ML110740699

Transcript of Hearing Regarding Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Massachusetts on 03/09/3011, Pages 784-1018

ML110740699
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	03/09/2011
From:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
SECY RAS
Shared Package
ML110740695	List: ML110740697 ML110740699
References
RAS 19786, 50-293-LR, ASLBP 06-848-02-LR, NRC-777
Download: ML110740699 (236)

Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONTitle:Pilgrim Nuclear Power StationDocket Number:50-293-LRASLBP No.06-848-02-LR Location:Plymouth, MassachusettsDate:Wednesday, March 9, 2011Work Order No.:NRC-777Pages 784-1018 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

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

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 784 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2+ + + + +3 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 4+ + + + +5 HEARING 6---------------------------x 7 In the Matter of:  :

8 ENTERGY NUCLEAR GENERATION : Docket No. 50-293-LR 9 COMPANY AND ENTERGY NUCLEAR:

10 OPERATIONS, INC.  : ASLBP No. 06-848-02-LR 11 (Pilgrim Nuclear Power  :

12 Station)  :

13---------------------------x 14 Wednesday, March 9, 2011 15 16 John Carver Inn 17 Gov. Carver Boardroom 18 25 Summer Street 19 Plymouth, Massachusetts 20 21 BEFORE: 22 ANN MARSHALL YOUNG, Chair 23 DR. RICHARD F. COLE, Administrative Judge 24 DR. PAUL B. ABRAMSON, Administrative Judge 25 785 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 APPEARANCES:

1 On Behalf of Entergy Nuclear Generation Co.:

2 DAVID R. LEWIS, ESQ.

3 PAUL A. GAUKLER, ESQ.

4of:Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 5 2300 N Street, N.W.

6 Washington, D.C. 20037-1122 7 Tel: (202) 663-8000 8 9 On Behalf of the Intervenor, Pilgrim Watch:

10 MARY LAMPERT, DIRECTOR 11 148 Washington Street 12 Duxbury, MA 02332 13 Tel: (781) 934-0389 14 15 On Behalf of the Intervenor, Town of Plymouth:

16 SHEILA SLOCUM HOLLIS, ESQ.

17of: Duane Morris, LLP 18 505 9th Street, N.W.

19 Suite 1000 20 Washington, D.C. 20004-2166 21 Tel: (202) 776-7810 22 23 24 25 786 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 On Behalf of the Intervenor, Town of Duxbury 1 Nuclear Advisory Committee:

2 REBECCA CHIN, VICE CHAIR 3 31 Deerpath Trail 4 North Duxbury, MA 02332 5 Tel: (781) 837-0009 6 7 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

8 SUSAN L. UTTAL, ESQ.

9 ANDREA Z. JONES, ESQ.

10 BRIAN G. HARRIS, ESQ.

11 BETH N. MIZUNO, ESQ 12of:Office of the General Counsel 13 Mail Stop - O-15 D21 14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 15 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 16 Tel: (301) 415-3722 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 787 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 1 EXHIBIT MARKED RECEIVED 2 1871 872 3 4 ITEM PAGE 5 New Cleanup Contention 791 6 Expert Dr. O'Kula 841 7 New Cables Contention 861 8 Contention 3 880 9 Expert Dr. O'Kula 891 10 Expert Dr. Hanna 821 11 Dr. O'Kula 940 12 Closing statement by Mr. Lewis 994 13 Closing statement by Mr. Harris 1001 14 Closing statement by Ms. Lampert 1006 15 Closing statement by Ms. Chin 1014 16 Closing statement by Ms. Hollis 1015 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 788 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 P R O C E E D I N G S 1 (9:00 a.m.)

2CHAIR YOUNG: I am Ann Marshall Young. I 3 am the Chair of the Licensing Board. And I am going 4 to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves and then 5 we will start over on the left and have all the 6 parties introduce yourselves and whoever is with you.

7JUDGE COLE: I am Richard Cole. I am 8 environmental technical judge. I have been with the 9 Panel for 38 years.

10JUDGE ABRAMSON: I'm Paul Abramson. I am 11 a legal judge and a technical judge. And if you see 12 me getting up and pacing around today, I have a back 13injury which makes it very painful for me to sit. So, 14please be tolerant of it. It is not because I am 15 trying to ignore anybody or expressing any 16dissatisfaction with what I am hearing. It is just my 17 physical condition.

18 CHAIR YOUNG: Also, if you need to 19 interrupt us at any point and ask us to speak more 20 clearly or anything like that, please feel free.

21All right. Do you want to start, Entergy?

22MR. LEWIS: Yes. Thank you, Judge. My 23 name is David Lewis and with me is my partner, Paul 24 Gaukler. We are with the law firm Pillsbury Winthrop 25 789 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 Shaw Pittman. We have the privilege of representing 1Entergy in this proceeding today. We do have our 2 witnesses on Contention 3 in the audience, Dr. Steven 3 Hanna and Dr. Kevin O'Kula.

4 CHAIR YOUNG: All right.

5MS. UTTAL: Good morning, Judges. I am 6 Susan Uttal from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 7representing the Nuclear Regulatory Staff. With me on 8 my right is Beth Mizuno; and on my left is Andrea 9 Jones, also attorneys for the Staff. There is a 10 fourth attorney, Brian Harris, who is sitting behind 11 us also representing Staff.

12We have two of our witnesses here on 13 Contention 3, Nate Bixler and Tina Ghosh.

14 CHAIR YOUNG: Ms. Lampert.

15MS. LAMPERT: Good morning. I am Mary 16 Lampert. I am representing Pilgrim Watch, pro se. We 17do not have witnesses here today. Our witness for the 18 cables is in a meeting on that subject in Washington 19 today.20 At the table here is Rebecca Chin, 21 representing the Town of Duxbury.

22MS. HOLLIS: Good morning, Your Honor.

23 Sheila Hollis from Washington here representing the 24 Town of Plymouth.

25 790 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you all. We thought 1 we would start this morning by talking about the new 2 contentions. And then when we are finished with 3 those, we will get to Contention 3.

4 On the new contentions my questions will 5really focus mainly on two things. The standards for 6 reopening and Ms. Lampert I do want to give you an 7opportunity answer some questions on that. I will say 8 that our inclination is that the standards on 9 reopening should apply but as I said, I want to give 10 you a chance to answer some questions on that.

11 And then as part of that, the significance 12or level of severity of any issues that are raised.

13Let's see, the actual language. And we don't have 14very good light up here. So if we look like we are 15 straining to read --

16JUDGE ABRAMSON: It is just because we 17 have bad eyes.

18 CHAIR YOUNG: Right. The significant --

19 If the issue is significant enough or exceptionally 20grave, timeliness issues might not be as critical.

21 The significance of the issue and whether a materially 22 different result would occur.

23 Then, I believe it is 2.340, the extent to 24 which we as a Board can raise to the Commission a 25 791 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 serious safety environmental or common defense and 1 security matter.

2 I believe you, Ms. Lampert, had suggested 3 that we could raise an issue sua sponte and I think 4 Entergy responded that the way that that would be done 5 would be pursuant to 10 CFR 2.340.

6So those are sort of a collection of 7 issues around the reopening issue.

8 By the way, you notice I have some 9 caffeine up here. Anyone feel free because --

10JUDGE ABRAMSON: To tap into the caffeine?

11 (Laughter.)

12CHAIR YOUNG: To get your own caffeine.

13 To the extent that it makes you more effective in your 14 arguments, feel free to do that.

15So, we would start with the first new 16 contention that you filed in November and then move to 17the other two. Did either of you want to say anything 18 before we get into this?

19JUDGE COLE: Yes. Number one, that is 20what we would call the cleanup contention. Do you 21 agree with that characterization of it?

22 MS. LAMPERT: That is the way I refer to 23 it.24 JUDGE COLE: Okay, thank you. I think I 25 792 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433entered it as different adjective but that's all 1 right.2 JUDGE COLE: What adjective did you use?

3 MS. LAMPERT: No, I call it cleanup.

4 JUDGE COLE: Okay.

5CHAIR YOUNG: Do you have anything to add?

6 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Nothing.

7CHAIR YOUNG: I guess on whether the 8 reopening standards apply, Ms. Lampert you filed 9 recently a response or a reply and you gave it, made 10 reference to a number of cases.

11 Yes. Really what -- I guess you raised a 12couple of issues. One, I think you argued that the 13 reopening standards apply to new evidence on a given 14contention and not to new contentions. And I believe 15 that one of the other parties raised subsection D of 16 2.326. What would you argue should be the case if 17 contention three had not been, no part of it had been 18 remanded and the case had been basically over with our 19 issuance of our initial decision in October, I think, 20of 2008? Would you argue that if you wanted to raise 21 a new contention then, you would not have to meet the 22 reopening standards?

23MS. LAMPERT: What I have said and this 24 holds both for cables and for the cleanup is that the 25 793 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433issues have not been litigated. This hearing, this 1 process is clearly not over or we wouldn't be here 2 today.3CHAIR YOUNG: But I mean, if we weren't 4 here today.

5 MS. LAMPERT: If we weren't here today?

6 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

7 MS. LAMPERT: You mean if everything had 8 been closed?

9 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

10MS. LAMPERT: If a decision had been made 11 on Contention 1 and Contention 3?

12 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

13MS. LAMPERT: Then we would be in a 14different situation. But we aren't in that situation.

15 And so I think a late filed contention is 16 applicable if an issue that is raised has never been 17 litigated. And then you go to the eight steps. Is it 18 timely raised? Etcetera, etcetera.

19 This has not been litigated. We are not 20 talking about buried pipes and tanks.

21CHAIR YOUNG: So just to interrupt, you 22 are basically hanging your argument on the fact that 23 Contention 3 was in part remanded, which you are 24 saying in essence opened up the proceeding for any 25 794 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 issue that might come along.

1 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, that is correct.

2CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Is there anything 3 that you would like to point us to in any of 4 Commission's decisions that would support that?

5MS. LAMPERT: Well I think what Entergy 6 had looked at was the Vermont case and that was an 7 example of why my argument, they felt, was incorrect.

8However in the Vermont case, they did speak to the 9 issue on remanding and also it is not an analogous 10 case because in reality what was brought was more 11 information on a subject that had already been brought 12 forward.13 And so frankly, I don't see how we can 14 talk about a request for reopening when nothing had 15been -- when it hadn't been opened before. I mean, 16that is ridiculous on its face. This has not been 17 litigated. And so the question remains did I bring it 18forward in a timely manner. And I think we 19 demonstrated that we did.

20CHAIR YOUNG: Could you give me a response 21to the approach that when the Commission remanded 22 parts of Contention 3, that that is all that they 23 reopened and that anything outside that envelope, so 24 to speak, would not be part of what they reopened when 25 795 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 they did that remand.

1 MS. LAMPERT: Yes. Way back in 2006, we 2brought forward in May five contentions. Two were 3accepted into the process. One, the buried pipes and 4 tanks, was closed up.

5 This one, the Sandia one remained open.

6 And so for all practical purposes, this adjudication 7process has not been completed. You know, we have got 8 miles to go before we sleep. And as a result, it is 9open and, therefore, when something within scope of 10 significance come to our attention, I believe we are 11 within our rights to bring it forward, which is what 12 we did, Judge Young.

13CHAIR YOUNG: Do you have any arguments on 14whether and the extent to which you would meet the 15 reopening standards, assuming we were to apply them?

16 MS. LAMPERT: Yes. Actually, I think --

17 CHAIR YOUNG: Let's limit to the cleanup 18 contention, the first one that you filed at this 19 point.20MS. LAMPERT: Let me see. Excepting 21 affidavit which we did not file, yes I believe we do.

22 However, I think we could be excused from the 23requirement for an affidavit for two reasons. One, it 24 is a nontechnical issue and it is very straightforward 25 796 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433on its face. Second, there were, I have a pile on the 1 floor of FOIAed e-mails provided with it from 2 officials, government employees and there is no reason 3to believe that what they say in it is not true. And 4 I should expect that would be acceptable to be able to 5get all those folks to come here to say yes, I did 6 write that e-mail. It wouldn't seem necessary.

7 And I also asked the reporter who did the 8 investigative report if he could provide an affidavit.

9 And he said at this point, that would be contrary to 10 the policy of inside EPA that they stand by the truth 11of everything that they put forward. And so at a 12 later date if he were called and required, he 13 certainly would appear.

14Does that -- I hope that answers your 15 question.16CHAIR YOUNG: Do you want to answer the 17 same question with regard to your other contentions?

18 Or I guess --

19 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, I --

20 CHAIR YOUNG: You can approach the other 21 two together or however --

22MS. LAMPERT: Well whatever. So we are 23 moving to cables. I think that would be an easy way 24 to deal with it.

25 797 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

1MS. LAMPERT: Again for the same reasons, 2 there has never been any discussion of submerged non-3environmentally qualified cables before you. This is 4an important significant piece of information. It has 5not been litigated. It was not part of Contention 1, 6which is closed. I argue again that it is still open.

7 Looking to Vermont Yankee's decision, 8 CLI1017, I think it supports the decision that there 9 is a necessity to reopen. We have good cause. I 10 think the issue on timeliness, you want me to get into 11 that?12 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead.

13MS. LAMPERT: That was a dispute. The 14 dispute seemed to be that we didn't bring it forward 15 in a timely manner because we would have had 16 demonstrated that we knew about the significance of 17 this issue because I had filed a 2.206 summer of 2010.

18 And the PRB actually has accepted it, indicating its 19 significance but they have put it on hold until this 20issue which deals with the future Aging Management 21 Program is decided. So yes, I did know about it.

22I didn't bring it forward in 2006, for 23 example, because there is only so much we could have 24 dealt with and we thought, looking at the history of 25 798 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433how NRC had been supposedly seriously dealing with 1this issue. Sandia did a study in 1996. The NRC had 2 done a report in 2002, again more reports in 2004.

3 They looked at a variety of sites that showed problem.

4Then they got their act really together, developed 5 questionnaires to go out in 2006 to all the licensees 6 to really track it, see what is happening to 7presumably come up with some requirements. I mean, 8this has been going on a while. So, it was like, hey, 9 am I the only one who was deluded and thought the NRC 10was going to actually regulate and make some 11 requirements on something they considered serious for 12 over a decade?

13 Well, I thought I was being a reasonable 14 person. Obviously Entergy, NRC Staff thought the NRC 15 is never going to do anything as far as the 16requirement goes. I was stupid enough to think so.

17 So I didn't file, at that time.

18But then the frosting on the cake came 19 December second when they had the information notice 20 and went on and on and on, again and again and again 21 how serious this was, how it relates degradation to 22aging, which is what this process is all about; how 23 moisture was the main problem; yada, yada, yada.

24 Then, they made no requirements.

25 799 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 So again it was, what is a woman to do?

1 Come to you. That is what you do, in hopes that the 2 Aging Management Program would be made sufficient and 3 so this would be addressed going forward for the next 420 years. Because I am not here to start the process.

5 I'm not stupid.

6 What I am here for is to assure that 7 safety measures are required and put in place. And 8 what they have now for the Aging Management Program is 9 not sufficient. And so that is why I argue and I 10 think correctly because the point not that we didn't 11 know about this, the point was what we learned 12 December second was that NRC is not stepping up to the 13 plate and requiring fixes.

14 And so from December second to December 1513, I put together this new contention, in a timely 16 manner.17 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Just a quick follow-up, 18Ms. Lampert. Was there anything in the AMP that 19 addressed these cables that you are concerned about?

20MS. LAMPERT: Was there anything in it?

21Nothing of significance. What the AMP has is to look 22for degradation, initially, once in ten years for 23medium volt cables nonspecific. Not how much you have 24 to look at, what you then have to do, etcetera, 25 800 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 etcetera. And then in Rev. 2, they switched it to six 1 years. It is a little better but it doesn't do the 2 trick. There is still no specificity, no requirement 3for replacement. And also there is another part that 4 deals with looking down manholes first once in two 5 years and then the revised GALL was once every year.

6 No, again, specificity.

7And if you look at the December second 8 information notice and ones prior to that, they say 9 very specifically that hey, we have seen when they 10 pump them out that it comes right back in.

11And then also there is a very central 12 question. What percent of the cables can you make a 13judgment from looking down a manhole or well? You and 14 I both know those long lines of cables are not exactly 15at parallel to the surface. There are dips where 16 there would be puddling and where they can be sitting 17 in a puddle of water for a long, long time.

18 And then also I will point out that in 19 April of 2010, which came out in an inspection report 20 this past summer, it indicated, they looked down, the 21NRC looked down three manholes. They all had water 22 and they admitted that two always had water.

23 And then I had, in one of the submittals, 24 I brought bigger ones because it was hard to see, it 25 801 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433shows the property and it shows the distance to sea 1 level.2 And so you have to, I mean this is a site-3 specific issue, and you look at Pilgrim's site and 4 there is no question it is a harsh environment, which 5is a dispute by the way, because of its proximity; 6 low-laying proximity to the ocean, because of the 7 snows, the rains we have here, etcetera.

8 And so as a result of the characteristics 9 of our site, moisture being the driving factor in the 10 degradation and age, this makes this what you are all 11 about, assuring that the Aging Management Program is 12 sufficient and particularly necessary because the NRC 13 is in the we are studying, we are studying, we are 14 studying mode as opposed to getting on top of it with 15 requirements.

16 Yesterday in Washington, Chairman Jaczko, 17in his introductory talk to the big meeting that is 18going on, mentioned cables. I have a copy here or it 19 is obviously on the NRC's website, as one of the big 20 to-do items.

21So it is clearly significant. It is 22 clearly something for aging management. And I think 23 if we have the opportunity and we get into what does 24 and what doesn't the current Aging Management Program 25 802 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433do, the specifics of this site, the long history of 1 concern in this, I don't think there is any question 2 that it belongs in this process and, you know, let's 3wrap it up as fast as we can. But you know, we aren't 4 slaves to Senator Vitters. That was sniping.

5 Did I get at some of the question, Judge 6 Abramson?7JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, you did. Thank you 8 very much.

9CHAIR YOUNG: Let's come back to the 10cables issue in a moment. For now if we could go back 11 to this "cleanup contention" and move --

12Well but first before we move onto the 13 issues of significance/severity/seriousness/gravity, 14 does the staff or Entergy have any arguments that you 15 haven't already made on the reopening standards? If 16 you have anything that you would like to say in reply 17 to Ms. Lampert on those --

18MR. LEWIS: Yes, Judge. We have not 19 responded to the reopening standards that were made in 20her reply and she did make some new arguments. We 21 would like to respond to them.

22 The assertion that the reopening standards 23 do not apply to a new contention is belied on its face 24 by the rule itself, in particular subsection (d) of 25 803 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433that rule which clearly, 2.236 -- 326(d) which 1 indicates that the reopening standards apply to a new 2 contention.

3 But moreover and beyond the little words 4of the rule, when the Commission promulgated these 5 reopening standards in 1986, the Commission said "Our 6 rules of practice make it clear that the reopening 7 standards, as well as the late intervention standards, 8 must be met when an entirely new issue is sought to be 9introduced after the closing of the record." It 10 couldn't have been stated clearer. And the citation 11 for that is 51 Federal Register 19535 and this 12 particular statement is at 19538 carrying on to 19539.

13 The Commission also has clearly applied 14 these reopening standards in the context of a new 15 contention. Pilgrim Watch referred to an Oyster Creek 16 case that the Staff had cited and said that is 17 different. There the motion to reopen related to a 18contention that had been litigated. What Pilgrim 19 Watch didn't mention is that here were two motions to 20reopen at Oyster Creek. There was also a motion to 21 reopen addressed by the Commission in CLI-08-28, which 22is exactly this situation where the Intervenor in 23 Oyster Creek moved to reopen the contention to plead 24 a brand new fatigue contention that had never been 25 804 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 raised. And the Board clearly applied the motion to 1 reopen standard and the Commission affirmed the Board 2 and applied those same standards.

3MS. LAMPERT: That is now in the Third 4 Circuit.5MR. LEWIS: With respect to Vermont 6 Yankee , Pilgrim Watch's characterization of that case 7is also inaccurate. The remanded contention in the 8 Vermont Yankee case related to environmentally 9 assisted fatigue and the Commission remanded the case 10 to the licensing Board in Vermont Yankee to allow them 11 to pursue one of the variations of their contention on 12that issue. In that proceeding, the intervenor in New 13 England Coalition declined to pursue the remanded 14issue and, instead, moved to reopen the record on a 15 brand new, entirely different contention, in fact 16 relating to inaccessible cable.

17 So the motion to reopen in Vermont Yankee 18 was not related to an issue that had been previously 19 litigated. It related to a brand new issue that had 20 never been litigated.

21 Pilgrim Watch's characterization of the 22 Commission's Decision in Vermont Yankee with respect 23to the motion to reopen is also inaccurate. The 24 Commission did not require New England Coalition to 25 805 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 meet the standards for a motion to reopen with respect 1 to the remanded contention. But in that case, New 2 England Coalition had also said we have concerns about 3buried piping. They asked the Commission to hold the 4proceeding in abeyance. The Commission said there is 5 no basis to hold the Commission in abeyance. But if 6 you have any genuinely new issues while this case is 7 on remand before the Board, you can file a motion to 8 reopen and you should do so under the provisions of 9 2.326(d).10 So the footnote that we sited is exactly 11on point. There the Commission remanded a case, 12 remanded one specific issue relating to 13 environmentally assisted fatigue, and instructed the 14 parties and the licensing Board that if the intervenor 15 wanted to raise any other issues, they should apply 16 the motions to reopen standards.

17 There is old case law that has also made 18 it clear that when a record is reopened, it is not 19reopened as to all issues. It is only reopened as to 20the particular issue that has been reopened. And for 21example, in a Three Mile Island case by the Appeal 22 Board many years ago, the Appeal Board said the 23 fortuitous circumstance of the preceding has been or 24 will be reopened on other issues has no significance.

25 806 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433So if somebody wants to reopen a new 1 contention, the fact that the proceeding may have been 2 reopened for some other issue doesn't mean all issues 3 have been reopened. And clearly when the Commission 4 remanded the Contention 3 to this Board, it remanded 5an issue as limited by its rulings. It certainly did 6 not throw open the proceedings and decide to restart 7 them over again.

8 The TMI case that I cited is ALAB-486 8 9 NRC 9 at 22.

10 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Counsel, let me ask you 11one question in follow-up on this. The NRC, the 12 Commission has recently released some proposed 13revisions to Part 2. Does any of that address this 14issue or are you not familiar with that release? I 15 know I am hitting you blind with this, but I looked at 16 it the --17MR. LEWIS: I don't think that they 18proposed changing the reopening standards. I believe 19 they have changed, they are considering changing the 20late filed standards and would judge late filed 21 contentions only under 2.309(f)(2).

22JUDGE ABRAMSON: It did not reach into the 23 reopening --

24 MR. LEWIS: That is my belief.

25 807 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433JUDGE ABRAMSON: Maybe the Staff can 1 comment on that too, please.

2MS. MIZUNO: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I 3 don't know whether it actually addressed the 4 reopening. The one piece of Part 2 that may be 5 amended that we focused on is the merging of the non-6 timely versus the late filed contention issue.

7JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, I recall that part.

8I just wondered whether it reached into this and I 9 don't recall having looked at it closely enough to see 10 it.11MS. MIZUNO: But if you wish, we can find 12 that out and get back to you on that.

13JUDGE ABRAMSON: It is only a proposal at 14 this point. So Ms. Lampert, have you seen that yet?

15 The NRC released some proposed revisions to Part 2 16 about a week or ten days ago. Is that about right?

17 MS. LAMPERT: No, I haven't.

18 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay.

19 MS. LAMPERT: But I will look at.

20 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, it is worth taking 21a look. I don't know whether it is relevant for this 22 or not but this is what I was asking.

23MR. LEWIS: Judge, I also don't know 24 whether you want to address Pilgrim Watch's assertion 25 808 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 that the reopening standards are unfair and the courts 1 have held that they can't be applied. I can address 2that issue, too. I think the short answer to that is 3this Board has to follow the Commission's rules. But 4 in fact those reopening standards have been upheld by 5 a number of courts, including the D.C. Circuit after 6 the UCS case.

7 And the D.C. Circuit, after UCS-1 the 8 principle case that Ms. Lampert cited, explicitly 9 explained that they were not ruling that the reopening 10 standards could not be applied to an issue that could 11 have been raised earlier in the proceeding.

12CHAIR YOUNG: Yes, I think there are some 13specific circumstances in those cases having to do 14 with the emergency, some emergency planning issues 15that had not been permitted to be raised earlier. Am 16 I recalling that right?

17MR. LEWIS: Yes, the issue what they 18 referred to as UCS-1, the first UCS case that Pilgrim 19 Watch cited was a situation in which the Commission 20 required the staff to make a finding on the emergency 21 preparedness exercise as a prerequisite to issuing an 22 operating license but had issued a rule saying that an 23 intervenor could never challenge the results of that 24exercise in the proceeding. And that is what the 25 809 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 court said was impermissible if the Staff had to make 1a finding. In fact, the staff admitted that this 2exercise was material to its licensing decision. The 3 Commission said that excluding it entirely as to all 4 parties from the proceeding was a violation of 189.

5 That is not anywhere near the situation here.

6Clearly, this app has been the Aging Management 7 Program on inaccessible cable has been susceptible to 8 a contention and challenge from the very beginning of 9 this proceeding.

10MS. LAMPERT: We have responded once. I 11can't rattle off these cases like that can. Surprise, 12 surprise. But I understand that Entergy has said that 13 they are going to make a reply and then you will have 14 everything before you. Because what I cited, I feel 15is correct and you are taking a twist on it. But I am 16 not going to get out of my job qualifications and get 17 into a big legal argument with you now.

18 CHAIR YOUNG: You have done pretty good, 19 given that you are not a lawyer, I will have to say.

20 Were you actually planning to file 21 anything further?

22 MR. LEWIS: No.

23 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

24 MR. LEWIS: No, I was just addressing it 25 810 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 now in this argument, --

1 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

2MR. LEWIS: -- which I think I am allowed 3 to do.4 CHAIR YOUNG: And you --

5MR. LEWIS: Judge there were some 6 assertions that --

7 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead.

8 MR. LEWIS: -- Pilgrim Watch made in the 9 arguments and I don't know whether you want me to 10 respond to them or just limit myself at this point to 11 the reopening standards but there were some --

12CHAIR YOUNG: Why don't you save the 13 others --14 MR. LEWIS: Okay.

15CHAIR YOUNG: -- at the moment. Does the 16 Staff have anything?

17 (Sound of cell phone ringing.)

18CHAIR YOUNG: I'm sorry. I thought I had 19 turned that off.

20JUDGE ABRAMSON: Somebody should have 21 announced to turn all the cell phones off.

22 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes, maybe that would have 23 helped to announce that.

24 (Laughter.)

25 811 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433CHAIR YOUNG: Please repeat that. You 1 were --2MR. LEWIS: No, Judge. I had asked 3 whether you wanted me to respond to other assertions 4 that --5 CHAIR YOUNG: Oh, okay.

6MR. LEWIS: And you said no. Not at this 7 point in time.

8MS. MIZUNO: I think, Judge Young, you 9 were turning to the Staff to ask if the Staff wished 10--11 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you.

12MS. MIZUNO: -- to raise any other issues.

13Actually no, Your Honor, we do not. We 14 cited the statement of considerations in the Federal 15 Register notice that counsel cited. We cited 16 specifically to the regulation and it does provide for 17 this very situation.

18 In addition, we did brief the Vermont 19Yankee issue. We briefed it twice and feel that that 20 is well briefed.

21 Also with respect to the federal cases in 22the D.C. Circuit, Union of Concerned Scientists in 23 Deukmejian that Pilgrim Watch cited in its reply on 24 page four, it is our view, along with Entergy, that 25 812 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 both of these cases are in the inapposite.

1 And the reason they are inapposite was 2 because in those instances there was no opportunity 3for hearing on the issue. In one instance, it was for 4 closed by rule making, in the other instance I am not 5 quite sure what the basis for it was but it was a low 6power license issue. There was no opportunity for 7 hearing on that. Instead, the petition was referred 8to the full license hearing. And in those instances, 9 there was no opportunity for hearing on the specific 10 issue that was being brought forward.

11 In this instance, there was a full 12 opportunity for hearing. That hearing was held. It 13 went up on appeal. It is back now on remand. There 14 has been more than an opportunity for full hearing.

15 And for that reason, we believe that the standard for 16reopening is what should be applied here. Thank you.

17MS. LAMPERT: One issue I would like to 18 respond to --

19 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead.

20MS. LAMPERT: -- is the sua sponte that we 21had a dispute about. And it certainly seems that the 22 spirit of it still exists and it is clear that the 23 Chair of the Board, you, have the authority and I 24 would say because of the significance of the issue, if 25 813 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 this is not accepted for us, to bring it forward and 1 request to the Commission that it be allowed to be 2 heard.3CHAIR YOUNG: I don't -- Just before we 4 move on to the sort of significance issues and that is 5 related, I think the word there used is seriousness or 6 serious. We are not going to expect any further 7 filings from the parties.

8 That said, if any relevant decision were 9 overturned, you said that the Third Circuit had a case 10 pending before it and I can't recall which one it was 11 at the time, --

12MS. LAMPERT: It was the Oyster Creek one.

13 CHAIR YOUNG: -- you can certainly refer 14 that to us without any additional filing but any party 15 can. We are going to be moving forward to making 16 decisions on these things. But if prior to issuance 17 of a decision you become aware that a case has been 18 reversed, you are always free to just notify us of 19 that.20 Okay. Anything else on reopening 21 standards, per se?

