ML11160A030

Transcript of Proceedings Re Entergy Nuclear Operations Indian Point Units 2 & 3 on June 06 2011, Pages 955-986

ML11160A030
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	06/06/2011
From:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
SECY RAS
References
50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, RAS E-544, NRC-938
Download: ML11160A030 (34)

Text

Apf-Sr -- q Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Entergy Nuclear Operations DOCKETED Indian Point Units 2 and 3 June 6, 2011 (8:00 a.m.)

OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Docket Number: 50-247-LR and 50-286-LR Location: (telephone. conference)

Date: Monday, June 6, 2011 Work Order No.: NRC-938 Pages 955-986 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 7Dq 6719-C-11ý

955 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5

6 PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE 7 --------------------- x 8 IN THE MATTER OF:

9 ENTERGY NUCLEAR Docket Nos. 50-247-LR 10 OPERATIONS, INC. 50-286-LR 11 (Indian Point Generating 12 Station, Units 2 and 3 13 --------------------- x 14 Monday, June 6, 2011 15 Teleconference 16 17 The above-entitled matter came on for 18 pre-hearing conference, pursuant to notice, at 19 9:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

20 BEFORE:

21 LAWRENCE G. McDADE Chairman 22 KAYE D. LATHROP Administrative Judge 23 RICHARD E. WARDWELL Administrative Judge 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

956 1 APPEARANCES:

2 On Behalf of Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

3 SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ.

4 DAVID E. ROTH, ESQ.

5 BRIAN HARRIS, ESQ.

6 BETH N. MIZUNO, ESQ.

7 of: Office of the General Counsel 8 Mail Stop 15 D21 9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 11 12 On Behalf of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.:

13 PAUL M. BESSETTE, ESQ.

14 MARTIN J, O'NEILL, ESQ.

15 KATHRYN M. SUTTON, ESQ.

16 of: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 17 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

18 Washington, D.C. 20004 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 www.nealrgross.com

957 1 On Behalf of the State of New York:

2 JOHN J. SIPOS, ESQ.

3 Assistant Attorney General 4 of: Office of the Attorney General of the 5 State of New York 6 The Capitol 7 State Street 8 Albany, New York 12224 9

10 On Behalf of the State of Connecticut:

11 ROBERT D. SNOOK, ESQ.

12 of: Office of the Attorney General 13 State of Connecticut 14 55 Elm Street 15 P.O. Box 120 16 Hartford, Connecticut 061410-0120 17 18 On Behalf of the Town of Cortlandt:

19 JESSICA ALBIN, ESQ.

20 of: Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.

21 460 Park Avenue 22 New York, New York 10022 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross .com

958 1 On Behalf of Riverkeeper, Inc.:

2 PHILIP MUSEGAAS, ESQ.

3 DEBORAH BRANCATO, ESQ.

4 of: Riverkeeper, Inc.

5 20 Secor Road 6 Ossining, New York 10562 7

8 9 On Behalf of Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, 10 Inc. :

11 MANNA JO GREENE 12 Environmental Director 13 STEPHEN C. FILLER 14 Board Member 15 of: Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.

16 724 Wolcott Avenue 17 Beacon, New York 12508 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-44433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIq gross.corn

959 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 (9:33 a.m.)

3 CHAIRMAN McDADE: We are here in the 4 matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Indian Point 5 Generating Units 2 and 3. Docket Number is 50-247-LR 6 and 286-LR.

7 We are here for a status conference. The 8 status conference has been precipitated by a letter 9 from the NRC staff dated May 26, 2011. In that 10 letter, the NRC staff indicates that they anticipate 11 a supplement to the SER will be published some time in 12 July or August. That letter also indicated that, 13 while the staff is unable to state what impact the SER 14 supplement will have on the parties' testimony, the 15 staff expects the testimony would address some of the 16 information to be discussed in the SER supplement.

17 My first question, then, to the NRC staff 18 is, in the letter you anticipated that the supplement 19 to the SER would be filed in July or August, but that 20 additional -- requests for additional information will 21 be issued shortly and anticipate that those -- the 22 answers to those would be received by the end of June.

