ML19088A340
| ML19088A340 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/2019 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-277-SLR, 50-278-SLR, ASLBP 19-960-01-SLR-BD01, NRC-0212, RAS 54895 | |
| Download: ML19088A340 (219) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
In the Matter of: Exelon Generation Company, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2 and 3 Docket Number: 50-277-SLR, 50-278-SLR ASLBP Number: 19-960-01-SLR-BD01 Location: Rockville, Maryland Date: March 27, 2019 Work Order No.: NRC-0212 Pages 1-218 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5 + + + + +
6 HEARING 7 ---------------------------x 8 In the Matter of: :
9 EXELON GENERATION COMPANY : Docket Nos. 50-277-SLR 10 : and 50-278-SLR 11 (Peach Bottom Atomic Power : ASLBP No.
12 Station Units 2 and 3) : 19-960-01-SLR-BD01 13 ---------------------------x 14 Wednesday, March 27, 2019 15 16 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 17 Hearing Room T-3 D50 18 11545 Rockville Pike 19 Rockville, Maryland 20 21 BEFORE:
22 MICHAEL M. GIBSON, Chair 23 MICHAEL F. KENNEDY, Administrative Judge 24 SUE H. ABREU, Administrative Judge 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
2 1 APPEARANCES:
2 On Behalf of Exelon Generation Company, LLC:
3 DAVID LEWIS, ESQ.
4 of: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 5 1200 17th Street, NW 6 Washington, DC 20036-3006 7 david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com 8 and 9 DONALD FERRARO, ESQ.
10 Assistant General Counsel 11 Exelon Generation Company, LLC 12 200 Exelon Way, Suite 305 13 Kennett Square, Pennsylvania 19348 14 donald.ferraro@exeloncorp.com 15 16 On Behalf of Beyond Nuclear:
17 DIANE CURRAN, ESQ.
18 of: Harmon, Curran, Spielberg and Eisenberg 19 1725 DeSales Street, NW 20 Suite 500 21 Washington, D.C. 20036 22 dcurran@harmoncurran.com 23 24 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:
25 KAYLA GAMIN, ESQ.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 1 MITZI YOUNG, ESQ.
2 REBECCA SUSKO, ESQ.
3 of: Office of the General Counsel 4 Mail Stop - O-14A44 5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 7 301-287-9234 8 kayla.gamin@nrc.gov 9 mitzi.young@nrc.gov 10 rebecca.susko@nrc.gov 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
4 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (9:00 a.m.)
3 JUDGE GIBSON: Please be seated. Good 4 morning. We are here today for oral argument on the 5 application of Exelon Generation Company LLC to renew 6 its licenses for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 7 Units 2 and 3, which are regulated by the United 8 States Nuclear Regulatory Commission under rules that 9 is promulgated in Volume 10 of the Code of Federal 10 Regulations.
11 I should add this proceeding is being 12 webcast and is also being broadcast on the Nuclear 13 Regulatory Commission's internal TV system.
14 We convened this oral argument because 15 Beyond Nuclear, Inc., filed a petition requesting a 16 hearing on two contentions that it proffered, which 17 challenged the renewal of Peach Bottom's license.
18 The license for Peach Bottom Unit number 19 2 was actually originally issued in 1973. And the 20 license for Peach Bottom Unit 3 was issued in 1974.
21 These license were then renewed for an additional 20-22 year term in May 7, 2003. So this license renewal, if 23 it is granted, would be the second time that the 24 license has been renewed.
25 Beyond Nuclear filed a petition on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 1 November 9, 2018, and in that petition it requested an 2 adjudicatory hearing to challenge Exelon's request for 3 a second renewal of its license to operate Peach 4 Bottom Units 2 and 3.
5 As a result of that petition, on December 6 11, the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 7 Safety and Licensing Board Panel issued a notice 8 designating this three-member licensing board to 9 conduct a proceeding on the petition.
10 Now, the issues that we will be addressing 11 today are standing and contention admissibility. By 12 standing we mean that a party must show that a 13 government action would threaten its interests or the 14 interests of its members with some concrete injury.
15 In this case, Beyond Nuclear is claiming that the 16 second renewal of Exelon's license to operate the 17 Peach Bottom Unit 2 and 3 reactors would threaten it 18 or its members with a concrete injury.
19 By contention admissibility, we mean that 20 Beyond Nuclear must show it has some legal or factual 21 basis for the claims that it asserts here, and that 22 those claims are within the permissible scope of 23 matters that are entrusted to the Nuclear Regulatory 24 Commission and to this board.
25 Essentially, this is what is at stake in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 this proceeding. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2 grants this second renewal of Exelon's license to 3 operate Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3, these plants may 4 be operated for another 20 years.
5 Beyond Nuclear claims that two threats are 6 posed by the second license renewal. The first of 7 these, contention 1, is a safety contention, based on 8 Beyond Nuclear's assertion that both Units 2 and Unit 9 3 are old, having been in operation for over 40 years, 10 and that Exelon's plans for aging management over the 11 next 20 years need to be bolstered beyond what it has 12 set forth in its license renewal application.
13 The second of these contentions, which is 14 contention 2, is an environmental contention that 15 during the second license renewal term, Peach Bottom's 16 aging equipment could lead to increased accident risks 17 that pose environmental threats. And that these 18 environmental threats were not adequately addressed in 19 the Environmental Report that Exelon submitted for its 20 second license renewal application.
21 I should add that both the NRC staff and 22 the Exelon itself have disputed these contentions and 23 asserted that Exelon's aging management plan is 24 adequate, and that Exelon's Environmental Report is 25 proper in all respects.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1 Prior to renewing a nuclear reactor 2 license, which is what is before us now, the staff of 3 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is one of the 4 participants in this proceeding, has the important 5 responsibility of completing an Environmental and 6 Safety Review to consider all requirements of the 7 National Environmental Policy Act, of the Atomic 8 Energy Act, and of applicable regulations that have 9 been issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
10 Both the Atomic Energy Act and the Nuclear 11 Regulatory Commission regulations provide an 12 opportunity for interested stakeholders, which would 13 include members of the public and public interest 14 groups such as Beyond Nuclear, to seek a hearing to 15 challenge the renewal of operating licenses.
16 The essence, excuse me, the essence of 17 proceedings such as those we're beginning today is to 18 adjudicate health and safety, environmental and common 19 defense and security concerns that are raised in the 20 documents that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff 21 generates during the process of reviewing the license 22 renewal application.
23 With respect to the conduct of this 24 administrative proceeding, the three administrative 25 judges on this board were previously appointed 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
8 1 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel by the Nuclear 2 Regulatory Commission, and we were drawn from that 3 panel to serve on this three-member licensing board 4 and to preside over contested matters that have been 5 raised in Beyond Nuclear's petition.
6 With that said, however, it is important 7 to emphasize that administrative judges do not work 8 for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff, nor do 9 they work with the Regulatory Commission staff on its 10 review of Exelon's application for this second renewal 11 of the Peach Bottom licenses.
12 Rather, this board is charged with 13 independently determining whether the contentions 14 raised in Beyond Nuclear's petition are appropriate 15 for adjudication in this proceeding.
16 The shorthand for our initial task is to 17 decide if Beyond Nuclear's contentions are admissible.
18 If we determine that one or both of these contentions 19 are admissible, then our next task will be to 20 adjudicate the merits of those claims.
21 Essentially, to determine the substantive 22 validity of the claims that Beyond Nuclear asserts 23 here. Which ultimately would result in the acceptance 24 of the license as it's been proposed in the 25 conditioning of that license, or even in the denial 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
9 1 that license renewal.
2 Once we reach a decision on any of these 3 matters, it is generally subject to review first by 4 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself, which serves 5 as our agency's supreme tribunal, and then by federal 6 courts, including in appropriate instances the United 7 States Supreme Court.
8 Now, as I noted earlier, in addition to 9 the admissibility of the contentions that Beyond 10 Nuclear has proffered, this board must decide whether 11 Beyond Nuclear has standing to participate in this 12 proceeding, even though neither Exelon nor the Nuclear 13 Regulatory Commission staff have challenged the 14 standing that Beyond Nuclear has to assert its claims 15 here.
16 This board has an independent 17 responsibility to assess and rule upon whether Beyond 18 Nuclear has standing, even though we probably won't 19 have any specific questions about that. Though that, 20 of course, may happen during the course of this 21 proceeding.
22 Now, during this oral argument, we may use 23 terms for, such as petitioner. In that case, we're 24 referring to Beyond Nuclear. We may refer to the 25 applicant, in that case we're referring to Exelon.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1 And if we refer to the staff, we mean the staff of the 2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And obviously if we 3 use the term Peach Bottom, we mean Units 2 and 3 of 4 the nuclear reactors that Exelon operates at the Peach 5 Bottom facility.
6 Now I would like to introduce the Board 7 members. To my immediate right is Judge Mike Kennedy, 8 who is an engineer and a part-time member of the 9 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.
10 To my immediate left is Judge Sue Abreu.
11 Judge Abreu is an engineer, a medical doctor, a 12 lawyer, a full-time member of the Atomic Safety and 13 Licensing Board Panel, and in fact serves as its 14 Associate Chief in charge of technical matters.
15 I'm Michael Gibson. I'm an attorney and 16 I'm the Chair of this licensing board. I would also 17 like to add that we have with us Mr. Andy Welkie, 18 who's assisting with our IT matters. We have Taylor 19 Mayhall and Joe McManus, who are our law clerks 20 working on this case.
21 Sara Culler at the back of the room has 22 been helping make sure that things run smoothly here.
23 And we've got a court reporter, I believe, who's 24 transcribing this proceeding.
25 So at this point, I would like to have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 counsel identify themselves for the record. Let's 2 start with the petitioner, Beyond Nuclear, then we'll 3 move to the applicant, and then to the NRC staff 4 counsel.
5 MS. CURRAN: Good morning, your Honors, my 6 name is Diane Curran, I'm here representing Beyond 7 Nuclear. And to my left is Paul Gunter with the 8 Beyond Nuclear organization, and to my right is our 9 expert, David Lochbaum.
10 JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you.
11 MR. LEWIS: Good morning, my name is David 12 Lewis, I'm with the law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 13 Pittman. I have the privilege of representing Exelon.
14 With me is Mr. Donald Ferraro, Assistant General 15 Counsel with Exelon.
16 JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you.
17 MS. YOUNG: Good morning, pleasure to be 18 here this Women's History Month, and especially to 19 hear the distinguished resume of Judge Abreu. My name 20 is Mitzi Young, I'm here representing the NRC staff.
21 On my right is Kayla Gamin, an attorney in our office.
22 And to my left is Rebecca Susko, who just joined the 23 NRC this fall.
24 I'd like to also recognize that we have in 25 the audience some members of the technical staff, 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
12 1 if they could just stand briefly, be recognized for 2 the judges. We have Bennett Brady, the young lady on 3 the left, who's the Project Manager for Environmental 4 Reviews. David Alley and James Medoff are both 5 Technical Reviewers. And Jeff Rikhoff for the Safety 6 Review. And Jeffrey Rikhoff is an Environmental 7 Reviewer. Thank you.
8 JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you. Judge Abreu's 9 resume is actually far more impressive than that, I 10 just didn't mention everything. She also happened to 11 be a colonel in the Army, and she also did skydiving, 12 so.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm not feeling so 14 important here. But that's as impressive as my resume 15 gets.
16 JUDGE GIBSON: So, you won't get any 17 argument out of me.
18 So now that we've completed our 19 introductions, we will proceed to argument. As we 20 address the issues of contention admissibility and 21 possibly we may have some questions on standing, we 22 are going to proceed a little differently than the 23 approach that you may have seen with other boards.
24 We have a number of very specific 25 questions that we would like to ask of counsel for all NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 1 sides here. And so rather than allotting you a 2 specific amount of time for opening remarks or for a 3 reply or rebuttal to specific questions, we will ask 4 individual counsel for answers to questions that we 5 want to pose.
6 I do suspect that by the time we finish 7 today, Beyond Nuclear, Exelon, and the NRC staff will 8 feel that they had more than ample opportunity to 9 address the issues that are of concern to the Board 10 here.
11 But we will, if there is time, we will try 12 to reserve a little bit of time at the end for a 13 closing if the parties feel that we still need to 14 cover any other matters that were not covered during 15 the questioning. I should also add, however, that 16 when we get to contention 2, we will have a bit more 17 structure to our argument.
18 Specifically before we ask whatever 19 questions we might have on contention 2, we are going 20 to accord the petitioner ten minutes, and we're going 21 to accord the staff and Exelon collectively ten 22 minutes, to present us with an explanation of any 23 matters that counsel consider that were not 24 satisfactorily and exhaustively addressed in the 25 recent Turkey Point decision, with which all 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
14 1 parties were provided with a copy recently.
2 When we get to that point, the staff and 3 Exelon will need to indicate to us how they want to 4 allocate their ten minutes between them. And Ms.
5 Curran, you will also need to advise us how much of 6 your ten minutes you want to use for your initial 7 statement and how much you want to reserve for 8 rebuttal to whatever the staff and the Exelon may have 9 to say.
10 And then once we've finished with our 11 argument on that, we will then proceed to the 12 remaining aspects of contention 2.
13 Okay, I believe that concludes the 14 question the Board has, the initial points we have.
15 So unless there is something else, we will proceed.
16 Ms. Curran. I would like to turn to page 2 of your 17 reply.
18 MS. CURRAN: Okay.
19 JUDGE GIBSON: To the answers that the 20 staff and the applicant filed.
21 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
22 JUDGE GIBSON: You indicate there that you 23 are not challenging the NRC regulations, is that 24 correct?
25 MS. CURRAN: That's 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
15 1 JUDGE GIBSON: And your first you make in 2 this regard is that the staff ignores the relevant 3 rulemaking history of 10CFR Part 54 and also 4 contradicts itself. Is that correct?
5 MS. CURRAN: That's right.
6 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Now, with respect to 7 your point on the rulemaking history, you claim it is 8 critical that there be a substantial body of operating 9 experience. Is that correct?
10 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
11 JUDGE GIBSON: But in your estimation, the 12 problem we face is that as nuclear plants of the same 13 vintage as Peach Bottom are closing down, the body of 14 operating experience is dwindling. Is that correct?
15 MS. CURRAN: That's correct.
16 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. I think you may have 17 some questions, Mr. Kennedy.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yeah, I'm just curious, 19 and I'll start with Ms. Curran. Just so I'm on the 20 same page as where you're coming from in the petition, 21 I'd like you to expound a little bit on what the 22 petitioner views operating experience to be. And if 23 there's any material within the petition that 24 addresses this, if you could point to that.
25 MS. CURRAN: It's, I think we address 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
16 1 in our contention and in Mr. Lochbaum's report that 2 operating experience would include the operating 3 experience of the licensee, but also the operating 4 experience of the entire fleet of operating reactors.
5 And the, generally the focus is on the reactors in the 6 United States.
7 JUDGE KENNEDY: And did I hear you say 8 that this also includes the operating experience of 9 Peach Bottom itself?
10 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: Of is it only a focus on 12 -- at one point it seemed like the petition was 13 focusing on external experience.
14 MS. CURRAN: Well, it is focused on 15 external experience in the sense that that is the 16 experience that's declining. We will have Peach 17 Bottom's operating experience, assuming the license is 18 renewed for the entire period.
19 But the, if you look at the regulatory 20 history, they contemplated that, and this has been the 21 case throughout the history of NRC regulation of 22 reactors, that the experience of all reactors is 23 consulted in order to make sure that one's own reactor 24 is as safe as possible.
25 And I was reviewing Mr. Lochbaum's expert NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 report the other night and noting that there was an 2 event at Davis-Besse, prior to the Three Mile Island 3 accident, which is of course we're very near the 4 anniversary of the Three Mile Island accident today, 5 that had the licensees known about it, been able to 6 learn from the Davis-Besse experience, things might 7 have gone differently. But that information wasn't 8 conveyed, at least not in time.
9 That's the kind of thing that we are 10 concerned about, that that external operating 11 experience is on the decline.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right, so just to be 13 clear, for my clarification. So if there is no event 14 or accident at the plant, is operating experience 15 still being generated? I mean, I know that Mr.
16 Lochbaum's report seems to focus on event-driven 17 experience. But does operating experience still 18 continue to be gleaned, even if there's no event at a 19 station?
20 MS. CURRAN: Well, there are tests and 21 experiments conducted at Peach Bottom all the time, so 22 that one of the things that we're saying is that if 23 external operating experiences decline, that if the 24 amount of data that's coming out of external plants 25 declines, then Peach Bottom could or Exelon could step NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 up the amount of monitoring inspections that it does.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: Again, I know we're going 3 to get to this later, but every time I hear the word 4 decline, I mean, is that what you really mean to say?
5 I mean, operating experience, at least in my world, by 6 definition can't decline, it always increases. Any 7 time a plant's operating, operating experience will 8 increase.
9 MS. CURRAN: Well, that's true. But what 10 if the plant's not there, what if it's not operating?
11 It's simply a decrease in the number of operating 12 reactors from which one could draw the information.
13 So I agree with you about if it's operating, yes.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: So it's a decrease in the 15 rate of accumulation.
16 MS. CURRAN: That's a better way to put 17 it, yes.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is that the way we should 19 --
20 MS. CURRAN: If you look at the total 21 accumulated experience in the reactor fleet, as plants 22 go out of operation, then the volume of that 23 experience, and also maybe the nature of it, or you 24 know, the number of different events that might teach 25 us something decrease.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you.
2 Maybe turn just quickly to the Exelon and the staff.
3 Anything you need to add in terms of this operating 4 experience discussion?
5 MR. LEWIS: Yes, please. If I could 6 begin. Ms. Curran indicated that the focus of 7 operating experience is mainly on reactors in the 8 United States. That's not the case.
9 The basis for Beyond Nuclear's assertion 10 was that when the Commission promulgated its Part 54 11 regulations, it required a minimum threshold of 20 12 years of operation by the plant before it could file 13 its renewed license.
14 That 20 years is obviously plant-specific.
15 A plant could have, be operating for 19 years, but 16 have the benefit of 40 years of industry experience.
17 So the fact that the Commission imposed that threshold 18 does a couple things.
19 One, it shows that probably the most 20 important type of operating experience is plant-21 specific operating experience. And second, it decided 22 there was a need for a threshold. It was a threshold 23 on plant-specific operating experience.
24 The Commission's rules did not impose a 25 requirement that you have a threshold for external NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 1 operating experience.
2 The other point I want to make quickly too 3 is that both the GALL report for subsequent license 4 renewal and the application identify the sources of 5 operating experience that are examined. In fact, Mr.
6 Lochbaum admits in his report that operating 7 experience comes from many sources. So it isn't just 8 US domestic nuclear plants, it's research, which is 9 very important.
10 And in fact, when you look at Beyond 11 Nuclear's reply in the case that the NRC's research is 12 tailored to fill the knowledge gaps, which quite 13 frankly to me is almost fatal to their contention, it 14 includes international operating experience.
15 There are 450 plants operating 16 internationally, and the review of operating 17 experience is an international requirement. There's 18 IAEA guidance that requires review of operating 19 experience, just as it's required in the United 20 States.
21 A major complaint of our position in 22 looking at whether this contention is admissible is 23 that Beyond Nuclear's contention is looking to 24 external domestic reactor-related operating experience 25 to the exclusion of all these other sources. And it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1 never explains why the multiple sources that exist are 2 not sufficient.
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you, Mr.
4 Lewis.
5 MS. GAMIN: Your Honor, I'd like to make 6 two brief points on operating experience too. First 7 on the definition. I think when a lot of people hear 8 operating experience, they do primarily think of 9 things going wrong. And of course lessons learned 10 from things going wrong can be extremely important for 11 the nuclear industry and for our NRC's regulatory 12 scheme.
13 But in fact, every day adds another day of 14 operating experience. Let's say we have ten years in 15 which there is no concrete degradation beyond a limit 16 of acceptability. That is still valuable data to 17 have, even though there's been no event and nothing 18 particularly going wrong.
19 Secondly, I agree with your point, Judge 20 Kennedy, that the body of operating experience that we 21 have is not going to go away. It's not like a 22 resource that gets consumed and used up.
23 It's more like a library. The library is 24 not going to go away. Every day we add books to it.
25 And so it may, we may see a decline in rate of accrual NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1 of operating experience, but what we have is not going 2 to go away. Thank you.
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. Let me return 4 back to Beyond Nuclear. I mean, I don't hear a 5 general disagreement on what operating experience is.
6 Maybe what I'd like to explore a little bit is what 7 Beyond Nuclear views as the role of operating 8 experience in the management of aging effects. And I 9 can repeat that if you need to.
10 MS. CURRAN: I'm sorry.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm curious, now that we 12 have sort of a working definition of operating 13 experience, what Beyond Nuclear views as the role of 14 operating experience in the management of aging 15 effects. How should it be used, how is it being used.
16 MS. CURRAN: Operating experience ensures 17 the effectiveness of aging management programs, by 18 either confirming that the aging management program is 19 considering everything that's relevant, identifying 20 new issues that should be added to an aging management 21 plan, and ensuring that the aging management plan 22 keeps up with the new information that's yielded by 23 operating experience about the aging experience of 24 nuclear plants.
25 And there's much that is discovered 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
23 1 nuclear plants age and are inspected about things that 2 degrade that perhaps were not expected. I am involved 3 in the Seabrook case, where I don't think anyone ever 4 expected that portions of the concrete in the Seabrook 5 containment would become jelly-like. That was not 6 expected.
7 That's a alkali-silica reaction. There's 8 something that the licensee there has spent years 9 investigating and has now added to its aging 10 management plan. As a result, in that case it was the 11 experience of that particular plant.
12 But I would guess that that is going to 13 affect other plants, that will be their aging 14 management plans will have to have some kind of a 15 mechanism to make sure that's not a problem there.
16 That's an example.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: And that's a good example 18 to support your view of the effectiveness of the aging 19 management program.
20 I'm also curious is you see any role, I 21 mean, the application has a large number of aging 22 management programs that, at least from my 23 perspective, appear to be based on a long history of 24 operating experience and special effects tests and 25 theory to develop the initial 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
24 1 program.
2 I don't see anywhere in the petition that 3 Beyond Nuclear recognizes the role of operating 4 experience in the actual development of the original 5 aging management program that's in the application.
6 Is that intentional, or is your focus really only on 7 the effectiveness portion?
8 MS. CURRAN: We don't deny that NextEra 9 would have used operating experience to develop an 10 aging management plan, or that they consulted. The 11 problem is, as stated in our contention and Mr.
12 Lochbaum's report, Exelon isn't looking at down the 13 road.
14 And we're talking about an extended period 15 of operation, when the availability of useful 16 operating experience declines, there needs to be a 17 mechanism for addressing how to make sure that there's 18 still a robust or substantial amount of operating 19 experience that could be consulted.
20 That just, perhaps, of course when these 21 plants were initially licensed, it was a different 22 era, and we weren't at the point where reactors were 23 closing down.
24 But this is the thing that's missing, is 25 some acknowledgment that the volume and the nature, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 1 the variety of operating experience is decreasing and 2 needs to be addressed in the aging management plan in 3 order to be sure that the plan does recognize new 4 information and deals with the kinds of aging effects 5 that could be experienced and become known throughout 6 the entire fleet.
7 JUDGE KENNEDY: Again, you focus on the 8 effectiveness. It seems to me that there's an 9 implication here that the amount of operating 10 experience that went into the development of the aging 11 management programs that are in the application is not 12 robust enough. I don't know if you could speak to 13 that at all.
14 MS. CURRAN: Yeah, sure. Well, it may 15 have been robust enough at the time, but the question 16 is it's very basic that as operation of nuclear 17 reactors goes along, more is revealed about the 18 condition of the equipment through inspections or 19 events.
20 So that then the question is do you have 21 a good program for making sure that you have enough of 22 this newly emerging information to inform your aging 23 management plan to make sure that you're aware of 24 problems that need to be addressed or issues that need 25 to be addressed.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 1 So it doesn't really, it's not intended to 2 be a criticism of the program as it was developed.
3 But it's a criticism of the program going forward.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right, and I think that, 5 again, this keeps, goes back to sort of where we 6 started with the definition of operating experience, 7 which in my mind tends to focus on an event-driven 8 experience. For argument's sake, if the fleet, US 9 fleet, Peach Bottom included, operated with no event, 10 on one hand, and no new information is gleaned.
11 On one hand, one could argue that the 12 aging management programs are effectively managing the 13 aging effects for these facilities. So I understand 14 what you're saying, is that you're looking for the 15 Seabrook type example.
16 But if no Seabrook example presents 17 itself, then I would argue that the robust material 18 that went into the development of the original aging 19 management program and then confirmed by a non-event 20 driven history of event, of operating experience, says 21 things are okay.
22 I think you're presuming that something's 23 going to happen, and -- go ahead.
24 MS. CURRAN: Operating experience can cut 25 both ways. It can, Mr. Lochbaum gave me an example 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
27 1 inspections of piping revealed that piping wasn't 2 degrading as fast as was anticipated. So then the 3 frequency of inspections of piping could be decreased 4 in an aging management plan.
5 But, say, on the example we just gave of 6 Seabrook, there's an issue with the containment 7 concrete that needs to be addressed in the aging 8 management plan that wasn't there before.
9 So if something, and this was, you know, 10 if you look back at the preamble to the original rule, 11 I just want to go back and make sure we quote, that 12 you know we quoted language in that preamble that 13 talked about external operating experience. That was 14 something that the Commission was interested in. It 15 wasn't just the experience of the individual 16 licensees.
17 They wanted to be able to, the licensees, 18 to share information. And Mr. Lochbaum has pointed 19 out to me that on the international level, there are 20 not requirements to share operating experience the way 21 that our licensees are required to share operating 22 experience with INPO. It's not necessarily the case 23 with international operating experience.
24 So it is important to take a look at the 25 volume and character of operating experience, external NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 1 operating experience, in this country.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: Does the petition or the 3 technical expert's report provide any insight as to 4 how one would a priori decide how robust operating 5 experience needs to be going forward?
6 MS. CURRAN: We don't propose a standard 7 for evaluating it. But we say that Exelon should do 8 that, should come up with some evaluation of what they 9 had in the past and what would be useful to have in 10 the future. Mr. Lochbaum does offer some alternative 11 ways of getting that experience in his report.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yeah, I think we have some 13 questions later on that'll get to that, so I guess I'm 14 getting a little ahead of myself. So we'll come back 15 to that. I think we have a series of question later 16 on, so I appreciate the input here.
17 Mr. Lewis, I'll give you a chance if you 18 want to counteract any of this or add something to it.
19 MR. LEWIS: Just a couple points.
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: Could I ask you also to 21 maybe address this international experience issue that 22 Beyond Nuclear's raised here, that there's no 23 requirement for them to?
24 MR. LEWIS: Well, I'll address that first.
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: 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
29 1 MR. LEWIS: I don't know out of the 450 2 plants that are operating internationally, about 350 3 must be international as opposed to domestic if we 4 have 100, how many of them do it. But I know it is an 5 IAEA standard. It's SSG-50, and I'm quite sure that 6 in the OECD and the European countries, you know, this 7 is a requirement.
8 I don't know what they're doing in China, 9 but there is a, certainly a large body of 10 international operating experience that is maintained.
11 If you look at what the NRC staff looked at in 12 preparing the GALL report, they actually referred to 13 the international databases that they looked at for 14 OE.
15 So no, I can't say all 450 is, but there's 16 certainly a very substantial body of OE is that is 17 reported and maintained and shared.
