ML061930390
| ML061930390 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 07/07/2006 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Giitter RL | |
| References | |
| 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR, NRC-1127, RAS 11957 | |
| Download: ML061930390 (171) | |
Text
~G jlc~S~7 Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Entergy Nuclear: Pilgrim NPS Docket Number:
Location:
50-293-LR; ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR Plymouth, Massachusetts DOCKETED USNRC July 11, 2006 (11:41am)
Date:
Friday, July 7, 2006 OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Work Order No.:
NRC-1127 Pages 288-456 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
-1Ž M -P L ftTE yc
288 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
. -..25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL ORAL ARGUMENTS ON CONTENTIONS IN THE MATTER OF:
Docket No.
50-293-LR ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR COMPANY AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.
(PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION)
Friday, July 7, 2006 The above-entitled matter came on for
- hearing, in the Ballroom of the Radisson Hotel Plymouth
- Harbor, 180 Water
- Street, Plymouth Massachusetts, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m.,
Ann M. Young, Chair, presiding.
BEFORE:
ANN M. YOUNG Chairman RICHARD F.
COLE Administrative Judge NICHOLAS G. TRIKOUROS Administrative Judge NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
289 1
APPEARANCES:
2 On Behalf of Entergy:
3 DAVID R.
- LEWIS, ESQ.
4 PAUL A.
- GAUKLER, ESQ.
5 of:
Shaw Pittman, LLP 6
2300 N Street, NW 7
Washington, D.C.
20037-1128 8
(202) 663-8000 9
(202) 663-8007 fax 10 11 On Behalf of the Town of Plymouth:
12 SHIELA SLOCUM HOLLIS, ESQ.
13 of:
Duane Morris, LLP 14 1667 K Street, N.W.
15 Suite 700 16 Washington, D.C. 20006 17 (202) 776-7810 18 (202) 776-7801 fax 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 290 On Behalf of the Nuclear RequlatorV Commission:
SUSAN L.
- UTTAL, ESQ.
HARRY WEDEWER, ESQ.
of:
Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555-0001 (301) 415-1582 (301) 415-3725 fax On Behalf of the Massachusetts Attorney General:
DIANE CURRAN, ESQ.
Of:
Harmon Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP 1726 M Street N.W.
Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 328-3500 (202) 328-6918 fax On Behalf of Pilgrim Watch:
MOLLY BARTLETT MARY LAMPERT Of:
Pilgrim Watch 148 Washington Street Duxbury, MA 02332 (781) 934-0389 (781) 934-5579 fax NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
291 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 9:00 p.m.
CHAIR YOUNG:
On the record.
We were going to start today with Ms. Bartlett discussing your argument on SAMAs and I was just trying to refresh my memory.
In the Massachusetts AG's contention, did you It seems as though you discussed SAMAs.
MS.
CURRAN:
- Yes, we did.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
I just want to make sure I didn't remember that wrong.
And basically, your argument is that the Turkey Point Licensing Board and the Commission distinguished SAMAs and suggested that one of the reasons that Mr.
Unkovaj's (PH) contention was not admissible was because it did not raise the issues of SAMAs. Correct?
MS.
BARTLETT:
That's right.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
MS.
BARTLETT:
I don't think either the regulations or this Turkey Point, the two Turkey Point decisions that Entergy and the NRC staff are relying on categorically rule out spent fuel SAMAs from consideration.
I've quoted the parts of the decisions in my reply to them, but I have them here as well.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Want to go next to the staff or Mr. Lewis, do you want to go first?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
°
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 292 MR.
LEWIS:
- Judge, I
do think we've addressed this issue adequately in our answer.
I really don't have anything to add to it.
We've cited the GEIS and the Turkey Point decision and the rules and --
CHAIR YOUNG: Turkey Point, the Commission itself does distinguish SAMAs.
On page 21, the part that's quoted in Pilgrim Watch's (PH) reply, they do point out that the Commission says "Part 51 does provide that alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives.
But Mr.
Unkovaj's contention two says nothing about mitigation alternatives.
MR.
LEWIS:
What the Commission also says is that severe accident mitigation alternatives applies to nuclear reactor accidents, not spent fuel storage accidents.
That's explicit.
So SAMAs refers to reactor accidents, not spent fuel storage accidents.
That's the dispositive point.
CHAIR YOUNG:
I guess you have an argument about which sentence has more, carries more, weight.
Do you have anything to add, Ms. Uttal?
MS.
UTTAL:
- Judge, I think that Turkey Point couldn't be clearer.
What we quoted at page 21, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 t%~)
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 293 22 is what the Commission said regarding SAMAs and spent fuel pools.
I can read it, but it's in my brief.
What they said about Mr. Unkovaj's contention is basically he didn't ask for it, but even if he had, it wouldn't have been admissible because of the fact that severe accidents go to reactor accidents and not spend fuel accidents and they're inadmissible in a
proceeding regarding license renewal.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Both the Board and the Commission nonetheless did seem to distinguish that and I think that one probably must presume that it means something.
I mean obviously we could just say it's
- dicta, but I
did go back and read those.
Anything more on this issue?
Do you want to add anything, Ms.
Curran?
MS.
CURRAN:
No.
CHAIR YOUNG:
All right.
If there's nothing more on the Massachusetts contention and Pilgrim Watch's contention four, let's go back to contention one.
MS.
UTTAL:
- Judge, I wanted to say one thing about the staff's affidavit in the Sharon Harris case in terms of why it's not in ADAMS anymore.
It was pulled after 9/11 and hasn't been put back.
So I would let the Board, you know, caution the Board that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 K.)
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 294 it shouldn't be put back in ADAMS.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Are you saying that what Ms.
Curran has offered to give to us is MS. UTTAL:
It was --
It's not in.
It was specifically pulled from ADAMS after 9/11 when the Commission was doing their review of what was in ADAMS and it hasn't been --
JUDGE COLE:
spot information or something.
MS.
UTTAL:
Information that they don't want generally disseminated I guess.
It's the SISP review and it hasn't been put back into ADAMS.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Are you suggesting that this be submitted under seal or --
MS.
UTTAL:
Probably the best way to do it.
I don't know the status of how we have to handle these SISP documents when they haven't passed muster, but all I know is it was one of the documents that was not returned to ADAMS.
CHAIR YOUNG:
You have worked with Ms.
Curran before on how to handle sensitive documents.
So why don't the two of you get together and work out how to do that and I'm going to assume that you can do that by agreement in consultation with the security people and then make sure that when it is submitted if NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
295 1
it is submitted that you inform all the other 2
participants of what procedures to follow so that they 3
can do that as well.
If it's not safeguards, I'm not 4
sure whether we're going to have to go through all the 5
6 MS.
UTTAL:
I don't --
It's probably not 7
the same amount of hoops.
I just don't know how --
I 8
know it was out there at one point and that Ms. Curran 9
has a copy and there are other people that have copies 10 just as how the agency should handle it since it has 11 been removed from ADAMS.
12 CHAIR YOUNG:
Another thing you might do 13 is agree on which parts need to be redacted or 14 something like that unless any of those parts are the 15 parts that you really want us to look at.
16 MS.
CURRAN:
Judge Young, I just wanted to 17 let you know.
I am going to be in the office on 18 Monday and then I'm going to be out until the 18th.
19 What I was planning to do on Monday was make copies of 20 the relevant documents and send them to you and I was 21 going to ask Mr. Lewis and Ms. Uttal if they wanted me 22 to send them copies.
I'd just like to suggest that I 23 get these things in your hand because otherwise it's 24 going to be over a week before I get them to you and 25 the purpose is so that you can look at these things NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
296 1
and make a decision and then you know maybe we can 2
give you some guidance afterwards as to what --
It's 3
a question of what you do with it whether you put a 4
note to the --
When you send something to the public 5
document run, put a note on it saying that I've been 6
alerted that this was formerly removed from the PDR.
7 CHAIR YOUNG: The only thing is I don't --
8 I mean I wouldn't normally want to get something from 9
a party unless all of the other participants were sent 10 copies. So one way to do it if you're not going to be 11 available is get a copy to Ms. Uttal and have her work 12 out with the staff security people how to handle it 13 and then get it to us and the other participants as 14 quickly as possible along with suggestions from the 15 security people as to --
16 MS. UTTAL:
I have my own copy of the 17 affidavit -
18 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Maybe you can just do 19 that on your own without --
20 MS. CURRAN:
There was the Aaron report 21 and the Perry affidavit. So those are the two things 22 and --
23 MS. CURRAN:
I don't know if the Aaron 24 report in ADAMS.
I imagine it's not.
25 MS. UTTAL:
And you don't have that?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
297 1
MS.
CURRAN:
I probably don't have that 2
anymore.
So you'll have to send that to me.
I won't 3
be in Monday, but I'll be in the rest of the week.
4 MS.
UTTAL:
Okay.
All right.
Sounds like 5
it's solved.
6 CHAIR YOUNG:
For the background of this 7
problem, Ms. Hollis and Ms. Bartlett and Ms. Lambert, 8
you may already know this, but in some of our 9
proceedings we deal with sensitive information.
10
- Usually, it's safeguards, NRC specific category of 11 information relating to security at nuclear power 12 plants and sometimes classified, but this is 13 apparently not either of those.
But it has some 14 sensitivity about it.
15 With safeguards and classified, there are 16 specific procedures and measures that have to be taken 17 in order to protect this information including things 18 like safes and so forth.
Hopefully, we won't have to 19 get into too cumbersome a process.
20 MS.
UTTAL:
I don't think so.
I don't 21 keep it in a safe.
Nobody's told I have had to.
22 CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
Let's us know what 23 the security people want to have happen and if there's 24 any problem with that, any party can, of course, 25 challenge that.
Then when you've done that, send NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 298 everything out to all of us with whatever instructions unless you think there's going to be a dispute in which case we can always have a conference call to talk about it.
MS.
UTTAL:
Whatever they tell me, I hope it's the least onerous.
CHAIR YOUNG:
If it does turn out to involve some of the measures that we took in the Catawba case which involved safes and having the security people come out and check your offices and so forth, that might be a little MS.
UTTAL:
I can't imagine that that will be it.
I think it will be more like keeping it off of ADAMS and not maybe replicating it too much.
But I don't know.
I'm just taking a guess here.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
That sounds like it can be worked out.
Ms. Bartlett, do you want to give us a brief summary of where we are at this point in the issues on contention one.
MS.
BARTLETT:
Sure.
Basically, Pilgrim Watch in response to events that have been happening around the country that we have been made aware of examined Pilgrim's aging management plan to assure ourselves that they were complying with 10 CFR 54.21 which says that they have to demonstrate that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 299 effects of aging will be adequately managed so the intent functions will be maintained for the period of extended operation, in particular, with respect to buried components such as pipes and tanks.
There have been several incidents around.the country as I'm sure you are aware of leaks in these pipes that go undiscovered for numbers of years and actually result in quite massive amounts of radioactively contaminated water leaching into groundwater.
So we examined Applicant's aging management plan and discovered that the plan provides basically for inspections every ten years of these buried components and we contend that that's an inadequate way of managing for aging.
There are tending monitoring wells in place to detect leaks if they were to occur.
The flow of water would likely bring contamination right into Cape Cod Bay before it's discovered and we think the prudent approach would be to either have more effective, more frequent inspections and/or monitoring wells to ensure that those inspections are adequate.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Does the aging management part of the application include any monitoring aspect of it because normally that would be an operational kind of thing, but you're arguing that it should be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com
300 1
included in the aging management as an alternative or 2
supplement to this.
3 MS. BARTLETT:
Right.
We're not talking 4
about monitoring in terms of the environme ntal 5
monitoring.- that's required operationally.
We're 6
talking about monitoring as a way to ensure that the 7
aging management is adequate.
It's an old plant.
8 These pipes corrode.
We've submitted a report that 9
shows these pipes most likely corrode even faster when 10 they have this radioactive water circulating and that 11 particularly if it's so difficult to regularly inspect 12 these buried components, that monitoring wells would 13 be a good addition.
14 CHAIR YOUNG:
Anything further before we 15 go on to the staff and Entergy?
16 JUDGE COLE:
You had also released a 17 question regarding the method that would be used every 18 ten years to do the inspect.
Did you want to say 19 something about that?
20 MS. BARTLETT:
The method basically I 21 believe they either dig up the pipes to inspect them 22 or in the course of replacing things routinely, they 23 inspect them or they refer to an ultrasonic testing 24 array. That was quite vague. We don't have an expert 25 hired at this point, but I have talked to people about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
301 1
this ultrasonic testing and it's not at all clear that 2
that's a way for detecting small leaks and corrosion 3
underground.
- Again, I realize without having an 4
expert report, you just have to take my word for it.
5 But in particular, the every ten years part of it 6
bothered us because that means it will pretty much 7
only happen once during the course of the whole 8
extension period.
9 MS.
LAMPERT:
Nor is there any history to 10 go forward on that in the ultrasound testing.
11 MS.
BARTLETT:
Right.
They had also said 12 in their application the ultrasonic testing is a
13 relatively new technique and they don't have operating 14 experience on that.
15 (Discussion off microphone.)
16 CHAIR YOUNG:
Mr. Lewis.
17 MR.
LEWIS:
I think we've addressed this 18 issue well in our answer.
The only thing I saw new in 19 the reply was the assertion that there were site-20 specific attributes that make leaks and leak detection 21 more probable and --
22 JUDGE COLE:
Less probable.
23 PARTICIPANT:
Less probable.
24 MR.
LEWIS:
Made leaks.
25 JUDGE COLE:
Leak detection.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
302 1
MR.
LEWIS:
Sorry.
Yes, they do.
Made 2
leaks more probable and leak detection less probable 3
I think was the allegation, but whatever the 4
allegation was in the answer.
Originally, Pilgrim 5
Watch had only referred to site-specific attributes 6
without identifying what they were and in their reply, 7
they said it's the geologic features.
It's the fact 8
that it's near the coast and the groundwater flows 9
into the ocean.
10 I
would just say that there's no 11 explanation how those geologic features make leaks 12 more likely is the groundwater is flowing into the 13 ocean.
I don't know why a leak would be more likely 14 and as far as detection, I also don't understand why 15 that makes it harder to detect leaks except to the 16 extent that it's obviously if there ever were a leak 17 and there's no indication it is it wouldn't go off 18 site.
It would go into the ocean and be vastly 19 diluted.
20 MS.
BARTLETT:
The ocean is off site I'd 21 submit.
22 MR.
LEWIS:
It leaked offsite to places 23 where there were residents as in a Braidwood situation 24 where you had -a leak of tritium and it migrated 25 offsite to areas where there were homes and residents NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 303 and wells.
In this case, it's going into the ocean and I think the only thing that shows is it blinds the existence of any significant safety issue.
JUDGE COLE:
Mr.
- Lewis, are there any monitoring or detection wells at the plant?
MR.
LEWIS:
I believe there's JUDGE COLE:
Between the plant and the ocean?
MR.
LEWIS:
No.
I do need to add something that is new and evolving since my answer.
We pointed out that some of the experience related to the low level radioactive waste discharge line at other plants and that wasn't within the scope in our application.
I was informed by the staff that in some discussions with my client there is some indication that they may add that in to scope.
They tried to confirm this, but that line may be added into the scope of license renewal.
I do need to add, however, that Pilgrim is a zero discharge plant.
We don't discharge low level liquid rad waste in our discharge line.
It's simply once the cooling saltwater comes in, it goes to the condenser and goes out.
So even if it is added back into the scope for some other reason, that's not a line that should be containing radioactive material.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
304 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We don't discharge liquid rad waste.
JUDGE COLE:
Unless there's a
leak somewhere in the system and it gets into the line.
MR.
LEWIS:
It's possible I guess, but that's not it's purpose.
MS.
BARTLETT:
In at least one of the other incidents it did involve an underground pipe which was not meant to contain radioactive water.
I can't remember which one it was offhand.
MR. LEWIS:
I believe the experience, one was a discharge pipe that didn't routinely discharge rad waste but did occasionally.
CHAIR YOUNG:
One thing to mention at this point is you mentioned there may be some information forthcoming shortly and we got the document from you, the RAI responses, last night and I believe there was an amendment and I can't remember the date of that that you mentioned in your reply and there was one other thing that I'm not able to describe with any specificity right now.
But I believe there was one other
- thing, development, since the original application and possibly since the petitions.
In previous proceedings, we've set sort of a
I think we've set 30 days.
It may be that 30 days have gone by with regard to the amendment.
But NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C.. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 305 if anything new does arise such that a new contention would need to be filed on it, that would need to be done on a timely basis under the late file contention rules and apart from anything that may have already passed that 30 days which we might look at that and consider that the original 60 days would be a good time period, I think in the past a 30 day period had been used as sort of a reasonable time within which to respond to anything.
So let's just sort of establish that as a approach to take at this point unless there's any --
MS. CURRAN:
Judge Young, that sounds fine to us, very reasonable.
I wanted to ask a question really of Entergy.
Do you plan to serve us with a notice when you have any kind of RAI responses or amendments to the application because I'm just concerned.
Sometimes we don't find out about it because we don't know about it.
MR.
LEWIS:
No, I had not planned on serving.
There are lots of RAI responses, lots of stuff going back and forth to the staff.
It's on ADAMS.
I was trying, for example, this RAI response that relates to SAMAs, it was obviously relevant to a demitted contention and therefore I thought -- And it was issued the day before yesterday.
I wanted to get NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
306 1
it in people's hands so there wasn't any claim that it 2
was something that people should have known about and 3
they're surprised.
4 And the same thing with respect to this 5
change in scope, there are ongoing NRC questions and 6
reviews and audits and so this is something that was 7
evolving out of an NRC staff discussion with my 8
client. Again, I wanted to make sure since it bore on 9
what we said in our answer that everybody was aware of 10 it.
11 CHAIR YOUNG:
Right.
12 MR.
LEWIS:
But all the other RAI 13 responses that have no relevance to the contentions, 14 NRC is willing to put people on their correspondence 15 list and many parties already are and they see the 16 RAIs and the responses are in ADAMS and it is
-- There 17 are a lot of them.
I'd rather not have to serve them 18 all if I don't have to.
19 MS.
CURRAN:
I wonder if you could just 20 serve us with the ones that are relevant to the 21 contentions.
Would that be possible?
22 MR.
LEWIS:
I'll certainly try and do 23 that.
Yes.
24 (Discussion in background.)
25 CHAIR YOUNG:
It's in your interest to let NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
307 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 people know because obviously --
MR.
LEWIS:
It is.
It's in my interest very much if there's something relevant to the contentions to let the parties know.
CHAIR YOUNG:.- Right.
Because otherwise it may take awhile to get things on ADAMS and then we have to look at when did people have really access to it and it would just save --
MR. LEWIS:
I don't object to that.
I was just trying to --
You know every piece of paper that flows back and forth that might --
MS.
UTTAL:
Judge, we can add them to --
At least for the RAIs, we can add Pilgrim Watch and Ms. Curran.
MS.
CURRAN:
That would be great.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Do you want to add Ms.
Hollis as well?
MS. UTTAL:
And Ms. Hollis.
We'll add the attorneys to it.
MS.
BARTLETT:
Even just by email so we don't get buried.
MS.
UTTAL:
I don't know if they send them out by email.
This is a staff function.
MS.
BARTLETT:
All right.
MS.
UTTAL:
So we'll just add you to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
308
~-)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 distribution list.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Ms.
Hollis.
MS.
HOLLIS:
Your Honor, as a general conversation, we find that the ADAMS system is Maybe.-we're not pushing the right buttons here, but the ADAMS system tends to lag considerably.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Right.
MS.
HOLLIS:
And it's a problem for us.
So any --
We'd like to be in the information flow certainly with respect to anything that is being traded back and forth information wise.
So I would appreciate that to ask counsel to assist.
JUDGE COLE:
I think they are getting a little better though.
MS.
HOLLIS:
It's getting better.
CHAIR YOUNG:
It varies.
Right.
MS.
HOLLIS:
It has it's good days and it's bad.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Right.
So you'll put all of them on yours.
MS.
UTTAL:
I'll put the services --
I'll put the attorneys on the service list for RAIs and things like that.
CHAIR YOUNG:
And that will also indicate whenever you've received anything.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com o
309 1
MS.
UTTAL:
We can't We don't send 2
anything out when we receive something.
We're talking 3
about when we send out RAIs when we send out something 4
we'll put them on the list.
We can't then when we get 5
something tell them we got something.
