuel defects, experience i

O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters

-1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1 I

. . . . _ . ~ _ . -

226  !

l 1 has shown that long after the defective fuel has been  !

() '2 ' removed, significant alpha contamination may remain in r

3 general' inaccessible locations such as the FTC and equipment 4 drains and sumps and other refueling areas. Even minor

! 5 disturbance of the contaminated surface can result in the I i

6 release of alpha-emitting radionuclides whose DACs are i i

7 orders of magnitude more restrictive and limiting at much 8 lower concentration compared with the normal beta-emitting i L 9 and gamma-emitting isotopes usually encountered in reactor 10 plant environments. Additionally, alpha contamination may [

l; 11 be incorporated into a contamination corrosion layer on the 12 interior surface of the system components that carry primary 13 fluids or steam. Surveys for loose surface contamination 14 may not identify the fixed alpha contamination, but abrasive '

I

() 15 work, grinding, or welding may result in alpha-emitting t

airborne radioactive materials.

5 l

16 This latter characteristic l

17 may be particularly important at reactor facilities during i

l 18 decommissioning.

19 We wanted to add that in terms of the issue of in 20 fact calculating for alpha and the lack of that in the 21 license termination plan and in Yankee's FSAR incorporating 22 the D plan at 306.2 in fact -- starts at 306.1 -- systems in l

l 23 contact with main coolant have been contaminated with l

l 24. activated corrosion products and fuel residue. In 1977 25 Yankee' began converting from stainless steel clad fuel i

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

~

{

_ ..m.. _ ._._._._._ . .

- _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . - . - . _ . . . ~ . . _ . . _ . _ _ . _ . _ .

l 227 {

\

1. Zircaloy to Zircaloy clad fuel. Following conversion, fuel j

() 2 clad failures began occurring. Most of the failures were  ;

3- minor failures of clad integrity releasing iodines and other i 4 fission gases into the main coolant. However, during cycle  ;

t 5 14, 16, and 18, several peripheral fuel rods failed, and as 6 a result of damage caused by water jetting from the core j 7 baffle spacer plates, these fuel failures were sufficient to )

8 cause contamination of the reactor vessel and the main l

9 coolant system with fuel residue. Baffle jetting damage was 10 eliminated by the addition of spacer plugs at the bottom of 11 the core baffle spacer plates and modifying fuel assembly 12 designs. No significant fuel failures occurred after the 13 . modifications were implemented.

14 And so that is in fact where we're concerned the 15 plutonium came from, that in fact this'is a reference to 16 contamination in the reactor vessel and the main coolant 17 system. And that's part of our concern in terms of 18 plutonium being calculated in this, and also our concern s 19 that during the cutting up of systems that there may have 20 been particles that were released in this process that we 21 feel need to be accounted for.

22 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Ms. Katz, I'm probably repeating 23 myself here, and I apologize, but I believe what I hear from 24 you.is not so much opposition to what-the licensee is going 25 to do, but concern that it is not completely clear what they Juni RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

228 1 are going to do.

2 MS. KATZ: Yes.

3 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Okay.

4 MS. KATZ: They may be doing that. I would 5 -appreciate that they're doing it, but we want to make sure 6 that.that's happening. The issue of hot particles on the 7 site and the potential for them to leave the site is of 8- great concern to our community. We don't want anyone 9 exposed.

10 JUDGE MURPHY: That.it?

11 MS. KATZ: Yes.

12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Gad.

13 MR. GAD: Once again, Your Honor, we seem to have 14 an awful lot mixed into one contention. As we read

) 15 Contention A(2) , it contained a request that this Board 16 ~ impose civil liability on Yankee for past acts. It 17 requested that this Board order additional studies done by 18 collateral third parties. It has a recitation that I think 19 reflects some confusion or misunderstanding about how the 20 -ALARA calculation was done This is the mean-life issue.

21 And I don't hear about any of that this morning. I don't 22 know whether it's withdrawn or what.

23 JUDGE MURPHY: Excuse me. Can I just make a 24 comment?

25 We did ask her just to limit her discussion to

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

229 l 1 things that weren't discussed yesterday.  ;

() 2 3

MR. GAD: All right. If we may, we'll stand on I what we wrote with respect to those issues.

4 If Contention A(2) is now a contention about --

-5 I'm not exactly sure what. Let me try this response. I

v. ,

6 suppose.it's a contention about the classification scheme.

7 The notion that there are parts of the site that 8 aren't going to be looked at at all is simply contrary on 9 its face with the LTP. Now as the Commission guidance 10 instructs, the first thing you do is to take a look at 11 history, and you decide which parts of the site are most 12 likely to contain the sorts of things that you want to find, 13 and which parts are less likely.

14 The initial screens are different. The screen in

() 15- the likely affected area is much tougher than the screen in 16 the likely unaffected area, and the function of the screen 17 in the unaffected area is to test whether or not your 18 classification, your initial classification, stands.

19 Now if you take a look at Figure 5.1 on page A-48 20 of the LTP, which is part of the final status survey 21 -report --

22 JUDGE MURPHY: Okay.

23 MR. GAD: There is here a flow diagram that 24 . illustrates the process, bearing in mind that we start with 25 our initial classification, bear in mind that we've divided O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

230 1 everything up into survey units, and you have to actually go

() 2 through the.whole drill separately for each survey unit. A 3 survey unit could be a piece of the ground, it could be a 4 piece of a building, it could be a piece of machinery. But 5 you see that we do our sweeps, we do our scans, we take our 6 data, okay? We calculate the survey unit mean and standard 7 deviation, third box down. And we compare that with the 8 reclassification criteria.

9 Now, there are in essence three possibilities. If 10 .your number is in the bottom segment, then you pass. If 11 your number is in the top segment, then you go directly to 12 remediation. And if your number is in the middle, then you 13 reclassify and go back to the more rigorous testing protocol 14 and go through the process again.

15 So that's what we're doing. The classification 16 criteria and the reclassification criteria are set forth in 17 the LTP.

18 Now, it is entirely possible, at least in the 19 theoretical world, that Yankee is imperfect. It is entirely .

20 possible that something got missed. But anyone who wants to 21 say that we missed something has to say what we missed, and 22 that's what's missing from a contention which I gather A(2) 23 now includes. It says you've got to do more.

24 We don't now how to respond until you tell us what

'- 25 it is.

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. _ . - __m. .. . ... . _ _ - - _ ..- _ _ _ - . _ _. _ . _ _ _ _ .._. .. _ _ . .. -

! t i

231 l 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: _Ms. Hodgdon or whoever.  ;

2 MS. HODGDON: Ms. Zobler. '

i l 3 MS. ZOBLER: Just to add a few more thoughts on 1 f 4 the-subject of offsite releases and historical data. To the 1

5 extent that CAN is seeking to hold Yankee liable for any  !

6 damage it may have caused offsite, as we said in our l

- i, pleading that's beyond the scope of the NRC to require.

7 8 There are other means to seek that kind of redress. j 9 Going back to really the requirements of the NRC's 10 contention rules, I think this illustrates some of the ,

11 problems and why you have such requirements. It's hard to i

12 respond to these kind of vague assertions about the hot 13 particles unless'there's a reference to it in the LTP.

14 Where should this have been considered? Why is what Yankee 15 is offering not satisfactory? Which is why the staff 16 requests and points out there CAN's filing in that regard 17 was deficient. It is r_1r to request to know what it is 18 that CAN wants, what their problem is with the LTP, so that 19 we could frankly provide responses and certainly makes for

- 20 -- if there is a hearing, it makes for it to be more 21 efficient and more effective.

22 Other than that, I have nothing more to add.

l 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Any comments, Mr. Block?

( 24 MR. BLOCK: No, Your Honor. Thank you. 1 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Lovejoy?

l i

J O- Jumi RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

+

l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 4

j. (202) 842-0034  !

t

--, .- - - - - . - - ,n,. -

I 232 i i

1 MR. LOVEJOY: I pass. Thank you, i

, ) 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Ms. Katz, i

3 MS. KATZ: I just want to say that much of what we  !

1 4 had in this contention was dealt with yesterday, and so I  :

5 just want to reiterate that what I just wanted to focus on  !

6 was information related to the issues of the hot particles l

7 and the plutonium which was raised yesterday, and what I was 8 attempting to do was just add to whatever wasn't fully 9 discussed yesterday rather than going through the whole 10 proces again.

11 Is it possible for us to have a five-minute break

12. at this point?

13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes.

14 MS. KATZ: We want to get some papers out of the 15 car for the process.

16 JUDGE MURPHY: Come back at 20 minutes of the 17 hour.

18 [ Recess.]

19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Back on the record.

