ML102650228
| ML102650228 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 09/15/2010 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-293-LR, ASLBP-06-848-LR, NRC-439, RAS J-269 | |
| Download: ML102650228 (61) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Entergy Nuclear Generation Company Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station DOCKETED USNRC September 21, 2010 (1:45 p.m.)
OFFICE OF SECRETARY Docket Number: 40-293-LR RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF ASLBP Number: 06-848-LR Location: (telephone conference)
Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 Work Order No.: NRC-439 Pages 670-728 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 T=' SL t- - D'~
670 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 B R+ + + +
4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5
6 7
8 In the Matter of:
9 ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION 10 COMPANY AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR Docket No. 50-293-LR 11 OPERATIONS, INC. (PILGRIM ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR 12 NUCLEAR POWER STATION) 13 14 Wednesday, September 15, 2010 15 16 Teleconference 17 18 BEFORE:
19 ANN MARSHALL YOUNG, Chair 20 DR. PAUL ABRAMSON, Administrative Judge 21 DR. RICHARD COLE, Administrative Judge 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
671 1 APPEARANCES:
2 On Behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 3 Commission:
4 SUSAN UTTAL, ESQ.
5 BRIAN HARRIS, ESQ.
6 ANDREA JONES, ESQ.
7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 Office of General Counsel 9 Mail Stop - 0-15 D21 10 Washington, D.C. 20555 11 12 On Behalf of Entergy Nuclear Generation Company:
13 DAVID R. LEWIS, ESQ.
14 PAUL GAUKLER, ESQ.
15 JASON PARKER, ESQ.
16 Of: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 17 2300 N Street, NW 18 Washington, DC 20037-1122 19 Tel: (202) 663-8474 20 Fax: (202) 663-8007 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.cory n
672 1 On Behalf of the Town of Plymouth:
2 SHEILA HOLLIS, ESQ.
3 Of: Duane Morris LLP 4 505 9th Street, NW 5 Suite 1000 6 Washington, DC 20004 7 Tel: (202) 776-7810 8
9 On Behalf of Pilgrim Watch:
10 MARY LAMPERT, pro se 11 Of: Pilgrim Watch 12 148 Washington Street 13 Duxbury, MA 02332 14 Tel: (781) 934-0389 15 Web: mary.lampert@comcast.net 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
673 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 2:04 P.M.
3 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, let's go on the 4 record. Again, this is Judge Ann Marshall Young, the 5 chair of the Licensing Board. With me are Judges 6 Richard Cole and Paul Abramson and our law clerk, 7 Katie Tucker.
8 I guess just briefly again for the record, 9 Ms. Uttal, Mr. Lewis, and Ms. Lampert, if you could 10 introduce yourselves.
11 MS. UTTAL: This is Susan Uttal, counsel 12 for the NRC staff. I have with me Brian Harris and 13 Andrea Jones, also counsel for the NRC staff.
14 MR. LEWIS: This is David Lewis of the Law 15 Firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman representing 16 Entergy. With me ,from my firm are Paul Gaukler and 17 Jason Parker. At the Pilgrim Station, at a different 18 site is Mr. Stephen Bathay, Mr. Joseph Lynch, Mr. Fred 19 Mogolesko, and Mr. David Lach.
20 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honor, Sheila Hollis 21 here. I'm with the law firm of Duane Morris, 22 appearing on behalf of the Town of Plymouth. I'm here 23 by myself.
24 MS. LAMPERT: This is Mary Lampert, 25 Pilgrim Watch, pro se. With me today is Dr. Bruce NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
674 1 Egan, our meteorologist.
2 CHAIR YOUNG: All right, we have just a 3 couple of things really to go through today. First, 4 on Pilgrim Watch's Motion for Clarification, the first 5 thing we want to indicate to you all is that we will, 6 as Pilgrim Watch asked and suggested as well, we will 7 bifurcate the initial issue relating to the 8 meteorological questions from any other potential 9 issues in the case.
10 The initial hearing will be on the issue 11 of whether the meteorological modeling in the Pilgrim 12 SAMA analysis is adequate and reasonable to satisfy 13 NEPA and whether accounting for the meteorological 14 patterns and issues of concern to Pilgrim Watch could 15 credibly alter the Pilgrim SAMA analysis conclusions 16 on which SAMAs are cost beneficial to implement.
17 Now apart from that, we will not be ruling 18 on the Motion for Clarification at this time. If 19 Pilgrim Watch Wishes to request the Commission to 20 clarify whether the issues identified as issues one 21 and two in our September 2nd order are still potential 22 issues for adjudication and the remand of Contention 23 3 in light of how CLI 10-15 and CLI 10-22 inform the 24 interpretation of CLI 10-11 and whether CLI 10-11 25 still stands in full, the Board would have no NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
675 1 objection to such course of action.
2 If we reach the point of finding any 3 meteorological modeling deficiencies that could call 4 into question the Pilgrim SAMA cost benefit analysis 5 conclusions at that point, the Board would permit 6 briefing by the parties on whether any extent to which 7 certain issues the Commission indicated in CLI 10-11 8 might be open for adjudication should be adjudicated.
9 And assuming the Commission has not clarified this 10 already, we would expect the parties to address some 11 indications in CLI 10-15 and CLI 10-22 that such 12 issues may now be foreclosed, notwithstanding the 13 Commission's indication to the contrary in CLI 10-11.
14 After considering any briefs that may be 15 filed at such time, may be required and/or filed, we 16 would then decide whether to allow adjudication of the 17 issues identified as Issues 1 and 2 in our order of 18 September 2nd.
19 So give me one second.
20 (Pause.)
21 All right, -having said that with regard to 22 the issue of the clarification -- well, with regard to 23 clarification of the issues, really, the only other 24 thing that we want to address today is the schedule 25 for the rest of the proceeding.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
676 1 The first thing that really needs to be 2 addressed is the issue of whether Pilgrim Watch timely 3 raised its questions about the NRC practice of using 4 mean consequences and averaging. And so we would like 5 to have briefs on that timeliness issue, not on the 6 substance of the issue, but solely on whether that 7 issue was timely raised when and in what form, what 8 factors should go in favor of and against finding that 9 it was timely or not. Those briefs we are thinking 10 would be due in early October, specifically October 11 11th with responses due one week later on October 12 18th.
13 MS. UTTAL: Judge, October llth day is 14 Columbus Day, is that a federal holiday?
15 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes, so October 12th then.
16 October 12th and then that would be October 19th. Or 17 actually, it would be better if we could keep the 18 second one, October 18th, if there's no holiday then 19 and I don't think there is.
20 So this is a relatively simple issue 21 compared to the others, so I think October 12th and 22 18th on that.
23 The next thing we need to talk about and 24 just briefly, we want to let you know, we will be 25 conducting this hearing using at least one part of our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
677 1 office's digital data management system which should 2 make things somewhat easier for you in that I think 3 all you will have to do is file one paper copy of your 4 exhibits, including the pre-filed testimony. And then 5 they would be put into the DDMS, for short, system and 6 you would not have to provide paper copies to each 7 other party, as I understand it. But since this is 8 different than what we've done before, and may involve 9 somewhat complicated issues, we will probably hold 10 another telephone conference in mid-November to advise 11 the parties on how this works and what the procedures 12 and processes are and we'll probably be relying on Ms.
13 Tucker a lot for that. We will probably, before that 14 conference, issue something in writing that would give 15 you some preliminary instructions.
16 Is there any particular time in mid-17 November that anyone is just completely not available?
18 (No response.)
19 Okay, then we will set up a conference 20 call some time in mid-November, probably after 21 Veterans Day. We don't even know whether we'll be 22 involved in that. We're going to put you together 23 with people who know what to tell you. We probably 24 need to learn something about it ourselves as well, so 25 in any event, this should make things easier in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
678 1 long run, but we want to make sure that everyone has 2 enough preparation on that that we don't get confused 3 by it.
