ML101380299

Transcript of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Hearing on Tuesday, May 4, 2010, Pages 557-669

ML101380299
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	05/04/2010
From:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
SECY RAS
References
50-293-LR, ASLB 06-848-02-LR, NRC-229, RAS J-228
Download: ML101380299 (115)

Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc..

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Docket Number: 50-293-LR Location: Rockville, Maryland DOCKETED USNRC May 14, 2010 (9:00a.m.)

OFFICE OF SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND Date: Tuesday, May 4, 2010 ADJUDICATIONS STAFF Work Order No.: NRC-229 Pages 557-669 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

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

Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 234-4433

- 0 3 .1,

557 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 5

6 HEARING 7 ------------------------------------x 8 In the Matter of:

9 ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION COMPANY  : Docket No.

10 ENTERGY NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, INC.  : 50-293-LR 11 (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station) 12 -- --------------------------------- x 13 Tuesday, May 4, 2010 14 15 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16 ASLBP M/S T-3F23 17 11545 Rockville Pike 18 Rockville, Maryland 19 20 BEFORE:

21 ANN MARSHALL YOUNG, Chair 22 PAUL B. ABRAMSON, Administrative Judge 23 RICHARD F. COLE, 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

558 1 APPEARANCES:

2 On Behalf of Entergy Nuclear Generation Company 3 & Entergy Nuclear Operation, Inc.:

4 DAVID LEWIS, ESQ.

5 of: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittmaa-LLP 6 2300 N Street, N.W.

7 Washington, DC 20037-1122 8 Tel. +1.202.663.8474 9 Fax. +1.202.663.8007 10 11 On Behalf of Pilgrim Watch, Intervenor:

12 MARY LAMPERT, pro se 13 of: Pilgrim Watch 14 c/o Mary Lampert 15 148 Washington Street 16 Duxbury, MA 02332 17 Tel. +1.781.934.0389 18 Fax. +1.781.9334.5579 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

559 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 (1:06 p.m.)

3 CHAIR YOUNG: My name is Ann Marshall 4 Young. I'm the Chair of the Licensing Board. Judge 5 Cole --

6 ADMIN. JUDGE COLE: Present.

7 CHAIR YOUNG: Judge Richard Cole is also 8 present. And we have here in Rockville our law clerk, 9 Katie Tucker. And then, Judge, Abramson, do you want 10 to introduce yourself? Judge Abramson, are you still 11 on?

12 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: I think everybody 13 knows who I am. Yes, I'm still on. Let me correct 14 something in Pilgrim Watch's request for information.

15 Judge Young is the Chair of this Board. She is not 16 the Chief Judge of this panel.

17 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you for that 18 correction. I'm remember it. Thank you.

19 ADMIN. JUDGE COLE: By the way, just so 20 the court reporter can get everybody's name correctly, 21 before you start speaking, please identify yourself 22 just for the identification.to the reporter.

23 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. All right. We 24 sent out this agenda --

25 COURT REPORTER: Much appreciated, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

560 1 could you identify yourself, as well, sir?

2 ADMIN. JUDGE COLE: Judge Cole.

3 COURT REPORTER: Thank you.

4 ADMIN. JUDGE COLE: Sorry about that.

5 - CHAIR YOUNG: And I'm probably going to be 6 talking a lot, so this is Judge Young. If I don't do 7 it, remind me. But do you recognize my voice to.some 8 extent, if there's a lot of back and forth?

9 COURT REPORTER: Yes, Judge.

10 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, all right. Yesterday, 11 I provided you with an agenda for today's telephone 12 conference, which followed up on our April 1st and 13 April 7th orders. And the main thing that it added to 14 what we had previously said were reference to the EIE 15 System; reference to, well, we talked about the 16 experts earlier; a starting point.for discussing the 17 definition of the issues for hearing; and a reference 18 to Pilgrim Watch's request for information.

19 Let's start with the simpler things first.

20 With regard to the EIE System, we started this case 21 before that system existed. And I had mentioned that 22 everyone, except Ms. Lampert, has probably used it.

23 It's a method for filing documents electronically and 24 then the service is done by the office of the 25 Secretary. Do the parties have any views on 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

561 1 you'd like to switch to that or stay with this system?

2 If we did switch to that, there is a help desk, and I 3 understand, I think everyone knows how to reach the 4 Office of the Secretary to get any questions about how

- 5 to use the EIE, which stands for, I think, Electronic 6 Information Exchange.

7 Do the parties have any thoughts on that?

8 It's really up to you.

9 MS. LAMPERT: Mary Lampert, Pilgrim Watch.

10 Yes, I do have thoughts on it because you are correct 11 that I have not used it.. So, therefore, without going 12 to the training session and seeing how user friendly 13 to me it will be, I find it difficult to commit one 14 way or another.

15 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead.

16 MR. LEWIS: This is David Lewis. We use 17 it and can use it, but if there's even a possibility 18 that it may create an additional procedural 19 requirement or great difficulties for Pilgrim Watch, 20 we'd rather avoid it because the system we're using 21 now works and I would really prefer to avoid anything 22 that might lead to further delays in filing the 23 pleadings.

24 MR. HARRIS: Judge Young, this is Brian 25 Harris for the staff. I mean, we're in favor of using NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

562 1 the EIE System. I mean, it has simplified, you know, 2 sending large documents through that would make it 3 much easier for all parties to get them, instead of 4 the way we're doing it right now. So we would be in 5 favor of it.

6 CHAIR YOUNG: Well, Ms. Hollis, do you 7 have any thoughts on it?

8 MS. HOLLIS: Just more of a question.

9 That is, if one party uses it, is there an obligation 10 the other parties have to buy into and use it?

11 CHAIR YOUNG: In order for it to work 12 well, there have been some cases in which certain 13 parties have been exempted from it because, at that 14 time, I think they may have used Macs and Macs were 15 not originally compatible with it. But I think it's 16 simpler if everyone does the same thing. I guess my 17 thought, if there are two parties who've expressed 18 concerns about it complicating things, it seems like 19 it might be better to avoid any complications and.keep 20 doing what we've been doing because I know there have 21 been complications. And given that we're going to be 22 talking about computer codes and possible exhibits 23 that could be fairly large and the need to.break those 24 up into parts, it might be simpler to just-keep doing 25 what we're doing.

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

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

563 1 Any strong objection to that?

2 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Young, this 3 is Judge Abramson. Can you hear me?

4 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes.

5 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: To me, it's quite 6 simple. One party doesn't want to use-it, we don't 7 use it. There's no mandatory requirement to. Let's 8 move on.

9 CHAIR YOUNG: Sounds like a good idea.

10 All right. Hearing no strong objection to it, I think 11 we'll, just stay with the system we've, been using.

12 Now, let's see. Another short issue. Ms. Lampert, 13 when we started this case, you were represented by 14 counsel, very good counsel, as I recall. Does anyone 15 need to get that phone?

16 I think she left to go to Africa to work 17 with the Clinton Foundation. Is. there any chance that 18 she's come home?

19 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, she has come home.

20 However, she has remained working for the Bill Clinton 21 Foundation and spends a lot of time going back and 22 forth to Africa, so that dream that is shared by the 23 two of us never happened. I have put my money into 24 the Boston Bar Association for the pro bono search.

25 I've called everybody, and I've come up empty-handed.

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

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

564 1 It seems like lawyers want to go to the circuit court 2 but they don't want to jump in here.

3 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

4 MS. LAMPERT: It's unfortunate. You 5 cannot imagine.

6 CHAIR YOUNG: Well, it sounds as if you've 7 certainly made an effort, and I'm sorry you haven't 8 been able to --

9 MS. LAMPERT: A huge effort.

10 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Well, I think we'll 11 just move forward. One thing I would say, just sort 12 of arising out of that, if you have any questions, I 13 know you can call if you have any questions about 14 filing and they can answer any questions on that, and 15 I know in the past you have contacted a law clerk.

16 One thing I would ask you is if you want to contact a 17 law clerk to ask a question, unless there's absolutely 18 no question that it's a minor procedural thing about 19 how do I, what format on the page should I use for 20 printing or something like that, the best course of 21 action is to send an e-mail and copy all the other 22 parties just to be sure that there are no indirect ex 23 parte communications. And then whatever response, as 24 has been done in the past, whatever response is 25 provided will be copied to all the parties. And that, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

j 565 1 obviously, applies to anybody.

2 MS. LAMPERT: Okay. Just one further 3 question. In sending an e-mail, will it also be 4 necessary to send a hard copy, or does the e-mail 5 suffice?

6 CHAIR YOUNG: No, I don't think you need 7 to send a hard copy.

8 MS. LAM4PERT: Okay. I just want to be 9 sure.

10 CHAIR YOUNG: And then also, by doing 11 that, if any party wants the e-mail in the record, 12 then that can be sent, whether :.that be you or any 13 other party. Just so it's clear, any communications 14 that have been had between any parties and any board 15 members or law clerks who were, essentially, 16 representative of the Board.

17 Okay. On the request for information, I 18 guess the simplest thing to do would be to ask Entergy 19 if you have any obj ections to any of the requests that 20 Pilgrim Watch has made.

21 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Young, this 22 is Judge Abramson. Can you hear me?

23 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes.

24 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Before we go down 25 that path, I think it's probably important to focus on

• NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

• 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433

• WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

566 1 what the issue is that's going to be addressed in the 2 hearing because the request for information needs to 3 tie directly into that.

4 CHAIR YOUNG: I don't have any problem 5 with doing it that way. Are there any other short 6 issues that anyone sees that we could address before 7 moving into a discussion of the issue which could 8 become somewhat complex?

9 MR. HARRIS: Judge Young, this is Brian 10 Harris for the staff. I mean, we could probably 11 address somewhat the experts that are going to be 12 appearing for the various parties and, you know, could 13 possibly even address, you know, idea of schedule, 14 too.

15 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Abramson, 16 again. Brian, although I appreciate that you've got 17 experts that you think you're going to use, until we 18 tie down what the issue is, that's probably not 19 appropriate and it's not evident that you'll use who 20 you think you're going to use or that you will not 21 need someone else. So let's focus on the issue and 22 come back to experts.

23 CHAIR YOUNG: Well, let me just back up 24 for a minute. I don't think, after we went on the 25 record, I actually had everyone introduce themselves NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

567 1 and their experts or whoever is with you, so it might 2 be good to do that at this point so that, as we move 3 into the discussion of the issues, if any of the 4 experts come into that discussion for any reason, we 5 will know who they are.

6 So let's start with the staff, then move 7 to the applicant, then the intervenor, and then Ms.

8 Hollis for the town of Plymouth and Duxbury.

9 MS. UTTAL: Judge, this is Susan Uttal 10 representing the staff. With me, I have Brian Harris, 11 as you know, and also Michael Dreher, who is also 12 counsel for the staff. As potential witnesses, we 13 have Dr. Tina Ghosh; Dr. Nathan Bixler; and Joe Jones, 14 who is calling in from another number.

15 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Moving to Entergy, 16 Mr. Lewis?

17 MR. LEWIS: Yes. This is David Lewis of 18 the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 19 representing Entergy. I have with me Paul Gaukler.

20 On another phone line is Jeanie Cho, legal counsel for 21 Entergy Nuclear. Witnesses are expected. Witnesses 22 are also on the phone on different lines. Dr. Kevin 23 O'Kula, who you may recall was the affiant in support 24 of our Motion for Summary Disposition; and Dr. Steven 25 Hanna, whose resume we provided in our disclosure that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

568 1 we made at the end of the month. Additional folks 2 listening in on the phone are Steven Bethay, Joe 3 Lynch, Fred Mogolesko, and David Lock.

4 CHAIR YOUNG: And Ms. Lampert?

5 MS. LAMPERT: Yes. Mary Lampert, Pilgrim 6 Watch pro se. At present, we have Dr. Bruce Egan on 7 the line; Arnold Gundersen; and we may get -David 8 Shannon, who will call in a little bit later. He had 9 a conference.

10 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. And then Ms. Hollis?

11 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Judge Young. Sheila 12 Hollis on behalf of the town of Plymouth. I am 13 accompanied here today by Charlize Silva, who is a 9 14 colleague in Dwight Morris; and Lee van Buten, our 15 legal assistant. We do not have any experts at this 16 time.

17 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. Thank you. And 18 I apologize for that thing in the beginning. Okay.

19 Let's move into the issues. We came up with this 20 language at the Board as a starting point for 21 discussion of the issues. And we have provided the 22 references to the Commission's order in CLI-10-11 for 23 the sources of our formulation of the' issues.

24 Probably the simplest thing would be to ask if anyone

• 25 has any objections to how we have stated the 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.

569 1 MS. LAMPERT: I do. Mary Lampert, Pilgrim 2 Watch, disagrees with the Board's statement of issue.

3 CHAIR YOUNG:- And do you want to -

4 MS. LAMPERT: And if I could, I'd like to 5 explain why and not interrupted because it will 6 interrupt the flow of thought, if that's possible.

7 CHAIR YOUNG:, Go ahead.

8 MS. LAMPERT: Okay. First, we believe 9 that the Board failed to appreciate what the 10 Commission, in fact, said in the remand. It seems

11. that what the Board is saying is that we will focus on 12 meteorological modeling comparing the Gaussian 13 straight line plum to an alternative model and 14 determine from that, if there's something to it, then 15 we'll move forward-and get into the hearing what the 16 results should be. That's the summary, defined and 17 limited by the Commission. That is found on the 18 indent at the top of page two on the main court order.

19 In contrast, we looked back to the remand 20 at 37, first sentence, first paragraph, the Commission 21 told us what the issue was all about. It said, and I 22 quote, "We conclude by emphasizing that the issue here 23 is whether the Pilgrim SAMA analysis resulted in 24 erroneous conclusions on the SAMA found cost 25 beneficial to implement." From that, it is clear 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

570 1 us that the SAMA is all about a cost-benefit analysis, 2 and it is far less limited, according to the remand, 3 than the Board's order. And this is clearly 4 reinforced throughout the remand, particularly at page 5 39 in the remand. And the Commission's concluding 6 sentence, very concluding sentence, they made it very 7 clear that Pilgrim Watch may introduce a wide range of 8 evidence at the upcoming hearing. It says, -and I 9 quote, "Unless it looks genuinely plausible that 10 inclusion of an additional factor by use of other 11 assumptions or models may change the cost-benefit 12 conclusions for the SAMA candidates evaluated, no 13 purpose would be served to further refine the SAMA 14 analysis, whose goal is only to determine what safety 15 enhancements are cost effective to implement."

16 Now, to us, this leaves the barn door wide 17 open and plainly does not limit Pilgrim Watch's 18 evidence. We can include all the additional factors, 19 assumptions, models that may change the cost-benefit 20 conclusions for the SAMA candidates evaluated. Quite 21 plainly then, the Board cannot make a determination 22 whether it, quote, "looks genuinely plausible" until 23 they've heard our evidence. Otherwise, to my mind, 24 we're right back to where we were when the decision on 25 summary disposition was made by the Board, which will NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

571 1 only result in prolonging this whole process to no 2 one's benefit by assuring another petition for review 3 and no doubt a step up to federal court.