20 During the break, the Board and I imagine all of l 21 the parties and petitioners were served with a memorandum 22 from Dr. Resnikoff to Mr. Block, and I just wanted to note 23 for the record that we had all received it, and we assume 24 all the parties and participants have received that 25 memorandum. It concerns the update of Part 61, which was i

j O

IdRJ RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 1 2 84 b3 1

i

. - - - - . - - ~ . . . - . . - . . . . _ . - - . - - . . . . - . . - _ - ~ . - .

l 233  ;

i 1 referenced yesterday.  :

t

) 2 So 'I just thought I'd note for the record that we

{

L 3 got it, and I presume all the other parties have got it as  !

j 4 .!

well.

i 5 Now we're going to number 3. Ms. Katz, I guess j 6 we're up to number 3.

7 MS. KATZ: Okay. I know the_ decision was that the N

8 issues that are~in terms of the irradiated fuel storage l

} 9 plants that Yankee has are outside of what we can deal with.

10 I just wanted to make one thing clear in a certain.way for  ;

11 'the record, so it's under 3 and it's on page 16. t i

12 Under NRC regulations, the Agency is responsible l 13 for the greater-than-Class-C waste and any ALARA 14 considerations that could result in the unnecessary exposure 15 of workers during transfer and casking of this waste and i

16 other irradiated material in the fuel pool. In section 1.4, 17 Yankee acknowledges there are 21 canisters of i 18 greater-than-Class-C waste. The greater-than-Class-C waste ,

19 will require transfer out of the pool. Although there is no 20 current disposition for the greater-than-Class-C waste, the i 21 LTP does not reflect this.

22 What we want to express is our being confounded by 23 what we feel is NRC s abdication of their responsibility and  ?

?

l 24 accountability in terms of providing a way for citizens to '

I 25 participate in terms of fuel issues, that the t

'O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l

Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034

, e

., -y .

._m.m.__.__ _ _ _ . . _ _. _ _. _ .m _ ____ __ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ _

234 i i

1 greater-than-Class-C waste is not necessarily the i

() 2 responsibility of the DOE. And I go into it in what I say,

3. I understand we're not necessarily going to deal with it l

i 4 here, but I just want to acknowledge that we really I 5 experience this as a schizophrenic situation in which parts

~

l l

6 of what's in the fuel pool are really accountable to the 7 NRC, but,all of it is not dealt with or whether the fuel 8 pool remains.  ;

I 9 Juxi we want to make clear that we think the {

10 removal of the fuel pool by Yankee, which is one of its f L 11 options, and probably the option it will take, raises !i 12 serious health and safety concerns for our community, is l

13 experimental and controversial, and although no one here can 14 deal with it, these issues will deeply affect our-community  !

I) 15 in the future.

16 And it may be that in a court of law we will have  !

17. to get some decision on who is accountable and when. But we i 18 certainly think that the issues of the greater-than-Class-C 19 raise questions about whether NRC is still responsible and i

20 that it should in fact be part of site remediation rather j 21 than the high-level waste which at least in the last 22 licensing board hearing we went through we were told was the 23 purview of the DOE. And that was why we couldn't discuss it 24 _there. And it wasn't ripe.

25 So it's just to put it into the record in terms of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

~

i I

L 235 l l

1 our concerns. I'm not necessarily expecting a response.

(s) 1 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: As we said yesterday, we'll

{

l 3 mention this in the decision, and the reason why we can't  ;

4 consider the contention, and to the extent it gets up to the 5 Commission and later to the court, that will create the 6 record that you need if you wish to challenge it in court or 7 challenge it before the Commission.

8 So, do any of the other parties or participants l 9 have any comments on this? Otherwise we won't do it. I 10 MR. GAD: Stand on what we wrote, Your Honor.

11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Pardon? )

12 MR. GAD: We will stand on what we wrote.  !

13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. I i

14 MS. MARTZ: Staff has no further comments.

O

(',) 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Mr. Lovejoy? j i

16 MR. LOVEJOY: Nothing further.

17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Go on to number 4, I guess.

18 MS. KATZ: Okay. What I wanted to turn to was 19 number 6, Contention 6, Waste Issues, on page 20.

1 20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Oh, okay.

21 JUDGE MURPHY: You don't want to discuss 4 either?

22 MS. KATZ: I felt that it was dealt with 23 yesterday, that we don't need to go over it, and that it 24 makes it easier for everyone if we don't go through it 25 again. I felt it was ably handled and for everyone's time ,

()

JJDJ RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 I (202) 842-0034 )

c 236 1 considerations.

2 JUDGE ELLEMAN: And is that true for number 5 l l

3 also?  !

i 4 MS. KATZ: Yes. Yes. l 5 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Okay.  !

6 MS. KATZ: So I'm just trying to pick the i 7 points --

8 JUDGE MURPHY: Good. i F

9 MS. KATZ: That I felt that we had other issues j 10 that were not raised by New England Coalition in terms of l

1 11 their issues. So that's what I'm just trying to focus on

]

12 for brevity this morning.

13 So what I am saying is those issues in those 14 contentions I believe were handled yesterday by the 15 contentions that were raised by New England Coalition and in 16 our responses to those contentions.

17 Under Waste Issues, CAN contends that an 18 environmental assessment, an EIS, is required due to the 19 existence of both documented and undocumented contamination 20 on the Yankee Rowe site. The study is necessary to 21- determine the source's extent and the potential for plumes 22 of contamination, including tritium, under the surface of 23 the soil if the site is to be released for unrestricted use. 4 l

24 CAN believes that the EIS is necessary given the  !

25 controversial and experimental nature of the project and the  !

I l

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. i Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

L  !

I 237 l'

l 1 fact that this.is.the first decommissioning under the new I l-() 2 regulations. Many of these regulations remain in draft form  ;

3- at this point.

4 I would like to -- in fact the EPA made a 5 statement yesterday, last night, and in there, in a letter 1

6 to the Chairman, Judge Bechhoefer, they stated -- this is in I i

7 . Yankee Atomic Electric Company Termination Plan docket, )

8 50-029-LA, and this is from John DeVillas, regional 9 administrator of the EPA. What the EPA says on page 3 in 10 the second paragraph is:

11 Especially in the case of Yankee Rowe, which was 12 the first commercial plant to come off line and be 13 decommissioned, we are surprised that without much. current 14 environmental information, NRC issued an environmental i

15 assessment finding of no significant impact and relied to a  ;

16 great degree upon an outdated 1988 generic EIS which 17 contains no site-specific information in approving the  !

18 decommissioning plan.

19 MS. KATZ: We recognize that the NRC changed 20 its regulations after CAN versus NRC in which

.21 decommissioning was no longer a major federal action and so 22 did not require NEPA compliance.

23 Part of why I'm raising this here is that we 24 object and may, in fact, yet have to return to court over 25 this issue since we believe -- in fact, the court found that L  !

1 '

1

,. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

j Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

l 238 1- decommissioning was a major federal action, and that it did  !

t '2 require NEPA compliance. And we believe that the NRC not

'3 meeting this standard is arbitrary, and we believe that i

L

'since this is in fact the first decommissioning of a major 4

5 ' reactor,-that in fact this environmental impact study is 6 necessary'to understand the site and the changes that have 1

7 taken place to-the site.

8' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Are you saying you or your 9 organization disagrees with the generic EIS that the 10 Commission approved?

11 MS. KATZ: Yes. We believe there should be a 12 site-specific environmental study done of this site.

13 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do you know whether -- it was 14 my impression, and I don't have it in front of me, that 15 where there are major differences, they could be raised l 16 .perhaps. That's my understanding of it, maybe I'm wrong, 17" and'other parties could comment.

18 MS. KATZ: We're not disagreeing with the guides, 19 but we believe that a specific EIS should be done of this

]

20 site to understand the contamination that has taken place

21. and how it has migrated on the site, as well as what changes l

22 have taken place in the site itself since the original 23 assessments were done.

i 24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Mr. Gad?

25 MR. GAD: Your Honor, I'm prepared to stand on

() ANN RILEY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters

)

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 l' (202) 842-0034 L.

1 4

-. < ~~- . - - - - . - - , , - ,.

- _._ _ _ ... _ __._ _ _ _ ~ . _ . . _

239 1 what we wrote as a NEPA contention. This contention  !

!( ) 2 misapprehends what NEPA is and where it attaches. As 3 applied to an LTP, this contention is contrary to the 4 Commission's dictate that the Commission intends to rely ,

5 upon the GEIS in the absence of some specific showing that 6 the site is different from -- that is to say not bounded by 7 -- the conclusions of the GEIS. f 8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. That was the question I 9 thought I just asked. Is the Yankee Rowe site within the 10 bounds of the GEIS?

11 MR. GAD: So the decommissioning plan and the LTP 12 concludes and there's been no specific contention of how the 13 GEIS would have to be amended in order to extend to the .

14 Yankee site. That would have to be the nature of the

,h s_/ 15 contention, and then, of course, you would deal with it not 16 by disapproving the LTP, but by amending the -- or 17 supplementing the GEIS in the hearing record.

18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Staff?

19 MS. HODGDON: Ms. Martz will address this 20 contention.

21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay.  ;

l 22 MS. MARTZ: An environmental assessment was done 23 as part of the decommissioning plan. I have it here. It's

.24 dated December 14th, 1994. And the staff is doing an l

25 environmental assessment related to the approval or if there l

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

[\'-) Court-Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 i

_____ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . > . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _ _ . _ . ___.m _ . _ _ _ ,

l i

240  !

