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 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 + + + + +
4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5 + + + + +
6 HEARING 7 ----------------------x 8 In the Matter of: : Docket Nos.
9 NEXTERA ENERGY POINT : 50-266-SLR 10 BEACH, LLC : 50-301-SLR 11 (Point Beach Nuclear : ASLBP No.
12 Plant, Units 1 and 2) : 21-971-02-SLR-01 13 ----------------------x 14 Tuesday, June 22, 2021 15 16 Video Teleconference 17 18 BEFORE:
19 WILLIAM J. FROEHLICH, Chair 20 DR. GARY S. ARNOLD, Administrative Judge 21 NICHOLAS G. TRIKOUROS, Administrative Judge 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 1 APPEARANCES:
2 3 Counsel for the Petitioner 4 TERRY LODGE, ESQ.
5 316 N. Michigan Street 6 Suite 520 7 Toledo, OH 43604 8 419-205-7084 9 tjlodge50@yahoo.com 10 11 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 12 TRAVIS JONES, ESQ.
13 JEREMY WACHUTKA, ESQ.
14 MITZY YOUNG, ESQ.
15 of: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16 Office of the General Counsel 17 Mail Stop - O-14A44 18 Washington, DC 20555-0001 19 301-415-2848 (Jones) 20 301-287-9188 (Wachutka) 21 301-287-9178 (Young) 22 travis.jones@nrc.gov 23 jeremy.wachutka@nrc.gov 24 mitzy.young@nrc.gov 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 1 On Behalf of NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC 2 ANNE LEIDICH, ESQ.
3 DAVID LEWIS, ESQ.
4 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 5 1200 17th Street, NW 6 Washington, DC 20036 7 202-663-8707 (Leidich) 8 202-663-8474 (Lewis) 9 anne.leidich@pillsburylaw.com 10 david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com 11 12 STEVEN HAMRICK, ESQ.
13 Florida Power & Light Company 14 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 15 Suite 220 16 Washington, DC 20004 17 202-349-3496 18 steven.hamrick@fpl.com 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 1 CONTENTS 2 Page 3 Opening Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 Oral Arguments:
5 Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin 6 Terry Lodge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7 NextEra Point Beach 8 David Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . 24,34 9 Anne Leidich . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 10 NRC Staff 11 Mitzy Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 12 Travis Jones . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 13 Jeremy Wachutka . . . . . . . . . . . 45 14 Rebuttal Oral Arguments:
15 Terry Lodge . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 16 David Lewis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 17 Anne Leidich . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 18 Questions by the Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 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 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 10:00 a.m.
3 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Good morning all. Thank 4 you, Mr. Curry, and all of you for joining so promptly 5 so we can begin on time. And the court reporter, I 6 just want to confirm is with us this morning?
7 COURT REPORTER: I am here.
8 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, thank you so much, 9 Mr. Mollen.
10 Good morning, all. It's 10:00 a.m.
11 eastern time. And this is Judge Froehlich from my 12 home in Fairfax, Virginia. With me on the line are 13 Judges Arnold and Trikouros from their respective 14 homes in Maryland and New Jersey.
15 Also on the line is our law clerk, who you 16 worked with this morning, Mr. Ian Curry, along with 17 Ms. Twana Ellis, Mr. Andrew Welkie, providing 18 technical support for this web conference call.
19 This case is captioned in the matter of 20 NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC, Point Beach Nuclear 21 Plant Units 1 and 2, and assigned docket numbers 50-22 266-SLR and 50-301-SLR, ASLBP Number 21-971-02-SLR-01.
23 The Point Beach Nuclear Plants 1 and 2 24 were first licensed for operation in 1970 and 1973, 25 respectfully. And were granted renewed operating NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 1 licenses in 2005. The current renewed licenses expire 2 October 5th, 2030.
3 NextEra has filed an application for a 4 subsequent license renewal of the Point Beach Plant by 5 letter dated November 16th, 2020. NextEra seeks to 6 extend the operating license of Unit 1 until October 7 5th of 2030 and for Unit 2 until March 8th, 2033.
8 This morning the Board will hear oral 9 argument on the petition for leave to intervene and 10 the request for a hearing, filed by Physicians for 11 Social Responsibility Wisconsin, which was filed on 12 March 23rd, 2021.
13 Public notice of this oral argument was 14 issued on May 26th, 2021 and provision has been made 15 for a Cisco WebEx web conference for the parties to 16 present their oral argument and a telephonic bridge 17 line with listen only access for interested members of 18 the public.
19 The petition and hearing request assert 20 that a hearing should be granted on four proposed 21 contentions. With proposed Contentions 1 and 3 22 raising challenges to the environmental report and 23 proposed Contentions 2 and 4 raising challenges to the 24 subsequent license renewal application, specifically 25 its aging management plan and certain Part 54 safety NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 1 concerns.
2 As we proceed through this argument, if 3 the parties would identify themselves before speaking, 4 that's for the benefit of the people on the bridge 5 line, also remember to mute themselves when they're 6 not speaking. This will make things easier on our 7 court reporter, on members of the public on the bridge 8 line. And we'll all have a better record of this 9 proceeding.
10 This oral argument will be transcribed.
11 And the transcript will be promptly placed on the NRC 12 electronic hearing docket, where it may be accessed by 13 the public.
14 The Commission's regulations at 10 CFR 15 2.309(f)(1), Subsections I through VI, set forth the 16 requirements for admissible contention. The parties 17 are requested to focus their arguments on whether the 18 Petitioner has met the standards for admissible 19 contention.
20 The Board has reviewed the pleadings filed 21 by the parties, including the declarations. And has 22 reviewed the case law and regulations cited by the 23 parties in their pleadings.
24 Participants will have 20 minutes each to 25 present their oral argument to the Board. Counsel for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 1 Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin will 2 speak first, followed by counsel for NextEra Point 3 Beach and then counsel for the NRC Staff.
4 As stated in the May 26th notice of this 5 oral argument, participants may reserve a portion of 6 their time for rebuttal.
7 The participant should be prepared to 8 respond to the Board's questions on any aspect of the 9 petition to intervene and request for hearing. As 10 well as the April 26th motion to amend proposed 11 Contention Number 2.
12 At this time, I'd like to take the 13 appearances of the attorneys who will be presenting 14 arguments for the Board today. Who appears for the 15 Petitioner, Physicians for Social Responsibility 16 Wisconsin?
17 MR. CURRY: Mr. Froehlich, it appears Mr.
18 Lodge has lost his connection, so we will try to get 19 him reconnected in the meantime.
20 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. What we'll do 21 then is we'll wait for him to reconnect. And I'll 22 just give him a minute so that he'll be aware of who 23 is speaking for the other parties.
24 MR. CURRY: Mr. Lodge, if you can hear me, 25 can you please start your video and test your audio?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 1 Mr. Lodge, I just emailed you the call in 2 information. You may want to try to call in, not use 3 video, if your connection is not working. Mr. Lodge, 4 if you can just call in.
5 MR. LODGE: Yes. Can you hear me?
6 MR. CURRY: Yes, we can hear you.
7 MR. LODGE: Good. I have been trying like 8 crazy to get back in. I keep getting screen freezing, 9 so. I have been trying to get back in. Even this is 10 breaking up.
11 I can only hear you in bits and pieces.
12 I think I'm going to end the process and stay on the 13 phone line and try to reenter later, if that's all 14 right.
15 CHAIR FROEHLICH: All right. Mr. Lodge, 16 do you have a phone connection to the oral argument 17 now and if you'd like to enter your appearance, we'll 18 go through, take the appearances of the parties and 19 then rule the, you'll be set to give your argument 20 either by phone or video if you can get yourself 21 reconnected on the video line. Would that be all 22 right?
23 MR. LODGE: Yes.
24 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. And so --
25 MR. LODGE: Please standby. I'm trying to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 1 juggle between the Webex and the phone. I'm trying to 2 go with the phone. All right, can you hear me now?
3 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Yes, we can hear you.
4 MR. LODGE: All right, good. My 5 apologies. I love technology.
6 So I'm entering an appearance on behalf of 7 the Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin.
8 The problem is I'm getting an echo. Please standby.
9 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Mr. Lodge, I can see 10 you, your video. Your frozen, and you have to unmute 11 your mic.
12 MR. LODGE: Well, accept the problem is 13 I'm participating by phone. All right.
14 MR. CURRY: Mr. Lodge, if I may, you 15 should use one or the other, so I recommend using your 16 phone. And in that case, you should exit from the 17 Webex application completely, that way there is no 18 echo and the phone is clear. So you'll be able to 19 hear everybody but probably not see them.
20 MR. LODGE: Hello?
21 CHAIR FROEHLICH: I heard a hello.
22 (Laughter.)
23 MR. LODGE: This is Terry Lodge.
24 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, Mr. Lodge, when 25 you're ready please give the appearances for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 1 Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin.
2 MR. LODGE: Thank you. I am Terry Lodge, 3 I am an attorney licensed in Ohio and I am Counsel for 4 the Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin, 5 which is headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin.
6 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. Who appears then 7 for the Licensee, NextEra Point Beach?
8 MR. LEWIS: Yes, Judge Froehlich. This is 9 David Lewis from the law firm, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 10 Pittman.
11 Also on the teleconference is my 12 colleague, Ms. Anne Leidich, and Mr. Steven Hamrick, 13 who is a NextEra Counsel. And we represent NextEra.
14 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you very much.
15 And who appears for the NRC Staff?
16 MS. YOUNG: Good morning, Chairman 17 Froehlich, my name is Mitzy Young and I'm with the 18 NRC's Office of the General Counsel.
19 With me today are my co-counsels, who will 20 also be presenting arguments related to the petition.
21 We structured our presentation dividing up Contention 22 1, 3, 2 and 4.
23 My co-Counsel, Travis Jones, will provide 24 argument on Contention 2, while I'll provide argument 25 on Contention 1. And my co-Counsel, Jeremy Wachutka, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 1 will provide argument and address Board questions on 2 the safety contentions, Contentions 2 and 4. And also 3 Petitioner's motion to amend Contention 2.
4 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you, Ms. Young.
5 Are there any questions of Counsel for the Board 6 before we begin? Okay.
7 Does Judge Arnold or Judge Trikouros like 8 to say anything before we hear from Counsel?
9 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: No, thank you.
10 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay.
11 JUDGE ARNOLD: Nothing.
12 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. Mr. Lodge, if you 13 are connected, ready, please begin. You have 20 14 minutes. And you are welcome to reserve a part of 15 that time, should you so desire.
16 MR. LODGE: Thank you. And I would like 17 to reserve five minutes.
18 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay.
19 MR. LODGE: May it please the Licensing 20 Board and opposing Counsel, there are four contentions 21 pending before the Licensing Board today, which we 22 believe should be admitted.
23 Before I get into the substance of those 24 contentions, I simply want to state for record that it 25 appears that the matter of standing of Physicians for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 1 Social Responsibility, which is a nonprofit 2 organization with a Wisconsin chapter in Madison, 3 Wisconsin, it appears that there is no genuine issue 4 as to whether or not, as a putative intervener, that 5 PSR has standing. Therefore I'm not going to argue or 6 take up the Board's time with that matter.
7 The issues I will take, as numbered, the 8 first issue that we have raised is that Point Beach 9 has continued operation without a serious effort as 10 cooling mitigation in the form of towers, or at least 11 an analysis of the same within the NEPA document, is 12 a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act 13 and that it is effectively a violation of NEPA, and as 14 such, must be litigated before the Licensing Board.
15 The violation is that the possibility of 16 cooling towers in some type of closed cycle array, 17 must be considered in the subsequent re-licensing case 18 because NEPA, the NEPA regs, as implemented by the 19 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, require discretion of 20 reasonable alternatives to reduce or avoid adverse 21 environmental effects. That's 10 CFR Section 51.45, 22 Subsection C.
23 We believe that 50 years of operation with 24 essentially unmitigated carnage being wreaked upon 25 aquatic, as well as some mammalian and avian life in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 1 and around the Great Lake Michigan, has to be 2 examined, investigated, analyzed and disclosed within 3 the NEPA document because, first of all, you are 4 talking about cooling tower technology, which is very 5 well established.
6 The benefits of which are certainly 7 significant in this particular case. And the 8 technology is quite known. And the damage, of course, 9 is also quite well established.
10 Studies show that the installation of 11 cooling towers, which admittedly have their own 12 problems in terms of introducing high levels of water 13 vapor into the local environment, but nonetheless, 14 that cooling towers reduce the uptake of water from 15 the adjacent water body. They also significantly 16 reduce the thermal heat up effect once cooling water 17 is drained back into the adjacent water body.
18 The problem that we find with the 19 environmental report, as written, is that the NextEra 20 utility trivializes or accepts as routine, the 50 21 years of carnage. There are literally millions of 22 fish larvae and ichthyoplankton and of course live 23 fish, and even a few migratory birds that have turned 24 up and been impinged and entrained as water is sucked 25 out of Lake Michigan for purposes of cooling.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 1 There is enormous local, if you will, 2 within a few miles in Lake Michigan, there is 3 considerable local kill that occurs. It is, so long 4 as the system is allowed to operate as it does, it is 5 inevitable with the uptake of approximately a billion 6 gallons a day, for purposes of cooling the two units 7 at Point Beach.
8 The utility attempts to treat this 9 routine, this 50 year length routine, as something 10 that can be essentially ignored, that the status quo 11 can be maintained. But the problem is, is that even 12 in its discussion of replacement power options, the 13 utility effectively acknowledges that any replacement 14 technology, such as advance light water reactors or 15 small modular reactors as an array or a gas turbine 16 plant plus solar, all of those are discussed in 17 conjunction with having closed cycle cooling, cooling 18 towers.
19 It's not sufficient to argue that there 20 are no planned power uprates during the period, 21 roughly 2030 to 2053. First of all, there's no 22 guarantees that there will not be some type of 23 technologically enriched fuel and that there might 24 even been power uprates that occur during that period.
25 But also, it is not a situation where the status quo NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 1 can be accepted and unacknowledged in the 2 environmental document.
3 The analysis provided by NextEra takes in 4 effects to the entire lake without any adequate 5 serious discussion of local effects. The data is very 6 inadequate and is very spotty over the 50 year period.
7 The most recent data are a few studies in 8 this century. But four or five years ago, I believe 9 there is a 2017 analysis of only a partial year.
10 There is an earlier, earlier in the 21st century 11 analysis, I believe Circa 2004 or '05 that, again, 12 only covered a few months.
13 The data on the wildlife kills that is 14 provided by NextEra, I'm sorry. The data that they 15 are technically relying on is ancient. Dating back to 16 the 1970s with, I think, some updates toward the end 17 of the 20th century.
18 As I indicted, cooling technology, cooling 19 tower technology, must be considered. It is an 20 established given, legitimate, mainstream retrofit 21 possibility.
22 And what the utility is postulating in the 23 environmental report is either shutdown the plant 24 completely or operate, as is, without a retrofit to 25 cut down by perhaps as much as 90 or 95 percent the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 1 water usage and the massive kill that is going on.
2 It's not adequate for NextEra to say that 3 it cannot do anything about it and that this is all in 4 the hands of the state environmental regulators of the 5 State of Wisconsin.
6 And the environmental law under NEPA has 7 well established that even alternatives that are not 8 within the direct control of the applicant must be 9 investigated, analyzed and disclosed within the NEPA 10 documents. We believe that the alternative of 11 continued operation of Point Beach Units 1 and 2, with 12 cooling tower mitigation, must be counted and analyzed 13 within its discussion of alternatives.
14 Turning to Contention 2. PSR contends 15 that 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A is violated because 16 reactor, the reactor coolant pressure boundary hasn't 17 been tested so as to ensure that there is an extremely 18 low probability of abnormal leakage rapidly 19 propagating failure and gross rupture of the reactor 20 vessel.
21 Point Beach Unit 2 has been identified 22 repeatedly as perhaps the worse embrittled reactor 23 vessel operating in the United States. Other 24 reactors, the other members of the group of five worst 25 embrittled reactors will all either be closed by 2024, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 1 they're either closed now or will be by 2024.
2 And Point Beach Unit 2 is expecting and 3 anticipating operation through 2053. The problem is, 4 is that the Point Beach units were designed and built 5 with a 40 year operational license in mind, and we are 6 now in, of course, the 60 year extension. And the 7 proposal is for an extension out to 80 years.
8 There are coupons, there are metal samples 9 that have been, that were designed and left 10 calculatedly in the reactor vessels at Point Beach and 11 were to be periodically removed, metallurgically 12 analyzed. And measurements of a scientific nature 13 were to be maintained on the deterioration of the 14 reactor vessels.
15 There has not been, in this century, the 16 analysis of any coupons from either unit. We believe 17 that there may be one remaining sample left inside 18 each unit. We also understand that there may be one 19 or two samples from each unit that are in the spent 20 fuel storage pool dating to the 1990s, which were 21 never analyzed and which are effectively useless now 22 as anything but providing historical data of the 23 metallurgical soundness of the reactor vessels.
24 There has been, at the same time, in the 25 past ten to 20 years, almost zero metallurgical NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 1 testing of a state of embrittled reactor vessels at 2 Diablo Canyon, Indian Point and Palisades.
3 So the problem is, is that Point Beach, 4 both units, but effectively, especially Unit 2, is 5 proposing to be operate well into a period where the 6 only protection has been projections made by the 7 utility industry, or at least software developed by 8 the utility industry, as to the metallurgical 9 integrity of the reactor vessels.
10 This is problematic, and I'm getting into 11 the motion to amend Contention 2 that was raised by 12 PSR. This is problematic because in recent months the 13 Electric Power Research Institute, which developed 14 software for both light water reactors and boiling 15 water reactors, for the projections of metallurgical 16 integrity in embrittled reactors, has admitted that 17 for a period of approximately five years, dating back 18 to 2016, that they have learned and discovered that 19 their boiling water reactor calculational software has 20 defects that seriously, and that call into question, 21 the reliability of the reactors, pardon me, of the 22 calculation.
23 So without scientific data, approximately 24 20 boiling water reactors are affected by this rather 25 stunning disclosure. The document that we proffered NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 1 from the EPRI into the record, along with the 2 amendment motion, is largely, conceals a lot of 3 proprietary information. But even from what is 4 publicly available, there is a matter of great 5 concern.