4 All right, then assuming that we rule on 5 the timeliness issue with regard to this mean 6 consequences and averaging and so forth, in November, 7 to avoid putting the parties right in the holidays, 8 we're thinking January 17th as a deadline for pre-9 filed direct testimony. The Board will probably be 10 issuing questions prior to the pre-filed testimony for 11 the parties to address as part of their pre-filed 12 testimony.
13 After we receive the pre-filed direct 14 testimony, Board Members may have additional questions 15 which we would try to get to you by the end of January 16 and then give you an additional month to do your pre-17 filed rebuttal and include any responses to those 18 additional Board questions. Then allowing for 19 preparation time, we are tentatively thinking about a 20 hearing some time near the end of March.
21 All right, now, I've just shared a lot of 22 information with everyone. Are there any questions 23 about any of this from anyone?
24 MR. LEWIS: Judge, this is David Lewis.
25 I guess I'm surprised at the length of the schedule.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
679 1 Pilgrim Watch, in its previous filings, had indicated 2 that it would be able to file its testimony on October 3 30th and we have asked -- Entergy had requested a 4 hearing, that process that would get us to a decision.
5 We were pushing initially from six months from the 6 Commission order but we would still be very interested 7 in moving forward expeditiously because this 8 proceeding really is dragging on. It's in its fifth 9 year.
10 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
11 MR. LEWIS: I was really hoping that we 12 could have a schedule that would result in filing of 13 testimony on October 15th and rebuttal testimony on 14 October 30th. Pilgrim Watch has known what the 15 meteorological issues are, that it has to address 16 since March. It indicated its witnesses would be 17 available to start working on it the beginning of 18 September.
19 CHAIR YOUNG: Mr. Lewis?
20 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
21 CHAIR YOUNG: If I may interrupt you, how 22 would you argue that the issue of the timeliness of 23 the mean consequences/averaging issue be handled?
24 MR. LEWIS: What I would suggest is, 25 first, I don't think it takes until October 12th 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
680 1 indicate whether these issues were raised or not and 2 so I would suggest if there's a need for a position on 3 that that parties put in their position in a week and 4 perhaps the response, any replies five days after 5 that. I would suggest that we go ahead proceeding 6 with testimony and if there is a need to adjust the 7 schedule based on the Board's ruling that there is 8 indeed some additional unanticipated issue that 9 affects the schedule, then we can work around that.
10 But I am concerned that just that initial issue is 11 being pushed off to October 19th and the hearing is 12 some time next year. That's not the schedule I was 13 hoping to hear.
14 MS. LAMPERT: This is Mary Lampert -
15 CHAIR YOUNG: Ms. Lampert, I'm going to 16 ask you if you could speak up a little bit. And also, 17 you can address this in what you have to say and then 18 we'd like to hear from the other parties on this as 19 well.
20 On the timeliness issue, what would be the 21 difference in what the parties -- and the parties' 22 preparation, if we ruled one way or the other, on 23 whether we will allow evidence on the NRC mean 24 consequences averaging practice? As I understand it, 25 Mr. Lewis is arguing that the timeliness briefs could NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com v
681 1 be filed by September 22nd which is a week from today 2 and then let's assume a week after that for responses.
3 And then I think Mr. Lewis wanted to have pre-filed 4 testimony on October 15th.
5 I think probably we need to hear from all 6 parties on the extent to which the inclusion Or 7 exclusion of that issue would affect your pre-filed 8 testimony.
9 / Ms. Lampert, you were next, just speak up 10 a little bit because we didn't hear you very well.
11 MS. LAMPERT: Okay, I'm sorry. I 12 appreciate, Judge Young, the schedule that you put 13 forward because it is consistent with our feeling and 14 understanding and belief that you are willing to bend 15 over backwards to be ultimately fair and respectful of 16 unfunded groups such as ours that have no staff nor 17 any funds.
18 Therefore, our view of how quickly we can 19 move is obviously very different and I appreciate your 20 acknowledgment of that. Quite clearly, we were 21 pleased and it seems very reasonable the schedule you 22 put forward in consideration of the fact that 23 Entergy's license goes until June of 2012. And 24 certainly Oyster Creek and Vermont provide examples 25 that one doesn't have to finish the process years NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
682 1 before.
2 As far as would the issue of statistical 3 treatment of the data take considerable time, the 4 answer is yes. As a matter of fact, I was talking to 5 the expert that we would use for this issue, Dr. Edwin 6 Lyman, who regretted that he could not be on the call 7 today, whether we could nail him down to be our expert 8 on this and he said yes, but it would take him time.
9 This is not something that you throw together. And 10 it's a very, very important issue, as he pointed out, 11 because treatment of the input --
12 CHAIR YOUNG: Ms. Lampert, let me just ask 13 you, I want to understand. When you say it's a very 14 important issue, are you talking about the averaging 15 issue?
16 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, correct.
17 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
18 MS. LAMPERT: A very important issue 19 because as he pointed out, it could make a difference 20 of a factor of two to three. And this is not 21 something, obviously, that anybody, certainly the NRC 22 or the Board would want to ignore. And with our 23 capabilities as they are, I think you know that we try 24 to do -- I try to do a good job. And I think the 25 issue is a serious one and everyone has appreciated NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202)
% J 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
683 1 that, particularly you, and therefore we should be 2 able to have the time to do a good job. And very 3 honestly, I've spoken to Dr. Lyman and asked how long 4 could you get this together, will you do it and what 5 would my commitment to you?
6 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, we'll hear from the 7 staff and in your response to. Mr. Lewis' arguments 8 could you also address what difference a ruling that 9 that information was timely raised or not make in the 10 preparation of your pre-filed testimony?
11 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, this is Brian 12 Harris. I mean a ruling in favor of having to address 13 whether or not a mean consequence kind of analysis is 14 the correct way to do it would add another issue that 15 would have to be included into the pre-filed 16 testimony. So that would be a new thing that wouldn't 17 necessarily have been addressed before. And so that 18 new topic would probably add some amount of time in 19 terms of the research that would need to be done.
20 Having a decision on whether or not that 21 timely -- whether it was timely raised probably 22 doesn't really need the experts necessarily to weigh 23 in on that. That's purely a legal issue that can be 24 decided much earlier.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: Right, right.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
684 1 MR. HARRIS: In terms of the issues we do 2 have to address.
3 JUDGE ABRAMSON: This is Judge Abramson.
4 Let me ask a question of all the parties on this 5 topic. In my view, what we've been asked to determine 6 is whether this approach of averaging is an 7 appropriate way for the NRC to satisfy its obligations 8 under NEPA. To me, that seems like a legal issue of 9 what is required under NEPA and only were we to 10 determine it is inappropriate would there be any 11 technical computation changes in how the 12 meteorological effects are handled.
13 I'd like to have the parties tell me what 14 they think the Commission ordered us to deal with on 15 this point.
16 CHAIR YOUNG: Hold on one second.
17 (Pause.)
18 Okay, here's what we would like for you to 19 address. In responding to Judge Abramson, and this 20 would be for all of you and since we're going to the 21 -- we're with the staff now, the staff can answer it 22 first, but assuming -- let's assume hypothetically 23 that we find that the issue was timely raised. What 24 do the parties -- what would be the parties' positions 25 on whether there should be an additional bifurcation, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
685 1 so to speak, of the proceeding into a step at which 2 the issue of whether the NRC's practice of mean 3 consequences and averaging is reasonable and then get 4 a Board ruling on that and only after our ruling on 5 that issue would we go to the primary. issue, the 6 meteorological issue that we've defined previously 7 with that meteorological -- the evidence on that 8 meteorological issue including an alternate analysis 9 based on something other than using mean consequences 10 and averaging, if we find that the NRC practice is not 11 reasonable.