1 is an approval of the LTP. So there is -- I mean, we are

() 2 . complying with NEPA, we are doing an environmental 3 assessment, which is what the Commission directed in its '

4 statements of consideration as part of the decommissioning i i

5 rule, that approval of the LTP-should be treated as a

{

6 license amendment, and therefore -- I'm quoting directly  !

7 from the statements of consideration -- an environmental 8 assessment or impact statement would be required at the time 1 j

9 the license is amended.

10 So at this time, the plans are to do an 11 environmental assessment if the LTP is approved.

I 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, isn't it part of the 1

13 approval process for us to review an assessment?

14 MR. GAD: No.

1 O 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I mean, --

16 MS. MARTZ: I mean, we're doing an EA. There is 17 no categorical exclusion not to do an environmental 18 assessment.

I 19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right, but doesn't the 1

20 assessment have to be one of the things that's reviewable by j 21 people seeking to create contentions based on environmental l 22 matters?

23 MS. ZOBLER: Well, Your Honor, if I may, the staff l 24 or the NRC did issue the generic environmental impact 25 statement.

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 j Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 l.

l '.

l

_ . . _ _ _ _ . . , . _ - . . _ _ ~ - . _ _ . _. _ _ _ . - _ _ . _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ ..

i 241 {

1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. And this is where it's O

g ,/ 2 supposed toi-- the assertion is that it doesn't properly

• 3 apply-to the current site. '

14 MS '. ZOBLER: I understand. It goes back to the 5 .whole problem with CAN's assertion, is that they assert 6 these statements without any kind of demonstration or 7 ' support that such is necessary.

8 { Pause.]

9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Ms. Martz, why isn't the 10 alleged groundwater contamination relevant to both the 11 environmental assessment and as to whether that should be 12 reviewable by other parties or members of the public.

13 MS. ZOBLER: Because, Your Honor, we do have the 14 generic environmental impact statement.

15- JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, they're saying it doesn't .

16 apply for one reason, the groundwater contamination. Now --

17 MS. ZOBLER: Excuse me.

18 [ Pause.)

19 MS. ZOBLER: Okay. Excuse me, Your Honor.

20 The generic environmental impact statement 21 'contains an envelope of impacts,'and as long as Yankee stays 22 within that envelope, the impacts are adequately addressed 23 in the GEIS.

24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And is the full extent of --  !

25 I'm just using one instance -- the groundwater l

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036  :

(202) 842-0034 .

j w-. y +- - , . 3 r -, y,

242

'l contamination, is that within the. bounds of the GEIS?

2 MR. GAD: May I respond to Your Honor's question?

3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, you may.

4 MR. GAD: I think we have an apple and an orange

~5 situation here, okay? We are not asking the NRC to.

6 authorize the full extent of the groundwater contamination; 7 therefore, there is no federal action that will authorize --

8 .and I'm putting quotes around Your Honor's term -- the full 9 extent of the groundwater termination.

10 The federal actions that are before the house'are, 11 number one, has Yankee adopted the dictated site release 12 criterion, and number two, does it have a plan for 13 demonstrating that it has met them?

14 Now, by definition, the only environmental impacts 15 of that decision are the environmental impacts of meeting 16 the site' release criteria, and that's what the Commission 17 meant when it'said: The Commission intends to rely upon the 18 GEIS to satisfy its obligations under the National 19 Environmental Policy Act regarding individual 20 decommissioning decisions that meet the 25 milliseverts per 21 year (25 millirem per year) criterion for unrestricted use. l l

22 The Commission will still initiate an environmental l l

23 assessment regarding any particular site for which a 24 categorical exclusion is not applicable to determine if the 25 generic analysis encompasses the range of environmental ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

, . -- _ _ . _ , - _ _ . _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . . . _ . . . ~ . . _ . _ . . . _ . . _ _ _ _ ,

l l 243 l l 1 impacts at that site.

e 3

.( 2 By definition, you're talking about sites that are 3- not going to be released for unrestricted use.  !

4 Now, the answer to Your Honor's question was -- is 5 the EA'that the staff does.not something that this board  !

L 6 should pass upon? The answer to that is a categorical no.

i .

l 7 This board should resolve admitted contentions and this  !

l 8 board should decide if a contention meets the standards for

.9 ' admission.

l

[

10 Under the rules, the LTP is required to update the i 1

! 11- environmental statement in the de-plan. The de-plan is f

l, 12 required to update the EIS that was done for Yankee. Both  !

l 13 of these were done, and any one who wants to come in with a l

l 14' contention that says NEPA requires more is required to come }

! 15 in and say with litigable specificity that this l 16 environmental report is inadequate because it does not l

l 17 consider X impacts that will remain after the LTP has been l

l. 18 implemented. The ground water that Your Honor is talking 19 about are off-site impacts.

20 MR. BLOCK: Might I just answer that?

21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Block, yes.

1 L 22 MR. BLOCK: As long as Mr. Gad is speaking for the j l-l 23 staff, I'm going to help Ms. Katz here for a minute.

24 How can that possibly be the case? How could they  ;

25 .ever frame a contention in this hearing when the staff is I l

i 9

'( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters  !

1025 Connecticut Avenue,-NW, Suite 1014

( Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

. . . - . . _ - - . . . - . - . - - - - - . . -. - . . -. ....- - -.. - . ~ - -

. - ~. - ...

244 L 1 saying here that that EA hasn't been prepared yet relative

() 2 to the LTP? AndEif that's.the case, then we don't know 3 exactly what they're going to cover, and it may just be l 4 another stamp of approval, but even if it is, the ability to 5- challenge only exists when the document comes into existence 6 -and is put before the public. Otherwise, NEPA is patently 7 violated in about 16 fundamental ways under NEPA 8 jurisprudence.

9 The whole idea of it is to see what the federal 10- agency is going to do before there is a commitment of L 11 resources, and in here, the regulatory resources have been f i

12 found by the First Circuit to make this a major federal j 13 action, not.in pieces, but as a whole. And just because l 14 there happens to be a segmentation of the plant doesn't mean

! \

15 that if there's going to be another EIA issuing, it '

16 shouldn't be out here now. Else, what will happen is it 17' will come out and there will be no opportunity for the 18 public to do anything. There will be no hearing right, no l I

19 intervention right. '

20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I think what Mr, Gad perhaps 1 21 was referring to is not the environmental assessment that's 22 ongoing, but the -- I guess the environmental report is the l i 23 technical name, whatever Yankee Rowe is required to submit, j t

24 .the update to the environmental report, which I understand 25 is of record.

~

h ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l -

_ . . _ _ __ _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _.. _ _ _ ..m _ . _ . _ _ -

I f

245 -

1 MR. BLOCK: I'm well aware of that report, Your l

'( ) 2 Honor, and whatLI'm referring to'is his response 3 supplementing what the staff said when the staff has just I 4 admitted to this board that an EA is being prepared on the i 5- LTP and it hasn't come out yet. How could we be expected to '!

6- offer P.' contention relative to their findings when their '

7 findings are not yet available to-the public and haven't 8- been available for a reasonable period of time, such as 30 9 days available in the local public document room? l 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I think the standard 3

11 basically would be you would be permitted to offer a )

l 12 contention in this proceeding but following issuance of the i 13 staff's assessment, and we would continue the proceeding, l 14 and if you weren't in on any other contention, it would be a

, 15 late-filed contention but the factors governing late-filed j 16 contentions could be balanced in your favor merely because 17 of the lack of information previously.

18 MR. BLOCK: Thank you for clarifying that for Ms. )

'19 Katz.

20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: But again, the material -- if i 21 it's in the environmental report that's been filed already, 22 then you couldn't use the late-filed excuse for that. l 23 That's just my basic recollection. I'm not reading from the 24 regulations. But I think it's -- l 25 MR. GAD: It is of assistance, Your Honor. The l~

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034  ;

. . . _ ~ . . . -- - . _ . . - . . - -.-- - - - -~ - . - - . - - - . - - . . . - .

246 i

1 specific situation -- excuse me.  ;

() 2 (Pause.] I 3' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I was just conferring with my 4 colleague, but that is my recollection, and there are i

5- various cases, some of them pretty ancient --

I don't know l

6 if they were AEC or NRC cases -- but saying that you can't 7 rely on the failure of the -- you have to take the -- we  !

i 8 can't speed up the issuance of the assessment, but when the l

! 9 assessment comes out, we can allow different information 10 that appears therein to be used by intervenors to assert, at i

11 least, contentions. And I can't give you off the top of my I 12 head those cases, but there are several of them, I think, j 13 .and I think they came back probably almost in the '70s, but 14 maybe'the '80s. I'm not sure. I know Jim Kelly was the 15 chief judge on one of those case.