6 CHAIR YOUNG:
Is there any way, Mr. Lewis, 7
that you could at least provide notice that there's 8
something out there, just do something like Ms. Uttal 9
is talking about?
Create sort of a service list for 10 anything that goes out?
There must be one central 11 person that you work with that --
12 (Microphone whistling.)
13 MR. LEWIS:
I will explore that. The RAIs 14 don't come through me normally.
It may be that there, 15 and there probably is, at the plant a distribution 16 list and let me just inquire if we can add the 17 participants.
18 (Microphone whistling.)
19 CHAIR YOUNG:
Thank you.
20 MR.
LEWIS:
I'll inquire whether we can 21 add the participants to the distribution list.
I 22 imagine we can.
23 CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
And also obviously 24 any other amendments that might be coming.
25 MR. LEWIS:
Amendments I would --
Yes, let NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
310 1
me explore that.
I will report back to the Board and 2
parties on what we can do.
3 CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
4 MR.
LEWIS:
Unfortunately, I just don't 5
have a plant representative here who can tell me what 6
they do and how they do it.
7 CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
Anything you can do, 8
I think, would be helpful especially if it's anything 9
relevant to these contentions.
We want to hear from 10 the parties soon because we're making every effort to 11 move our part in the process along.
So all right.
12 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
Just one question.
Is 13 there anything generic coming out of the staff 14 regarding this issue of leaks from underground pipes?
15 MS.
UTTAL:
There's the task force and I 16 believe that their report is scheduled to come out in 17 maybe August.
18 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
August.
That's right.
19 CHAIR YOUNG:
Early or late?
20 MS.
UTTAL:
I don't know the exact date.
21 There may be something on the website.
They do have 22 information about task force on the website and that 23 may have the dates.
24 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
What's the name of it?
25 MR. WEDEWER:
The formal name, Your Honor, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 311 it's Liquid Radiological Release Lesson Learned Task Force.
It's kind of a mouthful but their report is due in August and I can't put a precise time on it.
But it's going to be, should be
- rather, a
comprehensive look at this whole issue.
JUDGE COLE:
And what's the purpose of this report?
MS.
UTTAL:
the issue of the leaks Braidwood situation.
JUDGE COLE:
MS. UTTAL:
The task force is looking at that have started with the I
With the thought in mind?
think they're doing a survey of the fleet.
JUDGE COLE:
So it's identification of a scope of a problem.
MS.
UTTAL:
I don't know the exact parameters of what the task force is doing, but like I said, there is a website and it may have the, it probably has the Commission's charge to the task force and what they're supposed to do and what their mission is.
JUDGE COLE:
May be possibly with recommendations on how to correct some situations or don't you know?
MS.
UTTAL:
I don't know exactly what.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
312 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE COLE:
Yes.
MS.
UTTAL:
I can't say.
JUDGE COLE:
That's okay.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
Well, everyone can be following that on the website and then as soon as you do get any information, if you could do the same thing with that as the other that would be helpful.
All right.
Anything more on contention 1? Ms. Hollis, I didn't get to you yet.
MS.
HOLLIS:
Just one clarification question, Your Honor, in the case of this study, the task force report that will be released.
If there are issues which are put forth in that report which are directly relevant to this case, to this relicensing proceeding, will then those be taken into account in the relicensing process as a general proposition going forward?
How do they get incorporated in this process if there is something which is clearly a yellow cautionary flag or the red flag that goes up on a case that says that something has to be addressed?
Is that in the overall reactor oversight process or is that in the relicensing?
CHAIR YOUNG:
Probably the --
Why don't you give the answer if you know to the extent that you know?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 www.neafrgross.corm
313 1
MS.
UTTAL:
Okay.
If something comes out K..
2 of the task force that something has to be done by the 3
licensees, it will be under the operating reactor 4
oversight whether it's a regulation or a order or 5
something else.
6 CHAIR YOUNG:
But since there is this 7
aging management part of the license renewal process 8
and there are several plants undergoing this, do you 9
think there's a possibility that that might be 10 addressed?
I don't know that you would have any 11 knowledge of that but maybe some of your -
12 MS.
UTTAL:
Actually, I don't, but I wish 13 I knew everything the agency --
14 CHAIR YOUNG:
I think one of the license 15 renewals.
Some of the license renewal people are back 16 there.
Maybe they would know.
17 (Discussion off microphone.)
18 MS.
UTTAL:
Well, it depends.
So there is 19 no answer, but if it's something that comes out of 20 that that has to be done for safety sake, then it will 21 be done and everybody will have to come into 22 compliance with whatever it is whether they've been 23 renewed or not.
24 MS.
BARTLETT:
Judge Young, could I just 25 say that Pilgrim Watch considers this already within NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 314 the scope of what's required on the aging management plan and required under 10 CFR 54.21(a) (3).
So whether or not this task force comes up with recommendations and whether or not those recommendations are made part of the.. relicensing process for future relicensing, we consider this part of today's relicensing that has not been dealt with adequately in the management plan.
MR.
LEWIS:
- Judge, may I just because we're going off on this tangent.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Right.
MR.
LEWIS:
Our application addresses an aging management program for buried pipes and components that are within the scope of the rule and that program consists of a number of elements, not just ten year inspections but also protective coatings and wraps as part of the program.
Our main objection to the contention was that there was no basis offered to challenge the adequacy of those measures.
There was nothing offered to indicate that the protective coatings and wraps that are on these components within the scope are even adequate and there was nothing offered at all to indicate why this additional inspection would insufficient.
There was just a general reference to operating experience and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com o
315 1
the call for onsite monitoring.
We really view that 2
as radiological monitoring and not aging management.
3 But in any event without some showing that 4
we're doing is inadequate and as far as I know, none 5
of the plants who have..had these experiences were in 6
license renewal and had these aging management 7
programs.
Unless there's something that shows that we 8
have some component that susceptible that's likely to 9
leak and that's not being adequately managed, we don't 10 think there's a basis for the contention.
11 CHAIR YOUNG:
I guess that actually raises 12 a question in my mind that I had thought about before.
13 So thank you for jogging my memory on that.
It's 14 certainly true that a contention needs to in some way 15 be specific to the plant at issue.
But there are 16 these lessons learned task forces on various issues 17 that arise.
So obviously, the NRC and the industry 18 does look at what happens at one or a number of plants 19 especially if it looks as though there may be some 20 trend and applies the lessons learned to recommend new 21 measures so that other plants can avoid the same kinds 22 of problems.
23 So it seems that the information about 24 what's been referred to as "these leaks" and the 25 extent of them that was sufficient to lead to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
°
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 316 creation of the task force would at least be relevant to the question and then if I think what Pilgrim Watch is saying is that they have sort of built a case if you will by pointing out various different factors including the information from the other plants and some other site specific information to show enough to meet the contention admissibility standards that they've raised an issue on which there's a genuine dispute.
That's their argument.
I may be over-summarizing it, but did I --
MS.
BARTLETT:
- Yes, I think that was a good summary.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
MR.
LEWIS:
And our response is simply that if you're going to raise experience as a basis, show that it has some relationship to the components that are actually within the scope in this case.
A number of the incidents at other plants involved spent fuel pools at PWRs where there was leakage through the liner.
Those are spent fuel pools that are low grade where the bottom of the pool is dripped down concrete that is adjacent to soil and if there's a leak, it goes through concrete and into the soil and potentially the groundwater.
We have a boiling water reactor where our spent fuel pool tops at the 117 foot NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
317 1
level and I don't know what the bottom is, a 70 foot 2
level I guess, but there's not going to be water 3
leaking out of the spent fuel pool and going into the 4
ground.
5 CHAIR YOUNG:
But you're not saying that 6
there's absolutely commonality between your 7
underground pipes and any of the underground leaks, 8
that there's not possibility that there's anything 9
that your underground pipes would have in common with 10 some of the problems.
11 MR.
LEWIS:
I'm actually saying I'm not 12 aware of any commonality.
13 CHAIR YOUNG:
But I mean --
14 MR.
LEWIS:
I don't have enough facts 15 about what happened at other plants to say one way or 16 another, but let me give you an example.
One of the 17 systems that is in scope is the condensate storage 18 tank.
It's right next to the reactor building.
It 19 has a number of lines that run a very short space from 20 the condensate storage tank to the reactor building.
21 I think two of the lines are stainless steel.
They 22 support HPCI and RCIC.
The third line is a carbon 23 steel line.
24 CHAIR YOUNG:
HPSI and RCIC, do you want 25 to --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neairgross.com v
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 5.....
318 MR. LEWIS: High pressure safety injection and reactor core isolation, RCIC.
PARTICIPANT:
Reactor core isolation cooling.
MR.
LEWIS:
Thank you.
Excuse me for the acronyms.
The other one is a carbon steel line, but it's coated and wrapped.
So it has two means of protection against corrosion.
I don't know whether any of the other examples involves a stainless steel pipe and also I don't know if any of this experience involves pipes that were coated and wrapped like this.
I just think they should provide some basis to say "Look.
Here's some real experience.
This kind of component actually leaked under these circumstances and the plant had your kind of aging management program and it didn't work."
CHAIR YOUNG:
- Well, let me just MR.
LEWIS:
That's entirely PARTICIPANT:
Can I address this now?
CHAIR YOUNG:
Well, let me just follow up on what I said before though.
One thing about underground pipes and I've been involved in other cases where underground pipes and alleged leaks and so forth were at issue.
One thing about those is that they're underground and so that fact alone makes it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 wwwnealrgross.com
319 1
difficult for anyone including their plant or their 2
lawyer to know exactly what's going on everywhere and 3
to be able to make those comparisons and I presume 4
that's one of the reasons why this task force was 5
formed to look into these things that are difficult to 6
ascertain and try to make some determinations about 7
what's happening and what to do about it.
8 So in one sense, it seems as though you're 9
maybe asking for something that might be unreasonable 10 under the circumstances and certainly in the context 11 of contention of admissibility standards which don't 12 require that a party prove its case.
Do you want to 13 respond to that?
14 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
Let me just say that --
15 CHAIR YOUNG:
Because I
know you're 16 representing your client and I expect to hear this 17 from you.
But the major of your argument sometimes 18 seems to be that within a relatively short period of 19 time a petitioner should be able to do essentially 20 what a task force might take six months or longer to 21 do.
So there is a level of reason we need to apply.
22 MR.
LEWIS:
I think the NRC is looking at 23 this issue and it will decide whether there is a need 24-for greater onsight radiological monitoring as an 25 operating program.
If that is needed, the NRC will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
J 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 320 impose it.
That is an example of an operational program that is not within the scope of license renewal.
I mean those programs are in place because there are in fact unknowns.
They are not aging management mechanisms.
They are there because in fact there might be a release.
There might be an accident.
I think still CHAIR YOUNG:
But I mean the answer to my question before was it depends.
It might include the aging management issue.
MR. LEWIS:
And let me say that as far as having appropriate radiological monitoring is something that Entergy doesn't disagree with.
I think it's perfectly appropriate and the NRC needs to look at this issue and make sure are all the licensees doing what they need to do to have good onsite radiological monitoring and that's an ongoing operational issue that in fact is being addressed.
That's the reason why these programs aren't within the scope of license renewal because they are addressed on the ongoing real time.
There was some operating experience.
The NRC is reacting.
They will adjust these programs as needed.
So my narrow response is that's going to happen.
Now with respect to our particular NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 321 components, you can't inspect every inch of every buried pipe every second.
So you design them to be in the ground for a long time.
You put these coatings and wraps that --
I mean these components were put in there to be there 40 years and you design them that way and you're going to have an inspection to go in the first ten years of license renewal and take a look and say, "Are they still working?
Are all these features, these coatings and wraps, still working or do I have a problem" and I think that's supplemented by your onsite radiological monitoring which I do believe we adjusted.
But I don't think that those programs really are aging management mechanism, aging management program.
I think they are a broader operational program that are put in place because, yes, you do have uncertainties and it's important to take them into account and we have defense-in-depth and so-we try and make sure things don't leak.
But then we have radiological monitoring not only onsite, but offsite and a lot of other things.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Right.
MR.
LEWIS:
We monitor for radioactivity at different discharge points, too, even though we don't expect it to be there.
We have systems that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 322 don't have radioactivity, but if there was an adjoining system and there was leak, there might be.
So we monitor to make sure that there isn't leakage going into it.
We do a lot of things that are very proactive and preventive.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Right.
- Clearly, that's true.
MR. LEWIS:
Those aren't aging management systems.
They're just good practice and good health and safety.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Go ahead.
JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
I just want to say that as I read the contention I don't think it's trying to say or could say that there's anything wrong with your protective coatings or wrappings program.
What the contention is basically saying, how do you know if there were in addition to have others know.
The only way you would know is with some radiological monitoring or inspection, inspection frequencies every ten years.
The judgment of the Petitioners of the ten years is to infrequent an inspection.
MR. LEWIS:
That's one of the things that we say you have no basis for that.
You can say it's not, but they may have had their own feeling it's not.
I submit that's not a basis.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
323 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS.
BARTLETT:
Judge --
Go ahead.
JUDGE COLE:
The plant has been operating for how many years?
MR.
LEWIS:
About 30.
JUDGE COLE: -Have you conducted these same kinds of inspections during the first 30 years, the life of the plant?
MR.
LEWIS:
I wish I had a plant person here.
I think that there have been opportunistic inspections -
JUDGE COLE:
Well, really my question is MR.
LEWIS:
not for this purpose.
JUDGE COLE:
in your renewal you indicate that you have to have a ten year inspection plan.
Is that new?
Is that associated with the renewal plan or have you been doing this since the plant opened?
MR.
LEWIS:
No, this is not something that's been done since the plant opened it.
Also I think the every ten years language is Pilgrim Watch's.
I think that --
PARTICIPANT:
No.
PARTICIPANT:
No.
(Discussion off microphone.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 324 MR.
LEWIS:
Well, this is a new program.
No, we've not been doing every ten years since the plant started.
No.
JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
Okay.
Thank you.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Ms.
- Bartlett, you had something.
MS.
BARTLETT:
Well, just in response to Counsel kind of implying that we are going by our intuition and on a fishing trip of some kind, I mean I really think that the regulations put the burden on the applicant.
It says that the applicant has to "demonstrate that the effects of aging will be adequately managed for the period of extended operation" and all we're saying and we don't have to prove it at this point, we're saying there's a
deficiency in the management plan to deal with this issue of underground leaks and we've brought forward our concise statement of alleged facts which we were required to do and not required to prove and I think this is clearly an issue that's material and is in dispute.
So I feel that we've met our burden.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Thank you.
All right.
If there's nothing further on contention one.
MR. WEDEWER:
Your Honor, just to add one thing that might be of help.
It's August 21st is when NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
325 1
that report is due.
2 CHAIR YOUNG:
We're operating under a 3
guideline of we make every effort to follow the 4
Commission's guideline of getting a decision issued 5
within 40 days of the last pleading.
6 PARTICIPANT:
Forty-five days.
7 CHAIR YOUNG:
Didn't I say 45?
Sorry.
8 Forty-five days which would be 45 days after July 3 9
which would be a little bit by a few days before 10 August 21 which it would be nice to have the benefit 11 of that obviously.
In any event, if anything further 12 comes to light, please provide that information to us 13 and all the participants as soon as possible and we'll 14 be watching to see what comes out in any event.
15 All right.
You had asked for --
16 MR. LEWIS:
Judge, I'm sorry.
The program 17 that we described, the -- position as every ten years 18 is Pilgrim Watch's.
Our aging management program and 19 our application and what is identified as being 20 sufficient in the GALL Report which is the NRC's 21 generic aging lessons learned is a one-time inspection 22 within the first ten years of the period of extended 23 operation.
So it's not every ten years.
It's one 24 inspection in that first ten year interval.
I just 25 wanted to make sure that everybody was aware of that.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
326 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But every ten years was not our language.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
MR.
LEWIS:
And it's obviously getting picked up and I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware that's not the case.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Can you give us a citation to that for what you just told me?
MS.
BARTLETT:
Appendix A.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Page?
MS.
BARTLETT:
2-1-2 I think.
MR. LEWIS:
The GALL Report which is NUREG 1801 Rev 1
is in Section XI(M),
Page
- 111, a
complicated number.
Our buried pipe and tank inspection program is described at pages B-17 and B-18 of the license renewal application and it
- says, "A
focused inspection will be performed within the first ten years of the period of extended operation unless an opportunistic inspection or an inspection via a method that allows assessment of the pipe condition without excavation occurs within this ten year period."
That is the commitment.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
Ms.
Uttal, you'd asked for a break at 10:30 a.m., but it might be good to take the break now and then come back and discuss contention two.
All right.
How much time?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
327 1
MS.
UTTAL:
Fifteen.
2 CHAIR YOUNG:
Fifteen minutes.
Okay.
3 10:05 a.m. we'll start back.
Off the record.
4 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off 5
the record at 9:49 a.m. and went back on the record at 6
10:05 a.m.)
7 CHAIR YOUNG:
On the record.
Let's get 8
started.
Did you have a question?
You wanted to ask 9
a question before we went onto --
10 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
Earlier, Mr. Lewis, you 11 had said that you, you had made some reference to 12 discussions with the NRC regarding ongoing licensing 13 with respect to this leakage issue.
I thought you 14 said something about radiological monitoring 15 discussions.
Did I misinterpret that?
16 MR.
LEWIS:
What I was referring to was 17 that there were changes to the scope of the equipment 18 that was within the scope of license renewal because 19 of ongoing RAIs and site audits.
There are a number 20 of site audits the NRC does on license renewal to look 21 at your scoping and screening process and your aging 22 management programs and they ask questions during 23 those reviews, you know, why is this in scope, why 24 isn't this.
25 And what I
heard today is that in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 328 connection with that dialogue that we are putting in the main discharge line into the scope.
I haven't confirmed that yet.
This doesn't have to do with --
Monitoring has to do with what's within the scope of your license renewal.
JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
All right.
Thank you.
CHAIR YOUNG:
All right.
Yes.
MS.
HOLLIS:
Does that mean that that relates to aging management issues versus radiological monitoring?
CHAIR YOUNG:
Go ahead.
MR. LEWIS:
This is the main line that you have, what's the cooling and this is the circulating water and that comes in, goes through the condenser and goes back out.
It is not a line that discharges radioactivity.
We don't discharge liquid rad waste through that line.
(Discussion off microphone.)
MR.
LEWIS:
We may monitor it anyway.
I know for example the saltwater discharge system is one of these systems where saltwater flows in, goes through heat condensers and flows back out again.
It's not meant to contain radioactivity.
It adjoins with on the other side of the condenser.
On the other side of the heat exchangers is radioactive liquid and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com
329 1
therefore if there was a
leak there could be 2
contamination.
We monitor the discharge point to see 3
if there is any contamination in that system.
I don't 4
know whether we do that -
5 I wasn't prepared to talk about the main 6
discharge line.
This wasn't in scope.
I imagine if 7
we do it on the saltwater circulating system that we 8
do it on the main discharge system.
I suspect we do, 9
but I'm not sure.
I can probably try to find out if 10 you'd like to know.
11 CHAIR YOUNG:
When you get RAIs asking 12 about what you have, I guess, it's what you consider 13 to be in scope, I guess the nature of the discussions 14 it sounds to me like is that the staff is asking why 15 you have included or have not included this or that 16 within the scope of your aging management program and 17 so there may be discussions about whether particular 18 things in your view and/or in the staff's view should 19 be within the scope of license renewal more generally 20 and within the scope of your application more 21 specifically.
Am I understanding that correctly?
22 MR.
LEWIS:
- Yes, except that --
- Well, 23 first of all, my information on this change in scope 24 is anecdotal at this point and I apologize.
I heard 25 it and so I wanted to make sure I told them before NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
330 1
they left.
But I'm not sure if this is an RAI.
I 2
don't know if this is written question.
There are 3
site audits where NRC teams come and look at what we 4
did for license renewal and they go through the 5
application.
They go through the
.-supporting 6
documents.
They ask questions verbally and maybe the 7
staff has a better answer than I do on how this change 8
has occurred.
9 MR.
WEDEWER:
Yeah.
I might be able to 10 help out, Your Honor.
This isn't 11 CHAIR YOUNG:
Why don't you identify 12 yourself for the record again.
13 MR.
WEDEWER:
I'm sorry. Sure.
I'm Harry 14 Wedewer.
15 CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
Thank you.
16 MR.
WEDEWER:
I'm obviously from the NRC 17 staff.