12 So in your arguments, can you address 13 that?
14 MS. LAMPERT: Can you say that again?
15 Excuse me, this is Mary Lampert.
16 CHAIR YOUNG: The first -- on the question 17 of the issue of whether the NRC practice of using mean 18 consequences and averaging is reasonable and how it 19 might affect the analysis of the meteorological issue.
20 The first stage that the Commission has directed us to 21 address is whether the issue was timely raised by you 22 of Pilgrim Watch. When did you raise it? What are 23 the factors that we should consider in determining 24 whether it was timely and whether we should allow 25 evidence 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
686 1 I think what Judge Abramson is saying is 2 that the next issue is whether the NRC practice is 3 reasonable under NEPA and that whether we need to have 4 a separate ruling on that before moving into the 5 filing of the pre-filed testimony on the 6 meteorological question, or alternatively, once we 7 rule on the timeliness issue, if we were to find that 8 you, Pilgrim Watch, raised that issue in a timely 9 fashion, then what would happen next would be that the 10 parties would file their pre-filed testimony on the 11 meteorological issue which would have to incorporate 12 basically an approach using the NRC practice of 13 averaging, and how the analysis would change if 14 another approach was used.
15 Does that make sense to everyone?
16 MR. HARRIS: It does and to the extent --
17 this is Brian Harris from the staff. To the extent 18 the way I explain may change it, we would probably 19 adjust that. But I think that once you find that it's 20 timely, deciding whether or not the mean consequences 21 are sufficient --
22 CHAIR YOUNG: We're not hearing you. Mr.
23 Harris, did you just go on mute?
24 MR. HARRIS: No. I'm not on mute.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: The last word we heard was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
687 1 "sufficient" and then we lost you.
2 MR. HARRIS: You can hear me now though, 3 correct?
4 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes.
5 MR. HARRIS: I'll start over. Once we've 6 determined that mean consequences was timely raised, 7 then I think the Board, we can proceed on all the 8 issues of whether or not the mean consequences 9 analysis is in accordance with NEPA and the 10 meteorological modeling was in accordance with NEPA 11 all at the same time. I don't think that a separate 12 hearing on mean consequences sufficiency for NEPA 13 purposes is required.
14 JUDGE ABRAMSON: This is Judge Abramson.
15 Let me make sure that we're all on -- that this 16 inquiry was properly conveyed. Nobody doubts, I 17 think, that the first step is was it timely raised.
18 Let's suppose it was timely raised. Now there are two 19 separate questions. One is is the NRC's approach 20 reasonable under NEPA? The second question is is 21 there something wrong with the meteorological analysis 22 as it's used in SAMA that might make other SAMAs cost 23 effective?
24 Are you suggesting if we found that mean 25 consequences question was timely raised that 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
688 1 proceed in parallel with those two so that the 2 meteorological analysis would be done in parallel with 3 the analysis of the reasonableness question under NEPA 4 and that we get briefs on those and then if that's the 5 case, are you suggesting that the meteorological 6 analysis would also include a separate analysis of 7 what the effects of mean consequences would be, which 8 is what I think Judge Young was questioning.
9 MR. HARRIS: What I was suggesting is that 10 the assuming that it's timely raised is that the 11 issue of the mean consequence analysis and the issue 12 of the meteorological modeling are both being measured 13 on whether or not they're reasonable under NEPA. And 14 it's the same issue that is going to have to be 15 decided for both, so proceeding forward at the hearing 16 on those issues, they can be done in parallel at the 17 same hearing.
18 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I'm sorry. I don't think 19 I am properly understanding what you're saying about 20 the meteorological modeling. I was under the 21 impression that the meteorological modeling question 22 is is there such an error in the meteorological 23 modeling by failure to account for the meteorological 24 patterns that Pilgrim Watch is concerned about that it 25 causes other SAMAs to be cost effective. I don't see NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
689 1 what that has to do with a NEPA analysis where, as it 2 seems to me, that whether -- that the question of the 3 NRC's approach is purely a NEPA analysis.
4 So am I misunderstanding you, Mr. Harris, 5 or are we just not on the same page?
6 MR. HARRIS: I think we're not on the same 7 page, Your Honor. Because even for the meteorological 8 modeling it still is going to be measured under the 9 NEPA rubric of whether or not -- the way we identified 10 what was cost beneficial was reasonable under NEPA.
11 CHAIR YOUNG: It's all a NEPA question.
12 MR. HARRIS: That's correct.
13 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, did you have anything 14 else to say or could we hear from the Applicant and 15 the Intervenor and Ms. Hollis on this as well as the 16 earlier questions that we had posed about the timing 17 and what difference it would make in your preparation 18 for the hearing?
19 MR. HARRIS: I have nothing further to say 20 on that issue, Your Honor.
21 CHAIR YOUNG: Actually, we haven't heard 22 from Ms. Hollis yet. Why don't we hear from you next?
23 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honor, we will not take 24 a position on those issues, unless I receive 25 additional instructions from my client. I will meet NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
690 1 with them tomorrow.
2 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, Mr. Lewis?
3 MS. HOLLIS: I do not believe we will be 4 making any submission on that topic.
5 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. Mr. Lewis, what 6 would your position be on how to proceed on the sort 7 of process or timing, question of rulings and 8 submission of evidence and so forth?
9 MR. LEWIS: Yes, Judge Young. This issue 10 of averaging, it was determined to have been timely 11 raised we would address it in the same testimony that 12 we addressed the remanded meteorological issues. I 13 guess the only question I have is I'm not completely 14 sure I know what Pilgrim Watch's view of that issue 15 is. The transcript page that the Commission referred 16 was discussing whether mean results should be used 17 rather than median results. That's easy.
18 CHAIR YOUNG: Mr. Lewis, Mr. Lewis?
19 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
20 CHAIR YOUNG: Let's not get into argument 21 on the merits of the question at this point. All 22 we're asking is is sort of process questions for 23 purposes of scheduling.
24 MR. LEWIS: We would address it in all in 25 one piece of testimony. I guess we'll see. If 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
691 1 Board asks for the positions of the party on whether 2 this was timely raised, I guess that will give us a 3 good indication of what Pilgrim Watch thinks the issue 4 is.
5 In any event, we would address it all in 6 one piece of testimony. We don't see any need for 7 bifurcation of the proceeding on this issue.
8 CHAIR YOUNG: And Ms. Lampert, what is 9 your position on that?
10 MS. LAMPERT: Well, number one, I can see 11 the point that you raised going step by step so we 12 know what is on the table. What would be important 13 for bifurcating is that there is sufficient time 14 between the decision, let's say in this case, whether 15 the statistical treatment is reasonable under NEPA to 16 preparing to go forward. So I think when you 17 bifurcate it's important to have enough time to allow 18 preparation because I don't think it would be 19 reasonable to require particularly us or anybody, any 20 party, to hire witnesses, do the research, prepare 21 materials that may never see the light of day.
22 I'd like to know what the rules are to be 23 sure that I can fulfill my responsibilities.
24 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, any other argument on 25 I guess I should call it trifurcation versus NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
692 1 bifurcation. As I understand it, both the staff and 2 the Applicant think it would make more sense to go 3 forward once we rule on the timeliness issue, if we 4 were to rule in favor of Pilgrim Watch on the 5 timeliness issue that the parties would then present 6 all their evidence on the reasonableness of the 7 averaging approach, along with the evidence on the 8 meteorological issue and any possible deficiencies in 9 that.
