ML071970391
| ML071970391 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 07/10/2007 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-387-OLA, 50-388-OLA, ASLBP 07-854-01-OLA-BD01, NRC-1663, RAS 13857 | |
| Download: ML071970391 (90) | |
Text
1rs /3S571 Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Pre-hearing Conference Docket Number:
ASLBP Number:
50-387-OLA and 50-388-OLA 07-854-01 -OLA-BD01 Location:
(telephone conference)
DOCKETED USNRC Date:
Tuesday, July 10, 2007 July 16, 2007 (8:45am)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Work Order No.:
NRC-1663 Pages 1-88 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 TIM,, P la te- = 5,r c y-o 3.1,
-SECfy 6P
1 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 PRE-HEARING TELECONFERENCE
,I In the Matter of:
PPL SUSQUEHANNA LLC (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2)
II Docket Nos.
II 50-387-OLA and II 50-388-OLA II ASLBP No.
07-854-II 01-OLA-BDO1 11
- Tuesday, July 10, 2007 The above-entitled matter came on for pre-hearing conference at 9:30 a.m.
BEFORE:
G.
- III, Administrative Judge RICHARD F.
- COLE, Administrative Judge LESTER RUBENSTEIN, Administrative Judge NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433 www.nealrgross.com
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 APPEARANCES:
On Behalf of the Petitioner:
ERIC JOSEPH EPSTEIN, pro se 4100 Hillsdale Road Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17112 On Behalf of PPL Susquehanna LLC:
DAVID R.
- LEWIS, ESQ.
of:
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 (202) 663-8474 BRYAN SNAPP, ESQ.
Counsel, PPL Susquehanna LLC 2 North 9th Street Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
LLOYD B.
- SUBIN, ESQ.
SUSAN L.
- UTTAL, ESQ.
of:
Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop 0-15 D21 Washington, D.C.
20555-0001 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
3 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 ALSO PRESENT:
DEBORAH WOLF, Licensing Board Panel Law Clerk ZACHARY KAHN, Licensing Board Panel Law Clerk RICHARD GUZMAN, NRC Staff DREW STUYVENBERG, NRC Staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comrl I
v
4 1
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2
(9:35 a.m.)
3 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Good morning.
Today 4
we're here to conduct an initial pre-hearing 5
conference and.an extended power uprate, or EPU 6
proceeding, under Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of 7
Federal Regulations, also referred to as the CFR.
8 This pre-hearing conference has been 9
convened as a result of the response of Eric Joseph 10 Epstein to a Notice of Consideration a
facility 11 operating license amendment posed no significant 12 hazard consideration determination and hearing 13 opportunity published in the Federal Register on 14 March 13, 2007.
15 In its petition dated May 11, 2007, Mr.
16 Epstein requested an adjudicatory hearing regarding 17 the October 11, 2006, application of PPL Susquehanna 18 LLC for an EPU for the two units of its Susquehanna 19 steam electric station located near
- Berwick, 20 Pennsylvania.
21 In a
May 25,
- 2007, memorandum, the 22 Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, acting 23 on behalf of the five-member Commission, referred 24 Petitioner Epstein's hearing request to the Atomic 25 Safety and Licensing Board Panel for the appointment NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
5 1
of the Licensing Board.
2 On May 31,
- 2007, the Licensing Board 3
Panel's Chief Administrative Judge issued a notice 4
designating this three-member Licensing Board to 5
conduct a proceeding.
6 In convening this pre-hearing conference 7
today, we're here to afford Mr. Epstein, as well as 8
applicant PPL Susquehanna, and the NRC staff, the two 9
other participants to this proceeding, an opportunity 10 to make oral presentation on the questions of whether 11 Mr.
Epstein has established that he is entitled to 12 party status in this proceeding by showing he has the 13 requisite standing and has proffered one or more issue 14 statements or contentions contesting the adequacy of 15 certain aspects of the PPL Susquehanna application 16 that are legally sufficient to be admitted as 17 litigable issues in this proceeding.
18 Before we begin hearing the participants' 19 presentations on these matters, I'd like to introduce 20 the Board members.
With me. here in Rockville, 21
- Maryland, is Dr.
Richard Cole.
Judge Cole is an 22 environmental engineer and full-time member of the 23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
Joining us 24 from the west coast is Judge Lester Rubenstein.
Judge 25 Rubenstein is a nuclear engineer and a part-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
6 1
member of the Panel.
2 My name is Paul Bollwerk.
I'm an attorney 3
and the Chairman of this Licensing Board.
4 Also here with Judge Cole and me in 5
Rockville are Licensing Board Panel Judicial Law 6
Clerks Deborah Wolf and Zachary Kahn.
7 At this
- point, I'd like to have the 8
counsel for the various participants or the 9
participants identify themselves for the record.
Why 10 don't we start with Mr.
Epstein and anyone who might 11 be with him this morning, then move to counsel for the 12 applicant, and finally to NRC staff counsel.
13 MR. EPSTEIN:
This is Eric Joseph Epstein.
14 I'm in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, today.
And the only 15 one with me is my dog, Rosita.
16 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Thank you.
17 MR.
LEWIS:
Yes.
This is David Lewis, 1i with the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, 19 representing PPL Susquehanna.
On another line is Mr.
20 Bryan Snapp, who is with PPL's counsel's office.
21 MR.
SUBIN:
Lloyd Subin,
- OGC, NRC.
22 MS.
UTTAL:
Susan Uttal,
- NRC, OGC.
And 23 with us is 24 MR.
GUZMAN:
Rich, Rich Guzman.
25 MS.
UTTAL:
Richard Guzman and Drew 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
7 1
Stuyvenberg from the staff.
2 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Does the 3
Court Reporter have those names?
4 MS.
UTTAL:
No.
5 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Can you go ahead and 6
spell them for her?
7 MS.
UTTAL:
Richard Guzman, G-U-Z-M-A-N.
8 MR.
SUBIN:
And Stuyvenberg is S-T-U-Y, V
9 as in Victor, E-N, B as in boy, E-R-G.
10 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Mr.
- Subin, 11 are you on a different phone than Ms. Uttal?
12 MS.
UTTAL:
No.
We're both on the same --
13 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
On the same line. You're 14 coming in a
little bit less clear than she is, 15 so--
16 MR.
SUBIN:
Okay.
How is this?
Is that 17 better?
18 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
A little bit
- better, yes.
19 All right.
Thank you, everyone.
20 As to the order of presentation by the 21 participants in this pre-hearing conference, in our 22 June 13th order we outlined a schedule that affords an 23 opportunity for the participants to address the 24 various contested matters now before the Board.
25 We would intend to follow that schedule 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 v
8 1
closely as possible in terms of the issues and 2
allocated times for argument.
In that regard, we have 3
requested before starting on an issue for which Mr.
4 Epstein has been afforded an opportunity for argument 5
and rebuttal, he should indicate how much of his total 6
15-minute time allocation he wishes to reserve for 7
rebuttal.
The Board will be providing counsel with 8
notice of the need to finish his or her presentation 9
toward the end of the allocated argument time.
10
- Also, as we noted in our June 13th 11 issuance, in making their arguments the participants 12 should bear in mind that we read their pleadings, and, 13 as such, they should focus their presentations on the 14 critical points and controversy as those issues have 15 emerged as a result of the various participant filings 16 over the last 60 days.
17
- Finally, after hearing from the 18 participants regarding the standing and contention 19 admissibility matters at issue, we would like to have 20 a
brief
- discussion regarding some of the 21 administrative details involved in this proceeding.
22 And at this point, if none of the 23 participants has any kind of opening statement they 24 want to make, we'll go right into the question of 25 standing, or any other questions they want to raise 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
with the Board, we'll go into the issue of standing.
2 (No response.)
3 All right.
Hearing nothing, Mr. Epstein, 4
you would be up first.
You have 15 minutes, and what 5
portion of that would you like to save for your 6
rebuttal after hearing from the staff and from PPL 7
Susquehanna?
8 MR. EPSTEIN:
Well, whatever the residual 9
amount is.
I'm going to use the 15 minutes to discuss 10 the Big Rock case --
Vermont Yankee --
standing, and 11 outlining my contention.
So I'm at the mercy of 12 whatever time is left, sir.
13 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Okay.
All right, then.
14
- Then, you are you're up and whatever you 15 whenever you'd like to start speaking, please feel 16 free.
17 MR.
EPSTEIN:
I'd like to address the Big 18 Rock Point case that was raised in your memorandum.a 19
- And, frankly, I believe the difference in potential 20 risk between an operating reactor and an independent 21 spent fuel storage installation justifies treating the 22 present case consistent with established NRC 23 precedent.
24 Big Rock Point was a 67-megawatt boiling 25 water reactor which began operation in
'65, as we'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
10 1
all aware closed in
'96 prematurely.
That plant was 2
shut in '97.
Much different than the current request 3
we're looking at.
In addition, PPL offered as a 4
reference to defeat my standing the Georgia Tech 5
Research reactor case of '95.
6 I
would just point out that the 7
Susquehanna plant is neither passive or retired.
This 8
is an EPU request to increase thermal power.
I think 9
it's a much more significant issue in terms of risk to 10 the local community.
11 When looking at the decision, one of the 12 things that the Judges noted was that this was a
13 passive structure that was clearly different than an 14 operating reactor, and I would just reiterate that 15 Susquehanna is the 19th and 20th largest reactors in 16 the country.
17 Also, on reconsideration, the Judges noted 18 that the particular petitioner --
I believe his name 19 was Mr.
McManemy -- offered some fresh declarations 20 that he occasionally transverses the area in question.
21
- Frankly, I think the Court got it right, basically, 22 based on the representation.
Mr. McManemy's argument 23 was patently defective to confer standing.
24
- However, in this case, on the face of it, 25 does not alter the standing requirement for a person 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
like myself that live or work within 10 to 50 miles of 2
an operating reactor.
If the necessary declarations 3
are made, and I believe I've made them, for standing, 4
by someone like myself living in close proximity to 5
the harm, which is the reactor, or regularly working 6
in that area.
7 I know PPL had stipulated in the response 8
to me, page 6, footnote 7, that I did just commute to 9
my work space.
I'd like to clarify that I don't run 10 back and forth to my work space.
I actually work 11 there for long durations of time.
In addition, I
12 think I've clearly established that I have business 13 and familial interest at the cusp as well as well 14 within the 50-mile zone.
15 In addition, on that case I noticed the 16 Court, you know, addressed Mr.
McManemy's sporadic 17 visits. I'd just reiterate the fact that I'm born and 18 raised in this area.
I lived within 50 miles of the 19 plant from '83 to '88 when I was a resident of Perry 20 County.
I still work and parent in the area.
I'll 21 likely die in the area.
And I spelled out my work 22 schedule on my petition on page 6.
23 And not to overdo standing, I would just 24 defer to the previous decision made by the prior panel 25 on relicensing in which they said, I quote, "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
12 1
however, find *that the Petitioner Epstein has made 2
sufficient showing to establish standing for himself 3 under the proximity presumption."
4 1 can assure everyone that there has been 5
no material change. in my status since the decision.
6 I have gained some weight, but I'm the same person.
7 Based on case law precedent, and the fact that neither 8
the staff or PPL challenge that standing decision, I'd 9
ask that you admit me and determine that I have 10 established standing for the present case.
11 I would also point out a number of issues 12 related to my personal
- interest, just for 13 clarification.
obviously, this case has was use 14 implications on the middle and lower Susquehanna.
