ML15194A134

Transcript of Wednesday, July 8, 2015 Teleconference

ML15194A134
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades
Issue date:	07/08/2015
From:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
SECY RAS
References
50-255-LA-2, ASLBP 15-939-04-LA-BD01, NRC-1728, RAS 28046
Download: ML15194A134 (20)

Text

Official Transcript of ProceedingsNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONTitle:Entergy Nuclear OperationsPalisades Nuclear PlantDocket Number:50-255-LA-2 ASLBP No.15-939-04-LA-BD01 Location:teleconference Date:Wednesday, July 8, 2015Work Order No.:NRC-1728Pages 1-19NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.Court Reporters and Transcribers1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20005(202) 234-4433 1UNITED STATES OF AMERICA1NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION2+ + + + +3ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL4+ + + + +5HEARING6----------------------x7In the Matter of:  : Docket No.8ENTERGY NUCLEAR  : 50-255-LA-29OPERATIONS, INC.  : ASLBP No.10(Palisades Nuclear  : 15-939-04-LA-BD0111Plant) :12----------------------x13Wednesday, July 8, 20151415Teleconference1617BEFORE:18RONALD M. SPRITZER, Chair19GARY S. ARNOLD, Administrative Judge20THOMAS J. HIRONS, Administrative Judge2122 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 2APPEARANCES:12Counsel for the Applicant3Paul Bessette, Esq.4Raphael P. Kuyler, Esq.5of:Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP61111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.7Washington, DC 200048pbessette@morganlewis.com9rkuyler@morganlewis.com10(202) 739-57961112On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission13Anita Ghosh, Esq.14Joseph Lindell, Esq.15of:U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission16Office of the General Counsel17Mail Stop O-15D2118Washington, DC 20555-000119(301) 415-412620anita.ghosh@nrc.gov21joseph.lindell@nrc.gov22 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 3On Behalf of the Petitioners:1Terry J. Lodge, Esq.2316 N. Michigan Street, Suite 5203Toledo, OH 43604-56274(419) 255-75525terry@beyondnuclear.org67 8

910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4P R O C E E D I N G S12:01 p.m.2CHAIR SPRITZER: All right, I think we are3now ready to go on the record, Mr. Court Reporter. We4are here in the matter of Entergy Nuclear Operations,5Inc. This is Palisades Nuclear Plant, NRC Docket6number 50-255-LA-2. This is the License Amendment Two7request, and we're here pursuant to the Board's order8of June 26, scheduling this conference call to review9scheduling issues. Why don't we go around again and10identify everyone who is on the call, I'm going with11start with the Intervenors.12MR. LODGE: Terry Lodge, counsel for the13Intervenors.14MR. KAMPS: And this is Kevin Kamps with15Beyond Nuclear.16CHAIR SPRITZER: All right, and for17Entergy?18MR. BESSETTE: Yes, Your Honor, this is19Paul Bessette from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,20representing Entergy, and I have my colleague, Ray21Kuyler with me.22CHAIR SPRITZER: And for the NRC Staff?23MS. GHOSH: Hi Your Honor, this is Anita24Ghosh for the NRC Staff, with me as co-counsel Joseph25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 5Lindell. I also have a member of the NRC technical1staff, Kimberly Green.2CHAIR SPRITZER: All right, and I believe3that should do it, but if anybody else is on the line4and planning to participate, please speak now. All5right, hearing no takers, with me of course I6mentioned are Judge Hirons and Judge Arnold, also our7law clerk, Nicole Pepperl and Sachin Desai, who is8technically a law clerk on the other Palisades case,9but is also listening in on this case. 10So, let's go over the issues that we're11going to talk about today. With respect to the12deferral motion, the Motion to Defer the Mandatory13Disclosure, we of course just got the response from14the Intervenors today. We'll rule on that as soon as15possible. In fact, we probably should have an order16out by tomorrow. But I think we know the parties'17positions, so I don't know if there's anything more we18need to hear on that issue.19So why don't we move ahead and talk about20the--well, let me just start off with staff, and are21you all--we saw the statement on Entergy's motion that22you didn't--that the Staff does not oppose the motion. 23Is the Staff planning to file anything on that? This24is the Motion to Defer the Due Date for Mandatory25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 6Disclosures?1MS. GHOSH: No, Your Honor.2CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay. So we're ready--3it's ready for decision, then. Okay. On the joint4proposal, first of all, we appreciate the parties'5efforts at working out a joint proposal, and for the6most part it seems acceptable to the Board with a few7possible changes that we're interested in, and we'll8give you the chance to offer your thoughts on. 9First, on the direct and rebuttal10testimony, what we're thinking might shorten things a11bit and also be of benefit to the Board would be to12take what is a three-stage process and basically make13it a two-stage process. The first stage would be all14the written direct testimony and statements of15positions, that is from all the parties, Intervenors,16staff and Entergy would be submitted simultaneously,17and then 45 days later, the rebuttal testimony from18Intervenors, Entergy and staff would be submitted. 