ML20205F337

Transcript of 860815 Prehearing Telcon in Washington,Dc Re Onsite Emergency Planning & Safety Issues.Pp 1-25

ML20205F337
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	08/15/1986
From:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#386-434 OL-1, NUDOCS 8608190164
Download: ML20205F337 (27)

Text

._

.. ORIGibAL UNITED STATES O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-443 OL-1 .

50-444 OL-1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ON-SITE NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. 1 GENCY (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) SAFETY ISSUES O

LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D. C. PAGES: 1 - 25 DATE: FRIDAY, AUGUST 15, 1986 4

F gw 0/ o\p\ E /Au TM.

/t? /- H ~

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

i OfficialReporters 444 North Capitol Street ggog19ois sson15 Washington, D.C. 20001 rDR ADOS OD00pfja (202) 347-3700 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE

CR27869.0 1

'COX/cjg UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the Matter of:  : Docket No. 50-443 OL-1 5  : 50-444 OL-1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF  : ON-SITE EMERGENCY 6 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.  : PLANNING AND

SAFETY ISSUES 7 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)  :

8 ------------------x Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

Suite 402 10 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D. C.

12 Friday, August 15, 1986 O 13 The telephone prehearing conference in the above-entitled 14 matter convened at 10:30 a.m.

15 16 BEFORE:

17 JUDGE SHELDON J. WOLFE, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

19 JUDGE EMMETH A. LUEBKE, Member 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 Washington, D. C.

22 j JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 Washington, D. C.

24 25 l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

l E-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646 m

r

~

,. 2 APPEARANCES:

2 On behalf of the Applicant:

3 R. K. GAD III, ESQ. .

Ropes & Gray 4

225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory 6 Commission Staff:

7 SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ.

EDWIN REIS, ESQ.

g ROBERT PERLIS, ESQ.

Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9

Washington, D. C. 20555 10 on behalf of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, Town of Hampton Falls, and 11 South Hampton:

12 ROBERT A. BACKUS, ESQ.

Backus, Meyer & Soloman

( 13 116 Lowell Street Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 14 On behalf of the New England Coalition 15 on Nuclear Pollution:

16 DIANE CURRAN, ESQ.

Harmon & Weiss l

17 On benalf of the Massachusetts Attorney General:

CAROL SNEIDER, ESQ.

19 Assistant Attorney General 20 i

21 1 22 l

23 1 24 O

i

'/

'- 25 l Ae-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646

I

1. 27869.0 i 3

cox l

. i 1  ! _P, R O C E E D I N G S (3

%J  ;

2 JUDGE WOLFE: I would advise that I am using the l ,

3 loudspeaker, Judges Lubke and Harbour are in my office for 4 i conducting this office over the loudspeaker. Further, this

< 5 conference call is being reported. 'Which company is that, When each person 6

l please, Ms. Reporter?

i Ace-Federal.

7 l speaks, would they, before speaking, identify themselves so 8 that the reporter will know who is speaking.

9 Now the reason the board has placed this 10 conference call is that we have had SAPL and NECNP file 11 joint motion for extension of hearing schedule, which was 12 dated August 6.

13 We have not received the responses from the 14 Staff or from the Applicants about this nor, for that

~

15 matter, from anyone else. So we thought we would place 16 this conference call to hear the parties out on this and 17 proceed to rule on the joint motion -- we are still ruling, 18 so proceeding by the conference call to expedite resolution i 19 l of this. The hearing date is approaching, the present l 20 l hearing date, and further, it's quite difficult, we found,

! l 21 l to secure a hearing accommodation. I would advise that l

22 l before we had received this motion of August 6, we had l 23 l proceeded to get a hearing room -- where was that? Howard 24 Johnson, Portsmouth -- for the period of September 29, 30, 25 l October 1, and if nococcary we could then proceed on O l

, i l

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

I

'02-347-3700 Nationwide Ceerage 800-33M/A6

I l

27869.0 4 CoX l October 3. But this is what we are going to discuss and (v~} '

2 right off, I would ask, Mr. Gad --

3 MR. GAD: Your Honor -- .

4 JUDGE WOLFE: -- are there any objections by the 5 Applicants to the joint motion?

6 MR. GAD: In part, your Honor.

7 JUDGE WOLFE: All right.

8 MR. GAD: If I may, I would like to lay out what 9 our opposition would have been, if I may.

10 JUDGE WOLFE: Sure.

11 MR. GAD: We start with the observation that 12 being a scheduling request, it is of course the board's 13 discretion. In exercising that discretion ve would like to 14 make that five or six points that the board should put them 15 in. Point 1 is that whatever else might have happened, in 16 fact, NECNP and SAPL have been hindered by no discovery 17 requests from the Applicants and very narrow and fine 13 discovery requests from the Staff.

