ML14080A113
| ML14080A113 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/21/2014 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-275-LR, 50-323-LR, ASLBP 10-900-01-LR-BD01, RAS 25710 | |
| Download: ML14080A113 (31) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2: Pre-Hearing Conference Docket Number: 50-275-LR and 50-323-LR ALSBP Number: 10-900-01-LR-BD01 Location: teleconference Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Work Order No.: NRC-664 Pages 630-659 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
630 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5 + + + + +
6 PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE CALL 7 ----------------------x 8 In the Matter of: : Docket Nos.
9 PACIFIC GAS & : 50-275-LR 10 ELECTRIC COMPANY : 50-323-LR 11 (Diablo Canyon Nuclear: ASLBP No.
12 Power Plant, Units 1 : 10-900-01-LR-BD01 13 and 2) :
14 ----------------------x 15 Wednesday, March 19, 2014 16 17 Teleconference 18 19 BEFORE:
20 ALEX S. KARLIN, Chair 21 NICHOLAS G. TRIKOUROS, Administrative Judge 22 DR. PAUL B. ABRAMSON, Administrative Judge 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
631 1 APPEARANCES:
2 3 Counsel for the Applicant 4 DAVID REPKA, ESQ.
5 TYSON R. SMITH, ESQ.
6 of: Winston & Strawn, LLP 7 1700 K Street, NW 8 Washington, DC 20006-3817 9 202-282-5726 10 11 JENNIFER K. POST, ESQ.
12 of: Pacific Gas and Electric Company 13 77 Beale Street, B30A 14 San Francisco, CA 94105 15 415-973-9809 16 17 18 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19 SUSAN UTTAL, ESQ.
20 CATHERINE KANATAS, ESQ.
21 of: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22 Office of the General Counsel 23 Mail Stop O-15D21 24 Washington, DC 20555-0001 25 301-415-4126 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
632 1 On Behalf of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace 2 DIANE CURRAN, ESQ.
3 of: Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, and Eisenberg 4 1726 M Street, N.W.
5 Suite 600 6 Washington, DC 20036 7 202-328-3500 8
9 Also Present 10 ONIKA WILLIAMS, Law Clerk 11 TWANA ELLIS, Program Analyst 12 ELAINE KEEGAN, Project Manager 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
633 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 1:34 p.m.
3 JUDGE KARLIN: All right. We are on the 4 record, and the operator has, I believe, opened the 5 lines to members of the public who are in a listen-6 only mode. And I understand that there may be several 7 of them, and perhaps someone from the media.
8 This is a pre-hearing conference call in 9 the matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Companys 10 application to renew its licenses for the two nuclear 11 reactors located in San Luis Obispo, California. The 12 docket number of this case for the record is 50-275-LR 13 and 50-323-LR, and the ASLBP number is 10-900-01-LR-14 BD01.
15 This pre-hearing conference call is being 16 held pursuant that we -- or a notice, actually, that 17 we issued on February 5th of this year. And todays 18 date is March 19th, 2014.
19 First, Im going to just go into the 20 introductions of the Board and then the parties can 21 introduce themselves. For the Board theres me, Alex 22 Karlin, and we also have Nick Trikouros, Judge 23 Trikouros whos here in the room with me in Rockville, 24 Maryland, and Dr. Paul Abramson is on the line and 25 participating telephonically.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
634 1 Judge Abramson, are you there?
2 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I am, indeed.
3 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay, great. We also have 4 Onika Williams with us in the conference room here.
5 She is a lawyer and law clerk working on this case, 6 and Twana Ellis is our administrative assistant and is 7 handling all the administrative issues here.
8 With that, Id like to ask the parties to 9 introduce themselves, the representatives of the 10 parties. May we start with Ms. Curran for San Luis 11 Obispo Mothers for Peace.
12 MS. CURRAN: Good afternoon. My name is 13 Diane Curran with the firm of Harmon, Curran, 14 Spielberg and Eisenberg, and I represent the San Luis 15 Obispo Mothers for Peace.
