ML19088A340

Hearing Transcript for the March 27, 2019 Proceeding

ML19088A340
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	03/27/2019
From:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
SECY RAS
References
50-277-SLR, 50-278-SLR, ASLBP 19-960-01-SLR-BD01, NRC-0212, RAS 54895
Download: ML19088A340 (219)

Text

Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONTitle:In the Matter of: Exelon Generation Company,Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Units 2

and 3Docket Number:50-277-SLR, 50-278-SLR ASLBP Number:19-960-01-SLR-BD01 Location:Rockville, Maryland Date:March 27, 2019Work Order No.:NRC-0212Pages 1-218 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.

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

Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 1 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 EXELON GENERATION COMPANY  : Docket Nos. 50-277-SLR 9  : and 50-278-SLR 10 (Peach Bottom Atomic Power : ASLBP No.

11 Station Units 2 and 3)  : 19-960-01-SLR-BD01 12---------------------------x 13 Wednesday, March 27, 2019 14 15 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16 Hearing Room T-3 D50 17 11545 Rockville Pike 18 Rockville, Maryland 19 20 BEFORE: 21 MICHAEL M. GIBSON, Chair 22 MICHAEL F. KENNEDY, Administrative Judge 23 SUE H. ABREU, Administrative Judge 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 2 APPEARANCES:

1 On Behalf of Exelon Generation Company, LLC:

2 DAVID LEWIS, ESQ.

3of:Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 4 1200 17 th Street, NW 5 Washington, DC 20036-3006 6 david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com 7 and 8 DONALD FERRARO, ESQ.

9 Assistant General Counsel 10 Exelon Generation Company, LLC 11 200 Exelon Way, Suite 305 12 Kennett Square, Pennsylvania 19348 13 donald.ferraro@exeloncorp.com 14 15 On Behalf of Beyond Nuclear:

16 DIANE CURRAN, ESQ.

17of:Harmon, Curran, Spielberg and Eisenberg 18 1725 DeSales Street, NW 19 Suite 500 20 Washington, D.C. 20036 21 dcurran@harmoncurran.com 22 23 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

24 KAYLA GAMIN, ESQ.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 3 MITZI YOUNG, ESQ.

1 REBECCA SUSKO, ESQ.

2of:Office of the General Counsel 3 Mail Stop - O-14A44 4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 6 301-287-9234 7 kayla.gamin@nrc.gov 8 mitzi.young@nrc.gov 9 rebecca.susko@nrc.gov 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 4 P R O C E E D I N G S 1 (9:00 a.m.)

2JUDGE GIBSON: Please be seated. Good 3 morning. We are here today for oral argument on the 4 application of Exelon Generation Company LLC to renew 5 its licenses for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 6 Units 2 and 3, which are regulated by the United 7 States Nuclear Regulatory Commission under rules that 8 is promulgated in Volume 10 of the Code of Federal 9 Regulations.

10 I should add this proceeding is being 11 webcast and is also being broadcast on the Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission's internal TV system.

13 We convened this oral argument because 14 Beyond Nuclear, Inc., filed a petition requesting a 15 hearing on two contentions that it proffered, which 16 challenged the renewal of Peach Bottom's license.

17 The license for Peach Bottom Unit number 182 was actually originally issued in 1973. And the 19 license for Peach Bottom Unit 3 was issued in 1974.

20 These license were then renewed for an additional 20-21year term in May 7, 2003. So this license renewal, if 22 it is granted, would be the second time that the 23 license has been renewed.

24 Beyond Nuclear filed a petition on 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 5 November 9, 2018, and in that petition it requested an 1 adjudicatory hearing to challenge Exelon's request for 2 a second renewal of its license to operate Peach 3 Bottom Units 2 and 3.

4 As a result of that petition, on December 5 11, the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic 6Safety and Licensing Board Panel issued a notice 7 designating this three-member licensing board to 8 conduct a proceeding on the petition.

9 Now, the issues that we will be addressing 10 today are standing and contention admissibility. By 11 standing we mean that a party must show that a 12 government action would threaten its interests or the 13 interests of its members with some concrete injury.

14 In this case, Beyond Nuclear is claiming that the 15 second renewal of Exelon's license to operate the 16 Peach Bottom Unit 2 and 3 reactors would threaten it 17 or its members with a concrete injury.

18 By contention admissibility, we mean that 19 Beyond Nuclear must show it has some legal or factual 20basis for the claims that it asserts here, and that 21those claims are within the permissible scope of 22 matters that are entrusted to the Nuclear Regulatory 23 Commission and to this board.

24 Essentially, this is what is at stake in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 6this proceeding. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1grants this second renewal of Exelon's license to 2 operate Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3, these plants may 3 be operated for another 20 years.

4 Beyond Nuclear claims that two threats are 5 posed by the second license renewal. The first of 6 these, contention 1, is a safety contention, based on 7 Beyond Nuclear's assertion that both Units 2 and Unit 8 3 are old, having been in operation for over 40 years, 9 and that Exelon's plans for aging management over the 10 next 20 years need to be bolstered beyond what it has 11 set forth in its license renewal application.

12 The second of these contentions, which is 13 contention 2, is an environmental contention that 14 during the second license renewal term, Peach Bottom's 15 aging equipment could lead to increased accident risks 16that pose environmental threats. And that these 17 environmental threats were not adequately addressed in 18 the Environmental Report that Exelon submitted for its 19 second license renewal application.

20 I should add that both the NRC staff and 21 the Exelon itself have disputed these contentions and 22 asserted that Exelon's aging management plan is 23 adequate, and that Exelon's Environmental Report is 24 proper in all respects.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 7 Prior to renewing a nuclear reactor 1 license, which is what is before us now, the staff of 2 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is one of the 3 participants in this proceeding, has the important 4 responsibility of completing an Environmental and 5 Safety Review to consider all requirements of the 6 National Environmental Policy Act, of the Atomic 7 Energy Act, and of applicable regulations that have 8 been issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

9 Both the Atomic Energy Act and the Nuclear 10 Regulatory Commission regulations provide an 11 opportunity for interested stakeholders, which would 12 include members of the public and public interest 13groups such as Beyond Nuclear, to seek a hearing to 14 challenge the renewal of operating licenses.

15 The essence, excuse me, the essence of 16 proceedings such as those we're beginning today is to 17 adjudicate health and safety, environmental and common 18 defense and security concerns that are raised in the 19 documents that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff 20 generates during the process of reviewing the license 21 renewal application.

22 With respect to the conduct of this 23 administrative proceeding, the three administrative 24 judges on this board were previously appointed to the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 8 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel by the Nuclear 1 Regulatory Commission, and we were drawn from that 2 panel to serve on this three-member licensing board 3 and to preside over contested matters that have been 4 raised in Beyond Nuclear's petition.

5 With that said, however, it is important 6 to emphasize that administrative judges do not work 7 for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff, nor do 8 they work with the Regulatory Commission staff on its 9 review of Exelon's application for this second renewal 10 of the Peach Bottom licenses.

11 Rather, this board is charged with 12 independently determining whether the contentions 13 raised in Beyond Nuclear's petition are appropriate 14 for adjudication in this proceeding.

15 The shorthand for our initial task is to 16 decide if Beyond Nuclear's contentions are admissible.

17 If we determine that one or both of these contentions 18 are admissible, then our next task will be to 19 adjudicate the merits of those claims.

20 Essentially, to determine the substantive 21 validity of the claims that Beyond Nuclear asserts 22here. Which ultimately would result in the acceptance 23 of the license as it's been proposed in the 24 conditioning of that license, or even in the denial of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 9 that license renewal.

1 Once we reach a decision on any of these 2 matters, it is generally subject to review first by 3 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself, which serves 4 as our agency's supreme tribunal, and then by federal 5 courts, including in appropriate instances the United 6 States Supreme Court.

7 Now, as I noted earlier, in addition to 8 the admissibility of the contentions that Beyond 9 Nuclear has proffered, this board must decide whether 10 Beyond Nuclear has standing to participate in this 11 proceeding, even though neither Exelon nor the Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission staff have challenged the 13 standing that Beyond Nuclear has to assert its claims 14 here.15 This board has an independent 16 responsibility to assess and rule upon whether Beyond 17Nuclear has standing, even though we probably won't 18have any specific questions about that. Though that, 19 of course, may happen during the course of this 20 proceeding.

21 Now, during this oral argument, we may use 22terms for, such as petitioner. In that case, we're 23referring to Beyond Nuclear. We may refer to the 24 applicant, in that case we're referring to Exelon.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 10 And if we refer to the staff, we mean the staff of the 1Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And obviously if we 2 use the term Peach Bottom, we mean Units 2 and 3 of 3 the nuclear reactors that Exelon operates at the Peach 4 Bottom facility.

5 Now I would like to introduce the Board 6members. To my immediate right is Judge Mike Kennedy, 7 who is an engineer and a part-time member of the 8 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel.

9 To my immediate left is Judge Sue Abreu.

10 Judge Abreu is an engineer, a medical doctor, a 11 lawyer, a full-time member of the Atomic Safety and 12 Licensing Board Panel, and in fact serves as its 13 Associate Chief in charge of technical matters.

14 I'm Michael Gibson. I'm an attorney and 15 I'm the Chair of this licensing board. I would also 16 like to add that we have with us Mr. Andy Welkie, 17 who's assisting with our IT matters. We have Taylor 18 Mayhall and Joe McManus, who are our law clerks 19 working on this case.

20 Sara Culler at the back of the room has 21 been helping make sure that things run smoothly here.

22 And we've got a court reporter, I believe, who's 23 transcribing this proceeding.

24 So at this point, I would like to have 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 11counsel identify themselves for the record. Let's 1 start with the petitioner, Beyond Nuclear, then we'll 2 move to the applicant, and then to the NRC staff 3 counsel.4MS. CURRAN: Good morning, your Honors, my 5 name is Diane Curran, I'm here representing Beyond 6Nuclear. And to my left is Paul Gunter with the 7 Beyond Nuclear organization, and to my right is our 8 expert, David Lochbaum.

9 JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you.

10MR. LEWIS: Good morning, my name is David 11 Lewis, I'm with the law firm Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 12Pittman. I have the privilege of representing Exelon.

13 With me is Mr. Donald Ferraro, Assistant General 14 Counsel with Exelon.

15 JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you.

16 MS. YOUNG: Good morning, pleasure to be 17 here this Women's History Month, and especially to 18hear the distinguished resume of Judge Abreu. My name 19 is Mitzi Young, I'm here representing the NRC staff.

20 On my right is Kayla Gamin, an attorney in our office.

21 And to my left is Rebecca Susko, who just joined the 22 NRC this fall.

23 I'd like to also recognize that we have in 24 the audience some members of the technical staff, and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 12 if they could just stand briefly, be recognized for 1the judges. We have Bennett Brady, the young lady on 2 the left, who's the Project Manager for Environmental 3Reviews. David Alley and James Medoff are both 4Technical Reviewers. And Jeff Rikhoff for the Safety 5Review. And Jeffrey Rikhoff is an Environmental 6 Reviewer. Thank you.

7 JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you. Judge Abreu's 8 resume is actually far more impressive than that, I 9just didn't mention everything. She also happened to 10 be a colonel in the Army, and she also did skydiving, 11 so.12JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm not feeling so 13important here. But that's as impressive as my resume 14 gets. 15 JUDGE GIBSON: So, you won't get any 16 argument out of me.

17 So now that we've completed our 18introductions, we will proceed to argument. As we 19 address the issues of contention admissibility and 20 possibly we may have some questions on standing, we 21 are going to proceed a little differently than the 22 approach that you may have seen with other boards.

23 We have a number of very specific 24 questions that we would like to ask of counsel for all 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 13sides here. And so rather than allotting you a 1 specific amount of time for opening remarks or for a 2 reply or rebuttal to specific questions, we will ask 3 individual counsel for answers to questions that we 4 want to pose.

5 I do suspect that by the time we finish 6 today, Beyond Nuclear, Exelon, and the NRC staff will 7 feel that they had more than ample opportunity to 8 address the issues that are of concern to the Board 9 here. 10 But we will, if there is time, we will try 11 to reserve a little bit of time at the end for a 12 closing if the parties feel that we still need to 13 cover any other matters that were not covered during 14the questioning. I should also add, however, that 15 when we get to contention 2, we will have a bit more 16 structure to our argument.

17 Specifically before we ask whatever 18 questions we might have on contention 2, we are going 19 to accord the petitioner ten minutes, and we're going 20 to accord the staff and Exelon collectively ten 21 minutes, to present us with an explanation of any 22 matters that counsel consider that were not 23 satisfactorily and exhaustively addressed in the 24 recent Turkey Point decision, with which all the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 14 parties were provided with a copy recently.

1 When we get to that point, the staff and 2 Exelon will need to indicate to us how they want to 3allocate their ten minutes between them. And Ms.

4 Curran, you will also need to advise us how much of 5 your ten minutes you want to use for your initial 6 statement and how much you want to reserve for 7 rebuttal to whatever the staff and the Exelon may have 8 to say.9 And then once we've finished with our 10 argument on that, we will then proceed to the 11 remaining aspects of contention 2.

12 Okay, I believe that concludes the 13 question the Board has, the initial points we have.

14 So unless there is something else, we will proceed.

15Ms. Curran. I would like to turn to page 2 of your 16 reply. 17 MS. CURRAN: Okay.

18JUDGE GIBSON: To the answers that the 19 staff and the applicant filed.

20 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

21JUDGE GIBSON: You indicate there that you 22 are not challenging the NRC regulations, is that 23 correct?24 MS. CURRAN: That's correct.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 15JUDGE GIBSON: And your first you make in 1 this regard is that the staff ignores the relevant 2 rulemaking history of 10CFR Part 54 and also 3 contradicts itself. Is that correct?

4 MS. CURRAN: That's right.

5JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Now, with respect to 6 your point on the rulemaking history, you claim it is 7 critical that there be a substantial body of operating 8 experience. Is that correct?

9 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

10JUDGE GIBSON: But in your estimation, the 11 problem we face is that as nuclear plants of the same 12 vintage as Peach Bottom are closing down, the body of 13 operating experience is dwindling. Is that correct?

14 MS. CURRAN: That's correct.

15JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. I think you may have 16 some questions, Mr. Kennedy.

17JUDGE KENNEDY: Yeah, I'm just curious, 18 and I'll start with Ms. Curran. Just so I'm on the 19 same page as where you're coming from in the petition, 20 I'd like you to expound a little bit on what the 21 petitioner views operating experience to be. And if 22 there's any material within the petition that 23 addresses this, if you could point to that.

24 MS. CURRAN: It's, I think we address it 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 16 in our contention and in Mr. Lochbaum's report that 1 operating experience would include the operating 2 experience of the licensee, but also the operating 3 experience of the entire fleet of operating reactors.

4 And the, generally the focus is on the reactors in the 5 United States.

6JUDGE KENNEDY: And did I hear you say 7 that this also includes the operating experience of 8 Peach Bottom itself?

9 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

10 JUDGE KENNEDY: Of is it only a focus on 11-- at one point it seemed like the petition was 12 focusing on external experience.

13MS. CURRAN: Well, it is focused on 14 external experience in the sense that that is the 15experience that's declining. We will have Peach 16 Bottom's operating experience, assuming the license is 17 renewed for the entire period.

18 But the, if you look at the regulatory 19 history, they contemplated that, and this has been the 20 case throughout the history of NRC regulation of 21 reactors, that the experience of all reactors is 22 consulted in order to make sure that one's own reactor 23 is as safe as possible.

24 And I was reviewing Mr. Lochbaum's expert 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 17report the other night and noting that there was an 1 event at Davis-Besse, prior to the Three Mile Island 2 accident, which is of course we're very near the 3 anniversary of the Three Mile Island accident today, 4 that had the licensees known about it, been able to 5 learn from the Davis-Besse experience, things might 6have gone differently. But that information wasn't 7 conveyed, at least not in time.

8 That's the kind of thing that we are 9 concerned about, that that external operating 10 experience is on the decline.

11JUDGE KENNEDY: Right, so just to be 12clear, for my clarification. So if there is no event 13 or accident at the plant, is operating experience 14 still being generated? I mean, I know that Mr.

15 Lochbaum's report seems to focus on event-driven 16experience. But does operating experience still 17 continue to be gleaned, even if there's no event at a 18 station?19MS. CURRAN: Well, there are tests and 20 experiments conducted at Peach Bottom all the time, so 21 that one of the things that we're saying is that if 22 external operating experiences decline, that if the 23 amount of data that's coming out of external plants 24 declines, then Peach Bottom could or Exelon could step 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 18 up the amount of monitoring inspections that it does.

1JUDGE KENNEDY: Again, I know we're going 2 to get to this later, but every time I hear the word 3 decline, I mean, is that what you really mean to say?

4 I mean, operating experience, at least in my world, by 5definition can't decline, it always increases. Any 6 time a plant's operating, operating experience will 7 increase.8MS. CURRAN: Well, that's true. But what 9 if the plant's not there, what if it's not operating?

10 It's simply a decrease in the number of operating 11 reactors from which one could draw the information.

12 So I agree with you about if it's operating, yes.

13JUDGE KENNEDY: So it's a decrease in the 14 rate of accumulation.

15MS. CURRAN: That's a better way to put 16 it, yes.17JUDGE KENNEDY: Is that the way we should 18--19MS. CURRAN: If you look at the total 20 accumulated experience in the reactor fleet, as plants 21 go out of operation, then the volume of that 22experience, and also maybe the nature of it, or you 23 know, the number of different events that might teach 24 us something decrease.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 19JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you.

1 Maybe turn just quickly to the Exelon and the staff.

2Anything you need to add in terms of this operating 3 experience discussion?

4MR. LEWIS: Yes, please. If I could 5begin. Ms. Curran indicated that the focus of 6 operating experience is mainly on reactors in the 7 United States. That's not the case.

8 The basis for Beyond Nuclear's assertion 9 was that when the Commission promulgated its Part 54 10 regulations, it required a minimum threshold of 20 11 years of operation by the plant before it could file 12 its renewed license.

13 That 20 years is obviously plant-specific.

14 A plant could have, be operating for 19 years, but 15 have the benefit of 40 years of industry experience.

16 So the fact that the Commission imposed that threshold 17 does a couple things.

18 One, it shows that probably the most 19 important type of operating experience is plant-20specific operating experience. And second, it decided 21there was a need for a threshold. It was a threshold 22 on plant-specific operating experience.

23 The Commission's rules did not impose a 24 requirement that you have a threshold for external 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 20 operating experience.

1 The other point I want to make quickly too 2 is that both the GALL report for subsequent license 3 renewal and the application identify the sources of 4operating experience that are examined. In fact, Mr.

5 Lochbaum admits in his report that operating 6experience comes from many sources. So it isn't just 7 US domestic nuclear plants, it's research, which is 8 very important.

9And in fact, when you look at Beyond 10 Nuclear's reply in the case that the NRC's research is 11tailored to fill the knowledge gaps, which quite 12 frankly to me is almost fatal to their contention, it 13 includes international operating experience.

14 There are 450 plants operating 15 internationally, and the review of operating 16 experience is an international requirement. There's 17 IAEA guidance that requires review of operating 18 experience, just as it's required in the United 19 States.20 A major complaint of our position in 21 looking at whether this contention is admissible is 22 that Beyond Nuclear's contention is looking to 23 external domestic reactor-related operating experience 24 to the exclusion of all these other sources. And it 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 21 never explains why the multiple sources that exist are 1 not sufficient.

2JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you, Mr.

3 Lewis.4 MS. GAMIN: Your Honor, I'd like to make 5 two brief points on operating experience too. First 6on the definition. I think when a lot of people hear 7 operating experience, they do primarily think of 8things going wrong. And of course lessons learned 9 from things going wrong can be extremely important for 10 the nuclear industry and for our NRC's regulatory 11 scheme.12 But in fact, every day adds another day of 13operating experience. Let's say we have ten years in 14 which there is no concrete degradation beyond a limit 15of acceptability. That is still valuable data to 16 have, even though there's been no event and nothing 17 particularly going wrong.

18 Secondly, I agree with your point, Judge 19 Kennedy, that the body of operating experience that we 20 have is not going to go away. It's not like a 21 resource that gets consumed and used up.

22It's more like a library. The library is 23 not going to go away. Every day we add books to it.

24 And so it may, we may see a decline in rate of accrual 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 22 of operating experience, but what we have is not going 1 to go away. Thank you.

2JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. Let me return 3back to Beyond Nuclear. I mean, I don't hear a 4 general disagreement on what operating experience is.

5 Maybe what I'd like to explore a little bit is what 6 Beyond Nuclear views as the role of operating 7experience in the management of aging effects. And I 8 can repeat that if you need to.

9 MS. CURRAN: I'm sorry.

10 JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm curious, now that we 11have sort of a working definition of operating 12 experience, what Beyond Nuclear views as the role of 13 operating experience in the management of aging 14effects. How should it be used, how is it being used.

15MS. CURRAN: Operating experience ensures 16 the effectiveness of aging management programs, by 17 either confirming that the aging management program is 18 considering everything that's relevant, identifying 19 new issues that should be added to an aging management 20 plan, and ensuring that the aging management plan 21 keeps up with the new information that's yielded by 22 operating experience about the aging experience of 23 nuclear plants.

24 And there's much that is discovered as 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 23 nuclear plants age and are inspected about things that 1degrade that perhaps were not expected. I am involved 2 in the Seabrook case, where I don't think anyone ever 3 expected that portions of the concrete in the Seabrook 4containment would become jelly-like. That was not 5 expected.

6That's a alkali-silica reaction. There's 7something that the licensee there has spent years 8 investigating and has now added to its aging 9management plan. As a result, in that case it was the 10 experience of that particular plant.

11 But I would guess that that is going to 12 affect other plants, that will be their aging 13 management plans will have to have some kind of a 14 mechanism to make sure that's not a problem there.

15 That's an example.

16JUDGE KENNEDY: And that's a good example 17 to support your view of the effectiveness of the aging 18 management program.

19 I'm also curious is you see any role, I 20 mean, the application has a large number of aging 21 management programs that, at least from my 22 perspective, appear to be based on a long history of 23 operating experience and special effects tests and 24 theory to develop the initial aging management 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 24 program.1 I don't see anywhere in the petition that 2 Beyond Nuclear recognizes the role of operating 3 experience in the actual development of the original 4 aging management program that's in the application.

5 Is that intentional, or is your focus really only on 6 the effectiveness portion?

7MS. CURRAN: We don't deny that NextEra 8 would have used operating experience to develop an 9aging management plan, or that they consulted. The 10 problem is, as stated in our contention and Mr.

11 Lochbaum's report, Exelon isn't looking at down the 12 road. 13 And we're talking about an extended period 14 of operation, when the availability of useful 15 operating experience declines, there needs to be a 16 mechanism for addressing how to make sure that there's 17 still a robust or substantial amount of operating 18 experience that could be consulted.

19 That just, perhaps, of course when these 20 plants were initially licensed, it was a different 21 era, and we weren't at the point where reactors were 22 closing down.

23 But this is the thing that's missing, is 24 some acknowledgment that the volume and the nature, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 25 the variety of operating experience is decreasing and 1 needs to be addressed in the aging management plan in 2 order to be sure that the plan does recognize new 3 information and deals with the kinds of aging effects 4 that could be experienced and become known throughout 5 the entire fleet.

6JUDGE KENNEDY: Again, you focus on the 7effectiveness. It seems to me that there's an 8 implication here that the amount of operating 9 experience that went into the development of the aging 10 management programs that are in the application is not 11robust enough. I don't know if you could speak to 12 that at all.

13MS. CURRAN: Yeah, sure. Well, it may 14 have been robust enough at the time, but the question 15 is it's very basic that as operation of nuclear 16 reactors goes along, more is revealed about the 17 condition of the equipment through inspections or 18 events. 19 So that then the question is do you have 20 a good program for making sure that you have enough of 21 this newly emerging information to inform your aging 22 management plan to make sure that you're aware of 23 problems that need to be addressed or issues that need 24 to be addressed.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 26 So it doesn't really, it's not intended to 1 be a criticism of the program as it was developed.

2 But it's a criticism of the program going forward.

3 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right, and I think that, 4 again, this keeps, goes back to sort of where we 5 started with the definition of operating experience, 6 which in my mind tends to focus on an event-driven 7experience. For argument's sake, if the fleet, US 8 fleet, Peach Bottom included, operated with no event, 9 on one hand, and no new information is gleaned.

10 On one hand, one could argue that the 11 aging management programs are effectively managing the 12 aging effects for these facilities. So I understand 13 what you're saying, is that you're looking for the 14 Seabrook type example.

15 But if no Seabrook example presents 16 itself, then I would argue that the robust material 17 that went into the development of the original aging 18 management program and then confirmed by a non-event 19 driven history of event, of operating experience, says 20 things are okay.

21 I think you're presuming that something's 22 going to happen, and -- go ahead.

23MS. CURRAN: Operating experience can cut 24both ways. It can, Mr. Lochbaum gave me an example of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 27 inspections of piping revealed that piping wasn't 1degrading as fast as was anticipated. So then the 2 frequency of inspections of piping could be decreased 3 in an aging management plan.

4 But, say, on the example we just gave of 5 Seabrook, there's an issue with the containment 6 concrete that needs to be addressed in the aging 7 management plan that wasn't there before.

8 So if something, and this was, you know, 9 if you look back at the preamble to the original rule, 10 I just want to go back and make sure we quote, that 11 you know we quoted language in that preamble that 12talked about external operating experience. That was 13 something that the Commission was interested in. It 14 wasn't just the experience of the individual 15 licensees.

16 They wanted to be able to, the licensees, 17to share information. And Mr. Lochbaum has pointed 18 out to me that on the international level, there are 19 not requirements to share operating experience the way 20 that our licensees are required to share operating 21 experience with INPO. It's not necessarily the case 22 with international operating experience.

23 So it is important to take a look at the 24 volume and character of operating experience, external 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 28 operating experience, in this country.

1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Does the petition or the 2 technical expert's report provide any insight as to 3 how one would a priori decide how robust operating 4 experience needs to be going forward?

5 MS. CURRAN: We don't propose a standard 6 for evaluating it. But we say that Exelon should do 7 that, should come up with some evaluation of what they 8 had in the past and what would be useful to have in 9the future. Mr. Lochbaum does offer some alternative 10 ways of getting that experience in his report.

11JUDGE KENNEDY: Yeah, I think we have some 12 questions later on that'll get to that, so I guess I'm 13getting a little ahead of myself. So we'll come back 14 to that. I think we have a series of question later 15 on, so I appreciate the input here.

16 Mr. Lewis, I'll give you a chance if you 17 want to counteract any of this or add something to it.

18 MR. LEWIS: Just a couple points.

19JUDGE KENNEDY: Could I ask you also to 20 maybe address this international experience issue that 21 Beyond Nuclear's raised here, that there's no 22 requirement for them to?

23MR. LEWIS: Well, I'll address that first.

24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 29MR. LEWIS: I don't know out of the 450 1 plants that are operating internationally, about 350 2 must be international as opposed to domestic if we 3have 100, how many of them do it. But I know it is an 4 IAEA standard. It's SSG-50, and I'm quite sure that 5 in the OECD and the European countries, you know, this 6 is a requirement.

7 I don't know what they're doing in China, 8 but there is a, certainly a large body of 9 international operating experience that is maintained.