Anyway, this in my information is also, having 18 come down literally just last night, but this hasn't 19 even made it up to the level of an RAI yet.
This was 20 the outcome of an audit and that the staff after 21 reviewing the latest audit decided that this pipe 22 needed to be in scope after all.
23 CHAIR YOUNG:
Within the scope of this 24 license renewal.
25 MR.
WEDEWER:
I believe that's correct.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com o
~%-~
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 331 CHAIR YOUNG:
Because the staff considers that it's in the scope of license renewal generally.
MR.
WEDEWER:
It No, not generally, Your Honor.
In this case, my information is that ordinarily this pipe would have not been in the scope of license renewal.
But in this particular instance, failure of it could impact a safety system, safety related system.
So under its 50.54(a) (2),
it was considered to be in scope for the purposes of this license renewal.
MR. LEWIS:
That probably means that it's not in scope in order to prevent any leak of radioactivity.
It probably means it's in scope to prevent an interruption of the flow.
Again, because it's anecdotal, I'm not sure why it's in scope.
It's not a safety related system.
The (A) (2) criterion is a non-safety related system which if it fails might prevent a safety related system from performing its function and at this point, I don't know what the relationship is.
MR.
WEDEWER:
Yeah, and that's what it is because of that impact.
CHAIR YOUNG:
I guess one thing I'm not quite following is why it would be for one plant and not for other plants at least of the same type.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com o
v
X.i 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 332 MR.
WEDEWER:
- That, Your Honor, I just don't know at this point, but my information was that it just was, that ordinarily this would not be in scope.
But for this plant, it was at this time.
I can't..show you more technical detail on it than that.
JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
Again, I'm not familiar with the exact component or product you're talking about, but in general terms, that heat exchange you're referring to, the other side of it, the reactor side is at negative pressure.
If there were a crack in the tube or a leak in the tube, the flow would be from the environment to the plant which would result in saltwater intrusion.
Big problems for the plant, but not the environment.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Go ahead.
MS.
HOLLIS:
Your Honor, just trying to nail down if the inclusion of this particular pipe in the scope of the relicensing is as a result of concerns about aging management of the pipe and therefore, would tie in with a whole series of other issues, that's all I was trying to get to, and I still don't quite, it's not coming through to me very clearly as to whether it's an aging management issue or not.
CHAIR YOUNG:
I guess I'm assuming that it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 333 would have to be in order for the staff to consider it to be in scope and I'm seeing you nodding.
MR.
WEDEWER:
- Yes, I believe.
CHAIR YOUNG:
And that's why I
don't understand why it would be at one plant and not at another but --
MR. WEDEWER:
Your Honor, I just cannot --
I just don't have the technical detail of this configuration versus other configurations to tell you why that's true.
MR.
LEWIS:
The question is what is the function that they're trying to protect too.
MR.
WEDEWER:
Yes.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Whether it falls within the safety functions in the rule.
MR.
LEWIS:
You
- know, they may have decided to add this in scope because they want to maintain a function.
That function may not be preventing leakage of radioactivity.
I don't think this is credited for that purpose.
So they may be including it in the scope to make sure it can perform some other function.
Again, we really need to see what is the change and perhaps I should commit to inform the Board and the parties very promptly afterwards once I get the facts because I don't have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
334 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 them.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Yes, actually I think that would be a good idea and it brings me to something I was going to say about the next contention and that is the amendment that you've submitted.
I don't know.
Sometimes when amendments are submitted or responses to RAIs, we'll get a motion to dismiss a contention because it's moot.
Usually, that's after they've been admitted as I recall, but if there's going to be any further filings in this case as a result of any of these things or if any of the new information, you're going to submit that to us and we've discussed some other things that are going to be submitted, the testimony from the Sharon Harris case and I can't recall all the others.
But it might be a good idea if any of the parties have any intention of filing anything further as a result of these or any additional things, I
appreciate your bringing all these to our attention as you're aware of them.
But it might be a good idea while we're here to see whether there's any intention for anything further to be filed that would have any effect on the rulings we need to make..
I guess I could start by asking do you intend to file anything as a result of your amendment with regard to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 335 contention two.
MR.
LEWIS:
Well, our amendment predated the contentions.
There was a proposed interim staff guidance document that came out on May 9th.
We did our very best to get responsive information in.
We got it in on May llth.
CHAIR YOUNG:
I don't think the Petitioners knew about that though before they submitted contentions from what I understand them to be saying.
MR.
LEWIS:
They may not have.
I mean we did everything we could.
We filed as promptly as two days after the proposed ISG was issued.
In fact, we asked the staff to make sure it got in ADAMS right away.
We didn't send it to Petitioners because there weren't any petitioners.
I mean no one was identified as a party yet.
So all we could do is put in the responsive information and try and make sure that it got in ADAMS and I can't tell what date it got in ADAMS either.
We did our darnedest to make that because this was an emerging issue that we got this information on the docket as soon as possible and there wasn't any attempt to exclude any petitioners.
They just didn't exist I mean.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Right.
No, I'm not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com K2
336 1
suggesting.
I'm just saying that let's see --
I 2
wouldn't want to get back to the office and then next 3
week have something filed that would change anything 4
if anyone had any indication that something was going 5
to be coming of that nature.
6 MR.
LEWIS:
- Yes, it's not my intent.
7 CHAIR YOUNG:
And I guess I'm talking to 8
the Petitioners, too, whether we're expecting any 9
further from you.
10 MS.
CURRAN:
Judge, we had said yesterday 11 that as a precautionary measure we're planning to file 12 a petition for role-making with the Commission on our 13 contention, but we're going to --
We don't think that 14 should hold up the licensing board from ruling.
15 CHAIR YOUNG:
Right.
That wouldn't.
16 MS.
CURRAN:
I just wanted to mention 17 that.
18 CHAIR YOUNG:
What about you and 19 particularly I guess in relation to this amendment?
20 MS.
BARTLETT:
- Well, are we discussing 21 contention two now?
22 CHAIR YOUNG:
Well, before we get into the 23 argument on it.
24 MS. BARTLETT:
Okay.
I think our position 25 is that the amendment does not necessarily change what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
337 1
we are bringing forward.
2 CHAIR YOUNG:
The reason I raised it is 3
because sometimes petitioners, especially new 4
petitioners who haven't been involved in the process 5
,bef ore, are not aware of the process of filing 6
amendments and then there'll be a motion that the 7
amendment sort of moots out the contention and then 8
there is a category of contentions that's been 9
developed in some of the case law called contentions 10 of omission and then what that obligates you to do is 11 if the Board were to agree that the amendment or the 12 new information moots out the contention then that 13 would obligate you to file a new contention on the new 14 information whatever form it came in in.
That's why 15 I mentioned the 30 day deadline earlier this morning 16 and on this one, I think I said since we had not set 17 that 30 day deadline probably the original 60 days 18 would run.
And I'm mentioning that now because I 19 don't know when it got into ADAMS, but if it was 20 shortly after May 11th, then your deadline would be 21 coming up fairly soon.
22 MS. BARTLETT:
Right.
23 MR. WEDEWER:
It was May 26th.
24 MS. BARTLETT:
Exactly.
25 CHAIR YOUNG:
May 26th.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 338 MS.
BARTLETT:
Which was the day after we submitted our petition.
CHAIR YOUNG:
So if there's something further to be coming on that.
MS.
BARTLETT:
Right.
Would we--- We'd have an opportunity to reply if they submitted a motion.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Oh sure.
MS.
BARTLETT:
Okay.
CHAIR YOUNG:
And I don't know whether they are or not.
MS.
BARTLETT:
Right.
CHAIR YOUNG:
But that you could --
I mean if you were going to file something in any event, you need to be aware of these time lines and the general practice with regard to these kinds of things.
Okay.
Was that all on one then?
Then we've PARTICIPANT:
Yes, for that part of it.
CHAIR YOUNG:
For that part of it.
Okay.
So then we can move into two and do you want to just give a quick summary of where you see us being on two now?
MS.
BARTLETT:
Sure.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Based on having received the responses and filed your replies.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
.21 22 23 24 25 339 MS.
BARTLETT:
Right.
Okay.
In our contention two in our
- petition, Pilgrim Watch demonstrated that the issue was material because it concerns a
deficiency in the aging management plan that could impact public
-health and safety.
It's a
safety The drywell is a safety related containment component that needs to be maintained as a pressure boundary and for structural support.
In the course of our preparing our contention, the NRC staff proposed guidance on this
- issue, in particular, for license renewals which is what we're in now and it states, "Specifically the staff has determined applicants for license renewal for a plant with boiling water reactor Mark I steel containment should provide a plant specific aging management plan to address the potential loss of material due to corrosion in the inaccessible areas of the Mark I steel containment drywell shell for the period of extended operation."
It also included instructions to develop a corrosion rate for the inaccessible areas.
In their amendment to the application filed by Entergy which again went on ADAMS the day after we submitted our petition, the history of the measurements that have been taken in this area was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
340 1
described.
For the inaccessible areas of the sand 2
cushion region which I believe this is the main area 3
that's kind of in dispute, how well the measurements 4
have been done and what needs to be done in the 5
future,.the Applicant states that it has discontinued 6
measurements of the drywell in the embedded regions.
7 And while the amendment details some 8
history of corrosion measurements, it appears that 9
measurements have been taken only twice in the 10 inaccessible embedded areas and that these 11 measurements as I said have been discontinued.
it 12 also does not contain any commitments to incorporate 13 plant specific procedures for these inaccessible areas 14 into its aging management plan for the period of 15 extended operation as was requested in the proposed 16 staff guidance.
Petitioners request that the 17 recommendations in the proposed staff guidance on this 18 issue should be immediately incorporated into 19 Pilgrim's aging management plan before the license 20 extension is approved.
21 So we on our read of that amendment that 22 was submitted that seemed to be sort of a description 23 of what has been done on the past.
It did not give 24 any commitments to do as was recommended in the staff 25 guidance which was, where are the words, "provide a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 341 plant specific aging management plan to address the potential loss of material in these areas."
So I guess we stand by what we have in our petition even after reading the amendments submitted by Entergy.
CHAIR YOUNG:
The staff does make the argument that one of your basis 2.3.4, can no longer seen to present genuine issues, genuine questions, of law or fact as a result of the amendment because the amendment demonstrates that there has been some monitoring for corrosion.
MS.
BARTLETT:
I guess the corrosion measurements that have been done in the past were done in 2000 or 2001 I believe and that was in response to some sort of, I'm not quite familiar with it, but some sort of guidance letter in 1987.
I still don't think this conforms with the current concerns that the staff guidance addresses for license renewals for the next 20 years.
CHAIR YOUNG:
So we'll go to Mr.
Lewis next.
MR.
LEWIS:
The only support for the contention that the Petitioners offered in the first instance was the proposed ISG and our amendment specifically addressed the recommendations in the proposed ISG and we believed it did everything that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
342 1
that proposed ISG indicated that we should do and our 2
letter is an amendment to the application.
That is 3
our description of our aging management plan, our 4
plant specific aging management plan with respect to 5
the allegation that we're not addressing how we manage 6
aging in the inaccessible areas and these are areas 7
that are embedded in concrete normally.
So the only 8
way you normally get at them is to chip away the 9
concrete and expose it and that's not a procedure that 10 you want to do very often particularly in a high 11 radiation area.
12 The ISG does not say that you have to do 13 UT measurements there periodically or periodic 14 inspections.
It says use existing data, existing 15 measurements to come up with a corrosion rate and show 16 that that corrosion rate won't result in a fitting 17 below the acceptance criteria during the period of 18 extended operation.
19 Our amendment describes the data that we 20 have.
It's data from '87.
It's three years,
'87, 21 2001 and I think the other one is 1999, but it's three 22 sets of measurements.
The '87 data was the one that 23 was responsive to the generic letter.
That was 12 24 measurements, that's in our amendment
- one, 12 25 measurements around the sand bed region of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234*-33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
343 1
drywell.
So we have more than one or two data points.
2 All of those measurements showed as 3
described in this amendment of the application,, no 4
corrosion.
So if you take those data and you start 5
with as-built conditions and you look at '87, I think 6
it's
'99 and it's 2000 and 2001, you'd have a zero 7
corrosion rate.
Based on that and the proposed staff 8
guidance, we don't need to do further inspections.
So 9
we have done exactly what the ISG indicates we should 10 do and there is nothing that the Petitioners have 11 provided that indicate a need for further management 12 measures.
13 CHAIR YOUNG:
Did you want to ask 14 anything?
15 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
Yes.
16 CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
17 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
I have a
question 18 regarding the amendment.
The amendment indicates 19 that, I'll quote it on page three of six, "Based on 20 the following four
- factors, P&P has removed UT 21 thickness measurements in the same (Inaudible) region 22 from the IWE program after the 2001 outage."
And then 23 they mention four factors which includes "satisfactory 24 results from monitoring for leakage in the sand bed, 25 air gas," etc.
I won't read them all.
K'k=
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
344 1
You then go on to discuss all the things 2
you're going to do to identify that corrosion may be 3
beginning and things you're doing to prevent 4
corrosion.
The one thing that I'm missing from this 5
is let's assume that these things you're doing to 6
identify potential corrosion occur, so the leakage and 7
drains during an outage, etc.
I don't see any 8
iteration back.
Is there an implication then that you
-9 go back to reinstituting the UT thickness measurements 10 in the same sand bed region?
11 MR. LEWIS:
There could be.
I think there 12 is.
It depends on where the corrosion is.
Let me 13 first say that there's three sets of drains.
There is 14 a drainious (sic) system up near the bellows, the 15 fueling bellows.
There's a trough and if there's 16 leakage from the refueling bellows it goes in the 17 trough and it's an alarm system.
So you know if 18 there's leakage there. Above the sand bed region in 19 the accessible area, there's a drain on the exterior 20 of the drywell and then the sand itself has a, the 21 sand bed region itself is drained.
So you have 22 multiple drains.
That's one of the reasons why there 23 hasn't been corrosion.
24 If-you do have corrosion, if you have 25 water in these areas where there's not meant to be, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
-1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
345 1
there is a corrective action requirement and that was K..
2 part of the original assertion that our program 3
didn't.
When you look at our license renewal 4
application, correction action is part of every one of 5
our aging management programs.
It would require you 6
to do what is necessary.
7 But there is also an element of the ASME 8
Code that requires if you have areas where you suspect 9
corrosion you have to monitor for it.
For example, 10 the augmented inspections, the element which we have 11 committed apply to areas where you suspect there may 12 be corrosion and if you have an area where you suspect 13 there is corrosion, you add this area into the 14 augmented inspections.
They are done every outage.
15 They are the ones that you use UT measurements.
I 16 would think if 17 (Discussion off microphone.)
18 MR.
LEWIS:
I think under the ISG also if 19 you have leakage into the'inaccessible area and you 20 implemented your corrective action program and you 21
.... looked at it and you found that you had hadocorrosion, 22
-you would then trigger the requirements of this ISG to 23 come up with a corrosion rate.
So I think you would 24 have to do further measurements, look at what the 25 corrosion rate is and show that you could project out NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 346 to that period of extended operation before you could eliminate the need to do further monitoring again.
JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
All right.
That's what I wanted to hear.
So in other words what would happen is that if you see a leakage in these various areas, then that would invoke the requirement to go back and say I do have the corrosion rate now and you would have to develop what that corrosion rate is.
MR.
LEWIS:
If there were corrosion.
JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
Yes.
MR.
LEWIS:
Yes.
JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
I understand, but that would prompt you then to take those actions.
MR.
LEWIS:
Correctly, yes.
JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
Okay.
And it's also covered by your corrective action program and it's also covered under the ASME requirements.
MR.
LEWIS:
What I was saying is that corrective action is an element of every aging management program and if you have a situation where you find that aging effect that is beyond what you
- expected, you have to put it into your corrective action program and address it responsibly.
Here the proposed ISG indicates what happens if you have detectable corrosion in an inaccessible area and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
° v
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 347 explains this corrosion rate tracking method and what I was saying is we don't have it in our corrective action program generally this specific example.
But the fact that we're required to take corrective action and the fact that we have this proposed ISG presumably is finalized in this forum.
It could change but if this is the final version, the fact that we're required to take corrective action along with the commitments that we're making here would require that course of action to look and see if resulted in corrosion.
If it did, determine the corrosion rate and do an analysis to show that corrosion would not result in the fitting below acceptance criteria due to the period of extended operation and have enough data to be able to make that conclusion and disposition the issue in a way that assures that the safety function would be performed.
JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
Including inaccessible.
MR.
LEWIS:
It works.
Yes, this is an (Inaudible) of the acceptable areas.
JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
Okay.
MR. LEWIS: Accessible areas are inspected directly.
If you have an area, an accessible area, like the upper area of the drywell where you're having corrosion or you see a corrosion mechanism, then you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 348 go into this augmented inspection method under the ASME Code which involves UT when you can only look at one side of the drywell shell.
JUDGE COLE:
Just a
question for clarification.
On page 22 of your response to Pilgrim's Watch contention no. two, you talk about for the examinations in 1999 and 2001 you chipped away concrete at the periphery of the nine foot (PH) elevation to allow for UT measurements.
MR.
LEWIS:
Yes.
JUDGE COLE:
Was the area repaired after you chipped away the concrete?
MR.
LEWIS:
Yes.
Yes it was.
It was regrouted.
JUDGE COLE:
You tried to get it back the same way it was before.
MR.
LEWIS:
Yes.
JUDGE COLE:
Okay.
I wonder if you were creating more problems than you were solving.
MR.
LEWIS:
No, it was regrouted.
You don't leave it exposed.
JUDGE COLE:
Okay.
Thank you.
CHAIR YOUNG:
I'd like to just understand something whether what you've been saying is essentially -- Well, let me back up.
Pilgrim Watch in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE, N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
349 1
response, in reply, to your response says that they, 2
even though you've taken some measurements that in 3
their view what you've done doesn't conform with the 4
proposed ISG and that they reiterate their request 5
that the recommendations in the ISG be incorporated 6
into your aging management plan. Do I understand you 7
to be saying that that has in effect been done?
8 MR. LEWIS:
I think when you look at our 9
amendment one and your response and you compare it 10 against the proposed ISG you'll see that we've been
.11 completely responsive.
The proposed ISG in fact 12 contemplates that you only have one set of 13 measurements in the inaccessible areas. The proposed 14 ISG assumes that in response to the 1987 generic 15 letter you took measurements in '87.
16 As I said, we took measurements in three 17 different years.
So we have more data than I expect 18 the typical company responding to this ISG will have.
19 And again, when you're looking at a-flat line and 20 there's no corrosion, no corrosion, no corrosion, no 21 corrosion, I mean that's a pretty easy straight line 22 to fit.
23 CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
What I'm trying to 24 make sure I understand is that there's not anything 25 there that you haven' t done. You mentioned something NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
350 1
about it only be triggered in certain instances rather 2
than it being a sort of standing requirement.
Is 3
there something that you're leaving out that you don't 4
see as being part of your responsibility under the 5
ISG?
6 MR. LEWIS:
No, I'm not aware of anything 7
being left out in response to this ISG.
8 CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
So --
9 MR.
LEWIS:
I think we gave a fully 10 responsive amendment addressing all the elements of 11 the proposed ISG.
12 CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
Thank you.
Staff?
13 MR. WEDEWER:
Your Honor, our problem with 14 the, and I'm just going to summarize our response 15 rather than repeat all of our arguments, but our 16 problem with this contention two remains the same.
17 First, it lacks basis and then, second, for the reason 18 that you mentioned.
It wasn't apparent to us at least 19 at the time we were looking at our pleading that there 20 was real dispute here given that amendment one was out 21 there.
22 To elaborate on the first about lacking 23 basis and I think this is even perhaps more evident 24 from Pilgrim Watch's reply to Entergy since they 25 didn't mention it in their reply to us is that they're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 351 really relying on the ISG.
It's really the basis here because when you strip out the references to the ISG what you're left with just to summarize is the Hallsler (PH) testimony and the original pleading, the UCS study which is nothing to say about this particular component or region and then just really a series of speculations, and so it's, which implicates out of Calvert Cliffs, now the Oconee decision that we cited is that I think what the Commission was looking for, granted it's in RAI context, but what they're looking for --
CHAIR YOUNG:
I'm sorry.
MR.
WEDEWER:
I'm sorry.
That was Oconee and Calvert Cliffs which was in RAI context.
CHAIR YOUNG:
- RAI, okay.
