ML20209J200
| ML20209J200 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/10/1986 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-744 OL-1, NUDOCS 8609160187 | |
| Download: ML20209J200 (44) | |
Text
ORLGINAL 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.
EMERGENCY PLANNING AND (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
SAFETY ISSUES O
LOCATION:
WASHINGTON, D.
C.
PAGES:
26 - 68 DATE:
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1986 l
f bl
/'q ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OfficialReporters
(
444 North tolStreet Washington, C. 20001 8609160187 e60910
$DR
/, D O N O500 3
NATIONWIDE COVERACE
26 28098.0 00000101
'7
(');marysimons 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMilISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING POARD 4
5 TELEPHONE C0KFERENCE 6
l
X 7
In the Matter of:
- Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-1 50-444 OL-1 1
3 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
. Onsite Energency Planning NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
- and Safety Issues 9,j (Seabrook Station, Units i
?
10 ;
and 2) i
________________x 11 12 l.
Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
~
Suite 402
/(-
444 North chpitol Street
'u 13,
Washington, D.C.
l, I
14 Wednesday, September 10, 1986 15 The telephone prehearing conference in the above-16 entitled matter convened at 2:10 p.m.
(
17 BEFORE:
18 JUDGE SHELDON J. WOLFE, Ch' airman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 19 U.$. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20 JUDGE EMMETH A. LUEBKE, Member 21 Atomic Safety and Licensjng Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22 Washington, D.C.
23 JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 24 U.S. Nuclear Regulator *,' Comrission Washington, D.C.
k ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2 & 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3M-e6to
. m-
27
/_
00000101 marysimons 1
APPEARANCES:
2 On Behalf of the Applicant:
3 THOMAS B.
DIGNAN, ESQ.
Ropes and Gray 4
225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 5
On Behalf of the NRC:
6 SHERWIN E.
TURK, ESQ.
7 ROBERT PERLIS, ESQ.
EDWIN REIS, ESQ.
8 Office of General Counsel - Bethesda U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
Washington, D.C.
20555 10 On Behalf of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, Town of Hampton Falls and South Hampton:
11 ROBERT A. BACKUS, ESQ.
12 Backus, Meyer & Soloman
(-
13 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 116 Lowell Street 14 On Behalf of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Enerav:
15 DIANE CURRAN, ESQ.
16 Harmon & Weiss 2001 S Street, N.W.
17 Suite 430 Washington, D.C.
18 On Behalfagf the Massachusetts Attorney General:
"taGr-SCHNEIDER, ESQ.
20
?.co,., tant Attorney General Department of Attorney General 21 Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place 22 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 23 On Behalf of the State of New Hampshire:
3 24 GEORGE DANA BISBEE, ESQ.
New Hampshire Attorney General's Office j
25 25 Capitol Street (j()
Concord, New Hampshire 03301 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
28 00000101
.k'Smarysimons V
1 PROCEEDINGS 2
JUDGE WOLFE:
This is Wolfe speaking.
I am on 3
the loud speaker in my office with Judges Luebke and 4
Harbour in attendance here.
5 Just to be certain now I will call back once 6
again the names.
7 Mr. Backus.
8 MR. BACKUS:
Yes, I'm here.
9 JUDGE WOLFE:
Ms. Curran.
10 MS. CURRAN:
Here.
11 JUDGE WOLFE:
Ms. Sneider.
12 MS. SNEIDER:
Here.
13 JUDGE WOLFE:
Mr. Bisbee.
14 MR. BISBEE:
yes, sir.
15 JUDGE WOLFE:
Mr. Gad.
16 (No response.)
17 Mr. Dignan or Mr. Gad.
18 MR. DIGNAN:
Tom Dignan is here, yes, sir.
19 JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
Just a moment.
20 (Pause.)
21 Mr. Perlis.
22 MR. PERLIS:
Here.
23 JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
This telephone 24 conversation as you know is being transcribed, and if you 25 would, if you have anything to state, before stating it ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
xxxx 01 01 29 SIMsjg 1
would you identify yourselves by name so that the reporter 2
will know who is speaking.
3 We are informing you that the Board will soon be 4
issuing a memorandum and order with one Board Member 5
partially dissenting.
The memorandum and order partially 6
grants applicant's motion for summary disposition, which 7
was supported by the Staff, with respect to SAPL's 8
Supplemental Contention 6.
9 What I will do is I won't go into the entire 10 memorandum.
I will just read off to you the order portion 11 of the memorandum and order so that you will know what 12 aspects or portion of SAPL's Supplemental C9ntention 6 13 remains to be heard so that the written testimony can be j
14 prepared.
The order portion of the memorandum and order 15 reads as follows, and I will try to read it as slowly as I 16 can in the event that you want to write it down.
17 Paragraph 1:
The Board partially grants the 18 motion for summary disposition in the following respects:
19 a.
The displays and controls added, or to be 20 added, to the control room as a result of the DCRDR do not 21 increase the potential for operator error.
22 b.
While all items addressed in the DCRDR are 23 not currently at an optimum, i.e.,
incomplete, and 24 corrective action is to be deferred until the next refueling 25 outage, there is reasonable assurance that the safety of ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
. - _ _ 3)2_347 3700.. _ _. _ _. _ _ _..., _ _... ~.., _,
xxxx 01 02 30 SIMsjg 1
the population in the immediate vicinity of the plant will 2
be protected.
3 Paragraph 2:
The Board partially denies the 4
motion for summary disposition in the following respect:
5 Since the SPDS is not currently at an optimum, 6
i.e.,
incomplete, in light of the deficiencies which are 7
listed in Draft License No. NPF-56 at C-9 and in light of 8
five additional deficiencies which will be listed in 9
Supplement 6 to the SER, there is no reasonable assurance 10 that, in deferring improvement to the SPDS until the first 11 refueling outage, the safety of the population in the 12 immediate vicinity of the plant will be protected.
13 Paragraph 3:'
With respect to paragraph 2, above, 14 SAPL may and the staff and/or the applicants shall present 15 written explanatory testimony upon the issue of whether or 16 not, in light of the fact that the SPDS is not currently at 17 an optimum, i.e.,
incomplete, because of the aforementioned 18 deficiencies, there is reasonalbe assurance that, in 19 deferring improvements to the SPDS until the first refueling 20 outage, the safety of the population in the immediate 21 vicinity of the plant will be protected.
22 That is the conclusion of the order.
23 Is there any part that anybody wants me to reread 24 in whole or in part?
25 MR. DIGNAN:
Judge Wolfe, I would greatly ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
E-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6686
31
) arysimons 1
appreciate it if you would read 2-A, and because of the 2
sound switching capability of the phones what happens is 3
when you stop it doesn't pick up, and if you could just 4
read it straight through.
