ML20236B843

Transcript of ASLB 890320 Prehearing Telcon in Bethesda,Md Re Onsite Emergency Planning & Safety Issues.Pp 1-15

ML20236B843
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/20/1989
From:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#289-8372 ASLBP, OL-1, NUDOCS 8903210329
Download: ML20236B843 (18)

Text

.. *

• e  % A LO UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l l

l ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )

) Docket Nos.

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443-OL-1R NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 50-44. OL-1R

) ON-SITE EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) ) PLANNING AND

) SAFETY ISSUES PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE (BY TELEPHONE)

O Pages: 1 through 15 Place: Pethesda, Maryland Date: March 20, 1989 f0 . f-f 0 \

' HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION l

OJIedefReporte O na o s , s.w., sa. =

- WasWagton, D.C. 20005 y x,:c i n -- . ? E 9 .. . (202) 628-4888 1 f FDR I T fiOOD - i ' ' " ' L'*'

"O l+ - i l

L_ .

1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f s.,

Jul ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )

) Docket Nos.

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443-OL-1R L NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 50-444-OL-1R

) ON-SITE EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION,~ UNITS 1 AND 2) ) PLANNING.AND

) SAFETY ISSUES PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE (BY TELEPHONE)

.s.

Monday, March 20, 1989 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Highway, Room 442 Bethesda, MD 20814

.f_ _

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 9:17 a.m.

BEFORE: JUDGE PETER BLOCH, CHAIRMAN Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 JUDGE EMMETH LUEBKE, MEMBER Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

_-i 2~

-APPEARANCES:

.( For the Applicant:

THOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR., ESQ.

Ropes & Gray i 225 Franklin. Street i Boston,lHA. 02110 For the NRC Staff:

GREGORY BERRY, ESQ.

RICHAhD BACHMAN, ESQ. , I Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 For the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:  ;

JOHN C. TRAFICONTE, ESQ.

STEPHEN JONAS, ESQ. r Commonwealth of Massachusetts  !

One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA ~02108 1

'O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

= s i

3 _

1~ EBQCEEDIHQS ]

2 9:17'a.m.

3 JUDGE'BLOCH: _This is Peter Bloch, Chairman of the 4 Licensing Board for a portion of the'Seabrook operating p 5 license application case. The title for this portion of the l

6 case i's On-Site Emergency Planning and Safety Issues, docket 7 ndmbers 50-443-OL-1R and 50-444-OL-1R.

8 This morning's conference is in the nature of a i 9 pre-hearing conference. It was described and set forth in 10 our March 3 order, LBP89-09. ,

1 11 The parties have identified themselves for the 12 Reporter and we won't need to go forward with'that.

13 With great. respect I would like to welcome all the q l

14 parties to this conference wholeheartedly.

() 15- What I would like to do to start is to begin with 16 a brief discussion of compliance with paragraph C of the 17 Beard's order beginning on page 38. I would like the.

18 parties to spend just a few minutes on stating what they 19 have done to fulfill the conditions of that party and what 20 they think the status of the negotiations is.

21 First, Applicant's.

22 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, if I might I will give 23 you an overview and Ms. Selleck, who was present at it, will 24 address it in any further detail the Board wants.

25 Basically it is my understanding that the vans Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

%. . 4 .- s M . .

4-

~

.1- Ewere a11'taken'out'. .In.the case of those where the locatio'n 2: t was. questioned, both in terms.of acceptability and'in 3 leveling,-.the vans were,put on the appropriate spot and.the leveling exercise' conducted. And with respect to the: fourth  !

5 spot, where only the question of acceptability was involved) 6 it was demonstrated to be acceptable.

7 From the Applicant's point.of view, the. Attorney

'8 General will have to obviously speak'for itself, which we

'l 9 have videotaped incidentally, itLdemonstrated that all the  ;

10 sites were acceptable and-that the site was level,enough to 11 operate properly. y 12 JUDGE BLOCH: This videotaping was done since our 13 last order?

14 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, this-was done Thursday.

() 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay, great. Did the Massachusetts-16 Attorney General have an opportunity to be present during  ;

)

17 this?

18 MR. JONAS: Yes. Pamela Talbot, an Assistant 19 Attorney General, was present there along with one of oor 20 Investigators. If I could comment a little bit further, the 21 message I left for Ms. Selleck, I believe last week, was I l 22 would like to take a look at the videotapes. Once I take a l

23 look at them I think we will probably be prepared to 24 stipulate substantially all of these facts out of the case, )

25 if not all of them.

1 i

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4000

1 l

5 l 1 JUDGE BLOCH: Does that include the leveling ,

(~h

(_/ 2 arguments? l 3 MR. JONAS: It Includes both acceptability and 4 leveling. I just want to see the videotapes since I was not j 5 present, was not able to be present, j 6 JUDGE BLOCH: So that should be done sometime next I

7 week? Or this week ? Or next week? How about that, within 8 two weeks?