16 JUDGE KARLIN: Great. Thank you, Ms.
17 Curran. Mr. Repka for Pacific Gas and Electric 18 Company, could you introduce yourself and your team?
19 MR. REPKA: Yes, Judge Karlin. This is 20 David Repka. Im with the law firm of Winston and 21 Strawn based in Washington, D.C., and I represent 22 Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Also on the call are 23 my partner at Winston and Strawn in San Francisco, 24 Tyson Smith, and also Jennifer Post from Pacific Gas 25 and Electric Company. And Ill let each of those just NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
635 1 acknowledge that theyre there so we know we have 2 them.
3 MS. POST: Yes, hello. This is Jennifer 4 Post for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, in-house 5 law department.
6 JUDGE KARLIN: Welcome.
7 MS. POST: Thank you.
8 JUDGE KARLIN: Mr. Smith, are you there?
9 MR. SMITH: Yes, Tyson Smith is here.
10 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay, great. Now, I think 11 well turn to the Staff. Ms. Uttal, maybe you could 12 introduce the Staff participants today.
13 MS. UTTAL: Yes. This is Susan Uttal 14 representing the Staff. With me is Catherine Kanatas, 15 also a member of OGC, and Elaine Keegan who is Project 16 Manager.
17 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay, welcome. All right.
18 Im not going to go into the very long background of 19 this case. Weve been pending for a few years. I guess 20 we first admitted some Contentions in August of 2010, 21 and at this point theres one Contention, EC1 Ill 22 just call it, that is still pending and that survives.
23 I believe theres also a Waste Confidence Rule-related 24 Contention thats being held -- thats been held in 25 abeyance without being admitted or denied, either way.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
636 1 But, in any event, our last status conference call was 2 September 19th, 2012, so when we originally started 3 this case we thought wed have status conferences 4 about every six months. Actually, our last status 5 conference was exactly 18 months ago, so we missed 6 that, but I think it appears to have been relatively 7 quiet vis a vis the adjudicatory process at any rate.
8 But we did think it was the appropriate time at this 9 moment to have a pre-hearing status conference.
10 Now, the purpose of this call, this 11 conference is to -- case management, to try to manage 12 this case as efficiently, and proactively, and fairly 13 as we can. Weve been in a waiting mode for a goodly 14 amount of time because, as I understand it, Pacific 15 Gas and Electric has been working on their seismic 16 study and report, and theyve been giving us monthly 17 reports on that. Meanwhile, the Staff will be working 18 on its Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 19 Statement and safety analyses, as well. So, in 20 preparation for the hearing we want to sort of focus 21 on some critical path items that would help us handle 22 this efficiently.
23 We have as an agenda thoughts for this 24 call just a few things. First, item on the agenda 25 would be to ask PG&E to just review and confirm its NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
637 1 schedule as you reported to us most recently on March 2 11th of this year. And then also to turn to the Staff 3 -- second agenda item to ask the Staff to confirm and 4 adjust their schedule. Third is to talk about 5 something we think would help in the management of 6 this case which is the management of dispositive 7 motions and new contentions that may arise from the 8 seismic report and the DEIS that are coming down the 9 pike in the next six to nine months. So, thats one 10 thing we do want to talk about.
11 This is, obviously, not the place or time 12 for any of the parties to argue about the February 13 27th, 2014 petition to suspend the proceeding that Ms.
14 Curran filed in this case, and that was filed in other 15 cases. Thats, as I understand it, pending before the 16 Commissioners, and it is not something that this Board 17 will be focusing on, certainly not today, anyway.
18 Is there anything else that any of the 19 other -- any of the parties have, or would suggest, or 20 think we need to talk -- add to the agenda here today?
21 (No response.)
22 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay, I hear none. Is there 23 anything else from Judge Trikouros or Judge Abramson?
24 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: No.
25 JUDGE ABRAMSON: No.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
638 1 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay, fine. Then lets go 2 with that. Item number one, Mr. Repka, perhaps you 3 could just review with us the schedule. PG&E reported 4 on March 11th that you expect to submit the final 5 seismic study report in June of 2004, 14, Im sorry.