I lost about half of that.
5 JUDGE WOLFE:
There is no paragraph 2-A.
6 MR. DIGNAN:
Then it is Paragraph 2.
7 JUDGE WOLFE:
Okay.
8 MR. DIGNAN:
It begins partially denies in the 9
following respects, and then I got since the SPDS is not, 10 and then I lost it after that.
11 JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
I will re-read what is 12 Paragraph 2.
13 MR. DIGNAN:
Okay.
14 JUDGE WOLFE:
The Board partially denies the 15 motion for summary disposition in the following respects:
16 l Since the SPDS is not currently at an optimum, i.e.,
17 incomplete, in light of the deficiencies which are listed 18 in Draft License No. NPF-56 at 3-9 and in light of five 19 additional deficiencies which will be listed in Supplement i
20 6 to the SER, there is no reasonable assurance that, in i
l 21 deferring improvements to the SPDS until the f$rst 22 refueling outage, the safety of the population in the 23 immediate vicinity of the plant will be protected.
24 MR. DIGNAN:
Thank you very much, Your Honor, I 25 appreciate it.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
32 00000101
' I_
carysimons 1
JUDGE WOLFE:
Right.
Any other re-reading 2
necessary?
3 (No response.)
4 If not, I will proceed.
5 MR. BACKUS:
Judge Wolfe, could you also just 6
read the next paragraph.
I didn't get all of that.
7 JUDGE WOLFE:
Which one was that, Mr. Backus?
8 MR. BACKUS:
That had to do with the discussion 9
of SAPL may and I think the staff and the applicant submit 10 explanatory evidence.
11 JUDGE WOLFE:
I will reread what is Paragraph 3.
12 With respect to Paragraph 2, above, SAPL may and 13 the staff and/or applicant shall submit written explanatory 14 testimony on the issue of whether or not, in light of the 15 fact that the SPDS is not currently at an optimum, i.e.,
16 incomplete, because of the aforementioned deficiencies, 17 there is reasonable assurance that, in deferring 18 improvements to the SPDS until the first refueling outage, 19 the safety of the population in the immediate vicinity of i
i 20 the plant will be protected.
21 MR. BACKUS:
Thank you.
22 JUDGE WOLFE:
Right.
23 I would add, because we are going to discuss 24 certain outstanding discovery motions, I would add that the 25 Board concluded in the memorandum and order that the timing ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 3)2 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
_ - _- - _.---.-.- -,.-347-3700-.-.- _..----___- _ _. ___.-_... _ -. _ _ _.
33 00000101
/
marysimons 1
of implementation was implicitly raised in SAPL 2
Supplemental Contention 6.
I can tell you that much that I 3
have excerpted from the memorandum and order that you will 4
understand some of our sub3equent rulings with respect to 5
the outstanding discovery motion.
6 All right.
We now will proceed and want to rule 7
on these outstanding discovery motions.
8 MS. SNEIDER:
Judge Wolfe?
i 9
JUDGE WOLFE:
Yes.
I had a comment on this 10 order, that SAPL, the staff and the applicants are the only 11 ones who will be allowed to present testimony on this 12 issue.
The Commonwealth did indicate an interest in 13 presenting testimony.
14 JUDGE WOLFE:
Is that written testimony, Ms.
15 Sneider?
16 MS. SNEIDER:
Yes.
Well, we are consulting with 17 some experts now on the possibility of presenting 18 testimony, and I can't say for certain ---
19 JUDGE WOLFE:
Well, I wasn't aware that you had 20 that mind.
Of course, as an interested State you may 21 present written testimony, yes.
22 MS. SNEIDER:
Thank you.
23 JUDGE WOLFE:
Does anyone else have any 24 questions or comments?
25 (No response.)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
34 00000101
(
marysimons 1
Does SAPL or any other interested governmental i
2 entity wish to present ---
3 MR. BISBEE:
Your Honor, I don't anticipate that 4
New Hampshire would want to present testimony.
5 JUDGE WOLFE:
It is understanding of the ruling 6
that only the party who has sponsored or proposed a 7
contention and an interested government entity may submit 8
testimony on that contention.
That is my understanding.
9 Well, let's see, I guess Ms. Curran of NECNP 10 will not be permitted to submit written direct testimony.
11 Of course you may participate, Ms. Curran, in.the line of 12 cross-examination.
)
13 Is that understood, Ms. Curran?
14 MS. CURRAN:
Yes.
15 JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
I would suggest that 16 the parties have before them in the following order --
17 Judge Harbour brought up the filing of the prefiled written 18 testimony.
That remains at September 19th, does it not, or 19 should we discuss that after we have completed a ruling on 20 these discovery motions?
21 I think perhaps we can hold off on that 22 question.
j 23 I will put this on mute for just a moment.
Hold 24 on and I will be right back with you.
25 (Pause.)
D ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6686
35 00000101 marysimons l
1 JUDGE WOLFE:
Hello, Judge Wolfe again.
2 Is everyone there.
3 (All parties on the line.)
4 I think it would be helpful is the parties' 1
5 counsel would have before them, first, the staff's response i
6 to SAPL's interrogatories, et cetera, dated August 25, it 7
would also be helpful if you would have before you that 8
protective order dated August 25, and it would be helpful 9
if you had before you the motion to compel responses to 10 interrogatories, et cetera, dated December 3 and we will 11 expecting, if need be, certain responses from SAPL and Mr.
12 Perlis or possibly counsel for parties involved in this
[)
13 discovery.
We have read these discovery documents, and of l
14 course we have read SAPL's interrogatories.
15 Our first ruling will be it is clear from the 16 documents before aus, and ordinarily where there is an 17 outstanding motion to compel Mr. Perlis would be expected j
18 to compel.
19 I guess, Mr. Perlis, you would have responded to 20 SALP's motion to compel?
21 MR. PERLIS:
We were planning on doing that, 22 that is correct.
23 JUDGE WOLFE:
Well, I think in order to save 24 time and if there is any problem with the Board's ruling, 25 let us know now so that we can take that into ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
36 00000101 c.
marysimons 1
consideration.
2 I think that on most of these matters that the 3
discovery documents themselves, the arguments made are 4
subject to a Board ruling without more.
5 If you think, for example, Mr. Perlis, and I 6
haven't counted noses here on how we ruled, if after ruling 7
you think the ruling should have been otherwise, why let us 8
know.
