ML20249B277

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transcript of 980617 Public Meeting in Rockville,Md Re Private Fuel Storage,Llc (Isfsi).Pp 901-948
ML20249B277
Person / Time
Site: 07200022
Issue date: 06/17/1998
From:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#298-19230 97-732-02-ISFSI, 97-732-2-ISFSI, ISFSI, NUDOCS 9806220260
Download: ML20249B277 (49)
v • d • e


Text

m,N q

( .,.r ~~),. e , .-l Tp , p; e.m.i ., iQ. f p . .- - :s t ; ,- .?

m _ _ .m, gm n- .^ ' flTVQRf. i&f(.y.s d . .

^

0?

.+r,

m. . i QW. .p y,-- Q i , . . . . .,/ ;sk; f...- $ ,7_, ' T ,. 5

. * );0NDll..}_g)(, ' rf5 W;, . .

I'^N' ;

m' ~ &.qw m,, Lh?

~

,eh '

lhQ$gm;WY 4y pr ce m v$$"QluQfQ;q$;?s?'_.; _, i. L,h.%W{h"k;y w ', ~a' ]' ilC f; :.Yp' ' n' u% *S h=? W' vmly > :;f,g;f i ,n m ,<

, < +

y g;W .m - . . _g y,yff_eQ *8 t

r o

, / yt Ql g

[cp phl%.ggf%g% gMQ & - {[ f..? g Q)h Q,Wll:k.; , 'f;n < r,fw+.gy.Mp * , ,':;T' o

' fr ,

e?.QW ,[ b b;). - ,

o

~,

f a pg l 3l. <

._~ hs ~

p i k'y;;

lQ! yh?Nli':y:.l(l . ~ !.Q ~ ,fMN ,

{ . , fl "j . ..L WlM

) ~-

1, d >e c( &{'

We ' '

% l[:$. s y F

~.: i,

, , 3:_ ,

fi  ;<

> %w' ' r >w q ' -

m  % ny + w. s . l g

  • n s 4 x

4w &m%$x

  • v M,K,n'W Wp l a GC  %,1 am;s@., A T 2%s-Q m %s e & , i -.. +:? # cDOCMT  ?! M

@sM wmy

??,n;s]n%n.

wg a g:::;_ m..j;pf 3 W_9 v 4 ,_,4

, EIGINIQRANSCRIPIM~

a sq , z

. G , gjgny ' p 69.; + v., -n ip ;mp +,n t m> a .m7

. . e -;a

-;;Yl(ODE #DfNW,

-- m, .' t s ,

- 'l 5,

.4

~,

a g

an a , n a n.y , g.: ., ;w , m- 8 wi - ,. my .

,ei n w.

w% gl,ypryp3 a i ny d: Gi 9y%'w JM m ~n m m: + m - n. . w ! w w +, v. su ~. ~ T.L . .,., c ,h.. : . ;wyJ; %,;gc > ' c , .. W +-

&@QQQf kW& j$ $h&Ih@llW@ ? $?.: '

s

&,h!&UN ?MRyXlR;Y $N f $?? h nD$fhFf hDl l @$

&l; N

k@&&$?h&b?kkW V k/jf M  % Wpy bh $$bhk '

C  % G-; c L9&. L q%Qu WEUST.ORWGE$

f ifWK pth%'

lith

n

&j c 'l#f&

@mn%@

.L P

im ea s ppm wne gM:a&

;.. np F.p.w mgWr:m.M m .

, W Mfkl:6$v# ,

uw g m w p-

,;w,qn W G $nd c- r w w ns M,Q:, x JRWATEm u.ypr c m w w w-w m? . y~ v w r c

,enn n 1 Msh , si . . .ay%w n -

Y ,f W' E&VWMa%(t , , ,$uw

  1. yg^'M-M'M L gg gppg;gGM g&gy,@my v

WMcW g f og* (n D$82-

.ev ggg]W4ll$t40Hh r- www hg %e & W <w$a&my W A<,4$%pp@MA

c g!w g%@ng.mwpmnamg @cy W WM M j~r % a

% 29

%g%@&aV@MMf? @ppqg W m WMM @Whp M dW MM S T3 M~yCM %w' iM

@M .

M, A A mm m.

@BM&+a%lp%wwwpbh+f&pp

&ag n k w wMff ObNM @Mh" QpW m fk ua . m W @ ? ' + W lMM%+Qw h g9 wNkk

$aQQ *

.e m L1 xc 7SWA M %s%& ,

na w no yh ,1i' NN; Nhb x 7

'R<

.JfWQ N

w.w R$'Km 3:

k /k' Ws hkbkNh[kh$WhDD

&u%gg%e m h M Mn #nww Ak.W?@Mic b kNNUh$h  ?'NlIwl' m

  • Rm!L k@$g. W L M[@O~&p s

?Y$

M< $" n Y A/um '% 9 ;N5l W[A %m w&v Aw +W 'W aDM aahmc+%.w%:gMq qsy r&s W

mwe wa q s.m s +w o wnw:.q

.5 p

4 uW uwn Q:s:pn y w s nn ww p ed m

% gapQ g m m.

e n NmC'

.-ana ys y

~ 8

~Q. v +n w8 fw4:, tq;h.g m% yv' ewi m mL ~%W,em, m ,o [,h -+

- &, mg w qu + 2p% p g mag pi wy .ki Jy m f s d%p&g o A

u,qw a y m uty n

4sj:w&ff' m Q :d .m nh g7 l k k m Ng i.N&ENW dhh0$.1

&w$g%,&g%tM'.Q.f'.h-@>W$.m$hWW$w: wa 1 1 4% dy.hpIy# y@$hh$$$_VMhO'%ph$0W A% .,. ( f. ' y' d2hpdMM?lC W,L {Ng* }" @ $ h$s Yj.<% 9

$ # .. 4 4 Q 9:,. g y.e f bU NF

  • g
f 3

, MC@h' S 4 8a I!h [' i @ \ < %m # ' J f epm J.]

w>mAmmd p 4-m nm mmv

, W W M,, A> g.%uv &m.

y; ,,

$w n s w y m%

p,ym . J, M t 4 ey+y ymn m/?.l@_ M M+y a w M.m y nd m'M,u.

y .,

w an s su mW W e (b . i: ' "

w

,s , X.

r g' m w n ,]%,1, , ' %, a

.J ", , N,- ../,

.S*w ,

~:W m, M, , ,

h~uu$ w.b h,y, - d~wd d NewN k N d h. b_.n S Wml .[ Qh...m m(c' P , 'N~ >S

= . , s Rg h kyM hEh~b ,e#UkiM

  • wuw qw,7 % , a , ,

1 yh L , hs ,fhhYkhY

$ , h,f.wm~c! w Q;f , ,' ,,f l ,

~g

(_ ,

f

% ' 7!nw);

a, "

m , x' .

TM d , ., N-. +5 d((s s

't

. !,J; ' / #

',A MfWQf

~

kN JND,[ lQ kMM f Q[$m D @DhTE,J$(Y D h1998 ha,p  %% L $ y(WpdnenaQuns))h

$ Q[ [% p f G E 4h$ $9 &E[]$$ "

sI  %

36 hhkw '~,5 ' m(:

, j % Me% m$W $ d $ m$ m+

7 M@NW[ din hhk$m[.ym'e<db m , o

- +

k k 7 Mus k hh h J '

agh

"-ma*

mme eM

' b;$ s >

,: '4 i

h h p u v@d% fc d q %&aph@b hh hk [h* A)y m,w 4 s n ggggQ a b 4 9a %no W -

i i w' , , y m g.

4 e 1 <

,,m, g G^ h, s @7 ~u; .y,J v W M >g"h i TQ mk ^m u m:

y&%f ,Q, g{g&Y D mM* W lp;yl'[r - m - Qm d. 6i ,,. .k@l

  • f',',

LJ #+Q*a Q~ ~ ' d$g *t

%ma' s ;w DM &m&g;&f &m;Q@b Am > %me&'m)W+?AW'REEMASSOd

,w m ~ w ms..

W 1

W

@h@%;/QW%M M $My7'iiMb W

WW d E 325015trE4 NW hkp300W ' T Lf94 *'

tu MW l, Li h (-

h %@d % W d @!@@Qk~%"' W % M

%@ .%bMQd M'WQ Mf %h3

. WWE:ds k y{D%m %4gl2$$4L6034 TM20 o%Dh20005+ Eia % i Wl A&y&  ;#Nr *1J l MS <p& - :g 'by ,

dy 9806220260 980617 hb b b b Abb hhN k. O ~h h, $ s / % @h

$$lDK PDR ADOCK 07200022 $;M @gg s p Dbaf.M W M M W~ 4 70 ' _ t% W

$pW U$pg h - C PDR

' 4f&  %

fy . N t

.J Cf > , s, b?