MR.
WEDEWER:
I'm sorry.
But anyway I think that the analogy is that what the Commission was saying there surely you can use RAIs and staff interactions with the public and industry as a
jumping-off point was the language they used.
But I think what the Commission was saying too is that you can't use it exclusively and that's what to us appears to be what's really going on here.
And that's why we think those particular decisions were on point.
So what would be required for us to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
352 1
recommend to us that this contention come in is we 2
were going to have to read some things into it that 3
simply were not there.
I would pass as well is that 4
we're obviously in receipt of amendment one and I 5
believe there's actually an amendment two out there 6
that has some --
7 CHAIR YOUNG:
I'm not catching everything 8
you're saying.
9 MR.
WEDEWER:
I'm sorry.
10 CHAIR YOUNG:
You're talking sort of fast 11 and maybe not close enough to the microphone.
I also 12 want to make sure we get it on the record.
13 MR.
WEDEWER:
Yeah.
Is that better, Your 14 Honor?
15 CHAIR YOUNG:
Yes.
Thank you.
16 MR.
WEDEWER:
I'm sorry.
We are --
I just 17 was going to restate that.
We were obviously in 18 receipt of amendment one and there's actually I
19 believe an amendment two out there on this particular 20 issue that's minor in nature but it's out there.
21 CHAIR YOUNG:
Can we get that to everyone?
22 MR.
WEDEWER:
Surely.
And I believe it's 23 dated June 7 and it just hit ADAMS and I don't have 24 the exact --
I believe it was June 26 or 27, but it 25 doesn't materially change, I believe, what's in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com o
v
353 1
amendment.
There are again some minor corrections.
2 But the larger point is that we're 3
evaluating amendment one and amendment two.
We intend 4
to apply the elements of the draft ISG to this renewal 5
application.
The extent to which those amendments 6
address the ISG is just going to be a matter of review 7
and it would be wildly premature for me to speculate 8
on whether amendment one addresses all the points or 9
not.
That's going to be -
10 CHAIR YOUNG:
But it is the staff's 11 intention to make sure that, in your review, to make 12 sure that the ISG is complied with completely.
13 MR.
WEDEWER:
Yes ma'am.
14 CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
Ms. Hollis?
15 MS.
HOLLIS:
Nothing further.
16 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS: Just one more comment on 17 this issue.
If you are renewing this now, I repeat my 18 comment that there does seem to be this lack of 19 statement in the amendment itself about how they cycle 20 back through corrective action.
21 CHAIR YOUNG:
Any follow-up?
It sounds as 22 though based on what the staff said do you still want 23 to make any argument here because the staff has made 24 a commitment to make sure that they will be complying 25 with the ISG completely.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 354 MS.
BARTLETT:
We would be happy if Entergy would comply with the ISG completely.
It's still not clear to us that amendment one demonstrates that and even in this response to the judge, I don't think Mr. Lewis clearly said that if moisture in the area is found they would go back and chip away at the concrete and do more of those measurements in the embedded area.
But I assume the NRC staff will make sure that aging management plan spells all that out.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Well, we just heard him say that he couldn't tell me exactly that everything had been followed but that NRC, the staff, is making a commitment to see that everything in the ISG is complied with.
So does that make any difference in your continuing to pursue this contention?
MS.
BARTLETT:
I think it does make a difference.
CHAIR YOUNG:
So are you willing to withdraw it based on the staff's commitment?
MS.
BARTLETT:
I'll have to consult with my boss here.
CHAIR YOUNG:
If you want, you can tell us after the lunch.
MS.
BARTLETT:
Yes, exactly.
JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
By the way, I also NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 355 wanted to just make one comment about the --
This began at Oyster Creek and without really a great deal of NRC staff intervention, Oyster Creek did take some very elaborate steps including the removal of the sand bed region or the sand from the sand bed region to be able to have visual inspection on the outside.
So I'm not trying to imply that the Applicant would not be responsible in this regard.
I just wanted to make sure that the comment was understood.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
You can get back to us on that.
But I mean if you decide to do that, you can certainly state what that would be based on and there is case law to the effect that any commitments made by a licensee are considered to be in effect conditions of the license.
JUDGE COLE:
I note that the ISG is identified as a draft. What's the status of the draft and how close are they to final?
MR. WEDEWER:
We anticipate that either at the end of August or September, Your Honor, that coming out in its present form.
JUDGE COLE:
Okay.
So the staff will also try to assure that they come with the final ISG.
MR. WEDEWER:
Yes sir.
I mean they'll be substantively identical.
Just the draft will be out NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
356 1
there.
2 CHAIR YOUNG:
Just to put the final nail 3
on
- this, what may be We never want to say 4
anything's final, but is Entergy willing to commit to 5
completely comply with the ISG in whatever final form 6
it takes in accordance with the staff's commitment to 7
see that you do that?
8 MR.
LEWIS:
Judge Young, we'd like to see 9
the finalized ISG before I commit to say.
I would 10 assume that if it's along the lines of the proposed 11 ISG that we would.
12 (Discussion off the microphone.)
13 MR.
LEWIS:
I think it would be 14 inappropriate to say we're going to commit before we 15 even know what it is.
16 CHAIR YOUNG:
- Well, I mean if there are 17 any significant changes in it I guess that would start 18 the time running for an immediately filed contention.
19 MR.
LEWIS:
I agree with that.
I mean if 20 there is, you know, new information that gives good 21 cause for a new contention, the rules provide the 22 mechanism for it.
23 CHAIR YOUNG:
Are you catching this, Ms.
24 Bartlett?
25 (No response.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
357 1
CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
2 MR.
LEWIS:
NRC guidance positions give 3
one means of meeting a requirement.
If there was 4
something brand new and different, then it was a big 5
deal for us and we have equally acceptable 6
alternative.
We could propose it and that's the only 7
reason I'm hedging.
I'm not suggesting any real 8
indication here that we wouldn't.
9 CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
Well, it does seem to 10 be a reasonable thing to consider that if there's a 11 commitment on the part of the licensee applicant and 12 the staff to see that the current version is complied 13 with and given that the contention is largely based on 14 the current version that that would be, might be, 15 grounds to consider withdrawing this contention and 16 then if there were a change and it were determined 17 that there was a dispute on that, then that would 18 start your time running for the filing of the new 19 contention on that new provision.
20 MS.
BARTLETT:
So the actual license 21 renewal would be conditioned on the commitment that 22 you've just been given.
23 CHAIR YOUNG:
- Yes, and I don't --
As I 24 understand the case law, anyone can correct me if I'm 25
-leaving out anything, that any commitments made by an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
358 1
applicant in the adjudication process or considered to 2
be conditions I don't know whether that always results 3
in those conditions being spelled out in the 4
documents.
Ms. Uttal or Mr. Wedewer?
5 MS.
UTTAL:
I think that if the Board 6
orders something to be done, then that is considered 7
to be part of the license.
As to commitments, I don't 8
know if that's the case law.
You would have to look 9
into it, but --
10 CHAIR YOUNG:
I seem to recall that, but 11 I can't tell you the case myself.
12 MR. LEWIS:
I don't believe the licensing 13 board conditions always get put in the license.
I 14 think they have to be met and sometimes they're 15 addressed in the SER but they --
16 MS.
UTTAL:
They're considered to be an 17 amendment to the license even though they're not in 18 the license.
19 CHAIR YOUNG:
- Well, the case law I'm 20 talking about --
21 MS. UTTAL:
(Inaudible) individual orders 22 are considered to be part of the license even though 23 they may not be in the license.
Sometimes they put it 24 25 CHAIR YOUNG:
That might be something to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
359 1
give us some follow-up on because my recollection is 2
that there's also some case law that specifically says 3
that commitments made by licensees.
4 MR.
GAUKLER:
Your Honor, I was counsel 5
for PFS and then PFS (Inaudible) as Ms. Curran knows 6
well for eight years and that issue came up several 7
times specifically and the Commission specifically 8
said that commitments made by the licensee in the 9
course of the proceeding or even statements made by 10 the board and the licensee would do something do not 11 need to be put into license conditions.
12 CHAIR YOUNG:
They are considered to be 7:
13 commitments.
14 MR. GAUKLER:
Right.
15 CHAIR YOUNG:
And in
- effect, they're 16 conditions even though they're not spelled out in the 17 license.
18 MR.
GAUKLER:
That's correct, Your Honor.
19 CHAIR YOUNG:
That's what I
thought.
20 Okay.
If there's any doubt about that --
Go ahead, 21 Ms. Hollis.
22 MS.
HOLLIS:
Your Honor, a question, a 23 follow-up question on that.
And then does the NRC 24 assure compliance with those quasi conditions and/or 25 commitments?
Is there a follow up by NRC staff and is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 360 its reactor oversight process ongoing or is it done through the relicensing proceeding that it's pinned down there that there has been observation and compliance with those conditions?
MS.
UTTAL:
If they're considered to be part of the license, then the licensee has to comply with them and the NRC staff would assure compliance through inspections and whatever other means we have in the regulations that they're being complied with.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Maybe a good way to handle this would be for the participants to talk with each other after this and come up with an agreement on how to handle this and formalize that in some manner so that there wouldn't be any doubt about it.
MR.
LEWIS:
Judge Young, part of the license renewal process is an SFAR supplement which basically contains and incorporates with the SFAR the commitments that we make in license renewal and that is the method by which these programs we're describing or application get put into our current licensing basis and become part of what we have to comply with.
That is the control mechanism that makes sure that we do what we say we're going to do.
MS.
UTTAL:
That's also duplicated SER that is published along with the license renewal.
We NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 361 have a list of commitments at the end of the document.
CHAIR YOUNG:
And can --
When are the expected dates on these?
(Discussion off microphone.)
CHAIR YOUNG:
You already submitted your SFAR I assume.
Right?
No?
MS.
UTTAL:
Well, they have to finalize it at the end of the process, but the draft SER is scheduled for March 7th and the final SER --
CHAIR YOUNG:
March 7th of next year?
MS.
UTTAL:
Yes.
And the final SER is scheduled for September of 2007.
I want you to understand that we're at the point now, the staff is at the point now, where we're just beginning the analysis and the license amendment request.
CHAIR YOUNG:
I think the concern is to make sure that there's some method, if this is withdrawn at this point, to make sure that there's something, some method, something down in writing somewhere so that it doesn't get lost in the shuffle.
So it seems that's why I suggested maybe participants want to get together and do it, write up some agreement about how that would be handled.
That would sort of memorialize it so that there wouldn't be any concern about it not being later included since we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
362 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19.
20 21 22 23 24 25 can't control what's going to happen next year.
MS. UTTAL:
But I think considering what's been represented today that may be superfluous to do that.
The staff is very much interested in making sure that the licensee complies with this interim staff guidance.
CHAIR YOUNG:
You may be right, but the concern was expressed even though there was this case law that the commitments do bind them, that we just have some means of indicating that in writing so that the public and the Town of Plymouth will know as outsiders who are not involved intimately in the process that they can count on this and I'm not suggesting any particular way to do it.
But if you talk to each other, you may be able to work that out.
MS.
UTTAL:
Judge, I'm always willing to talk with the Interveners.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Right.
MS.
UTTAL:
But we'll need time to consult with the staff and consider what to do before we -
CHAIR YOUNG:
Sure.
Yes.
MS.
HOLLIS:
Your Honor, a follow-up question and that is with respect to these commitments.
Is the commitment process that's arrived at by the staff and the applicant, is that a
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
363 1
combination of contentions which may have been raised 2
and withdrawn because it would be resolved to that, 3
contentions which through the process may be resolved 4
through the process where issues are fixed or they are 5
determined not to be an issue which would rise to the 6
level of a contention but which would be handled in
.7,7 ;*the.
reactor oversight process and is it a package of 8
issues and resolutions thereof that is agreed to by 9
the parties and other interested players as a
10 commitment to undertake a variety of things which may 11 not have been directly, would not have been the 12 subject, may have been the subject of a hearing but a 13 hearing didn't take place on those issues?
Is a way, 14 is it essentially a settlement or does it address 15 issues which the NRC has outstanding and which are 16 contentions which were raised but were not treated as 17 contentions so they were not accepted?
18 MS.
UTTAL:
Judge --
19 CHAIR YOUNG:
I don't think --
20 MS.
UTTAL:
It really has nothing to do 21 with the contention process.
This is a separate 22 process.
23 CHAIR YOUNG:
Right.
This is separate.
24 MS.
UTTAL:
This is These are things 25 that the staff discusses with the licensee during the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
° v
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 t14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
".K.2 364 review of the license renewal application and determines what the licensee needs to do and the licensee will commit to doing it and it is memorialize in two places as we said in the SFAR which cannot be changed without going through the 50.59 process, but it has nothing to do with contentions that are dropped.
It's just --
CHAIR YOUNG:
Actually, Ms.
Curran, you might be helpful on this because you've been involved in a number, a lot of proceedings, and I seem to recall times when based on something that occurs or some commitment that's been made there's some level of agreement or withdrawal of a contention based on something.
Can you provide any elucidation on what assurance the Petitioner, for example, or a member of the public would have as a result of these kinds of --
MS.
CURRAN:
- Well, I can tell you what I would do which would be I'd want the licensing board to --
I consider it a settlement of the contention and I would want the licensing board to approve it because basically what the intervener is doing is dropping an issue that it wants resolved and it wants the licensing board's help in getting this issue addressed and is dropping that issue on the basis of commitments made by the staff and the licensee.
So if it were me, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
365 1
I would try to get, put this agreement before the 2
licensing board.
3 MR.
LEWIS:
(Off microphone) Can I just 4
talk on this for a second?
Right now (On
..5 microphone) Currently, our commitment is what's in our 6
application.
In amendment one, we took the proposed 7
ISG.
We put information we thought was fully 8
responsive.
What happens in the staff review if they 9
require us to do more, how it changes, I can't commit.
10 CHAIR YOUNG:
Right.
11 MR.
LEWIS:
So we've explained in our 12 application what we're doing.
Our position remains 13 that there is no basis, there is no information 14 provided by the Petitioners that has a
valid 15 contention.
We're very interested in getting a prompt 16 ruling on the admissibility of the contention.
I'm 17 glad to talk to the Petitioners in a break or 18 afterwards to see if there's something that we want 19 but I'm not planning on getting into a big settlement 20 agreement then because we don't even have an admitted 21 contention.
22 CHAIR YOUNG:
It just struck me and this 23 is something to think about that you can talk about 24 that if there were withdrawal and it were submitted in 25 writing and specified that it's based on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
366 1
commitment of the staff to assure that the current 2
version of the ISG is completely complied with that 3
that would put in writing the basis for your 4
withdrawal and probably what we would then do and this 5
is just my thinking at this point that we would just 6
note that the contention was withdrawn on the basis 7
that you state and then if for some reason you later 8
learned that that was not done, then the stated basis 9
for your withdrawal would be on the record and that 10 would presumably at that point give you grounds to 11 file another contention with the time running from the 12 time at which it became clear that the basis for your 13 withdrawal was no longer the case.
And I see Ms.
14 Curran nodding.
15 MS.
CURRAN:
That's exactly the reason 16 that I would try to have the licensing board sign off 17 on it just as a protection because the issue was put 18 in and it's something that the Intervener would like 19 to see resolved and followed through.
20 CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
21 MR.
LEWIS:
Judge, just on this point, 22 staff is going to require what the staff is require 23 when they finish their review.
I don't want to enter 24 a process where we have a contention that's withdrawn 25 but is reinstated automatically if the Interveners NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com
367 1
later disagree with the SER. I'd rather have a ruling 2
3 CHAIR YOUNG:
What I think I said was 4
that then there would be a responsibility on the part 5
of the Interveners once they became aware of or the 6
information was public to decide whether they wanted 7
to reinstitute or file a new contention based on that 8
new information at that point. And this would be, the 9
way we were discussing it, it would be based on the 10 staff's commitment.
You've made clear what your 11 commitment is and it doesn't sound like it's identical 12 to the staff's commitment.
So I don't think --
13 MR. LEWIS: I wouldn't be surprised if the 14 Interveners filed a new contention based on the SER.
15 I mean we would submit that it's a late filed 16 contention and needs to meet the criteria.
So there 17 would need to be some new information and good cause.
18 We have described in our application what we're doing.
19 If the staff accepts that in the SAR and 20 the Interveners think there should be something more, 21 I would argue that'Is very late.
The staff simply 22 accepted what we have in amendment one. If they think 23 that what we have in amendment one is inadequate, they 24 need to specify it.
If they're willing to drop their 25 contention based on what we have in amendment one, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
368 1
that would make me very happy, but I'm not willing to 2
keep this process open.
3 CHAIR YOUNG:
I thought this might 4
simplify things.
5 (Laughter.)
6 CHAIR YOUNG: You can do what you want to 7
do and if we get a withdrawal, we'll read what the 8
basis is and I'll be responsible for reading the law 9
and the late filed contention requirements and I 10 encourage you to consult with --
Ms. Curran has done 11 a lot of these proceedings and sort of knows the ropes 12 a little bit from the petitioner/intervener side of 13 the process.
So 14 MR. WEDEWER:
Your Honor, if I could add 15 maybe just one point.
There's some case law that 16 might be helpful out of the Oconee decision I 17 mentioned earlier and it's 49 NRC 328 page 338.
It 18 talks about anticipatory contentions and I'm not sure 19 if it applies or not, but I think that may have some 20 bearing here.
21 CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
22 MS. HOLLIS:
Could you give us that cite 23-again?
24 MR. WEDEWER: I'm very sorry. It's 49 NCR 25 328 page 338.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 369 CHAIR YOUNG:
So we'll add this to the list of potential things that maybe filed after the oral argument.
Okay.
Anything more on contention two?
MR.
LEWIS:
- Judge, Brian Ford from our Pilgrim plant is here now and maybe I could have a five minute break to clarify this issue about the discharge line so I don't need to submit another letter later on if that's possible.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
Let's take ten minutes and make sure we get back.
We're actually making good time this morning.
So we may be able to finish three and four before we break and then just --
Three and five rather than take a lunch break.
All right.
Off the record.
(Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off the record at 11:00 a.m. for a lunch break.)
CHAIR YOUNG:
Let's go back on the record, anything to report before we go on to Contention 3?
MR. LEWIS:
No, I've been unsuccessful for further information, but I really need to talk to the real reviewers to get it right and I don't want to get it wrong, so I will do what was the original plan and submit a letter explaining what it is that we've just NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
370 1
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 added in scope and why.
- Also, Mr.
Gaukler talked to the representatives of Pilgrim Watch and I think the commitment they want is one, to comply with the final ISG and I'm not willing to fly a pig in a poke, so we just ask for a ruling on the --
MS.
BARTLETT:
Actually, the proposed ISG we'd be happy with.
MR.
LEWIS:
I would say that our commitment to comply is what it's in our application now and if there's something more that you want, then I just ask the Board to rule on the contention.
CHAIR YOUNG:
All right then, you're not limited to what discussions you have today.
You're free to talk to each other.
Let's go on to Contention 3 and we're moving into the environmental side at this point, or back into, I guess I should say.
Why don't you give us a brief summary of where we are at this time on Contention 3?
MS.
BARTLETT:
Okay, this contention was brought forward by Pilgrim Watch, because we believe the environmental report is inadequate in that it understates the true off-site radiological and economic consequences of a severe accident at Pilgrim NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 K.)
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 371 in its severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis.
I think both Entergy and the NRC Staff has agreed that this is within the scope of this proceeding.
In our basis, we discussed some of the problems inherent with probabilistic modeling and in
- fact, the method that Entergy used to determine whether a mitigation alternative is cost effective or not, they multiply the consequences of accidents by the probability of those accidents.
So even if there were an economically reasonable mitigation, it's very likely it would be dismissed because the probability of all these accidents is low.
We concede that and that is part of a SAMA analysis, the fact that the probabilities are going to be very low.
But the bulk of our contention concerns the fact that the known limitations that were inherent in the software model used were not compensated for by Entergy in its final analysis.
The bulk of our contention highlights input data that were incorrect, incomplete or inadequate.
The meteorological data used was inadequate to correctly model the dispersion of a plume at the coastal site subject to sea breezes and terrain variability.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 372 The emergency response data was from an older report, but neither the old nor the new report give realistic evacuation delay times or evacuation travel times.
They ignore the likelihood of shadow evacuation which is the evacuation of other towns feeding on to Route 3 that would contribute to major traffic congestion.
