ML20207N517

Transcript of 870112 Telcon in Washington,Dc.Pp 1-18

ML20207N517
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	01/12/1987
From:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#187-2233 OL, NUDOCS 8701140265
Download: ML20207N517 (20)

Text

.

9 O UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ORG NAL IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-361-OL 50-362-OL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al.

(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3)

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE O

LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D. C. PAGES: 1 18 DATE: MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 1987 1

f.-d f -

-0\

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

O j Offic:al Reporters t

444 North Capitol Street

! 1,;o e9 87011P Washington. D.C. 20001 1

h, tDD;g 0%3h5I (2d2) 347-3700 T

NATICMs tDE COVERACE

CR29429,0 OMT/sjg 1

[) 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA L

2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE 4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:  :

6  : Docket No. 50-361-OL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON  : 50-362-OL 7 COMPANY, et al.  :

8 (San Onofre Nuclear Generating  : TELEPHONE CONFERENCE Station, Units 2 and 3)  :

9  :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 10 11 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

Suite 402 444 North Capitol Street 12 Washington, D. C.

O)

(_ 13 Monday, January 12, 1987 14 15 The telephone conference in the above-entitled matter 16 convened at 1:00 p.m.

i 17 BEFORE:

18 I

JUDGE JAMES L. KELLEY, Chairman 19 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Washington, D. C. 20555 21 JUDGE ELIZABETH B. JOHNSON, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 23 l

24 !

O 25 a

-- continued --

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

!'33- _ - __ ..___ Nati nmide Coserage 800 336 4 46

2 1 APPEARANCES:

2

.On behalf of the Applicant:

3

- DAVE PICKETT, ESQ.

'4 5

6 On behalf of U. S. Nuclear.

7 Regulatory Commission Staff: '

8 LAWRENCE CHANDLER, ESQ.

9 10 11 On behalf of Intervenor:

12

, CHARLES McQUANG 13

. 14 i

15 16 1

17

! 18

[ 19 l 20 l

21 1

I 22 I

23 24 25 t

1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

I l02 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage _ _ . _. .__ _ _.800

-336-6o46

290 01 01 3 2 OMTbur 1 . PROCEEDINGS 2 (1: 00 p.m.)

3 JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you.

4 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

5 This telephone conference, as you know, is 6 pursuant to the Board's order of December 29.

7 We are on the '_ecord.

8 We are missing Judge Hand. I spoke with him 9 about this a while back. He indicated he might not be 10 available. Apparently, he is not. But I think Judge 11 Johnson and I can go ahead with it.

p 12 Let me ask Mr. McQuang. We did attempt to reach

! l 13 Ms. Gallagher, and I guess our last known address and phone 14 number, and the operator tells me that she was told that 15 Ms. Gallagher had moved from there sometime ago.

16 Have you been in touch with Ms. Gallagher 17 recently about this matter, Mr. McQuang?

18 i MR. MC QUANG: No, I haven't, your Honor. Ever 19 l since the end of the trial she has basically turned the

, i 20 l matter over to me and she hasn' t been involved in it.

21 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. So can we look to you as i

22 l sole counsel for Gard?

23 l MR. MC QUANG: Yes, sir.

f

(~} 24 ' JUDGE KELLEY: Is that fair and reasonable?

U 25 ' MR. MC QUANG: Yes, it is.

f ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

m.m- s _ m c- s_

290 01 02 4 1 OMTbur 1 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Does anybody else want to 2 comment on that switch? It seems reasonable to the Board.

3 Mr. Pickett, is that okay with you?

4 MR. PICKETT: No problem.

5 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Mr. Chandler?

6 MR. CHANDLER: No problem, Mr. Cnairman.

7 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. So we will consider that so 8 amended, and Mr. McQuang will be representing Gard.

9 Okay. We are here pursuant to the Board's order 10 of the 29th, and also of course it is by way of following up 11 and responding to the Commission's remand order of last 12 September and also the FEMA guidance memo of November 13, 13 which I gather was served on everybody in the form of a 14 Board notification.

15 Did you get that, Mr. McQuang?

16 MR. MC QUANG: Yes, sir.

17 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, and Mr. Pickett I gather has 18 it also?

19 MR. PICKETT: Yes, sir.

20 f JUDGE KELLEY: Let me ask Mr. Pickett if the i

21 Board correctly assumes that the Applicants want an 22 opportunity to demonstrate compliance with this new 23 ! guidance? Is that a fair assumption?