M p

449  ;.yv M:g ggwmhmg T w s , amp ge ggg Q< gwo~wJWN@e

+ e c # N ( 'W Q' W L.wa gpwspeww;w g

m;n #, s aA m > m pu 4 ' *7 AF;+?94Ko 4 my

. ;o ,

s <. , ,

y ..

q .

e

't -

, K :i " - . .

00CKETED 1

&y ', ~ OFFICIALlTRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS a

r ,

V iUNITED STATES OF AMEIMCA 1 9 P2 '46 -

ANUCLEAR REGULATORY COSIMISSION

"  % ua e em m ,

, , ADJUDIC , ' Syjp 5'

,  ?

Title:

-PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, L.L.C.

,a M , m 1 Lg < .

, 'E,* -

'(Independent Spent Fuel f m . .

[ ';.rj ' s

_ . .e - r

$+

, , LS' torage Installation).

w a; ?g 3- y , ' %,

&V .

I,

) A e 1 k .

n' (72-22-ISFSIH

< ;L.. -C. ase~No.::

3'" ., s m -

  • V. ,,. ' ;) ?

.. t. , .

e O

'A zz '

, \ -

,.j'

.1 J'

m te iWork. Order Nodi ;ASB-300-347.

  • hM:; s

,j' ; i-3m < , 7q -

y l' _ <

,J

' t ,.

21 A1 / '

p al -

s l LOCATION: ' Rockville,Md ' '

b .

S-. , ;u DATE: . Wednesday, June 17,1998 PAGE 901 - 948 -

[ as ^

a a e '

%Q: l' "

94 : -]

i 1

.. ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. i 1250 I Street, NW, Suite 300 l it'- Washington,D.C. 20005 ]

7:.I

'(202) 842-0034 ' j c iv 1

pr . y i

" f 9806220260 980617 I U A. . PDR ADOCK 07200022

-; e C PDR Q.

< .i , , i a

< c' '

901 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

_ __________ _ _ _ _ _x O 2 3

In the Matter of  : Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI

ASLBP No. 97-732-02-ISFSI PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, L.L.C.  :

4  :

(Independent Spent Fuel  :

5 Storage Installation)  :

-X 6

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7 11545 Rockville Pike 3rd Floor Hearing Room, T-3-E-10 8 Rockville, Maryland 9 Wednesday, June 17, 1998 10 The above-entitled prehearing conference convened at 1:00 p.m., pursuant to notice, before:

11 THE HONORABLE G. PAUL BOLLWERK, III 12 Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel 13 DR. JERRY R. KLINE, 14 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel O 15 DR. PETER S. LAM, Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel 16 PRESENT FOR THE APPLICANT:

17 Ernest Blake 18 Jay Silberg Paul Gauk2er 19 PRESENT FOR THE NRC STAFF:

20 Sherwin Turk 21 Mark Delligatti 22 PRESENT FOR THE STATE OF UTAH:

23 Denise Chancellor 24 Fred Nelson, Via Telephone Diane Curran 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

L-902 11- APPEARANCES: [ Continued) i' 2' PRESENT FOR THE ONHGO GAUDADEH DEVIA:

3 Joro Walker, Via Telephone 4- PRESENT FOR CASTLE ROCK LAND AND LIVESTOCK, L.C. and SKULL VALLEY:

-5 Bryan Allan, Via Telephone 7

8.

9 10.

11-12

-13 14 15

' w}/ .

16' l 4 17- 1 18

'19 20 21 22 23' 24' 25' ,

L l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

I 'l Court Reporters

\/ 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 u-_--_-- . - . _ - - - - _ . .

1 903 1 PROCEEDINGS

(

.g 2 OPEN SESSION 3 (1:05 p.m.]

4 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Why don't we go on 5 the record. Good afternoon. We are here this afternoon to 6 continue a prehearing conference in the Private Fuel Storage 7 LLC procecding. i 8 This morning we conducted a closed session to hear f 9 arguments from the State of Utah, Applicant Private Fuel 10 Storage and the NRC Staff concerning the admissibility of 1

11 contentions filed by the State, regarding the physical 12 security plan for the proposed Private Fuel Storage 1 13 independent spent fuel storage installation. ,

1 14 This afternoon we will begin with a teleconference l

( }p 15 with the other available parties in the non-physical )

16 security plan portion of the PFS proceeding to discuss the 17 status of discovery'and further scheduling.

18 Present today are Board members Dr. Jerry R. Kline 19 and Dr. Peter Lam, both of whom are full-time technical 20 members of.the licensing board panel. My name is Paul 21- Bollwerk, and-I am an attorney and I am Chairman of the 22 licensing board.

1 23 At this point we would like to have counsel for l

24 the parties identify themselves for the record, and why
25. don't we start with the representatives for the Interveners I /- ~ ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

( Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

i

l 904 j

'I who are joining us by telephone, then go to the Intervenor

)

f

,_, 2 State of Utah, and then move to counsel for the Applicant, l 3 and finally to Staff counsel. J 4 Mr. Nelson, why don't you go ahead and begin, 5 please.

6 MR. NELSON: Fred Nelson, Utah Attorney General's 7 Office, representing the State of Utah.

8 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Ms. Walker.

9 MR. WALKER: Joro Walker, representing OGD.

10 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right, and Mr. Allen?

11 MR. ALLEN: Bryan Allen, representing Castle Rock

~ 12 and Skull Valley Land Companies.

13 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Two' things.let me 1

l 14 tell our remote visitors. If you -- when you speak, if you r- s 15 speak, make sure you. remember to identify yourself before

.ty 16 you start talking. It makes it much easier for the Court

17. Reporter.

18- Also Mr. Allen, you are coming in a little low so 19 you may need to speak up somewhat.

20 MR ALLEN: Okay. '

21 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Ms. Chancellor, 22 please.

23 MS. CHANCELLOR: Denise Chancellor and William 24 Sinclair, State of Utah.

25 MR. BLAKE: I am Ernie.Blake, with J. Silberg and

' ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 3 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

1 Paul Gaukler representing the Applicant.

2 MR. TURK: Sherwin Turk, counsel for NRC Staff, 3 and to my right at this time is Mr. Mark Delligatti, the 4 Project Manager.

5 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right then. With regard to 6 the items for discussion today, I would like to cover 7 basically two topics. One is scheduling of either the 8 Staff's status report of June 15th, 1998, and the second is 9 the status of discovery efforts up to this point.

10 I guess with respect to the Staff's June 15th, 11 1998 report, I think we can say at this point that in 12 Government contract parlance we have received your best and 13 final offer -- at least at this point.

14 [ Laughter.]

15 JUDGE BOLLWERK: And I take it everyone has seen 16 that document and I guess the question for -- I will allow, 17 as I did last time, the Applicant to say anything they would 18 like about the Staff's schedule at this point.

19 MR. BLAKE: Well, let me start by observing that 20 we are disappointed and we really had hoped that we would 21 see in the Staff's reporting at this juncture some progress, 22 maybe some expectations of being able to improve on the 23 schedules that they had earlier outlined, but what I think I 24 saw was maybe even the greater disappointment than not even 25 improvement, in that we seem to have lost the slack. Where ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Court Reporters Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 I

1 906 1

( there were prospects of an interval of time into the future,

-- 2- it appears to us now that those intervals may have turned b-- 3 into'just the last date of that interval, and to the extent 4- that is the case, that's even more disappointing for us, but l 5 we continue to hold the hope that, as I indicated to the 6 Board the last time we were here, that the Staff will be 7 able'to improve on that schedule.

'8 We will continue to do our best to support 9 whatever schedule they think they can meet and we'll remain 10' hopeful that there will be progress and shortening of those 11- schedules in the future, but, as I say, disappointment is I 12 guess the way to express what we saw in the June 15th

13. report.

~14- JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. One of the things I 15- noticed in the status report was a statement about the 16 earliest need date for storage, which is calendar year 2005.

17 Is there anything you want to say about that or explain that i

l; 18 further for the Board?

19 MR. BLAKE: I would like Mr. Silberg to react to

{

L 20 that because he has' worked with the individual utilities, 1

21 and I think it is prompted -- maybe prompted on the Staff's 1 22 part by a report which the Applicant has given to the NRC 23 Staff which gave individual utility needs.