6 Yes, it is true that Point Beach Units 1 7 and 2 are not PWRs, but it certainly seems to me that 8 if the NRC is going to delegate the responsibility of 9 reliable calculation and projected software to the 10 industry, that this interesting and troubling 11 disclosure, regarding BWRs, should prompt very serious 12 discussions and formal inquiry into the adequacy of 13 the software that is used to project the integrity of 14 the reactor vessels at Point Beach.
15 We believe that we have articulated a 16 seriously problem, have cited to a regulation which 17 requires the showing of reasonable assurance and that 18 there is no reasonable assurance as the application 19 currently is written.
20 The third contention, our third 21 contention, and I realizing that I'm using up our 22 time, is that the reasonable alternative of baseload 23 photovoltaic solar power must be considered as a 24 utility scale operational replacement of the power 25 that is expected to be provided during the license NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 1 extension period by the Point Beach units.
2 NextEra of any utility conglomerate should 3 understand what the potential, right now today, is a 4 photovoltaic and yet is denying it. They closed their 5 boiling water reactor at Duane Arnold recently and are 6 replacing it with a massive expanded solar array.
7 There are solar photovoltaic, solar already developed 8 on a couple of hundred acres at Point Beach.
9 NextEra owns the largest battery storage 10 project on the planet in Manatee County, Florida.
11 They understand how photovoltaic solar works quite 12 well.
13 Solar follows the time of day demand curve 14 far better, in fact, than large base load nuclear 15 power plants, which cannot be greatly reduced in terms 16 of power, at least anything commensurate with what 17 happens at night.
18 The calculations that were provided by 19 Alvin Compaan, a physics PhD emeritus professor who is 20 a long time solar advocate, and in fact is a, in his 21 scientific capacity, is evaluating a day-by-day the 22 solar potential for his own residents in Northwest 23 Ohio. Dr. Compaan calculated that there is 24 approximately 66 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent 25 required for nuclear power plants per kilowatt hour NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 1 versus 16 to 40 grams of co2 for photovoltaic.
2 Our economist, Dr. Cooper, has noted in 3 detail in his report, that there is sufficiently time, 4 and this is of course a requirement, we have to be 5 able to show, as the interveners, that the technology 6 (audio interference) --
7 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Are you with us, Mr.
8 Lodge? I haven't -- the audio cutout on my end.
9 MR. CURRY: Judge Froehlich, the call 10 dropped. I guess we'll have to give him a moment to 11 dial back in.
12 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, thank you.
13 MR. LODGE: Can you hear me?
14 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Yes, Mr. Lodge. Your 15 audio cutout as you were talking about the number of 16 grams, whatever, of --
17 MR. LODGE: Oh my.
18 CHAIR FROEHLICH: I also would like to 19 alert you that you are approaching the end of your 15 20 minutes of argument, if you intend to reserve five for 21 rebuttal.
22 MR. LODGE: Yes. Thank you. I'm going to 23 take about two more minutes.
24 Our expert, Dr. Cooper, economics expert, 25 demonstrated in his report that there is more than NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 1 adequate time for the continued maturation of 2 photovoltaic solar as a major player in the generation 3 of electricity, both in the Midwest and in Wisconsin, 4 as well as across the country.
5 That he points out in some detail that 6 electric consumption is no longer directly related to 7 economic growth and prosperity, that technological 8 advances in the management of electrical energy 9 generation and distribution are gaining very rapidly.
10 And suggests that the continued existence of baseload 11 units, such as Point Beach, actually messes up the 12 transition to what we commonly refer to as a smart 13 grid, as a very integrity energy management system.
14 I'd like to also just point out in 15 closing, I made a typographical error, which got 16 reproduced throughout our initial petition, referring 17 to baseboard myopia. The phrase that Dr. Cooper used 18 baseload myopia. And apparently everyplace nearly, in 19 the petition where baseload was mentioned, was somehow 20 replaced by baseboard as I was doing edits.
21 But there is a fixation that is manifest 22 in the Point Beach application that centralized large 23 baseload power units are somehow the most satisfactory 24 and effective way of addressing the electric power 25 needs in their jurisdiction, that is very false. And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 1 it is, in fact, Point Beach is an obstacle to the 2 future.
3 We believe that these matters must be 4 addressed in the environmental document, and as 5 appropriate in the final safety evaluation report.
6 Thank you.
7 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Will, we can't hear you.
8 At least I can't.
9 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you, Mr. Lodge.
10 We'll hear now from Mr. Lewis from NextEra.
11 MR. LEWIS: Thank you. This is Mr. Lewis.
12 I'm going to present the argument on Contentions 1 and 13 4, but we'll do it in order. And my colleague, Ms.
14 Leidich, will present the Contentions 2 and 3. And we 15 intend to preserve five minutes for rebuttal.
16 So I'll start with Contention 1.
17 Contention 1 is inadmissible for two basic reasons.
18 First, it impermissibly challenges the NRC's rule at 19 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B), which does not require any 20 assessment of entrainment, impingement or heat shock 21 if the applicant provides current determinations under 22 Sections 316(a) and 316(b) of the Clean Water Act.
23 Mr. Lodge argued that NEPA requires an 24 assessment of these impacts, even if they were 25 recommended by another agency. But this provision in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 1 the NRC rules implements Section 511 of the Clean 2 Water Act, which as the Commission explained in its 3 Vermont Yankee decision, CLI-7-16, precludes the NRC 4 from second guessing the concludes and that NPDES 5 permit, and indeed is specifically intended to provide 6 the Agency with the authority to do so.
7 So Section 511 changes the normal NEPA law 8 and creates an exception. And the Point Beach 9 environmental part here provides the 316(a) 316(b) 10 determinations as a consequence and nothing further is 11 required.
12 Mr. Lodge also argued that there was a 13 paucity of monitoring data supporting the 14 determinations. First of all, there was monitoring in 15 1975 and 1976, in 2005 and 2006 and in 2017.
16 And his characterization is the data, as 17 the data being insufficient is nothing more than 18 (audio interference) characterization. There is 19 absolutely not support for, in an expert opinion or 20 any other authoritative source that the data is 21 inadequate. But be that as it may, that is a matter 22 for the Wisconsin permitting agency to decide, not the 23 NRC.
24 Petitioner also tries to side step the 25 limitation in Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) by arguing NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 1 this is in the reply now, that the timing of the 2 subsequent license is unique because Point Beach's 3 NPDES permit is about to expire. That permit, 4 however, will remain in effect under the timely 5 renewal doctorate and therefore it continues to 6 represent the current permit until a new one is 7 issued.
8 Further, the status of the Point Beach 9 NPDES permit doesn't distinguish the case, this case, 10 from the Commission's decision in Vermont Yankee.
11 Again, that's CLI-7-16.
12 In the Vermont Yankee case, the NPDES 13 permit there, which the Commission found satisfied 14 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) had expired but it remained in 15 effect under the time to renew doctrine. And the 16 Commission there described the permit as the currently 17 effective permit.
18 So, as a result, the NPDES permit will 19 expire and the permitting agency may make new 20 determinations, has no effect on the availability of 21 the determinations in the currently effective permit.
22 Indeed, because all NPDES permits are issued for five 23 year terms, as the Commission observed in the Vermont 24 Yankee case.
25 They are always subject to review and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 1 change by the permitting agency. And if that were 2 sufficient to open up such permits to review in NRC 3 proceedings and limitation in Section 511 of the Clean 4 Water Act and in 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) will be rendered 5 meaningless.
6 The second basic reason why Contention 1 7 is inadmissible is because it lacks any basis 8 demonstrating a general material dispute. The 9 Petitioner merely quotes monitoring data from the 10 application without any showing that the number of 11 fish and shellfish entrained, impinged or effected by 12 thermal discharges represents a significant 13 environmental impact, one warranting spending hundreds 14 of millions of dollars to redesign an retrofit the 15 plant with cooling towers.
16 Petitioner provides no expert support 17 showing that there is a significant environmental 18 impact warranting further mitigation. Now, they refer 19 to Mr. Gunderson's declaration but he has no current 20 expertise in aquatic biology or ecology or the 21 assessment of aquatic impacts.
22 And his characterization of that as a 23 super predatory is simply a conclusory rhetoric. It 24 doesn't establish, in the slightest, that the impacts 25 are significant.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 1 Now referring to the large number of eggs 2 that are entrained, doesn't mean those impacts are 3 significant. If you look, for example, on the fish 4 and wildlife service website about alewife, there is 5 a little profile about the alewife. And there a 6 single female spawns between 60,000 to 350,000 eggs.
7 So if you're talking about entraining a 8 million eggs, you're actually only talking about the 9 eggs that are produced by a handful of alewife. There 10 needs to be something more than characterizations, 11 this carnage or a super predator, there needs to be 12 some real expert opinion or some real authoritative 13 source that characterizes these impacts as significant 14 in order to have an adequate predicate for 15 consideration of cooling towers.
16 So in sum, it's Petitioner's obligation to 17 make a sufficient threshold showing that its proposed 18 alternative is warranted by significant environmental 19 impact, that it's reasonable, economically viable.
20 Petitioner does not do so.
21 I'll now turn this over to Ms. Leidich.
22 MS. LEIDICH: Thank you, Dave. I'm going 23 to address Contention 2 and then I'll address 24 Contention 3.
25 Petitioner's Contention 2, which alleges NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 1 that Point Beach is violating GDC 14, because the 2 reactor pressure vessels have not been adequately 3 tested, is clearly inadmissible. First, Contention 2 4 largely ignores the facility at issue in this 5 proceeding, Point Beach.
6 Instead, the majority of the contention 7 complains vaguely about the overall NRC approach to 8 neutron embrittlement with Point Beach only serving as 9 one example of that approach.
10 Indeed, today, the Petitioner has 11 reiterated that by complaining about the NRC generally 12 delegating authority to the utilities. This licensing 13 proceeding is not the right venue for such a generic 14 challenge to the Staff or NRC regulations.
15 Second, to the limited extent that 16 Contention 2 does say anything about Point Beach, as 17 it clear from the title of the contention itself that 18 Point Beach is violating GDC 14, it is challenging the 19 current licensing bases of the facility and not 20 subsequent license renewal. Thus the contention is 21 outside the scope of this license renewal proceeding.
22 Contention 2 also fails to address or 23 raise a genuine dispute with the relevant information 24 that is in the application. In fact, original 25 Contention 2, while it addressed Point Beach's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 1 purported lack of surveillance capsules, completely 2 ignored that a supplemental surveillance capsule, 3 Capsule A, is in the reactor and will be withdrawn 4 after receiving between one to two times the peak 5 reactor vessel neutron fluence of interest at the end 6 of the subsequent period of operation.
7 Again today in their oral argument 8 Petitioner has ignored that capsule. Even though it 9 seems directly relevant to their contention.
10 Finally, Contention 2 is vague and 11 unsupported. Mr. Gunderson makes speculative claims 12 as to error prone analytical calculations without any 13 explanation as to what calculations are error prone or 14 what supports that allegation.
15 Such conclusory assertions and speculation 16 make for nothing more than the sort of ill-defined and 17 poorly supported contentions that the Commission's 18 rules of practice are intended to avoid. Petitioner 19 and Mr. Gunderson do not identify or address, let 20 alone identify any deficiency in any of the time 21 limiting aging analyses, of embrittlement in the 22 application.
23 Petitioner's amended Contention 2 does 24 nothing to remedy these various flaws in the original 25 contention. Petitioner's attempt to belatedly address NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 1 the capsule in the reactor is both untimely and 2 inaccurate. And the remainder of Petitioner's amended 3 contention is simply irrelevant to the initial 4 contention.
5 Petitioner's provide no explanation why 6 the supplemental capsule in Unit 2, containing 7 materials representative of both units, cannot be 8 considered for Unit 1 as well. And indeed any such 9 claim is an impermissible challenge to the pressurized 10 thermal shock rule.
11 And the new EPRI letter referenced in 12 Petitioner's amended contention regards calculations 13 for BWR, stainless steel, reactor internals at a high 14 fluence. Which has no relevance to Petitioner's 15 contention about a PWR carbon steel reactor vessel 16 with a lower fluence.
17 In sum, Contention 2 fails to meet many of 18 the requirements for contention admissibility under 10 19 CFR 2.309(f)(1). It lacks specificity, it is outside 20 the scope of the proceeding, and is an impermissible 21 attack on the current licensing basis, and NRC 22 decision making. In addition, it fails to raise a 23 genuine dispute with material in the application that 24 is directly on point.
25 Petitioner's Contention 3, alleging that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 1 the ER failed to adequately evaluate solar power as a 2 discrete alternative is also inadmissible. The ER 3 rejected solar power as a discrete alternative, in 4 large part, because of the land requirements for solar 5 power.
6 And Petitioner, in Contention 3, agrees 7 with the application that there significant land 8 requirements. By its own calculation, Petitioner 9 admits that 65.7 square miles of land, or 42,000 10 acres, would be required for a discrete solar 11 replacement.
12 Petitioner's expert, Dr. Compaan, 13 acknowledges that this land requirement seems 14 prohibitive. But Petitioner in the space of two 15 paragraphs summarily asserts that NextEra could find 16 the land. Either by using a significant number of the 17 commercial or residential rooftops throughout the 18 entire state or through the use of land set aside for 19 conservation purposes in the Conservation Reserve 20 Program.
21 That is not enough to establish an 22 alternative that can, as a practical matter, produced 23 baseload power, either now or in time, to constitute 24 a reasonable alternative to re-licensing as required 25 in the Commission's Davis-Besse precedent. Nor does NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 1 it establish an alternative that the Applicant can 2 actually implement.
3 Instead, Petitioner only sets forth the 4 kind of hypothetical or speculative alternative that 5 has been rejected by the Commission in the past.
6 Neither Petitioner nor Compaan has shown that 7 sufficient rooftop space is actually or reasonably 8 available for solar development.
9 Indeed, the SLOPE tool relied upon by 10 Compaan has a high degree of uncertainty, as it states 11 on the website. And provides an upper bound of 12 feasible development potential for planning purposes, 13 which does not consider economic or market 14 feasibility.
15 Even applying that tool, utilization of 87 16 percent of all residential rooftops in Wisconsin, or 17 the rooftops of 47,000 commercial buildings, would be 18 needed to replace Point Beach's generation.
19 Petitioner and Compaan never explain how 20 it is practical or commercially feasible to obtain 21 such rooftop space to replace Point Beach's 22 generation. They fail to address how it could be 23 practical for NextEra to negotiate and turn to 24 contracts billed and operate solar power on a 25 significant number of rooftops throughout the entire NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 1 state in time to replace Point Beach.
2 Nor has Petitioner shown that this is even 3 plausible for a merchant generator with no transition 4 or distribution system of its own, no link to the 5 ultimate consumer and no power of eminent domain.
6 As to Petitioner's suggestion that NextEra 7 should use land on the conservation reserve program, 8 Petitioner has not demonstrated that such use of 9 conservation land is legal, let alone practical, 10 commercial viable or environmentally preferable.
11 Obviously it does not nothing to reduce 12 the 65 square miles of land that would be required to 13 replace Point Beach. Instead, it merely proposes 14 using environmental sensitive land for that purpose.
15 Finally, Petitioner's argument that 16 nuclear power is too expensive is a clear challenge to 17 the NRC's rule requiring no need for power or cost 18 benefit analysis with the license renewal 19 applications. Thus Contention 2 also fails to meet 20 the contention admissibility requirements.
21 Dave, do you want to address Petition 4?
22 MR. LEWIS: Yes. This is Dave Lewis.
23 I'll be very brief regarding Contention 4.
24 That contention is inadmissible because it 25 challenges the design of the plant and its current NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 1 licensing basis by claiming that a shield should be 2 installed to protect against turbine missiles. The 3 design of the plant and the adequacy of the CLB, the 4 Current Licensing Basis, are beyond the scope of this 5 proceeding.
6 Contention 4 is also inadmissible because 7 Petitioner's make no attempt to relate this contention 8 to any portion of the application. And indeed they 9 cannot because turbine missiles and shafts that might 10 generate missiles are active components that are not 11 subject to aging management review, or any other 12 review, in this proceeding. Thank you.
13 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
14 And I'd like to hear now from Commission Staff.
15 MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Chairman, public 16 and Members of the Board. My name is Mitzy Young, I'm 17 addressing Contention 1 first.
18 And again, my co-Counsel Travis Jones will 19 address Contention 3, and Jeremy Wachutka will address 20 Contentions 2 and 4. And the motion to amend 21 Contention 2.
22 So Contention 1, as you've already heard, 23 challenges the adequacy of the Applicant's 24 environmental report alleging it does not comply with 25 NRC regulations in 10 CFR Section 51.45(c) and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36 1 51.53(c)(3)(iii), because it doesn't consider the 2 reasonable mitigation alternative or replacing the 3 plant once the cooling system with a close cycle 4 cooling tower system.
5 Petitioner claims this alternative will 6 reduce adverse environmental impacts associated with 7 impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms and 8 thermal impacts on aquatic organisms.
9 Petitioner also claims that there would be 10 reduction in occasional mortality from impingement and 11 that the ER insufficiently analyzes limited data on 12 thermal discharges, and wrongly concludes that 13 mitigation is not needed during the term because the 14 Applicant does not plan any changes which would 15 increase thermal impacts.
16 As the Petitioner is aware, the Applicant 17 concluded that the impacts would be small. And under 18 NRC definition of the category meaning, they're so 19 minor that they will not destabilize nor noticeably 20 alter important attributes.
21 If the Applicant is correct, it would not 22 be reasonable to consider further reductions based on 23 the mission guidance that the proportionality of an 24 impact is considered in determining whether it should 25 be included in a discussion in the environmental NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 1 report. Or environmental impact statement.
2 But the Petitioner does not provide 3 sufficient legal bases, or factual bases, to 4 demonstrate a genuine dispute with the Applicant.
5 Neither NEPA nor the NRC regulations require the 6 operation of cooling towers to be considered as 7 mitigation.
8 NEPA is tempered by a rule of reason.
9 That rule of reason applies to both alternatives and 10 consideration of impacts, and it does not dictated a 11 particular action or result.