4 The Board's May 4th order on.. page two 5 concluded further that the economic cost issues that's 6 defined and limited by the Commission in CLI-10-11.

7 What were the so-called definitions and limits? In 8 going to page 36 and 37, first on 36, it says, quote, 9 "No NEPA requirement to use the best scientific 10 methodology." Pilgrim Watch is not talking about 11 taking a trip to Mars, but models that are used by 12 other agencies and recommended in certain NRC 13 documents and complex sites and by DOE for clean-up 14 costs. Further down in 36, it says, "NEPA does not 15 require agencies to use technologies and methodologies 16 that are still emerging and under development or to 17 study phenomena for which there are not yet standard 18 methods of measurement or analysis."

19 CHAIR YOUNG: Excuse me, Ms. Lampert. I'm 20 sorry to interrupt you here, but I'm not seeing where 21 you're reading from.

22 MS. LAMPERT: I'm reading from the LI on 23 page 67 and 36, 36 turning over to 37. Okay, go to 37 24 and go to the first paragraph, the full paragraph.

25 "There's no NEPA requirement " one, two, three, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

572 1 four lines down. And then we get into that paragraph 2 there.

- 3 CHAIR YOUNG: I think you made a reference 4 to DOE, and I sort of lost you.

5 MS. LAMPERT: No, no, that was me. What 6 I gave was the quote which is on 37, 'No NEPA 7 requirement to use the best scientific methodology,"

8 and what we have been arguing is not that we should 9 use brand new hot-off-the-press technology but models 10 that have been around and have been used by other 11 agencies such as recommended in NRC documents for 12 complex sites, the meteorological models. And as 13 another example that I gave, not what was in the 14 Commission's remand. Another example was a method 15 used by DOE to estimate clean-up costs. That was from 16 my examples, and I'm sorry for not making that clear.

17 The second example from the same 18 paragraph, page 37, talked about emerging and under-19 development technologies, quote, "for which there are 20 not yet standard methods of measurement or analysis."

21 And now Pilgrim Watch says that what we suggested are 22 standard practices, not emerging technologies. We 23 know, for example, in talking about dealing with 24 meteorological input, that there had been a problem in 25 the past trying to make it simple because-computers NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

573 1 would blow. Now, NRC and Entergy have high-speed 2 computers, -have had them for quite a -long time, and 3 can, as a result, plug in numerous different inputs to 4 get a better picture of reality.

5 And it further goes on to say, n-ow this 6 ýis, again, from the Commission, quote, "NEPA allows 7 agencies to select their own methodology as long as 8 that methodology is reasonable." Again, Pilgrim Watch 9 responds* to that and highlights that it's not 10 reasonable, however, *which is not said in the remand, 11 to use assumptions and models that are 40 to 50 years 12 old and clearly outdated. I'm making progress-here.

13 *The Commission's broader scope, including 14 economic cost, as Outlined so far at 39 and 37, is 15 reinforced twice on page 27. The Commission says that 16 Pilgrim Watch has the right to show the material 17 deficiencies in the meteorological modeling and 18 economic cost that warrant examination. The Board 19 clearly, to our mind and it seems the Commission's, 20 has to hear the economic cost so they can decide af ter 21 the hearing of evidence is presented how they're going 22 to decide. On page 27 is a continued paragraph 23 halfway down. It says, this is from the remand, "If 24 the Board on remand were to conclude that there is 25 material deficiency in meteorological patterns NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., .N.W.

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

574 1 modeling, the economic cost calculations -also would 2 warrant re-examination. We, therefore, remand the 3 economic cost andý evacuation time portions of 4 contention three to the, Board, but only to the extent 5 that the Board merits concelusion on meteorological 6 patterns may materially call into question the 7 relevant cost and evacuation timing conclusions --

8 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Pardon me for a 9 moment, Ms. Lampert, but that, to me -- this is Judge 10 Abramson -- is the key of this remand. Only if we 11 decide that the meteorological modeling is an error to 12 such a degree that it would cause other SAMAs to 13 become cost effective do we. then look at the economic 14 consequences.

15 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, I appreciate that 16 thought. But the issue becomes what the word "if" 17 means.. And we believe that it does not exclude. It 18 may guide your decision, but it does not say that the 19 Board can exclude evidence before making a decision.

20 The Board can never get to "if" unless we're allowed 21 to produce evidence for you then to decide. The whole 22 point of this SAMA is economic cost, weighing costs 23 against benefit. And there is no way a rational human 24 being can give a discussion of whether or not 25 meteorological inputs or other inputs make a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

575 1 difference without showing and discussing what the 2 economic difference would be. That is our opinion.

3 CHAIR YOUNG: I'd like to hear from you on 4

5 - MS. LAMPERT: I haven't quite finished, 6 but that's all right.

7 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead. Go ahead finish.

8 MS. LAMPERT: I think it would help, in a 9 sense. And, again, economic costs are reinforced on 10 the bottom of page 36. Therefore, as earlier 11 outlined, we include as part of our remand the 12 economic cost issue, and it goes again to what Judge 13 Abramson was saying, but only to the extent the Board 14 merits findings on the adequacy of the modeling.

15 Again, we hold that the Commission recognizes that 16 meteorological modeling may have an effect on economic 17 cost. Therefore, the Commission says the Board will 18 have to listen to it, what the economic costs are, and 19 then make a decision.

20 Regarding evacuation speed and timing, we 21 feel that the Board lacked appreciation as to what the 22 Commission said. The Board's order at two says that 23 the Commission stated Pilgrim Watch's arguments on 24 evacuation speed and timing, etcetera, are not up for 25 further hearing. This is not an issue on remand, in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

576 1 parens, not withstanding the general statement at 27.

2 However, we feel that the statement at 27 has to be 3 considered because that is precisely what they said at 4 27, quote, "If the Board, on remand, concludes that 5 there is no significant meteorological modeling, the 6, overall SAMA cost analysis conclusions, no dispute 7 concerning economic costs of evacuation timing inputs 8 will remain. Again, we make the same argument."

9 So it seems clear to us, particularly, 10 particularly when you read the conclusion on page 3.9 11 that the scope cannot properly be narrowed. It says, 12 again, "Unless it looks genuinely plausible that 13 inclusion of an additional factor, use of other 14 assumptions or models may change the cost-benefit 15 conclusions for the SAMA candidates evaluated, no 16 purpose would be served to further define the SAMA 17 analysis, whose goal is only to determine what safety 18 enhancements are cost effective.' And that's where 19 we're coming from. I wish, probably as everybody else 20 did, that the remand events were written in a tighter 21 manner, but that's our position.

22 CHAIR YOUNG: Does that conclude your 23 argument?

24 MAs. LAMPERT: That concludes the 25 introduction to the argument, yes.

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

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

577 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Would you like to make more 2 argument on it at this time?

3 MS. LAMPERT: Not at this time. Thank you 4 for asking.

5 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. I want to hear from 6 all parties. One thing that does occur to me 7 listening to you is that we may need to consider the 8 use of the word "by virtue of having a material effect 9 on the economic cost issues." I think, to share with 10 you some of our thinking so that you can all respond 11 to it, our impression is that it would probably be 12 easier to have one hearing and not have it bifurcated 13 into a hearing on the modeling and then make a 14 determination whether to go forward with the hearing 15 on the economic costs but to do it all together 16 because all of these issues are tied to each other in 17 various logical ways and probably other ways 18 associated with the code that we have not expressed so 19 that the relationship that we express by using the 20 word "by virtue of having a material impact on the 21 economic cost issues" may be something that all 22 parties would want to address.

23 We would also, I think, at some point, 24 want to know more specifically what you, Pilgrim 25 Watch, would want to have considered that we have not NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

578

1. stated. If you could provide a specific statement or 2 list of the things that you think should be 3 considered. And probably, after this conference call,

4. it might be helpful to have all parties provide your 5 alternative statements of the issues and list the 6 thing's which you don't think we have included that 7 should be included or things that you think we have 8 included that should not be included.

9 With all that said, is there anything else 10 you want to say to quickly wrap up, Ms. Lampert, 11 before we move on to -

12 MS. LAMPERT: Yes.

13 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Young, Judge 14 Abramson. Let me just ask Ms. Lampert a question.

15 Ms. Lampert, is it your view that Pilgrim Watch should 16 present information about the computation of economic 17 consequences separately from the impact of 18 meteorology, i.e. suppose the meteorology didn't 19 change at all? Does Pilgrim Watch believe that the 20 Commission's order provides that Pilgrim Watch should 21 be able to present evidence on the computation of 22 economic consequences as a separate matter?

23 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, you are correct. And, 24 again, I'll refer back to the concluding sentence at 25 39, and I also would refer those on the call to our NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

579 1 response to the remand, which I think was quite 2 explicit in charting the issues that we have 3 consistently 4 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Ms. Lampert, I 5 understand your view now, and it may very well be that 6 there is a question that needs to be certified to the 7 Commission on the scope of this hearing before we go 8 much farther because I disagree completely with your 9 interpretation.

10 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. We'll hear all 11 arguments on this, and we'll make a determination.

12 But one thing -- this is Judge Young again. One thing 13 I do want to emphasize to you, Ms. Lampert, is that 14 you have filed, you referred to a response to the 15 remand. You have filed certain documents, in effect, 16 asking the Commission to reconsider parts of what it 17 determined in the remand, and all of those documents 18 are filed with the Commission and not us.

19 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, I understand.

20 CHAIR YOUNG: So anything that you want us 21 to consider you need to file with us and not assume 22 that we're going to be following everything that's 23 going on with the Commission. I didn't say earlier 24 but we did indicate in an earlier order that, unless 25 a stay is granted by the Commission, we're going to 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

580 1 moving forward based on the remand that was issued.

2 In terms of clarifying what the issues 3 are, I think we will try to make a determination on 4 that after hearing all the arguments of the parties 5 and possibly getting written filings from the parties 6 on that.

7 MS. LAMPERT: Okay. Excuse me, Judge 8 Young. Did you ask a question by virtue of what 9 specifically we would like to talk about, or did I 10 misunderstand?

11 CHAIR YOUNG: I was referring to our 12 language on page two, at the end of the sixth line, 13 the relationship between the economic cost issues and 14 the meteorological monitoring, we used the word "by 15 virtue of," and it may be that we need to reconsider 16 exactly what words we want to use to express that 17 relationship. That was my reference to --

18 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Young, Judge 19 Abramson again. I think Ms. Lampert's been quite 20 clear. She believes that the order requires us to 21 permit Pilgrim Watch to present separate evidence on 22 economic consequences, not in any way whatsoever to 23 the effects.of meteorologic modeling. So "by virtue 24 of" language is irrelevant in Ms. Lampert's view.

25 What she's saying instead is in addition they should NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

581 1 be permitted to provide evidence on.

2 CHAIR YOUNG: We're not arguing about what 3 she means. All I was saying for the benefit of the 4 parties is that when you make, when the rest of the 5 parties make your arguments, if you have any thoughts 6 on that relationship and whether the words "by virtue 7 of" were the most precise language we could have used.

8 That would probably be helpful for the Board --

9 MS. LAMPERT: Excuse me. Could I clarify 10 what Judge Abramson just said?

11 CHAIR YOUNG: You may,. except that I think 12 we want to try to avoid getting into argument here --

13 . MS. LAMPERT: No, I didn't want to argue.

14 I just didn't want it on the record, if there is a 15 record being kept --

16 CHAIR YOUNG: It is.

17 MS. LAMPERT: -- that would be a 18 misunderstanding.

19 CHAIR YOUNG: It's clear who says what, 20 and so the transcript will indicate what you said --

21 MS. LAMPERT: Oh, okay. I'm sorry to 22 interrupt you.

23 CHAIR YOUNG: That's all right. All 24 right. Then let's move to Entergy. The information 25 is being requested well, I'm sorry, back up. We're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

582 1 talking about the issues. 'Let's move to Entergy, and 2 then we can move to the staff and the towns .on the 3 statement of the issues.

4 MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Judge Young. This 5 is David Lewis. -Entergy disagrees adamantly with 6 Pilgrim Watch's position. The Commission clearly only 7 remanded the meteorological issues. The discussion on 8 pages 37 and 38 of the Commission's decision simply 9 indicate, with respect to those meteorological issues 10 that it remanded, a meteorological issue is only 11 material and worthy of litigation if it is one that 12 could affect the outcome of the SANA analysis. The 13 purpose of the hearing is not to be litigating whether 14 there is, in the abstract, a different methodology 15 that could be used or if we could do a worst-case 16 analysis. The Commission was simply trying to clarify 17 and make it abundantly clear that we're looking at 18 mean consequences. *This is a probabilistic analysis 19 at only those issues that have the ability to affect 20 the outcome of the SAMA analysis are properly before 21 the Board.

22 The Commission very, very clearly 23 indicated in its decision that it was the 24 meteorological issues that w ere being remanded. The 25 Commission specifically indicated that the issue NEAL R. GROSS

• COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58.3 1 concerning David Shannon's criticism of the economic 2 model was beyond the scope of its original contention 3 and not within the scope of the proceeding. And I 4 think Ms. Young's Motion for Reconsideration clearly 5 -indicates Pilgrim Watch's understanding and 6 recognition that the only issues that were remanded 7 were the meteorological issues.

8 CHAIR YOUNG: I think you meant to say 9 something other than Ms. Young's request to -

10 MR. LEWIS: I'm sorry. Ms. Lampert's. -I 11 beg your pardon.

12 CHAIR YOUNG: And, Mr. Lewis, I don't want 13 to cut you off from responding to what Pilgrim Watch 14 said, but it would be helpful for us if you would 15 address our statement of the issues which was 16 intended, as we said, as a starting point for 17 discussion, and indicate where you may agree or 18 disagree with that, as well.

19 MR. LEWIS: Yes, Judge Young. I did not 20 have a concern with the issue until you highlighted 21 the reference to "by virtue of" having a material 22 impact on the economic cost issues and suggeste~d that 23 might call for litigating both economic and 24 meteorological issues at the same time. That's a 25 tremendous concern to me. In our Motion for Summary NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

584 1 Disposition, Entergy's Motion for Summary Disposition, 2 we addressed the evacuation time estimate issues that 3 Pilgrim Watch has identified and we quantified the 4 maximum impact on risk that those issues might have, 5 and it was just a few percent.

6 We similarly addressed the economic issues 7 that Pilgrim Watch had raised, issues that had to go 8 with the effect on tourism, and we all, again, did 9 analyses that quantified the maximum impact that those 10 issues might have on off-site consequences.

11 CHAIR YOUNG: Mr. Lewis?

12 MR. LEWIS: We already identified and 13 those issues were resolved. There was no material 14 dispute with respect to those issues. We have 15 quantified --

16 CHAIR YOUNG: Mr. Lewis? Mr. Lewis? This 17 is Judge Young. I think it would be helpful, rather 18 than referring back to what you said in your Motion 19 for Summary Disposition to refer to what the 20 Commission had said and, to the extent that they 21 agreed with you, to make a specific reference to where 22 in their remand they agreed with you because I don't 23 think we're here to re-litigate the Motion for Summary 24 Disposition. Now, I think that your argument, in 25 effect, that the Commission indicated that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

585 1 evacuation issue was not an issue in the remand. I 2 think we tend to agree with you on that. But I would 3 encourage you not to reargue your Motion for Summary 4 Disposition. That's been resolved by the Commission 5 in its remand.