24 MR. SILBERG: I have had some discussions before 25- we started this afternoon with Mr. Turk and Mr. Delligatti ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

. O, . Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l I

907 1 about what the Staff meant when they said that the earliest

/

s

\

2 need date for storage was calendar year 2005, and as I

~"

3 understand the Staff's interpretation of that, and they can 4 address that perhaps, that is their interpretation of when a 5 utility has no other options except perhaps shutting down 6 its nuclear power plant, and frankly we think that that is 7 not an appropriate mark to be -- to use.

8 The letter that we submitted on March 18, which l

9 the Staff references, was asked to do something fairly j 10 straightforward, and that is for the member utilities, not 11 for all potential customers, but for the member utilities, 12 provide the operational requirements for dry cask storage 13 and projected dates of loss of full core reserve, and also l l

14 what contingency plans they would have for continued l (N 15 operation.

(,

16 The Staff is really saying short of shutting down 17 an operating plant, if you have some other option, then we 18' don't consider that to be a need date, and frankly I think 19 they misinterpreted some of the information we have given 20 them or perhaps used a test which I don't think is 21 appropriate.

22 Take as an example one of the members, Genoa Fuel 23 Tech, which is a subsidiary of Dairyland Power. Dairyland 24 has a shut down nuclear power plant, the Lacrosse boiling 25 water reactor. Obviously they don't need additional storage fs ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

('/ ) Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 I

908 1 in order to keep operating. They have been shut down for 10 2 years. However, they cannot decommission that plant until

\

3 they have a place to send the fuel. That does not seem to 4 have risen to the level of a need in the eyes of the Staff, 5 at least not for this Footnote 2 in their response.

6 Secondly, GPU Nuclear is listed as having a need 7 to transfer spent fuel to a dry storage facility in 2003 if 8 GPU elects to retire Oyster Creek, which is one of the two 9 options GPU has publicly stated, the other being that they 10 will sell the plant.

11 The Staff believes that if they could transfer 12 that spent fuel to their own dry storage facility, which 13 currently contains no fuel and is not yet in use, that that 14 is an option and therefore we don't need the facility --

() 15 16 GPU doesn't need this facility part of that time, so we think that this need data is not a real representation of 17 what the need for this facility is, even aside from the fact 18 that it only looks at the needs of the member companies of 19 Private Fuel Storage and not the rest of the industry.

20 As the Board knows, there are quite a few plants 21 that unfortunately are shut down that have fuel on-site and 22 have nowhere to put that fuel except to continue to have 23 scattered ISFSIs all over the country. One of the reasons 24 that we want this facility obviously is to avoid having a 25 hundred separate ISFSIs, but rather to have central interim ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Court Reporters Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

i 909 l

l 1 -storage.

,f-s( 2 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Anything further on l 3 that?

L

-4 Anything you want to say in response, Mr. Turk?

5 MR. TURK: Yes, Your Honor. The Spent Fuel 6 Project Office has responsibility for approval of both casks 7 being reviewed for certification on a generic basis, as well 8 as individual spent fuel sites -- spent fuel storage 9 installations. There is a delicate and difficult balancing 10 task that the Staff has to perform continually in allocating 11 its resources so that the persons or the licensees with the-12 greatest need can get approval of their casks or of their 13 spent fuel storage installations promptly.

14 Unfortunately, the resources available to 15 Government -- this agency in particular as well as I am sure ll(\_/'}

l l 16' other agencies -- I am sure it is true for Utah -- is not i

.17 unlimited. There is a need for the agency to allocate 18 resources in the best possible way so as to avoid doing the 19 greatest _ harm or do the greatest benefit, and that is what 20 is happening here, as well as other reviews the Staff is 21 conducting.

22 This facility unfortunately has not referenced a l 23- cask that is certified already, probably because there is no l 24 cask suitable for that purpose, or at least the Applicant L

25 has not been able to identify a cask that is suitable for ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

I Court Reporters

\- 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L

1 l

910 1 1 that-purpose.

)f g- 2 :The review of their application therefore has to

\_)

3 - first pass through an intermediate step with respect tx) the 1 4 casks to be utilized. As we set out in our status report, 5 that is a time-consuming process of its own. We laid out ,

t 6- what the projected dates were for approval of the Holtech 7 .High' Star and High Storm casks. l 8 In putting forward the information to you as to 9~ what the Applicants need date was -- l 10 MR. WALKER: Would you speak up, please? This is 11 Joro.

12 MR. TURK: Yes, I'm sorry. When we indicated to 13 ~the Board what the projected need date was, we did that with 14 the intention of being sure that the Board understands that

,-( 11 5 although the licensee would like to commence construction by 16- the stated date, by the year 2000, the date on which it is ,

1 17 imperative for their facilities to have the ISFSI available 18 does,not come until the year 2005.

19 We understand that PFS is a commercial entity. j 20 They would like to be able to market their facility to 21 potential users. They would like to have contracts in hand 22 in order to be able to assure the financial success of the 23 project. .We are aware of that, but we are also aware of the 24 fact that there is a competing universe of needs that we 25 have to look at as well as this facility.

i l

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters

\- 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

911 1 We could not simply drop the review ofISFSIs 2

proposed by individuals reactor licensees around the country 3 in order to accommodate PFS's request because that could 4 result in plants other than those which are members of this 5 consortium from being able to operate. Other plants may be 6 forced to shut down, so we think the need date is an 7 important consideration for the Staff in allocating its 8 resources.

9 Having said all that, I think I have to assure you 10 as well that the Staff is progressing with review of this 11 ISFSI, and of the Holtech casks on an expeditious schedule.

12 We have contractors in place who are conducting the review 13 of the ISFSI for us. As mentioned, we have the Center for 14 Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis and Oak Ridge National

/~N 15 Laboratory working on the SER and EIS respectively.

%)

16 Staff personnel are also working on portions of 17 the safety review and we are not delaying our review of this 18 facility or of the Holtech or the Sierra Nuclear casks 19 because of other persons' needs, but there is this delicate 20 allocation of resources that has to take place.

21 The Board in its order of -- I think it was the 22 June 5th order -- made a very interesting observation. You 23 pointed out that perhaps for some contentions the Staff 24 review might be completed earlier, and you seized upon the 25 quality assurance contention, g ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

t i Court Reporters

\l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

912 1 I would like to mention to you at this tima that g) 2 in fact back in 1996 when Private Fuel Storage was applying 3 for an ISFSI to be located at the site of the Mescalero 4 Apache Reservation, they had submitted a quality assurance 5 plan. That plan was reviewed and approved by the Staff and 6 that was by letter dated September 16, 1996. The Staff 7 issued approval of PFS Quality Assurance Program.

8 It is my understanding that in the current 9 application which PFS has submitted for use at this site, 10 they are using the same Quality Assurance Program. I have 11 not done a line by line comparison, but it is my 12 understanding that they have resubmitted what has already 13 been approved for another site to be incorporated into this 14 license, t'~)

\ /

15 If in fact it is the same program, and it is my 16 understanding that it is, then in fact the Staff review has 17 been completed and approval has been issued, but that 18 doesn't mean that the Staff personnel who would be involved 19 in going to hearing on that issue would be available to go 20 through all the different hearing-related tasks at this time 21 without impacting their ability to complete the review of 22 other areas for this facility as well as their review of 23 other things that they are involved in.

24 Because there is a need to try to use our 25 resources in an efficient manner, as well as the fact that 1

, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. j

' Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l l 2 84 b34 4

1 for most issues a safety review cannot be completed by the 2 end of this year, that we have taken what has been described 3 as our best and final offer and said we are not ready to go 4 to hearing until -- we are not ready to take a position on 5 contentions until December of '98.

6 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Anything further the 7 Applicant wants to say with respect to that -- this issue?

8 MR. BLAKE: I can confirm that they are right. It 9 is essentially the same plan and therefore the degree to 10 which the Staff's review may be advanced by knowing that or 11 having that confirmed I am able to state.

12 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Anything any of the 13 Intervenor parties want to say with respect to anything they 14 have heard up to this point? -- and Ms. Chancellor, you can

() 15 16 move the microphone.

you -- nothing to say?

Do you want to speak first or do 17 MS. CHANCELLOR: I have something to say. I don't 18 care whether I am first or last.

19 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Why don't you go ahead then.

20 MS. CHANCELLOR: Okay. My understanding is there 21 is a reference to a March 18 letter about the utility's need 22 for fuel storage.

23 MR. TURK: May 18.

24 MS. CHANCELLOR: May 18?

25 MR. TURK: Right.

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

'O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

1 914 1 MS. CHANCELLOR: Is that part of your responses to

I,_s) 2 the REI? We have not seen this letter and again I would

\/ 3 reiterate that there seems to be some correspondence that we 4 are not getting.

