ML070720568
| ML070720568 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 03/08/2007 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-387-LR, 50-388-LR, NRC-1481, RAS 13231 | |
| Download: ML070720568 (41) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
PPL SUSQUEHANNA LLC Docket Number: 50-387/388-LR DOCKETED USNRC March 12, 2007 (11:26am)
Location: (telephone conference) OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Date: Thursday, March 8, 2007 Work Order No.: NRC-1481 Pages 1-39 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 L10 6T e Z 3E- 1
-C'
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5
6 In the Matter of: Docket No.
7 PPL SUSQUEHANNA LLC 50-387/388-LR 8 (Susquehanna Steam Electric 9 Station,Units 1 and 2) 10 11 12 Thursday, March 8, 2007 13 6:00 p.m.
14 15 BEFORE:
16 17 ANN MARSHALL YOUNG, Chair, Administrative 18 Judge 19 KAYE D. LATHROP, Administrative Judge 20 WILLIAM W. SAGER, Administrative Judge 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
2 1 APPEARANCES:
2 On Behalf of the Petitioner:
3 ERIC JOSEPH EPSTEIN, pro se 4 4100 Hillsdale Road 5 Harrisburg, .Pennsylvania 17112 6
7 On Behalf of PPL SUSQUEHANNA LLC:
8 DAVID R. LEWIS, ESQ.
9 of: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 10 2300 N Street, N.W.
11 Washington, D.C. 20037 12 (202) 663-8474 13 FAX 663-8007 14 15 BRYAN SNAPP, ESQ.
16 Counsel, PPL Susquehanna LLC 17 2 North 9 th Street 18 Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202)
- o 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
3 1 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
2 SUSAN UTTAL, ESQ.
3 JODY MARTIN, ESQ.
4 MOLLY BARKMAN, ESQ.
5 Office of the General Counsel 6 Mail Stop 0-15 D21 7 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 8
9 10 ALSO PRESENT:
11 ALICIA MULLINS 12 YOIRA DIAZ SANABRIA 13 JENNIFER DAVIS 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
4 1 P-R-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 5:57 p.m.
3 JUDGE YOUNG: On the record. My name is 4 Ann Marshall Young. I'm the Chair of the Licensing 5 Board for this proceeding involving the Susquehanna 6 Steam Electric Station license renewal proceeding. I 7 want to first ask the other members of the Board to 8 introduce themselves. I'm the legal member of the 9 Board.
10 Judge Sager.
11 JUDGE SAGER: I'm William W. Sager, S-A-G-12 E-R. I'm Technical Judge here at ASLBP and also 13 Professor of Geoscience at Texas A&M University.
14 JUDGE LATHROP: I am Dr. Kaye D. Lathrop, 15 L-A-T-H-R-O-P. My field of speciality is Nuclear 16 Engineering and Reactor Safety.
17 JUDGE YOUNG: Could we start with the 18 staff and have you introduce yourselves and anyone 19 else who is with you?
20 MS. UTTAL: This is Susan Uttal, Counsel 21 for the NRC staff. My name is spelled U-T-T-A-L.
22 With me, I have Mr. Jody Martin, M-A-R-T-I-N, who will 23 be arguing some of the contentions today and Molly 24 Barkman, B-A-R-K-M-A-N, who will be also arguing 25 today. I also have several staff members here, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgoss.com
"5 1 they will not be entering appearances. So I'm not 2 going to introduce them.
3 JUDGE YOUNG: Why don't we go to you next, 4 Mr. Epstein?
5 MR. EPSTEIN: Well, I'm the only one here.
6 I have a question. I'm just curious as to who the 7 other NRC staff is here, whether it's technical 8 support or what. I'm just trying to get a bit of an 9 idea of what's in play today.
10 JUDGE YOUNG: Why don't you go ahead and 11 introduce the staff members, Ms. Uttal?
12 MS. UTTAL: Okay. I have the two project.
13 managers, Alicia Mullins, M-U-L-L-I-N-S, and Yoira 14 Diaz Sanabria. That's Y-O-I-R-A D-I-A-Z S-A-N-A-B-R-15 I-A and she is the project manager on the safety side 16 and Ms. Mullins is the project manager on the 17 environmental side. Also Jennifer Davis also from the 18 staff.
19 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Mr. Lewis.
20 MR. LEWIS: Yes, this is David Lewis from 21 the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 22 representing PPL Susquehanna and also on the phone at 23 another location is Mr. Bryan Snapp who is with PPL 24 and is responsible for their nuclear legal matters.
25 JUDGE YOUNG: Thank you. This is 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
6 1 Young again and I realize I didn't spell my name.
2 There's no "e" on Ann and it's M-A-R-S-H-A-L-L and 3 Young as in not old.
4 MR. SNAPP:. And Bryan Snapp is B-R-Y-A-N, 5 last name Snapp, S-N-A-P-P.
6 JUDGE YOUNG: And if you have any more 7 spelling that you would like to get from us at the 8 end, please feel free for the court reporter and if we 9 start to talk over each other or someone doesn't 10 identify themselves, feel free to interpret and ask us 11 to do right.
12 Okay. Before* we get started, I just 13 wanted to say a couple of things. First of all, we 14 appreciate your making yourselves available at this.