12 NRC regulations do not specify or require 13 a specific alternative to be considered. But under 10 14 CFR 51.45(b)(3)(ii)(B), an applicant may relay on 15 state water quality determinations, whether a 16 discharge permit or a thermal fluence variance, in 17 lieu of accepting thermal impingement and entrainment 18 impacts on aquatic organisms.
19 To the extent that Petitioner's considered 20 challenged the ability of the Applicant to rely on 21 this regulation and the state water quality 22 determination, Petitioner fails to provide directing 23 the petition and showing required by 10 CFR 2.335 to 24 report a petition for waiver exception to NRC 25 regulations. And has made no showing of special NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38 1 circumstance.
2 With respect to reasonable alternatives, 3 the case law and Commission law has indicated that 4 reasonable alternatives to those that are practical 5 from a technical or economic standpoint, and the 6 alternative is not speculative.
7 Petitioner points to circumstances in 8 other proceedings. For example, Turkey Point, Oyster 9 Creek and Indian Point. But those proceedings 10 involved concerns by the state permitting agency about 11 water quality, and requirements for the performance of 12 their power reactor that are not cited here.
13 Therefore in those proceedings it was 14 reasonable that the alternative of an operation of 15 closed cycle cooling system be considered.
16 Generally speaking, NRC considers 17 alternative in terms of operation that involves 18 replacing power for the facility to an alternative, 19 merely that considers the impacts of closed cooling 20 cycle systems would not be reasonable here.
21 The Clean Water Act determination by the 22 state are in the Wisconsin permit, which the Applicant 23 appended to its environmental report. That permit, 24 which required this month, but it's in timely renew, 25 and under the statute understanding, had NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39 1 determinations which includes determination of the 2 interim best technology available or peddling cooling 3 water system.
4 That interim determination happened 5 because the EPA had not finalized its regulations and 6 the state would be reconsidering that. To the extent 7 that the Petitioner is concerned about impacts on 8 fish, on thermal effluence, excuse me, on impacts due 9 to thermal effluence on aquatic species in Lake 10 Michigan, Petitioner raises concerns with the 11 Wisconsin State permitting agency. And there is a 12 vehicle for them to do so.
13 With respect to bird impingement, 14 petitioner does not seriously challenge information in 15 the environmental report that addresses the 16 modifications that were made consistent with state 17 permitting to reduce the impingement of migratory 18 birds, which included lowering the intact structure of 19 additions over ten feet, the intact crib below the 20 surface, and or address the acoustic deterrent system, 21 which used to deter from alewife from swimming near 22 the intact structure.
23 Basically, the Petitioner complaint, 24 again, is that the adequacy of decisions made by 25 Wisconsin state permitting agency and not with the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 1 Applicant.
2 With respect to accumulative impacts, the 3 Petitioner generally alleges that they're not 4 considered. However, the Applicant did include 5 discussion regarding consideration of past, present 6 and reasonable foreseeable actions and concluded in 7 part because there of the continued monitoring and no 8 specific refurbishments being identified in this 9 application, whether to continue to comply with those 10 standards.
11 The reasonableness of relying on the state 12 permitting agency is, in NRC regulations, in two 13 places. First regulation that I mentioned, 14 51.25(c)(3)(ii)(B) and also in 51.71(d), to a 15 footnote, which indicates that the NRC accepts those 16 determinations and will consider the impacts 17 associated with those determinations.
18 But petitioner, here, although they have 19 generalized complaints about impingement, entrainment 20 and the impacts of thermal discharges on aquatic 21 organisms, they don't raise a genuine dispute 22 regarding the various mitigation measures that are 23 already in effect under the Wisconsin State permit, 24 which they have no, made no showing that the Applicant 25 is not abiding with.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
41 1 And in essence, they would seek to have 2 the NRC second guess, through its consideration of an 3 ultimate technology for cooling, determinations made 4 by the State of Wisconsin, or otherwise outpace 5 determination that the state permitting agency would 6 make regarding the best technical alternative for 7 mitigation of adverse impacts.
8 And the Commission, again, this would be 9 improper under Vermont Yankee and other cases where 10 the Commission identifies that we are to defer to 11 those determinations. And so, as noted, and the Board 12 should be aware, that as noted in the information 13 digest, stated 2020 through 2021, NUREG-1315, Volume 14 2, the NRC has renewed over 90 power reactor licenses.
15 We've issued at least four subsequent 16 license renewals to date. And less than a handful of 17 those were ever considered the mitigation measure that 18 Petitioner proposes here.
19 Petitioner does not, again, it's not 20 reasonable, the alternative they've proposed because 21 they do not show that there are state permitting or 22 water quality concerns here. And don't otherwise 23 generally dispute the adequacy of the environment 24 report in their petition.
25 And to the extent that they challenge the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
42 1 Applicant's reliance on permits, which include 2 mitigation measures, they have not met NRC 3 requirements for raising that challenge in this 4 proceeding.
5 I will now turn over the discussion to 6 Travis Jones, who will discuss Contention 3.
7 MR. JONES: Good morning, Your Honors.
8 This is Travis Jones on behalf of the NRC Staff.
9 Contention 3 states that the Environmental Report 10 failed to adequately evaluate the full potential of 11 renewable energy sources, such as solar photovoltaics 12 to offset the loss of energy production from Point 13 Beach and to make the requested license renewal action 14 from 2030 to 2053 unnecessary.
15 This contention though failed to satisfy 16 the contention admissibility requirements in 10 CFR 17 2.309. Specifically, it failed to satisfy 18 2.309(f)(1)(iii), which is a portion of the extension 19 that is outside the scope of this proceeding, and it 20 failed to satisfy 2.309(f)(1)(vi) because the 21 contention does not present a genuine dispute with the 22 applicant on a material issue of law or fact.
23 To that point, NEPA requires the 24 consideration of reasonable alternatives, not often 25 feasible ones. The Commission has determined that for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 1 Petitioner to challenge the reasonable alternatives in 2 a license renewal proceeding the Petitioner needs to 3 provide sufficient facts or expert opinions to show 4 that its proposed alternatives are commercially viable 5 on a utility scale and that it can be operational 6 prior to the expiration of the current licenses.
7 Here, Petitioner failed to show that a 8 genuine dispute exists because Petitioner failed to 9 present this required information. Also, as noted in 10 the ER, NextEra determined that the solar and storage 11 option was not reasonable because of the significant 12 impact that would result from the acreage required.
13 In Dr. Compaan's declaration he 14 essentially agrees with NextEra and states that the 15 array would indeed require 65 square miles. The 16 Petitioner does not see this as prohibitive though and 17 attempts to raise a genuine dispute by pointing out 18 that the acreage needed for solar panels exists on 19 rooftops and conserved farmlands.
20 Then the Petitioner frames this 21 information as raising a dispute with the ER without 22 providing any information on whether it would be 23 practical or feasible from a technical or economic 24 standpoint.
25 In the ER though NextEra does not claim NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
44 1 that sufficient land doesn't exist in Wisconsin.
2 NextEra instead explains that the associated impacts 3 to wildlife, vegetation, land use, aesthetics, et 4 cetera, render this option unreasonable.
5 Petitioner never mentions let alone raises 6 a dispute with any of the impacts mentioned in the ER.
7 While it is true the Petitioner does not need to fully 8 litigate this contention at this stage, 10 CFR 9 2.309(f)(1)(vi) makes it perfectly clear that 10 Petitioner must show the dispute is genuine.
11 By failing to present any information 12 regarding the technical and economic realities of how 13 NextEra would acquire the aforementioned rooftops or 14 farmlands and by failing to address any of the 15 material reasons listed for NextEra's determination, 16 Petitioner fails to present these facts or expert 17 opinions that would should a genuine dispute with the 18 ER, or that would show commercial viability of its 19 proposed alternatives. Therefore, the Petitioner 20 failed to meet its burden under 2.309(f)(1)(vi).
21 Finally, to the extent the Petitioner is 22 challenging the need for power with its statements, 23 such as the requested license renewal action from 2030 24 to 2053 is unnecessary or its statement that there is 25 no justification for the continued operation of Point NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
45 1 Beach, this contention is clearly outside the scope of 2 this proceeding and the license renewal guidance 3 specifically states that the NRC will not make a 4 decision regarding the need for power at the license 5 renewal stage.
6 Moreover, during the rulemaking process 7 the Commission stated that the regulatory authority 8 over licensee economics, including the need for power, 9 falls within the jurisdiction of the States and the 10 NRC has no role in the energy planning decisions of 11 State regulators.
12 Accordingly, the NRC has stated that it 13 will neither perform analysis of the need for power 14 nor draw conclusions about the need for generating 15 capacity during a license renewal review.
16 Here, to the extent that the Petitioner is 17 challenging the need for power with this contention, 18 it is clearly outside the scope of this proceeding 19 under 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1)(iii).
20 Thank you and I will now pass it on to my 21 colleague, Jeremy Wachutka, to discuss Conditions 2 22 and 4, Contentions 2 and 4, sorry.
23 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you.
24 MR. WACHUTKA: May it please the Board.
25 My name is Jeremy Wachutka and I will be providing the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 1 NRC Staff's position that proposed Contentions 2 and 2 4 are not admissible.
3 In proposed Contention 2 the essence of 4 the Petitioner's argument appears to be a concern for 5 reactor pressure vessel neutron embrittlement at Point 6 Beach.
7 This is a phenomenon by which neutron 8 irradiation due to reactor operation reduces the 9 fracture toughness of reactor pressure vessels making 10 them more susceptible to brittle failure.
11 The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 50.61 and 12 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices G and H, address this issue 13 through requirements to obtain fracture toughness data 14 from capsules either at a facility or at other 15 facilities and to use these data to ensure adequate 16 margins of safety.
17 Additionally, the NRC's guidance in NUREG 18 2191 and NUREG 2192 provides specific time limited 19 aging analyses, or TLAA, and specific aging management 20 plans, or AMP, as one acceptable way to satisfy these 21 regulations during the subsequent license renewal 22 period.
23 In turn, NextEra's subsequent license 24 renewal application, which is the subject of this 25 proceeding, provides NextEra's argument for how in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47 1 light of these regulations and guidance Point Beach 2 would continue to operate safely during the subsequent 3 license renewal period.
4 For example, NextEra's application states 5 that the reactor pressure vessel neutron embrittlement 6 is addressed by a Reactor Vessel Neutron Embrittlement 7 PLAA, a neutron coolant monitoring AMP, and a reactor 8 material vessel material surveillance AMP.
9 This PLAA and these AMPs in NextEra's 10 application are based on the corresponding PLAA and 11 AMPs in the NRC guidance documents and they provide 12 NextEra's proposed practices to ensure safety despite 13 neutron embrittlement during the subsequent license 14 renewal period. They include the withdraw and testing 15 of the surveillance capsule and the consideration of 16 data from capsules irradiated at other facilities.
17 Given this regulatory framework and of the 18 NRC's contention admissibility requirements, in order 19 for proposed Contention 2's concern regarding neutron 20 embrittlement to be admissible the Petitioner was 21 required to point to these portions of NextEra's 22 application, explain why they don't satisfy the NRC's 23 regulations or are otherwise unsafe, and provide 24 support for this argument.
25 The Petitioner though did not do these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
48 1 things. First, the Petitioner did not refer to the 2 specific portions of NextEra's application that it 3 disputes as is required by 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1)(vi).
4 Proposed Contention 2 contains only one 5 ambiguous reference to "the aging management plan" and 6 its basis contains only one citation to NextEra's 7 application in support of the Petitioner's statement 8 that NextEra is storing two capsules in the Point 9 Beach spent fuel pool.
10 Only in its reply brief did the Petitioner 11 for the first time acknowledge the application's 12 discussion of withdrawing and testing the capsule.
13 This, though, did not cure the insufficiency of the 14 Petitioner's hearing request because, first of all, it 15 was pled too late, and, secondly, a side simply 16 asserting that NextEra's capsule withdraw and testing 17 plan is "of grave concern to Petitioner," the 18 Petitioner did not dispute the basis for NextEra's 19 plan.
20 Second, the support that the Petitioner 21 provided for its arguments is not relevant to 22 NextEra's application as is required by 10 CFR 23 2.309(f)(1)(v).
24 For example, the Petitioner pointed to an 25 EPRI letter regarding errors in calculations related NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
49 1 to evaluating existing flaws in boiling water reactor 2 internals.
3 From this the Petitioner concluded that 4 the testing of capsules at Point Beach "may indeed 5 identify that embrittlement calculations made at Point 6 Beach are not conservative."
7 The Petitioner, though, did not point to 8 any specific embrittlement calculations in the Point 9 Beach Application and explained how the EPRI letter 10 demonstrates that both calculations are somehow 11 deficient. In fact, the calculations identified in 12 the EPRI letter do not appear anywhere in NextEra's 13 application.
14 Finally, without any discussion of the 15 NRC's requirements or the application's attempts to 16 satisfy those requirements, the Petitioner repeatedly 17 asserted its belief that NextEra should be required to 18 perform a "complete physical analysis of the coupons 19 from its reactors and the five other reactors that are 20 its embrittled cohorts."
21 This is both, one, an argument that 22 NextEra should have taken a different approach than 23 the approach actually taken in its application, and, 24 two, it is an implicit challenge to the NRC's 25 regulations which do not require such a requirement.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 1 Therefore, this argument is not within the 2 scope to this proceeding as is required by 10 CFR 3 2.309(f)(1)(iii). Because of these failures to 4 satisfy the NRC's contention admissibility 5 requirements proposed Contention 2 should not be 6 admitted.
7 In the proposed Contention 4 the 8 Petitioner argues that the physical alignment of Point 9 Beach's buildings creates an elevated risk for damage 10 from a turbine generator missile.
11 The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 54.4, 12 however, limit the scope of license renewal 13 proceedings to certain plant systems, structures, and 14 components, or SSCs.
15 NextEra's application does not consider 16 Point Beach's building alignment or its turbine 17 generators to be SSCs and the Petitioner does not 18 demonstrate that they are.
19 Moreover, under 10 CFR 54.21 SSCs within 20 the scope of license renewal must also be subject to 21 either an aging management review or a time limited 22 aging analysis, but the Petitioner does not explain 23 how Point Beach's building alignment or its turbine 24 generators could fit within these specific license 25 renewal categories.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
51 1 In essence, instead of demonstrating that 2 its concern is limited specifically to license renewal 3 issues, as is required, the Petitioner's concern 4 appears to have to deal more broadly with the current 5 operation of Point Beach and as such would be more 6 appropriately challenged through a 10 CFR 2.206 7 request for agency action.
8 For this reason proposed Contention 4 is 9 not within the scope of this proceeding as is required 10 by 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1)(iii).
11 In conclusion, because none of 12 Petitioner's proposed contentions satisfy all of the 13 contention admissibility requirements, the 14 Petitioner's hearing request should be denied. Thank 15 you.
16 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you. Thank you.
17 There has been a reservation of time for rebuttal by 18 both the licensee and the Petitioner. What I would 19 propose is that we take about a 5-minute break and 20 then I'd like to hear, again, from Mr. Lodge five 21 minutes of rebuttal and, again, five minutes from the 22 licensee and then the parties can expect questions 23 from the Board.
24 So we will just take a 5-minute break. We 25 will be back on the record at that time, and by my NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52 1 watch that will be 11:17. Thank you.
2 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 3 off the record at 11:12 a.m. and resumed at 11:18 4 a.m.)
5 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. If the parties 6 are back online let's resume with the rebuttal portion 7 of oral argument. Mr. Lodge, you have reserved five 8 minutes of your time and you can start now.
9 MR. LODGE: Thank you.
10 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Unmute.
11 MR. LODGE: Can you hear me now?
12 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Yes.
13 MR. LODGE: Wonderful. Hopefully things 14 -- Thank you, Your Honor. I would like to first 15 address the coolant tower matter. Respectively, it is 16 not a shield for the applicant to be able to say that 17 it is out of our hands, that technically we have a 316 18 permit process going on with the state agency.
19 In effect, when NEPA and the Atomic Energy 20 Act collide NEPA must prevail. I believe there is 21 case law to that effect, possibly even cited, and I 22 certainly would be happy to provide it to the 23 Licensing Board.
24 In 2017 according to Supplement 1 of the 25 Environmental Report NextEra reported that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53 1 foregoing fishery yield because of Point Beach 2 estimated at 7,406 kilograms that essentially 41 3 percent of the fish kill was rainbow, 41.7 was rainbow 4 smelt, followed by burbot, 26.4 percent alewives, and 5 11.1 in round gobies.
6 This is not -- And while I recognize that 7 there are, this is, that doesn't, that isn't an 8 effective rationale that they should die anyway, they 9 are invasives. The problem is is that there is 10 habitat and wildlife carnage as an ongoing phenomenon.
11 I would also point out that in 2011 the 12 Chicago Tribune reported that approximately 4.5, an 13 equivalent of, that the fish kills were amounting to 14 10,675 pounds per year, which was 4.5 percent the 15 annual commercial fish catch by weight.
16 This is very significant wildlife loss to 17 the lake and just because fish reproduce serially in 18 order to survive as a species is somehow not a 19 justification for not mitigating the permit.
20 As to Contention Number 2 -- Oh, and 21 incidentally back to the cooling chart, Category 2 22 acknowledges that impacts on wildlife may be small, 23 medium, or large, depending on local circumstances, so 24 the Licensing Board does not have to accept NextEra's 25 characterization.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
54 1 However, with regard to Contention 2, the 2 vessel metallurgy between boiling water reactors and 3 pressurized water reactors is not relevant. We are --
4 Interveners are discussing the metallurgical aging and 5 internal (audio interference) vessels. The internals 6 as between PWRs and BWRs are rather similar, but, 7 again, this is just simply a major, major warning.
8 As to Contention 3, and this is happening 9 with all three of the contentions we are arguing about 10 substantive today, the Staff or the Applicant are 11 attempting to make of this a substitute trial.
12 They are actually arguing the sufficiency 13 and adequacy of our prima facie demonstrations of 14 evidence in many respects and as two of the three 15 members of this Licensing Board ruled in Davis-Besse's 16 renewal, License Extension 2011, all that is required 17 is to demonstrate some sort of factual basis and issue 18 a fact with some sort of contraversion, if you will, 19 with the application, and that is certainly what we 20 have done as to the photovoltaic solar contention.
