ML21176A136
| ML21176A136 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 06/22/2021 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-266-SLR, 50-301-SLR, ASLBP 21-971-02-SLR-01, NRC-1557, RAS 56149, Subsequent License Renewal | |
| Download: ML21176A136 (143) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Nextera Energy Point Beach, LLC Docket Number:
50-266-SLR and 50-301-SLR ASLBP Number:
21-971-02-SLR-01 Location:
teleconference Date:
Tuesday, June 22, 2021 Work Order No.:
NRC-1557 Pages 1-142 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 4
+ + + + +
5 HEARING 6
x 7
In the Matter of: : Docket Nos.
8 NEXTERA ENERGY POINT : 50-266-SLR 9
BEACH, LLC : 50-301-SLR 10 (Point Beach Nuclear : ASLBP No.
11 Plant, Units 1 and 2) : 21-971-02-SLR-01 12
x 13 Tuesday, June 22, 2021 14 15 Video Teleconference 16 17 BEFORE:
18 WILLIAM J. FROEHLICH, Chair 19 DR. GARY S. ARNOLD, Administrative Judge 20 NICHOLAS G. TRIKOUROS, Administrative Judge 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
2 APPEARANCES:
1 2
Counsel for the Petitioner 3
TERRY LODGE, ESQ.
4 316 N. Michigan Street 5
Suite 520 6
Toledo, OH 43604 7
419-205-7084 8
tjlodge50@yahoo.com 9
10 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11 TRAVIS JONES, ESQ.
12 JEREMY WACHUTKA, ESQ.
13 MITZY YOUNG, ESQ.
14 of:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 15 Office of the General Counsel 16 Mail Stop - O-14A44 17 Washington, DC 20555-0001 18 301-415-2848 (Jones) 19 301-287-9188 (Wachutka) 20 301-287-9178 (Young) 21 travis.jones@nrc.gov 22 jeremy.wachutka@nrc.gov 23 mitzy.young@nrc.gov 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
3 On Behalf of NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC 1
ANNE LEIDICH, ESQ.
2 DAVID LEWIS, ESQ.
3 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 4
1200 17th Street, NW 5
Washington, DC 20036 6
202-663-8707 (Leidich) 7 202-663-8474 (Lewis) 8 anne.leidich@pillsburylaw.com 9
david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com 10 11 STEVEN HAMRICK, ESQ.
12 Florida Power & Light Company 13 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 14 Suite 220 15 Washington, DC 20004 16 202-349-3496 17 steven.hamrick@fpl.com 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 CONTENTS 1
Page 2
Opening Remarks.................
5 3
Oral Arguments:
4 Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin 5
Terry Lodge............. 12 6
NextEra Point Beach 7
David Lewis...........
24,34 8
Anne Leidich
............ 28 9
NRC Staff 10 Mitzy Young............. 35 11 Travis Jones
............ 41 12 Jeremy Wachutka........... 45 13 Rebuttal Oral Arguments:
14 Terry Lodge............. 52 15 David Lewis............. 56 16 Anne Leidich
............ 58 17 Questions by the Board
............. 60 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
5 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1
10:00 a.m.
2 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Good morning all. Thank 3
you, Mr. Curry, and all of you for joining so promptly 4
so we can begin on time. And the court reporter, I 5
just want to confirm is with us this morning?
6 COURT REPORTER: I am here.
7 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, thank you so much, 8
Mr. Mollen.
9 Good morning, all. It's 10:00 a.m.
10 eastern time. And this is Judge Froehlich from my 11 home in Fairfax, Virginia. With me on the line are 12 Judges Arnold and Trikouros from their respective 13 homes in Maryland and New Jersey.
14 Also on the line is our law clerk, who you 15 worked with this morning, Mr. Ian Curry, along with 16 Ms. Twana Ellis, Mr. Andrew Welkie, providing 17 technical support for this web conference call.
18 This case is captioned in the matter of 19 NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Point Beach Nuclear 20 Plant Units 1 and 2, and assigned docket numbers 50-21 266-SLR and 50-301-SLR, ASLBP Number 21-971-02-SLR-01.
22 The Point Beach Nuclear Plants 1 and 2 23 were first licensed for operation in 1970 and 1973, 24 respectfully. And were granted renewed operating 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
6 licenses in 2005. The current renewed licenses expire 1
October 5th, 2030.
2 NextEra has filed an application for a 3
subsequent license renewal of the Point Beach Plant by 4
letter dated November 16th, 2020. NextEra seeks to 5
extend the operating license of Unit 1 until October 6
5th of 2030 and for Unit 2 until March 8th, 2033.
7 This morning the Board will hear oral 8
argument on the petition for leave to intervene and 9
the request for a hearing, filed by Physicians for 10 Social Responsibility Wisconsin, which was filed on 11 March 23rd, 2021.
12 Public notice of this oral argument was 13 issued on May 26th, 2021 and provision has been made 14 for a Cisco WebEx web conference for the parties to 15 present their oral argument and a telephonic bridge 16 line with listen only access for interested members of 17 the public.
18 The petition and hearing request assert 19 that a hearing should be granted on four proposed 20 contentions. With proposed Contentions 1 and 3 21 raising challenges to the environmental report and 22 proposed Contentions 2 and 4 raising challenges to the 23 subsequent license renewal application, specifically 24 its aging management plan and certain Part 54 safety 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
7 concerns.
1 As we proceed through this argument, if 2
the parties would identify themselves before speaking, 3
that's for the benefit of the people on the bridge 4
line, also remember to mute themselves when they're 5
not speaking. This will make things easier on our 6
court reporter, on members of the public on the bridge 7
line. And we'll all have a better record of this 8
proceeding.
9 This oral argument will be transcribed.
10 And the transcript will be promptly placed on the NRC 11 electronic hearing docket, where it may be accessed by 12 the public.
13 The Commission's regulations at 10 CFR 14 2.309(f)(1), Subsections I through VI, set forth the 15 requirements for admissible contention. The parties 16 are requested to focus their arguments on whether the 17 Petitioner has met the standards for admissible 18 contention.
19 The Board has reviewed the pleadings filed 20 by the parties, including the declarations. And has 21 reviewed the case law and regulations cited by the 22 parties in their pleadings.
23 Participants will have 20 minutes each to 24 present their oral argument to the Board. Counsel for 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
8 Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin will 1
speak first, followed by counsel for NextEra Point 2
Beach and then counsel for the NRC Staff.
3 As stated in the May 26th notice of this 4
oral argument, participants may reserve a portion of 5
their time for rebuttal.
6 The participant should be prepared to 7
respond to the Board's questions on any aspect of the 8
petition to intervene and request for hearing. As 9
well as the April 26th motion to amend proposed 10 Contention Number 2.
11 At this time, I'd like to take the 12 appearances of the attorneys who will be presenting 13 arguments for the Board today. Who appears for the 14 Petitioner, Physicians for Social Responsibility 15 Wisconsin?
16 MR. CURRY: Mr. Froehlich, it appears Mr.
17 Lodge has lost his connection, so we will try to get 18 him reconnected in the meantime.
19 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. What we'll do 20 then is we'll wait for him to reconnect. And I'll 21 just give him a minute so that he'll be aware of who 22 is speaking for the other parties.
23 MR. CURRY: Mr. Lodge, if you can hear me, 24 can you please start your video and test your audio?
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
9 Mr. Lodge, I just emailed you the call in 1
information. You may want to try to call in, not use 2
video, if your connection is not working. Mr. Lodge, 3
if you can just call in.
4 MR. LODGE: Yes. Can you hear me?
5 MR. CURRY: Yes, we can hear you.
6 MR. LODGE: Good. I have been trying like 7
crazy to get back in. I keep getting screen freezing, 8
so. I have been trying to get back in. Even this is 9
breaking up.
10 I can only hear you in bits and pieces.
11 I think I'm going to end the process and stay on the 12 phone line and try to reenter later, if that's all 13 right.
14 CHAIR FROEHLICH: All right. Mr. Lodge, 15 do you have a phone connection to the oral argument 16 now and if you'd like to enter your appearance, we'll 17 go through, take the appearances of the parties and 18 then rule the, you'll be set to give your argument 19 either by phone or video if you can get yourself 20 reconnected on the video line. Would that be all 21 right?
22 MR. LODGE: Yes.
23 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. And so --
24 MR. LODGE: Please standby. I'm trying to 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
10 juggle between the Webex and the phone. I'm trying to 1
go with the phone. All right, can you hear me now?
2 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Yes, we can hear you.
3 MR. LODGE: All right, good. My 4
apologies. I love technology.
5 So I'm entering an appearance on behalf of 6
the Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin.
7 The problem is I'm getting an echo. Please standby.
8 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Mr. Lodge, I can see 9
you, your video. Your frozen, and you have to unmute 10 your mic.
11 MR. LODGE: Well, accept the problem is 12 I'm participating by phone. All right.
13 MR. CURRY: Mr. Lodge, if I may, you 14 should use one or the other, so I recommend using your 15 phone. And in that case, you should exit from the 16 Webex application completely, that way there is no 17 echo and the phone is clear. So you'll be able to 18 hear everybody but probably not see them.
19 MR. LODGE: Hello?
20 CHAIR FROEHLICH: I heard a hello.
21 (Laughter.)
22 MR. LODGE: This is Terry Lodge.
23 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, Mr. Lodge, when 24 you're ready please give the appearances for 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
11 Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin.
1 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I am Terry Lodge, 2
I am an attorney licensed in Ohio and I am Counsel for 3
the Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin, 4
which is headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin.
5 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. Who appears then 6
for the Licensee, NextEra Point Beach?
7 MR. LEWIS: Yes, Judge Froehlich. This is 8
David Lewis from the law firm, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 9
Pittman.
10 Also on the teleconference is my 11 colleague, Ms. Anne Leidich, and Mr. Steven Hamrick, 12 who is a NextEra Counsel. And we represent NextEra.
13 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you very much.
14 And who appears for the NRC Staff?
15 MS. YOUNG: Good morning, Chairman 16 Froehlich, my name is Mitzy Young and I'm with the 17 NRC's Office of the General Counsel.
18 With me today are my co-counsels, who will 19 also be presenting arguments related to the petition.
20 We structured our presentation dividing up Contention 21 1, 3, 2 and 4.
22 My co-Counsel, Travis Jones, will provide 23 argument on Contention 2, while I'll provide argument 24 on Contention 1. And my co-Counsel, Jeremy Wachutka, 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
12 will provide argument and address Board questions on 1
the safety contentions, Contentions 2 and 4. And also 2
Petitioner's motion to amend Contention 2.
3 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you, Ms. Young.
4 Are there any questions of Counsel for the Board 5
before we begin? Okay.
6 Does Judge Arnold or Judge Trikouros like 7
to say anything before we hear from Counsel?
8 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: No, thank you.
9 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay.
10 JUDGE ARNOLD: Nothing.
11 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. Mr. Lodge, if you 12 are connected, ready, please begin. You have 20 13 minutes. And you are welcome to reserve a part of 14 that time, should you so desire.
15 MR. LODGE: Thank you. And I would like 16 to reserve five minutes.
17 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay.
18 MR. LODGE: May it please the Licensing 19 Board and opposing Counsel, there are four contentions 20 pending before the Licensing Board today, which we 21 believe should be admitted.
22 Before I get into the substance of those 23 contentions, I simply want to state for record that it 24 appears that the matter of standing of Physicians for 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
13 Social Responsibility, which is a
nonprofit 1
organization with a Wisconsin chapter in Madison, 2
Wisconsin, it appears that there is no genuine issue 3
as to whether or not, as a putative intervener, that 4
PSR has standing. Therefore I'm not going to argue or 5
take up the Board's time with that matter.
6 The issues I will take, as numbered, the 7
first issue that we have raised is that Point Beach 8
has continued operation without a serious effort as 9
cooling mitigation in the form of towers, or at least 10 an analysis of the same within the NEPA document, is 11 a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act 12 and that it is effectively a violation of NEPA, and as 13 such, must be litigated before the Licensing Board.
14 The violation is that the possibility of 15 cooling towers in some type of closed cycle array, 16 must be considered in the subsequent re-licensing case 17 because NEPA, the NEPA regs, as implemented by the 18 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, require discretion of 19 reasonable alternatives to reduce or avoid adverse 20 environmental effects. That's 10 CFR Section 51.45, 21 Subsection C.
22 We believe that 50 years of operation with 23 essentially unmitigated carnage being wreaked upon 24 aquatic, as well as some mammalian and avian life in 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
14 and around the Great Lake Michigan, has to be 1
examined, investigated, analyzed and disclosed within 2
the NEPA document because, first of all, you are 3
talking about cooling tower technology, which is very 4
well established.
5 The benefits of which are certainly 6
significant in this particular case. And the 7
technology is quite known. And the damage, of course, 8
is also quite well established.
9 Studies show that the installation of 10 cooling towers, which admittedly have their own 11 problems in terms of introducing high levels of water 12 vapor into the local environment, but nonetheless, 13 that cooling towers reduce the uptake of water from 14 the adjacent water body. They also significantly 15 reduce the thermal heat up effect once cooling water 16 is drained back into the adjacent water body.
17 The problem that we find with the 18 environmental report, as written, is that the NextEra 19 utility trivializes or accepts as routine, the 50 20 years of carnage. There are literally millions of 21 fish larvae and ichthyoplankton and of course live 22 fish, and even a few migratory birds that have turned 23 up and been impinged and entrained as water is sucked 24 out of Lake Michigan for purposes of cooling.
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
15 There is enormous local, if you will, 1
within a few miles in Lake Michigan, there is 2
considerable local kill that occurs. It is, so long 3
as the system is allowed to operate as it does, it is 4
inevitable with the uptake of approximately a billion 5
gallons a day, for purposes of cooling the two units 6
at Point Beach.
7 The utility attempts to treat this 8
routine, this 50 year length routine, as something 9
that can be essentially ignored, that the status quo 10 can be maintained. But the problem is, is that even 11 in its discussion of replacement power options, the 12 utility effectively acknowledges that any replacement 13 technology, such as advance light water reactors or 14 small modular reactors as an array or a gas turbine 15 plant plus solar, all of those are discussed in 16 conjunction with having closed cycle cooling, cooling 17 towers.
18 It's not sufficient to argue that there 19 are no planned power uprates during the period, 20 roughly 2030 to 2053. First of all, there's no 21 guarantees that there will not be some type of 22 technologically enriched fuel and that there might 23 even been power uprates that occur during that period.
24 But also, it is not a situation where the status quo 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
16 can be accepted and unacknowledged in the 1
environmental document.
2 The analysis provided by NextEra takes in 3
effects to the entire lake without any adequate 4
serious discussion of local effects. The data is very 5
inadequate and is very spotty over the 50 year period.
6 The most recent data are a few studies in 7
this century. But four or five years ago, I believe 8
there is a 2017 analysis of only a partial year.
9 There is an earlier, earlier in the 21st century 10 analysis, I believe Circa 2004 or '05 that, again, 11 only covered a few months.
12 The data on the wildlife kills that is 13 provided by NextEra, I'm sorry. The data that they 14 are technically relying on is ancient. Dating back to 15 the 1970s with, I think, some updates toward the end 16 of the 20th century.
17 As I indicted, cooling technology, cooling 18 tower technology, must be considered. It is an 19 established given, legitimate, mainstream retrofit 20 possibility.
21 And what the utility is postulating in the 22 environmental report is either shutdown the plant 23 completely or operate, as is, without a retrofit to 24 cut down by perhaps as much as 90 or 95 percent the 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
17 water usage and the massive kill that is going on.
1 It's not adequate for NextEra to say that 2
it cannot do anything about it and that this is all in 3
the hands of the state environmental regulators of the 4
State of Wisconsin.
5 And the environmental law under NEPA has 6
well established that even alternatives that are not 7
within the direct control of the applicant must be 8
investigated, analyzed and disclosed within the NEPA 9
documents. We believe that the alternative of 10 continued operation of Point Beach Units 1 and 2, with 11 cooling tower mitigation, must be counted and analyzed 12 within its discussion of alternatives.
13 Turning to Contention 2. PSR contends 14 that 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A is violated because 15 reactor, the reactor coolant pressure boundary hasn't 16 been tested so as to ensure that there is an extremely 17 low probability of abnormal leakage rapidly 18 propagating failure and gross rupture of the reactor 19 vessel.
20 Point Beach Unit 2 has been identified 21 repeatedly as perhaps the worse embrittled reactor 22 vessel operating in the United States. Other 23 reactors, the other members of the group of five worst 24 embrittled reactors will all either be closed by 2024, 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
18 they're either closed now or will be by 2024.
1 And Point Beach Unit 2 is expecting and 2
anticipating operation through 2053. The problem is, 3
is that the Point Beach units were designed and built 4
with a 40 year operational license in mind, and we are 5
now in, of course, the 60 year extension. And the 6
proposal is for an extension out to 80 years.
7 There are coupons, there are metal samples 8
that have been, that were designed and left 9
calculatedly in the reactor vessels at Point Beach and 10 were to be periodically removed, metallurgically 11 analyzed. And measurements of a scientific nature 12 were to be maintained on the deterioration of the 13 reactor vessels.
14 There has not been, in this century, the 15 analysis of any coupons from either unit. We believe 16 that there may be one remaining sample left inside 17 each unit. We also understand that there may be one 18 or two samples from each unit that are in the spent 19 fuel storage pool dating to the 1990s, which were 20 never analyzed and which are effectively useless now 21 as anything but providing historical data of the 22 metallurgical soundness of the reactor vessels.
23 There has been, at the same time, in the 24 past ten to 20 years, almost zero metallurgical 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
19 testing of a state of embrittled reactor vessels at 1
Diablo Canyon, Indian Point and Palisades.
2 So the problem is, is that Point Beach, 3
both units, but effectively, especially Unit 2, is 4
proposing to be operate well into a period where the 5
only protection has been projections made by the 6
utility industry, or at least software developed by 7
the utility industry, as to the metallurgical 8
integrity of the reactor vessels.
9 This is problematic, and I'm getting into 10 the motion to amend Contention 2 that was raised by 11 PSR. This is problematic because in recent months the 12 Electric Power Research Institute, which developed 13 software for both light water reactors and boiling 14 water reactors, for the projections of metallurgical 15 integrity in embrittled reactors, has admitted that 16 for a period of approximately five years, dating back 17 to 2016, that they have learned and discovered that 18 their boiling water reactor calculational software has 19 defects that seriously, and that call into question, 20 the reliability of the reactors, pardon me, of the 21 calculation.