23 Have those RAIs been issued at this point?

24 MR. ROTH: David Roth for the staff. No, 25 Your Honor. The RAIs have not yet been issued.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

960 1 CHAIRMAN McDADE: When do you anticipate 2 that they will be? Can you give us a best estimate?

3 MR. ROTH: The best estimate, I am told, 4 ijs around a week or so.

5 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. Approximately a 6 week from now. Today is the 6th of June, so we would 7 be talking about the 13th or 14th of June?

8 MR. ROTH: Yes, Your Honor.

9 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Do you still anticipate 10 that the answers would be due before the end of June?

11 MR. ROTH: Your Honor, that may be 12 aggressive. It may be the early part of July before 13 the answers arrive.

14 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. And at this 15 point, the original estimate as to the date when the 16 supplement would be issued would be July or August.

17 Can I get a -- sort of a degree of certainty on that?

18 Is that relatively certain, 100 percent certain, that 19 they'll issue in August, or is that 50 percent 20 certain? What basically are the parameters, between 21 when and when, and what's the degree of certainty?

22 MR. ROTH: The best estimate date right 23 now is August 19th, rather than early August. As to 24 degree of certainty, staff are nodding that they think 25 that's a good date.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

961 1 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. So the next 2 question, then, to the NRC staff, you indicated that 3 you anticipate that your direct testimony would 4 address some of the information discussed in the SERs, 5 is that correct?

6 MR. ROTH: That is correct, Your Honors.

7 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. One of the issues 8 that we have coming up is the filing of direct 9 testimony in this particular case. Let me turn to, 10 first of all, New York, and I turn to New York because 11 there are I think several of their contentions -- five 12 of their contentions that are implicated by the 13 staff's letter.

14 You have a deadline coming up for the 15 filing of your direct testimony. Would you be 16 prepared to file the direct testimony before the 17 supplement is issued?

18 MR. SIPOS: No, Your Honor. The state 19 would not be prepared to file its direct testimony 20 before the supplemental SER was issued.

21 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. The next question 22 is, what do we do by way of a schedule? You know, one 23 possibility is that this supplemental information in 24 the SER can narrow issues. Another possibility is 25 that it can expand issues.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

962 1 And my thought would be that there would 2 be a period of time after the SER issued in which the 3 parties could review it and make a determination 4 whether or not any contentions would be withdrawn or 5 any contentions amended or any new contentions 6 published to get an initial view as to whether or not 7 that would be done, and then have a second date by 8 which it would be done.

9 For the State of New York, Mr. Sipos, how 10 long do you think you would need initially just to 12 review the -- well, let me go back to the staff. Can 12 you give us an idea -- and I realize this is an 13 estimate at this point in time, because the document 14 hasn't been written at this point in time. Are we 15 talking about a 10-page supplement, a 100-page 16 supplement? Can you give us a ballpark figure on 17 that?

18 MR. ROTH: David Roth for the staff.

19 Probably around the 70-page range.

20 CHAIRMAN McDADE: And the reason I ask is 21 just, depending how long, how voluminous it is, 22 depends how long it is going to take to have the 23 Intervenors analyze it.

24 ADMIN. JUDGE WARDWELL: Can I ask the 25 staff a followup question for that? This is Judge NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

963 1 Wardwell. What was -- what new information 2 promulgated all of these RAIs after the FSER was 3 issued?

4 MR. ROTH: David Roth for the staff. They 5 are based upon operating experience.

6 ADMIN. JUDGE WARDWELL: But hasn't that 7 operating experience been ongoing for years? Why 8 wasn't this addressed during the regional FSER, is 9 what I'm wondering. There must have been some new 10 information that said, "Gee, we have -- we have to 11 issue these official RAIs after the SER was issued."

12 Or is that a routine activity that you often do in 13 other cases? Do you always end up supplementing the 14 SER?

15 MR. ROTH: In this instance, Your Honor, 16 the staff felt that operating experience required more 17 questions. There are examples of other ongoing SERs 18 -- for example, an initial operating license 19 proceeding, or in other license renewal proceedings.