6 I presume thats still a good estimate.
7 MR. REPKA: This is Mr. Repka. That is 8 still the schedule.
9 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. Can you tell us what 10 function do you expect the seismic report to serve? Is 11 it going to be something that is in the nature of a 12 supplement to the Environmental Report, is it in the 13 nature of a supplement to the Final Safety Analysis 14 Report, is it a safety document, environmental 15 document, both, neither? Youre going to submit it to 16 NRC. What function, or why are you doing that?
17 MR. REPKA: Well, let me start by saying 18 that it is not something thats directly linked to 19 license renewal. Its something that the company is 20 doing to respond to some California legislation to 21 conduct the seismic studies. And the decision to defer 22 license renewal pending the outcome of the studies was 23 a voluntary one. Theres not under NRC rules 24 necessarily a link.
25 I think subsequent to all of that, 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
639 1 course, weve had the NRCs requirements on seismic 2 hazard analyses post-Fukushima, and I think that 3 primarily the report responds to the California 4 legislation, number one. And number two, is something 5 that will be used and incorporated into the companys 6 response to the 5054(f) for seismic hazard analysis 7 post-Fukushima; which, again, is an ongoing safety 8 analysis that the NRC has required as a current 9 licensing basis, current operational issue. So, I 10 think that that information will, ultimately, be 11 incorporated into that effort.
12 In terms of does it have an environmental 13 characteristic, I think I would defer to the NRC Staff 14 as to how they would -- if at all they would use that 15 information as part of their environmental review of 16 license renewal and incorporate it into the Draft 17 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on license 18 renewal.
19 Certainly, thats something that the 20 company, once the report is submitted, would be 21 prepared to discuss with the NRC Staff, and really 22 discuss the completely separate issue as to license 23 renewal, the license renewal review, and when that 24 will be restarted, and what might be required from the 25 company or 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
640 1 So, I know thats a long answer but its 2 not directly linked to either the safety or the 3 environmental review. At this point I think its 4 really best described as part of an ongoing effort 5 that will be incorporated into the post-Fukushima 6 5054(f) response.
7 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay, thank you. Well, I 8 think that covers that item. We can just turn to the 9 Staff at this point, if I could, Ms. Uttal, to tell 10 us. Your last status report was February 20th, and I 11 guess one is due -- the next one is due tomorrow, but 12 your reports indicate the Draft EIS is likely to come 13 out in September of this year?
14 MS. UTTAL: Yes.
15 JUDGE KARLIN: And the final in April of 16 2015?
17 MS. UTTAL: As far as I know, nothing has 18 changed.
19 JUDGE KARLIN: No change on that. And the 20 FSER is the same, April of 2015. Right?
21 MS. UTTAL: Yes.
22 JUDGE KARLIN: Right. What does the Staff 23 -- can you address the question I asked Mr. Repka, 24 which is does the Staff see the seismic report as 25 safety -- were going to take that into consideration NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
641 1 for safety issues, or for environmental issues, or for 2 both, or for neither, or what?
3 MS. UTTAL: I dont know if I have an 4 answer to that question. I think the Staff anticipates 5 seeing what comes out of it and probably -- and thats 6 why theyre holding up on the DSEIS just to make sure, 7 to see if theres something that relevant to the 8 environmental in that report, to make sure that the 9 report is complete when they publish it.
10 JUDGE KARLIN: Right. That seemed to be 11 what was at least part of the thinking because, as 12 your reports would indicate, your issuance of the 13 Draft Environmental Impact Statement has always been 14 sort of connected to the Applicants submission of its 15 seismic report, so there may be a relationship there.
16 MS. UTTAL: Right. And the same would go on 17 the safety side. If theres something there that 18 necessitates updating something on the safety side, 19 then the Staff would have to decide whether to do a 20 supplemental SER.