22 So without scientific data, approximately 23 20 boiling water reactors are affected by this rather 24 stunning disclosure. The document that we proffered 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
20 from the EPRI into the record, along with the 1
amendment motion, is largely, conceals a lot of 2
proprietary information. But even from what is 3
publicly available, there is a matter of great 4
concern.
5 Yes, it is true that Point Beach Units 1 6
and 2 are not PWRs, but it certainly seems to me that 7
if the NRC is going to delegate the responsibility of 8
reliable calculation and projected software to the 9
- industry, that this interesting and troubling 10 disclosure, regarding BWRs, should prompt very serious 11 discussions and formal inquiry into the adequacy of 12 the software that is used to project the integrity of 13 the reactor vessels at Point Beach.
14 We believe that we have articulated a 15 seriously problem, have cited to a regulation which 16 requires the showing of reasonable assurance and that 17 there is no reasonable assurance as the application 18 currently is written.
19 The third contention, our third 20 contention, and I realizing that I'm using up our 21 time, is that the reasonable alternative of baseload 22 photovoltaic solar power must be considered as a 23 utility scale operational replacement of the power 24 that is expected to be provided during the license 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
21 extension period by the Point Beach units.
1 NextEra of any utility conglomerate should 2
understand what the potential, right now today, is a 3
photovoltaic and yet is denying it. They closed their 4
boiling water reactor at Duane Arnold recently and are 5
replacing it with a massive expanded solar array.
6 There are solar photovoltaic, solar already developed 7
on a couple of hundred acres at Point Beach.
8 NextEra owns the largest battery storage 9
project on the planet in Manatee County, Florida.
10 They understand how photovoltaic solar works quite 11 well.
12 Solar follows the time of day demand curve 13 far better, in fact, than large base load nuclear 14 power plants, which cannot be greatly reduced in terms 15 of power, at least anything commensurate with what 16 happens at night.
17 The calculations that were provided by 18 Alvin Compaan, a physics PhD emeritus professor who is 19 a long time solar advocate, and in fact is a, in his 20 scientific capacity, is evaluating a day-by-day the 21 solar potential for his own residents in Northwest 22 Ohio. Dr. Compaan calculated that there is 23 approximately 66 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent 24 required for nuclear power plants per kilowatt hour 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
22 versus 16 to 40 grams of co2 for photovoltaic.
1 Our economist, Dr. Cooper, has noted in 2
detail in his report, that there is sufficiently time, 3
and this is of course a requirement, we have to be 4
able to show, as the interveners, that the technology 5
(audio interference) --
6 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Are you with us, Mr.
7 Lodge? I haven't -- the audio cutout on my end.
8 MR. CURRY: Judge Froehlich, the call 9
dropped. I guess we'll have to give him a moment to 10 dial back in.
11 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, thank you.
12 MR. LODGE: Can you hear me?
13 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Yes, Mr. Lodge. Your 14 audio cutout as you were talking about the number of 15 grams, whatever, of --
16 MR. LODGE: Oh my.
17 CHAIR FROEHLICH: I also would like to 18 alert you that you are approaching the end of your 15 19 minutes of argument, if you intend to reserve five for 20 rebuttal.
21 MR. LODGE: Yes. Thank you. I'm going to 22 take about two more minutes.
23 Our expert, Dr. Cooper, economics expert, 24 demonstrated in his report that there is more than 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
23 adequate time for the continued maturation of 1
photovoltaic solar as a major player in the generation 2
of electricity, both in the Midwest and in Wisconsin, 3
as well as across the country.
4 That he points out in some detail that 5
electric consumption is no longer directly related to 6
economic growth and prosperity, that technological 7
advances in the management of electrical energy 8
generation and distribution are gaining very rapidly.
9 And suggests that the continued existence of baseload 10 units, such as Point Beach, actually messes up the 11 transition to what we commonly refer to as a smart 12 grid, as a very integrity energy management system.
13 I'd like to also just point out in 14 closing, I made a typographical error, which got 15 reproduced throughout our initial petition, referring 16 to baseboard myopia. The phrase that Dr. Cooper used 17 baseload myopia. And apparently everyplace nearly, in 18 the petition where baseload was mentioned, was somehow 19 replaced by baseboard as I was doing edits.
20 But there is a fixation that is manifest 21 in the Point Beach application that centralized large 22 baseload power units are somehow the most satisfactory 23 and effective way of addressing the electric power 24 needs in their jurisdiction, that is very false. And 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
24 it is, in fact, Point Beach is an obstacle to the 1
future.
2 We believe that these matters must be 3
addressed in the environmental document, and as 4
appropriate in the final safety evaluation report.
5 Thank you.
6 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Will, we can't hear you.
7 At least I can't.
8 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you, Mr. Lodge.
9 We'll hear now from Mr. Lewis from NextEra.
10 MR. LEWIS: Thank you. This is Mr. Lewis.
11 I'm going to present the argument on Contentions 1 and 12 4, but we'll do it in order. And my colleague, Ms.
13 Leidich, will present the Contentions 2 and 3. And we 14 intend to preserve five minutes for rebuttal.
15 So I'll start with Contention
- 1.
16 Contention 1 is inadmissible for two basic reasons.
17 First, it impermissibly challenges the NRC's rule at 18 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B), which does not require any 19 assessment of entrainment, impingement or heat shock 20 if the applicant provides current determinations under 21 Sections 316(a) and 316(b) of the Clean Water Act.
22 Mr. Lodge argued that NEPA requires an 23 assessment of these impacts, even if they were 24 recommended by another agency. But this provision in 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
25 the NRC rules implements Section 511 of the Clean 1
Water Act, which as the Commission explained in its 2
Vermont Yankee decision, CLI-7-16, precludes the NRC 3
from second guessing the concludes and that NPDES 4
permit, and indeed is specifically intended to provide 5
the Agency with the authority to do so.
6 So Section 511 changes the normal NEPA law 7
and creates an exception. And the Point Beach 8
environmental part here provides the 316(a) 316(b) 9 determinations as a consequence and nothing further is 10 required.
11 Mr. Lodge also argued that there was a 12 paucity of monitoring data supporting the 13 determinations. First of all, there was monitoring in 14 1975 and 1976, in 2005 and 2006 and in 2017.
15 And his characterization is the data, as 16 the data being insufficient is nothing more than 17 (audio interference) characterization. There is 18 absolutely not support for, in an expert opinion or 19 any other authoritative source that the data is 20 inadequate. But be that as it may, that is a matter 21 for the Wisconsin permitting agency to decide, not the 22 NRC.
23 Petitioner also tries to side step the 24 limitation in Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) by arguing 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
26 this is in the reply now, that the timing of the 1
subsequent license is unique because Point Beach's 2
NPDES permit is about to expire. That permit, 3
however, will remain in effect under the timely 4
renewal doctorate and therefore it continues to 5
represent the current permit until a new one is 6
issued.
7 Further, the status of the Point Beach 8
NPDES permit doesn't distinguish the case, this case, 9
from the Commission's decision in Vermont Yankee.
10 Again, that's CLI-7-16.
11 In the Vermont Yankee case, the NPDES 12 permit there, which the Commission found satisfied 13 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) had expired but it remained in 14 effect under the time to renew doctrine. And the 15 Commission there described the permit as the currently 16 effective permit.
17 So, as a result, the NPDES permit will 18 expire and the permitting agency may make new 19 determinations, has no effect on the availability of 20 the determinations in the currently effective permit.
21 Indeed, because all NPDES permits are issued for five 22 year terms, as the Commission observed in the Vermont 23 Yankee case.
24 They are always subject to review and 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
27 change by the permitting agency. And if that were 1
sufficient to open up such permits to review in NRC 2
proceedings and limitation in Section 511 of the Clean 3
Water Act and in 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) will be rendered 4
meaningless.
5 The second basic reason why Contention 1 6
is inadmissible is because it lacks any basis 7
demonstrating a general material dispute. The 8
Petitioner merely quotes monitoring data from the 9
application without any showing that the number of 10 fish and shellfish entrained, impinged or effected by 11 thermal discharges represents a
significant 12 environmental impact, one warranting spending hundreds 13 of millions of dollars to redesign an retrofit the 14 plant with cooling towers.
15 Petitioner provides no expert support 16 showing that there is a significant environmental 17 impact warranting further mitigation. Now, they refer 18 to Mr. Gunderson's declaration but he has no current 19 expertise in aquatic biology or ecology or the 20 assessment of aquatic impacts.
21 And his characterization of that as a 22 super predatory is simply a conclusory rhetoric. It 23 doesn't establish, in the slightest, that the impacts 24 are significant.
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
28 Now referring to the large number of eggs 1
that are entrained, doesn't mean those impacts are 2
significant. If you look, for example, on the fish 3
and wildlife service website about alewife, there is 4
a little profile about the alewife. And there a 5
single female spawns between 60,000 to 350,000 eggs.
6 So if you're talking about entraining a 7
million eggs, you're actually only talking about the 8
eggs that are produced by a handful of alewife. There 9
needs to be something more than characterizations, 10 this carnage or a super predator, there needs to be 11 some real expert opinion or some real authoritative 12 source that characterizes these impacts as significant 13 in order to have an adequate predicate for 14 consideration of cooling towers.
15 So in sum, it's Petitioner's obligation to 16 make a sufficient threshold showing that its proposed 17 alternative is warranted by significant environmental 18 impact, that it's reasonable, economically viable.
19 Petitioner does not do so.
20 I'll now turn this over to Ms. Leidich.
21 MS. LEIDICH: Thank you, Dave. I'm going 22 to address Contention 2 and then I'll address 23 Contention 3.
24 Petitioner's Contention 2, which alleges 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
29 that Point Beach is violating GDC 14, because the 1
reactor pressure vessels have not been adequately 2
tested, is clearly inadmissible. First, Contention 2 3
largely ignores the facility at issue in this 4
proceeding, Point Beach.
5 Instead, the majority of the contention 6
complains vaguely about the overall NRC approach to 7
neutron embrittlement with Point Beach only serving as 8
one example of that approach.
9
- Indeed, today, the Petitioner has 10 reiterated that by complaining about the NRC generally 11 delegating authority to the utilities. This licensing 12 proceeding is not the right venue for such a generic 13 challenge to the Staff or NRC regulations.
14 Second, to the limited extent that 15 Contention 2 does say anything about Point Beach, as 16 it clear from the title of the contention itself that 17 Point Beach is violating GDC 14, it is challenging the 18 current licensing bases of the facility and not 19 subsequent license renewal. Thus the contention is 20 outside the scope of this license renewal proceeding.
21 Contention 2 also fails to address or 22 raise a genuine dispute with the relevant information 23 that is in the application. In fact, original 24 Contention 2, while it addressed Point Beach's 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
30 purported lack of surveillance capsules, completely 1
ignored that a supplemental surveillance capsule, 2
Capsule A, is in the reactor and will be withdrawn 3
after receiving between one to two times the peak 4
reactor vessel neutron fluence of interest at the end 5
of the subsequent period of operation.
6 Again today in their oral argument 7
Petitioner has ignored that capsule. Even though it 8
seems directly relevant to their contention.
9 Finally, Contention 2 is vague and 10 unsupported. Mr. Gunderson makes speculative claims 11 as to error prone analytical calculations without any 12 explanation as to what calculations are error prone or 13 what supports that allegation.
14 Such conclusory assertions and speculation 15 make for nothing more than the sort of ill-defined and 16 poorly supported contentions that the Commission's 17 rules of practice are intended to avoid. Petitioner 18 and Mr. Gunderson do not identify or address, let 19 alone identify any deficiency in any of the time 20 limiting aging analyses, of embrittlement in the 21 application.
22 Petitioner's amended Contention 2 does 23 nothing to remedy these various flaws in the original 24 contention. Petitioner's attempt to belatedly address 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
31 the capsule in the reactor is both untimely and 1
inaccurate. And the remainder of Petitioner's amended 2
contention is simply irrelevant to the initial 3
contention.
4 Petitioner's provide no explanation why 5
the supplemental capsule in Unit 2, containing 6
materials representative of both units, cannot be 7
considered for Unit 1 as well. And indeed any such 8
claim is an impermissible challenge to the pressurized 9
thermal shock rule.
10 And the new EPRI letter referenced in 11 Petitioner's amended contention regards calculations 12 for BWR, stainless steel, reactor internals at a high 13 fluence. Which has no relevance to Petitioner's 14 contention about a PWR carbon steel reactor vessel 15 with a lower fluence.
16 In sum, Contention 2 fails to meet many of 17 the requirements for contention admissibility under 10 18 CFR 2.309(f)(1). It lacks specificity, it is outside 19 the scope of the proceeding, and is an impermissible 20 attack on the current licensing basis, and NRC 21 decision making. In addition, it fails to raise a 22 genuine dispute with material in the application that 23 is directly on point.
24 Petitioner's Contention 3, alleging that 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
32 the ER failed to adequately evaluate solar power as a 1
discrete alternative is also inadmissible. The ER 2
rejected solar power as a discrete alternative, in 3
large part, because of the land requirements for solar 4
power.
5 And Petitioner, in Contention 3, agrees 6
with the application that there significant land 7
requirements. By its own calculation, Petitioner 8
admits that 65.7 square miles of land, or 42,000 9
acres, would be required for a discrete solar 10 replacement.
11 Petitioner's
- expert, Dr.
- Compaan, 12 acknowledges that this land requirement seems 13 prohibitive. But Petitioner in the space of two 14 paragraphs summarily asserts that NextEra could find 15 the land. Either by using a significant number of the 16 commercial or residential rooftops throughout the 17 entire state or through the use of land set aside for 18 conservation purposes in the Conservation Reserve 19 Program.
20 That is not enough to establish an 21 alternative that can, as a practical matter, produced 22 baseload power, either now or in time, to constitute 23 a reasonable alternative to re-licensing as required 24 in the Commission's Davis-Besse precedent. Nor does 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
33 it establish an alternative that the Applicant can 1
actually implement.
2 Instead, Petitioner only sets forth the 3
kind of hypothetical or speculative alternative that 4
has been rejected by the Commission in the past.
5 Neither Petitioner nor Compaan has shown that 6
sufficient rooftop space is actually or reasonably 7
available for solar development.
8 Indeed, the SLOPE tool relied upon by 9
Compaan has a high degree of uncertainty, as it states 10 on the website. And provides an upper bound of 11 feasible development potential for planning purposes, 12 which does not consider economic or market 13 feasibility.
14 Even applying that tool, utilization of 87 15 percent of all residential rooftops in Wisconsin, or 16 the rooftops of 47,000 commercial buildings, would be 17 needed to replace Point Beach's generation.
18 Petitioner and Compaan never explain how 19 it is practical or commercially feasible to obtain 20 such rooftop space to replace Point Beach's 21 generation. They fail to address how it could be 22 practical for NextEra to negotiate and turn to 23 contracts billed and operate solar power on a 24 significant number of rooftops throughout the entire 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
34 state in time to replace Point Beach.
1 Nor has Petitioner shown that this is even 2
plausible for a merchant generator with no transition 3
or distribution system of its own, no link to the 4
ultimate consumer and no power of eminent domain.
5 As to Petitioner's suggestion that NextEra 6
should use land on the conservation reserve program, 7
Petitioner has not demonstrated that such use of 8
conservation land is legal, let alone practical, 9
commercial viable or environmentally preferable.
10 Obviously it does not nothing to reduce 11 the 65 square miles of land that would be required to 12 replace Point Beach. Instead, it merely proposes 13 using environmental sensitive land for that purpose.
14
- Finally, Petitioner's argument that 15 nuclear power is too expensive is a clear challenge to 16 the NRC's rule requiring no need for power or cost 17 benefit analysis with the license renewal 18 applications. Thus Contention 2 also fails to meet 19 the contention admissibility requirements.
20 Dave, do you want to address Petition 4?
21 MR. LEWIS: Yes. This is Dave Lewis.
22 I'll be very brief regarding Contention 4.
23 That contention is inadmissible because it 24 challenges the design of the plant and its current 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
35 licensing basis by claiming that a shield should be 1
installed to protect against turbine missiles. The 2
design of the plant and the adequacy of the CLB, the 3
Current Licensing Basis, are beyond the scope of this 4
proceeding.
5 Contention 4 is also inadmissible because 6
Petitioner's make no attempt to relate this contention 7
to any portion of the application. And indeed they 8
cannot because turbine missiles and shafts that might 9
generate missiles are active components that are not 10 subject to aging management review, or any other 11 review, in this proceeding. Thank you.
12 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
13 And I'd like to hear now from Commission Staff.
14 MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Chairman, public 15 and Members of the Board. My name is Mitzy Young, I'm 16 addressing Contention 1 first.
17 And again, my co-Counsel Travis Jones will 18 address Contention 3, and Jeremy Wachutka will address 19 Contentions 2 and 4. And the motion to amend 20 Contention 2.
21 So Contention 1, as you've already heard, 22 challenges the adequacy of the Applicant's 23 environmental report alleging it does not comply with 24 NRC regulations in 10 CFR Section 51.45(c) and 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
36 51.53(c)(3)(iii), because it doesn't consider the 1
reasonable mitigation alternative or replacing the 2
plant once the cooling system with a close cycle 3
cooling tower system.
4 Petitioner claims this alternative will 5
reduce adverse environmental impacts associated with 6
impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms and 7
thermal impacts on aquatic organisms.
8 Petitioner also claims that there would be 9
reduction in occasional mortality from impingement and 10 that the ER insufficiently analyzes limited data on 11 thermal discharges, and wrongly concludes that 12 mitigation is not needed during the term because the 13 Applicant does not plan any changes which would 14 increase thermal impacts.
15 As the Petitioner is aware, the Applicant 16 concluded that the impacts would be small. And under 17 NRC definition of the category meaning, they're so 18 minor that they will not destabilize nor noticeably 19 alter important attributes.
20 If the Applicant is correct, it would not 21 be reasonable to consider further reductions based on 22 the mission guidance that the proportionality of an 23 impact is considered in determining whether it should 24 be included in a discussion in the environmental 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
37 report. Or environmental impact statement.