10 And Ms. Lampert, what you were arguing is 11 that -- I don't hear you expressing an opinion on 12 whether we should trifurcate, but that if we did, you 13 would need enough time after that secondary ruling by 14 the Board to fully prepare on knowing which direction 15 it would go?
16 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, that's correct, and we 17 also would need sufficient time in bifurcating between 18 the two. And additionally, I hope we can come back to 19 Judge Abramson's discussion on the meteorological 20 issues. It seemed in the order of September 2nd, as 21 I read it in the first paragraph, it says "we will 22 consider whether meteorological modeling is adequate 23 and reasonable to satisfy NEPA."
24 And so are we, in fact, going to be 25 discussing that and in essence is what we're really NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
693 1 talking about is what was in CLI 10-22 on page 11 that 2 asks whether --
3 CHAIR YOUNG: I'm sorry, what's your 4 reference there?
5 MS. LAMPERT: CLI 10-22, page 11, where 6 the issue was brought up.
7 (Pause.)
8 CHAIR YOUNG: 10-22?
9 MS. LAMPERT: Yes.
10 CHAIR YOUNG: I don't find a page 11.
11 MS. LAMPERT: Page 9, I'm sorry.
12 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
13 MS. LAMPERT: What, in essence, it says is 14 whether meteorological data or modeling methodology is 15 available, reliable, and adaptable for SAMA analysis.
16 It seems it's very much a question and I wondered 17 whether Judge Abramson was dismissing that or whether 18 that was or was not a focus.
19 It was on page one of the September 2nd 20 order, second paragraph.
21 (Pause.)
22 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I'm afraid I don't 23 understand your question, Ms. Lampert. This is Judge 24 Abramson.
25 MS. LAMPERT: It seemed, if I could only NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
694 1 roll back the tape, if it could only be in front of 2 us, that you -- the way I took your statement was that 3 the meteorology was important in how it would affect 4 the cost benefit issues that were on the cost issues 5 that were still on the table as opposed to what the 6 NEPA discussion brought forward in CLI 10-22, 7 addresses different aspects, whether the data of 8 another model that we were suggesting would be 9 available, re,liable, and adaptable. Is it reasonable 10 to ask what we have been asking as opposed to carrying 11 on with a steady-state straight line Gaussian plume.
12 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Ms. Lampert, I don't want 13 to dwell on this because I'm not the one who will 14 ultimately make a decision for the Board, ;but I do 15 want you to understand my view which is that 16 ultimately the question is whether another SAMA would 17 become cost beneficial. And the question that you 18 seem to me to have raised is is the meteorological 19 modeling and data that was used by Pilgrim so bad that 20 if it were done to accommodate your concerns and that 21 doesn't necessarily mean done with the code.' It could 22 be done however you think it can be done, that it 23 would cause the result of the SAMA analysis to 24 indicate that other SAMAs would become cost 25 beneficial. So it's not so much in my mind a question NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
695 1 of what's the reasonable way to model the meteorology.
2 I think everybody agrees that this is an 3 approximation.
4 The question is if you did it right, would 5 it change the result?
6 MS. LAMPERT: And then that ultimately 7 will depend on the questions I asked in the Motion for 8 Reconsideration. Will we be allowed to talk about the 9 significant costs or are we dealing with crumbs on how 10 many tourists are going to visit the Mayflower or come 11 to Plymouth County?
12 CHAIR YOUNG: Let me just interrupt.
13 Let's not get into that at this point. We've said 14 that if you want to take your Motion for Clarification 15 on that, on whether we get to the second or depending 16 on how you look at it, the third level or set of 17 issues, and let's jnst stick with the meteorological 18 modeling issue and adequacy of that as previously 19 defined.
20 And I think what I hear, at least from the 21 staff and the Applicant is that the reasonableness of 22 the mean consequences averaging practice that the NRC 23 uses can be approached as more or less part and parcel 24 of the reasonableness of the meteorological modeling.
25 It relates to that. And that it could be included, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
696 1 any evidence on that could be included in evidence on 2 the primary central fundamental meteorological 3 modeling issue.
4 I think we've heard your arguments. Do 5 you -- I have not heard from you, Ms. Lampert, whether 6 you favor getting a separate ruling from the Board or 7 whether you would go along with the staff and the 8 Applicant that you could handle your presentation of 9 evidence as including -- on the meteorological 10 modeling issue, including how that might be affected 11 by the averaging process or some alternate process?
12 MS. LAMPERT: I believe we could do that 13 under your proposed scheduled.
14 CHAIR YOUNG: In other words, all at once?
15 MS. LAMPERT: Under your proposed 16 scheduled.
17 CHAIR YOUNG: I think I hear you saying 18 that you agree with what the staff and Applicant said 19 on that under the proposed scheduled.
20 MS. LAMPERT: Under the proposed and that 21 was an important point.
22 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
23 MS. LAMPERT: The rush job that Entergy 24 has proposed isn't doable really for anything.
25 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Let me -- this is Judge NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
697 1 Abramson, let me ask one question. On the timeliness 2 question alone, is there any reason, Ms. Lampert, why 3 you could not address the timeliness question 4 relatively rapidly? It's just a question of what you 5 filed and when and whether that meets the NRC's 6 requirements for timely filing.
7 MS. LAMPERT: You didn't give a time.
8 CHAIR YOUNG: What about the time proposed 9 by the Applicant which was briefs on the timeliness 10 issue by September 22nd, and then responses on 11 September 29th?
12 MS. LAMPERT: No, that's way too early.
13 CHAIR YOUNG: How long would it take you 14 to get a brief to us on just the timeliness issue?
15 MS. LAMPERT: Let's face it. Today is the 16 15th. A week is out of the question.
17 CHAIR YOUNG: Two weeks?
18 MS. LAMPERT: I would go certainly into 19 October.
20 CHAIR YOUNG: So early October?
21 MS. LAMPERT: I'd say the 6th maybe. That 22 gives us three weeks. What's the matter with that?
23 CHAIR YOUNG: October 6th. Okay. Has the 24 staff spoken to the timing of those briefs? I don't 25 think you have. What's your position on 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
698 1 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, this is Brian 2 Harris. We would think that it would be better to get 3 it resolved earlier, but having it due two weeks from 4 this date would not -- we would not be opposed to 5 that. And I'm not sure, depending on when you 6 schedule the hearing, whether it's two weeks from now 7 or on October 6th and October 6th may make no real 8 difference on the schedule for the hearing.
9 CHAIR YOUNG: I don't think that we've 10 heard from any of you, really, on the issue of if 11 let's assume that we ruled in favor of Pilgrim Watch 12 on the timeliness issue and said that this averaging 13 practice is part of the main meteorological issue.
14 How much difference would it make in your preparation 15 of your pre-filed testimony to know whether to include 16 evidence on that as opposed to not including it?
17 In other words, how much does it play into 18 your analysis such that it would take significant time 19 to do it one way as opposed to another way? How much 20 time will you need after our ruling on that to prepare 21 your pre-filed testimony?
22 Could we hear from all of you on that, not 23 knowing now which way we'll rule.
24 MR. LEWIS: This is David Lewis. I think 25 however you ruled we'd be able to roll it into our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
699 1 testimony and we would be prepared to file our pre-2 filed testimony probably within two weeks after you 3 ruled.
4 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Mr. Lewis, this is Judge 5 Abramson. I want to make sure I understand what 6 you're suggesting, how you would roll this in. Are 7 you suggesting that if we find that it was timely 8 raised, that you would not only address the question 9 of whether the averaging technique is reasonable under 10 NEPA, but you would somehow modify your analysis of 11 what SAMAs are cost effective by using some other 12 method of computing the results so that you wouldn't 13 be using mean or averaging as the NRC suggests?
14 MR. LEWIS: I think what I would do is 15 present testimony explaining why the mean makes sense, 16 why it's consistent with a cost-benefit analysis and 17 why other approaches wouldn't make a difference.