22 All right then, on the significance types 23of issues. I guess there is sort of preliminary sort 24 of issue with regard to the so-called cleanup 25 814 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433contention and that is, I guess the relationship 1 between the subject of the article and the e-mails and 2how the SAMA analysis is done. That issue has come 3 out in the responses to the contention, arguing that 4 the issue that you are raising essentially has to do 5 with things outside the scope of the contention --

6 That your contention would not be within the scope of 7 the proceeding because it has to do with whether NRC 8 or EPA or FEMA will take charge of any cleanup and not 9 with the actual SAMA analysis.

10MS. LAMPERT: What? You are saying the 11 contention is not within scope?

12CHAIR YOUNG: I'm saying that the argument 13 has been --

14 MS. LAMPERT: Oh, okay.

15CHAIR YOUNG: And so with respect to that 16 argument, I guess I would like to get a little bit 17 better understanding perhaps from some of the experts 18 on what the assumptions are or what the inputs are in 19 the SAMA analysis on cleanup, whether there is a 20 presumption cleanup will occur and so forth.

21 And again, I am the lawyer only, not a 22technical member. So it might be helpful to me to get 23 some clarification on that from the experts. I know 24 we are going to be asking them questions possibly with 25 815 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 regard to Contention 3 but some similar issues have 1 been raised in this contention.

2JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Young, let me just 3interject for a moment. We are here for oral 4 argument, which means counsel will need no experts on 5 admissibility of these contentions.

6 If indeed you are interested in additional 7 information from experts, I would support sending out 8 questions like we did on the last situation, to which 9I might remind you, you objected. But I would support 10 you asking questions and getting responses but I do 11 not support the concept of asking for expert or asking 12 the lawyers to comment on expert issues, at this 13 process, in this process.

14 MS. LAMPERT: Thank you.

15CHAIR YOUNG: Hold on. Hold on. The 16 experts are here. And they are here to talk --

17 MS. LAMPERT: Mine aren't. Mine aren't.

18CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, yours aren't. That's 19 true. And I think the ruling that we made was that 20 any party who wanted to bring their experts could 21 bring them.

22 Now, --23MS. LAMPERT: For consultation not for 24 speaking. That was our understanding.

25 816 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 MR. LEWIS: Well that is not correct.

1CHAIR YOUNG: In any event, in any event, 2I think that it would be helpful to have some 3 clarification on this issue whether we do it by 4talking directly to experts or just talking to 5 counsel.6 This issue of the relationship between the 7 basis for the late filing or the filing of the 8 contention when you filed it and the SAMA analysis 9 itself and what that relationship is, if any, and how 10 those things interact, is a central argument against 11 or one of the arguments against the contention.

12 So, I would appreciate some clarification 13from that and let me go first to you, Mr. Lewis. And 14 to the extent that it would be helpful to have input 15 from the experts that are here, I think it would be, 16 certainly, more efficient and less time consuming to 17 do that directly.

18 But before we get to that, why don't you 19 provide whatever clarification you are aware of on 20 that issue?

21 MR. LEWIS: Okay, I believe I can do it, 22 Judge Young, but Dr. O'Kula can also address it.

23 Just as background, because Pilgrim Watch 24 made the decision not to submit any expert affidavit 25 817 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 in response to its contention, we did not feel that we 1 needed to. That as a threshold matter, they did not 2 meet the affidavit requirements to support their 3motion to reopen. That is the only reason that we 4 didn't also submit a counter declaration, putting the 5 facts in proper perspective. But we did cite to the 6 max users guide, to the portion of the guide that 7 identifies that the EPA protective action guidelines 8 are what is used in the MACCS2 analysis.

9 And what we also pointed out is that we 10 gave Pilgrim Watch all the inputs that we used in 11doing our MACCS2 analysis in disclosure to Pilgrim 12Watch in 2007. So they had all the inputs, including 13 the inputs on the assumed cleanup levels, which are 14 expressed as dose. They are one of the inputs. And 15 the way the MACCS2 Code works as I understand it --

16 CHAIR YOUNG: Let me stop you.

17 MR. LEWIS: Yes.

18CHAIR YOUNG: Let me just interject there.

19 You said the presumed cleanup levels which affects the 20 dose. So am I correct in understanding from that that 21there is, there are some presumptions about any 22 cleanup that --

23 MR. LEWIS: Yes.

24 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

25 818 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 MR. LEWIS: Absolutely.

1 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

2MR. LEWIS: What the MACCS2 Code does, 3 first the MACCS2 Code models the contamination of the 4 area. And then it models cleanup and it assumes 5 certain decontamination factors and it has a cost for 6 those decontamination factors.

7So it models a piece of property. It 8establishes the level of concentration. It applies a 9decontamination factor. It figures out what the cost 10would be. It figures out what the concentrations 11would be after that decontamination. And it then 12 figures out what would be the dose to a member who 13 then goes back and lives or works on that property.

14 And it applies the EPA protective action 15 guidelines to figure out was that decontamination 16sufficient to meet the EPA standards? If it is, then 17that property could be returned to use. If it can't, 18 the property is considered condemned and MACCS then 19 counts the value of the property as a cost of being 20 condemned and lost forever.

21 The model uses the EPA Protective Action 22 Guidelines, which are, it is five rem over five years 23 and the way it is split up is --

24CHAIR YOUNG: Before you get to that 25 819 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 point, really what I would like to focus on here is 1 the cleanup presumptions.

2 MR. LEWIS: Yes.

3 CHAIR YOUNG: And the reason for that is 4 if this information that became available in November, 5 I guess it was, if it raises a question about the 6 correctness of those presumptions as to what gets 7 cleaned up and decontaminated, wouldn't there be some 8 relationship there then between the issue of whether 9 that cleanup would occur and whatever presumptions 10 there are as to that cleanup occurring?

11MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, I think the 12 answer is yes, there could be an issue about what your 13 assumed cleanup levels are but this inside EK article 14is not the first time that issue has been raised. And 15 therefore, it does not make this issue timely, as we 16 pointed out in the site restoration study that Pilgrim 17 Watch cited at the very beginning of this proceeding.

18In fact, there is a discussion in that 19 report of exactly this issue that yes, there are a 20 number of different cleanup standards that one might 21 assume and, in fact, it referred to the EPA's cleanup 22 standards. It referred to the Protective Action 23 Guidelines and it referred to NRC standards for public 24 dose.25 820 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 So the fact that you have a choice and you 1 could choose different cleanup standards, has been an 2 issue that has been known from the very beginning of 3 this proceeding and longer.

4 CHAIR YOUNG: Well, let's --

5JUDGE ABRAMSON: Judge Young, let me 6 interject here.

7CHAIR YOUNG: Let me just follow this up.

8 I am trying to get you to focus not so much on the 9 cleanup standard but the presumption on whether 10 cleanup occurs.

11 And I guess part of the reason I am doing 12 this is because for the general public, at least, who 13 knows about Katrina, who knows about the Gulf oil 14 spill, the issue of whether things occur as they have 15 been predicted to occur, and the significant 16 consequences that can occur when things don't happen 17 as planned, that could be a matter of public concern.

18 So if questions are raised about whether 19 cleanup will occur as planned in the way that the Code 20 presumes cleanup will occur, then wouldn't there be a 21 relationship there?

22 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Can I redirect that?

23CHAIR YOUNG: Well let him answer, first.

24JUDGE ABRAMSON: Go ahead and then I want 25 821 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 to follow it up.

1 MR. LEWIS: Sorry, Judge. I am having a 2little trouble following your question. I mean, 3 clearly the MACCS2 Codes User Manual very clearly 4 indicates that the MACCS2 Code models decontamination 5 and cleanup and looks at what it would cost and what 6 property could be cleaned up and what property would 7 be condemned, and what is the dose from property that 8 is cleaned up for people who then live after it and 9models it out to 30 years. All those things are 10 accounted for.

11So the fact that the code is modeling 12 cleanup is not new and is on the very face of the 13 model description.

14CHAIR YOUNG: Right. But the things that 15 is new, apparently and you can respond to this but the 16 thing that I understand is being asserted to be new is 17 a question about who would actually take 18 responsibility for the cleanup and whether and how 19 quickly and so forth that would occur.

20 So if it is presumed that it would occur 21 and I don't know what the presumptions are or what the 22 inputs are about when it would occur, how quickly it 23would occur and so forth. But if it is presumed in 24 how the code treats it that it would occur, cleanup, 25 822 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 and it does not occur according to those presumptions 1 and there is, let's say, evidence to indicate that 2 there are questions about that, that is what I am 3 trying to focus in on.

4MR. LEWIS: I understand the question now.

5 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

6MR. LEWIS: I think the assertion that 7 there is new information that in fact a cleanup might 8 not be performed is flat out wrong. Again, the site 9 restoration study that I referred to which also we 10 talked about --

11CHAIR YOUNG: Well you talked about 12 cleanup standards.

13 MR. LEWIS: Yes, I did but that same --

14 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

15MR. LEWIS: -- report also talks about the 16 fact that there are multiple agencies and there are 17some questions about who would take the lead. That 18was also discussed in that site restoration study. So 19 the assertion that there has never in fact been this 20 kind of catastrophic accident and therefore there is 21 no precedent on whether it would be FEMA or whether it 22 would be the state government, whether it would be EPA 23or NRC, those aren't new issues. And you can go to 24the site restoration study and see that there is a 25 823 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 discussion that there are different agencies with 1 different jurisdictions.

2 But I think that the assumption that some 3 agency is not going to step up is not a reasonable 4 assumption. I mean the assumption that --

5 CHAIR YOUNG: Even after Katrina?

6 MR. LEWIS: Even after Katrina.

7 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

8JUDGE ABRAMSON: Can I follow this up, 9 please, Judge Young?

10 CHAIR YOUNG: Hold on one second. Could 11 you just tell me in your response do you give a site 12to the site restoration study and where in it those 13 statements are made?

14 MR. LEWIS: Yes, we do.

15 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, thanks.

16 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Now can I follow up?

17 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead.

18JUDGE ABRAMSON: Counselor, let me see if 19 I understand this correctly and then I want to ask Ms.

20 Lampert just what this challenge is all about.

21 What you are telling us is that when a 22 code tries to compute the cost of cleanup and the cost 23 of damages, it is doing that to be able to compare as 24 to which SAMAs are cost-effective. Is that correct?

25 824 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 MR. LEWIS: That is correct, yes.

1JUDGE ABRAMSON: And one cannot, and this 2seems to be stating the obvious. One cannot figure 3 out what to compare without computing the costs. Is 4 that correct?

5 MR. LEWIS: That is correct, yes.

6JUDGE ABRAMSON: And so the code does have 7a mechanism for computing those costs. And it had to 8 be there as part of the mechanism for doing the SAMA 9 cost benefit balance. Correct?

10 MR. LEWIS: That is correct.

11JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay. Ms. Lampert, do I 12 understand correctly that the challenge here is who is 13 going to take responsibility for assuring that this is 14 cleaned up. Is that correct?

15 MS. LAMPERT: No.

16 JUDGE ABRAMSON: No?

17 MS. LAMPERT: That is part of it. There 18are two issues that were brought, actually three.

19There were three new pieces of information. Two of 20 the three apply directly.

21 One is that there is not, contrary to what 22 they are saying, an agreed upon cleanup standard, a 23 definition of what of the many cleanup standards will 24 be used to determine how clean is clean.

25 825 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay. All right.

1MS. LAMPERT: That is one issue, which 2 directly affects --

3JUDGE ABRAMSON: I understand. And the 4 other issue is?

5MS. LAMPERT: Okay. The second one is 6 that there is no federal agency that is saying I am 7the chief. I am going to be in charge. They are all 8 Indians. And if you read the FOIAs, it seems clear 9 that they realize that the cost is horrendous and they 10 don't want to mess up their own budgets.

11 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I understand that. Let 12 me just follow this with one last question, I think.

13 Did we have a contention at the initiation 14 of this proceeding challenging the Entergy estimates 15 of cost to cleanup?

16 MS. LAMPERT: I will respond to that.

17 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes.

18MS. LAMPERT: The Commission in 2 CLIs 19 issued in 2010 said specifically, and I could read 20 them to you if you would like, that cleanup, 21 decontamination was never a part of the original 22 pleading. So therefore, this is --

23 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Well would you go back?

24 Would you answer my question?

25 826 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, I did answer.

1JUDGE ABRAMSON: Did you challenge the 2 costs initially? The costs of estimates.

3 MS. LAMPERT: And there are many costs but 4 this was one that the Commission and your Board 5 decided was not under the umbrella of economics.

6 Remember I was annoyed about it.

7 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Imagine that.

8 (Laughter.)

9 MS. LAMPERT: But I have forgiven you.

10 But can I say in response to what they 11 were saying? Please, yes. Thank you.

12 As far the references to the site 13 restoration study, there was one key factor that they 14 forgot to mention and that is that it was published in 15 1996. And so therefore, everyone was supposed to 16 assume once again that the NRC was or was not going to 17take care of it. And EPA and NRC and FEMA and the 18 rest of them weren't, in the interim, going to sit 19 down and decide what the deal was.

20So going back to hey, we cited site 21 restoration study in 1996 and that is supposed to say, 22 therefore, we knew and we should have brought it all 23 forward, doesn't hold water, number one.

24 Number two, they talked about the EPA 25 827 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433standards are -- standard. They forgot to add the S.

1Standard is used in the MACC Code cleanup 2 calculations. But there are many EPA standards. So 3 that does not address the issue.

4 There is not a determination is there 5going to be 15 millirem, it is it going to be five?

6 Is it going to be 5,000? That has to be decided and 7 that is why I provided to you the Reichmuth analysis 8 that shows very clearly in a variety of different 9 sites from rural to New York City, the huge difference 10 using one standard over the other will make in costs.

11 For example, using the 15 millirem, they 12 showed for a dirty bomb which certainly doesn't have 13 the contamination level from a reactor, that it would 14exceed the Gross National Product. However, if you 15 were using --

16JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, I think we 17 understand those arguments, Ms. Lampert --

18 MS. LAMPERT: Oh but I love making them.

19JUDGE ABRAMSON: -- unless Judge Young 20 wants to hear it again.

21MS. LAMPERT: Let me just say one more 22 thing about responsibility, the second issue, not 23 having a chief. Having no agency take charge.

24Why that affects costs is that it will 25 828 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 delay the process, as Judge Young pointed out, in the 1last two natural disasters we have had. And there is 2 a clear relationship; the longer you take to cleanup 3 radionuclide deposition, the more resuspension you are 4 going to have, the more likelihood it is going to get 5 into the ground, the groundwater, etcetera, etcetera.

6And then the cost is going to escalate. And that 7 factor should, therefore, be factored into an analysis 8 because you have to make an assumption. Again, they 9 didn't address it, on how quickly this job is going to 10 take for a variety of levels of contamination because 11 it is directly related to cost.

12MR. LEWIS: Judge can I make a point on 13 this? I think this underscores the importance of the 14 Commission's requirement to how competent declaration 15 supporting a motion to reopen.

16 What you are hearing now are assertions 17 that certain things will have affects and they will be 18 significant and they will have significant 19 consequences on dose.

20 The Commission's standards on the 21 reopening specifically say that the affidavit has to 22 be from a competent individual with knowledge of the 23 facts. To provide these kind of assertions with no 24expert support whatsoever does not come close to 25 829 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 satisfying the standards for a motion to reopen.

1 Also with respect to the site restoration 2 study, you know, Pilgrim Watch's retort well that was 31996 and how were we to know that things hadn't 4 change; Pilgrim Watch would turn the standard for new 5 information into a subjective standard.

6 Basically, Ms. Lampert is arguing that the 7 first time she learns of an issue is when it is 8 timely. It is not a subjective standard. The 9 standard assumes that persons that are pleading 10 contentions at the outset of a proceeding do their 11 homework. They look at issues. Here Pilgrim Watch 12added the site restoration study. It flagged the fact 13 that there could be different assumptions.

14 It was incumbent upon the intervenor to 15pull the string and follow up. And the assertion that 16 Pilgrim Watch only learned of an issue recently is 17 simply not a basis for timeliness.

18CHAIR YOUNG: Hold on. What I would 19 really like to try to get you to focus more on, and we 20have talked about the reopening standards. And by 21 moving sort of to the seriousness, severity, 22 significance, and so forth, and mentioning the 23 provisions of 10 CFR 2.340 and the ability of the 24 Board to basically refer to the Commission -- Or I am 25 830 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 not sure the word refer.

1MR. LEWIS: It requires their approval 2 upon referral of the Commission.

3 CHAIR YOUNG: Right. To put an issue to 4 the Commission is saying this may be a serious issue 5 that you might want to consider or might want us to 6 consider. That is what I am really trying to focus on 7 at this point.

8 The sort of significance, severity, 9 seriousness, gravity, all those are sort of related 10 terms and they are all terms for the central question 11 in not just the reopening standard but in the standard 12 for whether a presiding officer or Board can highlight 13an issue and say to the Commission this might be 14 something that warrants further attention.

15 That is sort of the context I am looking 16 in at this point and I am not sure that we need to 17 have any more argument on what the reopening standards 18 are. Clearly, they are what they are.

19 But in this regard, I would like to have 20 a better understanding of this relationship issue 21 because if indeed there is some question about what 22 agency would be responsible and about the possibility 23that therefore there either could be some issues 24 similar to those in previous recent disasters on how 25 831 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433quickly they were addressed, if there is a 1relationship of that to the cost presumptions, the 2cleanup cost resumptions that go into the SAMA 3 analysis, that is where I see the possibility of there 4being some relationship. And that is why I would like 5 to get a better understanding.

6Now before when I was asking you about 7 that a few minutes ago, I was asking about what is 8 presumed in terms of cleanup and you indicated that it 9 was presumed that he cleanup would occur. And then 10 that went into the decontamination and the costs of 11all that. And I think you then subsequently then made 12 the argument that when you are looking at cost-benefit 13 analysis, that is what is concerned, or maybe it was 14 Judge Abramson who raised it, that you have to have a 15 cost that goes into a cost-benefit analysis.

16 But if there is some question about what 17 that cost will be because there is some question about 18 how quickly it will occur and who will be responsible 19 for it, --

20JUDGE ABRAMSON: Or whose standards would 21 be applied. She is also raising --

22CHAIR YOUNG: Right. But what I am 23 focusing on is the issue of how that would affect the 24 SAMA analysis. Because if the SAMA analysis, if in 25 832 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 doing that it is assumed that the cost will be X 1 amount, and because of these questions, that cost is 2unrealistically low, the cost figure that goes into 3 the analysis is unrealistically low, then that sort of 4 goes against the idea that it is a conservative 5 analysis.6So that is what I am trying to get some 7better understanding of. And it may be that your 8 experts, Mr. O'Kula, could provide some clarification 9 on that.10MR. LEWIS: Yes, we could bring Dr. O'Kula 11 up. I would say though that even with respect to 12 significance, this is Pilgrim Watch's burden to 13 establish this is a significant issue. And remember 14 this is an environmental contention. But even --

15CHAIR YOUNG: I really -- You can make 16 your arguments on procedural questions and burdens if 17you like but I am really trying to get you to focus 18 solely on the question that I asked and not whose 19 burden --20MR. LEWIS: I am just saying that there is 21no showing that a delay while an agency figures out 22who is going to be the lead would impact cleanup 23 costs.24 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, let's --

25 833 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433MR. LEWIS: Pilgrim Watch makes the 1 assertion but there is no expert support for that 2 assumption.

3 CHAIR YOUNG: Let's just assume from the 4 article and from the e-mails that there are questions 5 about, let's just assume for argument sake that there 6are questions about which agency would take charge 7 such that if God forbid some accident were to occur in 8 the near future, there would be actual questions about 9 who would be in charge, how it would get done.

10 How does that relate to the figures that 11 go into the SAMA analysis on cleanup and costs? And 12 I am not trying to suggest that there will be an 13 accident. Obviously, there are a lot of protections 14 in place but I am trying to understand that 15 connection.

16JUDGE ABRAMSON: While you are getting Dr.

17 O'Kula, counselor, let me ask you and the Staff, does 18 the Staff have -- Has the Staff provided anything more 19 than --20 First of all, has it provided guidance to 21 applicants as to what cleanup standards to use and 22what assumptions to make about timing? Is it embedded 23 in the goal report or a similar report?

24 In other words, what I am asking you is 25 834 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 what is the source of the assumption in the MACCS 1 analysis that they will cleanup to EPA standards and 2 the assumptions of timeline? What is the source for 3 those?4MS. UTTAL: There is a reg guide. We are 5 trying to find the number.

6JUDGE ABRAMSON: There is a reg guide that 7 says here is what to do? Okay, so it is part of our 8 regulations.

9 So would you say this is a challenge to 10 our regulations?

11MS. UTTAL: It is part of our guidance, 12 not the regulation.

13JUDGE ABRAMSON: Guidance. Okay, it is a 14 NUREG. Okay.

15CHAIR YOUNG: Do you want to take a break 16 and talk with your experts for ten minutes?

17 MR. LEWIS: Yes, please.

18 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, let's do that.

19 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off 20 the record at 10:08 a.m. and went back on 21 the record at 10:20 a.m.)

22CHAIR YOUNG: All right. If everyone 23 would come to attention, please. Let's start again.

24 When we move into the discussion of 25 835 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 Contention 3, we may also have questions. And again 1 it may be me mainly who has clarification questions 2 for some of the experts. So it might be a good idea 3 at this point if we just had all the experts stand up 4and I will swear you all in. Because even though you 5 are just providing clarification, since you are expert 6 witnesses, it might be good to swear you in.

7 So maybe all those of you, just stand --

8 Oh, they are not all here?

9 JUDGE COLE: I just saw a staff lawyer 10 running out looking for a witness.

11 CHAIR YOUNG: We can wait. We can wait.

12 MS. LAMPERT: Can I fly a few in?

13MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, just on this 14 issue while the witnesses are arriving, the parties at 15 our last conference call did agree that we would have 16 the witnesses available on Contention 3, in case the 17 Board had questions.

18 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

19MR. LEWIS: And so our experts are here 20 for that purpose and that was consistent with the 21 discussion.

22On this issue about if there was some 23 wrangling between the agencies over who was in charge 24 and if somehow that caused them to delay the 25 836 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433initiation of cleanup, who would that affect the 1 MACCS2 modeling?

2 Talking very quickly with our expert, that 3is not something that we are prepared to address. To 4 go into the MACCS2 model and to determine how would a 5 delay in the initiation of cleanup affect the cost, 6would it be higher or lower? On the one hand, you 7 would have more decay. On the other hand, you know, 8maybe it doesn't make any difference because the 9 radionuclides are long lived and so the ones that are 10 significant wouldn't change.

11That is just not something that we are 12 prepared. And quite frankly, I don't think it is 13appropriate on a motion to reopen, to expect us to 14 address these technical issues when they haven't first 15 been raised and properly vetted by --

16 MS. LAMPERT: Again, this is --

17CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, stop. Stop. Stop.

18 Stop. Everyone.

19 If the experts are not prepared to answer 20questions, then obviously they don't need to answer 21 them. But I want to make one thing very clear here.

22 The clarification that I am asking for is not based on 23any presumption on my part that there would be a 24 relation -- Quite frankly, I didn't know whether you 25 837 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 would say there would be a relationship or no 1 relationship.

2 My question is purely for clarification 3 purposes on what happens in the analysis with regard 4to the cleanup. What is presumed with regard to what 5 cleanup occurs, when it occurs, whether it occurs.

6 And so, I am not asking any part to 7 respond to anything or to make any arguments one way 8 or the other. And I don't have any presumptions one 9 way or the other on what the response would be.

10 MR. LEWIS: We --

11 CHAIR YOUNG: You have indicated that it 12looks as though -- What you have indicated makes me 13 think that there is some relationship if the analysis 14 presumes that cleanup and decontamination would occur 15 and then cost figures are put on that.

16 My question was simply for clarification 17 purposes. And when I made reference to the 18 significance and severity issues, that is one of the 19things I was making reference to. So if your experts 20 are not prepared to respond to that, then they don't.

21 MR. LEWIS: Our experts can. Dr. O'Kula 22 can explain what cleanup is assumed and how does the 23 modeling, you know, modeling, when does it start and 24 how does it treat it.

25 838 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 But as far as the issue which is the next 1 question which is now what happens if there is a 2 delay, I think then you would have to do an analysis 3 and look at it because there is a number of different 4 factors going on.

5And so, if Judge Young you want to 6 understand what is in the model, yes Dr. O'Kula can do 7 that. If you go beyond that and start saying and what 8 happens if there is delays, you know, I don't think 9 that would be a fair question to ask our experts at 10 this point in time because that issue hasn't been 11performed and it is a non-trivial issue. It is not 12 that it is obvious one way or the other.

13 CHAIR YOUNG: The only --

14JUDGE COLE: It is the arm wrestling of 15 the agencies after that.

16 MR. LEWIS: Yes.

17 CHAIR YOUNG: I'm sorry?

18JUDGE COLE: It is the arm wrestling of 19the agencies after that. We can't handle that 20 problem.21JUDGE ABRAMSON: But you have made clear, 22 have you not, that there is an assumption of about the 23 cleanup standards and there is an assumption about the 24 timing.25 839 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 MR. LEWIS: Yes.

1 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So yes, it is true that 2 for the SAMA cost-benefit analysis, there are 3 assumptions about what is going to get cleaned up to 4 what standard and how long it is going to take.

5MR. LEWIS: And the code model again 6indicates that there is different phases. There is 7this early phase and there is the late phase. And the 8decontamination occurs in the late phase. So Dr.

9 O'Kula can provide discussion of that if you would 10 like.11 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

12MR. LEWIS: But I would object if it 13 starts going beyond that.

14CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. And Mr. Lewis and 15 everyone else, I want to make absolutely clear again 16that any questions that I ask are purely to clarify 17what the situation is. They are not to try to make 18 anyone defend against this or that or presume that I 19think one way or the other. I am just trying to 20 simply understand what happens with regard to those.

21And when we get into Contention 3 this 22 afternoon, you will see that I will be asking 23 additional questions that may in fact the answers to 24 which may be obvious to some technical people may not 25 840 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 be obvious to me. Just simple clarification 1 questions. That is all I'm asking and that is all I 2 want any lawyer or witness to understand.

3 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Now have you have got a 4 sufficient answer on this, since your question was is 5 there a connection? Yes, there is a connection.

6CHAIR YOUNG: What I would like to 7 understand, what I would like to get clarification on 8is how it works at that point. So if you can provide 9that, that would be helpful. If you can't, you can't.

10 So and this is not for purposes of turning 11 this into a hearing but if all the experts are here 12 now, I could swear you all in for purposes of the 13 whole day. Are we all here yet?

14 MS. UTTAL: Yes.

15CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, why don't you all 16stand up and I will just swear you in? All the 17 experts who are here. Okay.

18 Whereupon, 19 ALL EXPERT WITNESSES PRESENT 20 were called as witnesses by the parties, and having 21 been first duly sworn, assumed the witness stand and 22 were examined and testified as follows:

23CHAIR YOUNG: Okay so basically what I 24 want to understand is when figures are put in for 25 841 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 cleanup, what I understood from Mr. Lewis is that it 1 is assumed that cleanup will occur and cost figures 2are put in for that. And I guess I am not as 3 concerned about what the cost figures are but how it 4 works as the analysis is performed and where you get 5the information to put in at that point. Does that 6 make sense?

7DR. O'KULA: Yes, I believe it does.

8 Judge Young --

9 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you.

10DR. O'KULA: This is the part of the 11 analysis, the long-term phase in terms of cleanup and 12 decision-making, that ultimately goes into the costs 13associated with the postulated accident. So it is the 14 long-term phase of the code and --

15CHAIR YOUNG: And you do it for each 16 separate accident.

17DR. O'KULA: Correct. It is done for each 18 separate accident, one at a time.

19 But now I have contamination over a 20 certain range from the release point that is factored 21 in sector by sector, square mile by square mile.

22CHAIR YOUNG: When you say sector -- I am 23 going to interrupt.

24 DR. O'KULA: I'm sorry.

25 842 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 CHAIR YOUNG: Just try to understand.

1 DR. O'KULA: Yes.

2CHAIR YOUNG: Is that the same thing as 3 the segments that are talked about in the ATMOS module 4 or is that a different concept?

5 DR. O'KULA: Yes. To be correct, we are 6 looking at a polar coordinate grid that goes out to 50 7 miles is our range of analysis and we normally treat 8 16 compass directions, principle compass directions.

9 So we have a sector that is 22 and a half degrees wide 10in terms of its width from an angular basis. And then 11it is set with our closest radius point and its 12 farthest radius point as a --

13 CHAIR YOUNG: It is the same thing as --

14DR. O'KULA: We described that as -- It 15 almost looks like a pie shape.

16CHAIR YOUNG: Right. It is the same thing 17 as, maybe I am not remembering right but it is the 18 same thing that is talked about as a segment in the 19 Contention 3 discussion, I think. Okay.

20 DR. O'KULA: Yes.

21 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

22DR. O'KULA: So if I refer to it as a 23 sector, I --

24 CHAIR YOUNG: I just wanted to make sure 25 843 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 there wasn't --

1 DR. O'KULA: -- made the translation.

2 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

3 DR. O'KULA: I understand.

4 So contamination has now been broadcast on 5 the surfaces in this sector, in this segment of 6territory that has a radius beginning point and 7 farther out endpoint and it has a certain width to it.