1 But the Petitioner does not provide 2
sufficient legal
- bases, or factual
- bases, to 3
demonstrate a genuine dispute with the Applicant.
4 Neither NEPA nor the NRC regulations require the 5
operation of cooling towers to be considered as 6
mitigation.
7 NEPA is tempered by a rule of reason.
8 That rule of reason applies to both alternatives and 9
consideration of impacts, and it does not dictated a 10 particular action or result.
11 NRC regulations do not specify or require 12 a specific alternative to be considered. But under 10 13 CFR 51.45(b)(3)(ii)(B), an applicant may relay on 14 state water quality determinations, whether a
15 discharge permit or a thermal fluence variance, in 16 lieu of accepting thermal impingement and entrainment 17 impacts on aquatic organisms.
18 To the extent that Petitioner's considered 19 challenged the ability of the Applicant to rely on 20 this regulation and the state water quality 21 determination, Petitioner fails to provide directing 22 the petition and showing required by 10 CFR 2.335 to 23 report a petition for waiver exception to NRC 24 regulations. And has made no showing of special 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
38 circumstance.
1 With respect to reasonable alternatives, 2
the case law and Commission law has indicated that 3
reasonable alternatives to those that are practical 4
from a technical or economic standpoint, and the 5
alternative is not speculative.
6 Petitioner points to circumstances in 7
other proceedings. For example, Turkey Point, Oyster 8
Creek and Indian Point. But those proceedings 9
involved concerns by the state permitting agency about 10 water quality, and requirements for the performance of 11 their power reactor that are not cited here.
12 Therefore in those proceedings it was 13 reasonable that the alternative of an operation of 14 closed cycle cooling system be considered.
15 Generally
- speaking, NRC considers 16 alternative in terms of operation that involves 17 replacing power for the facility to an alternative, 18 merely that considers the impacts of closed cooling 19 cycle systems would not be reasonable here.
20 The Clean Water Act determination by the 21 state are in the Wisconsin permit, which the Applicant 22 appended to its environmental report. That permit, 23 which required this month, but it's in timely renew, 24 and under the statute understanding, had 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
39 determinations which includes determination of the 1
interim best technology available or peddling cooling 2
water system.
3 That interim determination happened 4
because the EPA had not finalized its regulations and 5
the state would be reconsidering that. To the extent 6
that the Petitioner is concerned about impacts on 7
fish, on thermal effluence, excuse me, on impacts due 8
to thermal effluence on aquatic species in Lake 9
- Michigan, Petitioner raises concerns with the 10 Wisconsin State permitting agency. And there is a 11 vehicle for them to do so.
12 With respect to bird impingement, 13 petitioner does not seriously challenge information in 14 the environmental report that addresses the 15 modifications that were made consistent with state 16 permitting to reduce the impingement of migratory 17 birds, which included lowering the intact structure of 18 additions over ten feet, the intact crib below the 19 surface, and or address the acoustic deterrent system, 20 which used to deter from alewife from swimming near 21 the intact structure.
22 Basically, the Petitioner complaint, 23 again, is that the adequacy of decisions made by 24 Wisconsin state permitting agency and not with the 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
40 Applicant.
1 With respect to accumulative impacts, the 2
Petitioner generally alleges that they're not 3
considered. However, the Applicant did include 4
discussion regarding consideration of past, present 5
and reasonable foreseeable actions and concluded in 6
part because there of the continued monitoring and no 7
specific refurbishments being identified in this 8
application, whether to continue to comply with those 9
standards.
10 The reasonableness of relying on the state 11 permitting agency is, in NRC regulations, in two 12 places.
First regulation that I
mentioned, 13 51.25(c)(3)(ii)(B) and also in 51.71(d), to a 14 footnote, which indicates that the NRC accepts those 15 determinations and will consider the impacts 16 associated with those determinations.
17 But petitioner, here, although they have 18 generalized complaints about impingement, entrainment 19 and the impacts of thermal discharges on aquatic 20 organisms, they don't raise a genuine dispute 21 regarding the various mitigation measures that are 22 already in effect under the Wisconsin State permit, 23 which they have no, made no showing that the Applicant 24 is not abiding with.
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
41 And in essence, they would seek to have 1
the NRC second guess, through its consideration of an 2
ultimate technology for cooling, determinations made 3
by the State of Wisconsin, or otherwise outpace 4
determination that the state permitting agency would 5
make regarding the best technical alternative for 6
mitigation of adverse impacts.
7 And the Commission, again, this would be 8
improper under Vermont Yankee and other cases where 9
the Commission identifies that we are to defer to 10 those determinations. And so, as noted, and the Board 11 should be aware, that as noted in the information 12 digest, stated 2020 through 2021, NUREG-1315, Volume 13 2, the NRC has renewed over 90 power reactor licenses.
14 We've issued at least four subsequent 15 license renewals to date. And less than a handful of 16 those were ever considered the mitigation measure that 17 Petitioner proposes here.
18 Petitioner does not, again, it's not 19 reasonable, the alternative they've proposed because 20 they do not show that there are state permitting or 21 water quality concerns here. And don't otherwise 22 generally dispute the adequacy of the environment 23 report in their petition.
24 And to the extent that they challenge the 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
42 Applicant's reliance on permits, which include 1
mitigation
- measures, they have not met NRC 2
requirements for raising that challenge in this 3
proceeding.
4 I will now turn over the discussion to 5
Travis Jones, who will discuss Contention 3.
6 MR. JONES: Good morning, Your Honors.
7 This is Travis Jones on behalf of the NRC Staff.
8 Contention 3 states that the Environmental Report 9
failed to adequately evaluate the full potential of 10 renewable energy sources, such as solar photovoltaics 11 to offset the loss of energy production from Point 12 Beach and to make the requested license renewal action 13 from 2030 to 2053 unnecessary.
14 This contention though failed to satisfy 15 the contention admissibility requirements in 10 CFR 16 2.309.
Specifically, it failed to satisfy 17 2.309(f)(1)(iii), which is a portion of the extension 18 that is outside the scope of this proceeding, and it 19 failed to satisfy 2.309(f)(1)(vi) because the 20 contention does not present a genuine dispute with the 21 applicant on a material issue of law or fact.
22 To that
- point, NEPA requires the 23 consideration of reasonable alternatives, not often 24 feasible ones. The Commission has determined that for 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
43 Petitioner to challenge the reasonable alternatives in 1
a license renewal proceeding the Petitioner needs to 2
provide sufficient facts or expert opinions to show 3
that its proposed alternatives are commercially viable 4
on a utility scale and that it can be operational 5
prior to the expiration of the current licenses.
6 Here, Petitioner failed to show that a 7
genuine dispute exists because Petitioner failed to 8
present this required information. Also, as noted in 9
the ER, NextEra determined that the solar and storage 10 option was not reasonable because of the significant 11 impact that would result from the acreage required.
12 In Dr.
Compaan's declaration he 13 essentially agrees with NextEra and states that the 14 array would indeed require 65 square miles. The 15 Petitioner does not see this as prohibitive though and 16 attempts to raise a genuine dispute by pointing out 17 that the acreage needed for solar panels exists on 18 rooftops and conserved farmlands.
19 Then the Petitioner frames this 20 information as raising a dispute with the ER without 21 providing any information on whether it would be 22 practical or feasible from a technical or economic 23 standpoint.
24 In the ER though NextEra does not claim 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
44 that sufficient land doesn't exist in Wisconsin.
1 NextEra instead explains that the associated impacts 2
to wildlife, vegetation, land use, aesthetics, et 3
cetera, render this option unreasonable.
4 Petitioner never mentions let alone raises 5
a dispute with any of the impacts mentioned in the ER.
6 While it is true the Petitioner does not need to fully 7
litigate this contention at this stage, 10 CFR 8
2.309(f)(1)(vi) makes it perfectly clear that 9
Petitioner must show the dispute is genuine.
10 By failing to present any information 11 regarding the technical and economic realities of how 12 NextEra would acquire the aforementioned rooftops or 13 farmlands and by failing to address any of the 14 material reasons listed for NextEra's determination, 15 Petitioner fails to present these facts or expert 16 opinions that would should a genuine dispute with the 17 ER, or that would show commercial viability of its 18 proposed alternatives. Therefore, the Petitioner 19 failed to meet its burden under 2.309(f)(1)(vi).
20 Finally, to the extent the Petitioner is 21 challenging the need for power with its statements, 22 such as the requested license renewal action from 2030 23 to 2053 is unnecessary or its statement that there is 24 no justification for the continued operation of Point 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
45 Beach, this contention is clearly outside the scope of 1
this proceeding and the license renewal guidance 2
specifically states that the NRC will not make a 3
decision regarding the need for power at the license 4
renewal stage.
5 Moreover, during the rulemaking process 6
the Commission stated that the regulatory authority 7
over licensee economics, including the need for power, 8
falls within the jurisdiction of the States and the 9
NRC has no role in the energy planning decisions of 10 State regulators.
11 Accordingly, the NRC has stated that it 12 will neither perform analysis of the need for power 13 nor draw conclusions about the need for generating 14 capacity during a license renewal review.
15 Here, to the extent that the Petitioner is 16 challenging the need for power with this contention, 17 it is clearly outside the scope of this proceeding 18 under 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1)(iii).
19 Thank you and I will now pass it on to my 20 colleague, Jeremy Wachutka, to discuss Conditions 2 21 and 4, Contentions 2 and 4, sorry.
22 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you.
23 MR. WACHUTKA: May it please the Board.
24 My name is Jeremy Wachutka and I will be providing the 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
46 NRC Staff's position that proposed Contentions 2 and 1
4 are not admissible.
2 In proposed Contention 2 the essence of 3
the Petitioner's argument appears to be a concern for 4
reactor pressure vessel neutron embrittlement at Point 5
Beach.
6 This is a phenomenon by which neutron 7
irradiation due to reactor operation reduces the 8
fracture toughness of reactor pressure vessels making 9
them more susceptible to brittle failure.
10 The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 50.61 and 11 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices G and H, address this issue 12 through requirements to obtain fracture toughness data 13 from capsules either at a facility or at other 14 facilities and to use these data to ensure adequate 15 margins of safety.
16 Additionally, the NRC's guidance in NUREG 17 2191 and NUREG 2192 provides specific time limited 18 aging analyses, or TLAA, and specific aging management 19 plans, or AMP, as one acceptable way to satisfy these 20 regulations during the subsequent license renewal 21 period.
22 In turn, NextEra's subsequent license 23 renewal application, which is the subject of this 24 proceeding, provides NextEra's argument for how in 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
47 light of these regulations and guidance Point Beach 1
would continue to operate safely during the subsequent 2
license renewal period.
3 For example, NextEra's application states 4
that the reactor pressure vessel neutron embrittlement 5
is addressed by a Reactor Vessel Neutron Embrittlement 6
PLAA, a neutron coolant monitoring AMP, and a reactor 7
material vessel material surveillance AMP.
8 This PLAA and these AMPs in NextEra's 9
application are based on the corresponding PLAA and 10 AMPs in the NRC guidance documents and they provide 11 NextEra's proposed practices to ensure safety despite 12 neutron embrittlement during the subsequent license 13 renewal period. They include the withdraw and testing 14 of the surveillance capsule and the consideration of 15 data from capsules irradiated at other facilities.
16 Given this regulatory framework and of the 17 NRC's contention admissibility requirements, in order 18 for proposed Contention 2's concern regarding neutron 19 embrittlement to be admissible the Petitioner was 20 required to point to these portions of NextEra's 21 application, explain why they don't satisfy the NRC's 22 regulations or are otherwise unsafe, and provide 23 support for this argument.
24 The Petitioner though did not do these 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
48 things. First, the Petitioner did not refer to the 1
specific portions of NextEra's application that it 2
disputes as is required by 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1)(vi).
3 Proposed Contention 2 contains only one 4
ambiguous reference to "the aging management plan" and 5
its basis contains only one citation to NextEra's 6
application in support of the Petitioner's statement 7
that NextEra is storing two capsules in the Point 8
Beach spent fuel pool.
9 Only in its reply brief did the Petitioner 10 for the first time acknowledge the application's 11 discussion of withdrawing and testing the capsule.
12 This, though, did not cure the insufficiency of the 13 Petitioner's hearing request because, first of all, it 14 was pled too late, and, secondly, a side simply 15 asserting that NextEra's capsule withdraw and testing 16 plan is "of grave concern to Petitioner," the 17 Petitioner did not dispute the basis for NextEra's 18 plan.
19 Second, the support that the Petitioner 20 provided for its arguments is not relevant to 21 NextEra's application as is required by 10 CFR 22 2.309(f)(1)(v).
23 For example, the Petitioner pointed to an 24 EPRI letter regarding errors in calculations related 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
49 to evaluating existing flaws in boiling water reactor 1
internals.
2 From this the Petitioner concluded that 3
the testing of capsules at Point Beach "may indeed 4
identify that embrittlement calculations made at Point 5
Beach are not conservative."
6 The Petitioner, though, did not point to 7
any specific embrittlement calculations in the Point 8
Beach Application and explained how the EPRI letter 9
demonstrates that both calculations are somehow 10 deficient. In fact, the calculations identified in 11 the EPRI letter do not appear anywhere in NextEra's 12 application.
13 Finally, without any discussion of the 14 NRC's requirements or the application's attempts to 15 satisfy those requirements, the Petitioner repeatedly 16 asserted its belief that NextEra should be required to 17 perform a "complete physical analysis of the coupons 18 from its reactors and the five other reactors that are 19 its embrittled cohorts."
20 This is both, one, an argument that 21 NextEra should have taken a different approach than 22 the approach actually taken in its application, and, 23 two, it is an implicit challenge to the NRC's 24 regulations which do not require such a requirement.
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
50 Therefore, this argument is not within the 1
scope to this proceeding as is required by 10 CFR 2
2.309(f)(1)(iii). Because of these failures to 3
satisfy the NRC's contention admissibility 4
requirements proposed Contention 2 should not be 5
admitted.
6 In the proposed Contention 4
the 7
Petitioner argues that the physical alignment of Point 8
Beach's buildings creates an elevated risk for damage 9
from a turbine generator missile.
10 The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 54.4, 11
- however, limit the scope of license renewal 12 proceedings to certain plant systems, structures, and 13 components, or SSCs.
14 NextEra's application does not consider 15 Point Beach's building alignment or its turbine 16 generators to be SSCs and the Petitioner does not 17 demonstrate that they are.
18 Moreover, under 10 CFR 54.21 SSCs within 19 the scope of license renewal must also be subject to 20 either an aging management review or a time limited 21 aging analysis, but the Petitioner does not explain 22 how Point Beach's building alignment or its turbine 23 generators could fit within these specific license 24 renewal categories.
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
51 In essence, instead of demonstrating that 1
its concern is limited specifically to license renewal 2
issues, as is required, the Petitioner's concern 3
appears to have to deal more broadly with the current 4
operation of Point Beach and as such would be more 5
appropriately challenged through a 10 CFR 2.206 6
request for agency action.
7 For this reason proposed Contention 4 is 8
not within the scope of this proceeding as is required 9
10 In conclusion, because none of 11 Petitioner's proposed contentions satisfy all of the 12 contention admissibility requirements, the 13 Petitioner's hearing request should be denied. Thank 14 you.
15 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you. Thank you.
16 There has been a reservation of time for rebuttal by 17 both the licensee and the Petitioner. What I would 18 propose is that we take about a 5-minute break and 19 then I'd like to hear, again, from Mr. Lodge five 20 minutes of rebuttal and, again, five minutes from the 21 licensee and then the parties can expect questions 22 from the Board.
23 So we will just take a 5-minute break. We 24 will be back on the record at that time, and by my 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
52 watch that will be 11:17. Thank you.
1 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 2
off the record at 11:12 a.m. and resumed at 11:18 3
a.m.)
4 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. If the parties 5
are back online let's resume with the rebuttal portion 6
of oral argument. Mr. Lodge, you have reserved five 7
minutes of your time and you can start now.
8 MR. LODGE: Thank you.
9 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Unmute.
10 MR. LODGE: Can you hear me now?
11 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Yes.
12 MR. LODGE: Wonderful. Hopefully things 13
-- Thank you, Your Honor. I would like to first 14 address the coolant tower matter. Respectively, it is 15 not a shield for the applicant to be able to say that 16 it is out of our hands, that technically we have a 316 17 permit process going on with the state agency.
18 In effect, when NEPA and the Atomic Energy 19 Act collide NEPA must prevail. I believe there is 20 case law to that effect, possibly even cited, and I 21 certainly would be happy to provide it to the 22 Licensing Board.
23 In 2017 according to Supplement 1 of the 24 Environmental Report NextEra reported that the 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
53 foregoing fishery yield because of Point Beach 1
estimated at 7,406 kilograms that essentially 41 2
percent of the fish kill was rainbow, 41.7 was rainbow 3
smelt, followed by burbot, 26.4 percent alewives, and 4
11.1 in round gobies.
5 This is not -- And while I recognize that 6
there are, this is, that doesn't, that isn't an 7
effective rationale that they should die anyway, they 8
are invasives. The problem is is that there is 9
habitat and wildlife carnage as an ongoing phenomenon.
10 I would also point out that in 2011 the 11 Chicago Tribune reported that approximately 4.5, an 12 equivalent of, that the fish kills were amounting to 13 10,675 pounds per year, which was 4.5 percent the 14 annual commercial fish catch by weight.
15 This is very significant wildlife loss to 16 the lake and just because fish reproduce serially in 17 order to survive as a species is somehow not a 18 justification for not mitigating the permit.
19 As to Contention Number 2 -- Oh, and 20 incidentally back to the cooling chart, Category 2 21 acknowledges that impacts on wildlife may be small, 22 medium, or large, depending on local circumstances, so 23 the Licensing Board does not have to accept NextEra's 24 characterization.
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
54 However, with regard to Contention 2, the 1
vessel metallurgy between boiling water reactors and 2
pressurized water reactors is not relevant. We are --
3 Interveners are discussing the metallurgical aging and 4
internal (audio interference) vessels. The internals 5
as between PWRs and BWRs are rather similar, but, 6
again, this is just simply a major, major warning.
7 As to Contention 3, and this is happening 8
with all three of the contentions we are arguing about 9
substantive today, the Staff or the Applicant are 10 attempting to make of this a substitute trial.
