ML20244A661
| ML20244A661 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1989 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8769 OL-2, NUDOCS 8906120107 | |
| Download: ML20244A661 (46) | |
Text
.
1 C Q ' .q c . ..
UNITED STATES
(
/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,=........................................................
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: )
) ALSBP NO.: 50-352-OL-2 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) 50-353-OL-2 (LIMERICK GENERATING STATION, ) (Design Alternatives)
UNIT 2) )
f
(
- l. Pages: 1 through 44 Place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Date: June 6, 1989
======..===.---====================================......
o \
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION onsdat Reporten
( 1220 L Street. N.W., Suhe 600 Wuhlngton. D.C. 20005 (202) 6 3 -4888 M06tiog oy coggg;,
CUh >< DO Ci ; e, ..
' c,<:..
.i, g,b.1 '
-l 1 l h UNITED _ STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c .
p ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD L In the Matter-of: )
) ALSBP NO.: 50-352-OL-2 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) 50-353-OL-2 (LIMERICK GENERATING STATION, ) (Design Alternatives)
UNIT 2) )
Tuesday, June 6, 1989 Robert Nix Building 9th & Market Street Courtroom 4 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania The above-entitled matter came on for further hearing, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m.
BEFORE: JUDGE MORTON B. MARGULIES, CHAIRMAN Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1( U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I Washington, D.C. 20555 I
JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, MEMBER Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 JUDGE FREDERICK SHON, MEMBER Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 d
r I
2 ._
1 f APPEARANCES:
y
'{ j -
s .
On behalf of the' Applicant:
TROY'B.. CONNER, JR., ESQ.
MARK J.'WETTEPRAHN, ESQ.
Conner'&LWetterhahn,-P.C.
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.-
Washington, D.C.-20006 On behalf of NRC Staff:
ANN P. HODGDON, ESQ.
STEVEN H._ LEWIS, ESQ.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 On behalf of Intervenor LEA: .
CHARLES.W. ELLIOTT, ESO.
Poswistilo, Elliott & Elliott 1101' Building Easton, Pennsylvania.18042
/ On behalf of non-party' Interested State:
lIs' GREGORY E. DUNLAP, ESO.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
~
Office of General Counsel
~
17th Floor Harristown II 333 Market Street:
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
3 CONTENTS f%
.{ EXHIBITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED DESCRIPTION
'w-(No Exhibits)
INSERTS:
Description:
Pace:
" Applicant's Motion for 29 Clarification of the Commission's Delegation of Authority and for Issuance of an Operating License or Alternatively, for an Exemption from Any Procedural Requirement that a License ,
for Limerick Unit 2 Cannot Issue until the Contention Remanded by the Third Circuit Is Resolved"
,m
/
\
Heritage Reporting Corporation
, (202) 628-4888 N.)
l
4 L -
.'1' PROCEE' DINGS 10:03 a.m.'
o j-* 2 k/ % 3 JUDGE MARGULIES: Please come to order.
4 Good. morning. This morning, we have scheduled a 5 prehearing conference in'the matter of Philadelphia Electric
-~
6 Company, Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Docket 7 Nos. 50-352-OL-2 and 50-353-OL-2.
8 As a preliminary matter, I have received a note 9 that indicates that Mr. Charles Elliott -- is he here?
10 MR. ELLIOTT: I've just arrived, Your Honor.
11 JUDGE MARGULIES: You've just arrived. Okay, we .
12 will give you a few minutes.
13 MR. ELLIOTT: We have good luck following bad.
14' JUDGE LARGULIES: I know of no good luck in
/ 15 connection with automobile problems.
A 16 MR.'ELLIOTT: We relied upon the Applicant's 17 experts.to tell us if the failure of the automobile on the 18 .way down was likely or remote. And we were advised it was 19 remote. So, we relied upon them, and they were wrong.
- 20 (Laughter.)
21 MR. ELLIOTT: Could we just have t'ew minutes, Your 22 Honor?
23 JUDGE MARGULIES: Certainly. Let's go off the 24 record.
25 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 s
5' 1 JUDGE MARGULIES: Back on the record' .
2 On May 5, 1989, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3 issued an order calling'for the Licensing Board to' conduct
'4 .proceedingsfgiving additional consideration'to an intervenor 5 . contention, DES-5, asserting that in order to comply with'
.6 its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act, 7 the Agency must consider certain design alternatives for the 8- mitigation of severe accidents at the Limerick Generating 9 Station.
10 The Commission directed that litigation.of the 11 contention should be limited to those mitigation .
12 alternatives identified by the Appeal Board as being.
13 supported with the required bases and specificity.
14 The Commission action resulted from an opinion 15 issued February 28th, 1989 by.the United States Court of 16 Appeals for the Third Circuit which granted in part a 17 petition for review filed by Intervenor, Limerick Ecology 18 Action.
19 The Court action was captioned, " Limerick Ecology
. 20 Action v. NRC," Nos. 85-3431, 86-3314, and 87-3508.
21 This Licensing Board was established on May 9th, 22 1989 to preside at the proceeding called for by the 23 Commission. Judge Jerry Harbour is on my left, Judge 24 Frederick Shon is on my right and I am Judge Morton 25 Margulies.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
\
, -6 k
1 We issued a1prehearing-conference order
' ;M s 2 Mayil6th, 1989 setting forth an agenda of subjects'to be
'. ~s' 3_ covered _today. At this time, we will take appearances.
4 Who appears for the Applicant?
5 MR. CONNER: If the Board'please: My name is TroyJ 6 B. Conner, Jr. With me is Mark J.'Wetterhahn from our firm 7 from Washington. We have previously entered. formal 8 appearances pursuant to the rules in these dockets.
9 JUDGE MARGULIES: Thank you.
10- Who appears for the NRC Staff?
11 MS. HODGDON: I am Ann P. Hodgdon for the NRC .
12 Staff and with me today fus Steven H. Lewis.
13 JUDGE MARGULIES: Who appears for LEA?
14 MR. ELLIOTT: Your Honor, my name for the record
/ 15 is Charles Elliott with the law firm of Poswistilo, Elliott 11 6 &'Elliott in Easton. With me is Thomas Elliott' of the same'
'17 firm.
18 JUDGE MARGULIES: Are there any other appearances?
19 MR. DUNLAP: Your Honor, Gregory Dunlap for the
- 20 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appearing as a non-party, 21 Interested State, with the Office of General Counsel.