5 For example, this May 18 letter seems to go to the 6 need for the facility and that is critical to one of our 7 contentions. We do check the Public Document Room but at 8 best it can be two weeks before correspondence is 9

assessioned in the PDR and sometimes it can take over a 10 month so we would appreciate getting copies of relevant i

11 correspondence. I 12 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Anything else?

13 [No response.]

14 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Ms. Walker or Mr.

rs 15 Allen, anything you want to say?

\'-) 16 MR. WALKER: No thanks.

17 MR. ALLEN: No.

18 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right -- and Mr. Nelson, I I 19 take it then Ms. Chancellor is speaking for you?

20 MR. NELSON: Yes.

21 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Anything further that 22 the Applicant wants to say on this?

23 MR. BLAKE: No, only to note Denise's appropriate 24 critique of our ability to get them correspondence.

25 MR. SILBERG: Our standard procedures are that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

(~]

(._/

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

915 l' they get sent out. I can't confirm that they were or were gg' 2 not in this case, but we will check.

l

' N- 3' JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. At this time let me 4 as the Staff a couple questions, just so I make sure that I 5 understand the parameters of what we are talking about in  ;

6 terms of the report that you have given us.

1 7 kn I correct that with respect to what we have 8 . referred to as the Group 2 issues, which are basically the 9 safety. issues that wouldn't be within -- on the December 10 31st date that you are in a position, you think, by May 1st, 11 '1999,-to reach a Staff position on those issues? I 12 I am basing that on the schedule we were given 13 that talked about discovery going through the 30th of June.

14 My' understanding is you backed that up two months and that ]

) 15 gives us the date by which you reach the positions?

'\_

(/ )'

16 MR. TURK: That is my understanding and just to be 17 sure we are on the same page, it is my understanding that 18 those would be --

19 MR. WALKER: I'm sorry, I can't hear you very 20 well.

21 MR. TURK: To be sure that we are all on the same 22 page, it is my understanding that the contentions for which 23 the Staff would be ready by May 1 of '99 involve the

24. decommissioning contention, which is S; financial assurance, 25 which is E, Utah E; the geotechnical, for which by the way I

p- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters

,k. .

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L.

L , .

916 1 we don't expect a response to be in hand from PFS until x 2 . December, that is contention L; and I believe contention --

3 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Is it contention O --

4 MR. TURK: No, I think --

5 JUDGE BOLLWERK: O, I think, is an environmental 6 contention although it has some safety aspects to it.

7 MR. TURK: Right. I believe it's H which had to 8 do with the thermal design and that lies into the cask, 1 l

9 correct, that would be used. {

10 For those we are projecting that we would be able  ;

11 to take a position by the end of April of '99.

12- That is contingent of course on our receipt of the 13 information from PFS and our review of it and our 14 determination that it is adequate.

15 At this time when we give you that kind of

(

16. projection, we are assuming that the information we receive 17 .from PFS will be suitable, acceptable to the Staff, in order 18 for us to be able take a final position.

l 19 If the Staff finds a need at that point to go out 20 for a second round of questions, that would postpone our

'21 ability to take a final position.

L 22 MR. BLAKE: Accepting all the provisos, I think it

( .23 would also be Utah GG.

24 MR. TURK: That was my next question.

25 MR. BLAKE: I'm sorry.

,. , ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

..i Court Reporters

\ 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 t

917 1 MR. TURK: That has to do with the Transtore cask l 2 and I recognize that is on a different schedule than the

! 3 Holtech. That would not -- I mean May 1st at least at this l 4 point is a good date for that as well?

5 MR. BLAKE: That is the earliest possible.

6 MR. TURK: All right, but please understand that 7 is -- the earliest possible is not a -- we rive no ability 8 to sit here today in June and say at that time a review will 9- be completed because we haven't seen the information yet.

10 MR. BLAKE: All right. Then let me move -- I 11 think we mentioned this at the close of the security 12 portion. What about the security plan issues that might be 13 admitted -- again not knowing what those might be, but can 1 i

14 you give us any kind of -- are we talking about a Group 1 or

(~' 15 Group 2 or something beyond that?

\

16 MR. TURK: I think we could do that within the 1

17 Group 1 framework of time. I was speaking with Mr. Gaskin l 18 earlier today and he told me that he anticipates being able l

19 to send out a round of questions this summer before the end 20 of August. Assuming there is a 45 day response period for 21 PFS and another 30 day period for us to review those 22 responses, we foresee being able to take a position on 23 contentions with the security plan by the end of this year.

24 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. One other question 25 with respect to the SER. You are projecting I guess the SER ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters Ik-)h 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

918 1 in September of 2000, if I have the correct --

2  ; MR. TURK: I believe that is correct. That is the 3 complete SER, which would incorporate final reference to 4 whatever casks are certified under the rulemaking process.

5 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Now any hearings that 6 were held with respect to safety issues before that SER is 7 out. Although we would have your position, we wouldn't have 8 the SER.

9 Is that going to cause in your estimation any 10 problems in terms of the adequacy of the record?

11 MR. TURK: No. I believe we can supplement the 12 record later. Of course, to the extent that the SER would 13 contain information different from what we present in our 14 testimony, that could present a difficulty in terms of 15 closing the record at that time. There may be a need for 16 further investigation by other parties of what the SER 17 contains.

18 At tnis point I believe we are projecting two 19 different SERs, one which would be site-specific. That 20 would not be addressing the Holtech or the Sierra Nuclear 21 cask but rather the site characteristics. That is projected 22 for earlier than the September 2000 date.

23 I believe in Footnote 5 of our status report, we 24 indicated that date to be October of '99. That is for the 25 site-specific SER.

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. -

O- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

919 1 JUDGE BOLLWERK: That was another question I had.

f 2 What -- well, you said it encompasses site-specific issues.

iO l 3 Is it --

l l

1 4 MR. TURK: For instance, the QA plan. Well, I 5 should take that back, because QA may depend upon the 6 vendor.

7 May I have a moment on that?

8 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Sure.

9 MR. TURK: I don't know the answer to that as I 10 sit here, Your Honor. But there would be a number of issues 11 that have to do with the site characteristics, such as 12 flooding or hydrology, perhapr -- well, seismic wouldn't be 13 ready on that schedule. Perhaps it would. I couldn't tell 14 you definitively exactly which of the contentions would be 15 wrapped in the SER. I would have to know more about what 16 that SER will address.

17 Well, it's possible, for instance, Contention F on 18 training, that's the kind of thing that does not relate to 19 the casks, but rather to this applicant. Emergency 20 preparedness, No. R, that is a site-specific type of issue.

21 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Would thermal design, for 22 instance, just to take an example, would that be relevant to 23 th3 cask or would that be site-specific?

-24 MR. TURK: The contention, as I understand it, 25 deals with whether the temperature which could be generated ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1

920 1 at this time, for instance, during the summer months and 2 there are a number of casks in close proximity to each other l

3 whether that temperature is within the design basis for the 4 casks. So that, it would depends upon the casks to be 5 utilized.

6 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. So if I were to look 7 through these contentions, if they seem in some way to 8 depend on the certification of the cask, then I should --

9 that is a good indication that, in fact, we are talking 10 about the SER which would be out in September of 2000 rather 11 than the site-specific SER?

12 MR. TURK: Yes. And, in fact, you can also look 13 at the fact that we pushed off Contention H and Contention 14 GG from that first round because they were cask 15 certification related. So that should also indicate to you 16 that those would be the kinds of things that would be in the 17 final SER rather than the initial one.

18 JUDGE BOLLWERK: One other general question, let 19 me speak with you about, and then we will talk a little more 20 specifically. Do you see -- I take it from what you 21 provided us in your answer back in January about scheduling 22 for this case, and the EIS, is there any way that we can go 23 to hearing on EIS issues before you have issued the Final 24 Environment Impact Statement?

25 MR. TURK: My reading of the regulation in 10 CFR ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

921 1 Part 51 leads me to say no. Your Honor, you may disagree 2 with that.

, I believe the applicant has told me that they 3 disagree with it. But there is a particular provision in 10 4

CFR Part 51 which -- excuse me one minute while I find it.

5 (Pause.]

6 MR. TURK: It's 10 CFR Section 51.104, which state i

7 that in any proceeding in which a hearing is held on a 8

proposed action and a Final Environmental Impact Statement 9

has been prepared, where the hearing involves NEPA type 10 issues, quote, "the NRC staff may not offer the Final 11 Environmental Impact Statement into evidence or present the 12 position of the NRC staff on matters within the scope of 13 NEPA and this subpart until the Final Environmental Impact 14 i Statement is filed with the Environmental Protection Agency, I e~s 15 furnished to commenting agencies, and made available to the

(  !