8 The calculation that in the MACCS2 Code 9 then makes the determination how or has a level of 10 contamination on the surface from that accident 11 scenario. So we are doing one at a time. And it now 12 says what will I need to restore this area to 13 habitability? Can people live there again? Or on the 14economic side that can be used for economic 15activities, businesses. And there is a farming and a 16 non-farming determination, if that sector of territory 17 is used for agricultural purposes, then there is also 18 that decision that is made.

19 Can this territory be cleaned sufficiently 20 to allow rehabitability and then or if it is 21 agricultural territory, can farming take place once 22 again?23 Now, there is a period of -- There are 24 various levels of decontamination that could be 25 844 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 required to make that activity either the habitability 1or the return to farming safe. And so then I would 2 need to understand or input various guidelines, either 3from the states or from the federal agencies as to 4 what are the minimum threshold, what are the doses 5 that I would allow to be accumulated over a period of 6 time before I would allow people to re-inhabit their 7 homes or return to agricultural activities.

8JUDGE COLE: And who makes those 9 decisions?

10DR. O'KULA: There are precedents that 11 have been used previously either from the decisions as 12 far as inputting those levels into the MACCS2 Code are 13made by the analysts of course. But they are looking 14at guidance from past SAMA analysis as to what were 15 the appropriate levels to use, whether they be as Mr.

16 Lewis referred to, the EPA Guidelines or if there is 17 a state authority that has a more stringent level, 18 they may choose to input that value.

19 In the case of the NUREG 1150 study in the 20 late 1980s that was published in 1990, one or two of 21the plants used information based on their state's 22 guidelines for cleanup and so they chose when that 23 model was run for that specific plant to use not the 24 EPA Guidance but instead the state guideline.

25 845 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 So it is site-specific and the analyst 1 would refer to regulatory bodies, federal and then 2 state, and any standards that would come into place 3 are the user's discretion as to what are the most 4 conservative, what are the most appropriate to use.

5 In terms of the delay that could be 6 modeled, if the user were trying to account for the 7 fact that there may be some decision-making at a broad 8 level before activities would be undertaken for 9 decontamination, that in fact could be modeled. And 10 that delay time could be added to the end of the 11 emergency phase, which is roughly a week after the 12 plume has been released from the point of, the source 13 point, the reactor itself.

14 And so this intermediate phase of the 15 analysis would -- could be the model by which you 16would say this is a period of inactivity. Assessment 17 crews are assessing how getting field measurement 18 readings on how contaminated the soil and the surfaces 19 are. And so we are conservatively accounting for a 20certain period of time by which this fact-finding 21 would take place. So that could be done in the late 22 phase of the MACCS2 Code model.

23 JUDGE COLE: And all of these details 24 would be articulated in the SAMA analysis report.

25 846 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433DR. O'KULA: They would be part of the 1 discussion on what was done, what was assumed, what 2 were the appropriate inputs, yes.

3 JUDGE COLE: Thank you.

4CHAIR YOUNG: So on the cleanup part of 5 it, I believe Mr. Lewis said that it was assumed that 6 cleanup and decontamination would occur before you got 7 to the point of defining what the dose would be and 8 the economic costs. Did I understand you right, Mr.

9 Lewis?10MR. LEWIS: Yes. But what I said was that 11 our analysis used the EPA Protective Action Guidelines 12 which were specifically prepared for severe nuclear 13 accidents. They give a recommendation for a dose that 14should not be exceeded. It is, I believe, two rem in 15the first year and 0.5 rem in each of the next four 16 years. That criteria, I believe and Dr. O'Kula can 17 confirm and explain, is simply what is used to 18determine can I clean it up enough to return to 19 service or should I consider it condemned, that dose 20 standard does not truncate the evaluation of dose to 21 the public. It is simply used for determining can I 22achieve cleanup or should I condemn it. But let me --

23 CHAIR YOUNG: But I thought you had said 24earlier that the way it is analyzed, it would be 25 847 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 assumed that cleanup would occur. And whether it is 1 to rehabilitate it completely or not is not really 2 what I am looking at so much. I was just looking at 3 the sequence.

4I thought I understood you to say that 5 certain assumptions would be made about the cleanup 6 and the decontamination level and then the dose.

7 And so what I was trying to understand was 8 what assumptions were made about whether cleanup 9 occurred, what cleanup occurred, and the cost of it.

10 MR. LEWIS: I will tell you what I think 11 I said and then Dr. O'Kula to make sure that what I 12 said is right.

13 With respect to all contaminated property, 14 the model looks at can it be returned to habitability 15 and use.16 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

17MR. LEWIS: And it, I believe, first looks 18 at does the property already meet the release 19 standards, in which case you would not need any 20 decontamination. If it is not, then it looks at 21different levels of cleanup which are input and 22 actually defined in our environmental report, these 23 are the decontamination factors of 3 and 15. And it 24 applies a cost for each of those levels of cleanup.

25 848 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 And so first it tries, if I cleanup to a 1 decontamination factor of three, do I achieve this 2 Protective Action Guide dose limit? If I do, then I 3 apply that and I apply that cost.

4 If that doesn't work, then they say okay, 5I have to do more contamination. How about this 6 decontamination factor of 15? It applies it. That 7 has a higher cost. It then tests it. Do I meet the 8 habitability standard in the Protective Action 9 Guideline? If the answer to these questions are no, 10 then it is condemned. It does what actually other 11 tests --12CHAIR YOUNG: So you are asking can you 13 make it.14 MR. LEWIS: Yes.

15 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

16MR. LEWIS: It actually does one other 17test, too. On each of these cases, it compares the 18cleanup cost with a value of the property. If in any 19 of these cases the cleanup cost exceeds the value of 20 the property, then it considers the property 21 condemned.

22CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So what I was trying 23 to understand what is another way to put it -- What 24 is the source of the costs that are attributed to 25 849 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 different cleanup levels?

1MR. LEWIS: First, was I generally right?

2 Was I close?

3 DR. O'KULA: You were spot on --

4 MR. LEWIS: Okay.

5DR. O'KULA: -- as far as my recall is on 6 that activity in the Code.

7MR. LEWIS: The question was where does 8 the cleanup come from from the decontamination 9 factors?10CHAIR YOUNG: Yes, where do you get the 11 cost figures for those, based on -- Well, you tell me.

12DR. O'KULA: Yes. Usually, the customary 13case is that past precedence are looked at for very 14similar type reactor accidents. So they can be early 15 studies that were done in the 90s, in the late-90s as 16far as reference values. The NUREG-1150 study was 17used in many plant SAMA analyses. As far as making 18 what assumptions as far as how many dollars would it 19take to decontaminate to a certain level. So that is 20a primary basis for many of the SAMA Analyses, the 21 NUREG-1150 study.

22 And if any information is more 23 contemporary then there is certainly the capability to 24 add that information into the model at this point.

25 850 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433CHAIR YOUNG: So there haven't been any 1 accidents that have produced the kind of consequences 2that you are talking about as I understand. Correct?

3DR. O'KULA: Right. In the continental 4 United States, yes.

5CHAIR YOUNG: So they would be taken from 6 other countries or military -- I'm just trying to 7understand where they come from. Maybe NUREG-1150 8 says but I am just --

9DR. O'KULA: Correct. Many of the studies 10 are, over the last 10, 15 years or so are based on 11 assumptions as to how far one would go, what would it 12cost to accommodate those activities. And so they are 13 always looking to be updated as far as is there any 14new information. Would this type of cleanup with the 15 type of source terms, the type of releases that would 16 come from a postulated reactor accident, would these 17be any different than say the type of release that 18 would occur if a dirty bomb would be released or a 19nuclear submarine had a mishap in port. So those are 20 different kinds of events. And so there needs to be 21 a careful layout out of assumptions about the 22 applicability of the source term from the reactor 23 accident versus these other type of more localized or 24more widespread type events. The type of material 25 851 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 that is released, how -- are we talking more plutonium 1 type products? A different kind of radioactivity in 2 terms of its effects on humans than say cesium and 3 strontium, different radio half-lives.

4 And different assumptions go into the 5 model in terms of how tough is it to clean up 6 something that bonds very quickly to plant life and 7 the surfaces --

8 CHAIR YOUNG: Bonds?

9 DR. O'KULA: -- or say --

10 CHAIR YOUNG: B-O-N-D-S?

11 DR. O'KULA: Yes.

12 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

13 DR. O'KULA: Correct. That absorbs very 14 quickly on surfaces. Is it as easy to decontaminate 15 tritium, which reactor accidents don't have very much 16of but there would be some? Is that radionuclide 17 difficult to decontaminate versus something like 18cesium and strontium? How much effort would that take 19to decontaminate? And then the costs are figured.

20Well, that would take so many days and require a 21workforce of so much. So we can ascribe a certain 22 cost level towards that action.

23 And it is not done in a very detailed way 24 in MACCS2 but some broad assumptions are used to 25 852 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 factor in what it would take to ultimately reduce 1 radioactivity contamination down to these levels that 2 Mr. Lewis referred to.

3CHAIR YOUNG: I think I may have 4 misunderstood something before or maybe Mr. Lewis 5 didn't mean to say it how he said it.

6 In any event, what I understood from him 7 when I asked the question what actually sort of 8 surprised me a little bit was that I thought I 9 understood him to say that certain assumptions were 10 made about what cleanup is done and the cost of it and 11 the decontamination and the cost of that before you 12 got to figuring out what the consequences in terms of 13 dose were.

14Did I misunderstand that or is that not 15 correct? Because now what you are talking about 16 sounds as though you are saying you assume a certain 17amount of -- that the cleanup and the cleanup costs 18 are those associated with reducing the dose down to an 19acceptable level. And that the dose figures that are 20 the consequences that come out of the SAMA analysis 21 are those that are there before the cleanup occurs.

22 Did that make sense, my question?

23 DR. O'KULA: I think I understand the 24 question.25 853 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

1DR. O'KULA: There is a baseline 2contamination that is used to make before decisions 3 are modeled in the Code.

4CHAIR YOUNG: Maybe we should just wait 5 until Judge Abramson comes back.

6 (Pause.)7CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So I was asking 8 whether the dose consequences that are produced are 9 the dose that would occur before the cleanup or after 10the cleanup. And I thought I had understood from what 11Mr. Lewis was saying earlier is that in arriving at 12 the dose, that took into account certain assumptions 13 about how much cleanup would occur.

14 But now I think I understand you to be 15 saying that the dose figures that come out at the end 16 for the consequences are those doses that would be 17 there -- Well why don't you tell me?

18 Are they the doses that would occur before 19cleanup, without cleanup? How do those things relate?

20 Because that is what Mr. Lewis said earlier that 21 caused me to ask further clarification questions.

22DR. O'KULA: Yes. The sequencing in this 23 part of the analysis is that the Code is telling me 24 what I am dealing with as a baseline contamination.

25 854 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 And before any decisions are made whether to condemn, 1 do contamination, I need to know what my baseline 2 radioactivity contamination level is, first of all.

3 So no costs have been accumulated.

4 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

5 DR. O'KULA: No decontamination has been 6 planned yet.

7 So in a sense, I have a footprint that is 8laid over my grid and I am looking at one of those 9 sectors right now, one of those land area sectors and 10 I am trying to make a decision. No dose has been in 11 this phase of the work.

12So then the code is making the decision 13 making, as Mr. Lewis indicated, in terms of can I, if 14 I decontaminate what this baseline radioactivity 15 contamination is now, can I decontaminate to a certain 16 level so that I would meet EPA or whatever the 17 threshold happens to be? And I can do that with a 18 certain --

19 Let's say that that action can be 20performed.Then the Code makes a very simple 21 assumption about what does it take to decontaminate to 22 that level and the doses accumulated by 23decontamination workers in this case. There is a 24 certain assumption that goes into the Code.

25 855 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 CHAIR YOUNG: The doses accumulated by 1 decontamination workers.

2DR. O'KULA: You are saying the 3 contaminated property is at a certain level and that 4 the Code says well if I reduce it by a factor of three 5or five for argument purposes, okay go ahead and do 6 that because that will bring it under the threshold.

7But to do that will incur a cost in terms of the 8 workers. So the dose will be counted there.

9CHAIR YOUNG: The dose to the workers 10 included in that.

11DR. O'KULA: Yes. That is included. And 12then the second piece on that is that that activity 13will require labor of course, and labor intensive.

14 And so a cost is affixed to that activity to bring 15 that contamination level down.

16 So but that adds up in a dollar column.

17 So I will determine yes I can make that sector 18 habitable once again but it will cost this much in 19 terms of dose. So that goes into the dose ledger in 20the Code calculation. And then I also need to account 21 for the fact that it costs money to do that action.

22 So that will go into the economic part of the ledger.

23 That is included in the costs that are ultimately 24 reflected in the SAMA cost that is being that averted.

25 856 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433CHAIR YOUNG: And that assumes, and I 1 don't know whether I am getting into an area that 2 there is some question about, but that assumes -- It 3 seems like I remember reading about the SAMA analysis, 4a temporal variability. So that assumes some time 5 aspects to the cleanup or not?

6DR. O'KULA: Yes, there are -- These 7 activities in terms of being able to do something over 8what period would it be. Would it be two months, 60-9 days, roughly, or would it be more on the order of 10 upwards of a year, for instance 120 days to upwards of 11 a year?12 So there are factors of time involved as 13 well.14 CHAIR YOUNG: And are those --

15DR. O'KULA: And so it wouldn't be done 16 instantaneously.

17 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. And are those -- We 18 talked about conservatisms in the measurement of the 19 plumes. Are those cost figures supposed to be 20 conservative also or is there any -- Is that just the 21best information that can be obtained from various 22 sources?23DR. O'KULA: The best information that can 24 be obtained and also if from the sources that are most 25 857 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 similar to the ones you are dealing with.

1 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

2MR. LEWIS: Judge, for clarification, what 3 I said before was that in this portion of the Code in 4 chronic which models the late phase, first there is a 5 decision on whether you can sufficiently decontaminate 6 property to meet the guidelines and return it to use.

7 That is where the Protective Action Guidelines comes 8 in. You know, what it the standard for whether I can 9 clean it up.

10 If you can, then the code applies the cost 11of that cleanup and the dose to the workers. The Code 12 then models the dose to the population from the 13 property after cleanup, out through the rest of the 14 modeled period. So the protective action guidelines 15 don't actually determine the dose. They are used in 16 the decision on can I achieve cleanup. And then the 17 model actually calculates, okay, I have achieved 18 cleanup. There are now people who are getting doses 19 from various pathways. What is their actual dose?

20 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So the output is the 21 dose after the -- Okay.

22MR. LEWIS: And that is an additional 23 cost. So there is the cost of cleanup, the cost to 24 workers, and then there is the dose to the population, 25 858 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 which is then monetarized, applied a monetary value at 1 the end.2 CHAIR YOUNG: And so when we are talking 3 about dose consequences and economic consequences, 4 everything but the ultimate dose would be under 5 economic costs. Right?

6DR. O'KULA: Could you clarify the 7 ultimate does?

8 CHAIR YOUNG: What I am talking about is 9 the discussion about the SAMA analysis producing 10offsite, -- Well there is on-site and then there is 11 offsite dose consequences, offsite dose consequences 12 and offsite economic costs, as I understood it.

13 And so I was just asking that all of the, 14 everything except that a dose to the public after the 15 presumed decontamination has occurred, would be under 16 economic costs.

17DR. O'KULA: Yes. All doses, those to 18decontamination workers, dose to the public, are a 19 part of the population dose risk.

20 CHAIR YOUNG: Oh.

21DR. O'KULA: So those are all factored 22 into the offsite population dose that is calculated by 23 the Code.24 CHAIR YOUNG: So you are saying that the 25 859 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 population dose risk would include the dose to the 1 cleanup workers.

2 DR. O'KULA: Correct.

3 CHAIR YOUNG: Oh, okay.

4 DR. O'KULA: The Code does a good job on 5 bookkeeping, on all the various cohorts or segments of 6 the population that are affected. And so that 7 part of the analysis includes the dose that workers 8 would be receiving, should they undertake an action.

9 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So the presumptions 10 include how long it would take and how -- When it 11 would start and how long it would take and so forth.

12 DR. O'KULA: Correct.

13 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

14JUDGE COLE: Ms. Lampert has a question 15 for you or for somebody.

16 MS. LAMPERT: Not necessarily a question 17but will I have an opportunity to respond? Because 18 what Dr. O'Kula has said has been responded to by his 19 colleague, David Chanin for the State of New York.

20And so it is on record. It was put in effect February 21 28th, I believe, which gives the history of the Code.

22 And the version is different than you have heard 23 today, somewhat.

24 CHAIR YOUNG: Tell me what document. Is 25 860 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 that in one of the exhibits to the Contention 3?

1MS. LAMPERT: This is in the New York 2 Attorney General's Adjudication for Indian Point.

3David Chanin is an expert witness there. He provided 4a rather lengthy, I don't know what you call it, 5expert statement regarding the history of the MACC 6 Code, the assumptions that are in the Code, stemming 7 and continuing based on plutonium, which is not 8 relevant for a reactor accident. And he talks about 9 the assumption of hosing buildings, of plowing under 10 fields, of workers assumptions, cost to workers, not 11 being correct because it is based, the assumptions are 12 plutonium. But if you have the gamma, which you do in 13 a reactor accident, you can't go out in a HAZMAT suit 14with a mask. And you know, you can't go out in what, 15you know, a water tube or something. And so 16 therefore, it will take a lot longer.

17 But my point is, that what you heard from 18Dr. O'Kula has another side to it. So therefore, not 19 saying what he had to say was one thing or another, 20 but there is another side and I could send it to you, 21 or you know, the exact citation from New York.

22 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Is it filed here?

23 MS. LAMPERT: Pardon me?

24 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Did you file it here?

25 861 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433MS. LAMPERT: No, I didn't because you see 1 there is a debate going whether this is reopening or 2 not. I do not believe that even though David Lewis 3 has said it a thousand and one times that the truth 4has been created. I believe this is, you know, filing 5 a new contention. Therefore, we did not file --

6 We filed enough.

7 JUDGE COLE: Let me see if I understand.

8CHAIR YOUNG: Did you mention anything in 9 your filing about that?

10 MS. LAMPERT: You know, frankly, I can't 11 remember. I thought we were just talking about 12 standards. But I am saying if we are getting into 13this in this detail, not knowing we would be having 14 expert testimony, I am not the expert but I can lead 15 you and provide to you this information from David 16 Chanin because they are equivalent in their 17 competency.

18 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Go ahead.

19MS. JONES: I'm sorry, Judge but I have 20 to, I would like to enter an objection into the record 21 because the discussion that we are having about Mr.

22 Chanin was not supported, was not provided in support 23of the cleanup contention. So, we would like that to 24 be noted for the record.

25 862 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 MS. LAMPERT: Well, neither was this.

1 CHAIR YOUNG: All right.

2MR. LEWIS: Judge, I would just for the 3 record, too, --

4 MS. LAMPERT: Well, neither was this.

5MR. LEWIS: If I may just for a second, if 6this whole discussion is simply to answer your 7 questions on how the Code works --

8 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

9 MR. LEWIS: -- from our perspective with 10to the motion to reopen, none of this is required. It 11 was Pilgrim Watch's obligation in the first place to 12 support its --

13 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

14MR. LEWIS: -- contentions by a motion to 15 reopen with declarations of competent expert who 16 understands the facts, makes the demonstration of 17 materiality and significance. It is those standards 18that determine whether the motion should be granted.

19 And those standards are to be applied strictly and 20 those standards simply have not been met.

21 MS. LAMPERT: Well, I still dispute.

22CHAIR YOUNG: We understand your arguments 23 on that, I think.

24 Okay, anything -- Let's see. I have one 25 863 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 more question written down. I'm not sure whether it 1 was related to this contention or the cables 2 contentions. But were any of the Blanch affidavits 3 relative to any of the reopening, the new contentions?

4MS. LAMPERT: Oh, certainly. He is the 5 expert witness on this.

6CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Okay, I remember. So 7 did any of what he said relate to the reopening 8 standards of the severity is what I guess is what --

9MS. LAMPERT: He had a lot to say about 10 the severity.

11CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, well I will just go 12 back and read it. That's fine. I think that is all 13 I wanted to ask.

14 MS. LAMPERT: Can I just make a final --

15 CHAIR YOUNG: Anything to wrap up on the 16 cleanup contention? Go ahead.

17MS. LAMPERT: Yes, I just wanted to repeat 18 again that the statement that the EAP standard that is 19used is two rem and five, 5.5 going for a couple of 20years, that is one possibility. But it hasn't been 21 decided and that it the core issue here, that there is 22 not an agreed upon standard level of cleanup and that 23 relates directly to what the cost will be. And that 24 is affirmed in the e-mails that were provided in the 25 864 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 investigative report and provided to you all that 1 there is debate of what will in fact be used.

2 So the question then becomes they made a 3 choice. There is no regulation of what to use. Did 4they use the most conservative, which would seem 5 appropriate or not, number one? And number two, to 6get at the very basic question, could they in fact 7 have done a reliable analysis if there is no cleanup 8standard that is agreed upon and if there is no 9federal agency? Which gets us to a road. Either they 10 shouldn't get their license for another 20 years if 11these issues haven't been decided or generous soul 12that I am, I suggested another alternative that 13 perhaps they could be required to go back and do 14 further analysis using the most conservative or 15demonstrate that they did. They certainly should not 16 have been allowed to do their analyses using the least 17 conservative, particularly we have learned, which is 18 only tangentially relevant, that Price Anderson does 19not cover cleanup. And so this community, this state, 20 will be left holding the bag.

21CHAIR YOUNG: Anything further from the 22 staff?23MS. JONES: Judge, I didn't identify 24 myself earlier but Andrea Jones from the NRC Staff.

25 865 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 Good morning.

1 I just want to respond to the question you 2all asked earlier. You wanted us to locate the NUREG 3guide and we have located it. We are generally in 4 agreement with Mr. O'Kula. We are not familiar with 5 the discussions that took place with regard to where 6 the costs, the presumption of costs.

7CHAIR YOUNG: Tell me again which NUREG 8 you are talking about.

9 MS. JONES: I will give you the citation 10because this is where the discussion is actually 11 located. So it is at NUREG/BR-0184.

12 MS. LAMPERT: Zero what?

13 MS. JONES: Zero, one, eight, four.

14 MS. LAMPERT: Okay.

15MS. JONES: And this is on page 5.25. And 16 you will see a discussion there, I am told, where they 17 discussed the four rem or yes, the four rem standard 18 and then it goes into the half rem standard over the 19 next five years.

20MS. JONES: Sorry, I have been corrected.

21JUDGE ABRAMSON: Counsel, that is a NUREG.

22 Right?23 MS. JONES: Yes, it is.

24JUDGE ABRAMSON: That is not guidance not 25 866 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 law.1MS. JONES: It is guidance. And I am 2sorry, I have just been corrected. It is four rem 3over five years. And a half a year -- Yes. Two rems 4in the first year and then a half a rem each year 5 after.6JUDGE ABRAMSON: And let me ask Entergy's 7counsel just a quick question. Do we have any 8 disagreement with the concept that if you chose a 9 different cleanup standard you get a different cost?

10MR. LEWIS: Certainly, we will get a 11 different cost.

12 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Thank you.

13MR. LEWIS: I would say that the standard 14that we used in our analysis is the EPA Protective 15 Action Guidelines specifically for nuclear accidents.

16 It was the one that applied.

17 But Ms. Lampert just asserted again that 18 Price Anderson doesn't apply to environmental cleanup 19 costs. That is just flat wrong.

20MS. LAMPERT: Flat wrong? I responded --

21JUDGE ABRAMSON: All right. We have 22 writings on that point so we will deal those. Thank 23 you.24 MS. LAMPERT: It is a dispute.

25 867 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433CHAIR YOUNG: Anything further from 1 Entergy on the cleanup contention just to wrap up?

2 MR. LEWIS: No, I don't think so.

3 MS. JONES: I think I just want to make 4 one statement because I think it is just very 5important from the Staff. I mean, because we have 6 been quite silent and we have --

7CHAIR YOUNG: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to 8 cut you off before.

9MS. JONES: That's okay. That's okay.

10 But I just want to make it clear and I think our brief 11 does a very good job of explaining why we think that 12 these are policy issues. These are really legalese.

13 These are really policy issues that really are better 14off left for the heads of these agencies to discuss 15 and decide amongst themselves who takes the lead in a 16 radiological incident, identifying sources of funding, 17 what particular cleanup standard is going to apply in 18 the event that that does happen.

19 And we think that doing anything at this 20 point in this proceeding, which we believe would be 21out of scope to do in a license renewal proceeding 22 would be essentially circumventing their ability to 23 make those decisions.

24 We now believe that those issues are 25 868 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433closely related to the issues that we are, that you 1are inquiring about with regard to cleanup costs. We 2 do believe that the fact that the EPA standard was 3 applied when they were analyzing these issues, we 4 think that that is a reasonable standard under NEPA.

5And it was considered and we think that that was 6 sufficient.

7 But clearly the issues of sources for 8 funding, what cleanup standard, who is going to take 9 the lead, we really believe that that is better left 10to the heads of these agencies. And mind you, there 11 are others obviously outside of these agencies that 12are also involved in these discussions. There are 13 higher ranking government officials. And so I would 14 caution any decision in that regard.

15 Thank you.

16CHAIR YOUNG: Did you want to say 17anything, Ms. Jones, about the relationship of when 18cleanup occurs, how long it would take, the 19relationship between that and the SAMA analysis and 20any questions about who would be responsible for 21whether anyone is responsible? Did you want to say 22 anything further on that?

23MS. JONES: I think I have said enough.

24 And again, we generally agree with what Mr. O'Kula 25 869 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 explained.

1 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, thank you.

2MR. LEWIS: Judge, I do have one point 3just on further reflection. We cited in our answer an 4 analysis of Price Anderson for the proposition that 5 with respect to extraordinary nuclear occurrences, 6 which are big nuclear incidents, the ones that are 7 associated with this sort of accident, that the Price 8 Anderson policy does indeed continue to cover 9 environmental cleanup costs.

10 I do have a copy of the ANI, the American 11 Nuclear Insurance endorsement, if the Board would like 12to review it. In fact, this is a letter from ANI when 13 they made this change that provided the policy and 14 provided the explanation of what it was and wasn't 15 doing. I could not find an ADAMS cite because this 16 goes back to 1989, it is pre-ADAMS so I didn't cite it 17in my answer. But if the Board is curious to read the 18 actual American Nuclear Insurance policy and 19 explanation of it, I do have those documents. I can 20 provide it to the Board and the parties.

21 CHAIR YOUNG: All right.

22MS. LAMPERT: Yes, thank you. In response 23 to what Ms. Jones said, we just met, that being a 24 policy issue about the responsibility in your world.

25 870 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 I couldn't disagree any more.

1 Clearly a SAMA analysis is required for 2 license renewal, if they haven't done it before. So, 3 it is on the table, number one.

4 Number two, it cannot lie on the fiction 5 shelf. It has to be reliable. There has to be an 6 acceptable estimation of offsite costs so that SAMAs, 7 which could reduce the risk of an accident which there 8 is a dispute whether there is any money to pay to 9 clean it up, and clearly, there is no dispute, there 10 is no agency in charge and clearly there is no dispute 11 that there is not a defined, cleared standard clearly, 12 that is in our world.

13 So because you are responsible and we are 14 dependent upon you to provide us with assurance that 15 what they have said and done in their SAMA analysis is 16honest, is reliable, reflects reality. Because if it 17 is underestimated, they choose this, that, whatever, 18 based on Jell-O, then we will not get the mitigation 19protection for the next 20 years. The public will be 20 cheated.21So, this business that it is up to 22somebody else to decide, I'll be long dead, that is 23for sure, is wrong. The decision is to determine what 24 they have done is appropriate or not. And if it is 25 871 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 not, that there be further analysis, which is in your 1 responsibility.

2 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. All right.

3MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, the letter I 4 referred to.

5 CHAIR YOUNG: That's fine. I guess, --

6 JUDGE ABRAMSON: You can e-mail it to us 7 all.8 MR. LEWIS: I have a copy of a fax. I'm 9 afraid if I didn't scan it and e-mail it, it maybe --

10 JUDGE COLE: Do you have copies for 11 everybody?

12 MR. LEWIS: Yes, I do.

13 JUDGE COLE: Well, give them out.

14CHAIR YOUNG: We will just make this an 15exhibit to today's transcript. And so if you could 16 give a copy to the court reporter also.

17 I guess we could call it Exhibit 1 to 18 today's transcript.

19 (WHEREUPON, THE DOCUMENT REFERRED TO WAS 20 MARKED AS EXHIBIT 1 FOR IDENTIFICATION 21 AND RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE.)

22CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, moving on to the third 23table's contention. We have already talked about the 24 reopening standard. So as far as I am concerned the 25 872 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 only the other issue would be the issue of the 1 significance, severity, etcetera.

2 I think there was a reference in the NRC 3document about the level of severity. Did you find 4 that, Judge Cole?

5JUDGE COLE: No, I couldn't find it. I 6 have got too many papers up here.

7 The December 2, 2010 information notice 8referred to significance of the problem with the 9 cables. And I believe it said it was of little 10 significance. And I think that in itself was 11 significant.

12MS. LAMPERT: What? There was a little 13 significance?

14 CHAIR YOUNG: The statement --

15 JUDGE COLE: That the issue is of little 16 significance. And that was written in the information 17notice towards the very end. And I can't find my 18 copy. I have got a suitcase full of papers here.