15 hour. We're having the annual meeting of the Atomic 16 Safety and Licensing Board Panel this week. So we've 17 been meeting and training and I appreciate your 18 availability at this late hour of the day.
19 I'd also like to sort of set the stage for 20 the argument that we'll be hearing from. First, I'd 21 like to touch on the Board's role, authority and 22 jurisdiction because we want the parties to focus on 23 the actual legal standards we are required to follow 24 as independent and impartial judges. Adjudication 25 involves the resolution of disputes based on existing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
7 1 law and rule which, so to speak, set the parameters 2 for the adjudication function. It's different from 3 legislation, rulemaking or,. for example, regulatory 4 enforcement before it gets to the adjudication level.
5 The law that governs our actions in this 6 proceeding include statutes, regulations and case law 7 decisions relating to the standing of the petitioner 8 petitioners, as the case may be, and the admissibility 9 of contentions submitted by petitioners and also in 10 this proceeding, the law governing license renewal, 11 the scope of which has been significantly restricted 12 by the Commission in its rules and case law. There 13 may be other avenues for approximately matters that do 14 not fall within adjudication, generally, within NRC, 15 adjudication specifically, and even more specifically, 16 within NRC adjudication in a license renewal context.
17 All of this relates to the idea that we 18 act under the rule of law and must base our decisions 19 on the law and facts that are relevant under the law 20 without fear or favor or based on an inappropriate 21 influences. This is how the right of all parties to 22 fair adjudication procedures is protected.
23 Now in order of the contentions, we want 24 to hear from you very briefly -- Actually, let me back 25 up. Now we want to hear from you very briefly 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
8 1 following matters in order. First, very briefly, we 2 will have, just a question or two on standing mainly 3 having to do with the staff and PPL's response to Mr.
4 Epstein's standing based on proximity. Then we'd like 5 to hear from you each very briefly on each contention 6 on how each is or is not within the scope of license 7 renewal under relevant rules and law and how each 8 meets the requirements of the Contention Admissibility 9 Rule at 10 CFR 2.309(f) (1), in particular, the 10 sections on scope and on whether sufficient 11 information has been provided to show a genuine 12 dispute on a material issue of law or fact.
13 A couple of particular questions on 14 certain contentions. On Contention 2, we'd like to 15 hear from the staff if you're able to, if you know, 16 tell us when there might be any notice of the right to 17 a hearing on the pending uprate applications and then 18 on Contention 5, we'd like to get an update from all 19 of the parties to the extent you can provide it on the 20 status of Petitioner Epstein's pending petition for 21 rulemaking. I think you, Mr. Epstein, referred to 22 having filed that on October 19, 2005 and then- re-23 filed it on March 15, 2006.
24 We have the two Federal Register denials 25 of the petition for rulemaking that was filed by Mr.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
9 1 Christian and I believe, Mr. Epstein, you indicate 2 that you were one of the petitioners on that. So 3 we're clear on what happened with the initial petition 4 for rulemaking. We're not clear on the status of this 5 currently pending one and wanted whatever update the 6 parties can provide to us on that when we get to 7 Contention 5.
8 Finally, we would appreciate it if the 9 staff could indicate to us whether and when any public 10 meetings on the staff's safety review and the 11 environmental scoping process will be held in the 12 Susquehanna's license renewal.
13 I want to emphasize that we're going to 14 have to keep to our time limits on each contention.
.15 We may interrupt you with questions. I may also sort 16 of step in if you start to go over. As we said in our 17 order of February 28th, we've read your pleadings. So 18 we don't want you to repeat what you've said in the 19 pleadings but really direct your comments to the 20 specific issues that we've laid out for you in that 21 order and the three additional questions that I've 22 just, four, I guess, counting the one on the standing 23 that I've just gone over.
24 Why don't we just start with the standing?
25 Mr. Epstein, in his reply, indicated that he lived, 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
10 1 think, 56 miles from the plant and worked within the 2 50 mile radius of the plant. The staff and PPL, can 3 you just briefly just give any argument that you have 4 on that? Whichever one wants to go first is fine.
5 MR. LEWIS: Judge, this is David Lewis.
6 I'll go first. I don't believe that Mr. Epstein has 7 demonstrated standing. My recollection of his 8 pleading is that he resides as you said 56 miles away 9 and his place of business is his home. So his regular 10 business address is also more than 50 miles from the 11 plant.
12 His claim to this standing is really that.
13 On occasion, he's in other areas nearer by, but he 14 certainly does not establish sufficient proximity with 15 enough regularity to show the same sort of every day 16 close proximity that's essential to establish a 17 genuine stake in the matter.
18 There are a few cases that have indicated 19 that frequently an area even if you don't reside it 20 may establish standing. But those cases involve 21 situations, for example, where someone lives outside 22 of 50 miles but their regular place of work is a few 23 miles from the plant and, therefore, five days a week, 24 ten hours a day, they're within the shadow of a plant.
25 Mr. Epstein's only statements are 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
11 1 January and February he will have three trips that 2 will bring him within 50 miles of the plant, one trip 3 within 45 miles, one trip within 47 miles and one 4 trip, I think he said, within 15. But that's hardly 5 a close, regular, everyday existence of proximity to 6 the plant.