11 They are actually arguing the sufficiency 12 and adequacy of our prima facie demonstrations of 13 evidence in many respects and as two of the three 14 members of this Licensing Board ruled in Davis-Besse's 15 renewal, License Extension 2011, all that is required 16 is to demonstrate some sort of factual basis and issue 17 a fact with some sort of contraversion, if you will, 18 with the application, and that is certainly what we 19 have done as to the photovoltaic solar contention.
20 It is interesting to note that the 21 Licensing Board in 2011 in the Davis-Besse case 22 believed that the state of the art of bend and 23 photovoltaic and conversation in some unspecified 24 combination at that time, a decade, fully a decade 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
55 ago, was possibly equivalent or competitive as a 1
substitute for centralized baseload power from Davis-2 Besse.
3 Unfortunately, the Full Commission 4
overturned the Licensing Board's ruling. I say 5
"unfortunately" partly because, in effect, the 6
Commission made a determination on the merits that in 7
2011 the serious commercially viable alternatives were 8
not viable enough to be considered as a serious 9
competition to baseload power from the nuclear power 10 plant involved.
11 Things are far, far different, far more 12 evolved. Wyatt Energy is planning on introducing far 13 more power than the capacity of Point Beach in the 14 next couple of years in the Wisconsin region.
15 There are other competitors. NextEra 16 itself, of course, as I indicated in the State next 17 door, in Iowa at the Duane Arnold site, is making a 18 dramatic expansion.
19 Everyone in this case understands that 20 photovoltaic solar is going to forever profit in price 21 while the costs of nuclear are not going to go that 22 direction at all and is quite likely going the other 23 direction.
24 The reason that Point Beach exists today 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
56 is because of a locked in purchase power agreement for 1
the next decade. I realize the Board doesn't take 2
into account whether or not economic feasibility is 3
really viable, but I would simply point out that the 4
artificial nature of the economics is all keeping 5
Point Beach in the game.
6 I believe that I used up my time, probably 7
more than. Thank you very much.
8 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you, Mr. Lodge.
9 And now for the licensee, please.
10 MR. LEWIS: Yes. This is David Lewis.
11 Mr. Lodge suggested that we are not looking at aquatic 12 impacts because they are out of our hands. That's not 13 quite correct.
14 The Environmental Report looks at and 15 references the 316(a) and 316(b) determinations. The 16 reason that a further assessment including an 17 assessment of mitigation measures is not required is 18 because Section 511 and the implementing regulations 19 in the NRC rules requires the NRC, in essence, to take 20 those state determinations as dispositive and rely 21 upon them.
22 For example, the 316(a) determination, 23 which is in our application and is attached to the 24 fact sheet that accompanies the NPDES permit, states 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
57 that the impacts on the fish community in the 1
immediate area of the localized ecology of the site, 2
that the thermal plume will cause minimal impacts to 3
the fish and invertebrate communities, or the 4
representative important species list, and that the 5
discharge is protective of a balance in indigenous 6
community of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on 7
Lake Michigan and no temperature limit is needed.
8 So these are some of the determinations 9
that the State has made. We have provided them and 10 it's not just NextEra saying, well, this is out of our 11 hands. It is saying that there are dispositive 12 determinations, which under Section 511 of the Clean 13 Water Act the NRC is required to accept and use.
14 With respect to Mr. Lodge's reference to 15 the Chicago Tribune, our answer already showed why 16 that newspaper article simply misrepresents the data 17 that is in ADAMS.
18 The calculation of 4.5 percent on 19 commercial fishery is just wrong and we have pointed 20 to the actual study on ADAMS that showed what the 21 value is and it's, if you look at the impact on the 22 commercial fishery using the documents that the 23 Chicago Tribune was unfortunately unable to 24 understand, the impact was 0.001 percent, which is 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
58 such a far cry from 4.5 percent.
1 But, you know, the issue here is that it's 2
Petitioner's burden to demonstrate with sufficient 3
support a genuine material dispute and if a newspaper 4
article, again, by a reporter who, you know, who knows 5
what his qualifications are, is sufficient then just 6
about any contention can come in because you find 7
articles where a reporter says, you know, nuclear 8
power is unsafe.
9 Does that mean all safety issues are, you 10 know, are written in stone? Obviously not. So there 11 needs to be some expert opinion or some authoritative 12 source.
13 Clearly, the reference to the newspaper 14 article didn't meet that standard, but beyond that, 15 you know, when an intervener, sorry, a petitioner, you 16 know, references information the Board is allowed to 17 look to see what that information actually says and 18 whereas here the data on which that article is based 19 is actually in ADAMS, accessible to the Board.
20 The Board should look at it and say, you 21 know, holy cow, that's not even remotely correct.
22 Anne, do you have anything you want to add under the 23 contentions?
24 MS. LEIDICH: Sure. I will be brief, but 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
59 I am going to briefly address some matters in 1
Contention 2 and Contention 3.
2 Petitioner has, again, reiterated the 3
possibility of internals being part of Contention 2.
4 Contention 2 itself states that the reactor coolant 5
pressure boundary has not been tested.
6 Reactor internals are not the reactor 7
coolant pressure boundary and this appears to be a 8
late attempt to modify Contention 2 solely so that the 9
EPRI letter might have some relevance to it. However, 10 Contention 2 itself is about the reactor coolant 11 pressure vessel boundary.
12 In terms of Contention 3, the decision 13 that Petitioners have discussed in detail at this 14 point, is not governing on the Board.
15 The Commission decision from 2012 in the 16 Davis-Besse proceeding is governing on the Board and 17 it states that as a practical matter an alternative 18 must be able to produce baseload power either now or 19 in time to constitute a reasonable alternative to re-20 licensing and it rejects hypothetical or speculative 21 alternatives.
22 Finally, Petitioners have raised a solar 23 power facility that is going to replace Duane Arnold.
24 I believe that is being raised for the first time here 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
60 at oral argument, which is beyond untimely.
1 However, that facility is significantly 2
smaller than the Point Beach units and it's going to 3
be, it's not going to be a baseload facility. Thank 4
you.
5 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. Thank you. What 6
I would like to do at this point is to ask a few 7
questions of the parties and I thought it would be 8
best if we did it contention by contention, if that's 9
all right with Judges Arnold and Trikouros, that way 10 we will have the answers hopefully in one spot in our 11 transcript and I think that will help us with our 12 decision.
13 That said, I would like to start, if I 14 could, with Contention 1 and actually start with Mr.
15 Lodge and what the argument seems to revolve around is 16 to what extent should the Board ultimately rely on the 17 fact that there is an existing Clean Water Act from a 18 Section 316(b) determination currently in effect.
19 Mr. Lodge, isn't this Board bound to 20 accept the findings of the Wisconsin DNR and, 21 likewise, the fact that there is an existing permit 22 that has been filed and is part of this record, why 23 should we be going any further than that 24 determination?
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
61 Mr. Lodge, are you with us?
1 MR. LODGE: Can you hear me?
2 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Mr. Lodge, perhaps if 3
you turned off your video you might be able to capture 4
enough bandwidth to be heard. At the moment I can't 5
hear anything.
6 (Pause.)
7 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Mr. Lodge?
8 MR. LODGE: Yes. I am --
9 (Simultaneous speaking.)
10 MR. LODGE: I am trying to get out of the 11 Webex because I had a screen freeze again.
12 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you.
13 MR. LODGE: So you can hear me?
14 CHAIR FROEHLICH: I can hear you, yes.
15 MR. LODGE: Okay. Thank you.
16 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Please proceed.
17 MR. LODGE: I did hear your entire 18 question, Judge Froehlich. I am -- Hang on one 19 second. I am still trying to exit the Webex so I'll 20 stop the echo I am receiving.
21 (Pause.)
22 MR. LODGE: Can you hear me?
23 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Yes. Please proceed.
24 MR. LODGE: All right. Thank you very 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
62 much. I appreciate your indulgence. Number one, NEPA 1
requires the disclosure of the option and, number two, 2
merely because there is an application or, pardon me, 3
I guess a pending request to extend the NPDES permit, 4
WPDES as its known in Wisconsin, doesn't mean that 5
there need not be discussion under NEPA.
6 I realize what the regulation says. We 7
believe that the purpose, among the purposes of the 8
National Environmental Policy Act, is the disclosure 9
to the public, which is supposed to provide 10 reassurance, that governmental authorities are 11 actively seeking transparency as well as providing a 12 full picture of the proposed project, which, of 13 course, in this case is a 20-year license extension 14 that would come atop 60 years of wildlife destruction.
15 And NEPA, as I say, and I believe the case 16 law strongly shows, that when NEPA and the Atomic 17 Energy Act collide that effectively NEPA wins, NEPA 18 governs.
19 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Mr. Lodge, didn't the 20 Wisconsin DNR determine that the negative impacts to 21 the fish community would be minimal? I thought I read 22 something to that effect at Page 24 of your petition.
23 MR. LODGE: Yes. That is their 24 conclusion, but, again, that is a -- I don't believe 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
63 that it is of a res judicata type of finding. It has 1
not occurred as a result of an adjudication. It's an 2
administrative determination being made by the 3
regulatory body in Wisconsin.
4 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. And what do you 5
say then to the Staff's answer where they say that 6
licensing boards are required to defer to the state 7
agency that issued a 316(a) permit. The Commission's 8
decision in Vermont Yankee is the case that they have 9
cited to the Board.
10 MR. LODGE: While I understand that the 11 existing permit continues in effect until there is a 12 further determination by the Wisconsin agency, I would 13 point out that the decision as to whether or not the 14 WPDES permit right now would be extended even through 15 part of the remaining decade of the 60-year license 16 extension has yet to be made.
17 And we have to go on data and 18 circumstances now and the wildlife destruction and 19 habitat destruction continues the pace. I simply 20 don't believe that the Licensing Board is barred from 21 requiring analysis and discussion of this very 22 significant core problem within the NEPA document.
23 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you. Thank you.
24 Let me ask of the Commission Staff, 10 CFR Section 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
64 51.71(d) says that the Agency should consider 1
compliance with state and federal standards in its 2
analysis.
3 Is this a consideration that the Agency 4
must apply to the federal and state standards? Is 5
that the same as being bound by those standards, the 6
standards, you know, set or determined by state 7
agencies, for example?
8 MS. YOUNG: Well, with respect to Clean 9
Water Act issues, it is the state agency that has the 10 authority to make those determinations, and what the 11 NRC does based on its regulations is considers the 12 impact of those determinations.
13 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay.
14 MS. YOUNG: It doesn't prevent the NRC 15 from considering impacts, but we rely on, you know, as 16 required, that applicants submit information that 17 indicates the status of their compliance with respect 18 to various federal and state permits.
19 And in this case, the best technology 20 alternative determination has already been made by the 21 Wisconsin state permitting agency, and that decision, 22 as we find ourselves at this juncture in the review, 23 is in effect and continues in effect until it is 24 changed by any later action of the state of Wisconsin.
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
65 So, when Mr. Lodge argues that you have to 1
take the circumstances based on what they are now, in 2
this specific instance, the circumstances are now that 3
they have the valid permit that the applicant may rely 4
on and the NRC may rely on in determining impacts of 5
this action.
6 CHAIR FROEHLICH: While I have you, Ms.
7 Young, the staff states at page 20 of its answer and 8
makes reference to the Oyster Creek case and the 9
Indian Point cases where the NRC permitted an analysis 10 of cooling towers in a license renewal proceeding. Is 11 that solely because that issue was raised by the state 12 agency?
13 MS. YOUNG: Yes, that's my understanding 14 based on discussions with the staff.
15 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Can that same issue or 16 concern be raised by an individual and it be accepted 17 for hearing?
18 MS. YOUNG: Well, the determination of 19 whether something is acceptable for hearing is yours, 20 Judge Froehlich, and the members of the board, but a 21 petitioner is obviously free to raise any concern that 22 they adequately support.
23 Staff's position in this proceeding is 24 that that concern has not been adequately supporting 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
66 by a showing of circumstances where the alternative 1
consideration is reasonable based on either concerns 2
about water quality impacts or state permitting 3
concerns, state permitting agency concerns.
4 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, also in your 5
answer, I noticed in footnote 91 the staff made 6
reference to the Turkey Point case where a contention 7
was admitted claiming that the ER omitted 8
consideration of mechanical draft cooling alternative.
9 Are you familiar with the facts in that case? Was 10 that draft cooling alternative raised by a state 11 agency?
12 MS. YOUNG: I believe there were concerns 13 raised by the state agency with respect to the 14 applicant's compliance with local environmental 15 requirements and permitting requirements.
16 So, there was a foundation there where 17 there were state-initiated issues with respect to the 18 cooling canal system and impacts on ground water, and 19 such that the concern was broader than just being 20 raised by a petitioner, and the staff anticipated 21 considering that in its environmental documents to 22 address the concerns of the state permitting agency.
23 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, thank you, Ms.
24 Young. Judges Trikouros or Arnold, do you have any 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
67 questions for any of the parties on contention one?
1 JUDGE ARNOLD: This is Judge Arnold. I do 2
have questions. Let's see, for petitioners, this is 3
not the first license renewal. It's the second 4
license renewal. I'd like to know has anything 5
occurred between the first renewal and this renewal 6
that calls for this evaluation of the impacts of the 7
cooling system now, but didn't call for it at the 8
first license renewal? Has something happened?
9 MR. LODGE: Yes, there has been a power 10 uprating that I believe occurred sometime after the 11 2011 article, but before the 2017 statistics I cited 12 a little while ago, yes, considerably different 13 circumstance.
14 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, let me continue on 15 that then and ask NextEra, although the petitioners 16 mentioned the thermal uprates, they were a little bit 17 light on details. Now, can you tell me for each 18 thermal uprate, has there been an evaluation of the 19 effects of increased heat rejection on the 20 environment?
21 MR. LEWIS: Yes, this is Mr. Lewis. There 22 was a report submitted to the Wisconsin permitting 23 agency to evaluate the increased heat, and in fact, 24 the 316a determination that's in the current 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
68 environmental report reflects the state's evaluation 1
of that increased thermal impact.
2 That information was also provided to the 3
NRC staff during its review of the uprate and 4
supported its environmental assessment.
5 JUDGE ARNOLD: Thank you. Okay, I'd like 6
to go back to the petitioner. Does the petition 7
provide any new information on the effects of cooling 8
that was not considered by the Wisconsin Department of 9
Natural Resources or by NextEra that demonstrate that 10 the environmental impacts of once-through cooling are 11 greater than small?
12 I'm asking in your petition and documents, 13 you did have some environmental information about 14 entrainment. Is any of that information new or is 15 that just quoted from the NextEra application?
16 MR. LODGE: It's quoted from the NextEra 17 application or supporting documents, yes.
18 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, thank you very much.
19 Okay, also for petitioners, on page 24 to 25 of your 20 petition, you note that, quote, NextEra's analysis 21 inappropriately assumes the aquatic community to 22 include all of Lake Michigan, whereas a proper 23 analysis should focus on specific localized site 24 conditions, unquote.
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
69 Now, NextEra answers that they did look at 1
localized site conditions. My question is have you 2
provided any evidence of localized fish populations in 3
existence that are either particularly vulnerable or 4
are disproportionately affected by Point Beach, and 5
that have not been addressed by NextEra?
6 MR. LODGE: I don't know what you mean by 7
addressed by NextEra, Your Honor, but I, we -- the 8
data that we have provided is effectively taken from 9
application documents.
10 I might point out that climate change has 11 not been referenced, nor discussed, nor analyzed in 12 any way respecting the thermal pollution and cooling 13 tower need that we are petitioning about.
14 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, let me just go to 15 NextEra on this. Your answer on that was that you 16 looked at localized site conditions. Do you know of 17 any fish populations that were excluded from that that 18 could be affected by the cooling system?
19 MR. LEWIS: This is Mr. Lewis. Just to 20 clarify, I think our response refers to the NPDES 21 permitting agency's examination of the thermal impacts 22 and it specifically looked whether there were 23 localized impacts.
24 But, no, the answer is the conclusion is 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
70 that the impacts on the fish communities are minimal 1
and there is nothing that prevents a balanced and 2
healthy indigenous population of fish.
3 So, the answer is I'm not aware of any 4
indication that there is some significant localized 5
impact that hasn't been addressed.
6 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, thank you very much.
7 Okay, question for petitioners, on page 25 of your 8
petition, you refer to the, quote, changed regulatory 9
view of the need to impose closed-cycle cooling to 10 stop power plant carnage.
11 Now, the two relevant regulatory bodies 12 here are the NRC and the Wisconsin Department of 13 Natural Resources. Can you point to any policy 14 document or regulation of either of these two 15 organizations that recognized this new regulatory 16 view?
17 MR. LODGE: No, Your Honor. The reference 18 there was -- I think we earlier or at some point in 19 our petition discussed how retrofitting cooling towers 20 has basically happened since the passage of the Clean 21 Water Act and the half century since that, roughly 22 half century since that happened, that the changed 23 regulatory view was manifest at Palisades which opened 24 with simply a once-through type of system and 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
71 retrofitted cooling tower technology shortly into its 1
operating life.
2 So, there is a changed regulatory view, 3
and actually in some ways you could argue that the NRC 4
itself has acknowledged the circumstances of once-5 through cooling technology as being very, very 6
destructive.
7 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, but neither of the 8
relevant regulatory bodies has come out officially in 9
favor of this new regulatory view as far as I can see.
10 MR. LODGE: If that's a question, we're 11 working on it, Your Honor.
12 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, let me ask the NRC 13 staff, if a new permit does come out that makes a 14 different determination on the impacts of once-through 15 cooling, will that new determination be passed onto 16 the NRC?
17 MS. YOUNG: If I understand you correctly, 18 Judge Arnold, you're asking whether the staff has good 19 information as to the results of Wisconsin's 20 permitting review?
21 JUDGE ARNOLD: Yes.
22 MS. YOUNG: Well, under NRC regulations, 23 we would expect the applicant to submit that 24 information to the NRC staff and then we would have 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
72 that for our consideration.
1 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, so they would have to 2
update their application to include any change in 3
their NPDES permit?