19 Point 2 is that the Applicants have previously 20 l offered to NECNP production of documents that it requested i

21 right now but have been advised by NECNP that NECNP will 22  ! not be in a position to look at the documents until 23  ; September.

24 Point number 3, we have previously told NECNP I

25 i i that notwithstanding what might be read as a cutoff on (E)  !

i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 804336-6M6

.' 27869.0 5 CoX  ;

5

<~s I looking at the documents, we will in fact be more than 1

(_) i l

2 i willing to make the documents available after the August 21 -- l l

3  ; August 25 deadline. Provided only that the concession not I

'l 4 be used against them.

5 Point number 4, insofar as this talks about the l

6 scheduling for depositions, we do not object to making our 7 witnesses available at any reasonable time prior to hearing, O which we think obviates entirely the problem that is 9 articulated on page 2 of the motion.

10 Point number 5, and consistent with that, the 11 Applicants would interpose no objection to an extension of 12 the time for NECNP and SAPL filing direct testimony 13 provided that it was consistent with the date for the (3

s/ 14 commencement of actual hearing.

15 JUDGE WOLFE: To shorten that period, you would 16 have no objection to filing after whatever the date was.

17 l MR. GAD: Well, if you got it down in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 18 that would make life less difficult, but the basic answer i

l 19 to your Honor's questien is yes.

20 JUDGE WOLFE: Okay.

21 , MR. GAD: What we do object to, and I suppose l

l 22 ~ this has been made obvious by what I said, is changing the 23 l date for the commencement of the hearing itself, which we

, I l 24 think fairly clearly means, and my reading of the motion, 25 l is that the movant would take no different position, would i l

, ()  !

l l

i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

1 :o2 3 :.3:oe s.,,e...e. ce . ... soe.33- e

l

'27869.0 l .

6 cox i

l N 1  ! mean a day for day or possibly worse delay in the issuance.

, i 2  ! The entire thrust of this motion is that that doesn't 3 matter and it is argued that that doesn't matter because a 4 collateral event, most notably the position of the 5 Commonwealth of Massachusetts on foresight and planning, 6 will mean that there will be no full power license for some 7 unspecified period of time and further. So the argument 8 goes, low power testing is a matter that takes, I think 9 they said, only a couple of weeks. Therefore, if you slip 10 an item that is noncritical past, who cares.

11 That is the argument that is made to your Honor, 12 which we would respond as follows: Putting aside entirely 13 the correctness of the equation that on account of because r-)

(_/

14 of what Massachusetts is doing, we are going to have delays 15 in full power operation, putting that aside entirely, the 16 argument that is made that slipping low power is of no 17 concern -- it's a "never mind" as they say in Texas -- has 18 been flatly rejected by the Commission itself. We would 19 cite to your Honor the language from the Shoreham decision, 20 l!

the decision on TLI-85-12, which begins at 21 NRC 1587 and 21 ,

in particular the language that appears on page 1590 -- I 22 ' am just inclined to read, although it makes life difficult 23 for the reporter, but I will if your Honor would think it 24 of assistance -- in particular, the language that is in 25 footnote 3 from the very same decision by the Commission.

(E) ,

i I

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. ,.

202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 500 336-6M6

' ~

l I I

27869.0 l 7 Cox j

i i

l rw 1 That simply rejects as a matter of Commission policy what I t> 3 2 guess, your Honor, is the predicate of so much of this l 3 motion that says put off the hearing itself.

4 We would adjust a couple of observations that we 5 ,

think also are relevant to the exercise of your Honor's t

6 I discretion. The first point is that these are exceedingly 7 narrow contentions. They were quite narrow as they had 8 originally admitted and all that is before us, of course, 9 is that portion that was left open following the August i

10 1983 hearing. Thus all that is before us is a narrow 11 subset of what was a narrow contention or a couple of 12 narrow contentions to begin with.