9 Mr. Backus, on the other hand, I think you have 10 lost this right that you had insofar as presenting 11 argument; is that correct, Mr. Backus?
12 MR. BACKUS:
I gather so, without being 13 absolutely sure, but I gather so.
If you say so.
14 (Laughter.)
15 JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
16 MR. BACKUS:
If we have, we have.
17 JUDGE WOLFE:
In the first place, the Board 18 grants SAPL's motion to compel.
19 The Board denies the staff motion for protective 20 order.
21 With respect to SAPL's Interrogatories 6 through i
22 9 which are addressed to the safety parameter display 23 system, because the interrogatories are within the scope of l
24 SAPL Supplemental Contention 6 and appear reasonably l
25 calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
. ~..
37 00000101
( O marysimons 4
1 accordingly the staff must answer Interrogatories 6 through j
2 9.
3 The reason we are so holding in, as I said i
4 earlier, our memorandum and order, is we deem timing of 5
implementation be implicitly raised in SAPL Supplemental l
6 Contention 6.
Also, we in that memorandum and order denied 7
applicant's motion for summary disposition, which was 8
supported by staff with respect to the SPDS.
9 MR. PERLIS:
Judge Wolfe?
10 JUDGE WOLFE:
Yes.
11 MR. PERLIS:
I would point out that under 12 27.20(H) of the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR the 1
13 standards to be used for discovery against the staff if 14-whether answers are necessary to the proceedings, necessary 15 to a decision in the proceedings and not the general 16 standard applicable to other parties or whether it will 17 lead to admissible evidence.
18 Having said that, however, in light of the 19 Board's ruling on the SPDS issue, we will voluntarily waive 20 any objection we have under 27.20(H) and we will answer 21 Interrogatories 6 through 9.
22 (Pause.)
23 JUDGE WOLFE:
I am just looking at something.
I 24 will be right with you.
25 (Pause.)
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
38 I _
00000101
}marysimons 4
1 Then, secondly, the Board denies SAPL's motion 2
to compel, that motion for protective order with respect to 3
SAPL's Interrogatories 10 through 14 and the staff does not 4
have to answer SAPL's Interrogatories 10 through 14.
5 The reason for this ruling is that the 6
memorandum and order granted applicant's motion for summary 7
disposition with respect to the detailed control room 8
design review issue, and the Interrogatories 10 through 14 9
are not relevant to any subject now before the Board.
10 In extent of this, we grant SAPL's motion to 11 compel and deny the staff motion for protective order to j
l 12 SAPL Interrogatory 15, but only upon the condition that the
! /
V 13 inte~rrogatory is understood to be addressed only to the 14 SPDS.
15 Any questions, Mr. Backus?
16 MR. BACKUS:
Your Honor, I an afraid the 17 telephone kind of cut out and I missed the last part of 18 your statement, if you could repeat it.
Did you just ask 19 for a reaction to that?
20 JUDGE WOLFE:
Yes.
Well, not a reaction, but 21 any comment or whatever, or Mr. Perlis.
22 MR. BACKUS:
Well, Your Honor, what I understand 23 to have happened here so far is that you are making orders 24 on the interrogatories that follow from your first order on 25 the summary disposition and saying that was a condition l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
39 00000101
~,
( O ysimons mar 1
that the interrogatory subpoena will be answered insofar as 2
it relates to the SPDS.
3 JUDGE WOLFE:
Right.
4 MR. BACKUS:
Then I understand it.
5 MR. PERLIS:
The staff understands it as well.
6 JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
7 Thirdly, we deny SAPL's motion to compel as to 8
that motion for a protective order with respect to 9
Interrogatories 16 through 19 for two reasons.
10 First, Items II.1, IIB.3, IIF.1, IIF.2 of NUREG 11 0737 referred to in these interrogatories are beyond the 12 scope of SAPL's Supplemental Contention 6 which relates
)
13 only to Items ID.1 and ID.2.
14 Second, our memorandum and order on applicant's 15 motion for summary disposition with respect to these DCRDR, 16 it is no longer an issue in this proceeding.
17 Is that understood?
18 (No response.)
19 All right.
20 The Board denies SAPL's motion to compel and the 21 staff's motion for protective order with respect to 22 Interrogatory 24 to place the Salem ATWS outside the scope 23 of SAPL's Supplemental Contention 6 and, second, 24 Interrogatory 24 involving the DCRDR issue has been 25 dismissed in the Board's memorandum and order.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
40 00000101
.s l ( O arysimons t
i 1
The Board has some problem with determining what i
2 to rule with respect to SAPL Interrogatory 21.
With 3
respect to SAPL's Interrogatory 21, as objected, the i
4 interrogatory was too vague and was incomprehensible.
5 However, it its motion to compel SAPL states that a phone j
6 call initiated by the staff, that in such a phone call SAPL 7
clarified the purposes of the interrogatory.
8 Now, Mr. Perlis, in light of what SAPL says at j
9 the top of page 4 of its motion to compel dated September i
10 3,
in light of that telephone call, whatever your i
11 understanding now is with SAPL, do you now withdraw 1
12 objections to Interrogatory 217
)
13 MR. PERLIS:
In light of SAPL's motion to i
14 compel, we would withdraw our objection that it is vague 15 and incomprehensible.
At first glance though it seems to 16 me that this is still beyond the scope even insofar as we j
17 are examining the SPDS system.
18 '
JUDGE HARBOUR:
Mr. Perlis, are you aware of the i
19 existence of this program manual mentioned by the 1
20 applicant?
Has the staff seen it?
i 21 MR. PERLIS:
One second, please.
22 (Pause.)
23 The staff reviewer for the SPDS system has not i
24 looked at it.
He is here right now and he tells me that he 25 is not certain whether the staff consultants have looked at lb l
l I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800336696
41 00000101
[ [A marysimons V
1 it.
2 JUDGE HARBOUR:
Does the staff have it in its 3
possession?
4 MR. PERLIS:
I believe the answer to that 5
question is no, we do not.
6 JUDGE WOLFE:
Can you or can you not answer the 7
question in light of the fact that you don't have the 8
manual?
9 MR. PERLIS:
Can I have a second here, Judge?
10 JUDGE HARBOUR:
Yes.
11 (Pause.)
12 MR. PERLIS:
Judge, could I have your question
()
13 again, please?
I think I have an answer, but I want to 14 make sure I understand the question correctly.
15 JUDGE WOLFE:
Can you answer SAPL Interrogatory l
16 21 in spite of the fact that you don't have the program 1
17 manual in your possession?
18 MR. PERLIS:
I can answer it for the NRC staff 19 in Bethesda.