10 If you look at what the NRC staff looked at in 11 preparing the GALL report, they actually referred to 12 the international databases that they looked at for 13 OE. 14 So no, I can't say all 450 is, but there's 15 certainly a very substantial body of OE is that is 16 reported and maintained and shared.

17On the role of OE, it is twofold. Part of 18 it is showing that the programs that have been 19established are effective. That's a requirement that 20you look at. Whether your OE coincides with the OE 21 that the NRC based the GALL report recommendations on.

22 And in fact Mr. Lochbaum states, The 23 subsequent license application for Peach Bottom 24 describes how operating experience has demonstrated 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 30 the effectiveness of aging management programs and 1 specific components and structures. That also makes 2 it very hard to understand why there's an admissible 3 contention if he's admitting that OE has demonstrated 4 our programs are effective.

5 There is a future look too, it's to make 6sure that you get feedback from what you're doing. I 7 think the principal focus of that is very much on 8 plant-specific OE because it's the same environment, 9 it's the same components, and you're looking at, you 10know, whether what you are doing is working. But you 11don't lead into that. Obviously, in this industry we 12 look at lessons learned, we shared operating 13experience. And you also look elsewhere to see if 14there's something new that has come up. So that is a 15 role.16 That doesn't follow, though, that you then 17have to try and define some threshold amount. I'm not 18even sure how you would do that. I think to make that 19 case, it is really necessary to try, for the 20 petitioner to demonstrate that particular aging 21management programs need some threshold. I don't 22 think you can do it in the abstract.

23 There are programs that don't have 24 knowledge gaps, like, you know, corrosion of piping.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 31People know what corrosion is, there's no knowledge 1gap. There's many programs that don't rely on 2nuclear-related operating experience. Once you're 3 outside the NSSS system, you basically have a steam 4 electric plant.

5 You know, cables subject to submergence 6 don't just exist at nuclear plants, there are cables 7in New York City, and they get wet. Concrete, you 8 know, concrete is used in so many industrial 9applications. There's a huge body of OE, and it 10 doesn't depend on nuclear plants.

11 So probably our primary response to this 12 contention was that Beyond Nuclear never really did 13 this to any specific aging management program to 14 explain why do you need some threshold for some aging 15 effect. That's utterly lacking in their contention.

16JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. NRC staff, 17 just a couple of closing views if you have them.

18MS. GAMIN: Just briefly, your Honor.

19 NRC's Office of International Programs does collect a 20 lot of data about international events and operating 21experience. I'd also like just briefly to respond to 22 Ms. Curran's point about the Davis-Besse event that 23 perhaps should have informed operations at Three Mile 24 Island.25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 32 Our reporting requirements both for 1 licensees and our practices for NRC have changed a lot 2 since then. We learned from that, we stepped up our 3 generic communications with regulatory issue 4 summaries, generic letters, info notices, and 5 reporting requirements for licensees in 20CFR 5071.

6 Thank you.

7 JUDGE KENNEDY: Just a note to the Court 8Reporter. I saw you peeking, I'll try to identify 9 myself so that you know it's me speaking.

10 I just have one quick question for Exelon, 11 and again this is sort of, again, looking at an aging 12 management program, are there other aspects, or to use 13 the term elements, of an aging management program that 14 would inform the plant staff about the adequacy, the 15 effectiveness of a particular aging management 16 program? Something we should be looking at, I guess 17 in my mind, other than OE?

18 MR. LEWIS: Well, there are ten elements 19 of every aging management program, and collectively 20 they all provide assurance that the program is 21effective. When I make the point that this really 22 needs to be related to a specific aging management 23program, it's in order to demonstrate an admissible 24 issue of genuine dispute.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 33 Those programs vary, and for example, one 1 of the aging management issues, or one of the 2 technical issues that Mr. Lochbaum referred to was 3irradiation of concrete. Now, you can't take that in 4 the abstract.

5 If you look at the aging management 6 program that's described, it identifies based on 7 research a threshold at which a radiation effects on 8 concrete aren't considered significant, or above which 9you need to worry about them. And our application 10 shows that we're below that threshold. So you don't 11 need a body of plants in order to be able to assess, 12 you know, is that issue being addressed.

13 If you look at, for example, submergence 14 of cable, which is one of the issues that's flagged, 15 the aging management program includes a preventative 16element. And so what our application describes is 17 that we've been installing alarms on manholes so that 18is water is accumulating, the manhole's alarm. And if 19 it accumulates to the point where it needs to be 20 pumped out, it is.

21 If that occurs frequently, Exelon has been 22installing sumps and drains. So there's first a 23 preventive element, which is one of the ten elements 24 that manages the effect and makes sure that the aging 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 34 program is effective.

1 There's also a condition monitoring 2 element, and that's an important element in many, many 3aging management programs. And so for cable, even 4 though you're trying to prevent wetting, you also do 5testing of cables. You do testing to make sure the 6 insulation remains intact and effective and meets it 7 specs. So that's a fission monitoring element.

8 So yes, you need to look at all these 9elements together. And simply to say you need some 10 threshold OE universally across the board, you know, 11 doesn't raise any genuine dispute with the 12 application. I could give you other examples.

13JUDGE KENNEDY: But if heard you speak, I 14 heard you correctly when you started, this is Judge 15Kennedy, sorry. The effectiveness of the AMP, the 16 basic measure of that is still based in operating 17 experience, did I hear you say that, or?

18MR. LEWIS: I said operating experience is 19 an important element, it's one of the ten. And it's 20certainly important. We have no dispute that it's 21 important and, you know, Mr. Lochbaum cited many 22 sections of the GALL report and SRP that says it's 23important. We agree that we do everything that the 24 GALL report says, but it's not the only element.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 35 And effectiveness also depends on 1 preventing aging effects from occurring and it also 2depends on condition monitoring that make sure, you 3 know, if you're wrong, you catch it.

4JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you. NRC 5 staff, anything to add?

6MS. GAMIN: I have nothing to add at this 7 point, thank you, your Honor.

8MS. CURRAN: Could I just respond to that?

9JUDGE KENNEDY: I would like to ask a 10question of the petitioner. Oh, okay, go ahead. I 11 was going to ask you if you had anything to respond 12 to. Go ahead.

13MS. CURRAN: I do, thank you. Well, I 14 think the first word that Mr. Lewis said was research 15 about the irradiation of concrete, that studying these 16problems or these potential issues is important. And 17 research is one source of information, and of course 18 research depends on data, and where do you get that 19 from?20 We also rely on the, in the preamble to 21 the regulation that required licensees to have 20 22 years of experience before applying for a license 23 renewal, the NRC I think used the term substantial.

24 They wanted the amount of operating experience to be 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 36 substantial.

1 So there's a question, we're raising a 2 material factual dispute here about what is 3substantial, and we think there's a problem with 4 having an adequately substantial amount of operating 5 experience going forward.

6 It may have been sufficient for the first 7 license renewal term, but we are now at the threshold 8 of the second license renewal term, and circumstances 9 have changed such that it warrants going back and 10 seeing if this criterion of substantial operating 11 experience is still being met.

12 And if it's not, then how should it be 13addressed. And not to simply say we'll go on as we 14did before and that should be sufficient. Because as 15 we have demonstrated, we've provided facts to raise 16questions about whether it is possible to go on as 17 before and still have confidence that the amount of 18 operating experience is adequate, is substantial.

19JUDGE KENNEDY: So part of what I just 20 heard you say is that you don't believe that the 20-21 year criteria is any measure of what the Agency deemed 22 as substantial.

23 MS. CURRAN: It's a partial measure, but 24 the NRC was also looking for 20 years of experience in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 37the fleet, not just the individual reactor. And this 1 was of course, this was in, would have been 1991, only 2 about 20 years or so into the operating life of most 3 reactors, even less.

4 JUDGE KENNEDY: And now we're at 45.

5MS. CURRAN: Yeah, we're quite a ways down 6 the road.7 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is that true?

8MS. CURRAN: And the situation is 9 different.

10JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess the other point I 11 wanted to follow up on is that you're, and I guess I'd 12 like you to point to the petition or the expert's 13 report, of where you state the fundamental difference 14 between the initial license renewal period and the 15 subsequent license renewal period.

16 Because I thought I just heard you make a 17 distinction, that something's different for this 18 period of operation than the initial license renewal 19 period extended operation.

20MS. CURRAN: Well, the key difference 21 here, and it is stated in both the petition and the 22report, is that the number of operating plants, 23 operating reactors, is decreasing, and is likely to 24 decrease through the subsequent license renewal term 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 38of Peach Bottom. That's the difference on which we 1 rely.2 If you look at section 4 of Mr. Lochbaum's 3 report, it's entitled Aging Management Programs Will 4 Need Further Changes.

5JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thank you. Go 6 ahead.7JUDGE ABREU: Mr. Lewis, in your petition, 8 excuse me, in your answer to the petition, you often 9talk about your robust operational experience. And 10 you mentioned that it is described in the application, 11 but you didn't cite which parts of the application you 12consider part of your description. Could you give us 13 some details on which part you consider applicable to 14 that description?

15 MR. LEWIS: Yes, there are two sections, 16 one is in Appendix A and one is, I believe, in 17Appendix B. They are, maybe step back one second 18 first. 19 Operating experience is one of the ten 20elements for every aging management program. So every 21 aging management program indicates, for example, that 22 it's looked retrospectively at operating experience, 23 and we're fall within the bounds of the GALL report 24 and we don't have any indication that the program that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 39 we're adopting needs to be supplemented.

1 There is also, again, this forward look.

2 And rather than repeating it in every aging management 3program, there is a section again in Appendix A and 4 also a description in Appendix B up front of what 5 those operating experience -- forward looking reviews 6look at. And if you give me a second, I can find the 7 citations, but it would probably take me a second, or 8 I could.9JUDGE ABREU: You could do it during a 10 break.11 MR. LEWIS: Okay, I will do that.

12JUDGE ABREU: So how close is Peach Bottom 13to being the longest running commercial plant? Who's 14 ahead of it? At this point, and then there may be a 15difference with once you get to the extended 16 operations period of subsequent renewal, since some 17 have not applied for subsequent.

18MR. LEWIS: I don't know the answer to 19that. Peach Bottom is a BWR-4, it's a fourth 20generation. So I mean, there's BW-1s, BWR-2s, and 21 BWR-3s before that. I think it's probably somewhere 22in the middle. BWRs, and I suspect it is somewhere on 23 PWRs too, but I don't know exactly where the ranking 24 is.25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 40JUDGE ABREU: So at the point you would 1 begin the period of extended operation for subsequent 2 renewal, do you have a sense of who's older?

3MR. LEWIS: I was just consulting with my 4client. I think there's about 20 or 30 plants that 5 are older. Just in the Exelon fleet, there's Ginna and 6 Nine Mile Point that are older. I mean, plants like 7Monticello are older. But again, I can't give you the 8 exact number. But it's, we're not the oldest.

9 JUDGE ABREU: At this point in time.

10MR. LEWIS: At this point in time. Again 11--12JUDGE ABREU: Then at the point where 13 subsequent renewal would kick in. I'm guessing some 14 of those plants have not applied for subsequent 15 renewal.16MR. LEWIS: Yeah, that's true. We're the 17 second one, so that's --

18 JUDGE ABREU: We're aware of that, so.

19 MR. LEWIS: Just means that we're breaking 20ground. But it isn't just age though that's pertinent 21 in deciding, you know, is operating experience coming 22in. A lot of the issues that Beyond Nuclear is 23 raising are fluence-related.

24BWRs have lower fluence than PWRs. You 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 41 can have newer PWRs that are producing a lot more 1 fluence that are giving perfectly valid operating 2 experience. You don't need older plants necessarily 3 to do that.

4JUDGE ABREU: What about internationally?

5 Are there plants that at, again, looking at your 6 period of extended operations for subsequent renewal, 7 are you aware of any plants outside of the US that 8might be older? From which you would be gaining, the 9 old person, the old guy's operating experience, so to 10 speak.11MR. LEWIS: Well, I'm sure they are. I 12 don't know how many of the plants in Japan remain 13operational. A lot of them are restarting. A lot of 14those were initially, you know, BWRs, older BWRs. But 15 there are certainly international plants that are 16 older than Peach Bottom, I just don't have a number.

17JUDGE ABREU: Okay. With, Ms. Curran, so 18 with that in mind, since there are fewer and fewer of 19 the old plants, as you've pointed out, are the 20 concerns you're voicing in your petition actually 21already concerns? Are they concerns today about plant 22 operation?

23 Are there already some of the issues 24 you're pointing out occurring now? So what makes it 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 42 that it's a concern at the point Peach Bottom begins 1 extended operation, what makes it happen then and not 2 before then?

3MS. CURRAN: Well, as a factual matter, 4yes, it would be a concern now, of course. As a legal 5 matter, at the point of license renewal, Exelon has a 6 legal burden of demonstrating that it satisfies NRC 7safety requirements going forward. And so this is the 8 moment at which to examine the aging management 9 programs and make sure they are adequate to satisfy 10 the regulations.

11 So that's, it's a difference between, I 12 guess, a factual matter and a legal matter.

13 JUDGE ABREU: Okay, so let's look at the 14 factual matter a bit, even though we'll be addressing 15the legal matter of contention admissibility. So the 16 concern you have, one of the things I think we're 17 struggling is how do you decide when these concerns 18 become real.

19 They might be real today, or there might 20 be a point in the future when they become real. And 21 then how would you identify when that point occurred, 22when that point is going to occur. So you know, what 23 I heard you say was yes, in a sense they're already 24 concerns. Is that correct?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 43MS. CURRAN: Excuse me for a minute. It's 1hard for me to separate or to, not to focus on the 2legal issue. But maybe I can connect them.

3 Throughout a reactor's operating life, there are many 4 issues, questions of whether the regulations are being 5met. And that's a matter of enforcement discretion 6for the Agency. Has this gotten bad enough to take 7 enforcement action?

8 When you get to the point of taking 9 licensing action, there's a review that has to take 10 place of all those question, is there compliance with 11 these regulations going forward. That's the way the 12NRC process works. You go for years where you make an 13initial licensing determination, the NRC does. The 14 regulations are complied with.

15 And then operation goes forward, and maybe 16 sometimes it's not in compliance, or there's questions 17 about it, but you do your best to compensate and the 18Agency makes decisions as to whether to take 19 enforcement action.

20 When you get to the point of licensing, 21then across the board review takes place. That's what 22 the staff is doing in its Safety Evaluation Report, 23 looking at the aging management programs and saying 24are these adequate to satisfy our regulations. And 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 44then we'll go forward another 20 years and it will 1 become an enforcement issue again.

2 So I just really have trouble, I'm having, 3 I don't think it makes a difference from a legal 4 standpoint that the problem exists today. It's just 5 there's really nothing that Beyond Nuclear could do 6 about it today.

7JUDGE ABREU: Well, if you felt there were 8 a safety issue today, there are pathways for 9 presenting that to the Agency.

10MS. CURRAN: That's right, we could bring 11 an enforcement petition, which uniformly yields 12nothing. I mean, I'm sorry to say that, but I've done 13a lot of them and they, it's, the Agency usually 14 answers it's in our discretion whether to enforce the 15 law, and thank you very much, we'll let you know.

16 JUDGE ABREU: But if you could.

17 MS. CURRAN: Sure.

18JUDGE ABREU: What I'm hearing you say is 19 that yeah, we really are already concerned about this, 20 but this is our opportunity to get our voices heard.

21MS. CURRAN: Because if this license is 22 not renewed, then Peach Bottom will not continue to 23operate beyond its 60-year term. So this is an 24 opportunity to make sure the regulations are complied 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 45 with for that additional 60-80 years.

1JUDGE ABREU: So how can you decide, other 2 than the fact that this is your legal entry point, how 3 can you decide when these issues will actually become, 4I hate to use the term real issues. But I mean you're 5 already saying, well, we actually think they're issues 6 already.7 MS. CURRAN: They're issues by virtue of 8 the regulations, by the regulatory guidance, what is 9 required of Exelon in submitting a license renewal 10 application here.

11 The regulation 10CFR 54.21(a)(3) requires 12 components and structures to have effective aging 13management programs. 54.21(d) requires an FSAR 14 supplement to describe the use of operating experience 15 in aging management programs. And the NRC expresses 16 an expectation that the FSAR supplement should be 17 sufficiently comprehensive, such that later changes 18 can be controlled by 10CFR 50.59.

19 These are all requirements for license 20 renewal that we are saying are not satisfied here 21 because of the failure to address this decreasing 22 operating experience.

23 So to add a little more to this that 24 unless the FSAR supplement has, is sufficiently 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 46 comprehensive, including with the kind of information 1 we seek, then the 50.59 process, which is intended to 2allow the licensee to modify the license without 3 further license amendments as it goes along, can't be 4 fulfilled because there isn't enough specificity in 5 the actual FSAR.

6JUDGE ABREU: And where is that in the 7 petition? You can find it on the break.

8MS. CURRAN: All right, I'll find it on 9the break. I also, if I could just go back to this 10 Appendix A and Appendix B of the license application.

11 I just wanted to direct you to a part of Mr.

12 Lochbaum's expert report where he discusses that.

13 Okay, he describes, and he quotes a lot of 14 the text of Appendix B in his report on pages 28 and 1529. And then he reaches some conclusions about it on 16page 30. He says in his last paragraph, The 17 subsequent license renewal application provides 18 numerous examples, and he's talking about Appendix B, 19 of how external operating experience resulted in 20 effective aging management programs at Peach Bottom.

21 But the subsequent license renewal 22 application fails to describe how aging management 23 programs would continue to remain effective, should 24 the amount of external operating experience be 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 47 significantly reduced as reactors permanently shut 1 down. 2 If availability of sufficient external 3 operating experience yielded effective aging 4 management programs, then unavailability of sufficient 5 operating experience would undermine the continued 6effectiveness of those programs. And then he 7 describes that in more detail in section 7.

8 So he, Mr. Lochbaum does address these 9 appendices in Exelon's license application in his 10 report. And this is our issue, it's pretty simple.

11 JUDGE KENNEDY: Does the Lochbaum report 12provide any support for the sufficiency argument? How 13was sufficiency determined? Why isn't what's there 14 sufficient?

15MS. CURRAN: Well, I would refer you to 16 section 7 of his report. And again, it gets back to 17our fundamental concern, and it is pretty simple.

18That in order to safely operate nuclear reactors, 19 licensees rely on the whole body of operating 20 experience that exists throughout the fleet, not just 21 their own operating experience.

22 And that, the amount of available 23operating experience, is decreasing. It raises 24questions. If that's what you're relying on and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 48 you're all alone out there, or you're getting lonelier 1 and lonelier, and you, I mean, this is what life is 2 like. You learn from other people's experience.

3 Licensees learn from other reactors' 4experience. After a certain point, if there's nobody 5 else out there whose experience you can learn from, 6 it's a different situation.

7 And this is something that was built in by 8 the Agency from the very beginning. Because at that 9time, in 1991, there were many operating nuclear 10 reactors. There were a hundred.

11JUDGE KENNEDY: Again, I guess, I keep 12 going back to how many friends do you need to not be 13 lonely. Do you need two friends?

14MS. CURRAN: I'm sorry, that was a bad 15 example. It's not loneliness, let's just talk about 16 learning.17JUDGE KENNEDY: I like those examples 18 because they're easy to understand.

19 MS. CURRAN: But supposing you wanted to 20 get a college education by just doing it yourself.

21 You're better off having someone else talk to you 22 about what it is you want to learn.

23JUDGE KENNEDY: Yeah, I think that, again, 24 we're going to get to this later on again. But I 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 49 think the fundamental problem I keep having is at some 1 point in time, the Agency said these aging management 2 programs are acceptable, go forward and continue to 3 monitor operating experience.

4 That situation isn't, from what I can see 5 in your petition, fundamentally different going 6forward than it is when that was established. And if 7 we get to count foreign operating experience and test 8 reactor operating experience, it's actually more 9 robust. 10 So I'm really struggling with how the 11 Board would have to view the sufficiency argument and 12 where the support for a sufficiency determination 13 exists, other than the statement that at least in the 14 Us, there's a potential for a declining fleet of 15 reactors. But it's far from lonely out there.

16MS. CURRAN: But I'm just trying to think 17 of all the cases I've been involved in where the rest 18 of the world was deemed irrelevant to the operation of 19a US reactor. Of course I can't think of the specific 20 examples, but there have been plenty where it was the 21 US experience, the experience of licensed US reactors 22 that counted.

23 And that I think was what the Commission 24 was thinking about when they promulgated that rule in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 50 1991. They weren't thinking about the international 1 fleet, they were thinking about the US fleet of 100 2reactors. And it may be a question of addressing it.

3 And you know, I think it is a question of addressing 4 the issue.

5 The issue is not addressed in Exelon's 6application. They say we're going to go on as we 7always have and things will continue to be fine. And 8 we're presenting factual evidence that says no, you 9 don't have the same basis for your optimistic 10 prediction as you had before, because you do not have 11 the same body of operating experience you had before.

12 Now, it may be that Exelon will revise its 13 application and say we have a body of experience in 14the international field that's similar reactors. Mr.

15 Lewis was saying well, you can just, you can't compare 16 the apples and the oranges.

17 So all right, we have maybe they'll say we 18 have a body, a group of reactors, international 19reactors, that's similar to Peach Bottom. And we are 20going to rely on their operating experience, and 21that's going to be part of what we look at. Well, let 22 them say that. But it isn't even mentioned.

23MS. GAMIN: Could I respond to some of the 24 points that have been made, your Honors?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 51JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm sorry, I can't hear 1 you.2MS. GAMIN: Could I respond to some of the 3 points that have been made, your Honors, please?

4JUDGE KENNEDY: Yeah, I'll tell you what.

5 Why don't we break now, and after the break, you can 6respond to those points, okay? We'll take a 15-minute 7 recess. Thank you.

8 (Whereupon, the above-ent itled matter went 9 off the record at 10:11 a.m. and resumed at 10:27 10 a.m.)11JUDGE GIBSON: Before we get back into our 12 questions, there's a few little housekeeping matters 13 I want to take care of real quickly.

14 Mr. Lewis, you made a reference to BWR and 15 PWR, and I'm sure that most folks here know what that 16 is, but just to be sure that the transcript is clear, 17 would you please explain what those abbreviations 18 mean?19MR. LEWIS: Yes, a BWR is a boiling water 20 reactor, and a PWR is a pressurized water reactor.

21JUDGE GIBSON: Okay, thank you. Now, I 22 believe Ms. Abreu had some specific, asked you for a 23 cite to something, and she gave you an opportunity to 24fill that in at the break. Could you do that for us, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 52 please, sir?

1MR. LEWIS: Yes, our description of 2 operating experience is described primarily in section 3 B.1.4 of the application, with also a short summary in 4section 8.1.6. Those sections are cited on page 20 of 5 our answer.

6 Just on that point too, the description in 7 B.1.4 indicates that our program relies on and 8 interfaces with the Institute of Nuclear Power 9 Operations' operating experience program, and that 10 INPO program definitely looks at international 11 operating experience.

12JUDGE GIBSON: Okay, she may have some 13 more follow up for you in a minute with that.

14 MR. LEWIS: Yes.

15JUDGE GIBSON: But I want to make sure 16we've cleaned up our loose ends. Ms. Curran, I 17 believe Judge Abreu, and possibly Judge Kennedy, asked 18 you for a citation to something in your petition and 19gave you a chance to find that at the break. Did you 20 find it?21MS. CURRAN: I just want to make sure that 22 I was looking for the right thing.

23 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.

24MS. CURRAN: I think it was to a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 53discussion of section 50.59. Was that it? That's on 1 page 41 of Mr. Lochbaum's report.

2JUDGE GIBSON: Okay, thank you. Now, Ms.

3 Gamin, I believe you wanted to say something and I cut 4 you off because we should have taken a break about 15 5 minutes earlier, so go ahead.

6 MS. GAMIN: No problem, Your Honor. I'm 7 in favor of breaks too.

8 JUDGE GIBSON: Good.

9MS. GAMIN: We briefly talked about 10 petitions for enforcement. I just wanted to respond 11 to that because I want people to know that petitions 12 for enforcement are only a small part of the NRC's 13overall enforcement program. We have an Office of 14 Enforcement dedicated to enforcing regulations.

15 In addition to enforcement issues 16 identified by members of the public, it's also very 17 common for licensees to identify these issues and for 18 NRC staff to do so.

19 Especially we very often have resident 20inspectors identify enforcement issues. These are 21 people who work full time on site at Peach Bottom and 22 at all other U.S. power reactors.

23 That said, I actually agree with Ms.

24 Curran that a petition for enforcement might not be 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 54 the most appropriate pathway for Beyond Nuclear's 1 concern here because there's actually nothing in 2 contention 1 that is truly unique to Peach Bottom or 3 specific to this license renewal application.

4 The heart of this contention is a generic 5 concern about how the nuclear industry is going to 6 respond to this context in which the number of 7operating U.S. power reactors may decline. I'm not 8 sure I'm convinced it's going to decline, but it 9 might, and how will we ensure effective aging 10 management in that world?

11 That was why we took the position in our 12 brief that this is a generic concern that would best 13 be addressed with a petition for rulemaking under 10 14 CFR 2802.

15 Because it's not specific to Peach Bottom 16 and it's not material to the findings the staff has to 17 make on this application, it's just not appropriate 18 for the adjudicatory process.

19 MR. LEWIS: May I add a couple of points 20 too just following up on that? I'll be brief.

21 JUDGE GIBSON: Sure.

22MR. LEWIS: Thank you. Judge Abreu asked 23whether, you know, is there a problem today? I think 24 if there were a problem today, Mr. Lochbaum would have 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 55 not said our application demonstrates, or our 1 operating experience demonstrates that our aging 2 management programs are adequate.

3 Presumably that means they're, you know, 4 just fine today, and there isn't anything magical that 5 I'm aware of that will all of a sudden make those not 6 appropriate.

7 You know, the real question is when does 8this become real and how could you ever set a 9threshold? I just want to reiterate I think that you 10can't even answer that question unless you relate 11 those to specific aging management programs.

12 This was a sort of blunderbuss attack on 13 all of the aging management programs, but to 14 demonstrate that there's a genuine dispute with our 15 application, that our aging management programs aren't 16 providing reasonable assurance that effects are being 17 managed, this concern has to be related to specific 18 aging management programs and do they depend on some 19 threshold. That showing has never been made.

20 I guess I also would like to reiterate 21what my colleague from the NRC staff just said. At 22 some point too, you've got to recognize there's an NRC 23 regulator looking over this and generic issues could 24come up in the future. Things could change in the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 56 future. 1 There's a regulatory process that, you 2 know, NRC would step in if at some point its rules no 3 longer remained effective, but I don't know how one 4could ever possibly, at this juncture, define a 5 threshold critical mass of domestic, you know, nuclear 6 OE that somehow has to be maintained. I don't think 7 you can do that in the abstract.

8 So if there's a problem with a particular 9 aging management program, Beyond Nuclear should have 10explained why, but this sort of amorphous general 11 concern that something might exist in the future, if 12 it does, it will be addressed by the NRC through it's 13 normal processes.

14JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Ms.

15 Curran, before you respond to that specific point, I 16 also would like for you to address the likelihood of 17 your success of filing a petition for rulemaking as 18 Ms. Gamin suggested.

19 MR. LOCHBAUM: Zero.

20 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay?

21MS. CURRAN: Sure, we are concerned about 22the safety of operation of Peach Bottom. Beyond 23Nuclear has members that live near the plant. Of 24 course if there were an accident at Peach Bottom, it 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 57 would affect people in a much larger radius.