16 public."

17 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. And, again, the FEIS 18 date, at least projecting at this point, is September of 19- 2000. That's correct.

20 MR. TURK: Yes.

21 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Which means, in theory, the 22 hearing'date would have to -- subject to any discovery that 23' might be given, would have to follow that date.

24 MR. TURK: At some point.

25 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Okay. I think -- just let me ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

("]

\s)

' Court Reporters

' 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

922 1 make some general statements. I think -- what we plan to do

,,.- - 2 is to issue some kind of a schedule that basically breaks "Y

3 the contentions up into three groups, along the lines that 4 we outlined in, I guess, the June 5th order that Mr. Turk 5 made reference to, if I have the right one.

6 Let me just check and make sure I am giving you 7 the right date here. That's correct, it was June 5th.

8 At this point, I guess what we see, given what the 9 staff has responded, and we are somewhat disappointed as 1.0 well, but we feel, you know, they have given us -- this is 11 their best offer at this point. Our authority to interfere 12 or to move those dates up or to try to get them to something 13 else is rather limited, I think we all feel.

14 Looking at that, I think, in general, probably,

,r~' 15 for the Group 1 issues, we are talking about a hearing V)- 16 sometime, perhaps mid-summer to early fall of 1999.

17 Probably some kind of a hearing with respect to the Group 2 18 issues in early 2000. And with respect to the Group 3 19 issues, probably in the spring or early summer of 2001, 20 given the staff's and given the regulation that seems to say 21 that the hearing cannot fall until after the FEIS.

22 In terms of specific dates I think you need to 23 know about at this point, you had all suggested that we go 24 to -- allow an informal discovery to proceed for six months, 25 which would put us at approximately December 31st. I think l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

[~'\ Court Reporters

(_) 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

923 1 we act.ually started on the 19th of May. If -- maybe we can r3 2 talk about this in a second. If you see any benefit to

'~'

3 giving an extra 15 days of informal -- or formal discovery, 4 we could do that. I am not -- don't feel strongly about  !

S that either way.

6 That's a very long period. I am concerned that, 7 as life moves along, that things don't get done, that things 1

8 get put off. We are going to have to keep a close eye on '

9 that. I, obviously, am going to be very concerned if we 10 come up to September, October and nothing has been done. In 11 fact, we will talk a little bit about discovery. But at 12 this point I think that is a date that we will go ahead and 13 set and, as I say, we will give you a schedule that outlines 14 this in a little bit more detail.

l 's(")

_/

15 I think other dates will probably follow, at least 16 for the Group 1 issues, with -- pretty much along the lines 17 that you gave us in the proposed schedule. I think where 18 you are going to see some deviations, when we get into the 19 Group 2 issues, and understanding Ms. Chancellor's concern 20 about having to do two things at once, I don't think there 21 is any way we are going to be able to avoid that to a 22 degree, to keep things moving along, and also to get these 23 done in a timely manner. We are very concerned about having l

24 everything at the end and, to some degree, without dividing 25 this into three groups, we are going to be faced with that

~

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

fsI

\~/

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014

( Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 842-0034 o_______-.. _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ -

924 1 dilemma. And that's something I don't think you want to 2 face, and something we don't want to face.

3 Let me ask you a couple of specific questions.

4 First of all, with respect -- and this will affect how we do 5 some of the scheduling. With respect to findings and

~

6 conclusions after the hearing, and I'll direct this question 7 to Ms. Chancellor, do you anticipate that your proposed 8 findings in_most instances are going to be what I would 9 consider comprehensive? In other words, you are going to 10 try to tell a whole story? Or if, for instance, the 11 licensee filed a comprehensive set of findings, you would be 12 in a position to say we agree with this, this, this, this, 13 this, and we don't agree with this, and we will come up, we 14 will have a separate finding on that?

15 I mean, normally, the licensee, who has the burden I -

16 of proof, would be the first to file findings of fact under 17 the rules. They generally will come in putting words in 18_ your mouth or requiring -- but with a fairly extensive set 19 of findings which cover many matters that may not be in 20- controversy.

21- On the other hand, you may want to tell your own 22 story and try to be as comprehensive as they are being. I 23 guess my question is, what is your preference? Can you live 24 _with responding to theirs with only -- with adopting the 25 ones you don't have a problem with, or do you want to put ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

f])

sm Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

925 1 your own'. Story out in' terms -- complete?

2 MS. CHANCELLOR: It's difficult.to talk about this 3 in the abstract. And, you're right, I think the applicant 4 will file substantial findings and conclusions, given the 5- pleadings they have filed to date. I would like to --

6 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Let me tell you why I am thinking 7 about it. I'am thinking the difference between simultaneous 8 filings and sequence filings, if everybody is going to give 9 us.the main story,-then let's get them all simultaneously 10 -and have.you-respond to each other's. If you can live with 11 a situation where you are responding to theirs, you are not 12: -- you are going to adopt some and reject others, then maybe 13- we can do a system -- sequence filing.

14 MS. CHANCELLOR: I would really like to consult

15. . with:Dianne Curren on this, because she has practiced more

,16 before the NRC than I have, and she'was unavailable today.

17- Is that1something I could --

18 JUDGE BOLLWERK: -How long would.you take, do you 19 -need to get back to us?

20 MS.-CHANCELLOR: I.think she will be available at 12 1 the beginning of next week. So I could consult with her at 22: thefbeginning of the week and let you know.

~

231 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Could you get back to

_w 24 us, say, by,the middle of next week?

2 25- .MS.. CHANCELLOR: Yes.

E l  ?

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters j L .

1025 Connecticut. Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 ii.g .E iig i -ir - . :, - . - . .. .. . - . . . . . . . .. .. . . ..

926 1 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right.

73 2 MS. CHANCELLOR: And how would you like me to do 3 that?

4 JUDGE BOLLWERK: I don't have -- can you send us a 5 brief letter?

6 MS. CHANCELLOR: Certainly.

7 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Since this is on the record, I 8 would just as soon keep it that way so everybody knows what l 9 we are talking about and what the responses have been.

(

10 MS. CHANCELLOR: Okay.

11 .iE BOLLWERK: Does the staff have any thoughts )

12 on that one way or the other? i 13 MR. TURK: I have done it both ways. Given the l 14 fact that at some point in the hearing process the staff

(~T 15 will be agreeing either with the applicant or the state, I N)'

16 think follow-on findings are probably a way of saving paper 17 and saving effort for the Board to try to figure out 18 respective positions. So I tend to think that follow-on 19 findings might be the way to go.

20 There is a downside co that and that is that we 21 have to review theirs first and that takes time, especially 22 where we are litigating many contentions at the same time.

l 23 So there is a need for that -- for us to have a period of l 24 time to review theirs and to make sure that our view of the 25 record is the same as theirs.

,_s ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

l Court Reporters l\--} 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 i

)

Washington, D.C. 20036 I (202) 842-0034 l

927 1 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Well, the rules give you a whole

,-~ .' 2 10 days.

(- 3 (Laughter.]

4 MR. TURK: Our response would be --

5 JUDGE BOLLWERK: That's one advantage, of course, 6 to simultaneous filings, is any theory you might have 30 7 days or whatever, everybody will get the same to review 8 findings and come back. So that's something to take into 9 ' account.

10 MR. TURK: I can -- no, I can live with either, 11 If we are held to 10 days, I would rather file my own.

12 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. I 13 MS. CHANCELLOR: Could I just clarify?

1 14 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Sure.

)

f'wg 15 MS. CHANCELLOR: With simultaneous filings, the 1

/

~ i 16 staff, the applicant and the interveners would file at the  !

17 same time --

18 JUDG2 BOLLWERK: Right.

l 19 MS. CHANCELLOR: -- their findings and 20 conclusions? Then you would have 30 days to file a 21 response?

22 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Basically, --

23 MS. CHANCELLOR: Simultaneous response? '

24 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Simultaneous responses. That's 25 correct. In other words, everyone would have laid their L

,,._s ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

l

) Court Reporters

'/

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

928 1 case out as they understood it, and then everyone would have 2 a chance to respond whether they agree with the staff, the V' 3 applicant, disagree, and to make any --

4 MS. CHANCELLOR: And the follow-up findings, you

'S would have 10 days to review the applicant's filing?

6 JUDGE BOLLWERK: I would refer you to the rule.

,7 There's a rule that deals with proposed findings and I l 8 haven't got the citation in front of me.