20 Additional questions and sometimes additional SERs do 21 get asked and do get published after the original.

22 And they are based upon operating experience.

23 ADMIN. JUDGE WARDWELL: Why would you 24 issue a final SER if, in fact, you had more -- you 25 didn't have sufficient operating experience to start NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

964 1 with in regards to addressing these issues? It still 2 doesn't seem that there's a real vivid piece of new 3 information that has come out at Indian Point that has 4 triggered the need for this additional analysis.

5 MR. ROTH: I think that is correct, Your 6 Honor. I believe that it is not a matter of any one 7 particular item, that it's just operating experience 8 in general, both at Indian Point and reviewing other 9 license renewal applications that prompted the 10 questions.

11 ADMIN. JUDGE WARDWELL: Well, I applaud 12 you for keeping on that, because certainly we want the 13 safety issues addressed. But that doesn't help us 14 much here in trying to get a feeling for how much 15 effort is going to be needed in reviewing this, and 16 then, likewise, how much additional time is needed in 17 delaying the hearing as this will -- certainly has the 18 potential to do.

19 MR. TURK: Your Honor, this is Sherwin 20 Turk. My understanding is that the same types of RAIs 21 were issued to numerous plants that are undergoing 22 license review. There is nothing specific to Indian 23 Point. It's a general staff determination to inquire 24 further for many plants, maybe possibly for all plants 25 under review. So there is nothing specific to Indian NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

965 1 Point that would generate so many questions. I think 2 the same types of questions are being asked elsewhere.

3 The RAIs were issued -- as noted in my 4 letter of May 26, the RAIs were issued in February.

5 The applicant's responses came back I believe 6 March 28. So the types of questions that were asked 7 are visible to all parties. The answers are visible 8 to all parties. So what is left to do is for the 9 staff to take those answers and evaluate the 10 information that was produced.

11 So the parties already understand, what 12 are the issues that were raised, and what are the 13 responses that came back?

14 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. Thank you, Mr.

15 Turk.

16 At this point, from the State of New York, 17 two issues arise in my mind. First of all, the 18 supplement to the SER involves several conditions, all 19 safety contentions. Would you be prepared to move 20 ahead with direct testimony on the environmental 21 contentions and bifurcate the submission of your 22 direct testimony?

23 MR. SIPOS: Judge, the state prefers not 24 to bifurcate, as we have discussed in the past. And 25 I would be happy to review that if that would be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

966 1 appropriate for Your Honor, although -- but I am also 2 comfortable with just referring to previous 3 discussions that the state and the parties have had.

4 We think, in short, that it is most 5 appropriate to move the safety and the environmental 6 contentions together and keep them together.

7 I would also note that there are various 8 matters with which a ruling from the Board might 9 impact the testimony on the environmental or NEPA-10 based contentions, and I say that with great respect.

11 But from the state's perspective there are some open 12 issues on that side of the docket, so to speak.

13 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. Let me ask, as 14 Mr. Turk pointed out in his May 26th letter, and also 15 earlier during our conversation here this morning, the 16 initial responses to the RAIs were published back on 17 March 28th. You have had an opportunity to review 18 them. Based on what you have received to date, does 19 the State of New York anticipate filing'new or amended 20 contentions?

21 MR. SIPOS: Yes. I would like to address 22 that chronology. I believe Entergy disclosed the RAI 23 responses in the early part of April, on or about 24 April 4th. I think those -- that communication was 25 produced towards the end of April, and we have gotten NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

967 1 that out to our experts. They are still reviewing it 2 -- the RRAI, if you will, the response to request for 3 additional information. And I do not have a final 4 opinion from them as to that, although we are working 5 diligently to reach that determination.

6 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. So you would --

7 based on what you just said, it appears to be 8 somewhere between possible and probable.

9 MR. SIPOS: Yes, Your Honor.

10 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. After the SER is 11 published -- and assuming now we are still working at 12 a mid to late August date -- how long would the State 13 of New York need not to file new or amended 14 contentions, but to advise the Board and the other 15 parties whether or not you would be filing new or 16 amended contentions? Would a week be enough?

