ML15026A130
| ML15026A130 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 01/21/2015 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-275-LR, 50-323-LR, ASLBP 10-900-01-LR-BD01, NRC-1310, RAS 27105 | |
| Download: ML15026A130 (137) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 Docket Number: 50-275-LR and 50-323-LR ASLBP Number: 10-900-01-LR-BD01 Location: Rockville, Maryland Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 Work Order No.: NRC-1310 Pages 660-795 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
660 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 + + + + +
6 7 ______________________
8 In the Matter of: : Docket No.
9 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC: 50-275-LR 10 (Diablo Canyon Nuclear: 50-323-LR 11 Power Plant, Units 1 : ASLBP No.
12 and 2) : 10-900-01-LR-BD01 13 ______________________:
14 15 16 Wednesday 17 January 21, 2015 18 Rockville, Maryland 19 20 21 22 BEFORE:
23 PAUL S. RYERSON, Chairman 24 NICHOLAS G. TRIKOUROS, Administrative Judge 25 GARY S. ARNOLD, 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
661 1 APPEARANCES:
2 On Behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 3 Commission:
4 SUSAN UTTAL, ESQ.
5 JOSEPH LINDELL, ESQ.
6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7 Office of the General Counsel 8 Mail Stop - O-15D21 9 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 10 susan.uttal@nrc.gov 11 joseph.lindell@nrc.gov 12 13 On Behalf of PG&E:
14 DAVID A. REPKA, ESQ.
15 TYSON SMITH, ESQ.
16 of: Winston & Strawn, LLP 17 101 California Street 18 San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 19 drepka@winston.com 20 trsmith@winston.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 (202) 234-4433
662 1 On Behalf of the Friends of the Earth:
2 RICHARD E. AYRES, ESQ.
3 JOHN BERNETICH, ESQ.
4 JESSICA L. OLSON, ESQ.
5 of: Ayres Law Group, LLP 6 1707 L Street, N.W.
7 Suite 850 8 Washington, D.C. 20036 9 ayresr@ayreslawgroup.com 10 bernetichj@ayreslawgroup.com 11 olsonj@ayreslawgroup.com 12 13 On Behalf of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace:
14 DIANE CURRAN, ESQ.
15 of: Harmon, Curran, Spielberg and Eisenberg, 16 LLP 17 1726 M Street, N.W.
18 Suite 600 19 Washington, D.C. 20036-4523 20 dcurran@harmoncurran.com 21 ALSO PRESENT:
22 L. JEARL STRICKLAND, PE, Director, Nuclear 23 projects, Diablo Canyon Power Plant 24 ERIC OESTERLE, NRR/DORL, Acting Branch Chief for 25 Licensing Branch 4-1 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
663 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 CHAIR RYERSON: Welcome, everyone. We're 3 here on the matter of Pacific Gas & Electric Company's 4 application to renew its operating licenses for two 5 nuclear reactors at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power 6 Plant.
7 Today's proceeding specifically concerns 8 two petitions that have been submitted by Friends of 9 the Earth. One is for a hearing and to intervene in 10 the hearing. And one is for a waiver, if it's 11 required, of certain NRC regulations.
12 I should mention that in addition to being 13 open to the public, today's proceeding is being made 14 available on listen-only telephone lines to interested 15 members of the public who cannot be here today.
16 I'm Judge Ryerson. I'm trained as a 17 lawyer, and I chair the particular licensing board 18 that the NRC has assigned to this matter. On my right 19 is Judge Trikouros, who is a nuclear engineer, and on 20 my left is Judge Arnold, and Dr. Arnold is also a 21 nuclear engineer.
22 Before we take the appearances of counsel, 23 I'd like to briefly summarize how we would like to 24 proceed today. Again, our purpose is to hear argument 25 on Friends of the Earth's petitions, basically 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
664 1 determine whether Friends of the Earth has 2 established, demonstrated, the requirements for 3 participating as a party in this ongoing adjudicatory 4 proceeding concerning license renewal at Diablo 5 Canyon.
6 We've read several times, most of us, I 7 think, the parties' legal memoranda. And, therefore, 8 I'd like to begin with brief, and I emphasize brief, 9 no more than ten minutes, statements of the parties' 10 positions.
11 As you know, in the, I think it was, 12 January 5 order that we issued concerning the rules 13 for this proceeding, we suggested seven questions that 14 one or more members of the Board were interested in.
15 And I would encourage you to use your opening 16 statements to try to address some or all of those as 17 you see fit or as may be appropriate for particular 18 parties.
19 After the opening statements, the Board 20 members will ask questions. We will generally direct 21 a question to a particular person. Still, we're 22 running a fairly informal proceeding here. If you 23 feel -- if you haven't been asked a question and you 24 feel a need to address it, just raise your hand and 25 I'm sure we'll accommodate 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
665 1 In terms of logistics, we hope to finish 2 no later than one o'clock. Hopefully, sooner. We'll 3 take at least one short break, probably two. If it 4 appears that we cannot finish by one o'clock, we'll 5 probably break well before that for lunch and come 6 back. But I'm hopeful that we will be able to finish 7 well before one o'clock.
8 Any comments from the other judges before 9 we take appearances? Judge Trikouros? Judge Arnold?
10 JUDGE ARNOLD: No.
11 CHAIR RYERSON: Okay. Well, why don't we 12 begin on my extreme right then. If you would 13 introduce yourself and say who you're representing.
14 MS. CURRAN: Good morning, Your Honors.
15 My name is Diane Curran and I represent the San Luis 16 Obispo Mothers for Peace.
17 CHAIR RYERSON: Welcome, Ms. Curran.
18 MS. CURRAN: Thank you.
19 MR. AYRES: Good morning, Judge Ryerson.
20 My name is Richard Ayres and I represent Friends of 21 the Earth. And with me are Jessica Olson on my left 22 and John Bernetich on my right.
23 CHAIR RYERSON: Thank you and welcome to 24 you.
25 MR. REPKA: Good morning. My name 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
666 1 David Repka. I'm with the law firm of Winston &
2 Strawn and I represent Pacific Gas & Electric Company 3 in this matter. And on my left is my partner, Tyson 4 Smith, and on my right is my technical expert, Jearl 5 Strickland, who is the Director of Nuclear Projects at 6 PG&E.
7 CHAIR RYERSON: Okay. Thank you and 8 welcome. And last?
9 MS. UTTAL: Good morning, Your Honor. My 10 name is Susan Uttal. I'm with the Office of the 11 General Counsel representing the staff. To my right 12 is Joseph Lindell, also a member of the Office of the 13 General Counsel. And to his right is Eric Oesterle, 14 who is a member of the NRC staff.
15 CHAIR RYERSON: Welcome. All right.
16 Well, I think I will begin with a few questions, and 17 we'll start with the licensee. Mr. Repka, are you 18 taking most of the questions this morning or Mr. --
19 MR. REPKA: Yes.
20 CHAIR RYERSON: You will be. On the 21 question of timeliness of the petitions here, is it 22 your contention that Friends of the Earth should have 23 known before September 10, 2014, that the -- oh, I'm 24 sorry. We promised opening statements.
25 MR. REPKA: I was wondering about 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
667 1 CHAIR RYERSON: Yeah.
2 MR. AYRES: We'll do it whichever way 3 you'd like.
4 CHAIR RYERSON: Yeah -- no, let's go to 5 the opening statements. And let's begin with the 6 Petitioner, Mr. Ayres.
7 MR. AYRES: Thank you, Judge Ryerson. May 8 it please the Board, I am Richard Ayres. I represent 9 Friends of the Earth in this matter.
10 My client seeks to intervene in order to 11 assure a public review of whether the aging structures 12 and systems of Diablo Canyon can protect the public 13 health and safety during the extended term of the 14 license that it sought, given what PG&E has recently 15 revealed about the potential seismic challenges that 16 the plant now faces.
17 I wish to begin with fundamental 18 principles that govern this proceeding. First, the 19 Board may grant a license extension only if it reaches 20 a reasonable assurance that the public health and 21 safety will be protected during the full term of the 22 license extension. I don't have to tell you that, of 23 course.
24 Second, PG&E must demonstrate how their 25 programs will be effective in managing the effects 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
668 1 aging during the proposed extended period. They must 2 demonstrate that the structures and systems and 3 components, or the SSC's, will survive the maximum 4 earthquake and safely shut the plant down.
5 And third, and perhaps most important for 6 us, the applicable law does not call upon the 7 intervener to make its case at the contention stage 8 but rather to indicate what facts or expert opinions 9 provide the basis for its contention. I submit that 10 we've done that in our submissions.
11 We offered three contentions related to 12 the impact of seismic stress on the plant's aging 13 SSC's. First, we call to the Board's attention a 14 series of dramatic new findings from the 2014 Central 15 California Coastal Seismic Imaging Project Report. A 16 mouthful.
17 PG&E was ordered to undertake this study 18 by the State of California and, as you know, released 19 it just last year. The findings of this report are 20 dramatically at odds with the findings of the ASLB and 21 the Appeals Board when the plant was first licensed 22 and with subsequent PG&E reports.
23 In particular, and there are other 24 findings of significance but I want to highlight two, 25 that the Hosgri and San Simeon faults 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
669 1 interconnected, not separate, as PG&E and the NRC 2 staff had maintained.
3 The report says the two will, therefore, 4 rupture together and that they are capable of 5 producing a maximum of earthquake of magnitude 7.23.
6 We have offered evidence that the associated ground 7 motion at Diablo would be larger than the previous 8 estimates for Hosgri, Shoreline or San Luis Bay 9 faults.
10 The report also states that the Shoreline 11 fault is twice the length asserted in PG&E's 2011 12 report on Shoreline. The fault is capable of a 13 magnitude 6.7 earthquake, says the report. And this 14 shock would occur only 600 meters from the water 15 intake for the cooling system of the plant.
16 We also believe that such an earthquake 17 would also produce more ground motion at the plant 18 than has been assumed previously. Thus, the PG&E 19 seismic report establishes that at least two newly 20 understood faults are capable of more powerful 21 earthquakes to the Hosgri fault, which both PG&E and 22 the staff have claimed in the past is the bounding 23 earthquake.
24 Petitioners have presented evidence that 25 a rupture of the Hosgri fault is not the bounding NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
670 1 earthquake. Dr. Gerhardt Jentzsch, retired professor, 2 University of Jena, Institute of Geosciences in 3 Germany and an appointed member of the Commission for 4 Disposal of Nuclear Materials of the German Ministry 5 of the Environment, provided an affidavit accompanying 6 our petition.
7 His affidavit states that ground motion at 8 the plant could be substantially greater than 9 previously calculated by PG&E. The staff and the 10 applicant implausibly respond that in spite of the 11 potentially greater seismic power of the faults 12 identified in the report, the energy actually reaching 13 the plant will nonetheless be less than what has been 14 previously assumed from the Hosgri fault alone.
15 Their claim that the newly understood 16 faults are bounded by the Hosgri evaluation is, in our 17 view, simply illogical. The seismic report says that 18 Hosgri and San Simeon faults are effectively one fault 19 171 kilometers long. The 2011 PG&E shoreline report 20 found that Hosgri is separate and only 100 kilometers 21 long.
22 Since fault length is a determinant of the 23 power of a fault rupture, as the 1981 Appeals Board 24 said, the claim that the Hosgri evaluation bounds the 25 potential power of a rupture of the Hosgri San Simeon NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
671 1 fault seems simply unfounded.
2 This issue is a classic factual question 3 that could be clarified for the Board by a hearing.
4 Otherwise, the Board is forced to essentially accept 5 the staff and Applicant's request to simply trust 6 them, it's bounding.
7 The staff and the Applicant correctly 8 point out that under 10 CFR 54.21, the license renewal 9 proceeding addresses issues related to the aging of 10 the plant system, structures and components. We agree 11 with that.
12 But NRC regulations provide that the 13 Applicant must demonstrate that the aging plant can be 14 safely shut down following a maximum earthquake.
15 Thus, they are wrong when they suggest that the 16 reactor's ability to withstand seismic events is not 17 an issue in this proceeding.
18 Our second contention is that the licensee 19 has not identified or analyzed the effects of aging or 20 demonstrated it has a plan for management of two 21 systems that are essential to the operation of the 22 SSC's, which in turn support the safety of the plan --
23 relays and snubbers.
24 Pursuant to NRC regulations, relays and 25 snubbers are within the scope of a licensing renewal NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
672 1 review. The staff admits this in its papers -- the 2 NRC page 30.
3 PG&E and the staff argue, however, that 4 they need not make any demonstration that these SSC's 5 can continue to perform their functions during the 6 extended term of the license because relays and 7 snubbers are not subject to the aging management 8 review or to an evaluation of the time-limited aging 9 analyses.
10 This contention is a misreading of the NRC 11 regulations, which provide that the applicant must 12 demonstrate that SSC's within the scope, such as 13 relays and snubbers, will be able to safely shut down 14 the plant following an earthquake. Without this 15 demonstration, the ASLB cannot make the necessary 16 reasonable assurance finding that the plant is safe to 17 operate over the next 20 years.
18 Our third contention is that PG&E's aging 19 management plan fails to establish adequate management 20 of the effect of aging on the plant. We understand, 21 of course, that aging management plans do not 22 typically address seismic risks, at least explicitly.
23 But the performance of the SSC's depends 24 on both the SSC's themselves, the aging management 25 plan, and the seismic stress to which they will 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
673 1 exposed. Thus, each aging management review is 2 implicitly based on an assumption about the seismic 3 environment.
4 Typically, it's assumed that the seismic 5 environment is the same as it was when the plant was 6 licensed, and typically that's correct. In this case, 7 however, it is not. What we know now is that the 8 seismic environment is quite different and more 9 dangerous than the seismic environment as it was known 10 when the plant was licensed.
11 So, to prove the plant safe for the period 12 of the extended license, PG&E must demonstrate that 13 its aging management plan can handle an earthquake as 14 is now known to be possible.
15 Until such a demonstration has been made, 16 PG&E cannot meet its burden under 10 CFR 54.21(a)(3) 17 and the Board cannot make a finding of reasonable 18 assurance that the effects of aging will be adequately 19 managed for an additional 20 years.
20 The contingents presented by Friends of 21 the Earth are within the scope of the Diablo Canyon 22 license renewal proceeding because they seek to ensure 23 that Diablo Canyon's aging SSC's can continue to 24 perform their intended functions such that the plant 25 can be safely shut down following an earthquake of 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
674 1 magnitude now known to be possible.
2 Nevertheless, to the extent the Board may 3 read NRC regulations to preclude consideration of new 4 seismic information in this kind of proceeding, 5 Petitioner seeks a waiver of the application of the 6 regulations in question.
7 To sum up, the Board has a duty to 8 determine whether there is a reasonable assurance that 9 Diablo Canyon can be shut down safely in the event of 10 an earthquake of the power and location identified in 11 the PG&E report. This duty is independent of and in 12 addition to the current licensing basis requirements.
13 As required, Petitioners have indicated 14 facts that provide the basis for their contentions 15 that PG&E has failed to demonstrate that the aging 16 structures of Diablo Canyon are adequate to protect 17 against the newly understood seismic threats to the 18 plant. PG&E disputes those contentions. We ask only 19 that the Board provide an opportunity to test whether 20 PG&E assertions are accurate. Thank you.
21 CHAIR RYERSON: Thank you, Mr. Ayres. Ms.
22 Curran, I know this is not your petition or your 23 petitions. You did file in response. We've read 24 that. Did you want to say anything as well, at this 25 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
675 1 MS. CURRAN: Yes. I don't want to repeat 2 what I said in the written response, but I do 3 appreciate the opportunity to make a few more 4 comments.
5 I represent the San Luis Obispo Mothers 6 for Peace, which has been an intervener in NRC 7 licensing proceedings for Diablo Canyon since the 8 operating license case. And in that case, Mothers for 9 Peace raised issues about the seismic design of the 10 reactor.
11 So, we are very, very concerned, have been 12 concerned for decades, about the safety of operation 13 of Diablo Canyon and we are hopeful that in this 14 proceeding that the NRC will conduct a hearing on the 15 issues raised by Friends of the Earth, which get to 16 the question of the seismic design of the facility and 17 its effect on aging equipment.
18 I'd like to talk about two, briefly about 19 two subjects. One is just to clarify the difference 20 between the contention that Mothers for Peace has 21 admitted to this case and the contentions raised by 22 Friends of the Earth.
23 Our contention is raised on a NEPA, 24 National Environmental Policy Act. It challenges the 25 severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis 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
676 1 the reactor and says that it's inadequate because it 2 doesn't adequately consider the Shoreline fault and 3 its implications.
4 Now, the factual subject matter is the 5 same as Shoreline fault, but under NEPA we will not be 6 able to get at the fundamental safety issues that are 7 governed by the Atomic Energy Act. The best that 8 we'll be able to do is get a new SAMA analysis that 9 looks at the risk of, the earthquake risk and its 10 effect on environmental impacts and then does a SAMA 11 analysis that considers the costs and benefits of 12 measures to reduce the impacts of accidents.