15 obviously, it has implications on water quality.
I 16 also believe that the 2001 recapture uprate is not 17 resolved.
I think PPL is moving forward, and that 18 particular case has not been resolved, frankly.
19 In my research, I have never found a PPL 20 application that had been filed for surface-water 21 withdrawal or mitigation requirements.
There is no 22 evidence that an application was filed, reviewed, or 23 approved, by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission. on 24 their 2001 uprate.
So, frankly, I think that case is 25 still in abeyance, and there is a real potential that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-44 33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
13 1
they're out of compliance as they're filing for this 2
additional uprate.
3 In addition, I think this is potentially 4
a bad precedent that would allow other utilities like 5
AmerGen and TMI to circumvent state and federal 6
regulations.
And, finally, the Susquehanna, as most 7
of you know, was a designated endangered river as of 8
2005 and is frequently challenged by
- flooding, 9
draught, and acid mine drainage.
10 On the Vermont Yankee ruling, the 316 11 ruling, my challenge really is not focused on 316(a) 12 or (b),
but I'll address the three elements briefly.
13 They -- quote -- said, "We do not share the majority's 14 concern that the Commission cannot legitimately rely 15 on a state permit which expires only five years into 16 the 20-year renewal period."
17 I think that supports my argument that PPL 18 cannot subvert existing state statutes or assume 19 compliance based on grandfathered SRBC regs.
The 20 second element of that decision was, "We conclude the 21 Vermont Environmental Court stay is irrelevant to the 22 issue now before us."
I think this supports my logic 23 that resubmission by PPL would not be untimely, and 24 further suggest that this issue may need to be 25 revisited after it is resolved by the EPA or judicial 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
resolution.
2 In
- fact, staff, in their reply to my 3
- petition, argued quote
". As a
result of the 4
Second Circuit's opinion, the EPA has advised that the 5
rule should be considered suspended.
Thus, inherent 6
in this context within the scope of this proceeding, 7
the licensee is not required to comply with the 8
suspended rule.
As
- such, the contention is 9
inadmissible as it has no basis in fact."
10 I would argue that the ruling doesn't mean 11 316 has disappeared, or PPL will not have to be 12 compliant with federal mandates.
Only the timing for 13 compliance has changed.
And, frankly, the impact of 14 the delay, for PPL is negligible, since the anticipated 15 project completion date, as of the NRC's website this 16 morning, was January 2008.
And there is really no 17 hurry, since the licenses don't expire until 2023 and 18 2025.
19 You know, at the end of the day, absent 20 artificial corporate deadlines, there is no rush to 21 get the uprate completed prior to EPA's resolution of 22 the rule.
And finally, in this case, the Commission 23 ruled.
24 And, finally, under Commission precedent, 25 the pendency of the appeal of the Vermont 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
Environmental Court and any resulting uncertainty as 2
to the permit status are not relevant here.
I am not 3
challenging the permit.
I'm seeking to include an 4
evaluation of the update on Act 220 and the 5
Susquehanna River Basin Commission's 803.42 and 6
803.44.
7 Moving quickly to the contentions, I
8 would --
9 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
10 Let's deal with we're supposed to deal with 11 standing first.
12 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Okay.
13 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
You kind of --
14 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Oh, I'm sorry.
15 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
moseyed over into the
- 16.
merits as it were, so --
17 MR.
EPSTEIN:
No, I
didn't know if you 18 wanted me to do everything at once.
19 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
No, no, no,. no.
- Well, 20 let's take the standing first, and then we'll take 21 each one of the contentions individually.
22 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Okay.
23 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
So don't to keep 24 everything sort of clear here in terms of what we're 25 talking about.
You've taken about a little over five 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
- minutes, so let's assume it's about five minutes on 2
standing.
Let me --
do you have anything else you 3
want to say on the issue of standing, your standing?
4 MR.
EPSTEIN:
No.
5 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Okay.
Let me, then, turn 6
to PPL first and see what Mr.
Lewis has to say.
7 MR.
LEWIS:
Thank you, Judge Bollwerk.
8 This is Mr.
Lewis.
9 Mr.
Epstein noted that we have not 10 challenged the prior standing determination.
We did 11 PPL did oppose Mr.
Epstein's standing in that 12 proceeding.
We did not appeal the Licensing Board's 13 decision, because we could not.
It was a favorable 14 decision, dismissing his hearing request.
So there 15 was no opportunity for PPL to appeal the standing 16 determination in that proceeding.
One does not appeal 17 a favorable decision because one is not aggrieved.
18 We do believe that --
and maintain that 19 Mr. Epstein does not have standing.
All reliance is 20 placed principally on the Commission's guidance in the 21 PFS case, CL198-1348, NRC
- 26.
And in there the 22 Commission held that standing doesnot depend on the 23 precise number of visits.
This is a case that relates 24 not to a petitioner that resides within 50 miles but 25 one who is claiming standing based on visits 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
17 1
area.
2 Rather, the Commission indicated that it's 3
the visits' length and nature.
Do they establish a 4
bond between the Petitioner, an ongoing connection, 5
and sufficient presence with the area?
That is the 6
test.
7 And so simply the fact that Mr. Epstein 8
has indicated a number of days he may be in Allentown, 9
which is approximately 50 miles away, or in some other 10 towns, because he's a member of a board of directors, 11 is not a sufficient allegation.
It does not establish 12 the requisite bond, the requisite sufficient presence 13 and connection with the area.
14 in the PFS case, the Commission gave as an 15 example a
woman who lived at the reservation 16 periodically.
She had relatives there that she came 17 and cared for, and she was also there for child care.
18 And the Commission indicated that was a real bond with 19 the area.
20 Mr. Epstein had also cited a Georgia Power 21 case where an intervenor had a home that he didn't 22 reside at all the time within 50 miles of the plant, 23 but he lived there about one week a month.
So about 24 25 percent he was actually living at a home that he 25 owned in the vicinity.
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
Those are cases where there's a real bond, 2
a real connection, a real ongoing presence, not 3
occasional visits.
And I submit to you that if 4
standing can be created simply by occasional visits, 5
- then, in
- essence, anybody has standing simply by 6
traveling to the vicinity of a plant occasionally.
7 I would submit to you that anybody who 8
travels north/south on any of the Pennsylvania 9
highways could claim standing.
And what this really 10 means is that Mr. Epstein, by occasionally traveling 11 to other towns, can act much as a private attorney 12 general in any proceeding by simply claiming, "I
13 travel to other towns, and, therefore, I have standing 14 to intervene in any proceeding relating to a reactor 15 in those areas, even though I don't live within 50 16 miles of them."
17 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
So this is Judge 18 Bollwerk if I
understand your argument,
- then, 19 you're saying that the 50-mile presumption, assuming 20 it applies, only applies to those who reside within an 21 area?
It does not apply to those who, for instance, 22 travel into the area, who work in the area, who 23 recreate in the area?
I mean, where -- what --
I just 24 want to understand the scope of your argument, I
25 guess.
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
MR.
LEWIS:
The 50-mile presumption does 2
apply to people who live within the area.
3 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Right.
4 MR.
LEWIS:
A 50-mile presumption may 5
apply to individuals who frequent the area but don't 6
reside there, if, under this PFS decision, they can 7
establish, by demonstrating their visits' length and 8
nature, that those visits establish a real bond, an 9
ongoing connection, and a sufficient presence in the 10 area.
11 So it is a matter of discretion, it is a
12 matter for the Board to rule, you know, where to draw 13 the line.
But I think that the Commission guidance is 14 occasionally visits are not enough.
It has to be the 15 sort of frequent, ongoing, more than one day visits 16 that establish a real presence, bonding, connection 17 with the 50-mile area.
18 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
19 MR.
LEWIS:
And I'll stop there.
20 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Let's see 21 what, then, the NRC staff has to say on this issue.
22 MR.
SUBIN:
Yes.
Lloyd Subin from OGC.
23 I'd like to go a
step further and argue that he 24 doesn't have standing.
And I'm going to use the Big 25 Rock case where we're getting guidance I think 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
20 1
from the Commission, which says NRC. Licensing Board 2
and the Commission itself have recognized proximity
- 3.
standing at such distances where a
petitioner 4
frequently engages in substantial business and related 5
activities in the vicinity of the facility, engages in 6
- normal, everyday activities in the vicinity, has 7
regular and frequent contacts in the area near a 8
licensed facility or otherwise has visits of length 9
and nature showing an ongoing connection and presence.
10 And then, it goes on to talk about mere occasional 11 trips to areas located close to reactors they're not 12 looking for.
13 I don't believe Mr.
Epstein has told us 14 that he has frequent --
I think everything he cited is 15 more of a sporadic type of visiting.
He is there on 16 a business nature maybe a couple of days a month at 17 best.
A number of the sites that he cited to us, the 18 areas are actually more than 50 miles, as best we can 19
- tell, from the site.
And, therefore, we believe that 20 these are just sporadic visits.
It doesn't meet the 21 frequency and the regular contacts that the Board --
22 the Commission is looking for.
23 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Which ones do you believe 24 are more than 50 miles?
This is Judge Bollwerk.
25 MR.
SUBIN:
I don't remember offhand.
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
21 1
looked --
if I'm not --
I'm not sure if Allentown was 2
even within the 50 miles, unless it was a place that 3
was at the end of Allentown.
And I didn't --
I didn't 4
do exact dates.
I don't know his --
I didn't use, 5
let's
- say, his address and use an address in 6
Allentown.
But a number of these things we Googled, 7
and they appeared to be over 50 miles from --
in one 8
case, it was about 76 miles.
9 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
- Well, 10 anything --
Mr.
- Epstein, you get your chance in a
11 second.
Is there anything else from the staff?
12 MR.
SUBIN:
No, that's it.
13 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Now, sir.
14 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Yes.
- Well, first, let me 15 respond to PPL.
Basically, they said they were not 16 aggrieved.
So if they're not aggrieved, then they 17 weren't aggrieved by the fact that I was conferred 18 standing in the last issue.
19
- And, again, they're relying on the PFS 20 case, which I believe is spent fuel storage in the 21 Georgia Power case, which is, you know, again, smaller 22 reactors.
But let me get to the heart of this issue, 23 which is the length,
- nature, and duration of my 24 visits.
I live here.
I'm 56 miles from the plant.
25 That's where I live.
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
I penetrate the veil every day just by 2
going to Grantville or Halifax or, you know, taking my 3
daughter up to the Appalachians to walk the trail.
4 This is a daily routine.
I'm 47.
I've been born and 5
raised here.
6 The Board may speak about I've been on for 7
eight years and will continue to serve on.
The length 8
and nature of my visits the PUC mandates, and whenever 9
we convene a meeting I have to be there at least three 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />.
That's a mandate.
I don't have a choice.
And 11 that's in addition to driving.
12 By the
- way, if anybody was paying 13 attention this winter, I-78 was actually shut down for 14 a day and a half.
So I guess that could be considered 15 also piercing the veil.
At any rate, my problem with 16 the argument from both the PPL and NRC is that these 17 are arguments coming from people that aren't here.
18 I'm here every day.
I pierce the veil 19 every day.
I work here every day.
You know, I was 20 just recently up in Scranton.
I'm going to Hazleton 21 next week.
I mean, these are well within 25 miles of 22 the plant.