13 Finally, I am constrained to say, having had 14 vacation plans busted uniformly this summer, that we are 15 not unsympathetic to the vacation problems that were 16 described in the motion. We have taken that into account 17 in outlining points 1 through 5 with respect to documents, 18 depositions of prefiled testimony, and suggest that that 19 , obviates the problem that would, in fact, otherwise affect i

20 I our conscience if not our heart. That's the Applicant's I

i  !

21 ,

position, your Honor.

I 22 JUDGE WOLFE: All right. Mr. Perlis for the 23 l Staff.

24 MR. TURK: This is Sherwin Turk. I am in the l 25 ! office with Bob Perlis and Edwin Reis. 'We did file a (Z)  !

4 l

l l

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. .

l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6686

I i

/ 27869.0 I 8

cox

• I t-} l f response to the motion yesterday, probably be in the

(_/ >

2 l board's mail today. I apologize for getting it to you so 1

3 i late. Technically it's not late, but I know that you would 4 have preferred to have it as quickly as possible. In our 5 paper we take the position that SAPL and NECNP have really 6 justified why they need a full month's delay and why they 7 need it for depositions, filing testimony and the start-up 8 of hearing. We didn't see a good cause laid out there.

I 9 j NECNP is NECNP. For that reason we oppose the 10 request on that basis. I do note, however, the comments 11 made by Mr. Gad, and I might suggest that if the court is 12 inclined to grant the motion, or at least for a limited 13 time, the appropriate time to extend the filing of taking

. 14 of depositions for a week or 10 days and extend taking of, 15 September -- make it September 19, that would be of help 16 before we go to hearing. But we would oppose the delay in 17 starting the hearing itself.

18 JUDGE WOLFE: All right. I don't know -- had 19 i you finished, Mr. Turk?

I 20 l MR. TURK: Yes, I have.

21 JUDGE WOLFE: I don't know whether Ms..Sneider, l

22 l representing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, would have i

23 l anything to say or not, it being -- well, do you have 24 l something to say, Ms. Sneider?

MS. SNEIDER: The Attorney General would support j 25 l l

l l

()

I I

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 804336-646

.* 27869.0 9 l

Cox I l

i

_ ,f 3 1 l the motion to extend the hearing. We found ourselves in a

\-]

2 similar position as SAPL and NECNP that we desired to 3 participate in the hearing. The expert witness that_we 4 would rely on is in Europe now until the end of August so I 5 can't even get a commitment from that person to know if he 6 l would prepare testimony for us and what are the issues, I 7 mean, precisely to what degree our participation would be.

8 JUDGE WOLFE: I understand, looking over the 9 discovery papers, that Massachusetts did not proceed to 10 file written -- at least proceed with discovery, 11 MS. SNEIDER: .That's correct.

12 JUDGE WOLFE: And did not meet the scheduled 13 August 8 date for the due dates for the serving of written

( 14 interrogatories; is that correct?

l 15 MS. SNEIDER: That is correct.

I 16 JUDGE WOLFE: And I take it that you would not t

17 submit any opposition to the order which are to be 18 ,

completed by August 25; is that right?

19 MS. SNEIDER: I also am trying to go on vacation 20 j next week. I am trying to respond to the Staff's i

21 ;

interrogatories and it's a little bit difficult. All I can 22 say is we think we will participate, but we don't know who 23 our witness will be. We can tell you who we think it will 24 be and we don't know what our testimony will be. I mean, l

I l 25 l it's that vague because I am not an expert in this area.

I i

l (2) j i

l

! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6646

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

27869.0 10 cox

. t 1 We rely on our experts for our testimony and to develop our {

(")%

w. -  ;

2  ! issues for us. Having them, our prime expert in Europe l

3 l right now, who can't even tell me who else I should contact, 4 it's very difficult.

5 JUDGE WOLFE: Yes. Do you recall, Ms. Sneider, 6 whether in the August 1983 hearing that the" Commonwealth 7 offered direct testimony, or did you just -- did the 8 Commonwealth?

9 MS. SNEIDER: No. We offered direct testimony 10 on certain contentions before the board at that point, but 11  ! not rebuttal testimony.

12 MR. GAD: I believe that the testimony offered 13 by the Commonwealth was limited to the ETEs, the evacuation O 14 time estimates. I could be wrong, but I believe it was 15 that limited.