21 It is interesting to note that the 22 Licensing Board in 2011 in the Davis-Besse case 23 believed that the state of the art of bend and 24 photovoltaic and conversation in some unspecified 25 combination at that time, a decade, fully a decade NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
55 1 ago, was possibly equivalent or competitive as a 2 substitute for centralized baseload power from Davis-3 Besse.
4 Unfortunately, the Full Commission 5 overturned the Licensing Board's ruling. I say 6 "unfortunately" partly because, in effect, the 7 Commission made a determination on the merits that in 8 2011 the serious commercially viable alternatives were 9 not viable enough to be considered as a serious 10 competition to baseload power from the nuclear power 11 plant involved.
12 Things are far, far different, far more 13 evolved. Wyatt Energy is planning on introducing far 14 more power than the capacity of Point Beach in the 15 next couple of years in the Wisconsin region.
16 There are other competitors. NextEra 17 itself, of course, as I indicated in the State next 18 door, in Iowa at the Duane Arnold site, is making a 19 dramatic expansion.
20 Everyone in this case understands that 21 photovoltaic solar is going to forever profit in price 22 while the costs of nuclear are not going to go that 23 direction at all and is quite likely going the other 24 direction.
25 The reason that Point Beach exists today NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
56 1 is because of a locked in purchase power agreement for 2 the next decade. I realize the Board doesn't take 3 into account whether or not economic feasibility is 4 really viable, but I would simply point out that the 5 artificial nature of the economics is all keeping 6 Point Beach in the game.
7 I believe that I used up my time, probably 8 more than. Thank you very much.
9 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you, Mr. Lodge.
10 And now for the licensee, please.
11 MR. LEWIS: Yes. This is David Lewis.
12 Mr. Lodge suggested that we are not looking at aquatic 13 impacts because they are out of our hands. That's not 14 quite correct.
15 The Environmental Report looks at and 16 references the 316(a) and 316(b) determinations. The 17 reason that a further assessment including an 18 assessment of mitigation measures is not required is 19 because Section 511 and the implementing regulations 20 in the NRC rules requires the NRC, in essence, to take 21 those state determinations as dispositive and rely 22 upon them.
23 For example, the 316(a) determination, 24 which is in our application and is attached to the 25 fact sheet that accompanies the NPDES permit, states NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
57 1 that the impacts on the fish community in the 2 immediate area of the localized ecology of the site, 3 that the thermal plume will cause minimal impacts to 4 the fish and invertebrate communities, or the 5 representative important species list, and that the 6 discharge is protective of a balance in indigenous 7 community of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on 8 Lake Michigan and no temperature limit is needed.
9 So these are some of the determinations 10 that the State has made. We have provided them and 11 it's not just NextEra saying, well, this is out of our 12 hands. It is saying that there are dispositive 13 determinations, which under Section 511 of the Clean 14 Water Act the NRC is required to accept and use.
15 With respect to Mr. Lodge's reference to 16 the Chicago Tribune, our answer already showed why 17 that newspaper article simply misrepresents the data 18 that is in ADAMS.
19 The calculation of 4.5 percent on 20 commercial fishery is just wrong and we have pointed 21 to the actual study on ADAMS that showed what the 22 value is and it's, if you look at the impact on the 23 commercial fishery using the documents that the 24 Chicago Tribune was unfortunately unable to 25 understand, the impact was 0.001 percent, which is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
58 1 such a far cry from 4.5 percent.
2 But, you know, the issue here is that it's 3 Petitioner's burden to demonstrate with sufficient 4 support a genuine material dispute and if a newspaper 5 article, again, by a reporter who, you know, who knows 6 what his qualifications are, is sufficient then just 7 about any contention can come in because you find 8 articles where a reporter says, you know, nuclear 9 power is unsafe.
10 Does that mean all safety issues are, you 11 know, are written in stone? Obviously not. So there 12 needs to be some expert opinion or some authoritative 13 source.
14 Clearly, the reference to the newspaper 15 article didn't meet that standard, but beyond that, 16 you know, when an intervener, sorry, a petitioner, you 17 know, references information the Board is allowed to 18 look to see what that information actually says and 19 whereas here the data on which that article is based 20 is actually in ADAMS, accessible to the Board.
21 The Board should look at it and say, you 22 know, holy cow, that's not even remotely correct.
23 Anne, do you have anything you want to add under the 24 contentions?
25 MS. LEIDICH: Sure. I will be brief, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
59 1 I am going to briefly address some matters in 2 Contention 2 and Contention 3.
3 Petitioner has, again, reiterated the 4 possibility of internals being part of Contention 2.
5 Contention 2 itself states that the reactor coolant 6 pressure boundary has not been tested.
7 Reactor internals are not the reactor 8 coolant pressure boundary and this appears to be a 9 late attempt to modify Contention 2 solely so that the 10 EPRI letter might have some relevance to it. However, 11 Contention 2 itself is about the reactor coolant 12 pressure vessel boundary.
13 In terms of Contention 3, the decision 14 that Petitioners have discussed in detail at this 15 point, is not governing on the Board.
16 The Commission decision from 2012 in the 17 Davis-Besse proceeding is governing on the Board and 18 it states that as a practical matter an alternative 19 must be able to produce baseload power either now or 20 in time to constitute a reasonable alternative to re-21 licensing and it rejects hypothetical or speculative 22 alternatives.
23 Finally, Petitioners have raised a solar 24 power facility that is going to replace Duane Arnold.
25 I believe that is being raised for the first time here NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
60 1 at oral argument, which is beyond untimely.
2 However, that facility is significantly 3 smaller than the Point Beach units and it's going to 4 be, it's not going to be a baseload facility. Thank 5 you.
6 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. Thank you. What 7 I would like to do at this point is to ask a few 8 questions of the parties and I thought it would be 9 best if we did it contention by contention, if that's 10 all right with Judges Arnold and Trikouros, that way 11 we will have the answers hopefully in one spot in our 12 transcript and I think that will help us with our 13 decision.
14 That said, I would like to start, if I 15 could, with Contention 1 and actually start with Mr.
16 Lodge and what the argument seems to revolve around is 17 to what extent should the Board ultimately rely on the 18 fact that there is an existing Clean Water Act from a 19 Section 316(b) determination currently in effect.
20 Mr. Lodge, isn't this Board bound to 21 accept the findings of the Wisconsin DNR and, 22 likewise, the fact that there is an existing permit 23 that has been filed and is part of this record, why 24 should we be going any further than that 25 determination?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
61 1 Mr. Lodge, are you with us?
2 MR. LODGE: Can you hear me?
3 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Mr. Lodge, perhaps if 4 you turned off your video you might be able to capture 5 enough bandwidth to be heard. At the moment I can't 6 hear anything.
7 (Pause.)
8 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Mr. Lodge?
9 MR. LODGE: Yes. I am --
10 (Simultaneous speaking.)
11 MR. LODGE: I am trying to get out of the 12 Webex because I had a screen freeze again.
13 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you.
14 MR. LODGE: So you can hear me?
15 CHAIR FROEHLICH: I can hear you, yes.
16 MR. LODGE: Okay. Thank you.
17 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Please proceed.
18 MR. LODGE: I did hear your entire 19 question, Judge Froehlich. I am -- Hang on one 20 second. I am still trying to exit the Webex so I'll 21 stop the echo I am receiving.
22 (Pause.)
23 MR. LODGE: Can you hear me?
24 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Yes. Please proceed.
25 MR. LODGE: All right. Thank you very NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
62 1 much. I appreciate your indulgence. Number one, NEPA 2 requires the disclosure of the option and, number two, 3 merely because there is an application or, pardon me, 4 I guess a pending request to extend the NPDES permit, 5 WPDES as its known in Wisconsin, doesn't mean that 6 there need not be discussion under NEPA.
7 I realize what the regulation says. We 8 believe that the purpose, among the purposes of the 9 National Environmental Policy Act, is the disclosure 10 to the public, which is supposed to provide 11 reassurance, that governmental authorities are 12 actively seeking transparency as well as providing a 13 full picture of the proposed project, which, of 14 course, in this case is a 20-year license extension 15 that would come atop 60 years of wildlife destruction.
16 And NEPA, as I say, and I believe the case 17 law strongly shows, that when NEPA and the Atomic 18 Energy Act collide that effectively NEPA wins, NEPA 19 governs.
20 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Mr. Lodge, didn't the 21 Wisconsin DNR determine that the negative impacts to 22 the fish community would be minimal? I thought I read 23 something to that effect at Page 24 of your petition.
24 MR. LODGE: Yes. That is their 25 conclusion, but, again, that is a -- I don't believe NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
63 1 that it is of a res judicata type of finding. It has 2 not occurred as a result of an adjudication. It's an 3 administrative determination being made by the 4 regulatory body in Wisconsin.
5 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. And what do you 6 say then to the Staff's answer where they say that 7 licensing boards are required to defer to the state 8 agency that issued a 316(a) permit. The Commission's 9 decision in Vermont Yankee is the case that they have 10 cited to the Board.
11 MR. LODGE: While I understand that the 12 existing permit continues in effect until there is a 13 further determination by the Wisconsin agency, I would 14 point out that the decision as to whether or not the 15 WPDES permit right now would be extended even through 16 part of the remaining decade of the 60-year license 17 extension has yet to be made.
18 And we have to go on data and 19 circumstances now and the wildlife destruction and 20 habitat destruction continues the pace. I simply 21 don't believe that the Licensing Board is barred from 22 requiring analysis and discussion of this very 23 significant core problem within the NEPA document.
24 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you. Thank you.
25 Let me ask of the Commission Staff, 10 CFR Section NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
64 1 51.71(d) says that the Agency should consider 2 compliance with state and federal standards in its 3 analysis.
4 Is this a consideration that the Agency 5 must apply to the federal and state standards? Is 6 that the same as being bound by those standards, the 7 standards, you know, set or determined by state 8 agencies, for example?
9 MS. YOUNG: Well, with respect to Clean 10 Water Act issues, it is the state agency that has the 11 authority to make those determinations, and what the 12 NRC does based on its regulations is considers the 13 impact of those determinations.
14 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay.
15 MS. YOUNG: It doesn't prevent the NRC 16 from considering impacts, but we rely on, you know, as 17 required, that applicants submit information that 18 indicates the status of their compliance with respect 19 to various federal and state permits.
20 And in this case, the best technology 21 alternative determination has already been made by the 22 Wisconsin state permitting agency, and that decision, 23 as we find ourselves at this juncture in the review, 24 is in effect and continues in effect until it is 25 changed by any later action of the state of Wisconsin.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
65 1 So, when Mr. Lodge argues that you have to 2 take the circumstances based on what they are now, in 3 this specific instance, the circumstances are now that 4 they have the valid permit that the applicant may rely 5 on and the NRC may rely on in determining impacts of 6 this action.
7 CHAIR FROEHLICH: While I have you, Ms.
8 Young, the staff states at page 20 of its answer and 9 makes reference to the Oyster Creek case and the 10 Indian Point cases where the NRC permitted an analysis 11 of cooling towers in a license renewal proceeding. Is 12 that solely because that issue was raised by the state 13 agency?
14 MS. YOUNG: Yes, that's my understanding 15 based on discussions with the staff.
16 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Can that same issue or 17 concern be raised by an individual and it be accepted 18 for hearing?
19 MS. YOUNG: Well, the determination of 20 whether something is acceptable for hearing is yours, 21 Judge Froehlich, and the members of the board, but a 22 petitioner is obviously free to raise any concern that 23 they adequately support.
24 Staff's position in this proceeding is 25 that that concern has not been adequately supporting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
66 1 by a showing of circumstances where the alternative 2 consideration is reasonable based on either concerns 3 about water quality impacts or state permitting 4 concerns, state permitting agency concerns.
5 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, also in your 6 answer, I noticed in footnote 91 the staff made 7 reference to the Turkey Point case where a contention 8 was admitted claiming that the ER omitted 9 consideration of mechanical draft cooling alternative.
10 Are you familiar with the facts in that case? Was 11 that draft cooling alternative raised by a state 12 agency?
13 MS. YOUNG: I believe there were concerns 14 raised by the state agency with respect to the 15 applicant's compliance with local environmental 16 requirements and permitting requirements.
17 So, there was a foundation there where 18 there were state-initiated issues with respect to the 19 cooling canal system and impacts on ground water, and 20 such that the concern was broader than just being 21 raised by a petitioner, and the staff anticipated 22 considering that in its environmental documents to 23 address the concerns of the state permitting agency.
24 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, thank you, Ms.
25 Young. Judges Trikouros or Arnold, do you have any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
67 1 questions for any of the parties on contention one?
2 JUDGE ARNOLD: This is Judge Arnold. I do 3 have questions. Let's see, for petitioners, this is 4 not the first license renewal. It's the second 5 license renewal. I'd like to know has anything 6 occurred between the first renewal and this renewal 7 that calls for this evaluation of the impacts of the 8 cooling system now, but didn't call for it at the 9 first license renewal? Has something happened?
10 MR. LODGE: Yes, there has been a power 11 uprating that I believe occurred sometime after the 12 2011 article, but before the 2017 statistics I cited 13 a little while ago, yes, considerably different 14 circumstance.
15 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, let me continue on 16 that then and ask NextEra, although the petitioners 17 mentioned the thermal uprates, they were a little bit 18 light on details. Now, can you tell me for each 19 thermal uprate, has there been an evaluation of the 20 effects of increased heat rejection on the 21 environment?
22 MR. LEWIS: Yes, this is Mr. Lewis. There 23 was a report submitted to the Wisconsin permitting 24 agency to evaluate the increased heat, and in fact, 25 the 316a determination that's in the current NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
68 1 environmental report reflects the state's evaluation 2 of that increased thermal impact.
3 That information was also provided to the 4 NRC staff during its review of the uprate and 5 supported its environmental assessment.
6 JUDGE ARNOLD: Thank you. Okay, I'd like 7 to go back to the petitioner. Does the petition 8 provide any new information on the effects of cooling 9 that was not considered by the Wisconsin Department of 10 Natural Resources or by NextEra that demonstrate that 11 the environmental impacts of once-through cooling are 12 greater than small?
13 I'm asking in your petition and documents, 14 you did have some environmental information about 15 entrainment. Is any of that information new or is 16 that just quoted from the NextEra application?
17 MR. LODGE: It's quoted from the NextEra 18 application or supporting documents, yes.
19 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, thank you very much.
20 Okay, also for petitioners, on page 24 to 25 of your 21 petition, you note that, quote, NextEra's analysis 22 inappropriately assumes the aquatic community to 23 include all of Lake Michigan, whereas a proper 24 analysis should focus on specific localized site 25 conditions, unquote.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
69 1 Now, NextEra answers that they did look at 2 localized site conditions. My question is have you 3 provided any evidence of localized fish populations in 4 existence that are either particularly vulnerable or 5 are disproportionately affected by Point Beach, and 6 that have not been addressed by NextEra?
7 MR. LODGE: I don't know what you mean by 8 addressed by NextEra, Your Honor, but I, we -- the 9 data that we have provided is effectively taken from 10 application documents.
11 I might point out that climate change has 12 not been referenced, nor discussed, nor analyzed in 13 any way respecting the thermal pollution and cooling 14 tower need that we are petitioning about.
15 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, let me just go to 16 NextEra on this. Your answer on that was that you 17 looked at localized site conditions. Do you know of 18 any fish populations that were excluded from that that 19 could be affected by the cooling system?
20 MR. LEWIS: This is Mr. Lewis. Just to 21 clarify, I think our response refers to the NPDES 22 permitting agency's examination of the thermal impacts 23 and it specifically looked whether there were 24 localized impacts.
25 But, no, the answer is the conclusion is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
70 1 that the impacts on the fish communities are minimal 2 and there is nothing that prevents a balanced and 3 healthy indigenous population of fish.
4 So, the answer is I'm not aware of any 5 indication that there is some significant localized 6 impact that hasn't been addressed.
7 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, thank you very much.
8 Okay, question for petitioners, on page 25 of your 9 petition, you refer to the, quote, changed regulatory 10 view of the need to impose closed-cycle cooling to 11 stop power plant carnage.
12 Now, the two relevant regulatory bodies 13 here are the NRC and the Wisconsin Department of 14 Natural Resources. Can you point to any policy 15 document or regulation of either of these two 16 organizations that recognized this new regulatory 17 view?
18 MR. LODGE: No, Your Honor. The reference 19 there was -- I think we earlier or at some point in 20 our petition discussed how retrofitting cooling towers 21 has basically happened since the passage of the Clean 22 Water Act and the half century since that, roughly 23 half century since that happened, that the changed 24 regulatory view was manifest at Palisades which opened 25 with simply a once-through type of system and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
71 1 retrofitted cooling tower technology shortly into its 2 operating life.
3 So, there is a changed regulatory view, 4 and actually in some ways you could argue that the NRC 5 itself has acknowledged the circumstances of once-6 through cooling technology as being very, very 7 destructive.
8 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, but neither of the 9 relevant regulatory bodies has come out officially in 10 favor of this new regulatory view as far as I can see.
11 MR. LODGE: If that's a question, we're 12 working on it, Your Honor.
13 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, let me ask the NRC 14 staff, if a new permit does come out that makes a 15 different determination on the impacts of once-through 16 cooling, will that new determination be passed onto 17 the NRC?
18 MS. YOUNG: If I understand you correctly, 19 Judge Arnold, you're asking whether the staff has good 20 information as to the results of Wisconsin's 21 permitting review?
22 JUDGE ARNOLD: Yes.
23 MS. YOUNG: Well, under NRC regulations, 24 we would expect the applicant to submit that 25 information to the NRC staff and then we would have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
72 1 that for our consideration.
2 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, so they would have to 3 update their application to include any change in 4 their NPDES permit?
5 MS. YOUNG: That's my understanding.
6 That's correct.
7 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, let me ask 8 petitioners, do you have any reason to believe that 9 the next NPDES permit will have a different 10 determination on the effects of once-through cooling?
11 MR. LODGE: That's, of course, a 12 determination that the state agency's going to have to 13 make. I believe that there is some protest or 14 opposition to simply issuing the permit for the status 15 quo from citizens in Wisconsin.
16 Your Honor, I would like to point out, 17 just to supplement my response to your earlier 18 question, that before NEPA once-through systems such 19 as Point Beach's were readily approved, after NEPA and 20 not just the Clean Water Act, the NRC began to require 21 cooling towers as a routine additional feature in 22 licensing of nuclear power plants.