If our consultants have analyzed it, it is 20 not clear to us from the documentation we have received 21 from them.
22 JUDGE KARBOUR:
The other question is how do you 23 know it is outside the scope of the contention if you 24 haven't seen the manual?
25 MR. PERLIS:
Because it is our interpretation of ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 3346M6 L
42 00000101 marysimons 1
the contention that the contention goes to whether they 2
have designed an SPDS system for receiving information and 3
that would not, we can argue, get into the details of the 4
computer programming for that system.
It would rather go 5
to what type of information the system makes available to I
6 the operators.
7 We don't understand the question of how the 8
program manual exchanges information has relevant to the 9
question of what information the operators will get from I
10 their SPDS, and it is that item, the information available 11 to the operators, that we view as the focus of the 12 contention as it relates to the SPDS.
)
13 JUDGE WOLFE:
Mr. Backus, anything to comment 14 upon?
15 MR. BACKUS:
Judge Wolfe, this question seems to 16 us to be pertinent because it goes to the information that 17 is going to be provided into the SPDS system as we 18 understand it and therefore to the reliability of the 19 system.
20 JUDGE WOLFE:
Hold on, we are going on aute 21 now.
I will be right back with you.
22 (Pause.)
23 JUDGE WOLFE:
Judge Harbour has a question to 24 address to Mr. Perlis.
25 JUDGE HARBOUR:
Mr. Perlis, can you answer ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
43
(.
00000101 marysimons 1
whether that manual has to do with the interface between a 2
computer in the SPDS and some other computer?
3 MR. PERLIS:
I can't answer that question, 4
Judge.
I just don't know.
5 JUDGE HARBOUR:
Can a staff person with you 6
answer the question?
7 MR. PERLIS:
No.
I have just consulted with him 8
and he can't either, 9
JUDGE WOLFE:
Back on aute.
10 (Pause.)
11 JUDGE WOLFE:
In light of the staff's 12 statements, and since Interrogatory 21 as posed states that
()
13 whatever is at issue here in the question is relative to 14 the SPDS, we deem that the staff must reply, and 15 accordingly SAPL's motion to compel is granted with respect 16 to Interrogatory 21.
17 Next we will deal with respect to SAPL's motion 18 to compel answers to Interrogatories 1, 5,
23, 25 and 26 l
19 which relate to SAPL Supplemental Contention 6 and 20 Interrogatories 1 and 5 relate which relate to NECNP IB.2 21 SAPL's motion to compel complains that the staff 22 did not list names of documents that it might rely on in 23 the proceeding and/or did not provide a copy of each.
24 Before we get into a discussion of this, the 25 Board notes initially that to the extent these ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33M446
44 00000101 I
marysimons O
1 interrogatories relate to DCRDR, the motion to compel is 2
denied and DCRDR has been dismissed in the Board's 3
memorandum and order as an issue.
4 More particularly I direct the parties, 5
particularly SAPL and the staff to SAPL Interrogatories 5 6
and 26.
On their face these interrogatories do not have to 7
be answered because they relate to DCRDR, and of course we 8
deny the motion to compel particularly with respect to 9
those two interrogatories, but elsewhere we will hear the 10 parties out, particularly Mr. Perlis.
11 What do you have to say, Mr. Perlis, with 12 respect to not listing documents with respect to the SPDS 13 issue?
14 MR. PERLIS:
Judge, we will be happy to provide 15 Mr. Backus with a list of all of the documents the staff 16 relied upon as they relate to the SPDS.
17 JUDGE WOLFE:
Now is that satisfactory, Mr.
18 Backus?
j 19 MR. BACKUS:
Yes, certainly, Judge Wolfe.
20 JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
21 Now, once again, at the conclusion of this we 22 have to pick a time for the furnishing of these listings, 23 and also for a period of production of the documents.
24 Along this line, Mr. Perlis, you have indicated 25 that you would make -- well, certainly these requested ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
i 45 00000101 f
}marysimons 1
documents, you would produce them.
2 What is your procedure with respect to the 3
production of documents?
You will make them available at 4
your office, Mr. Perlis, or how will you handle that?
5 MR. PERLIS:
Once second, Judge.
6
.(Pause.)
7 Judge, I am just trying to check the list to see j
8 which ones would be available in the Public Document Room i
9 up there.
A lot of them are Seabrook letters to the NRC 10 which SAPL would already have that are publicly docketed i
11 material.
Some of the material that the staff relied upon 12 is kept onsite and we do not have possession of it in any
)
l 13 event.
14 JUDGE WOLFE:
Kept outside, what do you mean?
i 15 MR. PERLIS:
Kept onsite up at Seabrook.
j 16 JUDGE WOLFE:
Oh, onsite.
f 17 MR. PERLIS:
The material that they look at i
18 during an audit that we just don't have copies of.
I 19 believe everything else would be in the Public Document 20 Room.
l 21 JUDGE WOLFE:
Mr. Perlis, because we are 22 l
approaching on the time for the completion of discovery and i
23 also for the filing of_ written testimony, would you and Mr.
i 24 Backus after this conference call -- Mr. Perlis, you could 25 call Mr. Backus and read off the list of these documents.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
46 00000101 marysimons 1
MR. PERLIS:
I will be happy to do that, Judge.
2 JUDGE WOLFE:
Then whatever the list is composed 3
of, Mr. Backus could tell you immediatcly which of those 4
documents he wants to look at and then you could advise him 5
whether they are in your possession or onsite on in the 6
Public Document Room or wherever.
7 MR. PERLIS:
I think we will be able to work 8
something out.
9 JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
10 Once again, we will get to timing on all this, 11 but I will proceed then.
12 We deny SAPL's motion to compel answers to
()
13
- Interrogatories 7 and 8 as being beyond the scope of NECNP l
14 I(b)(2) because they appear to question'the requirement for l
15 installation of certain instrumentation prior to fuel 16 loading.
Other than questioning environmental 1
1 17 qualification of such equipment,.these interrogatories 18 exceed the scope of the contention and do not appear i
19 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 20 admissible evidence.
21 As the Board understands SAPL Interrogatory 10, i
22 there is no reasonable connection between the fuel 23 calculations and the environmental qualifications of 24 electrical equipment.
Thus the Board denies SAPL's motion i
25 to compel because the interrogatory is outside the scope of D
the contention and i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
.... _. _ _ _ -.... __.. _ _ __, _ _ _ _ _ _._-347-3 700. - _ _ _ _ _,...
47 00000101 marysimons 1
does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the 2
discovery of admissible evidence.
