ML110740699
| ML110740699 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 03/09/2011 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML110740695 | List: |
| References | |
| RAS 19786, 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR, NRC-777 | |
| Download: ML110740699 (236) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Docket Number: 50-293-LR ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR Location: Plymouth, Massachusetts Date: Wednesday, March 9, 2011 Work Order No.: NRC-777 Pages 784-1018 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
784 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5 + + + + +
6 HEARING 7 ---------------------------x 8 In the Matter of: :
9 ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION : Docket No. 50-293-LR 10 COMPANY AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR:
11 OPERATIONS, INC. : ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR 12 (Pilgrim Nuclear Power :
13 Station) :
14 ---------------------------x 15 Wednesday, March 9, 2011 16 17 John Carver Inn 18 Gov. Carver Boardroom 19 25 Summer Street 20 Plymouth, Massachusetts 21 22 BEFORE:
23 ANN MARSHALL YOUNG, Chair 24 DR. RICHARD F. COLE, Administrative Judge 25 DR. PAUL B. ABRAMSON, Administrative Judge NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
785 1 APPEARANCES:
2 On Behalf of Entergy Nuclear Generation Co.:
3 DAVID R. LEWIS, ESQ.
4 PAUL A. GAUKLER, ESQ.
5 of: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 6 2300 N Street, N.W.
7 Washington, D.C. 20037-1122 8 Tel: (202) 663-8000 9
10 On Behalf of the Intervenor, Pilgrim Watch:
11 MARY LAMPERT, DIRECTOR 12 148 Washington Street 13 Duxbury, MA 02332 14 Tel: (781) 934-0389 15 16 On Behalf of the Intervenor, Town of Plymouth:
17 SHEILA SLOCUM HOLLIS, ESQ.
18 of: Duane Morris, LLP 19 505 9th Street, N.W.
20 Suite 1000 21 Washington, D.C. 20004-2166 22 Tel: (202) 776-7810 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
786 1 On Behalf of the Intervenor, Town of Duxbury 2 Nuclear Advisory Committee:
3 REBECCA CHIN, VICE CHAIR 4 31 Deerpath Trail 5 North Duxbury, MA 02332 6 Tel: (781) 837-0009 7
8 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
9 SUSAN L. UTTAL, ESQ.
10 ANDREA Z. JONES, ESQ.
11 BRIAN G. HARRIS, ESQ.
12 BETH N. MIZUNO, ESQ 13 of: Office of the General Counsel 14 Mail Stop - O-15 D21 15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 17 Tel: (301) 415-3722 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 (202) 234-4433
787 1 T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 2 EXHIBIT MARKED RECEIVED 3 1 871 872 4
5 ITEM PAGE 6 New Cleanup Contention 791 7 Expert Dr. O'Kula 841 8 New Cables Contention 861 9 Contention 3 880 10 Expert Dr. O'Kula 891 11 Expert Dr. Hanna 821 12 Dr. O'Kula 940 13 Closing statement by Mr. Lewis 994 14 Closing statement by Mr. Harris 1001 15 Closing statement by Ms. Lampert 1006 16 Closing statement by Ms. Chin 1014 17 Closing statement by Ms. Hollis 1015 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 (202) 234-4433
788 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (9:00 a.m.)
3 CHAIR YOUNG: I am Ann Marshall Young. I 4 am the Chair of the Licensing Board. And I am going 5 to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves and then 6 we will start over on the left and have all the 7 parties introduce yourselves and whoever is with you.
8 JUDGE COLE: I am Richard Cole. I am 9 environmental technical judge. I have been with the 10 Panel for 38 years.
11 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I'm Paul Abramson. I am 12 a legal judge and a technical judge. And if you see 13 me getting up and pacing around today, I have a back 14 injury which makes it very painful for me to sit. So, 15 please be tolerant of it. It is not because I am 16 trying to ignore anybody or expressing any 17 dissatisfaction with what I am hearing. It is just my 18 physical condition.
19 CHAIR YOUNG: Also, if you need to 20 interrupt us at any point and ask us to speak more 21 clearly or anything like that, please feel free.
22 All right. Do you want to start, Entergy?
23 MR. LEWIS: Yes. Thank you, Judge. My 24 name is David Lewis and with me is my partner, Paul 25 Gaukler. We are with the law firm Pillsbury Winthrop NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
789 1 Shaw Pittman. We have the privilege of representing 2 Entergy in this proceeding today. We do have our 3 witnesses on Contention 3 in the audience, Dr. Steven 4 Hanna and Dr. Kevin O'Kula.
5 CHAIR YOUNG: All right.
6 MS. UTTAL: Good morning, Judges. I am 7 Susan Uttal from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 8 representing the Nuclear Regulatory Staff. With me on 9 my right is Beth Mizuno; and on my left is Andrea 10 Jones, also attorneys for the Staff. There is a 11 fourth attorney, Brian Harris, who is sitting behind 12 us also representing Staff.
13 We have two of our witnesses here on 14 Contention 3, Nate Bixler and Tina Ghosh.
15 CHAIR YOUNG: Ms. Lampert.
16 MS. LAMPERT: Good morning. I am Mary 17 Lampert. I am representing Pilgrim Watch, pro se. We 18 do not have witnesses here today. Our witness for the 19 cables is in a meeting on that subject in Washington 20 today.
21 At the table here is Rebecca Chin, 22 representing the Town of Duxbury.
23 MS. HOLLIS: Good morning, Your Honor.
24 Sheila Hollis from Washington here representing the 25 Town of Plymouth.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
790 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you all. We thought 2 we would start this morning by talking about the new 3 contentions. And then when we are finished with 4 those, we will get to Contention 3.
5 On the new contentions my questions will 6 really focus mainly on two things. The standards for 7 reopening and Ms. Lampert I do want to give you an 8 opportunity answer some questions on that. I will say 9 that our inclination is that the standards on 10 reopening should apply but as I said, I want to give 11 you a chance to answer some questions on that.
12 And then as part of that, the significance 13 or level of severity of any issues that are raised.
14 Let's see, the actual language. And we don't have 15 very good light up here. So if we look like we are 16 straining to read --
17 JUDGE ABRAMSON: It is just because we 18 have bad eyes.
19 CHAIR YOUNG: Right. The significant --
20 If the issue is significant enough or exceptionally 21 grave, timeliness issues might not be as critical.
22 The significance of the issue and whether a materially 23 different result would occur.
24 Then, I believe it is 2.340, the extent to 25 which we as a Board can raise to the Commission a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
791 1 serious safety environmental or common defense and 2 security matter.
3 I believe you, Ms. Lampert, had suggested 4 that we could raise an issue sua sponte and I think 5 Entergy responded that the way that that would be done 6 would be pursuant to 10 CFR 2.340.
7 So those are sort of a collection of 8 issues around the reopening issue.
9 By the way, you notice I have some 10 caffeine up here. Anyone feel free because --
11 JUDGE ABRAMSON: To tap into the caffeine?
12 (Laughter.)
13 CHAIR YOUNG: To get your own caffeine.
14 To the extent that it makes you more effective in your 15 arguments, feel free to do that.
16 So, we would start with the first new 17 contention that you filed in November and then move to 18 the other two. Did either of you want to say anything 19 before we get into this?
20 JUDGE COLE: Yes. Number one, that is 21 what we would call the cleanup contention. Do you 22 agree with that characterization of it?
23 MS. LAMPERT: That is the way I refer to 24 it.
25 JUDGE COLE: Okay, thank you. I think I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
792 1 entered it as different adjective but that's all 2 right.
3 JUDGE COLE: What adjective did you use?
4 MS. LAMPERT: No, I call it cleanup.
5 JUDGE COLE: Okay.
6 CHAIR YOUNG: Do you have anything to add?
7 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Nothing.
8 CHAIR YOUNG: I guess on whether the 9 reopening standards apply, Ms. Lampert you filed 10 recently a response or a reply and you gave it, made 11 reference to a number of cases.
12 Yes. Really what -- I guess you raised a 13 couple of issues. One, I think you argued that the 14 reopening standards apply to new evidence on a given 15 contention and not to new contentions. And I believe 16 that one of the other parties raised subsection D of 17 2.326. What would you argue should be the case if 18 contention three had not been, no part of it had been 19 remanded and the case had been basically over with our 20 issuance of our initial decision in October, I think, 21 of 2008? Would you argue that if you wanted to raise 22 a new contention then, you would not have to meet the 23 reopening standards?
24 MS. LAMPERT: What I have said and this 25 holds both for cables and for the cleanup is that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
793 1 issues have not been litigated. This hearing, this 2 process is clearly not over or we wouldn't be here 3 today.
4 CHAIR YOUNG: But I mean, if we weren't 5 here today.
6 MS. LAMPERT: If we weren't here today?
7 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
8 MS. LAMPERT: You mean if everything had 9 been closed?
10 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
11 MS. LAMPERT: If a decision had been made 12 on Contention 1 and Contention 3?
13 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
14 MS. LAMPERT: Then we would be in a 15 different situation. But we aren't in that situation.
16 And so I think a late filed contention is 17 applicable if an issue that is raised has never been 18 litigated. And then you go to the eight steps. Is it 19 timely raised? Etcetera, etcetera.
20 This has not been litigated. We are not 21 talking about buried pipes and tanks.
22 CHAIR YOUNG: So just to interrupt, you 23 are basically hanging your argument on the fact that 24 Contention 3 was in part remanded, which you are 25 saying in essence opened up the proceeding for any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
794 1 issue that might come along.
2 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, that is correct.
3 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Is there anything 4 that you would like to point us to in any of 5 Commission's decisions that would support that?
6 MS. LAMPERT: Well I think what Entergy 7 had looked at was the Vermont case and that was an 8 example of why my argument, they felt, was incorrect.
9 However in the Vermont case, they did speak to the 10 issue on remanding and also it is not an analogous 11 case because in reality what was brought was more 12 information on a subject that had already been brought 13 forward.
14 And so frankly, I don't see how we can 15 talk about a request for reopening when nothing had 16 been -- when it hadn't been opened before. I mean, 17 that is ridiculous on its face. This has not been 18 litigated. And so the question remains did I bring it 19 forward in a timely manner. And I think we 20 demonstrated that we did.
21 CHAIR YOUNG: Could you give me a response 22 to the approach that when the Commission remanded 23 parts of Contention 3, that that is all that they 24 reopened and that anything outside that envelope, so 25 to speak, would not be part of what they reopened when NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
795 1 they did that remand.
2 MS. LAMPERT: Yes. Way back in 2006, we 3 brought forward in May five contentions. Two were 4 accepted into the process. One, the buried pipes and 5 tanks, was closed up.
6 This one, the Sandia one remained open.
7 And so for all practical purposes, this adjudication 8 process has not been completed. You know, we have got 9 miles to go before we sleep. And as a result, it is 10 open and, therefore, when something within scope of 11 significance come to our attention, I believe we are 12 within our rights to bring it forward, which is what 13 we did, Judge Young.
14 CHAIR YOUNG: Do you have any arguments on 15 whether and the extent to which you would meet the 16 reopening standards, assuming we were to apply them?
17 MS. LAMPERT: Yes. Actually, I think --
18 CHAIR YOUNG: Let's limit to the cleanup 19 contention, the first one that you filed at this 20 point.
21 MS. LAMPERT: Let me see. Excepting 22 affidavit which we did not file, yes I believe we do.
23 However, I think we could be excused from the 24 requirement for an affidavit for two reasons. One, it 25 is a nontechnical issue and it is very straightforward NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
796 1 on its face. Second, there were, I have a pile on the 2 floor of FOIAed e-mails provided with it from 3 officials, government employees and there is no reason 4 to believe that what they say in it is not true. And 5 I should expect that would be acceptable to be able to 6 get all those folks to come here to say yes, I did 7 write that e-mail. It wouldn't seem necessary.
8 And I also asked the reporter who did the 9 investigative report if he could provide an affidavit.
10 And he said at this point, that would be contrary to 11 the policy of inside EPA that they stand by the truth 12 of everything that they put forward. And so at a 13 later date if he were called and required, he 14 certainly would appear.
15 Does that -- I hope that answers your 16 question.
17 CHAIR YOUNG: Do you want to answer the 18 same question with regard to your other contentions?
19 Or I guess --
20 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, I --
21 CHAIR YOUNG: You can approach the other 22 two together or however --
23 MS. LAMPERT: Well whatever. So we are 24 moving to cables. I think that would be an easy way 25 to deal with it.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
797 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
2 MS. LAMPERT: Again for the same reasons, 3 there has never been any discussion of submerged non-4 environmentally qualified cables before you. This is 5 an important significant piece of information. It has 6 not been litigated. It was not part of Contention 1, 7 which is closed. I argue again that it is still open.
8 Looking to Vermont Yankee's decision, 9 CLI1017, I think it supports the decision that there 10 is a necessity to reopen. We have good cause. I 11 think the issue on timeliness, you want me to get into 12 that?
13 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead.
14 MS. LAMPERT: That was a dispute. The 15 dispute seemed to be that we didn't bring it forward 16 in a timely manner because we would have had 17 demonstrated that we knew about the significance of 18 this issue because I had filed a 2.206 summer of 2010.
19 And the PRB actually has accepted it, indicating its 20 significance but they have put it on hold until this 21 issue which deals with the future Aging Management 22 Program is decided. So yes, I did know about it.
23 I didn't bring it forward in 2006, for 24 example, because there is only so much we could have 25 dealt with and we thought, looking at the history of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
798 1 how NRC had been supposedly seriously dealing with 2 this issue. Sandia did a study in 1996. The NRC had 3 done a report in 2002, again more reports in 2004.
4 They looked at a variety of sites that showed problem.
5 Then they got their act really together, developed 6 questionnaires to go out in 2006 to all the licensees 7 to really track it, see what is happening to 8 presumably come up with some requirements. I mean, 9 this has been going on a while. So, it was like, hey, 10 am I the only one who was deluded and thought the NRC 11 was going to actually regulate and make some 12 requirements on something they considered serious for 13 over a decade?
14 Well, I thought I was being a reasonable 15 person. Obviously Entergy, NRC Staff thought the NRC 16 is never going to do anything as far as the 17 requirement goes. I was stupid enough to think so.
18 So I didn't file, at that time.
19 But then the frosting on the cake came 20 December second when they had the information notice 21 and went on and on and on, again and again and again 22 how serious this was, how it relates degradation to 23 aging, which is what this process is all about; how 24 moisture was the main problem; yada, yada, yada.
25 Then, they made no requirements.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
799 1 So again it was, what is a woman to do?
2 Come to you. That is what you do, in hopes that the 3 Aging Management Program would be made sufficient and 4 so this would be addressed going forward for the next 5 20 years. Because I am not here to start the process.
6 I'm not stupid.
7 What I am here for is to assure that 8 safety measures are required and put in place. And 9 what they have now for the Aging Management Program is 10 not sufficient. And so that is why I argue and I 11 think correctly because the point not that we didn't 12 know about this, the point was what we learned 13 December second was that NRC is not stepping up to the 14 plate and requiring fixes.
15 And so from December second to December 16 13, I put together this new contention, in a timely 17 manner.
18 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Just a quick follow-up, 19 Ms. Lampert. Was there anything in the AMP that 20 addressed these cables that you are concerned about?
21 MS. LAMPERT: Was there anything in it?
22 Nothing of significance. What the AMP has is to look 23 for degradation, initially, once in ten years for 24 medium volt cables nonspecific. Not how much you have 25 to look at, what you then have to do, etcetera, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
800 1 etcetera. And then in Rev. 2, they switched it to six 2 years. It is a little better but it doesn't do the 3 trick. There is still no specificity, no requirement 4 for replacement. And also there is another part that 5 deals with looking down manholes first once in two 6 years and then the revised GALL was once every year.
7 No, again, specificity.
8 And if you look at the December second 9 information notice and ones prior to that, they say 10 very specifically that hey, we have seen when they 11 pump them out that it comes right back in.
12 And then also there is a very central 13 question. What percent of the cables can you make a 14 judgment from looking down a manhole or well? You and 15 I both know those long lines of cables are not exactly 16 at parallel to the surface. There are dips where 17 there would be puddling and where they can be sitting 18 in a puddle of water for a long, long time.
19 And then also I will point out that in 20 April of 2010, which came out in an inspection report 21 this past summer, it indicated, they looked down, the 22 NRC looked down three manholes. They all had water 23 and they admitted that two always had water.
24 And then I had, in one of the submittals, 25 I brought bigger ones because it was hard to see, it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
801 1 shows the property and it shows the distance to sea 2 level.
3 And so you have to, I mean this is a site-4 specific issue, and you look at Pilgrim's site and 5 there is no question it is a harsh environment, which 6 is a dispute by the way, because of its proximity; 7 low-laying proximity to the ocean, because of the 8 snows, the rains we have here, etcetera.
9 And so as a result of the characteristics 10 of our site, moisture being the driving factor in the 11 degradation and age, this makes this what you are all 12 about, assuring that the Aging Management Program is 13 sufficient and particularly necessary because the NRC 14 is in the we are studying, we are studying, we are 15 studying mode as opposed to getting on top of it with 16 requirements.
17 Yesterday in Washington, Chairman Jaczko, 18 in his introductory talk to the big meeting that is 19 going on, mentioned cables. I have a copy here or it 20 is obviously on the NRC's website, as one of the big 21 to-do items.
22 So it is clearly significant. It is 23 clearly something for aging management. And I think 24 if we have the opportunity and we get into what does 25 and what doesn't the current Aging Management Program NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
802 1 do, the specifics of this site, the long history of 2 concern in this, I don't think there is any question 3 that it belongs in this process and, you know, let's 4 wrap it up as fast as we can. But you know, we aren't 5 slaves to Senator Vitters. That was sniping.
6 Did I get at some of the question, Judge 7 Abramson?
8 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, you did. Thank you 9 very much.
10 CHAIR YOUNG: Let's come back to the 11 cables issue in a moment. For now if we could go back 12 to this "cleanup contention" and move --
13 Well but first before we move onto the 14 issues of significance/severity/seriousness/gravity, 15 does the staff or Entergy have any arguments that you 16 haven't already made on the reopening standards? If 17 you have anything that you would like to say in reply 18 to Ms. Lampert on those --
19 MR. LEWIS: Yes, Judge. We have not 20 responded to the reopening standards that were made in 21 her reply and she did make some new arguments. We 22 would like to respond to them.
23 The assertion that the reopening standards 24 do not apply to a new contention is belied on its face 25 by the rule itself, in particular subsection (d) of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
803 1 that rule which clearly, 2.236 -- 326(d) which 2 indicates that the reopening standards apply to a new 3 contention.
4 But moreover and beyond the little words 5 of the rule, when the Commission promulgated these 6 reopening standards in 1986, the Commission said "Our 7 rules of practice make it clear that the reopening 8 standards, as well as the late intervention standards, 9 must be met when an entirely new issue is sought to be 10 introduced after the closing of the record." It 11 couldn't have been stated clearer. And the citation 12 for that is 51 Federal Register 19535 and this 13 particular statement is at 19538 carrying on to 19539.
14 The Commission also has clearly applied 15 these reopening standards in the context of a new 16 contention. Pilgrim Watch referred to an Oyster Creek 17 case that the Staff had cited and said that is 18 different. There the motion to reopen related to a 19 contention that had been litigated. What Pilgrim 20 Watch didn't mention is that here were two motions to 21 reopen at Oyster Creek. There was also a motion to 22 reopen addressed by the Commission in CLI-08-28, which 23 is exactly this situation where the Intervenor in 24 Oyster Creek moved to reopen the contention to plead 25 a brand new fatigue contention that had never been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
804 1 raised. And the Board clearly applied the motion to 2 reopen standard and the Commission affirmed the Board 3 and applied those same standards.
4 MS. LAMPERT: That is now in the Third 5 Circuit.
6 MR. LEWIS: With respect to Vermont 7 Yankee, Pilgrim Watch's characterization of that case 8 is also inaccurate. The remanded contention in the 9 Vermont Yankee case related to environmentally 10 assisted fatigue and the Commission remanded the case 11 to the licensing Board in Vermont Yankee to allow them 12 to pursue one of the variations of their contention on 13 that issue. In that proceeding, the intervenor inNew 14 England Coalition declined to pursue the remanded 15 issue and, instead, moved to reopen the record on a 16 brand new, entirely different contention, in fact 17 relating to inaccessible cable.
18 So the motion to reopen in Vermont Yankee 19 was not related to an issue that had been previously 20 litigated. It related to a brand new issue that had 21 never been litigated.
22 Pilgrim Watch's characterization of the 23 Commission's Decision in Vermont Yankee with respect 24 to the motion to reopen is also inaccurate. The 25 Commission did not require New England Coalition to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
805 1 meet the standards for a motion to reopen with respect 2 to the remanded contention. But in that case, New 3 England Coalition had also said we have concerns about 4 buried piping. They asked the Commission to hold the 5 proceeding in abeyance. The Commission said there is 6 no basis to hold the Commission in abeyance. But if 7 you have any genuinely new issues while this case is 8 on remand before the Board, you can file a motion to 9 reopen and you should do so under the provisions of 10 2.326(d).
11 So the footnote that we sited is exactly 12 on point. There the Commission remanded a case, 13 remanded one specific issue relating to 14 environmentally assisted fatigue, and instructed the 15 parties and the licensing Board that if the intervenor 16 wanted to raise any other issues, they should apply 17 the motions to reopen standards.
18 There is old case law that has also made 19 it clear that when a record is reopened, it is not 20 reopened as to all issues. It is only reopened as to 21 the particular issue that has been reopened. And for 22 example, in a Three Mile Island case by the Appeal 23 Board many years ago, the Appeal Board said the 24 fortuitous circumstance of the preceding has been or 25 will be reopened on other issues has no significance.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
806 1 So if somebody wants to reopen a new 2 contention, the fact that the proceeding may have been 3 reopened for some other issue doesn't mean all issues 4 have been reopened. And clearly when the Commission 5 remanded the Contention 3 to this Board, it remanded 6 an issue as limited by its rulings. It certainly did 7 not throw open the proceedings and decide to restart 8 them over again.
9 The TMI case that I cited is ALAB-486 8 10 NRC 9 at 22.
11 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Counsel, let me ask you 12 one question in follow-up on this. The NRC, the 13 Commission has recently released some proposed 14 revisions to Part 2. Does any of that address this 15 issue or are you not familiar with that release? I 16 know I am hitting you blind with this, but I looked at 17 it the --
18 MR. LEWIS: I don't think that they 19 proposed changing the reopening standards. I believe 20 they have changed, they are considering changing the 21 late filed standards and would judge late filed 22 contentions only under 2.309(f)(2).
23 JUDGE ABRAMSON: It did not reach into the 24 reopening --
25 MR. LEWIS: That is my belief.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
807 1 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Maybe the Staff can 2 comment on that too, please.
3 MS. MIZUNO: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I 4 don't know whether it actually addressed the 5 reopening. The one piece of Part 2 that may be 6 amended that we focused on is the merging of the non-7 timely versus the late filed contention issue.
8 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, I recall that part.
9 I just wondered whether it reached into this and I 10 don't recall having looked at it closely enough to see 11 it.
12 MS. MIZUNO: But if you wish, we can find 13 that out and get back to you on that.
14 JUDGE ABRAMSON: It is only a proposal at 15 this point. So Ms. Lampert, have you seen that yet?
16 The NRC released some proposed revisions to Part 2 17 about a week or ten days ago. Is that about right?
18 MS. LAMPERT: No, I haven't.
19 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay.
20 MS. LAMPERT: But I will look at.
21 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, it is worth taking 22 a look. I don't know whether it is relevant for this 23 or not but this is what I was asking.
24 MR. LEWIS: Judge, I also don't know 25 whether you want to address Pilgrim Watch's assertion NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
808 1 that the reopening standards are unfair and the courts 2 have held that they can't be applied. I can address 3 that issue, too. I think the short answer to that is 4 this Board has to follow the Commission's rules. But 5 in fact those reopening standards have been upheld by 6 a number of courts, including the D.C. Circuit after 7 the UCS case.
8 And the D.C. Circuit, after UCS-1 the 9 principle case that Ms. Lampert cited, explicitly 10 explained that they were not ruling that the reopening 11 standards could not be applied to an issue that could 12 have been raised earlier in the proceeding.
13 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes, I think there are some 14 specific circumstances in those cases having to do 15 with the emergency, some emergency planning issues 16 that had not been permitted to be raised earlier. Am 17 I recalling that right?
18 MR. LEWIS: Yes, the issue what they 19 referred to as UCS-1, the first UCS case that Pilgrim 20 Watch cited was a situation in which the Commission 21 required the staff to make a finding on the emergency 22 preparedness exercise as a prerequisite to issuing an 23 operating license but had issued a rule saying that an 24 intervenor could never challenge the results of that 25 exercise in the proceeding. And that is what the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
809 1 court said was impermissible if the Staff had to make 2 a finding. In fact, the staff admitted that this 3 exercise was material to its licensing decision. The 4 Commission said that excluding it entirely as to all 5 parties from the proceeding was a violation of 189.
6 That is not anywhere near the situation here.
7 Clearly, this app has been the Aging Management 8 Program on inaccessible cable has been susceptible to 9 a contention and challenge from the very beginning of 10 this proceeding.
11 MS. LAMPERT: We have responded once. I 12 can't rattle off these cases like that can. Surprise, 13 surprise. But I understand that Entergy has said that 14 they are going to make a reply and then you will have 15 everything before you. Because what I cited, I feel 16 is correct and you are taking a twist on it. But I am 17 not going to get out of my job qualifications and get 18 into a big legal argument with you now.
19 CHAIR YOUNG: You have done pretty good, 20 given that you are not a lawyer, I will have to say.
21 Were you actually planning to file 22 anything further?
23 MR. LEWIS: No.
24 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
25 MR. LEWIS: No, I was just addressing it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
810 1 now in this argument, --
2 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
3 MR. LEWIS: -- which I think I am allowed 4 to do.
5 CHAIR YOUNG: And you --
6 MR. LEWIS: Judge there were some 7 assertions that --
8 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead.
9 MR. LEWIS: -- Pilgrim Watch made in the 10 arguments and I don't know whether you want me to 11 respond to them or just limit myself at this point to 12 the reopening standards but there were some --
13 CHAIR YOUNG: Why don't you save the 14 others --
15 MR. LEWIS: Okay.
16 CHAIR YOUNG: -- at the moment. Does the 17 Staff have anything?
18 (Sound of cell phone ringing.)
19 CHAIR YOUNG: I'm sorry. I thought I had 20 turned that off.
21 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Somebody should have 22 announced to turn all the cell phones off.
23 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes, maybe that would have 24 helped to announce that.
25 (Laughter.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
811 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Please repeat that. You 2 were --
3 MR. LEWIS: No, Judge. I had asked 4 whether you wanted me to respond to other assertions 5 that --
6 CHAIR YOUNG: Oh, okay.
7 MR. LEWIS: And you said no. Not at this 8 point in time.
9 MS. MIZUNO: I think, Judge Young, you 10 were turning to the Staff to ask if the Staff wished 11 --
12 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you.
13 MS. MIZUNO: -- to raise any other issues.
14 Actually no, Your Honor, we do not. We 15 cited the statement of considerations in the Federal 16 Register notice that counsel cited. We cited 17 specifically to the regulation and it does provide for 18 this very situation.
19 In addition, we did brief the Vermont 20 Yankee issue. We briefed it twice and feel that that 21 is well briefed.
22 Also with respect to the federal cases in 23 the D.C. Circuit, Union of Concerned Scientists in 24 Deukmejian that Pilgrim Watch cited in its reply on 25 page four, it is our view, along with Entergy, that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
812 1 both of these cases are in the inapposite.
2 And the reason they are inapposite was 3 because in those instances there was no opportunity 4 for hearing on the issue. In one instance, it was for 5 closed by rule making, in the other instance I am not 6 quite sure what the basis for it was but it was a low 7 power license issue. There was no opportunity for 8 hearing on that. Instead, the petition was referred 9 to the full license hearing. And in those instances, 10 there was no opportunity for hearing on the specific 11 issue that was being brought forward.
12 In this instance, there was a full 13 opportunity for hearing. That hearing was held. It 14 went up on appeal. It is back now on remand. There 15 has been more than an opportunity for full hearing.
16 And for that reason, we believe that the standard for 17 reopening is what should be applied here. Thank you.
18 MS. LAMPERT: One issue I would like to 19 respond to --
20 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead.
21 MS. LAMPERT: -- is the sua sponte that we 22 had a dispute about. And it certainly seems that the 23 spirit of it still exists and it is clear that the 24 Chair of the Board, you, have the authority and I 25 would say because of the significance of the issue, if NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
813 1 this is not accepted for us, to bring it forward and 2 request to the Commission that it be allowed to be 3 heard.
4 CHAIR YOUNG: I don't -- Just before we 5 move on to the sort of significance issues and that is 6 related, I think the word there used is seriousness or 7 serious. We are not going to expect any further 8 filings from the parties.
9 That said, if any relevant decision were 10 overturned, you said that the Third Circuit had a case 11 pending before it and I can't recall which one it was 12 at the time, --
13 MS. LAMPERT: It was the Oyster Creek one.
14 CHAIR YOUNG: -- you can certainly refer 15 that to us without any additional filing but any party 16 can. We are going to be moving forward to making 17 decisions on these things. But if prior to issuance 18 of a decision you become aware that a case has been 19 reversed, you are always free to just notify us of 20 that.