7 JUDGE YOUNG: Can you give me the cases 8 that you're referring to, just the citations?
9 MR. LEWIS: The one case that I -- I don't 10 have the citations with me, but the cases that I do 11 recall that I was involved in was with the Pathfinder.
12 decommissioning where a gentleman lived outside the 50 13 mile zone but I believe his work address was about 10 14 miles from the plant and he was there five days a 15 week. In that case, the Board held that it was almost 16 the same amount of proximity that the residents would 17 have.
18 JUDGE YOUNG: This is Judge Young. You 19 said Pathfinder.
20 MR. LEWIS: P-A-T-H-F-I-N-D-E-R. It was 21 a reactor decommissioning proceeding.
22 JUDGE YOUNG: And when was that?
23 MR. LEWIS: Ten years ago maybe.
24 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay.
25 MR. LEWIS: I'm sorry. I don't have 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
12 1 citation, Judge Young.
2 JUDGE YOUNG: That's okay. Thank you.
3 Did you have anything else you wanted to add briefly?
4 MR. LEWIS: No. That's it, Judge Young.
5 JUDGE YOUNG: Ms. Uttal or whoever of the 6 staff lawyers, wants to speak to this.
7 MR. MARTIN: This is Jody Martin from the 8 staff. J-O-D-Y Martin, for the court reporter. The 9 staff also does not believe that Mr. Epstein has 10 satisfied the proximity principle in this case. Some 11 of the earlier cases have shown. that the type of 12 contact needed within the proximity are akin to the 13 type of contact that residency usually provides and 14 the courts, the Commission, has to have generally 15 enough to see that there is everyday activity that's 16 in the proximity zone or also enough to see if there 17 is some sort of contact with the main. For instance, 18 in the prior fuel storage case which is 49 NRC 318, it 19 was mainly the petitioner in that case had various 20 zone contacts with the main itself. He fished there.
21 He went and looked at nature there.
22 Also the Commission has often said that 23 there needs to be very specific instances provided and 24 they have to be frequent enough that they show a 25 likelihood of an ongoing connection and presence 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
13 1 we don't think that his two or three contacts listed 2 rises to the level that the Commission has asked for 3 in order to satisfy this proximity.
4 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Mr. Epstein, do you 5 know of any case law on the standing issue, the 6 proximity presumption that we're talking about here?
7 MR. EPSTEIN: I think the proximity 8 normally defers to somebody who lives or works within 9 the 50 miles of the plant. I think --
10 JUDGE YOUNG: Mr. Epstein, I'm going to 11 interrupt you.. I'll do this with everyone.
12 MR. EPSTEIN: Yes.
13 JUDGE YOUNG: But what I'm asking is do 14 you know of any actual cases, published legal 15 decisions on the subject?
16 MR. EPSTEIN: Yes.
17 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Can you give me 18 those?
19 MR. EPSTEIN: I don't have them now, but 20 I can certainly get them to you.
21 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Why I don't I ask all 22 the parties to do this and that is by Monday morning 23 to file just citations to cases that you'd like us to 24 look at giving the citation and the specific page 25 numbers and we'll take all those into consideration NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
14 1 when we rule on standing.
2 MR. EPSTEIN: Judge Young, am I allowed to 3 comment?
4 JUDGE YOUNG: I really want to try to 5 focus this very precisely. We have read all your 6 filings and I may let you have about a minute on this.
7 MR. EPSTEIN: That's all I need.
8 JUDGE YOUNG: We're pretty clear in our 9 minds about the questions that we would like to have 10 answered and since we have a limited amount of time we 11 want to try to keep people focused. So go ahead and 12 take a minute.
13 MR. EPSTEIN: Sure. I'll take one minute.
14 I think my work has been mischaracterized. I'm based 15 at my house and for the last eight years, the trips 16 that I make are between four to six trips weekly to 17 the area. I gave you a snapshot so you would have 18 some idea. The office is the Sustainable Energy Fund 19 in Allentown and that's been going for eight years and 20 will continue. So I'm there on a weekly level either 21 in Hazelton or Allentown, No. 1.
22 Also the logic disturbs me because you 23 could live one foot from a nuclear power plant, but if 24 you were a trucker or itinerant salesman and were away 25 all the time, this kind of logic could probably NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
15 1 disrupt your standing as well. So I want to leave it 2 at that. I'll supply the citations. Suffice it to 3 say, I'm in and around the area quite frequently.
.4 JUDGE YOUNG: You said Allentown or 5 Hazelton?
6 MR. EPSTEIN: Yes.
7 JUDGE YOUNG: And tell me the name of the 8 organization again that you go to in Allentown.
9 MR. EPSTEIN: The Sustainable Energy Fund.
10 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Thank you.
11 MR. EPSTEIN: We're based on Postal Road 12 in Allentown and established in 2000.
13 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Thank you very much.
14 We'll look forward to getting that from all of you.
15 All right. On Contention 1, we'd like to 16 ask you to focus here on the license transfer 17 proceeding or the restructuring proceeding. We do 18 have the Federal Register notices of opportunity for 19 hearings with regard to those and from what we're able 20 to tell no hearing was requested in those cases. So 21 I guess let's start with you, Mr. Epstein. Were you 22 aware of those proceedings?