18 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Other approaches. But 19 obviously, some approaches would make a difference.
20 If you're required to use a worst-case analysis, it 21 would make a difference.
22 MR. LEWIS: If I'm required to make a 23 worst-case analysis, yes, that might be a very 24 different analysis, but since there's Supreme Court 25 precedence, if not Court of Appeals precedence 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
700 1 says you don't have to do worst-case analysis, I'm 2 counting on that not being the ruling.
3 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So you're not saying to 4 me that you're going to re-analyze or do a massive re-5 analysis of the cost benefit. You're putting your 6 arguments into whether what the NRC does is 7 reasonable?
8 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
9 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And I wanted to get that 10 on the table and make sure. I'd like to hear from the 11 staff. Is that what you're thinking also or are you 12 contemplating that you would do some or suggest some 13 re-analysis of the cost-benefit analysis based on some.
14 other technique, including things like worst-case 15 analysis.
16 MR. HARRIS: No, Your Honor. We wouldn't 17 be considering some worst-case analysis technique. We 18 would be looking at why it's reasonable to do it to 19 use the main consequences analysis and to use that 20 kind of statistical analysis to deal with these 21 uncertainties.
22 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Ms. Lampert, do you have 23 a view on this?
24 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, I do. Mary Lampert.
25 Yes. We would focus on why current practice is not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
701 1 reasonable and most importantly, demonstrating why it 2 would make a significant difference and that ties into 3 your concerns of the focus of SAMAs on bringing on 4 more mitigation, justifying more mitigation. Yes, it 5 would make a big difference, and hence, it's very 6 important, so let's do it. Go for it.
7 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, hold on.
8 (Pause.)
9 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young?
10 CHAIR YOUNG: Excuse me, yes?
11 MR. LEWIS: This is David Lewis. I have 12 a suggestion. I think the issue is if this is timely, 13 is the NRC's approach reasonable and what is being 14 contemplated by us and the stiff is that we would put 15 on testimony.
16 I suggest rather than having lots of 17 strings of pleadings, why don't we proceed at this 18 juncture with we would address in our testimony why 19 the approach of using mean values is reasonable. And 20 if the Board at the same time would like, at the same 21 time testimony is submitted, a brief on whether this 22 issue is timely raised or not, we could do that at the 23 same time.
24 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, let's see what the 25 responses of the other parties are. Basically, what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
702 1 I understand you to be saying is rather than the Board 2 making a ruling on the timeliness question at this 3 point, thatwhat you're proposing is that all parties 4 present their evidence on the meteorological issue and 5 I think everyone knows what I mean when I say the 6 meteorological issue as we've defined it on September 7 2nd, that as part of your pre-filed testimony on that 8 issue all parties would submit any evidence and 9 argument that they have on the timeliness issue as 10 well as the reasonableness of the averaging approach 11 and that we would then consider all those issues
.12 together and address them all in our final initial 13 decision on the matter.
14 Did I understand you correctly, Mr. Lewis?
15 MR. LEWIS: Yes, Judge Young, exactly.
16 MS. LAMPERT: Mary Lampert. May I ask a 17 question? So you're asking us to do significant 18 analysis on the. reasonableness of the approach which 19 would involve showing whether it would make a 20 difference or not. ' So this isn't a small matter, when 21 it could be totally knocked, all for naught, no, it 22 wasn't raised in a timely manner.
23 CHAIR YOUNG: Right, that's what's being 24 proposed. In other words, you'd present all your 25 evidence all at once and yes, it could be knocked 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
703 1 if we rule on the timeliness issue first, if it's 2 determined to knock it out, then that would preclude 3 you from presenting any evidence on it.
4 MR. HARRIS: Judge Young, this is Brian 5 Harris for the staff. We think it would be much 6 better to rule on the timeliness separately and I 7 think that that would make a cleaner record if we went 8 to hearing on the issue rather than trying to resolve 9 both the timeliness of the mean consequences being 10 raised and whether or not it's reasonable under NEPA.
11 CHAIR YOUNG: Mr. Harris or anyone else, 12 could you point us quickly to the Commission's 13 reference to the timeliness?
14 MR. HARRIS: Judge Young, it's page 8 of 15 Note 34.
16 CHAIR YOUNG: Of CLI 10-22, okay. Right.
17 So they don't really define for us whether we should 18 do that in two separate steps or all at once. So I 19 understand both the staff and Pilgrim Watch to be 20 objecting to the Applicant's suggestion that we 21 consider all those issues as part of the 22 meteorological modeling issue, correct?
23 MR. HARRIS: This is Brian Harris for the 24 staff, yes, Your Honor.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: And Ms. Lampert, that'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
704 1 correct?
2 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, that's correct.
3 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, now on any other 4 issues as to the schedule? We were going through 5 that. I think we understand what your positions are 6 on the timing, assuming we were to rule as the staff 7 and Pilgrim Watch are suggesting, assuming that we're 8 to rule on the timeliness issue first and then move 9 into the pre-filed testimony.
10 I'm trying to think in terms of the timing 11 of this. How much, I guess the best way to approach 12 this is how much time after we rule on the timeliness 13 issue, will the parties need to present their evidence 14 assuming we rule in favor of Pilgrim Watch on the 15 timeliness issue?
16 And let's start with you, Ms. Lampert, 17 because from what you said before, you're the one that 18 that would most affect because you would present 19 different evidence, including additional evidence, and 20 possibly different evidence if we were to rule in your 21 favor on the timeliness issue. So how much time would 22 you need to prepare if we were to rule in your favor 23 on that?
24 MS. LAMPERT: As I said before, I have two 25 points to make, the schedule that you proposed 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
705 1 initially at the beginning of this conversation could 2 fit and we could meet those benchmarks. That's point 3 number one. Anything that was short of that would be 4 a burden.
5 Point number two is I'm really not clear 6 that the issues that I've filed in the Motion for 7 Clarification to the Board, and I'm not suggesting --
8 CHAIR YOUNG: I'm sorry, what's the last 9 word you said? I missed that.
10 MS. LAMPERT: Your order that they be sent 11 instead to the Commission for a reclarification, if 12 you will. Now what do I do if they sit on it for 13 months? Then I won't know whether I'm dealing with, 14 quote, a fool's errand, or whether there is something 15 of consequence left for me to talk about and who then 16 I would hire to do this. Am I going to get David 17 Shannon, for example, pay him, fly him from 18 Albuquerque here when he can. talk about clean-up costs 19 for example, which are the bases of business activity, 20 etcetera. And if I don't know that, what am I 21 supposed to do? My hands are tied.
22 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, first of all, we're 23 not ordering you to take anything to the Commission --
24 MS. LAMPERT: I would have to do that.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: That's up to you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.'
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
706 1 MS. LAMPERT: But the Board has decided 2 not to respond, so I know where I'm at, and so 3 therefore having to know what's on the table, what 4 will be addressed, I will then have to -- will go to 5 the Commission. Then I don't know how long they will 6 take to give a response and their response, in 7 essence, would be the starting gun.
8 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, Ms. Lampert, let me 9 see if I can address this for you. The first issue, 10 as I understand it, and this is subject to correction 11 on the technical aspect of it, but as I understand it, 12 the analysis that is done under the MACCS code anyway 13 is divided up into three parts.
14 The first part looks at the meteorological 15 modeling on its own. And then the second part, and I 16 don't know which comes next, the EARLY -- EARLY comes 17 next. That refers to the evacuation or the economic 18 costs? So the second part is the EARLY part, all in 19 caps for the Court Reporter, E-A-R-L-Y, and that part 20 looks at the evacuation input.