<~x 24 h MR. PICKETT: Yes, that is.

) il ss ;l 25 j JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

mm x_ m <-, x_

s 290 01 03 5 OMTbur 1 MR. PICKETT: We are in the process of 2 implementing the guidelines now.

3 JUDGE KELLEY: Right.

4 MR. PICKETT:~ And --

5 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.

6 MR. PICKETT: -- we certainly anticipate 7 implemonting them as quickly as we can, in a reasonably 8 short period of time.

9 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. The Board indicated in an 10 oral order that if you applied the -- you might call it the 11 generic implementation date in the Board notification and 12 the FEMA guidance memo. That would stretch out to July '88, G

b 13 as we understand'it, which struck us as a good bit longer 14 than necessary.

15 The main purpose of this call is to discuss an 16 earlier implementation date than that. The Board suggested 17 a tentative implementation date of April 1. There is no 18 special magic in that date, just a date not too far down the 19 road. But we put that out for consideration.

20 Let me just ask first Mr. Pickett what the 21 Applicants' reaction is to that deadline.

22 MR. PICKETT: If anything went right, the way we 23 are planning to implement it, we should be able to do it by

(^y 24 April 1. But inasmuch as a number of the activities involve

%i 25 cooperation by third parties outside the scope of this ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 Nationwide Coserage 80fk3346646

_,_ - ,3700

4290 01 04 6 1 OMTbur 1 proceeding really, it is difficult to commit to that date.

2 JUDGE KELLEY: I understand.

3 MR. PICKETT: We have got to get some 4 concurrences, I believe, from the Municipalities and some 5 arrangements from other sources.

6 We would be willing to try for April 1, but we 7 would actually like another 90 days more or less 8 insurance. We feel we could commit to a July 1 date, but 9 with an understanding that if we completed our 10 implementation earlier than that, that we would submit it 11 through whatever process we wind up with to start the 12 procedure earlier than July 1.

13 JUDGE KELLEY: So can I paraphrase and call that 14 a July 1 outside date with a best efforts date of whenever 15 e you can make it?

I 16 l MR. PICKETT: That would be correct.

17 I JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.

18 Let me ask then the other parties to comment on 19 the Board's proposal or Mr. Pickett's alternative proposal.

20 l Mr. McQuang.

21 ! MR. MC QUANG: Yes, sir. We believe that the i

22 ! Applicants have been doing this and following this procedure i

23 ' all the way along, and obviously we would like to get the

(3 24 i submittal from them as soon as possible. I think the April

\ ,'  !

25 i 1 date is pretty reasonable unless I hear some specific l

! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

I mm, x_ m- ,<-

4290 01 05 7 1 OMTbur 1 problems that they are running into with specific agencies 2 or something.

3 JUDGE KELLEY: So what would your -- is it your 4 proposal --

1 5 MR. MC QUANG: My recommendation would be to have 6 the April 1 date as some sort of submittal from them, at 7 least a status report by that particular date, and then if 8 they need more time obviously all of us are willing to work 9 with them for more time.

10 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, let me turn to

{

11 Mr. Chandler.

MR. CHANDLER: Mr. Chairman, as reflected in the 12 l i

13 ! guidance memorandum issued jointly by the Staff and FEMA, l

14 the date or the scheduling presented in there sort of 15 represents an outer bound for implementation of the 16 emergency medical service arrangements.

17 b Certainly if the Applicant is able to advance l

that date, we would be most interested in encouraging that.

18 f ;

19 l We would be satisfied certainly if July 1 is achievable. If 20 i that date can be bettered, obviously we would be encouraging 21 l that as well.

l~

22 : But from our perspective July 1 would be I

23 satisfactory.

24 l JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I understand you, 25 l Mr. Chandler and Mr. Pickett, to be in essential agreement.

t ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

mm , _ &< - -

290 01 06 8 1 OMThur 1 Do you --

2 MR. CHANDLER: Staff is in agreement with 3 Mr. Pickett, that is correct.

4 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, and just to repeat, 5 Mr. Quang, you are favoring an April 1 deadline, with the 6 idea that if they can't make it by April 1 they could give a 7 status report and then request some additional time.