22 JUDGE MARGULIES: We will call for the matters p 23 called for on the agenda in the prehearing conference 24 notice, the first being the simplification, clarification, 25 and specification of the issues.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
7 1 The Commission's order instituting the proceeding
<-~s .
2 summarized DES-5 stating that it relates to the requirement
\
)
/
\/ 3 that the Agency must consider certain design alternatives 4 for the mitigation of severe accidents at the Limerick 5 Generating Station.
-' 6 Is there any problem with that in terms of the 7 Commission summarizing the issues in DES-5, insofar as that 8 statement goes?
9 (No response. )
10 JUDGE MARGULIES: There being no response, the 11 Board takes it that there is no problem with that aspect. .
12 MR. WETTERHAHN: Your Honor?
13 JUDGE MARGULIES: Yes.
14 MR. WETTEREARN: There may be specific response as
15 to what alternative constitutes a design alternative.
16 JUDGE MARGULIES: Yes, that is what I am getting 17 to. That is the next factor. That is part 2. The 18 Commission said on remand litigation on this contention 19 should be limited to those mitigation alternatives
- 20 identified by the Appeal Board as being supported with the 21 required bases and specificity.
. 22 It would appear to the Board that this requires 23 come fleshing out. It does not appear from the Appeal Board 24 that it directly makes and identifies those mitigation 25 alternatives.
Heritage Reporting Corporation 7 ~x (202) 628-4888
\~.
8 ..
1
,1 We. would like the position of- the parties as to 2 wh't a those mitigation alternatives are that should be-7-w
!3- considered. In that it it the Intervenor's contention,'we.
4 'will start with the Intervenor. l
-i 5 'MR. ELLIOTT: At the time-that this contention was.
- 6' originally proposed which dates really back to 1981, the 7 Intervenor relied upon the existence'of certain staff j 8~ conducted studies to determine the availability of severe l 1
9 accident mitigation measures and the' cost benefit'of those l l
10 measures. j 11 In 1981,.1982 and 1983, there were at that time . 1
'i 12 available to the Intervenor the results of some of those )
13 staff studies. The results as of that time had been ]
1 14 presented to the Appeal Board to demonstrate that there was >
I jN 15 adequate basis and specificity for the contention as' ;
- 1 1 16 drafted. l 17 So, with respect to the Commission's order, we 11 8 believe that the scope of the alternative to be determined 19 may best be or may in one respect be demonstrated by looking
. 20 at the staff studies which were' submitted to the Appeal 21 Board, but it is also the case that there have been an
. 1 22 intervening period of some four to five years since those 23 studies were submitted, since the existence of the status of I
24 the contention as it then existed. And it is my 25 understanding that since that time, the Applicant has Heritage Reporting Corporation p (202) 628-4888
'V) t 1
a
l' 9
- 1. conducted additional revisions to its risk assessment and ex 2 that there are some changes in that assessment. And it is i h l 'N_ / 3 clear from the review of the literature that there are 4 additional studies that have been created since that time.
5 And so it is our perspective that the litigation
- 6 of the contention should focus on not on a snapshot of 7 events and studies as they existed in 1981 and 1983, but 8 should reflect the current state of technology and the 9 current state of risk assessment. But I think primarily you 10 will see that what we are focusing on in terms of candidates 11 for risk reduction are those categories of mitigation .
12 features which were being analyzed by the Staff at that 13 time.
14 JUDGE MARGULIES: To be more specific,
("~"N - 15 Mr. Elliott, let us first look at those items which form
- s i
' '/ 16 ahat you term a snapshot looking at the problem. And what 17 would those mitigation devices be in that frame?
18 THE WITNESS: Well, I think you have to take a 19 look at the studies that were submitted to the Appeal Board.
. 20 Now, I can go back to the -- I can go back to the documents 21 and I can give you the broad categories perhaps quickly, but 22 the litigable scope of the contention, I think is bounded by 23 the entire range of candidate mitigation options which were 24 presented. And that is rather a lengthy list.
25 JUDGE MARGULIES: In looking at page 594 of the Heritage Reporting Corporation e~ (202) 628-4888
10 1 Appeal Board's decision at 22-NRC-681, they list in the last 2 paragraph -- they refer in the last paragraph to the 3 preceding paragraph. And this speaks in terms of 4 containment heat removal, core residue capture and retention 5 without concrete attack, and (If ATWS anticipated transients
- 6 without SCRAM) events are to be mitigated. Some kind of
~
7 venting system.
8 Is it your position that the mitigating devices go 9 beyond that?
10 MR. ELLIOTT: It is my contention that the 11 mitigation features which are the subject of the litigable .
12 contention are all those mitigation features which we 13 submitted to the Licensing Board through the period 1981 14 through 1983 at a minimum. And I can tell you that the 15 Appeal Board brief summary there was a selection of 16 examples, that they do not embrace the entirety of those 17 mitigation options which were submitted within the scope of 18 those studies.
19 The reason that it is difficult to give you just a
. 20 brief rundown is that the severe accident mitigation options 21 were set forth in perhaps 100 pages of documents which were i .
22 submitted to the Appeal Board or to the Licensing Board.
23 In an effort to be responsive to what you are 24 looking for now, I can give you a list, a brief list of 25 those options that you are primarily focusing on. But I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
g :c y"
11 1 ,want it understood that for purposes of describing what we
, je^' 2 are focusing'on as the sort of essentia1' core of litigation, 3' that that is not'to be interpreted as a statement'that that-4 is a bounding statement of the litigable scope of the 5 contention.
'-* 6' With respect to those areas that we are focusing 7 on, the mitigation candidates include venting filter 8 devices. The primary candidate with respect to that is a 9 hard pipe vent from the dry well to the plant stack.
10 The other area is containment spraying flooding 11- modifications, containment heat removal augmentation .
12 modifications, spent fuel pool accident risk modifications, 13 seismic modifications, reduction of transient initiator 14 frequencies, reactor pressure depressurization system 15 O
modifications.
16 In addition to that, there may be some human 17 factors modifications that we're looking at.
18 So, in terms of broad areas, those are the ones 19 that we are focusing on.
- 20 JUDGE MARGULIES: And those do not cover the 21- additional areas that you state that the Applicant has gone 22 into since that time?
23 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, it is.not possible for me to 24 determine what exactly the Applicant has done in the .
25 intervening years because we have not been given access as Heritage Reporting Corporation gg (202) 628-4888 V
L
12' 1 one would have expected to Applicant / Staff exchanges on.this.