1 So we think that this licensing proceeding 2 is an appropriate place to address safety concerns 3 about Peach Bottom's operation.

4 It has to do in part with interpretation 5 of NRC staff guidance, and the standard for that is 6 that if an intervener or a petitioner comes in and 7 says this guidance is not being satisfied the way that 8 the applicant is proposing, then it's possible to get 9 admission of a contention that says there is a way to 10 do it that would satisfy the regulation and should be 11 implemented.

12 So we don't think we're in the wrong 13 place, and I don't want to speculate on the chances of 14-- I think you would have to decide first are you 15 going to try to amend the guidance document or are you 16going to try to seek a rule, a new rule? That's a 17 very long process and we're in a licensing proceeding.

18 A decision is going to be made about 19 whether Peach Bottom can operate an additional 20 20 years, and the word today was brought up, and I just 21want to put this thing, this case in its time 22framework. The two licenses for the Peach Bottom 23 reactors expire in 2033 and 2034, so we're way in 24 advance of those expiration dates.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 58 And we -- this is not Beyond Nuclear's 1 choice. This is the choice of the NRC in setting up 2 this process and in Exelon in filing their 3application. We are obligated to look into the future 4 and raise concerns that will arise in 2033 and 2034 5 for a subsequent license renewal term.

6 And I would bet you dollars to donuts that 7 by the time 2033 rolls around, there will be more 8nuclear reactor closures in this country. It's a 9 trend that Mr. Lochbaum demonstrates in his report.

10 So we have no choice but to look into the 11 future and predict what the conditions will be during 12 this license renewal term. That's how the game is 13 structured.

14JUDGE KENNEDY: Where in Mr. Lochbaum's 15 report does he describe when this decline becomes a 16problem? Again, I'm stuck. Is it a problem today?

17 We've already lost three or four units since Peach 18 Bottom went into its initial license renewal period.

19MS. CURRAN: Judge Kennedy, it is not 20Beyond Nuclear's job to set the standard. It is 21 Beyond Nuclear's job to identify the problem.

22 When the rule was proposed, when the 23 license renewal was proposed in the early '90s, the 24 number of reactors being licensed was on the increase.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 59 It was a different situation.

1 There was no question about the 2 availability of a substantial amount of operating 3 experience that could be had after the first 20 years, 4 and now the trend is reversing and we are raising a 5 factual question that the NRC needs to address this 6 problem and evaluate what to do.

7It isn't our job to solve the problem.

8 It's our job to identify the problem, put the 9 contention into dispute, and to call upon the licensee 10 and the agency to address it.

11JUDGE KENNEDY: Yeah, I guess -- I hear 12you. I mean, I agree that you have raised the 13question. There is no doubt in my mind that Beyond 14 Nuclear has raised a question that there is a 15 potential impact of the decline in operating reactors.

16 What I'm struggling with is the significance of that 17 issue and where the support is for why this decline is 18 relevant to this proceeding.

19 I keep going back to we have the original 20 GALL Report and we have the GALL-SLR Report, both of 21 which have stated that there are adequate aging 22 management programs at this point in time, and this 23 point in time is as recent as 2017.

24 So someone has made a determination on the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 60 part of the agency that there is sufficient operating 1 experience to develop an aging management program and 2 to move forward, yet I see no challenge in the 3 petition as to why that's not adequate and support for 4 that challenge.

5MS. CURRAN: Okay, let me direct you to a 6 document that is discussed in our petition and that is 7a staff requirements memorandum. It's at SRM SECY 14-80016. The title is "Ongoing Staff Activities to 9 Assess Regulatory Considerations for Power Reactor 10Subsequent License Renewal." It's dated August 29, 11 2014.12 The last paragraph of this one-page memo 13 says, "The staff should keep the Commission informed 14 on the progress in resolving the following technical 15 issues related to SLR: reactor pressure vessel neutron 16 embrittlement at high fluence, irradiation assisted 17 stress corrosion cracking of reactor internals and 18 primary system components, concrete and containment 19 degradation, and electrical cable qualification and 20 condition assessment." 21 So these are issues that the Commission 22 has said to the staff, "We are not satisfied that 23 these issues are addressed or resolved," and how are 24we going to address them? It in aging management 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 61 programs that -- the NRC has decided to let, to go 1ahead with subsequent license renewal in spite of 2 these unresolved issues.

3 So how will they be addressed, these 4unknowns? How will the information gap be closed?

5And we're saying that one of the ways has got to be 6 operating experience, to learn from operating 7reactors, their experience of these issues. And if 8that amount of experience is going down, how do we 9 resolve these problems? And if you look at --

10 JUDGE KENNEDY: But yet, don't --

11 MS. CURRAN: I just want to --

12 JUDGE KENNEDY: Don't we both agree that 13 there will be operating experience going forward?

14 What we seem to be disagreeing on is how much 15 operating experience seems to be needed.

16MS. CURRAN: Let me -- could I just 17 rephrase that?

18 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.

19MS. CURRAN: I don't think that's the 20 point of disagreement.

21 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.

22MS. CURRAN: The point of disagreement is 23the failure to acknowledge that it is an issue that 24needs to be addressed. You have to do that before you 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 62 get to how much is enough, and that's the thing that 1 hasn't -- that's the job, the task that hasn't been 2 done yet here.

3 And I think in Mr. Lochbaum's report, he 4 notes how if you're evaluating operating experience 5 and you have a bunch of criteria that are where is 6this coming from, what does it mean, who found, you 7 know, who did the evaluation, and what does it say, if 8 you don't have any criterion of are we getting a big 9enough picture of what's going on in reactor 10 operation, you never evaluate that.

11 It is not part of Exelon's aging 12 management plan to look around and say, "Have we got 13 a real paucity of information here such that we think 14 everything is fine just because nobody us telling us?

15 There's no information coming in?" 16JUDGE KENNEDY: We're back to how many 17 friends do I need to have to be lonely?

18 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

19JUDGE KENNEDY: I mean, you've defined it 20 as a --21MS. CURRAN: I wish I had never done that.

22JUDGE KENNEDY: -- scarcity, not -- but --

23 MS. CURRAN: But --

24JUDGE KENNEDY: I mean, you keep moving to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 63a scarcity of information. One could argue, and 1 Exelon probably would, that there's quite a bit of 2 information. There's at least 96 operating reactors 3 today and that doesn't -- again, we'll leave the 4 foreign reactors out of this.

5 MS. CURRAN: Okay.

6 JUDGE KENNEDY: So I keep struggling --

7 MS. CURRAN: There's 96 today.

8 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right.

9MS. CURRAN: And how many will there be in 10 2033? And we see a trend that they are closing. We 11 are not -- how many new reactors are being licensed?

12 There is one under, two reactors under construction 13now. That's it. So we have a trend that is 14 unmistakable and is not being addressed.

15JUDGE KENNEDY: Let's go back again to the 16development of the aging management programs. Is 17 there anything within the GALL that Mr. Lochbaum has 18 identified that speaks to this need for a sufficiency 19 of data or does it just speak to the need to look for 20 the data, to have an operating experience element?

21MS. CURRAN: I'm sorry for the delay. The 22 GALL Report identifies and discusses what we know 23 about the condition of operating reactors under 24license renewal review. It doesn't identify the gaps.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 64 It doesn't --

1JUDGE KENNEDY: Well, but yet they're 2 identified as acceptable programs to use to manage 3 aging effects. That, to me, always has implied that 4 there isn't a significant gap or knowledge -- I got 5 lonely -- or a lack of knowledge to --

6 I mean, it would seem inconsistent with 7 developing a specific program if there is a known gap 8 or a lack of knowledge at that point in time. It 9 would seem to me the most prudent thing would be to 10 not put forward an aging management program on that 11 particular topic if there was, as you would say, a gap 12 or a lack of knowledge.

13 That's my premise, and I guess that's what 14 I've struggled with through all of this is that at a 15point in time, this all seems to be acceptable, but 16 yet there's this going forward picture that I haven't 17 really been able to get in focus of the role of 18 operating experience during the period of extended 19 operation and the relative impact of the declining or 20 potential declining fleet of U.S. operating reactors.

21 I'm having trouble reconciling those two.

22MS. CURRAN: So if you look at Mr.

23 Lochbaum's report, section three, he goes through the 24 history of the development of the GALL Report, which 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 65 has been revised a number of times based on operating 1 experience, and continually identifying and resolving 2 new issues.

3 And what Mr. Lochbaum's report does is he 4 identifies some of the knowledge gaps and poses the 5 question, "How will the guidance be upgraded?" 6 Because this is an important document to tell 7 licensees how to conduct their aging management 8 programs in the license renewal term.

9 As the amount of information goes down to 10 inform the GALL Reports, how does that process stay 11 adequate to inform the aging management programs?

12JUDGE KENNEDY: So at some point, it's 13 adequate, and at some point, it's no longer adequate?

14 Is that the picture that Mr. Lochbaum is painting in 15 section three?

16 MS. CURRAN: We believe that by the time 17 the subsequent license renewal term arrives that there 18 will be a serious question as to whether this process 19 is going to keep working.

20 JUDGE KENNEDY: So the fundamental basis 21 of your contention is that there has to be a robust 22 history of operating experience to make aging 23 management work?

24 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 66JUDGE KENNEDY: Yet that's not identified 1 within the GALL that you've highlighted in your 2 petition that I'm aware of.

3MS. CURRAN: Well, the GALL is a 4 demonstration of how operating experience is used to 5 inform the aging management programs.

6JUDGE KENNEDY: But yet the Commission --

7 MS. CURRAN: It's also a living document 8 that's constantly being revised.

9JUDGE KENNEDY: I understand, but yet the 10 Commission has spoken and said if you use a GALL, an 11 aging management program consistent with GALL, we 12 believe it provides reasonable assurance, and so, to 13 me, there's always been an assumed confidence level in 14 the process.

15MS. CURRAN: Well, could I just -- let me 16 share my interpretation, and you might be talking 17 about the Oyster Creek decision.

18 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.

19 MS. CURRAN: And --

20 JUDGE KENNEDY: Maybe.

21 MS. CURRAN: That decision, I think, was 22 an initial license renewal case, and it also, it said 23 that whatever an aging management plan or program has, 24 it has to address these 10 elements that include 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 67 operating experience.

1And then I think it goes on to say but 2 there's some aspects of the GALL Report that you could 3 challenge if you were an applicant or an intervener 4 because the basic rule, the rule that the NRC applies 5 in challenging guidance documents is compliance with 6 the guidance document is considered adequate unless 7 either the applicant or the intervener presents some 8 good reason to do it another way, that another way is 9 either necessary or allowable to comply with the 10 regulations.

11 But definitely the Commission thought that 12 those 10 elements had to be in an aging management 13plan, and that included operating experience. So I'm 14 not sure -- I don't think I get to the place where the 15 Commission said, "If you comply with the GALL, that's 16 the end of it." 17JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, so let's turn it 18around then. Is the petition suggesting there is not 19 operating experience in the Exelon application for 20 Peach Bottom?

21MS. CURRAN: We're suggesting there is not 22 a plan to provide for sufficient operating experience, 23and sufficiency needs to be addressed. The whole 24 issue of what is sufficient needs to be addressed.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 68 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right, thanks.

1 JUDGE ABREU: Let me circle back. There 2 was a point that Mr. Lewis made about the issue of the 3 applicability of this concern to the current program 4 and your statement earlier about, "Well, yes, in a 5 sense, it does," but you just don't have an opening 6 for doing that.

7 So is that still -- am I correct that 8 that's your position, that if you could, you'd say 9 this ought to be addressed in the current aging 10 management programs, that they should already be 11 thinking about this issue?

12MS. CURRAN: Yes, you know, in an ideal 13 world, yes.

14JUDGE ABREU: So in a sense, wouldn't that 15 be looking at the current licensing basis since the 16 ability of the licensee to maintain their current 17 licensing basis is in part based on their aging 18 management programs?

19 So in a sense, you're saying we're not 20 convinced we can do all of that because this is not 21 part of the program, addressing this issue of 22 potential inadequacy of operating experience that's 23 going to happen at some undefined point?

24 (Simultaneous speaking.)

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 69JUDGE ABREU: So in a sense, it could 1 happen before we get to 2033.

2 MS. CURRAN: All right, I'm going to try 3to answer your question. I'll keep trying if it 4doesn't satisfy you. In current operation, operating 5 license, operating experience provides feedback to the 6 licensee on any issues or problems and allows a 7 licensee to address them and correct them, so that is 8 currently how, in the operating license, the current 9 licensing basis, I guess, context, you'd say, that it 10 works. 11 But as I was mentioning in relation to the 12 SRM SECY 14-16, there are unresolved issues that the 13 Commission has identified that need to be addressed, 14 they said, in part of the subsequent license renewal 15process. So if those issues have been put into the 16 subsequent license renewal process, then it begs the 17 question how? How will we do that?

18 And in the licensing process, the adequacy 19 of the aging management plan is an issue, and we would 20 submit the adequacy of the aging management plan to 21 address these unresolved issues for which more 22 information will be needed to address them.

23 There is not a sufficient amount of 24 information available now to address them in the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 70context of the current licensing basis. The 1 Commission has said these issues have to be addressed 2 in the subsequent license renewal process, so there, 3 I think, is the diffe rence between the current 4 licensing basis and the SLR process.

5JUDGE ABREU: My focus is on your 6 concerns, the concerns you have identified, which I 7 realize relate to those, but what I'm trying to sort 8 out is how does one determine when those become a 9 significant issue?

10 When we look at safety things, the kind of 11 simple view is there's assessments done and things are 12 decided that things are safe, and then there needs to 13 be something that creates a significant change in that 14 decision. Those are the things that we have concern 15about. There's a lot of things people worry about 16 that don't significantly change that safety analysis 17 in various aspects.

18 So since your concern is about the 19 adequacy of the rate of inflow of operating 20 experience, I'm trying to figure out how you figure 21 out at what point, you know, and how could you figure 22 out when that becomes an issue?

23 Is it one now? Is it going to be one in 24 10 years, or 20 years, or maybe not until 50 years?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 71 You know, how would you even go about figuring that 1out? And so if we start with is it already a concern, 2 that at least gives us a starting point.

3MS. CURRAN: Well, to me, the relevant 4 time period that you have to look at is the time 5 period of the subsequent license renewal period.

6 That's the time period that's at issue in this 7 proceeding.

8JUDGE ABREU: I understand that part, but 9 I'm looking at it just from a technical standpoint of 10 is there really that point that somehow magic -- why 11 is that the magical point from a technical standpoint, 12 not from -- I realize from a legal standpoint, this is 13 the opportunity because now we can talk about 14 subsequent renewal issues, but why does it start then 15 technically?

16MS. CURRAN: Well, one of the documents 17 that is important in any license renewal case or any 18 licensing case is the FSAR, the Final Safety Analysis 19 Report, which in this case, is the FSAR supplement, 20 and 10 CFR 54.21d requires the FSAR supplement to 21 describe the use of operating experience in aging 22management program effectiveness. So that's what 23 we're seeking is a better description of that.

24JUDGE ABREU: All right, let me just move 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 72on then from here. Mr. Lewis -- well, Ms. Curran, let 1me go back. A point you made, let me make sure I have 2 it correct, is that lacking acknowledgment of 3 operating experience, that operating experience, or as 4 I would say, the rate of accumulation of operating 5 experience, lacking that it is decreasing is your core 6 concern, the lack of acknowledgment --

7 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

8JUDGE ABREU: -- of that fact. So Mr.

9 Lewis, do you agree or disagree that there may be a 10 decrease in the rate of accumulation of operating 11 experience at some point down the road that could be 12 during the period of extended operation of the 13 subsequent license renewal?

14MR. LEWIS: I would agree that in the 15 United States right now, it looks like there will be 16 a decrease in the rate of accumulation of domestic 17 operating experience.

18 Whether that applies internationally, 19 because there are a number of plants that are being 20 built overseas, I don't know whether that overall 21 there would be a decrease internationally or whether 22 it would be a wash.

23 JUDGE ABREU: All right, given that, can 24 you explain, in general terms at least, what about 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 73 your aging management programs takes that into 1 consideration?

2MR. LEWIS: Yes, and let me also in doing 3 so address the SECY 14-0016 issues which I think is 4 the predicate here, that there's these knowledge gaps 5 that need to be filled by this ongoing operating 6 experience.

7 The SECY paper identified issues that had 8 been flagged by what was known as the Expanded 9 Materials Degradation Assessment, EMDA. Actually in 10 2013 was when that report was prepared and it was done 11 specifically to help the NRC staff get ready for a 12 second license renewal and figure out where to 13 concentrate on their guidance.

14 That was followed by about a five-year 15 process where research was done by DOE, and EPRI, and 16 the NRC staff developed the GALL-SLR Report and 17 addressed these issues, and then our application comes 18 in and further addresses these issues.

19 And as we have said in our answer, Mr.

20 Lochbaum starts with these 2013 issues, but he never 21 connects them to what's in our application or what's 22in the GALL Report. He never explains why is there 23 still a gap that somehow has to be filled by this 24 operating experience?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 74 And when you look at each of these issues, 1 and we didn't do that in our answer because they 2 hadn't challenged any of the aging management 3 programs, but Ms. Curran just referred to the reactor 4 pressure vessel embrittlement issue.

5 Our application has an analysis that shows 6 that the upper shell of energy standard in Appendix G 7to Part 50 won't be exceeded at 80 years. That's not 8 challenged.

9 It also indicates that we have, for each 10 unit, three specimens, three capsules with 11 representative specimens still in the reactor vessel 12 and that we will take out, you know, one of those at 13 the beginning of the second period of extended 14 operation that has a fluence of at least one to two 15 times the peak fluence of the vessel at 80 years.

16 So we're not relying on a study or a 17projection. We're actually taking a specimen and 18measuring the fracture toughness. So why do you need 19the operating experience? It's helpful, but to 20 provide reasonable assurance, we have described the 21 program that does that in spades.

22 And in fact, again, as I mentioned, PWRs 23 have higher fluence, and BWRs, our projected fluence 24 at 80 years is lower than a lot of plants at 60. So 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 75 none of those points are addressed.

1 With respect to irradiation assisted 2 stress corrosion cracking, the GALL-SLR Report added 3 a requirement that a licensee address whether 4 supplemental inspections are needed, and we've been 5 relying on what's known at the BWR VIP procedures, but 6 we were required by the GALL-SLR Report to explain, in 7 light of this phenomena, was there a need for 8 additional supplemental inspections.

9 At each case, our application addresses 10it. It addresses what are the fairly well accepted 11thresholds at which this is a concern. It walks 12 through each of the reactor vessel components to 13 determine whether that threshold is exceeded.

14There are some that are exceeded. In that 15 case, it either shows that there's an inspection that 16 will catch this mechanism before it's a problem.

17 Typically that's an inspection procedure 18 that's based on a flaw tolerance evaluation, which is 19 identifying a flaw and applying fracture mechanics to 20 figure out how quickly can it grow in between 21 inspection intervals, and if it can't propagate the 22 failure within that interval, you're doing the 23inspections. You're making sure this can't be a 24 problem that arises.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 76 In other cases, our application shows 1 that, you know, cracking won't cause the component to 2 fail, but it walks down each of those issues that Ms.

3 Curran indicates these haven't been identified and 4they haven't been resolved. They're addressed in our 5 application.

6It's the same thing on the impact of 7 thermal and irradiation embrittlement on reactor 8vessel internals. Again, there's a GALL-SLR 9 requirement that you go back, that an applicant go 10 back and identify whether there's a need for 11 supplemental inspections. We did basically the same 12thing. We identified the accepted thresholds at which 13 these effects occur.

14 We screened each of the components to 15 determine whether the threshold is exceeded, and if it 16is, we show that there's an inspection that 17 specifically monitors condition to make sure that in 18 between our inspection intervals it's not going to 19 propagate to failure.

20I've already mentioned concrete. You 21know, there's, again, a threshold. We show we're 22below it. What are the other issues? Submergence, 23 I've identified a submergence of cable.

24 We've got a program that is intended to be 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 77 preventative to try and stop water from accumulating 1 that will affect cables, but in addition, we have 2 condition monitoring, actual tests to determine that 3 the insulation will continue to perform its function.

4 So the GALL-SLR Report addresses these 5things. We address these things. There is simply 6 nothing in Mr. Lochbaum's report or in the petition 7 that relates any of these concerns to what is in the 8 SLR GALL Report, or in our application, or shows that 9 there is an issue that exists now or that will exist 10 in the period of extended operation.

11 I guess on top of that, as we've discussed 12 already, there are effectiveness reviews and they have 13to be conducted every five years, and the NRC also 14 inspects.

15 And I guess the basic thesis of Beyond 16 Nuclear's contention is maybe somewhere down the road, 17 you know, there won't be applicable operating 18 experience and nobody will recognize it.

19 That's sort of basically an assumption 20 that somehow Exelon won't comply with the rules to 21make sure it maintains the effectiveness of its 22 program and the NRC won't do its job.

23 And in essence, I mean, and I think it's 24 fairly well established that in looking at 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 78 contentions, you don't assume that applicants are 1going to, you know, ignore NRC requirements. We've 2 got to look at effectiveness, and it's built into our 3 process, and it's done every five years.

4 And I can't tell you what's going to exist 5 in, you know, 2040 or 2050, but I can tell you there's 6 ongoing effectiveness reviews and the NRC is going to 7 inspect us, and I think the NRC regulatory process is, 8you know, pretty darn rigorous. I think if there's a 9problem in the future, the NRC will ratchet up its 10 requirements.

11JUDGE ABREU: Staff, do you have any 12 comment on this discussion?

13MS. GAMIN: Yes, Judge Abreu. I'd like to 14 reiterate the point that the GALL-SLR Report is 15 guidance. I'm glad Ms. Curran brought up the Oyster 16 Creek case because I don't agree with her take on it.

17 This argument was made in petitioner's 18 reply primarily at pages five to six that the 19 Commission in the case of Oyster Creek chose to make 20 some elements of the GALL-SLR Report mandatory.

21 I think if you look at the language the 22 Commission chose to use in that case, and I'm 23 referring to page 468 of a case that begins at 68 NRC 24 461, the Commission says, I'm paraphrasing, if you 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 79 choose to use the GALL-SLR Report for your aging 1 management programs, you must demonstrate you have 2 done so and demonstrate that the operating experience 3 and conditions at the plant are bounded by the GALL-4 SLR conditions and OE.

5 However, the Commission acknowledges that 6 applicants don't have to use the GALL-SLR Report and 7 they can choose another method to demonstrate the 8 effectiveness of their aging management programs.

9 And the Commission says again at page 468 10 if the applicant uses a different method for managing 11 the effects of aging, then the applicant should 12 demonstrate to the staff reviewers that its program 13 includes the 10 elements cited in the GALL Report and 14 will likewise be effective.

15 So notice the Commission doesn't use 16"must" language or "requires" language. It says, 17"should demonstrate."

18I think the use of that language, along 19 with the fact that this statement is in the background 20 section of the case, it wasn't necessary for the 21 holding in Oyster Creek, shows that it was not the 22 Commission's intention to change the established legal 23 status of the GALL-SLR Report as guidance.

24So the GALL-SLR Report is guidance. It 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 80 has a number of recommendations on how applicants 1should consider OE. Just to summarize, they should 2 consider all currently available OE and commit to an 3 ongoing review of operating experience that becomes 4 available.

5 So essentially we're saying consider 6 everything that is available, but there is no 7 recommendation in the GALL Report to speculate as to 8 what may not be available in the future. Thank you.

9JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, in that regard, Ms.

10Curran, on page five of your reply, you cite the 11Oyster Creek case and you suggest it stands for the 12 proposition that the Commission requires operating 13 experience identified in the GALL-SLR Report as one of 14 10 essential elements of an aging management program 15that is to be addressed in license renewal 16 applications. Is that correct?

17 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

18JUDGE KENNEDY: And you also assert, 19 contrary to the staff's claim, that not all of these 20 10 elements are advisory, and in particular, that 21operating experience is not advisory. Is that 22 correct?23 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

24JUDGE KENNEDY: Now, Ms. Curran says that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 81 you're arguing in your answer that all 10 are merely 1 advisory issue, right?

2MS. GAMIN: Yes, Your Honor. The whole 3GALL-SLR Report is guidance. Our requirements on 4 aging management are found in relevant part at 10 CFR 5 54.21(a).6JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, and Ms. Curran, now 7 that the staff has explained their position, are the 8 two of you in agreement or in disagreement?

9MS. CURRAN: I think we're in 10 disagreement.

11JUDGE KENNEDY: And what is it you are in 12 disagreement with the staff about in this regard?

13MS. CURRAN: On the Commission's 14 requirement that these 10 elements have to be 15 addressed regardless of whether the GALL Report is 16 relied on, and I'm going to read the sentence that we 17 rely on. On page 468 of the decision --

18 JUDGE KENNEDY: You're talking about the 19 Oyster Creek decision?

20MS. CURRAN: The Oyster Creek decision, 21 yes.22 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay, thank you.

23MS. CURRAN: The Commission says if the 24 applicant uses a different method for managing the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 82 effects of aging for particular SSEs at its plant, 1 then the applicant should demonstrate to the staff 2 reviewers that its program includes the 10 elements 3 cited in the GALL Report and will likewise be 4 effective.

5 So to me, that says the 10 elements, 6 whatever you do, you have to include the 10 elements, 7 and we know that the 10 elements include operating 8 experience.

9 And I just also want to read you just a 10 little bit from an interim staff guidance document 11 related to subsequent license renewal because the 12 staff says its position about operating experience in 13 there. It's called --

14JUDGE GIBSON: Just a second. Yeah, I was 15 going to say could you identify the document --

16 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

17 JUDGE GIBSON: -- for us, please, ma'am?

18MS. CURRAN: It's called Final License 19 Renewal Interim Staff Guidance, and the identification 20 number is LR-ISG-2011-05, and then the subtitle is 21 Ongoing Review of Operating Experience, and --

22JUDGE GIBSON: And what is the date of 23 this?24 MS. CURRAN: You know, there's no -- oh, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 83 hold on, 2012.

1 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay, thank you.

2MS. CURRAN: There is no date on the 3 document, but I know it's 2012.

4 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay, thank you.

5MS. CURRAN: It's a reference document in 6 Mr. Lochbaum's report.

7 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay, thank you, ma'am.

8MS. CURRAN: At page C-21 of this guidance 9document, there's a statement. This is a tabular 10 document, but there's a column that identifies the NRC 11 staff's response to a particular issue.

12 And it says, "Further, although the GALL 13 Report AMPs are based on operating experience, 14 crediting these programs does not negate the need for 15 an applicant to review plant specific operating 16 experience or operating experience after publication 17of the GALL Report." So the obligation to review 18 operating experience is independent of the GALL 19 Report.20 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay, thank you.

21 JUDGE KENNEDY: Are you -- we're back to 22 this again. Are you suggesting that the application 23 does not do that, and if so, where in the petition do 24 you suggest that, that they don't review operating 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 84experience? And Mr. Lewis has just stated all of the 1 operating experience pieces that --

2MS. CURRAN: We are not saying that the 3application does not review operating experience. The 4 application does not address the future inadequacy of 5 the aging management program during the subsequent 6 license renewal term that is likely to arise from the 7 lack of sufficient external operating experience.