18 On the role of OE, it is twofold. Part of 19 it is showing that the programs that have been 20 established are effective. That's a requirement that 21 you look at. Whether your OE coincides with the OE 22 that the NRC based the GALL report recommendations on.
23 And in fact Mr. Lochbaum states, The 24 subsequent license application for Peach Bottom 25 describes how operating experience has demonstrated NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 1 the effectiveness of aging management programs and 2 specific components and structures. That also makes 3 it very hard to understand why there's an admissible 4 contention if he's admitting that OE has demonstrated 5 our programs are effective.
6 There is a future look too, it's to make 7 sure that you get feedback from what you're doing. I 8 think the principal focus of that is very much on 9 plant-specific OE because it's the same environment, 10 it's the same components, and you're looking at, you 11 know, whether what you are doing is working. But you 12 don't lead into that. Obviously, in this industry we 13 look at lessons learned, we shared operating 14 experience. And you also look elsewhere to see if 15 there's something new that has come up. So that is a 16 role.
17 That doesn't follow, though, that you then 18 have to try and define some threshold amount. I'm not 19 even sure how you would do that. I think to make that 20 case, it is really necessary to try, for the 21 petitioner to demonstrate that particular aging 22 management programs need some threshold. I don't 23 think you can do it in the abstract.
24 There are programs that don't have 25 knowledge gaps, like, you know, corrosion of piping.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 1 People know what corrosion is, there's no knowledge 2 gap. There's many programs that don't rely on 3 nuclear-related operating experience. Once you're 4 outside the NSSS system, you basically have a steam 5 electric plant.
6 You know, cables subject to submergence 7 don't just exist at nuclear plants, there are cables 8 in New York City, and they get wet. Concrete, you 9 know, concrete is used in so many industrial 10 applications. There's a huge body of OE, and it 11 doesn't depend on nuclear plants.
12 So probably our primary response to this 13 contention was that Beyond Nuclear never really did 14 this to any specific aging management program to 15 explain why do you need some threshold for some aging 16 effect. That's utterly lacking in their contention.
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. NRC staff, 18 just a couple of closing views if you have them.
19 MS. GAMIN: Just briefly, your Honor.
20 NRC's Office of International Programs does collect a 21 lot of data about international events and operating 22 experience. I'd also like just briefly to respond to 23 Ms. Curran's point about the Davis-Besse event that 24 perhaps should have informed operations at Three Mile 25 Island.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 1 Our reporting requirements both for 2 licensees and our practices for NRC have changed a lot 3 since then. We learned from that, we stepped up our 4 generic communications with regulatory issue 5 summaries, generic letters, info notices, and 6 reporting requirements for licensees in 20CFR 5071.
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE KENNEDY: Just a note to the Court 9 Reporter. I saw you peeking, I'll try to identify 10 myself so that you know it's me speaking.
11 I just have one quick question for Exelon, 12 and again this is sort of, again, looking at an aging 13 management program, are there other aspects, or to use 14 the term elements, of an aging management program that 15 would inform the plant staff about the adequacy, the 16 effectiveness of a particular aging management 17 program? Something we should be looking at, I guess 18 in my mind, other than OE?
19 MR. LEWIS: Well, there are ten elements 20 of every aging management program, and collectively 21 they all provide assurance that the program is 22 effective. When I make the point that this really 23 needs to be related to a specific aging management 24 program, it's in order to demonstrate an admissible 25 issue of genuine dispute.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 1 Those programs vary, and for example, one 2 of the aging management issues, or one of the 3 technical issues that Mr. Lochbaum referred to was 4 irradiation of concrete. Now, you can't take that in 5 the abstract.
6 If you look at the aging management 7 program that's described, it identifies based on 8 research a threshold at which a radiation effects on 9 concrete aren't considered significant, or above which 10 you need to worry about them. And our application 11 shows that we're below that threshold. So you don't 12 need a body of plants in order to be able to assess, 13 you know, is that issue being addressed.
14 If you look at, for example, submergence 15 of cable, which is one of the issues that's flagged, 16 the aging management program includes a preventative 17 element. And so what our application describes is 18 that we've been installing alarms on manholes so that 19 is water is accumulating, the manhole's alarm. And if 20 it accumulates to the point where it needs to be 21 pumped out, it is.
22 If that occurs frequently, Exelon has been 23 installing sumps and drains. So there's first a 24 preventive element, which is one of the ten elements 25 that manages the effect and makes sure that the aging NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 1 program is effective.
2 There's also a condition monitoring 3 element, and that's an important element in many, many 4 aging management programs. And so for cable, even 5 though you're trying to prevent wetting, you also do 6 testing of cables. You do testing to make sure the 7 insulation remains intact and effective and meets it 8 specs. So that's a fission monitoring element.
9 So yes, you need to look at all these 10 elements together. And simply to say you need some 11 threshold OE universally across the board, you know, 12 doesn't raise any genuine dispute with the 13 application. I could give you other examples.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: But if heard you speak, I 15 heard you correctly when you started, this is Judge 16 Kennedy, sorry. The effectiveness of the AMP, the 17 basic measure of that is still based in operating 18 experience, did I hear you say that, or?
19 MR. LEWIS: I said operating experience is 20 an important element, it's one of the ten. And it's 21 certainly important. We have no dispute that it's 22 important and, you know, Mr. Lochbaum cited many 23 sections of the GALL report and SRP that says it's 24 important. We agree that we do everything that the 25 GALL report says, but it's not the only element.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 1 And effectiveness also depends on 2 preventing aging effects from occurring and it also 3 depends on condition monitoring that make sure, you 4 know, if you're wrong, you catch it.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you. NRC 6 staff, anything to add?
7 MS. GAMIN: I have nothing to add at this 8 point, thank you, your Honor.
9 MS. CURRAN: Could I just respond to that?
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: I would like to ask a 11 question of the petitioner. Oh, okay, go ahead. I 12 was going to ask you if you had anything to respond 13 to. Go ahead.
14 MS. CURRAN: I do, thank you. Well, I 15 think the first word that Mr. Lewis said was research 16 about the irradiation of concrete, that studying these 17 problems or these potential issues is important. And 18 research is one source of information, and of course 19 research depends on data, and where do you get that 20 from?
21 We also rely on the, in the preamble to 22 the regulation that required licensees to have 20 23 years of experience before applying for a license 24 renewal, the NRC I think used the term substantial.
25 They wanted the amount of operating experience 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
36 1 substantial.
2 So there's a question, we're raising a 3 material factual dispute here about what is 4 substantial, and we think there's a problem with 5 having an adequately substantial amount of operating 6 experience going forward.
7 It may have been sufficient for the first 8 license renewal term, but we are now at the threshold 9 of the second license renewal term, and circumstances 10 have changed such that it warrants going back and 11 seeing if this criterion of substantial operating 12 experience is still being met.
13 And if it's not, then how should it be 14 addressed. And not to simply say we'll go on as we 15 did before and that should be sufficient. Because as 16 we have demonstrated, we've provided facts to raise 17 questions about whether it is possible to go on as 18 before and still have confidence that the amount of 19 operating experience is adequate, is substantial.
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: So part of what I just 21 heard you say is that you don't believe that the 20-22 year criteria is any measure of what the Agency deemed 23 as substantial.
24 MS. CURRAN: It's a partial measure, but 25 the NRC was also looking for 20 years of experience in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 1 the fleet, not just the individual reactor. And this 2 was of course, this was in, would have been 1991, only 3 about 20 years or so into the operating life of most 4 reactors, even less.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: And now we're at 45.
6 MS. CURRAN: Yeah, we're quite a ways down 7 the road.
8 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is that true?
9 MS. CURRAN: And the situation is 10 different.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess the other point I 12 wanted to follow up on is that you're, and I guess I'd 13 like you to point to the petition or the expert's 14 report, of where you state the fundamental difference 15 between the initial license renewal period and the 16 subsequent license renewal period.
17 Because I thought I just heard you make a 18 distinction, that something's different for this 19 period of operation than the initial license renewal 20 period extended operation.
21 MS. CURRAN: Well, the key difference 22 here, and it is stated in both the petition and the 23 report, is that the number of operating plants, 24 operating reactors, is decreasing, and is likely to 25 decrease through the subsequent license renewal term NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38 1 of Peach Bottom. That's the difference on which we 2 rely.
3 If you look at section 4 of Mr. Lochbaum's 4 report, it's entitled Aging Management Programs Will 5 Need Further Changes.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you. Go 7 ahead.
8 JUDGE ABREU: Mr. Lewis, in your petition, 9 excuse me, in your answer to the petition, you often 10 talk about your robust operational experience. And 11 you mentioned that it is described in the application, 12 but you didn't cite which parts of the application you 13 consider part of your description. Could you give us 14 some details on which part you consider applicable to 15 that description?
16 MR. LEWIS: Yes, there are two sections, 17 one is in Appendix A and one is, I believe, in 18 Appendix B. They are, maybe step back one second 19 first.
20 Operating experience is one of the ten 21 elements for every aging management program. So every 22 aging management program indicates, for example, that 23 it's looked retrospectively at operating experience, 24 and we're fall within the bounds of the GALL report 25 and we don't have any indication that the program 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
39 1 we're adopting needs to be supplemented.
2 There is also, again, this forward look.
3 And rather than repeating it in every aging management 4 program, there is a section again in Appendix A and 5 also a description in Appendix B up front of what 6 those operating experience -- forward looking reviews 7 look at. And if you give me a second, I can find the 8 citations, but it would probably take me a second, or 9 I could.
10 JUDGE ABREU: You could do it during a 11 break.
12 MR. LEWIS: Okay, I will do that.
13 JUDGE ABREU: So how close is Peach Bottom 14 to being the longest running commercial plant? Who's 15 ahead of it? At this point, and then there may be a 16 difference with once you get to the extended 17 operations period of subsequent renewal, since some 18 have not applied for subsequent.
19 MR. LEWIS: I don't know the answer to 20 that. Peach Bottom is a BWR-4, it's a fourth 21 generation. So I mean, there's BW-1s, BWR-2s, and 22 BWR-3s before that. I think it's probably somewhere 23 in the middle. BWRs, and I suspect it is somewhere on 24 PWRs too, but I don't know exactly where the ranking 25 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
40 1 JUDGE ABREU: So at the point you would 2 begin the period of extended operation for subsequent 3 renewal, do you have a sense of who's older?
4 MR. LEWIS: I was just consulting with my 5 client. I think there's about 20 or 30 plants that 6 are older. Just in the Exelon fleet, there's Ginna and 7 Nine Mile Point that are older. I mean, plants like 8 Monticello are older. But again, I can't give you the 9 exact number. But it's, we're not the oldest.
10 JUDGE ABREU: At this point in time.
11 MR. LEWIS: At this point in time. Again 12 --
13 JUDGE ABREU: Then at the point where 14 subsequent renewal would kick in. I'm guessing some 15 of those plants have not applied for subsequent 16 renewal.
17 MR. LEWIS: Yeah, that's true. We're the 18 second one, so that's --
19 JUDGE ABREU: We're aware of that, so.
20 MR. LEWIS: Just means that we're breaking 21 ground. But it isn't just age though that's pertinent 22 in deciding, you know, is operating experience coming 23 in. A lot of the issues that Beyond Nuclear is 24 raising are fluence-related.
25 BWRs have lower fluence than PWRs. 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
41 1 can have newer PWRs that are producing a lot more 2 fluence that are giving perfectly valid operating 3 experience. You don't need older plants necessarily 4 to do that.
5 JUDGE ABREU: What about internationally?
6 Are there plants that at, again, looking at your 7 period of extended operations for subsequent renewal, 8 are you aware of any plants outside of the US that 9 might be older? From which you would be gaining, the 10 old person, the old guy's operating experience, so to 11 speak.
12 MR. LEWIS: Well, I'm sure they are. I 13 don't know how many of the plants in Japan remain 14 operational. A lot of them are restarting. A lot of 15 those were initially, you know, BWRs, older BWRs. But 16 there are certainly international plants that are 17 older than Peach Bottom, I just don't have a number.
18 JUDGE ABREU: Okay. With, Ms. Curran, so 19 with that in mind, since there are fewer and fewer of 20 the old plants, as you've pointed out, are the 21 concerns you're voicing in your petition actually 22 already concerns? Are they concerns today about plant 23 operation?
24 Are there already some of the issues 25 you're pointing out occurring now? So what makes 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
42 1 that it's a concern at the point Peach Bottom begins 2 extended operation, what makes it happen then and not 3 before then?
4 MS. CURRAN: Well, as a factual matter, 5 yes, it would be a concern now, of course. As a legal 6 matter, at the point of license renewal, Exelon has a 7 legal burden of demonstrating that it satisfies NRC 8 safety requirements going forward. And so this is the 9 moment at which to examine the aging management 10 programs and make sure they are adequate to satisfy 11 the regulations.
12 So that's, it's a difference between, I 13 guess, a factual matter and a legal matter.
14 JUDGE ABREU: Okay, so let's look at the 15 factual matter a bit, even though we'll be addressing 16 the legal matter of contention admissibility. So the 17 concern you have, one of the things I think we're 18 struggling is how do you decide when these concerns 19 become real.
20 They might be real today, or there might 21 be a point in the future when they become real. And 22 then how would you identify when that point occurred, 23 when that point is going to occur. So you know, what 24 I heard you say was yes, in a sense they're already 25 concerns. Is that correct?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 1 MS. CURRAN: Excuse me for a minute. It's 2 hard for me to separate or to, not to focus on the 3 legal issue. But maybe I can connect them.
4 Throughout a reactor's operating life, there are many 5 issues, questions of whether the regulations are being 6 met. And that's a matter of enforcement discretion 7 for the Agency. Has this gotten bad enough to take 8 enforcement action?
9 When you get to the point of taking 10 licensing action, there's a review that has to take 11 place of all those question, is there compliance with 12 these regulations going forward. That's the way the 13 NRC process works. You go for years where you make an 14 initial licensing determination, the NRC does. The 15 regulations are complied with.
16 And then operation goes forward, and maybe 17 sometimes it's not in compliance, or there's questions 18 about it, but you do your best to compensate and the 19 Agency makes decisions as to whether to take 20 enforcement action.
21 When you get to the point of licensing, 22 then across the board review takes place. That's what 23 the staff is doing in its Safety Evaluation Report, 24 looking at the aging management programs and saying 25 are these adequate to satisfy our regulations. 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
44 1 then we'll go forward another 20 years and it will 2 become an enforcement issue again.
3 So I just really have trouble, I'm having, 4 I don't think it makes a difference from a legal 5 standpoint that the problem exists today. It's just 6 there's really nothing that Beyond Nuclear could do 7 about it today.
8 JUDGE ABREU: Well, if you felt there were 9 a safety issue today, there are pathways for 10 presenting that to the Agency.
11 MS. CURRAN: That's right, we could bring 12 an enforcement petition, which uniformly yields 13 nothing. I mean, I'm sorry to say that, but I've done 14 a lot of them and they, it's, the Agency usually 15 answers it's in our discretion whether to enforce the 16 law, and thank you very much, we'll let you know.
17 JUDGE ABREU: But if you could.
18 MS. CURRAN: Sure.
19 JUDGE ABREU: What I'm hearing you say is 20 that yeah, we really are already concerned about this, 21 but this is our opportunity to get our voices heard.
22 MS. CURRAN: Because if this license is 23 not renewed, then Peach Bottom will not continue to 24 operate beyond its 60-year term. So this is an 25 opportunity to make sure the regulations are complied NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
45 1 with for that additional 60-80 years.
2 JUDGE ABREU: So how can you decide, other 3 than the fact that this is your legal entry point, how 4 can you decide when these issues will actually become, 5 I hate to use the term real issues. But I mean you're 6 already saying, well, we actually think they're issues 7 already.
8 MS. CURRAN: They're issues by virtue of 9 the regulations, by the regulatory guidance, what is 10 required of Exelon in submitting a license renewal 11 application here.
12 The regulation 10CFR 54.21(a)(3) requires 13 components and structures to have effective aging 14 management programs. 54.21(d) requires an FSAR 15 supplement to describe the use of operating experience 16 in aging management programs. And the NRC expresses 17 an expectation that the FSAR supplement should be 18 sufficiently comprehensive, such that later changes 19 can be controlled by 10CFR 50.59.
20 These are all requirements for license 21 renewal that we are saying are not satisfied here 22 because of the failure to address this decreasing 23 operating experience.
24 So to add a little more to this that 25 unless the FSAR supplement has, is sufficiently NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 1 comprehensive, including with the kind of information 2 we seek, then the 50.59 process, which is intended to 3 allow the licensee to modify the license without 4 further license amendments as it goes along, can't be 5 fulfilled because there isn't enough specificity in 6 the actual FSAR.
7 JUDGE ABREU: And where is that in the 8 petition? You can find it on the break.
9 MS. CURRAN: All right, I'll find it on 10 the break. I also, if I could just go back to this 11 Appendix A and Appendix B of the license application.
12 I just wanted to direct you to a part of Mr.
13 Lochbaum's expert report where he discusses that.
14 Okay, he describes, and he quotes a lot of 15 the text of Appendix B in his report on pages 28 and 16 29. And then he reaches some conclusions about it on 17 page 30. He says in his last paragraph, The 18 subsequent license renewal application provides 19 numerous examples, and he's talking about Appendix B, 20 of how external operating experience resulted in 21 effective aging management programs at Peach Bottom.
22 But the subsequent license renewal 23 application fails to describe how aging management 24 programs would continue to remain effective, should 25 the amount of external operating experience 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
47 1 significantly reduced as reactors permanently shut 2 down.
3 If availability of sufficient external 4 operating experience yielded effective aging 5 management programs, then unavailability of sufficient 6 operating experience would undermine the continued 7 effectiveness of those programs. And then he 8 describes that in more detail in section 7.
9 So he, Mr. Lochbaum does address these 10 appendices in Exelon's license application in his 11 report. And this is our issue, it's pretty simple.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: Does the Lochbaum report 13 provide any support for the sufficiency argument? How 14 was sufficiency determined? Why isn't what's there 15 sufficient?
16 MS. CURRAN: Well, I would refer you to 17 section 7 of his report. And again, it gets back to 18 our fundamental concern, and it is pretty simple.
19 That in order to safely operate nuclear reactors, 20 licensees rely on the whole body of operating 21 experience that exists throughout the fleet, not just 22 their own operating experience.
23 And that, the amount of available 24 operating experience, is decreasing. It raises 25 questions. If that's what you're relying on 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
48 1 you're all alone out there, or you're getting lonelier 2 and lonelier, and you, I mean, this is what life is 3 like. You learn from other people's experience.
4 Licensees learn from other reactors' 5 experience. After a certain point, if there's nobody 6 else out there whose experience you can learn from, 7 it's a different situation.
8 And this is something that was built in by 9 the Agency from the very beginning. Because at that 10 time, in 1991, there were many operating nuclear 11 reactors. There were a hundred.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: Again, I guess, I keep 13 going back to how many friends do you need to not be 14 lonely. Do you need two friends?
15 MS. CURRAN: I'm sorry, that was a bad 16 example. It's not loneliness, let's just talk about 17 learning.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: I like those examples 19 because they're easy to understand.
20 MS. CURRAN: But supposing you wanted to 21 get a college education by just doing it yourself.
22 You're better off having someone else talk to you 23 about what it is you want to learn.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yeah, I think that, again, 25 we're going to get to this later on again. But 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
49 1 think the fundamental problem I keep having is at some 2 point in time, the Agency said these aging management 3 programs are acceptable, go forward and continue to 4 monitor operating experience.
5 That situation isn't, from what I can see 6 in your petition, fundamentally different going 7 forward than it is when that was established. And if 8 we get to count foreign operating experience and test 9 reactor operating experience, it's actually more 10 robust.
11 So I'm really struggling with how the 12 Board would have to view the sufficiency argument and 13 where the support for a sufficiency determination 14 exists, other than the statement that at least in the 15 Us, there's a potential for a declining fleet of 16 reactors. But it's far from lonely out there.
17 MS. CURRAN: But I'm just trying to think 18 of all the cases I've been involved in where the rest 19 of the world was deemed irrelevant to the operation of 20 a US reactor. Of course I can't think of the specific 21 examples, but there have been plenty where it was the 22 US experience, the experience of licensed US reactors 23 that counted.
24 And that I think was what the Commission 25 was thinking about when they promulgated that rule in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 1 1991. They weren't thinking about the international 2 fleet, they were thinking about the US fleet of 100 3 reactors. And it may be a question of addressing it.
4 And you know, I think it is a question of addressing 5 the issue.
6 The issue is not addressed in Exelon's 7 application. They say we're going to go on as we 8 always have and things will continue to be fine. And 9 we're presenting factual evidence that says no, you 10 don't have the same basis for your optimistic 11 prediction as you had before, because you do not have 12 the same body of operating experience you had before.
13 Now, it may be that Exelon will revise its 14 application and say we have a body of experience in 15 the international field that's similar reactors. Mr.
16 Lewis was saying well, you can just, you can't compare 17 the apples and the oranges.
18 So all right, we have maybe they'll say we 19 have a body, a group of reactors, international 20 reactors, that's similar to Peach Bottom. And we are 21 going to rely on their operating experience, and 22 that's going to be part of what we look at. Well, let 23 them say that. But it isn't even mentioned.
24 MS. GAMIN: Could I respond to some of the 25 points that have been made, your Honors?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
51 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm sorry, I can't hear 2 you.
3 MS. GAMIN: Could I respond to some of the 4 points that have been made, your Honors, please?
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yeah, I'll tell you what.
6 Why don't we break now, and after the break, you can 7 respond to those points, okay? We'll take a 15-minute 8 recess. Thank you.
9 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 10 off the record at 10:11 a.m. and resumed at 10:27 11 a.m.)
12 JUDGE GIBSON: Before we get back into our 13 questions, there's a few little housekeeping matters 14 I want to take care of real quickly.
15 Mr. Lewis, you made a reference to BWR and 16 PWR, and I'm sure that most folks here know what that 17 is, but just to be sure that the transcript is clear, 18 would you please explain what those abbreviations 19 mean?
20 MR. LEWIS: Yes, a BWR is a boiling water 21 reactor, and a PWR is a pressurized water reactor.
22 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay, thank you. Now, I 23 believe Ms. Abreu had some specific, asked you for a 24 cite to something, and she gave you an opportunity to 25 fill that in at the break. Could you do that for us, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52 1 please, sir?
2 MR. LEWIS: Yes, our description of 3 operating experience is described primarily in section 4 B.1.4 of the application, with also a short summary in 5 section 8.1.6. Those sections are cited on page 20 of 6 our answer.
7 Just on that point too, the description in 8 B.1.4 indicates that our program relies on and 9 interfaces with the Institute of Nuclear Power 10 Operations' operating experience program, and that 11 INPO program definitely looks at international 12 operating experience.
13 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay, she may have some 14 more follow up for you in a minute with that.
15 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
16 JUDGE GIBSON: But I want to make sure 17 we've cleaned up our loose ends. Ms. Curran, I 18 believe Judge Abreu, and possibly Judge Kennedy, asked 19 you for a citation to something in your petition and 20 gave you a chance to find that at the break. Did you 21 find it?
22 MS. CURRAN: I just want to make sure that 23 I was looking for the right thing.
24 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.
25 MS. CURRAN: I think it was to a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53 1 discussion of section 50.59. Was that it? That's on 2 page 41 of Mr. Lochbaum's report.
3 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay, thank you. Now, Ms.
4 Gamin, I believe you wanted to say something and I cut 5 you off because we should have taken a break about 15 6 minutes earlier, so go ahead.
7 MS. GAMIN: No problem, Your Honor. I'm 8 in favor of breaks too.
9 JUDGE GIBSON: Good.
10 MS. GAMIN: We briefly talked about 11 petitions for enforcement. I just wanted to respond 12 to that because I want people to know that petitions 13 for enforcement are only a small part of the NRC's 14 overall enforcement program. We have an Office of 15 Enforcement dedicated to enforcing regulations.
16 In addition to enforcement issues 17 identified by members of the public, it's also very 18 common for licensees to identify these issues and for 19 NRC staff to do so.
20 Especially we very often have resident 21 inspectors identify enforcement issues. These are 22 people who work full time on site at Peach Bottom and 23 at all other U.S. power reactors.
24 That said, I actually agree with Ms.
25 Curran that a petition for enforcement might not 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
54 1 the most appropriate pathway for Beyond Nuclear's 2 concern here because there's actually nothing in 3 contention 1 that is truly unique to Peach Bottom or 4 specific to this license renewal application.
5 The heart of this contention is a generic 6 concern about how the nuclear industry is going to 7 respond to this context in which the number of 8 operating U.S. power reactors may decline. I'm not 9 sure I'm convinced it's going to decline, but it 10 might, and how will we ensure effective aging 11 management in that world?
12 That was why we took the position in our 13 brief that this is a generic concern that would best 14 be addressed with a petition for rulemaking under 10 15 CFR 2802.
16 Because it's not specific to Peach Bottom 17 and it's not material to the findings the staff has to 18 make on this application, it's just not appropriate 19 for the adjudicatory process.
20 MR. LEWIS: May I add a couple of points 21 too just following up on that? I'll be brief.
22 JUDGE GIBSON: Sure.
23 MR. LEWIS: Thank you. Judge Abreu asked 24 whether, you know, is there a problem today? I think 25 if there were a problem today, Mr. Lochbaum would have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
55 1 not said our application demonstrates, or our 2 operating experience demonstrates that our aging 3 management programs are adequate.
4 Presumably that means they're, you know, 5 just fine today, and there isn't anything magical that 6 I'm aware of that will all of a sudden make those not 7 appropriate.
8 You know, the real question is when does 9 this become real and how could you ever set a 10 threshold? I just want to reiterate I think that you 11 can't even answer that question unless you relate 12 those to specific aging management programs.
13 This was a sort of blunderbuss attack on 14 all of the aging management programs, but to 15 demonstrate that there's a genuine dispute with our 16 application, that our aging management programs aren't 17 providing reasonable assurance that effects are being 18 managed, this concern has to be related to specific 19 aging management programs and do they depend on some 20 threshold. That showing has never been made.
21 I guess I also would like to reiterate 22 what my colleague from the NRC staff just said. At 23 some point too, you've got to recognize there's an NRC 24 regulator looking over this and generic issues could 25 come up in the future. Things could change 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
56 1 future.
2 There's a regulatory process that, you 3 know, NRC would step in if at some point its rules no 4 longer remained effective, but I don't know how one 5 could ever possibly, at this juncture, define a 6 threshold critical mass of domestic, you know, nuclear 7 OE that somehow has to be maintained. I don't think 8 you can do that in the abstract.
9 So if there's a problem with a particular 10 aging management program, Beyond Nuclear should have 11 explained why, but this sort of amorphous general 12 concern that something might exist in the future, if 13 it does, it will be addressed by the NRC through it's 14 normal processes.
15 JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Ms.
16 Curran, before you respond to that specific point, I 17 also would like for you to address the likelihood of 18 your success of filing a petition for rulemaking as 19 Ms. Gamin suggested.
20 MR. LOCHBAUM: Zero.
21 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay?
22 MS. CURRAN: Sure, we are concerned about 23 the safety of operation of Peach Bottom. Beyond 24 Nuclear has members that live near the plant. Of 25 course if there were an accident at Peach Bottom, 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
57 1 would affect people in a much larger radius.
2 So we think that this licensing proceeding 3 is an appropriate place to address safety concerns 4 about Peach Bottom's operation.