2, ~ issue since the time that the issue was last before the-
's 3 . Licensing Board or the Appeal Board.
4 In that regard, I might just note for the record' 5 that LEA as an intervening party was not provided during the
. 6 intervening period of time with Applicant / Staff exchanges.
7 And it is my understanding under the Commission rules, and 8 particularly under the authority of an Appeal Board case 9 that LEA should have been given ongoing access to those 10 exchanges of documents even during the period of judicial 11 review. .
12 And for.that proposition, I would cite to the 13 Board, Carolina Power & Licht Company, Shearson Harris 14 Nuclear Power Plant, A Lab 184, and Vermont Yankee, A Lab 15 179.
16 JUDGE MARGULIES: And does that cover an instance 17 where a contention was not approved and the parties were 18 expected to continue to furnish information on a contention 19 that was eliminated early on in the proceedings?
. 20 MR. ELLIOTT: The holding of the cases is that all 21 Staff / Applicant correspondence is required to be served on 22 all parties to a proceeding. And such service must be 23 continued through the entire judicial review process at 24 least with respect to those parties participating in the 25 review and those issues which are the subject of the review.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
, (202) 628-4888 l
i 13 1 JUDGE RARBOUR: Mr. Elliott?
7-sy 2 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes.
s_, 3 JUDGE RARBOUR: Did I understand that one of the 4 areas you mentioned was reduction in the chance of a 5 transient or some such thing?
. 6 MR. ELLIOTT: I think one of the areas that was 7 described, broadly described was -- let me find my reference 8 to it.
9 (Pause . )
10 MR. ELLIOTT: Reduction in transient initiator 11 frequencies. .
12 JUDGE HARBOUR: Reduction in transient initiator 13 frequencies. That doesn't sound like a mitigation feature.
14 It sounds like a prevention feature.
/~~T 15 MR. ELLIOTT: I understand. I would say that
(
\- ') 16 there is at least some ambiguity in the relationship between 17 what is reduction and what is prevention.
18 I think we will find at least that there are some 19 areas which with respect to mitigation of certain accident I
. 20 sequences, it will here the effect of reducing the 21 probability of some other accident sequences. So, I don't 22 think there is necessarily a bright line to be drawn there.
23 But I think that is the only category that I have referred l 24 to in which -- which lies in that gray area. l 25 JUDGE HARBOUR: It was the one that struck me.
l-Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.f i
I 14 1 MR. ELLIOTT: I understand.
r 2 JUDGE MARGULIES: We will next move on to Staff (m)
V 3 and ask their opinion on the same matter.
4 5
.- 6 7
8 9
10 11 .
12 13 14
/ 15 is 16 17 18 19
. 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation e (202) 628-4888
'w
--________J
L ~15 r 1 MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, aLfew items.= First of all.
f~t 2 :- regarding the service upon~ LEA, at'the time there was.a I' -
3 ..pending' proceeding before the NRC on a list that NRRLwas 4- using for providing.. copies _of correspondence. When the?
5: Commission declined.to review ALAB-819, that proceeding was
- ' 6 no longer before the agency. And I believe that it was 7 probably'sometime after that time ~that they_were no longer 8 on that list, and I could verify that.
9 But in any event, we certainly note Mr. Elliott's 10' point that as a matter of discretion that we could have 11 ' continued to have kept them on there. We are putting them .
12 on the list and we will provide them with all future 13 correspondence related to the . subject matter of this 14 proceeding..
'/ 15 JUDGE MARGULIES: How about past correspondence on
(
16 this particular issue?-
17 MR. LEWIS: Well, one thing that they have 18' requested us to do is to identify reports that the NRC has 19 generated on the subject of severe accident mitigation and 20 they provided us with a list that they believe encompasses 21 the documents that they are aware of, and we have said that 22 we will identify any other document on that topic that is 23 not on their list, so we have agreed to do that. I am sure j 24 that we can work out with them now that they have identified 25 the problem to us closing any information gap that they Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
(;
.16, 11 1 think maycexist'.
jr- 2 JUDGE MARGULIES: Does-that-satisfy you,
( l 3 Mr. Elliott? j p..
4 HMR. LEWIS: Welare going to give them the entire
)
5 accession list of what is'in the PDR which would' include for-
.. 6 this' docket,;and then they would know all of the items.
7 MR. ELLIOTT: My understanding is'that the 8 accession = list that we requested constitutes the entirety of 9 the staff / applicant exchanges that relate in any way to 10 severe accident and severe accident mitigation, and I 11 believe that we will be in a position to review the .
12 accession list and determine from that list what specific 13 documents we may actually want production of. So at least 14 now that representation and undertaking should satisfy the j'"' 15 informational concerns that we have subject of course to any
~
16; . difficulty that may arise later.
17 We have worked before with the staff, and we wouldi 18 have no reason to believe that that arrangement would not be 19 satisfactory at the present time.
. . 20 JUDGE MARGULIES: Does the Applicant wish to be 21 heard just on this very narrow matter of supplying documents
. 22 to LEA?
23 MR. WETTERHAHN: No, sir.
24 JUDGE MARGULIES: You may proceed, Mr. Lewis.
25 MR. LEWIS: May I have one moment?
l Heritage Reporting Corporation !
f-~ (202) 628-4888 j '
(
. s.
.l
,i
i 17 1: JUDGE MARGULIES:- Certainly, f' - 2_ (P ause . ) .
.(
- \- 3 MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, the Commission's order of-4 May 5, 1989.did very specifically speak to the fact that.the.
5 .1'itigation on Contention-DES-5 would be limited'to the 6 mitigation alternatives identified by the Appeal Board as 7 being supported by the required basis of specificity. And 8 Mr. Chairman, you identified or you read from a list of 9 mitigation alternatives that were identified in that Appeal' 10 Board decision.
11 I think that the Commission'has indicated in this.
12 order limiting the litigation of'this contention to 13 previously identify categories. Now it also appears that
- 14. those categories may well encompass quite a few variations
/ 15 of types of' devices that'one could come up with. So it is i
16 not necessarily a severe limitation to be able to litigate
- 17. within the confines of four or five categories of types of 18 devices, or regimens, or considerations that one could go 19 into.