9 MR. JONAS: That should be fine. ]

10 JUDGE BLOCH: Excellent.

11 I would like to state before we go ahead with the l

12 scheduling portion of this conference that we have talked 13 with the off-site Board. The conference facility for their  :

14 hearings -- rather the courtroom -- that they have for their p"m 15 hearings is available during the first two weeks of May for

()

16 our use. If we can set up our schedules to use the 17 courtroom during that time, it would expedite things and 1 18 make it a lot easier for the Board.

19 I would like Applicant to comment first on what 20 schedule they would request.

21 MR. JONAS: Judge Bloch, this is Mr. Jonas. If I 22 may interrupt for a second. John Traficonte just joined me.

23 JUDGE BLOCH: Thank you.

24 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, this is Mr. Dignan 25 speaking. We were aware when we were thinking about this of Heritage Reporting Corporation f-)

(202) 628-4888

\,J

1 6 ,

II the availability of the hearing room beginning May 1 for.two A

(_) - 2 . weeks. On that basis, what we were going to propose or do'

(' 3 propose for the Board is that a schedule be set as follows:

1-

~

4. that the Applicant would file its direct testimony.on the 5 matters remaining to be heard on or before March 31, that 6 'the Attorney General file their direct case on or before 7 April 14, which would be two w+eks later, that the Staff i 8 file its case on or before April 21 and that we commence the 1

9 hearing on May 1.

10 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Dignan, I understand there may 11 be trouble with'that Monday, that the facility may not.be 12 available the first day of that. week.

13 MR. DIGNAN: That's fine, Your Honor. I was not 14 aware of that. But,.then-I would change my request to be O 15 wer 2 te taet de eue ce e.

16 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. I would-like a response by 17 the Mass. AG. l 18 MR. JONAS: Your Honor, the general parameters of 19 that are fine. We were looking to a hearing within the j

l 20 first two weeks of May as well. What I would request though l 21 is to have the opportunity to file our testimony on the 21st 22 of April.

23 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. So your difference is wanting 24 an extra week for filing. ,

25 I would like the comment of the Staff, since it is Heritage Reporting Corporation )

fs (202) 628-4888 l t) '

1 1

l

.= _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i

v 7

'1' primarily the Staff that would be somewhat-disadvantaged.by

(")

. s/, 2l that schedule. Would the. Staff comment?

l l

3' MR. BERRY: Yes, Judge Bloch. This is Gregory 4 Berry for the Staff. The Staff view is generally in accord  ;

i 5 with Mr. Jonas. The general. parameters of it do not appear 6 to pose any problems.  ;

7 The only question that we would have is the 8 business of Mr. Jonas or the Mass AG of filing their 9 testimony simultaneous with the Staff. I am not prepared to 10' say'that at this time that the Staff will insist on an 11 additional week or so. But, the usual practice is that the

12. Staff generally files its testimony after the other parties.

13 JUDGE BLOCH: Would you like two extra days?

14 MR. BERRY: Every day helps; Your Honor.

{) 15 JUDGE BLOCH: So you could have April 23, unless 16' the Applicants object?

17 MR. DIGNAN: I have no objection. This is Mr.

18 Dignan. I have no objection, Your: Honor.

19 MR. BERRY: Your Honor, April 23 I believe is a 120 Sunday.

21 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, we could make it the 24th.

22 So, the 21st is a Friday? l l

23 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, it is, Your Honor. '

l 24 JUDGE BLOCH: Well, how about the 25th? Would 25 that be a problem Mr. Dignan?

Heritage Reporting Corporation g- (202) 628-4888 V) 1 l

l

P.'.

8 1 MR. DIGNAN: No, it would be no problem to me.

g. I2l ~MR. BERRY: 'That.will.be fine with the: Staff,..Your 3 Honor.-

4  : JUDGE BLOCH: -Then the Board orders the' schedule-5, .as it'has been put forth by the' parties. Direct testimony 6- on or before March 31, the AG's filing April 21, the Staff 7 filing April 25. The hearing begins May 2.

8 Even though we have nine hearing days set aside, I, 9 would be concerned if we spent more than four days on these-10 issues. So, my expectation is that we will finish in four-11 days. 1 But', I will announce it for the full time period.-

.12 KR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, this is Tom Dignan.