5 It has to do in part with interpretation 6 of NRC staff guidance, and the standard for that is 7 that if an intervener or a petitioner comes in and 8 says this guidance is not being satisfied the way that 9 the applicant is proposing, then it's possible to get 10 admission of a contention that says there is a way to 11 do it that would satisfy the regulation and should be 12 implemented.
13 So we don't think we're in the wrong 14 place, and I don't want to speculate on the chances of 15 -- I think you would have to decide first are you 16 going to try to amend the guidance document or are you 17 going to try to seek a rule, a new rule? That's a 18 very long process and we're in a licensing proceeding.
19 A decision is going to be made about 20 whether Peach Bottom can operate an additional 20 21 years, and the word today was brought up, and I just 22 want to put this thing, this case in its time 23 framework. The two licenses for the Peach Bottom 24 reactors expire in 2033 and 2034, so we're way in 25 advance of those expiration dates.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
58 1 And we -- this is not Beyond Nuclear's 2 choice. This is the choice of the NRC in setting up 3 this process and in Exelon in filing their 4 application. We are obligated to look into the future 5 and raise concerns that will arise in 2033 and 2034 6 for a subsequent license renewal term.
7 And I would bet you dollars to donuts that 8 by the time 2033 rolls around, there will be more 9 nuclear reactor closures in this country. It's a 10 trend that Mr. Lochbaum demonstrates in his report.
11 So we have no choice but to look into the 12 future and predict what the conditions will be during 13 this license renewal term. That's how the game is 14 structured.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: Where in Mr. Lochbaum's 16 report does he describe when this decline becomes a 17 problem? Again, I'm stuck. Is it a problem today?
18 We've already lost three or four units since Peach 19 Bottom went into its initial license renewal period.
20 MS. CURRAN: Judge Kennedy, it is not 21 Beyond Nuclear's job to set the standard. It is 22 Beyond Nuclear's job to identify the problem.
23 When the rule was proposed, when the 24 license renewal was proposed in the early '90s, the 25 number of reactors being licensed was on the increase.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
59 1 It was a different situation.
2 There was no question about the 3 availability of a substantial amount of operating 4 experience that could be had after the first 20 years, 5 and now the trend is reversing and we are raising a 6 factual question that the NRC needs to address this 7 problem and evaluate what to do.
8 It isn't our job to solve the problem.
9 It's our job to identify the problem, put the 10 contention into dispute, and to call upon the licensee 11 and the agency to address it.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yeah, I guess -- I hear 13 you. I mean, I agree that you have raised the 14 question. There is no doubt in my mind that Beyond 15 Nuclear has raised a question that there is a 16 potential impact of the decline in operating reactors.
17 What I'm struggling with is the significance of that 18 issue and where the support is for why this decline is 19 relevant to this proceeding.
20 I keep going back to we have the original 21 GALL Report and we have the GALL-SLR Report, both of 22 which have stated that there are adequate aging 23 management programs at this point in time, and this 24 point in time is as recent as 2017.
25 So someone has made a determination on 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
60 1 part of the agency that there is sufficient operating 2 experience to develop an aging management program and 3 to move forward, yet I see no challenge in the 4 petition as to why that's not adequate and support for 5 that challenge.
6 MS. CURRAN: Okay, let me direct you to a 7 document that is discussed in our petition and that is 8 a staff requirements memorandum. It's at SRM SECY 14-9 0016. The title is "Ongoing Staff Activities to 10 Assess Regulatory Considerations for Power Reactor 11 Subsequent License Renewal." It's dated August 29, 12 2014.
13 The last paragraph of this one-page memo 14 says, "The staff should keep the Commission informed 15 on the progress in resolving the following technical 16 issues related to SLR: reactor pressure vessel neutron 17 embrittlement at high fluence, irradiation assisted 18 stress corrosion cracking of reactor internals and 19 primary system components, concrete and containment 20 degradation, and electrical cable qualification and 21 condition assessment."
22 So these are issues that the Commission 23 has said to the staff, "We are not satisfied that 24 these issues are addressed or resolved," and how are 25 we going to address them? It in 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
61 1 programs that -- the NRC has decided to let, to go 2 ahead with subsequent license renewal in spite of 3 these unresolved issues.
4 So how will they be addressed, these 5 unknowns? How will the information gap be closed?
6 And we're saying that one of the ways has got to be 7 operating experience, to learn from operating 8 reactors, their experience of these issues. And if 9 that amount of experience is going down, how do we 10 resolve these problems? And if you look at --
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: But yet, don't --
12 MS. CURRAN: I just want to --
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: Don't we both agree that 14 there will be operating experience going forward?
15 What we seem to be disagreeing on is how much 16 operating experience seems to be needed.
17 MS. CURRAN: Let me -- could I just 18 rephrase that?
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.
20 MS. CURRAN: I don't think that's the 21 point of disagreement.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.
23 MS. CURRAN: The point of disagreement is 24 the failure to acknowledge that it is an issue that 25 needs to be addressed. You have to do that before 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
62 1 get to how much is enough, and that's the thing that 2 hasn't -- that's the job, the task that hasn't been 3 done yet here.
4 And I think in Mr. Lochbaum's report, he 5 notes how if you're evaluating operating experience 6 and you have a bunch of criteria that are where is 7 this coming from, what does it mean, who found, you 8 know, who did the evaluation, and what does it say, if 9 you don't have any criterion of are we getting a big 10 enough picture of what's going on in reactor 11 operation, you never evaluate that.
12 It is not part of Exelon's aging 13 management plan to look around and say, "Have we got 14 a real paucity of information here such that we think 15 everything is fine just because nobody us telling us?
16 There's no information coming in?"
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: We're back to how many 18 friends do I need to have to be lonely?
19 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: I mean, you've defined it 21 as a --
22 MS. CURRAN: I wish I had never done that.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- scarcity, not -- but --
24 MS. CURRAN: But --
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: I mean, you keep moving 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
63 1 a scarcity of information. One could argue, and 2 Exelon probably would, that there's quite a bit of 3 information. There's at least 96 operating reactors 4 today and that doesn't -- again, we'll leave the 5 foreign reactors out of this.
6 MS. CURRAN: Okay.
7 JUDGE KENNEDY: So I keep struggling --
8 MS. CURRAN: There's 96 today.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right.
10 MS. CURRAN: And how many will there be in 11 2033? And we see a trend that they are closing. We 12 are not -- how many new reactors are being licensed?
13 There is one under, two reactors under construction 14 now. That's it. So we have a trend that is 15 unmistakable and is not being addressed.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Let's go back again to the 17 development of the aging management programs. Is 18 there anything within the GALL that Mr. Lochbaum has 19 identified that speaks to this need for a sufficiency 20 of data or does it just speak to the need to look for 21 the data, to have an operating experience element?
22 MS. CURRAN: I'm sorry for the delay. The 23 GALL Report identifies and discusses what we know 24 about the condition of operating reactors under 25 license renewal review. It doesn't identify the gaps.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
64 1 It doesn't --
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: Well, but yet they're 3 identified as acceptable programs to use to manage 4 aging effects. That, to me, always has implied that 5 there isn't a significant gap or knowledge -- I got 6 lonely -- or a lack of knowledge to --
7 I mean, it would seem inconsistent with 8 developing a specific program if there is a known gap 9 or a lack of knowledge at that point in time. It 10 would seem to me the most prudent thing would be to 11 not put forward an aging management program on that 12 particular topic if there was, as you would say, a gap 13 or a lack of knowledge.
14 That's my premise, and I guess that's what 15 I've struggled with through all of this is that at a 16 point in time, this all seems to be acceptable, but 17 yet there's this going forward picture that I haven't 18 really been able to get in focus of the role of 19 operating experience during the period of extended 20 operation and the relative impact of the declining or 21 potential declining fleet of U.S. operating reactors.
22 I'm having trouble reconciling those two.
23 MS. CURRAN: So if you look at Mr.
24 Lochbaum's report, section three, he goes through the 25 history of the development of the GALL Report, which NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
65 1 has been revised a number of times based on operating 2 experience, and continually identifying and resolving 3 new issues.
4 And what Mr. Lochbaum's report does is he 5 identifies some of the knowledge gaps and poses the 6 question, "How will the guidance be upgraded?"
7 Because this is an important document to tell 8 licensees how to conduct their aging management 9 programs in the license renewal term.
10 As the amount of information goes down to 11 inform the GALL Reports, how does that process stay 12 adequate to inform the aging management programs?
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: So at some point, it's 14 adequate, and at some point, it's no longer adequate?
15 Is that the picture that Mr. Lochbaum is painting in 16 section three?
17 MS. CURRAN: We believe that by the time 18 the subsequent license renewal term arrives that there 19 will be a serious question as to whether this process 20 is going to keep working.
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: So the fundamental basis 22 of your contention is that there has to be a robust 23 history of operating experience to make aging 24 management work?
25 MS. CURRAN: 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
66 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yet that's not identified 2 within the GALL that you've highlighted in your 3 petition that I'm aware of.
4 MS. CURRAN: Well, the GALL is a 5 demonstration of how operating experience is used to 6 inform the aging management programs.
7 JUDGE KENNEDY: But yet the Commission --
8 MS. CURRAN: It's also a living document 9 that's constantly being revised.
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: I understand, but yet the 11 Commission has spoken and said if you use a GALL, an 12 aging management program consistent with GALL, we 13 believe it provides reasonable assurance, and so, to 14 me, there's always been an assumed confidence level in 15 the process.
16 MS. CURRAN: Well, could I just -- let me 17 share my interpretation, and you might be talking 18 about the Oyster Creek decision.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.
20 MS. CURRAN: And --
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: Maybe.
22 MS. CURRAN: That decision, I think, was 23 an initial license renewal case, and it also, it said 24 that whatever an aging management plan or program has, 25 it has to address these 10 elements that include NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
67 1 operating experience.
2 And then I think it goes on to say but 3 there's some aspects of the GALL Report that you could 4 challenge if you were an applicant or an intervener 5 because the basic rule, the rule that the NRC applies 6 in challenging guidance documents is compliance with 7 the guidance document is considered adequate unless 8 either the applicant or the intervener presents some 9 good reason to do it another way, that another way is 10 either necessary or allowable to comply with the 11 regulations.
12 But definitely the Commission thought that 13 those 10 elements had to be in an aging management 14 plan, and that included operating experience. So I'm 15 not sure -- I don't think I get to the place where the 16 Commission said, "If you comply with the GALL, that's 17 the end of it."
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, so let's turn it 19 around then. Is the petition suggesting there is not 20 operating experience in the Exelon application for 21 Peach Bottom?
22 MS. CURRAN: We're suggesting there is not 23 a plan to provide for sufficient operating experience, 24 and sufficiency needs to be addressed. The whole 25 issue of what is sufficient needs to be addressed.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
68 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thanks.
2 JUDGE ABREU: Let me circle back. There 3 was a point that Mr. Lewis made about the issue of the 4 applicability of this concern to the current program 5 and your statement earlier about, "Well, yes, in a 6 sense, it does," but you just don't have an opening 7 for doing that.
8 So is that still -- am I correct that 9 that's your position, that if you could, you'd say 10 this ought to be addressed in the current aging 11 management programs, that they should already be 12 thinking about this issue?
13 MS. CURRAN: Yes, you know, in an ideal 14 world, yes.
15 JUDGE ABREU: So in a sense, wouldn't that 16 be looking at the current licensing basis since the 17 ability of the licensee to maintain their current 18 licensing basis is in part based on their aging 19 management programs?
20 So in a sense, you're saying we're not 21 convinced we can do all of that because this is not 22 part of the program, addressing this issue of 23 potential inadequacy of operating experience that's 24 going to happen at some undefined point?
25 (Simultaneous speaking.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
69 1 JUDGE ABREU: So in a sense, it could 2 happen before we get to 2033.
3 MS. CURRAN: All right, I'm going to try 4 to answer your question. I'll keep trying if it 5 doesn't satisfy you. In current operation, operating 6 license, operating experience provides feedback to the 7 licensee on any issues or problems and allows a 8 licensee to address them and correct them, so that is 9 currently how, in the operating license, the current 10 licensing basis, I guess, context, you'd say, that it 11 works.
12 But as I was mentioning in relation to the 13 SRM SECY 14-16, there are unresolved issues that the 14 Commission has identified that need to be addressed, 15 they said, in part of the subsequent license renewal 16 process. So if those issues have been put into the 17 subsequent license renewal process, then it begs the 18 question how? How will we do that?
19 And in the licensing process, the adequacy 20 of the aging management plan is an issue, and we would 21 submit the adequacy of the aging management plan to 22 address these unresolved issues for which more 23 information will be needed to address them.
24 There is not a sufficient amount of 25 information available now to address them 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
70 1 context of the current licensing basis. The 2 Commission has said these issues have to be addressed 3 in the subsequent license renewal process, so there, 4 I think, is the difference between the current 5 licensing basis and the SLR process.
6 JUDGE ABREU: My focus is on your 7 concerns, the concerns you have identified, which I 8 realize relate to those, but what I'm trying to sort 9 out is how does one determine when those become a 10 significant issue?
11 When we look at safety things, the kind of 12 simple view is there's assessments done and things are 13 decided that things are safe, and then there needs to 14 be something that creates a significant change in that 15 decision. Those are the things that we have concern 16 about. There's a lot of things people worry about 17 that don't significantly change that safety analysis 18 in various aspects.
19 So since your concern is about the 20 adequacy of the rate of inflow of operating 21 experience, I'm trying to figure out how you figure 22 out at what point, you know, and how could you figure 23 out when that becomes an issue?
24 Is it one now? Is it going to be one in 25 10 years, or 20 years, or maybe not until 50 years?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
71 1 You know, how would you even go about figuring that 2 out? And so if we start with is it already a concern, 3 that at least gives us a starting point.
4 MS. CURRAN: Well, to me, the relevant 5 time period that you have to look at is the time 6 period of the subsequent license renewal period.
7 That's the time period that's at issue in this 8 proceeding.
9 JUDGE ABREU: I understand that part, but 10 I'm looking at it just from a technical standpoint of 11 is there really that point that somehow magic -- why 12 is that the magical point from a technical standpoint, 13 not from -- I realize from a legal standpoint, this is 14 the opportunity because now we can talk about 15 subsequent renewal issues, but why does it start then 16 technically?
17 MS. CURRAN: Well, one of the documents 18 that is important in any license renewal case or any 19 licensing case is the FSAR, the Final Safety Analysis 20 Report, which in this case, is the FSAR supplement, 21 and 10 CFR 54.21d requires the FSAR supplement to 22 describe the use of operating experience in aging 23 management program effectiveness. So that's what 24 we're seeking is a better description of that.
25 JUDGE ABREU: All right, let me just move NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
72 1 on then from here. Mr. Lewis -- well, Ms. Curran, let 2 me go back. A point you made, let me make sure I have 3 it correct, is that lacking acknowledgment of 4 operating experience, that operating experience, or as 5 I would say, the rate of accumulation of operating 6 experience, lacking that it is decreasing is your core 7 concern, the lack of acknowledgment --
8 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
9 JUDGE ABREU: -- of that fact. So Mr.
10 Lewis, do you agree or disagree that there may be a 11 decrease in the rate of accumulation of operating 12 experience at some point down the road that could be 13 during the period of extended operation of the 14 subsequent license renewal?
15 MR. LEWIS: I would agree that in the 16 United States right now, it looks like there will be 17 a decrease in the rate of accumulation of domestic 18 operating experience.
19 Whether that applies internationally, 20 because there are a number of plants that are being 21 built overseas, I don't know whether that overall 22 there would be a decrease internationally or whether 23 it would be a wash.
24 JUDGE ABREU: All right, given that, can 25 you explain, in general terms at least, what about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
73 1 your aging management programs takes that into 2 consideration?
3 MR. LEWIS: Yes, and let me also in doing 4 so address the SECY 14-0016 issues which I think is 5 the predicate here, that there's these knowledge gaps 6 that need to be filled by this ongoing operating 7 experience.
8 The SECY paper identified issues that had 9 been flagged by what was known as the Expanded 10 Materials Degradation Assessment, EMDA. Actually in 11 2013 was when that report was prepared and it was done 12 specifically to help the NRC staff get ready for a 13 second license renewal and figure out where to 14 concentrate on their guidance.
15 That was followed by about a five-year 16 process where research was done by DOE, and EPRI, and 17 the NRC staff developed the GALL-SLR Report and 18 addressed these issues, and then our application comes 19 in and further addresses these issues.
20 And as we have said in our answer, Mr.
21 Lochbaum starts with these 2013 issues, but he never 22 connects them to what's in our application or what's 23 in the GALL Report. He never explains why is there 24 still a gap that somehow has to be filled by this 25 operating experience?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
74 1 And when you look at each of these issues, 2 and we didn't do that in our answer because they 3 hadn't challenged any of the aging management 4 programs, but Ms. Curran just referred to the reactor 5 pressure vessel embrittlement issue.
6 Our application has an analysis that shows 7 that the upper shell of energy standard in Appendix G 8 to Part 50 won't be exceeded at 80 years. That's not 9 challenged.
10 It also indicates that we have, for each 11 unit, three specimens, three capsules with 12 representative specimens still in the reactor vessel 13 and that we will take out, you know, one of those at 14 the beginning of the second period of extended 15 operation that has a fluence of at least one to two 16 times the peak fluence of the vessel at 80 years.
17 So we're not relying on a study or a 18 projection. We're actually taking a specimen and 19 measuring the fracture toughness. So why do you need 20 the operating experience? It's helpful, but to 21 provide reasonable assurance, we have described the 22 program that does that in spades.
23 And in fact, again, as I mentioned, PWRs 24 have higher fluence, and BWRs, our projected fluence 25 at 80 years is lower than a lot of plants at 60. So NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
75 1 none of those points are addressed.
2 With respect to irradiation assisted 3 stress corrosion cracking, the GALL-SLR Report added 4 a requirement that a licensee address whether 5 supplemental inspections are needed, and we've been 6 relying on what's known at the BWR VIP procedures, but 7 we were required by the GALL-SLR Report to explain, in 8 light of this phenomena, was there a need for 9 additional supplemental inspections.
10 At each case, our application addresses 11 it. It addresses what are the fairly well accepted 12 thresholds at which this is a concern. It walks 13 through each of the reactor vessel components to 14 determine whether that threshold is exceeded.
15 There are some that are exceeded. In that 16 case, it either shows that there's an inspection that 17 will catch this mechanism before it's a problem.
18 Typically that's an inspection procedure 19 that's based on a flaw tolerance evaluation, which is 20 identifying a flaw and applying fracture mechanics to 21 figure out how quickly can it grow in between 22 inspection intervals, and if it can't propagate the 23 failure within that interval, you're doing the 24 inspections. You're making sure this can't be a 25 problem that arises.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
76 1 In other cases, our application shows 2 that, you know, cracking won't cause the component to 3 fail, but it walks down each of those issues that Ms.
4 Curran indicates these haven't been identified and 5 they haven't been resolved. They're addressed in our 6 application.
7 It's the same thing on the impact of 8 thermal and irradiation embrittlement on reactor 9 vessel internals. Again, there's a GALL-SLR 10 requirement that you go back, that an applicant go 11 back and identify whether there's a need for 12 supplemental inspections. We did basically the same 13 thing. We identified the accepted thresholds at which 14 these effects occur.
15 We screened each of the components to 16 determine whether the threshold is exceeded, and if it 17 is, we show that there's an inspection that 18 specifically monitors condition to make sure that in 19 between our inspection intervals it's not going to 20 propagate to failure.
21 I've already mentioned concrete. You 22 know, there's, again, a threshold. We show we're 23 below it. What are the other issues? Submergence, 24 I've identified a submergence of cable.
25 We've got a program that is intended 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
77 1 preventative to try and stop water from accumulating 2 that will affect cables, but in addition, we have 3 condition monitoring, actual tests to determine that 4 the insulation will continue to perform its function.
5 So the GALL-SLR Report addresses these 6 things. We address these things. There is simply 7 nothing in Mr. Lochbaum's report or in the petition 8 that relates any of these concerns to what is in the 9 SLR GALL Report, or in our application, or shows that 10 there is an issue that exists now or that will exist 11 in the period of extended operation.
12 I guess on top of that, as we've discussed 13 already, there are effectiveness reviews and they have 14 to be conducted every five years, and the NRC also 15 inspects.
16 And I guess the basic thesis of Beyond 17 Nuclear's contention is maybe somewhere down the road, 18 you know, there won't be applicable operating 19 experience and nobody will recognize it.
20 That's sort of basically an assumption 21 that somehow Exelon won't comply with the rules to 22 make sure it maintains the effectiveness of its 23 program and the NRC won't do its job.
24 And in essence, I mean, and I think it's 25 fairly well established that in looking at NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
78 1 contentions, you don't assume that applicants are 2 going to, you know, ignore NRC requirements. We've 3 got to look at effectiveness, and it's built into our 4 process, and it's done every five years.
5 And I can't tell you what's going to exist 6 in, you know, 2040 or 2050, but I can tell you there's 7 ongoing effectiveness reviews and the NRC is going to 8 inspect us, and I think the NRC regulatory process is, 9 you know, pretty darn rigorous. I think if there's a 10 problem in the future, the NRC will ratchet up its 11 requirements.
12 JUDGE ABREU: Staff, do you have any 13 comment on this discussion?
14 MS. GAMIN: Yes, Judge Abreu. I'd like to 15 reiterate the point that the GALL-SLR Report is 16 guidance. I'm glad Ms. Curran brought up the Oyster 17 Creek case because I don't agree with her take on it.
18 This argument was made in petitioner's 19 reply primarily at pages five to six that the 20 Commission in the case of Oyster Creek chose to make 21 some elements of the GALL-SLR Report mandatory.
22 I think if you look at the language the 23 Commission chose to use in that case, and I'm 24 referring to page 468 of a case that begins at 68 NRC 25 461, the Commission says, I'm paraphrasing, if you NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
79 1 choose to use the GALL-SLR Report for your aging 2 management programs, you must demonstrate you have 3 done so and demonstrate that the operating experience 4 and conditions at the plant are bounded by the GALL-5 SLR conditions and OE.
6 However, the Commission acknowledges that 7 applicants don't have to use the GALL-SLR Report and 8 they can choose another method to demonstrate the 9 effectiveness of their aging management programs.
10 And the Commission says again at page 468 11 if the applicant uses a different method for managing 12 the effects of aging, then the applicant should 13 demonstrate to the staff reviewers that its program 14 includes the 10 elements cited in the GALL Report and 15 will likewise be effective.
16 So notice the Commission doesn't use 17 "must" language or "requires" language. It says, 18 "should demonstrate."
19 I think the use of that language, along 20 with the fact that this statement is in the background 21 section of the case, it wasn't necessary for the 22 holding in Oyster Creek, shows that it was not the 23 Commission's intention to change the established legal 24 status of the GALL-SLR Report as guidance.
25 So the GALL-SLR Report is guidance. 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
80 1 has a number of recommendations on how applicants 2 should consider OE. Just to summarize, they should 3 consider all currently available OE and commit to an 4 ongoing review of operating experience that becomes 5 available.
6 So essentially we're saying consider 7 everything that is available, but there is no 8 recommendation in the GALL Report to speculate as to 9 what may not be available in the future. Thank you.
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, in that regard, Ms.
11 Curran, on page five of your reply, you cite the 12 Oyster Creek case and you suggest it stands for the 13 proposition that the Commission requires operating 14 experience identified in the GALL-SLR Report as one of 15 10 essential elements of an aging management program 16 that is to be addressed in license renewal 17 applications. Is that correct?
18 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: And you also assert, 20 contrary to the staff's claim, that not all of these 21 10 elements are advisory, and in particular, that 22 operating experience is not advisory. Is that 23 correct?
24 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: Now, Ms. Curran says 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
81 1 you're arguing in your answer that all 10 are merely 2 advisory issue, right?
3 MS. GAMIN: Yes, Your Honor. The whole 4 GALL-SLR Report is guidance. Our requirements on 5 aging management are found in relevant part at 10 CFR 6 54.21(a).
7 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, and Ms. Curran, now 8 that the staff has explained their position, are the 9 two of you in agreement or in disagreement?
10 MS. CURRAN: I think we're in 11 disagreement.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: And what is it you are in 13 disagreement with the staff about in this regard?
14 MS. CURRAN: On the Commission's 15 requirement that these 10 elements have to be 16 addressed regardless of whether the GALL Report is 17 relied on, and I'm going to read the sentence that we 18 rely on. On page 468 of the decision --
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: You're talking about the 20 Oyster Creek decision?
21 MS. CURRAN: The Oyster Creek decision, 22 yes.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, thank you.
24 MS. CURRAN: The Commission says if the 25 applicant uses a different method for managing 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
82 1 effects of aging for particular SSEs at its plant, 2 then the applicant should demonstrate to the staff 3 reviewers that its program includes the 10 elements 4 cited in the GALL Report and will likewise be 5 effective.
6 So to me, that says the 10 elements, 7 whatever you do, you have to include the 10 elements, 8 and we know that the 10 elements include operating 9 experience.
10 And I just also want to read you just a 11 little bit from an interim staff guidance document 12 related to subsequent license renewal because the 13 staff says its position about operating experience in 14 there. It's called --
15 JUDGE GIBSON: Just a second. Yeah, I was 16 going to say could you identify the document --
17 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
18 JUDGE GIBSON: -- for us, please, ma'am?
19 MS. CURRAN: It's called Final License 20 Renewal Interim Staff Guidance, and the identification 21 number is LR-ISG-2011-05, and then the subtitle is 22 Ongoing Review of Operating Experience, and --
23 JUDGE GIBSON: And what is the date of 24 this?
25 MS. CURRAN: You know, there's no -- oh, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
83 1 hold on, 2012.
2 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay, thank you.
3 MS. CURRAN: There is no date on the 4 document, but I know it's 2012.
5 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay, thank you.
6 MS. CURRAN: It's a reference document in 7 Mr. Lochbaum's report.
8 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay, thank you, ma'am.
9 MS. CURRAN: At page C-21 of this guidance 10 document, there's a statement. This is a tabular 11 document, but there's a column that identifies the NRC 12 staff's response to a particular issue.
13 And it says, "Further, although the GALL 14 Report AMPs are based on operating experience, 15 crediting these programs does not negate the need for 16 an applicant to review plant specific operating 17 experience or operating experience after publication 18 of the GALL Report." So the obligation to review 19 operating experience is independent of the GALL 20 Report.
21 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay, thank you.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: Are you -- we're back to 23 this again. Are you suggesting that the application 24 does not do that, and if so, where in the petition do 25 you suggest that, that they don't review operating NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
84 1 experience? And Mr. Lewis has just stated all of the 2 operating experience pieces that --
3 MS. CURRAN: We are not saying that the 4 application does not review operating experience. The 5 application does not address the future inadequacy of 6 the aging management program during the subsequent 7 license renewal term that is likely to arise from the 8 lack of sufficient external operating experience.
9 That is the thing that -- that is the 10 deficiency, the lack. It is a contention of omission 11 that the application does not address a factor that is 12 relevant.
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: What is the legal 14 requirement for this missing piece of information?
15 MS. CURRAN: It goes back to the preamble 16 of the license renewal rule that says a license 17 renewal applicant has to have a substantial amount of 18 operating experience to rely on, and that includes 19 internal and external, and 10 CFR 54.21.
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: And does it define a level 21 of substantial operating experience in that document?
22 MS. CURRAN: No, it does not.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: It just uses --
24 MS. CURRAN: Because at the time, there 25 was no need to make such a definition. There was a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
85 1 growing body of operating experience.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: But yet it was early in 3 the operating history of U.S. plants or earlier?