20 It is correct that there has been a lot of 21 additional documentation and studies undertaken by the staff 22 regarding severe accident mitigation alternatives since the 23 time that the Appeal Board focused on this question and 24 rendered its decision in ALAB-819. And to the extent that 25 those documents bear upon and have relevant information Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t
.g
R L ~18 H
1 .regarding severe accident design mitigation alternatives
.. A .2: that were put forward;and were accepted ~in ALAB-819Tas-being El L \~ ') 3 set-L.forth with sufficient; specificity'and basis, then we 4 thinkuthat-those documents are relevant.
.5 And we certainly would not want you to understand'
~
6 us to be. asserting that after. developed information is not 7 relevant.- We certainly.would want any record that is 8 developed.in this case to be based upon the most current 9 information that the staff has developed. However I think
-10 that certainly the Appeal Board and then subsequently the 11 Third Circuit were proceeding on the basis that DES-5 was a, 12 contention focusing on mitigation alternatives. We also 13 note in looking back at DES-5 that there is some reference 14 to' prevention as well as mitigation.
, 15: I think that the precise question of what k- 16 alternatives would be within the scope of what the Appeal 17 Board said in ALAB-819 would be something that the staff 18 would want to look at closely. We would want to see what 19 list of alternatives LEA is asserting to be within that 1
20 : Appeal Board decision, and give careful consideration as to 21 'whether or not we agree that those alternatives are within
. 22 what the Appeal Board said or not.
23 We really have not had any chance to really see 24 their list. They did provide us today with something to 25 look at in terms of alternatives that they would like to be Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i'
(
s
19 1 considered, but we really have not had a change to digest r"~% . 2 it. So we really could not speak definitively to that
\./') 3 today.
4 MR. WETTERHAHN: May I note first that the parties 5 to this proceeding, namely counsel for the staff and LEA and 6 counsel for the licensee, have engaged in a telephone 7 conference call preliminary to the prehearing conference in 8 order to try to better define the issue and see whether we 9 could reach agreement on the question that the Board was 10 asking. That is what is the scope or the range of 11 alternatives that must be viewed in order to satisfy the ,
12 Commission's order.
13 As you can see, there is some disagreement among 14 the parties. As a procedural matter, the licensee and LEA
/]
\ /
15 agreed to exchange lists of alternatives or classes of 16 alternatives that they believed were relevant. We have 17 provided that list to the parties and to the Board, and we 18 have received such list from LEA when Mr. Elliott arrived.
19 Turning to our list, we believe that the seven
- 20 items that were encompassed within that list constitute the 21 permissible scope of alternatives that can be examined by 22 this Board. We first looked at the Commission order 23 directing that the Appeal Board decision be examined to 24 determine which were the specific alternatives. There are 25 specific references and there are specific classes of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 f;,rs i
x i
l
[
20-1= alternatives available. Some are not'available to. plants.
~
-~-' 2 -like Limerick such'as. underground containment for a plant 3 already licensed or about to be licensed.
4 But the seven alternatives here in the licensee's 5- view constitute the scope of those alternatives which are in 6 .the references provided in support of the contention. And.
7 in accordance with the Commission's order,'these'are the-L 8 permissible limits.
l.
I 9 May I say'something generally. I agree with.the-
'10 observation of Judge Shon that it must be a mitigation 11 alternative. And as understood even in the references ,
12 provided in support-of the contention, these are mitigating 13 a core melt. In other words, the alternatives already 14 assumed a core melt. The Commission limited this remand to
- / 15 the examples provided. I believe that their remand was'more k 16 specific than the contention originally proposed. In 17: addition, they must be design alternatives. They must be 18 physical additions to the plant which would mitigate this 19 assumed core melt.
.- 20 As I heard them and as I look through the list 21 .provided by Mr. Elliott, some of the ones provided were 22 certainly not design alternatives. They may change 23 procedures and they may ask for implementation of certain 24 seismic procedures, but those are not design alternatives 25 within the scope of the remand.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
- g" (202) 628-4888 1
21 1 I would add that while we believe that this remand I
p-- 2 is quite limited that the research and the work being done k_- 3 by the Philadelphia Electric Company and others in the 4 industry is more widespread. We are certainly looking at 5 features other than SAMDAS as the Court of Appeals said to .
i
. 6 limit and reduce the already small risk of an accident.
7 However, these are not within the scope of the contention.
8 With regard to matters that may have transpired 9 subsequent to the issuance of the original license and the 10 decision of the Appeal Board and Licensing Board while they 11 may have further reduced risk, certainly the Court of ,
12 Appeals was looking at a snapshot as of the time of the 13 Appeal Board decision. So whatever may have transpired 14 subsequently is really irrelevant to what happened.
fN 15 Looking through the list, some of the information
('
16 or changes which Mr. Elliott would desire have already been 17 made, but that is the good as I am sure he will agree to 18 reduce the risk. But what I believe that Board has to look 19 at are those alternatives specifically referenced and which l
. 20 we believe are listed in the seven categories, and they must i 21 be mitigation alternatives and they must be design 1 .
l . 22 alternatives.
l 23 I would also note in closing that presumably in i 24 preparation for a hearing, the staff issued a set of three 25 questions to the licensee. I am looking for a copy of the Heritage Reporting Corporation fw (202) 628-4888 i
\_
22
- 1. letter now,- and I will provide the.date. But'I believe-that
~
.f s -2 letter provides the staff's preliminary thoughts with. regard 13 to the conduct of this proceeding. And we.believe that the.
4 list of seven items which we listed will be those items 15 which we will'be examining.in. response to the staff letter.
. 6 JUDGE' HARBOUR: Mr. Wetterhahn, the seven items to1 7 which you refer are things that are not actually a matter of' 8 record or formal submittal yet, but they are the things on 9 this single sheet of paper thatt you gave'us this morning, is 10 that what you are talking about?
11 101. WETTERHAHN: These categories come from ,
12 categories contained in documents supporting'Mr. Elliott's.
13 and LEA's original contention.
14 JUDGE HARBOUR: I understand that.
p 15 MR. WETTERHAHN: Yes. These are not otherwise in' 16 the record.
17 JUnGE HARBOUR: I would like to have them f
18 identified, because at best they are a precis or a selection 19 from the RDA report and LEA's supplemental this that and the
. 20 other thing. They are seven in fact rather specific design 21 changes if it is the paper that you offered this morning.