3 Further, as the Board understands 4
Interrogatories 11 and 12, there is no reasonable 5
connection between consideration of the scenarios dealing 6
with high energy line breaks and the duration of 7
environmental qualifications of electrical equipment.
Thus 8
we deny SAPL's motion to compel Interrogatories 11 and 12 9l as outside the scope of this contention and they do not 10 appear reasonably calculated to lead to discovery evidence.
11 Now we have had a problem with understanding the 12 staff's position with respect to Interrogatory 16.
)
13 First, we understand that you object in that it 14 is outside of the contention; is that correct?
15 MR. PERLIS:
Judge, that is the position we have 16 taken.
That is correct.
17 JUDGE WOLFE:
That it is not reasonably 18 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, 19 can you explain the basis for that objection?
20 MR. PERLIS:
First of all, Judge, again, I want 21 to point out that the standard to be used is the one of 22 whether an is necessary for a proper decision in the 23 proceeding, and I would submit there that the onus is upon 24 SAPL to demonstrate that the answer is necessary and not 25 that it might lead to relevant information.
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
48 00000101 marysimons 1
Having said that, I have to ask for the Board's 2
indulgence here.
I am not the attorney handling that 3
issue, and I really could not argue the justification for 4
the staff's answer in either way.
I am just not handling 5
that issue.
6 JUDGE WOLFE:
Maybe your technical assistant 7
could.
8 MR. PERLIS:
Judge, he is not here either.
9 JUDGE WOLFE:
I am going on aute.
Hold on.
10 (Pause.)
11 Absent any ---
12 MR. PERLIS:
Excuse me, Judge Wolfe, the
(
13 attorney who is handling that issue has just come in and 14 maybe he could give you an explanation.
15 MR. TURK:
Hello, Judge Wolfe.
This is Sherwin 16 Turk.
I am sorry, I didn't realize the call was being made 17 at this time.
18 JUDGE WOLFE:
Mr. Perlis advised that with 19 respect to SAPL Interrogatory 16, which is directed toward 20 NECNP ID.2 contention, that the interrogatory is outside 21 the scope of the contention.
We hear and have read 22 excerpts, but we want to know the basis for it.
Why isn't 23 it within the scope of the contention?
24 MR. TURK:
May I have just one ninute, Your 25 Honor.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage M33N
49 00000101 marysimons 1
(Pause.)
2 MR. TURK:
Judge Wolfe, I have to apologize to 3
you for not having been aware of this conference call.
4 JUDGE WOLFE:
That's all right, Mr. Turk.
As I 5
indicated earlier while you were not present, the staff 3
i 1
6 ordinarily would have an opportunity to reply in writing, i
7 but in light of the shortness of time we thought we had 8
best get cracking on our rulings.
9 MR. TURK:
I don't have the documents in front
.j 10 of me that I need to refer to, but I recall that in the j
11 past the staff had taken a position that 50.49 D.1 and D.2 4
4 12 are within the scope of the contention, at least to the
()
13 extent that the contention relates to time duration for 14 environmental qualifications.
i 15 50.49 D.1 was safety related electrical 16 equipment,50.49 D.2 was non-safety related electrical 17 equipment and 50.49 D.3 was certain post-accident 18 monitoring equipment, and I believe it was on that basis 19 that we took the position that this was outside the scope 20 of the contention, and that the contention only related to 21 items D.1 and D.2 and not D.3.
i 22 Now I am trying to recall from memory what 23 document that is in or why we took that position, but that 24 is the position we have taken in the past.
I 1
25 Are you going to be moving on to anything else i,
i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 f
1 i
50 00000101
(
marysimons 1
at this point and we can come back to this, or is this the 2
last item for discussion?
i 3
JUDGE WOLFE:
It is the last item.
4 Judge Harbour has a question.
Go ahead.
f 5
JUDGE HARBOUR:
Mr. Turk, do you know if this 6
equipment is located within the containment?
}
7 MR. TURK:
I believe that some of it is, but I t
8 can't be sure.
I would have to find out.
The staff j
9 reviewer is out of town on travel this week.
I can try to i
10 locate him, but I am just not sure where I will find him.
i 11 JUDGE WOLFE:
Hold on.
We are going on aute.
i 12 We will be right back, e
13 (Pause.)
14 JUDGE WOLFE:
The Board has been conferring and 15 we have decided that this calls for a relatively simple 16 answer by the staff and they didn't respond.
So we grant 17 the motion to compel with respect to SAPL Interrogatory 16.
18 I think this completes all the rulings on 19 outstanding discovery matters.
l 20 Now Mr. Turk and/or Mr. Perlis, as you know, l
21 September 19 is the date for the completion of 22 depositions.
It is also the date for the filing of written 23 testimony.
With that in mind, how soon can you furnish or 24 submit the staff's responses to the allowed SAPL 1
i 25 interrogatories?
' (. $)
(
i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
51 00000101 l
marysimons 1
MR. PERLIS:
Judge, as to the ones relating to 2
the safety parameter display system, the staff reviewer is 3
in town on that one and we could have answers out by Friday 4
at the latest.
5 JUDGE WOLFE:
Friday of this week, Mr. Perlis?
6 MR. PERLIS:
By Friday of this week we could 7
have the answers to those questions on the safety parameter 8
display system.
9 JUDGE WOLFE:
I take it with respect to environmental qualification, NECNP IB.2, that you may not 10 11 be able to get to that by Friday?
12 MR. TURK:
I think that is probably true without
()
13 the reviewer in town.
We could try for next Tuesday.
14 JUDGE WOLFE:
Is that satisfactory, Mr. Backus?
i 15 MR. BACKUS:
Yes, I think so.
16 JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
I suggest that you 17 mail that, Mr. Perlis or Mr. Turk so that Mr. Backus will la have that in plenty of time for I guess cross-examination 19 purposes.
20 Are you planning to file any written direct 21 testimony with respect to SAPL Supplemental Contention 6, 22 Mr. Backus?
i 23 MR. BACKUS:
That will depend very much on the 24 responses that we do get.
25 MR. TURK:
Judge Wolfe, I think I may be able to ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33MM6
52 00000101 l
marysimons i
simplify our process, at least on the EQ contentions.
The
]
2 staff has accepted the qualification of post-accident 3
equipment in the SER writeup, and I think we can stipulate 4
that that is going to be the staff's position and maybe no 5
further answer is really necessary.
6 JUDGE WOLFE:
As to your response to r
7 Interrogatory 16?
8 MR. TURK:
Yes, but I would want to note that 9
the writeup in the SER is much broader than the scope of 10 the contention.