13 Under the Atomic Energy Act, in 14 comparison, the NRC is responsible for protecting 15 against undue risk, for providing reasonable assurance 16 without consideration of cost. So we consider -- we 17 think our contention is very important and we want to 18 litigate it.
19 On the other hand, the Atomic Energy Act 20 provides a more rigorous degree of protection against 21 the effects of an earthquake. So I want to make sure 22 that that's clear, the difference.
23 The other thing I wanted to address for a 24 moment is the issue of whether -- if the Board should 25 find that these contentions are not within the scope NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
677 1 of the regulations, which we think they are -- but if 2 a waiver is warranted or required in order to admit 3 these contentions. I just wanted to focus on the 4 language of the regulation that I think is very 5 problematic for the licensing board here.
6 And that is the standard in 54.29(a),
7 which, if the Board were to have a safety contention 8 before it, it would be required to find reasonable 9 assurance that the activities authorized by the 10 renewed license will continue to be conducted in 11 accordance with the CLB.
12 Now, those words, reasonable assurance, 13 are very important. I just looked at a, I guess it 14 was a PowerPoint of a speech given by Commissioner 15 Ostendorff where he said the words reasonable 16 assurance of adequate protection are the hallmark of 17 the Atomic Energy Act.
18 There is an implicit assumption in this 19 standard that if the activities conducted under the 20 renewed license are carried out in accordance with the 21 current licensing basis, that the reactor will be 22 safe.
23 And it's -- that implicit assumption just 24 can't hold in this case or shouldn't be allowed to go 25 unquestioned in light of the significant evidence 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
678 1 is coming in regarding, you know, new information 2 about seismic risks at Diablo Canyon.
3 It would be a false assurance. It would 4 be a meaningless assurance to make findings like that.
5 It would be like saying the deck chairs are lined up 6 properly on the Titanic -- just an empty kind of 7 assurance.
8 And this agency should not be using words 9 like reasonable assurance to make blindered or partial 10 findings, where it can tell the public we're going to 11 allow this reactor to operate another 20 years and 12 we're not going to look at what underlies these words 13 reasonable assurance.
14 So, in our opinion, if there were ever 15 circumstances where a waiver is warranted, it's this 16 case. And this case is unique. This is a reactor on 17 the coast of California, where there's so much less 18 information about seismic risk that the NRC gave 19 licensees several more years than reactors in the east 20 and the central part of the country to come up with 21 its post-Fukushima seismic analyses.
22 This is a seismically active area where 23 there's less information than in the eastern and 24 middle United States. This information -- it's also 25 unique in the sense that the information is coming 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
679 1 in the course of the license renewal proceeding.
2 It's not old information. It's not future 3 information. It's in the middle of this case, where 4 you're being asked to pass on the safety of renewed 5 operation, a very unique circumstance.
6 And then finally, in some of the old 7 notices that the NRC put out about what, the comments 8 it received on the initial license renewal rule in 9 proposed form, a lot of commentors raised issues where 10 the -- there were questions about pieces of equipment 11 that were unresolved and should be brought into the 12 license renewal proceeding.
13 And the NRC said, well, we're going to let 14 the ordinary course of regulatory oversight take care 15 of those. But I think this issue is unique.
16 The seismic issue is unique because it 17 affects every piece of aging equipment in the reactor, 18 because as equipment gets older, it gets more fragile.
19 It deteriorates. It gets brittle. And it's simple 20 common sense that if the ground motion at Diablo 21 Canyon is greater than what was previously thought, 22 that's a greater stress on this aging equipment.
23 So, there's a unique issue here that is 24 not common to the more narrow issues that the 25 Commission considered in promulgating the rule. So 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
680 1 hope you will consider these things as you deliberate.
2 Thank you.
3 CHAIR RYERSON: Thank you, Ms. Curran.
4 Mr. Repka.
5 MR. REPKA: Yes, thank you. PG&E's 6 position is that the Friends of the Earth's petition 7 raises issues that challenge the existing or current 8 licensing basis of Diablo Canyon for seismic hazards, 9 which is an issue beyond the scope of a license 10 renewal review under Part 54 of the Commission's 11 regulations.
12 We also -- it is our position that the 13 petition is untimely. Even if you assume seismic 14 issues could be properly raised in this forum, it is 15 untimely. Those issues could have bee raised earlier.
16 And lastly, there's no basis to justify a 17 waiver. That application of the rules as written in 18 this case would serve exactly the purpose for which 19 the rules were written.
20 So let me start with the first topic, 21 which is the issues being raised. First, it's clear 22 from the comments this morning from both Friends of 23 the Earth and the Mothers for Peace, that the issues 24 of concern is current seismic safety at Diablo Canyon 25 in light of the information presented from PG&E'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
681 1 seismic imaging project.
2 That's an issue that's explicitly beyond 3 the scope of a Part 54 license renewal review. Part 4 54 focuses on specific issues related to managing 5 aging effects. The presumption of license renewal as 6 articulated by the Commission in adopting the rule is 7 that the current licensing basis is adequate. If it's 8 not adequate, that's an issue to be addressed in the 9 current operating license term.
10 The Friends of the Earth is challenging 11 that. They've engaged in a campaign to challenge 12 current seismic safety at Diablo Canyon as evidenced 13 by the petition that's pending before the Commission, 14 as evidenced by the petition in this license renewal 15 proceeding, as evidenced by a petition in the Court of 16 Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and as evidenced by 17 filing before the California Public Utilities 18 Commission.
19 Without getting into the merits of all 20 those other issues and proceedings, the simple fact is 21 that the petition in this forum is neither a legally 22 nor technically defensible challenge to license 23 renewal.
24 The reading of the Part 54 regulations 25 presented or offered this morning about reasonable NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
682 1 assurance findings would simply turn the Commission's 2 Part 54 regulations on their head. That's exactly the 3 broad kinds of findings about reasonable assurance and 4 current operational safety, are exactly the kinds of 5 things that are not subject to Part 54 license renewal 6 review.
7 The focus in license renewal is on aging 8 management of specific equipment. The petition in the 9 contentions does not adequately draw a linkage between 10 the concerns related to the seismic current licensing 11 basis and license renewal issues.
12 There is talk about, in the petition, 13 there is Contention 2 about snubbers and relays.
14 Those are items of equipment that are specifically 15 excluded from the scope of a Part 54 aging management 16 review.
17 They're subject by -- their design is to 18 withstand seismic events. They are seismically 19 qualified based on testing. They continue to remain 20 qualified during the operating life of the plant, 21 whether during the current license term or in the 22 extended license term after license renewal by 23 surveillance test procedures. And if the equipment is 24 degraded, it's replaced through the maintenance 25 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
683 1 So these are active components that are 2 qualified by seismic testing, shake table testing, and 3 are continuously monitored for operability. So, 4 therefore, the Commission for that type of active 5 equipment has made a generic determination in its 6 rules that the aging effects are managed and will 7 continue to be managed throughout the operating life 8 of the plant.
9 Ms. Curran speaks of equipment becoming 10 brittle. That's completely conjecture, number one.
11 But number two, it's exactly the kind of thing that if 12 it were true, it would be addressed through the 13 surveillance test program and that's a Part 50 14 process.
15 With respect to seismic safety, which is 16 really, I think, what the petition is all about, 17 neither PG&E nor the NRC ignore seismic safety. In 18 fact, the Seismic Imaging Project Report is an 19 unprecedented look at the seismic conditions of the 20 central coast of California.
21 This is not something that was undertaken 22 at NRC request. It was undertaken because the State 23 of California requested it in Assembly Bill 1632.
24 It's not something that's been docketed on the license 25 renewal application. It's not necessarily relevant 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
684 1 license renewal. It's a current operational issue to 2 the extent it's an issue.
3 And that's precisely why the Commission is 4 addressing seismic CLB issues, current licensing basis 5 issues, for Diablo Canyon and for all plants through 6 the section 50.54(f) process pos-Fukushima. PG&E has 7 been submitting data on that. All our data to date, 8 all of the reports presented to date, show that the 9 plant is operating within its current licensing basis.
10 In other words, that the anticipated 11 ground motions are within the ground motions at the 12 plant, regardless of seismic source, that the plant 13 equipment has been demonstrated to be seismically 14 qualified. So there is not currently information that 15 suggests a safety issue.
16 However, the Part 50.54(f) process 17 continues, as it does for all plants in the U.S. and 18 the NRC will continue to look at the adequacy of the 19 CLB. They will look at that in the current operating 20 license term. It's a Part 50 issue, not a Part 54 21 issue. Again, Contention 1, it addresses nothing more 22 than the adequacy of the seismic licensing basis.
23 Contention 2 is the snubbers and relays is 24 where that enters into the discussion. But again, 25 those are active components that are tested 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
685 1 monitored, so it does not raise an issue within the 2 scope of license renewal.
3 And Contention 3 vaguely refers to aging 4 management without addressing any specific equipment, 5 any specific aging management plan, or any specific 6 aging mechanism.
7 With respect to the timeliness issue, 8 Judge Ryerson, I think you were going to ask about our 9 position there. Our position is, to the extent the 10 contentions challenge the current licensing basis and 11 are based on information about seismic issues related 12 to the Shoreline fault, yes, those contentions could 13 have been filed earlier than September of 2014.
14 The original Shoreline Fault Report was in 15 2009. The original documented, more comprehensive 16 review by PG&E of the report was in February of 2011.
17 The NRC has issued and now the NRC staff has issued 18 analyses.
19 Those analyses, by the way, have, 20 consistent with PG&E's conclusions, have consistently 21 determined that the plant is operating within its 22 licensing basis. But those are periods in which if 23 the concern was seismic issues, it could have been 24 raised at that time.
25 With respect to snubbers and relays, 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
686 1 equipment has not been part of the license renewal 2 application, consistent with the regulations, since 3 the time the license renewal application was filed in 4 2009. So if there was an issue about snubbers and 5 relays, it certainly could have been raised at that 6 time.
7 With respect to their suggestions about 8 time limit and aging analyses, again, that could have 9 been raised based on the application in 2009.
10 And finally, with respect to waiver, we 11 don't believe there has been any showing of special 12 circumstances that would justify this Board deviating 13 from the Commission's rules and allowing current 14 licensing basis issues to be addressed in this forum.
15 Again, there is a petition pending before 16 the Commission raising these issues on the operating 17 license docket, and I think it's incumbent on the 18 Board to let the Commission resolve that issue in that 19 context.
20 More substantively, the issues are being 21 addressed through the 50.54(f) process and that's the 22 appropriate Part 50 process for addressing an issue in 23 the current operating license term.
24 There is no showing whatsoever that any 25 circumstances surrounding Diablo Canyon would -- 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
687 1 application of the rule would not serve the purpose 2 for which the rule was granted, which the rule was 3 issued.
4 Specifically, the rule was issued in order 5 to leave current licensing basis issues to the 6 original licensing process, plus the ongoing Part 50 7 regulatory process. And that's exactly what's 8 happening here. That's actually what should happen 9 here.
10 There is simply no reason to link current 11 licensing basis issues to license renewal. They need 12 to be addressed today, not at the time the license --
13 that a license renewal, a renewed license would be 14 issued.
15 I know the Board has a number of other 16 questions they've articulated. I'm prepared to answer 17 those questions. But at this point, I'll leave it to 18 the Board and respond in an appropriate time.
19 CHAIR RYERSON: Thank you, Mr. Repka. And 20 the NRC staff? Mr. Lindell?
21 MR. LINDELL: May it please the Court, 22 Joseph Lindell, on behalf of the NRC staff. Friends 23 of the Earth states that this case concerns license 24 renewal because the contentions address the plant 25 safety during the period of extended operations.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
688 1 However, the contentions it raises 2 actually pertain, instead, to the plant's current 3 operations. Therefore, the contentions are outside 4 the scope of this proceeding, pursuant to 10 CFR 5 Section 2309(f)(13).
6 The NRC's license renewal review is about 7 managing the effects of aging on plant systems, 8 structures and components that are passive and long-9 lived. The review is to ensure that these SSCs will 10 continue to perform their intended functions during 11 the 20-year period of extended operations after the 12 initial license has expired.
13 We look at aging mechanisms such as 14 corrosion or metal fatigue, for example, and how the 15 Applicant proposes to manage them. A petitioner can 16 raise contentions, challenging the way the Applicant 17 proposes to manage aging effects. Friends of the 18 Earth's contentions, however, are not within the scope 19 of license renewal.
20 Friends of the Earth argues that the 21 September 2014 report on the Shoreline Fault, which 22 was prepared by PG&E for the state of California shows 23 that an earthquake that the plant is not designed to 24 withstand may occur. If Friends of the Earth is 25 correct, however, the Diablo Canyon has a problem, 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
689 1 it must be corrected now.
2 That's a current operating issue. It 3 cannot await the expiration of the current licenses in 4 2024 and 2025 and the beginning of the extended 5 operating period. Thus, Friends of the Earth remedy 6 is to petition the Commission under 10 CFR Section 7 2206 to modify, suspend or revoke the license.
8 To be sure, an earthquake that the plant 9 is not designed to withstand could affect the ability 10 of SSCs within the scope of license renewal to 11 properly perform their intended function during the 12 renewal period. But that doesn't make it, in and of 13 itself, a license renewal issue.
14 It's also a current licensing problem. A 15 10 CFR Section 5430 says that a licencee's obligation 16 to take measures to comply with its current license is 17 not within the scope of license renewal. The 18 Commission has made this clear on many occasions. For 19 example, in Turkey Point, CLI 01-1754 NRC 3 and 9 the 20 Commission said in establishing its license renewal 21 process the Commission did not believe it necessary or 22 appropriate to throw open the full gamut of provisions 23 in a plan's current licensing basis to re-analysis 24 during a license renewal review.
25 Moreover, fundamentally, Friends of 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
690 1 Earth does not raise an aging management issue.
2 Friends of the Earth isn't talking about corrosion or 3 metal fatigue, for example. It raises an issue 4 instead about the magnitude of an earthquake which is 5 not an aging effect.
6 And with this framework as a backdrop it's 7 clear why each of the three proposed contentions is 8 inadmissible. Contention 1 states that the September 9 report showed the Shoreline Fault is longer than 10 previously thought, that the Hosgri and Shoreline 11 faults may rupture together, that the Hosgri and San 12 Simeon faults are connected and that the report uses 13 untested ground motion prediction equations that rely 14 on different methods than used before.
15 Friends of the Earth based its arguments, 16 in part, on an assertion that the Hosgri earthquake is 17 not the bounding ground motion for the site. Friends 18 of the Earth maintains that the plant's components in 19 their aged state will not be able to safely shut down 20 during the period of extended operations.
21 This contention is inadmissible because, 22 based on everything we've described, that is simply 23 not unique to license renewal. Friends of the Earth's 24 arguments, really, are asserting that the plant cannot 25 shut down safely now. It does not matter 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
691 1 plant also won't be able to shut down during the 2 period of extended operations for the purpose of this 3 license renewal proceeding.
4 Contention 2 states that PG&E failed to 5 update time-limited and aging analyses for relays and 6 snubbers in light of new information in the September 7 seismic report if, indeed, they say such TLAAs exist.
8 This contention is inadmissible because 9 snubbers and relays are outside the scope of license 10 renewal. They are active components. They are not 11 passive. There are no TLAAs for relays and snubbers.
12 Concerns about relay chatter and the shock-absorbing 13 capacity of snubbers are current licensing basis 14 issues.
15 In Contention 3 Friends of the Earth 16 argues that aging management programs are deficient in 17 light of new seismic information in the September 18 seismic report. This contention is inadmissible 19 because Friends of the Earth does not specify a single 20 aging management program that is deficient or how the 21 magnitude of an earthquake, an issue not related to 22 aging, would be in scope.
23 Friends of the Earth's petition is also 24 untimely. It's based on the September report which, 25 although a new document, is not materially different NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
692 1 than previously available information. The report 2 concluded that the predicted ground motions are 3 bounded by the Hosgri earthquake motions. Thus, it 4 drew the same conclusions as prior reports did. It 5 did conclude that the licensing basis was exceeded.
6 Ever since the Shoreline fault was 7 discovered and the reports that were mentioned 8 previously were issued, Friends of the Earth could 9 have raised its claims.
10 PG&E has always taken the position and the 11 NRC staff reports have confirmed this, that the 12 Shoreline fault has predicted ground motions that are 13 higher than the double-design earthquake but lower 14 than the Hosgri and at the time of those reports, 15 though, could have identified an AMP or a TLAA that 16 was deficient and did not consider seismic 17 information.