21 Okay. Anything else on reopening 22 standards, per se?
23 All right then, on the significance types 24 of issues. I guess there is sort of preliminary sort 25 of issue with regard to the so-called cleanup NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
814 1 contention and that is, I guess the relationship 2 between the subject of the article and the e-mails and 3 how the SAMA analysis is done. That issue has come 4 out in the responses to the contention, arguing that 5 the issue that you are raising essentially has to do 6 with things outside the scope of the contention --
7 That your contention would not be within the scope of 8 the proceeding because it has to do with whether NRC 9 or EPA or FEMA will take charge of any cleanup and not 10 with the actual SAMA analysis.
11 MS. LAMPERT: What? You are saying the 12 contention is not within scope?
13 CHAIR YOUNG: I'm saying that the argument 14 has been --
15 MS. LAMPERT: Oh, okay.
16 CHAIR YOUNG: And so with respect to that 17 argument, I guess I would like to get a little bit 18 better understanding perhaps from some of the experts 19 on what the assumptions are or what the inputs are in 20 the SAMA analysis on cleanup, whether there is a 21 presumption cleanup will occur and so forth.
22 And again, I am the lawyer only, not a 23 technical member. So it might be helpful to me to get 24 some clarification on that from the experts. I know 25 we are going to be asking them questions possibly with NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
815 1 regard to Contention 3 but some similar issues have 2 been raised in this contention.
3 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Young, let me just 4 interject for a moment. We are here for oral 5 argument, which means counsel will need no experts on 6 admissibility of these contentions.
7 If indeed you are interested in additional 8 information from experts, I would support sending out 9 questions like we did on the last situation, to which 10 I might remind you, you objected. But I would support 11 you asking questions and getting responses but I do 12 not support the concept of asking for expert or asking 13 the lawyers to comment on expert issues, at this 14 process, in this process.
15 MS. LAMPERT: Thank you.
16 CHAIR YOUNG: Hold on. Hold on. The 17 experts are here. And they are here to talk --
18 MS. LAMPERT: Mine aren't. Mine aren't.
19 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, yours aren't. That's 20 true. And I think the ruling that we made was that 21 any party who wanted to bring their experts could 22 bring them.
23 Now, --
24 MS. LAMPERT: For consultation not for 25 speaking. That was our understanding.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
816 1 MR. LEWIS: Well that is not correct.
2 CHAIR YOUNG: In any event, in any event, 3 I think that it would be helpful to have some 4 clarification on this issue whether we do it by 5 talking directly to experts or just talking to 6 counsel.
7 This issue of the relationship between the 8 basis for the late filing or the filing of the 9 contention when you filed it and the SAMA analysis 10 itself and what that relationship is, if any, and how 11 those things interact, is a central argument against 12 or one of the arguments against the contention.
13 So, I would appreciate some clarification 14 from that and let me go first to you, Mr. Lewis. And 15 to the extent that it would be helpful to have input 16 from the experts that are here, I think it would be, 17 certainly, more efficient and less time consuming to 18 do that directly.
19 But before we get to that, why don't you 20 provide whatever clarification you are aware of on 21 that issue?
22 MR. LEWIS: Okay, I believe I can do it, 23 Judge Young, but Dr. O'Kula can also address it.
24 Just as background, because Pilgrim Watch 25 made the decision not to submit any expert affidavit NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
817 1 in response to its contention, we did not feel that we 2 needed to. That as a threshold matter, they did not 3 meet the affidavit requirements to support their 4 motion to reopen. That is the only reason that we 5 didn't also submit a counter declaration, putting the 6 facts in proper perspective. But we did cite to the 7 max users guide, to the portion of the guide that 8 identifies that the EPA protective action guidelines 9 are what is used in the MACCS2 analysis.
10 And what we also pointed out is that we 11 gave Pilgrim Watch all the inputs that we used in 12 doing our MACCS2 analysis in disclosure to Pilgrim 13 Watch in 2007. So they had all the inputs, including 14 the inputs on the assumed cleanup levels, which are 15 expressed as dose. They are one of the inputs. And 16 the way the MACCS2 Code works as I understand it --
17 CHAIR YOUNG: Let me stop you.
18 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
19 CHAIR YOUNG: Let me just interject there.
20 You said the presumed cleanup levels which affects the 21 dose. So am I correct in understanding from that that 22 there is, there are some presumptions about any 23 cleanup that --
24 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
818 1 MR. LEWIS: Absolutely.
2 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
3 MR. LEWIS: What the MACCS2 Code does, 4 first the MACCS2 Code models the contamination of the 5 area. And then it models cleanup and it assumes 6 certain decontamination factors and it has a cost for 7 those decontamination factors.
8 So it models a piece of property. It 9 establishes the level of concentration. It applies a 10 decontamination factor. It figures out what the cost 11 would be. It figures out what the concentrations 12 would be after that decontamination. And it then 13 figures out what would be the dose to a member who 14 then goes back and lives or works on that property.
15 And it applies the EPA protective action 16 guidelines to figure out was that decontamination 17 sufficient to meet the EPA standards? If it is, then 18 that property could be returned to use. If it can't, 19 the property is considered condemned and MACCS then 20 counts the value of the property as a cost of being 21 condemned and lost forever.
22 The model uses the EPA Protective Action 23 Guidelines, which are, it is five rem over five years 24 and the way it is split up is --
25 CHAIR YOUNG: Before you get to that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
819 1 point, really what I would like to focus on here is 2 the cleanup presumptions.
3 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
4 CHAIR YOUNG: And the reason for that is 5 if this information that became available in November, 6 I guess it was, if it raises a question about the 7 correctness of those presumptions as to what gets 8 cleaned up and decontaminated, wouldn't there be some 9 relationship there then between the issue of whether 10 that cleanup would occur and whatever presumptions 11 there are as to that cleanup occurring?
12 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, I think the 13 answer is yes, there could be an issue about what your 14 assumed cleanup levels are but this inside EK article 15 is not the first time that issue has been raised. And 16 therefore, it does not make this issue timely, as we 17 pointed out in the site restoration study that Pilgrim 18 Watch cited at the very beginning of this proceeding.
19 In fact, there is a discussion in that 20 report of exactly this issue that yes, there are a 21 number of different cleanup standards that one might 22 assume and, in fact, it referred to the EPA's cleanup 23 standards. It referred to the Protective Action 24 Guidelines and it referred to NRC standards for public 25 dose.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
820 1 So the fact that you have a choice and you 2 could choose different cleanup standards, has been an 3 issue that has been known from the very beginning of 4 this proceeding and longer.
5 CHAIR YOUNG: Well, let's --
6 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Young, let me 7 interject here.
8 CHAIR YOUNG: Let me just follow this up.
9 I am trying to get you to focus not so much on the 10 cleanup standard but the presumption on whether 11 cleanup occurs.
12 And I guess part of the reason I am doing 13 this is because for the general public, at least, who 14 knows about Katrina, who knows about the Gulf oil 15 spill, the issue of whether things occur as they have 16 been predicted to occur, and the significant 17 consequences that can occur when things don't happen 18 as planned, that could be a matter of public concern.
19 So if questions are raised about whether 20 cleanup will occur as planned in the way that the Code 21 presumes cleanup will occur, then wouldn't there be a 22 relationship there?
23 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Can I redirect that?
24 CHAIR YOUNG: Well let him answer, first.
25 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Go ahead and then I want NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
821 1 to follow it up.
2 MR. LEWIS: Sorry, Judge. I am having a 3 little trouble following your question. I mean, 4 clearly the MACCS2 Codes User Manual very clearly 5 indicates that the MACCS2 Code models decontamination 6 and cleanup and looks at what it would cost and what 7 property could be cleaned up and what property would 8 be condemned, and what is the dose from property that 9 is cleaned up for people who then live after it and 10 models it out to 30 years. All those things are 11 accounted for.
12 So the fact that the code is modeling 13 cleanup is not new and is on the very face of the 14 model description.
15 CHAIR YOUNG: Right. But the things that 16 is new, apparently and you can respond to this but the 17 thing that I understand is being asserted to be new is 18 a question about who would actually take 19 responsibility for the cleanup and whether and how 20 quickly and so forth that would occur.
21 So if it is presumed that it would occur 22 and I don't know what the presumptions are or what the 23 inputs are about when it would occur, how quickly it 24 would occur and so forth. But if it is presumed in 25 how the code treats it that it would occur, cleanup, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
822 1 and it does not occur according to those presumptions 2 and there is, let's say, evidence to indicate that 3 there are questions about that, that is what I am 4 trying to focus in on.
5 MR. LEWIS: I understand the question now.
6 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
7 MR. LEWIS: I think the assertion that 8 there is new information that in fact a cleanup might 9 not be performed is flat out wrong. Again, the site 10 restoration study that I referred to which also we 11 talked about --
12 CHAIR YOUNG: Well you talked about 13 cleanup standards.
14 MR. LEWIS: Yes, I did but that same --
15 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
16 MR. LEWIS: -- report also talks about the 17 fact that there are multiple agencies and there are 18 some questions about who would take the lead. That 19 was also discussed in that site restoration study. So 20 the assertion that there has never in fact been this 21 kind of catastrophic accident and therefore there is 22 no precedent on whether it would be FEMA or whether it 23 would be the state government, whether it would be EPA 24 or NRC, those aren't new issues. And you can go to 25 the site restoration study and see that there is a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
823 1 discussion that there are different agencies with 2 different jurisdictions.
3 But I think that the assumption that some 4 agency is not going to step up is not a reasonable 5 assumption. I mean the assumption that --
6 CHAIR YOUNG: Even after Katrina?
7 MR. LEWIS: Even after Katrina.
8 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
9 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Can I follow this up, 10 please, Judge Young?
11 CHAIR YOUNG: Hold on one second. Could 12 you just tell me in your response do you give a site 13 to the site restoration study and where in it those 14 statements are made?
15 MR. LEWIS: Yes, we do.
16 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, thanks.
17 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Now can I follow up?
18 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead.
19 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Counselor, let me see if 20 I understand this correctly and then I want to ask Ms.
21 Lampert just what this challenge is all about.
22 What you are telling us is that when a 23 code tries to compute the cost of cleanup and the cost 24 of damages, it is doing that to be able to compare as 25 to which SAMAs are cost-effective. Is that correct?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
824 1 MR. LEWIS: That is correct, yes.
2 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And one cannot, and this 3 seems to be stating the obvious. One cannot figure 4 out what to compare without computing the costs. Is 5 that correct?
6 MR. LEWIS: That is correct, yes.
7 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And so the code does have 8 a mechanism for computing those costs. And it had to 9 be there as part of the mechanism for doing the SAMA 10 cost benefit balance. Correct?
11 MR. LEWIS: That is correct.
12 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay. Ms. Lampert, do I 13 understand correctly that the challenge here is who is 14 going to take responsibility for assuring that this is 15 cleaned up. Is that correct?
16 MS. LAMPERT: No.
17 JUDGE ABRAMSON: No?
18 MS. LAMPERT: That is part of it. There 19 are two issues that were brought, actually three.
20 There were three new pieces of information. Two of 21 the three apply directly.
22 One is that there is not, contrary to what 23 they are saying, an agreed upon cleanup standard, a 24 definition of what of the many cleanup standards will 25 be used to determine how clean is clean.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
825 1 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay. All right.
2 MS. LAMPERT: That is one issue, which 3 directly affects --
4 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I understand. And the 5 other issue is?
6 MS. LAMPERT: Okay. The second one is 7 that there is no federal agency that is saying I am 8 the chief. I am going to be in charge. They are all 9 Indians. And if you read the FOIAs, it seems clear 10 that they realize that the cost is horrendous and they 11 don't want to mess up their own budgets.
12 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I understand that. Let 13 me just follow this with one last question, I think.
14 Did we have a contention at the initiation 15 of this proceeding challenging the Entergy estimates 16 of cost to cleanup?
17 MS. LAMPERT: I will respond to that.
18 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes.
19 MS. LAMPERT: The Commission in 2 CLIs 20 issued in 2010 said specifically, and I could read 21 them to you if you would like, that cleanup, 22 decontamination was never a part of the original 23 pleading. So therefore, this is --
24 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Well would you go back?
25 Would you answer my question?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
826 1 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, I did answer.
2 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Did you challenge the 3 costs initially? The costs of estimates.
4 MS. LAMPERT: And there are many costs but 5 this was one that the Commission and your Board 6 decided was not under the umbrella of economics.
7 Remember I was annoyed about it.
8 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Imagine that.
9 (Laughter.)
10 MS. LAMPERT: But I have forgiven you.
11 But can I say in response to what they 12 were saying? Please, yes. Thank you.
13 As far the references to the site 14 restoration study, there was one key factor that they 15 forgot to mention and that is that it was published in 16 1996. And so therefore, everyone was supposed to 17 assume once again that the NRC was or was not going to 18 take care of it. And EPA and NRC and FEMA and the 19 rest of them weren't, in the interim, going to sit 20 down and decide what the deal was.
21 So going back to hey, we cited site 22 restoration study in 1996 and that is supposed to say, 23 therefore, we knew and we should have brought it all 24 forward, doesn't hold water, number one.
25 Number two, they talked about the EPA NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
827 1 standards are -- standard. They forgot to add the S.
2 Standard is used in the MACC Code cleanup 3 calculations. But there are many EPA standards. So 4 that does not address the issue.
5 There is not a determination is there 6 going to be 15 millirem, it is it going to be five?
7 Is it going to be 5,000? That has to be decided and 8 that is why I provided to you the Reichmuth analysis 9 that shows very clearly in a variety of different 10 sites from rural to New York City, the huge difference 11 using one standard over the other will make in costs.
12 For example, using the 15 millirem, they 13 showed for a dirty bomb which certainly doesn't have 14 the contamination level from a reactor, that it would 15 exceed the Gross National Product. However, if you 16 were using --
17 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, I think we 18 understand those arguments, Ms. Lampert --
19 MS. LAMPERT: Oh but I love making them.
20 JUDGE ABRAMSON: -- unless Judge Young 21 wants to hear it again.
22 MS. LAMPERT: Let me just say one more 23 thing about responsibility, the second issue, not 24 having a chief. Having no agency take charge.
25 Why that affects costs is that it will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
828 1 delay the process, as Judge Young pointed out, in the 2 last two natural disasters we have had. And there is 3 a clear relationship; the longer you take to cleanup 4 radionuclide deposition, the more resuspension you are 5 going to have, the more likelihood it is going to get 6 into the ground, the groundwater, etcetera, etcetera.
7 And then the cost is going to escalate. And that 8 factor should, therefore, be factored into an analysis 9 because you have to make an assumption. Again, they 10 didn't address it, on how quickly this job is going to 11 take for a variety of levels of contamination because 12 it is directly related to cost.
13 MR. LEWIS: Judge can I make a point on 14 this? I think this underscores the importance of the 15 Commission's requirement to how competent declaration 16 supporting a motion to reopen.
17 What you are hearing now are assertions 18 that certain things will have affects and they will be 19 significant and they will have significant 20 consequences on dose.
21 The Commission's standards on the 22 reopening specifically say that the affidavit has to 23 be from a competent individual with knowledge of the 24 facts. To provide these kind of assertions with no 25 expert support whatsoever does not come close to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
829 1 satisfying the standards for a motion to reopen.
2 Also with respect to the site restoration 3 study, you know, Pilgrim Watch's retort well that was 4 1996 and how were we to know that things hadn't 5 change; Pilgrim Watch would turn the standard for new 6 information into a subjective standard.
7 Basically, Ms. Lampert is arguing that the 8 first time she learns of an issue is when it is 9 timely. It is not a subjective standard. The 10 standard assumes that persons that are pleading 11 contentions at the outset of a proceeding do their 12 homework. They look at issues. Here Pilgrim Watch 13 added the site restoration study. It flagged the fact 14 that there could be different assumptions.
15 It was incumbent upon the intervenor to 16 pull the string and follow up. And the assertion that 17 Pilgrim Watch only learned of an issue recently is 18 simply not a basis for timeliness.
19 CHAIR YOUNG: Hold on. What I would 20 really like to try to get you to focus more on, and we 21 have talked about the reopening standards. And by 22 moving sort of to the seriousness, severity, 23 significance, and so forth, and mentioning the 24 provisions of 10 CFR 2.340 and the ability of the 25 Board to basically refer to the Commission -- Or I am NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
830 1 not sure the word refer.
2 MR. LEWIS: It requires their approval 3 upon referral of the Commission.
4 CHAIR YOUNG: Right. To put an issue to 5 the Commission is saying this may be a serious issue 6 that you might want to consider or might want us to 7 consider. That is what I am really trying to focus on 8 at this point.
9 The sort of significance, severity, 10 seriousness, gravity, all those are sort of related 11 terms and they are all terms for the central question 12 in not just the reopening standard but in the standard 13 for whether a presiding officer or Board can highlight 14 an issue and say to the Commission this might be 15 something that warrants further attention.
16 That is sort of the context I am looking 17 in at this point and I am not sure that we need to 18 have any more argument on what the reopening standards 19 are. Clearly, they are what they are.
20 But in this regard, I would like to have 21 a better understanding of this relationship issue 22 because if indeed there is some question about what 23 agency would be responsible and about the possibility 24 that therefore there either could be some issues 25 similar to those in previous recent disasters on how NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
831 1 quickly they were addressed, if there is a 2 relationship of that to the cost presumptions, the 3 cleanup cost resumptions that go into the SAMA 4 analysis, that is where I see the possibility of there 5 being some relationship. And that is why I would like 6 to get a better understanding.
7 Now before when I was asking you about 8 that a few minutes ago, I was asking about what is 9 presumed in terms of cleanup and you indicated that it 10 was presumed that he cleanup would occur. And then 11 that went into the decontamination and the costs of 12 all that. And I think you then subsequently then made 13 the argument that when you are looking at cost-benefit 14 analysis, that is what is concerned, or maybe it was 15 Judge Abramson who raised it, that you have to have a 16 cost that goes into a cost-benefit analysis.
17 But if there is some question about what 18 that cost will be because there is some question about 19 how quickly it will occur and who will be responsible 20 for it, --
21 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Or whose standards would 22 be applied. She is also raising --
23 CHAIR YOUNG: Right. But what I am 24 focusing on is the issue of how that would affect the 25 SAMA analysis. Because if the SAMA analysis, if in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
832 1 doing that it is assumed that the cost will be X 2 amount, and because of these questions, that cost is 3 unrealistically low, the cost figure that goes into 4 the analysis is unrealistically low, then that sort of 5 goes against the idea that it is a conservative 6 analysis.
7 So that is what I am trying to get some 8 better understanding of. And it may be that your 9 experts, Mr. O'Kula, could provide some clarification 10 on that.
11 MR. LEWIS: Yes, we could bring Dr. O'Kula 12 up. I would say though that even with respect to 13 significance, this is Pilgrim Watch's burden to 14 establish this is a significant issue. And remember 15 this is an environmental contention. But even --
16 CHAIR YOUNG: I really -- You can make 17 your arguments on procedural questions and burdens if 18 you like but I am really trying to get you to focus 19 solely on the question that I asked and not whose 20 burden --
21 MR. LEWIS: I am just saying that there is 22 no showing that a delay while an agency figures out 23 who is going to be the lead would impact cleanup 24 costs.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, let's --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
833 1 MR. LEWIS: Pilgrim Watch makes the 2 assertion but there is no expert support for that 3 assumption.
4 CHAIR YOUNG: Let's just assume from the 5 article and from the e-mails that there are questions 6 about, let's just assume for argument sake that there 7 are questions about which agency would take charge 8 such that if God forbid some accident were to occur in 9 the near future, there would be actual questions about 10 who would be in charge, how it would get done.
11 How does that relate to the figures that 12 go into the SAMA analysis on cleanup and costs? And 13 I am not trying to suggest that there will be an 14 accident. Obviously, there are a lot of protections 15 in place but I am trying to understand that 16 connection.
17 JUDGE ABRAMSON: While you are getting Dr.
18 O'Kula, counselor, let me ask you and the Staff, does 19 the Staff have -- Has the Staff provided anything more 20 than --
21 First of all, has it provided guidance to 22 applicants as to what cleanup standards to use and 23 what assumptions to make about timing? Is it embedded 24 in the goal report or a similar report?
25 In other words, what I am asking you is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
834 1 what is the source of the assumption in the MACCS 2 analysis that they will cleanup to EPA standards and 3 the assumptions of timeline? What is the source for 4 those?
5 MS. UTTAL: There is a reg guide. We are 6 trying to find the number.
7 JUDGE ABRAMSON: There is a reg guide that 8 says here is what to do? Okay, so it is part of our 9 regulations.
10 So would you say this is a challenge to 11 our regulations?
12 MS. UTTAL: It is part of our guidance, 13 not the regulation.
14 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Guidance. Okay, it is a 15 NUREG. Okay.
16 CHAIR YOUNG: Do you want to take a break 17 and talk with your experts for ten minutes?
18 MR. LEWIS: Yes, please.
19 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, let's do that.
20 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off 21 the record at 10:08 a.m. and went back on 22 the record at 10:20 a.m.)
23 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. If everyone 24 would come to attention, please. Let's start again.
25 When we move into the discussion of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
835 1 Contention 3, we may also have questions. And again 2 it may be me mainly who has clarification questions 3 for some of the experts. So it might be a good idea 4 at this point if we just had all the experts stand up 5 and I will swear you all in. Because even though you 6 are just providing clarification, since you are expert 7 witnesses, it might be good to swear you in.
8 So maybe all those of you, just stand --
9 Oh, they are not all here?
10 JUDGE COLE: I just saw a staff lawyer 11 running out looking for a witness.
12 CHAIR YOUNG: We can wait. We can wait.
13 MS. LAMPERT: Can I fly a few in?
14 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, just on this 15 issue while the witnesses are arriving, the parties at 16 our last conference call did agree that we would have 17 the witnesses available on Contention 3, in case the 18 Board had questions.
19 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
20 MR. LEWIS: And so our experts are here 21 for that purpose and that was consistent with the 22 discussion.
23 On this issue about if there was some 24 wrangling between the agencies over who was in charge 25 and if somehow that caused them to delay the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
836 1 initiation of cleanup, who would that affect the 2 MACCS2 modeling?
3 Talking very quickly with our expert, that 4 is not something that we are prepared to address. To 5 go into the MACCS2 model and to determine how would a 6 delay in the initiation of cleanup affect the cost, 7 would it be higher or lower? On the one hand, you 8 would have more decay. On the other hand, you know, 9 maybe it doesn't make any difference because the 10 radionuclides are long lived and so the ones that are 11 significant wouldn't change.
12 That is just not something that we are 13 prepared. And quite frankly, I don't think it is 14 appropriate on a motion to reopen, to expect us to 15 address these technical issues when they haven't first 16 been raised and properly vetted by --
17 MS. LAMPERT: Again, this is --
18 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, stop. Stop. Stop.
19 Stop. Everyone.
20 If the experts are not prepared to answer 21 questions, then obviously they don't need to answer 22 them. But I want to make one thing very clear here.
23 The clarification that I am asking for is not based on 24 any presumption on my part that there would be a 25 relation -- Quite frankly, I didn't know whether you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
837 1 would say there would be a relationship or no 2 relationship.
3 My question is purely for clarification 4 purposes on what happens in the analysis with regard 5 to the cleanup. What is presumed with regard to what 6 cleanup occurs, when it occurs, whether it occurs.
7 And so, I am not asking any part to 8 respond to anything or to make any arguments one way 9 or the other. And I don't have any presumptions one 10 way or the other on what the response would be.
11 MR. LEWIS: We --
12 CHAIR YOUNG: You have indicated that it 13 looks as though -- What you have indicated makes me 14 think that there is some relationship if the analysis 15 presumes that cleanup and decontamination would occur 16 and then cost figures are put on that.
17 My question was simply for clarification 18 purposes. And when I made reference to the 19 significance and severity issues, that is one of the 20 things I was making reference to. So if your experts 21 are not prepared to respond to that, then they don't.
22 MR. LEWIS: Our experts can. Dr. O'Kula 23 can explain what cleanup is assumed and how does the 24 modeling, you know, modeling, when does it start and 25 how does it treat it.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
838 1 But as far as the issue which is the next 2 question which is now what happens if there is a 3 delay, I think then you would have to do an analysis 4 and look at it because there is a number of different 5 factors going on.
6 And so, if Judge Young you want to 7 understand what is in the model, yes Dr. O'Kula can do 8 that. If you go beyond that and start saying and what 9 happens if there is delays, you know, I don't think 10 that would be a fair question to ask our experts at 11 this point in time because that issue hasn't been 12 performed and it is a non-trivial issue. It is not 13 that it is obvious one way or the other.
14 CHAIR YOUNG: The only --
15 JUDGE COLE: It is the arm wrestling of 16 the agencies after that.
17 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
18 CHAIR YOUNG: I'm sorry?
19 JUDGE COLE: It is the arm wrestling of 20 the agencies after that. We can't handle that 21 problem.
22 JUDGE ABRAMSON: But you have made clear, 23 have you not, that there is an assumption of about the 24 cleanup standards and there is an assumption about the 25 timing.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
839 1 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
2 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So yes, it is true that 3 for the SAMA cost-benefit analysis, there are 4 assumptions about what is going to get cleaned up to 5 what standard and how long it is going to take.
6 MR. LEWIS: And the code model again 7 indicates that there is different phases. There is 8 this early phase and there is the late phase. And the 9 decontamination occurs in the late phase. So Dr.
10 O'Kula can provide discussion of that if you would 11 like.
12 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
13 MR. LEWIS: But I would object if it 14 starts going beyond that.
15 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. And Mr. Lewis and 16 everyone else, I want to make absolutely clear again 17 that any questions that I ask are purely to clarify 18 what the situation is. They are not to try to make 19 anyone defend against this or that or presume that I 20 think one way or the other. I am just trying to 21 simply understand what happens with regard to those.
22 And when we get into Contention 3 this 23 afternoon, you will see that I will be asking 24 additional questions that may in fact the answers to 25 which may be obvious to some technical people may not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
840 1 be obvious to me. Just simple clarification 2 questions. That is all I'm asking and that is all I 3 want any lawyer or witness to understand.
4 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Now have you have got a 5 sufficient answer on this, since your question was is 6 there a connection? Yes, there is a connection.
7 CHAIR YOUNG: What I would like to 8 understand, what I would like to get clarification on 9 is how it works at that point. So if you can provide 10 that, that would be helpful. If you can't, you can't.
11 So and this is not for purposes of turning 12 this into a hearing but if all the experts are here 13 now, I could swear you all in for purposes of the 14 whole day. Are we all here yet?
15 MS. UTTAL: Yes.
16 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, why don't you all 17 stand up and I will just swear you in? All the 18 experts who are here. Okay.
19 Whereupon, 20 ALL EXPERT WITNESSES PRESENT 21 were called as witnesses by the parties, and having 22 been first duly sworn, assumed the witness stand and 23 were examined and testified as follows:
24 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay so basically what I 25 want to understand is when figures are put in for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
841 1 cleanup, what I understood from Mr. Lewis is that it 2 is assumed that cleanup will occur and cost figures 3 are put in for that. And I guess I am not as 4 concerned about what the cost figures are but how it 5 works as the analysis is performed and where you get 6 the information to put in at that point. Does that 7 make sense?
8 DR. O'KULA: Yes, I believe it does.
9 Judge Young --
10 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you.
11 DR. O'KULA: This is the part of the 12 analysis, the long-term phase in terms of cleanup and 13 decision-making, that ultimately goes into the costs 14 associated with the postulated accident. So it is the 15 long-term phase of the code and --
16 CHAIR YOUNG: And you do it for each 17 separate accident.
18 DR. O'KULA: Correct. It is done for each 19 separate accident, one at a time.
20 But now I have contamination over a 21 certain range from the release point that is factored 22 in sector by sector, square mile by square mile.
23 CHAIR YOUNG: When you say sector -- I am 24 going to interrupt.
25 DR. O'KULA: I'm sorry.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
842 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Just try to understand.
2 DR. O'KULA: Yes.
3 CHAIR YOUNG: Is that the same thing as 4 the segments that are talked about in the ATMOS module 5 or is that a different concept?
6 DR. O'KULA: Yes. To be correct, we are 7 looking at a polar coordinate grid that goes out to 50 8 miles is our range of analysis and we normally treat 9 16 compass directions, principle compass directions.
10 So we have a sector that is 22 and a half degrees wide 11 in terms of its width from an angular basis. And then 12 it is set with our closest radius point and its 13 farthest radius point as a --
14 CHAIR YOUNG: It is the same thing as --
15 DR. O'KULA: We described that as -- It 16 almost looks like a pie shape.
17 CHAIR YOUNG: Right. It is the same thing 18 as, maybe I am not remembering right but it is the 19 same thing that is talked about as a segment in the 20 Contention 3 discussion, I think. Okay.
21 DR. O'KULA: Yes.
22 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
23 DR. O'KULA: So if I refer to it as a 24 sector, I --
25 CHAIR YOUNG: I just wanted to make sure NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
843 1 there wasn't --
2 DR. O'KULA: -- made the translation.
3 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
4 DR. O'KULA: I understand.
5 So contamination has now been broadcast on 6 the surfaces in this sector, in this segment of 7 territory that has a radius beginning point and 8 farther out endpoint and it has a certain width to it.
9 The calculation that in the MACCS2 Code 10 then makes the determination how or has a level of 11 contamination on the surface from that accident 12 scenario. So we are doing one at a time. And it now 13 says what will I need to restore this area to 14 habitability? Can people live there again? Or on the 15 economic side that can be used for economic 16 activities, businesses. And there is a farming and a 17 non-farming determination, if that sector of territory 18 is used for agricultural purposes, then there is also 19 that decision that is made.