We wouldn't thereby be conceding that all i
11 of the SER are admissible within the scope of the 12 contention.
()
13 JUDGE WOLFE:
Supplement 4, Mr. Turk?
14 MR. TURK:
Supplement 5.
15 JUDGE WOLFE:
Do you have that before you, Mr.
16 Backus?
17 MR. BACKUS:
I don't have that before me right i.
18 now, and I didn't get all of that either.
19 Could Mr. Turk repeat that?
20 MR. TURK:
Well, what I had indicated is that 21 with respect to the qualification of post-accident 22 monitoring equipment, that we do have a writeup in i
23 Supplement 5 of the SER, and it is fairly likely that our 24 response interrogatory is going to be SSER No. 5 at given 25 pages.
l i
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
l 53 C0000101
/
marysimons, C
1 I am wondering whether we can simply stipulate 2
at this time, Bob, that that is our response interrogatory, 3
and if you need any further discovery on it you can do it 4
through depositions and proceed with that.
5 Incidentally, Bob, I also mentioned to Judge 6
Wolfe that the SER writeup on ZQ goes beyond the scope of l
7 the contention, and we don't necessarily concede that the i
8 statements in the SSER are admisolble in evidence within 9
the scope of the contention and we would be providing this 10 type of response to the interrogatory.
11 JUDGE WOLFE:
Tell us why at this point, Mr.
12 Turk, why it is not within the scope of the contention?
()
13 MR. TURK:
The contention, Your Honor, relates 14 to the qualification time for different electrical 15 equipment to be environmentally qualified.
The 16 interrogatory is very broad.
It says state the staff's i
17 position with respect to the qualification of post-accident 18 monitoring equipment.
That relates to the whole 19 environmental qualification scope of issues and not just 20 the qualification duration time, or a period for which an 21 item can survive post-accident.
22 In addition, I had the earlier objection that we 23 had the contention as relating only to items 50.49 D.1 and 24 D.2.
25 JUDGE WOLFE:
We are going on aute.
Hold on.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
,.., _ _ _ _. - _ - ~
j 54 I
00000101 I
( N ]s :sarysimonal
~
1 (Pause.)
2 MR. TURK:
Bob, do you have SSER 5 there, the 3
The writeup on these types of items, post-accident 4
monitoring equipment?
5 MR. BACKUS:
Yes.
6 MR. TURK:
I am going to get you a page number.
7 It starts on page 3-17 and goes up through the bottom of 8
page.3-19.
9 9
JUDGE HARBOUR:
Mr. Turk?
10 MR. TURK:
yes.
)
11 JUDGE HARBOUR:
Would it then be your answer to 12 Interrogatory 16 that the staff's position with respect to
)
- 13 the duration qualification of post-accident monitoring 14 equipment is provided within Supplement 5 to the SSER7 15 MR. TURK:
Let me just check one page and I will 16 answer that.
17 (Pause.)
18 I can't answer that specifically right now.
I'm f
19 sorry.
4 20 JUDGE HARBOUR:
Hold on.
21 (Pause.)
22 JUDGE WCLi'E The Board has been conferring with 23 respect to Interrogatory 16 which is directed to IP.2 24 motion, but only to the extent that the interrogatory i
25 i applies to the duration of environmental qualification.
k AQE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 -
Nationwide Coverage 300 336-6646 I
55 00000101 l
marysimons 1
Further, I note with respect to the staff 2
providing documents that Mr. Backus should be advised 3
whether these documents, first of all, are in his 4
4 possession and, secondly, whether they are onsite, in the 5
Public Document Room or whether the staff has them in 6
Bethesda.
7 Mr. Turk, you could telephone Mr. Backus by no 8
later than what, Monday of next week on this because, as I 9
understand it, your staff technical person is not available l
i l
10 at this time; is that correct?
11 MR. TURK:
That is correct, and I believe he is 12 coming back next Monday, but I am going to have to verify
()
13 it.
It could be that he is going to be on travel beyond i
14 Monday, but I can verify that very shortly.
In fact, we 15 are going to try to place a call right now.
16 JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
Try to get a line on i
17 this, and Tuesday at the very latest then.
18 I think that we have gotten this all squared 19 away now.
20 Is there any question on timing now with respect 21 to the responses that we have directed the staff to make?
22 Is there any problem on timing here?
23 MS. CURRAN:
Judge Wolfe, I would just like to 24 ask a question of the NRC staff, and that is whether or not 25 the unavailability of the expert is going to have any ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
)
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
.. -., _. _ _ _. ~. _.. - _ _ -. _. _ _.
(
56 00000101 marysimons 1
effect on my ability to come in and examine documents that 2
the NRC staff has?
3 MR. TURK:
Diane, I know that you are looking to 4
come by and look at documents.
Maybe we can talk after the 5
conference call and work out a time when we give them to 6
you as quickly as possible.
7 MS. CURRAN:
Okay.
I am concerned about bumping 8
up into this hearing date, too.
9 MR. TURK:
I understand, and we are not going to 10 delay it really not intentionally.
11 JUDGE WOLFE:
I have been doing so much talking 12 here and I hope some thinking.
The question of timing now 13 with respect to the furnishing of certain of these 14 interrogatories that we are allowing.
15 Except with respect to Interrogatory 16, I 16 understand that the staff responses will be submitted on 17 Friday of this week; is that correct?
18 MR. PERLIS:
That is correct, Judge.
19 JUDGE WOLFE:
And no later than Monday or 20 Tuesday with respect to Interrogatory as limited with 21 respect to NECNP IB.27 4
22 MR. TURK:
Tuesday, Your Honor.
I have just 23 been informed that our staff reviewer will not be back in 24 the office until Tuesday.
I don't think it will be too 25 difficult to wrap something up with him.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
57 00000101 marysimons 1
JUDGE WOLFE:
All right.
Well I suggest that 2
once you get his input that immediately inform Mr. Backus 3
and give him the response as limited by the Board.
4 Also, list any documents over the telephone 5
where Mr. Backus would be in a position to review those 6
documents at whatever place.
All right?
7 MR. TURK:
Yes, sir.
8 MR. BACKUS:
Judge Wolfe, may I ask staff 9
counsel that when they say Friday, does that mean we will 10 have it Friday or they will express mail it Friday or 11 what?
I was inquiring about what Friday means in terms of 12 sometimes we have been told that that means to have.in hand 13 on a particular ---
14 MR. TURK:
Bob, I was going to have them sent 15 out of here Friday.
I can express mail them or send them 16 directly.
If you are not going to be there over the 17 weekend I would just propose to send them directly and you i
18 should have them Monday.