4 MS. YOUNG: That's my understanding.
5 That's correct.
6 JUDGE ARNOLD:
- Okay, let me ask 7
petitioners, do you have any reason to believe that 8
the next NPDES permit will have a different 9
determination on the effects of once-through cooling?
10 MR.
LODGE:
That's, of
- course, a
11 determination that the state agency's going to have to 12 make. I believe that there is some protest or 13 opposition to simply issuing the permit for the status 14 quo from citizens in Wisconsin.
15 Your Honor, I would like to point out, 16 just to supplement my response to your earlier 17 question, that before NEPA once-through systems such 18 as Point Beach's were readily approved, after NEPA and 19 not just the Clean Water Act, the NRC began to require 20 cooling towers as a routine additional feature in 21 licensing of nuclear power plants.
22 So, yes, there is regulatory acceptance on 23 the NRC's part. The regulatory acceptance as to 24 ordering retrofits is certainly not present in any 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
73 strong fashion, but the NRC is well acquainted with 1
the need and the rationale for doing this.
2 And just to point out, if the expectation 3
when Point Beach was licensed in the late '60s, early 4
'70s was this is only going to operate for 40 years, 5
so I guess we can kill a lot of wildlife, but it's 40 6
years, but the expectation has changed and now it's 7
twice 40 years that we're looking at and I think that 8
that alone should require within NEPA a very serious 9
inquiry into what we're doing, what the plant will be 10 achieving by way of destructive effects that could be 11 mitigated.
12 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, thank you. That's 13 the end of my questions unless, Mr. Lewis, would you 14 like to say anything on that issue?
15 MR. LEWIS: Well, first of all, I'm not 16 aware of NRC after NEPA ever requiring cooling towers.
17 That would be clearly in violation of Section 511 18 which states an agency cannot impose any effluent 19 limitation or other requirement under the Clean Water 20 Act when the NPDES permitting agency has acted.
21 And clearly, for example, the Seabrook 22 proceeding, which a lot of this case law relates to, 23 ended up with, you know, a once-through cooling system 24 relying on the state determination, so I don't know 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
74 any basis for Mr. Lodge's statement.
1 Just with respect to Judge Froehlich's 2
question about Turkey Point, as the licensee of Turkey 3
Point, Turkey Point doesn't have 316(a) and 316(b) 4 determinations. It's actually separated from U.S.
5 waters by a sound, I think it's called Card Sound, and 6
therefore it doesn't have the protection of the NRC 7
rule or 511. It's unique and its cooling canal system 8
are unique.
9 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
10 I appreciate that clarification. While I have you, I 11 just wanted to follow up on a question that Judge 12 Arnold asked, and that is if there is a change in the 13 water permits issued by the Wisconsin DNR, there is an 14 obligation, I guess, either for the applicant or the 15 state agency to forward that to the NRC and for them 16 to take that into consideration in the preparation of 17 the EIS?
18 MR. LEWIS: I think there's a requirement 19 somewhere that we provide NPDES permits to the NRC, 20 and I think they're routinely provided, but to answer 21 when the license renewal proceeding is, I think we 22 have to inform the NRC staff of material developments 23 and if there was an NRC proceeding and the board and 24 the parties, and I can't imagine NextEra not telling 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
75 the NRC staff if, in fact, there was a requirement 1
that was imposed to install cooling towers.
2 That would actually make it like Oyster 3
Creek and Indian Point. I mean, in those cases, it 4
wasn't just that the state was an opponent. It was 5
the state made a determination in those cases that 6
cooling towers would be required to support an 7
extended period of operation.
8 And I believe in Oyster Creek, for 9
example, they were not going to provide the coastal 10 zone management certification which would have 11 precluded the NRC was going forward.
12 So, it was more than just the state was an 13 opponent. The state had actually made affirmative 14 determinations that cooling towers would be required, 15 which, of course, at that junction, the NRC then had 16 to accept the state's determination.
17 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, thank you. Judge 18 Trikouros, do you have any questions for any of the 19 parties in contention one?
20 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I do. The statement was 21 made by the petitioner that the analysis that was 22 performed in the ER was incomplete and insufficient to 23 support the determination to not go with closed 24 cooling or to not evaluate closed cooling.
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
76 There were three reasons provided and one 1
of those was the localized effects that we have 2
already discussed. One of the other ones was the 3
question of considering thermal discharge in isolation 4
and not considering it has a cumulative impact with 5
respect to, I assume we're talking entrainment and 6
impingement effects.
7 I'd just like to ask the petitioner to 8
please explain what that means in terms of the 9
insufficiency in the ER?
10 MR. LODGE: As I understand your question, 11 Your Honor, first of all, we're talking about now 50 12 years of operations and the destruction of habitats 13 and effectively spawning beds closed by thermal 14 pollution as well as the evisceration of some of the 15 fish populations.
16 Climate change is another factor which we 17 believe is a cumulative impact that is not reflected 18 in the discussion about thermal discharge and 19 impingement entrainment, and certainly climate change 20 has some meaningful implications for changes in the 21 water temperature during the 20-year extension period 22 ending in the 2050s.
23 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: But my question was more 24 specific to the insufficiency of the ER analysis that 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
77 you mentioned. You're saying that thermal discharge 1
should have been considered cumulatively with the 2
other analyses, and it's clear that there have been --
3 consideration has been given in the ER to all of 4
those.
5 So, for example, I think Section 461 and 6
Section 462, they consider both thermal and also 7
impingement entrainment, so I don't understand why you 8
were saying that there has to be some cumulative 9
aspect to this that's missing. I don't understand 10 what you were saying there.
11 MR. LODGE: Judge Trikouros, could you 12 refer me to a specific page in our intervention 13 petition that you're talking about?
14 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yeah, 24 to 25 --
15 MR. LODGE: Okay.
16 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: -- in your petition.
17 MR. LODGE: Thank you. Please just give 18 me one moment here to analyze it.
19 (Pause.)
20 MR. LODGE: Well, once again, Your Honor, 21 I'd simply point out that even the state of 22 Wisconsin's analysis does not appear to encompass any 23 kind of analysis of climate change effects, which 24 resulted in its minimal impact finding.
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
78 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay, well, maybe we 1
should just go on. That discussion I just referred 2
you to broke down your question of insufficiency into 3
three parts. One of them I just said was localized 4
effects. The other was what I just mentioned, is 5
considering thermal in isolation. The third was the 6
use of what you refer to as ancient data.
7 And my question to you is why would data, 8
let's say of thermal discharges from other facilities 9
similar in energy release to Point Beach in Lake 10 Michigan, why would that not be relevant and why would 11 you consider that a lacking if you were to use data 12 from other facilities on Lake Michigan?
13 MR. LODGE: We're not saying that it is 14 irrelevant, but it is certainly not -- data from other 15 plants which may be located dozens, even hundreds of 16 miles away may have some pertinence, but it certainly 17 doesn't substitute for up to date local inventorying 18 of fish populations.
19 And I would point out, I mean, even 20 NextEra acknowledges in its pleadings that the 21 composition of the makeup of the fish populations that 22 were being entrained and impinged have changed 23 dramatically from the mid-70s to their most recent 24 surveys.
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
79 So, we're talking about certainly almost 1
a self-evident change in nearly half a century, and 2
that's why we believe that the data is dated or it is 3
only parts of years. I think I saw a study of about 4
120 days at one point and perhaps in the last 15 to 20 5
years. I think the 2017 survey was about seven or 6
seven and a half months.
7 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right, does the 8
staff have anything to add regarding that question of 9
using other data, even data as old as 1975?
10 MS. YOUNG: Judge Trikouros, I don't 11 believe the petitioner has raised a genuine dispute 12 regarding the adequacy of the data.
13 The operating history of the plant, which 14 they lament that it's been operating for 50 years or 15 a comparable period, is relevant. The past history is 16 relevant and data considered over a long period could 17 identify trends, excuse me, in terms of the 18 information presented.
19 So, the staff doesn't have a concern with 20 respect to that, but the petitioner does have the 21 burden to, you know, demonstrate that the information 22 in the ER is inadequate, and I believe today we're 23 hearing maybe perhaps for the first time, concerns 24 about climate change.
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
80 I think if you look at the environmental 1
report, you will see that the cumulative impacts 2
analysis which you appear to be familiar with does 3
consider climate change also.
4 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yes, I think the issue 5
of climate change has not come up until now. That was 6
not raised in any of the documentation that I saw 7
anyway or from the petitioner. Does NextEra have 8
anything to say about the use of other data, 9
historical or otherwise?
10 MR. LEWIS: Again, all the data is used, 11 so not just 1975, and again, there was data obtained 12 on entrainment and impingement in 1975, 1976, further 13 data obtained in 2005, 2006, and further data obtained 14 in 2017. So, any suggestion that we're just or the 15 state is just relying on 1975 just is unsupported.
16 Again, the assertion that the data somehow 17 is insufficient needs to be supported by some 18 technical support to demonstrate a genuine material 19 dispute. There is none here. It's simply counsel's 20 characterization. There's no expert opinion or other 21 document that suggests the data is inadequate.
22 And further, that determination about the 23 sufficiency of the data really is a matter for the 24 state to make, and if the state has made 316(a) and 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
81 316(b) determinations based on that data, it would be 1
wrong for the NRC to say, you know, we're not going to 2
credit those determinations because we have a 3
different view.
4 I'm pretty sure in one of the cases, and 5
maybe it was the Seabrook, the staff had actually 6
proposed requiring further monitoring after the state 7
had made, I think it was for Seabrook, the finding on 8
the intake structure, and the Commission reversed it, 9
the staff saying no, that's in fact seeking to impose 10 a further requirement, you know, that the state didn't 11 require and is precluded by Section 511.
12 I can't give you the citation, but that's 13 my recollection of the holding by the Commission in 14 probably the last Seabrook case on 511.
15 I do want to also echo what Ms. Young said 16 about climate change not having been raised. It 17 wasn't raised in the context of contention one in any 18 of the pleadings.
19 It's too late to do so, but there's also 20 no factual support or technical support to indicate 21 that climate change is going to have a significant 22 impact on Lake Michigan in a manner that's going to 23 impact fish.
24 You know, that's a technical matter by 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
82 itself, and in some cases, climate change causes more 1
precipitation, and in some cases causes less. The 2
temperature may increase in one place and decrease in 3
another, and simply, you know, waving the climate 4
change flag doesn't demonstrate a genuine material 5
dispute.
6 Ms. Young was also correct that climate 7
change is addressed in our ER. For the reference, 8
it's at page 4-55 in the context of aquatic impacts.
9 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right, I think we've 10 said enough about it. Let me move onto one more quick 11 question. The staff in their answer at page 21, I 12 believe, and I'm going to read this, it says NRC 13 regulations implementing NEPA instruct the license 14 renewal applicant as well as the staff to consider 15 environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed 16 action and alternatives available for reducing or 17 avoiding adverse environmental effects.
18 And it goes on to say NRC regulations 19 applicable to subsequent license renewal, however, do 20 not specify the alternative actions or mitigation 21 measures that must be considered, so I don't quite 22 understand that.
23 Are you saying that there's a difference 24 between license renewal requirements and subsequent 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
83 license renewal requirements in terms of mitigation, 1
in terms of alternatives?
2 I
read it
- directly, so it does 3
specifically say regulations applicable to subsequent 4
license renewal, however do not specify, so that was 5
confusing to me.
6 MS. YOUNG: Yes, Judge Trikouros. The 7
however there was only to emphasize that the 8
regulations do not specify consideration of a specific 9
alternative, so neither the general regulations or 10 instructions for an applicant specify that a specific 11 alternative be considered, nor the license renewal 12 application.
13 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right, so I was 14 getting more out of that than you meant?
15 MS. YOUNG: Yes, perhaps it could have 16 been worded better to convey the staff's position, but 17 that was our attempt to just generally record that 18 there's no specific recommendation as to what 19 alternative was considered. It's going to be to at 20 least on the standard of NEPA.
21 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay, that's the extent 22 of my questions on contention one.
23 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Yeah, petitioner, is the 24 heart of contention two that Point Beach is not in 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
84 compliance with General Design Criteria 14, not at the 1
present time and not for the period of extended 2
operation, Mr. Lodge?
3 MR. LODGE: Yes, it is. It's our 4
contention that since we must deal with the 5
circumstances of the present and make projections as 6
to the next 20 years, I think the answer to your 7
question is yes.
8 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, but doesn't the 9
Point Beach application contain, you know, multiple 10 material surveillance programs? I think just by my 11 rough count, there were five specific programs in the 12 application to address things like the reactor coolant 13 boundary pressure issues and other such things going 14 forward?
15 MR. LODGE: Yes, there's surveillance 16 arrangements in place, but not on reactor pressure 17 vessel embrittlement, and that's a huge problem 18 because there's such a policy going back more now than 19 20 years as to the status of Unit 2 in particular, 20 which incidentally is metallurgically somewhat 21 different from the reactor vessel and the internals of 22 Unit 1.
23 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Don't these, I guess, 24 surveillance programs that are referenced in the 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
85 subsequent license renewal application at 4.2.1 1
through 4.2.5, don't those surveillance programs 2
address the embrittlement issue that you raise in 3
contention two?
4 MR. LODGE: Well, Your Honor, first of 5
all, I just want to point out something that our 6
expert, Arnie Gundersen, noted in his initial opinion 7
letter, which is that the problem with embrittlement 8
and thermal shock problems is that the utility 9
response -- the plant operators have to respond 10 perfectly in a vanishingly short time period.
11 The utility does not understand any more 12 than we do the embrittlement status. It's optimistic 13 and hypothetical and computer modeled. It hasn't --
14 the data has not been subjected to physical data 15 checks for, again, more than two decades.
16 I
- mean, it's fine that there's 17 surveillance, but when we're talking about going into 18 the uncharted future of 80 years of operation and 19 this, as I pointed out, all of the other seriously 20 embrittled reactors will be gone by 2024.
21 They will be shut down assuming no 22 disaster between now and 2024, but this one wants to 23 go another 29 years, pardon me, yeah, that's right, 29 24 years.
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
86 CHAIR FROEHLICH: You know, the petition 1
alleges that, quote, there are a number of error-prone 2
analytical calculations that we're relied upon. What 3
specific calculations are you referring to there and, 4
you know, why are they error-prone?
5 MR. LODGE: Well, they're error-prone 6
because of the fact that they are computer models and 7
simulations, and they're as good as the underlying 8
assumptions, and the underlying assumptions in 20 9
years have not included any known physical data, so 10 you're building projection upon hypothetical 11 projection and the assumptions are optimistic.
12 And again, I would point out it is 13 troubling. The EPRI disclosures are very troubling 14 for that very reason, that we don't know how over 15 optimistic the pressurized water reactor EPRI software 16 might be.
17 CHAIR FROEHLICH: How do we get, Mr.
18 Lodge, past the argument that's been raised in 19 response to contention two, that this is merely, you 20 know, an attack on the current licensing basis of the 21 plant?
22 MR. LODGE: We have to go with -- the 23 problem is that the current licensing basis is 24 difficult, is troublesome. We're talking about flying 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
87 blind right now and talking about building assumptions 1
that it's okay to continue to fly blind for 20 extra 2
years, for in effect 30 years.
3 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Maybe Ms. Leidich can 4
help me on this. Can you explain how the Capsule A 5
material affects the, you know, surveillance programs 6
going forward and the types of analysis that can be 7
made or, you know, or that Capsule A would be used for 8
in the period of extended operation?
9 MS. LEIDICH: Yes, Your Honor. I'm 10 getting a bit of an echo there. Hopefully that stops.
11 I'd just like to first address that this 12 is not actually a computer model. We're using the 13 calculation that's set forth in Reg Guide 1.99, 14 Revision 2, and that's in the rule, specifically in 10 15 CFR 50.61 which has the embrittlement curves that we 16 use.
17 The additional data from the surveillance 18 capsule is used to check what the rule states is the 19 calculation and what's in the reg guide.
20 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, and is there an 21 analysis of pressurized thermal shock in the 22 application? Is that addressed?
23 MS. LEIDICH: Yes, pressurized thermal 24 shock is addressed in the application and we are 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
88 screened out under 10 CFR 50.61.
1 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, and would that be 2
the Section 4.2-6 where I'd see that analysis?
3 MS. LEIDICH: It is in a variety of areas, 4
but I believe that is the section. I'm just going to 5
the same spot that you were on.
6 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, thank you.
7 MS. LEIDICH: Yes, that is correct.
8 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, okay, while we're 9
on this, maybe you can tell me, the application of 10 that EPRI
- report, which is an analysis of 11 embrittlement in BWRs, how, if at all, are the 12 findings of that report applicable to the type of 13 reactor at Point Beach, a pressurized water reactor?
14 MS. LEIDICH: We would say that they're 15 not applicable to contention two. Contention two is 16 specifically about the reactor vessel itself, and the 17 reactor vessel is subject to lower fluids than the 18 reactor internals are subject to.
19 The EPRI document references a potential 20 issue with BWR calculations at a higher fluence value 21 than what the reactor vessel itself is actually 22 subjected to.
23 Additionally, it applies to stainless 24 steel, not carbon steel, which the reactor vessel is 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
89 made of carbon steel. It's a computer code. The 1
reactor vessel calculations are based on a reg guide.
2 And in terms of reactor vessel internals, 3
those were not part of petitioner's initial 4
contention. I would say it's untimely to the extent 5
that they're attempting to add them at this late date, 6
especially in terms of the vessel, the bolts that were 7
the issue, has been around for decades, but I really 8
don't see any relevance of the EPRI report to 9
contention two as it exists.
10 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, Mr. Lodge, I'd 11 just like to know if you have any response to Ms.
12 Leidich's answers to my questions before I turn it 13 over to Judges Arnold and Trikouros?
14 MR. LODGE: I believe in our motion to 15 amend that we did address reactor internals. I'm 16 trying to find that right now. If you would proceed, 17 Your Honor, with the other parties, that would be fine 18 if I could come back to that.
19 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, Judge Arnold, do 20 you have any questions of any of the parties on 21 contention two?
22 JUDGE ARNOLD: Yes, I have. Let me start 23 asking this of NextEra. On page seven of petitioner's 24 reply, petitioners state, quote, Point Beach has 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
90 admitted that it has inadequate physical samples in 1
the form of metal capsules/coupons to enable 2
metallurgical testing through 80 years of operation, 3
unquote. Do you agree that Point Beach has made this 4
statement?