6 MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Judge Young. I was 7 not intending to reargue. I was trying to place the 8 Commission's ruling in context. With respect to the 9 economic costs, for example, on the Commission's 10 decision on pages 29 and 30, they clearly indicate 11 that the issues that Pilgrim Watch now wants to raise 12 with regard to economic costs were far beyond the 13 original bases and, therefore, outside the scope of 14 the proceeding. And, in particular, at the bottom of 15 page 30, they say Pilgrim Watch's new claims have 16 dramatically underestimated decontamination .or clean-17 up costs are also not reasonably inferable from the 18 economic cost challenges proffered in contention 19 three. The Commission, therefore, absolutely 20 unequivocably indicated this was beyond the scope of 21 the original contention and by no such of the 22 imagination can the Commission's decision now be 23 construed as expanding the original contention.

24 My point that I was making with respect to 25 what we did on summary disposition was that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

586 1 Commission did say that if the Licensing Board finds 2 that the meteorological ýissues have a big enough 3 effect on risk, then maybe what added to the effect on 4 risk from the economic issues and the evacuation time 5 estimates, all three of those effects might change the 6 SAMAs. I don't think the Commission intended at any 7 point to say that they were going to reopen the issues 8 that were decided on summary disposition concerning 9 our maximum bounding analysis of the evacuation time 10 estimate and the economic impact.

11 CHAIR YOUNG: Could you maybe repeat or 12 address specifically your views on the relationship 13 between determining the adequacy of the original 14 meteorological modeling in comparison to any 15 alternative modeling and the relationship of that to 16 whether there's a material impact on the economic cost 17 issues? I think we were tending to see it as 18 something that would have connections such that it 19 would be much more efficient to do the hearing on 20 those issues all together.

21 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: This is Judge 22 Abramson. Mr. Lewis, before you go down that path, 23 let me interject a couple of things. First of all, I 24 trust that Entergy will make relevant and appropriate 25 arguments to the Commission regarding Pilgrim Watch's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

587 1 appeal to the Commission for reconsideration so that 2 you'll deal with all those issues there and right now 3 we can focus on what we believe the order says is in 4 front of us. Is that fair?

5 MR. LEWIS: Yes, that's correct. And we 6 already have responded.

7 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay. Now, as to 8 the meteorologic modeling, assuming that Judge Cole 9 and I and Judge Young are properly reading the 10 commission's order, it seems to me what the order is 11 saying is you've got to go back, we the Board have to 12 go back and look at whether or not the meteorologic 13 modeling is so flawed for the reasons of lack of time-14 dependent modeling, frankly, is so flawed that if it 15 had been modeled more accurately it would have led to 16 other. SAMAs becoming cost effective. I think that's 17 the way, certainly it's the way I see it, and I think 18 it's fair to say it's the way the rest of the Board 19 sees it. So the economics comes in indirectly as a 20 result of meteorologic modeling.

21 So from my perspective, there's a sort of 22 an underlying challenge here to the applicant and the 23 staff, and that is can you make the Gaussian modeling, 24 straight-line Gaussian plume modeling in the MACCS 25 code dance so that it encompasses all the effects that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

588 1 are postulated to be excluded by Pilgrim Watch? And 2 from that, can we get a handle on through some sort of 3 bounding analysis whether or not the meteorologic 4 modeling is so flawed that it might make other SAMAs 5 cost effective?

6 MR. LEWIS: Judge Abramson, the model 7 does, in the end, produce an economic value which is 8 used, but I don't think that the portion of the model 9 that calculates that economic value is at issue.

10 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: I agree.

11 MR. LEWIS: The upmost portion of the 12 model calculates the property's contamination levels 13 or the level of contamination on property and the 14 doses that individuals in the 50-mile area receive.

15. And the issue about whether the Gaussian plume model 16 is accurate goes to whether that predicted level of 17 contamination and that predicted level of public dose 18 is accurate.

19 The model then does additional things. It 20 uses an economic model to take the level of 21 contamination and translate that into clean-up costs 22 and loss of business and other values.

23 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: If I understand 24 correctly, the Commission has been clear that that 25 portion of the calculation is not at issue.

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

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

589 1 MR. LEWIS: Yes. So that portion of the 2 methodology we submit should not be at issue.

3 Similarly, the model takes the radiological exposure 4 of individuals and that radiological exposure is also 5 turned into a monetary value-. How that is done is 6 also not at issue. So our belief of what is at issue 7 is how the plume is modeled and how the level of 8 contamination and off-site exposure are calculated.

9 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Right. And that's 10 the way I see it. And if you were to change the input 11 that's used to select Gaussian plumes in a way that it 12 bounded every possible wind pattern, frequency of wind 13 patterns, etcetera, that are proposed by Pilgrim 14 Watch, we could then get a handle, it seems to me, on 15 whether or not the overall SAMA calculation can be at 16 error to a degree that it would cause other SAMAs to 17 be cost effective.

18 MS. LAMPERT: May I interject something?

19 CHAIR YOUNG: I want to try to keep all --

20 this is Judge Young -- keep each party --

21 MS. LAMPERT: That was Mary Lampert. I'm 22 sorry.

23 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

24 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Can I hear from 25 Mr. O'Kula? Is this something that could be done?

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

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

590 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Hold on, please. Hold on, 2 please. Let me finish what I' was saying. Ms.

3 Lampert, we didn't interrupt you when you were making 4 your argument, but I think we want to avoid the 5 parties interrupting each other unless there's 6 something really critical that you think we'll miss 7 unless you say it quickly right now.

8 MS. LAMPERT: No, I would just like the 9 opportunity to come back.

10 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Everyone is going to 11 have a full opportunity to argue. And I think what we 12 need to do is we need to hear from the parties through 13 their counsel right now briefly how you view our 14 statements of the issues, how you think it might be 15 changed to more accurately reflect what the Commission 16 said in their remand order, and then, to the extent we 17 need to get into fine-tuning the issues from a 18 technical standpoint, we might come back to the 19 experts later. Now, if it would be helpful to do it 20 in the course of each party's argument, that's fine.

21 But I think what we need to remember is what we're 22 arguing about now is how to frame the issues, how to 23 state the issues, not how to resolve them. Does that 24 make sense to you, Judge Abramson?

25 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Well, I think my NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

591 1 question is very pertinent to how we frame the issue 2 because our job in the end is to resolve the question 3 that Pilgrim Watch has raised as the Commission has 4 remanded it to us. So I'd like to hear the answer to 5 my question.

6 CHAIR YOUNG: What was your question?

7 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: My question, I 8 think Mr. Lewis and Mr. O'Kule would understand it, 9 and I'd like to have a response from them.

10 CHAIR YOUNG: What was your question?

11 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: My question was 12 can we get a handle on the answer to the remanded 13 question by modifying the input modeling regarding the 14 plume, i.e. its shape, its speed, and the frequency of 15 various wind patterns such that it encompasses 16 everything that Pilgrim Watch has raised as an error 17 in the meteorological modeling and using that to find 18 out whether or not other SAMAs may be cost effective?

19 MR. LEWIS: Judge, this is David Lewis.

20 We are developing our testimony right now. There were 21 additional issues that Pilgrim Watch raised for the 22 first time in their response to summary disposition 23 that we are still working on. I don't think that we 24 could do a worst-case analysis and show it would never 25 affect the outcome of the SAMA analysis. If we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

592 1 assumed that every wind always blew to the worst 2 sector --

3 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: But, Mr. Lewis, 4 that's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting 5 is you have data on the wind and so does Pilgrim 6 Watch's expert have data on the wind. Now, surely 7 objectivity must control what statistics are'put in 8 for wind frequency and wind direction, etcetera, so 9 that nobody is suggesting that you have an off-shore 10 wind 365 days a year, and I don't think we heard that 11 from Pilgrim Watch's expert either. This is, as the 12 Commission was quite clear, a computation of the mean 13 value. And the question in my mind then is only what 14 distribution function is used in the input?

15 CHAIR YOUNG: Mr. Lewis, one, can you 16 provide a brief answer to that? And, two, can you 17 relate that to the statement of the issues? And, 18 obviously, anything that any of the experts say today 19 is just in support of arguments, and we won't consider 20 that as evidence. Obviously, the parties, at some 21 point, are going to need to get together and share 22 information and talk to each other perhaps about how 23 you plan to present your evidence on this modeling 24 question. Mr. Lewis, can you address what I'm saying 25 here?

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

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-370.1 www.nealrgross.com v

593 1 MR. LEWIS: Judge, we are currently 2 looking at the wind distributions, both the data set 3 that we used and comparative data sets to look at the 4 spread and the effect, so that's the analysis that's 5 underway and I don't think we're prepared today to say 6 what the results are. But we're working that issue 7 currently.

8 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So then on, the 9 statement of the issues, why don't you, you may have 10 had other things you wanted to say to finish your 11 argument, but why don't you also address where you 12 think, our statement of the issues may, in your view, 13 need revision and where you agree.

14 MR. LEWIS: Judge, with respect to the 15 phrase at the end, "by virtue of having a material 16 impact, if that statement simply means we're going to 17 look at the effect of the meteorological issues and 18 determine how much of an effect that would have on the 19 bottom line, I have no problem with the state of 20 issue. If that statement suggests that we would be 21 litigating the economic model that's part of MACCS, I 22 would have a serious objection and be very concerned 23 about that because I think that issue was explicitly 24 eliminated by the Commission's decision.

25 CHAIR YOUNG: Let me, as a lawyer, non-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

594 1 technical person, ask a question here and sort of 2 state what my understanding is, and then all the 3 parties can respond to it, keep continuing the order 4 that we started and coming back to you, Ms. Lampert.

5 And that is that, in terms of the economic cost 6 issues, my understanding of how\ those come in is that 7 if, well, first a comparison of the modeling using the 8 straight-line Gaussian plume model with alternative 9 modeling suggested and put forward by the intervenor, 10 if that would lead to significantly different results 11 or results that -- well, here's where it gets a little 12 complicated. If that would lead to different results, 13 and then what we ultimately look at is whether there 14 would be any additional cost-beneficial SAMAs that 15 might be considered by Entergy, and how we determine 16 that is by looking at what benefits would come from 17 the different modeling and compare it to the cost, and 18 the costs that would be different in the analysis that 19 are open for litigation are those costs that we 20 discussed in admitting the contention and not 21 including those types of costs that the Commission 22 said were not relevant, so that it sort of seems to me 23 that, in doing that analysis of whether different 24 modeling would lead to the addition of new cost-25 beneficial SAMAs, you can't completely ignore the cost NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

595 1 issue, and where the economic cost issue comes in is 2 in making that cost-benefit analysis and in including 3 any additional costs that were raised in the initial 4 contention admitted by us and not excluded by the 5 Commission in CLI-10-11.

6 Does that make any sense? And let's start 7 with you, Mr. Lewis, and you can consult with your 8 experts, as necessary. Does that make sense? And if 9 not, tell me where you don't see it making sense.

10 MR. LEWIS: I don't think it makes sense.

11 The model has a method for taking the radiological 12 consequences that are produced by the meteorological 13 model and translating those into an off-site economic 14 risk. The portion of the model that translates the 15 levels of contamination into an off-site economic risk 16 should not be at issue. We would use that model and 17 Pilgrim Watch can use that model to translate the 18 levels of contamination from the different 19 meteorological models that are being discussed into 20 the off-site economic consequences and, by that, 21 virtually, you can see what the impact is on the 22 SAMAs.

23 CHAIR YOUNG: Well, then where do you see 24 the economic cost issues that we admitted relating to 25 lost of tourism, business? I think those were the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

596 1 types of costs that we were talking about, if I recall 2 that right. Where do you see those coming into play, 3 if not in adding to the economic risk figure that they 4 do and doing the cost-benefit analysis?

5 MR. LEWIS: I can't remember the precise 6 figures, but I'm going to point out some surrogate 7 figures from the top of my head. I think that the 8 effect of evacuation time estimates on off-site 9 consequences was maybe three percent or six percent.

10 CHAIR YOUNG: Hold on, hold on, hold on.

11 This is.Judge Young again. We're not talking about 12 evacuation costs.

13 MR. LEWIS: I'm trying to explain the 14 answer to your question, Judge Young. I think that we 15 established in summary disposition that the maximum 16 impact of the evacuation time estimates was, let's 17 say, five percent. And I think we established in 18 summary disposition the maximum effect of the tourism 19 economic issues, let's say, was, ten percent. And we 20 established in summary disposition that there had to 21 be at least 100-percent impact for the next closest 22 SAMA to become cost beneficial. So evacuation time 23 estimates could contribute an additional five percent.

24 The off-site consequences and the economic issues 25 could contribute an additional ten percent. Then as NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

597 1 long as the meteorological issues don't contribute 85 2 percent, an 85 percent increase, there's no issue. I 3 think that's how it's considered, you sum all three 4 together. And this is a three-legged Stool. We've 5 already measured the-length of two of the legs.

6 CHAIR YOUNG: What I'm trying to say, let 7 me just try to finish this train of thought. What I'm 8 trying to say -- this is Judge Young again -- is the 9 economic issues are, the Commission says, I think, 10 they are up for litigation, assuming that the 11 meteorological -- let's see. How did they put it?

12 MR. LEWIS: Only to the extent that the 13 Board merits conclusion on meteorologica-l patterns may 14 materially call into question the relevant economic 15 and evacuation timing conclusions.

16 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

17 MR. LEWIS: So that means, again, let's 18 say that the evacuation time conclusions would 19 increase risk by five percent and the tourism issue 20 could increase risk by ten percent, then those issues 21 would only come back into play if the Board concluded 22 that the meteorological patterns could increase the 23 risk by a further 85 percent.

24 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Young, Mr.

25 Lewis, this is Judge Abramson. Can I just interject NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

598 1 for just 30 seconds? Mr. Lewis, when we're finished 2 with this conference call, I presume that the Board 3 will ask the parties to provide something in writing 4 to help us understand your views. It would be very 5 he-lpful to me if you would, in that response, outline 6 how the code does these computations, as you did 7 earlier when you were discussing where the 8 meteorologic stuff goes and where the consequences 9 modeling takes off from there. And please advise us 10 while you're doing that which parts of the code model 11 input you believe the Commission has remanded and why 12 and which parts you believe the Commission has not 13 remanded and why.

14 MR. LEWIS: It got into that, Judge 15 Abramson.

16 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. If I could just sort 17 of finish up on this little line of questioning that 18 1 have. You're saying that unless the domparison of 19 the modeling would show that the meteorological 20 effects would be greater than 85 percent you don't go 21 to considering whether there might be any additional 22 economic costs. But --

23 MR. LEWIS: Judge, that's correct. Just 24 remember my 85 percent is a surrogate number because 25 1 can't recall the exact numbers off the top of my NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

599 1 head.