4 We're 25 years beyond that document, I believe.
5 MS. CURRAN: That's right. That's right, 6 and the --
7 JUDGE KENNEDY: So there was --
8 MS. CURRAN: The application needs to 9 respond to the demands of the current circumstances.
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: But there wasn't an 11 insufficiency then, but you're suggesting that you 12 need to be careful there isn't an insufficiency in the 13 future?
14 MS. CURRAN: Yes, or to compensate for it.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.
16 MS. CURRAN: And it's not a speculative 17 thing.
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: And why is that?
19 MS. CURRAN: Because we, in Mr. Lochbaum's 20 report, he demonstrates a trend of decreasing external 21 operating experience that is likely to continue and be 22 exacerbated in the subsequent license renewal term.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: Just out of curiosity, in 24 Mr. Lochbaum's report, how many plants will be 25 operating in 2033 and what's the basis for 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
86 1 MS. CURRAN: If you'll hold on one minute?
2 If we take the information in his table one, Mr.
3 Lochbaum's table one, it's reasonable to predict that 4 there might be several dozen plants operating.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Several dozen?
6 MS. CURRAN: Yeah.
7 JUDGE KENNEDY: In 2033?
8 MS. CURRAN: Mm-hmm.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Does that information 10 include any additional subsequent license renewals or 11 the remaining plants that have not yet undergone 12 initial license renewal?
13 MS. CURRAN: No.
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.
15 JUDGE ABREU: Back to talking about the 16 degree of their aging management programs depending on 17 external experience for Exelon, do you have -- let's 18 say you could come up with a number, and say it's like 19 20 percent internal, 80 percent external, or 80/20, or 20 50/50, which of those is significant?
21 How would you figure out which one 22 mattered? My understanding of the first part of 23 contention one is that you'd like the applicant to 24 make a determination on internal versus external. Is 25 that correct?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
87 1 MS. CURRAN: No, it --
2 JUDGE ABREU: Well, you said the degree 3 their aging management program depends on external 4 operating experience, right?
5 MS. CURRAN: Yeah, to a degree, it does, 6 and I think the thought process would be to look at 7 the historical pattern of how much internal and how 8 much external was relied on. You're looking for the 9 total amount and you're also qualitatively evaluating 10 it, I would say.
11 JUDGE ABREU: But isn't it always 12 shifting?
13 MS. CURRAN: It might be shifting, but 14 you're looking for -- I'm not sure how exacting a 15 standard you could have, but you would be looking for 16 some total amount of hours, numbers of facilities, 17 types of facilities.
18 You probably would have something, you 19 know, a little complicated to evaluate it. It 20 wouldn't be a simplistic test because you're trying to 21 evaluate the amount and nature of operating experience 22 that would be sufficient to give you a good sense of 23 what kind of issues you're dealing with.
24 And then you would look at, well, if I 25 don't have operating experience from, say, other NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
88 1 reactors, what other sources of information are there 2 or, you know, we have some -- oh, excuse me.
3 Mr. Lochbaum, in his report, he has a 4 figure four on page 38. This is an illustration of 5 the kind of thought process that one would go through 6 to --
7 JUDGE ABREU: The box?
8 MS. CURRAN: Yeah, the box that -- in 9 other words, you're looking for -- so if you evaluated 10 the susceptibility of components to degradation, then 11 you would be looking for operating experience that 12 would inform your management of those components.
13 So that might be one of the criteria you 14 looked at was, for instance, on that list that is in 15 the SRM SECY paper, these are areas of susceptibility, 16 and you would be looking at, well, what kind of 17 external operating experience is there available that 18 would inform us as to how to resolve these issues, and 19 --
20 JUDGE ABREU: So in a sense, it kind of 21 would fluctuate between the topic? Some things --
22 MS. CURRAN: It might change by topic, 23 yeah. The ones that are really important, you would 24 be looking for more operating experience, the ones 25 that were more of a risk.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
89 1 JUDGE ABREU: If it's so variable, how 2 could an applicant define that now?
3 MS. CURRAN: Well, the applicant would 4 need to have some kind of program in place to address 5 it over time and say these are --
6 JUDGE ABREU: Isn't that what an aging 7 management program does?
8 MS. CURRAN: Well, it's not currently 9 doing it. Exelon doesn't do that.
10 JUDGE ABREU: It's not doing what?
11 MS. CURRAN: Exelon is not looking --
12 Exelon does not have a program to determine do we have 13 enough information about this issue or that issue to 14 help us adequately evaluate the condition of these 15 components? They just look at what is available and 16 use that. They don't question the adequacy of what is 17 available.
18 JUDGE ABREU: Let me just turn to Mr.
19 Lewis and say what is your comment? Do you have any 20 comments on that discussion?
21 MR. LEWIS: Again, I think that what Ms.
22 Curran said actually supports our position that to do 23 this, you've got to relate it to the specific aging 24 management programs, which they have never done.
25 And in each of aging management programs NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
90 1 where there is an issue like this of uncertainty, we 2 either show that we have a condition monitoring 3 program that will detect an aging effect before it 4 occurs or that there's an applicable threshold. You 5 know, there's a number of approaches that we've taken 6 and it's just not related.
7 At bottom, I think what Beyond Nuclear is 8 saying is that we have to have a program that 9 identifies the unknown and the unknowable, and I don't 10 think that's a genuine dispute with the application.
11 JUDGE ABREU: So let's just --
12 MS. CURRAN: I'd like to just -- I think 13 that's a good example of okay, Exelon has some 14 measures for some of these components that might be 15 particularly vulnerable, and they have their own 16 operating experience, and they're looking at research 17 and other things.
18 And what we're saying is you also need to 19 evaluate whether the available operating experience 20 that you once relied on implicitly to help you resolve 21 issues with respect to these vulnerable components, as 22 that information becomes less available to you, how 23 will you compensate for that?
24 That's a piece of it along with all of the 25 other things he lists. I don't want to discount 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
91 1 other things. The program sounds like it has many 2 good elements, and we're saying this one is key and it 3 is absent.
4 JUDGE ABREU: Would it be fair to say that 5 you believe if the three items in contention one, the 6 subparts, if those were addressed in the application, 7 that the applicant would be better able to oversee 8 their aging management program? Is that --
9 MS. CURRAN: Yeah, yes, indeed.
10 JUDGE ABREU: That's it.
11 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
12 JUDGE ABREU: So in a sense, you want an 13 aging management program for the aging management 14 program? I mean, you're saying it would help them 15 oversee it. That sounds like a management program.
16 MS. CURRAN: You know, oversee might be 17 the wrong word. I would say carry it out and make 18 sure it's effective. I don't think we're looking for 19 -- we're looking for an element of the aging 20 management program that is absent. We're not looking 21 to manage the management.
22 JUDGE GIBSON: Manage the management.
23 Okay, we're going to stand in recess until 12:30.
24 We'll see you then.
25 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 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
92 1 off the record at 11:27 a.m. and resumed at 12:35 2 p.m.)
3 JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you very much.
4 Please be seated.
5 Minor housekeeping matter: If you are 6 watching this proceeding via the web stream and are 7 not seeing the closed captioning and want to have 8 closed captioning, go back to the NRC's web cast 9 portal and click on the link entitled Afternoon 10 Session, Peach Bottom Subsequently License Renewal 11 Proceeding, Oral Argument Regarding Contention 12 Admissibility. I hope that makes sense. Okay. Thank 13 you.
14 Did we cover that, Mr. Welkie? Okay.
15 All right. Ms. Curran, if we could turn 16 to page 5 of your reply. You state there that insofar 17 as the elements of the GALL-SLR Study are already in 18 the Part 54 regulations they are not merely advisory, 19 but instead are mandatory. Is that correct?
20 MS. CURRAN: Yes, I think we're relying on 21 the Oyster Creek decision for that.
22 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.
23 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
24 JUDGE GIBSON: And that was just -- that 25 was based on some language in the Oyster Creek?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
93 1 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
2 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.
3 Okay. NRC staff, is there -- is Ms.
4 Curran right or wrong in this regard?
5 MS. GAMIN: Well, Your Honor, we already 6 went over a little bit why we think Oyster Creek did 7 not change the legal status of GALL-SLR or other 8 guidance documents. We agree the regulations in Part 9 54 are mandatory.
10 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Fair enough. So are 11 we in agreement? Is staff and you in agreement on 12 this point?
13 MS. CURRAN: I'm not sure.
14 JUDGE GIBSON: You're not sure? Okay.
15 MS. GAMIN: I'm happy to say a little more 16 if that would clarify the issue, Your Honor.
17 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Why don't you do 18 that and then maybe Ms. Curran can ascertain if you 19 guys are in agreement. I'm sorry.
20 MS. GAMIN: Yes, so the regulations in 21 Part 54 that were cited to in the petition are 22 54.21(a)(1) and (a)(3), and they go to the 23 requirements to ensure -- to identify systems, 24 structures and components subject to an aging 25 management review and ensure that effective aging NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
94 1 management will be maintained during the period of 2 extended operation.
3 You notice that the words operating 4 experience don't appear in that regulation. We do 5 have guidance documents such as the GALL-SLR that ask 6 applicants to consider currently available operating 7 experience. And I could go on because there is other 8 discussion of operating experience in the GALL-SLR 9 Report, but there is no assumption in the GALL-SLR 10 Report that the number of operating U.S. nuclear 11 reactors will not decline.
12 There also -- contrary to Petitioner's 13 statement at page 6 in the reply, there is no 14 implication in the GALL-SLR Report that this minimum 15 quantum or critical mass of operating experience is 16 necessary for effective aging management. I think 17 Petitioner said that was implicitly in the GALL 18 Report, and while it's difficult to prove a negative, 19 I don't see any such implication.
20 I think that if you read everything the 21 GALL Report says about operating experience, there's 22 nothing about asking applicants to measure the amount 23 of OE available, to quantify it or assess the degree 24 of dependence of their programs on it. So to that 25 extent I do think I disagree with Ms. Curran.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
95 1 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. And, Ms. Curran, you 2 disagree with her now that you -- she's had an 3 opportunity to amplify her earlier remarks?
4 MS. CURRAN: I think NRC staff counsel is 5 still saying that they -- that operating experience is 6 not necessarily a requirement of the NRC and that it's 7 not -- I guess I would stop there. And if that's the 8 case, then I think we disagree. I don't think -- I 9 agree that the GALL Report doesn't say anything about 10 how much is needed; that's true, but the GALL Report 11 says it's important.
12 Oyster Creek says that the 10 elements 13 that are required -- that there's 10 elements that 14 include -- it doesn't say in Oyster Creek, but the 10 15 elements do include operating experience. The 16 Commission says those can't be waived. They have to 17 be addressed. Doesn't say how. It just says you have 18 to address them. So I still -- I don't hear that we 19 agree on that.
20 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Well, sounds like we 21 agree to disagree.
22 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
23 JUDGE GIBSON: Let me ask you, counsel for 24 the staff, while I've got you, does the -- did the 25 GALL-SLR Study go through notice and public comment?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
96 1 MS. GAMIN: Yes, Your Honor.
2 JUDGE GIBSON: What significance does it 3 have for you that it went through notice and public 4 comment?
5 MS. GAMIN: Well, Your Honor, we received 6 a lot of comments on this document. This was an 7 opportunity for the public to bring up whatever 8 generic issues related to aging management they had, 9 specifically in the context of subsequent license 10 renewal.
11 In addition to the extensive public 12 comments which you can read our response to them in 13 NUREG-2222, which is not in the record, but it is 14 publically available.
15 We also considered; I think Mr. Lewis 16 mentioned, the Expanded Materials Degradation 17 Assessment Report, Domestic and International 18 Operating Experience and other sources on issues 19 related to aging management, specifically 20 I think the four technical issues that the petition 21 mentions: the reactor pressure vessel embrittlement, 22 stress corrosion cracking and concrete and containment 23 degradation in the electrical cables issue.
24 Ms. Curran stated that we don't know the 25 status of these issues, but I am not sure that's quite NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
97 1 accurate. We actually had a public meeting to discuss 2 the status of those issues in April 2017. We cite to 3 the transcript of that meeting on page 39 of our 4 response. It's footnote 169. And the conclusion of 5 that meeting was, yes, we don't know everything, but 6 these issues have been addressed to the extent that we 7 can proceed with subsequent license renewal 8 applications. There are no show stoppers, I think was 9 the language that some of our experts at that meeting 10 used.
11 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Ms. Curran, does the 12 fact that the GALL-SLR Study went through notice and 13 public comment make any difference to you in terms of 14 the admissibility of the contention that you have 15 proffered here?
16 MS. CURRAN: I don't think that the fact 17 that the GALL Report was offered for comment makes it 18 binding. I think it's still an NRC guidance document, 19 that in order to be a binding document it would have 20 to be presented and published in the Federal Register 21 as a proposed rule.
22 So setting that aside, it's -- all NRC 23 guidance documents are useful for showing the way that 24 the NRC thinks the regulations can best be complied 25 with. So it's still significantly useful guidance 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
98 1 there's still an opportunity to challenge its adequacy 2 or for the applicant to challenge whether some other 3 way of meeting it can be done.
4 Then you add onto that the Oyster Creek 5 decision which that is a decision that has a higher 6 status than a guidance document.
7 JUDGE GIBSON: So I think your -- Mr.
8 Lochbaum wanted you to add something else. That's 9 fine.
10 MS. CURRAN: Okay. All right. I'm going 11 to read from the NRC Staff Guidance document, the 2012 12 document I mentioned earlier.
13 JUDGE GIBSON: Yes.
14 MS. CURRAN: LR ISG-2011-05. On page 2 --
15 on page 3, excuse me, it says: Another area of 16 clarification concerns consistency between the SRP-LR, 17 the Standard Review Plan for the License Renewal, and 18 the GALL Report. Consistent with the operating 19 experience description in the current Standard Review 20 Plan-LR the effectiveness of AMPs should be ensured 21 through the future review of operating experience.
22 However, while the current SRP-LR reflects 23 this position, GALL Report, Revision 2, which was 24 issued concurrently with SRP-LR, Revision 2 in 25 December 2010 does not, the AMPs in GALL Report NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
99 1 chapters 10 and 11 address the 10 elements described 2 in SRP-LR Section A-123, but they do not explicitly 3 address the need for an ongoing assessment of 4 operating experience in Element 10.
5 And then it goes onto say: The NRC staff 6 believes that applicants should review operating 7 experience on an ongoing basis through the term of a 8 renewed license and provide plans to do so through a 9 summary description in the FSAR supplement required by 10 10 CFR 54.21(d). As such, the applicant's ongoing 11 operating experience review should be described and 12 subject to certain regulatory controls consistent with 13 the other programs and activities relied on for 14 managing the effects of aging.
15 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Thank you.
16 On page 7 of our reply; I'm going to read 17 you a little bit of a lengthy quote here: The staff 18 provides no information to indicate that the amount of 19 operating experience needed to inform safe operation 20 during the license renewal term has declined and 21 neither the Commission nor the NRC staff has announced 22 that the NRC has now learned everything possible about 23 aging effects on nuclear reactor equipment, therefore 24 rendering it unnecessary to address a significant 25 decline in the amount of available external operating NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
100 1 experience.
2 Did I read that correctly?
3 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
4 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Now and rather than 5 a decline in the amount of experience, we're talking 6 about a decline in the number of sources of data, as 7 I think you've --
8 MS. CURRAN: Yes, that's right --
9 JUDGE GIBSON: -- covered earlier with --
10 MS. CURRAN: -- to clarify that.
11 JUDGE GIBSON: -- Dr. Abreu and Judge 12 Kennedy. Okay.
13 Now when I read that, it brought me back 14 to my days as an undergraduate, which is much longer 15 ago than probably the rest of you can even imagine, 16 and I learned in -- I took a course in logic and 17 internal fallacies. And I wonder if you haven't made 18 an illicit contrast there because you assert that it 19 has to be one or the other. It seems to me that there 20 is actually a lot of ground between these two polar 21 opposite positions that you've set forth there.
22 One is that we don't have enough 23 information to achieve safe operation and the other is 24 that we could learn everything possible. I don't 25 think that we need to learn everything possible before NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
101 1 we can achieve safe operation. So isn't what you're 2 really saying that what's needed here is to obtain 3 what we can reasonably learn?
4 MS. CURRAN: Yes, that's correct.
5 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Thank you.
6 MS. CURRAN: Yes, and -- yes, I certainly 7 didn't mean to set up an illicit comparison.
8 JUDGE GIBSON: An illicit contrast.
9 Right. Okay. Good.
10 MS. CURRAN: But the idea being that the 11 NRC staff hasn't given any information to suggest that 12 our concern is completely --
13 JUDGE GIBSON: Fair enough.
14 MS. CURRAN: -- illegitimate.
15 JUDGE GIBSON: Fair enough. I just wanted 16 to be sure that's what you were saying.
17 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
18 JUDGE GIBSON: Or intended to say, at 19 least.
20 Okay. Let's turn to page 8 of your reply.
21 You've stated that you have raised this question 22 whether the amount of available external operating 23 experience will be sufficient during the subsequent 24 license renewal term to adequately inform Exelon's 25 Aging Management Program; and, if it is not, providing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
102 1 an alternative means of obtaining that operating 2 experience. Is that what you said?
3 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
4 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. And on page 10 of 5 your reply you list three factors that you consider 6 deficient in Exelon's application, and the third of 7 those three is how operating experience will be 8 augmented if it is deemed insufficient. Is that 9 correct?
10 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
11 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. I take it that these 12 two statements refer to the same thing --
13 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
14 JUDGE GIBSON: -- the same concept? And 15 the alternatives that you maintain Exelon should use 16 to augment the operating experience data, which are 17 set forth in Section 8 of Mr. Lochbaum's report, 18 include increasing internal monitoring, evaluating 19 reactor properties during routine maintenance and 20 evaluating the properties of components harvested from 21 other reactors. Is that correct?
22 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
23 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Good.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess I'd like to turn 25 to Exelon and sort of address the same question.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
103 1 We're referring to Section 8 of Mr. Lochbaum's report.
2 And referencing that Beyond Nuclear suggests a number 3 of alternative methods that's identified: increasing 4 internal monitoring, evaluating reactor properties 5 during routine maintenance and evaluating the 6 properties of components harvested from other 7 reactors.
8 Are any of these methods currently part of 9 the Peach Bottom SLR application or Aging Management 10 Programs?
11 MR. LEWIS: Yes. As I mentioned earlier 12 walking through the four issues --
13 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.
14 MR. LEWIS: -- some of the so-called 15 knowledge gaps done in 2013 are addressed by actually 16 conditioned monitoring, looking at the parameters, 17 making sure that the components will continue to 18 perform their intended function, notwithstanding the 19 aging management effect.
20 Let me just go to the list again. The 21 harvesting is not really mentioned in our application, 22 but it is something that's ongoing as part of the 23 NRC's Regulatory Research Program and the industry's 24 program. So no, we don't identify that as part of our 25 aging management process, but it's there 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
104 1 background. It's in very large measure our basis for 2 the GALL-SLR Report. It's very much in large measure 3 a basis for all the Aging Management Programs.
4 There's been a tremendous amount of research over the 5 years.
6 And there's actually quite a bit of 7 harvesting going on. If you look at all the different 8 references in Mr. Lochbaum's -- they add up to just in 9 his report six or seven instances of cables being 10 harvested and reactor vessel pressure metal being 11 harvested. So that is going on, but it's not credited 12 as an Aging Management Program.
13 I can't remember now, what was the second 14 point in Mr. Lochbaum's trilogy of recommendations?
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: Reactor properties during 16 routine maintenance.
17 MR. LEWIS: Part of every Aging Management 18 Program is corrective action. And in addition our 19 effectiveness reviews look at what we're seeing at the 20 plant. And the operating experience very much looks 21 at the results of inspections. The Operating 22 Experience Program looks at annually thousands of 23 items. A lot of that is condition reports and 24 corrective actions that's coming out of plant-specific 25 OE.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
105 1 So, yes, I mean, that is being looked at 2 on a real-time basis. When you have inspections, if 3 there's an inspection deficiency, it's being evaluated 4 to determine is that having an impact on your Aging 5 Management Program?
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: So that specific part of 7 the three extra parts of monitoring, the corrective 8 action is in all the Aging Management Programs?
9 MR. LEWIS: Well, the elements, yes.
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. And the other one 11 that you seemed -- I'm trying think which one it was 12 -- the increased internal monitoring. It seemed like 13 you were pointing to some specific AMPs. Aging 14 Management Programs, excuse me. So is that not part 15 of all Aging Management Programs, but just a couple 16 that were -- you noted there may be some knowledge 17 gaps?
18 MR. LEWIS: Well, it depends on the Aging 19 Management Program. This is why I've said you really 20 need to relate this whole issue to specific Aging 21 Management Programs. Again, in some cases we're doing 22 condition monitoring. Does that need to -- need to 23 increase it? But whether it needs to be increased 24 depends on what is it that we're doing now and how 25 conservative it is.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
106 1 There are programs that are based on 2 sampling where you have to have a 20-percent sample 3 and at least 25 components. So that's intended to 4 provide a 90-percent confidence limit that you catch 5 the aging management effect. One of my colleagues at 6 Exelon calls this smart monitoring. That's pretty 7 rigorous.
8 In other cases when you're doing flaw 9 tolerance inspections you're pretty well ensuring that 10 in that inspection interval nothing is going to happen 11 and you're going to be able to come back and look at 12 the condition of the component in the next interval 13 and determine is there a problem? So again, you've 14 got to relate that to individual Aging Management 15 Programs, which Beyond Nuclear has never done.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. To the staff, 17 Mr. Lewis has pointed to the NRC Research Program in 18 regard to the harvesting of reactor components. Can 19 you confirm or deny that that is part of ongoing the 20 NRC Research Program?
21 MS. GAMIN: Your Honor, I would have check 22 with the staff on that. Could I get back to you after 23 the break?
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. That's fine.
25 MR. LEWIS: Just for clarification, 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
107 1 of these are DOE programs as opposed to NRC, but there 2 is NRC-DOE coordination. Some of this is also EPRI, 3 which again is coordinating the research.
4 JUDGE GIBSON: Just to allow us to keep 5 this moving, counsel, if you'd like, you can confer 6 with the NRC staff at the break and give us an answer 7 then. Okay? Okay.
8 MS. CURRAN: Can I comment on the 9 harvesting issue?
10 JUDGE GIBSON: Sure.
11 MS. CURRAN: Okay. Thank you.
12 JUDGE GIBSON: I would have gotten to you, 13 I promise.
14 (Laughter.)
15 MS. CURRAN: Thank you. It is my 16 understanding; and I'm sure Mr. Lewis will correct me 17 if I'm wrong, that Exelon, which is the owner of the 18 Oyster Creek plant which recently shut down and which 19 is also a BWR like Peach Bottom, was asked by the 20 media whether they plan to do harvesting from Oyster 21 Creek and answered no. So I don't think that this is 22 a foregone conclusion that when harvesting is 23 available that it will be done.
24 And I'd just like to point out that a 25 report that we cite -- actually Mr. Lochbaum cites in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
108 1 his report at page 18 a report by Pacific Northwest 2 National Laboratory that's called Criteria and 3 Planning Guidance for Ex-Plant Harvesting to Support 4 Subsequent License Renewal, dated December 2017, 5 appeared on the ADAMS web site and also on the -- it 6 was PNNL, excuse me -- appeared on the ADAMS web site 7 and also the DOE's web site and has since disappeared.
8 So we think harvesting is something that 9 ought to be looked at, and these licensees are in 10 control of some of the reactors that can provide 11 useful information for the subsequent license renewal 12 period. And it's not at all clear that they plan to 13 use that information. And that's one of the things we 14 want them to address.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you.
16 Mr. Lewis, I'm sure you would like to make 17 a comment to --
18 MR. LEWIS: Harvesting is going on. That 19 doesn't mean that every plant needs to be harvested.
20 And if you're doing harvesting, you probably want to 21 have a plant that has some meaning. If you have a 22 plant that is basically the same age as your existing 23 plant, you're not getting much useful data about 24 what's going to happen 20 years from now. So you 25 look at plants that have greater conditions. So, 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
109 1 there hasn't been a decision as far as I know to 2 harvest components from Oyster Creek, but that doesn't 3 mean that harvesting isn't occurring under DOE 4 programs and EPRI programs and that this opportunity 5 is being ignored.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: Were you starting to 7 suggest that Oyster Creek may not have been a good 8 candidate for harvesting as Beyond Nuclear suggests?
9 MR. LEWIS: Well, it's shut down now.
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.
11 MR. LEWIS: What is it going to tell you 12 about the condition of plants 20 years from now? Not 13 much. It's going to tell you what's the condition 14 now? So if they're saying harvesting is needed to 15 predict what's happening in the future, you better 16 choose a plant that is really a leading indicator.
17 You could harvest components from every plant. I'm 18 not sure you'd get very useful data.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: Has Oyster Creek operated 20 longer than where Peach Bottom is today?
21 MR. LEWIS: Yes, it has. I'm pretty it 22 sure it started in '72 or something. '69? Longer 23 than I thought. Yes.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you.
25 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. I just have one NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
110 1 follow-up question. We're talking about harvesting.
2 What exactly is involved in a harvest? I don't think 3 we've established that previously in the record.
4 Could you tell us that, Mr. Lewis?
5 MR. LEWIS: It's taking some component or 6 some piece of some component out for testing. So it 7 may be removing cables that are in the plant and 8 taking them and testing the condition of the 9 properties: the insulation, the jackets. With a 10 reactor vessel it would be taking a piece of the 11 pressure vessel or a piece of the welds and going and 12 doing examinations to see how the material properties 13 have changed based on whatever conditions they have 14 observed over their life.
15 JUDGE GIBSON: So you harvest, meaning you 16 taking it out and then evaluate it, sort of like 17 autopsy or a biopsy or something? Is that a fair 18 statement?
19 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
20 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Thank you. I just 21 wanted to be sure.
22 MS. CURRAN: Could I add something to 23 that? From our -- from Beyond Nuclear's 24 perspective --
25 JUDGE GIBSON: 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
111 1 MS. CURRAN: -- a distinct character 2 feature of harvesting is that first of all you're able 3 to go and take parts of a plant that you could not 4 sample from an operating plant. And second, it's a 5 destructive analysis. So (A) it might not be 6 accessible in the operating plant. You have to some 7 destructive testing and therefore it may yield useful 8 information that you can't get from your own plant.
9 JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you, Ms. Curran.
10 MS. CURRAN: Thank you.
11 JUDGE GIBSON: If we could turn to page 14 12 of your reply, following up on a question that --
13 what?
14 Hold on just a second.
15 JUDGE ABREU: I still have questions.
16 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Hold on just a 17 minute. Dr. Abreu has some questions. I'm sorry.
18 JUDGE ABREU: I'm sorry, did Judge Kennedy 19 still have anything?
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: No, I'm good.
21 JUDGE ABREU: Okay. One of the topics we 22 -- there was a brief mention of -- oh, before I 23 forget, a housekeeping item.
24 Mr. Lewis, you used the term fluence this 25 morning. Could you please define that so that we have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
112 1 that on the record?
2 MR. LEWIS: It's basically the neutron 3 flux, the total integrated neutron flux that the 4 component has observed. That's my layman's 5 definition. I don't know if it's the -- I'm not an 6 engineer.
7 JUDGE ABREU: We want to get it so that --
8 because sometimes we do have laymen reading the 9 records. So it might just help them get the gist of 10 things.