19 MS. LAMPERT: Talk about it.

20JUDGE ABRAMSON: Maybe counsel for the 21Staff or Counsel for Entergy has a copy. Or maybe Ms.

22 Lampert has a copy.

23 CHAIR YOUNG: Basically I think that the 24 idea is to give you an opportunity to respond to that.

25 873 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433MS. LAMPERT: I've got a copy of it here.

1 CHAIR YOUNG: Let's see.

2MS. LAMPERT: Would you like me to read 3 that?4 JUDGE COLE: It is a long document. You 5 are going to read?

6MS. LAMPERT: I'm not going to read it 7 all.8 JUDGE COLE: Okay.

9 MS. LAMPERT: Wait a minute.

10 JUDGE COLE: It is towards the end part.

11MS. LAMPERT: First, to give a summary of 12it, what it does say is that this is in fact a 13significant issue. It does say that it could not 14 simply lead to a single failure, which would not be as 15significant, but could lead to multiple failures. And 16it explains why. And it explains also that the cables 17 provide electricity for key safety systems.

18So to say it is not significant, really 19 makes you question the NRC.

20MS. UTTAL: Excuse me, Judge Cole. Which 21 particular document were you looking for?

22JUDGE COLE: This is the information 23 notice of December 2, 2010.

24MS. LAMPERT: And here are the highlights.

25 874 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433Cable failures have a variety of causes. And it goes 1 on listing that wetness and aging are the key ones.

2 JUDGE COLE: Thank you.

3JUDGE ABRAMSON: Why don't we let Judge 4 Cole find what it is he is thinking of.

5 MS. LAMPERT: Okay.

6JUDGE ABRAMSON: And then you can respond 7 to that.8JUDGE COLE: The comment just peaked my 9 notice, you know, in the information notice.

10 (Pause.)11MS. LAMPERT: Pages five and seven are the 12 big ones.13 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Let me just say I think 14 everybody's pleadings on this point are pretty clear.

15 So, I don't feel the need for any discussion of them.

16MR. LEWIS: Judge Cole, I think maybe what 17 you may be remembering is not the information notice 18 but the --

19 JUDGE COLE: This doesn't look like the 20 document I was looking for.

21MS. LAMPERT: I know what you are thinking 22 of. You are thinking of the --

23 MR. LEWIS: The inspection report.

24MS. LAMPERT: -- inspection that was 25 875 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 written for Pilgrim --

1 MR. LEWIS: Right.

2MS. LAMPERT: -- in August. That is what 3 you are thinking of, which was, I mean, when you think 4 about it --

5 JUDGE COLE: I stand corrected.

6 MR. LEWIS: In her pleading, in Pilgrim 7 Watch's pleading, it was immediately following an 8 excerpt was right after the information notice but it 9 was not part of the information notice.

10 JUDGE COLE: Oh, okay.

11MS. LAMPERT: And as I pointed out, Judge 12-- not Judge. Chair, Chairman Jaczko yesterday 13 pointed it out as an important issue to get after.

14 So if the chairman thinks so --

15 JUDGE ABRAMSON: They are not allowed to 16 influence our decision making.

17 (Laughter.)

18 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Seriously.

19CHAIR YOUNG: If the chairman has 20 indicated that this is a matter of concern to the 21 Commission and that it is going to be handled and I 22 guess sometimes the term generic is used, in a generic 23matter for all plants, how does that relate to the 24 issue of the seriousness of it and to the 25 876 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 appropriateness of it --

1 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, it speaks --

2 CHAIR YOUNG: -- as a contention in this 3 particular case?

4MS. LAMPERT: It speaks two ways. Number 5 one, a lot of things have been considered serious and 6 to deal with and they seemed to be dealt with after 7 the fact. Leaks from buried pipes is an example.

8However, the point is that it adds some 9 additional substance to the fact that it is a 10significant issue. However, what we are dealing with 11is the sufficiency of the Aging Management Program 12going forward for a very serious safety issue. And we 13 are looking at it in a site-specific manner here, not 14 generically. And therefore, you have to couple what 15 the Aging Management does and does not do and 16 determine is it appropriate for the site-specific 17 circumstances here.

18 And so therefore, that is why it belongs 19 in this adjudication process.

20JUDGE ABRAMSON: Do I understand correctly 21 that the threshold for you is the decision by the 22 decision by the Commission in December to not address 23this as a generic issue? That is what makes your 24 pleading time run.

25 877 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 MS. LAMPERT: Correct.

1 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Thank you.

2MS. LAMPERT: That it was the salt on the 3wound, the frosting on the cake. And was pointed out, 4 that sometimes, you know, somewhere I found it in the 5 Digest that my source of all legal knowledge, that --

6JUDGE ABRAMSON: It's a pretty good 7 source.8 MS. LAMPERT: -- sometimes you have in a 9 late filed contention some things that were old and 10then some things that are new. And that something can 11 occur that puts the last piece in the puzzle and then 12 triggers it to go forward.

13 And so again, I will say call me naive but 14I did believe because this is so obviously 15 significant, that the NRC and because of their track 16 record in saying over and over again in information 17 notices how serious this was and what the causes were, 18 that they get off their -- can't say that -- that they 19would in fact make requirements. But it didn't 20 happen.21 And so this is our opportunity and that is 22 why it is new.

23JUDGE COLE: I would like to identify this 24sentence that peaked my interest. It is in Exhibit 5 25 878 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 of the Pilgrim License Renewal July 29, 2010 1inspection report. And it is in the last page nine 2 under "Enforcement." 3"This finding does not involve enforcement 4 action because no regulatory requirement violation was 5identified because the finding does not involve a 6violation and has very low safety significance." That 7is the sentence that I remember, for whatever it is 8 worth.9MS. LAMPERT: Yes. Well what it is worth 10 is, and I can provide you with this. The Union of 11 Concerned Scientists a couple of months ago issued a 12 report on how many greens findings are given. And I 13think that speaks for the overly generous grading 14 system. I wish they graded my SATs. You know what I 15 mean.16 JUDGE COLE: Thank you.

17CHAIR YOUNG: Anything else on the cables 18 contentions before we move on?

19 And it is early now for lunch but it might 20be a good time to take a lunch break and then come 21 back and do Contention 3 after lunch.

22MR. LEWIS: I would like to respond to one 23 thing that Ms. Lampert said, if I could.

24 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead.

25 879 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433MR. LEWIS: The suggestion that the 1 Information Notice at the end of 2010 was the last 2 piece of the puzzle and, therefore, it makes its whole 3 contention timely, I think is an incorrect assertion 4 for a couple of reasons.

5 First of all, recently in the Prairie 6 Island license renewal proceeding, the Commission 7 criticized that very type of holding and said with 8respect to a document that merely summarizes prior 9 information, it is not appropriate to say that is the 10 last piece of the puzzle when that information was all 11 available before.

12 So there is a Commission case that 13 criticizes that concept.

14 More to the point, though, the succession 15 of steps that the staff has taken in addressing this 16 issue has been absolutely consistent, none changing 17 from the beginning.

18 In the generic letter 2007, the 01 summary 19 report, in 2008 the Staff's position was licensees 20 should keep water out of the inaccessible structures 21 by draining manholes and they should have a condition 22monitoring program by testing cables. That is what 23the GALL report does. In NUREG/CR-7000, the report 24 that was commissioned again what Brookhaven suggested 25 880 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 is test cable by these monitoring techniques and try 1 and control the environment.

2 In the draft versions of GALL rev 2, the 3 staff's position was with respect to license renewal, 4 drain down water to keep it dry and monitor the 5 condition. Now we have an information notice at the 6 end of the year where the staff says drain down water 7 and do these tests to monitor the condition. There 8 has not been a change at all. It is simply amazing 9 that this is the frosting on the cake.

10JUDGE ABRAMSON: Counselor, let me just 11 ask you --

12 MS. LAMPERT: Wait a minute!

13JUDGE ABRAMSON: Let me follow this up, 14 please, Ms. Lampert.

15 I had the impression that Pilgrim Watch 16 asserts that what was issued in December actually said 17that NRC is not going to do anything anymore, that 18 they ceasing work on this point or that they are not 19 going to create any generic rules or do any 20 rulemaking. Was that in fact part of that December 21 decision?22MR. LEWIS: I don't think that the 23 Commission ever said that they were going to do a 24 rulemaking. The Commission, the Staff said that they 25 881 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433are preparing a Regulatory Guide. They announced 1 this. This was actually consistent with what they 2 said in the generic letter 2007-03 summary report.

3 They said we are going to prepare a regulatory guide.

4 We are going to tell existing licensees what they are 5 going to do. It is going to do these things.

6 The staff's position I think is quite 7 clear. The regulations already require what they 8 require. And they require you to take appropriate 9 steps to maintain the condition of equipment that you 10rely on. And you have to monitor it under the 11 maintenance rule.

12 All the staff has been doing throughout 13this process is saying here is what we think the 14 appropriate steps are to maintain the environment.

15 And throughout all their activities, what they have 16 said is we think that licensees should drain down 17 water in manholes, if you have important cables that 18 are inaccessible, so that they are not exposed to 19water unnecessarily. In addition, because it is still 20 possible, you should do these type of tests that are 21 capable of detecting degradation. The staff has not 22said we are walking away from this issue. In fact, 23 they are continuing to take enforcement action against 24 licensees who aren't draining down their manholes and 25 882 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 aren't adequately monitoring the condition. I don't 1think the staff has backed off on their position at 2 all.3JUDGE ABRAMSON: So you don't think the 4December issuance says anything to the effect that 5they are going to walk away. And I think Ms. Lampert, 6 Pilgrim Watch's pleadings say otherwise. Right?

7 MS. LAMPERT: Wait a minute.

8 MR. LEWIS: I could just pull my copy of 9 the information notice. I can't pull it up quickly.

10 But no, I don't think they are abandoning this issue.

11 I think that what Pilgrim Watch is maintaining is that 12 all this cable should be replaced with cable that 13 meets 50.49.

14 The Staff has never throughout this 15 process said we are going to require everybody do 16install some marine cable. And there is nothing in 17Information Notice 2010 -- I'm sorry. Judge Cole, you 18 have it. -- 2010-26, which reflects any change in 19 Staff position on that point.

20 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Ms. Uttal?

21MS. UTTAL: That is correct. The 22 Information Notice does not say that we are stepping 23 away. It says no particular action or response is 24 required. But it does instruct that you should ensure 25 883 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433that the cables that could become submerged are 1 adequately monitored and other such things.

2 JUDGE ABRAMSON: When you say it says no 3 particular action or response is required, what does 4 that mean in Staff-ease?

5MS. UTTAL: That is typical of Information 6 Notices, --

7 MS. LAMPERT: It's typical.

8MS. UTTAL: -- which are -- Information 9Notice is to give the industry information. And what 10it does is it is just repeating things that are 11 already out there.

12JUDGE ABRAMSON: So does every Staff 13 notice no particular action or response is required?

14 MS. UTTAL: For the Information Notices, 15 yes, --16 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay.

17 MS. UTTAL: -- because no particular --

18JUDGE ABRAMSON: Because it is not 19 demanding --

20 MS. UTTAL: It is information.

21JUDGE ABRAMSON: It is not demanding 22 action or response.

23 MS. UTTAL: That's correct.

24 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay, thank you.

25 884 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 MS. LAMPERT: Is it my turn?

1 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Sure.

2CHAIR YOUNG: I think you wanted to add 3 something.

4 MS. LAMPERT: Oh, go ahead.

5MS. MIZUNO: Counsel for Staff would like 6 to respond to a few things that Pilgrim Watch has 7 stated. But if you would like Pilgrim Watch to go 8 forward now, we could then respond to all of them at 9 once.10 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

11MS. MIZUNO: Perhaps that would be the 12 best.13CHAIR YOUNG: That's fine. I just thought 14 you might have something to add on this issue.

15 MS. MIZUNO: Thank you.

16 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead.

17MS. LAMPERT: Yes, my point was that they 18 again made no requirements or required any responses 19from the licensees in the notice. And then they made 20 suggestions such as the NRC expects but it certainly 21 didn't make the requirement that the licensee identify 22conditions that are adverse to quality for cables, 23 such as long-term submergence in water.

24 Upon the discovery of submerged 25 885 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 conditions, the licensees should, again no 1 requirement, take prompt corrective actions to restore 2the environment. What are these prompt, corrective 3 actions? And if you read a few paragraphs before, you 4 would see where they said, oh but sometimes as soon as 5 they pump them out, if site conditions are such, those 6 manholes fill right back up. Hmm, tests. There are 7 no proven tests.

8JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, we read your 9 pleadings on the point.

10MS. LAMPERT: Etcetera, etcetera, 11 etcetera.12 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Thank you.

13MS. LAMPERT: So this is nothing of 14 substance. We are looking for something of substance 15 that will provide greater assurance.

16 And if business as usual is so great, then 17why are they finding degraded cables? Why are they 18 finding trouble which they report in this information 19notice again and again, reactor after reactor. So 20 that tells business as usual is not sufficient.

21 CHAIR YOUNG: Ms. Mizuno?

22MS. MIZUNO: If I may. Thank you, Your 23 Honor.24 There are a couple of points that I think 25 886 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 need to be addressed and one very important unspoken 1 thought that puts the issue in context.

2 When a cable is submerged, that can result 3 in additional degradation and potential cable failure.

4That is true. But what is also really important to 5 keep in mind is the fact that just because a cable is 6submerged or just because it is exposed to a moist 7 environment does not mean that it will stop 8 functioning. It means instead that it is vulnerable 9to potential aging affects that previously had not 10been discussed. That is why GALL2, Rev. 2 has 11 additional -- changed from GALL1. That is why there 12 are those additional provisions in GALL2 for 13 inspection and for testing.

14 But it is important to understand 15 something that I think all the engineers take for 16 granted so they don't bother to tell the rest of us is 17 that just because a cable is wet, doesn't mean it is 18 going to fail. It doesn't mean it is going to fail.

19 The next point I would like to address is 20 the issue of the number of green findings that the NRC 21staff produces, rather than say that those green 22 findings are evidence of lax regulation. I think it 23 shows the exact opposite, that the NRC inspectors are 24doing a very good job. They are finding a lot of 25 887 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 issues. They are finding issues that may not be very 1 big but they are finding them nevertheless and they 2 are documenting them and they are bringing them to the 3 floor. And that is why I think you see a lot of green 4 issues, green findings.

5 Thank you.

6CHAIR YOUNG: Anything else on the new 7 contentions?

8 MR. LEWIS: One more point, Judge Young.

9 CHAIR YOUNG: All right.

10MR. LEWIS: I don't know if you are 11 interested. You were curious before about 12understanding the SAMA model. I actually do have a 13 segment of cable if you would like to see what cable 14looks like. And this is actually cable that was 15 inaccessible in service exposed to water for almost 40 16 years. If you are at all interested to see what it 17 looks like, I can show you a piece.

18MS. LAMPERT: I should have brought my 19 cables. The cables -- I actually do have cables.

20 JUDGE ABRAMSON: We are not talking that 21 sort of evidence today.

22 MR. LEWIS: Okay.

23 MS. LAMPERT: The point being to look at 24 a cable that is designed to be in a wet condition and 25 888 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 see how it is constructed in a different manner than 1 cables that are not certified, you could just go to a 2 local hardware store and they will show you that.

3 (Laughter.)

4JUDGE COLE: Ms. Mizuno, could you for the 5 record define what a green finding is, the 6 significance of green?

7MS. LAMPERT: Money. It's the same color.

8MS. MIZUNO: There are -- the -- sorry.

9 The Reactor Oversight Program, the ROP has a number of 10different findings. A green finding is of little 11 safety significance or very low safety significance.

12 And then there are additional findings; white 13 findings, yellow findings, red findings, and they 14 increase in severity and, you know, potential 15 problems. But the green finding is the lowest safety 16 significance finding --

17 JUDGE COLE: Thank you.

18MS. MIZUNO: -- that the Reactor 19 Oversight Program has.

20CHAIR YOUNG: All right. Anything 21 further? All right. Let's see. It is 20 to 12:00.

22 Is everyone going to -- 12:30, 12:45?

23 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I vote for 12:30.

24 CHAIR YOUNG: 12:30?

25 889 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433JUDGE ABRAMSON: For those of you who have 1 been in hearings with me, you know I would go to 10:00 2 at night.3MS. LAMPERT: It depends on how fast they 4 are in serving. Doesn't it?

5CHAIR YOUNG: Aim for 12:30 and do your 6 level best to get here at 12:30. If --

7 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I am going to close the 8 door at 12:30. Be here at 12:30.

9 (Laughter.)

10 (Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m. a lunch recess 11 was taken.)

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 890 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 1 (12:43 p.m.)

2CHAIR YOUNG: All right. Starting now on 3 Contention 3 and really mainly clarification 4 questions. And then we will finish by allowing each 5 party a total of ten minutes to do closing.

6 One broad question I will start with and 7 it is just I noticed in Entergy's proposed findings --

8 there you are.

9 MR. LEWIS: Yes, I'm right here.

10 CHAIR YOUNG: In the conclusions of law, 11 I believe that you put the burden on yourself, which 12 is where we put it. And the Staff put the burden on 13 itself. And I assume that the reason for that is 14 because the NEPA, once the EIS is done, and this is 15 really directed at the lawyers, --

16 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor.

17CHAIR YOUNG: The NEPA issues, once the 18EIS is done is really directed at the Staff. Is that 19 why you did that?

20 MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor.

21 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

22MR. HARRIS: This is Brian Harris with the 23 Staff speaking, since I haven't spoken earlier. But 24 the NEPA is directed to the federal agency's action 25 891 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433and its environmental review. Now the burden is on us 1at that point. Safety issues are of course different 2 in terms of who bears the final burden.

3CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So, I just wanted to 4 clear that up and no one has anything further to say 5 on that.6 I think in general, there is general case 7 law that puts the burden on the Applicant but I assume 8 that that is why you did that. And unless there is 9 any further clarification on that, we can move on to 10 other issues.

11MS. LAMPERT: Well, Your Honor, I have 12 something to say.

13 CHAIR YOUNG: Oh, okay.

14MS. LAMPERT: It appeared that the NRC 15Staff were putting the burden on the Petitioner 16 because they concluded quite a few times in their 17findings that Pilgrim Watch failed to prove that. And 18 that confused me, thinking that the burden of proof 19was not, that they assumed was the Petitioners. So 20 thank you for that clarification.

21CHAIR YOUNG: I think what they were 22 probably saying and how we would take it is that they 23 were saying that the Pilgrim Watch had some burden of 24 going forward and presenting something, to which they 25 892 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 would then respond and have the ultimate burden of 1 persuasion. It is not a huge issue. I just wanted to 2 clarify that for the record.

3 So, did you have something that you wanted 4to -- We don't have your -- Oh, there it is. Did you 5 want to do that first or I basically --

6JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, I can do that now --

7 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

8JUDGE ABRAMSON: -- because I think it 9 sets the stage for the rest of the discussion.

10I am going to take you all back to your 11first algebra class. Now this is something that 12 wasn't plead but I think can be read directly from the 13 pleadings. So let me just express something and see 14if you are all in agreement with what I want to say 15about it. And this is the relationship between the 16damages that would need to be caused by, let's take 17 the sea breeze effect, first, and how big would those 18 damages need --

19CHAIR YOUNG: Judge Abramson, hold on one 20-- Are you able to get him? Good. Okay, never mind.

21JUDGE ABRAMSON: How big would the damages 22 need to be from the sea breeze effect, in order to 23make the next most costly SAMA cost-effective? And I 24 want to express that in terms of a formula and I have 25 893 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 in mind doing that based on what we see in the facts.

1 So the first fact we would have to find is 2 how many days, what fraction of a year is the sea 3breeze in effect. Okay? And we have testimony. I am 4 just going to put some hypothetical numbers on this 5 because what I am going to do is convert a word 6 problem into a formula, which you all know how to do, 7 I think.8 MS. LAMPERT: No.

9 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Well surely you do. It 10 may have been a few years since you and I took 11beginning algebra but it is where it starts. So let's 12say it is in effect for 50 days and let's say that 13 each day it runs for eight hours, which would make it 14a third of a day. So 50 thirds of a day would be the 15 number of days that it would be, that there would be 16a sea breeze. This is just a hypothetical. These 17 aren't numbers but we could find numbers from the 18 testimony. And if you wanted to figure out what 19 fraction of a year that is, you just divide that by 20 365 days and you get a number that is something like 2150 over 1000 or about 55 out of a 100. About five 22 percent. Okay?

23 Now let's say we don't know the damages 24 that the sea breeze would have to cause but we can 25 894 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433make it an algebraic unknown, X. That is the damages 1 that the sea breeze would have to cause in order to 2run the total cost up to twice what we had from the 3 original SAMA analysis. So that is the damages from 4 the sea breeze to cause the next one to be available.

5 And we know what the damages are from the 6SAMA analysis. Pilgrim Watch has done that SAMA 7 analysis. They have a number. And while they didn't 8use a number, let's just call that Y. Y is the 9 damages from all the other events, the average, the 10mean damages, or the average damages which we had a 11 lot of discussion about and was the mean --

12 MS. LAMPERT: Dispute.

13JUDGE ABRAMSON: Dispute. Okay. Now 14 let's say Y is the average damages that you get from 15everything but the sea breeze. From everything else.

16 From all other meteorologic conditions is what I would 17 write. All right?

18 Now what is the formula? The formula is 19five percent of the time you have got X. Ninety-five 20percent of the time you have got Y. And it has got to 21 add up to twice Y. Right?

22 MS. LAMPERT: As Y the variable.

23JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, just the meteorology 24 and just from the sea breeze.

25 895 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 MS. LAMPERT: Yes.

1 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So 0.05X plus 0.95Y has 2to equal 2Y. Let me finish. Okay? I'm almost done.

3 MS. LAMPERT: Y.

4JUDGE ABRAMSON: So solving for X, you get 50.05X equals 1.05Y where X equals 21Y. In other 6 words, the damages that you get during the sea breeze 7 effect in order to be big enough to bring the next 8 most costly SAMA into play would have to be 9 approximately 21 times the average that you got from 10all the others. And that is all I wanted to do. I 11wanted to set the stage. Obviously, 21 isn't the 12 threshold. Five percent isn't the exact number. But 13I wanted to see if anybody has any difficulty with 14 this kind of an approach to looking at the problem.

15 MS. LAMPERT: I do.

16 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay. Which is?

17MS. LAMPERT: Which is that the sea breeze 18 was not the only meteorological variable --

19 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay.

20MS. LAMPERT: -- that we are talking 21 about.22JUDGE ABRAMSON: This is just how you deal 23 with this --

24MS. LAMPERT: Then you are going to add 25 896 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433them all up. And you also made an assumption, you had 1 to hit twice what they found to have significance and 2 we had a dispute that the way Kevin O'Kula came up 3 with that was using the same models that we found a 4 problem with. How do you get the two times?

5JUDGE ABRAMSON: This is based on the data 6 we have in front of us. That's all.

7MS. LAMPERT: Okay. Okay, so the question 8 is, is that valid.

9JUDGE ABRAMSON: We haven't -- Yes. Yes.

10 MS. LAMPERT: Okay.

11 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I understand that.

12 MS. LAMPERT: Okay, we are together.

13 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay.

14 MR. LEWIS: One thing I would add, Judge 15 Abramson, --

16JUDGE ABRAMSON: This is a linear 17 approximation, by the way, for some scientists in the 18 room.19MR. LEWIS: Is the Y average damages that 20 we felt was in the MACCS2 for the SAMA already include 21 sea breezes.

22 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I understand that.

23 MR. LEWIS: Okay.

24JUDGE ABRAMSON: And there is a lot of 25 897 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433parameters here. This assumes that the average, there 1 are a lot of things in this but it gives you an idea.

2 In fact, if you actually get the percentage, you will 3 probably find it is less than five percent from what 4 we have on data.

5 If you properly compute the formula within 6 that 0.95, you have 0.95 times Y with some adjustments 7for other conditions, other mean conditions. And then 8you put another variable for the other wind 9 conditions.

10But it is the idea of translating the 11 question before us, which is how big does the effect 12have to be for it to cause the next SAMA to become 13 important.

14MS. LAMPERT: But isn't the question of 15 what is the proper model, a segmented straight line or 16a variable model such as CALMET? And as you suggested 17--18JUDGE ABRAMSON: That is the underlying 19 problem, yes.

20MS. LAMPERT: Yes, the teleconference was 21 hey, we are on a boat and they didn't accept the 22 burden of proof and do that. That is the problem.

23JUDGE ABRAMSON: That I understand but the 24underlying problem is how accurate is the model. And 25 898 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 what I am doing is saying we could also think of that 1 coming in the other door, which is how big does the 2 error in the model have to be before it can affect the 3 results of the SAMA analysis.

4MR. LEWIS: And I would just add is the 5 issue is not whether there might be a better model or 6 a more accurate model, I mean, the Commission is very 7 clear in its remand in the March order and I am 8 quoting from CLI 10-11,37, "We conclude by emphasizing 9 that the issue here is whether the Pilgrim SAMA 10 analysis resulted in erroneous conclusions on the 11SAMAs found to be cost beneficial. The question is 12 not whether there are plainly better atmospheric 13 dispersion model or whether the SAMA analysis can be 14further refined. There is no NEPA requirement to use 15 the best scientific methodology." 16And so Your Honors picked that up in how 17you phrased this issue. Okay, the issue is whether or 18not taking into account the concerns expressed by 19 Pilgrim Watch could make another SAMA cost-beneficial.

20JUDGE ABRAMSON: And you are okay with 21 this as a formulaic way of addressing it.

22MR. LEWIS: That is one way to address it.

23 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay.

24 MS. LAMPERT: Wait a minute. About this 25 899 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 NEPA interpretation, the reality is that this is a 1category 2 issue. You are required to do an 2 appropriate site-specific study. If bottom line, to 3 get back to basics, that a variable plume model is the 4 appropriate model for this particular site, it is not 5 like some fancy dancy thing that isn't out there and 6is asking Entergy to go far beyond what would be 7 required. It is simply asking Entergy to do a model 8that is appropriate for this site. That it is 9 available and you can do it.

10 You have had notice since 2006 for cripes' 11 sakes that this was a central issue. You could have 12run a variable model to then compare and answer the 13 question, instead of all this maybe maybe.

14 MR. LEWIS: Two things --

15JUDGE ABRAMSON: We understand that issue.

16So I don't think we need to belabor it. I think Judge 17 Young probably has some more specific questions about 18 things, rather than having you two pander the issue.

19 MS. LAMPERT: He really is a nice guy.

20 JUDGE ABRAMSON: After the issue, --

21 CHAIR YOUNG: Really what I have done is 22 write questions as I have read the proposed findings 23to get clarification. And some of these issues may be 24 relatively minor. Some may not. So I am just going 25 900 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 to go through them. And the only rhyme or reason to 1 the order of them is that I am just there simply where 2 they come.

3So one thing that I was just wanting 4clarification on was I believe that Pilgrim Watch 5raised some challenges about the distance that was 6 analyzed and the 50-mile radius was used in the SAMA 7 analysis and I was wondering if you could clarify for 8me what the source of the 50-mile cutoff for the 9 distance analyzed, where that comes from.

10MR. LEWIS: The source of that comes from 11NRC precedent and practice that shows that the 12 consequences, basically, they drop off afterwards.

13CHAIR YOUNG: I mean, is there a document?

14 In the same manner that I was asking, what is the 15source of various inputs? Rather than saying it is 16NRC practice, I am wondering is there a particular 17 document? Is there a particular rule, policy, 18 guidance document?

19 MR. LEWIS: Well, I will have Dr. O'Kula 20 address that.

21 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

22 MR. LEWIS: There is a guidance document 23 and he can address that.

24 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

25 901 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433DR. O'KULA: Judge Young, the reference 1 that seems to have the most bearing on this would be 2 NUREG/BR-0058, revision 4, in terms of --

3CHAIR YOUNG: Double 058 revision 4.

4 Okay.5MS. LAMPERT: And may I just underscore 6 practice? Practice. Practice, practice, practice.

7 CHAIR YOUNG: Well, let's let him finish 8 and then -- Okay. Go ahead.

9 DR. O'KULA: That specifies from a cost-10 benefit decision making perspective which the SAMA, of 11 course, is the tool to decide that the SAMA analysis 12 is the appropriate tool to decide this. The 50-mile 13 distance is the radius that is applied.

14CHAIR YOUNG: I know that in making 15 standing decisions there is this proximity presumption 16 that the lawyers will be probably more familiar with 17that anyone who lives within a 50-mile radius of a 18plant is presumed to have standing. And I am assuming 19 that maybe that comes from the same source or related 20 source. And I was just, frankly, wondering where 21 those came from, given that Pilgrim Watch had raised 22 some questions about the distance.

23 MR. HARRIS: I don't think that those 24 really come from the same source. I mean, it is not 25 902 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 totally coincidence that they are the same number but 1 there is a long history of that proximity presumption, 2in terms of a sliding scale for a while and then it 3 finally sort of settled on if you live within 50 4miles, then you are presumed to have standing. And a 5 lot of that is that you are not -- The consequences 6fall off rapidly the further away you get. And so 7 after that point, you need to show judicial standing 8--9 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

10MR. HARRIS: -- and injury-in-fact and 11reducibility as opposed to it. So, it is I think more 12 coincidence that you have the same numbers.

13 CHAIR YOUNG: But the --

14 MR. HARRIS: Go ahead.

15 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead.