19So that would shorten that process from it20looks like about 90 days to about 45 days, and from21our point of view, it's often more helpful to get all22of the direct testimony together and all the rebuttal23testimony together. It certainly doesn't hurt. So24let me ask if anyone wants to comment on that from the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 7parties on the line?1MR. BESSETTE: Your Honor, this is Paul2Bessette, maybe I'll jump in. We certainly can do3whatever the Board wishes to do. We can accommodate4any pleading standard, any pleading schedule or5process. I would note though that you know, we really6do not at this point know many of Intervenor's7arguments. 8We really haven't seen our case yet, all9we have is an admitted contention. So it's often hard10for applicants to prepare testimony when we don't full11know what their arguments are. So it is often to I12think everyone's benefit to understand the13Petitioner's case.14In fact, in the Petitioner's pleading from15this morning, they note that they may be hiring a new16expert, and we have no idea what that expert is going17to say, because it says they have the potential need18for Petitioner to identify one or more appropriate19experts on metallurgical issues. So Entergy would20have no way of addressing that expert testimony if we21went in at the same time.22CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay.23ADMIN. JUDGE ARNOLD: Well, and that's--24this is Judge Arnold -- that's what the rebuttals are25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 8for. You would each have an equal opportunity to1rebut the position of your opponents.2MR. BESSETTE: I understand, and that's3why we could accommodate any process, I just wanted to4provide some, just some alternate thoughts there, Your5Honor. We fully respect your discussion of that6issue.7CHAIR SPRITZER: All right, does anybody8else have any thoughts on that particular possible9modification?10MR. LODGE: Yes, Judge--go ahead.11MS. GHOSH: Yes, the NRC Staff, I think we12would echo the same sentiments. I think it would be13easier--not easier, but it would--some of the claims14that are written out in the Petitioner's case would15be--I think it would help to narrow the scope of the16proceeding, and it would provide for a more efficient17process if the Intervenor were--if we were to do the18staggered filing, but we would be amenable to either19process.20CHAIR SPRITZER: All right, from the21Intervenors, did you have any thoughts on this?22MR. LODGE: Yes sir, this is Terry Lodge. 23You may recall in the 33 proceeding over which you24presided, you also asked for the procedure that you're25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 9proposing today, and of course we'll comply with any1orders that you might make. But in 33 as well as2today, my view was that as proposed, the three-step3process more tends to follow what federal civil4practice utilizes, and I think that as the other5parties have suggested, it may actually help narrow or6frame the issues better. 7What occurs otherwise, and what happened8in the 33 case, and it wasn't a terrible thing, but9what it does requires that all parties essentially10shotgun every conceivable position as opposed to11providing a more targeted kind of expert opinion in12response, and then ultimately on rebuttal.13CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay. Well, those are14some interesting points; we'll take them under15advisement. If there's nothing else on that16particular issue, I would assume that this is related17to the filing of the direct and rebuttal testimony;18the schedule I don't think specifically mentions19exhibits, but I assume they would be filed--well let's20see, for the Intervenors, they would be filed with21your direct testimony, same thing for the Staff and22Applicant. And whenever that happens to come, and any23rebuttal exhibits would be filed with the rebuttal24testimony. Did you have anything else in mind, or was25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 10it just--you just didn't mention exhibits in here?1MR. BESSETTE: No, Your Honor. This is2Paul Bessette again. We anticipated or envisioned3filing the exhibits along with the testimony.4CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay, I just wanted to be5clear on that. Now, on the 60 versus 30 day issue,6this is for the filing of your amended contentions, I7guess our preliminary reaction is more in line of a8general idea to move this case along that we go with9the 30 days. 10Intervenors, you're not prohibited from11asking for an extension, although you should do so12promptly if you need it and give us a good reason why13you need an extension, so you're not completely locked14into 30 days. But in terms of what we're doing with15the scheduling order, our inclination is to go with16the 30 days. Any response on that?17MR. BESSETTE: Essentially what you're18saying is that, procedurally, if we believe it will19take 60 days to articulate a new or amended20contention, we can make a request within the first 30,21and--22(Simultaneous speaking.)23CHAIR SPRITZER: If you