23 So, yes, there is regulatory acceptance on 24 the NRC's part. The regulatory acceptance as to 25 ordering retrofits is certainly not present in any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
73 1 strong fashion, but the NRC is well acquainted with 2 the need and the rationale for doing this.
3 And just to point out, if the expectation 4 when Point Beach was licensed in the late '60s, early 5 '70s was this is only going to operate for 40 years, 6 so I guess we can kill a lot of wildlife, but it's 40 7 years, but the expectation has changed and now it's 8 twice 40 years that we're looking at and I think that 9 that alone should require within NEPA a very serious 10 inquiry into what we're doing, what the plant will be 11 achieving by way of destructive effects that could be 12 mitigated.
13 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, thank you. That's 14 the end of my questions unless, Mr. Lewis, would you 15 like to say anything on that issue?
16 MR. LEWIS: Well, first of all, I'm not 17 aware of NRC after NEPA ever requiring cooling towers.
18 That would be clearly in violation of Section 511 19 which states an agency cannot impose any effluent 20 limitation or other requirement under the Clean Water 21 Act when the NPDES permitting agency has acted.
22 And clearly, for example, the Seabrook 23 proceeding, which a lot of this case law relates to, 24 ended up with, you know, a once-through cooling system 25 relying on the state determination, so I don't know NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
74 1 any basis for Mr. Lodge's statement.
2 Just with respect to Judge Froehlich's 3 question about Turkey Point, as the licensee of Turkey 4 Point, Turkey Point doesn't have 316(a) and 316(b) 5 determinations. It's actually separated from U.S.
6 waters by a sound, I think it's called Card Sound, and 7 therefore it doesn't have the protection of the NRC 8 rule or 511. It's unique and its cooling canal system 9 are unique.
10 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
11 I appreciate that clarification. While I have you, I 12 just wanted to follow up on a question that Judge 13 Arnold asked, and that is if there is a change in the 14 water permits issued by the Wisconsin DNR, there is an 15 obligation, I guess, either for the applicant or the 16 state agency to forward that to the NRC and for them 17 to take that into consideration in the preparation of 18 the EIS?
19 MR. LEWIS: I think there's a requirement 20 somewhere that we provide NPDES permits to the NRC, 21 and I think they're routinely provided, but to answer 22 when the license renewal proceeding is, I think we 23 have to inform the NRC staff of material developments 24 and if there was an NRC proceeding and the board and 25 the parties, and I can't imagine NextEra not telling NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
75 1 the NRC staff if, in fact, there was a requirement 2 that was imposed to install cooling towers.
3 That would actually make it like Oyster 4 Creek and Indian Point. I mean, in those cases, it 5 wasn't just that the state was an opponent. It was 6 the state made a determination in those cases that 7 cooling towers would be required to support an 8 extended period of operation.
9 And I believe in Oyster Creek, for 10 example, they were not going to provide the coastal 11 zone management certification which would have 12 precluded the NRC was going forward.
13 So, it was more than just the state was an 14 opponent. The state had actually made affirmative 15 determinations that cooling towers would be required, 16 which, of course, at that junction, the NRC then had 17 to accept the state's determination.
18 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, thank you. Judge 19 Trikouros, do you have any questions for any of the 20 parties in contention one?
21 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I do. The statement was 22 made by the petitioner that the analysis that was 23 performed in the ER was incomplete and insufficient to 24 support the determination to not go with closed 25 cooling or to not evaluate closed cooling.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
76 1 There were three reasons provided and one 2 of those was the localized effects that we have 3 already discussed. One of the other ones was the 4 question of considering thermal discharge in isolation 5 and not considering it has a cumulative impact with 6 respect to, I assume we're talking entrainment and 7 impingement effects.
8 I'd just like to ask the petitioner to 9 please explain what that means in terms of the 10 insufficiency in the ER?
11 MR. LODGE: As I understand your question, 12 Your Honor, first of all, we're talking about now 50 13 years of operations and the destruction of habitats 14 and effectively spawning beds closed by thermal 15 pollution as well as the evisceration of some of the 16 fish populations.
17 Climate change is another factor which we 18 believe is a cumulative impact that is not reflected 19 in the discussion about thermal discharge and 20 impingement entrainment, and certainly climate change 21 has some meaningful implications for changes in the 22 water temperature during the 20-year extension period 23 ending in the 2050s.
24 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: But my question was more 25 specific to the insufficiency of the ER analysis that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
77 1 you mentioned. You're saying that thermal discharge 2 should have been considered cumulatively with the 3 other analyses, and it's clear that there have been --
4 consideration has been given in the ER to all of 5 those.
6 So, for example, I think Section 461 and 7 Section 462, they consider both thermal and also 8 impingement entrainment, so I don't understand why you 9 were saying that there has to be some cumulative 10 aspect to this that's missing. I don't understand 11 what you were saying there.
12 MR. LODGE: Judge Trikouros, could you 13 refer me to a specific page in our intervention 14 petition that you're talking about?
15 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yeah, 24 to 25 --
16 MR. LODGE: Okay.
17 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: -- in your petition.
18 MR. LODGE: Thank you. Please just give 19 me one moment here to analyze it.
20 (Pause.)
21 MR. LODGE: Well, once again, Your Honor, 22 I'd simply point out that even the state of 23 Wisconsin's analysis does not appear to encompass any 24 kind of analysis of climate change effects, which 25 resulted in its minimal impact finding.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
78 1 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay, well, maybe we 2 should just go on. That discussion I just referred 3 you to broke down your question of insufficiency into 4 three parts. One of them I just said was localized 5 effects. The other was what I just mentioned, is 6 considering thermal in isolation. The third was the 7 use of what you refer to as ancient data.
8 And my question to you is why would data, 9 let's say of thermal discharges from other facilities 10 similar in energy release to Point Beach in Lake 11 Michigan, why would that not be relevant and why would 12 you consider that a lacking if you were to use data 13 from other facilities on Lake Michigan?
14 MR. LODGE: We're not saying that it is 15 irrelevant, but it is certainly not -- data from other 16 plants which may be located dozens, even hundreds of 17 miles away may have some pertinence, but it certainly 18 doesn't substitute for up to date local inventorying 19 of fish populations.
20 And I would point out, I mean, even 21 NextEra acknowledges in its pleadings that the 22 composition of the makeup of the fish populations that 23 were being entrained and impinged have changed 24 dramatically from the mid-70s to their most recent 25 surveys.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
79 1 So, we're talking about certainly almost 2 a self-evident change in nearly half a century, and 3 that's why we believe that the data is dated or it is 4 only parts of years. I think I saw a study of about 5 120 days at one point and perhaps in the last 15 to 20 6 years. I think the 2017 survey was about seven or 7 seven and a half months.
8 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right, does the 9 staff have anything to add regarding that question of 10 using other data, even data as old as 1975?
11 MS. YOUNG: Judge Trikouros, I don't 12 believe the petitioner has raised a genuine dispute 13 regarding the adequacy of the data.
14 The operating history of the plant, which 15 they lament that it's been operating for 50 years or 16 a comparable period, is relevant. The past history is 17 relevant and data considered over a long period could 18 identify trends, excuse me, in terms of the 19 information presented.
20 So, the staff doesn't have a concern with 21 respect to that, but the petitioner does have the 22 burden to, you know, demonstrate that the information 23 in the ER is inadequate, and I believe today we're 24 hearing maybe perhaps for the first time, concerns 25 about climate change.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
80 1 I think if you look at the environmental 2 report, you will see that the cumulative impacts 3 analysis which you appear to be familiar with does 4 consider climate change also.
5 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yes, I think the issue 6 of climate change has not come up until now. That was 7 not raised in any of the documentation that I saw 8 anyway or from the petitioner. Does NextEra have 9 anything to say about the use of other data, 10 historical or otherwise?
11 MR. LEWIS: Again, all the data is used, 12 so not just 1975, and again, there was data obtained 13 on entrainment and impingement in 1975, 1976, further 14 data obtained in 2005, 2006, and further data obtained 15 in 2017. So, any suggestion that we're just or the 16 state is just relying on 1975 just is unsupported.
17 Again, the assertion that the data somehow 18 is insufficient needs to be supported by some 19 technical support to demonstrate a genuine material 20 dispute. There is none here. It's simply counsel's 21 characterization. There's no expert opinion or other 22 document that suggests the data is inadequate.
23 And further, that determination about the 24 sufficiency of the data really is a matter for the 25 state to make, and if the state has made 316(a) and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
81 1 316(b) determinations based on that data, it would be 2 wrong for the NRC to say, you know, we're not going to 3 credit those determinations because we have a 4 different view.
5 I'm pretty sure in one of the cases, and 6 maybe it was the Seabrook, the staff had actually 7 proposed requiring further monitoring after the state 8 had made, I think it was for Seabrook, the finding on 9 the intake structure, and the Commission reversed it, 10 the staff saying no, that's in fact seeking to impose 11 a further requirement, you know, that the state didn't 12 require and is precluded by Section 511.
13 I can't give you the citation, but that's 14 my recollection of the holding by the Commission in 15 probably the last Seabrook case on 511.
16 I do want to also echo what Ms. Young said 17 about climate change not having been raised. It 18 wasn't raised in the context of contention one in any 19 of the pleadings.
20 It's too late to do so, but there's also 21 no factual support or technical support to indicate 22 that climate change is going to have a significant 23 impact on Lake Michigan in a manner that's going to 24 impact fish.
25 You know, that's a technical matter by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
82 1 itself, and in some cases, climate change causes more 2 precipitation, and in some cases causes less. The 3 temperature may increase in one place and decrease in 4 another, and simply, you know, waving the climate 5 change flag doesn't demonstrate a genuine material 6 dispute.
7 Ms. Young was also correct that climate 8 change is addressed in our ER. For the reference, 9 it's at page 4-55 in the context of aquatic impacts.
10 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right, I think we've 11 said enough about it. Let me move onto one more quick 12 question. The staff in their answer at page 21, I 13 believe, and I'm going to read this, it says NRC 14 regulations implementing NEPA instruct the license 15 renewal applicant as well as the staff to consider 16 environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed 17 action and alternatives available for reducing or 18 avoiding adverse environmental effects.
19 And it goes on to say NRC regulations 20 applicable to subsequent license renewal, however, do 21 not specify the alternative actions or mitigation 22 measures that must be considered, so I don't quite 23 understand that.
24 Are you saying that there's a difference 25 between license renewal requirements and subsequent NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
83 1 license renewal requirements in terms of mitigation, 2 in terms of alternatives?
3 I read it directly, so it does 4 specifically say regulations applicable to subsequent 5 license renewal, however do not specify, so that was 6 confusing to me.
7 MS. YOUNG: Yes, Judge Trikouros. The 8 however there was only to emphasize that the 9 regulations do not specify consideration of a specific 10 alternative, so neither the general regulations or 11 instructions for an applicant specify that a specific 12 alternative be considered, nor the license renewal 13 application.
14 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right, so I was 15 getting more out of that than you meant?
16 MS. YOUNG: Yes, perhaps it could have 17 been worded better to convey the staff's position, but 18 that was our attempt to just generally record that 19 there's no specific recommendation as to what 20 alternative was considered. It's going to be to at 21 least on the standard of NEPA.
22 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay, that's the extent 23 of my questions on contention one.
24 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Yeah, petitioner, is the 25 heart of contention two that Point Beach is not in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
84 1 compliance with General Design Criteria 14, not at the 2 present time and not for the period of extended 3 operation, Mr. Lodge?
4 MR. LODGE: Yes, it is. It's our 5 contention that since we must deal with the 6 circumstances of the present and make projections as 7 to the next 20 years, I think the answer to your 8 question is yes.
9 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, but doesn't the 10 Point Beach application contain, you know, multiple 11 material surveillance programs? I think just by my 12 rough count, there were five specific programs in the 13 application to address things like the reactor coolant 14 boundary pressure issues and other such things going 15 forward?
16 MR. LODGE: Yes, there's surveillance 17 arrangements in place, but not on reactor pressure 18 vessel embrittlement, and that's a huge problem 19 because there's such a policy going back more now than 20 20 years as to the status of Unit 2 in particular, 21 which incidentally is metallurgically somewhat 22 different from the reactor vessel and the internals of 23 Unit 1.
24 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Don't these, I guess, 25 surveillance programs that are referenced in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
85 1 subsequent license renewal application at 4.2.1 2 through 4.2.5, don't those surveillance programs 3 address the embrittlement issue that you raise in 4 contention two?
5 MR. LODGE: Well, Your Honor, first of 6 all, I just want to point out something that our 7 expert, Arnie Gundersen, noted in his initial opinion 8 letter, which is that the problem with embrittlement 9 and thermal shock problems is that the utility 10 response -- the plant operators have to respond 11 perfectly in a vanishingly short time period.
12 The utility does not understand any more 13 than we do the embrittlement status. It's optimistic 14 and hypothetical and computer modeled. It hasn't --
15 the data has not been subjected to physical data 16 checks for, again, more than two decades.
17 I mean, it's fine that there's 18 surveillance, but when we're talking about going into 19 the uncharted future of 80 years of operation and 20 this, as I pointed out, all of the other seriously 21 embrittled reactors will be gone by 2024.
22 They will be shut down assuming no 23 disaster between now and 2024, but this one wants to 24 go another 29 years, pardon me, yeah, that's right, 29 25 years.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
86 1 CHAIR FROEHLICH: You know, the petition 2 alleges that, quote, there are a number of error-prone 3 analytical calculations that we're relied upon. What 4 specific calculations are you referring to there and, 5 you know, why are they error-prone?
6 MR. LODGE: Well, they're error-prone 7 because of the fact that they are computer models and 8 simulations, and they're as good as the underlying 9 assumptions, and the underlying assumptions in 20 10 years have not included any known physical data, so 11 you're building projection upon hypothetical 12 projection and the assumptions are optimistic.
13 And again, I would point out it is 14 troubling. The EPRI disclosures are very troubling 15 for that very reason, that we don't know how over 16 optimistic the pressurized water reactor EPRI software 17 might be.
18 CHAIR FROEHLICH: How do we get, Mr.
19 Lodge, past the argument that's been raised in 20 response to contention two, that this is merely, you 21 know, an attack on the current licensing basis of the 22 plant?
23 MR. LODGE: We have to go with -- the 24 problem is that the current licensing basis is 25 difficult, is troublesome. We're talking about flying NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
87 1 blind right now and talking about building assumptions 2 that it's okay to continue to fly blind for 20 extra 3 years, for in effect 30 years.
4 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Maybe Ms. Leidich can 5 help me on this. Can you explain how the Capsule A 6 material affects the, you know, surveillance programs 7 going forward and the types of analysis that can be 8 made or, you know, or that Capsule A would be used for 9 in the period of extended operation?
10 MS. LEIDICH: Yes, Your Honor. I'm 11 getting a bit of an echo there. Hopefully that stops.
12 I'd just like to first address that this 13 is not actually a computer model. We're using the 14 calculation that's set forth in Reg Guide 1.99, 15 Revision 2, and that's in the rule, specifically in 10 16 CFR 50.61 which has the embrittlement curves that we 17 use.
18 The additional data from the surveillance 19 capsule is used to check what the rule states is the 20 calculation and what's in the reg guide.
21 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, and is there an 22 analysis of pressurized thermal shock in the 23 application? Is that addressed?
24 MS. LEIDICH: Yes, pressurized thermal 25 shock is addressed in the application and we are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
88 1 screened out under 10 CFR 50.61.
2 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, and would that be 3 the Section 4.2-6 where I'd see that analysis?
4 MS. LEIDICH: It is in a variety of areas, 5 but I believe that is the section. I'm just going to 6 the same spot that you were on.
7 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, thank you.
8 MS. LEIDICH: Yes, that is correct.
9 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, okay, while we're 10 on this, maybe you can tell me, the application of 11 that EPRI report, which is an analysis of 12 embrittlement in BWRs, how, if at all, are the 13 findings of that report applicable to the type of 14 reactor at Point Beach, a pressurized water reactor?
15 MS. LEIDICH: We would say that they're 16 not applicable to contention two. Contention two is 17 specifically about the reactor vessel itself, and the 18 reactor vessel is subject to lower fluids than the 19 reactor internals are subject to.
20 The EPRI document references a potential 21 issue with BWR calculations at a higher fluence value 22 than what the reactor vessel itself is actually 23 subjected to.
24 Additionally, it applies to stainless 25 steel, not carbon steel, which the reactor vessel is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
89 1 made of carbon steel. It's a computer code. The 2 reactor vessel calculations are based on a reg guide.
3 And in terms of reactor vessel internals, 4 those were not part of petitioner's initial 5 contention. I would say it's untimely to the extent 6 that they're attempting to add them at this late date, 7 especially in terms of the vessel, the bolts that were 8 the issue, has been around for decades, but I really 9 don't see any relevance of the EPRI report to 10 contention two as it exists.
11 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, Mr. Lodge, I'd 12 just like to know if you have any response to Ms.
13 Leidich's answers to my questions before I turn it 14 over to Judges Arnold and Trikouros?
15 MR. LODGE: I believe in our motion to 16 amend that we did address reactor internals. I'm 17 trying to find that right now. If you would proceed, 18 Your Honor, with the other parties, that would be fine 19 if I could come back to that.
20 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay, Judge Arnold, do 21 you have any questions of any of the parties on 22 contention two?
23 JUDGE ARNOLD: Yes, I have. Let me start 24 asking this of NextEra. On page seven of petitioner's 25 reply, petitioners state, quote, Point Beach has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
90 1 admitted that it has inadequate physical samples in 2 the form of metal capsules/coupons to enable 3 metallurgical testing through 80 years of operation, 4 unquote. Do you agree that Point Beach has made this 5 statement?
6 MS. LEIDICH: We do not agree that Point 7 Beach has made that admission. I am not at all sure 8 what petitioners are referring to when they make that 9 statement. In fact, in our answer, we noted that 10 there is a supplemental surveillance capsule with 11 additional material in the reactor that will be tested 12 at the end of life fluence.
13 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, thank you. Let me go 14 to petitioners now. Regarding this statement on page 15 seven, you neglected in your reply to cite where 16 NextEra made this admission. Could you tell me where 17 or what is the source of this information?