18 Finally, Friends of the Earth's petition 19 for waiver should be denied. The standard for waiver 20 is that the regulations sought to be waived would not 21 serve the purpose for which it was adopted. In this 22 case, the regulations served to limit the scope of 23 license renewal. And Friends of the Earth's request 24 is contrary to the regulation's purpose.
25 Friends of the Earth asked for a limited NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
693 1 waiver of provisions in Part 54. But the scope of the 2 requested waiver is actually extremely broad. Friends 3 of the Earth wants to waive the scope of license 4 renewal entirely and instead litigate current 5 operating issues.
6 But that would thwart the purpose of 7 license renewal which is to focus on the management of 8 aging effects during the period of extended operation.
9 As counsel of PG&E, I've just described the issues 10 are being dealt with in current operating space. For 11 these reasons, the Board should deny Friends of the 12 Earth's petition to intervene and petition for waiver.
13 CHAIR RYERSON: Thank you, Mr. Lindell.
14 All right, getting back to Mr. Repka on the question 15 of timeliness, if I understand Friends of the Earth's 16 position, they say that the September 10 seismic 17 report was the first opportunity for them to know 18 about a number of specific facts.
19 And I don't want to talk right now about 20 the materiality of those facts. I just want to know 21 if you disagree with the assertion that this was the 22 first opportunity to learn about these facts.
23 So the first one is the Shoreline fault 24 was nearly double the previously assumed length. Was 25 the Friends supposed to know that any sooner than NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
694 1 September 10, 2014?
2 MR. REPKA: I think that's a reference to 3 the fact that the 2014 report identifies that the 4 step-over between the Hosgri and the San Simeon faults 5 is small.
6 CHAIR RYERSON: That's another issue. I 7 think the length -- the length of the Shoreline fault 8 was the first factual issue that they were talking 9 about.
10 MR. REPKA: Yes, the length of the 11 Shoreline fault is different in the 2014 data than in 12 the 2011 data. The conclusions remain the same.
13 CHAIR RYERSON: Right. We'll get to the 14 conclusion, but it terms -- I just want to clarify 15 that you are not asserting that Friends of the Earth 16 should have known earlier than September 2014 that the 17 Shoreline fault itself was twice as long as previously 18 assumed.
19 MR. REPKA: I'm not asserting that.
20 CHAIR RYERSON: Okay. And, well, we might 21 as well finish up with you, Mr. Repka. On this step-22 over issue between the Hosgri fault and the San Simeon 23 fault the September 2014 report, as I understand it, 24 reports that the step-over is small enough that the 25 two faults would have to be assumed to rupture NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
695 1 together rather than separately. And was that, again, 2 put aside materiality, was that new information in 3 September 2014 as far as Friends was concerned?
4 MR. REPKA: That assumption was new. The 5 U.S. Geological Survey had put out information prior 6 to that point, also speculating about the step-over 7 and the linkage issue. I believe that's -- correct me 8 if I'm wrong -- the heart of that data.
9 CHAIR RYERSON: Okay. But this was the 10 first time that PG&E had endorsed that view. Is that 11 correct?
12 MR. REPKA: Endorsed is not a word I would 13 use --
14 CHAIR RYERSON: Okay.
15 MR. REPKA: -- but assumed it to be the 16 case.
17 CHAIR RYERSON: Assumed it to be the case.
18 And the third fact I wanted to get your view on is 19 whether the Hosgri fault and the Shoreline faults 20 might intercept and, therefore, linked rupture 21 involving each fault must be assumed to be possible.
22 Again, that, as I understand it, appears in the 23 September 2014 report and, as a factual matter, that 24 was new information. You would agree with that?
25 MR. REPKA: Well, in 2011, it was assumed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
696 1 that the two faults intersect, but that a linked 2 rupture was not considered at that time because of the 3 unfavorable geometry. So there was an assumption in 4 2011. In 2014 the new information shows that the 5 faults do intersect but that a linked rupture, because 6 of the unfavorable geometries that had now been 7 established, would not occur.
8 But then there was a further sensitivity 9 done in the 2014 report that would assume -- assumed 10 away the unfavorable geometries. So I don't think 11 that was necessarily new information. The second 12 point is on the Shoreline-Hosgri. And, again, there 13 was information from the U.S. Geological Survey that 14 was in discussions prior to that point --
15 CHAIR RYERSON: Okay.
16 MR. REPKA: -- on similar issues.
17 CHAIR RYERSON: But PG&E did not make, had 18 not issued itself a document that contained the 19 assumption that the faults rupturing together would 20 have to be assumed?
21 MR. REPKA: The 2014 report doesn't say 22 they have to be assumed. It said that they -- it 23 said, in fact, that it shouldn't be assumed but that 24 a sensitivity was done anyway.
25 CHAIR RYERSON: 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
697 1 MR. REPKA: Assuming that to be the case.
2 CHAIR RYERSON: All right. Let me ask the 3 NRC staff, Mr. Lindell, I can run through those three 4 facts or three assertions again. I believe those are 5 Friends' assertions. Purely from the standpoint of 6 whether Friends should have known those assertions, 7 should have been able to make those assertions earlier 8 -- forget materiality for the moment -- do you 9 disagree that Friends of the Earth was timely in 10 responding to those facts as they understood those 11 facts?
12 MR. LINDELL: Your Honor, the staff's 13 position on just those facts is the same as you just 14 heard from counsel of PG&E.
15 CHAIR RYERSON: Okay. And let's assume 16 that those are new facts. Is there any argument as to 17 whether 30 days was a timely response to file a 18 petition on those facts? Again, we're excluding 19 materiality.
20 MR. LINDELL: No, Your Honor.
21 CHAIR RYERSON: Okay. And, Mr. Repka, you 22 consider 30 days sufficient time?
23 MR. REPKA: I think 30 days is commonly 24 accepted.
25 CHAIR RYERSON: Okay. All right. So, 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
698 1 mean, if I understand it, the principal argument as to 2 why these petitions are not timely turns on the sense 3 that these facts are not material because the 4 conclusion, PG&E's conclusion in its report, is that 5 they are bounded by previous ground motion 6 assumptions.
7 And I guess, let me start first with Mr.
8 Lindell, I mean, isn't that what petitioners here are 9 asking for, a factual hearing on as to whether that's 10 true or not? I mean, isn't that -- is that an issue 11 of timeliness or doesn't that go to the merits?
12 MS. UTTAL: Sorry.
13 CHAIR RYERSON: Yes.
14 MS. UTTAL: Susan Uttal. If it were only 15 those three facts that they were relying on as basis 16 for their contention perhaps that would be true. But 17 they're not just relying on those alleged three new 18 facts. I mean, they're relying on a whole host of 19 other things that they should have known before -- for 20 instance, their contention on the snubbers and the 21 relay switches.
22 So I would say that they're untimely in 23 their filing, except perhaps for those three facts.
24 And everything in their contention, as previously 25 argued, previously stated by Mr. Lindell, 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
699 1 material to this license renewal matter.
2 CHAIR RYERSON: Okay, so the staff's 3 position is that those particular facts that are 4 highlighted in the Friends' petition are not material 5 and, therefore, not timely when viewed in the context 6 of all of the facts that they're arguing from -- that 7 Friends is arguing from?
8 MS. UTTAL: Well, their petition is not 9 just based on those three facts.
10 CHAIR RYERSON: I understand.
11 MS. UTTAL: Okay.
12 CHAIR RYERSON: But you agree those facts 13 were new and those facts were timely acted on?
14 MS. UTTAL: Yes.
15 CHAIR RYERSON: Okay. Mr. Repka, do you 16 disagree with that?
17 MR. REPKA: Well, I would take a broader 18 look at it because I would say that the issue is the 19 Shoreline fault, and the Shoreline fault certainly was 20 an issue long before 2014. And there were several 21 reports by PG&E and the NRC prior to that date, prior 22 to 2014, including PG&E's comprehensive report in 23 2011.
24 Since the 2011 report came out -- so, I'm 25 mean, I think if the issue is the plant cannot NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
700 1 withstand an earthquake from the Shoreline fault that 2 could have been and should have been raised in 2011.
3 Beyond that, the data from the seismic imaging project 4 was being discussed in a public domain through the 5 California Independent Peer Review Panel throughout 6 that period and before the 2014 report.
7 So the issues under discussion and the 8 data being developed was not secret at that time.
9 Again, USGS was involved and the fora were open in 10 those discussions, so. But I think the short answer 11 is I view the issue as being the Shoreline fault, and 12 the Shoreline fault could have been raised earlier.
13 CHAIR RYERSON: Okay.
14 MR. REPKA: And I'll add to that and, 15 again, just reiterate that the only real linkage to 16 license renewal is the questions about snubbers and 17 relays and TLAAs for that equipment. And those issues 18 certainly could have been raised in 2009.
19 CHAIR RYERSON: Yeah, I was about to ask 20 Mr. Ayres about snubbers and relay switches. I, 21 frankly, was a little surprised to hear in your 22 opening statement your arguing on behalf of Contention 23 2.
24 I don't think, unless I missed it, you 25 said anything about Contention 2 in your reply. 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
701 1 I thought perhaps you'd abandoned the argument that 2 those were covered by aging management. They are 3 active components, correct? I mean, your own expert 4 talks about how -- their movement and how they're 5 active. So why are they covered by an aging 6 management plan?
7 MR. AYRES: Our position is that they are 8 because -- well, actually our position is not that 9 they're covered by a requirement to do an aging 10 management plan or a TLAA. What we're saying is that 11 these are components which are within the scope for 12 the purposes of the license renewal and, therefore, 13 need to be part of the analysis of aging.
14 They're excluded, as you know, by the 15 regulation, specifically, from the requirement for a 16 TLAA. But our opponents draw the incorrect 17 conclusion, I think, that that exclusion means they 18 don't need to be addressed at all. Our position is, 19 yes, they are within the scope. They need to be dealt 20 with and they haven't been.
21 CHAIR RYERSON: Okay.
22 MR. REPKA: May I respond to that?
23 CHAIR RYERSON: Yes.
24 MR. REPKA: If the issue is that they 25 haven't been dealt with, the question is why not. 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
702 1 there's no showing that they haven't been dealt with 2 or why the qualification testing for the equipment or 3 why the surveillance and the test program for the 4 equipment in the current operating license term is 5 inadequate.
6 In fact, these components are not subject 7 to fatigue by their design and any degradation that 8 would occur would be identified through the 9 surveillance test program. And that's a Part 50 10 program, not a Part 54 program.
11 CHAIR RYERSON: Thank you, Mr. Repka.
12 MS. UTTAL: Judge? Excuse me, Judge.
13 Susan over here.
14 CHAIR RYERSON: Yes.
15 MS. UTTAL: There's too many players 16 around here. I also -- I don't read the contention as 17 saying that they don't need to analyze it. I think 18 that the contention said that they should have TLAA --
19 there should be a TLAA for these components. And, 20 clearly, the regulations clearly exclude them --
21 CHAIR RYERSON: As --
22 MS. UTTAL: -- from requiring TLAAs.
23 CHAIR RYERSON: As to that part of the 24 contention, but you're --
25 MR. AYRES: Judge Ryerson --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
703 1 CHAIR RYERSON: -- a waiver is also being 2 sought, I take it --
3 MR. AYRES: Yeah.
4 CHAIR RYERSON: -- for that.
5 MR. AYRES: Judge Ryerson, just one point.
6 I think the difference here really has to do with a 7 fundamental point here which is whether the new 8 seismic findings alter the situation in which the AMPs 9 were done in the past. I mean, remember, this license 10 extension proposal was made in 2009. And the, 11 obviously, the new findings came out in 2014.
12 So I think what we're saying is that aging 13 management requires two parts. Just like any other 14 sort of cost benefit you have to know how well does 15 this part still work. You also have to know what 16 stresses are going to be put on that part.
17 And our point is that the stress side of 18 that equation has changed. And that makes the 19 analysis that was done five years ago, six years ago, 20 out of date.
21 MR. LINDELL: May I respond to that?
22 CHAIR RYERSON: Yes.
23 MR. LINDELL: Number one, I mean, there's 24 no real connection between those two things, how the 25 seismic stresses would affect an aging management NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
704 1 program in the comments. But, number two, the 2 fundamental premise there is that the equipment will 3 see greater seismic loads.
4 In the conclusions today of all of the 5 reports, including the 2014, is that the seismic 6 loads are bounded by the 1977 Hosgri loads for which 7 the equipment is qualified and has been demonstrated 8 to be qualified. So the basic premise there is not --
9 there's not basis for it. It's not even that the 10 seismic report in which the Friends of the Earth is 11 relying doesn't say what Friends of the Earth just 12 asserted.
13 CHAIR RYERSON: Okay.
14 MR. AYRES: I --
15 MS. UTTAL: I'd like to --
16 CHAIR RYERSON: Mr. Ayres, first.
17 MR. AYRES: Your Honor, I'm just going to 18 say that brings us back to where you pointed us to 19 just a short time ago. That is, this factual issue of 20 how much threat is there is a factual issue for which 21 a hearing would be helpful.
22 CHAIR RYERSON: And the question is, I 23 guess -- and this gets to my next question for you, 24 Mr. Ayres -- is who should be holding this hearing or 25 who should be deciding whether there's a hearing held?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
705 1 You filed, I guess, two months before the petition 2 that we're concerned with, your petition with the 3 Commission.
4 And, I will confess -- I don't know if my 5 colleagues have -- I have not studied that petition.
6 My general sense, as I understand it, is that it is 7 based upon the notion that there really is a defacto 8 license amendment here to the license and that that is 9 a basis for your intervention and for having a 10 hearing.
11 And that issue is in front of the 12 Commission. And I guess my -- I have a series of 13 related questions for you. Let me try to merge them 14 in a way. I mean, what can you not get? Assuming the 15 Commission agrees with you, is there anything the 16 Commission would be giving you that -- would not be 17 able to give you that you would be getting from this 18 Board with the petitions that are in front of us?
19 MR. AYRES: Well, first, remember that our 20 point here has to do with the ability of an aging 21 plant to withstand seismic stress. That issue, we 22 contend, is in this proceeding by virtue, if nothing 23 else, of the fact that PG&E asked you to stay us while 24 that report was completed, and the Board agreed.
25 But to turn to the question about 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
706 1 petition now pending before the Commission, the 2 subject of that petition is what we contend is an 3 expansion of the authority -- or an expansion of the 4 current licensing basis -- which was done without the 5 kind of hearing which is required by the Atomic Energy 6 Act.
7 So to the extent that we succeed before 8 the Commission there, the hearing would have to do 9 with that particular expansion or extension of the 10 current licensing basis. It is not the same issue as 11 the issue that's here because it addresses PG&E's 12 attempt to make the Hosgri fault the safe shutdown 13 earthquake determinant for the plant.
14 And what we contend is that even though 15 PG&E thought that required an amendment to their 16 license the staff asked them to withdraw the proposed 17 amendment and then made the change without having the 18 hearing that's required. So that's a separate and 19 more limited issue, I think, and it certainly deals 20 with current situation, not with whether this plant 21 can be safe under our current conditions for another 22 20 years.
23 CHAIR RYERSON: Yeah, I mean, I must say 24 it seems a little counterintuitive. If Friends of the 25 Earth's position is that there is new seismic data NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
707 1 that calls into question the safety of the operation 2 of the plant that's an issue that people should be 3 concerned about today, if that's true, certainly 4 sometime this year or next year or three years from 5 now -- soon, I would think you would be arguing.
6 And what we are talking bout is a renewal 7 period or -- that begins a decade from now. And it 8 seems counterintuitive that this process, to me, 9 should be the forum for adjudicating those issues that 10 you are alleging. And my -- and you have a petition 11 in front of the Commission. And so am I wrong to 12 question why you're also in front of us?
13 MR. AYRES: I can understand why you would 14 have that question in your mind, Judge Ryerson. I 15 think one point that should be considered here is that 16 neither of these two processes -- this one nor the 17 Fukushima process which is where you're sent if you 18 want to change anything to do with the current 19 licensing basis -- neither of them responds as quickly 20 as we think this new material requires.
21 The Fukushima process could easily stretch 22 out to 2018 for this plant. And, of course, it 23 provides no assurance that there will be any 24 opportunity for public hearing or cross-examination or 25 a presentation of witnesses. So neither option 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
708 1 good from that point of view.
2 But this one, you know, clearly involves 3 this 20-year extension. If the plant is not safe, in 4 our view, it should not be extended. If you can't 5 reach a conclusion that there's a reasonable assurance 6 it's safe then it should not be allowed to run for 60 7 years altogether. And that's the issue here. And 8 it's a separate and, I think, important issue by 9 itself.
10 CHAIR RYERSON: But hasn't the Commission 11 instructed us that if there are issues that can and 12 should be dealt with today the Commission would like 13 to see them dealt with, in some fashion, today. I 14 think I'm quoting accurately from the Millstone case.