23 MR. EPSTEIN: I was engaged in a parallel 24 proceeding at the Public Utility Commission. So I had 25 made a decision not to intervene in that 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
16 1 proceeding. In my experience with direct and indirect 2 license transfers, it demonstrated that there's really 3 limited recourse to examine the company's financials.
4 So I was aware and opted to intervene actually on a 5 number of fronts at the Pennsylvania Public Utility 6 Commission relating to the IRS status of the company, 7 the exemption wholesale generator status of the 8 company and the transfer of assets of the company.
9 JUDGE YOUNG: If you could just briefly 10 address the issues that we listed in our order, 11 namely, how this contention would fall within the 12 scope of license renewal and, namely, really the 13 simplest way, I guess, to look at that is is there a 14 Category 2 environmental issue. or is there an aging 15 issue that this related to because those are the 16 parameters that are set in this type of proceeding, 17 namely, an adjudication on license renewal.
18 MR. EPSTEIN: Yes and it's an inexact and 19 imprecise connection and I'm aware of that. The 20 concern is that you have a, what I believe to be, 21 relatively new licensee applying for a license and the 22 issue for me is that this is much different than the 23 original company. This is a limited liability 24 company.
25 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. I'm going 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
17 1 interrupt you again, Mr. Epstein. I'm sorry. I 2 appreciate --
3 MR. EPSTEIN: I'm going to give you the 4 NRC -- Can you just give me one second?
5 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. What I want you to 6 address is the 10 CFR 2.309(f) (1), the six 7 requirements under that, and most specifically, the 8 scope in No. 3 and the sufficient information to show 9 a genuine dispute on a material issue, No. 6, and then 10 whether there's a category 2 issue, environmental 11 issue, or an aging issue under the scope of license 12 renewal, if you could focus your remarks on those.
13 MR. EPSTEIN: My reference, and if it's 14 not congruent to your request please tell me, is I was 15 under the impression that the Commission's basis for 16 establishing the 20 year limit contained in Section 17 5417(c) as discussed in the 91 statements of 18 consideration Part 54 10 CER that the limit was 19 established to ensure that a substantial operating 20 experience was accumulated by a licensee before 21 renewal application is submitted such that any plant 22 specific concerns regarding aging would be disclosed.
23 The issue for me is that this is a new licensee asking 24 for a license extension and I don't know what exact 25 category that would fit into.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
18 1 JUDGE YOUNG: Do you want to just very 2 quickly in the remaining time you have address what 3 the staff and PPL pointed out about the Commission 4 already having approved the transfer and the 5 restructuring and how that does not *create a new 6 license but the new license C takes on the original 7 license with the same terms?
8 MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, I saw that and I 9 appreciate the opportunity. Again, obviously I 10 acknowledge that some kind of transfer took place and 11 I was unsure as to the exact mechanism that was used.
12 The concern that I have and in past was normally when 13 a license or indirect license transfer occurs is you 14 don't look at the financials. Basically, you just get 15 a' score card of players and then those players are 16 transferred to the new company.
17 My concern is that in every other venue 18 I've been in regarding this company, they basically 19 attest to the fact that they're a new company with 20 really no legacy relationship to the previous company 21 and if that's the fact and all I'm arguing then is 22 this appears to be a new company, though they got the 23 license asking for a license extension. That's 24 essentially it in a nutshell.
25 I don't agree with the staff that there's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
19 1 an intermediary parent in the form of --
2 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. i think you've 3 already told us a lot of this in your.pleadings.
4 MR. EPSTEIN: Yes.
5 JUDGE YOUNG: And again, I want to focus 6 on, if you can, in the last 30 seconds tell me is 7 there an aging issue very concisely, five or ten 8 words, and is there a category 2 environmental issue.
9 MR. EPSTEIN: I believe there is. I 10 believe that you have a new corporation asking for a 11 license extension without the requisite experience.
12 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Let's move on to Mr.
13 Lewis. Do you have anything to add that you haven't 14 already told us?
15 MR. LEWIS: Yes, just very briefly. Mr.
16 Epstein's contention is that "the company failed to 17 provide data necessary to determine its ability to 18 maintain and service its financial obligations."
19 That's the wording of his contention. This has 20 nothing to do with whether the company has sufficient 21 operating experience. Clearly, his contention is on 22 financial qualifications and clearly, it's barred by 23 the NRC rules. Specifically, 10 CFR 50.33(f) (2) 24 states that financial qualifications information does 25 not have to provide in connection with license renewal 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
20 1 and we also provided the citation to the rulemaking 2 which specifically excluded that issue from license 3 renewal.
4 With respect to the operating experience 5 though, of course, the plant itself has more than 20 6 years operating experience and while the plant was 7 transferred to a generating company, it's the same 8 plant staff and they have plenty of operating 9 experience, but that's not even within the scope of 10 Mr. Epstein's contention.
11 Finally, we also, in our response, 12 provided the citation and including the ADAMS number 13 to the safety evaluation report that was issued atthe 14 time of license transfer to PPL Susquehanna and it did 15 indeed look at the company's financial qualifications 16 as a non-electrical utility. So in addition to being 17 without site scope, there's clearly no basis to this 18 contention.