As well, the software model used can only model the economic costs of mitigative actions following a severe accident, so the enormous economic devastation that would result in this region if there were a severe nuclear accident was not taken into account in the cost benefit analysis.
The purpose of a SAMA review is to ensure that any plant changes that have a potential for significantly improving severe accident safety performance are identified and addressed.
I guess, right, as an example of how the outcomes could be affected by this understatement of the consequences, we discussed the direct Torus vent
- filter, but the fact is what we're asking for here is not any particular mitigation.
We're really asking for the analysis to be done properly and I think the regulations, the wording in the regulations is broad enough that it requires a general analysis of the cost NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
373 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 benefits of mitigations.
I don't think the fact that the industry uses a certain software model is an excuse for not doing it properly.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Did you look at the information that we were given at the end of yesterday?
MS.
BARTLETT:
Very briefly.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Because that goes into a lot of the SAMAs and some of the analysis that was done in response to the RAIs by the Staff.
MS.
BARTLETT:
Right.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Does that change any of the arguments that you --
MS.
BARTLETT:
Well, I've made it pretty clear in our contention that we are not capable of crunching the numbers on these mitigation alternatives.
So, for
- example, where in the application it showed that the benefit of a direct Torus vent filter would be zero, they've now changed the benefit to $800,000.
- Well, I can't tell whether that's reasonable or not.
I can only tell that the inputs they used were not reasonable.
The economic inputs alone are wrong by orders of magnitude.
So to my mind, a filter that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
374 1
goes $3 million that could prevent radioactive fallout 2
in this region and wreck the tourism industry would be 3
a good investment.
But again, I can't tell whether 4
the actual new analysis that was done is more 5
compliant with what I'm asking for or not.
6 This is beyond our abilities and it's 7
certainly beyond what we need to do to get admitted.
8 CHAIR YOUNG:
So you're relying on the 9
inputs.
10 MS.
BARTLETT:
Mainly on the inputs, but 11 we've also addressed the fact that I believe even one 12 of the NUREG 1555 or something, cited by Entergy's 13 counsel, stated that what needs to be looked at is 14 mitigation that could reduce either the potential or 15 the consequences of these accidents and I
don't 16 believe that's what's going on here.
I think they're 17 multiplying consequences by small numbers and finding 18 out that the costs are always greater than the 19 benefits of these alternatives.
But again, we're 20 mainly addressing what we do know and those are the 21 input data.
22 CHAIR YOUNG:
Mr. Lewis, let's go to you 23 next.
24 MR.
LEWIS:
Let me just briefly address 25 the points addressed by Pilgrim Watch.
Our answer NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
°
375 1
really contains our main arguments and there's a lot 2
of points that were raised in this contention.
I'm 3
not going to even try to repeat them, but I am still 4
relying on my answer that addresses all of the 5
specifics. But most of what Pilgrim Watch raises are 6
mere generalizations. They ref er to known code issues 7
that might make a dif ferent in the analysis. But they 8
don't show that any of these issues in fact, were 9
germane to our analysis or that we didn't understand 10 the code. And I think you have to do more to say that 11 somebody points --
has pointed out that if you use a 12 code wrong, it can produce a wrong result.
13 In fact, the same documents that Pilgrim K...'14 Watch cites indicates that if you know what you're 15 doing, issues with the code are not a problem.
You 16 just need to have competent analysts and there's not 17 one iota of basis in anything they provided to 18 indicate that our analysts didn't understand the code 19 and the limitations of the code.
20 One of their main points was we should 21 have used the most recent version.
I think it was 22
- 1. 13 and we used 1. 12, a newer version came out 23 afterwards. In response to the NRC questions, the NRC 24 asked us a number of RAIs related to not our code 25 methodology, but were we sufficiently conservative in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 376 looking at external accident risks, were our source terms sufficiently conservative, should we account for differences in fuel in the future?
We produced that RAI response in addressing these questions because we had to rerun the analyses.
We agreed with the NRC Staff that we would add in some more conservatisms.
We multiplied our risk by a greater factor to account for our --
our internal risk by a greater factor to account for external risks, so we had to rerun the code anyway.
We ran it with the newer code just to show the proof is in the pudding.
It didn't make any difference and we, in fact, in that RAI response, looked at the code differences and showed that the areas that had been previously identified as issues weren't areas that affected our analysis at all.
You can either look at that response as mooting the issue or simply confirming that there was never anything other than mere generalizations here in the first time.
There was never anything that indicated there was really a genuine dispute that we used the code improperly.
CHAIR YOUNG:
What about the allegation that the inputs on some things like the plume, I
- guess, and the evacuation issues?
I think your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 377 argument is that they haven't shown that those changes in inputs would make a material difference?
MR.
LEWIS:
That's correct.
CHAIR YOUNG:
But do you know what difference, yourself, do you know or does your client know what difference they would make such that you could enlighten us on that?
MR. LEWIS:
Let me give you the evacuation time estimates as an indication and Pilgrim Watch presumably has both sets.
They referred to them both.
The analysis uses the average evacuation time, so it takes the best time and the worst time and averages them.
If you take the best time and the worst time in the 1998 study and average it, and if you take the best time and the worst time from the 2004 study and average it, you get exactly the same time.
No difference whatsoever.
So we think it was incumbent on them.
They have the studies.
They could have looked at what the average times were.
They could have done this.
You've asked me the questions, so I'm telling you the substantive answer and the answer is it wouldn't have made any difference.
CHAIR YOUNG:
I think what they were
- asking, if I understand it correctly, that you not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 378 take the
- average, but you consider the unique circumstances of this area.
MR.
LEWIS:
We do two things.
We do a base case analysis and again, we have just in our answer, the assertion that we have to look at the worst case because that's not the NEPA case law.
If you're trying to analyze a severe accident, what you're basically saying is here is a reasonable --
CHAIR YOUNG:
Right, you don't take the worst case, but just to respond to their argument that you do consider unique circumstances, the high and growing population in this particular part of the country and the economic aspects of the tourism and so forth that have been discussed before, I think in the plume and the --
- well, in any event, without saying that you take the worse case scenario, do you know what difference it would make if you used the sort of site-specific information as inputs, as opposed to the averages?
MR. LEWIS:
In our current application, we do two things.
We have our base case analysis and we use the average evacuation time, but then we do a sensitivity analysis with a bad weather scenario and we look at, if you use the bad weather scenario, what is the change in the results of the SAMAs and it was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 379 only a two percent, less than two percent change --
CHAIR YOUNG:
But still, I guess what I was trying to get at is if you use --
I don't know how much difference using the site specific as opposed to the average as compaied to applying the uncertainties to the use of the average would be --
MR.
LEWIS:
All of these numbers are based on the evacuation time estimates.
They are all site specific.
The evacuation time estimates have a whole lot of different scenarios.
They have a
scenario for peak population with the summer and good weather and summer and rain and they have off-season good weather and they have off-season snow and there's a lot more.
CHAIR YOUNG:
So you're saying the averages are averages of site specific --
different site-specific information?
MR.
LEWIS:
Yes.
What I'm saying is if you look at all the different scenarios and you took the fastest evacuation and the slowest evacuation and you average that just to say what's the mean evacuation speed.
CHAIR YOUNG:
From this particular plant?
MR.
LEWIS:
- Yes, from your site-specific evacuation estimates, using the 1998 evacuation time NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
380 1
estimates, site-specific evacuation time estimate 2
wouldn'It make any di f ference than the result you'd get 3
if you used the 2004 site-specific evacuation time 4
estimate.
And I would say that they've got the 5
analyses, it's their burden to show that there's some 6
materiality referring to the fact that there's a later 7
study.
There's often later studies.
When you do 8
these analyses, they're very complicated analyses.
9 They're time consuming.
10 At some point you just have to do a cut 11 off and say this is the study that exists. This is my 12 co-version that exists at the time.
I've got to use 13 it and that's what we did.
The fact that there's a 14 later evacuation time estimate shouldn't be a basis 15 for a contention without some indication that it makes 16 a difference.
Here, there is absolutely none.
17 CHAIR YOUNG:
Ms. Hollis?
18 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honor, this is probably 19 the single issue I would put at the top of our list of 20 general concerns on behalf of the Town of Plymouth.
21 And I think not all nuclear plants are created equal 22 and not all time lines should be assumed to fit every 23 scenario for every nuclear plant. We have had a very 24 significant population growth in and around the area, 25 between 1998, almost 10 years ago, and the present.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 381 Second, due to the nature of the town and the fact that it is prominent in American history, prominent in American culture, prominent across the world as being a major tourist destination, because we see like on July 4th an upsurge of about 100,000 people in and around from all over the country who come on that peak time period.
It's not just one day, but certainly that's the apex of the activity level.
And there's other times during the year, Thanksgiving and the like, for obvious reasons.
It is a bit of a jewel in the crown of American history and culture.
And in that vein and because of the unique geography of Plymouth and the plant location within Plymouth, the geography, the meteorological issues, the whole package of issues that make this site somewhat different in some major ways from many other nuclear plants that are located in less obvious, less famous areas of the country, and also not located necessarily on seacoast where there's meteorological issues and also where there are, by the limits of the geography, which is you're running up against a seacoast, because you have old roads and roads which are designed for a different time.
And in a couple of cases, one which is a
reasonably large and modern road, but which would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
382 1
immediately be flooded with traffic.
And anybody that 2
drives on that road back to Boston coming in or coming 3
out during peak rush hours knows that there is a very 4
severe traffic problem even when there's not an 5
emergency situation.
6 So in that light, I think we, our view is 7
that the issue of evacuation needs a full and thorough 8
study and that's something that certainly has been 9
causing us a concern and it's one where we would like 10 to see more study and uniquely suited to the 11 conditions which are real here.
Population growth, 12 unique nature of the town, unique nature of the 13 geography surrounding the town and the plant and 14 factor all those issues in together, in an updated 15 real-time almost or at least reasonably real-time 16 analysis as to what the real situation is and not an 17 average.
It's an average, it may work in a lot of 18 places where things are not changing as dramatically, 19, as far as population growth and traffic congestion, 20 and tourism, which is our lifeblood.
21 So those are the issues I'd like to raise 22 and I would request that the NRC and both the NRC and 23 Entergy take a close look at this and review as to 24 whether this analysis is adequate for the 25 circumstances.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
383 1
Thank you, Your Honor.
2 MR. LEWIS:
Judge Young, this is actually 3
a good interruption because it raises a broader point.
4 The issue here is whether we've done a reasonable SAMA 5
analysis.
The issue here is not adequacy of emergency 6
planning.
Adequacy of emergency planning is 7
absolutely outside the scope of this proceeding.
8 MS.
BARTLETT:
We agree.
That's not our 9
contention.
10 MR.
LEWIS:
What I'm hearing though is 11 there has to be a better evacuation time estimate for 12 what I
thought was being said was to ensure the 13 members of the public can evacuate and there has to be 14 a real time system.
Those go to what do you do in the 15 event of a real evacuation?
16 We have, as I said, our evacuation time 17 estimates have a whole range of different scenarios, 18 a whole range of different conditions, with different 19 populations at different times of year and different 20 weather conditions.
That's in there.
21 For purposes of doing a SAMA analysis, 22 we're trying to do one reasonable base case with a 23 whole lot of different alternatives.
We run 24 sensitivity analyses and then-we do -a :bounding 25 analysis where we multiply our best case by very large NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
384 1
factors to make it very bounding.
2 Our analysis is certainly on its face 3
reasonable and it is the burden of Petitioner to 4
demonstrate that he has some information that is 5
material, that he has some information to offer that 6
indicates that what we did is wrong in a way that 7
matters and that is what is lacking here.
8 CHAIR YOUNG:
I think possibly some of the 9
confusion may come from the use of the word 10 "averaging" and what that averaging includes.
And 11 that's why I was asking you to explain that a little 12 bit more fully.
It sounds as though from your earlier 13 explanation a few minutes ago, that you were saying 14 that the averaging is all site specific and then you 15 mention the 1988 and the 2004 --
16 MR.
LEWIS:
1998.
17 CHAIR YOUNG:
1998 and the 2004.
Did you 18 average between those two times or did you do one 19 analysis using 2004 figures?
20 MR.
LEWIS:
Our application and it's 21 described in the environmental report, had to provide 22 an evacuation velocity as an input to your model to 23 figure out what the consequences were of SAMAs.
24 CHAIR YOUNG:
Right.
25 MR.
LEWIS:
What we did is we took the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
° v
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 385 1998 evacuation time estimate which was the version that we had when we began preparing this analysis, that was the version that was on the shelf and for our base case, we determined the average, an average evacuation time, based on the scenarios in that 1998 report.
Then we did again, based on that 1998
- report, a sensitivity analysis looking at a bad weather scenario and we showed that that would change the results by less than two percent.
So going to a worse scenario had very little results, very little change on the outcome.
And you need to realize that we found a few SAMAs potentially cost beneficial.
All the ones that weren't potentially beneficial, the benefit would have had to double for them to become beneficial and these changes of evacuation times, going to a bad weather scenario was only changing the results by two percent.
CHAIR YOUNG:
But I thought you mentioned that there was a --
MR.
LEWIS:
The Intervenor's point about that, since we did our analysis, a 2004 newer version we did an updated version of our evacuation time estimate that was issued end of 2004.
They just point NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. "
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 386 to it and say there's a new evacuation time estimate, your analysis must be wrong.
They didn't do any analysis of their own of the numbers --
CHAIR YOUNG:
But didn't you say that you had done a new analysis using the 2004 figures?
MR. LEWIS:
Not in our evac -- what I was saying is if you look at those numbers, I have, me personally, we haven't revised our application, but if you look at the numbers in the 2004 evacuation time estimate, they're not significantly different from the numbers that were in the 1998 estimates.
And I submit it's incumbent upon the Intervenors to point out some difference that matters and I was pointing out, based on my review, that if I took the best and worst time from the 1998 study; I took the best and worst time from the 2004 study; and I averaged those, it would come exactly the same.
That's not in their application --
MS.
BARTLETT:
Judge Young, can I respond to that?
CHAIR YOUNG:
Yes, but hold on.
Okay.
Those were the evacuation times.
What about the geographic and meteorological --
MR.
LEWIS:
Let me address the meteorological data.
The code that runs these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 387 analyses can only use one year's worth of data.
So you have to choose a representative year.
We chose the year that we thought was representative.
Petitioners say well, you should have chosen another year or you could have chosen five years, but they don't have anything to indicate that our year that we chose is not representative.
Further, when you look at how the model does it, the model has a number of --
I think I mentioned yesterday there were something like a dozen different accident scenarios.
And the way the model handles this is that it runs these accident scenarios occurring throughout the year on an hour by hour basis and comes up with a mean distribution of the --
a normal distribution of the consequences and essentially we choose the mean.
So it takes this year's worth of data, hourly by hourly, and considers how all the different scenarios could work if they happen any time in the experience and comes up with a distribution of consequences and then we use the mean value as the reasonable representative severe-accident case.
So we have a representative year, no basis by the Intervenors to oppose it and basically it aggregates all the different possible scenarios in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
~,
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 388 this reasonable year's worth of data so that if you do get things like there might be a period when the wind's blowing north and then later when it's blowing south, by aggregating all the different meteorological conditions over a year on hour by hour basis and looking at how the scenarios can run in any of these time
- frames, this produces a
distribution of probabilistically-valid distribution.
We choose the mean.
It's incumbent again upon the Intervenors to say here's why what you did is wrong.
They really don't.
The only thing they pointed to was a Reg.
Guide that applies to control room habitability analyses where the NRC wants more data and that's very specific in trying to figure out how winds are actually moving around one little building as opposed to a large macroscopic area.
They've provided no basis whatsoever to indicate that we didn't use representative data in our SAMA analysis.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Go ahead.
MS.
BARTLETT:
Yes, I did want to address right away the Entergy counsel's comments about the evacuation time reports.
We actually believe that both of those reports, the old one and the new one are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
389 1
operating on faulty assumptions and we spend pages and 2
pages discussing that.
We submit a report that was 3
done after Three Mile Island to support us.
We 4
discussed the Katrina evacuations.
5 To my mind, if they use sensitivity 6
- analyses, and both the more conservative point is 7
still not conservative enough, of course, they're not 8
going to find a major change between those two 9
sensitivity analyses.
We are demonstrating that if 10 there were an accident here, the worse case -- or the 11 conservative assumption of the longer delay time being 12 six hours from this area is not reasonable.
And we 13 also discuss the evacuation delay time in the same 14 way.
15 But if we are going to be required to 16 actually show that the results of the SAMA analysis 17 would come out differently, I urge you to look, in 18 particular, at the economic information that we've 19 submitted.
The fact that the model can't handle a 20 region's economy as part of its analysis, to me, 21 doesn't get the Applicant off the hook from 22 considering that.
If they were even to just take our 23 I think we mentioned $353 million a year in this 24 area spent on tourism alone, well how --
that could 25 easily double the benefits of some of the mitigation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 390 that they've proposed.
They're not counting --
it's not even that they're counting that wrong.
They're not counting it at all because it doesn't fit in the software.
But the regulation was not written to say that a certain software code has to be use.d It was written that you have to weigh the costs and the benefits and I'm sure Plymouth's lawyer would agree that we know that the benefits of some of these mitigation things were under counted and that the cost of severe accidents would be far greater than what Entergy is asserting.
So even if you want to put aside, I think the weather information is important.
The evacuation information is very important, but the economics alone would change the outcome of many of these.
He talks about all of the mitigation alternatives that they looked at and then I believe they came up with five.
Four of them are procedural changes and one of them, I think is a fuse box.
I mean these are not major safety investments being made by Entergy as part of its relicensing.
These are -
-and in their reply to me, Entergy said well, the regulations never said we were going to have to do anything expensive here.
Well, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com
391 1
don't think that --
I mean what are we here for? That 2
doesn't get them off the hook on a SAMA analysis.
3 So again, we're not --
we don't have the 4
ability to crunch these numbers, but I think we've 5
demonstrated enough to show that there were problems 6
in the analysis and they may be industry practices, 7
but I don't think they're a proper analysis of the 8
9 CHAIR YOUNG:
Let me just ask you, you 10 said several times that you don't have the ability to 11 you don't have an expert at this point and you 12 don't have the ability to do the fine tuned analysis 13 at this point.
K) 14 MS.
BARTLETT:
Right.
15 CHAIR YOUNG:
If we were to admit a 16 contention like this would you then have an expert who 17 would be able to provide testimony about the analysis 18 and do an analysis and provide testimony about that in 19 more detail?
20 MS.
BARTLETT:
I think we would try to get 21 an expert.
This is obviously beyond our mathematical 22 abilities, but certain experts have prepared studies 23 for Indian Point, for example, which showed huge 24 economic devastation to the region if a
severe
.25 accident happened.
K)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 392 The Massachusetts Attorney General has submitted a report which has showed much bigger numbers from a severe accident than Entergy is submitting, but we would try to get our own expert, yes.
It's not economically feasible for us to do it before we're even admitted, but at that stage Pixie is going to pay.
(Laughter.)
JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
Are you done?
MS.
BARTLETT:
Done for the day or for this contention?
I am done for now.
JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
I had a question and I wanted to find the right time to ask you.
MS.
BARTLETT:
Sure.
MR.
LEWIS:
This is a very challenging contention to address because the target keeps
- changing, but I believe what I just heard Pilgrim Watch say is that they don't have any real dispute between the 2004 and the 1998 studies.
They think they're both wrong.
So the original assertion out there was inaccurate because we didn't use the 2004 study --
seems to have evaporated and the target now seems to be this assertion that we don't have the right economic costs in our analysis.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Let me just interrupt you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
393 1
for a second. What if the information --
let's assume 2
that information were brought forward and it 3
was not included in either of the studies, but it 4
appeared to be true and significant and that would 5
have an effect.
6 Would you then take that into account?
7 MR. LEWIS:
I presume that if we believe 8
that the numbers were wrong, we would have an 9
obligation in the rules to correct any materially 10 wrong information that we provided.
Absolutely.
11 Those without any indication at all that our 12 evacuation time estimates are wrong, I mean they're 13 prepared very professionally.
They're submitted to 14 the NRC.
15 CHAIR YOUNG:
I just wanted to know what 16 you would do. What about the assertion about your not 17 including the economic information at all?
18 MR. LEWIS: First of all, I heard a couple 19 of numbers just now that I'd never heard before.
I 20 heard that there was a $350 billion --
21 MS. BARTLETT:
It's on page 44 of our 22 petition.