21 And then the third part is the later part 22 called CHRONC, C-H-R-O-N-C, or something like that.
23 And that part looks at the economic costs, but the 24 Commission has said only those that were raised in the 25 original Contention 3 and that we admit it as part 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
707 1 the original Contention 3, namely, the economic lost 2 business, lost tourism, the economic infrastructure, 3 not the health costs and the -- and I think not the, 4 clean-up costs and so forth.
5 In any event, the point I'm trying to make 6 here is the part of the analysis that looks at how the 7 plume would actually work, that's what the Commission 8 is directing us to pay most attention to as the 9 primary issue. If in analyzing that issue and 10 incorporating whatever extent they get incorporated, 11 any economic cost issue or evacuation issues, we will 12 be looking at whether that meteorological modeling is 13 adequate and reasonable to satisfy NEPA and whether 14 accounting only for those meteorological patterns and 15 issues of concern that you've raised relating to the 16 plume model now could credibly alter the Pilgrim SAMA 17 analysis conclusions on which SAMAs are cost 18 beneficial to implement.
19 So you don't get into the economic costs, 20 the evacuation inputs on that first issue. All right, 21 so that's the first part of the bifurcated proceeding.
22 MS. LAMPERT: Judge Young --
23 CHAIR YOUNG: Just hold on, let me get --
24 MS. LAMPERT: I apologize.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: I think we need to be on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
708 1 same page here. Then if we were to rule in your favor 2 on that first issue, whether accounting for those 3 issues of concern to you could credibly alter the SAMA 4 analysis conclusions, if we find in your favor on that 5 issue, then there would be a second part of the 6 proceeding at which point you would then introduce 7 your evidence on the evacuation inputs and the 8 economic cost issues including tourism, lost business, 9 economic infrastructure. I think basically are the 10 ones that we admitted as part of Contention 3.
11 So what I'm not clear on is why you feel 12 that your proof on the economic cost issues, why you 13 need to know whether you will later possibly be 14 permitted to present proof on those issues is 15 necessary in order for you to present the proof that's 16 solely on the meteorological issues relating to the 17 plume? Do you see what I'm saying?
18 MS. LAMPERT: The reason -- yes, I 19 understand, Judge Young, what you're saying. In 20 response to the May 5th order --
21 CHAIR YOUNG: Could you speak up, just a 22 little, we're having a hard time hearing you.
23 MS. LAMPERT: In response to the May 5th 24 order, I think we addressed this issue under a request 25 for what the scope was. The issue is does 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
709 1 question are the meteorological pattern issues that we 2 have brought forward, could they credibly alter SAMAs?
3 Does this mean to you then that if they could change, 4 enlarge, the area of impact and deposition in those 5 areas impacted or does this mean something else, i.e.,
6 what difference does the difference make and how could 7 you show that it would make a difference other than 8 potentially enlarging the area of impact if you don't 9 get into the cost? That was the whole issue.
10 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
11 MS. LAMPERT: I have no problem if you 12 mean that the meteorological patterns that were used 13 by Entergy that are in ATMOS versus the meteorological 14 patterns' issues that we raise, would it or would it 15 not -- could it or could it not raise 16 -- enlarge the geographic area, make a different area 17 impacted and with greater deposition and hence, it 18 would then logically move to the next stage. Is that 19 how you view it or as Dr. Abramson, Judge Abramson, 20 seemed to be saying something else.
21 CHAIR YOUNG: Let's take a stab at that, 22 Ms. Lampert here. I'm going to take a stab at that 23 from a lawyer's perspective and then Judge Abramsom 24 may have something to add here.
25 My understanding is this, that if we were NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
710 1 to find that changing the analysis of the plume and 2 its behavior could have a significant impact on the 3 ultimate SAMA analysis such that there could be 4 additional SAMAs that might be cost beneficial, then 5 we would go to the next issue of assuming that we 6 found that's what the Commission wants us to do.
7 Now in looking at that first issue, my 8 understanding, and Judge Abramson will correct me if 9 I'm wrong on the technical part of it, but my 10 understanding is that by looking at the plume 11 behavior, that I would assume that -- how much 12 deposition, how much increased deposition there would 13 be would be part of that analysis. But not whether 14 there would or would not be increased deposition, but 15 whether any increased deposition, if any, would be 16 significant enough to have -- to alter the ultimately 17 SAMA analysis conclusions on which SAMAs would be cost 18 beneficial to implement.
19 So it's not just would it result in more 20 deposition, but would any additional deposition as a 21 result of a different plume behavior be significant 22 enough to effect the ultimate SAMA conclusions. In 23 other words, we got into this the very first time we 24 talked, I think, back in May, we talked about could it 25 possibly lead to -- if it would change it by one NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
711 1 percent, it would not really have a significant 2 impact, that it would be impossible to change the 3 ultimate SAMA conclusions, that would be one result.
4 If, on the other hand, it could change it enough to 5 possibly lead to different ultimately SAMA analysis 6 conclusions, that would be another story.
7 Judge Abramson?
8 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes. Ms. Lampert, first 9 of all, I think that what you're saying is accurate as 10 far as it goes. When you do the meteorological 11 analysis portion of this calculation, what happens is 12 you take an assumed amount of radiation that's going 13 to be released from the plant over an assumed period 14 of time and you dump that over time into the 15 atmosphere and the meteorology carries it in whatever 16 direction the wind is blowing and deposits it as the 17 precipitation and the wind patterns take it. So it 18 clearly would alter for any particular computation or 19 for any particular scenario, it will alter the way the 20 radiation is deposited. It would not necessarily mean 21 more in every location or less in every location. It 22 would just give it a different distribution.
23 So you're right, that's what happens. Now 24 what I believe the Commission said to us and the way 25 I believe this computer code works and the way 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
712 1 computations are done, you take a meteorological piece 2 of the computation which takes an assumed release from 3 the core, from the plant, and figures out where it 4 gets deposited over what period of time. It then 5 takes that deposition over the two periods of time, 6 the EARLY period and the CHRONC period and each of 7 those secondary computer models computes the economic 8 effect of that deposition. EARLY does it during what 9 I think is the first seven days, if I remember 10 correctly, and CHRONC does it for the balance of the 11 period of time.
12 And then you do that calculation many, 13 many hundreds or thousands of times with different 14 wind patterns and with different core releases of a 15 source term. And from that you compute some kind of 16 average.
17 What I think the Commission has said to us 18 is see what the effect is of changing the meteorology.
19 Don't mess with how the deposition, as computed by 20 your meteorology, don't mess with how that's 21 translated into cost. In other words, use the cost 22 mechanisms that are currently employed in the MACCS 23 code in the EARLY and CHRONC portions. Having done 24 that, just varying the meteorology, see whether it 25 makes other SAMAs cost effective or could make. See NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
713 1 whether it could make other SAMAs cost effective.
2 That's the threshold test.
3 If we find from the evidence that it 4 could, then we go on beyond that. If we find that it 5 cannot, then we don't go beyond that. But in either 6 case, what we're looking at in this threshold test is 7 when you look at the effect of the meteorological 8 patterns that Pilgrim Watch has raised, what does it 9 do to where things are deposited and in what time 10 frame?
11 CHAIR YOUNG: Does that make sense? I get 12 a feeling that, for example, you mentioned Mr.
13 Shannon. I get a feeling that probably he would have 14 evidence to present on all of the issues and assuming 15 we got to the issues one and two as stated in our 16 September 2nd order, the secondary possible potential 17 issues, but even if we didn't get to those issues, my 18 understanding from what you've said is that what he 19 and/or any -- Mr. Egan, I think would be addressing on 20 this primary threshold issue is the plume behavior and 21 the effect that that would have, without getting into 22 changing any of the other economic inputs or 23 evacuation inputs.