21 JUDGE KARLIN: Right. Right. Okay. All 22 right, thats helpful. And I think thats kind of what 23 we thought and expected. And let us now turn to the 24 third item on the agenda, which is really our desire 25 to manage the filings that are going to be associated, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
642 1 may be associated I hasten to say, with either the 2 PG&E seismic report or the NRC Draft Supplemental 3 Environmental Impact Statement. I mean, the seismic 4 report is due lets just say, or is expected in June 5 of this year. The DEIS is expected in September of 6 this year. I mean, those dates may not be perfect but 7 theyre a best estimate at the moment.
8 Now, heres what were concerned about. In 9 a typical scenario, especially with regard to 10 environmental matters, what we sometimes see is a two-11 round -- going through two iterations of pleadings and 12 litigation. The first round might come when the 13 seismic report is issued in September -- in June of 14 this year, and that could trigger the Intervenor 15 attempting to file new contentions based upon some 16 alleged inadequacies in the environmental portion of 17 the seismic report, and the Applicant or licensee 18 filing Summary Disposition Motions or Motions to 19 Dismiss based upon the contents of the seismic report, 20 and everyone filing answers, and then perhaps even 21 replies with regard to the new contentions, proposed 22 new contentions, and the Board issuing a decision. And 23 the Board ends up issuing a decision on all those 24 things probably around September of 2014, at which 25 moment the DEIS comes out and we go through the whole NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
643 1 thing again with regard to environmental contentions.
2 And new contentions may be filed, Motions to Dismiss 3 may be filed, briefed, and then again decided, and we 4 think that thats kind of a waste of time and money 5 for everyone, for PG&E, for the Intervenors, for the 6 Staff, for this Board. So, we want to just make it one 7 iteration. And we plan to issue a short order, maybe 8 a couple of pages max that would revise the Revised 9 Scheduling Order. The RSO was issued on November 19th, 10 2012, and we want to revise that to provide all -- to 11 reduce the wastage in the litigation in the next nine 12 months. So, heres what well probably do, and we want 13 -- well let you talk about this, let you know were 14 going to do this, and hear you out if you have any 15 concerns.
16 On the environmental side we will amend 17 the RSO,Section II(f)(2). Were going to amend the 18 promptness deadlines for filing of any new or amended 19 contentions, environmental contentions based on any 20 allegedly new information in PG&Es seismic report.
21 And the deadline for filing new or amended contentions 22 based on new information in PG&Es seismic report will 23 be 30 days after the Draft Supplemental Environmental 24 Impact Statement is issued.
25 Likewise, were going to amend the Revised NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
644 1 Scheduling Order Section II(i)(2), the promptness 2 deadline for filing any dispositive motions based on 3 PG&Es seismic report. And that deadline will be 30 4 days after the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 5 Statement is issued. So, were moving both of those 6 deadlines to 30 days after the Draft Supplemental 7 Environmental Statement is issued by the NRC. And by 8 that we hope to avoid a double filing. We dont need 9 to see those motions filed in June or July, and then 10 simply to be repeated or mooted out in lets say 11 October, so theres going to be one deadline and its 12 30 days after the DEIS. And thats in the 13 environmental context. And the reason thats in the 14 environmental context is because we anticipate, as 15 normal, the Staff will issue a Draft Environmental 16 Impact Statement.
17 On the non-environmental side, safety side 18 were not going to change the promptness deadlines set 19 forth in the Revised Scheduling Order. The rationale 20 is the environmental side, to the extent PG&Es 21 seismic report is an environmental document, as a 22 legal matter it will essentially be trumped and mooted 23 by the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 24 Statement. So, lets just focus on the Draft 25 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
645 1 If youve got complaints about the --
2 environmental complaints about the seismic report, 3 fine, file a contention, but file that contention 30 4 days after the Draft SEIS is out.
5 But on the safety side, theres not going 6 to be a Draft SEIS, so if youve got complaints about 7 the seismic report, the same old deadlines are going 8 to apply, and I guess your safety contentions, if any, 9 would need to be filed 30 days after the seismic 10 report becomes available if theres new information in 11 that report which warrants such new contentions.
12 Do we have any -- I think thats just an 13 efficient way to handle this. I know just hitting you 14 with this, you know, sort of cold, but are there any 15 suggestions or comments? Mr. Repka, do you have any 16 concerns about that approach?