20 Can this territory be cleaned sufficiently 21 to allow rehabitability and then or if it is 22 agricultural territory, can farming take place once 23 again?
24 Now, there is a period of -- There are 25 various levels of decontamination that could be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
844 1 required to make that activity either the habitability 2 or the return to farming safe. And so then I would 3 need to understand or input various guidelines, either 4 from the states or from the federal agencies as to 5 what are the minimum threshold, what are the doses 6 that I would allow to be accumulated over a period of 7 time before I would allow people to re-inhabit their 8 homes or return to agricultural activities.
9 JUDGE COLE: And who makes those 10 decisions?
11 DR. O'KULA: There are precedents that 12 have been used previously either from the decisions as 13 far as inputting those levels into the MACCS2 Code are 14 made by the analysts of course. But they are looking 15 at guidance from past SAMA analysis as to what were 16 the appropriate levels to use, whether they be as Mr.
17 Lewis referred to, the EPA Guidelines or if there is 18 a state authority that has a more stringent level, 19 they may choose to input that value.
20 In the case of the NUREG 1150 study in the 21 late 1980s that was published in 1990, one or two of 22 the plants used information based on their state's 23 guidelines for cleanup and so they chose when that 24 model was run for that specific plant to use not the 25 EPA Guidance but instead the state guideline.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
845 1 So it is site-specific and the analyst 2 would refer to regulatory bodies, federal and then 3 state, and any standards that would come into place 4 are the user's discretion as to what are the most 5 conservative, what are the most appropriate to use.
6 In terms of the delay that could be 7 modeled, if the user were trying to account for the 8 fact that there may be some decision-making at a broad 9 level before activities would be undertaken for 10 decontamination, that in fact could be modeled. And 11 that delay time could be added to the end of the 12 emergency phase, which is roughly a week after the 13 plume has been released from the point of, the source 14 point, the reactor itself.
15 And so this intermediate phase of the 16 analysis would -- could be the model by which you 17 would say this is a period of inactivity. Assessment 18 crews are assessing how getting field measurement 19 readings on how contaminated the soil and the surfaces 20 are. And so we are conservatively accounting for a 21 certain period of time by which this fact-finding 22 would take place. So that could be done in the late 23 phase of the MACCS2 Code model.
24 JUDGE COLE: And all of these details 25 would be articulated in the SAMA analysis report.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
846 1 DR. O'KULA: They would be part of the 2 discussion on what was done, what was assumed, what 3 were the appropriate inputs, yes.
4 JUDGE COLE: Thank you.
5 CHAIR YOUNG: So on the cleanup part of 6 it, I believe Mr. Lewis said that it was assumed that 7 cleanup and decontamination would occur before you got 8 to the point of defining what the dose would be and 9 the economic costs. Did I understand you right, Mr.
10 Lewis?
11 MR. LEWIS: Yes. But what I said was that 12 our analysis used the EPA Protective Action Guidelines 13 which were specifically prepared for severe nuclear 14 accidents. They give a recommendation for a dose that 15 should not be exceeded. It is, I believe, two rem in 16 the first year and 0.5 rem in each of the next four 17 years. That criteria, I believe and Dr. O'Kula can 18 confirm and explain, is simply what is used to 19 determine can I clean it up enough to return to 20 service or should I consider it condemned, that dose 21 standard does not truncate the evaluation of dose to 22 the public. It is simply used for determining can I 23 achieve cleanup or should I condemn it. But let me --
24 CHAIR YOUNG: But I thought you had said 25 earlier that the way it is analyzed, it would be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
847 1 assumed that cleanup would occur. And whether it is 2 to rehabilitate it completely or not is not really 3 what I am looking at so much. I was just looking at 4 the sequence.
5 I thought I understood you to say that 6 certain assumptions would be made about the cleanup 7 and the decontamination level and then the dose.
8 And so what I was trying to understand was 9 what assumptions were made about whether cleanup 10 occurred, what cleanup occurred, and the cost of it.
11 MR. LEWIS: I will tell you what I think 12 I said and then Dr. O'Kula to make sure that what I 13 said is right.
14 With respect to all contaminated property, 15 the model looks at can it be returned to habitability 16 and use.
17 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
18 MR. LEWIS: And it, I believe, first looks 19 at does the property already meet the release 20 standards, in which case you would not need any 21 decontamination. If it is not, then it looks at 22 different levels of cleanup which are input and 23 actually defined in our environmental report, these 24 are the decontamination factors of 3 and 15. And it 25 applies a cost for each of those levels of cleanup.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
848 1 And so first it tries, if I cleanup to a 2 decontamination factor of three, do I achieve this 3 Protective Action Guide dose limit? If I do, then I 4 apply that and I apply that cost.
5 If that doesn't work, then they say okay, 6 I have to do more contamination. How about this 7 decontamination factor of 15? It applies it. That 8 has a higher cost. It then tests it. Do I meet the 9 habitability standard in the Protective Action 10 Guideline? If the answer to these questions are no, 11 then it is condemned. It does what actually other 12 tests --
13 CHAIR YOUNG: So you are asking can you 14 make it.
15 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
16 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
17 MR. LEWIS: It actually does one other 18 test, too. On each of these cases, it compares the 19 cleanup cost with a value of the property. If in any 20 of these cases the cleanup cost exceeds the value of 21 the property, then it considers the property 22 condemned.
23 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So what I was trying 24 to understand what is another way to put it -- What 25 is the source of the costs that are attributed to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
849 1 different cleanup levels?
2 MR. LEWIS: First, was I generally right?
3 Was I close?
4 DR. O'KULA: You were spot on --
5 MR. LEWIS: Okay.
6 DR. O'KULA: -- as far as my recall is on 7 that activity in the Code.
8 MR. LEWIS: The question was where does 9 the cleanup come from from the decontamination 10 factors?
11 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes, where do you get the 12 cost figures for those, based on -- Well, you tell me.
13 DR. O'KULA: Yes. Usually, the customary 14 case is that past precedence are looked at for very 15 similar type reactor accidents. So they can be early 16 studies that were done in the 90s, in the late-90s as 17 far as reference values. The NUREG-1150 study was 18 used in many plant SAMA analyses. As far as making 19 what assumptions as far as how many dollars would it 20 take to decontaminate to a certain level. So that is 21 a primary basis for many of the SAMA Analyses, the 22 NUREG-1150 study.
23 And if any information is more 24 contemporary then there is certainly the capability to 25 add that information into the model at this point.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
850 1 CHAIR YOUNG: So there haven't been any 2 accidents that have produced the kind of consequences 3 that you are talking about as I understand. Correct?
4 DR. O'KULA: Right. In the continental 5 United States, yes.
6 CHAIR YOUNG: So they would be taken from 7 other countries or military -- I'm just trying to 8 understand where they come from. Maybe NUREG-1150 9 says but I am just --
10 DR. O'KULA: Correct. Many of the studies 11 are, over the last 10, 15 years or so are based on 12 assumptions as to how far one would go, what would it 13 cost to accommodate those activities. And so they are 14 always looking to be updated as far as is there any 15 new information. Would this type of cleanup with the 16 type of source terms, the type of releases that would 17 come from a postulated reactor accident, would these 18 be any different than say the type of release that 19 would occur if a dirty bomb would be released or a 20 nuclear submarine had a mishap in port. So those are 21 different kinds of events. And so there needs to be 22 a careful layout out of assumptions about the 23 applicability of the source term from the reactor 24 accident versus these other type of more localized or 25 more widespread type events. The type of material NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
851 1 that is released, how -- are we talking more plutonium 2 type products? A different kind of radioactivity in 3 terms of its effects on humans than say cesium and 4 strontium, different radio half-lives.
5 And different assumptions go into the 6 model in terms of how tough is it to clean up 7 something that bonds very quickly to plant life and 8 the surfaces --
9 CHAIR YOUNG: Bonds?
10 DR. O'KULA: -- or say --
11 CHAIR YOUNG: B-O-N-D-S?
12 DR. O'KULA: Yes.
13 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
14 DR. O'KULA: Correct. That absorbs very 15 quickly on surfaces. Is it as easy to decontaminate 16 tritium, which reactor accidents don't have very much 17 of but there would be some? Is that radionuclide 18 difficult to decontaminate versus something like 19 cesium and strontium? How much effort would that take 20 to decontaminate? And then the costs are figured.
21 Well, that would take so many days and require a 22 workforce of so much. So we can ascribe a certain 23 cost level towards that action.
24 And it is not done in a very detailed way 25 in MACCS2 but some broad assumptions are used to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
852 1 factor in what it would take to ultimately reduce 2 radioactivity contamination down to these levels that 3 Mr. Lewis referred to.
4 CHAIR YOUNG: I think I may have 5 misunderstood something before or maybe Mr. Lewis 6 didn't mean to say it how he said it.
7 In any event, what I understood from him 8 when I asked the question what actually sort of 9 surprised me a little bit was that I thought I 10 understood him to say that certain assumptions were 11 made about what cleanup is done and the cost of it and 12 the decontamination and the cost of that before you 13 got to figuring out what the consequences in terms of 14 dose were.
15 Did I misunderstand that or is that not 16 correct? Because now what you are talking about 17 sounds as though you are saying you assume a certain 18 amount of -- that the cleanup and the cleanup costs 19 are those associated with reducing the dose down to an 20 acceptable level. And that the dose figures that are 21 the consequences that come out of the SAMA analysis 22 are those that are there before the cleanup occurs.
23 Did that make sense, my question?
24 DR. O'KULA: I think I understand the 25 question.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
853 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
2 DR. O'KULA: There is a baseline 3 contamination that is used to make before decisions 4 are modeled in the Code.
5 CHAIR YOUNG: Maybe we should just wait 6 until Judge Abramson comes back.
7 (Pause.)
8 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So I was asking 9 whether the dose consequences that are produced are 10 the dose that would occur before the cleanup or after 11 the cleanup. And I thought I had understood from what 12 Mr. Lewis was saying earlier is that in arriving at 13 the dose, that took into account certain assumptions 14 about how much cleanup would occur.
15 But now I think I understand you to be 16 saying that the dose figures that come out at the end 17 for the consequences are those doses that would be 18 there -- Well why don't you tell me?
19 Are they the doses that would occur before 20 cleanup, without cleanup? How do those things relate?
21 Because that is what Mr. Lewis said earlier that 22 caused me to ask further clarification questions.
23 DR. O'KULA: Yes. The sequencing in this 24 part of the analysis is that the Code is telling me 25 what I am dealing with as a baseline contamination.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
854 1 And before any decisions are made whether to condemn, 2 do contamination, I need to know what my baseline 3 radioactivity contamination level is, first of all.
4 So no costs have been accumulated.
5 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
6 DR. O'KULA: No decontamination has been 7 planned yet.
8 So in a sense, I have a footprint that is 9 laid over my grid and I am looking at one of those 10 sectors right now, one of those land area sectors and 11 I am trying to make a decision. No dose has been in 12 this phase of the work.
13 So then the code is making the decision 14 making, as Mr. Lewis indicated, in terms of can I, if 15 I decontaminate what this baseline radioactivity 16 contamination is now, can I decontaminate to a certain 17 level so that I would meet EPA or whatever the 18 threshold happens to be? And I can do that with a 19 certain --
20 Let's say that that action can be 21 performed. Then the Code makes a very simple 22 assumption about what does it take to decontaminate to 23 that level and the doses accumulated by 24 decontamination workers in this case. There is a 25 certain assumption that goes into the Code.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
855 1 CHAIR YOUNG: The doses accumulated by 2 decontamination workers.
3 DR. O'KULA: You are saying the 4 contaminated property is at a certain level and that 5 the Code says well if I reduce it by a factor of three 6 or five for argument purposes, okay go ahead and do 7 that because that will bring it under the threshold.
8 But to do that will incur a cost in terms of the 9 workers. So the dose will be counted there.
10 CHAIR YOUNG: The dose to the workers 11 included in that.
12 DR. O'KULA: Yes. That is included. And 13 then the second piece on that is that that activity 14 will require labor of course, and labor intensive.
15 And so a cost is affixed to that activity to bring 16 that contamination level down.
17 So but that adds up in a dollar column.
18 So I will determine yes I can make that sector 19 habitable once again but it will cost this much in 20 terms of dose. So that goes into the dose ledger in 21 the Code calculation. And then I also need to account 22 for the fact that it costs money to do that action.
23 So that will go into the economic part of the ledger.
24 That is included in the costs that are ultimately 25 reflected in the SAMA cost that is being that averted.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
856 1 CHAIR YOUNG: And that assumes, and I 2 don't know whether I am getting into an area that 3 there is some question about, but that assumes -- It 4 seems like I remember reading about the SAMA analysis, 5 a temporal variability. So that assumes some time 6 aspects to the cleanup or not?
7 DR. O'KULA: Yes, there are -- These 8 activities in terms of being able to do something over 9 what period would it be. Would it be two months, 60-10 days, roughly, or would it be more on the order of 11 upwards of a year, for instance 120 days to upwards of 12 a year?
13 So there are factors of time involved as 14 well.
15 CHAIR YOUNG: And are those --
16 DR. O'KULA: And so it wouldn't be done 17 instantaneously.
18 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. And are those -- We 19 talked about conservatisms in the measurement of the 20 plumes. Are those cost figures supposed to be 21 conservative also or is there any -- Is that just the 22 best information that can be obtained from various 23 sources?
24 DR. O'KULA: The best information that can 25 be obtained and also if from the sources that are most NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
857 1 similar to the ones you are dealing with.
2 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
3 MR. LEWIS: Judge, for clarification, what 4 I said before was that in this portion of the Code in 5 chronic which models the late phase, first there is a 6 decision on whether you can sufficiently decontaminate 7 property to meet the guidelines and return it to use.
8 That is where the Protective Action Guidelines comes 9 in. You know, what it the standard for whether I can 10 clean it up.
11 If you can, then the code applies the cost 12 of that cleanup and the dose to the workers. The Code 13 then models the dose to the population from the 14 property after cleanup, out through the rest of the 15 modeled period. So the protective action guidelines 16 don't actually determine the dose. They are used in 17 the decision on can I achieve cleanup. And then the 18 model actually calculates, okay, I have achieved 19 cleanup. There are now people who are getting doses 20 from various pathways. What is their actual dose?
21 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So the output is the 22 dose after the -- Okay.
23 MR. LEWIS: And that is an additional 24 cost. So there is the cost of cleanup, the cost to 25 workers, and then there is the dose to the population, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
858 1 which is then monetarized, applied a monetary value at 2 the end.
3 CHAIR YOUNG: And so when we are talking 4 about dose consequences and economic consequences, 5 everything but the ultimate dose would be under 6 economic costs. Right?
7 DR. O'KULA: Could you clarify the 8 ultimate does?
9 CHAIR YOUNG: What I am talking about is 10 the discussion about the SAMA analysis producing 11 offsite, -- Well there is on-site and then there is 12 offsite dose consequences, offsite dose consequences 13 and offsite economic costs, as I understood it.
14 And so I was just asking that all of the, 15 everything except that a dose to the public after the 16 presumed decontamination has occurred, would be under 17 economic costs.
18 DR. O'KULA: Yes. All doses, those to 19 decontamination workers, dose to the public, are a 20 part of the population dose risk.
21 CHAIR YOUNG: Oh.
22 DR. O'KULA: So those are all factored 23 into the offsite population dose that is calculated by 24 the Code.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: So you are saying that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
859 1 population dose risk would include the dose to the 2 cleanup workers.
3 DR. O'KULA: Correct.
4 CHAIR YOUNG: Oh, okay.
5 DR. O'KULA: The Code does a good job on 6 bookkeeping, on all the various cohorts or segments of 7 the population that are affected. And so that 8 part of the analysis includes the dose that workers 9 would be receiving, should they undertake an action.
10 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So the presumptions 11 include how long it would take and how -- When it 12 would start and how long it would take and so forth.
13 DR. O'KULA: Correct.
14 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
15 JUDGE COLE: Ms. Lampert has a question 16 for you or for somebody.
17 MS. LAMPERT: Not necessarily a question 18 but will I have an opportunity to respond? Because 19 what Dr. O'Kula has said has been responded to by his 20 colleague, David Chanin for the State of New York.
21 And so it is on record. It was put in effect February 22 28th, I believe, which gives the history of the Code.
23 And the version is different than you have heard 24 today, somewhat.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: Tell me what document. Is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
860 1 that in one of the exhibits to the Contention 3?
2 MS. LAMPERT: This is in the New York 3 Attorney General's Adjudication for Indian Point.
4 David Chanin is an expert witness there. He provided 5 a rather lengthy, I don't know what you call it, 6 expert statement regarding the history of the MACC 7 Code, the assumptions that are in the Code, stemming 8 and continuing based on plutonium, which is not 9 relevant for a reactor accident. And he talks about 10 the assumption of hosing buildings, of plowing under 11 fields, of workers assumptions, cost to workers, not 12 being correct because it is based, the assumptions are 13 plutonium. But if you have the gamma, which you do in 14 a reactor accident, you can't go out in a HAZMAT suit 15 with a mask. And you know, you can't go out in what, 16 you know, a water tube or something. And so 17 therefore, it will take a lot longer.
18 But my point is, that what you heard from 19 Dr. O'Kula has another side to it. So therefore, not 20 saying what he had to say was one thing or another, 21 but there is another side and I could send it to you, 22 or you know, the exact citation from New York.
23 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Is it filed here?
24 MS. LAMPERT: Pardon me?
25 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Did you file it here?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
861 1 MS. LAMPERT: No, I didn't because you see 2 there is a debate going whether this is reopening or 3 not. I do not believe that even though David Lewis 4 has said it a thousand and one times that the truth 5 has been created. I believe this is, you know, filing 6 a new contention. Therefore, we did not file --
7 We filed enough.
8 JUDGE COLE: Let me see if I understand.
9 CHAIR YOUNG: Did you mention anything in 10 your filing about that?
11 MS. LAMPERT: You know, frankly, I can't 12 remember. I thought we were just talking about 13 standards. But I am saying if we are getting into 14 this in this detail, not knowing we would be having 15 expert testimony, I am not the expert but I can lead 16 you and provide to you this information from David 17 Chanin because they are equivalent in their 18 competency.
19 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Go ahead.
20 MS. JONES: I'm sorry, Judge but I have 21 to, I would like to enter an objection into the record 22 because the discussion that we are having about Mr.
23 Chanin was not supported, was not provided in support 24 of the cleanup contention. So, we would like that to 25 be noted for the record.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
862 1 MS. LAMPERT: Well, neither was this.
2 CHAIR YOUNG: All right.
3 MR. LEWIS: Judge, I would just for the 4 record, too, --
5 MS. LAMPERT: Well, neither was this.
6 MR. LEWIS: If I may just for a second, if 7 this whole discussion is simply to answer your 8 questions on how the Code works --
9 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
10 MR. LEWIS: -- from our perspective with 11 to the motion to reopen, none of this is required. It 12 was Pilgrim Watch's obligation in the first place to 13 support its --
14 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
15 MR. LEWIS: -- contentions by a motion to 16 reopen with declarations of competent expert who 17 understands the facts, makes the demonstration of 18 materiality and significance. It is those standards 19 that determine whether the motion should be granted.
20 And those standards are to be applied strictly and 21 those standards simply have not been met.
22 MS. LAMPERT: Well, I still dispute.
23 CHAIR YOUNG: We understand your arguments 24 on that, I think.
25 Okay, anything -- Let's see. I have one NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
863 1 more question written down. I'm not sure whether it 2 was related to this contention or the cables 3 contentions. But were any of the Blanch affidavits 4 relative to any of the reopening, the new contentions?
5 MS. LAMPERT: Oh, certainly. He is the 6 expert witness on this.
7 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Okay, I remember. So 8 did any of what he said relate to the reopening 9 standards of the severity is what I guess is what --
10 MS. LAMPERT: He had a lot to say about 11 the severity.
12 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, well I will just go 13 back and read it. That's fine. I think that is all 14 I wanted to ask.
15 MS. LAMPERT: Can I just make a final --
16 CHAIR YOUNG: Anything to wrap up on the 17 cleanup contention? Go ahead.
18 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, I just wanted to repeat 19 again that the statement that the EAP standard that is 20 used is two rem and five, 5.5 going for a couple of 21 years, that is one possibility. But it hasn't been 22 decided and that it the core issue here, that there is 23 not an agreed upon standard level of cleanup and that 24 relates directly to what the cost will be. And that 25 is affirmed in the e-mails that were provided in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
864 1 investigative report and provided to you all that 2 there is debate of what will in fact be used.
3 So the question then becomes they made a 4 choice. There is no regulation of what to use. Did 5 they use the most conservative, which would seem 6 appropriate or not, number one? And number two, to 7 get at the very basic question, could they in fact 8 have done a reliable analysis if there is no cleanup 9 standard that is agreed upon and if there is no 10 federal agency? Which gets us to a road. Either they 11 shouldn't get their license for another 20 years if 12 these issues haven't been decided or generous soul 13 that I am, I suggested another alternative that 14 perhaps they could be required to go back and do 15 further analysis using the most conservative or 16 demonstrate that they did. They certainly should not 17 have been allowed to do their analyses using the least 18 conservative, particularly we have learned, which is 19 only tangentially relevant, that Price Anderson does 20 not cover cleanup. And so this community, this state, 21 will be left holding the bag.
22 CHAIR YOUNG: Anything further from the 23 staff?
24 MS. JONES: Judge, I didn't identify 25 myself earlier but Andrea Jones from the NRC Staff.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
865 1 Good morning.
2 I just want to respond to the question you 3 all asked earlier. You wanted us to locate the NUREG 4 guide and we have located it. We are generally in 5 agreement with Mr. O'Kula. We are not familiar with 6 the discussions that took place with regard to where 7 the costs, the presumption of costs.
8 CHAIR YOUNG: Tell me again which NUREG 9 you are talking about.
10 MS. JONES: I will give you the citation 11 because this is where the discussion is actually 12 located. So it is at NUREG/BR-0184.
13 MS. LAMPERT: Zero what?
14 MS. JONES: Zero, one, eight, four.
15 MS. LAMPERT: Okay.
16 MS. JONES: And this is on page 5.25. And 17 you will see a discussion there, I am told, where they 18 discussed the four rem or yes, the four rem standard 19 and then it goes into the half rem standard over the 20 next five years.
21 MS. JONES: Sorry, I have been corrected.
22 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Counsel, that is a NUREG.
23 Right?
24 MS. JONES: Yes, it is.
25 JUDGE ABRAMSON: That is not guidance not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
866 1 law.
2 MS. JONES: It is guidance. And I am 3 sorry, I have just been corrected. It is four rem 4 over five years. And a half a year -- Yes. Two rems 5 in the first year and then a half a rem each year 6 after.
7 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And let me ask Entergy's 8 counsel just a quick question. Do we have any 9 disagreement with the concept that if you chose a 10 different cleanup standard you get a different cost?
11 MR. LEWIS: Certainly, we will get a 12 different cost.
13 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Thank you.
14 MR. LEWIS: I would say that the standard 15 that we used in our analysis is the EPA Protective 16 Action Guidelines specifically for nuclear accidents.
17 It was the one that applied.
18 But Ms. Lampert just asserted again that 19 Price Anderson doesn't apply to environmental cleanup 20 costs. That is just flat wrong.
21 MS. LAMPERT: Flat wrong? I responded --
22 JUDGE ABRAMSON: All right. We have 23 writings on that point so we will deal those. Thank 24 you.
25 MS. LAMPERT: It is a dispute.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
867 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Anything further from 2 Entergy on the cleanup contention just to wrap up?
3 MR. LEWIS: No, I don't think so.
4 MS. JONES: I think I just want to make 5 one statement because I think it is just very 6 important from the Staff. I mean, because we have 7 been quite silent and we have --
8 CHAIR YOUNG: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to 9 cut you off before.
10 MS. JONES: That's okay. That's okay.
11 But I just want to make it clear and I think our brief 12 does a very good job of explaining why we think that 13 these are policy issues. These are really legalese.
14 These are really policy issues that really are better 15 off left for the heads of these agencies to discuss 16 and decide amongst themselves who takes the lead in a 17 radiological incident, identifying sources of funding, 18 what particular cleanup standard is going to apply in 19 the event that that does happen.
20 And we think that doing anything at this 21 point in this proceeding, which we believe would be 22 out of scope to do in a license renewal proceeding 23 would be essentially circumventing their ability to 24 make those decisions.
25 We now believe that those issues are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
868 1 closely related to the issues that we are, that you 2 are inquiring about with regard to cleanup costs. We 3 do believe that the fact that the EPA standard was 4 applied when they were analyzing these issues, we 5 think that that is a reasonable standard under NEPA.
6 And it was considered and we think that that was 7 sufficient.
8 But clearly the issues of sources for 9 funding, what cleanup standard, who is going to take 10 the lead, we really believe that that is better left 11 to the heads of these agencies. And mind you, there 12 are others obviously outside of these agencies that 13 are also involved in these discussions. There are 14 higher ranking government officials. And so I would 15 caution any decision in that regard.
16 Thank you.
17 CHAIR YOUNG: Did you want to say 18 anything, Ms. Jones, about the relationship of when 19 cleanup occurs, how long it would take, the 20 relationship between that and the SAMA analysis and 21 any questions about who would be responsible for 22 whether anyone is responsible? Did you want to say 23 anything further on that?
24 MS. JONES: I think I have said enough.
25 And again, we generally agree with what Mr. O'Kula NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
869 1 explained.
2 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, thank you.
3 MR. LEWIS: Judge, I do have one point 4 just on further reflection. We cited in our answer an 5 analysis of Price Anderson for the proposition that 6 with respect to extraordinary nuclear occurrences, 7 which are big nuclear incidents, the ones that are 8 associated with this sort of accident, that the Price 9 Anderson policy does indeed continue to cover 10 environmental cleanup costs.
11 I do have a copy of the ANI, the American 12 Nuclear Insurance endorsement, if the Board would like 13 to review it. In fact, this is a letter from ANI when 14 they made this change that provided the policy and 15 provided the explanation of what it was and wasn't 16 doing. I could not find an ADAMS cite because this 17 goes back to 1989, it is pre-ADAMS so I didn't cite it 18 in my answer. But if the Board is curious to read the 19 actual American Nuclear Insurance policy and 20 explanation of it, I do have those documents. I can 21 provide it to the Board and the parties.
22 CHAIR YOUNG: All right.
23 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, thank you. In response 24 to what Ms. Jones said, we just met, that being a 25 policy issue about the responsibility in your world.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
870 1 I couldn't disagree any more.
2 Clearly a SAMA analysis is required for 3 license renewal, if they haven't done it before. So, 4 it is on the table, number one.
5 Number two, it cannot lie on the fiction 6 shelf. It has to be reliable. There has to be an 7 acceptable estimation of offsite costs so that SAMAs, 8 which could reduce the risk of an accident which there 9 is a dispute whether there is any money to pay to 10 clean it up, and clearly, there is no dispute, there 11 is no agency in charge and clearly there is no dispute 12 that there is not a defined, cleared standard clearly, 13 that is in our world.
14 So because you are responsible and we are 15 dependent upon you to provide us with assurance that 16 what they have said and done in their SAMA analysis is 17 honest, is reliable, reflects reality. Because if it 18 is underestimated, they choose this, that, whatever, 19 based on Jell-O, then we will not get the mitigation 20 protection for the next 20 years. The public will be 21 cheated.
22 So, this business that it is up to 23 somebody else to decide, I'll be long dead, that is 24 for sure, is wrong. The decision is to determine what 25 they have done is appropriate or not. And if it is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
871 1 not, that there be further analysis, which is in your 2 responsibility.
3 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. All right.
4 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, the letter I 5 referred to.
6 CHAIR YOUNG: That's fine. I guess, --
7 JUDGE ABRAMSON: You can e-mail it to us 8 all.
9 MR. LEWIS: I have a copy of a fax. I'm 10 afraid if I didn't scan it and e-mail it, it maybe --
11 JUDGE COLE: Do you have copies for 12 everybody?
13 MR. LEWIS: Yes, I do.
14 JUDGE COLE: Well, give them out.
15 CHAIR YOUNG: We will just make this an 16 exhibit to today's transcript. And so if you could 17 give a copy to the court reporter also.
18 I guess we could call it Exhibit 1 to 19 today's transcript.
20 (WHEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO WAS 21 MARKED AS EXHIBIT 1 FOR IDENTIFICATION 22 AND RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE.)
23 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, moving on to the third 24 table's contention. We have already talked about the 25 reopening standard. So as far as I am concerned the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
872 1 only the other issue would be the issue of the 2 significance, severity, etcetera.
3 I think there was a reference in the NRC 4 document about the level of severity. Did you find 5 that, Judge Cole?
6 JUDGE COLE: No, I couldn't find it. I 7 have got too many papers up here.
8 The December 2, 2010 information notice 9 referred to significance of the problem with the 10 cables. And I believe it said it was of little 11 significance. And I think that in itself was 12 significant.
13 MS. LAMPERT: What? There was a little 14 significance?
15 CHAIR YOUNG: The statement --
16 JUDGE COLE: That the issue is of little 17 significance. And that was written in the information 18 notice towards the very end. And I can't find my 19 copy. I have got a suitcase full of papers here.
20 MS. LAMPERT: Talk about it.
21 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Maybe counsel for the 22 Staff or Counsel for Entergy has a copy. Or maybe Ms.