23 So I'm not really sure that we need to get 24 bogged down in what "occasional" and "regular" are.
25 After 47 years of living here, I think I've pretty NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrqross.com
23 1
much established that I
not only lived a little 2
outside the zone, I've actually lived inside the zone.
3 But I'll be here forever.
I have a mortgage, I parent 4
here.
I don't think there's any question that I have 5
a vested interest.
You know, I don't know what else 6
to say when it comes to occasional and regular visits.
7 But just about every day, just to go and shop, I
8 pierce the veil.
9 In terms of the areas not being inside the 10 50 miles, that's nonsense.
I don't know what Google 11 says or how reliable Google is, but I believe I 12 referred to Hazleton, Scranton, very, very close.
My 13 office is on the northwest side of Allentown 14 actually, not Allentown itself.
It's in the 50-mile 15 zone, as is Fogelsburg.
16 So, you know, frankly, as someone who was 17 born and lived here, I'm kind of taken aback by 18 someone who is not from here telling me I don't live 19 within the zone of interest.
- However, that's a 20 subjective emotion, and I'll just leave it at that.
21 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
When you say "your 22 office," you're talking about the organization that 23 you work for, I take it?
24 MR.
EPSTEIN:
- Yes, 986 Postal Road in 25 Allentown.
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
JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Okay.
And if you could 2
tell us, what does that organization do?
3 MR. EPSTEIN:
The Sustainable Energy Fund 4
is a
quasi-public/private entity.
It's an 5
environmental finance entity that essentially loans 6
money for alternative energy projects.
It was created 7
out of a settlement with PPL in 1998 in which the 8
company that Mr.
Lewis represents was a party to.
9 So we have assets right now of about 10
$25 million.
We vet loans, and, in fact, we basically 11 only, loan -- our mandate is to loan and interact.with 12 people within the 29-county PPL rate base.
So much of 13 the business activity we do, not all of it, but most 14 of it has to be within 50 miles of the plant.
15 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
In terms of the meetings 16 that you spoke of, you've indicated in your pleading, 17 I guess there is about approximately a half dozen a 18 month?
19 MR. EPSTEIN:
It depends on the frequency.
20 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Right.
21 MR.
EPSTEIN:
And it depends on the 22 timing.
There is more meetings when we have a PRI, 23 which is a request for program investment.
And when 24 that occurs, there is normally an overnight stay 25 required, because we're lending money and we take 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
25 1
obligation seriously.
2 But, yes, that's the average.
It can be 3
more and it can be less, and that's just for the Board 4
meetings.
5 I was recently in Scranton to speak on 6
behalf --
not on behalf, but with Conoco, and I've 7
been in Hazleton to deal with some other personal 8
issues.
So those are --
what I did is I just went to 9
my date book and got you the dates that I knew I would 10 be--
11 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
.Yes.
12 MR. EPSTEIN:
50 miles within the area.
13 I
didn't give you the time when I
hiked the 14 Appalachian Trails or when I
go grocery shopping, 15 because I thought that was unnecessary.
16 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
So the meetings are 17 associated with that organization, then.
18 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Yes.
19 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Okay.
I'm sorry.
20 Go ahead.
Judge Cole.
21 JUDGE COLE:
- Yes, Judge Cole here.
Mr.
22 Epstein, you listed five cities 23 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Yes.
24 JUDGE COLE:
visited Allentown, 25 Conyngham, Fogelsville --
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
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Right.
JUDGE COLE:
Hazleton, and Scranton.
MR.
EPSTEIN:
Right.
JUDGE COLE:
And my perusal of the map indicates that three of those are 47, 45, and almost 50 miles from the plant.
MR.
EPSTEIN:
That's correct.
JUDGE COLE:
And when you talked about Hazleton, you said you handled a personal matter in Hazleton.
MR.
EPSTEIN:
Well, Hazleton, I have --
I have a close friend in Hazleton.
JUDGE COLE:
Okay.
But are most of your business trips associated with the three larger cities there -- Allentown, Scranton, and Fogelsville --.
that you mentioned?
MR.
EPSTEIN:
- Yes, depending on who the Chairman of the Board is.
Right now, that would be the cycle.
Frankly, a lot is at the discretion of the Chairman of the Board.
JUDGE COLE:
Yes.
Now, the two closest cities that you mentioned, the closest to the plant --
Hazleton, about 15 miles --
MR.
EPSTEIN:
Yes.
JUDGE COLE:
and Conyngham --
how often 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
do you get there on business trips?
2 MR.
EPSTEIN:
It kind of depends.
Right 3
- now, I get there more frequently than I would like, 4
because the Chairman of the Board resides in that 5
area.
So 6
JUDGE COLE:
Hazleton or Conyngham?
7 MR. EPSTEIN:
Both.
He is from Conyngham, 8
and Hazleton is we convene meetings at the Penn State 9
campus in Hazleton normally for finance, but sometimes 10 for PRI.
11 JUDGE COLE:
So a consideration, at least 12 as I see it
-- and you can debate it is the quality 13 time you spend close to the plant.
But most of your 14 time is spent at the 50-mile perimeter or just inside 15 the perimeter.
Do you think that that qualifies as 16 the proximity qualification?
17 MR. EPSTEIN:
- Yes, I think it's consistent 18 with the letter of the law and NRC precedent.
I don't 19 quibble with 10 or 50 miles.
I think it
-- the law is 20 pretty black letter when it comes to that.
21 JUDGE COLE:
All right, sir.
Thank you.
22 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Let me just check.
Judge 23 Rubenstein, do you have anything you wanted to talk --
24 ask him?
25 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
I'm interested in 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
28 1
he thinks those peripheral areas create a bond to the 2
plant.
3 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Those peripheral areas?
4 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Yes.
5 MR.
EPSTEIN:
- Well, the whole 29-county 6
rate base is a bond.
Those are just the places that 7
I have to attend, and I do attend for business.
8 I'm from the area.
I'm from South Central 9
I mean, I've had a bond here all my 10 life.
That is the bond that I'm dealing with for the 11
-- just I guess to establish standing, but it doesn't 12 mean I don't have any other established bonds, or I 13 don't make any other visits.
I'm unable to tell you 14 with any degree of preciseness when exactly I'm going 15 to be in Shamokin or Pottsville or any other areas 16 close.
17 So, I mean, I'm from here.
You know, if 18 you're going to argue that you have to be, you know, 19 within 10 or 25 miles, you know, perhaps that is a
20 valid argument.
But, you know, on a regular daily, if 21 not weekly, basis, I just pierce the veil.
I don't 22 know what else to tell you, because when we have these 23 meetings they are usually no less than three hours, 24 and I have to spend anywhere from an hour to an hour 25 and a half to get there.
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
- However, when I'm looking at a project, 2
the projects are well within the 50-mile area.
So I 3
think I have a bond not only to the plant, but to the 4
electric the plant generates and the customers and the 5
citizens in the area.
6 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Anything 7
other Board members have, then, at this point?
8 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Not in this area.
9 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Okay.
All right. Let's, 10 then, move on to Technical Contention 1, which is, if 11 I could summarize, basically an assertion that PPL 12 failed to consider the impact of its proposed uprate 13 on water usage.
14 And I recognize, Mr. Epstein, you sort of 1i talked about this a
little bit before, but if you'd 16 like to give, again, another summary of your basic 17 argument in this area --
18 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Sure.
19 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
it would be useful to 20 the Board.
Thank you.
21 MR. EPSTEIN:
Okay.
And I'm just going to 22 take from the NRC playbook where that -- you asked for 23 a brief explanation of the basis of the contention.
24 And the crux of what I'm arguing is that state and 25 federal regulations which may impact, constrict, or NEAL R.. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
3.0 1
restrict waterf low, water use, and cooling systems at 2
the plant can possibly lead to health and safety 3
challenges for local communities, have not been 4
properly vetted or integrated in the uprate 5
evaluation.
6 And I notice Mr. Lewis stated in his reply 7
in Section 3.121 of PPL's environmental
- report, 8
"Reflects the fact that with updated conditions we 9
will have to change the approval that we need with 10 respect to the maximum amount of water we will be 11 consuming."
12
- However, acknowledging the need for a 13 change does not guarantee and PPL has not 14 established that it will receive such approval.
And 15 the issue raised in the contention in my mind within 16 the scope of the proceedings are safety-related 17 omissions and a failure to coordinate with Act 220 and 18 SRBC 803.42 and 803.44.
19 In terms of a direct relationship with the 20 river, because I think that was the crux of PPL's 21
- argument, PPL has stated that the pond requires 22 replenishment from the Susquehanna River.
And if you 23 just look at the tech specs, assuming the makeup pond 24 requires.36 million gallons per day and evaporates 25
.065 gallons a day, there is a nexus -- a direct nexus 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
daily of about 300,000 gallons.
So it's difficult for 2
PPL to argue its consumption has no relationship to 3
plant cooling, the state of the river, groundwater 4
supplies, or aquatic life.
5 I believe this issue is material to the 6
proceeding, inasmuch as water use and consumption, 7
water supply and water chemistry, have a direct and 8
indirect relationship with safety-related components, 9
plant cooling, and are intimately connected to the 10-health and safety of the river and the local 11 community.
12
- Now, PPL, you know, points out that the 13 spray pond is a safety component.
The NRC and PPL, as 14 do I, are concerned with cooling towers in the makeup 15 systems.
However, the NRC's reactor oversight process 16 uses performance indicators to track scrams and power 17 changes of 20 percent or more.
Each scram or power 18 change creates a safety challenge.
19 So a station has to make generation 20 reductions based on compliance with water use 21 restrictions, SRBC 803.42 and 803.44, or water budget 22 restrictions consistent with Act 220, and those water 23 conditions cause scrams or power reductions, and I 24 don't believe it's accurate or factually correct to 25 segregate generation from safety.
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
If PPL has to shut the plant to reduce 2
power, then alternative systems and backups are also 3
shutter challenge.
PPL would then be testing the 4
safety and emergency core cooling system.
5 Essentially, there is no separate imaginary fence 6
between generation and safety.
7 And I guess the crux of that argument is 8
seasonal flow, Act 220, SRBC regs, may make the amount 9
of power for generation unreliable.
So frequent power 10 decreases in scram show up as safety indicators in the 11 ROP and put stress on the system.
The NRC doesn't 12 compile generation indicators.
It analyzes safety 13 indicators like scrams and power reductions.
The 14 uprate clearly has the potential to create safety 15 challenges.
16 I just think we need to tear down this 17 fictional fence that PPL and the NRC have created 18 between power generation and safety.
I believe I have 19 established a nexus between safety and generation and 20 defeated PPL's argument, "Mr.
Epstein provides no 21 basis to assume the plant surface water withdrawals 22 will be restricted or the possibility is material to 23 the licensing."
24 However, PPL cannot produce any evidence 25 that water use or consumption will be -- will not be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.oom o
33 1
restricted, no evidence whatsoever, and PPL 2
acknowledges an increase in consumptive use will be 3
required.
4 In
- addition, as I
pointed
- out, the 5
Susquehanna steam electric station may. already be out 6
of compliance with their initial uprate of 1.4 percent 7
in 2001.
So, basically, the facts we're looking at 8
are Act 220 of 2002, which mandates the DER to update 9
the state water plan by 2008, "The Environmental 10 Quality Board will adopt regulations addressing water 11 use registration, period reporting, and 12 recordkeeping."