17 MR. SIPOS: I think that's a difficult 18 time of the year, mid-August, with expert vacations.

19 I would like to suggest, if it were to come out, say, 20 on or about the 15th of -- or I guess Mr. Roth said 21 the 19th. I would like to suggest 30 days, which 22 would take us into the middle of September.

23 CHAIRMAN McDADE: And, again, this was not 24 when you would actually file them, but just simply 25 when you would be able to advise the parties whether NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

968 1 or not you would be filing new or amended contentions.

2 MR. SIPOS: Yes. Could I suggest the 20th 3 of September on that? And the reason I'm suggesting 4 four weeks for that is filing a contention is -- you 5 know, is a significant step in preparing for that, or 6 preparing not to do it is also a significant step.

7 And I just want to make sure that our 8 experts would have the time to fully evaluate it, not 9 on a sort of hyper-compressed or overly aggressive 10 schedule, yet acknowledging that it is appropriate to 11 make a determination and to disclose that promptly to 12 the Board and to the parties.

13 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. One of the 14 contentions filed by Riverkeeper was also implicated 15 in Mr. Turk's letter. Riverkeeper, what do you think?

16 Have you had an opportunity to review the RAI 17 responses? And do you anticipate that you would be 18 filing a new or amended contention based on what you 19 have seen so far?

20 MS. BRANCATO: Your Honor, this is Ms.

21 Brancato from Riverkeeper. We also, like New York 22 State, did send this recently to our expert after we 23 received it from Entergy in our discovery request.

24 And he is currently reviewing it, and we are 25 determining whether an amended contention would be NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

969 1 appropriate.

2 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. Any of the other 3 parties -- Clearwater, Ms. Greene, have you had an 4 opportunity to review them? Do you anticipate filing 5 new or amended contentions?

6 MS. GREENE: Your Honor, we have really 7 been focusing on our current contentions in 8 preparation for the June 20th proposed deadline. And 9 we have also submitted other contentions related in 10 particular to our environmental justice contention and 11 haven't heard back.

12 So not to dodge the question, but I'm just 13 saying where our focus has been, and our concern is 14 that it's difficult for us to submit testimony on our 15 current contention without knowing the status of, in 16 particular, the expanded and amended environmental 17 justice contention.

18 CHAIRMAN McDADE: I understand. But right 19 now, the focus is just on the supplemental SER. And 20 my question -- and the answer can simply be, no, you 21 know, we haven't had sufficient chance to analyze it 22 yet to make a judgment one way or the other.

23 And I take it from what you've said that's 24 your position at this point with regard to the SER, 25 the request for additional information, and the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202)

• o 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.oom

970 1 responses, that you haven't had sufficient time, given 2 your other activities, to review them to be able to 3 offer an opinion as to the likelihood of new or 4 amended contentions based on that. Am I correct, Ms.

5 Greene?

6 MS. GREENE: That is correct, sir.

7 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. Do any of the 8 other parties have anything to add on this particular 9 issue? Connecticut?

10 MR. SNOOK: No. Pretty much the same as' 11 everyone else's comments.

12 CHAIRMAN McDADE: All right. Cortlandt?

13 MS. ALBIN: No, Judge.

14 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. I don't believe 15 -- is there anyone on the line yet from Westchester, 16 New York City, or Buchanon?

17 (No response.)

18 MS. GREENE: Your Honor, I'd like to say 19 that I believe Steve Filler was able to get on the 20 call, so I just -- for the record, I believe Steve is 21 on the call now.

22 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Who was that just 23 speaking?

24 MR. FILLER: Stephen Filler for 25 Clearwater.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

971 1 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. And that was Ms.

2 Greene just speaking before, for the Court Reporter, 3 correct?

4 MS. GREENE: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Mr. Bessette, Mr.

6 O'Neill, Ms. Sutton, for Entergy, anything that you 7 want to add or comment on what we've discussed so far?

8 MR. BESSETTE: Yes, Your Honor. First, I 9 would like to -- I believe the Board's original 10 scheduling order gave the parties 30 days to file new 11 or amended contentions, which is consistent with the 12 -- you know, the history of ASLB proceedings. So our 13 initial point is that the parties should have 14 submitted any new or amended contentions based on our 15 RAI responses that were issued in late March.