2 CHAIR YOUNG: You and me both. Right. I 3 understood that. I'm using your same surrogate 4 numbers.

5 MR. LEWIS: Yes.

6 CHAIR YOUNG: But the point I was trying 7 to make is if the result that you come up with is made 8 up of, let's say, these three. numbers and probably 9 others and one of the numbers comes from economic 10 costs, it's hard for me to see how the issue of coming 11 up with an accurate assessment of economic costs is 12 not something that's tied in with that because if 13 there were evidence to show that the economic cost 14 should be instead of 15 percent, if that's the 15 surrogate figure you used,'50 percent, then that would 16 relate to the percentage impact that the difference in 17 the modeling would make. So I don't see how you can 18 separate those out and make a determination on one 19 without including the other if all three go into the 20 cost-benefit analysis. The point I'm trying to make, 21 to me, doesn't seem that complicated. Well, I've 22 asked it. Why don't you try to respond to that.

23 MR. LEWIS: Again, I think in summary 24 disposition, we established the maximum bounding 25 increase.

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

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

600 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Let me interrupt you there.

2 In summary disposition, you submitted what you 3 submitted. By remanding the case, the Commission did 4 say we were not going to reconsider evacuation issues 5 because you used a no-evacuation alternative or 6 whatever the correct term is that would show that, 7 that would provide such a conservative figure that 8 there's no way that you could make that have a greater 9 effect than it does. But in terms of anything else, 10 we are starting from scratch. We haven't had a 11 hearing. You have not established anything in summary 12 disposition other than what the Commission has said is 13 not admissible in the hearing on remand, which would 14 be the evacuation times or the evacuation figures and 15 those potential cost figures that the Commission has 16 excluded because it said that the intervenors did not 17 raise those in their original contention and we did 18 not admit those. So nothing else has been 19 established, and I think the Commission does want 20 there to be whatever evidence there is on redoing the 21 modeling using alternative input and also on the 22 economic cost figures.

23 The relationship there, though, is not, to 24 me, as straightforward because if the economic costs 25 are part of cost-benefit analysis, I'm still having a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

601 1 hard time seeing how., and I don't want you to respond 2 by saying we've established X in summary disposition.

3 1Twan you to talk a~bout it f rom the same sort of 4 theoretical standpoint I'm talking about it that just, 5 conceptually, it doesn't make sense to not include, if 6 the economic costs are included in the cost-benefit 7 analysis in the first place, why wouldn't any changes 8 to those be included? And I know what the Commission 9 said. I'm just not following, 'and I1 think, in 10 discussing this before, the Board felt that all these 11 things were related to each other such that it would 12 not make a whole lot of sense to have two separate 13 hearings or to have a bifurcated hearing.

14 MR. LEWIS: I think they're distinct 15 modeling steps and, therefore, they don't need to be 16 considered. The Commission very explicitly said, it's 17 on page 26, we reverse the majority summary dismissal 18 of the meteorological patterns issue. That is wha~t 19 the Commission' remanded. They 'remanded the 20 meteorological and they did not remand any further 21 issue.

22 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Young and 23 Mr. Lewis, this is Judge Abramson. Let me just 24 interject something because I think it will clarify 25 what everybody is saying. The fact is if you change NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

602 1 the meteorologic modeling, you will change the effect, 2 you will change the. distribution of dose and you'll 3 change it not just during evacuation period but you 4 would change it in the rest of the period. And that 5 will affect the computation of consequences.

6 Therefore, that will affect the dollar figures. I 7 think what the Commission is saying is we are not 8 going to muck with the computation of the dollar 9 figures, per se; but if the meteorologic dispersion 10 patterns change, it will change the economics by 11 virtue of depositing radiation at different times and 12 in different locations.

13 MR. LEWIS: I agree completely, Judge 14 Abramson. And we would use the established 15 methodology to look at what that effect is on the 16 economic impact.

17 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Right. And so 18 Judge Young is right in the sense *that the economic 19 impact is still on the table but only as a consequence 20 of changing the meteorology.

21 MR. LEWIS: That's correct. I completely 22 agree with that, Judge Abramson.

23 ADMIN. JUDGE COLE: Yes. This is Dr.

24 Cole, and I agree with that also. I think, in my 25 view, I think the most important thing that we can do NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

603 1 is make sure that the meteorology that we input into 2 these models is reflective of a sea coast location and 3 reflects *the actual meteorology of the site over a 4 reasonable period of time. And if we do that, the 5 economic consequences will come out as a result- of 6 that.

7 MR. LEWIS: We're prepared to explain 8 that.

9 CHAIR YOUNG: I think one thing that you 10 said -- this is Judge Young again. Just continuing, 11 I think one thing that you said that might be helpful 12 here in defining what the issues are is you referred 13 to modeling steps. Could you explain more of what yo 14 mean by that? Because I think the question is what 15 you said before was that, at some point anyway, the 16 cost-benefit analysis would include economic costs.

17 What did you mean by modeling steps, and are you 18 suggesting that there are certain steps before you get 19 to the cost-benefit analysis that includes the 20 economic costs that a judgment could be made on the 21 impact of the meteorological monitoring? Is that what 22 you were saying?

23 MR. LEWIS: MACCS2 Code has several 24 modules, several subroutines in the code. One 25 subroutine is called the ATMOS model. That subroutine NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

• v

604 1 models the plume dispersion and determines where the 2 radioactivity goes and, from that, it determines where 3 the radioactivity goes. There are two other modules.

4 One is called CHRONC, and one is called EARLY, I 5 think. They then take, you know, the radiological 6 levels that are determined by the ATMOS model and turn 7 them into consequences, including off-site economic 8 consequences.

9 CHAIR YOUNG: What were the names of those 10 two additional steps?

11 MR. LEWIS: I believe they're EARLY and 12 CHRONC.

13 CHAIR YOUNG: EARLY and CHRONC, not C-R 14 N-C. Chronic you meant?

15 MR. LEWIS: CHRONC, yes. C-H-R-O-N-I-C.

16 C-H-R-O-N-I-C. No "I?" All right. No "I" at the 17 end. Sorry.

18 CHAIR YOUNG: Is that an acronym, or what 19 does that mean?

20 MR. LEWIS: It's the name of the module.

21 I don't know what the origin is, other than it's the 22 long-term phase of the consequences and early 23 consequences.

24 CHAIR YOUNG: And so you're saying that, 25 am I correct in understandingyou to be saying that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

605 1 the ATMOS model, that's where the different inputs 2 based on seacoast and so forth, would be considered 3 and then a determination would be made after getting 4 the results from that computation whether there could 5 be a signifi-cant impact on the consequences? Is that 6 what you're saying?

7 MR. LEWIS: I'm just saying the model has 8 several subroutines. The Gaussian plume model is in 9 the module called ATMOS, and it determines the 10 distribution, the dispersion of radioactivity from the 11 release. Other modules --

12 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Abramson.

13 Let me interject something once more, and maybe I can 14 help move this along. As I understand this code, and 15 I trust the experts will tell me if I've got it wrong, 16 we do thousands of calculations and then try to find 17 the mean. And for each calculation, we take a wind 18 pattern and that wind pattern is partly input into 19 ATMOS. ATMOS then computes where the radiation is 20 deposited. Then other subroutines for that particular 21 event calculate the economic consequences. Then that 22 calculation is repeated thousands of times with 23 different wind patterns, sampled such that they 24 represent what we think is the reality. From those is 25 calculated a mean, and from that mean is calculated NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

606 1 the economic consequence that is used in the cost-2 benefit analysis. Have I got that right'?

3 MR. LEWIS: I believe so, Judge Abramson.

4 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. And the reason I'm

-5 trying to understand this is because the Commission 6 seems to indicate that we need to look at this, at 7 least conceptually, in two steps. One, we look at the 8 meteorological monitoring, and second, if anyone can 9 help with the page numbers where the Commission says 10 only if -- let's see. I think it's --

11 MR. LEWIS: Page 27, Judge Young.

12 CHAIR YOUNG: The economic cost, later 13 they take out the evacuation reference, but I think 14 there's also a later reference to that.

15 MR. LEWIS: I think on the bottom of page 16 36.

17 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes.

18 MR. LEWIS: Several places.

19 CHAIR YOUNG: Right. I think 36 is the 20 closest to the end. The economic cost issue but only 21 to the extent that the Board's merit findings on 22 adequacy of the meteorological monitoring may have a 23 material impact on the economic cost matters raised 24 and admitted as part of contention three. Now, I 25 think we need to define the issues in such a way that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

607 1 it's clear' what the relationship is between these 2 economic cost matters and the adequacy of the 3 meteorological monitoring because what I just heard 4 was that the meteorological monitoring-produces the 5 economic consequences. What I'm not clear on and I 6 can only assume that I'm not the only one that's not 7 clear on it based on the conversations we've had 8 today, what I'm not clear on is if the meteorological 9 monitoring, the ATMOS steps, produces economic 10 consequences, does it do that by virtue of economic 11 cost inputs that are put into that code, along with 12 the meteorological inputs? Or what is the nature of 13 those consequences such that they do not already at 14 that step include whatever the costs are, including 15 those loss of tourism business costs?

16 MS. LAMPERT: You've got it.

17 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, ATMOS doesn't 18 determine economic consequences. ATMOS determines the 19 dispersion of the plume and the radiological 20 deposition.

21 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. But you agreed with 22 Judge Abramson when he said that it did determine 23 economic consequences.

24 MR. LEWIS: Obviously, the level of the 25 deposition and where it is has an affect *on the of f-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

608 1 site economic consequences. After the ATMOS module 2 determines what is the average deposition from a 3 severe event, the MACCS2 code then looks at a whole 4 sweep of economic impacts. It looks at the clean-up 5 costs and the condemnation costs, the loss of business 6 value, and it also calculates the radiological dose, 7 which is then turned into a monetary value.

8 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, okay, understood.

9 Now, here's the question. You're saying that at the 10 ATMOS step you don't get into economic consequences.

11 At a subsequent step, whether that's the EARLY step-or 12 the CHRONC, C-H-R-O-N-C, step, at those stages, the 13 economic consequences come into play. Now, the 14 question is what are your arguments on how the Board 15 would make a finding on the adequacy of the 16 meteorological monitoring without getting into 17 economic costs? How do we determine that? What's 18 your argument on that?

19 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Young, it's 20 Judge Abramson again. First of all, what we're 21 looking at is meteorological modeling, not monitoring.

22 The monitoring generates data which is used as input 23 for the model.

24 CHAIR YOUNG: If I said monitoring, I 25 meant modeling, Qkay?

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

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

609 1 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, I'm sure you 2 did. Okay. But let me just say this one more time 3 because I think we're getting bound up in something 4 that there isn't really disagreement on.

5 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. I think, Judge 6 Abramson, I'd really like to get an answer from Mr.

7 Lewis because I think, unless we all understand how 8 the Board would make a determination on the adequacy 9 of the meteorological modeling, then we don't 10 understand how to define the issues. So my question 11 is very simple: how does the Board make a finding on 12 the adequacy of the meteorological modeling, Mr.

13 Lewis, without getting into the economic consequences?

14 And I'm asking to be educated here, and I'll hear from 15 all parties.

16 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, you look at the 17 meteorological impacts. You could vary the 18 meteorological impacts. You could see what would be 19 the change. on the output of the entire model in terms 20 of economic costs, and you could determine whether it 21 makes a difference.

22 CHAIR YOUNG: Hold on.

23 MR. LEWIS: It doesn't mean that the 24 methodology for translating the levels of radioactive 25 contamination into off-site consequences are an issue.

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

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

610 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Hold on, hold on. You just 2 said that in determining that we would look at 3 economic consequences. You included that in what you 4 said. That's what doesn't make sense to me. If we 5 have to look at that in determining the adequacy of 6 - the meteorological monitoring --

7 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, I think the only 8 thing that is at issue under the Commission's explicit 9 language are the meteorological inputs and the 10 meteorological modeling. And the question is if you 11 change those inputs or the ATMOS model, would it 12 significantly affect the conclusions of the SAMA 13 analysis.

14 CHAIR YOUNG: And the conclusions of the 15 SAMA analysis are cost-benefit conclusions. So my 16 question again is how do we determine, what is your 17 argument on how the Board should make findings on the 18 adequacy of the meteorological modeling without taking 19 into account economic cost issues? Because cost 20 consequences and looking at the end results of the 21 SAMA analysis, which SAMAs might be cost beneficial, 22 both of those include cost issue9i-.tntem. So, again, 23 how, without looking at the cost issues, are you 24 arguing that the Board should make findings on the 25 adequacy of the meteorological modeling?

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

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

611 1 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Young, it's 2 Judge Abramson again. Now, please let me get 3 something in here. What is being, what is at issue 4 here is not how the code translates radiation into 5 cost. In other -words, if the code currently 6 calculates that one debt is valued at a million 7 dollars, that number-is not at issue. What clearly 8 will-happen from the computation-is when you change 9 the meteorology you will change the way radiation is 10 deposited and, therefore, you will change the number 11 of curies that is deposited on people, the number 12 that's deposited on land at various places, and that 13 will impact the dollar computation, the computed

.14 dollars. What is not at issue is the way dollars are 15 computed.

16 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Mr. Lewis, hearing my 17 question and what Judge Abramson just said, can you 18 answer my question? That's what I'm trying to get 19 from you.

20 MR. LEWIS: I really think I have. I 21 think you do it by taking the existing model and 22 looking at how changes to the input, the 23 meteorological inputs or changing the Gaussian plume 24 model might change the results.

25 CHAIR YOUNG: The results being the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

612 1 results on the deposition and the --

2 MR. LEWIS: No, the output of the code.

3 CHAIR YOUNG: The output of the code 4 being?

5 MR. LEWIS: Off-site economic 6 consequences, 7 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. Then how is the 8 economic consequences that are the output of the code 9 and comparing those, how are those different? How do 10 those not already take into account various economic 11 costs that are the inputs to the code?

12 MR. LEWIS: I'm sorry. Could you repeat 13 that question, Judge Young?

14 CHAIR YOUNG: You say that we determine 15 the adequacy of the meteorological modeling by 16 comparing the Gaussian plume input with alternate 17 inputs and then we look at the outputs which are the 18 economic consequences, correct?

19 MR. LEWIS: Yes.

20 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. My question, the 21 same question I've been trying to get at for quite a 22 while now, is the output takes into account additional 23 things besides just the meteorological monitoring.

24 There are certain inputs, as I understand it, relating 25 to economic costs that go into the output that you say NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

613 1 we should look at to determine whether it would be a 2 significant difference in the outputs. based on the 3 Gaussian plume meteorological monitoring, and any 4 alternate meteorological monitoring.

5 - MR. LEWIS: That's correct.

6 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. So, again, 7 getting back to my earlier statement that, in 8 discussing this, it was our impression that there was 9 no way you could separate out the economic costs.

10 What I think I understand you to be saying is at the 11 first step of changing the meteorological modeling 12 inputs, in looking at whether that would make a 13 significant difference, we don't take into account any 14 differences in the economic cost input, that we do a 15 two-step process. I'm not understanding why that 16 would be true. I'm not understanding how the adequacy 17 of the meteorological modeling would have a material 18 impact on economic cost matters raised and admitted as 19 part of contention three when they are in the same 20 category as other inputs, economic inputs, that would 21 lead to the outputs that you're saying we should 22 compare.