24 Does that make sense to you?
25 MS. LAMPERT: As I indicated, in 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
714 1 to the May 5th request for opinion on scope, no. I 2 mean I understand what you're saying. That's a 3 separate question. Does the meat of what you're 4 discussing makes sense, no.
5 We've already answered that, other than 6 showing how a meteorological -- a different 7 meteorological data and plume could affect a larger 8 and different geographic area and the amount of 9 deposition in those areas without, as far as bringing 10 about other SAMAs, that is why in this whole effort we 11 looked at three inputs in how they interplay together.
12 So to be able to demonstrate in my own mind the 13 difference a different model would make requires 14 looking eventually at the same time or knowing you 15 can, be very gross under estimations of cost that 16 clean up and what have you resulted in. They all go 17 together in other words.
18 CHAIR YOUNG: Ms. Lampert, I think I 19 probably should say something here and that is the 20 remand is defined by what the Commission has said.
21 They defined it in CLI 10-11 and there were references 22 which we cited in the September 2nd order to 23 evacuation matters and economic cost matters on 24 footnote 136 and pages 36, 37.
25 MS. LAMPERT: Correct.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
715 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Now I think the Commission 2 has pretty clearly said that we don't consider those 3 issues unless the findings on the first issue would be 4 to the effect that accounting for the meteorological 5 patterns and issues of concern to Pilgrim Watch could 6 credibly alter the Pilgrim SAMA analysis conclusions.
7 So that's where we are. In terms of how 8 you present your proof, whether you want to go ahead 9 and get it together for the possibility that you might 10 be permitted to present it later, that's up to you.
11 I think the question I was trying to get to was simply 12 on the timeliness issue, how much time would you need 13 to present your evidence solely on the meteorological 14 issue as defined on the first page of the September 15 2nd order and assuming we were to rule in your favor 16 on the timeliness issue, on the averaging question, as 17 opposed to if we were to rule against you on that, how 18 much time would you need from that point forward to 19 prepare for a hearing -- to prepare your pre-filed 20 written testimony on the meteorological issue alone?
21 Now it's up to you whether you want to at 22 the same time prepare evidence on the other two issues 23 where the possibility that you might be allowed to 24 present that, that would be up to you. But in terms 25 of only what you would be permitted to submit on the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
716 1 meteorological issue, how much time would you need to 2 do that?
3 MS. LAMPERT: Again, assuming -- I had 4 assumed and the issue of bifurcation, the important 5 point on bifurcation is that once the meteorological 6 has been decided, there would be ample time then to 7 prepare to go forward to step two. The reason for
.8 that is quite frankly I'm not going to spend the money 9 to pay witnesses to prepare for step two, because this 10 is out of my pocket. I am not going to do that. I 11 cannot do that, if I don't know it's going to see the 12 light of day. This is not purely an academic exercise 13 for me.
14 CHAIR YOUNG: I understand that.
15 MS. LAMPERT: Number one. Number two, how 16 long -- your first question -- would it take? Again, 17 we have a similar argument for timing as made on May 18 5th that the expert for meteorology, for example, 19 could not work over the summer. It is now September 20 15th, because of conflicts with other clients and 21 other responsibilities. It is now September 15th.
22 That would be a starting time and therefore the 23 schedule that you propose is doable unless Dr. Egan 24 who is now on the telephone, on this conversation 25 would say otherwise, that he could not prepare to meet NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
717 1 the schedule that you proposed at the beginning of 2 this conference.
3 CHAIR YOUNG: Would it be doable if we 4 moved back that January -- mid-January deadline for 5 initial pre-filed direct testimony to say December 6 15th? Would that be doable for you and if so, if not, 7 why not? And if you need to talk to Mr. Egan, 8 separately, you can do that. That's the only --
9 MS. LAMPERT: I would have to talk to him.
10 Like now?
11 (Laughter.)
12 DR. EGAN: I am on the line. I'd have to 13 look at that. We'd have to define exactly what needs 14 to be done. That's a whole month lost of time.
15 CHAIR YOUNG: We had not given you these 16 dates prior to this. So had we not given you any 17 dates at all, what kind of time were you anticipating, 18 Ms. Lampert and Mr. Egan?
19 MS. LAMPERT: Actually, maybe our minds 20 are in sync, Judge Young, because I had really thought 21 in terms of what hopefully you were suggesting. I 22 certainly was expecting that the Motion for 23 Consideration -- Reconsideration -- would be responded 24 to by the Board and then I would have a clear idea, we 25 all would have a clear idea of where we are at and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross:com
718 1 whether we were, in fact, going forward.
2 CHAIR YOUNG: I think we probably need to 3 wrap up pretty soon. But let me just say this, 4 whether -or not, whatever any ruling might be on 5 whether we get to the issues one and two as we define 6 them in the September 2nd order, even if we were or 7 the Commission were to rule yes, these are still 8 potential issues, there is still the possibility that 9 we would not rule in your favor on the first issue.
10 So you would still be in the situation of having to 11 decide at the outset whether you wanted- to go ahead 12 and plan for the possibility that you might want to 13 present that evidence later or whether you were just 14 going to wait until after we ruled on the threshold 15 issue, so to speak, the meteorological issue.
16 So I don't.know what, if any, difference 17 that --
18 MS. LAMPERT: I thought I had explained 19 why that really wasn't feasible. I didn't have money 20 to throw around to prepare for something I didn't know 21 I was going to be able to do.
22 CHAIR YOUNG: Right, but I guess my point 23 is you wouldn't necessarily know anyway.
24 MS. LAMPERT: Well, yes, I would if there 25 was a reasonable period of time between the decision 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
719 1 on the bias on meteorology, whether you were going 2 forward to stage two or you weren't going forward to 3 stage two.
4 CHAIR YOUNG: Now what you seem to be 5 saying is that the critical question is not how much 6 time you need now, but how much time you would need 7 later if we were to rule in your favor on the first 8 issue, and those second two issues were open for 9 litigation at that point.
10 And so -- and let's assume that you would 11 be given adequate time at that time to prepare, how 12 much time -- would that make any difference in how 13 much time you need to prepare now for the 14 meteorological issue alone?
15 MS. LAMPERT: No. I started out by saying 16 what we understood was we were going to be looking at 17 stage one, meteorology. The question then became when 18 would the hearing and all the filings be due and what 19 you suggested seemed reasonable, seemed doable.
20 Then the second question was what were we 21 going to be allowed to discuss in part two and that 22 makes a difference on what we want to do period.
23 CHAIR YOUNG: Not knowing at this point 24 whether there's going to be a step two, does anyone 25 have anything else to add on the scheduling? I think NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
720 1 we probably need to wrap up pretty soon and that once 2 we do we will take all your arguments under 3 consideration and figure out what makes the most sense 4 in terms of a schedule.
5 It may be mainly arguing over a month or 6 two and given the time that's already gone under the 7 bridge on this Contention 3, I think we do want to set 8 a schedule that will allow all parties to adequately 9 prepare for a hearing and we'll take all your 10 arguments into account on that.
11 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, this is David 12 Lewis. I do have one point. In Pilgrim Watch's May 13 12th filing before the Board which was Pilgrim Watch's 14 response to the Board's May 5th order, they indicated 15 that they could prepare their testimony in six weeks.
16 CHAIR YOUNG: Mr. Lewis, I didn't hear 17 that last part, someone is rustling some paper.
18 MR. LEWIS: Pilgrim Watch's May 12th 19 filing before the Board in response to the May 5th 20 order, Pilgrim Watch represented that it could 21 complete its testimony in six weeks.
22 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Mr. Lewis, this is Judge 23 Abramson. Let me ask Ms. Lampert and Mr. Egan a 24 question.