need more time,24you could file a motion for extension of time. We're25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 11not guaranteeing you that we'll grant it, I'm just1saying--or saying that necessarily 30 days should be2the time you should ask for, only that we would put in3our scheduling order 30 days; if there really are4extenuating circumstances--if the staff's safety5evaluation comes out at the end of November, you know,6then you're going into the Christmas holidays, most7people like to take at least a few days off in there,8so you know that kind of thing is something we would9take into account. I'm not giving you a guarantee10that we will give you an extra 30 days; you should ask11for the smallest amount of time that you would need in12addition to 30 days, if you need any at all. All I'm13saying is you have the option of asking for an14extension if it's really necessary, but we'd prefer to15keep 30 days as the goal and see if there's any16justification or need for further time down the road.17MR. BESSETTE: Well, we would prefer the1860, but we will abide by whatever order the Board19makes.20CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay. With respect to21summary disposition motions, right now the schedule22has two deadlines for summary disposition motions; of23course nobody's prohibited from filing earlier than24the deadline. What we thought might make more sense25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 12is to have one deadline geared to the due date for1direct testimony, depending upon which schedule we're2under, that is whether it's--whether new or amended3contentions are filed or not filed, we would probably4gear, you know, 30 days before direct testimony or 455days before the direct testimony is due. 6We haven't quite worked that out yet, but7we try to have a deadline like that rather than two8separate deadlines. I mean if Entergy files a motion9for summary disposition after 30 days, 30 days after10the safety evaluation comes out, but simultaneously11new or amended contentions are filed could effectively12make the summary disposition motion moot, so we13thought rather than having more motions filed than we14really need, it might make sense to defer the15deadline. 16So were there any thoughts on that? Let17me have Entergy first on that.18MR. BESSETTE: Your Honor, that sounds19reasonable to us, thank you.20CHAIR SPRITZER: Staff?21MS. GHOSH: That sounds reasonable to us22as well.23CHAIR SPRITZER: And Intervenor?24MR. LODGE: Your Honor, that's a good25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 13suggestion. Thank you.1CHAIR SPRITZER: All right. If you look2at--this is on page 2 of your joint proposal,3paragraph number 6, imposition came up in the Fermi 24case which Mr. Lodge may remember. It's a little5confusing because I think what's intended here is to6say that--the first sentence says that if the staff is7going to identify the documents, it's required to8identify--I think what's intended in the second9sentence is to say that the parties shall not10otherwise be required to identify or produce docketed11correspondence or other documents identified by the12staff. 13If it's broader than that, then it would14seem to be an inconsistency with paragraph 7, which15does require identification of some documents that may16or may not have been identified by the staff, namely17ones that a party may rely on at the hearing. If we18made that modification, would that be a problem that19it's changing the paragraph--second sentence in20paragraph 6 to say that the parties will not otherwise21be required to identify or produce docketed22correspondence or other documents identified by the23staff?24MR. BESSETTE: Your Honor, this is Paul25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 14Bessette from Entergy. We would concur with that1change to the extent any documents are identified on2ADAMS or not otherwise identified by the staff or on3ADAMS, we had always intended to identify those with4the appropriate accession number.5CHAIR SPRITZER: Right. It just seemed--I6assumed that was probably intended, but it seemed to7be a potential inconsistency there. Does anyone else8have any comment on that particular issue?9MR. LODGE: It's fine with Intervenors.10MS. GHOSH: It's fine with the NRC staff11as well.12CHAIR SPRITZER: All right. Okay, that13comes pretty much to the end of my list I think. Do14any of my fellow judges have any--15ADMIN. JUDGE ARNOLD: This is Judge16Arnold. I--there's the staff technical person on the17line; is that so?18MS. GHOSH: Yes.19ADMIN. JUDGE ARNOLD: Would you be able to20answer a question such as the safety evaluation, is21this going to be a 500-page document, a 50-page22document, about how big is it going to be?23MS. GHOSH: Can you give me one moment,24Your Honor?25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 15ADMIN. JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay.1MS. GHOSH: Your Honor, the SE will2probably be no longer than 30 pages.3ADMIN. JUDGE ARNOLD: Thank you very much.4CHAIR SPRITZER: Well let me just ask5then. Based on the joint proposal, I take it6everyone's agreed though that we should wait--we7shouldn't--the schedule should not--should wait until8the safety evaluation is completed. Anybody feel9differently? All right, hearing no takers, I assume10that everyone's agreed on that point. 