15 The Commission said it makes no sense to 16 spend the parties' and our own valuable resources 17 litigating allegations of current deficiencies in a 18 proceeding that is directed to future-oriented issues 19 of aging.
20 And if your basic complaint -- and I think 21 I'm quoting from your petition -- is that PG&E has not 22 demonstrated that the plant can be safely operated 23 under its existing license -- if that's your 24 fundamental claim, why isn't the Commission's position 25 in Millstone fatal to your claim -- in front of 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
709 1 board?
2 MR. AYRES: Well, we haven't made that 3 claim before the Commission.
4 CHAIR RYERSON: I think I'm quoting from 5 your petition. I'm quoting from your petition that 6 PG&E has not demonstrated that the plant can be safely 7 operated under its existing license. I mean, isn't 8 that -- isn't, to be candid, isn't that the 9 fundamental claim that you have?
10 I mean, it's not that these seismic issues 11 will miraculously become a problem ten years from now.
12 Your claim is that these seismic issues are a concern 13 today. Isn't that the case?
14 MR. AYRES: Well, I think there are two --
15 there are two duties involved here. There is a duty 16 on the plant to, can be designed and operated so as to 17 be safe today. And that is the current licensing 18 basis. And I would agree that there is a duty to make 19 sure that the plant is safe today under that.
20 Obviously that's not before you.
21 But we also believe there is a separate 22 duty, under 10 CFR 54.4 that requires a demonstration 23 that the aging SSCs are capable of being safely shut 24 down. And our point before you is that, in light of 25 this new seismic data, we don't believe, at least as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
710 1 we understand them, the facts at this point.
2 We don't believe that that reasonable 3 assurance can be reached because we don't think a 4 demonstration can be made for the future. We'll --
5 CHAIR RYERSON: Okay.
6 MR. AYRES: We'll deal separately with 7 the, to the extend we can, with the current licensing 8 basis issue. But I would add one other thing which is 9 that, I think, both of our opponents have said that 10 the right thing to do is to get involved in the 11 Fukushima process.
12 And I think it should be obvious that that 13 process does not offer the same opportunities for a 14 public review of these issues that this one does.
15 It's a, essentially, it's a process of information-16 gathering between the licensees and the Commission.
17 there is a provision, as I understand it, for a public 18 briefing or something in the future. But there's no 19 Atomic Energy Act public hearing that gives an 20 opportunity to really test the actual conclusions. So 21 --
22 CHAIR RYERSON: But you are seeking that 23 in the petition that is presently in front of the 24 Commission. You are seeking a public, an Atomic 25 Energy Act type of hearing on the theory that what'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
711 1 happened here is a defacto amendment to the license 2 for the plant.
3 And I guess my, perhaps, final question 4 for you is if you prevail in front of the Commission, 5 if the Commission agrees with you, is there really 6 anything left for us to do? Wouldn't that 7 automatically result in a condition of renewal that 8 you would also be satisfied with?
9 MR. AYRES: No, it wouldn't. If the 10 Commission agreed with us they would reverse the 11 inclusion of the Hosgri fault, Hosgri evaluation they 12 call it, Hosgri fault method of evaluation based on 13 that fault would be removed as the safe shutdown 14 earthquake for the plan.
15 And what would be restored would be the 16 double-design earthquake which was the original 17 yardstick for the safe shutdown earthquake. So that 18 issue is really about which of those two methods would 19 be used to evaluate the risk to the plant.
20 CHAIR RYERSON: Can --
21 MR. AYRES: It's not about whether the 22 risks to the plant are such that the plant can't 23 safely be operated.
24 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Yeah, can I ask the 25 staff and/or the Applicant is the Hosgri event today NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
712 1 the safe shutdown earthquake?
2 MS. UTTAL: It's the plant is qualified up 3 to the Hosgri -- I don't know the technology.
4 MR. LINDELL: Let me try to -- I can maybe 5 answer.
6 MS. UTTAL: Okay.
7 MR. LINDELL: But Diablo Canyon is not a 8 Part 100 Appendix A plant. So the terminology, safe 9 shutdown earthquake, really doesn't apply. The plant 10 was licensed based on three earthquakes -- the DE, the 11 double-design earthquake and the 1977 Hosgri 12 earthquake.
13 Throughout the licensing history of the 14 plant it's very clear that the staff and the SSERs and 15 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the Appeal 16 Board viewed the Hosgri, which was evaluated during 17 the operating license process, was the maximum 18 anticipated vibratory ground motion. So it's part of 19 the licensing basis of the plant.
20 The documents use terminology like 21 equivalent to an SSC because, again, there really, the 22 SSC is Appendix A Part 100 terminology that really 23 doesn't apply. But the 1977 Hosgri is the maximum 24 vibratory ground motion for which the plant was 25 demonstrated to be able to withstand the seismic NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
713 1 loads.
2 MS. UTTAL: And if you look back in 1979, 3 the partial initial decision found that 10 NRC 453, 4 and there was an appeal of it, you'll find that, in 5 the opinion, that the Hosgri 7.5 magnitude and .75 6 ground motion are the, what it's qualified -- what the 7 figures are for qualification.
8 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: But your petition, Mr.
9 Ayres, is to the Commission, if you got the relief you 10 sought it would not likely remove the Hosgri event 11 from the licensing basis of the plant. Is that not 12 correct?
13 MR. AYRES: The history that's been 14 recited here, I think, is somewhat biased. The plant 15 was originally licensed with a double-design 16 earthquake. When the Hosgri fault was discovered, 17 which was during the time the plant was being built, 18 it received a kind of exception.
19 And the Commission said, okay, you can 20 operate it in spite of this Hosgri plan -- Hosgri 21 fault that we found. We want you to undertake a 22 program over the next, as it turned out, a good ten 23 years or more to evaluate whether that's really safe.
24 PG&E did that.
25 But the Hosgri event in the 1981 -- 1979 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
714 1 and '81 ASLB and Appeals Board decisions was 2 considered an exception that applied only to that 3 particular fault so that the license basis, design 4 basis, was the DDE. It may well be that PG&E and the 5 staff ignored that fact later.
6 But PG&E was sufficiently concerned about 7 it, that they actually proposed to change the license 8 in 2011 to include the Hosgri as the safe shutdown 9 earthquake. As I said, the staff apparently told 10 them, well, you don't need to do that and then in a 11 change in the FSAR just inserted it in there as the 12 bounding earthquake.
13 So, you know, the result that we would 14 get, if we won our case, would be that that action by 15 the staff would be overturned and PG&E would be 16 required, as they originally agreed they should be, to 17 seek a license amendment if they wanted to put the 18 Hosgri fault in as the safe shutdown earthquake.
19 At this point, in light of the new 20 findings, they might well have a different earthquake 21 in mind when they came forward to make that license 22 amendment. I'm only speculating about that, of 23 course.
24 MR. LINDELL: Now, Your Honors, might I 25 just respond briefly to that? Not to get too 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
715 1 into the merits of -- into the petition that is 2 pending before the Commission but there's no 3 indication in any of the documents or cases on this 4 matter that the Hosgri earthquake was somehow an 5 exception, that it was only for that fault and for 6 that time.
7 I mean, the Licensing Board, in that 8 opinion that my co-counsel mentioned in 10 NRC 453 on 9 Page 490, and it said -- and I'll quote, "The Board 10 concludes that the .75G acceleration assigned to the 11 safe shutdown earthquake is an appropriately 12 conservative value for the maximum vibratory ground 13 acceleration that could occur at the Diablo Canyon 14 site and, thus, an appropriate anchor point for the 15 ground response spectra." And the Appeal Board 16 affirmed that.
17 And, indeed, in various supplemental SCRs, 18 such as SCR 7, the staff also made clear that, you 19 know, the 7.5 magnitude and .75G is the basis that 20 they used for the seismic re-evaluation that they 21 performed at the plant and that that was the ground 22 response spectra that was used. And there's no 23 indication that this was something that was inserted 24 into the license or into the FSAR at a recent time.
25 All the documentation -- you know, this as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
716 1 the standard that the plant was licensed to, and this 2 is part of the licensing basis of the plant.
3 MS. UTTAL: And I'll point out that these 4 were contested proceedings. They were interveners in 5 these proceedings, so they were fully litigated.
6 CHAIR RYERSON: Yeah.
7 MR. REPKA: And I agree with what staff 8 just said. I would just make the further 9 clarification that the design and licensing basis for 10 Diablo Canyon is the ground motion, not an earthquake.
11 So it's the .75G that defines the structural 12 evaluation that's been done.
13 So, ultimately, it's the .75G that 14 matters, from a licensing basis perspective. The 15 plant doesn't care what the earthquake source is. As 16 long as it doesn't produce a greater ground motion, 17 it's capable of withstanding that ground motion.
18 CHAIR RYERSON: Okay. Mr. Ayres?
19 MR. AYRES: This is, I think, precisely 20 the issue here. What we see, looking back to the long 21 and tortured history of this plant, is that every time 22 additional seismic powers, additional earthquake 23 potential is discovered somehow, magically, the ground 24 motion shaking at the plant doesn't get any larger.
25 And particularly, with the most recent NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
717 1 comparison, that seems really hard to square with 2 logic. So I think one of the issues we want to deal 3 with here is the connection between the earthquake 4 findings and the ground motion findings. As you know, 5 I'm sure, PG&E has continually tinkered with the 6 ground motion equations, prediction equations.
7 And, of course, one -- I'm not saying they 8 did this, but one could certainly change the shaking 9 at the plant through those equations. We think those, 10 that issue, has to be looked into because it is such 11 a key part of their case, that somehow Hosgri, the old 12 Hosgri, is the bounding earthquake here -- bounding 13 earth movement here.
14 CHAIR RYERSON: Okay, thank you, Mr.
15 Ayres. I have, I think, one question for Mr. Repka 16 and then we can perhaps take a break and resume with 17 questions primarily from Judge Arnold at that point.
18 Mr. Repka, could you briefly, very 19 briefly, explain to me what happened in terms of --
20 I'm not sure I understand. There was an application 21 by PG&E for an amendment based upon the seismic data 22 and that the application for amendment was withdrawn, 23 I guess, in connection with the Fukushima Task Force 24 work? Or can you just tell us --
25 MR. REPKA: 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
718 1 CHAIR RYERSON: -- what happened there --
2 MR. REPKA: Okay, well --
3 CHAIR RYERSON: -- in your view?
4 MR. REPKA: Very briefly, the proposed 5 amendment was -- the amendment was proposed at a time 6 when this new information related to the Shoreline 7 fault was emerging.
8 Now, keep in mind that NRC regulations do 9 not require an updated seismic hazards, updated 10 licensing basis after initial licensing. So -- and 11 this is something that certainly came out of the 12 Fukushima review, that it's a one-time seismic 13 evaluation at the time of licensing and it's not 14 periodically updated.
15 So PG&E has maintained the long-term 16 seismic program since initial licensing as part of its 17 pro-active approach to seismic issues at Diablo 18 Canyon, in fact, unprecedented in the industry. So 19 new information as being developed.
20 There was no agreement around how that 21 should be processed in regulatory space, including 22 some differences of opinion within the NRC staff. So 23 PG&E came up with the proposal that said, this is how 24 we will evaluate new information, when it comes up, to 25 determine if we need to make CLB changes, essentially NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
719 1 applying a methodology analogous to the long-term 2 seismic program that was implemented years ago.
3 When the Fukushima process began the 4 Fukushima staff ultimately determined that the issue 5 addressing the adequacy of the seismic licensing basis 6 should be addressed through the Fukushima process and 7 not as a one-off Diablo-specific process. So the 8 amendment was withdrawn and the issue of methodology 9 and process would be handled in 50.54(f).
10 And, in fact, in the 50.54(f) letter the 11 NRC set forth a fairly specific methodology on 12 probabilistic seismic hazards that should be applied.
13 The Senior Seismic Hazards Advisory Committee, the 14 SHAC process, was defined, and that's the process now 15 being followed.
16 CHAIR RYERSON: And so your -- PG&E's 17 license amendment application was specifically 18 withdrawn at the request or suggestion of the staff?
19 Which would you say is accurate?
20 MR. AYRES: I think that was probably, 21 there were some mutual discussions around that issue.
22 But ultimately it was PG&E's decision to withdraw.
23 CHAIR RYERSON: All right. Why don't we 24 take approximately a ten-minute break and resume, say, 25 promptly at 11 o'clock, and we will continue then.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
720 1 Thank you.
2 MR. AYRES: Judge Ryerson, could I hold a 3 moment for a response to that after we get back?
4 CHAIR RYERSON: When we come back, yeah.
5 MR. AYRES: When we come back.
6 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter went 7 off the record at 10:50:35 a.m. and went back on 8 the record at 11:04:28 a.m.)
9 CHAIR RYERSON: Mr. Ayres, you have 10 the floor for a minute or two.
11 MR. AYRES: Your Honor, I think I'll 12 give that time back to the Board for your 13 questions.
14 CHAIR RYERSON: Appreciate that, Mr.
15 Ayres. Judge Arnold, do you want to begin?
16 JUDGE ARNOLD: Sure. I want to start 17 with a simple question getting at what the 18 parties agree on and where the disagreements 19 start. So let's start with PG&E. Simple 20 statement, PG&E must show the ability for a safe 21 shutdown during a seismic event. You agree with 22 that, right?
23 MR. REPKA: Yes, that's an ongoing 24 operational matter under the tech specs.
25 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. 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
721 1 petitioners, do you also agree with --
2 MR. AYRES: Okay, I'm sorry. Yes.
3 JUDGE ARNOLD: Now, and back to PG&E, 4 and that includes any new seismic events revealed 5 in the 2014 Seismic Report? You --
6 MR. REPKA: But --
7 JUDGE ARNOLD: That you have to be 8 able to show safe shutdown?
9 MR. REPKA: Again, that licensing 10 basis is the existing licensing basis. So your 11 operability is evaluated based on that licensing 12 basis. Obviously, as a safety matter and an 13 operability matter, you would look at new 14 information. And that's what PG&E has done under 15 its operability process and through its ongoing 16 geosciences program and through interactions with 17 the NRC.
18 But, ultimately, if the current 19 licensing basis needs to be altered, again, 20 that's not something that's done, would be done 21 immediately.
22 JUDGE ARNOLD: Yes. But I'm basically 23 asking you are required to show this safe 24 shutdown capability when new information of 25 seismic --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
722 1 MR. REPKA: Certainly as an 2 operability and safety matter.
3 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. And petitioners 4 would agree with that as well, that they have to 5 show safe shutdown when new information becomes 6 available?
7 MR. AYRES: Yes, sir.
8 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. PG&E, would you 9 say that you, that right now you have shown safe 10 shutdown for the seismic event considered in the 11 2014 report?
12 MR. REPKA: Yes.
13 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. How about 14 petitioners? Have they shown a safe shutdown 15 capability for the seismic information in the 16 2014 report?
17 MR. AYRES: Well, yes. This is where 18 we part company with them. We don't think that's 19 true. And, as we said in our briefing, we 20 believe there is evidence that the shaking of the 21 plant will be substantially larger than the 22 Hosgri evaluation suggests. And as a 23 consequence, they have not shown it can be safely 24 shut down under the real circumstances.
25 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. Back 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
723 1 petitioners -- or back to PG&E. Do you consider 2 that there is more seismic evaluation work to be 3 done specific for license renewal?
4 MR. REPKA: As a licensing basis 5 matter, no, with the possible exception of the 6 severe accident and mitigation alternatives 7 evaluation which will be updated as part of the 8 license renewal process.
9 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, and, petitioners, 10 same question. Have they -- do they have 11 additional work to do for seismic qualification 12 for re-licensing?
13 MR. AYRES: I think they do. 10 CFR 14 54.4 requires a demonstration that the aging SSCs 15 are capable of shutting down the plant following 16 natural phenomenon including earthquakes. And so 17 we believe they have work to do to evaluate that 18 problem.
19 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, thank you. Also 20 for petitioners, you state that the demonstration 21 should be performed prior to license renewal.
22 Your contention basically says that it should not 23 be renewed unless and until PG&E establishes that 24 the plant can withstand the -- okay.
25 And, hypothetically, if 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
724 1 earthquake, the seismic information had become 2 available 20 years ago, would they have been okay 3 to wait until the re-licensing, now, to address 4 it? Or is it something that they would have had 5 to address 20 years ago?
6 MR. AYRES: I think they would have 7 been required to address it 20 years ago. You 8 know, whether there would have been litigation 9 about it, I don't know. But --
10 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay.
11 MR. AYRES: They would have been under 12 that duty, yes.
13 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. And supposing 14 this seismic information became available after 15 re-licensing had occurred, would they have had to 16 do anything more than show that it was covered by 17 the current licensing basis? Would they have had 18 to have gone back and look at aging 19 considerations?