18 MR. LODGE: The source of the information 19 is that the plant was supposed to operate for 40 20 years. Capsules were installed with that in mind. A 21 couple of samples are sitting in the spent fuel pool 22 that are now well over 20 years in age and are only of 23 historical interest at all.
24 And the one possible remaining sample as 25 to each unit that is left is not planned to be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
91 1 analyzed for several years to come. I'm thinking I 2 believe I saw 2024 or after, which is certainly not of 3 any relevance to the licensing board making a decision 4 on this contention right now. This is why a hearing 5 is needed.
6 And also just for the record, I have 7 identified in our motion to amend contention two on 8 page five, there is -- we certainly did reference 9 degraded conditions of a reactor's internals subject 10 to high neutron fluence levels. There may be other 11 references, but we did raise the topic in the 12 pleadings.
13 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, let me just continue 14 on with the subject I had. So, you're saying that 15 Point Beach has not made the admission it has 16 inadequate physical samples. Rather, it's your 17 interpretation of the current status of samples that 18 they don't have adequate samples, is that correct?
19 MR. LODGE: Yes, our view is that the fact 20 of no scientific data going back so many years speaks 21 for itself and that it is an implicit admission.
22 Inaction in this circumstance, which is rather urgent, 23 is certainly, it's a valid inference that they are 24 admitting that they aren't working from data. They're 25 working from projections.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
92 1 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, let me ask NextEra.
2 Earlier, I heard that you have an aging management 3 program and time-limited aging analysis that addressed 4 vessel embrittlement, and that those TLAAs and aging 5 management plan program agree with guidance documents.
6 When you say guidance documents, are you specifically 7 referring to the GALL report?
8 MS. LEIDICH: I believe we're referring to 9 Reg Guide 1.99.
10 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, also on page 30 of 11 your answer to the petition, you discuss withdrawal of 12 supplement A surveillance capsule. Now, what I got 13 out of that was that your aging management plan 14 removes the supplement A surveillance capsule and 15 tests the end of life fluence, and it does so before 16 the start of the second period of extended operation, 17 is that correct?
18 MS. LEIDICH: Your Honor, I just wanted to 19 note that we're getting feedback that the main phone 20 line had dropped for the public.
21 That said, the supplemental surveillance 22 capsule is currently expected to be tested in 23 approximately 2035 once it reaches the end of life 24 fluence for the subsequent period of operation.
25 JUDGE ARNOLD: Will that be in the current NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
93 1 period of extended operation or the next period?
2 MS. LEIDICH: It will be shortly into the 3 next period of operation.
4 JUDGE ARNOLD: Shortly into, okay. To a 5 large extent, isn't this what petitioners are asking 6 for you to do?
7 MS. LEIDICH: Your Honor, the rule allows 8 us to -- the rule, 10 CFR 50, Appendix H, relies on 9 the capsule testing criteria of ASTM E 185. ASTM E 10 185 only requires that the first four capsules of the 11 reactor be tested, and that a fifth capsule exists in 12 the unit for subsequent testing once it reaches end of 13 life fluence.
14 We're in compliance with the rule right 15 now. To the extent that the petitioners want 16 something different from that, it's a challenge to the 17 NRC rule.
18 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, are coupons from 19 other reactor vessels sufficiently representative of 20 the Point Beach vessel steel that their examination 21 would provide useful information?
22 MS. LEIDICH: Tests from other reactors do 23 provide some useful information in terms of Linde 80 24 weld information. However, the surveillance capsule 25 that's currently in Unit 2 actually has the most NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
94 1 limiting material in terms of radiation embrittlement 2 for both units.
3 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay, that's the end of my 4 questions. Judge Trikouros?
5 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Unmute yourself, Judge 6 Trikouros.
7 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yes, I apologize. My 8 router dropped me twice in the last ten or 12 minutes, 9 so I might have or certainly did miss something, but, 10 yes, I do have some questions regarding contention 11 two.
12 I believe while I was gone, you discussed 13 the use of the surveillance capsules, correct, 14 specifically that capsule that's labeled A, is that 15 correct?
16 MS. LEIDICH: That's correct.
17 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Well, let me just ask --
18 that's correct. This radiation surveillance program 19 that's mentioned in the, I believe it's mentioned in 20 the filings and also in the application, could someone 21 -- let me ask the staff specifically.
22 Could you please say something about that 23 and how it's applicable to the accuracy of the Point 24 Beach embrittlement calculations?
25 MR. WACHUTKA: Your Honor, the staff's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
95 1 understanding of the application, and the applicant 2 may be able to speak better to that however, is that 3 as I discussed previously, right, this brings in the 4 NRC's regulations as the first level which discuss 5 neutron embrittlement and how it should be covered at 6 all times.
7 Then the guidance documents discuss one 8 way to deal safely with the neutron embrittlement 9 during the subsequent licensing period, and these 10 guidance documents like GALL, as was previously 11 mentioned, and NUREG 21.92 as well, they discuss, you 12 know, different ways that could satisfy the pertinent 13 regulations during the subsequent licensing period, 14 and these discuss things such as withdrawing the 15 capsule and such as considering information from other 16 facilities' capsules.
17 So, really what this goes back to is that 18 this is the basis for everything, and under the 19 contention admissibility requirements, which are 20 strict by design, the burden is on the petitioner to 21 challenge all of this, and the petitioner doesn't 22 challenge any of this.
23 The petitioner doesn't discuss 24 supplemental capsule A until its reply. The 25 petitioner doesn't discuss, you know, how the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
96 1 applicant is consistent with the guidance documents 2 specific to regulations.
3 So, the NRC staff, the main thing is our 4 understanding is that the information is there. The 5 applicant can speak more to the information, but our 6 understanding is also that the petitioner doesn't 7 point to that information, they just receive that 8 information.
9 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right, so the -- I 10 understand. My understanding, and please correct me 11 if this is not right, is that the applicant or NextEra 12 uses what I assume is a Westinghouse computer code 13 called RAPTOR-M3G, which is a neutronic transport 14 model similar to, I guess, for, you know, (audio 15 interference) models, also a cross-section called 16 BUGLE-96, which I assume also was a Westinghouse code.
17 I'm not sure, but I assume that.
18 And they used that to determine the 19 fluence calculations for a bunch of components, 20 including, well, for a bunch of components on the 21 vessel wall and around the vessel wall as well.
22 That's a rather detailed model from what I could see.
23 And that fluence is then used in Reg Guide 24 1.99 and 10 CFR 50.61 to come up with the actual 25 numbers, the temperature numbers, whether or not the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
97 1 screening criteria were met. Does that sound about 2 right? I'll ask the applicant, or NextEra, I'm sorry.
3 MS. LEIDICH: Yes, that is my 4 understanding of how it works.
5 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right, so the 6 connection to the EPRI problem is that stainless steel 7 material testing that they did independently showed 8 that when they applied the calculations to that data, 9 that it was not conservative, and when I say the 10 calculations, what I mean is the, you know, the 50.61 11 part of it is --
12 They have their own 50.61 type analytical 13 procedure apparently in the BWRVIP program which uses 14 then the material property, the material effects of 15 embrittlement and the fluence to make, to basically do 16 the same calculation, but they're doing it on 17 different components than the vessel wall.
18 So, from that point of view, could there 19 be applicability in the sense that the computer codes 20 that are used by NextEra should be validated? Now, 21 I'm assuming since all computer codes of this 22 importance are validated, that they have their own 23 separate verification and validation program. Can you 24 address that in any way?
25 MS. LEIDICH: Sure, so 10 CFR 50.61 only NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
98 1 applies to pressure reactor vessel material. It's not 2 used for stainless steel reactor internals. The 3 stainless steel reactor internal calculation is done 4 by a computer code as the EPRI and letter indicates.
5 The reactor vessel calculation is 6 performed in accordance with an NRC reg guide, Reg 7 Guide 1.99, Rev. 2. It's not a computer code 8 calculation. It's done in terms of the reg guide, and 9 we use the embrittlement curve that's in the rule 10 10 CFR 50.61, so it's a different sort of analysis 11 frankly. They're not really on par with one another.
12 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Right, and I guess the 13 BWRVIP computer code that's in question is analogous 14 to the 50.61 evaluations for the PWR PTS issue.
15 I mean, I'm just trying to relate the EPRI 16 letter to Point Beach. The fluence calculations are 17 fluence calculations. Wherever you do them in the 18 world, they are fluence calculations, and I don't 19 that's in question.
20 So, the only issue then is the 21 verification and validation of the calculations in 22 50.61. I mean, this is a regulation that's providing 23 equations, and those equations are not up for question 24 --
25 MS. LEIDICH: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
99 1 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: -- is that correct?
2 MS. LEIDICH: Yeah, so what I was going to 3 say is that 10 CFR 50.61 is not an issue in this 4 proceeding because it's a rule.
5 In terms of the embrittlement trend curves 6 that are in the rule, it's based on all of the 7 surveillance capsule data and test reactor data that 8 they have, but the petitioners would have to seek a 9 waiver to challenge that rule in this proceeding and 10 it's not really fit for challenge here.
11 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Right, so, and the part 12 of the EPRI BWRVIP program that appears to be in 13 question in that letter is the part that does 14 calculations that are similar. I don't mean exactly 15 the same clearly, but similar to the 50.61 and Reg 16 Guide 1.99 portion of this.
17 It's clear to me that no one is 18 questioning the fluence calculations, so therefore, 19 challenging -- the only thing you could challenge at 20 this point seems to be 50.61 and Reg Guide 1.99, and 21 so what you're saying is you would need a waiver at 22 this point to challenge that?
23 MS. LEIDICH: I think that's a fair 24 characterization of the EPRI report and how it might 25 apply in this situation is that it would be a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
100 1 challenge to the rule.
2 MR. LEWIS: Judge Trikouros, could I add 3 something? My understanding of the non-conservatism 4 that's identified in the EPRI letter is it relates to 5 the critical stress intensity factor for stainless 6 steel above a certain fluence level, and that, you 7 know, it's the point at which it fractures.
8 The determination was that that critical 9 stress intensity factor was non-conservative at a high 10 level. We're not using that stress intensity factor 11 in any evaluation of any flaw, so it really does have 12 no applicability to Point Beach.
13 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Right, so agreed. The 14 calculation is totally different (audio interference) 15 but the question would -- I think that the amended 16 contention two is asking is without sufficient 17 verification, there might be an error that only 18 verification and validation would catch.
19 In the case of the EPRI program, they 20 commissioned separate testing in what appears to be a 21 program to validate their calculation, and they found 22 that the calculations were not correct, but in our 23 case, those calculations are a rule, a federal, you 24 know, regulation.
25 MR. LEWIS: Well, and beyond that, there's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
101 1 the supplemental capsule that gets taken out, you 2 know, very shortly into the period of extended 3 operation and actually tested to validate, and under 4 the PTS rule, you've got to use whichever is more 5 limiting.
6 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Right, so the use of 7 surveillance capsules provides validation, and the 8 petitioner seems to be questioning that those capsules 9 were not available for the (audio interference) years 10 of operation of the plant, and the reply came back or 11 the response came back that, in fact, there is a 12 capsule that has equivalent full power years of 13 fluence that's equivalent to the end of the extended 14 life period, is that correct?
15 MR. LEWIS: Yes.
16 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right, thank you.
17 Now, for the petitioner, I have a question regarding 18 the statement that I believe was made by Mr.
19 Gundersen. It's on page 36 of the petition.
20 It says the NRC's approach to increasing 21 neutron embrittlement has been to develop new operator 22 administrative controls, and then it goes on to say 23 that the operator has to implement those controls 24 perfectly or the reactor vessel will experience 25 cracking.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
102 1 I don't understand what these new operator 2 administrative controls are. Can someone from the --
3 Mr. Lodge, can you help me with that?
4 MR. LODGE: Well, Your Honor, I will 5 answer as best I can. I want to point out we're 6 trying the contention here. We're actually haggling 7 over evidence or haggling over the lack of evidence 8 where we believe we've certainly articulated 9 sufficient facts and law to warrant the contention 10 being admitted for trial, at which point we could 11 provide expert explanation and articulation on that 12 point.
13 My answer is that reactor operators are 14 taught, among other things, I'm sure, to try to spot 15 and anticipate operational problems and to react when 16 they see a certain combination of temperature, and 17 pressure, and other readings or indicators.
18 And so this evolves with the increasingly 19 suspected or verified embrittlement problems, the 20 pressurized thermal shock. I hope and suspect that 21 there is operator retraining of some sort, operator 22 preparation of some sort.
23 So, I would submit that our expert's 24 opinion that the operators have to respond perfectly 25 is valid because of the inevitable aging metallurgical NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
103 1 embrittlement that is occurring that no one can 2 genuinely dispute.
3 So, you end up having to rely with analog 4 systems and human responsiveness. You have to hope 5 that that is enough.
6 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right, let me just 7 elaborate on this a little bit. It says in the 8 petition that these administrative controls require 9 the reactor operators to raise the reactor's 10 temperature before increasing the pressure, and that's 11 true.
12 That's true of a boiling water reactor.
13 That's true of a pressurized water reactor. In the 14 startup procedures, you have to do that, and the 15 operator does it.
16 I don't understand what's new about that.
17 They've been doing that since a long time. Since as 18 long as there have been reactors, they've been doing 19 that.
20 In addition, there are pressure 21 temperature limits on the pressurized water reactor 22 side that have to be adhered to, and when 23 embrittlement gets worse, those pressure temperature 24 limits change, as does the startup procedure nil 25 ductility temperature.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
104 1 So, but the operator has and always will, 2 until we operate nuclear reactors with computers that 3 is, have the responsibility to follow those 4 requirements.
5 So, I don't see anything new and I'm just 6 trying to understand if I'm missing something here, 7 that the NRC implements something new administratively 8 to overcome a technical problem, and I don't see it 9 and I wanted to get some clarification on that.
10 That's all.
11 MR. LODGE: Well, Your Honor, this is 12 Terry Lodge. The nil ductility is getting more 13 confining as the reactor ages. What's new here is 14 that embrittlement and pressurized thermal shock risks 15 are becoming more and more heightened, and such that 16 errors, human errors are less forgiving.
17 It's not just a matter of the startup 18 procedures. You need to be able to follow up in the 19 event of an accident or an anticipatory set of data 20 that present themselves and suggest an accident may be 21 nearing.
22 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right, thank you 23 very much. I think that would be sufficient for me.
24 I have no more questions on contention two.
25 JUDGE ARNOLD: Judge Froehlich, you're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
105 1 muted.
2 CHAIR FROEHLICH: I was just going to ask 3 you, Judge Arnold, if you had any follow-up questions 4 or if we can move on to Contention 3.
5 JUDGE ARNOLD: I'm ready to move on.
6 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. Okay, then.
7 So, Mr. Lodge, is there a statutory or a 8 regulatory requirement that the full potential for 9 renewable energy sources be evaluated in an ER?
10 MR. LODGE: No. However, there are --
11 there are regulatory requirements about an honest and 12 hard look at alternatives be manifested in the ER and 13 ultimately the NEPA document from which it might be 14 derived.
15 CHAIR FROEHLICH: And is there any 16 specific number of alternatives that must be evaluated 17 in an ER?
18 MR. LODGE: No. The -- I would say that 19 the guardrail there is reasonableness, and we believe, 20 as -- as Your Honor ruled in 2011, that serious 21 consideration of the commercial viability of 22 photovoltaic solar and, of course, other alternatives 23 is here. And it's been here for quite a while and is 24 -- photovoltaic solar, as we amply demonstrated in our 25 petition, is making serious inroads between now and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
106 1 2030, now and 2033, the expiration dates of the -- the 2 current license extension for Point Beach.
3 So we believe that it's utterly reasonable 4 for a serious commercial technology that has -- has 5 really tough implications for aging dinosaur baseload 6 plants -- that there is -- there's certainly something 7 that has to be dealt with in the NEPA document.
8 CHAIR FROEHLICH: With that in mind, can 9 you reconcile, I guess, that approach with what the 10 Commission said in the Davis -- what the Commission 11 said in the Davis-Besse license renewal proceeding?
12 MR. LODGE: Yes.
13 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay.
14 MR. LODGE: First of all, it's ten years 15 later. And, as I indicated, the -- the very 16 unfortunate aspect of the Commission's ruling was that 17 they actually conducted something tantamount to a 18 trial on the merit. They made a determination that in 19 -- at this point in time, the -- the commercial 20 viability of -- of the alternatives as a substitute 21 for baseload central-fired power is not shown.
22 We believe -- and would have believed at 23 the time, I -- I recall -- that there absolutely 24 should be a hearing for scientific and other 25 associated technical information to come before the --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
107 1 the Licensing Board.
2 CHAIR FROEHLICH: The Commission in -- in 3 Davis-Besse was looking towards the commercial 4 viability and, I guess, the existence of alternative 5 use for baseload power. And now, as -- as you state, 6 we're -- we're a few years down the road. What is the 7 status, I guess, of a solar proposal such as you 8 suggest in Contention 3? Does -- does -- does that 9 exist anywhere in -- in the world for baseload power?
10 MR. LODGE: I -- if you're talking about 11 is there a direct -- is there an aggregation of solar 12 photovoltaic cells in the immediate vicinity of a 13 power plant that are deemed to be a substitute for 14 baseload? I can't cite something really specific like 15 that.
16 But I can tell you that the -- that the 17 evolution that is happening to regional and national 18 grids, especially in the United States, is becoming a 19 way of supplanting local or regional baseload plants.
20 The -- the idea is adaptability and resilience, that 21 when there is a -- a relatively fast-emerging demand 22 in a particular region, it is far easier and less 23 dangerous to increase the amount of the dispersion of 24 photovoltaic or wind or even conservation measures.
25 And -- and the adaptability, particularly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
108 1 of photovoltaic, is remarkable and happening. I -- I 2 -- I listened to the rebuttals about all of the 3 impossibility of land use and finding enough space and 4 all that for solar photovoltaic, and yet we're not 5 analyzing it and talking about it meaningfully in 6 terms of installing renewables close to the source 7 where the power is used, talking about converting 8 parking lots into solar-collecting asphalt, or roofs 9 or brownfields in cities. But the -- the -- or using 10 rights of way where there are existing power lines 11 which consume hundreds of acres.