5 MS. LEIDICH: We do not agree that Point 6
Beach has made that admission. I am not at all sure 7
what petitioners are referring to when they make that 8
statement. In fact, in our answer, we noted that 9
there is a supplemental surveillance capsule with 10 additional material in the reactor that will be tested 11 at the end of life fluence.
12 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, thank you. Let me go 13 to petitioners now. Regarding this statement on page 14 seven, you neglected in your reply to cite where 15 NextEra made this admission. Could you tell me where 16 or what is the source of this information?
17 MR. LODGE: The source of the information 18 is that the plant was supposed to operate for 40 19 years. Capsules were installed with that in mind. A 20 couple of samples are sitting in the spent fuel pool 21 that are now well over 20 years in age and are only of 22 historical interest at all.
23 And the one possible remaining sample as 24 to each unit that is left is not planned to be 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
91 analyzed for several years to come. I'm thinking I 1
believe I saw 2024 or after, which is certainly not of 2
any relevance to the licensing board making a decision 3
on this contention right now. This is why a hearing 4
is needed.
5 And also just for the record, I have 6
identified in our motion to amend contention two on 7
page five, there is -- we certainly did reference 8
degraded conditions of a reactor's internals subject 9
to high neutron fluence levels. There may be other 10 references, but we did raise the topic in the 11 pleadings.
12 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, let me just continue 13 on with the subject I had. So, you're saying that 14 Point Beach has not made the admission it has 15 inadequate physical samples. Rather, it's your 16 interpretation of the current status of samples that 17 they don't have adequate samples, is that correct?
18 MR. LODGE: Yes, our view is that the fact 19 of no scientific data going back so many years speaks 20 for itself and that it is an implicit admission.
21 Inaction in this circumstance, which is rather urgent, 22 is certainly, it's a valid inference that they are 23 admitting that they aren't working from data. They're 24 working from projections.
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
92 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, let me ask NextEra.
1 Earlier, I heard that you have an aging management 2
program and time-limited aging analysis that addressed 3
vessel embrittlement, and that those TLAAs and aging 4
management plan program agree with guidance documents.
5 When you say guidance documents, are you specifically 6
referring to the GALL report?
7 MS. LEIDICH: I believe we're referring to 8
9 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, also on page 30 of 10 your answer to the petition, you discuss withdrawal of 11 supplement A surveillance capsule. Now, what I got 12 out of that was that your aging management plan 13 removes the supplement A surveillance capsule and 14 tests the end of life fluence, and it does so before 15 the start of the second period of extended operation, 16 is that correct?
17 MS. LEIDICH: Your Honor, I just wanted to 18 note that we're getting feedback that the main phone 19 line had dropped for the public.
20 That said, the supplemental surveillance 21 capsule is currently expected to be tested in 22 approximately 2035 once it reaches the end of life 23 fluence for the subsequent period of operation.
24 JUDGE ARNOLD: Will that be in the current 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
93 period of extended operation or the next period?
1 MS. LEIDICH: It will be shortly into the 2
next period of operation.
3 JUDGE ARNOLD: Shortly into, okay. To a 4
large extent, isn't this what petitioners are asking 5
for you to do?
6 MS. LEIDICH: Your Honor, the rule allows 7
us to -- the rule, 10 CFR 50, Appendix H, relies on 8
the capsule testing criteria of ASTM E 185. ASTM E 9
185 only requires that the first four capsules of the 10 reactor be tested, and that a fifth capsule exists in 11 the unit for subsequent testing once it reaches end of 12 life fluence.
13 We're in compliance with the rule right 14 now. To the extent that the petitioners want 15 something different from that, it's a challenge to the 16 NRC rule.
17 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, are coupons from 18 other reactor vessels sufficiently representative of 19 the Point Beach vessel steel that their examination 20 would provide useful information?
21 MS. LEIDICH: Tests from other reactors do 22 provide some useful information in terms of Linde 80 23 weld information. However, the surveillance capsule 24 that's currently in Unit 2 actually has the most 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
94 limiting material in terms of radiation embrittlement 1
for both units.
2 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, that's the end of my 3
questions. Judge Trikouros?
4 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Unmute yourself, Judge 5
Trikouros.
6 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yes, I apologize. My 7
router dropped me twice in the last ten or 12 minutes, 8
so I might have or certainly did miss something, but, 9
yes, I do have some questions regarding contention 10 two.
11 I believe while I was gone, you discussed 12 the use of the surveillance capsules, correct, 13 specifically that capsule that's labeled A, is that 14 correct?
15 MS. LEIDICH: That's correct.
16 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Well, let me just ask --
17 that's correct. This radiation surveillance program 18 that's mentioned in the, I believe it's mentioned in 19 the filings and also in the application, could someone 20
-- let me ask the staff specifically.
21 Could you please say something about that 22 and how it's applicable to the accuracy of the Point 23 Beach embrittlement calculations?
24 MR. WACHUTKA: Your Honor, the staff's 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
95 understanding of the application, and the applicant 1
may be able to speak better to that however, is that 2
as I discussed previously, right, this brings in the 3
NRC's regulations as the first level which discuss 4
neutron embrittlement and how it should be covered at 5
all times.
6 Then the guidance documents discuss one 7
way to deal safely with the neutron embrittlement 8
during the subsequent licensing period, and these 9
guidance documents like GALL, as was previously 10 mentioned, and NUREG 21.92 as well, they discuss, you 11 know, different ways that could satisfy the pertinent 12 regulations during the subsequent licensing period, 13 and these discuss things such as withdrawing the 14 capsule and such as considering information from other 15 facilities' capsules.
16 So, really what this goes back to is that 17 this is the basis for everything, and under the 18 contention admissibility requirements, which are 19 strict by design, the burden is on the petitioner to 20 challenge all of this, and the petitioner doesn't 21 challenge any of this.
22 The petitioner doesn't discuss 23 supplemental capsule A until its reply. The 24 petitioner doesn't discuss, you know, how the 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
96 applicant is consistent with the guidance documents 1
specific to regulations.
2 So, the NRC staff, the main thing is our 3
understanding is that the information is there. The 4
applicant can speak more to the information, but our 5
understanding is also that the petitioner doesn't 6
point to that information, they just receive that 7
information.
8 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right, so the -- I 9
understand. My understanding, and please correct me 10 if this is not right, is that the applicant or NextEra 11 uses what I assume is a Westinghouse computer code 12 called RAPTOR-M3G, which is a neutronic transport 13 model similar to, I guess, for, you know, (audio 14 interference) models, also a cross-section called 15 BUGLE-96, which I assume also was a Westinghouse code.
16 I'm not sure, but I assume that.
17 And they used that to determine the 18 fluence calculations for a bunch of components, 19 including, well, for a bunch of components on the 20 vessel wall and around the vessel wall as well.
21 That's a rather detailed model from what I could see.
22 And that fluence is then used in Reg Guide 23 1.99 and 10 CFR 50.61 to come up with the actual 24 numbers, the temperature numbers, whether or not the 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
97 screening criteria were met. Does that sound about 1
right? I'll ask the applicant, or NextEra, I'm sorry.
2 MS.
LEIDICH:
- Yes, that is my 3
understanding of how it works.
4 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right, so the 5
connection to the EPRI problem is that stainless steel 6
material testing that they did independently showed 7
that when they applied the calculations to that data, 8
that it was not conservative, and when I say the 9
calculations, what I mean is the, you know, the 50.61 10 part of it is --
11 They have their own 50.61 type analytical 12 procedure apparently in the BWRVIP program which uses 13 then the material property, the material effects of 14 embrittlement and the fluence to make, to basically do 15 the same calculation, but they're doing it on 16 different components than the vessel wall.
17 So, from that point of view, could there 18 be applicability in the sense that the computer codes 19 that are used by NextEra should be validated? Now, 20 I'm assuming since all computer codes of this 21 importance are validated, that they have their own 22 separate verification and validation program. Can you 23 address that in any way?
24 MS. LEIDICH: Sure, so 10 CFR 50.61 only 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
98 applies to pressure reactor vessel material. It's not 1
used for stainless steel reactor internals. The 2
stainless steel reactor internal calculation is done 3
by a computer code as the EPRI and letter indicates.
4 The reactor vessel calculation is 5
performed in accordance with an NRC reg guide, Reg 6
Guide 1.99, Rev. 2. It's not a computer code 7
calculation. It's done in terms of the reg guide, and 8
we use the embrittlement curve that's in the rule 10 9
CFR 50.61, so it's a different sort of analysis 10 frankly. They're not really on par with one another.
11 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Right, and I guess the 12 BWRVIP computer code that's in question is analogous 13 to the 50.61 evaluations for the PWR PTS issue.
14 I mean, I'm just trying to relate the EPRI 15 letter to Point Beach. The fluence calculations are 16 fluence calculations. Wherever you do them in the 17 world, they are fluence calculations, and I don't 18 that's in question.
19 So, the only issue then is the 20 verification and validation of the calculations in 21 50.61. I mean, this is a regulation that's providing 22 equations, and those equations are not up for question 23 24 MS. LEIDICH: Yes.
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
99 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: -- is that correct?
1 MS. LEIDICH: Yeah, so what I was going to 2
say is that 10 CFR 50.61 is not an issue in this 3
proceeding because it's a rule.
4 In terms of the embrittlement trend curves 5
that are in the rule, it's based on all of the 6
surveillance capsule data and test reactor data that 7
they have, but the petitioners would have to seek a 8
waiver to challenge that rule in this proceeding and 9
it's not really fit for challenge here.
10 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Right, so, and the part 11 of the EPRI BWRVIP program that appears to be in 12 question in that letter is the part that does 13 calculations that are similar. I don't mean exactly 14 the same clearly, but similar to the 50.61 and Reg 15 Guide 1.99 portion of this.
16 It's clear to me that no one is 17 questioning the fluence calculations, so therefore, 18 challenging -- the only thing you could challenge at 19 this point seems to be 50.61 and Reg Guide 1.99, and 20 so what you're saying is you would need a waiver at 21 this point to challenge that?
22 MS. LEIDICH: I think that's a fair 23 characterization of the EPRI report and how it might 24 apply in this situation is that it would be a 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
100 challenge to the rule.
1 MR. LEWIS: Judge Trikouros, could I add 2
something? My understanding of the non-conservatism 3
that's identified in the EPRI letter is it relates to 4
the critical stress intensity factor for stainless 5
steel above a certain fluence level, and that, you 6
know, it's the point at which it fractures.
7 The determination was that that critical 8
stress intensity factor was non-conservative at a high 9
level. We're not using that stress intensity factor 10 in any evaluation of any flaw, so it really does have 11 no applicability to Point Beach.
12 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Right, so agreed. The 13 calculation is totally different (audio interference) 14 but the question would -- I think that the amended 15 contention two is asking is without sufficient 16 verification, there might be an error that only 17 verification and validation would catch.
18 In the case of the EPRI program, they 19 commissioned separate testing in what appears to be a 20 program to validate their calculation, and they found 21 that the calculations were not correct, but in our 22 case, those calculations are a rule, a federal, you 23 know, regulation.
24 MR. LEWIS: Well, and beyond that, there's 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
101 the supplemental capsule that gets taken out, you 1
know, very shortly into the period of extended 2
operation and actually tested to validate, and under 3
the PTS rule, you've got to use whichever is more 4
limiting.
5 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Right, so the use of 6
surveillance capsules provides validation, and the 7
petitioner seems to be questioning that those capsules 8
were not available for the (audio interference) years 9
of operation of the plant, and the reply came back or 10 the response came back that, in fact, there is a 11 capsule that has equivalent full power years of 12 fluence that's equivalent to the end of the extended 13 life period, is that correct?
14 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
15 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right, thank you.
16 Now, for the petitioner, I have a question regarding 17 the statement that I believe was made by Mr.
18 Gundersen. It's on page 36 of the petition.
19 It says the NRC's approach to increasing 20 neutron embrittlement has been to develop new operator 21 administrative controls, and then it goes on to say 22 that the operator has to implement those controls 23 perfectly or the reactor vessel will experience 24 cracking.
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
102 I don't understand what these new operator 1
administrative controls are. Can someone from the --
2 Mr. Lodge, can you help me with that?
3 MR. LODGE: Well, Your Honor, I will 4
answer as best I can. I want to point out we're 5
trying the contention here. We're actually haggling 6
over evidence or haggling over the lack of evidence 7
where we believe we've certainly articulated 8
sufficient facts and law to warrant the contention 9
being admitted for trial, at which point we could 10 provide expert explanation and articulation on that 11 point.
12 My answer is that reactor operators are 13 taught, among other things, I'm sure, to try to spot 14 and anticipate operational problems and to react when 15 they see a certain combination of temperature, and 16 pressure, and other readings or indicators.
17 And so this evolves with the increasingly 18 suspected or verified embrittlement problems, the 19 pressurized thermal shock. I hope and suspect that 20 there is operator retraining of some sort, operator 21 preparation of some sort.
22 So, I would submit that our expert's 23 opinion that the operators have to respond perfectly 24 is valid because of the inevitable aging metallurgical 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
103 embrittlement that is occurring that no one can 1
genuinely dispute.
2 So, you end up having to rely with analog 3
systems and human responsiveness. You have to hope 4
that that is enough.
5 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right, let me just 6
elaborate on this a little bit. It says in the 7
petition that these administrative controls require 8
the reactor operators to raise the reactor's 9
temperature before increasing the pressure, and that's 10 true.
11 That's true of a boiling water reactor.
12 That's true of a pressurized water reactor. In the 13 startup procedures, you have to do that, and the 14 operator does it.
15 I don't understand what's new about that.
16 They've been doing that since a long time. Since as 17 long as there have been reactors, they've been doing 18 that.
19 In
- addition, there are pressure 20 temperature limits on the pressurized water reactor 21 side that have to be adhered to, and when 22 embrittlement gets worse, those pressure temperature 23 limits change, as does the startup procedure nil 24 ductility temperature.
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
104 So, but the operator has and always will, 1
until we operate nuclear reactors with computers that 2
is, have the responsibility to follow those 3
requirements.
4 So, I don't see anything new and I'm just 5
trying to understand if I'm missing something here, 6
that the NRC implements something new administratively 7
to overcome a technical problem, and I don't see it 8
and I wanted to get some clarification on that.
9 That's all.
10 MR. LODGE: Well, Your Honor, this is 11 Terry Lodge. The nil ductility is getting more 12 confining as the reactor ages. What's new here is 13 that embrittlement and pressurized thermal shock risks 14 are becoming more and more heightened, and such that 15 errors, human errors are less forgiving.
16 It's not just a matter of the startup 17 procedures. You need to be able to follow up in the 18 event of an accident or an anticipatory set of data 19 that present themselves and suggest an accident may be 20 nearing.
21 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right, thank you 22 very much. I think that would be sufficient for me.
23 I have no more questions on contention two.
24 JUDGE ARNOLD: Judge Froehlich, you're 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
105 muted.
1 CHAIR FROEHLICH: I was just going to ask 2
you, Judge Arnold, if you had any follow-up questions 3
or if we can move on to Contention 3.
4 JUDGE ARNOLD: I'm ready to move on.
5 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. Okay, then.
6 So, Mr. Lodge, is there a statutory or a 7
regulatory requirement that the full potential for 8
renewable energy sources be evaluated in an ER?
9 MR. LODGE: No. However, there are --
10 there are regulatory requirements about an honest and 11 hard look at alternatives be manifested in the ER and 12 ultimately the NEPA document from which it might be 13 derived.
14 CHAIR FROEHLICH: And is there any 15 specific number of alternatives that must be evaluated 16 in an ER?
17 MR. LODGE: No. The -- I would say that 18 the guardrail there is reasonableness, and we believe, 19 as -- as Your Honor ruled in 2011, that serious 20 consideration of the commercial viability of 21 photovoltaic solar and, of course, other alternatives 22 is here. And it's been here for quite a while and is 23
-- photovoltaic solar, as we amply demonstrated in our 24 petition, is making serious inroads between now and 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
106 2030, now and 2033, the expiration dates of the -- the 1
current license extension for Point Beach.
2 So we believe that it's utterly reasonable 3
for a serious commercial technology that has -- has 4
really tough implications for aging dinosaur baseload 5
plants -- that there is -- there's certainly something 6
that has to be dealt with in the NEPA document.
7 CHAIR FROEHLICH: With that in mind, can 8
you reconcile, I guess, that approach with what the 9
Commission said in the Davis -- what the Commission 10 said in the Davis-Besse license renewal proceeding?
11 MR. LODGE: Yes.
12 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay.
13 MR. LODGE: First of all, it's ten years 14 later. And, as I indicated, the -- the very 15 unfortunate aspect of the Commission's ruling was that 16 they actually conducted something tantamount to a 17 trial on the merit. They made a determination that in 18
-- at this point in time, the -- the commercial 19 viability of -- of the alternatives as a substitute 20 for baseload central-fired power is not shown.
21 We believe -- and would have believed at 22 the time, I -- I recall -- that there absolutely 23 should be a hearing for scientific and other 24 associated technical information to come before the --
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
107 the Licensing Board.
1 CHAIR FROEHLICH: The Commission in -- in 2
Davis-Besse was looking towards the commercial 3
viability and, I guess, the existence of alternative 4
use for baseload power. And now, as -- as you state, 5
we're -- we're a few years down the road. What is the 6
status, I guess, of a solar proposal such as you 7
suggest in Contention 3? Does -- does -- does that 8
exist anywhere in -- in the world for baseload power?
9 MR. LODGE: I -- if you're talking about 10 is there a direct -- is there an aggregation of solar 11 photovoltaic cells in the immediate vicinity of a 12 power plant that are deemed to be a substitute for 13 baseload? I can't cite something really specific like 14 that.
15 But I can tell you that the -- that the 16 evolution that is happening to regional and national 17 grids, especially in the United States, is becoming a 18 way of supplanting local or regional baseload plants.
19 The -- the idea is adaptability and resilience, that 20 when there is a -- a relatively fast-emerging demand 21 in a particular region, it is far easier and less 22 dangerous to increase the amount of the dispersion of 23 photovoltaic or wind or even conservation measures.