23 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, for example, 24 let's say that the sea breeze phenomena went from 25 right, and it's not, but let's say if you took those NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

614 1 winds into effect and they doubled the amount of 2 contamination on property, then in all likelihood, the 3 MACCS2 code would say that the off-site economic 4 consequences are doubled. So you can double the 5 meteorological input and get double the economic 6 consequences. You don't have to change other economic 7 impacts, like the cost of decontaminating the 8 property, the property values, of how -

9 CHAIR YOUNG: I understand. I understand 10 that. I understand that. What I'm saying is I don't 11 know that we have any guidance and I don't know 12 whether there are any standards, I'm trying to 13 understand that, on how to determine the adequacy of 14 the meteorological monitoring without at the same time 15 considering economic costs. Now, what I think you're 16 saying is we should consider in that step of the 17 analysis only those economic costs that are already 18 built into the model and not the additional loss of 19 tourism business economic costs that the intervenors 20 are arguing. So that, for example, if the evacuation 21 had 10-percent impact, economic cos t had 15 percent, 22 I'm trying to remember the surrogate numbers that you 23 gave before, and the meteorological modeling had 80 24 percent, and then there's some other 5 percent 25 somewhere, and the modeling changed it to make it, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

615 1 well, let's say it had 80 percent and then it changed 2 it to make it 85 percent. But had you considered 3 those economic cost differences, it would have made a 4 difference, it would have changed that figure from 15 5 percent to 20 percent, which would make it more 6 significant. It doesn't seem to be a- difficult 7 concept here, and I'm trying to get an answer to why 8 you're arguing that you don't take into account the 9 economic cost 'figures when you're looking at the 10 adequacy of the meteorological modeling. And then I 11 guess the next question to follow-up on that, then how 12 would you determine whether the meteorological 13 monitoring would have a material impact on the 14 economic cost matters?

15 MR. LEWIS: I'll say this as clearly as I 16 can. A very common way of looking at how different 17 parameters affect a calculation is you vary that 18 parameter that you're interested in and you hold all 19 others constant. So here we're interested in knowing 20 whether the meteorological input,ý including the 21 Gaussian plume model, would affect the outcome. You 22 look at those inputs and you vary themand you see how 23 would a change in those inputs change the results, 24 holding everything else constant. I think that's what 25 the Commission intended. So what our understanding of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

616 1 the issue is is that we should be looking at how the 2 meteorological inputs and the Gaussian plume model 3 might change the ultimate results, holding everything 4 else constant.

5 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. That I 6 understand. Are there standards on how much of a 7 difference would be a material difference, or a 8 significant difference I guess would be the better 9 word, such that it would affect our determination on 10 the adequacy of the meteorological monitoring?

11 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, we already 12 established and would present again the fact that the 13 next cost-beneficial SAMA would require a doubling of 14 the off-site economic consequences before it becomes 15 cost beneficial.

16 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. But are there 17 standards is the question.

18 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Young, it's 19 Judge Abramson. I'm a little confused with what 20 you're asking because it seems to me what the 21 Commission asked us to do to look at the impact of the 22 meteorological modeling and see whether it alone could 23 make another SAMA cost beneficial. That is the 24 standard that the Commission has directed we use.

25 CHAIR YOUNG: So you're saying that when NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

617 1 the Commission says that we include as part of our 2 remand the economic costs but only to the extent that 3 the Board's merit findings on the adequacy of- the 4 meteorological modeling may have a material impact on 5 the economic cost matters, you're saying that when 6 they say that what they're actually saying is perform 7 the single-factor analysis that Mr. Lewis referred to 8 and then just see how much you'd have to change the 9 economic cost figures? Mr. Lewis, can you answer 10 that? I'm trying to understand what we need to be 11 determining.

12 MR. LEWIS: Again, Judge Young, I'm not 13 sure I can say it clearer. I think we should be 14 determining whether the meteorological input data and 15 the Gaussian plume model has the ability to affect the 16 outcome of the SAMA analysis, holding everything else 17 constant.

18 CHAIR YOUNG: To the extent that what?

19 MR. LEWIS: To the extent that the next 20 SAMA becomes cost beneficial.

21 DR. EGAN: Judge Young, this is Bruce 22 Egan. Can I enter a comment in here?

23 CHAIR YOUNG: Sure. Go ahead and say 24 something briefly.

25 DR. EGAN: Well, it's just I see the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

618 1 discussion narrowing to changing to ATMOS or MACCS2, 2 and my belief is that we're really talking about, in 3 terms of sea breeze phenomena, a different model and 4 this can,'t simply be resolved by changing inputs to 5 the existing model, which, as you know, the Gaussian 6 plume would have been critical of. So I just want to 7 clarify. I hear the conversation slowly narrowing 8 this argument down to looking at simply changing 9 inputs to the ATMOS model.

10 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. That does 11 actually clarify something. I think that we probably 12 should be saying in determining the adequacy of the 13 meteorological monitoring, whatever else we do in 14 terms of looking at the impact on economic' cost, we 15 need to compare the meteorological monitoring that the 16 applicant has done to whatever meteorological 17 monitoring, alternative meteorological monitoring the 18 intervenors propose based on the sea breeze phenomena 19 and other things that were raised in the contention.

20 DR. EGAN: Yes. And, again, I think that 21 the word modeling describes this a little bit better.

22 It's more than simply measurements of meteorology, 23 it's also the use of the meteorological model which, 24 in fact, goes into dispersing into another model, a 25 dispersion model.

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

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

619 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

2 ADMIN. JUDGE COLE: Yes, this is Dr. Cole.

3 Are there other models available for estimating 4 atmospheric dispersion in a seacoast location? That 5 will be a question we would pose-- If there are other 6 models that might better represent the meteorological 7 conditions or accept the results for a seacoast 8 location that it seems to me that that ought to be a 9 question. that we would raise. And that if other 10 models are available, why don't we use them?

11 DR. EGAN: Is that a question for me, or 12 is this a question you're going to ask?

13 ADMIN. JUDGE COLE: That's a general 14 question. You can answer it, if you wish, sir.

15 DR. EGAN: Well, I do think there are 16 other modeling methods that could be used, yes.

17 ADMIN. JUDGE COLE: Thank you.

18 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, may I point to 19 one more? On page 36 of the Commission's decision, 20 the Commission says we agree with the majority 21 conclusion that Pilgrim Watch will present 22 significantly probative evidence countering the 23 Entergy expert evidence and supplemental analysis on 24 economic costs. The other Commission is indicating 25 that it was affirming the portion of the majority's NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

620 1 decision that indicated there was no material dispute 2 with respect to the economic inputs, at least the ones 3 that were raised as a basis for Pilgrim Watch's 4 contention and were not outside the scope of the 5 proceeding.

6 - CHAIR YOUNG: I know I've been asking you 7 a lot of questions and I appreciate your indulgence 8 and everybody else's to help me understand these 9 issues because, obviously, we do have to understand, 10 we have to have a common understanding of what issues 11 we're trying. But to follow-up on what you just said, 12 Mr. Lewis -- this is Judge Young again -- what is your 13 interpretation of what the Commission meant in their 14 reference to, at the bottom of page 36 and the top of 15 page 37, to the Board making merit findings on the 16 adequacy of the meteorological modeling and to what 17 extent those findings may, quote, "have a material 18 impact on the economic cost matters raised and 19 admitted as part of contention three?" What's your 20 understanding and proposal as to how that comes into 21 play in defining what the issues are for us to 22 consider, whether step-by-step issues, or what's your 23 understanding of that? How do you propose we consider 24 that?

25 MR. LEWIS: I propose that we examine the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

621 1 meteorological inputs and the meteorological modeling, 2 determine how, holding everything else constant in the 3 MACCS code, it affects the off-site economic 4 consequences. I think you'd have to read that 5ý statement in the Commission's decision in conjunction 6 with the earlier statements on page 36 where they 7 clearly indicate that they are supporting the 8 majority's decision that resolves economic issues of 9 loss of tourism and value of property in our favor, 10 and you also have to read that in conjunction with the 11 Commission's decision that says the additional issues 12 that Pilgrim Watch tried to raise concerning clean-up 13 costs were never within the proper scope of the 14 contention.

15 CHAIR YOUNG: Well, then what did the 16 Commission mean when they say, "We include, as part of 17 our remand, the economic cost issue but only to the 18 extent that the Board's merit findings on the adequacy 19 of the meteorological modeling may have a material 20 impact on the economic cost matters raised and 21 admitted as part of contention three?" Do you mean 22 that when a comparison is made between the results of 23 the two or more meteorological modeling analyses, 24 looking at how much the economic consequences would 25 have to be changed in order to lead to a conclusion NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

622 1 that another SAMA would be cost beneficial? Did that

ý2 make sense, and is that an accurate statement, in your 3 view?

4 MR. LEWIS: I wouldn't say it quite that 5 way, Judge Young. I would say we're looking at the 6 meteorological inputs and the Gaussian plume model to 7 see if we change just those inputs it could change the 8 outputs enough to make the next SAMA cost beneficial.

9 CHAIR YOUN~G: okay. Then where does the 10 economic cost matters raised and admitted as part of 11 contention three, where would they come in?

12 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: This is Judge 13 Abramson. Let me interject one more time. It seems 14 to me, Judge Young and Mr. Lewis and the rest of you, 15 that we're going to have two possibilities here.

16 Somebody is going to do computations with revised 17 meteorological inputs in an effort to try to 18 incorporate the sea breeze effect and the other 19 meteorological issues that are raised by Mr. Egan and 20 his colleagues, and that is going to lead to a 21 different deposition of radiation and it's going to 22 lead to a different economic impact; and, therefore, 23 it's going to lead to a different estimate of costs 24 and that will enable the parties to determine whether 25 or not it is likely that the next costly SAMA 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

623 1 cost beneficial. And there are going to be two 2 possible results. One possibility is that- computation 3 will indicate that the mean *cost goes up by 20 4 percent, in which case it will raise the possibility 5 of the next cost-effective SAMA or the next SAMA 6 becoming cost effective. The other possibility is it 7 could go up by, say, 70 percent, enough to make it 8 possible that the next costly SAMA might become cost 9 effective. And at that point, the parties will have 10 to address whether or not there are other parameters 11 in the analysis that might cause other SAMAs to be 12 cost effective, but you can't tell until you do the 13 first piece of the computation. And, frankly, this 14 whole issue, in my mind, is going to revolve around 15 Mr. Egan and the experts from the applicant and the 16 staff, trying to find a way to use the MACCS code so 17 that it incorporates the effects. of the sea breeze 18 that Mr. Egan thinks need to be incorporated.

19 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you, Judge Abramson.

20 That, I think, was very helpful, and I'd like to get 21 the parties' responses to that. And also I'd like to 22 get a better understanding from the parties of when we 23 look at whether the results would make it possible for 24 additional cost information to make another SAMA cost 25 beneficial. I guess that's a matter of judgment that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTOND.C. 20005-3701 www.neafrgross.com

624 1 the experts would speak to, or is there some other way 2 we should look at that? Mr. Lewis, we're still on 3 you, so if you want to respond.

4 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, I think you look 5 at it in light of the issues that were resolved in 6 summary disposition, in particular what is the maximum 7 possible effect of evacuation time estimates- and 8 economic inputs on the SAMA analysis that have already 9 been established in summary disposition. It wasn't 10 adequately disputed by Pilgrim Watch, and the 11 Commission has already resolved the Licensing Board's 12 determination on those factors. So we already have 13 them quantified.

14 CHAIR YOUNG: Have you got any other 15 argument to make, Mr. Lewis?

16 MR. LEWIS: No, Judge Young.

17 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. Let's move to 18 the staff. Who's going to argue for the staff?

19 MS. UTTAL: Mr. Harris will, if you just 20 give us one second, Judge.

21 CHAIR YOUNG: All right.

22 COURT REPORTER: This is Ben, the court 23 reporter. Who was that?

24 CHAIR YOUNG: That was Susan Uttal, I 25 believe.

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

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

625 1 MS. UTTAL: Yes, that was me. Okay.

2 Here's Mr. Harris.

3 CHAIR YOUNG: And that was Judge Young who 4 referred to Susan Uttal. Go ahead, Mr. Harris.

5 MR. HARRIS: This is Brian Harris for the 6 staff. I'm sorry that I had to step out for just a 7 quick second. But in terms of the staff's position on 8 what the scope of the contention should be on remand 9 is that it's really a two-step process in terms of 10 doing this calculation, that it's looking at the 11 meteorological modeling and the meteorological inputs 12 and seeing what effect that would do in terms of 13 identifying new SAMAs. So the standard is to look at 14 whether or not a new SAMA would be identified by 15 altering the meteorological modeling, so you end up 16 going through economic costs, but you're not actually 17 changing the economic costs to determine how much more 18 economic costs would be needed to identify a new SAMA.

19 It's only solely whether or not the meteorological 20 model would identify a new SAMA.

21 CHAIR YOUNG: Well, let me ask you this.

22 Were you there when Judge Abramson said the last thing 23 he said? Basically, and correct me if I'm wrong, 24 Judge Abramson, but I'm going to try to summarize it.

25 First, we look at -- this is Judge Young. First, we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

626 1 look at the meteorological modeling, and we compare 2 the results using the. Gaussian plume model and the 3 results of modeling using the additional factors that 4 Pilgrim Watch has proposed of sea breeze and other 5 phenomena and then, by comparing those, we-see whether 6 using the alternative modeling would make it possible, 7 would raise the economic cost figures enough that it 8 would make it possible that adding in ýthe economic 9 cost information on loss of tourism and business would 10 lead to another SAMA being cost: beneficial. I think 11 you just said that you don't go that last step. You 12 look only to whether the different modeling would lead 13 to a new cost beneficial SAMA. .,But in your statement 14 of it,. I'm not really seeing where the Commission's 15 reference to whether the Board's findings on the 16 adequacy of the meteorological modeling could ever 17 have a material impact on the economic cost matters 18 raised and admitted as part of contention three. I 19 think, from my understanding, the way Judge Abramson 20 stated it a moment ago, made sense. Where do you see 21 those economic cost matters raised as part of 22 contention three ever coming into play?

23 MR. HARRIS: The economic cost figures for 24 loss of tourism, you know, that were previously part 25 of the contention would get accounted for when you're NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

627 1 running it through that last part of the MACCS code to 2 produce the cost of the particular severe accident.

3 So, I mean, I believe when they did it originally they 4 were doing it as part of their sensitivity studies to 5 account for it, you know, so, again, it would be 6 accounted for, you know, in that way in terms of 7 adjusting the inputs to account, as they did 8 previously before in the Washington report.

9 CHAIR YOUNG: All right, all right. Let 10 me interject here. That's what I understood initially 11 and that's why I said that it seemed to us, based on 12 our understandings to date, that you c an't really 13 separate the meteorological modeling from the economic 14 cost analysis. And I think that you've just stated 15 why at least I thought that was the case because of 16 the fact that where those come into play is seeing 17 whether they, in addition to changes in the 18 meteorological modeling, would lead to different 19 conclusions on whether there could be additional cost 20 beneficial SAMAs. Does that make sense to you?