16 MR. HARRIS: Go ahead.

17 CHAIR YOUNG: Well the question is, what 18 is the source of the conclusion that consequences fall 19 off after the 50-mile because that has been stated as 20the basis for both of them. So that is what I was 21 wondering. Is there --

22MR. HARRIS: Well, I mean, the further 23 you travel, --

24CHAIR YOUNG: Right but there seems to be 25 903 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 a boundary line where someone sometime drew a 1 conclusion that after 50 miles, consequences fall off 2 significantly or to an extent that they are no longer 3 as significant.

4MR. HARRIS: I mean and that goes back to 5 sort of that originally if you looked at the proximity 6 presumption, it was more of a sliding scale. So the 7closer you were, you know, the more consequences. And 8 as you get a hundred miles, though, it could be you 9 could show some injury-in-fact. And you know, under 10 certain conditions that might be true in a real 11 accident, that you would see something travel that 12 far. But you have decay and things falling out so the 13 further you get, the less that can travel there.

14 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

15 MR. HARRIS: So I mean, --

16CHAIR YOUNG: No, I understand the 17 principle.

18MR. HARRIS: -- I am not sure I am 19 answering your question.

20CHAIR YOUNG: I understand the principle.

21 What I am just simply asking is, and you answered it 22 for the SAMA analysis, if any of the experts have any 23 other enlightenment on that, I would appreciate the 24 clarification from where it came from.

25 904 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 I understand the principle. It is where 1 that was spoken to and you have given me the NUREG.

2 Is there anything else besides that?

3DR. O'KULA: The other precedent for that 4 50-mile distance, again, it may be coincidental but in 5case of long-term effects, the 50-mile distance is 6 also the ingestion planning zone region that is used 7 to interdict food stuffs, should they be contaminated, 8to restrict dairy products. And that is typically the 9 distance that is applied to the ingestion planning 10 zone.11CHAIR YOUNG: Now where would that be 12 discussed or addressed, if you know?

13MS. LAMPERT: You know where I go 654?

14Number one. It is in the Emergency Planning Guidance.

15 CHAIR YOUNG: Do you agree?

16 DR. O'KULA: Yes.

17 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

18MS. LAMPERT: Yes, but let me add to that, 19 let's add a little common sense in here. There is a 20consistency of no real basis. And we can look at 21 Chernobyl. Now granted, that was a fire but the point 22 being that there was restriction and there remains a 23 restriction in the sheep in Wales.

24CHAIR YOUNG: I really would -- Let's try 25 905 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433to focus. I am really just asking simply 1 clarification questions, not to open up argument on 2 these things.

3MS. LAMPERT: No, I am not trying to argue 4but there is no regulation. And if you dig really 5 deeply, you don't get an answer of the lead shield is 6 at 10 miles for emergency planning, why the lead 7 shield is at 50 miles. Obviously the meteorologists 8 here and I wish Dr. Egan were here, could say, hey the 9 meteorology, how the winds blow, etcetera, etcetera, 10 and the terrain will make a difference on the 11 concentration of long-lived and dangerous 12 contaminants. But there is no lead shield.

13CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, let's see. Each 14 accident in the SAMA analysis, I am assuming that it 15includes a sort of duration. Getting back to another 16aspect of this time question. It has a lot of 17 different characteristics, the most significant of 18 which appear to be the amount of what is contained in 19any release. But I am assuming it would also have 20some durations that are input into it. Is that right?

21 I'm looking at you but anybody else can answer.

22DR. O'KULA: Yes, Judge Young, that is 23 correct. There is a finite duration of the release 24 and the source terms or the accident scenarios that 25 906 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 are used in the SAMA analysis in this case come from 1the Entergy work that was done for their PSA study, 2 their Probabilistic Safety Assessment study in 3 defining various --

4CHAIR YOUNG: Is that similarly related to 5 the level one or no?

6DR. O'KULA: The full PRA would be a level 7 one, two three-type PRA study and --

8 CHAIR YOUNG: And what is --

9DR. O'KULA: -- accounts for initiating 10 events, the level one core melt frequency assessment 11and then the containment response or the accident 12 progressions, assuming that you have different type of 13 initiating events leading to various breaches in from 14the pressure vessel and then through the primary 15 cooling system into the containment and then, 16 ultimately, was released into the atmosphere.

17 CHAIR YOUNG: And the PSA comes where in 18 that? Or how is it related?

19DR. O'KULA: The whole PSA study that was 20 performed for Pilgrim addresses from start to finish 21 initiating events, core melt progression, containment 22response, and then release into the environment. And 23the level three PRA, when all the first two phases 24 have been performed, accounts for the doses and the 25 907 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 economic costs that result from those accidents that 1 are in the study, at the starting point in the PSA.

2 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

3MS. LAMPERT: Could I ask a question?

4Duration would also consider resuspension. And there 5 was a question on whether the code modeled 6 resuspension and also this ties a little bit back 7 before lunch that if the assumption before cleanup is 8 hosing down buildings and plowing under fields, which 9is what it is, then the duration of the accident 10considering that mode of cleanup really would be 11 forever. Wouldn't it? Because that is not cleaning 12 up. That is moving it. Just an interesting thought.

13MR. LEWIS: Dr. O'Kula can describe how 14 resuspension is taking --

15 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

16 DR. O'KULA: Yes, so the duration of the 17 accident is only, at least the way I first responded 18 to it is how long does the release take place from the 19 plant. And of course, then we are modeling with the 20ATMOS module in MACCS2. The plume behavior as it 21moves away from the plant over that 50-mile grid. And 22 so the radioactive contaminants that have been 23released from this under the accident scenario are 24 traveling in a plume with respect to the weather that 25 908 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 is assumed concurrent with the release and traveling 1 downwind across the 50-mile grid.

2 And in modeling that behavior of the 3 plume, features of the plume phenomenology are taken 4 into account with respect to is it the wind speed, the 5 stability condition of the atmosphere, whether it is 6 light, neutral stability or various stable-type 7 conditions or highly unstable, the wind speed.

8And so particulate matter in a plume is 9 suspended in a Code -- I'm sorry -- suspended in the 10 plume but then will fall out or deposit with distance.

11And once it is on the ground, however, during plume 12 passage, it is allowed to be resuspended in the air or 13 modeled as that.

14 So yes, some of the particulates that are 15 characteristic of these accident scenarios, such as 16 cesium and strontium, they have finite mass and they 17are essentially particulate matter. They are subject 18 to gravitation and interaction with the environment.

19 And they would deposit out as a function of plume 20 travel but again, if they are on the ground, they are 21also exposed to ambient wind conditions. And so they 22 are able to be resuspended and put back up into the 23plume so that the plume goes downwind until it gets 24 off the grid.

25 909 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 And then as modeled by the analysis that 1 was done by Entergy, there is then a seven-day period 2 of time where what has been deposited on the ground is 3 allowed to be resuspended into the air and subject 4 exposed populations to additional dose.

5 MS. LAMPERT: The seven days is the key.

6DR. O'KULA: And that is the early phase.

7 And now then we could talk about the long 8 aftermath with the parts of the accident timeline that 9 goes into cleanup and decontamination and that sort of 10 thing but that is after plume passage, once the plume 11 has passed over the grid.

12CHAIR YOUNG: Back to the PSA for a 13 minute. Tell me how does the PSA relate to the SAMA 14 analysis?15DR. O'KULA: The guidance for what you 16start with with a SAMA analysis in terms of the 17accident scenarios indicate several sources. But the 18 most similar type or the most appropriate source of 19 accident scenarios to begin with are those severe 20 accidents that have been modeled in the sites plant-21 specific PRA or PSA as often as caused the 22 Probabilistic Risk Assessment or probabilistic --

23 sometimes it is referred to as the probabilistic 24 safety assessment. But they are one and two --

25 910 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433CHAIR YOUNG: And so I am sure if I go 1 back and read I could find this but I am trying to --

2 I think you just used the terms interchangeably, PRA 3 and PSA?4 DR. O'KULA: And I should be consistent.

5 It is referred as the PSA in our documentation but it 6 is a probabilistic assessment of severe accidents; how 7frequently they would occur and what their effects 8 would be should they occur.

9 CHAIR YOUNG: So it is overall.

10 DR. O'KULA: Yes.

11 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

12 MR. LEWIS: I would just add that in the 13industry, PRA and PSAare used interchangeably.

14 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

15MR. LEWIS: So it is really talking about 16 the same type of analysis.

17 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, thanks.

18MS. LAMPERT: And could you talk about 19 resuspension of material from on-site?

20 MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, we object to Ms.

21 Lampert asking questions.

22MS. LAMPERT: Okay, I will -- What are 23 the rules?

24CHAIR YOUNG: All right. Good point.

25 911 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433When I ask a question, feel free to speak up. What I 1 would like you to do is, since you don't have your 2 expert here, is to the extent that you could actually 3 point to part of the expert, Dr. Egan's two statements 4 or any of the others, --

5 MS. LAMPERT: Okay.

6 CHAIR YOUNG: -- that would be helpful.

7MS. LAMPERT: My reference with the 8 guidance MACCS2 Code, user code that says --

9CHAIR YOUNG: And that is one of your 10 exhibits.11MS. LAMPERT: -- the resuspension of 12material is not modeled. This, you know, goes way 13back that it is not modeled from on-site. I was just 14making a clarification. We are trying to find out 15 what the deal is, what proper answers to these 16 questions.

17 CHAIR YOUNG: Now, on-site. You say on-18 site. And I understand from what I have read that on-19 site is on the plant site, basically.

20 MS. LAMPERT: Yes, it is.

21 CHAIR YOUNG: And offsite is beyond.

22 MS. LAMPERT: Exactly.

23CHAIR YOUNG: So you are saying because it 24 is not modeled on-site, it doesn't take into account 25 912 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433

--1 MS. LAMPERT: Well if the wind blows, 2 let's be real. It is going to blow offsite.

3 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

4MS. LAMPERT: And so the contamination, if 5 they are talking about you get a big bang close to 6 where it occurred, so you are going to have a lot of 7 contamination on-site. So the question is, is it --

8 When the wind blows, it is going to go offsite. Is 9 that accounted for? The Code says no.

10CHAIR YOUNG: Is that accounted for and if 11 so, how?12DR. O'KULA: The Code addresses release 13 from the reactor site at the elevation that is 14 specified and then all the attributes of the 15 atmosphere in terms of transporting and dispersing the 16 plume are taken into effect.

17 The note about dispersion close to the 18 point of release was added to the guide to note that 19 in the near field, in the close-up part of the 20 calculation, there may be building effects that come 21into play. And so any of the numbers or the 22 attributes of the Gaussian model very close to this 23 point of release could be affected in the precision of 24 the answer by if the analysis correctly accounts for 25 913 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 auxiliary building, reactor building, shapes, any kind 1of wake effects or the wind passing around and over 2 and structures that may be part of the site premises 3 where the accidental release is first occurring.

4 CHAIR YOUNG: So --

5DR. O'KULA: So, it is just the statement 6 written in the guide for DOE applications was that if 7 you are using this analysis for downwind dose 8 calculations to an individual, again, must different 9 from a SAMA-type analysis, that the analysis close in 10 to the point of release may be less accurate than once 11 the plume is well-formed at 100 meters or roughly 12 between 100 meters and 500 meters and then going 13 across the full range of the grid.

14 Having said that, all attributes of the 15 atmosphere and the plume characteristics are present 16in the model from the start of the release. And so 17 they will be accounted for close in, as well as in the 18 30, 40, 50-mile region.

19CHAIR YOUNG: Let me see if I understand.

20 You are saying that basically all of the 21release is assumed to go offsite. Is that what you 22 are getting at?

23DR. O'KULA: Yes, it does. It does go 24 offsite.25 914 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, so you are saying that 1 therefore the issue of resuspension of anything on-2 site wouldn't add to it because you have already 3assumed that all of it has gone offsite. Is that what 4 basically you are saying?

5DR. O'KULA: In terms of resuspension, 6once the plume has passed from the time it touches 7 down if it is released at some elevation and then has 8 broadened with the atmosphere and has broadened and 9eventually touches ground, at that point, there is 10 deposition from particulate behavior material, as well 11 as other things are being transported in a plume like 12 the noble gases and things that don't have particulate 13nature to them. But all of that is accounted for from 14 the instant the plume is released.

15JUDGE ABRAMSON: Dr. O'Kula, let me follow 16 this up for just a second.

17CHAIR YOUNG: Just let me see if I 18 understand.

19 MS. LAMPERT: This is ridiculous.

20CHAIR YOUNG: So in other words, there is 21 nothing in the model that is used in the SAMA 22 analysis, since it is all presumed to go offsite, 23 there is nothing that remains on-site that could be 24 taken into account in the argument that it could be 25 915 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 resuspended. Does that make sense? Is that what you 1 are saying? Am I understanding that right?

2 DR. O'KULA: No, I am not saying it --

3CHAIR YOUNG: I know you are not saying it 4 like that --

5 DR. O'KULA: Clearly.

6CHAIR YOUNG: -- but does that get to it?

7 DR. O'KULA: But if some of the plume is 8 depositing as early as 50 meters, 60 meters, 100 9 meters and it is on the ground, it is still able to be 10 resuspended and put back into the plume, as a function 11 of the time remaining before the seven days is over.

12 So yes, it is subject to the same physical 13 mechanisms at 100 meters as if the same mechanisms 14 that are present at one mile, 20 miles, 50 miles.

15CHAIR YOUNG: What I am trying to 16 understand is, I thought you said that in all the 17accidents, the complete release is presumed to go 18 offsite, for purposes of the analysis.

19 DR. O'KULA: Correct.

20CHAIR YOUNG: Not that that is what really 21 would happen but for purposes of the SAMA analysis, it 22 is presumed to go offsite.

23 DR. O'KULA: Yes. Mass is conserved.

24 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

25 916 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433JUDGE ABRAMSON: So does that mean that 1there is no permanent deposition inside the site 2boundary or just that if it hit inside the site 3 boundary it could be resuspended? I mean, that is 4 what I think we are asking.

5 MS. LAMPERT: Exactly.

6DR. O'KULA: Okay, it is a time window.

7So some of it would definitely stay there over a 8 period of time.

9JUDGE ABRAMSON: Inside the site boundary.

10 DR. O'KULA: Inside the site boundary.

11JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay, thank you. That is 12 what I think was being questioned.

13 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

14DR. O'KULA: And subject to resuspension.

15The longer I keep my stopwatch on for that time 16 period, it would be subject to resuspension but it is 17 only a fraction of what is deposited.

18 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, I am really probably 19--20DR. O'KULA: So some would still stay 21 there. Some would still stay there.

22CHAIR YOUNG: I am probably at a level 23 really below everybody else here on this. But when 24 you say the entire release is presumed to go offsite, 25 917 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433

--1 MR. LEWIS: No, he didn't say that.

2 CHAIR YOUNG: I thought you said that.

3DR. O'KULA: The entire release leaves the 4 reactor boundary.

5CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So when I said the 6 entire release is presumed to go offsite, I was saying 7 that to ask is that a conservatism that is built-in?

8 In other words, rather than assume that some of the 9 release will deposit inside the plant boundary, not 10 just the containment but the plant boundary, I was 11 asking is it presumed that the entire release goes 12 offsite. That means totally away so that there would 13 be nothing left on-site?

14MS. LAMPERT: Of course there would. I 15 mean, you don't have to clean up after an accident --

16CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, I am just trying to 17 understand. I am not trying to open up an argument.

18 I am trying to understand what the SAMA analysis 19 presumes about any deposition on the site of the plant 20 and I am not understanding. I am hearing two 21 different things.

22 So I am just trying to understand what the 23 SAMA analysis presumes in terms of whether any of the 24 release, whether any of the things released stay on 25 918 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433the plant site, on-site. And if so, whether as Ms.

1 Lampert is arguing, it then does not take account, the 2 analysis does not take into account any resuspension 3 of anything that is left on-site.

4 DR. O'KULA: I think I understand now.

5 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Does that make --

6 DR. O'KULA: A fraction, perhaps one or 7 two percent, may deposit on the plant site.

8 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

9 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And some of that may be 10 picked up.

11DR. O'KULA: Some of that may be picked up 12 and re-transported under resuspension.

13 CHAIR YOUNG: And so what you are saying 14 is, the SAMA analysis does not take that into account 15 but it is such a small fraction that it would not make 16 any difference. Is that what you are saying?

17DR. O'KULA: It turns out to be a very 18 small fraction, given the site, the way the site 19boundary is about a third of a mile. But it is a tiny 20 fraction and it is still subject to resuspension over 21 time.22 And it does take into account 23 resuspension.

24CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, so you are saying the 25 919 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 SAMA analysis does take into account resuspension of 1 deposition on-site.

2 DR. O'KULA: Correctly stated.

3 MS. LAMPERT: For seven days or how many 4 days?5 DR. O'KULA: For that seven day period.

6CHAIR YOUNG: For seven days. And so what 7--8MS. LAMPERT: The wind better not blow in 9 eight days.

10CHAIR YOUNG: What you are challenging is 11 the fact that it does not take that into account after 12 the seven days.

13 MS. LAMPERT: Yes.

14CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Not to open argument.

15 MS. LAMPERT: No.

16CHAIR YOUNG: I am just trying to 17 understand now.

18 MR. HARRIS: Judge Young, --

19 CHAIR YOUNG: Yes?

20MR. HARRIS: -- at least from my 21 understanding, it also takes into account resuspension 22from that seven days through that 30 years. So, 23 subject to --

24CHAIR YOUNG: Resuspension within the 25 920 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 site?1 MR. HARRIS: Within the site.

2CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, which is it? Can you 3 get clarification?

4 MR. HARRIS: It is both.

5DR. O'KULA: Correct. Both the acute 6 phase and the long-term phase.

7CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So, the SAMA analysis 8does take into account resuspension in the initial 9 seven days and thereafter in the long-term CHRONC-10 type, C-H-R-O-N-C, part of the analysis.

11 DR. O'KULA: Correct.

12 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So --

13JUDGE ABRAMSON: That is an interesting 14 question. What meteorology do you assume for the 15 long-term phase?

16MS. LAMPERT: I was just going to ask 17 that.18JUDGE ABRAMSON: That's okay. I am 19 allowed to ask. You are not.

20 (Laughter.)

21JUDGE ABRAMSON: What meteorology is 22 assumed, Dr. O'Kula?

23DR. O'KULA: Dr. Abramson, in the long-24 term phase, it is purely a scaling of multiplying 25 921 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 factors. There is no meteorology. It is in the 1 region that we were talking about this morning, the 2 sector. If that has been contaminated by 3 radioactivity, then it is just a time-weighted factor.

4JUDGE ABRAMSON: Do you make some 5 assumption about what would be added to the deposition 6 over time?

7 DR. O'KULA: Just over a period of time, 8without any meteorology assumed but just a general 9 level of resuspended activity from ambient conditions, 10 ambient wind conditions --

11 CHAIR YOUNG: That could add to the --

12JUDGE ABRAMSON: But there is some 13 scientific basis for that assumption for the numbers 14 you used?15 DR. O'KULA: Yes.

16 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay.

17MR. HARRIS: Judge Abramson, Dr. Bixler 18 may be able to add a little bit.

19CHAIR YOUNG: Let me just clarify one 20 thing. So you are saying that for each segment you 21 assume that there could be resuspension from elsewhere 22 that could add to the amount for that segment and it 23 that it could -- that doesn't necessarily account from 24 another segment, but that the total, in effect, could 25 922 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 be increased as a result of that.

1 MR. HARRIS: Dr. Bixler could respond to 2 that directly.

3 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

4 DR. O'KULA: My understanding is that it 5is only from, in the long-term phase, in the CHRONC 6 phase, it would only be from that sector itself.

7CHAIR YOUNG: Oh, from the sector. Okay.

8JUDGE ABRAMSON: Dr. Bixler, let's hear 9 it.10DR. BIXLER: Okay. The model is a simple 11 empirical one that is based on some data from the 12 Nevada test site. And in that sense, it tends to be 13 pretty conservative because, as you can imagine, it is 14 a very dry, dusty kind of area where resuspension 15 occurs more readily than it would in a more moist area 16 like the east coast.

17But the model does continue on for the 18entire 30 years as was already stated. And it is a 19 local model where whatever is deposited on the ground, 20 that much is assumed to be suspended in the atmosphere 21 or a fraction of what is on the ground is assumed to 22 be suspended in the atmosphere, based on an empirical 23 model.24JUDGE ABRAMSON: And re-transported to 25 923 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 somewhere else?

1 DR. BIXLER: No.

2 JUDGE ABRAMSON: What happens to it?

3DR. BIXLER: It is local. It stays local.

4 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So it goes up and is in 5 the air but it never gets back down on the ground?

6DR. BIXLER: It would come back down on 7 the ground but it wouldn't move across the space.

8JUDGE ABRAMSON: So basically the 9 aggregate amount of radioactive byproduct in a 10particular sector stays constant. It is just a 11 question of whether it is on the ground or in the air.

12DR. BIXLER: Yes, that's right. It 13 potentially could decay but it doesn't move to another 14 place.15JUDGE ABRAMSON: All right. I understand 16 the model. That's all I want to understand.

17 MS. LAMPERT: Okay, may I make a comment 18 on that?19 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, hold on.

20 MS. LAMPERT: It is an important one.

21CHAIR YOUNG: Hold on. Hold on, Ms.

22 Lampert.23Okay, so I am trying to clarify this 24 issue. And the issue is whether anything that was 25 924 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 deposited on the plant site is taken into account in 1 the manner of it being resuspended and then deposited 2 somewhere, transported and deposited into an offsite 3 segment. 4 And I think I hear you saying at this 5 point no, that is note done.

6 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Not after seven days.

7 Right?8DR. BIXLER: No, it is not done. It is a 9 local model and as Dr. O'Kula said, what deposits on 10 the site, it may be a trivial or a very small fraction 11 of the overall release anyway. But --

12CHAIR YOUNG: So that is the basic answer 13 to the concern is that it is a trivial amount.

14 MS. LAMPERT: Okay.

15DR. BIXLER: Okay, did I fully answer your 16 question on that?

17CHAIR YOUNG: I think I understand at this 18 point. I think what the challenge is is that the 19 model doesn't take into account resuspension of 20 deposits on-site moving offsite and being deposited.

21 And I think you are saying that is correct --

22 DR. BIXLER: That is correct.

23CHAIR YOUNG: -- but the amount is a small 24 fraction that would not be significant. Do you have 25 925 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 any percentage amount?

1 DR. BIXLER: It would depend on the 2 specific incidents and how high the plume is lofted.

3The larger releases tend to have more energy and so 4 they would be lofted, usually hundreds of meters into 5the atmosphere. And so in those cases, the larger 6 releases would tend to have very little deposition on-7 site. The very small ones would tend to have a larger 8 fraction on-site.

9CHAIR YOUNG: Do you have a range? I 10 mean, just a ballpark figure?

11 DR. BIXLER: No, that is not something I 12 have ever specifically looked at.

13JUDGE ABRAMSON: Would you say the larger 14 releases dominate the damages?

15 DR. BIXLER: Yes, I would say that. And 16 it would depend, the answer to your question would 17 depend on how far away the site boundary is from the 18actual point of release. It would depend on the 19 amount of energy in the release. Those two things 20 would be essential to be able to answer the question.

21 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

22JUDGE COLE: Does this require any 23 knowledge of the settlement characteristics of density 24 and size of the particles involved?

25 926 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 DR. BIXLER: Yes, that would also play a 1 role. Yes, you are right about that, yes.

2 JUDGE COLE: So how important is that in 3 making these transport in making these transport and 4 deposition decisions?

5DR. BIXLER: The density -- What actually 6goes into the model is a deposition velocity. And --

7JUDGE COLE: So you have to know something 8 about the radionuclides in the incident and what their 9 settlement characteristics are and size.

10 DR. BIXLER: That's right.

11JUDGE COLE: And depending on the kind of 12accident, you might get more deposition closer or 13 further out or the size of the accident?

14 DR. BIXLER: 3 Yes, the aerosol sizes tend 15to be fairly similar from one accident to another. It 16 is more the quantity of things that are released that 17 are variant from one accident to another than the 18 size.19 JUDGE COLE: All right. Thank you.

20 DR. O'KULA: As a maximum case, we did a 21 sensitivity study to figure that, just what at best in 22 a worst-case scenario in terms of the characteristics 23 of the release, how much would deposit on-site. And 24 at the most, we saw two percent.

25 927 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, thank you.

1MS. LAMPERT: Can I just add a comment?

2 Dr. Bixler was talking about that it was conservative 3based upon doing a test out in the desert. Why would 4 that be conservative for here? Because in a desert, 5 as you saw in the Molenkamp reference, the winds are 6more likely to blow in a straight line, unlike what 7would happen here. So it would be a different 8 situation. And I am referencing, I would reference 9 the conservatism to Dr. Egan's statement.

10CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Yes, let's try to 11keep it to that because we are going to give you a 12chance to do closing arguments. And right now, we are 13 just trying to clarify things.

14MS. LAMPERT: I'm just trying to be 15 helpful.16 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, thank you.

17 The PSA, that is where you determined the 18 19 accident scenarios and I assume that that is also 19 where the frequency of occurrence would come from.

20 And that is based on information on the probability 21 that is obtained from where?

22DR. O'KULA: Okay. Again, that is a 23 question or that it reference back to the PSA 24discussion, which looks at what type of internal 25 928 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433events could occur; what type of internal severe 1 accidents could occur; what their frequency is. So, 2 this is in the realm of doing the fault tree and other 3 type of --

4CHAIR YOUNG: So it goes all the way down 5 to pieces of equipment and equipment failure at the 6 smallest level.

7DR. O'KULA: Combining not only the 8 initiating event but when the engineering safety 9features are challenged by the severe accidents, do 10they fail, do they work. You know, how likely are 11they to be able to run or operate? So all that is 12 factored into the level one and level two PRA -- PSA 13 work.14 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, thanks.

15 Dr. Hanna, you did the analyses using the 16CALMET and I think there has been a challenge to 17whether that adequately provides the same kind of 18 information that other models that Pilgrim Watch has 19 brought up would provide.

20 Are you familiar enough with Pilgrim 21 Watch's challenges that you can sort of explain the 22 differences between what you did and what could be 23 provided by the other models?

24 Now I do understand that one of the main 25 929 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 issues is that a lot of the models that Pilgrim Watch 1 and its experts have suggested are, Entergy is saying 2 and I think the staff is saying, that those models are 3 very useful for immediate emergency planning and 4 planning for environmental purposes but that the SAMA 5 analysis, because it looks at cost benefit, doesn't 6 require that level of specificity. And the accuracy 7 is equaled by using the segmented process.

8 But I wanted to get just a little bit more 9 from what all the parties have to offer on the 10 differences and whether, as Pilgrim Watch is 11 suggesting, using a more refined model could actually 12 make a difference in the ultimate cost-benefit 13 analysis. I think that you and Dr. O'Kula both said 14 it was highly unlikely that it would make any 15 difference, if I am remembering that right.

16Does my question make sense? It was sort 17 of long.18DR. HANNA: Yes, Judge Young, I believe I 19can follow it. There have been a number of models 20 that have been suggested and I tend to call a 21 meteorological model one that just gives you the wind 22fields and stabilities and so on. Then they are 23linked with a transport and dispersion model that 24gives you the concentrations and depositions. I 25 930 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 believe you are talking about both of those types of 1 models.2CHAIR YOUNG: Yes, and I didn't really 3 specify between them. Right. I guess to the extent 4that you can, what I am looking for is a little bit 5greater understanding of why it is highly unlikely 6 that using a more nuanced model that takes into 7 account changes in wind direction and so forth, would 8 not produce differences in the ultimate outcome.

9 DR. HANNA: Yes, I see. Well, the major 10 question that I addressed in my report on analysis of 11 wind rose and CALMET trajectories was the question of 12 the wind variability and whether if you did account 13 for all the local observations for a whole year, for 14every hour, whether you would get a significantly 15different result in the trajectories of plumes, as 16they are being moved around the domain. So there was 17the purpose of that. Because the current SAMA 18analysis is using the Pilgrim wind information from 19 the 33-foot level and then assuming that for all the 20 various hours of the year.

21 So, it looked to me like one of the major 22 question is what would happen if you did use all of 23 these additional wind observations. So that is what 24we did. And we looked around for various capabilities 25 931 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 that different agencies had for determining the wind 1 fields. And every agency has two or three different 2 models, although they are similar to each other for 3 addressing this.

4CHAIR YOUNG: Can I interrupt you for one 5 second? For determining the wind fields, just a 6 simple explanation of is the wind field the whole area 7 where a particular, where it could go, instead of 8 going straight, it could go in one or more different 9 directions. The wind field is --

10 DR. HANNA: Yes, I guess I am sort of, I 11should have been more clear on that. What we are 12trying to do is for each hour, and that is the time 13 period that the observations are available for several 14 stations around there for each hour, then you 15 determine a wind field which varies in distance across 16 the whole 50-mile radius domain and also varies in 17 height.18JUDGE ABRAMSON: By that you mean a 19 velocity and a direction for every point in this grid 20 that occupies the 50-mile?

21 DR. HANNA: That's correct.

22 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Thank you.

23DR. HANNA: A speed and a direction for 24ever point within this three-dimensional grid. And it 25 932 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433varies hour-by-hour for the year. And we used 2001 1 because that is the year that was used for the SAMA 2 analysis.3 So in order to address that, when I first 4 checked around different agencies about the existing 5wind field models, as I described. And we also needed 6a capability to calculate trajectories in order to 7 follow these hypothetical plumes around. So for 8 example, you would assume a parcel of air was released 9 at the Pilgrim station on a certain hour and then it 10would move in a certain direction. And the next hour, 11 you would have the parcel of air would be out here 12 some other place and would be influenced by whatever 13 the winds were at that place at that time and so on.