19 JUDGE YOUNG: Thank you. Ms. Uttal or --
20 When we go to the staff, I'll say Ms. Uttal and then 21 if you want to designate one of the other lawyers for 22 the staff, that's fine.
23 MR. MARTIN: This is Jody Martin again 24 from the staff. Again, I would just like to reiterate 25 that the Commission did in its decision of rulemaking, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
21 1 69 Federal Register 4439 specifically remove financial 2 qualifications from license renewal as Mr. Lewis just 3 stated and also in the safety evaluation for the 4 license transfer, Section 2 of that safety eValuation 5 specifically refers to-the financials of the license 6 transfer and Section 3 specifically looks at the 7 decommissioning funding for that license transfer. So 8 the NRC did deal with that at that time.
9 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. And again, I'll just 10 repeat. We don't need to hear anybody reiterate 11 anything. We appreciate it, but for all of you, we're 12 really wanting to try to focus on anything that hasn't 13 already been written and submitted to us.
14 MR. MARTIN: Okay. That's all.
15 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Thank you very much.
16 All right. Then moving to Contention 2, there is the 17 pending uprate proceeding. To our knowledge, there 18 hasn't been a Federal Register notice on that. Can 19 the staff give us an update on what there is out 20 there? Is there anything we can expect on that just 21 for our information since that has come out?
22 MS. UTTAL: Judge, this is Susan Uttal.
23 My information is that it should be going out very 24 shortly. I can't give you an exact date but it should 25 be very soon.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
22 1 JUDGE YOUNG: And that would include 2 within it the notice of opportunity to petition for a 3 hearing.
4 MS. UTTAL: That's correct.
5 - JUDGE YOUNG: Thank you. I'm not -- I 6 guess on Contention 2 as well there is the issue of 7 the motion to strike and I'll just say that while we 8 don't strike things from the record in the sense of 9 taking them out the record, everything stays in the 10 record. There is case law that says that while you 11 can provide legitimate amplification in reply, you 12 can't introduce new subjects.
13 I guess the questions that it would be 14 helpful to have you, Mr. Epstein, address here would 15 be just to point us to a page and a line where you 16 addressed the four things mentioned in Mr. Lewis' 17 motion on the last page, namely, (1) aging management; 18 (2) inspection of systems and components that contain 19 radioactively contaminated water; primarily those two, 20 also (3) monitoring for leakage; and (4) a tritium 21 action plan. Could you just --
22 MR. EPSTEIN: I think I pointed that out 23 in my reply brief. I think in the first three points 24 that were raised they probably were not specifically 25 a part of the contention because I didn't have access NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
23 1 to that information until after the brief was filed.
2 I was able to get the information on some of the 3 challenges of leaking pipes in another proceeding. So 4 frankly, I didn't have access to the information and 5 it wasn't disclosed.
6 On the tritium, that's been a consistent 7 threat --
8 JUDGE YOUNG: Hold on. Before you move 9 onto the next thing, let's just try to pin that down.
10 You said that you didn't have access to it. What do 11 you mean by that? What information did you become 12 aware of later that you were not aware of earlier?
13 MR.. EPSTEIN: Right. On December 20, 14 2006, the company filed a water use permit with the 15 Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
16 JUDGE YOUNG: December what?
17 MR. EPSTEIN: Twentieth 2006 and I was 18 only able to obtain it in January and I think I made 19 a copy of that available. I'm more than happy to do 20 that again, but in the company's request to extract 21 more water from the Susquehanna River, they disclosed 22 that they had problems with some leaking pipes at the 23 Susquehanna Nuclear Power Plant. So I was clearly at 24 a disadvantage as the information was not in the LRA 25 but came a part through actually investigating another NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
24 1 related regulatory request.
2 JUDGE YOUNG: And what information in that 3 specifically is related to which of the issues that 4 are listed here?
5 MR. EPSTEIN: I'm not sure I understand 6 the question, but I think that what I've raised was 7 the fact that Susquehanna or PPL Susquehanna disclosed 8 that they were unable to accurately monitor water flow 9 due-to the corrosion of pipes. That seems to me to be 10 an aging problem that should be investigated or 11 evaluated prior to issuing relicensing or an 12 extension.
13 JUDGE YOUNG: All right. You got the 14 information on December 20th. When --
15 MR. EPSTEIN: No. It was filed on 16 December 20th. I got the information after the filing 17 deadline, January 2nd. I did not have access to the 18 information or it would have been in my initial 19 complaint.
20 JUDGE YOUNG: When did you get it and how 21 did you get?
22 MR. EPSTEIN: I can get you the exact 23 date. It was sometime in January when I actually went 24 down to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and 25 looked at the filing.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
25 1 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. So you're saying that 2 that relates to, of the four issues, aging management, 3 inspection of systems and components, monitoring for 4 leakage, tritium action plans. Which of those?
5 MR. EPSTEIN: The first three. This is 6 the major -- This was a major piece of information 7 that I didn't have which indicates that there's an 8 aging problem with water monitoring at Susquehanna.
9 The other issues I raised in my petition had to do 10 with water resource management in Pennsylvania, 11 aquatic challenges, zebra mussels, Asiatic clams and 12 also tritium monitoring and I think the company and 13 perhaps I was at fault for raising my concerns to the 14 questions rather than in direct interrogatories.