21 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, that makes sense 22 in terms of what you said, but I wouldn't agree with 23 it because what I think we're almost talking a little 24 bit across purposes is that those changes in terms of 25 accounting for lost tourism aren't a change to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

628 1 economic mddel, you know, that the MACCS2 is 2 calculating. It's a little bit of change to the 3 input, but I can run an alternative meteorological 4 model and run it through those same economic 5 calculations. It's going to identify the cost of a 6 severe accident using the Gaussian plume. I put an 7 alternative model running it through, you know, that 8 produces a different pattern for the contamination on 9 the ground. The economic portion of the MACCS2 with 10 those inputs is going to identify different costs for 11 that severe accident, and then we'd be able to compare 12 whether or not it identifies a new cost beneficial 13 mitigating measure. So you don't have to change the 14 economic cost to be able to evaluate the 15 meteorological model.

16 CHAIR YOUNG: What I'm trying to 17 understand is what is your position on where the 18 economic cost matters raised and admitted as part of 19 contention three come into play? And what I 20 understood you to say a minute ago was that it comes 21 into play as being part of the input to the analysis.

22 I thought that's what you said, and what I'm not 23 understanding is you're saying, no, that's not what 24 you said. What are you saying? Where does it come 25 into play?

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

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

629 1 MR. LEWIS: Those economic inputs are a 2 completely separate input from the meteorological 3 model. So what you have to do to be able to evaluate 4 the meteorological model is you can't be changing, you 5 know, all the inputs all at the same time because then 6 you can't identify what caused the change in the cost 7 of the severe accident. And so whether you decide to 8 run it in their sensitivity studies accounting for the 9 increased cost of the loss of tourism, you know, you 10 still want to run a Gaussian plume model and then the 11 alternative models to see what effect that would have 12 in terms of identifying the cost of a particularly 13 severe accident and then comparing it to the cost to 14 implement the mitigation measure.

15 CHAIR YOUNG: Right. And so when we -- I 16 understood what you just said, I think. So when we 17 make that comparison, we look to see whether that 18 would make any difference. You're saying, as I 19 understand it, that what we look at is whether the 20 results would lead to the addition of a new SAMA as 21 being cost beneficial; is that right?

22 MR. LEWIS: That's correct.

23 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. If that's the case, 24 when and how do we consider the loss of tourism 25 economic cost matters raised in contention three?

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

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

630 1 Only after it's already been determined that another 2 SAMA would be cost beneficial? What if we get in a 3 situation sort of described by Judge Abramson? What 4 if we get results indicating that it doesn't quite 5 bring us to the point of adding a new SAMA, but that 6 it would make it possible that if new economic costs 7 were input or put into the modeling that that would 8 lead to a cost-beneficial SAMyA?

9 MR. LEWIS: A lot of that is taken care of 10 in terms of the uncertainty and when you're predicting 11 these costs. So you end up with a baseline, you know, 12 cost for a particular accident, and then you try to 13 account for the uncertainty in your numbers. That 14 gives you a different, you know, normally a higher 15 cost for that accident. And so a lot of that sort of 16 noise in terms of 'a slight change in economic inputs 17 is captured by looking at that uncertainty number to 18 compare whether that uncertainty number would identify 19 it as being cost beneficial.

20 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So what I'm trying to 21 understand is how do we treat it in the context of 22 this proceeding and the hearing? When and how would 23 they come into our consideration in this proceeding, 24 and what would be the standards that would determine 25 whether they would come into play?

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

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

631 1 MR. LEWIS: Well, the standards in terms 2 of when they would come into play is, you know, when 3 we run this analysis and run it with the alternative 4 models, is this going to identify certain SAMAs as 5 being cost beneficial or not. If it identifies a new 6 one under the baseline then, you know, then we'll have 7 to address that in terms of what effect that would 8 have. If it doesn't identify a new one, of course 9 you're going to have to account for the uncertainty 10 and the additional economics, you know, identified in 11 terms of loss of tourism. But the thing is that we 12 have a good idea of what those costs are going to be, 13 and we can compare those in terms of where the 14 contamination is going to be deposed to ee what 15 effect that would have in terms of increasing the 16 costs or decreasing the costs because',r you know, for 17 some reason, it goes and it sits' on the beach, you 18 know, where the contamination is or it tends to go out 19 to sea.

20 CHAIR YOUNG: How would we determine 21 whether to take that step? The Commission says the 22 economic costs are up for litigation but only to the 23 extent that the Board's merit findings on the adequacy 24 of the meteorological modeling may have a material 25 impact on the economic cost matters raised and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202)

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

632 1 admitted as part of contention three.. So you're 2 talking sort of theoretically about how the model 3 should work. What I'm trying to get you to do is look 4 at it in how they should be considered in this 5 adjudication.

6 MR. LEWIS: Well, I mean, I think' the 7 Board said it or the Commission said it, it's on page 8 27, is that if you conclude that there's no 9 significant meteorological modeling deficiency calling 10 in the SAJAA cost-benefit analysis, we don't have to go 11 any further.

12 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: This is Judge 13 Abramson. Let me interject because that's exactly the 14 point. The question is going to devolve initially to 15 whether or not our applicant can demonstrate that 16 changing the meteorological modeling does not increase 17 the cost enough so that it's possible another SAMA 18 would become cost beneficial. So that's step one.

19 And if that is demonstrated, end of story'. If it is 20 not demonstrated, and the example I gave is what 21 happens if you get 70 percent there or 80 percent 22 there, now there's a question. It's possible that 23 another SANA might be cost effective, and now you've 24 got to go farther. To me, it's quite clear the 25 Commission is saying just get the meteorological NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

633 1 modeling redone so that it encompasses the sea breeze 2 effect and whatever else Mr. Egan thinks needs to be 3 incorporated and wasn't properly done and see what it 4 does. And if what it does is immaterial, i.e. it 5 increases the cost 5 percent, you're done. If it+/--s 6 not immaterial, i.e. if you now need to make a 7 decision about whether it is material, that opens the 8 gate for other issues.

9 CHAIR YOUNG: Just to restate what you 10 said a slightly different way, and I think that makes 11 sense to me. This is Judge Young again. Basically, 12 you're saying we look to see whether, in considering 13 all the different meteorological modeling and 14 conditions, whether, since the applicant has the 15 burden of persuasion, whether the applicant can show

/

16 it's really, that it's really impossible that the 17 economic cost, any additional economic cost based on

.18 loss of tourism, that it's impossible that that would 19 have a material effect such that there would be a new 20 additional cost-beneficial. SAMA, then we go no 21 further. If the applicant fails to show that that's 22 impossible, then we move to the next step. Does that 23 make sense?

24 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honor, this is Sheila 25 Hollis on behalf of the town of Plymouth. A NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

634 1 'clarifying question to yourself and Judge Abramson and 2 perhaps Mr. Lewis, as well, and that is with respect 3 to the materiality, at what point between 5 percent 4 and the 70 percent does the materiality of the new 5 meteorological outcomes in the modeling, when does 6 something become material on this scale between --

7 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Therein lies the 8 rub.

9 CHAIR YOUNG: Right. And that's what I 10 was trying to get to earlier -- this is Judge Young --

11 in asking, about standards. Bef ore we get, to that 12 level of precision, lust my re-framing of how Judge 13 Abramson framed it. Judge Abramson, does that make 14 sense to you?

15 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMVSON: Yes, I think we're 16 on the same page, and I agree that, as an attorney, 17 putting on my attorney hat for a moment and taking off 18 my techie hat, that the question ultimately has to be 19 what's material, and that will only be determinable 20 once we have the first computation. And by the way, 21 while I'm on my preaching mode, it would certainly aid 22 expeditious resolution of this if the staff's experts 23 and the applicant's experts would get together with 24 Pilgrim Watch's meteorological experts and try to 25 determine a way to construct input to the code that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

635 1 would encompass what it is that Mr. Egan thinks is 2 relevant. And when I say encompasses, I do not mean 3 worst case. I mean encompassed in a realistic way so 4 that we can compute or the parties can compute, as the 5 Commission has said, a re-computation so that that can 6 be used for the SAMA analysis. And once the parties' 7 experts tackle that, the first-level computation can 8 be done, and then you'll see whether there's an issue 9 or not.

10 CHAIR YOUNG: I think also, just to 11 follow-up, I think the question that Ms. Hollis 12 raised, if there are, in fact, some standards 13 somewhere, then that would be part of the evidence.

14 I haven't heard anyone respond to my earlier questions 15 on that. If anyone knows the answer, you can give it 16 now. But it would seem, based on what I've heard so 17 far, that we look to see whether the applicant has 18 shown that it would be impossible to change the 19 economic cost figures enough to lead to a new cost-20 beneficial SAMA; and, in determining that level of 21 impossibility or possibility, it's a matter of 22 weighing the evidence and hearing the arguments of the 23 parties.

24 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: I think you're 25 right, Judge Young, except that I wouldn't use the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

636 1 term "impossibility." Being a lawyer, I'd try to put

ý2 more likely than less or highly unlikely because, in 3 the end, we have to translate that into materiality.

4 CHAIR YOUNG: Exactly, exactly.

5 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, this is David 6 Lewis. I agree, too, because remember what we're 7 talking about here is mean consequences, you know, 8 long-term averages. If you start looking at 9 scenarios, you know, we can't make that showing the 10 impossibility under those circumstances.

11 MS. LAMPERT: Mary Lampert, please.

12 CHAIR YOUNG: Just one second. Just hold 13 on lust a second. The reason I used the word 14 "impossibility" was because Judge Abramson had used 15 the word "possibility" earlier. Whatever word is most 16 appropriate, what we're looking at is clearly 17 materiality. But in getting to that point, I found it 18 helpful to hear Judge Abramson's formulation using the 19 word whether it's possible that the economic cost 20 figures would lead to another SAMA that would be cost 21 beneficial. Whatever words we use, obviously we're 22 talking about determining possibility, impossibility, 23 materiality, immateriality, by looking at the mean of 24 the calculations and whether it would make a 25 di f ference, and what words should be used is something NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

637 1 that the parties can make proposals on. Now, Ms.

ý2 Lampert, go ahead.

3 .MS. LAMPERT: Yes. On this question that 4 Ms. Hollis asked-, I think there's a differentiation to 5 be made by all parties of whether there is NRC policy 6 or whether there are, in fact, rules. I think that

>7 makes quite a difference, number one. Number two, if 8 everyone is talking about mean, which David Shannon 9 says is meaningless, instead I noted at two in the 10 order the phrase was used "median."

11 CHAIR YOUNG: Right. And that 12 MS. LAMPERT: It's a very different 13 terminology. It gets a little more towards reality, 14 perhaps. So I think it's important that there be a 15 definition of appropriate average and support for it.

16 CHAIR YOUNG: You're r ight. And if we use 17 the wrong term -- what we want to come. out of this 18 afterwards, I think we're getting to, is we are going 19 to want to have written filings from the parties on 20 how you would define the issues, what words you would 21 use, proceeding from our discussion today and our 22 understanding today. Then we will take those into 23 account, along with any arguments you have.

24 MS. LAMPERT: And I just want it on the 25 record that I do not agree in any manner to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

638 1 interpretation by Judge. Abramson, the staff, or 2 Entergy. And I think it will become clear once you 3 read our response to the CLI because I think the 4 Commission made the precise same mistake as the 5 majority of the Board did in that they went to 6 judgment after absent evidence. So, *therefore, we're 7 repeating history.

8 CHAIR-YOUNG: Ms. Lampert, I'm just going 9 to repeat don'It expect us to go look at your responses 10 to the -

11 MS. LAMPERT: No, no, I'm going to send it 12 to you.

13 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Don't just send us a 14 copy of it.

15 MS. LAMPERT: No, exactly.

16, CHAIR YOUNG: What we're going to be 17 -asking for afterwards are all the parties' proposed 18 formulations of the issues, along with any supporting 19 argument for your formulations. So nothing is final 20 at this point, but I, personally anyway, appreciate 21 everyone participating and sort of struggling with 22 this because, as a non-technical member of the Board, 23 I need to understand what the issues are before I can 24 participate in determining those issues. So I think 25 it's helpful to have taken this time to do 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

639 1 We were with the staff. Does the staff 2 have anything else to say to conclude your argument?

3 And then we'll end up with you, Ms. Hollis, and then 4 if anyone else has any other things to add, we'll hear 5 those, as well. And then we-need to go on and try to 6 deal with some of these other things on the agenda, to 7 the extent we can today.

8 MR. HARRIS: This is Brian Harris for the 9 staff. The only thing to-really come up is, you know, 10 as Judge Abramson sort of described, I mean, that is 11 really the right way to be doing this is to, you know, 12 look at whether or not there would be a material, if 13 by changing the meteorological inputs of the modeling, 14 would that identify a new SAMA as being cost 15 beneficial? And to clarify, also, I would say that 16 impossible is not the standard for Entergy to be 17 showing. If we get to hearing, it's really going to 18 be a preponderance of the evidence, you know, type of 19 standard and that whether or not a SAMA would become 20 cost beneficial, you know, under the baseline or 21 possibly under the uncertainty analysis.

22 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. Ms. Hollis, you 23 asked your question before. I don't know how well 24 anyone answered that, but what would you like to add 25 at this point?

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

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

640 1 MS. HOLLIS: Well, your Honor, thank you 2 for taking the question, perhaps out of order. I was 3 just trying to get to the heart of the matter, which 4 I presume we'll come back to as we, continue the 5 dialogue. -And I have a, hopefully, non-controversial 6 request as to whether we could take a five-minute 7 break.

8 CHAIR YOUNG: If no one has any objection, 9 I think that would be a good idea. Let's come back in 10 five minutes. 3:15, would that be five --

11 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: 3:16.

12 CHAIR YOUNG: 3:16. All right. Thank 13 you.

14 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off 15 the record at 3:11 p.m. and went back on 16 the record at 3:20 p.m.)

17 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Let's go ahead, and 18 if we get to anything that you need to have Mr.

19 Gundersen for, maybe you can contact him on his cell 20 phone or something. and get him back on if he doesn't 21 come on right away. In discussing the issues, I think 22 it will be helpful to us to have filings from all 23 parties proposing your definitions of the issue, 24 submitting arguments in favor of those things. I want 25 to caution intervenor that we don't want to have NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

641 1 arguments made to us that the Commission was wrong 2 because that's not before us. What's before us is 3 what the Commission did say and what the Commission 4 meant. And so your arguments to us should be based on

- 5 the Commission's decision as it is, not as you would 6 like it to be.

7 MS. LAMPERT: Well, I have a problem with 8 that because there are, to our minds and we can 9 demonstrate that, clear errors in *their decision.

10 These errors are being reflected by the Board and, 11 hence, are unfairly prejudicing us at this point.

12 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: But that is not a 13 matter for us. That's something for you, to take up 14 with the Commission.

15 MS. LAMPERT: I know, but you're taking up 16 and taking what they say on face value. And so I 17 don't understand the logic.

18 CHAIR YOUNG: Ms. Lampert, unfortunately, 19 this is one of those places where having an attorney 20 would help you. But let me just give a short 21 explanation. Basically, we're under the rule of law.