But if you want them expressed 19 mailed, we can do that.
20 MR. BACKUS:
There would be no need to do that 21 unless you could get them out Thursday so we could have 22 them Friday.
23 MR. TURK:
I sort of doubt that we would be able 24 to make Thursday, but you should have them in hand Monday.
25 MR. BACKUS:
Thank you.
(O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
-347-3700
58
('_
00000101 carysimons 1
JUDGE WOLFE:
So we are all squared away then on 2
this question of the timing of submissions by the staff and 3
the furnishing of whatever.
4 Any other problems?
5 (No response.)
6 All right.
7 Any other questions, anyone?
8 MR. PERLIS:
Judge, just a general question 9
about the hearing itself.
Will the Board be coming out 10 with an order scheduling the different contentions?
11 JUDGE WOLFE:
As to the order of presentation?
12 MR. PERLIS:
Right.
13 J"DGE WOLFE:
No, I hadn't thought so.
It is up 14 to the applicant and the staff.
If Mr. Dignan is in a 15 position to advise the parties what applicant's order of 16 presentatien is, that would be helpful.
17 MR. DIGNAN:
Your Honor, subject only to a 18 change like illness or an unavailability, the applicant 19 will go first.
We would offer first the testimony directed 20 to NECNP Contention 3.1 and NH 20, the so-called EAL issue.
21 The second piece we would offer is likely to be 22 the piece we will have on SAPL Supplemental Contention 5 as 23 restricted by the Board's order today.
24 And the third piece we would offer would be on 25 NECNP Contention 1.B2, the environmental qualification l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Ceverage 800-336-6646 l.
59
(.,
00000101 tarysimons 1
issue.
2 MR. PERLIS:
Judge, two questions on that.
3 Would the Board be taking these items issue by issue, or 4
would the applicant present their whole case first and then 5
have the staff present, or then the intervenors present 6
their cases and then the staff present its case?
7 JUDGE WOLFE:
I think it is more orderly and it 8
is clearer if we proceed contention by contention as 9
detailed by Mr. Dignan, namely, that for example first we 10 would hear NHCNP Contention 3.1 and New Hampshire 20, take 11 that first and proceed with cross-examination on that and 12 then the applicant may have -- well, let's see, I don't*
13 know who would come next.
14 I don't know whether Ms. Curran is going to 15 present direct testimony or not, and I don't know whether 16 New Hampshire is with respect to New Hampshire 20.
We will 17 just have to figure that one at the time that the trial 18 opens.
We will just have to play that one by ear, or 19 perhaps you can advise us now, Ms. Curran.
20 Do you plan to present written direct testimony 21 with respect to your Contention, what, 3.1; is that it?
22 MS. CURRAN:
Right.
No, I don't.
23 JUDGE WOLFE:
Fine.
24 And how about New Hampshire with respect to New 25 Hampshire, Mr. Bisbee?
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33(H5646
- ~
60 1
00000101
(
marysimons 1
MR. BACKUS:
We expect to put on no direct 2
testimony, Your Honor.
3 JUDGE WOLFE:
So that with respect to that those 4
are really consolidated, the applicant will put on'its case 5
in chief, then cross-examination and then we will proceed 6
to hear the staff's case, cross-examination and any other 7
matters that might come up.
8 MR. TURK:
Judge Wolfe, in terms of which issues 9
are to be presented first, I would like to have an 10 opportunity to talk to our witnesses and make sure what 11 their availability is.
I know offhand that we have a 12 problem with EQ coming last.
If that means that it is 13 going to be delayed until Friday of the hearing week, I 14 might need some adjust there to see if we can get EQ to be 15 one of the first two issues rather than the third issue.
16 Overall I think we do need to talk to our 17 witnesses and see what their availability is and make sure 18 they are going to be there.
If we could, maybe we could 19 have an opportunity to talk to our witnesses and talk to 20 the other parties who will be presenting direct cases and i
21 work out a schedule amongst ourselves for presentation of i
22 the issues.
23 JUDGE HARBOUR:
Are there any parties other than 24 applicant and the staff.who do know that they will be 25 presenting direct testimony on any of the three contentions ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
.w 61 00000101 rarysimons 1
to be heard?
2 MS. CURRAN:
Judge Harbour, I really don't know 3
at this point.
I may be presenting testimony on Contention 4
1B.2, environmental qualifications.
5.
MR. BACKUS:
Judge Harbour, we may, depending 6
upon the interrogatory responses, present a witness on 7
sample 6.
4 8
JUDGE HARBOUR:
Thank you.
9 MR. BACKUS:
Judge Wolfe, may I inquire, and if 10 the Board has already indicated, forgive me, but I don't 11 remember whether or not the Board will be taking limited 12 appearances.
fn 13 JUDGE WOLFE:
No, we will not.
This is a 14 reopened hearing.
The time for the taking of limited 15 appearance statements has past and, further, with respect 16 to what I think was originally New Hampshire 10, limited 17 appearances were taken in I guess August of
'83.
This was 18 l also an admitted contention and limited appearance 19 statements at that time could also have been presented with 20 respect to that contention.
l 21 So, no, the time has expired for the taking of 22 limited appearance statements.
23 MR. BACKUS:
This is just a suggestion then, t
24 Judge Wolfe, that perhaps the Public Affairs Officer might 25 be touch with the media here so that people would be aware
. k l
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
62 00000101 i
marysimons 1
of that.
I believe in the past that there were perhaps 2
limited appearances taken on more than one occasion and 3
there may be not an awareness that that won't be available 4
this time.
5 JUDGE WOLFE:
Hold on.
6 (Pause.)
7 We issued an order on August 20.
It stated 8
there that only the public would be invited to attend.
We 9
did not indicate that limited appearance statements would 10 or would not be taken.
We will make an effort then to 11 contact the regional Public Affairs Officer and have him 12 make it known that that is our intention.
~
13 Now then outstanding is just this question as to 14 presentation.
It would seem t'o me that in this 15 circumstance, as suggested by Mr. Turk, that the parties 16 can get together formally and whichever is convenient for 17 purposes of the calling of witnesses, the parties can get 18 together and make arrangements as to the presentation.
19 Is there a problem on that?
20 MR. DIGNAN:
No, Your Honor.
I just wanted to 21 be clear on one thing.
I take it from your remarks that 22 the Board's preference would be to the greatest extent 23 possible that the case be tried issue by issue rather than 24 party by party.
25 JUDGE WOLFE:
Yes.
UD ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
~
63 00000101 marysimons 1
MR. DIGNAN:
Thank you.