13 Inasmuch as the Attorney General has received a three week 14 period, would anyone object if my filing date slipped to

{() ~15 April 3, that following Monday? ~In other words,'instead of

'16 . having to file by Friday the 31st, I would have the benefit 17 of the weekend to finally assemble and put in the mail.-

18 MR. BERRY: Staff has no objection.

19 MR. JONAS: Mass. AG has no objection. Your Honor.

20 --

21- JUDGE BLOCH: Let me just state that for the 22 record. We are adopting an April 1 --

23 MR. DIGNAN: April 3 it would be, Your Honor, i

24 JUDGE BLOCH: April 3 filing date for direct 25 testimony by the Applicant. l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O ,

1 h . 9 1 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you very much all.

( 2- JUDGE BLOCH: I would point out that'there is a

.i 3 provision for a brief on legal issues. That is 4 automatically set with reference to these filings if there-5 is no objection to that.

6 MR. DIGNAN: That was our understanding, Your  !

7 Honor. A brief was-owed along with the direct testimony.

I 8 MR. JONAS:' Your Honor, this.is Steve Jonas again.

9 If I may ask that you order a next day delivery on all of l 10 those testimony filings.

11. JUDGE BLOCH: If there is no objection that is 12 done. l 1

13 MR. DIGNAN: We will hand deliver to you, Steve,  !

14 on the 3rd.

() 15 MR. JONAS: We'll do the same.

1 16 JUDGE BLOCH: That was Mr. Jonas responding. Does l l

17 the Staff have any objections to next day delivery? i 18 MR. BERRY: No, it does not, Your Honor. i i

19 JUDGE BLOCH: Then that is ordered also, i'

20 Is there any other necessary business for this 21 conference?

22 MR. BERRY: Staff would raise one matter, Your 23 Honor. And that does relate to the briefs that the Board 24 requested in the March 3, 1989 order. It is not altogether 25 clear to the Staff what precisely the Board is looking for 1

Heritage Reporting Corporation n (202) 628-4888 U

g j 10_ l 1 -in this brief. I see on page 37-and the Board states that f~')\

s_ - 2. the issue of fact involves the legal question. In quotes j 3 the. Board ' states, . "what standard should we apply tu) j l

4 -determine'the possible relevance of discomfort?"

]

5 I think earlier on in the order.the Board stated 6 that they invited'the parties views on I guess the same 7 matter. -Do I understand the Board to be inquiring the 8 parties to address the issue of, say for example, what is 9 discomfort or the definition of discomfort? Or is the Board j 10 _looking for something else? It is not clear to the Staff 3 11 _ precisely what-the Board is asking the parties to address, 12 JUDGE BLOCH: Let me first ask if the other i

13 parties have the same problem? Mr. Dignan?

14 MR. DIGNAN: No, not really, Your Honor. I

() 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Mr. Jonas?

16 MR.~LJONAS: I thought it was relatively clear. l!

17 JUDGE BLOCH: Our concern, Mr. Berry, is that 18 there is a legal standard that is apparently set up for us.

19 It is not mandatory as I understand the situation. And

'20 therefore we are asking for suggestions as to how we should 21 interpret it. What we should weigh on the one side and on 22 the other.

23 MR. BERRY: Thank you, Your Honor.

24 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, this is Tom Dignan 25 speaking. We just all went by talking about the brief l

Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 620-4000

__a_-- - - - - - - - . -

o j

11 l 1 coming in the same day as the' testimony in each case. I 2 note that in:the order, on page 10 I believe it is, the

~3 Board had indicated.was that they wanted simultaneous briefs 4~ from Intervenor_and Applicant-five days prior to the 5 deadline for the pre-filing of testimony. Shall we treat 6 that as no longer the operative rule and say that it is 7 going to be a brief by each party filed simultaneously with 8 their direct case? Or, what is the Board's preference?

)

9 JUDGE BLOCH: If that is your proposal, and I 10- heard no objections, we are willing to accept that change.

11 Is there any objection to the filing of the brief .

1 12 simultaneous with the direct testimony?

13 MR. DIGNAN: All right. The last thing I would 14 like to --

() 15 JUDGE BLOCH: Objections? Is there any?

l 16 ('o N response.)

17 MR. DIGNAN: The way the schedule is now set by 18 agreement of the parties, the last filing of testimony will 19 be the Staff's on the 25th.

20 JUDGE BLOCH: That is correct.

l 21 MR. DIGNAN: Going in the hearing as I understand )

i 22 it on May 2, which is some seven days thereafter. As the  !

l 23 Board indicated, it is doubtful that this will take a full  !

24 two weeks to try.

l 25 I would reference the Board and the parties to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O

l

l

..:- .~

l 12  ;

e 1- -section 2.743 of the Rules'of Practice, which has that

- /~% -

(._) 2 requirement which I at least always forget about. That' l I

3 .says, "each party shall serve copies of its proposed written 3 4 testimony on each other party at least.15 days in advance of. j 5 the session of the hearing at which its testimony is to be 6 presented." Then it goes on to say, "the presiding officer 7 may permit the introduction of written testimony.not so 8 served either with the consent of all parties present or 9 after they have had a reasonable opportunity to examine it."