11 So one of the topics that was briefly 12 touched on earlier was that with your three -- the 13 three areas of concern that you've brought out in your 14 first contention. Were any of them specific to Peach 15 Bottom, or is there anything unique about Peach Bottom 16 compared to other plants of a similar age or type. or 17 anything else?
18 MS. CURRAN: No.
19 JUDGE ABREU: Okay. So I could just 20 basically substitute Turkey Point or Surry in your 21 argument, in your petition and that would -- it would 22 pretty much apply to any of them. Would that be 23 correct?
24 MS. CURRAN: You would have to look at the 25 individual applications to see if they were similarly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
113 1 deficient, but it --
2 JUDGE ABREU: Let's say they were.
3 MS. CURRAN: -- could be, but --
4 JUDGE ABREU: But the --
5 MS. CURRAN: -- there isn't --
6 JUDGE ABREU: -- issue as a whole.
7 MS. CURRAN: -- something -- the problem 8 that is raised by this contention isn't a problem 9 that's unique to Peach Bottom because it has to do 10 with operating experience derived from the entire 11 industry. So it would not be unique to Peach Bottom.
12 JUDGE ABREU: Okay. So then why is this 13 not a challenge to prior -- to regulations or prior 14 decisions in cases?
15 MS. CURRAN: There is no regulation that 16 specifically addresses our concern.
17 JUDGE ABREU: Is there a regulation 18 that --
19 MS. CURRAN: Well, there's --
20 JUDGE ABREU: -- specifically requires 21 this information?
22 MS. CURRAN: I guess I need to clarify 23 that there is no regulation that specifically 24 addresses the particular issue we're raising, but the 25 regulations do say that there has to be an adequate NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
114 1 Aging Management Program, that the supplement to the 2 FSAR has to provide enough information about how aging 3 components will be managed.
4 And so we are not challenging the 5 regulations. We are saying that additional 6 information needs to be provided in order to satisfy 7 the regulations.
8 JUDGE ABREU: So could this contention 9 have been filed say in the recent Turkey Point SLR 10 case?
11 MS. CURRAN: Conceivably.
12 JUDGE ABREU: Okay.
13 MS. CURRAN: But again, I haven't read the 14 Turkey Point application for that purpose.
15 JUDGE ABREU: Okay.
16 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Now we can get to 17 page 14 of your reply, Ms. Curran. I just began 18 talking with Judge Kennedy about this Pacific 19 Northwest National Laboratory Study of December 2017 20 entitled Criteria and Planning Guidance for Ex-Plant 21 Harvesting to Support Subsequent License Renewal. Is 22 that correct?
23 MS. CURRAN: We did cite it. I don't --
24 Pacific Northwest, yes.
25 JUDGE GIBSON: Right. And that's the PNNL NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
115 1 27120?
2 MS. CURRAN: Right.
3 JUDGE GIBSON: Right? At the bottom of 4 page 14 and the top of page 15 I read there and it 5 seemed to me that you were insinuating that the NRC 6 had done something improper because this report had 7 been removed from public accessibility. Is that what 8 you're saying? Bottom of 14, top of 15 of your reply.
9 MS. CURRAN: I'm sorry, I've gotten a 10 clarification. We don't know whether it was on ADAMS, 11 whether it was posted on ADAMS, but --
12 JUDGE GIBSON: But it wasn't there, I take 13 it. It's not on ADAMS now? Is that what you're --
14 MS. CURRAN: It's not on ADAMS now.
15 JUDGE GIBSON: So it should have been on 16 ADAMS, but it may have been worse if they posted it on 17 ADAMS and took it off --
18 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
19 JUDGE GIBSON: -- basically is what you're 20 saying?
21 MS. CURRAN: It's disappeared from the 22 public record. Our concern is that we're handicapped 23 by the unavailability by this document as well as 24 another document, an NE --
25 JUDGE GIBSON: 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
116 1 MS. CURRAN: I'm sorry.
2 JUDGE GIBSON: Which one is that, the 3 other --
4 MS. CURRAN: An NEI document cited on page 5 32 of Mr. Lochbaum's report. It's NEI-14-13 entitled 6 Use of Industry Operating Experience for Age-Related 7 Degradation and Aging Management Programs. So this 8 has been presented -- this paper was presented to the 9 NRC, but it is not publically available. This does 10 make it difficult for us when there's a body of 11 studies that are being withheld from us for whatever 12 reason. So it raises questions for us. We don't have 13 the answers, but it raises questions.
14 JUDGE GIBSON: Well, let's see if we can 15 get an answer. Has -- did you all -- were you all 16 hiding this from the public?
17 MS. GAMIN: Well, Your Honor, what 18 happened with the PNNL Study, we -- our contract with 19 PNNL, which was initiated in September 2015 --
20 actually they used that document to support the 21 development of the GALL-SLR Report. You can see that 22 from the title of the document. And so I believe what 23 happened was that the document was posted on the PNNL 24 web site, not on ADAMS, by PNNL staff by mistake.
25 And so just as a slight correction 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
117 1 Petitioner's reply refers to it as a December 2017 2 study. That was just a draft. So at this point the 3 report is still in draft stage. It's sort of evolved 4 now that the GALL-SLR Report has been issued, and this 5 report on harvesting -- the function it is intended to 6 fulfill has evolved now that some of the issues the 7 GALL Report was intended to address have been 8 finalized.
9 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Before you go to 10 that, let me just ask you, when you're saying --
11 you're saying that PNNL-27120 was put on the PNNL web 12 site, then taken off, and it was never in ADAMS? Is 13 that correct?
14 MS. GAMIN: That's correct, Your Honor.
15 I would also add the other document referred to by 16 counsel, NEI-14-13 --
17 JUDGE GIBSON: Correct.
18 MS. GAMIN: -- I believe counsel stated 19 that document was presented to the NRC. And I'm not 20 sure exactly what presented means, but it is not a 21 document that has ever been formally approved or 22 endorsed by the NRC.
23 JUDGE GIBSON: And do you only put stuff 24 on ADAMS that's been formally approved by the NRC?
25 MS. GAMIN: Not necessarily, Your Honor.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
118 1 JUDGE GIBSON: Correct. So I think Ms.
2 Curran seems to be blessed with good researchers who 3 can find this information. It sounds like it was very 4 difficult for them to find it. Why was it -- why were 5 not -- why was -- why were neither of these documents 6 posted on ADAMS?
7 MS. GAMIN: Well, Your Honor, with the 8 PNNL Report at the moment it's pre-decisional. So 9 it's still under review by the staff. It is not our 10 habit to release all pre-decisional information for 11 the public, although we sometimes do release drafts 12 for public comment.
13 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.
14 MS. GAMIN: For NEI-14-13 at this point 15 this document simply belongs to NEI. The industry has 16 not sought NRC approval or endorsement of it to my 17 knowledge, so we would not typically put NEI documents 18 on ADAMS unless there's some nexus with NRC 19 procedures.
20 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Ms. Curran, yes?
21 MS. CURRAN: I would just like to comment 22 that I have a copy of the PNNL document. There isn't 23 any mark of any kind to suggest that it's a draft.
24 When we took it off the -- it was on the PNL -- PNNL 25 and the OSTI web sites. And when we downloaded it, 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
119 1 was in apparently final form. And then literally we 2 went to look for it again -- you know when you cite a 3 document and you say when were you last -- did you 4 last look for it, it had gone. And we actually FOIA'd 5 it quite a while ago and we still haven't gotten it.
6 So it just raises questions in our mind, 7 what is th NRC staff doing with this program, because 8 it seems really important.
9 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Thank you.
10 Okay. Let's talk about its importance.
11 You -- since your experts were sufficiently 12 resourceful in locating the document, how is it that 13 our judgment can be informed by the PNNL-27120 14 document?
15 (Pause.)
16 MS. CURRAN: Sorry for the delay.
17 JUDGE GIBSON: Yes, ma'am.
18 MS. GAMIN: Could I clarify one thing just 19 briefly Your Honor?
20 JUDGE GIBSON: What?
21 MS. GAMIN: Could I clarify one thing 22 briefly, Your Honor?
23 JUDGE GIBSON: Ms. Curran, will you 24 indulge me?
25 MS. CURRAN: Sure.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
120 1 JUDGE GIBSON: It may affect your answer 2 to me.
3 Yes?
4 MS. GAMIN: Yes, I just wanted to correct 5 one thing I said earlier when I said the PNNL report 6 was not in ADAMS, I was referring to public ADAMS. It 7 is in the NRC's internal ADAMS system.
8 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Well, there you have 9 it. Okay. Just so we can make the transcript 10 complete, what is the difference between private ADAMS 11 and public ADAMS, counsel?
12 MS. GAMIN: Well, my understanding is that 13 it's just a matter of the level of access to documents 14 in those systems. So the publically-available ADAMS 15 is available to anyone and the internal ADAMS is 16 available to NRC staff.
17 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.
18 MS. CURRAN: I'd be curious to know how 19 long that document's been on the internal ADAMS 20 system. Was it put there recently or has it been 21 there since this report? I think we downloaded this 22 a year ago. Maybe a year ago.
23 JUDGE GIBSON: Do you happen to know?
24 MS. GAMIN: I don't know exactly how long 25 it's been on internal ADAMS, Your Honor, but it's 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
121 1 uncommon for us to put documents on the internal ADAMS 2 months or years before they are publically released.
3 JUDGE GIBSON: Sure.
4 MS. CURRAN: Yes, I just received 5 clarification that at the time this -- that Beyond 6 Nuclear got this from the PNNL web site they checked 7 with the NRC Public Document Room and it was not on 8 ADAMS at that time.
9 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Fair enough.
10 MS. CURRAN: Okay. So --
11 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. We're back to how is 12 it that this PNNL --
13 MS. CURRAN: Back to your question.
14 JUDGE GIBSON: -- document could inform 15 our decision here.
16 MS. CURRAN: Okay. So we cite -- Mr.
17 Lochbaum cites the PNNL Report in his --
18 JUDGE GIBSON: Yes.
19 MS. CURRAN: -- report at page 16 and 17 20 and quotes it to show how the results of harvesting 21 can close these knowledge gaps that there are as to 22 what are the aging effects on certain components? And 23 the example in page 18 of his report is cable that --
24 so that it's very difficult to inspect all the cables 25 in a nuclear plant and the harvesting is a helpful NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
122 1 process for inspecting a condition of cables.
2 And also harvesting can be done 3 strategically. You're not limited to checking the 4 components that are accessible. You can choose which 5 ones you want because the plant isn't operating 6 anymore and you can go and actually get what you need 7 to get.
8 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Sort of the music 9 behind the words of what I'm hearing is that Exelon 10 should not be allowed to have its license renewed in 11 your estimation simply on the promise that it's going 12 to be collecting operating data after the license is 13 renewed and that this data will be used appropriately.
14 That's just not enough. And the reason operating 15 experience may not be sufficient is that there are 16 alternative methods that should be pursued. Is that 17 basically what you're saying?
18 MS. CURRAN: A little different. It's not 19 the reason. The fact that there are alternatives 20 isn't the reason that it's insufficient. The reason 21 is -- that it's insufficient is that the NRC has 22 historically relied on a certain amount of operating 23 experience to inform Aging Management Programs, 24 therefore the fact that there's going to be a decrease 25 in the cumulative availability of operating experience NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
123 1 is a concern and that leads to the question of how 2 should that be addressed? So the fact that there are 3 available ways to address it isn't the reason why it's 4 a problem.
5 JUDGE GIBSON: Fair enough. Fair enough.
6 But you are saying that what we need is alternative 7 methods, right, to just --
8 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
9 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Fair enough.
10 MS. CURRAN: Well, pardon me.
11 (Pause.)
12 MS. CURRAN: What we are seeking is 13 establishment of a trigger or a threshold at which 14 point it would be necessary to evaluate whether some 15 additional information should be obtained. So there's 16 really -- you may not get to step 2 if you find that 17 as you go along, well, we have an adequate source of 18 external operating experience. Maybe for instance 19 Exelon will come back and say we have sister reactors 20 in other countries and we have a relationship with 21 those licensees, or whoever is operating them, and we 22 are going to be getting their external operating 23 experience and that's going to make up for anything 24 that we're lacking as a result of the change in the 25 situation in the United States. And maybe 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
124 1 end of it, but maybe it's not. And in that case there 2 are some other alternatives that could be used.
3 JUDGE GIBSON: All right. Well, let's --
4 MS. CURRAN: So it's a process. We are 5 not saying we know the answer. We are saying we know 6 the problem. We know there is a problem and that it 7 needs to be addressed; it can't be ignored.
8 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Fair enough.
9 Yes?
10 JUDGE ABREU: So let me address this to 11 staff and the applicant. Within the current system of 12 Aging Management Programs you address a lot of 13 different things and there are a lot of different 14 inputs from what I understand. Is that correct? I'm 15 seeing heads nodding.
16 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
17 JUDGE ABREU: Okay. Is there some -- or 18 can you give me a global description of how Ms.
19 Curran's, or Beyond Nuclear's concerns are actually 20 already being done, if they are, but perhaps without 21 the words she's looking for. She wants -- I mean my 22 understanding is that they're kind of looking for 23 those words that say, hey, we recognize that there is 24 this potential for a decline in the amount of Office 25 of the operating experience inputs coming 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
125 1 external sources. And because of that -- you know we 2 want to make sure you guys are saying it so that we 3 know that you're really thinking about that as an 4 issue. Is that --
5 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
6 JUDGE ABREU: -- a fair characterization.
7 So could you explain to me how maybe the words aren't 8 there but that's actually being done?
9 MR. LEWIS: Let me take a stab at it. The 10 application doesn't refer to a declining accumulation 11 rate of OE or say we're doing anything special because 12 there may not be the same number of plants in the 13 future. What the individual Aging Management Programs 14 do is explain how we're managing aging effects that 15 provide reasonable assurance that they will continue 16 to perform their intended function during the period 17 of extended operation. And in those cases there is no 18 implicit reliance on OE to fix a knowledge gap.
19 There are conservative measures that are 20 taken in each case to ensure that the issues are being 21 addressed. And in some cases again there may be flaw 22 tolerance examinations. In some cases it may be 23 determinations that the particular plant doesn't 24 experience the conditions that causes aging effect to 25 occur. There's a well-known threshold.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
126 1 So you need to go through Aging Management 2 Program by Aging Management Program to see how these 3 issues are being addressed, but none of them are being 4 addressed by simply saying we have an open issue. We 5 don't know the answer and therefore we're relying on 6 future OE to fill it. That's never done in our 7 application. In every instance there's a conservative 8 assumption -- or I mean a conservative program that 9 addresses the uncertainty, if there is any uncertainty 10 in order to maintain the effectiveness of those 11 programs.
12 JUDGE ABREU: So in a sense are you saying 13 that it's just a -- it's a continuous process of 14 learning and questioning and --
15 MR. LEWIS: I say that reasonable 16 assurance is provided by the measures we're taking.
17 And where there is uncertainty, there's conservative 18 assumptions or programs that look at condition 19 monitoring closely to make sure that we're not being 20 surprised. OE is out there to provide feedback, but 21 the OE itself doesn't provide reasonable assurance in 22 every case. It's the actual measures that are 23 described in the Aging Management Programs that are 24 providing the assurance that aging is being adequately 25 managed.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
127 1 JUDGE ABREU: So would it be fair to say 2 that your understanding of your programs is that 3 they've been designed so that within all these 4 different components and structures and systems as 5 issues come up where perhaps the lack of input from an 6 external source, which could occur -- the fact that 7 you're reassessing, you'd be able to say, oh, we 8 haven't heard much about this? Or when we have a 9 concern and we're not hearing about it, that there's 10 this constant re-looking and reassessing so that 11 you're actually -- would be capturing those things s 12 they happened in a --
13 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
14 JUDGE ABREU: -- sense?
15 MR. LEWIS: And actually the best 16 operating experience on that issue is the plant-17 specific operating experience. We're looking at a 18 Conditioning Monitoring Program, at the condition of 19 the components. We're doing so on a regular schedule.
20 If we start to see something that's unexpected, then 21 it has to go into the corrective action and there has 22 to be adjustment. Other sources of OE are valuable 23 and it's important to look at them. And you don't 24 want to remain unformed, but the programs stand by 25 themselves.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
128 1 JUDGE ABREU: So would it be your belief 2 that the things that Beyond Nuclear is worried about 3 are really already being considered in the -- are 4 already -- not being considered, but would be captured 5 within the systems for consideration within the Aging 6 Management Programs as they would occur in different 7 areas at different times?
8 MR. LEWIS: Everyone of the knowledge gaps 9 that Beyond Nuclear identified from the 2014 SECY 10 paper; 2014-0016 I think it was, are addressed in the 11 GALL Report and in the application in a way that 12 provides reasonable assurance that those components 13 will continue to perform their intended function, and 14 none of those depends on the assumption that somewhere 15 in the future some future amount of OE will provide 16 the cure. There is current solutions and current 17 conservative measures that are being taken.
18 JUDGE ABREU: Okay. And, staff, do you 19 have any comment on all that?
20 MS. GAMIN: I would agree with Mr. Lewis' 21 comments and I'd also point you to Appendix B-1 of the 22 GALL-SLR Report which refers to the role of operating 23 experience as a continuous feedback mechanism so that 24 operating experience can help the applicant determine 25 whether Aging Management Programs need to be augmented NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
129 1 or modified or new Aging Management Programs created 2 as appropriate.
3 JUDGE ABREU: So would it -- is it correct 4 to say that whether operating experience from external 5 sources -- since we know you'll always have more 6 internal experience as you age and you continue to 7 operate, would it be fair to say that the external 8 experience, whether it goes up or goes down, the 9 system is prepared to adapt to that?
10 MS. GAMIN: Yes, Your Honor.
11 JUDGE ABREU: And so, Ms. Curran, do you 12 have a response to that?
13 MS. CURRAN: Yes, hold on one minute.
14 (Pause.)
15 MS. CURRAN: Just want to make the point 16 that there are 10 elements of adequate Aging 17 Management Plan and that the basic principle is that 18 you shouldn't be able to excuse a deficiency in one 19 element by pointing to the other nine, that each of 20 them has to have some independent adequacy. So when 21 we talk about a continuous feedback of operating 22 experience it begs the question of how can continuous 23 will the feedback in the future? And I agree with you 24 that the preponderance of the feedback will be from 25 the plant itself, but we have documented in our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
130 1 contention that that's not all and that the experience 2 of other reactors is crucially important.
3 So what is -- there's an implicit 4 assumption that the feedback is continuous and we're 5 saying that's no longer something that can be relied 6 on implicitly.
7 JUDGE ABREU: So if we -- if time passes 8 and there's only one reactor -- so it's the oldest, 9 there's nothing coming in from anywhere else, would it 10 be your belief that then they shouldn't operate 11 because there isn't any external experience operating 12 experience coming in?
13 MS. CURRAN: Not necessarily, but the NRC 14 would have to look at that factor and make an analysis 15 of what have we got that could substitute for that?
16 What have we got that could provide that kind of 17 information and maybe make an assessment, well, we are 18 too far out on a limb here; it's too difficult. But 19 I -- you wouldn't want to say that until you got to 20 that point. And we're not -- this is -- what we're 21 asking for is in a real world that something is -- we 22 doubt that when we get to 2033 Peach Bottom will be 23 the only operating nuclear plant in the United States, 24 but it will be one of significantly fewer.
25 So it begs the question how do we deal NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
131 1 with this element of these 10 factors making sure that 2 this one is adequately addressed, not continuing to 3 assume that this feedback loop is continuous when it 4 is not, and not in a way that it was.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: And we must agree that the 6 feedback loop is continuous as long as anyone is 7 operating.
8 MS. CURRAN: Right.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: It's just a question of 10 the magnitude of that feedback.
11 MS. CURRAN: That's right.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is that true?
13 MS. CURRAN: Does your tape get more and 14 more thin and frayed? So the tape keeps moving, but 15 it's conveying less information.
16 Could you give me a second?
17 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.
18 (Pause.)
19 MS. CURRAN: Well, you might have a 20 situation where supposing there's a lot of plants 21 closing. If components were harvested from those 22 plants, then you might have a situation where you had 23 more information coming. So it doesn't -- it's --
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: But doesn't that assume 25 that there's an inherent gap in knowledge 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
132 1 current aging effects? I mean --
2 MS. CURRAN: Well, the gap has been 3 documented in the Commission's SRM paper and in the 4 PNNL paper.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: But yet we go forward and 6 allow these plants to operate with an acceptable Aging 7 Management Program that is based on today's magnitude 8 of feedback. I keep trying to understand what your 9 fundamental premise is today as opposed to going 10 forward. I mean I understand you're saying that 11 something could happen in the future and if there's 12 less plants, there's less opportunity to dial that 13 feedback back into the system, but if we take the one 14 operating plant and today it's okay to manage these 15 aging effects based on the knowledge we have today and 16 that one plant continues to operate, it has a feedback 17 loop, I don't understand what the problem is with 18 these Aging Management Programs, whether it's in Peach 19 Bottom or generically across the fleet. I'm missing 20 -- totally missing the point.
21 I understand the question about you 22 believe there should be a sufficiency argument, but 23 then why are there acceptable Aging Management 24 Programs today? And are there any Aging Management 25 Programs that you believe are currently in the Peach NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
133 1 Bottom application that are not acceptable?
2 MS. CURRAN: Well, let's -- maybe it would 3 help to distinguish between -- there's an Aging 4 Management Program for the current operation of Peach 5 Bottom. It was approved in -- we heard the year --
6 2003. So that was for the first license renewal term 7 for Peach Bottom. And we are not -- we're not 8 challenging that.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Let's move forward to 10 2019, and there's a new GALL with revised Aging 11 Management Programs that I am presuming that Peach 12 Bottom has imbedded into their Aging Management 13 Program at Peach Bottom to manage aging effects.
14 Haven't we just moved the ball 25 years down the 15 court? And what's wrong with that picture? I mean to 16 me --
17 MS. CURRAN: You've moved the ball --
18 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- the picture is no 19 different.
20 MS. CURRAN: -- 2003 to 2019.
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.
22 MS. CURRAN: Right? And then we have to 23 move --
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: And we've --
25 MS. CURRAN: We have to start a new game.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
134 1 If we're going to do the game analogy, we have a new 2 game starting in 2033.
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: And what -- again we have 4 16 more years of operating experience which --
5 MS. CURRAN: Right.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- is informed --
7 MS. CURRAN: That's not really --
8 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- the Aging Management 9 Programs.
10 MS. CURRAN: That's not on the table.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: Well, I'm just saying to 12 the extent that we now have a revised GALL at this 13 point in time, which I'm presuming Peach Bottom or 14 Exelon has used in their application, haven't we 15 advanced the state of knowledge and the acceptability 16 of the level of aging management to 2019?
17 MS. CURRAN: Yes, you might have advanced 18 it to 2019.
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.
20 MS. CURRAN: And then it raises the 21 question of what about -- well, it would be the --
22 whenever this -- when the license renewal decision is 23 made, supposing it's made in 2020, then there's about 24 a 10-year period where the plant continues to operate 25 under its current license, or 13 years, and then 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
135 1 new license renewal term starts. And I don't want to 2 misunderstand you, but I get the sense that you think 3 that the photo to be taken is the photo of today and 4 if things are okay today, why aren't they going to be 5 okay in 2033?
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right, and --
7 MS. CURRAN: And we're saying it's 8 reasonable to predict that in 2013 -- 2033 the 9 circumstances will have changed significantly such 10 that whatever is okay today won't be anymore.
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: And it's just as 12 speculative to assert that everything will be the same 13 in 2032.
14 MS. CURRAN: Right. But --
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: There's no basis in the 16 petition either way.
17 MS. CURRAN: I disagree. I'm sorry, Judge 18 Kennedy. It's the trends in nuclear reactors is there 19 are no new reactors being licensed aside from Vogtle.
20 So the situation is that you have a fleet of reactors 21 that is aging and that they -- many are going to shut 22 down. Some are going to go through a first license 23 renewal term and will not have a second. And Peach 24 Bottom may be one of the handful that has a second.
25 We have already had a number of shutdowns. It'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
136 1 because of a lot of economic factors. And this has to 2 be -- to the extent you can look -- you can predict 3 something, that's predictable. It isn't speculative.
4 JUDGE KENNEDY: But I guess what I'm 5 looking for is why would we expect a problem? I mean 6 why does there have to be a sufficiency of data 7 different than the sufficiency of data today? I don't 8 see what's different. I mean other than, I agree, 9 plants could be declining, and recent history says a 10 few have stopped operating. So I'm not arguing with 11 your trend. I'm arguing with what validates the 12 sufficiency argument? What in the regulations, the 13 guidance says there has to be a sufficient body of 14 evidence of feedback to --
15 MS. CURRAN: Okay.
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- validate the program?
17 MS. CURRAN: It goes back to the preamble 18 to the first rule where --
19 JUDGE KENNEDY: But won't we both agree 20 that we're more than the 1,400 years that's invested 21 in that preamble?
22 MS. CURRAN: Well, wait a --
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: We're way beyond that.
24 MS. CURRAN: Just -- let me just try to 25 answer your question.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
137 1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.
2 MS. CURRAN: There's a concept of a 3 quantitative sense of adequacy imbedded in the NRC's 4 requirements that no licensee could apply for a 5 license renewal until it had had 20 years of 6 experience under its belt. That's a way of saying 7 there is a quantity of experience that we're going to 8 say you have to have in order to inform your license 9 renewal application.
10 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.
11 MS. CURRAN: It's not relative. It's not 12 relative to just as much as you might be able to get 13 or --
14 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.
15 MS. CURRAN: -- do the best you can. It 16 is a quantity; 20 years, and we're saying we know that 17 there's 100 other plants operating and that you'll 18 have that amount. So that is a quantitative measure 19 measured by them, by the NRC Commissioners at that 20 time, in years.
21 JUDGE KENNEDY: But can't we speculate 22 today that Peach Bottom is way beyond this 20-year 23 criteria?
24 MS. CURRAN: Well, if --
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: I mean if 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
138 1 criteria, if it's the 20 years; and that's the only 2 one I see that you've offered --
3 MS. CURRAN: But, okay. So maybe where we 4 -- I'm trying to understand where we're not 5 understanding each other.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes. No, we're not on the 7 same page, I know.
8 MS. CURRAN: And maybe what you're saying 9 is this plant has a lot of operating experience. It's 10 got however many years, since 19 --
11 JUDGE KENNEDY: Well, not only this plant, 12 but the Aging Management Programs that it's using are 13 built upon a fleet --
14 MS. CURRAN: Well, and maybe you're 15 saying --
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- of operating 17 experience.
18 MS. CURRAN: -- at a certain point don't 19 you have enough? And really what you need is a 20 marginal additional amount. Is that what you're 21 saying?
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: Well, I'm not going to use 23 the word marginal, but I mean I think at some point 24 they've established that the Aging Management Program 25 is an effective Aging Management Program to start 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
139 1 move forward and then to allow themselves, as they 2 have testified here today, to continue to garner 3 additional feedback. I think we're just -- where you 4 and I are not on the same page is the magnitude or 5 sufficiency of the feedback.
6 MS. CURRAN: Well --
7 JUDGE KENNEDY: And I'm just looking for 8 in the petition or the expert report what helps us to 9 quantify the amount that would be sufficient in terms 10 of feedback, to use the term we've been using here, to 11 allow them to continue to move forward. And I didn't 12 make myself clear again.