9 MS. CHANCELLOR: Okay.

10 JUDGE BOLLWERK: But, basically, it says 30 days 11- for the findings from the applicant, having the burden of 12 proof, 30 days for a response. The staff is given an 13 additional 10 days to look at both of those pleadings.

14 MS. CHANCELLOR: Oh, I see. Okay.

15 JUDGE BOLLWERK: And I think there is a five day

-16 period for reply. So that's the way the rule lays it out.

17 MR. SILBERG: Of course all of those dates are 18 subject to modification.

19 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Absolutely, by the Board. On the L 20 other hand, if we are going to keep this moving, I am not 21 sure how much latitude we are going to have. We will have l 22 to see.

23 MR. SILBERG: We don't expect -- is it shorter?

24' Is it possible that we --

25 JUDGE BOLLWERK: In part, that may depend on how

(-

1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue,-NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

929 1 much hearing time we spend. I have sort of blocked this out i

r~ 2 with about two month periods for hearing. If we do less

\_)T<

3 hearing, then we may have more time for findings. If we do 4 more hearing, who knows? So. Yes?

5 MR. TURK: I Could we ask that whatever the schedule i I

6 is for proposed findings of fact, that we wait until we see i

7 how much testimony there is and how extensive the record is l 8 before we are required to indicate whether we want to do 9 follow-on or simultaneous filings?

10 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Well, when I said a schedule, I ,

l 11 mean I would like to sort of get some -- I mean we can 12 change things. I would just as soon know people's general 13 preference at this point. If it then looks, on the basis 14 of, say, the Group 2 issues don't look like they are going 7-~3 15 to. work that way, we'll be glad to change it. But if I am

('-) 16 going to set a schedule, I would like to at least have, you 17 know, people's general preference at this point and move on l 18 from there.

19 I feel like we need to get some structure here to 20 let people know what -- how this is going to proceed. And, 21 again, I am not -- you have dealt with me enough to know I 22 am not someone that is inflexible, I will listen to what you 23 have to say and we will proceed from there.

24 If you want to say something more on that subject, 25 you can certainly file something in the middle of next of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

[~3-(,)

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

930

-1 . week, as well',rif-that's --

_j ' 2 MR. TERK: Thank you, i

'\- 3 JUDGE BOLLWERK: --

it would be useful to you to 4 have additional time.

-S. MR. TURK: Thank.you.

6 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right.

7 MR. BLAKE: Just to get in my two cents on this 8 topic'.

.9' JUDGE BOLLWERK: Right. You're sort of on the 10 ' hook for -- but, please, whatever you would like to say, Mr.

11' Blake.

j

-12 MR. BLAKE: I would have some preference for 13' simply following what the: regulations have laid out as a way 14 :of approaching these, even though it gives us the least j) 15. amount of-time up front. But laying ours out and then l

\~) '

16 .giving the other parties an opportunity to reach to them Y

17 and,z finally, with an opportunity to reply by us would be my 18 preference.

19 JUDGE BOLLWERK: One-thing-the parties should be

-20 ' aware.of, and something we are very aware of is that there 21 Tis now sortJof a commitment that the Board, to the degree it 22 can, issues initial decisions within 60 days of the time I~ 23 that we have received all the-findings. So that's something l 12 4 ; we:have to bear in mind and keep. And one of the reasons

'25_ Lprobably you,will have a shorter period is because we need L

- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

.. Court Reporters b- -

~

1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 b _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

931 1 to have enough time to look at all those papers, and if you 2' have 90 days, there is no way we are going to get done in 60 1

3 . days, I can almost assure you of that. So just given the 4'

amount of time and the amount of paper that you can generate 5 -in 90 daysi 6 MR. :BLAKE: Can I return to one topic where I also 7 would like to weigh in?

8 JUDGE-BOLLWERK: Sure. Certainly.

9 MR. BLAKE: And that is with respect to the 10 staff's ability to go to hearing on environmental issues.

11 You asked for Mr. Turk's input on that,

12. JUDGE BOLLWERK: <Yes.

o 13 MR. BLAKE: All the parties filed their thoughts

-14 on this. Ours1was filed on December 30th, 1997 And I

15 would just remind the Board of our view there, which we 16 continue to' maintain, as stated at page 6 and following, 17 which'was we believe that we could go to hearing on factual 18' -issues and that the one problem with the staff's ability to 19 go t to hearing ~ under the' 51.104 (a) (1) , which Mr. Turk-also L 20 . referred to,-was if you are involved in an ultimate cost l

. 21 - benefit balance determination, and we didn't see any of the 22 contentions as~now allowed by the Board, as involving that

~ ultimate determination. So we continue to maintain that 24 position, and I wouldn't want to let Mr. Turk's be the only

25 position' stated on the' record'here.

. -v .

ANN RILEY &' ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Li Court Reporters k- 1025-Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 I

-Washington, D.C. 20036 (202)-842-0034

}

932 1 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right.

2 MS. CHANCELLOR:

Your' Honor, we would have a t

\~# 3 problem if we -- if, for example, we went to hearing on the 4 factual issues, the staff took a position, and the burden j

5 was on us to reopen the record based on the staff's Final 6 EIS. That that is inappropriately shifting the burden to 7 the state to reopen -- or an intervenor, to reopen the 8 record. And so our preference certainly would be, and we 9 believe -- we take the same reading of the rule as Mr. Turk, 10 that we have to wait until the Final EIS before we got to 11 hearing on the NEPA issues.

12 JUDGE BOLLWERK: .All right. Let me say also 13 something with respect to summary disposition. I want -- I 14 tend to encourage it. Some other members of this panel 15 don't feel the same way about it, but I am one that does. I 16 don't have a problem with summary disposition.

17 What I do have a problem'with is getting a lot of 18 paper at the end. I suspect what we will do is set up a 19 schedule for summary disposition where, if you file, let's

{

20 say, more than 30 days before the end of formal discovery, 21 you will have a much wider latitude in terms of the number 22 of pages you can file with respect to the issues in a 23 particular group. If you wait until after that period, you 24 will probably have about 25 pages and about 15 days after i 25 discovery closes.

i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

-[\-

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut. Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

y 933 1 So I guess the message in that is, if you have r% 2 summary disposition, in terms of your formal discovery, look 3 at that first, get'those matters taken care of and file your 4 motion. It will give you more time and more pages.

All l 5 right.

6 MR. SILBERG: If I can make one comment on that.

l-7' JUDGE BOLLWERK: Sure.

8 MR. SILBERG: Given the fact we don't know who is l

9 going taa be filing which formal discovery, I would hope that 10 the cut-off date would be somewhat after the close of formal l

11 discovery, because, typically, people will get answers at 12 the very last minute,'and that would put kind of the control 13' over which version of summary-judgment you get on the 14 opponent. By delaying responses to discovery, he can force L[} 15 16 the proponent of a summary judgment motion into the much more constrained format of your second choice.

~

So I would

-17 encourage the Board, to the extent you are thinking along

'18 those lines, to have the cut-off date be somewhat -- a short 19L period _after the close of formal discovery rather than 20 before the close of formal discovery.

21 JUDGE BOLLWERK: I will think about that. I am 22 .not sure that gets the same incentive that I wanted. I 23 . understand the problem. And maybe a better way to deal with 24 it is you are filing summary disposition related discovery <

l 25 -requests and you think someone is delaying them, let us know I l

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

p O . Court Reporters

-1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

934 1 that.

! 2 l

All right. We'll think about that, though, and lk- 3 I'll take your suggestion under consideration.

4 I guess at this point, until we issue an actual 5 schedule, and we will have a schedule with dates. Some of 6 them will be specific, some of them will be more general.

7 For instance, I said the hearings will probably run on a two 8 month period. We may give you specific dates, obviously.

9 That is subject to a number of things.

10 I would also -- there will come a point where we 11 need your input in terms of how long you think it is going ,

i 12 to take to go to hearing. Up to this point we have asked 13 and haven't received anything back. We have tried to make 14 the best judgment we can, based on our look at the

- 15 contentions. If that turns out not to be right, as I said,

\' 16 the more -- less time we spent in hearing, the more time you 17 probably have to do filings, or proposed findings. So it's 18 something to consider.

19 We may have underestimated some of these and that 20 may run into a problem, but we'll just have to work through 21 this.

22 Let's talk for a second then about the status of 23 discovery up to this point. Let me just say -- ask one 24 other question. Anyone, in terms of the folks that have 25 phoned in, have anything to say about what the Board has ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

/~'i

(_,/

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l 935 l

p 1 talked about up to this point, in terms of the schedule?

l-L l

2 Ms. Walker?

3 MS. WALKER: No.

4 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Mr. Allen?