10 I would be grateful at least if the Board would 11 either obtain the consent of all parties or make the '

12 necessary order to obviate the requirements of section 13 2.743 (b) .

14 JUDGE BLOCH: My understanding is that the parties I

() 15 have all agreed to the schedule and that therefore those 16 requirements are no longer necessary. Is there any .

l 17 objection to this ruling?

18 MR. BERRY: None from the Staff, Your Honor. This .

I 19 is Mr. Berry speaking.

20 MR. DIGNAN: None from the Applicant, Your Honor.

21 MR. JONAS: None from the Mass. AG.

1 22- JUDGE BLOCH: I would like to have all exhibits i 23 that you know you are going to file, even on rebuttal, in  !

l 24 advance of the hearing. At least a couple of days so that 25 the Board will have them and be able to examine them. Is 1

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

()

I E- -_ - - - - - - J

L 4

13 1 there any objection to setting an exhibit deadline?

/"S

(,) 2 Now, this would not of course apply to surprise.

3 But if you know you are going to have any exhibits that you j 4 are going to submit for evidence, we would like to have it j 5 at least -- let's see. We could actually receive it, yes, 6 the last day in March. No, the last day in April. The last 7 business day in April. Is there objection to doing that?

l 8 MR. DIGNAN: No, Your Honor. This is the 4

9 Applicant. I am planning to file our exhibits with our 10 testimony anyway.

11 JUDGE BLOCH: Okay. But I am thinking even of 12 rebuttal exhibits. Sometimes you do see someone else's 13 testimony and you have decided you are going to have a 14 rebuttal exhibit. I would like to have that, unless there 15 is a surprise element at the trial.

[v")

16 MR. DIGNAN: All right, Your Honor. I take it Y 17 that does not include documents to be used solely in cross-18 examination.

19 JUDGE BLOCH: No, that is correct. If it is  !

20 solely for cross-examination, particularly if there is some 21 surprise element in it, that is correct. But, if it is a 22 rebuttal exhibit that is not going to be used for cross, 23 then I need to have it.

24 MR. DIGNAN: We understand, Your Honor.

25 JUDGE BLOCH: I would like to know if there is any Heritage Reporting Corporation 7g (202) 628-4888

\)

m

'o-' # ,

GQl

• g ' [ll 14-

, i g, . . $ 1- . possibility for further negotiati'on to' narrow issues? I.

2' . would like the Applicant's comment on that.

. '! j 3- MR.' DIGNAN:

As far as we are concerned everything di :4 is~open to~ negotiation. No problem.

5 JUDGE BLOCH: And-the Massachusetts Attorney. _ j, 6 General?

7 'MR. JONAS: We touched over a couple of issues 8 beyond the acceptability in-the leveling issue. -And we are 9 happy to discuss them further, including some of the issues 10 that, Judge, you had set forth concerning the informational 11 and instructional methods and when the timing starts'on 12 ~that. .We are happy to. talk with the JApplicant and the Staff-13 about that to try to reach a stipulation.

14 JUDGE BLOCH: Excellent. I am very pleased.that

.15 the parties are being cooperative on negotiations. It will i

16 reduce the. effort for everybody at trial and it also makes

.i

'17 more certain that we are going to reach the correct 18 conclusion on facts. Because if everyone agrees, I am even 19 more confident than if I decided on the record.

20 Is there any other necessary business? q 21 (No response.)  !

22 There being none, I would like to thank the l 23 parties for their participation and this pre-hearing l .i 24 conference is adjourned. (

25 (Whereupca, at 9:30 a.m., the prehearing

~

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O ,

K -- l G . .. .

. - _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ . . _ _ _ - _ _ . .- . _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ __ _ _b

-)

15 1 conference was concluded. )

2 B 3 1

4 l l

l 5

6 l y 8

9 10 11 12 13 14

$ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9

i I , ,

l-

, i l

^

1 CERTIFICATE I f% . j V 2 3' This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter 5 of: PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.

(SEABROOK STATION, Units l'AND 2 )

6 , Name: J 7

8 Docket Number: 50-443-L 'R and 50-444-OL-lR 9 Place: Bethesda, ' land 10 ~Date: March 20, 1 11 were held as herein appears, a d that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear

~

13 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 14 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the

, 15 direction of the court reporting company, and that the 16 transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing 17 proceedings. .

1 1

18 /s/

19 (Signature typed) : CARLOS HALASZ 20 Official Reporter i

21 Heritage Reporting Corporation l 22 23 l 24 25 t

Heritage Reporting Corporation h

(202) 628-4888

- -_-_ --