8 That is the thing that -- that is the 9deficiency, the lack. It is a contention of omission 10 that the application does not address a factor that is 11 relevant.12JUDGE KENNEDY: What is the legal 13 requirement for this missing piece of information?

14MS. CURRAN: It goes back to the preamble 15 of the license renewal rule that says a license 16 renewal applicant has to have a substantial amount of 17 operating experience to rely on, and that includes 18 internal and external, and 10 CFR 54.21.

19JUDGE KENNEDY: And does it define a level 20 of substantial operating experience in that document?

21 MS. CURRAN: No, it does not.

22 JUDGE KENNEDY: It just uses --

23MS. CURRAN: Because at the time, there 24was no need to make such a definition. There was a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 85 growing body of operating experience.

1JUDGE KENNEDY: But yet it was early in 2 the operating history of U.S. plants or earlier?

3 We're 25 years beyond that document, I believe.

4MS. CURRAN: That's right. That's right, 5 and the --

6 JUDGE KENNEDY: So there was --

7MS. CURRAN: The application needs to 8 respond to the demands of the current circumstances.

9JUDGE KENNEDY: But there wasn't an 10 insufficiency then, but you're suggesting that you 11 need to be careful there isn't an insufficiency in the 12 future?13MS. CURRAN: Yes, or to compensate for it.

14 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.

15MS. CURRAN: And it's not a speculative 16 thing.17 JUDGE KENNEDY: And why is that?

18MS. CURRAN: Because we, in Mr. Lochbaum's 19 report, he demonstrates a trend of decreasing external 20 operating experience that is likely to continue and be 21 exacerbated in the subsequent license renewal term.

22JUDGE KENNEDY: Just out of curiosity, in 23 Mr. Lochbaum's report, how many plants will be 24 operating in 2033 and what's the basis for that?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 86MS. CURRAN: If you'll hold on one minute?

1 If we take the information in his table one, Mr.

2 Lochbaum's table one, it's reasonable to predict that 3 there might be several dozen plants operating.

4 JUDGE KENNEDY: Several dozen?

5 MS. CURRAN: Yeah.

6 JUDGE KENNEDY: In 2033?

7 MS. CURRAN: Mm-hmm.

8JUDGE KENNEDY: Does that information 9 include any additional subsequent license renewals or 10 the remaining plants that have not yet undergone 11 initial license renewal?

12 MS. CURRAN: No.

13 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.

14JUDGE ABREU: Back to talking about the 15 degree of their aging management programs depending on 16 external experience for Exelon, do you have -- let's 17 say you could come up with a number, and say it's like 18 20 percent internal, 80 percent external, or 80/20, or 19 50/50, which of those is significant?

20 How would you figure out which one 21mattered? My understanding of the first part of 22 contention one is that you'd like the applicant to 23make a determination on internal versus external. Is 24 that correct?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 87 MS. CURRAN: No, it --

1JUDGE ABREU: Well, you said the degree 2 their aging management program depends on external 3 operating experience, right?

4 MS. CURRAN: Yeah, to a degree, it does, 5 and I think the thought process would be to look at 6 the historical pattern of how much internal and how 7 much external was relied on. You're looking for the 8 total amount and you're also qualitatively evaluating 9 it, I would say.

10JUDGE ABREU: But isn't it always 11 shifting?12MS. CURRAN: It might be shifting, but 13 you're looking for -- I'm not sure how exacting a 14 standard you could have, but you would be looking for 15 some total amount of hours, numbers of facilities, 16 types of facilities.

17 You probably would have something, you 18know, a little complicated to evaluate it. It 19 wouldn't be a simplistic test because you're trying to 20 evaluate the amount and nature of operating experience 21 that would be sufficient to give you a good sense of 22 what kind of issues you're dealing with.

23 And then you would look at, well, if I 24 don't have operating experience from, say, other 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 88 reactors, what other sources of information are there 1 or, you know, we have some -- oh, excuse me.

2 Mr. Lochbaum, in his report, he has a 3figure four on page 38. This is an illustration of 4 the kind of thought process that one would go through 5 to --6 JUDGE ABREU: The box?

7MS. CURRAN: Yeah, the box that -- in 8 other words, you're looking for -- so if you evaluated 9 the susceptibility of components to degradation, then 10 you would be looking for operating experience that 11 would inform your management of those components.

12 So that might be one of the criteria you 13 looked at was, for instance, on that list that is in 14 the SRM SECY paper, these are areas of susceptibility, 15and you would be looking at, well, what kind of 16 external operating experience is there available that 17 would inform us as to how to resolve these issues, and 18--19JUDGE ABREU: So in a sense, it kind of 20 would fluctuate between the topic? Some things --

21MS. CURRAN: It might change by topic, 22 yeah. The ones that are really important, you would 23 be looking for more operating experience, the ones 24 that were more of a risk.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 89JUDGE ABREU: If it's so variable, how 1 could an applicant define that now?

2MS. CURRAN: Well, the applicant would 3 need to have some kind of program in place to address 4 it over time and say these are --

5JUDGE ABREU: Isn't that what an aging 6 management program does?

7MS. CURRAN: Well, it's not currently 8 doing it. Exelon doesn't do that.

9 JUDGE ABREU: It's not doing what?

10MS. CURRAN: Exelon is not looking --

11 Exelon does not have a program to determine do we have 12 enough information about this issue or that issue to 13 help us adequately evaluate the condition of these 14 components? They just look at what is available and 15use that. They don't question the adequacy of what is 16 available.

17JUDGE ABREU: Let me just turn to Mr.

18 Lewis and say what is your comment? Do you have any 19 comments on that discussion?

20 MR. LEWIS: Again, I think that what Ms.

21 Curran said actually supports our position that to do 22 this, you've got to relate it to the specific aging 23 management programs, which they have never done.

24 And in each of aging management programs 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 90 where there is an issue like this of uncertainty, we 1 either show that we have a condition mon itoring 2 program that will detect an aging effect before it 3 occurs or that there's an applicable threshold. You 4 know, there's a number of approaches that we've taken 5 and it's just not related.

6 At bottom, I think what Beyond Nuclear is 7saying is that we have to have a program that 8 identifies the unknown and the unknowable, and I don't 9 think that's a genuine dispute with the application.

10 JUDGE ABREU: So let's just --

11 MS. CURRAN: I'd like to just -- I think 12 that's a good example of okay, Exelon has some 13 measures for some of these components that might be 14 particularly vulnerable, and they have their own 15 operating experience, and they're looking at research 16 and other things.

17 And what we're saying is you also need to 18 evaluate whether the available operating experience 19 that you once relied on implicitly to help you resolve 20 issues with respect to these vulnerable components, as 21 that information becomes less available to you, how 22 will you compensate for that?

23 That's a piece of it along with all of the 24 other things he lists. I don't want to discount the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 91other things. The program sounds like it has many 1 good elements, and we're saying this one is key and it 2 is absent.

3JUDGE ABREU: Would it be fair to say that 4 you believe if the three items in contention one, the 5 subparts, if those were addressed in the application, 6 that the applicant would be better able to oversee 7 their aging management program? Is that --

8 MS. CURRAN: Yeah, yes, indeed.

9 JUDGE ABREU: That's it.

10 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

11 JUDGE ABREU: So in a sense, you want an 12 aging management program for the aging management 13program? I mean, you're saying it would help them 14 oversee it. That sounds like a management program.

15MS. CURRAN: You know, oversee might be 16the wrong word. I would say carry it out and make 17sure it's effective. I don't think we're looking for 18-- we're looking for an element of the aging 19management program that is absent. We're not looking 20 to manage the management.

21JUDGE GIBSON: Manage the management.

22 Okay, we're going to stand in recess until 12:30.

23 We'll see you then.

24 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 92 off the record at 11:27 a.m. and resumed at 12:35 1 p.m.)2JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you very much.

3 Please be seated.

4Minor housekeeping matter: If you are 5 watching this proceeding via the web stream and are 6 not seeing the closed captioning and want to have 7 closed captioning, go back to the NRC's web cast 8portal and click on the link entitled Afternoon 9 Session, Peach Bottom Subsequently License Renewal 10 Proceeding, Oral Argument Regarding Contention 11Admissibility. I hope that makes sense. Okay. Thank 12 you.13Did we cover that, Mr. Welkie? Okay.

14 All right. Ms. Curran, if we could turn 15to page 5 of your reply. You state there that insofar 16 as the elements of the GALL-SLR Study are already in 17 the Part 54 regulations they are not merely advisory, 18 but instead are mandatory. Is that correct?

19MS. CURRAN: Yes, I think we're relying on 20 the Oyster Creek decision for that.

21 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.

22 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

23 JUDGE GIBSON: And that was just -- that 24 was based on some language in the Oyster Creek?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 93 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

1 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.

2Okay. NRC staff, is there -- is Ms.

3 Curran right or wrong in this regard?

4 MS. GAMIN: Well, Your Honor, we already 5 went over a little bit why we think Oyster Creek did 6 not change the legal status of GALL-SLR or other 7guidance documents. We agree the regulations in Part 8 54 are mandatory.

9JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Fair enough. So are 10we in agreement? Is staff and you in agreement on 11 this point?

12 MS. CURRAN: I'm not sure.

13 JUDGE GIBSON: You're not sure? Okay.

14MS. GAMIN: I'm happy to say a little more 15 if that would clarify the issue, Your Honor.

16JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Why don't you do 17 that and then maybe Ms. Curran can ascertain if you 18 guys are in agreement. I'm sorry.

19MS. GAMIN: Yes, so the regulations in 20 Part 54 that were cited to in the petition are 2154.21(a)(1) and (a)(3), and they go to the 22 requirements to ensure -- to identify systems, 23 structures and components subject to an aging 24 management review and ensure that effective aging 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 94 management will be maintained during the period of 1 extended operation.

2 You notice that the words operating 3experience don't appear in that regulation. We do 4 have guidance documents such as the GALL-SLR that ask 5 applicants to consider currently available operating 6experience. And I could go on because there is other 7 discussion of operating experience in the GALL-SLR 8 Report, but there is no assumption in the GALL-SLR 9 Report that the number of operating U.S. nuclear 10 reactors will not decline.

11 There also -- contrary to Petitioner's 12 statement at page 6 in the reply, there is no 13 implication in the GALL-SLR Report that this minimum 14 quantum or critical mass of operating experience is 15necessary for effective aging management. I think 16Petitioner said that was implicitly in the GALL 17 Report, and while it's difficult to prove a negative, 18 I don't see any such implication.

19 I think that if you read everything the 20 GALL Report says about operating experience, there's 21 nothing about asking applicants to measure the amount 22 of OE available, to quantify it or assess the degree 23of dependence of their programs on it. So to that 24 extent I do think I disagree with Ms. Curran.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 95JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. And, Ms. Curran, you 1 disagree with her now that you -- she's had an 2 opportunity to amplify her earlier remarks?

3MS. CURRAN: I think NRC staff counsel is 4 still saying that they -- that operating experience is 5 not necessarily a requirement of the NRC and that it's 6not -- I guess I would stop there. And if that's the 7case, then I think we disagree. I don't think -- I 8 agree that the GALL Report doesn't say anything about 9 how much is needed; that's true, but the GALL Report 10 says it's important.

11 Oyster Creek says that the 10 elements 12 that are required -- that there's 10 elements that 13 include -- it doesn't say in Oyster Creek, but the 10 14elements do include operating experience. The 15 Commission says those can't be waived. They have to 16be addressed. Doesn't say how. It just says you have 17 to address them. So I still -- I don't hear that we 18 agree on that.

19JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Well, sounds like we 20 agree to disagree.

21 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

22JUDGE GIBSON: Let me ask you, counsel for 23 the staff, while I've got you, does the -- did the 24 GALL-SLR Study go through notice and public comment?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 96 MS. GAMIN: Yes, Your Honor.

1 JUDGE GIBSON: What significance does it 2have for you that it went through notice and public 3 comment?4MS. GAMIN: Well, Your Honor, we received 5a lot of comments on this document. This was an 6 opportunity for the public to bring up whatever 7 generic issues related to aging management they had, 8 specifically in the context of subsequent license 9 renewal.

10 In addition to the extensive public 11 comments which you can read our response to them in 12 NUREG-2222, which is not in the record, but it is 13 publically available.

14 We also considered; I think Mr. Lewis 15 mentioned, the Expanded Materials Degradation 16 Assessment Report, Domestic and International 17 Operating Experience and other sources on issues 18 related to aging management, specifically 19 I think the four technical issues that the petition 20 mentions: the reactor pressure vessel embrittlement, 21 stress corrosion cracking and concrete and containment 22 degradation in the electrical cables issue.

23 Ms. Curran stated that we don't know the 24 status of these issues, but I am not sure that's quite 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 97accurate. We actually had a public meeting to discuss 1the status of those issues in April 2017. We cite to 2 the transcript of that meeting on page 39 of our 3 response. It's footnote 169. And the conclusion of 4 that meeting was, yes, we don't know everything, but 5 these issues have been addressed to the extent that we 6 can proceed with subsequent license renewal 7applications. There are no show stoppers, I think was 8 the language that some of our experts at that meeting 9 used.10JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Ms. Curran, does the 11 fact that the GALL-SLR Study went through notice and 12 public comment make any difference to you in terms of 13 the admissibility of the contention that you have 14 proffered here?

15 MS. CURRAN: I don't think that the fact 16 that the GALL Report was offered for comment makes it 17binding. I think it's still an NRC guidance document, 18 that in order to be a binding document it would have 19 to be presented and published in the Federal Register 20 as a proposed rule.

21So setting that aside, it's -- all NRC 22 guidance documents are useful for showing the way that 23 the NRC thinks the regulations can best be complied 24with. So it's still significantly useful guidance and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 98 there's still an opportunity to challenge its adequacy 1 or for the applicant to challenge whether some other 2 way of meeting it can be done.

3 Then you add onto that the Oyster Creek 4decision which that is a decision that has a higher 5 status than a guidance document.

6JUDGE GIBSON: So I think your -- Mr.

7Lochbaum wanted you to add something else. That's 8 fine.9MS. CURRAN: Okay. All right. I'm going 10 to read from the NRC Staff Guidance document, the 2012 11 document I mentioned earlier.

12 JUDGE GIBSON: Yes.

13MS. CURRAN: LR ISG-2011-05. On page 2 --

14on page 3, excuse me, it says: Another area of 15 clarification concerns consistency between the SRP-LR, 16 the Standard Review Plan for the License Renewal, and 17the GALL Report.

Consistent with the operating 18 experience description in the current Standard Review 19 Plan-LR the effectiveness of AMPs should be ensured 20 through the future review of operating experience.

21 However, while the current SRP-LR reflects 22 this position, GALL Report, Revision 2, which was 23 issued concurrently with SRP-LR, Revision 2 in 24 December 2010 does not, the AMPs in GALL Report 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 99 chapters 10 and 11 address the 10 elements described 1 in SRP-LR Section A-123, but they do not explicitly 2 address the need for an ongoing assessment of 3 operating experience in Element 10.

4And then it goes onto say: The NRC staff 5 believes that applicants should review operating 6 experience on an ongoing basis through the term of a 7 renewed license and provide plans to do so through a 8 summary description in the FSAR supplement required by 910 CFR 54.21(d). As such, the applicant's ongoing 10 operating experience review should be described and 11 subject to certain regulatory controls consistent with 12 the other programs and activities relied on for 13 managing the effects of aging.

14 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Thank you.

15 On page 7 of our reply; I'm going to read 16 you a little bit of a lengthy quote here: The staff 17 provides no information to indicate that the amount of 18 operating experience needed to inform safe operation 19 during the license renewal term has declined and 20 neither the Commission nor the NRC staff has announced 21 that the NRC has now learned everything possible about 22 aging effects on nuclear reactor equipment, therefore 23 rendering it unnecessary to address a significant 24 decline in the amount of available external operating 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 100 experience.

1 Did I read that correctly?

2 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

3JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Now and rather than 4 a decline in the amount of experience, we're talking 5 about a decline in the number of sources of data, as 6 I think you've --

7 MS. CURRAN: Yes, that's right --

8JUDGE GIBSON: -- covered earlier with --

9 MS. CURRAN: -- to clarify that.

10JUDGE GIBSON: -- Dr. Abreu and Judge 11 Kennedy. Okay.

12 Now when I read that, it brought me back 13 to my days as an undergraduate, which is much longer 14 ago than probably the rest of you can even imagine, 15 and I learned in -- I took a course in logic and 16internal fallacies. And I wonder if you haven't made 17 an illicit contrast there because you assert that it 18has to be one or the other. It seems to me that there 19is actually a lot of ground between these two polar 20 opposite positions that you've set forth there.

21 One is that we don't have enough 22 information to achieve safe operation and the other is 23that we could learn everything possible. I don't 24 think that we need to learn everything possible before 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 101 we can achieve safe operation. So isn't what you're 1 really saying that what's needed here is to obtain 2 what we can reasonably learn?

3 MS. CURRAN: Yes, that's correct.

4 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Thank you.

5MS. CURRAN: Yes, and -- yes, I certainly 6 didn't mean to set up an illicit comparison.

7JUDGE GIBSON: An illicit contrast.

8 Right. Okay. Good.

9 MS. CURRAN: But the idea being that the 10 NRC staff hasn't given any information to suggest that 11 our concern is completely --

12 JUDGE GIBSON: Fair enough.

13 MS. CURRAN: -- illegitimate.

14JUDGE GIBSON: Fair enough. I just wanted 15 to be sure that's what you were saying.

16 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

17JUDGE GIBSON: Or intended to say, at 18 least.19Okay. Let's turn to page 8 of your reply.

20 You've stated that you have raised this question 21 whether the amount of available external operating 22 experience will be sufficient during the subsequent 23 license renewal term to adequately inform Exelon's 24 Aging Management Program; and, if it is not, providing 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 102 an alternative means of obtaining that operating 1 experience. Is that what you said?

2 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

3JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. And on page 10 of 4 your reply you list three factors that you consider 5deficient in Exelon's application, and the third of 6those three is how operating experience will be 7augmented if it is deemed insufficient. Is that 8 correct?9 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

10JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. I take it that these 11 two statements refer to the same thing --

12 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

13 JUDGE GIBSON: -- the same concept? And 14 the alternatives that you maintain Exelon should use 15 to augment the operating experience data, which are 16 set forth in Section 8 of Mr. Lochbaum's report, 17 include increasing internal monitoring, evaluating 18 reactor properties during routine maintenance and 19 evaluating the properties of components harvested from 20 other reactors. Is that correct?

21 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

22 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Good.

23 JUDGE KENNEDY: I guess I'd like to turn 24 to Exelon and sort of address the same question.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 103 We're referring to Section 8 of Mr. Lochbaum's report.

1 And referencing that Beyond Nuclear suggests a number 2 of alternative methods that's identified: increasing 3 internal monitoring, evaluating reactor properties 4 during routine maintenance and evaluating the 5 properties of components harvested from other 6 reactors.7 Are any of these methods currently part of 8 the Peach Bottom SLR application or Aging Management 9 Programs?10 MR. LEWIS: Yes. As I mentioned earlier 11 walking through the four issues --

12 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.

13MR. LEWIS: -- some of the so-called 14 knowledge gaps done in 2013 are addressed by actually 15 conditioned monitoring, looking at the parameters, 16making sure that the components will continue to 17 perform their intended function, notwithstanding the 18 aging management effect.

19Let me just go to the list again. The 20 harvesting is not really mentioned in our application, 21 but it is something that's ongoing as part of the 22 NRC's Regulatory Research Program and the industry's 23program. So no, we don't identify that as part of our 24 aging management process, but it's there in the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 104background. It's in very large measure our basis for 1the GALL-SLR Report. It's very much in large measure 2 a basis for all the Aging Manag ement Programs.

3 There's been a tremendous amount of research over the 4 years. 5 And there's actually quite a bit of 6harvesting going on. If you look at all the different 7 references in Mr. Lochbaum's -- they add up to just in 8 his report six or seven instances of cables being 9 harvested and reactor vessel pressure metal being 10harvested. So that is going on, but it's not credited 11 as an Aging Management Program.

12 I can't remember now, what was the second 13 point in Mr. Lochbaum's trilogy of recommendations?

14JUDGE KENNEDY: Reactor properties during 15 routine maintenance.

16MR. LEWIS: Part of every Aging Management 17Program is corrective action. And in addition our 18 effectiveness reviews look at what we're seeing at the 19 plant. And the operating experience very much looks 20at the results of inspections. The Operating 21 Experience Program looks at annually thousands of 22items. A lot of that is condition reports and 23 corrective actions that's coming out of plant-specific 24 OE. 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 105 So, yes, I mean, that is being looked at 1 on a real-time basis. When you have inspections, if 2 there's an inspection deficiency, it's being evaluated 3to determine is that having an impact on your Aging 4 Management Program?

5 JUDGE KENNEDY: So that specific part of 6 the three extra parts of monitoring, the corrective 7 action is in all the Aging Management Programs?

8 MR. LEWIS: Well, the elements, yes.

9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. And the other one 10 that you seemed -- I'm trying think which one it was 11-- the increased internal monitoring. It seemed like 12you were pointing to some specific AMPs. Aging 13 Management Programs, excuse me. So is that not part 14 of all Aging Management Programs, but just a couple 15that were -- you noted there may be some knowledge 16 gaps?17MR. LEWIS: Well, it depends on the Aging 18Management Program. This is why I've said you really 19 need to relate this whole issue to specific Aging 20Management Programs. Again, in some cases we're doing 21condition monitoring. Does that need to -- need to 22increase it? But whether it needs to be increased 23 depends on what is it that we're doing now and how 24 conservative it is.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 106 There are programs that are based on 1 sampling where you have to have a 20-percent sample 2and at least 25 components. So that's intended to 3 provide a 90-percent confidence limit that you catch 4the aging management effect. One of my colleagues at 5Exelon calls this smart monitoring. That's pretty 6 rigorous.7 In other cases when you're doing flaw 8 tolerance inspections you're pretty well ensuring that 9 in that inspection interval nothing is going to happen 10 and you're going to be able to come back and look at 11 the condition of the component in the next interval 12and determine is there a problem? So again, you've 13got to relate that to individual Aging Management 14 Programs, which Beyond Nuclear has never done.

15JUDGE KENNEDY: Thank you. To the staff, 16 Mr. Lewis has pointed to the NRC Research Program in 17 regard to the harvesting of reactor components. Can 18 you confirm or deny that that is part of ongoing the 19 NRC Research Program?

20MS. GAMIN: Your Honor, I would have check 21with the staff on that. Could I get back to you after 22 the break?

23 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. That's fine.

24 MR. LEWIS: Just for clarification, some 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 107 of these are DOE programs as opposed to NRC, but there 1 is NRC-DOE coordination. Some of this is also EPRI, 2 which again is coordinating the research.

3JUDGE GIBSON: Just to allow us to keep 4 this moving, counsel, if you'd like, you can confer 5 with the NRC staff at the break and give us an answer 6 then. Okay? Okay.

7MS. CURRAN: Can I comment on the 8 harvesting issue?

9 JUDGE GIBSON: Sure.

10 MS. CURRAN: Okay. Thank you.

11JUDGE GIBSON: I would have gotten to you, 12 I promise.

13 (Laughter.)

14MS. CURRAN: Thank you. It is my 15 understanding; and I'm sure Mr. Lewis will correct me 16 if I'm wrong, that Exelon, which is the owner of the 17 Oyster Creek plant which recently shut down and which 18 is also a BWR like Peach Bottom, was asked by the 19 media whether they plan to do harvesting from Oyster 20Creek and answered no. So I don't think that this is 21 a foregone conclusion that when harvesting is 22 available that it will be done.

23 And I'd just like to point out that a 24 report that we cite -- actually Mr. Lochbaum cites in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 108 his report at page 18 a report by Pacific Northwest 1 National Laboratory that's called Criteria and 2 Planning Guidance for Ex-Plant Harvesting to Support 3 Subsequent License Renewal, dated December 2017, 4 appeared on the ADAMS web site and also on the -- it 5 was PNNL, excuse me -- appeared on the ADAMS web site 6 and also the DOE's web site and has since disappeared.

7 So we think harvesting is something that 8 ought to be looked at, and these licensees are in 9 control of some of the reactors that can provide 10 useful information for the subsequent license renewal 11 period. And it's not at all clear that they plan to 12use that information. And that's one of the things we 13 want them to address.

14 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you.

15 Mr. Lewis, I'm sure you would like to make 16 a comment to --

17MR. LEWIS: Harvesting is going on. That 18 doesn't mean that every plant needs to be harvested.

19 And if you're doing harvesting, you probably want to 20have a plant that has some meaning. If you have a 21 plant that is basically the same age as your existing 22 plant, you're not getting much useful data about 23what's going to happen 20 years from now. So you 24look at plants that have greater conditions. So, yes, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 109 there hasn't been a decision as far as I know to 1 harvest components from Oyster Creek, but that doesn't 2 mean that harvesting isn't occurring under DOE 3 programs and EPRI programs and that this opportunity 4 is being ignored.

5JUDGE KENNEDY: Were you starting to 6 suggest that Oyster Creek may not have been a good 7 candidate for harvesting as Beyond Nuclear suggests?

8 MR. LEWIS: Well, it's shut down now.

9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.

10 MR. LEWIS: What is it going to tell you 11about the condition of plants 20 years from now? Not 12much. It's going to tell you what's the condition 13now? So if they're saying harvesting is needed to 14 predict what's happening in the future, you better 15 choose a plant that is really a leading indicator.

16You could harvest components from every plant. I'm 17 not sure you'd get very useful data.

18JUDGE KENNEDY: Has Oyster Creek operated 19 longer than where Peach Bottom is today?

20MR. LEWIS: Yes, it has. I'm pretty it 21sure it started in '72 or something. '69? Longer 22 than I thought. Yes.

23 JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you.

24JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. I just have one 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 110 follow-up question. We're talking about harvesting.

1What exactly is involved in a harvest? I don't think 2 we've established that previously in the record.

3 Could you tell us that, Mr. Lewis?

4MR. LEWIS: It's taking some component or 5 some piece of some component out for testing. So it 6 may be removing cables that are in the plant and 7 taking them and testing the condition of the 8properties: the insulation, the jackets. With a 9 reactor vessel it would be taking a piece of the 10 pressure vessel or a piece of the welds and going and 11 doing examinations to see how the material properties 12have changed based on whatever conditions they have 13 observed over their life.

14JUDGE GIBSON: So you harvest, meaning you 15 taking it out and then evaluate it, sort of like 16autopsy or a biopsy or something? Is that a fair 17 statement?

18 MR. LEWIS: Yes.

19 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Thank you. I just 20 wanted to be sure.

21MS. CURRAN: Could I add something to 22 that? From our -- from Beyond Nuclear's 23 perspective --

24 JUDGE GIBSON: Yes.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 111MS. CURRAN: -- a distinct character 1 feature of harvesting is that first of all you're able 2 to go and take parts of a plant that you could not 3sample from an operating plant. And second, it's a 4destructive analysis. So (A) it might not be 5 accessible in the operating plant. You have to some 6 destructive testing and therefore it may yield useful 7 information that you can't get from your own plant.

8 JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you, Ms. Curran.

9 MS. CURRAN: Thank you.

10JUDGE GIBSON: If we could turn to page 14 11 of your reply, following up on a question that --

12 what? 13 Hold on just a second.

14 JUDGE ABREU: I still have questions.

15JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Hold on just a 16 minute. Dr. Abreu has some questions. I'm sorry.