22 MR. WETTERHAHN: Yes, sir. Once you decide what 23 the spectrum of permissible alternatives is, it is 24 impossible for the engineers to further examine that without 25 choosing a reasonable set of specific alternatives. If we Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
23
.1- ..are:to look at cost benefits and plug in how they affect the W '2
.probabilistic risk assessment. And these are a rather-
- (
~(
'3 specific-.or a fairly specific set of. options.that the 4- licensee is looking at. They are not fixed in. concrete if 5 you will, but'they are a starting point in order to respond
. 6 to the staff questions. And we believe that when'these 7 . questions.'are' answered that we will'see that the scope.of.
8- the remand is' contained within these seven listed items.
9 JUDGE MARGULIES: The Board wants to have a short 10 discussion.
11' (Pause . ) ,
endT2 12 13-14
,p 15
\
16 17 18 19.
. 20 21 1
. 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 24 1 (Pause) f-~q 2 JUDGE MARGULIES: Have you concluded?
I I V 3 MR. WETTERHAHN: I have a couple of matters.
4 I would first like to identify the letter to the 5 licensee, which I mentioned previously. It is a May 23,
. 6 1969 letter to Mr. George A. Hunger, Jr., Director, 7 Licensing, Philadelphia Electric Company signed by Mr.
8 Richard J. Clark, Project Manager, Project Directorate, 1-2 9 Division of Reactor Projects, 1/2 Office of Nuclear Reactor 10 Regulation.
11 For convenience, since I referred to the list of ,
12 seven items which was not otherwise in the record, if the 13 Board wishes I can provide a copy to the Reporter that would 14 be bound in the record, for someone examining it at a later
. j 15 point in time.
5
16 This is the Licensee's list.
17 One final point with regard to the scope of this 18 contention.
19 As the Board is aware, licensing of the Unit 2
. 20 will be forthcoming, quite soon. And we are trying to get 21 this issue concluded as soon as possible.
22 If there were not time constraints with regard to 23 consideration of this issue with regard to the license, I am 24 sure that the licensee's view would be broader as to the 25 possible scope of this issue and perhaps we could arrive at Heritage Reporting Corporation fs (202) 628-4888
< T U
o nii p, .25'
- 1- aEstipulation.as to the permissible content'of any SANDAsito
. jd~' 2 .be' reviewed by the Board.
'.( '
3 I.just hold that'out as a possibility.
4 JUDGE MARGULIES: Are there any other comments?L 5 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, Your Honor.
l' 6 Given the fact that apparently this list of seven 7 ~ candidate mitigation options was presented to the Board I 8 think'it is only then fair for the Board to have our copy of, p.
9 .our list, which I'would have Mr. Ell'iott give to the Board.
10 JUDGE MARGULIES: Would you want to identify'that 11 for the record? .
(! 12 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. It is a multi page document.
13 entitled. Limerick Ecology Action, Inc., List of Primary 14 Candidates for Severe Accidant Mitigation.
15 It is a.12 page document.
16 Its intention is to focus attention on those 17- mitigation candidates that we at this present point in time 18~ consider to be best candidates.
19- And I want to re'-emphasize that we do not consider 20 this list to be in any way the scope of the litigable 21 contention.
22 And with respect to the scope of the contention, I 23 just wanted to draw the Board's attention to a specific 24 statement in ALAB 819, Slip Opinion at Page 4, which we-
-25 think states what the scope of the contention perhaps is, at Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26 ;
1 least if you take the 1983 snapshot in time.
7S 2 And at Slip Opinion 4 it said: We are inclined to i
\--} 3 agree with LEA that the NRC sponsored studies on severe 4 accident mitigation which LEA identified or submitted to the j 5 Licensing Board together provide enough basis and 6 specificity for the admission of Contention DES-5.
7 So that the Appeal Board said that the Staff 8 studies which we identified or submitted together provide 9 enough basis and specificity for admission of the contention 10 as drafted.
11 And we believe that is the law of this case with .
12 respect to the scope of the Commission, the scope of the 13 contention and all issues relating thereto.
14 Finally, I just wanted to comment briefly on Mr.
15 Wetterhahn's suggestion about a 1981 or 1983 snapshot.
[
, \ i 16 On one hand he says the 1981-1983 snapshot is 17 appropriate.
18 Yet, on the other hand, he says that in response
]
19 to all these studies, the applicant has made design changes
. 20 to the plant.
21 And I think if Mr. Wetterhahn is to be taken at 22 his word, his position really doesn't make any sense, 23 because then he is suggesting to this Board that it may not 24 consider in a snapshot taken in 1981 to 1983 any changes 25 made to the plant since that time. And that just doesn't I
Heritage Reporting Corporation rx (202) 628-4888 l
____._______m- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 27 1 make sense, Your' Honor.
fg 2 We need to take a look at the plant as it exists
- 3 and-the technology that exists. And that requires looking 4 at the state of affairs as they exist today, not as they 5 exist in 1981 and 1983.
. 6 JUDGE MARGULILS: This prehearing conference has 7 been set early on in relation to the Order of the Commission 8 instituting this proceeding.
9 I think the parties have a large basis of 10 agreement and I think it would be appropriate to give them 11 an opportunity to solidify their thinking and to come up ,
12 with a stipulation as to those items that they agree are the 13 proper mitigating devices to consider.
14 If there is any disagreement as to others, as part
/N 15 of the same subn.ittal, they should advise the Board of what
( )
16 their disagreement is and to support with necessary 17 authorities the basis for their disagreement and as to why 18 they should prevail.
19 We will discuss with the parties what would be a
. 20 reasonable date for such a submittal.
21 As part of that submittal, you should include the 22 three documents that you identified today in the record.
23 Do the parties have any questions on this?
24 MR. ELLIOTT: None for LEA.
25 JUDGE MARGULIES: Staff?
Heritage Reporting Corporation g-w (202) 628-4888
\%
28:
- b 1E ' MR . LEWIS
- 'No.
2 JUDGE MARGULIES: . Applicant?
i 't[ \ 3 MR. WETTERHAHN: No.
- 4. JUDGE SHON: Suggestions as to time?
5 JUDGE MARGULIES: We don't have to work that out H 6 at this particular minute. If we take a recess it is 7 something that the parties can discuss among themselves and
-8 come up with a time.
9- (Pause) 10 JUDGE MARGULIES: As a matter of what the issues 11 are in-this case, the licensee has submitted a proposal or a 12 petition to.the Commission yesterday that in a sense touches 13 on what the issues are in this proceeding.
14 It is not anything for us to decide upon at this 15 time. But I think for a complete and comprehensive record, 16 the licensee should state what.they had filed and what they 17 are looking toward and we can hear comments by the other 18 parties.