8 Is that a fair paraphrase of your view of it?

9 MR. MC QUANG: Yes, sir, that is.

10 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.

11 Now, what Ms. Johnson and I -- now this is -- as 7, 12 I said, the main purpose of this call is to get the time 13 parameter, and Ms. Johnson and I perhaps ought to just 14 discuss this a bit after this call and then issue a short 15 order setting forth whatever we decide, which obviously will 16 be somewhere in the parameters of the two points that have 17 been made. But we will just have to spell that out.

18 Looking down the road just a little bit, and not 19 i by way of trying to really decide anything, but just to make 20 sure that we are thinking along the same lines, in terms of i

the kind of a filing that you would be making, Mr. Pickett, 21 l i

22 ' oh, in terms of say the list of facilities, I assume that 23 < it is your thoughts unless you had already filed were t

~

24 ' adequate and need to just reference them or refile them, is

( ')

25 that correct?

l l

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

n w. ~ ~ - - - --

1-290 01 07 9 ,

1 OMTbur 1 MR. PICKETT: That would be correct.

2 JUDGE KELLEY: And then if you are required to l

3 go through some sort of drill or exercise, would you go 4 through the drill or the exercise and then file some sort of 5 written description of what you did; is that what we would 6 expect?

7 MR. PICKETT: Well, that raises a question.

i 8 JUDGE KELLEY: I am not saying that is exactly 9 what it ought to be. I am just trying to elicit some notion 10- of what we can expect.

11 MR. PICKETT: Well, what we would like to see 12 would be that when we have put together our implementation O)

\

that it would be submitted, and submitted to the NRC 13 14 Staff / FEMA, for their review as to whether or not it meets 15 the guidelines.

16 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.

17 MR. PICKETT: And that after that kind of a 18 review we would then be in a position to determine whether 19 or not there are any hearing issues left.

20 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.

21 MR. PICKETT: Now, we do not contemplate any 22 drills with respect to plan implementation. I assume that

23 drills will be nececessary under the guidelines and the l

24 regular emergency planning procedures after that, but for l

i 25 purposes of implementing these guidelines and complying with ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

3G 3413700 Nationside Coserage 800-336-6M6

290 01 08 10 1 OMTbur- 1 the remand, we consider that the plan modifications should 2 be adequate.

3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Again, I don't mean to 4 raise or decide any issue today, but just to get some 5 helpful notion of what the various parties may be thinking 6 about.

7 Ultimately, you are going to put together an 8 implementation package of some kind, and that is going to 9 reflect --

10 MR. PICKETT: Correct.

11 JUDGE KELLEY: -- your understanding of what the 12 guidance requires. It may reflect what you think FEMA O 13 thinks you should do. And you will file it, and Mr. McQuang 14 for his client may or may not be satisfied with it. But we 15 would then decide in sort of a contention context whether it 16 was satisfactory or not. Is that fair?

17 MR. PICKETT: No, I think that is where we 18 probably looked at it a little bit differently, 19 Mr. Chairman.

20 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.

21 MR. PICKETT: We would look that after our 22 submittal of the package or after our putting the package 23 together --

('

24 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.

25 MR. PICKETT: -- that prior to Mr. McQuang and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.-

me.m ~m_ m o_,, ~~

i.

290 01 09 11 1 OMTbur 1 his clients reviewing it for purposes of issue spotting, 2 that there would be an NRC/ FEMA review.

3 .TUDGE KELLEY: I didn't mean to disagree with 4 that.

5 MR. PICKETT: Okay.

6 JUDGE KELLEY: Fine.

7 Now, Mr. McQuang, isn' t it sensible? If there is 8 going to be a FEMA review of this implementation package, it 9 seems sensible that it go ahead and go through that process 10 before it goes into the contention stage; wouldn't you 11 agree?

i 12 MR. MC QUANG: I think that would be helpful for

~

13 formulating contentions.

14 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. Yes, right.

15 MR. MC QUANG: I don't want to do the work of 16 FEMA.

17 f JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.

i All right. So to restate, Mr. McQuang, at the 18 l 19l4 risk of being somewhat repetitious here, you will do what

)

20 I you think you need to do; you will submit it to the Staff i

21 ! and FEMA; the Staff and FEMA will review it and presumably 22 ! react in some way to it; and then you would file it with the i

23 Board.

7 24 Is that correct?

s' y 25 h MR. MC QUANG: That would be our suggestion, d

9 j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

. mm. n . , s_ am_m m . o w.