20 MR. AYRES: Well, as we said earlier, 21 there are two duties here, in our view. One duty 22 is the duty to design and build the plant so that 23 it is, so it can be safely operated and closed 24 down. And that's a continuing duty under the 25 current licensing basis.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
725 1 Separate from that, there is a duty 2 when there is a request for renewing or extending 3 a license. There's a separate set of duties 4 under 54.4 that they demonstrate anew, that the 5 plant can be safely shut down given the aging of 6 the plant's components.
7 Our point here is only that, in this 8 context, that examination has to also include a 9 changed seismic outlook which was not known when 10 the first, when the plant was first licensed.
11 JUDGE ARNOLD: Well, I guess what I'm 12 trying to get at is seismic information that 13 becomes available after the license has been 14 renewed would therefore never be figured into the 15 aging management program. If you have, you know, 16 the re-licensing as a fixed -- it's got to be 17 done by this point, then you would never look at 18 it for new information after that point.
19 MR. AYRES: Well, the licensing basis, 20 and during the period of extension, would 21 obviously be shaped by the examination the Board 22 does now of the aging process. So the Board 23 says, we think the plant can be operated for 24 another 20 years safely and then new facts are 25 discovered 10 years later, let's say, there 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
726 1 be a continuing licensing basis opportunity or 2 requirement to take the steps necessary to 3 maintain safety.
4 But the -- I think our point here is 5 that, at this point, you're looking forward.
6 You're looking 20 years in the future and saying, 7 as of now, can we conclude with a reasonable 8 assurance that it will be able to operate 20 9 years safely.
10 That prediction could be wrong, and 10 11 years from now we might find that it can't be, 12 given the current state of the equipment, because 13 of some change in the environment. That would be 14 a separate look and, I think, a separate process 15 with a separate set of rules from this one.
16 JUDGE ARNOLD: Mm-hmm. Okay. Thank 17 you. Back to PG&E. Now you said, essentially, 18 for the current licensing period you've already 19 demonstrated that you can safely shut down for 20 any seismic event that might have been revealed 21 in the 2014 report. Does that evaluation go 22 through an NRC review?
23 MR. REPKA: The NRC does have the 24 September report and is looking at that. But the 25 issue, the seismic issues more broadly 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
727 1 undergoing review under the 50.54(f) post-2 Fukushima process. And so that is being 3 reviewed. It's in development. It'll be 4 reviewed through the SHAC process and reviewed by 5 the NRC.
6 And if any CLB changes are required 7 they'll go through the Part 50 process including 8 any license amendments or orders that might be 9 required to change the licensing basis. So, yes, 10 we have reviewed it and reached certain 11 conclusions. But that is an ongoing process 12 under the 50.54(f) umbrella.
13 And whatever comes out of that process 14 will certainly continue to apply into a period of 15 extended operation. So, for instance, you were 16 just talking about some sort of separate finding 17 that needs to be made about extended operation.
18 But that's not logical because the 19 point is the decision will be made during the 20 current operating term, you know, whenever that's 21 made and it will apply for the remainder of the 22 license, whatever that might be at that time, 23 subject to ongoing regulatory oversight during 24 that period. So that is a premise of the license 25 renewal rule.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
728 1 MR. LINDELL: Your honor, if I just 2 might add, when the, after the September report 3 came out and the licensee did, as PG&E discussed 4 submit an operability determination to the staff, 5 so the staff actually did an inspection report of 6 that operability determination.
7 And the independent analysis of the 8 staff found that the plant did not exceed its 9 design basis and that the updated ground motions 10 were within the Hosgri earthquake standards, that 11 the plant, you know, was designed to meet. I can 12 provide the ML number from the report if the 13 Board is interested.
14 JUDGE ARNOLD: No, thank you.
15 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: I'd like to see 16 that. I'd like to get that ML number, please.
17 MR. LINDELL: Okay, it's ML14349A485.
18 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: 14349A?
19 MR. LINDELL: 485.
20 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: 485? Thank you.
21 MR. AYRES: Judge Arnold?
22 JUDGE ARNOLD: Yes?
23 MR. AYRES: Could I add one point?
24 Following up on the comments of PG&E, you asked 25 whether the, and whether there was an approval NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
729 1 process for the, basically the techniques that 2 produced their conclusions about that.
3 The position, as I understand it, that 4 both the staff and the Applicant take, is that 5 while the staff looks at, for example, ground 6 motion potential equations it does not approve or 7 disapprove them.
8 And I think PG&E's taken the position 9 that they're free to change them at any time.
10 And, indeed, that's what they have done, at least 11 twice, in order -- I would say -- in order to get 12 the right result as to the ground motion at the 13 plant.
14 JUDGE ARNOLD: I intend to get into 15 that a little bit deeper, and this is on that 16 line. For PG&E, are the methods used to evaluate 17 the plant response to new seismic motion 18 described in the FSAR or other licensing 19 documents?
20 MR. REPKA: When you frame that 21 question I think you have to look at two 22 different kinds of evaluations. And I think 23 Friends of the Earth tends to conflate the two.
24 The first is, given a set of ground 25 motions or a ground motion response spectra, 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
730 1 have to do a structural evaluation to show that 2 the safety-related equipment can withstand the 3 seismic loads created by those ground motions.
4 That was done as part of the 1977 5 Hosgri earthquake evaluation. And there was a 6 lot of discussion of the inputs into that 7 methodology such as damping values and material 8 strengths, et cetera, et cetera. That was 9 subject to the licensing process and some of that 10 information is in the Supplemental Safety 11 Evaluation Reports in the FSAR.
12 But that's the structural evaluation.
13 But what we're focused on here is the ground 14 motion prediction methodology which relates to, 15 given a seismic source, given a particular set, a 16 geometry, a source, a length -- what kinds of 17 ground motions will that produce at the site, at 18 the Diablo Canyon site.
19 There is no specific licensing basis 20 methodology for that ground motion prediction 21 evaluation. It's, in fact, the techniques have 22 evolved over the years between the original DE 23 and DDE which were essentially not sophisticated 24 modeling at the time of the construction permit.
25 At the time of the Hosgri earthquake NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
731 1 evaluation there were different consultants' 2 reports, one for PG&E, one for the NRC, using 3 different methodologies. Ultimately, ground 4 motion prediction equations have evolved since 5 then. And those were used in the long-term --
6 first iterations of those were used in the long-7 term seismic program.
8 But PG&E has continuously worked with 9 the institutions like the USGS and the California 10 Earthquake Center on the prediction methodology.
11 So the imaging report reduces uncertainty about 12 the source. And then state-of-the-art modeling 13 is used to predict the ground motion equations.
14 Again, that's not dictated by the 15 licensing basis. Essentially, the NRC does look 16 at that, the methodology used, determines if it 17 was reasonable. But this is why, through the 18 50.54(f) process, all of those issues are, again, 19 are being looked at through the SHAC process and 20 ultimately through the NRC's review.
21 But there is no one methodology that 22 was accepted and said this is what you will use 23 forever more. In fact, that would be illogical.
24 What the company has done, through its 25 geosciences program, is always used the best NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
732 1 available technology for ground motion 2 predictions.
3 JUDGE ARNOLD: Let me just paraphrase 4 that and see if I understand it. The plant 5 structural response, basically there is a state-6 of-the-art that is not evolving rapidly for that.
7 So the equations are described in the FSAR and 8 you go back and use the same essential 9 methodology whenever it's there.
10 But the seismic ground motion 11 calculation is more rapidly evolving 12 state-of-the-art. It's a mixed -- it's moving 13 target for you so you use it, the best available 14 at the time as input to the calculation that is 15 in the FSAR. Is that basically --
16 MR. REPKA: That's correct. The 17 ground motion at the site, the .75G, for example, 18 for the Hosgri earthquake evaluation's just the 19 bounding input into the structural evaluation.
20 So if you show that the input is going 21 to be lower than the structural evaluation you 22 don't need to repeat. But the ground motion 23 prediction, to take the new information related 24 to the seismic source which is what the seismic 25 imaging project is all about, it's unprecedented NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
733 1 look at the central coast of California -- new 2 information, reducing uncertainty relative to 3 what was done before and then you use that to 4 create, as part of your ground motion predictions 5 at the site.
6 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. And now, go 7 back. I'll give you a moment to answer, to reply 8 to that, but I just want to get to this question.
9 On Page 13 of the petition you state, "The 10 analysis in Chapter 13 of PG&E's seismic report 11 applies yet another set of new and novel ground 12 motion prediction equations from those used to 13 evaluate either the DDE or the Hosgri 14 earthquake."
15 Do you want to comment on that and --
16 MR. AYRES: Well, yes, I do. First of 17 all, I want to say I'm all in favor of better 18 ability to predict. And let's be clear about 19 that. But that's not really the issue here, it 20 seems to me.
21 What the Applicant does is to say the 22 Hosgri evaluation is bounding, it is more, 23 produces greater ground motion at the plant than 24 either of the increasing, increased size 25 earthquake generated -- or faults that we've NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
734 1 seen. Sorry. But it's making a comparison 2 between the two.
3 But the trouble with their comparison 4 is that they're using different methods. You 5 know, if you weigh yourself at the gym and you 6 weigh yourself at home, you're using two 7 different measurement techniques, you're likely 8 to get a different kind of answer. You certainly 9 can't say they're comparable.
10 So our point is simply in order to 11 evaluate whether the Hosgri is bounding or not 12 you have to look at both sets of faults using the 13 same set of GMPEs. Whether it's the new ones or 14 the old ones may not matter, but the point is if 15 you use two different sets of GMPEs you can't 16 possible, as a matter of logic, make a statement 17 about the relationship of the strength of those 18 two different sets of faults.
19 MR. REPKA: I disagree with that. I 20 think you can make a comparison of based ground 21 motion to ground motion. And if you're basing 22 your prediction of ground motion on the latest 23 information about the source and using the best 24 methodology and data to calculate the ground 25 motion you have eliminated uncertainty and 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
735 1 have a better look at what the ground motions 2 might be.
3 And now that's precisely what's been 4 done. And that's, I think, a good example of 5 that is if you look at the Hosgri earthquake 6 itself. If you look at the updated ground 7 motions for the Hosgri earthquake they're below 8 the 1977 Hosgri earthquake evaluation, and the 9 reason for that is we now know much more about 10 the seismic source. A lot of uncertainty has 11 been eliminated.
12 And so, you know, there's nothing 13 illogical about that. In fact, it's the best 14 available technical approach to addressing the 15 issue. And beyond that, second point I would 16 make, is with respect to somehow using the 17 methodology that was used in 1977 to come up with 18 the ground motion response spectra for the Hosgri 19 earthquake, as I said, that was developed by two 20 consultants at the time, Blume and Newmark.
21 And those reports are referenced in 22 the SSERs. The methodologies they used to come 23 up with the ground motion's based on a postulated 24 7.5 earthquake magnitude on the Hosgri fault 25 would not be reproducible today. So, 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
736 1 they weren't using computer software codes. They 2 weren't using the kinds of things that are in 3 play today.
4 So the idea that we would go back and 5 somehow use a ground motion prediction equation 6 and apply that to new seismic data, you know, 7 simply makes no technical sense, nor is there any 8 requirement in the NRC regulations to do that.
9 JUDGE ARNOLD: Thank you. Any more 10 comments on this issue?
11 MR. AYRES: Yes. This is not a 12 question of our suggesting that they should go 13 back and analyze today's faults with 1977 14 methodology. My point is simply that, unless you 15 use the same methodology to measure Hosgri and to 16 measure the new understanding of Hosgri, you 17 can't compare the two of them.
18 It's apples to oranges. And, yes, we 19 now have a much better sense of the oranges, but 20 that still doesn't make them apples. So we think 21 that, you know, they could use the most modern 22 technique and analyze both. And at least then 23 there'd be an opportunity for a comparison.
24 And also, I would just finally point 25 out that the changes that have occurred 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
737 1 ground motion equations haven't just been the old 2 1977 one cooked up by a couple of guys in the 3 back of the room compared with today. There's 4 been a change in the GMPEs used by PG&E between 5 2011 and 2014. And that's part of why 2014, in 6 my view, shows what they say it shows.
7 JUDGE ARNOLD: Well, I think I've 8 heard enough.
9 MR. AYRES: Okay.
10 JUDGE ARNOLD: We're really into the 11 merits here, and I was trying to understand what 12 the disagreement was. I want to move over to 13 staff and with a question concerning 10 CFR 54.30 14 which it titled Matters Not Subject to a Renewal 15 Review.
16 And basically it refers to 54.21 which 17 is the technical information that has to be in 18 the application. And it basically says that if 19 you stumble across something in the review that 20 doesn't meet the current license basis you have 21 to fix it then. You just -- you don't wait for 22 renewal.
23 And then Paragraph B says in these 24 items that you're repairing now are not within 25 the scope of the license renewal review. Now, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
738 1 question, is this section relevant to the current 2 contentions? And if so, can we admit these 3 contentions without getting a waiver to this 4 rule?
5 MR. LINDELL: Your Honor, I believe 6 you do -- Friends didn't actually ask for a 7 waiver of this particular section.
8 JUDGE ARNOLD: I know.
9 MR. LINDELL: But I believe that is 10 the correct reading of that regulation in that 11 currently licensing basis concerns identified are 12 not going to be within the scope of the license 13 renewal review which is looking at the management 14 of aging effects.
15 So if Friends of the Earth was to move 16 forward they would also need a waiver of this 17 provision which, in our view, is not appropriate.
18 And the reason for that is that, if you look at 19 the reasons why 54.30 was adopted it was actually 20 to keep current licensing basis compliance issues 21 out of license renewal, to address them, 22 actually, prior to the period of extended 23 operations.
24 For example, in the Statement of 25 Considerations that went along with the 1995 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
739 1 reseasons for the rule, that's where 54.30 was 2 added. And the Statement of Considerations 3 actually says that 54.30 was added to distinguish 4 between those issues identified during the 5 license renewal process that require resolution 6 during the license renewal process and those 7 issues that require resolution during the current 8 license term.
9 So, which essentially is saying that 10 if issues require resolution during the current 11 license renewal term they have to be dealt with 12 at that point. And a waiver of 54.30 would 13 accomplish the opposite of what it's intended 14 because it basically is pushing off issues that 15 are identified related to the current license 16 term to a period, you know, possibly a decade in 17 the future.
18 JUDGE ARNOLD: Thank you. PG&E, you 19 have any comments on this section?
20 MR. REPKA: No. When it comes to a 21 question of whether a waiver is required I think 22 I would tend to defer to staff. I do think that 23 54.30 precisely reflects the basic philosophy of 24 the license renewal rule that is that current 25 operating issues are addressed in the current NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
740 1 operating term.
2 I'm not sure, factually, where exactly 3 in that situation because it talks about if the 4 reviews required by 54.21 show there's not 5 reasonable assurance, I mean, that's -- the 6 seismic issues weren't identified as part of the 7 license renewal review nor do the show there's no 8 reasonable assurance of safety. But other than 9 that, I don't have any further comments.
10 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. Now, 11 petitioners.
12 MR. AYRES: Yes.
13 JUDGE ARNOLD: Staff seems to think 14 that we need a waiver of this and your petition 15 for waiver did not address this issue. So can 16 you give me an interpretation of this rule that 17 would allow this contention to be addressed now?
18 MR. AYRES: No, we didn't address it 19 in our waiver petition because we didn't think it 20 was necessary to waive it. 54.30 specifically 21 refers to outstanding current licensing basis 22 issues that arise during the "current license 23 term" and does not exclude from the scope of a 24 license renewal that questions whether those 25 activities would need to be corrected for 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
741 1 extended period of the license.
2 However, I would say if the Board does 3 not agree with that interpretation we would like 4 to take this opportunity to amend our waiver 5 petition to include 54.30. As we said, we don't 6 think it's necessary. But if you do, we would 7 like to amend our waiver petition accordingly.
8 JUDGE ARNOLD: Go ahead, Ms. Curran.
9 MS. CURRAN: I'd like to be heard on 10 this. But could I just have one moment first?
11 JUDGE ARNOLD: Sure.
12 MS. CURRAN: I just want to point out 13 that 54.30 deals with situations where the 14 activities are not in compliance with the current 15 licensing basis. And I think Friends of the 16 Earth's contentions here have to do with the 17 adequacy of the current licensing basis which, if 18 you look at the preamble to the rules, it is an 19 entirely different issue.
20 JUDGE ARNOLD: Thank you. On Page 9 21 of the petition you have two paragraphs titled 22 Relays Are Within the Scope of a License Renewal 23 Proceeding and Snubbers Are Within the Scope of a 24 License Renewal Proceeding.
25 But then on Page 30 of the petition NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
742 1 you note that 10 CFR 54.21 Paragraph A(1)(i) 2 includes a partial list of SSCs that are subject 3 to an aging management review and a partial list 4 of SSCs excluded from such review.