23 Lampert has a copy.
24 CHAIR YOUNG: Basically I think that the 25 idea is to give you an opportunity to respond to that.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
873 1 MS. LAMPERT: I've got a copy of it here.
2 CHAIR YOUNG: Let's see.
3 MS. LAMPERT: Would you like me to read 4 that?
5 JUDGE COLE: It is a long document. You 6 are going to read?
7 MS. LAMPERT: I'm not going to read it 8 all.
9 JUDGE COLE: Okay.
10 MS. LAMPERT: Wait a minute.
11 JUDGE COLE: It is towards the end part.
12 MS. LAMPERT: First, to give a summary of 13 it, what it does say is that this is in fact a 14 significant issue. It does say that it could not 15 simply lead to a single failure, which would not be as 16 significant, but could lead to multiple failures. And 17 it explains why. And it explains also that the cables 18 provide electricity for key safety systems.
19 So to say it is not significant, really 20 makes you question the NRC.
21 MS. UTTAL: Excuse me, Judge Cole. Which 22 particular document were you looking for?
23 JUDGE COLE: This is the information 24 notice of December 2, 2010.
25 MS. LAMPERT: And here are the highlights.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
874 1 Cable failures have a variety of causes. And it goes 2 on listing that wetness and aging are the key ones.
3 JUDGE COLE: Thank you.
4 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Why don't we let Judge 5 Cole find what it is he is thinking of.
6 MS. LAMPERT: Okay.
7 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And then you can respond 8 to that.
9 JUDGE COLE: The comment just peaked my 10 notice, you know, in the information notice.
11 (Pause.)
12 MS. LAMPERT: Pages five and seven are the 13 big ones.
14 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Let me just say I think 15 everybody's pleadings on this point are pretty clear.
16 So, I don't feel the need for any discussion of them.
17 MR. LEWIS: Judge Cole, I think maybe what 18 you may be remembering is not the information notice 19 but the --
20 JUDGE COLE: This doesn't look like the 21 document I was looking for.
22 MS. LAMPERT: I know what you are thinking 23 of. You are thinking of the --
24 MR. LEWIS: The inspection report.
25 MS. LAMPERT: -- inspection that was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
875 1 written for Pilgrim --
2 MR. LEWIS: Right.
3 MS. LAMPERT: -- in August. That is what 4 you are thinking of, which was, I mean, when you think 5 about it --
6 JUDGE COLE: I stand corrected.
7 MR. LEWIS: In her pleading, in Pilgrim 8 Watch's pleading, it was immediately following an 9 excerpt was right after the information notice but it 10 was not part of the information notice.
11 JUDGE COLE: Oh, okay.
12 MS. LAMPERT: And as I pointed out, Judge 13 -- not Judge. Chair, Chairman Jaczko yesterday 14 pointed it out as an important issue to get after.
15 So if the chairman thinks so --
16 JUDGE ABRAMSON: They are not allowed to 17 influence our decision making.
18 (Laughter.)
19 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Seriously.
20 CHAIR YOUNG: If the chairman has 21 indicated that this is a matter of concern to the 22 Commission and that it is going to be handled and I 23 guess sometimes the term generic is used, in a generic 24 matter for all plants, how does that relate to the 25 issue of the seriousness of it and to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
876 1 appropriateness of it --
2 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, it speaks --
3 CHAIR YOUNG: -- as a contention in this 4 particular case?
5 MS. LAMPERT: It speaks two ways. Number 6 one, a lot of things have been considered serious and 7 to deal with and they seemed to be dealt with after 8 the fact. Leaks from buried pipes is an example.
9 However, the point is that it adds some 10 additional substance to the fact that it is a 11 significant issue. However, what we are dealing with 12 is the sufficiency of the Aging Management Program 13 going forward for a very serious safety issue. And we 14 are looking at it in a site-specific manner here, not 15 generically. And therefore, you have to couple what 16 the Aging Management does and does not do and 17 determine is it appropriate for the site-specific 18 circumstances here.
19 And so therefore, that is why it belongs 20 in this adjudication process.
21 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Do I understand correctly 22 that the threshold for you is the decision by the 23 decision by the Commission in December to not address 24 this as a generic issue? That is what makes your 25 pleading time run.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
877 1 MS. LAMPERT: Correct.
2 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Thank you.
3 MS. LAMPERT: That it was the salt on the 4 wound, the frosting on the cake. And was pointed out, 5 that sometimes, you know, somewhere I found it in the 6 Digest that my source of all legal knowledge, that --
7 JUDGE ABRAMSON: It's a pretty good 8 source.
9 MS. LAMPERT: -- sometimes you have in a 10 late filed contention some things that were old and 11 then some things that are new. And that something can 12 occur that puts the last piece in the puzzle and then 13 triggers it to go forward.
14 And so again, I will say call me naive but 15 I did believe because this is so obviously 16 significant, that the NRC and because of their track 17 record in saying over and over again in information 18 notices how serious this was and what the causes were, 19 that they get off their -- can't say that -- that they 20 would in fact make requirements. But it didn't 21 happen.
22 And so this is our opportunity and that is 23 why it is new.
24 JUDGE COLE: I would like to identify this 25 sentence that peaked my interest. It is in Exhibit 5 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
878 1 of the Pilgrim License Renewal July 29, 2010 2 inspection report. And it is in the last page nine 3 under "Enforcement."
4 "This finding does not involve enforcement 5 action because no regulatory requirement violation was 6 identified because the finding does not involve a 7 violation and has very low safety significance." That 8 is the sentence that I remember, for whatever it is 9 worth.
10 MS. LAMPERT: Yes. Well what it is worth 11 is, and I can provide you with this. The Union of 12 Concerned Scientists a couple of months ago issued a 13 report on how many greens findings are given. And I 14 think that speaks for the overly generous grading 15 system. I wish they graded my SATs. You know what I 16 mean.
17 JUDGE COLE: Thank you.
18 CHAIR YOUNG: Anything else on the cables 19 contentions before we move on?
20 And it is early now for lunch but it might 21 be a good time to take a lunch break and then come 22 back and do Contention 3 after lunch.
23 MR. LEWIS: I would like to respond to one 24 thing that Ms. Lampert said, if I could.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
879 1 MR. LEWIS: The suggestion that the 2 Information Notice at the end of 2010 was the last 3 piece of the puzzle and, therefore, it makes its whole 4 contention timely, I think is an incorrect assertion 5 for a couple of reasons.
6 First of all, recently in the Prairie 7 Island license renewal proceeding, the Commission 8 criticized that very type of holding and said with 9 respect to a document that merely summarizes prior 10 information, it is not appropriate to say that is the 11 last piece of the puzzle when that information was all 12 available before.
13 So there is a Commission case that 14 criticizes that concept.
15 More to the point, though, the succession 16 of steps that the staff has taken in addressing this 17 issue has been absolutely consistent, none changing 18 from the beginning.
19 In the generic letter 2007, the 01 summary 20 report, in 2008 the Staff's position was licensees 21 should keep water out of the inaccessible structures 22 by draining manholes and they should have a condition 23 monitoring program by testing cables. That is what 24 the GALL report does. In NUREG/CR-7000, the report 25 that was commissioned again what Brookhaven suggested NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
880 1 is test cable by these monitoring techniques and try 2 and control the environment.
3 In the draft versions of GALL rev 2, the 4 staff's position was with respect to license renewal, 5 drain down water to keep it dry and monitor the 6 condition. Now we have an information notice at the 7 end of the year where the staff says drain down water 8 and do these tests to monitor the condition. There 9 has not been a change at all. It is simply amazing 10 that this is the frosting on the cake.
11 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Counselor, let me just 12 ask you --
13 MS. LAMPERT: Wait a minute!
14 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Let me follow this up, 15 please, Ms. Lampert.
16 I had the impression that Pilgrim Watch 17 asserts that what was issued in December actually said 18 that NRC is not going to do anything anymore, that 19 they ceasing work on this point or that they are not 20 going to create any generic rules or do any 21 rulemaking. Was that in fact part of that December 22 decision?
23 MR. LEWIS: I don't think that the 24 Commission ever said that they were going to do a 25 rulemaking. The Commission, the Staff said that they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
881 1 are preparing a Regulatory Guide. They announced 2 this. This was actually consistent with what they 3 said in the generic letter 2007-03 summary report.
4 They said we are going to prepare a regulatory guide.
5 We are going to tell existing licensees what they are 6 going to do. It is going to do these things.
7 The staff's position I think is quite 8 clear. The regulations already require what they 9 require. And they require you to take appropriate 10 steps to maintain the condition of equipment that you 11 rely on. And you have to monitor it under the 12 maintenance rule.
13 All the staff has been doing throughout 14 this process is saying here is what we think the 15 appropriate steps are to maintain the environment.
16 And throughout all their activities, what they have 17 said is we think that licensees should drain down 18 water in manholes, if you have important cables that 19 are inaccessible, so that they are not exposed to 20 water unnecessarily. In addition, because it is still 21 possible, you should do these type of tests that are 22 capable of detecting degradation. The staff has not 23 said we are walking away from this issue. In fact, 24 they are continuing to take enforcement action against 25 licensees who aren't draining down their manholes and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
882 1 aren't adequately monitoring the condition. I don't 2 think the staff has backed off on their position at 3 all.
4 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So you don't think the 5 December issuance says anything to the effect that 6 they are going to walk away. And I think Ms. Lampert, 7 Pilgrim Watch's pleadings say otherwise. Right?
8 MS. LAMPERT: Wait a minute.
9 MR. LEWIS: I could just pull my copy of 10 the information notice. I can't pull it up quickly.
11 But no, I don't think they are abandoning this issue.
12 I think that what Pilgrim Watch is maintaining is that 13 all this cable should be replaced with cable that 14 meets 50.49.
15 The Staff has never throughout this 16 process said we are going to require everybody do 17 install some marine cable. And there is nothing in 18 Information Notice 2010 -- I'm sorry. Judge Cole, you 19 have it. -- 2010-26, which reflects any change in 20 Staff position on that point.
21 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Ms. Uttal?
22 MS. UTTAL: That is correct. The 23 Information Notice does not say that we are stepping 24 away. It says no particular action or response is 25 required. But it does instruct that you should ensure NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
883 1 that the cables that could become submerged are 2 adequately monitored and other such things.
3 JUDGE ABRAMSON: When you say it says no 4 particular action or response is required, what does 5 that mean in Staff-ease?
6 MS. UTTAL: That is typical of Information 7 Notices, --
8 MS. LAMPERT: It's typical.
9 MS. UTTAL: -- which are -- Information 10 Notice is to give the industry information. And what 11 it does is it is just repeating things that are 12 already out there.
13 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So does every Staff 14 notice no particular action or response is required?
15 MS. UTTAL: For the Information Notices, 16 yes, --
17 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay.
18 MS. UTTAL: -- because no particular --
19 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Because it is not 20 demanding --
21 MS. UTTAL: It is information.
22 JUDGE ABRAMSON: It is not demanding 23 action or response.
24 MS. UTTAL: That's correct.
25 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay, thank you.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
884 1 MS. LAMPERT: Is it my turn?
2 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Sure.
3 CHAIR YOUNG: I think you wanted to add 4 something.
5 MS. LAMPERT: Oh, go ahead.
6 MS. MIZUNO: Counsel for Staff would like 7 to respond to a few things that Pilgrim Watch has 8 stated. But if you would like Pilgrim Watch to go 9 forward now, we could then respond to all of them at 10 once.
11 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
12 MS. MIZUNO: Perhaps that would be the 13 best.
14 CHAIR YOUNG: That's fine. I just thought 15 you might have something to add on this issue.
16 MS. MIZUNO: Thank you.
17 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead.
18 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, my point was that they 19 again made no requirements or required any responses 20 from the licensees in the notice. And then they made 21 suggestions such as the NRC expects but it certainly 22 didn't make the requirement that the licensee identify 23 conditions that are adverse to quality for cables, 24 such as long-term submergence in water.
25 Upon the discovery of submerged NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
885 1 conditions, the licensees should, again no 2 requirement, take prompt corrective actions to restore 3 the environment. What are these prompt, corrective 4 actions? And if you read a few paragraphs before, you 5 would see where they said, oh but sometimes as soon as 6 they pump them out, if site conditions are such, those 7 manholes fill right back up. Hmm, tests. There are 8 no proven tests.
9 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, we read your 10 pleadings on the point.
11 MS. LAMPERT: Etcetera, etcetera, 12 etcetera.
13 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Thank you.
14 MS. LAMPERT: So this is nothing of 15 substance. We are looking for something of substance 16 that will provide greater assurance.
17 And if business as usual is so great, then 18 why are they finding degraded cables? Why are they 19 finding trouble which they report in this information 20 notice again and again, reactor after reactor. So 21 that tells business as usual is not sufficient.
22 CHAIR YOUNG: Ms. Mizuno?
23 MS. MIZUNO: If I may. Thank you, Your 24 Honor.
25 There are a couple of points that I think NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
886 1 need to be addressed and one very important unspoken 2 thought that puts the issue in context.
3 When a cable is submerged, that can result 4 in additional degradation and potential cable failure.
5 That is true. But what is also really important to 6 keep in mind is the fact that just because a cable is 7 submerged or just because it is exposed to a moist 8 environment does not mean that it will stop 9 functioning. It means instead that it is vulnerable 10 to potential aging affects that previously had not 11 been discussed. That is why GALL2, Rev. 2 has 12 additional -- changed from GALL1. That is why there 13 are those additional provisions in GALL2 for 14 inspection and for testing.
15 But it is important to understand 16 something that I think all the engineers take for 17 granted so they don't bother to tell the rest of us is 18 that just because a cable is wet, doesn't mean it is 19 going to fail. It doesn't mean it is going to fail.
20 The next point I would like to address is 21 the issue of the number of green findings that the NRC 22 staff produces, rather than say that those green 23 findings are evidence of lax regulation. I think it 24 shows the exact opposite, that the NRC inspectors are 25 doing a very good job. They are finding a lot of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
887 1 issues. They are finding issues that may not be very 2 big but they are finding them nevertheless and they 3 are documenting them and they are bringing them to the 4 floor. And that is why I think you see a lot of green 5 issues, green findings.
6 Thank you.
7 CHAIR YOUNG: Anything else on the new 8 contentions?
9 MR. LEWIS: One more point, Judge Young.
10 CHAIR YOUNG: All right.
11 MR. LEWIS: I don't know if you are 12 interested. You were curious before about 13 understanding the SAMA model. I actually do have a 14 segment of cable if you would like to see what cable 15 looks like. And this is actually cable that was 16 inaccessible in service exposed to water for almost 40 17 years. If you are at all interested to see what it 18 looks like, I can show you a piece.
19 MS. LAMPERT: I should have brought my 20 cables. The cables -- I actually do have cables.
21 JUDGE ABRAMSON: We are not talking that 22 sort of evidence today.
23 MR. LEWIS: Okay.
24 MS. LAMPERT: The point being to look at 25 a cable that is designed to be in a wet condition and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
888 1 see how it is constructed in a different manner than 2 cables that are not certified, you could just go to a 3 local hardware store and they will show you that.
4 (Laughter.)
5 JUDGE COLE: Ms. Mizuno, could you for the 6 record define what a green finding is, the 7 significance of green?
8 MS. LAMPERT: Money. It's the same color.
9 MS. MIZUNO: There are -- the -- sorry.
10 The Reactor Oversight Program, the ROP has a number of 11 different findings. A green finding is of little 12 safety significance or very low safety significance.
13 And then there are additional findings; white 14 findings, yellow findings, red findings, and they 15 increase in severity and, you know, potential 16 problems. But the green finding is the lowest safety 17 significance finding --
18 JUDGE COLE: Thank you.
19 MS. MIZUNO: -- that the Reactor 20 Oversight Program has.
21 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. Anything 22 further? All right. Let's see. It is 20 to 12:00.
23 Is everyone going to -- 12:30, 12:45?
24 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I vote for 12:30.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: 12:30?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
889 1 JUDGE ABRAMSON: For those of you who have 2 been in hearings with me, you know I would go to 10:00 3 at night.
4 MS. LAMPERT: It depends on how fast they 5 are in serving. Doesn't it?
6 CHAIR YOUNG: Aim for 12:30 and do your 7 level best to get here at 12:30. If --
8 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I am going to close the 9 door at 12:30. Be here at 12:30.
10 (Laughter.)
11 (Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m. a lunch recess 12 was taken.)
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 (202) 234-4433
890 1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 2 (12:43 p.m.)
3 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. Starting now on 4 Contention 3 and really mainly clarification 5 questions. And then we will finish by allowing each 6 party a total of ten minutes to do closing.
7 One broad question I will start with and 8 it is just I noticed in Entergy's proposed findings --
9 there you are.
10 MR. LEWIS: Yes, I'm right here.
11 CHAIR YOUNG: In the conclusions of law, 12 I believe that you put the burden on yourself, which 13 is where we put it. And the Staff put the burden on 14 itself. And I assume that the reason for that is 15 because the NEPA, once the EIS is done, and this is 16 really directed at the lawyers, --
17 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
18 CHAIR YOUNG: The NEPA issues, once the 19 EIS is done is really directed at the Staff. Is that 20 why you did that?
21 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor.
22 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
23 MR. HARRIS: This is Brian Harris with the 24 Staff speaking, since I haven't spoken earlier. But 25 the NEPA is directed to the federal agency's action NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
891 1 and its environmental review. Now the burden is on us 2 at that point. Safety issues are of course different 3 in terms of who bears the final burden.
4 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So, I just wanted to 5 clear that up and no one has anything further to say 6 on that.
7 I think in general, there is general case 8 law that puts the burden on the Applicant but I assume 9 that that is why you did that. And unless there is 10 any further clarification on that, we can move on to 11 other issues.
12 MS. LAMPERT: Well, Your Honor, I have 13 something to say.
14 CHAIR YOUNG: Oh, okay.
15 MS. LAMPERT: It appeared that the NRC 16 Staff were putting the burden on the Petitioner 17 because they concluded quite a few times in their 18 findings that Pilgrim Watch failed to prove that. And 19 that confused me, thinking that the burden of proof 20 was not, that they assumed was the Petitioners. So 21 thank you for that clarification.
22 CHAIR YOUNG: I think what they were 23 probably saying and how we would take it is that they 24 were saying that the Pilgrim Watch had some burden of 25 going forward and presenting something, to which they NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
892 1 would then respond and have the ultimate burden of 2 persuasion. It is not a huge issue. I just wanted to 3 clarify that for the record.
4 So, did you have something that you wanted 5 to -- We don't have your -- Oh, there it is. Did you 6 want to do that first or I basically --
7 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, I can do that now --
8 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
9 JUDGE ABRAMSON: -- because I think it 10 sets the stage for the rest of the discussion.
11 I am going to take you all back to your 12 first algebra class. Now this is something that 13 wasn't plead but I think can be read directly from the 14 pleadings. So let me just express something and see 15 if you are all in agreement with what I want to say 16 about it. And this is the relationship between the 17 damages that would need to be caused by, let's take 18 the sea breeze effect, first, and how big would those 19 damages need --
20 CHAIR YOUNG: Judge Abramson, hold on one 21 -- Are you able to get him? Good. Okay, never mind.
22 JUDGE ABRAMSON: How big would the damages 23 need to be from the sea breeze effect, in order to 24 make the next most costly SAMA cost-effective? And I 25 want to express that in terms of a formula and I have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
893 1 in mind doing that based on what we see in the facts.
2 So the first fact we would have to find is 3 how many days, what fraction of a year is the sea 4 breeze in effect. Okay? And we have testimony. I am 5 just going to put some hypothetical numbers on this 6 because what I am going to do is convert a word 7 problem into a formula, which you all know how to do, 8 I think.
9 MS. LAMPERT: No.
10 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Well surely you do. It 11 may have been a few years since you and I took 12 beginning algebra but it is where it starts. So let's 13 say it is in effect for 50 days and let's say that 14 each day it runs for eight hours, which would make it 15 a third of a day. So 50 thirds of a day would be the 16 number of days that it would be, that there would be 17 a sea breeze. This is just a hypothetical. These 18 aren't numbers but we could find numbers from the 19 testimony. And if you wanted to figure out what 20 fraction of a year that is, you just divide that by 21 365 days and you get a number that is something like 22 50 over 1000 or about 55 out of a 100. About five 23 percent. Okay?
24 Now let's say we don't know the damages 25 that the sea breeze would have to cause but we can NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
894 1 make it an algebraic unknown, X. That is the damages 2 that the sea breeze would have to cause in order to 3 run the total cost up to twice what we had from the 4 original SAMA analysis. So that is the damages from 5 the sea breeze to cause the next one to be available.
6 And we know what the damages are from the 7 SAMA analysis. Pilgrim Watch has done that SAMA 8 analysis. They have a number. And while they didn't 9 use a number, let's just call that Y. Y is the 10 damages from all the other events, the average, the 11 mean damages, or the average damages which we had a 12 lot of discussion about and was the mean --
13 MS. LAMPERT: Dispute.
14 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Dispute. Okay. Now 15 let's say Y is the average damages that you get from 16 everything but the sea breeze. From everything else.
17 From all other meteorologic conditions is what I would 18 write. All right?
19 Now what is the formula? The formula is 20 five percent of the time you have got X. Ninety-five 21 percent of the time you have got Y. And it has got to 22 add up to twice Y. Right?
23 MS. LAMPERT: As Y the variable.
24 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, just the meteorology 25 and just from the sea breeze.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
895 1 MS. LAMPERT: Yes.
2 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So 0.05X plus 0.95Y has 3 to equal 2Y. Let me finish. Okay? I'm almost done.
4 MS. LAMPERT: Y.
5 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So solving for X, you get 6 0.05X equals 1.05Y where X equals 21Y. In other 7 words, the damages that you get during the sea breeze 8 effect in order to be big enough to bring the next 9 most costly SAMA into play would have to be 10 approximately 21 times the average that you got from 11 all the others. And that is all I wanted to do. I 12 wanted to set the stage. Obviously, 21 isn't the 13 threshold. Five percent isn't the exact number. But 14 I wanted to see if anybody has any difficulty with 15 this kind of an approach to looking at the problem.
16 MS. LAMPERT: I do.
17 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay. Which is?
18 MS. LAMPERT: Which is that the sea breeze 19 was not the only meteorological variable --
20 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay.
21 MS. LAMPERT: -- that we are talking 22 about.
23 JUDGE ABRAMSON: This is just how you deal 24 with this --
25 MS. LAMPERT: Then you are going to add NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
896 1 them all up. And you also made an assumption, you had 2 to hit twice what they found to have significance and 3 we had a dispute that the way Kevin O'Kula came up 4 with that was using the same models that we found a 5 problem with. How do you get the two times?
6 JUDGE ABRAMSON: This is based on the data 7 we have in front of us. That's all.
8 MS. LAMPERT: Okay. Okay, so the question 9 is, is that valid.
10 JUDGE ABRAMSON: We haven't -- Yes. Yes.
11 MS. LAMPERT: Okay.
12 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I understand that.
13 MS. LAMPERT: Okay, we are together.
14 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay.
15 MR. LEWIS: One thing I would add, Judge 16 Abramson, --
17 JUDGE ABRAMSON: This is a linear 18 approximation, by the way, for some scientists in the 19 room.
20 MR. LEWIS: Is the Y average damages that 21 we felt was in the MACCS2 for the SAMA already include 22 sea breezes.
23 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I understand that.
24 MR. LEWIS: Okay.
25 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And there is a lot of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
897 1 parameters here. This assumes that the average, there 2 are a lot of things in this but it gives you an idea.
3 In fact, if you actually get the percentage, you will 4 probably find it is less than five percent from what 5 we have on data.
6 If you properly compute the formula within 7 that 0.95, you have 0.95 times Y with some adjustments 8 for other conditions, other mean conditions. And then 9 you put another variable for the other wind 10 conditions.
11 But it is the idea of translating the 12 question before us, which is how big does the effect 13 have to be for it to cause the next SAMA to become 14 important.
15 MS. LAMPERT: But isn't the question of 16 what is the proper model, a segmented straight line or 17 a variable model such as CALMET? And as you suggested 18 --
19 JUDGE ABRAMSON: That is the underlying 20 problem, yes.
21 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, the teleconference was 22 hey, we are on a boat and they didn't accept the 23 burden of proof and do that. That is the problem.
24 JUDGE ABRAMSON: That I understand but the 25 underlying problem is how accurate is the model. And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
898 1 what I am doing is saying we could also think of that 2 coming in the other door, which is how big does the 3 error in the model have to be before it can affect the 4 results of the SAMA analysis.
5 MR. LEWIS: And I would just add is the 6 issue is not whether there might be a better model or 7 a more accurate model, I mean, the Commission is very 8 clear in its remand in the March order and I am 9 quoting from CLI 10-11,37, "We conclude by emphasizing 10 that the issue here is whether the Pilgrim SAMA 11 analysis resulted in erroneous conclusions on the 12 SAMAs found to be cost beneficial. The question is 13 not whether there are plainly better atmospheric 14 dispersion model or whether the SAMA analysis can be 15 further refined. There is no NEPA requirement to use 16 the best scientific methodology."
17 And so Your Honors picked that up in how 18 you phrased this issue. Okay, the issue is whether or 19 not taking into account the concerns expressed by 20 Pilgrim Watch could make another SAMA cost-beneficial.
21 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And you are okay with 22 this as a formulaic way of addressing it.
23 MR. LEWIS: That is one way to address it.
24 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay.
25 MS. LAMPERT: Wait a minute. About this NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
899 1 NEPA interpretation, the reality is that this is a 2 category 2 issue. You are required to do an 3 appropriate site-specific study. If bottom line, to 4 get back to basics, that a variable plume model is the 5 appropriate model for this particular site, it is not 6 like some fancy dancy thing that isn't out there and 7 is asking Entergy to go far beyond what would be 8 required. It is simply asking Entergy to do a model 9 that is appropriate for this site. That it is 10 available and you can do it.
11 You have had notice since 2006 for cripes' 12 sakes that this was a central issue. You could have 13 run a variable model to then compare and answer the 14 question, instead of all this maybe maybe.
15 MR. LEWIS: Two things --
16 JUDGE ABRAMSON: We understand that issue.
17 So I don't think we need to belabor it. I think Judge 18 Young probably has some more specific questions about 19 things, rather than having you two pander the issue.
20 MS. LAMPERT: He really is a nice guy.
21 JUDGE ABRAMSON: After the issue, --
22 CHAIR YOUNG: Really what I have done is 23 write questions as I have read the proposed findings 24 to get clarification. And some of these issues may be 25 relatively minor. Some may not. So I am just going NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
900 1 to go through them. And the only rhyme or reason to 2 the order of them is that I am just there simply where 3 they come.
4 So one thing that I was just wanting 5 clarification on was I believe that Pilgrim Watch 6 raised some challenges about the distance that was 7 analyzed and the 50-mile radius was used in the SAMA 8 analysis and I was wondering if you could clarify for 9 me what the source of the 50-mile cutoff for the 10 distance analyzed, where that comes from.
11 MR. LEWIS: The source of that comes from 12 NRC precedent and practice that shows that the 13 consequences, basically, they drop off afterwards.
14 CHAIR YOUNG: I mean, is there a document?
15 In the same manner that I was asking, what is the 16 source of various inputs? Rather than saying it is 17 NRC practice, I am wondering is there a particular 18 document? Is there a particular rule, policy, 19 guidance document?
20 MR. LEWIS: Well, I will have Dr. O'Kula 21 address that.
22 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
23 MR. LEWIS: There is a guidance document 24 and he can address that.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
901 1 DR. O'KULA: Judge Young, the reference 2 that seems to have the most bearing on this would be 3 NUREG/BR-0058, revision 4, in terms of --
4 CHAIR YOUNG: Double 058 revision 4.
5 Okay.
6 MS. LAMPERT: And may I just underscore 7 practice? Practice. Practice, practice, practice.
8 CHAIR YOUNG: Well, let's let him finish 9 and then -- Okay. Go ahead.
10 DR. O'KULA: That specifies from a cost-11 benefit decision making perspective which the SAMA, of 12 course, is the tool to decide that the SAMA analysis 13 is the appropriate tool to decide this. The 50-mile 14 distance is the radius that is applied.
15 CHAIR YOUNG: I know that in making 16 standing decisions there is this proximity presumption 17 that the lawyers will be probably more familiar with 18 that anyone who lives within a 50-mile radius of a 19 plant is presumed to have standing. And I am assuming 20 that maybe that comes from the same source or related 21 source. And I was just, frankly, wondering where 22 those came from, given that Pilgrim Watch had raised 23 some questions about the distance.
24 MR. HARRIS: I don't think that those 25 really come from the same source. I mean, it is not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
902 1 totally coincidence that they are the same number but 2 there is a long history of that proximity presumption, 3 in terms of a sliding scale for a while and then it 4 finally sort of settled on if you live within 50 5 miles, then you are presumed to have standing. And a 6 lot of that is that you are not -- The consequences 7 fall off rapidly the further away you get. And so 8 after that point, you need to show judicial standing 9 --
10 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
11 MR. HARRIS: -- and injury-in-fact and 12 reducibility as opposed to it. So, it is I think more 13 coincidence that you have the same numbers.
14 CHAIR YOUNG: But the --
15 MR. HARRIS: Go ahead.
16 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead.