12 So I guess what I'm saying is -- is that, 13 no, I can't point to a specific region that had been 14 identified as a photovoltaic substitute for a power 15 plant. But I think that the larger picture suggests 16 that it's happening, and it's happening very rapidly, 17 Duane Arnold being a really good example. There's --
18 there's more capacity planned photovoltaicly than 19 Duane Arnold provided.
20 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. Let me ask --
21 sort of follow up with your answer to -- to the 22 Licensee. Why was a proposal like the one suggested 23 by the Petitioner here not considered in -- in -- in 24 the ER?
25 MS. LEIDICH: I think in terms of the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
109 1 proposal that Petitioners have set forth, on its face, 2 as a practical matter, it's simply difficult to find 3 the land for it. Right now, Petitioner is espousing 4 the possibility of putting it in rights of way, in 5 parking lots, but that's a possibility; it's a 6 hypothetical scenario. That doesn't mean that it's a 7 practical alternative that can be implemented in time 8 to replace these units at the scale necessary for 9 baseline production.
10 CHAIR FROEHLICH: So your bottom line is 11 that the proposal is not a reasonable alternative.
12 It's not a viable alternative. Is -- is that correct?
13 MS. LEIDICH: I think -- yes, and I think 14 as a practical matter that it could not be implemented 15 in time to replace these units as a reasonable 16 alternative to relicensing.
17 CHAIR FROEHLICH: While we're talking 18 about alternatives, then, the ER considers an 19 alternative which, if I understand it, is stringing 20 together 21 SMRs to replace the output of -- of the 21 Point Beach facility. Is that -- is that correct?
22 MS. LEIDICH: I'd have to go back and 23 look. I don't know. I didn't specifically look at 24 that alternative.
25 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Well, I mean, this --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
110 1 this -- this alternative, I mean, if I -- if I did 2 read it correctly, involved stringing together 21 SMRs 3 to -- and this was one that was -- was considered in 4 the ER.
5 Mr. Lewis, is that -- is that correct? Is 6 that the alternative that was analyzed?
7 MR. LEWIS: I -- I can't remember. It's 8 more than one module. I don't know if it's 21. It's 9 one plant, though. It's not 65 square miles of land, 10 which was the basis for eliminating the photovoltaic, 11 plus storage contention. That -- that scenario was 12 looked at, and it was just -- the land use was 13 prohibited. I don't think you have that same issue 14 with the SMR.
15 But I -- but I -- I don't recall off the 16 top of my head what the land acreage was, and I do 17 think it was one -- one plant and not 61 plants or 18 however many you said.
19 CHAIR FROEHLICH: I see. And this -- this 20 alternative that -- in the ER involving SMRs, does --
21 does such a -- an alternative currently exist? I 22 mean, is -- is this commercially viable? At what 23 stage of development is this alternative?
24 MS. LEIDICH: I think that, you know, the 25 Applicant can look at alternatives that it chooses to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
111 1 look at to some extent. What we're here to -- to 2 discuss is the alternative that was set forth by 3 Petitioners and whether they have done enough to 4 establish the alternatives that they want discussed as 5 a practical matter, and B, a reasonable alternative to 6 relicensing.
7 MR. LEWIS: I -- I'm just thinking on the 8 SMR. I believe NuScale's SMR has the design 9 certification or is going into the rulemaking for a 10 design certification. So it's fairly advanced, and 11 there have been ESPs that have looked at small modular 12 reactors.
13 If you eliminated that alternative from 14 consideration, that wouldn't affect, you know, the 15 determination of whether Point Beach's renewal is 16 within the range of reasonable alternatives. So you 17 could, but it's an alternative that people are looking 18 at.
19 Again, on the photovoltaic alternative, 20 photovoltaic power coupled with battery storage, you 21 know, the issue there was not, you know, can you use 22 photovoltaics? I mean, clearly you can. The issue 23 was, you know, is the land use in order to try and 24 replace the sort of capacity for -- for the -- like 25 Point Beach, reasonable -- and again, it was, by NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
112 1 Petitioner's own expert's admission, some 65 square 2 miles. I think it's 44,000 acres.
3 And when you start looking at -- that's 4 the predicate for Petitioner's contention. That is 5 the land use that they say is reasonable. And they 6 say, well, don't worry about the land use because you 7 can just put it on rooftops or put it on the sensitive 8 farmland.
9 So the issue there defaults to, you know, 10 is it really reasonable to assume that, you know, this 11 is a -- a -- an alternative that's feasible because 12 you could, you know, just put it on 87 percent of the 13 households in the state or on, you know, umpty-14 thousand commercial buildings? And we have the 15 numbers in our answer.
16 That's why this contention is -- is not 17 reasonable. And, you know, that predicate's not 18 established by the Petitioner.
19 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
20 I was only concerned to address the issues that the 21 Commission raised in the Davis-Besse case.
22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
23 CHAIR FROEHLICH: I say I was only asking 24 and trying to follow up on alternatives that are 25 considered in light of what the Commission said in the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
113 1 Davis-Besse case where we are to look at the --
2 whether these alternatives exist anywhere in the 3 world, whether they're capable of providing, you know, 4 baseload power, or are they merely theoretical models?
5 And I was -- I was, I guess, concerned and wondering 6 if the alternative that was considered in the ER is 7 more than a theoretical model.
8 MR. LEWIS: I think the standard that the 9 Commission set forth -- and it may not have been in --
10 in Davis-Besse. It may have been in the Seabrook case 11 I'm more familiar with, but it's alternatives that, 12 you know, exist now or will in the near future and 13 obviously involves, you know, some judgment.
14 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. Okay.
15 Judge Arnold or Judge Trikouros, do you 16 have questions on Contention 3?
17 JUDGE ARNOLD: Yes, I have.
18 MR. LODGE: Judge Froehlich -- Judge 19 Froehlich -- pardon me. This is Terry Lodge. I -- I 20 can briefly reply to the things that were just said.
21 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Absolutely. Please.
22 Judge Arnold, just hold for one moment.
23 Go ahead, Mr. Lodge.
24 MR. LODGE: First of all, I want to point 25 out that Dr. Mark Cooper, our economics expert who is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
114 1 a longtime analyst of the invasion of renewables into 2 the commercial utility market, has stated 3 unequivocally in his expert opinion and unrebutted 4 that, absolutely, there is more than ample time 5 between now and 2030 and 2033, i.e. the end of the 60-6 year operating period for Point Beach, to see 7 photovoltaic take over the role of central --
8 centralized baseload kinds of power.
9 Also, what -- what is so ironic here is 10 that in Manatee County, Florida, NextEra is doing what 11 we're talking about. They have the largest battery 12 backup storage system, apparently, so far commercially 13 on the planet. They are developing a direct baseload-14 type competition to what we're talking about with 15 conventional, aging, dangerous nuclear power plants.
16 And I -- I keep thinking of all the 17 rooftops downwind of Point Beach if the reactor 18 operators don't get it right, if there's a -- a 19 pressurized thermal shock event.
20 Thank you.
21 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Thank you.
22 Judge Arnold, please proceed.
23 JUDGE ARNOLD: Well, I -- I want to thank 24 you for that excellent lead-in for my first question.
25 This is for Petitioners.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
115 1 On page 50 of your Petitioner -- petition, 2 you cite your expert, Dr. Cooper, as saying, quote, 3 lead time necessary to ensure the operation of the 4 21st century system is more than adequate between now 5 and 2030 for Point Beach Unit 1 and 2033 for Point 6 Beach Unit 2.
7 And you cite this from page 5 of Dr.
8 Cooper's declaration. I wanted to learn about that, 9 so I went to page 5 of Dr. Cooper's declaration, and 10 I found that what it says at that point is, quote, in 11 Section 4, I conclude that lead time necessary to 12 ensure the operation of a 21st century system is more 13 than adequate between now and 2030 for Point Beach 14 Unit 1 and 2033 for Point Beach Unit 2.
15 That being what you cited was a summary of 16 what he says is included in Section 4 of his -- of his 17 declaration. I went to Section 4 of that declaration, 18 and I found absolutely no mention of lead time or 19 nothing that would support his conclusion that there 20 is adequate lead time.
21 So, evidently, if that information exists, 22 it's somewhere else in -- in what has been provided.
23 Do you know where Dr. Cooper actually provides support 24 for his statement that there is adequate lead time?
25 MR. LODGE: Your Honor, I would request NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
116 1 having a few minutes to reconcile that and respond to 2 you.
3 JUDGE ARNOLD: Well, could we take maybe 4 a short break?
5 MR. LODGE: That would be fine.
6 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Sure. This would be a 7 good time to take -- take a short break to let Mr.
8 Lodge peruse through the pleadings and declarations.
9 Would ten minutes sound about right to all? Ten-10 minute break --
11 (Simultaneous speaking.)
12 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. Why don't -- why 13 don't we come back at 1:15? And we'll pick up 14 questioning on Contention 3. Okay. We'll be back at 15 1:15.
16 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 17 off the record at 1:03 p.m. and resumed at 1:16 p.m.)
18 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. Mr. Lodge, if 19 you're ready and if all parties and Judges Arnold and 20 Trikouros are ready, let us resume. I think there was 21 a question pending from Judge Arnold.
22 And, Mr. Lodge, you were -- you were going 23 to try to come up with an answer for him.
24 MR. LODGE: Yes, and thank you for -- for 25 indulging my request for time.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
117 1 In reviewing Dr. Cooper's report and 2 Section 4 of it, I agree that he does not repeat that 3 conclusion. However, I would point to page 20 of his 4 report. First of all, Dr. Cooper made the observation 5 that Point Beach is afflicted with baseload myopia, 6 and he talks about that concept considerably, and he 7 -- and fleshes it out.
8 And at page 20, the concluding paragraph 9 of his observation is that I include these lengthy 10 exhibits, and those exhibits are 1 through -- well, 2 11 through 11, that talk about the enormous growth that 12 has -- historical growth projections and cost 13 differential and the increasing cheapness of 14 photovoltaic and photovoltaic as a source.
15 But anyway, he says, I include these 16 lengthy exhibits not only to show how much thinking 17 has gone into deployment of the new system but to 18 underscore a simple fact: the Point Beach Licensee 19 refused to consider these remarkable developments 20 because of its baseload myopia, which is unacceptable.
21 If it wants to challenge the ability of 22 the alternative system to meet need on a reliable 23 basis, it can do so, although experience shows it will 24 fail. It simply cannot ignore these developments, nor 25 should the regulators at federal and state levels.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
118 1 That conclusion is backed up both 2 scientifically and practically by Dr. Compaan's report 3 and by Mr. Gundersen's report that, effectively, solar 4 photovoltaic is here, expanding very rapidly, and is 5 here to stay, and in fact here to predominate.
6 And -- and -- and we're talking -- may it 7 please the Board, we're talking in 2021, not 2011 8 anymore. There can be no serious doubt that 9 photovoltaic is replacing baseload plants. They are 10 closing. Point Beach will collapse as an economic 11 enterprise when the purchase power agreement goes 12 away. There won't be a lot of discussion by NextEra 13 about, oh my God, what will we do without the power?
14 It will simply disappear. Things are --
15 the utility system is living in a -- in a -- some sort 16 of pretend world where economics don't matter. But 17 they certainly matter to their investors, and they 18 certainly matter to the public that in the case of 19 Wisconsin is being overcharged in the next decade by 20 at least $5 billion, according to our unrebutted 21 expert opinion.
22 Thank you.
23 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. Thank you.
24 My next question is for NextEra. On page 25 36 of your answer, you cite to the ER as saying, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
119 1 quote, solar with energy storage was not considered 2 further as a discrete alternative due to the acreage 3 requirements.
4 Now, that seems to be a somewhat 5 conclusionary statement just going from this amount of 6 acres to saying that's not reasonable. Does NextEra 7 have sufficient expertise in solar power to make that 8 conclusion authoritatively?
9 MS. LEIDICH: I would say that out of all 10 of the utilities that are out there, NextEra perhaps 11 has the most expertise to make that conclusion, as has 12 been referenced by the Petitioners here. You know, 13 they have multiple solar facilities, and they have 14 significantly large solar facilities, some of the 15 largest in the United States.
16 I'm just going to note briefly also that 17 the ER references three reasons that solar is 18 rejected. The reason that we speak to acreage here is 19 because the analysis by Compaan attempts to address 20 the first two reasons but sort of only summarily 21 dismisses the third reason. So we focused on the 22 third reason for our response to the contention, but 23 there are three actual reasons that are -- it was 24 rejected.
25 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. Let's see. Chapter NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
120 1 -- oops. Somebody's echoing. Okay. Maybe it's gone.
2 Chapter 6 of the Environmental Report is 3 titled Summary of License Renewal Impacts. And I 4 looked through that, and I came to -- I -- I didn't 5 find any impact that was greater than small. So would 6 it be correct to overall summarize the environmental 7 impacts of continued operation of Point Beach as being 8 no greater than small?
9 MS. LEIDICH: I think that would be a fair 10 assertion. I haven't looked back at the table, the 11 summary table that's included in the report itself.
12 JUDGE ARNOLD: Well, I can tell you 13 there's nothing larger than small in there. So it 14 seems to me reasonable that --
15 MS. LEIDICH: Yes.
16 JUDGE ARNOLD: -- it's small. And on page 17 78 of the Environment Report, the land-use impacts of 18 a solar facility are characterized as moderate to 19 large. Is that correct?
20 MS. LEIDICH: Yes, That is correct.
21 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. So even if solar 22 with an energy storage was considered to be a 23 reasonable alternative, have you not already done 24 sufficient evaluation of the solar alternative to say 25 it is not preferable to -- environmentally preferable NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
121 1 to continued operation of Point Beach?
2 MS. LEIDICH: Can you repeat the question?
3 I think I misheard you.
4 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. You've said that 5 solar impact on land use is moderate to large, whereas 6 continued operation of Point Beach is small. Isn't 7 that enough to conclude that the environmental impacts 8 of solar are greater than the environmental impacts of 9 continued operation of Point Beach?
10 MS. LEIDICH: Yes, that's correct. I did 11 actually mishear you the first time, so I'm glad you 12 repeated the question. But yes. I think we would 13 state that the environmental impacts of solar have a 14 potential to be quite significant, given the amount of 15 land that would be required to be used, and that 16 that's greater than the license renewal of Point 17 Beach.
18 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. Now, let's see. One 19 last question for Petitioners.
20 I've looked through the contention, and 21 I've looked to see whether you assert that the 22 environmental impacts of license renewal would be 23 greater than small. And I haven't found any such 24 assertion, and I haven't found any assertion that the 25 land-use impacts of solar would be less than moderate.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
122 1 So I don't see that you've actually challenged 2 anywhere the -- the comparison of the environmental 3 impacts of Point Beach versus solar.
4 Do you make any such explicit challenge 5 within your contention, and did I just miss it?
6 MR. LODGE: Yes, Your Honor. We did make 7 a very explicit contention in our reply memorandum, 8 and I'm trying to give you the exact page numbers.
9 Our reply in support of Contention 3 begins at page 13 10 and runs through 21 or 22.
11 In that, we talk -- first of all -- first 12 of all, I want to point out, once again, you're 13 calling upon us to litigate this contention here and 14 now, put all of our evidentiary cards on the table, 15 and assume the veracity of unnamed experts cited in a 16 vague way by NextEra, and you make a decision as to 17 admissibility based on whether we could win the trial.
18 And that I have to object to, Your Honor, as being an 19 inappropriate test of the petition.
20 But I'd like to point out that the -- the 21 -- NextEra exaggerates their -- the claimed problems 22 with industrial photovoltaic in favor of their small 23 findings. The -- the -- the fact that there may be a 24 moderate to large environmental impact is a judgment 25 determination when you don't have to realistically NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
123 1 delve into the possibilities of adapting lots of 2 unused land, lots of unused structures, rooftops and 3 whatnot, to photovoltaic when you don't have to 4 actually develop evidence that supports your blanket 5 conclusion that thousands of acres and impossible --
6 impossible problems will keep this from being 7 practical when, in fact -- when, in fact, NextEra 8 itself is proving the -- the coming era is here.
9 So the fact that, for instance, they call 10 the radiological effects of storing waste on-site 11 during the extended period a small impact is, yes, 12 technically accurate. But during the 20-year 13 extension period, they will be generating more high-14 level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, and low-15 level radioactive waste, all of which are problems, 16 and all of which the NRC concedes post-closure are 17 large problems.
18 So they're exaggerating their advantages 19 and exaggerating the disadvantages of consideration of 20 photovoltaic. You're asking us to prove that today.
21 I ask that the Licensing Board please review and 22 consider the arguments we make about small on pages 13 23 to 21 or 22 of our reply.
24 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. First off, I haven't 25 asked you to prove anything. I'm asking you to point NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
124 1 out where in your contention you make the challenge, 2 and apparently you didn't. You didn't -- you instead 3 refer to your reply, in which you can't make new 4 challenges or provide new information.
5 So I'm going to take it that your petition 6 does not challenge the small environmental impact of 7 Point Beach and does not challenge the medium to large 8 impact of solar, unless you can point me to something 9 in the petition that states otherwise.
10 MR. LODGE: With respect -- with respect, 11 Your Honor, there was no motion to strike any aspect 12 of our reply memorandum. That's because we were 13 fairly responding to points that were made in the 14 answers. And so I believe the -- the Licensing Board 15 is obliged to consider our reply arguments as simply 16 legitimate expansion -- amplification, I believe is 17 the term -- of points that we had made in our initial 18 petition.
19 So -- and yes, I would also point out that 20 we do have some problems, which I -- again, I may have 21 to take a few minutes, but I believe that we did 22 address the -- the small references in our initial 23 decision. But in any event, I believe that they're 24 legalistically and adequately responded to in the 25 reply.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
125 1 JUDGE ARNOLD: Thank you. I have no more 2 questions.
3 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Judge Trikouros, do you 4 have any questions for -- for any of the parties on 5 Contention 3?
6 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yes. I have a few.
7 First of all, this word, baseload, gets used a lot.
8 It's (audio interference) in order to be viable. So 9 how would -- how would baseload be defined? And this 10 if for -- for any and all of you.
11 (Simultaneous speaking.)