17 MR. REPKA: I do not. Obviously, I have not 18 consulted with my colleagues, but I would say that I 19 dont have any objection to that approach.
20 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. Well, its certainly 21 subject to your need to consult with Ms. Post, and 22 your clients, and your colleagues, but okay, thats 23 just an initial reaction. Ill take it as such, we can 24 take it as such.
25 NRC Staff, any concerns, issues with 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
646 1 approach? Comments?
2 MS. UTTAL: I personally have no concerns, 3 but I havent consulted with my management.
4 JUDGE KARLIN: Right. Okay. And, Ms.
5 Curran, anything from the Intervenor on this approach?
6 MS. CURRAN: Yes, Judge Karlin, thank you.
7 This makes a lot of sense to us, and we appreciate the 8 increased efficiency of doing a process this way, 9 because it really does help us to conserve our 10 resources and focus on whats important. Thank you.
11 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. Well, thats what our 12 intent is, and I hope that will be a benefit both to 13 the Intervenor and to Pacific Gas and Electric, Ms.
14 Post, and her legal budget that she has.
15 Okay. We also may end up needing to modify 16 one other provision in the Revised Scheduling Order, 17 and that is we have in that, and were going to keep 18 in that a deadline, an ultimate deadline for the 19 filing of any and all dispositive motions, Motions for 20 Summary Disposition, Motions to Dismiss, et cetera.
21 And in the Revised Scheduling Order,Section II(i)(5),
22 the ultimate deadline for all dispositive motions is 23 now set at 30 days after the issuance of the Draft 24 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
25 The original logic of that was we dont NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
647 1 want Motions for Summary Disposition being filed after 2 the FEIS comes out. Any Motions for Summary 3 Disposition should be filed and disposed of before the 4 FEIS comes out, but maybe 30 days after the Draft SEIS 5 is a little too early, so we may end up adjusting that 6 and postponing that deadline a little bit to give 7 everyone a little bit more time.
8 Probably what well do, well think about 9 doing at any rate, is have an ultimate deadline for 10 any Motion for Summary Disposition on any new 11 contentions that are filed or admitted would be 30 12 days after those new contentions are admitted, if you 13 follow, at least in the environmental side. So were 14 going to focus on that, so the order will reflect the 15 change, probably reflect a change in that deadline, as 16 well.
17 MS. CURRAN: Judge Karlin, this is Diane 18 Curran.
19 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes?
20 MS. CURRAN: I have a question about the 21 deadline for Summary Disposition being after the Draft 22 SEIS. Theoretically, theres a comment period after a 23 Draft EIS comes out, and members of the public put in 24 comments, and the Staff may change its mind after 25 receiving public comment on different issues. And 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
648 1 guess I hate to see, and I think there would be a 2 problem with NEPA short-circuiting that process.
3 I know that the NRC has a basic policy 4 that once the NRC Staff comes to a final position, 5 that its not necessary to have the final document in 6 hand, but I would just urge you to set a schedule in 7 a way that the process of taking comment, considering 8 comment can work.
9 You know, for the Mothers for Peace, I 10 know that when the Draft SEIS comes out, were going 11 to be doing a couple of things. Were going to be 12 looking at whether we have new contentions to file, 13 and were also going to be preparing comments. And 14 wed like to have sufficient time to do that.
15 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. Does anyone else have 16 any thoughts or comments on that?
17 MR. REPKA: This is Dave Repka for PG&E. I 18 would say that the 30 days to file after the DSEIS to 19 file the dispositive motions, I dont think that will 20 short-circuit the NEPA comment period, and I think 21 thats a little bit of an overstatement.