16 And we understand there may be new RAIs 17 coming out, so I think as a threshold matter that 18 should be, per the Board's scheduling order, the 19 general rule of thumb. Therefore, to the extent that 20 the parties are taking much longer to review the RAI 21 responses, I want to make sure we are not waiving any 22 ability to argue that they are late.

23 With regard to seeking four weeks just to 24 review the SSER to determine if the parties are even 25 going to submit new contentions, again, we would NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

972 1 assert that is contrary to the Board's order. If they 2 are going to file new contentions, they should be in.

3 But, again, we would argue that that information is 4 already available.

5 With regard to bifurcation, Your Honor, we 6 would like to explore that earlier, particularly with 7 regard to the testimony.

8 As the parties have mentioned, we 9 understand there are several issues pending before the 10 Board. That may impact some of the other contentions.

11 But if the contentions are not impacted by the FSER or 12 the environmental contentions, we would assert they 13 should go forward on schedule.

14 CHAIRMAN McDADE: This is Judge McDade 15 again. With regard to the timeliness of that, and not 16 making a ruling at this point in time, but just sort 17 of initial reaction, it appears that based on the 18 responses to the RAIs, which came in in March, 19 March 28th, the NRC staff believes that it needs four 20 or five months in order to properly assess this and 21 review it.

22 Is it your position, given the fact now 23 that we are dealing with the staff's SER, that the 24 trigger for filing new or amended contentions would 25 have been 30 days after March 28th, as opposed to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202)

. ° 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

973 1 after the staff has completed its supplemental RAIs, 2 responses to supplemental RAIs, and then the 3 assessment, the evaluation of the staff of this 4 information to see what additional changes, if any, 5 need to be made in the SER as the trigger? Is that 6 the position of Entergy?

7 MR. BESSETTE: Well, Your Honor, like 8 original contentions that applicants must file on our 9 license renewal application, we believe that is 10 similar here. I mean, once -- if applicant had a 11 contention on our original safety evaluation -- our 12 original application, they had to file them within 30 13 days.

14 Of course, the other -- if there is any 15 new and significant information, or new information in 16 the SSER, they could consider that. But I believe the 17 -- you know, the regulatory history of our proceedings 18 is that they have to file their contentions based on 19 our application.

20 So, I mean, obviously, not having the SER 21 in hand to review, it's difficult to answer 22 completely. But to the extent they are challenging 23 information on any revisions to Entergy's AMP or AMP 24 programs, I believe they have 30 days from the date of 25 March 28th or the date that the response was NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

974 1 available.

2 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. Thank you. I 3 think I understand your position.

4 MR. BESSETTE: Thank you, Your Honor.

5 CHAIRMAN McDADE: One other issue that I 6 would like to raise and -- as part of this task the 7 staff was following up on. This is not an electronic 8 hearing case. We are getting ready to the point where 9 direct testimony will be filed, and I anticipate at 10 this point there will be a delay. We will be issuing 11 an order with regard to that, and what the trigger 12 dates will be for the filing of direct testimony.

13 But as we get towards that, the question 14 is whether or not the parties wish to revisit the 15 issue of electronic filing of that testimony. And 16 what I would ask the staff to do is to coordinate, and 17 within 30 days to get back to the Board. In order to 18 switch this to an electronic filing case, all of the 19 parties have to be in agreement.

20 So what I would ask the staff to do is to 21 pull the other parties, and then just to submit to the 22 Board within 30 days a letter indicating that the 23 parties -- either one or more of them opposes, whether 24 the parties wish to switch to an electronic hearing.

25 Judge Lathrop, do you have anything NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

975 1 further?

2 ADMIN. JUDGE LATHROP: I do not.

3 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Judge Wardwell?

4 ADMIN. JUDGE WARDWELL: I do not.

5 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Do any of the parties 6 have anything further before we ring off from this 7 particular status conference?