16 MS. SNEIDER: I think that's correct.

17 JUDGE WOLFE: What was the subject again? I 18 didn't get it.

19 I MR. GAD: The evacuations -- Bob Gad, again, 1

20 your Honor. The evacuation.

21 .

JUDGE WOLFE: I see, all right. And that the 22 ETE is not one of the issues before us at this hearing.

23 MS. SNEIDER: Right.

24 ! MR. GAD: Correct, your Honor.

25 ! JUDGE WOLFE: Had you finished, Ms. Sneider?

() i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. '

202 333M _ _ , _ . _ fationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

127869.0 11

'cox j

..' l

('}

'u l MS. SNEIDER: Yes.

2 l JUDGE WOLFE: All right. Let's see, then.

l _

3 Mr. Backus. Mr. Backus?

l I

4 -

MR. BACKUS: Yes.

5 JUDGE WOLFE: Do you have anything that you wish l

6 ! to say?

7 MR. BACKUS: I guess, Mr. Chairman, that I would 8 just say that the Applicant's suggestion that they are 9 willing to see an extension of the time in the filing of 10 direct testimony would be of material assistance to us in 11 attempting to meet the -- attempting to meet a schedule.

12 MR. GAD: Both St'aff and Applicants have 13 received interrogatories from the Staff. Our actual 14 presentation of testimony, I think, will depend a lot on 15 what we get in response to our interrogatories. Exactly 16 what areas the witness will have to work on depends a lot 17 on what the Staff particularly comes forward with and to a 18 lesser extent the Company.

19 So we do need the time to work with an expert 20 j beyond what we are provided in the present order. I hear l

21 ; the Applicant saying, Mr. Gad saying that he is willing to

! accommodate that, which is helpful, and the further that 22 23 can be pushed back, the better. We do of course have 24 trouble with people being away for the summer, (ncluding l

25 myself next week.

! ()  !

i  !

\ l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336-6646

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

27869.0  ! 12 CoK i

.J['l 1 As you are undoubtedly aware, Mr. Chairman, we 2  ; had this intriguing order fr'om the appeal board we got last i

3l  !

week.

4 i JUDGE WOLFE: I am aware of that. I saw it. We 5 saw it, I should say. Go ahead.

6

{

MR. BACKUS: All I was going to say about that 7 I is I don't know how the appeal board is eventually going to l

8 proceed. But in the event that they ask us to do something 9 in the month of September toward preparing some sort of 10 briefing, issue of whether a contention, not by planning or 11  ! improperly submitted or excluded, that could provide a 12 serious burden. I don't know if we need to anticipate that.

13 JUDGE WOLFE: That's not in our province. I O 14 have read the appeal board's memorandum and order, and I' 15 note that this was merely a suggestion on their part, on 16 the appeal board's part, and they have asked that the 17- l various parties submit responses. So that's up to the 18 appeal board. We can't comment on that now in a vacuum.

19 i So the board will just note that we are aware of that l

20 memorandum order. All right. Let's see if we have any --

t 21 had you finished, Mr. Backus? ,

i 22 l MR. BACKUS: Yes.

t I

23 ,

JUDGE WOLFE: All right.

I 24 ,

MS. CURRAN: This is Diane Curran. I would just i

25 like to get some clarification. I think that the changes (2)  !

l i

I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

l _ . __ _ __ 202 347-3700___ __ _ Nationwide Cosertge _

80 M 36-6646 __ . _ _

27869.0 13 Cox l

r"3 1 that Mr. Gad has offered would probably involve NECNP's l

V 2 problem. Our major hangup here is that we are relying on 3 an expert who is out of town for the month of August, he 4 i helped us with the interrogatories and we need him to go 5 over the extensive document request that we have submitted 6 to Applicants. It would be meaningless for me to do that.

7 We can do that and if we have the opportunity to depose 8 witnesses in September, I think that would help us a lot.

9 I would just like to get some clarification as to whether 10 there is any deadline that Mr.- Gad would intend to impose 11 on the taking of depositions and whether he is willing to 12 extend that up to the 20th of September.

13 JUDGE WOLFE: Well, Mr. Gad. This is Judge j

14 Wolfe again. While Mr. Gad is thinking that over, the 15 board is very pleased with this effort by the parties to 16 negotiate these matters. Actually, I thought we had 17 suggested that the parties confer informally. I don't l

18 think that it's necessary that this be this head on l l 19 1 approach. I don't even think that there was a necessity 20 for the filing of the joint motions and the parties, if 21  ; they had merely called one another on the telephone: here i

22 is our problem from NECNP, and SAPL, can't we work this out.

l 23 l This is the way to go.