17JUDGE ABREU: I'm sorry, did Judge Kennedy 18 still have anything?

19 JUDGE KENNEDY: No, I'm good.

20JUDGE ABREU: Okay. One of the topics we 21-- there was a brief mention of -- oh, before I 22 forget, a housekeeping item.

23 Mr. Lewis, you used the term fluence this 24morning. Could you please define that so that we have 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 112 that on the record?

1MR. LEWIS: It's basically the neutron 2 flux, the total integrated neutron flux that the 3component has observed. That's my layman's 4definition. I don't know if it's the -- I'm not an 5 engineer.6JUDGE ABREU: We want to get it so that --

7 because sometimes we do have laymen reading the 8 records. So it might just help them get the gist of 9 things.10 So one of the topics that was briefly 11 touched on earlier was that with your three -- the 12 three areas of concern that you've brought out in your 13first contention. Were any of them specific to Peach 14 Bottom, or is there anything unique about Peach Bottom 15 compared to other plants of a similar age or type. or 16 anything else?

17 MS. CURRAN: No.

18JUDGE ABREU: Okay. So I could just 19 basically substitute Turkey Point or Surry in your 20 argument, in your petition and that would -- it would 21pretty much apply to any of them. Would that be 22 correct?23MS. CURRAN: You would have to look at the 24 individual applications to see if they were similarly 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 113 deficient, but it --

1 JUDGE ABREU: Let's say they were.

2 MS. CURRAN: -- could be, but --

3 JUDGE ABREU: But the --

4 MS. CURRAN: -- there isn't --

5 JUDGE ABREU: -- issue as a whole.

6 MS. CURRAN: -- something -- the problem 7 that is raised by this contention isn't a problem 8that's unique to Peach Bottom because it has to do 9 with operating experience derived from the entire 10industry. So it would not be unique to Peach Bottom.

11 JUDGE ABREU: Okay. So then why is this 12 not a challenge to prior -- to regulations or prior 13 decisions in cases?

14 MS. CURRAN: There is no regulation that 15 specifically addresses our concern.

16 JUDGE ABREU: Is there a regulation 17 that --18 MS. CURRAN: Well, there's --

19JUDGE ABREU: -- specifically requires 20 this information?

21MS. CURRAN: I guess I need to clarify 22 that there is no regulation that specifically 23 addresses the particular issue we're raising, but the 24 regulations do say that there has to be an adequate 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 114 Aging Management Program, that the supplement to the 1 FSAR has to provide enough information about how aging 2 components will be managed.

3 And so we are not challenging the 4regulations. We are saying that additional 5 information needs to be provided in order to satisfy 6 the regulations.

7JUDGE ABREU: So could this contention 8 have been filed say in the recent Turkey Point SLR 9 case?10 MS. CURRAN: Conceivably.

11 JUDGE ABREU: Okay.

12MS. CURRAN: But again, I haven't read the 13 Turkey Point application for that purpose.

14 JUDGE ABREU: Okay.

15JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Now we can get to 16page 14 of your reply, Ms. Curran. I just began 17 talking with Judge Kennedy about this Pacific 18 Northwest National Laboratory Study of December 2017 19 entitled Criteria and Planning Guidance for Ex-Plant 20Harvesting to Support Subsequent License Renewal. Is 21 that correct?

22 MS. CURRAN: We did cite it. I don't --

23 Pacific Northwest, yes.

24JUDGE GIBSON: Right. And that's the PNNL 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 115 27120?1 MS. CURRAN: Right.

2JUDGE GIBSON: Right? At the bottom of 3 page 14 and the top of page 15 I read there and it 4seemed to me that you were insinuating that the NRC 5 had done something improper because this report had 6been removed from public accessibility. Is that what 7you're saying? Bottom of 14, top of 15 of your reply.

8MS. CURRAN: I'm sorry, I've gotten a 9clarification. We don't know whether it was on ADAMS, 10 whether it was posted on ADAMS, but --

11JUDGE GIBSON: But it wasn't there, I take 12 it. It's not on ADAMS now? Is that what you're --

13 MS. CURRAN: It's not on ADAMS now.

14 JUDGE GIBSON: So it should have been on 15 ADAMS, but it may have been worse if they posted it on 16 ADAMS and took it off --

17 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

18JUDGE GIBSON: -- basically is what you're 19 saying?20MS. CURRAN: It's disappeared from the 21public record. Our concern is that we're handicapped 22 by the unavailability by this document as well as 23 another document, an NE --

24 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 116 MS. CURRAN: I'm sorry.

1JUDGE GIBSON: Which one is that, the 2 other -- 3MS. CURRAN: An NEI document cited on page 432 of Mr. Lochbaum's report. It's NEI-14-13 entitled 5 Use of Industry Operating Experience for Age-Related 6Degradation and Aging Management Programs. So this 7 has been presented -- this paper was presented to the 8NRC, but it is not publically available. This does 9make it difficult for us when there's a body of 10 studies that are being withheld from us for whatever 11reason. So it raises questions for us. We don't have 12 the answers, but it raises questions.

13 JUDGE GIBSON: Well, let's see if we can 14get an answer. Has -- did you all -- were you all 15 hiding this from the public?

16MS. GAMIN: Well, Your Honor, what 17 happened with the PNNL Study, we -- our contract with 18 PNNL, which was initiated in September 2015 --

19 actually they used that document to support the 20development of the GALL-SLR Report. You can see that 21from the title of the document. And so I believe what 22 happened was that the document was posted on the PNNL 23 web site, not on ADAMS, by PNNL staff by mistake.

24 And so just as a slight correction the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 117 Petitioner's reply refers to it as a December 2017 1 study. That was just a draft. So at this point the 2report is still in draft stage. It's sort of evolved 3 now that the GALL-SLR Report has been issued, and this 4 report on harvesting -- the function it is intended to 5fulfill has evolved now that some of the issues the 6 GALL Report was intended to address have been 7 finalized.

8JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Before you go to 9 that, let me just ask you, when you're saying --

10 you're saying that PNNL-27120 was put on the PNNL web 11 site, then taken off, and it was never in ADAMS? Is 12 that correct?

13MS. GAMIN: That's correct, Your Honor.

14I would also add the other document referred to by 15 counsel, NEI-14-13 --

16 JUDGE GIBSON: Correct.

17MS. GAMIN: -- I believe counsel stated 18 that document was presented to the NRC. And I'm not 19sure exactly what presented means, but it is not a 20 document that has ever been formally approved or 21 endorsed by the NRC.

22 JUDGE GIBSON: And do you only put stuff 23 on ADAMS that's been formally approved by the NRC?

24 MS. GAMIN: Not necessarily, Your Honor.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 118JUDGE GIBSON: Correct. So I think Ms.

1 Curran seems to be blessed with good researchers who 2can find this information. It sounds like it was very 3difficult for them to find it. Why was it -- why were 4 not -- why was -- why were neither of these documents 5 posted on ADAMS?

6MS. GAMIN: Well, Your Honor, with the 7PNNL Report at the moment it's pre-decisional. So 8 it's still under review by the staff. It is not our 9 habit to release all pre-decisional information for 10 the public, although we sometimes do release drafts 11 for public comment.

12 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.

13MS. GAMIN: For NEI-14-13 at this point 14this document simply belongs to NEI. The industry has 15 not sought NRC approval or endorsement of it to my 16 knowledge, so we would not typically put NEI documents 17 on ADAMS unless there's some nexus with NRC 18 procedures.

19 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Ms. Curran, yes?

20MS. CURRAN: I would just like to comment 21that I have a copy of the PNNL document. There isn't 22 any mark of any kind to suggest that it's a draft.

23 When we took it off the -- it was on the PNL -- PNNL 24and the OSTI web sites. And when we downloaded it, it 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 119 was in apparently final form. And then literally we 1 went to look for it again -- you know when you cite a 2 document and you say when were you last -- did you 3last look for it, it had gone. And we actually FOIA'd 4 it quite a while ago and we still haven't gotten it.

5 So it just raises questions in our mind, 6 what is th NRC staff doing with this program, because 7 it seems really important.

8 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Thank you.

9Okay. Let's talk about its importance.

10 You -- since your experts were sufficiently 11 resourceful in locating the document, how is it that 12 our judgment can be informed by the PNNL-27120 13 document?14 (Pause.)15 MS. CURRAN: Sorry for the delay.

16 JUDGE GIBSON: Yes, ma'am.

17MS. GAMIN: Could I clarify one thing just 18 briefly Your Honor?

19 JUDGE GIBSON: What?

20MS. GAMIN: Could I clarify one thing 21 briefly, Your Honor?

22JUDGE GIBSON: Ms. Curran, will you 23 indulge me?

24 MS. CURRAN: Sure.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 120 JUDGE GIBSON: It may affect your answer 1 to me.2 Yes?3MS. GAMIN: Yes, I just wanted to correct 4 one thing I said earlier when I said the PNNL report 5was not in ADAMS, I was referring to public ADAMS. It 6 is in the NRC's internal ADAMS system.

7JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Well, there you have 8it. Okay. Just so we can make the transcript 9 complete, what is the difference between private ADAMS 10 and public ADAMS, counsel?

11MS. GAMIN: Well, my understanding is that 12 it's just a matter of the level of access to documents 13 in those systems. So the publically-available ADAMS 14 is available to anyone and the internal ADAMS is 15 available to NRC staff.

16 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.

17MS. CURRAN: I'd be curious to know how 18 long that document's been on the internal ADAMS 19system. Was it put there recently or has it been 20 there since this report? I think we downloaded this 21 a year ago. Maybe a year ago.

22 JUDGE GIBSON: Do you happen to know?

23MS. GAMIN: I don't know exactly how long 24 it's been on internal ADAMS, Your Honor, but it's not 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 121 uncommon for us to put documents on the internal ADAMS 1 months or years before they are publically released.

2 JUDGE GIBSON: Sure.

3MS. CURRAN: Yes, I just received 4 clarification that at the time this -- that Beyond 5 Nuclear got this from the PNNL web site they checked 6 with the NRC Public Document Room and it was not on 7 ADAMS at that time.

8 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Fair enough.

9 MS. CURRAN: Okay. So --

10JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. We're back to how is 11 it that this PNNL --

12 MS. CURRAN: Back to your question.

13JUDGE GIBSON: -- document could inform 14 our decision here.

15MS. CURRAN: Okay. So we cite -- Mr.

16 Lochbaum cites the PNNL Report in his --

17 JUDGE GIBSON: Yes.

18 MS. CURRAN: -- report at page 16 and 17 19 and quotes it to show how the results of harvesting 20 can close these knowledge gaps that there are as to 21what are the aging effects on certain components? And 22 the example in page 18 of his report is cable that --

23 so that it's very difficult to inspect all the cables 24 in a nuclear plant and the harvesting is a helpful 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 122 process for inspecting a condition of cables.

1 And also harvesting can be done 2strategically. You're not limited to checking the 3components that are accessible. You can choose which 4 ones you want because the plant isn't operating 5 anymore and you can go and actually get what you need 6 to get.7JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Sort of the music 8 behind the words of what I'm hearing is that Exelon 9 should not be allowed to have its license renewed in 10 your estimation simply on the promise that it's going 11 to be collecting operating data after the license is 12 renewed and that this data will be used appropriately.

13That's just not enough. And the reason operating 14 experience may not be sufficient is that there are 15 alternative methods that should be pursued. Is that 16 basically what you're saying?

17MS. CURRAN: A little different. It's not 18the reason. The fact that there are alternatives 19 isn't the reason that it's insufficient. The reason 20 is -- that it's insufficient is that the NRC has 21 historically relied on a certain amount of operating 22 experience to inform Aging Management Programs, 23 therefore the fact that there's going to be a decrease 24 in the cumulative availability of operating experience 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 123 is a concern and that leads to the question of how 1should that be addressed? So the fact that there are 2 available ways to address it isn't the reason why it's 3 a problem.

4JUDGE GIBSON: Fair enough. Fair enough.

5But you are saying that what we need is alternative 6 methods, right, to just --

7 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

8 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Fair enough.

9 MS. CURRAN: Well, pardon me.

10 (Pause.)11MS. CURRAN: What we are seeking is 12 establishment of a trigger or a threshold at which 13 point it would be necessary to evaluate whether some 14additional information should be obtained. So there's 15 really -- you may not get to step 2 if you find that 16 as you go along, well, we have an adequate source of 17external operating experience. Maybe for instance 18 Exelon will come back and say we have sister reactors 19 in other countries and we have a relationship with 20 those licensees, or whoever is operating them, and we 21are going to be getting their external operating 22 experience and that's going to make up for anything 23 that we're lacking as a result of the change in the 24situation in the United States. And maybe that's the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 124end of it, but maybe it's not. And in that case there 1 are some other alternatives that could be used.

2JUDGE GIBSON: All right. Well, let's --

3MS. CURRAN: So it's a process. We are 4not saying we know the answer. We are saying we know 5 the problem. We know there is a problem and that it 6 needs to be addressed; it can't be ignored.

7 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Fair enough.

8 Yes?9JUDGE ABREU: So let me address this to 10staff and the applicant. Within the current system of 11 Aging Management Programs you address a lot of 12 different things and there are a lot of different 13inputs from what I understand. Is that correct? I'm 14 seeing heads nodding.

15 MR. LEWIS: Yes.

16 JUDGE ABREU: Okay. Is there some -- or 17 can you give me a global description of how Ms.

18 Curran's, or Beyond Nuclear's concerns are actually 19 already being done, if they are, but perhaps without 20 the words she's looking for. She wants -- I mean my 21 understanding is that they're kind of looking for 22 those words that say, hey, we recognize that there is 23 this potential for a decline in the amount of Office 24 of the operating experience inputs coming from 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 125external sources. And because of that -- you know we 1 want to make sure you guys are saying it so that we 2 know that you're really thinking about that as an 3 issue. Is that --

4 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

5JUDGE ABREU: -- a fair characterization.

6 So could you explain to me how maybe the words aren't 7 there but that's actually being done?

8MR. LEWIS: Let me take a stab at it. The 9 application doesn't refer to a declining accumulation 10 rate of OE or say we're doing anything special because 11 there may not be the same number of plants in the 12future. What the individual Aging Management Programs 13 do is explain how we're managing aging effects that 14 provide reasonable assurance that they will continue 15 to perform their intended function during the period 16of extended operation. And in those cases there is no 17 implicit reliance on OE to fix a knowledge gap.

18 There are conservative measures that are 19 taken in each case to ensure that the issues are being 20addressed. And in some cases again there may be flaw 21tolerance examinations. In some cases it may be 22 determinations that the particular plant doesn't 23 experience the conditions that causes aging effect to 24 occur. There's a well-known threshold.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 126 So you need to go through Aging Management 1 Program by Aging Management Program to see how these 2 issues are being addressed, but none of them are being 3addressed by simply saying we have an open issue. We 4 don't know the answer and therefore we're relying on 5future OE to fill it. That's never done in our 6application. In every instance there's a conservative 7 assumption -- or I mean a conservative program that 8 addresses the uncertainty, if there is any uncertainty 9 in order to maintain the effectiveness of those 10 programs.11JUDGE ABREU: So in a sense are you saying 12 that it's just a -- it's a continuous process of 13 learning and questioning and --

14MR. LEWIS: I say that reasonable 15 assurance is provided by the measures we're taking.

16 And where there is uncertainty, there's conservative 17 assumptions or programs that look at condition 18 monitoring closely to make sure that we're not being 19 surprised. OE is out there to provide feedback, but 20 the OE itself doesn't provide reasonable assurance in 21every case. It's the actual measures that are 22described in the Aging Management Programs that are 23 providing the assurance that aging is being adequately 24 managed.25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 127 JUDGE ABREU: So would it be fair to say 1 that your understanding of your programs is that 2 they've been designed so that within all these 3 different components and structures and systems as 4 issues come up where perhaps the lack of input from an 5 external source, which could occur -- the fact that 6 you're reassessing, you'd be able to say, oh, we 7haven't heard much about this? Or when we have a 8 concern and we're not hearing about it, that there's 9 this constant re-looking and reassessing so that 10 you're actually -- would be capturing those things s 11 they happened in a --

12 MR. LEWIS: Yes.

13 JUDGE ABREU: -- sense?

14MR. LEWIS: And actually the best 15 operating experience on that issue is the plant-16specific operating experience. We're looking at a 17 Conditioning Monitoring Program, at the condition of 18the components. We're doing so on a regular schedule.

19 If we start to see something that's unexpected, then 20 it has to go into the corrective action and there has 21to be adjustment. Other sources of OE are valuable 22and it's important to look at them. And you don't 23want to remain unformed, but the programs stand by 24 themselves.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 128 JUDGE ABREU: So would it be your belief 1 that the things that Beyond Nuclear is worried about 2 are really already being considered in the -- are 3 already -- not being considered, but would be captured 4 within the systems for consideration within the Aging 5 Management Programs as they would occur in different 6 areas at different times?

7MR. LEWIS: Everyone of the knowledge gaps 8 that Beyond Nuclear identified from the 2014 SECY 9 paper; 2014-0016 I think it was, are addressed in the 10 GALL Report and in the application in a way that 11 provides reasonable assurance that those components 12 will continue to perform their intended function, and 13 none of those depends on the assumption that somewhere 14in the future some future amount of OE will provide 15the cure. There is current solutions and current 16 conservative measures that are being taken.

17JUDGE ABREU: Okay. And, staff, do you 18 have any comment on all that?

19MS. GAMIN: I would agree with Mr. Lewis' 20 comments and I'd also point you to Appendix B-1 of the 21 GALL-SLR Report which refers to the role of operating 22 experience as a continuous feedback mechanism so that 23 operating experience can help the applicant determine 24 whether Aging Management Programs need to be augmented 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 129 or modified or new Aging Management Programs created 1 as appropriate.

2JUDGE ABREU: So would it -- is it correct 3 to say that whether operating experience from external 4 sources -- since we know you'll always have more 5 internal experience as you age and you continue to 6operate, would it be fair to say that the external 7 experience, whether it goes up or goes down, the 8 system is prepared to adapt to that?

9 MS. GAMIN: Yes, Your Honor.

10 JUDGE ABREU: And so, Ms. Curran, do you 11 have a response to that?

12 MS. CURRAN: Yes, hold on one minute.

13 (Pause.)14 MS. CURRAN: Just want to make the point 15 that there are 10 elements of adequate Aging 16 Management Plan and that the basic principle is that 17 you shouldn't be able to excuse a deficiency in one 18element by pointing to the other nine, that each of 19 them has to have some independent adequacy. So when 20 we talk about a continuous feedback of operating 21 experience it begs the question of how can continuous 22will the feedback in the future? And I agree with you 23 that the preponderance of the feedback will be from 24 the plant itself, but we have documented in our 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 130 contention that that's not all and that the experience 1 of other reactors is crucially important.

2 So what is -- there's an implicit 3 assumption that the feedback is continuous and we're 4 saying that's no longer something that can be relied 5 on implicitly.

6 JUDGE ABREU: So if we -- if time passes 7 and there's only one reactor -- so it's the oldest, 8 there's nothing coming in from anywhere else, would it 9 be your belief that then they shouldn't operate 10 because there isn't any external experience operating 11 experience coming in?

12MS. CURRAN: Not necessarily, but the NRC 13 would have to look at that factor and make an analysis 14 of what have we got that could substitute for that?

15 What have we got that could provide that kind of 16 information and maybe make an assessment, well, we are 17 too far out on a limb here; it's too difficult. But 18 I -- you wouldn't want to say that until you got to 19that point. And we're not -- this is -- what we're 20 asking for is in a real world that something is -- we 21 doubt that when we get to 2033 Peach Bottom will be 22 the only operating nuclear plant in the United States, 23 but it will be one of significantly fewer.

24 So it begs the question how do we deal 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 131 with this element of these 10 factors making sure that 1 this one is adequately addressed, not continuing to 2 assume that this feedback loop is continuous when it 3 is not, and not in a way that it was.

4JUDGE KENNEDY: And we must agree that the 5 feedback loop is continuous as long as anyone is 6 operating.

7 MS. CURRAN: Right.

8JUDGE KENNEDY: It's just a question of 9 the magnitude of that feedback.

10 MS. CURRAN: That's right.

11 JUDGE KENNEDY: Is that true?

12 MS. CURRAN: Does your tape get more and 13 more thin and frayed? So the tape keeps moving, but 14 it's conveying less information.

15 Could you give me a second?

16 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.

17 (Pause.)18MS. CURRAN: Well, you might have a 19 situation where supposing there's a lot of plants 20closing. If components were harvested from those 21 plants, then you might have a situation where you had 22 more information coming. So it doesn't -- it's --

23JUDGE KENNEDY: But doesn't that assume 24 that there's an inherent gap in knowledge in the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 132 current aging effects? I mean --

1MS. CURRAN: Well, the gap has been 2 documented in the Commission's SRM paper and in the 3 PNNL paper.

4JUDGE KENNEDY: But yet we go forward and 5 allow these plants to operate with an acceptable Aging 6 Management Program that is based on today's magnitude 7of feedback. I keep trying to understand what your 8 fundamental premise is today as opposed to going 9forward. I mean I understand you're saying that 10 something could happen in the future and if there's 11 less plants, there's less opportunity to dial that 12 feedback back into the system, but if we take the one 13 operating plant and today it's okay to manage these 14 aging effects based on the knowledge we have today and 15 that one plant continues to operate, it has a feedback 16 loop, I don't understand what the problem is with 17 these Aging Management Programs, whether it's in Peach 18 Bottom or generically across the fleet. I'm missing 19-- totally missing the point.

20 I understand the question about you 21 believe there should be a sufficiency argument, but 22 then why are there acceptable Aging Management 23Programs today? And are there any Aging Management 24 Programs that you believe are currently in the Peach 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 133 Bottom application that are not acceptable?

1MS. CURRAN: Well, let's -- maybe it would 2help to distinguish between -- there's an Aging 3 Management Program for the current operation of Peach 4Bottom. It was approved in

-- we heard the year --

52003. So that was for the first license renewal term 6for Peach Bottom. And we are not -- we're not 7 challenging that.

8JUDGE KENNEDY: Let's move forward to 9 2019, and there's a new GALL with revised Aging 10 Management Programs that I am presuming that Peach 11 Bottom has imbedded into their Aging Management 12 Program at Peach Bottom to manage aging effects.

13 Haven't we just moved the ball 25 years down the 14court? And what's wrong with that picture? I mean to 15 me --16 MS. CURRAN: You've moved the ball --

17JUDGE KENNEDY: -- the picture is no 18 different.

19 MS. CURRAN: -- 2003 to 2019.

20 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.

21 MS. CURRAN: Right? And then we have to 22 move --23 JUDGE KENNEDY: And we've --

24MS. CURRAN: We have to start a new game.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 134 If we're going to do the game analogy, we have a new 1 game starting in 2033.

2JUDGE KENNEDY: And what -- again we have 3 16 more years of operating experience which --

4 MS. CURRAN: Right.

5 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- is informed --

6 MS. CURRAN: That's not really --

7JUDGE KENNEDY: -- the Aging Management 8 Programs.9 MS. CURRAN: That's not on the table.

10 JUDGE KENNEDY: Well, I'm just saying to 11 the extent that we now have a revised GALL at this 12 point in time, which I'm presuming Peach Bottom or 13 Exelon has used in their application, haven't we 14 advanced the state of knowledge and the acceptability 15 of the level of aging management to 2019?

16MS. CURRAN: Yes, you might have advanced 17 it to 2019.

18 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.

19MS. CURRAN: And then it raises the 20 question of what about -- well, it would be the --

21 whenever this -- when the license renewal decision is 22 made, supposing it's made in 2020, then there's about 23 a 10-year period where the plant continues to operate 24 under its current license, or 13 years, and then the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 135new license renewal term starts. And I don't want to 1 misunderstand you, but I get the sense that you think 2 that the photo to be taken is the photo of today and 3 if things are okay today, why aren't they going to be 4 okay in 2033?

5 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right, and --

6MS. CURRAN: And we're saying it's 7 reasonable to predict that in 2013 -- 2033 the 8 circumstances will have changed significantly such 9 that whatever is okay today won't be anymore.

10JUDGE KENNEDY: And it's just as 11 speculative to assert that everything will be the same 12 in 2032.13 MS. CURRAN: Right. But --

14JUDGE KENNEDY: There's no basis in the 15 petition either way.

16MS. CURRAN: I disagree. I'm sorry, Judge 17Kennedy. It's the trends in nuclear reactors is there 18 are no new reactors being licensed aside from Vogtle.

19 So the situation is that you have a fleet of reactors 20 that is aging and that they -- many are going to shut 21down. Some are going to go through a first license 22renewal term and will not have a second. And Peach 23 Bottom may be one of the handful that has a second.

24We have already had a number of shutdowns. It's 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 136because of a lot of economic factors. And this has to 1be -- to the extent you can look -- you can predict 2something, that's predictable. It isn't speculative.

3JUDGE KENNEDY: But I guess what I'm 4looking for is why would we expect a problem? I mean 5 why does there have to be a sufficien cy of data 6different than the sufficiency of data today? I don't 7see what's different. I mean other than, I agree, 8 plants could be declining, and recent history says a 9 few have stopped operating. So I'm not arguing with 10your trend. I'm arguing with what validates the 11sufficiency argument? What in the regulations, the 12 guidance says there has to be a sufficient body of 13 evidence of feedback to --

14 MS. CURRAN: Okay.

15 JUDGE KENNEDY: -- validate the program?

16MS. CURRAN: It goes back to the preamble 17 to the first rule where --

18JUDGE KENNEDY: But won't we both agree 19 that we're more than the 1,400 years that's invested 20 in that preamble?

21 MS. CURRAN: Well, wait a --

22 JUDGE KENNEDY: We're way beyond that.

23MS. CURRAN: Just -- let me just try to 24 answer your question.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 137 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.

1MS. CURRAN: There's a concept of a 2 quantitative sense of adequacy imbedded in the NRC's 3 requirements that no licensee could apply for a 4 license renewal until it had had 20 years of 5 experience under its belt. That's a way of saying 6 there is a quantity of experience that we're going to 7 say you have to have in order to inform your license 8 renewal application.

9 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.

10MS. CURRAN: It's not relative. It's not 11 relative to just as much as you might be able to get 12 or --13 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.

14 MS. CURRAN: -- do the best you can. It 15 is a quantity; 20 years, and we're saying we know that 16there's 100 other plants operating and that you'll 17 have that amount. So that is a quantitative measure 18 measured by them, by the NRC Commissioners at that 19 time, in years.

20JUDGE KENNEDY: But can't we speculate 21 today that Peach Bottom is way beyond this 20-year 22 criteria?23 MS. CURRAN: Well, if --

24JUDGE KENNEDY: I mean if that's the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 138 criteria, if it's the 20 years; and that's the only 1 one I see that you've offered --

2MS. CURRAN: But, okay. So maybe where we 3-- I'm trying to understand where we're not 4 understanding each other.

5JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes. No, we're not on the 6 same page, I know.