13 MS. CURRAN: So when you were saying that 14 we have all these approved Aging Management Plans and 15 they seem to be working well --
16 JUDGE KENNEDY: We certainly have 17 recommendations for Aging Management Programs through 18 the GALL system.
19 MS. CURRAN: And I think it's also correct 20 that each of these Aging Management Plans has an 21 element that includes consideration of operating 22 experience.
23 JUDGE KENNEDY: I agree with that.
24 MS. CURRAN: So that's in there.
25 JUDGE KENNEDY: 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
140 1 MS. CURRAN: And it wouldn't be adequate 2 if it didn't have that.
3 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right, I agree with that.
4 MS. CURRAN: And that's where the rub is.
5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Well, isn't the rub in how 6 much operating feedback is required, which isn't 7 specified, as far as I heard so far, in any regulation 8 or guidance document?
9 MS. CURRAN: So the question is have we 10 created a material issue of fact, have we raised a 11 material dispute with Exelon as to this question about 12 the sufficiency of operating experience? We don't 13 need to answer -- we don't need to prove our case. We 14 need to show that there is a dearth, an insufficiency, 15 a problem that's going to come up in this license 16 renewal term that needs to be addressed in order to 17 continue being able to have an Aging Management Plan 18 that is adequate to satisfy the NRC's safety 19 regulations.
20 So we are not purporting to solve the 21 problem. We think there's probably a number of ways 22 that it could be addressed. We clearly -- if we got 23 a hearing, it would be -- the subject would be do we 24 have a problem and what is the extent of the problem?
25 And then if there is a problem, what do we do about NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
141 1 it? We are not there yet. I think the question is 2 have we identified a potential problem that could 3 arise?
4 And reasonably I don't think it's 5 speculative. It's reasonably -- capable of being 6 anticipated that this will come up and that now is the 7 time to address it. It would not be fair to the 8 public to say, well, let's approve it and if problems 9 arise later, well, we'll deal with them, because this 10 is a licensing issue for that 20-year period that 11 should be addressed now.
12 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you.
13 That was helpful.
14 MS. CURRAN: Thank you. I'm glad.
15 JUDGE KENNEDY: It was.
16 Okay. We're going to take a break of 15 17 minutes. We'll come back -- I think we've got just a 18 few more questions on Contention 1 and then we'll get 19 to Contention 2. So just fair warning. Thank you.
20 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 21 off the record at 1:44 p.m. and resumed at 1:;57 p.m.)
22 JUDGE GIBSON: Please be seated.
23 I believe you were going to check on 24 whether there was some information -- oh, our court 25 reporter is not on. I'm sorry, sir.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
142 1 COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry for being 2 tardy, sir.
3 JUDGE ABREU: No, no problem. No problem.
4 I'm sorry. But let's let you get you set. Let us 5 know when you're set and we'll get started.
6 COURT REPORTER: I'm ready sir.
7 JUDGE ABREU: You okay? I'm terribly 8 sorry.
9 Yes?
10 MS. GAMIN: Yes, on the issue of 11 harvesting, the NRC is working with international 12 partners to plan harvesting activities. That would 13 involve both doing harvesting and prioritizing, 14 figuring out where harvesting could be appropriately 15 done, what sort of materials we would want to harvest, 16 how they could be tested. My understanding is that 17 DOE also has harvesting programs independent of ours, 18 the Department of Energy.
19 I'd also like to make a quick point on the 20 PNNL Report. Ms. Curran mentioned it wasn't stamped 21 draft when she saw the December 2017 version, but 22 actually according to the terms of our contract with 23 PNNL it is draft at all times until it's accepted by 24 NRC because we want to ensure that the document has 25 been reviewed by NRC before it goes out with our name NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
143 1 on it. We are now nearing completion of that review.
2 I would also point out that given that 3 Petitioners had access to the draft version of the 4 report, I'm not sure it's correct to say they were 5 handicapped by not having access to it.
6 JUDGE GIBSON: Well, they were able 7 apparently to obtain a copy of it for whatever reason.
8 MS. GAMIN: Yes, Your Honor.
9 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.
10 Yes? Yes, Ms. Curran?
11 MS. CURRAN: Okay. Two things: The NEI 12 Report that I mentioned was not publically available, 13 and so I just want to make a point of that.
14 But I wondered if I could just return to 15 Judge Kennedy for a minute and see if I could -- I 16 think I haven't really completely answered your 17 concerns and I wanted to try another -- to give you 18 some more information that might be helpful, and that 19 is found in Mr. Lochbaum's report in Section 6.
20 This is -- in Section 6 Mr. Lochbaum talks 21 about the BWR, boiling water reactor, Vessel and 22 Internals Project. And this is an industry project to 23 monitor vessels, reactor vessels. And this was 24 something that the -- this is something where the 25 industry collects external operating experience 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
144 1 the fleet, and that operating experience is used to 2 inform individual reactor Aging Management Programs, 3 including Peach Bottom's. So Peach Bottom's Aging 4 Management Program was changed in response to 5 information that was provided through this industry 6 initiative. And this industry initiative is also 7 referenced in Peach Bottom's subsequent license 8 renewal application.
9 And so this is an important element of 10 Exelon's Aging Management Program for Peach Bottom.
11 And that begs the question of if this is a fleet-wide 12 program for gathering information about operating 13 experience, at what point does one become concerned if 14 the fleet is reduced in size and the cumulative or the 15 amount of information that comes out on a -- every --
16 declines every year, that you have less and less to 17 report on every year, at what point does that 18 diminish the effectiveness of your program?
19 So I just -- I think that's a good example 20 of one of these programs where it actually -- it's an 21 industry program. It's designed to gather operating 22 experience from external sources and it informs Peach 23 Bottom's Aging Management Program.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: I think that's a great 25 example. Thank you. And I think I feel obligated 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
145 1 give Mr. Lewis a chance to say -- I mean he did bring 2 it up first, so --
3 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
4 MR. LEWIS: Well, the BWR-VIP Programs 5 aren't just OE collection programs. They are programs 6 that are developed by the BWR community on how to 7 manage aging. They're based on research. They're 8 based on -- they're maintained by EPRI. They do 9 consider OE. So, yes, they are relied on. They get 10 updated based on research. They get updated based on 11 OE, but they're not just OE collection mechanisms and 12 they don't define a threshold. It isn't any different 13 from our Aging Management Programs. We often adopt 14 the BWR-VIP Programs. They're simply the programs 15 that are deemed adequate based on what is known, the 16 research, the experience, the observations.
17 And, yes, like our Aging Management 18 Programs the BWR-VIP Programs consider new OE to 19 determine whether there needs to be an adjustment.
20 That doesn't mean that they imply any threshold is 21 needed.
22 JUDGE KENNEDY: You want to respond to the 23 threshold comment which is I think an important 24 consideration here?
25 MS. CURRAN: What Contention 1 seeks 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
146 1 for Exelon to articulate a threshold or a criteria or 2 some way of evaluating the point at which the 3 diminution in information is -- would be come 4 problematic. That's it. So that this is on the radar 5 screen, this is something that's being looked at and 6 that we all know that it's taken into consideration 7 over the course of the license renewal term in the 8 Aging Management Program.
9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Thank you.
10 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. All right. Ms.
11 Curran, on page 16 of your reply, it appears based on 12 my reading of your petition, of your reply that one --
13 that we talked earlier about these alternatives that 14 might be used. And it appeared to me that one of the 15 alternatives that you don't believe was included in 16 the Part 54 regulations is operating experience data 17 from outside the United States. Am I correct in my 18 understanding?
19 MS. CURRAN: Yes, that's -- that is 20 correct, yes.
21 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. And you go on to 22 state that this should be a merits determination as to 23 whether foreign operating experience provides relevant 24 and sufficient information for Peach Bottom's Aging 25 Management Program. Is that correct?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
147 1 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
2 JUDGE GIBSON: Let me ask -- turn to the 3 NRC staff. Ms. Curran says that Part 54 is confined 4 to operating experience within the U.S. and it does 5 not include foreign operating experience. Is she 6 correct?
7 MS. GAMIN: No, Your Honor, and I think I 8 would refer you to the preamble Ms. Curran has been 9 referring to at 56 FR 64943. At page 64963 -- if you 10 would just let me pull this up really quick.
11 JUDGE GIBSON: That's fine. Could you 12 give me the date of that?
13 MS. GAMIN: Yes, it's December 13th, 1991.
14 JUDGE GIBSON: This is 1991?
15 MS. GAMIN: Yes, so that was for the 16 License Renewal Rule, Your Honor.
17 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Thank you.
18 MS. GAMIN: And on the page I quoted the 19 Commission discusses -- this is reference to the 20-20 year term before applicants are allowed to submit a 21 license renewal application. And it says on that page 22 in response to a comment: The commenters ignored the 23 fact that both renewal applicants and the NRC will 24 have the benefit of the operational experience from 25 the nuclear industry and are not limited 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
148 1 information developed solely by the utility seeking a 2 renewed license. For example, there are now 3 approximately 1,400 reactor years. This experience 4 will increase every year. And furthermore, in 5 development of the GALL-SLR Report both domestic and 6 international operating experience were considered.
7 I would add the reference in this preamble 8 to a sufficient amount of operating experience should 9 be read somewhat narrowly. The Commission's thinking 10 in this respect became in part 10 CFR 54.17. So 11 that's the regulation that says a power plant licensee 12 has to wait 20 years before applying for license 13 renewal unless that licensee gets an exemption from 14 that regulation.
15 So you'll note that 54.17 doesn't say 16 anything about aging management, operating experience 17 or the opinions about quantifying operating experience 18 in Contention 1.
19 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.
20 MS. CURRAN: Could I --
21 JUDGE GIBSON: Yes, you can. Just one 22 second.
23 So it sounds to me like the NRC staff is 24 saying that foreign operating experience is included 25 based on this 1991 Federal Register.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
149 1 MS. CURRAN: Well, I don't have it --
2 JUDGE ABREU: Is she wrong?
3 MS. CURRAN: -- in front of me, but we did 4 quote the section that NRC staff counsel is citing in 5 our reply at pages 3 to 4.
6 JUDGE GIBSON: Right.
7 MS. CURRAN: Maybe I could just -- I just 8 want to clear it up. I didn't -- when we cited that 9 section --
10 JUDGE GIBSON: Yes.
11 MS. CURRAN: -- it was the purpose of 12 showing that external U.S. operating experience was 13 relevant, and I don't see anything here about foreign 14 experience. And if it's in there, I'd like to know.
15 JUDGE GIBSON: The page that you cited was 16 64963.
17 MS. CURRAN: Is it a different page than 18 the one that --
19 MS. GAMIN: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I may 20 have lost the page.
21 MS. CURRAN: Okay.
22 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. I'll tell you what, 23 when we conclude, will you please give us all a 24 citation to the page in the Federal Register to which 25 you were referring that references -- or in -- can 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
150 1 do that for me?
2 MS. GAMIN: Yes, Your Honor.
3 JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you. Okay.
4 Now, Ms. Curran, the second question you 5 raise on page 16 is whether there is adequate data 6 from reactor research to be considered in aging 7 management. Is that correct?
8 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
9 JUDGE GIBSON: Now frankly I don't see any 10 difference between your position and the position of 11 Exelon and the NRC staff as to whether reactor 12 research should be considered in Aging Management 13 Programs. Is there a factual dispute?
14 MS. CURRAN: Okay. So it's complicated 15 because research and operating experience are related.
16 JUDGE GIBSON: Yes.
17 MS. CURRAN: And I think what we would 18 like to see is some merits evaluation of it because I 19 don't know the answer to the question. How much does 20 research depend on these things like the program we 21 just talked about that information is being gathered 22 and it's analyzed and reported on? So if that source 23 of information decreases, then what is the research 24 based on? I don't know the answer to the question, 25 but I would think you would want to look 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
151 1 JUDGE GIBSON: Sure.
2 MS. CURRAN: And it might be not a 3 problem, but I wouldn't just assume that research 4 isn't -- when you do research, it just begs a question 5 of where is the information you're relying on coming 6 from?
7 JUDGE GIBSON: Mr. Lewis, is there some 8 factual dispute between Ms. Curran and you as to 9 whether reactor research is to be considered in aging 10 management?
11 MR. LEWIS: Well, it's definitely 12 considered that -- the sections that I reference 13 indicate the research as to the guidance in the SRP 14 and the GALL Report. But in addition, Beyond Nuclear 15 says in their reply that NRC research is tailored to 16 fill research gaps, and I agree with that completely.
17 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.
18 MR. LEWIS: Sorry, tailored to fill 19 knowledge gaps. I think I --
20 JUDGE GIBSON: Right.
21 (Laughter.)
22 JUDGE GIBSON: Fair enough. Good.
23 MS. CURRAN: Could I just --
24 JUDGE GIBSON: Good catch.
25 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
152 1 MS. CURRAN: I just want to refer the 2 Board to figure 1 in Mr. Lochbaum's report at page 19.
3 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.
4 MS. CURRAN: And he was R&D as -- he has 5 three blocks of input to Aging Management Programs.
6 JUDGE GIBSON: Yes.
7 MS. CURRAN: Operating experience, codes 8 and standards, research and development. So they --
9 all those elements go into an Aging Management 10 Program. And I would just think you'd want to look at 11 the relationship between those elements when you were 12 addressing this issue that we've raised.
13 JUDGE GIBSON: Sure. Sure. I guess what 14 I'm having a little difficulty getting my mind around 15 is where there's a dispute. That's all. I just don't 16 understand what the dispute is. Can you help me 17 understand that? Mr. Lewis explained what their 18 position is about the role that reactor research plays 19 in aging management. Are you saying it needs to play 20 more? It shouldn't play -- pay that -- it shouldn't 21 have that much involvement? I just -- I don't 22 understand what the dispute is here. I'm sorry if I'm 23 a little thick, but I just don't see the dispute.
24 MS. CURRAN: I don't think that we -- the 25 parties are in disagreement that operating experience NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
153 1 is relevant to an Aging Management Plan or --
2 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.
3 MS. CURRAN: -- that Exelon relies on 4 operating experience, or that Exelon relies on 5 research in its Aging Management Programs.
6 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.
7 MS. CURRAN: The dispute here is the lack 8 of -- the dispute here over the implicit assumption 9 that carrying on as before with a similar model to the 10 previous Aging Management Programs will be sufficient 11 to address the NRC regulations because too much is 12 assumed about the availability of operating 13 experience. It is not adequate, it is not appropriate 14 to consider to treat that as something that may be 15 implicitly assumed.
16 And so the thing that is missing is the 17 identification of a means, a recognition -- it's 18 almost like a set of criterion for triggering an 19 inspection or an analysis that you want to have that 20 in your program because you know that you may need to 21 take anther look at some aspect of your program, and 22 therefore you build in a trigger, criteria, a set of 23 criteria, a threshold where if you hit that, if you --
24 you show that you are going to address this problem 25 should it get to a certain point. And we cant' say NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
154 1 what it is. It would take some merits evaluation of 2 what it is, but we believe it should be presented.
3 This is a contention of omission.
4 So what we would like for Exelon to do is 5 present us with an amendment to the Aging Management 6 Programs that says we are currently relying on the 7 existing body of operating experience, that we have --
8 we know there are so many operating reactors in the 9 U.S. This is what we have in terms of foreign 10 reactors. Here's the research programs. Here's the 11 extent to which they rely on U.S. operating 12 experience.
13 And if we get to a certain point, which it 14 would be in Exelon's province initially to define --
15 if we get to a certain point where we simply are not 16 getting enough from the sources that we have assumed 17 we had available to us all along, then we will examine 18 the problem and see what we should do, see where --
19 how we should compensate. That's what we're looking 20 for. We're looking for some acknowledgement that this 21 is a potential future issue and how it would be 22 addressed built into that Aging Management Program, 23 the same way if we came in and said we think that 24 there is a potential future problem with some 25 component and we want you to put in a mechanism 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
155 1 addressing that if you get to a certain threshold.
2 That's what we're looking for just so that it doesn't 3 go by without being dealt with.
4 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. I don't want to put 5 words in your mouth, just it sounds like what you're 6 -- to me over -- up here it sounds like you're saying 7 they're -- they do consider reactor research, they do 8 consider foreign information, but the operating 9 experience by itself is not enough and they need to 10 augment it with alternative sources of information.
11 And so there needs to be more emphasis on reactor 12 research than there is right now. There needs to be 13 more data from reactor research. There needs to be 14 less reliance on reactor research.
15 MS. CURRAN: That's not what we're saying.
16 JUDGE GIBSON: I'm just trying to 17 understand what is it? This is -- for me it's kind of 18 like trying to nail Jell-O to a tree. I'm sorry. I 19 just can't get a hold of what you're saying about 20 research reactors.
21 MS. CURRAN: What's missing -- what's 22 missing is a set of criteria for evaluating as the 23 subsequent license renewal term goes along whether the 24 mix of operating experience, research, testing, and 25 monitoring of Peach Bottom harvesting is -- taken NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
156 1 together is adequate to provide that level of 2 understanding of changing conditions, of emerging 3 challenges that is essential to an aging management 4 plan.
5 That there needs to be an intentional set 6 -- explicit set of criteria for evaluating that 7 because the current mix isn't going to stay that way.
8 It's not going to remain because of the change in the 9 operating experience. And that could also affect 10 research. So it's seeking a set of criteria whereby 11 this issue could be evaluated as the program goes 12 along so that if it needs changed, it can be changed 13 and that it won't -- that issue won't be ignored.
14 JUDGE ABREU: You used the term model and 15 triggers, and I'm very familiar with the world of 16 quality control where you have equipment and you have 17 a system you test. And if it's above this line or 18 below that line, everything is good. You've got a 19 trigger. You've got a specific, very discrete 20 criteria. But when I think about what we've heard 21 today about aging management programs, those are very 22 dynamic programs. They're not a static model which to 23 me makes it hard to understand how you would create a 24 specific trigger when you're dealing with a 25 nonspecific system, a dynamic system.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
157 1 But what I'm hearing you say is that you'd 2 want to try to create that trigger, that you'd try to 3 define that magic point where information is no longer 4 adequate. Is that kind of what you're saying?
5 MS. CURRAN: Well, we're looking for, say, 6 a set of criteria and give you examples of what might 7 be in it, this set of criteria. For instance, if 8 plants -- if nuclear plants are closing down during 9 this period of subsequent license renewal, then 10 criteria -- a criterion for evaluating what is the 11 impact of the shutdown of, say, an individual plant, 12 maybe a plant of a similar design or one that has 13 similar characteristics on the continuing availability 14 of operating experience for this plant. And if it's 15 diminished significantly by this shutdown, what would 16 be alternatives for getting the necessary information?
17 For instance, would harvesting help?
18 Before the plant is decommissioned, perhaps components 19 should be harvested so that that -- so that the aging 20 management program is kept informed by that 21 information and that action can be taken to compensate 22 if an important source of information goes away.
23 JUDGE ABREU: So would they have to sort 24 of pick every component in the plant and then try to 25 speculate? They would try to look at what's coming NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
158 1 down the road and try to determine which varying 2 sources of information might decline so that they 3 could pick -- they might figure out which one to ramp 4 up. Is that kind of what you're saying?
5 MS. CURRAN: If the -- if Exelon could 6 identify in the AMPs what is the dependency of the 7 AMPs on operating experience, that would be one step.
8 And then to say, well, if -- so that for -- for 9 perhaps not everything is depending on -- dependent on 10 operating experience. But for those things where it 11 is, then if the operating experience diminishes, it 12 then triggers an inquiry into, well, what do we do 13 when this source of information goes away? How do we 14 compensate for that?
15 So there's things that Exelon could do to 16 be more precise about how and to what extent it 17 depends on operating experience.
18 JUDGE ABREU: Wouldn't that vary over time 19 depending on what other information you'd received?
20 What I'm having trouble with is the dynamic nature of 21 aging management programs and of plant functions as 22 opposed to a very strict specific, here's where it is 23 and it stays this way, and then something happens that 24 perturbs the system, the system for managing aging.
25 MS. CURRAN: There's -- I think there'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
159 1 some -- it is true that this -- the process is 2 dynamic. And the -- I think the NRC anticipates that 3 by requiring that the FSAR supplement has to be 4 sufficiently comprehensive so that later changes can 5 be controlled by 10 CFR 50.59.
6 In other words, they anticipate that the 7 applicant's programs are going to change. But there 8 has to be a sufficient amount of detail so that it 9 could be understood where the changes -- that everyone 10 can understand where the changes are needed and when 11 they're needed. And that's what's missing here in our 12 view that there's not enough information to understand 13 when a change will be needed.
14 So how do you build that in to the FSAR 15 supplement? Because it really likely that there's 16 going to be a need for a change, that if there's less 17 operating experience, there'd need to be some shift 18 into reliance on something else. So why not build it 19 into the application. These are -- this is how we use 20 this information. These are the kinds of decisions we 21 use it for.
22 And that may change, but you can take a 23 picture of it. You can come up with what you can for 24 now. And then that gives you a way to test when 25 change is needed in the future because you don't have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
160 1 everything you need to make your assessment. Is that 2 helpful?
3 JUDGE ABREU: It gives me your view on it, 4 yes.
5 MS. CURRAN: Okay.
6 JUDGE KENNEDY: One last time. I'm 7 constantly trying to understand this. Now we're into 8 the dependency of operating experience. So in my 9 mind, there's two roles for operating experience.
10 There's the forward looking one that's looking for 11 feedback onto the current aging management program, 12 and then there's the historical perspective of all the 13 operating experience that has come to bear to develop 14 the aging management program.
15 Do you want that dependency defined for 16 both aspects or just going forward? I mean, the one 17 is historical and it is what it is. Are you looking 18 for the dependency there?
19 MS. CURRAN: Just going forward.
20 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right. Okay, just going 21 forward. The feedback mechanism as we've talked 22 about.
23 MS. CURRAN: That's right.
24 JUDGE KENNEDY: It's important to know 25 what the dependency of the feedback mechanism 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
161 1 MS. CURRAN: Right.
2 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.
3 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. I believe that 4 concludes our questions on contention 1. Ms. Curran, 5 you're up.
6 MR. LEWIS: Before we go on --
7 JUDGE GIBSON: I'm sorry. Yes, Mr. Lewis?
8 MR. LEWIS: -- there's a number of points 9 I'd like to make in response to about the last --
10 JUDGE GIBSON: We're going to let you all 11 have a short closing. Do you want to offer it then?
12 MR. LEWIS: I can do that.
13 JUDGE GIBSON: Is that okay?
14 MR. LEWIS: Sure.
15 JUDGE GIBSON: Keep your notes. You can 16 make them then. Okay? Ms. Curran, you're up first on 17 the 51.53 Turkey Point matter. How much time do you 18 want for your initial statement and how much do you 19 want for rebuttal?
20 MS. CURRAN: I'd like to have six to start 21 and four for rebuttal.
22 JUDGE GIBSON: Six to four? Okay. And 23 staff and Mr. Lewis, have you all allocated how you 24 all are going to allocate your ten minutes?
25 MR. LEWIS: I think I have six 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
162 1 have four. Is that --
2 MS. YOUNG: Or seven and three.
3 MR. LEWIS: Seven and three.
4 JUDGE GIBSON: Seven -- he's going to take 5 seven and you're going to three. Is that fair?
6 MS. YOUNG: Give or take. Give or take.
7 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Mr. Lewis, then 8 you'll have seven. Okay. All right. Ms. Curran, 9 you've got six minutes to tell us what you think about 10 it.
11 MS. CURRAN: Do I get 30 seconds to switch 12 paddles? Thank you for the opportunity to provide 13 Beyond Nuclear's position on the factual and legal 14 issues not addressed in LBP-19-03. I don't -- I'm not 15 going to go over as you requested, not go over the 16 decision. We very much appreciate Judge Abreu's 17 thorough analysis in her dissent. Of course, we rely 18 on that a lot.
19 I want to address three topics. One is 20 the regulatory framework issue. One is the issue of 21 efficiency. And the other is the issue of the notice 22 required by NEPA.
23 I want to go to the regulatory framework 24 because so much attention has been focused on the 25 meaning of the word, initial, in 51.53(c)(3). But 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
163 1 course, eventually, we're going to get the stage where 2 that's become moot as a result of the issuance of the 3 EIS. And I would just like to say that setting aside 4 the meaning of 51.53(c)(3), we believe that the 5 regulatory framework supports a reading that Table B-1 6 applies only to initial license renewal decisions.
7 You will not see the word, initial, as I 8 think Judge Abreu pointed out in 51.71, 51.95, or 9 Table B-1, all the regulations that are applicable to 10 license renewal. And yet we believe that the implicit 11 assumption in all these rules is that the only 12 licensing action that is covered by Table B-1 is 13 initial license renewal.
14 And this is for the very simple reason 15 that Table B-1 is a codification of findings in EIS 16 which is the license renewal of GEIS issued in 1996 17 and revised in 2013. There is no mention of 18 subsequent license renewal in 1996 GEIS or in the 2013 19 revision.
20 And therefore, Table B-1, the licensing 21 board majority talked about efficiency. But 22 efficiency can never trump NEPA. NEPA has procedural 23 requirements that environmental findings must be based 24 on data and analysis that are within the scope of the 25 analysis and that are thoroughly examined in an EIS.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
164 1 and you will not find any examination of subsequent 2 license renewal in either the 1996 GEIS or its 3 revision.
4 For that simple reason, the phrase, 5 license renewal, cannot be interpreted to cover 6 anything more than what was the scope of those EISs, 7 and that was initial license renewal. And I'd just 8 like to point out a couple places where that's made 9 very clear.
10 The 1996 GEIS explicitly states that the 11 proposed action whose impacts are addressed in the 12 GEIS is a renewal of a reactor operating license for 13 a maximum of 20 years past the first 40 years. That's 14 at page 2-28 and 2-29.
15 And in Appendix B to the 1996 GEIS which 16 contains a more detailed -- the appendices contain the 17 most detailed analysis of environment impacts. This 18 is one that talks about aging equipment. And you will 19 see throughout this analysis references to the 40 --
20 the initial 40-year term with a 20 year term added on 21 to it.
22 I would refer you to page B-7, for 23 instance, where the NRC talks about refurbishments 24 which are one of the main ways that the NRC deals with 25 aging equipment and how most of them are completed by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
165 1 the time the plant reaches its 40th year of operation.
2 And then they talk about what happens in the next 20 3 years.
4 On page B-12, the NRC says, major 5 refurbishments occur only once in a life of a reactor.
6 Well, of course, that begs the question of how long 7 are you talking about, the life of a reactor. When 8 they were looking, it was 40 and maybe 60 years.
9 When you get to the 2013 GEIS, it says, 10 its stated purpose is to, quote, determine if the 11 findings presented in the 1996 GEIS remain valid. It 12 does not have any other findings. It simply updates 13 those findings. And as Judge Abreu pointed out, on 14 page E2 in the discussion of severe accident impacts, 15 it says, this review covers only one license renewal 16 for each plant. So how could it be more clear? That 17 is the scope of those EISs. I don't care how 18 important efficiency is to you. Efficiency cannot 19 trump the legal requirements of NEPA.
20 JUDGE GIBSON: You need to finish up.
21 You're about at the end of your six minutes.
22 MS. CURRAN: Oh, okay. And just to really 23 be quick, okay, this whole business of efficiency.
24 The NRC relicensed something like 100 reactors under 25 this rule, every efficient. The first scoping notice NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
166 1 went out in 2003 and the NRC expected to do the first 2 supplemental revised EIS in 2006. They slipped a 3 little bit and they didn't do the first draft revised 4 EIS until 2009. They didn't issue the first final 5 revised EIS until 2013.