23 MR. LEWIS:
Oh, it is?
24 (Pause.)
25 MS. BARTLETT:
Down at the bottom.
"So NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
394 1
obviously under counting the region as a whole" -
2 MR. LEWIS:
I see.
Okay.
$350 million.
3 I understand now.
4 First of all, the Petitioners do not, in 5
fact, provide any basis that there is significant 6
economic cost that's not been considered. They refer 7
to and provide as a reference the MAX2 User's Guide.
8 It's their document.
It's appropriate for the 9
Licensing Board to look at the documents that 10 Petitioner cites as references.
When you look at 11 those documents.
In fact, you see that the modeling 12 includes the economic costs and there are economic 13 costs associated with mitigative actions, but that 14 doesn't mean that you don't include loss of income, 15 loss of business income, loss of personal income.
16 The code, the analysis that we do and it's 17 clear in the description of the inputs in this User 18 Guide that the Pilgrim Watch cites includes loss of 19 personal and business income if businesses are 20 interdicted, if they have to be relocated, if they're 21 condemned, if they're interrupted.
So those loss of 22 business and personal incomes are in our analysis and 23 that's evident from the face of the documents that the 24 Intervenors cite.
25 The only thing they've referred to now is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com
395 1
that there are -- they refer to these tourism dollars 2
and they refer to --
they provided in their reply a 3
study that estimated the travel-related revenues of 4
the entire State of Massachusetts, presumably going 5
all the way out to New York State.
What they never 6
indicate is how that would affect the analysis.
For 7
example, they never indicate that even if you added 8
the entire amount that is estimated in that study, I 9
think the study indicated that Massachusetts derives 10 about
$11 billion from travel-related
- revenues, 11 including business travel, including recreational 12 travel and includes hotels and recreation and lodging.
13 They don't show, for example, what would happen if we K..
14 added the entire $11 billion in the analysis.
They 15 don't show that it would change one single SAMA.
16 In
- sum, they don't show that there's 17 anything material here.
And I think it's incumbent --
18 they say well, we don't have the experts.
We don't 19 have the ability to run any numbers, but there is a
20 basis requirement.
There is a
requirement to 21 demonstrate there is a genuine issue.
There's a 22 requirement to demonstrate that there's allegations 23 that make a difference.
And this is particular 24 important in SAMA analysis.
25 As the Commission has pointed out in one NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 396 of its decisions, there's many, many SAMAs and there's equally is true there are many inputs.
If all anybody had to say is there's some other number that you could use or there's some other SAMA that you could have considered, we would never be able to do a SAMA analysis.
There would be nothing that we could ever do that would satisfy the world.
We've taken reasonable assumptions.
We've taken evacuation time estimates that are based on the accepted emergency planning evacuation time estimates.
I would submit that's prima facie, reasonable on its face.
We've used the state-of-the-art code to model the economic impacts.
It's the code that the NRC uses in every one of its financial analyses.
It's the code that's called out specifically by the NRC in their financial technical handbook.
- Again, I would submit that on its face that's reasonable and it's incumbent upon a petitioner who wants us to -- wants to have a contention, saying that its' inadequate to show that there's, in fact, some different input that should have been used that would have made a difference and that is totally lacking in this instance.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Let me just see if I can understand something.
There are references to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 397 valuations, including the assessed value of property, but not the business value and the tourist dollars and so forth.
I think what I heard you say was that the contention ignores the fact that the business costs are taken into account, but looking back at this, they do seem to recognize that some economic values are taken into account, but they're saying that others aren't.
You say that they should show that it makes a difference and they should --
I would assume that that would involve doing the same kind of PRA analysis that you've done in order to show that.
Am I missing something there?
MR. LEWIS:
No, I don't think you have to do the PRA to do that.
As I mentioned, when you look at the benefit of the SAMAs for the --
once you get past the few that are potentially cost beneficial and we say are, the next one down you have to more than double the benefit before it looks cost beneficial.
You can look at the numbers.
I mean the economic costs are in the environmental report.
They're tens of billions of dollars.
And you realize that you have to double those economic losses for the next SAMA to become cost NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
398 1
beneficial.
If they're talking about well, maybe 2
there's a $350 million tourism impact, that should be 3
considered, that's not going to have any impact on any 4
of our SAMA analyses and it is incumbent upon them to 5
say here, look, we're showing you an economic input 6
that affects your results.
Even on that fairly 7
qualitative level, this contention totally fails to 8
demonstrate a real, genuine dispute, a dispute that 9
shows that some of our SAMA analyses are wrong and 10 there's additional SAMAs that are beneficial.
11 CHAIR YOUNG:
Are you at the same time, as 12 you're saying that, are you at the same time saying 13 that even if you did take the figures that they're 14 suggesting into account, that it would not, in fact, 15 make a difference?
16 MR. LEWIS:
I don't think they've shown it 17 makes a difference.
18 CHAIR YOUNG:
I know you don't think 19 they've shown it, but I'm asking, are you are the same 20 time --
21 MR. LEWIS:
I'm not sure I even know what 22 the number is that they're suggesting should be added.
23 I don't think that a $300 million figure would make a 24 difference, based on when I look at the economic costs 25 that are projected in the environmental report and I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
399 1
think that I've got to double the cost before any 2
other SAMA is going to look cost beneficial, I don't 3
believe --
I haven't done this rigorously. Certainly, 4
the company has not done this, but when I look at the 5
numbers, it doesn't appear to me that it would affect 6
the analysis.
7
- Again, I
haven't tried to redo the 8
analysis, but I don't even see anything that indicates 9
that, in fact, there's an indication that there might 10 be a need to.
11 CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
Anything further?
12 MR.
LEWIS:
Let me just look at my notes 13 very quickly.
14 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
Let me ask you, the 15
$2000 per person rems, is that the standard number 16 nowadays?
17 MR. LEWIS:
Yes, that comes out of the NRC 18 guidance.
That's not on the economic cost.
That's 19 the cost of health effects.
20 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
Yes.
21 MR.
LEWIS:
I guess the only thing I 22 wanted to point out, the one insightful aspect of the 23 petition was that we made a mistake in one of our 24 SAMAs.
It was the direct filtered vent.
It was the 25 only SAMA where the benefit of the SAMA wasn't a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
400 1
change in action or frequency, it was a change in the 2
source term and we ran the case with our baseline risk 3
assessment and we put in the SAMA.
We didn't input 4
into the code the reduced source term.
It was an 5
embarrassing mistake and therefore, it had no benefit 6
and it was an insightful catch on their part and we 7
have corrected it in that RAI response.
8 It has nothing to do with any code errors.
9 It has nothing to do with not having the right 10 economic inputs or evacuation time estimates or 11 meteorological data.
It was an error in inputting the 12 appropriate source term.
13 CHAIR YOUNG:
What about the filter?
14 MR. LEWIS:
That is the SAMA.
As the RAI 15 response shows, with the correct analysis, it's still 16 not cost beneficial.
17 CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
18 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
The Staff obviously 19 reviewed these MAX2 analyses that were done.
They've 20 been RAI-associated that we recently saw.
In their 21 review, did the Staff request an input deck from the 22 Applicant?
23 MS.
UTTAL:
I don't believe so.
No, it's 24 not something that the Staff would normally do.
25 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
Well, okay.
I've seen NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
401 1
RAIs from the Staff that requested input decks many 2
times in things that I reviewed.
3 MS.
UTTAL:
In license renewal area they 4
ask for a
general description of the input in 5
different areas.
But they don't ask for the actual 6
input deck.
7 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
So the Staff has never 8
actually reviewed the detailed MAX2 input?
9 MR.
LEWIS:
I'm not sure if it's never.
10 I'm trying to rack my brains of other license renewal 11 proceedings.
I don't know that they've been 12 submitted.
My recollection is there have been other 13 proceedings where the NRC has inquired into inputs. I 14 don't know whether they've asked for the entire deck 15 or something inquired during their site audits.
16 MS.
UTTAL:
I don't think they've 17 requested the entire deck because it's a
huge 18 document, but they have asked for specific inputs in 19 areas of interest.
20 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
- Okay, I was trying to 21 establish whether or not that input deck was available 22 in the public record for a party to get a copy of and 23 take a look at.
24 MS.
UTTAL:
It's not.
25 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
But the NRC is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 402 continuing to review the MAX2 analysis as we speak?
MS.
UTTAL:
I don't think the review is done, finished, at this point.
JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
And you are --
and the Staff is reviewing all of these areas that have been discussed here, I assume.
MS.
UTTAL:
Yes.
JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
So it's a work in progress?
MS.
UTTAL:
Yes.
CHAIR YOUNG:
The specific areas that we have been going over that have been raised by the Petitioners?
MS.
UTTAL:
Yes.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Yes?
MR.
LEWIS:
I'm done now.
Thank you, Judge Young.
(Pause.)
MS.
UTTAL:
The Staff will be asking questions of where they identify issues in specific areas.
If the analysis looks consistent with other analyses or looks correct, they won't be asked -- and they have no questions about it, they won't be asking questions about that.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Why don't we move on to your NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 403 argument more generally.
MS. UTTAL:
Well, I really have nothing to add that's not in my brief or hasn't been touched upon by Mr. Lewis.
CHAIR-YOUNG:
Is the reason that the Staff is not asking the specific questions that the Staff is confident that the issues raised by the Petitioners would not make a difference?
(Pause.)
MS. UTTAL:
The questions in the RAIs that you have the responses to now were asked prior to these petitions having been filed.
Now it may be that based on the petitions that the Staff may look into other areas where they haven't before, but it would be areas where they see anomalies.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Anomalies based on information about the specific location or based on more broad --
MS.
UTTAL:
Based on what they know about SAMA analyses and the codes and the inputs that should go in there and the general results and --
CHAIR YOUNG:
I guess what I was trying to get you to address was the site-specific question.
(Pause.)
MS.
UTTAL:
If you see from some of these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 404 questions NRC RAI 4,
it's on page 41 of the information we were given yesterday, that this 41 of 68, you'll see that the Staff has asked site-specific questions.
And I
imagine that they come across anomalies or areas of interest, it will probably be site specific questions that they're seeking.
But they just haven't seen anything as of this date that would require them to ask the questions.
But because it's a work in
- progress, it could happen.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Anything further?
MS.
UTTAL:
No, I have nothing further.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Ms.
Hollis?
MS.
HOLLIS:
- Yes, just to close the loop from our standpoint,
- first, we are not here opposing the Entergy relicensing.
We're not anti-plant.
We're not anti-Entergy, and in the context of SAMA or anything else, our concerns are obviously always going to be first, last and always the health, safety, protection of the citizens of Plymouth and those who come to participate in the culture and history and the pleasure that the Plymouth and surrounding environs provide to the world and to the country specifically.
So we're to say how can we make it better?
How can we get a full understanding?
What can we do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
405 1
in our world with Entergy's help, with the NRC's 2
oversight to make our situation better?
And however 3
that transpires, whether it's through the relicensing 4
process, whether it is through rulemakings at the NRC, 5
whether it's a combination of both or whether it's by 6
decisions on the part of Entergy to make things 7
better.
8 Is everything perfect and doesn't need to 9
be improved?
Nothing is ever perfect.
When the 10 studies were done back in
- 1998, we lived in a more 11 innocent time.
I think the population was much lower 12 and the traffic was lower.
It was a different world.
13 The world has changed.
What can we do in 14 light of changed circumstances to address the issues 15 which have been raised here and which the NRC in its 16 protection of the public interest, as well as in the 17 promotion and development of nuclear energy and the 18 desire to streamline the process and make relicensing 19 simpler and easier and better for everybody.
20 We fully embrace those goals and 21 aspirations on the part of the NRC, Entergy, DOE and 22 everyone in the country that wants to see a reasonably 23 priced Entergy supply available in an area of the 24 country that really particularly needs it.
25 We have to look first at our citizenry and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
406 1
the economy here and I
think you can see the 2
tremendous reliance there is on the tourism economy to 3
make sure that's taken into account.
When our 4
population doubles over the week of July 4th, that 5
tells you something.
And throughout the summer, it's 6
much higher than just an average analysis.
Three 7
months out of the year, it's extremely high, with more 8
congestion on the roads.
It's not just people coming 9
and staying, it's activity.
10 We are asking the NRC and Entergy to do 11 their utmost to provide the protection, all that is 12 available under the relicensing process or in the 13 context of the broader responsibilities of the NRC and 14 the reactor oversight process, all these issues that 15 have been raised here, to direct their attention to 16 the unique circumstances of Plymouth and surrounding 17 area.
It's a smaller area, but it's a very important 18 area in
- many, many ways and we just ask your 19 assistance in that regard and very much appreciate the 20 opportunity to have participated in the role that we 21 have as a local community most affected by the 22 relicensing.
23 Thank you to the panel for their gracious 24 hospitality too.
25 CHAIR YOUNG:
Thank you.
Before we go NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 K2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 K) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 407 back to you, something that Ms.
Hollis said just triggered another thing that I wanted to ask both Entergy and the Staff and that is when you're talking about averaging, obviously if you look at say a year's time, whether you're looking at whether or more --
my question get more to population evacuation times and economic questions more, I guess, because if you look at a locality where the difference between a three-month period in the summer may be significantly different than a period in the winter such that you don't have the high and low points closer to the average as you might in other communities.
I'm assuming that there's some kind of --
some part of the analysis takes into account that there might not be that many days during the year that would be that close to the average number and that there might be a significant number of days during the year that would be closer to the high numbers, such that the averaging might not present as representative a picture or -- I'm not sure I'm using the right words from a statistical point of view, but does your analysis take that into account?
I see you've gotten a note there.
MR.
LEWIS:
First of all, the evacuation time estimates consider the different populations at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
408 1
different times of the year, so when they're looking 2
at an evacuation time estimate in the summer they're 3
considering the larger transient population in 4
estimating how long it takes to evacuate that area.
5 And for purposes of using the results of the SAMA 6
- analysis, we're assuming that the entire 10-mile 7
evacuation zone is evacuated.
8 But the reason that we run sensitivity 9
analyses is exactly for the reason that you state when 10 you take an average, perhaps a different time of year 11 where it might be different from the average and it 12 may be significant, so you run a bad weather scenario 13 for sensitivity analysis.
As I said we only got a two 14 percent difference in the results and they needed to 15 double to make a difference, so we were very satisfied 16 that we didn't have to sharpen our pencil more on the 17 running evacuation time estimate scenarios for the 18 SAMA analysis.
19 CHAIR YOUNG:
Are we thinking that that 20 might be what they addressed, but I just wanted to 21 make sure that that was addressed.
22 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
One of the things that 23 we have to do is clearly I
heard July 4th 24 mentioned, but what if this happened on July 4th and 25 assuming somebody dealt with that, somebody else could NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
409 1
turn around and say wait a minute, Christmas Day is 2
probably worse than July 4th.
Somebody else could 3
turn around and say what about on Christmas Day it 4
snows, we have a snowstorm.
5 You could carry this -- from the point of 6
view of practicality, I was just trying to understand 7
how an Applicant would respond to any possible 8
question that could come along these lines and that is 9
and I think you can understand it's a practical 10 consideration.
11 But on the other hand, if there's some 12 error in the
- analysis, then clearly that's a
13 significant fact.
But there is a logic, I think, for 14 taking the average in that regard, but so I think 15 that's something we've got to deal with in dealing 16 with these contentions, these types of issues.
17 MS.
HOLLIS:
Your Honor, May I respond?
18 I think it's a matter of degree and the uniqueness of 19 the circumstance that we happen to have in Plymouth 20 and that is that in the summer, this a tourist town.
21 It exists in large part on tourism.
It's not a 22 manufacturing town.
We don't have Ford Motor Company.
23 We have, to a very large degree, an economy which is 24 reliant on tourism and the tourism peaks over the 25 period of the summer and in particular has a super NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 410 peak on and around the Independence Day and also probably --
it would probably be similar on Memorial Day and Labor Day.
I would expect that those three weekends would probably be the height of the activity.
And those are the types of issues that we just want to be sure that the NRC is aware of.
It is taking into account and that Entergy is factoring into its studies in a
way which is
- updated, which recognizes the pre-existing level of traffic and congestion and population which has changed since 1998, which has gone up, and also domestic tourism has increased dramatically since 1998 for a variety of reasons.
So those are the types of issues we just want to get out and make sure that the NRC is aware of and I'm just here to convey those today in a way that at least brings it home.
Thank you, Your Honor.
MS.
UTTAL:
Judge, not to beat this too much to death, but the Staff is aware of these issues and I've been told that the sensitivity studies that the Staff has seen show that if you factor in the evacuation time differences of the meteorological using different years or something like that, 'that it only changes the bottom line by a couple of percentage NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 411 points.
So it's not a big difference.
CHAIR YOUNG:
We'll let you have the last word.
MS. BARTLETT: First of all, I don't think Petitioners are really quibbling too much over what days of the year are taken into account and that sort of thing.
Some of the major assumptions are what we've challenged in our contention.
One of those is the shadow evacuation which I don't think counsel for NRC or Entergy has addressed today.
But could I also say in response to your questions to the Staff where they said they're reviewing the SAMA analyses and in particular, they're going to look to see whether they conform with what was done at other plants.
This is something that concerns us.
We are not challenging NRC regulations at all here.
But we may be challenging some of these practices that are accepted by the staff when they review Entergy's SAMAs and if I could just quote from the actual regulatory handbook that's used in doing these, it says "formal methods cannot complete remove subjectivity, guarantee that all factors affecting an issue are considered, produced unambiguous results in the face of closely valued alternatives and/or large NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5-.
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 412 uncertainties, or be used without critical appraisal of results.
To use a decision analysis method as a blackbox decision maker is both wrong and dangerous."
This is NUREG 0184.
I think that's what we're getting to here is that Entergy has a standard way of performing these things and we're questioning some of those basic assumptions.
And I think they should be questioning them.
We've submitted plenty of information to back up some of the input data which we believe is going to lead to an erroneous result.
We can't prove that it does, but we really believe that the analysis needs to be done properly.
CHAIR YOUNG:
I have a
couple of questions.
Let me come back to you.
Could you just address the shadow evacuation quickly?
Do the sensitivity analyses or do the analyses take into account what's called the shadow evacuation, the additional people who I guess may not be in the formal defined area, but nonetheless evacuate, that phenomenon?
MS.
UTTAL:
It's not generally done and at least the Staff that's here today has not seen it done for other applications.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
413 1
CHAIR YOUNG: Do you dispute that it would 2
occur and have an effect?
3 MS. UTTAL:
You know, it might occur.
I 4
don't --
5 MR. LEWIS: Judge, where it did occur was 6
at Three Mile Island, but that was in the absence of 7
any pre-established plan and pre-established 8
communication program and the main recommendation of 9
one of the studies that the Pilgrim Watch cited from 10 this Three Mile Island experience was what you really 11 need is a public education program so that when you 12 have announcements, emergency planning announcements, 13 people understand what it means, they understand what 14 they're meant to do.
I would simply say that the 15 experience at Three Mile Island is really sua generis.
16 It was a situation where there was no pre-existing 17 plan, no pre-existing public education, not very good 18 communication.
19 CHAIR YOUNG: Do you think that the public 20 education and communication has occurred here such 21 that that would avoid that?
Is that what you're 22 saying?
23 MR. LEWIS:
I believe it would.
It is 24 definitely a part of our emergency, the emergency 25 plnigta' efre.It's really by the state.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
414 1
It's the state's outside emergency plan, but it 2
includes different forms of communication of what you 3
should do in the form of a in the event of an 4
accident.
But it also includes much better 5
communications and decision making.
6 From my perspective, one of the biggest 7
problems in the response at Three Mile Island is the 8
information wasn't getting passed on to site 9
officials.
They didn't know what was happening.
They 10 were unable to provide useful information to the 11 public and there was very heightened fear.
It's just 12 not a situation that you would expect with a program 13 that has an off-site emergency operations facility and 14 lines and communications and programs and protocols 15 and established program.
I mean you would expect the 16 plan to operate the way it should.
17 Again, for purposes of doing a reasonable 18 SAMA analysis, I think it's reasonable to assume that 19 the plan that's been approved by the NRC, approved by 20 FEMA is being implemented by the state is your 21 baseline reasonable assumption.
And that is what 22 we've used.
23 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
I would like to 24 understand a little bit more about shadow evacuation 25 as well.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
K.)
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 415 At Three Mile
- Island, if you turned around, Middletown was empty.