22 We are required to follow the law, whatever it says, 23 whether we agree or disagree, without fear or favor to 24 any party. The law consists of statutes, rules, and 25 case law. The Commission's decision, CLI-10-11, is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

642 1 law that we are required to follow. We do not have 2 the jurisdiction or the authority to find any parts of 3 it to be wrong or incorrect or to change any parts of 4 it. That's how the law works, and it's how the law 5 assures that we treat all parties equally. Your 6 method for getting the Commission to change its order 7 is, as you've done, to appeal to the Commission or ask 8 them to reconsider. If the Commission does that and 9 directs us to do something differently, we will do 10 that. But, otherwise, we are bound by what the 11 Commission says, and so you need to make your 12 arguments based on what the Commission says. You can 13 provide your interpretations of what the Commission 14 says but not of what you would like the Commission to 15 have said.

N 16 Okay. Does any party see any need to 17 discuss the issues further? I do think we need to 18 finalize what the issues are before we go much 19 farther. However, in the interim, the parties should 20 be exchanging information, and it would probably be 21 helpful to consider Pilgrim Watch's request for 22 information and any other issues relating to the 23 sharing of information prior to the hearing.

24 Once we determine a statement of the 25 issues, then I think it would be appropriate at that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

643 1time to set a schedule for the hearing. I don't know 2 how long that may take, given that we're going to be 3 getting arguments from -the parties. Judge Abramson 4 also raised the possibility of seeking more guidance 5 from the Commission, and we obviously haven't had a 6 chance to talk about that. But it seems to me that it 7 would make sense to get input, get the parties' 8 fil ings, and then if we feel we need more argument on 9 that we can set another telephone conference and, at 10 that or a future telephone conference, we can finalize 11 the schedule for this. Meanwhile, we might hear from 12 the parties on what your thoughts are on when you 13 think you'll be ready based on what you need to do 14 between now and,then, but I think probably we're going 15 to take all arguments under advisement at the 16 conclusion of this conference today.

17 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Young, can 18 1 interject something, please?

19 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes.

20 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAM4SON: I'd like to just 21 pursue f or a moment a line of discussion that I 22 started earlier, and that is I'd like to ask the 23 applicant and the staf f and Mr. Egan whether you 24 believe it's feasible for the technical people to get 25 together and try to address or to determine manners in COR*NEAL R. GROSS CUTREPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

.1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

644 1 which the input to the MACCS code might be suitably 2 modified to accommodate the wind patterns, 3 meteorological patterns, that Mr. Egan wants to raise 4 because maybe that would be an expeditious way to move 5 this along.

6 CHAIR YOUNG: I think he said that that's 7 not possible and that it's a different modeling that 8 he would propose.

9 MS. LAMPERT: May I also add that we would 10 want to include expert David Shannon, who, after all, 11 wrote the code.

12 CHAIR YOUNG: Let me just ask --

13 MS. LAMPERT: That was Mary Lampert, 14 Pilgrim Watch.

15 CHAIR YOUNG: Right. And this was Judge 16 Young before and this is Judge Young again. Let me 17 just ask Mr. Egan, do you --

18 DR. EGAN: I'm on. I'm sorry.

19 MS. LAMPERT: Oh, Egan. I thought 20 Shannon. I was getting everybody confused. I'm 21 sorry.

22 CHAIR YOUNG: Mr. Egan, I thought I 23 understood you to say before that it would require the 24 use of another model.

25 DR. EGAN: The straight-line Gaussian NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

645 1 model is not the appropriate model for this because a 2 sea breeze is a very much a three-dimensional 3 phenomena.

4 CHAIR YOUNG: Well, Dr. Egan, Judge 5 Abramson had asked whether it would be possible for 6 you to get together with staff and the applicant and 7 see whether the MACCS code could be adapted or 8 adjusted to account for the effects that you're 9 talking about. Do you think that that would possibly 10 lead to some better understanding and possibly 11 narrowing of the issues?

12 DR. EGAN: Well, of course, I'd be happy 13 to accommodate a meeting with the other folks. I 14 don't know whether it will be able to come to a 15 resolution. It seems like they're very much 16 constrained to using the straight-line Gaussian model.

17 CHAIR YOUNG: That's something that you 18 might consider.

19 MR. LEWIS: Judge Abramson, this is David 20 Lewis. I think your question presupposed that there 21 is a need to adjust the model to take into account 22 these scenarios, and that may not be the case.

23 CHAIR YOUNG: You're talking about Judge 24 Abramson's suggestion? Judge Abramson, do you want to 25 say anything more on that, or should we move on to the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

646

1. request f or information and the sharing of information 2 prior to the hearing, which would include the 3 mandatory disclosures and possibly a meeting like 4 you're talking about, but that would be up to the 5 parties obviously.

6 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: No, I have nothing 7 further to say. If the parties are going to dig in 8 their heels about their positions, we'll wind up 9 having a lengthy hearing on the merits of their 10 arguments. I just think we could eliminate a lot of 11 that if the parties would take an objective look at 12 what can be done and cannot be *done.

13 CHAIR YOUNG: Let's move on to Pilgrim 14 Watch's request for information. The first thing that 15 they're asking for is to have the CDs that have been 16 provided, to have Entergy index those so that they are 17 more usable. Mr. Lewis, do you have any objection .to 18 doing that?

19 MR. LEWIS: Yes, Judge Young. I mean, we

20. produced our additional disclosure in November 2006, 21 three years ago. And I think it's very late for 22 Pilgrim Watch to now apparently be looking at for the 23 first time and deciding that they would like an index.

24 There aren't an extraordinary number of documents.

25 Pilgrim Watch said that the CDs include contentions NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

647 1 one and contentions three. Well, they do, but all the 2 documents on contention one are first and all the 3 documents on contention three follow. Therefore, 4 Pilgrim Watch has to flip between documents, and I 5 think at this very late date that request is 6 unwarranted. We are willing to address the other 7 issues that Pilgrim Watch has asked for, but going 8 back and then producing indexes at this time is just 9 diverting the resources that Pilgrim Watch, as a 10 litigant, should be able to handle.

11 CHAIR YOUNG: Mr. Lewis, you indicated 12 that there aren't a great number of documents, and I 13 know from experience that often, when there are 14 attachments and parts of documents, that sometimes 15 makes it difficult to see where one document starts 16 and ends and another document starts. You say that 17 there aren't that many documents. Would it really 18 take that much on your part to provide an index so 19 that it would be clear what documents you're talking 20 about?

21 MR. LEWIS: Remember, Judge Young, I mean, 22 what are we up to?

23 CHAIR YOUNG: Could you just answer my 24 question, Mr. Lewis?

25 MR. LEWIS: I think it would be an undue NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEý ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202)

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

648 1 burden on us, Judge Young. If Pilgrim Watch was 2 unhappy with the format of our initial disclosure, 3 they should have raised the matter in 2006, not as 4 we're preparing for testimony.

5 - CHAIR YOUNG: All right. With regard to 6 paragraph one we'll make rulings on this 7 afterwards. With regard to paragraph one on page two 8 of the request, what's your response to that,. Mr.

9 Lewis?

10 MR. LEWIS: We will provide the machine-11 readable input files. We did provide the input files 12 for both the base case and the sensitivity runs. They 13 were put in a PDF format so they were readable, but 14 I've already requested them and we will provide the 15 machine-readable versions which have a different 16 extension. Hopefully, I can get those to Ms. Lampert 17 this week.

18 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

19 MS. LAMPERT: What about the outputs?

20 MR. LEWIS: Yes, both.

21 CHAIR YOUNG: So are there any parts of 22 either paragraph one that you will not provide, or are 23 you agreeing to provide everything that's listed 24 there?

25 MR. LEWIS: We'll provide what's under NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

649 1 paragraph one. We already have. We just haven't done 2 it in machine-readable format.

3 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. And then number two, 4 you just indicated that you would provide those, as 5 well?

6 MR. LEWIS: Yes.

7 CHAIR YOUNG: All right.

8 MR. LEWIS: And we have, but we'll do it 9 in machine-readable format.

10 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. And when you do that, 11 it would be probably helpful for you to identify those 12 in some index or other manner that makes them easier 13 to use. On number three, what about that one? What's 14 your response to that one?

15 MR. LEWIS: We already have. There's a 16 calculation that indicates how all the input 17 parameters were determined. We will respond by 18 identifying the CD and the base number where that file 19 is located. It was produced in the very initial 20 disclosure.

21 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. And then as to number 22 four?

23 MR. LEWIS: I think we should provide, 24 we'll provide a written response. The request is 25 assuming certain things which aren't correct. The NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

650 1 MACCS2 code used an archived hourly set of data. We 2 did not take 15-minute data and do averaging in order 3 to produce a MACCS input. There is data that's 4 recorded at 15-minute intervals for emergency-planning 5 purposes, and this report is on the control room 6 panel. But every hour there is an hourly value that 7 is recorded and archived and is used for this purpose,

8. and that is what's used in the MACCS2 code.

9 CHAIR YOUNG: So you will respond to that?

10 MR. LEWIS: We'll provide a response 11 explaining that.

12 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. And are there any 13 other documents or previously-existing written 14 descriptions that you have?

15 MR. LEWIS: I'm sorry? Any other 16 documents?

17 CHAIR YOUNG: Or previous --

18 MR. LEWIS: We did not do a conversion of 19 15-minute data into 60-minute data, so, no, there's no 20 documents that describe that because we didn't do it.

21 It's not how the input data was derived.

22 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Ms. Lampert, based on 23 his response, what's your reply?

24 MS. LAMPERT: I think the second part is 25 fully satisfactory. I have the list, I have the disks NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

651 1 in front of me, and it's incorrect some of which he 2 said because I've scribbled on them as best I could 3 what was relevant for contention one, etcetera. Yes, 4 I tried to read through them all, and there are 5 thousands, and I think it is not acceptable to not 6 provide an index. They didn't do it then, and I don't 7 know why they can't do it now because we're preparing 8 for a hearing. For summary disposition, we're 9 required just to put enough forward to establish a 10 dispute of material fact. We did not have to prove 11 our case; so, therefore, it was not necessary to read 12 every single document in full. At this point, it is 13 required. And as you very pointedly made note, if 14 they say there's not that much there, it should not 15 trouble them to comply with what you had instructed 16 regarding providing information and that it be done in 17 a user-friendly form so we don't have to play who can 18 find the needle in the haystack.

19 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, just to respond 20 to that, there was no instructions in this proceeding 21 that we provide an index. There was no request by the 22 parties when we were discussing how these disclosures 23 should be provided at the outset when Pilgrim Watch 24 was represented by counsel to prepare an index, and 25 there is no requirement of the rules that we prepare NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgrossm*m

652 1 an index. I guess my main complaint is that if 2 Pilgrim Watch wanted an index, it would have been very

.3 helpful when we were initially collecting and 4 screening and putting the documents together to have 5 that request when it could have been done without 6 requiring extra work rather than requesting this thr~ee 7 and a half years later when we are trying to focus our 8 efforts on getting ready for hearing. It's just not 9 reasonable at this point in time.

10 'CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. We'll take your 11 arguments under advisement on the first request there.

12 on other discovery issues, obviously I think the 13 mandatory disclosures, I can't remember how often we 14 set those, it might be helpful to, the normal time is 15 every 30 days, at least early on, but it might be 16 helpful to make that a little bit more frequent, say 17 every two weeks. It would also, we encourage you to 18 get together, if you can, to have your experts get 19 together, if that's possible, to see whether you can 20 narrow the issues. That would be helpful., That's up 21 to you.

22 Are there any other experts besides those 23 who have been present today and Dr. Shannon that any 24 party expects to have?

25 MS. LAMPERT: Yes. But, of course, it is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

653 1 hard to come up precisely until we know what the scope 2 is. At present, those contacted that agree, as long 3 as the issue is going to be discussed, allowed, will 4 be David Shannon, who is the author of the code and 5 other codes. Number one, David Shannon. Number-two, 6 in alphabetical order, Dr. Richard Klapp. We believe 7 that his expertise in health costs will be relevant at 8 some point down the road. We also have, obviously, 9 Dr. Egan; Gundersen; then we have Edwin Lyman, Dr.

10 Edwin Lyman; and, last, Dr. Gordon Thompson.

11 CHAIR YOUNG: Not Mr. Bayeh or Dr. Bayeh?

12 MS. LAMPERT: No, it's going to be Dr.

13 Thompson and Dr. Klapp who will discuss these issues.

14 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: This is Judge 15 Abramson. I'd like to ask all the parties to submit 16 full credentials on their experts, please, because I 17 want to look at them.

18 MS. LAMPERT: Fine. When do you want 19 that?

20 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: I'll let Judge 21 Young decide that.

22 CHAIR YOUNG: We'll work that out and 23 issue an order a little bit down the line. What about 24 the other parties? Who do you expect to call as your 25 experts, starting with Entergy?

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

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

654 1 MR. LEWIS: Yes, Judge Young, this is 2 David Lewis. Dr. Kevin O'Kula and Dr. Steven Hanna.

3 Dr. Hanna just had to leave for a plane, so he's no 4 longer on the line. We have provided their 5 credentials. We identified-Dr. HAnna in our most 6 recent disclosure, I think last Friday, along with his 7 credentials; and Dr. O'Kula's credentials were 8 previously provided. It's also attached to our most 9 recent disclosure of last Friday.

10 CHAIR YOUNG: Anybody else?

11 MR. LEWIS: No, just those two witnesses 12 currently.

13 CHAIR YOUNG: And the staff?

14 MR. HARRIS: The staff right now 15 anticipates calling Dr. Bixler, Joe Jones, and Dr.

16 Tina Ghosh.

17 MS. LAMPERT: Who was the last one?

18 MR. HARRIS: Ghosh, G-H-O-S-H.

19 CHAIR YOUNG: What was the first name?

20 MR. HARRIS: Tina.

21 CHAIR YOUNG: Tina?

22 MR. HARRIS: Tina.

23 CHAIR YOUNG: T-I-N-A?

24 MR. HARRIS: Yes.

25 CHAIR YOUNG: And, Ms. Hollis, I presume NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

655 1 you don't have any experts specifically; is that 2 correct?

3 MS. HOLLIS: That's correct, your Honor.

4 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Could we hear from 5 the parties- on how much time you expect you'll need 6 for the discovery? And I guess this is directed 7 primarily at the intervenors and, well, in terms, of 8 information on the modeling, receiving and providing 9 information on the various types of modeling, how much 10 time you'll need? And I'd like to hear from all 11 parties on that, as well as on how frequently it would 12 be reasonable to exchange information. It seems that 13 perhaps two weeks might make more sense since we're 14 moving towards a hearing after the conclusion. I take 15 that back. We're not going to actually conclude 16 discovery. The requirement to disclose information 17 will continue up to and through the hearing with 18 regard to anything that you become aware of at a late 19 date or any new information that might be relevant.

20 Let's hear from the staff. Do you have an 21 opinion as to how frequently and how much time would 22 be required for discovery?