5 And that list excludes both snubbers 6 and relays. So it's hard for me to understand 7 how those two -- you know, the rule and your 8 interpretation of the rule -- how does that come 9 about?
10 MR. AYRES: Well, I'll start by saying 11 the NRC agrees with us because it admits, on Page 12 30 of its answer, that relays and snubbers are 13 within the scope of license renewal proceedings.
14 Our point there has been that they are, 15 therefore, subject to a requirement that they be 16 shown to be capable of doing their job in 17 protecting the plant.
18 I think I mentioned this earlier 19 there. If you look at regulation certain things 20 are required to have TLAAs and then in other 21 places there are things required to have AMPs.
22 This is excluded from those. These two items are 23 excluded from those that are required to have 24 TLAAs.
25 But they are within the scope 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
743 1 proceeding and, therefore, they're within the 2 scope of the larger concern in the proceeding 3 that they be functional to protect the safety of 4 the plant.
5 If you look at 54.21(a)(3) you'll see 6 that it requires that for each structure and 7 component identified in the paragraph, and that 8 includes snubbers and relays, the Applicant must 9 demonstrate that the effects of aging will be 10 adequately managed so that the intended 11 functioning will be maintained consistent with 12 the CLB for the period of extended operation.
13 JUDGE ARNOLD: But these are items 14 that are active components and they are 15 periodically tested. So doesn't an existing 16 testing regime obviate the need for a specific 17 aging management plan or demonstration in excess 18 of the regular surveillance?
19 MR. AYRES: Well, that may be why 20 they're not included among the items that are 21 required to have the TLAA. But, as part of the 22 demonstration required here, that the aging 23 components of the plant will operate to protect 24 its safety, I think it's clear that what this 25 regulation is saying is that there has to be some NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
744 1 representation, some indication from the 2 Applicant of the ability of these components to 3 operate as they need to operate.
4 JUDGE ARNOLD: Well, let me ask the 5 staff at the moment, are aging management 6 programs intended to account for the effects of 7 seismic events? I mean, is there any connection 8 between seismic events and aging management 9 plans?
10 MS. UTTAL: Well, seismic events don't 11 have an aging result. And I think that the 12 intervener is not looking at the aging management 13 programs correctly. It's a little misunderstood.
14 The components are designed or 15 qualified seismically. And they're qualified, in 16 this case, up to .75, up to the Hosgri figures.
17 And the aging management programs are designed to 18 make sure that these components, the aging 19 effects will keep these components from showing 20 the deleterious effects of aging.
21 And these are the -- this is based on 22 -- what the components are based on the design 23 basis. As long as the design basis stays the 24 same, the components are the same and the aging 25 management program is the same.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
745 1 If the design basis changes and the 2 component changes then there would be another 3 program, perhaps, that would have to manage aging 4 or maintenance for this particular component.
5 And that would change. And if that changes, then 6 they would follow that program.
7 So the aging management program is not 8 tied to an event. It's tied to the actual 9 component or the system that it's looking at. So 10 the fact that there's an earthquake that could 11 happen is not what the aging management program 12 is meant to look at.
13 It's meant to make sure that the other 14 things that age this thing, like brittleness and 15 stress and things like that, do not make it 16 unable to perform its intended function.
17 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, let me see if I 18 can paraphrase that.
19 MS. UTTAL: Good. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ARNOLD: The aging management 21 plan assures you that if there is a seismic event 22 somewhere in the future, when that starts, that 23 component's still going to be able to meet its 24 design specifications.
25 MS. UTTAL: 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
746 1 JUDGE ARNOLD: Now, your earthquake 2 may change that but if those design 3 specifications are that it will maintain its 4 function through an earthquake then it will?
5 MS. UTTAL: Yes.
6 JUDGE ARNOLD: After the earthquake, 7 that aging management plan really -- who knows?
8 You've got a --
9 MS. UTTAL: No.
10 JUDGE ARNOLD: You may have a 11 different, you know, configuration by then.
12 MS. UTTAL: Well you -- what you have 13 to show is that you can do, that you can safely 14 shut down for these events whether it's an 15 earthquake or thunderstorm or whatever the heck 16 it is. So --
17 JUDGE ARNOLD: And it doesn't 18 guarantee operability after an earthquake?
19 MS. UTTAL: That's correct.
20 MR. REPKA: I'll just add a couple 21 points to that. And, Judge Arnold, I think you 22 and I are aligned on this, but Friends of the 23 Earth is arguing that equipment is somehow aged -
24 - we don't know how, but just because it got old, 25 so it's aged -- and that it's not going 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
747 1 able to withstand this one-time event that's 2 going to be greater than previously anticipated.
3 That's not an aging management issue.
4 The aging management programs address aging 5 mechanisms, of which earthquakes and seismic 6 events are not normally considered to be an aging 7 mechanism, so they don't normally manage that.
8 Now there is an exception to that 9 which is, for a limited scope of equipment, it's 10 explained in the application -- that doesn't 11 include snubbers and relays because it doesn't 12 have to -- that are subject to fatigue. And so 13 for some specific equipment subject to the 14 fatigue management program, that's an aging 15 management program, the program counts cycles.
16 And essentially there's an allowance 17 for operating basis events or an HE, a DE, DDE or 18 an HE equivalent, none of which have ever 19 occurred at Diablo Canyon. But, again, that 20 scope, a fatigue management program, doesn't 21 cover snubbers or relays because they're not the 22 kind of components that experience fatigue. And 23 so a one-time seismic event is not an aging 24 mechanism.
25 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. Mr. Ayres, I'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
748 1 sure you have some comment to make on this.
2 MR. AYRES: Well, yes, I do, Your 3 Honor. I'd like to actually give two different 4 kinds of comments. First, let's look at the 5 regulations. 54.21 provides that it's within the 6 scope of the license renewal review to examine as 7 to whether these components will be adequately 8 managed so that the safe -- so that the 9 components can be safely shut down or the plant 10 can be safely shut down following an earthquake.
11 And so our view would be that the 12 earthquake is inevitably present. It's the 13 elephant in the middle of the room, maybe, but 14 it's definitely within the inquiry here. So then 15 you look at the aging issue.
16 And, as I said, I think earlier, we 17 see no way that you can take the two issues apart 18 because the ability to withstand depends on the 19 stress that's put on the components. And if the 20 stress is going to be greater than was thought 21 when the components were originally placed in 22 place, and if they haven't been changed to 23 account for that then they're not going to be 24 capable of doing what's required under 54.21.
25 So we think you can't disassociate 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
749 1 two. And you don't talk about, and the staff's 2 not used to talking about this issue of the 3 earthquake because in most circumstances, and 4 nearly every plant that's been re-licensed, I'm 5 sure, there's no change. The same earthquake 6 analysis continues to be, as was 40 years ago.
7 In this case there is a change and so, 8 therefore, it seems to us, it has to be part of 9 looking at the aging management preparations that 10 are made by the licensee.
11 MS. UTTAL: Judge, can I say one thing 12 about --
13 JUDGE ARNOLD: Sure.
14 MS. UTTAL: -- 54.21? 54.21(a)(1)(i) 15 says an integrated plant assessment, an IPA, must 16 -- each application must contain the following 17 information. The IPA must, for those systems, 18 structures and components within the scope of the 19 Part as delineated in 50.54 identify and list 20 those structures and components subject to an 21 aging management review. Structures subject to an 22 aging management review shall encompass all those 23 structures. And then at the bottom it lists a 24 bunch and excludes specifically the snubbers and 25 the relays.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
750 1 And then says that for each structure 2 and component identified in Paragraph (1)(a) of 3 this section demonstrate that the effects of aging 4 will be adequately managed. So it is my, our 5 contention that Section 3 refers to the components 6 and the systems that are identified as needing 7 aging management, not those that are excluded from 8 needing aging management.
9 MR. REPKA: And we agree with that 10 interpretation. And that interpretation is also 11 consistent with the guidance documents on license 12 renewal, most specifically being NEI 95-10 that 13 lists snubbers and relays. We cited that in our 14 papers. And that document has been endorsed by 15 the NRC.
16 So I think it's very clear that 17 snubbers and relays are excluded from an aging 18 management review. And the reason for that, 19 again, is that they're active components subject 20 to ongoing maintenance.
21 I think, a second point, there was some 22 discussion from Mr. Ayres about what might happen 23 in the future or the past if there was -- have 24 plants ever experienced beyond design basis 25 information. And regardless of whether or 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
751 1 it's in a current operating term or in a future 2 operating term those issues would be addressed.
3 And, in fact, they are being addressed 4 for the central and eastern U.S. plants through 5 the GSI-199 process that was subsumed into the 6 50.54(f) process. In some of those plans there is 7 information that the seismic hazards are greater 8 than what they were originally licensed for, 9 unlike the Diablo Canyon situation where that has 10 not been shown.
11 So my point being, there, again, 12 regardless of whether it occurs in this, the 13 current operating term or in the future extended 14 operating, period of extended operation, the 15 seismic CLB issue will be addressed through the 16 Part 50 process.
17 MS. UTTAL: The staff agrees with that.
18 MR. AYRES: Could I return to the legal 19 interpretation offered by the staff, just because 20 --
21 JUDGE ARNOLD: Sure.
22 MR. AYRES: -- it is offered. We were 23 looking at -- I mentioned 54.21(a)(3). And I 24 think what the staff is saying is that somehow 25 (a)(3) only applies to 54.21(a)(1)(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
752 1 It doesn't say that. What it says is 2 it applies to any structure or component 3 identified in Paragraph (a)(1) which is all those 4 systems, structures and components within the 5 scope of this part.
6 And, of course, it if you look at 54.4 7 you find that included in the scope here is 8 safety-related systems, structures and components 9 which are those relied upon to remain functional 10 during the following design basis events to ensure 11 the following functions.
12 And one of those functions is the 13 capability to shut down the reactor and maintain 14 it in a safe shutdown condition. So, to 15 summarize, it appears to us that Paragraph 3 of 16 54.21(a) does refer to snubbers and switch gear as 17 well, relays.
18 And in their papers the NRC agreed with 19 that point, I might add. I believe it's on Page 20 30, so I'm not --
21 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. Well, let me go 22 on with another question, petitioners. On Page 24 23 of the petition you charge PG&E's time-limited 24 aging analysis for Diablo Canyon's relay switches 25 and snubbbers do not take into account new 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
753 1 material data in the seismic report.
2 Now I took a look at their aging 3 analysis. There's a table 4.1-1 that lists the 4 categories of time-limited aging analysis. And 5 following that there's a description of them. And 6 I didn't go through it in great detail, but I saw 7 no reference to snubbers or relay switches. So 8 I'm wondering which time-limit aging analysis, 9 specifically, you're contesting.
10 MR. AYRES: Well, we may have said 11 that, and artfully, Your Honor, but the point is 12 there are -- our point was the same as your point.
13 There are no time-limited aging analyses for 14 switches and snubbers. And that is inadequate 15 given that the new material on the seismic rift.
16 MR. REPKA: May I respond to that, 17 Judge Arnold?
18 JUDGE ARNOLD: Sure.
19 MR. REPKA: There is no time-limited 20 aging analysis for snubbers and relays -- true 21 statement. That equipment is not qualified on the 22 basis of a time-limit aging analysis. A TLAA might 23 be, for example, a situation where you had 24 inaccessible cable and you can't perform routine 25 surveillance on that equipment, so you analyze 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
754 1 for the current operating license term. And now 2 you have to show that it can be extended to the 3 extended period of operation.
4 That's simply not the approach for TLAA 5 -- for snubbers and relays. They are tested under 6 their active components subject to surveillance 7 testing, and that's -- so there is no TLAA.
8 That's not the basis for qualification. And 9 there's nothing in the license renewal rule that 10 says you must create a TLAA for equipment, much 11 less for snubbers and relays.
12 So the argument that there should be, 13 you know, simply has no basis in the rule. Beyond 14 that, the argument that somehow there should be a 15 TLAA really equates to an argument that you're 16 design of this equipment, your qualification 17 testing, your surveillance testing for the 18 equipment is not adequate somehow -- that's a CLB 19 issue.
20 That's not a license renewal issue 21 either. So the argument really has no basis in 22 either fact or in the regulations.
23 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. Sure.
24 MR. AYRES: I just want to be clear, 25 and I did say this once before, we're not arguing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
755 1 that a TLAA was required for those two components.
2 What we are saying is at some demonstration that 3 they will continue to be operative and will assure 4 that the plant can be shut down should be a part 5 of this license extension request.
6 It doesn't necessarily have to be a 7 TLAA but there needs to be some demonstration 8 because the regulations require it.
9 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, thank you. And 10 still with petitioners, on Page 31 of the petition 11 you state -- and again, I quote -- "The aging 12 management review in PG&E's license renewal 13 application, however, rests on seismic data that 14 has been shown to be obsolete and inaccurate."
15 And, once again, that's kind of not 16 very specific. Could you pick any one specific 17 aging management plan and demonstrate how obsolete 18 and inaccurate information was used to demonstrate 19 the adequacy of the plan?
20 MR. AYRES: Your Honor, I think we have 21 a little different view of it. The whole -- all 22 of these plans, all the aging management plans or 23 subplans that are in the license renewal 24 application were done in 2009 when that was 25 applied 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
756 1 I think our point is that the seismic 2 data that was involved in that application is now 3 obsolete. And so all of those aging management 4 plans need to be reconsidered in light of the new 5 seismic data.
6 So, you know, rather than give you one 7 specific one, I think my point is that the fact 8 that we now, in our view, now see much more 9 energetic faults out there with the likelihood of 10 causing a good deal more shaking of the plant 11 means that looking at what would be okay under 12 less energetic faults isn't necessarily okay in 13 terms of managing aging from the future.
14 JUDGE ARNOLD: Let me just ask Mr.
15 Repka, is seismic information in any way factored 16 into aging management plans?
17 MR. REPKA: Generally speaking, no.
18 Again, as I said before, this seismic or 19 earthquake event is not an aging mechanism except 20 for a limited scope of equipment subject to the 21 fatigue management process where seismic cycles 22 might be counted.
23 But nothing that's being raised here 24 says, relates to the frequency of an earthquake or 25 the history of earthquakes. It relates 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
757 1 magnitude or the ground motions from a one-time 2 event.
3 And that's not an aging effect and so 4 seismic data, in that sense, does not figure into 5 an aging management program or an aging management 6 review. And we're not clear what Friends of the 7 Earth is referring to here at all.
8 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. Well, one last 9 question, a similar one. On Page 32 of the 10 petition you state PG&E's aging management review 11 is based on a number of assumptions that in these 12 particular circumstances are not valid.
13 Now can you be more specific on that, 14 pick out an AMP and show us an assumption in the 15 analysis that you consider to be invalid? Or are 16 you just assuming that there are seismic 17 assumptions?
18 MR. AYRES: I think what we're 19 referring to there is, as being assumptions that 20 are invalid, has to do with the seismic 21 surroundings, seismic environment, that they 22 assume without discussing a certain seismic 23 environment. And what we're pointing to is the 24 fact that that's changed and that that, therefore, 25 makes the AMPs based on the assumption of a less NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
758 1 energetic earthquake not valid.
2 MR. REPKA: Well, I don't think there's 3 any basis for that, number one. Number two, as I 4 -- okay, as I said before, if you have this more 5 energetic earthquake than you expected in real 6 life the plant will be shut down in the aftermath 7 of the earthquake subject to the NRC's inspection 8 program Part 50 process to review the impact of 9 that earthquake on the equipment at the plant.
10 This was done at North Anna after the 11 Virginia earthquake of a couple of years ago. And 12 the plant had to show the affect on the equipment 13 before it could restart, if any. And so -- and 14 it's a very well developed NRC inspection program 15 for that eventuality. So there's no, again, no 16 linkage between that issue, the more energetic 17 earthquake that's occurred and the impact on 18 equipment, and license renewal aging management.
19 JUDGE ARNOLD: Thank you. All right.
20 I know Judge Trikouros has a number of questions.
21 But I think if we take another short break, 22 hopefully, we'll be able to finish by, before our 23 one o'clock target. So let's plan to reconvene at 24 12:10 promptly and hopefully finish by 1:00.
25 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter went NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
759 1 off the record at 11:58:19 a.m. and went back on 2 the record at 12:11:42 p.m.)
3 JUDGE ARNOLD: Be seated. Judge 4 Trikouros, you have the floor.
5 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Yes, thank you.
6 Okay, fortunately, a lot of my questions have 7 gotten answered in the course of the morning, so 8 that was helpful. But I do want to ask, 9 generally, what the current licensing basis of 10 this plant is with respect to seismic -- and I'm 11 not going to ask you to tell me.
12 I'm going to tell you what I think it 13 is quickly and tell me if there's a problem. But 14 it is the design earthquake, the double-design 15 earthquake and the Hosgri event?