I 24 l It's been my experience that certainly attorneys 25 take an adversary position, but you just have to work out (1)  :

i l

. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

l 202 347-3700 Nationwnfe Coserage 800-336-6646

i 27869.0 l 14 Cox  !

.' i

{} l 2

l these procedural matters to everyone's advantage.

assume that if all parties had gotten together, they could I would i

3 { have come in with a broad-scale motion and request the l -

4 board to amend its memorandum and order of July 25 to allow 5 such an extension and the board would have ruled upon it l

i 6 then.

7 l But from.here on, let's try to get together and 8 work these things out.

9 , All right, Mr. Gad, you have a question put to i

10 you by Ms. Curran. Do you have the July 25 order before 11 you, Mr. Gad?

12 MR. GAD: In the chaos that occupies my desk, 13 your Honor, I have a separate set of notes on the dates in

. 14 question. I had August 8, August 25.

15 JUDGE WOLFE: What was that again, the August 25 16 date now?

17 MR. GAD: This is what I am working from as 18 existing.

l l 19 ! JUDGE WOLFE: All right. Maybe I can help you l l l 20 $ out here, let's see now. The depositions, according to the l

i 21 l July 25 order, were to be completed by August 25, right?

l All right.

l 22 l, j 23 l MR. GAD: The precise questions Ms. Curran input 24 to us, if we have anything in mind, the answer was no. In i

25 essence we try to deal with problems as they come up.

l l

(2) j 1

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800

__ _- __ _ , _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ __.. _._ 336-6646____.____ __. _ _ __.. .. _

27869.0 15 cox j

i,

/"N 1 i JUDGE WOLFE: Let's get our calendars out and V

2 see what we can do. As I indicated before, we made 3 arrangements for the hearing to proceed on September 29, 4 September 30, October 1 and if necessary October 3. Now, 5 moving back from the beginning date of September 29 and 6 moving back toward the present completion date for 7 depositions, which was the date of August 25, now, Mr. Gad, 8 and also any other party here, let's discuss this and come 9 up with an agreeable deposition completion date.

10 Also, we need to keep in mind, too, the due date 11 for the filing of written direct testimony, if any, by any 12 party.

13 MS. CURRAN: Judge, this is Diane Curran. I 14 would just like to start by saying that the best date for 15 NECNP would be the 19th of September. That would give us 16 the maximum flexibility for conducting depositions then.

17 It might be that we weren't able to file direct testimony 18 but it would help us on cross-examination.

19 JUDGE WOLFE: Ms. Curran, you suggest September 20 19 for the completion date for a deposition?

l 21  ; MS. CURRAN: Yes.

22 ; JUDGE WOLFE: How does that feel with Mr. Gad, 23 l Turk and everyone else?

24 l MR. GAD: Your Honor, Bob Gad. That does not 25 l stick in my craw, but I would have worked at the problem I

(Z) l I

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6

i

. l 27869.0 l . 16 coX  ;

I I

l 'from the other end and said what date for the testimony and

(]'

%- l 2 j then work earlier. Frankly, I think we would be satisfied I

3 if we received any direct date in hand on Monday the 22nd.

l 4 That would give us a week. And any time prior to that were 5 l the cutoff of depositions would be okay, except that I, 6 being sort of a pragmatist, would wonder about turnaround 7 time on transcripts. The turnaround time, if the 8 transcript doesn't come in until October 15, I would wonder l

l 9 j why we oothered to take the deposition.

10 So, Diane, you might want to think about making 11 deposition stop 15 or 16 September so we had a shot at l

12 l getting the transcripts on 22 or 23 September. That's a 13 practical suggestion.

14 MR. TURK: Judge Wolfe, this'is Sherwin Turk for 15 the Staff. I would go along with the September 22 date for 16 testimony in hand. Initially, when I had offered a 17 suggested date, I suggested the 19th as a filing date, and 18 ! I had intended the filing date by express mail so it 19 results in the same date in hand, Monday, September 22 in 20 , hand.

21 l JUDGE WOLFE: Express mail, if it's served on, 22 what, Friday the 19th, it should be in hand by September 22.