And the DEP is authorized "to enforce 13 the Act."
It also establishes the duty of any person 14 to proceed diligently in complying with orders of DEP.
15 And
- then, as you're probably
- aware, 16 Sections 803.42 and 803.44 of the basic commission 17 regard relate to approval and reporting 18 requirements for surface water withdrawal.
The 19 existing permits that Susquehanna has predate the 20 surface water withdrawal requirement the basic 21 commission now resides over.
22 The concise statement of facts are similar 23 to the argument I just made before, and I would just 24 add that, you know, PPL does acknowledge the need for 25 increased and consumptive water use, and you can'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
34 1
guarantee it will be available for generation or pond
.2 purposes based on grandfathered regs.
3 Again, to go over the issue of support or 4
sufficient information, you know, my argument is that 5
PPL had acts of omission, and the NRC's continual 6
insistence on mischaracterizing state water use 7
regulation as "anticipated events" do not cure the 8
safety problems that I raise.
9 And that's a
brief synopsis of 10 Contention 1, or Tl.
11 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Anything else 12 you want to say about Tl at this point?
13 MR.
EPSTEIN:
No.
14 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
- Then, let's 15 turn to PPL.
16 MR.
LEWIS:
Thank you, Judge Bollwerk.
17 This is David Lewis.
It's hard responding to Mr.
18 Epstein's assertions, because they are really all over 19 the place.
But I think the gist of what I heard was 20 that PPL will need an approval to increase its 21 consumptive use and approval by the Savannah -- sorry, 22 the Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
23 And I would submit to you that that is 24 true, but it's irrelevant.
On page 18 of our answer, 25 we cited the Commission's case law that indicated 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
35 1
nuclear plant operations may depend on other state 2
permits that are required for water discharges, and I 3
submit a water consumption is no different.
4 But it's not the job of the NRC to 5
.litigate whether another agency is going to grant 6
permits that are solely within the agency's 7
jurisdiction.
If we don't have a permit to withdraw 8
water, then we need -- then, we would not be able to 9
operate, and there would be no safety issue.
10 If we do get the permit that we need, we 11 will have the water, and there will be no safety 12 issue.
In any event, you know, whether we get that 13 permit or not is a matter that is
-- will be resolved 14 by the SRBC, and the Commission has indicated the 15 Board should construe the scope of their authority to 16 avoid, wherever possible, litigating the issues within i7 the primary responsibility of another agency.
18 And that while water permits may be 19 necessary for a
nuclear plant to
- operate, NRC 20 licensing is not dependent on those permits.
You 21
- know, whether those permits are obtained will be 22 determined by the agencies that grant those permits.
23 So that really is the main response to 24 this contention.
25 Mr. Epstein is also arguing that there may 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
36 1
be increased scrams and safety challenges.
His whole 2
argument simply ignores the design of the plant and 3
the presence of an ultimate heat sink, which in 4
essence provides a source of water that is sufficient 5
to provide cooling for both units over a
30-day 6
period, and not only provides cooling over the 30-day 7
period but accommodate a design basis/loss of coolant 8
accident at one unit, bring both units to a cold 9
shutdown, and maintain that over a 30-day period.
10 The NRC licensed the plant based on the 11 sufficiency of that ultimate heat sink.
And as a 12 result, the river intake and the Susquehanna River is 13 simply not relied on as a safety-related system.
It 14 does provide long-term makeup, and. it does provide 15 long-term water for the cooling towers for generation.
16 But it is not a source that is needed 17 every moment for safety.
And as a result, Mr. Epstein 18 is simply not raising a contention that relates to the 19 design and licensing basis of the Susquehanna plant.
20 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
This is Judge 21 Rubenstein.
Are there technical specification 22 constraints on the water supply to the UHS?
23 MR.
LEWIS:
Yes, Judge.
24 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Could you expand on 25 that?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross mm
37 1
MR.
LEWIS:
There is a requirement that 2
the spray pond -- the ultimate heat sink is an eight-3 acre spray pond that contains 25 million gallons of 4
- water, at least 25 million gallons.
In
- fact, it 5
normally contains more.
6 The technical specifications establish a 7
minimum water level measured a height above mean sea 8
level, and that level has to be checked twice a day.
9 If the level drops below the required elevation, then 10 there are action statements.
Let me see if I have 11 those.
12 The water level has to be maintained at 13 678.1 feet MSL, and has to be checked once every 12 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br />.
That's tech spec 4.7.1.3.
If the spray pond 15 is not operable, the plant is required to go to cold 16 shutdown within 24
- hours, and that's tech spec 17 3.7.1.3.
18 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Are these independent 19 of any subsequent water availability decisions that 20 may be made?
21 MR. LEWIS:
I'm not sure I understand your 22 question, Judge Rubenstein.
Could you --
23 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Are the tech specs and 24 the minimum water supply and the ultimate heat sink 25 independent of what water may be available from 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
38 1
Susquehanna?
In other words, if you don't meet your 2
tech spec requirements 3
MR.
LEWIS:
The tech specs do not depend 4
on the river intake being operable.
They don't depend 5
on having a source of makeup for the ultimate heat 6
sink.
They only depend on, do you have the requisite 7
volume of water, as determined by the height of the 8
water in that reservoir, to meet the 30-day cooling 9
requirement, the ability to bring both plants to cold 10 shutdown and maintain that for a 30-day period and 11 handle a LOCA.
12 And by the way, that amount of volume in 13 the UHS is also sufficient to maintain spent fuel 14 cooling over that 30-day period, too.
15 This approach that the NRC takes of 16 requiring a 30-day supply of water in an ultimate heat 17 sink has always been the NRC's approach in the 18 standard review plan and in their regulatory guide.
19 So this is the NRC's safety standard.
It's reflected 20 in Reg. Guide 1.127, and in NRC's standard review plan 21 in SRP Section 9.2.5.
22 Those sections indicate that what is 23 required for the plant is a 30-day supply of water.
24 I think there has always been a recognition that in 25 the longer run you may need additional water for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE'ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrqross.com W
39 1
But if you can handle a
2 disruption for 30 days, and bring the plants to a cold 3
- shutdown, the volume of water that you need for 4
residual heat removal in the long run is
- much, much 5
smaller, and is not a safety issue.
It's not hard to 6
find a source at that point to supply RHR.
7 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Thank you.
8 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Judge Cole, 9
do you have anything?
10 JUDGE COLE:
I have no questions.
11 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Anything else on this 12 one, Mr. Lewis?
13 MR.
LEWIS:
No, Judge Bollwerk.
14 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Let me turn, 15 then, to the NRC staff.
16 MR.
SUBIN:
Yes.
To be brief, the only 17 thing that we would have to add is that, again, we 18 don't believe that the contention is related to the 19 uprate.
I don't think he raises anything that is 20 something that we would be responsible for.
21 And I turn again --
I would turn to the 22 Commission, the Commission's memorandum and order on 23 the Vermont Yankee, where they have said that we 24 shouldn't be second-guessing we should not be 25 second-guessing and looking at whether EPA or 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 J
40 1
state regulatory agencies do.
They do their job, and 2
we do ours.
3 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right. Anything from 4
either of the Board members for the staff?
5 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
No.
6 JUDGE COLE:
No.
7 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
- Then, let's 8
go back to Mr. Epstein.
Given what you've heard, sir, 9
what additional information do you want to provide us?
10 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Well, I would just point out 11 a couple of things.
First of all, the Susquehanna 12 River Basin Commission is not state.
It's a unique 13 federal basin commission, and I think we all need to 14 recognize we're living in a
different regulatory 15 world.
Pennsylvania is now deregulated, so there was 16 no PUC hearing.
And a lot of these events are not 17 occurring in isolation.
18 You still need a
permit to increase 19 surface water withdrawal.
You still need to address 20 what happens when the spray pond dips below certain 21 levels.
You still need to assure the spray pond and 22 the heat sink don't suffer from aging problems, and 23 that there aren't any problems with leakage from the 24 pond.
25 So there's a number of issues that are 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
41 1
there, and, you know, I would just say that I'm still 2
disturbed that nobody has really addressed from PPL 3
the fact that they didn't even go through this process 4
for their uprate in 2001.
So we still may have an 5
issue before us that hasn't been addressed.
6 So what I'm saying is I don't think taking 7
additional time to examine coordinating with DEP or 8
the Susquehanna River Basin Commission is really going 9
to be an undue hardship on the NRC or PPL.
10 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Anything 11 either of the Board members have?
Go ahead, Judge 12 Rubenstein.
13 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
I don't know if this is 14 a good time, Judge Bollwerk.
Both PPL and the staff 15 in their briefs -- and in some of the discussion this 16 morning --
have addressed the lack of citations in 17 specific sections of the SAR, the Safety Analysis 18
- Report, or the license application, and the 19 environmental
- report, and deficiencies in those 20 sections, and the basis for challenging their content.
21 And I'd like to focus on it just a little 22 bit with Mr.
Epstein.
23 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Sure.
24 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Okay.
Okay.
Let's 25 discuss for --
of course, we're --
much of what I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
f202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com J *v v
42 1
underlying the discussion so far on Contention 1 is:
2 a) it's not in the scope of the NRC, and it's not in 3
the scope, in particular, of this hearing, which is in 4
particular focused on the extended power uprate.
5 Okay.
Let's in particular, let's 6
discuss the Commission's review criteria for the EPU 7
license amendments.
Mr. Epstein, are you acquainted 8
with the NRC standard review plan NUREG-0800?
9 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Yes.
10 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Are you acquainted with 11 review standard 001?
12 MR. EPSTEIN:
Yes, but I haven't --
that's 13 not committed to memory.
14 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
- Well, let me help you.
15 You're aware of the document, and you know that NRC 16 issued a review standard for extended power uprates, 17 RS-001, in December 2003.
Are you acquainted with the 18
- document, or would you like me to do a
little 19 refreshing, so --
to help you?
20 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Refresh away.
21 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Well, the standard is 22 the first-of-a-kind document and provides a
23 comprehensive process and technical guidance for 24 reviews by the NRC staff.
And it provides useful 25 information to the licensees on what to consider 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
43 1
applying for an extended uprate.
2 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Right.
3 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
And this is something 4
that the NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 5
endorsed as an excellent review standard for extended 6
And what they did was they compared --
7 they created the review standard by including an 8
evaluation of the basic standard review plan, NUREG-9
- 0800, and the basically, to determine the 10 applicability and the adequacy of the various standard 11 review plan sections that the review of an EPU 12 application and a developed and revised guidance as 13 necessary.
14 So, in effect, this says this is the scope 15 of the staff's review, in particular for an extended 16 power uprate.. And the purpose of this, which you may 17 or may not recall, but let me help you a little bit --
18 and this is from like page 5 of the review standard --
19 the purpose is to provide guidance to the Nuclear 20 Regulatory Commission staff's review of extended power 21 applications to enhance consistency, quality, and --
22 I'm going back --
and completeness of reviews.
23 This in a way defies the scope of the 24 review of a safety analysis or a license application 25 for an EPU.
The review standard also, in the same NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
44 1 way, provides the boundaries for the licensees to 2,
guidance documents the staff uses *for --
for them in 3
saying, "This is how we review an EPU application.'
4 And, in particular, they also provide acceptance
.5 criteria for the areas of review.
.6 So, in essence, it tells the, license 7
applicant, for this amendment in particular, how to 8
prepare their safety analysis
- report, and it 9
establishes the areas within the staff's scope of 10 review, and to some degree within the Licensing 11 Board's scope.