15 JUDGE YOUNG: Let's move to Mr. Lewis.
16 Can you address Mr. Epstein's reference to the 17 information he received in January?
18 MR. LEWIS: Absolutely. And it has 19 nothing to do with any piece of equipment that's 20 within the scope of license renewal. I'm sorry. This 21 is David Lewis speaking. The equipment that's being 22 referred to is the intake pipe on the river. The 23 issue that was being addressed is that there are 24 deposits inside this pipe. It's not leakage from this 25 pipe. It's deposits inside the pipe that make 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
26 1 diameter smaller and as a result there are some 2 flowmeters that no longer are accurately calibrated.
3 So the issue that's being addressed was simply that in 4 connection with this water permit. We may need to 5 replace this pipe or somehow accurately recalibrate 6 the flowmeters to represent how much .water is flowing 7 through the intake.
8 It has nothing to do with any leakage of 9 any water from the plant and it's not a component 10 that's within the scope of license renewal. It's not 11 a safety related component. And it's not component 12 that relates to any of the other categories of 13 systems, structures and components that are defined in 14 10 CFR 54.4 as being within the scope of the rule.
15 JUDGE YOUNG: Thank you. The staff.
16 MS. BARKMAN- This is Molly Barkman for 17 the staff. We agree with everything Mr. Lewis just 18 said and would also say that if Mr. Epstein thought 19 that he had found some newer information here he 20 should have filed a motion to amend his petition and 21 file a late file petition and meet the requirements 22 for that under 2309.
23 JUDGE YOUNG: Thank you. Mr. Epstein, I'm 24 going to give you just a couple of minutes to respond 25 to what Mr. Lewis and Ms. Barkman, did I get the name NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
27 1 right, said. This is Judge Young again. I'm sorry.
2 And also if you could tell me where in the rules this 3 would fall within the structures, components, that 4 would subject to the aging management and also under 5 what Category 2 issue your Contention 2 would fall as.
6 an environmental issue. Did that make sense?
7 MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, it make sense and I 8 understand what Mr. Lewis was saying. It is germane 9 to this proceeding. Whether you call it leaking or 10 corrosion or whatever you want to call, it's a major 11 issue because in order to be uprated or relicensed 12 they have to increase the amount of water flow they 13 use and what they reported -- and they didn't report 14 it to. I found this through happenstance.
15 This is information that I think should 16 have been provided. What we found is they can't 17 accurately gauge how much water they're using. That's 18 because their equipment isn't working. Maybe it's not 19 a leak. Maybe it's just corrosion. Whatever it is, 20 they can't report with degree of accuracy. This is 21 huge because this deals with water consumption issues 22 and I think it directly relates to 2.3, plant 23 interaction with the environment and --
24 JUDGE YOUNG: I'm sorry. 2.3 of what?
25 MR. EPSTEIN: I'm just operating out of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
28 1 NUREG 1437 Volume 1.
2 JUDGE YOUNG: Now 2.3 of what though? Of 3 new --
4 MR. EPSTEIN: Of the NUREG --
5 JUDGE YOUNG: Section. 2.3?
6 MR. EPSTEIN: Yes. Section 2.3, plant 7 interaction with the environment.
8 JUDGE YOUNG: And tell me the NUREG number 9 again.
10 MR. EPSTEIN: It's NUREG 1437 Volume 1.
11 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. And then just quickly 12 after you finish your sentence on that, what I'd like 13 you to do since it sounds like you really are talking 14 about an environmental issue here is to point me to 15 the category 2 issue in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 51 16 Subpart A I believe that it is.
17 MR. EPSTEIN: Yes. I don't have that with 18 me, but I can supply that to you by Monday. When you 19 said the category 2 Appendix B, I don't have that in 20 my notes right now at my disposal.
21 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. If you want to just 22 in addition to the citations you will provide.
23 MR. EPSTEIN: Sure.
24 JUDGE YOUNG: What I want to caution you 25 about though is all I want is just a quotation 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
29 1 category 2 category that you are saying this fits 2 within. I don't want to have more written argument.
3 Just simply a listing of the category items in the 4 table.
5 MR. EPSTEIN: I understand you want the 6 citation and the reference.
7 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Thanks very much.
8 MR. EPSTEIN: Yes.
9 JUDGE YOUNG: Go ahead.
10 MR. EPSTEIN: I would just conclude by 11 saying perhaps the NRC staff is correct about 12 logistically what should have occurred. But I think 13 there's a responsibility on behalf of the company to 14 disclose this information. Now Mr. Lewis may not 15 think it's relevant I happen to think it has a great 16 deal of relevance on how the company behaves with the 17 local community, local resources and whether or not 18 the company is even going garner support for 19 additional water use. So frankly, I take exception to 20 the NRC and the company and vigorously pursuing 21 Contention 2.
22 JUDGE YOUNG: And again, just provide us 23 with the category 2 item that you are arguing that 24 this falls under and I would refer back to the things 25 I said in the beginning about the scope and parameters NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
30 1 of what is involved in adjudication. Anything else on 2 Contention 2?
3 MR. LEWIS: Judge, this is Mr. Lewis. Let 4 me just respond to what Mr. Epstein said. First of 5 all, this whole issue about the intake pipe was not 6 part of his original contention and so while he may 7 provide a citation, the staff is right. If he wanted 8 to amend his contention to change the focus, he should 9 have filed an amendment then and justified it.