23 i MR. TURK: That's right. Even true in Boston.

24 l I have a little problem though with Mr. Gad's having i

25 lI depositions continue as long as he suggested.

(1) l 1

I

\

! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

l 202 347 1700 Nationwide Coserage 80433M646  !

1. 27869.0 1 17 Cox l

/~^ l l JUDGE WOLFE: September 19; is that right?.

b 2 '

MR. TURK: I think Mr. Gad suggested the 16th.

3 l MR. GAD: 15 or 16, your Honor. My principal 4 concern being pragmatic, and it is quite correct that Mr.

l 5 Turk is probably about to say that I don't have quite the 6

l problems I have because I am already here in New England.

7 MR. TURK: My problem is a little bit of trying 8 to do two things at once. If we are going to be working to 9 file testimony on the 19th, I would like not to be away in 10 depositions during the week iramediately prior to the filing 11 of testimony. I would like to suggest that there be a 12 cutoff of depositions of no later than Friday, September 12, 13 and that's really the maximum that I can see. I would have

\- 14 even suggested the 10th, but in the interest of extending 15 the time as much as possible, I am suggesting the 12th.

16 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. Turk, are you the so-called 17 lead counsel for Staff or is Mr. Perlis or do you work 18 together?

19  ! MR. TURK: At this point, Mr. Perlis is still i

20 ! the lead, but we are separating responsibilities for l

21  ; different parts of the case. It really depends on who is 22 f available at any particular time. It's not the best l

, 23  !

arrangement, but it's an ad hoc one that requires the least i

24 amount of preplanning. That's what we are going with right 25 l now.

i (1) ,

i l

i i

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

, l :e:. m . m > me _ u.c _ ,. -

27869.0  ! 18 cox l

1 MS. CURRAN: This is Diane Curran. Can I just

(~s)

~  ;

2 respond to that. I just want to mention that really my 3 I problem is a logistical one. I don't have any problem with ,

4 what Mr. Turk says because it's easy for me to go up to 5 Bethesda and look at his documents and decide whether to 6 take a deposition in those two weeks. But I am down in 7 Washington. In order to look at Applicant's documents, 8 which are most of what I am asking for, I have got to go up 9 to Boston and do that. I have to make special arrangements i

10 l

and then I have got to figure out when to do a deposition.

11 If Mr. Gad is willing to run that through the 12 third week of September, that would help me a lot.

13 JUDGE WOLFE: By the third week in September, n'~' 14 what would that range of dates be?

15 MS. CURRAN: I prefer to leave the deadline at 16 the 19th, just for flexibility. I would of course try to 17 I do them earlier if I could.

18 i JUDGE WOLFE: That's for completion of l

19 deposition, September 19.

j 20 MS. CURRAN: Right.

I '

21 JUDGE WOLFE: I take it no one has objections to l

l 22 . the extending of direct, the filing of direct testimony, so 23 it will be received in hand by September 22. That's not an area of any controversy; is that correct? Anyone that does 24 l 25 l think it's in controversy, let me know.

i (E) i i

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

_ M 3 9 3700 __ Nationwide Coserage 804336-fM6

l, I

'27869.0 19 CoX i

• l 1 So we are now speaking about the deposition

}

2  ! completion date. Mr. Gad, why is this giving you some i

3 concern as you won't have the transcript in hand in l

i 4 sufficient time? You are there at the taking of the 5 deposition, you are taking notes. What is so sterling 6

l about having the written transcript in hand any earlier 7 l than you would get it otherwise?

8 MR. GAD: Well, I could say because I never take 9 notes on my own great speeches and like to read them in 10 ,

transcripts, but I won't. It's just a practical l

11 consideration, your Honor. Short turnaround on a one-day i

12 l deposition is much less easier to accomplish -- that wasn't 13 grammatically right -- more difficult to accomplish than

\

14 short turnaround in a hearing just because reporters aren't 15 equipped to do it. I have no great immovable position. I 16 think it is a continuum of impracticality as you move from 17 l the 15th or 16th to the 19th, but to be perfectly candid l

18  ! about it, if Ms. Curran tries to do it earlier and just 19 I can't, calls up and says I want to do somebody on the 18th, 20 we will bend.

21 , JUDGE WOLFE Okay. All right. Well.