16 MR. REPKA: And the 1977 Hosgri 17 earthquake evaluation, that is correct.
18 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Right, and the --
19 it's the ground motion spectra that are really the 20 licensing basis of the plant, not the, not 21 necessarily the magnitude of the earthquake?
22 MR. REPKA: That's correct.
23 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. And the 24 methods that are used in conjunction with these, 25 are they in the, also a part of the current NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
760 1 licensing basis or are they sort of up for grabs 2 on a case by case basis?
3 MR. REPKA: The methods to calculate 4 the ground motions are not part of the licensing 5 basis. Different methods have been used over 6 different times and for the different analyses.
7 Some of the assumptions and -- mostly the 8 assumptions in the structural aspects are in the 9 licensing basis but that's after you've calculated 10 the ground motion.
11 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: All right, I 12 understand. So if an analysis is done using 13 different methods for ground motion spectra 14 calculation, let's say a different set of 15 equations, predicting equations for that 16 earthquake, do they then get put into the FSAR?
17 Does that analysis thing get put into the FSAR?
18 And does it then become part of the license basis?
19 MR. REPKA: What will come out of the 20 50.54(f) process with respect to the current 21 licensing basis, I can't say. I can't predict.
22 But I would say my default assumption would be no, 23 that those ground motion prediction methodologies 24 are continuing to evolve.
25 And as I said, before, PG&E works 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
761 1 the California Earthquake Center using the next 2 generation attenuation models. Those are 3 reproducible models but they also evolve, so --
4 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Well I wasn't 5 specifically asking you about the 50.54(f),
6 although I was going to touch on that. I was 7 referring to, for example, the Shoreline fault.
8 That was analyzed, I assume. Ground 9 motion spectra were developed. Some equation, 10 some analytical method was used to develop the 11 ground motion spectra for that. It was, I assume, 12 compared against the, up to at least the Hosgri 13 event. Was that documented anywhere? Was that --
14 MR. REPKA: That --
15 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Is there an FSAR 16 update coming on that? I mean, it's like --
17 MR. REPKA: There is a --
18 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: -- ten years now or 19 --
20 MR. REPKA: There is an USFSAR revision 21 that's already been made. Revision 21 of the UAR 22 incorporates information about the Shoreline 23 fault.
24 There was a letter from the NRC to PG&E 25 on October 12th of 2012 that listed conclusions 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
762 1 the NRC's review of the Shoreline fault report 2 that was from February of 2011 that agreed that it 3 was, that the Shoreline ground motions were 4 bounded by the 1977 licensing basis, Hosgri ground 5 motions and suggested that they be included in the 6 FSAR as a lesser included case.
7 And so that, in fact, is now in the 8 FSAR, the fact that the Shoreline has been 9 analyzed, without going into the methodologies, 10 but that it is bounded by or a lesser included 11 case.
12 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Did it use a 13 different methodology than the methodology for the 14 Hosgri event?
15 MR. REPKA: Yes. The Hosgri event 16 ground motions were, in 1977 again, based upon the 17 consultants's methodologies.
18 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Right. So it used 19 the later methods, as you said earlier. Shouldn't 20 those later methods be identified in the FSAR?
21 You know, are they, perhaps? I haven't looked at 22 the --
23 MR. REPKA: Without reviewing it, I 24 think not, is the answer. And they're not -- just 25 had confirmation. And, no, I don't believe 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
763 1 need to be because, again, that's not something 2 the staff, and specifically NRC, has specifically 3 relied upon and wants to establish as a licensing 4 basis methodology going forward.
5 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Now with respect to 6 this August 2014 seismic imaging report and 7 analysis, will that make it, the results of that 8 make it into the FSAR?
9 MR. REPKA: I don't know of any plans 10 to include that into the FSAR at this point given 11 that the 50.54(f) process is ongoing. And there's 12 a more specific methodology that's being employed 13 in the 50.54(f) process, and that any impacts on 14 the current licensing basis will be addressed at 15 the end of that process.
16 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: All right, well let's 17 talk for a second about 50.54(f). We're talking 18 about what comes out of the March 2012 orders, 19 post-Fukushima. Is that what we're talking about?
20 MR. REPKA: Correct.
21 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: And this is the 22 report that's due out in March of this year?
23 MR. REPKA: If we can get it to its 24 Phase 1, results in March of 2015.
25 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. The -- 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
764 1 isn't that a probabilistic analysis?
2 MR. REPKA: It is a probabilistic 3 seismic hazards analysis.
4 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Right. And isn't the 5 design basis of this plant deterministic?
6 MR. REPKA: That's correct.
7 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: So is there a plan to 8 change the licensing basis of the plant to 9 probabilistic?
10 MR. REPKA: That would be an issue to 11 be addressed with the NRC staff in the Phase 2 of 12 the 50.54(f) process in which the Agency will 13 evaluate whether any changed are needed to the 14 current licensing basis.
15 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: So I --
16 MR. REPKA: Again --
17 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: I don't understand 18 how this 50.54(f) analysis is going to impact this 19 plant. Is it --
20 MR. REPKA: Well, I didn't think --
21 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: -- going to be put on 22 a shelf somewhere, and there it is?
23 MR. REPKA: The 50.54(f) analysis?
24 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Right.
25 MR. REPKA: Well, again, it's being NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
765 1 done specifically as part of a request for 2 information from the NRC staff. This is an 3 ongoing process. The CLB is defined in the 4 initial licensing. There's no requirement in the 5 NRC regulations to update this seismic CLB.
6 So as part of the Fukushima process he 7 NRC determined, at the Commission level, to 8 address it by pursuing this ongoing process. And 9 the decisions about the CLB will be made at the 10 end of that process. Whether it goes on the shelf 11 or whether or not specific plant modifications or 12 licensing basis modifications come out of it, 13 that's still to be determined.
14 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: We have a -- so we 15 have a license renewal application in which the 16 license renewal period begins in roughly 2025.
17 Now a ten-year period. We have a Shoreline fault.
18 We have this August report. We have the 50.54(f) 19 analysis under way.
20 Will all of this come to fruition to 21 clearly define the CLB for this plant and reach a 22 final determination before the license is renewed?
23 Or is this something you think might stretch out 24 and I should really be asking the staff to answer 25 that question? 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
766 1 MR. REPKA: Yeah, I can't comment on 2 the exact schedule. I would -- that sounds like 3 a long time and it seems like this process should 4 be completed by then. But I do not know the 5 schedule.
6 The only other thing I would say is 7 Diablo Canyon is not unique in this regard.
8 Again, all of the plants in the country are 9 subject to this. The central and eastern U.S.
10 plants, we already know there's an issue where 11 some of the seismic CLBs are exceeded.
12 So how the NRC is dealing with that, in 13 fact those are, I believe that's a year ahead in 14 the process. That's something I can't speak to 15 the details of it. But, again, Diablo's not 16 unique. It's just, like all plants in the U.S.,
17 this is an issue being addressed.
18 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Yeah. It just seems 19 odd that a determination can be made by the 20 Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the license 21 renewal period will successfully maintain the 22 current licensing basis of the plant when the 23 current licensing basis of the plant, it seems to 24 me, is in transition or flux.
25 MR. REPKA: Well, I think that's 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
767 1 essence of the philosophy of the rule, is that the 2 Part 50 process deals with the current licensing 3 basis during current operations and will continue 4 to do so. And so, again, if there's further 5 information in the period of extended operation, 6 it would be dealt with at that point as well.
7 So it's simply an ongoing regulatory 8 issue and it's not something that the milestone of 9 renewal creates a new obligation of a different 10 obligation.
11 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. Okay, there 12 are many, from at least my perspective there seem 13 to be many connections between seismic analysis 14 and the license renewal application, none of which 15 seem to have been identified here. And I'm not 16 sure of the exact nature of that connection.
17 But, for example, there's something 18 called a seismically induced system interaction 19 program that includes a great many components that 20 are required for safe shutdown and for accident 21 mitigation that are identified in the license 22 renewal, in your license renewal application as 23 being within scope of license renewal.
24 I haven't gone and pulled out the list 25 of all of those but if the license is renewed NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
768 1 before the current licensing basis changes with 2 respect to all of this new seismic information and 3 some old, what does that mean?
4 Does that mean simply that it becomes 5 just another operating plant at that point and 6 gets treated in that manner and we sort of pass 7 through the license renewal with now perturbations 8 at all? Is that what that means?
9 MR. REPKA: Yes. I think that, to the 10 extent there's new seismic information that 11 suggests the maintenance of equipment is 12 inadequate, that would be addressed under the 13 operating license, whether that's a current 14 operating license or a renewed operating license.
15 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: But if -- let's see 16 if -- I'll ask the staff this question. If any of 17 this new information, seismic information, results 18 in an update to the FSAR would that require a 19 license amendment?
20 MS. UTTAL: Well, it would depend on 21 the licensee's analysis under 50.59.
22 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. So if the 23 50.59 analysis showed, didn't meet -- if they 24 didn't meet the criteria of 50.59 they would have 25 to issue a license amendment.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
769 1 MS. UTTAL: Yes.
2 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: That -- the previous 3 license --
4 MS. UTTAL: They have to renew the 5 license then.
6 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Yeah, the -- okay.
7 That previous license amendment that was not 8 accepted by the staff had done a 50.59, I believe, 9 and concluded that they needed a license 10 amendment, right?
11 MS. UTTAL: I assume. I don't know 12 much about that license amendment.
13 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: All right. The 14 results of the seismic imaging study that have 15 indicated that the ground motion spectra for the 16 new events are bounded by the Hosgri event. That 17 is currently undergoing NRC review, correct?
18 MS. UTTAL: September -- the last --
19 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: The August 2014, I 20 think it was, report?
21 MS. UTTAL: The NRC staff has looked at 22 it, yes.
23 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: They've looked at it 24 or they're -- have they officially finished 25 looking at it or are they still looking at 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
770 1 MS. UTTAL: Let me check. To the 2 extent that -- they looked at it to the extent 3 that they needed to for operability, to make the 4 operability determination. But they believe that 5 they will be looking at it again because they 6 think that some of it will be relevant to the 7 50.54(f) responses and their analysis of the 8 50.54(f) issue.
9 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Is the ongoing 10 50.54(f) analysis we're including any information 11 from the August 2014 seismic?
12 MS. UTTAL: It --
13 MR. REPKA: Yes, it does.
14 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: It does? Okay.
15 MR. REPKA: And it's, the report is 16 being reviewed by the California Independent Peer 17 Review panel as well. And PG&E is taking, will 18 take comments and address those comments as part 19 of that process. And then the 50.54(f) process 20 includes the SHAC process which I mentioned 21 earlier.
22 That's the seismic advisory -- the peer 23 assessment. And that incorporates other opinions 24 about the analysis being done. There will be 25 comments, there will be questions, there will 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
771 1 responses. And so that's an ongoing process, and 2 I think that's where all of this information is 3 really being funneled at this point, is through 4 that process.
5 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: All right. And that 6 report is due March -- this March?
7 MR. REPKA: That's correct.
8 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. Okay.
9 MR. REPKA: Yeah -- March is correct.
10 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Yeah. Yeah, bear 11 with me because I -- as I go through my questions 12 I have to determine if they were answered or not 13 and it'll take me a minute.
14 Oh, yeah, this idea that a larger 15 earthquake ends up being, resulting in smaller 16 ground motion spectra, is this entirely because of 17 assumptions such as which ground motion equations, 18 ground motion prediction equations are used?
19 MR. REPKA: I'm not sure which larger 20 earthquake you're speaking to because the 21 magnitudes on the Shoreline are not larger than 22 the magnitudes on the Hosgri. I'm looking for the 23 --
24 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: I'll read from your 25 answer on Page 15 -- 16. It says, again, 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
772 1 this may be a different initiating scenario than 2 assumed that licensing, the resulting ground 3 motions at Diablo are still bounded by the HE 4 spectra.
5 And the context of this is that, yes, 6 it is a -- there are earthquakes that weren't 7 predicted before in terms of faults rupturing in 8 some sort of a sequence. But the end result is 9 always that the Hosgri event is bounding with 10 respect to ground motions. Seems to me, the only 11 way such a thing could happen is with the 12 assumptions that are used from getting to the 13 earthquake occurrence to the ground motion spectra 14 at the plant.
15 MR. REPKA: I think it's a product of 16 a number of things. The seismic imaging tells you 17 more about the geometry of the earthquake, about 18 the length and other factors and the slip rate.
19 It's three factors -- the geometry, the slip rate 20 and the length. And based on that information and 21 then the analysis of the ground motion prediction 22 of knowing more about the nature of the region, 23 that's how you get to different ground motions 24 than were calculated previously.
25 And an example of that being 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
773 1 updated Hosgri itself is much less than what was 2 calculated in 1977 for the Hosgri.
3 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: All right. The 4 progression from the earthquake fault to the plant 5 itself, parameters associated with that would be 6 critical as well, I would assume? And you've --
7 MR. REPKA: Yes.
8 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: You've mentioned --
9 MR. REPKA: Yes, I couldn't name what 10 those --
11 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: -- damping 12 assumptions, damping factors.
13 MR. REPKA: Yes. Yes.
14 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: All right. But those 15 types of things are not in the FSAR or are they --
16 they are in the FSAR?
17 MR. REPKA: They are not in the FSAR.
18 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: So --
19 MR. REPKA: But they are being 20 considered through the SHAC process.
21 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: So would damping 22 assumptions made, what, you know, other 23 assumptions were made in getting to the ground 24 motion spectra that are in the FSAR -- those are 25 not in the FSAR?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
774 1 MR. REPKA: In general, that's correct.
2 The damping's --
3 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: It seems to me 4 unusual --
5 MR. REPKA: -- addressed in the 6 structural evaluation but not with respect to the 7 ground motion predictions.
8 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: So somebody doing an 9 analysis later that wants to duplicate or do some 10 sort of an analogous calculation would have to go 11 and find some reference somewhere to determine 12 what these numbers were? Is that what you're 13 saying? There must be some reference in the FSAR 14 to an analysis, right?
15 MR. REPKA: Well, again, we're talking 16 about the Shoreline fault based upon the seismic 17 imaging. And those results from September are not 18 in the FSAR. There is certainly a lot of 19 information documented in the seismic imaging 20 project report. And so that's available as well 21 as, again, the modeling and the codes being used.
22 Those are reproducible.
23 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: So is this a general 24 rule of what's in and what's not in the FSAR? Or 25 is it more unique to Diablo Canyon?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
775 1 MR. REPKA: I don't think that there's 2 a general rule as to what's in the FSAR or not in 3 the FSAR other than to say it's the information in 4 the FSAR is ultimately, reflects what the NRC 5 staff's review and what was the basis for 6 determining that it's acceptable.
7 And what is to be considered to be 8 controlled in the future in terms of 50.59 changes 9 because ultimately 50.59 refers to changes to the 10 plant or procedures as described in the FSAR. So 11 that's ultimately a decision that's made case by 12 case in any, on any licensing issue.
13 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: If the FSAR 14 references a document that is a detailed analysis 15 but the information in that document is not in the 16 FSAR do you know, for 50.59 purposes, if, by 17 extension, all of that information has to be 18 considered in the 50.59 evaluation? And any idea?
19 MR. REPKA: I have an idea but I don't 20 know that it would be accurate, so I'd rather not 21 say.
22 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: All right.
23 MR. REPKA: But there is detailed 24 guidance that's been endorsed by the NRC on 25 conducting 50.59 evaluations.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
776 1 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Great.
2 MR. REPKA: And so I would defer to 3 that.
4 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. Any -- no 5 comment?
6 MR. LINDELL: Your Honor, just on that 7 last point, my understanding is that if it's just 8 referenced in the FSAR then, no. But if it's 9 incorporated by a reference, that's a different 10 story.
11 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. Well, I think 12 that is a gray area. In the Pacific Gas &
13 Electric answer they referred, they make a 14 statement that the design -- Diablo Canyon 15 licensing basis and UFSAR have never included 16 ground motion prediction equations or 17 methodologies.
18 Is that -- that's true then for the DE, 19 the D -- well, the DDE double -- the DE or the 20 Hosgri?
21 MR. REPKA: That's correct. With the 22 DE and the DDE my understanding is that the idea 23 of a ground motion prediction equation didn't even 24 exist at that time. So what they did is they took 25 and postulated earthquakes and then made some sort NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
777 1 of engineering judgment as to what kind of ground 2 motion it would produce at the site.
3 With respect to the Hosgri it was a 4 little more sophisticated and yet the supplemental 5 safety evaluation reports do refer to the Newmark 6 report on predicting ground motions. But, again, 7 that wasn't necessarily based upon a particular 8 code or methodology. It was based upon an expert 9 at the time making certain judgments and analyses 10 to determine what the ground motions would be.
11 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: So Dr. Newmark and 12 others came up with, instead of ground motion 13 spectra that were not as rigorously analytical as 14 they would today, and they appear to be very 15 conservative?