12 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Let me -- let me ask --
13 let me ask NextEra -- let me ask NextEra first.
14 MS. LEIDICH: Baseload is defined, in my 15 interpretation of it, as power that's available at all 16 times. It's not cyclical. Let's put it that way.
17 Traditional power -- solar power, obviously, is 18 available during the day. It's not available at 19 night.
20 Baseload power would be power that is 21 available throughout the day without a cyclical dip in 22 terms of the time of day that you're dealing with. At 23 least in terms of solar power, I think that's an 24 accurate characterization of how we're using baseload.
25 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. Well, let me NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
126 1 come back to that. Let me -- is there someone else 2 who wants to define that for me?
3 (Pause.)
4 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Hearing none --
5 MR. LEWIS: This is Mr. Lewis.
6 (Simultaneous speaking.)
7 MR. LEWIS: Not only is it cyclical, but 8 it's also a large block of highly reliable power 9 that's not only not intermittent, you know, but is 10 available, you know, over long periods of time. So, 11 you know, nuclear plants operate over 18- or 24-month 12 refueling cycles, and they operate at a highly -- a 13 very high capacity factor, you know, often over 90 14 percent.
15 And it's that large block of continuing 16 operating, highly reliable power. That's not precise, 17 but that's the concept.
18 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Would a solar PV 19 facility -- the baseload, in replacing the power of 20 Point Beach, would it have to provide a capacity 21 factor of 90 percent, something equivalent to Point 22 Beach? And I ask that question --
23 (Simultaneous speaking.)
24 MR. LEWIS: -- a high capacity factor.
25 Therefore, it would have to be coupled with a storage NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
127 1 mechanism that in turn is able to provide, you know, 2 with the -- with the solar -- with the charging from 3 solar power, continuous power. And I guess I should 4 add that the facility that is -- is being built by 5 Florida in Florida has batteries that are really only 6 for, like, peaking power. That facility is not being 7 built as -- as baseload energy storage.
8 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Yeah. That -- that, in 9 fact, is my problem. The -- I hear terminology that 10 seems conflicting to me. For example, solar can only 11 provide baseload power if it's coupled with energy 12 storage. And then I look at any data that's available 13 in this -- in this case with respect to the battery 14 backup, and I -- and I don't see numbers that make any 15 sense at all with respect to baseload.
16 For example, Dr. Compaan -- paragraph 18 17 of his declaration, he refers to a 250-megawatt solar 18 field that would have a surge capacity of 300 megawatt 19 hours2.199074e-4 days <br />0.00528 hours <br />3.141534e-5 weeks <br />7.2295e-6 months <br />, which means that it only has enough batteries 20 to run for one hour.
21 MR. LEWIS: That's correct.
22 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I don't see how that 23 takes you from baseload to non-baseload or -- or from 24 non-baseload to baseload. It -- it -- one hour of the 25 battery doesn't seem to make any sense at all in that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
128 1 regard. And that seems to be what I see wherever I 2 look.
3 Does anyone wish to comment on -- on that, 4 that the -- that the assumption of battery backup to 5 solar makes it baseload?
6 MR. LODGE: Yes, the Petitioners would 7 like to respond, Your Honor.
8 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. Please.
9 (Simultaneous speaking.)
10 MR. LODGE: -- number 1, you may recall 11 from the 2011 Davis-Besse hearings one of the 12 components of our alternatives exposition was the use 13 of compressed air storage. Specifically, FirstEnergy 14 owned a large cavern complex near Akron, Ohio. And 15 the -- the idea that they had conjectured was that in 16 times of overnight power production, they would 17 essentially compress air and then release it to turn 18 turbines during peaking times of day.
19 You could certainly use the excess power 20 generated by photovoltaic, which, as Dr. Cooper 21 pointed out, usually coincides pretty closely with 22 peak power needs during daylight hours, as a battery 23 storage type thing. There are other battery storage 24 types of mechanisms, such as pumped hydro in Michigan 25 that's used by Consumers Energy.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
129 1 But -- but, moreover, one of the things 2 Dr. Cooper pointed out, and -- and it was exculpated 3 somewhat by Dr. Compaan's report, is that we're 4 talking about scalable, readily resilient kinds of 5 systems where if you need incrementally more power, 6 you install more photovoltaic collectors and -- and/or 7 wind or whatever.
8 But the point is that renewables don't 9 require a ten-year licensing and construction period, 10 et cetera, et cetera, all of the things that I'm sure 11 the Panel already knows. So the point is -- is that 12 if you wanted to be more than a peaking battery 13 backup, NextEra, undoubtedly they will expand into 14 baseload power.
15 NextEra is actually showing the Licensing 16 Board what is -- what is possible while at the same 17 time claiming it's impossible in Wisconsin, and that's 18 because it's impossible because of NextEra's 19 investment. This is their cash cow.
20 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: The -- I think the 21 concern is more with respect to overnight hours and --
22 and also cloudy days, and the -- there's -- I -- I 23 couldn't find any invitation in the -- in the 24 pleadings for the declarations regarding how much 25 battery backup we're talking about in -- in order to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
130 1 achieve a given baseload number.
2 So, you know, for example, if I remember 3 correctly from Davis-Besse, the interconnected wind 4 farms were capable of producing 47 percent baseload 5 capacity, which meant for 47 percent of the time, they 6 provided continuous power.
7 That does not seem to be the case with 8 solar in the sense that its capacity factor without 9 backup is 30 percent and therefore would require 10 significant backup to -- to get up to numbers like 50 11 percent. And the cost of that is not addressed at 12 all.
13 So I'm -- I'm just -- I'm just curious how 14 the solar -- I mean it is a requirement of these solar 15 plants that they provide baseload power. And I -- I'm 16 confused by what that means exactly. All right.
17 MR. JONES: Your Honor, Travis Jones.
18 Before we -- we move on, I just wanted to point out I 19 think your original question was whether there was any 20 sort of guidance documents that reference the -- the 21 baseload power. And in the GEIS Section 2.3 on page 22 2-18, that does speak to baseload power.
23 They're -- the -- given a specific 24 definition, but they speak to it in decent detail if 25 you wanted a reference.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
131 1 (Simultaneous speaking.)
2 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: What -- what document 3 are you referring to? I'm sorry. I missed what you 4 said.
5 MR. JONES: The -- the GEIS, the final 6 report.
7 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Oh, in the GEIS. Okay.
8 MR. JONES: New Reg 14 -- New Reg 9 14-37, Volume 1, Revision 1.
10 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Okay.
11 MR. JONES: And it's on page 2-18.
12 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. I'll 13 certainly look at that. Thank you.
14 When -- when the calculation of the 15 acreage was made, it was originally 6,780 acres based 16 on a metric that was provided of a -- a -- what was it 17 -- 5.2 acres per megawatt, I think. Anyway, the --
18 Dr. Compaan looked at that with respect to the -- the 19 actual capacity factor of solar, and he concluded that 20 you would need 42,000 acres.
21 Now, can anyone address for -- well, I 22 guess I'll ask the Petitioner to address for me, that 23 42,000 acres, did that include acreage for the 24 batteries as well? Or was that just the -- just the 25 solar without battery backup?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
132 1 MR. LODGE: I don't think the -- first of 2 all, Your Honor, once again I just want to point out 3 these are the kinds of questions our experts, not 4 having to talk through me, a poly sci major, would be 5 able to adequately and effectively answer.
6 But my hunch is that the battery backup, 7 if we're talking about physical manufactured battery 8 equipment, is not going to be a very large piece of 9 the footprint. Yes, we agree and admit that there's 10 a large amount of acreage necessary for the 11 photovoltaic collection. But -- but, Your Honor, that 12 -- photovoltaic is -- is here. Photovoltaic is able 13 to beat on a pricing as well as adequacy of power 14 basis, most hours of the day -- if we are quibbling 15 over storage mechanisms, that is an issue of fact that 16 can be tried, and you can listen to competing experts.
17 What I'm -- what seems to be going on here 18 is that representations by the utility are accepted 19 for their inherent worthiness and -- and truthfulness, 20 whereas we're being called upon to prove and, again, 21 try the issues that our experts have already -- the --
22 the markers that they have laid down in the reports.
23 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. Well, the --
24 given the -- given the growth of solar power, I'm not 25 in any way disputing what you say, obviously. I'm --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
133 1 I'm simply trying to address the requirements for 2 alternatives -- for an alternative for Point Beach.
3 And one of the requirements is that it be baseload 4 power. And that seems -- that seems to be confusing, 5 since we have no -- and I certainly will look at the 6 GEIS and see what it says regarding that. But there's 7 nothing in the pleadings that I've seen that helps me 8 with that.
9 Let me ask another question for the -- I 10 guess for the Petitioner, in this case. How would the 11 -- how would batteries integrate with rooftop solar?
12 MR. LODGE: I'm not an engineer, sir. I 13 rather suspect -- I rather suspect that the technology 14 exists and is well established for such an 15 integration. We're talking about dispersed forms of 16 energy collection, of course, and we're talking -- but 17 those are technical details, and they're technological 18 features that I think would be explicated at a trial 19 on the merits.
20 You're -- again, you're asking -- you're 21 asking me for responses that will go into some sort of 22 weighing as to whether or not the contention is worthy 23 of a hearing. And -- and I believe that -- with 24 respect, that that goes too far afield into -- you 25 know, again, we're talking matters of proof here. And NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
134 1 we're actually talking about weighing things on the 2 scale. And once you're -- once you're in that field, 3 then let's get -- let's put our people under oath, and 4 let's let our experts answer you directly.
5 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. I -- I'm --
6 I'm not going to ask -- I'll try not to ask any more 7 -- any more questions that are that level of 8 technical.
9 If one were to -- to utilize farmland for 10 -- 42,000 acres of farmland for a solar facility, 11 would -- would there have to be a distribution system 12 built? And if so, why wasn't that evaluated as an 13 environmental impact at all?
14 MR. LODGE: Well, very little has been 15 evaluated as an environmental impact so far as the 16 needs of the system. But I would point out that if 17 Point Beach were closed, it has already created a main 18 stem transmission corridor, which could certainly be 19 adapted to -- to draw in power generated on farmland, 20 brownfields, even within the transmission corridor 21 itself.
22 And, you know, these are -- these are 23 effectively details that can be worked out. They're 24 not technological hurdles that haven't been addressed 25 or contemplated. But there certainly is some grid NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
135 1 that is salvageable and reusable around all closed and 2 closing power plants.
3 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. Are you 4 aware of what the lifetime of a solar PV panel is, 5 sir?
6 MR. LODGE: Pardon -- the life cycle of 7 the collectors?
8 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: The life -- the -- yes, 9 before they have to be replaced.
10 MR. LODGE: I think the period of their 11 durability is expanding, but that -- depending of 12 course on manufacturer and all of that, it's really 13 something on the order of 20 years or more.
14 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right --
15 MR. LODGE: But, again, there are -- and 16 I also note, Your Honor, that I have read accounts 17 that there are recycling firms developing that are 18 going to be able, apparently, to convert and reuse the 19 film and other components of the collectors 20 themselves.
21 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: But they're not 22 operating right -- right this moment, are they?
23 MR. LODGE: I believe -- I believe that 24 there are some start-ups, yes. The -- the thing is 25 that there is a -- a large segment of the economy is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
136 1 growing. This is a -- is a burgeoning industry, 2 certainly compared to nuclear.
3 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Well, what I'm trying to 4 determine, and as Judge Arnold had indicated earlier, 5 is that the environmental effects of the solar PV --
6 certain solar PV facilities have -- haven't been 7 available in the pleadings. For example, the disposal 8 of -- of all of the -- of 87 percent of the 9 households' rooftops solar PV in 20 years.
10 The distribution system has to be built.
11 None of those environmental effects seem to be 12 included in the comparison, and we're trying to make 13 a determination of environmental comparisons between 14 the renewal of the plant and -- and -- and other --
15 other options that are -- well, I'll say we are not --
16 we are not making that determination. I -- I correct 17 myself. But we are evaluating the pleadings regarding 18 that.
19 The -- and so there are a number of 20 questions that -- that come up, and I -- I think I'm 21 just not going to answer any more of these -- oh, one 22 more, though. When you do say capacity in the 23 pleadings, you're referring to capacity factor?
24 MR. LODGE: Is there a specific example 25 you're looking at?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
137 1 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: Well, it's throughout 2 the -- it's mentioned many, many times. Let me ask 3 the applicant -- let me ask the expert, I should say.
4 When -- when -- would you take the word 5 generation -- the words generation capacity to mean 6 capacity factor?
7 MS. LEIDICH: I think we would take it to 8 mean -- sorry, David. I think we would take it to 9 mean both the rated power supply of the unit that 10 you're intending to replace as well as the ability to 11 be baseload power, which would be capacity factor.
12 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: All right. All right.
13 I think I'm going to stop there.
14 CHAIR FROEHLICH: Okay. Thank you, Judge 15 Trikouros.
16 Let's move promptly to Contention 4, which 17 is the contention that raises a -- a -- a concern 18 about the elevated risk of a turbine missile accident 19 due to, I guess, the alignment of the buildings and --
20 and structures.
21 Mr. Lodge, by this contention, are -- are 22 you attempting to raise the existing design of that 23 turbine or the turbine and its -- the building around 24 it as an issue in this proceeding?
25 MR. LODGE: Yes, and it's -- the problem NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
138 1 is it's a -- it's another metallurgical type of 2 question that will certainly not improve with age, 3 which is why we believe it will continue -- turbine 4 missile problems might continue -- well, will continue 5 to be of some concern throughout the 20-year 6 extension.
7 CHAIR FROEHLICH: But, Mr. Lodge, aren't 8 turbine shields and turbine blades and these sort of 9 components -- aren't they classified as active 10 components?
11 MR. LODGE: Yes.
12 CHAIR FROEHLICH: And aren't active 13 components outside the scope of a subsequent license 14 renewal?
15 MR. LODGE: Well, I -- I think the problem 16 is -- is that they are active components, and they 17 will be active components during the extension period, 18 and -- and that they -- that the mitigation that we 19 propose is something that must be considered within 20 the framework of this proceeding.
21 CHAIR FROEHLICH: I guess my problem is I 22 don't see how that's -- even -- even worded as -- as 23 you just stated it, is different than -- than an 24 attack on the current licensing basis of the plant and 25 of those components. If you can, please explain how NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
139 1 we can -- you know, how -- how -- how we can look at 2 that in the context of a subsequent license renewal.
3 MR. LODGE: Well, the missile shielding 4 itself is a passive component. And -- and that is --
5 that's -- that's the focus of our contention.
6 CHAIR FROEHLICH: And is the shielding 7 suffering from some degradation or something because 8 of its age?
9 MR. LODGE: Well, the problem is -- is 10 we're venturing into an extended period that was not 11 contemplated during the design and construction of the 12 power plant. And -- and I would also like to point 13 out that Mr. Gundersen actually holds a patent on 14 missile shielding. And -- and the idea at the time 15 that he worked on and developed that -- that 16 patentable design was in contemplation of a 40-year 17 operating license.
18 CHAIR FROEHLICH: All right. Those --
19 those were my fundamental concerns with Contention 4.
20 I don't have any further questions on this contention 21 for any of the parties.
22 Judge Arnold or Judge Trikouros, do you 23 have anything on Contention 4?
24 JUDGE ARNOLD: I have no questions.
25 JUDGE TRIKOUROS: I -- I have one general NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
140 1 question. I think you just -- I think Mr. Lodge just 2 answered it, but I'll -- I'll mention it.
3 In your petition -- in your reply, at page 4 22, you make a statement that irrespective of what the 5 NRC staff or NextEra consider the processes to be, the 6 turbine shafts in Units 1 and 2 are aging and will 7 continue to do so for a score more years in a 8 subsequent license renewal period.
9 What you -- what you mean by that is that 10 it's a safety issue that should be considered even if 11 it's outside of the requirements of -- of license 12 renewal? Is that what you mean by that, Mr. Lodge?
13 MR. LODGE: Well, the -- the turbine is 14 not safety related in and of itself. And so it's not 15 covered under the active failure types of regulatory 16 concerns. The -- the -- let me just step back a 17 little bit and point out that what happened was that 18 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission changed its rules so 19 that newer reactors -- the layout of newer reactors 20 was altered from tangential to radial turbine halls.
21 The -- the failure of this non-safety-22 related component, the turbine, however, will endanger 23 in an old plant like Point Beach, which was built 24 before the alteration of the layout -- failure will 25 endanger and very possibly, if not likely, hit safety-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
141 1 related components.
2 JUDGE ARNOLD: This is Judge Arnold. Now 3 I do have a question.
4 Where in the regulations does it discuss 5 turbine building orientation? Do you know?
6 MR. LODGE: I think it's probably 7 discussed in the construction regs. And it may not be 8 set up so as to explain that to avoid a turbine 9 missile problem, build it this way. It may simply be 10 a regulation that says that the layout shall be on --
11 you know, on some type of axial radius or location.
12 JUDGE ARNOLD: I have no questions.
13 CHAIR FROEHLICH: All right. I think 14 we've come to the conclusion of today's oral argument 15 on the admissibility of the four proposed contentions 16 from the Wisconsin -- Physicians for Social 17 Responsibility Wisconsin.
18 I want to thank the parties for their 19 written pleadings thus far in the case and say that 20 today's oral argument has been helpful to me and, to 21 speak for the Board, has been helpful to the Board in 22 helping us make a determination on the admissibility 23 of -- of the four proposed contentions.
24 We will -- we will meet immediately after 25 -- after this session, and you can expect our decision NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
142 1 to be issued within 45 days of today as contemplated 2 by 10 CFR 2.309(j).
3 If I could ask the parties and court 4 reporter to stay on the line after -- after I adjourn 5 today's hearing to clean up the record if there need 6 be any corrections made or acronyms explained or 7 anything that, because of connectivity issues, maybe 8 isn't clear on our transcript. If you'll stay on and 9 answer any questions that our court reporter might 10 have, it'd be appreciated.
11 Other than that, I really have nothing 12 further. Again, I thank the parties and the -- the 13 support people, our law clerk, Andy Welkie, the 14 technical support, for making this happen in the age 15 of COVID. And thank you all for your participation 16 today.
17 Okay. We'll stand adjourned.
18 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 19 off the record at 1:58 p.m.)
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