16 So in any event, I can't give it to you off the l 17 top of my head. So who's --

18 MR. GAD: Your Honor, if it would help, the 19 citation you're looking for is 10 CFR 2.714 (b) (iii) , about

20. halfway down the page, and I quote: On issues arising under 21 the National Environmental Policy Act, the petitioner shall 22 file contentions based on the applicant's environmental 23 report. End of quote.

24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. But I was referring to  !

25 the additional case law which says that after the staff i

1 l

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 )

(202) 842-0034

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _. _ _ ..___._._.. _ _ .._ _ _.. _ __. _ _ . _ _ _ ._____.y 247 j

1. performs its assessment -- and I don't believe that this is

() 2 one'of the actions that's a so-called categorical exclusion. f

'3 The staff.is doing the appropriate review and performing an j i

4 assessment. But after that issues, I think parties are  !

5 allowed to. raise issues arising from that assessment. '

6 MR. GAD: Well, actually, that's addressed in the 7 rule too, Your Honor, but it's tomorrow's problem. For f

-8 today, if you want to propound a NEPA_ contention, you have  !

9 to address it to the environmental report, and in this i

10 context, you have to point out why the environmental  !

1 11 report's conclusion of the relationship to the GEIS is in i i

12 sone specific respect erroneous, i 13 [ Pause.] [

r 14' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Lovejoy, any comments on i I

(~)/.

(- 15 this? I 16 MR. LOVEJOY: No , thank you, Your Honor. i 17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Ms. Katz, any rebuttal on this  !

i 18 one?

)

19 MS. KATZ: The one thing I want -- I mean, the  !

i 20 issue of why we wanted an environmental impact study, why we 21 feel it's necessary instead of just an NRC response is that 22 if that's done, it would be a full-blown study that would,  ;

23 in fact, give off-site impacts. There is an acknowledgement l 24 that there is contamination in the Deerfield River that has 25 migrated because of the leak from the ion exchange pit that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

.. - - ~ . . . - . . . . , . -

l 248  ;

1 l 1 took place.

( 2 We are concerned about what has migrated off-site.

! 3 We don't have any assurance that the environmental l 4 assessment that will be done by the staff or that's being l 5 done by Yankee is going to go beyond the border. And that's j 6 one of our concerns in this, is how this will affect not l i

7 just on-site, but off-site.  !

i 8 We also -- they're not necessarily going to check 9 for soil movement or the flow of the --

10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, have you studied the 11 environmental report by Yankee that already deals with i

12 whatever -- what they think is necessary? l 13 MS. KATZ: We believe that it's old and it's an 4 14 old reference that's used rather than one that is up to date ,

15 at this point.

16 [ Pause.]

17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I just wanted to mention, and I 18 assume this is the case, that when the assessment is 19 complete, the staff will serve it on all the parties?

20 MS. ZOBLER: We can do that, Your Honor.

21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The petitioner's parties --  ;

1 22 MS. ZOBLER: Certainly. Certainly provide them a 23 copy.

24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. And do you have any 25 schedules, more or less? Do you know about what the I

() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

, . . _ _ . . . . - _ _ _ -. _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - - . . . . - - ~ ._ -

249 i L l' progress of that is? .Im not trying to confine you to any I

() ;2 schedule, but --

3 MR. FAIRTILE: Roughly two to three months.

4

]

JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay.  !

l 5 -I guess now we're up to number seven.  !

f 6 MS. KATZ: Okay. I realized in terms of -- I l

?

7 believe that the issues in number 7 were already covered, so l 8 I have only one more point to make. I had missed something 9 actually. I think it's in number -- contention number 2, t i

l 10 and I'm sorry. Yes. It's on page 12. If we could go back- l l '

11 to contention number 2. I'm sorry for leaving this out. -

12 And it's in the first paragraph. i l

l 13 In NRC inspection report 50-29/9803, it states  !

! 14 .that Yankee will apply a zero Cesium 137 background for

) 15' disturbed soil areas. The report further states, it is 16 expected that this will apply to soil beneath the asphalt in  !

17- affected areas. And CAN is requesting that this claim ,

l 18 that's made in the inspection report be incorporated into l

L 19 the LTP for Cesium 137 and Cobalt 60 in order to assure that i l 20 Yankee is committing to follow that standard.  !

l-

! 21 So we are just asking because we saw it in the  !

22 inspection report, but it wasn't in the LTP as far as we L 23 could see. We are just asking that that be incorporated +

24 into the LTP to make it clear that that's the standard that  !

25 Yankee is using.  ;

i. '

'( ) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court' Reporters i

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036  ;

(202) 842-0034 j

r 250 i

1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, back to seven, there are

( 2 assertions, at least, concerning the -- well, your words now 3 -- the illegal handing of rad waste. l 4 MS. KATZ: Right. l 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Is that not something a little  !

6 different from what has been raised earlier and --

7 MS. KATZ: One of the things --

8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I would like you to explain it 9 if it is.

l 10 MS, KATZ: Right. One of the things _I wanted j 11 actually to make a corraction on, because in terms of i 12 finding the GAO report, which, in fact, dealt with the 13' issues of the fact that licensees were allowed to bury waste 14- on site before '81 and not document it, then I wanted to 15 revise that, because, in fact, Yankee was legally allowed to 16 do that. It may be shocking to us, but they were allowed to 17 do it. It was of great concern to us.

18 In fact, the issue in this for us was that this is 19 undocumented and that this is part of the process which 20 makes site cleanup I'm sure very hard for Yankee, but also

'21 really confounding for us, that since the NRC did not 22 require until 1981 that they documented what they buried on 23 site or moved around, then the issue is that -- and Yankee 24 in fact acknowledges in their own records that there's 25 undocumented fill that's moved around, that not everything ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l l:

251 1- would easily be found, and that's of concern to us in terms

() 2. of how that process will take place.

3- JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, are you making any 4 recommendations as to how that process should take place to

! 5 discover any of these undocumented -- well --

l. 6 MS. KATZ: One of the concerns we raised is that,

( , 7 in fact, the idea of going only six inches down in the soil i

8 is one of the concerns. Since in the GAO report, what they

-9 talk about is burial at four feet, then the issue of doing ,

10 test wells that are deep enough to potentially uncover j 11 buried material is important to us. That's part of the 12 issue of, in fact, doing that kind of testing and doing

( 13 enough testing to assure that there hasn't been waste buried  ;

l l 14 on site, or if there is, that it will be remediated.

! 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do you have any further -

16 comments on that one other than -- >

17 MS. KATZ: I mean, I think it was covered 18 yesterday. It was raised, the GAO report was raised, the t

l 19 issue of doing the test so that -- in terms of digging deep 20 enough to find what's there until you come up, you know, l

l 21 without contamination is one of the issues for us. I mean, 22 all of this ties into trying to locate the contamination to 23 -assure our community that it's not left behind. And I 24 acknowledge this may be a really hard job, but we're raising 25 it because we didn't feel it was completely addressed in i

i t

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

A -

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

252 1 terms of the LTP. In some ways, it's part of'doing an

() 2 3

environmental impact study, would be to try to ascertain where some of the contamination might be.

4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, as we heard before, at 5 least a study or an assessment is being done.

6 MS. KATZ: Right. And that may help -- that may, 7 in fact, help clarify those issues.

1 8' JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. )

l 9 Mr. Gad? I 10 MR. GAD: Your Honors --

11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Here we hear that a few deeper 12 holes might well solve the problem.

13 MR. DIGNAN: I didn't understand that.

14 MR. GAD: Hang on, Tom.

) 15 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, that's what I heard, and 16 --

j 17' MR. DIGNAN: Well, I want to be sure of what I did 18 hear, if I might. Is it their contention that we haven't 19 dug below 15 centimeters? l 20 MS, KATZ: No , I'm not saying -- in fact, in terms 21 of the information we saw through discovery, that you have; 1

22 that we feel there need to be enough diggings below to j I

23 assure that any contamination that may have been

24. undocumented and buried on-site can be found before the site L 25 is released, and that there is a whole protocol and l.

1  :

1 1

()

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

' Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014  !

Washington, D.C. 20036 1 (202) 842-0034 i

l L I l l l .

253 1 mythology that lays -- methodology that lays out how that 2- -would take place. That's what we are concerned with.

3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Mr. Gad or Dignan?

4 MR. GAD: Your Honors, I'm a little bit mystified.

5 I thought the contention A(7) was'another NEPA contention.

6 That's at least how it's written or at least how we 7 interpreted it. It is, of course, subject to the same i 8 requirements for a NEPA contention and it fails to meet them l l

9 for the same reasons that A(6) did, i 10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, we're not viewing it as 11 primarily as a NEPA contention, but as a site safety j 12 contention more or less -- l 13 MR. GAD: Well --  :

i 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- with a NEPA addition which

• 15 will be handled the way we discussed earlier for NEPA 16 matters.

-17 MR. GAD: I guess, Your Honor, one of the problems 18 I have with that approach to life is that the aspiration of i 19 the 1989 amendments to the rules of practice were that we  !

20 weren't supposed to be treating contentions as primarily  !

i 21 here or primarily there. It's got to be one thing or i 22 another.