12 And we discussed a little bit about the 13 review standard requires the licensee to identify 14 differences between the design basis and the 15 information and review standard.
So what we have is 16 a number of contentions which are being challenged on 17 these kinds of things.
18 Now, let me get fairly specific, a nd I'm 19 going to move on to some of your other areas. Let me 20 check in here.
21 MR. EPSTEIN: Do you want me to deal with 22 what you've said now or later?
23 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN: Well, I haven't gotten 24 specific yet.
25 MR. EPSTEIN:
Yes, but I --
before we 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
45 1
- specific, I'd like to address some of the generic 2
issues you raised, if that's okay.
3 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Okay.
By all means.
4 MR.
EPSTEIN:
- Yes, because I think what 5
you're talking about -- and I understand and respect 6
the fact --
is there is a standard review process and 7
generic scoping that create boundaries.
I would also 8
point out
- that, you
- know, that process cannot 9
anticipate all issues and challenges or concerns that 10 may arise at the site-specific facility.
11 And, you know, to the credit of the NRC 12 staff, they plainly said in their reply to me, "It's 13 impermissible for Petitioner to rely on generalized 14 suspicions and vague references to alleged events at 15 the facility, and equally unparticularized portions of 16 general studies providing no factual basis."
17 I think the difference here is that I'm 18 addressing, in seeking to clarify and define what I 19 believe to be the company's broad statements, factual 20 omissions, not commissions, but factual omissions, and 21 unique legal compliance events.
22 And I'm not here to oppose the uprate.
23 I'm not here to oppose the relationship.
I'm here to 24 add value and bring awareness to issues that have 25 fallen through the cracks.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
46 1
So I'm not here to challenge the process 2
or even call into question large portions of the 3
scoping and generic review that PPL and NRC has 4
undertaken.
And this may be a unique perspective for 5
the NRC.
I'm here to add value to the proposition, 6
point out some of the weaknesses and missing 7
components, Judge.
8 So, you know, I understand what you're 9
saying.
I'm clearly aware of that.
And, you know, my 10 argument is that I think I can add value to the uprate 11 by looking at some of these issues that seem to have 12 fallen through the unanticipated cracks.
13 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Well, you've clearly 14 added value to the Board discussion by intervening in 15 both the previous hearings on the license extension.
16 However, the limitations are fairly clear 17 in terms of scope.
For example, Section 3.2 of the 18 review standard sets out the templates for the safety 19 review for BWRs.
- And, for example, in that area, 20 insert 9,
they deal with the source term and 21 radiological consequence analysis.
And your 22 Contention 3 alludes to that.
23 Now, one of the problems and the reason I 24 brought up the standard review plan and the SRP and 25 the issue of scope is one of the ways --
one of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com
47 1
requirements for contention admission is that one goes 2
to the environmental report or the licensing 3
application and gets fairly specific on something that 4
they want to controvert.
And then, they provide a 5
basis for this.
6 So in each of the contentions I find a 7
little difficulty in trying to understand what you're 8
saying in terms of what is the specific staff 9
requirement, was it satisfied, how is it controverted.
10 So, you know, if we were --
if this was a lecture in 11 a class, I would say, for each contention, can you 12 demonstrate they are within the scope of the staff's 13 review by identifying which part of the Code of 14 Federal Regulations, or at least the review standard, 15 they do not satisfy.
16 So, you
- know, please reference the 17 applicable section of the SAR or ER that you take with 18 issue with and why.
So in the context of not 19 talking generally about value of your concern of 20 Susquehanna River and its basin, how would you answer 21 that kind of a question?
22 MR.
EPSTEIN:
I would answer it, and this 23 is hopefully, we have time here, because I'm a 24 former history professor with another question.
And 25 that question is:
because something doesn't exist 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 I
48 1
the premeditated scoping process, does that mean it 2
can't be raised?
3 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Oh, of course it can be 4
raised.
The NRC makes available under the 2.206 5
section of the regulations the ability, to say, "This 6
is inadequate."
7 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Yes, I've gone through the 8
- 2.
it's like a cat chasing its
- tail, though.
I 9
mean, there's a timeliness to the relicensing and the 10 uprate, and I'm raising issues that may not fit neatly 11 into the SER or provide exact cites for a basis for 12 contravention that may need a specific request.
13 I recognize and acknowledge that.
What 14 I'm saying is that there's omissions, and I'm raising 15 those issues, and I'm not sure where they fit in into 16 the process that you talked about.
But because they 17 don't because it's a
square peg perhaps in a
18 circular hole doesn't mean that they don't fit 19 somewhere.
20 And, you know, I don't have the mastery of 21 the document you do, sir. Frankly, I just thought the 22 issues, especially in T1 and T2, were acts of omission 23 rather than commission.
And rather than assigning 24 blame, I'd just ask PPL, and also the NRC, to review 25 the issues I raised.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
49 1
Look, I'm more than happy to do that.
In 2
fact, let's be frank, I offered to settle this before 3
we even started, so we could avoid the litigation.
4 But I'm simply looking for a way to redress some of 5
these
- issues, and. they don't neatly fall into 6
anybody's regulatory protocol.
7 There is no PUC hearing.
The SRBC is 8
after the fact.
DEP can't enforce their regs until 9
2008, but everybody knows they're out there.
So, you 10 know, I'm suspended in a regulatory freefall raising 11 these issues in this current proceeding.
12 If you guys decide this is not where they 13 go, then, you know, I'll continue to pursue them.
But 14 I think the point you raise is a valid point, you 15 know, and I don't know that you can anticipate every 16 safety challenge event or incident in a generic 17 scoping tool.
18 So, you know, my response may not satisfy 19 your curiosity.
It may raise more questions.
But I 20 think it's possible, and I've raised two technical 21 contentions that I feel need to be addressed and 22 perhaps there was little guidance or information for 23 either PPL or NRC to follow.
24 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Okay.
I appreciate 25 your views on 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
50 1
MR.
EPSTEIN:
Yes.
2 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Thank you.
3 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Sure.
4 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
I don't think 5
.there's anything else, then, on TCI.
Do either of the 6
Board members have --
Judge Cole?
7 JUDGE COLE:
- Yes, this is Judge Cole.
Mr.
8 Epstein?
9 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Yes.
10 JUDGE COLE:
There has been some serious 11 question raised about whether the issue you raise here 12 the water use issues are inside the scope of an 13 NRC review, and whether it's one of the things that we 14 have to consider 15 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Right.
16 JUDGE COLE:
whether to issue this 17 license.
And it deals with the SRBC and the 18 Department of Environmental Resources and whatever 19 their activities have to be with respect to providing 20 water for the plant.
21 But isn't that speculative?
We don't know 22
-- they're going to have to get those permits in order 23 to get the water.
If they don't get the permits, 24 they're not going to be able to do what they want to 25 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
51 1
MR.
EPSTEIN:
No, that's the point I'm 2
raising, Your Honor.
3 JUDGE COLE:
Is that a problem that we 4
have to address?
5 MR.
EPSTEIN:
- Well, I
think 6
JUDGE COLE:
Or is that a problem for the 7
plant?
8 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Well, no, but I think I
9 think that we have an uprate from 2001 that hasn't 10 gone through the vetting process, so we have a
11 precedent that that's not going to happen and that the 12 company could move forward.
So you can't presume 13 they're going to get those compliance permits, or 14 they're going to work with the new regulatory 15 protocols.
16 These are not unanticipated.
These are 17 things that have occurred --
first of all, the SRBC 18 protocols occurred after the initial license was 19 issued.
The Act 220 came out in
- 2002, so some of 20 these things are nuanced and, you know, this is the 21 first pathway that either the company or regulatory 22 entities are walking with these issues.
23 So I don't think it's clear-cut, and I 24 think you can assume that they're going to be granted 25 or not granted.
And what I'm saying is, look, let'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
52 1
have a dialogue with DEP.
Let's have a dialogue with 2
the Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Let's work 3
through this together.
Let's not deal with it in 4
isolation so that we create a tragic event where one, 5
you know, denial of a permit, you know, holds up the 6
whole works.
7 JUDGE COLE:
Who should have the dialogue?
8 MR.
EPSTEIN:
I think the NRC and the 9
Susquehanna River Basin Commission, which have begun 10 the dialogue, as PPL has begun the dialogue with the 11 Susquehanna River Basin Commission also.
I think we 12 need to get together in a room to clarify this issue.
13 I mean, and there's a number of issues out 14 there, and the Susquehanna River Basin Commission is 15 struggling with it also.
I mean, they have just 16 recently hired a nuclear engineer, because they have 17 three plants on the river.
So these are emerging 18 issues that don't fit neatly into anybody's protocol.
19 And what has always been of concern to me 20 is
- that, you know, we're not separate regulatory 21 moats.
You know, these issues can cross-cut.
I don't 22 think that's a bad thing.
23 JUDGE COLE:
All right, sir.
I understand 24 your position.
25 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
53 1
JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
I would only add, in 2
addition --
this is Judge Rubenstein --
in addition to 3
the 2.206, you can establish and request a rulemaking 4
on what the NRC's role in water supply ought to be.
5 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Can I be frank with you?
6 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Sure.
7 MR.
EPSTEIN:
I've done the 2.206 on 8
daycare, and it was a complete waste of time.
9 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
No, no, I didn't say 10 2.206.
11 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Yes.
And by that, you're 12 talking about the rulemaking, which I
did on 13 decommissioning.
And, look, and this is not a slam on 14 anybody.
There's a degree of frustration on this, 15 because I live here and have been here all my life and 16 lived through Three Mile Island.
So we --
again, I'm 17 trying to work within the system and the avenues 18 afforded me.
19 You know, as a parent and a guy who works, 20 there is only so much time.
If at the end of the day 21 there is not satisfaction or resolution from this 22 proceeding,
- sir, I may do that.
But I haven't been 23 real optimistic about the outcomes, and I just need to 24 share that with you.
25 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
I just want you 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
54 1
establish for the record --
2 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Sure.
3 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
that there are 4
avenues you can pursue, albeit you view them as 5
frustrating, but there are avenues available to pursue 6
your interest.
7 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Yes.
But there's a
8 timeliness issue also, and TMI is coming up next, and 9
there is precedent.
So I appreciate your guidance, 10 and if things don't work out here, then that may be an 11 avenue I have to go through.
12 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
This is Judge Bollwerk.
13 Just one question for the staff.
Does the staff 14 contemplate or through the process having interactions 15 with the SRBC as this goes forward?
16 MS.
UTTAL:
Not that I'm aware of, Judge.
17 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right. Anything from 18 either of the other Board members, then, on the first 19 contention?
20 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
No.
21 JUDGE COLE:
No.
22 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right. Let's move to 23 the second contention, then, and I think we may have 24 sort of covered parts of it, but let's go ahead and 25 treat it as a separate entity.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
55 1
This one -- basically, that PPL failed to 2
disclose damaging information regarding faulty and 3
corroded intake piping.
Sort of a summary,
- but, 4
- again, Mr. Epstein, what would you like to tell us 5
about this one?
6 MR.
EPSTEIN:
- Well, I don't know that 7
there's much to add to -- you know, you just provided 8
my specific statement and brief explanation.
Thank 9
you.
10 But I guess it's important to get to the 11
-- demonstrate the issue raised in the contention is 12 within the scope of the proceeding.