23 MR. HARRIS: I think, in terms of the 24 updates, I think 30 days would be much better because 25 it takes away a lot to do it every two weeks in terms NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

656 1 of just a lot of time gathering it and reviewing it 2 and then getting it produced. It could be better 3 spent, you know, doing the actual analysis. In terms 4 of how much time for discovery, I don't --

5 MS. UTTAL: Can you hold on a minute, 6 Judge, please?

7 COURT REPORTER: Who was that?

8 CHAIR YOUNG: That was Ms. Uttal, I 9 believe. She asked us to hold on a minute.

10 COURT REPORTER: Thank you.

11 CHAIR YOUNG: Ms. Hollis, obviously, we've 12 gone over my estimate. I apologize for that, but 13 hopefully it's not too much of an inconvenience.

14 MS. HOLLIS: No, no.

15 MR. HARRIS:: We consulted a little bit, 16 and we think 90 days is probably, you know, enough to 17 do the discovery. But it's hard to say until you get 18 there.

19 CHAIR YOUNG: Entergy?

20 MR. LEWIS: Yes, Judge Young. I don't 21 like disagreeing with the staff, but I think that's 22 much too long a period for disclosure. We've already 23 produced our supplemental disclosure. We did so on 24 Friday. The Commission's order came out over a month 25 ago, and I would have been hoping the other parties NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

657 1 would be working on their supplemental disclosures.

2 What we would like very much is to have a schedule 3 established now and not wait for further briefing on 4 what the scope of the issues are and have a schedule 5 that is in line with what we proposed in our April 7th 6 opposition to Pilgrim Watch's Motion to Reschedule, in 7 essence one that reaches the filing of testimony by 8 mid-June. The main disclosure I think is by Entergy, 9 and we have already done the initial disclosure. We 10 will have to provide some supplemental disclosure, as 11 Dr. Hanna's testimony. We're prepared to do that. We 12 proposed every 15 days.

13 Judge Young, your prior order with the 14 scheduling order earlier in the proceeding that said 15 after summary disposition disclosures would be updated 16 every 14 days. I would suggest, just for convenience, 17 it be the 15th and the 30th of each month or the next 18 business day, so it stays bimonthly. But we would 19 suggest that the parties should have already updated 20 their disclosure, and I would suggest that an initial 21 disclosure should be performed by each party by mid-22 May with 15-day supplements thereafter, leading to 23 filing of testimony by mid-June. And I will ask for 24 a very aggressive schedule on briefing what the scope 25 of issues are. I think the parties have a pretty good NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

658 1 idea of what the scope of issues are, and I would 2 suggest that any comments on that should be submitted 3 by Friday and the establishment of a schedule not wait 4 for a ruling. I think that, hopefully, the Board will 5 be able to provide a proper action to the parties' 6 filings and we can proceed on schedule with our 7 disclosures and hearing.

8 This proceeding really is starting to have 9 harm on Entergy. It's preventing business decisions.

10 It's preventing an impediment to investment decisions.

11 It makes it very hard to market your power for an 12 emergent plant when you don't know if you're going to 13 remain operating. It's having an affect on employees 14 who don't know whether the plant will continue to 15 operate. And I would ask the Board, I understand that 16 the Board could not have anticipated the Commission's 17 remand after the amount of time it took, but I would 18 ask the Board for indulgence and for the establishment 19 of a schedule that completes this remanded proceeding 20 in an expeditious manner consistent with the 21 Commission's policy statement which points out that 22 applicants really are entitled to a timely resolution 23 of disputes concerning their application. The 24 proceeding now has been going on for four years, and 25 we'd sure like to get. to hearing.

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

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

659 1 CHAIR YOUNG: Mr. Lewis, obviously, we're 2 going to move as expeditiously as possible on this.

3 Given that our rulings on summary disposition were in 4 October of 2007 and we received the remand a little 5 over a month ago, we are going to proceed as 6 expeditiously as possible in the interest of all 7 parties and the Board. Intervenors, what's your view

8. on how much time you will need to prepare and to 9 engage in these disclosures, continuingdisclosures, 10 and how frequently you think that the disclosures 11 should be made?

12 MS. LAMPERT: I have maybe three or four 13 points to make. One, I think we view ourselves in 14 this situation that, absent a specific order by the 15 Board of what, in fact, we are specifically going to 16 talk about, it is unrealistic to ask us to hire, pay 17 for, extend resources for experts who may or may not 18 be talking about something. I know that, of the list 19 of experts I gave you, two are unable to start work 20 until the beginning of September. Unlike NRC staff 21 and unlike Entergy, we do not have deep pockets, but 22 that doesn't mean we should not be allowed to play.

23 However, our experts cannot sit around since we filed 24 the petition for review, as required, early November 25 '08 and not take a client that puts food on their NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. -

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

660 1 tables and pay full freight. We cannot pay full 2 freight. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to 3 fairly participate and, therefore, provide the quality 4 of evidence so you feel good about the decision you 5 make.

6 So two cannot start until the beginning of 7 September to seriously prepare their testimony, if 8 they understand by then what it's all about. The 9 other three can start this summer.

10 CHAIR YOUNG: Now, why is it that two of 11 them cannot --

12 MS. LAMPERT: Because they have other 13 clients. We didn't hear until the end of March. The 14 Motion for Reconsideration, we expected, we understand 15 that the NRC Commission has been tied up with high-16 level waste, but we understand that's done and they 17 can get at their backlog. My last point, and I think 18 it's an important one, is we heard Entergy's concerns, 19 okay, about being economically harmed by the slowness 20 of the proceeding. But let me point out from the get-21 go in this proceeding I have made it publically known 22 at public NRC meetings, in the press, that I'm more 23 than willing to settle and for not much, for decent 24 ground water monitoring on-site, contention one; and 25 for some off-site monitoring. Now, what that tells me NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

661 1 is if they will not agree to settlement, A, they're 2 either not in that much of a hurry or burdened; or, B, 3 they don't want the Commonwealth and citizens to know 4 what's being admitted. That's not acceptable.

5 So if they want to settle,-I'm more than 6 willing to settle. And it's reasonable and it costs 7 a heck of a lot less than they're spending now.

8 CHAIR YOUNG: As to the frequency of 9 disclosures, did you have a view that you want to 10 express?

11 MS. LAMPERT: No, I'd have to talk and put 12 that in writing to my experts.

13 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Young, Judge 14 Abramson here. Let me say that I'm sympathetic to the 15 inability, particularly of Pilgrim Watch, to figure 16 out which experts it will need until we issue an order 17 laying out exactly what's going to be heard. And I 18 think that the Board will'try to do that rapidly; is 19 that right?

20 CHAIR YOUNG:- I think that's right. I 21 guess what I would say also at this point is obviously 22 we always encourage parties to attempt to settle 23 cases. And if there is any possibility of that, we 24 encourage you to talk with each other and work towards 25 that. We can, if you wish, we can ask the Chief 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

662 1 to appoint a settlement judge to assist in mediating 2 and we would not be having any discussions with that 3 settlement judge. that would be a totally separate 4 track. But if you think that it would be helpful and 5 you'd like to make a..-joint request, we can pass that 6 on to the Chief Judge who will make the decision on 7 whom to appoint to be the settlement judge. And, 8 again, that would be a totally separate process from 9 this adjudication.

10 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, this is David 11 Lewis. I will talk to my client and get their 12 reactions to this. we did try and have settlement 13 discussions with Pilgrim Watch two or three years ago, 14 I guess two years ago. And we were willing to talk 15 and, at that point, you may recall, some of the 16 discussions broke down over our view of breach of 17 confidentiality. And there have been no --

18 MS. LAMPERT: No, no, no.

19 MR. LEWIS: -- either way since then. But 20 1 will take it on to discuss with my client and see if 21 it's worth having any further discussions. And I'm 22 also willing to, after this call, still talk with my 23 client to see if it makes sense having the experts 24 talk to each other. I'm not adamantly opposed to 25 that. I just need to make sure that it makes sense, NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

663 1 so we- are willing to engage in those, kind of 2 activities if it makes sense.

3 CHAIR YOUNG: I would, point out that a 4 trained mediator acting as a settlement judge can 5 of-ten help parties get beyond roadblocks by speaking 6 with the parties separately, assisting the parties in 7 looking at what possible common interests they might 8 have. So if there's any chance, I guess I would 9 encourage you to request the appointment of a 10 settlement judge and I could pass that on to -

11 MS. LAMPERT: Could you explain what that 12 process is? Because, quite simply, Pilgrim Watch is 13 not, our goal is not to stop this proceeding. We are 14' looking for enhanced safety measures just going 15 forward. That's it. Arnd if they're obeying 16 regulations on what, perhaps, could be leaking of f-17 site or admitted into the air', then what's the 18 problem? So I'm more than willing. I was willing

19. four years ago if something is reasonable. It wasn't 20 a matter., as described, on confidentiality. It was a 21 matter of the offer. It was not acceptable in our 22 opinion.

23 .CHAIR YOUNG: It sounds as though you're 24 both willing, and I don't know the extent to which the 25 other parties would want to take part in that. But it NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

664 1 sounds as though you might want me to ask Judge 2 Hawkens to appoint a settlement judge at this point.

3 Would that be a correct reading of what you're both 4 saying?

5 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, I can't consult 6 my client because we're in a remote location, so I 7 need to have a discussion before I made that request.

8 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

9 MS. UTTAL: Judge Young, this is Susan 10 Uttal from the staff. The staff thinks that it's a 11 good idea to have a settlement judge appointed.

12 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Are there any other 13 relevant matters that we have not talked about today 14 that anyone would like to raise?

15 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, if the Board is 16 not going to establish a schedule for the proceeding, 17 I would ask for a very expedited schedule for the 18 submission on the scope of the proceeding and leading 19 to a Board ruling so that the parties can proceed.

20 And in particular, Pilgrim Watch has indicated that 21 the number of its experts might not be available until 22 September. Because some of its experts relate to 23 issues that may well be beyond the proceeding, such as 24 Dr. Klapp on health effects and I presume Dr. Lyman 25 and Dr. Gordon go to spent-fuel fires, I presume Dr.

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

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

665 1 Shannon g~oes to site restoration costs.

2 MS. LAMPERT: Well, no. Shannon, 3 remember, he wrote the code, so I think he goes to 4 quite a few things.

5 MR. LEWIS: Okay.

6 MS. LAMPERT: And Lyman and a couple of 7 the others can --

8 ADMIN. JUDGE ABRAMSON: Let me ask you to 9 submit Shannon's resume because I don't believe he 10 wrote the code. I was involved with a lot of that 11 personally.

12 MS. LAMPERT: Okay. I'd be more than 13 happy to.

14 CHAIR YOUNG: Let me just ask 15 COURT REPORTER: Who was that?

16 CHAIR YOUNG: That was Judge Abramson and 17 Ms. Lampert. Ms. Lampert, which of your experts are 18 not going to be available until September again?

19 MS. LAMPERT: The.two on the telephone.

20 CHAIR YOUNG: Oh, Egan and Gundersen?

21 MS. LAMPERT: Correct.

22 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, all right. Correct me 23 if I'm wrong, but I think that what we need to get 24 from the parties at this point are, first, indications 25 whether you would like to have a settlement 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

666 1 appointed. We already know the staff's view on that.

2 And then we need to have your proposed statements of

-3 the issues with any brief supporting arguments on 4 those with citations to the Commission's order in CLI-5 10-11. Then, third, we would like to get from you 6 your proposed schedules, including discovery, 7 mandatory disclosure schedules. Did I leave out 8 anything that we should expect to receive from you?

9 MS. LAMPERT: Are you going to put that 10 out in an order? I'd prefer things in orders. I'm 11 not trying to put work on'you but .

12- CHAIR YOUNG: Right. We'll try to do 13 that. But first let me ask is there anything else 14 that needs to be on that list?

15 (No response.)

16 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Now, let's see if we 17 can hear from the parties on how soon you can 18 reasonably provide that information, and that goes to 19 how quickly you'll get an order. Let me just let you 20 know, we had asked for a week turnaround on this 21 transcript because of certain other duties and absence 22 from the office of members of the Board. So your 23 proposed schedules on how soon you can get this 24 information to us may play into how we move forward 25 from this point forward. Would next week be too early NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

667 1 for any parties, say a week from today?

2 MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, this *is David 3 Lewis. We can certainly. do it by then. I would 4 suggest by Friday. It's clear Pilgrim Watch has 5 thought a lot about the hearing scope and written a 6 statement already, which I think we've heard a lot of.

7 We can certainly present our position on the scope by 8 Friday. We already have a proposed schedule, and I 9 think we can indicate. whether we'd be interested in a 10 settlement judge. But settlement should proceed in 11 parallel. Nothing should be held up based -on 12 discussions among the parties, and so to have those 13 discussions should not be an indication, that the 14 schedule should be more relaxed. I would really --

15 CHAIR YOUNG: Mr. Lewis? Mr. Lewis? As 16 I said before, any settlement discussions take place 17 totally separate from this and have nothing to do with 18 it. There's no discussion between a settlement judge 19 and the Board, except for one thing: if the settlement 20 judge comes to the Board and says the parties are 21 settling and we should expect an order within X days.

22 MR. LEWIS: Entergy's position, though, is 23 that we should establish the scope of the proceeding 24 as expeditiously as possible, and I would urge both 25 parties to have positions. I would think Friday is NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

668 1 very reasonable.

2 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Other parties, how 3 soon can you respond?

4 MS. LAMPERT: Is he talking about the 7th 5 in a couple of days?

6 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

7 MS. LAMPERT: I mean --

8 CHAIR YOUNG: Just tell us how soon you 9 can respond.

10 MS. LAMPERT: Okay. I think anything 11 under 10 days is not reasonable. I think we've gone 12 on schedules of 10 days, 20 days, what have you.

13 CHAIR YOUNG: You could not make it on the 14 llth? That would give you the weekend.

15 MS. LAMPERT: And believe it or not, 16 sometimes we do have other things that we're doing.

17 No, I couldn't do it. I'm looking at --

18 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Staff?

19 MS. LAMPERT: -- other commitments.

20 CHAIR YOUNG: Staff, how soon could you 21 get these things to us?

.22 MR. HARRIS: This is Brian Harris, and we 23 could get it to on the llth.

24 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. We will issue an 25 order tomorrow setting deadlines and deadlines for NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

669 1 responses. After we receive that, we will address the 2 issues first and then proceed from that to talk about 3 the schedule. So, again, what we would like from you 4 is anything regarding requests for the appointment of 5 a settlement judge; your. propo-sed formulations of the 6 issues for hearing and whether that should take place 7 in one stage or two and how those issues should be 8 separated out if you are arguing for separate stages; 9 any arguments, brief arguments, in support of your 10 statements of the issues; and then proposed schedules 11 from all parties. You should hear from us by tomorrow 12 on that.

13 MS. LAMPERT: Okay. And, again, I'm 14 asking for ten days.

15 CHAIR YOUNG: Anything further from any 16 party?

17 (No response.)

18 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Then let's go off the 19 record, and if everyone could stay on just long enough 20 of the court reporter to ask for spellings of any 21 words.

22 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter was 23 concluded at 4:03 p.m.)

1 2

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

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

CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the Uniited States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of: Entergy Nuclear Operations Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Name of Proceeding: Hearing Docket Number: 20-293-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 direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.

QN Be ' min Crane Official Reporter Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

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

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