23 Now, if what you're telling me is that this is a 24 reiteration yesterday of a contention with respect to the 25 adequacy of the LTP's assessment of subsurface soil, then I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, IM, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036

-(202) 842-0034

__- _ _ . . . ~ - . - - - . _ - - - . - . . - - - _ - . . - . - . . - . - . - . - . - _ . - - .

L l l l 254 r l

i think we've -- once again, pardon the expression -- plowed l

( 2 that ground already. That's not what the paper says. I j

3' don't know. I mean, I guess part of the problem, Your l  ;

i l 4 Honor, is'that if you can read a piece of paper one way and l 5 .I can read it another way, that's QED that it doesn't meet 6 2714 (b) .

7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Staff. Ms. Hodgdon or Martz.

8 Whichever of you wants to handle this.

9 MS. ZOBLER: It does get confusing.

10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I am not quite sure how  !

11 you have divided it, so.  !

12 MS. ZOBLER: Right. I mean the staff sort of took

]

13 these statements and tried to respond to them that way, as l l

14 our response demonstrated, and I won't go into it. We  !

\

('"

l s,= -15 r

looked at it as involving this assertion of illegal handling

! f t

16 of radioactive. waste, and that is how we responded to it. j l 17 This GAO report was never referenced in any of the written i

18 filings, and so there was no opportunity to respond to it, e l

19 so --

[

20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. Well, they now say it  !

t l 21 wasn't illegal. They have changed that wording. l t

22 MS, ZOBLER: That's correct. {

i l 23 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Legal but unfortunate. ,

i i t

l 24 MS. ZOBLER: Then I will just -- I will stand by (

l 25 our response in the written filing, how, again, CAN fails to  ;

l i

' (') ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014  !

Washington, D.C. 20036 l' (202) 842-0034 l

l >

1 -. . -

. _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . . . _ _ _ . . _ - . _ _ . . _ m . . . _ - . - . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . _ . . - . . . _ .

L  :

255 I l' read the LTP in the entire context, as we discussed l' 2 yesterday, did not read the entire report -- or the LTP, 3 excuse me, about what surveys that Yankee has done and how 4 their assertions here were related to the LTP -- and ,

I l i

! 5 failures in the LTP. '

i 6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right.  ;

7 MS. ZOBLER: Excuse me.

8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Thank you. Let's see, Mr.

l 9 Block, anything on this one? R I

. 10 MR. BLOCK

No. I think Ms. Katz can handle the i 11 rebuttal. Thank you. l i i l 12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Mr. Lovejoy? {

13 MR. LOVEJOY: No , thank you.

t

, 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Okay. Any rebuttal?

15 MS. KATZ: The only thing may be that ---the fact i

16. is that there is a material dispute in terms of this, that  !

17 going to a hearing would, in fact, resolve in terms of L i 18 dealing with it, since there is confusion about how each

[

j 19 side sees it, or conflict. t l

20 (Pause.] i i

21 JUDGE ELLEMAN: We are having a little i

22 disagreement among ourselves here, Mr. Gad, and it relates l 23 to the point on page 12 that Ms. Katz pointed out a few  ;

24 moments ago, in which CAN requests that the information in  ;

25 the NRC report be included as a part of the commitment the 4

i i

- e ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. ,

Court Reporters ,

. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 [

(202) 842-0034  ;

L I

256 1- licensee makes for the LTP. And I guess we are not clear as

'( ) 2 to.whether the licensee is going to follow that report or is 3 not committing to that inclusion.

4. MR. GAD: May I respectfully suggest that that is 5 not the question, Your Honor. The report is a report of 6 events, all right. -Someone went out and said, how are you 7 handling this? And Yankee said what we are going to do is 8' essentially write it off, that is to say, we are going to 9 write off any credit for non-plant-related sources of this

10. item. And that is a perfectly valid way of conservatively 11 shorthanding the calculation, but it is not a commitment to 12 do that if it turns out that it is necessary to chase 13 further precision.

14 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Okay. I think what I heard you

) 15 say is you are' going to include all cesium-137 as 16 plant-generated, that that is --

17 MR. GAD: Oh, absolutely.

18 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Okay.

19 MR. GAD: The issue that we are talking about here

.20 has nothing to do with scoring all of the plant-related

-21 material. It is a question of -- very much like the ALARA 22 analysis, eschew taking credit, quote-unquote, for certain 23 things because it wasn't necessary in order to satisfy 24 yourself that you hadn't gotten to the right result. Well, 25 here you may have, if you wanted to be precise about how O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

= Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 ,

l ,- _ . .

. . . . . . . ~

257 1 much of item X was plant-related and how much was not, you n

I 1

. Q,) . 2 have a finite amount of work to do.

3 It may turn out that you are so far below the sit'e 4 release criterion that, even if you took ownership of all of 5 -it, without going that extra step, you still meet it, and at 6 that point there is no validity, there is not utility in 7 going one step further.

8 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Certainly. That's correct.

9 MR. GAD: Now, the NRC report is not a commitment, 10 it is not an order, it is not anything else, it simply 11 reports that at this point in time, that is what the 12 licensee plans to do. And that 's true. But it is not a 13 commitment and it shouldn't be a commitment.

14 JUDGE ELLEMAN: No, but -- okay. But you are, in O.

( ,/ 15 your analysis, at least in the first iteration of that, 16 going to accept this zero cesium-137 background. You will 17 take claim for all the cesium-137 found.

18 MR. GAD: That is the present intention, Your 19 Honor.

20 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Okay. And so that covers the 21 first part of Ms. Katz's statement. The second part is that 22 that same expectation is going to apply to the soil beneath 23 the asphalt in affected areas.

24 MR. GAD: I am sorry, I have got to get to where 25 you are.

[mT ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

\- I Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

s 258 1 JUDGE ELLEMAN: It is on page 12 in that first

() 2 paragraph.

3 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, may I cut through this a 4 little bit?

5 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Sure, please. I will, on behalf 6 of Yankee, commit -- commit on the record that Yankee will 7 apply'a zero Cs-137 background for. disturbed soil areas.

8. And will apply it in addition to the asphalt in the affected 9 areas?

.10 MR. DIGNAN: Yes.

11 JUDGE ELLEMAN: Thank you,-sir.

12 MR. DIGNAN: I had the advantage that my Brother 13 Gad didn't have of having the management's ear.

14 JUDGE ELLEMAN: That always helps.

() 15 MR. DIGNAN: Always helps.

16 MR. GAD: Because he is taller.

17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, let's go on to Number 8, 18 I guess, which is, I guess, the last one.

19 MS. KATZ: Yes. I believe that Number 8 was 20 already covered in what I have talked about and that we 21 don't need to go through it again. It is in terms of 22 tritium contamination and the issues that relate to NEPA and 23 in terms of understanding how it may have affected the 24 groundwater, so I think those issues have been covered. And H25 so_I feel that I have added to what I presented yesterday, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

s- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0024

__. . _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . _m 259 1 and I want to thank the Licensing Board for hearing our

)

~

L 2 contentions.

3 [ Pause.]

4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Mr. Lovejoy, I guess it is your 5 turn now. It is my understanding that nobody else has 6 objected to the county or the Franklin -- the Group's 7 admission as an interested municipality or county, or 8- whatever it is, interested government body, and that is at 9 least the way I read it. If a hearing is authorized, if we 1 l 10 approve at least one other contention, your organization i

11 will be included as an interested entity, I can tell you 12 that right now, and we chould proceed to your contentions. l 13 And,. again, to the extent they are covered by other f 14 contentions, you may wish to just recognize that, where the 15 substance is, in effect, covered by others.

16 MR. LOVEJOY: Thank you, Your Honor.

17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That you will be participate in 18 the litigation of any of the contentions that get let in.

l 19 If any, right. I meal. we haven't decided on any of them 20 yet, but --

21 MR. LOVEJOY: I understand. I appreciate the 22 board's giving us the ability to speak. To use Mr. Block's p

l 23 term, we will defer to the wisdom of the board in terms of l

l 24 perhaps merging and maybe using some of the wording in our

~25 contentions to expand perhaps some of the contentions that i

j

' ')>

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters i

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L _

- ~ . - - - . - -- - . -. .-. -- --

- - ~ - .- - ..- - . - . - - .

i 260 1 might be reviewable in the future.

l 2 What I would like to do is just take all seven i  !

l 3 contentions and simply lump them into essentially three very ,

I  !

l 4 short comments. The first one is, with regard to Contention -

i i

5 1, this is a repeat of questions about fuel storage, and we j 6 understand the position of everybody and would just like to

I l

7 request that some sort of ruling be issued in plain English l 8 so that people can. understand why-fuel storage isn't a part l 9 of this proceedings, and that might help the citizens of the i

10 Franklin Region.

11 The other two broad issues I would just simply say l

l 12 is on-site and off-site, and I believe with regard to l

{

13 on-site, I would again renew my average worker, it could  :

14 well be a pregnant woman. Franklin region has very little  ;

1  ;

15 industrial space. One of our interests is in economic  ;

16 development. We would like to feel confident that is the l 17 town of Rowe, or the Franklin region were promoting sale of L 18 industrial property, that it could be done with the utmost 19 confidence, and so our concern is really that the site be as 20 clean as possible and, to that extent, we raise contentions '

l '21' with regard to the cleanliness and the site release 22 criteria, the site and the manner in which it was done. And 23 lthat is why we brought up the notion of random sampling as a

! 24 way to. test any models being used.

t 25 In terms of off-site, we have gotten comments with 1

I

\

> ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

{\ . Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l l

l l l 261 1

1 regard to testing of fish, testing of sediment. One of the

./ 3 i ) 2 biggest economic bases of Franklin County is tourism, so I 3 with regard to the river, I would like to propose the 4 average tourist as a way to view use of the Deerfield River.