7MS. CURRAN: And maybe what you're saying 8is this plant has a lot of operating experience. It's 9 got however many years, since 19 --

10JUDGE KENNEDY: Well, not only this plant, 11 but the Aging Management Programs that it's using are 12 built upon a fleet --

13 MS. CURRAN: Well, and maybe you're 14 saying --15JUDGE KENNEDY: -- of operating 16 experience.

17 MS. CURRAN: -- at a certain point don't 18you have enough? And really what you need is a 19marginal additional amount. Is that what you're 20 saying?21JUDGE KENNEDY: Well, I'm not going to use 22 the word marginal, but I mean I think at some point 23 they've established that the Aging Management Program 24 is an effective Aging Management Program to start and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 139 move forward and then to allow themselves, as they 1 have testified here today, to continue to garner 2additional feedback. I think we're just -- where you 3 and I are not on the same page is the magnitude or 4 sufficiency of the feedback.

5 MS. CURRAN: Well --

6 JUDGE KENNEDY: And I'm just looking for 7 in the petition or the expert report what helps us to 8 quantify the amount that would be sufficient in terms 9 of feedback, to use the term we've been using here, to 10allow them to continue to move forward. And I didn't 11 make myself clear again.

12MS. CURRAN: So when you were saying that 13 we have all these approved Aging Management Plans and 14 they seem to be working well --

15JUDGE KENNEDY: We certainly have 16 recommendations for Aging Management Programs through 17 the GALL system.

18MS. CURRAN: And I think it's also correct 19 that each of these Aging Management Plans has an 20 element that includes consideration of operating 21 experience.

22 JUDGE KENNEDY: I agree with that.

23 MS. CURRAN: So that's in there.

24 JUDGE KENNEDY: Yes.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 140 MS. CURRAN: And it wouldn't be adequate 1 if it didn't have that.

2JUDGE KENNEDY: Right, I agree with that.

3MS. CURRAN: And that's where the rub is.

4JUDGE KENNEDY: Well, isn't the rub in how 5 much operating feedback is required, which isn't 6 specified, as far as I heard so far, in any regulation 7 or guidance document?

8MS. CURRAN: So the question is have we 9 created a material issue of fact, have we raised a 10 material dispute with Exelon as to this question about 11the sufficiency of operating experience? We don't 12need to answer -- we don't need to prove our case. We 13 need to show that there is a dearth, an insufficiency, 14 a problem that's going to come up in this license 15 renewal term that needs to be addressed in order to 16 continue being able to have an Aging Management Plan 17 that is adequate to satisfy the NRC's safety 18 regulations.

19 So we are not purporting to solve the 20 problem. We think there's probably a number of ways 21 that it could be addressed. We clearly -- if we got 22 a hearing, it would be -- the subject would be do we 23 have a problem and what is the extent of the problem?

24 And then if there is a problem, what do we do about 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 141it? We are not there yet. I think the question is 1 have we identified a potential problem that could 2 arise? 3 And reasonably I don't think it's 4speculative. It's reasonably -- capable of being 5 anticipated that this will come up and that now is the 6time to address it. It would not be fair to the 7 public to say, well, let's approve it and if problems 8 arise later, well, we'll deal with them, because this 9 is a licensing issue for that 20-year period that 10 should be addressed now.

11JUDGE KENNEDY: All right. Thank you.

12 That was helpful.

13 MS. CURRAN: Thank you. I'm glad.

14 JUDGE KENNEDY: It was.

15 Okay. We're going to take a break of 15 16minutes. We'll come back -- I think we've got just a 17 few more questions on Contention 1 and then we'll get 18 to Contention 2. So just fair warning. Thank you.

19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 20 off the record at 1:44 p.m. and resumed at 1:;57 p.m.)

21 JUDGE GIBSON: Please be seated.

22 I believe you were going to check on 23 whether there was some information -- oh, our court 24 reporter is not on. I'm sorry, sir.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 142COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry for being 1 tardy, sir.

2JUDGE ABREU: No, no problem. No problem.

3I'm sorry. But let's let you get you set. Let us 4 know when you're set and we'll get started.

5 COURT REPORTER: I'm ready sir.

6JUDGE ABREU: You okay? I'm terribly 7 sorry.8 Yes?9MS. GAMIN: Yes, on the issue of 10 harvesting, the NRC is working with international 11partners to plan harvesting activities. That would 12 involve both doing harvesting and prioritizing, 13 figuring out where harvesting could be appropriately 14 done, what sort of materials we would want to harvest, 15how they could be tested. My understanding is that 16 DOE also has harvesting programs independent of ours, 17 the Department of Energy.

18 I'd also like to make a quick point on the 19 PNNL Report. Ms. Curran mentioned it wasn't stamped 20 draft when she saw the December 2017 version, but 21 actually according to the terms of our contract with 22 PNNL it is draft at all times until it's accepted by 23NRC because we want to ensure that the document has 24 been reviewed by NRC before it goes out with our name 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 143on it. We are now nearing completion of that review.

1I would also point out that given that 2 Petitioners had access to the draft version of the 3 report, I'm not sure it's correct to say they were 4 handicapped by not having access to it.

5JUDGE GIBSON: Well, they were able 6 apparently to obtain a copy of it for whatever reason.

7 MS. GAMIN: Yes, Your Honor.

8 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.

9 Yes? Yes, Ms. Curran?

10 MS. CURRAN: Okay. Two things: The NEI 11 Report that I mentioned was not publically available, 12 and so I just want to make a point of that.

13 But I wondered if I could just return to 14Judge Kennedy for a minute and see if I could -- I 15 think I haven't really completely answered your 16 concerns and I wanted to try another -- to give you 17 some more information that might be helpful, and that 18 is found in Mr. Lochbaum's report in Section 6.

19 This is -- in Section 6 Mr. Lochbaum talks 20 about the BWR, boiling water reactor, Vessel and 21Internals Project. And this is an industry project to 22 monitor vessels, reactor vessels.

And this was 23 something that the -- this is something where the 24 industry collects external operating experience from 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 144 the fleet, and that operating experience is used to 1 inform individual reactor Aging Management Programs, 2including Peach Bottom's. So Peach Bottom's Aging 3 Management Program was changed in response to 4 information that was provided through this industry 5initiative. And this industry initiative is also 6 referenced in Peach Bottom's subsequent license 7 renewal application.

8 And so this is an important element of 9 Exelon's Aging Management Program for Peach Bottom.

10 And that begs the question of if this is a fleet-wide 11program for gathering information about operating 12 experience, at what point does one become concerned if 13 the fleet is reduced in size and the cumulative or the 14 amount of information that comes out on a -- every --

15 declines every year, that you have less and less to 16report on every year, at what point does that 17 diminish the effectiveness of your program?

18 So I just -- I think that's a good example 19 of one of these programs where it actually -- it's an 20 industry program. It's designed to gather operating 21 experience from external sources and it informs Peach 22 Bottom's Aging Management Program.

23JUDGE KENNEDY: I think that's a great 24example. Thank you. And I think I feel obligated to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 145 give Mr. Lewis a chance to say -- I mean he did bring 1 it up first, so --

2 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

3MR. LEWIS: Well, the BWR-VIP Programs 4aren't just OE collection programs. They are programs 5 that are developed by the BWR community on how to 6manage aging. They're based on research. They're 7based on -- they're maintained by EPRI. They do 8 consider OE. So, yes, they are relied on. They get 9updated based on research. They get updated based on 10 OE, but they're not just OE collection mechanisms and 11they don't define a threshold. It isn't any different 12from our Aging Management Programs. We often adopt 13the BWR-VIP Programs. They're simply the programs 14 that are deemed adequate based on what is known, the 15 research, the experience, the observations.

16 And, yes, like our Aging Management 17Programs the BWR-VIP Programs consider new OE to 18 determine whether there needs to be an adjustment.

19 That doesn't mean that they imply any threshold is 20 needed.21JUDGE KENNEDY: You want to respond to the 22 threshold comment which is I think an important 23 consideration here?

24MS. CURRAN: What Contention 1 seeks is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 146 for Exelon to articulate a threshold or a criteria or 1 some way of evaluating the point at which the 2 diminution in information is -- would be come 3problematic. That's it. So that this is on the radar 4 screen, this is something that's being looked at and 5 that we all know that it's taken into consideration 6 over the course of the license renewal term in the 7 Aging Management Program.

8 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay. Thank you.

9JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. All right. Ms.

10 Curran, on page 16 of your reply, it appears based on 11 my reading of your petition, of your reply that one --

12 that we talked earlier about these alternatives that 13might be used. And it appeared to me that one of the 14alternatives that you don't believe was included in 15 the Part 54 regulations is operating experience data 16from outside the United States. Am I correct in my 17 understanding?

18MS. CURRAN: Yes, that's -- that is 19 correct, yes.

20JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.

And you go on to 21 state that this should be a merits determination as to 22 whether foreign operating experience provides relevant 23 and sufficient information for Peach Bottom's Aging 24 Management Program. Is that correct?

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 147 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

1 JUDGE GIBSON: Let me ask -- turn to the 2 NRC staff. Ms. Curran says that Part 54 is confined 3 to operating experience within the U.S. and it does 4not include foreign operating experience. Is she 5 correct?6MS. GAMIN: No, Your Honor, and I think I 7would refer you to the preamble Ms. Curran has been 8referring to at 56 FR 64943. At page 64963 -- if you 9 would just let me pull this up really quick.

10JUDGE GIBSON: That's fine. Could you 11 give me the date of that?

12MS. GAMIN: Yes, it's December 13th, 1991.

13 JUDGE GIBSON: This is 1991?

14MS. GAMIN: Yes, so that was for the 15 License Renewal Rule, Your Honor.

16 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Thank you.

17 MS. GAMIN: And on the page I quoted the 18 Commission discusses -- this is reference to the 20-19 year term before applicants are allowed to submit a 20license renewal application. And it says on that page 21in response to a comment: The commenters ignored the 22 fact that both renewal applicants and the NRC will 23have the benefit of the operational experience from 24 the nuclear industry and are not limited to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 148 information developed solely by the utility seeking a 1renewed license. For example, there are now 2approximately 1,400 reactor years. This experience 3 will increase every year. And furthermore, in 4 development of the GALL-SLR Report both domestic and 5 international operating experience were considered.

6 I would add the reference in this preamble 7 to a sufficient amount of operating experience should 8be read somewhat narrowly. The Commission's thinking 9in this respect became in part 10 CFR 54.17. So 10 that's the regulation that says a power plant licensee 11 has to wait 20 years before applying for license 12 renewal unless that licensee gets an exemption from 13 that regulation.

14 So you'll note that 54.17 doesn't say 15 anything about aging management, operating experience 16 or the opinions about quantifying operating experience 17 in Contention 1.

18 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.

19 MS. CURRAN: Could I --

20JUDGE GIBSON: Yes, you can. Just one 21 second.22 So it sounds to me like the NRC staff is 23 saying that foreign operating experience is included 24 based on this 1991 Federal Register

.25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 149 MS. CURRAN: Well, I don't have it --

1 JUDGE ABREU: Is she wrong?

2MS. CURRAN: -- in front of me, but we did 3 quote the section that NRC staff counsel is citing in 4 our reply at pages 3 to 4.

5 JUDGE GIBSON: Right.

6MS. CURRAN: Maybe I could just -- I just 7 want to clear it up. I didn't -- when we cited that 8 section --

9 JUDGE GIBSON: Yes.

10MS. CURRAN: -- it was the purpose of 11 showing that external U.S. operating experience was 12 relevant, and I don't see anything here about foreign 13 experience. And if it's in there, I'd like to know.

14JUDGE GIBSON: The page that you cited was 15 64963.16 MS. CURRAN: Is it a different page than 17 the one that --

18MS. GAMIN: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I may 19 have lost the page.

20 MS. CURRAN: Okay.

21JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. I'll tell you what, 22 when we conclude, will you p lease give us all a 23 citation to the page in the Federal Register to which 24 you were referring that references -- or in -- can you 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 150 do that for me?

1 MS. GAMIN: Yes, Your Honor.

2 JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you. Okay.

3 Now, Ms. Curran, the second question you 4raise on page 16 is whether there is adequate data 5 from reactor research to be considered in aging 6 management. Is that correct?

7 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

8JUDGE GIBSON: Now frankly I don't see any 9 difference between your position and the position of 10 Exelon and the NRC staff as to whether reactor 11 research should be considered in Aging Management 12 Programs. Is there a factual dispute?

13MS. CURRAN: Okay. So it's complicated 14 because research and operating experience are related.

15 JUDGE GIBSON: Yes.

16MS. CURRAN: And I think what we would 17 like to see is some merits evaluation of it because I 18don't know the answer to the question. How much does 19 research depend on these things like the program we 20 just talked about that information is being gathered 21and it's analyzed and reported on? So if that source 22 of information decreases, then what is the research 23based on? I don't know the answer to the question, 24 but I would think you would want to look at it.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 151 JUDGE GIBSON: Sure.

1MS. CURRAN: And it might be not a 2 problem, but I wouldn't just assume that research 3 isn't -- when you do research, it just begs a question 4 of where is the information you're relying on coming 5 from?6JUDGE GIBSON: Mr. Lewis, is there some 7 factual dispute between Ms. Curran and you as to 8 whether reactor research is to be considered in aging 9 management?

10MR. LEWIS: Well, it's definitely 11 considered that -- the sections that I reference 12 indicate the research as to the guidance in the SRP 13and the GALL Report. But in addition, Beyond Nuclear 14 says in their reply that NRC research is tailored to 15 fill research gaps, and I agree with that completely.

16 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.

17MR. LEWIS: Sorry, tailored to fill 18 knowledge gaps. I think I --

19 JUDGE GIBSON: Right.

20 (Laughter.)

21 JUDGE GIBSON: Fair enough. Good.

22 MS. CURRAN: Could I just --

23 JUDGE GIBSON: Good catch.

24 Yes?25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 152MS. CURRAN: I just want to refer the 1 Board to figure 1 in Mr. Lochbaum's report at page 19.

2 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.

3 MS. CURRAN: And he was R&D as -- he has 4 three blocks of input to Aging Management Programs.

5 JUDGE GIBSON: Yes.

6 MS. CURRAN: Operating experience, codes 7 and standards, research and development. So they --

8 all those elements go into an Aging Management 9Program. And I would just think you'd want to look at 10 the relationship between those elements when you were 11 addressing this issue that we've raised.

12JUDGE GIBSON: Sure. Sure. I guess what 13 I'm having a little difficulty getting my mind around 14is where there's a dispute. That's all. I just don't 15understand what the dispute is. Can you help me 16understand that? Mr. Lewis explained what their 17 position is about the role that reactor research plays 18in aging management. Are you saying it needs to play 19 more? It shouldn't play -- pay that -- it shouldn't 20have that much involvement? I just -- I don't 21understand what the dispute is here. I'm sorry if I'm 22 a little thick, but I just don't see the dispute.

23MS. CURRAN: I don't think that we -- the 24 parties are in disagreement that operating experience 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 153 is relevant to an Aging Management Plan or --

1 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.

2MS. CURRAN: -- that Exelon relies on 3 operating experience, or that Exelon relies on 4 research in its Aging Management Programs.

5 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.

6MS. CURRAN: The dispute here is the lack 7 of -- the dispute here over the implicit assumption 8 that carrying on as before with a similar model to the 9 previous Aging Management Programs will be sufficient 10 to address the NRC regulations because too much is 11 assumed about the availability of operating 12experience. It is not adequate, it is not appropriate 13to consider to treat that as something that may be 14 implicitly assumed.

15 And so the thing that is missing is the 16 identification of a means, a recognition -- it's 17 almost like a set of criterion for triggering an 18 inspection or an analysis that you want to have that 19 in your program because you know that you may need to 20 take anther look at some aspect of your program, and 21 therefore you build in a trigger, criteria, a set of 22 criteria, a threshold where if you hit that, if you --

23you show that you are going to address this problem 24should it get to a certain point. And we cant' say 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 154 what it is. It would take some merits evaluation of 1 what it is, but we believe it should be presented.

2 This is a contention of omission.

3 So what we would like for Exelon to do is 4 present us with an amendment to the Aging Management 5 Programs that says we are currently relying on the 6 existing body of operating experience, that we have --

7 we know there are so many operating reactors in the 8U.S. This is what we have in terms of foreign 9 reactors. Here's the research programs. Here's the 10 extent to which they rely on U.S. operating 11 experience.

12 And if we get to a certain point, which it 13 would be in Exelon's province initially to define --

14 if we get to a certain point where we simply are not 15 getting enough from the sources that we have assumed 16 we had available to us all along, then we will examine 17 the problem and see what we should do, see where --

18 how we should compensate. That's what we're looking 19for. We're looking for some acknowledgement that this 20 is a potential future issue and how it would be 21 addressed built into that Aging Management Program, 22 the same way if we came in and said we think that 23 there is a potential future problem with some 24 component and we want you to put in a mechanism for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 155 addressing that if you get to a certain threshold.

1 That's what we're looking for just so that it doesn't 2 go by without being dealt with.

3JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. I don't want to put 4 words in your mouth, just it sounds like what you're 5-- to me over -- up here it sounds like you're saying 6 they're -- they do consider reactor research, they do 7 consider foreign information, but the operating 8 experience by itself is not enough and they need to 9 augment it with alternative sources of information.

10 And so there needs to be more emphasis on reactor 11 research than there is right now. There needs to be 12more data from reactor research. There needs to be 13 less reliance on reactor research.

14MS. CURRAN: That's not what we're saying.

15JUDGE GIBSON: I'm just trying to 16understand what is it? This is -- for me it's kind of 17 like trying to nail Jell-O to a tree. I'm sorry. I 18 just can't get a hold of what you're saying about 19 research reactors.

20MS. CURRAN: What's missing -- what's 21 missing is a set of criteria for evaluating as the 22 subsequent license renewal term goes along whether the 23 mix of operating experience, research, testing, and 24 monitoring of Peach Bottom harvesting is -- taken 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 156 together is adequate to provide that level of 1 understanding of changing conditions, of emerging 2 challenges that is essential to an aging management 3 plan.4 That there needs to be an intentional set 5-- explicit set of criteria for evaluating that 6 because the current mix isn't going to stay that way.

7 It's not going to remain because of the change in the 8operating experience. And that could also affect 9 research. So it's seeking a set of criteria whereby 10 this issue could be evaluated as the program goes 11 along so that if it needs changed, it can be changed 12 and that it won't -- that issue won't be ignored.

13JUDGE ABREU: You used the term model and 14 triggers, and I'm very familiar with the world of 15 quality control where you have equipment and you have 16a system you test. And if it's above this line or 17below that line, everything is good. You've got a 18trigger. You've got a specific, very discrete 19criteria. But when I think about what we've heard 20 today about aging management programs, those are very 21dynamic programs. They're not a static model which to 22 me makes it hard to understand how you would create a 23 specific trigger when you're dealing with a 24 nonspecific system, a dynamic system.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 157 But what I'm hearing you say is that you'd 1 want to try to create that trigger, that you'd try to 2 define that magic point where information is no longer 3 adequate. Is that kind of what you're saying?

4MS. CURRAN: Well, we're looking for, say, 5 a set of criteria and give you examples of what might 6be in it, this set of criteria. For instance, if 7 plants -- if nuclear plants are closing down during 8 this period of subsequent license renewal, then 9 criteria -- a criterion for evaluating what is the 10 impact of the shutdown of, say, an individual plant, 11 maybe a plant of a similar design or one that has 12 similar characteristics on the continuing availability 13 of operating experience for this plant. And if it's 14 diminished significantly by this shutdown, what would 15 be alternatives for getting the necessary information?

16 For instance, would harvesting help?

17 Before the plant is decommissioned, perhaps components 18 should be harvested so that that -- so that the aging 19 management program is kept informed by that 20 information and that action can be taken to compensate 21 if an important source of information goes away.

22 JUDGE ABREU: So would they have to sort 23 of pick every component in the plant and then try to 24speculate? They would try to look at what's coming 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 158 down the road and try to determine which varying 1 sources of information might decline so that they 2 could pick -- they might figure out which one to ramp 3 up. Is that kind of what you're saying?

4MS. CURRAN: If the -- if Exelon could 5 identify in the AMPs what is the dependency of the 6 AMPs on operating experience, that would be one step.

7 And then to say, well, if

-- so that for -- for 8 perhaps not everything is depending on -- dependent on 9 operating experience. But for those things where it 10 is, then if the operating experience diminishes, it 11 then triggers an inquiry into, well, what do we do 12when this source of information goes away? How do we 13 compensate for that?

14 So there's things that Exelon could do to 15 be more precise about how and to what extent it 16 depends on operating experience.

17JUDGE ABREU: Wouldn't that vary over time 18 depending on what other information you'd received?

19 What I'm having trouble with is the dynamic nature of 20 aging management programs and of plant functions as 21 opposed to a very strict specific, here's where it is 22 and it stays this way, and then something happens that 23 perturbs the system, the system for managing aging.

24MS. CURRAN: There's -- I think there's 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 159 some -- it is true that this -- the process is 1dynamic. And the -- I think the NRC anticipates that 2 by requiring that the FSAR supplement has to be 3 sufficiently comprehensive so that later changes can 4 be controlled by 10 CFR 50.59.

5 In other words, they anticipate that the 6 applicant's programs are going to change. But there 7 has to be a sufficient amount of detail so that it 8 could be understood where the changes -- that everyone 9 can understand where the changes are needed and when 10they're needed. And that's what's missing here in our 11 view that there's not enough information to understand 12 when a change will be needed.

13 So how do you build that in to the FSAR 14supplement? Because it really likely that there's 15 going to be a need for a change, that if there's less 16operating experience, there'd need to be some shift 17into reliance on something else. So why not build it 18into the application. These are -- this is how we use 19this information. These are the kinds of decisions we 20 use it for.

21 And that may change, but you can take a 22picture of it. You can come up with what you can for 23now. And then that gives you a way to test when 24 change is needed in the future because you don't have 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 160everything you need to make your assessment. Is that 1 helpful?2JUDGE ABREU: It gives me your view on it, 3 yes.4 MS. CURRAN: Okay.

5JUDGE KENNEDY: One last time. I'm 6constantly trying to understand this. Now we're into 7the dependency of operating experience. So in my 8 mind, there's two roles for operating experience.

9There's the forward looking one that's looking for 10 feedback onto the current aging management program, 11 and then there's the historical perspective of all the 12 operating experience that has come to bear to develop 13 the aging management program.

14 Do you want that dependency defined for 15 both aspects or just going forward? I mean, the one 16 is historical and it is what it is. Are you looking 17 for the dependency there?

18 MS. CURRAN: Just going forward.

19 JUDGE KENNEDY: Right. Okay, just going 20forward. The feedback mechanism as we've talked 21 about.22 MS. CURRAN: That's right.

23JUDGE KENNEDY: It's important to know 24 what the dependency of the feedback mechanism is.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 161 MS. CURRAN: Right.

1 JUDGE KENNEDY: Okay.

2JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. I believe that 3concludes our questions on contention 1. Ms. Curran, 4 you're up.

5 MR. LEWIS: Before we go on --

6JUDGE GIBSON: I'm sorry. Yes, Mr. Lewis?

7MR. LEWIS: -- there's a number of points 8 I'd like to make in response to about the last --

9JUDGE GIBSON: We're going to let you all 10 have a short closing. Do you want to offer it then?

11 MR. LEWIS: I can do that.

12 JUDGE GIBSON: Is that okay?

13 MR. LEWIS: Sure.

14 JUDGE GIBSON: Keep your notes. You can 15make them then. Okay? Ms. Curran, you're up first on 16 the 51.53 Turkey Point matter. How much time do you 17 want for your initial statement and how much do you 18 want for rebuttal?

19MS. CURRAN: I'd like to have six to start 20 and four for rebuttal.

21JUDGE GIBSON: Six to four? Okay. And 22 staff and Mr. Lewis, have you all allocated how you 23 all are going to allocate your ten minutes?

24MR. LEWIS: I think I have six and you 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 162 have four. Is that --

1 MS. YOUNG: Or seven and three.

2 MR. LEWIS: Seven and three.

3JUDGE GIBSON: Seven -- he's going to take 4 seven and you're going to three. Is that fair?

5 MS. YOUNG: Give or take. Give or take.

6JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Mr. Lewis, then 7you'll have seven. Okay. All right. Ms. Curran, 8 you've got six minutes to tell us what you think about 9 it.10MS. CURRAN: Do I get 30 seconds to switch 11paddles? Thank you for the opportunity to provide 12Beyond Nuclear's position on the factual and legal 13issues not addressed in LBP-19-03. I don't -- I'm not 14 going to go over as you requested, not go over the 15decision. We very much appreciate Judge Abreu's 16thorough analysis in her dissent. Of course, we rely 17 on that a lot.

18I want to address three topics. One is 19 the regulatory framework issue. One is the issue of 20efficiency. And the other is the issue of the notice 21 required by NEPA.

22 I want to go to the regulatory framework 23 because so much attention has been focused on the 24meaning of the word, initial, in 51.53(c)(3). But of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 163 course, eventually, we're going to get the stage where 1 that's become moot as a result of the issuance of the 2EIS. And I would just like to say that setting aside 3 the meaning of 51.53(c)(3), we believe that the 4 regulatory framework supports a reading that Table B-1 5 applies only to initial license renewal decisions.

6 You will not see the word, initial, as I 7 think Judge Abreu pointed out in 51.71, 51.95, or 8 Table B-1, all the regulations that are applicable to 9license renewal. And yet we believe that the implicit 10 assumption in all these rules is that the only 11 licensing action that is covered by Table B-1 is 12 initial license renewal.

13 And this is for the very simple reason 14that Table B-1 is a codification of findings in EIS 15 which is the license renewal of GEIS issued in 1996 16and revised in 2013. There is no mention of 17 subsequent license renewal in 1996 GEIS or in the 2013 18 revision.19 And therefore, Table B-1, the licensing 20board majority talked about efficiency. But 21efficiency can never trump NEPA. NEPA has procedural 22 requirements that environmental findings must be based 23 on data and analysis that are within the scope of the 24 analysis and that are thoroughly examined in an EIS.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 164 and you will not find any examination of subsequent 1 license renewal in either the 1996 GEIS or its 2 revision.3 For that simple reason, the phrase, 4 license renewal, cannot be interpreted to cover 5 anything more than what was the scope of those EISs, 6and that was initial license renewal. And I'd just 7 like to point out a couple places where that's made 8 very clear.

9 The 1996 GEIS explicitly states that the 10 proposed action whose impacts are addressed in the 11 GEIS is a renewal of a reactor operating license for 12a maximum of 20 years past the first 40 years. That's 13 at page 2-28 and 2-29.

14 And in Appendix B to the 1996 GEIS which 15 contains a more detailed -- the appendices contain the 16 most detailed analysis of environment impacts. This 17is one that talks about aging equipment. And you will 18 see throughout this analysis references to the 40 --

19 the initial 40-year term with a 20 year term added on 20 to it.21I would refer you to page B-7, for 22 instance, where the NRC talks about refurbishments 23 which are one of the main ways that the NRC deals with 24 aging equipment and how most of them are completed by 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 165 the time the plant reaches its 40th year of operation.

1 And then they talk about what happens in the next 20 2 years.3 On page B-12, the NRC says, major 4 refurbishments occur only once in a life of a reactor.

5 Well, of course, that begs the question of how long 6are you talking about, the life of a reactor. When 7 they were looking, it was 40 and maybe 60 years.

8 When you get to the 2013 GEIS, it says, 9 its stated purpose is to, quote, determine if the 10findings presented in the 1996 GEIS remain valid. It 11 does not have any other findings. It simply updates 12those findings. And as Judge Abreu pointed out, on 13 page E2 in the discussion of severe accident impacts, 14 it says, this review covers only one license renewal 15for each plant. So how could it be more clear? That 16is the scope of those EISs. I don't care how 17important efficiency is to you. Efficiency cannot 18 trump the legal requirements of NEPA.