24 And -- and the adaptability, particularly 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
108 of photovoltaic, is remarkable and happening. I -- I 1
-- I listened to the rebuttals about all of the 2
impossibility of land use and finding enough space and 3
all that for solar photovoltaic, and yet we're not 4
analyzing it and talking about it meaningfully in 5
terms of installing renewables close to the source 6
where the power is used, talking about converting 7
parking lots into solar-collecting asphalt, or roofs 8
or brownfields in cities. But the -- the -- or using 9
rights of way where there are existing power lines 10 which consume hundreds of acres.
11 So I guess what I'm saying is -- is that, 12 no, I can't point to a specific region that had been 13 identified as a photovoltaic substitute for a power 14 plant. But I think that the larger picture suggests 15 that it's happening, and it's happening very rapidly, 16 Duane Arnold being a really good example. There's --
17 there's more capacity planned photovoltaicly than 18 Duane Arnold provided.
19 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. Let me ask --
20 sort of follow up with your answer to -- to the 21 Licensee. Why was a proposal like the one suggested 22 by the Petitioner here not considered in -- in -- in 23 the ER?
24 MS. LEIDICH: I think in terms of the 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
109 proposal that Petitioners have set forth, on its face, 1
as a practical matter, it's simply difficult to find 2
the land for it. Right now, Petitioner is espousing 3
the possibility of putting it in rights of way, in 4
parking lots, but that's a possibility; it's a 5
hypothetical scenario. That doesn't mean that it's a 6
practical alternative that can be implemented in time 7
to replace these units at the scale necessary for 8
baseline production.
9 CHAIR FROEHLICH: So your bottom line is 10 that the proposal is not a reasonable alternative.
11 It's not a viable alternative. Is -- is that correct?
12 MS. LEIDICH: I think -- yes, and I think 13 as a practical matter that it could not be implemented 14 in time to replace these units as a reasonable 15 alternative to relicensing.
16 CHAIR FROEHLICH: While we're talking 17 about alternatives, then, the ER considers an 18 alternative which, if I understand it, is stringing 19 together 21 SMRs to replace the output of -- of the 20 Point Beach facility. Is that -- is that correct?
21 MS. LEIDICH: I'd have to go back and 22 look. I don't know. I didn't specifically look at 23 that alternative.
24 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Well, I mean, this --
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
110 this -- this alternative, I mean, if I -- if I did 1
read it correctly, involved stringing together 21 SMRs 2
to -- and this was one that was -- was considered in 3
the ER.
4 Mr. Lewis, is that -- is that correct? Is 5
that the alternative that was analyzed?
6 MR. LEWIS: I -- I can't remember. It's 7
more than one module. I don't know if it's 21. It's 8
one plant, though. It's not 65 square miles of land, 9
which was the basis for eliminating the photovoltaic, 10 plus storage contention. That -- that scenario was 11 looked at, and it was just -- the land use was 12 prohibited. I don't think you have that same issue 13 with the SMR.
14 But I -- but I -- I don't recall off the 15 top of my head what the land acreage was, and I do 16 think it was one -- one plant and not 61 plants or 17 however many you said.
18 CHAIR FROEHLICH: I see. And this -- this 19 alternative that -- in the ER involving SMRs, does --
20 does such a -- an alternative currently exist? I 21 mean, is -- is this commercially viable? At what 22 stage of development is this alternative?
23 MS. LEIDICH: I think that, you know, the 24 Applicant can look at alternatives that it chooses to 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
111 look at to some extent. What we're here to -- to 1
discuss is the alternative that was set forth by 2
Petitioners and whether they have done enough to 3
establish the alternatives that they want discussed as 4
a practical matter, and B, a reasonable alternative to 5
relicensing.
6 MR. LEWIS: I -- I'm just thinking on the 7
SMR. I believe NuScale's SMR has the design 8
certification or is going into the rulemaking for a 9
design certification. So it's fairly advanced, and 10 there have been ESPs that have looked at small modular 11 reactors.
12 If you eliminated that alternative from 13 consideration, that wouldn't affect, you know, the 14 determination of whether Point Beach's renewal is 15 within the range of reasonable alternatives. So you 16 could, but it's an alternative that people are looking 17 at.
18 Again, on the photovoltaic alternative, 19 photovoltaic power coupled with battery storage, you 20 know, the issue there was not, you know, can you use 21 photovoltaics? I mean, clearly you can. The issue 22 was, you know, is the land use in order to try and 23 replace the sort of capacity for -- for the -- like 24 Point Beach, reasonable -- and again, it was, by 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
112 Petitioner's own expert's admission, some 65 square 1
miles. I think it's 44,000 acres.
2 And when you start looking at -- that's 3
the predicate for Petitioner's contention. That is 4
the land use that they say is reasonable. And they 5
say, well, don't worry about the land use because you 6
can just put it on rooftops or put it on the sensitive 7
farmland.
8 So the issue there defaults to, you know, 9
is it really reasonable to assume that, you know, this 10 is a -- a -- an alternative that's feasible because 11 you could, you know, just put it on 87 percent of the 12 households in the state or on, you know, umpty-13 thousand commercial buildings? And we have the 14 numbers in our answer.
15 That's why this contention is -- is not 16 reasonable. And, you know, that predicate's not 17 established by the Petitioner.
18 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
19 I was only concerned to address the issues that the 20 Commission raised in the Davis-Besse case.
21 (Simultaneous speaking.)
22 CHAIR FROEHLICH: I say I was only asking 23 and trying to follow up on alternatives that are 24 considered in light of what the Commission said in the 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
113 Davis-Besse case where we are to look at the --
1 whether these alternatives exist anywhere in the 2
world, whether they're capable of providing, you know, 3
baseload power, or are they merely theoretical models?
4 And I was -- I was, I guess, concerned and wondering 5
if the alternative that was considered in the ER is 6
more than a theoretical model.
7 MR. LEWIS: I think the standard that the 8
Commission set forth -- and it may not have been in --
9 in Davis-Besse. It may have been in the Seabrook case 10 I'm more familiar with, but it's alternatives that, 11 you know, exist now or will in the near future and 12 obviously involves, you know, some judgment.
13 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. Okay.
14 Judge Arnold or Judge Trikouros, do you 15 have questions on Contention 3?
16 JUDGE ARNOLD: Yes, I have.
17 MR. LODGE: Judge Froehlich -- Judge 18 Froehlich -- pardon me. This is Terry Lodge. I -- I 19 can briefly reply to the things that were just said.
20 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Absolutely. Please.
21 Judge Arnold, just hold for one moment.
22 Go ahead, Mr. Lodge.
23 MR. LODGE: First of all, I want to point 24 out that Dr. Mark Cooper, our economics expert who is 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
114 a longtime analyst of the invasion of renewables into 1
the commercial utility
- market, has stated 2
unequivocally in his expert opinion and unrebutted 3
that, absolutely, there is more than ample time 4
between now and 2030 and 2033, i.e. the end of the 60-5 year operating period for Point Beach, to see 6
photovoltaic take over the role of central --
7 centralized baseload kinds of power.
8 Also, what -- what is so ironic here is 9
that in Manatee County, Florida, NextEra is doing what 10 we're talking about. They have the largest battery 11 backup storage system, apparently, so far commercially 12 on the planet. They are developing a direct baseload-13 type competition to what we're talking about with 14 conventional, aging, dangerous nuclear power plants.
15 And I -- I keep thinking of all the 16 rooftops downwind of Point Beach if the reactor 17 operators don't get it right, if there's a -- a 18 pressurized thermal shock event.
19 Thank you.
20 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you.
21 Judge Arnold, please proceed.
22 JUDGE ARNOLD: Well, I -- I want to thank 23 you for that excellent lead-in for my first question.
24 This is for Petitioners.
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
115 On page 50 of your Petitioner -- petition, 1
you cite your expert, Dr. Cooper, as saying, quote, 2
lead time necessary to ensure the operation of the 3
21st century system is more than adequate between now 4
and 2030 for Point Beach Unit 1 and 2033 for Point 5
Beach Unit 2.
6 And you cite this from page 5 of Dr.
7 Cooper's declaration. I wanted to learn about that, 8
so I went to page 5 of Dr. Cooper's declaration, and 9
I found that what it says at that point is, quote, in 10 Section 4, I conclude that lead time necessary to 11 ensure the operation of a 21st century system is more 12 than adequate between now and 2030 for Point Beach 13 Unit 1 and 2033 for Point Beach Unit 2.
14 That being what you cited was a summary of 15 what he says is included in Section 4 of his -- of his 16 declaration. I went to Section 4 of that declaration, 17 and I found absolutely no mention of lead time or 18 nothing that would support his conclusion that there 19 is adequate lead time.
20 So, evidently, if that information exists, 21 it's somewhere else in -- in what has been provided.
22 Do you know where Dr. Cooper actually provides support 23 for his statement that there is adequate lead time?
24 MR. LODGE: Your Honor, I would request 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
116 having a few minutes to reconcile that and respond to 1
you.
2 JUDGE ARNOLD: Well, could we take maybe 3
a short break?
4 MR. LODGE: That would be fine.
5 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Sure. This would be a 6
good time to take -- take a short break to let Mr.
7 Lodge peruse through the pleadings and declarations.
8 Would ten minutes sound about right to all? Ten-9 minute break --
10 (Simultaneous speaking.)
11 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. Why don't -- why 12 don't we come back at 1:15? And we'll pick up 13 questioning on Contention 3. Okay. We'll be back at 14 1:15.
15 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 16 off the record at 1:03 p.m. and resumed at 1:16 p.m.)
17 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. Mr. Lodge, if 18 you're ready and if all parties and Judges Arnold and 19 Trikouros are ready, let us resume. I think there was 20 a question pending from Judge Arnold.
21 And, Mr. Lodge, you were -- you were going 22 to try to come up with an answer for him.
23 MR. LODGE: Yes, and thank you for -- for 24 indulging my request for time.
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
117 In reviewing Dr. Cooper's report and 1
Section 4 of it, I agree that he does not repeat that 2
conclusion. However, I would point to page 20 of his 3
report. First of all, Dr. Cooper made the observation 4
that Point Beach is afflicted with baseload myopia, 5
and he talks about that concept considerably, and he 6
-- and fleshes it out.
7 And at page 20, the concluding paragraph 8
of his observation is that I include these lengthy 9
exhibits, and those exhibits are 1 through -- well, 2 10 through 11, that talk about the enormous growth that 11 has -- historical growth projections and cost 12 differential and the increasing cheapness of 13 photovoltaic and photovoltaic as a source.
14 But anyway, he says, I include these 15 lengthy exhibits not only to show how much thinking 16 has gone into deployment of the new system but to 17 underscore a simple fact: the Point Beach Licensee 18 refused to consider these remarkable developments 19 because of its baseload myopia, which is unacceptable.
20 If it wants to challenge the ability of 21 the alternative system to meet need on a reliable 22 basis, it can do so, although experience shows it will 23 fail. It simply cannot ignore these developments, nor 24 should the regulators at federal and state levels.
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
118 That conclusion is backed up both 1
scientifically and practically by Dr. Compaan's report 2
and by Mr. Gundersen's report that, effectively, solar 3
photovoltaic is here, expanding very rapidly, and is 4
here to stay, and in fact here to predominate.
5 And -- and -- and we're talking -- may it 6
please the Board, we're talking in 2021, not 2011 7
anymore. There can be no serious doubt that 8
photovoltaic is replacing baseload plants. They are 9
closing. Point Beach will collapse as an economic 10 enterprise when the purchase power agreement goes 11 away. There won't be a lot of discussion by NextEra 12 about, oh my God, what will we do without the power?
13 It will simply disappear. Things are --
14 the utility system is living in a -- in a -- some sort 15 of pretend world where economics don't matter. But 16 they certainly matter to their investors, and they 17 certainly matter to the public that in the case of 18 Wisconsin is being overcharged in the next decade by 19 at least $5 billion, according to our unrebutted 20 expert opinion.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. Thank you.
23 My next question is for NextEra. On page 24 36 of your answer, you cite to the ER as saying, 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
119 quote, solar with energy storage was not considered 1
further as a discrete alternative due to the acreage 2
requirements.
3
- Now, that seems to be a
somewhat 4
conclusionary statement just going from this amount of 5
acres to saying that's not reasonable. Does NextEra 6
have sufficient expertise in solar power to make that 7
conclusion authoritatively?
8 MS. LEIDICH: I would say that out of all 9
of the utilities that are out there, NextEra perhaps 10 has the most expertise to make that conclusion, as has 11 been referenced by the Petitioners here. You know, 12 they have multiple solar facilities, and they have 13 significantly large solar facilities, some of the 14 largest in the United States.
15 I'm just going to note briefly also that 16 the ER references three reasons that solar is 17 rejected. The reason that we speak to acreage here is 18 because the analysis by Compaan attempts to address 19 the first two reasons but sort of only summarily 20 dismisses the third reason. So we focused on the 21 third reason for our response to the contention, but 22 there are three actual reasons that are -- it was 23 rejected.
24 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. Let's see. Chapter 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
120
-- oops. Somebody's echoing. Okay. Maybe it's gone.
1 Chapter 6 of the Environmental Report is 2
titled Summary of License Renewal Impacts. And I 3
looked through that, and I came to -- I -- I didn't 4
find any impact that was greater than small. So would 5
it be correct to overall summarize the environmental 6
impacts of continued operation of Point Beach as being 7
no greater than small?
8 MS. LEIDICH: I think that would be a fair 9
assertion. I haven't looked back at the table, the 10 summary table that's included in the report itself.
11 JUDGE ARNOLD: Well, I can tell you 12 there's nothing larger than small in there. So it 13 seems to me reasonable that --
14 MS. LEIDICH: Yes.
15 JUDGE ARNOLD: -- it's small. And on page 16 78 of the Environment Report, the land-use impacts of 17 a solar facility are characterized as moderate to 18 large. Is that correct?
19 MS. LEIDICH: Yes, That is correct.
20 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. So even if solar 21 with an energy storage was considered to be a 22 reasonable alternative, have you not already done 23 sufficient evaluation of the solar alternative to say 24 it is not preferable to -- environmentally preferable 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
121 to continued operation of Point Beach?
1 MS. LEIDICH: Can you repeat the question?
2 I think I misheard you.
3 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. You've said that 4
solar impact on land use is moderate to large, whereas 5
continued operation of Point Beach is small. Isn't 6
that enough to conclude that the environmental impacts 7
of solar are greater than the environmental impacts of 8
continued operation of Point Beach?
9 MS. LEIDICH: Yes, that's correct. I did 10 actually mishear you the first time, so I'm glad you 11 repeated the question. But yes. I think we would 12 state that the environmental impacts of solar have a 13 potential to be quite significant, given the amount of 14 land that would be required to be used, and that 15 that's greater than the license renewal of Point 16 Beach.
17 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. Now, let's see. One 18 last question for Petitioners.
19 I've looked through the contention, and 20 I've looked to see whether you assert that the 21 environmental impacts of license renewal would be 22 greater than small. And I haven't found any such 23 assertion, and I haven't found any assertion that the 24 land-use impacts of solar would be less than moderate.
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
122 So I don't see that you've actually challenged 1
anywhere the -- the comparison of the environmental 2
impacts of Point Beach versus solar.
3 Do you make any such explicit challenge 4
within your contention, and did I just miss it?
5 MR. LODGE: Yes, Your Honor. We did make 6
a very explicit contention in our reply memorandum, 7
and I'm trying to give you the exact page numbers.
8 Our reply in support of Contention 3 begins at page 13 9
and runs through 21 or 22.
10 In that, we talk -- first of all -- first 11 of all, I want to point out, once again, you're 12 calling upon us to litigate this contention here and 13 now, put all of our evidentiary cards on the table, 14 and assume the veracity of unnamed experts cited in a 15 vague way by NextEra, and you make a decision as to 16 admissibility based on whether we could win the trial.
17 And that I have to object to, Your Honor, as being an 18 inappropriate test of the petition.
19 But I'd like to point out that the -- the 20
-- NextEra exaggerates their -- the claimed problems 21 with industrial photovoltaic in favor of their small 22 findings. The -- the -- the fact that there may be a 23 moderate to large environmental impact is a judgment 24 determination when you don't have to realistically 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
123 delve into the possibilities of adapting lots of 1
unused land, lots of unused structures, rooftops and 2
whatnot, to photovoltaic when you don't have to 3
actually develop evidence that supports your blanket 4
conclusion that thousands of acres and impossible --
5 impossible problems will keep this from being 6
practical when, in fact -- when, in fact, NextEra 7
itself is proving the -- the coming era is here.
8 So the fact that, for instance, they call 9
the radiological effects of storing waste on-site 10 during the extended period a small impact is, yes, 11 technically accurate. But during the 20-year 12 extension period, they will be generating more high-13 level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, and low-14 level radioactive waste, all of which are problems, 15 and all of which the NRC concedes post-closure are 16 large problems.
17 So they're exaggerating their advantages 18 and exaggerating the disadvantages of consideration of 19 photovoltaic. You're asking us to prove that today.
20 I ask that the Licensing Board please review and 21 consider the arguments we make about small on pages 13 22 to 21 or 22 of our reply.
23 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. First off, I haven't 24 asked you to prove anything. I'm asking you to point 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
124 out where in your contention you make the challenge, 1
and apparently you didn't. You didn't -- you instead 2
refer to your reply, in which you can't make new 3
challenges or provide new information.
4 So I'm going to take it that your petition 5
does not challenge the small environmental impact of 6
Point Beach and does not challenge the medium to large 7
impact of solar, unless you can point me to something 8
in the petition that states otherwise.
9 MR. LODGE: With respect -- with respect, 10 Your Honor, there was no motion to strike any aspect 11 of our reply memorandum. That's because we were 12 fairly responding to points that were made in the 13 answers. And so I believe the -- the Licensing Board 14 is obliged to consider our reply arguments as simply 15 legitimate expansion -- amplification, I believe is 16 the term -- of points that we had made in our initial 17 petition.
18 So -- and yes, I would also point out that 19 we do have some problems, which I -- again, I may have 20 to take a few minutes, but I believe that we did 21 address the -- the small references in our initial 22 decision. But in any event, I believe that they're 23 legalistically and adequately responded to in the 24 reply.
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
125 JUDGE ARNOLD: Thank you. I have no more 1
questions.
2 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Judge Trikouros, do you 3
have any questions for -- for any of the parties on 4
Contention 3?