1 5 And I sort of say that only partly tongue-in-cheek. I think l 6 we are referring to some releases, some releases in the past 7 historically, perhaps releases with regard to cleanup and 8 perhaps irradiated sediments, and, obviously, the fish. So 9 our ,tecond concern is off-site in that we focus on the river 10 as something that has a great impact on Franklin region.

11 And, finally, we are thrilled to hear that there 12 will be an environmental assessment done and that we will 13 have an opportunity to speak on it. I guess part of our 14 involvement here really revolved around an effort to come up i () 15 with what we kept referring to as an independent study, an 16 independent review of the LTP, and what we are learning by 17 joining this process is that it is not really -- it is not 18 part of the process that way, it is sort of an independent 19 questioning rather than an independent sort of third party 20 study. And to that extent, again, we would like to thank 21 you for letting us participate, and we eagerly awaiting your 22 rulings. Thank you very much.

23 (Pause.]

24 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Do other -- let's see, Mr. Gad, 25 any comments on Mr. Lovejoy's presentation?

l 1

/'\

( ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. .-. ~_ . - - - . -. -

262 1 MR. GAD: Yes, Your Honor, with respect to the j 2 Council of Governments' proposals for additional contentions 3 if a hearing is otherwise ordered, we are prepared to stand 4 on our written response. '

5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: All right. Ms. Hodgdon or 6 other staff?

7 MS. HODGDON: I am not entirely sure that I 8 followed everything that was said, but just a couple of 9 points. Insofar as Mr. Lovejoy talked about his second 10 concern and said that the site might well be used for 11 business, of course, as we have already discussed, the 12 business scenario has a much lesser impact because the 13 persons working there, whatever sex they might be, are 14 working there only eight hours a day, and so that is a less

.O

(_) 15 conservative scenario than the one that was chosen by 16 Yankee, the residential farm, which we have already said is 17 the most, so -- '

18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It might be nine if they are 19 CWS people.

20 MS. HODGDON: Excuse me. Well, that's right. But 21 we will worry about their week and not about their day, and 22 so they are going to come out the same. So I don't know.

23 We are getting into a very fine calculation if we are going '

24 to go to the difference between working eight hours a day, 25 and nine hours a day, and so forth, r~N ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

\i Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 r (202) 842-0034

, _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . ~ _ . - . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ .

263 l l 1' But, in any event, the' average tourist, that point

() '2 has already been raised by CAN about the people rafting down 3 the river and that, of course, is a much, as I say, lesser 4 -included offense, or whatever. It much less of a use l

l 5 because the average tourist is there only occesionally.

6 And so, having said that, I would like to offer l L

.7 the Federal Register sites that I was asked for before by J

-3 8 Mr. Block, and I think I have.already given them, but I will j

9. anyway,-again. The proposed rule is at 59 Federal Register

, 10 -43200 and the critical group, average member of the critical L

11 group concept is given at 43218, and then the final rule, 12 which we have cited to several times, it is 62 Federal 13 Register 39058 and the average member of the critical group I 1

14 is discussed there at 39058 -- whatever, I think I have got j

() 15 -- 39068 is -- 67 and 68 is the proper cite, 39067 and 68.

l 16 And it is explained there, the Commission did take into j 17 account ICRP recommendations, FRG recommendations, and

18 everything else, and found them to be consistent, as they l

l 19 said.

i l 20' And if I said that they specifically rejected 21- women and children, which I think that I was quoted as 22 saying, I certainly didn't intend to. They specifically 23 considered women and children, but not as the average member I 24 and not as the standard. I don't think I have said anything 25 inconsistent, I certainly hope not, but that is what the 1

? ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 L Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l-I l

P l 264 '

1- Commission did. So I hope I didn't leave any other l

() 2. questions unanswered.

-3 As regards Mr. -- we stand on what we filed in i 4 ' response to his motion. And as change today, we just added )

i 5 those few comments that those were lesser uses of the site.  ;

6 Thank you.  !

7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Thank you. Mr. Block, any 8 comments, or Ms. Katz? Take your pick as to order.

9. MR. BLOCK: Yes. I think it would be helpful for

~

10' the board to clarify for Mr. Lovejoy what he can and can't 11 do. And I would hope that when you issue your ruling on the 12 preliminary mattere that you will make it clearer. He spoke 13 of contentions,-and here I would have to agree with Mr. Gad, 14 I think there continues to be a confusion and that it should

() 15 be clarified as to exactly what the Council may expect to be 16 able to do, because I think they may not have a clear '

l'7 understanding yet of what their role might be. And if I am 18 confused, I would ask you to clarify my confusion here.

19 That's all at this point. Thank you.

20 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Ms. Katz, 21 [ Pause.)

22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I might comment, Mr. Lovejoy, 23 that, in essence, your group will be able to just do about 24 everything that any other party will do.

25 MR. LOVEJOY: Thank you, Your Honor. I think --

i-l

. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

,' - Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L

., ~- . . _ - - - . - . . - - - . . - - - - . _ . . _ . - . . . . ..- _ .-.-. .- -

l 265 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: It may not be considered a

() 2 3

party for purposes of appeal to the Court of Appeals, I am not sure. I am not sure there any definitive rulings on i

4 that. But as far as going from here to the Commission, you l

~

J 5 will be considered as any other party.

6 MR. LOVEJOY: Thank you, Your Honor. We were l

7 confused and Mr. Block is correct in the sense that we 8 weren't -- we weren't positive that we could file what are 9 referred to as contentions due to the fact that we don't 10 Efeel like we are here, quote-unquote, opposing anything. We 11 wanted to raise certain particular points that were of high 12 impact to the Franklin region only, and are not here, 13 therefore, in an oppositional role.

-14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right.

) 15 MR. LOVEJOY: So in that kind of funny, 16' confusing --

17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Interested governmental parties l

l 18 are not required to take a position. They are --

19 MR. LOVEJOY: Correct. And that's why we were 20 thrilled to be in that capacity.

21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right.

l 22 MR. LOVEJOY: Thank you. I wondered if there was 23 not any comments, whether I could just address the idea of 24 . funding. j i

l 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. Well, you have raised it.

)

i 1

1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l

.(202) 842-0034

i l 266I l

l 1 I am not sure we can do much about it, but you may raise it l 2 anyway.

3 MR. LOVEJOY: Okay. Well, just in the last three 4 weeks the Department of Energy actually created a $6 million l 5 fund against which citizens groups and private organizations i

6 could draw against to assist them in analyzing the deep 7 radioactive waste storage facility out west. And this is a 8 precedent-setting case. I know that the NRC is looking to l 9 the utilities and the nuclear owners to help fund their 10 review activities. I think that some creative mechanisms 11 maybe could be developed.

12 Obviously, we don't want to repeat -- reinvent the 13 wheel or repeat experts when there are already experts 14 there, but I think as the process goes on, if the board 15 could at least maintain a certain open attitude to the idea 16 that perhaps a unique issue or a set of issues could be 17 related to each of the parties, that perhaps there might be 18 a place where an expert from the Franklin region could well 19 elucidate matters. And so I would just request that you 20 keep an open mind rather than rejecting out of hand the

21 notion that a minor amount of funding might go a great deal 22 to bring confidence to the process and to your decision, and 23 we would appreciate that. Thank you. 1 24 [ Pause.] l I 25 JUDGE BECHHOEFER

Mr. Block.

l 1

f^h

>( I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l

'N' Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

267 1 MR. BLOCK: Judge, I just happen to have the rule

() 2 that Ann Hodgdon refers to, and I have gone to the pages 3 that she cites, and I would like to copy them and make them 4 available to the board, because I don't think that they say 5 what she, even in her modified way, represented that they 6 say, and I think the board should see this.

7 JUDGE MURPHY: Which pages are you talking about?

8 MR, BLOCK: I am talking about 62 Federal Register 9 39057, July 21st, 1997, pages 39067 through 39068, which, by 10 the way, ends indicating that the ICRP recommends that such 11 analysis should consider exposure to individuals 12 representative of those expected to receive the highest 13 dose, using cautious by reasonable assumptions.