10 With respect to the allegation that we've 11 hidden something is preposterous. Section 3.1.2.1 of 12 our environmental report reflects the fact that with 13 uprated conditions we will have to change the approval 14 that we need with respect to the maximum amount of 15 water that we would be consuming. So the application 16 clearly reported how much additional water the draw 17 would be under uprated conditions and in addition 18 reflected the fact that there would be a need to go to 19 the Savannah River Basin Commission to obtain their 20 approval. But the only point that one covered is the 21 time that application had not been filed. But the 22 fact that it was needed was clearly identified.
23 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Anything else on 24 Contention 2? Then let's move to Contention 3. Let's 25 see. In Contention 3, I guess I would ask that 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
31 1 focus on -- Again, Mr. Epstein, you're sort of at a 2 disadvantage by not having the rule on the scope of 3 environmental issues in license renewal with you 4 because that's what governs how we make our decision 5 'and the section is 10 CFR Section 51.53 (c) (3) (ii) I 6 believe and then under that, there are various 7 references to the subjects that are admissible as 8 contentions in license renewal cases and then that's 9 followed by Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 and each 10 item or subject is designated as being category 1 or 11 category 2 and if it's category 1, it's not 12 admissible. If it's category 2, then it, may be 13 admissible. At least, it would be within the scope.
14 So the question that I have for you which 15 it sounds like you'renot going to be able to answer 16 it today is which category 2 issue this Contention 3 17 falls under.
18 MR. EPSTEIN: I will provide that citation 19 for Monday. My notes were prepared unfortunately 20 using the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 21 License Renewal, the NUREG 1437 Volume 1 and my 22 preparation for this contention is just going to be 23 2.3.8, socio-economic factors.
24 JUDGE YOUNG: You're talking about the 25 Generic Environmental Impact Statement?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
32 1 MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, ma'am.
2 JUDGE YOUNG: I'll think you'll probably 3 find that the issues in the Generic Environmental 4 Impact Statement are probably all going to be category 5 1 issues which are not admissible because the 6 Commission has dealt with them generically. But go 7 ahead and provide to us, obviously with copies to 8 everyone, any category 2 issue that you would argue 9 the contention falls under.
10 MR. EPSTEIN: And I understand that most 11 of these may be category 1 and the point I'm trying to 12 make during this proceeding is that one size does not 13 fit all. You have an interesting situation. The cite 14 and I'll read it quickly for you is there's an 15 assumption that nuclear power plants represent an 16 investment that's substantial and the mere presence of 17 a plant would essentially drive down taxing ratios for 18 other folks.
19 Is this a category 1? Probably. The 20 problem I'm having throughout this proceeding is that 21 one size doesn't fit all and that's what I was trying 22 to raise that you have a risk/reward formula when it 23 comes to utilities. Where if you have the risk of 24 having the plant, you're usually rewarded with some 25 economic benefits.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
33 1 I'm arguing just the opposite is occurring 2 and I'm frustrated because I'm not sure that it can be 3 easily diced into a category 2 proposal.
4 MR. LEWIS: Judge, this is Mr. Lewis. I'm 5 concerned about giving Mr. Epstein a fourth bite at 6 the apple to explain why his contentions are relevant.
7 He had the obligation to do so in his original 8 petition. He had the ability to do so in his reply.
9 He's had the opportunity to do so tonight. Every time 10 we've seen a pleading from Mr. Epstein the focus 11 shifts. So I'm very concerned that on Monday we're 12 going to see, some brand new explanation that we'll 13 have no way to respond to and I believe that the 14 appropriate time to explain the relevance was in the
- 15. original petition. So I'm quite concerned about the 16 fairness of giving him a fourth bite at the apple.
17 JUDGE YOUNG: I understand what you're 18 saying and that's why I think we're limiting this to 19 merely citations and we're not going to accept any 20 more argument and, Mr. Epstein, I guess when the 21 transcript of this conference is placed in ADAMS, I 22 encourage you to look at it and go back and read my 23 introductory remarks about the nature of adjudication 24 and what the scope of adjudication is, what are the 25 parameters of it, what is our jurisdiction and why NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
34 1 that's important for protecting the fairness of the 2 proceeding for all parties. We're certainly not 3 allowed to lean in one direction or the other in favor 4 of a party. We're bound by the legal requirements.
5 So let's move on.
6 MR. EPSTEIN: Judge, I don't disagree and 7 I'm more than willing to waive submitting anything to 8 you on Monday frankly. I'm perfectly content with the 9 material I've submitted. I don't need a third or 10 fourth bite.
11 JUDGE YOUNG: You may do as you. choose.
12 We'll take into account any-citations by any parties 13 provided to us on Monday.
14 MR. EPSTEIN: Sure.
15 JUDGE YOUNG: Let me just move now. Mr.
16 Lewis, did you have anything very briefly to say on 17 Contention 3?
18 MR. LEWIS: No, I think I'll rest on our 19 pleadings. I mean this is a technical qualifications 20 issue that's just clearly outside the scope of the 21 proceeding.