2 JUDGE WOLFE:
If for some reason some witness is 3
hung up over in Newfoundland and can't make it for that 4
day's hearing, of course the Board would take that into 5
consideration and would go on to, for example, some other 6
contention.
But we do like an orderly presentation, and 7
the parties should work this out, an.d the informal 8
agreement between the parties should be complied with by 9
all parties.
10 Would it be possible for the parties to 11 designate Mr. Turk, for example, to advise us by September 12 19th as to what the parties have informally agreed to as 13 being the order of presentation with respect to the 14 contentions?
15 Is that agreed?
I 16 MR. TURK:
I have no problem being the focal 17 point.
I just want to be clear on who I will be I
18 contacting, and I take it that will be SAPL, NHCNP, i
19 Massachusetts, New Hampshire and the applicant, in other 20 words, the lead parties in the opening ---
21 JUDGE WOLFE:
That's right.
Those are those 22 only parties, yes.
23 Is that agreeable to all parties?
24 MR. DIGNAN:
Your Honor, it is fine.
The only 25 question I have is would the Board be agreeable to Mr. Turk CO ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
_, _ _ _ _, _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ ~. _ _. _ _ _...
64 00000101
(
rarysimons 1
giving you the final word let's us say the 23rd because 2
people's views on what order to go in may be influenced by 3
the amount of testimony or what parties are testifying on 4
any given issue.
5 JUDGE WOLFE:
Is that agreeable, the 23rd?
6 MR. BACKUS:
It is agreeable to me, Your Honor.
7 MS. CURRAN:
That is fine.
8 MS, SNEIDER:
It is agreeable to me.
9 MR. BACKUS:
That's fine.
10 MR. TURK:
It is fine with the staff.
11 JUDGE WOLFE:
Okay.
By the 23rd then please 12 advise us, Mr. Turk, what the order of presentations will 13 be.
14 MR. TURK:
Very good, Your Honor.
15 JUDGE WOLFE:
Any other matters?
I 16 I (No response.)
17 I would further note to the parties that as you 18 recall in our order of July 25 that cross-examination plans 19 must be submitted by each party.
20 Any other matters now?
21 MR. TURK:
Judge Wolfe, I apologize to you.
22 What is the date for our notice to you as to our cross-23 examination plan?
24 JUDGE WOLFE:
The order reads at the beginning 25 of this reopened hearing that cross-examination plans are ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6646 j
j _
65 00000101
', _s marysimons 1
to be submitted to the Board.
2 MR. TURK:
Thank you.
3 MR. BACKUS:
Judge Wolfe, I wonder if I inquire 4
if we could understand that that would be mean at the 5
beginning of the day's hearing on the particular issue that 6
we are going to be dealing with?
In other words, I wonder 7
if we have to prepare cross-examination plans on all three 8
issues for the first day?
9 JUDGE WOLFE:
It would be helpful to the Board, 10 let me put it this way, if at the opening of the hearing on 11 September 29 to have all cross-examination plans before 12 us.
That would be most helpful to us.
Does that present a 13 problem to anyone, because by the date the hearing begins 14 each party should have been able to review the written 15 direct testimony and have blocked out its questions and 16 should be able to present us cross-examination.
I don't 17 know that that would work a hardship on anyone.
18 We will be busy during the hearing in any i
19 event.
So I think it is best if cross-examination plans 20 are submitted at the opening day at the beginning of the 4
i 21 hearing.
No other party will be given a copy of the cross-22 examination plans.
Those are merely intended for the 23 Board.
There will be one copy each.
So there will be 24 three copies, one for each Board Member, to be furnished to 25 the Board at the opening of the hearing on September 29th.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
66 00000101
(
marysimons 1
Any other questions?
2 (No response.)
3 One moment, please.
4 (Pause.)
5 Judge Luebke brought to mind that as scheduled, 6
this hearing is for four days with an interim period 7
because the facilities were not available to us.
It is 8
hoped that the hearing will end by no later than October 9
1.
So only if necessary would we proceed on October 3.
If 10 possible/ why obviously then we will have to proceed to 11 completion on October 3.
12 I think each party who is planning to present 13 witnesses should plan to present them on either September 14 29, 30 or October 1.
October 3 is sort of a relief valve 15 sort of thing so that we won't have any downtime on October 16 1.
So hopefully you people will sound one another out on 17 how long the cross-examination will take, et cetera, et 18 cetera.
19 Certainly it is no great pain for you to have 20 your witnesses there for the first three days.
You don't 21 know how things are going to break and witnesses should be 22 in attendance.
I don't know how this presents any problem.
23 Does this, having your witnesses available on 24 September 29th?
25 MR. PERLIS:
Judge, we do need to talk to our ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6M6
67 00000101
(
marysimons 1
witnesses.
There is one potential problem we might have.
2 We have a consultant on the emergency action level who 3
would be coming in from Pullman, Washington.
It is going 4
to take him probably a full day of travel to get there and 5
if at all possible we would like to not require him to 6
travel on Sunday because he might not be available until 7
Tuesday morning.
I know on program design we will have 8
people there Monday and we need to talk to the 9
environmental qualification witness and I imagine we will 10 have him there on Monday as well.
11 MR. TURK:
In addition, I think we just need to 12 talk to the witness who are members of the staff t*o make
)
13 sure they are available and are not part of other hearings 14 or away on other functions outside of the Federal 15 Government.
16 JUDGE WOLFE:
I think the parties should be able 17 to work that out.
We are going to, if necessary, to 18 proceed on October 3.
I will tell the parties right now 19 that we do intend to complete and close the record on this 20 case on October 3.
Now if you are going to leave witnesses 21 or if witnesses are late in coming in and so forth, this 22
.may present a problem, but we are not intending to go 23 beyond October 3rd.
24 Now if good cause is shown by counsel why a 25 witness cannot appear, well, we will just have to make that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
68 00000101
(
- Iarysimons 1
adjustment.
It may result in compelling us to go into 2
night sessions in order to assure that we can close the 3
record on no later than October 3.
4 So everyone be forewarned about the sense of the 5
Board that we will close the record on October 3.
6 All right, anything else?
7 (No response.)
8 I think not.
9 All right, thank you very much.
10 (Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m.,
the telephone 11 conference concluded.)
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 l
20 21 22 23 24
(
l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
{
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
DOCKET NO.:
50-443 OL-1; 50-444 OL-1; ON-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING AND SAFETY ISSUES PLACE:
WASHINGTON, D.
C.
DATE:
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1986 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(sigt)
N/
MM (TYPED)
M MARY C.
SIMONS Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation
__