6 But the original plan was 1996, 2006, 7 2016. And you will see in the -- if you go on the 8 archives on the NRC web page, the spotlight archives 9 license renewal, you will see a long list of reactors 10 that were relicensed between 2000, Calvert Cliffs, and 11 2016, Seabrook.
12 So there are many reactors that have been 13 relicensed under initial license renewal, and that 14 process has been extremely efficient. More efficiency 15 is not allowed by the statute in terms of applying it 16 to SLR.
17 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. You'll have four 18 minutes.
19 MS. CURRAN: Thank you.
20 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Mr. Lewis, you've 21 got seven minutes.
22 MR. LEWIS: Thank you. Beyond Nuclear's 23 argument is very largely predicated on its assertion 24 that the 2013 GEIS, which I'll refer as the GEIS 25 because it's easier to say, only addressed initial NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
167 1 license renewal. And I think we just heard that.
2 That's the predicate for Beyond Nuclear's claim that 3 Appendix B as well as Sections 51.71 and 51.95 do not 4 mean what they say. And therefore, that Section 5 51.53(c)(3) does not need to be reconciled with those 6 other provisions. But this view does not withstand 7 scrutiny.
8 Beyond Nuclear's reply states at page 23, 9 quote, throughout the revised GEIS -- 2013 revised 10 GEIS, the NRC refers to a time frame totaling 60 years 11 and a baseline of 40. The assertion that this occurs 12 throughout the 2013 GEIS is incorrect. In fact, 13 Beyond Nuclear identifies only four such instances 14 that it thinks does this. That is, Ms. Curran's then 15 the Turkey Point argument, she went through the 2013 16 GEIS with a fine toothed comb to find these instances 17 -- these few instances. So let me just walk through 18 the four examples that she gave.
19 First, Beyond Nuclear points to a 20 statement on pages 4-138 to 4-139 of the GEIS that if 21 the reactor operates 60 years, the cumulative increase 22 in cancer risk to an individual worker would increase 23 by 50 percent. It's evidence that this is the 24 bounding case. As the GEIS states, it's very unlikely 25 that any worker would be employed for all 60 years.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
168 1 It's clearly unnecessary to add that if a 2 worker was employed for 80 years, his or her 3 cumulative risk would increase to 100 percent compared 4 to the original 40-year estimate. If it's true that 5 a worker is very unlikely to be employed for 60 years, 6 it's obviously remote to say the least that any worker 7 would receive an 80-year dose. That would require the 8 worker to start working at age 20 and still be working 9 at the plant and entering radiologically controlled 10 areas at age 100. And it should be noted that the 11 GEIS states that there's no consistent trend that 12 shows occupational doses are increasing over time.
13 The same is true regarding Beyond 14 Nuclear's second reference. That's the cumulative 15 dose to a maximally exposed individual which is 16 discussed on page 4-145 of the GEIS. The GEIS states 17 that the dose impacts to the maximally exposed 18 individual during future operation under a license 19 renewal judged to be unchanged from those during 20 present operation. It then calculates the dose range 21 and increase at risk per year of reactor operation, 22 the incremental risk, which as they said doesn't 23 change.
24 Then with respect to cumulative risk, it 25 explains that if the reactor operates for 60 years, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
169 1 there would be a 50 percent increase in risk compared 2 to the initial operation, a statement that would be 3 true of any 20-year interval. But it observes that 4 it's very unlikely the same person would be exposed to 5 these doses for 60 years.
6 I think, again, it goes without saying 7 that it's very unlikely that any single individual 8 would be exposed to these doses for 60 years. The 9 possibility that a single individual would receive the 10 hypothetical maximally exposed individual dose for 80 11 years is utterly remote.
12 Third, Beyond Nuclear points to a 13 statement on page 4-144 of the GEIS concerning the 14 assumed build up of radioactive material in 15 calculations of the dose for significant release 16 pathways. But the GEIS does not make any use or rely 17 on these calculations. Instead it observes that 18 significant exposure pathways are monitored and 19 evaluated to ensure that they remain below the ALARA 20 limits at Appendix I. That's the basis of the 21 finding.
22 Finally, Beyond Nuclear refers to a 23 statement on page 4-217 of the GEIS that the dose to 24 the public during decommissioning after 40 years is 25 expected to be negligible and the increase after an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
170 1 additional 20 years would result in a negligible 2 incremental dose of less than 0.1 person rem.
3 On its face, this statement quantifies the 4 incremental impact of a 20-year period of extended 5 operation -- any 20-year period of extended operation.
6 Contrary to Beyond Nuclear's characterization that 7 2013 GEIS in fact is carefully drafted to discuss the 8 incremental impacts of an additional 20 years of 9 operation beyond the current term. Indeed, it 10 exclusively defines the license renewal term which is 11 what is evaluated in each instance in the 20 GEIS as 12 that period of time passed, the original or the 13 current license term which the renewed license is 14 enforced.
15 That statement, by the way, was in the 16 draft update of the 20 GEIS. They define that as what 17 was being evaluated in the 2013 revision when it was 18 published, when it was first proposed. So to suggest 19 that people didn't know that the GEIS was evaluating 20 impacts of additional 20 years past the original or a 21 current license doesn't withstand scrutiny.
22 Therefore, because the 2013 GEIS does 23 indeed address the incremental impacts of operation 24 beyond any current license term, the provisions in 25 Appendix B, 51.71, and 51.95 can't be ignored. 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
171 1 must be applied in accordance with their plain 2 meaning.
3 Ms. Curran mentioned a new reference which 4 I believe Judge Abreu brought up in Turkey Point which 5 is the statement in Appendix E to the GEIS. That 6 wasn't raised in Beyond Nuclear's initial pleading.
7 I agree it says that. In the whole 1,500 pages of the 8 2013 GEIS, that's the only statement that suggests 9 that the 2013 GEIS had a 40-year baseline and an 10 initial focus on 20.
11 When you look at that appendix, though, it 12 isn't clear that that makes a hill of beans because 13 that appendix goes through a number of factors that 14 might've changed the original assessment of severe 15 accidents. They are things like switching to high 16 burn-up rates, changes in risk coefficients, changes 17 in CDF. None of those have any particular special 18 applicability, just the first 20-year period of 19 operation.
20 They would apply to either -- you would 21 only have one extended power-up rate. So the 22 conclusion that is reached there despite this 23 statement would apply equally to a subsequent license 24 renewal application. And I would submit to you in a 25 document that's 1,500 pages, one reference in an NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
172 1 appendix is not a basis to throw out the entire 2013 2 GEIS as not applying to subsequent license renewal.
3 JUDGE GIBSON: You did exactly seven 4 minutes. Good job.
5 MR. LEWIS: Thank God she gave me it too 6 because I wasn't planning on talking about the 2013 --
7 the appendix.
8 JUDGE GIBSON: NRC?
9 MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Judge Gibson. As 10 you know, the NRC's contention admissibility standards 11 are strict by design, and petitioners have to 12 demonstrate that their contentions are admissible.
13 The claim in contention 2 that 51.53(c)(3) does not 14 apply to the Peach Bottom proceeding or the 15 application for subsequent license renewal should be 16 rejected because it does not give full effect to the 17 Commission's framework for environmental reviews and 18 the Commission's purpose of focusing its license 19 renewal reviews on site specific issues and new and 20 significant information in an efficient manner for 21 both the NRC staff and license renewal applicants.
22 Now only does the staff have to apply 23 51.53(c)(3) and the findings in Appendix B of Part 51 24 to its EIS, but 51.95(c)(4) also requires that NRC 25 adjudicate boards integrate their determinations or NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
173 1 the determinations Category 1 and Category issues into 2 your determinations in the application. So I think 3 it's clear from that regulation and looking at the 4 entire regulatory scheme that the Commission intended 5 that the regulation apply to this renewal application.
6 Now petitioners discount the definition of 7 the renewed license term in the 2013 GEIS. And I 8 think that's one way of interpreting those words. But 9 I think when you describe the renewal term generically 10 as either the initial or current license term that you 11 are identifying a situation that would cover both the 12 first renewal, the 40-year license, and any subsequent 13 renewals.
14 And I would just echo the remarks of Mr.
15 Lewis that there are a number of instances where the 16 2013 GEIS in particular talks about an additional 20 17 years, an additional 20 years. Those words were even 18 in the '96 GEIS. And an additional 20 years also 19 covers subsequent license renewals.
20 So yes, you don't necessarily see the 21 term, subsequent license renewal. But there was a 22 time that the NRC referred to subsequent license 23 renewal as a second renewal. And then apparently, I 24 hear anecdotally there was a time they referred to it 25 as life beyond 60. Now some people didn't like 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
174 1 I'm personally offended by that, but that's okay.
2 (Laughter.)
3 JUDGE GIBSON: As am I. As am I.
4 MS. YOUNG: But the point being that to 5 give full effect to the Commission's regulatory 6 scheme, it's important that NEPA reviews are conducted 7 in an effective and efficient manner. And by focusing 8 on new and significant information and site specific 9 information during the review of a particular plant's 10 subsequent license renewal application, that's what 11 this regulation involves. And without applying that 12 regulation and the findings in Appendix B, Table B-1, 13 you lose that judgment and lose the purpose that the 14 Commission intended.
15 JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you. Ms. Curran, 16 your rebuttal? Four minutes.
17 MS. CURRAN: All right. It's important to 18 bear in mind that the Commission said in the Turkey 19 Point case, COR-17-00-something, but it's cited in our 20 brief that the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA are 21 different. That although -- and so that what follows 22 and it's explained in the license renewal GEIS, under 23 the Atomic Energy Act, a license can be renewed 24 multiple times.
25 That does not answer the question of what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
175 1 is the scope of the 1996 GEIS. And if you look at the 2 language on page 2-28 that I just cited, it says, the 3 proposed action here is the licensing for a maximum of 4 20 years past the 40-year term. So that is separate 5 and apart from the Atomic Energy Act.
6 And I'd just like to go to the issue of 7 notice which I think Mr. Lewis said, well, we had 8 plenty of notice we had looked at the 2013 GEIS. If 9 you look at the -- first of all, it was very clear in 10 the notice -- the rulemaking notice for the 1991 11 environmental rulemaking that the term that was going 12 to be analyzed in the EIS and it was going to be in 13 the rule was 20 years past the 40 years, maximum 60.
14 That was very clear in the proposed rule.
15 Then in the scoping -- in the final rule, 16 I cited pages that make it clear in the final GEIS.
17 Clearly, the proposed action was 20 years after the 18 first 40 years, maximum 20 years. When we get to the 19 first scoping notice in -- that the public would pay 20 attention to, right? What is going to be the scope of 21 this revised GEIS? They said, we're going to update 22 and make sure that the findings of the GEIS -- the '96 23 GEIS remain valid. It said nothing about, and we are 24 going to expand the temporal scope of this EIS, 25 nothing.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
176 1 And then there was another scoping notice, 2 said nothing about that. And then there was a draft 3 environmental impact statement in 2009 and a proposed 4 rule, nothing about that. And as a matter of fact, it 5 still had the language, the proposed rule of 6 51.53(c)(3) saying initial license applicants could 7 avail themselves of Table B-1.
8 If you look at Robertson v. Methow Valley 9 Citizens Association, NEPA stands on two pillars. One 10 is the environmental impact statement has to have an 11 impact study that is an adequate analysis of 12 environmental impacts as defined in the proposed 13 action, what is being done, what are the impacts.
14 Number two, the public has to be allowed 15 to participate through notice and comment. And in 16 this case, there was a combined rule made in the EIS.
17 The public never had the slightest idea of how the NRC 18 would ultimately propose to use this EIS. Am I done?
19 JUDGE GIBSON: No, you're okay. You've 20 got 30 more seconds.
21 MS. CURRAN: So -- and for instance, had 22 we -- how could we have even known that the issues 23 raised in SRM SECY 14-0016 would be raised? All these 24 issues about aging equipment which the Commission says 25 still remain unresolved going into subsequent license NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
177 1 renewal. And EIS is attached to a proposed action.
2 It is -- an EIS isn't forever one size fits all, this 3 is some garment that can be stretched indefinitely 4 into the future. And EIS is attached to a proposed 5 action.
6 Now we have a new proposed action which is 7 to add 20 more years onto 60 years of operation.
8 There are new issues which we've raised in both 9 contentions 1 and 2 about aging equipment which the 10 Commission has identified as concerned. We would've 11 raised that in comments had we known.
12 JUDGE GIBSON: Fair enough.
13 MS. CURRAN: Thank you.
14 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Thank you. Setting 15 aside the 51.53 issue for now. On pages 17 to 18 of 16 your reply, Ms. Curran, you state as follows: Beyond 17 Nuclear also asserts that the environmental report 18 should address the degree to which a lack of 19 information regarding the effects of aging on reactor 20 systems and components affects the environmental risk 21 posed by extended operation. Did I read that 22 correctly?
23 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
24 JUDGE GIBSON: And then you continue.
25 Finally, Beyond Nuclear seeks a discussion 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
178 1 significance of the declining amount of external 2 operating experience available to Exelon to assist and 3 increase its understanding of age related 4 environmental risks during the subsequent license 5 renewal term. I read that okay?
6 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
7 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Just so I can get a 8 better understanding of your claim here, are you 9 saying that Exelon's environmental report failed to 10 address the risks that Exelon's aging management 11 program pose to the environment because there is 12 insufficient operating experience data?
13 MS. CURRAN: That's one of our claims, one 14 of our concerns. One of them is --
15 JUDGE GIBSON: That's just one. There was 16 another on, I think.
17 MS. CURRAN: Yeah, the other one --
18 JUDGE GIBSON: What is the other one?
19 MS. CURRAN: The other one is the issues 20 identified by the Commission in SECY SRM -- SRM SECY 21 14-0016 which identifies issues that for which the 22 Commission seeks resolution. That says, these issues 23 remain unresolved as we go into subsequent license 24 renewal. So if something remains unresolved under 25 NEPA, the agency has an obligation to discuss it. 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
179 1 it may be the answer is we don't know that much about 2 this. But here's what we know, and here's what we can 3 tell you about the risk this poses. And that's one of 4 the things that we're asking for.
5 So -- and similar for the decline in the 6 amount of operating experience that's available on an 7 ongoing basis. That this possibly creates additional 8 safety risks or environmental risks by decreasing the 9 strength of the aging management programs and 10 therefore adding a degree of uncertainty to license 11 renewal, to the environmental effects of licence 12 renewal.
13 This issue hasn't been addressed in any 14 detail since the final GEIS in 1996. I mean, if you 15 look at Appendix B, the NRC goes into some detail 16 about programs for refurbishment, replacement, 17 monitoring of equipment, how they think that that's 18 going to maintain environmental risk at an acceptable 19 level.
20 The only thing that happened in 2013 was 21 the NRC said, well, we think that what we found there 22 was adequate. But now here we are quite a ways down 23 the road, and there's been no detailed analysis of 24 that since then. And we're saying it's time for a new 25 analysis. And it would be fine to go back and cross NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
180 1 reference the old GEIS and say, we still think that we 2 did some good work here and we'd like to rely on it.
3 But I think NEPA requires the NRC to brush it up and 4 make sure that it's really up to date.
5 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. I know that my 6 colleagues here have a few questions for you. But I 7 just want to see if I can understand sort of big 8 picture. What are the environmental risks that are 9 posed --
10 MS. CURRAN: Well, there's risks --
11 JUDGE GIBSON: -- that are of concern to 12 you with this contention?
13 MS. CURRAN: Accident risks for one.
14 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.
15 MS. CURRAN: And it could be -- I think of 16 NEPA and the Atomic Energy Act as being concentric 17 circles, and the Atomic Energy Act circle is inside 18 the NEPA circle. So if the NRC says, we have a good 19 program for aging management, that takes care of 20 design-basis risk. But it doesn't answer the question 21 of what -- given that there's some uncertainties about 22 these issues, do they pose any, beyond design-basis 23 risk? That question should be answered. I don't know 24 the answer, but it should be addressed because of 25 these uncertainties which the Commission has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
181 1 identified.
2 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.
3 MS. CURRAN: And there's also -- if you 4 look at Appendix B of the 1996 EIS, they do, do a cost 5 benefit analysis of what would it cost to refurbish --
6 replace equipment, refurbish plants. Do we -- are 7 there other alternatives that are more cost effective?
8 That might be another element of the EIS. So NEPA is 9 a pretty broad statute and requires not just to look 10 at safety and accident but at other things like 11 economic effects and also alternatives.
12 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Thank you.
13 JUDGE ABREU: Ms. Curran, looking at 14 contention 2's basis, are there any parts of that 15 basis that are not already a part of contention 1?
16 (Pause.)
17 MS. CURRAN: Sorry. I'm just going 18 through it.
19 JUDGE ABREU: In general, the gist of it 20 seemed to be that we have these concerns we've 21 expressed in contention 1 and that contention 2 is the 22 environmental side of the safety issues of contention 23 1. Is that a fair general concept?
24 MS. CURRAN: Okay. Oh, you know what it 25 is? I'm in the wrong document. Okay. Well, I think NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
182 1 contention 2 is really broader than contention 1. For 2 instance, we say on page 7, Exelon violates NEPA by 3 failing to review and evaluate the existing body of 4 literature regarding reactor aging phenomena and their 5 effects beyond 60 years. So this is --
6 JUDGE ABREU: This is getting to your 7 discussion of the GEIS?
8 MS. CURRAN: Yeah. Well --
9 JUDGE ABREU: Okay. In a sense?
10 MS. CURRAN: -- no, I mean, it's setting 11 aside the GEIS. What we're saying what we would 12 expect to see in an EIS for Peach Bottom would be a 13 section devoted to aging equipment, operating this 14 reactor with aging equipment.
15 So one would expect in a typical EIS to 16 see a section that was devoted to here's our current 17 understanding of the risks of operating aging 18 reactors. Here's the literature. Here's what we 19 know. Here's the Commission documents that have 20 identified certain issues, and here's what we think 21 the risks are, knowing everything that we know today.
22 And here's the uncertainties that we are unable to 23 answer. And here's an estimate of the risks that we 24 think continuing to operate this reactor would pose.
25 That's the kind of thing that we're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
183 1 looking for in this contention. And contention 1 is 2 narrower because under the safety regulations, we are 3 limited to criticizing the aging management programs.
4 But really NEPA is broader than that.
5 JUDGE ABREU: Okay. So Mr. Lewis, do you 6 have any comments on that?
7 MR. LEWIS: Yes, several comments. First, 8 just with respect to the contention, the contention 9 only identified accident risks. There wasn't any 10 further identification of any other environmental 11 impacts that needed to be evaluated. And I think at 12 this point to suggest that something beyond accident 13 risk that this is germane to is very late in the 14 process and it's not appropriate to amend it.
15 Ms. Curran referred to economics and the 16 cost of refurbishment. Quite frankly, that's barred 17 by Section 51.53(c)(2) which basically says, you don't 18 look at economics, you don't look at the power. And 19 that's independent of 51.53.(c)(3). So she's 20 introduced an issue that we haven't had a chance to 21 respond to but isn't even permissible under the rules.
22 Simply to say that there's unresolved 23 issues and they have to be discussed doesn't 24 demonstrate a -- putting aside 51.53(c)(3) and whether 25 this is barred or not. I mean, if you assume 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
184 1 these issues could be raised, Beyond Nuclear would 2 still need to be specific. They would need to say, 3 what is the risk that is not adequately addressed.
4 And they would have to provide a basis for it.
5 Under the case law we cited, in their 6 answer, they would have to show that in fact there's 7 some issue that is environmentally significant that 8 isn't addressed. You don't simply address issues 9 because you can address issues. That assessment of 10 the environmental impact has to be materially wrong.
11 Here, if you look at the GEIS that we've 12 referenced -- and it is referenced in Exelon's 13 application. Of that GEIS, it indicates that, in 14 essence, accident risk has been going down.
15 Performance is being improved. It points out the 16 design basis accidents are adequately managed. There 17 needs to be a real discussion of why those assertions 18 are wrong, not just an assertion that there's some 19 unresolved issues and therefore everything is 20 inadequate. That's not a basis for a contention.
21 JUDGE ABREU: In your environmental 22 report, you mention, previously reviewed environmental 23 impacts. But there was no citation to what you were 24 specifically referring.
25 MR. LEWIS: Could you point me 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
185 1 JUDGE ABREU: That's Section 2.4 at page 2 2-24.
3 MR. LEWIS: This is in our answer?
4 JUDGE ABREU: This is in your 5 environmental report.
6 MR. LEWIS: Oh, I'm not sure --
7 JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm surprised you don't 8 have the environmental report memorized.
9 (Laughter.)
10 JUDGE ABREU: You've spent enough time 11 with it, I'm sure.
12 MR. LEWIS: I wish I had it opened. I'm 13 sorry. I don't have it open. I will find it soon.
14 Tell me the statement again while I'm looking for it.
15 JUDGE ABREU: You mentioned previously 16 reviewed environmental impacts. You're talking about 17 your current view of your environmental impacts for 18 the SLR period, and you mention the previously 19 reviewed impacts.
20 MR. LEWIS: Okay. I've got the 21 environmental -- and it's on page?
22 JUDGE ABREU: 2-24.
23 (Pause.)
24 MR. LEWIS: I think that means the 25 environmental impacts that are addressed in the GEIS.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
186 1 JUDGE ABREU: In the GEIS, not other 2 documents, other licensing documents, is that what 3 you're saying?
4 MR. LEWIS: I believe that's correct.
5 JUDGE ABREU: All right.
6 MR. LEWIS: In essence, the original GEIS 7 assumed quite a bit of refurbishment, and that was 8 carried into the 2013 GEIS. The reality has been that 9 there's, in fact, very little refurbishment that's 10 necessary because it's done continuously. And 11 therefore, these inspections and different procedures 12 and what's done doesn't affect the environmental 13 impacts.
14 JUDGE ABREU: All right. And what about 15 the 2003 initial license renewal, SEIS? Wouldn't 16 there have been also environmental -- review of 17 environmental impacts in that document?
18 MR. LEWIS: They would've relied on the 19 prior GEIS, the 1996 GEIS. And it would've identified 20 category issues and -- category 2 issues and evaluated 21 them. And it probably would've had exactly the same 22 statement here. Because, again, the actions that are 23 taken to operate in the period of extended operation 24 really don't have any significant environmental impact 25 by themselves.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
187 1 JUDGE ABREU: But those are based on -- at 2 some point, you've done design-basis accident reviews 3 and severe accident evaluations, correct?
4 MR. LEWIS: This statement is simply that 5 we're not making any significant change in the manner 6 in which the plant is operating. We don't have to 7 have major outages and therefore these activities 8 really have no effect on environmental impacts.
9 JUDGE ABREU: So are you saying these 10 things have been looked at before? And some of those 11 have to be done specifically for Peach Bottom like the 12 SAMA analysis. Those are done -- those are category 13 2, correct?
14 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
15 JUDGE ABREU: Right. So at some point, 16 there's been these analyses done for Peach Bottom.
17 And is it your position that at this point there's 18 nothing that would show that there would be a 19 significant difference in that risk analysis over --
20 MR. LEWIS: That particular statement is 21 addressing a provision in the rules that requires to 22 describe the proposed action including our plans to 23 modify administrative control procedures, the plant 24 procedures. And so we've identified that, the changes 25 to plant operations. And inspections and maintenance NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
188 1 activities don't have any environmental impact by 2 themselves.
3 There isn't some aspect of the way we're 4 changing plant operations that has an environmental 5 impact. It's simply saying that it's not getting into 6 -- I guess implicitly it is. It's saying that this 7 doesn't even affect -- wouldn't affect accident risk.
8 But it wouldn't affect any environmental impact.
9 JUDGE ABREU: All right. Do you have a 10 difference of opinion on all that?
11 MS. CURRAN: Yes. First, I'd like to say 12 Mr. Lewis is right about the contention. We just 13 raised accidents. We didn't raise economics. And I 14 withdraw that part of it. I mean, in my argument, I 15 talked about it. But it's not in the contention. I 16 agree.
17 But in terms of the -- he was saying that 18 we would've needed to say a lot more in contention 19 about what was required. We have to justify it. And 20 I don't think so because accidents are treated by 21 Exelon as a category 1 issue, and they really just 22 don't discuss them because they assume they're 23 recovered by 51.53(c)(3).
24 And all we have to say is that doesn't 25 apply, and you need to address all these issues 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
189 1 you thought were exempted under that regulation. So 2 -- and then if they do and if what they say is nothing 3 is -- we rely on the GEIS. That analysis is good 4 enough for us. We haven't changed anything. Then of 5 course, we would comment on that or raise new 6 contentions about it and probably challenge that. But 7 if they've done nothing and they have to do something, 8 then all we have to do is say, you haven't addressed 9 this issue. And that's an admissible contention of 10 admission -- of omission.
11 MR. LEWIS: May I respond to that?
12 JUDGE ABREU: Please.
13 MR. LEWIS: Our environmental report with 14 respect to each category 1 issue incorporates by 15 reference the 2013 GEIS finding and identifies whether 16 there's any new and significant information. It's 17 cracked. We have two responses to this contention.
18 The first is that it's barred by the rules, 19 particularly (b)(1) of Part 51 because these are 20 codified findings.
21 But if you were to decide that, in fact, 22 that bar doesn't apply, we still have these findings 23 from the GEIS incorporated into our ER as permitted by 24 51.53(a). At that point, the issue would be, okay, 25 assuming that these issues aren't barred by the 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
190 1 you've incorporated by reference the GEIS discussion, 2 why is that inadequate? And that's not addressed at 3 all by Beyond Nuclear.
4 JUDGE ABREU: Ms. Curran, you also mention 5 --
6 JUDGE GIBSON: Just one second. I just 7 want to make sure I'm following your argument. Are 8 you saying that they are -- are you saying that they 9 are all category 1 issues? But even if you call them 10 category 2 issues, they're covered by the GEIS? Is 11 that what you're saying, or is it something different?
12 MR. LEWIS: I'm arguing in the 13 alternative.
14 JUDGE GIBSON: Oh, okay.
15 MR. LEWIS: So our first argument is that 16 they are category 1 findings that are codified in 17 Appendix B-1 and therefore they can't be challenged.
18 JUDGE GIBSON: Got it. But it's --
19 MR. LEWIS: The alternative if you object 20 --
21 JUDGE GIBSON: -- argument 1.
22 MR. LEWIS: -- to that point, then our 23 environmental report still incorporates by reference 24 those category 1 findings. So challenge those, 25 assuming that you could, you would have to point out NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
191 1 what is wrong with those category 1 findings. And so 2 for example, the reference that category 1 on design-3 basis accidents has a basis in the 2013 GEIS. Why is 4 that wrong? That's simply not challenges.
5 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. And just to follow 6 up, design-basis accident is what you're saying is 7 essentially the basis for contention 2.
8 MR. LEWIS: I believe so.
9 JUDGE GIBSON: Is that a fair statement?
10 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
11 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.
12 MR. LEWIS: I understand that Ms. Curran 13 just said it also includes severe accidents. I think 14 that's very debatable. The only two references in the 15 original contention were to design-basis accidents.
16 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.
17 (Simultaneous speaking.)
18 JUDGE GIBSON: I just wanted to be sure I 19 was tracking with you. That's all. I'm sorry --
20 JUDGE ABREU: No, that's all right.
21 JUDGE GIBSON: -- Judge Abreu.
22 MS. CURRAN: And then if I could just add 23 one more comment to that. We do take issue with the 24 lack of analysis of the specific concerns that we 25 have. There is no analysis of the issues raised in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
192 1 the SRM SECY memo. There is no analysis of the issues 2 raised in our contention 1. We criticize the lack of 3 analysis of the technical studies cited in the 4 Lochbaum report on the effects of aging on plant 5 equipment. So we are specific about deficiencies in 6 the environmental report.