8 MR. SIPOS: Judge, this is John Sipos from 9 the State of New York. I have a couple of questions, 10 if I may. Regarding the last item concerning 11 electronic filing, if all the parties were to agree to 12 transfer this case into the electronic docket, would 13 the ASLB Judges anticipate requesting loose-leaf 14 binders of material at the -- before the hearing 15 containing testimony, reports, and exhibits? Or would 16 it be the Board's experience or preference to dispense 17 with the -- what is typically the case in federal 18 Court of, you know, the large black binders with all 19 the material?

20 I ask, because I have not -- I guess I do 21 not have experience with a complete electronic docket 22 case before an ASLB.

23 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Well, that is something 24 we would like to have input from the parties on, not 25 necessarily unanimous, experience with electronic NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

976 1 dockets. I, for one, based on my experience, Mr.

2 Sipos, is very similar to yours. In my practice, when 3 I was litigating, you would bring in the binders, that 4 they would be tabbed, they would be highlighted, they 5 would be made user-friendly for the trier of fact.

6 And there are some individuals who are 7 more technically oriented than I who work through 8 electronic documents much quicker than they work 9 through paper documents. And, you know, what we are 10 trying to do is something that is going to be easiest ii for the parties, and the Board will adjust to that.

12 So at this point, I ask you all to just be 13 considering the options of, one, how you think it 14 would be best for you to present your case, and decide 15 whether or not you want to switch to an electronic 16 filing or not.

17 Now, I can tell you that in the event that 18 you switch to an electronic docket there will be at 19 least one member of the Board who will print off all 20 of the electronic documents and put them in a folder 21 and tab them and read them and highlight them.

22 Whether there will be more than one member of the 23 Board who does that, as opposed to keeping them in 24 electronic form, is speculative at this point in time.

25 But, you know, all I wanted to do is to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

977 1 just simply raise it for the parties. Some parties 2 believe that it is more convenient to file 3 electronically. Others believe that it is less 4 convenient to file electronically.

5 So what I wanted to do is just reinitiate 6 that discussion among the parties, and, as I said, 7 within 30 days, to get the input of the parties of, 8 yes, we would like to go this way, or, no, we would 9 not.

10 MR. SIPOS: Thank you, Your Honor. I 11 appreciate that. There was another issue that I will 12 just raise -- and I don't know that there's any 13 resolution about it, but I just wanted to raise it for 14 the Board's -- just for their knowledge.

15 In December of 2010, NRC staff issued 16 another revision to the Generic Aging Lessons Learned 17 document known by its acronym GALL, G-A-L-L. And so 18 this is GALL Revision 2. And when it came out, I had 19 inquired whether there was any position on the staff 20 as to whether staff was going to view it as 21 applicable, recognizing that it is a guidance 22 document. And at that time, there did not appear to 23 be a staff position on it.

24 I have raised it recently again with both 25 representatives from Entergy and NRC staff, and I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202)

. ° 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

978 1 don't wish to speak for them or even place words in 2 their mouth. But it is my understanding, based on 3 those discussions, that Entergy's view is that GALL 4 Revision 2 would not apply. And it is my 5 understanding from conversations with staff that 6 either it would not apply or they have not reached a 7 determination as to whether GALL Revision 2 would have 8 any applicability here.

9 I just -- it's an issue that has come up 10 in recent conversations, and I just wanted to place 11 that on the record.

12 CHAIRMAN McDADE: And I assume at this 13 point, Mr. Turk, Mr. Roth, the staff is not in a 14 position to articulate its view on this? Or are you?

15 Mr. Turk? Mr. Roth?

16 MR. TURK: Your Honor, Sherwin Turk. It 17 may be that the people in the room in Rockville with 18 Mr. Roth could advise him their current view. But 19 it's my understanding that the staff is not applying 20 GALL Rev 2 to plants like Indian Point -- Indian 21 Point, whose application came in so many years ago and 22 for which the SER was completed already some time ago.

23 We are informed by GALL Rev 2, but we are 24 not directly applying it to Indian Point.

25 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. Thank you.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

979 1 MR. TURK: And if anyone in the room with 2 Mr. Roth has any other information that Mr. Roth needs 3 to communicate, I would ask that they be given a 4 moment to caucus to make sure that we have a clear 5 record.