And I would just 13 simply say that PPL never directly addresses or rebuts 14 T2, but describes why their inability to monitor the 15 withdrawal of river water in their response --
I think 16 it's page 22 to 27 --
is irrelevant.
"The Susquehanna 17 is not relied upon as a safety-related source of water 18 for reactor cooling, and the river intake is not a
- 19.
safety-related system."
20 The company never addressed or explained 21 the failure to submit this information during their 22 filings.
And the NRC staff dealt with it briefly by 23 referring to an oblique reference in Section 3121.
24 In terms of why this is material, I'll cut 25 right to the chase.
Again, compliance with Act 220, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
56 1
SRBC 803.42, SRBC 803.44, and the Susquehanna steam 2
electric station will require accurate metering to 3
within five percent on the water diverted to the 4
plant, which cannot be achieved if the intake pipes 5
are partially impaired by.. residual deposits or 6
bioaccumulation.
7 And the concise statement to support that 8
is similar to what I just uttered, frankly.
I don't 9
want to keep reinventing a wheel.
10 I don't know that there's really much to 11 add.
I just feel that, you know, this information was 12 not disclosed to the NRC.
It was disclosed to the 13 Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
I stick to my 14 original claim that it was a hastily filed document.
15 That is essentially borne out by the fact that PPL is 16 still at the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, and 17 they haven't acted on the permit, which is unusual 18 since Peach Bottom, which filed a similar application, 19 received approval within two months.
20 So I think there is an issue here, and it 21
- and, you know, again, this is something that I 22 think we can work on together.
You know, I have 23 offered to bring in other entities, and, frankly, you 24
- know, I
think when a party has relevant evidence 25 within its control it should produce it.
And I'm sure NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
57 1
the company would like to respond to that.
2 But as far as T2,
- really, there's not much 3
more to add that hasn't already been said, other than 4
requiring the accurate metering --
I'm not sure I
.5 included that before --
within.five percent of the
- 6.
water diverted, which is an SRBC criteria*.
7 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Any questions 8
from either of the Board members at this point?
9 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Not from me, sir.
10 JUDGE COLE:
Yes.
Mr.
Epstein?
11 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Yes.
12 JUDGE COLE:
In one of the responses --
I 13 don't know whether it was the staff or the applicant 14 they indicated that because of the constriction, 15 whatever it is, in the intake pipe, the flow meters 16 overestimate the intake amount.
Is that a concern?
17 MR.
EPSTEIN:
- Well, it
- look, the 18 concern is that there's not accurate metering.
19 Obviously, that would be a beneficial outcome.
20 JUDGE COLE:
That's what I thought.
21 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Right.
22 JUDGE COLE:
Yes.
23 MR.
EPSTEIN:
But you can't guarantee a 24 beneficial out --
you should be --
my opinion,
- sir, 25 you shouldn't be dependent or contingent on 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
58 1
beneficial outcome based on faulty equipment.
I'd 2
prefer to have a beneficial outcome based on precise 3
equipment and eradicating the deposits or the 4
bioaccumulation.
5 JUDGE COLE:
Okay.
So I assume that they 6
they're in conversations with the SRBC concerning 7
this intake?
8 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Well --
9 JUDGE COLE:
And the accuracy of 10 measurement?
11 MR.
EPSTEIN:
You'd have to talk to them, 12 because that's where this case goes from here.
- And, 13 you know, I've been in conversations with the SRBC, 14 and I don't want to --
I can't characterize what PPL's 15 meetings are.
I can characterize what mine have been.
16 JUDGE COLE:
Yes.
All right, sir.
Thank 17 you.
18 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Anything from. Judge 19 Rubenstein?
20 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
No.
I'm satisfied with 21 this.
22 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Let's turn to 23 PPL, then.
24 MR.
LEWIS:
Thank you, Judge Bollwerk.
25 This is David Lewis.
Mr. Epstein said that we 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 I *w -
v
59 1
not rebutted his contention and explained the 2
omission.
I would have said that in the first 3
instance it's Mr.
Epstein's obligation as the 4
proponent of the contention to explain why his 5
contention was in scope and why it's material, and 6
that obligation is his, not ours.
7 But the reason why it's the intake flow 8
meters aren't addressed in the application is 9
obviously.
They are totally irrelevant.
And unless 10 Mr. Epstein explains the relevance, there is no basis 11 for his assertion that we are hiding or failing to 12 disclose an important piece of information.
13 The intake flow meters are not safety-14 related components.
The intake river intake 15 structure is not a safety-related system.
These flow 16 meters are not relied on for any NRC purpose.
They 17 are not used in any NRC-related application.
They are 18 not used in any NRC safety analysis, and they are not 19 used or relied on at all in the uprate application.
20
- Again, it's Mr. Epstein's obligation to 21 explain why they are germane, why they raise a safety 22 issue, and he never does so.
23 In fact, what's extremely telling in this 24
- argument, Mr. Epstein just explained that the reason 25 these are material is because they relate 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
60 1
compliance with SRBC regulations, the Susquehanna 2
River Basin Commission regulations.
He doesn't say 3
they are material, because they relate to any NRC 4
regulations.
5 And so, once again, what is absolutely 6
clear is that what Mr.
Epstein really wants to 7
litigate is matters solely within the purview of the 8
SRBC, whether we're meeting SRBC requirements.
and as 9
I previously discussed, and as are cited in our 10
- answer, that's just beyond the scope of this 11 proceeding.
12 I do want to point out, just while I'm on 13 the topic of the SRBC regulations, that on page 6 of 14 Mr. Epstein's reply he cited to 18 CFR 430.13.
I just 15 did want the Board to realize that those are the 16 Delaware River Basin Commission regulations, not the 17 SRBC regulations.
18 With respect to the issue of metering, 19 this issue is, in fact, addressed in the application 20 to the SRBC, which is attached as I think Exhibit 1 to 21 Mr. Epstein's petition.
So it's clearly before the 22 SRBC.
23 In that application, the application 24 indicates that we're not relying on these meters, 25 because they're probably overstating the flow, simply NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
61 1
because there is buildup inside these intake pipes, 2
which is not surprising for a pipe that has been in 3
the water for 20-some years now.
4 Instead, we are calculating the withdrawal 5
and consumptive use by the performance of the cooling 6
- towers, by measuring the spray pond makeup, and by 7
measuring the f lowdown.
And so we do have an accurate 8
method of determining what our withdrawals are, and 9
that is certainly never challenged.
10 If, in
- fact, you go to the SRBC 11 regulations that Mr. Epstein cites --
I looked at them 12 carefully what you realize is that those 13 regulations, in fact, don't require a metering.
They 14 require an applicant to describe the metering or other 15 methods that are being used.
And so what we have in 16 our application is currently another method not 17 relying on metering, but instead relying on the 18 performance curves of the cooling towers and 19 measurements of the makeup to the spray ponds and the 20 blowdown from the cooling towers.
21 But as I said, again, that is entirely a 22 matter that is within the purview of the SRBC.
It 23 does not relate to any safety determination that the 24 NRC has to make with respect to the uprate,
- and, 25 therefore, it is simply not material and not 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
62 1
the scope of this proceeding.
2 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Judge Cole 3
has a question.
4 JUDGE COLE:
Yes.
Mr. Lewis, with respect 5
to the intake pipe and whatever happens to be clogging
.6 the pipe, is the applicant addressing that at all?
7 Surely you don't want a part of the system to just 8
become clogged.
Are they doing anything to minimize 9
or eliminate the problem they had with the clogging of 10 the intake pipe?
11 MR.
LEWIS:
The intake pike is not 12 clogged.
It is simply a buildup around the -- inside 13 the pipe that makes its diameter somewhat smaller, and 14 it's
-- you know, the exact diameter isn't determined.
15 There is still plenty of flow through those pipes.
16 But the way that the withdrawal works is 17 those flow meters measure the velocity of the water 18 through those pipes, and you then multiply that by the 19 cross-sectional area of the pipe to figure out, you 20
- know, what is the volume of water flowing through.
21 And if there is, you
- know, some buildup
- and, 22 therefore, that diameter is not known precisely, then 23 those meters aren't as accurate as you'd like them to 24 be.
But there is no problem getting water to the 25 cooling towers.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
63 1
But, yes, in fact, for the SRBC purposes, 2
the application, which again I think is attached to 3
Exhibit 1 to Mr. Epstein's petition, PPL's application 4
to the SRBC indicates that PPL is looking at replacing 5
these pipes to reestablish -- to put in new pipes and, 6
therefore, be able to reestablish the accuracy of the 7
flow meters.
8 JUDGE COLE:
So as far as you know --
this 9
is Judge Cole again -- as far as you know, the problem 10 with the decrease in the effective diameter of the 11 intake pipe is not a problem like three-quarters 12 clogged with zebra mussels or something like that.
13 MR.
LEWIS:
Absolutely not.
14 JUDGE COLE:
Okay.
Thank you.
15 MR.
LEWIS:
Either there's no leakage, 16 those pipes maintain their integrity, they move the 17 volume of water that's necessary for the cooling 18 towers and for, you know, other makeup.
There isn't 19 any problem in delivering water.
It's simply, are 20 these meters which are there only -- you know, not for 21 any NRC
- purpose, only for SRB purposes SRBC 22 purposes, are those accurate.
23 JUDGE COLE:
Thank you.
24 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Judge 25 Rubenstein, 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
64 1
JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
No, I'm satisfied with 2
that.
3 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Let's hear 4
from the staff, then, if Mr.
are you finished, Mr.
5 Lewis?
6 MR.
LEWIS:
- Yes, sir.
7 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Okay.
The staff,
- then, 8
please?
9 MR.
SUBIN:
Briefly, the staff has not 10 much to add other than the fact that we agree that 11 this is just safety-related functions that these --
12 that this
- has, and that it's not part of an NRC 13 requirement that these are available.
14 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Not safety, you mean.
15 MR.
SUBIN:
Correct.
I said it wrong.
16 They're not safety.
You're right.
That's what I
17 meant to say.
Thank you.
18 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Anything from 19 either of the Board members?
No?
20 (No response.)
21 All right.
- Then, let's turn to Mr.
22 Epstein for whatever rebuttal you'd like to provide.
23 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Just a couple of points.
I 24
- mean, the company has flat out said that they're not 25 undertaking any aggressive action to eradicate 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
65 1
material.
And
- see, to me that undermines the 2
reliability of postulated reporting.
You know, from 3
where I'm coming from, they're theorizing that other 4
modes or methods or theorems may work.
I believe 5
there should be real-time monitoring with physical 6
inspection.
7
- Now, that's my belief.
It's the only 8
thing I can enforce, and I'd feel a lot better if the 9
company, rather than say to look at other measures, 10 would actually take a proactive approach to this, 11 which they're not.
12 In addition to the cite from the Delaware 13 River Basin Commission, I appreciate the correction 14 from Mr.
Lewis and would just point out that this is 15 the Susquehanna River Basin Commission-- sometimes 16 refers to it as Savannah --
so I think we're both at 17 fault for misspeaking at times, and hopefully that's 18 not a fatal error.
19 I'd also point out that these are aging 20 pipes.
The pipes are getting old, and so it's not 21 just a bioaccumulation.or the materials inside them, 22 it is also the integrity of the pipes.
I don't know 23 what their tensile strength is.
Neither does the 24
- company, if they don't test them.