14 So we need to follow it around, just like you are 15 following a balloon moving through the wind field and 16 determine where it passed over different distances, 10 17 kilometer, 20 kilometer, and out to 50 kilometer arcs.

18 CHAIR YOUNG: Art?

19 DR. HANNA: Well circles.

20 CHAIR YOUNG: Arc, A-R-C.

21 DR. HANNA: A-R-C, yes.

22 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, thanks.

23 DR. HANNA: So one of the candidates was 24 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 25 933 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 HYSPLIT model.

1 CHAIR YOUNG: Ice?

2DR. HANNA: H-Y-S-P-L-I-T. And that is 3 the group in Silver Spring with the Air Resources Lab.

4 This trajectory model is widely used but 5 unfortunately, it doesn't lend itself to calculating 6 the wind fields every hour on an easy basis.

7So we then looked at the CALMET model, 8 which is the wind field model that the EPA has that it 9 uses to provide wind speeds and directions to its 10 CALPUFF dispersion model and I talked with the people 11 who had developed that and they said well it doesn't 12 really calculate trajectories for a whole year on an 13 easy basis.

14 So we decided to write our own software to 15 calculate the trajectories because it is pretty 16 straightforward. You just follow the parcel around 17 and that is how we ended up with this CALMET model.

18 And what that uses is the available surface wind 19stations in the area. You know, like Taunton, 20 Plymouth Municipal Airport, all the small and large 21airport sites. And to be useful, they have to have 22 data for most hours of the year so that it restricts 23 it. I think there was about 26 total and it included 24 some over water buoys data that are available.

25 934 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 And you also need the vertical wind 1 structure in order to extrapolate from the surface 2 upward. And from that, you use balloons, radiosonde 3 balloons that are set up twice a day at Chatham, 4Massachusetts is the nearest one. And the next 5nearest one after that is Gray, Maine. So we have got 6 both of those vertical balloon data and then the 7 surface data and just followed standard procedures for 8building these wind speed and direction fields for 9 every hour.

10 Then we calculated trajectories of each of 11 these hypothetical parcels released every hour. And 12 sometimes it took the parcel a few hours to make it 13out to the 50-mile boundary radius. And wherever the 14 parcels crossed, one of these 20, 30, 40, 50-mile 15circles, we noted what direction it passed. You know, 16 did it pass along the north sector, the northeast 17 sector or whatever?

18 And after we got done with that, for every 19 hour2.199074e-4 days <br />0.00528 hours <br />3.141534e-5 weeks <br />7.2295e-6 months <br /> of the year we just tallied up the fraction of 20 time the trajectories passed over the different 21 locations. And if there was some persistent 22 significant curvature effect going on, this would show 23 up, supposing the winds, most them would go off shore 24 and then curl around and come back and go over to the 25 935 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 Boston area. Or the opposite thing, they might curl 1 away from it. So that is what this addresses is the 2 question that was brought up by Pilgrim Watch about 3the variable winds and possible curvatures of the 4 trajectories.

5 And we then looked at the annual winds.

6 And the reason we looked at annual is because the SAMA 7 deals with the total annual period, not just hour-by-8 hour.9CHAIR YOUNG: Let me just interject there.

10 If you can't answer it and somebody else has to, we 11can just move on. But another challenge has been 12raised to using one year instead of five years. Do 13 you know anything about why the one year was used as 14 opposed to five years, for example?

15CHAIR YOUNG: If you don't, just say that.

16DR. HANNA: Well I believe the one year is 17 the standard but Dr. O'Kula and --

18 CHAIR YOUNG: We can come back to that.

19DR. HANNA: -- Dr. Bixler could answer 20 that.21 CHAIR YOUNG: We can come back to that.

22DR. HANNA: Yes, so what we then compared 23 was the wind rose that is used at the Pilgrim site and 24 it is like a petal-shaped rose, it is in the report, 25 936 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 and tells you the fraction of time the wind is blowing 1and the different sectors. We compared that from the 2 33-foot level at the Pilgrim station to the trajectory 3 calculated rose in order to see if there was any major 4 differences. And as it turned out, there were a few 5 minor differences, you know, two percent different 6here or there, different sectors. But in general they 7 were about the same and, therefore, there was not a 8 significant effect on an annual basis of accounting 9 for the observed winds and how they vary in time and 10 space.11CHAIR YOUNG: So if you know this answer; 12if you don't, don't. Did this lead you to any 13 conclusions about the amount of deposition that would 14 end up or be in the different segments of the wind 15 rose or the whole picture? And one of the arguments 16is that by not taking into account some of these 17variations, it could under estimate the amount of 18 deposition that could end up in more populated areas, 19for example. Is that part of the analysis you did, 20 whether it would affect that or was yours limited to 21 just the wind and the deposition is a separate matter?

22DR. HANNA: Well the analysis I have 23described was limited to the wind analysis. However, 24from my experience in looking at concentration and 25 937 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 deposition patterns, they tend to follow the wind 1 rose. And it is, I guess, common sense that the 2 direction where the wind blows most often is where you 3 have the highest concentrations, and vice versa. So 4 it tends to follow the wind rose patterns.

5JUDGE ABRAMSON: And from your studies, 6did you find material differences from what was 7 computed in the SAMA Gaussian models?

8DR. HANNA: Well we did a further 9 analyses, looking at the weighting by the population 10 and that is, Dr. O'Kula did that aspect of it. We 11 took the wind rose and then waited it by the 12 population and you get differences of two or three 13 percent in different sectors. And there is not a --

14JUDGE ABRAMSON: Differences between what 15 was computed using the Gaussian Plume Model that is in 16 SAMA and what was computed using the detailed data?

17 Is that what you --

18 DR. HANNA: We did not go all the way to 19 doing the model calculation with the different wind 20 information.

21 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So what can we conclude 22 from your examination of using a variety, a number of 23 sources of data, rather than the one source of data?

24What is the conclusion? How big is the area or is 25 938 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 there none?

1DR. HANNA: We can conclude, well I don't 2 know whether it is an error or not.

3JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay, how big is the 4 difference?

5DR. HANNA: The difference is on the order 6 of a few percent.

7JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay, thank you. That to 8 me is the meat of it.

9MS. LAMPERT: My one comment and the 10 reference would be Dr. Egan's two statements, and also 11Dr. Spengler's. So those are the three and DOE is 12 fourth.13 There seems like the major difference 14 between the CALMET and the CALPUFF-type model is that 15the CALMET does not change direction. And that was 16Dr. Egan's major problem. That here because of its 17 coastal location, because of the topography not being 18 a flat, plain area like Kansas, that it was 19 inappropriate.

20 And the information that Entergy asked of 21 their expert did not address properly the core 22 question.23 CHAIR YOUNG: Did the CALMET not address 24 the --25 939 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 MS. LAMPERT: -- change in direction.

1 CHAIR YOUNG: -- wind changes? The 2 changes in direction.

3DR. HANNA: It did address the changes in 4 direction.

5 CHAIR YOUNG: That's what I thought.

6DR. HANNA: It is following the 7 trajectory. So whatever the local wind is, the 8 trajectory is going to blow that way.

9JUDGE ABRAMSON: You took the wind pattern 10 hour-by-hour, moved the particles for the hour, looked 11 to see what the wind was in the next spot, moved it in 12 the direction of that and at that speed, and moved it 13around like a particle and cell process. Is that 14 right?15MS. LAMPERT: I would direct you to the 16 findings of fact that go specifically to the testimony 17 provided, which says specifically that the model, 18 segmented plume model, I forgot what page it was, does 19 not change direction.

20 JUDGE ABRAMSON: We will look.

21 CHAIR YOUNG: I think that --

22MS. LAMPERT: Okay? So that is the point.

23And as Dr. Egan pointed out and I wish he had been 24 paid to come here today, I didn't understand that you 25 940 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 were going to be here, and you guys are friends anyway 1--2 MR. LEWIS: Your Honor?

3MS. LAMPERT: -- that he would say very 4 specifically that this did not model appropriately 5 what was done and it is in the statement.

6JUDGE ABRAMSON: We understand your 7 position.8 MS. LAMPERT: Okay, that is the point.

9MR. LEWIS: Your Honor, I just want to 10make clear she is talking about MACCS2. The claims 11that are pretty interesting about MACCS2 and the 12 CALMET trajectory directly addresses those claims and 13the CALMET model is the model used by EPA. It is the 14three-dimensional wind field model that is used to 15 generate the wind fields that CALPUFF uses.

16MS. LAMPERT: You don't take the second 17 step.18MR. LEWIS: And it takes into account all 19the variation in winds. And that is all in Dr.

20 Hanna's report.

21 CHAIR YOUNG: Well and we will --

22 MS. LAMPERT: It's not.

23JUDGE ABRAMSON: We will look at the 24 expert reports.

25 941 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 CHAIR YOUNG: We will look at it.

1 Another area of clarification that I would 2 like to ask a couple of questions about and that has 3 to do with two things and I don't know how much they 4are related. But one is the precipitation and one is 5 the air mass, ozone layer mass or pollution air mass.

6 I believe that there was discussion of 7precipitation in terms of rain and drizzle or fog. I 8didn't know whether snow was covered. And I will just 9ask all of my questions at once. So whoever knows the 10 answer can respond.

11 And then on the ozone air mass, I know 12 there was testimony about that behaves differently 13 than wind carrying sources of radiation. But I used 14 to live in Nashville, Tennessee and it sort of a bowl.

15 And you can see coming in from outside Nashville, 16 which I used to do every morning, the bowl would sort 17 of collect a big collection of smog.

18 So the question is, in these wind 19 trajectories or wind, can the plume of radiation or 20 whatever it carries that produces radiation, ever get 21 caught up in one of those air masses?

22 I understand that the testimony is that 23they behave differently. Is there any -- Can they 24ever interact? And to what extent and to what effect, 25 942 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 I guess is the question.

1DR. HANNA: Well both types of plumes are 2 disbursing in the same atmosphere. So the winds are 3the same. The stabilities are the same and so on. So 4 they are affected by the same basic atmosphere.

5 But the difference is, to think of your 6discussion on Nashville, is that it is a broad air 7mass that is filled with a lot of pollution coming 8 from traffic --

9 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

10DR. HANNA: -- and power plants and 11industries, and so on. So it is a combined plume and 12 that is what the ozone plume is that was studied by 13 Angevine and his colleagues in eastern Massachusetts.

14 It forms over large distances and long periods of 15 time. It comes up there is emissions all the way from 16Richmond up through Boston. So by the time it is 17 here, it is several hundred miles wide and spilling up 18the mixed layer. And it has a concentration or a 19 fairly uniform across, you know, 50 to 100 parts per 20billion, maybe. So that is already a big, broad 21 plume.22 But from the Pilgrim plant stack, it 23 starts out as a little relatively small stack plume 24which is then dispersing in the atmosphere. So while 25 943 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 they are both in the same atmosphere, they are 1behaving differently in terms of the way the 2concentration varies. The stack plume is rapidly 3disbursing due to entrainment of the ambient air. So 4 you have rapid decrease and concentration of the plume 5 as it proceeds wherever it is going.

6CHAIR YOUNG: Right. What I was wondering 7is, how do they interact? If there were a release 8 while that ozone mass were there, what effect would 9that have? And I guess maybe they are not related but 10 in my mind I was also relating that to the issue of 11precipitation and snow. How do those things interact?

12DR. HANNA: Yes, well the ozone plume 13 consists of chemicals like nitrogen oxides and 14 nitrates and sulfates and ozone.

15 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

16DR. HANNA: And then you would put the 17radioactive pollutants in that. And I don't know 18 about the reaction.

19JUDGE ABRAMSON: Has that been studied in 20 these studies?

21DR. HANNA: I'm sure it has been studied.

22JUDGE ABRAMSON: No. Has it been studied 23 in this context, in the is particular analysis?

24 DR. HANNA: Not in our analysis.

25 944 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay, that is all I need 1to know. Thank you. It hasn't been looked at.

2 Right?3 CHAIR YOUNG: The reason I was asking is 4 because in response to Pilgrim Watch information about 5 the Angevine thing, about the ozone air mass with all 6 the nitrous oxide and all the whatever pollutants in 7 it, that the kind of plume we are talking about from 8 a release that is analyzed in the SAMA analysis, those 9 are different.

10 And so what I am trying to understand is 11how far does that argument go? Are they still 12 different, if the release happens in one of those air 13 masses? That is what I'm trying to get some 14 clarification about; the extent to which the argument 15 that they are different, how that would work in that 16 situation.

17 DR. HANNA: Yes, well I have not studied 18 the reactions of nitrates with the radioactive. I'm 19 sure the literature is full of that type of studies.

20 I would expect there wasn't a very strong reaction.

21 But the key aspect of what I was writing in my report 22about the difference between the ozone study by 23 Angevine and the Pilgrim scenario is that he and his 24 group, his NOAA group, were focusing on a few days in 25 945 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 the summer when ozone has its highest concentration.

1 And those tend to be days with high temperatures and 2relatively light winds and strong high pressure. And 3 those are conditions with the hot air and the 4 southwest winds that you are going to have stability 5 over the water.

6 So he makes some statements in his report 7that says the air is always stable over the water.

8 But what he really meant is that in the five days that 9he studied in the summer, the air was stable. And as 10 I tried to point out in my analysis, that even in the 11summer, it is not always stable. But when you look at 12 the entire year as you have to in the SAMA analysis, 13 the water, for example, this time of year you can have 14the opposite happening. You can have great 15 instabilities over the water.

16 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Do you want to just 17 finish up your sentence and then we will take a short 18 break?19 DR. HANNA: I finished.

20 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

21MS. LAMPERT: Can I just make a comment to 22 that?23 CHAIR YOUNG: Ms. Lampert, go ahead.

24MS. LAMPERT: It will be quick. That the 25 946 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 point in referring to Dr. Angevine, etcetera studies 1was not the interaction between smog, etcetera. It 2 was the principle of the thing, the behavior of a 3 plume, irrespective of what it was, over water tending 4 to remain more concentrated.

5 Now we had heard that that particular 6 study referenced it only occurred over a five day 7 period. He did not mention, nor is there, 8 qualification in it that this will only happen with 9 weather conditions precisely during those five days.

10 That there have been other studies but they aren't on 11 the record, that Angevine has done with Sam Miller 12 that indicate the principle is holding.

13 Obviously, if you have a hurricane and 14 tidal waves, it is going to be a different thing, but 15 how often does that happen?

16 So that is my point.

17DR. HANNA: Well, I would disagree with 18 that.19MS. LAMPERT: Well, that happens. Doesn't 20 it?21DR. HANNA: As I said, during the winter, 22 and I live about a quarter of a mile from the sea in 23Maine and so I get to see. And there are observations 24over water, many research studies that show these 25 947 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 extreme instabilities that occur over the water when 1 you have the warm ocean water, say in January and cold 2 air blowing over it after a front and you have as 3 strong instabilities as you have in the worst deserts 4in the world. It is very unstable in those 5 conditions.

6 So yes sometimes in the year it is more 7stable over the water. Other times of the year, it is 8 unstable. It is less -- well unstable means well 9 mixed.10And so since the SAMA applies for the 11 entire year, then I am saying that the pluses and the 12 minuses are canceling themselves out, approximately.

13CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, let's take a five 14 minute break and we will be back.

15 (Whereupon, the foregoing proceeding went 16 off the record at 2:01 p.m. and went back 17 on the record at 2:12 p.m.)

18 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, back on the record.

19MR. LEWIS: With respect to your question 20 on the 50 miles, I think your questions kind of could 21 have Dr. O'Kula could talk about the regulatory basis.

22 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

23 MR. LEWIS: I would like to ask a couple 24 of clarifying questions with respect to studies.

25 948 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 Okay?1 CHAIR YOUNG: With respect to?

2MR. LEWIS: With respect to the existence 3 of studies that look at consequences --

4 CHAIR YOUNG: Oh.

5MR. LEWIS: -- beyond 50 miles, which I 6 think would address some of the questions Your Honor 7 was asking.

8CHAIR YOUNG: Well, go ahead. Just say 9 whatever you want.

10MR. LEWIS: Okay. Well Dr. O'Kula, would 11 you please address any studies on consequences beyond 12 50 miles that were relevant to Judge Young's questions 13 concerning the effect after 50 miles.

14 DR. O'KULA: The one study that could be 15 pointed out that has had quite a bit of reading to it 16 and review has been the NUREG-1150 study, again, that 17 we cited previously published in 1990.

18 In the assessment of the five plants, 19 again, the PSAs were site-specific and used regional 20 data appropriate for those five plants, the analyses 21 published summary documentation for the five plants 22and gave various indices of risk reported. And these 23 included population dose risk for the 50-mile region, 24which was applied for NUREG-1150. But they also 25 949 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433extended the population dose risk curves for the 1 plants, each of the plants, to also look at how this 2 would change with extending that 50 miles to a 3 thousand miles, what they call a regional basis.

4 Now what the additional distance did 5seemed to increase the population dose that was 6 reported but the increase varied from plant to plant 7 but it was on the order of ten to 30 percent of the 8 mean curve that would be increased by --

9 CHAIR YOUNG: The 50 to 1000 mile --

10 DR. O'KULA: Yes, --

11 CHAIR YOUNG: -- distance was --

12 DR. O'KULA: -- by adding that.

13 So again as Mr. Harris, I believe said, it 14 does drop off precipitously and the plume would 15dissipate the distance. But even if you added that 16 additional population dose, assuming that the plume is 17 headed in a certain direction, that the incremental 18 increase would be on the order, and again, it was 19 plant variable but it was on the order of ten to 20 thirty percent.

21 JUDGE COLE: For another 950 miles?

22 DR. O'KULA: Yes.

23JUDGE COLE: Did they say what it was for 24 the next ten miles?

25 950 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 DR. O'KULA: No, I can't give you that.

1MS. LAMPERT: What is interesting about 2 that in the paper, in the statement from David Chanin 3 that is New York that I referred you to was his point 4 that all of these referenced studies use the same 5 methodology that he says is flawed. The same flawed 6 assumptions. The same meteorological model. The same 7 code. The same assumptions in the input and they are 8all not worth the paper they are written on. So I 9 think that is just an interesting point.

10 So when one is citing 1150 or if you are 11 going back to WASH-1400 or what have you, are you 12doing the same old thing over and over again? And 13 does that make it any more truthful?

14 CHAIR YOUNG: Does Dr. Chanin address --

15 MS. LAMPERT: He is not a doctor.

16 CHAIR YOUNG: Mr. Chanin?

17 MS. LAMPERT: He is David Chanin.

18CHAIR YOUNG: It seems like I recall 19 something to the effect that his, what he said was 20 mainly to do with the cost issues and not with the 21 plume so much?

22MS. LAMPERT: Well the cost issues are 23 effective. With the plume, what does the Plume Model 24 do? It defines the area of impact and the potential 25 951 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 deposition within that area. Then you start getting 1 into your dollars.

2CHAIR YOUNG: Right. But what I was 3 asking is does he address -- To what extent does he 4 address the plume?

5 MS. LAMPERT: Not very much.

6CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. By the way, maybe 7this is a good time to ask this now. I think you have 8 said, and I know that other parties have quoted you as 9 saying that the plume, changing the plume analysis, 10 wouldn't really make any difference.

11 MS. LAMPERT: No, I didn't say that.

12CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Why don't you clarify 13 what you did say because I know that --

14 MS. LAMPERT: What I did clarify -- What 15I did state is this. That the plume model that is 16 used will show what likely areas there are that will 17be impacted and the deposition within that area. That 18is what it shows. You know, there aren't dollar signs 19 there, etcetera.

20 So then the question becomes your economic 21 analysis and the validity of the assumptions for the 22area, now that it is defined to be of interest. That 23 is what I said. Does that make any sense to you?

24CHAIR YOUNG: With regard to the 25 952 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433limitation of the issue to whether just changing 1 things about how the plume analysis is done would make 2 a difference in the ultimate cost-benefit analysis.

3MS. LAMPERT: That is why I understood it 4 was bifurcated.

5 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So --

6MS. LAMPERT: So you have to go to the 7 next step.

8 CHAIR YOUNG: But what I am asking is --

9 MS. LAMPERT: God help me.

10 CHAIR YOUNG: -- are you saying that --

11 JUDGE ABRAMSON: And the rest of us.

12 (Laughter.)

13CHAIR YOUNG: Are you saying that -- With 14 regard to the issue of whether changing only the plume 15 analysis, only the ATMOS part of the SAMA analysis, 16 did you say at one point that that on its own wouldn't 17 make a significant difference in the --

18 MS. LAMPERT: It would --

19 CHAIR YOUNG: -- ultimate cost-benefits?

20MS. LAMPERT: The ultimate cost, if you 21 take everything else away that is wrong, okay, in 22 determining costs, then you are unlikely to show a 23significant difference. But then you haven't 24 addressed the fundamental question that was brought 25 953 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 forward because --

1 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

2 MS. LAMPERT: -- common sense would tell 3 you if a larger area, a particular area is impacted, 4 particularly if there can be an impact -- the model 5 and to show an impact in more highly populated areas 6and it is likely to make a difference. How large a 7 difference will it make is A) something that they 8 haven't bothered showing, number one; but you would 9 really need if you wanted to get this whole analysis 10 off the fiction shelf, you would have to consider also 11 how the economics are figured to minimize consequence.

12 But that is for another day.

13CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. And I guess -- I 14don't know. I will probably repeat this from time to 15 time but maybe it is a good time to repeat it again.

16 And that is, that obviously the issues before us that 17 we have any authority to decide are limited. And we 18 are bound by the rule of law to base our decisions 19 only on what the law provides and what is before us 20 and the Commission's decisions are precedent that 21 define what our jurisdiction is, basically.

22 And the fact that we do limit our 23 decisions and are required to limit our decisions to 24 the issues before us, the law, and the facts related 25 954 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433to those issues, also protects you because that 1 assures that we won't go in a different direction when 2 another party asks us to go outside the legal issues 3 that are before us.

4 So, --5MS. LAMPERT: So fundamental is what is 6 the size of the area likely to be impacted; therefore, 7 what type of meteorological plume model do you have to 8 use? Do you use one that is appropriate for here or 9 not?10If as we said of the area likely to be 11 impacted if they used a variable plume model that took 12 account of the conditions here and what is 13 appropriate, it is likely a larger area would be 14 impacted and the deposition within that area would be 15 larger.16 How much larger? I don't know. And you 17 know what? They don't know either.

18CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. We are going to come 19back to closing arguments in a minute. I want to just 20 finish some clarification questions.

21 On the issue of precipitation, which is 22 another issue that has been raised, and I think I 23 mentioned it before that I saw references to rain and 24maybe drizzle or fog. Does the SAMA analysis take 25 955 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 into account snow and does anything behave differently 1 in snow than it would in rain or fog or drizzle?

2 DR. HANNA: I don't know about snow. Do 3 you? Oh, fog is part of it? Yes.

4 CHAIR YOUNG: I think in Entergy's --

5DR. HANNA: Yes, I can talk about general 6 precipitation and somebody else can address the snow.

7 But --8CHAIR YOUNG: Well really all I am asking 9 about is the snow because I think the pleadings say 10 that the SAMA analysis does address rain and fog.

11MS. LAMPERT: Does it address fog? Where 12 was that mentioned? In Plymouth? Was it fog?

13 CHAIR YOUNG: Mr. Lewis or Mr. --

14DR. HANNA: It addresses fog to the extent 15 that the measurement at the Pilgrim site on the tower 16 is, for example, the temperature difference between 17 the 220 and 33 foot level would be affected by the 18 fog. I don't believe there is any algorithm in the 19model itself that says this is fog. If it is thick 20enough fog and there is some drizzle, then it is 21reflected in the Plymouth Municipal Airport. It would 22 be reported as a trace of rain and that would then go 23 into the SAMA analysis.

24 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

25 956 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433DR. HANNA: Well fogs tend to be not 1 stable because, I mean stable temperature gradient, 2 they tend to be more of a well-mixed temperature 3 gradient. So it is not really a worst-case condition.

4MR. LEWIS: And the fog is addressed in 5the rebuttal testimony that we filed, the last 6 question and answer in the rebuttal testimony.

7CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, I thought I remembered 8 it from one of those.

9 MR. HARRIS: Judge Young, Dr. Bixler may 10 be able to address the question on the snow.

11 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

12DR. BIXLER: Snow is addressed as 13precipitation in the same fashion as rain is. So, you 14measure how much is falling and striking an area on 15the ground or near the ground. Measure that and then 16 it is treated exactly the same way.

17 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, thank you.

18 MS. LAMPERT: What about the question of 19the effect of fog increasing effect? In other words, 20 holding the contamination, bringing the contamination 21down closer and holding it? I think that is a factor 22 that Spangler talked about and also Dr. Land talked 23 about it after Pilgrim blew their filters in '82.

24DR. HANNA: Well, I can't really see that 25 957 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433as a legitimate scientific explanation. I am not 1familiar with how that would happen. As I just 2 explained, fog is generally is generally not a stable 3 atmosphere. It is more of a well-mixed atmosphere.

4 And the fog is tiny little droplets that don't really 5settle significantly. And so it is not like they are 6settling out on the ground. So I don't see how either 7 of those affects --

8 MS. LAMPERT: Well it would be the 9 effectively raising.

10MR. LEWIS: Judge Young, the question 11 should be directed to you and then if you want to ask 12 Dr. Hanna a question, that would be entirely 13 appropriately.

14CHAIR YOUNG: We are giving a little 15 leeway for everybody to one extent or another here.

16 But I think it is a good thing to move on.

17Let's see. In the testimony of Mr. Bixler 18 or Dr. Bixler and Ms. Ghosh -- Is that right?

19 MR. HARRIS: It is doctor.

20CHAIR YOUNG: And is Ghosh the right 21 pronunciation?

22 MS. GHOSH: Yes.

23CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. On page 22, your 24 answer 38, you mentioned the largest observed 25 958 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 deviation between mean results produced by MACCS2 and 1 LODI was 58 percent; and between RASCAL and LODI was 261 percent. Is the significance of those is that they 3are less than 100 percent? I just wasn't clear on --

4DR. BIXLER: No. The point there, I 5 think, was that when you average over the course of a 6year, the errors of the two types of codes, the 7 Gaussian puff code and the Gaussian plume code or the 8 Gaussian Plume Segment Code, as MACCS2 is, is roughly 9 equal. It is -- The point is --

10CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. So you have the 58 to 11 the 61 is what you are saying.

12 DR. BIXLER: Yes.

13 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

14DR. BIXLER: The two are almost the same.

15 One is not a lot better than the other.

16 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

17JUDGE ABRAMSON: So from that can we find 18 as a fact that the meteorological computations from 19 the Gaussian plume model cannot be reasonably expected 20 to vary from those of the more detailed by more than 21 a factor of two or something like that?

22 DR. BIXLER: Yes, that is the main point 23 there is that we were using LODI as a surrogate for 24what would really happen. Because it is the state of 25 959 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 the art, for the whole country, it is the state of the 1 art code for doing dispersion. So it is intended to 2 be very accurate.

3 And we were comparing other, lower 4 fidelity models with it and finding that in the worst 5 case, in the very worst case, we were a little bit 6 more than a factor of two but in nearly all cases, we 7 were within a factor of two, even upon a grid element 8specific basis. Where you are looking at a direction 9 and distance, the answers were less than a factor of 10 two.11JUDGE ABRAMSON: Not approaching a factor 12 of 20?13 DR. BIXLER: Nothing close to that.

14 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Thank you.

15CHAIR YOUNG: Is Mr. or Dr. Ramsdell here?

16MR. HARRIS: Mr. Ramsdell is not here. So 17--18CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Again, I am having a 19 hard time reading things.

20 JUDGE COLE: Need a flashlight?

21JUDGE ABRAMSON: We could use a spotlight.

22 MS. LAMPERT: Couldn't they bring a lamp 23 in? You know, they have plugs.

24 CHAIR YOUNG: It's okay.

25 960 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433JUDGE ABRAMSON: We didn't know about 1 plugs.2 (Laughter.)

3MS. LAMPERT: I thought you were into 4 electricity up there.

5 JUDGE ABRAMSON: I'm just electric.

6 MS. LAMPERT: Atomic.

7 (Pause.)8 CHAIR YOUNG: Ms. Lampert, to the extent 9 that you can point us to specific testimony of your 10 experts, can you address -- It may already be 11addressed to the extent that you can. The issue of 12some of the models that your experts were 13 recommending, not taking into account the radiological 14content and dispersion. I think Dr. Egan said that it 15 wouldn't be as difficult as Entergy said it would be 16 to fit those issues into the other models.

17 MS. LAMPERT: That is correct. Dr. Egan 18 talked about that in the sections dealing with NEPA.

19 He disagreed with Entergy's experts that it would take 20like seven years to get it up to speed. He talked 21 about the fact that the basic research for a variable 22 plume model such as CALPUFF had essentially been done, 23 that it satisfied all the points brought forward by 24the NRC Commissioners, I think it was the one that 25 961 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433came out in June what was it 1015 or something? I 1don't know what it was. That they were talking about 2NEPA on page 30 of the Commission document. Was it 3 reliable? Was it applicable? Etcetera, etcetera.