290 01 10 12 1 OMTbur 1 yes.

2 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Chandler, does that sound 3 right to you?  !

4 MR. CHANDLER: I think that is reasonable, 5 Mr. Chairman. In fact, we had hoped to have with us this 6 morning on the call some representative of FEMA, but we were 7 not able to in the last minute get ahold of him.

8 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.

9 MR. CHANDLER: But, yes, we would expect that 10 once the licensee has submitted its plan it will be subject 11 to FEMA review and that subsequently would be an appropriate 12 time for Mr. McQuang to identify any issues the Intervenors

~

13 might have on this point. It is, after all, an offsite 14 emergency plan.

15 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.

16 e JUDGE JOHNSON: Question?

I i

17 ' JUDGE KELLEY: Yes, right.

18 JUDGE JOHNSON: Would this happen after formal 19 lj comment by the NRC Staff and FEMA on the plan?

20 JUDGE KELLEY: The contentions submission?

21 ! JUDGE JOHNSO!!: Yes.

22 , JUDGE KELLEY: I think that is what you are 23 suggesting, is that right? Contentions come in after the e' 24 Staff and FEMA have reviewed the implementation?

25 i MR. CHANDLER: That would be the Staff's i

r, I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

i  : m n., w ,_ m_, y m o w .m

290 01 11 13 1 OMTbur 1 position, that is correct.

2 JUDGE KELLEY: Fine.

3 MR. PICKETT: That is also the Applicants' 4 position.

5 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. And I think Mr. McQuang 6 agrees with that, too?

7 MR. MC OUANG: That is right. I have no problem 8 with that.

9 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, perhaps we need not 10 anticipate beyond that. I think just getting this much in 11 the record is helpful.

12 I would be happy to entertain questions or 13 suggestions for other things we ought to take up now. Let 14 me just start with the Applicant.

15 Do you think you need anything else from your 16 perspective at this point?

17 MR. PICKETT: The only question that arises in my 18 mind, Mr. Chairman, is in the order you are going to put out 19 with a date on it.

l 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.

21 MR. PICKETT: Would that date refer to our 22  ! submittal to NRC/ FEMA for their review, or what date would f 23 that be directed toward?

24 JUDGE KELLEY: I was thinking of a date for 25 l submission to the Board and parties. We can discuss that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

2(12 347 3hul Natioriwide Cos erante Nn34Ne

14 4290 01 12 further if you don't think that is appropriate.

OMTbur 1 2 But I mean, we are the Board and we are 3 setting -- we don't really care what day you submit a piece 4 of paper to FEMA or the Staff. We are really interested in 5 when you are going to submit it to us.

6 MR. PICKETT: Okay. I guess then -- I think from 7 the way the conversation has gone we are probably talking 8 about the submittal to the Board and parties for issue --

9 JUDGE KELLEY: Right.

10 MR. PICKETT: -- spotting, as it were --

I 11 JUDGE KELLEY: Right.

i 12 MR. PICKETT: -- being the sort of the second 13 round. We would have submitted it to NRC for their review 14 and NRC would have reviewed it, given us some kind of a i

15 l position on it --

16 JUDGE KELLEY: Right.

l 17 I MR. PICKETT: -- and then we would submit it to 18 the Board and parties for potential hearing purposes.

19 JUDGE KELLEY: R ig ht . That seems reasonable.

20 l MR. CHANDLER: Mr. Chair- ,, this is Mr. Chandler I

21 for a moment.

22 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.

23 MR. CilANDLER: I am not sure that procedure,

,e m ,

24 though, won' t j ust involve some unnecessary delay, that if i J l 25 [ the licensee were to provide copies to the Board and

?

I j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

, 3,m m . , ,_m_ --

290 01 13 15 I OMTbur 1 parties of their submittal to the Staff --

2 JUDGE KELLEY: You are right. That might speed 3 the whole thing up.

4 MR. CHANDLER: I think it would be beneficial 5 from that standpoint, Mr. Chairman, and the parties would 6 then be aware of that document being reviewed by the Staff 7 and, most importantly, by PEMA.

8 JUDGE KELLEf: We would then, I assume, await the 9 result of the FEMA review before we entertained contentions 10 that might benefit the Intervenors to have the FEMA review.