14 This approach has been adopted by the proposed FRG 01 15 N ,/ and is consistent with the recommendations of the National 16 Academy of Sciences on the Yucca Mountain standards. It 17 doesn't speak of men, women or children, it speaks only of 18 conservative scenarios for the most exposed average 19 individual, depending on the scenario. And I think it is 20 pretty clear that that is what is there.

21 And I think that that means it is a question of 22 how the staff is deciding to apply this rule, not what the 23 Commission definitively said about limitations about the 24 rule reference to some 70 kilogram, six foot or five foot 25 seven male. And I think that, you know, if the board wants t ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

N Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

268 1 those pages, I would be pleased to get to a copier and bring

<p i 2 them back for you.

.3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: We can get them.

4. JUDGE. MURPHY: We have our own.

5 MR' BLOCK:

. You have your own copy?

6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Not with us. Not with -- oh, 7 .you have'got it.

8- JUDGE MURPHY: I have got it right here.

9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. ,

10 MR. BLOCK: Thanks very much then.

11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I didn't have it with me, but I 12 have it.

13 JUDGE MURPHY: We have it and we have access to 14 it.

'15 MR. BLOCK: Thank you, sir.

16 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Also, the other one, 59, which "

17 I haven't read lately. I believe that we have basically 18- finished what we came up here-for. I would note that to the 19 extent we actually approve contentions, we will probably

-20 'then convene a telephone conference.in order to work out 21 discovery schedules, that type of thing. There is no 22 discovery until we actually approve a contention. So -- if l -23 we approve. If we should approve, we will try to convene a 24 telephone conference to establish relevant-schedules.

25 [ Pause.]

. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

. - _ _ . . _ . . _ _ . -, . . . _ _ m - . . . _ _ _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ . _ _ __ __. _. _ . _ _.._.. _ . _ . . . . . . _ .. _ -

l 269 1 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I guess we have nothing ,

) 2 further. We will do our best to come up with a decision in 3 a reasonable time, a decision on the contentions, et cetera.

l 4 We will do our best.

5 And with that, I guess that's -- Mr. Block, do you 6 have something further?

7. MR. BLOCK: Yes. Mr. Shadis apparently had 8 provided some information last night, and he seemed to think ,

9 that it was going to come under consideration today.

10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes.

11 MR. BLOCK: And that the board would have some l 12 opportunity for him to address them concerning the material 13 we submitted. '

~

14 [ Pause.]

(s,N) 15- MS. HODGDON: Judge Bechhoefer, may the staff ask 16 a question?

17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes.

18 MS. HODGDON: Was -- were these filings that Mr.

19 -- were they, in fact,' filings? I mean were they filed in 20 this proceeding? Is there a certificate of service? Did a-21 copy go -- or is this our only copy?

22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I inquired and everybody 23 seemed to -- when I inquired earlier, everybody seemed to 24 have received, all the parties at least, seem to have 25 received copies.

O ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034

270  ;

l' MS. HODGDON: Could we ask Mr. Shadis?

) 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, you may. My inquiry was i

3 whether we should establish some sort of a schedule for a 4 response. i 5 MS. HODGDON: Yes. I'm sorry, I thought the  !

6 question was whether we were going to address it here. So  !

7 my question was, was this filed? I mean --

8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I am not sure if.it was i 9 filed with the Secretary or not. It was distributed to the '

l 10 parties here. Yeah, it'will have to filed in Washington for 11 it to be an official document. j 12 MR. SHADIS: I am just moving up here to hear you ]

13 better. i 1

14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes. It will have to be filed 15 with the Secretary eventually for it to be'an official 16 document. And then the parties, I am sure will, if it is 17 considered a petition to intervene, it will be considered as 18 a late-filed petition,.because, by definition,.it is late, 19 and there are standards for considering those matters. And 20 you would also have -- I haven't read these thoroughly.

21 Whether you have enough in there to demonstrate whether or g -22 -not your group would have standing or not, I am not sure.

l 23 Maine is a reasonable distance away and there 24 would have to be some documentation as to why you have or 25' haven't standing to participate here, as distinguished from j i l l

[

ANN RILEY & ! ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court Reporters j 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014  !

Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034  ;

E I 271 l

l 1 working-with one of the other groups that have already filed

) 2 timely petitions-and are -- where their contentions are 3 under consideration. And to the extent that yours may, to 4' some extent, overlap.their contentions, it would be unlikely 5 that we would accept differing wording for what amounts to j 6 the same claims. So you may wish to consider whether you 7 would offer your assistance to the other groups here as a l

L 8 possibility.

9 MR. SHADIS: May I address the board briefly?

10 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, you may.

11 MR. SHADIS: There are essentially two pieces of 12- correspondence. One is the petition for standing as an 13 interested party and, indeed, we will be glad to file that 14 with the Secretary and your solution, Your Honor, that we h 15 might participate with one of the other organizations is l

16 certainly a possibility.

l 17- The other item here -- oh, and let me just clarify 18 that we wanted to participate as an interested party in

-19 order to have ready access to the -- whatever discovery

20. materials were produced, not to intervene and have discovery l

21 rights and so on. So, it may be that if the other parties  !

22 don't find it a great inconvenience, and would be willing to 23 add us to their service list, as well as if the Court would 24 put us on their service list, it probably would resolve any 25 need for us to look for standing, because we would then have i

j , ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

! Court Reporters

1025' Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014

{ Washington, D.C. 20036 l- (202) 842-0034 4.v 4,. , ,- _ . . , _ , .y. , , . . _ . .

272 I

( 1 access to that material, and I presume that we could comment '

/~N l (j 2- through the other organizations that are intervenors.

3 That might resolve that part of the issue, that 4 particular petition. The other piece of correspondence is j 5 entitled "A Request for Panel Affirmative Action on l 6 Contentions" and really what we were attempting to do here 7 was to offer comment in the order for this hearing, and 8 there was an invitation that the public, anyone in fact, 9 could provide written comment, and this piece of 10- correspondence is intended to be that comment, but rather 11 than empty air comment we were asking for specific action 12 from this panel, and that is the restoration of one of the 13 aspects in the New England Coalition's initial filing, and 14 that aspect, referring to the necessity to do extensive 15 environmental assessment of work at the site, which is 16 something slightly different than a review of documentation 17 as NRC-would do it down in Washington.

18 We have information at hand, Your Honor, about 19 changes in that site, about hydrogeological studies that 20 were done which indicate instability of the soils at that 21 site. On top of the fact that there are radiological 22 considerations there is major deconstruction, ordinary 1

23 non-radiological deconstruction, going on at the site now

-24 which could affect the flow and the accumulation of l

25 radionuclides later, so -- and our argument here is that it  ;

i l

() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

_, _ _.-s

273 1 is very important that that site work be done before further t l (O) 2 damage is done.

3 So really what this item is here is a comment on, 4 as it was invited in the order, and we are asking that the 5 panel consider reinstating that contention or some portion 6 of it that was cited in the memorandum and order from the 7 Commission -- CLI-98, is it? -- and so that is the gist of 8 that.

9 I just wanted to try to clarify that there really 10 are two kinds of documents here -- the one is indeed a 11 petition for standing, and we will file that with the 12 Secretary. The other is simply a comment, but a comment 13 asking for action. Thank you.

14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Right. Well, your comment of s- 15 course is in the nature of a limited appearance statement, I 16 which we -- like we heard last night.

17 MR. SHADIS: That's correct. l l

18 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: And we can take that into 19 account as long -- as all the others.

20 MR. SHADIS: Thank you and I appreciate it, and I 21 wonder if the panel might be willing to poll the parties to

22 see if the proposition that we be added to the service list 23 in order to resolve any question of applying for standing, 24 I* wonder if the panel would be able to -- willing to poll

25 the parties to see if they would agree to that.

L ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

\- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

i 274 i

1 [ Discussion off the record.]

) 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Would either Yankee or the l

3 Staff have objection or -- and the Intervenors as well have 4 objection to adding this group to the service list, and then 5 without entertaining even the request for standing, because i 6 I personally would have some question as to whether a group 7 from, essentially from Maine would have standing, but aside 8 from that -- .

9 MR. SHADIS: Before polling, Your Honor, may I 10 just -- just one statement of clarification.

11 We filed this petition outlining some reasons why )

12 we might have standing as an interested party, fully l l

13 understanding that they were at the edge of or even over the 14 edge of the rules governing standing and what we were really )

's_- 15 hoping to do here was to push that envelope for 16 acknowledging what might be essentially new grounds for 17 standing, so that is the level we are functioning at so if 18 it were indeed filed and it were rejected, we would 19 certainly understand, but that is the level that we were 20 pushing to.

21 The New England -- just permitting, if you 22 would -- New England is small geographically. When Western 23 states think about New England I don't know what they see, l 24 but we'are hardly the size of any standard Western states. ,

1 25 It is not far from one end of this area to another, and yet l 1

l i

l

()

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters

(

i 10.15 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

i 275 1 we have'four reactors under decommissioning, and the

() 2 community, the social structure of New England is such that 3 we do communicate and share information and in a large sense 4 we also' share in the economi benefit of being viewed as a f 5 clean, pristine environment.. It's part of the way that we l 6 are able to sell'our products and draw tourists to us.

