ML20203F209

Staff Response to Applicant & State of UT Proposed Transcript Corrections.* Staff Does Not Oppose Applicant & State Proposed Transcript Corrections.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20203F209
Person / Time
Site:	07200022
Issue date:	02/24/1998
From:	Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#198-18831 ISFSI, NUDOCS 9802270227
Download: ML20203F209 (6)

Text

\

, { 983 I 00CKETED UStiRC Febmary 24,1998 UNITED STATES OF AMERid NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LiqiNSING BOARD y In the Matter of )

)

PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE L.L.C. ) Docket No. 72 22 ISFSI

)

(Independent Spent )

Fuel Storage Installation) )

NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S AND STATE OF UTAll'S PROPOSED TRANSCRIPT CORRECTIONS Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.730(c) and the Licensing Board's " Memorandum and Order (Contention Revisions and Transcript Corrections)," dated February 9,1998 (at 3), the NRC Staff (" Staff") hereby responds to the proposed corrections to the transcript of the Prehearing Conference held on January 27 29, 1998, submitted by Private Fuel Storage L.L.C. (the

" Applicant") and the State of Utah on Febmary 17, 1998.8 The Staff has reviewed the Applicant's and State's proposed transcript corrections, and does not object to those proposed corrections except in the following respects:

(1) The Applicant proposes corrections to statements made by Judge Lam and Ms. Chancellor, at Page 139 Line 17, Page 140 Line 23, and Page 141 Line 1, to change the i

i See (1) " Applicant's Response to Revised Contentions and Proposed Transcript Corrections" (" Applicant's Corrections"), dated Febmary 17,1998t and (2) " State of Utah's Comment on Revisions to Contentions and Proposed Corrections to the Pre Hearing Transcript"

(" State's Corrections"), dated Febmary 17, 1998.

$$ N00$k $2 2 h,flllllllll llllll f

2-term "7261" to read "72.6(c)" (Applicant's Corrections ct 5). This correction should be modined to read, more correctly, "72.6(c)(1)."

(2) The Applicant proposes a correction to a statement by Mr. Turk, at Page 150 Line 1, to insert the word "this" before the word " appears" at the beginning of the page (Applicant's Corrections at 6). This correction has also been addressed by the Staff in its proposed transcript corrections of February 17,1998.2 in which the word "this" was proposed to be inserted at the end of page 149 (Staff's Corrections at 2). The Applicant's proposed correction should be rejected, to prevent the word "this" from appearing twice.

(3) ne Applicant proposes changes to Page 295, Lines 3 and 8, to change the term "new reg" to read "NUREG" (Applicant's Corrections at 9). The transcript does not contain the term "new reg" on line 8 of page 295; accordingly, page 295 line 8 should not be changed.

(4) The Applicant proposes a correction to Judge _ Lam's statement, at Page 375 Line 15. to change the word "that" to read "for" (Applicant's Corrections at 11). This proposed correction would render the sentence incomprehensible. De transcript is correct as printed, and this proposed change should be rejected.

(5) The Applicant proposes a correction to a statement by Mr. Turk at Page 385 Line 12, to change the we-4 "for your sonomy" to read "at the prehearing" (Applicant's Corrections at 11). This change ho gl,- Men addressed in the Staff's proposed transcript corrections of February 17, 1998, in which a correction to the quoted words was proposed, to read, "further at the hearing" (Staff's Corrections at 5). Inasmuch as the Applicant's proposed 2 See " Attachment" to "NRC Staff's Motion to Correct the Transcript," dated February 17,1998 (" Staff's Corrections");

3 transcript change differs from the transcript change prop sed by the Staff, both changes cannot be made 8 As the party responsible for this statement, the Staff submits that its proposed correction should be adopted.

I (6) The Applicant proposes a correction to Ms. Curran's statement, at Page 521 l Line 10, to change the word "Limeric" to read " Limerick" (Applicant's Corrections at 12). The word "Limeric" does not appear on page 521 line 10, although it does appear on line 10 of page 523; the Staff would not object to the proposed change being made to page 523 line 10.

(7) The Applicant proposes a correction to Page 635 Line 13, to change the word "noreg" to read "NUREG" (Applicant's Corrections at 13). The word "noreg" does not appear on page 635, and this proposed change should therefore be rejected.