5 MR. ALLEN: I don't.

6 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Mr. Nelson, do you 7 want.to express -- Ms. Chancellor hasn't said anything, but 8 if.you have something you want to say?

9 MR. NELSON: No, I have nothing additional.

i 10 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Who would like to go 1 11 first in terms of discovery status? Any Nolunteers? Mr.

12 Blake?

i-

.13 MR. BLAKE: Sure. I'll start There haven't been

'14 any exchanges of discovery between the parties that I am 15 aware of. I think that at.least, I can speak for the state,-

7 :(

l 16- and for ourselves, with respect to our planning in order to l-1 i

17 .be able to accommodate requests for people. I, obviously, 18- .have more knowledge about_myself, but there have been some l 11 9 conversations with the state. What we are doing is just

'20 going.through the files and pulling out all documents which 21; relate, in our view, to'any of the contentions, and then L 22' eliminating from that the privilege kinds of problems within 23 .the documents, or documents themselves.

24 But, generally, just pulling all the documents I p 25' together, and we are going to make them available in Salt I.

L

-ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

L [-s\~}

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014-Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 1

936 1 Lake.

2 MR. ALLEN:

p, '[ Inaudible.]

\sb 3 MR. BLAKE: Hello?

4 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Mr. Allen, did you have something 5 toisay? Apparently not.

6 MR. ALLEN: No, I didn't.

7 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Go ahead, Mr. Blake.

8 MR.' BLAKE: And our intention is, as we have told I l

L 9' the other parties, but maybe not the Board, is to make those l 10 ' documents available at a central location in Salt. Lake City 11 where.we.will be able to establish times fairly flexibly for 12 .any of the-intervening parties to-come and review the-13 . documents. And that's about as far as we have gone in our 14 planning.

l1- 15 We have spent now weeks looking through documents.

-16 We still have more time to go. And my internal schedule for

~

17 being able'_~to make those documents available -- maybe they 18 won't all be at that time, but enough for people to 19 certainly digging into, would be the end of this month.

20 JUDGE BOLLWERK: The end of June?

-21 MR. BLAKE: Yes, sir.

22 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Okay.

2 3 _. MR. BLAKE: And that's really about as far as we

'24-fhave gone. And we have also thought internally about 125 sending out a' fairly informal ~ letter to the other parties JuC1 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

' Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue,-NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 '

937 1 that we mean to conduct informal discovery with saying, in 2 essence, make available all that you know about this and 3 tell us who think we also could talk with.

4 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Given that, Ms. Chancellor, do 5 you think it is time for'you to send them a letter, or do j 6- you want to wait and see what you get and then come back? I 7' mean it can be handled one of two ways?

8 MS. CHANCELLOR: We have had informal discussions. j 9 We have tried to centralize our files and remove privileged i j

10 information. There may be some other files at agencies.

11 But I would -- my preference would be to have files in

.12 centralized locations and let each side have access to the 13 other's files. And then from there, if there is missing 14 information, to send out specific discovery requests.

] 15 Additionally, I have spoken with Mr. Silberg about 1 16 having some sort of an agreement that the state can obtained 17 privileged or proprietary information because some of the R18 - responses to the REI contained proprietary or confidential 19 information. And my understanding that PFS is in the 20 process of drafting an agreement that would allow the state 21 ' access to privileged information. And we have tried to do 22 the same thing with Holtech, although for privileged

-23 information with respect to the casks. I have sent a letter 24 to Holtech and I copied you on that. And to date, we 25 haven't had a response from Holtech, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

br~)= ( Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 l

938 1 MR. SILBERG: I spoke with the Holtech yesterday

.je- 2 about this and I think they are in the process of preparing 3 a similar agreement. Ms. Chancellor is correct, we are 4 having a proprietary agreement drafted. I hope to have that 5 available next week with tae state.

6 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Mr. Turk, anything 7 you want to say on the subject of discovery at this point?

8 MR. TURK: Just a question, since I have not been 9 a party to the conversations that Mr. Blake and Ms.

10 Chancellor referred to. Is it contemplated that there would

( 11 be two centralized locations so that documents made

! 12 available in Salt Lake City would also be available in 13 Washington?

, 14 MR. BLAKE: We had not contemplated that.

I~

'( N, 15 MS. CHANCELLOR: No, we haven't either, j 16 MR. TURK: So we are basically looking at i

.17 documentation production in Salt Lake City?-

18 MS. CHANCELLOR: That's correct.

19- MR. BLAKE: At least at a centralized location i

20 where you won't have to go around. We are trying to make it 21 as easy as possible.

22 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Is that something you can live 1 -

l .23 with, in terms of staff documents?

24 MR. TURK: Staff documents, I don't understand to f

25 'be covered by that. The staff's documents are a matter of eg ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

.. Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 2 014 Washington, D.C. 20036 y (202) 842-0034 L

! I e  ;

939 1- public record for the most part and would be in the PDR and 2- LPDR.

('.h

. 34 2 3 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Is that --

4 MR. TURK: I am not. contemplating doing a document 5 production to that central repository that they are talking 6 .about.

7 MR. SILBERG: Well, these are really central -- I 8 mean each of the parties is having a room somewhere. We 9 will have one in our Salt Lake City law firm. The state 1 L L10 will undoubtedly have a room in one of their state I 11 buildings. It'is'not a single repository for this 12 proceeding, but rather each' party would have its own 13 document collection available in a central location for that 14- party.

15' MR. TURK: Well, as I indicated, the staff's

~

16 documents are publicly available through the PDR and LPDR.

I 17 I should also note, just for clarity purposes, that there 18 are always documents which are deemed to be pre-decisional 19 or otherwise protected from disclosure. Those are not the 20 PDR or'LPDR. But we wouldn't be making a voluntary

-21 disclosure of those in any event. I 22 JUDGE BOLLWERK: At a minimum, in terms of letters

'23- Lthat might be sent back and forth identifying areas of 24 concern or areas of document, are you going to be disclosing

25 the fact that you have proprietary documents and what those l

ANN RILEY~& ASSOCIATES, LTD.

!; j}E s-Court Reporters 1025' Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

940 1 are, or privileged documents and what those are?

. . 2 MR. BLAKE: We had not gotten that far in our l

3- planning. ' Clearly, there are some proprietary documents and 4 those are the ones that Mr. Silberg and Ms. Chancellor 5 discussed in terms of getting an agreement about. .

6 There also are privileged documents, obviously. . in L 7 the client files with regard to attorney-client privilege, l

8 at least. We hadn't been generating any list of all of 9 those documents, which sometimes is asked for in formal l

l 10 discovery, but we certainly haven't been willing.to start l 11 this process that-way.

12 Frankly, we don't have any experience with i

l 13 informal. And until you used that term, Judge, -- so we are 14 kind of struggling with how much is informal and easy-going t f-s 15 and how much is kind of tough stuff. And we are kind of U 16 trying to avoid -- I think all the parties are struggling 17 and working at trying to avoid the normal litigious approach 18 to discovery.

19 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Right. The only thing I would 20 observe is if you know documents that are privileged that 21 seem to be within the scope of what Ms. Chancellor, for 22 instance, is going to ask for, why not give her a list now, 23 and maybe she will want it and maybe she won't. That may i

-24 save, you know, an-interrogatory of some kind later, that 25 you can simply -- you can argue about the privilege question ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

f)

\m/ -

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 L

o

941 1 rather than having to go back and forth about what documents 2 are involved. So, think about that anyway.

( i

'x > 3 And I guess the same with respect to any 4 pre-decisional documents that the staff may have. Again, 5 identification may be a good idea even if you don't intend 6 at this point to turn them over.

7 MR. BLAKE: Could I hear from the other parties 8 and whether or not they are prepared to follow the lead that 9 the state and we have taken with regard to all of their 10 documents?

11 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Ms. Walker, in terms 12 of OGD?

13 MS. WALKER: Yeah, we don't really have any 14 documents.

(~'3; 15 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Well, --

t

~'

16 MS. WALKER: I mean not in our possession. Sc we 17 would have to get them first.

18 JUDGE BOLLWERK: I take it if, for instance, Mr.

19 Blake or Mr. Silberg sent you a letter with some general 20- guidelines about what they are looking for, you would be 21 willing to look through your files and make those available, 22 obviously? ,

23 MS. WALKER: Yeah. But in terms of things that 24 our clients have, you know, we may have to go get them 25 first.

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

I

Court Reporters

\_- 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

942 1 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. It sounds like she r- '2 would like some direction from you all in terms of what you i

3 'are looking for. Is that --

~4 MR. BLAKE: Okay. I think we can accommodate her.