25 Judge Young earlier asked you whether NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
721 1 December 15th would be a doable date to get your pre-2 filed direct testimony to us regarding the 3 meteorological portion. That's 90 days from now, 4 three months and is that a number -- is that a date 5 you could meet?
6 Now I know Ms. Lampert said she prepared 7 January 15th, but I want to note that at least two 8 weeks of that extra month would be consumed with 9 holidays, so you really wouldn't be gaining that much.
10 Could you meet December 15th as a date? That's well 11 beyond the six weeks that you originally suggested you 12 needed.
13 MS. LAMPERT: Correct. Let me just add, 14 this is Mary Lampert for the transcript. Let me just 15 add for -- in response to Mr. Lewis, that what we 16 suggested on May 5th was in light of commitments known 17 beginning in the fall at that time. It is now 18 September 15th and people's calendars are a little bit 19 different. So it's not exactly comparable.
20 I would say it would be rushed and I thank 21 you, Judge Abramson, for suggesting I'm so youthful 22 that I have little children to prepare for under the 23 Christmas tree, but I don't. And although December is 24 a holiday and I appreciate and enjoy it, that extra 25 month of time could make a difference. I would 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
722 1 to speak obviously to Dr. Egan and have him have an 2 opportunity to look at his calendar and talk to his 3 other clients and so do you need this answer 4 immediately or in a couple of days would it do?
5 CHAIR YOUNG: So you're saying you could 6 let us know in a couple of days of whether Dr. Egan 7 could and I guess that would include Dr. Lyman as 8 well, whether they could prepare the pre-filed direct 9 by December 15?
10 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, because for Dr. Lyman 11 who is at the Union of Concerned Scientists, I don't 12 know what his schedule is.
13 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, well, why don't you 14 let us know in a couple of days what your situation is 15 with them and we'll issue an ordering setting a 16 schedule as soon as possible.
17 MS. LAMPERT: Does that work for you, 18 Bruce?
19 DR. EGAN: Yes.
20 CHAIR YOUNG: Any other questions?
21 MR. HARRIS: Judge Young, this is Brian 22 Harris for the staff. The December 15th date for the 23 initial testimony would actually work best for the 24 staff. A lot of our experts are actually going to be 25 gone and have prior commitments during the preceding NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
723 1 month so that would be a good day for us to submit the 2 initial testimony. And of course, we could still 3 submit it on the January date.
4 CHAIR YOUNG: Any other questions or 5 comments?
6 (No response.)
7 All right, well, actually, I guess, let's 8 assume that we leave the additional dates for later.
9 Could everyone prepare your briefs on the timeliness 10 issue by the end of this month by say Friday, October 11 1?
12 MR. LEWIS: Yes, Judge Young, this is 13 David Lewis. We can do that.
14 CHAIR YOUNG: And then the responses on 15 October 8th. What about the staff and Ms. Lampert?
16 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Judge Young, the staff 17 can do that.
18 CHAIR YOUNG: Ms. Lampert?
19 MS. LAMPERT: I think I'm outvoted, 20 obviously I would want more time, but it could be 21 doable.
22 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. All right, then let's 23 go ahead and set those two deadlines. Briefs on the 24 timeliness issue addressing all, any and all relevant 25 timeliness factors. This is not like -- there are no NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
724 1 specific regulatory factors as with contention 2 admissibility or late-filed contentions, but file 3 whatever you have on the timeliness issue by October 4 1 with responses on that due October 8.
5 And then Ms. Lampert, you will get 6 something to us on how soon your experts could help 7 you such that you could file your pre-filed written 8 testimony, whether you could file that on December 9 15th.
10 Now we would still need to build in a time 11 in mid-November to talk about the method of filing 12 those, but that shouldn't make much difference in the 13 actual preparation of it.
14 MS. LAMPERT: So for clarity, could --
15 would September 20th, this coming Monday, be an 16 adequate time for the response for December 15th 17 because I know I can get in touch with Dr. Egan, but 18 I don't know whether Dr. Lyman is going to be in town 19 tomorrow or the next day. I might not be able to get 20 in touch with him until over the weekend. I have no 21 idea.
22 I don't want to be committed to tomorrow 23 or the next day and then -- is that okay?
24 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. That's fine.
25 DR. EGAN: But sooner would be better.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
725 1 MS. LAMPERT: I understand that.
2 CHAIR YOUNG: That's fine. All right, 3 hold on one second.
4 (Pause.)
5 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, it's been pointed out 6 to me that we may actually be looking at whether this 7 timeliness issue would fall under the contention 8 admissibility provisions of 10 CFR 2.309 and I believe 9 the subsections there are (c) and (f) (2), if I'm 10 remembering right on timeliness.
11 You can include in your briefs argument on 12 whether and the extent to which we should apply any or 13 all of those considerations on timeliness either 14 directly or indirectly. Does that make sense?
15 Everyone?
16 MR. LEWIS: Yes, Judge Young.
17 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Judge Young. This is 18 the staff.
19 CHAIR YOUNG: Ms. Lampert?
20 MS. LAMPERT: I haven't read that, but 21 it's (c) and (f) (2)?
22 CHAIR YOUNG: The rule you're talking 23 about?
24 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, the one you just said.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: It's 10 CFR, it's in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
726 1 same rule as the contention, the regular contention 2 and admissibility criteria are.
3 MS. LAMPERT: Okay.
4 CHAIR YOUNG: 10 CFR 2.309 and subsection 5 (c), of that addresses non-timely filing and it 6 includes factors such as good cause for the failure to 7 raise it on time, namely, when you filed your original 8 contention. And there's seven or eight factors under 9 subsection (c) . And that's 2.309(c), 10 CFR 2.309(c).
10 And then other subsection of 2.309 is (f) 11 as in Frank, two.
12 MS. LAMPERT: Okay.
13 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And this is Judge 14 Abramson. Please, when you make these filings, 15 indicate explicitly what you said in what filing on 16 what date so that we know what you're talking about.
17 CHAIR YOUNG: Right, in other words, when 18 did you actually first raise the issue? Did you 19 actually raise it in some form or fashion prior to the 20 transcript citation that the Commission provides in 21 its footnote 34 of 10 CFR -- I'm sorry, forget 10 CFR 22 -- in CLI 10-22. When did you first raise it if you 23 did raise it before that cite to the transcript? And 24 if you didn't raise it before that cite in the 25 transcript, why should we consider it to be timely NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
727 1 even though it was not part of the original 2 contention? Did you follow that?
3 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, I did. Thank you very 4 much.
5 CHAIR YOUNG: Great, okay. All right, 6 then we'll look forward to hearing from you on that 7 issue, on October 1st. We'll try to get out an order 8 as soon as possible setting that out. We may wait 9 until early next week after we hear back from you on 10 the availability of your experts to set the entire 11 schedule. But everyone knows and is clear at this 12 point that October 1st is the deadline for filing your 13 briefs on the timeliness with which Pilgrim Watch 14 raised its questions about the NRC practice of 15 utilizing mean consequence values resulting in an 16 averaging of potential consequences as stated in 17 footnote 34 of CLI 10-22.
18 All right, okay? Everyone on the same 19 page there?
20 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor. This is 21 Brian Harris for the staff.
22 MR. LEWIS: Yes, Judge Young.
23 CHAIR YOUNG: And Ms. Lampert?
24 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, Judge. Thank you very 25 much. You're very clear and patient. I appreciate NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
728 1 that.
2 CHAIR YOUNG: Well, thank you all and 3 before -- we can go ahead and go off the record.
4 Thank you all for participating.
5 (Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m., the 6 teleconference was concluded.)
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of: Entergy Nuclear Generating Co Pilgrim Power Station Name of Proceeding: Pre-Hearing Conference Docket Number: 40-293-LR ASLBP Number: 06-848-02-LR Location: (telephone conference) were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
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