11 MR. CHANDLER: Correct.

, 12 JUDGE KELLEY: But they would at least have it in 13 hand earlier in time, and so would the Board.

14 MR. CHANDLER: Yes.

15 JUDGE KELLEY: That may be a better idea.

16 Do you agree with that, Mr. Pickett?

17 MR. PICKETT: We could comply with that, O

18 F Mr. Chairman.

l 19 l JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead and serve the Board and 20 the parties and FEMA at the same time, with the idea that 21 contentions then wouldn't be ripe for submission until after 22 the FEMA analysis came in. Sound all right?

23 l MR. PICKETT: That is fine with us.

24 ' MR. MC OUANG: That sounds all right to me.

)

~_

25 !! JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. McQuang?

I

i 1

! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

i :o:-., s .,_ am . m.amo

~- . -_

i l

16 4 290 OMTbur01 14 1 MR. MC QUANG: Yes, sir.

2 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.

3' MR. CHANDLER: Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Chandler 4 again.

5 A question, though, of Mr. Pickett: would it be 6 possible for Mr. Pickett to indicate whether that date then 7 would track with his July 1 date, or sooner if possible?

8 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I am assuming --

9 MR. PICKETT: Yes, that is the date I was 10 thinking of. ,

11 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Yes, you were thinking, 12 from what you just said and what I assumed anyway, was that

( 13 when you cay maybe by April but give us till July you meant 14 for simultaneous submission to the Board and parties and 15 FEMA?

16 MR. PICKETT: That is correct.

4 17 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, I understand.

18 MR. PICKETT: Which means there would be a little-19 bit longer before NRC got back and before we are in a

]

20 position to define any issues that may be outstanding.

21 JUDGE KELLEY: Correct, okay.

22 Well, let's see, I guess I was asking you, 23 ! Mr. Pickett, if you had other things and we got this date 24 clarified.

25 Anything else, Mr. Pickett?

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.

202 347 37(U Nationwide Coserage 8tUdh N46

17 I

4 290 OMTbur01 15 1

I MR. PICKETT: No, I don't believe so.

2, JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Mr. McQuang, anything else?

?

3 MR. MC QUANG: No, that will be fine.

4 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, Mr. Chandler?

5 MR. CHANDLER: Not at this time, Mr. Chairman.

6 JUDGE KELLEY: Judge Johnson, have we covered 7 this waterfront?

8 JUDGE JOHNSON: I think so, quite well.

9 JUDGE KELLEY: Why don't I call you back later 10 today or tomorrow morning about this? Okay?

11 JUDGE JOHNSON: Fine.

12 l JUDGE KELLEY: And the n for now we will sign of f, i

13 i thanking you all for participating, and Judge Johnson and I, 14 if we can reach Judge lland, which I hope we can, will decide 15 this submission deadline question within the confines of

, 16 f what we talked about, and we will put out a short i

17 ! confirmatory order.

1 Okay?

18 ]

ll 19 l MR. CHANDLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

20 I JUDGE KELLEY: Anything else from anybody else?

21 (No response.)

22 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, thank you very much. Maybe 23 f I will call you tomorrow.

,/^ 24 JUDGE JOllNSON: Fine. Thanks, Jim.

25 JUDGE KELLEY: Rig ht , fine. Thank you. ,

l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -

x nm., s .,m ,, u s ~ .. m. . m,, ~. v, l

r l

4290 01 16 18 OMTbur 1 (Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the telephone 2 conference was adjourned.)

3 4

5 6

7 8l, 9 .

10 11 ,

i 12 l n

CJ 13 14 ,

15 16 17 l 18 i il 19 f 20

'l 21 ]

i ,

22 I

l l

23 j n 24 ,

(a) 2 5 ':i i

l ACE-FEDERAL REPortrEIRS, INC.

m: ,r c.., s, . _ . m . _ , , _. _ , , , , , _

l .

CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER r

v This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:

NAME OF PROCEEDING: SOUTiiERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al.

(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3)

DOCKET NO.: -

50-361-OL 50-362-OL PLACE: WASIIINGTON, D. C.

p' (j DATE: MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 1987 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

(sigt) M k. $:r (TYPED) N JOSEPl! R. MAGGIO Official Reporter ACE-FEDIjRAL RPPORTERS INC.

Reporter s Affiliation, m.

(V