11And if the schedule, particularly if we12follow the schedule that assumes that there will be13new or amended contentions, we could get well into142016 before we actually have the hearing. From15Entergy's point of view, is that going to be a16problem? It's my understanding that it looks like you17need a decision certainly before December of 2016.18MR. BESSETTE: A decision on the hearing,19Your Honor?20CHAIR SPRITZER: Well, a ruling,21conclusion of the evidentiary hearing and the Board's22initial decision. And I suppose also time to appeal23to the--or whoever happens to be the losing party to24appeal to the Commission. And that's based on the25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 16fact as I understand it there's at least one of the1materials that will be approaching this limit,2fracture toughness limit by December of 2016, but3maybe I'm misinterpreting something.4MR. BESSETTE: No Your Honor, I believe5that's generally consistent with our understanding. 6We just, you know, we looked at this carefully. With7regard to Your Honor's first point, we are not aware8of even the ability to go to hearing without the SER,9the staff's SER, because we really do need the10staff's--we believe we need the staff's position on11this. We would--perhaps we were hoping for the SER a12bit earlier candidly, which would move this up a bit13earlier.14CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay. That would be15good, that would help everybody I think.16MR. BESSETTE: Yes.17CHAIR SPRITZER: I mean, the other18possibility of course is to shorten some of the other19deadlines; we mentioned one possibility already in20terms of the having two--a two-step process for21submitting testimony rather than a three-step process. 2223Maybe the best thing to do is simply go24ahead and issue the scheduling order based on what we25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 17have now, and if it seems like you're pushing up1against a deadline, and keeping in mind that I would2assume both sides want to preserve the option of an3appeal to the Commission, come back to us with some4alternative proposal if it looks like you're running5into a potential problem.6MR. BESSETTE: Yes, Your Honor, that's7entirely reasonable, and we would need to confer with8the client on that.9CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay. Just to let you10know, we would certainly be open to--we understand11that the issue around getting your decision within the12time period that you need one.13MR. BESSETTE: Thank you, Your Honor.14CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay. Judge Hirons, did15you want to make--16ADMIN. JUDGE HIRONS: I just want to17confirm with the staff that the date for the SER is18the end of November, is that correct?19MS. GHOSH: That's our current best20estimate.21ADMIN. JUDGE HIRONS: Thank you.22CHAIR SPRITZER: Is it realistic that it23might be earlier than that?24MS. GHOSH: Possibly.25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 18CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay. All right, I think1the judges, I've asked all my questions; my2colleagues, I assume, have asked theirs. Are there any3other procedural issues any of the parties want to4bring up?5MR. BESSETTE: None from Entergy, Your6Honor.7MS. GHOSH: Nothing from the Staff.8CHAIR SPRITZER: And Intervenors?9MR. LODGE: Nothing from the Intervenors.10MR. KAMPE: If I could just quickly, Your11Honor. Maybe it's a bit premature, but the holding of12the actual evidentiary hearing itself, I would hope13that that would take place in West Michigan given the14broad public interest. It would be difficult for15folks to travel to Rockville for example.16CHAIR SPRITZER: Right. I mean, that's17our normal policy as you know from the Fermi 3 case,18we did the hearing there in Michigan, so unless19there's some compelling reason to do it here, that20would be the normal Commission policy to hold the21hearing in the vicinity of the plant.22MR. KAMPS: I appreciate it.23CHAIR SPRITZER: Does anybody--for the24staff or Entergy, do you have any reason to think that25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 19we should do it in Washington in Rockville, Maryland?1MR. BESSETTE: This is Entergy, no Your2Honor, particularly because it's not in winter either,3so.4CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay. Well, I think it5was winter in Fermi 3, or close, it felt like winter. 6To the staff, any thoughts on that?7MS. GHOSH: No, we wouldn't have any8objection to having the hearing in Michigan.9CHAIR SPRITZER: Okay. All right, I think10that's concludes our business. To the court reporter,11do you need the parties to stay on the line?12MR. JACKSON: No, I don't think so.13CHAIR SPRITZER: All right. All right,14that concludes our scheduling conference then. Thank15you for your participation. As I said, we hope to get16an order out on the mandatory disclosures by tomorrow.17So the schedule probably Monday or Tuesday of next18week.19MR. BESSETTE: Thank you, Your Honor.20CHAIR SPRITZER: Very well, thank you.21(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter was22concluded at 2:22 p.m.)2324 25NEAL R. GROSSCOURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433