22 I dont have any objection if we want to 23 make that a little -- that period for filing the 24 motion a little longer than 30 days, but if the 25 Mothers for Peace have an objection to something 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
649 1 the Draft Environmental Impact Statement they 2 certainly can (a) make the comment through the NEPA 3 process on the draft; and (b), if it relates to the 4 contention thats subject to a dispositive motion, 5 will still have the opportunity to respond to the 6 dispositive motion and raise that same objection. And 7 I think that from a time period, if the motion is 8 filed 30 days or 45 days after the Draft Environmental 9 Impact Statement comes out, and then theres another 10 period of time to respond to that, you know, youre 11 looking at over, at least over two months to marshal 12 resources, make comments on the draft, and prepare our 13 response to the specific issue being addressed in the 14 Summary Disposition Motion. So, I dont see the short-15 circuit, but I do think that if you wanted to add a 16 little bit more time into that, I wouldnt have any 17 objection to that.
18 JUDGE KARLIN: All right. Ms. Uttal, the 19 Staff, any thoughts or suggestions?
20 MS. UTTAL: No, I have nothing to add.
21 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay.
22 MS. CURRAN: Judge Karlin, this is Diane 23 Curran. I just want to clarify that we are going to be 24 potentially commenting on more than the issues weve 25 raised in litigation in the Draft EIS. And, you know, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
650 1 this is a pretty major juncture in NRC licensing 2 proceeding, the issuance of a Draft EIS and, you know, 3 maybe people are tired at this point because the case 4 has gone on for a long time, but thats really not 5 Mothers for Peaces fault. And we want to make sure 6 that weve given adequate time to participate in the 7 way that NEPA envisions in this NEPA process. And that 8 includes litigation on contested issues, but it also 9 includes commenting on a whole range of issues that 10 are raised by a Draft EIS.
11 JUDGE KARLIN: Right. Right. Well, okay, I 12 guess we can -- well have to take that into 13 consideration and try to figure out --
14 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Karlin.
15 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes?
16 JUDGE ABRAMSON: This is Judge Abramson.
17 Ms. Curran, let me just get clear that we dont have 18 any interest at all in curtailing your rights, or your 19 ability, or your efforts to comment on the DSEIS under 20 NEPA. What we are trying to do is to get a handle on 21 Motions for Summary Disposition because, generally, 22 they dont serve a lot of purpose in our hearings, so 23 were not going to do it in a way to affect your 24 efforts.
25 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes, I think -- I agree 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
651 1 that, and the idea is the Draft SEIS will come out 2 when it comes out, lets say September 30th of 2014.
3 The Intervenors, the public, members of the public 4 will have an opportunity, obviously, to comment and 5 file comments with the NRC in the normal licensing 6 process, and we dont want to interfere with that, but 7 certainly you want to do that.
8 At the same time, you may think, decide 9 that there is something in the Draft EIS that is 10 inadequate in some way. If you want to file new 11 contentions based upon the inadequacies of new 12 information in the Draft EIS, certainly you, the 13 Mothers for Peace, are entitled to do so. And under 14 our current Scheduling Order, those need to be filed 15 within 30 days of the Draft Supplemental Environmental 16 Impact Statement coming out. So, the current schedule 17 is you can file new contentions.
18 Theres no -- thats a promptness 19 deadline. Theres no ultimate deadline on new 20 contentions. You can file new contentions at any time 21 after the DEIS, after the FEIS, et cetera, et cetera, 22 so were not going to inhibit your right to file new 23 contentions if some genuinely new information comes 24 out that you find, your clients find problematic, or 25 not in compliance with the law.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
652 1 We are, I think, going to try to handle 2 this in a similar way to what we tried to do in the 3 Progress Levy case, if you will remember, in that we 4 tried to use the migration tenet, and we may end up 5 trying to manage this case so that you dont have to 6 file new contentions when the FEIS comes out that 7 precisely duplicates your contentions on the Draft 8 EIS. Thats just a whole other second layer of waste 9 of time. And we will address that later in this 10 process six, eight months from now. But, in any event, 11 were trying to do a somewhat similar thing here, so 12 Motions for Summary Disposition will be cut off at 13 some point before the FEIS so that it does not 14 interfere with us getting to our evidentiary hearing 15 promptly after the FEIS is issued. If you file new 16 contentions based on the FEIS that are genuinely new, 17 so be it. File them, and we will take a look at them 18 at that point.