(8) The State proposes a correction to Page 139 Line 19, to change the word "there" to "they are" (State's Corrections at 3). In order to make the statement comprehensible, this corrc.~ ion should be modified to delete the words "there is" rather than only the word "there";

with this modification, the Staff does not oppose this correction.'

3 The fact that different parties have sought to correct the same ponion of the transcript in different ways highlights the difficulties that can arise when parties seek to correct the transcript of statements made by persons other than their own counsel or witnesses.

Accordingly, in the absence of compelling circumstances, the Staff suggests, that in the future, the parties refrain from filing proposed transcript corrections except with respect to statements made (a) by their own counsel or witnesses, (b) by another party's witness during cross-examination by the moving pany, or (c) by members of the Licensing Board. Alternatively, transcript corrections should be made upon stipulation among the parties.

The State's proposed transcript corrections cite a version of the transcript for January 27,1998, which appears to have been paginated differently than the transcript received by the Staff at the prehearing conference - with the result that most of the statements cited by the State actually appear one line higher in the Staff's copy of the transcript for that day. The Staff assumes that the State's copy of the transcript for January 27,1998, which was delivered after the prehearing conference, reflects the official and correct pagination thereof.

~

B

... . . - . ~ . -

4 4

CONCLUSION in sum, the Staff submits that the propowd transcript corrections discuswd above should be modified as described herein. With these exceptions, the Staff does not oppose the Applicant's and State of Utah's proposed transcript corrections.

Respectfully submitted, h lE W '

Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland .

this 24th day of February 1998

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CXETED

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BitERZrg g in the Matter of ) OF%

PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE L.L.C. ) Docket h 2ISFSI,

)

(Independent Spent )

Fuel Storage Installation) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT'S AND STATE OF UTAll'S PROPOSED TRANSCRIPT CORRECTIONS" in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internali . all system, or by deposit in the United States mail, first class, as indicated by an asterise:, with, copies by electronic mail as indicated, this 24th day of February,1998:

G. Paul Bollwerk,111, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Administrative Judge Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 (E mail copy to GPB@NRC. GOV) Office of the Secretary ATTN: Rulema' kings and Aijudications Dr. Jerry R. Kline Staff Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coinmission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Commission Appel.' ate (E mail copy to JRK2@NRC. GOV) Adjudication Mail Stop: 16-G 15 OWFN Dr, Peter S. Lam U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission James M. Cutchin, V Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (E mail copy to PSL@NRC. GOV) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (by E mail to JMC3@NRC. GOV)

1 s

Jay E. Silberg, Esq.* Danny Quintana Esq.*

SIIAW, P11TMAN, POITS & Danny Quintana & Associates, P.C.

TROWBRIDGE 50 West Broadway 2300 N Street, N.W Founh Floar Washington, DC 20037 8007 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 (E mail copy to jay _silberg (E mail copy to quintana ,

@shawpittman.com) @Xmission.com) .

Denise Chancellor, Esq.* Clayton J. Parr, Esq.*

Fred G. Nelson, Esq. PARR, WADDOUPS, BROWN, GEE Utah Attorney General's Office & LOVELESS 160 East 300 South,5th Floor 185 S. State St., Sulta.1300 P.O. Box 140873 P.O. Box 11019 Salt I.ake City, UT S4114-0873 Salt Lake City, UT 84147-0019 (E mail copy to dchancel@ State.UT.US) (E mail copy to karenj@pwlaw.com)

Connie Nakahara, Esq.* , John Paul Kennedy, Sr., Esq.*

'Itah Dep't of Environmental Quality 1385 Yale Ave.

Salt Lake City, UT 84105 168 Nonh 1950 West P. O. Box 144810 (E-mail copy to john @kennedys.org)

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4810 (E mail copy to enakahar@ state.UT.US) Professor Richard Wilson

• Depanment of Physics Diane Curran, Esq.* Harvard Univu.ity Harmon, Curran & Spi-lberg Cambridge, MA 02138 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 (E mail copy to Washington, D.C. 20009 wilson @huhepl. harvard.edu)

(E mail copy to DCurran.llCSE@zzapp.org) Manin S. Kaufman, Esq.*

Atlantic Legal Foundatior Jean Belille, Esq.* 205 E. 42nd Street, Land ond Water Fund of the Rockies New York, NY 10017 2260 Baseline Road, Suite 200 (E mail copy to Boulder, CO 80302 mskaufman@ yahoo.com)

(E mail copy to landwater@lawfund.org) i b4 v bI Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff ww-,,, -www,-,g - -