16 MR. REPKA: Yeah, nor would they have 17 been based on as much information that is 18 available today. And, yes, they appear to have 19 been very conservative, perhaps appropriately 20 conservative, but conservative.
21 And you see that in the curves, in the 22 Seismic Imaging Project Report, in the Conclusions 23 Tables 2.2-1, I believe it is, and 2-2 where you 24 can compare current ground motions anticipated for 25 the Hosgri versus those in 1977.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
778 1 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: And that is basically 2 the explanation for why all these new earthquake 3 predictions end up being less conservative than 4 the Hosgri event?
5 MR. REPKA: Yes, that better 6 information and, in fact, the Imaging Project, 7 again, its unprecedented level of information --
8 no other plant in the U.S. has done anything like 9 it -- better information and better modeling.
10 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. Now with 11 respect to the Hosgri event, does it cover all of 12 the Class 1 and seismically required Class 2 13 components, all of them, in the plant?
14 MR. REPKA: It covers Class 1 which was 15 defined as it was in those days, which is 16 essentially safety-related equipment.
17 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: All Class 1?
18 MR. REPKA: Yes.
19 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. The FSAR seems 20 to indicate that the Hosgri event was only 21 evaluated against certain equipment needed for a 22 safe shutdown path.
23 MR. REPKA: You have to follow that 24 licensing chain further down the road. If you 25 look at the SSERs that Hosgri report, at the time, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
779 1 was submitted in stages as amendments to the 2 operating license application. And there was an 3 original Phase I that was a certain scope of Class 4 1 equipment. But ultimately all Class 1, there 5 were supplements to address all Class 1 equipment.
6 So that's, that is documented in the 7 licensing record and in the Hosgri reports that 8 are referenced in this Supplemental Safety 9 Evaluation Reports.
10 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. I don't think 11 you would know that just by a cursory reading of 12 the FSAR, so I think that's interesting.
13 MR. REPKA: Well, that's part of the 14 reason there was an idea of clarifying the FSAR, 15 but that's another issue.
16 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. The -- I don't 17 think we covered this. I'm going to ask you 18 anyway. Shoreline fault, was -- is it officially 19 been dispositioned by the staff to be less 20 conservative than the Hosgri event -- in other 21 words, covered by the Hosgri event? Is that, do 22 we -- is that where we stand right now?
23 MR. LINDELL: Your Honor, it is my 24 understanding is that in 2012, in the research 25 information letter 1201, that was the conclusion NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
780 1 that we drew after doing an independent evaluation 2 of PG&E's report from 2011.
3 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay, so that's the 4 official place where this resides, is in that 5 research information letter?
6 MR. LINDELL: Yes.
7 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: It's never been moved 8 into the FSAR officially? I didn't see, you know, 9 the research information letter referenced in it.
10 MR. LINDELL: The research information 11 letter, I think, did state -- I don't have it in 12 front of me -- it did state that certain aspects 13 of that had to be incorporated into the -- or 14 should be incorporate into the FSAR.
15 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. But when was, 16 what was the date of that research information 17 letter?
18 MR. LINDELL: It was, is that October 19 2012?
20 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Yeah, I'm pretty sure 21 it was 2012, but was it October? Okay. So 22 that's, you know, we're going on three years.
23 Okay. All right.
24 MR. REPKA: The updated FSAR does 25 reference the NRC's letter of October 12, 2012 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
781 1 which summarizes the conclusions of the research 2 information Letter 12. It's a transmittal letter 3 for that research information letter.
4 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: All right, so it's in 5 there by reference?
6 MR. REPKA: There's a reference to it 7 -- at a minimum. I'm just -- I have not --
8 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Right. I understand.
9 MR. REPKA: -- skimmed over this in 10 detail, but I do see that reference.
11 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay.
12 MR. AYRES: Judge Trikouros, if I may 13 --
14 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Yeah.
15 MR. AYRES: -- make a comment while 16 you're looking? I just wanted to let you know how 17 many times the GMPEs have been changed by PG&E.
18 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Mm-hmm.
19 MR. AYRES: It's not just 1977 and 20 2014. It was 1977, 1991, 2008, 2009, 2011 and 21 2014. So the GMPs are kind of a moving target.
22 And, as you pointed out, they're not recorded or 23 approved by the staff. So there's considerable 24 room for maneuver there, shall we say.
25 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. I just want 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
782 1 understand where we --
2 MR. AYRES: Sure.
3 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: -- where we stand.
4 MR. REPKA: Yeah, and again, that 5 methodology is subject to NRC review. The results 6 have been submitted ever since 2011. And, again, 7 it is all subject to review. And the SHAC process 8 is part of the 50.54(f) response.
9 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. Regarding the 10 snubbers, there was a, in the PG&E answer they 11 mentioned they're subject to testing, functional 12 testing. Could you just tell me what -- do you 13 know what that functional testing is?
14 Is it against some sort of earthquake 15 assumption or --
16 MR. REPKA: Well, the -- I think we 17 don't know the answer to your question. I can't 18 describe the functional testing for those numbers 19 in detail, but certainly they are subject to 20 initial qualification testing which is shake table 21 testing for their seismic qualification.
22 And then during the surveillance test 23 procedures, again, they're tested. But I can't 24 describe the nature of that testing.
25 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. If the seismic NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
783 1 design basis for the plant changes then those 2 numbers have to be removed or replaced?
3 MR. REPKA: I think they would need to 4 be requalified either by analysis or testing.
5 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. Okay. So 6 remind me again how the license renewal review 7 will consider the 2014 seismic report.
8 MR. REPKA: How the NRC staff considers 9 it, I'll have to defer again to the NRC staff 10 because we submitted it on the operating license 11 docket to the NRC, not on the license renewal 12 docket. The staff's update letters on schedules 13 have informed us that the staff is reviewing it to 14 determine its relevance, if any, to license 15 renewal.
16 So our position is the report, per se, 17 is not relevant to license renewal. However, 18 there is, in some limited senses like the 19 environmental review of the SAMA issue, new 20 seismic information would always be considered in 21 that context, if necessary.
22 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: So as of right now 23 it's not determined -- it hasn't been determined 24 how that report will impact the license renewal 25 application? There's a possibility 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
784 1 impact it in such a way that there has to be an 2 amendment to the license renewal application?
3 MR. LINDELL: Your Honor, in the most 4 recent update letter that we filed with the Board 5 we did say that the staff has concluded their 6 review of the relevance of that report to the 7 license renewal. And we did conclude that it was 8 a current operating -- just to deal within current 9 operating space.
10 However, I believe we also mentioned 11 that, to the extend, you know, it affected the 12 SAMA and the current admitted contention that it 13 would affect license renewal in that way and be 14 addressed there.
15 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay.
16 MR. REPKA: And I would just reiterate, 17 in the SAMA context, that's a hazards analysis and 18 a cost benefit analysis of plant modifications.
19 That's not a CLB issue.
20 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: And I just want to 21 make sure we reiterate again, is there any 22 relationship between aging management and 23 earthquakes other than perhaps selecting equipment 24 for aging management review? Is there any 25 relationship between aging management in your 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 report?
2 MR. REPKA: No, other than selected 3 equipment subject to fatigue management due to 4 seismic cycles which neither snubbers nor relays 5 are subject to that. But, in general, no.
6 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay.
7 MR. AYRES: Your Honor, of course, we 8 take a different position on that.
9 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Yes, I understand.
10 MR. REPKA: But there is nothing in the 11 record that addresses that, and certainly nothing 12 in the petition that posits that for our basis for 13 that. And, certainly, the Shoreline, or the 14 Seismic Imaging Project Report doesn't go to 15 frequencies of seismic events. It goes to ground 16 motions from one event.
17 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Right. The number of 18 seismic cycles is evaluated, I understand, in the 19 LRA, correct?
20 MR. REPKA: For equipment. It's a 21 limited scope of equipment that's subject to 22 fatigue management. So that would be certain 23 rigid equipment and, yes, they'll count seismic 24 cycles -- DEs, DDEs and HEs of which there have 25 been none.
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 But that's, again, the equipment needs 2 to be rigid and subject to fatigue management.
3 And neither snubbers nor relays fit into that 4 category. Snubbers move with thermal cycles and, 5 therefore, don't experience fatigue.
6 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. And, in 7 indeed, every evaluation I saw did include 8 fatigue. So I think that's correct.
9 MR. REPKA: And I could add to that 10 that relays are not subject to that kind of 11 fatigue cycling either.
12 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Sure.
13 MR. REPKA: They are, the petitioners 14 speak to relay chatter, but that's a function of 15 the design of the equipment, not fatigue in any 16 way. And that's the kind of thing that's tested 17 as part of the seismic qualification of the relay 18 switch at the shake table testing.
19 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. With respect 20 to incorporating other earthquakes into the 21 licensing basis of Diablo Canyon, is it correct 22 that a license amendment would be required before 23 the Hosgri event analysis methods were used, are 24 used for any new earthquake?
25 MR. REPKA: The Hosgri methods 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
787 1 1977?
2 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Yeah, well the --
3 looking at really what came out of the different 4 professional opinions, which has been referenced 5 in this proceeding, there's a statement that NRC 6 -- and this is in the DPO at the -- the PDF page 7 is 29 to 30. There's 164 pages in that, PDF pages 8 in that document.
9 This is 29 to 30. It says, NRC 10 approval in the form of a license amendment is 11 required before HE methods including assumptions, 12 initial conditions, et cetera, can be applied to 13 other local seismic features. I didn't write 14 this.
15 MR. REPKA: I don't have that in front 16 of me. I think a couple of things I'll --
17 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: That's fine. I 18 understand you may not have that document. But 19 that doesn't ring a bell with anyone here?
20 MR. REPKA: I will say --
21 MS. UTTAL: I would -- I --
22 MR. REPKA: I'll start, and then I'll 23 defer to you. The DPO, my understanding is, 24 actually goes to a slightly different issue. It 25 starts with the premise that the Hosgri evaluation 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 is not part of the licensing basis. And, 2 ultimately, the NRC staff management, through the 3 process, disagreed with that assertion.
4 So that's the key issue addressed in 5 the DPO process. The second issue about 6 methodology that was part of that process really 7 related to the structural assessments in, you 8 know, given a set of ground motions, what 9 structural assumptions would be used in evaluating 10 the equipment.
11 And there were more conservative 12 assumptions in the DE and the DDE evaluations than 13 in the 1977 Hosgri evaluation. And those 14 assumptions were all litigated as part of the 15 operating licensing process.
16 So, but one of the issues in the DPO 17 was whether the original DE, DDE inputs related to 18 material strengths and equipment damping and those 19 issues, whether they needed to be applied to the 20 new information. And ultimately that argument 21 was rejected as well and certainly wouldn't make 22 any sense.
23 The equipment at the plant is qualified 24 for loads calculated for the DE, DDE, using those 25 assumptions, or the HE loads -- whichever 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
789 1 greater. Again, again, if you have inputs for new 2 ground motions that are less than the HE .75G, it 3 necessarily follows, mathematically and otherwise, 4 that that equipment will continue to be qualified 5 by something that has been previously accepted by 6 the NRC, either the DE, DDE or HE structural 7 calculation.
8 MR. AYRES: Judge Trikouros, if could 9 add a point here?
10 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay.
11 MR. AYRES: We talked earlier about the 12 petition that the Friends of the Earth has before 13 the Commission. And I just want to underline that 14 thee subject that you brought up, and we've been 15 talking about here, is what that petition is all 16 about. So it's quite separate from the license 17 renewal petition.
18 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. Thank you.
19 That research information letter we just were 20 discussing a moment ago, is that --
21 MR. REPKA: 1201? 1201?
22 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: 1201, correct. Is 23 that part of the plant's licensing basis at this 24 point?
25 MR. REPKA: 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
790 1 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: No?
2 MR. REPKA: I wouldn't say that the 3 NRC's drill is part of the licensing basis, no.
4 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Does staff agree with 5 that?
6 MR. REPKA: Again, there is a reference 7 to it in the FSAR, but not -- the licensing basis 8 is to --
9 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: It's the only 10 disposition that you have relating the Shoreline 11 fault --
12 MR. REPKA: But the licensing basis is 13 the maximum anticipated vibratory ground motion, 14 and that's the .75G HE ground motion. So what the 15 research information letter does is it confirms, 16 and it is referenced in FSAR, the revised FSAR, 17 but it confirms that the most recent information 18 from the Shoreline and other faults remains 19 bounded by that, by the .75G licensing basis.
20 So it doesn't change the licensing 21 basis in any way. In fact, it confirms the 22 conservatism of the licensing basis.
23 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay, but it is 24 referenced in the FSAR and it does provide a 25 disposition of the Shoreline fault, the only 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 disposition.
2 MR. REPKA: That's --
3 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Wouldn't that be, by 4 definition, considered part of that, at least the 5 broader, the broad definition of CLB?
6 MS. UTTAL: But it doesn't change the 7 licensing basis that was there. It just says that 8 this new information doesn't change the licensing 9 basis, basically.
10 MR. REPKA: But is it part of docketed 11 correspondence and all of that? The answer is 12 yes.
13 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay, that's fine.
14 Is there a process on the, either that the NRC has 15 or on the docket for Diablo Canyon for how any new 16 seismic information should be considered in the 17 regulatory process for Diablo Canyon?
18 MR. REPKA: Generally speaking, the 19 answer is no. And then that's, there is no 20 process, generally, in the regulations for 21 updating the seismic licensing basis after initial 22 licensing. That's one of the basic findings of he 23 Fukushima near-term task force that resulted in 24 the 50.54(f) process to go through that process 25 for all operating plants.
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 So the 50.54(f) process is the process 2 to do that. And the revised Diablo Canyon UFSAR 3 does reference the fact that that's the 4 methodology currently being pursued to disposition 5 new information.
6 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: And as we said, it 7 provides information that's on a totally different 8 framework than the NRC required design basis and 9 licensing basis. So we went through that earlier, 10 that conversation.
11 Could you give me a very quick 12 discussion of the scope of that March 2015 hazard 13 study? Or is that -- if you don't know the answer 14 that's fine. That's fine. I just wanted to 15 understand a little bit about the scope.
16 MR. REPKA: Beyond saying it's a 17 probabilistic seismic hazards analysis that will 18 consider all of the regional faults, I would 19 probably be getting out of my depth.
20 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: All right. Is there 21 any sense whether or not the results of that study 22 will have any impact in the, of either the CLB or 23 the license renewal application in any way?
24 MR. REPKA: It may. We can't 25 anticipate this at this point. And, number 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
793 1 is what the NRC staff ultimately determines from 2 its review. I wouldn't prejudge that.
3 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Any comment on that?
4 MS. UTTAL: We have no idea at this 5 point.
6 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: Okay. All right.
7 All right, I think I'm done. Thank you very much.
8 CHAIR RYERSON: Thank you, Judge 9 Trikouros. I think that concludes what we wanted 10 to cover today. Our job now is to take what we've 11 learned from you today and what's in the pleadings 12 and make a decision on, first of all the 13 timeliness of the petitions and then, as 14 necessary, the admissibility of the three 15 contentions and, if necessary, a waiver of the NRC 16 regulations.
17 The Agency does have milestones that we 18 are encouraged to adhere to for decisions. I 19 think it's 45 days, in this instance, from the 20 argument which is, I believe, Monday, March 9. I 21 am very hopeful that we will have a decision for 22 you long before that.
23 As most of you know or some of you 24 know, we've had a few departures from the panel, 25 judges' departures from the panel. So two of 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
794 1 three of us are relatively new and we took a while 2 to schedule the argument, for that reason, so that 3 we would have a chance to catch up on the 4 pleadings.
5 So I'm hopeful that we can do better 6 than the milestones asked for and have a decision 7 for you, probably in February if possible. The 8 one wrinkle I would mention to that is I would 9 imagine that if the Commission were to decide Mr.
10 Ayres' other petition in the interim, that would 11 have some unforeseen consequences to our work and 12 our decision.
13 I suspect no one here is prepared, 14 including the staff, is prepared to venture when 15 the Commission might decide that. So, again, 16 perhaps to simplify our work, the easiest thing is 17 to get our decision out first. And we certainly 18 hope, for a number of reasons, to do that.
19 On behalf of the Board, I really do 20 want to thank all of the counsel today for your 21 arguments and your presentations which have been 22 truly helpful to us and really highly 23 professional. We appreciate it.
24 Judge Trikouros, any other comments?
25 CHAIR TRIKOUROS: No. Thank you very 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 much for being so well-informed. And I know 2 you're not technical experts and, you know, and I 3 appreciate it.
4 CHAIR RYERSON: Judge Arnold?
5 JUDGE ARNOLD: No comments.
6 CHAIR RYERSON: Again, thank you, and 7 we stand adjourned.
8 (Whereupon, the hearing in the above-9 entitled matter was concluded at 1:01:08 p.m.)
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 (202) 234-4433