19 MS. CURRAN: Judge Karlin, this is Diane 20 Curran. I understand what youre saying, and I had not 21 been thinking that we needed to amend contentions to 22 say the same thing. If the Final EIS is the same as 23 the Draft EIS, wed just go with whatever we have. But 24 I still am -- I guess Im kind of puzzled by the idea 25 that the Staff after the Draft EIS comes out 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
653 1 before it has received our has time to review comments 2 on the Draft EIS, if the Staff would be in a position 3 to take an ultimate position on a contention. To me, 4 that kind of undermines -- it definitely undermines 5 NEPA. The idea is that the Agency is going to keep its 6 mind open until it had an opportunity to review all 7 the comments on an EIS. So, Im just -- Im a little 8 -- Im concerned about whether the Summary Disposition 9 process can really be carried out in a fair way before 10 the Final EIS comes out.
11 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. Well, I guess we will 12 take that under consideration. I guess I see what 13 youre seeing in that if we force the Staff to file a 14 Motion for Summary Disposition on -- well, youll have 15 to have an admitted contention that they then 16 challenge. And weve got to think about that a little 17 bit because right now youve got one admitted 18 contention. That contention is the ER is inadequate 19 because X, lets say.
20 Well, when the DEIS comes out, I think 21 most people on the line would probably say contention 22 challenge on the ER is probably moot, and you now have 23 to turn to whether the DEIS is adequate or not. So, 24 there probably will be -- the only motion for Summary 25 Disposition that might come in is to say the original NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
654 1 Contention EC1 is moot, and thats the only thing that 2 will happen. Other Motions for Summary Disposition 3 with regard to any newly admitted contentions will 4 probably not be available until the new contentions 5 are admitted, which will be significantly later in the 6 process.
7 MS. CURRAN: What if -- this is Diane 8 Curran, again. What if the DEIS says exactly the same 9 thing as the Environmental Report, and what if a 10 number of groups, the number of experts write in 11 comments to the NRC to say we think you really made a 12 mistake, how does that get considered if the Staff is 13 being asked to take the final, its final position on 14 Summary Disposition? Im not saying thats going to 15 happen, Im just saying thats what the process, I 16 think, tries to make room for.
17 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Ms. Curran, this is Judge 18 Abramson. We understand your point. Were not going to 19 let that happen.
20 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes, I agree. Okay. I think 21 thats -- I think we understand the concerns. Well 22 try to address them. Our goal here is to avoid 23 unnecessary iterations of the same contention, or the 24 same Motions for Summary Disposition, so we will issue 25 a short order which revises the deadlines as weve NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
655 1 discussed. Well try to think about the issues that 2 Ms. Curran has raised and see what we can do.
3 I mean, one thing to keep in mind, if the 4 Draft EIS comes out and it is identical with regard to 5 the ER -- I mean, the one admitted contention in this 6 case is that the ER is inadequate because it fails to 7 adequately take into consideration or perform the 3D 8 seismic study that needs to be done vis a vis, and 9 should be done, and that should be included in the ER.
10 Thats an attempt to synopsize that one.
11 I think that given whats coming down the 12 pike in the next six months, that contention is not 13 likely to survive exactly in tact. There will be a 14 reported submitted, it may not be a 3D one, there will 15 be a Draft EIS that comes out, and I think it would be 16 strange to conceive by -- Im not going to say any 17 more, but I think there will be Motions for Summary 18 Disposition filed with regard to EC1. And I think 19 there may be new contentions filed. I dont know. Its 20 up to you, its up to the parties.
21 Anything from Judge Trikouros?
22 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Well, Ms. Curran, this is 23 Judge Trikouros. I think you also need to consider the 24 fact that once you start moving 30 days beyond the 25 FSEIS, youre starting to move into hearing territory NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
656 1 and, you know, Motions for Summary Disposition really 2 dont have a lot of value, in my opinion, at that 3 point when were fairly close to a hearing.