'7 We share all that in common, so we were intending 8 in this petition to present that in part as an argument.

1 9 One, precedent that we would be facing this situation at 1

10 Maine Yankee very shortly, and we are deeply involved in l L 11 that decommissioning, and two, that we do share an awful lot l

l 12 in common. We are New Englanders, if you will, as a breed 13 and so we have that commonality of interest.

14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: How far away is your closest 15 community from the Yankee Rowe site?

16 MR. SHADIS: From Yankee Rowe?

17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, from the site that we are 18 talking about.

19 MR. SHADIS: Yes. When you say closest community, 20 you mean the closest member?

21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, yes.

22 MR. SHADIS: We do have members in Massachusetts 23 and some down in this western end of Massachusetts and I 24 could not give you addresses but we would not be intending i L

p 12 5 to gain standing representing them in the manner which is l

.g Juni RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036  ;

(202) 842-0034 j

i 276 l 1 usually done. We would be attempting to gain standing on a

() 2 much broader interpretation of what interest is than simply 3 having a member who could be affected by a flying piece of l i

4 reactor.

5 What we/are looking at is the way in which all of 6 us are affected by the processes that take place at these 7 plants, so it is a little bit different and to get to the 8 number that you asked for, we are about 200 miles away.

.9- JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I see.

10 MR. SHADIS: Thank you.

11 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Thank you.

12 JUDGE MURPHY: We are not going to resolve this 13 question now.

14 MR. SHADIS: Certainly.

15 JUDGE MURPHY: What you need to do is file your 16 petition and get it --

17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, I am trying to avoid --

18 JUDGE MURPHY: -- reviewed.

19 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Yes, but I would like to avoid 20 that if I can by --

21 MR. SHADIS: You may avoid that -- either way, it i 22 at the pleasure -- excuse me. Either way at the pleasure of 23 the panel, if the panel would like to entertain exploring j 24- this notion of standing -- l 25 JUDGE MURPHY: You have asked for two things. You i i

b

\- I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C.. 20036 (202) 842-0034

- . - . - . _ - . - - . - . - - . _ . . . . _ - . - - - ~ - _ - . - . . - . . - . - . - . . . _ . . ,

1 277 f i

1 have asked for the possibility of getting standing and you  !

() 2 have~also asked to get on the service list. l 3 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: That's an alternative.  !

t i

4 MR. SHADIS: It's an alternative. j i

5 JUDGE MURPHY: Only as the alternative --

6 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, to standing, yes.

7 JUDGE MURPHY: You said you wanted to push the f

8 envelope about standing.

9 MR. SHADIS: Well, we would like to do that.

10 JUDGE MURPHY: Well, the way to do that is to file 11 your petition.  !

12 MR. SHADIS: I see.

13' JUDGE MURPHY: The other, the other business about 14 getting involved'and getting on the service list, you can i 15 ask the people in this room if they are willing to include 16 you.

17 MR. SHADIS: Thank-you.

-18 JUDGE MURPHY: Otherwise you have to wait till you 19 get on standing.

20 MR. SHADIS: Thank you, Your Honor.

21 (Discussion off the record.]

22 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Let me just ask the other 23 parties whether they would object to adding this group to j 24 the service, their service list.

25 MR. LOVEJOY: We have no objection. j j) ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.  ;

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014  ;

Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034

__ __ _ - - _ . , _ _ m.._ __. - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ - _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . . _ . _ . . . _ . _

278  !

I 1 MS.-KATZ: CAN has no objections. i rh

(,)

\

I L2 MR. BLOCK: New England Coalition has no 3 objection.

l 4 MR. GAD: Yankee would decline, Your Honor. I 5 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Would what?

6 MR. GAD: We object.  !

I i 7 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Oh, okay, j 8 [ Laughter.) i p 9 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: The Staff?

l 10 MS. HODGDON: The Staff has a problem with this, l i

11 and that is in-this day of electronic filings and 1 i~

12 requirements for fax filings and so forth, the addition of a l

13 requirement to furnish somebody with a copy -- I mean that  !

t 14' is why we maintain the LPDRs and besides which, as I l

~

15 understand it, Mr. Shadis represented in his limited i

16 appearance last night that he is a member of NECNP and so it  !

17 would seem to us to be, seem to the Staff to be appropriate l 18 that they provide him with such copies.

19 I think he already said this morning that he 20 wasn't trying to come into this proceeding as a L 21 -representative of Friends of the Coast but on his own, and 22 that being the case it seems to me that his being a member 23 of NECNP that he is -- to the extent that NECNP is in, then 24 he is in, and they.could make arrangements for copies.

l 25 I don't know. It may be possible that we could l

1

^

Jff v -ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

l Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)'842-0034

279

, 1 mail him some things, although I just don't think we want to t

em s ,) 2 get into a requirement that we accommodate another party as 3 we have been asked --

4 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No, we would not consider them 5 a party.

6 MS. HODGDON: -- I mean as we have asked to 7 accommodate another entity, another group, make another 8 electronic filing, another facsimile and so forth. I mean 9 it gets fairly hectic as it is, so I think the answer at 10 this time would have to be no, we are not enthusiastic about 11 it either.

12 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Thank you.

13 [ Discussion off the record.)

._ 14 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I guess we can't get unanimous

V 15 consent, sir --

16 MR. SHADIS: Thank you, Your Honor.

17 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: -- so you ought to file what 18 you want to file.

19 MR. SHADIS: Thank you. I appreciate the effort.

20 Just to clarify one point, I am an employee of the New l 21 England Coalition, but I am here representing Friends of the 22 Coast.

23 I am also on Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company's 24 Community Advisory Panel. That company is owned wholly or 25 in part by the same companies that own Yankee Nuclear Power l

)

/^s

() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 1

l-_

280 1- Station so you might also say I am here representing them.

() 2 MR. DIGNAN: Well, then you are in conflict of 3 interest.

4 MR. SHADIS: I am afraid so.

5 [ Laughter.]

6 MR. SHADIS: You could resolve it by simply 7 copying my office the document. Thank you.

8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Well, if you decide that you 9 are satisfied with reading NECNP's copies, which maybe you 10 will-be able to, that may satisfy you, but if not you will

-11 have to file and explicitly seek staading and the other 12 matters and the parties will all have a chance to comment 13 and we will eventually rule whan we get everything in.

14 MR. SHADIS: Thank. you. At a distance of 200 15 miles, it is a-little bit difficult to read what they get, 16 but we will file and I do appreciate the court's 17 consideration. I thank you.

18 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, may I respectfully 19 inquire -- there will be another filing and that will 20 trigger the response dates? I am just confused now. Papers 21 have been passed to the Board. One could argue that the 22 10-day response period started to run when that happened, or 23 will it happen, will it run when we receive the --

24 JUDGE-BECHHOEFER: No , I think it will run from 25 whatever date he --

() ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L:-

281 l 1 MR. DIGNAN: Makes a second filing?  ;

) 2 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: Makes a second filing plus five  ;

3 days, I think it is, for mailing.

4 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you, Your Honor. I just wanted i 5 to clarify that for the record. l l

6 l You have to add -- i 7 MR./SHADIS: -- attorney notice was not signed.

8 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: No , it will be filed whenever 9- it's filed. We don't consider it as being filed yet and i

10 then the response time will -- as set forth in the rules, 11 unless people think they need more or less -- well, less you 12 can always do it. More -- you'll have to ask but we will 13 consider the filing date whenever it is postmarked, I guess, 14 to go to the Secretary, and then, as I say, you add your 10 i

k}_s/ 15 days, a little more for the Staff I guess -- five days for ,

16 mailing too, so those are'the standard rules and they will 17' govern.

18 Is there anything further that anyone wishes to 19 raise before we' adjourn?.

20 [No response.)

21 JUDGE BECHHOEFER: I might say we have enjoyed 22 being here. We have appreciated the active participation of l

, 23 allsof you people as well as other members of the community 24 who were here last night, and we will do our best to get out 25 a decision in a reasonable time, so we are adjourned.

l l

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 i (202) 842-0034

)

- _ - . . . . ~ . . . . - _ . . . - . . . . - - . . . . . - ~ . . - ~ - . - . . - ~ . . . _ - _ _ . - . . ... _~.

t

?

282 ,

t

1. [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the meeting was i 2 concluded.]  !

3 4

5 .

t 6

7 ,

8  !

9 i

10  !

11 12

-13

=14

..)

15 16 17 18 19 20 21-

-22 23-24' 25 L

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters f

! 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014

-Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

& . , _ _ _ _ ~

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings (m')

v before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:

NAME OF PROCEEDING: YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION j PREHEARING CONFERENCE CASE NUMBER: 50-029-LA-R ASLBP No. 98-736-01-LA-R PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Greenfield, MA

(~\

,s/

) were held as herein appears, and that this is the original  ;

l transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court l

reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and I accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.

A4\ T /

JkHundley Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.

['N ;

V