5 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yes. I have a few.
6 First of all, this word, baseload, gets used a lot.
7 It's (audio interference) in order to be viable. So 8
how would -- how would baseload be defined? And this 9
if for -- for any and all of you.
10 (Simultaneous speaking.)
11 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Let me -- let me ask --
12 let me ask NextEra -- let me ask NextEra first.
13 MS. LEIDICH: Baseload is defined, in my 14 interpretation of it, as power that's available at all 15 times. It's not cyclical. Let's put it that way.
16 Traditional power -- solar power, obviously, is 17 available during the day. It's not available at 18 night.
19 Baseload power would be power that is 20 available throughout the day without a cyclical dip in 21 terms of the time of day that you're dealing with. At 22 least in terms of solar power, I think that's an 23 accurate characterization of how we're using baseload.
24 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. Well, let me 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
126 come back to that. Let me -- is there someone else 1
who wants to define that for me?
2 (Pause.)
3 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Hearing none --
4 MR. LEWIS: This is Mr. Lewis.
5 (Simultaneous speaking.)
6 MR. LEWIS: Not only is it cyclical, but 7
it's also a large block of highly reliable power 8
that's not only not intermittent, you know, but is 9
available, you know, over long periods of time. So, 10 you know, nuclear plants operate over 18-or 24-month 11 refueling cycles, and they operate at a highly -- a 12 very high capacity factor, you know, often over 90 13 percent.
14 And it's that large block of continuing 15 operating, highly reliable power. That's not precise, 16 but that's the concept.
17 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Would a solar PV 18 facility -- the baseload, in replacing the power of 19 Point Beach, would it have to provide a capacity 20 factor of 90 percent, something equivalent to Point 21 Beach? And I ask that question --
22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
23 MR. LEWIS: -- a high capacity factor.
24 Therefore, it would have to be coupled with a storage 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
127 mechanism that in turn is able to provide, you know, 1
with the -- with the solar -- with the charging from 2
solar power, continuous power. And I guess I should 3
add that the facility that is -- is being built by 4
Florida in Florida has batteries that are really only 5
for, like, peaking power. That facility is not being 6
built as -- as baseload energy storage.
7 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yeah. That -- that, in 8
fact, is my problem. The -- I hear terminology that 9
seems conflicting to me. For example, solar can only 10 provide baseload power if it's coupled with energy 11 storage. And then I look at any data that's available 12 in this -- in this case with respect to the battery 13 backup, and I -- and I don't see numbers that make any 14 sense at all with respect to baseload.
15 For example, Dr. Compaan -- paragraph 18 16 of his declaration, he refers to a 250-megawatt solar 17 field that would have a surge capacity of 300 megawatt 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br />, which means that it only has enough batteries 19 to run for one hour.
20 MR. LEWIS: That's correct.
21 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I don't see how that 22 takes you from baseload to non-baseload or -- or from 23 non-baseload to baseload. It -- it -- one hour of the 24 battery doesn't seem to make any sense at all in that 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
128 regard. And that seems to be what I see wherever I 1
look.
2 Does anyone wish to comment on -- on that, 3
that the -- that the assumption of battery backup to 4
solar makes it baseload?
5 MR. LODGE: Yes, the Petitioners would 6
like to respond, Your Honor.
7 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. Please.
8 (Simultaneous speaking.)
9 MR. LODGE: -- number 1, you may recall 10 from the 2011 Davis-Besse hearings one of the 11 components of our alternatives exposition was the use 12 of compressed air storage. Specifically, FirstEnergy 13 owned a large cavern complex near Akron, Ohio. And 14 the -- the idea that they had conjectured was that in 15 times of overnight power production, they would 16 essentially compress air and then release it to turn 17 turbines during peaking times of day.
18 You could certainly use the excess power 19 generated by photovoltaic, which, as Dr. Cooper 20 pointed out, usually coincides pretty closely with 21 peak power needs during daylight hours, as a battery 22 storage type thing. There are other battery storage 23 types of mechanisms, such as pumped hydro in Michigan 24 that's used by Consumers Energy.
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
129 But -- but, moreover, one of the things 1
Dr. Cooper pointed out, and -- and it was exculpated 2
somewhat by Dr. Compaan's report, is that we're 3
talking about scalable, readily resilient kinds of 4
systems where if you need incrementally more power, 5
you install more photovoltaic collectors and -- and/or 6
wind or whatever.
7 But the point is that renewables don't 8
require a ten-year licensing and construction period, 9
et cetera, et cetera, all of the things that I'm sure 10 the Panel already knows. So the point is -- is that 11 if you wanted to be more than a peaking battery 12 backup, NextEra, undoubtedly they will expand into 13 baseload power.
14 NextEra is actually showing the Licensing 15 Board what is -- what is possible while at the same 16 time claiming it's impossible in Wisconsin, and that's 17 because it's impossible because of NextEra's 18 investment. This is their cash cow.
19 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: The -- I think the 20 concern is more with respect to overnight hours and --
21 and also cloudy days, and the -- there's -- I -- I 22 couldn't find any invitation in the -- in the 23 pleadings for the declarations regarding how much 24 battery backup we're talking about in -- in order to 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
130 achieve a given baseload number.
1 So, you know, for example, if I remember 2
correctly from Davis-Besse, the interconnected wind 3
farms were capable of producing 47 percent baseload 4
capacity, which meant for 47 percent of the time, they 5
provided continuous power.
6 That does not seem to be the case with 7
solar in the sense that its capacity factor without 8
backup is 30 percent and therefore would require 9
significant backup to -- to get up to numbers like 50 10 percent. And the cost of that is not addressed at 11 all.
12 So I'm -- I'm just -- I'm just curious how 13 the solar -- I mean it is a requirement of these solar 14 plants that they provide baseload power. And I -- I'm 15 confused by what that means exactly. All right.
16 MR. JONES: Your Honor, Travis Jones.
17 Before we -- we move on, I just wanted to point out I 18 think your original question was whether there was any 19 sort of guidance documents that reference the -- the 20 baseload power. And in the GEIS Section 2.3 on page 21 2-18, that does speak to baseload power.
22 They're -- the -- given a specific 23 definition, but they speak to it in decent detail if 24 you wanted a reference.
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
131 (Simultaneous speaking.)
1 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: What -- what document 2
are you referring to? I'm sorry. I missed what you 3
said.
4 MR. JONES: The -- the GEIS, the final 5
report.
6 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Oh, in the GEIS. Okay.
7 MR. JONES: New Reg 14 -- New Reg 8
14-37, Volume 1, Revision 1.
9 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay.
10 MR. JONES: And it's on page 2-18.
11 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. I'll 12 certainly look at that. Thank you.
13 When -- when the calculation of the 14 acreage was made, it was originally 6,780 acres based 15 on a metric that was provided of a -- a -- what was it 16
-- 5.2 acres per megawatt, I think. Anyway, the --
17 Dr. Compaan looked at that with respect to the -- the 18 actual capacity factor of solar, and he concluded that 19 you would need 42,000 acres.
20 Now, can anyone address for -- well, I 21 guess I'll ask the Petitioner to address for me, that 22 42,000 acres, did that include acreage for the 23 batteries as well? Or was that just the -- just the 24 solar without battery backup?
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
132 MR. LODGE: I don't think the -- first of 1
all, Your Honor, once again I just want to point out 2
these are the kinds of questions our experts, not 3
having to talk through me, a poly sci major, would be 4
able to adequately and effectively answer.
5 But my hunch is that the battery backup, 6
if we're talking about physical manufactured battery 7
equipment, is not going to be a very large piece of 8
the footprint. Yes, we agree and admit that there's 9
a large amount of acreage necessary for the 10 photovoltaic collection. But -- but, Your Honor, that 11
-- photovoltaic is -- is here. Photovoltaic is able 12 to beat on a pricing as well as adequacy of power 13 basis, most hours of the day -- if we are quibbling 14 over storage mechanisms, that is an issue of fact that 15 can be tried, and you can listen to competing experts.
16 What I'm -- what seems to be going on here 17 is that representations by the utility are accepted 18 for their inherent worthiness and -- and truthfulness, 19 whereas we're being called upon to prove and, again, 20 try the issues that our experts have already -- the --
21 the markers that they have laid down in the reports.
22 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. Well, the --
23 given the -- given the growth of solar power, I'm not 24 in any way disputing what you say, obviously. I'm --
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
133 I'm simply trying to address the requirements for 1
alternatives -- for an alternative for Point Beach.
2 And one of the requirements is that it be baseload 3
power. And that seems -- that seems to be confusing, 4
since we have no -- and I certainly will look at the 5
GEIS and see what it says regarding that. But there's 6
nothing in the pleadings that I've seen that helps me 7
with that.
8 Let me ask another question for the -- I 9
guess for the Petitioner, in this case. How would the 10
-- how would batteries integrate with rooftop solar?
11 MR. LODGE: I'm not an engineer, sir. I 12 rather suspect -- I rather suspect that the technology 13 exists and is well established for such an 14 integration. We're talking about dispersed forms of 15 energy collection, of course, and we're talking -- but 16 those are technical details, and they're technological 17 features that I think would be explicated at a trial 18 on the merits.
19 You're -- again, you're asking -- you're 20 asking me for responses that will go into some sort of 21 weighing as to whether or not the contention is worthy 22 of a hearing. And -- and I believe that -- with 23 respect, that that goes too far afield into -- you 24 know, again, we're talking matters of proof here. And 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
134 we're actually talking about weighing things on the 1
scale. And once you're -- once you're in that field, 2
then let's get -- let's put our people under oath, and 3
let's let our experts answer you directly.
4 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. I -- I'm --
5 I'm not going to ask -- I'll try not to ask any more 6
-- any more questions that are that level of 7
technical.
8 If one were to -- to utilize farmland for 9
-- 42,000 acres of farmland for a solar facility, 10 would -- would there have to be a distribution system 11 built? And if so, why wasn't that evaluated as an 12 environmental impact at all?
13 MR. LODGE: Well, very little has been 14 evaluated as an environmental impact so far as the 15 needs of the system. But I would point out that if 16 Point Beach were closed, it has already created a main 17 stem transmission corridor, which could certainly be 18 adapted to -- to draw in power generated on farmland, 19 brownfields, even within the transmission corridor 20 itself.
21 And, you know, these are -- these are 22 effectively details that can be worked out. They're 23 not technological hurdles that haven't been addressed 24 or contemplated. But there certainly is some grid 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
135 that is salvageable and reusable around all closed and 1
closing power plants.
2 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. Are you 3
aware of what the lifetime of a solar PV panel is, 4
sir?
5 MR. LODGE: Pardon -- the life cycle of 6
the collectors?
7 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: The life -- the -- yes, 8
before they have to be replaced.
9 MR. LODGE: I think the period of their 10 durability is expanding, but that -- depending of 11 course on manufacturer and all of that, it's really 12 something on the order of 20 years or more.
13 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right --
14 MR. LODGE: But, again, there are -- and 15 I also note, Your Honor, that I have read accounts 16 that there are recycling firms developing that are 17 going to be able, apparently, to convert and reuse the 18 film and other components of the collectors 19 themselves.
20 JUDGE TRIKOUROS:
But they're not 21 operating right -- right this moment, are they?
22 MR. LODGE: I believe -- I believe that 23 there are some start-ups, yes. The -- the thing is 24 that there is a -- a large segment of the economy is 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
136 growing. This is a -- is a burgeoning industry, 1
certainly compared to nuclear.
2 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Well, what I'm trying to 3
determine, and as Judge Arnold had indicated earlier, 4
is that the environmental effects of the solar PV --
5 certain solar PV facilities have -- haven't been 6
available in the pleadings. For example, the disposal 7
of -- of all of the -- of 87 percent of the 8
households' rooftops solar PV in 20 years.
9 The distribution system has to be built.
10 None of those environmental effects seem to be 11 included in the comparison, and we're trying to make 12 a determination of environmental comparisons between 13 the renewal of the plant and -- and -- and other --
14 other options that are -- well, I'll say we are not --
15 we are not making that determination. I -- I correct 16 myself. But we are evaluating the pleadings regarding 17 that.
18 The -- and so there are a number of 19 questions that -- that come up, and I -- I think I'm 20 just not going to answer any more of these -- oh, one 21 more, though. When you do say capacity in the 22 pleadings, you're referring to capacity factor?
23 MR. LODGE: Is there a specific example 24 you're looking at?
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
137 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Well, it's throughout 1
the -- it's mentioned many, many times. Let me ask 2
the applicant -- let me ask the expert, I should say.
3 When -- when -- would you take the word 4
generation -- the words generation capacity to mean 5
capacity factor?
6 MS. LEIDICH: I think we would take it to 7
mean -- sorry, David. I think we would take it to 8
mean both the rated power supply of the unit that 9
you're intending to replace as well as the ability to 10 be baseload power, which would be capacity factor.
11 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. All right.
12 I think I'm going to stop there.
13 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. Thank you, Judge 14 Trikouros.
15 Let's move promptly to Contention 4, which 16 is the contention that raises a -- a -- a concern 17 about the elevated risk of a turbine missile accident 18 due to, I guess, the alignment of the buildings and --
19 and structures.
20 Mr. Lodge, by this contention, are -- are 21 you attempting to raise the existing design of that 22 turbine or the turbine and its -- the building around 23 it as an issue in this proceeding?
24 MR. LODGE: Yes, and it's -- the problem 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
138 is it's a -- it's another metallurgical type of 1
question that will certainly not improve with age, 2
which is why we believe it will continue -- turbine 3
missile problems might continue -- well, will continue 4
to be of some concern throughout the 20-year 5
extension.
6 CHAIR FROEHLICH: But, Mr. Lodge, aren't 7
turbine shields and turbine blades and these sort of 8
components -- aren't they classified as active 9
components?
10 MR. LODGE: Yes.
11 CHAIR FROEHLICH: And aren't active 12 components outside the scope of a subsequent license 13 renewal?
14 MR. LODGE: Well, I -- I think the problem 15 is -- is that they are active components, and they 16 will be active components during the extension period, 17 and -- and that they -- that the mitigation that we 18 propose is something that must be considered within 19 the framework of this proceeding.
20 CHAIR FROEHLICH: I guess my problem is I 21 don't see how that's -- even -- even worded as -- as 22 you just stated it, is different than -- than an 23 attack on the current licensing basis of the plant and 24 of those components. If you can, please explain how 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
139 we can -- you know, how -- how -- how we can look at 1
that in the context of a subsequent license renewal.
2 MR. LODGE: Well, the missile shielding 3
itself is a passive component. And -- and that is --
4 that's -- that's the focus of our contention.
5 CHAIR FROEHLICH: And is the shielding 6
suffering from some degradation or something because 7
of its age?
8 MR. LODGE: Well, the problem is -- is 9
we're venturing into an extended period that was not 10 contemplated during the design and construction of the 11 power plant. And -- and I would also like to point 12 out that Mr. Gundersen actually holds a patent on 13 missile shielding. And -- and the idea at the time 14 that he worked on and developed that -- that 15 patentable design was in contemplation of a 40-year 16 operating license.
17 CHAIR FROEHLICH: All right. Those --
18 those were my fundamental concerns with Contention 4.
19 I don't have any further questions on this contention 20 for any of the parties.
21 Judge Arnold or Judge Trikouros, do you 22 have anything on Contention 4?
23 JUDGE ARNOLD: I have no questions.
24 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I -- I have one general 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
140 question. I think you just -- I think Mr. Lodge just 1
answered it, but I'll -- I'll mention it.
2 In your petition -- in your reply, at page 3
22, you make a statement that irrespective of what the 4
NRC staff or NextEra consider the processes to be, the 5
turbine shafts in Units 1 and 2 are aging and will 6
continue to do so for a score more years in a 7
subsequent license renewal period.
8 What you -- what you mean by that is that 9
it's a safety issue that should be considered even if 10 it's outside of the requirements of -- of license 11 renewal? Is that what you mean by that, Mr. Lodge?
12 MR. LODGE: Well, the -- the turbine is 13 not safety related in and of itself. And so it's not 14 covered under the active failure types of regulatory 15 concerns. The -- the -- let me just step back a 16 little bit and point out that what happened was that 17 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission changed its rules so 18 that newer reactors -- the layout of newer reactors 19 was altered from tangential to radial turbine halls.
20 The -- the failure of this non-safety-21 related component, the turbine, however, will endanger 22 in an old plant like Point Beach, which was built 23 before the alteration of the layout -- failure will 24 endanger and very possibly, if not likely, hit safety-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
141 related components.
1 JUDGE ARNOLD: This is Judge Arnold. Now 2
I do have a question.
3 Where in the regulations does it discuss 4
turbine building orientation? Do you know?
5 MR. LODGE: I think it's probably 6
discussed in the construction regs. And it may not be 7
set up so as to explain that to avoid a turbine 8
missile problem, build it this way. It may simply be 9
a regulation that says that the layout shall be on --
10 you know, on some type of axial radius or location.
11 JUDGE ARNOLD: I have no questions.
12 CHAIR FROEHLICH: All right. I think 13 we've come to the conclusion of today's oral argument 14 on the admissibility of the four proposed contentions 15 from the Wisconsin Physicians for Social 16 Responsibility Wisconsin.
17 I want to thank the parties for their 18 written pleadings thus far in the case and say that 19 today's oral argument has been helpful to me and, to 20 speak for the Board, has been helpful to the Board in 21 helping us make a determination on the admissibility 22 of -- of the four proposed contentions.
23 We will -- we will meet immediately after 24
-- after this session, and you can expect our decision 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
142 to be issued within 45 days of today as contemplated 1
by 10 CFR 2.309(j).
2 If I could ask the parties and court 3
reporter to stay on the line after -- after I adjourn 4
today's hearing to clean up the record if there need 5
be any corrections made or acronyms explained or 6
anything that, because of connectivity issues, maybe 7
isn't clear on our transcript. If you'll stay on and 8
answer any questions that our court reporter might 9
have, it'd be appreciated.
10 Other than that, I really have nothing 11 further. Again, I thank the parties and the -- the 12 support people, our law clerk, Andy Welkie, the 13 technical support, for making this happen in the age 14 of COVID. And thank you all for your participation 15 today.
16 Okay. We'll stand adjourned.
17 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 18 off the record at 1:58 p.m.)
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