19 In having this discussion today, we are not in any 20 way impinging on the prerogatives and the authority of the 21 Commission. It is just to flesh out the record as to what
~
22 is occurring in the proceeding.
12 3 You may go ahead.
24 MR. CONNER: If the Board please, we would note 25 .several points, all of which are discussed in detail in this Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i:: .- _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
1.'
29 1' filing with the Commission.
.2 This document, which I will provide to the I 3 3. Reporter and which I have already provided to the parties l 4 and to the Board members as well as to the Commissioners, L 5 the Secretary and so forth, on the service list, is entitled E. 6 " Applicant's.' Motion for Clarification of the Commission's 7 Delegation of Authority and for Issuance of an Operating.
8' License or Alternatively, for an Exemption from Any l 9 Procedural Requirement that a License for Limerick Unit 2 10 Cannot Issue until the Contention Remanded by the_ Third 11 Circuit'Is Resolved." Unquote. .
12 (The " Applicant's Motion for 13 Clarification of the 14 Commission's Delegation of 15 Authority and for Issuance of 16 an Operating License or-17 Alternatively, for an 18 Exemption from Any Procedural 19 Requirement that a License for
- 20 Limerick Unit 2 Cannot Issue 21 until the Contention Remanded 22 by the Third Circuit Is 23 Resolved' is inserted into the 24 record and follows:)
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
30 .J 1 MR. CONNER: I wish I could have written a shorter
- l2 title.
ss ,/ 3- The Commission as you know issued two orders 4 setting up boards for.the two remanded issues. The one on 5 the grade of prisms came' earlier and is the subject of a
.: 6 stipulation among the parties for dismissal of that 7 ' instance.
8 The Commission later, by an order dated May 5, 9 issued an order. setting up this Board for the. contention on 10 NEPA.
11 We did'not view the resolution of this contention ,
12 sa any obstacle to the issuance of the license for Unit 2 13 until we learned after discussions with the Staff that it' 14 ' considered that the delegation to this Board on the NEPA'
'~ 15 issue subsumed approval by this Board on'that issue before 16 any operating license could be issued by the Staff after 17 making all of the other findings under 50.57 as to 18 completion of construction, preoperational testing and so 19 forth.
. 20 We believe as set forth in our document which we 21 asked the Board to incorporate by reference in its thinking
- 22 if necessary that simply stated, there are no safety issues 23 outstanding for the issuance of the license.
24 The prior Licensing Board, the Appeal Board and 25 indeed the Commission has found that Limerick Unit 2 can be L Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
31 1- operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the (w 2 public.
's 3 There is no safety issue as such outstanding. The ;
4 only issue is the NEPA issue, and the cost benefit analysis ,
5 deriving therefrom.
6 At the present time, fuel loading for Limerick 7 Unit 2 is estimated for between June 16 and 30 and that the !
4 8 unit would be ready to exceed the high power / low power l 9 percentage by about August 1. ,
10 We would anticipate commercial operation by the 11 end of the year. .
12 As set forth in the affidavit of Corbin McNeill, !
13 the Vice President-Nuclear for the company, any delay in :
14 this schedule will increase the costs per month of '
/N 15 approximately $35 million to the people in the service area, 16 the users of electricity in the service areas as well as to 17 the shareholders and the company itself. l 18 Delays could impact on capacity availability to j 19 the PJM interconnection during the Summer of 1989 and it l
- 20 might be well to note that the interconnection has already 21 experienced power shortage due to the weather and 22 unavailability of other units.
23 We want to emphasize, as we have emphasized I believe to the Commission, that the Third Circuit did not I 24 25 stay the action of the Commission in authorizing the i
Heritage Reporting Corporation f-'s (202) 628-4888
- (s_-)
1 l
l
32 1 issuances of the licenses as it had already done for Unit 1 s 2 or would do later for Unit 2, I \
\m,-) 3 To the contrary, as we point out in detail in our 4 filing with the Commissioners, they specifically found that 5 no stay having been requested and that only a remand on this
. 6 issue was requested, that was all that was done.
7 We note in our filing that there have been many 8 remand cases in which contingent operation of a facility was 9 allowed without interruption, including ones identified in 10 this c&se itself.
11 We also point out that the Federal Courts ,
12 permitted balancing of the equities tests to permit 13 continued operation of a reactor pending resolution of other 14 compliance problems with NEPA citing cases in the record, r~N 15 We note in particular that the present case tracks 1
L
' \-- 16 the situation in the Table S-3 cases of a few years ago 17 where the Commission found that the probability of any 18 releases from buried waste in that case would be very small 19 and conditioned any licenses to be issued to abide by the
, 20 result of that particular rulemaking proceeding.
21 We note that there are no procedures or
. 22 requirements in the Commission's regulations, particularly 23 Parts 2 and 51, dealing with remanded issues. They simply 24 are silent on that.
25 Therefore, there is no procedural barrier in the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 s.
_.__._..___________.____.____i
p _
33' il- -regulations for.the Commission through its Staff to'act.
e( 2 We have also. pointed out two recent Supreme. Court 3 decisions w;.ich bear on this subject in pointing out
'4 limitations upon'the scope of NEPA review.
5 , ~And finally, we note simply that any change that
- _ *. 6 might result from resolution of this particular issue would l
7 .not' skew the cost-benefit-analysis because the costs could I 8 be considered prior to startup,-not afterwards,. and that-the l
L 9 ' operation of the reactor during this time would not prevent-l 10 the installation of any fix that might be ultimately 11 determined. .
12 So that essentially isLwhat our motion'to the 13 Commissioners does. . We hope the. Commission will act 14 promptly to make-clear that it intended the Staff to proceed 15 as normally without regard to the resolution of this issue.
'k 16 Did I answer the Board's questions?
17' JUDGE MARGULIES: Yes. Our intention is not +7 go 18 into the merits of anything of that sort. It is once again 19 to show what the state of the record is in regard to this
. 20 proceeding which might in part be collateral to what we have 21 going on before us.
22 MR. CONNER: That is.our view.
23 JUDGE MARGULIES: May we hear from the other 24 parties?
25 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. The record should reflect-that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(-
34 1 just today there was handed to LEA's counsel the motion and rx 2 supporting documents that Mr. Conner referred to, which is a
/ h
\s_/ 3 26 page document which in its essence seeks an exemption 4 from requirements among other things of Part 51 of the 5 Commission's regulations.