25 So, again, this is something that disturbs NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
66 1
me.
And why wait for a problem, rather than go right 2
at it.
3 Yes, the SRB describes other methods other 4
than metering.
But, again, I think it's better if you 5
actually have the metering, so you know what's coming 6
in and out.
And we need to get an approved method, 7
which we don't have.
8 The piping itself these are issues that 9
are going to be there as the plant gets older, as the i0 accumulation accrues and as the integrity becomes 11 challenged.
And my position is that we should be 12 proactive rather than reactive.
Again, I would point
- 13.
to the 2001 license uprate, which is yet to be vetted 14 before the Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
15 And this is just part of what I feel is a
16 systematic pattern of omission rather than commission.
17 But, you know, Your Honors, it's up to you to decide 18 if this falls squarely within the realm of this 19 proceeding.
I'm just here to raise the issues, and 20 hope we can move it forward.
21 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Judge Cole has a
22 question?
23 JUDGE COLE:
Yes.
Mr. Epstein?
24 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Yes.
25 JUDGE COLE:
I read in one of the filings NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
67 1
here that --
and it was just mentioned also --
that 2
the applicant has another method for measuring its 3
water
- use, and the both the intake and the 4
discharge and evaporation of water.
5 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Right.
6 JUDGE COLE:
And what's the matter with 7
the system they're using?
8 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Well, I think it's not that 9
there's anything the matter, but, you know, I was 10 raised that nuclear power was built around, you know, 11 redundancy and depth.
And I would have thought the 12 primary means would have been real-time monitoring and 13 physical inspection.
14 So I thought the method that they're using 15 now is perhaps a good backup.
But, again, it's just 16 my, you know, belief that there should be regular, 17 constant vigilance in looking at equipment that's 18 aging rather than require --
you know, relying on 19 theorems.
20 And, you know, that may be a philosophical 21 chasm, sir, that we can't brace, but, you know, that's 22 just coming out of my experience of dealing with an 23 accident, that it's just good to have backup systems 24 and to have physical onsite inspection of aging 25 equipment.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
68 1
JUDGE COLE:
So you're not criticizing the 2
accuracy of their reporting of withdrawals and 3
discharges and evaporated water and water use in 4
general?
5 MR.
EPSTEIN:
No.
I'm criticizing that a 6
secondary and tertiary mechanism has become the 7
primary means of evaluation.
I think we're dealing 8
with a plant that's getting old, with equipment that's 9
getting old, and I think it needs to be looked at.
10 JUDGE COLE:
But you're not challenging 11 the accuracy of those reports.
12 MR.
EPSTEIN:
I haven't yet, because I
13 haven't had the ability to look at it.
Neither has 14 the Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
So at this 15 particular
- point, I have not, but I'm not willing to 16 blindly accept them either, to be frank with you.
I 17 just think these methods should basically confirm what 18 physical primary real-time monitoring would say.
19 Hopefully, I'm clear.
20 JUDGE COLE:
All right, sir.
21 MR.
EPSTEIN:
This should be a means to 22 confirm the results from real-time monitoring.
23 JUDGE COLE:
All right, sir.
Thank you.
24 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Yes.
25 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Judge Rubenstein, any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
69 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 questions?
JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
No.
I think his concern is very clear to me.
JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Let's, then, move to the third technical contention, Number 3.
And, again, to summarize, PPL has failed to consider the consequences of an accident caused by its proposed uprate.
Mr. Epstein?
MR.
EPSTEIN:
I have nothing to add.
And I've got to be frank with you, I
ran through my presentation, and I ran out of time.
So I
you know, I'm going to let Contention 3 stand.
And as a former schoolteacher, you know, when you run out of time, you run out of time.
And I didn't want to breach the rules that you provided.
I couldn't get my presentation within 15 minutes, so that -- Tech 3 is going to have to ride on its own merits.
JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Yes.
Judge Cole has a question.
JUDGE COLE:
No, not a
- question, Mr.
Epstein, but if you think you need a couple more minutes, we're willing to give it to you.
JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Absolutely.
You 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
70 1
plenty of time.
So if you have something you want to 2
say, you certainly can.
3 MR.
EPSTEIN:
- Well, that particular 4
technical specification I think is just philosophic in 5
nature.
And I don't know, frankly, if it's within.the 6
scope of this.
It's just I'm viewing things 7
differently than you are.
8 And when I say "you,"
I think that's the 9
industry and the NRC, so I'm raising an issue that is 10 perhaps more generic in scoping than particularized to 11 Susquehanna.
And, you know, I'm satisfied from the 12 response I got back, which was predictable.
I just 13 look at the world a. little differently.
14 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Judge 15 Rubenstein?
16 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
All right.
19 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
in this area.
20 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Okay.
21 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Should I
- wait, or 22 should I 23 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Let's let them.--
let's 24 go ahead and let PPL and then NRC speak, and you can 25 ask your question with either one of them or both 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
71 1
them.
2 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Okay.
3 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
So --
4 MR.
LEWIS:
Yes, Judge Bollwerk.
This is 5
David Lewis.
Just a couple of..points relating to Mr.
6 Epstein's reply.
In the original contention,. he 7
asserted that the uprate application hasn't looked at 8
the increased consequences from a
higher core 9
inventory than our answer pointed out that, in fact, 10 the application did.
And there was no demonstration 11 of any deficiency in the application.
12 In the reply, Mr. Epstein referred to some 13 new information relating to fuel failure and the 14 transnuclear, new homes cask density problems 15 associated with reracking of spent fuel.
I just 16 wanted to respond to those points very quickly.
17 First of all, assertions like this in the 18 reply are not proper, and I would refer the Board to 19 the Commission's decision in CLI04-35, 60 NRC at 623, 20 where the Commission said, "What our rules do not 21 allow is using reply briefs to provide for the first 22 time the necessary threshold support for contentions."
23 Beyond that, however, I also just want to 24 point out a couple of things in the application.
The 25 uprate has no effect on spent fuel racks, and I would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www nealrgross.om
72 1
refer the Board to the safety analysis report at 2
page 6-6, which states, "There is no effect on the 3
design of the SSES fuel racks, because the original 4
fuel pool design temperature is not exceeded."
5
.. There is no new fuel designs.
I would 6
refer the Board to the application the main 7
enclosure at page 24.
8 In addition, the spent fuel cask design is 9
simply not an issue in this proceeding, even though 10 the fuel is not being changed, but the cask design is
.11 approved by role in 10 CFR 72.214.
These are cask 12 designs that are, of course, approved by a certificate 13 of compliance, and they are generally licensed.
And 14 so the design of the ISFSI is simply not an issue in 15 this proceeding.
16 That's all I have.
17 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Judge 18 Rubenstein, do you want to ask your question now, or 19 do you want to wait and hear from the staff?
20 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
I can ask it now.
21 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
22 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
In Contention 3 --
and 23 this is mainly to clarify it, and I sort of may drift 24 a little bit into merit, but it's mainly focused on 25 material --
materiality.
It's for the PPL and 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
73 1
staff could add whatever they want.
2 The staff states in its contention that he 3
and I'm going to read the parts I want from the 4
second paragraph.
"The amount of radioactivity in the 5
reactor core, and thus available for release in the 6
event of an accident, is significantly more at 120 7
percent power than at 100 percent power."
I agree 8
with this.
9 Then, the previous sentence says, "PPL and 10 NRC are overly reliant on compliance with NRC 11 regulations, without examining the consequences of an 12 accident caused by the proposed uprate."
13 So just to clarify what the situation here 14 is based on an EPU, my question is
-- well, at higher 15 power level, more radioactive fission products will 16 accumulate in the fuel.
And the question 1 becomes, 17 during regular operation, how is the radiological 18 release rate controlled?
In other words, you have rad 19 waste systems, and that type of thing.
20 So describe the effect of the increased 21 power on the rad waste system, as to capacity, and why 22 the radiological release rate is acceptable.
And 23 we're sort of drifting a little into the merits, but 24 I want to clarify the part where we're overly reliant 25 on the regulations.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
74 1
So,
- PPL, go at it.
2 MR.
LEWIS:
Judge Rubenstein, I
don't 3
think I can do it.
The --
4 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Well 5
MR.
LEWIS:
focused on accidents, and 6
I can explain how the applicant application 7
addressed accident consequences, but the contention 8
didn't address the impact on the rad waste system and 9
normal releases and control of those releases.
I 10 believe that is addressed in the application.
I 11 just 12 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Aren't rad waste 13 systems administratively controlled?
14 MR.
LEWIS:
They definitely are.
I mean, 15 the --
16 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Do they change with the 17 operating with the extended power operation?
18 MR.
LEWIS:
I don't know, Judge.
The 19 control mechanism doesn't change, and the release 20 limits won't change.
I don't know whether a slightly 21 greater amount of rad waste is generated, but as far 22 as controlling
- releases, for example, in liquid 23
- releases, the control regime that applies at any 24 nuclear plant is that you have holdup tanks and you 25 have limits and you have to sample and measure those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
75 1
tanks and determine compliance with limits.
- And, 2
therefore, you always maintain compliance with those 3
limits.
4 Those limits are set on ALARA
.5 considerations, which maintain doses on the order of 6
three millirem or something on that level.
7 What I'm saying, Judge Rubenstein, though, 8
is I
just haven't looked at these portions of the 9
application to know what's in the application with 10 respect to --
11 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Well, okay.
12 MR.
LEWIS:
-- routine releases.
But what 13 I
can say is that with respect to accident 14 consequences 15 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
I was about to ask you 16 that.
17 MR.
LEWIS:
the --
18 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Let me ask the 19 question, and you can answer it.
20 MR.
LEWIS:
Okay.
21 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
During a postulated 22
- accident, an increase in the radioactive fission 23 products in the fuel could lead to an increase in 24 radiation released into the atmosphere?
25 MR.
LEWIS:
Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
76 1
JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
During a postulated 2
accident, that's true?
3 MR.
LEWIS:
Yes.
4 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
What assurances do we 5
have that releases into the environment are bounded 6
within the limits set by federal regulations, in 7
particular for EPU operation?
8 MR.
LEWIS:
Well, because those analyses 9
have been done.
PPL previously submitted an analysis 10 for alternative source
- terms, and the uprate 11 application indicates that that
- approval, the 12 alternative source term, is an amendment that is 13 required before the uprate application may be granted.
14 The application for alternative source 15 terms evaluated or reevaluated all of the design basis 16 accidents using the core isotopic levels associated 17 with the uprate, and demonstrated that those design 18 basis accident consequences would meet NRC limits.
19 The uprate application itself references 20 and cites back to the alternative source term 21 application and incorporates that information.
And 22 that same information is provided in the environmental 23 report that's part of the uprate application.
24 So the analysis has been done, and our 25 main challenge to the admissibility of this contention NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrqross.com
77 1
was that Mr.
Epstein simply didn't address the 2
application, didn't address the portion of the 3
applications that provided the very analyses that, you 4
know, he was questioning, and identified no error in 5
those analyses.
6 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Thank you.
7 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Judge Cole, anything?
8 JUDGE COLE:
Mr.
- Lewis, one of the 9
consequences of uprating the power would be an 10 increase in the megawatt days burnup of the fuel, 11 right?
12 MR.
LEWIS:
Yes.
13 JUDGE COLE:
And is that addressed in the 14 safety documents and its impact on the fuel storage?