22 ' MR. GAD: If the somebody was proofreading my i

23 l testimony, I might have a problem, but --

24 l JUDGE WOLFE: All right. Anything else on this l

25 l matter now? I think we have heard from everyone, or have (E) i i I )

I j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.  !

Nationwide Coverage 80>336 6646 i

202

__ 347 3700 , _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

)

• '27869.0 20 CoX i

(~} l we. Anything else before the board makes a determination us-2 _ 7 on this?

l 3 All right. I will put you on mute and the board 4 will discuss it and we will be back to you in a short time.

5 Hold on.

6 (Discussion off the record.)

7 JUDGE WOLFE: Hello, Judge Wolfe again. All 8 right. The board has given some consideration to the 9 argument of the parties, and we will so amend our 10 memorandum and order of July 25 to provide that the 11 depositions shall be completed by September 19, 1986, if 12 not sooner. The second amendment is that written direct

• 13 testimony shall be express mailed and shall be received and 14 in hand by September 22, 1986. Now, that is the amendment.

15 Are there any other matters with respect to these 16 amendments, now. If not, I will just state that --

17 -

MR. GAD: Your Honor, I would like to ask a i

18 question but not on the amendment. This is Bob Gad.

19  ! JUDGE WOLFE: Hold that for a while. As I 20 advised earlier, you might take this down, because we do 21 have a hearing and accommodations which, as I stated before, l

I 22 are September 29, September 30, October 1 and October 3, l

23  ; 1986. This will be, and I just don't have that information 24 before me, I think it's the -- it will be at a Howard I

25 Johnson's Lodge in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. But this l

(2) l l

l

! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 804336-6M6

27869.0 i 21 CoX  ;

()

%s 1

l will be the subject of a separate order, but I am just 2 giving you this so that you will be clued in as to the 3 beginning date.

4 Yes, Mr. Gad, something you wanted to talk about 5 beyond --

6 MR. GAD: Your Honor has answered my question, 7 which was that I didn't get down the hearing dates as 8 mentioned.

9 JUDGE WOLFE: I see, all right. Now, let's see.

10 All right, I have this other question. We will leave this 11 matter and proceed to another matter.

12 Mr. Backus.

13 MR. BACKUS: Yes.

O 14 JUDGE WOLFE: The board has received your SAPL's 15 fifth supplemental petition for leave to intervene. That 16 was dated July 18. The Applicant's answer was filed under 17 date of July 29, and the Staff's response was filed on 18 August 7. Mr. Backus, have you had occasion to read the 19 Applicant and Staff's answers or responses?

20 MR. BACKUS: Yes. We have addressed a response 21  : to the board to that which apparently you have not received.

22 l I am not just sure when it went out. Yesterday. We say 23 essentially that we are withdrawing that contention. This l

l .

24  ; is the one to do with the incompletion of technical i

25 specifications?

(2) ,

I l

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

1 202 34*-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6

! l

. t

27b69.0  ! 22 cox i I

l

. s_/

(~) 1 ,

JUDGE WOLFE: Yes. You are filing that?

j 2 MR. BACKUS: Yes. He was misled by the phrase 3

l final draft and completions were filed on something that --

i 4 l didn't just clearly identify the completion.

5 JUDGE WOLFE: All right. Fine. That's what I 6 was wondering about. All right. Are there any other l

7 matters to discuss? If not, why, this will end our l

I 8 conference call.

9 MR. PERLIS: Judge Wolfe, this is Bob Perlis 10 from the Staff. I have a few questions. First of all for 11  ! the filing of direct testimony, which parties should we be.

I 12 l sending testimony to express mail? I understand all the 13 parties that are on this telephone conversation but should 14 we also be sendinging it to any of the towns or the State 15 of New Hampshire and if so, is it possible to delineate 16 which parties should be getting express mail service?

17 JUDGE WOLFE: Certainly New Hampshire, who is --

l 18 Mr. Bisbee, who was not available, should be served. What 19 are the other parties' views on this, on the matter of 20 l service? As I took it, when we issued our order of July 25,

, 21 we deemed only that the New Hampshire and SAPL, NECNP, 22 l Massachusetts -- I guess I said New Hampshire -- and 1

23 I Applicants and the Staff were actually the only parties.

24  : This is not to say that some other party or some other 25 l party whom I am unaware of or an interested governmental

(_,

) i I

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8@33MM6 _

27869.0 23 cox I

1 entity might not appear at the hearing. I don't know.