. 6 Surely the Applicant knew that fuel loading was 7 anticipated at Unit 2 long before today and surely the 8 Applicant knew as early as May 5 when the Commission itself 9 issued an order remanding this matter to the Licensing Board 10 that the issue of fuel loading and the applicability of Part 11 51 was at issue. ,
12 So I find it surpricing that it is only until 13 today we get a copy of this motion when probably they were 14 aware at least a month ago that this issue was going to come (N 15 up.
(
\ 16 I am not so sure that it is collateral to this 17 proceeding, because if the Commission does not exempt the 18 Applicant from all the requirements of Part 51, as the Board 19 is aware, 51.106 requires that the presiding officer make
, 20 certain findinge with respect to the ability of the 21 Applicant to load fuel, and among other things it requires
- 22 that by referring to 51.105, it requires the presiding 23 officer to determine whether requirements of Section 102 of 24 NEPA and the regulations in Part 51 have been met.
25 And so I think this raises very difficult and Heritage Reporting Corporation 7s (202) 628-4888
\
+
35 l'
- l. 1 complex issues concerning whether there can be those I
j-~.s 2 findings, whether if in view of the applicability of Part t' I
\m / 3 51, whether the Board is in a position to issue such an 4 order.
5 If the motion is granted by the Commission and all
. 6 the requirements of Part 51 are exempted, then that presents 7- us with a different situation.
8 But until then I think the issues of fuel load and 1
9 low power testing and this Board's jurisdiction are 10 intertwined.
11 JUDGE MARGULIES: The Board at this stage is first, ,
i 12 going to look to what the Commission does and depending upon 13 what the Commission does then we may or may not have a 14 further role, r"N 15 MR. ELLIOTT: I understand.
!N' ) 16 MR. CONNER: For the record, sir, could I rsspond 17 on the points made by Mr. Elliott in timing?
18 JUDGE MARGULIES: We are really not going into the 19 merits of it so it is something that you may want to mention
. 20 to him?
21 MR. CONNER: We did mention it to him last week as 22 soon as we knew the Staff's position, because it did not 23 occur to us that there would be any obstacles to licensing 24 until the Staff gave us its final position.
25 JUDGE MARGULIES: May we hear from Staff?
Heritage Reporting Corporation
,<~ (202) 628-4888 N.
1
t 36 1 MR. LEWIS: Let me just say, Your Honor that I ja~K 2 think that now that the motion has been made before the
(
'\ 3 Commission, the parties will be expected to respond. Staff 4 has calculated that its response would be due on June 20.
5 So as you have saad, the motion is pending before
. 6 the Commission.
7 Had there not been a motion filed before the 8 Commicsion, the Staff would have called the Licensing 9 Board's attention at this prehearing conference to the fact 10 that we felt that the remand in this case did not totally 11 set to rest the question of whether or not the matters to be, 12 litigated in this remanded proceeding had to be determine 13 prior to the commencement of operation of Unit 2.
14 Whether or not it is a difficult question as :
(N 15 characterized by Mr. Elliott, I don't know. But in any I
\A .
16 event that question will now be addressed on the motions and 17 responses by the Commission.
18 So Staff therefore would not go any further with 19 regard to the merits of the motion.
. 20 I would say one thing. And I think that it is 21 misleading to get into snippets of what this motion does or
- 22 does not say. It is characterized by Mr. Elliott as being 23 in essence a motion for an exemption. The motion has been 24 submitted as information for the record and will speak for 25 itself.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
-~
(202) 628-4888 i m
37 1 Whether or not his characterization of it as being 2 in essence an exemption request will be borne out by what 3 the document says.
4 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is there anything further on 5 that part of the agenda dealing with simplification,
. 6 clarification and specification of the issues?
7 (No response) 8 JUDGE MARGULIES: Moving on to Number 2, the 9 obtaining of stipulations and admissions of fact and the 10 contents and authenticity of documents to avoid unnecessary 11 proof. .
12 The way the Board measures the responsiveness of 13 the parties to date, we do not see that there is going to be 14 any problem with the parties agreeing to the authenticity of 15 documents and the parties are not expected to do anything 16 that would require the production of unnecessary pn of.
17 A matter of stipulation has already been thrown 18 out to the parties as something to work on, which they are 19 agreeable to doing.
- 20 We look for a spirit of cooperation in this 21 proceeding and by all accounts it seems to be forthcoming.
22 So with that, we are very pleased.
23 Moving on to Number 3, identification of witnesses 24 and the limitation of the number of expert witnesses and 25 other steps to expedite the presentation of evidence, it Eeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
38 1 would. appear to be premature to discuss anything under that
(N 2 section unless the parties feel differently.
3 MR. WETTERRAHN: The only observation, we would l
l 4 intend to use the witness panel approach that we utilized l
l 5 during the course of the original hearings on the FRA. And 6 that is the only observation I would make.
7 JUDGE MARGULIES: The setting of the hearing 1
8 ochedule, number 4, is premature. !
9 And number 5, such other matters as may aid in the 10 orderly disposition of the proceeding.
11 I think we ought to discuss under Item 5 what the.
12 parties see as the next items are in moving this proceeding 13 forward.
14 May we hear from Staff first?
/N 15 N.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 j 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 V(}
39 1 MR. LEWIS: I would think that the stipulation in fN 2 order to firm up exactly the agreed issue before the Board i )
N' 3 is would be the next item. There is after all one 4 contention that was remanded, and we have heard various 5 perhaps divergent views as to what is encompassed within the
- 6 scope of that contention and within the scope of the remand
~
7 as it characterized that contention. So I think that that 8 would definitely have to be the next step.
9 JUDGE MARGULIES: And what do you visualize as the I
10 step after that, Mr. Lewis?
11 MR. LEWIS: Well, if in fact depending on the ,
12 stipulation as to the scope of the issue, we would then know 13 whether or not the issue entails any discovery of documents 14 not previously available to LEA or any discovery by the
[\/ '} 15 other parties of any information that LEA may have.
16 Certainly the basic documents dating back through about 1985 17 I know were available to LEA.
18 I believe based on the list that they provided to 19 us that they have been keeping pretty well up with this area
+ 20 of study and have knowledge of and are in possession of most 21 of the documents involved. So I do not anticipate that
. 1 22 there would be any need for extensive discovery. The issue !
23 is an issue already I think fairly well focused by the 24 contention and by the remand, but the stipulation will 25 certainly help us to focus on whether or not what the extent Heritage Reporting Corporation
/s (202) 628-4888
\
)
..__-u. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l h 40 )
1 of any discovery that may be needed would be.