5 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Mr. Allen, in terms l

6 -'of Castlerock and Skull Valley? l 7 MR. ALLEN: We are in essentially the same 8 .

position. We don't have enough documents that having a room 9 --

10 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Sir, you are going to have to l

11 speak up a little bit.

12 MR. ALLEN: We are in the same position. We don't I 13 have enough documents that it would make sense to have a 14 special-room available. But if we received a general I

()

i 15' request.from parties giving guidelines as to what they were 16 looking for, we would be able to make that available.

17 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Would the state, for instance, 18 have any problem with putting their documents in your room, 19 whenever, if.that was --

'20 MS. CHANCELLOR: We would be glad to provide 21 filing space if they need it.

22 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Is that something you 23 lwould be willing to do, Mr. Allen?

24 MR. ALLEN: I think so, yes.

'25' JUDGE BOLLWERK: And Ms. Walker as well? Assuming ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O-

- Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

943 1 you are able to identify something?

2 MS. WALKER: Sure. Sure.

, 3 MR. BLAKE: I think we could accommodate Mr.

4 Allen, too.

Castlerock has a number of contentions about 5 how much they are hurt and troabled and they must have some 6 basis for that. So we will have a number of requests. If I 7 have to detail them, I can. But I would hope that that 8 amount of hint'would lead to quite a stack of documents that 9 Castlerock probably already has. 1 10 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Anybody thought yet 11 about interviewing any potential witnesses or asking for 12 identification of potential witnesses?

13 (No response.]  !

14 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Again that is another

^

15 aspect of this. I recognize you probably want to see the 16 documents first, but don't -- again my only concern is with 17 the six month time period, please don't wait till the end.

18 Put pressure on yourselves and'everyone else, so is there 19 anyone at this point that has any questions about informal 20 discovery or thinks the process just isn't working and we 21 ought to just abandon it and go right to formal discovery?

22 MR. BLAKE: I suspect, Judge Bollwerk, as we move 23 forward, we'll be back to chat with you and I hope that your 24 door will be open for us to work out or talk with you.

25 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Absolutely, i

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

[p\-)% Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

l' 944 l

1 MR. BLAKE: From time to time as we -- I don't l-l . 2 think any of us really have enough experience to know how L - f_,)

E/ 3-

-~

far'we can go or>how easy a-task it will be.

14 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Excuse me. We will

} 5 .probably set a date.for another status report, perhaps 6 written, perhaps we will get back with you orally.

7 Maybe you all want to express a preference about 8 whether you would prefer to have -- we can do a video y.

9 ' conference 'cn: a teleconference or just simply file a written E 10 status reporc.

11 I would think something like 30 or 45 days we

'12 would want to hear back again. I will set that out in an 13 . order in terms'of more detail but I think-we want to -- at- 1 L

14 'that point you should have had at least 30 days with your c

..? y 15 document repositories and maybe have a better idea of 16 exactly where you: are going.

17. I guess at this1 point I don't have anything 18 further. As I say, we'will-be issuing -- I will have to 19 -wait and hear from Ms. Chancellor and I think Mr. Turk wants  !

20 to file in terms of findings of fact and conclusions of law, 21 .but'we will sort of'look to issuing some kind of a general 22 schedule that will' outline how we see this proceeding going i

23 forward with some dates and days on which we think things

'24 ought to happen, and that will be sort of the guideline that 25 we u'se for this proceeding.

.I.,

t ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

i

-Court Reporters if- :1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 l- Washington, D.C. 20036 I (202) 842-0034

= - _ _ _ _ . - .___ _ _ - -- _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _- ___-__________-_a

945 1 Anything that the other two Board members want to 2 (

say at this point? Anything either of the parties want to

/_.  !

I 3- bring to the Board's attention with respect to discovery or 4 anything else that we may need to talk about? i 5' MR. BLAKE: We are hopeful that the Staff will not

-6 hold back if their schedules improve. )

l 7 JUDGE BOLLWERK: I think Mr. Turk will be the i

8 first one to let us know, I suspect.

9 MR. TURK: We won't hold back, Your Honor. 4

'10 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right -- and at this point, I l

l 11 you know, as I say the only thing -- the Commission monitors 12 these proceedings. If they are not happy with what is going l 13- on, they'll tell us. They are.not shy so we will -- we may

11 4 be waiting to hear from them. I have no idea, but I can't

)

l 15 do that obviously. We have to proceed forward on the basis

{

16 of basis of the information we have and maybe once the l 17 schedule.comes out, the Commission may think things ought to 18 be done differently and they can tell us that. I mean that h- 19 is'their prerogative.

20 All right then. Anything from the folks on 21 teleconference they want to bring to the Board's attention?

22 Ms. Walker?

J23 MR. WALKER: No. -Thank you.

24 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Mr. Allen?

25 MR.-ALLEN: No. Thank you.

ANN RILEY.& ASSOCIATES, LTD. ,

Court Reporters l 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034 ll

946 1 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Okay. Mr. Nelson?

2 MR. NELSON: No. Thank you.

3 JUDGE BOLLWFRK: Is it still snowing there?

4 MR. NELSON: It is in the mountains. We have 5

got -- it's still raining and we have got about six to eight 6 inches going over the summit.

7 MS. CHANCELLOR: Your Honor, I assume that the 8 schedule will change if there are substantial changes to the 9 license applications -- for example, Holtech, we are

\ 10 expecting some license amendments with that, and maybe the 11 Applicant has some license amendments too, so I assume that 12 any schedule that you issue will be amenable to change based 13 on whether we file additional contentions or that sort of 14 thing.

15 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right, well, on the 16 condition that, you know, the late filed contentions come 17 in, we will have to deal with those on an individual basis, 18 fit them in someplace if they are admitted and deal with

  1. 19 them at that point.

20 Again if the Staff's dates slip, then that 21 obviously may affect some other things, so we will just have 22 to look ard see how those things proceed -- to answer that.

23 One of the other things we probably will do with 24 this order is set some probably 30 days in terms of filing 25 late-filed contentions with respect to, for instance, things e ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 I

(202) 842-0034

947 1 like the SER, the DEIS, the EIS, so that you will have a i 2 definite date by which we will need to have your late-filed 3 contentions if there are any.

l l 4 MS. CHANCELLOR: Thank you.

5 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right.

6 MR. TURK: I assume however that the usual rule 7 would apply, that something that is mentioned in the SER, if 8 it was available in an Applicant document beforehand, would 9 not be deemed to be the basis for a timely late-filed 10 contention.

11 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Right. Well, I mean we will have 12 assess that, given the general rules about if you know about 13 something you are supposed to bring it to the Board's 14 attention as soon as possible in terms of filing late-filed 15 contentions. That is correct.

[}

16 MR. TURK: I didn't want the State or someone to 17 believe that just because something appears in the SER that 18 that constitutes grounds for admission of a late-filed 19 contention if the matter appeared somewhere else first.

20 JUDGE BOLLWERK: I mean the general case law says 21 when you know about something you are supposed to bring it 22 to the Board's attention as promptly as possible in terms of 23 late filed contentions, so it is a question of what is out 24 there now and what the SER might say, or the EIS or the DEIS 25 or anything else.

ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

948 1 All right. If nothing else, why don't we go ahead 2 and adjourn. I appreciate everyone's patience today.

3 I think we got a lot accomplished and we will 4 probably be hearing back from you in probably 45 days on the 5 status of discovery. Again, with respect to informal 6 discovery, if you have some questions, feel free to give me 7 a call. If I can help out, we will.

8 Judge Kline also makes procedural rulings from 9 time to time, so --

10 [ Laughter . ]

11 JUDGE BOLLWERK: -- so he can help you out as 12 well.

13 JUDGE LAM: Don't call me, okay?

14 [ Laughter. ]

15 JUDGE BOLLWERK: And again thank you very much.

16 Have a good afternoon and a safe flight back to Salt Lake 17 City and we stand adjourned.

18 [Whereupon, at 2:01 p.m., the hearing was 19 concluded.]

20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.

O Court Reporters 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1014 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 842-0034

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings l-l

_before the United _ States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:

l NAME OF PROCEEDING: PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE, L.L.C.

l (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation) l t

i DOCKET NUMBER: ,

72-22-ISFSI i

l l

PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Rockville, MD were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear l

C\ Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to l

C. typewriting by.me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is'a true and accurate _ record of the foregoing proceedings.

Ann Riley l Official Reporter Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.

I i

l I

l f l ' N)\

l 1

l

- - _ - ----_- -- _ ----- -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20249B277&oldid=3211016"