{' } _

2  ; They would have to-indicate that they have expressly shown 3 some interest, say, for example, in SAPL supplemental 4' contentions.

5 I think that's the only outstanding contention 6 that possibly there might be some other interested 7 l government entities. But I am just not certain. I am just l'

8 thinking out loud here. I think it's a good question. Do 9 the other parties have any suggestions on this? I am sure 10 you are also, if you are also serving written direct 11 testimony, you would be interested, all of you would be 12 interested upon whom to serve this testimony.

13 MR. BACKUS: Judge Wolfe, this is Bob Backus.

O- 14 My suggestion would be not to require express service to 15 anybody other than the parties in this conversation, other 16 than the State of New Hampshire, just for the very 17 practical fact that it costs a lot of money.

18 JUDGE WOLFE Right. You would suggest sending 19 copies of testimony just by usual mail to anyone else on 20 the service list?

21  ! MR. BACKUS: Yes.

I 22 JUDGE WOLFE: I see. Well, I think that's l

23 . possibly well taken, just to make certain that at least 24 i even if they are really not genuinely interested 25 sufficiently to proceed to cross-examine, I think it would (E) i i

I 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

I mm..

s _ u. c _ :.

L I I 1 i

27869.0 i 24 l cox  !

I

()

1 be an act of courtesy, certainly, to send it to, for 2 example, some of the various listed towns that are within 3 the area. So I think that's well taken.

4 I would suggest, then -- who was that, 5 i Mr. Perlis that asked the question essentially?

I 6  ! MR. PERLIS: Judge Wolfe, I think Mr. Backus' 7 suggestion is a good one.

8 JUDGE WOLFE: The thing to do then is that all 9 parties that I have noted and appear in the July 25 order 10 as being genuine parties as listed -- SAPL, NECNP, 11 Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Applicants and the Staff --

12 direct testimony shall be served upon them by express mail.

73 13 As to anyone else on the service list, they may be served

( ) .

14 by regular mail. Anything else?

15 MR. GAD: I would like to ask a follow-up. Bob 16 Gad for the Applicants.

17 JUDGE WOLFE: All right.

18 MR. GAD: How would the board prefer its copies 19 ! of testimony be dispensed?

20 l JUDGE WOLFE: Well, for -- do you mean by 21  ;

express mail or regular mail?

22 i MR. GAD: Precisely, your Honor, and I don't 23 mind disclosing to you that Boston Post Office is notorious i

24 , and if we did it ordinary mail it might be essier -- faster, 25 l rather, to hand carry it to the hearing. What I was l

< >)

%- l l i l l i

i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l l :oz.347 3:<vi saiion.iae coserame sott336-6s6 e

.! l i l

' 27869.0' t 25 i cox l

,. i 'i 1 loading up to was an inquity whether the hoard would like --

(']N

< 1 2 i we use Federal Express, which has to go to 4350, not the

1. ~

l 3 NRC Post Office. We are more than willing to do that but l 4 l we would like to know the board's preferences ll 5 l; JUDGE WOLFE: We would like to have any h

6l handwritten direct testimony to be in hand by, what did I l

l 7 I say, September 22. We would like to have as much time as 8 possible. Also, to review the testimony prior to ths 9 beginning of the hearing, and putting it in one package for 10 l all three board members, all right. I i

11 MR. GAD: Absolutely.

12 JUDGE WOLFE: Anything else? Well, thank you 13 very much. All right.

A 14 (Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the telephone 15 conference was concluded.)

16 17 1

18 l

19 -

20 ,

i 21 i, -

22 i 23 ,

24 l, 25 '

i

() l l.

! i-l 1

i l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. f

• E34I'3M f_afion .ide Coserage 800 336-6 4 6 1

CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER Y

O This is to cettify that the attached proceedings before

~

the UNITED $TA'fES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:

NAME OF PROCEEDING PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.

(SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2)

OOCXET KO.t 50-443 OL-1, 50-444 OL-1 PL. ACE : WASHINGTON, D.C.

DATE: FRIDAY, AUGUST 15, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original trknscript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

(sigt) ( EV (TYPED) y"

\ '/ 4 WENDY S. COX Official Reporter, ACE-FEDqRAL Reporter REPORTERS s Af filiation,INC.

O

.- -