Harrisburg was empty before even an evacuation order was given because people got frightened and they called people.
But I view that as a positive thing rather than a negative thing since the people are gone prior to an evacuation call.
But you view it as a negative thing and I'd like to understand that the significance of it is that people in their communities beyond this community travel roads?
MS.
BARTLETT:
That's exactly right.
I think and I'm not the expert on this, but I think the area that would be told to evacuate according to the current plans is very small, but what would actually happen, particularly in a nuclear accident, this isn't a hurricane where people decide to stay and look at the waves.
People would go and they'd hit Route 3 and all of the feeder roads to Route 3 and we'd all be sitting in traffic and I just don't know how you could come up with a conservative time of six hours for that full evacuation to be carried out.
I have to let my co-person talk at this point.
MS.
LAMBERT:
Yes.
Than NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 k you for the (202) 234-4433 www.nealrgross.com
416 1
opportunity.
The shadow evacuation research has been 2
done very recently.
Surveys done around New York, 3
surveys done around
- Seabrook, asking telephone 4
- surveys, people outside the immediate emergency 5
planning zone, what they would do when they heard 6
there was an accident.
And the overwhelming response 7
was we're out of here.
We're going to hit the road 8
because there's a recognized fear in the public of 9
radiation and appreciation that it is different than 10 a regular storm.
11 Therefore, that's why it becomes so 12 important on your input and also let me add of the 13 rapid, of the technology allowing today for very rapid 14 communication.
People have cell phones.
Teachers in 15 Plymouth, you know, when they hear there's a problem 16 they'll be calling their kids in Duxbury who will be 17 calling a husband in Norwell, etcetera, etcetera.
18 So therefore, it's very important to 19 recognize the reality that people from a larger area 20 are going to hit the road so then what is going to 21 happen?
Our emergency management director in Duxbury 22 has said no one is going anywhere, as far as he can 23 tell.
If you look, which we have in I believe in our 24 appendices in talking about demographic data, we gave 25 an example of the population projections in the towns NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 417 that would be along our evacuation route, our being --
I'm from Duxbury --
that what towns we would then be going through to get out, our only way out and what the population projection is because that's what you have to look at.
And the important point of evacuation delay times and evacuation speed times is the recognition in NUREG 0654 Supplement 3 that stated that shadow training was not an option to protect health unless there was a very --
a puff of short duration.
So when we're looking at cost, we're looking at consequences in health and in property, obviously, but that is dependent upon how quickly people can get away.
You see?
And so therefore the reliance and you've been given inaccurate information, by the way.
What the licensee used was the KLD evaluation time estimates.
They based theirs on 1997.
There is a more recent one that we looked at in 2004 and we would have expected them too.
On page 1-8 through 1-11 on the 2004 KLD estimates, they indicate what the differences are between the two.
Number one --
CHAIR YOUNG:
Do we --
pardon me --
do we have that document?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
418 1
MS.
LAMBERT:
I don't know, but I'll give 2
it to you if you want it.
3 CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay, why don't you submit 4
that after and to all the parties.
5 MS.
LAMBERT:
- Right, and number two is 6
they're relying upon and this has been the problem.
7 Their input data is based on source material, but the 8
source material itself has false assumptions.
For 9
example, for the evacuation time estimates they do not 10 consider shadow evacuation in the earlier or the 11 later.
They do not consider, they state this special 12 events.
We have heard how July 4th is special.
That 13 is not figured.
They do not consider, when they look 14 at summer, for example, they look at midweek, midday.
15
- Well, that's not realistic because it's the weekends 16 or the end of the day that you're going to have more 17 people at the beach because people are working these 18 days.
19 So when you look at carefully what the 20 material is based upon that feeds their input data, 21 you see why it's only six hours or there's not much 22 difference because it's inaccurate material to begin 23 with.
24 Meteorological data is
- very, very 25 important.
That's why we spent a
lot of time NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 419 indicating why the straight line, Gaussian plume model is inappropriate for our coastal community.
There has been site-specific studies done by Harvard meteorologists in this area indicating that the winds don't blow in a straight line.
So therefore, when you consider impact, you cannot consider there's going to be a wedge.
You've got to consider there is going to be a circular, complex impact which is going to encompass more of the population.
This is what we're getting at.
CHAIR YOUNG:
I have a question.
MS.
LAMBERT:
And thank you for the opportunity.
I know she's going to kill me.
(Laughter.)
CHAIR YOUNG:
The main objection that I hear being raised to some of the suggested different inputs that you've included in your contention is that you haven't shown that it would make a difference.
Now one thing you mentioned in your discussion of the evacuation
- times, you in raising the shadow evacuation and mentioning the six-hour time that you find would be unreasonable, I'm sort of balancing in my mind the need for some level of specificity in the basis and that's how I am understanding the objection that you haven't shown any specific difference in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
420 1
outcome of the analysis.
2 On the other hand, if you look at the 3
comparison between the people -- wrong footnote.
But 4
- anyway, I
believe the footnote about the shadow 5
evacuation indicated that the difference between the 6
number expected to evacuate and the number who did 7
evacuate was fairly large and you have raised a 8
question about the six hours.
There's case law that 9
says have you provided enough to show that further 10 inquiry is warranted.
11 So I guess just to end the discussion on 12 this particular contention, I would ask you to address 13 and Ms.
- Hollis, if you like, the issue of what 14 difference would changing inputs make and what have 15 you included in your contention on that.
And also 16 hear from the Staff and Entergy, sort of applying the 17 rule of reason that I discussed before.
And the 18 references to the shadow evacuation *which, if it 19
- occurs, seems like that would be a fairly large 20 difference.
And the references to the six hours being 21 unreasonable just from a standpoint of the subjective 22 knowledge, I
think --
I can't remember the exact 23
- words, but the language that you read from the 24 handbook or guide, if you could address just that sort 25 of practical reason-based aspect of it.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
421 1
So I've asked two questions that I'd like 2
to hear both sides of in terms of the impact and how 3
that --
and --
whether it's been shown that there's 4
enough to warrant further inquiry standard for 5
admitting a contention.
I think it would be helpful 6
to close on this contention and those two sides of 7
that coin.
8 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
Yes, and I would just 9
like to add one thing to that.
This other aspect of 10 shadow evacuation that I
mentioned that happened 11 earlier, you know, it seems to me that that's another 12 factor in which people in the 10-mile EPC, perhaps a 13 third or a quarter or half of them or all of them K..
14 would be gone even before an evacuation order is given 15 just on the basis of a general emergency or something 16 like that.
And I don't know what the EPIP, Emergency 17 Plan Implementing Procedures are, but if that isn't an 18
- issue, if you could raise that as well?
I mean 19 discuss that as well.
20 MS. BARTLETT:
Well, frankly, I don't have 21 a lot of experience with the idea that there's that 22 kind of rosy outlook for the evacuation, that if 23 people got the word earlier the streets would be 24 clearer.
I mean I
don't think that happened.
25 Hurricane Katrina, for example, people were told for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 422 days to leave and that didn't cut down on the traffic on the road.
JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
I just want to make sure we cover both sides.
MS.
BARTLETT:
I understand that and I guess to put it in terms of numbers, Entergy has submitted that the longest it would take for word to be given is two hours, for word --
the evacuation delay time is two hours, so I don't think that's buying you that much time on Route 3, if we're talking about all of the towns in the area getting word by cell phone.
Am I addressing the --
MS.
LAMBERT:
You're missing a point.
In a
general emergency, the notification siren is supposed to be sounded.
People --
and that's when radiation -- we're talking about severe accident, so it doesn't even matter, the point being that if the.
public hears the sirens or hears there's been an accident and the protective action call is for evacuation, whether it is or not, word is going to spread like wildfire and it's going to be a stampede.
So you're going to have the same situation.
It's not going to be like Three Mile Island where no one admitted or no one had a fix because the monitors were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
423 1
blown out, etcetera, what was happening, so you had a 2
sort of a prolonged situation.
3 What you will have here with the 4
sensitivity of the population as soon as the 5
notification occurs, you will have the reaction.
It's 6
not going to be the siren goes off and a voice message 7
well, we think we might be having a problem.
So I 8
don't think what we are posing is a
realistic 9
scenario.
10 CHAIR YOUNG:
Finish up on that, but also 11 the impacts, more generally of the various aspects 12 that you've raised.
I wanted you to have a chance to 13 address that.
14 MS. BARTLETT:
Right, well, I was going to 15 move on to that if this is the time.
16 To show that any of the issues that we've 17 raised would make a difference in the outcome of the 18 analysis is actually a huge burden, but we can talk 19 about it in general terms.
As you noted, the 20 information we've given about shadow evacuation shows 21 orders of magnitude difference in the numbers used, 22 not the types of differences that they're using in the 23 sensitivity analyses, but really huge differences.
24 And so the response from Staff and Entergy that these 25 things only make a one or two percent difference, I'm NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
424 1
not sure would hold if you change the assumptions and 2
included shadow evacuations.
3 The economic data I keep coming back to 4
mainly because it's expressed in terms of dollars and 5
it makes it easy to picture how the dollars are 6
different than what they're saying.
If those numbers 7
were input into the program, I also can't say that 8
would make a difference, but it seems to me we're 9
talking many, many orders of magnitude difference from 10 what they're using which dealt mainly with 11 agricultural costs, condemning farms, paying top ut 12 people up in hotels.
We're talking about years of no 13 tourists wanting to come to the area.
And to me, 14 that's the kind of critical look after you've run your 15 program that you need to take when you start assessing 16 mitigation alternatives.
17 I don't believe I can prove number-wise 18 that these would make a difference.
But certainly, if 19 we were admitted, we would get an expert who hopefully 20 would have access to what they need to crunch these 21 numbers and we could demonstrate that changing a few 22 assumptions would change the outcome for the SAMAs.
23 CHAIR YOUNG:
You did mention the six-hour 24 time that you thought was unreasonable.
Can you point 25 me to where you mentioned that and what would be the -
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
425 1
- why you find that to be unreasonable, what you would 2
expect to be more reasonable, based on the information 3
that you have provided?
4 MS.
BARTLETT:
It's taken me two and a 5
half hours to get to Braintree on a bad Monday morning 6
without rain and without a nuclear accident.
I can't 7
imagine if everyone were on the roads trying to get 8
out of the danger zone that it would take less than 9
six hours.
- Again, I haven't got that data for you.
10 MS.
LAMBERT:
Nobody can really have this 11 data because we haven't, thank God, had the situation 12 here.
But you can see on summer weekends, traffic has 13 can come close to or exceed --
and there isn't a
Y~)
14 nuclear accident.
15 MS.
BARTLETT:
And the reason that's 16 relevant is not that we think they should take 4th of 17 July as their standard, but that shadow evacuation 18 would dump all of the residences and all the nearby 19 towns on Route 3 and that would happen.
That's not 20 worse case scenario, worse day of the year scenario.
21 That's human behavior.
22 MR.
LEWIS:
May I address some of this.
23 And then we'll let everyone have one last shot on 24 these more practical questions and then go on.
25 MR.
LEWIS:
Let me address the shadow NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 426 evacuation phenomena.
There's two phenomena.
One is within the 10-mile zone, if you tell a particular sector to evacuate, maybe sectors on either side will evacuate also.
That's one phenomena.
In our evacuation time estimates we, in fact, include that.
We assume if we tell a sector to evacuate, some of the people in the adjacent sectors will too.
That's irrelevant though to the SAMA analysis because we're assuming that the entire 10-mile zone is evacuating.
Beyond the 10-mile zone, there's the second phenomena which is that perhaps people in those outer lying communities also try to evacuate and they clog the roads.
The reason this is not an issue is because that's recognized in the emergency plan.
The emergency plan establishes evacuation routes and corridors to reception centers and part of the implementation of the plan is the immediate dispatch of traffic control teams to these major roads so that people from outside the 10-mile zone can't get onto these roads and clog them.
And the purpose of that specifically is to allow the rapid egress from the 10-mile EPZ.
Again, it's the fact that we have a proper functioning emergency plan that has these considerations, has the public education, has the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 427 state resources lined up with a response plan that is in place specifically to address these sort of situations and if you look at what happened at Three Mile Island, it's just apples and oranges.
They indicate --
people outside the 10-mile zone, they also try to evacuate, but they don't explain how they're going to get past these traffic control points onto these major routes that block people from leaving the 10-mile zone.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Let me just interject.
What I
was really wanting to get at was some sort of practical aspect, some of the practical aspects and I guess I'm not automatically buying the idea that if you have a plan and if that plan includes having the traffic control people go out to an area so that they can control who goes on the road and who doesn't go on the road, that that necessarily would work.
They would be dependent on getting the roads themselves presumably unless they have helicopters, I guess or --
and I think we've seen how plans don't always work according to everything that's anticipated.
MR. LEWIS:
The traffic control people are the local state police.
This is a staff of employees trying to drive out themselves.
CHAIR YOUNG:
I know.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com k~2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 428 MR.
LEWIS:
This is people on the spot.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Right.
But I mean still, there have been differences pointed out with Katrina, but I think that there were difficulties with the people who were in charge being able to control and direct traffic in that situation, so my point is you just can't always count on -- you seem to be implying that everything would work according to the plan and that all the people who should be in place to control things would be able to get to where they needed to be and I'm not sure that that's MR.
LEWIS:
What I'm trying to argue --
CHAIR YOUNG:
From a practical standpoint.
I'm not sure that that's always to be expected, right?
MR.
LEWIS:
I can't say it's always to be expected.
We have to do a reasonable SAMA analysis.
We have to look at reasonable accident scenario.
I think it's inherently reasonable to assume an accident scenario that's consistent with the emergency plan.
The emergency plan is in place to take into account these situations.
We do sensitivity analyses to account for uncertainties, beyond the sensitivity analysis that we do for evacuation time estimates.
We also do a bounding SAMA analysis where we multiplied the risk, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
429 1
I think by a factor of 1.6, almost doubled the risk to 2
account for uncertainties.
3 So there are uncertainties.
We have a 4
baseline reasonable scenario and we assume that the 5
evacuation is working the way it's meant to be 6
working.
We do a sensitivity analysis and show that 7
a bad weather scenario doesn't really make a big 8
result change and then we do a bounding analysis where 9
we essentially double the risk and show things still 10 don't matter.
11 There was one statement by the way that we 12 only look at a summer, midweek scenario.
That's 13 absolutely wrong.
Our evacuation time estimates look 14 at a whole range of scenarios including a summer 15
- weekend, midday rain scenario, where a sudden rain 16 occurs with the beach population at capacity, current 17 with an accident and we even do a variation of that 18 with heavy traffic on Route 3 north bound.
So there's 19 10 different scenarios and one is weekend, beach is 20 absolutely full, sudden rain and Route 3 is lousy 21 traffic.
22 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
All those scenarios are 23 consistent with the emergency plan?
24 MR.
LEWIS:
These are all the evacuation 25 time estimates that are this is part of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 430 emergency plan, yes.
I may exceed my knowledge, but basically if there is an accident, then you have to make a protective action recommendation and you look at the situation and the wind and the situation and you make your decision and I believe that evacuation time estimates are a factor in what is the right action to take.
That's actually --
that's what happens in a real emergency.
What we're trying to do here is say what's the reasonable consequences if you have this severe, beyond design basis accident.
We're not here trying to actually manage a real accident at a real point in time.
JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
The problem that you need to understand, we have certain constraints, so we're trying to get information to understand how to do the best thing under the constraints.
For
- example, if one were
- to do the analysis ignoring the established emergency plan, and then there were an accident in which case the result of ignoring the emergency plan caused more problems, you can bet there would be tremendous finger pointing of why didn't you do it according to the emergency plan?n.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
431 1
So the fact that there is an existing 2
emergency plan is not a small thing.
3 MS.
BARTLETT:
We agree that what Entergy 4
needs to do is what they've done and then they need to 5
look at it critically as was described in that NUREG 6
- 0184, not to just sit back and say we've done the 7
whole thing.
It's reasonable numbers we're getting 8
out.
9 I don't believe that Pilgrim Watch is 10 quibbling so much over the emergency plan and whether 11 it's midweek, midsummer, that kind of thing.
There 12 are some basic assumptions that we know that they know 13 that they haven't taken into account and some of them 14 are published limitations of the software they're 15 using that they could easily account for.
16 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
With respect to these 17 things that we're hearing regarding multipliers of 1.6 18 and that sort of thing for uncertainty, you haven't 19 said anything regarding how, whether or not some of 20 these suggestions you're making would fall within that 21 or not.
22 MS.
BARTLETT:
Right.
23 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
Is there anything to say 24 there?
25 MS.
BARTLETT:
Without an expert, I don't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 432 think we can say whether they'd be greater than 1.6 or not.
We've brought forward some things that are orders of magnitude, different from what was input.
And as such, we've alleged many deficiencies in the environmental report, the way this SAMA analysis has been done.
And we welcome the opportunity to be given a hearing and have a chance to hire an expert to help us get some actual numbers and then we will try to prove our case.
MS.
UTTAL:
Judge, if I might?
Are you done?
MS.
BARTLETT:
Yes.
MS.
UTTAL:
I don't think that that is sufficient under our contention pleading rules.
They have to come forward with some facts or some expert opinion that forms a basis for the contention and it's the Staff's position that they have not come forward with enough and they can't show enough to show that there is something wrong with the analysis that is done.
Just to address Judge Young's question is what the Staff has found regarding evacuation times is that they don't drive the result.
They're kind of a secondary fact and they don't affect the bottom line other than a couple of percent and that includes the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
433 1
shadow evacuation.
2 That's all I have.
3 CHAIR YOUNG:
Anything further on 4
Contention 3?
5 All right, we have one more contention to 6
look at.
I don't know if people are going to want a 7
short break, but one thing that occurs to me before we 8
get started on that is I think it's clear that you 9
cannot challenge NRC rules in a contention so if we 10 could focus in that discussion on what is in the 11 contention apart from any challenge of the current 12 dose limit set in the regulations.
I think you're 13 arguing in your reply that the contention does make 14 other arguments that the off-site radiological impacts 15 are greater than has been assumed and you base that on 16 some of the studies that you supply.
17 So if we could all agree that we will not 18 consider the contention insofar as it challenges the 19 current NRC regulatory dose limits and focus on what 20 remains of that.
The discussion on that should --
I 21 think we should be able to focus that a little bit 22 more than we have some of the others, it seems to me 23 anyway.
24 Do people want a few minutes before we 25 finish up with the discussion of this last Contention NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
434 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 5?
No?
MR.
LEWIS:
Yes, please.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Yes.
Okay.
Five minutes, come back at 1.
(Off the record.)
CHAIR YOUNG:
All right.
Before we start on Contention 5, Ms. Uttal had something she wanted to correct.
MS.
UTTAL:
One of the last things I said was that when we looked at evacuation times, we saw that it didn't affect the bottom line and I said including shadow evacuation.
It doesn't include shadow evacuation because as I said earlier --
CHAIR YOUNG:
It does not?
MS.
UTTAL:
It does not.
The Staff doesn't look at shadow evacuation because it has never really raised the bottom line more than a percent or two.
They don't normally look at it.
JUDGE COLE:
And they consider shadow evacuation, those populations outside the 10-mile zone?
MS.
UTTAL:
If they use the evacuation time estimates from the emergency plan, the Staff accepts that.
We assume that they've considered all NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
° v
435 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20-21 22 23 24 25 JUDGE TRIKOUNOS:
And the emergency plan includes interdiction of downstream entrance to the freeway?
MS. UTTAL:
Whatever their plan has in it.
I don't know the specifics.
CHAIR YOUNG:
All right, Ms. Bartlett on Contention 5.
MS.
BARTLETT:
Our final contention is that another 20 years of operation at Pilgrim may result in greater off-site radiological impacts on human health than was previously known.
Although we realize that off-site radiological impacts are a Category 1 issue in the NRC regulations, we've brought forward new and significant information that demonstrates that under NEPA they should be addressed in a site-specific way for this plant.
Pilgrim releases radiation as part of its normal operations and has done so for the past 35 years.
We bring forward information that demonstrates an additional 20 years will be harmful to public health.
We've submitted studies that show radiation-linked diseases have been documented in the communities around Pilgrim.
This fact and projected NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com factors.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 436 demographic data indicate that the population will be at an increased risk if another 20 years of operations are approved.
I'll skip forward a little bit, so that I don't repeat everything.
The nuclear plant was originally sited in Plymouth because it was a sparsely populated area.