17 MR. HARRIS: Go ahead.
18 CHAIR YOUNG: Well the question is, what 19 is the source of the conclusion that consequences fall 20 off after the 50-mile because that has been stated as 21 the basis for both of them. So that is what I was 22 wondering. Is there --
23 MR. HARRIS: Well, I mean, the further 24 you travel, --
25 CHAIR YOUNG: Right but there seems to be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
903 1 a boundary line where someone sometime drew a 2 conclusion that after 50 miles, consequences fall off 3 significantly or to an extent that they are no longer 4 as significant.
5 MR. HARRIS: I mean and that goes back to 6 sort of that originally if you looked at the proximity 7 presumption, it was more of a sliding scale. So the 8 closer you were, you know, the more consequences. And 9 as you get a hundred miles, though, it could be you 10 could show some injury-in-fact. And you know, under 11 certain conditions that might be true in a real 12 accident, that you would see something travel that 13 far. But you have decay and things falling out so the 14 further you get, the less that can travel there.
15 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
16 MR. HARRIS: So I mean, --
17 CHAIR YOUNG: No, I understand the 18 principle.
19 MR. HARRIS: -- I am not sure I am 20 answering your question.
21 CHAIR YOUNG: I understand the principle.
22 What I am just simply asking is, and you answered it 23 for the SAMA analysis, if any of the experts have any 24 other enlightenment on that, I would appreciate the 25 clarification from where it came from.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
904 1 I understand the principle. It is where 2 that was spoken to and you have given me the NUREG.
3 Is there anything else besides that?
4 DR. O'KULA: The other precedent for that 5 50-mile distance, again, it may be coincidental but in 6 case of long-term effects, the 50-mile distance is 7 also the ingestion planning zone region that is used 8 to interdict food stuffs, should they be contaminated, 9 to restrict dairy products. And that is typically the 10 distance that is applied to the ingestion planning 11 zone.
12 CHAIR YOUNG: Now where would that be 13 discussed or addressed, if you know?
14 MS. LAMPERT: You know where I go 654?
15 Number one. It is in the Emergency Planning Guidance.
16 CHAIR YOUNG: Do you agree?
17 DR. O'KULA: Yes.
18 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
19 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, but let me add to that, 20 let's add a little common sense in here. There is a 21 consistency of no real basis. And we can look at 22 Chernobyl. Now granted, that was a fire but the point 23 being that there was restriction and there remains a 24 restriction in the sheep in Wales.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: I really would -- Let's try NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
905 1 to focus. I am really just asking simply 2 clarification questions, not to open up argument on 3 these things.
4 MS. LAMPERT: No, I am not trying to argue 5 but there is no regulation. And if you dig really 6 deeply, you don't get an answer of the lead shield is 7 at 10 miles for emergency planning, why the lead 8 shield is at 50 miles. Obviously the meteorologists 9 here and I wish Dr. Egan were here, could say, hey the 10 meteorology, how the winds blow, etcetera, etcetera, 11 and the terrain will make a difference on the 12 concentration of long-lived and dangerous 13 contaminants. But there is no lead shield.
14 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, let's see. Each 15 accident in the SAMA analysis, I am assuming that it 16 includes a sort of duration. Getting back to another 17 aspect of this time question. It has a lot of 18 different characteristics, the most significant of 19 which appear to be the amount of what is contained in 20 any release. But I am assuming it would also have 21 some durations that are input into it. Is that right?
22 I'm looking at you but anybody else can answer.
23 DR. O'KULA: Yes, Judge Young, that is 24 correct. There is a finite duration of the release 25 and the source terms or the accident scenarios that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
906 1 are used in the SAMA analysis in this case come from 2 the Entergy work that was done for their PSA study, 3 their Probabilistic Safety Assessment study in 4 defining various --
5 CHAIR YOUNG: Is that similarly related to 6 the level one or no?
7 DR. O'KULA: The full PRA would be a level 8 one, two three-type PRA study and --
9 CHAIR YOUNG: And what is --
10 DR. O'KULA: -- accounts for initiating 11 events, the level one core melt frequency assessment 12 and then the containment response or the accident 13 progressions, assuming that you have different type of 14 initiating events leading to various breaches in from 15 the pressure vessel and then through the primary 16 cooling system into the containment and then, 17 ultimately, was released into the atmosphere.
18 CHAIR YOUNG: And the PSA comes where in 19 that? Or how is it related?
20 DR. O'KULA: The whole PSA study that was 21 performed for Pilgrim addresses from start to finish 22 initiating events, core melt progression, containment 23 response, and then release into the environment. And 24 the level three PRA, when all the first two phases 25 have been performed, accounts for the doses and the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
907 1 economic costs that result from those accidents that 2 are in the study, at the starting point in the PSA.
3 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
4 MS. LAMPERT: Could I ask a question?
5 Duration would also consider resuspension. And there 6 was a question on whether the code modeled 7 resuspension and also this ties a little bit back 8 before lunch that if the assumption before cleanup is 9 hosing down buildings and plowing under fields, which 10 is what it is, then the duration of the accident 11 considering that mode of cleanup really would be 12 forever. Wouldn't it? Because that is not cleaning 13 up. That is moving it. Just an interesting thought.
14 MR. LEWIS: Dr. O'Kula can describe how 15 resuspension is taking --
16 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
17 DR. O'KULA: Yes, so the duration of the 18 accident is only, at least the way I first responded 19 to it is how long does the release take place from the 20 plant. And of course, then we are modeling with the 21 ATMOS module in MACCS2. The plume behavior as it 22 moves away from the plant over that 50-mile grid. And 23 so the radioactive contaminants that have been 24 released from this under the accident scenario are 25 traveling in a plume with respect to the weather that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
908 1 is assumed concurrent with the release and traveling 2 downwind across the 50-mile grid.
3 And in modeling that behavior of the 4 plume, features of the plume phenomenology are taken 5 into account with respect to is it the wind speed, the 6 stability condition of the atmosphere, whether it is 7 light, neutral stability or various stable-type 8 conditions or highly unstable, the wind speed.
9 And so particulate matter in a plume is 10 suspended in a Code -- I'm sorry -- suspended in the 11 plume but then will fall out or deposit with distance.
12 And once it is on the ground, however, during plume 13 passage, it is allowed to be resuspended in the air or 14 modeled as that.
15 So yes, some of the particulates that are 16 characteristic of these accident scenarios, such as 17 cesium and strontium, they have finite mass and they 18 are essentially particulate matter. They are subject 19 to gravitation and interaction with the environment.
20 And they would deposit out as a function of plume 21 travel but again, if they are on the ground, they are 22 also exposed to ambient wind conditions. And so they 23 are able to be resuspended and put back up into the 24 plume so that the plume goes downwind until it gets 25 off the grid.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
909 1 And then as modeled by the analysis that 2 was done by Entergy, there is then a seven-day period 3 of time where what has been deposited on the ground is 4 allowed to be resuspended into the air and subject 5 exposed populations to additional dose.
6 MS. LAMPERT: The seven days is the key.
7 DR. O'KULA: And that is the early phase.
8 And now then we could talk about the long 9 aftermath with the parts of the accident timeline that 10 goes into cleanup and decontamination and that sort of 11 thing but that is after plume passage, once the plume 12 has passed over the grid.
13 CHAIR YOUNG: Back to the PSA for a 14 minute. Tell me how does the PSA relate to the SAMA 15 analysis?
16 DR. O'KULA: The guidance for what you 17 start with with a SAMA analysis in terms of the 18 accident scenarios indicate several sources. But the 19 most similar type or the most appropriate source of 20 accident scenarios to begin with are those severe 21 accidents that have been modeled in the sites plant-22 specific PRA or PSA as often as caused the 23 Probabilistic Risk Assessment or probabilistic --
24 sometimes it is referred to as the probabilistic 25 safety assessment. But they are one and two --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
910 1 CHAIR YOUNG: And so I am sure if I go 2 back and read I could find this but I am trying to --
3 I think you just used the terms interchangeably, PRA 4 and PSA?
5 DR. O'KULA: And I should be consistent.
6 It is referred as the PSA in our documentation but it 7 is a probabilistic assessment of severe accidents; how 8 frequently they would occur and what their effects 9 would be should they occur.
10 CHAIR YOUNG: So it is overall.
11 DR. O'KULA: Yes.
12 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
13 MR. LEWIS: I would just add that in the 14 industry, PRA and PSA are used interchangeably.
15 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
16 MR. LEWIS: So it is really talking about 17 the same type of analysis.
18 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, thanks.
19 MS. LAMPERT: And could you talk about 20 resuspension of material from on-site?
21 MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, we object to Ms.
22 Lampert asking questions.
23 MS. LAMPERT: Okay, I will -- What are 24 the rules?
25 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. Good point.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
911 1 When I ask a question, feel free to speak up. What I 2 would like you to do is, since you don't have your 3 expert here, is to the extent that you could actually 4 point to part of the expert, Dr. Egan's two statements 5 or any of the others, --
6 MS. LAMPERT: Okay.
7 CHAIR YOUNG: -- that would be helpful.
8 MS. LAMPERT: My reference with the 9 guidance MACCS2 Code, user code that says --
10 CHAIR YOUNG: And that is one of your 11 exhibits.
12 MS. LAMPERT: -- the resuspension of 13 material is not modeled. This, you know, goes way 14 back that it is not modeled from on-site. I was just 15 making a clarification. We are trying to find out 16 what the deal is, what proper answers to these 17 questions.
18 CHAIR YOUNG: Now, on-site. You say on-19 site. And I understand from what I have read that on-20 site is on the plant site, basically.
21 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, it is.
22 CHAIR YOUNG: And offsite is beyond.
23 MS. LAMPERT: Exactly.
24 CHAIR YOUNG: So you are saying because it 25 is not modeled on-site, it doesn't take into account NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
912 1 --
2 MS. LAMPERT: Well if the wind blows, 3 let's be real. It is going to blow offsite.
4 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
5 MS. LAMPERT: And so the contamination, if 6 they are talking about you get a big bang close to 7 where it occurred, so you are going to have a lot of 8 contamination on-site. So the question is, is it --
9 When the wind blows, it is going to go offsite. Is 10 that accounted for? The Code says no.
11 CHAIR YOUNG: Is that accounted for and if 12 so, how?
13 DR. O'KULA: The Code addresses release 14 from the reactor site at the elevation that is 15 specified and then all the attributes of the 16 atmosphere in terms of transporting and dispersing the 17 plume are taken into effect.
18 The note about dispersion close to the 19 point of release was added to the guide to note that 20 in the near field, in the close-up part of the 21 calculation, there may be building effects that come 22 into play. And so any of the numbers or the 23 attributes of the Gaussian model very close to this 24 point of release could be affected in the precision of 25 the answer by if the analysis correctly accounts for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
913 1 auxiliary building, reactor building, shapes, any kind 2 of wake effects or the wind passing around and over 3 and structures that may be part of the site premises 4 where the accidental release is first occurring.
5 CHAIR YOUNG: So --
6 DR. O'KULA: So, it is just the statement 7 written in the guide for DOE applications was that if 8 you are using this analysis for downwind dose 9 calculations to an individual, again, must different 10 from a SAMA-type analysis, that the analysis close in 11 to the point of release may be less accurate than once 12 the plume is well-formed at 100 meters or roughly 13 between 100 meters and 500 meters and then going 14 across the full range of the grid.
15 Having said that, all attributes of the 16 atmosphere and the plume characteristics are present 17 in the model from the start of the release. And so 18 they will be accounted for close in, as well as in the 19 30, 40, 50-mile region.
20 CHAIR YOUNG: Let me see if I understand.
21 You are saying that basically all of the 22 release is assumed to go offsite. Is that what you 23 are getting at?
24 DR. O'KULA: Yes, it does. It does go 25 offsite.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
914 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, so you are saying that 2 therefore the issue of resuspension of anything on-3 site wouldn't add to it because you have already 4 assumed that all of it has gone offsite. Is that what 5 basically you are saying?
6 DR. O'KULA: In terms of resuspension, 7 once the plume has passed from the time it touches 8 down if it is released at some elevation and then has 9 broadened with the atmosphere and has broadened and 10 eventually touches ground, at that point, there is 11 deposition from particulate behavior material, as well 12 as other things are being transported in a plume like 13 the noble gases and things that don't have particulate 14 nature to them. But all of that is accounted for from 15 the instant the plume is released.
16 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Dr. O'Kula, let me follow 17 this up for just a second.
18 CHAIR YOUNG: Just let me see if I 19 understand.
20 MS. LAMPERT: This is ridiculous.
21 CHAIR YOUNG: So in other words, there is 22 nothing in the model that is used in the SAMA 23 analysis, since it is all presumed to go offsite, 24 there is nothing that remains on-site that could be 25 taken into account in the argument that it could be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
915 1 resuspended. Does that make sense? Is that what you 2 are saying? Am I understanding that right?
3 DR. O'KULA: No, I am not saying it --
4 CHAIR YOUNG: I know you are not saying it 5 like that --
6 DR. O'KULA: Clearly.
7 CHAIR YOUNG: -- but does that get to it?
8 DR. O'KULA: But if some of the plume is 9 depositing as early as 50 meters, 60 meters, 100 10 meters and it is on the ground, it is still able to be 11 resuspended and put back into the plume, as a function 12 of the time remaining before the seven days is over.
13 So yes, it is subject to the same physical 14 mechanisms at 100 meters as if the same mechanisms 15 that are present at one mile, 20 miles, 50 miles.
16 CHAIR YOUNG: What I am trying to 17 understand is, I thought you said that in all the 18 accidents, the complete release is presumed to go 19 offsite, for purposes of the analysis.
20 DR. O'KULA: Correct.
21 CHAIR YOUNG: Not that that is what really 22 would happen but for purposes of the SAMA analysis, it 23 is presumed to go offsite.
24 DR. O'KULA: Yes. Mass is conserved.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
916 1 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So does that mean that 2 there is no permanent deposition inside the site 3 boundary or just that if it hit inside the site 4 boundary it could be resuspended? I mean, that is 5 what I think we are asking.
6 MS. LAMPERT: Exactly.
7 DR. O'KULA: Okay, it is a time window.
8 So some of it would definitely stay there over a 9 period of time.
10 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Inside the site boundary.
11 DR. O'KULA: Inside the site boundary.
12 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay, thank you. That is 13 what I think was being questioned.
14 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
15 DR. O'KULA: And subject to resuspension.
16 The longer I keep my stopwatch on for that time 17 period, it would be subject to resuspension but it is 18 only a fraction of what is deposited.
19 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, I am really probably 20 --
21 DR. O'KULA: So some would still stay 22 there. Some would still stay there.
23 CHAIR YOUNG: I am probably at a level 24 really below everybody else here on this. But when 25 you say the entire release is presumed to go offsite, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
917 1 --
2 MR. LEWIS: No, he didn't say that.
3 CHAIR YOUNG: I thought you said that.
4 DR. O'KULA: The entire release leaves the 5 reactor boundary.
6 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So when I said the 7 entire release is presumed to go offsite, I was saying 8 that to ask is that a conservatism that is built-in?
9 In other words, rather than assume that some of the 10 release will deposit inside the plant boundary, not 11 just the containment but the plant boundary, I was 12 asking is it presumed that the entire release goes 13 offsite. That means totally away so that there would 14 be nothing left on-site?
15 MS. LAMPERT: Of course there would. I 16 mean, you don't have to clean up after an accident --
17 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, I am just trying to 18 understand. I am not trying to open up an argument.
19 I am trying to understand what the SAMA analysis 20 presumes about any deposition on the site of the plant 21 and I am not understanding. I am hearing two 22 different things.
23 So I am just trying to understand what the 24 SAMA analysis presumes in terms of whether any of the 25 release, whether any of the things released stay on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
918 1 the plant site, on-site. And if so, whether as Ms.
2 Lampert is arguing, it then does not take account, the 3 analysis does not take into account any resuspension 4 of anything that is left on-site.
5 DR. O'KULA: I think I understand now.
6 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Does that make --
7 DR. O'KULA: A fraction, perhaps one or 8 two percent, may deposit on the plant site.
9 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
10 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And some of that may be 11 picked up.
12 DR. O'KULA: Some of that may be picked up 13 and re-transported under resuspension.
14 CHAIR YOUNG: And so what you are saying 15 is, the SAMA analysis does not take that into account 16 but it is such a small fraction that it would not make 17 any difference. Is that what you are saying?
18 DR. O'KULA: It turns out to be a very 19 small fraction, given the site, the way the site 20 boundary is about a third of a mile. But it is a tiny 21 fraction and it is still subject to resuspension over 22 time.
23 And it does take into account 24 resuspension.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, so you are saying the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
919 1 SAMA analysis does take into account resuspension of 2 deposition on-site.
3 DR. O'KULA: Correctly stated.
4 MS. LAMPERT: For seven days or how many 5 days?
6 DR. O'KULA: For that seven day period.
7 CHAIR YOUNG: For seven days. And so what 8 --
9 MS. LAMPERT: The wind better not blow in 10 eight days.
11 CHAIR YOUNG: What you are challenging is 12 the fact that it does not take that into account after 13 the seven days.
14 MS. LAMPERT: Yes.
15 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Not to open argument.
16 MS. LAMPERT: No.
17 CHAIR YOUNG: I am just trying to 18 understand now.
19 MR. HARRIS: Judge Young, --
20 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes?
21 MR. HARRIS: -- at least from my 22 understanding, it also takes into account resuspension 23 from that seven days through that 30 years. So, 24 subject to --
25 CHAIR YOUNG: Resuspension within the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
920 1 site?
2 MR. HARRIS: Within the site.
3 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, which is it? Can you 4 get clarification?
5 MR. HARRIS: It is both.
6 DR. O'KULA: Correct. Both the acute 7 phase and the long-term phase.
8 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So, the SAMA analysis 9 does take into account resuspension in the initial 10 seven days and thereafter in the long-term CHRONC-11 type, C-H-R-O-N-C, part of the analysis.
12 DR. O'KULA: Correct.
13 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So --
14 JUDGE ABRAMSON: That is an interesting 15 question. What meteorology do you assume for the 16 long-term phase?
17 MS. LAMPERT: I was just going to ask 18 that.
19 JUDGE ABRAMSON: That's okay. I am 20 allowed to ask. You are not.
21 (Laughter.)
22 JUDGE ABRAMSON: What meteorology is 23 assumed, Dr. O'Kula?
24 DR. O'KULA: Dr. Abramson, in the long-25 term phase, it is purely a scaling of multiplying NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
921 1 factors. There is no meteorology. It is in the 2 region that we were talking about this morning, the 3 sector. If that has been contaminated by 4 radioactivity, then it is just a time-weighted factor.
5 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Do you make some 6 assumption about what would be added to the deposition 7 over time?
8 DR. O'KULA: Just over a period of time, 9 without any meteorology assumed but just a general 10 level of resuspended activity from ambient conditions, 11 ambient wind conditions --
12 CHAIR YOUNG: That could add to the --
13 JUDGE ABRAMSON: But there is some 14 scientific basis for that assumption for the numbers 15 you used?
16 DR. O'KULA: Yes.
17 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay.
18 MR. HARRIS: Judge Abramson, Dr. Bixler 19 may be able to add a little bit.
20 CHAIR YOUNG: Let me just clarify one 21 thing. So you are saying that for each segment you 22 assume that there could be resuspension from elsewhere 23 that could add to the amount for that segment and it 24 that it could -- that doesn't necessarily account from 25 another segment, but that the total, in effect, could NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
922 1 be increased as a result of that.
2 MR. HARRIS: Dr. Bixler could respond to 3 that directly.
4 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
5 DR. O'KULA: My understanding is that it 6 is only from, in the long-term phase, in the CHRONC 7 phase, it would only be from that sector itself.
8 CHAIR YOUNG: Oh, from the sector. Okay.
9 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Dr. Bixler, let's hear 10 it.
11 DR. BIXLER: Okay. The model is a simple 12 empirical one that is based on some data from the 13 Nevada test site. And in that sense, it tends to be 14 pretty conservative because, as you can imagine, it is 15 a very dry, dusty kind of area where resuspension 16 occurs more readily than it would in a more moist area 17 like the east coast.
18 But the model does continue on for the 19 entire 30 years as was already stated. And it is a 20 local model where whatever is deposited on the ground, 21 that much is assumed to be suspended in the atmosphere 22 or a fraction of what is on the ground is assumed to 23 be suspended in the atmosphere, based on an empirical 24 model.
25 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And re-transported to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
923 1 somewhere else?
2 DR. BIXLER: No.
3 JUDGE ABRAMSON: What happens to it?
4 DR. BIXLER: It is local. It stays local.
5 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So it goes up and is in 6 the air but it never gets back down on the ground?
7 DR. BIXLER: It would come back down on 8 the ground but it wouldn't move across the space.
9 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So basically the 10 aggregate amount of radioactive byproduct in a 11 particular sector stays constant. It is just a 12 question of whether it is on the ground or in the air.
13 DR. BIXLER: Yes, that's right. It 14 potentially could decay but it doesn't move to another 15 place.
16 JUDGE ABRAMSON: All right. I understand 17 the model. That's all I want to understand.
18 MS. LAMPERT: Okay, may I make a comment 19 on that?
20 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, hold on.
21 MS. LAMPERT: It is an important one.
22 CHAIR YOUNG: Hold on. Hold on, Ms.
23 Lampert.
24 Okay, so I am trying to clarify this 25 issue. And the issue is whether anything that was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
924 1 deposited on the plant site is taken into account in 2 the manner of it being resuspended and then deposited 3 somewhere, transported and deposited into an offsite 4 segment.
5 And I think I hear you saying at this 6 point no, that is note done.
7 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Not after seven days.
8 Right?
9 DR. BIXLER: No, it is not done. It is a 10 local model and as Dr. O'Kula said, what deposits on 11 the site, it may be a trivial or a very small fraction 12 of the overall release anyway. But --
13 CHAIR YOUNG: So that is the basic answer 14 to the concern is that it is a trivial amount.
15 MS. LAMPERT: Okay.
16 DR. BIXLER: Okay, did I fully answer your 17 question on that?
18 CHAIR YOUNG: I think I understand at this 19 point. I think what the challenge is is that the 20 model doesn't take into account resuspension of 21 deposits on-site moving offsite and being deposited.
22 And I think you are saying that is correct --
23 DR. BIXLER: That is correct.
24 CHAIR YOUNG: -- but the amount is a small 25 fraction that would not be significant. Do you have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
925 1 any percentage amount?
2 DR. BIXLER: It would depend on the 3 specific incidents and how high the plume is lofted.
4 The larger releases tend to have more energy and so 5 they would be lofted, usually hundreds of meters into 6 the atmosphere. And so in those cases, the larger 7 releases would tend to have very little deposition on-8 site. The very small ones would tend to have a larger 9 fraction on-site.
10 CHAIR YOUNG: Do you have a range? I 11 mean, just a ballpark figure?
12 DR. BIXLER: No, that is not something I 13 have ever specifically looked at.
14 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Would you say the larger 15 releases dominate the damages?
16 DR. BIXLER: Yes, I would say that. And 17 it would depend, the answer to your question would 18 depend on how far away the site boundary is from the 19 actual point of release. It would depend on the 20 amount of energy in the release. Those two things 21 would be essential to be able to answer the question.
22 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
23 JUDGE COLE: Does this require any 24 knowledge of the settlement characteristics of density 25 and size of the particles involved?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
926 1 DR. BIXLER: Yes, that would also play a 2 role. Yes, you are right about that, yes.
3 JUDGE COLE: So how important is that in 4 making these transport in making these transport and 5 deposition decisions?
6 DR. BIXLER: The density -- What actually 7 goes into the model is a deposition velocity. And --
8 JUDGE COLE: So you have to know something 9 about the radionuclides in the incident and what their 10 settlement characteristics are and size.
11 DR. BIXLER: That's right.
12 JUDGE COLE: And depending on the kind of 13 accident, you might get more deposition closer or 14 further out or the size of the accident?
15 DR. BIXLER: 3 Yes, the aerosol sizes tend 16 to be fairly similar from one accident to another. It 17 is more the quantity of things that are released that 18 are variant from one accident to another than the 19 size.
20 JUDGE COLE: All right. Thank you.
21 DR. O'KULA: As a maximum case, we did a 22 sensitivity study to figure that, just what at best in 23 a worst-case scenario in terms of the characteristics 24 of the release, how much would deposit on-site. And 25 at the most, we saw two percent.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
927 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, thank you.
2 MS. LAMPERT: Can I just add a comment?
3 Dr. Bixler was talking about that it was conservative 4 based upon doing a test out in the desert. Why would 5 that be conservative for here? Because in a desert, 6 as you saw in the Molenkamp reference, the winds are 7 more likely to blow in a straight line, unlike what 8 would happen here. So it would be a different 9 situation. And I am referencing, I would reference 10 the conservatism to Dr. Egan's statement.
11 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Yes, let's try to 12 keep it to that because we are going to give you a 13 chance to do closing arguments. And right now, we are 14 just trying to clarify things.
15 MS. LAMPERT: I'm just trying to be 16 helpful.
17 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, thank you.
18 The PSA, that is where you determined the 19 19 accident scenarios and I assume that that is also 20 where the frequency of occurrence would come from.
21 And that is based on information on the probability 22 that is obtained from where?
23 DR. O'KULA: Okay. Again, that is a 24 question or that it reference back to the PSA 25 discussion, which looks at what type of internal NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
928 1 events could occur; what type of internal severe 2 accidents could occur; what their frequency is. So, 3 this is in the realm of doing the fault tree and other 4 type of --
5 CHAIR YOUNG: So it goes all the way down 6 to pieces of equipment and equipment failure at the 7 smallest level.
8 DR. O'KULA: Combining not only the 9 initiating event but when the engineering safety 10 features are challenged by the severe accidents, do 11 they fail, do they work. You know, how likely are 12 they to be able to run or operate? So all that is 13 factored into the level one and level two PRA -- PSA 14 work.
15 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, thanks.
16 Dr. Hanna, you did the analyses using the 17 CALMET and I think there has been a challenge to 18 whether that adequately provides the same kind of 19 information that other models that Pilgrim Watch has 20 brought up would provide.
21 Are you familiar enough with Pilgrim 22 Watch's challenges that you can sort of explain the 23 differences between what you did and what could be 24 provided by the other models?
25 Now I do understand that one of the main NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
929 1 issues is that a lot of the models that Pilgrim Watch 2 and its experts have suggested are, Entergy is saying 3 and I think the staff is saying, that those models are 4 very useful for immediate emergency planning and 5 planning for environmental purposes but that the SAMA 6 analysis, because it looks at cost benefit, doesn't 7 require that level of specificity. And the accuracy 8 is equaled by using the segmented process.
9 But I wanted to get just a little bit more 10 from what all the parties have to offer on the 11 differences and whether, as Pilgrim Watch is 12 suggesting, using a more refined model could actually 13 make a difference in the ultimate cost-benefit 14 analysis. I think that you and Dr. O'Kula both said 15 it was highly unlikely that it would make any 16 difference, if I am remembering that right.
17 Does my question make sense? It was sort 18 of long.
19 DR. HANNA: Yes, Judge Young, I believe I 20 can follow it. There have been a number of models 21 that have been suggested and I tend to call a 22 meteorological model one that just gives you the wind 23 fields and stabilities and so on. Then they are 24 linked with a transport and dispersion model that 25 gives you the concentrations and depositions. I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
930 1 believe you are talking about both of those types of 2 models.
3 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes, and I didn't really 4 specify between them. Right. I guess to the extent 5 that you can, what I am looking for is a little bit 6 greater understanding of why it is highly unlikely 7 that using a more nuanced model that takes into 8 account changes in wind direction and so forth, would 9 not produce differences in the ultimate outcome.
10 DR. HANNA: Yes, I see. Well, the major 11 question that I addressed in my report on analysis of 12 wind rose and CALMET trajectories was the question of 13 the wind variability and whether if you did account 14 for all the local observations for a whole year, for 15 every hour, whether you would get a significantly 16 different result in the trajectories of plumes, as 17 they are being moved around the domain. So there was 18 the purpose of that. Because the current SAMA 19 analysis is using the Pilgrim wind information from 20 the 33-foot level and then assuming that for all the 21 various hours of the year.
22 So, it looked to me like one of the major 23 question is what would happen if you did use all of 24 these additional wind observations. So that is what 25 we did. And we looked around for various capabilities NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
931 1 that different agencies had for determining the wind 2 fields. And every agency has two or three different 3 models, although they are similar to each other for 4 addressing this.
5 CHAIR YOUNG: Can I interrupt you for one 6 second? For determining the wind fields, just a 7 simple explanation of is the wind field the whole area 8 where a particular, where it could go, instead of 9 going straight, it could go in one or more different 10 directions. The wind field is --
11 DR. HANNA: Yes, I guess I am sort of, I 12 should have been more clear on that. What we are 13 trying to do is for each hour, and that is the time 14 period that the observations are available for several 15 stations around there for each hour, then you 16 determine a wind field which varies in distance across 17 the whole 50-mile radius domain and also varies in 18 height.
19 JUDGE ABRAMSON: By that you mean a 20 velocity and a direction for every point in this grid 21 that occupies the 50-mile?
22 DR. HANNA: That's correct.
23 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Thank you.
24 DR. HANNA: A speed and a direction for 25 ever point within this three-dimensional grid. And it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
932 1 varies hour-by-hour for the year. And we used 2001 2 because that is the year that was used for the SAMA 3 analysis.