1
-w 2 I do not know whether or not once the parties have'-
l 1 Y%
3 reached some stipulation and I do not know whether or not at 4 that time that there'will also have to be submitted to the l
[ 5 ~ Board for its determination some difference of views. So it
+ 6 may be that before discovery could be commenced that there 7- would'be some further order from this Board required L 8 speaking to exactly what the issue is that is to be 9 litigated.
10 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do the other parties wish to be 11 heard? .
12 MR. WETTERHAHN: We would also hope to minimize 13 any formal discovery. In our conversation with the other 14 parties, we have already agreed to provide documents which 15 they might not have had. As an example, we will provide the 16 latest update of the PRA to Mr. Elliott. Mr. Elliott will 17 identify also for us the last revision of the final safety 18 analysis report that he has, and we will give him 19_ subsequently filed amendments. And combined with the
. 20 extensive material which he already has in evidence by the 21 list that he has provided, we are hopeful that that would 22 ' eliminate the need for formal discovery or at least minimize 23 it.
24 With regard to proceeding, if the parties can 25 agree on a set of alternatives and agree to disagree on the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
41 !
1- others, I see no reason why discovery cannot proceed on g-~g 2 those which the parties agree to be included within the
\
v
]
3 scope of the remand.
4 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Elliott.
5 MR. ELLIOTT: The past practice of the parties in a 6 this proceeding has been one in which informal exchange of i
', 7 information has worked fairly well. At this point in time 8 assuming that that previous history of cooperation continues 9 into this new phase of the proceeding, I would agree with 10 Mr. Wetterhahn that the need for formal discovery may be 11 minimized. There may be some need for formal discovery .
j 12 depending upon what events transpired.
13 It is true that we have had access and our experts 14 have had access to the open literature on these issues and !
[N 15
)
those documents which have been publicly available. It is t
16 also the case however that at least with respect to the 17 Applicant that internal documents are not routinely 18 available, and we will need to see whether we need to take a 19 close look at those.
. 20 I made a request before of the Applicant that they 21 give us the changes for the FSAR since the last time that 22 they were made available to us. Our expert has made a 23 request if the Applicant will be cooperative in providing us 24 with the microfiche version of the FSAR as an entity which 25 we will pay the cost of.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
..\s
4 r.
42 l' Theionly other matter on discovery that I should
~
2 probably raise earlier than later is that we have had a
3 request from one of our experts to obtain pe mission .for a 4 site visit to inspect various parts of the plant, so that we 5 can become personally familiar with the actual layout ano so
- I have not raised this issue with the
'6 on as it exists.
a
. 7 Applicant yet, but I would do so perhaps today and explain 8 to him what the needs are, what areas of the plant need to 9 be looked-at, and to convey our willingness to cooperate 10 with the Applicant in terms of photography and so on, so-11 whatever concerns that the Applicant may have can be .
12 addressed.
13 MR. WETTERHAHN: We would be pleased to discuss 14' the matter with Mr. Elliott subject to of course the O 15 requirements for security and radiological control imposed 16 by the Commission.
17 MR. ELLIOTT: We are aware of those concerns, and
-18 we think that they can be addressed.
19 JUDGE MARGULIES: All right. We will just take a 20 recess in place and the parties can discuss the proposed 21 filing date of that stipulation. We will go off the record 22 now and go back on when you have completed your discussion.
23 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
24' JUDGE MARGULIES: Back on the record.
25 Have the parties arrived at a date for the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
\
F )
43 1- submission of this stipulation?
r . g)'~ The-2 MR. LEWIS: Yes, we have, Mr. Chairman.
2F parties will submit-a stipulation of the design alternatives 4~ to be considered'in this remand proceeding on-Wednesday,
~
5 June 28th. Now I believe that this has-been discussed but-6L if'there were a need to. identify any areas of-disagreement H
[_>, 7 'that were not resolved by the stipulation that then the i.
8 thinking is'that to be submitted two days later. -I am not .j 9 anticipating that there would be any, but-if there were that.
10 . would be the 30th.
11 (Pause . ) .
12- JUDGE MARGULIES: Rather than deal with changing 13 dates which only relt.te to a day or two and since it is I 14 close to the weekend, why do.we not make it July 3rd. It
. h#~ \' 15 will give you the. weekend should you need it.
\/ %
Thank you, Your Honor.
i
-16 MR. ELLIOTT:
1 17 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do you have any problem with )
18 that?
19 MR. CONNER: I would note for the record that is
- - 20 right before Independence Day. .
21 JUDGE MARGULIES: It is still giving you .]
l 22 additional time. If you do not want to use it, you could 23 submit it by Friday, but it gives you the opportunity of 24 over the weekend.
25 Is there anything further?
Heritage- Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
44-l 1 MR. ELLIOTT: Maybe just noting briefly for the
/^% 2 record that LEA's counsel and Applicant's counsel has had a 1,
3 brief discussion on making the plant available for physical 4 inspection by one of our experts. It is my understanding 5 that the Applicant will make the plant available for 6 inspection and have a conference at the plant. Tentatively 7 that is scheduled for this coming week, the 12th and the 8 13th. And I am prepared today to give the Applicant's 9 counsel a typewritten list of those specific areas of the 10 plant that we would like to have inspected.
11 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is there anything further? -
12 (No response. )
13 JUDGE MARGULIES: The prehearing conference is I 14 adjourned. Thank you.
j 15 (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the prehearing 16 conference was adjourned.)
17 18 19 20 s
, 21 l 22 23 l 24 .
l 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation
/~ (202) 628-4888 i
i
l l O
1 REPORTER' S CERTIFICATE 2
l
.- 3 DOCKET NO.: 9-589-04-OL-R2, 50-352-OL-2,50-353-OL-2, Design Alternatives 4 CASE TITLE: Philadelphia Electric Company 5'
Limerick HEARING DATE: (June b, 19Gberation Station, Unit 2) 6 LOCATION: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 7
8- I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are 9 contained fully and accurately on the tape and notes 10 reported by me at the hearing in the above case before the 11
- /~N '12 13 Date:
14 s 15
\ 1 16 Official Reporter
. 17 Heritage Reporting Corporation 18 1220 L Street, N.W.
19 Washingto.,, D.C. 20005 20 21 22 23 i
'V 25 u-- =~ m nn co - r.eion
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - -