ML11182B033

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transcript of South Texas Nuclear Generating Company Oral Argument (Telephone Conference) on June 27, 2011, Pp 1-22
ML11182B033
Person / Time
Site: South Texas  STP Nuclear Operating Company icon.png
Issue date: 06/27/2011
From:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
SECY RAS
References
50-498-LR, 50-499-LR, ASLBP 11-909-02-LR- BD01, NRC-935
Download: ML11182B033 (24)


Text

RAS SS- 1 Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

South Texas Nuclear Generating Company Oral Argument Docket Number: 50-498-LR and 05-499-LR DOCKETED ASLBP Number: 11-909-02-LR-BDO1 July 1,2011 (9:20a.m.)

OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Location: (telephone conference)

Date: Monday, June 27, 2011 Work Order No.: NRC-935 Pages 1-22

[ORIGINAL NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 E PpL&T E-. SEC-" $. - (202) 234-4433

1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5 + + ++ +

6 ORAL ARGUMENT 7 --------------------- x 8 IN THE MATTER OF:

9 STP NUCLEAR OPERATING Docket No. 50-498-LR 10 COMPANY 50-499-LR 11 (South Texas Project ASLBP No. 11-909-02 12 Electric Generating LR-BD01 13 Station, Units 1 and 2) 14 --------------------- x 15 Monday, June 27, 2011 16 Via Teleconference 17 The above-entitled matter came on for 18 oral argument, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m.

19 Eastern Daylight Time.

20 BEFORE:

21 RONALD SPRITZER Administrative Judge 22 NICHOLAS TRIKOUROS Administrative Judge 23 LARRY FOULKE Administrative Judge 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

2 1 APPEARANCES:

2 On Behalf of ASLBP:

3 AUDREY JONES, ESQ.

4 RICHARD S. HARPER, ESQ.

5 MAXWELL C. SMITH, ESQ.

6 Office of the General Counsel 7 Mail Stop 15 D21 8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 Washington, DC 20555-0001 10 (301) 415-1246 11 12 On Behalf of STP Nuclear Operating Company:

13 STEVEN P. FRANTZ, ESQ.

14 STEPHEN J. BURDICK, ESQ.

15 of: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 16 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

17 Washington, D.C. 20004 18 (202) 739-5460 19 sfrantz@morganlewis.com 20 sburdick@morganlewis.com 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgros s.com

3 1 On Behalf of Petitioners Sustainable Energy 2 and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition and 3 Susan Dancer:

4 ROBERT V. EYE, ESQ.

5 of: Kauffman & Eye 6 Columbian Building 7 112 S.W. 6 th Avenue 8 Suite 202 9 Topeka, Kansas 66603 10 (785) 234-4040 11 bob@kauffmaneye.com 12 13 ALSO PRESENT:

14 JONATHAN C. ESER, Law Clerk 15 KAREN HADDEN, SEED Coalition 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.co n

4 1 RO C E E D I NG S 2 10:03 a.m.

3 JUDGE SPRITZER: Let's go on the record, 4 Mr. Court Reporter, whenever you're ready.

5 COURT REPORTER: I'm ready, Your Honor.

6 We're on the record.

7 JUDGE SPRITZER: Good morning. We are 8 here this morning and my name is Ron Spritzer. I'm 9 Chairman of this Atomic Safety Licensing Board. We 10 are here this morning in the matter of STP Nuclear 11 Operating Company. This is the license renewal 12 application for the South Texas Project Units 1 and 2.

13 It is NRC Docket Nos. 50-498-LR and 50-499-LR. And 14 the ALSBP No. is II-909-02-LR-BD01.

15 And we are here this morning to hear oral 16 argument on standing and contention and admissibility.

17 We should have members of the public listening. They 18 are on phones, however, that don't allow them to 19 participate. Simply to listen in.

20 Let me begin by asking the other judges on 21 the Board to identify themselves.

22 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yes. I am Judge Nick 23 Trikouros.

24 JUDGE FOULKE: I am Judge Larry Foulke.

25 JUDGE SPRITZER: And let's go around again NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

5 1 and have the representatives. I think we can limit it 2 to those who will actually be participating in the 3 argument to identify themselves starting again with 4 the Petitioners.

5 MR. EYE: This is Robert Eye for the 6 Petitioners.

7 JUDGE SPRITZER: And for the NRC staff.

8 MS. JONES: This is Audrey Jones, NRC 9 staff.

10 JUDGE SPRITZER: And for the --

11 MS. JONES: With Richard Harper as well as 12 Maxwell Smith.

13 JUDGE SPRITZER: Okay. And for the 14 Applicant.

15 MR. FRANTZ: This is Steve Frantz. And I 16 have with me Stephen Burdick.

17 JUDGE SPRITZER: Okay. If you can when 18 you're not speaking it might be a good idea to mute 19 your phone at least if you might be chatting with the 20 person next to you or something like that.

21 In terms of the order of argument, we'll 22 start out with the Petitioners. As between the Staff 23 and the Applicant, I don't know if you -- You call can 24 choose among yourselves who wants to go second and who 25 wants to go third. We'll leave that up to you.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

6 1 I just violated my own rule just now. But 2 it would be helpful if everyone when they're speaking 3 before you start speaking try to remember to identify 4 yourself. I think that will make the Court Reporter's 5 job a good deal easier.

6 One thing I do need to mention before we 7 get started on the argument and that is the question 8 of certain information that was cited in the footnotes 9 in the amended petition filed by the SEED Coalition.

10 It's my understanding that some or all of this 11 information is information subject to a protective 12 order in another case, the Comanche Peak case. We 13 don't want to hear any discussion of the substance of 14 that information.

15 We will try and avoid asking questions 16 that would lead to an answer that involves disclosing 17 that protected information. If by some chance you 18 think an answer that you might give to a Board 19 question requires or would lead you into disclosing 20 that information you can simply say, "I'd like to 21 answer that, Your Honor, but that would require me to 22 get into protective information." And that will be 23 the end of it. So we want to be as careful as we can 24 to avoid disclosure of any protective information.

25 We haven't set time limits for the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

7 1 arguments. We have two hours which we think should be 2 more than enough for the issues here. So we'll just 3 get started. We will of course be asking questions.

4 Nobody is under any obligation, however, to talk for 5 longer than they feel is necessary. So we may well 6 finish ahead of schedule. That's no problem if we do.

7 Very well. Let's start with the 8 Petitioners. Mr. Eye.

9 MR. EYE: Your Honor, as a preliminary --

10 This is Robert Eye. As a preliminary matter having 11 consulted with our client and so forth in the interest 12 of not burdening this record any more than necessary, 13 the Petitioners would be amenable to withdrawing their 14 request for oral argument at this time and letting the 15 Board proceed on decision on the Petition based on the 16 record that's in place at this point.

17 JUDGE SPRITZER: Well, we have gone to 18 some trouble to assemble people here today. It would 19 have been nice if we'd known this a little earlier.

20 MR. EYE: I understand, Your Honor. I 21 apologize for that. But at any rate that's --

22 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. If we -- We 23 can't really make you talk if you don't want to talk.

24 We might have some questions for you though. Are you 25 prepared to answer questions from the Board.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

8 1 MR. EYE: I'll do my best, Your Honor.

2 JUDGE SPRITZER: I know you're new to the 3 case, at least, new since -- I assume your involvement 4 was since you entered or about the time you entered 5 your appearance. So if you're just not familiar 6 enough to answer questions I suppose we'll have to 7 live with that.

8 Staff or the Applicant, do you have any 9 response on this rather surprising development?

10 MR. FRANTZ: This is Steve Frantz for the 11 Applicant. As we indicated previously, we have no 12 objection if there's no oral argument. We're prepared 13 to rest on the written filings.

14 JUDGE SPRITZER: Very good. And Staff?

15 MS. JONES: And, Judge, we feel the same 16 way. The NRC Staff, we've made our feelings about 17 that known previously and we have no problem with the 18 Judge -- with the Panel deciding on the pleadings.

19 JUDGE SPRITZER: We may have a few 20 questions for both of you in any event. I assume you 21 don't mind answering them since you're here. And Mr.

22 Eye can respond to your answers and our questions if 23 he wants to. I think there's at least one or two 24 areas we'd like to cover with you.

25 MS. JONES: Okay.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

9 1 JUDGE SPRITZER: Now that we're here. I 2 guess we can just effectively turn this into a 3 question and answer session instead of a typical oral 4 argument if Petitioners don't have anything they want 5 to present.

6 Let us go, the Judges, confer among 7 ourselves for a minute. We're going to mute our phone 8 and hopefully be back with you in about a minute or 9 so. Off the record.

10 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

11 JUDGE SPRITZER: On the record. We have 12 a couple questions that we're going to ask of the 13 Staff and the Applicant and perhaps Mr. Eye as well.

14 Judge Trikouros.

15 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yes, I had one major 16 area that I wanted to explore with respect to 17 Contention 1. The contention basically indicates that 18 the -- is related to fires and explosions associated 19 with the 54(hh) (2) requirements. And, in other parts 20 of the contention, it specifically mentions the fire 21 protection system. So there's sort of a general 22 statement in the contention but then a more specific 23 reference to fire protection later in the contention, 24 the parts of the contention statement.

25 And the question that I have for the Staff NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

10 1 and the Applicant is as follows. Both of you in your 2 pleadings in your answer to the Petition mention that 3 the fire protection requirements that are referenced 4 in Appendix A, Section 1.12 are dealing with -- are 5 part of the current licensing basis of the plant.

6 And both of your answers go fairly deeply 7 into explaining why this LOLA requirement is part of 8 the current licensing basis. And you go on to say 9 that as such it's being covered under the normal 10 oversight program and therefore is not -- is out of 11 scope with respect to the License Renewal Rule Part 12 54.

13 Part 54, however, requires that the 14 current licensing basis or one of the objectives of 15 Part 54 is that the current licensing basis be assured 16 to be protected so to speak over the course of the 17 period of extended operation. So, therefore, a review 18 of the current licensing basis is part of Part 54.

19 And, as such, it seems to me that any structure, 20 systems or components that are included in the LOLA 21 area that might be subject to aging effects would be 22 in scope for license renewal.

23 Depending on how one reads the contention, 24 it's basically indicating that any review of LOLA 25 equipment, specifically fire protection, was not done NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

11 1 with respect to the aging effects in that array of 2 equipment. No mention is made of that array of 3 equipment in the license renewal application. I'd 4 like to hear what the Staff and the Applicant say 5 regarding that scope issue.

6 MR. FRANTZ: This is Steve Frantz for the 7 Applicant. Section A1.12 of our license renewal 8 application does address the fire protection 9 components and discusses aging management for those 10 components. The Interveners have not identified any 11 component that should be within the scope that we've 12 not addressed and also has not contested any of our 13 aging management for those fire protection components.

14 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Did the fire protection 15 components that were reviewed in the license renewal 16 application include components that would be required 17 to meet the objectives of 50.54(hh)?

18 MR. FRANTZ: I don't believe that there 19 are -- The kinds of fire protection components we're 20 talking about, for example, we're talking about 21 barriers and doors, concrete. Those types of 22 components are not unique to 50.54(hh) (2). They can 23 be used.

24 But then in general the kinds of 25 components you're talking about for 50.54(hh) (2) are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

12 1 either -- they're additional components that had been 2 established. And I hate to get into too much detail 3 because we're getting into protected areas here. But 4 they are additional components that had been 5 established that are more active components. They're 6 designed to provide additional water into the plant in 7 the event you have a loss of large areas of the plant.

8 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: But would you agree that 9 if there were any components associated with carrying 10 out the functions required under 50.54(hh) that they 11 would be subject to aging management?

12 MR. FRANTZ: Looking back at the scope of 13 Part 54 and the scope is in 50.54 that basically is 14 safety related systems. It is the capability to --

15 It's failure to prevent accomplishment of a safety 16 related function. It is systems specified that meet 17 particular regulations including 50.48 which is the 18 fire protection system and a number of other systems.

19 But if you look at 54.4, 54(hh) (2) is not 20 listed there. And so those would not be specifically 21 within the scope of license renewal.

22 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: But your pleadings 23 clearly explain why 50.54(hh) is considered part of 24 the current licensing basis. You know you say things 25 like Part 50 and any licensed conditions are in fact NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

13 1 part of the current licensing basis and then both of 2 your, both Staff and the Applicant, go on I believe to 3 talk about how all plants are subject to license 4 conditions associated with 50.54(hh). So it's clear 5 that 50.54(hh) is covered under the current licensing 6 basis of the plant.

7 MR. FRANTZ: Yes, but not everything 8 within the current licensing basis is within the scope 9 of license renewal. For example, active components 10 are certainly not within the scope of license renewal 11 and they're screened out.

12 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I understand. But 13 wouldn't one have to look at all components associated 14 with 50.54(hh) and determine which were active, which 15 were passive and then evaluate whether or not the 16 passive components should fall under the aging 17 management program?

18 MR. FRANTZ: There are two types of 19 screening. One is to screen out active and passive.

20 The other is to screen out systems which are not 21 within the scope of 54.4. And the systems that we've 22 discussed under 50.54(hh) (2) are not among those 23 listed in 54.4. So those can be screened out.

24 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Does the Staff agree 25 with that?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

14 1 MR. HARPER: Your Honor, this is Richard 2 Harper for the Staff. We do agree with that.

3 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: So no components under 4 50.54(hh) even if they are subject to aging effects 5 should be evaluated under the license renewal 6 application.

7 MR. HARPER: We don't know of any based on 8 the contention that the Petitioner listed.

9 JUDGE SPRITZER: Forget about what the 10 Petitioners may have listed. Do you know of any at 11 all? This was Judge Spritzer by the way.

12 MR. HARPER: No, Your Honor. Staff isn't 13 aware of any at all.

14 MR. FRANTZ: This is Steve Frantz again.

15 Maybe if I can just clarify. You know, there are some 16 systems and components that have a dual function.

17 They can be used both for 50.54(hh) (2) and then for 18 other purposes. And to the extent that they may be 19 covered for other purposes then they are covered 20 obviously but not because of the 50.54(hh) (2) by 21 itself.

22 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: So you're saying it is 23 specifically excluded.

24 MR. FRANTZ: I'm saying the 54.4 25 identifies specifically what is within scope of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

15 1 license renewal and it is sections like 50.48, 50.49, 2 50.61, 50.62, 50.63. 50.54(hh) (2) is not among those 3 listed in Section 54.4(a) (3). And therefore because 4 it's not one of the listed sections it's not within 5 the scope of license renewal.

6 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: But I mean Part 50 is 7 and there's no distinction made that said parts of 8 Part 50 or.

9 MR. FRANTZ: I guess I have to disagree.

10 Not everything within Part 50 is within the scope of 11 license renewal.

12 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: And can you reference me 13 to a regulation that excludes Part 50.54(hh)?

14 MR. FRANTZ: I'm saying it's not excluded 15 specifically, but it's not included. And only those 16 which are included are within the scope of license 17 renewal. And again all I can do is refer you to 10 18 CFR Section 54.4 which states what is within the 19 scope. It does not identify what's outside the scope.

20 And implicitly anything that's not listed here is 21 outside of scope.

22 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. So we should 23 be looking at 10 CFR -- This is Judge Spritzer again -

24 - 54.4 to see what's included and your position is 25 that if it's not on the list it's implicitly excluded.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

16 1 MR. FRANTZ: That's correct.

2 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right.

3 MR. HARPER: Your Honor, this is Richard 4 Harper for the Staff. Part 54, Section 30 5 specifically states that licensee's compliance of the 6 obligations under paragraph A of this section to take 7 measures under its current license is not within the 8 scope of the license renewal, pardon me, renewal 9 review and therefore states that it is outside the 10 scope of licensing renewal proceeding.

11 JUDGE SPRITZER: What section -- This is 12 Judge Spritzer -- What section was that again?

13 MR. HARPER: Section 54.30.

14 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: This is Judge Trikouros 15 again. Could you repeat what you said about Section 16 54.30?

17 MR. HARPER: Yes. Section -- I apologize.

18 Section 54.30 lists that the matters not subject to a 19 renewal review. And under this, under Subsection B, 20 it says, "The licensee's compliance with the 21 obligation under paragraph A of this section to take 22 measures under its current license is not within the 23 scope of the license renewal review."

24 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. We will look 25 into that.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com

17 1 Mr. Eye, do you have -- This is Judge 2 Trikouros again -- any comments on this?

3 MR. EYE: Your Honor, to the extent that 4 54.30 is construed to exclude the requirements under 5 50.54(hh) it would require that the responses to loss 6 of large areas accidents are sort of outside what we 7 would expect to be subject to an aging analysis. And 8 what the Staff and Applicant have stated on the record 9 today is that there apparently aren't any components 10 that fall within the responses to LOLA scenarios that 11 are subject to aging analysis.

12 To a certain extent, the Petitioners are 13 in a situation where I guess there is some deference 14 that has to be allowed to the Staff and Applicant to 15 the extent that they're making responses based on what 16 their understandings are. But it would seem to 17 Petitioners that this is a more dynamic analysis in 18 terms of what's required to response to LOLA scenarios 19 than the more fixed or static view that the Staff and 20 Applicant have taken.

21 So it's frankly unfortunate given what we 22 now know about LOLA responses and so forth and what 23 may be required under various extreme accident 24 scenarios that the drafter of the relicensing 25 regulations didn't broaden that somewhat. But we are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

18 1 essentially -- We have the scope that's in place. And 2 to the extent that these fires and explosions 3 regulations fall inside or outside of it it's really 4 dependent on what the drafters intended.

5 As Mr. Frantz points out, the laundry list 6 of things in 54.4 seems to set the bounds for what is 7 permitted in a relicensing consideration. But again 8 to the Petitioners it would seem that these fire 9 response/accident response capacities and capabilities 10 to the extent that they require components that are 11 able to perform as needed, when needed, should be 12 considered as part of that aging analysis. Again 13 Staff and Applicant have said that there aren't any 14 such components and except the dual use function as 15 Mr. Frantz pointed out that presumably would be 16 subject to an aging analysis. So that's our view.

17 JUDGE SPRITZER: We're going to put the 18 phone here on mute for just a second. We'll be back 19 with you in about 30 seconds. Off the record.

20 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

21 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. This is Judge 22 Spritzer. We're back on the record.

23 Judge Foulke.

24 JUDGE FOULKE: This is Judge Foulke. I 25 don't have the code in front of me. So I've not been NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

19 1 able to follow the 54.30 and the 54.4 arguments. But 2 my simple question is are emergency fire pumps subject 3 to aging analysis.

4 MR. FRANTZ: This is Steve Frantz. Active 5 components are not subject to Part 54. They're 6 screened out. And pumps would be included in that 7 category.

8 MR. HARPER: This is Richard Harper for 9 the Staff. We agree with that that they're not 10 included.

11 JUDGE FOULKE: But piping components are 12 not subject to aging analysis?

13 MR. FRANTZ: Piping would be included.

14 Piping is if the system is in scope. Yes.

15 JUDGE SPRITZER: Is that -- This is Judge 16 Spritzer. Is that based on the distinction between 17 active and passive systems?

18 MR. FRANTZ: That's correct.

19 JUDGE SPRITZER: Okay. And how do we know 20 21 MR. FRANTZ: Or maybe not systems. Active 22 and passive components.

23 JUDGE SPRITZER: Components, all right.

24 So a pump is active and a pipe that the water is 25 pumped through is passive.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

20 1 MR. FRANTZ: That's correct.

2 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right.

3 Would it be helpful -- This is somewhat of 4 a new area and I don't think this was covered in any 5 real detail in the briefs. Maybe if we put out a one 6 paragraph order saying we'd like the parties to 7 address the following issue and have short, no longer 8 than ten pages maximum responses.

9 I think that would be helpful for us. So 10 unless anybody has a violent objection to that, I 11 think that's what we're going to do. Anybody have any 12 thoughts on that?

13 MR. EYE: Petitioners don't object to 14 that, Your Honor.

15 MR. FRANTZ: Is there something we cannot 16 handle through oral argument this morning?

17 JUDGE SPRITZER: I think it would be 18 helpful for us to see a brief written response and we 19 may formulate little more specific questions than what 20 we've gotten today.

21 MR. FRANTZ: If that's the Board's desire, 22 you'll obviously support that.

23 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. Well, let's 24 do this. We'll confer among ourselves. We were 25 expecting that this argument was going to go a little NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

21 1 differently than it did. And if we're going to issue 2 something, we'll do it by the end of this week. If 3 we're not we'll just go ahead and decide based on what 4 we have here.

5 MR. FRANTZ: This is Steve Frantz. There 6 are a number of other objections we've raised to these 7 contentions including the fact that there is no 8 factual support for the contentions, that they haven't 9 disputed really what we have in the application. So 10 I think all of those arguments also indicate 11 regardless of how the Board might want to rule on this 12 particular issue that the contention should be 13 dismissed.

14 JUDGE SPRITZER: All right. We're not 15 discounting any of your other arguments. We'll 16 consider all of them.

17 Anything further from the Staff?

18 MS. JONES: No, Your Honor.

19 JUDGE SPRITZER: Anybody else have 20 anything else? This is Ron Spritzer again. Does 21 anybody have anything further they want to bring up 22 this morning that we could resolve?

23 (No verbal response.)

24 All right. Hearing no further response, 25 I think we're done. We'll go off the record.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

22 1 (Whereupon, at 10:33 a.m., the above-2 referenced matter was concluded.)

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of: South Texas, Unit 1 & 2 Name of Proceeding: License Renewal:

Conference Docket Number: 50-486-LR and 05-499-LR ASLBP Number 11-909-02-LR-BDO0 Location: (teleconference) were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.

Tobias Walter Official Reporter Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com