4 So in order to address that, when I first 5 checked around different agencies about the existing 6 wind field models, as I described. And we also needed 7 a capability to calculate trajectories in order to 8 follow these hypothetical plumes around. So for 9 example, you would assume a parcel of air was released 10 at the Pilgrim station on a certain hour and then it 11 would move in a certain direction. And the next hour, 12 you would have the parcel of air would be out here 13 some other place and would be influenced by whatever 14 the winds were at that place at that time and so on.
15 So we need to follow it around, just like you are 16 following a balloon moving through the wind field and 17 determine where it passed over different distances, 10 18 kilometer, 20 kilometer, and out to 50 kilometer arcs.
19 CHAIR YOUNG: Art?
20 DR. HANNA: Well circles.
21 CHAIR YOUNG: Arc, A-R-C.
22 DR. HANNA: A-R-C, yes.
23 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, thanks.
24 DR. HANNA: So one of the candidates was 25 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
933 1 HYSPLIT model.
2 CHAIR YOUNG: Ice?
3 DR. HANNA: H-Y-S-P-L-I-T. And that is 4 the group in Silver Spring with the Air Resources Lab.
5 This trajectory model is widely used but 6 unfortunately, it doesn't lend itself to calculating 7 the wind fields every hour on an easy basis.
8 So we then looked at the CALMET model, 9 which is the wind field model that the EPA has that it 10 uses to provide wind speeds and directions to its 11 CALPUFF dispersion model and I talked with the people 12 who had developed that and they said well it doesn't 13 really calculate trajectories for a whole year on an 14 easy basis.
15 So we decided to write our own software to 16 calculate the trajectories because it is pretty 17 straightforward. You just follow the parcel around 18 and that is how we ended up with this CALMET model.
19 And what that uses is the available surface wind 20 stations in the area. You know, like Taunton, 21 Plymouth Municipal Airport, all the small and large 22 airport sites. And to be useful, they have to have 23 data for most hours of the year so that it restricts 24 it. I think there was about 26 total and it included 25 some over water buoys data that are available.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
934 1 And you also need the vertical wind 2 structure in order to extrapolate from the surface 3 upward. And from that, you use balloons, radiosonde 4 balloons that are set up twice a day at Chatham, 5 Massachusetts is the nearest one. And the next 6 nearest one after that is Gray, Maine. So we have got 7 both of those vertical balloon data and then the 8 surface data and just followed standard procedures for 9 building these wind speed and direction fields for 10 every hour.
11 Then we calculated trajectories of each of 12 these hypothetical parcels released every hour. And 13 sometimes it took the parcel a few hours to make it 14 out to the 50-mile boundary radius. And wherever the 15 parcels crossed, one of these 20, 30, 40, 50-mile 16 circles, we noted what direction it passed. You know, 17 did it pass along the north sector, the northeast 18 sector or whatever?
19 And after we got done with that, for every 20 hour2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> of the year we just tallied up the fraction of 21 time the trajectories passed over the different 22 locations. And if there was some persistent 23 significant curvature effect going on, this would show 24 up, supposing the winds, most them would go off shore 25 and then curl around and come back and go over to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
935 1 Boston area. Or the opposite thing, they might curl 2 away from it. So that is what this addresses is the 3 question that was brought up by Pilgrim Watch about 4 the variable winds and possible curvatures of the 5 trajectories.
6 And we then looked at the annual winds.
7 And the reason we looked at annual is because the SAMA 8 deals with the total annual period, not just hour-by-9 hour.
10 CHAIR YOUNG: Let me just interject there.
11 If you can't answer it and somebody else has to, we 12 can just move on. But another challenge has been 13 raised to using one year instead of five years. Do 14 you know anything about why the one year was used as 15 opposed to five years, for example?
16 CHAIR YOUNG: If you don't, just say that.
17 DR. HANNA: Well I believe the one year is 18 the standard but Dr. O'Kula and --
19 CHAIR YOUNG: We can come back to that.
20 DR. HANNA: -- Dr. Bixler could answer 21 that.
22 CHAIR YOUNG: We can come back to that.
23 DR. HANNA: Yes, so what we then compared 24 was the wind rose that is used at the Pilgrim site and 25 it is like a petal-shaped rose, it is in the report, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
936 1 and tells you the fraction of time the wind is blowing 2 and the different sectors. We compared that from the 3 33-foot level at the Pilgrim station to the trajectory 4 calculated rose in order to see if there was any major 5 differences. And as it turned out, there were a few 6 minor differences, you know, two percent different 7 here or there, different sectors. But in general they 8 were about the same and, therefore, there was not a 9 significant effect on an annual basis of accounting 10 for the observed winds and how they vary in time and 11 space.
12 CHAIR YOUNG: So if you know this answer; 13 if you don't, don't. Did this lead you to any 14 conclusions about the amount of deposition that would 15 end up or be in the different segments of the wind 16 rose or the whole picture? And one of the arguments 17 is that by not taking into account some of these 18 variations, it could under estimate the amount of 19 deposition that could end up in more populated areas, 20 for example. Is that part of the analysis you did, 21 whether it would affect that or was yours limited to 22 just the wind and the deposition is a separate matter?
23 DR. HANNA: Well the analysis I have 24 described was limited to the wind analysis. However, 25 from my experience in looking at concentration and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
937 1 deposition patterns, they tend to follow the wind 2 rose. And it is, I guess, common sense that the 3 direction where the wind blows most often is where you 4 have the highest concentrations, and vice versa. So 5 it tends to follow the wind rose patterns.
6 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And from your studies, 7 did you find material differences from what was 8 computed in the SAMA Gaussian models?
9 DR. HANNA: Well we did a further 10 analyses, looking at the weighting by the population 11 and that is, Dr. O'Kula did that aspect of it. We 12 took the wind rose and then waited it by the 13 population and you get differences of two or three 14 percent in different sectors. And there is not a --
15 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Differences between what 16 was computed using the Gaussian Plume Model that is in 17 SAMA and what was computed using the detailed data?
18 Is that what you --
19 DR. HANNA: We did not go all the way to 20 doing the model calculation with the different wind 21 information.
22 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So what can we conclude 23 from your examination of using a variety, a number of 24 sources of data, rather than the one source of data?
25 What is the conclusion? How big is the area or is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
938 1 there none?
2 DR. HANNA: We can conclude, well I don't 3 know whether it is an error or not.
4 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay, how big is the 5 difference?
6 DR. HANNA: The difference is on the order 7 of a few percent.
8 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay, thank you. That to 9 me is the meat of it.
10 MS. LAMPERT: My one comment and the 11 reference would be Dr. Egan's two statements, and also 12 Dr. Spengler's. So those are the three and DOE is 13 fourth.
14 There seems like the major difference 15 between the CALMET and the CALPUFF-type model is that 16 the CALMET does not change direction. And that was 17 Dr. Egan's major problem. That here because of its 18 coastal location, because of the topography not being 19 a flat, plain area like Kansas, that it was 20 inappropriate.
21 And the information that Entergy asked of 22 their expert did not address properly the core 23 question.
24 CHAIR YOUNG: Did the CALMET not address 25 the --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
939 1 MS. LAMPERT: -- change in direction.
2 CHAIR YOUNG: -- wind changes? The 3 changes in direction.
4 DR. HANNA: It did address the changes in 5 direction.
6 CHAIR YOUNG: That's what I thought.
7 DR. HANNA: It is following the 8 trajectory. So whatever the local wind is, the 9 trajectory is going to blow that way.
10 JUDGE ABRAMSON: You took the wind pattern 11 hour-by-hour, moved the particles for the hour, looked 12 to see what the wind was in the next spot, moved it in 13 the direction of that and at that speed, and moved it 14 around like a particle and cell process. Is that 15 right?
16 MS. LAMPERT: I would direct you to the 17 findings of fact that go specifically to the testimony 18 provided, which says specifically that the model, 19 segmented plume model, I forgot what page it was, does 20 not change direction.
21 JUDGE ABRAMSON: We will look.
22 CHAIR YOUNG: I think that --
23 MS. LAMPERT: Okay? So that is the point.
24 And as Dr. Egan pointed out and I wish he had been 25 paid to come here today, I didn't understand that you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
940 1 were going to be here, and you guys are friends anyway 2 --
3 MR. LEWIS: Your Honor?
4 MS. LAMPERT: -- that he would say very 5 specifically that this did not model appropriately 6 what was done and it is in the statement.
7 JUDGE ABRAMSON: We understand your 8 position.
9 MS. LAMPERT: Okay, that is the point.
10 MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, I just want to 11 make clear she is talking about MACCS2. The claims 12 that are pretty interesting about MACCS2 and the 13 CALMET trajectory directly addresses those claims and 14 the CALMET model is the model used by EPA. It is the 15 three-dimensional wind field model that is used to 16 generate the wind fields that CALPUFF uses.
17 MS. LAMPERT: You don't take the second 18 step.
19 MR. LEWIS: And it takes into account all 20 the variation in winds. And that is all in Dr.
21 Hanna's report.
22 CHAIR YOUNG: Well and we will --
23 MS. LAMPERT: It's not.
24 JUDGE ABRAMSON: We will look at the 25 expert reports.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
941 1 CHAIR YOUNG: We will look at it.
2 Another area of clarification that I would 3 like to ask a couple of questions about and that has 4 to do with two things and I don't know how much they 5 are related. But one is the precipitation and one is 6 the air mass, ozone layer mass or pollution air mass.
7 I believe that there was discussion of 8 precipitation in terms of rain and drizzle or fog. I 9 didn't know whether snow was covered. And I will just 10 ask all of my questions at once. So whoever knows the 11 answer can respond.
12 And then on the ozone air mass, I know 13 there was testimony about that behaves differently 14 than wind carrying sources of radiation. But I used 15 to live in Nashville, Tennessee and it sort of a bowl.
16 And you can see coming in from outside Nashville, 17 which I used to do every morning, the bowl would sort 18 of collect a big collection of smog.
19 So the question is, in these wind 20 trajectories or wind, can the plume of radiation or 21 whatever it carries that produces radiation, ever get 22 caught up in one of those air masses?
23 I understand that the testimony is that 24 they behave differently. Is there any -- Can they 25 ever interact? And to what extent and to what effect, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
942 1 I guess is the question.
2 DR. HANNA: Well both types of plumes are 3 disbursing in the same atmosphere. So the winds are 4 the same. The stabilities are the same and so on. So 5 they are affected by the same basic atmosphere.
6 But the difference is, to think of your 7 discussion on Nashville, is that it is a broad air 8 mass that is filled with a lot of pollution coming 9 from traffic --
10 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
11 DR. HANNA: -- and power plants and 12 industries, and so on. So it is a combined plume and 13 that is what the ozone plume is that was studied by 14 Angevine and his colleagues in eastern Massachusetts.
15 It forms over large distances and long periods of 16 time. It comes up there is emissions all the way from 17 Richmond up through Boston. So by the time it is 18 here, it is several hundred miles wide and spilling up 19 the mixed layer. And it has a concentration or a 20 fairly uniform across, you know, 50 to 100 parts per 21 billion, maybe. So that is already a big, broad 22 plume.
23 But from the Pilgrim plant stack, it 24 starts out as a little relatively small stack plume 25 which is then dispersing in the atmosphere. So while NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
943 1 they are both in the same atmosphere, they are 2 behaving differently in terms of the way the 3 concentration varies. The stack plume is rapidly 4 disbursing due to entrainment of the ambient air. So 5 you have rapid decrease and concentration of the plume 6 as it proceeds wherever it is going.
7 CHAIR YOUNG: Right. What I was wondering 8 is, how do they interact? If there were a release 9 while that ozone mass were there, what effect would 10 that have? And I guess maybe they are not related but 11 in my mind I was also relating that to the issue of 12 precipitation and snow. How do those things interact?
13 DR. HANNA: Yes, well the ozone plume 14 consists of chemicals like nitrogen oxides and 15 nitrates and sulfates and ozone.
16 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
17 DR. HANNA: And then you would put the 18 radioactive pollutants in that. And I don't know 19 about the reaction.
20 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Has that been studied in 21 these studies?
22 DR. HANNA: I'm sure it has been studied.
23 JUDGE ABRAMSON: No. Has it been studied 24 in this context, in the is particular analysis?
25 DR. HANNA: Not in our analysis.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
944 1 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay, that is all I need 2 to know. Thank you. It hasn't been looked at.
3 Right?
4 CHAIR YOUNG: The reason I was asking is 5 because in response to Pilgrim Watch information about 6 the Angevine thing, about the ozone air mass with all 7 the nitrous oxide and all the whatever pollutants in 8 it, that the kind of plume we are talking about from 9 a release that is analyzed in the SAMA analysis, those 10 are different.
11 And so what I am trying to understand is 12 how far does that argument go? Are they still 13 different, if the release happens in one of those air 14 masses? That is what I'm trying to get some 15 clarification about; the extent to which the argument 16 that they are different, how that would work in that 17 situation.
18 DR. HANNA: Yes, well I have not studied 19 the reactions of nitrates with the radioactive. I'm 20 sure the literature is full of that type of studies.
21 I would expect there wasn't a very strong reaction.
22 But the key aspect of what I was writing in my report 23 about the difference between the ozone study by 24 Angevine and the Pilgrim scenario is that he and his 25 group, his NOAA group, were focusing on a few days in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
945 1 the summer when ozone has its highest concentration.
2 And those tend to be days with high temperatures and 3 relatively light winds and strong high pressure. And 4 those are conditions with the hot air and the 5 southwest winds that you are going to have stability 6 over the water.
7 So he makes some statements in his report 8 that says the air is always stable over the water.
9 But what he really meant is that in the five days that 10 he studied in the summer, the air was stable. And as 11 I tried to point out in my analysis, that even in the 12 summer, it is not always stable. But when you look at 13 the entire year as you have to in the SAMA analysis, 14 the water, for example, this time of year you can have 15 the opposite happening. You can have great 16 instabilities over the water.
17 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Do you want to just 18 finish up your sentence and then we will take a short 19 break?
20 DR. HANNA: I finished.
21 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
22 MS. LAMPERT: Can I just make a comment to 23 that?
24 CHAIR YOUNG: Ms. Lampert, go ahead.
25 MS. LAMPERT: It will be quick. That the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
946 1 point in referring to Dr. Angevine, etcetera studies 2 was not the interaction between smog, etcetera. It 3 was the principle of the thing, the behavior of a 4 plume, irrespective of what it was, over water tending 5 to remain more concentrated.
6 Now we had heard that that particular 7 study referenced it only occurred over a five day 8 period. He did not mention, nor is there, 9 qualification in it that this will only happen with 10 weather conditions precisely during those five days.
11 That there have been other studies but they aren't on 12 the record, that Angevine has done with Sam Miller 13 that indicate the principle is holding.
14 Obviously, if you have a hurricane and 15 tidal waves, it is going to be a different thing, but 16 how often does that happen?
17 So that is my point.
18 DR. HANNA: Well, I would disagree with 19 that.
20 MS. LAMPERT: Well, that happens. Doesn't 21 it?
22 DR. HANNA: As I said, during the winter, 23 and I live about a quarter of a mile from the sea in 24 Maine and so I get to see. And there are observations 25 over water, many research studies that show these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
947 1 extreme instabilities that occur over the water when 2 you have the warm ocean water, say in January and cold 3 air blowing over it after a front and you have as 4 strong instabilities as you have in the worst deserts 5 in the world. It is very unstable in those 6 conditions.
7 So yes sometimes in the year it is more 8 stable over the water. Other times of the year, it is 9 unstable. It is less -- well unstable means well 10 mixed.
11 And so since the SAMA applies for the 12 entire year, then I am saying that the pluses and the 13 minuses are canceling themselves out, approximately.
14 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, let's take a five 15 minute break and we will be back.
16 (Whereupon, the foregoing proceeding went 17 off the record at 2:01 p.m. and went back 18 on the record at 2:12 p.m.)
19 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, back on the record.
20 MR. LEWIS: With respect to your question 21 on the 50 miles, I think your questions kind of could 22 have Dr. O'Kula could talk about the regulatory basis.
23 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
24 MR. LEWIS: I would like to ask a couple 25 of clarifying questions with respect to studies.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
948 1 Okay?
2 CHAIR YOUNG: With respect to?
3 MR. LEWIS: With respect to the existence 4 of studies that look at consequences --
5 CHAIR YOUNG: Oh.
6 MR. LEWIS: -- beyond 50 miles, which I 7 think would address some of the questions Your Honor 8 was asking.
9 CHAIR YOUNG: Well, go ahead. Just say 10 whatever you want.
11 MR. LEWIS: Okay. Well Dr. O'Kula, would 12 you please address any studies on consequences beyond 13 50 miles that were relevant to Judge Young's questions 14 concerning the effect after 50 miles.
15 DR. O'KULA: The one study that could be 16 pointed out that has had quite a bit of reading to it 17 and review has been the NUREG-1150 study, again, that 18 we cited previously published in 1990.
19 In the assessment of the five plants, 20 again, the PSAs were site-specific and used regional 21 data appropriate for those five plants, the analyses 22 published summary documentation for the five plants 23 and gave various indices of risk reported. And these 24 included population dose risk for the 50-mile region, 25 which was applied for NUREG-1150. But they also NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
949 1 extended the population dose risk curves for the 2 plants, each of the plants, to also look at how this 3 would change with extending that 50 miles to a 4 thousand miles, what they call a regional basis.
5 Now what the additional distance did 6 seemed to increase the population dose that was 7 reported but the increase varied from plant to plant 8 but it was on the order of ten to 30 percent of the 9 mean curve that would be increased by --
10 CHAIR YOUNG: The 50 to 1000 mile --
11 DR. O'KULA: Yes, --
12 CHAIR YOUNG: -- distance was --
13 DR. O'KULA: -- by adding that.
14 So again as Mr. Harris, I believe said, it 15 does drop off precipitously and the plume would 16 dissipate the distance. But even if you added that 17 additional population dose, assuming that the plume is 18 headed in a certain direction, that the incremental 19 increase would be on the order, and again, it was 20 plant variable but it was on the order of ten to 21 thirty percent.
22 JUDGE COLE: For another 950 miles?
23 DR. O'KULA: Yes.
24 JUDGE COLE: Did they say what it was for 25 the next ten miles?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
950 1 DR. O'KULA: No, I can't give you that.
2 MS. LAMPERT: What is interesting about 3 that in the paper, in the statement from David Chanin 4 that is New York that I referred you to was his point 5 that all of these referenced studies use the same 6 methodology that he says is flawed. The same flawed 7 assumptions. The same meteorological model. The same 8 code. The same assumptions in the input and they are 9 all not worth the paper they are written on. So I 10 think that is just an interesting point.
11 So when one is citing 1150 or if you are 12 going back to WASH-1400 or what have you, are you 13 doing the same old thing over and over again? And 14 does that make it any more truthful?
15 CHAIR YOUNG: Does Dr. Chanin address --
16 MS. LAMPERT: He is not a doctor.
17 CHAIR YOUNG: Mr. Chanin?
18 MS. LAMPERT: He is David Chanin.
19 CHAIR YOUNG: It seems like I recall 20 something to the effect that his, what he said was 21 mainly to do with the cost issues and not with the 22 plume so much?
23 MS. LAMPERT: Well the cost issues are 24 effective. With the plume, what does the Plume Model 25 do? It defines the area of impact and the potential NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
951 1 deposition within that area. Then you start getting 2 into your dollars.
3 CHAIR YOUNG: Right. But what I was 4 asking is does he address -- To what extent does he 5 address the plume?
6 MS. LAMPERT: Not very much.
7 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. By the way, maybe 8 this is a good time to ask this now. I think you have 9 said, and I know that other parties have quoted you as 10 saying that the plume, changing the plume analysis, 11 wouldn't really make any difference.
12 MS. LAMPERT: No, I didn't say that.
13 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Why don't you clarify 14 what you did say because I know that --
15 MS. LAMPERT: What I did clarify -- What 16 I did state is this. That the plume model that is 17 used will show what likely areas there are that will 18 be impacted and the deposition within that area. That 19 is what it shows. You know, there aren't dollar signs 20 there, etcetera.
21 So then the question becomes your economic 22 analysis and the validity of the assumptions for the 23 area, now that it is defined to be of interest. That 24 is what I said. Does that make any sense to you?
25 CHAIR YOUNG: With regard to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
952 1 limitation of the issue to whether just changing 2 things about how the plume analysis is done would make 3 a difference in the ultimate cost-benefit analysis.
4 MS. LAMPERT: That is why I understood it 5 was bifurcated.
6 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So --
7 MS. LAMPERT: So you have to go to the 8 next step.
9 CHAIR YOUNG: But what I am asking is --
10 MS. LAMPERT: God help me.
11 CHAIR YOUNG: -- are you saying that --
12 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And the rest of us.
13 (Laughter.)
14 CHAIR YOUNG: Are you saying that -- With 15 regard to the issue of whether changing only the plume 16 analysis, only the ATMOS part of the SAMA analysis, 17 did you say at one point that that on its own wouldn't 18 make a significant difference in the --
19 MS. LAMPERT: It would --
20 CHAIR YOUNG: -- ultimate cost-benefits?
21 MS. LAMPERT: The ultimate cost, if you 22 take everything else away that is wrong, okay, in 23 determining costs, then you are unlikely to show a 24 significant difference. But then you haven't 25 addressed the fundamental question that was brought NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
953 1 forward because --
2 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
3 MS. LAMPERT: -- common sense would tell 4 you if a larger area, a particular area is impacted, 5 particularly if there can be an impact -- the model 6 and to show an impact in more highly populated areas 7 and it is likely to make a difference. How large a 8 difference will it make is A) something that they 9 haven't bothered showing, number one; but you would 10 really need if you wanted to get this whole analysis 11 off the fiction shelf, you would have to consider also 12 how the economics are figured to minimize consequence.
13 But that is for another day.
14 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. And I guess -- I 15 don't know. I will probably repeat this from time to 16 time but maybe it is a good time to repeat it again.
17 And that is, that obviously the issues before us that 18 we have any authority to decide are limited. And we 19 are bound by the rule of law to base our decisions 20 only on what the law provides and what is before us 21 and the Commission's decisions are precedent that 22 define what our jurisdiction is, basically.
23 And the fact that we do limit our 24 decisions and are required to limit our decisions to 25 the issues before us, the law, and the facts related NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
954 1 to those issues, also protects you because that 2 assures that we won't go in a different direction when 3 another party asks us to go outside the legal issues 4 that are before us.
5 So, --
6 MS. LAMPERT: So fundamental is what is 7 the size of the area likely to be impacted; therefore, 8 what type of meteorological plume model do you have to 9 use? Do you use one that is appropriate for here or 10 not?
11 If as we said of the area likely to be 12 impacted if they used a variable plume model that took 13 account of the conditions here and what is 14 appropriate, it is likely a larger area would be 15 impacted and the deposition within that area would be 16 larger.
17 How much larger? I don't know. And you 18 know what? They don't know either.
19 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. We are going to come 20 back to closing arguments in a minute. I want to just 21 finish some clarification questions.
22 On the issue of precipitation, which is 23 another issue that has been raised, and I think I 24 mentioned it before that I saw references to rain and 25 maybe drizzle or fog. Does the SAMA analysis take NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
955 1 into account snow and does anything behave differently 2 in snow than it would in rain or fog or drizzle?
3 DR. HANNA: I don't know about snow. Do 4 you? Oh, fog is part of it? Yes.
5 CHAIR YOUNG: I think in Entergy's --
6 DR. HANNA: Yes, I can talk about general 7 precipitation and somebody else can address the snow.
8 But --
9 CHAIR YOUNG: Well really all I am asking 10 about is the snow because I think the pleadings say 11 that the SAMA analysis does address rain and fog.
12 MS. LAMPERT: Does it address fog? Where 13 was that mentioned? In Plymouth? Was it fog?
14 CHAIR YOUNG: Mr. Lewis or Mr. --
15 DR. HANNA: It addresses fog to the extent 16 that the measurement at the Pilgrim site on the tower 17 is, for example, the temperature difference between 18 the 220 and 33 foot level would be affected by the 19 fog. I don't believe there is any algorithm in the 20 model itself that says this is fog. If it is thick 21 enough fog and there is some drizzle, then it is 22 reflected in the Plymouth Municipal Airport. It would 23 be reported as a trace of rain and that would then go 24 into the SAMA analysis.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
956 1 DR. HANNA: Well fogs tend to be not 2 stable because, I mean stable temperature gradient, 3 they tend to be more of a well-mixed temperature 4 gradient. So it is not really a worst-case condition.
5 MR. LEWIS: And the fog is addressed in 6 the rebuttal testimony that we filed, the last 7 question and answer in the rebuttal testimony.
8 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, I thought I remembered 9 it from one of those.
10 MR. HARRIS: Judge Young, Dr. Bixler may 11 be able to address the question on the snow.
12 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
13 DR. BIXLER: Snow is addressed as 14 precipitation in the same fashion as rain is. So, you 15 measure how much is falling and striking an area on 16 the ground or near the ground. Measure that and then 17 it is treated exactly the same way.
18 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, thank you.
19 MS. LAMPERT: What about the question of 20 the effect of fog increasing effect? In other words, 21 holding the contamination, bringing the contamination 22 down closer and holding it? I think that is a factor 23 that Spangler talked about and also Dr. Land talked 24 about it after Pilgrim blew their filters in '82.
25 DR. HANNA: Well, I can't really see that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
957 1 as a legitimate scientific explanation. I am not 2 familiar with how that would happen. As I just 3 explained, fog is generally is generally not a stable 4 atmosphere. It is more of a well-mixed atmosphere.
5 And the fog is tiny little droplets that don't really 6 settle significantly. And so it is not like they are 7 settling out on the ground. So I don't see how either 8 of those affects --
9 MS. LAMPERT: Well it would be the 10 effectively raising.
11 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, the question 12 should be directed to you and then if you want to ask 13 Dr. Hanna a question, that would be entirely 14 appropriately.
15 CHAIR YOUNG: We are giving a little 16 leeway for everybody to one extent or another here.
17 But I think it is a good thing to move on.
18 Let's see. In the testimony of Mr. Bixler 19 or Dr. Bixler and Ms. Ghosh -- Is that right?
20 MR. HARRIS: It is doctor.
21 CHAIR YOUNG: And is Ghosh the right 22 pronunciation?
23 MS. GHOSH: Yes.
24 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. On page 22, your 25 answer 38, you mentioned the largest observed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
958 1 deviation between mean results produced by MACCS2 and 2 LODI was 58 percent; and between RASCAL and LODI was 3 61 percent. Is the significance of those is that they 4 are less than 100 percent? I just wasn't clear on --
5 DR. BIXLER: No. The point there, I 6 think, was that when you average over the course of a 7 year, the errors of the two types of codes, the 8 Gaussian puff code and the Gaussian plume code or the 9 Gaussian Plume Segment Code, as MACCS2 is, is roughly 10 equal. It is -- The point is --
11 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So you have the 58 to 12 the 61 is what you are saying.
13 DR. BIXLER: Yes.
14 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
15 DR. BIXLER: The two are almost the same.
16 One is not a lot better than the other.
17 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
18 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So from that can we find 19 as a fact that the meteorological computations from 20 the Gaussian plume model cannot be reasonably expected 21 to vary from those of the more detailed by more than 22 a factor of two or something like that?
23 DR. BIXLER: Yes, that is the main point 24 there is that we were using LODI as a surrogate for 25 what would really happen. Because it is the state of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
959 1 the art, for the whole country, it is the state of the 2 art code for doing dispersion. So it is intended to 3 be very accurate.
4 And we were comparing other, lower 5 fidelity models with it and finding that in the worst 6 case, in the very worst case, we were a little bit 7 more than a factor of two but in nearly all cases, we 8 were within a factor of two, even upon a grid element 9 specific basis. Where you are looking at a direction 10 and distance, the answers were less than a factor of 11 two.
12 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Not approaching a factor 13 of 20?
14 DR. BIXLER: Nothing close to that.
15 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Thank you.
16 CHAIR YOUNG: Is Mr. or Dr. Ramsdell here?
17 MR. HARRIS: Mr. Ramsdell is not here. So 18 --
19 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Again, I am having a 20 hard time reading things.
21 JUDGE COLE: Need a flashlight?
22 JUDGE ABRAMSON: We could use a spotlight.
23 MS. LAMPERT: Couldn't they bring a lamp 24 in? You know, they have plugs.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: It's okay.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
960 1 JUDGE ABRAMSON: We didn't know about 2 plugs.
3 (Laughter.)
4 MS. LAMPERT: I thought you were into 5 electricity up there.
6 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I'm just electric.
7 MS. LAMPERT: Atomic.
8 (Pause.)
9 CHAIR YOUNG: Ms. Lampert, to the extent 10 that you can point us to specific testimony of your 11 experts, can you address -- It may already be 12 addressed to the extent that you can. The issue of 13 some of the models that your experts were 14 recommending, not taking into account the radiological 15 content and dispersion. I think Dr. Egan said that it 16 wouldn't be as difficult as Entergy said it would be 17 to fit those issues into the other models.
18 MS. LAMPERT: That is correct. Dr. Egan 19 talked about that in the sections dealing with NEPA.
20 He disagreed with Entergy's experts that it would take 21 like seven years to get it up to speed. He talked 22 about the fact that the basic research for a variable 23 plume model such as CALPUFF had essentially been done, 24 that it satisfied all the points brought forward by 25 the NRC Commissioners, I think it was the one that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
961 1 came out in June what was it 1015 or something? I 2 don't know what it was. That they were talking about 3 NEPA on page 30 of the Commission document. Was it 4 reliable? Was it applicable? Etcetera, etcetera.