15 MR.
LEWIS:
I was trying to --
I guess my 16 answer is yes.
I believe that the increased power in 17 the reactor is caused by --
is not --
it isn't it 18 doesn't require a different fuel design.
We're still 19 using the same fuel that we used prior to the uprate.
20 We also use the same fuel that we used prior to the 21 uprate.
So it's primarily achieved by the core design 22 and, as I understand it, I believe more fuel bundles.
23 But the fuel that we remove after the 24 uprate will still be within the design basis of the 25 racks and will still be within the design basis 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
78 1
casks.
- That is definitely addressed in the safety 2
analysis report.
3 The extent to which there is higher burnup 4
along the fuel rods, and what the effect is, I'm not 5
sure.
I'm sorry, Judge Cole.
6 JUDGE COLE: That's all right. Yes, I -
7 1 was just wondering if it was addressed directly, 8
because obviously you're going to --
for any given 9
time period, at an increased power level, the megawatt 10 days burnup is going to increase for the fuel. And if 11 they address that with respect to when they take the 12 fuel out, when they put it in the fuel pool storage, 13 and any safety aspects of that have been considered.
14 MR. LEWIS:
There is a section of the SAR 15 which specifically addresses the fuel design issues 16 and the fuel storage issues and the fuel racks.
So I 17 know it is addressed in the application.
I'm 18 certainly not able to answer your technical question 19 on how it was addressed.
20 JUDGE COLE:
All right, sir.
Thank you.
21 That's fine.
22 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN: Judge Cole, I'll answer 23 that later.
24 JUDGE COLE:
Do you know what section of 25 the SAR it is?
I don't want to push us any further NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
79 1
than we need to with --
2 MR.
LEWIS:
No.
My concern was I want to 3
make sure it was addressed.
I'm virtually sure it 4
was, but I don't remember seeing it.
5 JUDGE COLE:
- Well, I know the fuel pool is 6
addressed in Section 6.3 of the SAR.
7 THE COURT REPORTER:
This is the Court 8
Reporter.
9 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Yes.
10 THE COURT REPORTER:
I have lost track of 11 who. is speaking.
12 MR.
LEWIS:
Okay.
This is David Lewis.
13 I apologize.
14 THE COURT REPORTER:
Okay.
15 JUDGE COLE:
This is Judge Cole speaking 16 before that, so --
17 THE COURT REPORTER:
Okay.
Thank you.
18 Just the interruption by --
19 JUDGE COLE:
By Judge Rubenstein.
20 THE COURT REPORTER:
Okay.
Thank you.
21 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
This is Judge Bollwerk.
22 6.3 of the SAR for the spent fuel, the racking --
23 MR.
LEWIS:
Yes, for the fuel pool.
24 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
For the fuel pool?
I'm 25 sorry.
All right.
Any other questions for Mr.
Lewis NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
80 1
from the Board?
2 (No response.)
3 Anything else you want to tell us, Mr.
4 Lewis?
5 MR.
LEWIS:
No, sir.
6 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right. Let's turn to 7
the staff, then.
8 MR.
SUBIN:
The staff has nothing else to 9
add other than what they've aiready said in the brief.
10 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
- And, Mr.
11 Epstein, anything you want to add at -- get the last 12 word?
13 MR.
EPSTEIN:
Yes.
I just wanted to 14 clarify.
The issue that I was raising in terms of 15 reracking was my concern was that they may need to 16 increase density or to increase the number of fuel 17 cells in order to maintain core offload integrity.
18 And I don't, frankly, know if that was anticipated, 19 that they would need more cells, more density, and 20 potentially increase the propensity for a K-effective 21 incident.
So that's where I was going with that.
22 On the other issue of fuel design, I just 23 don't know what fuel the company will use moving into 24 the future.
I can't anticipate that, and I was just 25 hoping to get some clarity on that.
And I
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
81 1
appreciate the healthy dialogue surrounding T3.
2 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
3 MR.
LEWIS:
This is David Lewis.
I was 4
just looking at the citations, and just to give the 5
Board the other citation.
Section 2.1 of the SAR is 6
the section on fuel design and operation.
it 7
indicates that we are going to use the atrium-10 fuel 8
bundle, which is what we already use.
And in there is 9
the discussion of the thermal limits and other limits 10 applicable to the fuel.
11 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
This is Judge 12 Rubenstein.
The design of the core constrains the 13 nature of the fuel bundle.
I don't want to get into 14 jargon, but the can that contains the fuel bundle has 15 certain dimensional limits.
And this goes into the 16 lower core support plate, and these are fixed.
17 The only changes to the fuel are within 18 the array of. the fuel rods, whether they are an 8 by 19 8 array or a 10 by 10 array, with smaller diameter 20 fuel pins, or a 6 by 6.
And that would change very 21 little.
The bundle total inventory would probably be 22 relatively the same.
23 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Anything 24 further from Mr. Lewis or the staff on this one?
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
82 1
Hearing nothing, Mr.
- Epstein, anything 2
further you want to say on Contention TC3?
3 MR.
EPSTEIN:
No.
4 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
And the Board 5
- members, I take it, have concluded their questions as 6
well.
7 JUDGE COLE:
We have.
8 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
9 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
- Yes, I have.
10 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Okay.
That really takes 11 care of the presentations and the discussion on 12 standing and the three contentions.
I mentioned at 13 the beginning there might be a --
we had a couple of 14 administrative questions, and those really go I think 15 mostly to the staff.
They basically are questions of 16 timing.
17 The staff has issued a
proposed no 18 significant hazards consideration determination.
If 19 you can, I was wondering when --
when --
if the staff 20 has a schedule for making that determination as well 21 as the timing of any staff issuances relative to the 22 environmental side, either a DIS, FEIS, or a finding 23 of no significant impact.
And also, in terms of the 24 safety side, a draft SER or a final SER on this 25 particular amendment.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com r
83 1
MR.
GUZMAN:
This is Rich Guzman from the 2
Division of Operator Reactor Licensing representing 3
the -- as the project manager for the Susquehanna EPU 4
review.
As far as the schedule, Judge, we're looking 5
at --
if I can just try to list down the items that 6
you are requesting, the first one being the no 7
significant hazards consideration.
8 We published the no significant 9
proposed no significant hazards consideration 10 determination for comment on the public -- the Federal 11 Register on March --
I believe it was March 13, 2007.
12 So there's a 30-day comment period and --
for a total 13 of 60 days' request for a hearing, and so that expired 14 May 13th.
15 Through contact with our state contact, we 16 understand that there is there has been no comments 17 from the public in response to the publishing of that 18 in the Federal Register notice.
And so the final 19 determination for no significant hazards notification 20 will be noticed as an individual notice, as it 21 routinely does for all license amendments once the 22 license amendment in this
- case, the EPU is 23
- approved, which is targeted for, as you mentioned 24 earlier, January of 2008.
25 In terms of the draft environmental NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neairgross.com
84 1
assessment, we plan on -- that's actually in routing 2
for concurrence right now, and is planned to submit 3
that to the for the Federal Register notice 4
publication by the end of this month.
And so that 5
will be out for it will be available for public 6
comment.
7 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
So you're doing an 8
environmental --
I'm sorry, this is Judge Bollwerk.
9 You're doing an environmental assessment, then?
10 MR. GUZMAN:
Yes.
You do --
we -- part of 11 our safety evaluation will include -- will include, as 12 a more.-- I'm sorry, let me rephrase that.
The two 13 products that come out of the ultimate approval of the 14 EPU amendment will be a safety evaluation, and then 15 separate to that an environmental it's an 16 environmental assessment, but it's a determination 17 that there's an impact on environment.
18 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
EIS?
19 MR.
GUZMAN:
It's right, it's an EIS, 20 environmental impact statement.
And so that is what 21 I was referring to is is going to be submitted at 22 the end of this month for as a draft environmental 23 impact statement.
24 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
Now, on the 25 safety side, in terms of a draft SER or a final SER?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
85 1
MR. GUZMAN:
Right.
We are looking at the 2
end of August to have a draft safety evaluation or 3
safety evaluation report and submit it to the ACRS.
4 Typically, two to four weeks prior to the -- prior to 5
the meeting, subcommittee meeting with the ACRS, we 6
will provide a draft safety evaluation for them to 7
review in support of that meeting.
8 That meeting is scheduled for -- I've got 9
that here September 18th for the subcommittee 10 meeting, with an October date --
I believe the first 11 week of October for the full committee.
12 So to answer your question, it's we 13 expect a
draft safety evaluation could be done 14 certainly prior to that September date, but my target 15 date for getting that completed and submitted to the 16 ACRS is the end of August.
17 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
In terms of 18 the environmental document that you issue at the end 19 of this
- month, that would be subject to public 20 comment?
21 MR.
GUZMAN:
- Yes, it is.
22 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
It will go in
-- notice 23 of it will go in the Federal Register, then.
24 MR.
GUZMAN:
Excuse me?
I'm sorry.
25 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Notice of it will go 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
86 1
the Federal Register?
2 MR.
GUZMAN:
- Yes, it is.
3 MR.
LEWIS:
Judge Boliwerk?
4 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
Yes.
5 MR.
LEWIS:
This is David Lewis.
I 6
actually don't know what the staff is preparing, but 7
I would just assume, based on other uprates, that's a
8 draft environmental assessment as opposed to an EIS.
9 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
That was the question I 10 was trying to get clarified.
11 MR.
LEWIS:
Right.
I think I
think he 12 misspoke.
I believe it's an EA that we're preparing.
13 JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
14 MR.
LEWIS:
Yes.
15 JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
Depending upon the 16 outcome of the EA, that would state whether an EIS is 17 required or not.
18 MR.
LEWIS:
Correct.
19 All right.
The only other administrative 20 thing I would mention, then, is we have a requirement 21 under the rules to issue a determination with regard 22 to the hearing petition by approximately the end of 23 July, and we are going to make every endeavor to do 24 that.
25 And if we don't make that date, we 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
87 1
under the rules, we have to. let the Commission know 2
what the problem is.
So you will be hearing something 3
from the Board one way or the other by the end of July 4
in terms of a decision or a reason why we haven't 5
reached it and.when we would contemplate doing that.
6 And so that's our timeframe in terms of the schedule 7
we have to meet.
8 On behalf of the Board, I want to thank 9
all of the participants today for taking the time to 10 speak with us and to provide us your insight into what 11 in terms of standing and the contentions that have 12 been proffered in this instance.
I think we've gotten 13 a lot of useful information.
14 I would mention we have Court Reporter 15 here.
This is being transcribed.
Probably the 16 transcript will be available hopefully sometime next 17 week in terms of the agency's ADAMS system, if one 18 wanted to go back and review it for any reason.
And 19 so it will be part of the public record.
20 Do any of the parties have anything else 21 they want to bring to the Board's attention?
22 (No response.)
23 All right.
If not, then, I thank all of 24 you for, again, joining us this morning and providing 25 us with your views.
And if I can ask Judge Rubenstein 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 88 if we could --
we're going to call you back in a
couple minutes, if you could just stay at your phone.
JUDGE RUBENSTEIN:
I certainly will.
JUDGE BOLLWERK:
All right.
And, again, thank you all.
If there is nothing else, then we stand adjourned.
Thank you.
(Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m.,
the proceedings in the foregoing matter were adjourned.)
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: Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Pre -Hearing Conference Docket Number:
50-387--OLA and 50-3880LA 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.
Katherine Sykora 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