6 And while they're doing that, I wanted to 7 mention two other things, Your Honor. First of all, 8 with respect to the number of RAIs that are still 9 going to be issued, that have not come out yet, from 10 what I have seen so far it will be a very limited 11 number, probably on the order of roughly three pages 12 of RAIs. So it's not going to be an extensive amount 13 of questions.

14 And the last thing I wanted to mention is 15 the trigger dates for contentions. Our view is that 16 NRC juris prudence requires that when new information 17 is available, that is the trigger date. Here, the 18 applicant's responses to the RAIs came out March 28th.

19 They were made public some time in April. And it 20 would be the public availability of information that 21 should serve, in my view, as the proper trigger date 22 for new contentions.

23 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Well, Mr. Turk, at this 24 point, isn't the real issue not the position of 25 Entergy but, rather, the position of the NRC staff?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

980 1 We're already at a point where a final SER has 2 published, and this will impact a supplement to that 3 SER. Isn't the real issue at this point what, if 4 anything, the NRC staff does with this new 5 information?

6 It may be that there is nothing new in the 7 SER. It may be that the SER changes things 8 significantly. Wouldn't it be prudent, from a 9 litigation standpoint, for the -- at this point, the 10 Intervenors, given the fact that these documents are 11 leading towards a supplement to the SER, to -- instead 12 of filing based on an unknown, file based on the 13 staff's review?

14 MR. TURK: No, Your Honor. In fact, the 15 case law is directly opposite. The case law informs 16 us that it's the adequacy of the application that is 17 at issue, and the information that applies to the 18 adequacy of the information -- to the adequacy of the 19 application. It is the information-that came out in 20 the applicant's responses to RAIs.

21 Both the staff and Intervenors are then 22 tasked with evaluating the information. For the 23 staff, they are required to issue their evaluation.

24 Intervenors are required to consider the information 25 and decide whether or not the information causes them NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

981 1 to say that the application is inadequate. And they 2 get that information based upon their review of what 3 the applicant has submitted.

4 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. So it's your 5 position here that, although the -- it is -- and I'm 6 not saying it isn't, quite frankly, I believe that it 7 is -- that it is appropriate for the NRC staff to take 8 five months to review and assess this information.

9 It's the obligation of the Intervenors to do that in 10 less than a month.

11 MR. TURK: Or they can come to the Board 12 and file a motion asking for more time. But, yes, 13 that is the case law, that is what they are required 14 to do.

15 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. I think I 16 understand your position.

17 Okay. Anything further?

18 MS. GREENE: Your Honor, this is Manna 19 Greene from Clearwater. I would just like some 20 guidance to understand about the question that I 21 raised. It was premature in the discussion. But we 22 have an amended and expanded contention pending, and 23 it's integrally related to the contention that has 24 been accepted, and --

25 CHAIRMAN McDADE: The Board will be ruling NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

982 1 on it very shortly.

2 MS. GREENE: Okay. Thank you. But if the 3 ruling is favorable, it -- and I certainly hope it 4 will be -- it would not give us very much time, by 5 June 20th. You talked about an extension. Does that 6 relate at all to your decision?

7 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Ms. Greene, at this 8 point, you know, I -- I thought it was clear from our 9 discussion that we are going to have an extension.

10 The extension will be until some period of time not 11 yet determined --

12 MS. GREENE: Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN McDADE: -- after the SER 14 supplement is published, and the staff anticipates 15 that the SER supplement will not be published prior to 16 the 19th of August. So at this point, you can sort of 17 view that we are in hiatus until at least the 19th of 18 August.

19 We will be issuing an order shortly that 20 will express the Board's opinion as to what the new 21 trigger dates should be as far as new or amended 22 contentions based on a supplemental SER. But there is 23 not going to be any filing of any direct testimony 24 prior to that date, and the ruling on your amended and 25 new contentions will issue well before that. Does NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

983 1 that answer your question?

2 MS. GREENE: Very clearly. Thank you, 3 sir.

4 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. Anything further 5 before we ring off?