4 And Dr. Egan addressed each of those 5saying yes, it is perfectly doable. It should have 6been done. EPA has been using these advanced codes 7 over and over for years. Dr. Egan himself testified 8 that he had used a CALPUFF with MM5 for a study for 9 the Mass Department of Public Health on contamination 10coming to Cape Cod. He said, this is perfectly 11 doable. 12 And in Entergy's testimony, they seemed to 13 try to blow it all off by having a distinction that, 14oh, emergency planning or EPA's tracking of plume 15 models is totally different.

16 And on the last page of Dr. Egan's second 17statement, he said no, and also on the first page, 18that no, there isn't a difference. This is a false 19 statement. In all those circumstances, you want to 20 base the decision, and particularly if you are 21 deciding on a nuclear accident, on a reliable model.

22That they are out there. It is possible to do it.

23Probably what they spent on their experts fighting 24 about this for almost six years, they could have done 25 962 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 it, when they knew it was an issue in 2006.

1 And the idea that oh it is not possible 2 because of the averaging over a year's time, he said 3 that was baloney, that EPA uses these models and they 4 can give an estimate, an average estimate over a 5year's time. So you see they are all red herrings as 6 far as he was concerned and it is in that last 7 statement.

8 And they are summarized and pointed to 9 10,000 times in my findings of fact and there is an 10 index to that. We tried.

11 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you.

12MS. LAMPERT: Does that answer your 13 question?14CHAIR YOUNG: Yes. When I go back, I will 15--16MS. LAMPERT: Okay. Those are the pages.

17I can see it in my mind. It was the first page and it 18went over to the top of the second and then he went 19 through it again.

20CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Let's see. I have 21 one sort of collection of questions I want to sort of 22 conclude my part with but I just want to make sure 23 there is nothing else first.

24 On the issue -- And I will direct this to 25 963 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433Entergy and the Staff. On the issue of the ability or 1 how difficult it would be to adapt one of the more 2 detailed models to the radiation aspect and the cost 3 aspect, one of the points that has been raised is that 4with today's computers, things are much easier than 5they used to be. I think maybe there was some 6 discussion somewhere that you don't need to bin things 7 anymore because the computers can now address all the 8 many different parts and much more quickly.

9 Can you respond to that argument on this?

10 Because and this is directed to counsel, you have made 11 the argument that you have included in your proposed 12findings on how difficult it would be to adapt it.

13 And so I am trying to get a sense and understanding 14 some clarification on exactly how difficult that would 15 be.16MR. LEWIS: I think what we emphasized in 17 our testimony and Dr. O'Kula can elaborate on that and 18 Dr. Hanna can, is that MACCS is a code that takes 19 output from ATMOS and transfers it to EARLY and 20 CHRONC. And so basically, you got to -- and number 21 one. And number two, also ATMOS does the radioactive 22 decay, which other models don't necessarily do.

23 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

24MR. LEWIS: Anyway, it takes the output 25 964 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 from ATMOS and takes it to EARLY to calculate damages 1 in the early phase and takes it to CHRONC to calculate 2 damages in the long-term phase. And to do that, you 3 would have to integrate, which would be substantial 4 work, to integrate the different modules, to integrate 5 either CALPUFF into MACCS or to take those features of 6MACCS and integrate them into CALPUFF. So it is 7something that is not available. It is not there, 8 okay, right now.

9 And so the point was that we made is that 10would be a very substantial cost and effort. And the 11 NRC staff witnesses, both Dr. Bixler and Mr. Ramsdell 12 echoed the same point in their testimony.

13 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Would it take different 14 input to use a code such as CALPUFF or one of the more 15detailed codes? Would you need wind field data to be 16 able to get started with those computations?

17MR. LEWIS: Well the wind field data would 18be the same type. CALMET is the wind field 19meteorological model that is used by CALPUFF. So what 20 we did in CALMET is the same type of wind field that 21 would be produced or CALPUFF.

22JUDGE ABRAMSON: And that is what you 23 would have to put in in place of ATMOS.

24 MR. LEWIS: Yes.

25 965 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433JUDGE ABRAMSON: So you need that data to 1 do that.2MR. LEWIS: From all the different weather 3 stations in the region and things of that sort, yes.

4JUDGE ABRAMSON: Correct. So it is not as 5 simple an input preparation.

6MS. LAMPERT: I was just wondering whether 7 our simplicity is the point.

8 JUDGE ABRAMSON: No. I'm just trying to 9 find out -- The assertion is that it takes time to get 10 it ready.11 MS. LAMPERT: Right.

12 JUDGE ABRAMSON: So the question is what 13 is involved.

14 MS. LAMPERT: We are going on six years.

15And so you know, they could do it. They have 16 computers. I know you could ask Dr. O'Kula I know 17 David Chanin took ten years' worth of weather data in 18studying a DOE site in Colorado. And with a fast 19 computer, it wasn't a deal.

20MR. HARRIS: This is Brian Harris. In Mr.

21 Ramsdell's testimony, it does talk about the time 22 that went into prep RASCAL and RATCHET and ADAPT and 23 LODI and the different amount of effort than what was 24 required for doing MACCS and doing that same kind of 25 966 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 analysis in answer 32.

1MS. LAMPERT: Again, you could ask a 2 question if the research has been done on --

3JUDGE ABRAMSON: I think, Ms. Lampert, 4nobody has any question it could be done. It is just 5 a question of whether it needs to be done.

6MS. LAMPERT: Exactly. Do they need to do 7a site-specific reliable study or not? That is the 8 point. Are we doing to get justify some mitigation or 9 not? That is the point. I guess money is the point.

10MR. LEWIS: I would just add actually one 11 point. She keeps talking about site-specific study.

12 The MACCS2 code that we ran is a site-specific study.

13 It took into account the year's worth of 14meteorological data for the site. It took into 15 account all the different weather conditions for the 16 site. And what it does, it takes the probability of 17 those different weather conditions and that is what 18your average is. But it takes into account all the 19 observed weather conditions and takes into account the 20 weight of probabilities of the consequences during 21 those different weather conditions.

22JUDGE ABRAMSON: If I were to ask you, Dr.

23O'Kula -- I will ask you. Where would you say the 24 most, the largest uncertainties are in the SAMA 25 967 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 analysis? Are they, for example, in defining the 1source term and its probabilities? Where do they lie?

2 DR. O'KULA: I believe a number of Ph.D.

3theses have been written on sources of uncertainty 4 with severe accidents and what is really the bottom 5 line. And so this will be my opinion. Yes, the 6 source term is a significant source of the uncertainty 7to begin with right away. And keep in mind, we are 8 talking about extremely low probability events that 9 are much lower addressed than the safety analysis 10 report. So this is in the realm of catastrophic --

11 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Ten to the minus six to 12 begin with, right, for the highest? Right?

13DR. O'KULA: So yes, and that is the 14traditional cutoff in terms of frequency of these 15 things that you see maybe somewhere, you know, ten to 16 the minus five but most of them are in the low ten to 17 the minus seven, ten to the minus six, ten to the 18 minus eight frequency.

19 So a tremendous amount of uncertainty 20 there. And we have good understanding, we have much 21 better understanding than we did 20 years ago about 22 the progression of accidents; how they would unfold in 23the plant. So there is uncertainty about what happens 24inside the containment. These computer codes are 25 968 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 linking up test data that has been developed over the 1 last 20 years in trying to simulate in an integral way 2the overall outcome of an accident. But a tremendous 3 amount of uncertainty there.

4JUDGE ABRAMSON: What would you say the 5 order of that and the size of that uncertainty 6 compares to the kind of uncertainties we are worrying 7 about today with meteorology?

8DR. O'KULA: On the front end, on the 9 frequency and the initiating events, and then into the 10 progression of accidents, easily an order of magnitude 11 up and down.

12 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Whereas, we are hearing 13 I think from Dr. Bixler that on the meteorological 14 side we are talking about a maximum of around a factor 15 of two. Is that correct?

16 DR. BIXLER: Yes, that is correct.

17 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay, so we are talking 18 about the real uncertainty in the SAMA analysis is on 19 the front end, plus or minus in order of magnitude and 20here we are worrying about a factor of two. And 21 bearing in mind this is a NEPA study, NEPA-related 22 analysis.23 Thanks.24CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, my last question or 25 969 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 series of questions, collection of questions has to do 1 in some sense -- Well let me start by saying the issue 2 of the mean consequence values has been ruled not to 3be part of this. However, there is some of the 4 testimony and some things in the proposed findings of 5fact I would like to get a little clarification on.

6 And so let me give you sort of the factors that I 7 would like for anyone to address.

8 On page 41 of Entergy's proposed findings 9 at paragraph, the end of paragraph 24, you state, 10"Taking into account a multitude of wind patterns on 11 a statistical basis and probabilistically sampling 12 from a full year of hourly conditions as done by ATMOS 13 produces a reasonable estimate of the mean 14consequences, one that is sufficient for the SAMA 15 application." 16 Now that I re-read that, the one that is 17 sufficient for the SAMA application, you may not be 18referring to the mean consequences. You may be 19 referring to the use of MACCS code there.

20 But taking the extent to which that might 21 be viewed as looking at the mean consequences, an 22 argument is made in Pilgrim Watch's proposed findings 23 as page 75, paragraph 196, that and I think there is 24 some other place, too, the basic idea that I am 25 970 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 recalling is that without being able to know what the 1 95th percentile is, you don't know the significance of 2the figure. It is harder to determine the 3significance of the figures that are arrived at. And 4 then from a nontechnical standpoint, obviously if you 5 take the average of two and four would be three; one 6 and nine-nine would be fifty. How much it varies on 7 either side of the mean might have some significance.

8I am not sure what it would have here. I am just 9 asking.10 And the third thing is that Dr. Lyman in 11 I think it is one of the exhibits, Pilgrim Watch --

12right -- with regard to the Indian Point hearing. He 13 talks about, he says that applying the 95th percentile 14 would result in quite a large differences, I believe 15 he says. Let me find that.

16 So I guess what I am asking is with regard 17 to all these things, if I could get a little bit of a 18 clarification as to those questions of significance 19 and to the degree that that would clarify anything 20 such that if there were any reversal, there would be 21 no need for a remand. I would like to get just 22 whatever clarification any of you can offer on this.

23And I don't want to turn this into 24 argument. I just want to get clarification on what, 25 971 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 to the extent you know, them, the facts would be on 1 that sort of collection of issues.

2Did what I say make sense? Do you 3 understand what I am asking?

4JUDGE ABRAMSON: You're asking if they 5 addressed whether mean consequences were appropriate?

6CHAIR YOUNG: No. How much does it affect 7-- How does significance come into play? And I 8 suppose how much of a difference would it make, to the 9 extent you know, if you know, would it approach some 10 of the figures that Dr. Lyman talks about.

11 If Ms. Lampert wants to point us to some 12 of those figures, you are free to.

13 MS. LAMPERT: I wish I could. I did not 14 understand we were having witnesses here. I thought 15 we were just doing a ten minute statement.

16I cannot remember. There was a 17 significant factor.

18 The one comment to start it off was an 19 example of the sea breeze effect, which is an effect 20 here which Entergy's expert said could go 30 miles 21 inland. Even though that was less likely, it could.

22 The sea breeze occurred perhaps 12 percent of the 23 time. So therefore by using a mean over the whole 24 year, it is washed out to be totally insignificant.

25 972 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 However, if you used a 95th percentile 1 from the cumulative distribution function that is 2 provided, then something that is an important 3 meteorological phenomenon here in recognizing, you 4know, you could have an accident at that time, that 5 would be a more realistic way to approach it.

6 What Lyman did was hold everything 7 constant.8JUDGE ABRAMSON: Are you giving your 9 summary statement?

10MS. LAMPERT: No, I was just having a 11 conversation.

12 (Laughter.)

13 CHAIR YOUNG: Let's hold off. Hold that 14 for your closing argument.

15 On page 11 of Exhibit 12 of Pilgrim Watch 16--17 MS. LAMPERT: Thank you.

18CHAIR YOUNG: -- Dr. Lyman says for the 19 95th percentile, the present dollar value --

20 JUDGE ABRAMSON: What page?

21CHAIR YOUNG: Page 11 of Pilgrim Watch 22 Exhibit 12, at the top of that page.

23 For the 95th percentile, the present 24 dollar value offsite economic cost for the early high 25 973 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 release alone is over 72 times Entergy's mean estimate 1 for the same release and over 12 times Entergy's mean 2 estimate for all costs off and on-site and all release 3 categories of 1.34 million.

4 And then down, about two-thirds of the way 5 down, the first paragraph after the table, if we were 6-- at the end of that paragraph. If we were to 7 extrapolate our result for the 95th percentile, 8 offsite costs of the early high release to all release 9categories leading to a nearly 20-fold increase in 10 total economic costs compared to Entergy's estimate, 11 even the most costly SAMA's such as the Phase II SAMA 12 number 15, could well become cost-effective.

13 Now obviously, he is talking about a 14 different plant.

15JUDGE ABRAMSON: He is also talking about 16 overall consequences from particular scenarios.

17 Right? He is not talking about meteorology.

18MR. GAUKLER: And for a particular source.

19 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay. Listen. Listen. I 20am not opening up argument. I am asking for 21 clarification. So don't assume that I have a point of 22 view. I am asking for clarification.

23 Taking all those things into account, 24 primarily the significance and explaining what you 25 974 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433were just about to explain, to the extent that you 1 can, clarify for me what difference it would make with 2 regard not just to numbers but to this significance 3 question.4 MR. GAUKLER: We could ask Dr. O'Kula to 5 confirm. But if you are simply looking at the current 6 modeling, holding everything the same but asking if we 7 had outputted the results at the 95th percent 8 confidence level instead of the mean, the change in 9 results would be more on the order of three to five 10 not 70 or 20 or whatever the results are.

11 Dr. Lyman's statements are very, a lot of 12 different parameters, including what is the source 13term that is being assumed. You know, what is the 14 particular accident scenario and applying 95. So he 15is compounding a number of different worst case 16 assumptions to say how much variation could you get.

17 But if you simply wanted to know what would be the 18 difference between using 95th percentile results and 19 mean, I think it is three to four or three to five or 20in that range. I think Dr. O'Kula could, I don't 21 think we have a precise number but I think we could 22 tell you that is the order of magnitude.

23CHAIR YOUNG: Just to the extent that you 24 can, and I guess and again speaking as a non-technical 25 975 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 person, the argument as I think I understand it that 1 Pilgrim Watch makes with regard to the usefulness of 2 knowing the 95th percentile so as to determine how 3 statistically significant or how much confidence you 4 can have in the mean being an accurate representation.

5Am I anywhere near in the ballpark on 6 that? Do you understand what I am saying? Do you 7 know what I am referring to, the argument that I am 8 referring to?

9 DR. O'KULA: I believe so.

10 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

11DR. O'KULA: The MACCS2 Code does provide 12 an indication of the result in terms of the 13probability of weather. So the average result, which 14is reported in the SAMA studies is not the average 15 weather condition result but it is the average of the 16 results that were calculated.

17 CHAIR YOUNG: Right.

18DR. O'KULA: So there are, in the analysis 19 that was done for any given accident scenario, there 20 was on the order of 2300 results that are weighted on 21 how likely would that weather condition result.

22 So the number that is reported as the mean 23is truly the arithmetic mean. And it would include 24 the very high consequence, low frequency conditions 25 976 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 that would lead to large dose but they would occur on 1average one or two hours per year. So that is 2 included in that mean.

3 And so but what other parts of the 4 statistics that are reported for any given accident 5 scenario, would also be things like the median. How 6 many doses for argument sake, population doses were 7 smaller than the median or larger than that value?

8 Fifty percent smaller; fifty percent higher.

9CHAIR YOUNG: Are they clustered really 10 close to the middle or are they spread out all over 11 the place?

12DR. O'KULA: It varies from plant to plant 13 but as Mr. Lewis indicated, when we look at a 95th 14 percentile result compared to the mean, based on our 15 knowledge on these runs that were done, we see a span 16 of about a factor of three to five.

17JUDGE ABRAMSON: This is for a particular 18 accident scenario.

19 DR. O'KULA: Overall.

20JUDGE ABRAMSON: A particular accident 21 scenario --

22 DR. O'KULA: Overall. Overall.

23JUDGE ABRAMSON: -- but looking at a 24 variety of winds, a variety of meteorology?

25 977 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433CHAIR YOUNG: You add up all the means for 1 each accident.

2JUDGE ABRAMSON: That is what I am trying 3 to find out.

4 DR. O'KULA: This is for a scenario.

5JUDGE ABRAMSON: A individual accident 6 scenario.7DR. O'KULA: Scenario. And so that is why 8--9JUDGE ABRAMSON: So vary the meteorology.

10DR. O'KULA: -- there is a little 11 flexibility there, in terms of the three to five 12 number. So in some cases it is about a factor of 13 three. In some cases, it is closer to five.

14 But for these individual accident 15scenarios, the mean is roughly three times smaller 16than the 95th percentile. But the code is also giving 17 you the worst case and so you could trace down the 18weather sequence that gives to the various, the 19 highest numerical value that was calculated.

20So you do have statistics that can be 21reported, that can be understood. And so you could 22say well that source term is one that is slowly 23 developing or has significant quantities of these 24 types of radioisotopes. And I can see what my worst 25 978 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433case would be or my 95th percentile. So I can make 1 some judgment about what I need to address in the 2 plant.3 So those numbers are part of a PRA, PSA 4 study. And we take for the SAMA analysis, we tend to 5 use the means but we are not throwing away the other 6 information.

7CHAIR YOUNG: But does it provide -- Do 8 you look into -- and I wish I could find -- I'm not 9 sure this is the right -- This is one of the places 10that we are. Dr. Egan says -- This is the place I 11 mentioned before on page 75 of paragraph 196 of 12 Pilgrim Watch's proposed findings.

13 He says, "Therefore sea breeze has no 14 impact if a mean average is used. However, its 15 significance would be apparent if the 95th percentile 16 were used." And again, I apologize and I appreciate 17 everyone's indulgence of my --

18MS. LAMPERT: We appreciate your concern.

19CHAIR YOUNG: -- basic level questions.

20 But what does the MACCS2 do with regard to analyzing 21 the -- Once you come up with the mean consequence 22values and add all those up, is there some measure 23taken to ascertain how significant or how much 24 confidence you can have in that figure and how much 25 979 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433variation there is one way or the other? Or is there 1-- I sort of think that is what he is getting to and 2 I may not be using the right words to say that. But 3 do you get the idea that I am trying to get to or do 4you get the idea that he was trying to get to, I 5 guess?6DR. O'KULA: One way that I believe Dr.

7 Egan may have misunderstood the results is that we do 8 not use a mean condition that may or may not include 9 sea breeze, for example.

10 CHAIR YOUNG: It comes later in the 11 analysis.12 DR. O'KULA: The mean reflects many like 13-- Many conditions that would occur in a given space 14 of a year; sea breeze conditions, land breeze 15conditions, all types of information. So all of that 16is going into the production of these individual 17 results for a given accident scenario.

18 We don't start in a MACCS2 calculation 19 with the average weather condition, which possibly 20 would not include sea breeze affects and make the 21 average population dose and offsite economic costs 22based on that number. The sea breeze affect is 23 included in the multiple data points that we have for 24 that specific dose that we are looking for.

25 980 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433CHAIR YOUNG: So you think in this 1 sentence Dr. Egan is saying -- Well actually it is not 2 part of the quoted sentence but I think it is meant to 3 encompass what he said that that is taking what 4 happens to be doing the averaging at the point at 5 which the sea breeze is first considered, rather than 6 at the end of the analysis.

7MS. LAMPERT: No, that isn't what he 8 meant.9 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

10JUDGE ABRAMSON: Well but since he is not 11here, we are all speculating. But let me ask Dr.

12 O'Kula a question.

13 Dr. O'Kula, if I understand this 14 correctly, the way the computation is done and we 15 shouldn't be talking about this now and I guess it is 16 open, when you do the MACCS2 computation, you take a 17 particular accident, a particular scenario which is a 18 release over a period of time, and then you calculate 19 the consequences for a thousand or more different wind 20 conditions. All right? Is that correct?

21DR. O'KULA: Wind stability, rainfall, 22 possibility of rainfall, based on --

23JUDGE ABRAMSON: Your whole set of 24 meteorologic conditions.

25 981 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 DR. O'KULA: -- the Plymouth dataset.

1JUDGE ABRAMSON: Okay. Now do you happen 2 to know -- What I read into what I am hearing is that 3 if you looked at the case for the sea breeze type 4 meteorologic conditions, you would find something very 5 far from the mean. Do you happen to know if that is 6the case? You have looked at the distribution 7function of these consequences. Are the consequences, 8 as computed for one particular scenario for sea breeze 9 conditions, far from the mean of those computed for 10 the whole thousands of meteorologic conditions you 11 looked at? Do you know the answer to that?

12DR. O'KULA: I don't know specifically the 13answer to where in the 15 mile population dose, for 14 instance, where I could find points that could be 15 attributed to the combination of meteorological data 16 that would be traced to a sea breeze effect, if indeed 17 that occurrence led to high dose. We don't --

18JUDGE ABRAMSON: You don't have the 19 ability to track that.

20DR. O'KULA: We can't track that 21 specifically but by and large if it is part of the 22 8760 hours0.101 days <br />2.433 hours <br />0.0145 weeks <br />0.00333 months <br /> of weather data that is calculated and 23 sorted through and sampled in the analysis, then it is 24 included in the overall result.

25 982 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, I understand that.

1Let me see if I can pursue this for just one more 2 second.3 Do you know if the sea breeze conditions, 4 meteorologic conditions associated with sea breeze, 5 vary materially from the norm of meteorologic 6conditions at the plant? Do they vary? Are they way 7 away from the center or are they close to average?

8 DR. O'KULA: Defer to Dr. Hanna.

9DR. HANNA: Well they would be just close 10the average. The wind speeds are about the 11 same. In fact, I have been trying to think about the 12 statistical implications of these discussions here and 13 I think we are sort of getting off the track.

14 Because the standard way that you do risk 15 analysis is using the average. We are talking about 16 a whole year and we are determining the effects over 17 that whole year. And that is the average of all the 18conditions that might occur during the year. So if 19 you start talking about the sea breeze or any 20 condition which might lead to a higher concentration 21 and saying you should include that as an upper range, 22 you are almost saying that that condition is going to 23 occur every hour of the year.

24JUDGE ABRAMSON: Well no, I understand 25 983 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 that and I don't think anybody is going down that 1 path. But there does seem to be an assertion or an 2 underlying question as to whether had you looked at 3 sea breeze, you would have found 50 times the average 4 for the damages, as opposed to something close to the 5 average for the damages. And that is really the 6 question I am asking.

7 If the meteorologic conditions from the 8 sea breeze are more or less like the average 9 meteorologic conditions at the site, then what would 10 lead us to expect to get damages that are very far 11 from the average? And that is why --

12 DR. HANNA: Well I wouldn't expect it to 13 get much different from the average.

14MS. LAMPERT: Can I say something? I 15mean, just can I ask you to say something? All right, 16consider something. As I know I am not talking to 17 them.18 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Go ahead. Go ahead.

19MS. LAMPERT: My point is, you know, I 20 have talked to David Chanin about this and because he 21 said one of his many reasons for saying the code was 22 nothing to use was particularly the use, the practice 23of the mean, which was meaningless. Now those were 24 his words.

25 984 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 And so I said I really don't understand 1why it is meaningless. And his explanation was, okay 2let me put it for you in a simple way. He said, let's 3say I wanted to know how much you spent a year. I 4said you sound like my husband. And he said, okay but 5 we are going to do it every second and we are going to 6 put that information of what you spend every second 7into a computer over the year's time. Then we are 8 going to take a mean, you will see, your husband will 9 be happy because he will see you really don't spend 10 anything all year. But the reality is you do.

11 And his point was, if you put, as they do, 12 so much data into the code, then you use a mean, it is 13 all going to be washed away.

14 And I thought that was a pretty 15 understandable explanation --

16 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, let me just --

17MS. LAMPERT: -- as opposed to taking 18another average. No one is complaining about an 19 average. It is what average. And as you, Judge 20 Young, were going at, it reminded of the famous book 21 How to Lie with Statistics, that how representative --

22 What are those other little numbers that tell how 23 representative the mean actually was of the material 24 put in?25 985 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 That was just another conversation with 1 you, Dr. Abramson.

2JUDGE ABRAMSON: I recognized that. Thank 3 you.4JUDGE COLE: Dr. O'Kula, you wind up with 5 a distribution of thousands of consequences and you 6 have a distribution of that. And we select the mean 7 value of those consequences. What do we know about 8the curve of all the consequences? Is it a bell-9 shaped curve like we commonly see in standard 10 statistics or is it a skewed curve? And what is the 11 standard deviation of the curve on average? I think 12 you already gave us the answer to that.

13 CHAIR YOUNG: That is a good way to ask 14 what I was trying to ask. Thank you.

15DR. O'KULA: Certainly Dr. Bixler can 16 augment my answer but typically the data look very 17 much bell-shaped, log-normally distributed. Because 18 as you might think about it, you have --

19 CHAIR YOUNG: Did you say -- Bell-shaped 20 what normally?

21 DR. O'KULA: Log-normally.

22 CHAIR YOUNG: Log-normally.

23DR. O'KULA: So it is normally distributed 24 but when you have wide ranges of values, you take the 25 986 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433log of the values. So you have very small, again, 1 population doses and it is a bell-shaped curve. And 2 mother nature is very erratic so it is not precisely 3bell-shaped but it is, by and large. You can look at 4 it. We see a lot of histogram effects and a lot of 5dips and valleys but by and large, it looks log-6 normally distributed, bell-shaped.

7 And so a lot of times people talk about an 8 error factor in statistics with a log-normal 9 distribution and reflect on the 95th percentile 10compared to the median. Okay? A little bit less than 11 the average.

12 And in this case, we said that the range 13 of 95th percentile to the mean was a factor of about 14three to five from what we recall having looked at 15 these results.

16 And so the mean tends to be numerically 17 somewhat higher than the median. It is just because 18 some of the larger dose, population dose numbers when 19 weighted, you know, those are very large numbers 20 compared to, again, several orders of magnitude over 21 range from very unlikely conditions to very likely and 22 average conditions then to very unlikely conditions in 23 your 95th percentile.

24 So it is a wide distribution and if you 25 987 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 can do the statistical math, then you can get the 1 spread on how it looks. But is basically, Dr. Cole, 2a log-normal distributed set of results with that 3 spread of possibly two to three orders of magnitude 4 from the very low doses to the high doses.

5JUDGE COLE: Thank you. That is very 6 helpful.7MR. HARRIS: Dr. Cole, can Dr. Bixler add 8 something?

9 JUDGE COLE: Oh, sure.

10DR. BIXLER: Yes, maybe to add a little 11 perspective. This is just to supplement what Dr.

12 O'Kula said because I agree with what he just said.

13But typically what I have found, and I 14haven't looked at this specifically for the Pilgrim 15 analysis, but typically the mean is somewhere between 16 the 75th and the 85th percentile, maybe even 17approaching the 90th percentile. And that is true 18because of the skewed nature of the distribution 19 function that we are talking about here. So that is 20 one aspect of it.

21 I know one particular case, again not for 22 Pilgrim, but one case the mean came out to be the 87th 23 percentile of the distribution. So --

24JUDGE ABRAMSON: Meaning that is a higher 25 988 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 consequence --

1DR. BIXLER: Yes. Let me explain a little 2bit more precisely what that terminology means. I 3 think we all know what the mean is but the median 4means that half the time you would get a smaller 5 answer, half the time you would get a larger answer.

6 Okay. So when I say 75th percentile, I 7 mean 75 percent of the time you would get a smaller 8 number and only 25 percent of the time you would get 9 a larger one. So if you are at the 85th percentile, 10 as an example, 85 percent of the time you get a 11 smaller answer and only 15 percent of the time a 12 larger one.

13 So an 85th percentile is probably not a 14 bad estimate for where the mean actually might fall in 15 this case but again, I don't know for sure.

16CHAIR YOUNG: Eighty-five you said?

17 Eighty-fifth?

18DR. BIXLER: Yes, it is probably something 19like that. Maybe 80th, maybe 85th. So that gives you 20 a little bit better perspective on what the mean 21 really represents in terms of the distribution.

22 Another thing to consider is that when 23 Entergy did the SAMA analysis, they multiplied by a 24 factor of six. They took their mean results, I 25 989 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 believe and multiplied by a factor of six to account 1for uncertainty. That would put you, if you were only 2 looking at uncertainty in the weather, in the 3 meteorology, in the effect that that would have on the 4 results, that would put you above the 95th percentile 5 anyway.6MS. LAMPERT: That is -- May I just ask --

7 suggest something?

8 What we asked for was further analysis.

9 Right? So they are talking about I don't know where 10 the heck those plants were that you are coming up with 11 what difference it made.

12 The question is, were they totally 13analogous to here? Is it applicable? Why not have 14 them show the difference of what it would made here, 15 if this ever comes, gets back on the table after an 16 appeal.17CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, in a moment we will do 18 closing arguments.

19Dr. O'Kula did you agree with what Dr.

20 Bixler said?

21 DR. O'KULA: I agree with Dr. Bixler.

22CHAIR YOUNG: Along with the 85 percentile 23 being where the median would be?

24 DR. O'KULA: That was for an example.

25 990 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 CHAIR YOUNG: Oh, I thought you got that 1 for this --

2 MS. LAMPERT: No.

3DR. BIXLER: I'm just guessing what it 4might be. And a range of values would be 75th 5 percentile to maybe as high as 90th, probably a little 6 lower than that.