19JUDGE GIBSON: You need to finish up.

20 You're about at the end of your six minutes.

21MS. CURRAN: Oh, okay. And just to really 22be quick, okay, this whole business of efficiency.

23 The NRC relicensed something like 100 reactors under 24this rule, every efficient. The first scoping notice 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 166 went out in 2003 and the NRC expected to do the first 1supplemental revised EIS in 2006. They slipped a 2 little bit and they didn't do the first draft revised 3EIS until 2009.

They didn't issue the first final 4 revised EIS until 2013.

5 But the original plan was 1996, 2006, 62016. And you will see in the -- if you go on the 7 archives on the NRC web page, the spotlight archives 8 license renewal, you will see a long list of reactors 9 that were relicensed between 2000, Calvert Cliffs, and 10 2016, Seabrook.

11 So there are many reactors that have been 12 relicensed under initial license renewal, and that 13process has been extremely efficient. More efficiency 14 is not allowed by the statute in terms of applying it 15 to SLR.16JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. You'll have four 17 minutes.18 MS. CURRAN: Thank you.

19JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Mr. Lewis, you've 20 got seven minutes.

21 MR. LEWIS: Thank you. Beyond Nuclear's 22 argument is very largely predicated on its assertion 23that the 2013 GEIS, which I'll refer as the GEIS 24 because it's easier to say, only addressed initial 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 167license renewal. And I think we just heard that.

1 That's the predicate for Beyond Nuclear's claim that 2 Appendix B as well as Sections 51.71 and 51.95 do not 3mean what they say. And therefore, that Section 4 51.53(c)(3) does not need to be reconciled with those 5other provisions. But this view does not withstand 6 scrutiny.7 Beyond Nuclear's reply states at page 23, 8quote, throughout the revised GEIS -- 2013 revised 9 GEIS, the NRC refers to a time frame totaling 60 years 10and a baseline of 40. The assertion that this occurs 11throughout the 2013 GEIS is incorrect. In fact, 12 Beyond Nuclear identifies only four such instances 13that it thinks does this. That is, Ms. Curran's then 14 the Turkey Point argument, she went through the 2013 15 GEIS with a fine toothed comb to find these instances 16-- these few instances. So let me just walk through 17 the four examples that she gave.

18 First, Beyond Nuclear points to a 19 statement on pages 4-138 to 4-139 of the GEIS that if 20 the reactor operates 60 years, the cumulative increase 21 in cancer risk to an individual worker would increase 22by 50 percent. It's evidence that this is the 23bounding case. As the GEIS states, it's very unlikely 24 that any worker would be employed for all 60 years.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 168 It's clearly unnecessary to add that if a 1 worker was employed for 80 years, his or her 2 cumulative risk would increase to 100 percent compared 3 to the original 40-year estimate. If it's true that 4 a worker is very unlikely to be employed for 60 years, 5 it's obviously remote to say the least that any worker 6would receive an 80-year dose. That would require the 7 worker to start working at age 20 and still be working 8 at the plant and entering radiologically controlled 9areas at age 100. And it should be noted that the 10 GEIS states that there's no consistent trend that 11 shows occupational doses are increasing over time.

12 The same is true regarding Beyond 13Nuclear's second reference. That's the cumulative 14 dose to a maximally exposed individual which is 15discussed on page 4-145 of the GEIS. The GEIS states 16 that the dose impacts to the maximally exposed 17 individual during future operation under a license 18 renewal judged to be unchanged from those during 19present operation. It then calculates the dose range 20 and increase at risk per year of reactor operation, 21 the incremental risk, which as they said doesn't 22 change.23 Then with respect to cumulative risk, it 24 explains that if the reactor operates for 60 years, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 169 there would be a 50 percent increase in risk compared 1 to the initial operation, a statement that would be 2true of any 20-year interval. But it observes that 3 it's very unlikely the same person would be exposed to 4 these doses for 60 years.

5 I think, again, it goes without saying 6that it's very unlikely that any single individual 7would be exposed to these doses for 60 years. The 8 possibility that a single individual would receive the 9 hypothetical maximally exposed individual dose for 80 10 years is utterly remote.

11 Third, Beyond Nuclear points to a 12 statement on page 4-144 of the GEIS concerning the 13 assumed build up of radioactive material in 14 calculations of the dose for significant release 15pathways. But the GEIS does not make any use or rely 16on these calculations. Instead it observes that 17 significant exposure pathways are monitored and 18 evaluated to ensure that they remain below the ALARA 19limits at Appendix I. That's the basis of the 20 finding.21 Finally, Beyond Nuclear refers to a 22 statement on page 4-217 of the GEIS that the dose to 23 the public during decommissioning after 40 years is 24 expected to be negligible and the increase after an 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 170additional 20 years would result in a negligible 1 incremental dose of less than 0.1 person rem.

2 On its face, this statement quantifies the 3 incremental impact of a 20-year period of extended 4 operation -- any 20-year period of extended operation.

5 Contrary to Beyond Nuclear's characterization that 6 2013 GEIS in fact is carefully drafted to discuss the 7 incremental impacts of an additional 20 years of 8 operation beyond the current term. Indeed, it 9 exclusively defines the license renewal term which is 10 what is evaluated in each instance in the 20 GEIS as 11 that period of time passed, the original or the 12 current license term which the renewed license is 13 enforced.14 That statement, by the way, was in the 15draft update of the 20 GEIS. They define that as what 16 was being evaluated in the 2013 revision when it was 17published, when it was first proposed. So to suggest 18 that people didn't know that the GEIS was evaluating 19 impacts of additional 20 years past the original or a 20 current license doesn't withstand scrutiny.

21 Therefore, because the 2013 GEIS does 22 indeed address the incremental impacts of operation 23beyond any current license term, the provisions in 24 Appendix B, 51.71, and 51.95 can't be ignored. They 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 171 must be applied in accordance with their plain 1 meaning.2 Ms. Curran mentioned a new reference which 3 I believe Judge Abreu brought up in Turkey Point which 4is the statement in Appendix E to the GEIS. That 5 wasn't raised in Beyond Nuclear's initial pleading.

6I agree it says that. In the whole 1,500 pages of the 72013 GEIS, that's the only statement that suggests 8that the 2013 GEIS had a 40-year baseline and an 9 initial focus on 20.

10 When you look at that appendix, though, it 11 isn't clear that that makes a hill of beans because 12 that appendix goes through a number of factors that 13 might've changed the original assessment of severe 14accidents. They are things like switching to high 15 burn-up rates, changes in risk coefficients, changes 16in CDF. None of those have any parti cular special 17 applicability, just the first 20-year period of 18 operation.

19 They would apply to either -- you would 20only have one extended power-up rate. So the 21 conclusion that is reached there despite this 22 statement would apply equally to a subsequent license 23 renewal application. And I would submit to you in a 24document that's 1,500 pages, one reference in an 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 172 appendix is not a basis to throw out the entire 2013 1 GEIS as not applying to subsequent license renewal.

2JUDGE GIBSON: You did exactly seven 3 minutes. Good job.

4 MR. LEWIS: Thank God she gave me it too 5 because I wasn't planning on talking about the 2013 --

6 the appendix.

7 JUDGE GIBSON: NRC?

8 MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Judge Gibson. As 9 you know, the NRC's contention admissibility standards 10 are strict by design, and petitioners have to 11 demonstrate that their contentions are admissible.

12 The claim in contention 2 that 51.53(c)(3) does not 13 apply to the Peach Bottom proceeding or the 14 application for subsequent license renewal should be 15 rejected because it does not give full effect to the 16 Commission's framework for environmental reviews and 17 the Commission's purpose of focusing its license 18 renewal reviews on site specific issues and new and 19 significant information in an efficient manner for 20 both the NRC staff and license renewal applicants.

21 Now only does the staff have to apply 22 51.53(c)(3) and the findings in Appendix B of Part 51 23 to its EIS, but 51.95(c)(4) also requires that NRC 24 adjudicate boards integrate their determinations or 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 173 the determinations Category 1 and Category issues into 1your determinations in the application. So I think 2 it's clear from that regulation and looking at the 3 entire regulatory scheme that the Commission intended 4 that the regulation apply to this renewal application.

5 Now petitioners discount the definition of 6the renewed license term in the 2013 GEIS. And I 7think that's one way of interpreting those words. But 8 I think when you describe the renewal term generically 9 as either the initial or current license term that you 10 are identifying a situation that would cover both the 11 first renewal, the 40-year license, and any subsequent 12 renewals.13 And I would just echo the remarks of Mr.

14 Lewis that there are a number of instances where the 15 2013 GEIS in particular talks about an additional 20 16years, an additional 20 years. Those words were even 17in the '96 GEIS. And an additional 20 years also 18 covers subsequent license renewals.

19 So yes, you don't necessarily see the 20term, subsequent license renewal. But there was a 21 time that the NRC referred to subsequent license 22 renewal as a second renewal. And then apparently, I 23 hear anecdotally there was a time they referred to it 24as life beyond 60. Now some people didn't like that.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 174 I'm personally offended by that, but that's okay.

1 (Laughter.)

2 JUDGE GIBSON: As am I. As am I.

3MS. YOUNG: But the point being that to 4 give full effect to the Commission's regulatory 5 scheme, it's important that NEPA reviews are conducted 6in an effective and efficient manner. And by focusing 7 on new and significant information and site specific 8 information during the review of a particular plant's 9 subsequent license renewal application, that's what 10 this regulation involves. And without applying that 11 regulation and the findings in Appendix B, Table B-1, 12 you lose that judgment and lose the purpose that the 13 Commission intended.

14JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you. Ms. Curran, 15 your rebuttal? Four minutes.

16MS. CURRAN: All right. It's important to 17 bear in mind that the Commission said in the Turkey 18 Point case, COR-17-00-something, but it's cited in our 19 brief that the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA are 20different. That although -- and so that what follows 21 and it's explained in the license renewal GEIS, under 22 the Atomic Energy Act, a license can be renewed 23 multiple times.

24 That does not answer the question of what 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 175is the scope of the 1996 GEIS. And if you look at the 1 language on page 2-28 that I just cited, it says, the 2 proposed action here is the licensing for a maximum of 3 20 years past the 40-year term. So that is separate 4 and apart from the Atomic Energy Act.

5And I'd just like to go to the issue of 6 notice which I think Mr. Lewis said, well, we had 7 plenty of notice we had looked at the 2013 GEIS. If 8 you look at the -- first of all, it was very clear in 9 the notice -- the rulemaking notice for the 1991 10 environmental rulemaking that the term that was going 11 to be analyzed in the EIS and it was going to be in 12 the rule was 20 years past the 40 years, maximum 60.

13 That was very clear in the proposed rule.

14 Then in the scoping -- in the final rule, 15 I cited pages that make it clear in the final GEIS.

16 Clearly, the proposed action was 20 years after the 17first 40 years, maximum 20 years. When we get to the 18 first scoping notice in -- that the public would pay 19attention to, right? What is going to be the scope of 20 this revised GEIS? They said, we're going to update 21 and make sure that the findings of the GEIS -- the '96 22GEIS remain valid. It said nothing about, and we are 23 going to expand the temporal scope of this EIS, 24 nothing.25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 176 And then there was another scoping notice, 1 said nothing about that. And then there was a draft 2 environmental impact statement in 2009 and a proposed 3rule, nothing about that. And as a matter of fact, it 4 still had the language, the proposed rule of 5 51.53(c)(3) saying initial license applicants could 6 avail themselves of Table B-1.

7 If you look at Robertson v. Methow Valley 8Citizens Association, NEPA stands on two pillars. One 9 is the environmental impact statement has to have an 10impact study that is an adequate analysis of 11 environmental impacts as defined in the proposed 12 action, what is being done, what are the impacts.

13 Number two, the public has to be allowed 14to participate through notice and comment. And in 15 this case, there was a combined rule made in the EIS.

16 The public never had the slightest idea of how the NRC 17would ultimately propose to use this EIS. Am I done?

18JUDGE GIBSON: No, you're okay. You've 19 got 30 more seconds.

20 MS. CURRAN: So -- and for instance, had 21 we -- how could we have even known that the issues 22raised in SRM SECY 14-0016 would be raised? All these 23 issues about aging equipment which the Commission says 24 still remain unresolved going into subsequent license 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 177renewal. And EIS is attached to a proposed action.

1 It is -- an EIS isn't forever one size fits all, this 2 is some garment that can be stretched indefinitely 3into the future. And EIS is attached to a proposed 4 action.5 Now we have a new proposed action which is 6 to add 20 more years onto 60 years of operation.

7 There are new issues which we've raised in both 8 contentions 1 and 2 about aging equipment which the 9 Commission has identified as concerned. We would've 10 raised that in comments had we known.

11 JUDGE GIBSON: Fair enough.

12 MS. CURRAN: Thank you.

13JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Thank you. Setting 14 aside the 51.53 issue for now. On pages 17 to 18 of 15 your reply, Ms. Curran, you state as follows: Beyond 16 Nuclear also asserts that the environmental report 17 should address the degree to which a lack of 18 information regarding the effects of aging on reactor 19 systems and components affects the environmental risk 20posed by extended operation. Did I read that 21 correctly?

22 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

23JUDGE GIBSON: And then you continue.

24 Finally, Beyond Nuclear seeks a discussion of the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 178 significance of the declining amount of external 1 operating experience available to Exelon to assist and 2 increase its understanding of age related 3 environmental risks during the subsequent license 4 renewal term. I read that okay?

5 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

6JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Just so I can get a 7 better understanding of your claim here, are you 8 saying that Exelon's environmental report failed to 9 address the risks that Exelon's aging management 10 program pose to the environment because there is 11 insufficient operating experience data?

12MS. CURRAN: That's one of our claims, one 13 of our concerns. One of them is --

14JUDGE GIBSON: That's just one. There was 15 another on, I think.

16 MS. CURRAN: Yeah, the other one --

17 JUDGE GIBSON: What is the other one?

18 MS. CURRAN: The other one is the issues 19 identified by the Commission in SECY SRM -- SRM SECY 20 14-0016 which identifies issues that for which the 21Commission seeks resolution. That says, these issues 22remain unresolved as we go into subsequent license 23renewal. So if something remains unresolved under 24NEPA, the agency has an obligation to discuss it. And 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 179 it may be the answer is we don't know that much about 1this. But here's what we know, and here's what we can 2tell you about the risk this poses. And that's one of 3 the things that we're asking for.

4 So -- and similar for the decline in the 5 amount of operating experience that's available on an 6ongoing basis. That this possibly creates additional 7 safety risks or environmental risks by decreasing the 8 strength of the aging management programs and 9 therefore adding a degree of uncertainty to license 10 renewal, to the environmental effects of licence 11 renewal.12 This issue hasn't been addressed in any 13 detail since the final GEIS in 1996. I mean, if you 14 look at Appendix B, the NRC goes into some detail 15 about programs for refurbishment, replacement, 16 monitoring of equipment, how they think that that's 17 going to maintain environmental risk at an acceptable 18 level.19 The only thing that happened in 2013 was 20 the NRC said, well, we think that what we found there 21 was adequate. But now here we are quite a ways down 22 the road, and there's been no detailed analysis of 23that since then. And we're saying it's time for a new 24 analysis. And it would be fine to go back and cross 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 180 reference the old GEIS and say, we still think that we 1 did some good work here and we'd like to rely on it.

2 But I think NEPA requires the NRC to brush it up and 3 make sure that it's really up to date.

4JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. I know that my 5 colleagues here have a few questions for you. But I 6 just want to see if I can understand sort of big 7picture. What are the environmental risks that are 8 posed --9 MS. CURRAN: Well, there's risks --

10 JUDGE GIBSON: -- that are of concern to 11 you with this contention?

12 MS. CURRAN: Accident risks for one.

13 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.

14MS. CURRAN: And it could be -- I think of 15 NEPA and the Atomic Energy Act as being concentric 16 circles, and the Atomic Energy Act circle is inside 17 the NEPA circle. So if the NRC says, we have a good 18 program for aging management, that takes care of 19design-basis risk. But it doesn't answer the question 20 of what -- given that there's some uncertainties about 21 these issues, do they pose any, beyond design-basis 22risk? That question should be answered. I don't know 23 the answer, but it should be addressed because of 24 these uncertainties which the Commission has 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 181 identified.

1 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.

2MS. CURRAN: And there's also -- if you 3 look at Appendix B of the 1996 EIS, they do, do a cost 4 benefit analysis of what would it cost to refurbish --

5replace equipment, refurbish plants. Do we -- are 6 there other alternatives that are more cost effective?

7That might be another element of the EIS. So NEPA is 8 a pretty broad statute and requires not just to look 9 at safety and accident but at other things like 10 economic effects and also alternatives.

11 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Thank you.

12JUDGE ABREU: Ms. Curran, looking at 13 contention 2's basis, are there any parts of that 14 basis that are not already a part of contention 1?

15 (Pause.)16MS. CURRAN: Sorry. I'm just going 17 through it.

18 JUDGE ABREU: In general, the gist of it 19 seemed to be that we have these concerns we've 20 expressed in contention 1 and that contention 2 is the 21 environmental side of the safety issues of contention 22 1. Is that a fair general concept?

23 MS. CURRAN: Okay. Oh, you know what it 24is? I'm in the wrong document. Okay. Well, I think 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 182contention 2 is really broader than contention 1. For 1 instance, we say on page 7, Exelon violates NEPA by 2 failing to review and evaluate the existing body of 3 literature regarding reactor aging phenomena and their 4 effects beyond 60 years. So this is --

5JUDGE ABREU: This is getting to your 6 discussion of the GEIS?

7 MS. CURRAN: Yeah. Well --

8 JUDGE ABREU: Okay. In a sense?

9 MS. CURRAN: -- no, I mean, it's setting 10aside the GEIS. What we're saying what we would 11 expect to see in an EIS for Peach Bottom would be a 12 section devoted to aging equipment, operating this 13 reactor with aging equipment.

14 So one would expect in a typical EIS to 15 see a section that was devoted to here's our current 16 understanding of the risks of operating aging 17reactors. Here's the literature. Here's what we 18know. Here's the Commission documents that have 19 identified certain issues, and here's what we think 20 the risks are, knowing everything that we know today.

21 And here's the uncertainties that we are unable to 22 answer. And here's an estimate of the risks that we 23 think continuing to operate this reactor would pose.

24 That's the kind of thing that we're 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 183 looking for in this contention. And contention 1 is 1 narrower because under the safety regulations, we are 2 limited to criticizing the aging management programs.

3 But really NEPA is broader than that.

4JUDGE ABREU: Okay. So Mr. Lewis, do you 5 have any comments on that?

6MR. LEWIS: Yes, several comments. First, 7 just with respect to the contention, the contention 8only identified accident risks. There wasn't any 9 further identification of any other environmental 10 impacts that needed to be evaluated. And I think at 11 this point to suggest that something beyond accident 12 risk that this is germane to is very late in the 13 process and it's not appropriate to amend it.

14 Ms. Curran referred to economics and the 15 cost of refurbishment. Quite frankly, that's barred 16 by Section 51.53(c)(2) which basically says, you don't 17 look at economics, you don't look at the power. And 18that's independent of 51.53.(c)(3). So she's 19 introduced an issue that we haven't had a chance to 20 respond to but isn't even permissible under the rules.

21 Simply to say that there's unresolved 22 issues and they have to be discussed doesn't 23 demonstrate a -- putting aside 51.53(c)(3) and whether 24this is barred or not. I mean, if you assume that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 184these issues could be raised, Beyond Nuclear would 1still need to be specific. They would need to say, 2 what is the risk that is not adequately addressed.

3 And they would have to provide a basis for it.

4 Under the case law we cited, in their 5 answer, they would have to show that in fact there's 6 some issue that is environmentally significant that 7isn't addressed. You don't simply address issues 8because you can address issues. That assessment of 9 the environmental impact has to be materially wrong.

10 Here, if you look at the GEIS that we've 11 referenced -- and it is referenced in Exelon's 12application. Of that GEIS, it indicates that, in 13 essence, accident risk has been going down.

14Performance is being improved. It points out the 15design basis accidents are adequately managed. There 16 needs to be a real discussion of why those assertions 17 are wrong, not just an assertion that there's some 18 unresolved issues and therefore everything is 19 inadequate. That's not a basis for a contention.

20JUDGE ABREU: In your environmental 21 report, you mention, previously reviewed environmental 22 impacts. But there was no citation to what you were 23 specifically referring.

24 MR. LEWIS: Could you point me to --

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 185 JUDGE ABREU: That's Section 2.4 at page 1 2-24.2 MR. LEWIS: This is in our answer?

3JUDGE ABREU: This is in your 4 environmental report.

5 MR. LEWIS: Oh, I'm not sure --

6JUDGE KENNEDY: I'm surprised you don't 7 have the environmental report memorized.

8 (Laughter.)

9JUDGE ABREU: You've spent enough time 10 with it, I'm sure.

11 MR. LEWIS: I wish I had it opened. I'm 12sorry. I don't have it open. I will find it soon.

13 Tell me the statement again while I'm looking for it.

14JUDGE ABREU: You mentioned previously 15reviewed environmental impacts. You're talking about 16 your current view of your environmental impacts for 17 the SLR period, a nd you mention the previously 18 reviewed impacts.

19MR. LEWIS: Okay. I've got the 20 environmental -- and it's on page?

21 JUDGE ABREU: 2-24.

22 (Pause.)23MR. LEWIS: I think that means the 24 environmental impacts that are addressed in the GEIS.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 186JUDGE ABREU:

In the GEIS, not other 1 documents, other licensing documents, is that what 2 you're saying?

3 MR. LEWIS: I believe that's correct.

4 JUDGE ABREU: All right.

5MR. LEWIS: In essence, the original GEIS 6 assumed quite a bit of refurbishment, and that was 7carried into the 2013 GEIS. The reality has been that 8 there's, in fact, very little refurbishment that's 9necessary because it's done continuously. And 10 therefore, these inspections and different procedures 11 and what's done doesn't affect the environmental 12 impacts.13 JUDGE ABREU: All right. And what about 14the 2003 initial license renewal, SEIS? Wouldn't 15 there have been also environmental -- review of 16 environmental impacts in that document?

17MR. LEWIS: They would've relied on the 18prior GEIS, the 1996 GEIS. And it would've identified 19 category issues and -- category 2 issues and evaluated 20 them. And it probably would've had exactly the same 21statement here. Because, again, the actions that are 22 taken to operate in the period of extended operation 23 really don't have any significant environmental impact 24 by themselves.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 187JUDGE ABREU: But those are based on -- at 1 some point, you've done design-basis accident reviews 2 and severe accident evaluations, correct?

3MR. LEWIS: This statement is simply that 4 we're not making any significant change in the manner 5in which the plant is operating. We don't have to 6 have major outages and therefore these activities 7 really have no effect on environmental impacts.

8JUDGE ABREU: So are you saying these 9things have been looked at before? And some of those 10 have to be done specifically for Peach Bottom like the 11 SAMA analysis. Those are done -- those are category 12 2, correct?

13 MR. LEWIS: Yes.

14JUDGE ABREU: Right. So at some point, 15there's been these analyses done for Peach Bottom.

16 And is it your position that at this point there's 17 nothing that would show that there would be a 18 significant difference in that risk analysis over --

19 MR. LEWIS: That particular statement is 20 addressing a provision in the rules that requires to 21 describe the proposed action including our plans to 22 modify administrative control procedures, the plant 23procedures. And so we've identified that, the changes 24to plant operations. And inspections and maintenance 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 188 activities don't have any environmental impact by 1 themselves.

2 There isn't some aspect of the way we're 3 changing plant operations that has an environmental 4impact. It's simply saying that it's not getting into 5-- I guess implicitly it is. It's saying that this 6 doesn't even affect -- wouldn't affect accident risk.

7 But it wouldn't affect any environmental impact.

8JUDGE ABREU: All right. Do you have a 9 difference of opinion on all that?

10MS. CURRAN: Yes. First, I'd like to say 11Mr. Lewis is right about the contention. We just 12 raised accidents. We didn't raise economics. And I 13 withdraw that part of it. I mean, in my argument, I 14 talked about it. But it's not in the contention. I 15 agree.16 But in terms of the -- he was saying that 17 we would've needed to say a lot more in contention 18about what was required. We have to justify it. And 19 I don't think so because accidents are treated by 20 Exelon as a category 1 issue, and they really just 21 don't discuss them because they assume they're 22 recovered by 51.53(c)(3).

23 And all we have to say is that doesn't 24 apply, and you need to address all these issues that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 189 you thought were exempted under that regulation. So 1-- and then if they do and if what they say is nothing 2is -- we rely on the GEIS. That analysis is good 3enough for us. We haven't changed anything. Then of 4 course, we would comment on that or raise new 5contentions about it and probably challenge that. But 6 if they've done nothing and they have to do something, 7 then all we have to do is say, you haven't addressed 8this issue. And that's an admissible contention of 9 admission -- of omission.

10 MR. LEWIS: May I respond to that?

11 JUDGE ABREU: Please.

12MR. LEWIS: Our environmental report with 13 respect to each category 1 issue incorporates by 14 reference the 2013 GEIS finding and identifies whether 15there's any new and significant information. It's 16cracked. We have two responses to this contention.

17 The first is that it's barred by the rules, 18 particularly (b)(1) of Part 51 because these are 19 codified findings.

20 But if you were to decide that, in fact, 21 that bar doesn't apply, we still have these findings 22 from the GEIS incorporated into our ER as permitted by 2351.53(a). At that point, the issue would be, okay, 24 assuming that these issues aren't barred by the rule, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 190 you've incorporated by reference the GEIS discussion, 1 why is that inadequate? And that's not addressed at 2 all by Beyond Nuclear.

3JUDGE ABREU: Ms. Curran, you also mention 4--5JUDGE GIBSON: Just one second. I just 6want to make sure I'm following your argument. Are 7 you saying that they are -- are you saying that they 8are all category 1 issues? But even if you call them 9category 2 issues, they're covered by the GEIS? Is 10 that what you're saying, or is it something different?

11MR. LEWIS: I'm arguing in the 12 alternative.

13 JUDGE GIBSON: Oh, okay.

14MR. LEWIS: So our first argument is that 15 they are category 1 findings that are codified in 16 Appendix B-1 and therefore they can't be challenged.

17 JUDGE GIBSON: Got it. But it's --

18MR. LEWIS: The alternative if you object 19--20 JUDGE GIBSON: -- argument 1.

21MR. LEWIS: -- to that point, then our 22 environmental report still incorporates by reference 23those category 1 findings. So challenge those, 24 assuming that you could, you would have to point out 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 191what is wrong with those category 1 findings. And so 1 for example, the reference that category 1 on design-2basis accidents has a basis in the 2013 GEIS. Why is 3 that wrong? That's simply not challenges.

4 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. And just to follow 5 up, design-basis accident is what you're saying is 6 essentially the basis for contention 2.

7 MR. LEWIS: I believe so.

8 JUDGE GIBSON: Is that a fair statement?

9 MR. LEWIS: Yes.

10 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.

11 MR. LEWIS: I understand that Ms. Curran 12just said it also includes severe accidents. I think 13that's very debatable. The only two references in the 14 original contention were to design-basis accidents.

15 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.

16 (Simultaneous speaking.)