7 MR. LEWIS: If I could respond to that.
8 JUDGE GIBSON: If you hold on just one 9 second. I want to understand what you're saying, 10 though, about the -- let's say argument 2. I know you 11 all are not on the same page on your argument 1 and 12 your argument 1. Okay?
13 But let's go to his argument 2 which is 14 that, okay, even if they're not covered as on the 15 51.53 issue. Even if we have to go back to this GEIS, 16 they are covered -- they're adequately addressed in 17 that GEIS and they incorporated it by reference. Now 18 how do you respond to that, Ms. Curran?
19 MS. CURRAN: We respond by raising 20 specific criticisms of a lack of certain analyses in 21 that environmental report. There are things that we 22 think should be included in there in their discussion 23 of environmental impacts which are not.
24 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.
25 JUDGE ABREU: When you say, they, are 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
193 1 referring to the GEIS or to the --
2 MS. CURRAN: Exelon's --
3 JUDGE ABREU: -- application?
4 MS. CURRAN: -- environmental report --
5 JUDGE ABREU: Okay.
6 MS. CURRAN: -- does not address certain 7 issues which we list in our contention as necessary.
8 JUDGE ABREU: And do you believe those 9 items are also missing from the GEIS?
10 MS. CURRAN: Yes, they are because they're 11 more recent than the GEIS. So they're not -- yeah.
12 JUDGE ABREU: It deals with your issue 13 about 40 to 60 versus 60 to 80 years?
14 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
15 JUDGE GIBSON: What is your understanding 16 of what the GEIS covered with respect to initial 17 versus subsequent? Are you saying there's a 18 difference in that regard?
19 MS. CURRAN: Yes, the GEIS which was 20 issued in 1996 and revised in 2013 --
21 JUDGE GIBSON: Right.
22 MS. CURRAN: -- covered only the period of 23 time that was the first 20 years after expiration of 24 the 40-year initial license and that was it.
25 JUDGE GIBSON: And therefore because 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
194 1 is a subsequent renewal that goes beyond that period 2 of time, it was not addressed in that generic 3 environmental impact statement? Is that --
4 MS. CURRAN: That's correct.
5 JUDGE GIBSON: -- a fair assessment of 6 your state?
7 MS. CURRAN: That's correct.
8 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Now Mr. Lewis, I cut 9 you off. I just wanted to be sure I understood what 10 her --
11 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
12 JUDGE GIBSON: -- position was. Now you 13 had something else you wanted to say, sir.
14 MR. LEWIS: A couple points. In 15 contention 1, Beyond Nuclear referred to a number of 16 issues that were flagged in 2014. But they never 17 showed -- they never applied those to our application.
18 They never related those to the aging management 19 programs that specifically address these issues and 20 showed why they weren't a problem.
21 And so for a reactor pressure vessel 22 embrittlement, again, we showed that we remain below 23 the upper shelf energy limit in Appendix G. And we 24 show that we would have capsules which we would test 25 in the period of extended operation to how we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
195 1 continued to meet the fracture toughness requirement.
2 So their assumption of these unresolved 3 issues that have to be discussed in the environmental 4 report doesn't have a basis. If they wanted to have 5 a basis to raise those issues, they needed to show 6 that these -- not that these were flagged in 2014 but 7 that they remain unresolved issues today, and they 8 never do that.
9 I think that there is a statement 10 somewhere in the reply where Ms. Curran or Beyond 11 Nuclear asserts that they're unaware of any 12 resolution, but they didn't make any effort. And in 13 fact, that statement is not supported anywhere in Mr.
14 Lochbaum's report.
15 When you look at the GEIS itself, the 2013 16 GEIS, it says, the performance and safety record of 17 nuclear power plants operating in the United States 18 continues to improve. This is also confirmed by 19 analysis which indicates, in many cases, improved 20 plant performance and design features have resulted in 21 reductions of initiated event frequency, core damage 22 frequency, and containment failure frequency.
23 And it concludes, the environmental 24 impacts from design-basis accidents was assessed in 25 individual plant-specific EIS at the time of initial NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
196 1 license renewal application review since the licensee 2 is required to maintain the plant with acceptable 3 design and performance criteria including any license 4 renewal terms. These impacts are not expected to 5 change.
6 So there's an assessment in the GEIS. If 7 you decide, yes, that assessment is fair game for a 8 challenge, it still needs to be challenged. There 9 still needs to be some information provided to dispute 10 those conclusions.
11 JUDGE GIBSON: Mr. Lewis --
12 MR. LEWIS: And it's simply not there.
13 JUDGE GIBSON: -- you just read off of 14 something. I just want to be sure that we know what 15 you were reading from. I'm sorry. I didn't catch 16 that.
17 MR. LEWIS: I didn't give you the 18 citation. So the first quote about the performance 19 and safety improving was the 2013 GEIS at page E-3.
20 And the discussion that the environmental impacts of 21 design-basis accidents aren't going to change is the 22 2013 GEIS at pages E-5 to E-6.
23 JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you. Thank you.
24 MS. CURRAN: I just want to make a point 25 about the difference between NEPA and the safety NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
197 1 realm. That Mr. Lewis was discussing how Exelon had 2 addressed the issues in SRM SECY 14-0016 in a context 3 of the safety review. Under NEPA, it's a separate set 4 of requirements. So it needs to be addressed. It 5 needs to be said, this has been resolved. This is an 6 environmental issue that we have resolved in X way.
7 Maybe the way is we did this in the 8 context of safety. So in other words, that 9 environmental risk has been resolved. But they have 10 to explain that. That's part of the accountability 11 required under NEPA. We can't be expected to read 12 some extraneous document unless it's referred to in 13 the environmental impact statement or environmental 14 report and say, oh, okay, that's what they did for 15 this.
16 So we -- and this is not just Beyond 17 Nuclear that's reading the environmental report and 18 the environmental impact statement. This is for the 19 public at large and state and local governments and 20 other federal agencies. There needs to be an 21 explanation of how the environmental impacts were 22 addressed.
23 MR. LEWIS: If I could --
24 MS. YOUNG: Judge Gibson, may I be heard 25 on 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
198 1 MR. LEWIS: Sure.
2 JUDGE GIBSON: Yes.
3 MS. YOUNG: I've been listening with 4 interest and just waiting to get in. I believe Ms.
5 Curran just recently stated two things. One, that the 6 SECY 14-0016 issues are still unresolved. And two, 7 that if they've been resolved in a safety context, 8 that's okay. Okay.
9 I just want to make sure that we make 10 clear on this record and there were statements made by 11 Ms. Gamin earlier this morning that the issues raised 12 in SECY 14-0016 or the SRM which decline to initiate 13 rulemaking to address emerging issues that gave the 14 staff the direction to address those things through 15 vehicles like alternate vehicles such as issuance of 16 generic communications, voluntary industry initiatives 17 or updates to the GALL report.
18 That we all understand that the GALL 19 report in one of the intro sections or summary 20 sections that romanette 28 mentions that the staff 21 reviewed the results of aging management program 22 audits, findings from the EMDA report which is the 23 report in particular identified the four issues that 24 both contentions refer to. Domestic and international 25 operating experience and public comments to identify NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
199 1 technical issues that need to be considered to assure 2 safe operations of plants and indicated that the GALL-3 SLR has already been revised to incorporate those 4 findings.
5 So programs in the GALL have been revised 6 to address the emerging issues, and the Commission 7 gave us the determination in 2014 no need to revise 8 the regulations. There's a safety document that 9 addresses those issues. Mr. Lochbaum was at a 10 briefing in April of 2017 where he presented, where 11 people from staff from NRC and individuals from DOE 12 gave their analysis of what the state of those issues 13 was in terms of our readiness for subsequent license 14 renewal.
15 And during that briefing, we cite -- make 16 reference to that around pages -- a footnote around 17 pages 39 of our brief, maybe footnote 83, 169. There 18 are multiple places where we bring this up that there 19 are no show stoppers with respect to those emerging 20 issues. So this contention, although it does identify 21 concerns, doesn't identify any new and significant 22 information in terms of environmental impacts 23 associated with those issues.
24 The generic determination in the GEIS is 25 that the impacts of design-basis accidents -- which 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
200 1 the way the staff reads the contention because the 2 word, severe accident, is not mentioned -- are small.
3 And what's the reason for that? During each licensing 4 term, a licensee is required to maintain a current 5 licensing basis. So they have to ensure that they're 6 doing things under Part 50, Appendix B, taking 7 corrective actions. They're permitting their aging 8 management programs so there's no deteriorations where 9 you would have a design-basis accident.
10 So the impacts for all facilities are 11 small. There's nothing in this contention other than 12 a generalized concern about the status of emerging 13 issues or things that they believe to be unresolved 14 which, in fact, have been addressed in the GAL-SLR 15 which postdates the 2013 GEIS.
16 So you need to be aware that in terms of 17 the petitioner's burden to identify new and 18 significant information and why it's important that 19 these studies be mentioned in terms of their 20 characterization or potential risks and associated 21 environmental impacts. They haven't met that burden.
22 MS. CURRAN: Okay. If I can respond.
23 JUDGE GIBSON: Yes, Ms. Curran.
24 MS. CURRAN: It may be the -- first of 25 all, just to back up a minute, the NRC Commissioners NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
201 1 have identified some aging issues that are of concern 2 to them, and they were in this SRM SECY paper. In the 3 PNNL paper that the NRC staff and PNNL are working on 4 that we don't have the final copy of, we don't have 5 the final resolution of that, issues were raised. And 6 these have to do with we're at the point of 60 years 7 of operation.
8 Equipment is aging in reactors. It is a 9 concern. And it is appropriate in an environmental 10 impact statement to address that and to go into some 11 detail. If the NRC thinks this was addressed in this 12 way or another, explain how it happened. But there 13 isn't -- that discussion is not present.
14 So the burden is on the NRC with these 15 issues having been identified. Aging equipment was an 16 issue in 1996, and it's no less important now. It's 17 even more important because these reactors have 18 operated that much longer.
19 This is something that needs to be 20 addressed, and we have identified some particular 21 issues that have come up that have not been addressed.
22 So this needs to go in an environmental document and 23 explain how the environmental risks were addressed and 24 what the NRC views them to be in relation to the 25 safety realm. It's something that NEPA requires.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
202 1 JUDGE ABREU: Now do you have any specific 2 risks that you've identified and can say with any 3 certainty would have more than a small risk based on 4 your concerns?
5 Basically the applicant said, look, we 6 think we fit the GEIS. We incorporate it by 7 reference. So that means everything is small. Or 8 they have previously analyzed, if it's not design 9 basis, the SAMA analysis done in the past. Focusing 10 on design basis, those are all small. Is there some 11 specific risk that you found that you think is more 12 than small?
13 MS. CURRAN: Well, we did identify issues 14 that haven't been addressed that are potentially 15 significant.
16 JUDGE ABREU: Okay. So you mentioned that 17 previously that if there's unresolved issues, that 18 those need to be discussed.
19 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
20 JUDGE ABREU: Now are you referring to the 21 40 CFR 1502.22 CEQ requirement that you mentioned in 22 your petition?
23 MS. CURRAN: And this is the requirement 24 to discuss uncertainty or unknowns?
25 JUDGE ABREU: It's 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
203 1 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
2 JUDGE ABREU: -- general topic, right?
3 MS. CURRAN: Yes. So --
4 JUDGE ABREU: So you believe that is 5 applicable to this proceeding?
6 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
7 JUDGE ABREU: And --
8 MS. CURRAN: And because -- I'm sorry to 9 interrupt. But by referring something to an aging 10 management program, which is what's been done here, 11 that is -- the whole way that the NRC sets up license 12 renewal is to say, we are not going to have show 13 stoppers, period. We're going to relegate everything 14 to aging management, and we're going to deal with it 15 that way.
16 But NEPA asks a different question which 17 is, what are the environmental risks? As you approach 18 this decision, you need to say what they are. And if 19 there's uncertainty involved and the NRC is hoping 20 that uncertainty will be worked out in the course of 21 the future, that needs to be expressed.
22 We really don't know what is the situation 23 with this component. But we are planning on 24 addressing it over time in the aging management 25 context. The environmental risk implications of 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
204 1 approach should be addressed.
2 JUDGE ABREU: So again, that's referring 3 to the 40 CFR --
4 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
5 JUDGE ABREU: -- the CEQs, 40 CFR 1502.22?
6 MS. CURRAN: Yes.
7 JUDGE ABREU: Now in the staff's response, 8 they mention the Diablo Canyon CLI-11-11. So would 9 you like to address that?
10 MS. YOUNG: I'm trying to --
11 JUDGE ABREU: Do you have any change --
12 MS. YOUNG: I'm trying to find a place in 13 our brief where we discuss that.
14 JUDGE ABREU: It's 61 to 62 --
15 MS. YOUNG: Thank you.
16 JUDGE ABREU: -- in your response. So you 17 discuss that the Commission stated that the NRC isn't 18 bound by 1502.22.
19 MS. YOUNG: That's correct.
20 JUDGE ABREU: Is that still your position?
21 MS. YOUNG: Yes.
22 JUDGE ABREU: And Ms. Curran, do you have 23 a response to that decision, why that guidance would 24 not apply to us in this proceeding?
25 MS. YOUNG: And I might add -- if I recall NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
205 1 the case correctly, and I may not -- in that 2 situation, it was included as a requirement in a 3 contention.
4 JUDGE ABREU: I'm sorry. Say it again.
5 MS. YOUNG: In Diablo Canyon case, if I 6 recall correctly, the CEQ regulation was included in 7 the text of the contention as a requirement. And the 8 Commission made it clear that not all CEQ regulations 9 are binding. So it wasn't appropriate for it to be 10 included in the text of a contention.
11 MS. CURRAN: Yeah. Well, and I remember 12 that case too.
13 JUDGE GIBSON: You might've had something 14 to do with it, huh?
15 (Laughter.)
16 MS. CURRAN: And it was a little while 17 ago. And as I recall, the Commission didn't throw out 18 the concept. It just said, we are not bound by CEQ 19 regulations. And in the end, they did admit a 20 contention saying that these -- the uncertainties 21 needed to be addressed, I think. Mitzi?
22 MS. YOUNG: I can't help you there. But 23 to the extent that a CEQ regulation would have an 24 impact on the substantive way we perform our 25 regulatory reviews, they're not binding on the NRC NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
206 1 unless expressly adopted is the general rule.
2 MS. CURRAN: But they do --
3 JUDGE ABREU: So it's not -- it can't --
4 essentially are you saying that it can't be the 5 regulatory basis for a --
6 MS. CURRAN: Right, right.
7 JUDGE ABREU: -- requirement that might be 8 interpreted from that?
9 MS. YOUNG: That's correct.
10 MS. CURRAN: But they do provide guidance.
11 The NRC recognizes these regulations as guidance. And 12 of course, NEPA is ultimately governed by the rule of 13 reason. So -- and you can find many cases where --
14 court cases where uncertainty about environmental risk 15 is something that has to be addressed, and these are 16 NRC cases. I think the Waste Confidence decision and 17 the Mothers for Peace decisions. And I'd be happy to 18 send those cases to you, just citations as to 19 incorporate in a concept that uncertainty needs to be 20 addressed.
21 JUDGE ABREU: Thank you.
22 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. This is what we're 23 going to do. We're going to take a ten-minute recess.
24 I'm going to give you five minutes for initial 25 statements, five minutes rebuttal. I'm going to give NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
207 1 you five minutes. I'm going to give you five minutes.
2 Collect your thoughts in the next ten minutes. We'll 3 come back on here and we'll get this done. Okay?
4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 5 off the record at 3:32 p.m. and resumed at 3:44 p.m.)
6 JUDGE GIBSON: Didn't mean to be quite so 7 cryptic when I left. But we are basically talking 8 about 2.309(f)(6) to show that there's a genuine 9 dispute on a material issue of fact or law. So I hope 10 that we can at least address that in your comments.
11 Ms. Curran, you have five minutes.
12 MS. GAMIN: Your Honor, could I clear up 13 a couple of stray points before we go into closing 14 arguments, or would you like me to do that in closing?
15 JUDGE GIBSON: You can cover them in 16 closing, please.
17 MS. GAMIN: Okay.
18 MS. CURRAN: Okay. I thought it might 19 help to go to a scenario. Suppose we're in 2040 and 20 the SLR application for Peach Bottom 2 and 3 has been 21 approved. And unexpectedly, Peach Bottom Unit 3 shuts 22 down. Or unexpectedly, over the course of the seven 23 years proceeding, ten other reactors shut down.
24 Our question raised in this proceeding is, 25 how would plant workers and NRC inspectors determine NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
208 1 whether that situation affected the effectiveness of 2 the aging management programs for Peach Bottom Unit 2 3 or for the remaining Peach Bottom units?
4 The information in the AMP should be 5 complete enough to allow plant workers and NRC 6 inspectors to make that determination so that in the 7 foreseeable circumstance, if that situation should 8 arise, it can be responded to and addressed properly 9 and that plant operators and the NRC inspectors will 10 know what's the appropriate response. It's a matter 11 of regulatory consistency. We think this is a 12 material issue of fact and law whether -- about the 13 adequacy of the aging management program for Exelon, 14 for Peach Bottom units 2 and 3.
15 On the issue of the environmental 16 contentions, we have presented a contention with basis 17 and specificity that says with detail that Exelon has 18 not addressed certain uncertainties, certain technical 19 information that is currently available about aging 20 equipment and the risk that it posed -- the 21 environmental risk that it poses in the future.
22 For the most part, Exelon has relied on 23 category 1. And we have briefed this issue. It's now 24 been thoroughly briefed in the Turkey Point case.
25 There's been a decision, and we briefed it thoroughly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
209 1 in this case.
2 I would submit to you that in the case of 3 Peach Bottom, the issues related to time are even --
4 well, they're -- maybe they're not more pointed than 5 they were in Turkey Point because Turkey Point relates 6 to the accumulation of environmental effects over a 7 very long period of time, posing a hazard to drinking 8 water and to quality of Biscayne Bay. So that's a 9 time-related issue.
10 But the issue of aging equipment is 11 certainly something that every one of us can get 12 because we all have aging hot water heaters and aging 13 refrigerators, and we know that time matters. My 14 mother worries constantly about her seven-year-old 15 water heater, and no amount of reassurance I can give 16 that it has a ten-year lifetime will help her.
17 But nuclear plants are aging, just like 18 water heaters. And it is essential that there be an 19 up-to-date environmental impact statement that 20 addresses the technical issues related to aging and 21 the environmental risks they create.
22 This is something that we have raised in 23 our contention that should be admitted. And it is 24 necessary for the licensing board to diverge from the 25 holding in the Turkey Point case, which you 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
210 1 entitled to do because that is another licensing board 2 and you are not bound by another licencing board 3 decision. You can make your own decision.
4 That we do not believe that the regulatory 5 framework or the plain language of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3) 6 supports an interpretation that the word, initial, has 7 no meaning in that regulation or that the regulatory 8 scheme of Table B-1 was intended to apply -- Table B-1 9 to subsequent license renewal.
10 JUDGE GIBSON: You have 30 seconds.
11 MS. CURRAN: Thank you. I'm finished.
12 JUDGE GIBSON: Good. Mr. Lewis?
13 MR. LEWIS: Yes, let me start quickly with 14 contention 1. 2.309(f)(6), I believe it is, requires 15 that petitioner point to the specific portions of the 16 application where they're inadequate and explain why 17 in order to demonstrate a genuine material dispute.
18 And we submit that that means pointing to our aging 19 management programs and explaining why these are 20 inadequate to address the so-called knowledge gap 21 issues.
22 It's not enough to say it's a contention 23 of omission. If you look at the Commission's case in 24 CLI-15-23 which we cite in our answer the fact that 25 the petitioner said you need something else other 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
211 1 this challenge. It was to an equivalent margins of 2 analysis. It wasn't good enough just to say, oh, you 3 also need coupon testing. The Commission said, no, 4 you've got to address what's in the application and 5 explain why that's inadequate. Here we have aging 6 issues that are specifically addressed, and Beyond 7 Nuclear never raises any particular challenge to the 8 AMPs in our application.
9 With respect to contention 2, if there are 10 alleged errors or omissions in the environmental 11 analysis, it's the petitioner's burden to show their 12 significance and materiality. This is from our answer 13 at page 39 citing CLI-05-29. That's a very 14 fundamental issue. So again, they identify a number 15 of risks that were identified in 2014. They could've 16 identified risks that were identified in 2000 or 1995 17 and said, well, here were the list of risks. You've 18 got to discuss them.
19 That's not good enough. What they need to 20 do is show that these issues still exist. They 21 haven't been addressed and they have a significant 22 environmental impact. The impact of the design-basis 23 accidents are determined to be small. There is 24 nothing that Beyond Nuclear offers that indicates 25 they're anything but small.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
212 1 And in fact, when you look at design-basis 2 accidents, how they're analyzed, if you go back to the 3 1996 GEIS, they analyze them by determining what is 4 the dose to the maximally exposed individual from the 5 accident. They don't look at probabilities. They 6 simply say, here's the consequences.
7 There's absolutely nothing that Beyond 8 Nuclear provides that would suggest that there's any 9 increase in design-basis accident consequences from 10 any of these issues because they don't address our 11 application. Probably the best example is Beyond 12 Nuclear, Mr. Lochbaum refers to the issue of creep.
13 It doesn't even show it applies to Peach Bottom.
14 In the GALL report, the GALL report 15 indicates that creep is a phenomena that applies at 16 elevated temperatures for low alloy steel at 700 17 degrees F, austenitic alloys at 1,000 degrees F, and 18 nickel alloys at 1,800 degrees F. This is the GALL 19 report at Roman numeral IX.F-3. Those temperatures 20 aren't seen in BWR. So they point to a finding that 21 was flagged in one of these reports. But they don't 22 even apply it to our plant. I think I'm out of time.
23 JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Lewis. NRC?
24 MS. GAMIN: On contention 1, Your Honor, 25 I was going to look up for you the page number 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
213 1 that FRN where it discusses foreign OE. It actually 2 doesn't in that FRN. What I should have referred to 3 is GALL-SLR at romanette 28 where it discusses the 4 international OE databases that the staff referenced 5 in preparing that report.
6 I would also direct you to GALL-SLR at 7 romanette 29 which discusses the role of interim staff 8 guidance documents. And a number of those ISGs were 9 resolved in the preparation of the GALL-SLR report, 10 including the document counsel refers to LR-ISG-2011-11 05. So ISGs are actually only in effect until the 12 guidance document can be revised. That's why we got 13 the word, interim, in the title.
14 Finally, Your Honor, we respectfully ask 15 that you evaluate contention 1 in the light of the 16 lines between our regulations, our guidance, and 17 petitioner's opinions on aging management. And we 18 know from the case law that expert opinion is not 19 enough to support a contention. It does not show a 20 genuine dispute on a material issue.
21 We also heard counsel say today that 22 there's nothing unique to Peach Bottom in contention 23 1, nothing specific to this application. I think it's 24 fair to say that even if Exelon completely dropped 25 this application, petitioner's concern would remain.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
214 1 And I think that demonstrates it is a generic concern 2 with our guidance and regulations which is not suited 3 to resolution in the adjudicatory process.
4 MS. YOUNG: Sorry. We're splitting our 5 time a little bit here. But for --
6 JUDGE GIBSON: It's all right.
7 MS. YOUNG: -- contention 2, the staff's 8 position is it does not raise an issue, a genuine 9 dispute as a material issue of law and fact regarding 10 a finding the staff must make because it's based on 11 speculative and incorrect assertions that the amount 12 of operating experience is declining.
13 It doesn't explain why studies constitute 14 new and significant information about the impacts of 15 design-basis accidents which is a category 1 issue 16 that would paint a serious or dramatically different 17 picture of impacts to raise a genuine dispute on those 18 generic determinations. Nor have they filed a 19 petition for waiver to appropriately raise a challenge 20 to the validity of those determinations.
21 The Lochbaum report has no discussion of 22 environmental consequences of subsequent license 23 renewal and its brief referral to studies and their 24 incorporation by reference does not disclose an 25 arguable basis to conclude they are significant 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
215 1 new information.
2 Petitioner has the burden to identify 3 admissible contention and bears the responsibility to 4 set forth this grievance clearly. No arguable basis 5 is provided in the contention to conclude that the 6 effects of aging will not be managed such that design-7 basis accidents and their impacts are nothing other 8 than small.
9 They overlook publically available 10 information that indicates that NRC guidance 11 documents, particularly the GALL-SLR, have been 12 revised to address information about the so-called 13 knowledge gaps that were identified in SRM SECY 14-14 0016. And as I mentioned before, Mr. Lochbaum was 15 aware of a briefing in terms of the status of those 16 issues. So concerns about any remaining unresolved 17 issues have already been addressed by the NRC. And 18 the contention does not provide a basis for an 19 admissible issue in this proceeding.
20 Thank you.
21 JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you. Ms. Curran, you 22 may provide your rebuttal.
23 MS. CURRAN: Okay. I think I heard Ms.
24 Gamin say that it's been established that expert 25 opinion is not necessarily sufficient to support a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
216 1 contention. And I guess that's true in a general 2 sense. But certainly the regulations contemplate that 3 a contention can be supported by expert opinion. And 4 we have, I think, done an incredibly thorough job of 5 documenting our concerns about the inadequacy in 6 Exelon's license application in a format that's 7 organized, that's clear, that cites to the 8 application, that cites to the regulations and the 9 regulatory guidance.
10 And so it's just a question of whether 11 this board determines that we have raised a genuine 12 and material dispute with the applicant. And I think, 13 as we've talked about today, we have. And there's 14 been a fair amount of discussion that goes to the 15 merits of our concerns that really all this is being 16 taken care of, in one respect or another, by other 17 programs. And it's really important to distinguish 18 between admissibility and the merits of the 19 contention.
20 If we've raised a genuine and material 21 dispute, then we have submitted an admissible 22 contention and then it's appropriate for development 23 of arguments and evidence on the merits. So I would 24 submit that we have submitted an admissible contention 25 1 and the same for contention 2.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
217 1 Again, the merits is different from the 2 question of admissibility. I have not seen a SECY 3 paper or an SRM that says the Commissioners have now 4 reviewed what all has been done with these issues on 5 which we raise concerns and we have laid it to rest 6 for our purposes. Maybe I missed that. I know there 7 were some meetings. But it bears discussion when 8 issues like this are raised. How are they addressed?
9 And all the issues in the technical papers that we 10 discussed, including the PNNL paper, how are they 11 being resolved?
12 And we do discuss those in terms of 13 design-basis accidents, yes. But there's always the 14 question of if something is not adequately resolved 15 from the standpoint of a design-basis accident, then 16 there's a question of whether it goes beyond that.
17 That's a related question.
18 So that's why it's important to discuss 19 it, to address it, and to show the public that the 20 issue of environmental risk from aging equipment has 21 been dealt with. And it's clear that, so far, it has 22 not been dealt with in any depth.
23 Thank you.
24 JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you. I want to thank 25 the parties and their counsel for their participation NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
218 1 in oral argument today. We will be issuing an order 2 on standing and contention admissibility soon. And 3 with that, we stand adjourned. Thank you so much.
4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 5 off the record at 4:00 p.m.)
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433