22 JUDGE YOUNG: Thank you. And the staff.
23 MR. MARTIN: This is Jody Martin again.
24 No, we have nothing further to add beyond what's in 25 our pleadings.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
35 1 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Thank you very much 2 and, Mr. Epstein, on Contention 4, I believe that you 3 made reference to various sections of the 4 environmental report and I guess my same question for 5 you here was what category 2 does it fall under and I 6 don't imagine that you're going to be able to answer 7 that based on what's happened in the first three 8 contentions. So I guess the same would apply to that.
.9 Do you have anything that you would like 10 to say just briefly in response to it that you haven't 11 submitted in writing?
12 MR. EPSTEIN: No, I'm comfortable with my 13 pleading.
14 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Thank you. Mr.
15 Lewis?
16 MR. LEWIS: No, under those circumstances 17 we responded already, too.
18 JUDGE YOUNG: And the staff?
19 MR. MARTIN: Jody Martin. No, we don't 20 have anything further to add.
21 JUDGE YOUNG: Thank you very much. All 22 right. Then on Contention 5, I guess the same 23 questions apply here. What would bring this within 24 the scope? But we did also have the questions for any 25 of you if you could just for informational purposes NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
36 1 let us know what, if anything, you know about the 2 pending rulemaking, whether anything has happened or 3 is expected to happen.
4 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young.
5 JUDGE YOUNG:. Yes.
6 MR. LEWIS: This is Mr. Lewis. There was 7 a Federal Register notice on Monday, March 5th, 72 8 Federal Register 9708 which denied the petition for 9 rulemaking.
10 JUDGE YOUNG: Thank you very much. Anyone 11 have anything to add to that?
12 MR. EPSTEIN: The only thing I would add 13 is that if you look at the comments and the 14 justification for denial, they indicate the two issues 15 were taken into strong consideration, Senate Bill 922, 16 and the fact that another licensee, Exelon, had 17 trainings for daycare and nursery school. On both 18 instances, PPL has not an emergency plan and 19 incorporated SB 922 nor have they had a training to 20 that population and that also was something you can 21 get right off the net when you look at the Federal 22 Register decision.
23 JUDGE YOUNG: Now on this one also, based 24 on the last thing you filed, Mr. Epstein, I understand 25 that the same basic issues are now pending in 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
37 1 form before the Department of Homeland Security. Is 2 that correct?
3 MR. EPSTEIN: Yes, ma'am.
4 JUDGE YOUNG: Okay. Thank you. Anything 5 further on Contention 5?
6 MR. EPSTEIN: No, ma'am. I rest on my 7 pleading.
8 JUDGE YOUNG: Mr. Lewis?
9 MR. LEWIS: Contention 5 goes to emergency 10 planning and it's clearly outside the scope and we've 11 addressed that adequately. I just would like to 12 respond with respect to Mr. Epstein's suggestion that 13 PPL has done nothing on daycare. He's in no position 14 to know that and, in fact, the company has reached out 15 to daycare centers to assist them and complied with 16 the new law. So Mr. Epstein's assertion 17 notwithstanding, there's no basis for his suggestion 18 that these planning obligations are being ignored.
19 MR. EPSTEIN: I'm just going on the 20 comments that were in the NRC Commission meeting.
21 JUDGE YOUNG: We will look at the Federal 22 Register notice. I think I had probably looked right 23 before that came out. So it's certainly timely in any 24 event.
25 Does the staff have anything to add 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
38 1 Contention 5?
2 MS. BARKMAN: This is Molly Barkman. No, 3 the staff will rest on its pleadings.
4 JUDGE YOUNG: Well, this has certainly 5 been -- I don't know whether it's due to your 6 participation, Mr. Epstein, not being a lawyer, but 7 this has certainly been brief and concise and to the 8 point and we appreciate again all of you taking the 9 time at this late hour to answer a few questions that.
10 we had and talk with us a little bit on these issues 11 that are now pending before us. We will endeavor to 12 get rulings on these matters to you as quickly as 13 possible.
14 Does any party have anything that we may 15 have overlooked before we go off the record?
16 MR. EPSTEIN: Just I need to know close of 17 business Monday would be what time, Judge?
18 JUDGE YOUNG: Actually, I think I said 19 Monday morning.
20 MR. EPSTEIN: Okay.
21 JUDGE YOUNG: But we'll say 5:00 p.m. on 22 Monday.
23 MR. EPSTEIN: No. Again, to assuage any 24 concerns that the staff or PPL has, I may in fact not 25 submit anything because I certainly don't want 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
39 1 made out to appear as looking for a third and fourth 2 bite of the apple. I'm completely satisfied with the 3 pleadings to date.
4 JUDGE YOUNG: That's up to you.
5 MR. EPSTEIN: Yes.
6 JUDGE YOUNG: Any citations that any 7 parties want to provide to any regulations or case law 8 or other law that would be fine to provide 9 electronically, file also with the Office of the 10 Secretary, on Monday morning. Thank you very much and 11 that will close this session. Off the record.
12 (Whereupon, at 6:47 p.m., the above-13 entitled matter was concluded to reconvene.)
14 15 16 17 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.nealrgross.com
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Name of Proceeding: PPL Susquehanna LLC Docket Number: 50-387/388-LR Location: (Telephone conference) 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.
"TobyWalter Official Reporter Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com