7 CHAIR YOUNG: For the Pilgrim plant.

8 DR. BIXLER: For the Pilgrim plant.

9 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

10DR. BIXLER: Probably somewhere in that 11 range.12 CHAIR YOUNG: Does that make sense?

13 DR. O'KULA: I would concur.

14 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, thank you.

15I appreciate this. And thank you for your 16 help on my question as well because that was sort of 17 what I was trying to get at.

18 Any other questions from you?

19 JUDGE COLE: No.

20MS. LAMPERT: Do you have data on that or 21are you just opining? Are they just opining or do 22 they have data to say that the range would be 75 to 80 23 whatever it was?

24 JUDGE COLE: I guess we can ask him what 25 991 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 his basis for that answer is. Upon what do you base 1 your answer, sir, Dr. Bixler?

2DR. BIXLER: Just an analyses. I have 3 done a lot of consequence analyses myself of various 4 kinds and that is one of the things that you kind of 5 wonder about as you look at the results. So that is 6just my experience over a number of years of doing 7 these kinds of calculations.

8 JUDGE COLE: Thank you.

9 CHAIR YOUNG: And Dr. O'Kula, would your 10 answer be -- What would your answer be in terms of --

11 What did you base your answer that you agreed with Dr.

12 Bixler that that was a good estimate?

13DR. O'KULA: On the shape of the 14 distributions.

15JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, on where the mean 16 is, vis-a-vis --

17 CHAIR YOUNG: So the curve would be over 18 to one side.

19DR. O'KULA: Right. From a number of PRA 20 studies for even in DOE complex and from several 21 commercial plants, and also with Pilgrim, of course.

22Just looking at a lot of these indices of risk. So 23 that --24 JUDGE COLE: So your experience.

25 992 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 DR. O'KULA: Yes.

1CHAIR YOUNG: Is there anything in any of 2the documents that shows this or reflects this? Just 3 since it has been asked?

4 What about in the EIS?

5MS. LAMPERT: I can't help you. I didn't 6 see anything.

7MR. HARRIS: Some of that information was 8 addressed when we were discussing mean consequence 9 values and where that mean fell. So it was part of 10 there but I don't believe it was part of any of the 11 exhibits that were --

12MS. LAMPERT: And it wasn't discussed 13 there.14CHAIR YOUNG: All right. Do you need a 15 break before we have closing arguments?

16 MS. LAMPERT: Yes.

17 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. Let's take ten 18minutes and come back for closing arguments. Thank 19 you all.20 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off 21 the record at 3:18 p.m. and went back on 22 the record at 3:34 p.m.)

23 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay, before we move to 24closing arguments, I think the Staff has one 25 993 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 correction you wanted to make.

1MR. HARRIS: Yes, Your Honor. It is just 2 referring --

3CHAIR YOUNG: Yes, we are on the record 4 now.5MR. HARRIS: Just referring to the 6 uncertainty answer that Dr. Bixler gave earlier and I 7 will let him talk.

8 CHAIR YOUNG: Okay.

9DR. BIXLER: All right. Yes, it was 10 pointed out during the break that there were two parts 11 to the factor that was used by Entergy. One part of 12 it was to add external events and then there was a 13second part that was to account for uncertainty. The 14uncertainty factor really is only 1.62. And I believe 15 I said six earlier. So that -- I would like to --

16 JUDGE COLE: One point what?

17DR. BIXLER: One point six two is the 18 actual number.

19 JUDGE COLE: Okay.

20 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. The closing 21 arguments. Shall we start with Entergy and then move 22to -- When would the Staff like to go? Would you 23 like to wrap up or go after Entergy?

24 MR. HARRIS: We can wrap up.

25 994 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 MS. UTTAL: We would like to wrap up.

1CHAIR YOUNG: Since you have -- Well 2 actually you are putting the burden on yourself. So 3 I think really you probably ought to go after Entergy.

4 And then if any of you want to save any of your time 5for the end, you can. And then we will move to 6 Pilgrim Watch, and Duxbury, and Plymouth.

7JUDGE ABRAMSON: And let's keep this to 8ten minutes or less, please, per. I wouldn't mind any 9 aggregates.

10MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Your Honor. I will 11 try to keep it within ten minutes, hopefully less 12 than.13 JUDGE ABRAMSON: Yes, our law clerk will 14 give you a ten minute flag. You had better be done.

15MR. LEWIS: Okay. I wanted to say very 16 quickly that Your Honors have appropriately identified 17 the scope of the hearing to be whether the SAMA is 18 reasonable and whether accounting for meteorological 19 conditions would lead to any additional SAMAs. That 20 directly follows from the Commission's statement and 21 the remand that I quoted to you earlier.

22 We have extensive testimony from the staff 23 and Entergy showing that the meteorological modeling 24 that we have done is adequate for a SAMA analysis, in 25 995 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 terms of determining the averages. And we have also 1shown that accounting for the differences of the 2 patterns that Pilgrim Watch claims he can be accounted 3for, would make little difference. And specifically, 4 I am referring to the CALMET trajectory analysis.

5 The CALMET trajectory analysis takes into 6account the variably spatially different winds. So it 7 take into account winds at different locations exactly 8as Pilgrim Watch said it should. And in this respect, 9 the CALMET is the three-dimensional model that is used 10 by EPA for determining wind fields for its CALPUFF 11 dispersion model.

12So we are using terms of evaluating the 13spatially variable winds with CALMET. We are doing 14 the same thing that would be done as a first step to 15a CALPUFF calculation. So we are doing the 16 meteorological aspect of the same thing that would be 17 done for CALPUFF.

18And in that respect, we looked at 26 19surface stations in the area. We got data from two 20high-leveled balloon locations. And as all this data 21went into the CALMET trajectory analysis, just as 22 described by Dr. Hanna today, to generate these three-23 dimensional wind fields. And you can take a look at 24an example of the three-dimensional wind field in 25 996 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433Figure A, I believe, of his report, which shows the 1wind being in different directions on a particular 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.3 So we use that to calculate the 4 distribution of winds used in this spatially variable 5wind field would actually cross an arc sector. Okay?

6 And we then, as Dr. Hanna said, we computed trajectory 7 roses and we show that the trajectory roses for the 8 actual direction the plume would travel, looking at 9 the three-dimensional wind field, we feel that those 10 trajectory roses were very similar to those used in 11 the Pilgrim SAMA analysis, which is the Pilgrim 2001 12 data.13 And in fact, Dr. O'Kula did a calculation 14 using the exposure index, where he felt the population 15 of each segment by the probability that the wind would 16 go through there using the CALMET trajectory analysis 17 and compare that with the same calculation that we did 18 in the SAMA analysis, in terms of population times the 19 Pilgrim data wind rows and we have showed it for the 20most representative height of 500 meters. There is 21 about a four percent difference.

22 So basically, we have shown that 23 accounting for spatially variable wind fields would 24 lead to insignificant difference in the SAMA analysis.

25 997 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 Now importantly, this analysis takes into 1account many of the different issues that Pilgrim 2Watch has raised. The CALMET trajectory analysis 3 includes the terrain. One of the inputs for the 4 analysis is the terrain and topography of the area.

5And that is described in Dr. Hanna's report. So to 6 the extent that terrain has an effect on wind 7 direction, wind variability, that is taken into 8 account in the CALMET analysis.

9The same extent, to the extent that you 10have a sea breeze at any particular hour at any 11 particular location, that is taken into account in the 12CALMET trajectory analysis. That is one of the hours 13 of data for that particular location that would say 14 whether the sea breeze blew it in there.

15 And if you look at Figure 8, you will see 16 some of the effects of a sea breeze where the wind 17pattern changes. And so you have this type of wind 18 pattern for each hour and so it takes into the account 19 whatever the wind field was in the entire domain for 20that one hour. And evaluating the analysis using the 21 CALMET trajectory analysis shows insignificant effect.

22 Pilgrim Watch basically does not make any 23 attempt to address the CALMET trajectory analysis.

24 And in fact, it doesn't appear at all in Dr. Egan's 25 998 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433generally through his statement. Nowhere in his 1 analysis does he address the CALMET trajectory 2 analysis or the wind rose comparisons that Dr. Hanna 3did in his report. And so therefore, you can only 4 presume that he essentially agrees with them.

5 Moreover, Pilgrim Watch in her findings 6 makes outlandish claims with respect to these various 7 analyses. But again, since Dr. Egan didn't address 8 them, there is no evidential support for that.

9 And also Pilgrim Watch has acknowledged in 10 the initial statement of position at pages 2-3, it has 11indeed acknowledged that it is not possible for 12 Pilgrim Watch or anyone else to show that meteorology 13 in and of itself would result in a significant 14different SAMA analysis. But that is the direction 15 that the Commission gave us to look at; accounting for 16 meteorology that result in additional SAMAs becoming 17 cost-beneficial.

18 The CALMET trajectory analysis that we 19have done shows it would not. And Pilgrim Watch 20 itself admits that it would not. And so at least it 21 has not met its burden of going forward.

22Well it is reduced to arguing. If you 23look at what they argue in their findings of fact, 24 they say well a different methodology would provide a 25 999 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433more accurate analysis. And also you see Dr. Egan say 1well there might be a more reliable analysis if you 2took more data. But again, that is not the issue for 3this Board. The issue is whether or not there are any 4 additional SAMAs that would be cost-beneficial.

5 I have already alluded to the fact that 6 Pilgrim Watch appears to misunderstand the SAMA 7 analysis. She claims repeatedly throughout her 8 findings of fact that averaging the effects of the 9SAMA, averaging ignores site-specific conditions. And 10 as you heard Dr. O'Kula explain, it does not ignore 11any site-specific conditions. It does not ignore any 12 accident scenarios.

13 And in this respect, the statement made by 14Dr. Egan that the SAMA analysis loses the effect of 15different accident scenarios entirely. He makes this 16statement on page eight. It is just not right because 17 the SAMA analysis takes into account all of the 18 accident conditions and weights them by their 19 appropriate probability to come up with the average.

20So it takes into account all the site-21specific conditions. It takes into account all the 22accidents and it appropriately weights them. So it 23takes everything into account. There is a site-24 specific analysis that takes into account the weather 25 1000 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 and the accident conditions.

1 Now Pilgrim Watch conveniently overlooks 2 and ignores our testimony on points that is adverse to 3 it. For example, Dr. Hanna explained in our rebuttal 4 testimony how the wind variability and topography for 5 the Molenkamp study is basically the same as that in 6 the Pilgrim region. And it is perfectly appropriate 7 to use the results of the Molenkamp study with respect 8 to the Pilgrim SAMA analysis, take that into account.

9 Nowhere does she acknowledge that rebuttal testimony 10 in her findings.

11By the same token, you have heard Dr.

12 Hanna explain how Angevine is not on point here. He 13explained that in his rebuttal testimony. And again, 14 that is nowhere acknowledged.

15 And finally, I would urge you to read with 16 caution the findings made by Pilgrim Watch, 17 particularly we are at various points where it 18 ascribes something to what Dr. Hanna said or Dr.

19O'Kula said. On many times she characterizes Dr.

20 Hanna's or Dr. O'Kula's testimony and it just plainly 21is wrong. They did not say what she claims they said.

22 Okay, you can look back at the testimony and find that 23 out.24 And one other thing she points out to a 25 1001 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 table on page 15 that she claims came from the WSMS 1 report. That table did not come from the WSMS report.

2That is a table of her own creation. The second table 3that appears at pages 14-15. So please read them very 4 carefully.

5 In the final analysis what the SAMA 6 analysis does it takes into account all of the 7 conditions as the statistically based analysis that 8 appropriately takes into account the consequences that 9 would result under different weather conditions, 10 different accident conditions. And therefore, it is 11 appropriate for a SAMA analysis and it gives perfectly 12 appropriate and adequate results.

13JUDGE ABRAMSON: Under ten minutes. He 14 didn't get a call, did he?

15CHAIR YOUNG: All right. Who is doing for 16 the Staff?

17 MR. HARRIS: I am, Your Honor.

18 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead, Mr. Harris.

19MR. HARRIS: I think it is important to 20 step back from some of the details that we have been 21 discussing today that have put the SAMA analysis into 22 the context of the legal requirements that we are 23actually discussing here. We are conducting the SAMA 24 analysis as part of our National Environmental Policy 25 1002 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433Act obligations. And the SAMA analysis is a systemic 1 way to identify mitigation measures for very complex 2accident scenarios. And so it lends itself to this 3 talking about the very small details but not looking 4 at what the Commission has really charged us to do.

5 The Commission when they remanded it, they 6 were very clear about the requirements of the SAMA 7 analysis under NEPA and remanding just a limited 8 portion of Contention 3. The Commission stated that 9 there is no NEPA requirement to use the best 10 scientific methodologies, as has been said earlier 11here today. And the reason that we are really 12 remanding this is to identify whether or not the SAMA 13analysis that was done failed to identify a 14 potentially cost-beneficial mitigation measure. And 15 as long as the SAMA analysis adequately identified the 16 mitigation measures for Pilgrim, there is nothing more 17 that we need to do here.

18 As Mr. Gaukler had mentioned earlier is 19 that Pilgrim Watch in their own initial statement had 20basically conceded this particular issue. And forgive 21me for -- I want to read the quote from it. Pilgrim 22 Watch basically states "it is not possible for either 23 Pilgrim Watch or anyone else to show, as Mr. Gaukler 24 said . . ." But then it goes on even a little a few 25 1003 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 paragraphs later, "but on its own using a variable 1 plume model would not identify another cost-beneficial 2 SAMA." 3 And so that is really what -- That 4 encompasses everything that we have to do here is that 5 we are trying to do determine whether or not different 6 meteorological models and the conditions and some of 7 these meteorological conditions would result in the 8 identification of a new cost-beneficial SAMA. And I 9 think it is clear from Pilgrim Watch's own pleadings 10 that that is not the case here.

11 Even though the Board really need not go 12 any further than that, there has been a lot of 13 testimony that has been submitted by experts in this, 14in terms of how this meteorological modeling would 15affect the SAMA analysis. When you are looking at how 16 the SAMA analysis is done, you need to look at what it 17is trying to calculate. Here we are trying to 18 calculate the expected value of this particular 19 accident. What would occur which we have been talking 20 about as the mean, the mean consequences.

21 And so just because we make small changes 22 to the meteorology or to some other particular aspect 23 of the SAMA, it needs to be able to actually move the 24 mean. And I have to thank Dr. Abramson for a little 25 1004 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 bit for putting the map on the board to sort of show 1 that in the basic form that it is. That is really 2 what we are trying to determine is, with these 3changes, move the mean enough that a new SAMA would 4 become cost-beneficial.

5 You know, the staff experts, when 6 discussing ATMOS referring to the Molenkamp study, 7 which the Staff tends to actually refer to it as the 8 Lawrence Livermore study so you will that difference 9 in our pleadings, is it showed that ATMOS, in 10 comparison to models like CALPUFF actually was of a 11 similar performance for the purposes of a SAMA as what 12 is considered sort of the gold standard of arranging 13 particle code of law is that there is very little 14 difference between those results as they were 15calculating the meteorology. And the staff's expert, 16 Dr. Bixler and Mr. Ramsdell who is not here but in his 17 testimony that was pre-filed, said that that study was 18applicable to Pilgrim. And Dr. Bixler was one of the 19 authors for that study.

20 So of the people who should know whether 21 or not it would be applicable to the Pilgrim site, he 22 is clearly one of those people.

23 To get back to the sea breeze effect and 24 the Staff, what Mr. Gaukler and Dr. Hanna did with the 25 1005 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 CALMET study clearly does show that there really is no 1 difference on the wind rose that is being produced.

2 But Mr. Ramsdell went a little further in looking at 3 the sea breeze effect, and you will see that in his 4 testimony, is that he actually calculated how often 5 the sea breeze effect would occur and whether or not, 6 if you applied ATMOS to the sea breeze effect, when it 7 would overestimate the consequences and when it would 8 underestimate the consequences.

9 And the results of that is that there is 10 a small underestimating of the consequences and those, 11 about 1.4 percent, you know, the difference between 12 the overestimate and the underestimate, which is just 13 insignificant to result in a new cost-beneficial SAMA 14 being applicable here.

15 And again, he went in and did exactly the 16 same thing for hot spots, in terms of what effect that 17 would actually have on the SAMA analysis and it was a 18 very small effect and nothing to challenge the sort of 19 the factor of two that we are discussing here.

20 So in conclusion, I would simply ask the 21 Board to find that this SAMA analysis has been done in 22an adequate manner to satisfy the requirements of 23 NEPA. Thank you.

24 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. Ms. Lampert?

25 1006 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433MS. LAMPERT: Yes. Ten minutes. I am 1borrowing few from her. She has only got two. And I 2 don't think Senator Vitters would complain --

3 JUDGE ABRAMSON: But I will.

4MS. LAMPERT: -- if I took two more 5 minutes.6 The issue now before the Board is straight 7 forward. Has Entergy demonstrated what the Board's 8order of the 23rd of September asked, that 9 meteorological modeling in the SAMA analysis is 10adequate and reasonable to satisfy NEPA and that 11 counting for the meteorological issues that we brought 12forward could not credibly alter the SAMA analysis 13 conclusions, as said in the admitted contention that 14no further analysis is required. So that is the 15 issue.16The important points to consider. First, 17 Entergy is the one that is seeking a 20-year extension 18 and, therefore, they have the burden of proof to prove 19 by a preponderance of the evidence that the extension 20 should be granted.

21 Contention 3, as written, at most requires 22 Pilgrim Watch to show why further analysis is 23 required. We are not required or expected to do that 24further analysis, nor to show its results. That would 25 1007 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 be impossible.

1 In seeking to prove that 20-year extension 2 is granted, Entergy is required to perform a site-3 specific analysis, which means picking an available, 4 a meteorological model, amongst other things, that is 5 appropriate for this site. They didn't.

6 In short, the Board's order is whether 7 Entergy has met its burden and we are arguing that no, 8 they haven't met their burden in answering the 9 questions before them.

10We said no one could prove or disprove 11 that simply changing the meteorological model would 12make a significant difference. We said that. That 13 means we couldn't, they couldn't, and they haven't.

14 So they have not satisfied their burden of proof and 15 we could explain why.

16 In our conclusions of law, we make it very 17 explicit -- findings of facts and conclusions of law, 18that Entergy in fact has the burden of proof. It 19 seemed that NRC staff thought otherwise, because they 20 said often in their findings Pilgrim Watch has not 21shown that a Pilgrim SAMA analysis is inadequate. To 22my mind, they have it backwards. They are shifting 23 the proof to us.

24 The issue is, what have they shown, 25 1008 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433Entergy, and does it require further analysis. We 1 have shown there are significant deficiencies in the 2 model used by Entergy. And because of this, their 3 original SAMA analysis and all subsequent sensitivity 4 analysis, including the analyses that Dr. Hanna and 5 Ramsdell, Hanna was requested to do using CALMET alone 6 not in combination with CALPUFF.

7 And so let's just look at the expert 8testimony that both sides provided. Both sides hired 9experts of equal qualifications. For example, Dr.

10Egan and Entergy's Dr. Hanna have very similar 11 backgrounds. They respect each other. They work 12 together.13 Dr. David Chanin, our expert, and Dr.

14 O'Kula have consulted together. Dr. O'Kula uses the 15 code frequently, the code written by David Chanin, the 16 Fortran written by David Chanin.

17 There are, however, two important 18differences between our experts and theirs. First, 19 Entergy has a lot more money than we do to pay their 20experts to produce a lot of paper. The second and 21most important is what questions were the experts 22 asked. We asked Dr. Egan and Mr. Chanin whether 23 Entergy's segmented straight line Gaussian plume model 24and the CALMET would itself answer the Board's 25 1009 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 questions. Was the meteorological modeling used by 1 Entergy and Pilgrim SAMA analysis adequate and 2reasonable to satisfy NEPA? Dr. Egan responded 3 definitively that no, the models they used were not 4 adequate and using a CALPUFF model would satisfy all 5 the requirements of NEPA.

6 Could using a different meteorological 7 model result in a different SAMA analysis? And was 8 further analysis defined as comparing what is under 9 dispute, the use of a segment model, what that would 10 show, versus a variable model, such as endorsed and 11 used by EPA in these types of studies, which would be 12 one that models a change of direction such as CALPUFF.

13 Entergy, on the other hand, asked its 14 experts to run and re-run a lot of the Gaussian plume 15model simulations. They never asked them to run what 16 they should have asked, an advanced variable model to 17 see how the results were different. The differences 18 between these two questions is the crux of the matter.

19 Fundamentally, Entergy's responsibility was to prove 20 that their use of the Gaussian model, Gaussian 21 segmented model, correctly and conservatively 22 estimated offsite consequences. But they didn't do 23 that.24 So Entergy used the segmented straight 25 1010 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 line model to determine the likely area that would be 1 impacted in a deposition in that area. That model 2 assumes, and you can go right to their testimony, that 3 a plume will travel like a flashlight beam. It will 4 not vary direction as it moves off their site.

5 Entergy's expert said that their segmented straight 6 line model and the CALMET differed in some ways from 7what they called the standard straight line model.

8 But one way in which the two were exactly the same is 9 that both assumed that there would be no changes in 10wind direction once offsite. Dr. Egan makes that 11 point.12 The key point in why Entergy's model is 13 not appropriate for the Pilgrim site is that it 14 incorrectly assumes that direction the wind and plume 15 travels always remains the same and it does not 16 capture wind variability that occurs at this site and, 17thereby, limits the area of likely impact. Their 18 model also assumes that radioactive contaminants will 19 disperse rather rapidly along the pie-shaped wedge, as 20 the plume moves away from the site.

21 We showed that coastal storm strong winds 22 that occur here throughout the year moved the plume 23 more quickly over an area and to more densely 24populated areas. Higher concentrations of deposition 25 1011 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 can be expected at greater distances because there is 1 the shorter time frame for radioactive decay to occur.

2 Further because of the complexity of the 3 site, contaminants will often remain far more 4concentrated than in a straight line model would 5 predict. For example, a straight line model misses 6the plume's reversal during a sea breeze. Sea breezes 7increase dose to the population. That remains a 8 dispute.9 Entergy's Gaussian plume model assumed 10plumes moving out to sea will not have any impact. We 11 showed that a plume over water, rather than being 12 rapidly dispersed remained more tightly concentrated, 13 due to the lack of turbulence and will impact areas at 14a greater distance. That still remains a he said/she 15 said, a dispute.

16 Beyond these defects in the Gaussian plume 17model itself, Entergy's input into the model was 18 deficient. Entergy made two important assumptions.

19 First, they assumed the data from one year, 2001, was 20 sufficient to predict whether likely throughout the 21 20-year period. And more important, Entergy assumed 22 that it was not necessary to take wind data from any 23place other than the single on-site tower. We showed 24 by reference to expert opinion in government 25 1012 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 documents, that neither assumption was correct.

1 Entergy study showing for example that the winds blow 2 in the same direction from a variety of Massachusetts 3 weather stations, is just an example, as those at 4 Pilgrim's meteorological tower were essentially 5 irrelevant because those analyses didn't show what 6happened once the wind left that particular tower, 7 whether it was Logan Airport or Chatham or whatever.

8 How for example, if they all were pointing 9 north-northeast, fine at that time period. But what 10 happened was there a change in direction soon after it 11 left one or the other sites?

12 We also showed that what Entergy did was 13not conservative. Even the NRC admits that the study, 14 such as the Molenkamp that Entergy relied on to 15"prove" its model's conservatism are not applicable to 16Pilgrim's site. Our topography is not like that on 17the Kansas plains. And simply conducting, as Dr.

18 O'Kula did, more and more and more sensitivity studies 19 using the same flawed model doesn't make the model or 20 the results any better.

21 We also show that its advanced and site-22appropriate model and input data as opposed to 23Entergy's was readily available and reliable. This 24 addresses the NEPA question used --

25 1013 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 CHAIR YOUNG: Can you wrap up?

1 MS. LAMPERT: I'm getting there. I'm 2getting there. Remember we didn't have an expert 3 here, you know, to chat.

4 Applicable to Pilgrim's coastal location 5and topography, unlike Entergy's, and we do not 6 understand why Entergy failed to make the comparison 7 using both models.

8 To speak very quickly to the issue that is 9in the papers recently that the politicians are 10 complaining on how long this is taking, I just want to 11make two points. One point is, don't blame us. They 12 NRC Commission took two years before making a 13 decision. And next and most important, beginning in 14 2007, Pilgrim Watch explained and said to Entergy, we 15 will settle and it will cost you a lot less than this 16 litigation. We will settle and you offered to appoint 17a settlement judge for two things. One was more 18 monitoring wells on-site, placed according to standard 19 accepted design and off-site real-time monitors to 20 measure radiation emitted into our communities, all 21 both linked to Mass Department of Public Health and to 22 MEMA for emergency planning purposes.

23 That was our offer. They know the offer 24stands today. It stood last year and the year before.

25 1014 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 The fact they will not do this, and this is a 1 statement for the public, the fact they won't accept 2 this tells us they have something to hide. And that 3 should be very disturbing to the public, to the 4 politicians, and quite honestly to yourselves.

5 CHAIR YOUNG: All right. Ms. Chin?

6 MS. CHIN: Thank you. Actually the 7 comments I have pertain to what we did this morning, 8 the cleanup and the cables. Is it all right to read 9 those today at this point?

10 CHAIR YOUNG: Go ahead.

11MS. CHIN: The Town of Duxbury annually 12 has their town meeting and it is this Saturday.

13 However, the Board of Selectmen have already 14 unanimously approved the article that is going before 15the town. It is in four parts. Only two parts 16pertain today is the cleanup and the cables. So I 17 will read just those two parts.

18 The Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station should 19 not be licensed to extend operations another 20 years 20 until and unless some third party assumes 21 responsibility for cleanup after a severe nuclear 22 reactor accident to pre-accident conditions, sets a 23 cleanup standard, and identifies a funding source.

24 And the second part is Entergy either 25 1015 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 replaces all submerged electrical cables, splices, and 1 connectors not designed or qualified for submerged or 2 moist environments or develops a comprehensive Aging 3 Management Program to preclude moisture and adequately 4 tests all cables that have been exposed to an 5 environment for which it was not designed for.

6 And I expect the town meeting will 7unanimously approve this article. We have had one in 8 the past on the Gaussian straight line plume and if I 9 had realized, I would have brought that here today.

10 But thank you very much for your time.

11 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. Ms. Hollis?

12MS. HOLLIS: Yes. First thank you to the 13 panel for its interest, concern, and contribution to 14 this effort and to the parties and the staff of the 15 NRC for their contribution seeking to enlighten the 16 record in this complex and lengthy proceeding.

17 As a host community to the Pilgrim plant, 18 this proceeding is of vital importance to the town and 19 its citizens, and its businesses and the culture of 20 the town itself.

21The Town of Plymouth wishes to make the 22following closing statement. The Town is an historic 23 and unique community, central to American culture and 24 politics. And as such, it expects the highest level 25 1016 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 of concern, environmental concern, concern about 1safety and security, to be delivered completely by 2 Entergy at the Pilgrim plant.

3 Compliance with all appropriate legal and 4regulatory requisites are essential to the Town. The 5citizens of Plymouth, the economy of Plymouth, the 6visitors to Plymouth and the neighbors of Plymouth 7 deserve and are entitled to total care, respect and 8consideration by Entergy and the operation of the 9 Pilgrim plant.

10 Likewise, we look to the technical 11 expertise and the dedication to mission of the ASLB 12 and the NRC itself to oversee this relicensing process 13 to its conclusion and beyond, all in the public 14 interest.15 Thank you for your consideration and 16 listening to this closing statement. Thank you.

17 CHAIR YOUNG: Thank you. And we will be 18 issue rulings on the new contentions and on the issue 19 before us in Contention 3 as soon as is reasonably 20 possible and we will get that out to you in the near 21 future.22MS. LAMPERT: May I make a request that 23 you appreciate for the two new contentions and to 24 this, the dead time, I mean, God I would hope it won't 25 1017 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 be that, the time we agreed upon when I am in Cuba.

1 CHAIR YOUNG: We are not expecting to 2 receive any more filings from any of the parties.

3MS. LAMPERT: No but to require a response 4 back, let's say, on the new contentions the day I get 5 back from Cuba would be, you know --

6 CHAIR YOUNG: What?

7MS. LAMPERT: Well would there be any 8 filing? I don't know that.

9 CHAIR YOUNG: We don't expect that there 10 would be any further filings --

11MS. LAMPERT: Okay, I just wanted to be 12 sure of that --

13 CHAIR YOUNG: -- at this point.

14MS. LAMPERT: -- because I will be out of 15 touch.16JUDGE COLE: The appeal to the Commission.

17CHAIR YOUNG: Right. I mean, there would 18 be a provision for an appeal to the Commission. But 19 no, --20 MS. LAMPERT: All right. That is what I 21 wanted to be sure of.

22CHAIR YOUNG: I think we have attempted to 23 raise all our questions. I have attempted to try to 24 get everything clarified today, rather than having to 25 1018 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433submit any further written questions. So, we are 1 going to go back and work on getting out decisions on 2 these matters as soon as we can.

3 MS. LAMPERT: Okay, great.

4CHAIR YOUNG: And we appreciate all of you 5being present and adding to the process. Thank you 6 all. And that would close this session.

7And I think the court reporter may have 8 some questions for some people on spellings and so 9 forth.10 Thank you very much, all of you.

11 (Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the foregoing 12 proceeding was adjourned.)

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25