5 And Dr. Egan addressed each of those 6 saying yes, it is perfectly doable. It should have 7 been done. EPA has been using these advanced codes 8 over and over for years. Dr. Egan himself testified 9 that he had used a CALPUFF with MM5 for a study for 10 the Mass Department of Public Health on contamination 11 coming to Cape Cod. He said, this is perfectly 12 doable.
13 And in Entergy's testimony, they seemed to 14 try to blow it all off by having a distinction that, 15 oh, emergency planning or EPA's tracking of plume 16 models is totally different.
17 And on the last page of Dr. Egan's second 18 statement, he said no, and also on the first page, 19 that no, there isn't a difference. This is a false 20 statement. In all those circumstances, you want to 21 base the decision, and particularly if you are 22 deciding on a nuclear accident, on a reliable model.
23 That they are out there. It is possible to do it.
24 Probably what they spent on their experts fighting 25 about this for almost six years, they could have done NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
962 1 it, when they knew it was an issue in 2006.
2 And the idea that oh it is not possible 3 because of the averaging over a year's time, he said 4 that was baloney, that EPA uses these models and they 5 can give an estimate, an average estimate over a 6 year's time. So you see they are all red herrings as 7 far as he was concerned and it is in that last 8 statement.
9 And they are summarized and pointed to 10 10,000 times in my findings of fact and there is an 11 index to that. We tried.
12 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you.
13 MS. LAMPERT: Does that answer your 14 question?
15 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes. When I go back, I will 16 --
17 MS. LAMPERT: Okay. Those are the pages.
18 I can see it in my mind. It was the first page and it 19 went over to the top of the second and then he went 20 through it again.
21 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Let's see. I have 22 one sort of collection of questions I want to sort of 23 conclude my part with but I just want to make sure 24 there is nothing else first.
25 On the issue -- And I will direct this to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
963 1 Entergy and the Staff. On the issue of the ability or 2 how difficult it would be to adapt one of the more 3 detailed models to the radiation aspect and the cost 4 aspect, one of the points that has been raised is that 5 with today's computers, things are much easier than 6 they used to be. I think maybe there was some 7 discussion somewhere that you don't need to bin things 8 anymore because the computers can now address all the 9 many different parts and much more quickly.
10 Can you respond to that argument on this?
11 Because and this is directed to counsel, you have made 12 the argument that you have included in your proposed 13 findings on how difficult it would be to adapt it.
14 And so I am trying to get a sense and understanding 15 some clarification on exactly how difficult that would 16 be.
17 MR. LEWIS: I think what we emphasized in 18 our testimony and Dr. O'Kula can elaborate on that and 19 Dr. Hanna can, is that MACCS is a code that takes 20 output from ATMOS and transfers it to EARLY and 21 CHRONC. And so basically, you got to -- and number 22 one. And number two, also ATMOS does the radioactive 23 decay, which other models don't necessarily do.
24 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
25 MR. LEWIS: Anyway, it takes the output NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
964 1 from ATMOS and takes it to EARLY to calculate damages 2 in the early phase and takes it to CHRONC to calculate 3 damages in the long-term phase. And to do that, you 4 would have to integrate, which would be substantial 5 work, to integrate the different modules, to integrate 6 either CALPUFF into MACCS or to take those features of 7 MACCS and integrate them into CALPUFF. So it is 8 something that is not available. It is not there, 9 okay, right now.
10 And so the point was that we made is that 11 would be a very substantial cost and effort. And the 12 NRC staff witnesses, both Dr. Bixler and Mr. Ramsdell 13 echoed the same point in their testimony.
14 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Would it take different 15 input to use a code such as CALPUFF or one of the more 16 detailed codes? Would you need wind field data to be 17 able to get started with those computations?
18 MR. LEWIS: Well the wind field data would 19 be the same type. CALMET is the wind field 20 meteorological model that is used by CALPUFF. So what 21 we did in CALMET is the same type of wind field that 22 would be produced or CALPUFF.
23 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And that is what you 24 would have to put in in place of ATMOS.
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 (202) 234-4433
965 1 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So you need that data to 2 do that.
3 MR. LEWIS: From all the different weather 4 stations in the region and things of that sort, yes.
5 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Correct. So it is not as 6 simple an input preparation.
7 MS. LAMPERT: I was just wondering whether 8 our simplicity is the point.
9 JUDGE ABRAMSON: No. I'm just trying to 10 find out -- The assertion is that it takes time to get 11 it ready.
12 MS. LAMPERT: Right.
13 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So the question is what 14 is involved.
15 MS. LAMPERT: We are going on six years.
16 And so you know, they could do it. They have 17 computers. I know you could ask Dr. O'Kula I know 18 David Chanin took ten years' worth of weather data in 19 studying a DOE site in Colorado. And with a fast 20 computer, it wasn't a deal.
21 MR. HARRIS: This is Brian Harris. In Mr.
22 Ramsdell's testimony, it does talk about the time 23 that went into prep RASCAL and RATCHET and ADAPT and 24 LODI and the different amount of effort than what was 25 required for doing MACCS and doing that same kind of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
966 1 analysis in answer 32.
2 MS. LAMPERT: Again, you could ask a 3 question if the research has been done on --
4 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I think, Ms. Lampert, 5 nobody has any question it could be done. It is just 6 a question of whether it needs to be done.
7 MS. LAMPERT: Exactly. Do they need to do 8 a site-specific reliable study or not? That is the 9 point. Are we doing to get justify some mitigation or 10 not? That is the point. I guess money is the point.
11 MR. LEWIS: I would just add actually one 12 point. She keeps talking about site-specific study.
13 The MACCS2 code that we ran is a site-specific study.
14 It took into account the year's worth of 15 meteorological data for the site. It took into 16 account all the different weather conditions for the 17 site. And what it does, it takes the probability of 18 those different weather conditions and that is what 19 your average is. But it takes into account all the 20 observed weather conditions and takes into account the 21 weight of probabilities of the consequences during 22 those different weather conditions.
23 JUDGE ABRAMSON: If I were to ask you, Dr.
24 O'Kula -- I will ask you. Where would you say the 25 most, the largest uncertainties are in the SAMA NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
967 1 analysis? Are they, for example, in defining the 2 source term and its probabilities? Where do they lie?
3 DR. O'KULA: I believe a number of Ph.D.
4 theses have been written on sources of uncertainty 5 with severe accidents and what is really the bottom 6 line. And so this will be my opinion. Yes, the 7 source term is a significant source of the uncertainty 8 to begin with right away. And keep in mind, we are 9 talking about extremely low probability events that 10 are much lower addressed than the safety analysis 11 report. So this is in the realm of catastrophic --
12 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Ten to the minus six to 13 begin with, right, for the highest? Right?
14 DR. O'KULA: So yes, and that is the 15 traditional cutoff in terms of frequency of these 16 things that you see maybe somewhere, you know, ten to 17 the minus five but most of them are in the low ten to 18 the minus seven, ten to the minus six, ten to the 19 minus eight frequency.
20 So a tremendous amount of uncertainty 21 there. And we have good understanding, we have much 22 better understanding than we did 20 years ago about 23 the progression of accidents; how they would unfold in 24 the plant. So there is uncertainty about what happens 25 inside the containment. These computer codes are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
968 1 linking up test data that has been developed over the 2 last 20 years in trying to simulate in an integral way 3 the overall outcome of an accident. But a tremendous 4 amount of uncertainty there.
5 JUDGE ABRAMSON: What would you say the 6 order of that and the size of that uncertainty 7 compares to the kind of uncertainties we are worrying 8 about today with meteorology?
9 DR. O'KULA: On the front end, on the 10 frequency and the initiating events, and then into the 11 progression of accidents, easily an order of magnitude 12 up and down.
13 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Whereas, we are hearing 14 I think from Dr. Bixler that on the meteorological 15 side we are talking about a maximum of around a factor 16 of two. Is that correct?
17 DR. BIXLER: Yes, that is correct.
18 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay, so we are talking 19 about the real uncertainty in the SAMA analysis is on 20 the front end, plus or minus in order of magnitude and 21 here we are worrying about a factor of two. And 22 bearing in mind this is a NEPA study, NEPA-related 23 analysis.
24 Thanks.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, my last question or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
969 1 series of questions, collection of questions has to do 2 in some sense -- Well let me start by saying the issue 3 of the mean consequence values has been ruled not to 4 be part of this. However, there is some of the 5 testimony and some things in the proposed findings of 6 fact I would like to get a little clarification on.
7 And so let me give you sort of the factors that I 8 would like for anyone to address.
9 On page 41 of Entergy's proposed findings 10 at paragraph, the end of paragraph 24, you state, 11 "Taking into account a multitude of wind patterns on 12 a statistical basis and probabilistically sampling 13 from a full year of hourly conditions as done by ATMOS 14 produces a reasonable estimate of the mean 15 consequences, one that is sufficient for the SAMA 16 application."
17 Now that I re-read that, the one that is 18 sufficient for the SAMA application, you may not be 19 referring to the mean consequences. You may be 20 referring to the use of MACCS code there.
21 But taking the extent to which that might 22 be viewed as looking at the mean consequences, an 23 argument is made in Pilgrim Watch's proposed findings 24 as page 75, paragraph 196, that and I think there is 25 some other place, too, the basic idea that I am NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
970 1 recalling is that without being able to know what the 2 95th percentile is, you don't know the significance of 3 the figure. It is harder to determine the 4 significance of the figures that are arrived at. And 5 then from a nontechnical standpoint, obviously if you 6 take the average of two and four would be three; one 7 and nine-nine would be fifty. How much it varies on 8 either side of the mean might have some significance.
9 I am not sure what it would have here. I am just 10 asking.
11 And the third thing is that Dr. Lyman in 12 I think it is one of the exhibits, Pilgrim Watch --
13 right -- with regard to the Indian Point hearing. He 14 talks about, he says that applying the 95th percentile 15 would result in quite a large differences, I believe 16 he says. Let me find that.
17 So I guess what I am asking is with regard 18 to all these things, if I could get a little bit of a 19 clarification as to those questions of significance 20 and to the degree that that would clarify anything 21 such that if there were any reversal, there would be 22 no need for a remand. I would like to get just 23 whatever clarification any of you can offer on this.
24 And I don't want to turn this into 25 argument. I just want to get clarification on what, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
971 1 to the extent you know, them, the facts would be on 2 that sort of collection of issues.
3 Did what I say make sense? Do you 4 understand what I am asking?
5 JUDGE ABRAMSON: You're asking if they 6 addressed whether mean consequences were appropriate?
7 CHAIR YOUNG: No. How much does it affect 8 -- How does significance come into play? And I 9 suppose how much of a difference would it make, to the 10 extent you know, if you know, would it approach some 11 of the figures that Dr. Lyman talks about.
12 If Ms. Lampert wants to point us to some 13 of those figures, you are free to.
14 MS. LAMPERT: I wish I could. I did not 15 understand we were having witnesses here. I thought 16 we were just doing a ten minute statement.
17 I cannot remember. There was a 18 significant factor.
19 The one comment to start it off was an 20 example of the sea breeze effect, which is an effect 21 here which Entergy's expert said could go 30 miles 22 inland. Even though that was less likely, it could.
23 The sea breeze occurred perhaps 12 percent of the 24 time. So therefore by using a mean over the whole 25 year, it is washed out to be totally insignificant.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
972 1 However, if you used a 95th percentile 2 from the cumulative distribution function that is 3 provided, then something that is an important 4 meteorological phenomenon here in recognizing, you 5 know, you could have an accident at that time, that 6 would be a more realistic way to approach it.
7 What Lyman did was hold everything 8 constant.
9 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Are you giving your 10 summary statement?
11 MS. LAMPERT: No, I was just having a 12 conversation.
13 (Laughter.)
14 CHAIR YOUNG: Let's hold off. Hold that 15 for your closing argument.
16 On page 11 of Exhibit 12 of Pilgrim Watch 17 --
18 MS. LAMPERT: Thank you.
19 CHAIR YOUNG: -- Dr. Lyman says for the 20 95th percentile, the present dollar value --
21 JUDGE ABRAMSON: What page?
22 CHAIR YOUNG: Page 11 of Pilgrim Watch 23 Exhibit 12, at the top of that page.
24 For the 95th percentile, the present 25 dollar value offsite economic cost for the early high NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
973 1 release alone is over 72 times Entergy's mean estimate 2 for the same release and over 12 times Entergy's mean 3 estimate for all costs off and on-site and all release 4 categories of 1.34 million.
5 And then down, about two-thirds of the way 6 down, the first paragraph after the table, if we were 7 -- at the end of that paragraph. If we were to 8 extrapolate our result for the 95th percentile, 9 offsite costs of the early high release to all release 10 categories leading to a nearly 20-fold increase in 11 total economic costs compared to Entergy's estimate, 12 even the most costly SAMA's such as the Phase II SAMA 13 number 15, could well become cost-effective.
14 Now obviously, he is talking about a 15 different plant.
16 JUDGE ABRAMSON: He is also talking about 17 overall consequences from particular scenarios.
18 Right? He is not talking about meteorology.
19 MR. GAUKLER: And for a particular source.
20 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Listen. Listen. I 21 am not opening up argument. I am asking for 22 clarification. So don't assume that I have a point of 23 view. I am asking for clarification.
24 Taking all those things into account, 25 primarily the significance and explaining what you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
974 1 were just about to explain, to the extent that you 2 can, clarify for me what difference it would make with 3 regard not just to numbers but to this significance 4 question.
5 MR. GAUKLER: We could ask Dr. O'Kula to 6 confirm. But if you are simply looking at the current 7 modeling, holding everything the same but asking if we 8 had outputted the results at the 95th percent 9 confidence level instead of the mean, the change in 10 results would be more on the order of three to five 11 not 70 or 20 or whatever the results are.
12 Dr. Lyman's statements are very, a lot of 13 different parameters, including what is the source 14 term that is being assumed. You know, what is the 15 particular accident scenario and applying 95. So he 16 is compounding a number of different worst case 17 assumptions to say how much variation could you get.
18 But if you simply wanted to know what would be the 19 difference between using 95th percentile results and 20 mean, I think it is three to four or three to five or 21 in that range. I think Dr. O'Kula could, I don't 22 think we have a precise number but I think we could 23 tell you that is the order of magnitude.
24 CHAIR YOUNG: Just to the extent that you 25 can, and I guess and again speaking as a non-technical NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
975 1 person, the argument as I think I understand it that 2 Pilgrim Watch makes with regard to the usefulness of 3 knowing the 95th percentile so as to determine how 4 statistically significant or how much confidence you 5 can have in the mean being an accurate representation.
6 Am I anywhere near in the ballpark on 7 that? Do you understand what I am saying? Do you 8 know what I am referring to, the argument that I am 9 referring to?
10 DR. O'KULA: I believe so.
11 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
12 DR. O'KULA: The MACCS2 Code does provide 13 an indication of the result in terms of the 14 probability of weather. So the average result, which 15 is reported in the SAMA studies is not the average 16 weather condition result but it is the average of the 17 results that were calculated.
18 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.
19 DR. O'KULA: So there are, in the analysis 20 that was done for any given accident scenario, there 21 was on the order of 2300 results that are weighted on 22 how likely would that weather condition result.
23 So the number that is reported as the mean 24 is truly the arithmetic mean. And it would include 25 the very high consequence, low frequency conditions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
976 1 that would lead to large dose but they would occur on 2 average one or two hours per year. So that is 3 included in that mean.
4 And so but what other parts of the 5 statistics that are reported for any given accident 6 scenario, would also be things like the median. How 7 many doses for argument sake, population doses were 8 smaller than the median or larger than that value?
9 Fifty percent smaller; fifty percent higher.
10 CHAIR YOUNG: Are they clustered really 11 close to the middle or are they spread out all over 12 the place?
13 DR. O'KULA: It varies from plant to plant 14 but as Mr. Lewis indicated, when we look at a 95th 15 percentile result compared to the mean, based on our 16 knowledge on these runs that were done, we see a span 17 of about a factor of three to five.
18 JUDGE ABRAMSON: This is for a particular 19 accident scenario.
20 DR. O'KULA: Overall.
21 JUDGE ABRAMSON: A particular accident 22 scenario --
23 DR. O'KULA: Overall. Overall.
24 JUDGE ABRAMSON: -- but looking at a 25 variety of winds, a variety of meteorology?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
977 1 CHAIR YOUNG: You add up all the means for 2 each accident.
3 JUDGE ABRAMSON: That is what I am trying 4 to find out.
5 DR. O'KULA: This is for a scenario.
6 JUDGE ABRAMSON: A individual accident 7 scenario.
8 DR. O'KULA: Scenario. And so that is why 9 --
10 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So vary the meteorology.
11 DR. O'KULA: -- there is a little 12 flexibility there, in terms of the three to five 13 number. So in some cases it is about a factor of 14 three. In some cases, it is closer to five.
15 But for these individual accident 16 scenarios, the mean is roughly three times smaller 17 than the 95th percentile. But the code is also giving 18 you the worst case and so you could trace down the 19 weather sequence that gives to the various, the 20 highest numerical value that was calculated.
21 So you do have statistics that can be 22 reported, that can be understood. And so you could 23 say well that source term is one that is slowly 24 developing or has significant quantities of these 25 types of radioisotopes. And I can see what my worst NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
978 1 case would be or my 95th percentile. So I can make 2 some judgment about what I need to address in the 3 plant.
4 So those numbers are part of a PRA, PSA 5 study. And we take for the SAMA analysis, we tend to 6 use the means but we are not throwing away the other 7 information.
8 CHAIR YOUNG: But does it provide -- Do 9 you look into -- and I wish I could find -- I'm not 10 sure this is the right -- This is one of the places 11 that we are. Dr. Egan says -- This is the place I 12 mentioned before on page 75 of paragraph 196 of 13 Pilgrim Watch's proposed findings.
14 He says, "Therefore sea breeze has no 15 impact if a mean average is used. However, its 16 significance would be apparent if the 95th percentile 17 were used." And again, I apologize and I appreciate 18 everyone's indulgence of my --
19 MS. LAMPERT: We appreciate your concern.
20 CHAIR YOUNG: -- basic level questions.
21 But what does the MACCS2 do with regard to analyzing 22 the -- Once you come up with the mean consequence 23 values and add all those up, is there some measure 24 taken to ascertain how significant or how much 25 confidence you can have in that figure and how much NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
979 1 variation there is one way or the other? Or is there 2 -- I sort of think that is what he is getting to and 3 I may not be using the right words to say that. But 4 do you get the idea that I am trying to get to or do 5 you get the idea that he was trying to get to, I 6 guess?
7 DR. O'KULA: One way that I believe Dr.
8 Egan may have misunderstood the results is that we do 9 not use a mean condition that may or may not include 10 sea breeze, for example.
11 CHAIR YOUNG: It comes later in the 12 analysis.
13 DR. O'KULA: The mean reflects many like 14 -- Many conditions that would occur in a given space 15 of a year; sea breeze conditions, land breeze 16 conditions, all types of information. So all of that 17 is going into the production of these individual 18 results for a given accident scenario.
19 We don't start in a MACCS2 calculation 20 with the average weather condition, which possibly 21 would not include sea breeze affects and make the 22 average population dose and offsite economic costs 23 based on that number. The sea breeze affect is 24 included in the multiple data points that we have for 25 that specific dose that we are looking for.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
980 1 CHAIR YOUNG: So you think in this 2 sentence Dr. Egan is saying -- Well actually it is not 3 part of the quoted sentence but I think it is meant to 4 encompass what he said that that is taking what 5 happens to be doing the averaging at the point at 6 which the sea breeze is first considered, rather than 7 at the end of the analysis.
8 MS. LAMPERT: No, that isn't what he 9 meant.
10 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
11 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Well but since he is not 12 here, we are all speculating. But let me ask Dr.
13 O'Kula a question.
14 Dr. O'Kula, if I understand this 15 correctly, the way the computation is done and we 16 shouldn't be talking about this now and I guess it is 17 open, when you do the MACCS2 computation, you take a 18 particular accident, a particular scenario which is a 19 release over a period of time, and then you calculate 20 the consequences for a thousand or more different wind 21 conditions. All right? Is that correct?
22 DR. O'KULA: Wind stability, rainfall, 23 possibility of rainfall, based on --
24 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Your whole set of 25 meteorologic conditions.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
981 1 DR. O'KULA: -- the Plymouth dataset.
2 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay. Now do you happen 3 to know -- What I read into what I am hearing is that 4 if you looked at the case for the sea breeze type 5 meteorologic conditions, you would find something very 6 far from the mean. Do you happen to know if that is 7 the case? You have looked at the distribution 8 function of these consequences. Are the consequences, 9 as computed for one particular scenario for sea breeze 10 conditions, far from the mean of those computed for 11 the whole thousands of meteorologic conditions you 12 looked at? Do you know the answer to that?
13 DR. O'KULA: I don't know specifically the 14 answer to where in the 15 mile population dose, for 15 instance, where I could find points that could be 16 attributed to the combination of meteorological data 17 that would be traced to a sea breeze effect, if indeed 18 that occurrence led to high dose. We don't --
19 JUDGE ABRAMSON: You don't have the 20 ability to track that.
21 DR. O'KULA: We can't track that 22 specifically but by and large if it is part of the 23 8760 hours0.101 days <br />2.433 hours <br />0.0145 weeks <br />0.00333 months <br /> of weather data that is calculated and 24 sorted through and sampled in the analysis, then it is 25 included in the overall result.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
982 1 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, I understand that.
2 Let me see if I can pursue this for just one more 3 second.
4 Do you know if the sea breeze conditions, 5 meteorologic conditions associated with sea breeze, 6 vary materially from the norm of meteorologic 7 conditions at the plant? Do they vary? Are they way 8 away from the center or are they close to average?
9 DR. O'KULA: Defer to Dr. Hanna.
10 DR. HANNA: Well they would be just close 11 the average. The wind speeds are about the 12 same. In fact, I have been trying to think about the 13 statistical implications of these discussions here and 14 I think we are sort of getting off the track.
15 Because the standard way that you do risk 16 analysis is using the average. We are talking about 17 a whole year and we are determining the effects over 18 that whole year. And that is the average of all the 19 conditions that might occur during the year. So if 20 you start talking about the sea breeze or any 21 condition which might lead to a higher concentration 22 and saying you should include that as an upper range, 23 you are almost saying that that condition is going to 24 occur every hour of the year.
25 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Well no, I understand NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
983 1 that and I don't think anybody is going down that 2 path. But there does seem to be an assertion or an 3 underlying question as to whether had you looked at 4 sea breeze, you would have found 50 times the average 5 for the damages, as opposed to something close to the 6 average for the damages. And that is really the 7 question I am asking.
8 If the meteorologic conditions from the 9 sea breeze are more or less like the average 10 meteorologic conditions at the site, then what would 11 lead us to expect to get damages that are very far 12 from the average? And that is why --
13 DR. HANNA: Well I wouldn't expect it to 14 get much different from the average.
15 MS. LAMPERT: Can I say something? I 16 mean, just can I ask you to say something? All right, 17 consider something. As I know I am not talking to 18 them.
19 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Go ahead. Go ahead.
20 MS. LAMPERT: My point is, you know, I 21 have talked to David Chanin about this and because he 22 said one of his many reasons for saying the code was 23 nothing to use was particularly the use, the practice 24 of the mean, which was meaningless. Now those were 25 his words.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
984 1 And so I said I really don't understand 2 why it is meaningless. And his explanation was, okay 3 let me put it for you in a simple way. He said, let's 4 say I wanted to know how much you spent a year. I 5 said you sound like my husband. And he said, okay but 6 we are going to do it every second and we are going to 7 put that information of what you spend every second 8 into a computer over the year's time. Then we are 9 going to take a mean, you will see, your husband will 10 be happy because he will see you really don't spend 11 anything all year. But the reality is you do.
12 And his point was, if you put, as they do, 13 so much data into the code, then you use a mean, it is 14 all going to be washed away.
15 And I thought that was a pretty 16 understandable explanation --
17 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, let me just --
18 MS. LAMPERT: -- as opposed to taking 19 another average. No one is complaining about an 20 average. It is what average. And as you, Judge 21 Young, were going at, it reminded of the famous book 22 How to Lie with Statistics, that how representative --
23 What are those other little numbers that tell how 24 representative the mean actually was of the material 25 put in?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
985 1 That was just another conversation with 2 you, Dr. Abramson.
3 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I recognized that. Thank 4 you.
5 JUDGE COLE: Dr. O'Kula, you wind up with 6 a distribution of thousands of consequences and you 7 have a distribution of that. And we select the mean 8 value of those consequences. What do we know about 9 the curve of all the consequences? Is it a bell-10 shaped curve like we commonly see in standard 11 statistics or is it a skewed curve? And what is the 12 standard deviation of the curve on average? I think 13 you already gave us the answer to that.
14 CHAIR YOUNG: That is a good way to ask 15 what I was trying to ask. Thank you.
16 DR. O'KULA: Certainly Dr. Bixler can 17 augment my answer but typically the data look very 18 much bell-shaped, log-normally distributed. Because 19 as you might think about it, you have --
20 CHAIR YOUNG: Did you say -- Bell-shaped 21 what normally?
22 DR. O'KULA: Log-normally.
23 CHAIR YOUNG: Log-normally.
24 DR. O'KULA: So it is normally distributed 25 but when you have wide ranges of values, you take the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
986 1 log of the values. So you have very small, again, 2 population doses and it is a bell-shaped curve. And 3 mother nature is very erratic so it is not precisely 4 bell-shaped but it is, by and large. You can look at 5 it. We see a lot of histogram effects and a lot of 6 dips and valleys but by and large, it looks log-7 normally distributed, bell-shaped.
8 And so a lot of times people talk about an 9 error factor in statistics with a log-normal 10 distribution and reflect on the 95th percentile 11 compared to the median. Okay? A little bit less than 12 the average.
13 And in this case, we said that the range 14 of 95th percentile to the mean was a factor of about 15 three to five from what we recall having looked at 16 these results.
17 And so the mean tends to be numerically 18 somewhat higher than the median. It is just because 19 some of the larger dose, population dose numbers when 20 weighted, you know, those are very large numbers 21 compared to, again, several orders of magnitude over 22 range from very unlikely conditions to very likely and 23 average conditions then to very unlikely conditions in 24 your 95th percentile.
25 So it is a wide distribution and if you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
987 1 can do the statistical math, then you can get the 2 spread on how it looks. But is basically, Dr. Cole, 3 a log-normal distributed set of results with that 4 spread of possibly two to three orders of magnitude 5 from the very low doses to the high doses.
6 JUDGE COLE: Thank you. That is very 7 helpful.
8 MR. HARRIS: Dr. Cole, can Dr. Bixler add 9 something?
10 JUDGE COLE: Oh, sure.
11 DR. BIXLER: Yes, maybe to add a little 12 perspective. This is just to supplement what Dr.
13 O'Kula said because I agree with what he just said.
14 But typically what I have found, and I 15 haven't looked at this specifically for the Pilgrim 16 analysis, but typically the mean is somewhere between 17 the 75th and the 85th percentile, maybe even 18 approaching the 90th percentile. And that is true 19 because of the skewed nature of the distribution 20 function that we are talking about here. So that is 21 one aspect of it.
22 I know one particular case, again not for 23 Pilgrim, but one case the mean came out to be the 87th 24 percentile of the distribution. So --
25 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Meaning that is a higher NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
988 1 consequence --
2 DR. BIXLER: Yes. Let me explain a little 3 bit more precisely what that terminology means. I 4 think we all know what the mean is but the median 5 means that half the time you would get a smaller 6 answer, half the time you would get a larger answer.
7 Okay. So when I say 75th percentile, I 8 mean 75 percent of the time you would get a smaller 9 number and only 25 percent of the time you would get 10 a larger one. So if you are at the 85th percentile, 11 as an example, 85 percent of the time you get a 12 smaller answer and only 15 percent of the time a 13 larger one.
14 So an 85th percentile is probably not a 15 bad estimate for where the mean actually might fall in 16 this case but again, I don't know for sure.
17 CHAIR YOUNG: Eighty-five you said?
18 Eighty-fifth?
19 DR. BIXLER: Yes, it is probably something 20 like that. Maybe 80th, maybe 85th. So that gives you 21 a little bit better perspective on what the mean 22 really represents in terms of the distribution.
23 Another thing to consider is that when 24 Entergy did the SAMA analysis, they multiplied by a 25 factor of six. They took their mean results, I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
989 1 believe and multiplied by a factor of six to account 2 for uncertainty. That would put you, if you were only 3 looking at uncertainty in the weather, in the 4 meteorology, in the effect that that would have on the 5 results, that would put you above the 95th percentile 6 anyway.
7 MS. LAMPERT: That is -- May I just ask --
8 suggest something?
9 What we asked for was further analysis.
10 Right? So they are talking about I don't know where 11 the heck those plants were that you are coming up with 12 what difference it made.
13 The question is, were they totally 14 analogous to here? Is it applicable? Why not have 15 them show the difference of what it would made here, 16 if this ever comes, gets back on the table after an 17 appeal.
18 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, in a moment we will do 19 closing arguments.
20 Dr. O'Kula did you agree with what Dr.
21 Bixler said?
22 DR. O'KULA: I agree with Dr. Bixler.
23 CHAIR YOUNG: Along with the 85 percentile 24 being where the median would be?
25 DR. O'KULA: That was for an example.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
990 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Oh, I thought you got that 2 for this --
3 MS. LAMPERT: No.
4 DR. BIXLER: I'm just guessing what it 5 might be. And a range of values would be 75th 6 percentile to maybe as high as 90th, probably a little 7 lower than that.