It's now densely populated and will experience another 20 percent increase in population before the license extension period ends.
One in three of these residents will be over the age of 55, an age that we have shown is more sensitive to low levels of ionizing radiation than the population at large.
In addition, there have been documented releases from Pilgrim in the past of radioisotopes that have long half lives and thus will bio-accumulate in the areas around the plant.
The past 35 years of releases from Pilgrim include substances that will remain active in the local environment for the foreseeable future and should be taken into account when assessing the impacts of the next 20 years.
The Council on Environmental Quality Regulations define accumulative impact as the impact on the environment which results from the incremental NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
437 1
impact of the action when added to other past, present 2
and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
3 Cumulative impacts can result from 4
individually
- minor, but collectively significant 5
actions taking place over a period of time.
Pilgrim 6
Watch has demonstrated that the communities around 7
Pilgrim have experienced negative impacts from the 8
past operations of the plant and because of these past 9
practices, the likely off-site radiological impacts of 10 the next 20 years now need to be reviewed in the 11 environmental impact statement before the license is 12 renewed.
13 CHAIR YOUNG:
And what you're arguing is 14 that the impacts are the result of greater releases 15 that would violate the NRC dose limits?
16 MS.
BARTLETT:
There have been documented 17 releases that were above and beyond what's allowed to 18 be released by Entergy's predecessor, I believe.
19 CHAIR YOUNG:
Mr. Lewis?
20 MR.
LEWIS:
Obviously, I'm not going to 21 repeat the new and significant information argument 22 again.
And our position remains that there's a need 23 for a waiver.
24 The only document that they refer to is 25 this Southeastern Massachusetts Health Study for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
438 1
proposition that there's an increased risk of leukemia 2
and in their reply, Pilgrim Watch cites a 1992 review 3
of that study by Mssrs. Hoffman, Lyon, Mass, Pastitti, 4
Sander and Trakopolis for the proposition that this 5
study can't be discounted.
6 Since they're relying on that document to 7
say this is a credible study, I think you should also 8
be aware that that document says the leukemia 9
mortality rates for this area have remained close to 10 the state average throughout the period.
In other 11 words, this study, when they looked at it, concluded 12 that there was no greater leukemia incidents in the 13 vicinity than is in the national area.
In
- fact, 14 there's been two other peer review studies --
15 CHAIR YOUNG:
First you said state and 16 then you said national, did you mean --
17 MR.
LEWIS:
Comparing --
what it says is 18 that the leukemia mortality rate for this area have 19 remained close to the state average throughout the 20 period, yes, I'm sorry.
This is comparing it to the 21 state average.
22 There have been two other peer-review 23 studies.
One by Battelle and they've both concluded 24 that the leukemia rate in the vicinity of the plant 25 was in line with the normal rate, so you don't need to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
439 1
go to that.
You can look at the document that the 2
Petitioners cite for the proposition that their study 3
is credible and the document that they cite on its own 4
face says there is no greater incidents of leukemia in 5
the vicinity of the plant.
And it's a well-6 established proposition that you can look at the 7
documents that Petitioner cites to determine whether 8
they provide a basis for the contention.
9 In the Vermont Yankee case LBP 96-2, 43 10 NRC 61 at page 64 is a good example where a Board --
11 actually, this was a contention that alleged that you 12 had to look at another accident scenario under NEPA 13 and offered some documents and the Board looked at the 14 accidents and said when somebody gives us a document 15 as a basis we can look at that document on its face 16 and determine whether it provides the basis.
All I'm 17 suggesting is since they cited this peer-review study 18 as indicating their study is significant, if you look 19 at it, it belies that claim.
20 It's not new, certainly.
It's the 21 original study was
'87, I believe.
It certainly 22 predated the GEls, but it's also not significant.
23 CHAIR YOUNG:
Ms. Uttal?
24 MR.
WEDEWER:
I'll just briefly summarize 25 her comments, Your Honor.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
440 1
We also actually looked at that same study 2
which calls into concern as well.
This seems to place 3
serious doubt on the Southeast Massachusetts Health 4
Study and I would add as well that in spite of 5
Petitioners' assertion that study was actually co-6 sponsored by the state, along with the previous 7
licensee which I think was Boston Edison.
8 CHAIR YOUNG:
Who was that?
9 MR.
WEDEWER:
Boston Edison who was the 10 previous licensee.
11 Just one other comment because I think 12 this has at least some bearing on the new and 13 significant prong was the BEIR VII because you see 14 that mentioned quite a bit.
And we reviewed the 15 sections that Pilgrim Watch cited which was Chapter 8 16 which referred to occupational studies.
And there's 17 a caution at the very end of that chapter that you can 18 see for yourself that the Committee recommended not 19 using these to apply to the larger public sector 20 because these occupational studies were all based on 21 an amalgamation that considered a wide range when you 22 deal with the small population.
23 So that mischaracterizes really what BEIR 24 VII says.
I think the other proposition that you see 25 kind of running through their pleading is that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
441 1
linear no threshold dose response is somehow a new 2
phenomena and you can easily trace it back to '91 when 3
the present Part 20 was published.
You can trace it 4
back to BEIR V.
5 And there's an assertion, I believe it's 6
on page 87 or 88 of their pleading, that the 7
Commission at some time in the past thought that some 8
small amounts were not harmful at all and that simply 9
is not true.
So at bottom, there's nothing in BEIR 10 VII that struck us as either new or significant and 11 it's been completely consistent with what's been known 12 in the past.
13 CHAIR YOUNG:
One thing that Mr.
Lewis 14 said that raised one question I wanted to ask you.
15 This contention is distinguishable from the 16 Massachusetts AG contention, Contention 4, in that 17 you're talking about site-specific issues here which 18 would presumably meet the standard for a waiver 19 request.
Have you considered making a waiver request 20 and are you --
I know you are probably arguing based 21 on the other parts of the argument relating to the 22 Massachusetts contention and your Contention 4, but 23 the waiver request part would be different than this 24 one.
25 MS.
BARTLETT:
Right.
We believe we can NEAL-R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 442 bring this contention forward based on NEPA, but we are considering filing a waiver request.
We have an expert who could give us an affidavit to support such a request.
CHAIR..YOUNG:
Okay.
Anything further on this contention?
MS.
LAMBERT:
Thank you for the opportunity to say something.
The importance of this, the information that we cited that BEIR VII is important to us because although the mortality, what BEIR VII said on cancer deaths is very much the same as the previous BEIR report, there is a very large difference in cancer incidents which is important if you have cancer.
It's not just that you're going to die, but if you have cancer and BEIR VII states that there is a three times greater likelihood than they thought in the previous BEIR report of getting cancer.
And they also draw a
significant distinction in the later report of worker exposure.
But I
think it's inappropriate as was done in Entergy's response is to say well, BEIR VII really doesn't provide new information because that is very much new and important information.
As far as the Southeastern Massachusetts Health --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-"433 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 443 CHAIR YOUNG:
Let me just stop you there.
The new information that --
I presume the same amounts of radiation would cause the greater incidence of cancer.
How would that relate to their being more off-site releases because it seems like it could be said in response to that that would not of itself suggest that there was a greater release, but just simply that the --
that that would go more to the argument that it might be the kind of thing you'd submit in a rulemaking petition that based on this new information that the same amounts of radiation would cause greater incidents that you could argue.
You want to change the dose limits, but I'm not sure how that would suggest that there would be greater releases.
MS.
LAMBERT:
I think what we're saying is there's a
composite here.
The population our assumption, our theory, if you will, is that the population for a variety of reasons will be at a greater risk from off-site exposure and this would be one reason and we are saying also that this is a
particularly sensitive population group, a damaged one, if you will.
The Southeastern Massachusetts Health Study at page 3 in the introduction stated "the major NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24-25 444 findings of this study were individuals with the highest potential for exposure to Pilgrim emissions, i.e.,
those who lived and/or worked the longest and closest to the plant had almost four times the risk of leukemia as compared to those having the lowest potential for exposure, i.e.,
those who lived and/or worked the least amount of time and farthest from the plant."
We found that significant in the community and also the fact that even though for political reasons, the implicated industry was allowed to have a
second peer-review panel appointed, half by themselves and the other half approved by themselves, that second peer-review panel could find nothing wrong with the methodology to throw that study out.
Then, as our expert, or agreed expert, has pointed out to us, he was the director of --
founder and former director of the Massachusetts Cancer Registry.
He has reviewed the cancer registry for us because unfortunately political will and available monies has not allowed for more case-controlled studies as had been recommended by the Southeastern Massachusetts Health Study and promised to us.
- Hence, we have small pictures which indicate the footprints of radiation disease continuing in our area.
Some NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
445 1
statistically significant, some others at different 2
years elevated. Those being leukemia.
Those being 3
thyroid cancer. These are radiation-linked disease.
4 More recently, because it takes longer 5
from exposure for them to cook, prostrate cancer, and 6
multiple myeloma.
So because there have not been 7
large-scale case-controlled epidemiology studies, 8
doesn't mean there is not --
there are not --
there is 9
not evidence of the footprints of disease here.
10 Then you add the demographic changes of a 11 larger population, so therefore more to be affected 12 and an older population, because as has been shown in 13 many studies that we cited, those on both ends of the 14 age spectrum, the very young and the very old are most 15 susceptible to damage.
And those of us like myself, 16 as an example, who have lived here a long time, who 17 have been eating the vegetables and this and that and5 18 knowing that radionuclides in the environmient 19 bioaccumulate and knowing at the same time and that's 20 why we included in our contention an analysis of the 21 environmental monitoring program that exists and what 22 the deficiencies of this program are, that we-are, I 23 think, have demonstrated enough, we don't have to 24 prove it, *but demonstrated enough that there's 25 something that should be brought forward.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000S-3701 www.nealrgross.com
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 446 This is what we care about, not the architecture of the plant.
What we care about is the public safety and health.
CHAIR YOUNG:
I guess my main concern and question here is that these types of things would be much more relevant in a rulemaking petition asking for a change in the rules because everything, in order to make let's say you get beyond the new and significant information, everything needs somehow to be tied to some facts that would be connected to greater releases that would, in fact, violate the dose limits.
A lot of what you're saying would go to your argument that appears to be included in the contention which we were going to sort of put off the table which is that you're saying that the --
this new information may suggest that the current dose limits are not as stringent as you would say they need to be.
But the key that would tie this into an admissible issue would be something that would connect it to releases that would violate the limits, I think in order to avoid the challenge to a regulation argument.
MS.
BARTLETT:
- Well, I
think we were arguing that 20 more years of allowable releases added to 40 years of some allowable, some not allowable, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
447 1
therefore a population that's already got problems, is 2
an issue that should be reviewed before relicensing is 3
granted.
4 CHAIR YOUNG:
- Well, now if you say 5
allowable releases, then --
6 MS.
BARTLETT:
I'm not saying that the 7
releases aren't allowable or that the doses have been 8
exceeded.
I'm saying that if you added those to the 9
past 40 years, some of them not allowable doses.
10 MS.
LAMBERT:
Excuse me.
I'd add another 11 point that was brought forward in the public sector 12 last night, that the Town of Duxbury and its vote on 13 whether to --
what conditions that they would approve 14 or disapprove for relicensing, one important one and 15 also brought forward was that the monitoring be 16 required to be improved and that there be 17 accountability by having it being computerized and 18 connected to various state and local agencies.
So 19 it's accountability for what is being released.
20 CHAIR YOUNG:
By asking for improved 21 monitoring, I think there would still need to be some 22 showing that there would be a violation of the limits.
23
- If it's
-- and I think clearly part of the concern in 24 the original contention was that the limits may not be 25 sufficient, so that's why I was asking.
Just focus on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
448 1
the part that would not constitute a challenge to the 2
current limits.
So I guess I'm not seeing how it 3
would not be a challenge to the rule if all you're 4
challenging is releases that would be allowable during 5
the term of the --
6 MS.
BARTLETT:
Even if we've demonstrated 7
that the population is more vulnerable because of past 8
practices, is that not relevant?
9 CHAIR YOUNG:
I guess what I'm wanting to 10
- hear, if there's something that would not be a
11 challenge to the rule is how the dose limit rules 12 would be violated.
Maybe I'm missing something in 13 your argument, but if you're not alleging that all the 14 information together shows that there could be 15 violations of the rules as a result, then the argument 16 that the contention challenges the rule, in effect, 17 carries more weight.
18 MS.
BARTLETT:
I guess this is why we 19 would consider a request for a waiver, because we are 20 bringing forward plant-specific information that shows 21 an increased vulnerability to what our acceptable 22 doses at any other plant or other parts of the 23 industry --
24 CHAIR YOUNG:
Then what you probably need 25 to think about and I'm not giving you advice, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
449 1
you're not talking about from what I understand you to 2
be saying, you're not talking about just a request for 3
waiver from the GEIS rule.
You're talking about a 4
request for waiver from the dose limit rules, it 5
sounds as though that's what you're saying.
6 MS. LAMBERT: I think one key word and one 7
key sentence that we used was nobody knows how much 8
radiation they released in the past, they're releasing 9
today or they're releasing in the future.
10 And I
think it's very important, 11 particularly when we have seen the footprints of 12 radiation existing disease in our community that we 13 are given assurance being a sensitized population that 14 over the next 20 years of operations that we know how 15 much is coming out of there and the NRC knows how much 16 is coming out of there.
17 If you look at the location of their real-18 time monitors that they put, you know, that we 19 discussed in a half ring at the edge of their property 20 and they call that a real-time system to ascertain 21 what's happening off-site, it's ridiculous. We know 22 the TLDs are not going to give us this type of 23 information.
We know there is technology out there 24 where we could have a better fix on what is happening.
25 We know that the environmental testing that is done on
-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-43 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005301wwnaroscm
450 1
a year to year basis for their radiological and 2
environmental monitoring reports, they're sampling 3
less each year.
They send it to their own 4
laboratories to analyze the data and we've heard from 5
doctors at Boston University that he who looks at the 6
data and how you arrange it can determine the results.
7 And they send those reports to the NRC.
8 The data that is required to know what is 9
happening is currently not there.
If there is 10 significant elevations which we have seen in some of 11 the environmental samples it is always due to 12 something else, to a test bomb that hits the indicator 13 station, not the control station.
So I think there 14 can be an argument made that it's reasonable because 15 of the sensitivity of this population to provide 16 assurance that we know whether they are or are not 17 following the dose limits and regulations, 18 irrespective of whether the current dose limits are 19 appropriate, based on Biers VII, that's an argument 20 for another day and rule changes, as you know, take a 21 long time.
22 CHAIR YOUNG:
What I'm really trying to 23 get you to focus on and maybe we can try to get there, 24 I'm looking back at Contention 1.
In Contention 1, 25 you gave reasons for why you thought there could be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
451 1
more out there than the current assumptions are.
And 2
you asked for consideration of greater monitoring sa 3
a result of the various reasons that you gave for 4
thinking that more releases are going out there.
5 The types of issues that you're raising in 6
Contention 5, obviously are environmental as compared 7
to safety issues, but a great deal of what you're 8
arguing is the health information which suggests that 9
there's greater sensitivity to the same amount of 10 radiation.
And when I asked you to focus earlier you 11 specifically said and I say you, the party, I think 12 Ms.
- Bartlett, you said you're concerned about 13 allowable releases in the future, in the license 14 renewal term.
15 And the reason I keep coming back to this 16 is unless there's something that you can hang your hat 17 on that provides some facts or enough to satisfy the 18 contention and admissability rule, not only that 19 there's greater sensitivity than previously thought in 20 certain populations and so forth or greater incidents, 21 that there's actually greater releases that would 22 violate the rule.
That's the thing that is sort of 23 key here and I'm going to let everyone speak to that, 24 but I wanted to give you a chance to address that 25 concern because that's the main thing that I see as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
452 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 being a concern here.
I don't want you to just go over all the same stuff.
MS.
BARTLETT:
No, I'm not.
I don't think we can show that there are currently greater releases than are allowed.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Okay.
Anything further on this contention?
MR. LEWIS:
I do, Judge Young, on just one point.
I believe I heard Ms.
Lambert indicate that BEIR VII showed that cancer incidents as opposed to cancer mortality increased by three.
In their reply, Pilgrim Watch's reply to our answer at page 31, an allegation was made that the cancer incidents figures increased substantially by approximately 35 percent.
So I've heard two different numbers and in neither case has there been any citation or support.
One of those has to be wrong, but in fact, her comparison of the previous sentence and in the reply at page 31, I believe was to BEIR V.
BEIR V didn't look at cancer incidents.
It looked at cancer fatality risks.
We've looked hard and see no basis for either of these assertions in BEIR VII.
There's no citation whatsoever, no support offered.
So this is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 453 coming out of the blue and I'm very skeptical of the assertion.
CHAIR YOUNG:
Do you want to respond to that?
MS.
BARTLETT:
- Well, correct me if I'm wrong, I think what we were saying BEIR VII what was new was that they did look at cancer incidents and that those showed greater numbers than had been known before.
BEIR V looked at cancer mortality.
MR.
LEWIS:
I don't know what the greater numbers are before.
I think that this sort of traditional risk analysis in health physics has been that --
MS.
BARTLETT:
Incidents risk figures increased 35 percent.
MR.
LEWIS:
That's the assertion.
I'm saying there's no support.
There's no reference to what they're comparing against, no reference to BEIR VII making this assertion and I think generally the epidemiology has indicated that the cancer fatality risk is about half of the cancer incident risk.
I'm not aware of anything in BEIR VII that changed that.
In fact, the BEIR VII numbers still show that general relationship.
And so this is an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
454 1
assertion and I've just heard it again made, but 2
there's no reference to any section of BEIR VII that 3
I can see that supports it and therefore I'm 4
suggesting that this doesn't provide any basis, just 5
this bold assertion that's coming out of thin air.
6 MR. WEDEWER:
Maybe to add one point, Your 7
Honor, I think we noticed a related thing on page 87 8
of the Petitioners' original pleading.
They had 9
referred to BEIR VII and the cancer cases expected in 10 100,000 persons and they had said exposed to 100 11 millisieverts per year which would be about 100 times 12 what our regulations permit.
13 So I think maybe just a misinterpretation 14 might have crept in here because --
and we weren't 15 sure where this came from because there wasn't a page 16 cited in the pleading.
17 CHAIR YOUNG:
Can you give us the cites?
18 MS.
BARTLETT:
Do you want us to do that 19 later?
20 MR.
LEWIS:
Judge Young, I
may object 21 later on if there's some brand new basis and big 22 analysis.
They've had their opportunity, their 23 contention and their two replies. I'm not necessarily 24 acquiescing to a further submittal.
25 CHAIR YOUNG:
With that, understood.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 455 Obviously, if you want to provide citations, if you provide citations, I don't know --
based on --
- well, we'll make our ruling based on what we have before us and we'll consider all the arguments that were previously made about the new and significant in this contention as well.
Is there anything else on this contention and anything else that we need to talk about before we leave today?
MS.
CURRAN:
I-have a question, judge Young.
Yesterday, we were talking about waiver petitions.
You asked me to provide you with some cases, some citations to cases that say you have to have unique circumstances and Mr.
Lewis gave you a citation and I want to ask is that enough or would you like some more?
CHAIR YOUNG:
If you want to submit more, that would be fine.
It did constitute part of the argument and so obviously we'll be looking at that, so if there's anything you want to provide on it, you can feel free to do that.
I haven't been keeping a running list as we go through of the things that people will be filing at a
later
- time, so I'm going to put that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.noalrgross.com
456 1
responsibility on the parties to read the transcript 2
and get it and make sure that we do have in hand 3
everything that you want us to have and --
or that 4
we've asked for and if we don't get it that we'll make 5
our ruling accordingly.
6 We appreciate everyone's contributions and 7
I wish everyone a good trip back to wherever you're 8
going and that traffic won't be too difficult.
9 (Laughter.)
10 We will be issuing our rulings as soon as 11 possible, based on everything we do have before us.
12 So if there is anything new, anything that 13 you want us to have, the sooner the better is 14 obviously a good rule to follow.
15 Thank you all.
16 (Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m.,
the oral 17 arguments on contentions were concluded.)
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Name of Proceeding:
Docket Number:
Location:
Entergy Nuclear Vermont
- Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
Oral Arguments 50-293-LR and ASLBP No.06-848-02-LR Plymouth, MA were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to 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.
Lindsey Barnes Official Reporter Neal R. Gross & Co.,
Inc.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 www.neafrgross.corn