17JUDGE GIBSON: I just wanted to be sure I 18 was tracking with you. That's all. I'm sorry --

19 JUDGE ABREU: No, that's all right.

20 JUDGE GIBSON: -- Judge Abreu.

21MS. CURRAN: And then if I could just add 22 one more comment to that. We do take issue with the 23 lack of analysis of the specific concerns that we 24have. There is no analysis of the issues raised in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 192the SRM SECY memo. There is no analysis of the issues 1raised in our contention 1. We criticize the lack of 2 analysis of the technical studies cited in the 3 Lochbaum report on the effects of aging on plant 4 equipment. So we are specific about deficiencies in 5 the environmental report.

6 MR. LEWIS: If I could respond to that.

7JUDGE GIBSON: If you hold on just one 8second. I want to understand what you're saying, 9though, about the -- let's say argument 2. I know you 10all are not on the same page on your argument 1 and 11 your argument 1. Okay?

12 But let's go to his argument 2 which is 13 that, okay, even if they're not covered as on the 1451.53 issue. Even if we have to go back to this GEIS, 15 they are covered -- they're adequately addressed in 16that GEIS and they incorporated it by reference. Now 17 how do you respond to that, Ms. Curran?

18MS. CURRAN: We respond by raising 19 specific criticisms of a lack of certain analyses in 20 that environmental report. There are things that we 21 think should be included in there in their discussion 22 of environmental impacts which are not.

23 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay.

24JUDGE ABREU: When you say, they, are you 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 193 referring to the GEIS or to the --

1 MS. CURRAN: Exelon's --

2 JUDGE ABREU: -- application?

3 MS. CURRAN: -- environmental report --

4 JUDGE ABREU: Okay.

5 MS. CURRAN: -- does not address certain 6 issues which we list in our contention as necessary.

7JUDGE ABREU: And do you believe those 8 items are also missing from the GEIS?

9MS. CURRAN: Yes, they are because they're 10 more recent than the GEIS. So they're not -- yeah.

11JUDGE ABREU: It deals with your issue 12 about 40 to 60 versus 60 to 80 years?

13 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

14JUDGE GIBSON: What is your understanding 15 of what the GEIS covered with respect to initial 16versus subsequent? Are you saying there's a 17 difference in that regard?

18MS. CURRAN: Yes, the GEIS which was 19 issued in 1996 and revised in 2013 --

20 JUDGE GIBSON: Right.

21MS. CURRAN: -- covered only the period of 22 time that was the first 20 years after expiration of 23 the 40-year initial license and that was it.

24JUDGE GIBSON: And therefore because this 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 194 is a subsequent renewal that goes beyond that period 1 of time, it was not addressed in that generic 2 environmental impact statement? Is that --

3 MS. CURRAN: That's correct.

4JUDGE GIBSON: -- a fair assessment of 5 your state?

6 MS. CURRAN: That's correct.

7JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. Now Mr. Lewis, I cut 8 you off. I just wanted to be sure I understood what 9 her --10 MR. LEWIS: Yes.

11 JUDGE GIBSON: -- position was. Now you 12 had something else you wanted to say, sir.

13MR. LEWIS: A couple points. In 14 contention 1, Beyond Nuclear referred to a number of 15issues that were flagged in 2014. But they never 16 showed -- they never applied those to our application.

17 They never related those to the aging management 18 programs that specifically address these issues and 19 showed why they weren't a problem.

20 And so for a reactor pressure vessel 21 embrittlement, again, we showed that we remain below 22the upper shelf energy limit in Appendix G. And we 23 show that we would have capsules which we would test 24 in the period of extended operation to how we 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 195 continued to meet the fracture toughness requirement.

1 So their assumption of these unresolved 2 issues that have to be discussed in the environmental 3 report doesn't have a basis. If they wanted to have 4a basis to raise those issues, they needed to show 5 that these -- not that these were flagged in 2014 but 6 that they remain unresolved issues today, and they 7 never do that.

8 I think that there is a statement 9 somewhere in the reply where Ms. Curran or Beyond 10 Nuclear asserts that they're unaware of any 11 resolution, but they didn't make any effort. And in 12 fact, that statement is not supported anywhere in Mr.

13 Lochbaum's report.

14 When you look at the GEIS itself, the 2013 15 GEIS, it says, the performance and safety record of 16 nuclear power plants operating in the United States 17continues to improve. This is also confirmed by 18 analysis which indicates, in many cases, improved 19 plant performance and design features have resulted in 20 reductions of initiated event frequency, core damage 21 frequency, and containment failure frequency.

22 And it concludes, the environmental 23 impacts from design-basis accidents was assessed in 24 individual plant-specific EIS at the time of initial 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 196 license renewal application review since the licensee 1 is required to maintain the plant with acceptable 2 design and performance criteria including any license 3renewal terms. These impacts are not expected to 4 change.5So there's an assessment in the GEIS. If 6you decide, yes, that assessment is fair game for a 7challenge, it still needs to be challenged. There 8 still needs to be some information provided to dispute 9 those conclusions.

10 JUDGE GIBSON: Mr. Lewis --

11 MR. LEWIS: And it's simply not there.

12JUDGE GIBSON: -- you just read off of 13 something. I just want to be sure that we know what 14you were reading from. I'm sorry. I didn't catch 15 that.16MR. LEWIS: I didn't give you the 17citation. So the first quote about the performance 18 and safety improving was the 2013 GEIS at page E-3.

19 And the discussion that the environmental impacts of 20 design-basis accidents aren't going to change is the 21 2013 GEIS at pages E-5 to E-6.

22 JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you. Thank you.

23 MS. CURRAN: I just want to make a point 24 about the difference between NEPA and the safety 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 197 realm. That Mr. Lewis was discussing how Exelon had 1 addressed the issues in SRM SECY 14-0016 in a context 2of the safety review. Under NEPA, it's a separate set 3of requirements. So it needs to be addressed. It 4needs to be said, this has been resolved. This is an 5 environmental issue that we have resolved in X way.

6 Maybe the way is we did this in the 7context of safety. So in other words, that 8 environmental risk has been resolved. But they have 9to explain that. That's part of the accountability 10required under NEPA. We can't be expected to read 11 some extraneous document unless it's referred to in 12 the environmental impact statement or environmental 13 report and say, oh, okay, that's what they did for 14 this.15 So we -- and this is not just Beyond 16 Nuclear that's reading the environmental report and 17 the environmental impact statement. This is for the 18 public at large and state and local governments and 19other federal agencies. There needs to be an 20 explanation of how the environmental impacts were 21 addressed.

22 MR. LEWIS: If I could --

23 MS. YOUNG: Judge Gibson, may I be heard 24 on this?25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 198 MR. LEWIS: Sure.

1 JUDGE GIBSON: Yes.

2MS. YOUNG: I've been listening with 3interest and just waiting to get in. I believe Ms.

4Curran just recently stated two things. One, that the 5SECY 14-0016 issues are still unresolved. And two, 6 that if they've been resolved in a safety context, 7 that's okay. Okay.

8 I just want to make sure that we make 9 clear on this record and there were statements made by 10 Ms. Gamin earlier this morning that the issues raised 11 in SECY 14-0016 or the SRM which decline to initiate 12 rulemaking to address emerging issues that gave the 13 staff the direction to address those things through 14 vehicles like alternate vehicles such as issuance of 15 generic communications, voluntary industry initiatives 16 or updates to the GALL report.

17 That we all understand that the GALL 18 report in one of the intro sections or summary 19sections that romanette 28 mentions that the staff 20 reviewed the results of aging management program 21 audits, findings from the EMDA report which is the 22 report in particular identified the four issues that 23both contentions refer to. Domestic and international 24 operating experience and public comments to identify 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 199 technical issues that need to be considered to assure 1 safe operations of plants and indicated that the GALL-2 SLR has already been revised to incorporate those 3 findings.4 So programs in the GALL have been revised 5 to address the emerging issues, and the Commission 6gave us the determination in 2014 no need to revise 7the regulations. There's a safety document that 8addresses those issues. Mr. Lochbaum was at a 9 briefing in April of 2017 where he presented, where 10 people from staff from NRC and individuals from DOE 11 gave their analysis of what the state of those issues 12 was in terms of our readiness for subsequent license 13 renewal.14 And during that briefing, we cite -- make 15 reference to that around pages -- a footnote around 16pages 39 of our brief, maybe footnote 83, 169. There 17 are multiple places where we bring this up that there 18 are no show stoppers with respect to those emerging 19issues. So this contention, although it does identify 20 concerns, doesn't identify any new and significant 21 information in terms of environmental impacts 22 associated with those issues.

23 The generic determination in the GEIS is 24 that the impacts of design-basis accidents -- which is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 200 the way the staff reads the contention because the 1 word, severe accident, is not mentioned -- are small.

2And what's the reason for that? During each licensing 3 term, a licensee is required to maintain a current 4licensing basis. So they have to ensure that they're 5 doing things under Part 50, Appendix B, taking 6corrective actions. They're permitting their aging 7 management programs so there's no deteriorations where 8 you would have a design-basis accident.

9 So the impacts for all facilities are 10small. There's nothing in this contention other than 11 a generalized concern about the status of emerging 12 issues or things that they believe to be unresolved 13 which, in fact, have been addressed in the GAL-SLR 14 which postdates the 2013 GEIS.

15 So you need to be aware that in terms of 16 the petitioner's burden to identify new and 17 significant information and why it's important that 18these studies be mentioned in terms of their 19 characterization or potential risks and associated 20environmental impacts. They haven't met that burden.

21 MS. CURRAN: Okay. If I can respond.

22 JUDGE GIBSON: Yes, Ms. Curran.

23MS. CURRAN: It may be the -- first of 24 all, just to back up a minute, the NRC Commissioners 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 201 have identified some aging issues that are of concern 1to them, and they were in this SRM SECY paper. In the 2 PNNL paper that the NRC staff and PNNL are working on 3 that we don't have the final copy of, we don't have 4the final resolution of that, issues were raised. And 5 these have to do with we're at the point of 60 years 6 of operation.

7 Equipment is aging in reactors. It is a 8concern. And it is appropriate in an environmental 9 impact statement to address that and to go into some 10detail. If the NRC thinks this was addressed in this 11way or another, explain how it happened. But there 12 isn't -- that discussion is not present.

13 So the burden is on the NRC with these 14issues having been identified. Aging equipment was an 15 issue in 1996, and it's no less important now. It's 16 even more important because these reactors have 17 operated that much longer.

18 This is something that needs to be 19 addressed, and we have identified some particular 20 issues that have come up that have not been addressed.

21 So this needs to go in an environmental document and 22 explain how the environmental risks were addressed and 23 what the NRC views them to be in relation to the 24 safety realm. It's something that NEPA requires.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 202JUDGE ABREU: Now do you have any specific 1 risks that you've identified and can say with any 2 certainty would have more than a small risk based on 3 your concerns?

4 Basically the applicant said, look, we 5think we fit the GEIS. We incorporate it by 6reference. So that means e verything is small. Or 7 they have previously analyzed, if it's not design 8 basis, the SAMA analysis done in the past. Focusing 9 on design basis, those are all small. Is there some 10 specific risk that you found that you think is more 11 than small?

12MS. CURRAN: Well, we did identify issues 13 that haven't been addressed that are potentially 14 significant.

15JUDGE ABREU: Okay. So you mentioned that 16 previously that if there's unresolved issues, that 17 those need to be discussed.

18 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

19JUDGE ABREU: Now are you referring to the 20 40 CFR 1502.22 CEQ requirement that you mentioned in 21 your petition?

22 MS. CURRAN: And this is the requirement 23 to discuss uncertainty or unknowns?

24 JUDGE ABREU: It's that --

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 203 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

1 JUDGE ABREU: -- general topic, right?

2 MS. CURRAN: Yes. So --

3JUDGE ABREU:

So you believe that is 4 applicable to this proceeding?

5 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

6 JUDGE ABREU: And --

7 MS. CURRAN: And because -- I'm sorry to 8interrupt. But by referring something to an aging 9 management program, which is what's been done here, 10 that is -- the whole way that the NRC sets up license 11 renewal is to say, we are not going to have show 12stoppers, period. We're going to relegate everything 13 to aging management, and we're going to deal with it 14 that way.15 But NEPA asks a different question which 16is, what are the environmental risks? As you approach 17this decision, you need to say what they are. And if 18 there's uncertainty involved and the NRC is hoping 19 that uncertainty will be worked out in the course of 20 the future, that needs to be expressed.

21 We really don't know what is the situation 22with this component. But we are planning on 23 addressing it over time in the aging management 24context. The environmental risk implications of that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 204 approach should be addressed.

1 JUDGE ABREU: So again, that's referring 2 to the 40 CFR --

3 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

4JUDGE ABREU: -- the CEQs, 40 CFR 1502.22?

5 MS. CURRAN: Yes.

6JUDGE ABREU: Now in the staff's response, 7they mention the Diablo Canyon CLI-11-11. So would 8 you like to address that?

9 MS. YOUNG: I'm trying to --

10 JUDGE ABREU: Do you have any change --

11MS. YOUNG: I'm trying to find a place in 12 our brief where we discuss that.

13 JUDGE ABREU: It's 61 to 62 --

14 MS. YOUNG: Thank you.

15JUDGE ABREU: -- in your response. So you 16 discuss that the Commission stated that the NRC isn't 17 bound by 1502.22.

18 MS. YOUNG: That's correct.

19JUDGE ABREU: Is that still your position?

20 MS. YOUNG: Yes.

21JUDGE ABREU: And Ms. Curran, do you have 22 a response to that decision, why that guidance would 23 not apply to us in this proceeding?

24MS. YOUNG: And I might add -- if I recall 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 205 the case correctly, and I may not -- in that 1 situation, it was included as a requirement in a 2 contention.

3 JUDGE ABREU: I'm sorry. Say it again.

4MS. YOUNG: In Diablo Canyon case, if I 5 recall correctly, the CEQ regulation was included in 6the text of the contention as a requirement. And the 7 Commission made it clear that not all CEQ regulations 8are binding. So it wasn't appropriate for it to be 9 included in the text of a contention.

10 MS. CURRAN: Yeah. Well, and I remember 11 that case too.

12JUDGE GIBSON: You might've had something 13 to do with it, huh?

14 (Laughter.)

15MS. CURRAN: And it was a little while 16ago. And as I recall, the Commission didn't throw out 17the concept. It just said, we are not bound by CEQ 18regulations. And in the end, they did admit a 19 contention saying that these -- the uncertainties 20 needed to be addressed, I think. Mitzi?

21 MS. YOUNG: I can't help you there. But 22 to the extent that a CEQ regulation would have an 23 impact on the substantive way we perform our 24 regulatory reviews, they're not binding on the NRC 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 206 unless expressly adopted is the general rule.

1 MS. CURRAN: But they do --

2 JUDGE ABREU: So it's not -- it can't --

3 essentially are you saying that it can't be the 4 regulatory basis for a --

5 MS. CURRAN: Right, right.

6JUDGE ABREU: -- requirement that might be 7 interpreted from that?

8 MS. YOUNG: That's correct.

9MS. CURRAN: But they do provide guidance.

10The NRC recognizes these regulations as guidance. And 11 of course, NEPA is ultimately governed by the rule of 12reason. So -- and you can find many cases where --

13 court cases where uncertainty about environmental risk 14 is something that has to be addressed, and these are 15NRC cases. I think the Waste Confidence decision and 16the Mothers for Peace decisions. And I'd be happy to 17 send those cases to you, just citations as to 18 incorporate in a concept that uncertainty needs to be 19 addressed.

20 JUDGE ABREU: Thank you.

21 JUDGE GIBSON: Okay. This is what we're 22going to do. We're going to take a ten-minute recess.

23 I'm going to give you five minutes for initial 24statements, five minutes rebuttal. I'm going to give 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 207you five minutes. I'm going to give you five minutes.

1Collect your thoughts in the next ten minutes. We'll 2 come back on here and we'll get this done. Okay?

3 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 4 off the record at 3:32 p.m. and resumed at 3:44 p.m.)

5JUDGE GIBSON: Didn't mean to be quite so 6cryptic when I left. But we are basically talking 7 about 2.309(f)(6) to show that there's a genuine 8dispute on a material issue of fact or law. So I hope 9 that we can at least address that in your comments.

10 Ms. Curran, you have five minutes.

11 MS. GAMIN: Your Honor, could I clear up 12 a couple of stray p oints before we go into closing 13 arguments, or would you like me to do that in closing?

14JUDGE GIBSON: You can cover them in 15 closing, please.

16 MS. GAMIN: Okay.

17MS. CURRAN: Okay. I thought it might 18 help to go to a scenario. Suppose we're in 2040 and 19 the SLR application for Peach Bottom 2 and 3 has been 20approved. And unexpectedly, Peach Bottom Unit 3 shuts 21 down. Or unexpectedly, over the course of the seven 22 years proceeding, ten other reactors shut down.

23 Our question raised in this proceeding is, 24 how would plant workers and NRC inspectors determine 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 208 whether that situation affected the effectiveness of 1 the aging management programs for Peach Bottom Unit 2 2 or for the remaining Peach Bottom units?

3 The information in the AMP should be 4complete enough to allow plant workers and NRC 5 inspectors to make that determination so that in the 6 foreseeable circumstance, if that situation should 7 arise, it can be responded to and addressed properly 8 and that plant operators and the NRC inspectors will 9 know what's the appropriate response. It's a matter 10of regulatory consistency. We think this is a 11material issue of fact and law whether -- about the 12 adequacy of the aging management program for Exelon, 13 for Peach Bottom units 2 and 3.

14 On the issue of the environmental 15 contentions, we have presented a contention with basis 16 and specificity that says with detail that Exelon has 17 not addressed certain uncertainties, certain technical 18 information that is currently available about aging 19 equipment and the risk that it posed -- the 20 environmental risk that it poses in the future.

21 For the most part, Exelon has relied on 22category 1. And we have briefed this issue. It's now 23 been thoroughly briefed in the Turkey Point case.

24 There's been a decision, and we briefed it thoroughly 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 209 in this case.

1 I would submit to you that in the case of 2 Peach Bottom, the issues related to time are even --

3 well, they're -- maybe they're not more pointed than 4 they were in Turkey Point because Turkey Point relates 5 to the accumulation of environmental effects over a 6 very long period of time, posing a hazard to drinking 7water and to quality of Biscayne Bay. So that's a 8 time-related issue.

9 But the issue of aging equipment is 10 certainly something that every one of us can get 11 because we all have aging hot water heaters and aging 12refrigerators, and we know that time matters. My 13 mother worries constantly about her seven-year-old 14 water heater, and no amount of reassurance I can give 15 that it has a ten-year lifetime will help her.

16 But nuclear plants are aging, just like 17 water heaters. And it is essential that there be an 18 up-to-date environmental impact statement that 19 addresses the technical issues related to aging and 20 the environmental risks they create.

21 This is something that we have raised in 22our contention that should be admitted. And it is 23 necessary for the licensing board to diverge from the 24 holding in the Turkey Point case, which you are 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 210 entitled to do because that is another licensing board 1 and you are not bound by another licencing board 2 decision. You can make your own decision.

3 That we do not believe that the regulatory 4 framework or the plain language of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3) 5 supports an interpretation that the word, initial, has 6 no meaning in that regulation or that the regulatory 7 scheme of Table B-1 was intended to apply -- Table B-1 8 to subsequent license renewal.

9 JUDGE GIBSON: You have 30 seconds.

10 MS. CURRAN: Thank you. I'm finished.

11 JUDGE GIBSON: Good. Mr. Lewis?

12MR. LEWIS: Yes, let me start quickly with 13contention 1. 2.309(f)(6), I believe it is, requires 14 that petitioner point to the specific portions of the 15 application where they're inadequate and explain why 16 in order to demonstrate a genuine material dispute.

17And we submit that that means pointing to our aging 18 management programs and explaining why these are 19 inadequate to address the so-called knowledge gap 20 issues.21 It's not enough to say it's a contention 22of omission. If you look at the Commission's case in 23 CLI-15-23 which we cite in our answer the fact that 24 the petitioner said you need something else other than 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 211this challenge. It was to an equivalent margins of 1analysis. It wasn't good enough just to say, oh, you 2also need coupon testing. The Commission said, no, 3 you've got to address what's in the application and 4explain why that's inadequate. Here we have aging 5 issues that are specifically addressed, and Beyond 6 Nuclear never raises any particular challenge to the 7 AMPs in our application.

8 With respect to contention 2, if there are 9 alleged errors or omissions in the environmental 10 analysis, it's the petitioner's burden to show their 11significance and materiality. This is from our answer 12at page 39 citing CLI-05-29. That's a very 13 fundamental issue. So again, they identify a number 14of risks that were identified in 2014. They could've 15 identified risks that were identified in 2000 or 1995 16 and said, well, here were the list of risks. You've 17 got to discuss them.

18That's not good enough. What they need to 19 do is show that these i ssues still exist. They 20haven't been addressed and they have a significant 21environmental impact. The impact of the design-basis 22accidents are determined to be small. There is 23 nothing that Beyond Nuclear offers that indicates 24 they're anything but small.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 212 And in fact, when you look at design-basis 1 accidents, how they're analyzed, if you go back to the 2 1996 GEIS, they analyze them by determining what is 3 the dose to the maximally exposed individual from the 4accident. They don't look at probabilities. They 5 simply say, here's the consequences.

6 There's absolutely nothing that Beyond 7 Nuclear provides that would suggest that there's any 8 increase in design-basis accident consequences from 9 any of these issues because they don't address our 10application. Probably the best example is Beyond 11 Nuclear, Mr. Lochbaum refers to the issue of creep.

12 It doesn't even show it applies to Peach Bottom.

13 In the GALL report, the GALL report 14 indicates that creep is a phenomena that applies at 15elevated temperatures for low alloy steel at 700 16 degrees F, austenitic alloys at 1,000 degrees F, and 17nickel alloys at 1,800 degrees F. This is the GALL 18report at Roman numeral IX.F-3. Those temperatures 19 aren't seen in BWR. So they point to a finding that 20 was flagged in one of these reports. But they don't 21even apply it to our plant. I think I'm out of time.

22JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Lewis. NRC?

23 MS. GAMIN: On contention 1, Your Honor, 24 I was going to look up for you the page number for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 213 that FRN where it discusses foreign OE. It actually 1 doesn't in that FRN. What I should have referred to 2 is GALL-SLR at romanette 28 where it discusses the 3 international OE databases that the staff referenced 4 in preparing that report.

5I would also direct you to GALL-SLR at 6 romanette 29 which discusses the role of interim staff 7 guidance documents. And a number of those ISGs were 8 resolved in the preparation of the GALL-SLR report, 9 including the document counsel refers to LR-ISG-2011-1005. So ISGs are actually only in effect until the 11 guidance document can be revised. That's why we got 12 the word, interim, in the title.

13 Finally, Your Honor, we respectfully ask 14 that you evaluate contention 1 in the light of the 15 lines between our regulations, our guidance, and 16petitioner's opinions on aging management. And we 17 know from the case law that expert opinion is not 18enough to support a contention. It does not show a 19 genuine dispute on a material issue.

20 We also heard counsel say today that 21 there's nothing unique to Peach Bottom in contention 221, nothing specific to this application. I think it's 23 fair to say that even if Exelon completely dropped 24 this application, petitioner's concern would remain.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 214 And I think that demonstrates it is a generic concern 1 with our guidance and regulations which is not suited 2 to resolution in the adjudicatory process.

3MS. YOUNG: Sorry. We're splitting our 4 time a little bit here. But for --

5 JUDGE GIBSON: It's all right.

6 MS. YOUNG: -- contention 2, the staff's 7 position is it does not raise an issue, a genuine 8 dispute as a material issue of law and fact regarding 9 a finding the staff must make because it's based on 10 speculative and incorrect assertions that the amount 11 of operating experience is declining.

12 It doesn't explain why studies constitute 13 new and significant information about the impacts of 14design-basis accidents which is a category 1 issue 15 that would paint a serious or dramatically different 16 picture of impacts to raise a genuine dispute on those 17 generic determinations. Nor have they filed a 18 petition for waiver to appropriately raise a challenge 19 to the validity of those determinations.

20 The Lochbaum report has no discussion of 21 environmental consequences of subsequent license 22 renewal and its brief referral to studies and their 23 incorporation by reference does not disclose an 24 arguable basis to conclude they are significant and 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 215 new information.

1 Petitioner has the burden to identify 2 admissible contention and bears the responsibility to 3 set forth this grievance clearly. No arguable basis 4 is provided in the contention to conclude that the 5 effects of aging will not be managed such that design-6 basis accidents and their impacts are nothing other 7 than small.

8 They overlook publically available 9 information that indicates that NRC guidance 10 documents, particularly the GALL-SLR, have been 11 revised to address information about the so-called 12 knowledge gaps that were identified in SRM SECY 14-130016. And as I men tioned before, Mr. Lochbaum was 14 aware of a briefing in terms of the status of those 15issues. So concerns about any remaining unresolved 16issues have already been addressed by the NRC. And 17 the contention does not provide a basis for an 18 admissible issue in this proceeding.

19 Thank you.

20JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you. Ms. Curran, you 21 may provide your rebuttal.

22MS. CURRAN: Okay. I think I heard Ms.

23 Gamin say that it's been established that expert 24 opinion is not necessarily sufficient to support a 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 216contention. And I guess that's true in a general 1sense. But certainly the regulations contemplate that 2a contention can be supported by expert opinion. And 3 we have, I think, done an incredibly thorough job of 4 documenting our concerns about the inadequacy in 5 Exelon's license application in a format that's 6 organized, that's clear, that cites to the 7 application, that cites to the regulations and the 8 regulatory guidance.

9 And so it's just a question of whether 10 this board determines that we have raised a genuine 11and material dispute with the applicant. And I think, 12as we've talked about today, we have. And there's 13 been a fair amount of discussion that goes to the 14 merits of our concerns that really all this is being 15taken care of, in one respect or another, by other 16programs. And it's really important to distinguish 17 between admissibility and the merits of the 18 contention.

19 If we've raised a genuine and material 20 dispute, then we have submitted an admissible 21 contention and then it's appropriate for development 22 of arguments and evidence on the merits. So I would 23 submit that we have submitted an admissible contention 24 1 and the same for contention 2.

25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 217 Again, the merits is different from the 1question of admissibility. I have not seen a SECY 2 paper or an SRM that says the Commissioners have now 3 reviewed what all has been done with these issues on 4 which we raise concerns and we have laid it to rest 5for our purposes. Maybe I missed that. I know there 6were some meetings. But it bears discussion when 7issues like this are raised. How are they addressed?

8 And all the issues in the technical papers that we 9 discussed, including the PNNL paper, how are they 10 being resolved?

11 And we do discuss those in terms of 12 design-basis accidents, yes. But there's always the 13 question of if something is not adequately resolved 14 from the standpoint of a design-basis accident, then 15 there's a question of whether it goes beyond that.

16 That's a related question.

17 So that's why it's important to discuss 18 it, to address it, and to show the public that the 19 issue of environmental risk from aging equipment has 20been dealt with. And it's clear that, so far, it has 21 not been dealt with in any depth.

22 Thank you.

23JUDGE GIBSON: Thank you. I want to thank 24 the parties and their counsel for their participation 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433 218 in oral argument today. We will be issuing an order 1on standing and contention admissibility soon. And 2 with that, we stand adjourned. Thank you so much.

3 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 4 off the record at 4:00 p.m.)

5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.(202) 234-4433WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701(202) 234-4433