6 MR. MUSEGAAS: Your Honor, this is Philip 7 Musegaas from Riverkeeper. Just a couple of very 8 quick comments. First, I wanted to make it clear that 9 we -- Riverkeeper supports the comments made by the 10 New York Attorney General's Office regarding the 11 proposed amount of time that we would be looking for 12 to review the supplemental SER.

13 And in addition to that, we would just 14 note, regarding the discussion about the amount of 15 time given the staff to review responses to RAIs, 16 first, as Intervenors, if that interpretation is 17 correct, that seems to prejudice Intervenors, ability 18 to participate in the hearing properly.

19 I just wanted to note that. Thank you.

20 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. At this point, 21 before we ring off, what I'd like to do is to just run 22 through, for the Court Reporter, at least as I recall, 23 the individuals who have spoken. For the NRC staff, 24 it was Mr. Turk and Mr. Roth, T-U-R-K and R-O-T-H.

25 For New York State, it was Mr. Sipos, S-I-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

984 1 P-O-S. For Riverkeeper, it was both Ms. Brancado, B-2 R-A-N-C-A-D-O.

3 MS. BRANCATO: B-R-A-N-C-A-T-O.

4 CHAIRMAN McDADE: I'm sorry. And Mr.

5 Musegaas, M-U-S-E-G-A-A-S?

6 MR. MUSEGAAS: Yes, Your Honor. That's 7 correct.

8 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. For Entergy, I 9 wasn't quite certain who had spoken. Was that Mr.

10 Bessette or Mr. O'Neill?

11 MR. BESSETTE: That was Mr. Bessette, Your 12 Honor.

13 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. B-E-S-S-E-T-T-E.

14 MR. BESSETTE: That's correct.

15 CHAIRMAN McDADE: For Clearwater, it was 16 Manna Jo Greene, G-R-E-E-N-E.

17 MS. GREENE: Yes, Your Honor.

18 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Robert Snook for 19 Connecticut, S-N-O-O-K. Ms. Albia, A-L-B-I-A, for 20 the --

21 MS. ALBIN: A-L-B-I-N, Your Honor.

22 CHAIRMAN McDADE: I'm sorry, A-L-B-I-N.

23 Jessica Albin for the Town of Cortlandt.

24 Was there anybody else who spoke during 25 the course of this?

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

985 1 MR. FILLER: This is Stephen Filler, and 2 I just noted I was here.

3 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. Thank you.

4 Okay. Anything else to be taken up from 5 NRC staff?

6 MR. ROTH: No, Your Honor. David Roth.

7 CHAIRMAN McDADE: From Entergy?

8 MR. BESSETTE: No, Your Honor.

9 CHAIRMAN McDADE: From the Intervenors, 10 New York?

11 MR. SIPOS: This is John Sipos. No, Your 12 Honor.

13 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Riverkeeper?

14 MR. MUSEGAAS: Philip Musegaas. No, Your 15 Honor. Thank you.

16 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Clearwater?

17 MS. GREENE: Manna Greene. No, Your 18 Honor.

19 CHAIRMAN McDADE: And from the interested 20 government entities, Connecticut?

21 MR. SNOOK: No, Your Honor.

22 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Cortlandt?

23 MS. ALBIN: No, Your Honor.

24 CHAIRMAN McDADE: And I take it that no 25 one from Westchester, New York City, or Buchanon has NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005.3701 www.nealrgross.com

986 1 yet rung i n on this conference?

2 (No response.)

3 Judge Wardwell, anything further?

4 ADMIN. JUDGE WARDWELL: Nothing from here.

5 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Judge Lathrop?

6 ADMIN. JUDGE LATHROP: No.

7 CHAIRMAN McDADE: Okay. We will be 8 getting an order out based on this conference shortly.

9 Thank you very much.

10 (Whereupon, at 10:13 a.m., the 11 proceedings in the foregoing matter were 12 concluded.)

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgrossmm

CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings

6.,

Y*~

before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission NN., ~ .in the matter of: Entergy Nuclear Indian Point Units 2 & 3 Name of Proceeding: Pre-hearing Conference

• K.

Docket Number: 50-247-LR & 50-286-LR Location: (teleconference) were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and,

.thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the 0 :414 direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.

4! .*

Vs

~, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

al.

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com