4 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay. With that, I think 5 unless someone has anything thats essential or come 6 up, were going to adjourn the meeting, and appreciate 7 your attention. I think we will issue in the next 8 week, or five days, or so a short order. And I do 9 believe that we will probably be needing to have 10 another pre-hearing conference call sometime perhaps 11 after the -- in six months, or after the DEIS is 12 issued to plan further activities in this case. Judge 13 Trikouros?
14 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yes, Im sorry. I just 15 have one question that I forgot to ask earlier to the 16 Applicant. This seismic work was being done as a 17 result of State of California requirement. Is there 18 any -- what is the State of California going to do 19 with this? Are they going to do reviews and issue any 20 kind of report, or is that -- they just take it and 21 thats it?
22 MR. REPKA: Ill turn to Jennifer Post to 23 try to answer that question.
24 MS. POST: This is Jennifer Post for PG&E.
25 As of right now, we will submit the final report 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
657 1 the information that weve collected under the studies 2 to both the California Public Utilities Commission and 3 to the California Energy Commission. The California 4 Energy Commission was the entity that recommended we 5 undertake these studies.
6 Weve received a letter from the CPCU 7 indicating that they need to review that report in 8 order to adequately consider any application PG&E 9 makes to CPCU for cost recovery of the license renewal 10 process. PG&E does not have a pending application for 11 cost recovery from rate payers of this license renewal 12 process, but thats the indication that weve gotten, 13 that the CPCU feels that this information is important 14 to its consideration of whether or not it will give us 15 cost recovery from rate payers to go through the 16 process of obtaining, or seeking the new license for 17 Diablo Canyon.
18 For more information about what the CEC 19 and/or CPCU intends to do with the results of the 20 report, I would have to refer you to them because we 21 dont have really any insight on that. What we plan to 22 do with the information that will be in the report is 23 roll the additional data weve obtained into the 24 5054(f) seismic hazard reevaluation that we are 25 undertaking for the NRC.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
658 1 JUDGE KARLIN: Okay.
2 JUDGE ABRAMSON: This is Judge Abramson.
3 Did either of these California agencies that are 4 saying theyd like you guys to do this study have 5 anything to say about the Coastal Commission saying 6 now we cant do it?
7 MS. POST: Well, the Coastal Commission 8 rejected the permit for just one piece of the seismic 9 study. They actually -- we actually were able to 10 undertake a bunch of studies that we did get 11 permitted. The Coastal Commission declined our permit 12 to do offshore three-dimensional seismic studies, but 13 the recommendation from the California Energy 14 Commission was that we perform studies using advanced 15 technologies, including three-dimensional seismic 16 mapping. And we actually did do onshore three-17 dimensional seismic studies, and we also did two-18 dimensional seismic studies, so they have not weighed 19 in on the Coastal Commissions denial of our permit 20 for the offshore 3D studies. They also have not yet 21 weighed in on whether or not they might suggest 22 additional studies be done.
23 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So, you were only 24 partially foiled by one California agency.
25 MS. POST: Yes, only partially foiled, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
659 1 not really. Actually, we werent ultimately foiled 2 because the data we were able to collect is 3 sufficient, at least under our preliminary analysis it 4 looks like we were -- the data we were able to collect 5 using the studies that we were able to get permitted 6 is sufficient.
7 JUDGE KARLIN: I suspect that will be an 8 issue that might be, you know -- there might be an 9 issue on that, but certainly we understand that thats 10 the position of PG&E.
11 JUDGE ABRAMSON: This reminds me of a 12 situation we all face where there was a law passed 13 that said you have to have a permanent geologic 14 repository for spent fuel. And the site chosen was 15 neither permanent nor geologic.
16 (Laughter.)
17 JUDGE KARLIN: Yes, exactly. Thank you.
18 I think on that note, we will adjourn, and 19 Ill look forward -- we will be issuing an order, and 20 well probably have another pre-hearing conference 21 call sometimes after the DEIS is issued. So, I 22 appreciate your attention and participation, and we 23 will adjourn the meeting at this point. Thank you.
24 (Whereupon, the proceedings went off the 25 record at 2:16 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433