8 CHAIR YOUNG: For the Pilgrim plant.
9 DR. BIXLER: For the Pilgrim plant.
10 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
11 DR. BIXLER: Probably somewhere in that 12 range.
13 CHAIR YOUNG: Does that make sense?
14 DR. O'KULA: I would concur.
15 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, thank you.
16 I appreciate this. And thank you for your 17 help on my question as well because that was sort of 18 what I was trying to get at.
19 Any other questions from you?
20 JUDGE COLE: No.
21 MS. LAMPERT: Do you have data on that or 22 are you just opining? Are they just opining or do 23 they have data to say that the range would be 75 to 80 24 whatever it was?
25 JUDGE COLE: I guess we can ask him what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
991 1 his basis for that answer is. Upon what do you base 2 your answer, sir, Dr. Bixler?
3 DR. BIXLER: Just an analyses. I have 4 done a lot of consequence analyses myself of various 5 kinds and that is one of the things that you kind of 6 wonder about as you look at the results. So that is 7 just my experience over a number of years of doing 8 these kinds of calculations.
9 JUDGE COLE: Thank you.
10 CHAIR YOUNG: And Dr. O'Kula, would your 11 answer be -- What would your answer be in terms of --
12 What did you base your answer that you agreed with Dr.
13 Bixler that that was a good estimate?
14 DR. O'KULA: On the shape of the 15 distributions.
16 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, on where the mean 17 is, vis-a-vis --
18 CHAIR YOUNG: So the curve would be over 19 to one side.
20 DR. O'KULA: Right. From a number of PRA 21 studies for even in DOE complex and from several 22 commercial plants, and also with Pilgrim, of course.
23 Just looking at a lot of these indices of risk. So 24 that --
25 JUDGE COLE: So your experience.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
992 1 DR. O'KULA: Yes.
2 CHAIR YOUNG: Is there anything in any of 3 the documents that shows this or reflects this? Just 4 since it has been asked?
5 What about in the EIS?
6 MS. LAMPERT: I can't help you. I didn't 7 see anything.
8 MR. HARRIS: Some of that information was 9 addressed when we were discussing mean consequence 10 values and where that mean fell. So it was part of 11 there but I don't believe it was part of any of the 12 exhibits that were --
13 MS. LAMPERT: And it wasn't discussed 14 there.
15 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. Do you need a 16 break before we have closing arguments?
17 MS. LAMPERT: Yes.
18 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. Let's take ten 19 minutes and come back for closing arguments. Thank 20 you all.
21 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off 22 the record at 3:18 p.m. and went back on 23 the record at 3:34 p.m.)
24 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, before we move to 25 closing arguments, I think the Staff has one NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
993 1 correction you wanted to make.
2 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor. It is just 3 referring --
4 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes, we are on the record 5 now.
6 MR. HARRIS: Just referring to the 7 uncertainty answer that Dr. Bixler gave earlier and I 8 will let him talk.
9 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.
10 DR. BIXLER: All right. Yes, it was 11 pointed out during the break that there were two parts 12 to the factor that was used by Entergy. One part of 13 it was to add external events and then there was a 14 second part that was to account for uncertainty. The 15 uncertainty factor really is only 1.62. And I believe 16 I said six earlier. So that -- I would like to --
17 JUDGE COLE: One point what?
18 DR. BIXLER: One point six two is the 19 actual number.
20 JUDGE COLE: Okay.
21 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. The closing 22 arguments. Shall we start with Entergy and then move 23 to -- When would the Staff like to go? Would you 24 like to wrap up or go after Entergy?
25 MR. HARRIS: We can wrap up.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
994 1 MS. UTTAL: We would like to wrap up.
2 CHAIR YOUNG: Since you have -- Well 3 actually you are putting the burden on yourself. So 4 I think really you probably ought to go after Entergy.
5 And then if any of you want to save any of your time 6 for the end, you can. And then we will move to 7 Pilgrim Watch, and Duxbury, and Plymouth.
8 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And let's keep this to 9 ten minutes or less, please, per. I wouldn't mind any 10 aggregates.
11 MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Your Honor. I will 12 try to keep it within ten minutes, hopefully less 13 than.
14 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, our law clerk will 15 give you a ten minute flag. You had better be done.
16 MR. LEWIS: Okay. I wanted to say very 17 quickly that Your Honors have appropriately identified 18 the scope of the hearing to be whether the SAMA is 19 reasonable and whether accounting for meteorological 20 conditions would lead to any additional SAMAs. That 21 directly follows from the Commission's statement and 22 the remand that I quoted to you earlier.
23 We have extensive testimony from the staff 24 and Entergy showing that the meteorological modeling 25 that we have done is adequate for a SAMA analysis, in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
995 1 terms of determining the averages. And we have also 2 shown that accounting for the differences of the 3 patterns that Pilgrim Watch claims he can be accounted 4 for, would make little difference. And specifically, 5 I am referring to the CALMET trajectory analysis.
6 The CALMET trajectory analysis takes into 7 account the variably spatially different winds. So it 8 take into account winds at different locations exactly 9 as Pilgrim Watch said it should. And in this respect, 10 the CALMET is the three-dimensional model that is used 11 by EPA for determining wind fields for its CALPUFF 12 dispersion model.
13 So we are using terms of evaluating the 14 spatially variable winds with CALMET. We are doing 15 the same thing that would be done as a first step to 16 a CALPUFF calculation. So we are doing the 17 meteorological aspect of the same thing that would be 18 done for CALPUFF.
19 And in that respect, we looked at 26 20 surface stations in the area. We got data from two 21 high-leveled balloon locations. And as all this data 22 went into the CALMET trajectory analysis, just as 23 described by Dr. Hanna today, to generate these three-24 dimensional wind fields. And you can take a look at 25 an example of the three-dimensional wind field in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
996 1 Figure A, I believe, of his report, which shows the 2 wind being in different directions on a particular 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />.
4 So we use that to calculate the 5 distribution of winds used in this spatially variable 6 wind field would actually cross an arc sector. Okay?
7 And we then, as Dr. Hanna said, we computed trajectory 8 roses and we show that the trajectory roses for the 9 actual direction the plume would travel, looking at 10 the three-dimensional wind field, we feel that those 11 trajectory roses were very similar to those used in 12 the Pilgrim SAMA analysis, which is the Pilgrim 2001 13 data.
14 And in fact, Dr. O'Kula did a calculation 15 using the exposure index, where he felt the population 16 of each segment by the probability that the wind would 17 go through there using the CALMET trajectory analysis 18 and compare that with the same calculation that we did 19 in the SAMA analysis, in terms of population times the 20 Pilgrim data wind rows and we have showed it for the 21 most representative height of 500 meters. There is 22 about a four percent difference.
23 So basically, we have shown that 24 accounting for spatially variable wind fields would 25 lead to insignificant difference in the SAMA analysis.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
997 1 Now importantly, this analysis takes into 2 account many of the different issues that Pilgrim 3 Watch has raised. The CALMET trajectory analysis 4 includes the terrain. One of the inputs for the 5 analysis is the terrain and topography of the area.
6 And that is described in Dr. Hanna's report. So to 7 the extent that terrain has an effect on wind 8 direction, wind variability, that is taken into 9 account in the CALMET analysis.
10 The same extent, to the extent that you 11 have a sea breeze at any particular hour at any 12 particular location, that is taken into account in the 13 CALMET trajectory analysis. That is one of the hours 14 of data for that particular location that would say 15 whether the sea breeze blew it in there.
16 And if you look at Figure 8, you will see 17 some of the effects of a sea breeze where the wind 18 pattern changes. And so you have this type of wind 19 pattern for each hour and so it takes into the account 20 whatever the wind field was in the entire domain for 21 that one hour. And evaluating the analysis using the 22 CALMET trajectory analysis shows insignificant effect.
23 Pilgrim Watch basically does not make any 24 attempt to address the CALMET trajectory analysis.
25 And in fact, it doesn't appear at all in Dr. Egan's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
998 1 generally through his statement. Nowhere in his 2 analysis does he address the CALMET trajectory 3 analysis or the wind rose comparisons that Dr. Hanna 4 did in his report. And so therefore, you can only 5 presume that he essentially agrees with them.
6 Moreover, Pilgrim Watch in her findings 7 makes outlandish claims with respect to these various 8 analyses. But again, since Dr. Egan didn't address 9 them, there is no evidential support for that.
10 And also Pilgrim Watch has acknowledged in 11 the initial statement of position at pages 2-3, it has 12 indeed acknowledged that it is not possible for 13 Pilgrim Watch or anyone else to show that meteorology 14 in and of itself would result in a significant 15 different SAMA analysis. But that is the direction 16 that the Commission gave us to look at; accounting for 17 meteorology that result in additional SAMAs becoming 18 cost-beneficial.
19 The CALMET trajectory analysis that we 20 have done shows it would not. And Pilgrim Watch 21 itself admits that it would not. And so at least it 22 has not met its burden of going forward.
23 Well it is reduced to arguing. If you 24 look at what they argue in their findings of fact, 25 they say well a different methodology would provide a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
999 1 more accurate analysis. And also you see Dr. Egan say 2 well there might be a more reliable analysis if you 3 took more data. But again, that is not the issue for 4 this Board. The issue is whether or not there are any 5 additional SAMAs that would be cost-beneficial.
6 I have already alluded to the fact that 7 Pilgrim Watch appears to misunderstand the SAMA 8 analysis. She claims repeatedly throughout her 9 findings of fact that averaging the effects of the 10 SAMA, averaging ignores site-specific conditions. And 11 as you heard Dr. O'Kula explain, it does not ignore 12 any site-specific conditions. It does not ignore any 13 accident scenarios.
14 And in this respect, the statement made by 15 Dr. Egan that the SAMA analysis loses the effect of 16 different accident scenarios entirely. He makes this 17 statement on page eight. It is just not right because 18 the SAMA analysis takes into account all of the 19 accident conditions and weights them by their 20 appropriate probability to come up with the average.
21 So it takes into account all the site-22 specific conditions. It takes into account all the 23 accidents and it appropriately weights them. So it 24 takes everything into account. There is a site-25 specific analysis that takes into account the weather NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1000 1 and the accident conditions.
2 Now Pilgrim Watch conveniently overlooks 3 and ignores our testimony on points that is adverse to 4 it. For example, Dr. Hanna explained in our rebuttal 5 testimony how the wind variability and topography for 6 the Molenkamp study is basically the same as that in 7 the Pilgrim region. And it is perfectly appropriate 8 to use the results of the Molenkamp study with respect 9 to the Pilgrim SAMA analysis, take that into account.
10 Nowhere does she acknowledge that rebuttal testimony 11 in her findings.
12 By the same token, you have heard Dr.
13 Hanna explain how Angevine is not on point here. He 14 explained that in his rebuttal testimony. And again, 15 that is nowhere acknowledged.
16 And finally, I would urge you to read with 17 caution the findings made by Pilgrim Watch, 18 particularly we are at various points where it 19 ascribes something to what Dr. Hanna said or Dr.
20 O'Kula said. On many times she characterizes Dr.
21 Hanna's or Dr. O'Kula's testimony and it just plainly 22 is wrong. They did not say what she claims they said.
23 Okay, you can look back at the testimony and find that 24 out.
25 And one other thing she points out to a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1001 1 table on page 15 that she claims came from the WSMS 2 report. That table did not come from the WSMS report.
3 That is a table of her own creation. The second table 4 that appears at pages 14-15. So please read them very 5 carefully.
6 In the final analysis what the SAMA 7 analysis does it takes into account all of the 8 conditions as the statistically based analysis that 9 appropriately takes into account the consequences that 10 would result under different weather conditions, 11 different accident conditions. And therefore, it is 12 appropriate for a SAMA analysis and it gives perfectly 13 appropriate and adequate results.
14 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Under ten minutes. He 15 didn't get a call, did he?
16 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. Who is doing for 17 the Staff?
18 MR. HARRIS: I am, Your Honor.
19 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead, Mr. Harris.
20 MR. HARRIS: I think it is important to 21 step back from some of the details that we have been 22 discussing today that have put the SAMA analysis into 23 the context of the legal requirements that we are 24 actually discussing here. We are conducting the SAMA 25 analysis as part of our National Environmental Policy NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1002 1 Act obligations. And the SAMA analysis is a systemic 2 way to identify mitigation measures for very complex 3 accident scenarios. And so it lends itself to this 4 talking about the very small details but not looking 5 at what the Commission has really charged us to do.
6 The Commission when they remanded it, they 7 were very clear about the requirements of the SAMA 8 analysis under NEPA and remanding just a limited 9 portion of Contention 3. The Commission stated that 10 there is no NEPA requirement to use the best 11 scientific methodologies, as has been said earlier 12 here today. And the reason that we are really 13 remanding this is to identify whether or not the SAMA 14 analysis that was done failed to identify a 15 potentially cost-beneficial mitigation measure. And 16 as long as the SAMA analysis adequately identified the 17 mitigation measures for Pilgrim, there is nothing more 18 that we need to do here.
19 As Mr. Gaukler had mentioned earlier is 20 that Pilgrim Watch in their own initial statement had 21 basically conceded this particular issue. And forgive 22 me for -- I want to read the quote from it. Pilgrim 23 Watch basically states "it is not possible for either 24 Pilgrim Watch or anyone else to show, as Mr. Gaukler 25 said . . ." But then it goes on even a little a few NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1003 1 paragraphs later, "but on its own using a variable 2 plume model would not identify another cost-beneficial 3 SAMA."
4 And so that is really what -- That 5 encompasses everything that we have to do here is that 6 we are trying to do determine whether or not different 7 meteorological models and the conditions and some of 8 these meteorological conditions would result in the 9 identification of a new cost-beneficial SAMA. And I 10 think it is clear from Pilgrim Watch's own pleadings 11 that that is not the case here.
12 Even though the Board really need not go 13 any further than that, there has been a lot of 14 testimony that has been submitted by experts in this, 15 in terms of how this meteorological modeling would 16 affect the SAMA analysis. When you are looking at how 17 the SAMA analysis is done, you need to look at what it 18 is trying to calculate. Here we are trying to 19 calculate the expected value of this particular 20 accident. What would occur which we have been talking 21 about as the mean, the mean consequences.
22 And so just because we make small changes 23 to the meteorology or to some other particular aspect 24 of the SAMA, it needs to be able to actually move the 25 mean. And I have to thank Dr. Abramson for a little NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1004 1 bit for putting the map on the board to sort of show 2 that in the basic form that it is. That is really 3 what we are trying to determine is, with these 4 changes, move the mean enough that a new SAMA would 5 become cost-beneficial.
6 You know, the staff experts, when 7 discussing ATMOS referring to the Molenkamp study, 8 which the Staff tends to actually refer to it as the 9 Lawrence Livermore study so you will that difference 10 in our pleadings, is it showed that ATMOS, in 11 comparison to models like CALPUFF actually was of a 12 similar performance for the purposes of a SAMA as what 13 is considered sort of the gold standard of arranging 14 particle code of law is that there is very little 15 difference between those results as they were 16 calculating the meteorology. And the staff's expert, 17 Dr. Bixler and Mr. Ramsdell who is not here but in his 18 testimony that was pre-filed, said that that study was 19 applicable to Pilgrim. And Dr. Bixler was one of the 20 authors for that study.
21 So of the people who should know whether 22 or not it would be applicable to the Pilgrim site, he 23 is clearly one of those people.
24 To get back to the sea breeze effect and 25 the Staff, what Mr. Gaukler and Dr. Hanna did with the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1005 1 CALMET study clearly does show that there really is no 2 difference on the wind rose that is being produced.
3 But Mr. Ramsdell went a little further in looking at 4 the sea breeze effect, and you will see that in his 5 testimony, is that he actually calculated how often 6 the sea breeze effect would occur and whether or not, 7 if you applied ATMOS to the sea breeze effect, when it 8 would overestimate the consequences and when it would 9 underestimate the consequences.
10 And the results of that is that there is 11 a small underestimating of the consequences and those, 12 about 1.4 percent, you know, the difference between 13 the overestimate and the underestimate, which is just 14 insignificant to result in a new cost-beneficial SAMA 15 being applicable here.
16 And again, he went in and did exactly the 17 same thing for hot spots, in terms of what effect that 18 would actually have on the SAMA analysis and it was a 19 very small effect and nothing to challenge the sort of 20 the factor of two that we are discussing here.
21 So in conclusion, I would simply ask the 22 Board to find that this SAMA analysis has been done in 23 an adequate manner to satisfy the requirements of 24 NEPA. Thank you.
25 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. Ms. Lampert?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1006 1 MS. LAMPERT: Yes. Ten minutes. I am 2 borrowing few from her. She has only got two. And I 3 don't think Senator Vitters would complain --
4 JUDGE ABRAMSON: But I will.
5 MS. LAMPERT: -- if I took two more 6 minutes.
7 The issue now before the Board is straight 8 forward. Has Entergy demonstrated what the Board's 9 order of the 23rd of September asked, that 10 meteorological modeling in the SAMA analysis is 11 adequate and reasonable to satisfy NEPA and that 12 counting for the meteorological issues that we brought 13 forward could not credibly alter the SAMA analysis 14 conclusions, as said in the admitted contention that 15 no further analysis is required. So that is the 16 issue.
17 The important points to consider. First, 18 Entergy is the one that is seeking a 20-year extension 19 and, therefore, they have the burden of proof to prove 20 by a preponderance of the evidence that the extension 21 should be granted.
22 Contention 3, as written, at most requires 23 Pilgrim Watch to show why further analysis is 24 required. We are not required or expected to do that 25 further analysis, nor to show its results. That would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1007 1 be impossible.
2 In seeking to prove that 20-year extension 3 is granted, Entergy is required to perform a site-4 specific analysis, which means picking an available, 5 a meteorological model, amongst other things, that is 6 appropriate for this site. They didn't.
7 In short, the Board's order is whether 8 Entergy has met its burden and we are arguing that no, 9 they haven't met their burden in answering the 10 questions before them.
11 We said no one could prove or disprove 12 that simply changing the meteorological model would 13 make a significant difference. We said that. That 14 means we couldn't, they couldn't, and they haven't.
15 So they have not satisfied their burden of proof and 16 we could explain why.
17 In our conclusions of law, we make it very 18 explicit -- findings of facts and conclusions of law, 19 that Entergy in fact has the burden of proof. It 20 seemed that NRC staff thought otherwise, because they 21 said often in their findings Pilgrim Watch has not 22 shown that a Pilgrim SAMA analysis is inadequate. To 23 my mind, they have it backwards. They are shifting 24 the proof to us.
25 The issue is, what have they shown, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1008 1 Entergy, and does it require further analysis. We 2 have shown there are significant deficiencies in the 3 model used by Entergy. And because of this, their 4 original SAMA analysis and all subsequent sensitivity 5 analysis, including the analyses that Dr. Hanna and 6 Ramsdell, Hanna was requested to do using CALMET alone 7 not in combination with CALPUFF.
8 And so let's just look at the expert 9 testimony that both sides provided. Both sides hired 10 experts of equal qualifications. For example, Dr.
11 Egan and Entergy's Dr. Hanna have very similar 12 backgrounds. They respect each other. They work 13 together.
14 Dr. David Chanin, our expert, and Dr.
15 O'Kula have consulted together. Dr. O'Kula uses the 16 code frequently, the code written by David Chanin, the 17 Fortran written by David Chanin.
18 There are, however, two important 19 differences between our experts and theirs. First, 20 Entergy has a lot more money than we do to pay their 21 experts to produce a lot of paper. The second and 22 most important is what questions were the experts 23 asked. We asked Dr. Egan and Mr. Chanin whether 24 Entergy's segmented straight line Gaussian plume model 25 and the CALMET would itself answer the Board's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1009 1 questions. Was the meteorological modeling used by 2 Entergy and Pilgrim SAMA analysis adequate and 3 reasonable to satisfy NEPA? Dr. Egan responded 4 definitively that no, the models they used were not 5 adequate and using a CALPUFF model would satisfy all 6 the requirements of NEPA.
7 Could using a different meteorological 8 model result in a different SAMA analysis? And was 9 further analysis defined as comparing what is under 10 dispute, the use of a segment model, what that would 11 show, versus a variable model, such as endorsed and 12 used by EPA in these types of studies, which would be 13 one that models a change of direction such as CALPUFF.
14 Entergy, on the other hand, asked its 15 experts to run and re-run a lot of the Gaussian plume 16 model simulations. They never asked them to run what 17 they should have asked, an advanced variable model to 18 see how the results were different. The differences 19 between these two questions is the crux of the matter.
20 Fundamentally, Entergy's responsibility was to prove 21 that their use of the Gaussian model, Gaussian 22 segmented model, correctly and conservatively 23 estimated offsite consequences. But they didn't do 24 that.
25 So Entergy used the segmented straight NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1010 1 line model to determine the likely area that would be 2 impacted in a deposition in that area. That model 3 assumes, and you can go right to their testimony, that 4 a plume will travel like a flashlight beam. It will 5 not vary direction as it moves off their site.
6 Entergy's expert said that their segmented straight 7 line model and the CALMET differed in some ways from 8 what they called the standard straight line model.
9 But one way in which the two were exactly the same is 10 that both assumed that there would be no changes in 11 wind direction once offsite. Dr. Egan makes that 12 point.
13 The key point in why Entergy's model is 14 not appropriate for the Pilgrim site is that it 15 incorrectly assumes that direction the wind and plume 16 travels always remains the same and it does not 17 capture wind variability that occurs at this site and, 18 thereby, limits the area of likely impact. Their 19 model also assumes that radioactive contaminants will 20 disperse rather rapidly along the pie-shaped wedge, as 21 the plume moves away from the site.
22 We showed that coastal storm strong winds 23 that occur here throughout the year moved the plume 24 more quickly over an area and to more densely 25 populated areas. Higher concentrations of deposition NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1011 1 can be expected at greater distances because there is 2 the shorter time frame for radioactive decay to occur.
3 Further because of the complexity of the 4 site, contaminants will often remain far more 5 concentrated than in a straight line model would 6 predict. For example, a straight line model misses 7 the plume's reversal during a sea breeze. Sea breezes 8 increase dose to the population. That remains a 9 dispute.
10 Entergy's Gaussian plume model assumed 11 plumes moving out to sea will not have any impact. We 12 showed that a plume over water, rather than being 13 rapidly dispersed remained more tightly concentrated, 14 due to the lack of turbulence and will impact areas at 15 a greater distance. That still remains a he said/she 16 said, a dispute.
17 Beyond these defects in the Gaussian plume 18 model itself, Entergy's input into the model was 19 deficient. Entergy made two important assumptions.
20 First, they assumed the data from one year, 2001, was 21 sufficient to predict whether likely throughout the 22 20-year period. And more important, Entergy assumed 23 that it was not necessary to take wind data from any 24 place other than the single on-site tower. We showed 25 by reference to expert opinion in government NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1012 1 documents, that neither assumption was correct.
2 Entergy study showing for example that the winds blow 3 in the same direction from a variety of Massachusetts 4 weather stations, is just an example, as those at 5 Pilgrim's meteorological tower were essentially 6 irrelevant because those analyses didn't show what 7 happened once the wind left that particular tower, 8 whether it was Logan Airport or Chatham or whatever.
9 How for example, if they all were pointing 10 north-northeast, fine at that time period. But what 11 happened was there a change in direction soon after it 12 left one or the other sites?
13 We also showed that what Entergy did was 14 not conservative. Even the NRC admits that the study, 15 such as the Molenkamp that Entergy relied on to 16 "prove" its model's conservatism are not applicable to 17 Pilgrim's site. Our topography is not like that on 18 the Kansas plains. And simply conducting, as Dr.
19 O'Kula did, more and more and more sensitivity studies 20 using the same flawed model doesn't make the model or 21 the results any better.
22 We also show that its advanced and site-23 appropriate model and input data as opposed to 24 Entergy's was readily available and reliable. This 25 addresses the NEPA question used --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1013 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Can you wrap up?
2 MS. LAMPERT: I'm getting there. I'm 3 getting there. Remember we didn't have an expert 4 here, you know, to chat.
5 Applicable to Pilgrim's coastal location 6 and topography, unlike Entergy's, and we do not 7 understand why Entergy failed to make the comparison 8 using both models.
9 To speak very quickly to the issue that is 10 in the papers recently that the politicians are 11 complaining on how long this is taking, I just want to 12 make two points. One point is, don't blame us. They 13 NRC Commission took two years before making a 14 decision. And next and most important, beginning in 15 2007, Pilgrim Watch explained and said to Entergy, we 16 will settle and it will cost you a lot less than this 17 litigation. We will settle and you offered to appoint 18 a settlement judge for two things. One was more 19 monitoring wells on-site, placed according to standard 20 accepted design and off-site real-time monitors to 21 measure radiation emitted into our communities, all 22 both linked to Mass Department of Public Health and to 23 MEMA for emergency planning purposes.
24 That was our offer. They know the offer 25 stands today. It stood last year and the year before.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1014 1 The fact they will not do this, and this is a 2 statement for the public, the fact they won't accept 3 this tells us they have something to hide. And that 4 should be very disturbing to the public, to the 5 politicians, and quite honestly to yourselves.
6 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. Ms. Chin?
7 MS. CHIN: Thank you. Actually the 8 comments I have pertain to what we did this morning, 9 the cleanup and the cables. Is it all right to read 10 those today at this point?
11 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead.
12 MS. CHIN: The Town of Duxbury annually 13 has their town meeting and it is this Saturday.
14 However, the Board of Selectmen have already 15 unanimously approved the article that is going before 16 the town. It is in four parts. Only two parts 17 pertain today is the cleanup and the cables. So I 18 will read just those two parts.
19 The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station should 20 not be licensed to extend operations another 20 years 21 until and unless some third party assumes 22 responsibility for cleanup after a severe nuclear 23 reactor accident to pre-accident conditions, sets a 24 cleanup standard, and identifies a funding source.
25 And the second part is Entergy either NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1015 1 replaces all submerged electrical cables, splices, and 2 connectors not designed or qualified for submerged or 3 moist environments or develops a comprehensive Aging 4 Management Program to preclude moisture and adequately 5 tests all cables that have been exposed to an 6 environment for which it was not designed for.
7 And I expect the town meeting will 8 unanimously approve this article. We have had one in 9 the past on the Gaussian straight line plume and if I 10 had realized, I would have brought that here today.
11 But thank you very much for your time.
12 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. Ms. Hollis?
13 MS. HOLLIS: Yes. First thank you to the 14 panel for its interest, concern, and contribution to 15 this effort and to the parties and the staff of the 16 NRC for their contribution seeking to enlighten the 17 record in this complex and lengthy proceeding.
18 As a host community to the Pilgrim plant, 19 this proceeding is of vital importance to the town and 20 its citizens, and its businesses and the culture of 21 the town itself.
22 The Town of Plymouth wishes to make the 23 following closing statement. The Town is an historic 24 and unique community, central to American culture and 25 politics. And as such, it expects the highest level NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1016 1 of concern, environmental concern, concern about 2 safety and security, to be delivered completely by 3 Entergy at the Pilgrim plant.
4 Compliance with all appropriate legal and 5 regulatory requisites are essential to the Town. The 6 citizens of Plymouth, the economy of Plymouth, the 7 visitors to Plymouth and the neighbors of Plymouth 8 deserve and are entitled to total care, respect and 9 consideration by Entergy and the operation of the 10 Pilgrim plant.
11 Likewise, we look to the technical 12 expertise and the dedication to mission of the ASLB 13 and the NRC itself to oversee this relicensing process 14 to its conclusion and beyond, all in the public 15 interest.
16 Thank you for your consideration and 17 listening to this closing statement. Thank you.
18 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. And we will be 19 issue rulings on the new contentions and on the issue 20 before us in Contention 3 as soon as is reasonably 21 possible and we will get that out to you in the near 22 future.
23 MS. LAMPERT: May I make a request that 24 you appreciate for the two new contentions and to 25 this, the dead time, I mean, God I would hope it won't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1017 1 be that, the time we agreed upon when I am in Cuba.
2 CHAIR YOUNG: We are not expecting to 3 receive any more filings from any of the parties.
4 MS. LAMPERT: No but to require a response 5 back, let's say, on the new contentions the day I get 6 back from Cuba would be, you know --
7 CHAIR YOUNG: What?
8 MS. LAMPERT: Well would there be any 9 filing? I don't know that.
10 CHAIR YOUNG: We don't expect that there 11 would be any further filings --
12 MS. LAMPERT: Okay, I just wanted to be 13 sure of that --
14 CHAIR YOUNG: -- at this point.
15 MS. LAMPERT: -- because I will be out of 16 touch.
17 JUDGE COLE: The appeal to the Commission.
18 CHAIR YOUNG: Right. I mean, there would 19 be a provision for an appeal to the Commission. But 20 no, --
21 MS. LAMPERT: All right. That is what I 22 wanted to be sure of.
23 CHAIR YOUNG: I think we have attempted to 24 raise all our questions. I have attempted to try to 25 get everything clarified today, rather than having to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
1018 1 submit any further written questions. So, we are 2 going to go back and work on getting out decisions on 3 these matters as soon as we can.
4 MS. LAMPERT: Okay, great.
5 CHAIR YOUNG: And we appreciate all of you 6 being present and adding to the process. Thank you 7 all. And that would close this session.
8 And I think the court reporter may have 9 some questions for some people on spellings and so 10 forth.
11 Thank you very much, all of you.
12 (Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the foregoing 13 proceeding was adjourned.)
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 (202) 234-4433